Limited Engagement with the Divine: Rites of Temporary Cultic Transition in Ugaritic and Biblical Texts

Limited Engagement with the Divine: Rites of Temporary Cultic Transition in Ugaritic and Biblical Texts A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Near Eastern and Judaic Studies David P. Wright, Advisor In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by James R. Getz Jr. February 2011

UMI Number: 3428176

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3428176 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

This dissertation, directed and approved by James R. Getz Jr.’s Committee, has been accepted and approved by the Faculty of Brandeis University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of: DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Adam B. Jaffe, Dean of Arts and Sciences

Dissertation Committee: David P. Wright, Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Marc Z. Brettler, Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Saul M. Olyan, Religious Studies, Brown University

Copyright by James R. Getz Jr.

2011

Acknowledgements

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support of my teachers, friends and family. First off, I am thankful to my advisor, David Wright, whose encouragement, guidance and support from the initial ideas to the final draft enabled me to develop a better understanding of both scholarship and teaching. His openness to new insights and his insistence of looking at issues from every possible angle has encouraged me to do likewise. Special thanks are also due to Marc Brettler and Tzvi Abusch. As my professors at Brandeis each has been supportive in the development of my scholarship in general and this study in particular. I am also grateful to Barbara Neviling Porter and Andrew Cohen who each taught me much on the ideology, iconography and archaeology of ritual. I would also like to express my gratitude to Saul Olyan for agreeing to serve as an external reader. There are few scholars with a detailed understanding of biblical, Ugaritic and ritual studies. Having two on the same committee has been a boon. His thoughtful comments and careful eye have saved me from numerous errors throughout. This study has likewise benefitted from the support of other friends and colleagues in the field. While it is impossible to remember all those with whom I have discussed this study I would like at least to thank David Bokovoy, Alan Lenzi, Mark Leuchter, Sheila

iv

Reeder, Jeremy Schipper, Sarah Shectman, Duane Smith, Kenton Sparks, Jeffrey Stackert, and Kevin Wilson. Each of these has offered advice or critique to some aspect of this study. Finally, I owe my deepest gratitude to my family who has endured this long journey with me, frequently without understanding what I was even studying. Both my parents and my in-laws have been helpful in spending summers with grandchildren so I could write. My wife, Sarah, has been patient with a husband who was more often focused on the ancient Levant than the immediacies of life. Lastly, our boys, Micah and Jonah, have grown up with this invisible sibling largely inside their father’s head. I dedicate this study to them, in the hope of spending fewer weekends behind a laptop or in the library.

v

ABSTRACT Limited Engagement with the Divine: Rites of Temporary Cultic Transition in Ugaritic and Biblical Texts A dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts by James R. Getz Jr. Both Ugaritic and biblical texts contain rites whereby the status of an individual is temporarily enhanced to distinguish that person from other ritual participants or society in general. These rites enable such a person to function in proximity to the deity in cultic activities or to be analogically associated with those who so function. These rites differ from rites of crises (such as purification rites) and from rites of transition (passage) in that they have calculated performances at the beginning and end that mark the initiation and termination of the status change. The status change does not begin inadvertently nor is it intended to last indefinitely. Ugaritic materials display rites of temporary cultic status change in ritual and narrative texts. The ritual texts describe rites whereby the Ugaritic king is sacralized and desacralized in order to perform certain cultic functions. The sacral status is created by a rite in which the king washes himself pure and terminated by a rite possibly involving cultic functionaries. The narrative texts provide another example in the story of ʾAqhatu,

vi

where a rite in the narrative allows the ritual participant (Daniʾilu) cultic access otherwise unavailable. Examples from the Bible are in texts that broadly belong to the priestly tradition: the Priestly Torah, Holiness School, and cultic material in Ezekiel. The temporary status change of the Nazirite to one analogous to the high priest in Numbers 6 and the temporary access to the holy of holies given the high priest in Leviticus 16 serve as a basis for examining temporary rites of cultic transition in the Bible. The significance of this newly identified class of rituals lies in their particular social and religious function. Rites of temporary cultic transition allow access to the cult for those normally outside its confines, allowing those outside the cult to approximate the status of regularly installed functionaries. They can even temporarily enhance the status of permanently installed cultic functionaries to perform ad hoc or irregular ritual activities. As such they reinforce the importance of these categories while allowing the opportunity to transcend them for a limited time.

vii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

iv

Abstract

vi

Table of Contents

viii

Chapter 1

Methodological Issues

1

Chapter 2

Ugaritic Monthly Calendrical Texts

18

Chapter 3

Shorter Ugaritic Ritual Texts

88

Chapter 4

Ugaritic Narrative Texts

124

Chapter 5

The Nazirite Vow

165

Chapter 6

The Day of Atonement

204

Chapter 7

Possible Examples in Biblical Narrative Texts

232

Chapter 8

Conclusion

254

Bibliography

262

viii

Chapter One Methodological Issues

The genesis of this study began with the simple question of why the king is so often mentioned in Ugaritic rituals while the priests are not mentioned at all.1 This problem has been addressed before from different perspectives. Two of the most pervasive and persuasive interpretations have been posited by Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Nicholas Wyatt.2 Del Olmo Lete holds that the central role of the king in Ugaritic ritual texts is related to the importance of the royal mortuary cult in the cultic menology.3 Wyatt believes the phenomenon is related to a systematic work of royal propaganda whereby these rituals serve to enhance the rank of the king, on analogy to that of the Hittites and Egyptians.4 These theories are provocative and programmatic. Both scholars have included

1 Abbreviations used in this study conform to Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999). The only exception is that Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín, The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Ohter Places (ALASP 8; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995) is here abbreviated CAT not KTU2. 2 A larger literary review of these issues can be found in chapter two. 3 See Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1999), esp 213-53; cf. Klaas Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 219; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1986); Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989); Karl van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Ugarit, and Israel: Continuity and Changes in the Forms of Religious Life (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7; Leiden; New York: Brill, 1995). 4 See Nicholas Wyatt, “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme: Ugaritic Royal Propaganda, and a Biblical Postscript,” UF 29 (1997): 773-96; “Arms and the King: The Earliest Allusions to the Chaoskampf Motif and their Implications for the Interpretation of the Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions,” in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (ed. Manfried Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper; Alter Orient und Altes Testament 250; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 833-82; “Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical Aspects of

1

material from a variety of genres and cultural contexts and have seen outgrowth for their theories in later biblical material as well. However, both scholars have had their detractors, and both have in some ways valued narrative texts over ritual texts.5 The following study attempts a new interpretation of this problem based solidly on ritual material—both ritual texts specifically, and rituals in narrative more broadly.6 Additionally, it incorporates data from Ugaritic with biblical sources in an attempt to provide a larger and more varied corpus of texts to discuss.7 The goal is not to discredit previous theories but rather to center the discussion on micro-issues of how specific ritual activities function instead of macro-issues of royal power and propaganda. To this end, it is the contention of this study that the frequency of the king in Ugaritic ritual texts can be attributed to the effects of rites of temporary cultic transition. These rites briefly boost the king’s status in the cult in order that he may perform certain cultic tasks. 8 These rites contain a fixed beginning and end—ritual markers of the temporary status change. Such an understanding helps explain the laconic description of the priests’ role in Ugaritic texts,

West Semitic Kingship,” UF 31 (1999): 853-87; “Just How ‘Divine’ Were the Kings of Ugarit?,” Aula Orientalis 1718 (1999-2000): 133-41. 5 Criticism of Wyatt’s theories has been largely confined to the specific point of who he believes to be royal. See the excursus on Daniʾilu in chapter four. Del Olmo Lete in particular, and those who look for a cult of the dead in Ugarit more generally, have been the subject of more pointed critique, e.g. Brian B. Schmidt, Israel's Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996); Dennis Pardee, “Marziḥu, Kispu and the Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minamilist View,” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture; Edinburgh, July 1994 (ed. Nicholas Wyatt, et al.; UBL 12; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), 273-87. 6 Throughout this study, I use the term “ritual element” to describe any constituent part of a ritual—whether activity, word, or material. I use the term “rite” to describe specifically constituent and circumscribed ritual activities; that is to say, “rites” are specific kinds of “ritual elements.” For discussion of definitions of “ritual” see below under methodology. 7 The combination of Ugaritic and biblical texts is not intended to imply that the cultures represented shared the same notions of ritual or divine. Throughout this study I use a contrastive comparison method. See David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 8-9. Cf. William W. Hallo, “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach,” HUCA 48 (1977): 1-18; Nahum M Sarna, Understanding Genesis (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966), 48. 8 I use the term “cult” throughout this study to indicate a religious location and the system of rituals associated with it, e.g. a temple and its associated activities.

2

whose participation appears to be a given. These rites enhancing the status of the king contrast sharply with what would have been a permanent and life-time effectual life-cycle rite of initiation for the priests.9 Likewise, this understanding helps interpret the special, temporary holiness conferred on Nazirites in Num 6, as well as the unique, temporary status of Aaron on the Day of Atonement in Lev 16. To elucidate the form and function of rites of temporary cultic transition, this chapter will begin by addressing the methodology of this study. After this, I will define temporary rites in social scientific categories. Finally, this introduction will define the texts that will be used in the study that follows.

METHODOLOGY The explication of Ugaritic and biblical rituals constitutes the foundation of this study. Therefore, an understanding of the nature and function of rituals is crucial to the argument that follows. As such, the following methodological questions need to be addressed: what is a ritual? what does a ritual do? and how do we know what a ritual means? At first glance, the question of what a ritual is seems marginal to this study as a whole. The materials that will be investigated have been designated as either ritual texts or have obvious rituals in them.10 For example, few if any scholars would question whether 9

Such initiation rites for the priests are lacking in the extent Ugaritic materials. But, the existence of such rituals seems likely based on cross-cultural parallels, e.g. biblical rites of priestly initiation in Lev 8-9; 21 and Daniel E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion (HSS 42; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992). I also assume that there were distinctive rites for a high priest (the rb khnm, attested at Ugarit) versus regular priests at Ugarit. 10 There is a phenomenological distinction between an actual ritual performance and the text for that performance (whether ritual prescription or narrative description). Likewise, there is a danger when dealing exclusively with textual materials that too great an emphasis will be placed on the meaning of ritual symbols and not enough on the performative nature of ritual, see Frank H. Gorman, “Pagans and Priests: Critical

3

the instruction on the Nazirite in Numbers 6 prescribes ritual activity. Nonetheless, discussion of the question of what constitutes a ritual is important in that conventions of genre lead to expectations on the part of readers. The designation of a particular text as a ritual evokes an interpretive strategy on the part of the reader (ancient or modern), and this ought to be made explicit if pitfalls of unstated assumptions are not to hamper this study at the outset. Taxonomic definitions of ritual based on form are frequent.11 Victor Turner writes of ritual as “prescribed formal behavior of occasions not given over to technological routine, having reference to beliefs in mystical beings or power.”12 Jack Goody tries to avoid mention of the sacred and defines ritual more generally as “formal behaviour in nontechnological realms.”13 Likewise, Daniel Kertzer finds Turner’s definition involving mystical beings too constrictive and defines ritual more generally as “symbolic behavior that is socially standardized and repetitive.”14 Evan Zuesse attempts to incorporate both Turner’s ideas and later criticism in his definition of ritual as “conscious and voluntary, repetitious and stylized symbolic bodily actions that are centered on cosmic structures and/or sacred presences.”15 These examples show the problems in taxonomic definitions.

Reflections on Method,” in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible (ed. Baruch Schwartz, et al.; LHB 474; London: T & T Clark, 2008), 97-98; William K. Gilders, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004), 1-11. However, with this distinction in mind ritual scholars routinely apply their theories to texts, e.g. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (New York: Praeger, 1966); Edmund Ronald Leach, Culture & Communication (Themes in the social sciences Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 81-93. 11 See Catherine M. Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 19-30. 12 Victor W. Turner, Forest of Symbols (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), 19. 13 Jack Goody, “Against ‘Ritual’: Loosely Structured Thoughts on a Loosely Defined Topic,” in Secular Ritual (ed. Sally F. Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff; Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977), 27. 14 David I. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 9. 15 Evan M. Zuesse, "Ritual," in Encylopedia of Religion (ed. Lindsay Jones; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005), 7834. Emphasis mine.

4

They are either too specific to be useful on all occasions (Goody and Kertzer’s criticism of Turner), or too general to be useful.16 Definitions of ritual based on form are further problematized by degrees of ritual gradation. Ronald Grimes uses a wide taxonomic laundry list of “family characteristics” that include performance, formalization, repetition, patterning, symbolism, drama, mystery and the like. The denser the assemblage of such characteristics, the more likely a given activity is in fact a ritual.17 Grimes holds “ritual is not a single kind of action. Rather it is a convergence of several kinds we normally think of as distinct. It is an ‘impure’ genre.”18 These taxonomic problems indicate why some scholars prefer to define ritual not by formal characteristics but by functional features. In other words, the question of what a ritual is for these scholars is tied into directly to the question of what a ritual does. There are, therefore, various functional definitions of ritual. Edmund Leach states, “We engage in rituals in order to transmit collective messages to ourselves.”19 Robert Wuthnow provides a similar sentiment to Grimes’ above when he writes, “Ritual is not a type of social activity that can be set off from the rest of the world for special investigation. It is a dimension of all social activity.”20 That is to say, ritual is always functionally defined by and against nonritual, or quotidian, activity. Sally Moore and Barbara Myerhoff show this in their combination of formal and functional elements. They incorporate formal qualities similar to Grimes, including stylization, repetition, symbolism, drama and the like. However, they 16 A criticism that Goody, himself, recognizes could be laid upon his more general definition, Goody, “Against ‘Ritual’,” 27. 17 Ronald L. Grimes, Ritual Criticism: Case Studies in its Practice, Essays on its Theory (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1990), 13-15. 18 Ibid., 192. 19 Leach, Culture & Communication, 45. 20 Robert Wuthnow, Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), 101.

5

also hold that these formal elements are tied to the function of ritual as a “traditionalizing instrument” whereby different social groups, social orders or social mores are reconciled through a process of shared symbolic solidarity.21 An important point in this discussion of ritual function is made by Frits Staal who has demonstrated the tenuous relationship between ritual and meaning. On the one hand, a given ritual action may convey more than one meaning.22 On the other, ritual may mean nothing to those who are the performers when they perform it (or even outside the performance context).23 This problematizes our discussion even more. If ritual can be defined neither by what it is nor by what it does, how can it be identified as an object of study in the present analysis? A way past this impasse comes in the work of Catherine Bell.24 She avoids the particularities of form and function by speaking more generally of ritualization, which she defines as a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, activities. As such, ritualization is a matter of various culturally specific strategies for setting some activities off from others, for creating and privileging a qualitative distinction between the “sacred” and the “profane,”

21

Sally F. Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff, “Secular Ritual: Forms and Meanings,” in Secular Ritual (ed. Sally F. Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff; Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977), 3-24. 22 Frits Staal, Rules without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras, and the Human Sciences (Toronto Studies in Religion 4; New York: P. Lang, 1989), 127-135. 23 “The Meaninglessness of Ritual,” Numen 26 (1975): 2-22; Staal, Rules without Meaning, 115-126. 24 A different avenue is taken in Roy Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004). Gane uses systems theory to indicate a locus of control that allows for Staal’s meaninglessness of individual ritual elements to have meaning in larger social system. The major difference between Gane’s approach and that taken by Bell appears to be that Gane’s systems require knowledge of the goal of the ritual activity. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 12: “it is not the [ritual] activity that defines the system but the goal that determines which activities are necessary to achieve the desired charge.” When such goals are explicit in the text, Gane’s interpretive structure works well. However, it is less helpful in the current project where the goal of the ritual activity is exactly what is in question.

6

and for ascribing such distinctions to realities thought to transcend the powers of human actors.25 Summing up Bell’s theory, David Wright states, “What is important is the contrast between ritualization and normal activity. This often has to be determined by the study of a particular activity within its larger sociocultural context.”26 This context consists of examining the “range of similar activities in a specific cultural context or society studied.”27 In methodological terms, what rituals convey is socially constructed and culturally bound. As Staal asserts, ritual elements (or ritual as a whole) have no meaning in and of themselves. Different ritual elements gain meaning based on analogy to their function in relation to the whole range of similar activity, including quotidian activity.28 They also gain meaning in relation to their assemblage inside the ritual itself, since it is only through such contexts that one is able to define such activity as a ritual to begin with. In order to explicate the meaning of ritual activity in this study, ritual elements will be examined within their cultural context. First, this context is the ritual itself. In this process ritual elements in this study will be discussed in terms of their culturally-bound quotidian usage and their function in other ritual activity. Given the importance of this sociocultural context, analogical relations must begin with the closest possible cultural referents (i.e. culturally, chronologically and functionally). In Ugaritic materials, this will usually be other Ugaritic texts. Sometimes it will expand to include other Late Bronze Age 25

Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 74. David P. Wright, Ritual in Narrative: the Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001), 13. 27 “Deciphering a Definition: The Syntagmatic Structural Analysis of Ritual in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of Hebrew Scripture 8.12 (2008): 5. Wright speaks of Bell’s work here in the context of the syntagmatic approach found in Mary Douglas, “Deciphering a Meal,” in Implicit Meanings (London: Routledge, 1972), 249-75. 28 See David P. Wright, “Analogy in Biblical and Hittite Ritual,” in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: internationales Symposion Hamburg, 17.-21. März 1990 (ed. Bernd Janowski, et al.; OBO 129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 473-504. 26

7

texts and more distant cultural material as well.29 Likewise, interpretation of biblical ritual elements in this study will rely mostly on material from the same or similar cultural traditions (for this study, this comprises the priestly circles of P, H and Ezekiel). Again, analogical references from further afield may be cited, but closer cultural references are given more priority. This is not to imply that wider cultural comparisons are not helpful. This study deliberately circumscribes cross-cultural comparison in order to maximize its claims I am attempting to define and explicate rites of temporary cultic transition in Ugaritic and biblical texts. Given the nature of what ritual is, how it works, and how it conveys meaning, the best means to this study’s ends is to rely on close cultural antecedents.

TEMPORARY RITES Rites of temporary cultic transition are rites of status change with an intentionally marked beginning and end in which the participant’s cultic state is altered and then returned to the status before the ritual performance. On the one hand, the intentionally marked conclusion differentiates these rites from rites of transition (passage) where there is no indication of a cessation—and no intended cessation—of the participant’s new status, even though there may be a cessation of the rite. On the other hand, the intentionality of these rites differentiates them from purification rites (a type of rite of crisis) in which there is no intentionally marked rite of cultic status transition at the outset—that is to say, when pollution is incurred. Both of these distinctions will be developed in order to make the distinctive nature of these temporary rites more apparent. 29

This is to say, biblical correlations with Ugaritic materials will only be noted if their relationship is apparent. The distance in time and space between Ugarit and the text of the Hebrew Bible makes them less than ideal when constructing meaning based on ritual analogy. See discussion in note 7 above.

8

The concept of rites of passage traces its legacy back to Arnold van Gennep. In the 1909 work Les rites de passage, van Gennep analyzed various rituals performed at critical points of one’s life: birth, puberty, marriage, and the like. He held that these rites all exhibited a tripartite structure. At first, the participants are separated from the social group of which they originally belonged. This leads to a second stage where they are in a place of marginality (or liminality) where their social status is in flux. Finally, there is a reincorporation of the participants into a new social status or group. This ritual journey, as originally discussed by van Gennep, was restricted to life-cycle rites and represented a distinct, one-way journey. However, at the end of his study van Gennep asserts that these rites of passage may be extended to rites associated with pilgrimages, seasonal change and even sacrifice.30 This extension of rites of passage becomes problematic as it begins to overshadow and become confounded with other ways to conceptualize ritual activity. The extension of rites of passage from life-cycle rites to a more general rubric for explaining all ritual does not end with van Gennep. Mircea Eliade builds on van Gennep’s ideas. Eliade explains pilgrimages as an act of initiation, a rite of passage, in which the participant moves to the center, that is the sacred.31 Likewise, over several studies Victor Turner’s theory of ritual drama extends van Gennep’s ideas even further. Turner proposes a four stage model of 1) a break with normal socially-limited activity, 2) a growing sense of crisis, 3) an attempt of redress, and 4) either reintegration into the older social order or recognition of the social break that has occurred.32 Turner’s stage of crisis correlates with van Gennep’s stage of liminality, while the possibility of reabsorbtion into the existing 30

Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage (trans. Monika Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 178-88. 31 Mircea Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return (Bollingen series 46; New York: Pantheon Books, 1954), 18. 32 Victor W. Turner, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), 33-41.

9

social structure correlates with what I contend happens in rites of temporary cultic transition. However, Turner eventually extends this model of social drama even further to all ritual activity and cultures.33 While such later work provides a useful structural understanding of ritual as a whole, the extension of the term “rites of passage” to encompass all ritual activity makes it useless as a term for specific ritual acts. Or to put it in a very structural manner: if all rituals are rites of passage, then no rituals are rites of passage. More recently, Catherine Bell has attempted to limit the definition of rites of passage to life-cycle rites in her taxonomy of “basic genres of ritual action.” In her intentionally broad schema there are six basic categories of ritual activity: 1) rites of passage, 2) calendrical rites, 3) rites of exchange and communion, 4) rites of affliction, 5) feasting, fasting and festivals, and 6) political rites.34 She states at the outset of her discussion “This list of genres does not attempt to be definitive. There are many other recognizable rituals that could be usefully classified in other categories, and there are rituals that could be logically placed in more than one category.”35 It is in view of Bell’s allowance for more categories that this study proceeds. Rites of temporary cultic transition need also to be differentiated from rites of purification, a type of rite of crisis which Bell puts under the category of rites of affliction. Rites of purification are certainly comparable. Both induce a new status that may be

33

Victor W. Turner, “Social Dramas and Stories about Them,” Critical Inquiry 7 (1980): 141-68; see also Leach, Culture & Communication. 34 Catherine M. Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 93-137; see also Ronald L. Grimes, Research in Ritual Studies (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1985), 68-116. 35 Bell, Ritual, 94.

10

perceived as temporary.36 But, part of the problem is determining just where the temporary status lies—the period of impurity or the period of purity? If seen as the first, the period of temporary status is terminated with intentional rites of status change (e.g., ablution and other performances). Frank H. Gorman, for example, correlates rites of purification with acts of reintegration in van Gennep’s rites of passage, thus viewing the period of pollution as the temporary period.37 If, however, the period of purity is seen as the temporary status, the period of temporary status is initiated with an intentional rite of status change. One might prefer this latter analytic perspective because the rites of temporary cultic transition treated in this study deal with cases where status is enhanced, comparable with the establishment of purity (a positive status). But, there are several problems in comparing rites of purification. One is that, ideally, the period of purity is indefinite and perhaps perpetual. There is no inner cultic logic that expects or requires cessation of this state, as in cases of rites of temporary cultic transition. Moreover, in rites of temporary cultic transition, the temporary status is an anomalous, non-quotidian state; where as in the biblical priestly texts (P, H, Ezekiel), a clean and pure state is seen as normative. A more crucial difficulty is that the transition into the impure state is generally an accident, no matter what state is considered temporary in a purification schema. As far as can be deduced in biblical ritual texts, it is never the explicit goal or the intended outcome for one to be rendered impure and in need 36

It is less crucial to distinguish whether, in the priestly system of the Bible, impurity is a state or a real condition. For the conception of impurity as a real phenomenon, see Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in Priestly Literature,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 5: “The entire priestly system of impurity and its disposal rests on the postulate that impurity is not simply a condition, a ritual ‘state’; it is defilement itself. It is real.” 37 Frank H. Gorman, “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space and Status,” in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes (ed. Matt Patrick Graham, et al.; JSOTSup 173; Shefflied: JSOT Press, 1993), 47-63; see also Gane, Cult and Character, 12 n.37.

11

of purification--except in very limited, usually utilitarian circumstances. And even there, it happens as an indirect outcome, a side-effect of other ritual performance.38 Therefore, one of the most important indicators of temporary cultic status change is distinct and intentional activity marking the return to a quotidian state.39 In the discussion of methodology above, it was shown that many ritual activities relate analogically to other activity (some times other rituals, some times quotidian activity). While details from Ugaritic and biblical sources are sparse, it is probable that temporary cultic status change should likewise be seen in analogy to temporary status change more broadly. For example, Esther 4:2 recounts that Mordeccai could not enter the king’s gate wearing sackcloth, implying that some sort of special clothing was required in this special situation. Hence, just as one would prepar for an audience with the king, so one prepare to encounter a deity.40 Not all rites of temporary status change need be cultic in nature. However, temporary rites that operate in a cultic status form a coherent group that can be considered as a whole. Therefore this study is devoted to them, though it recognizes

38

Compare for example the cultic impurities as on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) or in the performance of other ‫ חטאת‬sacrifices (Lev 6) that cause impurity in certain participants. 39 In addition to rites of purification, the case of a priest’s daughter deserves comment. Regarding who may eat of the sacred portion reserved for the priests, Lev 22: 12-13 states: “If a priest’s daughter marries a layperson, she may not eat of the offering of the sacred donations; but if a priest’s daughter is widowed or divorced, without children, and returns to her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s food. No layperson shall eat of it.” This is not an example of temporary cultic status change (or temporary change at all, I would argue). While the woman clearly undergoing status change, the movement from married to widowed or divorced is not intentional. The woman did not get married so that she could divorce or be widowed. These are unintended consequences. 40 See the explicit correlation in the Hittite text “Instruction to Priests and Temple Officials” (CTH 264): “(Are) the mind of man and god somehow different? No! In this which (is concerned)? No! The (is) one and the same. When the servant stands before his master he (is) washed. He has clothed (himself) in clean (clothes).” Translation by Gregory McMahon, “Instructions to Priests and Temple Officials,” in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:217.

12

a larger category that includes non-cultic examples.41 Exceptional cultic access is as much a criteria for the study that follows as markers of temporary status change. In the pages that follow, I will argue for a new or refined category of ritual activity called “rites of temporary cultic transition.” This ritual activity is akin to rites of passage (as defined in earlier scholarship) in many respects. It requires movement from one ritual status to another. The chief difference is that this status change is only temporary. It is not permanent as in the case of life-cycle rites, nor is it necessarily a response to crisis as in Turner’s system. It is also distinctly cultic in that the status change involved relates directly to a person’s relationship to performance of temple rites. For the duration of the temporary status, these rites allow unprecedented access to the deity. But it is a limited engagement with the divine. Once this period is over, the participant’s cultic status returns to a normal, quotidian state.

SOURCE BASE AND OUTLINE OF THE STUDY THAT FOLLOWS The texts to be addressed in this study are taken from Ugaritic and biblical corpora. While connections are made between these two bodies of texts, they are nonetheless treated as two separate entities. The reason for the inclusion of both in this study is to provide a larger group of textual materials to draw upon and to elucidate different manifestations of rites of temporary cultic transition. One contemporary scholarly conception that must be disavowed at the outset is that of a “canon” at Ugarit.42 Such a standardization of Ugaritc literature is anachronistic at

41

Non-cultic examples of temporary status change still need to be fully identified and may provide the substance for a separate study. 42 On canonicity in the ancient Near East see William W. Hallo, “The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal,” in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective (ed. K. Lawson

13

best and spuriously deceptive at worst. In the narrative material, there is no indication of canonicity, which is to say of scribal standardization of the texts. The tales of ʾAqhatu and Kirtu are extant in only one copy, which leaves anyone trying either to prove or to disprove canonicity with an argument from silence. The Baʿlu Cycle consists of at least six tablets, discovered in different find spots around the city, with tablet configurations and orientations so widely different that some scholars are unsure if one can even speak of a unified text. Mark Smith cautiously posits a unified tradition behind this disparate group of materials, but the extant data give no indication of anything approaching textual standardization or canonicity.43 A similar situation is evident in the Ugaritic ritual material. While on the surface one might posit a canonical form in such rites as CAT 1.41//1.87 or 1.46//1.109, it is evident in both these cases that scribal standardization has not occurred. CAT 1.87 is certainly a copy of 1.41, but it exhibits variations in terms of size, column length and even content. Similarly, CAT 1.46//1.109 overlap somewhat in content, but exhibit great variation in both content and convention. One might speak of an authoritative tradition exhibited by these texts; but there is no set, authoritative textual corpus at Ugarit.44 This extends likewise to the so-called canonical god lists, where variation in use, content and context militates

Younger, et al.; Scripture in Context 4; Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1991), esp. 8-10. His criteria can be summarized as 1) a recognized corpus of classics 2) with textual stability 3) and a fixed arrangement. See also Nahum M. Sarna, “The Order of the Books,” in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of I Edward Kiev (ed. Charles Berlin; New York: Ktav, 1971), 407-413; Wilfred G. Lambert, “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity,” JCS 11 (1957): 1-14, 112. Cf. Moshe Greenberg, “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Reviewed in Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert,” JAOS 76 (1956): 157-67. 43 Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume I. Introduction With Text, Translationand Commentary of KTU 1.1.-1.2 (VTSup 55; Leiden; New York: Brill, 1994), 1-19. 44 See Seth L. Sanders, The Invention of Hebrew (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 59-61; Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (SBLWAW 10; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 77-78.

14

against the use of the term “canonical” in anything but the most general meaning of “authoritative” or “important.”45 While this lack of a canonical corpus at Ugarit might appear problematic, it is actually a great benefit for this study. The Ugaritic ritual texts provide us with ad hoc rites intended to be used in the cult. Pardee has noted that two texts even exhibit “check marks” in the left column which he holds indicates that these texts were followed while the clay was still wet.46 The Ugaritic ritual texts have not been standardized, have not been carefully designed to be a beacon to the ages, and as such provide a faithful (if oblique) testimony to the realia of the ritual activity of Ugarit. The first part of this study discusses material from Ugarit which exhibits rites of temporary cultic transition. Such rites are found in two divergent bodies of texts which correlate with two distinct corpora of texts: ritual and narrative. Both genres attest actions that can be identified as rites of temporary cultic transition, but the vocabulary and description of these rites are portrayed uniquely in each corpus. This is to be expected. It is quite evident from previous studies on the relation of ritual and narrative at Ugarit that each follows its own set of rules, and the present study only provides further evidence in this regard. As such, ritual and narrative will not be harmonized in this study. Each corpus of texts will be dealt with independently in separate chapters, as distinct testimony of rites of temporary cultic transition at Ugarit.

45

See Dennis Pardee, “Ugaritic Studies at the End of the 20th Century,” BASOR 320 (2000): 61; Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 11-13; Augustinus Gianto, “Review of La Religión Cananea: Según la Liturgia de Ugarit: Estudio Textual,” Or 64 (1995): 145. Contra Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 144; Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts: A New Edition and Commentary. A Critical Assessment,” UF 36 (2004): 546-47. 46 Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 13.

15

A further subdivision of Ugaritic material may be made in regard to the categorization of cultic or ritual texts.47 There is a large corpus of such texts, and there have been many attempts to classify them. For the purpose of this study a simple delineation has been made between monthly calendrical rituals and shorter texts. This division comports well with what Pardee refers to as “monthly liturgies” and “contemplation rites.”48 However, this categorization is provided here largely for the purpose of organizing the material into manageable chapters. While such subdivisions provide helpful categories for contemporary scholars, it is unclear if the scribes or priests of Ugarit would have divided their ritual texts in such a manner. Chapter two of this study will focus on Ugaritic calendrical texts while chapter three will focus on shorter ritual texts. The defining characteristic of texts included in each chapter is the inclusion of one or both of the phrases yrtḥṣ mlk brr and wḥl mlk. It will be argued that these phrases serve as indicators for the temporary change of the cultic status of the king in Ugaritic ritual texts. The narrative material, by its very nature, provides a somewhat different testimony to the ritual life at Ugarit. In chapter four we will examine the special problems that rituals in narrative present. But here at the outset, it is important to stress that the lack of canonization and standardization of the narrative and ritual texts allows us a less hindered perspective on the religious life of the cult than if there had been an attempt to

47

For recent discussions on classification of Ugaritic ritual texts see Ibid., 2-7; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 1-42; Paulo Merlo and Paolo Xella, “The Ugaritic Cultic Texts,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 288-291. 48 Note the reservation to such a classification in Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 543-47. Briefly stated, del Olmo Lete believes that Pardee is too constrictive in having time and temporal indicators be the primary means of classify Ugaritic ritual texts.

16

standardize and harmonize these two corpora. As such, it provides us a more reliable witness than if canonization had actually occurred. In an attempt to better illuminate the Ugaritic rites, corollaries from biblical texts will be brought to bear in three chapters. Chapter five will deal with the Nazirite, focusing primarily on the ritual prescriptions found in Num 6. The text embodies one who has undergone a temporary rite of cultic transition both by the terms used to describe the Nazirite and the prohibitions imposed upon the Nazirites during their vow. After discussing the ritual text of Num 6, an attempt will be made to reconcile it with other portrayals, found in narrative (Judg 13-16) and prophetic (Amos 2) texts. Chapter six will examine the role of the high priest on the Day of Atonement as recorded in Lev 16. Specifically, it will be argued that it is by going through a temporary rite of transition that the high priest is able to enter the Holy of Holies safely. By its nature, this discussion will bring to bear a wide range of texts exhibiting divine-human relations in the cult in order to prove its argument. Chapter seven will mirror chapter four and look at possible examples of temporary rites of cultic transition in biblical narrative texts. This chapter will look at a wide variety of ritual activity including theophany, holy war petitionary mourning, and the peculiar activity of David before the ark in 2 Sam 6. Finally, chapter eight will summarize and draw general conclusions.

17

Chapter Two Ugaritic Monthly Calendrical Rituals

This chapter addresses the question of temporary rites in the Ugaritic corpus through an analysis of what are here called “monthly calendrical texts.” By this term I mean ritual texts that contain either the rubric “b- [month name]” or texts that scholarly consensus holds had originally contained such a rubric, based on internal evidence and form-critical analysis. While this is not the only term that can be used for these rites, it is by far the most descriptive and benign.49 The rationale of examining this more circumscribed corpus in this chapter is largely practical in nature. While I hold that a categorical distinction can be made between the “monthly calendrical texts” and the “shorter rituals” addressed in the next chapter, both genres display the same cultic vocabulary regarding rites of temporary cultic transition. The main thesis of this (and the following) chapter is that the phrases yrtḥṣ mlk brr and wḥl mlk/ym serve as indicators of temporary change of the cultic status of the king. While some scholars have come close to such terminology and description, a review of Ugaritic scholarship will reveal that no scholar has provided a total, coherent picture of how this transition works or what it was thought to enact. In what follows, interpretations of these two key phrases will be reviewed. While many of these interpretations are tied to

49

For more detail see discussion under “Source Base” in chapter one.

18

philological studies of specific texts or of groups texts, the sheer number of scholars and number of views makes it impractical to discuss every scholar’s view of these rites on every text individually. Further, for some scholars whose work is assessed below, these formulae are part of larger interpretive theories incorporating various texts. A summary and critique of relevant positions is presented at the outset, allowing the combined insight of all these positions to guide the study and discussion of the ritual texts in which they occur. Following this scholarly review will be an examination of each “monthly calendrical text” that makes use of the above mentioned phrases. These include: CAT 1.41//1.87; 1.46//1.109; 1.105; 1.106; 1.112; and 1.119. The reason for such a detailed examination is due to the laconic and ad hoc nature of the texts. It does not appear that the authors of these texts had any conscious intention of formulating dictums to endure the ages or creating a canonical series of ritual texts. These texts are a body of practical, administrative documents apparently intended to inform relevant cultic practitioners of the appropriate rites on given days, and to tally which deities receive which offerings of which victims on these days. They do not tell us how to perform these offerings—how victims are sacrificed, how meals are presented—but rather provide the types of information that even the cultic specialist is liable to forget. While this silence on more mundane issues of the cult can be frustrating for the comparatist, its very nature allows us insight into what is peculiar from the perspective of these cultic functionaries. For this study, the frequent use of the phrases yrtḥṣ mlk brr and wḥl mlk/ym is especially telling. These are formulae that occur with some frequency but need to be noted in the text. The conspicuous frequency of references in the ritual texts implies that the role of the king was not seen as a given and needed to be mentioned when it occurred. The laconic nature of the texts does not provide precise

19

insights into what occurred behind these phrases. Without native informants illuminating these rites, our primary recourse is to catalog the effect of these rites in larger rituals, and to compare these structures one to another. Hence, the need to deal with each text in which these formulae occur individually and completely. At the end of this chapter, a summary of the data gleaned from the study will be collated and tentative conclusions suggested. However, more definitive conclusions must incorporate data from chapter three. Only after dealing with both sets of texts will I propose a final summary of these formulae as temporary rites.

SCHOLARLY REVIEW Before discussing individual theories regarding the key phrases a general overview of their range of meanings is in order. In yrtḥṣ mlk brr, the key problematic word is brr. While there have been some idiosyncratic definitions proposed,50 most scholars have construed the terms from the G stem of the root brr “to purify, be pure.” However, the issue is whether the term is taken as a 3ms suffixing form barara, an infinitive absolute “is pure” barāru, 51 or an adjectival use of the participle (either a ms active participle “purifier” bāriru52 or a ms passive participle “pure” barīru/barūru53).54 50

Definitions that deserve scant mention here are: 1) those that construe brr as b + rr “in spittle” e.g. Cyrus Herzl Gordon, Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts (ed. biblico Pontificio Istituto; Scripta 98; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949), 114; John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 193; and 2) those that see b + rr “in PN” e.g. André Caquot, “Hébreu et Araméen,” ACF 76 (1976): 461. 51 E.g. H. Cazelles, “Impur et sacré à Ugarit,” in Al-Bahit. Festschrift Joseph Henninger zum 70. Geburtstag am 12. Mai 1976 (Studia Instituti Anthropos 28; St. Augustine: Anthropos-Institut, 1976), esp. 43. 52 E.g. Baruch A. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” JCS 17 (1963): 106; Loren R. Fisher, “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit,” HTR 63 (1970): 486-487; Andrée Herdner, “Nouveaux textes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra XXIVe campagne, 1961,” Ugaritica VII (1978): 13. 53 Johannes C. De Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites (Kampen: Kok, 1972), 2. 13; Jean-Michel De Tarragon, Le culte à Ugarit: d'après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 19; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1980), 82; Paolo Xella, I testi rituali di Ugarit I (Studi Semitici 54; Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1981), 26; Baruch A. Levine and Jean-Michel de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the

20

In regard to the phrase wḥl mlk/ym or the larger phrase ʿrb špš wḥl mlk every word has been subject to some debate. However, the critical issue for our study is the meaning of ḥl. While such translations such as “army,”55 “rampart,”56 “dancer,”57 and “enter”58 have been posited, most scholars have seen ḥl as being related some how to issues of purity, hence connected with the root ḥll. Views range from seeing ḥl as meaning “profaned”59 with a negative connotation, “desacralized”60 with no negative connotation, “pure,”61 and finally “free [i.e. removed, discharged] from cultic obligation.”62 Primarily, interpreters have seen in the brr phrase a purifying lustration of the king and in the ḥl phrase a desacralization of the king. The most recent, comprehensive or important views are presented below. These interpretations largely hold to these definitions, with a few exceptions.

De Tarragon and Xella: Jean-Michel de Tarragon may be credited for the first systematic overview of the

Day: Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage (KTU 1.41//1.87),” RB 100 (1993): 93-94; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 112; Dennis Pardee, Les Textes Rituels (Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12; Paris: Editions recherche sur les civilisations, 2000), 161-163; Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik (AOAT 273; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 475, 676. 54 Though not posited in the literature, it is also possible to understand the term as a stative adjective bariru (cf. Heb ‫) ָכּבֵד‬. See Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, A Manual of Ugaritic (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 57. 55 E.g. Johannes C. De Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra II,” UF 2 (1970): 201. 56 E.g. Baruch A. Levine, “Review of Jean-Michel de Tarragon, Le culte à Ugarit,” RB 88 (1981): 249-250. 57 E.g. Levine in Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 88. 58 E.g. Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 25. 59 E.g. Cazelles, “Impur et sacré à Ugarit,” 44-45. 60 E.g. Caquot, “Hébreu et Araméen,” 461; De Tarragon, Le Culte à Ugarit, 82-85; Xella, I testi rituali, 63; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Ugaritische Rituale und Beschwörungen,” in Ritual und Beschwörungen II (ed. Christel Butterweck, et al.; Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments II Religiöse Texte 4; Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1988), 313. 61 E.g. Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín, “Beiträge zur ugaritischen Textgeschichte (ii),” UF 7 (1975): 159-160. 62 Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 202-206.

21

Ugaritic cult.63 In his discussion of Ugaritic rituals, he spends considerable time on those involving the purification of the king. He holds that the phrase yrtḥṣ mlk brr indicates the purification and sacralization of the king. However this sacralization is temporary. De Tarragon holds that ḥl is from the root ḥll and is the opposite of brr. The king becomes desacralized at those moments noted chronologically in the ritual texts with the phrase ḥl mlk. Certain days cause the king to become desacralized, and the king must therefore be put under interdict at this point in time. Paolo Xella has a similar understanding of these cultic rubrics. He has considered these formulae briefly in a number of different writings.64 He holds that yrtḥṣ mlk brr is a rite of purification which serves as a prerequisite for the king’s participation in the cult. In regard to the phrase ḥl mlk, Xella deals most fully with this formula in an article concerning the larger phrases ʿrb špš w ḥl mlk and ṣba/ṣbu špš w ḥl mlk/ym. He writes: Il re, principale attore e protagonista dei riti, doveva probabilmente riprendere il suo ruolo “profano” ed occorreva pertanto che fosse liberato da eventuali interdetti, che forse circondavano la sua persona nel tempo “sacro” e speciale delle celebrazioni liturgiche: tale sembra infatti essere nella sostanza il senso di ḥl e la funzione del rito soggiacente.65 Hence, both de Tarragon and Xella share an understanding of these rubrics. The phrase yrtḥṣ mlk brr is a conscious purification of the king that initiates a sacral state. The king remains in this state until certain days render him desacralized by their very nature. However, it is unclear what these interdicts upon the king would be. Would such interdicts be upon the king himself, or upon those around him? That is to say, are these interdicts to protect the king, or to protect those with whom the king came into contact? 63

De Tarragon, Le Culte à Ugarit. Xella, I testi rituali; Paolo Xella, “Le ‘Formulae’ Rituali Ugaritiche Relative al Sole: (ʿrb špš w ḥl mlk e ṣba/ṣbu špš w ḥl mlk/ym),” UF 16 (1984): 339-49; Merlo and Xella, “Cultic Texts,” 296-300; see also Paolo Xella, “QDŠ: Semantic del ‘Sacro’ad Ugarit,” MLE 1 (1982): 9-17. 65 Xella, “Le ‘Formulae’,” 341. 64

22

Del Olmo Lete: Gregorio del Olmo Lete’s discussion of these cultic rubrics is found primarily in relation to the individual texts in which they occur.66 However, he does briefly describe what he refers to as the “purification/desacralization of the king” and states that the rubrics are meant to indicate that the king enters a sacred time or condition that allows him to officiate in the cult in either a sacrificial or oracular manner.67 Specifically in regard to CAT 1.41:3, del Olmo Lete sees yrtḥṣ mlk brr as a preparatory rite of purification for the king: “This ‘purification’ always occurs as an indispensable requirement for the king to act in the cult”.68 Del Olmo Lete links these rites of purification with oracles in CAT 1.41:44-46 and with what he refers to as rites of atonement in CAT 1.119:1-5, 22-25.69 Likewise, del Olmo Lete sees the desacralization of the king in wḥl mlk as returning the king to a profane state or time. In general he holds: “The king’s participation in the desacralizationpurification ritual was no doubt direct and personal, but we have no information on its development in Ugarit.”70 As the foregoing summary makes clear, del Olmo Lete’s survey is conservative and mostly descriptive in nature. However, this description is far from satisfying. Discussing the appended rite in CAT 1.41:50-55, del Olmo Lete notes the mention in ll.53-54 of the king’s appearance “dressed in splendid robes and with a clean face” (wl[bš]n ṣpm w mḥ [pnh]) which occurs after his desacralization in l.52. He holds that this implies that the king would have been stripped, stained or disfigured before the desacralization and then 66

See Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 24 for an overview classifying these rites as “cultic formulae.” Ibid., 37. 68 Ibid., 112. 69 Ibid., 143-44. 70 Ibid., 238. 67

23

washed and dressed afterwards. Del Olmo Lete then proceeds to discuss possible similarities with rites such as the biblical Sukkot and the Mesopotamian bît rimki and akītufestival.71 However, nowhere in this discussion does del Olmo Lete note any relation between his interpretation of this washing and the king’s supposed purified state before the rite of desacralization. How does one stain or disfigure the king while he is in a sacral state? Del Olmo Lete is silent as to the implications for the concept of sacralization if his theory is correct, or for the coherence of his theory if such activity as ritual disfiguring is not appropriate before desacralization. More pertinent to our general introductory discussion of these rites, del Olmo Lete also fails to describe adequately in what sense the king would have performed sacrificial and oracular roles while in this heightened state or time. In fact, del Olmo Lete does not even decide whether the change that these rites indicate is connected with cultic status or sacred time, an ambiguity which seems in some ways to hold onto the interdict theory of de Tarragon and Xella mentioned above.

Levine: Of all the scholars who have looked at the phrases yrtḥṣ mlk brr and wḥl mlk/ym, Baruch Levine has perhaps the most innovative interpretation. Beginning in a review of Jean-Michel de Tarragon’s Le culte à Ugarit,72 and later enunciated in an article coauthored with de Tarragon,73 Levine develops his theory that CAT 1.41:47-48 are two lines of a liturgy: ṣbu špš wḥl ym ʿrb špš wḥl mlk “The Rising of Shapash, and the circuit of Yamm; 71

Ibid., 123-25. Levine, “Review of Jean-Michel de Tarragon, Le culte à Ugarit,” 245-50. 73 Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 76-115. 72

24

The setting of Shapash, and the circuit of ‘the King.’”74 Levine sees the use of this liturgical fragment as analogous to the format of Ritualtaffel in Mesopotamian literature where the opening or key lines from a liturgy might indicate its entire performance at a point in the ritual.75 Levine’s translation sees ḥl not from the root ḥll “to profane” but from ḥwl “to turn, whirl” and taken as a nominal form meaning “encirclement, domain.” He holds that this meaning is commensurate with its use in CAT 1.16: I, 6-9, where ḥlm qdš “holy circuit” and ḥlm adr “mighty circuit” is used in parallel with ǵr bʿl “mountain of Baʿlu.” As such, the references in CAT 1.41:47-48 serve as two polar, geographical bearings: the rising of the sun in the east and the circuit of Yammu in the west; the setting of the sun in the west and the circuit of ‘the King’ in the east. For Levine, ‘the King’ is a reference to ʾIlu, whose home is often mentioned as being in the east (e.g. CAT 1.2: III, 4-8).76 Yet, this identification causes a problem for Levine. Both Levine and de Tarragon are agreed that the cultic setting for CAT 1.41//1.87 is the temple of Baʿlu. As such, the reference to the domain of ʾIlu appears peculiar at best. In answer to this dilemma, Levine first makes recourse to archaeological reports dealing with the abundance of anchors found inside the temple of Baʿlu at Ugarit and the realization that in the Late Bronze Age, the temple of Baʿlu would have been visible to sailors still at sea.77 Here the corollary from

74

Ibid.: 106. It should be noted that while Levine develops his theory of these lines as a liturgical fragment, de Tarragon’s own views are at odds with Levine’s and will be discussed below. 75 Ibid.: 108; see also Erica Reiner, Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations (AfO 11; Granz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers, 1958), 11-12. 76 Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 107-09. The deity in question was identified as Mulku in Baruch A. Levine, “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 471. 77 Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 109; see also Honor Frost, “Anchors Sacred and Profane: Ugarit-Ras Shamra, 1986; the Stone Anchors Revised and Compared,” in Arts et industries de la pierre

25

the narrative texts from Ugarit of Baʿlu defeating Yammu seems appropriate. Baʿlu vanquishes the sea and hence receives worship from seafarers. Levine takes this one step further: Elderly Il, the deity presiding over the vintage celebrations, lives on the eastern horizon, in his mountain home of wooden beams. He endorses the temple of Baal and sanctions it; he accepts the offerings proferred to him there in celebration of the vintage…. Baal is, in a sense, Il’s successor.78 Hence, for Levine, the phrases ʿrb špš w ḥl mlk and ṣba/ṣbu špš w ḥl mlk/ym serve as rubrics for the recitation of a liturgy in praise of Baʿlu in his role as successor to Ilu and for his victory over the sea. Neither Levine’s translation nor his interpretation have garnered much support from the scholarly community. As we shall see in the discussion of other scholars below, the largest problem with his interpretation of the formulae in question is their reuse in other texts where Ilu is not in charge, where the ritual is not taking place in the temple of Baʿlu and where the endorsement of Baʿlu by ʾIlu makes little sense in the context of the ritual as a whole.

Wyatt: Nicholas Wyatt’s understanding of these cultic rubrics is derived from his larger views of kingship at Ugarit.79 These views are based, first and foremost on Wyatt’s understanding of the narrative material from Ugarit as comprising a concerted ideological

(ed. Marguerite Yon; Publications de la Mission archéologique française de Ras Shamra-Ougarit VI; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1991), 355-410; see also Aaron Jed Brody, “Each Man Cried Out to His God”: The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers (HSM 58; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 46-49. 78 Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 110. 79 See Wyatt, “Just How ‘Divine’?,” 133-41. The ritual arguments made in pp. 136-141 are represented and enlarged to incorporate comparison with biblical material in “Degrees of Divinity,” 853-87.

26

effort in these myths to assert royal propaganda.80 As such, Wyatt sees the Baʿlu Cycle (CAT 1.1-6) as concerned with royal ideology through the identification of Baʿlu with the king, either by seeing the king as Baal’s earthly avatar or by seeing Baʿlu as the apotheosis of the king.81 Further, he holds that the legend of Kirtu (CAT 1.14-16) was designed to imply this identification of Baʿlu and the king in the person of Kirtu: “it [the text] suggests that as Baal died and rose again, so will the king die and rise again, a redemptive figure, and implicitly divine.”82 While Wyatt holds that Daniʾilu is a king, he does not find an explicit ideological program in the legend of ʾAqhatu (CAT 1.17-19) as he does in the other two great mythical texts from Ugarit. However, he does find clear corollaries between all three in regard to ritual actions undertaken by the kings in these texts. The second basis for Wyatt’s interpretation of our cultic rubrics is ritual action. However, the actual ritual texts only come into his analysis after he describes rites in the narrative material already under discussion above: the Baʿlu Cycle, Kirtu and ʾAqhatu. In the Baʿlu Cycle, there is an attempt in CAT 1.6 i 32-67 to fill the throne left empty after the death of Baʿlu. ʿAṯtaru is chosen as the most viable replacement and ascends the summit of Ṣapanu to sit on Baʿlu’s throne. However, his legs are too short to reach the footstool and his head does not reach the top of the throne. ʿAṯtaru declares in 1.6 i 62 lamlk bṣrrt ṣpn “I cannot rule on the summit of Ṣapanu.” He descends from the throne in 1.6 i 65 and wymlk barṣ il klh “ruled over the land of ʾIlu, all of it.” Wyatt sees in this account of enthronement and capitulation a ritual action that would have been performed in the cult. “Athtar comes down voluntarily from his elevated position, but still rules below with a universal 80

Wyatt, “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme,” 773-96. See also “Arms and the King,” 833-82. 82 “Just How ‘Divine’?,” 135; “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme,” 773-96; contra Simon B. Parker, “The Historical Composition of KRT and the Cult of El,” ZAW 89 (1977): 161-75, who holds that Kirtu was intended rather to relegate the king to a position analagous to that of a mere mortal. 81

27

kingship…. I suggest that this is a metaphor for a double-transformation of the king, which allows him to hold the dual status (both divine and human) which is so puzzling to commentators.”83 In like manner, Wyatt sees a double transformation at work in Kirtu. In particular, he sees the tower ritual (commanded in CAT 1.14 ii 9-26 and fulfilled in CAT 1.14 iii 52-iv 8) as a temporary deification of Kirtu: the ascent to the gods and descent to bring divine blessings back to the world of humanity. Finally, Wyatt sees a temporarily divine status behind the rites that begin the story of ʾAqhatu (CAT 1.17 i 1-15). Wyatt interprets the term uzr in these lines as a garment often worn by deities in Ugaritic iconography and states, “Perhaps the similarity, or even identity, of these garments is intended to communicate some ideological or theological principle, that when so garbed the king has assumed (“donned”) divinity.”84 He then links such ritual theater to the use of masks in the Egyptian cult and to sacred marriage rites in ancient Near East. It is only after discussion of this narrative material that Wyatt turns his attention to the ritual texts. Wyatt’s analysis of the cultic rubrics under discussion is heavily indebted to his reconstruction of the narrative material. He asserts at the outset that the king at Ugarit would have acted as pontifex, sharing ontologically in both human and divine realms. Wyatt notes two main features of this royal cultus: the involvement of the dead kings in the Ugaritic cult (represented by the inš ilm) and the ritual purification and profanation of the king. First, for Wyatt the inš ilm represent the deified ancestors of the king, who are part of the rpum and are also known collectively as the mlkm. “The living king acts as the link between the present order of reality and its past, represented in the traditions and

83

Wyatt, “Just How ‘Divine’?,” 137. Ibid.: 138. For a detailed discussion for his reasoning for identifying uzr with a garment see Nicholas Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues (The Biblical Seminar 53; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 186 n. 44. 84

28

continued divine existence of its past kings.”85 Second, Wyatt holds that the ritual washing of the king results in a purification and that the king’s desacrilization serves as marking the transition from a normal state, indicating the king’s “change from a peculiar degree of holiness to a lesser degree, which is, to take the term ḥll seriously, ‘profane’ or ‘secular.’”86 In order to explain this shifting of the king from one status to another, Wyatt uses analogies from Egyptian rituals for care of cult statues. The statues were regularly purified even after they had been consecrated through the opening of the mouth. Similarly, Wyatt notes that the pharaoh was also periodically divinized through the use of natron and other rites, pointing to an identification of the pharaoh and the gods. At Ugarit, he observes that in CAT 1.41 54-5 the king has his face wiped and is returned to the palace in a way reminiscent of a cult image. In summary, Wyatt holds that the rites under discussion change the status of the king to that of a god and then return the king to his normal “profane” status. These rites allow the king to represent the people to the gods and then bring the benefits of the gods back to the people. This ability to change states was initiated at the king’s coronation, which Wyatt takes as being represented mythically in the figure of Athtar in the Baʿlu Cycle. Further, this occasional transformation contributed to the process of deification: “Living kings were in the process of deification, a condition achieved permanently after death.”87 As such, the rites are part of Wyatt’s larger theories of divine kingship and the

85

Wyatt, “Just How ‘Divine’?,” 139. Wyatt’s view of the inš ilm is heavily indebted to that of Del Olmo Lete, cf. Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, “Los Nobres ‘Divinos’ de los Reyes de Ugarit,” Aula Orientalis 5 (1987): 39-69. 86 Wyatt, “Just How ‘Divine’?,” 139. 87 “Degrees of Divinity,” 864.

29

cult of the dead, as well as the basis of his comparison of Ugaritic and biblical concepts of royal ideology.88 There are some obvious problems with Wyatt’s theories. First, the identification of the king with ʿAṯtaru is nowhere evident, except in Wyatt’s theory where ʿAṯtaru, Baʿlu and ʾIlu are all royal gods.89 While the latter two can be shown to have royal relations both in narrative and ritual texts, there is no text that confirms Wyatt’s theory of the relationship between the king and ʿAṯtaru. Second, even if one were to grant Wyatt’s theory that ʿAṯtaru serves as a metaphor for the king and “still rules below with a universal kingship,”90 why is it that his human avatar is nonetheless demoted back to normal human status at the culmination of the rite? Third, Wyatt’s understanding of the tower ritual in Kirtu is vague and poorly explained. He holds that Kirtu’s ascent is to represent humanity to the gods and that the descent is to bring the benefits of the gods down to earth, yet there is no indication of either in the text. Kirtu is presenting only himself to the gods in preparation for his military expedition. While one might argue that the procuring of an heir is itself a benefit for his people, this is nowhere a notion found in the text.91 Additionally, Wyatt’s assertion that Kirtu and Baʿlu are conceptually linked is overstated. There is no formal, verbal similarity in the two texts, 92 and the abstract comparison of “death and

88

See Nicholas Wyatt, Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition (UBL 13; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996). 89 See Ibid., 36-44. This association may be at least partially due to Wyatt’s assumption that Baʿlu is enthroned upon ʾIlu’s throne in one of the missing portions of the Baʿlu cycle, and that this would be the throne upon which ʿAṯtaru is then placed; see the passing comments in “Dennis Pardee, Les Textes Rituels (RSO 12, Paris 2000), an Appraisal,” UF 33 (2001): 700 and n.7. 90 Wyatt, “Just How ‘Divine’?,” 137. 91 For more on the tower ritual, see discussion in chapter four below. 92 See the chart in Wyatt, “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme,” 784. However this similarity is exaggerated. The search for Baʿlu in CAT 1.5 vi 3-5 (cf. 1.5 vi 26-28 and 1.6 ii 15-17) shares only one formal phrase with 1.16 iii 24: lksm mhyt “to the edge of the waters.” Wyatt’s parallel of “travel to the ends of the earth” is different in each text: sb[y lq]ṣt [a]r[ṣ] in 1.5 vi 3-4 and sb lqšm arṣ in 1.16 iii 5. The latter more rightly is translated as “travel/scan the far reaches of the earth.” Wyatt mistakenly takes the /š/ in 1. 16 iii 5 for a /ṣ/.

30

restoration”93 unravels with the very real differences of the narratives: Baʿlu is dead, Kirtu is only ill. Granted, there is a conceptual link between the desolation of the land after the death of Baʿlu and ʾAqhatu and during the illness of Kirtu, but this does not further Wyatt’s argument, unless ʾAqhatu has already somehow entered his initial stage of royal divinity (according to Wyatt’s system) while his father is still acting in a capacity of king by administering justice at the gate.94 In short, Wyatt’s interpretation starts on the wrong methodological foot by taking the myths as primary, and he then tries to force his interpretation of the mythic material onto the ritual texts. This inattention to the real differences in genre leads to a misunderstanding of the ritual material. However, his attentiveness to the status change behind the rites needs to be noted. If one were to strip away the divine enthronement elements of his theory, one would be left with a concept quite similar to that of de Tarragon and Xella.

Pardee: The most recent discussion of yrtḥṣ mlk brr and wḥl mlk/ym is found in Dennis Pardee’s massive edition of the ritual texts from Ugarit.95 After outlining all the possible meanings proposed for these terms, Pardee looks at a variety of contexts in which the phrase soccur (most of these are addressed in this and the following chapter). The term brr is taken, as with the majority of commentators, as a term for purification. However, the insight that Pardee brings to this discussion is his conclusion in regard to ḥl. After the aforementioned survey, he concludes that ḥl is a state that can be

93

“Degrees of Divinity,” 879 n.80. For problems with seeing Daniʾilu as a king see the excursus in chapter four. 95 Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, esp. 202-206. 94

31

placed upon things (usually the king, but also hands in CAT 1.115:6 and days in 1.41:47/1.87:51-52). As such, Pardee holds that the most accurate translation of ḥl that has previously been proposed (note discussion of possible translations above) is “pure,” as distinct from holy. He compares the use of ḥl in Ugaritic with ‫“( כפר‬atone”), ‫סלח‬ (“pardon”), and ‫“( טהר‬pure”) in Lev. 1-14 and finds a corollary of sorts. While not finding the same sort of sacral theology at Ugarit as he does in the Bible, Pardee does find a similar semantic character.96 He states: Le sens de base qui convient le mieux à tous les usages est celui de « pur », et à ce sens de base la formule de clôture que constitue W ḤL MLK laisse entendre une évolution sémantique qui a pour résultat le sens d’ « être libre d’obligations cultuelles ». L’effet du rite ougaritique aura été de « purifier » le participant de toute souillure sociale, morale et rituelle … de façon qu’il soit « libre d’obligations » cultuelles supplémentaires. On verra que cette définition se rapproche de la traduction « désacraliser » largement adoptée ces dernières années, mais qu’elle recèle une différence importante: il s’agit nettement d’une notion positive, et donc non pas seulement neutre, ni privative, car la « liberté d’obligations cultuelles » repose sur la « pureté ».97 This concept of ḥl as a status is useful to our study, but there seems to be an ambiguity in Pardee’s interpretation as to how this status functions. How is it that both brr and ḥl are seen as purifying? If being “freed from cultic obligation” is a positive statement, does that not make the purification somehow negative? The implications are that the sacral state of the king is a responsibility rather than a boon.

Having reviewed recent scholarly interpretations of the rubrics under discussion, a consensus can be discerned and starting point for the following textual study can be 96 97

Ibid., 204-205, and n. 260. Ibid., 205.

32

posited. The term brr is here understood as a G passive participle, and the phrase yrtḥṣ mlk brr is translated as “the king washes himself pure.” However this activity is concerned about more than simple purity, as is indicated by the phrase wḥl mlk “the king is profaned.” As noted in chapter one, purification rites contain no reference to their endpoint. That is to say, one does not become pure so that one may become impure again. The reference to the king being “profaned” at the end of such ritual activity implies something more is involved at the outset as well. Taking Pardee’s theory, these rubrics should be viewed as cultic states. While Pardee posits that ḥl functions as release from cultic obligations, I hold that it is better to see the phrases of yrtḥṣ mlk brr and wḥl mlk in the context of sacralization and desacralization of the king (though the latter term is also used of days in this chapter and of hands in the following). While yrtḥṣ mlk brr is translated literally as a reference to purity, the context of wḥl mlk indicates that this state is not technically or simply one of purity, but one in which the king is enabled to do his ritual performances (as we shall see below). It is therefore justifiable conceptually to describe the washing and brr state as beginning a sacral state. At the same time, this is not to be confused with a full-blown “sacred” state. The king does not appear to be deified in this activity (contra Wyatt). Neither the sacralization nor the desacralization should be construed as positive or negative. Rather, taking Pardee’s idea, they should be viewed as cultic states. For me, the rites signaled by the phrases yrtḥṣ mlk brr and wḥl mlk indicate, respectively, the enabling and disabling or the qualifying and disqualifying of the king to participate in certain cultic activities. This is what I mean by the terms “sacralization” and “desacralization.”

33

RITUALS CAT 1.41/1.87: The calendrical ritual for the month of Raʾšu Yêni (CAT 1.41//1.87 ) is probably the most discussed ritual text from Ugarit.98 The text is attested in two extant copies: 1.41 was discovered in 1929 in the house of the High Priest on the acropolis, while 1.87 was found in the 1961 campaign in the Royal Palace.99 In addition to the shared accounts of the ritual for the month of Raʾšu Yêni, each text also contains separate appendixes. The following reconstruction of the text and translation is based on the standard practice of constructing an eclectic text based on the line numbering of CAT 1.41, a convention based in part on the earlier publication date of 1.41 and partly on the scholarly consensus that 1.87 was copied from 1.41.100 Text: obv. 1. b yrḫ. [riš yn . b ym . ḥdṯ] 2. šmtr . [uṯkl . l il . šlmm] ------------------------------3. b ṯlṯt ʿ[šrt . yrtḥṣ . mlk . brr] 4. b arbʿt [. ʿšrt . riš . argmn] 5. w ṯn šm . l[ bʿlt. bhtm . ʿṣrm . l inš] 6. ilm . w š d[d . ilš . š . ilhm . mlk] 7. yṯb . brr [.] w [mḥy ]x[ w qra] 98

For editio princeps of CAT 1.41 see Charles Virolleaud, “Les inscriptions cunéiformes de Ras-Shamra,” Syria 10 (1929): 308, pl.LXIII; for the editio princeps of 1.87 see Andrée Herdner, “Un nouvel exemplaire du rituel RS 1929, no. 3,” Syria 33 (1956): 104-12. Previous principal studies include De Moor, New Year, 2:13-17; Johannes C. De Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Nisaba 16; Leiden; New York: Brill, 1987), 157-65; Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” 105-11; Xella, I testi rituali, 59-75; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 311-23 JeanMichel De Tarragon, “Les rituels,” in Textes ougaritiques: II. Textes religieux et rituels; Correspondance (ed. André Caquot, et al.; Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 14; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1989), 152-60; Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 76-115; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 105-28; Jehad Aboud, Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit (Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 27; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994), 172-77; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 143-213; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 348-55; Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 56-65. 99 Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, La trouvaille épigraphique de l'Ougarit (Publications de la Mission archéologique française de Ras Shamra-Ougarit 5; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1989), 16, 26, 106. 100 The representation of Ugaritic texts in this study follows the convention of CAT, which uses italics to indicate signs that are certain, roman to indicate damaged or barely legible signs, and brackets to indicate reconstructions. A special consideration is CAT 1.41//1.87 where an eclectic text collated from the two tablets requires the proviso that italics inside brackets indicates signs certain from 1.87, but missing in 1.41.

34

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

ym . [ʿ]lm . yʿ[rb t.] dqtm] k tgml[. k]s . w [spl101 w yn[t . q]rt . yʿd[b l ʿnt] w al[p . š l ]il . w b u[rbt ] ytk . gdlt . ilhm . ṯ[kmn . w šnm] dqt [.] ršp šrp . w š[lmm. dqtm] ilh [.] alp . w š [.i]lhm . gd[lt . ilhm] bʿl [.] š. aṯtrt [. š . ṯk]mn [.] w[ šnm . š] ʿnt š [.] ršp . š [. dr . il . w pḫr . bʿl] gdlt. šlm [. gdlt . w b urm . lb] rmṣt ilh[m . bʿlm .{ w mlu}102 . dṯt103 . w] ksm . ṯlṯm . [mlu . w ]mʿr[b]104 d yqḥ [.] bt [. ml]k . dbḥ . [šmn . mr] šmn . rqḥ [.] nbt . mtnt [. w ynt . qrt] w ṯn. ḥṯm . w b ǵr . arb[ʿ . ʿšr] kdm . yn . prs . qmḥ . m[ʿlt] mdbḥt . bt . ilt . ʿṣr[m . l ṣpn . š] l ǵlmt . š . w l [ l yrḫ] gd[lt] . l nkl [. gdlt . l bʿlt . bhtm] ʿṣ[rm .] l inš [. ilm . gdlt] il[hm .] dqt . š[pš . gdlt . rš] [p . ]šrp [.] w šl[mm . kmm . dqtm]

low.e. 30. [i]lh. gdlt [. ilhm . gdlt . il]105 31. [d]qt . ṯkmn . w. š[nm . dqt] rev. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

[ilt .] bt . dqtm . b[ nbk . šrp . w] [šlmm .] kmm . gdlt . l b[ʿl . ṣpn] d[q]t . l . ṣpn . dglt . l[ bʿl] u[g]rt . š . l . i[l]ib . ǵ[ laṯrt]106 107 pamt] w [ʿ]ṣrm . l . ridn [ … w [b]t . bʿlt . bt[m .rmm . w ʿly] [m]dbḥt . b . ḫmš [. bt . il . ṯql . ks] [p .] kdb . w . db[ḥ . k/p ] l . aṯrt . ʿṣrm [. l inš . ilm]

101

Reading ll.8-9 as [y]t/k tgml[.k]s.w[spl] and following a combination of De Tarragon, “TO II,” 154 and Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 91, 95. Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 144-45 also sees tgml in l.9, though he does not follow the full reconstruction. 102 This is a point of contention between scholars. The two appearances of mlu cannot both be original to the text. Provisionally, I follow Levine and de Tarragon in seeing the first, reconstructed on the basis of CAT 1.87, as being a scribal variant (Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 96; see also Levine, “Descriptive Ritual Texts,” 470). 103 CAT 1.41, 18 has dṯṯ, which is a typographical error (see the parallel in CAT 1.87.20). 104 Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 175-76 reconstructs [w tr] mt. [mʿrb] at the end of the line. Where CAT sees /mʿr/, Pardee sees /mt/ which leads to the assumption of both /mt/ and /mʿrb/ in the text. I follow here the rendering of CAT. 105 Pardee sees more room at the end of CAT 1.41:30//1.87:33 and suggests that it might contain ilhm (Ibid., 185). His argument for continuity with CAT 1.39:4-5 are not convincing. 106 For this reconstruction, following Ibid., 147, 149. 107 Following Ibid., 189 and Nicholas Wyatt, Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues (The Biblical Seminar 53; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 353, the oft made restoration of ṯlṯm “thirty” in the break is baseless conjecture and is here eliminated.

35

41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

[ṯ]ṯb . mdbḥ . bʿl . gd[lt . l bʿl] dqt . l . ṣpn . w. dqt [. l bʿl . ugrt] ṯn . l . ʿšrm . pamt . š [ ] š . dd . šmn . gdlt . w. [mlk brr] rgm . yṯṯb . b . ṯdṯ . ṯn . [šm108 . šmn] ʿlyh . gdlt . rgm . yṯṯ[b . mlk brr] b . š[b]ʿ . ṣbu . špš . w. ḥl ym . ʿ[r]b. [š]pš w [. hl ]mlk . w[.] b . ym . ḥdṯ . ṯn . šm l . […]t109

appendex: ------------------------------50. id [. yd]bḥ . mlk . l . prgl . ṣqrn . b . gg 51. ar[b]ʿ . arbʿ . mṯbt . azmr . bh . š . šr[p] 52. al[p .] w . š . šlmn . pamt . šbʿ . k lbh 53. yr[gm . ]mlk . ṣbu . špš . w . ḥl . mlk 54. w . l[bš]n . ṣpm . w. mḥ[ pn]h . t[ṯ]ṯbn 55. b . b[t] . w . km . iṯ y[šu . l .] šmm . yd[h] variant appendex in CAT 1.87:54-61: ------------------------------54. b yrḫ . šm[ʿt . a]rbʿt . ʿš 55. rt . yr[tḥṣ . m]lk . brr 56. ʿlm . š . š[r]p . l xx . ʿrb . šp 57. š . w ḥl[ . ml]k ------------------------------58. bn aup[š] w . bs bn hzpḫ ṯlṯt 59. kṯr ml[k bn] ytrt ḫmšt . bn gdaḫ tšʿ 60. kl[ xxxxx]yt ṯmnt . krwn[ ] 61. xmx[xx]xṣp iry [ṯ]lṯt[

Translation: obv. 1. In the month of Raʾšu-Yêni, on the day of the new moon, 2. Cut110 a cluster of grapes for Ilu as a communion offering. ------------------------------3. On the thirteenth, the king washes himself pure.111 4. On the fourteenth, a first offe[ring]112 108

The reconstruction here of šm follows Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 93-94 and Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 195-196 on the basis of l.48. 109 CAT reconstructs the line 49 as l. [ʿṯtr]t. 110 šmtr is a hapax. De Tarragon, “TO II,” 153, n.42 sees it as related Ar. matara “to cut” in the C-stem. Xella, I testi rituali, 64; De Moor, ARTU, 158 and Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 159 see the form as an imperative. However, Levine and de Tarragon translate the form as a gerund “the cutting of the grape cluster” in Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 93-94, and this reading is supported by Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 602; Gregorio Del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition (trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; HO 1.63; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 831. 111 The word brr is taken as a G passive participle, following Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 475. 112 argmm is a Hittite loanword for a type of offering, see Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon,” UF 27 (1995): 541-42. Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 163, suggest the meaning tribute here; see also Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 92; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 348. Such a translation would work well with the understanding of rites in chapter three of this study. However, del Olmo Lete is right in critiquing this position as too restrictive. See most recently Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 569. Since whether it is seen specifically as “tribute” or not is uncertain, argmm is here translated

36

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

and two rams to Baʿlatu-Bahatīma, [two b]irds [to ʾI]nāšūʾIlīma113 and a ram and a container114 (of oil)115 (to) ʾIlšu, a ram [(to) ʾIlāhūma.] The king sits, while pure, and someone will wi[pe116 … and procla]im the day. The next day117 he will en[ter … he pours] out118 as a gift of a [c]up and [chalice]. Two ewes and a dove of the city he will offer to ʿAnatu and a bu[ll and a ram to ]’Ilu. And in the ni[che]119 he will pour (a libation). A cow (to) the ʾIlāhūma; (to) Ṯukamuna-wa-Šu[nama,] a ewe; a ewe to Rašpu – all as a burnt-offering. And as a communion offering: [two ewes] (to) ʾIlāhu; a bull and a ram (to) the ʾIlāhūma; a co[w (to) the ʾIlāhūma;] (to) Baʿlu, a ram; (to) ʾAṯiratu, [a ram;] (to) Ṯukamuna-wa-Šuna[ma, a ram;] (to) ʿAnatu, a ram; (to) Rašpu, a ram; (to) the Circle of ʾIlu and the Assembly of [Baʿlu,] a cow; (to) Šalimu, [a cow.] And at midday,120 inside the sitting room121 of the ʾIlāhū[ma] and the Baʿalūma, thirty full [goblets]

more generally as “offering,” Compare Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 100101. 113 The ʾInāšū-ʾIlīma are a confusing group. Literally “people of the gods,” this group is equated by some scholars with cultic functionaries who work for Baʿlātu-Bahatīma (see Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 94; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 349). However, del Olmo Lete maintains through out Canaanite Religion that these “people of the gods” are to be identified with deified ancestors and point to the centrality of the “funerary” cult in the official ritual structure of Ugarit. A full discussion of the ʾInāšū-ʾIlīma is beyond the purview of this study and their exact identity (whether deities, deified ancestors or cultic functionaries) is of little concern for the overall assessments of the texts being made here. 114 The word dd can be translated in two ways. The word can be translated as “jar” or “container” (see e.g. Wyatt, Religious Texts, 349), or as an epithet “beloved” for the god Ilš (e.g. Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 91). The latter is unlikely since, as Wyatt notes, epithets do not normally precede the noun they modify (Wyatt, Religious Texts, 349, n.6). 115 The contents of the jar need either to be assumed, based on ll. 44 and 47, or a haplography of šmn must be posited in the line (see most recently Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 165. 116 The verb mḥy occurs here and in l.54. In both cases the context immediately following the verb is broken. Possible meanings for this verb are “to clap” (see e.g. Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 94-95 and Wyatt, Religious Texts, 349) and “to wipe” (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 167-68; De Moor, ARTU, 159; Xella, I testi rituali, 61, 65). Del Olmo Lete has taken this latter understanding of wiping to an extreme and translated this term as “atonement” (Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 107, n. 81). Recently, Pardee has critiqued del Olmo Lete’s view (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 167-168), and del Olmo Lete has admitted that his earlier interpretation went too far (Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 569). The translation adopted here follows the cautious minimalism of Pardee. 117 The term ʿlm is seen here as the preposition ʿl followed by an enclitic –m with the general meaning “next” and the specific meaning in ritual texts of “next day.” See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 168-169. 118 The word divider in t.k at the beginning of l.10 of CAT 1.87 is taken as a scribal error on the basis of ytk in CAT 1.41:12, and the presence of a probable cup in CAT 1.41:9. 119 While Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 95 suggest reading the text here as wmtk, most scholars read urbt. De Moor sees this as a lattice or “hole in graves through which offerings were presented to the spirit of dead ancestors” (De Moor, ARTU, 160, n. 24). However, the very existence of such structures has been challenged; see Wayne T. Pitard, “The ‘Libation Installations’ of the Tombs at Ugarit,” BA 57, no. 1 (1994): 20-37. I here follow a more generic understanding of the term as a cultic niche where a cult image might have been placed; see Wyatt, Religious Texts, 350, n. 18. 120 The translation here follows Levine, “Descriptive Ritual Texts,” 472; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 155; Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 92, 95-96; and Wyatt, Religious Texts, 350 in seeing w b urm as bi urri-ma “in the brightness of day” based on its parallelism with w l ll in CAT 1.39 8, 12 and the Akk. cognate urra(m) “in the morning/daytime.” It is also possible to see urm as directly related to ur “fire” and translating the phrase “into the fire,” see De Moor, New Year, 1:14; Xella, I testi rituali, 61; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 172174. Further, translates the phrase simply “as a burnt sacrifice”Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 108.

