Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts From Ugarit and The Hebrew Bible (Analecta Orientalia 49) - Loren R Fisher

ANALECTA ORI ENTALI A 51
RAS SHAMRA PARALLELS

Vol. Ill
EDITED BY
STAN RUMMEL
PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM BIBLICUM

1-00187 ROMA PIAZZA P1LOTTA 55
ANALECTA ORIENTALIA
COMMENTATIONES SCIENTIFICAE DE REBUS ORIENTIS ANTIQUI
51
PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM BIBLICUM

1-00187 ROMA PIAZZA PILOTTA 35
STAN RUMMEL, E D IT O R

The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible
Vol. HI
published under the auspices of

The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity
Claremont, California
19 8 1
PONTIF1CIUM INSTITUTUM B1BL1CUM
1-00187 ROMA PIAZZA PILOTTA 35
This Or
JECZ-A4P-6EED
IURA EDITIONIS ET VERSIONIS RESERVANTUR
©
PRINTED IN ITALY
SCUOLA TIPOGRAFICA S . P lO X — V1A D E G LI E t RUSCHI N. 7-9 — R 0 M A — M A GGIO 1981

IN MEMORIAM
JAMES L. BRUCE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ras Shamra Parallels, Vol. I l l (to be abbreviated R S P III), is the third volume
resulting from The Ugaritic and Hebrew Parallels Project. This project was under-
taken in 1965 a t the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, which is a part of
the Claremont Graduate School.
Since its inception the research leading to publication has been sponsored by
the Jam es L. Bruce family, which has provided generously for the work at the
Institute. The research has been sustained by gifts from Mrs. Jam es L. Bruce, who
was joined by her daughter, Mrs. Jordan Nathason in 1969-70, when their con-
tributions were matched by a research grant from the National Endowment for
the Humanities. In view of the singular role of the Bruce family in supporting the
project, my colleagues and I join happily in dedicating this volume to the memory
of the late James L. Bruce, whose own interest in the ancient culture of the eastern
Mediterranean was personal and long-lived. As the Resident Director and General
Manager of the Cyprus Mines Corporation in the 1930’s, Mr. Bruce took a direct
role in implementing the scholarly study of ancient Cyprus, assisting the Swedish
Cyprus Expedition and contributing an article to the published reports on the ex-
cavations (“Antiquities in the Mines of Cyprus,” in The Swedish Cyprus Expeditions,
1927-31, ed. Einar Gjerstad, Vol. I l l [Stockholm, 1937], Appendix V). The dedica-
tion to his memory of a volume devoted to Ugaritic studies is especially apt, for
modern investigations have demonstrated th at contacts between Ugarit and Cyprus
were intim ate and numerous in the second millennium B.C.
Thanks are due to the Claremont Graduate School and to the Institute for
A ntiquity and Christianity and its Research Council for their support of my work
at the Institute. Jam es M. Robinson, the Director of the Institute, and James A.
Brashler, the Associate Director, have been especially helpful. I also want to thank
— vn —
Ras Shamra Parallels
Mitchell Dahood, S.J., for his help in seeing the volume through the press, and for
his visit to Claremont in the summer of 1978, which greatly expedited the progress
of the volume.
Finally, I and my colleagues on the project owe a special word of thanks to
Loren R. Fisher, the founder of The Ugaritic and Hebrew Parallels Project. His de-
parture from Claremont in the spring of 1976 has left a gap in our lives and on the
project which cannot be filled. He provided invaluable editorial advice during the
initial stages of the preparation of this volume; and we hope th at the final product
will do justice to the scholarly ideals which he brought to the project.
Claremont, California Stan R umme L

June 1979
— vm —
ta b le of contents
Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... vii-vm
In trod u ction .............................................................................................................................. xi-xm
Chapter I
Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs
by Mitchell Dahood, S.J........................................................................................... 1-178
Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs Supplement
by Mitchell Dahood, S.J........................................................................................... 178-206
Chapter II
Ugaritic Formulae
by Richard E. W h ita k e r ......................................................................................... 207-219
Chapter III
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts
by Stan R um m el......................................................................................................... 221-332
Chapter IV
Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts
by Alan Cooper, with introduction and selected comments by Marvin H. Pope 333-469
Chapter V
Divine Names and Epithets in the Akkadian Texts
by F. Brent K nutson................................................................................................. 471-500
Indices:
A. Texts
1. Hebrew B ib l e ............................................................................................................. 501-521
2. Ugaritic T e x ts ............................................................................................................. 521-530
3. Ras Shamra Akkadian T e x t s ................................................................................. 530-532
4. Other T e x t s ................................................................................................................. 532-534
B. Words
1. Hebrew Words ......................................................................................................... 535-557
2. Ugaritic W o r d s ......................................................................................................... 557-571
3. Akkadian W ords......................................................................................................... 571-574
4. Other W o r d s ............................................................................................................. 574-575
C. S u b j e c t s ............................................................................................................................. 576-580
General Abbreviations............................................................................................................. 581-617
Biblical Abbreviations............................................................................................................. 618
— ix —
INTRODUCTION
The introduction to R S P I discusses the history of The Ugaritic and Hebrew

Parallels Project, the purpose and significance of RSP, and the formats used in the
presentation of the materials. I will not duplicate these comments here; but I will
describe the contents of the present volume in the framework of the larger project
and unveil plans for two future volumes of RSP.
In this volume five of the seven topics announced in the introduction to R SP II
are treated. Chapter I, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs” and “Ugaritic-Hebrew
Parallel Pairs Supplement,” by Mitchell Dahood, continues his work in R SP I, II,
and R S P II, I. In order to bring greater rigor and consistency to the comparisons,
some changes in the presentation of the parallels have been put into effect. Prof.
Dahood discusses these changes in his introduction to the chapter, and he answers
several questions raised by the reviewers of his work in R SP I.
The next two chapters deal with concerns relating to the structural analysis
of texts. In Chapter II, “Ugaritic Formulae,” Richard E. W hitaker examines the
history of research into Ugaritic and Hebrew formulae in the light of methodologies
developed by Parry and Lord in the context of Homeric studies. Semitic scholars
are slowly beginning to apply these methodologies to their own texts. Prof. W hitaker
himself has provided a comprehensive survey of the formulae of Ugaritic poetry
in his 1969 Harvard dissertation, “A Formulaic Analysis of Ugaritic Poetry.” As
such studies accumulate, our understanding of the nature and function of the for-
mula and formulaic systems in biblical and ancient Near Eastern composition will
grow. At the present time, however, two facts of direct relevance to Ugaritic-Hebrew
comparisons stand out. In the first place, the word pair does not constitute a for-
mula in Semitic poetry. Yet the two are not unrelated, since word pairs and formulae
both are compositional resources for the authors of Ugaritic and Hebrew texts.
As our catalogues of these phenomena expand, we will be in a better position to
assess their relationship to each other and to the generation of texts. In the second
place, the formula is primarily a structural unit. In contrast, the word pair and
the literary phrase lead the student to focus primarily on content. This does not
imply a dichotomy of form and content, but rather a shift in perspective as the
student brings various analytical tools to the text. In fact, as Prof. W hitaker points
out in his introduction to the chapter, literary phrases may also be formulae.
— xi —
Chapter II follows what is called in the introduction to R SP I format I (see

pp. xxi-xxn). Since Antoon Schoors has already discussed literary phrases iu
R S P I, I, Prof. W hitaker’s comments on the formulae among these phrases are
grouped at the end of his chapter as a “Supplement” to R S P I, I.
In Chapter III, “Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts,” by Stan Rummel,
we move from the problem of linguistic structure to th a t of narrative and descriptive
structure. The widespread interest taken by the scholarly community in this type
of structural analysis creates a broad methodological background against which
previous attem pts at Ugaritic-Hebrew structural comparisons must be assessed.
Thus this chapter is more methodological in tone and intention than any other con-
tribution to R SP. The chapter follows format I (entries arranged by text numbers),
but the history of research and the nature of the topic necessitate some adjustm ent
of the original format. The length of the textual units under discussion prohibits
the presentation of a full text and translation. Moreover, the limited number of
entries combines with the large number of biblical parallels to create the need to
intersperse “Comments” among the biblical parallels, rather than reserving all of
them for the end of the entry.
The final two chapters in the volume follow format II and therefore each entry
is listed alphabetically (see R SP I, Intro, pp. x x n -xxin). Since the Ugaritic evidence
for divine names and epithets is more comprehensive than the Akkadian evidence,
Chapter V, “Divine Names and Epithets in the Akkadian Texts,” by F. Brent Knut-
son, defers, wherever possible, to the discussion of parallels in Chapter IV, “Divine
Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts,” by Alan Cooper, with introduction and
selected comments by Marvin H. Pope. The system of cross-referencing should be
self-evident and follows th a t used in the Akkadian section of R S P II, V III (“Place
Names,” by Michael C. Astour). Thus chapters IV and V constitute a unity in terms
of subject-matter, but the different approaches taken by the two authors also ren-
der them into discrete entities.
At this point it is appropriate to announce the addition of two further volumes
to the R S P series. R S P IV, which we hope to publish in 1982, will be primarily
concerned with the broad and im portant topic of motifs. The contributors to this
volume will be:
Terry Fenton
Eoren R. Fisher
William J. Horwitz
Dan Hughes
Patrick D. Miller, Jr.
Stan Rummel
Duane E. Smith
— xn —
Introduction
R S P IV will also contain an author index for all four volumes, and a list of additions
and corrections to R SP I, II, and III.
R S P V will constitute a revised and enlarged edition of Mitchell Dahood’s study
of Ugaritic-Hebrew parallel pairs. Three factors have coalesced in the decision to
present this material in a collected form. First, the growing use of the materials
published in R SP I and II attests to their significance to a wide range of scholarly
interests and the need to gather them into a single volume. Second, the lively discus-
sion of the work in R SP I has revealed some procedural revisions th at need to be
performed in a comprehensive fashion. Finally, a large number of new and interesting
pairs have emerged since Prof. Dahood completed his manuscript for R SP I I I in
July of 1975. Space did not allow them to be incorporated into this volume, but
they must be added to complete the overall picture.
These two volumes will conclude the R SP series. In the introduction to R SP IV
I will discuss the implications of the work of The Ugaritic and Hebrew Parallels
Project for Ugaritic and Hebrew studies and for future projects of this type.
Stan R um m ei ,, Editor
xm
Ch apter I
UGARITIC-HEBREW PARALLEL PAIRS
by
Mit c h e u , D ahood , S.J.

INTRODUCTION
a. This research into Ugaritic-Hebrew word pairs took an unexpected turn

three years ago. Upon completion of the list for R SP I (1972), it was evident
th at some isolated new pairs would come to light, and those th at did surface
between 1971 and 1972 were duly collected and published in R SP II, which
appeared, however, only in July 1975. These numbered 66, and it was felt th at
this chapter could fairly be considered closed, though the constant reexami-
nation and revision of these published pairs was envisioned. But these calcu-
lations proved to be mistaken because further research into Hebrew poetry re-
vealed not only numerous new pairs of words, but more interesting pairs than
many of the routine and trivial ones hitherto published. Hence the reader will
encounter in this list numerous parallel pairs which are hapax legomenon in
both Ugaritic and in Hebrew; these often entail text-critical and exegetical con-
sequences th at show th a t we are dealing with a Canaanite literary tradition
th a t continued right into biblical (especially poetic) writings of all Old Testament
periods. Suffice it here to mention the import of ap+dd, bt . . . srs, hym 11 blmt.. .
sfr, htt /I lay, kry // yld, and tr // zby on the translation and exegesis of cognate
biblical verses. Conversely, such entries as bky+'gm, dbr . . . mt, hrs-\-apnt,
Un /I [qU\, n'm // spr illustrate to what extent biblical texts can aid in the res-
b. toration and translation of damaged Ugaritic passages. And then there are cases
such as npS-\-np§ where equally obscure Ugaritic and Hebrew texts mutually,
and paradoxically, elucidate each other. These new pairs should thus go far
toward confuting the premature attack of J. C. de Moor and P. van der Uugt,
“The Spectre of Pan-Ugaritism,” 1 a review-article of R S P I which, while making
a number of valid points, is vitiated by the mistaken notion th at Ugaritic is
not a Canaanite dialect. That this seminal list of parallel pairs should appear
so soon (through no design of the writer, however) after this ill-advised onslaught
of the two Dutch scholars, enjoys a possible analogy in the 1965 prophecy of
1 In BiOr, XXXI (1974), 3-26.
—3 —
2
I Ras Shamra Parallels
the late G. R. Driver: “The pan-Babylonian theories of H aupt and his contem-
poraries have long passed away, half-forgotten and unlamented, thanks to their
extravagances; and the pan-Ugaritism of the present age will go the same
way.” 2 This prophecy has been given the lie by the developments during the
subsequent decade during which Ugaritic-Hebrew relationships have been stud-
ied more widely and intensively than perhaps in any other decade since the Ras
Shamra discoveries in 1929. The stimulating contents of the three volumes of
R SP bid fair to foster and sustain debate in the area of Ugaritic-Hebrew rap-
ports. T hat no complete translation of the Hebrew Bible has adequately ex-
ploited this material which, now th at it has been collected and published in one
place, can no longer conscionably be ignored, means th at biblical scholars will
have to pay more attention to this comparative material.
c. This is not to claim th at the data are complete or have always been cor-
rectly interpreted. The unevenness of the three installments of parallel pairs
will require some revision to produce entries more rigorous and consistent in
a separate volume when the reviews and critiques of all three volumes have
been received and properly assessed. Pending a more organic discussion in the
projected volume, one may briefly consider here several difficulties and objec-
tions raised by reviewers of R SP I.
d. For instance, it has been suggested th at prepositions and conjunctions, i.e.
particles whose function is restricted to the connection of words which carry
an independent meaning, would better be treated apart. The merit of this sug-
gestion is offset by those not infrequent instances where the choice of prepo-
sition seems to have been motivated by metrical considerations, as in the pairs
b /I bm, b I/ tht, and l // Im, where the identification of the prepositional pair can
bear on the reading, the morphology, and the translation. Cf., e.g., the new
translation of Isa 10:16 at kbd . . . smt proposed on the basis of the identification
of the poetic pair b H tht with the unsuspected sense of “among” 11 “amid,” or
the possibility in Job 38:4-5 presented by the recognition of bn 11 7.
e. The repetition of the same word in both halves of the verse does not, strictly
speaking, form a pair since it is the same word. Still, the listing of such cases
proves valuable in showing how frequent this practice was in Ugaritic and might
discourage the emendation of the repeated word to a poetic synonym th at bib-
lical critics have been known to favor for certain texts. Cf., e.g., Ps 106:10;
Prov 3:13. Thus a list of words repeated in parallelism can serve as a text-critical
criterion.
2 JSS, X (1965), 116-117.
—4 —
Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs I
f. Then there exist instances where the repeated word is used in two different
senses. The most notable example appears to be th at of nfts (see nfis-\-nps),
used both in Ugaritic and in Hebrew in two different senses. The appreciation
of this wordplay elicits sense from texts such as Isa 58:10 and Prov 13:4, which
heretofore have eluded precise translation.
g. In these chapters on word pairs we have not proposed any new definition
of parallelism, finding the usual understanding of parattelismus membrorum
adequate for our purposes. This habit of the Hebrew poet of balancing thought
against thought, phrase against phrase, word against word, was also th at of
his Canaanite predecessors. We have, though, not limited parallelism to poetic
texts but claim th at it may also be present in non-literary texts, such as in ad-
ministrative or economic tablets. Economic text UT 120 is surely bereft of liter-
ary qualities, and yet should one neglect to cite the final phrases (11. 14-16) '§rm
zt mm? I arb'm smn mr when one discusses the pair zt // smn attested in Hebrew
poetry? The Canaanite scribes and poets apparently thought in binomials, and
one should not exclude prose texts in one’s search into the origins of word pairs
employed by the poets. After all, scholars have studied Shakespeare’s laundry
lists to acquire further insight into his literary compositions. Or to take an ex-
ample from a hippie text for curing ailments, w k l yhru / w l yttn ssw, "and if
he does not defecate / and if he does not urinate—the horse.” 3 Can one deny
th a t yhru and yttn are here parallel verbs even though the text is prosaic? Or
perhaps the text is more literary than might first appear, since the scribe also
employs the device of delayed identification, putting the explicit subject ssw
at the very end. In other words, parallelism was not a purely literary phenome-
non but was also sporadically employed by prose writers, and the student of
Canaanite poetry should not exclude these from his ken. Thus parallelism by
itself does not make a text poetic; other elements are also required.4
3 See UT, p. 124, n. 3.

4 At this point one may prefer to introduce a terminological distinction, labeling poetical paraUelism
‫‘״‬metrical‫ ״ ׳‬and that found in non-poetical texts “semantic parallelism.‫ ׳׳‬To be sure, parallelism is a hall-
mark of Hebrew poetry, and the identification of word pairs in balance will permit the identification of
poetic units imbedded in prose. For example, in Gen 24:7, *‫מביית אבי* ומארץ מולדתי‬, “from the house of my
father and from the land of my birth,’’ contains ‫ בית‬// ‫ ארץ‬and ‫ אב‬// ‫ מולדת‬, and can be considered poetic
because of the pairings and the assonance of ‫ אבי‬and ‫מולדתי‬. It might be noted that one medieval manu-
script collapsed the parallelisms, reading simply ‫מביתי ומארצי‬, “from my house and from my land,‫ ׳׳‬a phe-
nomenon already witnessed in the first-century B.C. Targum of Job from Qumran where the translator
often telescoped two phrases which appear parallel in the Hebrew. As observed by M. Sokoloff, Job, p. [8]:
“The translator combined the parallel words or phrases into one unit, thus destroying the poetic character
of the original, but gaining compactness in style.’‫ ׳‬So while later Jewish tradition tended to eliminate the
poetic quality of biblical verse by slighting the parallelistic elements, Late Bronze Age Canaanite texts,
with their hundreds of word pairs, are now abetting the recovery and aesthetic appreciation of canonical
Hebrew poetry.
—5 —
h. An offshoot of this collection of word pairs is what I have termed “distant

parallelism,” a phenomenon also studied by Y. Avishur in his unpublished dis-
sertation “Pairs of Words in Biblical Literature and Their Parallels in Semitic
Literature of the Ancient Near E ast.” The recent appearance of the term qd$
mlk, “Qudshu the King,” permits the biblical critic to argue th at the psalmist
is resorting to this device when opening Ps 99 with the ringing declaration ‫ ה‬1‫יה‬
‫ מ ל ך ירגזו עמים‬, “Yahweh has become king; let the heathen tremble with fear!”
and closing it with the confession ‫ ה אלהינו‬1!‫ כי״ ק דו ש יד‬, “indeed the Holy One is
Yahweh our God!” The balance of ‫" זית‬olive-tree” / / ‫“ פ רי‬fruit” in Jer 11:16
enables the recovery of the "distant parallelism” as well as the reinterpretation
of Isa 17:6 where difficult and disputed ‫( הפ רי ה‬see the discussion at zt . . . pr),
“the fruitful one,” turns out to be the counterpart of ‫זית‬, “the olive-tree.” Thus
the decision reached after some discussion with other members of this Project
to include juxtaposed and collocated words in a study formally dedicated to
strictly parallel word pairs appears to be justified. To be able to identify such
variations on parallelismus membrorum in Hebrew, the critic must be furnished
with lists of words juxtaposed and collocated by the Canaanite predecessors of
the Israelite poets.
i. The study of parallel pairs must also take account of the possibly intended
chiasmus resulting in word pairings different from those apparent when the
components of a poetic unit are read sequentially. In a tetracolon such as th at
in Ps 3:3-4, are the members to be read chiastically so th at the pair ‫“ נפשי‬my
life” II ‫“ ראשי‬my head” emerges? Usually one can detect other indicators to
permit a chiastic reading, but instances occur where no clear decision can be
reached. In Isa 58:7 a chiastic construing of the four cola recovers the pair ‫לח ם‬
“bread” // ‫“ בעזר‬m eat,” if one grants th a t the first and fourth cola are concerned
with nutrition, while the second and third look to protection against the elements.
Appreciation of the chiasmus clearly safeguards ‫ שבת‬, "flame,” from deletion in
I I Sam 23:7b. I t thus appears th at the Israelite poets developed and elaborated
the parallelism inherited from the Canaanites.
j. In R SP I the definitions of “juxtaposition” and "collocation” were not
always applied with consistent rigor, with the result th at some queries have
been raised about the usefulness of these terms. Strictly meaning the placing
of two things side by side, juxtaposition aptly describes the classic construct
chain consisting of the regens and the rectum. W ith the advance, though, of
grammatical studies of Hebrew poetry it has become evident th at the construct
chain is often interrupted by particles or prepositions. Should one continue
to employ the term “juxtaposition” to describe these constructs and their geni-
tives? Then there are cases where two words are materially juxtaposed but
metrically belong to different cola, as in *nt 11:39, ars rbb, or the nouns employed
— 6 —
in parallel in Jer 3:2-3. Should instances of hendiadys with a conjunction be

subsumed under this definition? In the present volume the category of juxta-
position is provisionally used for words occurring in the same poetic colon, or
in the same clause of a prose sentence—even if the words are not strictly “side
by side.”
k. The term “collocation” (some prefer the word “association”) denotes the
state of being placed or arranged with something else. I t was chosen to describe
those words not strictly parallel nor juxtaposed, but merely concurring apart
in the same verse or poetic unit. Here it is used for non-parallel words occurring
in different poetic cola (even if they are materially “side by side”) and for words
in different clauses of a prose sentence. The nature of the material and the ap-
plication of subjective judgment have inevitably resulted in some inconsistencies,
but there is reason to believe th at in this volume such have been reduced, thanks
to the constructive criticism of scholars.
l. The publication in 1972 of R. W hitaker’s A Concordance of the Ugaritic
Literature has facilitated the preparation of this list of word pairs for R SP III,
and I take this occasion to thank W hitaker for this valuable tool of research.
In the fisting of the Ugaritic texts I have as a rule not included those passages
restored on the basis of integral doublets; W hitaker has included the restored
passages so th a t the reader desiring all the Ugaritic occurrences of the pair in
question would be well advised to consult the Concordance as well as the listing
in R S P III. The appearance in the summer of 1974 of Textes ougaritiques, I,
Mythes et legendes, by A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, and A. Herdner, with its highly
competent introduction, translation, and commentary, was most timely, per-
m itting me to refer the reader to this up-to-date volume for further details and
bibliography on difficult and disputed Ugaritic passages. This new translation
into French reflects the recent progress made in Ugaritic philology and will sure-
ly advance our understanding of cognate biblical texts.
m. Though the full impact of research into Ugaritic-Hebrew word pairs will
not be felt in biblical circles for some time, its first effects are gradually coming
to fight. Thus in his third edition (1973) of Job, M. Pope makes this comment
(pp. 65-66) on Job 8:8: ,,Consider. The reading bonen for MT konen adopted in
previous editions appears to have been mistaken in view of the association of
Sal and knn in Ugaritic, UT 1161:5-9.” This appeal to the collocation ci iwo
verbs in a routine administrative prose text from Ras Shamra to uphold a poetic
parallelism in Job illustrates sound method and augurs well for comparative
Ugaritic-Hebrew studies. W ith the other text-critical and philological criteria
currently being elaborated by scholars for the translation 3r!d interpretation of
Ugaritic and Hebrew poetic and prose texts, the criterion of parallel word pairs
will duly take its place.
— 7 —
n. As in the earlier volumes, both the Ugaritic and Hebrew word pairs always
read from left to right. The symbol “//” stands for strict parallelism, “ + ” for
juxtaposition, and for collocation. In this volume Ugaritic text citations
encompass all the lines of the cola which hold a parallel pair, but only the lines
which contain the words of a juxtaposed or collocated pair. When the word pair
is biblically hapax legomenon—the percentage of these in R SP II I is naturally
much higher than in the earlier lists—the contextual form has usually been given.
Derived stems are noted in this chapter for all Hebrew verbs, as well as for
Ugaritic verbs when the determination of the stem is relatively certain and
when the decision about the stem significantly affects the translation of the verb.
The following abbreviations are used for the stems cited in this chapter:
G Qal verbal stem; ground stem.

Gp Qal passive verbal stem; passive of the ground stem.
Gt Qal verbal stem plus infixed -t~.
A Aphel verbal stem; stem with preformative vowel.
N Niphal verbal stem; stem with preformative n.
D Piel verbal stem; stem with doubled second radical.
Dp Pual verbal stem; passive of the stem with doubled second radical.
H Hiphil verbal stem; stem with preformative h.
Hp Hophal verbal stem; passive of the stem with preformative h.
H tD Hithpael verbal stem; stem with preformative ht and doubled second
radical.
Up Polal or Palal verbal stem; passive of the stem with lengthened
vowel after first radical.
U Polel or Palil verbal stem; stem with lengthened vowel (d in Heb.,
a in Ug.) after first radical.
HtU Hithpolel or Hithpalil verbal stem; stem with preformative ht and
lengthened vowel after first radical.
S Shaphel verbal stem; stem with preformative s.
31 July 1975
— 8 —
IvIST OF ENTRIES
1. ab /I adn 29. il ab II Itpn htk 55. bd . . . ql

2. ab . . . yld 30. ilm + ars 56. bhtm // ,dbt
3. ib . . . smt 31. ilm I/ smym // kbkbm 57. bky II dmm . . . udm't
4. ibr I/ mdr 32. amr . . . d't 58. bky + 'gm
5. ud[n] . . . riS 33. amr // pny 59. bn I/ ary
6. ahb -J~ git 34. imr + Ihm 60. bn I/ 7
7. ah II ans 35. in + ytn 61. bn II sbr
8. ah II ary anyt . . . ksp (see I 165) 62. b'd li'ln
9. ah II 7 unit 36. anyt . . . ,rb 63. VI . . . ahb
10. ahd /I ,ly 37. ank // hw 64. VI H atrt
11. ahr + b ank . . . hw VI + atrt
12. aht II ybnt ab 38. anpnm // mtnm 65. VI . . . gr
13. aht . . . yd' 39. asp . . . npl Vl(t) . . . (aji)hbt (see 1 63)
14. ayl If imr 40. ap + dd bsr + rnlk (see I 198)
15. akl II hpr apnt + hrs (see I 114) 66. brq // isr
16. il . . . aliyn 41. ar . .. tly 67. Mr . . . yld . . . Smh
17. il II bn 42. arzm // Ibnt 68. bsr . . . Ihm
18. il ‫—)־־‬d 43. ark + bt 69. bt I/ ars
19. il + dbb 44. ars + nhlt bt . . . ars
20. il + hkm 45. ars . . . pr 70. bt ‫ ־)־־‬ba
il . . . hkm 46. ars . . . rbb 71. bt + ktrt
il . . . htk (see I 29) 47. irs /I st 72. bt . . . Ihm
21. il "/I ,d 48. ist II hrs 73. bt + sgr
22. il /I 'dt 49. ist /I rhm bt . . . *dbt (see I 56)
23. il II Hyn 50. it . . . ytn 74. bt . . . srs
24. U H ' m 51. it I/s t 75. btk II l
25. il + gr it . . . St 76. bt + VI
il . . . gr 52. att /I atrt 77. gbl II iht
26. il .. . rhq 53. att + ypt 78. ggt . . . bt hbr
27. il I/ tliyt 54. b I/ b 79. ggt 11 qryt
28. il + tpt b II 7 (see I 232) 80. gwl II My
—9 —
81. grs . . . mla 118/ tytt II lay 155. ytb + gr

82. dbh + tdmm 119. " htt . . . Hq 156. ytb 4 tgr
83. dbh + tr 120. tb(n) + ql 157. k I/ w
84. dbr . . . mt 121. tl + imm 158. kbd II p
85. dbr 11 twy 122. tly II arsy 159. kbd . . . Smt
86. dbr . . . tpt 123. zl ksp /I zl ksp 160. kbd I/ td
87. dm ‫־־‬1‫ ־‬ah 124. yd + il 161. kht Hars
88. dm /I smn 125. yd + ams 162. kit I/ bt
89. dmm . . . my ris 126. yd ‫ ־■(־־‬qst kit + bt
90. dn . . . ytn 127. yd' . . . in 163. kit 4 knyt
91. d't 11 Ihm 128. yd* + hy 164. kn . . . sbrt
92. d't . . . nps 129. yd' . . . ynq 165. ksp 4 anyt
93. dr + bnm 130. yd' + 'rb 166. ksp . . . bzr
drkt + ytb (see I 152) 131. yld /I §mh 167. kpr II rh gdm
94. drkt . . . §mm 132. ym . . . i d 168. kry // yld
95. hw + il 133. ymn + p 169. krm . . . dd
96. hlk + hs 134. yn . . . utkl 170. ktr + tb
97. hlk I) hi 135. yn + qS 171. lik /lm t
hlk + skn (see I 302) 136. ysa // b'r 172. lb . . . atr
98. hlk I/ tdrq 137. ysa // gri 173. Ibnn // rum
99. hmry . . . ars 138. ysa (yza) . . . mdbr 174. M . . . dm
100. hry // hi (mlbr) 175. /Am 4 trmmt
101. hry 4 yld • • • hbl 139. ysa . . . smt 176. Iht -j- spr
102. zbl 4 riSa 140. yqr . . . il 177. Iht I/ t'dt
103. zt . .. pr 141. yr + mtr 178. Iqh . . . hdy
104. zt /I Smn 142. yrd // spr 179. Iqh II ysq
hdy 11 Iqh (see I 178) 143. yrw 11 yrw 180. Un j/ [qll]
105. hdr /I sgr 144. yrh // atrt 181. mgn . . . qnyt
106. hdt . . . tn 145. yrt . . . b'l 182. mdbr // mdr'
107. hym // blmt . . . spr 146. yrt . . . ysa 183. mdbr (mlbr) 4 Siy
108. hym . . . spr 147. ytn . . . ntr 184. mdbr 4 §pm
109. hym . . . 'tq 148. ytn // slh . . . spr 185. \md'‫ \־‬II md'
110. hkm . . . hyt 149. ytn + sty 186. mhmd + arz
111. hmd 4 yrt 150. ytn I/ tny 187. mhs I/ hwy
112. hrb 4 bq''l/ist 151. ytb + ars 188. mhs /I hsb
113. hrb . . . Isn 152. ytb . . . drkt 189. my // sat np§
114. hrs 4 &Pnt 153. ytb /I ysr 190. mym . . . ilm //
115. hrs . . . b ' l ytb + kht (see I 210) Smym // kbkbm
116. hh 4 ars ytb . . . kht (see I 210) 191. mym H §mn
117. hnp . . . spk 154. ytb + Ihm 192. mknt // tbt
— 10 —
193. mla 11 mla 230. *zm + yd 268. qdm . . . ymn

194. mla . . . Smht
W
231. I -f■ umt 269. qdS . . . b t
195. mlak 4‫ ־‬ynt 232. (l I/ b 270. qdS . . . ksu
196. mlak // t'dt 233. (l . . . bsr 271. qdS +
197. mlk 4 bny
‫־‬ 234. 7 + riS 272. qdS . . . sat spt
198. mlk . . . bsr 235. 7 dl . . . ytm 273. qll /I 'n
199. mlk . . . kn 236. ,ly /lb k y 274. qlt + ks
200. mlk 4‫ ־‬Sm 237. 'ly I/ hlk 275. [qqln] jj qlt
201. mphm . . . Slh 238. 7y II ytb . . . yrd 276. qr /I rnn
202. mrym 4‫ ־‬spn 239. 7w . . . 277. qra . . . ytn
203. mrkbt . . . 76 240. + yd 278. qrb +
204. mSlt . . . hpnt 241. II pny 279. qrt // Asm
205. mt If asp 242. *n /I tr 280. n /I ks
206. mt . . . bq' 243. (mhrth) 281. riS + aps
207. mt . . . hrb 244. I/ 'nt 282. r iS /ld 't
208. mt II yrd 245. ,s /I abn . . . ars 283. rtf . . . n p S
mt . . . yrd 246. 'sm . . . Sht . . . mt 284. rtf . . . *pr
209. mt . . . m fe 247. 76 II ba 285. r6 + dr'
210. mtb II kht 248. 76 /I Iqh 286. r66 // £r‘ thmtm
211. ndd . . . *pt 249. 76 . . . 287. rh . . . ap
212. nt' + ars 250. 'rpt I/ tl 288. rh II qtr
213. ns II dbh 251. 'rpt II mtrt 289. rAs /I nsk
214. n'm 11 Spr 'rpt + mtr rhq 4‫ ־‬# (see I 26)
215. npl . . . abd 252. git + yd 290. rhq // &
216. npl . . . npl 253. git II tpt 291. rkbl/nSa
217. npS . . . hwy 254. gr . . . 67 292. r«« + ql
218. npS 4‫ ־‬npS 255. gr II mdb 293. Sal . . . bqt
219. nsb . . . qtr 256. gr / I 'mq 294. U r lllh m
220. nr H Smh 257. pat + mdbr 295. s6' + 6%
221. nrt 4 ‫ ־‬ilm 258. pnm . . . ymn 296. £6' If Sty
222. nSa 4‫ ־‬ytb 259. pgt . . . btn 297. Sd II mhrtt (mhrth)
223. nSa . . . sh 260. pr 4 '?
‫־‬ 298. sd + mm
224. nSa . . . Smh
W
261. sd II Smm 299. Sd II rhmy
225. ntbt . . . drk 262. sdq 4‫ ־‬Sim 300. Sht + mt
226. spa /I mt sh . . . Smjt (see I 309) 301. Skn /I grs
spr 4- St (see I 326) 263. smt /I kly 302. Skn I/ hlk
227. 'bd . . . ybl 264. spn . . . nhlt 303. Skn . . . mla .
228. 'bd . . . Ihm 265. sq I/ nSa 304. Skn I/ Skn
'dt + ilm (see I 22) 266. srrt 4• spn 305. Slrri -f kU
229. 'dr . . . 'ny 267. qbl I/ qbl 306. Sim . . . mgy
— 11 —
I 1 Ras Shamra Parallels
307. Sim II nh 320. Spt II tkm 333. tb I/ Sm'

308. Sm . . . bt 321. Sqy . . . ytn 334. tb . . . tny
309. Smh I/ sh 322. Sr + tb 335. tbr I/ bky
310. smm . . . qdS 323. Sr + 'p 336. tbt . . . abd
Smn . . . zt (see I 104) 324. Sr . . . tp 337. tbt . . . hpk
311. Smn . . . nsk 325. St . . . smkt 338. tbt . . . yrt
312. 5m' + amr 326. St + spr 339. tbt II Sph
313. Sm' /I arS Sty + Sb' (see I 296) 340. td + pnm
314. Sm' + hwt 327. Sty yn . . . Skr 341. tkm I/ yd'
315/J m t y i 'zm 328. tht -j- ars 342. tit . . . mrkbt
316/ Snt II Spt 329. tht + tlhn 343. tgr II hmyt
317. Sph /I 'bd 330. tmm + abd 344. tr /I zby
318. Spk /j ysa 331. tp I/ n'm Supplement
319. sps !‫ ן‬b'l 332. tb . . . pS'
E N T R I E S
1
a. ab II adn
b. 127:27-29 (iCTA 16 VI :27-29)
c. “father” // “lord” or “father”
d. Notes
For the conjectural restoration adnk, see Herdner, CTA, p. 77 and n. 2.
Virolleaud {Syria, X X III [1942-1943], 10), followed by Ginsberg (cf. A NET■',
p. 149) and Gordon (UT, p. 194), restored t', but these two signs do not
adequately fill out the available space. The biblical parallelism lends sub-
stance to Herdner’s restoration. In 77:33(-37) (CTA 24:33[-37]) adn (// um
II ih II aht) clearly denotes “father,” a meaning confirmed by the quadri-
lingual dictionary RS 20.149 11:9' (Ug. V, p. 232), where Akk. a-bu, “fa-
ther,” answers to Ug. a-da-nu.
e. Gen 45:8; Mai 1:6
‫“ א ב‬father” // ‫“ אדון‬lord” or “father”
f. Comments
J. Blau and J. Greenfield, BASOR, 200 (1970), 16, n. 23, assume th at
in Gen 45:8 ‫ אדון‬signifies “father.” Here the assumption may be valid,
— 12 —
Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs I 2
but it can scarcely be upheld in Mai 1:6, as observed by D. Hillers, BASO R,

200 (1970), 18.
a. ab . . . yld
b. Krt:151-152, 297-298 (CTA 14 111:151-152; VI:297-298)
c. “father” . . . (Gp) “to be bom ”

d. Jer 2:27; Job 38:28 (H); Prov 17:25; 23:24
‫“ א ב‬father” // ‫“ י ל ד‬to bear, beget” ; (H) “to beget”
e. Prov 17:21
‫“ י ל ד‬to beget” / / ‫" א ב‬father”
f. Jer 16:3 (H); Prov 23:22
‫“ א ב‬father” + ‫“ י ל ד‬to beget” ; (H) “to beget”
g. Isa 45:10 (H); Jer 20:15 (Dp)
‫“ א ב‬father” . . . ‫( י ל ד‬H) “to beget” ; (Dp) “to be bom ”
h. Gen 24:7
‫“ א ב‬father” / / ‫“ מול ד ת‬birth”
a. ib . . . smt
b. 68:9 (CTA 2 IV:9)
c. “foe” . . . “to annihilate”
d. Ps 69:5
‫“ מצמית‬annihilator” // ‫“ איב‬foe”
e. Lam 3:52-53
‫" איב‬foe” . . . ‫" צמ ת‬to annihilate”
f. Comments
The longstanding proposal to read in Ps 69:5 ‫ מ צ מ תי‬, "than my locks,”
for MT ‫ מ צ מי תי‬, "m y annihilators,” is discountenanced by comparison with
the Ug. collocation of this word pair.
— 13 —
a. ibr // mdr
b. R S 24.266 rev:12-13 (C R A IB L , 1972, 694)
c. “bull” I/ “vow”
d. Notes
A. Herdner, C R AIB L, 1972, 695, identified a root "to vow," for the
word m ir. Thus Ug. possesses the same doublet as Heb., where ‫ =( מ ר‬ndr)
exists alongside of ‫ = ( נד ר‬ndr), "to vow.” Unless Heb. ‫ נד ר‬is an Aram,
loan-word (cf. Gordon, UT, § 19.1618), it is not the Heb. counterpart of
ndr, since d comes into Heb. only as T (Gordon, UT, § 5.13).
e. Ps 50:13-14
‫" אבי ר‬bull” . . . ‫" נד ר‬vow”
a. ud[n] . . . ris
b. 1 Aqht:79-80 {CTA 19 11:79-80)
c. "ear” . . . "head”
d. Ezek 16:12
‫" אזן‬ear” // ‫" ראש‬head”
e. Comments
This v. also witnesses ‫" ע ל‬upon” // ‫" ב‬on,” a pairing listed in R SP
I, II 417.
6
a. ahb + *git
b. 67 V:18 {CTA 5 V:18)
c. "to love” + “heifer”
d. Hos 10:11
‫" עגלה‬heifer” // ‫" א ה ב‬to love”
— 14 —
7
a. ah I/ anS
b. 127:35-36, 50-52 {CTA 16 VI :35-36, 50-52)
c. “to brother” // “to befriend”
d. Gen 13:8
‫" אנשים‬friends” + ‫“ אחים‬brothers”
e. Comments
The hapax phrase in Gen 13:8, ‫ כ י אנשים אחים אנחנו‬, is handled in dif-
ferent ways by the versions, but the Ug. parallelism now makes it possible
and plausible to translate: “because friends, nay, brothers are we.”
a. ah II ary (see also bn // ary [I 59])

b. 67 1:22-23, 24-25 (CTA 5 1:22-23, 24-25); 2 Aqht 1:19-20, 21-22; 11:14-15 (CTA
17 1:19-20, 21-22; 11:14-15)
c. “brother” // “Hon”
d. Notes
In ary, “lion,” one recognizes another instance of the metaphorical use of
animal names, a well documented practice in the Ras Shamra tablets; cf.
P. Miller, UF, II (1970), 177-186.
e. Ps 22:22-23
‫“ אריה‬lion” . . . ‫“ א ח‬brother”
f. Gen 49:8-9
‫“ אח‬brother” . . . ‫“ אריה‬lion”
g. Comments
In Ps 22:22-23, ‫ אריה‬carries the literal meaning "lion,” but in Gen
49:8-9, ‫ גור אריה יהודה‬, “a whelp of a lion is Judah,” its force is metaphorical,
thus in close agreement with Ug. poetic practice.
a. ah /I 7 umt (see also 7 + umt [I 231J and 7 dl . . . ytm [I 235])

b. 1 Aqht:196-197, 201-202 (CTA 19 IV: 196-197, 201-202)
— 15 —
c. “brother” // “infant of maternal family”

d. Notes
In Newsletter, 7 (1975), 5, P. Craigie, reporting on Airoldi’s article, makes
the parenthetical remark th at the reading 7 umty is not certain and cites
Herdner (C T A , p. 91), This is misleading. In 1. 197, to be sure, the reading
is uncertain, but in 1. 202 7 umt is perfectly clear, so th at the restoration
of the missing ' in 1. 197 appears fully justified.
e. Bibliography
N. Airoldi, BZ, X V III (1974), 96-101.
f. Deut, 18:7-8
‫“ אח‬brother” . . . ‫“ ע ל האבות‬infant of paternal family”
g. Comments
Airoldi’s translation of ‫“ ע ל האבות‬Sippenangehoriger,” on the basis of
its balance with ‫ א חיו‬, “his brothers,” appears well founded.
10
a. ahd // 7y
b. R S 24,277:29 (Ug. VI, p. 1681
c. “to seize” // “to ascend”
d. Cant 7:9
‫“ ע ל ה‬to ascend” // ‫“ אחז‬to grasp”
e. Judg 16:3
‫“ אחז‬to seize” // ‫( ע ל ה‬H) “to bring up”
11
a. ahr + b
b. Krt:195-196, 209 (1CTA 14 IV: 195-196, 209)
c. “after” + “on ‫״‬
d. Ezek 6:9; Job 31:7: 37:4
‫“ א ח ר‬after” // ‫“ ב‬in”
e. Jer 2:5, 8; 13:10; Ezek 20:16; Ps 73:24; Ruth 2:7; etc.
‫“ ב‬in, among” // ‫“ אח ר‬after”
— 16 —
f. Hos 11:9-10
‫“ ב‬in ‫ ״‬. . . ‫“ א ח ר‬after‫׳‬
12
a. aht I/ ybnt ab (see also ah // bn um [RSP I, II 17]1
b. *nt I V :83-84 (1CTA 3 D :83-84)

c. “sister” // “daughter of the father”
d. Notes
* Comparison with these juxtaposed terms in Heb. prose texts reveals the
breakup of a composite phrase in Ug. poetry.
e. Gen 20:12; Lev 18:9; Deut 27:22; Ezek 22:11
‫“ אחות‬sister” + ‫“ בת א ב‬daughter of the father”
13
a. aht . . . yd'
b. 125:32-33 {CTA 16 1:32-33)
c. “sister” . . . “to know”

d. Prov 7:4
‫“ אחות‬sister” /I ‫“ מ ד ע‬familiar friend”
e. Job 42:11
‫“ אחית‬sisters” // ‫“ ידעי ם‬familiar friends”
f. Job 19:13
‫“ אחים‬brothers” 11 ‫“ ידעי ם‬familiar friends”
14
a. ayl // itnr
b . 62:24+28 (CTA 6 1:24+28)
c. “deer” // “fawn”
— 17 —
d. Notes
The first letter in 62:28 is unclear; Herdner, CTA, p. 39, reads htnrm, but
imrm is equally possible. To be sure, imrm could also denote “lambs” here,
but the biblical parallelism favors “fawns.”
e. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, TV (1974), 81.
f. Gen 49:21
‫“ אי ל ה‬hind” . . . ‫“ א מ ר‬fawn”
g. Comments
Contrast N E B ’s interpretation of Gen 49:21: “Naphtali is a spreading
terebinth putting forth lovely boughs.”
15
a. akl I/ hpr
b. 2013:2-3, 5-7
c. “food” /I “rations”
d. Job 39:29
‫“ ח פ ר‬to scan” + ‫“ א כ ל‬food”
e. Comments
Versions differ in their rendition of the hapax legomenon phrase ‫ח פ ר‬
‫ א כ ל‬in Job 39:29; its general sense, however, is clear from the parallelism.
I have rendered ‫“ ח פ ר‬to scan” in order to bring out the element of measure
common to both the verb and the noun hpr, “rations.”
16
a. il . . . aliyn (see also il // tliyt [I 27])

b. 51 V I I I :32-33 (CTA 4 V III :32-33); 67 11:9-10 (CTA 5 11:9-10)
c. “E l” . . . “the Victor”
d. Deut 32:4-5; I Sam 2:3; Hos 11:7, 9; Job 15:11; 21:14+16; 23:16-17; 32:13-14;
33:14
‫“ א ל‬E l” H ‫“ ל א‬the Victor”
— 18 —
e. Job 37:4-5
‫“ ל א‬the Victor” II ‫“ א ל‬E l”
f. Job 8:12-13; 34:23
‫“ ל א‬the Victor” . . . ‫“ א ל‬E l”
g. Hab 1:12
‫“ אל הי ם‬God” / / ‫“ לאן‬the Victor”
h. Ps 75:7-8
‫“ ל א‬the Victor” // ‫“ אל הי ם‬God”
i. Comments
In most of the texts cited MT reads the negative particle ‫ ל א‬, which
in every case creates a problem. Repointed ‫ ל א‬, “the Victor,” sense, syntax,
and stichometry usually benefit. For instance, see I Sam 2:3 and Job 32:14,
as translated at htt // lay (I 118 f, h). On Job 33:14 see Blommerde, N W SG J,
pp. 118-119; on Hab 1:12 consult M. Dahood, B ib ,X LV II (1966), 408; and
for a discussion of Ps 75:7-8 see Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 212-213.
17
a. il /I bn
b. 511:13-14; I V :52 (CTA 4 1:13-14; IV:52); 52:1-2 (CTA 23:1-2); ,nt pi. VI:IV:1-2;
V :47-48 (iCTA 3 E:l-2, 47-48)
c. “E l” / / “son‫׳‬
d. Pss 29:1; 89:7
p “son” + ‫“ א ל‬god”
e. Job 38:7
‫“ בן‬son” + ‫“ אלהי ם‬God”
f. Ps 82:6
‫“ אל הי ם‬gods” 11 p • ^ ‫“ בני‬sons of the Most High”
g. Comments
Cf. also Deut 32:8, where a Qumran fragment reading [ ]‫ בני א ל‬, “sons
of God,” sustains three ancient versions against MT ‫ בני יע(ראל‬, “the sons
of Israel.” Consult P. Skehan, BA.SOR‫״‬ti 136 (1954), 12 and n. 2.
— 19 —
3
18
3> il ‫ ־)־‬d
b. 49 111:4, 10 (CTA 6 111:4, 10); 51 11:10; 111:31; I V :58 {CTA 4 11:10; 111:31;
IV:58); etc.
c. “E l” + “the One of”
d. Ps 75:8
‫“ אלהי ם‬God” II ‫“ זה‬the One who”
e. Judg 5:5; Ps 68:9
m “the One of” // ‫“ אל הי ם‬God”
f. Comments
For the translation of ‫ז ה‬, “the One who,” in Ps 75:8, see Dahood,
Psalms I I , p. 213.
g. In both Judg 5:5 and Ps 68:9, ‫ זה סיני‬, “the One of Sinai,” balances
‫ א ל הי י שראל‬, “the God of Israel,” showing th at in neither text should ‫זה סיני‬
be considered a secondary addition. Hence the critical notes in B H K and
B H S suggesting deletion should be discounted.
19
a. il + dbb (see also iSt // dbb [R SP II, I 7])

b. 'nt 111:43 {CTA 3 D:43)
c. “E l” + “Flame”
d. Notes
The hesitancy of Caquot, TOML, p. 168, n. n, to identify dbb with ‫שביב‬,
“flame,” because “la correspondance d'un d ougaritique et d'un 5 hebraique
est douteuse” overlooks the numerous cases such as adddy, “the Ashdodite”
(equals ‫ ) א שלודי‬, in which Ug. d corresponds to ‫ש‬.
e. Hos 8:6
‫“ אלהי ם‬god” !‫“ שבבים ן‬flames”
f. Comments
The text reads:
‫ולא אל הי ם הוא‬ So it is no god,
‫כי שבבים יהיה‬ but it will be flames,
p ^ ‫עגל‬ the calf of Samaria.
— 20 —
g. That Hosea was alluding to the Canaanite m yth is further evidenced

by the mention of ‫ עג ל‬, “calf,” which also figures in the list of monsters
destroyed by Anath ('nt 111:41-43):
smt 'gl il Hk I crushed E l’s calf 'tk;
mhst klbt Urn ist I smote the bitch of the gods, Fire;
kit bt il dbb I annihilated the daughter of El, Flame.
On the wordplay in ‫ שבבים‬, “flames” or “splinters,” see Kuhnigk, Hosea-
buck, pp. 106-107.
20
a. il + hkm
b. 51 I V :41 (CTA 4 IV:41); 126 I V :3 (CTA 16 IV :3); 'nt V:38 {CTA 3 E:38)
c. “E l” + “to be wise”
d. il . . . hkm
e. 51 V:65 {CTA 4 V:65)
f. “E l” . . . “to be wise”
g. Job 32:13
‫“ ח כ מ ה‬wisdom” 11 ‫“ א ל‬E l”
h. Job 39:17
‫“ אלו ה‬God” + ‫“ חכ מ ה‬wisdom”
i. Comments
Job 32:13 lends itself to different translations, but the following ap-
pears to be the most congruent:
‫ פן תאמרו מצאנו חכ מ ה‬Lest you should say: “We have found
wisdom,
‫ א ל ידפנו ל א איש‬El urges us, not m an.”
In ‫ ידפנו‬is identified the root ‫נדף‬, ‫‘־‬to drive, urge,” followed by the suffix
of the first person plural. Contrast E SF : “Beware lest you say, ‘We have
found wisdom; God may vanquish him, not man’” ; and compare II Cor 5:14.
21
a. i l l I 'd
b. 75 11:45-46 (CTA 12 11:45-46)
c. “E l” II “the Everlasting”
— 21 —
d. Notes
This couplet may, with the recognition of a composite divine name sepa-
rated over the two cola, be rendered thus:
sb' snt il mla Seven years El filled,
wtmn nqpnt 'd And eight cycles the Everlasting.
The phrase wtmn nqpnt 'd has usually been translated “eight cycles of time,"
and this may prove equally acceptable; compare 52:66-67 (CTA 23:66-67),
Sb' Snt tmt tmn nqpt'd, “seven complete years, eight cycles of the Everlasting
(or time).” See Parker, Grammar, p. 62.
e. Job 8:20-21
‫“ א ל‬E l” II ‫“ ע ד‬the Everlasting"
f. Isa 9:5; Job 25:4-5
‫“ א ל‬E l" . . . ‫( “ ע ד‬the) Everlasting"
g. I Chron 4:36; 9:12; 27:25
‫( ע די א ל‬PN) “the Everlasting is E l”
h. Comments
W ith the recognition of this composite divine title, Job 8:21 offers no
translational problems:
‫ ע ד י מ ל ה שחוק פיך‬The Everlasting will fill your mouth with
laughter
‫ ושפתיך תרועה‬and your lips with shouts of joy.
i. Following the mention of ‫ א ל‬, "E l,” in v. 4, Job 25:5 may now be ren-
dered:
‫ הן ע ד ירח ולא י א ה ל‬Look at the Everlasting: even the moon
is not bright,
‫ וכוכבי ם ל א זכו בעיניו‬nor the stars clean in his sight.
j. Cf. also Job 27:2-3.
22
a. il I/ *dt
b. 607:2-3
c. “E l” H “assembly”
d. 'dt + Urn
— 22 —
e. 128 11:7, 11 (CTA 15 11:7, 11)

f. “assembly‫ ״‬+ “E l” or “gods”
g. Notes
The following stichometry brings out the parallelism in 607:2-3:
ql bl Bring the message
'm il mbk nhrm To El who makes the two rivers flow,
b 'dt thmtm To the assembly of the two depths.
In this new interpretation the two prepositions 'm and b depend directly
upon the imperative bl and express direction. Earlier analyses took b in a
local sense: “Bring the message to El of the fountain of the two rivers, at
the confluence of the two deeps.” Comparison with 49 1:46‫ ־‬and 51 IV:20-22,
where one verb governs two different prepositions 'm and qrb, favors the
new analysis.
h. Ps 82:1
‫“ ע ד ה‬assembly” + ‫“ א ל‬E l”
23
a. il II *lyn
b. 52:1+3 (CTA 23:1+3)
c. “god” /I “most high”
d. Notes
For the restoration Tly[nm] in 1. 3, see Herdner, CTA, p. 98, n. 3, and Xella,
Shr e Sim, p. 43.
e. Pss 73:11; 77:10-11; 107:11; Sir 41:3-4
‫“ א ל‬God” ‫ן‬/ ‫“ ע לי ץ‬Most High”
f. Pss 46:5; 50:14; 78:56; 82:6
‫“ אל הי ם‬God, gods” II ‫“ עליון‬Most High”
g. Gen 14:18, 19, 20, 22; Ps 78:35
‫“ א ל‬God” + ‫“ עליון‬Most High”
h. Ps 57:3
‫“ אל הי ם‬God” + ‫“ ע לי ץ‬Most High”
i. Ps 47:2-3
‫“ אל הי ם‬God” . . . ‫“ ע לי ץ‬Most High”
— 23 —
j. Comments
In Ps 78:56 MT reads the divine names as merely juxtaposed (note
position of the 'atnah), but stichometry and style are better served when
these names are taken in parallelism. See Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 237, 246,
and N EB. Scanned thus, the v. divides into two cola, the first comprised
of two verbs and a noun, the second consisting of two nouns and a verb:
‫ רנסו רמרו א ת־ א ל הי ם‬But they tempted and defied God;
‫ עליון ועדותיו ל א שמרו‬the Most High and his commandments
they did not heed.
24
a. il II *m (see also hkm . . . 'm [R SP I, II 189])

b. 51 I V :41-42 (CTA 4 IV:41-42); 'nt V:38-39 (CTA 3 E:38-39)
c. “E l” If “Sage”
d. Notes
UT 51 IV:41-43 may be read and translated:
thmk il hkm Your command, O El, is wise;
hkmt 'm 'lm your wisdom, O Sage, is eternal;
hyt hzt thmk felicitous life your command.
Other scholars take 'w as a preposition, rendering 'm 'lm, "to eternity.”
e. Deut 32:21
‫ “ א ל‬E1” !‫‘ עם ן‬sagacity’
f. Comments
In view of the Ug. parallelism, one may render these cola:
‫ הם קנאוני בל א א ל‬They aroused my jealousy with a non-
god;
‫ כעסוני ב ה בלי ה ם‬they provoked me with their idols.
‫ ואני אקניאם בל א עם‬So I will arouse their jealousy with non-
sagacity;
‫ בגד נבל אכעיס ם‬with a stupid nation will I provoke them.
That the poet is here playing on the homograph ‫ ע ם‬, “sagacity” and “peo-
pie,” appears from his adj. ‫נ ב ל‬, "stupid,” modifying ‫ג ד‬, "nation.” Cf.
the puns on these roots in Sir 10:1 (‫ שופט עם יוסר עמו‬, "a sage ruler instructs
his people”); 47:23; and 50:25-26; see Penar, Ben Sira, pp. 30, 82-83, 87-88.
— 24 —
25
a. il + gr
b. 1013:6-7; 1019:2-3
c. “god‫ ״‬+ “to safeguard”
d. il . . . gr
e. 1016:5-6; 1018:22
f. “god” . . . “to safeguard”
g. Notes
R S P I, II 452 discusses the dispute concerning the root underlying tgr, the
form most frequently attested.
h. Jer 2:28
‫“ אלהי ם‬gods” 11 ‫“ ערים‬guardians” II ‫" אלהי ם‬gods”
i. Comments
For Jer 2:28 one may propose this translation:
And where are your gods th at you made for yourself?
Fet them arise, perchance to save you, in your critical time.
Indeed beyond number (reading ‫ ) מ ס פ ר‬were your guardians, your gods,
O Judah.
26
a. il . . . rhq
b. *nt pi. X : IV :2-3 (CTA 1 IV:2-3)
c. “god” . . . “distant”
d. rhq 4 ‫ ־‬il
e. *nt I V :78-79 (CTA 3 D:78-79); *nt pi. IX :III:18-19 {CTA 1 111:18-19)
f. “distant” + “god”
g. Notes
In *nt pi. X:IV:2 the reading of Gordon, UT, p. 255, lq[s ilm] as against
Herdner, CTA, p. 4 and n. 1, has been sustained by 601:2, sh Iqs ilm. Herd-
ner, CTA, p. 299, accepts Gordon's reading.
— 25 —
h. Job 36:2-3
‫“ אלוה‬god ‫ ״‬// ‫ ״ רהוק‬distant”
i. Comments
The parallelism appears more evident when the second colon of Job
36:2 is construed with the two cola of v. 3:
‫ כי עו ד ל א לו ה מלים‬For there are still words from God;
‫ אשא ד עי ל מרחוק‬I bring my knowledge from afar,
‫ ו ל פ ע לי אתן צ ד ק‬and from my Maker I present the truth.
For further details on the chiasmus of the last two cola, see Dahood, Myers
FS, p. 126.
27
a. i l / l tliyt (see also il . . . aliyn [I 16])

b. 603:2-3; 'nt 111:26+28 (CTA 3 0:26+28)
c. “god” II “dominion”
d. Ps 68:10
‫“ אל הי ם‬god” . . . ‫“ נל אה‬dominion”
e. Comments
For the etymology and translation of ‫נ ל א ה‬, see Dahood, Melanges
Tisserant, p. 92; Psalms I I , pp. 139-140; JAO S, XCII (1972), 185; E. Li-
pinski, Syria, X L II (1965), 68, n. 3.
a. il + tpt
b. 602:3
c. “E l” + “to judge, rule”

d. Ps 94:1-2
‫“ א ל‬E l” II 0 ‫“ פ ט‬judge”
e. Ps 82:1; Job 21:22; 22:13
‫“ א ל‬E1” . . . ‫“ עזפט‬to judge”
— 26 —
29
a. il ab /I Itpn htk
b. 49 I V :34-35 (CTA 6 IV :34-35); 'nt pi. IX :II:1 8 ; 111:5-6 (CTA 1 11:18; 111:5-6)
c. “El the father” // "E tpn the begetter”
d. il . . . htk
e. 1004:7+9
f. “E l” . . . “begetter”
g. Ps 52:7
‫“ א ל‬E l” . . . ‫( )?( ח ת ך‬D)“to deprive of children”
h. Comments
Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 14, has repointed MT ‫ לחתף‬to ‫לחתך‬, “May [El]
unchild you,” where the form is parsed as D-privative, parallel to D-priva-
tive !‫שרע‬, “to uproot,” but here with the metaphorical meaning “to deprive
of children.” The Ug. parallelism furnishes new data relevant for the evalu-
ation of this departure from tradition.
•
30
a. ilm + ars
b. 62:18 (CTA 6 1:18); 67 V:6 (CTA 5 V:6); 1 Aqht:127, 141 (CTA 19 111:127, 141)
c. “gods” + “earth”
d. P s97:9
‫“ אר ץ‬earth” 11 ‫“ אלהי ם‬gods”
e. I I Kings 17:26, 27
‫“ אל הי ם‬god” + ‫“ אר ץ‬land”
f. Gen 14:22
‫“ א ל‬God” . . . ‫“ ארץ‬earth”
31
a. ilm /I Smym 11 kbkbm

b. 1 Aqht:184-187, 191-193 (CTA 19 IV:184-187, 191-193)
— 27 —
c. “gods” II “heavens” // “stars”
d. Notes
Following Ginsberg’s stichometry and translation in A N E T 3, p. 155.
e. Isa 14:13
‫“ עמי ם‬heavens” // ‫“ כו כ בי ״ א ל‬the stars of E l”
f. Job 22:12
‫“ אלוה‬God” . . . ‫“ עמי ם‬heavens” II ‫“ כוכבי ם‬stars”
g. Comments
The parallelism of these three terms (note also the chiasmus) in Isa
14:13 sustains the thesis of P. Craigie, Z A W , KXXXV (1973), 223-225, th at
these w . are descendants of the Ug. texts. Craigie correctly rejects the
Greek antecedents proposed by P. Grelot, RH R, CXLJX (1956), 18-48, and
by J. McKay, FT , X X (1970), 451-464. The phrase ‫ כו כ בי ־ א ל‬, “the stars
of E l,” also appears in the Phoen. inscription of Pyrgi (KAI 277:10-11)
as ‫ ה כ כ ב ם א ל‬, “the stars of E l,” as interpreted by M. Dahood, Or, XX X IV
(1965), 170-172, and others.
32
a. amr . . . d't
b. 137:31-32 (CTA 2 1:31-32)
c. “word” . . . “knowledge”
d. Num 24:16; Ps 19:3; Job 33:3

‫“ א מ ר‬word” II ‫" ד ע ת‬knowledge”
e. Prov 19:27
‫“ א מרי‬words of” + ‫“ ד ע ת‬knowledge”
f. Comments
In Job 33:3 MT’s stichometry, which results in the parallelism of these
words, is probably incorrect. Should ‫ ו ל ע ת‬be attached to the first colon,
we would have an instance of juxtaposition, or more precisely, an example
of hendiadys: ‫; ע ר ל בי א מרי וד ע ת‬, “My heart exposes my knowledgeable
words.” I point and parse ‫ ; ע ר‬as H-stem of ‫ עו ר‬, "to see.”
— 28 —
g. This pair probably appears in 1lQPsa 154:15:

‫ כ מ ה רחקה מרשעים א מ רה‬How distant from the wicked is her word,
‫ מכו ל זדים ל ד ע ת ה‬from all haughty men the very know-
ledge of her.
The ‫ ל‬preceding ‫ ד ע ת ה‬is taken as emphatic.
33
a. am rjl'pny (see also *n jjp n y [I 241])

b. 'nt 1:22-25 (CTA 3 A:22-25)
c. "to see” II "to turn, look a t”
d. Notes
Such parallelism results from parsing apn, heretofore usually taken as ad-
verbial "then, thereupon,” as the A-causative of pny.
ytmr b'l bnth Baal sees his daughters:
y*n pdry bt at he eyes Pidriya, daughter of Light;
apn tly [bt f\b he looks at Talliya, [daughter of]
Showers.
e. Jer 2:27
‫ ״ אמר‬to say” !‫" פנה ן‬to tu m ‫״‬
f. Exod 2:12-13; Deut 9:27-28; Mai 2:13-14
‫" פנה‬to tu rn ” . . . ‫" אמר‬to say”
34
a. imr + Ihm
b. 127:17-18, 20 (CTA 16 VI: 17-18, 20)
c. "lam b” + "to eat”
d. Mai 1:7
‫ ״ לח ם‬food” !‫ ״ א מ ר ן‬iamb‫״‬
e. Comments
The parallelism is found in the first and third cola of Mai 1:7:
‫מגישים ע ל מזבחי לח ם מגאל‬ By offering polluted food upon my altar,
‫ב א מ רכ ם שלחן יהוה נבזה הוא‬ with your iambs Yahweh’s table is
despised.
f. On ‫ א מ ר‬, “lamb,” see imr // mgt (R SP II, I 4).
— 29 —
35
a. in 4‫ ־‬ytn
b. 1020:4
c. "there is not” + “to give”
d. Notes
Translating literally the promise s ink itn : "W hat is not to you I will give” ;
i.e., " I ’ll give whatever you don’t have.” Failure to recognize the datival
function of the suffix of ink impeded Virolleaud, P R U II, p. 41, from prof-
fering a translation of the line, and induced J. de Moor, J N E S , X X IV (1965),
359-360, to propose the rash emendation of § ink to Silk, "your wishes.”
Prosaic s ink itn should be compared with poetic pd in bbty ttn (Krt:142):
"B ut what is not in my house you must give.”
e. Isa 22:22; Mai 2:9; Ps 39:6(?)
‫" נתן‬to give” / / ‫" א ץ‬nothing, there is no t”
f. Isa 40:23; Jer 34:22
‫" נתן‬to give” + ‫" א ץ‬nothing, there is not”
g. Isa 27:4; Jer 8:13
‫“ א ץ‬there is not” . . . ‫" נתן‬to give”
h. Isa 40:29; etc.
‫" נתן‬to give” . . . ‫" א ץ‬there is not”
36
a. anyt . . . *rb
b. 2106:11-12
c. "ships” . . . "to enter”
d. Ezek 27:9
‫" אניות‬ships” // ‫" ע ר ב מ ע ר ב ך‬the entry of your imports”
e. Comments
The Ug. collocation helps establish the sense and etymology of ‫ע ר ב‬
‫ מ ע ר ב ך‬, hitherto usually understood as "the barter of your wares” (RSV).
On ‫ ע ר ב‬, "to enter,” consult W. van der Weiden, VD, XLIV (1966), 97-
104, and Dahood, Psalms I I I , p. 47; see also *rb . . . smh (I 249).
— 30 —
37
a. ank // hw
b. 49 11:22-23 (CTA 6 11:22-23)
c. “I ‫ ״‬/ / “he"
d. . . . hw
e. 1002:50-51
f. “I ‫ ״‬. . . “he”
g. Gen 15:2; Isa 45:13
‫ “ אנכי‬1” !‫“ הוא ן‬he‫״‬
h. Hos 5:13-14
‫“ הוא‬he” !1“ ‫” אנכי ן‬
i. Isa 43:25
‫ “ אנכי‬1” + ‫“ הוא‬he”
j. Comments
This parallelism would be eliminated in Gen 15:2 were one to construe
‫ הוא דמשק‬as a gloss to be excised; cf. apparatus in B H K and BH S.
38
a. anpnm // mtnm
b. 75 11:38-39 {CTA 12 11:38-39)
c. “face” II “loins”
d. Notes
Though the form and meaning of anpnm are debated, the biblical paral-
lelism lends support to the translation of J. Gray, UF, I I I (1971), 65:
anpnm yhr[r ] His face was enflamed [ ]
bmtnm yShn[ ] He was fevered in his loins [ ]
Thus anpn appears to be a quadriliteral noun, like aplb, “pericardium,”
comprised of the roots ’np and pny.
e. Nah 2:2
‫“ פנים‬face” 11 ‫“ מתנים‬loins”
— 31 —
f. Nah 2:11; Dan 10:5-6

‫“ מתנים‬loins” 11 ‫“ פנים‬face”
g. Isa 45:1; Ps 69:23-24
‫“ לפני‬before” . . . ‫“ מתנים‬loins”
h. Comments
Since the verbs hrr and ihn, both denoting “fever,” are predicated of
anpnm and mtnm in Ug., one should probably derive ‫ ח ל ח ל‬in Nah 2:11
from ‫ ח ל ה‬, “to be sick,” rather than from ‫ חו ל‬, “to twist, writhe.”
39
a. asp . . . npi
b. Krt: 18-21 (CTA 14 1:1821‫)־‬
c. “to gather” . . . “to fall”
d. Jer 8:12-13; Ezek 29:5 (N)
‫“ נ פ ל‬to fall” II ‫“ א סף‬to gather” ; (N) “to be gathered”
e. Isa 16:9-10 (N); Jer 9:21 (D); 48:32-33 (N)
‫“ נ פ ל‬to fall” . . . ‫( א סף‬N) “to be taken away” ; (D) “to gather”
40
a* ap ‫ ־־)־־‬dd
b. 52:61 (CTA 23:61)
c. “nipple” + “breast”
d. Notes
The phrase ynqm bap dd translates: “those who suck at the nipple of the
breast.” In 1. 24 there is the variant ynqm bap zd atrt, indicating th at the
initial consonant of the word for “breast” was an unstable interdental.
e. Cant 7:9
‫“ עזד‬breast” // ‫“ ריח אף‬fragrance of nipple”
f. Comments
The identification of the poetic breakup of the composite phrase ap dd,
“the nipple of the breast,” requires a new translation of Cant 7:9:
— 32 —
0‫ ויהיו״גאשדיך כא שכלות הגפן‬may your breasts be like clusters of

the vine,
‫ וריח א פ ך כתפוחים‬and the fragrance of your nipples like
apples.
For further details, see M. Dahood, Bib, L/VII (1976), 109-110.
41
a. ar . . . tly
b. 51 1:17-18 (CTA 4 1:17-18); 'nt 1:24; 111:3-4 (CTA 3 A:24; C:3-4)
c. “Fight‫ ״‬. . . “Dew-nymph”
d. Hos 6:4-5
‫“ ט ל‬dew‫ ״‬II ‫“ אור‬light‫״‬
e. Isa 26:19
‫“ ט ל‬dew” + ‫“ אור‬light‫״‬
f. Isa 18:4
‫“ אור‬light” . . . ‫“ ט ל‬dew”
42
a. arzrn // Ibnt
b. 51 V:72-73 (CTA 4 V:72-73)
c. “cedars” // “bricks”
d. Isa 9:9
‫“ לבנים‬bricks” . . . ‫“ א חי ם‬cedars”
e. Comments
The phrase ‫ לבני ם נ פ לו‬, “the bricks have fallen,” in Isa 9:9 undermines
the claim of J. de Moor, UF, III (1971), 349-350, th at “falling stars can
hardly be compared with bricks,” in his commentary on 6:13-14 (CTA
13:13-14), [k]b!kbm tm tpl klbnt [y]rhm kyrkt Hqbm: “Stars fell there like
Ibnt, moons like samaras of ashes” (de Moor’s text and translation). He
suggests in his comments th at Ibnt possibly designates the white petals of
the ash’s blossoms. That Ibnt here denotes bricks, parallel to ash trees, may
also be argued from Isaiah’s balancing of ‫לבני ם‬, “bricks,” with ‫שקמים‬,
“sycamores,” in 9:9. This is an instance of biblical parallel pairs aiding
the definition of Ug. braces.
— 33 —
43
a. ark + bt
b. 323 111:12 (CTA 102 B 111:12)
c. “long” + “house”
d. Notes
Grondahl, P TU , p. 219, analyzes this PN as a hybrid comprised of Hurrian
ar- and Akk. kabtu, “heavy.” A more satisfactory explanation would iden-
tify the common words ,rk, “to be long,” and bt, “house.” Compare Phoen.
PN ‫ א ר כ ר ח‬, literally "long of spirit,” i.e. “long-suffering.”
e. Ps 93:5
‫“ בית‬house” II ‫“ א ר ך ימים‬length of days”
f. Ps 23:6
‫“ בית‬house” + ‫“ אר ך ימים‬length of days”
g. Comments
The final two cola of Ps 93:5 are read and rendered:
‫ ל בי ת ך נאוה קןדש‬For your handsome, holy house,
‫ יהוה ל א ר ך ימים‬Yahweh, for length of days.
44
a. ars + nhlt
b. 51 V III.13-14 (CTA 4 VIII:13-14); 67 11:16 (CTA 5 11:16): 'nt VI:16: [pi. IX :
111:1] ((CTA 3 F:16; [1 111:1])
C. “land” + “inheritance”
d. Isa 49:8; Jer 2:7; 3:19; 16:18
‫" אר ץ‬land” II ‫“ נחלה‬inheritance”
e. Jer 12:15; 17:4
‫“ נ חלה‬inheritance” / / ‫“ ארץ‬land”
f. N um 36:2; Deut 4:38
‫“ ארץ‬land” + ‫“ נ חלה‬inheritance”
g. N um 16:14; 33:54; Deut 4:21; 26:1; Isa 58:14
‫" אר ץ‬land” . . . ‫“ נחלה‬inheritance”
— 34 —
h. Jer 10:16-17; Ps 2:8