37

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

and cups. And the offer[ing]122 that he takes to the [ro]yal chapel: a feast of myrrh oil, perfume oil, honey a tenderloin, a ci[ty] dove, and two unleavened loaves. And on the “mountain”123 four[teen] jugs of wine (and) a half measure of flour. At the s[teps ] of the altars of the chapel of the goddess, (two?) birds [to] Ṣapānu; a ram to the “Young Woman”; a ram and […] to Yarḫu a cow to Nikkal; [a cow to Baʿ]latu-Bahatīma two birds to the ʾInāšū-[ʾIlīma; a co]w (to) the ʾIlāhū[ma]; a ewe (to) Šapšu; a cow (to) Ra[špu – as burnt offering. And communion offering, [the same. A e]we (to) [ʾI]lahu; a cow (to) ʾIlahūma; a cow (to) ʾIlu; a [e]we (to) Ṯukamuna-wa-Šunama; a ewe (to) [ʾIlatu]-Bêti. Two ewes at the Spring, as burnt [offering. And communion offering,] the same. A cow to Ba[ʿlu of Ṣapānu;] a e[w]e to Ṣapānu; two ewes to [Baʿlu] of Ugarit; a ram to ʾIluʾibī; […] to ʾAṯiratu and two birds to RIDN. [??? ] times (is this to be performed) both in the sanctuary of Baʿlatu-Bâtī[ma]124-Rāmīma and upon125 [the al]tars. On the fifth (day of the ritual)126, the sanctuary of ʾIlu, a she[kel of silver,] then the kubadu127 offering and feast […] to ʾAṯiratu; two birds to the ʾI[nāšu-ʾIlīma]. [Re]turn128 to the altar of Baʿlu. One c[ow to Baʿlu;] a ewe to Ṣapānu; a ewe [to Baʿlu of Ugarit] twenty two times [… ] a ram, a jar of oil, a cow. And the pure [king ]

121

Translating rmṣt as sitting room and following Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 96 in assuming a bilabial shift of b>m on the basis of the preceding compound preposition lb-. 122 The term mʿrb is attested twice in Ugaritic. Here, I posit that it is some sort of offering. In CAT 1.19 IV 48 context demands that the term means “sunset”: [l]ṣbi. nrt. ilm, špš. [ʿ]r[bt] pǵt.minš.šdm lmʿr[b] nrt. ilm.špš.mǵy[t] pǵt.lahlm. (CAT 1.19 IV 46-50) While most scholars want to link the term in CAT1.41:19 with the some form of entry into the bt mlk, it is equally possible that the offering is somehow linked to the time of day, note the temporal indicator in line 17, above. 123 The term ǵr is difficult to interpret. The easiest explanation is to see the word as cognate with Heb ‫;צור‬ Aram ‫ ;טור‬Akk ēru – “mountain.” However, other translations have been posited. Some scholars have derived it from the root ǵr “to go down” and translate the term as “hole” (Wyatt, Religious Texts, 352, n.35) or some sort of funerary cult installation (Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 117-118, n. 117). Based on alleged attestations in 1 Kgs 6:37; 7:3,12 Levine and de Tarragon translate the term as “ledge” (Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 96-97). Pardee goes to great length to show how this reading is impossible (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 179, n. 134) and in fact finds no coherent sense for the term and leaves it untranslated. Here I provisionally take the basic sense of the word, with skepticism duly noted. 124 Bâtīma seems to be a biform of Bahatīma elsewhere. 125 ʿly has been taken several ways by scholars. Recenlty, Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 198 has proposed an imperative verbal form from the root ʿLY. Del Olmo Lete postulates that the term might be one of the tripartite areas of the cultic area known as the ḫmn, along with the qdš and the kbm (Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 32). However, the majority of scholars see the term as a simple preposition (e.g. Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 97). 126 On this translation, see the commentary below. 127 Following Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 98-102. For a discussion of the kubadu rite, see discussion below. 128 The term [ṯ]ṯb is here taken as a C impv from ṮWB (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 194; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 353; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 157).

38

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

responds with a recitation. On the sixth (day of the ritual) two [rams] (to) Šamnu additionally129, a cow. The pure king respo[nds] with a recitation. On the seventh day (of the ritual), the sun rises, the day is profaned; the sun sets the king [is profaned]. And on the day of the new moon, two rams to [ ]t.

Appendix of CAT 1.41: ------------------------------50. When the king [offers a ban]quet to Prgl Ṣqrn on the roof, 51. there will be fo[ur] and four dwellings of branches on it. A ram as a burnt offe[ring;] 52. a bu[ll] and a ram as a communion offering. Seven times, according to what is in his heart 53. the king spe[aks.] The sun rises and the king is profaned. 54. And he wears fine clothes and wipes [… .] You will take him back 55. to the pal[ace] and when he is there, he shall [raise his] hands to heaven. Appendix of CAT 1.87: ------------------------------54. In the month of Š[— , on the fo]urteenth, 55. the ki[ng was]hes himself pure. 56. On the next day, a ram as a bu[rnt offer]ing to XX. The sun 57. sets and [the ki]ng is profaned. ------------------------------Lines 58-61 contain a series of personal names and numbers.

Discussion: In the following examination, we will begin by analyzing the shared text of CAT 1.41//1.87, namely the calendrical ritual for the month of Raʾšu Yêni.130 After this discussion, we will then examine the appended rituals in each text, their relationships with the preceding ritual, and with each other. The calendrical ritual for the month of Raʾšu Yêni may be divided into eight sections, corresponding to the eight days of activity specified in the text. The ritual begins on the new moon in ll.1-2. This is then separated in CAT 1.41 by a dividing line from the following

129

The translation of ʿlyh follows Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 97 There has been extensive discussion of the role of Raʾšu Yêni in the New Year’s festival of Ugarit, and the larger Levantine traditions. E.g. De Moor, New Year; Mark E. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993), 377-383. However, it seems more reasonable to speak not of a single new year but of two axes of the fall and spring, see Daniel E. Fleming, Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner's Archive (Mesopotamian Civilizations 11; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 130133; Cohen, Calendars, 401-402. 130

39

seven sections, perhaps indicating that the line served as a header or title.131 This first section indicates that on the new moon, a cluster of grapes is to be cut as a communion offering (šlmm) for ʾIlu. While ʾIlu appears to have been quite a consumer of alcohol in the narrative text CAT 1.114, his presence in this unique rite is unclear. Since the month is literally the month of “first wine,” the cutting of a bunch of grapes makes sense in denoting and demarcating the month. Without a more detailed knowledge of Ugaritic viniculture, it is impossible to determine if the wine offered (and presumably consumed) over the course of the monthly ritual actually came from these grapes, if it was seen as symbolically related to these grapes, or if it served some other unknown purpose. Regardless, their use as a šlmm “communion offering” shows that this classification of offering has a wider semantic and cultic range at Ugarit than in later, biblical literature. The second section of the ritual notes the king’s washing on the thirteenth of the month and his subsequent purified state (l. 3). It is clear that on a structural and grammatical level this purified state (brr) is perceived as the opposite of his profane state (ḥl), found in section seven ll.47-48 below. Both terms, as indicated by the interpretations mentioned above, denote contrasting cultic states. The lack of specificity in regard to the cultic functionary in the rite on the new moon, contrasted with the specificity in what follows, likely indicates that the king’s involvement begins here on the thirteenth. This activity begins with his ritual purification and enactment of a sacral state. The third section comprises the ritual events of the fourteenth day of the month (ll. 4-8). The day’s activities commence with a series of offerings led with the phrase riš agmn.

131

Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 112.

40

Whether this is seen as specifically “tribute” or more generally “offering,”132 the similarity between the month of riš yn and the cultic action riš agmn appears intentional. If this link is assumed, the previous cluster of grapes (the first of the year?) might have been the same offered to Baʿlatu-Bahatīma, the “Mistress of the Houses” along with two rams (ll.4-5). It is unclear exactly who this goddess is or what the two houses are. If the goddess in l. 5 is the same as the Baʿlatu-Bâtīma Rāmīma “the Mistress of the High Houses” in l.37 below, then her epithet may be related to that of ʿAnat, who is called Baʿlatu Šamīma Rāmīma in CAT 1.108:7.133 However, such an assertion still leaves difficulties in regard to what her two houses are and why she is receiving such an important offering, the first of the main body of this ritual.134 The function and identity of the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma is hotly contested. For the purpose of this study, it is enough to note that scholars are divided as to whether these are cultic functionaries with an aura of divinity or deified ancestors in the cult.135 The deity ʾILŠ occurs only in this ritual. The last offering is made to the ʾIlāhūma – the gods generally speaking. Following this group of offerings, the focus shifts to the purified king (ll. 6-8). The king is to sit and some other action involving wiping occurs. This term for wiping mḥy occurs here in the main ritual and in the appendix to CAT 1.41 (l. 54). In both instances, the context is broken, and a reconstruction is not possile. Given that the appended ritual 132

See note 112 above. See brief discussion in Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 276; De Moor, ARTU, 159, n.11. See also the Emar connection noted by Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 94. 134 One possible interpretation is to see ʿAnat as the mistress or “lady” of both the houses of ʾIlu by birth and Baʿlu by marriage. In other words, she is the goddess who bridges that pantheon gap between the two “houses” found in Ugaritic mythic texts; see Johannes C. De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism: the Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 91; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1997), 73, 74, 79. For a dissenting view that Baʿlu and ʿAnat are not spouses see Neal H. Walls, The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth (SBLDS 135; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992); and Peggy L. Day, “Why Is Anat a Warrior and Hunter?,” in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. David Jobling, et al.; Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991), 141-146, 329-332. 135 For recent discussion see Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 86-87 and Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 561-562. 133

41

makes no mention of the king being seated, and explicitly notes that the king is ḥl at the time (l. 53), it is most likely that the laconic rite is unrelated to the king’s function in the ritual.136 After the break, the phrase wq[ra]/ym has been reconstructed by most scholars, partially on the basis of similar rites in the Hebrew Bible.137 Structurally, del Olmo Lete sees this proclamation as a ritual demarcation that is mirrored by the desacralizing of the day on the seventh day of the rite in l.47138As such a structural parallel exists between the washing of the king and the proclaiming of the day – both being defined by their opposite, ḥl. Below I will address this issue further in regard to the desacralization of both in ll.47-48. The following day of the ritual (the fifteenth) contains the largest number of ritual rubrics in the entire text. It spans ll.8-38 and contains a complex, and slightly obtuse, ritual structure. The day begins with a libation offering (ll. 8-9). The ritual action is either lost in the break or was never specified. It is followed in ll. 10-11 with offerings to ʿAnatu and ʾIlu. If the above theory of ʿAnatu and ʾIlu being linked by the first offering of a grape cluster is accepted, this association in the first rites on the fifteenth strengthens this connection. In addition, the libation offering comports well with the viniculture imagery invoked above. This viniculture imagery is continued in ll.11-17, though in another location, the niche (urbt).139 There is a tantalizing detail in Marguerite Yon’s description of the Temple of Baʿlu that gives a probable context for this location:

136

Contra Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 114, who translates mḥy as “atone.” This is problematic both in terms of lack of context due to the break, and in regard to his interpretation of the appended ritual in CAT 1.41, see discussion below. 137 See Ibid., 108. 138 Ibid., 114 139 The location of this ritual as a whole and the disparate parts therein is highly disputed. The two most concise views are that of del Olmo Lete who implies a royal palatial setting (Ibid., 113) and Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 83-88 who hold that the location is thetemple of Baʿlu. Provisionally I follow Levine and de Tarragon’s suggestion here.

42

To the right, upon entering the temple, one can see an enormous foundation made of ashlar blocks that supported the first flight of a stairway along the eastern wall. It is possible that there was a niche (perhaps for a cult image) framed by the stairway’s posts on the ground floor. Some of the steles that were excavated in the temple and its environs must have come from this room.140 Regardless of whether this is the location intended by the text, ll. 11-12 indicate a libation at this new locale, followed by a series of both burnt offerings (ll. 12-13) and communion offerings (ll. 14-17). In l. 17 there is a new temporal indicator and location in the text. At midday141 on the fifteenth, there is mention of thirty goblets and cups for the “gods and baʿals” ʾIlāhūma and Baʿalūma. It is unclear if the first received goblets and the latter received cups, of if each received both – 120 total – in the uncertain location of the “sitting room” (rmṣt). This apparent presentation rite is clearly in keeping with the overall theme of drinking and viniculture found throughout the ritual. The relationship between the previous rite and that found in ll. 19-22 is unclear due to a break in the text. Some scholars see here an entry offering,142 or perhaps even an offering connected with the setting of the sun.143 The offering location has clearly moved to that of the bt mlk “house of the king,” but whether that should be seen as the palace generally or a royal chapel more specifically is unclear. While the possibility of the dbḥ being a true feast in the palace cannot be easily dismissed, it is more probable that the location was a royal chamber or apartment inside the temple.144 Such a phenomenon has

140

Marguerite Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 109-110. On this translation see note 120. 142 See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 177-178. 143 See discussion in note 122. 144 See Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 85-86. 141

43

been postulated for the Great Temple of Ḫattuša and would explain the quick movements that we see in the following lines. Lines 22-23 move to the location translated above as ǵr “the mountain.” The identity of this locale remains unclear. Like nbk (the “Spring”) mentioned in l.32, this appears to be a location inside the sacred precincts made to imitate or represent nature.145 More wine is involved in this rite, as well as a half-measure of flour. A series of burnt offerings and communion offerings are given in ll.23-31 at the steps of the altar of bt ilt “the chapel of the goddess.” This is followed by another burnt offering at the “Spring” at the end of l.32 and then again by another series of communion offerings that last until l.36. Finally, the rites on the fifteenth end with the repetition of the previous series of offerings, this time upon the altar(s) of Baʿlatu-Bâtīma Rāmīma in ll. 3638. If this latter location is the same as the altar bt ilt in ll.23-32, then all the offerings in ll.23-38 center around the same goddess. This is plausibly ʿAnatu, the same goddess who receives offerings at the beginning of the day’s ritual activity. For the purpose of this study, the most important rites on the fifteenth are in connection to the bt mlk (ll. 19-22). If the locus of this structure is inside the Temple to Baʿlu, as argued above, then it might have ramifications in regard to the king’s cultic state. However, this association is still tenuous and needs to be assessed in light of the other rituals in this study. The fifth section of the calendrical ritual for the month of Raʾšu Yêni consists of ll. 38-45. This section begins with the temporal indicator b ḫmš “on the fifth.” This phrase has caused serious problems for scholars of Ugaritic. Levine holds that the text here refers to

145

Note the Sea in 1 Kgs 7:23.

44

the fifth day of the month, a chronological reversion in the text whereby the ritual returns to earlier days in the month and gives more details on specific preceding days.146 Over the course of several papers Levine has argued for a genre called “descriptive ritual texts,” and one of the markers of these texts is chronological reversion seen in texts such as CAT 1.41//1.87. Some more recent scholars have considered amending the text so that b ḫmš “on day five” (and later six and seven) is actually the b ḫmš [ʿšrt] “on the fif[teenth].147 However, the duplicates of CAT 1.41 and 1.87 would require not only three scribal errors, but a slavish copying of these scribal errors as well. As such, scholars have largely held to Levine’s theory, but with reservations. Recently, Pardee has taken the reference here to days five through seven not of the month, but of days “of the ritual of the full moon.” That is to say, Pardee envisions b ḫmš as indicating the fifth day of the ritual, which he believes begins on the full moon—the fifteenth day of the month in his reckoning, based on the explicit mention of the fifteenth as the full moon in CAT 1.46//1.109.148 Hence, “day five” of the ritual would indicate the nineteenth day of the month. Pardee believes CAT 1.132 confirms this schema, with the ritual taking place on the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty first of an unspecified month.149 While Pardee’s schema does solve the problem of questionable chronological inversions in the text, it is unclear how useful the date of the full moon in CAT 1.46//1.109 is in 1.41//1.87. There is nothing that particularly warrants this identification here besides Pardee’s chronological reconstruction. That is to say, I 146

As a point of clarification, Levine holds that the chronological inversion actually begins in l.30. He sees a reference to an offering being performed thirty times in l. 36 (a reconstruction rejected above in note 107) which he believes indicates that the ritual has reverted to the first of the month. On the reversion in CAT 1.41//1.87 specifically, see Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 87-88; on Levine’s theory more generally see Levine, “Descriptive Ritual Texts,” esp.469-472; cf. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” 105-111. 147 E.g. Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 126. 148 Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 160-161, 190-93. 149 See discussion of this ritual in chapter three below.

45

accept Pardee’s understanding of b ḫmš as indicating the fifth day of the ritual, but reject his understanding of what this fifth day actually is. Rather than identifying the fifth day of the ritual through recourse to other texts, I would proceed by noting the internal logic of the ritual for Raʾšu Yêni in and of itself. If the internal structure is taken as a point of departure, three separate theories are possible for interpreting the fifth day of the ritual under Pardee’s translation. First, the marker of b ḫmš (and b ṯdṯ in l.45 and b šbʿ in l.47) could here indicate relative ritual sequence rather than absolute monthly chronology. The structure of the text has led us to surmise that this is the fifth section of the text, and it is also the fifth day of ritual activity dealt with in the text. That is to say, the new moon is the first day of the ritual; the thirteenth is the second day of the ritual, and so on. The problem with such a theory is that it would constitute a unique use of b + number in Ugaritic ritual texts. In addition, it would also tell us nothing about the actual day of the month upon which these latter rites occurred. A second theory would take the horizontal line noted in CAT 1.41 seriously as noting the importance of the king’s sacralization on the thirteenth, immediately after this line. The ritual could be seen as beginning in earnest on the thirteenth, and ending on the nineteenth (the seventh day) with the desacralization of the king. That is to say the thirteenth of the month is the “first day” of activity, the fourteenth the “second,” and so on. The events b ḫmš would then occur on the seventeenth day of the month. While this theory leaves the sixteenth without ritual activity, there is no indication that such was required in other calendrical rituals. A third theory, at least as plausible as the previous, is that the counting of ritual activity should begin on the fourteenth when the king “proclaims the day.” As already noted, this activity on the part of the king indicates the

46

inception of sacred time. Further, based on the pattern we will see below, the sacralization of the king occurs on the day before his ritual activity. The “fifth day” of the ritual would then be the eighteenth of the month and the “seventh day” would be the twentieth, on which the day is desacralized and normal time commences. It should also be noted that it is plausible that the full moon began not on the fifteenth of the month (as is the case in CAT 1.46//1.109) but on the fourteenth, given the natural variance of the lunar cycle in relation to a solar day.150 The sacralization of the king immediately before the full moon in CAT 1.46//1.109 supports the view of the fourteenth as the full moon in 1.41//1.87. In light of the interconnection of both internal and external data I here posit that the b ḫmš is the eighteenth day of the month, while noting that the seventeenth is also plausible. Aside from the chronological problem the rites on the fifth day of the ritual contain several unique features. A shekel of silver is presented in the sanctuary of ʾIlu (l.38), here construed as a separate temple (see l. 41ff.). This is followed by what is here translated as a kubadu offering (l.39), reflecting the argument of Levine and de Tarragon.151 This ritual offering is found at Emar, and these scholars argue for its inclusion here. Little is known of this rite besides the fact that it “honors” (kbd) the deity. Daniel Fleming states: In sum, the kubadu is performed prior to making an offering in order to honor the god before killing the animal or handing over the gift. The offerers would honor the god by submitting themselves and their offering before daring to assume either would be acceptable.152

150

See Lis Brack-Bernsen, Zur Entstehung der babylonischen Mondtheorie: Beobachtung und theoretische Berechnung von Mondphasen (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1997), 47-49; Paul -Alain Beaulieu, “The Impact of Month-Lengths on the Neo-Babylonian Cultic Calendar,” ZAW 83 (1993): 66-87, esp.67-68. 151 Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 98-102. 152 Fleming, Installation, 169.

47

Since the kubadu comes before the killing of the animal, I assume that it is accompanied by the dbḥ “feast” and both are in honor of ʾAṯiratu (ll.39-40).153 This is followed by two birds to the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma (l. 40). After these rites in the temple to ʾIlu (ll. 38-40), the day’s activities return to the altar of Baʿlu (ll. 41-45).154 A series of offerings to the various hypostases of Baʿlu (ll.41-43) is followed by a recitation by the “pure king” (ll. 44-45) which ends the day’s ritual activities. What is actually occurring in ll.44-45 is of some debate. Del Olmo Lete states that the king here is performing an oracular role in the cult, holding that the sacralization of the king in Ugaritic rituals refers specifically to the king’s role as “mediator of the oracle.”155 Since del Olmo Lete notes the most explicit description of this oracular rite is found in CAT 1.119, I reserve my comments on this theory until dealing with that text below. However, it should be noted that this oracular interpretation is not the only interpretation of this rite. As discussed above, Levine holds that the rubric ṣbu špš wḥl mlk is a hymnic fragment. As such, Levine takes the reference here to a recitation as indicating this (or a similar) liturgical prayer. 156 As discussed above, his hymnic interpretation is tied too tightly to CAT 1.41/1.87 and cannot explain the use of these rubrics in other ritual texts, and as such must be rejected here. Other scholars suggest that ll.44-45 indicate the recitation of a cultic prayer but without attempting to describe the contents of this liturgy.157

153

Hence, the kubadu offering of a shekel of silver occurs first, and then the sacrifice of whatever vicitim is lost in the break. Both ritual activities are for ʾAṯiratu. 154 As seen above, it is possible that the bt il here refers not to a separate temple, but a cultic spot within the temple of Baʿlu itself. Given the archaeological ambiguity with respect to the very existence of a temple to ʾIlu, it is perhaps best to see this as a chapel for ʾIlu inside the larger temple of Baʿlu. 155 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 24. 156 Levine and de Tarragon, “The King Proclaims the Day,” 97-98; see also Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” 106. 157 See e.g. Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 313;Wyatt, Religious Texts, 354; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 198.

48

The sixth day of the ritual consists of two activities: an offering of oil and a cow to an unknown recipient in an unspecified location (ll.45-46), and another recitation by the pure king (l.46). Given that the last stated locus of this royal activity is the altar of Baʿlu (l. 41), it is likely that this is the location intended in ll.45-46 as well. Further, since the offerings mentioned in connection with the altar of Baʿlu were all performed for hypostases of Baʿlu, this may be assumed here in the sixth day as well. The seventh day of the ritual has a double desacralization in ll.47-48. First, the day is desacralized at sunrise. As noted above, this rubric appears to end the sacred time enacted in ll.7-8 on the fourteenth day. It is uncertain who desacralizes the day and how it occurs. As noted above, de Tarragon and Xella favor seeing certain days causing desacralization in and of themselves; that is to say, the taboo nature of certain days renders the king unfit for cultic activity. While this is certainly possible, and known from Neo-Assyrian sources,158 there is no indication of this in extant texts from Ugarit. In light of data from liver omens and astronomical observations, the lack of evidence for inauspicious days at Ugarit is not simply an argument from silence; it indicates a different ritual outlook. Rather than seeing the day as profane in and of itself, two options present themselves from data in the Ugaritic corpus. The first is that both the day and the king are desacralized by cultic functionaries. In CAT 1.119:22, a group known only as the mḥllm “desacralizers” is mentioned. These cultic functionaries draw near immediately before the desacralization of the king. It is possible that these mḥllm could desacralize both the day and the king here in the month of Raʾšu Yêni. A second theory is that it is the king who

158

On the phenomenon of interdicts in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian period see Erle Leichty, “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East (ed. Jack M. Sasson; New York: Scribner, 1995), 2:953-954; Simo Parpola and Julian Reade, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian scholars (SAA 10; Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993), xxii-xxiv and texts nos. 2, 3, 4, 12, 189, 219, 220, 221, 314, 350, and 351.

49

desacralizes the day, since it was the king who proclaimed the day and enacted sacred time earlier in the ritual. The king himself might still be seen as desacralized by the mḥllm, but the day was desacralized by the king.159 While either theory is possible given the terse nature of the text, the latter seems more compelling in light of the structure of the text. The king, who has been sacralized on the thirteenth, is able then to proclaim the day and begin sacred time on the fourteenth. Rites then occur on the fourteenth, fifteenth, and then the eighteenth through the twentieth of the month, ending with the desacralization of the day by the king in the morning, and of the king himself in the evening. Finally, on the following new moon there is a note of two rams being offered to an unknown deity. While scholars had previously reconstructed [ʿṯr]t in this break, this reading is far from certain. In light of the prevalence of ʿAnatu in the ritual, she would be the logical choice for the lacuna. However, the text is too broken to make a conclusive decision. In summary, the calendrical ritual for the month of Raʾšu Yêni focuses on rites for the thirteenth through twentieth days of the month, with an initial preparation on the first of the month and an additional sacrifice performed at the end (or the first of the next month).160 The activity on the first and thirteenth prepares both materials and the king for the sacred time that begins on the full moon – the fourteenth – and runs for seven days. During this period, a myriad of offerings are presented to deities at various cultic spots, tentatively located within the Temple of Baʿlu. The ritual seems to build towards two cultic declarations of the king on the fifth and sixth days of the ritual, before the desacralization

159 160

For more on the role of the mḥllm see discussion of CAT 1.119 below. See the argument for viewing this as a ritual for two months in Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 207-213.

50

of time and king on the seventh day of the rite. The ritual ends with an additional offering of two rams (possibly to ʿAnatu) at the end of the month. As noted above, CAT 1.41 and 1.87 each contain unique appendices, in 1.41:50-55 and 1.87:54-61. The first of these contains a ritual that appears to take place in a single day. It begins with the phrase id … mlk which also starts several other ritual texts (CAT 1.90; 1.164; 1.168), some of which will be addressed in chapter three. I have adopted Pardee’s label “contemplation rites” for these texts and it appears that 1.41:50-55 would fall into this genre as well. As such, it would seem more fitting to discuss this ritual in chapter three; but the inclusion of this ritual as an appendix to the preceding calendrical ritual by the scribes at Ugarit needs to be taken seriously. Therefore, the text is discussed here because there is an emic link between this the appendix and what precedes it. In chapter three I will reprise the discussion here in light of the interpretation of other contemplation rites. CAT 1.41:50-55 consists of a roof ritual for Prgl Ṣqrn in which eight branched dwellings are constructed. Burnt and communion offerings are given and the king speaks seven times, according to what is in his heart. While no sacralization is noted in the ritual, the king is desacralized at sunrise (l.53). The king then is dressed in fine clothes and something/someone is wiped. Finally, the king returns to the palace and there raises his hands toward heaven. This ritual has garnered much attention due to the reference to eight dwellings that are placed on the roof. The locale for this activity is possibly the Temple of Baʿlu. Such a location would explain both why the king must later return to the palace, and why it is included at the end of the calendrical ritual above. Many scholars see here a corollary between this ritual and the feast of Sukkoth, based on the description of a seven day fall

51

festival, beginning on the fourteenth/fifteenth that includes the construction of temporary structures on roofs.161 However, too much is made of this connection. The biblical data for the construction of sukkot rather than a procession for sukkot appear to date from the postexilic period.162 In addition, only in Neh 8:16 is there reference to these structures being placed upon roofs, and then these are roofs of private homes not that of the temple, as the context in CAT 1.41 suggests. Further, the appending of this ritual to the end of the calendrical ritual of Raʾšu Yêni does not allow us to say when in the month this ritual was performed, or for how long. Scholars also note similarities between the temporary structures here and the bît rimki, attested in Neo-Assyrian ritual texts.163 While the bît rimki was similarly a temporary structure, it was built in desolate areas. Its function was the removal of impurities from the king, and as such necessitated a distance from populated areas to protect against contamination.164Although it would be tempting to see the structures in CAT 1.41 as relating to the ritual washing of the king, the distinct locus on a roof of a building (the temple!) suggests that these temporary structures served a different ritual purpose than the bît rimki. The tower ritual recorded in the story of Kirtu (CAT 1.14 II 20-27) provides a similar phenomenon in Ugaritic narrative texts. While I will discuss this passage in chapter four, it should be noted here that this is an occasional rite—a rite of crisis—rather than part of a fixed ritual calendar, a fact that might further distance our ritual from that of Sukkoth and the bît rimki. The most likely explanation for these is derived from Hittite roof rituals. For 161

See e.g. De Moor, ARTU, 165, n. 59; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 123; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 354, n. 54. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001), 2: 2063-2067. 163 E.g. Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 123. 164 Jørgen Læssøe, Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series Bît Rimki (København: Munksgaard, 1955), 16. 162

52

example, during Muwatalli’s prayers to the Storm-god of Lightning, a ritual is performed on the roof of the temple where two wickerwork tables are temporarily set up to provide offerings for the gods.165 Given that the ritual in CAT 1.41 begins with the phrase id [yd]bḥ mlk (“when the king sacrifices…”) it is best to see these structures in terms similar to that mentioned in Muwatalli’s prayer—as related directly to sacrifice.166 The text records that the king will speak from his heart seven times. Del Olmo Lete, according to the interpretation noted above, sees here an oracular role of the king, whereby the kings here prophesies from the word the gods give him in his heart. However, in light of the parallels in Kirtu and Muwatalli’s prayer, it seems more likely that this litany is directed toward the gods, not humans. After the desacralization, the king is dressed in fine clothes and returned to the palace. (There is also some reference to wiping, but it is unclear who or what is involved.) It is plausible that this change of outfit is indicative of the king’s change of ritual status. The explicit mention of a return to the palace (and implicitly, to quotidian duties) may provide further proof of this status change. Perhaps this status change is indicated as well by the king’s last recorded action. The king, who previously could offer a feast (dbḥ) in the presence of the gods on the temple roof, is now confined to more normal forms of divine supplication: raising his hands toward heaven. While this last point may be debated, the change of locale, change of clothing, and explicit mention of desacralization all point to a ritual status change on the part of the king.

165

Itamar Singer, Muwatalli's Prayer to the Assembly of Gods through the Storm-god of Lightning (CTH 381) (Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1996), esp. 155-157; cf. Philo Hendrik Jan Houwink ten Cate, “Hittite Royal Prayers,” Numen 16 (1969): 81-98, esp. 87. 166 See also the reference to altars on the roof of the Jerusalem temple in 2 Kgs 23:12.

53

The inclusion of this appendix with the calendrical ritual for Raʾšu Yêni has here been explained in regard to the cultic locus of the Baʿlu temple. This is not to say that the rite might not somehow fit in the calendrical text, but that there is simply no indication as to where that might be. While a correlation between the king’s utterance in l.53 and those in l. 44-45 or l. 46 is tempting, neither can be confirmed. Further, the different times of desacralization in ll. 47-48 and l. 53 advise against a correlation at that point in the monthly ritual. Regardless of its exact relation to the monthly ritual, CAT 1.41:50-55 provides valuable insight into the cultic status of the king. The appendix to CAT 1.87 is quite different from that in CAT 1.41. The text contains a second calendrical ritual, this time for an unknown month beginning with the letter š-. The ritual contains only a notice of purification of the king on the fourteenth (ll. 54-55), a single ram as a burnt offering on the fifteenth (l. 56) and the desacralization of the king at sundown (ll. 56-57). This is then followed by four lines recording personal names and numbers, the exact meaning of which is unknown in light of the single offering attested in the ritual. The ritual shows the importance of the fourteenth and fifteenth of the month, the latter presumably the full moon, with the king’s sacralization bracketing the occasion. Pardee holds that this calendrical ritual is for an intercalculatory month at Ugarit, since Nql is the month that normally follows Raʾšu Yêni.167 This assessment is tentatively accepted here, since it provides the most plausible explanation for the inclusion of the appendix to the calendrical ritual for Raʾšu Yêni. 168

167 168

Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 475-476. But see the reservations raised by Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 576.

54

CAT 1.46//1.109: The text of CAT 1.46 and 1.109 are obviously related, but the exact relationship is hard to determine.169 The first was found in the House of the High Priest on the acropolis, while the latter was discovered at the House of the Priest containing inscribed liver and lung models in the southern acropolis.170 CAT 1.109 contains only days fourteen, fifteen and seventeen and is most likely a copy of the larger text CAT 1.46. Unfortunately, CAT 1.46 is badly damaged with only the first eighteen lines of perhaps fifty or sixty preserved. While it might be assumed that CAT 1.109 faithfully copies ll.18ff. of 1.46, this is only a conjecture. What follows is a full transcript of both texts independently. In the ensuing discussion, we will begin with CAT 1.46:1-8 and then switch to an analysis of 1.109. While this format is not ideal, it is the best that can be formulated given the state of the tablets. CAT 1.46 Text:171 obv. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

[ b ym ḥd]ṯ . slḫ . npš . ṯʿ w [ ṯn ] kbdm [ šl]mm . ṯn šm . w alp . l [ʿ]nt172 [ ]š . il š . bʿl š . dgn š [ ʿṯ]tr . w [.] ʿṯtpl . gdlt . ṣpn . dqt [ a]lp . ʿnt . gdlt . b ṯlṯt mrm [ i]l š . bʿl š . aṯrt . š . ym š . bʿl knp g [dlt ]gdlt . ṣpn . dqt . šrp . w šlmm

169

For CAT 1.46 see editio princeps in Virolleaud, “Les inscriptions cunéiformes de Ras-Shamra,” 309, pl.LXVII; principal studies include Xella, I testi rituali, 55-58; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 164-66; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 26587. For CAT 1.109 see editio princeps in Charles Virolleaud, “Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra (XXIVe Campagne, 1961),” Ugaritica V (1968): 591-93; see also Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 1621; principal studies include De Moor, “Studies II,” 322-26; Xella, I testi rituali, 49-54; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 316-18; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 188-91; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 601-14. See especially the attempt to collate the texts in Meindert Dijkstra, “The Ritual KTU 1.46 (= RS 1.9) and its Duplicates,” UF 16 (1984): 69-73; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 273-80. 170 Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, 100; Bordreuil and Pardee, La trouvaille épigraphique, 16, 300. The text CAT 1.130 was also found in this locale. This text seems to be a school exercise and contains part of the text of CAT 1.46/1.109 but does not contain the phenomena that are the focus of our interest. and has therefore been excluded from this study. See discussion in Dijkstra, “Duplicates,” 69-76. 171 There has been an attempt to reconstruct more of the table by Dijkstra, “Duplicates,” 69-76; but his reconstruction has not been followed by most scholars (e.g. Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 265). 172 Reconstruction follows Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 266.

55

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

[ a]lp . l bʿl . w aṯrt . ʿṣrm . l inš [ilm . lʿn173]t . l bbtm . gdlt . ʿrb špš w ḥl [mlk . b ar]bʿt . ʿ[š]rt . yrtḥṣ . mlk . brr [b ym . ml]at . yq[ln ]. ṯn . alpm . yrḫ . . ʿšrt [l bʿl . ṣ]pn . d[q]tm . w [yn]t qrt [w mtntm . w š .] l rm[š .] kbd . w š [l šlm . kbd. al]p w š . [l] bʿl . ṣpn [dqt . l ṣpn . šrp] . w šlmm . kmm w b bt . bʿl . ugr]t kb!174[d]m . w npš [ilib . gdlt . il . š . b]ʿ[l .] š . ʿnt . ṣpn

rev. About 17 lines gone up.e. [

]w np[š

]

Translation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

[In the month of … on the day of the ne]w moon, a slḫ-sheep, a neck, as a ṯʿ- sacrifice, and two livers [ communion]offering, two rams and a bull to [ʿA]natu [ ] a ram; (to) ʾIlu, a ram; (to) Baʿlu, a ram; (to) Daganu, a ram; [ ʿAṯ]taru and ʿAṯtapal, a cow; (to) Ṣapānu, a ewe; [ a bul]l; (to) ʿAnatu, a cow. On the third (day) MRM175 [ ] to ʾIlu, a ram; (to) Baʿlu, a ram; (to) ʿAṯiratu, a ram; (to) Yammu, a ram; (to) Winged Baʿlu, a c[ow;] [ ] a cow; (to) Ṣapānu, a ewe – all as burnt offerings, and as communion offerings: [ a b]ull to Baʿlu and ʾAṯiratu; two birds to the ʾInāšu[ʾIīma; to ʿAna]tu in the midst176 of the houses, a cow. The sun sets and [the king] is profaned. [On the four]teenth day, the king washes himself pure. [On the day of the full] moon, two bulls are felled (for) Yariḫu. A feast177 [to Baʿlu of Ṣa]pānu: two e[we]s and a domestic do[v]e; [two loins and a ram] for RMŠ; a liver and a ram [to Šalimu; a liver of a bul]l and a ram to Baʿlu of Ṣapānu;

173

CAT has [ilm. gdl]t in the break. However, this creates interpretive problems, especially in light of the recent arguments for the nonexistence of deity BBT; see Donna Freilich, “Is There an Ugaritic Deity Bbt?,” JSS 31 (1986): 119-130. Therefore, one must posit either 1) an additional cow hanging at the end, without a recipient (e.g. Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 279-280 n.73), 2) a linking of a cow to the profanation formula that follows (e.g. Dijkstra, “Duplicates,” 73), or 3) posit a different reconstruction for the break. While Freilich posits the verbal form ynkt as a possible reconstruction (Freilich, “Is There an Ugaritic Deity Bbt?,” 127-128), it seems more likely that the text lacks another offering recipient. Given the visible t and space considerations, the most likely deity is ʿAnatu. 174 Pardee keeps the unique kkbm, noting that the sequence kbdm w npš would be unique in this text, and that the word kkbm is attested in both CAT 1.46:16 and its copy 1.109:12 (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 286). However, most scholars amend the text to read kbdm (see discussion and bibliography in Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 273 n. 55). 175 Several different readings are possible, but none is confirmable due to the break which begins the following line. Del Olmo Lete translates mrm as “excellency” (Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 279). Dijkstra has “high place” (Dijkstra, “Duplicates,” 72-73). Xella takes mrm as a dual form of mr “son” and holds it is a colloquial reference to two young animals (Xella, I testi rituali, 58). Pardee breaks the words differently in l.5 and reads b ṯlṯ tmrmr “on the third day, dates” (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 277-279). 176 The phrase lbbtm is here take as l + b + btm, following Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 281. 177 The relation of the word ʿšrt to the previous phrase is difficult to surmise. Here I follow Pardee and Xella in seeing yrḫ as the referent for the sacrifices earlier in the line and ʿšrt as a noun with the meaning “feast” (see Ibid., 283-284 n.86; Xella, I testi rituali, 52).

56

15. 16. 17. 18.

[a ewe for Ṣapānu – all as burnt offering.] And as communion offering: the same. [And in the temple of Baʿlu of Ugarit:] two livers and a neck; [(to) ʾIluʾibī, a cow; (to) ʾIlu, a ram; (to) Ba]ʿlu, a ram; (to) ʿAnatu of Ṣapānu, [a bull and a ram]

CAT 1.109 Text: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

b arbʿt . ʿšr[t] yrtḥṣ . mlk . b[rr] b ym . mlat tqln . alpm . yrḫ . ʿṣrt . l bʿ[l ṣpn] dqtm . w ynt . qr[t] w mtntm . [[k]] š l rmš w kbd . w š . l šlm kbd alp . w š . l bʿl ṣpn dqt l ṣpn . šrp . w šlmm kmm . w b bt . bʿl . ugrt kkdm . w npš . ilib gdlt . il š . bʿl š . ʿnt ṣpn . alp . w š . pdry š šrp . w šlmm ilib š bʿl ugrt š . bʿl ḫlb š yrḫ š . ʿnt ṣpn . alp w š . pdry š . ddmš . š w b urbt . ilib š

low.e. 20. bʿl . alp w š rev.

21. dgn . š . il tʿḏr178 22. bʿl š . ʿnt š . ršp š 23. šlmm. ------------------------------24. w šnpt . il š 25. l ʿnt . ḥlš . ṯn šm 26. l gṯrm . ǵṣb šmal 27. d alpm . w alp w š 28. šrp . w šlmm kmm 29. l bʿl . ṣpn b ʿrʿr 30. pamt ṯlṯm š l qẓrt 31. ṯlḥn . bʿlt . bhtm 32. ʿlm . ʿlm . gdlt l bʿl 33. ṣpn . ḫlb x[x]xd . d[q]t 34. l ṣpn[ š . l ]bʿl . ug[rt š]179

178

CAT 109:21 has .š at the end of the line. Dijkstra sees these signs as a scribal error (Dijkstra, “Duplicates,” 74). New examination of the text confirms this, but the scribal error was modern not ancient (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 602). 179 Following here the reconstruction in CAT. Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 602 does not reconstruct at the end of l.34 and so his offering/deity order changes in ll.35-36. Del Olmo Lete, however, sees a reverse order in l. 36, a deliberate syntactic inversion similar to ll.5-6 and l.12 (see Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 275, n.59).

57

35. ilib . gdlt l bʿl[ ṣpn(?) ] 36. ugrt [. ʿ]nt ṣpn[ xxx] 37. šlm[m]

Translation: 1. On the fourteen[th] (day) 2. the king washes himself pu[re]. 3. On the day of the full moon 4. two bulls are felled 5. (for) Yariḫu. A feast for Baʿ[lu of Ṣapānu] 6. two ewes and a domestic dove 7. two loins and a ram to RMŠ 8. a liver and a ram to Šalimu, a liver 9. of a bull and a ram to Baʿl Ṣapānu; 10. one ewe to Ṣapānu – all as burnt offering. And as communion offering: 11. the same. And in the temple of Baʿlu of Ugarit: 12. two livers and a neck; (to) ʾIluʾibī, 13. a cow; (to) ʾIlu, a ram; (to) Ba]ʿlu, a ram; (to) ʿAnatu 14. of Ṣapānu, a bull and a ram; (to) Pidrayu, a ram – 15. all as burnt offering. And as a communion offering: (to) ʾIluʾibī, a ram 16. (to) Baʿlu of Ugarit, a ram; (to) Baʿlu of Ḫalab, a ram; 17. (to) Yariḫu, a ram; (to) ʿAnatu of Ṣapānu, a bull 18. and a ram; (to) Pidrayu, a ram; (to) Dadmiš, a ram. 19. And in the niche, (to)ʾIluʾibī, a ram; 20. (to) Baʿlu, a bull and a ram; 21. (to) Daganu, a ram; (to) the helper gods 22. of Baʿlu, a ram; (to) ʿAnatu, a ram; (to) Rašpu, a ram – 23. all as communion offering. ------------------------------24. And as an elevated offering:180 (to) ʾIlu, a ram; 25. to ʿAnatu ḤLŠ181, two rams; 26. to the Gaṯarūma, the left ǴṢB182 27. of two bulls, and a bull and a ram – 28. all as burnt offering. And as communion offering: the same. 29. To Baʿlu of Ṣapānu with a tamarisk 30. thirty times, a ram on the brazier183 31. of the table of Baʿlatu-Bahatīma. 32. Two days later, a cow to Baʿlu 33. Ṣapānu of Ḫalab; the liver of a ewe 34. to Ṣapānu; [a ram to] Baʿlu of Uga[rit; a ram] 35. to ʾIluʾibī; a cow to Baʿlu [of Ṣapānu? of] 36. Ugarit; [to ʿA]natu of Ṣapānu [(some offering)] 37. As a communion offe[ring]

180

Del Olmo Lete sees šnpt as a general offering type of which šrp and šlmm may be specific offerings (Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 609). 181 The term ḥlš is a hapax. An unknown place name is posited by De Moor, “Studies II,” 325, while a correlation with Hebrew ‫ חלש‬is suggested by Xella, I testi rituali, 54 who translates the text “ʿAnat della devastazione.” Whether geographical or descriptive, the term is in some way an epithet of ʿAnatu. 182 Ǵṣb is some poorly understood part of a bull’s body, see Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 327. 183 The term qẓrt is a biform of qṭr (Xella, I testi rituali, 54), and the translation here follows Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 275. Pardee’s proposal of a female cultic functionary raises more problems than it answers and is provisionally rejected (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 612).

58

Discussion: The extant text of CAT 1.46//1.109 contains rites for the first, third, fourteenth, fifteenth and seventeenth of an unknown month. The ritual begins in 1.46:1-5 with rites for the new moon. These rites contain the unique proscription of a slḫ-sheep, a reference to a ṯaʿu sacrifice, as well as a series of provisional offerings of an unknown type.184 The third day proceeds in much the same manner (ll. 5-9), with a series of offerings in ll.5-9, with the additional note of the king’s desacralization at sunset (l.10). Here the offerings are defined as burnt and communion offerings in l.7. Curiously, ʿAnatu is referred to as the one “in the midst of the houses” in l.9, an epithet which buttresses her identification as the Baʿlatu Bahatīma in CAT 1.41//1.87 above. The most important element for this study is the reference to desacralization of the king at the end of the day. There is no reference to the king’s purification in the text thus far. Nor is there room to reconstruct such a rubric in any of the breaks. This datum needs to be viewed in light of the structure we find, for example in CAT 1.41:50-55 above. In light of his ritual activity on the roof, the text there clearly envisions the king in a purified state. Neither the king’s washing, nor his movement up to the roof, nor even his donning of non-fine (non-royal) garments is mentioned in the text; but all may be assumed by what the text does specify in comparison with CAT 1.41//1.87.185 Likewise, the purification of the king has been omitted here in CAT 1.46.

184

Both Dijkstra, “Duplicates,” 71-73 and Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 279 reconstruct l. 2 to read [šrp wšl]mm. However, a more conservative approach to the brake is advisable here in light of the unique assemblage of offerings in the extant text. 185 This logic has to be used carefully; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 124-125 takes this line of reasoning to a tendentious extreme.

59

The ritual then skips to the fourteenth day of the month (CAT 1.46:10//1.109:1-2). The only activity mentioned on this day is the king washing himself pure. This terse note parallels the similar succinct description of the thirteenth of Raʾšu Yêni (CAT 1.41:3) above. The following day, the fifteenth, is explicitly called the full moon; and the bulk of CAT 1.109 contains the rites for this day (ll. 3-31). The similarities between CAT 1.46//1.09 and 1.41//1.87 again come to the fore in that 1.46//1.09 specifies an extensive series of offerings in several different cultic locales for the full moon in a manner similar to 1.41//1.87. In ll. 3-11 the day begins with a series of burnt and communion offerings in an unknown location. This shifts to a second series of offerings in ll. 11-28 explicitly at the temple of Baʿlu of Ugarit. A third cultic locale, the niche, is mentioned in ll. 19-23 where only communion offerings are offered. As was noted above, I provisionally understand this location as inside the temple of Baʿlu. After this third series, CAT 1.109 has an horizontal line after which begins a series of elevated offerings. With del Olmo Lete, I am inclined to see the tablet line as significant and take the new series of burnt and communion offerings in ll. 24-28 as being under the larger category of elevated offerings.186 The day ends with a curious and unique offering “on the brazier” in ll. 29-31. While the offering involves a tamarisk and is presented to Baʿlu of Ṣapānu, little else is certain. The offering seems to be distinct from the elevated offerings that come before it; and while offered to Baʿlu, it is on the table of Baʿlatu-Bahatīma (i.e. ʿAnatu). Since the locus of activity was last indicated in l.11 as the Temple of Baʿlu, it is probable that the table of Baʿlatu-Bahatīma was in the temple of Baʿlu as well. As with rites for the full moon in the month of Raʾšu Yêni, the full moon rites for this month also seem to focus exclusively on the temple of Baʿlu.

186

“The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 609; Canaanite Religion, 276; contra Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 609.

60

Two days later (the seventeenth day of the month) there is another series of communion offerings given exclusively to hypostases of Baʿlu in ll. 32-37. These activities end the ritual table CAT 1.109. The tablet CAT 1.46 continues beyond this, but the text is too fragmentary to reconstruct the cultic actions or dates. While these tablets provide important information regarding the king’s participation vis-à-vis the full moon, their laconic nature raises as many questions as they answer in regard to the importance of these rites.

CAT 1.105: Before a transcription or translation of CAT 1.105 can be offered, a brief note must be made concerning the order in which the columns of the text are read. I here follow the older ordering of the obverse and reverse as found in KTU and not that found in CAT and Pardee.187 Pardee gives two reasons for his reverse ordering. First, he observes that his obverse is the flatter side, a usual indication of the first side written given the nature of the wet clay. His second reason is based on indications from the formation of the lines. Pardee states: in extending line 22’ around the right edge of the tablet and onto the opposite surface, the scribe curved the signs so as to avoid the end of line 5’; incised a line in the clay to separate these signs from the ends of lines 5’ and 6’, and wrote the last three signs squeezed in under the last two signs of line 6’.188

187

For editio princeps see Virolleaud, “Les nouveaux textes,” 588-90, 592; Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 11-15. Previous studies include De Moor, “Studies II,” 318-22; Fisher, “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit,” 485-51; Xella, I testi rituali, 35-42; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 314-15; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 181-84; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 246-53; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 574-587. It is on 574-79 that he makes his argument for the new orientation of the tablet. See also the response by Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 603. 188 Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 41.

61

While these characteristics seem to suggest a new order for the tablet, there are problems with this analysis. The most daunting is the lack of verifiable evidence. Neither the published photos nor the hand copies by Pardee verify his claim of a substantial difference to the curvature of the tablet sides.189 Even if one grants his assessment of the shape of the tablet, it is just as possible that the phenomena noted by Pardee are the result of a subsequent correction of the text. CAT notes many mistakes on the tablet, suggests that it might be a scribal exercise, and holds that the line that Pardee refers to above was incised later as a correction to the tablet.190 Further, there is also the question as to why the tablet would have been incorrectly ordered at the outset, if the differences noted by Pardee were so obvious. Two facts argue in favor of the older orientation. The month of Ḫiyyāru is metioned on both sides of the tablet; and the expected structure of such ritual tablets begins with the phrase “yrḫ [month name],” as we find here. These internal criteria coupled with the probability that the tablet’s curvature has been affected by subsequent editing lead me to maintain the older orientation of the tablet. Text: 1. yrḫ . ḫyr . b ym ḥdṯ ------------------------------2. alp . w š . l bʿlt bhtm ------------------------------3. b arbʿt ʿšrt . bʿl 4. ʿrkm ------------------------------5. b ṯmnt . ʿšrt . yr 6. tḥṣ . mlk brr ------------------------------7. ʿlm . tzǵ . b ǵb . ṣpn ------------------------------8. nskt . ksp . w ḫrṣ ṯṯ ṯn šm l btbt ------------------------------189

For photos see Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, La Religión Cananea: Según la Liturgia de Ugarit: Estudio Textual (AuOr 3; Sabadell, Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1992), plates XVIII-XIX; for hand copies see Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 1280, fig. 18. 190 CAT, 121.

62

9. alp . w š šrp . alp šlmm 10. l bʿl . ʿṣr l ṣpn ------------------------------11. npš . w š . l ršp bbt ------------------------------12. ʿṣrm l inš ilm ------------------------------13. [xxxxxxxxxx] dqtm … rev. … ------------------------------14. [b ]ǵb . ršp mhbn š ------------------------------15. šrp . w ṣpn ḫršḫ ------------------------------16. ʿlm . b ǵb ḫyr ------------------------------17. ṯmn l ṯlṯm ṣin 18. šbʿ alpm ------------------------------19. bt. bʿl . ugart . ṯn šm ------------------------------20. ʿlm . l ršp . mlk ------------------------------21. alp w š . l bʿlt 22. bh!tm š . iṯtqb ------------------------------23. w š . nbkm w . š 24. gt mlk {š}191 . ʿlm low.e. 25. l kṯr . ṯn ʿlm 26. tzǵm . ṯn šm pr 27. hz

Translation: 1. (In) the month of Ḫiyyāru, on the day of the new moon ------------------------------2. A bull and a ram to Baʿlatu- Bahatīma ------------------------------3. On the fourteenth, (to) Baʿlu 4. two ʿRK-offerings. ------------------------------5. On the eighteenth, 6. the king washes himself pure. ------------------------------7. The next day, a TZǴ-offering192 in the sacrificial pit of Ṣapānu. ------------------------------8. One object cast of silver, two of gold193, (and) two rams to Bittu-Bêti.194

191

Following Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 251 nn.105-106 in seeing the š here as a scribal error. From Hur. tašuḫḫe – see Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 884. While tǵz seems to have a meaning related to taxing or putting things in order, the exact sense escapes us. See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 585; Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 604-605.

192

63

------------------------------9. A bull and a ram as a burnt offering; a bull as a communion offering 10. to Baʿlu; a bird to Ṣapānu ------------------------------11. A neck and a ram to Rašpu in the house.195 ------------------------------12. Two birds to the ʾInāšu-ʾIlīma 13. [ ] two ewes break of uncertain length ------------------------------14. [In] the sacrificial pit of Rašpu MHBN,196 a ram ------------------------------15. (as?) a burnt offering, and a plated bowl. ------------------------------16. The next day, in the sacrificial pit of Ḫiyyāru: ------------------------------17. thirty-eight of the flock 18. seven bulls; ------------------------------19. (In) the Temple of Baʿlu of Ugarit, two rams. ------------------------------20. The next day, to Rašp MLK ------------------------------21. a bull and a ram; to Baʿlatu22. Bahatīma, a ram of IṮTQB197 ------------------------------23. and a ram of NBKM and a ram 24. of GTMLK. The next day 25. to Koṯaru, two rams. The next day, 26. a TZǴ-offering, two rams and a young bull 27. from HZ

Discussion: Provisionally the text of CAT 1.105 is portioned into nine sections, one for each attested day of ritual activity. Due to the unfortunate break between ll. 13 and 14 of the tablet and the lack of fixed temporal indicators on the reverse, the exact sequence of rites 193

This reading is quite conjectural. For a similar translation see Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 585-586, for objections see Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 604-605. Xella suggests “ingot” for nskt, which is the sense taken here with cast object (Xella, I testi rituali, 40). See also “statue” in Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 314 n. 8a. 194 Mentioned also in CAT 1.112:28. 195 For arguments against seeing bbt as a deity see Freilich, “Is There an Ugaritic Deity Bbt?,” 119-129. 196 Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 315 see mhbn (as well as bbt in l.11 and mlk l.20) as toponyms, but note the reservations to this assessment in Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 580-582. 197 IṮTQB (l.22), NBKM (l.23), GTMLK(l.24), and HZ

(l.26) all seem to be toponyms.

64

after the lacuna is impossible to determine. The present discussion however will be structured simply around the rites found on the verso and recto of the tablet. The text begins with a calendrical notation stating that the ritual commences on the new moon of Ḫiyyāru.198 The only activity noted on the new moon is an unclassified offering of a bull and a ram to Baʿlatu-Bahatīma (l.2).The text then skips to the fourteenth of the month where two ʿrk offerings are given to Baʿlu. The meaning of the term ʿrkm is questionable. Some have even taken the term as an epithet for Baʿlu;199 but given its place in the ritual sequence, the word needs to be an offering of some type; but beyond this the function of the offering is pure conjecture.200 What is most interesting is that the fourteenth (either the full moon, or the day preceding it) is accompanied neither by a notice of the king’s purification nor any royal activity. The contrast between these rites for the new and full moon here and those in CAT 1.41//1.87 or 1.46//1.109 is quite apparent. The rites here in 1.105 are shorter and lack the usual sequence of šrp and slmm offerings. While this might be due to the nature of the tablet (as a scribal exercise), the difference in focus at least is quite pronounced. The focus of the ritual action in CAT 1.105 begins on the eighteenth day with the purification of the king and enactment of a sacral state (ll.5-6). This is followed on the next day with a tzǵ offering, a pit ritual for Ṣapānu, and offerings to Bittu-Bêti, Baʿlu, Ṣapānu, Rašpu and the ʾInāšu-ʾIlīma (ll.7-13). While the completion of the day’s activities is uncertain due to the loss of perhaps as much of a third of the tablet, the lack of reference 198

On the month of Ḫiyyāru see Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 25; Cohen, Calendars, 374; Theo De Jong and Wilfred Hugo van Soldt, “Redating an Early Solar Eclipse Record (KTU 1.78). Implications for the Ugaritic Calendar and for the Secular Accelerations of the Earth and Moon,” JEOL 30 (1987-88): 71. 199 See Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 314, n. 4a; Xella, I testi rituali, 28, 38; and the translation note for CAT 1.112:2, note 246 below. 200 See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 583-585; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 249, n. 96; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 182, n. 122.

65

to any royal activity is striking. The king is purified on the eighteenth, but the extant activity on the nineteenth gives us no clue as to why. The verso of the tablet contains rites for at least five days. On the first of these a burnt offering and a plated bowl are presented at the sacrificial pit of Rašpu MHBN (ll.1415). The following day, thirty eight flock animals and seven bulls are presumably offered in the same fashion at the sacrificial pit of Ḫiyyāru (ll.16-18), accompanied by two rams at the temple of Baʿlu (l.19). The next day has further offerings to Rašpu, this time of MLK, as well as to Baʿlatu-Bahatīma (ll.20-23). The day of after that, an offering is made to Koṯaru (l.2425). And the text ends with more tzǵ offerings (l.25-27). Of all the days on the recto, the “second” has the most victims (ll.16-19). In addition, the locale at the beginning of the day is the ǵb “sacrificial pit” of Ḫiyyāru. In light of the presence of this month in other second millennium Syrian cultic calendars, it is likely that this location is named for the month itself. It is unclear however, if this ǵb is the same as the ones for Rašpu (ll.14-15) or for Ṣapānu (l. 7). The reference to the Temple of Baʿlu in the rite following this most exorbitant of the ritual might indicate that one or all of these pits are inside the temple. However, there is no archaeological data for such a location.201

CAT 1.106: A word of justification is required for the inclusion of CAT 1.106 under what I have here termed monthly calendrical rituals.202 The text does not begin with reference to the beginning of a month, nor is the beginning of the text lost, so as to warrant a plausible 201

The excavation of the temple of Baʿlu proceeded well below the floor level of the temple, thus erasing any possible data in this regard. See Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, 107-108. 202 For editio princeps see Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 26-30. Other studies include Xella, I testi rituali, 81-85; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 324-25; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 185-87; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 219-32; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 588-600.

66

reconstruction of a lost monthly header. Rather, the text begins with an horizontal line before l.1. What is more, the first line of the text begins with a recipient deity but lacks an offering (the two birds at the end of the line go, as always, with the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma in the following line). These oddities have been interpreted in three ways: 1) Many scholars simply take the phrase l ršp as the heading for the text and identify this ritual with one referenced in CAT 1.91:11 “When the Rašpāmi enter the palace.”203 2) Pardee supposes that CAT 1.106 is part of a multi-tablet ritual series.204 3) Finally, del Olmo Lete holds the line corresponds to those found after the heading in other ritual texts (e.g. CAT 1.41; 1.87; 1.105; 1.112). Such a heading was probably omitted accidentally here by a later copyist and would have included the name of the month as well as the victim for the first offering.205 The first suggestion would provide a unique heading that still fails to explain the lack of chronological indicator in the text. The second theory posits the existence of another entire second tablet which would either contain nothing but rites for the first week of the month or rites for a previous month as well, either of which would be a unique and unattested phenomenon at Ugarit. While positing an omitted line, the third suggestion seems the most probable in light of the ritual scribal practice attested at Ugarit. As such, CAT 1.106 is included with the monthly calendrical rituals. Text: ------------------------------1. l ršp . ḥgb . ʿṣrm 2. l inš . ilm . šrp 3. ydbil . gdlt . ya 4. ršil . gdlt 5. ʿmtr . gdlt . npš 6. w š . l ršp mhb[n] 7. šrp . ʿṣrm[ l inš] 203

See Herdner, Ug. VII, 28; Xella, I testi rituali, 83; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 324; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 185. Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 591-593. 205 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 220. 204

67

8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

il[m ] bn m206[lk w bnt]207 mlk . bt ml[k ] š . l pdr {.} y[ ] bt . mlk . y[ š]bʿ ṣin . ḫmnh . š . qdšh ʿlyh . š ḫmnh . nkl š kbmh . w šr yšr šr . pamt208 . l pn mlk . pṭh yd. mlk

low.e.

18. gdlt . b ṯmn . gn 19. [n]pš . w arbʿ rev.

20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

ʿšrh . dqt w šbʿ . gdlt . w k l . šbšlt . dg . gnh ṯb rgm . b gn . w ḥl mlk . b ṯn . l ʿšrm tuṣl . šlḥmt . b ḫmš l ʿṣrm . yrtḥṣ . mlk brr . w l ll [[l]] tʿr[k] ksy . ʿlm tṣu šlḥm[t] tšʿ . ṣin . w alp[ ] w uz . išm . ar[ ] dqtm . w . gdlt . x[xx] l arṣy ṯṯb rgm w ḥl mlk

Translation: [In the month of Gannu, on the new moon] -------------------------------209 1. to Rašpu ḤGB210; two birds 206

Only bn is clearly visible on the tablet. It seems most probable that given the head of the horizontal and the tail of the vertical still visible, the third letter is m. See La Religión Cananea, plate XX. Contra Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 590 who sees a t. 207 Reconstruction following CAT 1.112:6-7; compare Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 231. 208 Following the transcription of Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 589. 209 Del Olmo Lete maintains that the line at the top is important and that it indicates a header which a scribe forgot to include (Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 220). Pardee holds that the line indicates the tablet was part of a multi-tablet series (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 593). In response, Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 605-06 states: The supposition of two sequential tablets is, I think, very unlikely without textual parallel in these cultic records…. [T]he only epigraphic element is the horizontal ruled line which the epigraphist [Pardee] dismisses in this case as meaningless and which I have never proposed as evidence of multiple tablets, but as a hint of a heading possibly omitted by an oversight. 210 There is little consensus for the meaning of the term ḥgb. It could be translated “grasshopper” or even “locust” based on ‫ חגב‬in Lev 11.22. Fulco has proposed “doorman, gatekeeper” based on an Arabic cognate ḥâjib in William J. Fulco, The Canaanite God Rešep (American Oriental Series 8; New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1976), 44. Del Olmo Lete holds that ḥgb is a term for an offering (Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual

68

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

to the ʾInāšu-ʾIlīma – as a burnt offering. (To) Yaddubuʾilu, a cow; (to) Yaʾarrišuʾilu, a cow; (to) ʿAmmutāru, a cow; a neck and a ram for Rašpu-MHBN – as a burnt offering. Two birds [to the ʾInāšuʾIl[īma ] sons of the k[ing, daughters] of the king, the royal chapel. A ram to Pidrayu. [ ] (In) the royal chapel [ ]seven of the flock in the ḪMN; a ram in the sanctuary; additionally,211 a ram in the ḪMN of Nikkal; a ram in the KBM. And the singer sings ten times before the king; Open the hand of the king:212 a cow. On the eighth of the month of Gannu, a neck and fourteen ewes and seven cows and all types of fish stews in the garden The recitation is repeated in the garden and the king is profaned. On the twenty second (of Gannu), the food stuff is gathered. On the twenty fifth (of Gannu), the king washes himself pure, and in the evening a throne is prepared. The next day, the food stuff is brought out. Nine of the flock, and a bull [XX} and a goose IŠM AR[xx ] two ewes and a cow [xx ] to ʾArṣayu. Repeat the recitation and the king is profaned.

Discussion: The ritual in CAT 1.106 may be divided into three main parts. The first is composed of ll.1-18 which appears to be on the first of the month. The second section comprises the rites for the eighth day of the month (ll. 18-23). The final section consists of rites for the Texts,” 595; Canaanite Religion, 225 n.34); but this understanding fails to make sense of the context of both the terms ršp ḥgb and its parallel ʿnt slḫ (see Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 110 n.105). I here follow Pardee’s example of leaving the term untranslated (Les Textes Rituels, 486). 211 See note 129 above. 212 This line is difficult and the translation is tentative. While Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 226-227 proposes taking yd as “mausoleum,” this would be a hapax both for yd in Ugaritic, and also in the entire Northwest Semitic corpus. Only in Heb is yd used for a “monument” (e.g. 1 Sam 15:12), and even then it does not mean a mausoleum.

69

twenty-second, twenty-fifth, and twenty-sixth of the month (ll.24-35), with focus appearing to be on the last day. Keeping the introductory discussion of the text in mind, the ritual begins with a complicated rite apparently performed on the new moon (ll. 1-18).213 Rašpu and the ʾInāsuʾIlīma receive burnt offerings followed by a second series of burnt offerings to Yaddubuʾilu, Yaʾarrišuʾilu, ʿAmmutāru and again Rašpu and the ʾInāsu-ʾIlīma (ll. 1-8). The three names Yaddubuʾilu, Yaʾarrišuʾilu and ʿAmmutāru also occur in the CAT 1.102. This latter text poses difficult interpretive problems. The obverse and lower edge (ll.1-14) record the names of sixteen deities—most known from other Ugaritic ritual and narrative texts. The reverse of the tablet and upper edge (ll.15-28) contain fourteen additional names, all of which are compounds like the three here in CAT 1.106. Del Olmo Lete holds these are divine throne names of deceased kings of Ugarit.214Given the proximity to the chthonic god Rašpu215 and the possible divine ancestors (the ʾInāšu-ʾIlīma), this connection with divine names of former kings further strengthens del Olmo Lete’s case for a mortuary cult at Ugarit.216 However, Pardee holds these divine names in CAT 1.102:15-28 and here in ll.3-4 are hypostases of the gods mentioned in each phrase,217 and still others hold the names here are not even gods but rather the names humans bringing offerings to the cult.218 While the structure of the ritual here in CAT 1.106 demands these three names be taken as deities, neither the context here nor in 1.102 clearly warrants an equation with deceased kings. 213

It is possible that the lacunae at the ends of ll. 8 or 11 could contain another date. Del Olmo Lete, “Divinos,” 39-69; Canaanite Religion, 168-184. 215 See Fulco, The Canaanite God Rešep. 216 For others of similar persuasion see e.g. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East; Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. 217 Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 522; Dennis Pardee, “A Brief Reply to G. del Olmo Lete's Reply,” Aula Orientalis 16 (1998): 255-260. 218 Johann Jakob Stamm, “Erwägungen zu RS 24.246,” UF 11 (1979): 753-758; Herdner Ug. VII, 29; Schmidt, Israel's Beneficent Dead, 71. 214

70

The day’s activities continue in ll.8-11 where there is apparently a rite involving the sons and daughters of the king. The context is broken but the ritual might be similar to that found in CAT 1.112:6-7 discussed below. In ll. 10 and 12 there is mention of the bt mlk; yet it is unclear if this is the royal palace, the royal chapel in the temple of Baʿlu mentioned in connection to CAT 1.41//1.87 above or the “royal temple” (the so-called “Hurrian Temple”) located just north of the palace complex at Ugarit.219 The provenance of the text, in the Southern Acropolis, does not strongly indicate any of these cultic locales.220 After a small break, there is a series of offerings made at four distinct locations (ll. 12-15): an unspecified ḫmn, an unspecified sanctuary (qdš), the ḫmn of Nikkal, and the kbm. As we saw above in CAT 1.41//1.87, these locations might all be within one temple. Del Olmo Lete draws a corollary between CAT 1.106:12-13 and 1.112:6-7.221 In the former seven ewes are offered in the ḫmn soon after a reference to the royal sons and daughters without an indication of their cultic activity. In the latter, there is an explicit reference to the sons and daughters ascending seven times (presumably to the ḫmn mentioned in 1.112:3) but without an account of the purpose. Looking at both texts, del Olmo Lete would see the royal sons and daughters ascending seven times to the ḫmn to bring the designated offerings. However, there is a better explanation of these seven offerings in CAT 1.106:1213. The day’s ritual activities end with the notice that a singer sings ten times before the king and that the king opens his hand (or that the singer sings ten times, “King, open your hand”). The ten-fold cantillation is reasonably related to the ten victims that are mentioned in ll.12-15: seven flock animals and three rams. As noted above, the opening of the king’s hand is difficult to interpret. That it might be related in some way to the 219

See discussion in Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, 49. Bordreuil and Pardee, La trouvaille épigraphique, 300 221 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 223. 220

71

offerings made in the preceding lines allows for an explanation of its function if not its mechanics. The eighth day of the month of Gannu consists of four offerings in the gn “garden” (ll. 18-22), a liturgical recitation in the garden (l.23), and the desacralization of the king (ll.23-24). The offerings are without explicit recipient and the location “in the garden” is ambiguous. Building upon his funerary (or more accurately, mortuary) interpretation, del Olmo Lete holds that this garden is the royal cemetery.222 Yet both de Tarragon and Dietrich and Loretz hold the garden is an area in one of the temples.223 The note of a liturgical recitation in l.23 comports well with the examples already examined on the fifth and sixth days of Raʾšu Yêni (CAT 1.41:45-46). Particularly germane, both instances in this latter text are inside the temple to Baʿlu. Could this be the context here as well? Regardless, the ritual from the month of Raʾšu Yêni also explicitly shows the king as previously purified before such activity. This correlates well with what we see in the month of Gannu where there is mention of a desacralization of the king after this ritual activity. The final section of the ritual focuses on rites on the twenty-second through twenty-sixth of Gannu (ll. 24-33). On the twenty-second, food stuff is gathered in preparation; and on the twenty-fifth the king enters a sacral state, and a throne is prepared on which the king will presumably sit (see CAT 1.41:6-7). On the following day, the gathered food is brought out. It is uncertain if the series of offerings that follows in ll. 29-32 are the contents of these provisions or are additional offerings. The ritual ends with a recitation, presumably by the king, followed by the usual desacralization.

222

Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, “Liturgia funeraria de los reyes de Ugarit (KTU 1.106),” SEL 3 (1986): 62-64; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 224. 223 Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 325; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 187.

72

Before leaving this text, a brief discussion is needed concerning the supposed funerary/mortuary character of this ritual. As noted above, del Olmo Lete sees here a ritual in the royal cemetery of Ugarit. He posits that the cultic activity on the twenty-sixth is “an anticipation of the ‘otherworldly banquet,’ with the living king as its principal character” or perhaps “a funerary celebration in honor of the dead king(s), in whose honor and under whose presidency that banquet takes place.”224 The deities mentioned, the provisions prepared and the location of the ritual all point to a funerary/mortuary context for del Olmo Lete. However, his argument is tenuous. As we have seen above, his understanding of the deities Yaddubuʾilu, Yaʾarrišuʾilu and ʿAmmutāru as former kings of Ugarit is forced. The provisions prepared likewise give no indication of an “other worldly banquet.” Finally, there is no evidence for his purported location of the ritual. In short, far from being a ritual celebrating and dining with the dead, CAT 1.106 has all the marks of a normal calendrical ritual text.

CAT 1.112: There is a divergence of scholarly opinion as to the traces visible at the end of the first line of this text where the month name would be. Herdner leaves the space after yrḫ blank, while KTU and CAT see ḫy[r …], the month Ḫiyyāru, seen above in CAT 1.105.225 Both Herdner226 and Pardee227 see at most two vertical wedges, indicating perhaps l or ṣ but certainly not ḫ, and there is no sign of a possible y after this. Despite the protest of del

224

Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 229. In editio princeps Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 21-26. Other studies include Xella, I testi rituali, 43-48; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 315-16; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 197-99; Aboud, Die Rolle des Königs, 180-83; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 232-46; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 630-42. 226 Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 23. 227 Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 631. 225

73

Olmo Lete228 that it would be precisely on the edge where secondary wear would occur, it is hard to justify how the triple vertical wedge of ḫ could have deteriorated into a single vertical stroke while the following vertical stroke would be left intact. Therefore, at the risk of obscuring the text, the month name has been left blank. Text: 1. b yrḫ . x[x

] ------------------------------2. ḥdṯ . ḫḏrǵl . x[xxx] ------------------------------3. ṯn šm . ḫmnh . w ṯql 4. ksp . w ṣʿ rgbt. l bʿl[t] 5. bht{.}m š ʿṣrm l in[š] 6. ilm . w bn mlk w bn[t] 7. mlk . tʿln . pamt šbʿ 8. b ṯlṯ . tʿln . ilm b ḫmn 9. [ʿ]rb špš w ḥl mlk . 10. [b ]šbʿ ym . ḥdṯ . yrtḥṣ 11. [ml]k . brr . b ṯmnt . iynm 12. akl . ṯql ksp . w k{b}d 13. yn . l ʿṯtr ḫr . b ʿšt 14. ʿšrh . ṣba špš w ḥ 15. l mlk . b ṯlṯt rev.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

ʿšrt . yrt{.}ḥṣ m lk brr b arbʿt ʿšrt . yrdn . gṯrm mṣdh . ṯn šm l gṯrm w rgm . gṯrm yṯṯb . w qdš . yšr . b ḫmš ʿ šrh . šnpt . il š bʿl ṣ pn š . bʿl ugrt š . ṯn[ šm] l aṯrt . ṯn šm . l btbt [ . w l] ilt mdgl š w aǵt [ x ] w šbʿ . gdlt . w arb[ʿ] ʿšrh . dqt . b ṯ[ṯt ʿš] rt š l btbt . w x[ ] b šbʿt ʿšr[t ] ------------------------------30. iln . ṯlṯt [ ] 31. xxx[x]xxx[ ] low.e.

32. l x[xx]dṯ[ 228

]

Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 613.

74

Translation: 1. In the month of [… ]

-------------------------------

2. (On) the new moon, a ḪḎRǴL-offering229 [… ]

------------------------------Two rams in the ḪMN, and a shekel of silver and a bowl of “respect”230 to BaʿlatuBahatīma; a ram and two birds to the ʾInāšuʾIlīma. And the sons of the king and the daughters of the king will ascend seven times. On the third (day) the gods will ascend to the ḪMN. The sun sets, and the king is profaned. [On the] seventh of the new moon the [kin]g washes himself pure. On the eighth (day), a ʾIY[N]-offering (of) food, a shekel of silver, and a jar of wine to ʿAṯtartu of Ḫurri. On the eleventh (day), the sun rises, and the king is profaned. On the thirteenth (day) the king washes himself pure. On the fourteenth (day) the Gaṯarāma will descend to the tower. Two rams (to) the Gaṯarāma. And the recitation of the Gaṯarāma shall be repeated. And the QDŠ-official shall sing. On the fifteenth, a elevated offering: (to) ʾIlu, a ram; (to) Baʿlu of Ṣapānu, a ram; (to) Baʿlu of Ugarit, a ram; two [rams] to ʾAṯiratu; two rams to Bittu-Bêti; [and to ʾIlatu-Magdali, a ram and AǴT[x] and seven cows and fourteen ewes. On the six[te]nth (day), a ram to Bittu-Bêti, and [… ] On the seventeen[th …] ------------------------------30. iln . three/thirty (two lines illegible)

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

229

The term ḫḏrǵl is a hapax. Derived from Hurrian, at Alalakh it is attested in LÚ.MEŠ ḫa-še-ru-ḫu-li (see Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 388). While some scholars see a cultic functionary in CAT 1.112 (e.g. Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 315), most scholars see an abstract noun indicating some sort of offering or service, e.g. Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 234 n.58; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 197; Xella, I testi rituali, 45. 230 The term rgbt is taken as “mottes de terre” from Heb ‫ רגבים‬by Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 24,26; Xella, I testi rituali, 46 and Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 637-638. While none of the contexts for the root RGB is particularly clear (see Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 732), it is more likely that the root here refers to “fear” or “respect.” See Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 237 n. 62; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 198 n. 166; Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartín, “Beiträge zur ugaritischen Textgeschichte (ii),” 539; Johannes C. De Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra,” UF 1 (1969): 188.

75

Discussion: For del Olmo Lete, CAT 1.112 is a “paradigm of the cult officiated by the king and the royal family.”231 While others have seen it in more general terms as a ritual associated with the royal palace, the role of the king and royal family is prevalent, and a location inside the palace sanctuary is probable.232 The ritual may be divided into ten sections based on the ten days of ritual activity. These ten days may be grouped into three sections based on two criteria: 1) the periodic sacralization/desacralization of the king and 2) the different series of offerings (ḫḏrǵl, ʾyn, and šnpt “elevated”). Both criteria lead to a summation of three “weeks” of activity: the first and third (ll. 1-9), the seventh through the eleventh (ll. 10-14), and the thirteenth through seventeenth (ll. 15-29). As proposed above for CAT 1.41 and 1.46, the first line of the tablet is a heading giving the name of the month (unfortunately now lost) separated by an horizontal line from the first offering (ḫḏrǵl) in l.2, which is also followed by an horizontal line. The purpose of this second line is unclear, the term ʿlm “the next (day)” could fit in the break to justify a second horizontal line, but such a reconstruction is pure speculation. The exact function of the ḫḏrǵl offering is unknown, though the offering itself is attested in Alalakh and is of Hurrian origins.233In ll.3-6 there is a series of offerings possibly all in the ḫmn. A shekel of silver along with a bowl of “respect” is given to Baʿlatu-Bahatīma, perhaps as well as the two rams generally noted in l.3. This is accompanied by a unique offering of a ram to the ʾInāšu-ʾIlīma, as well the customary two birds. All of this is followed by a note that the

231

Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 232. See Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 36. For more on the archaeological context of the royal temple, see Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, 49. 233 See note 229. 232

76

sons and daughters of the king will ascend seven times (ll.6-7). In our discussion of CAT 1.106:12-13 it was posited that the reference in 1.112 might be explained by the seven ewes taken to the ḫmn in 1.106. However, this understanding was rejected in light of an interpretation that fit the context of 1.106 more closely. Here in 1.112, the sevenfold ascent can again be better explained with recourse to another text. In ll.3-6 seven offerings are noted: three rams, a shekel, a bowl, and two birds. The activity of this first group then skips to the third day of the month (ll.8-9). There is a procession of unnamed deities up to the ḫmn.234 As in CAT 1.46:9 the king is desacralized on the third day without any apparent prior sacralization in the month. The next three sections of the ritual provide a group clustered around the events on the eighth (ll. 10-14). On the seventh, the king washes himself pure and enters a sacral state. This is followed in the subsequent activity with an ʾiyn offering of food, a shekel of silver and a jar of wine. The only recipient noted is ʿAṯtartu of Ḫurri, and it must be assumed that she receives all these offerings. The precise function of the first offering is unknown, though a link with sorrow or lamentation is possible.235 The deity ʿAṯtartu of Ḫurri is known as Ištar of Nineveh in Hittite texts.236 The mention of this goddess correlates with the cultic locale known now as the palace sanctuary, just north of the palace of Ugarit. This site was originally designated the “Hurrian Temple” by the excavator based on the

234

Most likely a procession of cult statues, see De Tarragon, Le Culte à Ugarit, 98, 113-15; Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 24. 235 The root could be construed from the common Semitic ʾyn “trouble or sorrow.” See Xella, I testi rituali, 46. It could also be from Egyptian iw “lament” (see Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 234, n. 58). 236 See Trevor Bryce, Life and Society in the Hittite World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 146-147; Gernot Wilhelm, The Hurrians (trans. Jennifer Barnes; Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1989), 51; Wolfram Herman, “ʿṯtr-ḫr,” Welt des Orient 7 (1973-74): 135-136. For scholars who incorrectly translate this as “ʿAṯtartu of the tombs” see Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 289, n. 105; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, "Jahwe und seine Aschera": Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992), 74; De Moor, ARTU, 169, n. 8.

77

find of two small figurines of Hurrian design—one a seated female deity.237 While it would be too much to jump from this chance find to the present reference, the scholarly assumption that the royal temple provides the locus of ritual activity in this text is strengthened by reference to this goddess. At sunrise on the eleventh day the king is desacralized, bracketing off the ritual activity on the eighth. The last five days of ritual activity comprise a single group running from the thirteenth through the seventeenth days of the month (ll. 15-30). This ritual cycle begins with the sacralization of the king on the thirteenth (ll.15-16). The fourteenth day may be construed as the highpoint of the month, and (while not stated explicitly) can safely be identified as the full moon. There are a variety of activities including a procession (ll. 1819), offerings (l. 19) recitation (l.20) and song (l. 21). The first of these is the descent (yrd) of the Gaṯarāma to the tower (mṣd).238 Not surprisingly, del Olmo Lete sees these “mighty ones” (gṯr) as “a functional term for the dead kings.”239 However, this makes little sense in the context of the rite, or the ritual as a whole. Pardee has recently posited that since the verb form yrdn implies a dual,240 the Gaṯarāma here are likely dual as well (hence the present vocalization). He speculates that the duality here might refer to the principal astral deities Šapšu and Yariḫu, or might indicate the god Gaṯaru himself, along with one of these two.241 The reference to the Gaṯarāma descending implies an astral association for Pardee.

237

Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, 49; Claude F. A. Schaeffer, Ugaritica (I; Paris,: P. Guethner, 1939), 128-140; O. Callot, “La région nord du Palais Royal d'Ougarit,” CRAI (1986): 735-755; Y. Cavert, “La maîtrise de l'eau à Ougarit,” CRAI (1989): 308-326. 238 See discussion of Baʿlu’s descent to Kirtu in chapter four. 239 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 306. 240 Josef Tropper, “Aktuelle Probleme der ugaritischen Grammatik,” UF 29 (1997): 672; Ugaritische Grammatik, 634. 241 Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 101, n. 24.; compare his earlier study “RS 1.005 and the Identification of the gṯrm,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991 (ed. J. Quaegebeur; OLA 55; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1993), 301-318.

78

The plural Gaṯarūma are mentioned in CAT 1.43:9 where they are identified as Šapšu, Yariḫu, Gaṯaru and possibly ʿAnatu in a ritual that takes place k tʿrb ʿṯtrt ḫr g[b] “When ʿAṯtartu of Hurri enters the ‘mound’” (CAT 1.43:1). Hence, the relationship between the Hurrian ʿAṯtartu, Gaṯaru and possibly ʿAnatu (in 1.112 under the title of Baʿlat-Bahatīma) is attested in another text. Given this assemblage of deities, the identification of the Gaṯarāma with dead kings seems unlikely. Whatever deities might be behind this term (Šapšu, Yariḫu, Gaṯaru, ʿAnatu, etc.), the term has no clear mortuary connotation. In l. 19 the Gaṯarāma receive a ram apiece. After this the rgm “recitation” of the Gaṯarāma is repeated in l.20. It is unclear if this rgm is the same one that the qdš-official sings, if they are in fact two terms for the same action. If they are construed as separate acts, the first is most likely performed by the king (noted explicitly above in ritual for Raʾšu Yêni). If they are equated, the song might accompany the king offering the rams to the Gaṯarāma (similarly to CAT 106:12-15 where I have posited that the king makes offerings while a singer sings ten times of the king opening his hand). In either situation, the ritual activity on the fourteenth is the most complex of the month, the king’s ritual involvement seems certain and his prior sacralization for the day’s activities is understandable from the context of the rites. The last three attested days of the ritual contain various offerings. On the fifteenth, elevated offerings are given to ʾIlu, Baʿlu (bis), Ṣapānu, ʾAṯiratu, Bittu-Bêti (the “daughter of the house”) and ʾIlatu-Magdali (the “goddess of the tower”), and there are a series of offerings made without a specific referent (ll. 21-27). Of these deities, Bittu-Bêti and ʾIlatuMagdali are the least known. The former is attested in CAT 1.105:8, the latter in 1.29:11. Neither of these texts provides any clues to their function here. On the sixteenth, another

79

ram is offered to Bittu-Bêti (l. 28). The rites for the seventeenth are broken. While there is enough room in the break to posit that the king was desacralized, such a reconstruction is pure speculation. The traces in the last three lines of the tablet do not allow a definitive statement regarding the end of the text. Like the rituals discussed above, CAT 1.112 displays a clear structure around the full moon that involves the sacralization of the king. This text also attests a pattern for the previous “week” of the ritual in days seven through eleven. However, in contrast to previous texts in this study where identifiable locations of the ritual activity have been in the temple of Baʿlu (e.g. CAT 1.41//87), this ritual appears to have been performed in the royal temple adjacent to the royal complex.

CAT 1.119: The text of CAT 1.119 contains a ritual on the recto and half the verso.242 The last eleven lines of the verso contain a votive prayer to Baʿlu. There is a break at the bottom of the recto and perhaps as much as a third of the tablet is lost. The extant ritual text is delineated from the poetic material by a series of horizontal lines between each line of text. This practice is not continued in the poetic lines at the end of the tablet. Text: ------------------------------1. b yrḫ . ibʿlt . b ym [.] šbʿ ------------------------------2. š . l bʿl . rʿkt . b [ ] ------------------------------3. w bt . bʿl . ugrt[ . xx]. š[xx]y[ ] ------------------------------242

For editio princeps see Herdner, “Nouveaux textes,” 31-39. Other studies include Xella, I testi rituali, 25-34;De Moor, ARTU, 171-74; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 206-11; Simon B. Parker, The Pre-biblical Narrative Tradition: Essays on the Ugaritic Poems Keret and Aqhat (Resources for Biblical Study 24; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989), 70-72; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 292-306; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 661-88; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 416-25.

80

4. ʿrb . špš . w ḥl mlk . b šbʿt -------------------------------

5. ʿšrt . y rtḥṣ mlk brr

-------------------------------

6. gdlt . qdš il . gdlt . l bʿlm -------------------------------

7. gdlt . l ǵlm . dqtm . w glt ------------------------------l ǵlmtm . bt ṯʿy . ydbḥ ------------------------------9. w tnrr . bʿd . bt . bʿl ------------------------------10. lgrt . imr . w ynt qrt ------------------------------11. l ṯʿ . b ṯmnt . ʿšrt . ib[ʿ]lt ------------------------------12. alp . l mgdl bʿl . ugrt ------------------------------13. u urm . u šnpt . l ydbḥ ------------------------------14. mlk . bt il. npš . l iš[ḫry] ------------------------------15. npš . l bʿl xx[ ] ------------------------------16. w ʿr . l x[ ] ------------------------------17. l xx[ ] -------------------------------

8.

break… rev. ------------------------------18. [ ]l . 243 [ ] ------------------------------19. itml . ykb[d ] ------------------------------20. b rbʿ . ʿṣrmm . b ḫmš [.] ʿṣr ------------------------------21. mm . w kbd . w. š šrp244 . l bʿl ------------------------------22. ugrt . b bt b šbʿ . tdn ------------------------------23. mḥllm . ʿrb . špš . ------------------------------24. w ḥl mlk . hn . šmn . šlm ------------------------------25. bʿl . mtk . mlkm . rišyt 26. k gr ʿz . ṯǵrkm . qrd 27. ḥmytkm . ʿnkm . l . bʿl tšun 28. y bʿlm . [a]l [.] tdyʿz l ṯǵrn 243 244

CAT sees ṯn here. Reading follows Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 664. Reading p not t, with Ibid., 676.

81

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

y . qrd [l ]ḥmytny . ibr y bʿl . nšqdš . mḏr bʿl nmlu . [b]245kr bʿl . nš[q]dš ḥtp bʿl [.] nmnlu . ʿšrt . bʿl . n[ʿ] šr. qdš bʿl . nʿl . ntbt bt [. bʿl] ntlk . w šmʿ [. b]ʿl . l . ṣlt[km] ydy . ʿz . l ṯǵrkm [. qrd] l ḥmytkm[ ]

Translation: ------------------------------1. In the month of ʾIbaʿlatu, on the seventh day ------------------------------2. a ram to Baʿlu RʿKT246 […] ------------------------------3. And in the temple of Baʿlu of Ugarit [… ] ------------------------------4. The sun sets, and the king is profaned. On the seven------------------------------5. teenth (day), the king will wash himself pure. ------------------------------6. A cow (to)247 the sanctuary of ʾIlu; a cow to the Baʿlūma; ------------------------------7. a cow to Ǵalmu; two ewes and a cow ------------------------------8. to the two Ǵalatu’s – the family of the house ṯāʿiyu248 will sacrifice249 (the preceding). ------------------------------9. And there shall be burnt250 in the altar room251 of the temple of Baʿlu ------------------------------10. of Ugarit a lamb and a domestic dove ------------------------------11. as ṯaʿū sacrifices. On the eighteenth (day) of ʾIbaʿlatu ------------------------------12. a bull for the tower of Baʿlu of Ugarit ------------------------------13. both a flame offering and a elevated offering shall be sacrificed ------------------------------245

CAT sees here dkr. Reading follows Ibid., 664. Several scholars seek to amend the text: e.g. “u!g!rt” (sic!) Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 296 n.10; ʿrkt, “degli edifice” Xella, I testi rituali, 26, 28. The former proposal is improbable since it would require three of four characters to be written incorrectly (and for the name of the town of Ugarit, no less!). The latter proposal is based on a similar term ʿrkm in CAT 1.105:4, which has been taken as an offering type in this study. It is unclear what the relationship between the masc. plural or dual form in 1.105:4 and the feminine form here in 1.119:2 could be. In light of these problems, the word is left untranslated at this time. 247 It is unclear from the text if the offering is in the sanctuary (qdš) or to the sanctuary. Most likely this is an indirect way of referring to the deity, indicating the place of offering and the recipient at the same time; see discussion in Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 296 n.13. 248 On the role of the ṯāʿiyu see Wilfred Hugo Van Soldt, “The Title ṮʿY,” UF 20 (1988): 313-321. 249 Taking the bt ṯʿy as the subject of ydbḥ; see De Moor, ARTU, 172; Xella, I testi rituali, 30-31. 250 The word tnrr is a hapax, taken from the root NW/YR in the R stem. It is here taken as a passive following Wyatt, Religious Texts, 418. 251 The translation of bʿd follows Ibid., 418 n.15; cf. use of the term in CAT1.23:12. 246

82

14. by the king. (In) the sanctuary of ʾIlu, a neck to ʾIšḫaryu ------------------------------15. a neck to Baʿlu [ … ] ------------------------------16. and a donkey [ … ] ------------------------------17. to [ … ] ------------------------------(break of indeterminate length)

18. [ ]l . [

] ------------------------------19. xtml . ykx[ ] ------------------------------20. On the fourth (day of the ritual?) two birds. On the fifth (day of the ritual?) two ------------------------------21. birds and a liver and a ram as a burnt offering to Baʿlu ------------------------------22. of Ugarit in the temple. On the seventh day (of the ritual?), the “desacralizers” ------------------------------23. come near. The sun sets ------------------------------24. and the king is profaned. Behold the pure oil of ------------------------------25. Baʿlu, the libation offering of the kings, of first quality. 26. When a strong foe attacks your gate, a warrior 27. your walls, you shall lift your eyes to Baʿlu (and say): 28. o Baʿlu, if you drive the strong one from our gate, 29. the warrior from our walls, a bull, 30. o Baʿlu, we shall consecrate; a vow, o Baʿlu, 31. we shall fulfill; a [firs]tborn, o Baʿlu, we shall consecrate; 32. a ḤTP-offering, o Baʿlu, we shall fulfill; a feast, o Baʿlu, 33. we shall [of]fer. To the sanctuary, o Baʿ[lu], we shall ascend; the path of the temple, [o Baʿlu,] 34. we shall walk. And Baʿ[lu will he]ar [your] prayer. 35. He will drive the strong foe from your gate, [the warrior] 36. from your walls [ approximately eight signs missing]

Discussion: The structure of CAT 1.119 is not apparent due to the break at the bottom of the recto. The recto records rites on the seventh (ll. 1-4), the seventeenth (ll. 4-11) and the eighteenth (ll. 11-17?) of the month of ʾIbaʿlatu. The verso records rites on the fourth (l. 20), the fifth (ll. 20-22) and seventh days (ll.22-24) either of the festival that begins on the seventeenth (similar to CAT 1.41//1.87) or of a new month that begins in the break. Finally, 83

there is a new unit that contains a plea for help to Baʿlu, apparently at a time of military siege (ll. 24-36). This last poetic unit is not relevant for our study and will be analyzed only in connection to the ritual material that precedes it. The text begins on the seventh of the month of ʾIbaʿlatu with a ram to Baʿlu rʿkt.252 The type and location of this offering is unclear, possibly due to the poor state of the tablet’s first three lines. However, the ritual activity then moves to the temple of Baʿlu (ll.34). The day ends with a note of the king’s desacralization, but there is no room in the preceding breaks to have normal rites of lustration. On the seventeenth day, the ritual activity begins again with the sacralization of the king (ll. 4-5). In contrast to every other ritual in this study, this sacralization is immediately followed by a series of offerings.253 Unique as well in this study is the following offering of a cow to the qdš il “sanctuary of ʾIlu.” I have taken this as a circumlocution of an offering both to ʾIlu and an indication of the cultic locale for the offering.254 The offering to ʾIlu is followed by offerings to the Baʿlūma (the various hypostases of Baʿlu), Ǵalmu (the “lad”) and the two Ǵalatu’s (“lasses”).255 All of these are explicitly said to be offered by the house of the ṯāʿiyu—a priestly title at Ugarit.256 This is followed with an offering of a lamb and a domestic dove as ṯaʿū offerings in the altar room of the temple of Baʿlu (ll. 9-11). The unique mention of a cultic official, the ṯāʿiyu priest, as well as and the ṯaʿū sacrifices is significant. In light of the unique situation that this day’s rites presents by combining the sacralization

252

On the problems interpreting rʿkt see note 246. The only ritual that has any activity at all on the day of the king’s lustration is the twelfth of Gannu (CAT 1.106:25-27) where the king is sacralized and in the evening a throne is prepared. However, both these rites in CAT 1.106 are preparatory rites for the following day’s activities. 254 See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 671; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 417; De Moor, ARTU, 172. 255 See discussion of the interpretive issues involved in Wyatt, Religious Texts, 417-418; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 207, n. 191; Herdner Ug. VII, 32. 256 Van Soldt, “The Title ṮʿY,” esp. 320-321. 253

84

of the king and various offerings, the reference to the ṯāʿiyu priest indicates that the king was not involved in these rites. On the eighteenth, there is an explicit reference to the king offering a bull as a flame and elevated offering for the tower of Baʿlu of Ugarit (ll. 11-14), perhaps verifying the previous hypothesis that the ṯaʿu offering implies a lack of royal involvement. Additionally, it is possible that the offering to the tower of Baʿlu might function similarly to that of the sanctuary of ʾIlu in l.6, indicating both location and recipient simultaneously. As such it is similar to the roof ritual in the appendix to CAT 1.41. The next sacrifice is offered in the bt il—a locus that I have previously identified as inside the temple of Baʿlu in the discussion of CAT 1.41//1.87. The location might also be identical to that of the “sanctuary of ʾIlu” in l.6 above.257 The last rite of the day (l. 16) involves the apparent sacrifice of a donkey. While such an offering is only mentioned in Ugaritic here and in CAT 1.40:26, the offering was also known in the larger North Syrian environment. The exact function here cannot be ascertained due to the breaks.258 At this point the recto breaks off. When the text becomes legible on the verso we find three short rites for the fourth, fifth and seventh of either a new month, or the preceding ritual from the recto. The latter is tentatively embraced here. The fourth day notes two birds without stating either recipient deity or location (l. 20). The fifth notes offerings for Baʿlu of Ugarit in his temple (ll.20-21). Finally, the seventh notes the desacralization of the king (ll.22-24). This activity is preceded however by the note tdn mḥllm “the desacralizers come near,” a unique rubric in the ritual texts involving unique 257

Conversely, see Wyatt, Religious Texts, 419, n. 24; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 672. See also Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 300, who holds that the temple of Baʿlu and the tower of Baʿlu are to be equated, as are the sanctuary of ʾIlu and the chapel of ʾIlu, thus creating a chiastic structure with ʾIlu’s cult places on the outside and Baʿlu’s in the middle. 258 See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 131-133 for the discussion and literature.

85

ritual participants. The mḥllm appear only here. Based solely on their name and their location, these individuals appear to be related to the desacralization of the king. Pardee wonders: Quoi qu’il en soit du mode précis que prend ce rite de passage, on se demande si la mention ici des mḥllm ne laisse pas entendre leur présence à chaque fois que l’état de ḥl se rencontre dans ces textes. Autrement dit, le roi, ou le jour pouvaient-ils accéder à cet état sans l’intervention des mḥllm?259 The answer here I would hold is yes. The mḥllm are to be imagined in cases where desacralization is described by the simple phrase wḥl mlk. As noted above, this text provides us with several unique ritual rubrics that help to explain different ritual activity, uniquely explaining who performs offerings on both the seventeenth and eighteenth of ʾIbaʿlatu. This tendency required the note of the mḥllm in this text. The idiosyncratic nature of the text provoked commentary and provides unique insights into the sacral role of the king in the cult. At this point the ritual ends and the votive prayer begins. One point must be made in regard to the relationship between the two parts of the text. While most scholars hold that the prayer begins either in l. 25 (with rišyt)260 or in l. 26 (with k gr ʿz)261, I believe that the votive prayer begins with hm in l.24. The reasons for this are twofold. First, while few of the horizontal lines above neatly delineate sections (e.g. l. 4 contains two days, cf. ll. 11, 20, 22) they do indicate a delineation somewhere on that line. That is to say, they do indicate a break somewhere on the line they follow. In light of this, we should look for an end of the ritual material somewhere on l.24, not after it. Second, the material in ll. 24-25 after the

259

Ibid., 678-679. E.g. Wyatt, Religious Texts, 421; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 209; Xella, I testi rituali, 27. 261 E.g. Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 302-304; De Moor, ARTU, 73. 260

86

desacralization of the king fits a poetic pattern, like the material of the prayer itself.262 Rather than seeing the libation oil as in some sense related to the desacralization of the king, both the epigraphic practice characteristic of the tablet and the genre as indicated in the prosody of the text indicate that reference to the oil begins the votive prayer.

SUMMARY Having discussed the calendrical rituals CAT 1.41//1.87; 1.46//1.109; 1.105; 1.106; 1.112; and 1.119 in this chapter some tentative conclusions can be made. The king washes himself pure (yrtḥṣ mlk brr) before cultic activity and is desacralized (ḥl) before returning to quotidian roles. While the sacralization might not be noted before every royal cultic activity, the desacralization is always noted. This would imply that the latter is more important to the writers of these ritual texts than the former.263 When noted, the sacralization of the king occurs a day prior to his cultic involvement. Most often such purification is the only event mentioned on such days. When sacralization and another ritual occur on the same day, the text makes it plain that the king will not be involved in the specified cultic activity (e.g CAT 1.119:9-11). The king requires the assistance of the mḥllm to return to a non-sacral state, again emphasizing by the use of additional cultic personnel the importance placed on this cultic transition and also implying that this is not the natural state of the king. This is confirmed by noting the number of days the king spends in a sacral state vis-à-vis days not. In short, it appears that the latter is the default state of the king and that it is only through at temporary rite of cultic transition that the king is able to perform activities in the cult. 262

See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 679-680. We will see a similar phenomenon of concern for the end of the rite in chapter five, where the text of Num 6 is mostly concerned with the desacralization of the Nazirite. 263

87

Chapter Three Shorter Ugaritic Ritual Texts

While chapter two examined rites of temporary cultic transition in calendrical rituals, chapter three addresses these rites in shorter ritual texts. These rituals contain few if any calendrical markers. They also come from a larger ritual and religious environment than those of the calendrical ritual texts. Two of the texts under discussion, CAT 1.164 and 1.168 were found not at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit), but at the nearby ocean town of modern day Ras Ibn Hani. Further, the text of CAT 1.132, while found at Ugarit, contains Hurrian linguistic and religious elements. The analysis that follows will attempt to provide an understanding of CAT 1.164, 1.168, 1.90 and 1.132 individually, collectively and in relation to the study’s larger concern of temporary cultic transition.

TEXTS CAT 1.164: CAT 1.164 was discovered in the 1977 campaign at Ras Ibn Hani, 4.5km southwest of Ugarit/Ras Shamra.264 While the ancient name of the site is a matter of some dispute, the

264

For editio princeps see Pierre Bordreuil and André Caquot, “Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1977 à Ibn Hani,” Syria 56 (1979): 297-99. Previous studies include Pierre Bordreuil, “Les récentes découvertes épigraphiques à Ras Shamra et à Ras Ibn Hani,” in Ugarit in Retrospect: 50 Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic (ed. Gordon D. Younge; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 45-46; André Caquot, “Hébreu et

88

discovery of a letter in the Northern Palace addressed l mlkt umy “to the queen, my mother” (CAT 2.82) supports the theory that the palace in particular—and the site more generally—was a royal residence.265 CAT 1.164 was also found in the Northern Palace. The extant text is only 20 lines long. A break at the bottom of the verso has resulted in the loss of an unknown number of lines. The text contains none of the calendrical indicators that would allow us to speculate as to how much material is lost, but the text of the reverse ends definitively in line 20. That is to say, the beginning and ending of the text are extant while an unknown portion of the middle has been lost. Text: ------------------------------1. id . ydbḥ . mlk b ḫmn 2. [xx]ś[x] . w šinm . l yšt ------------------------------3. [i]d . ydbḥ . mlk . l ilib 4. b db . ap . w npš . ksp . 5. w ḫrṣ . kmm266 . alp . w š 6. šrp . l ilib . w šlmm 7. kmm . š . l il . šrp . 8. w šlmm . kmm . ʿṣrm 9. l šmn ------------------------------10. w ʿlm . b qr[ ] 11. [y]ph . mlk [ ] 12. [xx]t . w[ ] … rev. 13. [xx ]tql . ḫmš[ ] 14. [ʿš]rh . npš . w str[ ] 15. [x]nx[xx ]šbʿ . kbkbm Araméen,” ACF 78 (1978): 572-73; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 229-31; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 318-23; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 834-41; Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 74-76; Xella, I testi rituali, 347-50. 265 For a more detailed history of the archives of the Northern Palace see Adnan Bounni, Élisabeth Lagarce, and Jacques Lagarce, Ras Ibn Hani, I: Le palais nord du bronze récent, fouilles 1979-1995, synthèse préliminaire (Beyrouth: Institut Français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient, 1998), esp. 91-97; Adrian Curtis, “The Material Sources,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 22-26. For problems regarding the identification of Ras Ibn Hani see André Caquot, “Nouveaux textes ougaritiques de Ras Ibn-Hani,” ACF 79 (1979): 486; Pierre Bordreuil et al., “Les découvertes archéologiques et épigraphiques de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie) en 1983,” CRAIBL (1984): 437; Adnan Bounni, “The Problem of the Identification of the City on Ras Ibn Hani, Syria,” in The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer (ed. Lawrence E. Stager, et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 81-83. 266 Del Olmo Lete sees kmm here as a scribal error. However, this opinion does not adequately take into account the parallel uses of the phrase in other texts. See Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 319, n.89; “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 636.

89

16. w ṯlṯ[m .] ḫrṣ ------------------------------17. riš . a[xx]m . ḫmš 18. ʿšrh . s[x]x . 19. w al . tṣu [.] yṣu .267 20. w ḥlt -------------------------------

Translation: ------------------------------1. When268 the king sacrifices in the ḪMN 2. [ ]and he will not put sandals269 on.270 ------------------------------3. [Wh]en the king sacrifices to ʾIlʾib 4. in the DB: a snout and a neck,271 silver 5. and gold. Ditto (plus) a bull and a ram 6. (as a ) burnt offering to ʾIlʾib; and as a communion offering: 7. ditto. A ram to ʾIlu as a burnt offering, and 8. as a communion offering: ditto. Two birds 9. to Šamnu ------------------------------] 10. And the next day272, in QR[ 11. the king [will] see [ ] 12. [ ] unknown number of lines missing rev. ------------------------------13. […] you will fall; five[ ] 14. [ ] neck and STR [ ] 15. [ ]seven stars 16. and thirty (shekels) of gold ------------------------------17. head [ ]fif18. [te]en S[TR ] 19. And they shall not go out, 20. but you are desacralized. ------------------------------267

CAT has ḫṣu. My reading follows Bordreuil and Caquot, “Les textes,” 298; Caquot, “Hébreu et Araméen,” 572; Xella, I testi rituali, 348; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 841; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 231. 268 The Ugaritic particle id has caused many problems in this rite, as well as in CAT 1.41:50-55; 1.168; and 1.190. The particle is taken as a conjunction by Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 796. However, Pardee agues that it is an adverb (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 482 nn.11-12). He seeks to identify ritual texts beginning with id as part of larger, more complex rituals (see Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 72). While this is undoubtedly so for CAT 1.41:5055, it goes beyond the evidence at hand to assume this is always the case (cf. Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 594). 269 Earlier, the word šin was translated as “presents” (Bordreuil and Caquot, “Les textes,” 298), but the translation makes little sense in this context. For the translation “sandal” note Heb. ‫ ;סאון‬Aram. ‫( שאן‬DNWSI, 1098) and see Xella, I testi rituali, 349; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 319, n.87; cf. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 796. 270 On the necessity of seeing l yšt as negative see Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 838 and discussion below. 271 On the translation of npš as “neck” see discussion of CAT 1.46 in chapter two. 272 See discussion of ʿlm in chapter two.

90

Discussion: The text begins in ll.1-2 with a relative chronological indicator stating id ydbḥ mlk b ḫmn “when the king sacrifices in the ḫmn.” As noted above in chapter one, this introduction of id ydbḥ mlk is identical to that introducing the appendix of CAT 1.41:50-55. In the case of CAT 1.41 I concluded that the temporal indicator did not allow for a firm dating of ll.50-55 within the larger ritual. Likewise, the indicator here in CAT 1.164 provides insufficient data to tie the text definitively to the cultic calendar as presented in the calendrical ritual texts.273 In contrast to CAT 1.164:1, CAT 1.41:50 indicates at the outset the deity to be addressed with the offering. The location of the ritual activity is the enigmatic ḫmn. Given our current lack of knowledge concerning the nature of this structure, it is impossible to ascertain from the archaeological record if the ḫmn in question was located at Ras Ibn Hani or at the city of Ugarit. Given the find spot in the Northern Palace of Ras Ibn Hani, it seems more probable that the text indicates a ritual performed by the king at this royal residence; yet this must remain conjectural at the present time. The relationship between ll.1 and 2 is hard to establish due to a break at the beginning of l.2. While del Olmo Lete wants to reconstruct some form of lbš in the lacuna, his arguments are not convincing.274 The break might contain further description of the ḫmn from l.1 or indicate a second item not to be put on during the ensuing ritual. What is clear in l.2 is that the king is prohibited from feting the gods while wearing footwear. 273

However, CAT 1.164 is a fixed ritual text as it is most likely mentioned in CAT 1.91:5 (see below). Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 319. Del Olmo Lete’s correlation of uzr and lbš is predicated upon an understanding of l yšt as asseverative rather than negative. However, it is difficult to explain why the king is forcefully told to remain shodden (and clothed, in del Olmo Lete’s reconstruction). Further his citation of CAT 1.169:12-13, an incantation entreating the help of Ḥôrānu, makes no sense in the context of that ritual. The pertinent lines entreat the deity: lbš il . yštk.ʿrm . il yštk “May the god clothe you! May the god put a garment on you!” The phenomenon is in no way analogous to that provided here, nor does CAT 1.169 mention sandals. For the most recent discussion of CAT 1.169 and an up-to-date bibliography see Wyatt, Religious Texts, 442-49. See also Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 838.

274

91

Lines 3-9 start a new section on the tablet, indicated by a horizontal line. This section again begins with the phrase id ydbḥ mlk. However, here the recipient is stated as the ancestral deity ʾIlʾib, and the location is specified as b db. There are several possible ways to understand the last term. Xella has entertained the possibility that the word could mean “threshold”275 or a scribal error for gb “pit.”276 Del Olmo Lete suggested the emendation db “sanctuary” but accepts Xella’s first proposal and translates the term as “sacred threshold.”277 Pardee points out the uncertainty of any of these suggestions and leaves the term untranslated.278 Given the double indication of location in ll.1 and 3, I would suggest equating db with ḫmn semantically.279 While this theory provides only relative clarity since neither term is fully understood, it nonetheless allows for one fixed location for the ensuing ritual activity. Beyond the issue of location, ll.3-9 contain six sets of offerings. The first three of these are directed towards ʾIlʾib (ll.4-5; 5-6; 6-7), followed by two to ʾIlu (ll. 7; 7-8) and one to Šamnu (ll. 8-9). The first offering to ʾIlʾib is of an unspecified type and consists of an ap w npš “a snout and a neck” of an unspecified animal, as well as ksp w ḫrṣ “silver and gold.” This assyndetic relation of ap w npš / ksp w ḫrṣ is followed by kmm “ditto.” Usually kmm comes after a new offering type is specified and indicates that a previous list of victims is to be used again (e.g. ll.6-8 below). In CAT 1.164:4-5; 1.168:2-3, 9-10; 1.90:3-4 kmm appears to have a special function in regard to the phrase ap w npš / ksp w ḫrṣ that is best translated as

275

Paolo Xella, “db 'solgia' in Ras Ibn Hani 77/2B:4,” UF 13 (1981): 309-311; see also De Tarragon, “TO II,” 230. Xella, I testi rituali, 349. 277 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 319-21. 278 Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 838, n.22. 279 The syntactically equivalent placement of both terms indicates that the preposition b- must function the same for both. That is to say, both prepositions must be understood as locative rather than instrumental. 276

92

“ditto (plus).”280 Hence, the second offering to ʾIlʾib contains the aforementioned items plus a bull and a ram as a burnt offering. Given the nature of the ritual text and the few attestations of this use of kmm, it is unclear as to whether the snout, neck, silver and gold are also burnt in this second offering, or if the offering includes a donation. The latter seems more likely. The third and final extant offering to ʾIlʾib contains all the elements of the second offering but now offered as a communion offering — attesting to the normal ritual pairing of burnt and communion offerings that is also found in the calendrical texts. Following the three offerings to ʾIlʾib, the ritual prescribes two offerings to ʾIlu (ll.78) — a ram as a burnt and a communion offering. This shift of recipient is unexpected after the indication in l.3 that the king is presenting offerings to ʾIlʾib. While a conjectural emendation of il is possible, it seems unwarranted in light of the additional recipient Šamnu.281 This final offering of two birds to Šamnu in ll.8-9 is by far the most striking of the series. The deity is found elsewhere only in CAT 1.41:45 // 1.81:50. The current context is the only attestation of an offering of two birds to a recipient other than the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma.282 Even in regard to unique elements CAT 1.164 shares with 1.168 and 1.90, the change and choice of recipient here is exceptional. The third section of the text, as indicated by horizontal lines, starts in l.10 and proceeds for an indeterminable number of lines due to the break after l.12. All that is

280

Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 481-82. Šamnu also appears in CAT 1.41:45//1.87:50. Šamnu might be the Ugaritic equivalent of the later Phoenician deity Eshmun; see Sergio Ribichini, “Eshmun,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons (ed. Karl van der Toorn, et al.; New York: Brill, 1999), 307 and earlier studies Paolo Xella, “D'Ugarit à la Phénicie: Sur les traces de Rashap, Horon, Eshmun,” Welt des Orient 19 (1989): 45-64 and “Eschmun von Sidon: Der phönizische Askelpios,” in Mesopotamica -- Ugaritica -- Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70Lebensjahres am 7 Mai 1992 (ed. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz; AOAT 232; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 481-98. Unfortunately, none of these studies sufficiently explains why this deity appears in this text. 282 See earlier discussions of Bordreuil and Caquot, “Les textes,” 297; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 230, n.249; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 319, n.90. 281

93

extant is a temporal indicator of ʿlm “the next (day)” followed by the rubric that the king will “see” some deity in some location. Given the increasingly broken nature of these lines, it is impossible to ascertain if the location (here qr[ ]) or the deity (lost in the break) are to be equated or identified with any of those in ll.3-9. What is certain is that the king remains the central concern of the ritual rubrics. Further, it can be asserted based on the gathering of both id ydbḥ mlk (l.3) and [y]ph mlk (l.11) under one heading (ll.1-2) that there is a strong conceptual link between these two ritual activities. Unfortunately, the break in the text here does not allow further analysis of the yph “seeing” rites. Further discussion of these rites will follow below in conjunction with analysis of CAT 1.168 and 1.90. After the break the text remains fragmentary. In ll.13-16 there is a reference to falling (tql) which likely indicates ritual proskynesis before a deity (see below). In addition, there is reference to seven “stars” and thirty shekels of gold, which either indicates donations of jewelry (seeing the “stars” as gems of some sort) or perhaps a broken reference to an offering of gold to the Pleiades.283 The verb tql “you will/shall fall” deserves special note in this discussion. CAT 1.164:12 is the only attestation of the verb q-l in Ugaritic ritual texts; and while the context is broken, the stereotypical use of the verb in Ugaritic texts may allow for a reasonable theory regarding its purpose here. The G-stem of q-l has three meanings: 1) “to fall (down),” 2) “to perish,” and 3) “to prostrate oneself.”284 Of the three, the most common is the third, which occurs in both myths285 and correspondence.286 Additionally, the sense of

283

Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 320, n. 93. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 697-98. 285 CAT 1.3III:10; 1.4IV:25; 1.10II:18. 286 CAT 2.8:4; 2.11:7; 2.12:11; 2.1:6; 2.30:5; 2.33:4; 2.40:8; 2.42:5 (reconstructed); 2.45:12; 2.50:4 (reconstructed); 2.51:3 (reconstructed); 2.64:16; 2.68:7; 2.72:4 (reconstructed); 2.81:6; 2.82:3; 3.1:5. On the last of these see Gary N. Knoppers, “Treaty, Tribute List, or Diplomatic Letter: KTU 3.1 Reexamined,” BASOR 289 (Feb, 1993): 81-94. 284

94

prostration fits the ritual context better than simple falling or perishing.287 While it is tempting to see the following ḫmš as indicating the number of times that the ritual practitioner falls prostrate (presumably before a deity), this inference seems unlikely. Universally in the corpus of Ugaritic correspondence the number of times that the addressor falls precedes the verb when indicated. While the grammatical and syntactical differences between correspondences and ritual texts must be allowed,288 the uniqueness of this expression in ritual texts likewise makes this conjecture unlikely. As to which deity receives the obeisance, the text is unclear. The break between ll.12 and 13 does not allow us to infer that the falling rite is part of the previous yph “seeing” rite, nor am I sure to whom this latter rite is performed due to a break at the end of ll.11. All that can be asserted from the broken context is that someone, probably the king, prostrates himself, most likely before a deity. To return to the discussion of the text more generally, there is another horizontal line that separates the preceding lines from the last section of the text (ll. 17-20). While ll.17-18 are badly damaged, ll.19-20 provide an interesting rubric to end the ritual: “And they shall not go out but you are desacralized.” Both in the context of the extant portion of this ritual and what has been seen in chapter two, it seems certain that the king is the “you” being addressed in these lines.289 What is not as certain is who the “they” might be. In ll.17-18 there is a reference to fifteen of something (perhaps gold or silver items?); the text might be stipulating the result of the dedication of these fifteen objects. That is the 287

While a C-stem “to cause to fall, to kill” would fit the context of sacrifice, neither the context of the line (as far as it can be explained) nor the traces on the tablet point to this conclusion. 288 See Jesús-Luis Cunchillos, “The Correspondence of Ugarit: The Ugaritic Letters,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 365. 289 There is a longstanding difference of opinion on whether second person forms occur in Ugaritic ritual texts. For the latest argument against their existence see Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” esp. 546 n.20. For the latest argument in favor of their existence see Dennis Pardee, “G. del Olmo Lete's Views on Ugaritic Epigraphy and Religion,” UF 37 (2005): 813-14.

95

king can leave but these dedicated items must remain in the presence of the deity. Another possibility is that the “they” refers to a group of ritual practitioners either unstated or lost in the break. The mḥllm mentioned in CAT 1.119:23 would be an obvious choice. As posited in chapter two, these ritual practitioners assisted the king in his return to a non-sacral state. The mention of these individuals immediately before the desacralization of the king fits the ritual context both here and in CAT 1.119. Regardless of the identification of the “they” in l.19, the importance of CAT 1.164 to this study is the assumption that the ritual activity of the king must conclude with desacralization (ḥl). However, beyond this quite simple statement much more significant questions remain: What ritual activity placed the king into a sacral state? Was it indicated in the text or was it unstated? Do the yph rites or proskynesis have any bearing on this discussion? Could the king “see” the god because he was in a sacral state or did the act of seeing the god bring about this status? It is in light of these questions that we examine CAT 1.168 and 1.90.

CAT 1.168: Like the previous text, CAT 1.168 was discovered in the “Northern Palace” of Ras Ibn Hani.290 The text differs from CAT 1.164 in that it contains some 25 continuous lines on obverse, lower edge and reverse. While much of the reverse is badly damaged, the text is readable enough to allow for some discussion.

290

For the editio princeps see Bordreuil and Caquot, “Les textes,” 300. Previous studies include Bordreuil, “Les récentes découvertes épigraphiques,” 46; Caquot, “Hébreu et Araméen,” 573-74; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 321-23; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 321; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 844-49; Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 76-77; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 232-33; Xella, I testi rituali, 351-53.

96

Text: ------------------------------1. [i]d . yph . mlk . ršp . 2. ḥgb . ap [.]w npš 3. ksp . w ḫrṣ . kmm 4. w ḥ[ẓ . alp . w]291 š . 5. [lr]š[p . ]šr[p ] 6. w šl[mm.kmm]292 7. kst[xxx]l . x [ ] ------------------------------8. id . yph . mlk . ʿnt 9. slḫ293 . ap . w npš . ksp 10. [w .]ḫrṣ . kmm . alp 11. w š . šrp . l ʿnt 12. w šlmm low.e. 13. kmm . š l ʿnt rev. 14. [ ]xnt 15. [a]lit . š 16. [ ]šp . 17. [ ]dm . 18. [ ]. k 19. [ ]qb[ 20. [ ] 21. [ ]xx[x]xx[ ] 22. [ ]. ʿrb [špš ]294 ḥl 23. [m]lk[ ]xl 24. xm[ ]š 25. xix[ ]x

Translation: ------------------------------1. [Wh]en the king sees Rašpu 2. ḤGB.295 A nose and a neck, 291

Reconstructed on the basis of CAT 1.90:5; see Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 321. Lines 5-6 reconstructed on the basis of ll. 11-13. 293 Following CAT and Pardee’s correction of slẓ to slḫ based on the appellation ʿnt slḫ in CAT 1.46:1 (see Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 844 n.2; 849). 294 Line 22 is badly damaged. The only published photo of this text is Del Olmo Lete, La Religión Cananea, fig. 40, no. 76, which is hardly legible. The hand copy by Pardee (Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, fig. 31, no. 76) shows a vertical followed by a very small horizontal after the break at the beginning of the line. The vertical is consistent with the word dividers on the tablet while the horizontal appears more like the winkelhaken /ʿ/ than like the longer horizontal used for the /t/. It is my contention that the wedge represents the former. Further, while Pardee sees three verticals representing /d/ directly before the break in the middle of the line, the third vertical is not at all clear. I would rather posit that there are two verticals and that the character is a /b/. The word between the breaks on the line is then the common ʿrb found in the calendrical ritual texts of chapter two and in CAT 1.132:27 below. Following this word there is a break of approximately one centimeter. Judging by the scribe’s tendencies on this tablet, the three signs of špš could fit in the break. With the surrounding context of ʿrb… ḥl mlk, this reading becomes highly probable. The only difficulty with this reconstruction is the absence of the conjunction w before the verb ḥl. Note that Bordreuil and Caquot, “Les textes,” 341 have tr and see this as the line above the ḥl. 295 See discussion of the term ḥgb in CAT 1.106:1 in chapter two. 292

97

3. silver and gold. Ditto plus 4. an ar[row a bull and] a ram 5. [to Ra]š[pu] as a burnt offe[ring] 6. and a communion [offering: ditto] 7. KST…L… ------------------------------8. When the king sees ʿAnatu 9. SLḪ296, a nose and a neck, silver 10. [and] gold. Ditto plus a bull 11. and a ram as a burnt offering to ʿAnatu 12. and as a community offering: 13. ditto. A ram to ʿAnatu lines 14-21 too broken to translate 22. [ the sun]sets 23. the [k]ing is profaned [ ] lines 24-25 too broken to translate

Discussion: Two horizontal lines divide CAT 1.168 into two sections of uneven length (ll. 1-7; 825). Neither section is complete. The lacunae in the first section can largely be reconstructed on the basis of similarities to CAT 1.164 and 1.90 while the fragmentary nature of ll.14-21 do not allow for even a tentative reconstruction. The two sections are addressed to two separate deities: Rašpu ḤGB and ʿAnatu SLḪ. Each unit will be examined individually, taking note of similarities and differences with CAT 1.164. The first section comprises ll.1-7 and is identified as id yph mlk ršp ḥgb “when the king sees Rašpu ḤGB.” The verb yph is a short prefixing (yaqtul) G-stem form of the verb phy. In the G, this verb can mean “to see,” “to recognize,” or “to visit.”297 While the first definition is most basic and most well attested in the Ugaritic corpus, most scholars recognize that more than simple “seeing” is behind the ritual activity in CAT 1.164, 1.168 and 1.90. In contrast to CAT 1.164, there is no explicit reference to the king sacrificing or

296

There is no consensus on how to translate the term slḫ (cf. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 761 for differing opinions). The grapheme is also used to indicate an Ugaritic town (see Michael Heltzer, The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit [Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1976], 13 ). As such both ḥgb and slḫ might be geographical appellations for the deities Rašpu and ʿAnatu respectively. 297 See Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 667.

98

feting the deity (cf. CAT 1.164:1, 3). In addition, there is no reference to the place of ritual activity. Nonetheless, the similarities between CAT 1.164 and 1.168 are great in terms of the offerings given, the order of the offerings, and the distinct use of kmm. These correlations are all the more conspicuous since they coincide between a rite of id ydbḥ mlk in CAT 1.164 and id yph mlk in CAT 1.168. That is to say, the two terms appear functionally synonymous. To sacrifice to the deity in one text is to “see” the deity in the other.298 To this end it must be asked why there would be different terms used for equatable cultic phenomena. Several reasons are possible. First, the difference of vocabulary might indicate a difference of procedure that is undetectable to us given our incomplete knowledge of the Ugaritic ritual system and the vagueness of the text. Second, as noted above, no location is specified in CAT 1.168 (nor in CAT 1.90 below), while a location seems to be specified in CAT 1.164:10 for a yph mlk rite. It may be that the different locale of the ḫmn and db (CAT 1.164:1, 4) or roof (CAT 1.41:50) might indicate another rite. To put it differently, it is hard for the king to “see” a specific deity if the cultic location does not contain an image of that deity — a situation that is eminently possible in CAT 1.41:50-55 (a roof ritual), though highly conjectural for CAT 1.164 (in a traditional cultic niche). A third possibility for the difference of vocabulary is the nature of the deity being addressed. There is no attestation of a deity receiving both an id ydbḥ mlk and an id yph mlk rite. In both CAT 1.168:1-2 and 1.90:1-2 the king “sees” Rašpu ḤGB; ʿAnatu SLḪ is similarly “seen” in CAT 1.168:8. Conversely, the king sacrifices to Prgl Ṣqrn (CAT 1.41:50), ʾIlʾib (CAT 1.164:1) and

298

Cf. Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTSup 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 100-09; Mark S. Smith, “‘Seeing God in the Psalms’: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible,” CBQ 50 (1988): 171-83.

99

ʾUšḫarâ Ḫulmiẓẓi (CAT 115.1-2).299 Given the few occurrences of this construction (id ydbḥ/yph mlk l DN) it is unclear how much weight should be placed on this correlation. With such limited data, this phenomenon might be mere coincidence. A fourth option is that the three previous distinct explanations might be but parts of a larger whole. While iconographic representations of Rašpu and ʿAnatu are known throughout the Levant, the same cannot be said of ʾIlʾib or the enigmatic Prgl Ṣqrn.300 Yet, here the reference to ʾUšḫarâ Ḫulmiẓẓi in CAT 1.115 becomes problematic, since ʾUšḫarâ Ḫulmiẓẓi (Išḫara in Anatolia) is known to have iconographic representations in the wider Anatolian world of which Ugarit was at least marginally a part. In other words, iconography alone cannot be responsible for the distinct terms used. Finally, one further datum might be useful in this discussion: the role of these deities in the royal house. As seen in chapter two, both Rašpu and ʿAnatu have a special place in the ritual life of the palace. This, in conjunction with issues of location, might explain the unique rites noted for Rašpu and ʿAnatu. Given the notable relationship these deities have in the royal cult, it is understandable that there are distinct rites associated with them. There are several scholarly theories that have attempted to make sense of this activity. Generally speaking, these theories fall into two groups: contemplation and visitation. In several places, Pardee has described the rituals of CAT 1.164; 1.168 and 1.90 (and possibly 1.132) as “contemplation rites.” He views the verb phy as indicating the king

299

While the text of CAT 1.115 is not included in the current study, the datum of ʾUšḫarâ Ḫulmiẓẓi being the object of id ydbḥ rather than id yph is applicable. 300 For recent work on the iconography of Rašpu and ʿAnatu see Izak Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Baʿal: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (C 1500-1000 BCE) (OBO 140; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); The Many Faces of the Goddess: the Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah, c. 1500-1000 BCE (OBO 204; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004).

100

is here going to a cult site and gazing upon the image of the deity.301 Yet this interpretation begs the question above as to whether the image of the deity is in fact what makes these rites yph-rites rather than more general sacrificial rites. Once again the datum of an iconic cult for Išḫara makes such differing understandings suspect. Further, Pardee has yet to explain how these yph-rites function in the ritual life of the Ugaritic cult. Is such contemplation a duty or a benefit? Is the king rendering homage (similar to tql in CAT1.164:13) or receiving a blessing? Such questions are left unanswered. In contrast to a theory of contemplation, del Olmo Lete holds that it is more prudent to theorize based on the meaning “to visit.” He holds that such visitations are performed at “the temple or cella with the possible aim of consulting, thanksgiving, etc. as a non-regulated occasion in the cultic menologies due to its [the visitation’s] peculiar circumstances.”302 Del Olmo Lete wonders if yph refers to consultation or divination and ties this rite into his view of the oracular role of the king while in a sacral state.303 However, the problem is again one of definition. In the rituals addressed in chapter one, it is evident that the king is already visiting the temples or cellas of deities. For del Olmo Lete, what makes the yph-rites unique is the lack of fixed calendrical times; these are “non-regulated occasions in the cultic menologies”. Yet this is far from certain. CAT 1.91 is a list of dbḥ mlk “royal sacrifices” for which the king provides wine. As noted above (in note 273), CAT 1.91:5 likely mentions the ritual found in CAT 1.164.304 Likewise, CAT 1.91:11, 15 may refer to CAT 1.168 and 1.90, where two different sacrifices for Rašpu are mentioned. The fact that these 301

Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 483-84; Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 72-73. Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 594-95. 303 Canaanite Religion, 321-22; see also Xella, I testi rituali, 111. 304 Principal earlier studies on CAT 1.91 include Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 254-264; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 321-22; Fisher, “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit,” 491-95; Michael L. Heltzer, “Vineyards and Wine in Ugarit (Property and Distribution),” UF 22 (1990): 127-28; De Moor, New Year, 2: 26-68; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 489-519; Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 214-16; De Tarragon, Le Culte à Ugarit, 98-112, 167-69; “TO II,” 174-77; Paolo Xella, “KTU 1.91 (RS 19.15) ei sacrifici de re,” UF 11 (1979): 833-38; Xella, I testi rituali, 335-45. 302

101

yph-rites can be aligned with wine rations points to a regulated schedule and away from del Olmo Lete’s distinguishing factor of a non-regulated occasion, which he uses to separate yph-rites from the normal calendrical visits performed by the king. Additionally, the difference between contemplation and visitation is in actuality one of degree. Pardee compares yph-rites with ʿrb-rites “entrance rites” (e.g. CAT 1.43). The difference between the two, in his estimation, is who is visiting whom. In the former, the king goes to the deity (or the cult image); while in the latter, the cult image comes to the palace.305 In essence, both phenomena are visitation rites. The king appears in both rituals to be subject to the deity in question. In other words and though not stated explicitly by Pardee, the purpose of both types of rites is for the king to render service and homage to the deity. This then would need to be contrasted with del Olmo Lete’s theory of visitation in which the purpose appears to be that the king receives revelation rather than renders service.306 However, it still remains unclear how this works conceptually in the cult. I believe the key to an understanding of these yph-rites can be found through analogy to the realpolitic of the world in which the Ugaritic kings lived. In relation to the “great kings” of the Late Bronze Age Mediterranean world, the kings of Ugarit were minor players.307 During the historical and literary period of Ugarit, the city was always a vassal of one of the great kings—either the Pharaoh of Egypt or the

305

Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 483-84. The same could also be said about Wyatt’s theory of the sacralization rites in chapter one. Wyatt holds that the king receives an extra boost to his divine status through such rites, a theory undercut by the desacralization rite the closes the ritual (see further discussion of Wyatt’s view in chapter one above). 307 The “great kings” of the Late Bronze Age would be the kings of Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Hatti and the Mitanni; see Trevor Bryce, Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age (London: Routledge, 2003), 11-41. 306

102

king of Ḫatti.308 The effect of this political situation is manifest in the “limited kingship” evident in the structuring of the Ugaritic pantheon generally and the representations of the divine in the mythic texts specifically.309 It is logical to conclude that this political and theological situation would have some reflection in the cult as well. It was a common requirement for vassals to appear before their suzerain lords on a fixed basis as proof of loyalty. This audience with the great king appears fairly consistently in the vassal treaties of the Hittites. It occurs in treaties as early as that between Tudḫaliya II and Sunaššura of Kizzuwatna in the early fifteenth century BCE (CTH 41, 131), and references to these yearly visits are mentioned at least as late as the mid-thirteenth century letter to Ibiranu, king of Ugarit (CTH 110).310 One such occurrence is the treaty between Mursili II of Ḫatti and Niqmepa of Ugarit (CTH 66).311 As part of the stipulations of the treaty, Niqmepa is required to appear before Mursili (CTH 66 §1). While such royal audiences might be sought by the vassal in time of petition (CTH 67 §10), this does not negate the importance of periodic audience as proof of loyalty of the vassal. The Ugaritic kings, as evidenced from official records, were required to see their Ḫatti overlords on a regular basis. An analogous situation within the cult seems likely. In this respect the special relationship that both Rašpu and ʿAnatu had with the palace should again be noted, 308

For an overview of Ugaritic history, see Itamar Singer, “A Political History of Ugarit,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 603-733, esp. 646683. 309 See Smith, Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume 1. 310 On CTH 41 and 131 (Akkadian and Hittite copies, respectively) see recent discussions by Giuseppe del Monte, “Note sui tratti fra Ḫattuša e Kizuwatna,” OA 20 (1981): 203-21; Richard Beal, “The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Šunnaššura Treaty,” Or n.s. 55 (1986): 425-45; Gernot Wilhelm, “Zur ersten Zeile des Šunaššura-Vertrages,” in Documentum Asiae Minoris Anitquae: Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Erich Neu and Christel Rüster; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988), 359-70; and Gary M. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts (SBLWAW 7; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999), 17-26. On the Akkadian letter CTH 110 see Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 127. 311 See the recent edition Giuseppe Del Monte, Il trattato fra Muršili II di Hattusa e Niqmepa' di Ugarit (Oriens Aniqui Collecto 18; Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente C.A. Nallino, 1986) and translation and discussion in Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 64-69.

103

as discussed in chapter two. On analogy to the rites of fealty imposed by the treaties the Ugaritic kings swore to their Hittite suzerains, the Ugaritic cult shows a ritual counterpart whereby the king swore fealty to the protective deities of the palace in a regular ritual of divine audience. This cultic ritual mirrored the political ritual in that the king brings presents into the presence of his overlord.312 In this context it should be noted that the peculiar gift of an arrow to Rašpu (CAT 1.90:5) corresponds to his iconography and hence provides a unique occasion in Ugaritic ritual texts of a deity receiving his symbol as gift.313 It is possible that the analogical nature laid out for the yph-rites also relates to tql in CAT 1.164. An understanding of this rubric as proskynesis was tentatively posited above based on lexical arguments. CAT 1.168 does not mention tql in its extant lines, but such a ritual action would correlate well with the proposed understanding of yph-rites. The Ugaritic king, in presenting himself before the deity in an act of fealty, would most likely be required to perform some act of genuflection. Such action is indicative of the way that subordinates write to superiors in Ugaritic correspondence as well as the way petty Levantine lords addressed the Pharaoh in contemporary correspondence from El Amarna.314 However, direct evidence for this phenomenon is lacking for the Hittite world. The Hittite kings were more interested in reliefs depicting their own piety than the

312

A similar phenomenon of a vassal relationship being reflected in the cult can be seen in Exod 23:14-19 and Deut 16:16-17, where the texts command that three times a year each male must appear before the lord YHWH on analogy with Neo-Assyrian practice. For the Neo-Assyrian context of the Covenant Code see David P. Wright, Inventing God's Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 286-321. For the Neo-Assyran context of Deuteronomy see Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). 313 Tzvi Abusch has used a similar methodology to explain the Mesopotamian anti-witchcraft series Maqlû in terms of vassal treaty oaths, see Tzvi Abusch, “The Socio-Religious Framework of the Babylonian Witchcraft Ceremony Maqlû: Some Observations on the Introductory Section of the Text, Part I,” in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (ed. Tzvi Abusch; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 1-34. 314 See discussion in William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), xxix-xxx and references there.

104

obeisance of their servants (in contrast to their contemporaries in Egypt and the Assyrians kings of the first millennium). As such there are no illustrations of such activity. Further, while Hittite treaties dictate that vassals must appear before their Hittite lords, these treaties are more attentive to issues such as national borders, prisoners of war and military requirements than the minutiae of the vassal’s actions when in the presence of the Great King. Presumably such prescribed action was either common knowledge, or the vassal king was briefed in some other fashion. In other words, the lack of positive Hittite evidence for a vassal bowing before the great king does not prove the opposite to be the case. It is inconceivable that such an audience would not incorporate a gesture of self-humiliation similar to the proskynesis noted above.315 The weight of contemporary evidence is too great to posit otherwise. As such, an analogy between the behavior of the Ugaritic king and his earthly overlord with that of the Ugaritic king and his divine overlord is plausible, and the reference to an act of genuflection in CAT 1.164 helps to strengthen the overall understanding of yph-rites on analogy to audiences with the great king. Perhaps where this analogy breaks down in CAT 1.168 is with the desacralization rite. It is debatable whether such a rite is lost at the end of l.7; it would have had to have been the shorter form of mlk ḥl or perhaps the second person suffixing form ḥlt (cf. CAT 1.164:20).316 However, the full desacralization rite is mentioned in ll.22-23: ʿrb [špš] ḥl [m]lk. Whether this desacralization is only for the ritual that began in l.8 or for the whole tablet is impossible to determine. Regardless, the importance for this study is that a yph-rite ends 315

Another datum is that CTH 41 §9 (i 38-44) explicitly states that Sunaššara the king of Kizzuwatna would be extended the courtesy of having the assembled Hittite court rise to their feet when he entered yearly to look upon the king. This obliquely implies that the opposite was the case for most vassals (see discussion in Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 3-4). For an analysis on how such ritual activity relates to honor and shame in the Late Bronze Age Levant and later biblical materials see Saul M. Olyan, “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment,” JBL 115 (1996): 201-218. 316 Would such a desacralization have entailed the king returning to his throne (see kst in l.7)?

105

with desacralization. The state of CAT 1.168 vis-à-vis 1.164 allows us to fill in the lacunae that both tablets present us. While neither text is complete, it is evident that the two horizontal lines and the continuous nature of CAT 1.168 allow us to determine that the shorter and vague rubric in CAT 1.164:19-20 must also close a yph-rite, either the one begun in ll.11 or another lost in the break. Hence, yph-rites and ḥl-rites also constitute a set of markers for rites of temporary cultic transition, though purification is left unstated. Is it possible to venture further? Did a yph-rite require washing before its activity? The infrequent indication of brr-rites in the calendrical texts in chapter two indicates that this rite is not always stated—perhaps because these activities precede the first day of the ritual. Similarly, if our understanding of CAT 1.41:50-55 is correct, such washing may occur prior to an id ydbḥ mlk rite. Since there is a formal similarity between id ydbḥ and yph-rites, can we assume from the presence of washing before the former the same for the latter? How closely related are these two types of rites? It is with these questions in mind that we turn to CAT1.90, the last of the yph-rites texts.

CAT 1.90: While CAT 1.90 is the only one of these three texts to have been found in the city of Ugarit,317 it nonetheless comes last in our discussion because it is badly damaged and does not contain the ḥl formula that has been a prime marker for inclusion in this study. However, the text does contain yph-rites found in CAT 1.164 and 1.168, as well as a unique concluding formula that may correlate with the more standard desacralization rubric.

317

Specifically, the tablet was found in the central palace. See Bordreuil and Pardee, La trouvaille épigraphique, 196 for further discussion of the find spot. For earlier studies see De Tarragon, “TO II,” 172-73; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 320-21; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 321-23; Xella, I testi rituali, 109-12; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 478-88.

106

Text: 1. id . yph . mlk 2. ršp . ḥgb . ap 3. w [.] npš . ksp 4. w . ḫrṣ . kmm 5. w . ḥẓ [.] alp 6. w [.] š l[rš]p318 [ ] 7. w [. ʿṣ]r[m.l]319 inš 8. i[lm ] 9. w[ ] 10. k[ ] 11. ṯql . [ ] ------------------------------rev. ... 12. w[ ]320 13. w[ ] 14. w[ ] 15. a[lp ] 16. x[ ] 17. w[ ] 18. xxxḫ šlm 19. [xx]x š . l alit 20. x[xx] . ršp . š . 21. l . šlm . w mlk 22. ynṣl . l ṯʿy. -------------------------------

Translation: ------------------------------1. When the king sees 2. Rašpu ḤGB. A nose 3. and a neck, silver 4. and gold. Ditto plus 5. an arrow, a bull 6. and a ram to Rašpu… 7. and [two bir]d[s] for ʾInāšu 8. ʾIlīma … 9. and 10. … 11. shekel(?) [ … ] ------------------------------12-17 broken 18. [ ] peace/Šalimu (?) 19. [ ]a ram for ʾALʾIT 318

Following the reconstruction in Pardee, TR 486. Following Pardee’s reconstruction based on the normal sacrifices attached to the ʾināšū ʾilīma in Les Textes Rituels, 480. See also del Olmo Lete’s reconstruction based on parallels from CAT 1.168, see CR 321. 320 Pardee believes that there are trances of another line on the reverse and has increased the number of the visible lines by one (see discussion in Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 480). However, the numbering here follows CAT for convenience to the reader. 319

107

20. [a ram] to Rašpu; a ram 21. to Šalimu and the king 22. ceases as an officiant.321 -------------------------------

Discussion: The tablet is divided into two mostly equal sections by way of horizontal lines before the first line, after l. 11 and at the end after l. 22. The last four lines of the obverse (ll. 8-11) and the first seven visible lines of the reverse (ll. 12-18) are badly damaged and largely incomprehensible. Whether there had been text written on the lower edge (between ll. 11 and 12) is impossible to say given the current condition of the tablet. On analogy with CAT 1.164 and 1.168, a new id yph mlk rite would be expected after the horizontal line at the end of the obverse, which is exactly where the text is illegible. The section on the obverse begins with an id yph mlk rite for Rašpu ḤGB. The offerings in ll. 2-8 follow closely what we have seen in CAT 1.168:1-7, complete with the same offerings, same victims and the same use of kmm. The only major difference is the inclusion of offerings to the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma in CAT 1.90:7-8 which are not attested in CAT 1.168:1-7 and would not fit into any break on that tablet. The traditional offering of ʿṣrm “two birds” to the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma are given to Šamnu in CAT 1.164:8-9, a point of contast with CAT 1.90. Lines 8-11 are fragmentary, but what traces remain on the left edge are enough to indicate that no desacralization formula occupied those lines.

321

Both del Olmo Lete and Pardee agree that nṣl must function as a semantic equivalent of the desacralization phrase found in CAT 1.168:22-23, but they disagree as to how this works (see Ibid., 488; Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 322). Both scholars hold that nṣl is cognate with Ethiopian naṣala “to retire, cease” (cf. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 647); their disagreement is in regard to ṯʿy. Pardee takes the term here as a sacrifice, while del Olmo Lete takes it as an office. The difference between the two views is minor. If the king has been acting in this office, he will be the one performing this action. Hence, del Olmo Lete’s translation has been tentatively followed (Del Olmo Lete, “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts,” 595). For other, less likely, translation options see Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 647.

108

Much of the reverse of the table is too damaged to hazard a translation, let alone a discussion. The text only becomes comprehensible in the last four lines (ll. 19-22). There appears to be a series of sacrifices comprising rams given to the otherwise unknown deity ʾAlʾit as well as Rašpu and Šalimu. It is possible that these offerings are all conceived as šlm “communion” offerings (l.18), though this likewise could be an earlier reference to the god Šalimu. At the very end of the text, there is an obscure report: w mlk ynṣl l ṯʿy in ll. 21-22. The term nṣl is a hapax, and the understanding of these lines is further complicated by the differing opinions on ṯʿy both generally and in this specific context. From the study thus far a reference to the king ceasing (nṣl) some form of cultic activity correlates with my understanding of his desacralization. Outside of a superior cultic status the king must cease from cultic activity. However, given both the broken nature of CAT 1.90 and the small corpus of yph-rites, it is unwise to speculate that all royal cultic activity can be described using the term ṯʿy. Indeed, the explicit mention of other cultic participants performing the ṯʿy sacrifice in CAT 1.119:9-11 speaks directly against such a simple correlation. In CAT 1.119:9-11 the ṯaʿu priest performs the ṯʿy sacrifice. This occurred specifically on a day when the king had washed himself as part of the sacralization rite. My opinion on those lines in chapter two was that a different cultic officiant is mentioned specifically because the king was unable to officiate at that moment.322 If the same cultic menology is at work in CAT 1.90, then the earlier analysis of CAT 1.119 would indicate that the king must already be pure if he has been performing the ṯʿy sacrifice, further verifying the ephemerality of his

322

One may point to the analogy of purification found in priestly material where one is to purify oneself by washing (oneself and/or one’s clothes) and remain impure until evening (e.g. Lev 15:6).

109

enhanced cultic status. Additionally, the correlation of CAT 1.90 and 1.119 would indicate that the king must have been purified at least one day prior to his activity in CAT 1.90. Given the state of the tablet I am unable to conclude with complete certainty over how long a period of time the ritual activity prescribed in CAT 1.90 was performed, yet a strong case been be made for all the activity occurring on one day. CAT 1.164:11 specifically mentions a second day of activity, while 1.168 makes no mention of such. Given the tight similarities between CAT 1.90 and 1.168, it is not unreasonable to assume that the damaged lines contain a rubric for a second id yph mlk l DN rite rather than a temporal reference indicating a second day of ritual activities related to this rite. Further, the rites that extend to a second day of ritual activity in CAT 1.164 are id ydbḥ mlk rites rather than yph-rites. Hence, it is most likely that the king would have been purified on some day prior to the activity mentioned in CAT 1.90, and this is probably the case for 1.168 as well. This then correlates with the material found in chapter two in regard to CAT 1.41:50-55, where it is plain that the king must be purified on a day prior to performing an id ydbḥ mlk rite. In short, it is likely that the king must always wash a day prior to cultic activity and be desacralized at the end of this activity. While the analysis of CAT 1.164, 1.168 and 1.90 appears to answer the lingering questions from chapter two and portrays a consistent understanding of temporary cultic transition within the Ugaritic ritual texts, CAT 1.132 makes use of the ḥl mlk formula.323 While this text provides a unique ritual in the Ugaritic cult, its cultic rationale correlates with that seen in the yph-rites particularly and the calendrical rites more generally.

323

Strictly speaking, a ḥl formula might also be present in CAT 1.173:17. However, the state of preservation of the tablet is so poor that it has been left out of this study.

110

Therefore it has been included here for the sake of completeness and as an additional witness to our understanding of the temporary ritual status of the king at Ugarit.

CAT 1.132: The text of CAT 1.132 is one of some eleven Hurro-Ugaritic texts discovered in the Library of the Hurrian Priest during the 1961 campaign.324 Within this distinct corpus there is much fluidity, and CAT 1.132 differs from other texts in this group in containing a true creole of Ugaritic and Hurrian in ll.4-12. Fortunately, these lines contain a list of sacrificial victims and recipients and are therefore understandable despite the linguistic oddities. Text: 1. b tšʿ ʿšrh 2. trb . ʿrš [.]pd 3. ry . b bt325 . mlk ------------------------------4. aṯḫl[m . i]n ṯlnd 5. gdlt . ḫbtd . š 6. šbxd.326 gdlt 7. dqtd . gdlt 8. ḫdn ḫdlr dqtt [[ ]] 9. ḫnnǵd ṯt dqt 324

Bordreuil and Pardee, La trouvaille épigraphique, 1: 303. Principal studies include Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 207-12; Dietrich and Loretz, “TUAT II,” 322-323; Manfried Dietrich and Walter Mayer, “Festritual für Palastgöttin Pidray,” UF 28 (1996): 165-76; Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 738-44; Francesco Saracino, “Il letto di Pidray,” UF 14 (1982): 191-99; De Tarragon, “TO II,” 219-21; and Xella, I testi rituali, 305-09. On the issue of Hurrian ritual traditions at Ugarit more widely, see Dennis Pardee, “L'ougaritique et le hourite dans les textes rituels de Ras Shamra -- Ougarit,” in Mosaïque de langues, mosaïque culturelle. Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la Table-Ronde du 18 novembre 1995 organisée par l'URA 1062 "Études Sémitiques" (ed. F. BriquelChatonnet; Antiquités Sémitiques 1; Paris: Maisonneuve, 1996), 63-81 as well as Manfried Dietrich and Walter Mayer, “The Hurrian and Hittite Texts,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 58-75 (with previous studies by the authors noted therein). On the archaeological context of the Library of the Hurrian Priest see Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, 99-100. 325 While previous studies have seen here a /š/, Dietrich and Mayer have re-examined the photos and now hold it to be a /b/; Dietrich and Mayer, “Festritual,” 165-66. This reading dovetails well with what seems like a reference to this ritual in the administrative text CAT 1.91:7 which mentions [p]dry. bt. mlk “Pidrayu (in) the house of the king.” I have adopted their reading here. 326 It is not possible for me to accept Dietrich and Mayer’s reading of šd[d] “für Šēdu” in l.6 (Ibid.: 168). As can clearly be seen in l.12, the form of the Hurrian prepositional suffix is –nd not simply –d when affixed to a word already ending in /d/. Hence the text would need to be *šdnd not šdd. The god’s name in l.6 will have to remain a mystery.