‫“ נחל ה‬inheritance” . . . ‫“ ארץ‬land”
i. Num 34:17, 18
‫“ נחל‬to divide for a possession” + ‫“ אר ץ‬land”
j. Jer 3:18 (H); Ps 82:8
‫“ ארץ‬land” . . . ‫“ נחל‬to inherit, rule” ; (H) “to give as a possession”
k. Comments
The collocation in Ps 82:8 casts doubt on the identification of ‫ נחל‬with
Akk. nahalu, “to sift,” proposed by G. Driver, H T R , X X IX (1936), 187,
and adopted by NEB: “For thou dost pass all nations through thy sieve.”
Further difficulty arises when one tries to explain the function of the prep-
osition ‫ ב‬after the verb understood as “to sift.” Such a problem does not
arise when ‫ נחל‬is taken as “to rule,” a nuance evident in Ug. where nhl
often balances ytb, “to sit enthroned.”
45
a. ars . . . pr (see also ybl // j>r [R SP I, II 211])

b. 67 11:5-6 (CTA 5 11:5-6)
c. “earth” . . . “fruit”
d. Jer 2:7
‫“ אר ץ‬earth” // ‫“ פ רי‬fruit”
e. Hos 10:1
‫“ פרי‬fruit” II ‫“ אר ץ‬earth”
f. Ps 107:34
‫“ אר ץ‬earth” + ‫“ פ רי‬fruit”
g. Num 13:20, 26; Isa 4:2; Pss 21:11; 104:13; etc.
‫“ פרי‬fruit” + ‫“ אר ץ‬earth”
h. Deut 26:2; Ps 72:16; etc.
‫“ פ רי‬fruit” . . . ‫“ אר ץ‬earth”
i. Jer 6:19-20
‫“ ארץ‬earth” . . . ‫“ פ רי‬fruit” . . . ‫“ ארץ‬earth”
j. Comments
Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, pp. 117-118, examines other Canaanite parallels
to Hos 10:1.
— 35 —
4
46
a. ars . . . rbb
b. 'nt 11:39; I V :87-88 (CTA 3 B:39; D :87-88)
c. “earth” . . . “showers”
d. ars . . . rbb
e. 'nt 111:13-14; IV:68-69 (CTA 3 C:13-14; D:68-69)
f. “earth” . . . (A) “to shower”

g. Notes
In *nt 111:14 I parse arb (dd) as the fem. imperative sing. (// sk, 1. 13) of
rbb, but in the causative conjugation. Hence render arb dd: “Shower love!”
'n t IV :69 contains the yqtl form of the same conjugation. Cf. the reading
‫ ה ר ב ה‬, “ Rain down!” for MT ‫ ה ר ב ה‬in Ps51:4 (Dahood, Psalms I I 2, pp. 1, 3;
and Psalms I I I , pp. xxxi-xxxn).
h. Jer 3:2-3
‫“ אר ץ‬earth” // ‫“ רביבי ם‬showers”
i. Ps 72:6
‫“ רביבי ם‬showers” + ‫“ א ר ץ‬earth”
j. Hos 10:1
‫“ רב‬showers” . . . ‫“ אר ץ‬earth”
k. Comments
On ‫ כ ר ב ל פ רי‬in Hos 10:1, see Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, pp. 117-119.
47
a. irS /I It
b. 2065:14-17
c. “to request” // “to put, give”
d. Ps 21:3-4
‫" ארשת‬request” . . . ‫“ שית‬to put, give”
— 36 —
48
a. ist I/ hrs
b. *nt 111:42-44 {CTA 3 D :42-44)
c. “fire‫ ״‬II “gold”
d. Zech 9:3-4
‫“ חרוץ‬gold‫ ״‬. . . ‫“ אש‬fire‫״‬
e. Comments
Zech 9:4 exhibits a further relationship to the Ug. passage in its use
of ‫יורשנה‬, “he will dispossess her,” the same root underlying *nt 111:43-44,
w itrt hrs, “and I seized the gold.”
49
a. istl/rh m
b. 49 11:33-34; V:13-16 {CTA 6 11:33-34; V: 13-16)
c. “fire” /I “millstones”
d. Prov 30:16
‫“ רחם‬millstones” 11 ‫“ אש‬fire”
e. Comments
For the disputed phrase ‫ ע צ ר ךח ם‬I tentatively propose to read ‫ע צ ר‬
‫ ר ח ם‬, “the grinding of millstones,” with ‫ רחם‬explained as a northern dual
with the diphthong contracted. Arab, 'asara, “to press, squeeze (of grapes),”
and ‫ ע צ ר‬, “oppression,” are invoked to sustain this interpretation of the
phrase. Pointed thus, ‫ ר ח ם‬, “millstones,” stands in parallelism with three
other nouns, one of which is ‫אש‬, “fire.” hike these, the millstones are never
sated, but ever desire more grain to crush.
50
a. it . . . ytn (see also it //St [I 51])

b. 52:71-72, 72 {CTA 23:71-72, 72)
c. “there is” . . . “to give”
— 37 —
d. Jer 37:17; Eccles 2:21; 10:5-6 (N); I Chron 29:3

1‫“ יע‬there is” / / ‫“ נתן‬to give” ; (N) “to be set”
e. Gen 39:4, 8
!‫“ יע‬there is” + ‫“ נתן‬to give”
f. Jer 14:22; Eccles 6:1-2
!‫“ יע‬there is” . . . ‫“ נתן‬to give”
g. Lam 3:29
‫“ נתן‬to give” . . . ‫“ יעו‬there is”
h. Comments
The arguments in favor of differentiating the roots of it and !‫ יע‬set forth
by J. Blau, 70S, I I (1972), 5862‫־‬, do not command assent; preferable is
the explanation of Gordon, UT, § 19.478.
51
a. it /I it (see also it . . . ytn [I 50])

b. 3 Aqht ‘rev’:18-19 (CTA 18 1:18-19)
c. “there is” // “to p u t”
d. it . . . st
e. 2060:34-35
f. “there is” . . . "to p u t”
g. Notes
Translating 3 Aqht ‘rev’:18-19:
hd dit bkbdk Undertake th a t which is on your mind,
tit b[qrb‫ \־‬irtk which you have set within your breast.
h. Job 9:33
!‫“ יע‬there is” . . . ‫“ ע!ית‬to p u t”
i. Comments
On the dispute regarding the phonetic connection between it and !‫יע‬,
see it . . . ytn (I 50 h).
— 38 —
52
a. att ‫ן‬/ atrt

b. 'nt 1:13-15 (CTA 3 A:13-15)
c. “the woman‫ ״‬// “Asherah‫״‬
d. I I Kings 23:7
‫“ הנשים‬the women ‫ ״‬. . . ‫“ אעזרה‬Asherah”
53
a. att + ypt
b. 52:39 {CTA 23:39)
c. “wife” + “beautiful‫״‬
d. Notes
Translating il attm kypt: “El—his two wives are truly beautiful” ; il parses
as casus pendens and k of kypt as emphatic. See also CaquotJTO M L, p.[374:
“El! Comme les femmes sont belles!” and J. Montgomery, JAO S, L X II
(1942), 49-51. One might object th at after dual attm one should expect
dual adjective yptm, but here the poet may be employing the usage well
known from biblical Heb., where the dual noun is followed by the plural
adjective; e.g., Prov 6:17, ‫ עינים רמות‬, “haughty eyes.”
e. Bibliography
Penar, Ben Sira, p. 28.
f. Sir 9:8 (Penar)
‫ה‬#‫“ א‬woman” // ‫“ יפי‬beauty”
g. Prov 31:30
‫“ יפי‬beauty” 11 ‫ה‬$‫" א‬woman”
h. Sir 25:20 (Penar)
‫“ י פי‬beauty” + ‫" אשה‬woman”
i. Prov 11:22 (Penar)
‫ ה‬0 ‫“ א‬woman” + ‫" י פ ה‬beautiful”
j. Comments
In view of these parallelisms and juxtapositions, the B H K proposal to
delete ‫ אשה‬in Prov 31:30 as a gloss should be scouted.
— 39 —
54
a. b I/ b
b. Krt:286-288 {CTA 14 V I:286-288); *nt 11:30-32 (CTA 3 B :30-32)
c. “from‫ ״‬II ‫ ״‬in, into”
d. Notes
Restoring with Cassuto, GA, p. 65, bbt in 'n t 11:31; see also Herdner, CTA,
p. 15, n. 5. Thus ymh bbt dm dmr, “the blood of soldiers was wiped from the
house,” parallels ysq Smn Sim bs\ “the oil of peace was poured into a basin.”
e. Gen 35:13-14; Job 5:19; Eccles 5:14
‫“ ב‬from” If ‫“ ב‬in”
f. Job 20:20
‫“ ב‬in” ‫ן‬/ ‫“ ב‬from”
g. Comments
Gen 35:13-14 translates: “Then God departed from him, from the place
(‫ )ב מ קו ם‬where he spoke with him. And Jacob set up a pillar in the place
(‫ )ב מ קו ם‬where he had spoken with him.”
h. The frequent emendation of ‫ בשש‬to ‫ משש‬in Job 5:19 becomes difficult
to uphold in view of this parallelism; its recognition sharpens the under-
standing of Job 20:20: “Because he knew no rest in his body (‫)בבטנו‬, could
not escape from his desire (‫) ב ח מו דו‬.”
55
a. bd . . . ql
b. *nt 1:18+20 (CTA 3 A:18+20)
c. “to chant” . . . “voice”
d. Job 39:24-25
‫“ קול שופר‬sound of the horn” If ‫“ ב די שפר‬notes of the horn”
e. Comments
For this definition of ‫ ב די שפר‬, see Pope, Job3, p. 313, and Dahood, VH P,
p. 53. The newly pointed out parallelism with ‫ קו ל‬, “voice,” th at evokes
the Ug. collocation bd . . . ql, sustains this definition.
— 40 —
56
a. bhtm // *dbt
b. 607:70-71
c. “houses" II "structures(?)”
d. bt . . . *dbt
e. 51 V:75-76 {CTA 4 V175-76)
f. “house" . . . “wares(?)”
g. Job 20:19
‫“ עזב‬huts(?)” / / ‫“ בית‬house”
h. Comments
Though this rapprochement does not settle the sense of *d/dbt and ‫ עז ב‬,
it does suggest th a t we are dealing with the same root whose basic meaning
is “to put, make.” On Job 20:19, see M. Dahood, JB L , T X X V III (1959),
303-309, especially 306-307.
57
a. bky /I dmm . . . udmH

b. 125:25-28 {CTA 16 1:25-28)
c. “to weep” If “to mourn” . . . “tears”
d. Ezek 24:16-17
‫“ ב כ ה‬to weep” 11 ‫“ ד מ ע ה‬tears” 11 ‫" ד ם‬mourning”
e. Comments
The recognition of this triple parallelism improves the stichometry and
sense of Ezek 24:16-17:
‫ולא ת ס פ ד ולא ת בכ ה‬ But you shall not wail nor cry,
‫ול א תבוא ד מ ע ת ך‬ nor shall your tears well forth,
‫האנק ד ם מתים‬ sighing, mourning for the dead.
‫א ב ל לא־תש&ה‬ Funeral rites do not perform.
The contested words ‫ האנק ד ם מתים‬may grammatically be construed with
the preceding verb ‫ ל א תבוא‬or with the following injunction ‫ ל א תע ^ה‬. In
either construction the triple word parallelism remains unchanged.
— 41 —
58
a. bky -+‫* ־‬gm

b. Krt:26-27 {CTA 14 1:26-27)
c. “to weep” + “grief”

d. Notes
Herdner, CTA, p. 62, reads -gmm, but Dietrich and Doretz, Elliger FS,
pp. 32, 34-35, convincingly argue th at we should read 'gmm: ybky bin 'gmm,
“he wept while repeating his griefs.” The authors cite the hapax legomenon
‫עג מה‬, “it grieves,” but fail to note the parallelism in Job 30:25, which would
have greatly strengthened their argument. The intrinsic reasons alone,
however, suffice to impose the reading 'gmm.
e. Job 30:25
‫“ בכ ה‬to weep” // ‫“ עגם‬to grieve”
f. Comments
This new instance should be added to the list of hapax and dis-lego-
menon pairs th at have been collected by Dahood, Moriarty FS, pp. 19-34.
See also Dahood, R SP I, II Intro 6 h-i.
59
a. bn If ary (see also bn // sbr [I 61])

b. 49 1:11-13 {CTA 6 1:39-41); 51 11:24-26; IV:48-50 {CTA 4 11:24-26; IV:48-50);
'nt V:44-45 {CTA 3 E:44-45)
c. “son” II “lion”
d. Notes
As frequently, the Canaanite poets employ animal names metaphorically.
The precise nuance of the metaphor depends upon the parallel noun, hence
an instance of conditioned meaning.
e. I I Sam 17:10; Jer 2:30
‫“ בן‬son” . . . ‫“ אריה‬lion‫״‬
f. Gen 49:9
‫“ גור אריה‬lion’s whelp” . . . ‫“ בן‬son”
— 42 —
60
a. bn II 7
b. 3 Aqht 'obv':21-22, 31-33 (CTA 18 IV:21-22, 31-33)
c. “between” // “upon”
d. Job 9:33; Sir 9:13
‫“ ב ץ‬between” // ‫“ ע ל‬upon”
e. Exod 13:9; Deut 33:12; I Sam 17:6; Job 34:37; etc.
‫“ ע ל‬upon, by, to” // ‫“ בין‬between, among”
f. Job 38:4-5
‫“ בין‬interior” // ‫“ ע ל‬over”
g. Comments
Usually taken as prose, I Sam 17:6 can easily be read as poetry.
h. For Job 34:37 one may propound a new stichometry and vocalization:
‫ כי יסיף ע ל־ ח ט א תו‬For he adds to his sin;
‫ פשע בינינו יספולן‬rebellious he claps his hands in our
midst,
‫ ך ב אמריו ל א ל‬2‫ ו‬and multiplies his words against El.
i. In Job 38:4-5 the parallelism results from repointing ‫בינה‬, “intelligence,”
to 3 ‫ינה‬, “its interior,” which is then balanced by ‫ ע לי ה‬, “over it.”
61
a. bn I) sbr (see also bn // ary [I 59])

b. 49 1:11-13 (iCTA 6 1:39-41); 51 11:24-26; I V :48-50 (1CTA 4 11:24-26; IV:48-50);
(nt V:44-45 (CTA 3 E:44-45)
c. “son” I/ “band”
d. Zech 9:3
‫“ בנה‬to build” 11 ‫“ צ ב ר‬to heap up”
e. Comments
This listing is relevant because, as is widely recognized by the lexica,
p , "son,” derives from ‫בנה‬, “to build.” This v. also witnesses ‫“ כסף‬silver” //
‫“ ח ר ק‬gold” ; see R S P I, II 301 h and j.
— 43 —
62
a. b 'd j 'l n
b. 'nt 111:30-31 {CTA 3 D:30-31)
c. “behind” // “above”
d. Job 42:8
‫“ ב ע ד‬on behalf of” // ‫“ ע לי‬over”
e. Gen 20:18; Job 9:7-8
‫“ ב ע ד‬behind” . . . ‫“ ע ל‬upon”
f. Comments
Compare also I Sam 4:18 and Jonah 2:7-8.
63
a. b'l . . . ahb
b. 67 V:17-18 {CTA 5 V: 17-18)
c. “Baal” . . . “to love”
d. b'l{t) . . . a(/i)hbt
e. 603 rev:8; 1002:45-46; 'nt 111:3-4 {CTA 3 C:3-4)
f. “ Baal, Mistress” . . . “love”
g. Hos 2:15
‫“ ה ב עלי ם‬the Baals” // ‫“ מ אהביה‬her lovers”
64
a. b'l II atrt
b. 9:6 (CTA 36:6); 51 111:37-38 {CTA 4 111:37-38)
c. “ Baal” II “Asherah”
d. b'l + atrt
e. 9:8 {CTA 36:8); 51 11:13 {CTA 4 11:13)
f. “Baal” + “Asherah”
— 44 —
g. Judg 6:25, 30; I Kings 18:19

‫“ ב ע ל‬Baal” II ‫“ אישרה‬Asherah”
h. Judg 3:7
‫“ ב ע ל‬Baal” + ,‫“ א ע ר ד‬Asherah‫״‬
65
a. b(l . . . gr
b. 49 111:44+47-48 (CTA 6 111:44+47-48)

c. “Baal” . . . “to safeguard”
d. Notes
The first member occurs in a speech of sps; the second appears twice in 'nt’s
answer. For the reading ygr[l] in 1. 47, see Herdner, CTA, p. 41.
For the dispute regarding the root underlying ygr[k] and tgrk, see R SP I,
I I 452 d and g. The following biblical text sustains a middle weak root
instead of primae nun ngr, at least in ygr[k] and tgrk. No one questions that
Ug. also possesses ngr = ‫נצ ר‬, “to protect, preserve,” just as Heb. has both
‫ נצר‬and ‫ עי ר‬, “to safeguard” ; cf. Deut 32:10-11.
e. N um 21:28
‫“ ע ר‬the Guardian” / / ‫" ב ע לי‬the Baals of”
f. Comments
The line may now be rendered:
‫א כ ל ה ע ר מואב‬ I t devours the Guardian of Moab,
‫ב ע לי במות ארנן‬ the Baals of Am on’s high places.
g. The identification of ‫ ע ר‬with Ug. gr precludes its emendation to ‫ ע ד‬,
“up to ,” or ‫ ע רי‬, “the cities of,” as well as of ‫ ב ע לי‬to ‫ ב ל ע ה‬, "swallows up,”
th at is found in the UXX and followed by many modern versions. That
‫ ע ר‬, “the Guardian,” here referring to Chemosh, tutelary deity of Moab
who is mentioned in the next verse, and ‫ ב ע לי‬, “the Baals of,” form an un-
exceptionable pair can be seen upon comparison with Mic 5:13 (cf. M. Da-
hood, Bib, X U III [1962], 226):
‫ונתישתי אשיריך מ ק ר ב ך‬ And I will uproot your Asherim from
your midst;
‫והשמדתי עריך‬ and I will destroy your guardians.
— 45 —
Here critics usually emend ‫ ע רי ך‬to either ‫ ב ע לי ך‬, “your Baals,” or ‫ ע צ בי ך‬,
“your idols.” Ug. gr, “to safeguard,” renders such emendations unneces-
sary. Thus parallelism ,w ith ‫ ב ע לי‬, “the Baals of,” in Num 21:28 and with
‫ א עי רי‬, “the Asherim of,” in Micah 5:13 shows th a t ‫ ע ר‬and ‫ ע רי ך‬refer to divi-
nities and relate to the root of Ug. tgr th at always designates the tutelary
activity of Canaanite gods.
66
a. brq 11 isr
b. 603 obv:3-4
c. "lightning” // “treasury, storehouse”
d. Notes
The biblical collocation cited below could have served B. Margulis, JB L ,
XC (1971), 482, who left isr (which he read as one word with r't: isn't) un-
translated. The Ug. scholars who have identified isr with ‫ או צ ר‬, "store-
house,” find their definition strengthened by the biblical collocation. In
fact, comparison with Micah 6:10 and Prov 10:2, ‫ א)ו(צרות רישע‬, “storehouses
of malice,” suggests th at tmnt isr r't be rendered "eight storehouses of evil,”
or "eight storehouses of evil winds,” since in Jer 1:14 we read ‫מצפון תפתח‬
‫ ה ר ע ה‬, “from the north an evil wind will blow,” where ‫ תפ תח‬is parsed as a
Gt form of ‫ פו ח‬, "to blow.”
e. Jer 10:13; 51:16; Ps 135:7
‫" בר ק‬lightning” . . . ‫" אוצר‬treasury, storehouse”
67
a. Mr . . . yld . . . smh (see also yld // Stnh [I 131])

b. 76 111:35-36+38 (CTA 10 111:35-36+38)
c. "to receive tidings” . . . "to be born” . . . "to rejoice”
d. Jer 20:15
‫ ר‬8?‫( ב‬D) “to bear tidings” // ‫( י ל ד‬Dp) "to be bom ” // ‫( שמח‬D) “to cause to
rejoice”
— 46 —
68
a. bsr . . . Ihm
b. 128 I V :25-27; V:8-10 {CTA 15 IV :2527‫ ;־‬V:8-10)

c. “m eat" . . . “to eat"
d. Isa 58:7
‫“ לח ם‬bread” / / ‫ ר‬1‫“ בע‬m eat”
e. I Kings 17:6 (twice)
‫“ ל ח ם‬bread” + ‫“ בע(ר‬m eat”
f. Comments
This parallelism emerges when the first and fourth cola are read chi-
astically in Isa 58:7:
‫הלו א פ ר ס ל ר ע ב ל ח מ ך‬ Is it not sharing your bread with the
hungry,
‫ועניים מרודים תביא בית‬ and th at you bring the homeless poor
into your house?
‫כי־ ת ר א ה ער ם וכסיתו‬ When you see one naked, clothe him,
‫ומבשרך ל א ת תעל ם‬ and hide none of your meat for yourself.
g. I t thus appears th at the prophet broke up the composite phrase wit-
nessed twice in I Kings 17:6 and distributed its components in the first
and fourth cola, which deal with food, while the second and third are con-
cemed with protection against the elements. See now M. Dahood, Bib,
IyVII (1976), 105.
69
a. bt II ars
b. 51 VIII.7-9 (CTA 4 VIII:7-9); 67 V:14-16 {CTA 5 V:14-16)

c. “house” II “earth”
d. bt . . . ars
e. 51 V I I :42-44 {CTA 4 V II :42-44)
f. “house” . . . “earth ‫״‬
— 47 —
g. Gen 24:7
‫“ בית‬house" II ‫“ אר ץ‬land”
h. Micah 6:4
‫“ אר ץ‬land" II ‫“ בית‬house"
70
a. bt + ba
b. 127:3 (CTA 16 VI:3); 128 I V :21 (CTA 15 IV:21)
c. “house” 4‫“ ־‬to enter"
d. Prov 15:6
‫“ בית‬house” II ‫“ תבואה‬entrance”
e. Comments
For the translation of Prov 15:6, see Dahood, Proverbs, p. 33.
71
a. bt 4 ktrt
‫־‬
b. 2 Aqht 11:26, 39-40 {CTA 17 11:26, 39-40)

c. “house” + “K otharot”
d. Ps 68:7
‫“ בית‬house” II ‫ רות‬12‫“ כה‬Kotharot (music[?], chains[?])”
e. Comments
Despite numerous recent studies, the precise nuance of hapax ‫כגז רו ת‬
still eludes us, but the correspondence does safeguard the integrity of the
consonantal text th at in the past has been subjected to some manipulation.
Recent discussions by E. Lipinski, AION, X X X I (1971), 532-537; B. Mar-
gulis, A N E S , IV (1972), 52-61; and M. Lichtenstein, A N E S , IV (1972),
97-112, seem not to have advanced our understanding of ‫כו שרות‬. About
its structural parallelism with ‫ בי ת‬, “house," however, there can be no doubt.
The problem of defining ‫ כושרות‬is complicated by the ambiguity of the syn-
tagma ‫ מוצי א ב‬, which can signify "who brings forth from." On this hypo-
thesis the second colon would read "who brings prisoners forth from chains.”
Since the Canaanite god Kothar was the founder of metallurgy, such a defi-
nition of ‫ כגז רו ת‬acquires plausibility.
— 48 —
72
a. bt . . . Ihm
b. Krt:82-83, 173-174 (CTA 14 11:82-83; IV.173-174)
c. “bouse” . . . “bread”
d. Prov 30:25-26
‫“ לח ם‬bread” / / ‫“ בית‬house”
e. Isa 3:7
‫“ בית‬house” + ‫“ לח ם‬bread”
f. Job 42:11; Prov 27:27
‫“ לח ם‬bread” + ‫“ בית‬house, household”
g. Prov 31:27
‫“ בית‬household” . . . ‫“ לח ם‬bread”
h. Isa 58:7; Hos 9:4
‫“ ל ח ם‬bread” . . . ‫“ בית‬house”
i. Comments
Isa 58:7 is also discussed a t Mr . . . Ihm (I 68), where the cola are read
chiastically so th a t the principal counterpart of ‫ ל ח ם‬, “bread,” is not ‫ בי ת‬,
“house,” but ‫ ר‬12‫ מ‬, “m eat.”
73
a. bt + sgr
b. Krt:96 (CTA 14 11:96)
c. “house” + “to lock”
d. Isa 42:7
‫“ מסגר‬prison” // ‫“ בית כ ל א‬dungeon”
74
a. bt . . . Sri
b. 2 Aqht 1:26 (CTA 17 1:26)
c. “house” . . . "root, offspring”
— 49 —
d. Job 8:17
‫“ שרש‬offspring” 11 ‫“ בית‬house”
e. I I Kings 19:30; Isa 37:31
‫“ בית‬house” . . . ‫“ ער ש‬root”
f. Comments
The recognition of a parallel pair and of a breakup of a composite phrase
recovers some sense from extremely difficult Job 8:17:
‫ע ל ״ג ל שרשיו י ס בכו‬ Over the heap his offspring clamber;
‫בית אבנים יחזה‬ his house gazes upon stones.
The splendid stone mansion built by the impious rich man will be reduced
to a heap of rubble, and his children will clamber over the stones. ‫ בי ת‬, “his
house,” which shares the suffix of its opposite partner !‫שרשי‬, here designates
“his family, descendants.” In addition to the use of the double-duty suffix,
the poet also melds the bicolon by breaking up the composite phrase
‫ג ל־ א בני ם‬, “a heap of stones” (cf. Josh 7:26; 8:29; II Sam 18:17), and dis-
tributing its components over the balancing cola.
g. Phoen. also witnesses the pair ‫ בת‬// ‫ שרש‬in the Karatepe Inscription;
see KAI 26 A 1:9-10. See also Prov 12:3+7.
75
a. btk II l
b. 602 rev:10-11
c. “amid” II “for, to ”
d. Notes
For the preposition l in 602 re v :ll, see J. de Moor, UF, I (1969), 176 and
179. He translates the phrase lymt §p§ wyrh by “all the days of Sapsu and
Yarihu” (p. 176) or “as long as sun and moon exist” (p. 179). Its literal
meaning is "to the days of sun and moon.”
e. Ezek 29:3; Zech 8:8; Prov 1:14
‫“ בתוך‬amid” 11 ‫“ ל‬for, to ”
f. Gen 2:9; Ezek 21:37; Pss 22:23; 40:9; Job 2:8; 15:19; etc.
‫“ ל‬for, to” II ‫“ בתוך‬amid”
— 50 —
76
a. bt + b'l
b. 68:28, 31 (CTA 2 IV:28, 31)
c. "to be ashamed” + "Baal”
d. Jer 11:13
‫" בעת‬Shame” // ‫" ב ע ל‬Baal”
e. Hos 9:10
‫" ב ע ל ־ פ עו ר‬Baal-Peor” // ‫" בשת‬Shame”
f. Comments
One may accordingly question the frequent assertion th at ‫ ב ע ת‬,
"Shame,” was substituted for ‫ ב ע ל‬, “Baal,” by later editors of these two texts.
Acquaintance with a Canaanite text predicating shame of Baal may just
as convincingly account for the balancing of these two words by the pro-
phets themselves. The LXX's omission of ‫ מזבחות ל ב ע ת‬in Jer 11:13 counts
for little, given its limited familiarity with Canaanite motifs. Hence I cannot
endorse the opinion of Janzen, Jeremiah, p. 12, th at MT has conflated two
variant readings.
77
a. gbl II iht
b. 'nt V I:7-8 (CTA 3 F :7 8 ‫)־‬
c. "Byblos” /I "islands”
d. Notes
For the analysis of iht as the plural of ,y, "island,” see D. Neiman, JN E S ,
X X X (1971), 64-68; Caquot, TOML, p. 178, n. c.
e. Ezek 27:7-\-9
‫" איים‬islands” . . . ‫" גבל‬Byblos”
78
a. ggt . . . bt hbr
b. Krt:80-82, 172-173 (CTA 14 11:80-82; IV:172-173)
c. “roofs” . . . “bt hbr‫״‬
— 51 —
5
d. Notes
The dispute regarding the meaning of bt hbr seems not to compromise the
identification of this pair with its biblical counterpart.
e. Prov 21:9; 25:24
‫“ מ‬roof” II ‫“ בית חב ר‬common house(?)”
f. Comments
hike Ug. bt hbr, ‫ בית חב ר‬is also disputed; th at we are dealing with the
same expression is further evidenced by its association with “roof” in both
literatures.
79
a• ggtllqryt
b. Krt:79-81, 171-172 (CTA 14 11:79-81; IV:171-172)
c. “roofs” II “city”
d. Isa 22:1-2
‫“ מות‬roofs” . . . ‫“ קריה‬city”
e. Comments
I t might be noted in this connection th at the Canaanite word for “roof”
appears in Ug. and Heb. as gg in the singular, and th at both employ the
fern, form (Ug. ggt) in the plural. This lexical and morphological identity
underscores further the close kinship between these two Canaanite dialects.
80
a. gwl I/ ssy
b. 1001 obv:4-5
c. “to rejoice” // “to exult”
d. Notes
Though the context is not very clear, recognition of the parallel pair leads
to this tentative translation of ktgwln Intk [ ‫]־‬w$ptk Ussy: "Your teeth will
certainly rejoice, [ ]and your lips truly exult.” The particles k and l are
treated as emphatics, while the verb tgwln is taken as a byform of gyl. The
k‘ttb of Prov 23:24, ‫ גול יגול‬, parallel to ‫ישמח‬, certifies the identification of
— 52 —
tgwln. The form tssy, in the light of the biblical parallelism, looks like a
cognate of ‫שיש‬, “to exult,” but with a tertia instead of a media yod.
e. Isa 65:19; Ps 35:9
‫“ גיל‬to rejoice” // (£PtP “to exult”
f. Isa 35:1; 61:10; 65:18
ftrfr “to exult” II ‫“ גיל‬to rejoice”
g. Isa 65:18
‫“ גילה‬joy” II &‫“ מע(ה‬exultation”
81
a. grs . . . mla
b. 126 V:27-28 (CTA 16 V:27-28)
c. "to drive out” . . . “to be full, to fill”
d. Notes
The damaged context prevents satisfactory translation of the passage.
e. Ps 80:9-10
‫( גרע‬D) “to drive out” // ‫( מל א‬D) “to fill”
f. Comments
If the same subject (God) is maintained for all six verbs, the balance
between ‫( גרע‬D), “to drive out,” and ‫( מל א‬D), “to fill,” becomes more
evident.
‫גפן ממצרים תסיע‬ You brought a vine from Egypt,
‫תגרע גדם ותטעה‬ drove out the nations and planted it.
‫פנית לפניה ו תערע‬ You pushed aside her predecessors and
rooted her;
‫ע ר עי ה ו ת מ ל א־ א ר ץ‬ with her roots you indeed filled the land.
82
a. dbh + tdmm
b. 51 111:20 (1CTA 4 111:20)
c. “banquet, sacrifice” + “lewdness”
d. Prov 21:27
‫" זבח‬sacrifice” II ‫" זמה‬lewdness”
— 53 —
e. Comments
The biblical parallelism upholds Driver's (CM L, p. 153, n. 16), iden-
tification of tdmm with ‫ ;?מה‬contrast Gordon, UT, § 19.675, and Aistleitner,
Worterbuch, No. 757.
83
a. dbh + tr
b. Krt:76, 168-169 (CTA 14 11:76; IV.168-169)
c. “to sacrifice" + ‫ ״‬bull"
d. Hos 12:12
‫“ עוררים‬bulls” 11 ‫“ מזבחות‬altars‫״‬
e. Comments
The recognition of the parallelism of these two terms, juxtaposed in
Ug., makes it even more difficult to credit the longstanding emendation,
repeated anew by Elliger in BH S, of ‫ עוררים‬to ‫לעזרים‬, “to demons.” See D.
Grimm, Z A W , LXXXV (1973), 339-347, who also rejects the emendation
for reasons stemming from Ug. evidence.
84
a. dbr . . . mt
b. 67 V I:6-7 (1CTA 5 VI :6-7)
c. “plague” . . . (H) “to slay”
d. Notes
Much disputed, this couplet may tentatively be rendered:
In'my ars dbr To the lovely land of plague,
lysmt sd shl mmt to the beautiful field of the lion who
slays.
As recognized by scholars, the description of Mot’s kingdom is euphemistic.
I identify shl with ‫עוחל‬, “lion,” and mmt with ‫ מ מי ת‬, the H part, predicated
of lions in II Kings 17:26. For other opinions see de Moor, Seasonal Pattern,
pp. 186-187.
e. Ps 78:50
‫“ מות‬death” II ‫“ ד ב ר‬plague”
— 54 —
f. Hos 13:14
‫“ מות‬D eath” . . . ‫“ ד ב ר‬plague” + ‫“ מות‬D eath”
g. Ezek 5:12; 6:12; 33:27
‫ ״ ד ב ר‬plague” + ‫“ מות‬to die”
85
a. cLbrjjtwy
b. 127:30-31, 43-44 (CTA 16 VI:30-31, 43-44)
c. “to speak” // “to rule, govern”
d. Notes
The noting of the parallelism does not palpably advance our understanding
of the couplet because of the obscurity of other words in the couplet kgz
gzm tdbr / wgrm ttwy.
e. Ps 89:20
‫( ד ב ר‬D) “to speak” . . . ‫( שוה‬D) “to make king”
f. Comments
For further details see Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 316. N E B renders
‫ ע ד תי עזר‬in Ps 89:20: " I have endowed with princely gifts.”
86
a. dbr . . . tpt
b. 127:31-34, 43-46[’{CTA 16 VI :31-34, 43-46)
c. “to speak” . . . “to judge”
d. Pss 51:6; 58:2 (D)
‫“ ד ב ר‬to speak” ; (D) “to speak” // ‫ פ ט‬# “to judge”
e. Isa 59:3-4
‫( ד ב ר‬D) “to speak” . . . ‫( שפט‬N) “to plead (a case)”
f. Isa 32:7; Jer 1:16; 4:12; 39:5; 52:9
‫( ד ב ר‬D) “to speak” + ‫“ משפט‬judgment”
g. Ps 119:42-43
‫“ ד ב ר‬word” // ‫“ משפט‬judgment”
— 55 —
h. Dent 15:2; 17:8, 9

‫“ ד ב ר‬word ‫ ״‬+ ‫“ משפט‬judgment”
i. I Kings 6:38; Hos 10:4; etc.
‫“ ד ב ר‬word” . . . ‫ פ ט‬# ‫“ מ‬judgm ent”
j. Mic 7:3
‫ ״ שפט‬to judge” . . . ‫ ״ ד ב ר‬to speak”
k. Jer 12:1
‫“ מיטפט‬judgm ent” + ‫( ד ב ר‬D) “to speak”
87
a. dm + ah
b. 75 11:47 (CTA 12 11:47)
c. "blood” + "brother”
d. Notes
For the restoration a[hh], see Gordon, UT, p. 181, and Herdner, CTA, p. 55
and n. 14.
e. Micah 7:2
‫" ד ם‬blood” II ‫" אח‬brother”
f. Comments
The biblical parallelism sustains the Ug. restoration.
88
a. dm /I smn
b. *nt 11:31 (CTA 3 B:31)
c. “blood” II "oil”
d. Exod 29:21; Ezek 16:9
‫ ״ ד ם‬blood” !‫ ״ עומן ן‬oil”
e. Deut 32:14-15
‫ ״ ד ם‬blood” . . . ‫“ שמן‬to grow fat”
— 56 —
Ugaritic-Hebrevv Parallel Pairs I 89
89
a. dmm . . . my ris
b. 125:26-27 (CTA 16 1:26-27)
c. “to mourn” . . . “waters of the head,” i.e. “tears”
d. Notes
For the reading my risk instead of mh risk, see qr // my (R SP I, II 495).
e. Jer 8:14
‫( דמ ם‬H) “to cause to mourn” // ‫( ע!קה מי ראש‬H) “to make drink tears”
f. Comments
This rapprochement sustains my translation proposed in Bib, XLV
(1964), 402.
90
a. dn . . . ytn
b. 1002:61-62
c. “to judge” . . . “to give”
d. I Sam 2:10; Job 36:31
‫“ ד ץ‬to judge” !‫“ נתן ן‬to give”
e. Comments
M. Dahood, Bib, F i l l (1972), 539-541, defended the MT of Job 36:31
for other reasons suggested by the Ug. texts. This collocation of dn and
ytn sustains the arguments presented in the article.
91
a. d't II Ihm (see also dH . .. nps [I 92])

b. 127:10-11 (CTA 16 VI:10-11)
c. “sweat” II “food”
d. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, TV (1974), 77.
— 57
e. Gen 3:19
‫“ זעה‬sweat ‫ ׳ ׳‬. . . ‫“ ל ח ם‬food‫׳׳‬
f. Comments
See d“t . . . n fs (I 92 e) for a discussion of d(t, “sweat,” as a Canaanite
or dialectical form of ‫ז ע ה‬, "sweat.”
92
a. d't . . . n fs (see also d't jj Ihm [I 91])

b. 127:10-11 (CTA 16 VI:10-11)
c. “sweat” . . . “throat, appetite”
d. Isa 53:11
‫“ ע מ ל נפש‬anguish of soul” II ‫“ ד ע ת‬sweat”
e. Comments
On ‫ ד ע ת‬, “sweat,” as a Canaanite or dialectal form of ‫ז ע ה‬, “sweat,”
see M. Dahood, Greg, XL,III (1962), 63-64; H A L, p. 220a. This explanation
gains added support from the Ug. juxtaposition of two terms th at are paral-
leled in Heb. For other dialectal features in the fourth Servant Song, consult
Dahood, Albright F S, pp. 63-73.
93
a. dr + bnm
b. 2:17 (CTA 32:17); 107:2 {CTA 30:2)
c. “generation” + “sons”
d. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, U V (1973), 405-406.
e. Deut 32:20 (Dahood)
‫“ דור‬generation” / / ‫“ בנים‬sons”
f. Jer 7:29-30
‫“ דו ר‬generation” // ‫“ בנים‬sons”
g. Deut 32:5
‫‘‘ בנים‬sons” I/ ‫" דו ר‬generation”
— 58 —
h. Comments
Usually printed as prose, Jer 7:29b30‫־‬a may be scanned as follows,
with an 8:5:8:5 syllabic sequence:
‫כי מאס יהרה ויטע‬ For Yahweh has spumed and rejected
‫א ת־ דו ר עבר תו‬ the generation of his fury;
‫כי־ ע עו בני־י הוד ה‬ For the sons of Judah have done
‫ה רע בעיני‬ what is evil in his sight.
94
a. drkt . . . smm
b. 602 obv:7
c. “dominion” . . . "heaven”
d. Notes
UT 602 obv:6-8 contains a series of divine epithets:
b'lt mlk Mistress of the Kingdom,
b'lt drkt Mistress of Dominion,
b'lt smm rmm Mistress of High Heaven,
[1b'l]t kpt Mistress of E arth’s Crust.
e. Isa 55:9
‫“ עמי ם‬heaven” // ‫" ד ר ך‬way”
f. Comments
Better balance between the comparative particles is achieved when
MT ‫ כי־ג ב הו‬is read ‫כיגבהו‬, thus producing the pairing of yqtl // qtl forms
of the same verb:
‫כיגבהו עמי ם מארץ‬ As the heaven is loftier than the earth,
‫כן גבהו ד ר כי מ ד ר כי כ ם‬ so my ways are loftier than your ways.
95
a. hw + il
b. 146:7 (= 1104:7)
c. "he” + "E l”
— 59 —
d. Notes
This juxtaposition occurs in the PN hwil.
e. Deut 32:4; Isa 43:12-13
‫“ א ל‬E l" II ‫“ הוא‬He‫״‬
f. Comments
The Ug. PN sustains the MT of Deut 32:4 against the LXX which
reads xuqk c (for HVP).
g. Job 21:22 may also witness this parallelism.
96
a. hlk + hS
b. 'nt pi. X :IV :7 (CTA 1 IV:7)
c. “to go” + “to hasten”
d. Job 31:5
‫“ ה ל ך‬to go” If ‫ז‬2‫“ חה‬to hasten”
97
a. hlk II hi
b. 76 11:29 (1CTA 10 11:29)
c. “to go” II “to skip”
d. Notes
Though partially damaged, the reading hi is generally accepted.
e. Judg 21:21, 23 (L)
‫“ חול‬to skip, dance” ; (E) “to dance” . . . ‫“ ה ל ך‬to go”
98
a. hlk I/ tdrq
b. 51 11:14-16 (CTA 4 11:14-16); 2 Aqht V:10-11 (CTA 17 V :10-ll); *nt IV:83-84
(1CTA 3 D :83-84)
c. “walk” I/ “tread”
— 60 —
d. Notes
On the equation of drq with ‫ ד ר ך‬, see M. Dahood, Bib, I,VI (1975), 97, n. 1.
e. Isa 42:16 (‫[ ח ל ך‬H], ‫[ ד ר ך‬H]); job 24:10-11 (‫[ ה ל ך‬D])
‫( ה ל ך‬D) “to walk” ; (H) “to lead” / / ‫“ ד ר ך‬to tread” ; (H) “to lead”
f. Jer 10:23
‫“ ד ר ך‬way” 11 ‫“ ה ל ך‬walk‫״‬
g. Job 22:14-15
‫( ה ל ך‬HtD) “to walk” . . . ‫“ ד ר ך‬to tread”
h. Prov 28:6
‫“ ה ל ך‬to walk’’ . . . ‫ “ ד ר ך‬way”
i. Jer 6:27-28; Ps 107:7
‫‘‘ י ר ך‬way” . . . ‫" ה ל ך‬to walk”
99
a. hmry . . . ars
b. 51 V I I I :12-13 (CTA 4 VIII:12-13); 67 11:15-16 (CTA 5 11:15-16)
c. “Miry Bog” . . . “land”
d. Ps 140:11-12
‫“ מהמרות‬Miry Bog” // ‫“ ארץ‬land”
e. Comments
That the two words in the biblical passage are strictly (antithetically)
parallel is not beyond doubt, but their occurrence in two successive cola
is so striking as to merit entry.
100
a. h ry/I hi
b. 2 Aqht 11:41-42 [CTA 17 11:41-42)
c. “to conceive” // “to writhe, give birth”
d. Notes
I follow Ginsberg’s understanding of the text in A N E T s, p. 151 (“the bed
[of conception]” // “the bed of childbirth”)', see also Herdner, CTA, p. 81,
n. 7.
— 61 —
e. Isa 26:78
‫“ ה ר ה‬to conceive” + ‫“ חיל‬to writhe”
f. Isa 26:77
‫“ ה ר ה‬to conceive” .. . ‫“ חיל‬to writhe”
g. Comments
The biblical juxtaposition and collocation tend to support Ginsberg’s
restoration against the reconstructions proposed by the scholars listed by
Herdner.
101
a. hry + yTd . . . hbl

b. 732:5-6 (CTA 11:5-6)
c. “to conceive” + “to give birth” . . . “band”
d. Notes
Though the context is too damaged to permit a continuous translation, the
sense of the three terms in question appears beyond doubt.
e. Ps 7:75
‫( ח ב ל‬D) “to conceive” // ‫“ ה רה‬to be pregnant” // ‫“ י ל ד‬to give birth”
f. Cant 8:5
‫( ח ב ל‬D) "to conceive” 11 ‫( ח ב ל‬D) “to conceive” + ‫“ י ל ד‬to give birth”
102
a* zbl -j—nsa
b. Krt:98-99, 786-787 {CTA 14 11:98-99; IV:186-187)
c. “the sick m an” + “to carry”
d. Bibliography
M. Held, JAO S, L X X X V III (1968), 92.
e. Isa 53:4 (Held)
‫“ נ&א‬to carry” // ‫“ ס ב ל‬to bear”
f. Isa 46:4
‫“ ס ב ל‬to bear” // Kft “to carry” // ‫“ ס ב ל‬to bear”
— 62 —
g. I Kings 5:29 (‫ ;) ס ב ל‬Neh 4:11 ((‫ס כ ל‬

‫“ מ&א‬to carry” + ‫“ ס ב ל‬a load”
h. Comments
For the relationship between zbl and ‫ ס ב ל‬, consult M. Held, JAOS,
L X X X V III (1968), 9096‫־‬.
103
a. zt . . . fir
b. 67 11:5-6 (CTA 5 11:5-6)
c. “olive-tree” . . . “fruit”
d. Jer 11:16
‫“ זית‬olive-tree” // ‫“ פ רי‬fruit”
e. Isa 17:6
‫“ זית‬olive-tree” // ‫“ פ ר ה‬to bear fruit”
f. Ps 128:3
‫“ פ ר ה‬to bear fruit” // ‫“ זית‬olive-tree”
g. Comments
In Isa 17:6 the parallelism comes to light when ‫ פ רי ה‬, usually taken
as “a fruitful tree,” distinct from ‫זית‬, “olive-tree,” is identified with the
olive-tree; hence we would have an instance of the breakup of a composite
expression. In fact, the difficulty created by MT ‫( ב ס ע פי ה פריה‬IQIsa* reads
‫ ) ב ס ע פי פ רי ה‬is easily resolved by shifting the final suffix to the second word
as the article, ‫ ב ס ע פי הפ רי ה‬, “in the branches of the fruit-bearer,” the
definite article being used to refer back to ‫ כנ ק ף זית‬, “like the beating of
an olive-tree.”
h. N E B ’s deletion of ‫ פ רי‬, “fruit,” with the LXX destroys the parallelism

in Jer 11:16, which can be scanned:
‫זית רענן י פ ה‬ An olive-tree leafy, handsome,
‫פ רי תאר‬ fruit th at is fair.
On N E B ’s deletion, see Brockington, Hebrew Text, p. 203.
— 63 —
104
a. zt II §mn
b. 120:14-16 [CTA 141:14-161
c. “olive tree“ // “oil”

d. im n . . . zt
e. 1126:6-8
f. “oil” . . . “olive tree”
g. Deut 28:40; Micah 6:15; Neh 8:15
‫“ זית‬olive tree” / / ‫“ שמן‬oil”
h. Exod 27:20; 30:24; Lev 24:2
p tf “oil” + ‫“ ד ת‬olive tree”
i. Deut 8:8
‫“ זית‬olive tree” + ‫“ 'שמן‬oil”
105
a. hdr II sgr
b. 1151:3-4; 'nt V :19-20, 34-35 (CTA 3 E: 19-20, 34-35)
c. “chamber” // “enclosure”
d. Bibliography
Cassuto, GA, p. 87.
W. Watson, VT, X X II (1972), 468, and n. 1.
e. Isa 26:20
‫“ ח ד ר‬chamber” . . . ‫“ סגר‬to close”
106
a. hdt . . . tn
b. Krt:101, 189-190 (CTA 14 11:101; IV:189-190)
c. “new” . . . “a second, another”
— 64 —
d. Sir 43:8
‫ חדש‬H tD "to be renewed” // ‫ שנה‬H tD "to be changed”
e. Comments
In addition to this pair Sir 43:8 probably exhibits ‫ ב‬with separative
force; the v. is much disputed, but the Heb. text may be read and rendered
thus:
‫ חדש בחד ש והוא מתחדש‬Month after month he himself [the moon]
is renewed.
‫ מה נורא בהשתנותו‬How awesome in his changes!
In this reading the final waw of ‫ בחדשו‬has been advanced to ‫ הוא‬and parsed
as emphatic.
107
a. hym // blmt . . . spr (see also hym . . . spr [I 108])

b. 2 Aqht VL27-28 (CTA 17 V I:2728‫)־‬
c. “life” I/ "im m ortality” . . . ($) “to cause to count”
d. Deut 33:6
‫" חיה‬to live” II ‫" א ל מות‬to never die” // ‫" מ ספ ר‬beyond number”
e. Ps 118:17
‫" ל א מות‬to not die” II ‫" חיה‬to live” II ‫( ספ ר‬D) "to recount”
f. Comments
For Deut 33:6 one may propose a new reading and translation:
‫יחי ראובן‬ May Reuben five
‫ו א ל־י מ ת‬ and never die,
‫ויהי מתיו מ ספ ר‬ and may his men be beyond number!
Other instances of MT ‫ מ ס פ ר‬, “number,” to be repointed ‫ מ ס פ ר‬, "beyond
number,” are examined by M. Dahood.. Bib, XL/VTII (1967), 428-429;
Blommerde, N W SG J, pp. 22, 75, 78, 128; Pope, Job3, pp. 126, 272.
108
a. hym . . . spr (see also hym 11 blmt . . . spr [I 107])

b. 2 Aqht V I:27-28 (CTA 17 V I:27-28)
c. “fife” . . . (S) "to cause to count”
— 65 —
d. Ps 118:17
‫“ חיה‬to live” II ‫( ספ ר‬D) “to recount”
e. Ps 69:29
‫“ ס פ ר‬scroll” + ‫“ חיים‬life”
f. Comments
Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 164, discusses Ps 69:29 in relation to the Ug.
text and concludes th at ‫ חיים‬also designates “eternal life.”
109
a. hym . . . 'tq
b. 125:14-16 (CTA 16 1:14-16)
c. “life” . . . “to grow old”
d. Notes
For this definition of 'tq, see D. Pardee, UF, V (1973), 229234‫־‬. The rap-
prochement with the parallelism in the biblical text sustains his arguments.
e. Job 21:7
‫“ חיה‬to live long” // ‫“ עתק‬to grow old”
f. Comments
This hapax parallelism in Job of terms collocated in Ug. undermines
the position of those ascribing ‫ עתק‬to Aram, influence; see Dhorme, Job,
p. c x l i ; Wagner, Aramaismen, p. 93.
110
a. hkm . . . hyt (see also hkm . . . 'm [R SP I, II 189])

b. 51 I V :41-42 (CTA 4 IV:41-42); 'nt V :38-39 {CTA 3 E:38-39)
c. “to be wise” . . . “life”
d. Notes
In the latter text there is the variant hkmk for hkmt.
e. Prov 15:31
‫“ חיים‬life” ‫“ חכ ם ! ן‬the wise”
— 66 —
f. Prov 11:30
‫“ חיים‬life” . . . ‫“ חכ ם‬the wise”
g. Eccles 7:12
‫“ חכ מ ה‬wisdom” + ‫( חיה‬D) “to give life”
h. Prov 9:10-11
‫“ חכ מ ה‬wisdom” . . . ‫“ חיים‬life”
111
a. hmd + yrt
b. 2001 rev:7
c. “to covet” + “to inherit”
d. Notes
Though the juxtaposed roots are clear, the broken and obscure context
precludes a coherent rendition of the passage.
e. Exod 34:24
(H) “to dispossess” // ‫“ ח מ ד‬to covet”
112
a. hrb + bq' 111st (see also hrb // iU [R SP I, II 195])

b. 49 11:31-33 (CTA 6 11:31-33)
c. “sword” + “to cleave” // “fire”
d. Ezek 30:16-17
‫“ אש‬fire” II ‫( ב ק ע‬N) “to be breached” // ‫" חרב‬sword”
e. Comments
Though not occurring in successive cola, these three terms stand in
parallelism.
113
a. hrb . . . Isn
b. 137:32-33 (CTA 2 1:32-33)
c. “sword” . . . “tongue”
— 67 —
6
d. Notes
Apud P. Miller, CBQ, X X V II (1965), 257, n. 7, F. M. Cross, Jr., has sug-
gested restoring [ ]nhm to [ls]nhm, a conjecture adopted by de Moor,
Seasonal Pattern, p. 128.
e. Hos 7:16; Job 5:20-21
‫“ ח ר ב‬sword” // ‫“ לשון‬tongue”
f. Prov 12:18
‫“ ח ר ב‬sword” . . . ‫“ לשון‬tongue”
g. Ps 57:5
‫“ לשון‬tongue” + ‫“ ח ר ב‬sword”
h. Comments
Repointed to ‫לשונם‬, the form in Hos 7:16 parses as the northern dual
with the contraction of the diphthong. Thus ‫ זעם לשונם‬might be rendered
“the two-edged fury.”
114
a. hrs + apnt
b. 1121:8-9
c. “threshing sledge” + “wheels”
d. apnt + hrs
e. 1123:7-8
f. “wheels” + “threshing sledge”
g. Notes
Cf. Virolleaud, P R U II, p. 153, and Aistleitner, Worterbuch, No. 971, on
hrs, “threshing sledge.” Gordon UT, § 19.900, offers no definition. The
biblical parallelism proves very relevant.
h. Isa 28:27
‫“ חרוץ‬threshing sledge” // ‫“ אופן‬wheel”
115
a. hrs . . . b'l
b. 1024 rev:5-6, 7-8
c. “craftsm an” . . . “to work”
— 68 —
Ugaritic-Hebrevv Parallel Paris I 116
d. Isa 44:12
‫“ ח ר ע‬craftsman” // ‫“ פ ע ל‬to work”
e. Comments
The Ug. form of ‫ פ ע ל‬, “to work,” is b'l, against Arab, and Phoen. as
well as Heb.; cf. Gordon, UT, §§ 19.494, 19.2075.
116
a. hh 4- ars
W V 1 •
b. 51 V I I I :13 (<CTA 4 VIII:13); 67 11:16 (CTA 5 11:16)

c. “thorn” + “earth”
d. Notes
For the reading in 67 11:16, see Herdner, CTA, p. 34 and n. 2. Though
specialists differ in their interpretation of hh, identification with ‫חוח‬,
“thorn, hook” (e.g. Aistleitner, Worterbuch, No. 1015), appears to be the
most probable. The biblical parallel favors such an identification. Hence
the emergent motif would be th at of the netherworld as a place of thorns,
a theme alluded to in Job 5:5.
e. Ezek 19:4
‫“ חחים‬hooks” 11 ‫“ ארץ‬land”
f. Comments
The semantic relationship between “thorn” and “hook” can be illus-
trated by ‫ צן‬, "thorn, barb,” and ‫ צנ ח‬, “hook, fishing hook.”
117
a. hnp . . . §pk
b. 1001:15-16
c. "to desecrate” . . . “to pour out”
d. Notes
Though the text is too damaged to permit continuous translation, the col-
location of these two roots can hardly be doubted.
e. Ps 106:38
‫ פ ך‬$ “to pour out” II ‫“ חנף‬to be polluted”
— 69 —
118
a. htt I/ lay
b. 127:1-2, 13-14 (CTA 16 VI: 1-2, 13-14)
c. ‘‘to be shattered” // ‘‘to prevail, be mighty”

d. Isa 9:2-3 (H); Job 32:14-15
‫“ ל א‬the Omnipotent” . . . ‫“ חתת‬to be shattered” ; (H) “to shatter”
e. I Sam 2:3-4
‫“ ל א‬the Omnipotent” . . . ‫“ חת‬shattered”
f. Comments
In all three texts MT ‫ ל א‬, “not,” creates syntactic difficulties th at are
removed when repointed ‫ ל א‬, "the Omnipotent, the Victor.” Thus I Sam
2:3-4 may be read and rendered:
‫כי א ל דעות יהוה‬ For Yahweh is the God of knowledge,
‫ול א נתכנו ע ל לו ת‬ and by the Omnipotent actions are
weighed.
‫קשת גברים חתים‬ As to bow, warriors are shattered,
‫ונכשלים אזרו חיל‬ but the feeble gird on strength.
g. Isa 9:2a ‫ ל א‬receives its raison d’etre in view of 9:3c-d:

. . . ‫הרבית הגוי ל א‬ You have multiplied the nation, O
Victor, . . .
‫שבט העש בו‬ The rod which oppressed it
‫החתת כיום מ ד ץ‬ you shattered as on the day of Midian.
It might be further noted th at Isa 9:1 contains the word ‫ צ ל מו ת‬, “shadow
of death” , th at recalls the collocation of mt, “Death,” and lay, “to prevail,”
in 127:1-2, 13-14.
h. Job 32:14 is readily translated when MT ‫ ל א‬is repointed :‫ל א‬

‫ולא ע ר ך א לי מלין‬ The Omnipotent has prepared my dis-
course for me;
‫ובא מריכ ם ל א א שיבע‬ not with your words shall I refute him.
Contrast the writer’s earlier effort in UF, IV (1972), 163.
i. Job 36:19-20 stands to benefit from a study considering the possible

parallelism of these two roots.
— 70 —
119
a. htt . . . Hq
b. 127:1, 13 (CTA 16 VI: 1, 13)
c. ‘‘to be shattered” . . . “to pass away”
d. Job 32:15
‫“ חתת‬to be shattered, dismayed” 11 ‫( ע ת ק‬H) “to pass away”
e. Comments
The Ug. collocation of these two roots shows th at the biblical pairing
is original; hence the opinion of BDB, p. 801a, th at ‫ העתיקו‬in Job 32:15
is very probably a gloss loses claim to further consideration.
120
a. tb(n) + ql (see also sr . . . tb [I 322])

b. 1 Aqht:46 (CTA 19 1:46); 'nt 1:20 (CTA 3 A:20)
c. “sweet(ness)” -j- “voice”
d. Job 21:12-13
‫“ קול‬voice” II ‫“ טוב‬merriment”
e. Ezek 33:32
‫“ קול‬voice” . . . ‫( טוב‬H) “to make sweet”
f. Comments
Cassuto, GA, p. 75, and M. Dahood, Bib, XI,IV (1963), 531-532, have
compared 'n t 1:20, ysr gzr tb ql, “the sweet-voiced lad sings,” with the
phraseology of Ezek 33:32.
121
a. tl -j- smm
b. 'nt 11:39, 40; IV:87 (twice) (CTA 3 B:39, 40; D:87)
c. “dew” + “heaven”
d. Job 38:28-29
‫“ ט ל‬dew” II ‫“ שמים‬heaven”
— 71 —
©• Gen 27:28
‫" ט ל‬dew” + ‫" עמים‬heaven”
f. Deut 33:13, 28; Hag 1:10; Zech 8:12
‫“ עמים‬heaven” + ‫" ט ל‬dew”
g. Comments
In addition to this parallelism, Job 38:28-29 exhibits chiasmus and
the use of the same verbal root in two different conjugations:
. . . ‫מי־ הו לי ד אג לי־ ט ל‬ Who sired the drops of dew? . . .
‫ו כ פ ר עמים מי י ל דו‬ The hoarfrost of heaven, who bore it?
122
a. tly II arsy
b. 51 1:18-19 (CTA 4 1:18-19); 130:11-12 (CTA 7 11:11-12); (nt 111:4-5; pi. VI:
I V :3-5; V:50-51 (CTA 3 C:4; E:3-5, 50-51)
c. “dew-goddess” // “earth-goddess”
d. Isa 26:19
‫" ט ל‬dew” II ‫“ ארץ‬earth”
e. Judg 6:39
‫" ארץ‬earth” + ‫" ט ל‬dew”
f. Deut 33:13, 28
‫“ ארץ‬earth” . . . ‫" טל‬dew”
123
a. zl ksp II zl ksp
b. 51 11:26-28 {CTA 4 11:26-28)
c. "the shadow of silver” // "the shadow of silver”
d. Notes
The partially damaged text may be thus restored:
[zl\ ksp [a‫\־‬trt kt'n The shadow of silver Asherah eyes in-
deed,
zl ksp wn[gh]t hrs the shadow of silver and the sheen of
gold.
— 72 —
For the restoration n[gh‫\־‬t, cf. Isa 9:1 where ‫ ע ה‬, “to shine,” concurs with
‫ צ ל מו ת‬, “the shadow of death(?),” a vocable probably containing the element
zl.
e. Eccles 7:12
‫“ צ ל ה חכ מ ה‬the shadow of wisdom” . . . ‫“ צ ל ה כ ס ף‬the shadow of silver”
124
a. yd + 11
b. 51 I V :38 (CTA 4 IV :38); 52:33, 34, 35 (CTA 23:33, 34, 35); 54:11-12 (CTA 53:
11- 12)
c. “hand” + “E l”
d. Notes
In 51 IV:38-39, yd (// ahbt) may also be understood as “affection” ; see yd //
ahbt (R SP I, II 212).
e. Ps 78:41-42
‫“ א ל‬E l” II T “hand”
f. Ps 10:12
‫“ א ל‬E l” . . . T “hand”
g. Ps 31:6
T “hand” . . . ‫“ א ל‬E l”
h. Job 6:9
‫“ אלוה‬God” . . . T “hand”
i. Ps 95:7
‫“ אל הי ם‬God” . . . T “hand”
j. Eccles 2:24; 9:1; etc.
T “hand” + ‫“ אלהי־ם‬God”
125
a. yd + ams
b. 1001 obv:14
c. “hand” + “strength”
— 73 —
d. Notes
The damaged text, which does not permit certain analysis or translation,
reads ydk ants yd [ ].
e. Ps 80:18
T “hand” // ‫( אמ ץ‬D) “to strengthen”
f. Job 17:9
‫“ י ד‬hand” + ‫“ אמ ץ‬strength”
g. Isa 35:3; Ps 89:22; Job 4:3-4
‫“ י ד‬hand” . . . ‫( אמץ‬D) "to strengthen”
h. Deut 15:7
‫( אמץ‬D) “to harden” . . . T “hand”
126
a. yd + qst
b. 2 Aqht V :26-27 (CTA 17 V :2627‫)־‬
c. “hand” + “bow”
d. I I Sam 22:35; Pss 18:35; 141:9
T “hand” // ‫ ת‬0 ‫“ ק‬bow”
e. Gen 49:24
‫“ קעזת‬bow ‫ ״‬11 ‫“ י ד‬hand”
f. I I Kings 9:24; 13:16
T “hand” + ‫“ קשת‬bow”
g. Comments
For the reading and translation of Ps 141:9, see Dahood, Psalms I I I ,
pp. 308, 314-315.
127
a. yd' . . . in
b. 3 Aqht ,rev':16 (CTA 18 1:16); 'nt V:35-36 (CTA 3 E:35-36)
c. "to know” . . . “there is not”
d. Hos 13:4
‫" י ד ע‬to know” / / ‫“ א ץ‬there is no t”
— 74 —
e. Eccles 9:5
‫“ י ד ע‬to know” /I ‫“ אץ י ד ע‬to not know”
f. Ps 139:4
‫“ אץ‬there is not” // ‫" י ד ע‬to know”
g. Eccles 4:17; 9:5
‫“ א ץ‬there is not” + ‫“ י ד ע‬to know”
h. Job 35:15
‫“ א ץ‬there is not” . . . ‫“ י ד ע‬to know”
128
a. yd' + hy
b. 49 I I I :8 (CTA 6 I I I :8)
c. “to know” + “alive”
d. Hos 6:2-3 (‫[ חיה‬D]); Hab 3:2 (‫[ חיה‬D], ‫[ י ד ע‬H])
‫( חיה‬D) “to give life” // ‫“ י ד ע‬to know” ; (H) "to make known”
e. Ps 16:1
‫( י ד ע‬H) “to make known” + ‫“ חיים‬life”
f. Eccles 9:5
‫“ חיים‬living” + ‫“ י ד ע‬to know”
g. Eccles 3:12; 6:8
‫“ י ד ע‬to know” . . . ‫“ חיים‬lifetime, living”
h. Job 33:3-4; Eccles 7:12
‫“ ד ע ת‬knowledge” . . . ‫( חיה‬D) "to give life”
129
a. yd* . . . ynq
b. 6:31-32 (iCTA 13:31-32)
c. "to know” . . . “to suck”
d. Notes
No sense can be coaxed from this damaged and enigmatic text.
e. Isa 60:16
‫“ ינק‬to suck” II ‫“ י ד ע‬to know”
— 75 —
130
a. yd' 4 ‫־‬ (see also 'rb . . . smh [I 249])

b. 1015:7
c. “to know” + “to enter”
d. Prov 14:10
‫" י ד ע‬to know” II ‫“ ע ר ב‬to enter”
e. Comments
The second colon is literally rendered:
‫ומ&מחתו ל א־י ת ע ר ב זר‬ And into its joy no stranger enters.
W ith this expression might be compared Matt 25:21: "E nter into the joy
of your lord.”
131
a. yld /I smh (see also bsr . . . yld . . . smh [I 67])

b. 76 111:36+38 (CTA 10 111:36438)
c. “to be born” // “to rejoice”
d. Notes
For the reading \yt\d, see Herdner, CTA, p. 51 and n. 13.
e. Jer 20:15 (‫[ י ל ד‬Dp], ‫[ שמח‬D]); Prov 23:24
‫" י ל ד‬to beget” ; (Dp) “to be born” // ‫“ ?& מ ח‬to rejoice” ; (D) “to cause to
rejoice”
f. Comments
On the analysis of the dative suffix of ‫ & מ ח הו‬in Jer 20:15, see M. Da-
hood, ETL, X E II (1968), 39.
{*. In addition to this parallelism,* Prov 23:24 exhibits a neat instance of
emphatic wdw, first elucidated by Ug. usage, th at balances the emphasis
of the first-colon infinitive absolute:
‫גול יגול אבי צדי ק‬ The father of a just man will be full of
joy;
‫יו ל ד חכ ם ויעזמח בו‬ who begets a wise son will truly rejoice
in him.
— 76 —
132
a. ym . . . sd
b. 1 Aqht:204-205 (CTA 19 IV:204-205)
c. “sea” . . . “field”
d. Notes
See Herdner, CTA, p. 91, for the reading bglp y[m—] in 1 Aqht:204.
e. Ps 96:11-12 (‫ ;)&ן*י‬I Chron 16:32 ((‫שדה‬
‫“ ים‬sea” II ‫&דה‬, ‫“ ע די‬field”
133
a. ymn + p
b. 52:63-64 (1CTA 23:63-64)
c. “right hand” + “m outh‫״‬
d. Ps 144:8, 11
‫“ פ ה‬m outh” II ‫“ ימץ‬right hand”
134
a. yn . . . utkl
b. 3:1-2 (CTA 35:1-2); 173:1-2
c. “wine” . . . “cluster”
d. Notes
UT 3:1-2 has been restored on the basis of 173:1-2.
e. Deut 32:32-33; Cant 7:9-10
‫“ א ע כו ל‬cluster” / / ‫“ יין‬wine”
135
a. yn + qs
b. 51 I V :45 {CTA 4 IV:45)
c. “wine” + “cup”
— 77 —
d. Notes
UT 51 IV :45-46 reads:
kin yn q[s]h nb[/«] All of us bring wine for his cup;
kin yn nb/ ksh all of us bring wine for his chalice.
The restorations q[s]h and nb[ln\ are based on the doublet in 'n t V :41-42.
e. Bibliography
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 78-79.
f. Ps 60:5
‫“ קע ה‬cup” // ‫“ יץ‬wine”
g. Comments
Consistency of metaphor supports the identification of ‫קשה‬, tradition-
ally rendered “hard things,” with Ug. qs; the ending of ‫ קשה‬can well be
explained as an archaic accusative.
136
a. ysa // b'r
b. Krt:100-102 (CTA 14 11:100-102)
c. “to kindle” // “to make bum ”
d. Notes
For these disputed cola one may propose the following version:
wysi trh hdt The new bridgroom kindles,
yb'r Itn atth makes his wife bum for another.
The doublet in K rt:189-190 reads:
wybl trh, hdt The new bridegroom inflames,
yb'r Itn atth makes his wife bum for another.
Ug. nbl, “flame,” Akk. nablu, favors the analysis of ybl (// yb’r) as a denom-
inative verb in the causative conjugation; hence vocalize yabbilu. The
synonymy of ybl and ysi appears from the fact th at in many biblical pas-
sages ‫ יצא‬means “to shine” ; for a recent discussion, see J. Scullion, UF,
IV (1972), 120-121 and n. 80, who examines both Ug. and Heb. attestations
of this signification.
e. Isa 62:1; Jer 4:4; 21:12
‫" יצא‬to shine” // ‫“ ב ע ר‬to burn”
— 78 —
f. Exod 22:4-5
‫" ב ע ר‬to bum ” // ‫" * צ א‬to be kindled”
g. Comments
It may be noted th at in all three prophetic passages the N E B renders
‫ יצא‬by "shine” or "blaze up.”
137
a. ysa // grs
b. 'nt I V :45-46 (<CTA 3 D :45-46)
c. ($) “to cause to go forth” // "to drive out”
d. Notes
I adopt the reading mssu (Herdner, CTA, p. 17, msss] likewise Gordon,
UT, p. 254) proposed by M. Dijkstra, UF, II (1970), 334, so th at the couplet
reads:
mssu k'sr udnh Who caused his lordship to go forth like
a bird,
grsh Iksi mlkh who drove him from his royal throne.
See also bT // adn (I Supp 26).
e. Exod 12:39
‫( יצא‬H) “to bring out” // ‫( גרש‬Dp) "to be driven out”
f. Prov 22:10
‫( גרש‬D) "to drive out” II ‫" יצא‬to go forth”
g. Comments
The biblical parallelism confirms the restoration proposed by M. Dijk-
stra for the Ug. text.
138
a. ysa (yza) . . . mdbr (mlbr) (see also mdbr [mlbr] + sty [I 183])
b. 75 1:19+21 (CTA 12 1:19+21)
c. “to go forth” . . . "desert”
d. Notes
In UT 75 classical s is written z; hence zi, "go forth!” for si. Herdner, CTA,
p. 54, corrects written mlbr to mdbr, but its recurrence in 1. 35 as mlbr sug
— 79 —
gests th at we are dealing with a dialectal form rather than a scribal error.
See the sound observations of Caquot, TOML, p. 339, n. b.
e. Ps 75:7
‫“ מוצא‬the E ast” // ‫“ מ ד ב ר‬the desert”
f. Job 38:26-27
‫“ מ ד ב ר‬desert” II ‫“ מצא‬steppe”
g. Comments
On the translation problems in Ps 75:7, see Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 213.
h. Often emended, defectively written ‫ מצא‬for ‫( מוצא‬see D. Freedman,
E rlr, IX [1969], 38) is one of five parallel nouns in Job 38:26-27, all signify-
ing desert or wilderness. ‫ מצא‬presumably means the unhospitable steppe
to which one was banished, the motif of the Ug. text cited above. Hence
one may render ‫ ל ה צ מי ח מצ א דשא‬: “to make the steppe sprout grass.”
139
a. ysa . . . smt
b. 3 Aqht ,obv’:36+38 (CTA 18 IV :36+38)
c. “to go forth” .. . “to annihilate”
d. Ps 143:11-12
‫( יצא‬H) “to deliver” // ‫( צמת‬H) “to annihilate”
e. Comments
The strict parallelism obtains only if the four cola are read chiastically.
The chief argument for a chiastic reading is the balance in the second and
third cola of ‫ ב צ ד ק ת ך‬, "in your justice,” and ‫ ב ח ס ד ך‬, "in your kindness.”
140
a. yqr . . . il
b. 602:2
c. “precious” . . . “E l”
d. Ezek 28:13
‫“ אלהי ם‬God” II ‫“ יקר‬precious”
— 80 —
e. Ps 139:17
‫“ יקר‬to be precious” . . . ‫“ א ל‬E l”
f. Comments
The full parallelism in Ezek 28:13 is between ‫גן אלהי ם‬, “the garden
of God,” and ‫ א בן יק רה‬, “precious stone.”
141
a. yr + mtr
b. 1 Aqht:40-41 (CTA 19 1:40-41)
c. "early rain” + “to rain”
d. Notes
Translating yr 'rpt tmtr bqz: “the early rain the clouds rain in late summer.”
e. Deut 11:14
‫" מטר‬rain” II ‫" יורה‬early rain”
f. Comments
Usually read as prose, the first half of Deut 11:14 can be scanned as a
bicolon with a 9:8 syllable count:
‫ונתתי מ ט ר־ א ר צ כ ם‬ Then will I give your land rain,
‫בעתו יורה ומלקוש‬ early and late rain in its season.
142
a. yrd // spr
b. 51 V I I I :7-9 (CTA 4 VIII:7-9); 67 V:14-16 {CTA 5 V: 14-16)
c. “to descend” // (Gp) "to be counted”
d. Ps 56:8-9(?)
‫( י ר ד‬H) “to subject” II ‫“ ספר‬to write down”
e. Ps 22:30-31
‫“ י ר ד‬to descend” . . . ‫( ספר‬Dp) “to be told”
f. Ps 107:22-23
‫( ספ ר‬D) “to recount” . . . ‫“ י ר ד‬to descend”
g. Comments
See Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 44-45, for analysis of Ps 56:8-9.
— 81 —
143
a. yrw // yrw
b. 52:38 (CTA 23:38)
c. ‘‘to shoot” If ‘‘to shoot”
d. Ps 64:5
‫“ ירה‬to shoot” !‫( ירה ן‬H) “to shoot”
e. Comments
One may safely disregard the note in the apparatus of BH K , “dl m tr
c?,” happily dropped by BHS.
144
a. yrh // atrt
b. 75 1:14-17 (1CTA 12 1:14-17)
c. “Moon” I/ “Asherah”
d. I I Kings 23:5-6
‫‘‘ ירח‬moon” . . . ‫“ א ע ר ה‬Asherah”
145
a. yrt . . . b'l
b. 'nt 111:43-44 {CTA 3 D :43-44)
c. “to take possession” . . . “Baal”
d. Prov 30:23
‫" ב ע ל‬to be married” // ‫" ירש‬to dispossess”
146
a. yrt . . . ysa
b. 'nt III:44-IV :45 (1CTA 3 D :44-45)
c. “to seize” . . . (§) “to cause to go forth”
— 82 —
d. Notes
See ysa // grs (I 137 d) for the reading tnssu in *nt IV :45.
e. Isa 65:9; Ps 105:43a+44b
‫( יצא‬H) “to lead forth” / / $ T "to possess”
147
a. ytn . . . ntr
b. 62:50+52 (CTA 6 V I:50+52)
c. “to give” . . . “to stretch out, set free”

d. Notes
This passage is translated and discussed briefly in R SP II, I Supp 6. Al-
though Gordon, UT, § 19.2595, simply lists ytr of 62:52 under "tr{l) I I ,”
Aistleitner, Worterbuch, No. 1873, lists it under ntr. In both cases this text
is the only entry for the root.
e. Ps 146:7
‫“ נתן‬to give” // ‫( נתר‬H) “to set free”
148
a. ytn // slh . . . spr (see also ytn // slh [R SP I, II 269])

b. 2 Aqht V I:27-28 (CTA 17 V I:27-28)
c. “to give” /I “to send” . . . (S) “to cause to count”
d. Job 5:9-10
‫“ מ ס פ ר‬num ber” . . . ‫“ נתן‬to give” II ‫“ עזלח‬to send”
149
a. ytn + Sty
b. 52:72 (1CTA 23:72); 1019:15-16
c. “to give” + “to drink”
— 83 —
d. Isa 62:8; Prov 31:6-7