111

10. nbgd . dqt 11. tgnd . dqt 12. kldnd . dqt ------------------------------low.e. 13. ʿlm . ṯn šm 14. ḫdtd . w i 15. nš ilm rev. 16. kmm . l pn 17. ll . ʿṣrmm ------------------------------18. in ṯlnd gdlt 19. alnd . gdlt 20. ḫbtd . glt 21. inš ilm kmm ------------------------------22. b ṯlṯ in ṯlnd 23. alnd ṯn šm 24. inš ilm . kmm 25. pn ll . tnʿr 26. ʿrš . ------------------------------27. ʿrb špš 28. w ḥl mlk

Translation: 1. On the nineteenth (day) 2. You will prepare the bed of Pid3. rayu in the house of the king. ------------------------------4. Sacri[fice:] for the Ṯalanni [go]ds, 5. a cow. For Ḫebat, a ram. 6. For ŠBXD, a cow. 7. For Daqqītu, a cow. [[ ]] 8. For Ḫudena and Ḫudellura two ewes. 9. For HNNǴD, a ewe. 10. For Nudabig, a ewe. 11. For Tagi, a ewe. 12. For Keldi, a ewe. ------------------------------13. On the next day, two rams 14. for Ḫebat; and for 15. the Ināšu Ilīma, 16. the same. Before 17. the night: two birds. ------------------------------18. For the Ṯalani gods, a cow. 19. For Allani, a cow. 20. For Ḫebat, a cow. 21. For the Ināšu Ilīma, the same. ------------------------------22. On the third (day) the Ṯalanni gods,

112

23. (and) Allani two rams. 24. For the Ināšu Ilīma, the same. 25. Before the night, you will remove 26. the bed. ------------------------------27. The sun sets, 28. and the king is profaned.

Discussion: The twenty-eight line text mentions the preparation of a bed for the goddess Pidrayu in an unnamed month (ll. 1-3). What follows is three days of offerings for various Hurrian deities (ll. 4-24) ending on the third day with the removal of Pidrayu’s bed before nightfall (ll. 25-26) and the profanation of the king when the sun sets (ll. 27-28). The ritual might be mentioned in CAT 1.91:7, an administrative text mentioning allocation of wine by the palace for various dbḥ mlk. Given the explicit participation of the king in CAT 1.132 and the implicit sponsorship of the ritual surmised from CAT 1.91, this text has been aptly classified as a “royal ritual.” In what follows the discussion will begin by noting previous interpretations of the text. Issues related to its Hurrian nature will be addressed next, followed by the use of the bed in the ritual. Several interpretations have been put forward concerning CAT 1.132. A longstanding tradition is to see in the text a hieros gamos. Often this is also accompanied with the reading of line 3 as bšt mlk, frequently with the translation “with the bed-covering of the king.327 The basic assumption in these interpretations is that the bed equals sex. The most detailed interpretation of CAT 1.132 has been put forward by del Olmo Lete. He sees in the text a sacred marriage, in which the newly enthroned king is united with Pidrayu, who del Olmo Lete sees as the “divine bride par excellence” based on her appearance in CAT 1.24.328 In contrast to our reading of bbt mlk, del Olmo Lete sees the 327 328

See e.g. Xella, I testi rituali, 307. Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 207.

113

phrase bšt mlk in l.3 and translates it as “when the king is enthroned.” The text is interpreted as a hieros gamos. By uniting with Pidrayu after his enthronement, the new king thus becomes the son-in-law of Baʿlu in a way reminiscent of the Šulgi hymns from early Mesopotamia.329 In the case of Ugarit, CAT 1.132 is coupled with 1.111 by del Olmo Lete because of the texts’ shared Hurrian elements and his own theories of royal mythology. According to del Olmo Lete, CAT 1.111 celebrates the death of one king and would have been followed by 1.132, which represents the installation of a new one.330 Both texts are also linked by del Olmo Lete to CAT 1.24, the “Wedding of Yariḫ and Nikkal.” A number of interpretations relate the phrase bšt mlk on account of similarities to the root šty (to drink) and hence see the ritual as reflecting a drinking festival. In particular, Franceso Saracino interprets the text as a Lecisternium.331 These rituals were celebrated in ancient Greece and Rome for the propitiation of deities (the Latin phrase lectum sternere means “to spread a couch”).332 The similarities he notes are impressive, but the close to thousand years separating the Ugaritic and later Mediterranean rituals makes a direct comparison difficult at best. While Saracino suggests that the ritual here might represent a cultural institution diffused throughout the Mediterranean, this is hard to say for certain. His study is notable for the possibility opened up by his interpretation that the rite—and the bed—may serve a purpose other than a hieros gamos. A more conservative, and perhaps minimalist, view of the text has been offered by Pardee.333 Due to problems in translating the troublesome phrase b-št in line 3 of CAT 1.132,

329

See Jerrold S. Cooper, “Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—The City and its Life—Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20-22, 1992 (ed. Eiko Matushima; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993), 81-96. 330 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 198-212. 331 Saracino, “Il letto di Pidray,” 191-99, with references to earlier studies. 332 Ibid.: 199. 333 Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 72-76.

114

Pardee leaves open both the function of the bed and the text as a whole. He notes only that it could be a hieros gamos, a banquet, an incubation rite, or some other form of contact between the human and divine sphere. At most, Pardee proposes that this rite might fall under what he calls “contemplation rites,” as discussed above with phy rites. As noted above, I follow the reading of Dietrich and Mayer who see not bšt mlk (whatever it might mean) but rather bbt mlk in l. 3. As such, they see in the reference neither the installation of the king nor a drinking festival, nor even the king’s bed-covers, but rather simply the place of the activity. Yet Dietrich and Mayer still see the ritual as a simple hieros gamos performed with the palace goddess, Pidrayu.334 The bed still equals sex. The problems with all the theories mentioned is their lack of a coherent strategy for understanding the bed of Pidrayu in analogical terms with reference to the context of the rite as a whole. In other words, they deal with the text in a piecemeal fashion and do not fully integrate the offerings to Hurrian deities in the middle with the bed at the beginning and end. It is upon these two elements—the Hurrian deities and the bed of Pidaryu—that our attention will now focus. The text begins in Ugaritic in ll.1-3 mentioning a bed of Pidrayu but switches in ll.424 to a Hurrian-Ugaritic Creole where this goddess is not mentioned at all. Indeed, with the exception of the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma, all the deities in the rest of the text are Hurrian. The text then reverts to Ugaritic in ll. 25-28. What is the relationship of the Hurrian deities to Pidrayu? Why are they here? One possible solution is to see Ugaritic deities lurking behind the Hurrian names. Several of the deities in CAT 1.132 have either explicit or implicit Ugaritic equivalents. By comparing the syllabic text of RS 20.024 with the alphabetic text of CAT 1.118, one finds an

334

Dietrich and Mayer, “Festritual,” 166-67.

115

equivalent between Ḫebat and Pidrayu, and between Allani and Arṣi. Further, a comparison of In Ṯalanni in Hurrian texts from Ugarit with similar Ugaritic lists would favor equating with the designation ʾIlū Ṣapāni.335 Beyond these designations, however, the Hurrian deities in ll. 4-23 have no known Ugaritic corollaries. On the other hand, if the deities in the middle are held to be in fact Hurrian, the text makes more sense. With the exception of the Semitic ʾInāšu ʾIlīma and the Hurrian Nubadig, the deities mentioned throughout the text are female (if the former are in fact deities).336 More important, the list of the Hurrian deities in ll.5-26 has much in common with the Hurrian kaluti (processional and ritual order of deities) of Ḫebat.337 This corollary can be most graphically seen in the stone sanctuary of Yazılıkaya outside of the Hittite capital of Ḫattuša where the kalutis of Ḫebat and her consort Teššub are seen processing towards one another.338 Not surprisingly, the parallel between the sequence of gods in CAT 1.132 and the kaluti is not exact. A tighter correspondence between kaluti and Ugaritic texts can be found in CAT 1.116: 19-23 where the sequence is Ḫebat, Daqqītu, Ḫudena, Ḫudellurra, Išḫara, Allani, Nikkal, Ninatta and Kulitta. This sequence in CAT 1.116 confirms an awareness of the Hurrian kaluti at Ugarit and allows us to infer such an ordering principle in the present text. In CAT 1.132 the order is more varied with several unknown deities in the ranks—namely the badly damaged deity in l.6, ḪNNǴD in l.9 and, of course, the male

335

Walter Mayer, “The Hurrian Cult of Ugarit,” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson (ed. N. Wyatt, et al.; UBL 12; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), 207. 336 Cf. Dietrich and Mayer, “Festritual,” 175. 337 For more on kaluti see Wilhelm, The Hurrians, 65 and O. R. Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (The Schweich Lectures 1976; Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1977), 17-23 with references. 338 On Yazılıkaya generally see Kurt Bittel, Rudolf Naumann, and Heinz Otto, Yazilikaya: Architektur, Felsbilder, Inschriften und Kleinfunde (Osnabrück: Zeller, 1967); Robert L. Alexander, The Sculpture and Sculptors of Yazılıkaya (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1986). On the specific issue of the deities in the sculpture, see Emilia Masson, Le panthéon de Yazilikaya: nouvelles lectures (Recherche sur les grandes civilisations. Synthèse. Paris: Editions ADPF, 1981).

116

deity Nubadig in l.10. However, the overall picture is quite clear: the deities listed in CAT 1.132:4-24 make more sense as Hurrian than Ugaritic. In light of this, the question becomes: to what extent should Pidrayu also be considered a Hurrian deity? While most scholars have not considered the question, Pardee is in favor of seeing Pidrayu as Ḫebat—based on texts mentioned above.339 Del Olmo Lete seems to have the most to lose in such a summation, based on his interpretation of the rite as an enthronement and sacred marriage of the new king to the goddess he calls the ‘bride par excellence.”340 However, his theory already runs aground with the newer reading of line 3 mentioned above, which removes any possible enthronement language from the text.341 In light of the Hurrian goddesses that makes up most of the text, the most probable conclusion, following Pardee, is that Pidrayu should be equated with Ḫebat. However, regardless of who the goddess is, the real issue in lines 1-3 is the interpretation of the bed. As surveyed above, interpreters largely see in this text a hieros gamos based on the presence of the goddess’s bed. In this regard, it is important to take a look at how beds were actually used in Ugarit and its environs before coming to any conclusions. The Ugaritic material on beds and their usage is slim, the term ʿrš comprising a scant nine attestations in all. It occurs twice here in CAT 1.132. In Kirtu, it occurs three times, all in relation to sickness, at CAT 1.14 II 45; 1.16 VI 35-36, 51-52. The term occurs twice in Aqhatu: in relation to sex in CAT 1.17 I 38, and in relation to childbirth in CAT 1.17 II 41-42. Finally, it occurs twice in broken contexts in CAT 2.22:2 and 4.248:5. These usages 339

Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 743, though his summation that In Ṯalanni is an avatar of Teššub is less than convincing. 340 Del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 207-12. 341 Even if the older reading is maintained, the link is still difficult to assert. Rituals, as stated above, are based on the use of the quotidian in non-quotidian fashion. Del Olmo Lete’s interpretation posits a unique phrase for enthronement – b št – such a novelty would have little effect in a ritual setting. See also the critique of Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 742, n. 32.

117

are scarcely enough upon which to make a definitive statement on the bed’s function in our text. As such, the use of beds from the larger ancient world needs to be addressed, keeping in mind the importance of privileging evidence more closely related culturally to Ugarit. For the Late Bronze Age, contemporary evidence comes from three Amarna letters that mention beds. EA 5 lists royal gifts given by the Pharaoh to the king of Babylon. These gifts included “1 bed of ebony, overlaid with ivory and gold; 3 beds of ebony, overlaid with gold.”342 Similarly, EA 14 also mentions royal gifts of Egypt to Babylon, and at least two gilded beds are included here as well (EA14 II 19-20). Finally, at least three beds are listed in the dowry of a Babylonian princess in EA 13 rev. 1-5. While the nature of the data from the Amarna letters is fundamentally different from that of either narrative poetry or ritual proscriptions in the Ugaritic material already addressed, these international documents point to an important luxury aspect of beds that is missing in the Ugaritic evidence. Beds also function as luxury items, acceptable as royal gifts and used in dowries. Beyond the Bronze Age, later Levantine culture points to a similar range of meanings for beds as we have already seen. In the Hebrew Bible, the context of beds (‫)ערש‬ aligns with data from Ugarit and Amarna. The word ‫ ערש‬occurs ten times in the Hebrew Bible. Sickness is the context in Pss. 6:7; 41:4 and Job 7:13. Luxury and royal opulence are the focus of attestations in Deut 3:11; 2 Sam 17:28; Amos 3:12; 6:4 and Song 1:16. Sex is the context in Prov 7:16 while actual sleep is the focus in Ps 132:3. In short, beds were referenced as symbols of royal status, as places for the sick and infirm, and only occasionally for sex or normal sleeping.

342

Moran, Amarna Letters, 11.

118

Outside of these quotidian uses of beds in the cultural world of the ancient Levant and wider environs, the nature of deities’ beds specifically needs to be discussed. Barbara N. Porter has addressed the role of Marduk’s bed in the Neo-Assyrian period in relation to the plunder of Marduk’s bed by Esarhaddon and its later return by Assurbanipal.343 While the data is more removed from Ugarit both culturally and chronologically, a survey of this material is revealing in terms of the range of meaning of gods’ beds. In keeping with the foregoing discussion, Porter notes that besides sleeping and sexual intercourse, beds functioned in Neo-Assyrian culture as luxury items of the royal elites. However, she also notes that “in Assyria and Babylonia, in this time period and earlier, beds were particularly associated with the lives and domains of women.”344 Porter sees the initial plunder of Marduk’s bed from his Babylonian temple as tied into the understanding of beds as royal items. The plundering of Marduk’s house and the removal of his bed indicates his demoted status. However, Porter sees the return of the bed in terms of ameliorating female deities. When it is returned, the bed reportedly belongs both to Marduk and his consort Zarpanītu and was placed in her chapel. This change is important. On analogy to the lives of mortal women, Porter sees Zarpanītu’s chapel functioning like a queen’s bedchamber, a place where the goddess spent most of her time and where her husband (Marduk) would visit her for company, council or conjugal relations. While sexual relations were part of this association, Marduk and Zarpanītu’s bed was not seen in exclusively sexual terms. Porter states: Nice beds prolong kings’ lives because they encourage gods to spend time in the ‘house of love’ together, an activity calculated to make them the sort of happy divine couples who ‘together’... cheerfully decree long lives for bedgiving kings.345 343

Barbara Nevling Porter, “Beds, Sex, and Politics: The Return of Marduk's Bed to Babylon,” in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2-6, 2001 (ed. Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002), 523-35. 344 Ibid., 526. 345 Ibid., 533.

119

She goes on to state: “Good beds soothed angry gods and pleased goddesses in the room where they spent much of their time, made many of their decisions, and which was particularly the domain of the goddess herself.”346 Marduk and Zarpanītu’s bed provides an interesting corollary to Pidrayu’s bed; but there are, of course, differences between the two. The return of Marduk’s bed was an act of royal gift giving, whereas the passage mentioning Pidrayu’s bed does not mention gifts at all. Marduk’s bed was being returned to his house (temple), whereas Pidrayu’s bed is being prepared in the house of the king. However, Pidrayu’s and Marduk and Zarpanītu’s beds both related to the domain of women. As noted above, most of the deities in CAT 1.132 are female and fit in the processional line of Ḫebat. The mentions of a bed of childbirth in the story of ʾAqhatu and in dowries in the Amarna letters both strengthen the association with females. What is more, sex is downplayed. Marduk and Zarpanītu are encouraged to have conjugal relations on their bed not to increase fertility or as part of some hieros gamos but rather to insure that they are happy and well disposed to the king. All of this points away from a focus on hieros gamos in CAT 1.132 as well. Beds function as status symbols in gift-giving and hospitality, more than indicators of sexual activity. Women in the ancient Near East like their beds and providing a bed for the goddess is an extention of hospitality.The analogical function of the bed in the ritual is more tightly related to the larger analogical relations of temple to palace, and of cult to court. This datum allows a more precise reconstruction of the analogical function of Pidrayu’s bed.

346

Ibid.

120

On the nineteenth day of an unknown month the bed of Pidrayu was prepared in the house of the king. Whether Pidrayu is here the daughter of Baʿlu or the Hurrian Ḫebat, wife of Teššub is of little concern. What matters is that the preparation of a goddess’s bed entails a change of quarters for the goddess.347 However, in true analogical fashion, the movement of the goddess (as with royalty) requires the king to extend hospitality not only to the goddess herself, but to her royal retainers as well. As such, offerings are made for those goddesses (as well as Nudabig348 and the ʾInāšu ʾIlīma) who accompany the goddess and her bed. At the end of three days, the bed is removed, and the deities with it leave as well. Where they go the text does not indicate, but it is evident from the closing formula of the text that the king no longer needs to be in the superior state of purity he is required to endure during a divine encounter. The various elements of the ritual work together in this interpretation to provide a systematic understanding of the three day ritual. The kaluti of Ḫebat serves partially as a dossier of those who traveled with her when she (on her own accord, or following Pidrayu) stays at the king’s house. The king extends hospitality to her and her retinue in a manner analogous to the hosting of mortal foreign dignitaries –including, of course, those from Hurrian regions.

SUMMARY There is an obvious correlation between our understanding of CAT 1.164, 1.168 and 1.90 with CAT 1.132. All these texts make use of political rituals and integrate them into the

347

See Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, 743, and Saracino, “Il letto di Pidray,” for similar ideas without the detailed analogical corollaries. 348 It is unfortunate that more is not known about Nubadig. Could his function here be indicative of a role as grand vizier, guardian or chaperone to the group of female deities?

121

world of the cult. The king appears before the gods as a vassal. The mirroring of the limited role of the king in international politics with the world of the cult serves as an indirect witness to the king’s circumscribed status within the cult, especially when compared to the great kings of Egypt or Hatti. Just as the Ugaritic king cannot claim unlimited political power, neither can he claim unlimited sacral power. Further, all the texts in chapter three reflect the same rules of sacralization and desacralization as the calendrical texts of chapter two. Therefore, all the ritual texts addressed in this study help in our larger goal of understanding the relationship of the king and the cult through rites of temporary cultic transition. Any time the king approaches the divine in the cult, the he must be purified before this interaction. Often this initiation of the king into a sacral state is presupposed or assumed in the texts. However, once the king has finished his cultic activity he is desacralized, and the Ugaritic ritual texts appear much more preoccupied with this desacralization than the initial purification that brings about his temporary sacral state. That is to say, the procedure of desacralization is considered more important to the writers of the texts. Additionally, it must remain an open question whether the kings of Ugarit themselves were aware of the reasons behind the cultic actions they performed. It is unclear who would benefit from these cultic protocols. The implicit theological understanding has been that unrestricted access to the divine can be dangerous. Thus, these rites protect participants from misuse of the sacred. Yet at the same time, while these rites of temporary cultic transition provide a safe way for the king to engage with the divine, they also strengthen the divide between the gods and the king at Ugarit. These rites stress that the king is not a god. Likewise, these rites strengthen the cultic status of other

122

cultic officiants, namely the priests, for whom there is no indication of such temporary rites. At least within their own texts, these officials appear to have open access to the divine. Yet this permanent cultic status would also conceptually entail a separation from the quotidian that would be reinforced through the king’s performance of such temporary status change. As such, the role of the king as go-between strengthens his political position even while circumscribing his cultic status.349

349

See the similar explanation of status and rank of heads of households in Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000), 11-12, 116-17.

123

Chapter Four Ugaritic Narrative Texts

The forgoing discussion of Ugaritic ritual texts has provided a solid basis for understanding the role of the king in the cult though rites of temporary cultic transition. However, the religious expression of a culture cannot be confined wholly to its prescriptive (e.g. actual) ritual texts.350 In the case of the current study, information gleaned from Ugaritic narrative texts provides another source of data for these temporary rites. Before an examination of narrative texts can begin, several methodological issues must be addressed. First, and perhaps most important, the following discussion must not be confused with the myth-and-ritual approach popular in Ugaritic studies in the twentieth century.351 I am here interested in rituals occurring and described in narrative texts, not in reconstructing practice that might have given rise to these narrative texts. The latter is a speculative endeavor at best and only sidetracks us from the study of rites of temporary cultic transition. While the search for rituals behind narrative accounts constitutes one methodological pitfall, a second necessary concern is avoiding the temptation to

350

By use of this term, I do not mean to imply the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive ritual texts as distinguished in Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” 105-11. Rather, I mean the term more generally as ritual texts in contrast to narrative or legislative texts. 351 For discussion of the myth-and-ritual school generally see Bell, Ritual, 3-22, esp. 5-8; for role in Ugaritic studies see conveniently Mark S. Smith, Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001), 82-100.

124

harmonize ritual and narrative material. There is a natural tendency to correlate these two corpora, and indeed this chapter attempts to do just that. However, these correlations must not be forced. As with other surrounding textual traditions, Ugaritic narrative material differs from the ritual texts in choice of terminology, in ritual prescriptions and even in the portrayal of the divine. There are several reasons why disparity may exit between the two types of texts—origin in differing time periods, differing functions, differing social location of authors and audiences, or creativity on the part of a narrative’s author. Whatever the reason, the importance for this study is that the narrative texts provide an independent witness for thinking about cultic and ritual action. In this respect, harmonizing the narrative texts with the ritual texts would invalidate the very reason for their inclusion in this study.352 A third methodological qualification is that rituals found in narrative texts need not correspond to real life. That is to say, the ritual activities portrayed in the narrative accounts were not necessarily performed in Ugarit at the time the pieces were written—or indeed at any point in the city’s history. The ritual activity recorded in narrative might portray fossilized or antiquated traditions no longer practiced in the cult. The rituals might portray activity used (or assumed to have been used) in another culture or time.353 Finally, the texts stylize much of the ritual action, providing a description of activity that must conform first and foremost to the aesthetic of the Ugaritic poet. As such, there is no reason

352

This has also been observed in regard to the disconnect between legislative mandate and recorded practice in the Hebrew Bible; see Hilary B. Lipka, Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible (Hebrew Bible Monographs 7; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006); Frymer-Kensky, “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible,” Semeia 45 (1989): 89-102. 353 One biblical example of an antiquated ritual practice would be the manner in which the priest appropriates his portion of a sacrifice in 1 Sam 2:13-14.

125

to assume that rituals portrayed in Ugaritic narrative texts were currently practiced in the Ugaritic cult.354 In light of the previous conditions, it is prudent to ask why this study should include material from narrative texts at all. The ritual texts at Ugarit focus on public (or at least royal/national) rites for the benefit of the king and country. On the whole they are concerned neither with individuals per se nor with rites of crisis caused by personal calamity.355 Rituals in narrative provide this personal and individual perspective. Further, the ritual texts provide only the barest data necessary for the correct performance of the rituals. Most knowledge was either assumed or deemed too sensitive to be written down. The narrative material fills this void by exhibiting a more elaborate description of ritual. It portrays how ritual activity looked outside of the minds of the priests and other cultic officiants, or at least how it was viewed by those outside of this sphere. The value of the narrative descriptions is in their providing an alternative worldview on ritual which is nonetheless part of the total Ugaritic worldview in antiquity, providing a commentary and a check to material found in prescriptive ritual texts.356 Once again, the limitations of the material must be stressed: the narrative texts were not a primer on cultic performance, but for that reason provide an important independent witness for this study. The discussion of Ugaritic narrative rituals that follows focuses on the most likely candidates for rites of temporary cultic transition. These include two seven-day rituals connected to ʾAqhatu’s birth in CAT 1.17 (Daniʾilu’s petition and the feasting of the Kaṯarātu), the night appearance of ʾIlu to Kirtu in 1.14 I-III, and Kirtu’s tower ritual in CAT

354

See discussion in Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 227-29. The cases of deceased kings (CAT 1.161) and besieged cities (CAT 1.119: 25-36) being obvious and understandable exceptions. See Bell, Ritual, 115-20. 356 I am indebted to David Wright for this insight (personal communication). 355

126

1.14 II 9-27//1.14 III 52-IV 9. A noticeable omission from this list is any passage from the Baʿlu Cycle (CAT 1.1-6).357 While there is much ritual activity within the Baʿlu Cycle, all of it focuses on the interaction between gods. Recent work by Wayne Pittard has shown how useful this material is in understanding rituals of court protocol,358 but it is of little help for the examination of rites of temporary cultic status change.359 The Baʿlu Cycle limits divine/human interaction to the victims of ʿAnatu’s martial prowess in CAT 1.3 II and to those who might be effected by Baʿlu’s death in CAT 1.5 VI 23-35//1.6 I 6-8. Neither of these exhibits temporary rites in any form. As such, the Baʿlu Cycle will not be included in the following discussion. ʾAQHATU The extant text of ʾAqhatu comprises three tablets, CAT 1.17-19, though the original tale would undoubtedly have included at least one more tablet given the incompleteness of the story at the end of the last column. CAT 1.17 was discovered on the surface during the second year of excavation at Ras Shamra.360 CAT 1.18 and 1.19 were unearthed nearby during the excavation of the library of the High Priest the following year.361 In general, scholarship on the text can be characterized by three stages: 1) an early myth-and-ritual 357

I should note my intentional disuse of the terms “epic” and “myth” in reference to the tales of ʿAqhatu, Kirtu and Baʿlu. Such distinctions are not based on any emic categories from Ugarit. Further, it can be argued that such categorization limits and prejudges the text. See e.g. Nicholas Wyatt, “The Mythic Mind,” SJOT 15 (2001): 3-56. 358 See Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4 (VTSup 114; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 35-41. 359 One exception to this might be ʿAṯtaru’s temporary enthronement in CAT 1.6 i 55-65. Wyatt infers much from this action, constructing an elaborate ritual whereby each Ugaritic king would have acted the part of ʿAṯtaru, climbing onto the throne of Baʿlu and becoming infused with the power of the divine. However, such an understanding infused itself with ideas from the old “myth and ritual” school is far too speculative to be assumed in this study. Further, such an interpretation would not constitute a temporary rite, since Wyatt interprets the action of sitting upon Baʿlu’s throne as permanently altering the king’s sacral state. See Wyatt, Religious Texts, 132-3 n.75. 360 Bordreuil and Pardee, La trouvaille épigraphique, 1.26. 361 Ibid., 1.30-32; For more on the library of the High Priest see Yon, The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra, 111.

127

approach that 2) gave way to a more general understanding of the text in its ancient Near Eastern world and 3) culminates in the current state of scholarship which tends to analyze the text in terms of specific methodological strategies. The initial discussion here will follow this pattern of stages before addressing the text itself. In the editio princeps of the tale of ʾAqhatu, Virolleaud arranged the tablets as CAT 1.19, 17, 18 and interpreted the tale along the lines of a fertility myth, holding that ʾAqhatu was a harvest spirit who regularly died and was raised from the dead. 362 This mythological interpretation provided at the outset one of the most typical understandings of the tale. The following year Cassuto corrected both the misunderstanding of order and the status of ʾAqhatu while generally avoiding the myth-and-ritual interpretations of the day.363 In 1940 Barton posited that the tale was of a semi-mythical figure from the area around Galilee, based on Barton’s theory of an historical nugget in the text.364 In 1943 Engnell provided the most full-blown myth-and-ritual interpretations to date, describing the tale of ʾAqhatu as “a ritual of the passion, death and resurrection of the divine king.”365 In 1945 H. L. Ginsberg produced a two-part study on the tale of ʾAqhatu, providing a firm philological foundation for the tale and a detailed commentary on CAT 1.17.366 The following year Obermann wrote a full-length study on the ritual detailed in CAT 1.17 I, understanding Daniʾilu’s actions as a dream incubation rite.367 This study has shaped opinion of this ritual up to the present and

362

Charles Virolleaud, La légende phénicienne de Danel; texte cunéiforme alphabétique avec transcription et commentaire, précédé d'une introduction à l'étude de la civilisation d'Ugarit (Mission de Ras Shamra 1; Paris: P. Geuthner, 1936). 363 Umberto Cassuto, “La leggenda fenicia di Daniel e Aqhat,” RRANL (Scienze Morali) VI XIV (1939): 294-368. 364 George A. Barton, “Danel, a Pre-Israelite Hero of Galilee,” JBL 60 (1941): 213-25. 365 Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1943), 134-42; quote from 135. 366 Harold L. Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat, I,” BASOR 97 (1945): 3-10; “The NorthCanaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat, II,” BASOR 98 (1945): 15-23. 367 Julian Obermann, How Daniel was Blessed with a Son: An Incubation Scene in Ugaritic (Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental Society 6; Baltimore: American Oriental Society, 1946).

128

is remarkable in its lack of myth-and-ritual archetypes. However, by 1950 Theodore Gaster’s interpretation firmly returned scholarship to a comparativist understanding of the tale, complete with latent ritual elements. For Gaster, ʾAqhatu exhibits the pattern of the Greek myth of Orion, “a primitive seasonal myth relating how a mortal huntsman challenged the supremacy of the goddess of the chase and how his subsequent execution for this impiety cause infertility upon the earth.”368 Michael Astour pointed out Mesopotamian antecedents to Gaster’s Orion hypothesis.369 Gray370 and Hillers371 provide similar myth-and ritual appraisals. Dijkstra stressed a Mesopotamian myth-and-ritual prototype for the tale by stressing comparisons with the Dumuzi-Tammuz myths.372 De Moor’s treatments in the eighties can be seen as the last foray into the myth-and-ritual approach, which again points to underlying rituals based on a seasonal pattern.373 Caquot and Sznycer’s 1974 treatment of the tale of ʾAqhatu represents a major change in scholarship.374 They critiqued the myth-and-ritual school and those who attempted to find an historical figure lying behind the text. Their analysis asserted that the tale of ʾAqhatu should be judged a classic and placed in the same category as such Mesopotamian texts as Gilgamesh, Adapa and Etana, providing useful social and cultural models akin to wisdom literature. Caquot and Sznycer’s study was followed by later studies

368

Theodor Herzl Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East (Garden City: Anchor Books, 1961), 316-76; quote from 320. 369 Michael C. Astour, Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 163-75. 370 Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament, 102-26. 371 Delbert R. Hillers, “The Bow of Aqhat: The Meaning of a Mythological Theme,” in Orient und Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. Harry A. Hoffner; AOAT 22; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 71-80. 372 Meindert Dijkstra, “Some Reflections on the Legend of Aqht,” UF 11 (1979): 199-210. 373 Johannes C. De Moor, “The Seasonal Pattern in the Legend of Aqhatu,” SEL 5 (1988): 61-78. 374 André Caquot, Maurice Sznycer, and Andrée Herdner, Textes ougaritiques: introduction, traduction, commentaire (LAPO 7; Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974), 401-58.

129

in folklore and common ancient Near Eastern elements by Gibson,375 Xella,376 and Irvin.377 Del Olmo Lete also addressed common themes and stressed the importance of filial duties and royal ideology in interpreting the tale over sacral kingship, fertility cults and seasonal patterns.378 Similarly, in a number of studies Parker combined a literary reading of the tale of ʾAqhatu with attention to social roles and duties.379 Margalit also presented a literary reading of the text.380 However, he adopted Barton’s early view of a Galilean origin of the story, combined with an insistence on the non-royal status of Daniʾilu, so that the story of ʾAqhatu fits firmly within the milieu of the biblical patriarchs. This interpretation has drawn much criticism from Wyatt who sees ʾAqhatu as part of a wide-ranging program of royal propaganda.381 The movement from literary concerns to social ramifications and ideological underpinning through social-scientific models exemplifies the current interpretive trend of the tale of ʾAqhatu. This can be seen in Wyatt’s critique of Margalit as well as his more general works on the mythic mind.382 Husser united literary concerns and social-scientific

375

John C. L. Gibson, “Myth, Legend and Folklore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat Texts,” SVT 28 (1974): 60-8. Paolo Xella, Problemi del mito nel Vicino Oriente Antico (AION 7; Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici, 1976). 377 Dorothy Irvin, Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East (AOAT 32; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978), 76-8. 378 Gregorio Del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas de Canaan: según la tradición de Ugarit (Fuentes de la ciencia bíblica 1; Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981), 325-54. 379 Simon B. Parker, “Death and Devotion: The Composition and Theme of Aqht,” in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope (ed. John H. Marks and Robert M. Good; Guilford: Four Quarters, 1987), 71-83; Parker, Pre-biblical Narrative, 99-144. Cf. Kenneth T. Aitken, “Oral Formulaic Composition and Theme in the Aqhat Narrative,” UF 21 (1989): 1-16; The Aqhat Narrative: A study in the Narrative Structure and Composition of an Ugaritic Tale (JSS Mon 13; Manchester: University of Manchester, 1990). 380 See most fully Baruch Margalit, The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT: Text, Translation, Commentary (BZAW 182; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989). 381 Wyatt, “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme,” 773-96. 382 See most conveniently his collections of earlier articles in Nicholas Wyatt, The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature (London: Equinox, 2005). 376

130

models in interpreting the birth of ʾAqhatu,383 and Aboud considered the tale of ʾAqhatu within a larger study of the king’s role in Ugaritic texts.384 For the concerns of this study, the importance of interpretation of rituals is critical. Anderson has examined Daniʾilu’s mourning in terms of current sociological theories of mourning.385 Wright’s important study analyzes all ritual activity within the tale of ʾAqhatu.386 Lewis has attempted to find evidence of family religion lying behind ritual activity with in the tale,387 and Belnap compares the feasting in the story with similar ritual activity in other Ugaritic texts (e.g. the Baʿlu Cycle and Kirtu).388 These studies avoid the methodological pitfalls of earlier myth-and-ritual interpretations by using comparative materials only to help interpret texts and clarify details of Ugarit’s own religious and social constructs rather than importing wholesale religious ideas, ritual frameworks and social customs from other cultures. The following analysis seeks to build upon these recent scholars’ work. The current discussion will address only those pericopes of ʾAqhatu relevant to the overall study of rites of temporary cultic transition. The first passage to consider is CAT 1.17 I 0-15a, where the extant tale begins.389

383

Jean-Marie Husser, “The Birth of a Hero: Form and Meaning of KTU 1.17 i-ii,” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson (ed. Nicholas Wyatt, et al.; UBL 12; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), 85-98. 384 Aboud, Die Rolle des Königs. Cf. the royal context assumed by Chiara Peri, Poemi ugaritici della regalità: i poemi di Keret e di Aqhat (Testi del Vicino Oriente antico. 5, Letterature della Siria e Palestina Brescia: Paideia, 2004). 385 Gary A. Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), 69-72. 386 Wright, Ritual in Narrative. 387 Theodore J. Lewis, “Family, Household, and Local Religion at Late Bronze Age Ugarit,” in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity (ed. John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan; Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 60-88. 388 Dan Belnap, Fillets of Fatling and Goblets of Gold: The Use of Meal Events in the Ritual Imagery in the Ugaritic Mythological and Epic Texts (Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 4; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008). 389 In contrast to the format of chapters two and three, the Ugaritic texts and translation in chapter four are placed in poetic lines. For more on Ugaritic poetic structure, see e.g. Johannes C. De Moor and Marjo C. A. Korpel, “Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry,” in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (ed. Johannes Cornelis De Moor and Willem van der Meer; JSOTSup 74; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 1-61;

131

[aphnk] (1) [dnil. mt . rp]i. aph . ǵzr (2) [mt . hrmny .] uzr . ilm. ylḥm . (3) [uzr . yšqy .] bn . qdš . yd (4) [ṣth . 390 yʿl . ] w yškb . yd (5) [mizrth .] p yln . hn . ym (6) [w ṯn .] [uzr .] ilm . dnil (7) [uzr . ilm] . ylḥm . uzr (8) [yšqy . b]n . qdš . ṯlṯ . rbʿt ym (9) [uzr . i]lm . dnil . uzr (10) [ilm . y]lḥm . uzr . yšq . bn (11) [qdš] ḫmš . ṯdṯ . ym . uzr (12) . [il]m . dnil . uzr . ilm . ylḥm (13) [uz]r . yšqy . bn . qdš . yd . ṣth (14) [dn]il . yd ṣth . yʿl . w yškb (15) [yd .] mizrth . p yln . mk . b šbʿ . ymm (16) [w]yqrb . bʿl . b ḥnth [Then (1) Daniʾilu, man of Rapa]ʾu,391 Then the hero392 (2) [The Harnamite man393] Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Ugaritic Poetry,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 165-92. 390 Assuming parablepsis has occurred based on ll.13b-14; following Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 21 n.7; Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 117. 391 The epithet mt rpi has elicited a wide variety of translations. The term has been taken as a gentilic referring to the Transjordanian Bashan, modern el-Rafeh, Raphon in 1 Macc 5:37; see Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 143, 251-60; George A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, Especially in Relation to the History of Israel and of the Early Church (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931), 629 n.1. However, this line of reasoning is problematic since the term is a simple genitive; see Dennis Pardee, “The ʾAqhatu Legend,” in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 343 n.1. The word has also been understood etymologically from the root rpʾ “to heal.” Accordingly the epithet has been translated simply as “the man of healing” by Wyatt, Religious Texts, 250, n.5; Robert M. Good, “Supplementary Remarks on the Ugaritic Funerary Text RS 34.126,” BASOR 239 (1980): 41-42; Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, 419; Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament, 120. A third possibility is to see this as the name of a deity. Some scholars understand rpi as an epithet of Baʿlu. See De Moor, ARTU, 225 n.5; Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 77-78 n.27. Others see here reference to the divine eponymous ancestor of the Rapiʾūma. See Simon B. Parker, “Aqhat,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. Simon B. Parker; SBLWAW 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 74 n.4; van der Toorn, Family Religion, 160, 170-71; J. N. Ford, “The ‘Living Rephaim’ of Ugarit: Quick or Defunct?,” UF 24 (1992): 73-101; Meindert Dijkstra, “The Legent of Danel and the Rephaim,” UF 20 (1988): 35-52; George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment (JSOTSup 43; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 113149; Meindert Dijkstra and Johannes C. De Moor, “Problematic Passages in the Legend of Aqhâtu,” UF 7 (1975): 172. Given the evidence for hrmny being a geographical locale (see below), it is unlikely that rpi is a geographical reference as well; it is difficult to be a man of two quite distinct places at the same time. In light Daniʾilu’s need for healing, such an epithet as “healer” would be awkward at the outset of the tale. The importance of Baʿlu throughout the text argues for rpi as an epithet in this text. On rpʾ as a possible epithet of Baʿlu in other Ugaritic texts see Aicha Rahmouni, Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (trans. J. N. Ford; HO 1.93; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008), 292-96.

132

A girded-offering394 to the gods he presents395 as food; (3) [A girded-offering he presents as drink]396 to the holy ones. (4) removes [his outer garment],397

392

While ǵzr is usually taken as “lad,” “hero,” or “warrior” (Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 329), Peri has recently proposed understanding the word in terms of circumcision in a brief note, Peri, Poemi ugaritici della regalità: i poemi di Keret e di Aqhat, 60 n.1. 393 The epithet mt hrnmy has been subject to some discussion. Internal evidence based on CAT 1.19 IV 24-31 would favor a GN (see Dijkstra and De Moor, “Problematic Passages,” 172). Since Albright, the term has been understood as a gentilic, hrnm being identified with modern Hermel and that is how the term is understood here, William F. Albright, “The Traditional Home of the Syrian Daniel,” BASOR 94 (1953): 26-27. However, there are dissenters. Margalit parses hrnmy as the verbal root hr(r) “to pour, dispense” and my “water” translating the term as “Rainmaker,” a supposed epithet of Baʿlu (Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 258-60). This translation fails to explain the extraneous n. Wyatt likewise rejects Albright’s geographical explanation and sees reference to a deity in hrnmy but leaves the term untranslated noting only that it is “an unexplained theological term, perhaps an epithet or a DN *hrnm” (Wyatt, Religious Texts, 251-52 n.5). Neither unique epithets nor new deities are convincing when a simpler answer is at hand. As such, I follow the geographical interpretation here. 394 In CAT 1.17 I 21-22 Baʿlu states to ʾIlu uzrm ilm ylḥm/ uzrm yšqy bn qdš. The use of two enclitics seems unreasonable. Rather, the term uzr should be taken as the object of the verbs ylḥm and yšqy. As such the following scholars take the term as an offering of some sort: Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 27-28. De Moor, ARTU, 225; Dijkstra and De Moor, “Problematic Passages,” 172-3; Anton Jirku, Kanaanäische Mythen und Epen aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962), 115. Other translation options include understanding uzr as a passive participle understood adjectivally as “girded” by Wyatt, Religious Texts, 251; Parker, “Aqhat,” 51-52; Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 144; Del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 367-68; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Bemerkungen zum Aqhat-Text: Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XIV),” UF 10 (1978): 65-66; Joaquín Sanmartín, “Ug. uzr und Verwandtes,” UF 9 (1977): 369-70; H. H. P. Dressler, “Ugaritic uzr and Joel 1:13,” UF 7 (1975): 221-25, or as a variety of clothing by Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East, 330-31; Joseph Aistleitner, Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologische-historische Klasse 106/3; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963), 130. Neither option explains the grammar of the passage adequately. 395 Although the majority of scholars have seen the verbal form in ll. 1-4 as finite (either the short or long prefixing verbal form), some scholars take the verbs throughout as volitional—see Wyatt, Religious Texts, 252 n.9; Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, 419; Jirku, Mythen und Epen, 115;. It is difficult to justify this theory. While it is possible that ll. 1-4 represent a command from ʾIlu that is then fulfilled in ll. 5-15, it is more likely that the narrator gives the pattern in full in ll.1-4 and then repeats more laconically in ll.5-15. 396 Both ylḥm and yšqy are taken as causative forms, the first a D-stem and the second a G-stem. In subsequent rituals these verbs are rendered in the C-stem, highlighting the uniqueness of this initial ritual activity. Daniʾilu is in a state of self-deprivation wherein he is giving food and drink to the gods without partaking himself. Later occurrences of Š-stems occur in situations where Daniʾilu is sharing a meal with the gods, partaking in a meal of communitas. See detailed analysis by Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 23-27; Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 253-55. 397 The Ugaritic term ṣt has many possible cognates (see discussion in Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 793). Johannes C. De Moor, “Frustula Ugaritica,” JNES 24 (1965): 161 suggests two possibilities, the first of which is Arabic ṣuttiyya with the meaning “stripped garment.” While this is possible, it does not explain the final weak letter. A second possibility put forward by de Moor is Phoenician and Hebrew ‫סות‬, whose meaning is obscure. The word appears in Phoenician in KAI 11. 24:8 (see DNWSI 781 and cf. discussion of ‫ סוית‬on 780). In Hebrew the term appears only in Gen 49:11 (cf. HALOT 749). While both suggestions by de Moor are in the general semantic range of garments, neither is particularly persuasive or descriptive. (The LXX translates *‫ סות‬in Gen 49:11 as περιβόλαιον “robe, covering.”) A more helpful possible cognate is the Akkadian (w)aṣitu; see AHw 1475; CAD A/2 355-6; Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (SANTAG 5; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000), 435. The term literally means “that which goes out” and when used of garments would indicate an outer piece of clothing (thus confirming the LXX translation of the word in Gen 49:11). In regard to the orthography in Ugaritic, the loss of

133

[, goes up] and lies down. He removes (5) [his girded garment398,] and so spends the night. Now, for one day (6) [and a second], [A girded-offering] to the gods Daniʾilu, (7) [A girded-offering to the gods] he presents as food; A girded-offering (8) [he presents as drink to the holy] ones. For a third and a fourth day, (9) [A girded-offering to the g]ods Daniʾilu, A girded-offering (10) [to the gods he] presents as food; A girded-offering he presents as drink to the holy (11) [ones]. For a fifth and a sixth day, A girded-offering (12) [to the g]ods Daniʾilu, A girded-offering he presents to the gods as food; (13) [A girded-of]fering he presents as drink to the holy ones. Daniʾilu removes his outer garment; (14) He removes his outer garment and lies down; (15) [He removes] his girded garment, and so spends the night. Then on the seventh day, (16) Baʿlu [ap]proaches in his mercy…

Daniʾilu’s ritual activity concerns us. What is the purpose of such actions? To state that the intended result is to sire an heir is too simplistic an understanding. In what manner is this boon perceived to be accomplished? Theories vary. Given the revelation at the end of the ritual, his apparent location at a cultic place,399 as well as the frequent mention of Daniʾilu’s slumber, one prevalent interpretation is that Daniʾilu is performing a dream incubation—an interpretation first proposed by Obermann in 1946 and accepted by the majority of Ugaritic scholars.400 Rites of dream incubation are known from the classical world and later Christian traditions. In general, a supplicant afflicted with an illness would sleep in a sacred space in hope of consulting a deity while asleep concerning his or her ailment. Often the deity would cure the supplicant over night, and those so healed were expected to remunerate

the ʾaleph can be explained by elision. The change of Akk and Ug /ṣ/ to Ph /s/ is attested by Stanislav Segert, A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (München: Beck, 1976), §33.543.2. 398 Translation following Pardee, “ʾAqhatu,” 1.343, n.3. 399 In CAT 1.17 ii 24-25, the text notes Daniʾilu returns home. His actual location is missing in the break at the beginning of the text. Likewise, the location where Daniʾilu hears that ʾIlu grants his petition through Baʿlu is also lost. 400 Obermann, How Daniel was Blessed with a Son.

134

through sacrifics to the deity and payment to cultic attendants.401 Obermann originally noted similarities between ʾAqhatu, Kirtu, Job 33:15-16, the annals of Ashurbanipal, the Gudea Cylinder A, and the prayers of Muršili. Later scholars have continued to find examples among Hittite ritual texts and Egyptian literature as well.402 More recently, scholars have cast doubt on this interpretation. Caquot and Sznycer first questioned the explanation, seeing rather a rite for the healing of Daniʾilu.403 Problems can also be detected by those who hold to this theory but are unable to account for the ritual variation found in this purported rite of incubation. For example, Parker notes, “Aqht makes no reference to a dream. Rather mythological scenes and communications seem to replace the dream we would expect in an incubation.”404 Both Margalit and Husser have dismantled Obermann’s original argument piece by piece showing the apparent similarities to be nothing but a chimera. Both scholars see no warrant for retrojecting the classical Greek concept of incubation rites back into the Late Bronze Age Levant, or the ancient Near East as a whole. Specifically in terms of Daniʾilu’s activity in the tale of ʾAqhatu, there is no indication that Daniʾilu is sick, that the gods heal him or that the revelation necessarily occurs at night. Even if one assumes that the revelation does occur at night, Husser rightly notes that we are in possession of a narrative which deviates considerably from the conventions of this literary genre. For, there is no known message dream in the ancient Near East whose story-line is so complex. With three different speakers in the same dream, the movement of characters from one place to

401

See Mary Hamilton, Incubation, or, The Cure of Disease in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches (St. Andrews: W.C. Henderson, 1906). 402 See the examples from the Hittite Ritual against Impotence and the Egyptian tale of Setne Khamwas and Si-osire cited in Parker, Pre-biblical Narrative, 100-7. 403 Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, 404. Cf. Margalit’s critique of their understanding Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 261. 404 Parker, Pre-biblical Narrative, 101.

135

another and the three-fold repetition of the same text, the ensemble cannot, form the point of view of literary genre, be considered a message dream.405 Husser rightly holds that Obermann’s interpretation of the tale of ʾAqhatu stretches the term incubation beyond its traditional limits (defined above) and prefers to define the scene more simply as a “birth narrative of a hero.” Margalit comes to the same conclusion and defines the unit as “supplication and revelation.”406 While Maragalit and Husser have rightly criticized interpretations of Daniʾilu’s activity in terms of later Greek, Roman and Christian understandings of dream incubation, it is nonetheless apparent that there is a long history of oneiric revelation in the ancient Near East. The parallels noted by Obermann and his followers comprise a legion of examples. Husser states that “Nothing prevents us, if we abide strictly by the semantic value of the terms, from qualifying as incubation this type of liturgical sleep, but it would mean reserving for incubation a much wider definition than is habitual at present.”407 Yet, might a different term be use to designate this ritual activity? One noteworthy example in this regard is the ritual activity surrounding Gilgamesh’s dreams on the way to the Cedar Forest in tablets III-V of the Gilgamesh Epic. The text was known in the Levant and Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age—as archaeological discoveries attest—and seems to have influenced the tale of ʾAqhatu specifically in its depiction of ʿAnatu’s actions in CAT 1.17 VI – 1.18 I.408 In his discussion of the ritual activity surrounding Gilgamesh’s dreams, George writes of Gilgamesh provoking a dream.409 These

405

Husser, “Birth of a Hero,” 95. Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 266-7. 407 Husser, “Birth of a Hero,” 95 408 See Parker, Pre-biblical Narrative, 113-6; 409 A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1:463-6; cf. A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book (TAPS 46, 3; Philadelphia: American Philosophical 406

136

actions would be in contrast to the apparently unprovoked dreams in tablet I of the epic that foreshadow the appearance of Enkidu and the two’s relationship.410 That is to say, the Gilgamesh Epic portrays multiple and varied literary uses of dreams, only some of which show ritual activity provoking such revelations. Much of the Mesopotamian (and biblical?) evidence compiled in defense of dream incubation fits well with a more simple rite of dream provocation that leaves issues of health, payment and sacred location out of the equation. Yet, Daniʾilu’s ritual action fits poorly into even this simpler category of dream invocation. While he sleeps at the end of each day of ritual activity, the text does not tell us he is asleep when the revelation occurs, when Baʿlu draws near to ʾIlu on his behalf. Further, at the end of the revelatory scene there is no mention of sleep, dream or waking. Rather, at the end of the threefold repetition of filial duties the text notes only Daniʾilu’s reaction to the news of his blessing by ʾIlu before recounting the list of duties for a fourth time. In sum, any notion of a dream revelation falls short simply because Daniʾilu was probably not asleep. Again, the question of what Daniʾilu’s actions are meant to accomplish remains unanswered. Wright views the rite as moving between two separate states of deprivation while never allowing Daniʾilu to return to a normal or quotidian state.411 While Wright spends more time discussing the importance of putting on and taking off of garments, describing such action as a “blinking light drawing attention” to Daniʾilu’s activities, this line of

Society, 1956), 215-7; S. A. L. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals (AOAT 258; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998), 217-39. 410 See Anne D. Kilmer, “A Note on an Overlooked Word-play in the Akkadian Gilgamesh,” in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (ed. G. van Driel; Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata Leiden: Brill, 1982), 128-32; George, Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1:452-4. 411 Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 20-47.

137

reasoning can be taken even further. There is no doubt that Daniʾilu is petitioning the divine by his ritual actions and that such activities will help bring about divine assistance. Yet, the movement between an offering while girded and sleeping without this garment has ritual significance as well. The text indicates no change of location throughout this activity except the change from girded-offering to disrobed sleep. Without a dream incubation or provocation as the aim of the rite, this transitional movement gains further significance. It indicates Daniʾilu’s temporary change of status even while the whole ritual has him in a heightened state due to his deprivation. The blinking light serves as an indication of Daniʾilu’s temporary status change, marking his transition to and from a sacral state of service before the gods. Since deities visit Daniʾilu throughout the tale, it is curious why he undergoes a ritual of cultic transition in CAT 1.17 I. The premise of this study is that such temporary rites boost participants’ cultic status and allow them to perform ritual activity beyond their normal status. The material in chapters two and three posited such cultic transition before and after accessing the divine. However, in the tale of ʾAqhatu, Daniʾilu appears to have access to deities throughout. What makes this rite special? First, it cannot be denied that the girded-offering is unique. While later feasting of deities in this story can be correlated with that of Kirtu and the Baʿlu cycle, this first example is unique due to its distinctive offering and actions. In other words, the text itself sets the ritual off as different. A second indication of the idiosyncratic nature of this action is the appearance of ʾIlu. While ʾIlu is the patron deity of Kirtu, Daniʾilu’s closest divine ally is Baʿlu. Yet, Baʿlu is seen as transcendent throughout the tale. He will grant Daniʾilu’s requests but always from on high. In contrast to the Kaṯarātu, Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu and ʿAnatu, Baʿlu does not enjoy the

138

hospitality of Daniʾilu or interact with him directly. The need for Baʿlu apparently to clear the blessing of Daniʾilu with ʾIlu indicates that within the story ʾIlu is of an even higher rank. If Baʿlu is transcendent, ʾIlu is positively aloof. While lesser deities can be entertained at home, interaction with Baʿlu is restricted to ritual activity and interaction with ʾIlu exclusively to the girded-offering and the entire uzr-ritual. The uzr-ritual gives Daniʾilu access to ʾIlu. Both the structure of the rite in the tale of ʾAqhatu and the unique access to ʾIlu that this rite allows indicates that the uzr-ritual is a temporary rite of cultic transition. After the revelation to Daniʾilu, the man returns home in CAT 1.17 II 24-26. What follows in ll. 26-40 is a divine encounter between Daniʾilu and the birth deities the Kaṯarātu. Attention to similar sorts of ritual action in this passage vis-à-vis the girded-offering helps us interpret the ritual by observing the contrasts in the two rites. It is an example of examining ritual action in the light of other action in the same cultural context, with cultural context here being defined as the narrative itself. (26) ʿrb. b bth . kṯrt bnt (27) hll . snnt . apnk . dnil (28) mt . rpi . ap{.}hn . ǵzr . mt (29) hrnmy . alp . yṭbḫ . lkṯ(30)rt . yšlḥm . kṯrt . wy(31)ššq . bnt . hll . snnt (32) hn . ym . w ṯn . yšlḥm .(33) kṯrt . w . yššq . bnt . hl[l] (34) snnt . ṯlt . rbʿym . yšl(35)ḥm kṯrt . w yššq (36) bnt . hll . snnt . ḫmš (37) ṯdṯ . ym . yšlḥm . kṯrt (38) w yššq . bnt . hll . snnt (39) mk . b šbʿ . ymm . tbʿ . b bth (40) kṯrt . bnt . hll . snnt (26) The Kaṯarātu enter his house,

139

The daughters (27) of the Hll,412 the Radiant Ones.413 Then, Daniʾilu, (28) the man of Rapaʾu, Then, the hero, the (29) Harnamite man, Slaughtered a bull for the Kaṯarātu, (30) He fed the Kaṯarātu and gave drink, (31) To the daughters of the Hll, the Radiant Ones. (32) Now, for one day and two, He fed (33) the Kaṯarātu and gave drink, To the daughters of the Hll, (34) the Radiant Ones. For a third, a fourth day, He (35) fed the Kaṯatātu and gave drink, (36) To the daughters of the Hll, the Radiant Ones. For a fifth, (37) a sixth day, He fed the Kaṯatātu (38) and gave drink, To the daughters of the Hll, the Radiant Ones. (39) Then on the seventh day, The Kaṯarātu departed from his house, (40) The daughters of the Hll, the Radiant Ones.

Similar to the the uzr-ritual, Daniʾilu provides food and drink for these goddesses. However, the verbal construction for the activities here differs from that in the uzr-ritual. As indicated above in note 396, the verbal forms of ylḥm and yšqy in the uzr-ritual (CAT 1.17 I 23, and passim) are unique, causal D-stem and G-stem forms respectively. Here in the second example of feasting in the story, the verbs are both C-stems (yšlḥm and yššq in CAT 1.17 II 30-31 and passim). The verbal forms in the uzr-ritual occur in a context of the deities’ absence, while the verbs used here with the Kaṯarātu occur in the presence of the deities.

412

There is little consensus on the deity Hll. In CAT 1.24:42 he is referred to as bʿl gml “lord of the crescent moon.” See Rahmouni, Divine Epithets, 102-3 n.2 for full discussion. The god Hll is sometimes equated with ‫הילל‬ ‫ בן שחר‬of Isa 14:12 by scholars; see De Moor, ARTU, 145 n. 33; Gabriele Theuer, Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24 (OBO 173; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 158, 492-6. Wyatt has argued an identification with the Mesopotamian god Enlil/Ellil (Wyatt, Religious Texts, 337 n.6; see also W. R. Galllagher, “On the Identity of Hêlēl Ben Šaḥar of Is. 14: 12-15,” UF 26 (1994): 13146). Pardee posits a possible relationship with dHulēnu at Emar (see Dennis Pardee, “Kosharoth ‫כשרות‬,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (ed. K. van der Toorn, et al.; Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999), 492; cf. his translation as “brightness” in Pardee, “ʾAqhatu,” 345). 413 The term ssnt has been translated as “Radiant Ones” based on Arabic sny “shine, gleam” and Jewish Aram snn “refine (metal)” (see discussion in Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 286 n.5; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 337 n.7; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, Studien zu den ugaritischen Texten. I: Mythos und Ritual in KTU 1.12, 1.24, 1.96, 1.100 und 1.114 (AOAT 269/1; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 171-2; Pardee, “ʾAqhatu,” 345). The other major translation option is “swallows” based on Akk sinutu (see Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 81 n.2). Watson argued that this association is based on the similarity of the Sumerian SÍNMUŠEN and the Mesopotamian moon god Sîn in Wilfred G. E. Watson, “Ugaritic and Mesopotamian Literary Texts,” UF 9 (1977): 282. This interpretation has been refuted by Rahmouni, Divine Epithets, 102 n.1.

140

This difference helps convey the active interaction between Daniʾilu and the Kaṯarātu.414 Daniʾilu is not denying himself in acts of self abasement intended to allow greater access to the divine. Instead, the implication in the text is that the Kaṯarātu have arrived because of the decisions made by ʾIlu and Baʿlu in CAT 1.17 I 16-48.415 While there are many similarities and parallels between these two ritual passages, the encounter with the goddesses does not provide rubrics of temporary cultic transition. Rather, the feasting of the Kaṯarātu is a rite of hospitality. Additionally, marks for cultic transition are completely absent in the encounter with the Kaṯarātu. In the present ritual Daniʾilu returns home. This reference was noted above as indicating that the first seven-day ritual involving Baʿlu and ʾIlu occurred in a sacred space. Here in ll. 26-40, Daniʾilu is specifically in a normal space. While one may argue that there is an inherent sacralization of Daniʾilu’s home through the presence of the goddesses, the text is completely silent in this regard. Further and more important, there is no indication that Daniʾilu performs an entry or exit ritual associated with the Kaṯarātu’s visitation. He purifies neither himself nor his household upon their arrival; and similarly, he performs no ritual activity to return his household or persons to a quotidian state after the Kaṯarātu’s departure. Further, as noted above, the seven-day communal meal between Daniʾilu and the Kaṯarātu clearly functions in a manner different from the seven-day uzrritual in CAT 1.17 I. Daniʾilu is in need of this divine interaction, not in danger because of it. The communal meal implies the extension of fertility and fecundity to Daniʾilu by way of the communal interaction between him and the Kaṯarātu. Wright notes, “The visit of the Kotharat can be seen as a metonymical means of signaling that conception occurs at 414

The same can be said of the Š-stem verbs in CAT 1.17 V during the feast for Kôṯaru-wa-Ḫasīsu. The deity is present and the presentation of food conveys hospitality rather than entreaty. 415 Cf. Aitken, “Composition and Theme,” 15.

141

approximately this point in the narrative.”416 The only markers in the scene are that the goddesses arrive and leave in ll. 26-27 and 39-40. These convey no ritual activity on the part of Daniʾilu and function purely to bracket the narration of the scene. However, is it possible that the entire ritual recorded in ll. 26-40 functions as the beginning of a temporary rite of cultic transition for Daniʾilu? Infused with virility by the Kaṯarātu, Daniʾilu would thus be able to sire an heir. Such an interpretation is quite improbable. It would require another ritual somewhere later in the story to return Daniʾilu to a quotidian state. From a narrative concern the two seven-day rituals recounted here already provide a rhetorical balance. Providing a hypothetical third ritual in the break following this scene to balance this second ritual would leave the initial uzr-ritual unbalanced. In light of the symmetry and rhetorical balance apparent in the tale, this seems unlikely.417 Further, such an extended temporary ritual transition is improbable on a ritual level as well. As noted above, there are no individual ritual activities performed by Daniʾilu that would indicate here a movement into a heightened ritual state. The seven-day ritual of communal meal is general and stylized. There is nothing out of the ordinary that alerts one to such an enhanced status. Of course, neither of these insights completely precludes such a function for the rite. Yet, without an extant closing ritual, there is enough to warrant excluding the meal with the Kaṯarātu from a list of such rites in the Ugaritic corpus.418

416

Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 85; contrast with Husser, “Birth of a Hero,” 90-92. See Aitken, “Composition and Theme,” 15; Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 81. 418 This can be contrasted with CAT 1.132. As noted in chapter three, the actions surrounding the visit of Pidrayu warrant understanding the king as undergoing a temporary rite of ritual transition during the goddess’s visit. 417

142

EXCURSUS: DANIʾILU’S SOCIAL STATUS Before leaving the topic of Daniʾilu’s ritual activity in the tale of ʾAqhatu, Daniʾilu’s social status requires comment. In several publications, Nicholas Wyatt has contended that Daniʾilu is a king. In one summation of his argument, Wyatt put forth a seven point argument, maintaining “the anti-monarchical case requires the demolition of the whole argument, point by point.”419 Such an argument can be made and I will address Wyatt’s claims point by point. Wyatt’s first point is that Daniʾilu’s epithet mt rpi has a “royal significance.”420 For Wyatt, the term indicates either that Daniʾilu is “the man (i.e. ruler) of Rapha (GN)” as Wyatt perfers, or that Daniʾilu will be classified among the Rapiʾūma after death. There are two epithets used of Daniʾilu (mt rpi and mt hrnmy). Either can be seen geographically, though not at the same time.421 Either Daniʾilu is the man (ruler) of Rapha, or he is a Harnamite. While the former can be contracted as referring to a place (Rapha) or a group of deities (Rapiʾūma), the latter can only be constructed as a gentilic. That is to say, the latter helps define the former. Further, while the construction “man of GN” indicates a ruler, “man of [gentilic]” does not. However, this does not force one to accept that the first epithet places Daniʾilu in the realm of the divine royal dead, as Wyatt contends the Rapiʾūma represent. As Wright notes The term rpu in Daniʾil’s epithet mt rpi… may be a divine name and not directly connected to the terms rpum and rpu arṣ (for example, it is not clear if this singular entity is the head of the rpum), though it is not clear if this a

419

Nicholas Wyatt, “The Story of Aqhat,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 250. 420 Ibid., 249; cf. Wyatt, Religious Texts, 250 n.5. 421 For the full range of possible translation of these words and their geographical locations see notes 391 and 393. Rapha was in the Transjordan while Harnam (modern Hermel) was in what is now northern Lebanon. Even allowing for poetic parallelism, it makes no sense for Daniʾilu to be from both locations simultaneously.

143

high god (for example Baʿl or Il) or a lesser deity. The patronage of Baʿl otherwise in the Aqhatu story may suggest that it is Baʿl.422 In short, neither epithet implies a royal status for Daniʾilu. Wyatt’s second argument is that the blessing formula in CAT 1.17 I 34-36 is explicitly royal based on similarity to the blessing of Kirtu at CAT 1.15 II 16-20.423 Assuredly, the two blessings by ʾIlu are indicative of a larger type-scene of divine benevolence.424 However, does it follow that this “will incidentally carry across with reference to Aqhat any conclusions drawn with reference to Keret”?425 Or to put it differently, does this then necessitate that Daniʾilu is a king because Kirtu is? The simple answer is no. With only two attestations, it goes beyond the data to demand a royal context. Wyatt also cites iconographic data of scenes containing a god with raised cup, but this is also inconclusive. One stele contains a scene of a seated god (ʾIlu?) with cup in hand apparently conferring blessing on a human who is arguably the king. However, this is one attestation with no further examples of a similar pose. Without proper context, it is impossible to assume that the blessing was extended only to royalty. Beyond issues of the two lone examples (one iconic, one epigraphic) that Wyatt uses to make his case, the importance of the ritual gesture itself needs to be addressed. Wright has rightly juxtaposed the raised cup of blessing by ʾIlu in CAT 1.17 I with the cup that ʿAnatu hurls down in CAT 1.17 VI 15-16.426 In the tale of ʿAqhatu the two gestures represent expressions of divine favor and disfavor respectively. A proper understanding of the ritual action as conveyed in the narrative itself points to contrasting gestures of blessing and judgment without an implication of royal 422

Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 78 n.27. Wyatt, “The Story of Aqhat,” 249; cf. “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme,” 787-9; Jared J. Jackson and H. H. P. Dressler, “El and the Cup of Blessing,” JAOS 95 (1975): 99-101. 424 See André Caquot and Maurice Sznycer, Ugaritic Relgion (Iconography of Religions 15/8; Leiden: Brill, 1980), plates VII, VIIIa, XXII; Dijkstra and De Moor, “Problematic Passages,” 178 n.66; Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 71-2. 425 Wyatt, “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme,” 787. 426 Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 72. 423

144

status. While it is natural to assume that such actions would be extended to the king (as in the case of Kirtu), there is no reason to claim that it is exclusively royal. Wyatt’s third argument is that “Danel also performs an action reminiscent of El himself at KTU 1.17 i [sic!] 10-11, in placing his feet on his footstool.”427 However, the meaning of this action is explained by Daniʾilu himself in the lines immediately following in CAT 1.17 II 12-14: aṯbn. ank / wanḫn. wtnḫ. birty /npš “Now I can sit down and rest; In my breast my soul will rest!”

Daniʾilu’s outward gesture expresses his inward emotions. He is able to rest with his feet up because his worries have been put to rest. Conversely, in the Baʿlu Cycle ʾIlu expresses his grief after hearing of Baʿlu’s demise by descending from his throne and footstool (CAT 1.5 VI 11-14). apnk. lṭpn. il [[xx]]/ d pid. yrd . l ksi . yṯb / l hdm . w l . hdm . yṯb / l arṣ . Then the Gracious One, Kindly ʾIlu Descends from (his) throne, sits on the footstool; And from the footstool, sits on the earth.

Like the example of ʿAnatu throwing the cup, the inverse action provides us with added insights to those in our text. ʾIlu enters a mourning state by descending from his throne to sit on the ground. By sitting down and being at rest, Daniʾilu indicates an end to his period of self-abasing petition of the divine. Far from indicating that Daniʾilu is like ʾIlu in royal rank, the gesture indicates a return to the quotidian.428

427 428

Wyatt, “The Story of Aqhat,” 250. Cf. Anderson, Time to Mourn, 70-2.

145

Wyatt’s fourth argument for the royal status of Daniʾilu is the mention of uzr in the opening ritual of the story, and removal of the assumed ritually appropriate garments ṣt and mizrt. Wyatt links these garments—along with his translation of uzr as “enrobed”—to iconographic portrayals of ceremonial garments the Ugaritic kings purportedly wore.429 However, the translation of uzr argued above is “girded-offering.” While one could argue that this still implies the king is girded, the evidence from the ritual texts in chapters two and three provide little support for such ceremonial robes being important in the life of the Ugaritic cult. Further, it has yet to be determined what relation (if any) the world of the narrative has with the real interworking of the Ugaritic cult, or for that matter the iconographic witness.430 In sum, Wyatt’s datum of Daniʾilu’s supposed royal garb begs the question of royal ceremonial garments and assumes a shared ritual outlook between the tale of ʾAqhatu, the ritual texts, and iconographic representations that cannot be substantiated. A fifth factor in Wyatt’s assessment is the reference to Daniʾilu judging cases in the city gate and his concern for widows and orphans (CAT 1.17 V 4-8; 1.19 I 19-25). Wyatt’s assertion that the latter is a well-attested royal prerogative cannot be disputed. References to upholding the plight of the downcast are a standard trope attested at least as early as Hammurapi (see LH xlvii; 59-78). What is debatable is whether the place of disposal of justice (the city gate) is also indicative of royal prerogative. Again, in the reference to 429

A more in-depth argument is found in Wyatt, Religious Texts, 251 n.6. On the important role of iconography for the dispersal of royal ideology see Barbara Nevling Porter, Images, Power, and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon's Babylonian Policy (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993); Trees, Kings, and Politics: Studies in Assyrian Iconography (OBO 197; Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003); Marlies Heinz and Marian H. Feldman, eds., Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007) Nicole Maria Brisch, ed., Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond (OIS; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008).

430

146

Hammurapi the laws were not found at the gate but in the temple of Esagila. Wyatt, noting Ginsberg, points to 1 Kgs 22:10//2 Chr 18:9 as a parallel,431 an account of Ahab and Jehoshaphat holding a joint court at the gate. Yet this lone instance is one in which two kings are planning a council of war, not dispensing justice.432 The unique location serves as a reminder of the shaky relationship between Israel and Judah, a point underlined by Jehoshaphat’s need for additional prophetic oracles vouchsafing the military expedition. Further, the dispersal of justice at the gate, found so prevalently in Deuteronomy, is performed not by the king but by elders (see Deut 21:19; 22:15; 25:7). Additionally, Daniʾilu’s name contains the root d-n “to judge,” as he is reputed to do in CAT 1.17 v 7-8: yd / dn almnt “He judges the judgment of the widow.” The information is etymological not royal in character. The sixth argument Wyatt contends for Daniʾilu’s royalty is that he purportedly lives in a “palace” (hkl) in CAT 1.17 I 26, 43, II 25; 1.19 IV 8-9. However, with the exception of the broken context of CAT 1.17 V 39, every occurrence of hkl in ʾAqhatu is a poetic B line paired with “house” (bt or bht) in the A line. This is also the case in the Baʿlu Cycle in CAT 1.2 III 7-8, 8-9, 10-11, 20-21; 1.3 II 17-18, V 20-21; 1.4 V 13-14, 30-31, 36-37, 50-52, 53-55, 5657, 61-62, 64-65, VI 5-6, 8-9, 16-17, 22-23, 25-26, 29-31, 31-33, 38-40, 44-46 as well as in one of the shorter Baʿlu texts 1.10 II 4-5.433 Additionally, the same parallelism is found in CAT 1.100

431

Wyatt, “The Story of Aqhat,” 249; Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat, I,” 4 n.6. Another possible example, not noted by Wyatt, is 2 Sam 15:1-4. According to the MT Absalom ‫ועמד על יד‬ ‫“ דרך השער‬stood beside the road to the gate” (v.2) and there complain of the king’s lack of justice (v.4). This serves as an indirect witness. Absalom attempts to look more like a king than the king. This usurping of royal prerogative leads directly to his own usurping of the throne later in 2 Sam 15, and the taking of the royal concubines in 2 Sam 16: 15-23 (another public display by Absalom, according to v.22). (However, see the textual issue in the BHS note on v.2.) Saul Olyan brought this example to my attention. 433 The current list tabulated with the help of Jesús-Luis Cunchillos, Juan-Pablo Vita, and José-Ángel Zamora, A Concordance of Ugaritic Words (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2003). Cf. the older study of the word pair by 432

147

71-72. In short, the combination of b(h)t//hkl is parallelism is a standard literary couplet in Ugaritic narrative poetry and need not imply Daniʾilu literally or literarily had a royal residence. Wyatt’s last argument in favor of the royal status of Daniʾilu is the problematic line CAT 1.19 III 46, where the consonants mlk occur. While Wyatt is right to critique Margalit’s appeal to obscure Arabic cognates,434 Pardee’s translation of the text makes eminent sense without resorting to strained etymologies, taking the consonants as m-l-k (“what pertains to you”).435 Additionally, Wyatt himself is forced to admit that his evidence for translating the line with reference to a king is circumstantial and based upon his other arguments.436 To conclude this discussion, Wyatt’s argument for Daniʾilu’s kingship has been disproven point by point, but the relevance of this argument for the current study has yet to be assessed. In light of the evidence from chapters two and three, it would appear to strengthen this study if Daniʾilu were in fact a king. All Ugaritic evidence for rites of temporary cultic transition in the ritual texts involved the king of Ugarit. However, it has been my contention that those rites were not necessitated by the king’s status as royal but rather by his status as a non-priest. To this end, the evidence from the tale of ʾAqhatu involving a non-royal person further strengthens the argument that these rites were necessary for those outside of the priestly domains. This is not to imply that Daniʾilu’s actions would have been typical of Ugaritic laity. Daniʾilu is an extraordinary individual, visited by gods on numerous occasions, able to invoke curses and blessings that effect

Mitchell Dahood, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” in Ras Shamra Parallels. I (ed. Loren R. Fisher, et al.; AnOr 49; Rome: Pontificium institutum biblicum, 1972), 129. 434 Wyatt, “The Story of Aqhat,” 250; contra Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 410-11. 435 See Pardee, “ʾAqhatu,” 1:354 and n.115. 436 See Wyatt, Religious Texts, 307 n.205.

148

nature.437 Rather, the temporary rite in CAT 1.17 I points towards a more general understanding of temporary rites that extends beyond the prerogative of priestly and royal domains.