‫" נתן‬to give” / / ‫" ע ת ה‬to drink”
e. Exod 17:2; Deut 2:28; Dan 1:12
‫" נתן‬to give” .. . ‫" שתה‬to drink”
150
a. ytn // tny
b. 51 V I I :29-30 (CTA 4 V II:29-30)
c. “to give” II "to repeat”
d. Notes
According to Herdner, CTA, p. 29 and n. 10, Virolleaud’s restoration qlh
qds b['l y]tn in 51 V II :29 has been accepted by Albright, Bauer, Gaster,
and Ginsberg. This restoration now enjoys the support of the biblical col-
location of these two verbs.
e. I I Kings 25:28-29 (‫ ;)שנא‬Jer 52:32-33 ((‫שנה‬
‫" נתן‬to give” . . . ‫שנא‬, ‫( שנה‬D) "to change”
f. Prov 31:5-6
‫( שנה‬D) "to pervert” . . . ‫" נתן‬to give”
151
a. ytb + ar?
b. 67 VL13-14 (CTA 5 VI:13-14)
c. “to sit” + "the earth”
d. Isa 24:1, 6] 51:6; Jer 50:3; Nah 1:5; Pss 33:8; 75:4; etc.
‫" ארץ‬the earth” // ‫(שב‬1)‫“ י‬inhabitant”
e. Isa 47:1; Job 2:13
‫" ישב‬to sit” + ‫" ארץ‬ground”
f. Isa 3:26; 24:5
‫“ ארץ‬the earth” + ‫" ישב‬to sit, dwell”
— 84 —
152
a. ytb . . . drkt
b. 127:23-24 (CTA 16 V I:23-24)
C. “to sit” . . . “dominion”
d. drkt -f- ytb

e. 127:38, 53-54 (CTA 16 V I:38, 53-54)
f. “dominion” + "to sit”
g. Ps 1:1
‫‘‘ ד ר י‬way, assembly” / / ‫ ב‬12^‫“ מו‬session”
h. Isa 10:24; Prov 9:14-15
‫“ יע!ב‬to sit, dwell” . . . ‫“ ד ר ך‬way, kingdom”
i. Jer 21:8-9
‫“ ד ר ך‬way” . . . ‫“ י ע ב‬to dwell”
j. Comments
On ‫ ד ר ך‬, “assembly,” in Ps 1:1, see Dahood, Psalms / , p. 2; J. Gammie,
JB L , X CIII (1974), 373.
k. In Isa 10:24 ‫ ב ד ר ך מצרים‬can well mean “from the kingdom of E gypt.”
153
a. y tb l/y sr
b. 127:25-26 (CTA 16 VI :25-26)
c. “to sit” I/ “to instruct”
d. Jer 6:8
‫( יסר‬N) “to be instructed, warned” . . . ‫( ישב‬N) “to be inhabited”
e. Comments
Referring to Jerusalem, ‫ ארץ‬here preferably translates as “city,” a
meaning well documented in Ug. and Phoen. texts.
— 85
154
a. ytb + Ihm
b. 3 Aqht ,obv’:18-19, 29 (CTA 18 IV:18-19, 29)
c. “to sit” + “to eat”
d. Ps 127:2
‫“ ישב‬to sit‫ ״‬II ‫“ ל ח ם‬bread”
e. Isa 47:14
‫“ ל ח ם‬to eat” II ‫“ ישב‬to sit”
f. Isa 21:14; Ezek 44:3
‫“ ישב‬to sit, dwell” . . . ‫“ ל ח ם‬bread”
g. Comments
For Isa 47:14 a new reading and translation are proposed:
‫ מ ם‬1‫א ץ־ג ח ל ת לך‬ There is no ember for eaters,
‫אור ל שבת ע לו‬ hearth to sit in front of.
Another instance of defectively spelled ‫ ל ח מ ם‬probably recurs in Job 30:4,
where participial ‫ ל ח מ ם‬would balance the participle ‫ ה ק ט פי ם‬, “who pluck.”
155
a. ytb + gr
b. 603 obv:1
c. “to sit enthroned” + “m ountain”
d. Notes
One renders naturally 67 ytb ktbt gr: “Baal sits enthroned like the moun-
tain’s enthronement.”
e. Jer 21:13
‫“ ישבת‬who sits enthroned” // ‫“ צור‬mountain”
f. Comments
Sometimes considered corrupt (see especially the apparatus of B H K
where ‫ הע מ ק‬is held to be a corruption of corrupted ‫המשגב‬, “the citadel”),
the bicolon proves to be sound:
— 86 —
‫העי אלי ך ישבת העמלן‬ Look! I ’m against you, enthroned over

the valley,
‫צור המושר נ א ם־יהוה‬ o mountain of the plain!—Yahweh’s
word.
In this scansion, the construct chain ‫בת הע מ ק‬#‫ י‬balances the construct chain
‫ ר‬12‫ צו ר המל‬. Just as the mountain dominates the plain, so does Jerusalem
sit enthroned over the vale.
156
a. ytb -f tgr
b. 1 Aqht:22 {CTA 19 1:22); 2 Aqht V:6 (CTA 17 V:6)
c. “to sit” + “gate”
d. Notes
For a discussion of the various interpretations of the phrase in question,
see R S P I, I 46.
e. Prov 31:23
‫ ע ר‬# “gate” II ‫ב‬#‫“ י‬to sit”
f. Comments
The parallelism is more clearly seen when the v. is rendered: ‘Her hus-
band is known at the gates, from his sitting with the elders of the city.”
For other Canaanite features in Prov 31, see Dahood, Proverbs, pp. 60-63.
157
a. k /I w
b. 2 Aqht V:10-11 (iCTA 17 V.10-11)
c. “indeed” // “yea” or “and”
d. Notes
While scholars agree th at the k is emphatic, uncertainty marks the inter-
pretation of parallel w:
hlk ktr ky'n The stride of Kothar indeed he eyes;
wy'n tdrq hss yea, he eyes the tread of Hasis.
— 87 —
The chiastic pattern favors the emphatic interpretation of wy'n, since when
chiasmus is employed, the synonymy of the parallel elements tends to be
stricter; cf. Dahood, Myers FS, pp. 119-130.
e. I Sam 2:2; Ps 116:2
‫“ כי‬indeed” 11 ‫“ ו‬yea”
f. Ps 120:7
‫“ ו‬yea” + ‫“ כי‬indeed”
g. Comments
Appreciation of the emphatic particles seems to preclude the deletion
of the second Colon, recommended by B H K on the basis of the LXX, in
I Sam 2:2:
‫ א ץ״ קדו ש ך יהוה‬There is none holier than you, Yahweh.
‫ כי אין בל ת ך‬Indeed, there is none beside you.
‫ ואין צו ר כאלהינו‬Yea, there is no mountain like our God.
Since *‫ ב ל תן‬obviously refers to the second person, ‫ יהוה‬in the first colon
should also be second person; this is accomplished by reading ‫קדושן* יהוה‬
for MT ‫ז כיהוה‬2‫ ק ד ה‬, with the second person suffix parsed as dative of com-
parison as in Ps 77:14; see Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 230.
h. For an explanation of the emphatic particles in the two Pss texts, see
Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 146, 198.
158
a. kbd I/ p
b. 67 11:3-4 (CTA 5 11:3-4)
c. "liver” // “m outh”
d. Exod 4:10
‫“ כ ב ד‬heavy” + ‫“ פ ה‬m outh”
e. Isa 29:13
‫“ פ ה‬m outh” . . . ‫( כ ב ד‬D) “to honor”
f. Comments
The comparisons are valid inasmuch as kbd, “liver,” and ‫ כ ב ד‬, “heavy,”
or (D) “to honor,” reflect the same root. W hat is more, in Isa 29:13, ‫עש‬
‫ ה ע ם הזה בפיו‬, “this people approaches with its m outh,” elicits 75 1:40 (CTA
12 1:40), b'l ngthm bp'nh, “Baal approached them with his feet.”
— 88 —
159
a. kbd . . . smt (see also smt // ’zm [I 315])

b. 1 Aqht: 116-117, 130-131, 138-139, 144-145 (CTA 19 111:116-117, 130-131, 138-
139, 144-145)
c. “liver” . . . “fat”
d. Notes
As remarked at smt // ’zm (I 315 d), the root underlying smt is most likely
smn, “to be fat.”
e. Isa 17:4
‫“ כ בו ד‬weight” / / ‫“ מעמן‬fa t‫״‬
f. Isa 10:16
‫“ משמן‬stalw art” // ‫“ כ ב ד‬weight”
g. Comments
Isa 17:4 reads and translates:
‫ י ד ל כ בו ד י ע ק ב‬Jacob’s weight shall dwindle
‫ ומשמן בשרו ירזה‬and his body fat waste away.
h. Isa 10:16 is somewhat thornier, but the identification of the parallel
pair ‫ ב‬II ‫( תחת‬see R SP I, II 101) reveals the further balance between ‫משמניו‬
and ‫ כ ב ד ו‬. If these latter two form a word pair, then ‫ כ ב דו‬must be an ab-
stract noun (“his weight”) acquiring a concrete denotation by reason of
its parallelism with concrete ‫משמניו‬, “his stalwarts.” Hence render:
‫ל כן ישלח האדון יהוה צבאות‬ Therefore the Lord Yahweh of Hosts will
send
‫במשמניו רזון‬ wasting disease among his stalwarts,
‫ותחת כ ב דו י ק ד י ק ד‬ and amid his robust warriors a burning
will be kindled,
‫כי קוד אש‬ like the burning of fire.
160
a. kbd ‫ן‬/ td
b. 75 1:10-11 (CTA 12 1:10-11)
c. “liver” I/ “breast”
— 89 —
d. Isa 66:11
‫" עזד‬breast” . . . ‫" כ בו ד‬abundance”
e. Comments
Since kbd, "liver,” and ‫ כ בו ד‬, "abundance,” relate to the same root,
the comparison is not gratuitous.
161
a. kht II ars (see kht + drkt [.RSP II, I 27])

b. 49 1:36-37 (1CTA 6 1:64-65)
c. "seat” I/ "earth”
d. Notes
Literally “earth,” ars here probably refers to the nether world.
e. Ps 66:3-4
‫( כ ח ע‬D) "to cringe” . . . ‫“ אר ץ‬earth”
f. Comments
S. Rin, BZ, X I (1967), 182-183, sees in ‫"( כחש‬to worship” ) the root
found in kht, a connection th at is phonetically and semantically acceptable.
162
a. kit I/ bt
b. 51 1:15-19; I V :54-57 {CTA 4 1:15-19; IV:54-57)
c. “bride” // "daughter”
d• kit -\ - bt
e. 1175:2
f. "bride” + "daughter”
g. Hos 4:13, 14; Micah 7:6
‫" בת‬daughter” // ‫“ כ ל ה‬bride, daughter-in-law”
— 90 —
163
a. kit + knyt
b. 51 1:16; I V :54 (CTA 4 1:16; IV:54); 'nt pi. V I:IV :5-6 (CTA 3 E:5-6)
c. “bride” + “perfect”
d. Notes
While kit is generally accepted as “bride,” doubt attaches to the meaning
of knyt; “perfect,” "famous,” and “tender” are some of the proposals. The
biblical text supports “perfect.”
e. Ezek 28:12
‫“ חותם תכנית‬who puts the seal of perfection” / / ‫" כ לי ל יפי‬complete in beauty”
f. Comments
The Ug. juxtaposition does not elucidate ‫ חותם‬for us, but does help
establish the text, discountenancing the emendation of ‫תכנית‬, “perfection,”
to ‫תבני ת‬, with some versions, or ‫ ; ת כ לי ת‬see B H K and BHS.
164
a. kn . . . sbrt
b. 51 I V :48-49 (CTA 4 IV:48-49); 'nt V:44-45 {CTA 3 E:44-45)
c. (L) “to create” . . . “band”
d. Job 27:16
‫“ צ ב ר‬to collect” / ‫( כ ץ ן‬H) “to store up”
e. Comments
This hapax pair sheds light on the Canaanite literary background of
Job.
165
a. ksp + anyt
b. 2106:11
c. “silver” + "ships”
d. anyt . . . ksp
— 91 —
e. 2106:16-17
f. “ships” . . . “silver”
g. Isa 60:9
‫“ אניות‬ships” 11 ‫“ כ סף‬silver”
166
a. ksp . . . bzr
b. 51 1:32+35 (CTA 4 1:32+35)
c. “silver” . . . “gold”
d. Notes
Translating kht il nht bzr (51 1:34-35): “a gorgeous throne, a couch of gold.”
On nht, “couch,” see Gordon, UT, § 19.1640; Aistleitner, Worterbuch, No.
1772. Hitherto bzr has commonly been interpreted as an adverb “above”
or “upon,” comprised of b and zr “back” ; cf. W. Albright, BASOR, 91
(1943), 41 and n. 18; T. Gaster, BASOR, 93 (1944), 22; Aistleitner, Worter-
buck, No. 2378. But this analysis makes it difficult to parse nht, which in
similar contexts always designates a “couch” or “seat.”
e. Job 22:25
‫“ ב צ ר‬gold” !‫“ כ ס ף ן‬silver”
f. Comments
Found only in Job 22:24 and 25, ‫ ב צ ר‬serves to elucidate the sense of
bzr, which as an adverb scarcely fits the context. This hapax legomenon
pair underscores anew the affinity between Job and the Canaanite literary
tradition and makes it more difficult to credit the view th at Jo b ’s background
is Arabic. For other uncommon word pairs in Job witnessed in Ug., see
Dahood, Moriarty FS, pp. 19-34. One might even propose th at Eliphaz’s
statement ‫ די ב צ רי ך‬$ ‫ ו הי ה‬, “and Shaddai will be your gold,” owes something
to the Ug. parallelism il // bzr, “E l” // “gold” (51 1:34-35).
167
a. kpr /I rh gdm
b. 'nt 11:2 (CTA 3 B:2)
c. “henna” // “scent of coriander”
— 92 —
d. N o te s
The biblical collocation of ‫ ריח‬and ‫( כפר‬see sections g and i) confirms the
position of those rendering 'n t 11:2-3:
k p r sb' bn t Henna of seven daughters,
rh g d m w a n h b m scent of coriander and a n h b m .
See de Moor, S e a s o n a l P a t te r n , p. 85, for bibliography on this verse, and
contrast the mistaken interpretation of Cassuto, GA, pp. 64, 76. Cf. Ca-
quot’s discussion, TOML, p. 157.
e. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, XEV (1964), 288.
Schoville, S o n g o f S o n g s , pp. 50-51.
f. C a n t 1 :1 4
‫“ כ פ ר‬henna” . . . ‫“ עין גדי‬En-gedi”
g. C a n t 4 :1 1 + 1 3
‫“ ריח‬scent” . . . ‫“ כ פ ר‬henna”
h. C o m m e n ts
Usually interpreted “spring of the kid,” ‫ עין גדי‬might also signify “cori-
ander spring.” Other Canaanite words in Cant 1:14 include ‫ א שכ ל‬, “cluster,”
and ‫ ב‬, "from.” Thus N EB, “my beloved is for me a cluster of henna-blossom
from the vineyards of En-gedi,” is preferable to R SV , "My beloved is to
me a cluster of henna blossoms in the vineyards of En-gedi.”
i. The Ug. parallelism confutes those (e.g. NEB) who delete Cant 4:13c,
‫ כ פ רי ם ע ם־נ רדי ם‬, “henna with spikenard,” as metrically disruptive. • Here
emerges a further instance of two moot texts elucidating one another: for
additional examples of this paradoxical process, see M. Dahood, Bib, XL/VIII
(1967), 423-425.
168
a. k r y // y l d
b. 75 1:23-25 (CTA 12 1:23-25)
c. “to dig” If “to bear”
d. N o te s
The disputed passage 75 1:23-27 may be read and rendered:
k r y a m t 'p r Dig with the forearm the ground
'z m y d u g r m with vigorous hand the fields.
— 93 —
hi Id
V
Writhe, 7 bear!
aklm tbrkk Let the devourers make you kneel;
wld 'qqm let the gnawers be bom!
In this stichometry initial imperative kry balances imperatives hi Id at
the end of the tricolon. Contrast the mistaken stichometry of Caquot,
TOML, pp. 340-341.
e. Ezek 16:3
‫“ מכ ר ה‬digging out, origin” + ‫“ מ ל ד ת‬birth”
f. Comments
The hapax phrase in Ezek 16:3, ‫ מ כ ר תי ך ו מלד תיך מ אר ץ הכנעני‬, “your
origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites,” may well allude
to the Canaanite customs mentioned in the text above. Whether ‫מ כ ר ה‬
(also in Ezek 21:35 and 29:14) derives from ‫ כור‬or ‫ כ ר ה‬, both “to dig,” does
not affect the discussion concerning parallelism and juxtaposition, since
the roots are related; cf. H AL, p. 549.
169
a. krm . . . dd
b. 77:22-23 (CTA 24:22-23)
c. “vineyard” . . . “affection”
d. Bibliography
C. Virolleaud, Syria, X V II (1936), 219.
W. Watson, VT, X X II (1972), 468.
e. Isa 5:1
T T “beloved” // ‫“ כר ם‬vineyard”
170
a. ktr -+‫ ־‬tb (see also dsn // tb [RSP I, II 158])

b. 602 obv:5
c. “K othar‫ ״‬+ “merry”
d. Notes
M. Dahood, Or, X X X IX (1970), 377, discusses the nuance “merry” of tb.
— 94 —
e. Eccles 11:6
‫“ כעזר‬to succeed” !‫“ טוב ן‬good”
f. Eccles 5:10
‫“ טובה‬goods” 11 ‫“ כשרון‬gain”
g. Comments
These parallelisms in Eccles of two roots juxtaposed in Ug. tell against
Wagner, Aramaismen, pp. 68, 139, who believes th at Qoheleth’s use of the
root ‫ כשר‬is due to Aram, influence.
h. For another significant pair in Eccles (10:18) with Ug. counterpart,
see mkk // dip (R SP I, II 355).
171
a. lik I/ mt
b. 2059:10-13
c. “to send” // "to die, perish”
d. Prov 16:14
‫" מ ל א ך‬messenger” + ‫“ מות‬Death”
e. Comments
Many modem versions follow the L,XX in reading singular ‫ מ ל א ך מות‬,
“a messenger of death” (e.g., R SV , NEB), but MT ‫ מ ל אכי״ מו ת‬better parses
as either plural or dual—messengers of the god Death, a motif attested in
the RS tablets. See Dahood, Proverbs, p. 36.
172
a. lb . . . atr
b. 49 11:8-9, 29-30 (CTA 6 11:8-9, 29-30)
c. “heart” . . . “toward”
d. Notes
The semantic relationship between the verb atr, “to march,” and the prep-
osition atr, “toward,” has an analogy in ‫ ד ר ך‬, “to tread,” and ‫דרך‬., which
sometimes signifies “toward” (cf. BDB, p. 203a).
— 95 —
e. Pss 37:31; 44:19

‫“ ל ב‬heart ‫ ״‬// ‫ ר‬0 ‫“ א‬foot‫״‬
f. Job 31:7
‫ ר‬0 ‫“ א‬foot‫ ״‬II ‫“ ל ב‬heart‫״‬
g. Pss 10:6 ((‫ ;)לב‬73:1-2 (‫לבב‬
‫ ל ב‬, ‫“ ל ב ב‬heart” . . . ‫“ אע ר‬foot”
h. Comments
In Ps 10:6 MT *‫ו‬#‫ א‬becomes more meaningful when repointed ‫א שך‬,
“my foot,” so th at the v. translates:
‫אמר ב ל בו‬ He says in his heart,
‫ב ל־ א מו ט‬ “I will not stumble,
‫ל ד ר וד ר‬ forever and ever
‫אשך ל א ־ ב ר ע‬ my foot without a slip.”
173
a. Ibnn // rum
b. 2 Aqht V I:20-21 (CTA 17 VI:20-21)
c. “Lebanon” // “wild ox”
d. Ps 29:6
‫‘‘ לבנון‬Lebanon” . . . ‫" ראם‬wild ox”
174
a. lbs . . . dm
b. 75 11:47 (<CTA 12 11:47)
c. “garm ent” . . . “blood”
d. Notes
Following the translation of 75 11:47 in Caquot, TOML, p. 348: “quand
(Ba'al) a revetu comme un habit (de deuil) le sang de ses freres.” Compare
th at of Gordon, UMC, p. 93: “For he is clad as in the garb of [his] bro[thers].”
e. Lam 4:14
‫“ ד ם‬blood” II ‫“ ל ב ע‬garm ent”
— 96 —
175
a. Ihm + trmmt
b. 62:43 (CTA 6 V I:43)
c. "bread.” + "presentation”
d. Bibliography
Rin, AG, p. 235.
de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, pp. 240-241.
e. N um 15:19
‫ ״ ל ח ם‬food” !‫ ״ תרומו* ן‬offering‫״‬
176
a. Iht -(- spr

b. 138:6-7
c. “tablets” -+- "inscription”
d. Notes
Rendering Iht spr d likt: “the inscribed tablets which you sent.”
e. Isa 30:8
‫" לוח‬tablet” If ‫“ ספ ר‬inscription”
f. Comments
The parallelism makes it more difficult to equate ‫ ספ ר‬with Akk. siparru,
"bronze,” as has been proposed in the past. Compare also KAI 37 A: 15,
‫ ר ב ספר ם ]ו[לח‬, “master of scribes and tablets,” in a Phoen. inscription from
Cyprus.
177
a. Iht II t'dt
b. 137:25-26 (1CTA 2 1:25-26)
c. "tablets” // "testimony, injunction”
d. Notes
ahd ilm Cny In unison the gods answer
— 97 —
Iht mlak ym the tablets of Sea’s messengers

t(dt tpt nh\r\ the injunction of Judge River.
For the identification of t'dt with biblical ‫ ת עו ד ה‬, see de Moor, Seasonal Pat-
tern, pp. 130-131.
e. Isa 30:8
‫“ לוח‬tablet” . . . ‫( ע ד‬MT ‫“ ) ע ד‬witness
178
a. Iqh If M y
b. R S 24.277:30-31 (U g. VI, p. 168)
c. "to take” // “to gaze”
d. hdy 11 Iqh
e. 1 Aqht:144-146 (CTA 19 111:144-146)
f. “to gaze” II “to take”
g. Notes
Translating yqh 'z wyhdy mrhqm in RS 24.277:30-31: “He took the fortress
and peered into the distance.”
h. Job 3:6
‫“ ל ק ח‬to take” II ‫" ח ד ה‬to gaze”
i. Prov 24:32
‫“ חזה‬to gaze” 11 ‫“ ל ק ח‬to take”
j. Comments
O. W intermute’s identification (apud M. Dahood, Bib, XL, [1959], 169)
of ‫ יחד‬in Job 3:6 as Canaanite for ‫ יחז‬is now sustained by the argument
from parallel pairs. See also Brekelmans, Ras Sjamra, p. 8. Thus v. 6, ‫א ל ־‬
‫ י ח ד בימי ענה‬, "may it not be seen among the days of the year!” is balanced
by v. 9, ‫ ו א ל ־י ר א ה ב ע פ ע פי־ ע ח ר‬, "may it not enjoy the twinklers of dawn!”
179
a. Iqh II ysq
b. Krt:70-72, 163-164 (CTA 14 11:70-72; III:163-IV:164)
c. "to take” // “to pour”
— 98 —
d. Gen 28:18; Josh 7:23 (‫[ יצק‬H])/ I Sam 10:1; I I Kings 4:41; Job 28:2 (‫[ ל ק ח‬Hp],
‫[ יצק‬Gp])
‫“ ל ק ח‬to take” ; (Hp) “to be taken” // ‫“ יצק‬to pour” ; (Gp) “to be smelted” ;
(H) “to pour out”
e. Comments
The recognition of a double-duty preposition and of scriptio defectiva
leads to this reading and rendition of Job 28:2:
‫ב רזל מ ע פ ר יקח‬ Iron is taken from ore,
ntfim ‫ואבן לצולן‬ and from smelted rock, bronze.
180
a. Isn II [qll\
b. 2 Aqht V I:51-52 (CTA 17 VI:51-52)
c. “to traduce” 11 “ [to curse]”
d. Notes
The biblical parallelism cited below suggests the following restoration:
tUn aqht gzr She traduced Aqhat the Hero,
[tqll kdd dn\il [she cursed the child of Dan]iel.
Herdner, CTA, p. 84, leaves four spaces, just the number of tqll.
e. Prov 30:10
‫( לשן‬H) “to traduce” / / ‫( ק ל ל‬D) “to curse”
181
a. mgn . . . qnyt
b. 51 1:22-23; 111:25-26, 28-30, 33-35 (CTA 4 1:22-23; 111:25-26, 28-30, 33-35)
c. “to beseech (with gifts)” . . . “creatress”
d. Notes
Adopting the definition of mgn proposed by Gordon, UT, § 19.1419, and
followed by Caquot, TOML, pp. 194, 554.
e. Gen 14:19-20
‫“ קנה‬to create” 11 ‫( מגן‬D) “to deliver”
— 99 —
8
182
a. mdbr // mdr'
b. 52:68-69 {CTA 23:68-69)
c. “the desert” // “the sown”
d. Jer 2:2
‫“ מ ד ב ר‬the desert” // ‫“ ארץ ל א זרועה‬a land not sown”
e. Ps 106:26-27
‫“ מ ד ב ר‬the desert” . . . ‫“ זרע‬seed”
183
a. mdbr (mlbr) + siy (see also ysa [yza] . . . mdbr [mlbr] [I 138])
b. 75 1:21-22 (iCTA 12 1:21-22)
c. “desert” + “devastating”
d. Notes
Translating btk mlbr il siy: “in the midst of the limitless devastating desert,”
with il parsed as the superlative and Siy as an adjective from the root wit-
nessed in ‫’שאה‬, “devastation.”
e. Job 38:26-27
‫“ מ ד ב ר‬desert” II ‫“ שאה ומשאה‬devastation and desolation”
f. Comments
This passage contains five parallel nouns all designating “desert.”
184
a. mdbr + spm
b. 52:4 (1CTA 23:4)
c. “desert” + “dunes(?)‫״‬
d. Notes
The damaged text does not permit certain translation of spm, but a number
of scholars have identified it with ‫שפי)י(ם‬, “dunes.”
— 100 —
e. Jer 4:11; 12:12

‫“ שפי)י(ם‬dunes” II ‫" מ ד ב ר‬desert”
f. Isa 41:18: Jer 3:2
‫“ שפי)י(ם‬dunes” . . . ‫“ מ ד ב ר‬desert”
g. Comments
The balance of pairs is obtained in Jer 4:11 and 12:12 by scanning
and translating differently from traditional versions. The first now reads:
‫רוח צח שפיים‬ A scorching wind from the dunes,
‫ב מ ד ב ר ד ר ך ב ת־ ע מי‬ from the desert toward my people.
- It would seem th at the second-colon preposition ‫ ב‬, “from,” serves the first
colon as well.
h. In Jer 12:12 there is also the problem of the preposition :‫ע ל‬
‫ע ל־ כ ל־ ש פי ם‬ From all the dunes,
‫ב מ ד ב ר באו שדדים‬ from the desert come the devastators.
In this passage the prophet describes the desert tribes’ razzia of the sown;
hence both ‫ ב‬and ‫ ע ל‬indicate the origin of the onslaught.
185
a. [md'] If md'
b. 608:39
c. “ [Why?]” /I “W hy?”
d. Notes
The first md' is a complete restoration suggested by the purported paral-
lelism: [md'] nplt y [ ] md' nplt Mr.
e. Judg 5:28
‫“ מדו ע‬W hy?” // ‫“ מדוע‬W hy?”
186
a. mhmd + arz
b. 51 V I:19, 21 (CTA 4 VI :19, 21)
— 101 —
I 187 Ras Shamra’ Parallels
c. “the most desirable” + “cedar”

d. Cant 5:15-16
‫“ ארז‬cedar” // ‫“ מ ח מ ד‬the most desirable”
187
a. mhs H hwy (see also mt . . . mhs [I 209])

b. 1 Aqht:15-16 (CTA 19 1:15-16)
c. “to smite” // (D) “to revive”
d. Deut 32:39
‫( חיה‬D) “to revive” . . . ‫“ מחץ‬to smite”
188
a. mhs I/ hsb
b. *nt 11:5-7, 19-20, 23-24, 29-30 (CTA 3 B:5-7, 19-20, 23-24, 29-30)
c. “to smite” // “to hew”
d. Bibliography
Dahood, Gruenthaner V 0 L, p. 56.
e. Isa 51:9
‫“ מ ח צב‬to hew to pieces”
f. Comments
In a mythological passage describing Yahweh’s arm, consonantal
‫( המחצבות‬lQIsa* reads ‫ ) ה מ ח צ ת‬can be parsed as a quadriconsonantal blend
of the parallel pair mhs // hsb witnessed in a similar context in Ug. As a
G fern. part. ‫ ה מ ח צ ב ת‬relieves the need for emendation recommended even
before the discovery of lQ Isaa.
189
a. mym 11 sat nps

b. 125:34-35 (CTA 16 1:34-35)
c. “w ater” // “issue of the throat”
— 102 —
d. Notes
In this passage, mmh, literally "her waters,” signifies "her tears.” UT 125:
3435‫ ־‬reads and translates:
al tst bsdm mmh Let her not pour her tears in the fields,
bsmkt sat n jsh on the highlands the issue of her throat.
Gordon, UT, § 19.1469, writes th at “it is conceivable th at mmh corresponds
to Heb. ‫מי מיה‬, ‘her waters’.” From the biblical texts cited below this equa-
tion appears beyond doubt. But Gordon errs when concluding th at mmh
indicates a vital substance th at can leave the body and enter the earth upon
death, hence her blood. Rather mmh is a poetic term for "her tears” which
issue from her throat, having originated in the kbd, “the liver.” On the
physiology of tears in the OT see T. Collins, CBQ, X X X III (1971), 18-38,
185-197.
e. Prov 25:25
‫“ מים‬water” + ‫“ נפש‬throat”
f. Ps63:2
‫" נפש‬throat” . . . ‫“ מים‬water”
g. Isa 58:11
‫“ נפעז‬throat” . . . ‫“ מוצא מים‬spring of waters”
h. Comments
In Isa 58:11 ‫ ו הג בי ע בצח צחו ת נפשך‬is rendered: “And he will slake your
throat in the shimmering heat.”
190
a. mym . . . ilm // smym jI kbkbm
b. 1 Aqht:190-193 (CTA 19 IV: 190-193)
c. “w ater” . . . “gods” // “heavens” // “stars”
d. Job 22:11-12
‫“ מים‬w ater” . . . ‫“ אלוה‬God” // 0‫“ מים‬heavens” // ‫“ כוכבי ם‬stars”
191
a. mym // smn
b. 'nt 11:38-39 {CTA 3 B :38-39)
c. “water” // “oil”
— 103 —
d. Notes
The text reads and translates:
thsjn mh wtrhs She drew water for herself and washed
tl sntnr smn ars with dew of heaven, oil of earth.
The genitive suffix of mh, “her w ater,” is interpreted here as datival, a
construction well known from Heb.; cf. Joiion, Grammaire, § 129h, p. 389
e. Ezek T6:9; Ps 109:18
‫“ מים‬water‫ ״‬// p tf “oil”
192
a. mknt // tbt
b. Krt:11+23 (CTA 14 1:11+23)
c. “abode” // “dwelling”
d. Notes
The biblical parallelism of these two roots (kwn, ‫ כ ץ‬and ytb, ‫ )ישב‬suggests
th at the Ug. poet is here employing distant parallelism; see R SP I, II Intro
6 c-f. Thus 1. 23, mid grd$ tbth, “much ravaged is his dwelling,” is doubtless
intended to evoke 1. 11 , krt grds mknt, literally, “K irta is ravaged as to
abode.”
e. Isa 16:5
‫( כ ץ‬Hp) “to be established” // ‫“ ישב‬to sit”
f. Ps 107:36
‫( ישב‬H) “to cause to dwell” / / ‫( כ ץ‬L) “to establish”
g. Exod 15:17; I Kings 8:13, 39, 43; Ps 33:14; etc.
‫“ מכ ץ‬abode” + ‫“ עזבת‬dwelling”
193
a. mla // mla
b. 76 111:8-9 (CTA 10 111:8-9)
c. “to be full” II “to be full”
d. Isa 2:6-8 (G, N, N, N); Jer 5:27; Ezek 9:9 (N, G); Job 36:16-17; Eccles 1:7-8 (G, N)
‫“ מל א‬to be full” ; (N) “to be filled” / / ‫“ מל א‬to be full” ; (N) “to be filled”
— 104 —
194
a. mla . . . smht
b. 'nt 11:25-26 (CTA 3 B :25-26)
c. “to be full‫ ״‬. . . “joy‫״‬
d. Ps 48:11-12
‫“ מ ל א‬to be full” II ‫“ שמח‬to rejoice”
e. Comments
This parallelism suggests th at the sop -pdsuq at the end of v. 11 is mis-
placed.
195
a. mlak + ym
b. 137:22, 26, 28, 30 (CTA 2 1:22, 26, 28, 30)
c. “messenger” + “Sea”
d. Ps 107:23
‫“ ים‬sea” II ‫" מ ל א כ ה‬trading mission, trade”
e. Isa 23:2-3
‫‘‘ ים‬sea” + ‫“ מל או ך‬agent, salesman”
f. Comments
On the nuance “trading mission” ascribed to ‫ מ ל א כ ה‬, see W. Albright,
BASOR, 150 (1958), 38, n. 14; Dahood, Psalms I I I , p. 86.
g. In Isa 23:2, lQ Isa offers the variant ‫ מ ל א כי ך‬, "your messengers,” but
consonantal ‫ מל או ך‬can be defended when pointed ‫ מ ל או ך‬, a maktub formation,
with the literal meaning “one sent,” hence an agent or salesman. Thus
singular ‫ מל או ך‬accords with singular ‫ ע ב ר ים‬, “who crossed the sea.”
196
a. mlak H t'dt
b. 137:22, 26, 28, 30 (CTA 2 1:22, 26, 28, 30)
c. "messenger” // “embassy”
d. Isa 14:31-32
‫“ מו עד‬troops” . . . ‫“ מ ל א ך‬messenger”
— 105 —
197
a. mlk + bny
b. 1007:7
c. ‫ ״‬king” + “to build‫״‬
d. Bibliography
Dahood, Textual Criticism, p. 27.
e. Job 3:14
‫“ מלכי ם‬kings” // ‫“ הבנים‬who rebuilt”
f. Jer 52:4; Eccles 9:14
‫“ מל ך‬king” . . . ‫“ בנה‬to build”
g. Isa 60:10
‫“ בנה‬to build ‫ ״‬. . . ‫“ מ ל ך‬king”
h. Comments
In the article cited above I termed the two words in Job 3:14 as oc-
curring merely in sequence, but a good case can be made for considering
the terms parallel. Of course, ‫הבני ם‬, "who rebuilt,” would stand parallel
to both ‫ מ ל כי ם ויעצי ארץ‬, “kings and counsellors of the earth,” in the first
colon.
198
a. mlk . . . bsr
b. 2076:38-39
c. Mlk (GN) . . . B s r (GN)
d. bsr + mlk
e. 2063:11-12
f. "to enclose” + “king”
g. Notes
On the GN Bsr see Astour, R SP II, V III 20.
UT 2063:11-12 is read and translated:
[y]bsr 'm mlk He enclosed the fortress of the king.
On 'm, “fortress,” consult Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 112-113.
— 106 —
h. Isa 17:3; Lam 2:2

‫“ מ ב צ ר‬fortification” // ‫“ מ מ ל כ ה‬kingdom, king”
i. Deut 3:4-5
‫“ מ מ ל כ ה‬kingdom” . . . ‫( ב צ ר‬Gp) “to be fortified”
j. Isa 34:12-13
‫“ מלו כ ה‬kingship” . . . ‫“ מ ב צ ר‬fortification”
199
a. mlk . . . kn
b. 51 I V :48 (CTA 4 IV:48); 'nt V:43-44 (CTA 3 E:43-44)

c. “king” . . . (L,) “to bring into being”
d. Notes
In the phrase il mlk dyknnk, “El the king who brought you into being,”
the L, form yakaninu has its reflex in the L, form ‫ כונן‬of Exod 15:17.
e. Ps 96:10
‫“ מל ך‬to reign” // ‫( כרן‬N) “to be firmly established”
f. Exod 15:17-18
‫( כ ץ‬E) “to establish” . . . ‫“ מ ל ך‬to reign”
200
a. mlk + sm
b. 138:13
c. “king” + “name”
d. Mai 1:14
‫“ מ ל ך‬king” II ‫“ עזם‬name”
e. Zech 14:9; Ps 145:1
‫“ מ ל ך‬king” . . . ‫“ עזם‬name”
f. Jet 29:21; Ps 102:16
‫“ עזם‬name” . . . ‫“ מל ך‬king”
— 107 —
201
a. mphm . . . slh
b. 51 1:24+26-27 {CTA 4 1:24+26-27)
c. “bellows” . . . "to hammer out, forge”
d. Prov 6:19
‫ פוח‬or ‫( נפח‬H) “to ventilate” If ‫( עזלח‬D) “to forge”
e. Comments
A consistent metaphor emerges in Prov 6:19 when ‫י פי ח‬, usually taken
as a substantive denoting “witness,” is parsed as a H verb from either ‫פרח‬
or ‫נ פ ח‬, “to fan, blow,” and ‫ ל ח‬1‫ מע‬identified with the root of Ug. slh, “to
hammer out, forge.”
‫יפיח כזבים ע ד ע ק ר‬ A lying witness ventilates lies,
‫ו מעל ח מדנים בי| אחים‬ and forges disputes among brothers.
f. For further discussion of these roots, consult Dahood, UHP, p. 73,

and J. Greenfield, JAOS, L X X X IX (1969), 178.
202
a. mrym + spn
b. 51 I V :19 (1CTA 4 IV:19); 67 1:11 {CTA 5 1:11); 607:9; 'nt IV:45, 82 {CTA 3
D:45, 82)
c. “the heights” + “Zapan”
d. Job 17:4
‫“ צ פן‬to conceal” jI ‫( רום‬L) “to exalt”
e. Comments
At first blush the comparison looks remote, but one familiar with the
allusive power of Jo b ’s recherche vocabulary will take cognizance of it.
The biblical parallelism, it might be noted, does not necessarily bear on the
disputed etymology of Ug. spn.
— 108 —
203
a. mrkbt . . . V&
b. 1121:1-2
c. “chariot” . . . “to enter”
d. Jer 50:37
‫“ ר כ ב‬chariot” // ‫“ ע ר ב‬foreign troops”
204
a. mslt . . . hpnt
b. 609 obv:19
c. “robes” . . . “garments”
d. Notes
Since hpnt designates garments of some kind (see Gordon, UT, § 19.990),
mslt may be explained as a metathetic form of ‫ שמלה‬and ‫ של מה‬, both signify-
ing "m antle” or “robe” .
e. Prov 30:4
‫“ הפנים‬garments” // ‫“ שמלה‬m antle”
f. Comments
The Ug. collocation would tend to confirm the equation of ‫ בחפניו‬in Prov
30:4 with Ug. hpn proposed by K. Cathcart, CBQ, X X X II (1970), 418-420.
205
a. mt If asp
b. Krt:16+18-19 (CTA 14 1:16+18-19)
c. “to die” If “to gather”
d. Deut 32:50 (twice)
‫“ מות‬to die” 11 ‫( אסף‬N) "to be gathered”
e. N um 20:26
‫( א ס ף‬N) “to be gathered” + ‫“ מות‬to die”
f. Hab2:5
‫“ מות‬Death” . . . ‫“ אסף‬to gather”
— 109 —
206
a. mt . . . bq'
b. 49 11:31-32 {CTA 6 11:31-32)
c. "D eath” . . . “to split”
d. Isa 59:5
‫" מות‬to die” // ‫( ב ק ע‬N) "to break forth”
207
a. mt . . . hrb
b. 49 11:31 {CTA 6 11:31)
c. "D eath” . .. "sword”
d. Jer 18:21; 43:11; Job 5:20
‫" מות‬Mot, death” // ‫“ ח ר ב‬sword”
e. Lam 1:20
‫“ ח רב‬sword” // ‫" מות‬death”
f. Jer 11:22
‫“ מות‬to die” + ‫ ״ ח רב‬sword”
g. Isa 22:2; Job 27:14-15
‫" ח רב‬sword” . . . ‫" מות‬to die, death”
h. Comments
Destroying the parallelism, B H K ’s proposal to emend ‫ הרגי מות‬, "slain
by Mot,” to ‫הרוגים‬, “slain,” in Jer 18:21 must be disallowed.
208
a. mt If yrd
b. 67 V I:23-25 {CTA 5 V I:23-25)
c. "to die” II " to descend”
d. mt . . . yrd
e. 67 1:6; V.T5-17 {CTA 5 1:6; V:15-17)
— 110 —
f. “to die” . . . “to descend”

g. I Sam 2:6 (‫[ מות‬H], ‫[ י ר ד‬H]); P s 115:17
‫“ מות‬to die” ; (H) “to kill” / / ‫“ י ר ד‬to descend” ; (H) “to bring down”
h. Ezek 28:8 (H); Ps 88:5-6
‫“ י ר ד‬to descend” ; (H) “to bring down” / / ‫“ מות‬to die”
i. Ezek 28:8; Prov 5:5; 7:27
‫“ י ר ד‬to descend” + ‫“ מות‬death”
j. I Sam 26:10; Ezek 31:14
‫“ מות‬to die, death” . . . ‫“ י ר ד‬to descend”
209
a. mt . . . mhs (see also mhs // hwy [I 187])

b. 49 V I :24-25 (CTA 6 VI :24-25)
c. “Death” . . . “to smite”
d. Deut 32:39
‫( מות‬H) “to slay” // ‫“ מחץ‬to smite”
210
a. mtb j/ kht
b. 126 V :24-25 (CTA 16 V:24-25)
c. “chair” / / “seat”
d. ytb + kht
e. 49 1:30 (1CTA 6 1:58)
f. “to sit” + “seat”
g . ytb . . . kht
h. 127:23-24 (CTA 16 V I:23-24)
i. “to sit” . . . “seat”
j. Bibliography
Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, pp. 109-110, 113.
I ll —
k. Hos 9:2b-3a
‫( כחש‬D) “to sit enthroned” // ‫“ ישב‬to rule”
l. Comments
Kuhnigk proposes this convincing translation for the cola in question:
‫ותירועז י כ ח ע בה‬ Und Tirosch thront in ihm,
‫ל א ישבו ב ארץ יהוה‬ nicht herrscht im Lande Jahwe.
211
a. ndd . . . 'pt
b. 124:10-11 (CTA 22 B.10-11)
c. “to depart” . . . “flight, fowl”
d. Job 20:8
‫“ עוף‬to fly” // ‫( נ ד ד‬Hp) “to be chased away”
e. Ps 55:7-8
‫“ עוף‬to fly” // ‫( רחק נ ד ד‬H) “to depart distantly”
f. Jer 4:25
‫“ עוף‬fowl” + ‫“ נ ד ד‬to depart‫״‬
g. Jer 9:9; Hos 7:12-13
‫ ״ עוף‬fowl” . . . ‫“ נ ד ד‬to depart”
h. Comments
Compare also Prov 26:2, where ‫נוד‬, “to flee,” cognate to ‫נ ד ד‬, parallels
‫ עו ף‬, “to fly.”
212
a. nt* 4‫ ־‬ars
b. 76 11:24 (CTA 10 11:24)
c. “to plant” + “earth”
d. Isa 60:21
‫“ ארץ‬earth” / / ‫“ מ טע‬plantation”
e. Jer 32:41
‫“ נטע‬to plant” + ‫“ ארץ‬earth”
— 112 —
f. Ps 80:9-10
‫“ נטע‬to plant” . . . ‫“ ארץ‬land”
g. Job 14:8-9
‫“ אר ץ‬earth” . . . ‫“ נטע‬plantation”
h. Ezek 34:29
‫“ מ ט ע‬plantation” . . . ‫“ ארץ‬earth”
i. Comments
In addition to the second element of the collocation, Job 14:8 also
witnesses ‫“ אר ץ‬earth” // ‫“ ע פ ר‬dust,” th at occurs in 76 11:24-25 (see R SP I,
II 67):
nten bars iby We planted my foes in the earth,
wb'fir qm ahk and in the dust those who rose up
against your brother.
213
a. ns I/ dbh
b. 2063:14-16
c. “to flee” I/ “to sacrifice”
d. Notes
The text lends itself to various interpretations, but the balance between
ns and dbh appears certain.
mlk syr ns The king fled to Syr
wtm ydbh and there offered a sacrifice.
Contrast Gordon, UT, § 19.1751: “The king has traveled to Ns and there
he will sacrifice” ; and M. Astour, A J A , L,XIX (1965), 257: “And behold,
the king retreated, fled, and there he sacrificed.” Since tm, “there,” needs
an antecedent, either syr or ns should designate a place.
e. Ps 4:6-7
‫“ זבח‬to sacrifice” . . . ‫“ ניס‬to flee”
f. Comments
For the analysis of ‫ נסה‬as third masculine singular of ‫נוס‬, see Dahood,
Psalms I, p. 26. Since the light of God’s face has fled, the psalmist advises
his people to offer legitimate sacrifices th at will effect God’s return.
— 113 —
214
a. n'm /I s fr
b. 52:1-2 (CTA 23:1-2)
c. “pleasant” // “comeliness”
d. Notes
In the third word of 1. 2 only the first letter s is certain, but Herdner, CTA,
p. 98, n. 2, affirms th at the second letter, often restored to r in view of 1. 22,
bn srm, appears to be rather p. Hence read bn sp[r\, “sons of comeliness,”
on the strength of the biblical parallelism. For a recent discussion see Xella,
Shr e Sim, pp. 40-41. One might note, too, th at spr, “comeliness,” is prob-
ably attested in 602 obv:10, [im]r spr, “comely lambs,” a restoration in-
spired by Gen 49:21, ‫ א מ רי״ ש פ ר‬, “comely lambs.”
e. Ps 16:6
‫“ נעמיס‬pleasant places” . . . “IDE? “to be handsome”
f. Comments
In this interesting parallelism the psalmist matches a prepositional
phrase with a verb:
‫ח בלי ם נ פ לו ״ לי בנעמים‬ The lines have fallen for me in pleasant
places,
‫ פ ר ה ע לי‬# ‫א ף״נ ח ל ת‬ and my inheritance is handsome, Most
High.
The repointing of the seemingly otiose preposition ‫ ע לי‬, “upon me,” to the
divine epithet ‫ ע לי‬, “Most High,” recovers an inclusion in vv. 5-6 formed
by vocative ‫ יהרה‬and vocative ‫ ע לי‬.
215
a. npl . . . abd
b. Krt:21+24 (CTA 14 1:21+24)
c. “to fall” . . . “to perish”
d. I I Sam 1:27
‫“ נ פ ל‬to fall” II ‫“ א ב ד‬to perish”
— 114 —
e. Jer 25:34-35; Job 14:18-19 (H)

‫“ נ פ ל‬to fall” . . . ‫“ א ב ד‬to perish” ; (H) “to destroy”
f. Jer 15:7-8
‫( א ב ד‬D) "to destroy” . . . ‫( נ פ ל‬H) “to cause to fall”
g. Esth 9:24
‫( א ב ד‬D) “to destroy” . . . ‫( נ פ ל‬H) “to cast” . . . ‫( א ב ד‬D) “to destroy”
216
a. n j l I/ npl
b. 608:39
c. “to fall” If “to fall”
d. Notes
For the text, see [md'] 11 m<V (I 185 d).
e. Judg 5:27; Ps 106:26-27 (H, H)
‫“ נ פ ל‬to fall” ; (H) “to cause to fall” // ‫“ נ פ ל‬to fall” ; (H) “to cause to fall”
217
a. nps . . . hwy (see also nps -j- nps [I 218])

b. 67 1:14-15 (CTA 5 1:14-15); 604:2+4
c. “appetite” . . . “to crave”
d. Notes
For the most recent and satisfactory analysis of this couplet, see E. Green-
stein, A N E S, V (1973), 157-164.
e. Bibliography
Dahood, Proverbs, p. 18.
M. Klopfenstein, TZ, X X V III (1972), 102, n. 15.
E. Greenstein, A N E S, V (1973), 158.
f. Prov 10:3 (Dahood, Klopfenstein, Greenstein)
£ ‫“ נפ‬appetite” // ‫“ הרה‬craving”
— 115 —
9
g. Mic 7:3 (Greenstein)

‫ ״ הוה‬craving” + ‫“ נפש‬soul”
h. Mic 7:1
‫( אוה‬D) "to crave” + ‫“ נפש‬soul”
i. Prov 23:2-3
‫“ נפש‬appetite” . . . ‫( אוה‬HtD) "to crave”
j. Comments
Greenstein shows th at the roots hwy and ,wy are related; hence the
propriety of citing here Mic 7:1 and Prov 23:2-3.
218
a. nps + nps (see also nps . . . hwy [I 217])

b. 67 1:14 (CTA 5 1:14); 604:2-3
c. "live prey” + “appetite”
d. Notes
Adopting the translation of 67 1:14-15 and 604:2-4 proposed by E. Green-
stein, A N E S, V (1973), 158, and reading with the former text:
p nps nps Ibit(?) thw For a lion’s appetite craves live prey.
An instructive analogy to these different senses of nps is afforded by ‫חיים‬,
"life, desire,” but also "victuals” in Prov 27:27, and by Akk. balatu, “pro-
visions,” as well as "life” (see CAD II, pp. 46-52, esp. p. 52a for EA attes-
tations).
e. Isa 58:10; Prov 13:4
‫" נפש‬victuals” // ‫" נפש‬appetite”
f. Comments
The difficulties besetting both these vv. find a quick solution in the
recognition of the wordplay on two different senses of ‫נפש‬. Thus Isa 58:10
may be rendered:
‫ ותפק ל ר ע ב נפשך‬If you offer to the starving your victuals,
‫ ונפש נענה תשביע‬and the appetite of the oppressed satisfy.
In addition to the wordplay, the prophet employs an A :B :C / / C’:B’:A’
chiasmus th at enables him to juxtapose the double ‫ נפש‬in two diverse
meanings.
— 116 —
g. To elicit clear meaning from Prov 13:4 one must also appreciate the
dative force of the suffix in 11:‫נ פ ע‬
‫מתאוה ואץ נפער ע צ ל‬ The lazy man craves but there are
no victuals for him,
‫ונפעז הרצים תדעזן‬ while the appetite of the diligent is
richly fed.
h. The Ug.-Heb. use of nps-titft in an identical wordplay sharply under-
scores the close literary relationship between these Canaanite dialects.
219
a. nsb . . . qtr
b. 2 Aqht 1:27-28 (CTA 17 1:27-28)
c. “to set up” . . . “incense”
d. I I Kings 17:10-11
‫( נצב‬H) ‫‘ ׳‬to set up” // ‫( קטר‬D) “to bum incense”
220
a. nr H Smh
b. 1015:9-11
c. “to shine” // “to derive pleasure”
d. Prov 13:9
‫“ &מח‬to rejoice, shine brightly” . . . ‫“ נר‬lam p”
e. Comments
One would like to know the reason for N E B ’s alteration of the imagery
in the second colon of Prov 13:9: “The light of the righteous burns brightly;
the embers of the wicked will be put out.” Commonly rendered “lamp,”
‫ נר‬becomes “embers” in NEB.
221
a. nrt + ilm
b. 49 11:24; 111:24; I V :32 (1CTA 6 11:24; 111:24; IV :32); etc.
c. “lamp” + "gods”
— 117
d. Job 29:2-3
‫“ אלוה‬God ‫“ נר ן! ״‬lamp‫״‬
e. Ps 78:29
‫“ נר‬lamp” . . . ‫“ אלהי ם‬God‫״‬
222
a. nsa + ytb
b. 2 Aqht V:6 (CTA 17 V:6)
c. “to raise” 4‫“ ־‬to sit”
d. Sir 17:7
‫“ נשא‬to raise” // ‫( ישב‬H) “to make sit”
223
a. nsa . . . sh
b. 49 1:11; V I:13 (CTA 6 1:39; VI:13); 127:15-16 (CTA 16 VI:15-16); etc.
c. “to raise” . . . "to cry out”
d. Bibliography
Cathcart, Nahum, p. 36.
e. Isa 42:11
‫“ נשא‬to raise” // ‫“ צרח‬to cry out”
f. Comments
This parallelism can serve as an argument against the emendation of
‫ישאו‬, which is elliptical for ‫ ישאו קול‬, “they raise their voice,” to ‫ישושו‬, “they
exult,” an emendation based on some ancient versions.
224
a. nsa . . . £mh
b. 49 1:11 (CTA 6 1:39)
c. “to raise” . . . “to rejoice”
d. Eccles 5:18
‫“ נשא‬to raise” // ‫“ שמח‬to rejoice”
— 118 —
225
a. ntbt . . . drk
b. 1001 rev:7-8
c. “paths” . . . “way”
d. Notes
The damaged tablet prevents our knowing whether [ ]drk is a noun or
verb; all the same the root is drk.
e. Job 24:13; Prov 1:15; 7:25; 8:2; Lam 3:9; etc.
‫“ ד ר ך‬way” 11 ‫“ נתיבה‬p ath ”
f. Jer 18:15
‫“ ד ר כי ם‬ways” 11 ‫“ נתיבות‬paths” 11 ‫“ ד ר ך‬way”
226
a. spa II mt
b. 67 1:5-6 (CTA 5 1:5-6)
c. “to consume” // “to die”
d. I Sam 26:10
‫“ מות‬to die” 11 ‫( ספ ה‬N) “to be consumed”
e. Comments
The interplay between tertiae ’alep and tertiae yod roots is too well at-
tested to call for discussion here. i?SF interestingly renders N-stem ‫נספה‬
in I Sam 26:10 “perish.”
227
a. 'bd . . . ybl
b. 137:36-37 {CTA 2 1:36-37)
c. “slave‫ ״‬. . . “to bring”
d. Z efh 3:9-10
‫“ ע ב ד‬to serve” II ‫( י ב ל‬H) “to bring”
— 119
e. Comments
In addition to balancing preceding ‫ ל ק ר א‬, “to invoke,” ‫ ל ע ב דו‬, “to serve
him,” is specified in greater detail by the following parallel expression ‫יובלון‬
‫מנחתי‬, “they will bring me tribute.” See Sabottka, Zefhanja, pp. 119-122.
228
a. 'bd . . . Ihm
b. 'nt 1:2+5 (CTA 3 A:2+5)
c. “to serve” . . . (5) “to feed”
d. Prov 12:9
‫“ ע ב ד‬serving” // ‫“ לה ם‬food”
e. Prov 12:11
‫“ ע ב ד‬to work” + ‫“ לח ם‬food, grain”
f. Ps 104:14
‫“ ע ב ד‬to plow” . . . ‫“ לח ם‬grain”
g. Comments
Dahood, Proverbs, p. 26, discusses the bearing of the Ug. text on the
translation of Prov 12:9, but does not mention the parallelism, which ex-
eludes emendation of ‫ ע ב ד‬to ‫ ע בו ר‬, "grain,” or some other word; cf. BH K.
h. See Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 31, 39-40, on ‫ ע ב ד‬as a G part, meaning
“to plow” in Ps 104:14.
229
a. 'dr . . . *ny
b. 3 Aqht ‫׳‬rev‘:14-15 (CTA 18 1:14-15)
c. “to deliver” . . . “to answer”
d. Isa 49:8
‫“ ענה‬to answer” // ‫“ עזר‬to deliver, help”
e. Job 9:13-14
‫“ עזר‬to help” . . . ‫“ ענה‬to answer”
— 120 —
f. Ps 119:172-173
‫“ ענה‬to answer” . . . ‫“ עזר‬to help”
g. Comments
On the various nuances of ‫ עז ר‬, see B. Baisas, UF, V (1973), 41-52.
230
a. 'zm + yd
b. 75 1:24 (CTA 12 1:24)
c. “vigor” + “hand”
d. Notes
UT 75 1:23-25 may be rendered:
kry amt 'fir Dig with the forearm the ground,
'zm yd ugrm with vigorous hand the fields.
For further details, see Caquot, TOML, p. 339, who cites the various inter-
pretations of amt, which can also be taken as “handmaid” (cf. 1. 15).
e. Ps 22:17b-18a; Job 2:5

T “hand” II ‫“ עצ ם‬bone”
f. Deut 8:17; Job 30:21

‫“ עצ ם‬vigor” + ‫“ י ד‬hand”
g. Job 19:20-21
‫“ עצ ם‬bone” . . . T “hand”
h. Comments
In FT, XXIV (1974), 370-371, I have proposed the following reading
and translation of Ps 22:17b-18a:
‫ כי ארי ידי ו ת ל י‬Because they picked clean my hands and
my feet,
‫ א ס פ ר כ ל־ ע צ מו תי‬I can number all my bones.
The nouns ‫ י די ורגלי‬, “my hands and my feet,” form a merismus and together
stand parallel to ‫ כ ל ״ ע צ מו תי‬, "all my bones.”
— 121 —
231
a. 7 + umt (see also ah // 7 umt [I 9] and 7 dl . . . ytm [I 235])
b. 1 Aqht:197, 202 (CTA 19 IV: 197, 202)
c. “infant” + “maternal clan”

d. Nah 2:8
‫“ ע ל ה‬infant” / / ‫“ אם‬mother”
e. Lam 2:11-12
‫“ עו ל ל‬infant” . . . ‫“ אם‬mother”
f. Comments
The identification of this pair elicits a modicum of sense from sharply-
contested Nah 2:8:
‫ גלתה העל תי ה‬Her female infants go into exile,
‫ ואמהתיה מנהגות‬and her mothers are led away.
Three grammatical notes are in order. ‫ גלתה‬parses as the third person fern,
singular with collective fern, plural as subject. The sequence ‫ ה על תי ה‬con-
tains both an article and a pronominal suffix, a case of double determination
not without analogies; cf. C. Gordon, JN E S , V III (1949), 114; Dahood,
Proverbs, pp. 35-36; GK, § 127f-i. Finally, plural ‫ אמהת‬may be compared
with Ug. umht, “mothers,” in 128 1:6.
232
a. 7 l!b
b. 127:9-10 (CTA 16 VI:9-10)
c. “from” I/ “from, of”
d. b /I 7
e. 49 I V :42-43 {CTA 6 IV:42-43)
f. “from” II “from”
g. Notes
The sense of 127:9-10 remains doubtful, but a viable rendition is the fol-
lowing:
122 —
zbln 7 fish wttb The illness from his head indeed she
repulsed;
trhs nn bdH she washed him clean of sweat.
In the sequence wttb, the w may be parsed as emphatic, with resultant post-
position of the verb, as sometimes happens with emphatic k or l; ttb may
be analyzed as a non-sin causative of twb, “to return.”
UT 49 IV :42-43 may be read and translated:
sd yn 'n bqbt[k] Pour sparkling wine from your vat,
bl lyt 7 umtk the fruit of tendrils from your grooves.
For rendition of 1. 42 see Driver, CML, p. 113. In 1. 43 bl identifies with
‫ בו ל‬, “fruit,” in Job 40:20, a byform of ‫ ;י בו ל‬lyt equals ‫ ל ד ה‬, “wreath” ; and
umt becomes intelligible when equated with ‫ א מ ה‬, "groove, canal,” witnessed
in the biblical place-name ‫( ג בע ת״ א מ ה‬cf. H AL, p. 60a).
h. Ps 15:2b-3a
‫“ ב‬from” / / ‫“ ע ל‬from”
i. Comments
Numerous translators and commentators recognize the separative force
of ‫ ב‬in the first colon, and the recognition of a similar meaning of ‫ ע ל‬in the
second brings out more clearly the parallelism of the two parts:
‫וד ב ר אמת ב ל ב בו‬ Who speaks the truth from his heart,
‫ל א״ רג ל ע ל ־ ל ענו‬ no slander from his tongue.
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 83 and 85, ascribes an ablative meaning to ‫ ע ל‬in
v. 5 of this psalm. When MT qdtal ‫ רגל‬is repointed ‫ו*גל‬, “slander,” a noun
of qdtal formation emerges as the antithesis of ‫ א מ ת‬, “tru th .”
233
a. 7 . . . bsr
b. 1 Aqht:32-33 (CTA 19 1:32-33); 3 Aqht ‘obv’:19-20, 30-31 (CTA 18 IV: 19-20,
30-31)
c. “over” . . . “to soar”
d. Jer 51:53a
‫“ ע ל ה‬to mount” II ‫( ב צ ר‬D) “to make soar”
123 —
e. Comments
W ith H A L, p. 142b, and Cathcart, Nahum, pp. 138-139, I identify ‫ב צ ר‬
“I I I ” with bsr, “to soar” (// rhp, “to hover”). Thus Jer 51:53a translates:
‫כי ״ ת ע ל ה ב ב ל היזמים‬ Though Babylon should mount to
heaven,
‫וכי ת ב צ ר מרום עזה‬ though she make her fortress soar to the
heights.
On ‫“ שמים‬heavens” // ‫“ מרום‬the heights,” see smm + rmm (R SP I, II 558),
and for the accusative use of ‫מרו ם‬, compare Isa 22:16. Of course the prophet
here alludes to the tower of Babel narrative in Gen 11:19‫־‬.
234
a. 7 + ris
b. 127:9 (CTA 16 VI :9)
c. “upon” + “head”
d. Job 19:9
‫“ ע ל‬upon” / / ‫“ ראש‬head”
e. I I Sam 12:30; Job 29:3
(‫“ על)י‬upon” + ‫“ ראש‬head”
f. Comments
The parallelism stands forth in Job 19:9 when one adopts the analysis
of van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy, pp. 15, 54, who sees the preposition of ‫ מ ע לי‬,
“from upon me,” extending its force to parallel ‫רא שי‬, “from my head.”
Consult also O. Eissfeldt, TLZ, X C III (1968), 733-734.
235
a. 7 dl . . . ytm (see also ah. // 7 umt [I 9] and 7 + umt [I 231])

b. 127:48-49 (CTA 16 VI :48-49)
c. “infant of the poor” . . . “orphan”
d. Notes
Translating the disputed Udy tsm 7 dl (127:47-48): “You did not banish
those who snatch the infants of the poor.” Cf. Isa 13:16, and the Ug. phrase
7 umt, “infant of maternal family,” discussed at ah, // 7 umt (I 9). Ug. ts
and dissimilated ‫ שסה״ שסס‬, “to snatch, plunder,” are evidently related.
— 124 —
e. Job 24:9
‫“ יתום‬orphan” // ‫“ ע ל ״ עני‬infant of the needy”
f. Comments
The widely-accepted repointing of the MT preposition ‫ ע ל‬to ‫ ע ל‬, “in-
fant,” appears to be sustained by the Ug. collocation of 7 and ytm. Thus
N E B correctly renders Job 24:9: “They snatch the fatherless infant from
the breast, and take the poor m an’s child in pledge.”
g. For some other instances of Massoretic confusion between ‫ ע ל‬and ‫ ע ל‬,
see J. Kselman, CBQ, X X X II (1970), 579-581.
236
a. 7y J bky
b. 62:15-17 (CTA 6 1:15-17)
c. (S) “to raise” // “to weep”
d. Isa 15:2
‫“ ע ל ה‬to ascend” . . . ‫“ בכי‬weeping”
237
a. 'lyU h lk
b. R S 24.266 rev:16-17 (C R A IB L , 1972, 694)
c. "to ascend” // “to go”
d. Notes
qds 6'[/] n l To Baal’s sanctuary will we ascend;
ntbt b[t 67] ntlk the paths to Baal's house will we tread.
e. Isa 2:3: 40:31; 63:11-12 (‫[ ע ל ה‬H], ‫[ ה ל ך‬H]); Jer 2:6 (‫[ ע ל ה‬H], ‫[ ה ל ך‬H]) Joel 2:7;
Amos 2:10 (‫[ ע ל ה‬H], ‫[ ה ל ך‬H]); etc.
‫“ ע ל ה‬to ascend” ; (H) “to bring up” // ‫“ ה ל ך‬to go, walk” ; (H) “to make
go, lead”
f. Job 7:9; 42:8 (‫[ ע ל ה‬H])
‫“ ה ל ך‬to go” II ‫“ ע ל ה‬to ascend” ; (H) “to offer up”
— 125 —
238
a. 7y If ytb . . . yrd
b. 49 1:29-30+35 {CTA 6 1:57-58+63)
c. “to ascend” 11 “to sit” . . . “to descend”
d. Notes
If the strophe is read chiastically, yrd may also be considered parallel to 7y.
e. Lam 2:10
‫“ יעזב‬to sit” II ‫( ע ל ה‬H) “to throw” 11 ‫( י ר ד‬H) “to bow down”
f. Jer 48:18
‫“ י ר ד‬to descend” // ‫“ יע!ב‬to sit” . . . ‫“ ע ל ה‬to ascend”
g. Comments
In Jer 48:18 fem. imperative singular ‫ בי‬2‫ ל‬need not be emended to
‫ועזבי‬, since there are other instances in Ug. and Heb. where the primae yod
is preserved in the imperative; consult Dahood, VH P, p. 62, and compare
imperative ‫ יצאו‬in Jer 50:8.
239
a. 7m . . . hyt
b. 51 I V :42 {CTA 4 IV:42); ’nt V:39 {CTA 3 E:39)
c. “eternity” . . . “life”
d. Jer 10:10
‫“ חיים‬living” II ‫“ עול ם‬eternity”
e. Dan 12:2
‫“ חיים‬life” + ‫“ עול ם‬eternity”
f. Comments
On the equation of ‫ מ ל ך עול ם‬, “King of E ternity,” in Jer 10:10 with
Ug. mlk 7m, see Cross, CMHE, p. 16 and n. 23.
240
a. n + yd
b. 51 V 11:40 {CTA 4 V II :40)
c. “eye” + “hand”
— 126 —
d. Notes
The dispute whether 'n is a verb or a noun here does not affect present con-
sideration.
e. I Sam 21:14; Ps 123:2 (twice)
‫“ ע ת‬eye” // ‫“ י ד‬hand”
f. Job 28:9-10
T “hand” // ‫“ עין‬eye”
g. Ps 145:15-16
‫“ ע ץ‬eye” . . . T “hand”
241
a. 'n II Jny (see also amr // pny [I 33])

b. 'nt 1:23-25 (1CTA 3 A:23-25)
c. “to eye” // “to look a t”
d. Notes
For the translation of 'n t 1:22-25 see amr // pny (I 33 d).
e. Ps 34:16-17
‫“ עינים‬eyes” / / ‫“ פנים‬face”
f. Prov 17:24
‫“ פנים‬face” . . . ‫“ עינים‬eyes”
g. Ps 25:15-16; Prov 17:8
‫“ עינים‬eyes” . . . ‫“ פנה‬to tu rn ”
242
a. *m II tr
b. 76 11:27-28 (1CTA 10 11:27-28)
c. “to eye” // “to explore”
d. Notes
The text may be read and translated:
wt$u 'nh wt'n She raised her eyes and saw,
wt'n arh wtr blkt she saw a cow and explored while
walking.
— 127 —
The disputed vocable tr may be parsed as an infinitive absolute of twr, “to

explore,” here continuing the action of the main verb t'n; see Virolleaud,
Danel, p. 216 and n. 1.
e. Job 30:11
‫“ תור‬to spy” // ‫“ ע ץ‬to eye”
f. Comments
This parallelism comes to light upon repointing MT as follows in Job
30:11:
‫ כי״י ת רו פתח ויענני‬Indeed they spy at my door and eye me.
For the thought, compare Job 31:9.
243
a. 'nt + mhrtt (mhrth) (see also sd jj mhrtt [mhrth,] [I 297])

b. 49 I V :27, 38 (CTA 6 IV:27, 38)
c. “furrows” + “plowland”
d. Notes
For an explanation of mhrth in 49 IV :38, see Gordon, UT, § 5.40.
e. Bibliography
Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 230-231.
f. Ps 129:3
‫“ חרעים‬plowmen” II ‫“ ענות‬furrows”
g. Comments
For the reading ‫ ל מ ענותם‬, “upon it their furrows,” see Dahood, Psalms
I I I , p. 231.
244
a. 'nt I/ *nt
b. 1 Aqht:154, 161-162 {CTA 19 111:154, 161-162)
c. “now” /‫“ ן‬now”
d. I I Kings 18:20-21; Isa 33:10; Ruth 3:11-12; Ezra 10:2-3; I Chron 17:26-27; etc.
‫“ עתה‬now” 11 ‫“ עתה‬now”
— 128 —
245
a. 's I/ abn . . . ars

b. 'nt 111:19-21; I V :58-60 (CTA 3 C.19-21; D:58-60)
c. “tree” // “stone” . . . “earth”
d. Jer 3:9
‫‘‘ אר ץ‬earth ‫ ״‬II ‫‘‘ א ב ז‬stone ‫ ״‬11 ‫‘‘ ע ז‬tree”
e. Comments
In the LXX the clause ‫ ותחנף א ת״ הארץ‬, “and she defiled the land,” is
lacking. Janzen, Jeremiah, p. 36, upholds the LXX omission, writing:
“Probably a gloss on the following phrase, based on verses 1, 2 (but pos-
sibly a conflated variant to the following ‫) ה ע ץ‬.” The Ug. series of nouns
induces one to accept MT and to spare oneself such speculation.
246
a. 'sm . . . sht . . . mt (see also sht + mt [I 300])

b. 607:64-65
c. “vigor” . . . “the P it” . . . “Death”
d. Notes
For the translation of this couplet, see sht + mt (I 300 d).
e. Job 33:21-22
‫“ עצמו ת‬bones” . . . ‫“ שחת‬P it” 11 ‫“ מתים‬the dead”
f. Comments
Given th at 'sm, “vigor,” and ‫ ע צ מו ת‬, “bones,” stem from the same root,
the comparison seems warranted. Translation notes on Job 33:22 are found
at sht + mt (I 300 h).
247
a. 'rb If ba
b. 128 IV:18+21 (CTA 15 IV:18+21)
c. (§) “to introduce” 11 “to come into”
— 129 —
d. Notes
To all appearances 1. 21, bt krt tbun, “they came into K irta’s house,” paral-
lels 1. 18, 'Ih ts'rb zbyh, “into his presence she introduced his ,gazelles’,”
but since 1. 22 is damaged one cannot be completely sure of this.
e. Hos 9:4
‫( ע ר ב‬H) “to offer” . . . ‫“ בוא‬to come into”
f. Comments
W. van der Weiden, VD, XLIV (1966), 102, and Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch,
p. 115, argue well th at MT G-stem ‫ רבו‬ST in Hos 9:4 should be revoweled
as H ‫־‬stem 2‫ ע ך בו‬and identified with Ug. ,rb, “to enter.”
248
a. 'rb If Iqh
b. Krt:65, 159-160 (CTA 14 11:65: 111:159-160)
c. “to enter” // “to take”
d. Prov 20:16; 27:13
‫“ ל ק ח‬to take” . . . ‫“ ע ר ב‬to enter”
e. Comments
The identification of ‫ ע ר ב‬with *rb (// Iqh) permits an entirely new trans-
lation and interpretation of Prov 20:16 ( = 27:13):
‫ל ק ח״ בג דו כי ־ ע ר ב זר‬ When a stranger enters take his coat,
‫ו ב ע ד נ כ רי״ ם ח ב ל הו‬ and for a foreigner hold it as security.
In view of Prov 27:13 ‫ נכ רי ה‬I read ‫ נ כ רי״ ם‬as singular followed by enclitic
mem. The point seems to be th at the Israelite should extend to the foreign
visitor financial considerations should he request them. Contrast the con-
struction put upon this verse by R S V : “Take a m an’s garment when he has
given surety for a stranger, and hold him in pledge when he gives surety
for foreigners.”
249
a. *rb . . . smh (see also yd' + ,rb [I 130])

b. 1015:7+11
c. “to enter” . . . “to rejoice”
— 130 —
d. Ps 104:34
‫“ ע ר ב‬to enter” // ‫“ ע(מח‬to rejoice”
e. Prov 14:10
‫“ ע(מחה‬joy” + ‫( ע ר ב‬HtD) “to enter”
f. Comments
This parallelism supports the translation of Ps 104:34 proposed by
Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 33, 47, while the translation of Prov 14:10, “and
into its joy no stranger enters,” elicits Matt 25:21, “enter into the joy of
your lord.”
250
a. *rpt /I tl
b. 7 Aqht:40-42 (CTA 19 1:40-42)
c. “clouds” II “dew”
d. Deut 33:28
‫“ ע ר ף‬to drip” + ‫" ט ל‬dew”
e. Deut 32:2
‫“ ע ר ף‬to drip” . . . ‫“ ט ל‬dew”
f. Sir 43:22
‫“ מ ע ר ף‬dripping” . . . ‫“ טל‬dew”
251
a. 'rpt /I mtrt
b. 67 V:6-8 (CTA 5 V:6-8)
c. “clouds” If “rains”
d. *rpt -f fntr
e. 7 Aqht:40-41 {CTA 19 1:40-41)
f. “clouds” + “to rain”
g. Deut 32:2
‫“ ע ר ף‬to drip” + ‫“ מט ר‬rain”
— 131 —
10
h. Comments
One wonders if ‫ תז ל‬, “it descends,” (// ‫ )י ע ר ף‬in Deut 32:2 might not
be related to unexplained mdl in the series of weather phenomena men-
tioned in 67 V:7-8.
252
a. git + yd
b. 127:32, 45 (CTA 16 VI :32, 45)
c. “mischief‫ ״‬+ “hand‫״‬
d. Notes
Rendering sqlt bglt ydk with Ginsberg, L K K , p. 32: “Thou hast let thy hand
fall into mischief.” For other opinions, consult Caquot, TOML, p. 572 and
n. a.
e. Bibliography
Ginsberg, LK K , p. 49.
M. Dahood, Bib, LVII (1976), 106-108.
f. Ps 125:3 (Ginsberg)
‫“ עו ל ה‬inquity” + T “hand”
g. Ps 58:3
‫“ עול ת‬iniquities” // ‫“ ידים‬hands”
h. Jer 5:31
‫“ ע ל‬iniquity” -f- T “hand”
i. Ezek 18:8
‫“ עול‬iniquity” + ‫“ יד‬hand”
j. Ps 89:22-23
T “hand” . . . ‫“ עו ל ה‬iniquity”
k. Comments
Recognition of the word pair permits a new stichometry and translation
of Ps 58:3:
‫ א ף ־ ב ל ב עול ת ת פעלון‬But no, heartlessly you perpetrate in-
iquities;
‫ ב ארץ חמס ידיכ ם תפלסון‬in a corrupt land you balance your hands.
In an A:B:C // A ':B‫ ׳‬:C' v., ‫ עו ל ת‬, “iniquities,” balances ‫י די כ ם‬, “your hands.”
For similar imagery compare Ps 26:10, especially in the version proposed
— 132 —
by Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 160, 163. In addition to witnessing the contracted

northern form ‫( עול ת‬cf. git // tpt [I 253 g and 1]), Ps 58:3 also employs ‫ב‬
with ablative force in ‫ ב ל ב‬, “without heart, pity.”
1. The frequent emendation of consonantal ‫ י רדו‬to ‫ יורו‬becomes dispen-
sable in Jer 5:31 when one relates the phrase to Ug. Sqlt bglt yelk:
‫הנביאים נ ב או־ ב ע ק ר‬ The prophets prophesy by the Lie
[= Baal],
‫והכהנים י רדו ע ל ־י די ה ם‬ and the priests sink their hands into
iniquity.
For another instance of Massoretic confusion between ‫ ע ל‬and ‫ ע ל‬see Da-
hood, BibOr, XV (1973), 253-254, on Prov 10:12.
253
a. git /I tpt
b. 127:32+34, 45+47 (CTA 16 VI:32+34, 45+47)
c. “iniquity” // “cause, justice”
d. Bibliography
Dahood, Psalms I I I , p. 342.
e. Ps 146:6-7 (Dahood)
‫ “ עול ם‬the wronged” . . . ‫“ משפט‬cause”
f. Ezek 18:8; Zeph 3:5
‫עול‬, ‫“ עו ל ה‬iniquity” II ‫פ ט‬£ ‫“ מ‬justice”
g. Deut 32:4; Isa 61:8
‫“ משפט‬justice” 11 ‫עול‬, ‫“ עו ל ה‬iniquity”
h. Isa 59:3-4
‫“ עו ל ה‬iniquity” . . . ‫( ׳®פט‬N) “to plead”
i. Prov 29:26-27
‫“ משפט‬justice” . . . ‫“ עו ל‬iniquity”
j. Ps 82:2
‫“ שפט‬to judge” + ‫“ עול‬iniquitously”
k. Comments
Compare also Jer 5:28+31 where ‫ דין‬, "the rights,” ‫מ שפט‬, “cause,”
sustain the repointing of ‫ ע ל‬in v. 31 to ‫ ע ל‬, “iniquity,” as proposed at git +
— 133 —
yd (I 252 k). The roots of all three nouns concur in parallelism in UT 127:
32-34.
1• In Isa 61:8, the N E B repoints ‫ עו ל ה‬, a fine example of a northern con-
tracted form, to ‫ עו ל ה‬, with five manuscripts.See Brockington, Hebrew
Text, p. 197. The northern vocalization ‫ עו ל ה‬seems entirely fitting here
since it forms part of a pair witnessed in Ug. where git was pronounced
golatu. For another instance of the same Heb. form, see git -f- yd (I 252 g
and k).
254
a. gr . . . b'l
b. 1018:22+24
c. “to safeguard” . . . “lord”
d. Num 21:28b
‫“ ע ר‬the guardian” // ‫“ בעלי ם‬the baals”
e. Comments
Usually emended, Num 21:28b may prove sound in view of the Ug.
collocation of roots (see also 49 IV:44+48):
‫א כ ל ה ע ר מואב‬ It devoured the guardian of Moab,
‫ב ע לי במות ארנן‬ the baals of Arnon’s high places.
Here “the guardian” refers to Chemosh, the national god of Moab men-
tioned explicitly in the next v. and “the baals” are the numina worshipped
at the local shrines. Compare Micah 5:13 where ‫ ע רי ך‬, “your guardians,”
balances ‫ א בי רי ך‬, “your Asherim,” as proposed by M. Dahood, Bib, X L JII
(1962), 226.
255
a. gr /I mdb
b. 603 0bv:1-2
c. “mountain” 11 “flood”
d. Notes
The text may be read and rendered:
b'l ytb ktbt gr Baal sits enthroned like the mountain’s
enthronement,
hd r['y\ kmdb Hadd the shepherd like the flood.
— 134 —
e. Isa 48:21; Pss 78:20/ 105:41