KIRTU The tale of Kirtu is contained on three extant tablets of six columns each (CAT 1.1416), all found in the vicinity of the library of the High Priest during the second and third years of excavation at Ras Shamra.438 Some scholars believe that the story might have extended onto other non-extant tablets,439 though the story can be interpreted as complete in its current form. The history of interpretation of the tale follows a similar trajectory as that of ʾAqhatu. In his editio princeps Virolleaud saw the text as containing both historical and mythological elements.440 Subsequent scholarship tended to break one way or the other from this medial position. Although more scholars held an historical interpretation of Kirtu than of ʾAqhatu,441 myth-and-ritual interpretations were prevalent.442 A notable exception

437

See recent summation of the tales of ʾAqhatu and Kirtu, that juxtaposes the elite perspective of the former with the specifically royal context of the latter in Lewis, “Family, Household, and Local Religion at Late Bronze Age Ugarit,” 71-72. 438 See Bordreuil and Pardee, La trouvaille épigraphique, 1:26, 30-32 for details. 439 E.g. Dennis Pardee, “The Kirta Epic,” in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1: 333; Baruch Margalit, “The Legend of Keret,” in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (ed. Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt; HO 1.39; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 204. An older, yet still relevant, discussion proposing a tablet missing between CAT 1.14 and 15 can be found in K.-H. Bernhard, “Anmerkungen zur Interpretation des KRTTextes von Ras Schamra-Ugarit,” WZG 5 (1955-56): 111. 440 Charles Virolleaud, La légend de Keret, roi des Sidoniens d’après une tablette de Ras Shamra (Mission de Ras Shamra 2; Paris,: P. Geuthner, 1936). 441 See William F. Albright, “Recent Progress in North-Canaanite Research,” BASOR 70 (1938): 23 (though note his 1936 study below); Harold L. Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age (BASORSup 2-3; New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946); Godfrey R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends (OTS 3; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), 28-47. 442 Myth-and-ritual interpretations include William F. Albright, “New Canaanite Historical and Mythological Data,” BASOR 63 (1936): 31-2; Sigmund Mowinckel, “Immanuelsprofetien Jes. 7. Streiflys fra Ugarit I,” NTT

149

to these two interpretations was Pederson’s early ideological reading of the text.443 This interpretation was later championed in the studies by Gray,444 Merill445 and most recently Wyatt.446 Similar again to the tale of ʾAqhatu, Kirtu studies have moved away from historicist and myth-and-ritual concerns to focus on folklore motifs and common literary elements shared with other ancient Near Eastern texts. Gibson,447 Herder,448 and del Olmo Lete449 all have produced studies in this vein, culminating with Parker’s work.450 Parker saw the tale of Kirtu as a critique of older royal ideology steeped in common folklore motifs. Margalit has taken this idea of critique to an extreme and sees the text as a farce, a tragic-comedy designed to poke fun at the old king.451 However, his reading is problematic.452 It is uncertain how such a piece of protest poetry would have found its way into the High Priest’s library. Or to put it more bluntly: Ugarit was not Paris under the occupation, and ʾIlimilku was not Sartre. Aside from Belnap’s analysis of feasting,453 and Wyatt’s interpretation of the tower ritual (see below),454 little has been said of ritual elements in the text.455 This study adds to

XLLII (1941): 142-4; “Fra Israels omvaerden,” NTT XLV (1944): 154-63; Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, esp. 148-9; Theodor H. Gaster, “Review: The Canaanite Epic of Keret,” JQR 37 (1947): 285-293. 443 J. Pedersen, “Die KRT Legende,” Berytus 6 (1941): 63-105. 444 John Gray, The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra: A Social Myth of Ancient Canaan (Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 5; Leiden,: Brill, 1964). 445 A. L. Merrill, “The House of Keret: A Study of the Keret Legend,” SEÅ 33 (1968): 5-17 446 Nicholas Wyatt, “Epic in Ugaritic Literature,” in A Companion to Ancient Epic (ed. John M. Foley; Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 249-50. 447 Gibson, “Myth, Legend and Folklore,” 60-8. 448 Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner, Textes ougaritiques, 483-575. 449 Del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 237-323. 450 Parker, “KRT and the Cult of El,” 161-75; Pre-biblical Narrative, 145-216. 451 Margalit, “The Legend of Keret,” 203-33. 452 See critique in Wyatt, “Epic in Ugaritic Literature,” 249-50. 453 Belnap, Fillets of Fatling and Goblets of Gold. 454 See Wyatt, “Degrees of Divinity,” esp. 860. 455 One could add Parker’s work on the cult of ʾIlu to this discussion, though it is really secondary to our concern of rites of temporary cultic transition in the tale, see Parker, “KRT and the Cult of El,” 161-75.

150

this discussion by noting that the tale of Kirtu also provides an apparent temporary rite of cultic transition. The story begins much like the tale of ʾAqhatu, with a man lamenting his childless state followed by divine revelation in CAT 1.14 I 26-37. (26) yʿrb . bḥdrh . ybky (27) bṯn . [[p]] ʿgmm . wydmʿ (28) tntkn . udmʿth (29) km . ṯqlm . arṣh (30) km456 ḫmšt . mṭth (31) bm . bkyh . wyšn (32) b dmʿh . nhmmt (33) šnt . tlun457 (34) wyškb . nhmmt (35) wyqmṣ . wbḥlmh (36) il . yrd . bḏhrth (37) ab . adm . (26) He entered his room; he wept; (27) As he recounted his grief, he sobbed.458 (28) His tears poured forth (29) Like shekels on the ground, (30) Like five(-shekel weights) on the bed. (31) As he wept he fell asleep; (32) As he cried he slumbered. (33) Sleep overwhelmed him, (34) and he lay down; Slumber, (35) and he curled up.459 And in his dream (36) ʾIlu came down; In his vision,460 (37) the Father of Man.

The appearance of ʾIlu at the beginning of Kirtu stands in a similar position to the manifestation of Baʿlu in ʾAqhatu. Both texts use the common type scene of a needed heir,

456

While CAT reads k mḫmšt, reading km ḫmšt makes better poetic sense; see Wyatt, Religious Texts, 183 n.27; cf. Del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 291; Paolo Xella, Gli antenati di Dio (Verona: Essedue, 1982), 159. Those following CAT’s reading of mḫmšt “one-fifth” must explain what exactly this measurement refers to (i.e. onefifth of what?); see Johannes C. De Moor and Klaas Spronk, “Problematic Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I),” UF 14 (1982): 157. 457 CAT notes that the n looks like a + t (36 n.3). Edward L. Greenstein, “Kirta,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. Simon B. Parker; SBLWAW 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 13 sees sees tluan. 458 See Wilfred G. E. Watson, “What Does Ugaritic gmn Mean?,” AuOr 7 (1989): 129-31. 459 See Jonas C Greenfield, “Some Glosses on the Keret Epic,” EI 9 (1969): 61-2. 460 See Josef Tropper, “Ugaritic Dreams: Notes on Ugaritic ḏ(h)rt and hdrt,” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson (ed. Nicholas Wyatt, et al.; UBL 12; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996), 305-13.

151

with divine revelation guaranteeing future progeny.461 However, this is where the similarities end. Due to the broken nature of both texts, the full situation of each is difficult to surmise. What remains of CAT 1.14 I raises the question of whether Kirtu is simply childless, or if he has been widowed many times over.462 There is a general consensus since the studies by Parker that Kirtu is akin to the biblical Job, facing a massive familial misfortune at the outset of the story.463 It is also possible to view Kirtu as similar to Sarah from Tobit 6—each of his previous spouses coming to a bad end before producing an heir.464 Regardless, the plot is different in its details from that of Daniʾilu in the tale of ʾAqhatu who evidently has a wife and was afflicted with infertility or impotence rather than external calamity. While both Kirtu and Daniʾilu are in need of an heir, their situations are different. This difference is reflected in their actions at the outset of the narratives. Kirtu and Daniʾilu act dissimilarly before their divine encounters. CAT 1.17 I recounts the details of the multi-day ritual that Daniʾilu performs. While the purpose of Daniʾilu’s actions is only discovered with the divine revelation, it is apparent from the outset that some ritual activity is involved. Conversely, CAT 1.14 I gives no such details for Kirtu; he does not offer sacrifices of any kind. The locus of Daniʾilu’s activity is somewhere other than his house, most likely a cult location of some sort. Kirtu’s actions, however, occur within the confines of his own house, within his own private rooms. Without 461

See Parker, Pre-biblical Narrative, 145-58; Husser, “Birth of a Hero,” 85-98. Scholars are divided as to whether the laconic opening sequence represents the untimely demise of Kirtu’s wives or his children. For the latter see Ginsberg, Legend of King Keret, 14; Gray, Krt, 11; Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz, “Das Porträt einer Königin in KTU 1.14 I 12-15. Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XVIII),” UF 12 (1980): 199-204; Xella, Gli antenati di Dio, 158; Wyatt, Religious Texts, 180. Those who see the sequential death of Kirtu’s wives include Umberto Cassuto, “The Seven Wives of King Keret,” BASOR 119 (1950): 18-21; Gibson, “Myth, Legend and Folklore,” 63; Del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 290; De Moor, ARTU, 192; Baruch Margalit, “K-R-T Studies,” UF 27 (1995): 219; Josef Tropper, “Die sieben Frauen des Königs Keret,” UF 26 (1996): 529-32; Pardee, “Kirta,” 333. 463 Parker, Pre-biblical Narrative, 146. 464 Wyatt, Religious Texts, 180 n.9 notes this similarity but in the end tentatively favors the child interpretation for the opening lines. 462

152

definitive markers, Kirtu’s activities before his oneiric encounter with ʾIlu cannot be considered a rite of temporary cultic transition. It is true that Kirtu mourns before his revelation, but his withdrawal and private emotional display is difficult to categorize. This activity could be either a ritual action of petition or a personal breakdown.465 If this action is meant to indicate the inception of a temporary status change, a second rite returning Kirtu to a quotidian state is also needed. The action prescribed by ʾIlu in CAT 1.14 II 9-11 (and completed by Kirtu in 1.14 III 52-54) could be interpreted as indicating a maker of temporary cultic status change. As such, this material requires exposition. (9)trtḥṣ . w tadm (10)rḥṣ [. y]dk . amt (11)uṣb[ʿtk.] ʿd [.] ṯkm Wash yourself, and rouge yourself; Wash your hands to the elbow, Your fingers up to the shoulder.

This activity could be seen as closing a period of ritual supplication of the divine or beginning a period of ritual action surrounding the following tower ritual (to be discussed below). If it marks a closing rite, it would necessitate that Kirtu had previously been in a heightened state—an argument analogous to those made in chapters two and three when only desacralization rites (ḥl) were evident in some ritual texts. Such a closing rite would also correlate with Daniʾilu’s returning to a seat with his feet on a footstool rather than sleeping on the floor at night; it indicates a return to the quotidian. Yet Kirtu’s situation, alone in his own chamber, is less austere and provides less of a contrast indicating a change of status. 465

Petition and personal breakdown need not be mutually exclusive. See discussion of the social dimensions of mourning in Saul M. Olyan, Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), esp. 1-27. However, Margalit goes too far in calling Kirtu’s actions “womanish” (Margalit, “The Legend of Keret,” 221).

153

Likewise, the washing activity prescribed by ʾIlu and later enacted by Kirtu appears elsewhere in Ugaritic narrative texts not exclusively as a closing rite, but also as an action initiating a new status. Similar rites of washing occur in the tale of ʾAqhatu and the Baʿlu cycle. Both of these contexts need to be addressed. In CAT 1.19 IV 40-43, Puǵatu prepares to visit vengeance upon Yaṭupanu. [xx] (41) d . txxl . bym .466 trtḥ[ṣ] (42) w . tadm . tid!m . b ǵlp ym (43) dalp . šd . ẓuh . bym (41) She … in the sea, She washed herself (42) and rouged herself, With rouge467 from a seashell (43) Whose source is a thousand acres468 in the sea.

These activities are reminiscent of those undertaken by ʿAnatu in the Baʿlu cycle, and it can be confidently asserted that Puǵatu’s activity in CAT 1.19 IV is meant to mirror that of ʿAnatu. In the Baʿlu cycle the latter performs actions of washing and reddening in CAT 1.3 II 32-III 2. (32) trḥṣ . ydh . bt(33)lt .ʿnt . uṣbʿth . ybmt . limm . (34)[t]rḥṣ . ydh . bdm ḏmr (35) uṣbʿth . bmmʿ . mhrm (36) ṯʿr . ksat . lksat . ṯlḥnt (37) lṯlḥn . hdmm . tṯar . lhdmm (38) tḥspn . mh . wtrḥṣ (39) ṭl . šmm . šmn . arṣ . rbb (40) [r]kbb ʿrpt . ṭl . šmm . tskh (41) [r]bb . nskh . kbkbm Col III (1) ttp . anhb[m .] [dalp . šd] (2) ẓuh . bym 466

Lines 40-41 are quite broken. Attempted restorations include CTA: d. ttql . b ym.; Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 140, 165: [td[d . ttql . bym; and Johannes C. De Moor and Klaas Spronk, A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (SSS 6; Leiden: Brill, 1987), 116-17: dgt . tšʿl . b ym . Given the lack of certainty or scholarly consensus, no restoration is here adopted. 467 Reading tid!m as a noun. See John C. L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978), 121; Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 206. 468 Following Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 809 in translating šd as some surface measure, conveniently “acre.”

154

(32) Adoles[ce]nt (33) ʿAnatu washes her hands, The sister-in-law of the people,469 her fingers. (34) [She] washes her hands in the blood of warriors.470 (35) Her fingers in the gore of the soldiers. (36) She arranges chairs with chairs, Tables (37) with table<s>, Footstools she arranges with footstools.471 (38) She draws water and washes (39)With dew of heaven, oil of earth, The precipitation of the (40)Cloud [R]ider The dew that the heavens poured on her; (41) The precipitation that the stars poured on her. (1) She beautifies herself with murex, 472 (2) Whose source is a thousand acres in the sea.

This activity is performed after ʿAnatu engages in battle, first in a valley between two towns (CAT 1.3 II 3-16) and then in her house (1.3 II 17-30). The mention of washing in the blood of her enemies might be indicative of ritualized warfare, though this is far from certain given the inexplicability of the text. A further example of ʿAnatu washing occurs in CAT 1.3 IV 42-46. (42) tḥspn . mh . wtrḥṣ (43) tl . šmm . šmn . arṣ . ṭl . šm[m . ts]kh (44) rbb . nskh . kbkbm (45) ttpp . anhbm . dalp . šd (46) ẓuh . bym (42) She collected water and washed, (43) (With) dew of heaven, oil of earth, Dew of heaven poured on her; (44) The precipitation that the stars poured on her. (45) She anoints herself473 with murex, Whose source is (46) a thousand acres in the sea.

469

The translation here takes lʾimm from the more common noun “people, clan” (Ibid., 487-88). For various translation options for this epithet of ʿAnatu, see Rahmouni, Divine Epithets, 187-88 n.4. 470 See Mark S. Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. Simon B. Parker; SBLWAW 9; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 167 n.50; Dennis Pardee, “The Baʿlu Myth,” in The Context of Scripture (ed. William W. Hallo; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:251. 471 Pardee, “The Baʿlu Myth,” 1:251 n.79 holds that the arranging of footstools is to be contrasted with the former arrangement of tables and chairs. These earlier activities were for the warriors, while no intended group is mentioned for the footstools. 472 See discussion in Johannes C. De Moor, “Murices in Ugaritic Mythology,” Or 37 (1968): 212-15; Fred Renfroe, Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies (ALSAP 5; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992), 80-81. 473 Taking ttpp as a Gt of np(p) “to sprinkle oneself, anoint oneself,” see Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 615 and Tropper, Ugaritische Grammatik, 522.

155

The reddening in the tales of Kirtu and ʾAqhatu can be correlated with that in the Baʿlu cycle. Kirtu mentions only reddening. ʾAqhatu specifies this with rouge from a sea shell. This fact is supported and expanded by additional information provided in the Baʿlu cycle. Taken as a whole, the four attestations denote the ritual use of marine dyes in the context of status change.474 However, the nature of this status change needs to be examined. In the Baʿlu cycle ʿAnatu washes and reddens after her battle (CAT 1.3 II 34-III 2) and later, before meeting Baʿlu (CAT 1.3 IV 42-46).475 This activity could be seen as purification, in line with the activity observed in chapters two and three that transitioned the king into a temporary state. However, the first example of ʿAnatu’s action is unique in its ritual use of blood. ʿAnatu only ends the slaughter after washing in the blood and gore of the fallen.476 Further, after this activity ʿAnatu plays music and sings of the daughters of Baʿlu—activity that could be indicative of the return to a more passive state.477 It marks a return to the quotidian rather than the beginning of a new status in this instance. The unique element of blood might be indicative of or catalyst for this difference. The second example of ʿAnatu’s action (CAT 1.3 IV 42-46) does appear to begin a new status. However, it is uncertain whether the purpose is purification or readying for military activity. While ʿAnatu claims to have placed warfare behind her (see CAT 1.3 IV 22-25), her plan to obtain a house for

474

See Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 208 n.9. ʿAnatu also washes before meeting with ʾIlu in CAT 1.13:18. 476 See Smith, “The Baal Cycle,” 167 n.50. 477 ʿAnatu’s washing ends in CAT 1.3 III 2 and the report of her musicianship are in ll.4-8. However, there is a break of some twenty lines between these two occurrences. In the Bible, women traditionally greeted men returning from battle. It is possible to look at ʿAnatu’s activity in this light. See Carol L. Meyers, “Of Drums and Damsels: Women's Performance in Ancient Israel,” BA 54 (1991): 16-27. 475

156

Baʿlu consists solely of threatening ʾIlu with violence (1.3 IV 53-V 4). Thus, this example may in fact begin another state of warfare for ʿAnatu.478 In the tale of ʾAqhatu, David Wright has similarly argued that Puǵatu’s activity in CAT 1.19 IV 41-46 marks the beginning of a status change. This passage may indicate that dyeing and, presumably along with it, washing are part of the preparation for going to battle. This fits the context of Pughat’s activity, especially since the following lines tell how she arranges the dagger under her clothing. Purification makes sense as a transition from common status to warrior status.479 In the tale of Kirtu, marshalling of forces for war also follows the activity of washing and reddening. Leaving aside the ritual in CAT 1.3 II 34-III 2 with its unique elements, the activities of ʿAnatu, Puǵatu and Kirtu all point to a temporary transition from the quotidian to warrior status. Although ʿAnatu, Puǵatu, and Kirtu all undergo these temporary rites, does the ensuing change constitute a cultic status change? In the case of ʿAnatu, a cultic status change is highly unlikely. ʿAnatu, as a goddess, operates beyond the level of the cult. More concretely, ʿAnatu does not consistently wash and redden herself when going into the presence of other deities. Though in CAT 1.3 IV 22-25 she performs these activities before visiting Baʿlu and ʾIlu, such activity is absent in the tale of ʾAqhatu (CAT 1.17 VI 46-1.18 I 20) when she goes before ʾIlu in a similar state of supplication.480 ʿAnatu’s petition is granted in the tale of ʾAqhatu specifically when she has not come before ʾIlu after washing and reddening. Additionally, ʿAnatu bows at ʾIlu’s feet in the tale of ʾAqhatu (CAT 1.18 I 8-9).

478

These two activities are simply equated by Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume 2, 304; cf. 186-93 for their discussion of CAT 1.3 II 34-III 2. 479 Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 209; cf. the reference to “war-paint” by Margalit, Ugaritic Poem of AQHT, 322. 480 See Parker, “Death and Devotion,” 77-78 for similarities between both incidents and the Gilgamesh epic.

157

481

Perhaps the combination of these two threatening gestures is inappropriate in the

context of a meeting before ʾIlu. Likewise, neither Puǵatu nor Kirtu are allowed special access to the divine indicative of cultic status change because of this ritual washing. Such references are completely absent from the tale of ʾAqhatu; Puǵatu appears to be on her own in her quest for vengeance against Yaṭupanu. She performs no activities in cultic locations subsequent to her embarcing a warrior status. The case of Kirtu is more complex. Kirtu follows his washing and reddening with a tower ritual in which he sacrifices to Baʿlu. However, he neither abandons his warrior status after this second rite, nor does the text state that Baʿlu’s presence remains with Kirtu. Indeed, Kirtu himself appears uncertain enough of divine favor that he entreats ʾAṯiratu as well by making a vow that will have painful ramifications later in the story. In sum, the ritual activity prescribed by ʾIlu in CAT 1.14 II 9-11 and performed by Kirtu in 1.14 III 52-54 does not constitute the end of a temporary rite of cultic transition beginning in Kirtu’s bedroom. Rather Kirtu’s actions are more closely aligned with Puǵatu before she seeks vengeance upon Yaṭupanu and ʿAnatu before she physically threatens her father ʾIlu. These rites serve as a transition into a warrior state.482 However, this temporary status change as far as it can be attested in Ugaritic texts does not contain a cultic dimension. Even if one were to assume that such action to encounter deities is reasonably implicity, neither Kirtu nor Puǵatu undergo these rites to perform cultic activities otherwise off limits.

481 482

Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume 2, 37-38. See Wyatt, Religious Texts, 186 n.44 and “Degrees of Divinity,” 958 n. 19.

158

There is one further possible case of temporary cultic transition in the tale. Following the washing and reddening, Kirtu is instructed to offer a sacrifice to ʾIlu and Baʿlu from atop a tower. CAT 1.14 II 9-27483 (9) trtḥṣ.wtadm (10) rḥṣ[. y]dk . amt (11) uṣb[ʿtk .] ʿd [.]ṯkm (12) ʿrb [.b ẓl . ḫmt] (13) qḥ . im[r . b yd]k (14) imr . d[bḥ . bm]. ymn (15) lla . kl[atn]m (16)klt . l[ḥmk . ]d nzl (17) qḥ . ms[rr .] ʿṣr (18) dbḥ . ṣq[ . b g]l . ḥtṯ (19)yn . b gl . [ḫ]rṣ . nbt (20) ʿl . l ẓr . m[g]dl (21) w ʿl . l ẓr mgdl . rkb (22) ṯkmm . ḥmt . ša . ydk (23) šmm . dbḥ . l ṯr (24) abk . il . šrd . bʿl (25) b dbḥk . bn .dgn (26)bmṣdk484 . wyrd (27) krt lggt . (9)Wash and rouge yourself; (10)Wash your hands to the elbow, (11)Your fingers to the shoulder. (12)Enter [the shade of the tent.] (13)Take a lamb [in your hand,] (14)A sac[rificial] lamb in the right hand, (15)A kid in [both hands], (16)All [your food] of offering.485 (17)Take a fo[wl], a sacrificial bird. 486 483

Partially reconstructed with the help of CAT 1.14 III 52- VI 35. CAT has a space between bm ṣdk. 485 The term nzl occurs only in CAT 1.14 II 16; III 58. The translation here is tentative and based on Arabic nuzl, see Kjell Aartun, “Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon ii,” UF 17 (1985): 1-2; De Moor and Spronk, “Problematic Passages I,” 161; but note the criticisms raised by Renfroe, AULS, 136-37. Note also the alternate translations of “libation ceremony” posited by Albright, “New Canaanite Historical and Mythological Data,” 28 n.24 and “bread made of oil” by Mitchell Dahood, “The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite,” in La lingua di Ebla. Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21-23 aprile 1980) (ed. Luigi Cagni; Istituto universitario orientale 14; Napoli: Seminario di studi asiatici, 1981), 180. 486 The words msrr ʿṣr dbḥ have elicited several different translations. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 583 translates msrr as “entrails, viscera;” see also Del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 581. A second possibility is to take the word from the root srr “to remove,” indicating clarifying, purifying or the like. The following ʿṣr is then understood in light of Ar ʿaṣīr “sap, juice, wine must;” rendering a translation like Wyatt’s “dreg-[free]wine” Wyatt, Religious Texts, 187 n.47; see also Kjell Aartun, “Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon i,” UF 16 (1984): 49-50; Aartun, “Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon ii,” 11. A third possibility is to take the word coming from Eth srr in the D “to fly” and translate msrr as a bird of some sort, 484

159

(18)Pour wine [into a sil]ver cup, (19)Honey into a cup of [g]old. (20)Ascend to the top of the t[ow]er; (21)Yes, ascend to the top of the tower. Mount (22) the top of the wall. Raise your hands to (23) heaven. Sacrifice to the Bull (24), your father ʾIlu. Make Baʿlu descend487 (25) with your sacrifice; The son of Dagan (26) with your game.488 Then Kirtu must descend (27) from the rooftops…

The mechanism of this cultic activity needs to be addressed. It is apparent that rooftop rituals provided a place of communion between gods and humans. Chapter two discussed a rooftop ritual performed in relation to Raʾšu Yêni (CAT 1.41:50-55). In that text the king performed sacrifices (dbḥ) to Prgl Ṣqrn (l.50-52). At the end the king was returned to a quotidian state (l. 53) and afterwards raises his hands toward heaven from his palace (l. 55). In the tale of Kirtu, the king mounts the tower and raises his hands before making and offering to ʾIlu and Baʿlu.489 Chapter two also noted similarities between CAT 1.41:50-55 and Hittite rooftop rituals.490 All contain offerings on the part of the king and involve prayer

(see Frank Charles Fensham, “Remarks on Keret 58-72,” JNSL 4 [1975]: 17-18; De Moor and Spronk, “Problematic Passages I,” 161; De Moor, ARTU, 194). The last translation is the most likely for msrr because it likewise makes the most sense for ʿṣr. There is near universal consensus that ʿṣr is “bird” (Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 187-88) rather than the proposal of “wine must” as exhibited by Wyatt and Aartun. 487 There are two possible ways to interpret the verb šrd in l. 24. It can be taken from the D-stem of šrd or the C-stem of yrd. Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín adopt the former with the translation “to serve” or “to honor” (Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartín, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, 843; see also Wyatt, Religious Texts, 188 n.52; Virolleaud, La légend de Keret, 39; Gray, Krt, 38; Del Olmo Lete, Mitos y leyendas, 297). Proponents for taking šrd from the C-stem of yrd with the meaning “to cause to descend” include Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 31; Peter J. Van Zijl, Baal: A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 280; De Moor, ARTU, 195; Pardee, “Kirta,” 1:334. Both translations have merit. The translation “make descend” is used here because 1) the root yrd (though not in the C stem) is attested widely in Ugaritic, while the hypothetic root šrd would occur only here; and 2) there is a symmetry between Kirtu causing Baʿlu to descend in l.24 and the king descending himself in l.26. 488 Cf. the feast of game offered by ʾIlu in CAT 1.114. The mention of both wine and game in both passages has made some scholars suspect that this rite is related to the marziḥu (see Wyatt, Religious Texts, 188 n. 53). However, many questions remain unanswered concerning this institution (see Pardee, “Marziḥu, Kispu and the Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minamilist View,” 273-87; Schmidt, Israel's Beneficent Dead, 62-65). 489 This difference in ritual activity should not be harmonized. Actions in narrative and ritual texts need not correlate exactly. The differences might be the result of variant traditions, the whims of the poet or dissimilarity in function. 490 Archaeologically it has also been noted that the very shape of incense altars in later, Israelite contexts harkens back to this phenomenon. “The long term use of the form of the tower-shaped altar to symbolize the

160

(though at different times in each). In contrast to the oneiric revelation of ʾIlu in his private chambers, Kirtu’s activity on the tower occurs in a sacred place and has clear cultic overtones. The action in the ritual contains a clearly defined opening rite. Kirtu ascends the tower with provisions for offerings in hand (ll. 13-19). On the rooftop he makes an offering to both ʾIlu and Baʿlu (ll. 23-27). The explicit reason for this ritual activity is to cause Baʿlu to descend (l. 24); that is to say, the intention of the rite is to facilitate a divine-human encounter. In light of the absence of Baʿlu from the rest of the tale, the feasting and communion with this god during the ritual signals a heightened importance to the actions. Baʿlu and ʾIlu have converse roles in the tale of Kirtu vis-à-vis the tale of ʾAqhatu. Just as Daniʾilu interacts with ʾIlu only through the temporary rite that opens CAT 1.17, so too Kirtu interacts with Baʿlu only on the rooftop of the tower. Additionally both rituals make use of unique verb forms to indicate the special nature of this interaction (exclusion of Cstem verbs in the tale of ʾAqhatu, the C-stem of yrd here in Kirtu).491

roof tops on which offerings were made, reflects the well established ancient Near Eastern tradition of the roof ritual” (Seymour Gitin, “The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective,” in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel [ed. Barry M. Gittlen; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002], 99). 491 Nicolas Wyatt holds that this ritual is a reenactment of the king’s enthronement, an action which Wyatt sees as imbuing the king with divine power. He notes that the descent from the tower serves as a ritual marker of Kirtu’s return to the quotidian. While no ritual action of ‘desacralization’ is specified, we may take it to be implicit in the closing off of the divine interlude. It also transmits the divine benefits received to the external world (‘brings them down to earth’). This recapitulates, then, the benefits accruing to the community at his initial enthronement. (Wyatt, “Degrees of Divinity,” 860) Interestingly, Wyatt makes this assertion even while translating šrd in CAT 1.14 II25 as “serve” rather than “bring down” (Religious Texts, 188 n.52). Some parts of Wyatt’s wide-ranging theory of divine/royal synergism have been viewed critically in this study. His combination of supposed enthronement rituals, as exhibited here, often goes beyond the text. However, his understanding of Kirtu’s tower ritual has much to commend it. It is possible to affirm Wyatt’s reading of the temporary sacralization of Kirtu without adopting his complete system of ritual activity concerning kingship and enthronement.

161

However, it goes beyond the data to state that the tower ritual is a temporary rite of cultic transition. While both the communion with Baʿlu and the ritual of the tower are unique in this text, the narrative does not provide a distinct enough marker of temporary cultic transition. The clearly defined opening and closing rites consist simply of entering and leaving a sacred space. Theoretically, such movement is always required to make offerings, even if the offering place is a simple niche in the corner of one’s house. Counting the tower ritual as an example of temporary status change is tantamount to declaring all sacrifices and offerings are such.492 At such a point, rites of temporary cultic transition become too indistinct to be useful. Like some theories of rites of passage discussed in chapter one, if every cultic activity implies temporary cultic status change, the term is no longer useful.493

SUMMARY This chapter examined several ritual narratives that could be interpreted as temporary rites of cultic transition. In the tale of ʾAqhatu, Daniʾilu performed two sevenday rituals: one ministering in a cultic location (CAT 1.17 I), the other extending hospitality to gods in his own house (1. 17 II). Likewise, the study examined the two rituals at the

492

Such an understanding of ritual generally can be found in Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function (trans. W. D. Hall; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964). 493 Conversely, Kirtu's washing and reddening might be seen as preparatory to both the roof ritual and war. In an immediate sense, the washing and reddening could be construed as allowing him to perform the ritual; in an elongated sense it enables him to proceed with the war. In this understanding Baʿlu’s descent would be a manifestation of divine favor that helps assure him of success. However, the narrative clearly depicts Kirtu as unconvinced of such assurances by having him make an additional vow to ʾAṯiratu. Further, this would still not satisfy the requirements of a temporary rite of cultic transition since the text nowhere subsequently indicates a return to a quotidian state. If we view the vow as another status change placed upon Kirtu one could indeed view the text as heaping such status changes, one upon another, onto Kirtu without a return to the quotidian, without a ritual resolution. Such a ritual understanding might help explicate the need for ʾIlu to intervene late in the story. It does not, however, serve as a usable example of temporary status change in this study.

162

beginning of the tale of Kirtu: Kirtu’s mourning (CAT 1.14 I) and his tower ritual (1.14 II). Finally, the chapter also addressed examples of ritual washing and rouging found in Kirtu, ʾAqhatu and the Baʿlu Cycle. There is only one clear example of a temporary rite of cultic transition in the Ugaritic narrative texts, Daniʾilu’s petition to the gods in CAT 1.17 I. The ritual allows access to a deity otherwise absent from the text (ʾIlu). It occurs in a space explicitly identified as distinct from quotidian activity. It has a distinct entrance and exit rite which frames the divine encounter. Finally and uniquely in the narrative texts, the ritual is not part of a fixed calendrical pattern. This ritual appears to be more generally a rite of crisis—a ritual performed in unique situations when divine favor is urgently needed.494 Though the tale of ʾAqhatu is broken at the outset, there is no indication from what remains that the ritual displayed any temporal marker for the actions performed. It is not on a regular occasion in the cultic menology. In this respect, the rites of temporary cultic transition discussed in narrative texts provide a unique witness within the religious life of Ugarit. As in the ritual texts, the narrative poetry avoids direct reference to priests or other cultic officiants. While their existence is known from correspondences and colophons, they are completely absent from the narrative texts. Daniʾilu whiles away the nights at a cultic location but provides no insights into the realia of the cult. Indeed, this example of temporary cultic status change has the only firm indication for cultic locations in any of the tales addressed.

494

See Wright, Ritual in Narrative, 171-72.

163

However, with only one attestation it is imperative to ask why there are so few examples of rites of temporary cultic transition in narrative texts. Two perhaps interconnected reasons are likely. One possibility is that such rites do not make a good story. The majority of such rituals are in the normal calendrical cycle of the cult, but the only example in narrative adds a unique crisis dimension. Good storytelling depends on crisis and resolution, but the fixed calendrical patterns in which the rites of temporary cultic transition occur in ritual texts provide little drama to a story.495 Another possible reason for such few instances in narrative texts is that the temporary rites of cultic transition do not fit the royal propaganda of the narrative texts. Even with the qualifications of limited kingship and the status of Daniʾilu as elite rather than royal, the Ugaritic narrative texts are products of the ruling echelon at Ugarit. Though it might be possible to see hints of popular religion in these texts,496 this poetry was intended for and derived from elite circles. Rites of temporary cultic transition might be of cultic necessity according to the Ugaritic ritual texts, but that does not dictate that they should be sung of in narrative poetry. What role the laity served in this cultic phenomenology is again an open question. Neither the ritual nor narrative texts give us enough data to discern how or if normal lay person could interact with the divine in a manner analogous to the king of Ugarit, Kirtu or Daniʾilu. Although the last of these is clearly not a king, his elite status and direct access to Baʿlu and the Kaṯarātu nonetheless place him outside of the experience of normal people.

495 496

See discussion of the narrative power of infelicitous performance in Ibid., 229. Lewis, “Family, Household, and Local Religion at Late Bronze Age Ugarit,” 60-88.

164

Chapter Five The Nazirite Vow

In discussing rituals of temporary cultic transition, there is perhaps no clearer biblical example than the Nazirite. Here we have a set of intentional rites that change the status of an individual in relationship to the cult and then apparently return that individual to the same state as when he or she began. In particular, Num 6:8 states that an individual who has undertaken a Nazirite vow is ‫“ קדש הוא ליהוה‬holy to YHWH” until the vow is completed. In other words, a Nazirite has gone through a temporary cultic status change.497 The present chapter will provide a detailed discussion of the Nazirite vow as found in Num 6:1-21. The discussion will begin with a source-critical assessment of the passage followed by text, translation and analysis of the ritual by units. Other passages that mention Nazirites (Judges 13; 1 Samuel 1 [LXX and DSS] and Amos 2:11-12) are only tangentially related to the discussion and will be addressed in an excursus.

497

See discussion in David P. Wright, “Holiness (OT),” ABD 3: 247-48; Saul M. Olyan, “What Do Shaving Rites Accomplish and What Do They Signal in Biblical Ritual Contexts,” JBL 117 (1998): 615, 621; Olyan, Rites and Rank, 61.

165

UNITY AND SOURCE CRITICAL DISCUSSION Num 6:1-21 is widely accepted as coming from the Priestly source.498 However, the unity of the text has been questioned, and scholars have attempted to discover a series of revisions to the ritual dictate. For almost a century, Morris Jastrow’s theory has been highly influential. He sees a growth of the legal tradition through a process of legal innovation and clarification, or as he refers to it “Mishna.”499 Stripping away these later accretions, Jastrow identifies six core prescriptions and a subscript: ‫ ִאישׁ ִכּי יַ ְפ ִלא ִלנְ דּ ֹר נֶ ֶדר נָ זִ יר ִמיַּ יִ ן )וְ ֵשׁ ָכר( יַ זִּ יר כֹּל יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ‬I ‫ ָכּל־יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ ַתּ ַﬠר לֹא־יַ ֲﬠבֹר ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ ַגּ ֵדּל ֶפּ ַרע ְשׂ ַﬠר רֹאשׁוֹ‬II ‫ ָכּל־יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ ַﬠל־נֶ ֶפשׁ ֵמת לֹא יָ בֹא‬III ‫ כֹּל יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ ָקד ֹשׁ הוּא ַליהוָ ה‬IV ‫ וְ ִכי־יָ מוּת ֵמת ָﬠ ָליו ְבּ ֶפ ַתע ִפּ ְתאֹם וְ ִט ֵמּא רֹאשׁ נִ זְ רוֹ וְ ִג ַלּח רֹאשׁוֹ ְבּיוֹם ָט ֳה ָרתוֹ וְ ִהזִּ יר ַליהוָ ה‬V ‫ֶאת־יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ וְ ֵה ִביא וְ ַהיָּ ִמים ָה ִראשׁ ִֹנים יִ ְפּלוּ ִכּי ָט ֵמא נִ זְ רוֹ‬ ‫ת־ה ֵשּׂ ָﬠר וְ נָ ַתן‬ ַ ‫תּוֹרת ַהנָּ זִ יר ְבּיוֹם ְמלֹאת יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ וְ ִג ַלּח ַהנָּ זִ יר ֶאת־רֹאשׁ נִ זְ רוֹ וְ ָל ַקח ֶא‬ ַ ‫ וְ זֹאת‬VI ‫ל־ה ֵאשׁ‬ ָ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫תּוֹרת ַהנָּ זִ יר ֲא ֶשׁר יִ דּ ֹר ַליהוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ זֹאת‬VII I When a man takes it upon himself to make the vow of the Nazir, he shall abstain from wine (and strong drink) during the period of his Naziriteship. IIDuring the period of his Naziriteship, a razor shall not touch his head, he shall let the locks of his hair grow long. III During the period of his Naziriteship, he shall not come in contact with any dead body. IV During the period of his Naziriteship, he shall be holy to Yahweh.

498

Many scholars have seen the vow as a whole as a late, secondary stratum to the Priestly source. See Abraham Kuenen, An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (trans. Philip Henry Wickstead; London: Macmillan, 1886), 91-93; Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899), 177; George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers (ICC 4; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 39; L. Elliot Binns, The Book of Numbers (London: Methuen & co., 1927), xxvii; Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (trans. James D. Martin; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), 53-55; Philip J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Waco: Word Books, 1984), 6971. 499 Morris Jastrow, “The ‘Nazir’ Legislation,” JBL 33 (1914): 266-85. Jastrow’s theories have influenced those of both Diether Kellermann and Enrst Zuckschwerdt below.

166

V And if some one die suddenly in his presence and defile his Naziriteship, then he shall shave his head on the day of his becoming clean again and he shall revow to Yahweh the days of his Naziriteship, and the former days shall be void because he defiled his Naziriteship. VI This is the law of the Nazir on the expiration of his Naziriteship. He shall shave his head and take the hair and throw it into the fire. VII This the law of the Nazir who makes a vow to Yahweh.500

Jastrow sees the first the four of these prescriptions as the obligations of the Nazirite with the fifth as a possible supplement to the fourth, the sixth as the prescription for the termination of the vow and the final section as a subscript. Jastrow holds that this pattern of regulation and termination can be seen in other Priestly legislation, such as that concerning ṣāra‘at in Lev 14.501 One initial problem with Jastrow’s theory is that it fails to tell us when any of these supplements and accretions were added to the text. While speaking of early customs and later editors, Jastrow never gives a definite timeframe or context for his proposed expansion(s). Indeed, his description and rendering of the expansion in terms of the Gemara to a Mishnah points more to oral discussions than written expansions. It is possible under his scheme that some if not all of the expansions occurred before or with the commitment of the ritual to writing. More recently, Diether Kellermann discussed editorial expansion in his work on Num 1-10. He sees two distinct components: 1) law in vv. 2b-8, 9abα, 12aαb, and expansion in 2) vv. 1, 2a, 9bβ-11, 12aβ, 13-21.502 Kellermann contends that the first is earlier on the basis of Judges 13:5 and 1 Samuel 1:11. ‫ מיין ושכר יזיר חמץ יין וחמץ‬6:3 ‫ איש או אשה כי יפלא לנדר נדר נזיר להזיר ליהוה‬6:2 ‫ כל ימי נזרו‬6:4 ‫שכר לא ישתה וכל משרת ענבים לא ישתה וענבים לחים ויבשים לא יאכל‬ 500

Text and translation taken from Ibid.: 272-74. For my translation and notes, see below. C.f. “The So-called ‘Leprosy’ Laws: An Analysis of Leviticus, Chapters 13 and 14,” JQR 4 (1914): 357-418. 502 Diether Kellermann, Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1, 1 bis 10, 10 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970), 83-95. 501

167

‫ כל ימי נדר נזרו תער לא יעבר על‬6:5 ‫מכל אשר יעשה מגפן היין מחרצנים ועד זג לא יאכל‬ ‫ כל ימי הזירו‬6:6 ‫ראשו עד מלאת הימם אשר יזיר ליהוה קדש יהיה גדל פרע שער ראשו‬ ‫ לאביו ולאמו לאחיו ולאחתו לא יטמא להם במתם כי נזר‬6:7 ‫ליהוה על נפש מת לא יבא‬ ‫ כי ימות מת עליו בפתע פתאם וטמא‬6:9 ‫ כל ימי נזרו קדש הוא ליהוה‬6:8 ‫אלהיו על ראשו‬ ‫ הזיר ליהוה את ימי נזרו והימים הראשנים יפלו כי טמא נזרו‬6:12 ‫ראש נזרו וגלח ראשו‬ 6:2

If a man or a woman makes a vow of the Nazirite to become a Nazirite of YHWH, 6:3from wine and beer one must separate oneself. One must not drink wine vinegar of beer vinegar, and any juice of the grape one must not drink. One must not eat grapes, either fresh or dried. 6:4All the days of one’s consecration one must not eat anything that is made from the grapevine – from the seeds to the skins. 6:5All the days of one’s vow of consecration no razor must go over one’s head. Until the completion of the days that one is a Nazirite to YHWH, one will be holy – the hair of one’s head growing loose. 6:6 All the days that one is a Nazirite to YHWH one must not approach a dead body. 6:7 Even for one’s father, mother, brother or sister one must not defile oneself for them at their death; for the consecration of one’s God is upon one’s head. 6:8 All the days of one’s consecration one is holy to YHWH. 6:9 And if someone dies suddenly near one, and the head of one’s consecration is defiled, one shall shave one’s head. 6:12 And one must consecrate oneself to YHWH on the days of one’s consecration. And the previous days shall not be reckoned because one’s consecration was defiled.503 The nucleus is in v. 5aβ ‫“ תער לא יעבר על ראשו‬No razor shall go over his head,” the choice of which is dictated by Judg 13:5 ‫“ ומורה לא יעלה על ראשו‬and let no razor go over his head.” Later, the prohibition on wine in v. 3b was added, possibly due to the influence of the Rechabites (see discussion below). Corpse contamination was added after this in a slow process of aggregation (though the element itself might have been old). The second unit (vv. 1, 2a, 9bβ-11, 12aβ, 13-21) is seen as largely a literary whole—except v. 21aγ ‫קרבנו ליהוה‬ ‫“ על נזרו‬who vows one’s offering to YHWH according to one’s consecration.” The author of this last expansion was responsible for incorporating the two compositions.

503

Note on translation can be found under discussion below.

168

Similarly, Enrst Zuckschwerdt predicates his reconstruction on an expansion from an early, charismatic Nazirite figure to one under the authority of the cultic authorities.504 His analysis focuses exclusively on vv. 1-8 and sees elements from two distinct groups of tradition. The first consist of early prohibitions related to charismatic Nazirites: the prohibition on alcohol (v 3a) is from 1 Sam 1:11; 15, any product of viniculture (v 4) from Judg 13: 14, and shaving the head (v 5a) from Judg 13:5; 16:17; 1 Sam 1:11. The second encompasses the cultic prohibitions in vv.6-7 which were originaly applied to the High Priest in Lev 21:11-12. The priestly editor that redacted this material introduced the concept of a time limit for the Nazirite in vv.4a, 5a and 8a, as well as describing the Nazirite with the specifically cultic marker of “holy” in vv.5, 8. All of these analyses are based on contextual inferences rather than on standard source-critical criteria for detecting editorial layers in texts.505 There are no obvious doublets either in this passage itself or between this passage and some parallel discussion. By and large the vocabulary and style of the Num 6:1-21 is wholly in keeping with P.506 The few exceptions to this will be noted below. In short, such reconstructions as those of Jastrow, Kellermann and Zuckschwerdt fail to be convincing in view of the apparent unity

504

Ernst Zuckschwerdt, “Zur literarschen Vorgeschichte des priesterlichen Nazir-Gesetzes (Num 6 1-8),” ZAW 88 (1976): 191-205; J. de Vaulx, Les Nombres (SB Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972), 88-90, 99-102. 505 On standard source-critical methodologies, see conveniently Norman C. Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971); Odil Hannes Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology (trans. James D. Nogalski; SBLRBS 39; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 47-62; John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996), 20-29. 506 This study assumes the source-critical separation of the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School, as discussed in Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (trans. Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) and Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:1267-1367 (though Milgrom refers to it simply as “H”). In this study the siglum P is used to represent the Priestly Torah and H represents the Holiness School. However, this study does not follow the assertion by Knohl and Milgrom that P and H predate D. For more on the relative chronology of D, P and H see Jeffrey Stackert, Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation (FAT 52; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Thomas C. Römer and Marc Zvi Brettler, “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch,” JBL 119 (2000): 401-19.

169

and coherence of the text as it now stands. However, if one sees their critical analyses as reflecting the development of the traditions behind the text they might prove more useful in the ensuing discussion. There are two points at which Num 6:1-21 deviates from the expected vocabulary in P. The first is in v.7 with the phrase ‫“ כי נזר אלהיו על ראשו‬for the consecration of one’s God is upon one’s head.” Israel Knohl points out that this is one of only three instances where P uses ‫ אלהים‬for God in the Mosaic period. The other two uses of ‫ אלהים‬are Lev 2:13 and Exod 8:15. In the case of all three, Knohl holds that this term for the divine serves as a marker of something that does not harmonize with the cultic practice or theological perspective in P.507 The second deviation from expected P vocabulary is the phrase ‫“ מלבד אשר תשיג ידו‬as well as what ever else one’s hand is able to provide” in v.21. According to Knohl, ‫ מלבד‬is found only in the editorial stratum of the Pentateuch (H).508 Specifically in the case of Num 6:21, this is an added phrase that tries to curtail P’s leniency in the case of those whose poverty does not permit them to give the required offerings (cf. Lev 5:7, 11; 12:8; 14:21). The editorial addition tries to stress that the above mentioned offerings (in vv.14-15) are the bare minimum required at the end of the ritual.

507

See Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 145, 147 and 162. This reasoning should not be used in reverse. The absence of the term ‫ אלהים‬cannot constitute a rubber stamp of Holiness School approval for a cultic activity (see discussion of the Day of Atonement in chapter six). Rather, Knohl links the phenomenon with P’s differing portrayal of God before and after Moses. On page 162 he explains: It would seem that in order to stress the extraordinary nature of the Nazirite, which is not in harmony with the accepted network of concepts and beliefs in the cultic realm, PT made an exception to its usual practice, using the name ‫ )נזר אלהים( אלהים‬rather than '‫נזר ה‬, even though in the period of Moses PT otherwise uses the name of Yahwhe exclusively. The exceptional use of the name ‫ אלהים‬and the anthropomorphic image ‫ נזר אלהים‬reflect the religious language usually empoloyed in the Genesis period; PT apparently intended to place the image of the Nazirite of God in that sphere. 508 Ibid., 56.

170

Regardless of which of these reconstructions of the prehistory of the text are proven correct, the text as it now stands exhibits the basic structure of a ritual of temporary cultic transition. The institution of this rite begins in v.2 with the vow of the Nazirite and is concluded by way of a group of rites found in vv.13-20. During one’s time as a Nazirite, one is dedicated to YHWH (vv. 2, 5, 6, cf. v. 7) and holy to YHWH (v. 8); as such the Nazirite is in a state similar to that of the priests, who are also declared holy to YHWH in Lev 21.6.

TEXT TRANSLATION AND ANALYSIS Introductory Formula and First Prohibition: ‫אוֹ־א ָשּׁה ִכּי‬ ִ ‫ל־בּנֵ י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם ִאישׁ‬ ְ ‫ ַדּ ֵבּר ֶא‬6:2 ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ֵלּאמֹר׃‬6:1 ‫ ִמיַּ יִ ן וְ ֵשׁ ָכר יַ זִּ יר ח ֶֹמץ יַ יִ ן וְ ח ֶֹמץ ֵשׁ ָכר לֹא יִ ְשׁ ֶתּה‬6:3 ‫ ְל ַהזִּ יר ַליהוָ ה׃‬510‫ ִלנְ דּ ֹר נֶ ֶדר נָ זִ יר‬509‫יַ ְפ ִלא‬ ‫ כֹּל יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ ִמכֹּל ֲא ֶשׁר‬6:4 ‫אכל׃‬ ֵ ֹ ‫ ֲﬠנָ ִבים לֹא ִי ְשׁ ֶתּה וַ ֲﬠנָ ִבים ַל ִחים וִ ֵיב ִשׁים לֹא י‬511‫ל־מ ְשׁ ַרת‬ ִ ‫וְ ָכ‬ ‫אכל׃‬ ֵ ֹ ‫יֵ ָﬠ ֶשׂה ִמגֶּ ֶפן ַהיַּ יִ ן ֵמ ַח ְר ַצנִּ ים וְ ַﬠד־זָ ג לֹא י‬ 6:1

YHWH spoke to Moses saying, 6:2“Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘If a man or a woman makes a vow512 of the Nazirite to become a

509

BHS and HALOT (927-28) propose repointing the Hiphil ‫ יַ ְפ ִלא‬as the Piel ‫יְ ַפ ֵלּא‬. The Piel of the verb is found in Lev 22:21; Num 15:3, 8 with ‫ נֶ ֶדר‬meaning “to fulfill a vow.” In the case of the Piel, all occurrences of this formula use the exact same phrasing: ‫ל ַפ ֵלּא־נֶ ֶדר‬,ְ a Piel infinitive construct followed by object. The focus in Lev 22:21 and Num 15:3, 8 is on fulfilling a vow of an animal sacrifice that has already been made. However, the Hiphil (found in Lev 27:2 and Num 6:2) is used explicitly in conditional clauses: ‫( נֶ ֶדר‬...) ‫ ִכּי יַ ְפ ִלא‬. The focus is on making a vow of a person, not fulfilling it. In other words, both the syntactic and literary contexts are different between the uses of the Piel of ‫ פלא‬in Lev 22:21; Num 15:3, 8 and the Hiphil in Lev 27:2 and Num 6:2, and an emendation of the latter to the former is not required. On the translation and meaning of the construction see below. 510 LXX (followed by Syr) has αγνείαν = ‫( נֵ זֶ ר‬cf. Targ.). 511

The Sam Pen mistakenly confuses the hapax *‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָרה‬with the more well-known *‫מ ְשׁ ֶא ֶרת‬. ִ

512

The use of the verb ‫ פלא‬in vows (Lev 22:21; 27:2; Num 6:2; 15:3, 8) has proven a great difficulty. On the question of translation see Jacques Berlinerblau, The Vow and the "Popular Religious Groups" of Ancient Israel: A Philological Sociological Inquiry (JSOTSup 210; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 177-78; Tony W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 147; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992), 140-42; Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (The JPS Torah Commentary 3; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 151, 193; Numbers: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4; New York: Doubleday, 1993-2000), 1: 218-19; Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: the

171

Nazirite of YHWH, 6:3 from wine and beer513 one514 must separate oneself. One must not drink wine vinegar or beer vinegar, and any juice of the grape one must not drink. One must not eat grapes, either fresh or dried. 6:4All the days of one’s consecration one must not eat anything that is made from the grapevine – from the seeds to the skins. The purpose of the Nazirite vow is the matter of some debate. The text in Num 6 is almost wholly negative in character. The focus is on what the Nazirite cannot do and on what the Nazirite must do if these prohibitions are violated, rather than on what these prohibitions traditional Hebrew text with the new JPS translation (The JPS Torah commentary 4; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 44; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:1874-75, 3:2368-69. The question, once one admits that there are two separate verbal forms at use in these texts (see note above), is the semantic range of each. Generally speaking, rabbinic and modern Jewish commentators have take the Piel in Lev 22:21 and Num 15:3, 8 as denoting an explicit vow, that is to say a vow out loud (Leviticus, 2:1874-75; Berlinerblau, Vow, 177). The Hiphil in Milgrom’s view refers to making an extraordinary vow (Milgrom, Leviticus, 3:2368-69). Commenting specifically on why this vow is special, Milgrom states, “this verb is a vestige of the earlier practice of vowing persons, who were intended either as human sacrifices (e.g. Jephthah’s daughter, Judg 11:35-36) or as life long servants of the sanctuary (e.g. Samuel, 1 Sam 1:11)” (Ibid., 3:2369). However, Milgrom’s comment is selfcontradictory: his proposed usage of the Hiphil of the verb ‫ פלא‬as a remnant of an early dedication of humans to the divine does not occur specifically in the contexts to which he points. For a discussion of the conditional clause used here and elsewhere see Michael A. Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11-31,” HUCA 45 (1974): 30-34. 513 The meaning of the term ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬is in some dispute. While it is cognate to the Akk šikāru “beer” (HALOT, 1501; cf. CAD Š 2.420-28), Baruch Levine is representative of many scholars in seeing the term as denoting simply a wider group of intoxicants (Levine, Numbers, 1:219-220). In general, the problem with taking ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬as “beer” is threefold. First, the term is used to denote a libation in Num 28:7. This would be a unique instance of beer being used on the altar in ritual texts (see the normal practice of wine in Num 15). However, Jacob Milgrom sees Num 28:7 as reflecting an ancient cultic practice retained by later tradition (Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:611-12). Second, the verb ‫ ָשׁ ַכר‬is used to describe not only intoxication by ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬but by wine as well (Gen 9:9; Isa 29:9; 51:21). Since this verb is used generally of all forms of intoxication, so the noun should be seen as representative of all sorts of intoxicants. However, the Akk cognate verb šakāru has a similar range of meaning regarding intoxication through various means, while the nominal form still retains the basic meaning of “beer” (CAD Š 1.157-58). In other words, a larger semantic range for the verbal form does not necessarily indicate a similarly enlarged semantic range for the nominal form. Third, in an act of circularity, scholars will occasionally point to Num 6 itself as proof that ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬does not mean “beer.” The reasoning is that 6:4 serves as a summary of complete prohibition from viniculture similar to that of Rechabites in Jer 35 (these similarities will be addressed at more length below); as such ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬must refer to some product of the vine. However, this reasoning is circular and Num 6:4 only becomes a summary when this issue in v.3 is put to rest. Given the cognates in other Semitic languages and the archaeological evidence for beer production in Ancient Israel, it seems most probable that ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬does not indicate a general term for intoxicants or a different description for viniculture. Cf. Michael M. Homan, “Beer, Barley and ‫ ֵשׁ ָכר‬in the Hebrew Bible,” in Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman (ed. Richard E. Friedman and William H. Propp; BJS 9; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 25-38. For more on beer production in Ancient Israel see most recently Mikhal Dayagi-Mendeles, Drink and Be Merry: Wine and Beer in Ancient Times (Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1999), esp. 120-125. 514 While all of the following legislation makes use of the 3rd masc singular verbal and pronominal forms, the text explicitly states at the outset that these laws apply to either a man or a woman who take a nazirite vow. As such, gender neutral pronominal forms have been used throughout in translating any pronoun referring to the Nazirite.

172

and rituals are meant to accomplish. However, the text is not completely opaque. The prohibitions themselves provide a ritual context in which the Nazirite must have functioned in the ritual system of ancient Israel. In this regard, each prohibition will be examined in depth with the aim of deriving some notion of its function from the wider ritual system of ancient Israel. Each prohibition will be looked at first in regard to P, then other texts from the Hebrew Bible. The first prohibition is found in vv.3-4. This restriction is against the Nazirite consuming wine, beer, the vinegars of each, as well as every constituent part of the grape. Some have seen in this prohibition two separate dictates – one against viniculture and the other against intoxicants – that have been fused together.515 Yet this need not be so. Obviously beer and wine are intoxicants. However, depending on the means of production, vinegars from beer and wine may both also have similar intoxicating properties.516 Likewise, grapes, when beginning to rot, can become intoxicants as the sugars in the grapes turn to alcohol and this can extend even to raisins if the drying process is begun too late. However, the text does not mention the preproduction stages of beer, since barley and other grains cannot become intoxicating except in an emulsified mixture. Hence, the prohibition in Num 6:3-4 is wholly against intoxicants and possible intoxicants. The closest parallel to the prohibition of intoxicants occurs in Lev 10:8-11: ‫וּב ֶני ִא ָתּ ְבּב ֲֹא ֶכם ֶאל־א ֶֹהל‬ ָ ‫ל־תּ ְשׁ ְתּ ַא ָתּה‬ ֵ ‫ יַ יִ ן וְ ֵשׁ ָכר ַא‬10:9 ‫ל־א ֲהר ֹן ֵלאמֹר׃‬ ַ ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬10:8 ֵ ‫וּבין ַה ָטּ ֵמא‬ ֵ ‫וּבין ַהחֹל‬ ֵ ‫וּל ַה ְב ִדּיל ֵבּין ַהקּ ֶֹדשׁ‬ ֲ 10:10 ‫עוֹלם ְלדֹר ֵֹת ֶיכם׃‬ ָ ‫ וְ לֹא ָת ֻמתוּ ֻח ַקּת‬517‫מוֹﬠד‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה ֻח ִקּים ֲא ֶשׁר ִדּ ֶבּר יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֵל‬ ַ ‫ת־בּ ֵני ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֵאת ָכּ‬ ְ ‫וּלהוֹר ֹת ֶא‬ ְ 10:11 ‫וּבין ַה ָטּהוֹר׃‬ ֵ ‫ְבּיַ ד־מ ֶֹשׁה׃‬ 515

E.g. George Buchanan Gray, “The Nazirite,” JTS 1 (1899-1900): 209. See Gustaf Hermann Dalman, Arbeit und sitte in Palästina (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1928), 4: 380-82. 517 The LXX adds: ἢ προσπορευομένων ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον = ‫( או בגשתכם אל המזבח‬cf. Exod 28:43; 30:20). 516

173

And YHWH spoke to Aaron saying, “Drink neither wine or beer, you and your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, and you will not die; it is a law for all times throughout your generations, that518 you must distinguish between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean, and that you must teach the Israelites all of the laws that YHWH has spoken to them through Moses.” This text follows the infelicitous ritual performed by Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu, their subsequent deaths by the fire of YHWH, and the ensuing aftermath in vv.1-3. In vv. 4-7 the bodies of Nadab and Abihu are removed by Aaron’s cousins Mishael and Elzaphan while Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar are forbidden from performing customary mourning rites for their close family members (see more below related to such prohibitions). Vv.8-11 then relate the proscription of drinking beer and wine. The prohibition begins in v.8 by YHWH uniquely addressing Aaron alone, the solitary example of YHWH speaking only to Aaron in Leviticus, and one of only three instances in the entire Pentateuch (the others in Num 18:1, 8). V.9 consists of the prohibition proper – Aaron and his sons are to refrain from drinking wine and beer when they enter the Tent of Meeting. This is explained in vv.10-11: the priests are to be levelheaded so that they might rightly distinguish between sacred and profane, unclean and clean and teach the Israelites to obey the laws of Moses, which would presumably prevent them from trespassing these boundaries. After vv. 8-11, the text turns to two discussions in vv.12-15 and vv.16-20 between Moses and Aaron concerning the proper handling and consumption of priestly portions. Scholars have long noted the problematic relationship between vv.8-11 and the rest of chap.10. However, in a chapter plagued with problems this is but one among many (For

518

GKC §114p tentatively describes the use of ‫ ו‬+ ‫ ל‬+ infinitive construct here as an explanatory clause stating the intention of what has come before.

174

example: Why did Nadab and Abihu die? Was the tabernacle defiled by their corpses? How were they pulled out by their tunics if they were consumed by fire? What is the real issue in Aaron and Moses’ argument concerning the purification offering in vv. 16-20?). One traditional interpretation has been to see the prohibition against drinking as tied to the death of Nadab and Abihu. This offers an answer to at least two questions. Nadab and Abihu were drunk, unable to discern what they were doing, so transgressed and were summarily torched by the Almighty.519 However, this interpretation has little to commend itself besides explaining away the tension of the intrusion of vv.8-11. If Nadab and Abihu had been drunk, the text in vv.1-3 would surely have noted it. Yet at the same time the issues that are addressed in vv. 8-11 are germane to the chapter as a whole.520 The priests do need to be able to act with discernment or all the Israelites could come to destruction. This concern is made explicit in v. 6 when Moses tells Aaron, “Do not bare your heads or rend your clothes, lest you die and anger strike the whole community!” Rather than propose that Nadab and Abihu are drunk or that vv.8-11 are simply an artless insertion it seems best to see these verses as a providing a lesson by degree—if you think that this was bad, imagine what would have happened if they were drunk! Specifically, vv. 10-11 explain the rationale for the proscription and place it in the context of the passage as a whole. In other words, the priest must be sober for real and practical reasons within the ritual world of the cult. Another text within priestly circles that prohibits alcohol consumption of officiating priests is Ezek 44:21: ‫“ ויין לא ישתו כל כהן בבואם אל החצר הפנימית‬No priest shall 519

See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:634 for this and other rabbinic interpretations to the passage. Contra Martin Noth, Leviticus: A Commentary (trans. J. E. Anderson; OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 86.

520

175

drink wine when they enter the inner courts.” This passage as a whole has many similarities to Lev 10. The immediately preceding verse of Ezek 44:20 has a regulation regarding the priests’ hair (cf. Lev 10:6). Rules regarding whom priests may mourn for and how this effects their sacral status are found in Ezek 44:25-27 (cf. Lev 10:6-7). Further, Ezek 44:23 states: ‫“ ואת עמי יורו בין קדש לחל ובין טמא לטהור יודעם‬They [the priests] shall teach My people the difference between holy and profane, and inform them of the difference between unclean and clean” (cf. Ezek 22:26). This regulation is clearly quite similar to Lev 10:10-11. These similarities have led some to conclude that Lev 10:8-11 is dependent on Ezek 44,521 while others maintain that the reverse is true.522 While neither position is clearly compelling, for the purposes of this study the similarities of the two prohibitions are more important than pointing to a direction of genetic relation. Both require officiating priests to be alcohol free. However, the question still remains of the relationship between these priestly prohibitions and that of the Nazirite. In other words, why is the Nazirite’s prohibition for the duration of the vow, but the priests’ only when they are officiating? There are several possible reasons. One possible reason for why the priest is able to drink wine is tied to the requirements of being at the sanctuary. One must be in a festive mood in the sanctuary.523 Saul Olyan holds that mixing mourning and rejoicing in the sanctuary was seen as a violation of the cultic order.524 As such, a prohibition from any drinking of 521

See Ibid., 86-87. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:614. 523 See Anderson, Time to Mourn, 107-109. 524 Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 81-83; 124-36. One could perform mourning or rejoicing, just only one at a time. Likewise, at certain points (festivals, or conversely times of calamity) one action was strongly encouraged over the other. 522

176

intoxicants would place the priests in an unusual place in relationship to the cult. While some point to the linkage of drinking and mourning for a prohibition of drowning one’s sorrows in alcohol, the close link between mourning and alcohol consumption in both Lev 10 and Ezek 44 may point in another direction. The priest, while officiating may neither celebrate by imbibing nor mourn by disheveling. During his cultic activity the priest must remain aloof. The context of both Lev 10 and Ezek 44 point to the role of the priest as set apart. Since drinking is tied with feasting and joy while fasting and other forms of deprivation are tied with mourning, Olyan concludes that one could not do the latter at the sanctuary except in certain situations (and again, the two ritual activities could not be mixed).525 However this rationale cannot be applied to why it is that the Nazirite is forbidden to drink for the duration of his or her vow while the priest is only prohibited during altar service. There is no indication anywhere in the Bible that being “holy to YHWH” is somehow tied to a lack of festive atmosphere.526 Yet, the corollary between mourning and rejoicing in the text is still fascinating. Another possible explanation for the divergence in temperance between the priest and the Nazirite is based on historical development. If there was an earlier ban on all alcohol for the Nazirite, it could have prevented a similar legal application for the priests. Such a prohibion might have been seen as blurring the lines of demarcation between the priest and the Nazirite and as threatening the uniqueness of the priests as preeminent ritual practitioners. Jastrow sees a similar impetus behind the legislating of monetary payment for fulfillment of vows in Lev 27:1-8, which he sees as crafted by jealous priests

525 526

For biblical examples of mourning in the sanctuary see Joel and Ezra 9-10. On the importance of drinking in acts of rejoicing, see Anderson, Time to Mourn, 19-26.

177

unwilling to share their special state of consecration with laypeople and as such replaced the older practice of the Nazirite with simple votive offerings.527 That is to say, in Jastrow’s reconstruction the priests are similarly concerned with presenting themselves as unique. However, this position has been criticized for going beyond the text in his linkage of Lev 27:1-8 with Num 6:1-21. For example Tony Cartlidge notes: “We doubt that Lev 27:1-8 refers to the Nazirite. The word ‘Nazirite’ is not mentioned, and the text seems most naturally to refer to those who had been promised for temple service of some type (the list includes children as young as one month).”528 Hence, it is unclear to what extent priestly law would have been directly affected by an attempt to differentiate between priests and Nazirites. Further, there is the real life situation. It is highly questionable as to whether priests would willingly choose to expand prohibitions upon themselves from drinking at the altar to consuming alcohol in general. Another possible explanation for the difference in prohibition between the priest and Nazirite in regard to alcohol consumption relates to issues of ritual analogy. The vow of the Nazirite places the observant in a cultic state analogous to the priest’s at the time of altar service—both are considered “holy to YHWH,” and both may not consume alcohol at this time. The prohibition extended to the Nazirite safeguards the Nazirite against cultic indiscretion due to the ritually analogous state of the performer. In other words, while the priest is required to be alcohol free only during altar service, the Nazirite might always be seen as before the altar.529 The Nazirite is on duty for the duration of the vow. This 527

E.g. Jastrow, “The ‘Nazir’ Legislation,” 282: “Lev. 27 is the protest against the custom implied in Numbers 6 and abandons it by providing that he who makes a vow of consecration is to redeem himself according to a fixed standard of valuation varying with age and sex.” 528 Tony W. Cartledge, “Were Nazirite Vows Unconditional?,” CBQ 51 (1989): 414 n.15. 529 Compare Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 50.

178

explanation of the difference between the priest and the Nazirite takes the ritual position and status of both into account while not going beyond the text. However, it will need to be supported by further evidence from the list of Nazirite proscriptions found below. Before moving on to a discussion of the other prohibitions placed upon the Nazirite, we must first deal with the somewhat comparable situation of the Rechabites.530 Because both the Rechabites and the Nazirite follow similar prohibitions against viniculture, scholars have often linked the two conceptually.531 The Rechabites followed a rule set by their founder J(eh)onadab son of Rechab, a figure who helped Jehu orchestrate the slaughter of Baʿal worshippers in Northern Israel according to 2 Kings 10:15-27. In Jer 35, the prophet is ordered by YHWH to bring the Rechabites into the Temple and offer them wine. The Rechabites refuse the drink. ‫ן־ר ָכב ָא ִבינוּ ִצוָּ ה ָﬠ ֵלינוּ ֵלאמֹר לֹא ִת ְשׁתּוּ־יַ יִ ן ַא ֶתּם‬ ֵ ‫אמרוּ לֹא נִ ְשׁ ֶתּה־יָּ יִ ן ִכּי יוֹנָ ָדב ֶבּ‬ ְ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬35:6 ‫א־ת ָטּעוּ וְ לֹא יִ ְהיֶ ה ָל ֶכם ִכּי‬ ִ ֹ ‫א־תזְ ָרעוּ וְ ֶכ ֶרם ל‬ ִ ֹ ‫א־ת ְבנוּ וְ זֶ ַרע ל‬ ִ ֹ ‫וּביִ ת ל‬ ַ 35:7 ‫ד־עוֹלם׃‬ ָ ‫וּבנֵ ֶיכם ַﬠ‬ ְ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ָה ֲא ָד ָמה ֲא ֶשׁר ַא ֶתּם גָּ ִרים ָשׁם׃‬ ְ ‫ָבּ ֳא ָה ִלים ֵתּ ְשׁבוּ ָכּל־יְ ֵמ ֶיכם ְל ַמ ַﬠן ִתּ ְחיוּ יָ ִמים ַר ִבּים ַﬠ‬ 35:6

And they answered, “We will not drink wine, for Jonadab son of Rechab, our father, commanded us saying, ‘you shall never drink wine, neither you nor your sons for ever. 36:7 You shall not build a house, sow seed, plant vineyards or own one, for you shall dwell in tents all your days in order that your days may be long upon the land in which you sojourn.’” The passage then has YHWH contrast for Jeremiah the faithfulness of the Rechabites with the unfaithfulness of Judah (Jer 35:12-17) and ends with YHWH blessing the Rechabites and promising them descendents for all time (vv. 18-19).

530

For discussion of the Rechabites see Karlheinz H. Keukens, “Die rekabitischen Haussklaven in Jeremia 35,” BZ 27 (1983): 228-35; Marvin H. Pope, “Rechab,” in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (ed. George Arthur Buttrick; New York: Abingdon Press, 1962), 4: 14-16; Frank S. Frick, “The Rechabites Reconsidered,” JBL 90 (1971): 279-287. 531 E.g. Milgrom, Numbers, 356.

179

It is obvious that the only point of similarity between the Nazirite in Num 6 and the Rechabite in Jer 35 is the refusal to drink wine. On the one hand, the Rechabites are required neither to remain unshorn nor to avoid corpse contamination. On the other hand, the Nazirites are required neither to live in tents nor to avoid all agricultural activities. Perhaps most important to our discussion, the Rechabites are living out a lifestyle command532 that has been handed down to them from their ancestors and is to be obeyed forever (‫ עד עולם‬in 35:6) while Nazirites are fulfilling temporary and voluntary vows that effect a change in ritual status. To summarize, the Nazirite prohibition against drinking intoxicants has the greatest commonality with the prohibition of the priests from consuming alcohol while serving before YHWH. Given the sacerdotal nature of both roles and the similarity of phraseology I propose it is best to see these two prohibitions as analogically related. The prohibition placed on the Nazirite while fulfilling his or her vow is to insure that s/he remains in a state analogous to the priest while ministering before YHWH.533

Second Prohibition: ‫ד־מלֹאת ַהיָּ ִמם ֲא ֶשׁר־יַ זִּ יר ַליהוָ ה ָקד ֹשׁ‬ ְ ‫ נִ זְ רוֹ ַתּ ַﬠר לֹא־יַ ֲﬠבֹר ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ ַﬠ‬534‫ ָכּל־יְ ֵמי נֶ ֶדר‬6:5 ‫יִ ְהיֶ ה ַגּ ֵדּל ֶפּ ַרע ְשׂ ַﬠר רֹאשׁוֹ׃‬ 532

E.g. Frick, “Rechabites,” 287 who states: “The non-agricultural mode of life on the part of the Rechabites may well be a reality, but it is not a motif – an occupational pattern, but not a religious vocation.” 533 For the social context of drinking in ancient Israel see Carey Ellen Walsh, “Under the Influence: Trust and Risk in Biblical Family Drinking,” JSOT 90 (2000): 13-29; The Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel (HSM 60; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000). Walsh sees drinking as a “social lubricant” used either to reaffirm or create trust in social contexts. Germane to this study, Walsh notes the role of drinking in the rite of passage at Isaac’s weaning in Gen 21 ( Walsh, “Under the Influence,” 20-3). Compare the Mesopotamian social context noted by Piotr Michalowski, “The Drinking Gods: Alcohol in Mesopotamian Ritual and Mythology,” in Drinking in Ancient Societies; History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East: Papers of a Symposiwn held in Rome, May 1719, 1990. (ed. Lucio Milano; History of the Ancient Near East: Studies 6; Padua: Sargon, 1994), 33. 534 Several mss. and the Vorlage of the LXX omit ‫ נֶ ֶדר‬based on the shorter text in v. 8, apparently seeing it as dittographic. However, the reverse could be proposed as well: v. 8 could just as well represent a parablepsis.

180

6:5

All the days of one’s vow of consecration no razor must go over one’s head. Until the completion of the days that one is a Nazirite to YHWH, one will be holy – the hair of one’s head growing loose. The second prohibition is found in Num 6:5 and relates to the hair of the Nazirite during the term of the vow. This prohibition has two components: 1) no razor shall touch his or her head; and 2) the hair is to be allowed to grow loose. Sandwiched between these two elements of the prohibition is the statement (and assumed justification of the twofold prohibition) that the Nazirite is holy to YHWH (cf. v. 8). The latter of the two elements of this prohibition will be dealt with first. The closest parallel with the hair ordinance of the Nazirite in Num 6 (both conceptually and literally) is that of the woman accused of adultery in Num 5:11-31, the Sotah. In that text a man who suspects that his wife has committed adultery but has no proof is instructed to bring the woman to the priest with requisite offerings (vv.11-15). The priest then shall bring her before YHWH, create a potion made of holy water and dust from the floor of the Tabernacle, have the woman proclaim a curse upon herself if she has indeed committed adultery, and then put these curses down in writing and rub them into the potion (vv. 16-23). The woman then drinks the potion after the necessary offerings are made. If she is guilty, the curse combined with the potion will be effective (vv. 24-28). What is germane to our discussion is that when the woman is brought before YHWH the priests (in v.8) shall ‫“ פרע את ראש האשה‬loose the [hair of the] woman’s head.” This phrase is similar to ‫“ גדל פרע שער ראשו‬the hair of one’s head growing loose” in Num 6:5. A similar phrase is found likewise in Lev 10:6 where Aaron and his sons Eleazar and Ithamar are told

Proposing either a dittography in v. 5 or a parablepsis in v. 8 is an easier reading since both seek to harmonize the text. As such, the MT is followed here since its present attestation of both a shorter and longer formula represents a more difficult reading than either possible emendation.

181

by Moses ‫“ ראשיכם אל תפרעו ובגדיכם לא תפרמו‬do not loose [the hair] of your heads, nor rend your clothes” after the death of Nadab and Abihu (see discussion above). Again, in the H text of Lev 21:10 the high priest who has been anointed and wears the vestments of his office ‫“ ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרם‬shall not loose [the hair] of his head, nor rend his garments.” These texts prohibiting loose hair in Leviticus relate to the priests (and specifically the high priest) mourning close relations. They are found clustered with rending of clothing (in both cases the holy vestments of their office). Such hair manipulations were part of customary funerary rituals of mourning that would leave the participant ritually unclean due to proximity to the corpse (e.g. Num 19).535 Hair manipulations are also indicative of other rites of mourning as well. Saul Olyan holds that the rites particularly associated with funerary customs were expanded by ritual analogy.536 During the grieving period, funerary rites such as fasting, loosening of hair and rending of clothing served as elements of a ritual performance that encouraged others to join in one’s state of grieving and act as comforters to the bereaved. These acts of mourning are extended by ritual analogy to encompass acts of divine petition (whether penitent or not) and mark calamity as well. This outward performance of grief is probably the context of the woman accused of adultery in Num 5. She appears as in mourning before YHWH—a person in need of a comforter—beseeching YHWH to appear.537 However, can the 535

Levine, Numbers, 1:466-7; Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 35-9. The High Priest is not allowed to mourn close family members because of the social construction of mourning and the expected response of family members to join this ritual activity, which would lead to corpse contamination through proximity to a corpse. It seems unreasonable to assume that corpses have the power to defile simply on sight, contra Jacob Milgrom, “Studies in the Temple Scroll,” JBL 97 (1978): 510-1. 536 Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 28-96, esp.90-94; For more on mourning rites in ancient Israel and the larger ancient Near East see e.g. Anderson, Time to Mourn; Xuan Huong Thi Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 302; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Andrew C. Cohen, Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship: Toward a New Understanding of Iraq's Royal Cemetery of Ur (SAMD 7; Leiden: Brill, 2005). 537 For more on this function of mourning, see discussion below in chapter seven.