‫“ צור‬mountain, rock” . . . ‫“ זוב‬to flow”
f. Comments
The identity of roots in mdb, “flood,” and ‫זוב‬, “to flow,” is commonly
accepted. The biblical collocation of these two roots tells against those
scholars who see in mdb some other root. Van Zijl, Baal, pp. 358-360, for
instance, derives it from dbb, “to accuse,” and renders mdb as “accuser,”
an infelicitous proposal. The contention of B. Margulis, Z A W , !,XXXVI
(1972), 2, th at gr is a mistake for V, “mule,” and th at gr // mdb do not con-
stitute a fixed pair, is countered by the biblical collocation of the roots in
question.
256
a. gr / I 'mq
b. 'nt 11:4-6 (CTA 3 B:4-6)
c. “mountain” // “valley”
d. Jer 21:13
‫“ ע מ ק‬valley” . . . ‫“ צור‬mountain”
e. Comments
For a translation of Jer 21:13, see ytb + gr (I 155 f).
257
a. -pat -+‫ ־‬mdbr
b. 52:68 (1CTA 23:68); 75 1:35 (1CTA 12 1:35); Krt:105, 193-194 (CTA 14 111:105;
IV :193-194)
c. “corners” 4‫“ ־‬desert”
d. Jer 9:25; 25:23-24

‫“ פ א ה‬corner” 11 ‫“ מ ד ב ר‬desert”
— 135 —
e. Comments
The phrase in Jer 25:24 which contains the second member of the
parallel pair is ‫ ה מכני ם ב מ ד ב ר‬, “who dwell in the desert.” Thus this passage
exhibits three of the roots found in Krt:103-105:
kirby Like locusts
tSkn sd they occupy the field,
km hsn pat mdbr like grasshoppers the comers of the
desert.
258
a. pnm . . . ymn
b. 51 V:108-109 (CTA 4 V: 108-109)
c. "face” . . . “right hand”
d. P s 16:11
‫" פנים‬face” // ‫“ ימץ‬right hand”
e. Comments
In addition to this parallelism, the final two cola contain the Phoen.
pair ‫ ב‬II ‫( את‬KAI 13:7-8), and the last a broken construct chain with inter-
posed prepositional phrase:
‫שבע שמחות א ת־ פני ך‬ Abundance of joys in your presence,
‫נעמות בימינך נצח‬ delights unending at your right hand.
259
a. Pgt . . . btn
b. 1 Aqht:222-223 (1CTA 19 IV:222-223)
c. "P ughat” (PN) . . . “serpent”
d. Job 20:16
‫" פתנים‬serpents” II ‫“ א פ ע ה‬viper”
e. Comments
This hapax pair in Job 20:16 suggests th at the Canaanite poet was
punning when comparing pgt, which literally signifies "maiden,” but also
evokes "viper,” to a serpent.
— 136 —
260
a. pr + '?
b. 67 11:5-6 (CTA 5 11:5*6)
c. “fruit” + “tree, vine”
d. Jer 7:20
‫“ עץ‬tree” // ‫“ פרי‬fruit”
e. Gen 1:29; Exod 10:15; Lev 23:40; Ezek 36:30; Prov 11:30
‫“ פרי‬fruit” + ‫“ ע ץ‬tree”
f. Deut 28:42; Ps 148:9; Ecoles 2:5
‫“ עץ‬tree” + ‫“ פרי‬fruit”
g. Ps 1:3
‫“ ע ץ‬tree” . . . ‫“ פ רי‬fruit”
261
a. sd /I smm
b. 124:10-11 (CTA 22 B:10-ll)
c. “the h u n t” // “heaven”
d. Notes
For this obscure couplet one may propose this tentative rendition:
tdd 'nt sd Anath of the H unt roams;
tstr 'pt smm the Flyer of Heaven travels.
Parallelism with tdd (root ndd) suggests th at tstr is a Gt form of swr, “to
travel.” A new occurrence of this verb might be noted in similarly worded
Job 37:3:
(!)‫ת ח ת״כ ל״ ה ש מי ם לשרהו‬ Beneath the whole heaven he makes it
travel.
e. Ps 78:24-25
‫" ’שמים‬heaven” . . . ‫“ צי ד ה‬provisions”
f. Comments
On the probable connection between sd and ‫ צי ד ה‬, see Gordon, UT,
§ 19.2151.
— 137 —
262
a. sdq + slm
b. 119:23 {CTA 80:23); 300 obv?:28 (CTA 82 A:28); 1005:4, 10, 14; 1116:11; 2039:5
c. “to be ju st” -f “to be whole”
d. Notes
In these texts sdqslm is a PN. UT 1005 offers the dialectical form stqslm.
e. Isa 48:18; 60:17
‫" עלו ם‬peace” // ‫“ צ ד ק ה‬justice”
f. Isa 32:17; Ps 85:11
‫ צד ק ה‬, ‫“ צ ד ק‬justice” + ‫“ עלו ם‬peace‫״‬
g. Isa 54:13-14; Ps 72:3
‫“ עלו ם‬peace” . . . ‫“ צ ד ק ה‬justice”
h. Comments
For further details on Ps 85:11, cf. Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 289*290.
263
a. smt I/ kly
b. 'nt 111:41+43 (CTA 3 D:41+43)
c. “to annihilate” // (D) “to make an end of”
d. Ps 73:26-27
‫“ כ ל ה‬to waste away” . . . ‫( צ מ ת‬H) “to annihilate”
264
a. spn . . . nhlt
b. 'nt 111:26-27; I V :63-64 (1CTA 3 C :26-27; D :63-64)
c. “Zapan” . . . “patrimony”
d. Prov 13:22
‫( נחל‬H) “to give as heir” // ‫“ צ פן‬to treasure up”
— 138 —
e. Comments
The identification of an A:B:B:A pattern issues in a new version of
Prov 13:21-22:
‫ חטאים ת רד ך ר ע ה‬Misfortune dogs sinners,
‫ ו א ת־ צדי קי ם יישלם־טוב‬but the Good One rewards the just.
‫ טוב ינחיל בני־בנים‬The Good One gives grandchildren as
heirs,
‫ וצפון ל צ די ק חיל חוטא‬and treasures up for the just the sinner’s
wealth.
The form ‫ וצפון‬may well be analyzed as an infinitive absolute of the
northern dialect (6 >u) continuing the action of the finite verb; see Dahood,
Psalms I I I , p. 28.
f. The biblical parallelism does not necessarily bear on the discussion
concerning the etymology of Ug. spn, which is still disputed.
265
a. sq II nsa
b. 49 11:10-11 (CTA 6 11:10-11)
c. (§) “to constrain” // “to raise”
d. Notes
Though materially parallel with tsu as well, tssq is formally and semantically
parallel to tihd, “she grabbed,” in 1. 9.
e. Job 11:15
‫" נשא‬to raise” . . . ‫" צק‬constraint”
f. Comments
MT ‫ מ צ ק‬, "fused,” should probably yield to the interpretation of the
Syriac ‫ מ צ ק‬, “without constraint,” in Job 11:15.
266
a. srrt + s fn
b. 49 1:29, 34 {CTA 6 1:57, 62); 51 V:117 {CTA 4 V:117); 62:16 {CTA 6 1:16); 'nt
1:21-22 {CTA 3 A:21-22)
c. "recesses” + “Zapan”
— 139 —
d. Bibliography
J. Finkel, apud Gordon, UT, § 19.2199.
e. Hos 13:12 (Finkel)
‫( צ ר ר‬Gp) “to be bound” // ‫( צ פן‬Gp) “to be hidden”
f. Job 26:7-8
‫“ צ פ ץ‬Zaphon” . . . ‫“ צ ר ר‬to bind”
267
a. qbl I/ qbl
b. 2 Aqht V :35-36 (CTA 17 V:35-36)
c. “to receive” // “to receive”
d. Notes
The text is broken, but with a number of scholars one may adopt the ten-
tative restoration:
qst yqb[l 7 b]rk The bow he received upon his knee (see
1• 27);
7 aq[h]t kyq[blh] on behalf of Aqht indeed he received it.
The k before yq[blh] functions as emphatic with consequent postposition of
the verb.
e. Job 2:10; Sir 31:3
‫( ק ב ל‬D) “to accept” // ‫( ק ב ל‬D) “to accept”
f. Comments
A. Hurvitz, H TR, LX V II (1974), 20-21, concludes th at the presence
of ‫ ק ב ל‬in Job 2:10 points to post-exilic date for the composition of the tale
in its present form. He dismisses the occurrence of this verb in Prov 19:20
because this book is chronologically debatable, and completely omits the
Ug. and EA attestations of this verb. In other words, he attem pts to solve
the problem chiefly by inner-Hebraic methods, whose inadequacy has been
spotlighted by the Northwest Semitic approach.
268
a. qdm . . . ymn
b. 51 V I I :40-41 (iCTA 4 VII:40-41)
c. "front, east” . . . “right hand”
— 140 —
Ugaritic-Hebrevv Parallel Pairs I 269
d. Notes
For a recent attem pt to elicit sense from these enigmatic lines, see de Moor,
Seasonal Pattern, p. 167.
e. Ps 78:26
‫“ קדי ם‬east wind” // ‫“ תימן‬south wind”
f. Comments
This parallelism is also characterized by chiasmus:
‫יסע קדי ם ביזמים‬ He let loose the east wind from heaven,
‫וינהג בעזו תימן‬ and led forth from his fortress the south
wind.
269
a. qds . . . bt
b. R S 24.266 rev:J6 (CRAIBL, 1972, 694)
c. “sanctuary” . . . “house”
d. Notes
For text and translation, see 7y // hlk (I 237 d).
e. I Kings 8:6; Ps 134:1-2
‫“ בית‬house” II ‫" ק ד ע‬sanctuary”
f. Isa 64:10; I Chron 29:3
‫“ בית‬house” + ‫“ ק ד ע‬holiness”
g. I Kings 8:10
‫“ ק ד ע‬sanctuary” . . . ‫“ בית‬house”
h. Ps 93:5; I I Chron 29:5
‫“ בית‬house” . . . ‫“ ק ד ע‬holy ones, sanctuary”
270
a. qds . . . kku
b. 46:3-4 (iCTA 45:3-4)
c. “holy(?)” . . . “throne”
d. Notes
On this damaged text see Herdner, CTA, p. 130 and nn. 2-3.
— 141 —
e. Ps 11:4
‫“ קדעז‬holy seat” II ‫“ כס א‬throne”
f. Ps 47:9
‫“ כ ס א‬throne” + 12?‫“ קד‬holiness”
g. Comments
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 68-70, explains the parallelism in Ps 11:4 as
the breakup of the composite phrase witnessed in Ps 47:9. See also Ahlstrom,
Joel, p. 33, n. 1.
271
a. qds + mlk
b. 610 B:3
c. “Qudshu” + “king”
d. Notes
As remarked by Virolleaud, Ug. V, p. 585, the expression qds mlk is new in
this text.
e. Isa 43:15
‫ז‬2‫“ קדמ‬Holy One” // ‫“ מ ל ך‬King”
f. Ps 99:1+9
‫" מ ל ך‬to become King” //BTVTp "Holy One”
g . Ps 99:3-4
‫ז‬2‫“ קדה‬holy” . . . ‫“ מ ל ך‬King”
h. Comments
The Canaanite phrase qds mlk enables one to sense more keenly the
polemical undertone of Isa 43:15.
i. In Ps 99:1, ‫ י הו ה מל ך‬, "Yahweh has become King,” forms an inclusion
with v. 9,‫ז יהרה אלהינוז‬2‫ כי ״ ק ד ח‬, “indeed the Holy One is Yahweh our God.”
272
a. qds . . . sat spt

b. 51 V I I :29-30 (CTA 4 V II :29-30)
c. “holiness” . . . “utterance of the lips”
— 142 —
d. Notes
For Ginsberg’s restoration s[at s]pth (cf. A N E T 3, p. 134), see Herdner, CTA,
p. 29, n. 11, and Gaster, Thespis, p. 448.
e. Ps 89:35-36
‫‘‘ מוצא ע(פתי‬the utterance of my lips” // ‫“ ק לשי‬my holiness”
f. Comments
Here we have an instance of a biblical parallelism confirming the pro-
posed restoration of a damaged Ug. tablet. Thus restored, 51 VII :30, ytny
VI sat spth, “Baal repeats the utterance of his lips,” is semantically identical,
mutatis mutandis, with Ps 89:35, ‫ ומוצ א שפתי ל א אשנה‬, “and the utterance
of my lips I will not repeat.”
273
a. qll / I 'n
b. 127:57-58 {CTA 16 VI :57-58)
c. “to be swift” // “to eye”
d. Notes
Adopting a suggestion of E. Lipinski, Syria, L, (1973), 38-39, and comparing
Job 9:25, which describes the swift passage of his days and the utter lack
of prosperity, I would propose this version of 127:57-58:
tqln bgbl sntk Fleeting be your years on the frontier;
bhpnk wt'n ‫־‬ your empty fists may you savor indeed!
For further details of this translation, see M. Dahood, Or, X U V (1975),
104-105, where the construction t '11 b is compared to ‫ ל א ה ב‬, “to enjoy, feast
upon.”
e. Job 7:6-7
‫" ק ל ל‬to be swift” . . . ‫" ע ץ‬eye”
274
a. qlt + ks (see also [qqln] // qlt [I 275])

b. 51 111:15-16 {CTA 4 111:15-16)
c. “shame” + “cup”
— 143 —
d. Notes
Translating qlt bks istynh: "Shame from my cup have I drunk.” All three
roots recur in Hab 2:16, proof sufficient th at the prophet appropriated a
Canaanite motif; see also sb' 11 sty (I 296).
e. Hab 2:16
‫“ ק ל ץ‬shame” / / ‫" כוס‬cup” / / ‫" קיקלון‬disgrace”
f. Comments
‫ ק ל ת‬, ‫‘ ׳‬shame,” derives from ‫לןלה‬, while the hapax ‫ קי קלון‬, "disgrace,”
stems from ‫ ; ק ל ל‬there is evidently some metaplastic interplay between
these two roots. On Ug. qlt, “shame,” see Gordon, UT, § 19.2231.
275
a. [qqln] // qlt (see also qlt -f- ks [I 274])
b. 51 111:14-16 (CTA 4 111:14-16)
c. "[disgrace]” // “shame”
d. Notes
Both Virolleaud, Syria, X III (1932), 126 and pi. XXVI, and Herdner, CTA,
p. 24, read a tentative p as the first letter of the otherwise completely il-
legible word beginning 1. 15. Gordon, UT, p. 170, is more cautious, leaving
all letters blank. On the basis of the biblical pair I tentatively propose
reading the couplet:
stt [qqln] btlhny I have drunk [disgrace] from my table;
qlt bks istynh shame from my cup have I drunk.
Since the poet employed the same verb twice, the two direct objects should
be closely synonymous and possibly from the same or metaplastic roots.
e. Hab 2:16
‫קלת‬ ‘‘shame ‫״‬ //‫?קליד‬ ‫ ״‬disgrace”
f. Comments
On the relationship between the roots underlying these nouns, see
qlt + ks (I 274 f).
— 144
276
a. qr I/ rnn (see also qra . . . ytn [I 277] and rnn + ql [I 292])
b. 1001 obv:5-6
c. “to call” II “to give a ringing cry”
d. Prov 8:3
‫" קור‬to call” / / ‫“ רנן‬to give a ringing cry”
e. Comments
To arrive at this parallelism one must repoint MT ‫ קו*ת‬to rnj?, the
pausal third fern, singular verb with archaic - t ending.
‫ליז שערים ל פי ־ ק ך ת‬ Beside the gates she calls with full voice;
‫ ה‬3‫מבוא פתחים תר‬ at the approach to the portals she gives
a ringing cry.
The resultant sequence is A:B:C // A’:B’:C\ B H K ’s suggestion to delete
‫ ל פי‬is misguided since this prepositional phrase is meant to balance the
intensifying force of energic ‫תרנה‬.
277
a. qra . . . ytn (see also qr // rnn [I 276] and rnn + ql [I 292])

b. 52:1-3 (CTA 23:1-3)
c. "to call, invoke” . . . "to give”
d. Isa 22:20-21; 41:2; Prov 2:3; 8:1
‫“ קרא‬to call” !‫“ נתן ן‬to give”
e. Jer 34:17; Mic 3:5
‫“ קרא‬to call” . . . ‫“ נתן‬to give”
f. Isa 9:5 (N); 29:12 (N); Jer 3:19; Ps 147:9
‫“ נתן‬to give” ; (N) “to be given” . . . ‫“ קרא‬to call, read aloud”
278
a. qrb + wld
b. 128 111:5, 20, 21 (CTA 15 III :5, 20, 21)
c. (Gp) “to be approached” + (Gp) "to be bom ”
— 145 —
d. Notes
The usage and nuance in Isa 8:3 suggest th at the recurring formula wtqrb
wld bn Ih, or a variation thereof, be rendered: “She was approached, a son
was born to him,” with tqrb and wld both construed passively. The growing
number of primae wdw roots in Northwest Semitic preserving the wdw per-
inits one to parse wld as Gp wulida instead of the conjunction wa and an
elided form of yld, as generally construed. See the translation of wld 'qqm
in section d of kry // yld (I 168).
e. Isa 8:3
‫“ ק רב‬to approach” // ‫“ י ל ד‬to give birth”
279
a. qrt // ksu
b. 57 V I I I :11■-13 (CTA 4 VIII:11-13)
c. “city” /I “throne”
d. Prov 9:14
‫“ כ ס א‬seat” + ‫“ קרת‬city”
280
a. ri /I ks
b. 'nt 1:12-14 (CTA 3 A:12-14)
c. “bowl” II “cup”
d. Notes
Both the word division and translation are m atters for dispute, but a sticho-
metrically and semantically satisfactory interpretation of 'n t 1:12-15 reads:
ri dn mt smm A massive bowl of the men of heaven,
ks qd§ Itphnh att a holy cup which the woman never
beheld,
krpn It'n atrt a goblet Asherah never set eyes on.
The substantive ri, which may be also identified in Job 37:18, ‫חזקים‬
‫ כ ר אי מוצק‬, “solid as a bowl of cast m etal,” derives from r'y, “to imbibe,
imbue,” discussed below in Comments.
— 146 —
Ugaritic- Hebrew Parallel Pairs I 281
e. Prov 23:31
‫" ראה‬to imbibe, guzzle” . . . ‫" כיס‬beaker”
f. Comments
G. Driver, JS S , IX (1964), 348, correctly explains ‫ ראה‬as a by-form
of ‫ רו ה‬, "to be soaked, drink one’s fill,” though one need not distinguish it
from ‫ ר א ה‬, "to see,” since a verb of perception sometimes describes the action
of several different senses. In any case, Driver is right when rendering
Prov 23:31a: ‫ א ל ״ ת ר א יץ כי יתאד ם‬, "Do not swill wine when it is red.”
g. See also yn -f 'n (R SP I, II 247) where another parallelism of this v.
is treated.
281
a. ris + aps
b. 49 1:32-33 (CTA 6 1:60-61)
c. “head” + "end”
d. Isa 52:4
‫" ראעזנה‬beginning” / ‫" א פ ס ן‬end”
e. Comments
Appreciation of the parallelism enables N E B to produce this correct
and fluent translation of Isa 52:4: "At the beginning (‫ )בראשנה‬my people
went down into Egypt to live there, and a t the end (‫ ) ב א פ ס‬it was the As-
Syrians who oppressed them .” Contrast E S F : "My people went down at
first into Egypt to sojourn there, and the Assyrian oppressed them for noth-
ing,” a version th at misses the force of the parallelism. Of course proposals
to emend ‫ ב א פ ס‬to ‫ ב ח מ ס‬, "with violence,” with the LXX, or to ‫ ב א פי‬, "in
my w rath,” lose claim to further consideration. Hence McKenzie, Second
Isaiah, p. 121 and n. k, who adopts the LX X reading and emends to ‫ ב ח מ ס‬,
which he renders “violently,” is seen to have made an imprudent choice.
282
a. riS II d't
b. 127:9-10 (CTA 16 VI:9-10)
c. "head” / / "sweat”
— 147 —
d. Notes
The unclear couplet may plausibly be rendered:
zbln 7 risk wttb The sickness from his head she firmly
repulsed;
trhs nn bd't she washed him clean of sweat.
The w of wttb is parsed as emphatic with a consequent postposition of the
verb, as sometimes happens with emphatic kl. Note that Herdner, CTA,
p. 76, mistakenly reads trhs for trhs.
e. Ezek 44:18
‫“ ראיש‬head” . . . ‫“ יזע‬sweat”
f. Comments
Proposals to emend or delete (cf. B H K ) MT ‫ יזע‬should be declined in
view of the Ug. parallelism.
g. Of course, the word pair elicits Gen 3:19, ‫“ זעת אפי ך‬the sweat of your
brow.”
283
a. ris . . . nps
b. 127:9+11 (CTA 16 V I:9+11)
c. “head” . . . "throat, appetite”
d. Isa 58:5; Jonah 2:6; Ps 3:3-4; Job 16:4; Prov 11:25-26
‫“ נ פ ע‬soul, self” // ‫“ ראש‬head”
e. Lam 2:19
‫“ ר א ע‬beginning” . . . ‫" נפש‬life”
f. Comments
In Ps 3:3-4 and Prov 11:25-26 the parallelism stands forth when the
vv. are read chiastically. In both texts the evidence for such a reading ap-
pears convincing.
284
a. ris . . . 'pr
b. 67 V I:15 (CTA 5 VI: 15)
c. “head” . . . “dust”
— 148 —
d. Amos 2:7
‫“ ע פ ר‬dust” / / ‫“ ראש‬head”
e. Prov 8:26
‫“ ראש‬the first” + ‫“ עפ רו ת‬dust”
f. Josh 7:6; Ezek 27:30; Job 2:12; Lam 2:10

‫“ ע פ ר‬dust” + ‫“ ראש‬head”
g. Comments
The identification of the parallelism will aid to establish the integrity
of Amos 2:7, usually considered corrupt; see the apparatus of B H K and
BHS. The text is sound and may be read:
‫השאפים ע ל ־ ע פ ר ־ א ר ץ‬ Who trample upon the dust of the
earth,
‫בראש דלי ם‬ on the heads of the poor.
The use of one predicate (‫ )השאפים‬with two different prepositions (‫ ע ל‬and ‫) ב‬
further authenticates the reading. W hat the prophet is saying is th at the
oppressors ground the heads of the poor in the dust of the earth.
h. The use of two different prepositions with the same verbal action is
well attested in both Ug. and in Heb.; its presence here guarantees the
authenticity of the text.
285
a. rb + dr'
b. 2059:16-17
c. “great” + “arm ”
d. Job 35:9
‫“ רב‬greatness” // ‫" זרוע‬arm ” + ‫“ רבים‬the great”
e. Comments
Those who propose to emend ‫ רבי ם‬, “the great,” in Job 35:9, to ‫ כ בי רי ם‬,
“the big,” overlook a point of Joban style, namely to begin and end a v.
with the same root. Here the author begins with ‫ מ ר ב‬, "because of the
greatness,” and ends the verse with ‫ ר בי ם‬, “the great.” The same phenom-
enon can be seen in Job 40:13.
— 149 —
286
a. rbb // thmtm
b. 1 Aqht:44-45 (CTA 19 1:44-45)
c. “showers” // “upsurging of the two deeps”
d. Amos 7:4
‫“ ר ב ב‬showers” II ‫" תהום רבה‬the great deep”
e. Comments
This new parallelism lends further credence to the reading proposed
by D. Hillers, CBQ, XXVI (1964), 221-225 (‫ ; ל ר ב ב אש‬cited at rbb H ist
[RSP I, II 518]), and counters an objection recently raised by J. Limburg,
CBQ, XXXV (1973), 346, th at the proposed reading involves an emen-
dation. Hillers has not emended any of the consonants; he has merely
redivided them, and his redivision recovers a rare word pair with a close
analogue in Ug. Would th at all textual alterations proved equally con-
structive!
287
a. rh . . . ap
b. 3 Aqht ‘obv’:25-26, 36-37 (1CTA 18 IV:25-26, 36-37)
c. “wind” . .. “nostril”
d. Isa 30:27-28; Ps 135:17; Prov 14:29; 16:32
‫ “ א ף‬nostril, nose, anger” // ‫“ רוח‬wind, breath, spirit”
e. Gen 7:22; Exod 15:8; I I Sam 22:16; Job 4:9; 27:3; Lam 4:20
‫" רוח‬wind, breath” + ‫“ אף‬nostril, nose”
f. Comments
Identification of this parallelism and of the separative force of ‫ ב‬pro-
duces a new version of Ps 135:17:
‫אזנים לה ם ולא יאזינו‬ They have ears, but do not hear;
‫אף אץ־יעז־רוח בפיה ם‬ a nose, but no breath from their mouths.
Thus the different emendations proposed for the second half-v. appear to
be unnecessary.
— 150 —
288
a. rh If qtr
b. 3 Aqht '0 W :24-26, 36-37 (CTA 18 IV124-26, 36-37)
c. “wind” II ‫ ״‬smoke”
d. Ps 148:8
‫“ קיטור‬smoke” 11 ‫“ רוח‬wind”
289
a. rhs II nsk
b. *nt 11:38-41; I V :86-88 {CTA 3 B:38-41; D:86-88)
c. “to wash” II “to anoint”
d. Notes
Usually rendered “to pour,” nsk in these parallel passages parses more
readily and proves contextually superior when interpreted as “to anoint”
and related to biblical ‫‘‘ ׳סיר‬to anoint,” and ‫נ ס ך‬, which in some passages
also denotes this.
The first of the two passages reads and translates.
thspn mh wtrhs She drew water for herself and washed,
tl smm smn ars with the dew of heaven, the oil of earth,
rbb rkb 'rpt with the rain of the Cloud-rider.
tl §mm tskh W ith the dew of heaven she anointed
herself;
[rbb] tskh kbkbm with the stars’ shower she anointed
herself.
As will be seen from the biblical texts the root of tskh, whether it be nsk
or swk, should logically signify “to anoint.” Thus the syntax of tl smm tskh,
“with the dew of heaven she anointed herself,” may be compared for its
accusative of material with Deut 28:40, ‫ל א תסוך‬ “but with oil you
shall not anoint yourself.”
e. Ezek 16:9
‫“ רחץ‬to wash” // ‫“ סוך‬to anoint”
f. I I Sam 12:20
‫“ רחץ‬to wash” + ‫“ סוך‬to anoint”
— 151 —
g. Comments
Ug. nsk, “to anoint,” supplies the etymology of ‫נסיך‬, “prince,” liter-
ally “one anointed,” to be compared with ‫מע!יח‬, “the anointed” ; on ‫ ך‬1‫ ס‬, “to
anoint,” see Dahood, Psalms I, p. 10. In Ps 2:6, ‫ נ סכ תי מ ל כי‬, “I have been
anointed his king,” can be derived from either root, depending on its vo-
calization as either N or Gp.
290
a. rhq I/ st
b. 'nt I V :84-85 (CTA 3 D:84-85)
c. (§) “to remove” // “to set”
d. Notes
srhq att Ipnnh He removed the women far from his
presence.
it alp qdmh He set an ox in front of her,
mria wtk pnh a fatted one directly before her face.
Scholars generally experience difficulty (e.g. Caquot, TOML, p. 172) with
the prepositional phrase Ipnnh, but with a verb of removal its force is
patently ablative or separative.
e. Ps 88:9
‫( רחק‬H) ‫ ״‬to remove” / / ‫זית‬# “to set”
f. Comments
As in the Ug. v., the Heb. verb also stands in the causative conjugation:
‫ ה רח קת מיד עי ממני‬You have removed my companions far
from me.
291
a. rkb I/ nsa
b. Krt:74-76, 166-168 (CTA 14 11:74-76; IV:166-168)
c. "to ride” 11 "to raise”
d. Job 30:22
‫“ נ&א‬to lift” /I ‫( ר כ ב‬H) “to make ride”
— 152 —
e. Comments
Better syntax and stichometry result when MT ‫ א ל‬, “to, upon,” is re-
pointed ‫ א ל‬in Job 30:22:
‫תשאני א ל‬ You lifted me, El;
‫רוח תרבבני‬ you made me ride the wind,
‫ותמגגני תשוה‬ and caused success to ebb from me.
292
a. rnn + ql (see also qr // rnn [I 276] and qra . . . ytn [I 277])

b. 1001 obv:6
c. “to give a ringing cry” 4 ‫“ ־‬voice”
d. Prov 1:20
P ‘‘to give a ringing cry” // ‫“ נתן קול‬to give voice”
e. Isa 24:14; 52:8 (D)
‫“ נשא קול‬to raise the voice” // ‫( רנן‬G and D) “to give a ringing cry”
f. Isa 48:20; Pss 42:5; 47:2; 118:15
‫“ קול‬voice” + ‫“ ת ה‬ringing cry”
g. Job 39:23-24; Prov 8:3-4
‫‘‘ ר נ ן‬to give a ringing cry” . . . ‫“ קול‬voice”
h. Comments
In Job 39:23 ‫ הלנה‬is a hapax legomenon usually translated “to rattle.”
It is preferably repointed ‫תרנה‬, the energic form of ‫רנן‬, as in Prov 1:20
and 8:3; see Pope, Job3, pp. 311-312. The presence of ‫ קו ל‬, “voice,” in the
next v. sustains this parsing.
293
a. sal . . . bqt
b. 2008 rev:10+13
c. (Gt) “to ask” . . . “to seek”
d. Isa 65:1; Ps 27:4
‫“ שאל‬to ask” II ‫( בקש‬D) “to seek”
— 153 —
e. Esther 5:6; 7:2, 3; 9:12

‫“ עזאלוז‬a request” // ‫“ ב ק ^ ה‬a petition”
f. Jer 50:4-5
&?‫( בק‬D) “to seek” // 0‫“ א ל‬to ask”
g. Gen 37:15; I Sam 28:6-7; Ezra 8:22
‫“ עזאל‬to ask” . . . ‫( בקעז‬D) “to seek”
h. Comments
The contents, word order, parallel pairs, broken construct chain in
v. 5 (‫) צי ץ ישאלו ד ר ך‬, and the stichometry all point to the poetic nature of
Jer 50:4-5, printed as prose by B H K but correctly set up as poetry by BH S.
294
a. 8 ir/ / Ihm
b. 62:41-43 (CTA 6 VI:41-43)
c. “m eat” // “bread”
d. Notes
The restoration \lsi\r in 1. 42 proposed by de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 240,
can now look to the biblical parallelism for support.
e. Ps 78:20
‫“ לח ם‬bread” // 0 ‫“ אר‬m eat”
295
a. sb( + bk (see also bky + qbr [RSP I, II 107])

b. 62:9 {CTA 6 1:9)
c. “to be sated” + “weeping”
d. Job 27:14-15
‫“ ע(בע‬to be sated” // ‫“ ב כ ה‬to weep”
296
a. 8b'11 sty
b. 62:9-10 (CTA 6 1:9-10)
c. “to be sated” // “to drink”
— 154 —
d. sty + sb'
e. 601:3, 16
f. “to drink” + “to be sated”
g. Notes
Reading and translating UT 62:9-10:
'd tsb' bk Until she is sated with weeping,
tst kyn udm't she drinks tears like wine.
or else: She is sated with the fare of weeping;
she drinks tears like wine.
In the later translation 'd bk would be a construct chain with verb inter-
posed, to be compared with Ps 80:6, ‫ ל ח ם ד מ ע ה‬, “the bread of tears.” For
Heb. ‫ ע ד‬or ‫ עו ד‬meaning “fare,” see Isa 32:14 and 62:8, and especially
I Sam 2:5.
h. Hab 2:16
‫“ שבע‬to be sated” // ‫“ שתה‬to drink”
i. Hag 1:6
7&‫“ ב ע‬to be sated” . . . ‫“ ע תה‬to drink”
j. Amos 4:8
‫“ ע ת ה‬to drink” . . . ‫" ע ב ע‬to be sated”
k. Ezek 39:19
‫“ שבעה‬satiety” . . . ‫“ ע ת ה‬to drink”
l. Comments
The parallelism in Hab 2:16 also illustrates the stylistic device of
balancing a precative perfect with an imperative, both expressing a command.
297
a. sd I/ mhrtt (mhrth) (see also 'nt + mhrtt [mhrth] [I 243])

b. 49 I V :26-27, 37-38 (CTA 6 IV:26-27, 37-38)
c. “field” II “plowland”
d. Notes
Although Gordon, UT, p. 168, reads mhrth in 1. 38, Herdner, CTA, p. 41,
n. 3, notes th at the final sign is now too indistinct to be read. The paral-
lelism is valid in either case.
— 155 —
e. Jer 26:18; Micah 3:12

‫ ״ מזדה‬field” 4 ‫( חרש ־‬N) ‫ ״‬to be plowed”
f. Comments
In this connection Isa 28:24 and Hos 10:11 may be studied, where
‫חר ש‬, “to plow,” parallels ‫( שדד‬D), "to harrow.”
298
a. §d -+‫« « ־‬
b. 125:34 (CTA 16 1:34)
c. "field” + “w ater”
d. Ezek 17:8
‫ ״ שדה‬field” 11 ‫‘‘ מים‬water”
e. Joel 1:20
‫" שדה‬field” . . . ‫" מים‬w ater”
299
a. §d If rhmy
b. 52:13, 28 (iCTA 23:13, 28)
c. "breast” // "one of the womb”
d. Notes
UT 52:13, wsd sd ilm sd atrt wrhm;y} (see 1. 28 and Herdner, CTA, p. 98),
may be rendered: "O breast, breast of the gods, breast of Asherah and the
one of womb!” Initial w is parsed as the vocative particle (see R SP I, I
44 h), while wrhmy is identified with Asherah; thus atrt wrhmy would be
another example of a composite divine name, so well attested in Ug. and
Heb. In other words, the poet apostrophizes Asherah alone, the mother
of all E l’s children. Thus the discussion whether rhmy refers to Anath be-
comes gratuitous. For the other widely-held interpretation of sd as “field,”
see most recently Xella, Shr e Sim, p. 53. One of Xella’s objections to sd,
“breast,” stems from the consideration th at breast is spelled dd in 1. 61 and,
presumably, zd in 1. 24. The latter can, however, be explained differently:
ynqm bap zd atrt, "who suck at the warm teat of Asherah,” where zd = TT,
"to grow warm,” and is witnessed in UT 77:8 and 12. See van Seims, Mar
— 156 —
riage and Family, p. 17, n. 13. Thus zd is an adjective modifying ap, “te a t,”
in a broken construct chain, so th at the only other variant spelling remains
dd, “breast,” in 1. 61.
e. Ps 22:1 Ob-11a
‫“ עדי ם‬breasts” // ‫“ רחם‬womb”
f. Hos 9:14
‫“ רחם‬womb” // ‫“ עדי ם‬breasts”
g. Gen 49:25
‫“ עדי ם‬breasts” + ‫“ רחם‬womb”
h. Job 3:11-12
‫“ רחם‬womb” . . . ‫“ עדי ם‬breasts”
i. Comments
Only the chiastic reading of the four cola of Ps 22:10-11 produces the
parallelism in w . 10b-11a:
‫מבטיחי ע ל ־ ע די אמי‬ You gave me confidence from my
mother’s breasts;
‫ע לי ך ה ע ל כ תי מרחם‬ upon you was I cast from the womb.
Departing from Psalms I, p. 136, I now follow those ancient versions (see
BHK) which saw separative force in ‫ ; ע ל ״ ע ד י‬well-documented ‫ ע ל‬, “from”
(// ‫) מ ר ח ם‬, excludes the need to emend ‫ ע ל ״ ע די‬to ‫ מ ע די‬.
300
a. Sht + mt (see also 'sm . . . sht . . . mt [I 246])

b. 607:65
c. “the P it” + “Death”
d. Notes
The disputed couplet in 607:64-65 may fairly be rendered:
ydy b'sm V r He hurled with vigor the tamarisk,
wbsht 's mt right into the Pit the tree of Death.
Comparison with UT 75 1:24, 'zm yd, “vigor of hand,” suggests th at the
function of w in the second line is emphatic rather than copulative. For
the translation of 75 1:23-25, see ,zm + yd (I 230 d), and compare the former
suggestion cited in R SP I, II I 89 k.
157 —
e. Job 33:22
‫“ ישחת‬the P it ‫ '׳‬// ‫“ מתים‬the dead”
f. Ezek 28:8
‫“ שחת‬the P it” // ‫“ ממותי ח ל ל‬the mortally wounded”
g. Jer 18:22-23
‫“ שיחה‬p it” . . . ‫“ מות‬death‫״‬
h. Comments
As hinted in l film (R SP I, II 318 f and h), MT ‫ לממתים‬in Job 33:22
is preferably divided and vocalized ‫“ ׳ ל מ מתים‬to the dead,” at once recovering
the parallelism ‫ ל‬// ‫ ל מ‬and identifying the breakup of the composite phrase
‫ שחת מתים‬, “the Pit of the dead” ; cf. Job 24:12, ‫ עי ר מתים‬, “the City of the
dead,” where MT again misses the motif, reading ‫מתי ם‬, “men,” for ‫מתי ם‬,
“the dead,” and Ps 16:10-11 which contrasts ‫שחת‬, “the P it,” with ‫ א ר ח חיים‬,
“the path to life.”
i. Kzek 28:8 is scanned as a bicolon with a 10:9 syllable count, and the
‫ ל‬of ‫ל שחת‬, “to the P it,” is parsed as a double-duty preposition extending
its force to parallel ‫ ממותי ח ל ל‬, “the mortally wounded” :
‫לשחת יורדוך ומתה‬ To the Pit they will send you down to
die,
‫ממותי ח ל ל ב ל ב ימים‬ to the mortally wounded in the depths
of the waters.
301
a. skn II grs (see also skn // skn [I 304])

b. 126 V:27-28 (CTA 16 V:27-28)
c. (D) “to dislodge” // “to drive out”
d. Notes
Apparently synonymous with grs, “to drive out,” askn contextually fits
when interpreted as D-privative:
askn ydt mrs I will dislodge the force of the disease,
grSm zbln driving out the malady.
e. Gen 3:24 (‫[ גרש‬D], ‫[ שכן‬H]); Deut 33:27-28 (‫[ גרש‬D]); Job 30:5-6 (‫[ גרש‬Dp])
‫( גרש‬D) “to drive out” ; (Dp) “to be driven” / / ‫“ שכן‬to dwell” ; (H) “to
station”
— 158 —
302
a. Skn /I hlk
b. Krt: 103-106, 192-195 (<CTA 14 11:103-111:106; IV:192-195)
c. “to dwell” II “to go”
d. hlk + Skn
e. 125:43 (CTA 16 1:43)
f. “to go” + “to settle”
g. Jer 7:6-7
‫“ ה ל ך‬to go” II ‫( ישכן‬D) “to make to dwell”
h. Jer 7:12
‫“ ה ל ך‬to go” . . . ‫( שכן‬D) “to make to dwell”
303
a. Skn . . . mla
b. 126 V:27-28 [CTA 16 V:27-28)
c. “to dwell” . . . “to fill”
d. Exod 40:35; Isa 33:5 (‫[ מל א‬D]); Ezek 32:4-5 (‫[ שכן‬H], ‫[ מל א‬D])
‫“ שכן‬to settle, dwell” ; (H) “to cause to dwell” / / ‫“ מל א‬to fill” ; (D) “to fill”
e. Isa 13:21
‫“ מל א‬to be full” / / ‫“ שכן‬to dwell”
f. Comments
In Ezek 32:4-5 occur six first person singular verbs which appear to
be all parallel, but it is also possible th at the prophet meant them as dis-
crete pairs of balancing verbs.
304
a. Skn II skn (see also Skn 11 grS [I 301])

b. 126 V:25-27 (CTA 16 V:25-27)
c. (D) “to dislodge” // (D) “to dislodge”
— 159 —
d. Notes \
In the context the repeated verb appears to have privative force, hence a
D-privative:
ank ihtrs w[a\skn I will work magic and dislodge,
askn ydt [m\rs dislodge the force of the disease.
e. Deut 33:12; Ps 120:5-6
p tf ‘‘to dwell” II ‫‘‘ שכן‬to dwell”
f. Isa 57:15
‫‘‘ שכן‬to dwell” . . . ‫" שכן‬to dwell”
g. Ps 78:60
‫" משכן‬dwelling-place” . . . ‫( שכן‬D) "to establish”
h. Comments
The identification of A:B:B:A chiastic pattern (see bn 11 bn [RSP I,
II 111 e] for Ug. examples of this pattern) elucidates the yqtl // qtl sequence
of this root in Deut 33:12:
‫י די ד יהוה ישכן‬ Yahweh’s beloved dwells
‫ל ב ט ח עליו‬ in the security of the Most High;
‫ח פף עליו כ ל־ היו ם‬ the Most High enfolds him all the day,
‫ובין כתיפיו שכן‬ and between his wings he dwells.
Some of the emendations proposed for this v. threaten to destroy the chi-
astic pattern; hence caution should accompany their evaluation. The
6:5:7:7 syllable count and the chiastic arrangement bespeak a soundness
of text th at calls for no “emendation.”
305
a. slm -\- kll
b. 611:9-10; 1015:14-15
c. “peace, peace-offering” + "perfect”
d. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, U V (1973), 358.
e. Jer 13:19
‫" כ ל‬all” If ‫" שלומים‬completely”
— 160
f. Comments
Since the current text is semantically and grammatically unimpeachable,
the attem pt to bring the final phrase of Jer 13:19 into line with Amos 1:6
should not be pursued.
‫הגלת יהודה כ ל ה‬ All Judah is taken into exile,
‫הגלת עלומי ם‬ taken into exile completely.
In this interpretation ‫ ’שלומים‬functions as adverbial accusative.
306
a. Bm . . . mgy
b. 100:6+8 (CTA 59:6+8); 101:1+5 (CTA 57:1+5); 2009 0bv:8+11
c. “to prosper, peace” . . . “to arrive”
d. Job 34:11
‫( שלם‬D) “to repay” // ‫( מצא‬H) “to make arrive”
307
a. Bm I/ nh
b. 95:10-14 {CTA 51:10-14)
c. “peace” // “to rest”
d. I Chron 22:9
‫“ איש מנוחה‬a man of rest” // ‫“ שלמה‬Solomon”
‫( נוח‬H) “to give rest” // ‫“ שלום נתן‬to give peace”
e. Isa 32:18
‫“ שלום‬peace” . . . ‫“ מנוחה‬peaceful place”
»
308
a. 5m . . . bt
b. 68:28 (CTA 2 IV:28)
c. “name” . . . "to be ashamed”
d. Zeph 3:19
‫“ שם‬name” / / ‫“ בשת‬shame”
— 161 —
e. Comments
An appreciation of this parallelism should stay the hand of those desir-
ing to emend DDIZfa, “their shame” ; see the apparatus of B H K and BH S.
For a sound grammatical analysis of this bicolon, consult Sabottka, Ze-
phanja, p. 139, though one may prefer to parse the final mem of ‫ הצמתים‬as
dative suffix of advantage, “I shall change for them ,” instead of as enclitic
mem, as favored by Sabottka.
f. This parallelism also cautions prudence in Kzek 34:29, where some
have recommended, on the strength of three ancient versions, an emen-
dation th at would destroy the balance between ‫שם‬, “name,” and ‫ כ ל מ ה‬,
“ignominy,” a synonym of ‫בעזת‬, “shame.” Thus N E B emends ‫ מ ט ע לשם‬,
“a plantation of great renown,” with ‫ ל‬understood as emphatic, to ‫מטע‬
‫שלום‬, "prosperity to their plantations,” fine in assonance but destructive
of parallelism; see Brockington, Hebrew Text, p. 232.
309
a. Smh I/ sh
b. 51 11:28-29; V:97-98 (CTA 4 11:28-29; V:97-98); 67 11:20-21 (CTA 5 11:20-21)
c. “to rejoice” // “to shout”
d. sh . . . §mh
• • W
e. 49 1:11 (CTA 6 1:39)

f. "to shout” . . . "to rejoice”
g. Notes
The chiastic order of the word pair in 51 11:28-29 and 67 11:20-21 finds a
counterpart in the biblical text.
h. Isa 24:11
‫“ צוחה‬shout” 11 ‫ ״ עומחה‬joy”
310
a. Smm . . . qd$
b. 'nt 1:13 {CTA 3 A:13)
c. “heaven” . . . “holiness”
— 162 —
d. Job 15:15
‫זים‬2?‫“ קד‬holy ones” II ‫“ עמים‬heaven”
e. Ps 89:6
‫" עמי ם‬heaven” . . . ‫" קלעי ם‬holy ones”
f. Ps 20:7
‫“ עמים‬heaven” + ‫“ ק ל ע‬holiness”
g. Isa 63:15
‫“ עמים‬heaven” . .. ‫“ ק ל ע‬holiness”
311
a. Imn . . . nsk
b. 'nt 11:39-40; I V :87 (CTA 3 B :39-40; D:87)
c. “oil” . . . “to anoint”
d. Gen 35:14
‫“ נסך‬drink-offering” / / ‫“ ע מן‬oil”
312
a. sm' + amt
b. 126 I V :2 (CTA 16 IV:2)
c. “to hear” -f "word”
d. Notes
The damaged end of the 1. precludes a certain translation of il §m' amrk
ph[ ], but scholars (e.g. Aistleitner, M K T 2, p. 101; Jirku, Mythen und
Epen, p. 109) who identify amr with ‫ א מ ר‬, “word,” are probably correct.
The objection of Caquot, TOML, p. 562, n. s, th at W means “to see” in
Ug. slights the fact th at in Heb. ‫ א מ ר‬, which normally means “to say,” often
also signifies "to see.” Note these two senses of ‫ א מ ר‬in Gen 4:8-9, and the
inclusion formed by ‫ ד א מ ר‬at the beginning of v. 8 and ‫ ל ע מ ר‬at the end of
v. 9. Thus the balance of ‫ א מ ר‬// ‫ ע מ ר‬is like th at in Ps 71:10 where these
verbs describe visual activity.
e. Ps 31:23; Job 28:22; 33:8; 34:34
‫“ א מ ר‬to say, speak” // ‫“ ע מ ע‬to hear”
f. Num 24:16; Deut 32:1; Isa 28:23
‫“ ע מ ע‬to hear” + (‫“ אמר)ה‬word”
— 163 —
12
313
a. sm' II ars
b. 2 Aqht V 1:16-17 (CTA 17 VI: 1617‫)־‬
c. “to hear” // “to request”
d. Ps 61:6
‫“ עזמע‬to hear” . . . DETP “request”
e. Comments
In Ps 61:6 ntfT (MT ‫ )ירשת‬is a by-form of ‫אר שת‬, “request” ; see
Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 86.
f. For other rapprochements between Ps 61:6 and Ug. word pairs, see
also ars // ytn (R SP I, II 73) and sm' // ytn (R SP I, II 569).
314
a. sm' + hwt
b. 2127 b:3 (PRU V, p. 175)
c. “to hear” + “declaration”
d. Notes
The context is unfortunately damaged, but the phrase §m't hwt might well
mean, “you have heard the declaration,” or “I have heard (your) decla-
ration,” since hwt[ ] might also be read hwt[k].
e. Job 32:10
‫“ שמע‬to hear” If ‫( חוה‬D) “to declare”
f. Job 15:17
‫( חוה‬D) “to declare” . . . ‫“ שמע‬to hear”
g. Job 13:17
‫“ שמע‬to hear” . . . ‫“ אחוה‬declaration”
315
a. smt / I 'zm (see also kbd . . . smt [I 159])

b. 1 Aqht:110-111, 117, 125, 131, 139-140, 145 (CTA 19 1 1 1 : 1 1 0 1 3 1 ,125 ,117 ,111‫־‬
1 3 9 1 4 5 ,140‫)־‬
— 164 —
c. “fat‫ ״‬/ / “bone”

d. Notes
The root underlying smt is most likely smn, as held by Gordon, UT,
§ 19. 2439, and others. For two other proposed derivations, see Caquot,
TOML, p. 450, n. q.
e. Ps 109:18
‫“ שמן‬oil” + ‫“ עצ ם‬bone”
316
a. snt I/ spt
b. 1001 obv:4-5
c. “teeth” /I “lips”
d. Notes
Virolleaud, P R U II, pp. 3 and 6, observes th at plural snt answers to Akk.
Sinnati, which also has plural sinne. In Heb. only plural masc. forms are
attested.
e. Cant 4:2-3
‫“ שנים‬teeth” !‫“ שפתת ן‬lips”
f. Ps 140:4
‫“ שנן‬to sharpen” . . . ‫“ שפתים‬lips”
g. Comments
In Ps 140:4, verbal ‫שנן‬, “to sharpen,” being a denominative from ‫שן‬,
“tooth,” the comparison is apposite.
317
a. SphU'bd
b. 2062 B:1-3
c. “servant” // “slave”
d. Notes
Translating 2062 B:l-3:
wmlk d mlk And the king who rules
bhwt sph in the village of the servant,
lydn *bd mlk may he not judge the slave of the king.
165
On hwt, "village,‫ ״‬see A. Herdner, Syria, XL/VI (1969), 132. Employing

the verb ydn, the writer plays on his own name, ydn (2062 A:l). For dif-
ferent interpretations of these 11., consult Virolleaud, P R U V, p. 89, and
Gordon, UT, § 19.850.
e. Jer 34:9, 10, 16; Joel 3:2; Ps 123:2; etc.

‫“ ע ב ד‬slave” // ‫“ שפחה‬female servant”
f. Gen 30:43
‫“ ע פ ח ה‬female servant” + ‫“ ע ב ד‬slave”
g. Gen 12:16; 24:35; Deut 28:68; Isa 14:2; Jer 34:11; Eccles 2:7; etc.
‫“ ע ב ד‬slave” + ‫“ שפחה‬female servant”
318
a. spk If ysa
b. 3 Aqht W :23-25, 34-36 (CTA 18 IV:23-25, 34-36)
c. "to pour out” II “to go out”
d. Job 12:21-22
‫“ שפך‬to pour out” . . . ‫( יצא‬H) “to bring out”
e. I Kings 2:30-31; Isa 37:32-33; Ezek 9:7-8; 20:34 (‫[ יצא‬H], ‫[ שפך‬Gp]); 24:6-7; etc.
‫“ יצא‬to go out, come out” ; (H) “to bring out” . . . ‫“ שפך‬to pour out” ; (Gp)
“to be poured out”
319
a. &p&Hb'l
b. 62:11-12, 13-14 (iCTA 6 1:11-12, 13-14)
c. “Shapsh” II “Baal”
d. I I Kings 23:5
‫“ ב ע ל‬Baal” + ‫“ שמש‬the sun”
— 166 —
320
a. spt II tkm
b. 124:4-5 (CTA 22 B:4-5)
c. “lip" II “shoulder”
d. Ps 81:6-7
‫“ שפה‬lip, speech” II ‫“ עזכם‬shoulder”
321
a. sqy . . . ytn
b. 'nt 1:9-10; pi. X :IV :9 (1CTA 3 A:9-10; 1 IV:9)
c. “to drink” . . . “to give”
d. Ps 69:22
‫“ נתן‬to give” 11 ‫( ’שקה‬H) “to cause to drink”
e. Isa 43:20; Ps 104:12-13
‫“ נתן‬to give” . . . ‫( עזקה‬H) "to cause to drink”
322
a. sr + tb (see also tb(n) -f- ql [I 120])

b. 'nt 1:20 (1CTA 3 A :20)
c. “to sing” + “sweet”
d. Notes
This 1., ysy gzr tb ql, is usually rendered, ‘the sweet-voiced lad sings,” where
scholars recognize in tb the nuance “sweet.”
e. Ps 33:3
‫“ עייר‬to sing” II ‫( יטב‬H) “to make sweet”
f. Ezek 33:32
‫ יר‬1‫“ ע‬song” . . . ‫( טוב‬H) “to make sweet”
g. Ps 69:31-32
*‫“ עזיו‬song” . . . ‫“ יטב‬to be sweet”
— 167 —
h. Isa 23:16
‫( יטב‬H) “to make sweet” . . . ‫“ עי ר‬song”
i. Comments
The necessity of appreciating the nuance of a word in its context comes
home upon comparing N E B ’s felicitous translation of Isa 23:16, ‫ הי טי בי נגן‬,
“touch the strings sweetly,” with its less apposite rendition of the same
phrase in a similar context in Ps 33:3, “strike up with all your a rt.”
323
a. sr + ,p (see also ndd . . . 'pt [I 211])

b. 124:11 (1CTA 22 B:ll)
c. (Gt) “to travel” + “to fly”
d. Notes
See sd // smm (I 261 d) for the translation of 124:1011‫־‬. The word tstr may
be parsed as a Gt form of swr, “to travel.”
e. Hos 9:11-12
‫( עוף‬HtL) “to fly” 11 ‫“ עו ר‬to travel”
f. Comments
The parallelism obtains only if one grants the presence of an inclusion
formed by ‫ כ עו ף י תעופף כ בוד ם‬, “like a bird their honor shall fly away,” and
‫ בש)!(ורי מהם‬, “when I travel far from them .” N E B ’s stichometric layout
sets forth well the rhetorical figure of inclusion in Hos 9:11-12.
324
a. sr . . . tp
b. 602 obv:3-4
c. “to sing” . . . “tam bour”
d. Ps 68:26
‫“ ערי ם‬singers” // ‫“ ע ל מו ת תופפות‬maidens beating tambours”
e. Comments
This further rapprochement between Canaanite texts and Ps 68 (see
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 130-152) saps the position of Vlaardingerbroek,
Psalm 68, who tends to minimize these relationships.
— 168 —
325
a. st . . . smkt
b. 125:34-35 (CTA 16 1:34-35)
c. “to put, pour” . . . “highlands”
d. Notes
For the translation of smkt, consult Driver, CML, p. 147.
e. Ps 88:7-8
‫“ עדת‬to p u t” // ‫“ סמך‬to rise”
f. Comments
Though the traditional understanding of Ps 88:8, ‫ ע לי ס מכ ה חמתך‬, “upon
me your fury rested,” cannot be faulted, the Northwest Semitic attestation
of the root smk, “to be high, elevated,” permits a new option in our text.
Cf. also Ezek 24:2: “The king of Babylon rose up (‫ ) ס מ ך‬against Jerusalem.”
326
a. st + spr
b. 54:18-19 {CTA 53:18-19)
c. “to p u t” 4‫“ ־‬document, tablet”

d. spr + st
e. 2106:3
f. "document, tablet” -f- “to p u t”

g. Job 38:36-37
‫“ עזית‬to p u t” !‫( ספ ר ן‬D) “to count”
h. Ps 73:28
0‫“ זית‬to p u t” . . . ‫" ס פ ר‬to narrate”
i. Comments
In a series of four parallel verbs, our pair figures as the first and the
third in Job 38:36-37.
— 169 —
327
a. sty yn . . . skr
b. 607:3-4
c. “to drink wine” . . . “drunkenness”
d. Notes
Cf. 601:16: yst [il y]n 'd sb tr t'd Skr, “the god drinks wine unto satiety, new
'
wine unto drunkenness.”

e. Joel 1:5
‫" עכורי ם‬drunkards” // ‫“ ע תי יץ‬those who drink wine”
f. Isa 24:9
‫“ ע ת ה יץ‬to drink wine” . . . ‫“ ע כ ר‬liquor”
328
a. tht + ars
b. 'nt I V :80 (CTA 3 D:80)
c. “under” + “the earth”
d. Job 28:5
‫“ ארץ‬the earth” // ‫“ תחתיה‬its bottom ”
e. Isa 44:23; Pss 63:10; 139:15
‫“ תחתיות‬the depths” + ‫“ )ה(ארץ‬the earth”
f. Deut 4:39; I Kings 8:23; Isa 51:6
‫" ה ארץ מתחת‬the earth beneath”
g. Comments
The identification of this pairing warrants a new translation of Job 28:5:
‫ארץ ממנה י צ א־ ל ח ם‬ The earth — from it comes forth food,
‫ותחתיה נ הפך כ מו־ א ע‬ though its bottom is convulsed as though
by fire.
The surface of the earth produces food, but in its depths rages a convulsive
fire. Pope, Job3, p. 201, correctly grasps the sense of the v., but his trans-
lation falls short because he missed the parallelism of the nouns: "The earth
from which comes food / Below is changed as by fire.” On the nominalized
preposition ‫ ת ח תי ה‬, “its bottom ,” see the discussion of Job 36:16 at tht +
tlhn (I 329).
— 170 —
329
a. tht + tlhn
b. 601:5-6, 8
c. “under” + “table‫״‬
d. Job 36:16
‫" תחתיה‬its bottom ” // ‫“ שלחנך‬your table”
e. Comments
Despite the obscurity enveloping the v., the parallelism of these two
substantives appears reasonably evident.
‫רחב ל א־ מו צ ק תחתיה‬ A breadth unstraitened is its bottom,
‫ונחת שלחנך מל א דשן‬ while your tranquil table was loaded
with rich food.
Here Elihu contrasts the vast bottom of Sheol from which God has rescued
Job with the prosperity enjoyed by Job through God’s favor. The form
‫ תחתיה‬would be a nominalized preposition; cf. Job 6:16, ‫ ע לי מו‬, "their sur-
face” ; Ps 80:10, ‫ ל פני ה‬, "her predecessors” ; and M. Dahood, Bib, XL/VII
(1966), 411; Gordon, UT, p. 58, n. 1; see also above tht + ars (I 328).
330
a. tmm + abd
b. Krt:24 (CTA 14 1:24)
c. "to be complete” + “to perish”
d. Notes
Reading wbtm hn sph yitbd: "And completely, alas, the progeny perished.”
I parse hn as an interjection, here postpositive, as occasionally with ‫; הנ ה‬
e.g., Jer 1:18; Eccles 1:16; or for th at m atter, 1012:17, ktt hn ib, "behold
the foe crushed!” and Krt:20-21, msb't hn Mlh ttpl, "one seventh, alas, fell
by the spear.”
e. Ps 9:7
‫" תמם‬to be destroyed” // ‫“ א ב ד‬to perish”
f. Ps 102:27-28
‫" א ב ד‬to perish” If ‫" תמם‬to cease”
— 171 —
g. Comments
In Ps 9:7 the chiastic structure, whose appreciation helps focus the
parallelism, has been observed by Dahood, Psalms I, p. 55. The emendation
of ‫ תמו‬to ‫ ד מו‬, th at has occasionally been proposed in the past (e.g., BDB,
p. 1070b), would destroy this pair and hence must be disallowed.
331
a. tp II n'm
b. R S 22.225:2 (C R A IB L , 1961, 182)
c. “beauty” // “grace”
d. Notes
The phrase in question reads tp ahh wn'm ahh, “her brother’s beauty and
her brother’s grace.” The parallelism of tp with n'm makes wpy, “to be
fair,” the probable root of tp.
e. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, XLV (1964), 288.
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 131-132, n. 54.
f. Cant 1:16 (Dahood)
‫“ י פ ה‬beautiful” // ‫“ נעים‬gracious”
g. Cant 7:7 (Albright)
‫" י פ ה‬to be beautiful” // ‫" נעם‬to be gracious”
h. Comments
The biblical parallelism would seem to undermine the interpretation
put upon the Ug. phrase by E. Lipinski, Syria, X U I (1965), 53: “le beau
membre de son frere et le doux membre de son frere.”
332
a. tb . . . ps'
b. 2 Aqht V 1:42-43 (CTA 17 VI :42-43)
c. “to return” . . . “rebellion”
d. Ezek 33:12
‫ע‬# ‫“ פ‬rebellion” // ‫וב‬$ “to return”
— 172 —
e. Jer 5:6
‫“ פשע‬rebellion” // ‫“ משובה‬apostasy”
f. Isa 59:20; Ezek 78:28, 30
‫“ עו ב‬to return” + ‫“ פשע‬rebellion”
g. Isa 46:8
‫( עו ב‬H) “to bring back” -f ‫" פשע‬to rebel”
h. Ezek 78:21-22; 33:9-10; Job 13:22-23 (H)
‫“ עזוב‬to return” ; (H) "to reply” . . . ‫“ פשע‬rebellion”
i. Jer 3:12-13; Job 13:22-23
‫“ שוב‬to return” . . . ‫“ פשע‬to rebel”
j. Job 36:9-10
‫“ פשע‬rebellion” . . . ‫“ שוב‬to return”
k. Ps 51:15
‫“ פשע‬to rebel” . . . ‫" שוב‬to return”
333
a. tb j/ $m'
b. 51 V I:2-4 (CTA 4 V I:2-4)
c. “to return” // "to hear”

d. Notes
The balance of these two verbs has been partially concealed by the mis-
translation of 1. 3 due to oversight of the double-duty preposition:
ttb b'l l[hwty] Return, O Baal, to my word,
tn rgm k[tr w]hss to the repeated words of Kothar-wa-
Hasis;
stn' m la[li]yn b'l hear, now, O Puissant Baal!
e. Isa 6:10
‫“ שמע‬to hear” 11 ‫“ שוב‬to return”
f. Jer 26:3; Ps 85:9
‫“ שמע‬to hear” . . . ‫“ שוב‬to return”
— 173 —
334
a. tb . . . tny
b. 51 V I:2-3 (CTA 4 V I:2-3)
c. “to return” . . . “to repeat”
d. Notes
For the translation of 51 VI:2-4, see section d of tb [j j>m' (I 333).
e. Prov 26:11
‫“ עו ב‬to return” // “to repeat”
335
a. tbr I/ bky
b. 125:54-55 (CTA 16 1:54-55)
c. “to break” // “to weep”
d. Notes
Despite the partial damage of the 11., the parallelism between ttbr and tbky
seems a reasonable assumption.
e. Jer 48:4-5
‫ ב ר‬1‫( ע‬N) “to be broken” . . . ‫“ ב כי‬weeping”
f. Isa 15:5
‫“ ב כי‬weeping” . . . ‫“ שבר‬disaster”
g. Comments
Attention to another Canaanite element bids fair to improve the trans-
lation of the phrase occurring in Jer 48:5 (cf. Isa 15:5):
‫ב ב כי י ע ל ה ־ ב כי‬ After weeping weeping ascends.
Which is to say th at a surge of tears ascends the slopes of Luhith. Compare
Krt:31, bm bkyh wysn, “after his weeping he falls asleep” ; and see Gordon,
UT, § 10.4, and Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 68-69, 134.
336
a. tbt . . . abd
b. Krt:23-24 (1CTA 14 1:23-24)
c. “seat” . . . “to perish”
— 174 —
d. Notes
See Gordon, UT, § 19.1177, for the derivation of tbt from ytb, “to sit, reside
in.” F. Fensham, J NS L , I (1971), 16, argues th at tbt means “seat of author-
ity ” and not simply “sitting” or “dwelling.”
e. Zech 9:5
‫“ א ב ד‬to perish” // ‫“ ישב‬to inhabit”
337
a. tbt . . . hpk
b. 49 V I:28 (CTA 6 VI :28)
c. “seat” . . . “to overturn”
d. Notes
See tbt . . . abd (I 336 d) for the derivation and meaning of tbt.
e. Sir 10:14
‫“ ה פ ך‬to overturn” // ‫“ ישב‬to sit”
338
a. tbt . . . yrt
b. Krt:23+25 (CTA 14 1:23+25)
c. “seat” . . . “heir”
d. Notes
e. Isa 54:3 (‫[ ישב‬H]); Jer 49:1; Mic 1:15

tfT “to possess” II ‫" ישב‬to dwell” ; (H) “to cause to be inhabited”
f. Ps 69:36
‫“ ישב‬to dwell” . . . “to possess”
g. Deut 2:21, 22; 26:1
‫“ ירש‬to dispossess, inherit” + ‫" ישב‬to dwell”
— 175 —
339
a. tbt II sph
b. Krt:23-24 {CTA 14 1:23-24)
c. “seat” /I “family”
d. Notes
e. I Chron 2:55
‫ ״ מ ע פ ח ה‬family” + ‫“ ישב‬to dwell”
340
a. td + pnm
b. 'nt 1:6 (<CTA 3 A :6)
c. “breast‫ ״‬+ “face”
d. Hos 2:4
‫“ פנים‬face” // ‫“ ע די ם‬breasts”
341
a. tjkm II yd'
b. / Aqht:50-52, 199-200 (CTA 19 11:50-52; IV: 199-200)
c. “to shoulder” // “to know”
d. Ps 81:6-7
‫" י ד ע‬to know” . . . ‫“ ע כ ם‬shoulder”
342
a. tit . . . mrkbt
b. Krt:55-56, 128, 140, 252-253, 285-286 (CTA 14 11:55-56; 111:128, 140; V:252-
253; VI :285-286)
c. “three” . . . “chariot”
d. Exod 14:7
‫" ר כ ב‬chariotry” // ‫“ ע לי ע‬third man, officer”
— 176 —
343
a. tgr /I hmyt
b. R S 24.266 rev:9-10, 11-12, 18-19 ( C R A IB L , 1972, 694)
c. ‫ ״‬gate” II “walls”
d. Notes
The attestation of this pair permits the tentative restoration of 125:89-90
(CTA 16 11:89-90): km nkyt tgr[ ] / km skllt [hmyt]. The four letters of
hmyt neatly fill the available space.
e. Deut 28:52; Jer 1:15
‫ ע ר‬# “gate” !‫“ ח)ו(מה ן‬wail”
f. Isa 26:1-2; 60:10-11, 18; Ezek 26:10; Nah 2:6-7
‫“ חומה‬wall” 11 ‫ ע ר‬# “gate”
g. Comments
The longstanding proposal to emend ‫המיו ת‬, “noisy streets(??),” to
‫ ה מיו ת‬, “walls” (// ‫ערי ם‬#), in Prov 1:21 now enjoys nonbiblical support as
well as th at of the biblical parallels. For an attem pt to explain the erroneous
reading ‫המיו ת‬, see Dahood, Proverbs, pp. 4-5. Ezek 26:10, with the triple
parallelism ‫“ חומות‬walls” / / ‫ערי ם‬# “gates” / / ‫“ עיר‬city,” further urges the
reading ‫ המיות‬in Prov 1:21, where ‫ עי ר‬, “city,” is collocated with the pair
in question.
344
a. tr II zby
b. 128 IV:6-7, 17-18 {CTA 15 IV:6-7, 17-18)
c. “bull” I/ “gazelle”
d. Notes
Literally “bull” and “gazelle,” tr and zby are used metaphorically to designate
some dignitaries of King K irta’s realm. A more precise identification is
rendered possible by the comparison with the biblical text below where
these same terms describe the merchants of Tyre. For a review of the
opinions set forth by Ug. specialists, see Caquot, TOML, p. 543, n. x.
e. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Or, XLIV (1975), 439-441.
— 177 —
I Suppl. Ras Shamra Parallels
f. Isa 23:8-9
‫“ ערי ם‬bulls” (MT ‫ )ערים‬// ‫“ צ בי‬gazelle”
g. Comments
To set forth the stichometry and parallel elements clearly, it is neces-
sary to cite the two vv.:
‫מי יע ץ זאת‬ Who has planned this
‫ע ל ־ צ ר ה מע טי ר ה‬ against Tyre, the bestower of crowns,
‫אע ר סתריה ערי ם‬ whose merchants are ‘bulls’,
‫כנעניה נ כ ב די־ א ר ץ‬ whose traders the battened of the city?
‫יהוה צבאו ת י ע צ ה‬ Yahweh of Hosts has planned it
‫ל ח ל ל גאון כל׳־ צבי‬ to pierce the pride of every ‘gazelle’,
‫ל ה ק ל כ ל ־נ כ ב די ־ א ר ץ‬ to fell all the battened of the city.
Since in v. 9 ‫ צ בי‬, “gazelle,” balances ‫נ כ ב די ״ א ר ץ‬, “the battened of the city,”
it follows th at the counterpart of ‫ נ כ ב די״ א ר ץ‬in v. 8 should also be an animal
name, hence ‫“ > ע ר י ם‬bulls,” for MT ‫ ע רי ם‬, “princes.” Of course, ‫ ע ר‬forms a
pun with ‫ צ ר‬, “Tyre,” to whom this lament is addressed.
SUPPLEMENT
Additions to Dahood, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” R SP I, Chapter 2,

and R SP II, Chapter 1.
LIST OF EN TRIES
1. ab II kn 13. ars + dbr 25. bky + qbr

2. adn // mgn 14. ars + drkt 26. V illa in
3. ahb /I skb 15. ars II kl 27. Mr /I smh
4. uhryt // atryt 16. ars II 'pr 28. bt . . . ars
5. akl . . . &V 17. ars I I 's 29. bt II 'rk
6. il /I VI 18. 1st /I dbb 30. btH tJr
7. il + msrm 19. at II ank 31. gpn . . . Mmt
8. il + rb 20. atm /I an 32. dbh II ndr
9. alp II tr 21. b II bn 33. dm I/ nps
10. an II ank 22. b II l 34. hlk + drs
11. ar If rb 23. b I/ tht 35. w If p
12. irby // hsn 24. bky II dm* 36. hwy II ark
— 178 —
Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs I Suppl. 1
37. hy II it 60. ksp + nthr 83. 'n 11 hdy

38. hy + nps 61. 1II in 84. 'n I/ qr
39. hym . . . ytn 62. ll/l 85. 'n II ris
40. hkm II ysr 63. llll 86. 'ny // tb
41. him II drt-dhrt 64. mhr // itnn 87. 'p'p . . . ' n
42. hs + rhq 65. mkk II dip 88. gr 4‫ ־‬slm
43. yd I/ brk 66. mlk II adn 89. p II w
44. yd . . . bsr 67. mlk + ars 90. pit I/ 'dr
45. yd /I hrb 68. mgy . . . npl 91. sdq I/ ysr
46. yd I/ sm 69. mri 4‫ ־‬Hm 92. spn I/ ars
47. yd' + hlk 70. mt + nps 93. qll . . . Isn
48. ym // yrh 71. nbt II smn 94. ris I/ kp
49. yn /I hms 72. npl /I mt 95. rmm (irtm) // tl'
50. yra // tt' 73. nps II gngn 96. sal . . . knn
51. ytn /I b'l 74. spr II yd' 97. sb' /I skr
52. ytn // Iqh 75. spr II mnt 98. sm 4‫ ־‬bn
53. ytb II zll 76. 'bd II bn amt 99. smh II shq
54. ytb /I nh 77. 'gl II imr 100. sm' II ahb
55. k II k 78. 'd /l ksu 101. snt /I nqpt
56. k // k 79. 'dr 4‫ ־‬yd 102. spt /I Isn
57. klyt 4- lb 80. '1 II b 103. srs . . . ars
58. ks + yn 81. '1m I/ dr dr 104. st .. . qdm
59. ksu 4‫ ־‬nilk 82. 'mq // qryt / qrt 105. tht ‫ן‬/ 'l
Supp 1
a. ab II kn (see R SP I, II 3)
b. Notes
In the parallelism ab “father” // dyknnh “he who brought him into being,”
the second member specifies the sense in which the Canaanites considered
El to be a father. Hence when Gray, LC2, p. 159, opines th at in the epithet
of El, ab adm, “the father of mankind,” the term adm may simply mean
“community” and ab adm signify “he in whom the community is integrat-
ed,” he is engaging in speculation th at appreciation of parallel pairs would
have quickly scotched.
— 179 —
13
I Suppl. 2 Ras Shamra Parallels
Supp 2
a. adn // mgn (see R SP I, II 13)

b. After section e insert Isa 21:5-6
‫“ מגן‬suzerain" . . . ‫“ אדני‬the Lord"
c. Comments
If the massoretic word-division is retained in Isa 21:5, ‫ משחו‬parses as
the pi. of majesty employed when addressing the suzerain:
‫קומו ה&רים‬ Arise, O princes!
‫מעזחו מגן‬ Anoint yourself, O suzerain!
The ‫ ו‬is preferably detached from ‫ משח‬and attached to ‫ מגן‬where it functions
as the vocative ‫ו‬, balancing vocative ‫ ה‬. The translation remains the same:
‫ קו מו העזרים מע ח ומגן‬. For the reflexive use of ‫מעזח‬, cf. Amos 6:6; and on
vocative ‫ ו‬consult Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 204, and Schoors, R SP I, I 44 h.
Freedman, Widengren F S I, pp. 116, 122-123, has identified ‫מגן‬, “suzerain”
(// ‫משיח‬, “anointed"), in II Sam 1:21.
Supp 3
a. ahb I/ skb (see R SP I, II 14)

b. To section b add: cf. also 7002:46-47.
c. After section d insert Isa 56:10
‫“ עזכב‬to lie down” + ‫“ א ה ב‬to love”
Supp 4
a. uhryt 11 atryt (see R S P I, II 20)

b. Change section c to: “afterlife" // “happiness”
c. Notes
I would now relate atryt to the root ‫א שר‬, “to be happy,” so th at the abstract
formation atryt, in tandem with uhryt, would refer to the felicity of the after-
life.
d. Change section d (Eccles 6:12) to:
‫“ אעזר‬happiness” // ‫“ אחריו‬his future”
— 180 —
e. After section d insert Prov 20:7

‫“ אשרי‬happy” + ‫“ אחריו‬after him ”
f. After section d insert Sir 11:26
‫( אעזר‬D) “to pronounce happy” . . . ‫“ אחרית‬afterlife”
g. Comments
Often deleted in Eccles 6:12, ‫ אשר‬can be grammatically justified when
repointed ‫אשר‬, "happiness,” and the v. translated:
‫א שר־ מי־יגיד ל אד ם‬ Who can predict happiness for a man?
‫מ ה״י הי ה אחריו תחת השמש‬ W hat will be his future under the sun?
h. This word pair throws new light on Sir 11:26:
‫לפני מות א ל תאשר גבר‬ Before his death call no man happy,
‫כי באחריתו ינכר איש‬ for in his afterlife will a man be known.
Supp 5
a. aM . . . b'r (see R SP I, II 24)

b. To section d add Deut 26:14
‫“ א כ ל‬to eat” /I ‫( בע ר‬D) “to consume”
c. To section e add Nah 2:14
‫( ב ע ר‬H) “to burn up” II ‫“ א כ ל‬to devour”
Supp 6
a. il II bH (see R SP I, II 34)
b. After section c insert 2 Aqht 1:32-33; 11:21-22; V:30-31 (<CTA 17 1:3233‫ ;־‬II:
21-22; V :3031‫)־‬
bH II il
“Baal, lord” // “El, god”
c. Notes
For 2 Aqht V :30-33 the following stichometry is proposed:
bH hkpt The lord of Hkpt,
il klh the god of all of it,
tb* ktr lahlh Kothar departed for his tent;
hyn tb* ImSknth Hayyin departed for his tabernacle.
— 181 —
Compare 49 1:37 (CTA 6 1:65), wymlk bars il klh: “And he reigned in the
netherworld, the god of all of it.”
d. Bibliography
Cathcart, Nahum, p. 41.
Supp 7
a. il + msrm (see R SP I, II 37)

b. To section d add Ps 68:32
‫“ אלהי ם‬God” !‫“ מצרים ן‬E gypt”
Supp 8
a. il + rb (see R SP I, II 38)
b. To section b add 606:2; 608:31.
Supp 9
a. alp II tr (see R SP I, II 45)

b. In section d insert Sir 38:25.
Supp 10
a. an // ank (see R SP I, II 51)

b. After section g insert Jer 1:17-18
‫ “ אנכי‬1” . . . ‫ “ אני‬1”
Supp 11
a. ar // rb (see R SP I, II 60)
b. Comments
The efforts of de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, pp. 82-83, to dissociate ar
(II rb, “showers”) from “light” and to attach it to Arab. ’aryu, “dew,”
founder on the fact th at ‫ ר ב‬, “showers,” and ‫ או ר‬, “light,” concur in Job
36:28+30.
— 182 —
Supp 12
a. irby // hsn (see R SP I, II 61)

b. Bibliography
Y. Avishur, Semitics, II (1971-1972), 67 and n. 209.
Supp 13
a. ars + dbr (see R SP I, II 63)

b. After section f insert Jer 2:31
‫“ מ ד ב ר‬wilderness" // ‫“ אר ץ מ אפ לי ה‬land of utter gloom”
c. Comments
Here the parallelism reveals th at ‫ מ ד ב ר‬designates the nether wilder-
ness, just like Ug. dbr. In the next 1., the added motifs of descent (reading
‫ ע מי ירדנו‬with shared yod) and non-return sustain this interpretation.
Supp 14
a. ars 4 ‫ ־‬drkt (see R SP II, I 6)

b. After section c insert Isa 55:9
‫“ אר ץ‬earth ‫ ״‬. / / ‫“ ד ר ך‬way”
Supp 15
a. ars // kl (see R SP I, II 65)

b. After section e insert Amos 8:8; 9:5
‫“ אר ץ‬earth” // ‫“ כל״יד טבי בה‬all who dwell in i t ”
Supp 16
a. ars // 'pr (see R SP I, II 67)

b. Notes
Prov 8:26, ‫“ אר ץ‬earth” // ‫“ ע פ רו ת‬dust,” precludes emendation of 'n t 111:12,
,prt (// ars), to *prm. Thus the textcritical and philological control afforded
by parallel word pairs works to the benefit of Ug. as well as Heb. Similarly,
the oft-proposed deletion of the hapax fern, plural ‫ מ ט רו ת‬, “rains,” in Job
37:6 is confuted by 67 V:8 (CTA 5 V:8), mtrtk, “your rains.”
— 183 —
Supp 17
a. ars / / 's (see P S P I, II 68)

b. After section e insert Jer 11:19
‫ ״ ע ץ‬tree” . . . ‫“ אר ץ‬land‫״‬
c. Comments
The publication of text 607:64-65, ydy b'sm 'r'r wbsht's mt, “he hurled
the tamarisk with vigor, right into the Pit the tree of Death,” prompts the
suggestion th at the same motif underlies Jer 11:19:
‫נשחיתה ע ץ בל ח מו‬ Let us pit the tree in its vigor;
‫ונכרתנו מארץ חיים‬ let us cut it off from the land of life.
The consonants ‫ ל ח מו‬may be analyzed into ‫ ל ח‬, “freshness, vigor,” followed
by enclitic mem and suffix -6 (see Holladay, Lexicon, p. 175) or ‫ ל ח‬followed
by ‫ ~ מו‬construed as third masc. sing, suffix, a form discussed and documented
in Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 36.
Supp 18
a. ist I/ dbb (see R SP II, I 7)

b. After section d add I I Sam 23:7b
‫“ אש‬fire” II ‫“ שבת‬flame”
c. After section f add Jer 43:12
‫" אש‬fire” . . . ‫" שבב‬to calcine”
d. Comments
Recognition of the parallel pair, chiastically arranged, preserves ‫שבת‬,
“flame,” from deletion (cf. B H K ) in II Sam 23:7b:
‫ובאש שרוף‬ And in fire burning
‫ישרפו בשבת‬ they will be burnt by flame.
The fern, form ‫ שבת‬accords with dbb’s description as bt il, “the daughter
of E l,” in 'n t 111:43.
e. Jer 43:12 may now be translated: “And he shall kindle a fire (‫ )אש‬in
the temple of the gods of Egypt; and he shall bum them and calcine them
(‫ ;)ושבם‬and it will cover the land of Egypt just as the shepherd is covered
(read ‫ יע טה‬as passive) by his cloak; and he will proceed from there in safety.”
— 184 —
The fine white dust of the calcined Egyptian marble temples will cover the
land as completely as the cloak covers the shepherd.
f. I t might be added th at the purported first-person sufformative of MT
‫ והצתי‬may be parsed as the third singular dative suffix of advantage: hence
vocalize ‫ודןצתי‬, “and he shall kindle.”
Supp 19
a. at II ank (see R SP I, II 79)
b. To section e add I Sam 17:45.
c. After section e insert Jer 1:17
‫“ אתה‬you” . . . 1 “ ‫”אנכי‬
Supp 20
a. atm H an (see R SP I, II 82)
b. To section e add Job 13:3-4.
Supp 21
a. b II bn (see R SP I, II 95)
b. Notes
De Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 90, cites eight scholars incorrectly rendering
bn qrytmjqrtm, “sons of the two cities.” To his list may also be added E.
Lipinski, VT, XXIV (1974), 48, who translates bn qrytm, “les fils de deux
villes.” This widespread misinterpretation underscores the importance of
parallel pairs as a semantic guide. That it is a misinterpretation can be
deduced by comparing the description of the outdoor massacre in 'n t 11:5-7
with th at of the indoor slaughter in 'n t 11:29-30, where bbt, “in the house,”
is balanced by bn tlhnm, “sons of the two tables,” a conclusion to which
they would logically be forced were “sons of the two cities” the correct
version of bn qrytm/qrtm.
Supp 22
a. b l / l (see R SP I, II 99)
b. To section b add 127:10-11 (<CTA 16 VI:10-11).
— 185 —
I S u p p l. 23 Ras Shamra Parallels
c. To section f add Isa 48:10-11; Pss 11:2 (99:7 ;(‫ ; ב מו‬Job 39:18; Sir 10:5
‫ב‬, ‫“ במו‬from” // ‫“ ל‬to, a t”
d. After section f add Jer 18:15; Obad 21
‫“ ב‬from” . . . ‫“ ל‬to ”
e. Comments
The appreciation of this usage bids fair to improve the translation of
all these passages as well as to preclude the emendation of ‫ ב‬to p in some
of them. Thus Jer 18:15 may be rendered:
‫ויכעלו ם ב ד ר כי ה ם‬ Who cause them to lapse from their ways,
‫שבילי עול ם‬ the paths of old;
‫ל ל כ ת נתיבות‬ To travel bypaths,
‫ד ר ך ל א סלו ל ה‬ not the highway.
f. Emendation of ‫ בהר‬to ‫ מ ה ר‬, favored by both B H K and BH S, must
now be excluded in Obad 21:
‫ועלו מגזעים ב ה ר ציץ‬ And saviors shall go up from Mount Zion
‫ל שפט את׳“ הר ע&ו‬ to rule Mount Esau.
Supp 23
a. b II tht (see R SP I, II 101)
b. Bibliography
J. Scullion, UF, IV (1972), 110-111 (on Isa 57:5).
c. Comments
Ginsberg, Isaiah, p. 103, correctly renders Isa 57:5 “among the clefts
of the rocks,” and adds in n. d th at the Hebrew has “under” (‫) ת ח ת‬. Though
the lay reader may appreciate such a note, the specialist will find it unneces-
sary since ‫ ת ח ת‬, especially when balancing ‫ ב‬, also bears the meaning “among.”
d. In Job 30:14 this pair emerges if ‫ כ פ ר ץ‬, “like a breach,” is emended to
‫ ב פ ר ץ‬, “through a breach.”
‫ב פ ר ץ ר חב יאתיו‬ Through a wide breach they come;
‫תחת עזאה התגלגלו‬ amid a tempest they roll on.
Supp 24
a. bky /I dm' (see R SP I, II 105)
b. Bibliography
Hillers, Lamentations, p. 6 (on Earn 1:2).
— 186 —
c. Comments
B H S appears ill advised when recommending, on the strength of the
LXX, the deletion of ‫ ד מ ע ת ד מ ע‬, “it sheds bitter tears,” in Jer 13:17. De-
stroying the parallelism with ‫ ת ב כ ה‬, “it weeps,” such a deletion must be
scouted. B H K shows greater wisdom when merely recording the absence
of these words in the LXX and forgoing to recommend deletion.
Supp 25
a. bky + qbr (see R SP I, II 107)

b. After section d insert Gen 35:8
‫( קב ר‬N) “to be buried” . . . ‫“ בכות‬weeping”
Supp 26
a. VI ‫ן‬/ adn (see R SP I, II 120)

b. To section b add 'nt I I I :43-1V:46 (CTA 3 D 43-46).
c. Notes
Adopting the suggestion of M. Dijkstra, UF, II (1970), 334, th at mssu be
read for msss in 1. 45, I would read and render 'n t III :43-1V :46:
imths witrt hrs I smote and seized the gold
trd VI bmrym spn of him who drove Baal from the heights
of Zapan,
mssu k'sr udnh who caused his lordship to go forth like
a bird,
grsh Iksi mlkh who drove him from his royal throne.
See also ysa // grs (I 137).
Supp 27
a. bsr /‫ ן‬smh (see R SP I, II 126)

b. After section e insert I I Sam 1:20
‫( בעור‬D) “to bear tidings” . . . ‫“ שמח‬to rejoice”
c. Comments
For other Canaanite usages in this lament, see Freedman, Widengren
F S I, pp. 115-126.
— 187 —
Supp 28
a. bt . . . ars (see R SP I, II 127)

b. To section d add Gen 24:7.
c. To section e add Mic 6:4.
Supp 29
a. bt II 'rk (see R SP I, II 133)

b. To section f add I I Sam 23:5.
‫“ בית‬house” . . . ‫( ע ר ך‬Gp) “to be ordered”
c. Comments
Pope, Job3, p. 203, appreciates the bearing of the Ug. parallelism on
the definition of ‫ ע ר כ ה‬in Job 28:13. In previous editions of his work Pope
emended ‫ ע ר כ ה‬, usually taken to mean “its price,” to ‫ ד ר כ ה‬, “its way,” on
the basis of the LXX. He now restores MT ‫ ע ר כ ה‬and translates “its abode.”
(Another example of a LXX-Ug. conflict resolved in favor of the latter!
For further instances of this conflict, see Dahood, Gordon FS, pp. 53-58.)
The N E B , however, continues to emend ‫ ע ר כ ה‬to ‫ ד ר כ ה‬, failing to avail itself
of the new evidence. See Brockington, Hebrew Text, p. 112.
Supp 30
a. bt II tgr (see R SP I, II 137)

b. After section f insert 601:11-12
tgr bt il
“the porter of E l’s house”
c. To section i add Gen 28:17.
Supp 31
a. gpn . . . Mmt (see R SP I, II 143)

b. Bibliography
T. Gaster, JAO S, EXVI (1946), 56 (on Deut 32:32 and Isa 16:8).
— 188 —
Ugaiitic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs I Suppl. 32
c. Comments
B H K ’s proposal to emend ‫דמו ת‬# in Isa 16:8 to ‫ ד ד ה‬# must be declined
as destructive of this parallel pair.
Supp 32
a. dbh II ndr (see R SP I, II 148)

b. To section d add I Sam 1:21; Isa 19:21.
Supp 33
a. dm II np$ (see R SP I, II 155)

b. Correct section a dm . . . nps to dm // nps, section b to 3 Aqht ‘obv’:23-25, 34-36
(CTA 18 IV :23-25, 34-36), and section c to ‘‫׳‬blood‫ ״‬// “soul.”
c. To section f add Prov 1:18.
Supp 34
a. hlk + drs (see R SP I, II 164)

b. To section e add I Sam 28:7.
Supp 35
a. w U p (see R SP I, II 171)
b. To section b add 67 1:25-26 {CTA 5 1:25-26).
c. Notes
M. Dahood, Or, X L III (1974), 413, analyzes the P of 67 1:26 as conversive.
For a biblical instance of ‫ פ‬conversive, see Hos 7:1:
‫וגנב יבוא‬ And the thief will come,
‫ט גדוד בחוץ‬# ‫פ‬ and a band of ruffians will roam in the
streets.
When consonantal ‫ט‬# ‫ פ‬is separated into ‫ פ‬conversive and the third singular
perfect ‫ט‬# from ‫וט‬#, "to roam,” there emerges the parallelism between
‫ בוא‬and ‫וט‬# th at occur in parallelism and in the same order in Job 2:2;
cf. also Job 5:21.
— 189 —
d. To section e add Ps 64:8.

e. Comments
See Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 103 and 106, for translation and grammat-
ical analysis of Ps 64:8.
Supp 36
a. hwy /I ark (see R SP I, II 173)
b. Notes
Caquot, TOML, p. 284, n. n, also reads wnar\k] in 76 11:20 and cites Eccles
7:15 and 8:12, which employ ‫( א ר ך‬H causative) without any object. This
confutes the claim of D. Marcus, JS S , X V II (1972), 82, th at “in no Semitic
language in which this idiom occurs . . . can the substantive ‘length’ stand
by itself for the idiom ‘length of days’.” Van Zijl, Baal, p. 246, also reads
wnar[k], but erroneously derives it from rkk, “to be tender, submissive.”
The reading and interpretation of 76 11:20 are further confirmed by the
concurrence of Phoen. ‫ ח ד‬and ‫ א ר ך‬in KAI 4 : 2 1 0 : 9 ;3 ‫־‬.
Supp 37
a. hy II it (see R SP I, II 181)
b. After section c insert I I Sam 14:19
‫“ חי‬alive” II #‫“ א‬exists”
c. Comments
This parallelism shows th at consonantal ‫ אעז‬is not to be emended to
‫ יע‬or ‫ איע‬.
Supp 38
a. hy + (see R SP I, II 182)
b. To section e add Prov 8:35-36.
Supp 39
a. hym . . . ytn (see R SP I, II 185)
b. To section d add Ps 118:17-18
‫“ חיה‬to live” !‫“ נתן ן‬to give”
— 190 —
c. After section d insert Ps 72:15

‫“ חיה‬to live” + ‫“ נתן‬to give”
d. To section e add Ps 66:9
‫“ חיים‬life” . . . ‫“ נתן‬to give”
e. Comments
The parallelism of the two verbs in Ps 118:17-18 comes to light when
the four cola are read chiastically with an A:B:B:A pattern (see R SP I,
II 221 e; 331 d).
Supp 40
a. hkm I/ ysr (see R SP I, II 188)

b. Notes
Cazelles, Ug. VI, p. 31, accepts the generally received translation of 51 V:
65-66, but also suggests an alternate version: “O El, certes ta sagesse est
grande, certes tu pourras ecarter pour toi la blancheur de ta barbe.” The
elimination of the parallelism hkm // ysr suffices to disqualify the candidacy
of the alternate proposal.
Supp 41
a. him /I drt-dhrt (see R SP I, II 192)

b. After section e insert Job 20:8-9
‫“ חלום‬dream” . . . *Tltf ‘‘to see”
Supp 42
a. hs + rhq (see R SP I, II 202)
b. To section e add Ps 71:12.
Supp 43
a. yd /I brk (see R SP I, II 214)

. b. After section e insert Ps 95:6-7.
— 191 —
c. Comments
Ps 95:6 contains in ‫נ ב ר כ ה‬, ‘let us kneel,” a denominative verb from
‫ ב ר ך‬, ‘‘knee.” The proposal to delete ‫( נ ב רכ ה‬see BH K) or to emend it with
the LXX to ‫נ ב כ ה‬, “let us weep” (see BHS), would of course destroy the
association of these two words in these w .
Supp 44
a. yd . . . bsr (see R SP I, II 215)
b. Before section a insert yd // bsr
77:8-9 (CTA 24:8-9)
“penis” II “flesh”
c. Notes
Restoring the text to read:
lydh tzd For his member she grew hot,
[ks]pt Ibirh she longed for his flesh.
On tzd see van Seims, Marriage and Family, p. 17, n. 13. The restoration
kspt is prompted by Ps84:3, where ‫ כ ס ף‬, (N) “to long for,” and ‫ב שר‬, “flesh,”
concur. Of course, bsr, “flesh,” may here more precisely denote the male
organ, as occasionally in Heb.
Supp 45
a. yd II hrb (see R SP I, II 216)
b. To section e add Ps 17:13-14.
c. Comments
The longstanding proposal to join Ps 17:13, ‫ ח ר ב ך‬, “your sword,” to
v. 14 (cf. LXX) results in its parallelism with ‫י ד ך‬, "your hand,” and should
be considered a step toward the light.
‫ח ר ב ך ממתים‬ By your sword may they be slain!
‫י ד ך יהרה ממתים‬ By your hand, Yahweh, may they be
slain!
Supp 46
a. yd II Sm (see R SP I, I I 219)
b. In section d may belong Num 24:23-24.
— 192 —
c. After section f insert Isa 29:23

T “hand” . . . 0 0 “name”
d. To section g add Isa 65:1-2.
Supp 47
a. yd' + hlk (see R SP I, II 222)

b. To section e add Ps 82:5
‫“ י ד ע‬to know” If ‫( ה ל ך‬HtD) “to walk about”
c. To section f add Jer 10:23; Ps 142:4 (‫[ ה ל ך‬D])

‫“ י ד ע‬to know” . . . ‫“ ה ל ך‬to walk” ; (D) “to have to walk”
Supp 48
a. y m / l y r h (see R SP I, II 232)
b. To section g add Ps 72:7
‫“ יום‬day” . . . ‫“ ירח‬moon”
c. Comments
The proposal to emend ‫ ירח‬to ‫״ יחק‬,measure,” in view of Isa 5:14 (see
BHK) is discountenanced by this observation.
Supp 49
a. yn II hms (see R SP I, II 244)

b. After section e insert Hos 7:4-5
‫“ חמץ‬to ferment” . . . ‫" יין‬wine”
Supp 50
a. yra 11 t f (see R SP I, II 254)

b. Bibliography
H. Ginsberg, Or, V (1936), 170, n. 1.
R. O’Callaghan, CBQ, X I (1949), 236, 241.
— 193 —
van Zijl, Baal, pp. 166-169.

L. Boadt, CBQ, XXXV (1973), 23, n. 13.
c. Comments
Delete the first sentence of section g: “The same pair occurs in paral-
lelism in Phoenician Karatepe, 11:4” (KAI 26 A 11:4).
Supp 51
a. ytn // b'l (see R SP I, II 263a)

b. After section e insert Job 36:3
‫“ פ ע ל‬to make” + ‫“ נתן‬to give”
Supp 52
a. ytn // Iqh (see R SP I, II 266)

b. After section c insert Iqh // ytn
Krt:203-206 (1CTA 14 IV:203-206)
“to take” II “to give”
c. Bibliography
Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, p. 152.
Supp 53
a. ytb II zll (see R SP I, II 270)

b. Change section a to mtb // mzll.
c. To section b add 51 1:13-14, 17-18 {CTA 4 1 : 1 3 1 7 - 1 8 ,14‫' ;)־‬nt pi. VI:IV:1-2,
3-4; V:47-48, 49-50 {CTA 3 E :l-2, 3-4, 47-48, 49-50).
d. Change section c to “dwelling” // “shelter.”
e. To section d add Hos 14:8.
f. Comments
A difficult phrase, Hos 14:8 may be pointed and rendered:
‫זבו יקזבי ? צ לו‬£ Its inhabitants will sit in its shade.
The suffix of ‫ ישבי‬is parsed as third-person -y.
— 194 —
Supp 54
a. ytb II nh (see R SP I, II 273)

b. Bibliography
van Zijl, Baal, p. 219, n. 4.
c. In section i the collocation sign should be changed to since ‫מנוחתי‬,

“my resting place,” really parallels ‫אעז ב‬, “I shall sit.”
Supp 55
a. k II k (see R SP I, II 277)
b. To section d add Prov 23:31.
Supp 56
a. k I/ k (see R S P I, II 279)
b. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, I N (1974), 79 (on Gen 18:20; 49:7).
c. To section e add Gen 18:20; 49:7/ Ps 18:28-29.
d. Comments
Though the set practice has been to list only five biblical texts wit-
nessing the parallel pair in question, these additional passages are cited
because of their inherent interest. For Gen 18:20 and 49:7, see Freedman’s
translation of Gen in the revised N A B (1972). Ps 18:28, ‫ כי ״ א ת ה‬, and II Sam
22:28, ‫ו א ת‬, can be reconciled.if the latter is repointed to ‫ו את‬, “you your-
self,” and the wdw parsed as emphatic, corresponding to the emphatic ‫כי‬
of Ps 18:28.
Supp 57
a. klyt + lb (see R S P I, II 286)

b. After section d add Isa 32:5-6
‫“ כי ל‬kidney, disposition” 11 ‫“ ל ב‬heart”
— 195 —
14
c. Comments
The apparent parallelism with ‫ ל בו‬, “his heart” (v. 6), prompts the
suggestion th at unexplained ‫ כי לי‬is a masc. byform of ‫ כ לי ה‬, so th at the cola
in question would read:
‫ וע‬1‫ ו לכי לי ל א יאמר ע‬And don’t call his disposition generous...
‫ ולבו יע &ה־און‬for his heart works iniquity.
The suffix of ‫ כי לי‬would parse as third sing -y, stylistically pairing with
the normal third suffix of ‫ ל בו‬.
d. In Isa 32:7, ‫ כ לי כליו רעים‬would be rendered “his heart of hearts is
evil,” an unexceptionable counterpart of ‫ מות יעץ‬1 ‫ הו א‬, “he devises wicked
devices.”
Supp 58
a. ks + yn (see R SP I, II 294)
b. Comments
Compare with Prov 23:31 the juxtaposition of these nouns in the broken
construct chain of 51 IV:46 (CTA 4 IV:46):
kin yn nbl ksh All of us bring wine for his chalice.
Supp 59
a. ksu + mlk (see R SP I, II 299)

b. To section h add Prov 16:12.
Supp 60
a. ksp + mhr (see R SP I, II 303)

b. From section f Mic 3:11 should be inserted after section d
‫“ מחיר‬price” 11 ‫“ כ ס ף‬silver”
Supp 61
a. III in (see R SP I, II 310)

b. To section d add Gen 2:5; Ps 31:2.
c. To section e add I I Sam 20:1; Eccles 1:11.
— 196 —
Supp 62
a. III l (see R SP I, II 313)

b. To section b add R S 24.266 rev:18-19 (C R A IB L , 1972, 694).
Supp 63
a. 11/1 (see R S P I, II 314)

b. To section e add Prov 11:19.
c. Comments
Dahood, Proverbs, pp. 22-23, examines the emphatic quality of ‫ ל‬// ‫ל‬
in Prov 11:19.
Supp 64
a. mhr // itnn (see R SP I, II 346)

b. Bibliography
Y. Avishur, UF, IV (1972), 4, n. 26.
Supp 65
a. mkk II dip (see R SP I, II 355)

b. In section d insert “p. 22” after “Gordon, U T ,” so as to read “pp. 22, 180.”
Supp 66
a. mlk II adn (see R SP I, II 357)

b. After section k insert Ps 110:5
‫ ׳ אדון‬%ord” . . . ‫“ מ ל ך‬king”
c. Comments
The deletion of ‫ ה מ ל ך‬, “the king,” in Ps 45:12, recommended by both
B H K and BHS, would destroy the parallelism of ‫ מ ל ך‬and ‫ א דון‬, and hence
should surely be scouted.
— 197 —
Supp 67
a. mlk + ars (see R SP I, II 358)
b. To section e add Isa 33:17

‫ ״ מ ל ך‬king‫ ״‬/ / ‫“ א ר ץ‬land”
Supp 68
a. mgy . . . npl (see R SP I, II 367)
b. To section e add Isa 13:15

‫( מצ א‬N) “to be found” . . . ‫“ נ פ ל‬to fall”
Supp 69
a. mri + ilm (see R SP II, I 38)
b. Comments
In addition to the breakup of the composite phrase, Isa 1:11 illustrates
the infelicity of Gordon’s translation of 124:13, mri ilm, “fatlings of the
gods,” in UT, § 8.7, but happily corrected to "fatling rams” in UMC, p. 142.
Supp 70
a. mt + nps (see R SP I, II 374a)
b. After section c insert mt . . . nps

67 1:13-14 (CTA 5 1:13-14); 604:2
“Death” . . . “soul”
c. After section e insert Prov 8:36

‫“ נפש‬life” 11 ‫“ מות‬death‫״‬
d. After section e insert Job 36:14

‫“ מות‬to die” + ‫“ נפש‬life”
e. To section g add Prov 19:16

‫“ נפש‬life” . . . ‫“ מות‬to die”
— 198 —
Supp 71
a. nbt /I smn (see R SP I, II 376)

b. After section i insert Cant 4:10-11
‫” ע מן‬oil” . . . ‫“ נפת‬honey”
Supp 72
a. npi /I mt (see R SP I, II 387)
b. To section d add Jer 21:9: Ezek 6:12.

c. After section d insert Job 1:19
‫“ נפל‬to fail” . . . ‫“ מות‬to die‫״‬
d. After section d insert Prov 7:26-27

‫( נ פ ל‬H) “to cast down” . . . ‫“ מות‬death”
Supp 73
a. nps // gngn (see R SP I, II 387a)

b. Notes
In his long note on gngn, which he equates with knkn and defines as “inner-
most,” J. Hoftijzer, UF, IV (1972), 157, n. 17, fails to discuss the biblical
parallelism. Attention to this parallelism would doubtless have led Hoftijzer
to a different conclusion.
Supp 74
a. spr II yd' (see R SP I, II 400)

b. To section g add Ps 59:13-14
‫( ס פ ר‬N) “to be proscribed” . . . ‫“ י ד ע‬to know”
c. Comments
See Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 73, for revocalization of MT ‫ לספרו‬in
Ps 59:13.
— 199 —
Supp 75
a. spr II mnt (see R SP I, II 401)
b. Bibliography
van Zijl, Baal, p. 271, n. 9 (on Num 23:10; I Kings 3:8; 8:5).
Supp 76
a. 'bd I/ bn amt (see R SP I, II 404)
b. Bibliography
Y. Avishur, UF, IV (1972), 9, n. 43.
Supp 77
a. 'gl /I imr (see R SP I, II 408)
b. To section b add 124:13-14 (1CTA 22 B:13-14); 602 obv:9-10.
c. Notes
602 obv:9-10 may be restored and translated:
aklt 'gl She ate a heifer—
7 mst during the banquet—
[im]r spr beautiful lambs.
The phrase 7 m§t is scanned as a two-way middle, and [im]r spr identified
with Gen 49:21, ‫ אמרי־עזפר‬.
Supp 78
a. 'd /I ksu (see R SP I, II 409)
b. To section g add Ps 89:37-38.
c. Comments
For philological details on Ps 89:37-38, consult Dahood, Psalms I I ,
p. 318.
Supp 79
a. 'dr + yd (see R SP II, I 46)
b. After section e insert Isa 31:3
T “hand” . . . ‫“ ע ח ר‬helper” // ‫“ עזר‬helped one”
— 200 —
Supp 80
a. 7 II ft (see R SP I, II 417)
b. After section d insert Amos 6:6
‫ ״ ב‬from” / / ‫“ ע ל‬over”
c. Comments
In Amos 6:6, ‫ השתים במזרקי יץ‬, “who drink wine from the bowl,” the
ending of ‫ מזרקי‬is parsed as the archaic genitive.
Supp 81
a. 7m II dr dr (see R SP I, II 425)
b. Transfer Sir 44:13-14 from section g to e.
c. Comments
In Exod 3:15 ‫ ד ר ד ר‬adhers to the Ug. pattern dr dr, without the inter-
vening copula. Hence Sam ‫ ד ר וד ר‬may be judged an inferior reading.
Relevant too are the remarks found in Orlinsky, Torah, p. 153, on Exod
3:15: “The synonymous parallelism alone (ledor dor/le'olam) is sufficient
to point to two lines of poetry in the second half of the verse.”
Supp 82
a. 'mq II qryt / qrt (see R SP I, II 431a)

b. Notes
De Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 90, recognizes th at the phrase bn qrytmjqrtm
means “between the two cities” and not “sons of the two cities.” See ft //
bn (I Supp 21) for details.
Supp 83
a. 'n I/ hdy (see R S P I, II 432)

b. After section f insert Job 19:27
‫“ חזה‬to gaze” . . . ‫“ עינים‬eyes”
c. After section f insert Job 20:8-9
‫“ חזיון‬vision” . . . ‫“ ע ץ‬eye”
— 201 —
Supp 84
a. *n II qr (see R S P I, II 434)
b. Bibliography
Y. Avishur, UF, IV (1972), 2, n. 7 (on Prov 25:26).
Supp 85
a. 'n II ris (see R SP I, II 435)

b. To section e add Cant 5:11-12.
c. After section e insert Job 2:12
‫“ ע ץ‬eye" . . . fifrn “head”
Supp 86
a. 'wy I/ tb (see R SP I, II 438)

b. After section f insert Ps 55:20
‫“ ענה‬to answer” / / ‫( ’שוב‬H) “to reply”
c. Comments
When MT ‫ וישב‬is repointed to ‫ רשב‬the bicolon reads: “El heard me
and answered; the Primeval sent his reply.”
Supp 87
a. 'p'p . . . *» (see R S P I, II 440)

b. Notes
M. Dahood, Bib, L (1969), 351-352, gives new evidence for ,p'p, “pupil.”
Supp 88
a. gr + slm (see R SP I, II 452)

b. Bibliography
Gray, Legacy2, p. 267.
— 202 —
c. Comments
Whitaker, Concordance, pp. 452-453, may be faulted for subsuming all
instances of tgrk (+ tslmk) under ngr. Seven of the scholars cited in the
Bibliography find the parallelism in Job 8:6 sufficient ground for deriving
tgr from gyr = ‫ עי ר‬. No one questions th at Ug. also possessed ngr, “to
protect” = ‫נ צ ר‬, and Deut 32:10-11 employs both these roots in tandem:
‫יצרנהו כ איזון ע עו‬ He protects him like the apple of his eye;
‫כנשר יעיר קנו‬ like an eagle he safeguards his nest.
Supp 89
a. p /I w (see R SP I, I I 454)
b. Bibliography
Supp 90
a. pit II 'dr (see R SP I, II 460)

b. Bibliography
Y. Avishur, UF, IV (1972), 10, n. 46.
Supp 91
a. sdq /I ysr (see R SP I, II 476)
b. Notes
Disregard for the parallelism by Dietrich and Loretz, Elliger FS, pp. 32, 34,
results in a most improbable stichometry and interpretation of K rt: 12-14:
att sdqh Seine rechtmassige Frau—
lypq mtrht nicht h at er weggeschickt die m it
Brautpreis Erworbene,
ysrh att trh vertrieben die Frau des Brautpreises—
wtb't (und sie) ist (doch) gegangen.
The authors make ysrh parallel to ypq and identify it with the verb £rh at-
tested once elsewhere but with a disputed meaning.
— 203 —
Supp 92
a. spn I/ ars (see R SP I, II 479)

b. To section e add Jer 1:14.
Supp 93
a. qU . . . Isn (see R SP I, II 489)

b. Comments
This entry should be deleted because tql in 2 Aqht VI :50 is preferably
derived from a middle yod root, qila, and hence to be dissociated from ‫ ק ל ל‬,
‘‘to curse.” See above Isn // [qll\ (I 180).
Supp 94
a. riS II kp (see R SP I, II 510)

b. Bibliography
W. Watson, VT, X X II (1972), 460468‫־‬.
c. After section c insert Isa 9:13; 19:15 (Watson)
Bftn “head” / / ‫“ כ פ ה‬frond”
Supp 95
a. rmm (irtm) // tV (see R SP I, II 521)

b. Notes
J. Hoftijzer, UF, IV (1972), 156, n. 8, writes: “In my opinion, rightly, de
Moor, [Seasonal Pattern], p. 133 has pointed to the parallelism between
’irtm (when derived from rmm) and tVm.”
Supp 96
a. sal . . . knn (see R SP I, II 526)

b. Comments
Pope, Job9, pp. 6 5 6 6 ‫־‬, writes: “The reading bonen for MT konen adopted
in previous editions appears to have been mistaken in view of the association
of sal and knn in Ugaritic.” See also Michel, Job, p. 289, on Job 8:8.
— 204 —
Ugaritic-Hebrevv Parallel Pairs I Suppl. 97
Supp 97
a. Sb' II skr (see R S P I, II 529)

b. Comments
F. Luciani, Aevum, XLV (1972), 498-501, argues from a H ittite paral-
lelism th at ‫ ל שכרה‬in Hag 1:6 does not signify “to drunkenness,” but merely
“to slaking one’s thirst.” Luciani would have been well advised to discuss
the Semitic parallel pair as well, which would have modified his conclusion.
Supp 98
a. Sm + bn (see R SP I, II 547)
b. To section b add 52:21-22 {CTA 23:21-22).
c. After section d insert Gen 16:11; Exod 2:22; I I Sam 12:24; Isa 7:14
‫“ ק‬son” II ‫“ ישם‬name”
d. After section d insert Job 30:8
‫“ בן‬son” + ‫“ שם‬name”
Supp 99
a. Smh // shq (see R SP I, II 553)

b. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, X LV II (1966), 267.
Cathcart, Nahum, p. 36, n. 4.
c. After section c insert Prov 14:13; Eccles 2:2 (Dahood, Cathcart)
‫“ שח)ו(ק‬laughter” // ‫“ שמחה‬joy”
d. After section d insert Eccles 10:19
‫ ק‬1‫“ ע(ח‬laughter” . . . ‫( שמח‬D) “to gladden”
Supp 100
a. Sm' /I ahb (see R SP I, II 566)

b. After section d insert Deut 30:20
‫“ א ה ב‬to love” II ‫“ שמע‬to obey”
— 205
Supp 101
a. snt /I nqpt (see R SP I, II 573)

b. Bibliography
Y. Avishur, Semitics, II (1971-1972), 62.
Xella, Shr e Sim, p. 75.
Supp 102
a. Spt II Isn (see R S P I, II 579)

b. Bibliography
Y. Avishur, Semitics, II (1971-1972), 63.
Supp 103
a. SrS . . . ars (see R SP I, II 584)

b. After section e insert Isa 11:9-10
‫“ אר ץ‬earth” // Ehtf “root”
Supp 104
a. st . . . qdm (see R SP I, II 585)

b. To section b add 51 V:107 (CTA 4 V:107).
Supp 105
a. tht II 7 (see R SP I, II 589)

b. To section e add I Kings 14:23
‫“ ע ל‬on” II ‫“ תחת‬under”
— 206 —
Ch apter II
UGARITIC FORMULAE
by
R ichard E . W h ita k er
INTRODUCTION
a. The classification of items in this study in general is by their use in the

Ugaritic texts. Since over 50% of the poetry of Ugarit is composed of formulae
and another 30% is formulaic, we can only discuss Hebrew passages which retain
their formulaic character. It is imperative th at we define “formula” in terms
of the literature from Ugarit and what we will consider an “occurrence” within
the Hebrew Bible.
b. H. L. Ginsberg, Or, V (1936), 164, was the first to isolate certain expres-
sions in Ugaritic and to note the similarity between their use at Ugarit and the
use of formulae in Homer. According to the studies by Parry (L ’epithete‫׳‬, HSCP,
X U [1930], 73-147, and X L III [1932], 1-50), Lord (Singer), and others, the
poetic formulae are tools which allow poets who create extemporaneously to
compose rapidly. W ithin Greek and Slavic poetry they provide phrases, lines
and even series of lines which are of proper metrical shape to fit the demands
of the poetic tradition.
c. While it is not possible to get a consensus on what the metrical demands
of the Ugaritic poetic tradition include, we can arrive at a description of some
of the kinds of formulae which are found there. P. Yoder, VT, X X I (1971),
480, has argued th a t the fixed parallel pair ought to be considered the basic for-
mula in Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry. There is some justification for this, and
Mitchell Dahood’s work on parallel pairs is included in these volumes. We will,
however, use a more restricted definition here.
d. We will examine two types of formulae in Ugaritic. The first is the series
of units which forms a full colon or a full lin e .1 These formulae normally in
1 Following W. Iy. Holladay, J B L , L X X X V (1966), 403, we refer to a word with its prefixes and suf-
fixes as a “unit” ; a series of units, most often forming a syntactic unity within which there is either no
parallelism at all, or else parallelism of merely secondary importance, as a “colon” ; and to a group of two
or three, occasionally four, cola between which there is normally a pattern of parallelism, as a “line.”
— 209 —
II Intro Ras Shamra Parallels
troduce or describe common actions in the narrative without including the name
of the actor:
49 111:16 (CTA 6 111:16); 51 IV:28 (CTA 4 IV:28); 2 Aqht 11:10 (CTA 17
11: 10)
yfrq Isb wyshq He parts his teeth and laughs.
e. The second type of formula describes an action, but allows for the inclusion
of the name of the subject or object or of a descriptive unit.
Object:
49 1:8-10 (CTA 6 1:36-38); 51 IV:25-26 (CTA 4 IV:25-26); etc.
ip'n il thbr wtql At the foot of El she bows and falls down;
tUhwy wtkbd(n)h She prostrates herself and honors him.
'n t V I:18-20 (CTA 3 F:18-20)
Ip'n kt(r> hbr wql At the foot of Kothar bow and fall down;
tUhwy wkbd hwt Prostrate yourself and honor him.
Subject:
'n t 11:17-18 (CTA 3 B:17-18)
whin 'nt Ibth tmgyn Then Anat reaches her house;
tstql ilt Ihklh Arrives the goddess at her temple.
1 Aqht:170-171 (CTA 19 IV:170-171); 2 Aqht 11:24-25 (CTA 17 11:24-25)
dnil <lybth ymgyn Daniel reaches his house;
ystql dnil Ihklh Arrives Daniel at his temple.
Other:
Krt:106 (CTA 14 111:106); cf. Krt:207-208 (CTA 14 IV:207-208); etc.
Ik ym wtn Go a day and a second,
tit rb' ym A third, a fourth day.
Krt:218-219 (CTA 14 V:218-219)
dm ym wtn Then a day and a second,
tit rb' ym A third, a fourth day.
It will be noted th at in this type of formula the variable element (s) in any par-
ticular formula always comes in the same line position.
f. A third type of formula is the epithet, here defined (after Parry) as the
phrase of two or more words which identifies the characters or places in the nar-
rative. 2 Epithets may be paired. Often an epithet or name which does not oc-
cupy a full colon is paired with one which does.
2 We will not treat this type of formula in this chapter, since Cooper and Pope discuss *‘divine names
and epithets’‫ ״‬in R S P III, IV. It should be noted that divine names are included in our definition of epithet.
The only Ug.-Heb. epithet of formulaic value which we have discovered is rkb 'rpt // ‫ת‬1‫( רכב >ב<ערב‬Ps 68:5;
see below, R S P III, IV 40).
— 210 —
Ugaritic Formulae II Intro
Partial colon:
125:46 (CTA 16 1:46)
aynk gzr ilhu Thereupon the hero Ilhu . . .
125:83 (CTA 16 11:83)
wy'ny gzr [ilhu] Then answers the hero Ilhu . . .
Partial colon with full colon:
137:33-34 (CTA 2 1:33-34); cf. 137:17 (CTA 2 1:17)
thm ym b'lkm The word of Sea your Lord,
adnkm tpt nhr Your master judge River.
137:45 (CTA 2 1:45)
an! rgmt lym b'lkm I say to Sea your Lord,
a[dnkm tpt nhr] Yo[ur master judge River].
Partial cola parallel:
67 V I:9-10 (CTA 5 VI:9-10); cf. 49 1:13-15 (CTA 6 1:41-43)
mt aliyn b'l Dead is Aliyan Baal;
hlq zbl b'l ars Perished the prince, lord of earth.
'n t 1:2-4 (CTA 3 A :2-4)
'bd ali[yn] b'l Serve Ali[yan] Baal;
sid zbl b'l ars Honor the prince, lord of earth.
g. Note th at the forms of units vary within the same formula, even to the
extent of suffixed vs. independent pronouns.
I t is apparent th at the formulae which occupy parts of two cola will most
often be completed by the use of a parallel pair of words. Formulae themselves
often contain parallel pairs. They are therefore as im portant as building blocks
for the poet as are the structures we would call formulae.
h. It remains then to distinguish these formulae from literary phrases. In
examining literary phrases one is concerned with the continuity of meaning
th at the phrase carries. In examining formulae one is concerned about the con-
tinuity of the structural unit. Since the formulae come out of a poetic context
in Ugaritic and are often found in a prose setting in Hebrew we would expect
th at the structure would not always be perfectly intact. The surprising thing
is th at they are recognizable at all.
i. Since literary phrases may also be formulae, we will not discuss at any
length the passages already treated by Schoors, “Literary Phrases”, R SP I,
Chapter 1. We will, however, note them at the end of this chapter in a “Sup-
plement” to R SP I, I. 3
3 The formula hnn il // ‫( חגבי יהרה‬see R S P I, I 37) is not included in the Supplement, since we have
nothing to add to Schoors's comments.
— 211 —
15
II 1 Ras Shamra Parallels
LIST OF EN TRIES
1. 49 1:4; etc.
2. 49 1:11; etc.
3. 51 11:12; etc
4. 'n t 11:38-40
Supplement
ENTRIES
a. 49 1:4; I V :31 (CTA 6 1:32; IV:31); 51 I V :20; V:84 (CTA 4 IV:20; V:84);
67 1:9-10 (CTA 5 1:9-10); etc.
b. Text Translation
idk lyjttn pnm Then he/she/they set (his/her/their) face.
c. Bibliography
U. Cassuto, Tarbiz, X III (1941-1942), 201 [= Studies II, pp. 22-23].
E. Ullendorff, B JR L , XLVI (1963), 241.
d• Gen 31:21
‫וישם א ת־ פניו‬ Then he set his face
‫הר הגל עד‬ Toward the mountains of Gilead.
e. I I Kings 12:18 (cf. Dan 11:17, 18)
‫וישם חזאל פניו‬ Then Hazael set his face
‫ל ע לו ת ע ל־י רו ע ל ם‬ To go up against Jerusalem.
f. Jer 42:15
‫שום תשמון פניכם‬ You shall surely set your face
‫ל ב א מצרי ם‬ To go to Egypt.
g. I I Chron 20:3
‫ד תן יהושפט א ת־ פניו‬ Then Jehoshaphat set his face
‫לדרו ש ליהוה‬ To seek the l o r d .
Cassuto: In Ug. this is a formula for beginning a new section when the poet
is going to tell of the journey and what was done in another place.
— 212 —
Ugaritic Formulae II 2
Traces of this formula can be recognized in Gen 31:21 and II Kings

12:18; it is used figuratively in II Chron 20:3. Outside of narrative
it is found in Dan 11:17, 18.
Ullendorff: Gen 31:21 is an identical introductory formula to th at found
in Ug., and the Gen passage is only one of the places this occurs in Heb.
h. Comments
The idiom “setting one’s face” has several uses in Heb. One of these,
using Dlfe or ‫נתן‬, is identical in meaning with the Ug. formula. The order
of the common elements in the Ug. and Heb. formulae is the same, but
the metrical shape is not, since the Heb. lacks anything corresponding to
idk. Jer 42:15 comes the closest with the use of the infinitive absolute. The
Heb. formula allows the inclusion of the name of the subject, while the
Ug. does not. Formally, then, we must list these as variants of the same
formula.
i. The Ug. formula is always followed by a prepositional phrase with 'm
or tk indicating the destination of the journey. Gen 31:21 is close to this,
but the other Heb. passages follow the formula with an infinitive construct,
so th at the face is “set toward” an action rather than a place. Functionally
these must be listed as variants of the same formula.
a. 49 1:11; 11:11-12; 111:17; I V :33; V.10-11 (CTA 6 1:39; 11:11-12; 111:17; IV:33;
V:10-ll); etc.
b. Text Translation
yjtsu gh yjtsh H e/she/they lifted his/her/their voice
and called.
c. Bibliography
U. Cassuto, Tarbiz, X III (1941-1942), 202 [ = Studies II, pp. 24-25].
d. Gen 39:15 (cf. Gen 39:18)
‫ויהי כשמעו כי־ ה רי מ תי קולי‬ When he heard th at I raised my voice
‫ואקרא‬ and called . . .
e. Judg 9:7
‫ויעוא קולו ויקרא‬ He lifted his voice and called.
— 213 —
II 3 Ras Shamra Parallels
Cassuto: This is the normal formula in Ug. poetry for introducing heroic
speeches, but this expression is not appropriate to ordinary humans.
Nonetheless we get a reuse of this formula in Heb. where it is used of
a loud call, as when Jotham speaks from the mountain and we get a
“word for word” repetition of the Ug. formula (Judg 9:7). There is
a similar one using ‫ הרים‬to translate KtM in the accounts of Potiphar’s
wife telling of her cries for help (Gen 39:15, 18).
Ullendorff: This is one of the “stereotyped formulae” in Ug. and Heb. Judg
9:7 gives a “precise equivalent” of the Ug.
f. Comments
While Cassuto is more precise in noting the slight differences of function
of the formula in Ug. and Heb., we would concur with Ullendorff th at this
is the translation equivalent of the same formula in both literatures.
a. 51 11:12 (CTA 4 11:12); 1 Aqht:28-29, 76, 134-135 (CTA 19 1:28-29; II: 76; III:
134-135); 2 Aqht V:9 (CTA 17 V:9); etc.
Cf. 76 11:14, 27 (iCTA 10 11:14, 27).
b. Text Translation
bnsi 'nh wy/tphn When he/she lifts up his/her eyes he/she
sees.
Cf. wy /tsu ’nh w y j t ’n Then he/she raises his/her eyes and looks.
c. Bibliography
U. Cassuto, Tarbiz, X III (1941-1942), 200 [= Studies II, pp. 20-22].
E. Ullendorff, B JR L, XLVI (1963), 241.
d. Gen 18:2; 24:63; 43:29 (cf. Gen 37:25)
‫וישא עיניו וירא‬ Then he lifts his eyes and sees.
e. Gen 24:64
‫עיני ה ותרא‬-‫ ותשא רב קה א ת‬Then Rebecca lifts her eyes and sees.
Cassuto: In Ug. this transitional formula is used to introduce a new character
into the narrative. It is used similarly in Heb. prose, where its occur-
rence as a “stereotyped expression” marks it as one of the remnants
of Canaanite epic style.
Ullendorff: This “opening gambit” is one of the stereotyped formulae th at
occur in both Ug. and Heb. literatures.
— 214 —
Ugaritic Formulae II 4
f. Comments
The two forms in Ug. are versions of the same full colon formula. We
find it used both with and without the inclusion of the noun subject in Heb.
prose. This breaks the meter of the poetic formula, as we would expect
in prose.
4
a. *nt 11:38-40 (CTA 3 B:38-40); cf. 'nt IV:86-87 (CTA 3 D:86-87).
b. Text Translation
(38) [t]hspn . mh . wtrhs She sprinkles her water and washes,
(39) \t]l. §mm . §mn . ars . W ith the dew of heaven, the oil of earth,
rbb (40) rkb 'rfit The rains of the Rider of the Clouds.
c. Bibliography
Jack, R S Tablets, p. 48.
C. Virolleaud, Syria, X V III (1937), 101.
Virolleaud, Anat, p. 27.
Ginsberg, A N E T , p. 136.
Driver, CML, p. 85, n. 22.
S. Gevirtz, J N E S , X X (1961), 45.
d. Gen 27:28 (cf. Gen 27:39)
‫ ד תן־׳לך ה אלהי ם‬May God give to you
‫ מ ט ל היזמים ומשמני ה ארץ‬Of the dew of heaven, the oil of earth,
‫ ורב דגן ותירע‬And the abundance of grain and wine.
Jack: There is a correspondence in language between the Ug. and Heb. texts.
Virolleaud, Ginsberg, and Driver: The Heb. passage may be compared to
the Ug. passage.
Gevirtz: The pair tl £»«»/‫ ט ל ה’שמים‬// smn arsjyiHTl ‫ שמני‬occurs twice in
Ug. and twice in Gen 27, although in reverse order in v. 39.
Ullendorff: This is “one of the astonishing similarities of word and phrase”
in the two literatures.
e. Comments
The middle colon in the Ug. and Heb. lines is clearly a full colon for-
mula. The only real question is whether the following colon in Gen 27:28
is patterned after th at in UT ‘nt 11:39-40. I t is possible th at the sound
of rbb suggested ‫ רב‬to the Heb. poet and he built the colon from this, or
th at ‫ רב‬and rbb are variants of the same term and he has made a substi-
tution for the epithet in the colon.
— 215 —
II Supp 1 Ras Shamra Parallels
SU PPLEM EN T
Additions to Schoors, “Literary Phrases” , R SP I, Chapter 1.
LIST OF ENTRIES
1 : 1-2
$ $ 5
:8-9
:10
4. 77:7
5. 125:13-14
6. 1 Aqht :44-45
7. 1 Aqht: 109
8. 2 Aqht V:6-7
S upp 1
a. 67 1:1-2 (CTA 5 1:1-2) (see R SP I, I 25).

b. Notes
The fullest form of this epithet formula occurs in 67 1:1-3 (and is to be re-
constructed in 67 1:27-30):
(1) ktmhs . Itn . btn . brh When you smote Ltn, the fleeing serpent,
(2) tkly . btn . 'qltn You destroyed the twisting serpent,
(3) s ly t. d . §b't. raim Slyt of the seven heads.
Like other long epithets it can be shortened following colon divisions. Thus
cola B and C are found in UT 'n t 111:38-39 (CTA 3 D :38-39).
c. Bibliography
W. F. Albright, BASOR, 46 (1932), 19.
Jack, R S Tablets, pp. 45-46.
W. F. Albright, BASOR, 83 (1941), 39.
W. F. Albright, CBQ, V II (1945), 30.
W. S. LaSor, BiS, CVII (1950), 252.
J. Gray, VT, VI (1956), 268.
Gray, DOTT, p. 132, n. 16.
Widengren, M R& K , pp. 172-173.
— 216 —
Ugaritic Formulae II Supp 2
Gaster, Thespis2, pp. 202-203.

E. Ullendorff, B JR L , XEVI (1963), 240.
Gray, LC2, pp. 30-31 and n. 3; 32.
Pope, Job, pp. 166, 277.
Ringgren, Israelite Religion, pp. 3, 107.
d. After section e insert Job 26:13.
‫ ברוחו שם ים ע פ ר ה‬By his wind he put sea in a bag
‫ ח ל ל ה ידו נחש בריח‬His hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
Albright: Ug. and Heb. literatures use the same terms to describe Ltn, and
the terms appear in the same order.
Jack, Gaster, and Pope: The same adjectives are used in both literatures
to describe Ltn.
EaSor and Ullendorff: The parallelism of words and of structure points to
the same literary form.
Widengren and Ringgren: Both literatures contain the epithets and the
motif of battle with a monster. Ringgren understands this to be the
same mythical battle.
e. Comments
Isa 27:1 contains cola A and B of the full formula, while Job 26:13
has only colon A. In both the Ug. and Heb. texts the position of the epithets
within the cola is consistent. The Job passage is unusual in using an A
epithet in the second colon of the line and parallel to a name in the first line.
However, this much variation in use of epithets is found already among
the poets at Ugarit.
S upp 2
a. 68:8-9 (CTA 2 IV :8-9) (see R SP I, I 29).

b. Comments
This seems to be a formula which allows for inclusion of a subject in the
first colon. This tricolon pattern is common in both Heb. and Ug. The
last colon of Ps 92:10 has almost completely broken the formula. The ques-
tion is whether the Hebrew poet saw ‫ י א בדו‬as a translation equivalent to
tmhs.
W•1
1 Following Pope, Job, p. 166.
— 217 —
II Supp 3 Ras Shamra Parallels
Supp 3
a. 68:10 (CTA 2 IV: 10) (see R SP I, I 30).

b. After section d insert Dan 3:33.
‫מלכו תה מלכו ת ע ל ם‬ His kingdom is an eternal kingdom,
‫ועלטנה ע ם ־ ד ר וד ר‬ And his dominion to generations of
generations.
c. After section d insert Dan 4:31.
‫ זלטן ע ל ם‬2? ‫די שלטנה‬ For his dominion is an eternal dominion,
‫ו מלכו תה ע ם ״ ד ר ודר‬ And his kingdom to generations of
generations.
d. Comments
The parallel pair */»‫ן‬/‫ ע)ו(לם‬jj dr ^ / ‫ ר )ו(ד)ו(ר‬01)‫ ד‬is well established in
both Ug. and Heb. (see Dahood, R SP I, II 425). We only have evidence
for the formula itself when we compare UT 68:10 with Ps 145:13 and
Dan 3:33 and 4:31. We have a partial colon plus a full colon with substitution
at the beginning of the first colon. Both ‫( ממשלה‬Ps 145:13) and ‫שלטן‬
(Dan 3:33 and 4:31) are translation equivalents of drkt.
Supp 4
a. 77:7 (CTA 24:7) (see R SP I, I 36).

b. Comments
The interpretation as a formula is tempting, but inconclusive. Gen
16:11 supports this, but the variation is enough to make for uncertainty.
Supp 5
a. 125:13-14 (CTA 16 1:13-14) (see R SP I, I 41).

b. Notes
This is a full colon formula found also in UT 125:9798‫( ־‬CTA 16 11:9798‫)־‬.
In Ug. it is part of a larger line formula ( 1 2 5 : 1 2 9 8 ‫ ־‬14, 97‫)־‬:
(12) ybky (13) wysnn . He weeps and gnashes his teeth;
ytn . gh (14) bky He gives forth his voice in weeping.
— 218
Ugaritic Formulae II Supp 6
Supp 6
a. 7 Aqht:44-45 (CTA 19 1:44-45) (see R SP I, I 44).

b. Comments
If Ginsberg’s reconstruction of II Sam 1:21 is correct, we must list
this as a full line formula. There is no further evidence in Ug. for the formula.
Supp 7
a. 7 Aqht:109 {CTA 19 111:109) (see R SP I, I 45).

b. Comments
The clear use as a full colon formula in Ug. leaves no reason to doubt
it in the Heb.
Supp 8
a. 2 Aqht V:6-7 (CTA 17 V:6-7) (see R SP I, I 46).

b. Comments
The word-order ‫ פ ת ח שער‬. . . ‫ ישבים‬in I Kings 22:10 makes it appear
th at what we have in the v. is a broken formula in a prose section. This
formula very probably is to be restored in UT 1 A qht:22-23 (CTA 191:22-23).
— 219 —
Chapter III
NARRATIVE STRUCTURES IN TH E UGARITIC TEXTS
by
S tan R ummel
INTRODUCTION
T he Question of S tructure
“Structure” is a relatively simple concept. As a category of knowledge,

it relates to the idea of “building” (Latin struere, “to build”). This means
th at structural knowledge deals in wholes—as a building is a whole—but
in a special way. Structural knowledge perceives wholes as organized com-
binations of mutually connected and dependent parts or elements. The char-
acter of the whole exists in the relations of its constituent parts, and each
part contributes to the shape of the whole by virtue of its distinct role in a
definite arrangement. The idea of structure does not necessarily imply th at
the individual part is of no significance in and of itself (although structural
knowledge has often drawn its disciples toward th at conclusion); rather, it
focuses on the parts as related to each other and to the whole instead of sim-
ply fragmenting a whole into its parts and treating each as an isolated entity.
When applied to texts, structural knowledge can proceed in various
directions which yield quite disparate analyses. The introduction of struc-
tural analysis into Ugaritic-Hebrew comparative studies has reflected the
lack of consensus resulting from the embryonic state of structural studies
as a discipline. The methodologies employed by those who have compared
the structures of Ugaritic and Hebrew texts have remained obscure for two
specific reasons. On the one hand, those scholars who have treated Ugaritic and
Hebrew texts from a structural perspective have not been methodologically
self-conscious, choosing to operate instead on an intuitive level hazily informed
by form critical principles. On the other hand, structural analysis of any
kind has yet to emerge as a distinctive means of comparing Ugaritic and
Hebrew texts. Those who have employed it have mingled it with other in-
terpretive methodologies in relationships th at they neither clearly develop
nor exploit.
Although this situation yields frustrating ambiguities, the fundamental
concern of this chapter is the interpretation of texts—not the articulation
Ill Intro 2 Ras Shamra Parallels
of structural methodologies. Each author discussed in this chapter has pro-

posed a parallel in structure (or pattern, or cluster of elements/motifs/themes)
between a Ugaritic and Hebrew text. If each author uses the structural
parallel only as part of the basis by which he compares his texts, and even
if some merely adumbrate the structural aspect of their comparison, the
role th at structure plays in the elucidation of Ugaritic-Hebrew parallels
deserves notice and comment in its own right because of its potential con-
tribution to the understanding of texts. This means th at the question of
the structural input to a parallel can be separated from the question of the
overall validity of the parallel, because the latter question may depend more
on non-structural than on structural evidence. In this chapter I will deal
only with the structural concerns of each author, asking him only for his
contribution to the structural comparison of Ugaritic and Hebrew texts.
2 F orm Criticism and S tructuralism
a. The evaluation of these contributions demands some notion of the

meaning of structural studies and the type of information about a text which
they can be expected to yield. This understanding depends on the differen-
tiation of two basically divergent approaches to the structural study of texts,
the form-critical and the structuralist.
b. Form criticism has found the analysis of the structure (or the pattern
or the schema) of a given text to be of fundamental interest, but it has also
found such analysis to be of less importance than the description of the te x t’s
genre or type and the definition of its setting(s) in life. Yet form criticism
has defined most of its genres by means of a typical structure on which a
particular text is based. This kind of definition depends on the insight th a t
ancient peoples expressed themselves through typical patterns conventional
in their societies. Thus the roots of structural analysis in form critical
methodology are socio-historical in character.
c. The structuralist approach to a text—and this is especially true for
th at type of structuralism which derives from the work of Uevi-Strauss on
m yth—slights the socio-historical setting in favor of an emphasis on structure
as a phenomenon worthy of independent consideration. This emphasis stems
from the corresponding concern of linguistics, the mother of structuralist
literary theory. As etymology and reference are not relevant to the meaning
of a word (Saussure), so historical origin and reference to social institutions
are not relevant to the meaning of a myth. W hat is meaningful about such
tales is the way they structure language. Thought is more relevant than
— 224 —
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts III Intro 2
history. Interpretation which proceeds in this fashion finds itself in the

process of becoming a distinctive methodology, although its fundamental
principles have yet to be formulated and its rules have never been shaped
into a comprehensive system. Both as a method and as an ideology, struc-
turalism moves beyond the issues involved in the analysis of texts. In fact,
many of its implications lead away from the direction of literature.
d. As the title indicates, this chapter focuses on what I call “narrative
structures” of texts. This signifies above all th at each comparison of a Uga-
ritic and Hebrew structure discussed here depends on the “narrativity” phe-
nomenon in the texts. In some way the text itself can act as a check on the
analysis performed upon it. This level of structure—the surface or syntag-
matic level—is but one of the structural levels at which texts should be in-
vestigated. Surface structure may be contrasted schematically with two
other broad levels of structure: deep structure and intermediate structure.
Interm ediate structure has to do with the functions and/or actants on which
the surface structure of the text depends. Analysis of functions (e.g., con-
junction vs. disjunction) and actants (e.g., addresser, object, addressee) aims
to reduce a narrative to its basic elements in order to show the relationship
of a particular text to other texts in which these structures are perceived.
The surface structure of a particular text represents one manifestation (and
most likely only a partial manifestation) of the intermediate structure it
shares with other texts. The analysis of intermediate structures, like th at
of deep structures, treats paradigmatic relationships; it classifies its units by
the way they combine in certain sequences to form a “plot.” This comple-
ments the analysis of surface structure, which groups those plots which com-
bine the paradigms in the same sequence (the syntagmatic relationship).
Whereas intermediate structure deals with the structure of the form of the
content and/or the expression of a sign belonging to a system of signs, deep
structure is the structure of the substance of the content and/or expression.
I t probes the underlying components of meaning, and assumes th at the re-
lations of these components are ultim ately reducible to binary oppositions.
It asks a text for the way in which it mediates these oppositions. The answer
to this question, however, has little to do with the surface structure of the
text.
e. Both form critical and structuralist methodologies begin with structural
analysis of the text. However, the structure derived through this analysis
never yields a neutral, “objective” appreciation of the text, for the structural
interpretation of texts draws deeply on the methodological presuppositions
of the interpreter. Since form critical and structuralist methodologies depend
on significantly different presuppositions, in the following paragraphs I will
— 225 —
III Intro 3 Ras Shamra Parallels
present six fundamental distinctions in order to be able to focus attention

on the contributions of the scholar’s preconceptions to his textual compar-
isons, and to distinguish this contribution from th at offered by the text itself.
Although the differences between form criticism and structuralism are sig-
nificant, they are not absolute, and no individual author embodies all of them.
Therefore the following generalizations apply to interpretive tendencies, not
unbridgeable chasms.
3 1. Ideal Structures vs. Individual Texts.
a. The interdependence of structure and genre in form critical methodology

has drawn the discipline toward a focus on typical structures. I t has tra-
ditionally directed its attention more towards ideal types (Weber’s sociological
model!) than individual texts as such. W ithin structuralism the unit of
analysis ranges from the individual tale as a unique construction (Propp) to
a m yth as a reality which stands behind a body of materials and must be
reconstructed from them (Tevi-Strauss). Although structuralist interpre-
tation has seldom limited itself to the consideration of a single text, the in-
dividual text provides its basis and focus to an extent th at has not been true
of form criticism. This concentration on the particular arises from the rel-
ative disinterest of structuralism in genre, the focal point of form critical
procedure. Structuralism does not have the same need to present an ideal
structure of a group whose members all are variants of th at ideal.
b. When an interpreter allows an emphasis on form to shrink his perception
of content, he is in danger of imposing structures and significance on texts.
Theoretically, structuralism should be more susceptible to this threat than
form criticism, since the form critical focus on surface structure necessitates
a corresponding degree of attention to content. In practice, however, the
form critical interest in ideal types has steered the discipline in the direction
of form. But the ideal presents itself only through the particular. Unless
structural analysis begins at the level of the individual text, it faces the un-
pleasant prospect of imposing patterns through partial association.
c. Attention to the narrative structures of texts tends to minimize the
problem of basing the analysis of texts on assumptions about them. Until
now the comparison of Ugaritic and Hebrew structures has allowed the present
form of the text to act as a check on the accuracy of the analysis. Although
such comparisons should ultimately probe other structural levels (struc-
turalism) as well as test the traditions behind the present form of the text
(form criticism), one advantage of the present epoch of Ugaritic-Hebrew
— 226
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts I ll Intro 4
structural studies is th at they can be tested with relative ease against their
self-proclaimed goal of demonstrating similarities which reveal a relationship
between the texts compared.
4 2. Technical vs. Non-Technical Structures.
a. The idea of typical structures raises a significant m atter of definition.