182

same be inferred of the Nazirite’s loosed tresses in Num 6? Is the Nazirite perpetually beseeching divine comfort during his or her temporary state? The text recognizes that this might be inferred from the ritual performance prescribed for the Nazirite since the third prohibition found in vv.6-8 speaks against this. In contrast to the cluster of mourning practices of fasting, loosing of hair, rending of clothes and proximity to the dead, the Nazirite is either not required to participate in them, or expressly forbidden in the case of proximity to a corpse (see below). Hence, while the Nazirite shows certain affinities with petitionery mourners, the differences are also pronounced.538 While the loosing of hair in Lev 10:6; 21:10; Num 5:8 is by far the closest hair parallel to the dictates in Num 6:5, most commentators have been concerned more with the prohibition from shaving the Nazirite’s head. The reason for this preoccupation seems to be due to an attempt to focus on the similarities between the Nazirite ritual legislation in Num 6 and the narrative accounts of Samson in Judg 13-16, as well as other biblical and post-biblical Nazirite traditions. However, due to the nature of this study and the methodological concerns expressed above on how rituals are interpreted in and of themselves, a discussion of the material in Judg 13-16 (as well as 1 Sam 1, Amos 2:11-12 and others) will be put on hold until the ritual found in Num 6 is understood as a structural whole. Therefore, we will begin with a discussion of prohibition from shaving in the priestly sources.

538

The perceived contradiction between the prohibition on the priests in Lev 10 and the prescription on the Nazirite in Num 6:5 revolve around issues of status change. Aaron, Eleazar and Ithamar may not perform this hair manipulation because it would indicate a status change (from service to YHWH to mourning for Nadab and Abihu). Likewise, the Nazirite must leave their hair unbound during the entire Nazirite consecration specifically to indicate that a ritual status change has been enacted. Practically, this also functions as yet another mark of differentiation between the temporary holiness of the Nazirite vis-à-vis the permanent holiness of the (high) priest.

183

Within P, H and Ezekiel, shaving and shaving prohibitions serve several functions. On the one hand, in Num 8:7 Levites are ceremonially shaved over their entire body as part of the rites of passage from quotidian existence into the service of YHWH.539 Shaving is associated with purification in that context. Likewise, in Lev 13-14 shaving serves as part of the purification process, this time marking a transition from unclean back to the quotidian state (at least in the mind of P) of clean. On the other hand, Ezekiel prohibits priest from both hair left free and head shaving (Ezek 44:20), presumably because of its association with funerary rituals (cf. vv.25-7). Additionally, throughout the Hebrew Bible, and the ancient Near East more generally, shaving indicates the onset of mourning.540 Within the priestly literature, this is the case in the H text of Lev 19:27; 21:5 and Ezek 7:18.541 Outside of the priestly traditions this occurs in Deut 14:1; Isa 15:2; 22:12; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 48:37; Amos 8:10; Mic 1:16; and Job 1:20. Saul Olyan has demonstrated that the overarching ritual purpose of shaving rites in the Hebrew Bible is to signal and effect status change.542 His evidence includes all the texts mentioned above as well as the the law of the captive woman in Deut 21:12-13. He concludes these shaving rites may do different things, may send different contextspecific messages, and may occur at different junctures in the ritual process, but they share something in common: In each case, they effect a change in an individual’s status and serve as a public, temporary marker of this status change.543

539

Cf. Fleming, Installation, 81-2. On the relationship between mourning as a component of funerary ritual and as a component of petition, see Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 84-96. 541 On the attribution of Lev 19:27 to H see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 29 n.62. 542 Olyan, “Shaving Rites,” 611-622. 543 Ibid.: 621. 540

184

While Olyan addresses specifically the shaving rite at the end of the vow (Num 6:18), what becomes most striking in connection to the Nazirite is that the law requires the maintenance of this holy status; shaving or hair cutting would signal a change in that status. The Nazirite is consecrated and holy and must remain so. The prohibition against shaving—and probably against binding the hair is as well—is a prohibition against a change of cultic status.544

544

There has also been a tendency among biblical scholars to link the hair prohibitions in Num 6 with the perceived sanctity of the war camp. Levine, Numbers, 1:229-35 represents the most recent research advocating this theory. He holds that hair prohibitions in Num 6 should be correlated at first with Deut 33:16b. ‫תבואתה לראש יוסף‬ ‫ולקדקד נזיר אחיו‬

Levine holds that combination of the verb ‫ נזר‬with “head” (‫ )ראש‬and “pate” (‫ )קדקד‬suggests a more nuanced translation: May all of these rest on the head of Joseph, On the pate of one whose hair is dedicated from among his brothers. (emphasis his) Levine then links this text with the Song of Deborah where Judg 5:2 states: ‫בפרע פרעות בישראל‬ ‫בהתנדב עם ברכו יהוה‬ When locks go untrimmed in Israel, When fighting men dedicate themselves—bless YHWH! (NJPS) This reference to untrimmed or unbound hair associated with dedication to warfare is then connected to accounts of apparently consecrated warriors in 1 Sam 21:5-6 and 2 Sam 11:11. Levine is not alone in relating these texts into a coherent whole, see e.g. Susan Niditch, My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 81-94; Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; London: Darton Longham & Todd, 1965), 466-7; Gray, Numbers, 57-69; W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions (LBS; New York: Ktav Pub, 1969), 181-2; 481-5. While Levine’s evidence provides a good theory as to a consecrated warrior status in ancient Israel, the link with the Nazirite is unconvincing. The use of ‫ פרעות‬in Judg 5:2 may not be be equivalent to its use in later texts. Mark S. Smith, The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 24 writes The older usage in Judges 5:2 (cf. Deuteronomy 32:42) is different, since it is specifically military in nature. The noun “locks” (NRSV, NJPS) designates fighting men, and would seem to mean literally “longhairs,” reflecting the older custom of leaving the hair uncut for the duration of a military campaign. (This idea partly informs the way the hairy fighter Samson is portrayed in Judges 14-16.) This military background has been traced back to Late Bronze

185

Third Prohibition: ‫וּל ַאחֹתוֹ לֹא־יִ ַטּ ָמּא‬ ְ ‫וּל ִאמּוֹ ְל ָא ִחיו‬ ְ ‫ ְל ָא ִביו‬6:7 ‫ ָכּל־יְ ֵמי ַהזִּ ירוֹ ַליהוָ ה ַﬠל־נֶ ֶפשׁ ֵמת לֹא יָ בֹא׃‬6:6 ‫ָל ֶהם ְבּמ ָֹתם ִכּי נֵ זֶ ר ֱא ָהיו ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ׃‬ 6:6

All the days that one is a Nazirite to YHWH one must not approach a dead body. 6:7 Even for one’s father, mother, brother or sister one must not defile oneself for them at their death; for the consecration of one’s God is upon one’s head. 6:8 All the days of one’s consecration one is holy to YHWH. The third prohibition placed upon the Nazirite is contact with a corpse in vv.6-8. In this respect the Nazirite prohibition parallels only that of the high priest.545 In Lev 21:10-12 the high priest is forbidden from defiling himself: ‫וּמ ֵלּא ֶאת־יָ דוֹ ִל ְלבֹּשׁ‬ ִ ‫ר־יוּצק ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ ֶשׁ ֶמן ַה ִמּ ְשׁ ָחה‬ ַ ‫ וְ ַהכּ ֵֹהן ַה ָגּדוֹל ֵמ ֶא ָחיו ֲא ֶשׁ‬21:10 ‫ וְ ַﬠל ָכּל־נַ ְפשׁ ֹת ֵמת לֹא יָ בֹא ְל ָא ִביו‬21:11 ‫וּב ָג ָדיו לֹא יִ ְפר ֹם׃‬ ְ ‫ת־ה ְבּ ָג ִדים ֶאת־רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִ ְפ ָרע‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ן־ה ִמּ ְק ָדּשׁ לֹא יֵ ֵצא וְ לֹא יְ ַח ֵלּל ֵאת ִמ ְק ַדּשׁ ֱא ָהיו ִכּי נֵ זֶ ר ֶשׁ ֶמן ִמ ְשׁ ַחת‬ ַ ‫וּמ‬ ִ 21:12 ‫וּל ִאמּוֹ לֹא יִ ַטּ ָמּא׃‬ ְ ‫ֱא ָהיו ָﬠ ָליו ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה׃‬ The priest who is greater than his brothers, on whose head the anointing oil is poured, who has been ordained to wear the vestments, must neither dishevel the hair of his head nor tear his vestments. He shall not go where there is any dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or his mother. He shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God, for the dedication of the anointing oil of his God is upon him. There are several points of interest in this prohibition. First, it is only for the high priest. Lev 21:1-9 recounts prohibitions for regular priests, but these are less severe than for the Age Ugarit, but it falls out of usage in the Bible except in older poems, and only in Judges 5 is the word used suitably in a military context. Further, even if a rite of warrior status is granted in the Judg 5:2; 1 Sam 21:5-6 and 2 Sam 11:11, it is still unclear how this relates to the assemblage of prohibitions laid upon the Nazirite. In both 1 Sam 21 and 2 Sam 11 the point is made that military men are not involved in conjugal relations, but no such restriction is placed upon the Nazirite. Conversely, the Nazirite is restricted from drinking alcohol, but Uriah the Hittite in 2 Sam 11:12-13 has no qualms with drinking until inebriated—and yet still avoids sleeping with his wife. These differences warrant seeing these two practices as distinct. Similar to the warrior status noted in chapter four, it is unclear from the evidence at hand whether the warrior status in ancient Israel would have been a temporary rite of cultic transition. While Deut 20:1-9 might constitute a (though probably not the only) rite initiating such a status, the lack of explicit rite of cessation is particularly problematic. 545 See Olyan, Rites and Rank, 61.

186

High Priest – defilement is allowed but only in the case of close family members. Second, the wording of the Hebrew in Num 6:6-7 and Lev 21:11-12 is almost exact. ‫ לאביו ולאמו לאחיו ולאחתו לא יטמא‬6:7 ‫ כל ימי הזירו ליהוה על נפש מת לא יבא‬6:6 ‫להם במתם כי נזר אלהיו על ראשו‬ ‫ ומן המקדש לא יצא ולא‬21:12 ‫ ועל כל נפשת מת לא יבא לאביו ולאמו לא יטמא‬21:11 ‫יחלל את מקדש אלהיו כי נזר שמן משחת אלהיו עליו אני יהוה‬ The differences consist of a singular of ‫ נפש‬in Num 6 vs. a plural in Lev 21, and the inclusion of brothers and sisters in Num 6 (as opposed to Lev 21 where brothers and sisters are dealt with above).546 However, the most interesting point in this comparison is the close similarities given that Lev 21 is from H, and Num 6 is from P. In other words, the Num 6:6 cannot be building the prohibitions for the Nazirite upon an analogy with Lev 21 because Num 6 is older than Lev 21. Further, Milgrom holds that P did not even have a different prohibition for priests and laity in regard to corpse contamination. “Procedures mandated for the purification of the contaminated Nazirite and priests (Ezekiel’s) were probably originally followed by all priests. Subsequently, P denied them [the procedures] to the priesthood but conceded them to the Nazirite, possibly because the laity demanded, or in any event practiced them.”547 This is a penetrating idea. We know that P saw the Nazirite rite in a somewhat negative light by their use of ‫ אלהים‬in the text.548 Could part of bringing over this older, proto-Priestly tradition be the incorporation of an older concept of corpse contamination that P did not advocate? If so, then we can quickly move to a summation. The Nazirite is under a prohibition analogous to the priest and possibly high priest in prePriestly traditions. Corpse contamination polluted the Nazirite and caused him or her to 546

See Milgrom, Leviticus, 2: 1814. Ibid., 1: 996. 548 Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 145, 147 and 162. 547

187

lose the temporary sacral status. As such, if the Nazirite found himself or herself accidentally contaminated, a period of purification and then a guilt offering (‫ )אשם‬was required prior to starting the vow again.549 To summarize, while P remains silent on the issue of unique proscription of corpse contamination for priests, H in Lev 21 separates the priests (and high priest) from the laity on this point (see also Ezek 44:26-27). Further, H is using the very language of P from Num 6 to make this case (as noted above) and is combining it with some of the elements of Lev 10. Specifically, Lev 21 prohibits the high priest from leaving the tent of meeting. This is pulled directly from Lev 10:7. The reason for this prohibition is clear in Lev 10, which explicitly states that the whole house of Israel mourned the death of Nadab and Abihu. If Aaron, Eleazar or Ithamar were to leave the tent of meeting they would find themselves surrounded by mourners. The proper social response in such a ritual situation would be to enter a state of mourning with these people, since it was their own relatives who died. This is exactly what they must not do, because doing so would be tantamount to cultic treason, identifying with Nadab and Abihu over YHWH. Staying in the tent makes sense culturally and ritually and avoids a change of ritual status. However, this is not the case in Lev 21 where H combines Lev 10 and Num 6 into a new codified law regarding priestly conduct for corpse contamination. Why postulate, as Milgrom does, an unattested legal tradition of priestly corpse contamination before P that was then subsequently censured by P everywhere except in Num 6 and then reinstated by H and Ezekiel? It is simpler to see corpse issues in regard to the priests and especially the high priest as serving a different

549

See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 996.

188

function in P as shown in Num 6 and Lev 10. And once again, this functions as a safeguard against ritual status change.

Nazirite Rite of Crisis: ‫וְ ִכי־יָ מוּת ֵמת ָﬠ ָליו ְבּ ֶפ ַתע ִפּ ְתאֹם וְ ִט ֵמּא רֹאשׁ נִ זְ רוֹ וְ ִג ַלּח רֹאשׁוֹ ְבּיוֹם ָט ֳה ָרתוֹ ַבּיּוֹם‬

6:9

‫ל־פּ ַתח‬ ֶ ‫ל־הכּ ֵֹהן ֶא‬ ַ ‫וּביּוֹם ַה ְשּׁ ִמ ִיני יָ ִבא ְשׁ ֵתּי ת ִֹרים אוֹ ְשׁ ֵני ְבּנֵ י יוֹנָ ה ֶא‬ ַ 6:10 ‫יﬠי יְ ַג ְלּ ֶחנּוּ׃‬ ִ ‫ַה ְשּׁ ִב‬ ֵ ‫א ֶֹהל‬ ‫ל־הנָּ ֶפשׁ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ַהכּ ֵֹהן ֶא ָחד ְל ַח ָטּאת וְ ֶא ָחד ְלע ָֹלה וְ ִכ ֶפּר ָﬠ ָליו ֵמ ֲא ֶשׁר ָח ָטא ַﬠ‬6:11 ‫מוֹﬠד׃‬ ‫ן־שׁנָ תוֹ ְל ָא ָשׁם‬ ְ ‫ וְ ִהזִּ יר ַליהוָ ה ֶאת־יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ וְ ֵה ִביא ֶכּ ֶבשׂ ֶבּ‬6:12 ‫וְ ִק ַדּשׁ ֶאת־רֹאשׁוֹ ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא׃‬ ‫וְ ַהיָּ ִמים ָה ִראשׁ ִֹנים יִ ְפּלוּ ִכּי ָט ֵמא נִ זְ רוֹ׃‬ 6:9

And if someone dies suddenly near one, and the head of one’s consecration is defiled, one shall shave one’s head on the seventh day. 6:10 On the eighth day one shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 6:11 And the priest shall offer one as a purification offering550 and one as a burnt offering, and he shall do kippur for the one who sinned on account of the dead. And one shall sanctify one’s head on that day. 6:12 And one must consecrate oneself to YHWH on the days of one’s consecration, and one shall bring a one year-old lamb as a guilt offering. And the previous days shall not be reckoned because one’s consecration was defiled. Verses 9-12 provide what might be termed a “rite of crisis” for a Nazirite whose vow has been invalidated through corpse contamination. The Nazirite shall shave on the seventh day when he or she is again clean. The text here is unconcerned with the disposal of the hair (compare with vv. 13-20 below). The Nazirite is permitted to shave only after returning to a clean state, when it is presumed that neither Nazirite nor hair could communicate impurity.551 In v.10 two birds are brought to the entrance of the ‫אהל מועד‬. In v.11 one is offered as a purification offering (‫ )חטאת‬and the other as a burnt offering (‫)עלה‬,

550

On the terminology of “purification offering” for ‫ חטאת‬see Jacob Milgrom, “Sin-offering or Purificationoffering?,” VT 21 (1971): 237-39. 551 For a detailed description of the communicability of corpse impurity see Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 196-8.

189

in keeping with stipulations laid down in Lev 5:7-8 and 1:14 respectively.552 Additionally, the Nazirite must provide a guilt offering (‫ )אשם‬in v.12 when rededicated to YHWH.553 The previous period of dedication is void because his or her sacred status has been defiled. That is to say, an accidental status change occurred before the Nazirite vow was completed. The rules concerning corpse contamination in this passage need close examination. There is no indication from the text that the rules of corpse contamination from Num 19 (H) are envisioned here. Likewise, the rite of crisis makes no mention of expulsion of the corpse contaminated from the camp as in Num 5:1-4 (H).554 In any case, like the proscription in vv 6-8, the penalty for the Nazirite here is more severe than for either the priest or layperson in Num 19. Milgrom notes: The prophet Ezekiel, however, requires the priest to supplement the layman’s purification by barring him from the sanctuary for an additional week, at the end of which he brings a purification offering (Ezek. 44:26-27). Thus the Nazirite may reflect a more severe code of impurities for the priest, one mitigated by the Torah, but preserved by Ezekiel.555 Again, the rituals point toward a superior ritual status for the Nazirite. The extent of this rite of crisis must also be discussed. Milgrom speculates that contact with other severe impurities would also cancel a Nazirite’s status (e.g. one with

552

On the combination of the ‫ חטאת‬and ‫ עלה‬sacrifices, see Gane, Cult and Character, 219 who states As elsewhere when these two kinds of sacrifices are coupled on behalf of the same offerer, the burnt-offering token “gift” enhances the efficacy of the purification-offering token “debt payment” in a quantitative sense, making what amounts to a greater purification offering (cf. Lev 5:6-7; Num 15:24-28). Cf. Milgrom, Numbers, 47. 553 Cf. Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (SJLA 18; Leiden: Brill, 1976). 554 de Vaulx, Les Nombres, 99-102; Budd, Numbers, 70. For the designation of Num 5:1-4 as H see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 86. 555 Jacob Milgrom, Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (The JPS Torah Commentary 4; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 46.

190

skin disease or an irregular genital discharge; see Lev 13-15).556 However, this is not stated in the text, and given how unique Milgrom himself finds the Nazirite such a generalization seems too far a reach. The text does not even explicitly prescribe a sacrificial penalty for a Nazirite who consumes alcohol or shaves during the time of consecration. The text as it stands provides a rite of crisis only when one’s Nazirite status is accidentally ended. Does this imply that other cases do not require restarting the period of consecration? Or does the text imply that the same rite would apply in all cases, but singles out accidental desacralization because it is a debatable case? The strong condemnation of those who force Nazirites to drink wine in Amos 2:11-12 would argue for a more severe punishment than what is stipulated here, but again, this is a special case.

Completion of the Vow: ‫ וְ ִה ְק ִריב‬6:14 ‫מוֹﬠד׃‬ ֵ ‫ל־פּ ַתח א ֶֹהל‬ ֶ ‫תּוֹרת ַהנָּ זִ יר ְבּיוֹם ְמלֹאת יְ ֵמי נִ זְ רוֹ יָ ִביא אֹתוֹ ֶא‬ ַ ‫וְ זֹאת‬6:13 ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫ת־שׁנָ ָתהּ ְתּ ִמ‬ ְ ‫ן־שׁנָ תוֹ ָת ִמים ֶא ָחד ְלע ָֹלה וְ ַכ ְב ָשׂה ַא ַחת ַבּ‬ ְ ‫ת־ק ְר ָבּנוֹ ַליהוָ ה ֶכּ ֶבשׂ ֶבּ‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ַסל ַמצּוֹת ס ֶֹלת ַח ת ְבּלוּ ת ַבּ ֶשּׁ ֶמן ְוּר ִק ֵיקי ַמצּוֹת‬6:15 ‫ל־א ָחד ָתּ ִמים ִל ְשׁ ָל ִמים׃‬ ֶ ִ‫ְל ַח ָטּאת וְ ַאי‬ ‫ת־ח ָטּאתוֹ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִה ְק ִריב ַהכּ ֵֹהן ִל ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ֶא‬6:16 ‫יהם׃‬ ֶ ‫וּמנְ ָח ָתם וְ נִ ְס ֵכּ‬ ִ ‫ְמ ֻשׁ ִחים ַבּ ָשּׁ ֶמן‬ ‫ת־מנְ ָחתוֹ‬ ִ ‫ת־ה ַאיִ ל יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה זֶ ַבח ְשׁ ָל ִמים ַליהוָ ה ַﬠל ַסל ַה ַמּצּוֹת וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ַהכּ ֵֹהן ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֶא‬6:17 ‫וְ ֶאת־ע ָֹלתוֹ׃‬ ‫ת־שׂ ַﬠר רֹאשׁ נִ זְ רוֹ וְ נָ ַתן‬ ְ ‫מוֹﬠד ֶאת־רֹאשׁ נִ זְ רוֹ וְ ָל ַקח ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ִג ַלּח ַהנָּ זִ יר ֶפּ ַתח א ֶֹהל‬6:18 ‫וְ ֶאת־נִ ְסכּוֹ׃‬ ‫ן־ה ַאיִ ל וְ ַח ַלּת ַמ ָצּה‬ ָ ‫ת־הזְּ ר ֹ ַ ְבּ ֵשׁ ָלה ִמ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָל ַקח ַהכּ ֵֹהן ֶא‬6:19 ‫ר־תּ ַחת זֶ ַבח ַה ְשּׁ ָל ִמים׃‬ ָ ‫ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ֵאשׁ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫ן־ה ַסּל ְוּר ִקיק ַמ ָצּה ֶא ָחד וְ נָ ַתן ַﬠ‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵה ִניף‬6:20 ‫ל־כּ ֵפּי ַהנָּ זִ יר ַא ַחר ִה ְת ַגּ ְלּחוֹ ֶאת־נִ זְ רוֹ׃‬ ַ ‫ַא ַחת ִמ‬ ‫רוּמה וְ ַא ַחר ִי ְשׁ ֶתּה‬ ָ ‫נוּפה וְ ַﬠל שׁוֹק ַה ְתּ‬ ָ ‫נוּפה ִל ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה ק ֶֹדשׁ הוּא ַלכּ ֵֹהן ַﬠל ֲחזֵ ה ַה ְתּ‬ ָ ‫ַהכּ ֵֹהן ְתּ‬ ‫ר־תּ ִשּׂיג יָ דוֹ ְכּ ִפי‬ ַ ‫תּוֹרת ַהנָּ זִ יר ֲא ֶשׁר יִ דּ ֹר ָק ְר ָבּנוֹ ַליהוָ ה ַﬠל־נִ זְ רוֹ ִמ ְלּ ַבד ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫ זֹאת‬6:21 ‫ַהנָּ זִ יר יָ יִ ן׃‬ ‫תּוֹרת נִ זְ רוֹ׃‬ ַ ‫נִ ְדרוֹ ֲא ֶשׁר יִ דּ ֹר ֵכּן יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ַﬠל‬ 6:13

This is the instruction of the Nazirite: On the day that one’s days of dedication are complete, one will be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 6:14 And one shall present one’s offering to YHWH: a one year-old lamb without blemish as a purification offering, a ram without blemish as a 556

Ibid.

191

communion offering, 6:15 a basket of unleavened cakes of fine flour mixed with oil and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and their proper grain offering and their libations. 6:16 And the priest shall present them before YHWH and perform the sin and burnt offerings. 6:17 He shall offer the ram as a peace offering to YHWH along with the basket of unleavened items; and the priest shall offer one’s proper grain offering and one’s libations. 6:18 The Nazirite shall shave the consecrated hair at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting and take the hair of the consecrated head and put it on the fire that is under the peace offering. 6:19 The priest shall take the boiled shoulder of the ram, one unleavened cake from the basket and one unleavened wafer and place them upon the hand of the Nazirite after that individual has shaved the consecration. 6:20 The priest shall elevate them as an elevation offering before YHWH.557 Holy it will be to the priest together with the breast of the elevation offering and the thigh of dedication offering. And afterwards the Nazirite may drink wine. 6:21 This is the instruction of the Nazirite who vows one’s offering to YHWH according to one’s consecration as well as what ever else one’s hand is able to provide. According to the vow that one vows, so must one do. Verses 13-21 provide an extended ritual concluding the Nazirite vow.558 Verse 13 provides the location for ritual activity. As with the rite of crisis following the premature desacralization through defilement, the Nazirite again comes to the entrance of the ‫אהל‬ ‫מועד‬. Verses 14-15 list the offerings to be brought.559 In v.16 the Nazirite again is required to offer a purification offering (‫ )חטאת‬together with a burnt offering (‫)עלה‬. While the presence of a communion offering (‫ )שלמים‬rather than a guilt offering (‫ )אשם‬indicates that the Nazirite has not incurred impurity in the vow, the presence of a purification offering needs to be addressed. Nobuyoshi Kiuchi compares the purification offering (‫ )חטאת‬in Num 6:14 and 16 with that of the dedication of the priests in Lev 8-9.560 The status of the Nazirite resembles

557

On this translation see “The Alleged Wave-offering in Israel and the Ancient Near East,” IEJ 22 (1972): 33-38. For discussion of ‫ זאת תורת‬formulations see Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” 31-39. 559 On the differing order in vv. 14-5 and 16-20 see the differentiation of descriptive and prescriptive ritual texts in Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” 105-111; Anson Rainey, “The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts,” Bib 51 (1970): 485-98. 560 Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 54-6. 558

192

that of the priests in holiness, and the same categories of sacrifices are offered in both Num 6:16-20 and Lev 9. Just as a priest in Lev 9 is required to bring a purification offering though he had been declared holy in Exod 29, so the Nazirite who had been declared holy in Num 6:8 is still required to bring a purification offering as well. It is the act of approaching the divine that necessitates a purification offering in both cases. Recently Roy Gane has critiqued Kiuchi’s understanding of the text.561 Gane notes that the crucial difference between the priest in Lev 9 and the Nazirite in Num 6 is the latter’s continued lay status. Rather than Lev 9, Gane posits a parallel with Lev 8. Both Lev 8 and Num 6 contain the unique offering of unleavened cakes and wafers as elevation offerings, and in both texts the participants are holy yet also in the midst of a larger ritual context. Gane links the two and notes Before this sacrifice, he [the Nazirite] has already been holy from the beginning of his votive period. But after this, he is to shave his hair and put it on the fire under the well-being offering (Num 6:18), thereby relinquishing the token portion of himself that represents his separation to holy YHWH. The irrevocable and therefore permanent dedication of hair would consecrate the Nazirite, pars pro toto, to a higher level of holiness. This extraordinary votive gift of symbolic self-sacrifice to YHWH (cf. v. 2) is as close as the Israelite cult comes to human sacrifice.562 There are several problems with Gane’s theory. First, there is the misunderstanding of the importance of hair in Num 6:1-21. The hair acts not as a representative of the Nazirite, but rather the prohibition of and command to shave represent the suppression or enactment of status change respectively.563 Second, Gane misconstrues the purpose of burning the hair 561

Roy Gane, “The Function of the Nazirite's Concluding Purification Offering,” in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible (ed. Baruch Schwartz, et al.; LHB 474; London: T & T Clark, 2008), 12-14. 562 Ibid., 14. 563 In this understanding Gane follows a long list of scholars who have seen the role of hair in this manner. For a full discussion of this perspective see Eliezer Diamond, “An Israelite Self-offering in the Priestly Code: A New Perspective on the Nazirite,” JQR 88 (1997): 1-18. The interpretation of the hair prohibitions and shaving

193

by clouding the issues of sacrifice and disposal. He is correct in noting that the act of burning the hair in v.18 is part of the ritual procedure, but that does not equate it with sacrifice as such. However, perhaps the largest misunderstanding of Gane is one he shares with Kiuchi: both see the termination rites in vv. 16-21 as “the culminating point of the Naziritehood.”564 Both scholars confuse a temporary rite of cultic transition with a permanent rite of cultic status change, a true rite of passage. Both scholars see the actions closing the ritual as indicative of the telos of the Nazirite vow rather than simply its cessation and conclusion. Though also using the title “rite of passage,” Jenson provides a more nuanced analysis of the purification offering in Num 6:16-21.565 He holds that the sacrifice serves to desanctify the Nazirite, returning the participant to a quotidian state. This is also the position of Milgrom who cites Rambam and Abravanel as early proponents of the view that the purification offering is necessary when one undergoes a cultic status change.566 While such an understanding does not tie tightly into the priestly sacrificial system, it does concur with the larger assemblage of ritual practice in the vow as a whole. The destruction of the consecrated hair in Num 6:18 is a unique action that is difficult to interpret. Scholars have generally held that the burning represents either a sacrificial action symbolizing the Nazirite pars pro toto567 or the elimination and disposal of

in this study likewise precludes the interpretation of Baumgarten that the purification offering here protects the Nazirite who has had his or her vital forces diminished through the cutting of hair. See Albert Baumgarten, “Ḥaṭṭāʾt Sacrifices,” RB 103 (1996): 341-2. 564 Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 55; Gane, “Function,” 13, 15. 565 Jenson, Graded Holiness, 50-51. 566 Milgrom, Numbers, 48; note also problems raised by Gane, “Function,” 10-11. 567 E.g. Gane, “Function,” 14; Diamond, “Israelite Self-offering,” 4-5; Gordon J. Wenham, Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC 4; Leicester: IVP, 1981), 86-87; Gray, Numbers, 69. Cf. Levine, Numbers, 1:2334 and Smith, Religion of the Semites, 181-82; 481-85.

194

a consecrated item.568 Neither interpretation is without difficulty. On the one hand, the activity does not use the standard verb for sacrificial burning, the Hiphil of ‫“ קטר‬to turn into smoke.” Nor does reference to the fire under the communal sacrifice ( ‫על האש אשר‬ ‫ )תחת זבח השלמים‬indicate explicitly whether this is the fire for the sacrificial portion on the altar or a fire used for cooking the participant’s portion (cf. v.19). On the other hand, the text does not use the standard verb for burning as disposal (‫)שרף‬, nor do we find the hair taken to the usual locus of such burning, a “clean area” outside the camp.569 There is no easy solution to this impasse, and this itself indicates the ambiguous relationship that the priestly texts appear to have with the Nazirite vow. While one could speculate as to the nature of the rite in a pre-priestly context, we simply do not have the data to make a definitive judgment.

EXCURSUS: THE NAZIRITE OUTSIDE OF NUMBERS 6 While the focus of this chapter has been on the understanding of the Nazirite in Num 6:1-21 as enacting a temporary rite of cultic transition, a brief excusus must focus on the issue of the date of this material vis-à-vis other biblical traditions. As has been seen above, scholars have generally seen in Num 6:1-21 a codification of an earlier charismatic tradition into a ritual prescription. These studies are largely based on comparisons to other attestations of the Nazirite in the Bible. There are three places where the Nazirite is addressed in the Hebrew Bible: the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6, the account of Samson in Judges 13-16 and a passing reference in Amos 2:11-12. To this list scholars often add 1 Sam 1, where the LXX and DSS state that Samuel is a Nazirite. While the weight of the following 568

E.g. Milgrom, Numbers, 49; John Sturdy, Numbers (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 53; Noth, Numbers: A Commentary, 57; de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 476. 569 Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 129-46; cf. Gane, “Function,” 15.

195

discussion focuses on the passages in Judges and Numbers, a brief comment on Samuel and Amos are in order. The Vorlage of LXX and the reconstruction of 4QSama both say that Samuel was a Nazirite. The MT of Hannah’s vow in 1 Sam 1:11 reads: ‫א־ת ְשׁ ַכּח‬ ִ ֹ ‫ם־ראֹה ִת ְר ֶאה ָבּ ֳﬠנִ י ֲא ָמ ֶת וּזְ ַכ ְר ַתּנִ י וְ ל‬ ָ ‫אמר יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת ִא‬ ַ ֹ ‫וַ ִתּדּ ֹר נֶ ֶדר וַ תּ‬ ָ ‫ת־א ָמ ֶת וְ נָ ַת ָתּה ַל ֲא ָמ ְת זֶ ַרע ֲאנָ ִשׁים וּנְ ַת ִתּיו ַליהוָ ה ָכּל־יְ ֵמי ַחיָּ יו‬ ֲ ‫ֶא‬ ‫וּמוֹרה לֹא־יַ ֲﬠ ֶלה‬ ‫ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ׃‬ And she vowed a vow and said, “O YHWH of Hosts, if you will look upon the suffering of your maidservant and remember me and not forget your maidservant, and if you will give to your maidservant a male child, then I will give him to YHWH for all the days of his life and no razor shall ever pass over his head.” The LXX and 4QSama attest to the following reconstruction for the apodosis of Hannah’s vow: 570 ‫וּמוֹרה לֹא־יַ ֲﬠ ֶלה ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ׃‬ ָ ‫וּנְ ַת ִתּיו לפניך נזיר עד יום מותו ויין ושכר לא ישתה‬ I will place him before you as a Nazirite until the day of his death. He shall neither drink wine nor beer, and no razor shall go over his head. The tradition of Samuel as a Nazirite is also supported by both Josephus and rabbinic writings.571 However, it is easier to explain this variant text-critically as an expansion and explanation of a proto-MT text in the Vorlage of the LXX rather than to posit that the MT is somehow deficient.572 Additionally, the phrase “wine and beer” (‫ )יין ושכר‬occurs in the MT

570

For this reconstruction see Eugene Charles Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus (HSM 19; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), 39-40; P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel: A New Translation (ABC 8; Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 53-54, 56-57. 571 See full survey in Stuart Douglas Chepey, Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism: A Survey of Ancient Jewish Writings, the New Testament, Archaeological Evidence, and Other Writings from Late Antiquity (AJEC 60; Leiden: Brill, 2005). 572 See Matitiahu Tsevat, “Was Samuel a Nazirite,” in "Sha'arei Talmon": Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon (ed. Michael A. Fishbane, et al.; Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 199-204

196

at 1 Sam 1:15 where Hannah protests Eli’s assumption that she is inebriated. This phrase also occurs in Numbers 6:3 and Judges 13:4, 7, 14. It is reasonable to see Hannah’s vow in the MT, along with the reference to wine and beer as having provoked the variant. That is to say, the reference to hair, wine and beer in such close proximity in the MT led to the interpretive gloss that Samuel was a Nazirite. Likewise, Matitiahu Tsevat has posited that “bestowing ‘Nazirite’ on Samuel is but one more case of the tendency to have various distinguished features and prominent offices converge in Samuel: priest, prophet, judge, kingmaker, and in Chronicles (the list of 1 Chr 6:1(1), 11-13, 18:23), Levite.” 573 In other words, Samuel only becomes a Nazirite in post-biblical traditions, and the late witnesses of the LXX and 4QSama testify to that growth of tradition. Amos 2:11-12 mention prophets and Nazirites in the context of those who have been raised up by YHWH. This passage is often appealed to as an example of an early, charismatic Nazirite that should be seen as distinct from the later temporary ritual vow found in Numbers 6.574 ‫יאים‬ ִ ‫וָ ָא ִקים ִמ ְבּנֵ ֶיכם ִלנְ ִב‬2:11 ‫חוּר ֶיכם ִלנְ זִ ִרים‬ ֵ ‫וּמ ַבּ‬ ִ ‫ַה ַאף ֵאין־זֹאת ְבּנֵ י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫נְ ֻאם־יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ‫ת־הנְּ זִ ִרים יָ יִ ן‬ ַ ‫וַ ַתּ ְשׁקוּ ֶא‬2:12 ‫יתם ֵלאמֹר לֹא ִתּנָּ ְבאוּ׃‬ ֶ ִ‫יאים ִצוּ‬ ִ ‫ל־הנְּ ִב‬ ַ ‫וְ ַﬠ‬ And I raised up prophets from among your children And Nazirites from among your young ones. Is that not so, O people of Israel? —says YHWH. But you made the Nazirites drink wine, And the prophets you commanded: “Do not prophesy!” 573 574

Ibid., 201. E.g. Niditch, My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel, 74-75.

197

However, scholars appear to pull an inordinate amount of information from this short poetic passage. Countering this trend, Shalom Paul asserts that this passage provides little information. As for the Nazirites, this is the only place in the Bible where their selection is described as indicative of God’s favor and goodness in Israel. They are mentioned here alongside the prophets (who were selected and elected by the Deity) because by their own voluntary strict ritual behavior and vows they, too, exemplify the will of God.575 In other words, the focus is on commitment to the Lord rather than charismatic qualifications or a lifelong term of service. Yet, if one were to take issue with Paul’s interpretation, there is another concern to be dealt with: the passage is part of the Deuteronomistic redaction of the book. Hans Walter Wolff sees 2:10-12 as an elaboration of v.9 based on Deuteronomic theology.576 Likewise, Jörg Jeremias dates the passage to the 6th century editor.577 This makes the witness of this passage even less useful. Taken as a whole, the information gleaned from Amos 2:11-12 is little, late, and dependent on earlier traditions. The witness that it gives cannot be dated earlier than the ritual material in Num 6 with any certainty. Moving to Samson in Judges 13-16, we find ourselves dealing with the only named character to be called a Nazirite in the Hebrew Bible. Based on internal criteria such as doublets and contradictions it becomes clear that Judges 13-16 has a complex redactional history. 578 The double indication in 15:20 and 16:31 that Samson judged Israel for twenty 575

Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 92. Hans Walter Wolff, Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 141-42. 577 Jörg Jeremias, Book of Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998), 7-8, 38-42. 578 The following discussion is heavily dependent on Marc Zvi Brettler, The Book of Judges (Old Testament Readings; London: Routledge, 2002), 40-60. 576

198

years is a resumptive repetition that effectively brackets off chapter 16, the story of Samson and Delilah culminating in Samson’s self-sacrificing death.579 This material is likewise conceptually unique. While women play a large role throughout the Samson Cycle, only Delilah in chapter 16 receives a name. While chapter 13 stresses Samson’s Nazirite status and chapters 14-15 stress that his strength comes when the spirit of the Lord is upon him, it is only in chapter 16 that we are told that his hair is the secret source of his strength.580 While Judges 13-15 note the tension between Samson and the Philistines, it is only in chapter 16 that this takes on a theological dimension—only in Judges 16 and 1 Sam 5 do we have the motif of the YHWH vs. Dagon.581 Taken as a whole, these data point to Judg 16’s independence. The hair motif in chapter 16 cannot be connected with that in chapter 13. Similar criteria can be used to show the independence of Judges 13 from chapters 14-15. A doublet might be present in 14:14 which conveys information about Philistine supremacy already noted in 13:5. Again, there are also differences that make chapter 13 conceptually distinct from chapters 14-15. While the messenger of YHWH is central to chapter 13, he is completely absent in the material that follows in Judges 14-16. Likewise, while Samson’s father Manoah is mentioned by name fifteen times in chapter 13 he is left unnamed in the following chapters. Perhaps most important, Samson is called a Nazirite in Judges 13, a description lacking in chapters 14-15 and found only once in chapter 16

579

Ibid., 42. For more on the folklore motif of the hero with a secret to his power see Niditch, My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel, 64-66. 581 Brettler, Judges, 57; Patrick D. Miller and J. J. M. Roberts, The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the "Ark Narrative" of 1 Samuel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), 67-73. 580

199

(16:17), where it is mostly likely a secondary addition.582 In short, the Samson cycle is made of three independent tales found in chapter 13, chapters 14-15 and chapter 16 which have been only secondarily combined in the format they now appear. It is specifically in chapter 13 that Samson is referred to as a Nazirite. Looking particularly at chapter 13, we find what originally would have been an independent story, a type-scene announcing the birth of a hero. The unnamed wife of Manoah is greeted by a figure referred to as “the messenger of YHWH” ‫ מלאך יהוה‬in v.3, an individual so human in appearance that indeed Manoah is unaware of his divine nature until the former ascends to heaven on the fire of the offering in 13:20. Brettler, following earlier studies by Adele Reinhartz and Susan Ackerman, has persuasively argued that it is the angel and not Manoah who sires Samson.583 In v.3 the messenger arrives and says to Manoah’s wife: ‫“ הנה נא את עקרה ולא ילדת והרית וילדת בן‬Behold, you are barren and have borne no children; but you shall conceive and bear a son.” He then goes on in v.4 to state the injunctions placed upon the mother and states in v. 5 ‫“ כי הנך הרה וילדת בן‬For behold, you have conceived and are bearing a son.” The verbs in v. 5 are definitely suffixing, that is perfect, verbal forms. The simplest reading is that by v.5 Manoah’s wife is already pregnant. It is possible to assert that we find here a prophetic perfect, indicating a future reality so certain as to be conveyed using the past tense. However, this line of reasoning does not take into account the syntactical use of ‫הנה‬, a particle that Adele Berlin asserts

582

See the assertion that link between Samson’s hair and his vow is secondary to the story in Susan Niditch, “Samson as Cultural Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak,” CBQ 52 (1990): 616-17. 583 Brettler, Judges, 45; Adele Reinhartz, “Samson's Mother: An Unnamed Protagonist,” JSOT 55 (1992): 25-37; Susan Ackerman, Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (ABRL New York: Doubleday, 1998), 181-207.

200

introduces new information.584 In v. 3 all the information is new, Manoah’s wife and the angel of the YHWH have just met. But by v.5 the new information is that the woman is now pregnant—a situation that occurs while Manoah is nowhere to be seen.585 Additionally, in v. 6 the woman tells her husband ‫“ איש האלהים בא אלי‬A man of God came to me.” The construction ‫ בא אל‬often has sexual connotations, as can be seen in passages such as Gen 16:2; 29:21, 23; 30:3; 38:8; 2 Sam 16:21; Ruth 4:13. In short, Samson appears to be the product of a divine-human coupling in chapter 13. This digression into angelic indiscretion is relevant to our discussion of the Nazirite. Samson’s distinctive pedigree has ramifications for his other distinctive status: he is the only named person in the Bible upon whom a Nazirite vow is imposed. Brettler notes, “This suggests that Samson’s Nazirite status may derive from his parentage. His father is a divine being, and thus Samson must be in the human non-hereditary state closest to being divine, in other words, a Nazirite.”586 However, for that to be the case there needs to have already been a Nazirite upon which this tradition is to be based. As noted above in discussion of corpse contamination (Num 6:6-8) and the rite of crisis (vv. 9-12), the ritual prescriptions in Num 6:1-21 retain pre-priestly traditions for a temporary Nazirite. It is distinctly possible that the understanding of Samson as a Nazirite is based on these prepriestly traditions. To conclude this excursus, the notion of Samuel as a Nazirite is attested only in late Second Temple and rabbinic texts. Amos 2:11-12 contains little ritual information, and its 584

Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature Series 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 91-95. 585 For the most recent discussion of this type scene more generally, see Sarah Shectman, Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis (Hebrew Bible Monographs 23; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009), 56-74. 586 Brettler, Judges, 47.

201

secondary quality limits its utility for discussing the Nazirite. Both Judges 13-16 and Numbers 6 are composite in nature. The tradition found in Judges 13 portrays Samson as a semi-divine figure with angelic father and human mother. Brettler asserts that the text describes Samson as a Nazirite because it is the best category available. For this to be the case, however, there needs to have been an understanding of the temporary, cultic Nazirite available that antedates the text of Judges 13. The composite nature of Numbers 6 contains within it prohibitions that harkens back to pre-Priestly traditions, traditions that could precede Judges 13. All of this together points to the primacy of a temporary Nazirite that was only expanded into a lifelong status in later narrative traditions.

SUMMARY The Nazirite vow in Num 6:1-21 provides a biblical example of a temporary rite of cultic transition. One becoming a Nazirite enters a sacral state analogous to the high priest and regular priests on duty. The inception of this cultic status, while noted in the text, is given less attention than the extended restrictions and rites for the return to the quotidian. Similar to the Ugaritic ritual texts in chapters two and three, the concern of the text is more on the proper return to the quotidian than the beginning of cultic status change. The restrictions placed upon the Nazirite safeguard the temporary status by preventing unwanted status change before the completion of the vow. In the case of unintentional status change the Nazirite is required to reconsecrate and begin again. Ultimately, the Nazirite undergoes a closing ritual designed to return the participant from a sacral state to the quotidian. As such, this study provides a corrective to studies that would see these closing rites as the focus rather than the conclusion of the Nazirite’s vow.

202

While the rites of the Nazirite are similar to the rites of temporary cultic transition seen in chapters two, three and four, the Nazirite however is different than the examples in previous chapters in that we have no record of the Nazirite performing actions within the cult. His or her cultic status change is only construed analogically. Above I rejected the understanding that the purpose of the vow was to allow the Nazirite to drawn near to the altar and burn the consecrated hair. This activity signals the end of the cultic status change not its purpose. However, the text is silent as to whether being “holy unto YHWH” enabled the Nazirite to perform other actual cultic activity or if this cultic status was only understood analogically. Regardless, the analogical relationship the Nazirite has with the high priest differentiates a Nazirite from other lay people. Such unique austerity and closeness to the divine confers special social status upon the Nazirite that would presumably last even after the cultic status has returned to a quotidian state. But at the same time, this ritual status by both its temporary and analogical nature reinforces the permanent cultic status of the priests.587 That is to say, on a sociological level both the Nazirite and the priesthood gain status.

587

See Olyan, Rites and Rank, 61.

203

Chapter Six The Day of Atonement

In the foregoing discussion the rites of temporary cultic transition discussed in both Ugaritic and biblical texts allowed persons outside of the cultic hierarchy unique access to the divine. However, such temporary status change need not be solely the priviledge of the laity. Temporary cultic change can also be extended to priests who engage in rites that allow for limited engagement with the divine. That is to say, special rituals that explicitly control how and/or when a priest could engage with the divine can also be grouped under rites of temporary cultic transition. In the biblical corpus the most obvious example of this is the special ritual prescription on the Day of Atonement in Lev 16. As seen above in chapter five, the high priest was anointed and set apart as holy to YHWH. Yet, this special permanent status did not grant unlimited access to all areas within the cult. It is only through the special rites performed on the Day of Atonement that the high priest undergoes a temporary rite of cultic transition that allows him to enter the adytum of the cult. The instructions for the Day of Atonement as found in Lev 16 comprise a complex ritual that has provoked debate among biblical scholars for millennia. The text exhibits a composite redactional history and contains unique vocabulary. This chapter is concerned primarily with the rites of temporary cultic transition begun in v.4 and concluded in vv. 23204

24, wherein the high priest bathes and dresses in special garments before entering and then changes clothes and bathes again upon leaving the holiest area of the cult. However an exploration of these ritual actions cannot be conducted without reference to the whole. Additionally, this examination must take the literary history of the text into consideration as well. The discussion will begin with an inquiry into the redactional history of the text followed by an analysis of the text focusing on the rites of temporary cultic transition.

UNITY AND SOURCE-CRITICAL DISCUSSION Martin Noth began his discussion of Lev 16 by noting the redactional problems that the text exhibits. It is evident at the first glance that the chapter is in its present form the result of a probably fairly long previous history that has left its traces in a strange lack of continuity and unity about the whole. The position is indeed so complicated that all attempts hitherto at factual and literary analysis have not led to at all convincing results. But the fact itself, that the chapter came into being through an elaborate process of growth, is generally recognized and accepted.588 Indeed, over a century of scholarship has come to little consensus regarding the sourcecritical and tradition-critical issues surrounding the text.589 Yet the text shows numerous examples of editorial activity and evidences vocabulary unique in the priestly tradents. The most advantageous place to begin is with the material in vv. 29-34. This section betrays traits that mark it as an editorial addition. First, vv. 29-31 fix the day of the Day of Atonement to the tenth day of the seventh month, and v. 34 specifies that the ritual is to be 588

Noth, Leviticus, 117; see also the similar appraisal by Norman Henry Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers: Based on the Revised Standard Version (London: Nelson, 1967), 115. 589 See discussions of the history of scholarship in Angel M. Rodríguez, Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus (AUSDS 3; Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979), 112; Kjell Aartum, “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag,” ST 34, no. 34 (1980): 74-76; Gane, Cult and Character, 31-37.

205

performed once a year. While v.2 stipulates that Aaron may not enter whenever he desire (‫)בכל־עת‬, it does not stipulate a specific time. Rather the implication of v. 2 is that Aaron may enter the adytum only when the ritual in Lev 16 is performed.590 What had been a rite of crisis in v. 2 becomes a calendrical ritual in vv.29-34. Second, the person addressed in vv. 29-34 is different from vv. 2-28. In the latter, Moses is giving divine direction to Aaron concerning the prescribed ritual (vv.1-2). In vv. 29-34 the text is addressed to all Israel.591 Third, only here is a prescribed date given at the end of a calendrical ritual (contrast with Lev 23:5, 6, 15, 24, 27, 34, 39).592 Finally, vv. 29a and 34a bracket the whole section off with a resumptive repetition of ‫“ והיתה )זאת( לכם לחקת עולם‬And (this) shall be a law to you forever.” Based on internal evidence the verses should be seen as an addition. Moreover, Lev 16:29-34 shares many similarities with H.593 First, Milgrom notes reference to the ‫“ גר‬resident alien” as indicative of H.594 Second, the description of the high priest in v. 32 as ‫“ הכהן אשר ימשח אתו ואשר ימלא את ידו לכהן תחת אביו‬the priest who has been anointed and ordained to serve as priest in the place of his father” implies a period after Aaron is dead, and uses vocabulary characteristic of H.595 Third, the commands of self affliction and cessation of labor in vv.29, 32 have ties to H as well.596 In short, vv. 29-34a is not just an editorial addition but one that comes specifically from H.

590

See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1012-13. See Ibid., 1:1064. 592 Ibid., 1:1065. 593 See already Noth, Leviticus, 126, though he mistakenly takes vv.29-34 as an earlier kernel. In addition, for the summation of earlier scholarship on the unique style of H see August Dillmann, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (KeH 13; Leipzig,: S. Hirzel, 1886), 637-38; Kuenen, Hexateuch, 89; Samuel R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913), 49-50; H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch (Freiburg: Mohr, 1893), 411-12. 594 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 1065; cf. Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 21, 29. 595 On the implication that Aaron is dead, see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1065. On the vocabulary here see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 109. 596 Karl Elliger, Leviticus (HAT 4; Tübingen: Mohr, 1966), 207; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 127. 591

206

This summation of vv.29-34a leaves only v.34b out of the discussion. The phrase ‫“ ויעש כאשר צוה יהוה את משה‬And he did just as YHWH had commanded Moses” is common not in H but in P. Additionally, v.34b provides a conclusion to the narrative framework begun in vv.1-2aα. This framework links this passage to the infelicitous ritual performed by Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10. Whether this framework was added to the ritual in vv.2aβ-28 before or after the inclusion of Lev 11-15 is of no concern to this study. What is pertinent is the editorial nature of vv.1-2aα, 34b vis-à-vis vv.2aβ-28; both appear to be earlier than the material in vv. 29-34a.597 The text of Lev 16:2aβ-28 is more problematic in that it contains unique vocabulary and constructions foreign to P and H. Milgrom notes the following distinctive terminology with a consequent conclusion: (1) pĕšāʿîm ‘transgressions’ (vv 16, 21, in other words, wanton brazen sins (contrast Num 15:30-31); (2) ʾōhel môʿēd ‘shrine’ (vv 16, 17, 20, 23), whereas in P, this term stands for the entire Tent; (3) P’s term for shrine, qōdeš haqqŏdāšîm ‘the holy of holies’ (e.g. Exod 26:33, 34). Hence, vv 2-28 must stem from an earlier source, which was only subsequently incorporated into P.598 There are other examples of unevenness in vocabulary. The Israelites are referred to as “the congregation” ‫ עדה‬in v.5, “the people” ‫ עם‬in vv. 15, 24 and “the assembly” ‫ קהל‬in v.16.599 Further, the verb ‫ כפר‬occurs in a variety of Hebrew constructions: with ‫ בעד‬in vv. 6, 11, 17, 24; with ‫ על‬in vv. 10, 16 (and 30, 33, 34); and with a simple direct object in 20 (and 33).600 The cumulative effect of this mixture of vocabulary and syntactical constructions is 597

For discussion of the narrative relationship of Lev 10 and 16 see Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 67-85; Bryan D. Bibb, Ritual Words and Narrative World in the Book of Leviticus (LHBSup 480; London: T & T Clark, 2009), 100-137. 598 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1063. 599 Also note “the people of the assembly” ‫ עם הקהל‬in v.33. 600 The verb ‫ כפר‬also occurs with out object in v. 32. All references in parentheses are to H material in vv. 2934. See also discussion in Noth, Leviticus, 118.

207

to betray a textual and traditional history too muddled to be discerned. While there is a resumptive repetition of v. 6 in v.11 (see discussion below), the intervening material uses the constructions of ‫( כפר על‬v.10) and ‫( כפר בעד‬vv. 6, 11) as elsewhere in v.16 and vv. 17, 24 respectively. Given the unevenness of the text it is difficult to accept Milgrom’s opinion that vv.2aβ-28 are unqualifiedly pre-P. There is every reason to suspect that the prescriptions presented in this chapter may precede P, but the vocabulary does not allow firmer source-critical conclusions. The ensuing discussion of the text will focus on vv. 2-28, small additions added by H to vv.2aβ-28 will be indicated.601

TEXT, TRANSLATION AND ANALYSIS The analysis that follows deals specifically with Lev 16:1-28. The rationale for this is both literary and practical. As noted above, vv.29-34 constitute supplemental H material. Further, the passage does not contribute to the goal of this study, the examination of rites of temporary cultic transition.

Verses 1-5: ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬16:2 ‫וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ַא ֲח ֵרי מוֹת ְשׁנֵ י ְבּנֵ י ַא ֲהר ֹן ְבּ ָק ְר ָב ָתם ִל ְפנֵ י־יְ הוָ ה וַ יָּ ֻמתוּ׃‬

16:1

‫ל־פּנֵ י‬ ְ ‫ל־הקּ ֶֹדשׁ ִמ ֵבּית ַל ָפּר ֶֹכת ֶא‬ ַ ‫ל־ﬠת ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ל־א ֲהר ֹן ָא ִחי וְ ַאל־יָ בֹא ְב ָכ‬ ַ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ַדּ ֵבּר ֶא‬ ‫ ְבּזֹאת יָ בֹא ַא ֲהר ֹן‬16:3 ‫ל־ה ַכּפּ ֶֹרת׃‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ָאר ֹן וְ לֹא יָ מוּת ִכּי ֶבּ ָﬠנָ ן ֵא ָר ֶאה ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫ַה ַכּפּ ֶֹרת ֲא ֶשׁר ַﬠ‬ ‫י־בד יִ ְהיוּ‬ ַ ‫וּמ ְכנְ ֵס‬ ִ ‫ת־בּד ק ֶֹדשׁ יִ ְל ָבּשׁ‬ ַ ֶ‫ ְכּתֹנ‬16:4 ‫ן־בּ ָקר ְל ַח ָטּאת וְ ַאיִ ל ְלע ָֹלה׃‬ ָ ‫ל־הקּ ֶֹדשׁ ְבּ ַפר ֶבּ‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ת־בּ ָשׂרוֹ‬ ְ ‫וּב ִמ ְצנֶ ֶפת ַבּד יִ ְצנֹף ִבּ ְג ֵדי־ק ֶֹדשׁ ֵהם וְ ָר ַחץ ַבּ ַמּיִ ם ֶא‬ ְ ‫וּב ַא ְבנֵ ט ַבּד יַ ְחגֹּר‬ ְ ‫ל־בּ ָשׂרוֹ‬ ְ ‫ַﬠ‬ ‫י־שׂ ִﬠ ֵירי ִﬠזִּ ים ְל ַח ָטּאת וְ ַאיִ ל ֶא ָחד ְלע ָֹלה׃‬ ְ ֵ‫וּמ ֵאת ֲﬠ ַדת ְבּנֵ י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל יִ ַקּח ְשׁנ‬ ֵ 16:5 ‫ְוּל ֵב ָשׁם׃‬ 16:1

YHWH spoke to Moses after the death of Aaron’s two sons, who died when they encroached upon the presence of YHWH. 16:2 YHWH said to Moses, “Tell 601

Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 18-20 holds the phrase ‫ )כל( פשעהם לכל־חטאתם‬in vv.16aβ and 21aβ are an addition based on his reconstruction of the history of the ritual. See discussion below.

208

your brother Aaron he is not to come whenever he chooses into the adytum behind the curtain in front of the cover602 that is upon the Ark, lest he die. For by means of the cloud,603 I shall appear over the cover. 16:3 Only in this way604 shall Aaron enter the adytum: with a bull of the herd as a purification offering and a ram as a burnt offering. 16:4 He shall wear a sacral linen tunic, with linen breeches next to his flesh, and be girt with a linen sash, and wear a linen turban. These are holy vestments, and he shall wash his flesh in water and then wear them. 16:5From the Israelite community he shall take two goats for a purification offering and a ram for a burnt offering.

After the narrative introduction linking the ritual in chapter 16 to the infelicitous ritual activity by Nadab and Abihu in chapter 10, the ritual begins in vv.2-5 with material elements required for the ritual.605 As noted above, the text does not give the ritual a firm calendrical date at the outset. It is stipulated that Aaron may not enter the shrine ‫בכל־עת‬. However, the exact time is not indicated. The issue is one of improper entry before the ‫ כפרת‬which is over the Ark and encroachment of the adytum.

602

The term ‫ כפרת‬denotes the solid golden lid of the Ark of the Covenant, complete with two ‫ כרבים‬on

opposite sides facing one another (see Ex 25:17-22). The name might be derived from the verb ‫“( כפּר‬to purge”), either directly as an object of atonement (see HALOT, 495) or indirectly through its importance on the Day of Atonement (Wright apud Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:495). Conversely, the term might indicate “cover” more generally, as related by 4QtgLev which translate the term as ‫“ כסיא‬cover, seat.” See J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea (trans. J. Strugnell; SBT 26; Naperville: Allenson, 1959), 31; Qumrân grotte 4, part II: Tefillin Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128-4Q157) (DJD 6; Oxford: Claredon, 1977), 86-9; Hans Schmidt, “Mose und der Dekalog,” in Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag, dem 23. mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden, und in ihrem Namen (ed. Hans Schmidt; FRLANT 36; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 120-2; Sigmund Mowinckel, “Drive and/or Ride in the O.T.,” VT 12 (1962): 297. Even LXX has difficulty in rendering the term, using ἱλαστήριον ἐπίθεμα in Ex 25:17 to denote the two competing understandings of the translator’s time; see Klaus Koch, “Some Considerations on the Translation of kappōret in the Septuagint,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 65-76. Additionally, an Egyptian etymology has been posited based on the New Kingdom term kp(n)rdwy “sole of the foot” by M. Görg, “Ein neue Deutung für kăppōret,” ZAW 89 (1977): 115-18; “Nachtrag zu kăppōret,” BN 5 (1978): 12. While the Ark is referred to as YHWH’s footstool in some texts (Pss 99:5; 132:7; 1 Chr 28:2), this understanding lies outside the Priestly traditions. For the purposes of this study, the term will be rendered simply as “cover.” 603 See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1014-15. 604 Following Levine, Leviticus, 101. 605 The analysis here follows in large measure the structure outlined by Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1059-67.

209

The penalty for illicit entry into the divine presence is death.606 The rationale for such a strong judgment in v. 2bβ is that YHWH appears as a cloud over the ‫כפרת‬. However, there is a switch from the impersonal language used so far to the first person: ‫כי בענן אראה‬ ‫על הכפרת‬, “For by means of the cloud I shall appear over the cover.” H favors first person discourse for YHWH and this explication is likely a gloss.607 The cloud here could be the incense cloud with which Aaron will fumigate the adytum in v.13 or the cloud that indicates YHWH’s presence (see Exod 25:22; Num 7:89; Num 9:15-23; cf. Exod 40:34-5).608 The former is more probable since it fits the immediate context of vv.2a-5, which describe the materials needed for the ritual, as well as the larger context of the ritual, where the text shows Aaron’s use of incense in v. 13. The reference to the death of Nadab and Abihu in v.1 brings to mind the unauthorized fire (‫ )אש זרה‬of that offering. There is an implied contrast between the cloud of incense with which Aaron is to fill the adytum and the illegitimate fire that his sons had offered.609 Likewise, by including the cloud (however obliquely) among the materials listed in vv. 2-5, H stresses that this censing is indispensible to the ritual as a whole.610 Verses 3 and 5 provide a list of victims that Aaron will need for the ritual. A bull is needed for a purification offering for the priest (cf. vv. 6, 11-14). Two rams are needed for burnt offerings: one for Aaron and the other for the people (v.24). Finally, two goats are needed for the rite of lots (vv. 7-10), purification of the adytum and Tent of Meeting (vv.15606

Propp has speculated that the bells that adorn Aaron’s vestments in Exod 28:35 serve an apotropaic function by alerting YHWH of Aaron’s presence, stating “the sound of the High Priest’s attire prevents his death.” William H. Propp, Exodus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999-2006), 2:445. 607 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1015; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 169-70. 608 For rabbinic opinions see Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1014. 609 Jenson, Graded Holiness, 200 n.4; Gane, Cult and Character, 227. 610 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1015.

210

17) and the removal of iniquities, transgressions and sins (‫עונות‬, ‫ פשעים‬,‫ ) חטאות‬through the Scapegoat rite (vv. 20-22, 26). Dividing this list of victims in vv. 3 and 5 is reference to Aaron’s vestments and toilet for the day in v.4. The ritual activity of placing on the simple linen garments (‫ )בד‬and bathing in v.4 is mirrored in v.24 below where the linen vestments are taken off before Aaron offers the burnt offerings at the conclusion of his ritual activity for the day. While the surrounding verses of vv.3 and 5 provide material that will be used within the ritual, only the special vestments and washing serve as a precondition to the entry (along with the later insertion of the cloud in v.2bβ). Despite its necessity in the larger ritual, v. 4 betrays signs of a later editor’s hand. First, the notice of Aaron’s vestments breaks the list of requisite victims in vv. 3 and 5. However, this ordering might have more to do with the interlacing of rites concerning the two goats versus the bull and the ram.611 A second issue in v.4 is the order within the verse. The vestments are enumerated and then we are told ‫“ ורחץ במים את בשרו ולבשם‬And he shall wash his flesh in water and then wear them.” A less convoluted structure would indicate the need to wash first and then stipulate the vestments to be worn. Yet, throughout the chapter the ritual lists objects first and then later notes their use. Such is the case here in v. 4. A third issue in v. 4 is the double indication that Aaron’s garments are holy. The phrase ‫ בגדי קדש‬occurs in Exod 28:2, 4; 29:29 ; 31:10; 35: 19, 21; 39:1, 41; 40:13; 16:4, 32. All but Exod 28:2 and Lev 16:4 are in H.612 The former, I believe, is influenced by the following H material in 28:4.613 A similar stimulus is probable due to the reference here. It 611

Specifically, see the importance placed on the bull in vv.3, 6 and 11 as noted by Noth, Leviticus, 120-22. For the problems involved in Exod 31:10, see Propp, Exodus, 2: 490; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 63-66. 613 On the assignment of Exod 28:3-5 to H, see Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 65 n.16. 612

211

seems most likely the phrase ‫ בגדי קדש‬in v.4 is a later insertion by H. It would follow that the syntactically awkward insertion of ‫ קדש‬after ‫ כתנת־בד‬is likewise the result of H’s concern that these vestments be treated properly. Theories regarding the significance of these garments will be treated below.

Verses 6-10: ‫ת־שׁ ֵני‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָל ַקח ֶא‬16:7 ‫וּב ַﬠד ֵבּיתוֹ׃‬ ְ ‫ת־פּר ַה ַח ָטּאת ֲא ֶשׁר־לוֹ וְ ִכ ֶפּר ַבּ ֲﬠדוֹ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִה ְק ִריב ַא ֲהר ֹן ֶא‬16:6 ‫ל־שׁ ֵני ַה ְשּׂ ִﬠ ִירם‬ ְ ‫ וְ נָ ַתן ַא ֲהר ֹן ַﬠ‬16:8 ‫מוֹﬠד׃‬ ֵ ‫ַה ְשּׂ ִﬠ ִירם וְ ֶה ֱﬠ ִמיד א ָֹתם ִל ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה ֶפּ ַתח א ֶֹהל‬ ‫ת־ה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָלה‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִה ְק ִריב ַא ֲהר ֹן ֶא‬16:9 ‫גוֹרל ֶא ָחד ַל ֲﬠזָ אזֵ ל׃‬ ָ ְ‫גּוֹרל ֶא ָחד ַליהוָ ה ו‬ ָ ‫גּוֹרלוֹת‬ ָ ‫ד־חי‬ ַ ‫גּוֹרל ַל ֲﬠזָ אזֵ ל יָ ֳﬠ ַמ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ַה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָלה ָﬠ ָליו ַה‬16:10 ‫גּוֹרל ַליהוָ ה וְ ָﬠ ָשׂהוּ ַח ָטּאת׃‬ ָ ‫ָﬠ ָליו ַה‬ ‫ִל ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה ְל ַכ ֵפּר ָﬠ ָליו ְל ַשׁ ַלּח אֹתוֹ ַל ֲﬠזָ אזֵ ל ַה ִמּ ְד ָבּ ָרה׃‬ 16:6

Aaron shall bring forward his bull as a purification offering in order to bring about purgation for himself and his household. 16:7 He shall take the two goats and make them stand before YHWH at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 16:8Aaron shall place lots upon the two goats, one marked “for YHWH” and the other marked “for Azazel.” 16:9Aaron shall bring forward the goat designated by lot “for YHWH” to offer as a purification offering.614 16:10 The goat designated by lot “for Azazel” shall be placed alive before YHWH to perform purgation by sending it off into the wilderness to Azazel. Verses 7-10 contain the rite of casting lots for the two goats mentioned in v.5. This activity is bracketed off by vv.6 and 11 with the phrase ‫והקריב אהרן את פר החטאת אשר לו‬ ‫וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו‬. The latter verse is a needed resumptive repetition that returns focus to the bull in light of the intervening section.615 Wenham holds that vv.6-10 stipulate the order of the day’s ritual activity.616 But such a theory requires vv.7-10 to both outline the casting of lots and actually perform it. More likely, this section continues the preparations noted in vv. 2-5. As such, the resumptive repetition is compositional rather than 614

Lit: “he shall make it a purification offering.” Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1022 notes that this is shorthand for the standard sacrificial procedure. 615 Ibid., 1:1063. 616 Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (NICOT 3; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 230-31.

212

redactional in nature. While Aaron is prepared by being properly washed in v.4, vv.7-10 properly prepare the goats for YHWH and Azazel. On the significance of the goats, see below.