A concept of structure which refers only to the arrangement of a single text—
the primary flaw in a single-minded emphasis on surface structure—is non-
technical. When referred to a syntagmatic sequence common to two or more
texts, the concept becomes more technical. However, “structure” properly
denotes a group of features or parts which characterize a number of texts
and which therefore allow for various combinations and divergences. In
this sense a structure is like a genre with both its relative stability and its
variants. One should therefore expect th at no two examples of a structure
(or a genre) will be exactly alike.
b. In general, both form criticism and structuralism operate with structures
in the technical sense. The two disciplines diverge at the point of defining
the nature of the units which embody the structures of texts. The form crit-
ical combination of structure and genre tends to make content an integral
part of structure. At least, the content of most genres recognized by form
criticism is remarkably stable. The structuralist, on the other hand, finds
the content of a text to be of minor significance compared to the relationships
th a t can be identified between the parts of a text. These relationships may
yield the perception of order or structure where the form critic would find
only undifferentiated phenomena.
c. While such perceptions spin fascinating webs, they often reveal more
about the observer than the observed. The limitation of analysis to narrative
structures provides a control on subjectivity by introducing the textual
aspect of sequence. This need not dictate th a t the content of two texts must
be virtually identical to make them available for comparison, but it does
mean th at narrative indicators in the texts must demonstrate an observable
relationship for comparison to be valid.
5 3. Elements vs. Relationships.
a. A determined emphasis on wholes, or totalities, marks structuralism as

a method. But what are its totalities? The structuralist tends to see a text
not as an object in itself, but as a manifestation of a larger reality. This re
— 227 —
16
I ll Intro 6 Ras Shamra Parallels
ality is the world of thought which gave rise to the text. Structuralism aims
to interpret texts by exploring their relationships with the thought-world
(or culture) of which they are a part (and which generally is available only
through other texts!).
b. But the structuralist emphasis on wholes also applies to texts in them-
selves. Form criticism has tended to employ structure as an analytical con-
cept to break down texts into their constituent elements, an essentially
atomistic exercise. While it is not quite impossible to be a structuralist and
an atomist, the essence of structuralism is to explain the whole and its parts
by means of the relations th at exist between the parts. Unlike form criticism,
structuralism does not concentrate on the elements of a whole, but rather
on the network of relationships th a t link and unite those elements. Method-
ologically, this implies th at the meaning of an element depends on its con-
text (although structuralism does not necessarily claim th a t the individual
element means nothing in itself: even if the context, and therefore the mean-
ing, changes, there is still a referent inherent in the element). Structuralism
focuses on the m utual relations of the elements of a whole, paying little, if
any, attention to the content of the individual elements. Form criticism,
on the other hand, concentrates on the elements as content-laden constituents
of wholes.
6 4. Diachronic vs. Synchronic Treatment.
a. A text can be investigated in two ways: as part of a total system simul-

taneous with it (synchronic), or as part of a historical sequence of related
texts (diachronic). Structuralism is centrally concerned with synchronic
structures. In this concern lies the fundamental difference between struc-
turalism and form criticism. For the form critical focus on the development
of a particular system, structuralism substitutes an intense concentration
on a network of existing structural relations. The idea of system forms the
core of both disciplines, but the structuralist system depends less than th at
of form criticism on accentuating similarities by neglecting differences. I t
brings differing structures together not in spite of their differences, but by
virtue of their differences, for which an order is then sought. Since it per-
ceives structure primarily in the law-like relationships which bind the el-
ements of texts, it can apply a syntax of transformations to these relationships
as the basis for the comparison and interpretation of textual structures.
In contrast, the diachronic approach of form criticism identifies an ideal
structure of a group of texts and interprets each member of the group as a
variant of th at ideal.
— 228 —
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts III Intro 7
b. Partly due to a lack of methodological resoluteness, and partly to the

difficulty of establishing generic relationships, Ugaritic-Hebrew structural
comparisons have assumed some aspects of both synchronic and diachronic
treatm ent. They have certainly not emphasized the differences between texts.
Their self-imposed limitation to narrative structure has caused them simply
to draw similar texts together. Yet attention to narrative structure also
reveals the differences between texts. If the similarities indicate generic-
type relationships, the differences highlight the specific character of each
text. Valid interpretation depends on the combination of both features.
7 5. Surface Structure vs. Deep Structure.
a. Structuralism basically seeks structure not on the surface, at the level

of the observed, but below or behind empirical reality. This means th at
it shows less interest in the syntagmatic (sequence) aspect of texts than in
the “intermediate structures” and “deep structures” which represent more
basic patterns and logics (see above, Intro 2 d). Although the concepts of
deep structure and surface structure do not exhaust the structural possi-
bilities of texts, they do define the perimeters of choice presented to the ob-
servers of texts. The observer may concentrate on the evident reality of the
text, or he may try to pierce through this reality to a reality which he must
reconstruct for himself. Such a reconstruction of reality takes the struc-
turalist beyond the shape of the text itself to the transaction of hearing re-
presented by the text. This transaction points to the structure of a text
as a product of societal thought. Ultimately, the most significant structure
of a narrative text for the structuralist is not to be found in any one of the
three levels operative in it—the plot/sequence, the roles/actants, and the
metaphor—but in the common repertoire of speaker and hearer, or writer
and reader, since the medium is a message, along with the other signals of
the meaning.
b. Form critical methodology is theoretically open to the sub-surface planes
of structure, but it has almost always dealt with texts at their surface level.
Narrative structure can be studied beneath the surface of a text (if the defi-
nition of “narrative” is properly adjusted away from an orientation towards
sequence), but in the brief history of Ugaritic-Hebrew comparative research
such study has remained in the syntagmatic range. Although this is a produc-
tive means of setting texts beside each other, its limitations can hardly be
overstressed. Structural interpretation of texts must ultimately consider as
many different levels of the texts as possible, then compare the results to
derive a balanced structural understanding. Most texts can make sense from
— 229 —
Ill Intro 7 Ras Shamra Parallels
a variety of perspectives, especially if they are composed of complex

material.
c. Even at the surface level, narrative structure is but one of a variety
of principles th at may govern a text. Such features as systematic viewpoints,
or rhetorical or stylistic devices, may control the syntagmatic structure.
The creation story of Gen 1:1-2:3 illustrates this point (see below, 1 d|3). The
number seven organizes the present form of the account. As Cassuto, Gen-
esis I, p. 12, has argued, the concept of seven not only gives shape to the
main theme, but also determines the arrangement of many of the subordinate
units. He concluded th at the structure of the text is based on a “system
of numerical harmony.” As in the biblical text, a period of seven days plays
an organizational role in Ugaritic m yth and epic. This may be seen, for in-
stance, in UT K rt: 194-230. But a comparison of the seven-day patterns of
Gen 1:1-2:3 and K rt:194-230 proves unproductive in terms of narrative
structure, for the question th at must be answered to demonstrate a narrative
relationship between the Genesis creation story and the literature of Ugarit
is: can a Ugaritic creation story be identified with whose sequence of events
those of the biblical story may be correlated? To answer this question, the
observer must pierce through the present form of the biblical text and seek
for traces of an underlying narrative structure held in common with th at
of the Ugaritic m y th s.1
d. Narrative structure must also be distinguished from poetic structure,
since the poetic or literary form of a text is not identical to its semantic (the
dimension of communication) form. This affects Ugaritic-Hebrew structural
comparisons in two distinct ways. In the first place, most Hebrew narrative
is recorded in prose, while most Ugaritic narrative exists in a poetic form.
This difference marks comparative studies of Ugaritic and Hebrew narrative
structures, but researchers have usually failed to take it into account because
their structural comparisons lack sufficient depth. Secondly, those Hebrew
poetic texts th at are available for comparison with Ugaritic narrative texts
are hymnic, not narrative, in intent. In this case, similarity at the level of
poetic form masks real differences at the level of semantic form. Structural
comparison must account for these differences before it can fully explicate
narrative similarities.
1 This, of course, is not the only way that the Genesis story may be structurally compared to Ugaritic
literature. In RSP II, V 2, Fisher compared Gen 1:15‫ ־‬with UT 611, a ritual text. He found evidence
in the parallel arrangements of the two texts for a ritual stage in the tradition history of Gen 1:12:3‫־‬.
(Other non-narrative structural parallels between Ugaritic and Hebrew texts adduced by Fisher in RSP II,
V, are: a physical description [1], a ritual calendar [3], and a vow [4].)
— 230
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts I ll Intro 8
8 6. Narrative Order vs. Decoding.

a. The work of Levi-Strauss on m yth has spearheaded a mode of structur-
alist interpretation which assumes th at the elements which move sequen-
tially through an individual text can be correlated with analogous elements
in other texts. The belief th at a m yth is a message in code from the whole
of a culture to its various members motivates this procedure, and the scholar’s
task is to decode the message. Decoding is possible only when the elements
are arranged in the “proper” order—but this arrangement necessarily differs
from the narrative order of their transmission. For the narrative order of
elements in a single text merely reflects deep structures and their relationships
at the level of empirical reality. To comprehend the structure of a myth, the
decoder must reduce these relations to binary oppositions—pairs of com-
plementary, mutually exclusive categories, such as !,each’s endogamy-exogamy
(see below, 2 ba and ca). The structure of a m yth consists of all the binary
oppositions in a text or group of texts, along with the elements which mediate
each opposition.
b. In this procedure the text loses control over the decoding process, which
depends primarily on the pairs of oppositions identified by the decoder. In
contrast, the form critical conception of structure as syntagmatic surface
structure retains the text as the basic object of investigation. The search
for narrative structure at this level of the text does not demand the discovery
of disguised structures or meanings in texts. Rather, it seeks the significance
of the present form or an identifiable pre-form of the text. I t aims neither to
rearrange the structures it finds in texts nor to decode structures it has invented.
c. However, we know th at many texts do not offer a plain meaning that
can be easily discovered by a mere examination of their surface. Decoding—
a term th at nearly provides a summary of structuralist techniques of literary
analysis—offers a glittering blade th at promises to cut through interpretive
problems which will never be solved by those who refuse to plunge it through
the surface of texts. But this blade must be tempered by a consideration of
what texts “say.” If Ugaritic-Hebrew investigations of comparative struc-
tures have refused to wield the sword of decoding, it is because they have
perceived their texts as the entities to be examined. They have focused on
the factors which constitute texts as such. Yet it is precisely at this point
th at Ugaritic-Hebrew studies have diverged from traditional form critical
methodology, which has tended to view texts as accumulations of pieces.
Ugaritic-Hebrew comparisons of narrative structures have perceived their
units as integrated wholes—a structuralist perspective.2
2 The literature on structuralist theory has expanded to overwhelming proportions. I have found
— 231 —
III Intro 9 Ras Shamra Parallels
9 F ormat
a. This chapter contains only three entries. The first examines the struc-
tural relevance of the Ugaritic Baal cycle to the Old Testament; the second
focuses on the K rt cycle as a whole; and the third surveys one episode from
the second tablet of the K rt cycle in relation to a particular problem of Old
Testament structural analysis. In no way do I claim th at this represents
a comprehensive survey of the secondary literature. A number of studies
th at could be treated here have been left for R SP IV, because they depend
more on motif analysis than on structural analysis as such. Since the aim
of this chapter is to investigate previous comparisons of Ugaritic-Hebrew
narrative structures, I attem pt to uncover the methodological, as well as
the substantive, issues involved in each comparison. Hopefully, method-
ological clarity will contribute to a more solid basis upon which this type
of investigation may proceed. In one sense, methodological criticisms are
unfair to some authors, since such criticisms raise questions which they did
not intend to answer. For example, structural interpretations of proposed
parallels are notable for their absence in the history of research. Yet in a
larger sense, all the methodological implications of structural study come
into play whenever an interpreter proposes a structural parallel. I t is with
this interest in the discipline of structural investigation th at I offer my
comments.
b. No author discussed in this chapter employs structure as the sole basis
of his Ugaritic-Hebrew comparison. In fact, the structural comments of
some of the researchers are relatively unclear about the segments of text
under discussion and the structural outline envisioned. Where I try to in-
troduce some clarity to their remarks by identifying texts and supplying
outlines, I enclose the material which I have added to their discussions in
brackets (“ [ ]”). W ith these additions I do not aim to exceed any author’s
intentions, but simply to clarify the structural aspects of his comparison.
c. The ordering of the texts within entries one and two is determined by
logical, rather than numerical, criteria. Thus the presentation of the K rt
cycle must obviously follow the sequence UT K rt+1281-125-127‫־‬. The same
considerations apply to the ordering of the biblical texts within these entries.
I simply group them into units convenient for analysis. Because of the
the following discussions to offer useful general comments relevant to problems of the structural analysis
of texts: R. Culley, VTS, XXII (1972), 129142‫ ;־‬R. Knierim, Int, XXVII (1973), 435-467; Lane, Struc‫־‬
turalism, pp. 1139‫ ;־‬Scholes, Structuralism; and A. Wilder, Semeia, I (1974), 1 1 6 ‫־‬.
— 232 —
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts I ll 1
variety of biblical texts treated in these entries, I insert comments into the
summaries of the secondary literature at appropriate points. The length
of the first two entries also necessitates an expansion of the R SP system of
coding paragraphs. The following sequence is used: a, b, c, d, etc.; aa, bb,
cc, dd, etc.; aa, ba, ca, da, etc.; a|3, b|3, c(3, d|3, etc.
d. Since narrative structures usually appeal to large blocks of textual mat-
ter, I offer few translations of texts in this chapter. Only for two short
Ugaritic passages and one Hebrew passage (all occurring in the first entry) are
translations given and defended. I treat these fragments because a proposed
structure depends on a disputed reading or translation of the text, or a
proposed structure develops or confirms a disputed reading or translation.
e. The parallels drawn always depend on the final form of the Ugaritic
texts, and usually on the final form of the Hebrew texts. Since texts must
be investigated at more than one structural level, from the perspective of
other analytical disciplines, and in the full range of their tradition history,
no final claims about their meanings can be offered on the basis of narrative
structures alone. Nevertheless, the information gleaned from this mode of
analysis makes a vital contribution to the elucidation of the total meaning
of each text under discussion.
LIST OF ENTRIES
1. 129 + 137 + 68 + 51 + 67 + 62+49

2. K rt + 128 + 125-127
3. 128 11:21-111:16
ENTRIES
1
a. 129 (CTA 2 III[?]) + 137 (CTA 2 1) + 6 8 (1CTA 2 IV) + 51 (CTA 4) + 67
(‫׳‬C TA 5) + 62+49 (CTA 6).
b. Text Translation
(68:32) ym . Im t. Sea verily is dead;
b'lm ym l[k?1 ] Baal indeed rules!4
— 233 —
III 1 Ras Shamra Parallels
(49 V :5) [ytb .] b[*]J2 . Baal returned 5 to the chair of his

Iksi . mlkh kingship,
(6) [lnht] . 3 Ikh t . drk[t]h to the seat, to the throne of his
sovereignty.
c. Notes
Text: 1 Herdner, CTA, p. 12, reads only ym /[---------------------- ], but in
n. 4 admits the possibility of the above reading, for which see Gor-
don, UT, p. 180.
2 W ith Herdner, CTA, p. 41. Gordon, UT, p. 169, reads only [ ]s,
although, as Herdner notes in CTA, p. 41, n. 10, his translation in
UL, p. 16, (and not 1!), presupposes the reading she adopts. The
parallel in U T 76 111:14 favors the restoration of ytb over y7.
3 See Herdner, CTA, p. 41 and n. 11; Gordon, UT, p. 169, makes no
suggestion for the lacuna. Several scholars (most recently, van Zijl,
Baal, p. 218) have suggested bn dgn on the basis of UT 76 111:14,
but traces of the l at the beginning of 49 V:6 favor the restoration
of lnht on the basis of UT 'n t IV :47 (see de Moor, Seasonal Pattern,
p. 226; but note the lack of any restoration in Dietrich, K T U , p. 27).
d. Translation: 4 This translation follows Cross, CM HE, p. 116. W hether
mt in the first stich is taken as a noun or a verb, the general sense
holds; but it probably is a verb, with the w[ ] at the end of 1. 31
to be completed w[zbl\, thus “Prince Sea” (cf. 11. 7, 14, 16, 22, 24-25,
and 29). Given the reading of the second stich, its general meaning
is also clear, but the exact shade remains in dispute. The formally
parallel but equally ambiguous ‫ ה י מ ל ך‬1‫( יה‬see Schoors, R S P I, I 31)
provides little assistance. Gordon, UMC, p. 48, and Gray, LC2,
p. 29, take the Ugaritic expression as a wish: “Let Baal reign!” ,
as does de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 127: “Ba'lu be king\” Ginsberg,
A N E T 3, p. 131 (“Baal will reign”), and Driver, CML, p. 83 (“ Baal
shall be king”), take it in a future sense; cf. Caquot, TOME, p. 139:
“Ba'al va re[gner].” The rendition of van Zijl, Baal, p. 41, “Baal
shall indeed reign,” follows this course, but on p. 46 he observes
th at the trium phant cry expresses the necessary consequence of the
previous action, and concludes th at the kingship of Baal depends
on his emerging as conqueror from the battle. The position of the
Ugaritic passage in the narrative structure of the m yth helps the
interpreter press van Zijl's argument further: by his victory Baal
has “now” gained the kingship. The unequivocal mardukma sarru,
“Marduk is king,” of Enuma Elish IV:28 lends additional credence
— 234 —
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts Ill 1
to the translation of UT 68:32 given above; see Enuma Elish V:88,

110, 152; VI :39, 99-100; VII :95, 101, for other references to Marduk’s
achieved status as king, and note especially the identification of
Marduk in the last line of the text (VII :162) as the one “who van-
quished Tiamat and achieved the kingship.” UT 68:32 may well
be repeated in 1. 34.
c. 5 As van Zijl, Baal, p. 218, documents, scholarly opinion has split over
the derivation of ytb in this passage from T W B or Y T B . There
is no doubt that Y TB as a technical term for “ascending the throne”
fits the sense of the passage (on this, see van Zijl, Baal, p. 219),
but neither can it be disputed th at the verse refers to a “return”
{TW B) of Baal to his throne (note th at although de Moor, Seasonal
Pattern, p. 226, translates the verb “will sit down,” he refers without
exception to the “return” of Baal to his throne when discussing
the verse). Even if de Moor’s self-serving (for the purposes of his
seasonal interpretation) claim th at the verbs of 49 V :l-6 should be
rendered in the future tense and understood as a prediction of what
will happen when Baal eventually returns from his captivity to
Mot holds true (and despite his disclaimer, this view must reject
the literal interpretation of the “seven years” of 11. 8-9; note his
revealing comments about the metaphorical nature of the time-period
on p. 238 and n. 1), his specious argument th at the yttbn in the
parallel to 49 V:5-6 found in 49 VI:33-35a (CTA 6 VI:33-35a; see
Herdner, CTA, p. 43, for the reconstruction) can only be derived
from Y T B (p. 237) fails to observe th at the narrative context is
still one of “return” to the throne. Evidence outside of the nar-
rative structure of the m yth in question also supports the trans-
lation of the verb by “return.” The parallel verse in UT 76 III:
14-15 responds to 76 11:1-9: Baal left his palace and later “returned”
to his throne. UT 'n t IV:46-47 alludes to a mysterious foe who
chased Baal Iksi mlkh Inht Ikht drkth, “from the chair of his king-
ship, from the seat, from the throne of his sovereignty.” If, as I
believe, UT 'nt I-VI offers an alternate version of the m yth under
present consideration, the reference to Baal’s being chased from
his throne in a formulaic parallel to 49 V:5-6 materially supports
the interpretation of ytb in the latter passage as "returns.” Arguing
th at the 'n t passage directly relates to the enthronement hymn
of UT 603 obv:l-4, L. R. Fisher and F. B. Knutson treated ytb
in 603 obv:l as "returns” rather than “sits” (see JN E S , X X V III
— 235 —
[1969], 158 and n. 3, 160). The question for ytb in 49 V:5-6 and its
parallels is not whether enthronement is at stake—th at much is
clear—but whether the narrative structure in which this formula
is embedded adds a nuance to the enthronement formula which
must be accounted for in translation.
f. Bibliography
U. Cassuto, Keneset, V III (1943), 121-142 [ = Cassuto, Literatures,
pp. 62-90]; cited below according to the translation in Cassuto,
Studies II, pp. 69-109.
A. Kapelrud, Or, n.s., X X X II (1963), 56-62.
Iv. R. Fisher, Encounter, XXVI (1965), 183-197.
Iv. R. Fisher, VT, XV (1965), 313-324.
Cross, Biblical Motifs.
F. M. Cross, JThC, V (1968), 1-25.
P. Craigie, Tyndale Bulletin, X X II (1971), 3-31.
P. Hanson, Int, XXV (1971), 454-479.
P . Hanson, RB, I y X X V I I I (1971), 31-58.
Cross, CM HE, pp. 79-177.
P. Hanson, JB L , XCII (1973), 37-59.
Hanson, Apocalyptic, pp. 87, 98, 113-134, 163, 183-184, 202-208, 286-
287, 292-334, 354-390.
g. Exod 15:1b-18
16) ‫ ע ד ״י ע ב ר ע מ ך יהרה‬b) While your people passed over, Yahweh;
‫ע ד ״י ע ב ר ע ס״זו קנית‬ While your people passed over whom
you have created.
Cassuto: Although “epic” poems (poetry which tells of the deeds of the
gods and of the renowned heroes) existed among the Israelites in
biblical times, as shown by epic themes found in the OT, allusions
to epic poems now lost, and marks of epic style preserved in Heb.
prose, antagonism toward the traditions from which such poems
were inherited caused their demise in Israel and exclusion from the
OT (pp. 70-80, 102). Nevertheless, by combining the traces th at
remain in the OT with the evidence available in ancient Near Eastern
poetry (especially the Babylonian conflict of Marduk and Tiamat,
and—closest to the biblical theme—the Ug. conflict of Baal with
Mot and his confederates, the Prince of the Sea and the Judge of
the River, in which Baal smote them and compelled them to recog-
nize him as king), apocryphal literature and the NT, and Talmudic-
— 236 —
Midrashic-Cabalistic literatures, Cassuto attem pts to reconstruct

“the content, and, as far as possible, also the form [meaning ‘given
words and phrases’, and not paragraphs or even whole sentences],
of one of the Hebrew epic poems th at were lost in the course of
tim e” (p. 80). He calls this reconstructed epic “The Revolt of the
Sea,” a tradition that originated in the natural phenomenon of the
sea always surging against the coast as though to swallow the dry
land, but never being able to pass beyond its boundaries. The
“gentiles” found in this a basis for tales of mighty combats between
the gods; Israel related a rebellion of the Prince of the Sea, who
was dissatisfied with the portion allotted to him by the Lord of
the Universe. Cassuto identifies 19 elements in the poem:
h. 1) The waters of the Sea and the Rivers rose up in pride to cover
the whole land (Zech 10:11; Pss 46:4; 89:10; 93:4; Job 37:4;
38:11).
2) The waves of the sea made noise (Isa 17:12-13; 51:15; Jer 5:22;
31:35; 51:55; Hab 3:10; Pss 46:4, 7; 65:8; 93:3; etc.).
3) The rebellious Sea and Rivers had Helpers (Ps 89:11; Job 9:13).
4) The Helpers: a) OT: Leviathan the Bariah Serpent, Leviathan
the 'Aqallathon Serpent, and the dragon(s); b) Ug.: Leviathan
the Bariah Serpent (Itn btn brh), the 'Aqallathon Serpent (btn
'qltn), the Seven-Headed Monster (slyt d sbH rastn), the Tannin
(tnn), and Mot, the chief ally of Sea and River.
5) The Lord’s anger was kindled against the rebels (Isa 46:15;
Nah 1:2; Hab 3:8, 12; Pss 18:8, 16 [= II Sam 22:8, 16];
Job 9:13).
6) The Lord appeared against the rebels riding on his chariots,
the clouds of the sky (Isa 66:15; Hab 3:8; Ps 18:11 [ = II Sam
22:11]; etc.); in Ug. Baal is the rkb 'r-pt.
7) The Lord rebuked the rebels with the thunder of his voice
(Isa 17:13; 50:2; 66:15; Nah 1:4; Zech 3:2; Pss 9:6; 18:16
[= II Sam 22:16]; 68:31; 76:7; 104:7; 106:9; 119:21; Job 26:11;
for Ug. see UT 68:28).
8) The Lord’s voice heard in the thunder prevailed over the voice
of the waters of the sea (Hab 3:10; Pss 18:14 [ = II Sam 22:14];
29:3 + six times; 46:7; 68:34; 77:18-19; Job 37:4-5; etc.).
9) The rebels trembled and fled at the sound of the Lord’s rebuke
(Isa 17:13; Jer 5:22; Hab 3:10; Pss 77:17-19; 104:7; cf.
Pss 18:8 [‫ =־‬II Sam 22:8]; 29:8; 48:7).
— 237 —
10) The Lord fought against the rebels with His weapons (Isa 27:1;
Hab 3:9, 11, 14; Ps 77:18).
i. 11) The Lord muzzled Leviathan and sported with him (Job 40:25‫־‬
26; cf. Job 40:29; Ps 104:26; for Ug. see UT 'n t 111:37, where
'nt muzzles a dragon).
12) The Lord caused the monsters to leap into the sea (Hab 3:6;
for Ug. see UT 62:50-52, a scene similar to th at of Rev 20:3).
13) The mighty arm of the Lord smote the rebels (Isa 51:9;
Ps 89:11, 14; cf. Job 26:13).
14) The Lord annihilated (‫מחץ‬, ‫החציב‬, ‫ כ ל ה‬, ‫הצמית‬, ‫ ) חו ל ל‬Rahab
and his helpers (Isa 27:1; 51:9; Hos 6:5; Nah 1:8, 9; Hab 3:9, 13;
Zeph 1:18; Zech 10:11; Pss 18:38-39, 41 [=‫ ־‬II Sam 22:38-39,
41]; 54:7; 59:14; 68:22, 24; 73:27; 74:15; 94:23; 101:5, 8; 110:5,
6; Job 26:12; etc.); Ug. employs the first four verbs to describe
the slaying of Baal’s enemies by himself or by his helpers;
Marduk “cleft” the carcass of Tiamat after he had vanquished
her.
15) The Lord stilled the waters th at uplifted themselves (Isa 51:15;
Jer 31:35; Pss 68:8; 89:10; Job 26:12).
16) The Lord dried up the waters of the sea and the rivers which
had overflowed their boundaries (Isa 19:5; 44:27; 50:2; 51:10;
Jer 51:36; Nah 1:4; Zech 10:11; Ps 74:15; Job 12:15; 14:11).
17) The Lord set a bound for the sea which it cannot pass
(Jer 5:22; Pss 104:9; 148:6; Job 26:10; Prov 8:27-29); in Enuma
Elish IV: 139-140 Marduk not only set a limit to the waters
of Tiamat, but he also set up a bar and watchmen so the waters
should not issue from the place alloted to them (cf. Job 7:12;
38:8-11; possibly Ps 33:7).
18) The Lord trod upon the high places of the sea (Hab 3:15;
Job 9:8); in Enum a Elish IV: 104, Marduk went up on the carcass
of the defeated Tiamat, and in IV:111 trampled her helpers
under his feet.
19) The Lord reigns (Pss 29:10; 74:12; 89:19; 93:1); the victorious
Baal and Marduk are each acknowledged king by their foes.
(See pp. 80-97.)
j• Israel not only purged fronvthe “epic” the idolatrous elements of

its original form, but made it a symbol of ethical and national con-
cepts as well as an allusion to a natural phenomenon. The rebel-
lious sea and rivers symbolized the forces of wickedness, and the
— 238 —
Lord’s triumph the action of his justice and the ultim ate victory
over evil awaited at the end of days. Israel’s enemies became the
Lord’s foes. These transfers of meaning explain why the OT al-
ludes to the rebellion of the sea and its confederates so often. (See
pp. 98-99).
Some OT passages do not specifically refer to the subject-matter
of the rebellion story, but their form continues the literary tradition
of these “m yths” ; i.e., the expressions and motifs of the ancient
“epic” recur in them. Such is the Song of the Sea:
[1] Exaltation of the Lord (Exod 15:1; cf. no. 1 above).
[2] Might and salvation (Exod 15:2; cf. nos. 14 and 6 above).
[3] The Lord is a man of war, one who fights mightily against his
foes (Exod 15:3; cf. nos. 11-14 above).
[4] Pharaoh’s chariots could not stand before the one who rides
on the clouds (Exod 15:4; cf. no. 6 above).
[5] Deeps and depths (Exod 15:5; cf. no. 16 above).
[6] The right hand of the Lord, and glorious in power (Exod 15:6;
cf. no. 13 above).
[7] Exaltation of the Lord, and the fury of the Lord (Exod 15:7;
cf. nos. 1 and 5 above).
[8] The blast of the Lord’s nostrils, the waters stood up in a heap,
and reference to the deeps (Exod 15:8; cf. nos. 5, 17, and 16
above).
[9] Mighty waters (Exod 15:10).
[10] The Lord majestic in holiness and doing wonders (Exod 15:11;
cf. no. 19 above).
[11] The right hand of the Lord (Exod 15:12; cf. no. 13
above).
[12] The Lord’s strength (Exod 15:13; cf. no. 13 above).
[13] Prediction th at the enemies will tremble and pangs will seize
them (Exod 15:14; cf. no. 9 above).
[14] The enemies will be still because of the greatness of the Lord’s
arm (Exod 15:16; cf. no. 13 above).
[15] W hat the Lord has made and what his hands have established
(Exod 15:17; cf. nos. 19 and 13 above).
[16] The Lord will reign for ever and ever (Exod 15:18; cf. no. 19
above). (See pp. 99-101; the enumeration of the elements is
mine—Cassuto simply probes the poem verse by verse for items
belonging to the “phrasing” of “The Revolt of the Sea.”)
— 239 —
I ll 1 Ras Shamra Parallels
l. Fisher: The Ug. texts speak of creation, and they encompass two types
of creation. The HI type is a theogony: El is the parent of the other
gods. The other type of creation centers on Baal and is cosmogonic.
By creating order out of chaos Baal gives man the possibility of
life. (Encounter, 185; VT, 313-316).
m. At least three Ug. texts evidence a real connection: the Baal-Yamm
text (UT 68), the temple-building text (UT 51), and the Baal-Mot
text (UT 67). UT 62+ 49 provides a possible continuation, but
UT 'n t represents a separate tradition. The three connected texts
describe Baal type creation according to a definite pattern com-
posed of the elements of conflict, kingship, order, temple building,
and banquet:
[1] Baal battles and conquers Yamm (68[ :1-27]),
[2] And thereby secures his “eternal” kingship (68[:28-40]), which
is proclaimed (51 IV :43-44; probably also at the beginning of
51 I);
[3] Baal’s kingship brings peace and order to the cosmos—Baal
sets the seasons (51 V:69);
[4] A temple which is a microcosm (cf. L. R. Fisher, JS S , V III
[1963], 34-41) is built for Baal [51 V:72-VI:35a];
[5] A great banquet is held, which is shown by UT 2004 to be a
celebration of the enthronement of Baal as king-creator
[51 VI:35b-59],
[6] The next great challenger of Baal, Mot, is introduced, and the
Mot vs. Baal theme continues (67). (See Encounter, 185-187;
VT, 316-320.)
n. This series is similar to the Babylonian creation story, although
Marduk is made king before the conflict in the Babylonian account,
while the Ug. version contains no explicit description of the process
of ordering the cosmos. The entire series of elements is necessary
to the story of creation, but even when a text incorporates only
one of the elements, the entire context must be remembered. This
is particularly true of Baal’s kingship: the terms Baal and king
become synonymous with the term creator. The king is he who
sets the seasons and builds a house of cosmic proportions. (En-
counter, 186 and n. 14; VT, 319-320).
o. The Baal type creation pattern has a definite meaning. This mean-
ing does not concern creation out of nothing, or absolute origins
240 —
or the birth of the gods, but rather the emergence of order out of
chaos. Baal (and Marduk) want all authority in heaven, earth,
and sea. The Hebrews found this type of creation more useful than
the former type, because order was more im portant to them than
ultimate origins, and because they could use the notion of order to
refer to the creation of a people of God as well as the cosmos.
{Encounter, 187; VT, 321.)
p. Exod 15:lb-18 is a “very old psalm” which contains the “formal”
elements of Baal type creation:
[1] Yahweh is a man of war, a meaningful way of saying “creator”
(v. 3).
[2] Yahweh controls the sea (vv. 8, 10) and the earth (v. 12).
[3] Yahweh leads his people to his mountain sanctuary, an event
which conceptually includes the idea of a banquet (vv. 13, 17
[and not 12!]).
[4] There he reigns forever as king (v. 18). {Encounter, 188; FT, 323.)
The poem claims th at the one who brought the Hebrews out of
Eg. is the great man of war, the king responsible for their existence
as a people. Baal type creation was the best available means for
them to recall their exodus. Whether one translates ‫ קנית‬in
Exod 15:16b “create” or “purchase,” a psalm built on the pattern of
Exod 15 conceives creation with redemptive overtones: “creation
in this sense is redemption” {Encounter, 191). The theological mean-
ing of the structure is th at Yahweh is not only the God of the Pa-
triarchs, but also the one who creates cosmos and the possibility
of life. {Encounter, 191, 196; VT, 323.) Since the Hebrews were
real people, writing in a real situation, within their own history,
and since they did not have unlimited freedom to choose how to
express their faith, it is wrong to ask of the song “ . . . if the Hebrews
mythologized their history or historicized their m yth?” {VT, 322).
They had already rejected El type creation, and Baal type creation
communicated what they wanted to say. {Encounter, 189, 191;
VT, 322.)
q. Cross: The Yamm-Baal conflict (UT 137 + 68 451 ‫ )־‬is the basic form of
a “Canaanite myth-and-ritual pattern” :
[1] Yamm, deified Sea, claimed kingship among the gods.
[2] The council of the gods assembled and, cowed and despairing,
made no protest when told of Yamm’s intentions to seize the
kingship and take Baal captive.
— 241 —
[3] Baal arose, rebuked the divine assembly, and went forth to war.
[4] He was victorious in the cosmogonic battle.
[5] He returned to take up the kingship.
[6] Baal's temple, symbolic of his new sovereignty, was completed.
[7] The gods sat at banquet celebrating Baal's kingship. {Biblical
Motifs, p. 21; CM HE, p. 93; Cross finds this pattern comparable
to th at of Enuma Elish VI, in which “Marduk, after battling
the primordial ocean, Tiamat, and creating the universe out of
her carcass, receives from the gods a newly constructed temple
where the gods sit at banquet celebrating his kingship.’‫)׳‬
r. In a subsequent and more comprehensive treatm ent Cross organized

‘‘the mythic cycle of Ba'l and ,A nat” around two major conflicts—
one between Baal and Yamm, and the other between Baal and Mot.
He modified the elements of his earlier “pattern” of the Baal-Yamm
conflict at the following points:
[2] El agrees to Yamm’s demands (UT 137:36-37).
[3] Kothar, craftsman of the gods, predicts Baal’s victory and
fashions two clubs for him, giving them magical names
(68:7-10, 11-13, 19-20).
[5] The cry goes up: “Sea verily is dead; Ba'l rules!” (68:32).
[7] The feast of the gods on Mt. Saphon inaugurates the temple
cult as well as celebrates Baal’s installation. (See JThC, 2-5;
CMHE, pp. 113-16.)
s. Cross’s retelling of the Baal-Mot conflict (UT 67 + 62+49) isolates
seven episodes, but they bear little exact relationship to the seven
episodes of the Baal-Yamm conflict. However, the elements of
Baal’s captivity, victory in battle, and kingship remain constant.
Although the first conflict pitted Baal against chaos and this pits
him against the powers of sterility, disease, and death, “the drama
. . . is still a cosmogony, the victory of the god of life.” (See JThC,
5-7; CMHE, pp. 116-118).1
t. Ear from being a unique entity, the Ug. cycle is a version of a mythic
literature common to the “Canaanites” and those who shared their
1 Cross notes that in addition to these major ,‘themes" there are references to another cosmogonic
battle in Ug. mythology, setting Baal and/or Anat against a dragon called Lotan, OT Leviathan (UT 67
1 : 1 1 0 ]‫־‬5 ; 1003:3‫־‬, and not 11!]; and fnt 111:3539‫)־‬. This may be a major variant of the story of the conflict
with Yamm (cf. Isa 27:1 and especially 51:910‫)־‬, but in the extant tradition it appears as a torso only.
(JThC, 7 8 ‫ ;־‬CMHE, pp. 118120‫־‬.)
— 242 —
culture in the Middle and !,ate Bronze Age. That the Ug. cycle
was originally orally composed means th at a common tradition of
oral literature embraced Israel in the south and Ugarit in the north.
(JThC, 1-2; CMHE, pp. 112-113.) The Ug. myths of combat present
a cosmogonic creation story. The Baal cycle relates the emergence
of kingship among the gods. The “tale” of the establishment of a
dynastic temple and its cultus is a typical subtheme of the cosmogony
and its ritual (found also in Enuma Elish and OT). (JThC, 8-9;
CMHE, p. 120.)
u. The “archaic victory song” in Exod 15:lb-18 falls by content and
structure into two major sections: 1) description of the victory of
Yahweh over the Egyptians at the sea (vv. lb -12); 2) the leading
through the desert and the entry into the land (vv. 13-18). Sequen-
ces of alternating couplets and triplets form the smaller units (w .
lb + 2 b , 3-5, 6-8, 9-11, 12, 13-14, 15-16, 17, 18). W ithin this structure
the following “themes” preserve the old mythic pattern:
1) The combat of the Divine Warrior and his victory at the Sea
(w . lb-12; especially 8 and 10).
2) The building of a sanctuary on the “mount of possession” won
in battle (v. 17).
3) The god’s manifestation of “eternal” kingship (v. 18). (JThC,
9-24; CMHE, pp. 121-142.)
v. The Heb. poem is fundamentally different from the Ug. myth: in
place of a mythological combat between two gods, Yahweh defeats
historical, human enemies; the sea is not personified or hostile, but
a passive instrument under Yahweh’s control. In its description
of its redemption and creation as a community Israel used available
symbols and language even though its own “austere historical con-
sciousness” had broken the old mythic patterns. The survival of
some mythic forms functions to point to the cosmic or transcendent
meaning of the historical events. The pattern of the m yth makes
itself felt more fully in the second part of the Song of the Sea (w . 13-
18); its influence is quite restrained in the first part (w . lb -12) due
to the force of historical impulses in Israel's earliest Epic traditions.
(See Biblical Motifs, pp. 16-17; JThC, 16-17, 21-22; CMHE, pp. 87-
88, 131-132, 137-138, 140-141.) Nevertheless, the power of the
Canaanite mythic pattern upon Israel was enormous. Never was
there a radical break between Israel’s mythological past and its
historical cultus. Neither was there simply a progressive historiciz-
— 243 —
17
ing of myth, but rather a dialectic by which historical episodes

were also mythologized to reveal their transcendent meaning. The
Song of the Sea reveals the power of the mythic pattern as mytho-
logical themes shape its mode of presenting epic memories. (See
JThC, 24-25; CM HE, pp. 143-144.)
w. Craigie: The poet of the Song of the Sea employed two types of com-
positional resources: lines and phrases which are familiar from the
Ug. texts, and certain motifs from “Canaanite” mythology, which
the poet adapted radically to his purpose. The first type of resource
included Heb. and Eg. (see Craigie, VT, X X [1970], 83-86, on
Exod 15:4) formulae, as well as “Canaanite” (see w . 2, 11, 15,
17, 18, for examples of the latter) (pp. 20-23).
x. The second type of resource drew on certain motifs prominent in
“the Baal mythological texts” :
[1] The conflict of Baal and Yamm (the power of chaos).
[2] Baal’s victory—which may represent a certain type of creation
story, the victory of order over chaos—results in the acclama-
tion of his kingship (UT 68:32).
[3] A palace is built for Baal and his authority seems to be assured
(UT 51 V-VI).
[4] However, a new conflict arises between Baal and Mot.
[5] After an initial defeat, Baal is victorious (UT 49 VI:21-22),
and once again his kingship is proclaimed (UT 49 VI :30, 35).
These motifs “can be pinpointed by the words conflict, order, king-
ship and palace (or temple) building” (p. 24).
y. These motifs have been adapted for use in the Song of the Sea:
1) Conflict, Order (Exod 15:1-10, 12).
2) Kingship (Exod 15:11).
3) Conflict (Exod 15:14-16).
4) Temple (Exod 15:17).
5) Kingship (Exod 15:18).
In the OT adaptation the initial conflict is between Yahweh, the
Warrior, and Pharaoh with his armies. "Sea,” though prominent,
is never personified into Yahweh’s foe, as is Yamm in the Ug. texts.
The initial expression of Yahweh’s supremacy (v. 11: “Who is like
you among the gods, Yahweh?”), while not a direct expression of
kingship, may parallel Baal’s victory over Yamm. The second
conflict (vv. 14-16) then may parallel Baal’s conflict with Mot. The
— 244 —
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts I ll I
open expression of Yah well’s kingship (v. 18) parallels Baal’s king-
ship after a number of conflicts. (See pp. 24-25.)
z. Thus the Song contains a “cluster of motifs” (“ideas/content”) with
striking similarity to those of the Baal texts; th at is, the content
of the two shows much in common, although the external literary
form is different. The clustering of motifs has primary significance,
not their order of appearance, although “ . . . there is a certain
similarity in the order of the motifs in both c o n te x ts ...” (p. 25,
n. 68). In Exod 15 the motifs have “a historical function (in a poetic
sense) rather than a mythological function” (p. 25). The content
of the Baal motifs required adaptation for use in the Song of the
Sea, but the function of the Baal motifs—their cosmogonic signifi-
cance—motivated the adaptation. The Baal-Yamm episode represents
the cosmogonic element of creation of order from chaos; the sub-
sequent Baal-Mot episode represents a broader cosmological el-
ement, the regular maintenance of order against external threats.
Similarly, the Song of the Sea portrays the creation of the people
of Israel at the Exodus and anticipates the establishment of Israel
in the promised land. The adaptation of the cluster of motifs in
the Song expresses the significance for Israel of the event celebrated
by the Song. (P. 25; cf. VT, X X [1970], 86, n. 3.)
aa. Hanson: The “ritual pattern of the conflict m yth” (J B L , 54) is a basic
liturgical pattern th at can be traced all the way from ancient Near
Eastern m yth down to fully developed apocalyptic (In t, 472-473).
Enuma Elish contains its classic formulation within the Mesopota-
mian realm:
(1) Threat (1:109-11:91).
(2) Combat-Victory (IV:33-122).
(3) Theophany of the Divine Warrior (IV :39-60).
(4) Salvation of the gods (IV:123-146; VI:l-44; cf. VI:126-127,
149-151).
(5) Fertility of the restored order (V:l-66; cf. V II:l-2, 59-83).
(6) Procession and victory shout (V :67-89).
(7) Temple built for Marduk (V: 117-156; VI:45-68).
(8) Banquet (VI :69-94).
(9) Manifestation of Marduk’s universal reign (anticipated:
IV: 3-18; manifested: VI:95-VII:144). (See JB L , 54; Apocalyptic,
p. 302.)
— 245 —
III I Ras Shamra Parallels
This “structure” may be reduced to the elements of threat, combat,

victory, salvation, manifestation of reign, and banquet (Apocalyptic,
p. 308, n. 19; cf. the composite “royal cult” structure [R B , 55]).
bb. Accepting Jacobsen’s argument (JA O S , !,X X X V III [1968], 104-108)
th at Enuma Elish is a reflex of the West Semitic myth of Baal’s
battle with Yamm (so Cross, Biblical Motifs, p. 21, n. 34; CMHE,
p. 93), one is not surprised to find th at the “mythic cycle of Baal
and 'A nat” is based on the same ritual pattern of the conflict myth:
(1) Threat (UT 137).
(2) Combat-Victory (UT 68).
(3) Temple built (UT 51).
(4) Banquet (UT 51 VI:[38 (and not 39!)-59]).
(5) Manifestation of Baal’s universal reign (anticipated: UT 68:9-
10; manifested: UT 51 VII:9-12).
(6) Theophany of the Divine Warrior (UT 51 VII :27-39).
(7) Fertility of restored order (anticipated: UT 51 V :68-71; ef-
fected: UT 51 VII [and not 17!]:18-30; cf. UT 49 111:6-7, 12-13).
(See JB L , 55; Apocalyptic, p. 302.)
The texts on which this pattern is based simply follow “the most
common reconstruction of the Baal-Yamm conflict” {JBL, 55). The
struggle between Baal and Mot is a variant of the conflict myth
which follows basically the same ritual pattern. The “structure”
of the Baal-Yamm variant may be described with the elements of
threat, combat, victory, procession, manifestation of reign, banquet,
and shalom [Apocalyptic, p. 308, n. 19; cf. RB, 55).
cc. The Song of the Sea constitutes the finest example within the “lit-
erature of the league” [as opposed to the “royal cult”] of a genre
th at may be called the “Divine Warrior Hym n.” It reveals Israel’s
intimate acquaintance with the ritual pattern of the conflict myth:
(1) Combat-Victory (Exod 15:1-12).
(2) Theophany of the Divine Warrior (Exod 15:8).
(3) Salvation of the Israelites (Exod 15:13-16a).
(4) Building of the temple and procession (Exod 15:16b-17).
(5) Manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign (Exod 15:18).
If the mythic pattern provided Israel’s natural means of expressing
its faith at the earliest period of its history, a gap between form
and substance had already developed. Instead of the cosmic ac-
tivities of conflicting deities, Israel perceived Yahweh’s saving acts
in historical events. Exod 15 unmistakably preserves traces of the
— 246
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts III 1
battle between the Divine Warrior and the sea, but the sea has
lost its vitality and is merely a passive instrument in Yahweh’s
battle against an enemy of a different order, the Egyptians. (Apoc-
alyptic, pp. 300-301; JB L , 55-56; RB, 55.)
dd. Comments
Although serious deficiencies have become evident in the work of
Cassuto, his brilliant insight into the existence of a structural basis for
the comparison of Ugaritic mythology and the Song of the Sea antici-
pated the ensuing discussion of th at comparison by more than two de-
cades. The resumption of the conversation initiated by Cassuto planted
the comparison in considerably more fertile ground by replacing his
reconstructed ‘‘Revolt of the Sea” with various analyses of two real
ancient Near Eastern myths: the Ug. m yth of Baal and the Mesopota-
mian Enuma Elish. In one sense the Baal myth itself is a reconstruction,
since it depends on the modern reconstitution of the order of its tablets.
However, there is now virtually unanimous agreement on the arrange-
ment cited in section a above, 2 although no author discussed here
has employed the entire series in his structural analysis.
ee. The inability of these interpreters to arrive at a similar consensus
about the structure of the texts with which they have dealt seems, at
this point, to reflect the inadequacies of their structural methodologies
more than it reflects the intractability inherent in a structural problem.
In abandoning Cassuto’s reconstructed m yth the post-Cassuto gener-
ation also abandoned the close attention he paid to the content of the
text. Both parties have aimed for the surface structure of the text (see
above, Intro 7), but while Cassuto focused on the individual (though
hypothetical) text, subsequent scholarship has searched for an ideal
structure by assiduously avoiding any confrontation with the actual
narrative structure of a particular text (see above, Intro 3). Although
this research has drawn a group of texts together in a structural relation-
ship, the notion of structure th at underlies the research is non-technical
because it encompasses only similarities and not differences (see above,
Intro 4 ).3 The structures th at result from this notion consist of series
2 I.e., UT 129 + 137 + 68 -f 51 + 67 + 62 + 49; see de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, pp. 36-43, for an over-
view of the problem, and note that his own solution accepts this sequence but connects UT fnt (CTA 3 + 1)
to the beginning. I consider the sequence without fnt the fullest available form of the Baal myth, and
the form that ultimately should be the Ug. base for structural comparisons.
3 Thus the differences described between the Ug. and Heb. examples depend entirely on non-struc-
tural criteria; see below, jj-ww.
— 247 —
of elements (see above, Intro 5) isolated in the texts. These elements

may best be classified as "motifs” or “themes,” and the use made of
them would approximate "narrative motif-analysis” more closely than
"structural analysis” (of any kind) if the interpreters had been granted
narrative texts for the OT side of the parallel. 4 But even if this ter-
minological change could be granted to the methodology, it still would
not absolve the interpreters from the responsibility to account for all
of the text. A synthetic chart of the elements th at have been described
in the texts under study presents the following picture:
Ugaritic Song of the Sea
—Conflict —Conflict
—threat
—captivity
—Baal goes to war
—weapons
—combat —combat
—victory —victory
—Yahweh as man of war
—Yahweh controls the sea and earth
—Kingship —Kingship
—acclamation/proclamation
—(Salvation of the gods —Salvation of the Israelites
[Enuma Elish])
—Order/Shalom
—Building of temple —Building of mountain sanctuary
—procession —procession
—Banquet —Banquet
—Manifestation of Baal’s —Manifestation of Yahweh’s universal
universal reign reign
(anticipated and effected)
—Theophany of Divine —Theophany of Divine Warrior
Warrior
—Fertility of restored order
(anticipated and effected)
4 On the problem created for the comparison by the divergence of genres, see below, ii. I will discuss
the ambiguity and the potential of motif/theme-analysis in RSP IV. This type of research may be distin-
guished but not separated from structural analysis, since motifs and themes present structural problems
both within themselves and in relation to the larger question of narrative analysis.
— 248 —
A reading of the texts confirms what the references cited by the authors
imply: these elements simply do not account for the entire content,
although the synthesis is more comprehensive than the work of any
single author. Cassuto’s work is omitted from the chart. He was the
first and last interpreter to perceive the texts as wholes th at must be
completely described, and—despite his faulty approach to the Ug. side
of the parallel, the details of his work could still provide leads to elements
th at would make the chart more comprehensive.
ff. The issue of whether the Ug. texts in question represent a single,
unified pattern, or two variants of a lesser pattern, largely reflects the
lack of adequate structural analysis. The texts relate two major sets
of conflicts, Baal-Yamm and Baal-Mot, but the structural relationships
of the two episodes have yet to be worked out. Whereas Cassuto argued
(.B IE S , IX [1942], 45-51 = IE J , X II [1962], 77-86) for the primacy of
the Baal-Mot conflict, recent scholarship has turned to the Baal-Yamm
conflict as the basic form—a development anticipated by Cassuto’s
structural program for the revolt of the “Sea,” although he never realized
its implications for Ug. mythology. However, the claim of Cross, fol-
lowed by Hanson, th at the Baal-Mot conflict follows the same pattern
as the Baal-Yamm conflict, finds little justification in his analysis.
Craigie progressed—though not structurally—beyond this hollow per-
ception by developing Cross’s adumbration of the different characters
of Baal’s enemies, Yamm and Mot.
gg- The articulation of this difference, and its application to the problem
of the unity of the Ug. texts, depends on a fundamental point of inter-
pretation: the Baal myths constitute a creation story. 5 Craigie accepted
5 The idea of creation appears more overtly in Enuma Elish, which devotes greater detail to the
process of ordering the cosmos. Although the process lies dormant in what time has preserved for us of
the Baal texts, the Ug. myth speaks clearly enough of order (note especially Fisher's analysis). And, if
one admits that the temple is a “micro-cosmos," the process of temple-building is an alternative means
of referring to the process of ordering. Therefore, even if the element of order is considered the vital in-
gredient of a creation myth, the Ug. texts explicitly (and not implicitly) concern creation. D. J.
McCarthy's incredible claim that the Ug. materials “do not really tell of a struggle against chaos and the
formation of an ordered world consequent on victory over that enemy" (CBQ, XXIX [1967], 89, n. 5) simply
reflects his prejudice that “creation" must refer to an absolute beginning (p. 88). The juxtaposition of
theogonic creation (absolute beginning) with cosmogonic creation (order from chaos) in Enuma Elish sug-
gests the irrationality of this point of view. McCarthy seems to accept Marduk’s construction of a new
order in Enuma Elish as a creation account. His contention that the Ug. texts give no hint of such con-
struction, but merely recount a struggle between adversaries for control of an apparently organized world
(p. 87, n. 1), simply ignores the element of order in the Baal texts.
While acknowledging that Enuma Elish in a myth of creation (Studies, p. 85), Cassuto espressly denied
that status to “The Revolt of the Sea," reserving a “poem dealing with the work of Creation" for a myth
analogous to the P account in Gen 1:1-2:3 (Studies, pp. 103-104; again, the definition of a creation myth
— 249 —
this understanding and used it to turn Cross’s distinction between Yamm

as the power of chaos and Mot as the power of sterility, disease, and
death into a cosmogonic distinction between the Baal-Yamm conflict
as the creation of order from chaos and the Baal-Mot episode as the
maintenance of order against external threats. Not only does this bring
the Ug. materials into a meaningful continuity, but Craigie also used
it to refine previous structural interpretations of the Song of the Sea.
In the Song he found two conflicts, the first between Yahweh and Eg.,
and the second anticipated with the inhabitants of Canaan (w . 1-10+12,
and 14-16, respectively); th at is, the first conflict represents the creation
of the people of Israel, and the second looks forward to Israel’s estab-
lishment in the promised land (Tyndale Bulletin, 24-25). While Craigie’s
suggestion for the unity of the Ug. texts will demand further scrutiny,
it appears to hold real promise for the solution of the problem. On the
one hand, it draws on the common distinction made by mythologists
between myths, such as creation, depicting unrepeatable situations th at
describe the sub-structure of reality which defines the conditions under
which humans must live, and myths portraying repeatable events th at
constitute the continuous framework of life.8 On the other, it appeals
to the fundamental theological distinction between God’s work in ere-
ation and the sustaining and preserving care which accompanies it:
the Old Testament draws a clear line between creation and m aintenance.7
by its attention to the process of ordering!). However, he also recognized that the “epoch” of the Revolt
was “the dawn of the world’s history,” and that it cannot be entirely disconnected from “the six days of
Creation’‫( ״‬S tu d ie s , pp. 8 4 9 9 ,85‫)־‬, thereby once again anticipating future corrections of his views. Scholars
have generally granted that a C h aosk am pf is a type of creation myth ever since Gunkel's Schopfung u nd
Chaos. Now the element of conflict is the sine qua non of this mythological structure; but an overemphasis
on this element, particularly combined with an overemphasis on the element of kingship abstracted from
its total context (on this, see especially I,. R. Fisher, VT, XV [1965], 313316‫)־‬, tends to block the inter-
preter’s perception of the overarching significance of the texts, which is creation. Thus Cross realized that
the Baal myth should be interpreted as a cosmogonic creation myth (J T h C , 8 9 ‫ ;־‬C M H E , p. 120), but that
which he emphasized in the study of the texts led his students, Hanson and Miller (D ivin e Warrior), to
retreat to the description of the myth as a conflict myth and to focus on the portrayal of the divine war-
rior and his theophanies. Schmidt, K G U I , carried the divorce of C h a o sk a m p f from creation to its most
devastating extreme by denying that Baal is a creator god at all. Remaining true to Gunkel’s concept of
C h a o sk a m p f as creation story, von Rad, Theology I, pp. 150151‫־‬, refuted Schmidt's contention that in the
OT the C h a o sk a m p f can only be related to creation in passages where this is explicitly stated with an ar-
gument strikingly similar to Fisher's important observation that when a text employs one of the elements
of the creation structure, it draws by implication on the entire series.
• See, e.g., L. Toombs, J B R , X X IX (1961), 108. Toombs noted that the second type of myth usually
casts repeatable events in a cyclic pattern. He cited Gordon, U L , pp. 3 8 ‫־‬, to adduce a seven year cycle
for the Ug. texts. But the hypothesis of this cycle arises only from the texts which deal with the Baal‫־‬
Mot conflict.
7 Of course, the two are also intimately bound together; see von Rad, Theology I, pp. 147-148. A
psalm like Ps 104 beautifully joins the praise of Yahweh’s creation and preservation of the cosmos.
— 250 —
Narrative Structures in the Ugaritic Texts I ll I
hh. The status of the *nt text (CTA 3 + 1 ) remains an open question.
No author has attem pted to integrate it into the Ug. structural pattern,
implying an acceptance of Fisher’s observation th at it represents a
separate tradition. I believe this to be true of at least UT 'n t I-VI (CTA 3),
and I believe th at this tablet contains all the elements of cosmogonic
creation identified by Fisher:
1) Conflict: placed in the past with Anat victorious over Yamm
and his cohorts in III:35-IV:47; anticipated as a future threat to Baal by
Mot in V:25-26; cf. the portrayal of A nat’s battle with mankind in
II:3b-30a.
2) Order: anticipated by Baal in 111:1 lb-14 and IV:52b-54, and
effected by Anat in IV:67b-69a and 71b-75a; A nat’s activities in II:2-3a
and 30b-43a also create order.
3) Kingship: implied of Baal by the symbolism of the lightning in
111:15-28; IV :55-64, 69b-71a; proclaimed in V:40-41a.
4) Temple: IV:83-VI:25.
5) Banquet: 1:2-17.
UT 603 obv:l-4—a text th at is intimately related to *nt I-VI—contains
the elements of conflict, order, kingship, and temple. This supports the
hypothesis th at UT *nt I-VI provides an alternate tradition of Baal-
type creation. I have listed the elements in the order identified by Fisher
in the Baal texts, although the *nt text subjects th at arrangement to
a radical decomposition. Craigie’s observation th at the clustering of
motifs is more significant than the order of their appearance is true as
far as it goes; but the rearrangement of motifs in various texts indicates
specific intentions in the individual text whose explication compels the
interpreter to move beyond narrative motif-analysis to genuine struc-
tural analysis. For the order of the elements contains meaning as much
as does their appearance. The interpretation of this meaning demands
a decoding of the text—not strictly in the structuralist sense, however,
since the decoding aims to explain the narrative elements because of
the order of their transmission and not to rearrange them in a “proper”
order (see above, Intro 8).
ii. In turning to Exod 15, the history of scholarship has agreed th at
the Ug. pattern is present, but it has also found the precise identification
of th at pattern to be even more difficult for the Song of the Sea than
for the Baal cycle. This largely reflects the difficulties attendant on
the generic shift from myth, with its narrative categories of structure,
to hymnic literature, which has no fundamental narrative drive. Cas-
— 251 —
suto found narrative terms for all but one of the nineteen sections of
his “ Revolt of the Sea” (#4; see above, h), but described the Song of
the Sea with no attem pt at narrative categories (see above, k). The
post-Cassuto reduction of structure to a handful of basic elements has
aggravated the problem by cutting structure loose from Cassuto’s at-
tention to the individual word and phrase. As Cross has noted, the sur-
face structure of the Song of the Sea falls into two major units (w . lb-12,
13-18), and the poetic structure offers logical subdivisions of these blocks
(see above, u). But the Ug.-Heb. comparison has little to do with this
structure, limiting itself instead to the haphazard recognition of presum-
ably similar elements. This has led, for example, to the identification
of the element of conflict in w . 3, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, lb-10, and lb-12.
Such confusion reflects the reluctance of scholarship to confront the
problem of the divergent means of expression inherent in the shift from
m yth to hymn.
jj. A narrow-minded consideration of the relation of form to content
has replaced this confrontation in the history of research. Cassuto iden-
tified form in terms of words and phrases (i.e. “formulae,” flexibly de-
fined), and claimed th a t the form of the Song of the Sea continues the
literary tradition of his hypothetical rebellion m yth while avoiding ref-
erence to its subject-matter. This claim raised two problems th at preoc-
cupied later interpreters of the Ug.-Heb. parallel.
kk. The first problem concerns the divorce of form and content. Granted
th at the meaning of a word depends more on context than etymology
(see above, Intro 2 c), and th at a structural emphasis on relationships
imputes the primary meaning of any textual unit to its context (see
above, Intro 5 b), Cassuto’s notion th a t key words and phrases could
be abstracted like loose teeth from a well-known m yth without provoking
any recollection of the content of th at m yth not only defies rational
belief, but unveils a deep-seated prejudice against th at content—a pre-
judice assumed wholeheartedly by most later interpreters. Thus, in
commenting on the relation of the Song of the Sea to "mythological
patterns in Near Eastern and especially Canaanite literature,” F. M.
Cross and D. N. Freedman, JN E S , X IV (1955), 239, adm itted th at
“the poetic styles and canons of Canaan have affected strongly the struc-
ture, diction, and, on occasion, the actual phraseology of the poem,”
but immediately retracted this concession to form by avowing th at the
content of the poem is merely “shaped by familiar cliches, motifs, and
literary styles; and even these influences are remarkably restrained”
— 252 —
(my italics). Hanson likewise insisted on the gap between form and
substance in the OT poem.
11. Fisher, on the other hand, recognized a form shared by Exod 15
and the Baal myth, and in this found a reason for the OT borrowing
of the Ug. content. Fisher replaced Cassuto’s formulaic definition of
form with an emphasis on narrative units (Craigie’s “motifs") in the
Ug. materials, and attem pted to relate what amount to formulae in
Exod 15 to these narrative units. Craigie’s greater sensitivity to the
shift in genres caused him to draw on a commonly held conceptual
separation between the formula as a linguistic unit and the structural
analog to the formula as a narrative unit. Noting th at the Song of the
Sea draws on both types of compositional resources, he identified the
latter type with content and noted th at the content of Exod 15 has
much in common with the Ug. texts, although the “external literary
form” (genre?) is different.
mm. Despite some confusion in terminology, Fisher and Craigie seem to
agree on the essential point: similar form implies similar content. Form
and content cannot be separated as cleanly as the m ajority of inter-
preters have supposed. However, Craigie’s separation of the “formula”
as a microscopic unit of language from the formula(!) as a macroscopic
unit of discourse still implies a separation of form and content th at bears
little relationship to the real process by which texts are generated.
W hether this process is understood in cumulative or transformational
terms, it remains true th at as the formula (words and phrases) provides
the linguistic structure of a traditional text, the larger units of discourse
provide the narrative and descriptive structure. In other words, the
larger narrative and descriptive components8 function analogously to
the smaller linguistic components. If, from a structural point of view,
interpretation of content proceeds from a realistic apprehension of form,
progress in the understanding of the Ug.-Heb. parallel depends in a
broad sense on the integration of Cassuto’s words and phrases with the
narrative elements identified by subsequent scholarship. Fisher par-
tially accomplished this integration by relating mythic elements to
hymnic formulae, but adequate interpretation will only result from a
detailed examination of the structural relationship of the elements to
the formulae which embody them in both m yth and hymn.
8 I have used the relatively neutral term “element’‫ ״‬to avoid terminological confusion over what
have been called motifs, themes, scenes, episodes, etc.
— 253 —
III I Ras Shamra Parallels
nn. Otherwise, the Ug.-Heb. comparison must ultimately abandon any

structural basis and stand entirely on an evaluation of content. This is
precisely what has happened in the history of research into the parallel
between the Baal m yth and the Song of the Sea, as scholars have grap-
pled with the second problem arising from Cassuto’s claim th a t the Song
borrows a literary tradition while rejecting the content of th at tradition.
This second problem may be stated in the form of a question: Why does
Exod 15 use the form if it rejects the content?
oo. Cassuto’s implied answer—th at the Hebrews were able to find a
novel content but not a novel means of expressing it (see Studies II,
p. 59)—finds clear expression in Hanson’s explanation th a t the mythic
pattern was Israel’s natural means of voicing its faith at the earliest
period of its history (see above, cc). W ith some attem pt at refinement,
Cross and Craigie accepted this explanation. Having disposed of the
problem of form with this puerile rationalization, interpreters freely
recast the question as “Why does Exod 15 use the content if it rejects
the content?” , and used this new and quite different question as the
theoretical foundation of their elucidations of the relationship of Exod 15
to the Baal myth. W ith the notable exception of Fisher, the history
of research has compacted this elucidation into a simple but horribly
destructive dichotomy: m yth (Ug.) vs. history (H eb.).9
pp. All interpreters but Fisher ground their results in the tiresome
observation th at the striking aspect of the Song of the Sea in relation
to the Ug. materials is th at in it “sea” is never personified or hostile,
but simply a passive instrument under Yahweh’s control. Structurally,
the interpretation of the parallel has nothing to do with the role of the
"sea,” 10 but concerns the identification of the element of “conflict” in
9 This treatment of the parallel comes closer to a diachronic than a synchronic investigation (see
above, Intro 6), since it aims broadly to demonstrate the development of what it has structurally classified
as a system. But it must be noted that the interpretation is not based on structure. Having failed to isolate
structural divergences (see above, ee), most of the interpreters have concentrated on an assumed diver-
gence in content that reflects their own preconceptions more than the preoccupations of the texts with
which they pretend to deal. Fisher partially avoided this snare by making form virtually equivalent to
content for purposes of interpretation, and his understanding of the nature of the Ug.-Heb. parallel stands
in stark contrast to that of the rest of the history of scholarship.
10 I do not mean by this that the appearance of "sea” (Yamm) in both the Baal myth and Exod 15
is merely a coincidence. It is far from clear, however, that "sea” has lost its mythological connotations
in Exod 15. Indeed, given the dependence of Exod 15 on the Ug. structure and the role assigned to Yamm
within it, the supposition that the repeated references to "sea” in Exod 15 fail to recollect the awesome
power of chaos which it represents lies beyond the bounds of rational consideration. What Exod 15 reveals
is a development of Yamm’s role in the element of conflict. The Ug. myth portrays Baal’s creation of order
via the subjugation of chaos (Yamm); in Exod 15 Yahweh creates a people by "un-creating” the Egyptians.
— 254 —
the context of the larger pattern. In this perspective the substitution

of a human foe for a divine foe weighs more heavily than the role played
by the “sea.” When understood structurally, the substitution simply
reveals th at Exod 15 expresses the creation of a people, while the Baal
myths relate the creation of a cosmos. The subject has changed, but
the fundamental similarity of the texts remains.
qq. Cross’s assessment of the relationship of Exod 15 and the Baal myth
exemplifies the most promising results th at can be obtained when the
interpreter attem pts to sever the bond of form and content. His analysis
takes root in his emphasis on “the impact of formative historical events
and their interpretation” as the key factor in the development of Israelite
religion. Exod 15 reveals the power of the mythic pattern as mytho-
logical themes shape its mode of presenting epic memories; Israel con-
ceived the historical events as acts of Yahweh creating a new community.
But Exod 15 is fundamentally different from the Ug. myth: Yahweh’s
defeat of historical, human enemies replaces a combat between two
gods. Israel’s historical consciousness had broken the old mythic pat-
terns, but it used available symbols and language in Exod 15 to reveal
the “transcendent meaning” of the historical episode (Craigie’s "histor-
ical function [in a poetic sense] rather than a mythological function”).
(See above, v; JThC, 24-25; CMHE, pp. 143-144).
rr. Because of his interest in what he means by “history,” and because
of his theory of the development of Israelite religion, which emphasizes
the resurgence of the mythic pattern with the introduction of kingship
and its ideology and during the Exile, Cross prefers to speak of the func-
tion of the m yth in Exod 15 as a mythologization of history (see JThC,
17-20, 24-25; CMHE, pp. 132-136, 143-144). This is consistent with
his effort to limit the role of myth in Exod 15 as far as possible, but the
use of mythological concepts and vocabulary to illuminate “historical”
events is better and more commonly described as the historicization of
He returns them to chaos, over which his mastery is presupposed. A similar development in the pattern
had already taken place at Ugarit itself: after her savage war with mankind, Anat employs the waters of
Baal (mh, rbb) as “passive instruments” to effect order among the survivors fn t 11:3841‫)־‬. Despite im-
portant differences between 'nt II and Exod 15, the texts agree that the deity creates a people by battling
human foes. In both texts the watery forces of chaos become agents employed by the deity to successfully
resolve the conflict. I am not arguing for any literary relationship between 'nt II and Exod 15. However,
the existence of *nt II combines with the use of ‫ ים‬in Exod 15 to suggest that the concrete role played by
the “sea” in the Exodus event provided the substantive link to Yamm as the power of chaos in the Baal
myth. With this link established within the element of conflict, the Israelites had no alternative but to
express their creation as the people of Yahweh in terms of the entire structure and meaning of the cos-
mogonic creation myth (so Fisher).
— 255 —
in i Ras Shamra Parallels
myth. Thus L. Toombs, JB R , X X IX (1961), 109, described the histor-

icization of m yth in Exod 15 as a process in which mythological elements
are “taken from their original context, rearranged, readjusted to an
historical beginning, and, in consequence, radically transformed.” Since
Cross and Toombs agree th at Israel’s formative event shattered the old
mythic patterns, the fragments of which Israel adapted for its own
u se ,11 it could be argued th at the different ways in which Cross and
Toombs characterize this procedure amount to nothing more than a
minor terminological debate. However, it is not minor because Cross
uses his characterization to drastically limit Israel’s mythologization of
history in its retelling of the Exodus event. As Toombs has noted, Exod 15
shares considerably more in common with m yth than Cross admitted:
in Exod 15 Yahweh, not humans, sets events in motion 112; the event
as described was the decisive determiner of the enduring reality of Israel;
the event was relived in each subsequent generation (a mythic sense of
tim e); and, finally, the event constituted the reality of Israel’s life 13
(p. 110). These phenomena, along with the incorporation of the structure
and meaning of the Ug. myth, constitute the mythologization of history
in the Song of the Sea—a mythologization of which Cross takes no ac-
count.
ss. Once interpretation cuts itself off from the base provided by struc-
ture, the individual interpreter’s understanding of the text is bound to
depend more on his own preconceptions than on the evidence offered
by the text itself. For, having severed the bond of form and content,
the interpreter no longer allows the text to speak on its own terms. Cross
unrealistically limits the function of m yth in Exod 15 because the view
of history which informs his interpretation of the Ug.-Heb. parallel
sets m yth in opposition to history. An examination of Cross’s inter-
pretation (see above, qq) reveals the historiographical presuppositions
11 It cannot be stressed too violently that the structural evidence entirely negates this view. How-
ever the difference between Exod 15 and the Ug. materials should be described—and I intend to reserve
my views on this matter for an independent treatment which can consider the problem in greater detail
than is possible here—that description must begin by accounting for the retention of the Ug. structure,
or pattern, since Exod 15 preserves not only the elements of that structure but also their sequence.
12 In terms of the respective roles of the deity and the humans, Exod 15 shows no substantial difference
from the Ug. account of Anat’s battles with mankind in UT fnt II:3b-30a.
13 At this point Toombs makes what I consider an illegitimate distinction between myth and history:
as historical event the Exodus demanded a different quality of response than the myth, a response not
cultic so much as moral. Yet, as Toombs himself admitted on p. I l l , Israel’s foundation could not be laid
on the escape from Egypt as a bare event. The meaning lies in the telling. The response depends on the
mythological components.
— 256 —
th at determine it: 1) history concerns human affairs; 2) historical inves-

tigation limits itself to what may broadly be labeled ‘‘political” affairs—
human interpretation is not equivalent to historical event; 3) myth,
nature, and God form a closely related group of phenomena which are
fundamentally different from h istory.14 From these presuppositions the
interpretation flows: Exod 15 differs radically from the Ug. m yth be-
cause Exod 15 presupposes a historical event (something th at ‘‘really”
happened in human, political affairs), while the Ug. m yth presupposes
only divine events reflected in the cosmos, or world of nature. Exod 15
incorporates a touch of the myth in order to bring God into the picture.
tt. Since this interpretation flatly opposes the structural evidence, it

is no wonder th at Fisher, whose interpretation of the parallel relied
more on structure than th at of any other scholar, found it wrong to speak
either of the mythologization of history or the historicization of m yth
in Exod 15. He made this point to emphasize the importance of the
total meaning of the Baal m yth to Exod 15: the Hebrews found that
it said about the cosmos what they wanted to say about themselves.
So they borrowed it whole, as shown by the structural evidence. Thus
Fisher applied his warning to the theological aspect of interpretation—
the question of how the Hebrews expressed their faith in Yahweh. But
it applies equally, as Fisher fully realized, to the historical aspect, both
in terms of the means of expression available to the Hebrews as a his-
torically limited people, and in terms of the dichotomy of m yth and
history presupposed by all interpreters of the Ug.-Heb. parallel except
Fisher himself. The structural comparison of Exod 15 and the Baal
myth shows th at the Hebrews did not presuppose this dichotomy, and
indicates th at the modem historian-theologian should be wary of it
as well.
uu. In 1946 Martin Buber discussed the problem of m yth (or what he
more broadly termed “saga”) and history in relation to the quest for
historical information about Moses in the biblical texts. He admitted
th at a text such as the Song of the Sea may reveal little about the event
which it celebrates; but he added th at it may reveal a great deal about
14 In this lies the key to Cross’s understanding of Exod 15. As a historian he wants to separate God
from history—hence his refusal to admit the fundamentally mythological nature of Exod 15. As a theo-
logian he wants to bring God as close as possible to history and keep him as far as possible from myth—
hence his somewhat incredible claim that Israel’s “austere historical consciousness’’ (a consciousness that
found abundant room for God’s direct participation in history) broke the old mythic patterns.
— 257 —
the manner in which the participating people experienced th at event.