Verses 11-19: ‫ת־פּר‬ ַ ‫וּב ַﬠד ֵבּיתוֹ וְ ָשׁ ַחט ֶא‬ ְ ‫ת־פּר ַה ַח ָטּאת ֲא ֶשׁר־לוֹ וְ ִכ ֶפּר ַבּ ֲﬠדוֹ‬ ַ ‫וְ ִה ְק ִריב ַא ֲהר ֹן ֶא‬ ‫וּמלֹא‬ ְ ‫י־אשׁ ֵמ ַﬠל ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ ִמ ִלּ ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ ‫א־ה ַמּ ְח ָתּה גַּ ֲח ֵל‬ ַ ֹ ‫וְ ָל ַקח ְמל‬

16:12

16:11

‫ַה ַח ָטּאת ֲא ֶשׁר־לוֹ׃‬

‫ל־ה ֵאשׁ ִל ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ְקּט ֶֹרת ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ וְ נָ ַתן ֶא‬16:13 ‫ָח ְפנָ יו ְקט ֶֹרת ַס ִמּים ַדּ ָקּה וְ ֵה ִביא ִמ ֵבּית ַל ָפּר ֶֹכת׃‬ ָ ‫ת־ה ַכּפּ ֶֹרת ֲא ֶשׁר ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫וְ ִכ ָסּה ֲﬠנַ ן ַה ְקּט ֶֹרת ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ָל ַקח ִמ ַדּם ַה ָפּר וְ ִהזָּ ה‬16:14 ‫ל־ה ֵﬠדוּת וְ לֹא יָ מוּת׃‬ ‫ן־ה ָדּם ְבּ ֶא ְצ ָבּעוֹ׃‬ ַ ‫ע־פּ ָﬠ ִמים ִמ‬ ְ ‫ל־פּנֵ י ַה ַכּפּ ֶֹרת ֵק ְד ָמה וְ ִל ְפנֵ י ַה ַכּפּ ֶֹרת יַ זֶּ ה ֶשׁ ַב‬ ְ ‫ְב ֶא ְצ ָבּעוֹ ַﬠ‬ ‫ת־דּמוֹ‬ ָ ‫ל־מ ֵבּית ַל ָפּר ֶֹכת וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ֶא‬ ִ ‫ת־דּמוֹ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ת־שׂ ִﬠיר ַה ַח ָטּאת ֲא ֶשׁר ָל ָﬠם וְ ֵה ִביא ֶא‬ ְ ‫וְ ָשׁ ַחט ֶא‬

16:15

‫ל־הקּ ֶֹדשׁ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִכ ֶפּר ַﬠ‬16:16 ‫ל־ה ַכּפּ ֶֹרת וְ ִל ְפ ֵני ַה ַכּפּ ֶֹרת׃‬ ַ ‫ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה ְל ַדם ַה ָפּר וְ ִהזָּ ה אֹתוֹ ַﬠ‬ ‫מוֹﬠד ַהשּׁ ֵֹכן ִא ָתּם ְבּתוֹ‬ ֵ ‫אתם וְ ֵכן יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ְלא ֶֹהל‬ ָ ֹ ‫ל־חטּ‬ ַ ‫יהם ְל ָכ‬ ֶ ‫וּמ ִפּ ְשׁ ֵﬠ‬ ִ ‫ִמ ֻטּ ְמאֹת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ד־צאתוֹ וְ ִכ ֶפּר ַבּ ֲﬠדוֹ‬ ֵ ‫מוֹﬠד ְבּבֹאוֹ ְל ַכ ֵפּר ַבּקּ ֶֹדשׁ ַﬠ‬ ֵ ‫ל־א ָדם לֹא־יִ ְהיֶ ה ְבּא ֶֹהל‬ ָ ‫וְ ָכ‬

16:17

‫ֻט ְמא ָֹתם׃‬

ְ ‫וּב ַﬠד ָכּ‬ ְ ‫וּב ַﬠד ֵבּיתוֹ‬ ְ ‫ל־ה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ ֲא ֶשׁר ִל ְפנֵ י־יְ הוָ ה וְ ִכ ֶפּר ָﬠ ָליו וְ ָל ַקח‬ ַ ‫ וְ יָ ָצא ֶא‬16:18 ‫ל־ק ַהל ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל׃‬ ‫ן־ה ָדּם ְבּ ֶא ְצ ָבּעוֹ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ִהזָּ ה ָﬠ ָליו ִמ‬16:19 ‫ל־ק ְרנוֹת ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ ָס ִביב׃‬ ַ ‫וּמ ַדּם ַה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר וְ נָ ַתן ַﬠ‬ ִ ‫ִמ ַדּם ַה ָפּר‬ ‫ֶשׁ ַבע ְפּ ָﬠ ִמים וְ ִט ֲהרוֹ וְ ִק ְדּשׁוֹ ִמ ֻטּ ְמאֹת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל׃‬ 16:11

Aaron shall bring forward his bull as a purification offering in order to bring about purgation for himself and his household, and he shall slaughter his bull of purification offering. 16:12 He shall take a censor full of fiery coals from atop the altar before YHWH and two handfuls of finely ground perfumed incense and bring it inside the curtain. 16:13 He shall place the incense upon the fire before YHWH so that the cloud of incense covers the cover that is over [the Ark] of the Covenant, lest he die. 16:14 He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the cover, and before the cover he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. 16:15He shall slaughter the people’s goat of purification offering and bring some of its blood inside the curtain as he did the blood of the bull. He shall sprinkle it with his finger before the cover. 16:16 Thus he shall purge the adytum from the pollution and transgressions of the Israelites, including all their sins. He shall do likewise to the Tent of Meeting, which dwells in the midst of their pollution. 16:17No one shall be in the Tent of Meeting from when he goes in to purge the adytum until he comes out. Thus he shall effect purgation for himself and his household and for all the assembly of Israel. 16:18 He shall come out to the altar that is before YHWH and purge it. He shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of 213

the blood of the goat and place it upon the horns around the altar. 16:19 He shall sprinkle some of the blood upon it with his finger seven times. Thus he shall purify and sanctify it from the pollution of the Israelites. Verses 11-19 contain ritual activity intended to purify the sanctuary. In v.11 Aaron’s bull is sacrificed as a purification offering (‫)חטאת‬. Given the special nature of Lev 16 as a whole and the sacrificial prescriptions more specifically, comparison with standard procedure for purification offerings in Lev 4:3-12 is useful. ‫ן־בּ ָקר ָתּ ִמים‬ ָ ‫ִאם ַהכּ ֵֹהן ַה ָמּ ִשׁי ַ יֶ ֱח ָטא ְל ַא ְשׁ ַמת ָה ָﬠם וְ ִה ְק ִריב ַﬠל ַח ָטּאתוֹ ֲא ֶשׁר ָח ָטא ַפּר ֶבּ‬

4:3

‫מוֹﬠד ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה וְ ָס ַמ ֶאת־יָ דוֹ ַﬠל־רֹאשׁ‬ ֵ ‫ל־פּ ַתח א ֶֹהל‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה ָפּר ֶא‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֵה ִביא ֶא‬4:4 ‫ַליהוָ ה ְל ַח ָטּאת׃‬ ‫ וְ ָל ַקח ַהכּ ֵֹהן ַה ָמּ ִשׁי ַ ִמ ַדּם ַה ָפּר וְ ֵה ִביא אֹתוֹ ֶאל־א ֶֹהל‬4:5 ‫ת־ה ָפּר ִל ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ַ ‫ַה ָפּר וְ ָשׁ ַחט ֶא‬ ‫ת־פּ ֵני ָפּר ֶֹכת‬ ְ ‫ן־ה ָדּם ֶשׁ ַבע ְפּ ָﬠ ִמים ִל ְפ ֵני יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־א ְצ ָבּעוֹ ַבּ ָדּם וְ ִהזָּ ה ִמ‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָט ַבל ַהכּ ֵֹהן ֶא‬ ‫מוֹﬠד‬ ֵ ‫ל־ק ְרנוֹת ִמזְ ַבּח ְקט ֶֹרת ַה ַסּ ִמּים ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּא ֶֹהל‬ ַ ‫ן־ה ָדּם ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫וְ נָ ַתן ַהכּ ֵֹהן ִמ‬ ‫ל־ח ֶלב ַפּר‬ ֵ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ ֶא‬

4:8

4:6

4:7

‫מוֹﬠד׃‬ ֵ

‫ַהקּ ֶֹדשׁ׃‬

‫מוֹﬠד׃‬ ֵ ‫ר־פּ ַתח א ֶֹהל‬ ֶ ‫ל־דּם ַה ָפּר ִי ְשׁ ֹפּ ֶאל־יְ סוֹד ִמזְ ַבּח ָהע ָֹלה ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֵאת ָכּ‬

‫ וְ ֵאת‬4:9 ‫ל־ה ֶקּ ֶרב׃‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ֵח ֶלב ֲא ֶשׁר ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ֶקּ ֶרב וְ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ֵח ֶלב ַה ְמ ַכ ֶסּה ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ַה ַח ָטּאת יָ ִרים ִמ ֶמּנּוּ ֶא‬ ‫ל־ה ְכּ ָליוֹת‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ָכּ ֵבד ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ת־היּ ֶֹת ֶרת ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ְכּ ָס ִלים וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫יהן ֲא ֶשׁר ַﬠ‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה ֵח ֶלב ֲא ֶשׁר ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ַ ‫ְשׁ ֵתּי ַה ְכּ ָליֹת וְ ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ֶאת־עוֹר‬4:11 ‫יוּרם ִמשּׁוֹר זֶ ַבח ַה ְשּׁ ָל ִמים וְ ִה ְק ִט ָירם ַהכּ ֵֹהן ַﬠל ִמזְ ַבּח ָהע ָֹלה׃‬ ַ ‫ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר‬4:10 ‫יְ ִס ֶירנָּ ה׃‬ ‫ל־מחוּץ‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ָפּר ֶא‬ ַ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫הוֹציא ֶא‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬4:12 ‫וּפ ְרשׁוֹ׃‬ ִ ‫ל־כּ ָר ָﬠיו וְ ִק ְרבּוֹ‬ ְ ‫ל־בּ ָשׂרוֹ ַﬠל־רֹאשׁוֹ וְ ַﬠ‬ ְ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ַה ָפּר וְ ֶא‬ ‫־שׁ ֶפ ַה ֶדּ ֶשׁן יִ ָשּׂ ֵרף׃‬ ֶ ‫ל־ﬠ ִצים ָבּ ֵאשׁ ַﬠל‬ ֵ ‫ל־שׁ ֶפ ַה ֶדּ ֶשׁן וְ ָשׂ ַרף אֹתוֹ ַﬠ‬ ֶ ‫ל־מקוֹם ָטהוֹר ֶא‬ ָ ‫ַל ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה ֶא‬ 4:3

If the anointed priest sins so that it brings guilt upon the people, he shall bring forward a bull of the herd without blemish as a purification offering to YHWH for his sin that he has done. 4:4 He shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before YHWH, lay his hand upon the head of the bull, and slaughter the bull before YHWH. 4:5The anointed priest shall then take some of the blood of the bull and bring it into the Tent of Meeting. 4:6The priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle some of the blood seven times before YHWH in front of the curtain of the shrine. 4:7The priest shall place some of the blood upon the horns of the altar of fragrant incense, which is before YHWH in the Tent of Meeting; and the rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. 4:8He shall remove all the suet of the purification-offering bull: the suet that covers the entrails and all of the suet that is around the entrails; 4:9the two kidneys and the suet that is on them, that is at the loins, and the appendage of the liver, which he shall remove with the kidneys,4:10just as these are removed from the ox of the well-being 214

offering.617 The priest shall turn them into smoke on the altar of burnt offering. 4:11But the skin of the bull and all its flesh, together with its head and legs, its entrails and its dung—4:12all the rest of the bull—shall be taken away618 to a clean place outside the camp to the ash dump and burned with wood; it shall be burned on the ash dump. The contrast with the rites specified in 16:11-14 are instructive. Both specify a bull as a sacrifice. Both require blood manipulation. The ritual in 4:3-12 specifies procedures for fat (v.8), internal organs (v.9), entrails, blood, suet and hide (vv. 10-11). These are mentioned in 16:27, where we are told that the skins, their flesh and their excrement shall be burned with fire. But this lacks the specificity of Lev 4 and assumes the procedure mentioned there. More important for this study is the access to the adytum that Aaron is allowed in Lev 16. In 4:6-7 the blood of the bull is sprinkled before the curtain and then on the outer altar; but in 16:12-14 Aaron takes a censer of coals from the outer altar,619 places incense on it and takes both censer and blood from the bull behind the curtain. The following verse notes the same ritual procedure for the goat designated for YHWH in vv.8-9; this goat is now referred to as ‫שעיר החטאת אשר לעם‬.620 The importance of the pan of incense is stated explicitly in 16:13: “lest he die” ‫לא ימות‬. The thick smoke protects Aaron from the lethal

617

See Lev 3:1-5. The verb ‫הוֹציא‬ ִ ְ‫ ו‬needs to be understood as impersonal, as attested by the plural form found in LXX and Sam. See Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:239. 619 There is a scholarly consensus that the fire must have come from the outer altar. Milgrom notes that only the outer altar had a perpetual fire (Ibid., 1:1025; see alsoGane, Cult and Character, 77). Likewise, many scholars see the incense altar as a later addition to the cultic accoutrements. See Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963), 136-39, 147-49; Kuenen, Hexateuch, 87 n.23; Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 115; Knohl, Sanctuary of Silence, 29. However, there are scholars who maintain that the incense altar is more ancient. See David Hoffmann, Das Buch Leviticus I (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905), 453; Carol L. Meyers, “Realms of Sanctity: The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Incense Altar in the Tabernacle Texts of Exodus,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox, et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 33-46; Gane, Cult and Character, 26-27. 620 The procedure here requires the same animal as the of a purification sacrifice for a ‫ נשיא‬in Lev 4:22-26. 618

215

presence of YHWH by preventing him from seeing anything within the adytum.621 Again, v.17 stresses the serious and potentially lethal nature of the rite by indicating that no one else may enter the Tent of Meeting while Aaron is performing these rites.Verses 18-19 conclude the purification of the tabernacle with blood manipulation in the court. Hence, the three main loci of the tabernacle are purged: the adytum, the shrine and the outer altar.622

Verses 20-22: ‫ת־ה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר ֶה ָחי׃‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ וְ ִה ְק ִריב ֶא‬ ַ ‫מוֹﬠד וְ ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ת־הקּ ֶֹדשׁ וְ ֶאת־א ֶֹהל‬ ַ ‫וְ ִכ ָלּה ִמ ַכּ ֵפּר ֶא‬

16:20

‫ל־ﬠוֹנֹת ְבּ ֵני‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ ַﬠל רֹאשׁ ַה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר ַה ַחי וְ ִה ְתוַ ָדּה ָﬠ ָליו ֶא‬623‫ת־שׁ ֵתּי יָ ָדיו‬ ְ ‫ וְ ָס ַמ ַא ֲהר ֹן ֶא‬16:21 ‫ד־אישׁ ִﬠ ִתּי‬ ִ ַ‫אתם וְ נָ ַתן א ָֹתם ַﬠל־רֹאשׁ ַה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר וְ ִשׁ ַלּח ְבּי‬ ָ ֹ ‫ל־חטּ‬ ַ ‫יהם ְל ָכ‬ ֶ ‫ל־פּ ְשׁ ֵﬠ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ֶא‬ ‫ת־ה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר‬ ַ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ְגּזֵ ָרה וְ ִשׁ ַלּח ֶא‬ ֶ ‫ל־ﬠוֹנ ָֹתם ֶא‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫וְ נָ ָשׂא ַה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר ָﬠ ָליו ֶא‬

16:22

‫ַה ִמּ ְד ָבּ ָרה׃‬ ‫ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר׃‬

16:20

When he has finished purging the adytum, the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat. 16:21Aaron shall lay both of his hands upon the head of the live goat and confess over it all the iniquities, transgressions and sins of the Israelites and put them on the head of the goat; and it shall be sent off to the wilderness by a designated man.624 621

Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1026-31 cites the evidence of his student S. Rattray, providing a detailed discussion on the incense involved, concluding that Aaron’s vision was obscured by the smoke. John E. Hartley, Leviticus (WBC 4; Waco: Word Books, 1992), 239 notes that Aaron’s face would have shone like Moses’ if he had seen the glory of YHWH (Exod 34:29-35). See also J. R. Porter, Leviticus (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 165; A. Noordtzij, The Book of Leviticus (trans. R. Togtman; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub, 1982), 165. 622 For analogous conceptions of consecration through tripartite application see Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 153-54, n. 19. 623 Text indicates the qereʾ; the consonantal text reads ‫ידו‬. 624 The phrase ‫ איש עתי‬has traditionally been translated along the lines of “timely man” (see HALOT, 903). The versions confirm some such translation with the LXX ἀνθρώπου ἑτοίμου “ready man,” Syr. gbrʾ dmṭyb “the man who is ready,” Vg. per hominem paratum “the man who is prepared.” Recently, Raymond Westbrook and Theodore Lewis have argued that the term ‫ עתי‬should be understood on the basis of the Syriac, Aramaic, and Arabic cognate root ʿnt with a semantic range including oppression, wrongdoing and criminal activity. See Raymond Westbrook and Theodore J. Lewis, “Who Led the Scapegoat in Leviticus 16:21?,” JBL 127 (2008): 4201. Their rationale for this translation is based on their understanding of the ‫ איש עתי‬as a criminal who receives a new start on life in return for his role in dispatching the goat for Azazel. While Westbrook and Lewis’ interpretation of the ritual will be discussed under the analysis of the text below, here it is important to note that while their etymology for ‫ איש עתי‬is possible, it is not convincing. Particularly, the fact that the Peshiṭta follows the LXX and MT casts serious doubt on an appeal to a Syriac connection.

216

16:22

Thus the goat shall carry upon it all of their iniquities to an infertile land when the goat is sent into the wilderness.

The rite of the scapegoat occurs in vv. 20-2 involving the goat designated for Azazel from vv. 8-10. The term ‫ עזאזל‬has elicited four major interpretations.625 First, interpreting the name as ‫ אל‬+ ‫“ עזז‬angry supernatural being,” the term might refer to a god or demon. This is based on the similar phraseology in v.8 of a goat “for YHWH” ‫ ליהוה‬and a goat “for Azazel” ‫לעזאזל‬, its banishment to the deserted haunts of demons in v.22 (cf. Isa 13:21-2; 34:11-5) and the later traditions associated with Azazel in 1 Enoch and the Apocalypse of Abraham.626 A second understanding is that the term means simply “destruction” or “removal.”627 Third, the term could indicate the place of banishment (cf. Tg. Ps.J. Lev 16:10, 22).628 Finally, a fourth possibility is that the term is a conflation of ‫“ עז עזל‬go-away goat.”629 From a phenomenological ritual perspective the last observation is the most compelling.630 As Wright concludes, “Azazel as presented by the text can only be part of the baggage of the rite already in existence which was taken over by the Priestly writers and reformulated

625

For recent surveys see David P. Wright, “Azazel,” ABD 1: 536-37; Bernd Janowski, “Azazel,” in DDD, 128-31; Dominic Rudman, “A Note on the Azazel-goat Ritual,” ZAW 116 (2004): 396-401. 626 Hayim Tawil, “Azazel, the Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study,” ZAW 92 (1980): 43-59; Oswald Loretz, Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel (UBL 3; Altenberge: CIS-Verlag, 1985), 35-57; M. Görg, “Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel-Ritual,” BN 33 (1986): 10-16. For more on Second Temple interpretations see Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhelm, “Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des Azazel-Ritus Lev 16, 10.21f,” (ed. Bernd Janowski, et al.; OBO 129; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 109-69; Paul D. Hanson, “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11,” JBL 96 (1977): 195-233; G. W. E. Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11,” JBL 96 (1977): 383-405; Lester L. Grabbe, “The Scapegoat: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation,” JSJ 18 (1987): 152-67 627 BDB, 736; Hoffmann, Leviticus, 444. 628 Godfrey R. Driver, “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch,” JSS 1 (1956): 97-105. 629 Snaith, Leviticus and Numbers, 113; Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 15-74. Rudman, “A Note on the Azazel-goat Ritual,” 397-400 is a hybrid of views three and four. His major difference from Wright is that Rudman holds that desert serves as more than a place of disposal; it actually nullifies the sin. 630 See Mary Douglas, “The Go-Away Goat,” in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception (ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler; VTSup. 93; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 121-41; Schwartz, “Bearing of Sin,” 3-22.

217

to accord with Priestly conceptions. The reformulation left the personality depersonalized.”631 Verse 21 dictates that Aaron is to lay both his hands upon the goat, confessing the iniquities and transgressions of the Israelites; and v.22 explicitly states that the goat bears the transgressions of the people (‫)ונשא השעיר עליו את כל עונתם‬. It is therefore important to understand Aaron’s ritual action; how do the sins make their way to the goat? In a study of hand placement, Wright has concluded that there are two distinct hand gestures in the Hebrew Bible.632 When participants place one hand, the gesture indicates attributive identification. Within the priestly traditions, the majority of cases of laying of a hand occurs in the context of sacrifice (Lev 1:4 [LXX v.10]; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:4, 24, 29, 33). Since the priest will perform the majority of ritual activity on the part of the offerer, the placing of one hand upon the victim indicates the person for whom this ritual activity is performed. Likewise the laying of hands on the Levites in Num 8:10 explains their designation as an “elevation offering before YHWH from the Israelites” (‫ )תנופה לפני יהוה מאת בני ישראל‬in v. 11. Such hand placement is not performed for bird and cereal offerings (Lev 1:14-7; 2; 5:710, 11-3) because these items were presumably carried by the offerer and as such a rite of attribution would not have been required. In contrast with rites involving one hand, the two-handed gesture occurs in only three contexts: the execution of a blasphemer in Lev 24:10-23, the ordination of Joshua in Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9, and the goat in Lev 16:21. Wright believes that the rite in Lev 24:14 is crucial for understanding this gesture. The 631

Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 75. However, Wright now believes this might be too far and that while downplayed, P might have envisioned subordinate supernatural beings (personal communication). 632 David P. Wright, “The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature,” JAOS 106 (1986): 433-46; see also R. Peter, “L’imposition des mains dans l’Ancien Testament,” VT 27 (1977): 48-55; Bernd Janowski, Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 199-200.

218

activity does not transfer the pollution of blasphemy back upon the blasphemer but designates the focus of ritual activity (cf. the stoning rite in Deut 17:7). The same explanation holds for the ordination of Joshua and the goat in Lev 16 as well. None of these rites function as a means of transfer. Wright states: the sins are not passed from Aaron through his hands to the goat. Aaron never carries or embodies these evils. Consequently, one cannot say that sins are transferred. Rather, the placement of the sins is effected by both the hand placement gesture which designates where the sins are to rest and the spoken confession which concretizes the sins which then fall on the head of the goat.633 This understanding is based upon close cultural comparisons and is adopted here. The ritual activity of Aaron’s gesture of laying hands upon the goat functions as a way of demonstrating the vehicle used for the disposal of impurities. This understanding is important when addressing Aaron’s activities in vv.23-28. Finally, the issue of the ‫“ איש עתי‬the designated man” in v. 21b must be addressed. As noted in the notes to the translation above, Raymond Westbrook and Theodore Lewis have argued that the man who releases the goat into the wilderness is, in fact, a criminal.634 This argument is largely based on supposed parallels in Hittite and Greek. In regard to the former, they note the Ritual of Ašḫella (CTH 394). In this ritual a plague is removed from the war camp by first attracting the attention of the plague god responsible and then enticing the deity to leave the camp with rams numbering the leaders of the army and a “decorated” woman. The sections of the ritual relevant to our discussion are in lines 12-14 and 18-32.

633 634

Wright, “Hand Placement,” 346. This view is not universal. See Schwartz, “Bearing of Sin,” 17 and n.54. Westbrook and Lewis, “Scapegoat,” 417-22.

219

12. They [the leaders of the army?] say the following at that time: “Whatever god is moving about, 13. whatever god has caused this plague, for you, behold, these rams 14. I have tied up. Be herewith appeased!” […] 18. Then the leaders of the army place their hands on the rams. 19. Thereupon, they say the following: “Whatever god has caused this plague, 20. now, behold, the rams are standing; they are very fat in liver, 21. heart, and member. 22. Let the flesh of humans be hateful to him. Moreover, 23. be appeased with these rams.” The leaders of the army show reverence 24. to the rams, and the king shows reverence to the decorated woman. 25. Then they bring the rams and the woman, the bread, and the beer out through the army. 26. They drive them to the open country. They go and make them run inside the border of the enemy 27. (so that) they do not arrive at any place of ours. 28. Thereupon in this way they say: “Behold, whatever evil of this army 29. was among men, cattle, sheep, horses, mules, 30. and donkeys, now, behold, 31. these rams and woman have taken it out from the camp. 32. Whoever finds them, may that land receive this evil plague.”635 Westbrook and Lewis assert, “There is thus a double dispatch: the king and his troops send away the woman and the rams, but it is she who has to herd the rams across the border. The woman acts as a buffer between the king and the rams, who are contaminated with the evil plague.”636 To understand better the role of the woman in the Hittite ritual, Westbrook and Lewis note a Greek ritual found in Strabo’s account of Leukadian custom: It was also the ancestral custom among the Leucadians [sic!] every year during the sacrifice to Apollo for someone of those guilty (of crimes: τις τῶν ἐν αἰτίαις ὄντων) to be thrown from the cliff for the sake of averting evil. To him were attached feathers of every sort and birds capable of reducing with their fluttering the force of the leap, and below many men would wait in a circle in small boats and take him up. And when he had been taken up they would do all they could to remove him safely beyond the borders.637 635

Translation Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 50-51.. Westbrook and Lewis, “Scapegoat,” 419 637 Ibid.: 420. 636

220

Westbrook and Lewis assert that the ritual is not a punishment for the criminal, but rather that the convict amounts to a convenient vehicle for the removal of potential evil. They go so far as to state that the criminal is fortunate to be selected for this rite, an assessment that overlooks the importance placed on exile as a punishment in Greek culture. The combination of the two rituals provides them with an understanding of the ‫ איש עתי‬as a double dispatch. As in the case of the Leukadian scapegoat, his crime is not specified, but it symbolizes impurity akin to that of the goat, except that the latter had to be made impure by a ritual of transference. Like the Hittite woman, he plays the role of a buffer between the high priest and the sin-ridden scapegoat and there is a double dispatch: of the ‫ ִאישׁ ִﬠ ִתּי‬by the high priest and of the goat by the ‫אישׁ ִﬠ ִתּי‬.ִ 638 There are several problems with Westbrook and Lewis’ theory. First, the woman in the Hittite ritual is not a buffer between the king and the plague. At the time of the ritual, neither the goats nor the woman has the plague god upon them yet. It is the action of driving them through the camp that draws off the plague.639 Westbrook and Lewis’ interpretation would mean that these potentially lethal vehicles of plague be run through the camp, a situation at odds with the purpose of the ritual. Second, the plural form of the ritual participants in ll.26-28 indicates that it is not the woman who drives the goats, but rather a host of people. Further these people must be in the camp at the end of the ritual, since they are praying to the plague deity after the rams and the woman are already gone in ll.28-32. Third, while a human individual is in focus in both the Hittite and Greek ritual,

638

Ibid.: 422. Meir Malul, “‫( אִישׁ ִעתִּי‬Leviticus 16:21): A Marginal Person,” JBL 128 (2009): 437-42 expands this idea to encompass any marginal person using the category of a liminal person found in Victor W. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures 1969; Chicago: Aldine, 1969), 90-130. 639 See Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 52; contra Gurney, Some Aspects of Hittite Religion, 49.

221

Lev 16 spends no time explaining the enigmatic ‫ איש עתי‬that Westbrook and Lewis assume is a criminal. He appears of no ritual concern.640 The vehicle for the disposal of impurity is the goat for Azazel, upon which the writer has already spent much time. Fourth, laying aside the previous critiques, this study has maintained that closer cultural references are preferred when explicating ritual material. That Westbrook and Lewis rely on a turn-ofthe-era Greek account to explain an earlier Hittite ritual to explain in turn the biblical ritual appears methodologically unwise. A close critique of Westbrook and Lewis’ theory of the ‫ איש עתי‬shows that the “designated man” is not the focus of the ritual. Rather it confirms the foregoing assessment that the goat for Azazel functions as a vehicle for the disposal of impurities and that the central cultic actor is the high priest.

Verses 23-28: ‫יחם‬ ָ ִ‫ל־הקּ ֶֹדשׁ וְ ִהנּ‬ ַ ‫ת־בּ ְג ֵדי ַה ָבּד ֲא ֶשׁר ָל ַבשׁ ְבּבֹאוֹ ֶא‬ ִ ‫וּפ ַשׁט ֶא‬ ָ ‫מוֹﬠד‬ ֵ ‫וּבא ַא ֲהר ֹן ֶאל־א ֶֹהל‬ ָ

16:23

16:24

‫ָשׁם׃‬

‫ת־בּ ָג ָדיו וְ יָ ָצא וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ֶאת־ע ָֹלתוֹ‬ ְ ‫ת־בּ ָשׂרוֹ ַב ַמּיִ ם ְבּ ָמקוֹם ָקדוֹשׁ וְ ָל ַבשׁ ֶא‬ ְ ‫וְ ָר ַחץ ֶא‬

‫ וְ ֵאת ֵח ֶלב ַה ַח ָטּאת יַ ְק ִטיר ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ָחה׃‬16:25 ‫וּב ַﬠד ָה ָﬠם׃‬ ְ ‫וְ ֶאת־ע ַֹלת ָה ָﬠם וְ ִכ ֶפּר ַבּ ֲﬠדוֹ‬ ‫י־כן יָ בוֹא‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ ָשׂרוֹ ַבּ ָמּיִ ם וְ ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ְ ‫ת־ה ָשּׂ ִﬠיר ַל ֲﬠזָ אזֵ ל יְ ַכ ֵבּס ְבּ ָג ָדיו וְ ָר ַחץ ֶא‬ ַ ‫וְ ַה ְמ ַשׁ ֵלּ ַ ֶא‬

16:26

‫ת־דּ ָמם ְל ַכ ֵפּר ַבּקּ ֶֹדשׁ‬ ָ ‫הוּבא ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וְ ֵאת ַפּר ַה ַח ָטּאת וְ ֵאת ְשׂ ִﬠיר ַה ַח ָטּאת ֲא ֶשׁר‬16:27 ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה׃‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ַהשּׂ ֵֹרף‬16:28 ‫ת־פּ ְר ָשׁם׃‬ ִ ‫ת־בּ ָשׂ ָרם וְ ֶא‬ ְ ‫ל־מחוּץ ַל ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה וְ ָשׂ ְרפוּ ָב ֵאשׁ ֶאת־עֹר ָֹתם וְ ֶא‬ ִ ‫יוֹציא ֶא‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה׃‬ ַ ‫י־כן יָ בוֹא ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ת־בּ ָשׂרוֹ ַבּ ָמּיִ ם וְ ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ְ ‫א ָֹתם יְ ַכ ֵבּס ְבּ ָג ָדיו וְ ָר ַחץ ֶא‬ 16:23

Aaron shall enter the Tent of Meeting, take off the linen vestments that he wore when he entered the adytum, and leave them there. 16:24 He shall wash his flesh in water in a holy place, put on his garments, come out, and offer his burnt offering and the burnt offering of the people, purging himself and the people. 16:25The suet of the purification offering he shall turn to smoke on the altar. 16:26The one who set free the goat to Azazel shall launder his clothes and bathe his flesh with water; after that he may reenter the camp. 16:27The purification-offering bull and the purification-offering goat 640

See Douglas, “The Go-Away Goat,” 121-41.

222

whose blood was brought in to purge the adytum shall be brought outside the camp; and their skins, their flesh and their excrement shall be burned with fire. 16:28The one who burned them shall launder his clothes and bathe his body in water; after that he may reenter the camp. After the completion of the rite of the scapegoat, vv.23-28 contain three washing rites (vv. 24, 26, 28), along with rites pertaining to clothing (vv. 23-24, 26, 28) and burnt offerings (vv. 24-25). The washing and laundering of those who remove the Azazel goat and the carcasses of the bull and goat purification offerings conform to the normal pattern found in other places in priestly tradition. The ‫ זב‬in Lev 15:2-15, a man who has had an ejaculation in vv. 16-8, the menstruant in vv. 19-24, and the ‫ זבה‬in vv. 25-30 are four such examples all contained in the previous chapter of Leviticus.641 Ordinarily, we would expect the additional information that participants in Lev 16:26-28 are impure until evening. However, the latter is not relevant to the ritual as it now stands. Purity is necessary to enter the sanctuary and/or partake for the offerings. As envisioned by the H redactor, these individuals are not going to return to the sanctuary. Furthermore, H’s ritual addendum to the rites of the Day of Atonement involves fasting for the community. As such, no reference to their impurity until sundown is needed.642 Regardless, washing and laundering of clothes outside the camp constitutes a marker of impurity and a rite of purification.643 641

For a more detailed list of human impurities see, Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 179-219,complete with diagrams depicting chains of impurity and what steps must be taken to return to a clean state (note especially siglas L and W). 642 Ibid., 62-5. This of course assumes that H would have edited the text to align with its updated view of the ritual as encompassing a fast. 643 Note discussion of ritual washing and the bīt rimki in chapter two. Additionally, activities from the fifth day of the Babylonian Akītu festival might provide a relevant comparison in regard to the necessary pollution of some cultic officiants during rituals of disposal similar to Lev 16. On the fifth day of the Akītu, the Ezida cella of Nabu is cleansed in Marduk’s temple Esagila in Babylon. A mašmašu (“incantation priest”) cleans the cella by fumigating with incense, sprinkling with water, and anointing with oil. With the help of a “slaughterer” the mašmašu then purifies the cella by wiping it with the body of a decapitated ram. Afterwards, the mašmašu and the slaughterer throw the carcass and head respectively into the Euphrates, and then both persons are required to leave for the open country. Neither is

223

However, this is not the case for Aaron’s activity. He is required to change clothes and bathe within the confines of the Tabernacle courts in vv.23-4. As noted above, the hand placement upon the goat did not function as a transfer of sins and so there is no indication that Aaron is impure. Although the actions here are similar to ones of those made impure in vv. 26-8, a distinctly different rationale is involved. To understand Aaron’s activity in vv.23-4 we must first discuss Aaron’s normal vestments vis-à-vis those used in Lev 16. Exodus 28: 1-43; 39:1-31 contain a detailed list of garments worn by Aaron and his sons. Aaron alone wore the ephod (Exod 28:6-12; 39:2-7), the breastpiece (‫חשן‬, Exod 28:1530; 39:8-21), the blue robe (‫מעיל כליל תכלת‬, Exod 28:31-5; 39:22-6) and the diadem (‫נצר‬, Exod 28:36-8; 39:30-1). All of these vestments are in addition to the garments worn by the ordinary priest: the tunic (Exod 28:4, 39-40; 39:27), sash (Exod28: 39-40; 39:29), turban (Exod 28:39-40; 39:28) and breeches (‫ מכנסי בד‬Exod 28:42; 39:28). The first three of these were made of fine linen (‫ )שש‬while the last is of simple linen (‫)בד‬. Haran has noted that these latter four garments are not a substitute for the first four and that Aaron wore all eight, though his were of more intricate workmanship.644 Of these eight vestments, only the simple linen breeches (‫ )מכנסי בד‬appear in Lev 16:4. That is to say, the garments worn by Aaron in Lev 16 are unique. Milgrom notes five theories for this difference culled from rabbinic exegesis and modern critical methods.645 First, it is possible that Aaron’s simple

permitted to return to Babylon until after the twelve-day Akītu festival is completed because of their unclean condition. Indeed, the šesgallu-priest overseeing the Akītu festival is not even permitted to see this purification rite lest he also be contaminated by the transfer of contaminants from the cella onto the carcass of the ram, the mašmašu, and the slaughterer. See recent discussions in Ibid., 218, and n.99; Julye Bidmead, The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia (Gorgias Dissertations 2. Near East Studies 2; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2002), 70-72; Kenton L. Sparks, “Enūma Eliš and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,” JBL 126 (2007): 632-35. 644 Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 165-74. 645 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1016-17.

224

linen vestments are meant to represent analogically the angelic realm (y. Yoma 7:2; cf. Ezek 9:2-3, 11; 10:2, 6-7; Dan 10:6; 12:6-7), creating a synergism between worship in the heavenly temple and that of the earthly one.646 Second, it could be that the simple vestments represent humility (y. Yoma 7:3).647 Similar to the second option, a third possibility is that the vestments are to allow Satan no credence for accusing Aaron. Aaron had previously molded the golden calf (Exod 32:4); he should not enter YHWH’s presence wearing a garment ornate with gold (Tg Ps-J; Midr. Lev Rab 21:10). Milgrom himself provides a fourth, more practical reason stating “Because he had to wear different clothes in the adytum, it was therefore logical that he be fitted with garments of the same material worn by the angels; like them he was being given access to the divine presence.”648 Finally, Milgrom notes that David Wright provides an even more pragmatic rationale in that the simple linen garments are easier to clean (cf. Lev 6:20), they are the priest’s surgical scrubs. In general Milgrom’s arguments can be categorized as analogical, penitential or practical. The analogical argument runs into a problem regarding the nature of the biblical material cited. All the references are late. The attestations from Daniel are Hellenistic in date. The references in Ezekiel, while perhaps contemporaneous with P, provide a problem when examined in connection to the vestments listed during procedures prescribed in Ezek 44:17-19. In Ezekiel’s eschatological temple, only priests from the line of Zadok may approach the divine. ‫יהם ֶצ ֶמר‬ ֶ ‫ימית ִבּ ְג ֵדי ִפ ְשׁ ִתּים יִ ְל ָבּשׁוּ וְ לֹא־יַ ֲﬠ ֶלה ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ִ ‫בוֹאם ֶאל־ ַשׁ ֲﬠ ֵרי ֶה ָח ֵצר ַה ְפּ ִנ‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ְבּ‬44:17 ‫וּמ ְכנְ ֵסי ִפ ְשׁ ִתּים‬ ִ ‫אשׁם‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ַפּ ֲא ֵרי ִפ ְשׁ ִתּים יִ ְהיוּ ַﬠל־ר‬44:18 ‫ימית וָ ָביְ ָתה׃‬ ִ ‫ְבּ ָשׁ ְר ָתם ְבּ ַשׁ ֲﬠ ֵרי ֶה ָח ֵצר ַה ְפּ ִנ‬ 646

For more on the conception of the heavenly temple, see Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 111-44. 647 See Wenham, Leviticus, 230; Levine, Leviticus, 101; Hartley, Leviticus, 235. 648 Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1016.

225

ֶ ֵ‫ל־מ ְתנ‬ ָ ‫יִ ְהיוּ ַﬠ‬ ‫ל־ה ָח ֵצר ַה ִחיצוֹנָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה ָח ֵצר ַה ִחיצוֹנָ ה ֶא‬ ֶ ‫אתם ֶא‬ ָ ‫וּב ֵצ‬ ְ 44:19 ‫יהם לֹא יַ ְחגְּ רוּ ַבּיָּ זַ ע׃‬ ֵ ‫יהם ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ֶ ‫ת־בּ ְג ֵד‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם יִ ְפ ְשׁטוּ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫אוֹתם ְבּ ִל ְשׁכֹת ַהקּ ֶֹדשׁ וְ ָל ְבשׁוּ‬ ָ ‫ר־ה ָמּה ְמ ָשׁ ְר ִתם ָבּם וְ ִהנִּ יחוּ‬ ‫יהם׃‬ ֶ ‫ת־ה ָﬠם ְבּ ִב ְג ֵד‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ָג ִדים ֲא ֵח ִרים וְ לֹא־יְ ַק ְדּשׁוּ ֶא‬ 44:17

When they enter the gates of the inner court, they shall wear linen vestments. They shall have nothing woolen upon them when they minister inside the gates of the inner courts. 44:18Linen turbans shall be upon their heads, and linen breeches on their loins. They shall not gird themselves with anything that causes sweat. 44:19When they go out to the outer courts (where the people are), they shall remove the vestments in which they ministered and shall deposit them in the holy chambers. They shall put on other garments, lest they consecrate the people with their vestments. On the one hand, the explicit reason for these vestments to be made of linen (here ‫ )פשת‬is that they prevent sweat. If an analogical rationale had been current based on angelic depictions in Ezek 9 and 10, one would assume that the author of Ezek 44 would have used them. The concern for vestment change combined with the lack of analogical reference to the angelic creates a conspicuous absence. But on the other hand, this text shows a similar pattern of clothing change seen in Lev 16 and provides an explicit rationale. In Ezekiel’s eschatological temple all vestments worn before YHWH are now holy and need to be deposited in holy chambers ‫—לשכת הקדש‬the same chambers designated for the priest to eat their consecrated portions of the offerings in Ezek 42:13-4. It is possible to view this activity as closing a rite of temporary cultic transition. Unfortunately, the text in Ezek 44 is more concerned with preventing encroachment and sancta contagion than noting full cultic procedure. However, the details are tantalizing and allow for a certain amount of abstraction. Descedants of Zadok are only allowed to minister before the presence of YHWH while wearing special linen vestments that must be removed after such activity. While lacking an opening rite, such ritual activity would appear to place these priests in a heightened ritual state when ministering before YHWH. Hence, while the text in question

226

does not support an angelic interpretation of linen vestments, it does advance the overall study in regard to rites of temporary cultic transition. Similarly, the notion that humility is behind the simple vestments is misplaced. The high priest’s vestments were in addition to the regular garments of a priest. Haran goes so far as to posit that the high priest only wore these exclusive garments when officiating inside the Tent of Meeting. When performing rites at the outer altar, the High Priest would have worn only the four garments common to all priests, though of a finer workmanship.649 If the purpose of Aaron’s special garments was to connote humility it would make more sense to dress in the same manner as the other priests, rather than by wearing a special set of garments conspicuous in their lack of any adornment.650 This line of reasoning is problematic for Wright’s theory as well. While the rites in the adytum contain much blood, it is hard to see how they would have caused a more difficult laundering than those acts of slaughter performed by the outer altar (by other priests). The connection with laundering in Lev 6:20 (ET 6:27) is suggestive, but it is unclear if ‫ בד‬vestments are implied in that verse. Additionally, there is the apparent contradiction of removing all ceremonial garments (and placing on the priest’s surgical scrubs) before performing one of the most highly ritualized actions in the priestly legislation. Clearly the high priest’s garments are intentionally conspicuous and not meant to connote humility or utility.651 Milgrom’s own argument appears most probable, but only with qualification. Milgrom explains that “the garments are endowed with greater sanctity because the high

649

Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 210-12. See similarly Wenham, Leviticus, 230. 651 Jenson, Graded Holiness, 200 states “The contrast with the normal state of affairs implies the he takes on a special status.” 650

227

priest entered the adytum.’652 As such, they have become “super holy” and must not leave the Tabernacle. As has been noted above in Ezek 44, such an understanding is not outside of the context of the priestly traditions. A further piece of evidence is found in Lev 6:1-6 (ET 6:8-13). ‫תּוֹרת ָהע ָֹלה ִהוא‬ ַ ‫ת־בּנָ יו ֵלאמֹר זֹאת‬ ָ ‫ת־א ֲהר ֹן וְ ֶא‬ ַ ‫ ַצו ֶא‬6:2 ‫מר׃‬ ֹ ‫ וַ יְ ַד ֵבּר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ֵלּא‬6:1 ‫ וְ ָל ַבשׁ ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬6:3 ‫תּוּקד בּוֹ׃‬ ַ ‫מוֹק ָדה ַﬠ‬ ְ ‫ָהע ָֹלה ַﬠל‬ ַ ַ ‫ד־הבּ ֶֹקר וְ ֵאשׁ ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ַלּיְ ָלה ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ ָכּ‬ ‫ת־הע ָֹלה‬ ָ ‫ֹאכל ָה ֵאשׁ ֶא‬ ַ ‫־ה ֶדּ ֶשׁן ֲא ֶשׁר תּ‬ ַ ‫ל־בּ ָשׂרוֹ וְ ֵה ִרים ֶאת‬ ְ ‫י־בד יִ ְל ַבּשׁ ַﬠ‬ ַ ‫וּמ ְכנְ ֵס‬ ִ ‫ִמדּוֹ ַבד‬ ‫ת־ה ֶדּ ֶשׁן‬ ַ ‫הוֹציא ֶא‬ ִ ְ‫ת־בּ ָג ָדיו וְ ָל ַבשׁ ְבּ ָג ִדים ֲא ֵח ִרים ו‬ ְ ‫וּפ ַשׁט ֶא‬ ָ 6:4 ‫ל־ה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ וְ ָשׂמוֹ ֵא ֶצל ַה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ ׃‬ ַ ‫ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫ל־מחוּץ ַל ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה ֶא‬ ִ ‫ֶא‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫וּב ֵﬠר ָﬠ ֶל‬ ִ ‫תּוּקד־בּוֹ ל ֹא ִת ְכ ֶבּה‬ ַ ַ ‫ל־ה ִמּזְ ֵבּ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ָה ֵאשׁ ַﬠ‬6:5 ‫ל־מקוֹם ָטהוֹר׃‬ ‫ ֵאשׁ ָתּ ִמיד‬6:6 ‫יה ֶח ְל ֵבי ַה ְשּׁ ָל ִמים׃‬ ָ ‫יה ָהע ָֹלה וְ ִה ְק ִטיר ָﬠ ֶל‬ ָ ‫ַהכּ ֵֹהן ֵﬠ ִצים ַבּבּ ֶֹקר ַבּבּ ֶֹקר וְ ָﬠ ַר ָﬠ ֶל‬ ‫ל־ה ִמּזְ ֵבּ ַ לֹא ִת ְכ ֶבה׃‬ ַ ‫תּוּקד ַﬠ‬ ַ 6:1

YHWH said to Moses, “Command Aaron and his sons thus: 6:2This is the ritual of the burnt offering—the burnt offering that remains on the altar hearth all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept burning on it. 6:3The priest shall dress in a linen raiment and linen breeches next to his flesh; and he shall remove the ashes that the fire has reduced, the burnt offering on the altar, and place them beside the altar. 6:4He shall take off his vestments, put on other vestments and bring the ashes outside the camp to a pure place. 6:5The fire on the altar shall be kept burning and not go out. Every morning the priest shall feed it wood, lay out the burnt offering upon it, and turn into smoke the fat parts of the well-being offering. 6:6A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar and not go out. This rite likewise specifies the changing of garments, here after maintenance of the altar. The specification of ‫ בד‬vestments and the changing before leaving the camp (and perhaps even the Tabernacle) make this ritual likewise a temporary rite. Analogically, the connection also indicates that the garments worn by Aaron in Lev 16 serve a similar function of specifying a sacred rite of ritual maintenance. Where Milgrom’s analysis of the high priest’s special garments needs to be qualified is in regard to their analogy to the angelic realm. We have already seen that such an

652

Milgrom, Leviticus, 1:1048.

228

understanding is problematic because of its absence in the Ezekiel traditions. But, the analysis of 16:4 above proposed that the description of the high priest’s garments as “holy” was a later addition from H. It is possible that H could be further pointing to the sacral need to change and bathe at the completion of the adytum rites. Since these vestments are to be kept in the Tent of Meeting and there is no reference to laundering these garments (cf. Lev 6:1-6 [ET6:8-13]), H assumes that the holiness has not been washed out of the garments, in contrast to what we see in Lev 6:20 (ET 6:27). Further, H might be making the analogical leap that the writer in Ezek 44 has not. H might refer to these garments as holy because they all prepare the high priest to enter analogically into the angelic court of the heavenly temple. Hence, Milgrom’s angelic argument can be validated but must be placed on the redactional level. The twin rites in vv. 4, 23-4 bracket off Aaron’s activity in the adytum and indicate a temporary rite of cultic transition. The conspicuous ‫ בד‬vestments and twin bathing rites accompanied with unique access to the adytum mark the intervening material as beyond the normal province of the high priest. In keeping with a trend that has been observed throughout this study, the concern here is placed more on the return of the high priest to his “normal” (though heightened) cultic status than on the inception of the super-sacral status that allows him to enter the adytum. The markers for the beginning of the rite of temporary cultic transition are not as well-defined as that of cessation. H’s redaction further stresses the rite of temporary cultic transition that the high priest undergoes by describing these special garments as holy and perhaps implying an angelic connection. The additional regulations placed upon this activity by H in vv. 29-34 further solemnize the occasion. As noted by Knohl, H combines two separate rites from P into the 229

current complex ritual: a ritual of self denial on the tenth day of the seventh month and a rite of crisis for the cleansing of the adytum.

SUMMARY The primary concern of this chapter has been to show that rites of temporary cultic transition bracket off Aaron’s activity in the adytum on the Day of Atonement. Through initiation (v.4) and closing (vv.23-24) rites Aaron undergoes a temporary status change that boost his holiness and allows him greater access to the divine. The text explicitly states that Aaron is not to enter the adytum without the performance of such activity lest he die. Noting the lethal threat that Aaron is faced with, Milgrom notes The high priest’s mission is fraught with peril. He is engaged in a rite of passage. Daring to enter the holy of holies, the adytum, the symbolic realm of the wearers of divine linen, the divine assembly, he must emerge from it unscathed.653 Yet, the analysis above shows that this ritual is not a rite of passage, in no way a lifechanging ritual. Rather, the Day of Atonement is a sacrificial ritual that employs a temporary rite of cultic transition. In addition to the ritual in Lev 16, this chapter also identified two other possible rites of temporary cultic transition. The ritual removal of ashes from the altar of burnt offering in Lev 6:1-6 (ET 6:8-13) appears to conform to this pattern. It contains distinct opening and closing rites, indicated by the special clothing he wears during this activity. Likewise, the ritual prescription for priestly entry into Ezekiel’s eschatological temple in Ezek 44:17-9 also seems to be a temporary rite of cultic transition. In this latter case, the ritual activity is extended beyond maintenance of the cult to all activity within the 653

Ibid., 1:1036; cf. 1:289-92.

230

reconstructed temple. It is quite evident from Lev 6:2-6 and Ezek 44:17-19 that precaution is necessary in handling garments that have been in the presence of the divine. However, it is unclear from either text to what extent the wearing of special garments is a necessary precondition to accessing YHWH. Neither text presents a situation as “fraught with peril” as we find in Lev 16.

231

Chapter Seven Possible Examples in Biblical Narrative Texts

The present chapter focuses on possible examples of rites of temporary cultic transition in biblical narrative texts. It mirrors and serves as a counter balance to the discussion of rituals in Ugaritic narratives in chapter four. The provisos and cautions raised in chapter four in dealing with ritual in narrative are likewise pertinent to the ensuing discussion. The issue at hand is how rituals presented in narrative function, not whether such performances are factually accurate or ever historically occurred. This chapter examines four possible categories of ritual activity that might provide examples of temporary cultic status change: theophany reports, holy war rites, petitionary mourning rites, and the transport of the Ark of the Covenant reported in 2 Sam 6.654 Each of these has potential of being temporary rites of cultic transition, providing accounts of delimited ritual activity where human participants are temporarily allowed exceptional access to the divine. However, such a designation can only be made after close examination.

654

I have consciously excluded biblical poetic texts from this study. The incorporation specifically of material from the Psalms into the ritual category of temporary rites of cultic transition is a desideratum, but such a study can only take place if predicated upon the examples here discussed. The poetic texts simply do not contain enough ritual rubrics to be a primary witness to these rites.

232

THEOPHANY In general terms, a theophany is the appearance of a deity. Daniʾilu’s interaction with Baʿlu and the Kaṯarātu in CAT 1.17 and Kirtu’s revelation from ʾIlu in CAT 1.14 all constitute theophanies in Ugaritic narratives. Since the first of these reports provided an example of temporary cultic status change, the examination of such material in the biblical text could be justified solely on this parallel. However, biblical examples of theophany often display ritual activity delineating these encounters (e.g. removal of sandal in Exod 3:1-6; Josh 5:13-15; cordoning off sacred space in Exod 19). The following analysis will begin with a general discussion of biblical theophany and then address specific examples, taking special note of the reports that are the best possible examples of temporary rites of cultic transition. The most recent comprehensive study of theophany narratives is by George Savran.655 Because his methodology incorporates the vast majority of theophanies in biblical narrative, his work will serve as the basis for the following discussion. Rather than working in strict form-critical categories, Savran identifies theophanies in the Bible as literary type-scenes.656 As such, he classifies examples based on essential components while allowing for substantial variation. Savran’s essential components are 1) preparation, 2) appearance of YHWH, 3) human response, and 4) externalization (that is, some action that 655

George W. Savran, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative (JSOTSup 420; London: T & T Clark, 2005). See also the earlier important studies of James Barr, “Theophany and Anthropomorpism in the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume, Oxford 1959 (JSOTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960), 31-38; Johannes Lindblom, “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion,” HUCA 32 (1961): 91-106; Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965); John K. Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967); Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 147-94; Theodore Hiebert, “Theophany in the OT,” ABD 6: 505-11. 656 Savran, Encountering the Divine, 8-13. For type-scenes more generally see Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 114-30; Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 33-42.

233

allows return to the quotidian).657 Using these criteria, he identifies twenty examples of theophany type-scenes in the Bible (conveniently presented in table 1): Gen 16:7-14; 18:116; 21:14-21; 28:10-22; 32:24-33; Exod 3:1-6; 19-20, 24; 33:12-23; Lev 9:23-10:4; Num 12:1-16; 22:2-35; Josh 5:13-15; Judg 5:13-15; 6:11-22; 13:2-25; 1 Sam 3:1-21; 1 Kgs 3:4-14; 19:1-18; Isa 6:1-13; Jer 1:4-19; Ezek 1:3-3:15. Savran groups these examples into three basic types: 1) initiation and identity, 2) redefinition in midlife, and 3) group theophany.658 Each of these will be dealt with in turn. Theophanies of initiation do not conform to our pattern of temporary rites. Savran identifies the following as examples of this type: Gen 16:7-14; 18:1-16; 21:14-21; 28:10-22; Exod 3:1-6; Num 22:2-35; 659 Josh 5:13-15; Judg 5:13-15; 6:11-22; 13:2-25; 1 Sam 3:1-21; 1 Kgs 3:4-14; Isa 6:1-13; Jer 1:4-19; Ezek 1:3-3:15. The examples of calling in 1 Sam 3:1-21; Isa 6:113; Jer 1:4-19; Ezek 1:3-3:15 quite clearly pertain to the phenomenology of life-cycle rites. In these cases, the participant’s relationship to the divine is permanently changed.660 This is also the case in Gen 16:7-14; 18:1-16; 21:14-21; Judg 13:2-25; and 1 Kgs 3:4-14. Each of these

657

Savran, Encountering the Divine, 14-25. Especially relevant to this study is Savran’s analysis of the potentially lethal nature of such theophanies. Cf. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 175-88. Note also the similarity of Savran’s stages and those of a rite of passage as formulated by Victor Turner (see discussion in chapter one). 658 Savran, Encountering the Divine, 25-29. 659 The example from Num 22:2-35 is problematic. Ibid., 26 notes: The story of Balaam’s ass in Num. 22 is similar to the initiatory theophany in certain ways: Balaam is placed in an isolated location, fails to recognize the initial sings that a divine emissary is present, but once he does see the malakh [sic!] he is overcome with fear and selfabasement. However, since Balaam has already had a number of conversations with YHWH in 22.10, 18, the episode of the ass also bears some resemblance to the subsequent category of midlife crisis. If Savran is correct in placing this example under the category of an initiation theophany, then it follows the same pattern as the prophetic material dealt with below. That is to say, it is not a rite of temporary status change. 660 While Jer 15:19 implies that a prophetic calling can be revoked, this does not make the prophetic calling a temporary rite. Such a status change is not the intention of the initiation and would thus serve as an infelicitous event.

234

announces a new, permanent change on the part of the human participant; none has a distinct closing rite. The accounts in Gen 28: 10-22 (Jacob at Bethel), Exod 3: 1-6 (Moses and the burning bush) and Josh 5: 13-15 (Joshua at Gilgal) provide the best possible candidates for temporary rites in this group. All three center around later cultic locales (Bethel, Sinai and Gilgal, respectively), serving as aetiologies of later cultic institutions and two of the three indicate explicit ritual activity associated with divine presences as well. Yet, none of these provides clear markers of temporary status change. In all three cases the human actor is unaware at the outset of the divine presence. Jacob’s dream differs from that of Daniʾilu in that there is no ritual activity leading up to the revelation. Likewise, his activity to memorialize the revelation through offerings and demarcation of space enacts a permanent spatial status change, not a temporary rite. The parallel examples of Moses in Exod 3 and Joshua in Josh 5 differ here in presenting ritual activity at the outset. In both cases the human participant is told to remove his sandals. The Ugaritic text CAT 1.164:1-2 required the king to perform such activity in a cultic space: id . ydbḥ . mlk b ḫmn [xx]ś[x] . w šinm . l yšt “When the king sacrifices in the ḪMN [xx]ś[x] and he will not put sandals on.” Biblical scholars have posited that the priest in ancient Israel likewise officiated barefoot.661 Clearly in these latter cases such activity serves as a marker of movement from the profane to the sacred, though its value in indicating a status change is more debatable. In the cases of Moses and Joshua, however, such an interpretation is forced. The human participants are already in a sacred location when they remove their sandals—they have already crossed over from the profane to the sacred. More important, the removal of sandals

661

See discussion in Milgrom, Leviticus, 1: 654; Propp, Exodus, 1: 200.

235

cannot be a precondition for divine revelation since it is only through such revelation that the necessity of this activity is even known. The engagement with the divine began before the action occurs. A further complication to including these examples in cases of rites of temporary cultic status change is that, as with other examples of initiation theophanies, there is likewise no explicit closing rite. It is unlikely that either Moses or Joshua spent the remainder of their days barefoot, yet the text does not mention the replacement of sandals.662 It is unimportant to the narrative because the focus is on permanent not temporary status change. For both Moses and Joshua, as with Jacob above, the theophany initiates a new level of divine human relation that will endure throughout the subsequent narrative. In short, none of Savran’s texts under the category of initiation and identity provide examples of temporary cultic status change. According to Savran, the following are examples of theophanies that redefine the participant’s relationship to the divine in midlife: Gen 32:24-33 (Jacob at the Jabbok); Exod 33: 12-23 (Moses beholding YHWH’s glory) and 1 Kgs 19:1-21 (Elijah at Horeb).663 Jacob’s theophany in Gen 32 clearly does not fit the pattern of a temporary rite of cultic transition. The location of the activity neither has a known cultic association (either in the narrative or in subsequent tradition) nor are there distinct opening and closing rites. It is only at the end of the episode that the significance of the nocturnal revelation dawns on Jacob. The parallel examples of Exod 33 and 1 Kgs 19 are fundamentally different from Gen 32 in that the human participant in each case is aware of the divine presence in the location and is

662

Source-critical evaluation partitions 3:2-4a, 5 to J and 3:1, 4b, 6 to E, see Richard E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2003), 121-22. 663 A further example of such a midlife theophany is 1 Kgs 9:1-9, which Savran mentions only in passing on pp. 231-32.

236

actively seeking the divine.664 However, distinct ritual markers are again absent. Commenting on the group as a whole, Savran states: All three texts are marked by a striving for further contact with YHWH which is frustrated in some way by the Deity. Each of these stories offers a reflection upon the tension between human presumption and the accessibility of YHWH, indicating the limits of human perception of, or contact with, the divine.665 Yet this is not altogether correct. In none of these cases do we find ritual activity indicating temporary status change— precisely the mechanism that would allow for greater access beyond the normal level of contact. Temporary rites of cultic transition would allow for exactly the type of contact that Savran asserts. All three passages show an encounter with the divine that fundamentally and permanently changes the human participant. Savran’s third type of theophany holds the best chance for examples of temporary cultic status change. He refers to this type as a “group theophany” but admits that it is a mixed type, involving elements of the first two categories detailed above.666 His examples include Exod 19-20,24 (the people of Israel at Sinai, cf. Deut 4:1-5:30); Lev 9:23-10:4 (Nadab and Abihu’s infelicitous offering); and Num 12:1-16 (Miriam and Aaron’s challenge of Moses’ authority).667 The infelicitous ritual performances in Lev 10:1-4 and Num 12:1-16 fall outside of the present study—though the potential danger of divine presence is central to both stories, neither Nadab and Abihu’s offering nor Miriam and Aaron’s challenge of Moses contain distinct markers indicating temporary status change. Although not noted by Savran, the theophay associated with Solomon’s dedication of the temple in 1 Kgs 8 is 664

There is a clear literary relationship between the two passages: the Elijah account is dependent upon the theophany to Moses. E.g. Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 335-50; Savran, Encountering the Divine, 204-29. 665 Savran, Encountering the Divine, 27. 666 Ibid. 667 Savran also notes in passing divine appearances in Num 14:10, 16:19; 1 Kgs 18:38 and 2 Chron 7:3, these minor episodes do not provide enough data for his analysis. I here follow his example, since these passages are too short to provide indicators of temporary cultic status change.

237

another example of a group theophany. This passage is composite in nature.668 The theophany proper occurs in vv. 10-11. ‫ וְ לֹא־יָ ְכלוּ ַהכּ ֲֹה ִנים ַל ֲﬠמֹד‬8:11 ‫ת־בּית יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ֵ ‫ן־הקּ ֶֹדשׁ וְ ֶה ָﬠנָ ן ָמ ֵלא ֶא‬ ַ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ְבּ ֵצאת ַהכּ ֲֹהנִ ים ִמ‬8:10 ‫ת־בּית יְ הוָ ה׃‬ ֵ ‫י־מ ֵלא ְכבוֹד־יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬ ָ ‫ְל ָשׁ ֵרת ִמ ְפּ ֵני ֶה ָﬠנָ ן ִכּ‬ 8:10

And when the priests came out of the holy place, the cloud filled the house of YHWH, 8:11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of YHWH filled the house of YHWH. This theophany serves as an investiture of divine presence in a cultic locale, similar to those of Bethel, Sinai and Gilgal noted above.669 While this passage points to the power of such presence, this is a permanent cultic status change.

668

See most conveniently Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O'Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present text (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 349-59. Cf. the detailed studies of E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 14-61 (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 3; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993); Marc Zvi Brettler, “Interpretation and Prayer: Notes on the Composition of 1 Kings 8.15-53,” in Minhah le-Nahum (ed. Marc Zvi Brettler and Michael A. Fishbane; JSOTSup 154; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 17-35; Gary N. Knoppers, “Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deuteronomist’s Program,” CBQ 57 (1995): 229-54; Jon D. Levenson, “1 Kings 8,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Bibilical Faith (ed. Baruch Halpern; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 143-63. 669 Solomon’s subsequent activity in the received (composite) text is of note. Verse 22 states: ‫ל־ק ַהל ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יִּ ְפר ֹשׂ ַכּ ָפּיו ַה ָשּׁ ָמיִ ם׃‬ ְ ‫וַ יַּ ֲﬠמֹד ְשׁ מֹה ִל ְפנֵ י ִמזְ ַבּח יְ הוָ ה נֶ ֶגד ָכּ‬ Solomon stood before the altar of YHWH in the presence of the whole assembly of Israel, and spread out his palms toward heaven. This is then followed by a long prayer (from another literary tradition) in vv. 23-53. In vv. 54-55 this action concludes: ַ ֹ ‫ל־ה ְתּ ִפ ָלּה וְ ַה ְתּ ִחנָּ ה ַהזֹּאת ָקם ִמ ִלּ ְפנֵ י ִמזְ ַבּח יְ הוָ ה ִמ ְכּר‬ ַ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ְכּ ַכלּוֹת ְשׁ מֹה ְל ִה ְת ַפּ ֵלּל ֶאל־יְ הוָ ה ֵאת ָכּ‬8:54 ‫ל־ק ַהל יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל קוֹל ָגּדוֹל ֵלאמֹר׃‬ ְ ‫ וַ יַּ ְﬠמֹד וַ יְ ָב ֶר ֵאת ָכּ‬8:55 ‫ל־בּ ְר ָכּיו וְ ַכ ָפּיו ְפּ ֻרשׂוֹת ַה ָשּׁ ָמיִ ם׃‬ ִ ‫ַﬠ‬ 8:54

When Solomon had finished praying this entire prayer and supplication to YHWH, he arose from facing the altar of YHWH, where he had been kneeling with his palms outstretched towards heaven; 8:55 and he stood and blessed the whole assembly of Israel with a loud voice. Such activity clearly marks the intervening prayer. However, I am uncertain whether such actions, in a cultic location, are enough to indicate a temporary rite. Could Solomon have offered up his prayer without these gestures? Do such gestures enable Solomon a degree of divine access otherwise unavailable? The answers to such questions would clarify this issue, but they are beyond the scope of the present study.

238

This leaves Exod 19-20,24 to discuss as an example of group theophany. This material in these chapters is likewise composite in nature.670 For the purposes of this study, the most pertinent source in this passage is in Exod 19:10-16aβ, 18, where Moses has the people the people purify themselves:

‫ וְ ָהיוּ‬19:11 ‫וּמ ָחר וְ ִכ ְבּסוּ ִשׂ ְמ ָתם׃‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם וְ ִק ַדּ ְשׁ ָתּם ַהיּוֹם‬ ָ ‫אמר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל־מ ֶֹשׁה ֵל ֶא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬19:10 ‫ וְ ִהגְ ַבּ ְל ָתּ‬19:12 ‫ל־הר ִס ָיני׃‬ ַ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ַﬠ‬ ָ ‫ישׁי יֵ ֵרד יְ הוָ ה ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ָכ‬ ִ ‫ישׁי ִכּי ַבּיּוֹם ַה ְשּׁ ִל‬ ִ ‫נְ כֹנִ ים ַליּוֹם ַה ְשּׁ ִל‬ ‫ל־הנֹּגֵ ַ ָבּ ָהר מוֹת‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָﬠם ָס ִביב ֵלאמֹר ִה ָשּׁ ְמרוּ ָל ֶכם ֲﬠלוֹת ָבּ ָהר וּנְ ֹג ַ ְבּ ָק ֵצהוּ ָכּ‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ֹ ‫ם־אישׁ לֹא יִ ְחיֶ ה ִבּ ְמשׁ‬ ִ ‫ם־בּ ֵה ָמה ִא‬ ְ ‫י־סקוֹל יִ ָסּ ֵקל אוֹ־יָ ר ֹה יִ יָּ ֶרה ִא‬ ָ ‫א־ת ַגּע בּוֹ יָ ד ִכּ‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬

19:13

‫יוּמת׃‬ ָ

‫ת־ה ָﬠם וַ יְ ַכ ְבּסוּ‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם וַ יְ ַק ֵדּשׁ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ן־ה ָהר ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וַ יֵּ ֶרד מ ֶֹשׁה ִמ‬19:14 ‫ַהיּ ֵֹבל ֵה ָמּה יַ ֲﬠלוּ ָב ָהר׃‬ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ַביּוֹם‬19:16 ‫ל־א ָשּׁה׃‬ ִ ‫ל־תּ ְגּשׁוּ ֶא‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ֱהיוּ נְ כֹנִ ים ִל ְשׁ ֶשׁת יָ ִמים ַא‬ ָ ‫אמר ֶא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫ וַ יּ‬19:15 ‫ִשׂ ְמ ָתם׃‬ ִ ‫ַה ְשּׁ ִל‬ ‫ל־ה ָהר וְ קֹל שׁ ָֹפר ָחזָ ק ְמאֹד וַ יֶּ ֱח ַרד‬ ָ ‫וּב ָר ִקים וְ ָﬠנָ ן ָכּ ֵבד ַﬠ‬ ְ ‫ישׁי ִבּ ְהיֹת ַהבּ ֶֹקר וַ יְ ִהי קֹ ת‬ ‫ן־ה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה וַ יִּ ְתיַ ְצּבוּ‬ ַ ‫ת־ה ָﬠם ִל ְק ַראת ָה ֱא ִהים ִמ‬ ָ ‫יּוֹצא מ ֶֹשׁה ֶא‬ ֵ ַ‫ו‬19:17 ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ֲא ֶשׁר ַבּ ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה׃‬ ָ ‫ָכּ‬ ‫וְ ַהר ִסינַ י ָﬠ ַשׁן ֻכּלּוֹ ִמ ְפּנֵ י ֲא ֶשׁר יָ ַרד ָﬠ ָליו יְ הוָ ה ָבּ ֵאשׁ וַ יַּ ַﬠל ֲﬠ ָשׁנוֹ ְכּ ֶﬠ ֶשׁן‬

19:18

‫ְבּ ַת ְח ִתּית ָה ָהר׃‬

‫ל־ה ָהר ְמאֹד׃‬ ָ ‫ַה ִכּ ְב ָשׁן וַ יֶּ ֱח ַרד ָכּ‬ 19:10

YHWH said to Moses: “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes 19:11and prepare for the third day, for on the third day YHWH will come down upon Mount Sinai before the eyes of all the people. 19:12You shall set limits for the people all around, saying, “Be careful not to go up the mountain or to touch the edge of it. Any who touch the mountain shall be put to death. 19:13No hand shall touch them, but they shall be surely stoned or shot with arrows; whether animal or human being, they shall not live. When the trumpet sounds a long blast, they may go up on the mountain.” 19:14So Moses went down from the mountain to the people. He consecrated the people, and they washed their clothes. 19:15And he said to the people, “Prepare for the third day; do not go near a woman.” 19:16aβ On the morning of the third day, 19:18Mount Sinai was wrapped in smoke, for YHWH had descended upon it in fire; the smoke went up like the smoke of a kiln, while the whole mountain shook violently.

670

See recent discussions in Wright, Inventing God's Law, 496-7 nn. 71, 73; Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch (FAT 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 153-54; Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement? The Source-Critical Solution,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay (ed. Nili Sacher Fox, et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 2948.

239

This procedure might begin a temporary cultic status change. The human participants know of the potential for divine encounters in this location, since Sinai has already been revealed as a location of divine presence in Exod 3: 2-4a, 5 (both passages are from J). Additionally, the explicit markers of laundering and celibacy are coupled with the explicit purpose to “consecrate” (‫ )קדש‬the people. Outside of P, the verb ‫ קדש‬refer to purification rather than consecration. 671 The reason for this activity is also explicitly stated: v. 11 tells of a future theophany that warrants such special care on the part of the people. However, temporary suspension of the quotidian is also and indicator of life-cycle rites of initiation. In short, the text indicates a status change, but is it temporary or permanent?672 The material in Exod 19: 10-16aβ, 18 provides special problems for analysis. This study has argued that temporary status change allows participants limited engagement with the divine in ways otherwise circumscribed. In both Ugaritic and biblical texts addressed above, indicators of the commencement of a temporary status are stressed less than those ending such statuses. Yet, Exod 19: 10-16aβ, 18 only tells of the inception of this status. There is no indication subsequently in J that the temporary status has ended. To put it bluntly, the people are never told they can have sex again. Since J is often less concerned with ritual matters and we have no other reports of a rite of temporary cultic transition in J, this absence might be dismissed, were it not for the consistent data so far examined.

671

See David P. Wright, “Unclean and Clean (OT),” ABD 6: 736. For issues relating to J, purity and sex see “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden,” Bib 77 (1996): 305-29; cf. Elisha Qimron, “Celibacy in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Two Kinds of Sectarians,” in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid, 18-21 March 1991 (ed. Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner; STDJ 11; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 1: 287-94. 672 This question is pertinent even if one sees the people’s action of consecrating themselves as merely purification (see note 671). Purification may accompany and signal a temporary rite of cultic transition. The issue at hand are whether both the initiation and completion of this consecrated or pure state is intentional. See discussion comparison of temporary rites with purification rites in chapter one.

240

Subsequent to this ritual proscription in Exod 19: 10-16aβ, 18 scholars are divided as to where the narrative recommences. After the intervening of E in v. 19 most scholars see J in vv. 20-25.673 However, these verses might be secondary and provide no information germane to our concerns.674 The next events in J would then be the revelation of YHWH to the elders Exod 24:1-2, 9-11bα.675 Verse 11a attests to the threat that close engagement with the divine might provoke (“And he (God) did not raise his hand against the chief men of the people of Israel”). But these verses provide no justification for seeing 19:10-16aβ, 18 enacting a temporary status change for all the people. The special contact with the divine in 24:1-2, 9-11bα is open only to Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy elders of Israel. Some reference to descending from the mountain (32:15*) must have followed this scene.676 J then recounts that Moses finds the camp in disarray and commissions the Levites to bring order to the people in 32:25-29.677 The punishments enacted by the Levites are not those that YHWH prescribes for encroaching upon the mountain (19:13) leaving the episode without a clear reference. Is the status change enacted by the purification in Exod 24 still in effect? The text is silent. However, the activity by Israel angers YHWH, and he tells Moses to depart from Sinai in Exod 33:1-3. Clearly some sort of transition has occurred at this point. The people will be granted safe passage to the promised to their ancestors, but YHWH will not dwell in their midst. This causes penitential petitionary mourning on the part of Israel in vv. 5-6 (see 673

See recent treatments with reference to older studies by Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 15354, 160-61 n. 153, n. 168, 270 n.25 and Propp, Exodus, 2:144-54. 674 On the possible secondary nature of these verses see Wright, Inventing God's Law, 496 n. 71. 675 Wright argues that Exod 19: 10-16aβ, 18 flows directly into 24:1-2, 9-11bα (Ibid.). Verses 1-2, 9-11bα are also assigned to J by Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 160-61 n. 153; Schwartz, “The Visit of Jethro,” 44 n. 41. 676 The verse is taken as a composite of E and P by Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 161, 283-84. 677 The reference to Aaron in v.25b is probably an insertion from the E material recounting the Golden Calf. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed, 173-76 holds that all of Exod 32-33 is E. For attribution of vv.26-29 to J see Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 165-66 n.163 , 175, 181.

241

discussion of mourning in the Hebrew Bible below). Moses confronts YHWH with his promise and asks to be shown the deity’s ways in vv. 12-16. Having found favor in the sight of YHWH, Moses ascends the mountain again to receive a theophany and ratify the covenant between YHWH and the people in 34: 2-3, 4* 5aβ-27.678 This enacts a new permanent status change on the part of the people. The next event in J is Num 10:29-36—Israel’s departure from Sinai.679 The reason for the marker discussed in Exod 19 is better understood as a preparation for a permanent status change than enacting a temporary one. This status change is jeopardized by the activity of the Israelites in 32:25-29, but finally concludes in 34: 2-3, 4* 5aβ-27. On the whole, the J material from Exod 19-24 provide a life-cycle rite (a rite of passage), whereby the people of Israel suspend quotidian activity, undergo a period of liminality and are then reintegrated into a new status—the people of the covenant. The focus of this activity is on the permanent status change and as such it is understandable that the return to quotidian activity is not reported. To summarize the discussion thus far, the forgoing discussion has found no true examples of temporary cultic status change in theophany accounts from the Bible. These accounts serve as indicators of permanent rites of initiation. There are two additional differences between theophany accounts and rites temporary cultic transition: theophanies are not part of the regular cultic menology (e.g. the Ugaritic ritual texts in chaps two and three, the canonical form of Lev 16) nor are they initiated by the human

678

On attribution of this material to J see Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. Michael V. Fox, et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 121-22; Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 169. 679 See Schwartz, “The Visit of Jethro,” 44 n. 41.

242

participants (i.e. Ugaritic materials in chap four, the Nazirite in Num 6).680 Moreover, that the rite for the Day of Atonement in Lev 16 originally functioned as a rite of crisis strengthens the position that biblical examples of temporary cultic status change occurs most frequently outside of the cultic menology.

HOLY WAR Holy war traditions in Ugaritic and biblical texts exhibit many of the markers of temporary cultic status change. As noted above in chapter four, the temporary status change of ʿAnatu when going off to battle is similar to that of Kirtu when he performs the tower ritual. Additionally, as noted in chapter five the hair manipulation performed by the Nazirite in Num 6 is often linked to holy war traditions in biblical texts through the reference to untrimmed or unbound hair in Num 6 and similar reference in Deut 33:16b of dedication for warfare and possible rites of warrior status in Judg 5:2. While no one text provides all requisite details of such status change necessary for this study, a general sketch of such a temporary rite of status change can be inferred through recourse to different traditions and texts. 681 Deuteronomy has two passages where one finds rules for the commencement of holy war. In Deut 20:1-9 there are a list of procedures to be enacted before a holy war takes place. In vv. 2-4 a priest addresses the troops, giving them courage and explicitly assuring them of divine presence in the undertaking culminating in v. 4: “For it is YHWH your God who is walking with you, to make war for you with your enemies in order to give you 680

Exod 33 and 1 Kgs 19 serve as the exceptions that prove the rule in this regard. In both cases, however, YHWH does not act as the human participants intend, see Savran’s comment above. 681 For the most recent discussion and older bibliography see Niditch, My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel, 63-80; Cynthia R Chapman, The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter (HSS 62; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004); Smith, Memoirs of God, 22-26.

243

victory.” This discourse by the priest is then followed by a speech by officials (‫ )שטרים‬in vv. 5-8 in which exemptions from warfare are listed and would-be warriors are able to opt out. Only after this requisite activity has been accomplished are the commanders of the armies (‫ )שרי צבאות‬to take control of their troops (v.9). These declarations can be seen as commencing the holy war status, though no full ritual procedure is described. The priestly announcement of divine presence in the camp may be considered a performative speech act that actually enacts divine presence, or might be an acknowledgement based on unstated ritual activity. Regardless, it is marker of the initiation of status change. In Deut 23:10-14 the holiness of the war camp is addressed directly. Those who have nocturnal emissions are required to leave the camp, bathe and return only in the evening (vv.11-12). Defecation is not permitted within the camp (v. 13). The rationale for both is the presence of YHWH within the camp (v. 14) that had been noted in 20:4. Defecation, in particular, is the most basic and consistent of all human “impure” behaviors. The mention of bathing before return to the war camp also implies that such activity would have also been required at the outset. Additional to these depictions in D, DtrH gives further information regarding prohibitions during such a status change. Men are consecrated and able to eat consecrated food (1 Sam 21:5-6).682 They are explicitly barred from sexual relations, though they are able to consume alcohol (see 2 Sam 11:13). While an explicit marker of return to a quotidian state is not mentioned in either D or DtrH, it is possible that cessation of holy-

682

Again, this relates to the understanding of ‫ קדש‬in non-P texts. Both Exod 19: 10-16aβ, 18 and 1 Sam 21:5-6 link consecration with the cessation of normal sexual activity. It appears that whether understood as “holy” or merely “pure” these activities serve as markers of status change.

244

war status was accompanied by shaving (indicative of status change) and the commencing of sexual relations (a quotidian activity).683 H also appears to address relating to holy war. While not a true war camp, Num 31 deals with issues of purity within the wilderness camp setting.684 Verses 3-24 deal specifically with reintegration of warriors (and integration of their captives) after a battle with Midian. De Vaux had seen this activity as indicating the cessation of a sacral state,685 but David Wright has found a better understanding in terms of ancillary rules for purification from corpse contamination.686 Hence the soldiers are actually entering a war camp, not leaving war or a war camp after battling Midian; and the purification rite in Num 31 is initiatory and not concluding.687 The disparate witnesses in the biblical texts point to some sort of status change indicating the commencement and cessation of a holy-war status within which warriors are consecrated and able to have YHWH dwell in their midst. However, the texts do not describe a complete ritual process; and they are ideological, each in their own way. Particularly germane is the lack of any explicit marker of the cessation of temporary status change, a constant in ritual texts dealt with in this study. Without a text drawing together these elements into one coherent ritual activity, more cannot be said with certainty. 683

Another issue to consider in this regard is the how ideal the laws in Deut 20 and 23 are, considering their probable creation late in the Neo-Assyrian period. What they are saying about war (with Pan-Israelite tribal participation) does not fit any military reality of the late 7th century. It could be seen as invented war ritual, which functions at a level beyond law for an ideological purpose. However, the references to a holy-war status not only in D, but in DtrH and priestly traditions as well, point to a phenomenon that was at least in some sense a reality in ancient Israel. 684 For the unique features of the wilderness camp vis-à-vis the war camp, see discussion in Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 169-72, 179. 685 de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 461-62. 686 David P. Wright, “Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19-24,” VT 35 (1985): 213-23. 687 See discussion of a certain duality in P and H between the “locative and locomotive conceptions of divine presence” in Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 87-99.