Ancient man perceived in the unplanned, unexpected event which trans-
formed the historical situation of his community at a single stroke an
event so enormous th at he could not ascribe it to his own plans and their
realization. Instead, he viewed it as a deed performed by heavenly pow-
ers. Emphasis should be placed on the word “viewed.” “The historical
wonder is no mere interpretation; it is something actually seen.” A text
such as the Song of the Sea, in so far as it lies near the event, bears wit-
ness to far more than a “mere recasting of the event perceived by im-
agination become param ount.” It evidences a creative experience th at
is of the genuine substance of history. The elimination of the function
of enthusiasm from a “historical song” does not unveil its historical
nucleus, for this function is an inseparable element of the fragment of
history under consideration. The experience of event as wonder is itself
history. Buber claimed th at it is wrong to characterize such songs as
a historicization of m yth (in the sense meant by Toombs), and would
describe them as a mythologization of history only if “m yth” is used
to mean nothing other than the report by ardent enthusiasts of th a t
which has happened to them. (See Moses, pp. 14-17.)
vv. Buber’s observations constitute a statem ent of historiographical

presuppositions th at denies the dichotomy of myth and history assumed
by Cross and those who share his view of history. These presuppositions
expose the reality th at generated the Song of the Sea. They allow the
interpreter-as-theologian to dynamically incorporate the content and
meaning of the m yth th a t underlies the Song of the Sea into his under-
standing of the text. Freed from the dichotomy of m yth and history,
the structural interpreter can focus on the total relationship between
the Song of the Sea and the m yth represented by the Ug. materials;
and the structural evidence thus far adduced in the history of research
shows th at the role of “m yth” in the Song of the Sea can be defined
much more precisely than Buber suspected. As a means of reporting
an event, it imparts an interpretation of th at event. The aspect of won-
der calls for this interpretation. The structural comparison of the Heb.
and Ug. texts reveals th at the Israelites expressed their wonder and
amazement in terms of their understanding of what had happened to
them at the Sea: Yahweh created them as a people. As a historian, Bu-
ber set interpretation and experience against each other to emphasize
the vital role of experience in the generation of a text such as the Song
of the Sea. The modern interpreter-as-historian can exploit Buber’s
— 258 —
emphasis on the historical importance of experience without opposing

it to interpretation. For the experiences of human beings, which con-
stitute the real stuff of history, are always interpretive.15
ww. From the structural perspective, I believe it is vital to translate
‫ קנה‬in Exod 15:16b as “create.” As opposed to “acquire” or “redeem,”
this translation reflects at least an elementary grasp of the implications
of the Ug.-Heb. structural parallel, although, as Fisher has noted, ere-
ation is redemption (and redemption is creation) for the writer(s) of
the Song of the Sea. As “create,” the word itself seems to have come
into Heb. as a heritage from the religious beliefs reflected in Ug.
15 In his historical discussion of the event at the Sea, Buber focused on Exod 15:21b (= 15:1b).
From this v. he concluded that the people involved experienced whatever happened as an act of their God,
and that as a historical event this experience decisively influenced the coming into being of Israel (Moses,
pp. 7 3 7 9 ‫)־‬. Freedman, H is to r y , pp. 4 1 2 ‫־‬, offers an illustrative contrast to Buber. Sharing the historio-
graphical presuppositions of Cross, and adding vv. 1 1 8 ‫ ־‬to v. 21 as the basis of investigation, Freedman
noted that the Exodus and the deliverance at the Sea were real events, and derived some “significant his-
torical information” from the poem: the historical compass of the poem does not include the conquest—
it indicates only a settlement at a southern wilderness sanctuary (if true, this view would necessitate re-
vision of Craigie's structural interpretation of the text !see above, gg], but it would not disqualify his basic
distinction between creation and preservation); and the patriarchs (the God of the Fathers) with their
promised land stand outside the poem’s historical horizon. As historians, both Buber and Freedman depend
on the assumption that the text which provides their information approximates the event and thereby
provides a primary witness to the event. Freedman conceded that the historian can learn something from
the text about the impact of the event on the people who participated in it, but it did not occur to him
that this impact should be understood as part of the event—much less that the impact constitutes the
most significant, indeed the only real, aspect of the event. Freedman and Buber differ radically because
they seek different types of historical facts from the text. J. Cobb, R L , X X X IV (1965), 273276‫־‬, has located
these two types of facts with a profound observation: what actually occurred in the past were innumerable
experiences of living persons. By making actual human experiences the object of his investigation, Buber
concentrated on what Cobb called “actual” facts, the type of facts that give the historian information about
“what really happened” in the past. Buber, it should be noted, did not fully understand the ontological
status of the facts he chose to examine, as shown most clearly in his remark that he could not be certain
“of arriving by this method at ‘what really happened’” (Moses, p. 16). The type of facts derived from the
text by Freedman correspond, on the other hand, to what Cobb called “hypothetical” facts. Such facts
are comparable to a video-tape recording of an event; they are what a “neutral observer” with unlimited
powers of observation wôuld have seen had he been at the event. This type of fact is hypothetical because
it requires the historian to conjecturally construct the reality it presupposes. For no one of the actual ex-
periences of the participants in the event and no combination of them would constitute the experience of
a neutral observer. Such a construction is a perfectly legitimate undertaking on the part of the historian,
but it is of secondary historical interest. The historical information adduced by Freedman from the Song
of the Sea ranks even lower on the scale. He made little effort to construct the event carried to us by the
text, but rather focused on the geographical implications of the text. His results are far from insignificant,
but his self-imposed limitation to a narrow range of hypothetical facts—i.e., geographical facts—gives
the historian little satisfaction about “what really happened.” Buber and Freedman agree that little
can be said about the event in terms of hypothetical facts; the difference between them is that Buber at-
tempted to reconstruct a real event by appealing to actual facts, wdiile Freedman settled for a geographical
construction which contributes information relevant to the dating of the text and to the identification of
the group of people involved in the event in terms of hypothetical facts.
— 259 —
18
mythology—a point noted even by von Rad, Theology I, p. 142 and n. 11.
However, the translation of the word carries little impact apart from
the full appreciation of its context. Those interpreters who base their
understanding of the tex t on a dichotomy of myth-nature-God and
history cannot appropriate the fundamental implications of “creation”
for the elucidation of the Song of the Sea. The translation of Kxod 15:16b
given above in section g follows th at of Cross, CMHE, p. 130. While
Cross described the Ug. m yth as a cosmogonic creation story, he iden-
tified the Song of the Sea as one of two “patterns or genres” 16 existing
both in the Ug. texts and the OT: the march of the Divine W arrior to
battle {CMHE, pp. 155, 157). While he claimed th at the cosmogonic
struggle stands in the foreground of this pattern or genre (p. 156), his
interpretation of the Song of the Sea allows creation to recede far into
the background. It is still there, but it carries little weight against the
understanding of the text engendered by Cross’s view of history.
xx. Judg 5
Hanson: By the time of the Song of Deborah, the eleventh century B.C.,
the tension between the form of "the ritual pattern of the conflict
m yth” and Israel’s distinctive substance had mounted to the break-
ing point. Only the skeleton of the "pattern,” or “ritual structure,”
remains:
(1) Combat of the Divine Warrior (w . 4a, 20).
(2) Theophany (w . 4b-5).
(3) Victory (v. 21).
(4) Salvation of Israel (v. 31).
In this poem, however, Yahweh fades into the background. The
ritual pattern functions only as a stylistic device and as a “gentle
reminder th at somehow Yahweh is active in Israel’s historical ad-
ventures.” The real source of the poem is a drama experienced
within the historical realm. (J B L , 56-57; Apocalyptic, p. 303.)
yy. Isa 11:1-9; Pss 2; 9; 24; 29; 46; 47; 48; 65; 68; 74:12-17; 76; 77:17-21;
89:6-19; 93; 97; 98; 99; 104; 106:9-13; 110
Fisher: In the light of the creation-redemption language about God in
Exod 15, OT references to God as king recall the context of creation.
16 The question of genre is broader and more difficult than that of pattern, or structure. Form criti-
cally, the identification of a genre is usually coupled to a determination of setting(s) and intention(s), at
least when speculation about these factors is possible. Even if genre is reduced to structure, the distinction
between the Ug. materials as myth and the Song of the Sea as hymn is of fundamental importance to the
process of interpretation and cannot be denied on any grounds (see above, ii).
— 260 —
Thus Ps 24 speaks of creation and of God as the king of Glory—a

mighty man or a man of war. The same is true of Pss 47 (esp. v. 3)
and 95:3. Ps 149:2 ties creation and kingship together. In Pss
68:22-25 and 74:12-17 the king’s battle results in the creation of a
people and of cosmos. It then comes as no surprise th at the en-
thronement psalms exhibit the same form: Ps 93 contains the el-
ements of conflict, kingship, order, and temple, and hence relates
to Baal type creation; cf. Pss 97 and 99. {Encounter, 188-189; VT,
322.)
zz. Ps 89:6-19 presents the creator-king, great in council, ruler of the
sea, and creator. His throne is mentioned; his people worship him.
These imply the temple and banquet aspects of creation. This god
makes covenant and establishes his relationship with his people and
his king. [Encounter, 189-190.)
aa. Cross: Ps 24:7-10 is a tenth-century B.C. liturgical fragment which can
be fitted into the “Canaanite pattern” (described above, q), although
modified in its Israelite context: it recalls the victory of Yahweh
in the primordial battle and his enthronement in his newly built
(cosmic) temple. While the “motif ‘creation-kingship’” is present
in Ps 24, the key to an adequate interpretation of the Ps and its
place in Israel’s cultic history is the language of holy war, whose
locus is discovered in the Exodus-Conquest traditions, not in the
primordial battle of creation. The center of Israel’s early cultus
cannot be found in a mythological pattern, but in the reenactment
of the Exodus-Conquest. The “movement” of this “ritual Conquest”
may be reconstituted for the Gilgal cultus from Josh 3-5:
(1) The people are required to sanctify themselves (Josh 3:5).
(2) The Ark of the Covenant is carried in procession to the sane-
tuary of Gilgal.
(3) The Jordan (= the Red Sea) parts for the Ark and the people,
symbolizing the Exodus (Josh 4:21-24; cf. Pss 114:1a, 3-5;
66:6); the movement “from Shittim to Gilgal” (Mic 6:5) re-
presents the Conquest.
(4) Twelve stones are set up at Gilgal as a memorial to the tribes
united in the covenant festival [Josh 4:1-9]; cf. Moses’ parallel
action at Sinai (Exod 24:4).
(5) Circumcision etiology (Josh 5:2-8).
(6) The (angelic) general of Yahweh’s host appears (Josh 5:13-15;
cf. Exod 3:2ff.; 14:19).
— 261 —
The institution of kingship and the inauguration of a temple in the

“Canaanite” style in Israel occasioned the “radical mythologizing
of the ‘historical’ festivals, especially the ‘ritual conquest’.” (See
Biblical Motifs, pp. 1928‫ ;־‬CMHE, pp. 91-105.)
ba. The motif of the Divine Warrior is displayed prominently in Ps 24:

v. 8 leaves no room for doubt th at Yahweh is the Divine Warrior
[Biblical Motifs, p. 22; CMHE, p. 94). From Ug. descriptions of
the theophany of Baal as storm god and their adaptation into Heb.
poetic descriptions of Yahweh as Divine Warrior manifest, one may
perceive an “archaic mythic pattern” standing behind various Ug.
and Heb. texts:
(1) The Divine Warrior goes forth to battle against chaos (Yamm,
Mot, Leviathan).
(2) Nature convulses and languishes when the Warrior manifests
his wrath.
(3) The W arrior returns to take up kingship among the gods, and
is enthroned on his mountain.
(4) The Divine Warrior utters his voice from his temple, and nature
and men respond with fertility and festive glee.
The earliest Israelite texts replace this “mythic pattern” with an
“epic pattern” ; in particular, the first element is replaced by the
wars of Exodus and Conquest, and by the march from Egypt or
Sinai in the victory hymns. Yet the substitution is not complete,
so th at in the royal cultus and in sixth-century prophecy (proto-
apocalyptic) the Exodus-Conquest “motif” tends to merge with th at
of the battle with Sea. (See CMHE, pp. 162-163.)
ca. The Ug. and Heb. texts themselves fall into two “categories” or
“patterns” or “genres” or “themes” :
(1) The march of the Divine Warrior to battle (UT 67 1:1-5; 1001:1;
'n t 111:35-43; Isa 34:[l-4]; Hab 3:5-12). He takes his weapons,
the thunderbolt and the winds; he drives his cloud-chariot
against his enemy; all nature reflects his wrath; a terrible
slaughter is appointed. The cosmogonic struggle stands in the
foreground. Heb. hymns of this sort include virtually all of
Israel’s oldest hym ns,17 of which the Song of the Sea is the
earliest and fullest example.
17 Cross cited a series of texts in C M H E , pp. 157159‫ ־‬, but discussed only their imagery, not their
structure. He also referred to the texts he had discussed on pp. 91144‫( ־‬revised forms of his articles in B ib -
— 262
(2) The return of the Divine Warrior to take up kingship (UT 51

V :68-71; V II:29-35; 603 obv:l-4; cf. 49 111:6-7, 12-13; 1 Aqht:
42-46). He comes from battle to his new temple on his newly-
won mount. In the background is the cosmogonic victory,
although it is often alluded to, especially in his being enthroned
on the Flood. As Victor and King, his primary manifestation
is in the storm: at his voice nature awakens; his storm cloud
both awes and fructifies. His rule gives fertility, and all nature
rejoices in it. This pattern is the more frequent of the two.
(CMHE, pp. 147-156.)
da. Ps 29 is the most characteristic OT example of the second p a tte rn .18
This “Canaanite hym n” is an .ancient Baal hymn, probably bor-
rowed in Solomonic times, and only slightly modified for use in the
early cultus of Yahweh:
(1) Address to the divine council (vv. 1-2).
(2) Theophany of the storm god (v. 9), accompanied by convulsions
and travail of sea and mountain, forest and creature (w . 3-9b).
(3) The appearance of the god as victor and king enthroned in his
temple (w . 9c-10). {CMHE, pp. 151-155.)
As evinced by Ps 29, the language of theophany in early Israel
was primarily drawn from the theophany of Baal {CMHE, pp. 156-
157).
ea. After Ps 29, Ps 89:6-19 is most characteristic of the second pattern:
(1) Address to the divine assembly to acknowledge Yahweh as
terrible warrior (vv. 6-9; cf. Ps 29:1-2).
(2) Deity pictured as king, ruling enthroned on the Flood (v. 10;
cf. Ps 29:10).
(3) Allusion to his recent victory over the Flood dragon Rahab
and to the subsequent mighty works of creation (vv. 12-13).
lical M otifs and J T h C ) . From a structural perspective his discussion of Ps 132 is the most interesting. He
gave a “structure” for the hymn based on its strophes, but the parts of this structure do little to reveal
his view of the relationship of Ps 132 to the Ug. texts or to the other OT texts with which he compared
it ( C M H E , pp. 95-96). This relationship appears in his comments on the content of the text. Note also
p. 97, n. 25: the “pattern” (i.e., the battle of the Divine Warrior and the processional) of Ps 132 is found
also in Ps 89:219‫( ־‬on which see below, e») and Isa 6 2 :6 1 2 ‫ ־‬. From this it appears that Cross divorces “struc-
ture” from content while relating “pattern” to content. However, a lack of attention to precise terminology
marks Cross's work (as shown in his terms for the Divine Warrior texts; see also above, w w 16, and cf. below,
gP). His hidden agenda depends on a separation of form (whatever term is used to describe it) and content
(see above, qq).
18 For this see C M H E , p. 160; but note p. 156, where Cross cites Ps 29 as an example of the mixing
of the two “genres” or “themes.”
— 263 —
(4) He is portrayed as victor (v. 14).

(5) He is enthroned; triumphal procession (vv. 15-16).
(6) In a victory feast the victorious warrior is acknowledged as
ruler and king.
The “parallel motifs” in this hymn and Ps 29 are striking. However,
Ps 89, except for a hint in v. 16, lacks the imagery of the storm
theophany. (See CMHE, pp. 160-162.)
fa. Another hymn in this category is Ps 97:1-6. There are many other
examples, early and late: Pss 96 and 98 recount the rejoicing of
nature before the Divine Judge; Ps 93 is allied. Cf. also Pss 46:7-8;
50:1-6; 104:1-9, 31; and Job 26:11-13. {CMHE, p. 162.)
ga. Hanson: The royal cult in Jerusalem welcomed the ideology of the con-
flict m yth for the sacralization it lent to the Davidic dynasty.
Numerous Pss from various periods retain the "ritual pattern ” :
Ps 2: 1-3, threat: conspiring of the nations; 4-5, combat—victory
over enemy; 8-1 lb, manifestation of universal reign of Messiah;
11c, victory shout.
Ps 9: 6-7, combat—victory over enemy; 8-9, manifestation of Yah-
weh’s universal reign; 10-11, salvation of his people; 12-13,
victory shout.
Ps 24: 1, manifestion of Yahweh’s universal reign; 2, combat vs.
seas/rivers—victory; (3-6, entrance torah); 7-10, victory shout,
procession after victory to temple.
Ps 29: 3-9a, combat vs. waters—victory; 9b, victory shout; 10,
manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign; 11, shalom (abun-
dance) of the restored order.
Ps 46: 2-7, threat: chaos and nations, combat—victory over enemy;
8, salvation of his people; 9-12, manifestation of Yahweh’s
universal reign.
Ps 47: 2-4, combat—victory over enemy; 5, salvation of his people;
6, procession; 7-8, victory shout; 9-10, manifestation of Yah-
weh’s universal reign.
Ps 48: 5, threat: kings assemble vs. Zion; 6-8, combat—victory over
enemy; 9, salvation of Zion; 10-12, victory shout; 13-14, pro-
cession around the city; 15, Yahweh’s universal reign.
Ps 65: 6, salvation of his people; 7-8, combat vs. seas and nations—
victory; 9, manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign; 10-13,
shalom (return to fertility—new creation).
— 264 —
Ps 68: a) 1-2, combat—victory; 3, victory shout; b) 7 8 ‫־‬, combat of

Divine Warrior (ritual conquest); 9-10, salvation of his people;
11-14, victory over enemy; 15-18, procession to Zion; 19-20,
victory shout; c) 21, combat—victory over enemies; 22-23,
salvation of his people; 24-27, procession to sanctuary—victory
shout; 28-35, manifestation of Yahweh's universal reign,
ha. Ps 76: 4-8, combat—victory; 9-10, salvation of oppressed; 11-12,
procession to bring gifts to Yahweh; 13, manifestation of
Yahweh’s universal reign.
Ps 77:17-21: 17-19, combat vs. sea—victory; 20, procession; 21,
salvation of his people.
Ps 89:6-19: 6-9, Yahweh’s universal reign; 10-13, victory over en-
emies; 11-19, procession—victory shout.
Ps 97: 1-2, Yahweh reigns; 3-5, combat—victory over enemies;
6-7, manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign; 8-9, victory
shout.
Ps 98: 1-2, combat—victory; 3a, salvation of his people; 3b, mani-
festation of Yahweh’s universal reign; 4-9, procession—victory
shout.
Ps 104: 1-9, combat—victory (creation myth); 10-30, shalom (return
to fertility—new creation); 31-35, victory shout.
Ps 106:9-13: 9-10a, combat vs. sea—victory; 10b, procession; 11-13,
salvation of his people.
Ps 110: 1, 4, Yahweh establishes his king; 2, manifestation of king’s
universal reign; 3, procession to Zion; 5-7, combat—victory.
Isa 11:1-9: 1-3, royal shoot promised, equipped; 4-5, combat—
victory; 6-8, shalom; 9, manifestation of Yahweh’s universal
reign.
(See JB L , 57-58; Apocalyptic, pp. 304-307.)
ia. The ubiquity and regularity in structure of the “ritual pattern of
the conflict m yth” in the royal psalms document an essential
p o in t19: the conflict m yth was reintroduced into Israel’s religion and
given a prominent position in the central cult by the Jerusalem
19 Hanson’s chart of the elements of the ritual pattern of the royal cult (vis-a-vis that of the league
ritual conquest, e.g. Exod 15) includes Isa 11:1-9, the Baal cycle, and Enuma Elish, as well as the royal
psalms. It contains the elements of threat, combat, victory, salvation, victory shout, procession, manifes-
tation of reign, banquet, and shalom—a series not fully represented in any one text. (See A p o c a ly p tic ,
p. 308, n. 19).
— 265 —
priests. Although a text such as Isa 11:19‫ ־‬shows th at the prophetic

literature does not completely lack a royal dimension, the language
of the royal psalms contrasts strikingly with th at of the classical
prophets, whose typical point of view was severely critical of the
royal cult and its ideology, and lacked a profound mythic dimension.
If Judg 5 took the conquest tradition of the league within a step
of classical prophecy, this prophetic tradition discarded the ritual
pattern in favor of a political model which viewed Yahweh as a
king presiding over a divine assembly rather than as a storm god.
IJB L , 58; RB, 55; Apocalyptic, pp. 308-309.)
ja. Comments
From a structural perspective, the analysis of these Pss establishes
their vital connection with Judg 5 and Exod 15—a connection grounded
in the ancient Near Eastern m yths of cosmogonic creation. Fisher's
claim th at the terms “king,” “warrior,” and “creator” are synonymous
remains true to the structural evidence, although his analysis of the
texts is less detailed than those of Cross and Hanson. However, because
their understanding of the texts rests primarily on non-structural un-
derpinnings, their analyses add to the quantity but detract from the
quality of the structural comparison. This is most noticeable in Cross’s
seizure of the “motif” of the Divine W arrior as the common denominator
of “Canaanite m yth” and “Hebrew epic.” By making this “motif” the
structural equivalent of the “motif” creation-kingship, Cross hopelessly
confused the structural aspects of his interpretation. Thus he appealed
to a cosmogonic m yth (for which he at some point suggested four forms
in the Ug. texts), a hypothetical “archaic mythic pattern,” two actual
“categories” or “patterns” or “genres” or “themes” evidently generated
from the hypothetical Divine Warrior “P attern,” the “movement” of a
“ritual Conquest,” and various genres of hymnic literature. By manipu-
lating these diverse texts, Cross equated a structure (creation) with
an element in th at structure (kingship), and then set this unit on a par
with an actant (Divine Warrior) in the (intermediate) structure. The
structural results he derived from this basis are understandably am-
biguous, but his emphasis rested on the theophany of the Divine Warrior
as most supportive of his myth-history dichotomy. The status of the
Divine W arrior as king (and creator) depends on the mythologizing
of the Exodus-Conquest traditions. The royal cult accomplished this
mythologizing on the basis of the Divine W arrior ideology of holy war.
However, the structural indications in the texts under discussion support
— 266 —
Fisher’s conclusion: the chief actant (warrior) achieves his goal (king-
ship), and the announcement of this achievement forms one of the fun-
damental elements in the structure of the cosmogonic creation story.
In the transfer from narrative to hymnic poetry, the terms king, war-
rior, and creator become synonymous because of their structural re-
lationships at the narrative stage. Cross’s own dating of the Song of
the Sea affirms th at the Israelites were well aware of the mythological
background of the terms from the beginning of their history. Their holy
war ideology hardly depended on a split between the modern categories
of m yth and history. Because Cross’s position rests on the division of
these categories, and because he made structural equations where dis-
tinctions are required, he ultimately mistook terminological synonyms
for indicators of distinct traditions. Hanson’s contention th at the
“ritual pattern of the royal cult” stands over against the “league ritual
conquest” (which in turn aligns more closely with classical prophecy)
reflects the same errors in the interpretation of the structural evidence.20
ka. P. Craigie, VT, X X II (1972), 143-151, argued for a “Canaanite

stream ” in the Heb. poetic tradition. At the beginning of this tradition
stands the Song of the Sea; its later and classical expression is found
in the Enthronement Pss. At its midpoint stands Ps 29. Fisher, Cross,
and Hanson have shown th at the tradition includes more texts than
Craigie suspected, but his claim of a continuity between Exod 15:1-18
and Ps 29 is the critical problem for the interpretation of this tradition—
and the structural comparison of the texts which make up this tradition
supports it. The identification of this tradition also calls into question
the commonly accepted understanding of Ps 29 as a “Canaanite” hymn.
Much more than a storm-god theophany comes into play here. The
power of the storm-god appears in his symbols of kingship, the thunder
and lightning. After his great victory over the sea, or chaos, he sits
enthroned as creator-king upon the sea. This is the stuff of which the
cosmogonic creation m yth is made; and the widespread use of this
material in Heb. psalmody suggests th at researchers should turn their
attention—as Craigie has done—to the relationships between Ps 29 and
the other OT texts participating in the tradition it represents.
20 Exod 15 is the test case for each interpreter’s tendencies, and their work with these Pss simply
follows the trajectories they have plotted for themselves. Numerous details are open to criticism, but these
can be more efficiently treated when broken down into their constituent motifs—the topic that will be
the main preoccupation of R S P IV.
— 267 —
la. Isa 42:10-16; 43:16-21; 51:9-16; 52:7-12

Cassuto: Isa 51:9-10 is a prayer to the Lord to hasten the salvation of
his people promised in v. 8. In v. 10b and possibly also 10a the
prophet refers to the parting of the Sea of Reeds, but in v. 9 he
alludes to a story obviously well-known to his audience—the Revolt
of the Sea—by mentioning the episode in which the Prince of the
Sea, called Rahab, rebelled and was vanquished by the Lord at the
time when he wished to create his world. (See pp. 71-72.21)
m a. Fisher: Although Deutero-Isaiah was hardly a traditionalist, he spoke
of Yahweh in the traditional language of creation-redemption. In
Isa 42:13, the comparison of Yahweh to a “man of war” is under-
standable in its creation context. Deutero-Isaiah spoke not just of
cosmic creation, but also of the creation of Yahweh's people (43:15).
Isa 51:9-16 is a hymn which refers to conflict, redemption, cosmos,
and return to Zion. I t uses Baal type creation to speak of the ere-
ation of cosmos and people. [Encounter, 191-192; VT, 323.)
na. This hymn is complete in itself, but at the same time a complete
movement of the creation “form” seems to run from Isa 51 through
55. Ch. 51 emphasizes conflict, and in 52 God is proclaimed as king
(creator and redeemer; v. 7). God’s new creation must be his servant
(52:13-53:12), and in a creation context the servant figure must
somehow be connected with an Exodus-Sinai figure. In 54:9 the
one who controls the waters will build again the city, or temple
(see L. Fisher, J S S , V III [1963], 34-41). Ch. 54:5 alludes to Yahweh
and Baal type creation. In 54:9-10 Yahweh is able to control chaos
and create the possibility for life; only the one who controls the
floods can make covenant. Finally, ch. 55 contains the great ban-
quet. Although there are overlaps in the unit, there is also pro-
gression through conflict, kingship, new creation (and its vocation),
temple building, and banquet. [Encounter, 192-194; VT, 323-324.)
oa. Hanson: Second Isaiah, in direct contact with late Babylonian ritual
during the exile, combined the Israelite conquest tradition of the
league with the enthronement tradition of the royal cult to form
“a powerful portrayal of a second exodus-conquest, universal and
21 Note, however, that on p. 99 Cassuto took v. 10 as a use of the “literary tradition pertaining to
the acts of the Lord against the sea and the rivers during the six days of Creation.“ For the congruence
of Isa 51:9-10 with the “R evolt of the Sea,“ see above, i, nos. 13, 14, and 16.
— 268 —
even cosmic in scope, by which the Israelites would be restored in

their land” (Apocalyptic, p. 310). The finest example of this is
Isa 51:9-11:
(1) Combat (primordial>exodus) (9-10a).
(2) Salvation of his people (10b).
(3) Procession to Zion (— second exodus-conquest) (11).
The movement of the text from the conflict m yth (9) to the ritual
conquest (10) to eschatological salvation (11) recapitulates the en-
tire development of prophetic Yahwism from the cosmic vision of
myth, to the translation of th at vision into the categories of history,
to the future orientation of prophetic eschatology. (Apocalyptic,
pp. 310-311.)
pa. Three other texts in Second Isaiah incorporate the “ritual p attern”
of the conflict myth:
Isa 42:10-16: 10-12, victory shout; 13-15, combat—victory over
enemy; 16, salvation of the “blind,” procession.
Isa 43:16-21: 16-17, combat (vs. sea = Babylon)—victory; 18-19a,
victory shout; 19b, procession (= second exodus-conquest);
20-21, salvation of his people.
Isa 52:7-12: 7-8, herald announces Yahweh’s return to Zion; 9-10,
victory shout—manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign; 11a,
salvation: release of captives; l ib - 12, procession.
Since the material is now freed from its original function in the
life of the national cult, poetic license more freely orders the elements
and fuses league and royal motifs. Yet the basic pattern of combat-
victory-salvation-procession is still discernible. Though Second
Isaiah held the ritual pattern subservient to historical announce-
ment, his reintroduction of the pattern allowed him to reinterpret
the prophetic message in terms “indifferent to the events of plain
history.” Thus his prophecy is “proto-apocalyptic.” (See Apoc-
alyptic, pp. 311-313.)
qa. Comments
Nowhere is the unity of creation and redemption seen more clearly
, in the OT than in Second Isaiah—a point noted by von Rad (see The-
ology I, p. 137). The best-known example of the connection of the ere-
ation of the cosmos with the redemption of Israel from Egypt appears
in 51:9-10, but the structural evidence given by Fisher and Hanson
shows th at the mythological form in which these notions were appropri-
ated by Second Isaiah plays a fundamental role in the prophet’s mes
— 269 —
sage. Presupposing the dichotomy of myth and history, von Rad con-
eluded th at allusions to Yahweh as creator are far from being the primary
subject of Second Isaiah’s message, and he struggled with the coincidence
of creation and redemption in the book. However, as Fisher has argued,
an Israelite such as Second Isaiah used the structure of Baal type ere-
ation because it said what he wanted to say about redemption. The
comparative structural interpretation of Second Isaiah draws creation
and redemption together; arguments for their separateness depend on
non-structural criteria.
ra. Isa 24:1-25:8; 34-35; 59:15b-20; 63:1-6; 63:19b-64:2; 66:15-16

Fisher: Isa 56-66, which was probably produced by the disciples of
Second Isaiah, continues his “new exodus them e” in a very universal
sense. For instance, the new exodus of 56:7-8 recalls th at of Exod 15:
Yahweh will bring his people (and now others as well) to his moun-
tain; cf. 57:14; 58:6; 61:9; 62:10; and 65:9. God’s arm or hand
appears in 59:1 and 63:5. Isa 63:11-13, 15-16, relates Moses to this
imagery; and 65:17 refers to new creation, while in 66:1 the universe
is God’s temple. {Encounter, 194.)
sa . Cross: In the “proto-apocalyptic” literature of Isaiah the imagery of the

storm god as divine warrior plays a major role; see Isa 24:19-23;
26:21; 34:4, 8-10; 35:1-10; 42:13-15; 50:2-3; 59:16-19; 63:19b-64:2;
and 66:15-16. Most of these texts describe the coming of the Divine
Warrior in the imagery of Israel’s old hymns and of the royal cultus;
but they reutilize and transform the language of nature’s response,
and they make the “them e” of divine kingship and new creation
dominant. The four “strophes” of Isa 35 illustrate the continuities
and transformations:
(1) The anticipated response of nature to the theophany of the
victorious warrior employs the ancient language associated with
his manifestation as victor and king (w . 1-2).
(2) The address to the divine council (by heralds) announcing the
coming of the god with “deliverance, recompense, and victory”
portrays the surge of renewal and new creation in the healing
of the maimed and defective (w . 3-6a).
(3) This new creation is pictured in the water-in-the-desert “theme”
—a theme ultimately integral to the manifestation of the storm
god who brings fertility, but also reminiscent of Israel’s wilder-
ness march in the Exodus-Conquest (w . 6b-7).
— 270 —
(4) The “theme” of the New Exodus-Conquest breaks out plainly:

the high road across the desert as a “them e” recalls both the
old march of the Divine Warrior leading the armies of Israel’s
conquest of the land and battle at the sea, and the king’s pro-
cessional back from victory to his throne in the “ritual con-
quest” (vv. 8-10).
The old Exodus-Conquest is conflated with the battle of creation;
then a second transformation in the eschatological context of proto-
apocalyptic merges the new Exodus-Conquest with the new creation.
(See CMHE, pp. 170-174.)
ta. Hanson: Stemming either from the last phase of Second Isaiah’s career
or from an early disciple, Isa 34-35 draws on the “ritual pattern”
but loosens its relation to “plain history” :
(1) Combat vs. nations and cosmic hosts—victory (34:1-4).
(2) Banquet with bloody sacrifice (34:5-7).
(3) Herem (= return to chaos) (34:8-17).
(4) Shalom—salvation of the weak (35:1-7).
(5) Procession to Zion (35:8-10). (Apocalyptic, p. 313.)
ua. The Isaiah Apocalypse, written by a mid- or late-sixth century
disciple of Second Isaiah, uses the same “ritual pattern” in an
eschatological message which should be designated as “early apoc-
alyptic” :
(1) Combat— herem of whole earth (24:1-13).
(2) Victory shout (24:14-16a).
(3) (Lament [24:16b-18b]).
(4) Combat—victory (24:18c-22).
(5) Manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign (24:23).
(6) Victory shout (25:1-4b).
(7) Banquet (25:6-8).
Here the “mythic pattern” is similar to th at of Second Isaiah, but
ties to the “actual political realm” are weakened and the cosmic
realm of the Divine Warrior begins to dominate. [Apocalyptic,
p. 313.)
va. The visionary group in Third Isaiah used the royal and league ritual
traditions to reaffirm the eschatological message of Second Isaiah
to a minority group within Israel. Their vision of the future con-
tinued to move in the direction of the cosmic realm of the Divine
Warrior and his council, and away from the “events of plain his
— 271 —
tory” (Apocalyptic, p. 314). Thus the “mythic structure” underlying

the “Divine Warrior Hym n” of Isa 59:15b-20, “fusing the league
tradition of ritual conquest with the royal motif of the procession
to Zion, no longer is limited to the function of enhancing the his-
torical interpretation of divine activity, but has begun to serve as
a vehicle for a new interpretation of divine activity in terms elevated
above the historical realm in the plainest sense” (Apocalyptic,
p. 133):
(1) Threat (vv. 15b-16a).
(2) Conflict—victory (w . 16b-18).
(3) Manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign (v. 19).
(4) Procession to Zion and the salvation of the repentant (v. 20).
(See RB, 52: Apocalyptic, pp. 113-134.)
wa. In the “Divine Warrior Hym n” of Isa 63:1-6 an observer and Yahweh
are engaged in a dialogue of question (w . lab, 2) and answer (w . lc,
3-6). Various similarities between this passage and Isa 59:15b-20
reveal their use of the “Divine Warrior tradition,” but here it is
applied to the international sphere, while in 59:15b-20 it was ap-
plied to the inner Israelite polemic. (See Apocalyptic, pp. 202-208.)
The short “Divine Warrior H ym n” in Isa 63:19b-64:2 takes the
“form” of three lines, each followed by a refrain dramatizing the
natural phenomena accompanying Yahweh’s theophany, showing
heavy dependence on older theophanies (cf. Judg 5:4-5 and
Ps 18:8-16) (Apocalyptic, pp. 87, 98). In Isa 66:15-16 Yahweh the
Warrior comes in a dreadful theophany to execute judgment. This
use of the “Divine Warrior motif” emphasizes the element of con-
flict. (RB, 54; Apocalyptic, pp. 163, 183-184.)
xa. Jonah
Fisher: Baal type creation is the key to the meaning of the book of Jonah,
which was probably produced by the followers of Second Isaiah
who were responsible for Third Isaiah. Although the sea, the deep,
the river, or the fish engulfs Yahweh's rebellious man, Yahweh
controls the sea: “the sea must give up Yahweh’s man even as Yah-
weh creates and saves anew.” (Encounter, 194-195.)
ya. From this time on the language of Baal type creation was funneled
into apocalyptic literature and communities. “I t was undoubtedly
changed a great deal (this would mean th at it would be difficult
for those in the tradition of Deutero-Isaiah to still use it), and now
— 272 —
the language tended to run away with and ahead of the event.”
Despite many changes during the course of its history, the “creation-
redemption theme or form” was a very meaningful form, and one
must be aware of it in order to understand many NT, as well as
OT, problems. (Encounter, p. 195.)
Zech 9; 10; 12; 14

Hanson: The “mythical motifs of ritual conquest and royal procession”
are of central importance in Zech 9-14, and help to establish it as
part of the visionary tradition which can be traced from the “proto-
apocalyptic” of Second Isaiah to the “late apocalyptic” of the
pseudepigrapha and Qumran. (Apocalyptic, pp. 286-287.) The
“Divine Warrior H ym n” of Zech 9 is a "paradigm example of the
prophetic adaptation of the league-royal cult ritual pattern.” Its
“structure” :
(1) Conflict—victory (vv. 1-7).
(2) Temple secured (v. 8).
(3) Victory shout and procession (v. 9).
(4) Manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign (v. 10).
(5) Salvation: captives released (vv. 11-13).
(6) Theophany of Divine Warrior (v. 14).
(7) Sacrifice and banquet (v. 15).
(8) Fertility of restored order (vv. 16-17). (See Int, 472-473; RB,
55; JB L , 53; and Apocalyptic, pp. 292-300, 315-324.)
Following a rib against the nation’s leaders (vv. 1-3), the “Divine
Warrior Hym n” of Zech 10 follows the “ritual pattern of the con-
flict m yth” :
(1) Combat—victory (w . 4-6a).
(a) Yahweh equips himself with Israel as his host (v. 4).
(b) Ritual conquest (vv. 5-6a).
(2) Salvation: restoration of the scattered people (vv. 6b-10).
(3) Procession reenacting the victory of the Divine Warrior over
Yamm (= Assyria-Egypt) (v. 11).
(4) Victory shout (v. 12).
The use of the Divine Warrior Hymn as an adjunct to a rib oracle
parallels its use in Third Isaiah (see 59:15b-20; 63:19b-64:2;
66:15-16). (See Apocalyptic, pp. 324-334.)
The new “booklet” beginning in Zech 12:1 consists of two compo-
sitions, 12:1-13:6 and 14:1-21, which differ from the two “Divine
Warrior Hymns” in Zech 9-11 by their more advanced eschatology

th at replaces a broad international perspective with a myopic con-
cem with Judah and Jerusalem. Four major “themes” appropriated
from the royal tradition of the unassailability of Zion (e.g., Ps 48;
see above, ga) form the “skeleton of the narrative” of Zech 12:
(1) The nations come against Jerusalem (w . 1-3).
(2) Yahweh strikes the enemy with panic (v. 4).
(3) Jerusalem is delivered (w . 5-9).
(4) A ceremony is described (vv. 10-14) (mourning rite in Zech 12;
celebration of the king’s victory in Ps 48). (See Apocalyptic,
pp. 354-368.)
cfk Zech 14, an “apocalypse structured upon the ritual pattern of the
conflict m yth,” reflects the period of “full-blown apocalyptic lit-
erature” :
(1) Threat (in the form of a salvation-judgment oracle) (vv. 1-2).
(2) Conflict—victory (v. 3).
(3) Theophany and procession (vv. 4-5).
(4) Shalom (w . 6-8).
(5) Manifestation of Yahweh’s universal reign (w . 9-11).
(6) Covenant curses ( = destruction of the enemy) (w . 12-15).
(7) Procession of the nations (w . 16-19).
(8) Sacrifice and banquet (vv. 20-21).
Although both Zech 12 and 14 remold their traditional basis in the
“ritual pattern of the conflict m yth” in ways which record the in-
fluence of their new settings, Zech 12 draws significantly on the
archaic hymnic material associated with the Divine Warrior, and
the “basic underlying structure” of Zech 14 conforms closely to the
ritual pattern. (See Apocalyptic, pp. 369-390.)
dp. Dan 7:2-15

Hanson: Containing the elements of threat, conflict, victory, and sal-
vation of the faithful, the scenario developed in this vision recapit-
ulates the royal liturgy of the Jerusalem cult. (See Int, 474-476.)
ep. Gen 1:1-2:3

Fisher: Since neither El type creation nor creatio ex nihilo was a real
possibility for the author of this account, it must depend on Baal
type creation—even though the Gen story is abbreviated in part
and focuses on a description of the how and order of creation. One
should not assume th at the Gen story is different than Baal type
— 274 —
creation just because Gen concentrates on filling out a seven-day

framework: the number seven is associated with the process of
temple-building both in Israel and at Ugarit (cf. I,. Fisher, JS S ,
V III [1963], 34-41). Ju st as the Hebrews used Baal type creation
to express their creation as a people (Exod 15), so they used it to
identify Yahweh as the one who creates cosmos and the possibility
of life. This language may be dangerous—even dualistic; but “one
must communicate and calculate the risk.” (Encounter, 184-185,
190-191; VT, 319.)
f|3. Comments
As the structural comparison moves beyond the period of Second
Isaiah, a serious problem of identification arises. The structure itself
suffers radical decomposition, while language which originally developed
within the context of the structure vividly informs various texts. If it
is structural awareness th at sensitizes the interpreter to language drawn
from the structure, th at same awareness can betray the interpreter into
pressing for unjustified similarities at the level of narrative structure.
This problem is most noticeable in Hanson’s work for two reasons: he
has pressed the structural question further than any other researcher,
and his treatm ent of the OT side of the comparison hinges on what he
has called the "Divine Warrior Hym n.”
g(3. For Hanson, virtually any OT text which recalls the mythic struc-
ture is a Divine Warrior Hymn. “H ym n” is a generic classification, and
Hanson frequently refers to his Divine Warrior Hymns as genres—
attem pting to establish this by demonstrating the elements a particular
example holds in common with the mythic structure and other Israelite
usages of th at structure. The problem is th at while these elements main-
tain a clear hold on the surface structure of the narrative texts in which
most of them originated, their relationship to the surface structure of
the non-narrative OT texts in which they exist is more ambiguous. For
example, the three “Divine Warrior Hymns” of Isa 59:15b-20, 63:1-6,
and 63:19b-64:2 display radical differences at the surface level, although
each contains elements which make it relevant for structural comparison.
Hanson acknowledges these differences, but they weigh far less in his
interpretation than the similarities upon which his structural analyses
focus. This is indicated not only by the substance of his interpretation,
but also by his loosely woven language of Divine Warrior “tradition/
motif” and hymnic genre. This terminological confusion reflects the
— 275 —
19
indecision of one who accumulates only enough structural evidence to

indicate similarities among texts, while seeking their differences in non-
structural modes of analysis.
HP. Structural analysis, however, can show differences as well as simi-
larities; but a cogent structural argument depends on the analysis of
all the levels of structure at work in each text under consideration. I t
also depends on the interpreter's ability to determine the meaning of a
given structure. Thus if one concludes th at the narrative structure of
the Ug. Baal m yth finds its meaning in the concept of cosmogonic ere-
ation, and if one perceives th at the Hebrews appropriated this structure—
with its meaning—as part of their experience of their creation as a people,
then the interpretation of the differences in the various texts which
depend on this structure need not rely on the myth-history dichotomy
presupposed by Hanson. Instead, the interpreter can search for clues to
the new experiences of people, and the institutional expressions of these
experiences, in the interplay of different levels of structure in a particular
text. It is in this interplay th at the specific perspective of a text becomes
clear. Thus the orientation of apocalyptic toward the future, and the
difference this makes in the language of cosmogonic creation, can be
investigated from a structural perspective.
ip. Still, there is much to be said for the mere use of structure as a tool
to draw seemingly divergent texts together. Nowhere is its impact felt
more strongly than in Fisher’s attem pt to reconcile the creation story
in Gen 1:1-2:3 with the Ug. creation story of the Baal myth. His effort
reflects his consistent attention to the idea of creation as the meaning
of the Ug. structure; one who reduces the meaning of this structure to
the ideas of conflict and Divine Warrior would never think of comparing
the Gen and Ug. stories. However, Fisher’s structural results are slim:
he found an explanation within the framework of his structural com-
parison for the uneasy struggle of the Gen author to fit the divine ere-
ative activities into a seven-day pattern. Fisher has adduced enough
structural evidence to establish th at the Gen story presupposes cosmo-
gonic creation and th at demythologization plays no part in its intention
(the mode of action remains on the mythic level). But his structural
analyses do not penetrate deeply enough to answer the fundamental
question about the particularity of the Gen and Ug. texts: why does
the Gen story concentrate so heavily on the structural element of “or-
der,” while the Ug. m yth gives most of its attention to the elements
of “conflict” and “temple-building” ? Fisher’s suggestion about the im
— 276 —
portance of the number seven for the process of temple-building provides

a plausible connection between the Ug. and Heb. texts; but the structural
implications of this connection must await a more detailed and multi-
layered analysis of both the Ug. and Heb. examples.
jp. Exod 24:12-40:38; I Kings 3:4-9:9; Ezek 40-48

Kapelrud: In the ancient Near E ast there were two kinds of “temple
building narratives,” which, however, were not sharply divided, but
represented different aspects of the same phenomenon. One is
“mythological” and puts its main weight on the gods. The “temple
building of the gods” is a “motif” found in the Ug. texts and in
Enuma Elish VI. It “usually contains the following elements” :
(1) A victorious god after battle.
(2) He wants to have his own temple.
(3) Permission asked from the leading god.
(4) Master builder set to work.
(5) Cedars from Lebanon, building-stones, gold, silver, etc., procured
for the task.
(6) The temple finished according to plan.
(7) Offerings and dedication, fixing of norms.
(8) A great banquet for the gods.
kp. In Enuma Elish VI, [1]22 after Marduk’s creation of mankind the
Anunnaki suggest th at he build a temple, and he agrees (11. 45-[58]).
[6] The temple is erected [11. 59-66], and [8] Marduk gives a great
banquet for the gods [see 11. 69-71], [7] where they perform their
rites and fix the norms (11. 75ff.).
1p. The Ug. temple building narrative begins with E l’s instructions th at
a temple be built for Yamm (UT 129). Yamm then challenges Baal,
the leading young god, who [1] battles and defeats him (UT 137, 68).
[2] Baal now tells El th at he wants his own temple (UT 51 [I]:5ff.).
[3] W ith Asherah's help he obtains E l’s permission to build a temple,
and [4] Kothar-wa-khasis starts the building, [5] using materials
of silver, gold, and lapis lazuli, along with cedars from Lebanon
(UT 51). [6] When the temple is finished, [7] Baal slaughters nu-
merous animals and [8] invites the gods to a great banquet (UT
51 VI).
22 The enumeration refers to Kapelrud's typical structure.

m|3. The second kind of temple building narrative is “historical.” The

narratives of Gudea, Solomon, and Moses are the primary examples.
“In the cases where a king is the actual temple builder the following
elements are most often found” :
(1) Some• indication th at a temple has to be built.
(2) The king visits a temple over night.
(3) A god tells him what to do, indicates plans.
(4) The king announces his intention to build a temple.
(5) Master builder is engaged; cedars from Lebanon, building-
stones, gold, silver, etc., procured for the task.
(6) The temple finished according to plan.
(7) Offerings and dedication, fixing of norms.
(8) Assembly of the people.
(9) The god comes to his new house.
(10) The king is blessed and promised everlasting domination.
n|L In the Gudea Cylinders [1] a puzzling midnight dream (A 1:27)
caused Gudea to go to the temple of Gatumdu for an interpretation
(A II:26ff.). The goddess told him th at Ningirsu wanted him to
build a temple (A V:17). [2] While he was shut in the temple of
Eninnu for two days, the visions were repeated (A V III :Iff.), and
[3] he received detailed instructions about how the temple should
be built. [5] He engaged in the work, cutting cedars (A XV: Iff.)
and making clay bricks (A X V III :24ff.), until [6] the temple was
completed (A XX:9-11). Then [7] he blessed it and was received
into the assembly of the gods (A X X V :20-23). As the high priest,
Gudea offered prayers and brought gifts (B 1:20; 11:12-13). [9] Nin-
girsu himself entered the temple to establish his throne of destiny
(B V:lff.). [10] Gudea received a promise of long life (B X X IV :8)
and was characterized as a son of one of the gods (B XXIV :7).
0(3. The story of Solomon’s temple building (I Kings 3:4-9:9) begins [2]
with Solomon’s overnight visit to Gibeon. [1] Yahweh appeared
and spoke to him while he slept (3:5). [3] Here a “wisdom theme”
has driven other “themes” originally connected with the dream
aside: Solomon asks for wisdom to govern his people (3:9). The
text does not return to the subject of temple building until [4] Sol-
omon’s sudden announcement of his decision to build the temple
(5:15-19 [5:1-5]). [5] Solomon then engaged Hiram to supply cedars
of Lebanon and Cyprus timber (5:20, 24 [5:6, 10]). Then [6] forced
laborers quarried the foundation stones (5:27-32 [5:13-18]); the cedar
— 278 —
within the temple was carved and overlaid with pure gold (6:1822‫)־‬
brought from the mines in Ophir (9:26-28). When Solomon had
finished the temple, [8] he assembled Israel's leaders [9] to install
the Ark of the Covenant (8:1-11). [7] He then sacrificed and prayed
(8:12-53). After more sacrifices he dedicated the temple to Yahweh
and held a great feast for the people (8:62-66). Then [10] Yahweh
“appeared to Solomon a second time, as he had appeared to him
at Gibeon” (9:2) to give final instructions about the temple and to
make the expected promises to the temple builder (9:1-9).
PP• In view of the "parallels with other narratives,” I Kings 5:15-19

(5:1-5) cannot constitute the beginning of Solomon’s temple building
narrative. W hat is needed is a “building order,” and the Gudea
analogy indicates th at this element originally stood, in place of
I Kings 3:4-15. The “wisdom theme” of this unit and of the rest
of ch. 3 and 5:9-14 (4:29-34), and the "list of Solomon’s household
and the provisions th at were brought to him ” in 4:1-5:8 (4:1-28),
can “easily be subtracted as independent passages.” More to the
point is the connection of Solomon’s visit to Gibeon with the building
of the temple made in I Kings 9:2. That the narrator links Yahweh’s
appearance to Solomon in the newly constructed temple with his
previous appearance at Gibeon suggests th at “the narrator may have
known a connection between I Kings III and V-IX which is no longer
obvious in the tex t.” This connection appears more clearly in
II Chron 1-2, where the events in Gibeon and Jerusalem are sepa-
rated only by “brief passages.”
qp. The “building of the Tabernacle” is the “dominating motif” of
Exod 24:12-40[ :38], and this temple building of Moses is narrated
“along parallel lines” to the preceding texts. Thus [2] Yahweh
called Moses up to a mountain (24:12-[18]), and [3] gave him orders
about the building of the Tabernacle. [5] The people brought fine
materials (35:21-29), and [6] the work was accomplished in accor-
dance with Yahweh’s detailed instructions. Finally, [9] there is a
description of Yahweh’s filling the tabernacle (40:34-[38]).
rp. The “usual scheme” may also be discerned in Ezek 40-48. In a
vision [2] God took the prophet to a mountain and showed him a
“structure like a city” (40:1-4). He then gave detailed instructions
about [3] the building of the temple and [7] the service in the
temple.
— 279 —
s[3. Comments
Kapelrud’s attem pt to relate “mythological” and “historical” temple
building stemmed from a suggestion made by Obermann in Ug Myth.
Obermann proposed th at the “building saga” of Baal's temple forms
the “central theme” of Ug. mythology (p. 1). All elements of conflict
between gods should be understood as an “alliance-enmity motif” : one
group supports Baal’s plans to build a temple, and the rest oppose its
construction. W hether the conflict of the gods has a sociological (rival-
ries between Ug. clans) or natural (forces of life and death, fertility and
aridness) basis is insignificant. “The im portant thing is th at alliance
and enmity between gods is the decisive motif in the building epic”
(p. 4). Obermann claimed th a t four forms of the "building epic” are
known to have existed at Ugarit: a beginning of the narrative in UT
,n t III-V I (CTA 3), an ending in UT 51 (CTA 4), an El tradition
in UT *nt pis. IX -X (CTA 1), and a tradition still different from the
first three in UT 68+129 (CTA 2 IV and III[?]) (see Ug Myth, pp. 83-
86, for a summary of Obermann’s position). For Obermann, the “most
remarkable analogy” to the fact th at all the Ug. versions of the “building
epic” were found at the same site—the library of the Baal temple—
exists in the OT’s inclusion of four “documents” pertaining to a “house”
or “dwelling place” of God: Exod 25ff., I Kings 6ff., II Chron 2ff., and
Ezek 40ff.; i.e., the narrative of the building of the wilderness Tabernacle
under Moses, the story of Solomon’s building of the Jerusalem temple,
and a vision about the Jerusalem temple of the future (pp. 86-87).
t(3. Obermann’s “remarkable analogy” represents a remarkable mis-
understanding of both the Ug. and Heb. texts. Not only does his di-
vision of the Ug. texts lack credibility, but his claim th at the building of
Baal’s temple is the fundamental concern of the Ug. myths, and th at
all divine conflict can be explained in terms of support of or opposition
to Baal’s plans for a temple, simply ignores the total context into which
the elements of conflict and temple building are set in Ug. mythology
(see above, dd-hh). Moreover, even if Obermann’s analysis of the mean-
ing of the Ug. texts and his "fragment hypothesis” 23 of their origin were
to be granted, his proposal th a t the four OT texts relating to temple
23 Obermann’s basic methodological assumption concerning the nature of the corpus of Ug. mythology
was that any tablet which relates to the “building saga” represents a distinct narrative of that saga. Thus
he classified, without analysis, UT 131-130 (CTA 7)—two fragments which are unmistakably variants of
UT *nt II and III—as “remnants of still another narrative of the building saga’’ (pp. 86-87, n. 95).
— 280 —
building represent an analogous phenomenon completely overlooks the

divergent historical and ideological factors which gave rise to the various
OT accounts.
up. Nevertheless, Kapelrud’s effort to implement Obermann’s suggestion
confirmed the latter’s insight th a t a general resemblance does exist among
the OT and Ug. stories, and demonstrated th at this resemblance must
be understood in a broader ancient Near Eastern context than th at of
Ugarit and Jerusalem. However, Kapelrud’s results are disappointly
meagre from a structural point of view. One reason for this is his search
for ideal structures at the expense of the individual text (see above,
Intro 3). Thus his ideal structure of the “mythological” type of nar-
rative derives directly from his analysis of UT 137-68-51. This analysis
provides but a partial accounting for the Ug. materials. Kapelrud has
tom elements of conflict, temple building, and banquet from their larger
context, and organized them under the rubric “temple building nar-
rative.” 24 By limiting his interpretive options in this fashion, Kapelrud
has left himself with little to say about the difference between his “myth-
ological” and “historical” versions of the narrative except th at there
is no great difference. This conclusion conforms to his m yth-ritual per-
spective: he does not use the categories of myth and history to set the
texts in opposition to one another, but rather as a means to validate
the concept of divine kingship in the ancient Near East and to add an-
other bit of documentation to his idea of the Israelite relationship to
this concept (see especially pp. 56 and 62).
v|3. Since Kapelrud did not attem pt a genuinely structural interpre-
tation of his texts, it is not suprising th at his analyses lack sufficient
depth to reveal either the full pattern of similarities among the texts
or the distinctive configuration of each particular text (compare his
description of Enuma Elish VI with th at of the Baal texts). Nor is it
surprising th at he omitted two of the relevant examples, UT ,nt III-V I
and II Chron 1-7. It is against this background th at his most distinctive
24 By this terminology Kapelrud evidently attempts to define a genre. But his lack of attention to
the individual texts in which this genre is supposedly embedded foils his proposal, for each of his examples
(with the possible exception of Gudea) exists in the framework of larger concerns. To establish the genre
he suggests, he would have to first demonstrate either that the temple building material bears no vital
relationship to the contexts in which it now appears or else that the notion of temple building provides
the fundamental organizing principle of the total compositions. His sketchy analyses have established
neither. At any rate, the term “temple building” is rather narrow for the diverse materials he includes
in his descriptions of the genre.
— 281 —
conclusion about the OT text must be examined. This is his contention

th at the present substance of I Kings 3:4-15 conceals what was once
an integral unity with I Kings 5:15 [5:l]-9:9.
w(3. Despite his claims to the contrary (see above, pfl), Kapelrud’s only
tangible basis for this claim lies in the Gudea Cylinders, where the king’s
decision to build a temple results from a dream. The historical remote-
ness of this third millennium, Sumerian composition raises some doubt
about the aptness of the comparison, but it is the distinctive character-
istics of the Sumerian and OT texts th at create the most serious problems
for Kapelrud’s analysis. At the least, it must be noted th a t the Gudea
Cylinders represent an independent composition, while the story of
Solomon’s temple is embedded in a literary m atrix considerably more
complex than Kapelrud has recognized. This m atrix encompasses I Kings
3:4-11:40. As shown by the EXX, the MT does not represent an author-
itative form of this unit, but reflects a stage when both the order and
content of the material were still fluid. Also, the material in the MT
has suffered various dislocations.25 Moreover, the “wisdom them e” is
not as easily dismissed as secondary as Kapelrud imagined. Aside from
the passages in which he recognized it, the wisdom of Solomon also ap-
pears in 5:26 (5:12); 10:1-10, 13 (the visit of the Queen of Sheba), and
23-24. In addition, 11:41 identifies a source for the composition, “the
Book of the Acts of Solomon,” which consisted of more than an annalistic
enumeration of the deeds of Solomon and of the events of his reign,
because it also included information about his “wisdom.” I t is hardly
too much to say th at the fundamental "them e” of the unit, at least
through ch. 10, is Solomon’s wisdom. Kapelrud’s claim th at the “wisdom
them e” can “easily be subtracted” as independent of the temple building
narrative (p. 60) reflects a naively simplistic view of the OT material.
From a comparative standpoint, the Eg. inscriptions in which Pharaohs
from the Middle Kingdom to the New Empire legitimize innovations
of their reign with accounts of special revelations, often in dreams, fol-
lowed by the Pharaoh’s offering of sacrifices and public communication
of his divinely inspired policies to his nobles and officials, offer—both
historically and contextually—a more promising basis for the inter-
pretation of I Kings 3:4-15 than the Gudea parallel proposed by Kapel-
ru d .26 Finally, Kapelrud’s emphasis on the suddenness of Solomon’s
25 For a survey of the literary-critical problems of the unit, see Eissfeldt, Introduction, pp. 286290‫־‬.
26 S. Herrmann, W Z U L , III ( 1 9 5 3 5 1 - 6 2 ,(1954‫־‬, suggested this parallel and treated the relevant Eg.
— 282 —
announcement of his decision to build a temple in 5:15-19 (5:1-5) un-

derestimates the connection of this event with its larger context. V. 17
(3) grounds Solomon’s decision in the situation arising from David’s
inability to build a temple (see II Samuel 7:5-16). In the present form
of the text Solomon’s decision early in his reign to build a temple is an
instance of his wisdom (see 5:26 [5:12]). Kapelrud may be right th at
3:16-5:14 (4:34) should be regarded as secondary, but this could be ar-
gued more strongly on the basis of the Eg. parallels. Likewise, his at-
tem pt to use 9:1-9 to support this claim on the basis of the Gudea parallel
(p. 61) ignores the probable Deuteronomistic origin of this material (see
Gray, I & I I Kings2•, pp. 235-238), which puts it toward the end of the
redactional process rather than at the beginning, as Kapelrud’s argument
requires. 27
x|3. These arguments do not absolutely rule out Kapelrud’s suggestion
of an epic substratum behind the present form of the text. But they
do mean th at his proposal requires a more careful analysis of the ancient
Near Eastern and biblical texts than he has supplied. The same judgment
must be passed upon his attem pt to draw the Moses and Ezekiel ma-
terials into the overall pattern. Some of the divergences of these pas-
sages from the ideal structure may reflect the distinctive character of
the subject-matter: the Exod text deals with the construction of a taber-
nacle, not a temple, while Ezek 40-48 concerns a prospective restoration
of the temple, not an account of its actual construction. Kapelrud has
demonstrated a general similarity of a diverse assortment of texts, but
the certification th at this similarity is more than incidental must await
a detailed consideration of the distinctive, as well as the common, fea-
tures of each example.
yP. The need for a cautious approach to comparative structural analysis
becomes particularly critical when one focuses on the Ug.-Solomonic
texts. For a translation of the closest parallel to I Kings 3:4-15—the dream revelation to Thutmose IV
at the holy place of the Sphinx at Gizeh—see Wilson, A N E T 2, p. 449. The comparative relevance of the
Gudea and Pharonic materials is strikingly exemplified in I Kings 3:15. Kapelrud remarks of this v. only
that Solomon awoke from his dream and returned to Jerusalem (p. 59). But the Eg. parallels offer a plau-
sible explanation of Solomon’s sacrifices and the feast he held for his “servants” (at which, on the basis
of this theory, he told them of his plans).
27 On p. 61 Kapelrud admitted that the threats in vv. 6 9 ‫ ־‬reflect Deuteronomistic theology, although
he used the Gudea Cylinders to argue that they could be of “ancient origin.” More significantly, he im-
plicitly admitted on p. 59 that the mention of Gibeon in 9:2 relates to the Deuteronomist’s aversion to
worship at high places (3:2). From the perspective of this stage of the tradition, the reference to Gibeon
underlines Solomon’s wisdom in building the temple, one consequence of which was the removal of the
necessity to worship at the high places.
— 283 —
parallel. I t is tempting to level these traditions because the similarity

of the texts indicates th at the practices on which the story of Baal’s
temple building is based provided the model for Solomon’s procedures.
Not only is this historically probable, but the Baal texts also form the
closest analogue in ancient Near Eastern mythology to the Solomonic
narrative. In terms of literary comparison, parallels can be added to
those drawn by Kapelrud: for example, both texts reveal an ideology
of the god (UT 51 V:80-81, 95b-97a; V I:35b38‫־‬a; VIII:32b-37a) or the
king (I Kings 5:19 [5:5]; 6:1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 14-38; 7:48, 51; 9:1) as himself
the builder of the temple; and the seven days of the construction of
Baal’s temple (UT 51 VI:22-35a) correspond to the seven years taken
by Solomon to build Yahweh’s temple (I Kings 6:38). Historically, the
OT attests the influence of what may be described as “Canaanite” theory
and practice introduced via the Jerusalem temple in two ways: negatively,
there is the prophetic opposition to the temple (see, e.g., II Sam 7:5-7);
positively, Solomon asked Yahweh to send rain on the land in his prayer
at the dedication of the temple (I Kings 8:36), a request th at is closely
connected to Asherah’s comment th a t Baal’s temple will allow him to
send the rains (UT 51 V :68-72). Thus it is clear th at the Ug. texts, in
particular UT 51, contribute materially to our understanding of the
biblical story. But this in no way justifies a reductionist approach to
the structural interpretation of the texts. Not only do such maneuvers
distort our understanding of the texts as unique creations in their own
right, but structural reductionism also cuts us off from the evidence
of other texts which can contribute to the interpretive task of reading
a text in its widest possible context (thus, for instance, our understanding
of the royal ideology underlying the Solomonic story is deepened by
comparison at the level of narrative structure with the K rt text; see
below, 2 jj).
a. Krt (CTA 14) + 128 (CTA 15) + 125-127 {CTA 16).

b. Bibliography
Engnell, Studies1, pp. 143-173.
I. Engnell, HorS, I (1944), 1-20.
Gordon, OT Times, pp. 294-295 [= Gordon, World of OT, pp. 298-299;
= Gordon, A N E , pp. 297-298; cited below according to ANE].
— 284 —
Carlson, David.
L. Fisher, UF, III (1971), 27-28 [= R SP II, V 4 d-e].
Fisher, Gordon FS, pp. 59-65.
c. Gen 11:27-25:11; 25:19-35:29; 37:2-50:26