245

MOURNING RITES Petitionary mourning rites in the Hebrew Bible also display many of the characteristics of temporary status change. Saul Olyan has argued that petitionary mourning is modeled on analogy to traditional funerary mourning rites.688 In Olyan’s analysis an individual engages in these funerary mourning rites to identify with the dead for whom there is still a relationship. Comforters surround the mourner and likewise enact such ritual activity, creating new social bonds or perpetuating existing bonds with the mourner that allow the mourner to let go of the dead and become integrated again into the society of the living. The enactment of petitionary mourning entreats the deity with similar ritual activities in the hope that YHWH will likewise respond to the mourner.689 Olyan discusses both penitential and non-penitential petitionary mourning rites, the latter having the closest similarities to the material in this study.690 Two examples will suffice. 688

Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 1-61; cf. Anderson, Time to Mourn; Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. 689 A more standard explanation of mourning rites, incorporating van Gennep’s classic tripartite structure of separation, liminality and reincorporation can be found in Cohen, Death Rituals. 690 Olyan makes the valid point that neither type of petitionary mourning communicates impurity. Funerary mourning communicates impurity due to corpse contamination; but this is not analogically extended to that of petitionary mourning, as indicated by such activity occurring within cultic locations (Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 63-63 n. 4; contra Anderson, Time to Mourn, 90-95). Nevertheless, the status of some petitionary mourners as a penitent seeking forgiveness of sins from the deity must have some cultic dimension. For example in 2 Sam 12:15-20 David petitions YHWH after his liaison with Bathsheba, her subsequent pregnancy and the ensuing cover up in 2 Sam 11-12. YHWH afflicts the child of the illicit union, and David entreats God on the newborn’s behalf. In discussing David’s possible pollution (due to adultery and murder) in the passage David P. Wright, “David Autem Remansit in Hierusalem: Felix Coniunctio!,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 219 notes: To be sure, the text does not describe the act or situation as impure, but it can be imagined to be latent here inasmuch as several biblical traditions speak of the impurity caused by adultery or rape and therefore show that it was a common Israelite notion and one probably shared by the authors/editors of 2 Sam 11-12. Further Wright compares the rite of penitential petitionary mourning in 2 Sam 12:15-20 to that of purification: “It is wrong to call his actions a purification rite proper, but they nonetheless mimic such rites and bring them to mind. In particular, they reflect rites for purification from corpse-contamination.” (p. 227) While it is true that this may not be “ritual” impurities, it is because of the ambiguous situation of the penitent’s purity that penitential petitionary mourning is not considered in this study.

246

In 2 Chron 20, King Jehosophat institutes a fast and calls all of Judah to seek YHWH (vv.3-4). The people assemble before YHWH and communally petition the deity for guidance and assurance (vv. 5-12). A prophetic revelation of divine favor occurs (vv. 13-17) and the Korahites reinstitute the quotidian situation within the temple by standing and praising YHWH (vv. 18-19). Likewise Hannah petitions YHWH in a cultic setting in 1 Sam 1. She refrains from quotidian activities of eating and drinking (vv. 7-8, 15) and performs acts of mourning before YHWH in the cultic locale of the Shiloh shrine. After she hears a favorable word from Eli in v.17, she ends mourning activity in v. 18, eating and drinking with her husband. Both rituals depicted have definitive markers that set them off from quotidian activity.691 In addition, both occur in clear cultic contexts. While not indicated in the text, it can also be inferred that the participants are in a state of cultic purity at the outset of the rite. All of this is in keeping with rites of temporary cultic transition. However, there is no explicit indication in the text that these petitionary ritual participants have undergone a cultic status change or that they are allowed access to the divine otherwise prohibited. No one is granted access to the adytum. No true theophany occurs. While a revelation is communicated to the ritual participants (perhaps unwittingly in the case of Eli) there is no indication that this wsould have been prohibited under other circumstances.

DAVID’S DANCE IN 2 SAM 6 David’s ritual activity in 2 Sam 6 is the last possible example of temporary cultic status change to be discussed in this study.692 The narrative begins in 6:1-5 with the 691

Olyan, Biblical Mourning, 71 also includes Ezra 8:21-23 as an example of non-penitential petitionary mourning. However, its locale outside of a sanctuary precludes its discussion here. 692 In comparison with Psalm 132, an earlier generation of scholars saw in 2 Sam 6 a ritual for a recurrent procession of the ark; see Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 106-92, esp. 174-75; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 91-111; but cf. the critique of this view by Delbert R. Hillers, “Ritual Procession of the Ark in Ps 132,” CBQ 30 (1968): 48-55; Miller

247

movement of the ark of YHWH from the house of the priest Abinadab to Jerusalem. This activity begins under the care of the sons of Abinadab (v.3-4) to the accompaniment of dancing and music by David and all of Israel (v. 5). Calamity strikes in v. 6 when one of Abinadab’s sons, Uzzah, touches the ark and is struck dead by YHWH in v. 7. This leads to feelings of both anger (v. 8) and fear (v. 9) on the part of David. Rather than risk further infelicitous ritual activity, David has the ark housed outside of Jerusalem in the care of Obed-edom (v.10-11). All of this sets the stage for the felicitous ritual in vv. 12-20a, a second procession resulting in the safe passage of the ark to Jerusalem. ‫ל־א ֶשׁר־לוֹ ַבּ ֲﬠבוּר ֲארוֹן‬ ֲ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ת־בּית ע ֵֹבד ֱאד ֹם וְ ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יֻּ ַגּד ַל ֶמּ ֶל ָדּוִ ד ֵלאמֹר ֵבּ ַר יְ הוָ ה ֶא‬6:12 ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִכּי‬6:13 ‫ת־ארוֹן ָה ֱא ִהים ִמ ֵבּית ע ֵֹבד ֱאד ֹם ִﬠיר ָדּוִ ד ְבּ ִשׂ ְמ ָחה׃‬ ֲ ‫ָה ֱא ִהים וַ יֵּ ֶל ָדּוִ ד וַ יַּ ַﬠל ֶא‬ ‫ וְ ָדוִ ד ְמ ַכ ְר ֵכּר ְבּ ָכל־עֹז ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬6:14 ‫וּמ ִריא׃‬ ְ ‫ָצ ֲﬠדוּ נ ְֹשׂ ֵאי ֲארוֹן־יְ הוָ ה ִשׁ ָשּׁה ְצ ָﬠ ִדים וַ יִּ זְ ַבּח שׁוֹר‬ ‫וּבקוֹל‬ ְ ‫רוּﬠה‬ ָ ‫ת־ארוֹן יְ הוָ ה ִבּ ְת‬ ֲ ‫ל־בּית ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַמ ֲﬠ ִלים ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ וְ ָדוִ ד וְ ָכ‬6:15 ‫וְ ָדוִ ד ָחגוּר ֵאפוֹד ָבּד׃‬ ‫ת־שׁאוּל נִ ְשׁ ְק ָפה ְבּ ַﬠד ַה ַחלּוֹן וַ ֵתּ ֶרא‬ ָ ‫וּמ ַיכל ַבּ‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָהיָ ה ֲארוֹן יְ הוָ ה ָבּא ִﬠיר ָדּוִ ד‬6:16 ‫שׁוֹפר׃‬ ָ ‫ת־ארוֹן יְ הוָ ה וַ יַּ ִצּגוּ אֹתוֹ‬ ֲ ‫ וַ יָּ ִבאוּ ֶא‬6:17 ‫וּמ ַכ ְר ֵכּר ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה וַ ִתּ ֶבז לוֹ ְבּ ִל ָבּהּ׃‬ ְ ‫ת־ה ֶמּ ֶל ָדּוִ ד ְמ ַפזֵּ ז‬ ַ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ וַ יְ ַכל ָדּוִ ד‬6:18 ‫וּשׁ ָל ִמים׃‬ ְ ‫ִבּ ְמקוֹמוֹ ְבּתוֹ ָהא ֶֹהל ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ָטה־לוֹ ָדּוִ ד וַ יַּ ַﬠל ָדּוִ ד עֹלוֹת ִל ְפנֵ י יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ל־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫ וַ יְ ַח ֵלּק ְל ָכ‬6:19 ‫ת־ה ָﬠם ְבּ ֵשׁם יְ הוָ ה ְצ ָבאוֹת׃‬ ָ ‫עוֹלה וְ ַה ְשּׁ ָל ִמים וַ יְ ָב ֶר ֶא‬ ָ ‫ֵמ ַה ֲﬠלוֹת ָה‬ ‫ישׁה ֶא ָחת‬ ָ ‫ד־א ָשּׁה ְל ִאישׁ ַח ַלּת ֶל ֶחם ַא ַחת וְ ֶא ְשׁ ָפּר ֶא ָחד וַ ֲא ִשׁ‬ ִ ‫ל־המוֹן ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ְל ֵמ ִאישׁ וְ ַﬠ‬ ֲ ‫ְל ָכ‬ ‫ת־בּיתוֹ‬ ֵ ‫ וַ יָּ ָשׁב ָדּוִ ד ְל ָב ֵר ֶא‬6:20a ‫ל־ה ָﬠם ִאישׁ ְל ֵביתוֹ׃‬ ָ ‫וַ יֵּ ֶל ָכּ‬ 6:12

It was made known to King David, “YHWH has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” David then went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the City of David with rejoicing; 6:13and when those who bore the ark of YHWH had gone six paces, he sacrificed an ox and a fatling. 6:14David danced before YHWH with all his might; David was girded with a linen ephod. 6:15And David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of YHWH with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet. 6:16As the ark of YHWH came into the city of David, Michal daughter of Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and prancing before YHWH; and she despised him in her heart. 9:17 They brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place, inside the tent that David had pitched for it; and David offered burnt offerings and communion offerings before YHWH. 6:18When David had finished offering the and Roberts, Hand of the Lord; P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel: A New Translation (ABC 9; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984), 178-82.

248

burnt offerings and the communion offerings, he blessed the people in the name of YHWH of hosts, 6:19and distributed food among all the people, the whole multitude of Israel, both men and women, to each a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins. Then all the people went back to their homes. 6:20a And David returned to bless his household. First and foremost, this activity serves as a ritual of inauguration, the permanent enactment of sacred space in Jerusalem. Patrick Miller and J. J. M. Roberts have compared this ritual activity to Neo-Assyrian accounts of cultic restoration. They look specifically at the annals of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, accounts that recall respectively the movement of Marduk’s cult image to Assur and its subsequent the return to Babylon. They conclude: Just as Marduk’s journey was accompanied by music and rejoicing, so was the ark’s. Moreover, just as the Assyrians offered sacrifices every double mile from the quay of Assur to the quay of Babylon, so David offered an ox and a fatling after every six steps.693 While such ancient Near Eastern parallels are helpful in a general sense, they do not address the question of temporary cultic status change. More germane to this study is P. Kyle McCarter’s comparison of 2 Sam 6 specifically with ancient Near Eastern rituals of investiture, introducing a national go to a new royal city. McCarter notes Neo-Assyrian examples from Assunrasipal II, Sargon II, Senacherib, Essarhadon, as well as a culturally and more geographically closer example of Azitawadda from Karatepe (KAI 26). In summation McCarter notes: in the non-Israelite examples of the introduction of a national god to a new royal city cited above and in the reports of the restoration of a god to his sanctuary cited by Miller and Roberts, special emphasis is placed on the role in the proceedings played by the king, whose pious service to the deity in question is thus stressed.694

693 694

Miller and Roberts, Hand of the Lord, 16-17. McCarter, II Samuel, 182.

249

In comparison to the theophanies noted above when YHWH announced or revealed his presence in a location to human participants, 2 Sam 6 focuses on the human activity moving the presence of the deity to a new cultic locale. While this passage focuses on the permanent movement of the ark to Jerusalem, it also highlights David’s activity as cultic officiate. David’s ritual activity in these verses displays several marks of temporary cultic status change. David takes on the role of ritual practitioner (notice the absence of the priests). He sacrifices (vv. 13, 18), distributes offerings (v. 19), and blesses the people in the name of YHWH (v. 18). All of these activities occur while wearing special clothes (a linen ephod, v. 14). While there is no firm marker initiating a change of cultic status, these have sometimes been absent in previous examples in this study. However, in v. 20a David returns home to bless his household. This activity is probably a marker of the return to the quotidian. The marital argument reported in vv. 20b-22 at very least implies that normal life has recommenced for David. Hence, David’s special clothing serves as a mark of beginning and his return to his house a mark of closure. Additionally, David’s activity in the second procession intensifies that of the first. David Wright has compared the role of music and dance in the first and second processions and found the changes to music, dance and personnel all reflect an attempt to attract closer inspection by and attention of the divine. Wright notes the similarity to Lev 16. The infelicitous ritual by Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10 necessitates the emergency rite of purification in chap 16, a situation that requires Aaron to come into even closer contact with the divine. While this approach to the deity is specifically for the purpose of purifying his cultic symbol (the ark) and the shrine that contains it, we have here, 250

essentially, the high priest making himself vulnerable before the deity (note the threat of death in 16:2). He even has to clothe himself in special clothing (v. 4), which reminds one of David’s special clothing in the second procession. It would seem that in both of these stories, cultic error, rather than allowing for hiding or shielding oneself from the deity (cf. Gen 3:8), requires laying oneself completely open to inspection and making oneself more vulnerable to his wrath, perhaps to make oneself more worthy of his blessing.695 The intensification of ritual activity provides a conceptual link between David’s actions in 2 Sam 6 and Aaron’s in Lev 16. Given the interpretation of Aaron’s actions as containing temporary cultic status change presented in chapter six, this connection strengthens the argument based on internal evidence that David has undergone a temporary rite of cultic transition in 2 Sam 6. David’s actions as a cultic practitioner attest that his status during the rite must be seen as analogous to a priest. Indeed, David is acting as high priest in his ministration before the ark. While the text never says so explicitly, David must be seen as “holy” during this ritual activity. Unlike other examples in this study the markers of this cultic status change are implicit. David has donned a linen ephod and is performing activity commensurate with a priest—activity unique to this ritual and unattested elsewhere in the narrative. At the end of such activity, it must be assumed that David dresses again in his normal garments; but the text mentions only the return to quotidian life in the palace.696

695

David P. Wright, “Music and Dance in 2 Samuel 6,” JBL 121 (2002): 216. It should be noted that Chronicler adds cultic practitioners to his telling of this story in 1 Chron 15. Note especially that David commands that the Levites alone should carry the ark in v.2 and that the text implies that the Levites perform the sacrifices in v. 26 (though cf. 16:2-3 which parallels 2 Sam 6:18-19). The implication is that the Chronicler understood and was dissettled by David’s activity.

696

251

SUMMARY While examination of biblical accounts of theophany, holy war and petitionary mourning rites provided no new examples of temporary rites of cultic transition, 2 Sam 6 adds an important example to this study. In terms of the study as a whole, the discussion of biblical theophanies and holy war highlights the importance of termination rites. To a large degree, the nature of the status in a particular rite is determined by whether the rite requires an exit from that status. This is the case for the Ugaritic king, the Nazirite, and Aaron on the Day of Atonement; it is the implication in the case of David in 2 Sam 6. Theophanies, by contrast, do not provide an indication of exit; they contain no closing rites. Specifically, in the case of Exod 19, the consecration serves as purification for the theophany and does not effect a movement into or out of a status. As a rite of purification, its closing would be in the resumption of normal activity after the theophany. The same can be said for holy war as well. In neither case is there a ritual exit, only a practical exit. Conversely, the discussion of petitionary mourning emphasizes again the importance of cultic access. In contrast to the examples of biblical theophanies and holy war, petitionary mourning has clearly marked opening and closing rites. Some of these rites even occur in clearly cultic contexts. What is of issue is whether these rites brackets a status that allows for access to the divine elsewhere prohibited. Petitionary mourning fits the pattern of temporary status change, just not cultic status change. Finally, 2 Sam 6 provided the only example of a temporary rite of cultic transition among biblical narrative texts. It is the only example of temporary cultic status change in non-priestly texts and the only biblical example from a narrative text. Perhaps most important, it is also the only royal example from the Bible.

252

In comparison with the Ugaritic examples from chapters two and three, such a paucity of evidence for royal rites of temporary cultic transition is conspicuous. It is quite clear from biblical hymnic materials that the kings were heavily involved in the cult.697 Yet references to this activity are wholly lacking in the biblical ritual texts. A more circumscribed study of this issue, in light of the findings presented here and on more firm methodological grounds, is a desideratum. With a single example, any explanation is speculative. However, one likely factor is the exilic and postexilic setting for the editorial activity that has led to the final form of the biblical text.

697

See Mark W. Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

253

Chapter Eight Conclusion

It has been the argument throughout this study that rites of temporary cultic transition allow ritual participants cultic access to the divine that would otherwise be unavailable. In Ugaritic material such temporary status change is associated with kings and the elite. In biblical traditions such rites are also associated with priests and general lay people. In all cases, these rites exemplify the concerns that their authors had when engaging the divine. Chapters two and three focused specifically on the sacralization and desacralization of the king in Ugaritic ritual texts. In these texts, the king is washed pure a day prior to his activity in the cult. This washing is not purification in the sense of a return to a normal, quotidian state. The king’s lustration enacts a new status that is later cancelled through an act of desacralization (indicated by the term ḥl “desacralize, profane”). The implication of this pair of rites is that the washing initiates a temporary state, a rite of sacralization that confers a temporary sacral status on the king. The calendrical texts discussed in chapter two provided a chronological schema for examining the temporary cultic status change of the king. These texts show that when mention is made of the king’s sacralization through washing, this activity is the only one that the texts mention on that day. In the one exception to this practice (CAT 1.119: 9-11) the text explicitly notes that the king does not perform cultic activity on that day. 254

Unfortunately, in texts from chapter two, the rituals do not specifically describe what rites the king performs after the enactment of cultic status change. The implication is that the king is somehow involved in the ritual activity subsequently conveyed (that he is some how involved in the lists of sacrifices), though specific details are often lacking. The texts do not tell us how a community offering (šlm) differs from a burnt offering (šrp), who dedicates such offerings or indeed how the sacrificial victims were butchered and prepared. Likewise, the role of the priesthood in these texts is largely unstated. The only exception to this comes from CAT 1.119: 22 which mentions mḥllm “desacralizers” who aid the king in his transition back to a quotidian state. On the whole, the texts in chapter two do not explain why it is that the king must be in a sacral cultic state for many of the occasions that this transition occurs; they only dutifully note these transitions. Here the texts of chapter three help to fill in some ritual details. The shorter ritual texts in chapter three attest to the king’s required presence before a deity in rites of visitation. This activity is not a benefit of the king’s office but a requirement of his rank. Like a vassal before his suzerain lord, the king appears before the divine with fear and trembling. A temporary cultic status change in this situation is much more understandable and indeed helps explain the status change in the calendrical texts of chapter two as well. Since most of the cultic activity of the king is in the presence of the divine (or at least, cult images) such a status change might be necessitated simply as a precaution. The rites of lustration could serve as a precaution for entering the divine presence, while the desacralization as a precaution against this divine presence coming in contact with the quotidian. Functionally, this still serves as a temporary rite of cultic transition. The texts do not articulate when in this process the king is in need of

255

desacralization, only that he does. While the texts in chapter three are largely silent on role of the priesthood, there is a curious reference in CAT 1.164:19-20: w al . tṣu [.] yṣu . w ḥlt “And they shall not go out, but you shall be desacralized.” The antecedent of this “they” is unclear, given the broken nature of the preceding lines. However, it is probable that “they” are the mḥllm “desacralizers” mentioned in CAT 1.119: 22. If this is the case, then the king must leave the presence of the divine after desacralization while at least some cultic functionaries are allowed (and possibly even required) to stay. Such a statement implies that the transition to the king is not simply a precaution but truly indicative of a temporary cultic status change. Even accounting for the broken nature of many of the extant ritual tablets, it is apparent that the Ugaritic ritual texts in chapters two and three reported the desacralization of the king more consistently than the sacralization. The initiation of a temporary status is often noted; but the conclusion of this status is always noted. That is to say, there is no example of the king entering a temporary status change where the conclusion of such a status is not duly marked in the text (though the opposite cannot be said). This shows that the cessation of this sacral status is of more concern to the writers of the Ugaritic ritual texts than the initiation of it. While this phenomenon was mentioned in chapter three, I did not clarify its theological implications at that point. In light of the concern for contagious holiness in the biblical texts addressed especially in chapters five and six, it seems that the most probable explanation is a concern for the possible destructive power of the gods. This is not the place to enter into a discussion of the relationship of the biblical priestly traditions with Ugarit, but it seems likely that a similar understanding existed in the Ugaritic ritual texts. Much like the changing of garments

256

required when leaving Ezekiel’s eschatological temple in Ezek 44:17-19 “lest they consecrate the people with their vestments” (v. 19), so too the king must be desacralized before returning to his quotidian duties. The examples of Nadab and Abihu in Lev 10 and Uzzah in 2 Sam 6 serve as vivid depictions of the potentially lethal nature of divine with the encounters. Along with this theological explanation, it must be stressed that there is a sociological dimension to these rites. The temporary cultic status change of the king must be seen in contrast to the permanent status change of the priests. As keepers and presumably authors of these ritual texts, the priests ensured that the king did not compete with their cultic status and prerogatives through these rites of temporary cultic status change. The theological explanation serves as an ideological support to the foundational sociological interest of the priests. The Ugaritic narrative texts in chapter four attest to the conception of temporary cultic status change in a setting outside traditions exclusively associated with priests and practitioners, outside the exclusive prerogatives of the king’s role in the cult. The one example found in this study was Danʾilu’s ritual activity in the beginning of the tale of ʾAqhatu (CAT 1.17 I-II). This ritual in narrative indicates that in addition to regular calendrical times, these rites of temporary cultic status change may be enacted in times of crisis. The revelation to Daniʾilu shows at least how a visitation to such a cultic locale could be conceptualized. Further, the narrative presents such revelation as unique in the text; these rites allow access to deities otherwise absent from the stories. Caution is needed, however, when comparing the two corpora of Ugaritic texts. Just because Daniʾilu receives revelation while in a temporary cultic state does not imply that such was the purpose in

257

the Ugaritic ritual texts.698 However, both corpora clearly show a similar conception of temporary cultic status change. The chapters from the Bible included in this study attest a similar understanding of rites of temporary cultic transition as that found in Ugaritic texts. Nazirites in Num 6 undergo temporary cultic status change that renders them holy, on analogy to the high priest, for a limited time. Again, there is both a theological dimension to this activity. On a theological level, the proscriptions placed upon the Nazirites testify to the inherent danger that such a status entails. On a sociological level, priestly legislation allowing lay persons to become “holy” comparable to priests would entail a sharing of their status and prestige with the community at large. To the extent that Nazirites believed they had special access to the deity, this was channeled and experienced through priestly analogy. But this implicitly reinforces the status of the priests. If this sociological explanation has validity, then it allows one to compare the diverse temporary status rites for the Ugaritc king and the Nazirite. Both have to do with priestly status sharing but also circumscribe that status. Activities that might cause cultic status change for the Nazirite must be avoided. It is interesting to note the silence of Ugaritic texts in comparison to this biblical material. No proscriptions are explicitly placed upon the Ugaritic king during his sacral state. This oversight however must be viewed within the larger context of Ugaritic religious texts: nowhere do we find such proscriptions. Whatever taboos were in operation at Ugarit the text remains silent. Again, like the example of Daniʾilu from the Ugaritic narrative texts, the Nazirite legislation shows temporary rites as existing outside both the calendrical cycle and royal/priestly domains. Temporary cultic status change is a larger ritual phenomenon 698

Such may in fact be the aim of the prayer to Baʿlu in CAT 1.119:25-36; but this text, like the rituals in narrative in chapter four, is a rite of crisis.

258

in both biblical and Ugaritic texts. Further, the explicit inclusion of women in the rite of the Nazirite shows that these rites are not the privilege of men. As discussed in chapter six, the status change of the high priest on the Day of Atonement provides a unique datum to this study. In other chapters the lay status of ritual participants can be assumed. In Lev 16 these rites are performed by the priesthood as well. On the Day of Atonement the high priest (Aaron) undergoes a rite of temporary cultic status change which allows him to enter the adytum. As with the examples in Ugaritic ritual texts and of the Nazirite in Num 6, the text of the ritual is more concerned to note markers of return than markers beginning this ritual status change. Two additional examples of priests undergoing temporary culitic status change were also discussed in the chapter: Ezekiel’s revised dictates for sacrifice in Ezek 44:17-19 and the prescriptions for cultic maintenance in Lev 6:1-6 (ET 6:8-13). In both instances members of the priesthood also appear to undergo temporary cultic status change. If it were assumed that these two texts were late, then a developmental model could be posited. With the elevation of the priesthood’s social status in the postexilic period, the differentiation of rank among the priests becomes more pertinent. Rites of temporary cultic transition would then function socially in the same manner we have posited for the Nazirite in Num 6. However, the evidence conveyed in chapter six of this study points in the other direction. Often Lev 16 retains older traditions, especially in regard to proscriptions placed upon the priests in regard to the holiness of their office. The material in Ezek 44 proves problematic as well. Hence, an evolutionary model cannot be assumed here. Rather, the indication of temporary cultic status change even among the priesthood again demonstrates the pervasiveness of such ritual activity. On a theological level, all of these examples stress again the

259

importance of containing the power of the divine. Like the Ugaritic kings and Daniʾilu, the priests in the biblical texts must take special care before and after an encounter with the divine. Lastly, the biblical narrative texts addressed in chapter seven highlighted the problems in defining rites of temporary cultic status change. Biblical accounts of theophanies, holy war and petitionary mourning were all analyzed. None fit the basic phenomenology of these rites established by the study of the primary Ugaritic and biblical examples. Theophanies often begin with separation from the quotidian but do not show a clear and intentional ritual of return to the quotidian. Biblical accounts of petitionary mourning attests clear markers of entrance and exit of a ritual state but lack indicators of a cultic dimension. Daniʾilu’s activity in the tale of ʾAqhatu clearly appears to be petitionary mourning; but in contrast to biblical examples, the Ugaritic text indicates the cultic nature of this temporary status through use of distinct verbs and inclusion of unique interaction with the divine. Such is not the case in the biblical accounts. In comparison to theophanies and mourning rites, the biblical concept of the holy war lacks concrete evidence on both counts. Both clear cultic dimension and markers into and out of a temporary state are loosely and obliquely defined in these texts. The sole example of a temporary rite of cultic transition found in biblical narrative texts is David’s activity in 2 Sam 6. This text has adequate markers delineating temporary status change as well as strong indicators of a cultic dimension: he dons special clothing; the clothing indicates a priestly hence holy status; he exit this state by going home and blessing his household. 2 Sam 6 is the only royal example of temporary cultic status change. Interestingly, David’s example also touches on categories rejected in this chapter.

260

David’s action is a petition for divine favor before the symbol of the deity’s presence, the ark, which also has strong links to holy war traditions. As the only biblical example of a king undergoing temporary cultic status change, 2 Sam 6 is unique. However, it correlates well with the data found in regard to Ugaritic kings. The possibility that David’s kingship would have likewise involved a limited involvement in the cult is possible but goes beyond the bounds of this study.699 At the outset, this study listed Catherine Bell’s categories of ritual activity. It is clear from the intervening discussion that these categories do not provide adequate categories that encopass the distinct ritual activity studied here. Neither her categories of purification nor life-cycle rites fully explain the king’s performances in Ugaritic ritual text, the Nazirite vow in Num 6, or the special rites of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. This study indicates that the categories must be expanded to include a new type, rites of temporary cultic transition, rituals designed for limited engagement with the divine.

699

Cf. 2 Sam 8:18 which mentions the instillation of David’s sons as priests.

261

Bibliography

Aartum, Kjell. “Studien zum Gesetz über den grossen Versöhnungstag Lv 16 mit Varianten: Ein ritualgeschichtlicher Beitrag.” ST 34, no. 34 (1980): 73-109. Aartun, Kjell. “Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon i.” UF 16 (1984): 1-52. _____. “Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon ii.” UF 17 (1985): 1-47. Aboud, Jehad. Die Rolle des Königs und seiner Familie nach den Texten von Ugarit. Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 27. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994. Abusch, Tzvi. “The Socio-Religious Framework of the Babylonian Witchcraft Ceremony Maqlû: Some Observations on the Introductory Section of the Text, Part I.” Pages 134 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Edited by Tzvi Abusch. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Ackerman, Susan. Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1998. Aistleitner, Joseph. Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Sächsichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologische-historische Klasse 106/3. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963. Aitken, Kenneth T. The Aqhat Narrative: A study in the Narrative Structure and Composition of an Ugaritic Tale. JSS Mon 13. Manchester: University of Manchester, 1990. _____. “Oral Formulaic Composition and Theme in the Aqhat Narrative.” UF 21 (1989): 1-16. Albright, William F. “New Canaanite Historical and Mythological Data.” BASOR 63 (1936): 23-32. _____. “Recent Progress in North-Canaanite Research.” BASOR 70 (1938): 18-24. _____. “The Traditional Home of the Syrian Daniel.” BASOR 94 (1953): 26-27. Alexander, Patrick H., John F. Kutsko, James D. Ernest, Shirley Decker-Lucke, and David L. Petersen, eds. The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999. 262

Alexander, Robert L. The Sculpture and Sculptors of Yazılıkaya. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1986. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Anderson, Gary A. A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991. Astour, Michael C. Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Baden, Joel S. J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. FAT 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Barr, James. “Theophany and Anthropomorpism in the Old Testament.” Pages 31-38 in Congress Volume, Oxford 1959. JSOTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Barton, George A. “Danel, a Pre-Israelite Hero of Galilee.” JBL 60 (1941): 213-25. Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. and enlarged. ed. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1996. Baumgarten, Albert. “Ḥaṭṭāʾt Sacrifices.” RB 103 (1996): 337-42. Beal, Richard. “The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Šunnaššura Treaty.” Or n.s. 55 (1986): 425-45. Beaulieu, Paul -Alain. “The Impact of Month-Lengths on the Neo-Babylonian Cultic Calendar.” ZAW 83 (1993): 66-87. Beckman, Gary M. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd ed. SBLWAW 7. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999. Bell, Catherine M. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. _____. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Belnap, Dan. Fillets of Fatling and Goblets of Gold: The Use of Meal Events in the Ritual Imagery in the Ugaritic Mythological and Epic Texts. Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 4. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2008. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series 9. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Berlinerblau, Jacques. The Vow and the "Popular Religious Groups" of Ancient Israel: A Philological Sociological Inquiry. JSOTSup 210. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Bernhard, K.-H. “Anmerkungen zur Interpretation des KRT-Textes von Ras SchamraUgarit.” WZG 5 (1955-56): 102-21. 263

Bibb, Bryan D. Ritual Words and Narrative World in the Book of Leviticus. LHBSup 480. London: T & T Clark, 2009. Bidmead, Julye. The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. Gorgias Dissertations 2. Near East Studies 2. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2002. Binns, L. Elliot. The Book of Numbers. London: Methuen & co., 1927. Bittel, Kurt, Rudolf Naumann, and Heinz Otto. Yazilikaya: Architektur, Felsbilder, Inschriften und Kleinfunde. Neudruck der Ausg. 1941. ed. Osnabrück: Zeller, 1967. Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd ed. SANTAG 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2000. Bordreuil, Pierre. “Les récentes découvertes épigraphiques à Ras Shamra et à Ras Ibn Hani.” Pages 43-48 in Ugarit in Retrospect: 50 Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Edited by Gordon D. Younge. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Bordreuil, Pierre and André Caquot. “Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1977 à Ibn Hani.” Syria 56 (1979): 295-315. Bordreuil, Pierre, Jacques Lagarce, Élisabeth Lagarce, Adnan Bounni, and Nassib Saliby. “Les découvertes archéologiques et épigraphiques de Ras Ibn Hani (Syrie) en 1983.” CRAIBL (1984): 398-438. Bordreuil, Pierre and Dennis Pardee. La trouvaille épigraphique de l'Ougarit. Publications de la Mission archéologique française de Ras Shamra-Ougarit 5. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1989. _____. A Manual of Ugaritic. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Bounni, Adnan. “The Problem of the Identification of the City on Ras Ibn Hani, Syria.” Pages 81-83 in The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer. Edited by Lawrence E. Stager, Joseph E. Greene, and Michael D. Coogan. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Bounni, Adnan, Élisabeth Lagarce, and Jacques Lagarce. Ras Ibn Hani, I: Le palais nord du bronze récent, fouilles 1979-1995, synthèse préliminaire. Beyrouth: Institut Français d’archéologie du Proche-Orient, 1998. Brack-Bernsen, Lis. Zur Entstehung der babylonischen Mondtheorie: Beobachtung und theoretische Berechnung von Mondphasen. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1997. Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Book of Judges. Old Testament Readings. London: Routledge, 2002. _____. “Interpretation and Prayer: Notes on the Composition of 1 Kings 8.15-53.” Pages 1735 in Minhah le-Nahum. Edited by Marc Zvi Brettler and Michael A. Fishbane. JSOTSup 154. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. 264

Brisch, Nicole Maria, ed. Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. OIS 4. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2008. Brody, Aaron Jed. “Each Man Cried Out to His God”: The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. HSM 58. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Bryce, Trevor. Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age. London: Routledge, 2003. _____. Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Budd, Philip J. Numbers. WBC 5. Waco: Word Books, 1984. Butler, S. A. L. Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals. AOAT 258. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998. Callot, O. “La région nord du Palais Royal d'Ougarit.” CRAI (1986): 735-755. Campbell, Antony F. and Mark A. O'Brien. Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History: Origins, Upgrades, Present text. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Caquot, André. “Hébreu et Araméen.” ACF 76 (1976): 451-456. _____. “Hébreu et Araméen.” ACF 78 (1978): 559-80. _____. “Nouveaux textes ougaritiques de Ras Ibn-Hani.” ACF 79 (1979): 481-490. Caquot, André and Maurice Sznycer. Ugaritic Relgion. Iconography of Religions 15/8. Leiden: Brill, 1980. Caquot, André, Maurice Sznycer, and Andrée Herdner. Textes ougaritiques: introduction, traduction, commentaire. LAPO 7. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1974. Cartledge, Tony W. Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. JSOTSup 147. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1992. _____. “Were Nazirite Vows Unconditional?” CBQ 51 (1989): 409-22. Cassuto, Umberto. “La leggenda fenicia di Daniel e Aqhat.” RRANL (Scienze Morali) VI XIV (1939): 294-368. _____. “The Seven Wives of King Keret.” BASOR 119 (1950): 18-21. Cavert, Y. “La maîtrise de l'eau à Ougarit.” CRAI (1989): 308-326. Cazelles, H. “Impur et sacré à Ugarit.” Pages 37-47 in Al-Bahit. Festschrift Joseph Henninger zum 70. Geburtstag am 12. Mai 1976. Studia Instituti Anthropos 28. St. Augustine: Anthropos-Institut, 1976. 265

Chapman, Cynthia R. The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter. HSS 62. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Chepey, Stuart Douglas. Nazirites in Late Second Temple Judaism: A Survey of Ancient Jewish Writings, the New Testament, Archaeological Evidence, and Other Writings from Late Antiquity. AJEC 60. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cohen, Andrew C. Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship: Toward a New Understanding of Iraq's Royal Cemetery of Ur. SAMD 7. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Cohen, Mark E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993. Cooper, Jerrold S. “Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia.” Pages 81-96 in Official Cult and Popular Religion: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East— The City and its Life—Held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20-22, 1992. Edited by Eiko Matushima. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993. Cornelius, Izak. The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Baʿal: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods (C 1500-1000 BCE). OBO 140. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994. _____. The Many Faces of the Goddess: the Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah, c. 1500-1000 BCE. OBO 204. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Cunchillos, Jesús-Luis. “The Correspondence of Ugarit: The Ugaritic Letters.” Pages 359-374 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Cunchillos, Jesús-Luis, Juan-Pablo Vita, and José-Ángel Zamora. A Concordance of Ugaritic Words. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2003. Curtis, Adrian. “The Material Sources.” Pages 5-27 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Dahood, Mitchell. “The Linguistic Classification of Eblaite.” Pages 177-89 in La lingua di Ebla. Atti del convegno internazionale (Napoli, 21-23 aprile 1980). Edited by Luigi Cagni. Istituto universitario orientale 14. Napoli: Seminario di studi asiatici, 1981. _____. “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs.” Pages 71-382 in Ras Shamra Parallels. I. Edited by Loren R. Fisher, F. Brent Knutson, and Donn F. Morgan. AnOr 49. Rome: Pontificium institutum biblicum, 1972. Dalman, Gustaf Hermann. Arbeit und sitte in Palästina. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1928. 266

Day, Peggy L. “Why Is Anat a Warrior and Hunter?” Pages 141-146, 329-332 in The Bible and the Politics of Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Norman K. Gottwald on his Sixty-fifth Birthday Edited by David Jobling, Peggy L. Day, and Gerald T. Sheppard. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1991. Dayagi-Mendeles, Mikhal. Drink and Be Merry: Wine and Beer in Ancient Times. Jerusalem: The Israel Museum, 1999. Diamond, Eliezer. “An Israelite Self-offering in the Priestly Code: A New Perspective on the Nazirite.” JQR 88 (1997): 1-18. Dietrich, Manfried and Oswald Loretz. “Bemerkungen zum Aqhat-Text: Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XIV).” UF 10 (1978): 65-71. _____. “Das Porträt einer Königin in KTU 1.14 I 12-15. Zur ugaritischen Lexikographie (XVIII).” UF 12 (1980): 199-204. _____. "Jahwe und seine Aschera": Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: das biblische Bilderverbot. UBL 9. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992. _____. Studien zu den ugaritischen Texten. I: Mythos und Ritual in KTU 1.12, 1.24, 1.96, 1.100 und 1.114. AOAT 269/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. _____. “Ugaritische Rituale und Beschwörungen.” Pages 299-357 in Ritual und Beschwörungen II. Edited by Christel Butterweck, Wilhelmus C. Delsman, Manfried Dietrich, Wilfried Gutekunst, Ernst Kausen, Oswald Loretz, Walter W. Müller, and Heike Sternberg-el-Hotabi. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments II Religiöse Texte 4. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1988. Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. “Beiträge zur ugaritischen Textgeschichte (ii).” UF 7 (1975): 536-539. _____. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Ohter Places. second ed. ALASP 8. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995. Dietrich, Manfried and Walter Mayer. “Festritual für Palastgöttin Pidray.” UF 28 (1996): 16576. _____. “The Hurrian and Hittite Texts.” Pages 58-75 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Dijkstra, Meindert. “The Legent of Danel and the Rephaim.” UF 20 (1988): 35-52. _____. “The Ritual KTU 1.46 (= RS 1.9) and its Duplicates.” UF 16 (1984): 69-76. _____. “Some Reflections on the Legend of Aqht.” UF 11 (1979): 199-210.

267

Dijkstra, Meindert and Johannes C. De Moor. “Problematic Passages in the Legend of Aqhâtu.” UF 7 (1975): 171-215. Dillmann, August. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. KeH 13. Leipzig,: S. Hirzel, 1886. Douglas, Mary. “Deciphering a Meal.” Pages 249-75 in Implicit Meanings. London: Routledge, 1972. _____. “The Go-Away Goat.” Pages 121-41 in The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception. Edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler. VTSup. 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003. _____. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger, 1966. Dressler, H. H. P. “Ugaritic uzr and Joel 1:13.” UF 7 (1975): 221-25. Driver, Godfrey R. Canaanite Myths and Legends. OTS 3. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956. _____. “Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch.” JSS 1 (1956): 97-105. Driver, Samuel R. An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. 9th ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913. Eliade, Mircea. The Myth of the Eternal Return. Bollingen series 46. New York: Pantheon Books, 1954. Elliger, Karl. Leviticus. HAT 4. Tübingen: Mohr, 1966. Engnell, Ivan. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells, 1943. Fensham, Frank Charles. “Remarks on Keret 58-72.” JNSL 4 (1975): 11-22. Fishbane, Michael A. “Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Numbers 5:11-31.” HUCA 45 (1974): 25-45. _____. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Fisher, Loren R. “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit.” HTR 63 (1970): 485-501. Fleming, Daniel E. The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion. HSS 42. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. _____. Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner's Archive. Mesopotamian Civilizations 11. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Ford, J. N. “The ‘Living Rephaim’ of Ugarit: Quick or Defunct?” UF 24 (1992): 73-101. 268

Freilich, Donna. “Is There an Ugaritic Deity Bbt?” JSS 31 (1986): 119-130. Frick, Frank S. “The Rechabites Reconsidered.” JBL 90 (1971): 279-287. Friedman, Richard E. The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2003. Frost, Honor. “Anchors Sacred and Profane: Ugarit-Ras Shamra, 1986; the Stone Anchors Revised and Compared.” Pages 355-410 in Arts et industries de la pierre. Edited by Marguerite Yon. Publications de la Mission archéologique française de Ras ShamraOugarit VI. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1991. Frymer-Kensky. “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible.” Semeia 45 (1989): 89102. Fulco, William J. The Canaanite God Rešep. American Oriental Series 8. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1976. Galllagher, W. R. “On the Identity of Hêlēl Ben Šaḥar of Is. 14: 12-15.” UF 26 (1994): 131-46. Gane, Roy. Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. _____. “The Function of the Nazirite's Concluding Purification Offering.” Pages 9-17 in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible. Edited by Baruch Schwartz, David P. Wright, Jeffrey Stackert, and Naphtali S. Meshel. LHB 474. London: T & T Clark, 2008. _____. Ritual Dynamic Structure. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004. Gaster, Theodor H. “Review: The Canaanite Epic of Keret.” JQR 37 (1947): 285-293. Gaster, Theodor Herzl. Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient Near East. 2nd ed. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1961. Gennep, Arnold van. The Rites of Passage. Translated by Monika Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. George, A. R. The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Gianto, Augustinus. “Review of La Religión Cananea: Según la Liturgia de Ugarit: Estudio Textual.” Or 64 (1995): 144-46. Gibson, John C. L. Canaanite Myths and Legends. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978. _____. “Myth, Legend and Folklore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat Texts.” SVT 28 (1974): 60-8.

269

Gilders, William K. Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Ginsberg, Harold L. The Legend of King Keret: A Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age. BASORSup 2-3. New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946. _____. “The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat, I.” BASOR 97 (1945): 3-10. _____. “The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath and Aqhat, II.” BASOR 98 (1945): 15-23. Gitin, Seymour. “The Four-Horned Altar and Sacred Space: An Archaeological Perspective.” Pages 95-124 in Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Edited by Barry M. Gittlen. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Good, Robert M. “Supplementary Remarks on the Ugaritic Funerary Text RS 34.126.” BASOR 239 (1980): 41-42. Goody, Jack. “Against ‘Ritual’: Loosely Structured Thoughts on a Loosely Defined Topic.” Pages 25-52 in Secular Ritual. Edited by Sally F. Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff. Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977. Gordon, Cyrus Herzl. Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts. Edited by biblico Pontificio Istituto. Scripta 98. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1949. Görg, M. “Beobachtungen zum sogenannten Azazel-Ritual.” BN 33 (1986): 10-6. _____. “Ein neue Deutung für kăppōret.” ZAW 89 (1977): 115-18. _____. “Nachtrag zu kăppōret.” BN 5 (1978): 12. Gorman, Frank H. “Pagans and Priests: Critical Reflections on Method.” Pages 96-110 in Perspectives on Purity and Purification in the Bible. Edited by Baruch Schwartz, David P. Wright, Jeffrey Stackert, and Naphtali S. Meshel. LHB 474. London: T & T Clark, 2008. _____. “Priestly Rituals of Founding: Time, Space and Status.” Pages 47-63 in History and Interpretation: Essays in Honour of John H. Hayes. Edited by Matt Patrick Graham, William P. Brown, and Jeffrey K. Kuan. JSOTSup 173. Shefflied: JSOT Press, 1993. Grabbe, Lester L. “The Scapegoat: A Study in Early Jewish Interpretation.” JSJ 18 (1987): 15267. Gray, George Buchanan. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC 4. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903. _____. “The Nazirite.” JTS 1 (1899-1900): 201-11.

270

Gray, John. The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra: A Social Myth of Ancient Canaan. 2d ed. Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 5. Leiden,: Brill, 1964. _____. The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament. 2d rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1965. Greenberg, Moshe. “The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew Bible, Reviewed in Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean Desert.” JAOS 76 (1956): 157-67. Greenfield, Jonas C. “Some Glosses on the Keret Epic.” EI 9 (1969): 60-65. Greenstein, Edward L. “Kirta.” Pages 9-48 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Edited by Simon B. Parker. SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Grimes, Ronald L. Research in Ritual Studies. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1985. _____. Ritual Criticism: Case Studies in its Practice, Essays on its Theory. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1990. Gurney, O. R. Some Aspects of Hittite Religion. The Schweich Lectures 1976. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Hallo, William W. “The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal.” Pages 1-19 in The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective. Edited by K. Lawson Younger, William W. Hallo, and Bernard Frank Batto. Scripture in Context 4. Lewiston, N.Y.: E. Mellen Press, 1991. _____. “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case Study in the Contrastive Approach.” HUCA 48 (1977): 1-18. Hamilton, Mark W. The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hamilton, Mary. Incubation, or, The Cure of Disease in Pagan Temples and Christian Churches. St. Andrews: W.C. Henderson, 1906. Hanson, Paul D. “Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhemeristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 6-11.” JBL 96 (1977): 195-233. Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Waco: Word Books, 1992. Heider, George C. The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment. JSOTSup 43. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. 271

Heinz, Marlies and Marian H. Feldman, eds. Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Heltzer, Michael. The Rural Community in Ancient Ugarit. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1976. Heltzer, Michael L. “Vineyards and Wine in Ugarit (Property and Distribution).” UF 22 (1990): 119-136. Herdner, Andrée. “Nouveaux textes alphabétiques de Ras Shamra XXIVe campagne, 1961.” Ugaritica VII (1978): 1-74. _____. “Un nouvel exemplaire du rituel RS 1929, no. 3.” Syria 33 (1956): 104-12. Herman, Wolfram. “ʿṯtr-ḫr.” Welt des Orient 7 (1973-74): 135-136. Hiebert, Theodore. “Theophany in the OT.” ABD 6: 505-11. Hillers, Delbert R. “The Bow of Aqhat: The Meaning of a Mythological Theme.” Pages 71-80 in Orient und Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by Harry A. Hoffner. AOAT 22. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973. _____. “Ritual Procession of the Ark in Ps 132.” CBQ 30 (1968): 48-55. Hoffmann, David. Das Buch Leviticus I. Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905. Holzinger, H. Einleitung in den Hexateuch. Freiburg: Mohr, 1893. Homan, Michael M. “Beer, Barley and ‫ ֵשׁכָר‬in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 25-38 in Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman. Edited by Richard E. Friedman and William H. Propp. BJS 9. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Houwink ten Cate, Philo Hendrik Jan. “Hittite Royal Prayers.” Numen 16 (1969): 81-98. Hubert, Henri and Marcel Mauss. Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function. Translated by W. D. Hall. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964. Husser, Jean-Marie. “The Birth of a Hero: Form and Meaning of KTU 1.17 i-ii.” Pages 85-98 in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson. Edited by Nicholas Wyatt, Wilfred G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. Irvin, Dorothy. Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. 1. Aufl. ed. AOAT 32. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978. Jackson, Jared J. and H. H. P. Dressler. “El and the Cup of Blessing.” JAOS 95 (1975): 99-101.

272

Janowski, Bernd. “Azazel.” Pages 128-31 in DDD. _____. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zur Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift und zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Janowski, Bernd and Gernot Wilhelm. “Der Bock, der die Sünden hinausträgt. Zur Religionsgeschichte des Azazel-Ritus Lev 16, 10.21f.” Pages 109-69 Edited by Bernd Janowski, Klaus Koch, and Gernot Wilhelm. OBO 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Jastrow, Morris. “The ‘Nazir’ Legislation.” JBL 33 (1914): 266-285. _____. “The So-called ‘Leprosy’ Laws: An Analysis of Leviticus, Chapters 13 and 14.” JQR 4 (1914): 357-418. Jenson, Philip Peter. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World. JSOTSup 106. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992. Jeremias, Jörg. Book of Amos: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998. _____. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965. Jirku, Anton. Kanaanäische Mythen und Epen aus Ras Schamra-Ugarit. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1962. Jong, Theo De and Wilfred Hugo van Soldt. “Redating an Early Solar Eclipse Record (KTU 1.78). Implications for the Ugaritic Calendar and for the Secular Accelerations of the Earth and Moon.” JEOL 30 (1987-88): 65-77. Kellermann, Diether. Die Priesterschrift von Numeri 1, 1 bis 10, 10. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970. Kertzer, David I. Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Keukens, Karlheinz H. “Die rekabitischen Haussklaven in Jeremia 35.” BZ 27 (1983): 228-35. Kilmer, Anne D. “A Note on an Overlooked Word-play in the Akkadian Gilgamesh.” Pages 128-32 in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by G. van Driel. Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicataLeiden: Brill, 1982. Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and Function. JSOTSup 56. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Klawans, Jonathan. Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. 273

Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Translated by Jackie Feldman and Peretz Rodman. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Knoppers, Gary N. “Prayer and Propaganda: Solomon’s Dedication of the Temple and the Deuteronomist’s Program.” CBQ 57 (1995): 229-54. _____. “Treaty, Tribute List, or Diplomatic Letter: KTU 3.1 Reexamined.” BASOR 289 (Feb, 1993): 81-94. Koch, Klaus. “Some Considerations on the Translation of kappōret in the Septuagint.” Pages 65-76 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Kuenen, Abraham. An Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch. Translated by Philip Henry Wickstead. London: Macmillan, 1886. Kuntz, John K. The Self-Revelation of God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. Læssøe, Jørgen. Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series Bît Rimki. København: Munksgaard, 1955. Lambert, Wilfred G. “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity.” JCS 11 (1957): 1-14, 112. Leach, Edmund Ronald. Culture & Communication. Themes in the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Leichty, Erle. “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria.” Pages 949-958 in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York: Scribner, 1995. Levenson, Jon D. “1 Kings 8.” Pages 143-63 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Bibilical Faith. Edited by Baruch Halpern. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Levine, Baruch A. “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre.” Pages 467-75 in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983. _____. Leviticus: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary 3. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. _____. Numbers: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4. New York: Doubleday, 1993-2000. _____. “Review of Jean-Michel de Tarragon, Le culte à Ugarit.” RB 88 (1981): 245-50. _____. “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals.” JCS 17 (1963): 105-111.

274

Levine, Baruch A. and Jean-Michel de Tarragon. “The King Proclaims the Day: Ugaritic Rites for the Vintage (KTU 1.41//1.87).” RB 100 (1993): 76-115. Lewis, Theodore J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. HSM 39. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989. _____. “Family, Household, and Local Religion at Late Bronze Age Ugarit.” Pages 60-88 in Household and Family Religion in Antiquity. Edited by John Bodel and Saul M. Olyan. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Lindblom, Johannes. “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion.” HUCA 32 (1961): 91106. Lipka, Hilary B. Sexual Transgression in the Hebrew Bible. Hebrew Bible Monographs 7. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Loretz, Oswald. Leberschau, Sündenbock, Asasel in Ugarit und Israel. UBL 3. Altenberge: CISVerlag, 1985. Malul, Meir. “‫( אִישׁ ִעתִּי‬Leviticus 16:21): A Marginal Person.” JBL 128 (2009): 437-42. Margalit, Baruch. “K-R-T Studies.” UF 27 (1995): 215-315. _____. “The Legend of Keret.” Pages 203-33 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. _____. The Ugaritic Poem of AQHT: Text, Translation, Commentary. BZAW 182. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Masson, Emilia. Le panthéon de Yazilikaya: nouvelles lectures. Recherche sur les grandes civilisations. Synthèse. Paris: Editions ADPF, 1981. Mayer, Walter. “The Hurrian Cult of Ugarit.” Pages 205-11 in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson. Edited by N. Wyatt, Wilfred G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: A New Translation. ABC 8. Garden City: Doubleday, 1980. _____. II Samuel: A New Translation. ABC 9. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984. McMahon, Gregory. “Instructions to Priests and Temple Officials.” Pages 1:217-221 in The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Merlo, Paulo and Paolo Xella. “The Ugaritic Cultic Texts.” Pages 287-304 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Merrill, A. L. “The House of Keret: A Study of the Keret Legend.” SEÅ 33 (1968): 5-17. 275

Meyers, Carol L. “Of Drums and Damsels: Women's Performance in Ancient Israel.” BA 54 (1991): 16-27. _____. “Realms of Sanctity: The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Incense Altar in the Tabernacle Texts of Exodus.” Pages 33-46 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Michalowski, Piotr. “The Drinking Gods: Alcohol in Mesopotamian Ritual and Mythology.” Pages 27-44 in Drinking in Ancient Societies; History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East: Papers of a Symposiwn held in Rome, May 17-19, 1990. Edited by Lucio Milano. History of the Ancient Near East: Studies 6. Padua: Sargon, 1994. Milgrom, Jacob. “The Alleged Wave-offering in Israel and the Ancient Near East.” IEJ 22 (1972): 33-38. _____. Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance. SJLA 18. Leiden: Brill, 1976. _____. Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001. _____. Numbers: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. The JPS Torah Commentary 4. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. _____. Numbers: the traditional Hebrew text with the new JPS translation. The JPS Torah commentary 4. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. _____. “Sin-offering or Purification-offering?” VT 21 (1971): 237-39. _____. “Studies in the Temple Scroll.” JBL 97 (1978): 501-523. Milik, J. T. Qumrân grotte 4, part II: Tefillin Mezuzot et Targums (4Q128-4Q157). DJD 6. Oxford: Claredon, 1977. _____. Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judea. Translated by J. Strugnell. SBT 26. Naperville: Allenson, 1959. Miller, Patrick D. and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the "Ark Narrative" of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977. Monte, Giuseppe del. Il trattato fra Muršili II di Hattusa e Niqmepa' di Ugarit. Oriens Aniqui Collecto 18. Rome: Istituto per l'Oriente C.A. Nallino, 1986. _____. “Note sui tratti fra Ḫattuša e Kizuwatna.” OA 20 (1981): 203-21.

276

Moore, Sally F. and Barbara G. Myerhoff. “Secular Ritual: Forms and Meanings.” Pages 3-24 in Secular Ritual. Edited by Sally F. Moore and Barbara G. Myerhoff. Assen/Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977. Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Moor, Johannes C. de. An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. Nisaba 16. Leiden ; New York: Brill, 1987. _____. “Frustula Ugaritica.” JNES 24 (1965): 355-64. _____. “Murices in Ugaritic Mythology.” Or 37 (1968): 212-15. _____. New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. Kampen: Kok, 1972. _____. The Rise of Yahwism: the Roots of Israelite Monotheism. 2nd ed. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 91. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1997. _____. “The Seasonal Pattern in the Legend of Aqhatu.” SEL 5 (1988): 61-78. _____. “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra.” UF 1 (1969): 167-188. _____. “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra II.” UF 2 (1970): 303-327. Moor, Johannes C. de and Marjo C. A. Korpel. “Fundamentals of Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry.” Pages 1-61 in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry. Edited by Johannes Cornelis De Moor and Willem van der Meer. JSOTSup 74. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Moor, Johannes C. de and Klaas Spronk. A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit. SSS 6. Leiden: Brill, 1987. _____. “Problematic Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I).” UF 14 (1982): 153-71. Mowinckel, Sigmund. “Drive and/or Ride in the O.T.” VT 12 (1962): 278–99. _____. “Fra Israels omvaerden.” NTT XLV (1944): 154-63. _____. “Immanuelsprofetien Jes. 7. Streiflys fra Ugarit I.” NTT XLLII (1941): 129-58. _____. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Translated by D. R. Ap-Thomas. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Nickelsburg, G. W. E. “Apocalyptic Myth in 1 Enoch 6-11.” JBL 96 (1977): 383-405. Niditch, Susan. My Brother Esau is a Hairy Man: Hair and Identity in Ancient Israel. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. 277

_____. “Samson as Cultural Hero, Trickster, and Bandit: The Empowerment of the Weak.” CBQ 52 (1990): 608-24. Noordtzij, A. The Book of Leviticus. Translated by R. Togtman. BSC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub, 1982. Noth, Martin. Leviticus: A Commentary. Translated by J. E. Anderson. Rev ed. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. _____. Numbers: A Commentary. Translated by James D. Martin. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968. Obermann, Julian. How Daniel was Blessed with a Son: An Incubation Scene in Ugaritic. Supplement to the Journal of the American Oriental Society 6. Baltimore: American Oriental Society, 1946. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del. Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1999. _____. La Religión Cananea: Según la Liturgia de Ugarit: Estudio Textual. AuOr 3. Sabadell, Barcelona: Editorial AUSA, 1992. _____. “Liturgia funeraria de los reyes de Ugarit (KTU 1.106).” SEL 3 (1986): 55-71. _____. “Los Nobres ‘Divinos’ de los Reyes de Ugarit.” Aula Orientalis 5 (1987): 39-69. _____. Mitos y leyendas de Canaan: según la tradición de Ugarit. Fuentes de la ciencia bíblica 1. Madrid: Ediciones Cristianidad, 1981. _____. “The Ugaritic Ritual Texts: A New Edition and Commentary. A Critical Assessment.” UF 36 (2004): 539-648. Olmo Lete, Gregorio del and Joaquín Sanmartín. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Translated by Wilfred G. E. Watson. 2nd rev. ed. HO 1.63. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Olyan, Saul M. Biblical Mourning: Ritual and Social Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. _____. “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment.” JBL 115 (1996): 201-18. _____. Rites and Rank: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2000. _____. “What Do Shaving Rites Accomplish and What Do They Signal in Biblical Ritual Contexts.” JBL 117 (1998): 611-622.

278

Oppenheim, A. Leo. The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book. TAPS 46, 3. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956. Pardee, Dennis. “The ʾAqhatu Legend.” Pages 1:343-56 in The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____. “The Baʿlu Myth.” Pages 1:241-74 in The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____. “A Brief Reply to G. del Olmo Lete's Reply.” Aula Orientalis 16 (1998): 255-260. _____. “G. del Olmo Lete's Views on Ugaritic Epigraphy and Religion.” UF 37 (2005): 767-815. _____. “The Kirta Epic.” Pages 1:333-43 in The Context of Scripture. Edited by William W. Hallo. Leiden: Brill, 1997. _____. “Kosharoth ‫כשרות‬.” Pages 491-2 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. Horst. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1999. _____. “L'ougaritique et le hourite dans les textes rituels de Ras Shamra -- Ougarit.” Pages 63-81 in Mosaïque de langues, mosaïque culturelle. Le bilinguisme dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la Table-Ronde du 18 novembre 1995 organisée par l'URA 1062 "Études Sémitiques". Edited by F. Briquel-Chatonnet. Antiquités Sémitiques 1. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1996. _____. Les Textes Rituels. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12. Paris: Editions recherche sur les civilisations, 2000. _____. “Marziḥu, Kispu and the Ugaritic Funerary Cult: A Minamilist View.” Pages 273-87 in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture; Edinburgh, July 1994. Edited by Nicholas Wyatt, Wilfred G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. _____. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. SBLWAW 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. _____. “RS 1.005 and the Identification of the gṯrm.” Pages 301-318 in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the International Conference Organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991. Edited by J. Quaegebeur. OLA 55. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oriëntalistiek, 1993. _____. “Ugaritic Studies at the End of the 20th Century.” BASOR 320 (2000): 49-86. Parker, Simon B. “Aqhat.” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Edited by Simon B. Parker. SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.

279

_____. “Death and Devotion: The Composition and Theme of Aqht.” Pages 71-83 in Love & Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope. Edited by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good. Guilford: Four Quarters, 1987. _____. “The Historical Composition of KRT and the Cult of El.” ZAW 89 (1977): 161-75. _____. The Pre-biblical Narrative Tradition: Essays on the Ugaritic Poems Keret and Aqhat. Resources for Biblical Study 24. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1989. Parpola, Simo and Julian Reade. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian scholars. SAA 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1993. Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Pedersen, J. “Die KRT Legende.” Berytus 6 (1941): 63-105. Peri, Chiara. Poemi ugaritici della regalità: i poemi di Keret e di Aqhat. Testi del Vicino Oriente antico. 5, Letterature della Siria e Palestina. Brescia: Paideia, 2004. Peter, R. “L’imposition des mains dans l’Ancien Testament.” VT 27 (1977): 48-55. Pham, Xuan Huong Thi. Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 302. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Pitard, Wayne T. “The ‘Libation Installations’ of the Tombs at Ugarit.” BA 57, no. 1 (1994): 20-37. Pope, Marvin H. “Rechab.” Pages 4:14-16 in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon Press, 1962. Porter, Barbara Nevling. “Beds, Sex, and Politics: The Return of Marduk's Bed to Babylon.” Pages 523-35 in Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2-6, 2001. Edited by Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002. _____. Images, Power, and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon's Babylonian Policy. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993. _____. Trees, Kings, and Politics: Studies in Assyrian Iconography. OBO 197. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Porter, J. R. Leviticus. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Propp, William H. Exodus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999-2006.

280

Qimron, Elisha. “Celibacy in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Two Kinds of Sectarians.” Pages 1:28794 in The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Madrid, 18-21 March 1991. Edited by Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner. STDJ 11. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Rahmouni, Aicha. Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. Translated by J. N. Ford. HO 1.93. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2008. Rainey, Anson. “The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts.” Bib 51 (1970): 48598. Reiner, Erica. Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfO 11. Granz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers, 1958. Reinhartz, Adele. “Samson's Mother: An Unnamed Protagonist.” JSOT 55 (1992): 23-37. Renfroe, Fred. Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies. ALSAP 5. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992. Ribichini, Sergio. “Eshmun.” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons. Edited by Karl van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter van der Horst. New York: Brill, 1999. Rodríguez, Angel M. Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus. AUSDS 3. Michigan: Andrews University Press, 1979. Römer, Thomas C. and Marc Zvi Brettler. “Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch.” JBL 119 (2000): 401-19. Rudman, Dominic. “A Note on the Azazel-goat Ritual.” ZAW 116 (2004): 396-401. Sanders, Seth L. The Invention of Hebrew. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009. Sanmartín, Joaquín. “Ug. uzr und Verwandtes.” UF 9 (1977): 369-70. Saracino, Francesco. “Il letto di Pidray.” UF 14 (1982): 191-99. Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966. Sarna, Nahum M. “The Order of the Books.” Pages 407-413 in Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History and Literature in Honor of I Edward Kiev Edited by Charles Berlin. New York: Ktav, 1971. Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. JSOTSup 420. London: T & T Clark, 2005. Schaeffer, Claude F. A. Ugaritica. I. Paris,: P. Guethner, 1939.

281

Schmidt, Brian B. Israel's Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Schmidt, Hans. “Mose und der Dekalog.” Pages 78-119 in Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Hermann Gunkel zum 60. Geburtstag, dem 23. mai 1922 dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden, und in ihrem Namen. Edited by Hans Schmidt. FRLANT 36. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923. Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Bearing of Sin in Priestly Literature.” Pages 3-22 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. _____. “The Priestly Account of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai.” Pages 103-34 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996. _____. “The Visit of Jethro: A Case of Chronological Displacement? The Source-Critical Solution.” Pages 29-48 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay. Edited by Nili Sacher Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Segert, Stanislav. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. München: Beck, 1976. Shectman, Sarah. Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis. Hebrew Bible Monographs 23. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2009. Singer, Itamar. Muwatalli's Prayer to the Assembly of Gods through the Storm-god of Lightning (CTH 381). Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1996. _____. “A Political History of Ugarit.” Pages 603-733 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Smith, George A. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, Especially in Relation to the History of Israel and of the Early Church. 25th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931. Smith, Mark S. “The Baal Cycle.” Pages 81-176 in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Edited by Simon B. Parker. SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. _____. The Memoirs of God: History, Memory, and the Experience of the Divine in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. _____. “‘Seeing God in the Psalms’: The Background to the Beatific Vision in the Hebrew Bible.” CBQ 50 (1988): 171-83. _____. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume I. Introduction With Text, Translationand Commentary of KTU 1.1.-1.2. VTSup 55. Leiden ; New York: Brill, 1994. 282

_____. Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2001. Smith, Mark S. and Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus. JSOTSup 239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Smith, Mark S. and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle: Volume II. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary of KTU/CAT 1.3-1.4. VTSup 114. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Smith, W. Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions. 3d ed. LBS. New York: Ktav Pub, 1969. Snaith, Norman Henry. Leviticus and Numbers: Based on the Revised Standard Version. London: Nelson, 1967. Soldt, Wilfred Hugo van. “The Title ṮʿY.” UF 20 (1988): 313-321. Sommer, Benjamin D. The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Sparks, Kenton L. “Enūma Eliš and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism.” JBL 126 (2007): 625-48. Spronk, Klaas. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. AOAT 219. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1986. Staal, Frits. “The Meaninglessness of Ritual.” Numen 26 (1975): 2-22. _____. Rules without Meaning: Ritual, Mantras, and the Human Sciences. Toronto Studies in Religion 4. New York: P. Lang, 1989. Stackert, Jeffrey. Rewriting the Torah: Literary Revision in Deuteronomy and the Holiness Legislation. FAT 52. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Stamm, Johann Jakob. “Erwägungen zu RS 24.246.” UF 11 (1979): 753-758. Steck, Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology. Translated by James D. Nogalski. SBLRBS 39. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995. Sturdy, John. Numbers. CBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Talstra, E. Solomon’s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 14-61. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 3. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. Tarragon, Jean-Michel de. Le culte à Ugarit: d'après les textes de la pratique en cunéiformes alphabétiques. Cahiers de la Revue biblique 19. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1980.

283

_____. “Les rituels.” Pages 125-238 in Textes ougaritiques: II. Textes religieux et rituels; Correspondance. Edited by André Caquot, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Jesús-Luis Cunchillos. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 14. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1989. Tawil, Hayim. “Azazel, the Prince of the Steppe: A Comparative Study.” ZAW 92 (1980): 4359. Theuer, Gabriele. Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas: Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24. OBO 173. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. Toorn, Karl van der. Family Religion in Babylonia, Ugarit, and Israel: Continuity and Changes in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Leiden; New York: Brill, 1995. Tropper, Josef. “Aktuelle Probleme der ugaritischen Grammatik.” UF 29 (1997): 669-674. _____. “Die sieben Frauen des Königs Keret.” UF 26 (1996): 529-32. _____. “Ugaritic Dreams: Notes on Ugaritic ḏ(h)rt and hdrt.” Pages 305-13 in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Essays Presented in Honour of Professor John C.L. Gibson. Edited by Nicholas Wyatt, Wilfred G. E. Watson, and J. B. Lloyd. UBL 12. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. _____. Ugaritische Grammatik. AOAT 273. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000. Tsevat, Matitiahu. “Was Samuel a Nazirite.” Pages 199-204 in "Sha'arei Talmon": Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Edited by Michael A. Fishbane, Emanuel Tov, and Weston W. Fields. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Turner, Victor W. Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974. _____. Forest of Symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967. _____. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures 1969. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. _____. “Social Dramas and Stories about Them.” Critical Inquiry 7 (1980): 141-68. Ulrich, Eugene Charles. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus. HSM 19. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978. Vaulx, J de. Les Nombres. SB. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1972. Vaux, Roland de. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. 2nd ed. London: Darton Longham & Todd, 1965.

284

Virolleaud, Charles. La légend de Keret, roi des Sidoniens d’après une tablette de Ras Shamra. Mission de Ras Shamra 2. Paris,: P. Geuthner, 1936. _____. La légende phénicienne de Danel; texte cunéiforme alphabétique avec transcription et commentaire, précédé d'une introduction à l'étude de la civilisation d'Ugarit. Mission de Ras Shamra 1. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1936. _____. “Les inscriptions cunéiformes de Ras-Shamra.” Syria 10 (1929): 304-310, pl. LXI-LXX. _____. “Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques de Ras Shamra (XXIVe Campagne, 1961).” Ugaritica V (1968): 545-95. Walls, Neal H. The Goddess Anat in Ugaritic Myth. SBLDS 135. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1992. Walsh, Carey Ellen. The Fruit of the Vine: Viticulture in Ancient Israel. HSM 60. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. _____. “Under the Influence: Trust and Risk in Biblical Family Drinking.” JSOT 90 (2000): 1329. Watson, Wilfred G. E. “Non-Semitic Words in the Ugaritic Lexicon.” UF 27 (1995): 533-58. _____. “Ugaritic and Mesopotamian Literary Texts.” UF 9 (1977): 273-84. _____. “Ugaritic Poetry.” Pages 165-92 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. _____. “What Does Ugaritic gmn Mean?” AuOr 7 (1989): 129-31. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 3rd ed. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899. _____. Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. 4. unveränd. Aufl. ed. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. _____. Numbers: An Introduction and Commentary. TOTC 4. Leicester: IVP, 1981. Westbrook, Raymond and Theodore J. Lewis. “Who Led the Scapegoat in Leviticus 16:21?” JBL 127 (2008): 417-22. Wilhelm, Gernot. The Hurrians. Translated by Jennifer Barnes. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1989.

285

_____. “Zur ersten Zeile des Šunaššura-Vertrages.” Pages 359-70 in Documentum Asiae Minoris Anitquae: Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Erich Neu and Christel Rüster. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988. Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel and Amos: A Commentary on the Books of the Prophets Joel and Amos. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977. Wright, David P. “Analogy in Biblical and Hittite Ritual.” Pages 473-504 in Religionsgeschichtliche Beziehungen zwischen Kleinasien, Nordsyrien und dem Alten Testament: internationales Symposion Hamburg, 17.-21. März 1990. Edited by Bernd Janowski, Klaus Koch, and Gernot Wilhelm. OBO 129. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. _____. “Azazel.” ABD 1: 536-7. _____. “David Autem Remansit in Hierusalem: Felix Coniunctio!” Pages 215-30 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995. _____. “Deciphering a Definition: The Syntagmatic Structural Analysis of Ritual in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of Hebrew Scripture 8.12 (2008): 1-9. _____. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. SBLDS 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. _____. “The Gesture of Hand Placement in the Hebrew Bible and in Hittite Literature.” JAOS 106 (1986): 433-46. _____. “Holiness (OT).” ABD 3: 237-49. _____. “Holiness, Sex, and Death in the Garden of Eden.” Bib 77 (1996): 305-29. _____. Inventing God's Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. _____. “Music and Dance in 2 Samuel 6.” JBL 121 (2002): 201-55. _____. “Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19-24.” VT 35 (1985): 213-23. _____. Ritual in Narrative: the Dynamics of Feasting, Mourning, and Retaliation Rites in the Ugaritic Tale of Aqhat. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2001. _____. “Unclean and Clean (OT).” ABD 6: 729–41. Wuthnow, Robert. Meaning and Moral Order: Explorations in Cultural Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. 286

Wyatt, Nicholas. “Arms and the King: The Earliest Allusions to the Chaoskampf Motif and their Implications for the Interpretation of the Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions.” Pages 833-82 in “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”: Studien zum Alten Testament und zum alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Edited by Manfried Dietrich and Ingo Kottsieper. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 250. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1998. _____. “Degrees of Divinity: Some Mythical Aspects of West Semitic Kingship.” UF 31 (1999): 853-87. _____. “Dennis Pardee, Les Textes Rituels (RSO 12, Paris 2000), an Appraisal.” UF 33 (2001): 697-706. _____. “Epic in Ugaritic Literature.” Pages 246-54 in A Companion to Ancient Epic. Edited by John M. Foley. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. _____. “Ilimilku's Ideological Programme: Ugaritic Royal Propaganda, and a Biblical Postscript.” UF 29 (1997): 773-96. _____. “Just How ‘Divine’ Were the Kings of Ugarit?” Aula Orientalis 17-18 (1999-2000): 13341. _____. “The Mythic Mind.” SJOT 15 (2001): 3-56. _____. The Mythic Mind: Essays on Cosmology and Religion in Ugaritic and Old Testament Literature. London: Equinox, 2005. _____. Myths of Power: A Study of Royal Myth and Ideology in Ugaritic and Biblical Tradition. UBL 13. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. _____. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues. The Biblical Seminar 53. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. _____. Religious Texts from Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku and his Colleagues. 2nd ed. The Biblical Seminar 53. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. _____. “The Story of Aqhat.” Pages 234-58 in Handbook of Ugaritic Studies. Edited by Wilfred G. E. Watson and Nicholas Wyatt. HO 1.39. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Xella, Paolo. “D'Ugarit à la Phénicie: Sur les traces de Rashap, Horon, Eshmun.” Welt des Orient 19 (1989): 45-64. _____. “db 'solgia' in Ras Ibn Hani 77/2B:4.” UF 13 (1981): 309-11. _____. “Eschmun von Sidon: Der phönizische Askelpios.” Pages 481-498 in Mesopotamica -Ugaritica -- Biblica: Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70-Lebensjahres am 7 Mai 1992. Edited by Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. AOAT 232. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993. 287

_____. Gli antenati di Dio. Verona: Essedue, 1982. _____. I testi rituali di Ugarit I. Studi Semitici 54. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1981. _____. “KTU 1.91 (RS 19.15) ei sacrifici de re.” UF 11 (1979): 833-38. _____. “Le ‘Formulae’ Rituali Ugaritiche Relative al Sole: (ʿrb špš w ḥl mlk e ṣba/ṣbu špš w ḥl mlk/ym).” UF 16 (1984): 339-49. _____. Problemi del mito nel Vicino Oriente Antico. AION 7. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici, 1976. _____. “QDŠ: Semantic del ‘Sacro’ad Ugarit.” MLE 1 (1982): 9-17. Yon, Marguerite. The City of Ugarit at Tell Ras Shamra. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Zijl, Peter J. van. Baal: A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics. AOAT 10. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. Zuckschwerdt, Ernst. “Zur literarschen Vorgeschichte des priesterlichen Nazir-Gesetzes (Num 6 1-8).” ZAW 88 (1976): 191-205. Zuesse, Evan M. "Ritual." Pages 7833-47 in Encylopedia of Religion. Edited by Lindsay Jones. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005.

288