Fisher: The parallelism in structure, genre, setting, intention, and type
of content of the vows found in the K rt and Jacob cycles
(Krt: 199-206 and Gen 28:20-28) provides a clue to the ,‘larger
structural parallel” between the two cycles. An examination of their
structures reveals the following parallels:
(1) The purpose of the cycles is th at the hero must obtain a wife
in order to produce an heir.
(2) Both heroes are given instructions for the journey.
(3) Both heroes have a dream which contains a divine promise;
this promise seems to be inadequate in light of the conditional
vows.
(4) Early in the journey both heroes make a conditional vow not
mentioned in the instructions.
(5) Both vows concern the success of the journey, occur at a shrine,
and involve a different deity than th at of the dream.
(6) Both cycles have seven day journeys (epic style).
There are also significant differences between these two cycles, just
as there would be differences between any two “epics” at Ugarit,
having to do with “names, situations, and side events.” That the
K rt text ends in tablets th at are not complete probably conceals
other “structural parallels” dealing with “marriage, children, sue-
cess, threat, and fear, and finally both have a bright conclusion.”
{UF, 27-28; Gordon FS, pp. 62-63.)
d. The present (prose) form of the Jacob material also inhibits the
structural comparison by concealing “many im portant features”
th at were evident in the texts or traditions available to the editors
of Genesis. Nevertheless, it is vital to ground the comparison in
the final form of the material. But one should attem pt to analyze
this form on its own terms. This means, for example, th at if the
Jacob materials contain an “abundance of formulae” known from
Ug. m yth and epic (e.g., Gen 33:1: “And Jacob lifted up his eyes
and looked, and b e h o ld ...” ; see R SP III, II 3), the interpreter
can use these formulae to divide the text into sections like those
in the Ug. texts. When the material is divided in this fashion, “there
— 285 —
are many themes and motifs th at are clustered together in such a

way th at a similar thrust or point may be seen in both cycles.”
(UF, 27; Gordon FS, p. 62).
e. The same principles apply to the book of Genesis as a whole. If
one takes it on its own terms, he sees th at it is divided into “histo-
ries” (‫—) תולדו ת‬not into a Primeval History and a History of the
Patriarchs but rather into sequential “histories.” There are three
major Patriarchal “histories” : th at about Abram and his sons
(Gen 11:27-25:11), about Jacob (Gen 25:19-35:29), and about Joseph
(Gen 37:2-50:26). Each of these “histories” may be divided into
seventeen “subsections,” 1 but the determination of the individual
1 With this, Fisher referred to the following arrangement of the texts. I cite this outline because
it indicates his view of the relative content of the cycles. The alphabetical categories of the outline indicate
the relationship of the individual units to Fisher's fourfold basis structure; the symbol “*" at the beginning
or end of a unit indicates a formula known from Ug. that contributes to the identification of the unit (each
cycle begins, of course, with a nnVin-formula, but I do not indicate this in the outline since it is not really
comparable to the designations which begin some of the Ug. tablets [e.g. Ikrt in UT K rt:l]—although, on
the other hand, the Genesis formula may represent a development of the idea behind the Ug. designations).
A b ra m Jacob Joseph
[A] (1) Introduction and promise [A] (1) The elder shall serve the [A] (1) Shalt thou indeed reign
( 11:27‫ ־‬12:3) younger (25:1934‫)־‬ over us? (37:236‫)־‬
[B] (2) *Abram journeys to Ca- [B] (2) *The Lord blesses Isaac [A2) [‫ )׳‬An interruption from the
naan (12:49‫)־‬ (26:1 ‫־‬35 ) history of Judah* (38:1-30)
(3) Abram and Sarai go to (3) Jacob obtains the bless- [B] (3) Joseph and his success*
Egypt because of a famine ing (27:145‫)־‬ (39:1 ‫־‬41:57 )
( 12:10‫ ־‬13:1)
(4) Abram and Lot go their (4) *Jacob shall not take a (4) *Joseph and his brothers*
separate ways (13:218‫) ־‬ Canaanite wife* (27:4628:9‫)־‬ (42:1-45:28)
(5) Abram meets Melchizedek (5) *Jacob's departure and (5) *Jacob worships at Beer-
( 14:1‫־‬24 ) his vow at Bethel (28:1022‫)־‬ sheba* (46:17‫)־‬
[C] (6) *God makes a covenant (6) **Jacob marries Leah [Cl (6) “These are the names"
with Abram (15:121‫)־‬ and Rachel (29:130‫)־‬ (46:8 ‫־‬27 )
(7) The birth of Ishmael [C] (7) Leah and Rachel and (7) *Joseph meets his father
( 16:1‫ ־‬16) their children (29:3130:24‫)־‬ (46:28 ‫־‬34 )
(8) Another covenant and (8) Jacob increased exceed- (8) *The brothers before the
the promise that Sarah will ingly (30:2543‫)־‬ Pharoah (47:16‫)־‬
bear a son (17:127‫)־‬
(9) *(v. 2) The Lord's visit- (9) *(v. 2) Return unto the (9) Jacob before the Pharaoh
ation (18:119:38‫) ־‬ land of thy fathers* (31:1‫־‬ (47:712‫) ־‬
32:1 [31:55])
(10) Abraham sojourned in (10) **Jacob's fear of Esau (10) Give us bread (47:1326‫)־‬
Gerar (20:118‫) ־‬ ( 3 2 : 2 2 1 ‫־‬22 [32:1 ‫)]־‬
(11) Sarah conceived and (11) Jacob's ordeal (32:2333‫־‬ (11) Joseph's oath (47:2731‫)־‬
bare Abraham a son (21:121‫)־‬ [32:2232‫)]־‬
(12) God is with Abraham (12) *Jacob meets Esau (33:1‫־‬ (12) *The adoption of Eph-
(21:22 ‫־‬34 ) 17) raim and Manasseh (48:1‫־‬
22 )
— 286
parts is more debatable and less important than the observation

th at each cycle has about the same “bulk,” and th at the three cycles
show a “similar overall structure” :
(1) A word about the descendants and promise. The Abram cycle
has a geneaology and a promise (Gen 11:2712:3‫ ;)־‬the Jacob
cycle emphasizes the theme “the elder shall serve the younger”
(Gen 25:19-34), as does the Joseph cycle (Gen 37:2-36).
(2) A section dealing with the success of the central character.
God is with the Patriarch in all his difficulties, granting him
success in “very material ways.” The difficulties include famine
(Gen 12:10-13:1; 26:1-35; 42:1-38), seduction (Sarah, Rebekah,
and Joseph; cf. also Gen 20:1-18), and difficulties with kings
or other powerful individuals. Note th at the fifth subsection
of the Abram and Jacob cycles deals with the tithe (Gen 14:
1-24 and 28:10-22).
(13) God tested Abraham (13) Jacob goes to Shechem (13) *Jacob's word to the
(22:1‫ ־‬19) (33:18‫־‬34:31) twelve tribes (49:1-28a)
(14) An original ending (22: (14) *Jacob returns to Bethel (14) Jacob's blessing, charge,
20‫־‬24) (35:1‫ ־‬15) and death (49:28b33‫)־‬
[D] (15) The death and burial of [D] (15) The death and burial of [DJ (15) Jacob's burial* (50:114‫)־‬
Sarah (23:120‫)־‬ Rachel (35:1620‫)־‬
(16) Isaac takes Rebekah as (16) Jacob and his sons (16) *“God meant it unto
his wife** (vv. 63, 64) (24: (35:21‫־‬26) good21‫( '׳‬50:15‫)־‬
1‫־‬67)
(17) The death of Abraham (17) *The death of Isaac (17) The death of Joseph
(25:1‫ ־‬11) (35:27‫־‬29) (50:22‫־‬26)
In one sense I have included too many “formulae‫ ׳״‬in this outline, and in another sense too few. The problem
is one of definition. From Whitaker's strict perspective, only Gen 18:2; 24:63, 64; and 33:1 would qualify
(see RSP III, II 1 4 ‫)־‬. Whitaker finds very few formulae common to Ug. and Heb. because his definition
of the term depends on poetic analysis. Thus he can account for an expression such as “he raised his voice
and called,‫ '׳‬but not for the simpler “he said‫( '״‬except as the compliment of an “epithet‫)'׳‬. But if one looks
for the rhetorical devices that bind the units of Ug. and Heb. narrative, one discovers that a Ug. expression
such as wt'n functions analogously to the Heb. ‫ויאמר‬: it introduces speeches. This leads one to suspect that
such a “transitional (or coupling, or pivot) formula‫ ׳׳‬is fundamentally a prose, rather than a poetic, device,
although these types of formulae are commonly expanded in the direction of poetry in Ug. verse (this is
one of the functions of Whitaker's “epithets'‫)׳‬. My indications of formulae in the outline represent the
use of transitional devices known from Ug. poetry. Cassuto first discussed these “stereotyped expressions‫'״‬
in 19421943‫( ־‬see Studies II, pp. 2026‫)־‬, and I have followed his lead by identifying only those expressions
where some linguistic factor attaches the Heb. usage to its Ug. forerunner. However, it is clear that Ug.
poetry employs references to traveling, seeing, and saying as transitional devices to connect narrative units.
This suggests that any such “formula‫ '׳‬in Heb. should be included as “known from Ug.‫—׳׳‬whether or not
it reflects an expression actually found in the Ug. texts. From an even broader perspective, a transitional
formula such as ‫( ויהי‬e.g., Gen 27:1) should also be included. If such a device does not appear in the Ug.
corpus, it nevertheless corresponds to those devices used by the Ug. texts to join narrative units. Just
as the narrative structure of a text will depend partly on the specific content of that text and partly on
the larger system to which it belongs, so a rhetorical ploy such as a transitional formula can be specific
to a text or group of texts while still participating in a larger system.
— 287 —
(3) More material on the descendants and land. In the Abram

cycle the heir is most important; with Jacob God’s gift of sons
is im portant but is blended into many other things, of which
obtaining land at Shechem stands out; Joseph’s sons are in-
eluded among the “twelve,” and he receives the land at Shechem
from Jacob (Gen 48:1-22).
(4) Similar conclusions: a burial scene (Gen 23:1-20; 35:16-20;
50:1-14), additional material on the heir(s) (Gen 24:1-67;
35:21-26; 50:15-21), and a death scene (Gen 25:1-11; 35:27-29;
50:22-26). These are the last three subsections of any kind
of division of the cycles. (Gordon FS, pp. 61-62.)
f. Like the K rt (as well as the Aqht!) cycle, the Patriarchal cycles
are “royal epics.” This is the correct term for the “type or genre,”
because “the place of these cycles within the history of each state
is similar” : the individual narrative is concerned with a small group;
cycles of such stories relate to entire tribes; later the cycles can
provide a “common national tradition” ; and still later they can
be used for a "connected history.” For the K rt epic, this indicates
an origin in the tribe of t', but in the period of the kingdom of Ugarit
it was used as a royal epic. The Patriarcal cycles were at one time
separate, each concerned with a tribal father who was “in a very
real sense” a king, and each put together by a minstrel who filled
a known structure with traditional materials. The traditional basis
of the cycles affects OT source criticism. For example, a unit such
as Gen 28:1-9—which contains the major purpose of Jacob’s journey,
the obtaining of a wife—is “very difficult to assign to a late source,
since it is so im portant to the structure.” Also, one should expect
th at some of the material used to fill such a structure will be con-
tradictory, or will be used several times. During the period of the
Judges the cycles were put together in the interest of "national
unity.” The concluding sections may have been added at this time,
since "in them we can see a movement toward a united Israel.”
Many transitional phrases th at are usually assigned to P were also
added. When David became king, he found his own royal epic
too narrow. Traces of this cycle are preserved in Gen 38, whose
structure and content (the seduction scene and “the elder shall
serve the younger”) indicate th a t it is the beginning of a “History
of Judah.” By adding some of his own material without overem-
phasizing his own line, David transformed the “epic of nationhood”
— 288 —
from the period of the Judges into a new “royal epic." (See Gordon
FS, pp. 63-64.)
g. Comments
W ith his explicit interest in structure, genre, setting, and inten-
tion, as well as his focus on content, Fisher stands squarely within the
form critical tradition (see above, Intro 2 b). This means, on the one
hand, th at the ultimate validity of his proposal cannot be judged on
structural grounds alone; but it also means th at his approach to the
structural problems is inhibited by the traditional restraints of form
critical methodology, as well as by his selective appropriation of th at
methodology.
h. The structural issues begin to come into focus when one analyzes
his way of bringing the Jacob and K rt materials together. Fisher’s com-
parison reflects the form critical focus on narrative order (see above,
Intro 8), yet the “narrativity" of the texts supplies a tottering platform
th at can scarcely support the weight of Fisher’s ediface. This forces
him to slant his structural analysis away from the direction of narrative
order at two critical points. The first point concerns the nature of the
parallels he has adduced from examining the "structure” of the two
cycles (see above, c). Three of the six parallels are only indirectly depen-
dent on the narrative structures of the texts: the sixth (seven day jour-
ney), as Fisher himself noted, depends on epic style rather than nar-
rative structure; the fifth constitutes a description of the nature, setting,
and deity of the protagonist’s vow; and the first (the purpose of the
cycles) is a statem ent of the intention of the texts. Intention relates to
structure, but Fisher himself remarked (UF, 28; Gordon FS, p. 62) th at
the “purpose” of the Jacob cycle is broader than the hero’s obtaining
of a wife in order to produce an heir; and it simply cannot be claimed
th a t this is the purpose of the K rt cycle on the basis of its distinctive
narrative structure. This claim is applicable only to UT K rt + 128 1:1-
III:25a. In UT 128 III:25b-VI:9 + 125-127 the narrative turn of
events shifts abruptly, and K rt must face the problems posed by his
own illness and the challenge of one of his sons to his right to the throne. 2
i. This narrative movement within the K rt cycle, for which Fisher
does not account, signals the second point at which Fisher withdraws
2 I am assuming that Fisher would include all of this material in the Krt cycle, since he refers to the
incomplete tablets which conclude the cycle (see above, c).
— 289 —
from narrative order in his structural analysis. W ithout specifying the

narrative differences between the K rt and Jacob cycles, Fisher relegates
these differences to a m atter of “names, situations, and side events,”
and offers the untestable suggestion th at the present form of the Jacob
materials conceals parallels th at once existed (see above, c-d). How-
ever, such differences are of fundamental significance to structural in-
terpretation. Even if we accept Fisher’s limitation of the Ug. structural
evidence to UT Krt, we find th at the overall narrative structure of this
text is dramatically different from th at of the Jacob cycle. The struc-
ture of K rt breaks down into two major units: a statem ent of K rt’s
problem—no descendants (11. 7b-21a), and a description of the solution
to this problem (11. 2lb-306), which must be divided into K rt’s reception
of E l’s instructions in a dream (11. 21b-153) and K rt’s fulfillment of the
instructions (11. 154-306). In itself, this suggests no structural com-
parison with any of the Patriarchal cycles; but K rt’s fulfillment of E l’s
instructions varies from those instructions in one significant fashion:
he interrupts his wife-claiming journey to make a vow to the goddess
Asherah. T hat Jacob makes a similar vow under somewhat comparable
circumstances provides the only substantial structural link between UT
K rt and any of the Patriarchal cycles (i.e., no vow, no comparison; this
is why Fisher’s structural comparison of the three Patriarchal cycles
has no contact with his structural comparison of the K rt and
Jacob cycles).
j. The vows allow Fisher to expand his comparison of Jacob and K rt

to include their journeys in quest of a wife and their dreams (note th at
points 2-5 of Fisher’s structural parallels are confined on the OT side
to Gen 28—this chapter represents the maximum basis on which the
Patriarchal cycles can be compared to the K rt text at the level of nar-
rative structure). The nature and narrative significance of these el-
ements is quite different in Gen 28 and in UT Krt. Fisher points out
several of the differences (UF, 28; Gordon FS, pp. 62-63), but they strike
him as unimportant because he does not attem pt a structural inter-
pretation of the comparison he has drawn. Such an interpretation would
inevitably focus on the role of the vows in the context of the total cycles
in which they are embedded. Jacob’s vow in Gen 28:20-22 is not par-
ticularly significant in terms of the overall narrative structure of the
Jacob cycle. I t does play an im portant role in the context of Gen 28:10-22,
a unit which gives an etiology for the cultic center at Bethel (for
the connection of Bethel and the tithe, see Amos 4:4), and for which
— 290 —
Gen 35:1-15 offers an alternate tradition (see von Rad, Genesis, pp. 277-
282 and 330-334). Although Jacob’s return to Bethel in Gen 35:1-15
gives him the opportunity to fulfill his vow, the text bears little relation
to the vow and says nothing about the tithe—underlining the relative
insignificance of the vow in the larger movement of the narrative. In
the K rt cycle, on the other hand, the vow holds a fundamental position
within the narrative flow. For it is K rt’s failure after seven(!) years
to fulfill his vow th at motivates the events of UT 128 I I I :25b-VI :9 +
125-127. Faced with such a dramatic narrative difference, the structural
interpreter would have to seek the bond of his texts in the subsurface
levels of structure by focusing on the relationships found in each text
(see above, Intro 5) and by attem pting to decode the meaning of the
texts (see above, Intro 8). Fisher, however, concentrates on elements
rather than relationships; and in place of decoding conflicts at the level
of narrative structure, he simply ignores them.
k. That Fisher’s non-technical (see above, Intro 4) approach to the
question of narrative structure gives him no basis for a structural in-
terpretation of the Jacob-Krt parallel is clear; but an evaluation of his
contribution to the structural comparison of the Jacob and K rt cycles
(and the Patriarchal cycles in their own right) must consider the frame-
work within which he operates. Fisher’s understanding of the Patriarchal
cycles stems from two related insights of Cyrus Gordon: the K rt and
Aqht cycles reflect a pervading element of the Patriarchal cycles, the
divine promise of progeny (A N E , p. 294); and the prevalence of “royal
epic” at Ugarit shows us th at the Patriarchal cycles are (among other
things!) royal epic (Common Background, pp. 282 and 285). Fisher ac-
cepts this generic identification on the grounds of setting: the genre is
right because the place of these cycles within the history of each state
is similar. And setting is the chief criterion for Fisher’s theory of the
development of the Patriarchal cycles in relation to the history of
Israel (see above, f).
l. If it is used with caution, the genre “royal epic” provides a useful
means of describing the connection of the Ug. and Heb. texts in question.
By definition, the protagonist is a kingly figure, and the central concern
is his dynasty. The K rt cycle meets these criteria in a relatively pure
fashion: K rt is a king, and the survival of his dynasty forms the central
preoccupation of the whole cycle. Interpretation which builds on this
foundation appeals to th at which is fundamental to the texts, as op-
posed, for example, to Engnell’s m yth-ritual view of the K rt text as
— 291 —
20
a variant of the Baal cycle whose fundamental concern is fertility (see

below, ss-tt). While it is true th at most of the Ug. mythic and epic texts
have to do with fertility in some way, the interpreter must ground his
understanding of an individual composition in the emphasis of th at
particular composition. If Fisher’s understanding of the K rt cycle is
grounded in its emphasis, the same claim can be made for his under-
standing of the Patriarchal cycles. The focus of the K rt cycle appears
in its initial unit (UT Krt:7b-21a), which establishes the survival of his
dynasty as the problem situation of the epic; and the same kind of in-
terest reveals itself in the rn*^1n-formula which introduces each Pa-
triarchal cycle, as well as in the essential content of the cycles (i.e., the
“history” of Terah focuses on Abram, th at of Isaac on Jacob, and th at
of Jacob on Joseph). The emphasis of this movement both within and
across the cycles is on the continuity of the Patriarchal generations.
The gift of land is an im portant and special concern of the Patriarchal
stories; but its significance depends on its subjugation to the dominant
emphasis on Patriarchal succession (a point made nicely in Gen 12:1-3).
m. That the Ug.-Heb. parallel depends on a generic, and not a struc-
tural, similarity is clear. The constitutive feature of the genre “royal
epic” is its preoccupation with the maintenance of a particular dynasty.
This preoccupation could find expression in a vast diversity of narrative
sequences. For this reason, Fisher’s comparison of the Jacob and K rt
cycles at the level of narrative structure is an important contribution
to our understanding of the generic parallel. T hat the structural re-
lationship he proposed lacks the strength to bear all of the burdens he
imposed upon it is neither as surprising nor as significant as the bare
fact th at a narrative relationship of any kind can be demonstrated.
Fisher has shown th at a narrative parallel can be drawn between Gen 28
and the K rt text. The existence of such a parallel challenges future
research to isolate all of the narrative elements in the various examples
of the genre (and this would carry such research beyond the confines
of Ug. and Heb.). When this task has been accomplished, the distinctive
concerns of a particular text can be assessed on a truly comparative
basis.
n. In a limited sense Fisher has embarked on this task by comparing
the narrative structures of the three OT cycles. From a purely structural
perspective, this comparison is more successful than th at of the Jacob
and K rt cycles because it reveals a broader and more fundamental
structural unity (although Fisher’s analysis is too sketchy to provide an
— 292 —
answer to the compelling question of what elements are necessary and what
are incidental to the ‘‘Patriarchal’’ form of the genre). Of particular interest
is Fisher’s discovery th at the narrative structure of Gen 38 indicates
it to be the beginning of an independent Patriarchal cycle, the “history”
of Judah—a history whose emphasis obviously relates to the concerns
of the Davidic dynasty. Not only does this observation help us deter-
mine the role of Gen 38 in the Patriarchal literature, but it also raises
intriguing prospects for an original connection of a complete Judah
cycle with other materials from David’s reign, especially—on the analogy
of the K rt cycle—the so-called “Succession History of David” in II Sam
9-20 + I Kings 1-2. If the Patriarchal cycles primarily reflect the in-
terests of the first part of the K rt cycle, UT K rt + 128 1:1-111:25a (see
above, h), the so-called Succession History appropriates the dominant
concerns of the second part of the K rt cycle, UT 128 I I I :25b-VI:9 +
125-127 (see below, dd-hh). Of course, these emphases overlap. David
must have a wife and heir of his own in order to guarantee his dynasty.
Yet, in the broad framework of royal epic he would also need the type
of material represented by the now aborted Judah cycle to legitimize
his own reign and the survival of his dynasty. The connection of a Judah
cycle with the Succession History is speculative, but at least one should
note th at these materials represent a continuity of interests brought
together in one example of royal epic, the K rt cycle.
o. The most striking aspect of Fisher’s approach to narrative structure

is his intention to treat the Patriarchal materials as a coherent whole,
revealed by structural investigation to consist of large blocks built upon
the same broad pattern. That Fisher’s results are far from complete
is less significant than the fact th at he has achieved enough to demon-
strate the viability of narrative structural analysis at this level of the
text. The importance of this methodological insight may be emphasized
by contrasting it with alternative approaches to the Genesis texts.
Traditional form critical analysis has focused on individual units, per-
ceiving them as isolated traditions independently related to particular
places and customs. The question of source analysis has dominated the
form critical understanding of the incorporation of these units into larger
compositions. As far as the discipline has treated the three major Pa-
triarchal cycles as wholes, it has tended to view them as essentially dif-
ferent rather than essentially similar. If we turn to structuralist exegesis,
we find a similar impulse to deal exclusively with the smaller units of
the text among its tentative probes into the Genesis materials—partly
293 —
because such units are comfortably available to short-term analysis,

and partly because some traditions may be studied on a comparative
basis within the Patriarchal literature. Folklore treatments of Genesis
texts, while depending on a far-ranging comparative foundation, have
likewise settled for the study of smaller textual units. This trend reflects
the commitment of folklore research to the study of individual motifs
and traditional episodes—th at is, where points of contact to extra-
biblical literature are the greatest. The effort to bring the Patriarchal
narratives together under a single structural umbrella presupposes some
faith th at the results of such study will be significant. This type of faith
requires a comparative basis that is substantial enough to raise the basic
level of investigation to the cycle as a discrete entity and to focus com-
positional analysis on the combination of the cycles. Yet the compar-
ative basis must be narrow enough to avoid the reduction of the inves-
tigation to a generalized concern with universal human tendencies. By
establishing a suitable comparative basis in the genre “royal epic,” and
by initiating the task of structural analysis on the Patriarchal narratives
as a whole, Fisher has given us grounds for the faith required to proceed.
When this structural analysis has been thoroughly accomplished (at
all levels of structure), its results must be correlated with those of pre-
vious research. Only then will we be able to adequately assess the va-
lidity of the literary and historical conclusions th at Fisher has drawn.
P• The Ug.-Heb. parallel, as established generically by Gordon and

pursued structurally by Fisher, is incomplete in that the Ug. Aqht cycle
has been identified as an example of the genre “royal epic” but not drawn
into the structural discussion. The fragmented state of the tablets in
the Aqht cycle prohibits any connected analysis of its narrative. How-
ever, enough has been preserved to show th at the Aqht cycle, in con-
trast to the K rt cycle, shares the narrative perspective of the Patriarchal
cycles: the story begins with King Danel, the father figure, but the plot
focuses on the son, Aqht. And the narrative interest in this son arises
from his role as the heir necessary to the survival of Danel’s dynasty
(see UT 2 Aqht I:17b-22a [CTA 17 I:17b-22a]). That which is left to
us of the Aqht narrative differs dramatically from any of the Patriarchal
cycles, but it nevertheless offers one fundamental point of contact at
the level of narrative structure. This is the traditional birth episode
given in UT 2 Aqht I-II (CTA 17 I-II). There is a clear structural re-
lationship between this birth episode and th at of the birth of Isaac in
the Abram cycle (Gen 21:1-7), as well as th at of the birth of Jacob and
— 294
Esau in the Jacob cycle (Gen 25:21-26). Elements from the traditional
birth episode also appear in the K rt cycle.3 This traditional episode is
by no means distinctive to the genre “royal epic.” Other OT parallels
can be found both within and outside of the Patriarchal narratives;
and the birth of a hero is recounted in traditional fashion in a vast spec-
trum of ancient Near Eastern and, indeed, world literature. Nevertheless,
the birth episode assumes a particular significance in a genre constituted
by its preoccupation with the survival of a dynasty. If for no other
reason, the narrative relationship of this part of the Aqht cycle to the
Patriarchal cycles offers an important piece of comparative evidence for
the structural interpretation of the Patriarchal cycles. 4
q. I Sam 16-1 Kings 2

Gordon: The crowning "epic cycle” of the OT is the “Epic of Kings”
celebrating the rise and establishment of the monarchy under Saul
and David. Because of his greater achievements in creating an
empire and founding Israel’s first and only enduring dynasty, David
alone merited “epic treatm ent par excellence” :
[1] Both David (I Sam 16:10-11) and K rt (UT K rt:9) are one of
eight brothers.
[2] That David is the youngest who eclipses all his elder brothers
is an “epic motif” applied to royal succession in UT 128 I - I I .5
3 The structural study of the traditional birth episode can be most meaningfully performed by means
of narrative motif analysis. Therefore, its treatment will be reserved for RSP IV (but see also below, 3 p‫־‬v).
4 This is especially true of the Abram cycle, whose plot is obsessed with the birth of Isaac. In fact,
the traditional birth episode in Gen 21:17‫ ־‬may be considered with some justification as the nucleus of the
entire cycle. At least, most of narrative units which precede it in the plot move toward it, while most of
those which follow flow from it. Although no unit in the Joseph cycle can be related to the traditional birth
episode at the level of narrative structure, the first unit in Fisher's analysis of the cycle (Gen 37:236‫ ;־‬see
above, e1) dramatically emphasizes the key element of the birth episode in the Jacob cycle (Gen 25:2126‫)־‬.
This is the reversal of fortune: “the older shall serve the younger" (Gen 25:23). While this element does
not appear in the narrative structure of the birth episode in the Aqht cycle, it does play a role in the birth
episode of the Krt cycle (UT 128 111:16 [CTA 15 111:16])—although its narrative function is not clear (see
below, q5, and 3 g and k).
5 Gordon did not specify the significance of this cryptic Ug. reference. The real textual basis for the
“motif" he identified is UT 128 111:16 (see above, p4). In context, this line must be related to Krt's six
daughters of 11. 7 1 2 ‫־‬. Gordon realized this, but took it to mean that the youngest daughter, Octavia, is to
be “sororarch" (UMC, p. Il l , n. 66). This notion evidently led him to emend UT 128 11:24 to wtmnt ltmnt\
(UT, p. 195), and translate 11. 23b24‫ ־‬as “[The wife] Will bear thee seven sons / And an eighth (daughter):
Octavia" (UMC, p. 110). I,. 24, however, is legible but problematic because it lacks a word divider:
wtmntttmnm (see Herdner, CTA, p. 69 and n. 2, for the text and options for its division). Nevertheless, the gen-
eral sense of the line seems to be that Krt's wife will produce eight sons for him, in accord with the seven-
eight numerical pattern of this type of formulation (see Caquot, TO ML, p. 539 and n. j). Gordon's inter-
polation of “Octavia" into this verse lacks credibility for several reasons: it forces him to ignore .the obvious
— 295 —
[3] The dual tradition th at David was the seventh (I Chron 2:15)
or eighth (I Sam 16[ :1011 ‫ )]־‬son reflects a poetic origin in the
device of climaxing “seven” with “eight” parallelistically [cf.,
e.g., Krt:8b-9].
[4] Like K rt who must win the hand of a princess by war, David
wins Michal by slaughtering man}‫■׳‬Philistines [I Sam 18:20-27].6
[5] That David loses Michal and has to regain her (II Sam 3:14)
suggests th at the mention of the departure of K rt’s rightful
bride (UT K rt :12-14) does not imply her death but th at she has
somehow left him and must be rewon.
[6] As K rt suffers for his sin, so David suffers for his sin with Bath-
sheba.
[a] That the child of David and Bathsheba was fatally ill for
the "epic” number of seven days (II Sam 12[: 18]) reflects
a poetic original.
[b] K rt’s disaster includes famine in his realm (UT 126 III);
David’s sins confront his realm with a choice of disasters
including famine (II Sam 24:13). (See pp. 297-298.)
r. The narrative of David combines “earlier epic” with “later his-

toriography.” Solomon’s story includes fewer epic elements and
more annalistic elements. W ith the divided kingdom many of the
"traditional epic features” disappear: schematic numbers for reigns
become rare after the forty years each of David and Solomon; pre-
occupation with the birth of a son and heir no longer plays a role
in the narratives; romantic marriage is no longer mentioned; and
annunciations find no more place in secular life, but are confined
to the religious sphere. “Post-Davidic history is virtually devoid
of the old Canaanite epic content, however much the language
continues to re-echo the epic tradition in expression and style.”
(P. 298.)
stichometry of the verse, whose last stich should include the Ik of 1. 25; the fragmented condition of what
follows in the Krt cycle gives us no indication that “Octavia‫ ׳׳‬ever became the “ruling sister“ ; and UT
128 111:16, upon which Gordon's interpretation of 128 11:24 seems to depend, is probably a secondary ad-
dition to the text (see below, 3 g). Therefore, while Gordon's suggestion that the notion of “reversal of
fortune'' is an “epic motif'' may be generally valid, his attempt to link it with royal succession in the Krt
cycle rests on dubious evidence.
6 Although, as Gordon pointed out elsewhere (BASOR, 65 [1937], 31), David slaughters the Philis-
tines to pay the “bride price'‫ ׳‬to Saul for Michal; see Rainey, RSP II, III 1. Note that Carlson, David,
p. 191, n. 1, accepted Gordon's parallel, even though he pointed out the qualitative difference between
the actions of David and Krt.
— 296
s. I I Sam 6
Engnell: A “consistent cultic-ritual interpretation” of UT K rt must be
maintained against all other conceptions of its character, especially
any kind of historical conception (see Studies, pp. 143-149; HorS,
1-3). Like all the great Ug. texts, its “central motif” is the victory
of cosmos over chaos—th at is, the victory of life and fertility over
death and sterility (Studies, p. 144; HorS, 3, 7, 20). Specifically,
UT K rt is a “mere variant” of the Baal-Anat cycle, “differentiated
from it maybe in time or maybe in its cultural-religious stratum ,
yet, ultimately just a parallel” (HorS, 17; cf. 3; see Studies, pp. 168-
169). King K rt is culturally and religio-phenomenologically iden-
tical to Baal; i.e., a Tammuz-Adonis figure, the dying and rising
type of god. The same dualism holds between K rt and Pbl as be-
tween Baal and Mot. (See Studies, pp. 168-169.) The life-death
problem is always concentrated in the ideology of kingship. The
identity between royal and divine ideology is the characteristic
feature of UT Krt: the king is the personal corporalization of the
divine chief character, the “Tammuz-god.” (HorS, 3; see Studies,
pp. 144-145, 152.)
t. UT Krt, then, is not any kind of “historical” or “mythic” text; it
is a “ritual” text. As such, it is a “distinct part of the great ritual
cycle bound up with the ,Tammuz’ character, to wit, the sections
introducing the leyoc ydfux; element, so th at it might thus be called
a ritual of the wooing by the divine king of the queen-goddess.”
The same kind of fragment is found at Ugarit in UT 77 (CTA 24).
At the same time, the “K rt version” of the “royal-divine pattern
of the Ugaritic Tammuz type of religion” constitutes an “older
Canaanite pattern” of the OT IVDO-festival, the autumnal “en-
thronement festival,” as seen by the “royal-divine ritual items (or:
elements)” in UT K r t : 7
7 In HorS, 5 1 9 ‫־‬, Engnell discussed UT 128 + 125127‫ ־‬from a structural perspective informed by his
view of the texts as rituals (note the summary statement on p. 19: UT 125127‫“ ־‬in its extremely charac-
teristic structure bears throughout the unmistakable ritual stamp—as do all the great R Sh texts—an im-
pression that is positively inescapable"). However, he did not attempt to extend the Ug.‫־‬Heb. parallel
on the basis of these texts, and so I am omitting them (although he certainly understood them as parts
of a Krt cycle). My presentation of the ritual elements he identified in UT Krt follows his listing in HorS,
3 5 ‫־‬. This list does not encompass all of the text, as does his translation and discussion in Studies, pp. 149-
168, but it more concisely demonstrates his conception of the ritual pattern on which the text is based.
Engnell’s breakdown of the text into individual units in Studies signifies little for its surface structure,
since he looked for ritual, rather than narrative, entities. His major division of the surface structure of
— 297 —
(1) The “devastation,” the “blood-bath,” the (imaginative) de-

struction of the temple, the “death” of the king-god (11. 10-[21a]).
(2) The ritual mourning of the king (11. 2lb -[3la]).
(3) The king’s incubation and dream oracle: the promise of the
birth of “the son” (in a hierogamy) (11. 31b-[43]).
(4) The king in a “bit rimki-rite,” in ablution rites on the roof,
culminating in sacrifice (11. 59-[79a], 156-[171a]).
(5) The king in a special baking-rite, an introductory rite to the
now following “sukkdt-iestival” (11. 79b-[85a], 171b-[176a]).
(6) The king at the head of the “Exodus,” the going out to the
hierogamy festival in the open, “the desert” (11. 85b-[114a],
I76b-[217]).
(7) The king in “sham fight” with the counter-king (the high priest)
for the queen-goddess (11. 114b-[153], 218-[300a]; but for 125-
129 see also 53-56). LI. 136b-[153], 281-[300a], constitute the
“very core of the whole K rt te x t” : the king claims to take the
“goddess” to wife, she th at will give birth to his son, the new
humanity (the striking similarity of this passage to sections of
Canticles is the best evidence th at this song was originally a
Tammuz liturgy).
(8) The king’s delivering of the wedding-gift to the goddess for
the legoc ydf-io? (11. 199b-[206]).
(9) The various royal epithets applied to K rt ( f , ngb, 'bd il, 'bd il
whdrt, tr il abh, n'mn glm il). (See Studies, pp. 149-168; HorS,
3-5.)
u. The relation of UT K rt to II Sam 6 may be seen at a number of
points. First, the cultic occasion of UT K rt is the Ug. JI'DO-festival,
of which the king is the central character (Studies, p. 155). Second
(see above, t, no. 6), there is no expedition by an actual army in
UT Krt, but a cultic “Exodus” led by the king to the hierogamy
festival in the open. This parallels David’s going up with the Ark
in II Sam 6, an act which is in reality a standing rite in the Israelite
so-called enthronement festival. The “m artial” character of K rt’s
going out is comparable to David’s accompaniment of thirty thou-
the text into a “prospective" or dream version (UT Krt: 10153‫ )־‬and a “narrative" version (UT Krt: 154‫־‬
306) completely misses the syntagmatic structure (see above, i) . Engnell made one other observation with
potential relevance to a structuralist study of the text—that its “chief actors" are the divine king himself,
the “counter-king," the queen-goddess, and the “young god"-king (= the reborn king); compare Leach’s
use of the characters in the Davidic materials (see below, da).
— 298
sand men when he brings the Ark up to Jerusalem (II Sam 6:1).
David was not a “much lower fellow” than King Krt! This also
parallels UT 51 V II (CTA 4 VII), where Baal heads an armed train
on an occasion th at is in reality the entry into the temple in con-
nection with the ritual combat. (Studies, p. 156; HorS, 4-5.) Final-
ly, one should compare the “mysterious” udm of UT Krt:133-135,
256-259, to the ‫ ע ב ל ״ א דו ם‬with whom David left the Ark in II Sam
6:10, and from whence it was to start at the procession of the en-
thronement festival in the Jerusalemite c u lt.8 Moreover, the proces-
sion was preceded by a pause, etiologically motivated in the nar-
rative by the breach of Uzzah (II Sam 6:6-11). (See Studies, pp. 163-
165.)
v. I I Sam 2-1 Kings 2

Carlson: For the “traditio-historical” analysis of a tradition such as that
represented in II Sam, it is essential to set the tradition in the con-
text of its ancient Near Eastern background—although final judg-
ment must always be based on internal analysis. The comparison
of the “formal structure” of a given OT pericope and the same
structure in extra-Israelite literature is an important aspect of
this “comparative traditio-historical analysis.” In this framework,
“compositional analysis” provides the key to unlock the “structural
patterns” used to build up a unit or complex of units. Where indi-
vidual units are concerned, this method depends on the “form-
analytical” isolation of the material. Characteristics of individual
units are partly transformed in the composition of larger blocks, and
at this stage of a tradition other characteristics appear: repetition
of “formulae” to unify material, framework material, and the
grouping of material around “definite themes containing a variety
of motifs.” (See pp. 12-14.)
w. The present form of the “Davidic cycle” is the product of Deu-

teronomic ideology and composition; but the Davidic cycle also has
close ideological and compositional affinities with the K rt epic, as
emphasized by Engnell (see above, s-u). These statements are not
contradictory: the “D-group” constantly employed well-known
8 On u dm see Astour, R S P II, VIII 16, who, however, did not discuss Engnell's proposal that udm
is the name of a goddess.
— 299
“epic conventions.’’ Thus the number seven is particularly signifi-

cant in Deuteronomic language and provides the scheme which con-
nects the units of II Samuel; and it also has an important function
in epic literature, as demonstrated for the K rt epic by Gordon (see
above, q). Moreover, the “compositional character” of I-II Samuel
provides a "positive indication” th at the D-group based their de-
scription of the epoch of Saul and David on an already existing “epic
of David,” 9 whose complete reconstruction, however, is “so com-
plicated as to be impossible.” (See pp. 33-34; 34, nn. 5-6; 43 and
n. 5.)
x. The traditio-historical analysis of the book of II Samuel in compar-

ison with the K rt cycle can be adequately accomplished only if
one understands both the nature of the K rt cycle and the Deuter-
onomic composition of II Samuel. The K rt cycle is "an epic which
centres on the question of the continuance of a dynasty,” and which
"has been called the Canaanite equivalent of the Israelite sukkdt
festival (Engnell)” (see above, t) (p. 67). In II Samuel we find the
Deuteronomic notions of “blessing” when Israel follows Yahweh
and “curse” when the people do not follow him to be constitutive
of the two main sections of the book: (1) David under the Blessing
(II Sam 2-7), and (2) David under the Curse (II Sam 9-24) (pp. 25, 30).
y. The notice th at six sons were born to David in Hebron in II Sam
3:2-5 alerts the reader to the epic-dynastic aspect of the Davidic
cycle. “Thematically,” this is a typical “blessing” statem ent and
is therefore fully justified in the description of David’s growing
"blessing” in his war with Ishbosheth (II Sam 2:12-4:12). The
D-group presumably incorporated II Sam 3:2-5 into this context,
but “such statements have always had a legitimate function in an
9 The notion of a (Samuel)-Saul‫־‬David cycle was set forth by Carlson’s teacher, Engnell, in S B U ,
cols. 10431049‫ ; ־‬S B U 2, cols. 8 67871‫־‬. However, Carlson’s identification of the original form of this material
as a “David-cycle” and his attempt to demonstrate its “many points of contact’’ with the Krt epic also
depend on Gordon’s view’ of the Krt-David parallel. His treatment of I Sam 16:113‫ ־‬clarifies his relation‫־‬
ship to Gordon. While Gordon proposed an “Epic of Kings’’ having to do with both Saul and David, he
limited his treatment of the Davidic epic to I Sam 16 and subsequent materials (see above, q). Carlson
admitted the attractiveness of the theory that I Sam 16:113‫ ־‬began the original epic of David, and he related
this passage to the Krt epic by means of Gordon’s observation that in both cycles the eighth and youngest
son is exalted above his brothers (see above, q, nos. 1 2 ‫)־‬. But Carlson also argued that I Sam 16:113‫ ־‬cannot
be isolated from I Sam 15, nor from the delineation of the figure(s) of Samuel in “earlier passages’’ (see
p. 43 and n. 5). Thus he incorporated all of I and II Samuel under the rubric “epic of David’’—a view that
modifies Gordon’s Krt-David thesis along the lines of Engnell’s hypothesis of the unity of I and II Samuel.
— 300
epic purporting, like the Keret cycle, to describe the fortunes of a

dynasty.” Thus the Davidic story circles “from one point of view
around the theme ‘A son after you, who shall come forth from your
body’” (II Sam 7:12); cf. II Sam 5:13-16 and 6:20-23. The same
applies in even higher degree to the K rt epic: cf. the refrain “W hat
need have I (Keret) of silver and yellow-glittering . . . grant I may
beget children” [UT Krt:52b-54a+57(-58); cf. 11. 137b-138+152-153
and 282-283+ 298-300a]. (See pp. 50-51 and n. 4.)
II Sam 6 is fully integrated into the section “David under the Bless-
ing” (see p. 58) as a “ ‘historicized’ account of the sukkot festival”
(p. 83). Parallels with the K rt epic underscore the “cultic character”
of II Sam 6:
(1) II Sam 6:1-2 is a “compositional heading” which indicates in
general terms what will be described in more detail in the fol-
lowing passage. This is traditionist technique. Likewise, K rt’s
dream [UT K rt :32-155] introduces what follows and contains
an anticipatory description of K rt’s six-day march to “Udurn
the Great.” Significantly, the following narrative about the
march includes a pause not mentioned in the introduction (see
below, no. 3). (P. 64 and 1 1 . 1.)
(2) The thirty thousand men mustered by David in II Sam 6:1
are the “cultic arm y,” which should be compared to K rt’s army
of three million (UT K rt :88-89, 178[b]-179, according to Gins-
berg’s translation in A N E T , pp. 143b, 144b). Although K rt’s
army is much larger than David’s, the parallel indicates what
II Sam 6 shows: the “epic number” three is used in association
with cultic patterns. (P. 67 and n. 4.)
(3) The interruption in the procession of the Ark described in
II Sam 6:6-11 is integral to the account. A similar pause oc-
curs at the temple of “Asherah of Tyre and E lath of Sidon”
after three days of K rt’s march on Udum [UT Krt:195b-199],
but its consequences were much worse for K rt than the episode
of Uzzah for David. Because K rt failed to fulfill the promises
he made on th at occasion [UT Krt:199b-206], he “fell ill” for
“between three and four months” (UT 125:84-85). In II Sam
6:11 the Ark spends “three months” in the “house” of Obed-
edom, though David is not directly the guilty party. However,
in the light of the K rt parallel Uzzah’s death may be a “sort
of substitutionary sacrifice for David” : as “High-Priest” David
is ultimately responsible for the transport of the Ark. (P. 83

and nn. 3-4.)
aa. (4) “Myth and ritual” scholars have tried to show th at Yahweh
and his consort celebrated their marriage in a ‫ סכ ה‬at the time
of the annual festival, and th at this may have been in Obed-
edom’s temple. The theophoric element ‫ אדו ם‬in this PN is
connected with the consort of Reshef, the god of pestilence,
but also with th at Udum (UT Krt:108[b]-109, 210[b]-211) to
which K rt journeyed in search of a wife, and which Engnell,
Studies, pp. 163-165, has shown to connote the place, the god-
dess, and her temple (see above, u). In this light the lodging
of the Ark in Obed-edom’s "tem ple” may be of "the utm ost
significance” as a fertility note. (See pp. 82-83; and 82, n. 4.)
(5) The "blessing” theme of II Sam 6:12 is particularly linked to
v. 16 and its extension in the Michal episode of w . 20-23, but
it also characterizes II Sam 6:12-19 as a whole. Thus a "stylistic
basis in the ‘sukkot-Gattung’” is to be expected here as in the
previous passages. David’s dance before the Ark appears to
be a form of fertility rite connected to the sukkot festival; the
verb which denotes David’s dance also appears in the prelude
to the hieros gamos of El and Asherah (UT 51 IV:29-30 [CTA
4 IV :29-30]). II Sam 6:12-19 is "more closely linked as liter-
ature with the ritual of the annual festival than the previous
account: the pause every six paces is characteristic of the
sukkot.” Significantly, K rt’s journey to Udum took six days
and was followed by six more days of rest [UT K rt :106-108a,
114b-119a]; the number six in the Ug. texts is in fact a “for-
mula” introducing the turning point of the seventh day (cf.
Gen 1:1-2:3, a "deculticized sukkot tradition). (See pp. 86-91.)
bb. The “sukkot-style description” in II Sam 6 provided a natural start-

ing point for the D-group focus on the building of the temple in
the “Oracle of N athan” (II Sam 7:4-17)—the "crowning moment”
of "David under the Blessing.” This "m otif” had to be connected
to the Covenant of David, and this Covenant used as a guarantee
th at the temple would be built. Given the material of II Sam 6,
the Deuteronomists built II Sam 7 :l ib - 16 on the literary tradition
of the Davidic Covenant (II Sam 23:1-7; Pss 132 and especially 89).
“The renewal of the Davidic Covenant was an im portant element
in the Jerusalemite sukkot festival: parallel material is to be found
302 —
in the epic of K eret,” a “Canaanite ‘sukkot’ cycle” which “in its

entirety circles around the question of the continuity of the. dynas-
ty .” (See pp. 119-121.)
cc. The “annual festival” also plays a “prominent role” in the traditions
of “David under the Curse.” “It is significant, remembering the
literary character of the epic of Keret, th at 2 Sam. 10-12 should
contain a number of ritual motifs, sufficient to justify the descrip-
tion of the passage as a historicized sukkot tradition, with a ‘booth’,
hieros gamos and a sham fight at its core” (p. 144). The annual
festival is also prominent in “the story of Absalom and the unit
in 21:1-14.” 101 Comparison with the K rt epic shows “in a striking
fashion” th at ideological opposition to the kingship could hardly
be expressed more effectively than in II Sam 15:1-21:14, where the
criticism is expressed both in the driving out from the “good land”
and in the cursing of the ground (21:1-14, which “connects up with
the central fertility motif of the annual festival”). (See p. 177.)
dd. I t is also true that an “interesting and instructive parallel” may

be drawn between II Sam 10-1 Kings 2 and the K rt cycle (i.e.,
UT K rt + 128 + 125-127), since the K rt cycle “agrees” with the
biblical passage (taking appropriate account of II Sam 21-24) “both
ideologically and compositionally.” The “detailed compositional
agreement” between II Sam 10-12 in relation to 15-20 suggests th at
“accepted literary patterns have provided a basis for the form given
the Davidic story” [in II Sam 10-1 Kings 2]. The compositional
parallel includes the following elem ents:11
10 Carlson stated that this had previously been pointed out (see p. 177, n. 4, for bibliography), and
he did not attempt to develop structural parallels with the Krt epic on cultic grounds. He did point out
that Engnell, Studies, p. 154, and H orS , 4, illustrated Absalom's seizure of his father's harem in II Sam
16:22 by referring to the rite of the thankoffering in “the shadow of the ten t‫( ׳׳‬bzl hmt; UT K rt:65, 159).
But contrast Gray's observation that Absalom's taking the harem was his public declaration of his physical
fitness to discharge the office of king according to “primitive expectations‫( ׳׳‬see UT 128 11:1627‫־‬, where
the king's virility suggests his capacity as a worthy dispenser of fertility), and that I Kings 1:14‫ ־‬may depend
on this belief (LC1, p. 108, n. 1; L C 2, p. 146, n. 5). Driver, C M L , p. 5, also related I Kings 1 to the
Krt epic in terms of royal ideology. Just as Krt's initial loss of palace, wife, and heir [UT K rt:7b25‫ ]־‬raises
the question of how such a one can truly be king, so David took Abishag in an attempt to prove himself
still possessed of sexual power. Whatever Carlson intended by his reference to Engnell, it is interesting
that in D a vid , p. 189 and n. 2, he interpreted I Kings 1:14‫ ־‬in the light of the ideological background of the
king's function as “personification of fertility and ‘blessing‫׳‬/‫ ׳‬and noted that I Kings 1 2 ‫ ־‬is the “direct
continuation of the stories of Amnon and Absalom‫—׳׳‬both stylistically and in terms of content.
11 This arrangement of the material represents my attempt to give a compact and schematic presen‫־‬
tation of Carlson's view of the structural parallel.
— 303 —
(1) K rt’s campaign against Udum [UT (1) David’s war with the Ammonites
K rt: 156-280 (// K rt :62b-136a)] results [II Sam 10:1-11:1 + 12:26-31] pro-
in vides the occasion for
(2) His winning the hand of Hry, eldest (2) His taking Bathsheba, the wife of
daughter of King Pbl [UT Krt:281- Uriah the H ittite [II Sam ll:2 2 7 ‫־‬a].
306 + 128 I (cf. K rt :136b-153)].
(3) Many sons and daughters are bom to (3) Solomon, loved by Yahweh and heir
K rt within "seven years,” in accor- to the throne, is born to David
dance with the promise and blessing [II Sam 12:24-25].
of El [UT 128 II-III].
(4) But, because K rt fails to observe the (4) But, because David’s actions con-
promise he had made to "Asherah of stitute a sin against Yahweh [II Sam
Tyre and E lath of Sidon” on the ll:27b-12:15a],
third day of the Udum expedition
([UT Krt:194b-206] + 128 111:25-30),
(5) K rt becomes ill [UT 128 IV-VI]. (5) Bathsheba’s first son dies [II Sam
(6) Two of K rt’s children become the 12:15b-23].
leading actors in the “account,” (6) The scene shifts to a later period of
mourning their father’s "illness” [UT misfortunes in which David’s sons are
125]. the leading actors [II Sam 15-20],
(7) As a result, Ysb, K rt’s eldest son, (7) And in which Absalom becomes pre-
claims the throne, accusing his father tender to the throne, under the pre-
of lacking the capability of fulfilling text of his father’s neglect of his
his royal function as judge because of duties as "judge” (II Sam 15:2-6).
his "sickness” (UT 127:41-54). (See pp. 190-192.)
ee. The compositional picture is completed by the “characteristics”

previously mentioned (see above, y-cc). Compositionally, the K rt
parallel helps us to place II Sam 21-24 in its appropriate context.
In its present position this unit is generally regarded as an insertion.
Although the original sequence of the traditions of "David under
the Curse” must be derived primarily by internal analysis, the
opening of the K rt epic with a description of the catastrophe brought
about by pestilence and the sword [UT Krt:7b-21a] bolsters the
notion th a t the second “seven-year cycle” of “curse” in I I Sam
was originally introduced by the ravages of pestilence, famine, and
sword (i.e., II Sam 24 + 21:1-14 + 15[-20]).18 In turn, the under-12*
12 Carlson noted (pp. 142-143 and n. 2) that this ‫״״‬group of motifs" was well known in the ancient
Near East, as shown in the alternatives lion, wolf, famine, and pestilence in the Gilgamesh Epic X I :182-
— 304 —
standing won from the K rt parallel (and from internal analysis)

of the role of the Bathsheba tradition (II Sam 10-12) in the Deuter-
onomists’ composition of II Sam 10-1 Kings 2 shows th at 1) II Sam
10-20 + I Kings 1-2 is a pre-Deuteronomic unit, and 2) the Deuter-
onomists arranged the various units of II Sam 21-24 in such a way
as to fulfill their pragmatic purposes, starting with the Bathsheba
tradition in II Sam 10-12. (See pp. 142-143 and 188-198.)
ff. From the point of view of ideology the compositional parallel be-
tween the K rt epic and “David under the Curse” gives “special
force” to the Deuteronomic adaptation of the order of the traditions
following the Bathsheba episode into two “seven-year cycles.” Just
as K rt’s misfortunes come as a direct result of his sin against “Ashe-
rah of Tyre and E lath of Sidon,” so the death of Bathsheba’s
son and possibly also the misfortunes recorded in the original tra-
ditions II Sam 13-20 + I Kings 1-2 are the result of David’s sin against
Yahweh (see above, dd, nos. 4-7). (See pp. 191-192.)
gg• However, there are also im portant ideological differences between
the K rt and Davidic materials. The death-sentence pronounced by
David on himself in II Sam 12:[5-]6 differs in kind from the “death”
of Krt, just as the war with the Ammonites differs in kind from the
enormous “campaign” waged by K rt for Hry. Such differences
reflect the divergent bases of the traditions. The Davidic traditions
“describe history while making literary use of traditionally accepted
motifs and patterns.” The K rt epic “is characterized by typical
cultic and ritual elements.” As Engnell has shown (see above, s-t),
the K rt epic is “a royal-sacral variant on the Baal-cycle of Ras
Shamra, and hence represents a text from the annual festival based
on the theme of ‘death-life’.” (See p. 192 and n. 1.)
hh. The use made of the hieros gamos "m otif” in the two cycles, and
its relation to the interpretation of each, provides the clearest il-
lustration of the ideological difference. Hry, the wife K rt brings
home, is beautiful [UT Krt:143-148a, 288b295‫ ;]־‬weeping is made
for her virtue when she leaves Udum (UT 128 I). When K rt is
stricken by “sickness” because of his broken promise to “the god-
desses Asherah and E lath,” this is "in a way ‘on account of a wo-
185. He also proposed that in the OT they are connected from Amos 4 on with the “Canaanite motif
of Sodom.’‫״‬
— 305 —
Ill 2 Ras Shamra Parallels
m an” ’ (so Driver’s translation of bd att in UT 125:5 and 19 [C M L,

p. 41]), since K rt made the promise for her sake—although, strictly
speaking, she is innocent. In the original tradition of the beautiful,
though married, “Bathshua” [I Chron 3:5; cf. krt f in the K rt cycle],
David—as the guilty party—is punished for adultery and murder.
The D-group, however, transformed the ‘‘noble daughter” into the
‘‘Bathsheba” of II Sam 10-12, who then plays a distinctly negative
role in the events of II Sam 13-[I Kings 2]. The Hry parallel under-
lines the anti-Davidic and anti-Canaanite tendency expressed in
such a use of the hieros gamos ‘‘motif” : unlike Hry, Bathsheba
plays an ‘‘active pragmatic function” in the cycle in which she
appears. The same applies to some extent to the famine brought
about by David (like Krt) in the unit II Sam 21:1-14. K rt’s pun-
ishment means—following the order established in royal ideology—
th at drought and famine must ensue. The D‫־‬group’s introduction
of II Sam 21:1-14 into its present context thus places an ancient
element of royal ideology in a tendentious relationship to the hieros
gamos ‘‘motif”—itself originally positive. (See pp. 191-193; and
192, nn. 2-3; cf. p. 144.)i.
ii. In sum, the compositional similarities of the K rt epic and the Da-
vidic cycle combine with their ideological likenesses and dissimilar-
ities to throw light on both the Davidic traditions and the use made
of them by the Deuteronomists. The Deuteronomists’ treatm ent
of the Davidic traditions fully expresses their interpretatio exsilica,
but it was the scope and nature of the material at their disposal
which made their interpretation possible. Specifically, the presence
of ‘‘suggestive thematic units” and the “actual structure of the
‘Davidic epic’ on which their work was based” facilitated their
description of David under the “blessing” and under the “curse.”
In reworking this material in the Exilic situation, the D-group
supplied a number of other im portant units, such as the oracle in
II Sam 7 referring to the Davidic dynasty. (See pp. 192 and 263.)
jj. I Kings 3-11

Carlson: II Sam 13-24 functions “as an ingress, on the bahar theme, to
1 Kings 3-11, which describes the history of Solomon in Deuteronomic
form.” The polarity between Jerusalem (II Sam 21:1-14) and
Gibeon (II Sam 24) determines the character of the Deuteronomic
composition of I Kings 3-11. This applies from the beginning, where
— 306 —
Solomon’s sacrifice at Gibeon concludes with a passage in which he

repeats the sacrifice before Yahweh’s Ark in Jerusalem (I Kings
3:15). In his analysis of whether the style of the Gibeon tradition
is based on th at of the Konigsnovelle, S. Herrmann, WZIJL, III
(1953-1954), 5354‫־‬, pointed out th at the “theme of ‘dream-oracle
followed by sacrifice elsewhere’” also occurs in the so-called “Sphinx
Stele” of Thutmose IV (see above, 1 w|i and w(326). However, the
“formal parallels” between the Gibeon tradition and the K rt epic
are equally striking. The dream-oracle in UT K rt concludes in
1. 154 with the words: krt yht whim, “ Keret awoke, and (lo, it was)
a dream” [for the translation, see Gordon, UT, § 19.951]. These
words are repeated “verbatim” in I Kings 3:15 [‫] רק ץ שלמה והנה חלום‬,
after Solomon’s dream-oracle. In both cases a sacrifice follows.
This shows th at “from the purely compositional point of view the
introduction to the history of Solomon reflects a royal ideology.”
(See pp. 219-221: and pp. 219-220, n. 4.)
kk. Comments
The notion of an epic substratum behind the present form of the
Davidic materials depends primarily on the type of argument adduced
by Gordon: the stories retain certain elements characteristic of epic
poetry, and whatever cannot be subsumed under this rubric should be
explained as due to "later historiography.” That narrative phenomena
in the David cycle such as its intense preoccupation with the son who
will be the dynastic heir, or its interest in romantic marriage (see above,
r), seem to find their home in the conceptual world of epic lends abroad
authenticity to this mode of discovery. But when Gordon’s simplistic
methodological criteria are applied to the analysis of the Davidic ma-
terials, problems arise on both the “epic” and “historical” sides. Thus,
for example, the claim th at whatever is non-epic reflects some historio-
graphical concern ignores the complex weaving of various spheres of
influence (wisdom and prophecy, to name but two) in the present form
of the story of David. I t also rests on the naive assumption th at
we can isolate the epic elements in the OT text by simply matching
them up to elements known from another epic source. Upon what
grounds can a seven-eight numerology be said to have a uniquely epic
setting? Or what evidence can be brought forward to show us th at the
disaster of famine is a peculiar property of epic texts? The obvious
answer to both questions is: None. Numerology and disasters appear
in a wide variety of genres and settings in life. The claim for a specific
— 307 —
21
origin on the basis of this kind of material is futile. Such features cannot
be limited even to the sphere of traditional narrative, much less epic.
11. Gordon argued for the epic character of I Sam 16-1 Kings 2 primar-
ily on the basis of certain points of contact with the Ug. K rt cycle.
An examination of his six points (see above, q) reveals three episodes
in which he saw some parallel between David and K rt: 1) nos. 1-3 relate
to David’s anointing by Samuel in I Sam 16; 2) nos. 4-5 have to do with
David’s marriage to Michal; and 3) no. 6 concerns David’s sin with Bath-
sheba. The features pointed out by Gordon for David’s anointing show
at most some link with features also found in epic. They do not suggest
any particular bond with the K rt epic, which contains no such episode.
Nos. 1 and 3 amount to the same thing, and, as already noted (see above,
q5), no. 2 rests on a dubious interpretation of UT 128 II and III. Gor-
don’s attem pt to compare the Michal episode to the K rt epic is even
less successful. The parallel between David’s bride-price for Michal and
K rt’s war for H ry (no. 4) must be strongly qualified on the basis of rec-
ognizable social institutions (see above, q6), while his attem pt to un-
derstand K rt’s loss of wife along the lines of David’s loss of Michal
(no. 5) runs roughshod over the distinctive and characteristic features
of each text. Only in Gordon’s treatm ent of the David and Bathsheba
episode does a serious parallel between the David and K rt cycles emerge.
In the suffering of K rt and David for their respective sins (no. 6), we
gain a purchase on what turns out to be a genuine narrative parallel.
mm. Gordon did not stop to analyze the structural implications of the
evidence he adduced because his structural interests did not operate at
the level of narrative (although all of his evidence relates to th a t level
of structure). The structural conclusion he drew from his evidence con-
cerns poetic structure (see above, Intro 7 d). Specifically, the epic treat-
ment of David’s reign was a poetic composition (see especially, above,
q, nos. 3 and 6a). The logic behind this claim seems to run as follows:
if elements in the Davidic materials can be related to epic elements,
and if epic is by definition poetic (which is certainly true of the K rt epic),
then those elements must originally have been transm itted in poetic
form. If one grants an epic of David, there is a certain intrinsic appeal
in Gordon’s claim; but a convincing argument for the poetic structure
of the epic would have to proceed by first abstracting what is preserved
of the Davidic epic from its present context, and then examining this
material for traces of poetic techniques (which could range from the
content of the individual units and they way they are bound together
— 308 —
to remnants of formulaic-prosodic usages). T hat Gordon has rejected

this approach in favor of a generalized dependence on setting in life
leaves his conclusion dangling from a limb without a tree.
nn. Nevertheless, the mere accumulation of narrative parallels between

the K rt cycle and the Davidic materials—an accumulation th at Carlson,
in particular, has compiled much more effectively than Gordon himself—
supports Gordon’s proposal th at epic concerns do play a major role in
the biblical presentation of David’s reign, and th at there is some kind
of structural parallel between the narratives of K rt and David. Gor-
den’s suggestion is fundamentally sound for two reasons: reasonable
evidence can be found in its support, and the assumption of a narrative
connection between the K rt epic and at least some part of the Davidic
cycle does not require the interpreter to rape either text. I t is in con-
nection with the second of these reasons th a t Engnell’s conception of
the Ug.-Heb. structural parallel should be discussed.
oo. Engnell’s “cultic-ritual” conception of the K rt epic as nothing more

than a variant of the Baal-Anat cycle caused him to overlook its most
characteristic feature, its narrativity. There are deep structural im-
plications in Engnell’s approach (see above, Intro 7 a), b u t he missed
these interpretive possibilities because he located the so-called ritual
elements of the text in its syntagmatic, surface structure. Not only did
this put him in the odd situation of seeking a ritual pattern in the surface
structure of a narrative text, but his understanding of th at pattern in
its totality completely cut him off from any distinctive features of the
K rt text. Rather than beginning with an individual text as a unique
creation, he assumed from the start th a t he had isolated a distinct part
of a larger (hypothetical) ritual cycle. He then looked only for the
elements it holds in common with an already established pattern. The
effect of this perspective on his analysis of the text may be seen, for
example, in his treatm ent of UT Krt:199b-206. By attem pting to set
the passage in the context of sacred marriage (see above, t, no. 8), he
remained oblivious of the obvious fact th at this unit constitutes a vow
(on which see especially Fisher, R SP II, V 4), and th a t this vow fun-
damentally determines the narrative structure of the entire K rt cycle
(see above, i-j).
pp. Engnell never performed the extension adumbrated at the end of
Studies of his work on divine kingship into the Old Testament; and his
comments on II Sam 6 are obviously incomplete. Nevertheless, his
— 309 —
Ill 2 Ras Shamra Parallels
scattered remarks on II Sam 6 are characteristic of his approach to the

problem of structure, and the way in which Carlson extended Engnell’s
conception of the parallel with K rt revealed the potential of this com-
parison (see above, u and z‫־‬aa, respectively). The essential question
to ask of the parallel is not whether II Sam 6 can be compared to UT
Krt. Except for the tenuous wdm-DnX connection, no evidence has been
brought forward to demonstrate a specific link between the Ug. and
Heb. texts. Rather, the question is—as Carlson stated it—whether or
not II Sam 6 represents a “historicized” account of the succoth festival.
It is generally agreed th at a cultic festival with a liturgical procession
lies behind the narrative of II Sam 6 (see, for example, Kraus, Psalmen,
pp. 879-883). But do the cultic and processional traits dominate the
narrative? An analysis of the surface structure of the chapter (for which
see especially Campbell, Ark Narrative, pp. 132-139) indicates th a t the
cultic elements do not structure the narrative. For this reason, the in-
terpretation of II Sam 6 in terms of succoth festival leads the interpreter
away from the text. He discovers in his examination of the text only
th at which he already knew. An example of this is Carlson’s suggestion
th at the Michal episode should be associated with the hieros garnos of
El and Asherah (see above, aa, no. 5)—a suggestion th at warps his view
of the text and th at cannot be substantiated. The comparison of II Sam 6
with the K rt epic may reveal something about compositional technique,
but it can contribute virtually nothing to the structural understanding
of the text because it depends on the retrieval of cultic elements in the
texts.
qq. In his study of II Samuel Carlson pursued Engnell’s cultic approach

to the texts beyond the confines of II Sam 6 (see above, bb-cc). But
he also incorporated Gordon's more productive view th at the K rt cycle
is a royal epic chiefly concerned with the continuance of a dynasty into
his comparative research. This basis of comparison is more productive
because it allows the “narrativity” of the texts to provide some control
over its interpretive conclusions. The epic-dynastic view of the K rt
cycle governs the comparative aspects of Carlson’s attem pt to explain
, (both structurally and ideologically) the position of II Sam 3:2-5 in the
unit II Sam 2:12-4:12 (see above, y). However, it is in his comparison
of the K rt cycle with th a t part of the Davidic cycle of which most has
commonly been abstracted as an independent composition labeled the
“Succession Narrative’’ (II Sam 9-20 + I Kings 1-2) th at the structural
parallelism of the Ug. and Heb. texts at the level of narrative makes
— 310 —
its most substantial contribution to the interpretation of the biblical

material (see above, dd-hh).
rr. The specific structural connection perceived by Carlson related
II Sam 10-12 + 15-20 to the K rt epic. The narrative parallel suggested
by Carlson (see above, dd) seems valid to me as long as one presupposes
the narrative continuity of the three tablets of the K rt cycle which we
now possess (for Carlson’s argument for the connection of the second
and third tablets, see David, p. 190, n. 4). Given the basic validity of
the parallel, two observations about it may be offered. First, except
for the elements necessary to set the scene (see above, dd, nos. 1, 2,
and 4), the unit in II Samuel relates to the last two tablets of the K rt
cycle, UT 128 and 125-127 (see above, dd, nos. 2-7). Since UT K rt can
be related more substantially to the Patriarchal cycles in Genesis (as
Fisher has suggested; see above, c-d), it seems probable th at the use of
the narrative structure of the K rt epic in II Samuel reflects a definite
shift in intention from th at of the Patriarchal narratives. The problem-
situation of the latter part of the K rt cycle (i.e., UT 128 III :25b-VI :9 +
125-127) is not really the survival of K rt’s dynasty. That issue is settled
with the birth of his children related in UT 128 III:20-25a. The focus
of the text then turns to the way in which this “guaranteed” dynastic con-
tinuity shall be preserved in view of K rt’s “sin” against the goddess
Asherah. Now the biblical materials dealing with the court-history of
David (i.e., II Sam 9-1 Kings 2) are concerned with the legitimization
of David’s own claim to the throne, but their primary emphasis rests
on the struggle for the succession to his throne—a struggle induced by
David’s “sin” against Yahweh in the Bathsheba incident—and on the
misfortunes which befall David as a result of his “sin” (as tentatively
recognized by Carlson; see above, ff). As Carlson has shown, this em-
phasis corresponds in some detail to th a t of the second part of the K rt
cycle.
ss. If one accepts Fisher’s hypothesis th at Gen 38 preserves the begin-
ning of a “Judah cycle,” and th at David was responsible for the inter-
polation of this material into the already existing “epic of nationhood”
in order to transform it into a new “royal epic” th at would justify his
dynasty (see above, f), then one can speculate about the relationship
between the supposed Judah cycle and the material concerning David’s
court history. The fundamental concern of “royal epic” for the sur-
vival of a dynasty of which there is no heir, as well as the particularly
Israelite concern about the land which this dynasty would rule, had to
— 311 —
be expressed via the Patriarchal period. But “royal epic” also has an-
other interest, an interest th a t cannot be integrated into the Patriarchal
cycles as we have them. This interest focuses on the way in which the
dynasty and the land survive the misfortunes brought about because
of the protagonist’s offence against a deity (at Ugarit, this is certainly
true of the Aqht epic as well as of the K rt epic). W hatever the dominance
of this concern in the court history of David signifies about the histo-
ricity of the events of David’s reign and death, it means th at we m ust
first of all understand these materials in terms of traditional story—
as stressed most recently by Gunn, King David, pp. 37-49. The poten-
tial connection of the court history with a Judah cycle (see above, n)
also forces us to modify the conclusion of Whybray, Succession Narrative,
pp. 47-49, th at the “Succession N arrative” cannot be the final chapter
in the “national epic” which told of Israel’s rise to greatness, because
in it David is not heroic enough, and because its concern with David’s
family and court is too narrow for a “national epic.” W hybray’s first
argument simply reflects his ignorance of the epic milieu in which Israel
existed: the K rt parallel plainly shows th a t the epic emphasis conveyed
in the “Succession N arrative” does not require—nor could it use—the
“splendid hero” demanded by Whybray. His second argument is some-
what more to the point. The attem pt to subsume Israel’s “national
epic” into David’s “royal epic” provides the rationale for the insertion
of Gen 38 into the Patriarchal cycles, and this broader concern is not
evident in the stories about David himself. But W hybray has simply
chosen the wrong kind of epic against which to test the “Succession
N arrative.” As the K rt parallel again shows, this is precisely the type
of material appropriate to the crowning moment of a “royal epic.”
tt. The second observation prompted by the acceptance of a narrative

parallel between II Sam 10-12 + 15-20 and the K rt epic relates to the
thematic nature of the units which compose the Davidic story. The
“pattern” of II Sam 10-1 Kings 2 is not merely cyclical. The movement
in the narrative structure of the Davidic materials echoes the movement
in the structure of the K rt epic from “sin” to its resulting misfortunes.
Against this insight the view of J. Blenkinsopp, VTS, XV (1965), 47-48,
may be compared. He perceived in the biblical text a fourfold repetition
(with variations) of the “them e” or “pattern” of “sin externalised in a
sexual form which leads to death” : II Sam 11:2-27 + 12:15b-25; 13-14;
15-20; and I Kings 1-2. The inclusio of Solomon and his mother at the
beginning and the end, and the progressive elimination of the three rival
— 312
claimants to the throne, integrate the repeated “them e” or “pattern ”

with the “structure” of the whole composition. The K rt parallel un-
masks the basic fallacy of this view: without denying any of Blenkin-
sopp’s valid insights, it is unnecessary to set the “patterns” of the in-
dividual units over against the “structure” of the whole in order to ex-
plain the working of the narrative. At least for II Sam 10-12 in relation
to 15-20, the narrative logic is not cyclical, but linear. This limited ob-
servation provides a substantial basis for the claim, against Blenkinsopp,
th at the linear movement of David’s court history exists within, and
not merely outside of, the smaller units of which it consists.
uu. I t is noteworthy th at Carlson’s argument for the original sequence

I I Sam 24 + 21:1-14 + 15-20 grew directly out of the structural parallel
he drew between the K rt and Davidic cycles, because scholars have
virtually universally excluded II Sam 21-24 from the “Succession Nar-
rative.” The understanding of this unit in its present position in the
text depends primarily on the internal analysis of the material (for Carl-
son’s view, see David, pp. 194-259); but Carlson’s comparative argument
th at the disasters at the beginning of the K rt epic correspond to those of
II Sam 24 + 21:1-14 deserves serious consideration in the discussion of the
original “document” behind the present form of II Sam 9-1 Kings 2. From
the standpoint of narrative structure, it could be objected th a t the com-
parison fails because the disasters which happen to K rt precede his
“sin,” while the disasters of II Sam 24 + 21:1-14 occur as a result of
David’s “sin.” However, this shows only th at comparative evidence
alone cannot resolve the problems inherent in the analysis of a given
tradition, as Carlson fully recognized (see above, v). Moreover, as far
as Carlson’s argument for the original position of II Sam 24 + 21:1-14
depended on comparative evidence, it focused on the grouping of “mo-
tifs” in the biblical unit (see above, ee and ee12) more sharply than on
the question of the narrative structures of the K rt and David cycles
(for this it would seem more productive to compare the famine indicated
in UT 126 III). When one combines the observation th at the cluster
of “motifs” is represented in both II Sam 21-24 and the K rt epic with
the realization th at the structure of the "Succession N arrative” is broad-
ly parallel to th at of the K rt epic, one realizes th at the evaluation of the
relationship between II Sam 21-24 and the “Succession N arrative”
(which, after all, is no more than a hypothetical construct)—no m atter
what its conclusion—must take the comparative evidence into
account.
— 313 —
VV. The compositional parallel between the K rt epic and II Sam also
forms part of the basis for Carlson's suggestion of a pre-redactional se-
quence running from II Sam 10 through I Kings 2 (see above, ee) th at
corresponds, except for II Sam 21-24, to the present sequence of the
narrative. In terms of narrative structure, the ‘‘seven years” (UT 128
111:22) th at passed between the “blessing” and “curse” aspects of the
K rt story can be broadly related to the arrangement of the traditions
following David’s “sin” with Bathsheba into two seven-year cycles. But
Carlson’s argument for the primary unity of II Sam 10-20 + I Kings 1-2
depended far more heavily on the ideology revealed in the narrative
structures of both the K rt and Davidic materials; th at is, on the notion
of “sin” leading to a period of misfortune (see above, ff). Carlson’s at-
tem pt to assess the ideologies conveyed by the narrative structures
under comparison represents the most significant aspect of his compar-
ative methodology.
ww. The ideological comparison is methodologically significant because
the similarities and differences between the K rt and David cycles dis-
cussed by Carlson (see above, ff-hh) are more substantial than those
th at could be adduced in the framework of a general comparison of the
two cycles in terms of royal ideology. For Carlson’s ideological assess-
ment of the parallel arose from his comparison of the narrative
structures of the two bodies of material. Now Carlson’s narrative com-
parison grew in a real sense out of Gordon’s observation th a t the David
and Bathsheba episode and its consequences can be related to K rt’s
failure to fulfill his vow to Asherah and the consequences of th at failure
(see above, q, no. 6), since Carlson perceived the Bathsheba tradition
in II Sam 10-12 as the structural basis of the total unit. Carlson made
Gordon’s observation substantively relevant to the interpretation of the
biblical text by attem pting to work out the specific nature of the shared
literary pattern, and by attem pting to account for the way in which
the final redactors (for him, the Deuteronomists) of the Davidic material
supplemented and reorganized the “Davidic epic” at their disposal. By
maintaining his structural focus at the level of narrative, Carlson avoided
one of Gordon’s severest problems—the shift of the structural question
to the dubious ground of poetic structure (see above, mm). However,
Carlson’s structural comparison demonstrated only the similarities be-
tween the Ug. and Heb. materials. His view of the distinctive features
of the Davidic materials rested on internal analysis, and his primary
concern with II Sam blocked him from making a comparable analysis
of the K rt epic.
— 314 —
xx. Thus Carlson’s structural comparison seems to have stopped short

of what would be required for a full structural interpretation of the
parallel. But this is only an apparent gap in his methodology. He pro-
ceeded immediately from a structural comparison seemingly complete only
on the biblical side to an ideological interpretation of the differences
and similarities between the Ug. and Heb. texts because he presupposed
an already existing understanding of the surface structure of the K rt
epic. This understanding was Engnell’s view of the K rt cycle as a sue-
coth tradition (see above, x). Unless one accepts this understanding of
the text, which depends on a strict refusal to confront the text as nar-
rative (see above, oo), the substance of Carlson’s ideological comparison
is bound to create some problems. Such problems appear most clearly
in Carlson’s explanation of the fundamental ideological difference be-
tween the K rt and David cycles as a reflex of their particular appraisals
of the hieros gamos “motif” (see above, hh). Apart from a cultic under-
standing of the texts, Carlson’s exposition of the difference cannot be
accepted without qualification. Narrative structure provides this quali-
fication, and shows th at Carlson has perceived an essential narrative
difference by emphasizing the distinctive roles of Hry and Bathsheba,
although this difference does not require a cultic interpretation. In
spite of whatever reservations one may hold about Carlson’s conclusions,
the fundamental validity of his methodology is apparent. The com-
parative interpretation of narrative structures consists of more than the
mere alignment of the narrative sequences of two or more texts. The
interpretation must go on to apprehend the “point” or “points” (what
Carlson called the “ideology”) conveyed by the narrative structure of
a given text, and to compare th a t text with other texts at this level.
This type of comparison may often call upon “deep structural” dimen-
sions of the text (see above, Intro 7 a), but it still allows the narrative
structure to retain control over its conclusions.
yy. This analysis of the methodology implicit in the results of Carlson’s

comparison of the K rt epic with the materials relating to the court his-
tory of David reveals a fundamental and unresolved tension within
his overall investigation of the Krt-David parallel. Despite his recognition
of the essentially narrative character of the K rt epic (see above, x),
his acceptance of Engnell’s cultic view of the cycle precluded him from
analyzing the structure of this narrative in any significant detail. This
explains his dependency on cultic interpretations of even the narrative
parallels he perceived (as in his use of the so-called hieros gamos “motif”).
— 315 —
His dual use of the vow in UT Krt:199b-206 exemplifies the relative

value of the cultic and narrative approaches to the Krt-David com-
parison. In connection with II Sam 6:6-11, K rt’s suffering for his failure
to fulfill his vow yields only the cultic consideration th at Uzzah may
have died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the High-Priest David (see
above, z, no. 3)—a speculation th at contributes nothing to the under-
standing of II Sam 6 as narrative (cf. Campbell’s comments on the nar-
rative function of the incident [Ark Narrative, pp. 162-163]). In con-
trast, the results of K rt’s “sin” in not fulfilling his vow suggest the nar-
rative function of David’s “sin” against Yahweh in II Sam 11:27b-
12:15a (see above, dd, no. 4). This suggestion holds significant potential
for the interpretation of the larger biblical unit.
zz. That Carlson failed to recognize this conflict within his comparative
methodology gives us cause to reassess the contribution of the K rt par-
allel to the question of an epic basis for the story of David. Carlson’s
hypothesis of an “epic of David” underlying the whole of I and II Samuel
derived from Engnell and rested primarily on internal analysis of the
materials; but he also found support for this theory in the various par-
allels adduced between the Davidic cycle and the K rt epic (see above,
w and w9). However, an examination of the substance of Carlson’s com-
parative evidence—and he assumed every parallel adduced by both
Gordon and Engnell, although with occasional modifications—reveals
most of it to be incapable of substantiating his theory of a Davidic epic.
On the one hand, the parallels he offered in the sphere of “traditionist
technique” fall prey to the criticism leveled against Gordon’s use of
such parallels to support his theory of a Davidic epic: even when they
can be grounded in the genre and setting of epic, they support only the
argument th a t the biblical authors integrated epic style and concerns
into their story (see above, kk-U and nn). Isolated examples of so-called
epic elements in the biblical text do not in themselves suggest an epic
origin of the total composition. On the other hand, Carlson’s collection
of cultic parallels cannot support his theory of an original Davidic epic
because such a collection neglects precisely what the theory demands—
the need to demonstrate the epic character of the narrative of the text
(see above, oo-pp). Only in Carlson’s comparison of the materials re-
lating to the court history of David (i.e., II Sam 9-1 Kings 2) does evi-
dence come forward th at in any way buttresses his claim of an epic sub-
stratum . His approach to the internal analysis of the materials prevented
him from viewing any such scholarly construct as the “Succession Nar-
— 316 —
rative” as an independent document. Yet the narrative parallels (or,

as Carlson would say, the “compositional affinities” or parallel “literary
patterns”) he perceived between the K rt epic and the biblical unit sup-
poji; the* traditional view of its original independence from the rest of
the Davidic materials. Carlson did not recognize this fact because he
did not appreciate the qualitative difference between structural parallels
and parallels drawn between isolated epic elements or between so-called
“cultic” elements. Nevertheless, the results of his analysis suggest the
need for further investigation of the “Succession Narrative” in two
directions: 1) a possible grounding of the narrative in an epic account
(see above, ss), and 2) a reconsideration of the relationship of II Sam
21-24 to II Sam 10-20 + 1 Kings 1-2 at the epic level (see above, uu).
aa. In terms of structural methodology, E. Leach’s study of I Sam 4-

I Kings 2 (E J S , V II [1966], 58-101; reprinted in Leach, Essays, pp. 25-
83, and Leach, Structuralism) provides an instructive contrast to the
narrative analysis of this material. Leach applied an explicitly Levi-
Straussian procedure to the texts, which means first of all th at he un-
derstood the text as a “m yth” (see above, Intro 2 c and 3 a)—a myth
which precipitated the development of a “historical” tradition. For
Leach, the ordinary distinction between m yth and history disappears
when the text is treated as a unit, because as such the text represents
the unconscious product of an editorial process of selection by which
what is believed to have happened can fashion even the most incongruent
stories into a patterned structure. And for the interpretation of the
text, the belief in what happened is more important than what actually
happened.
ba. By this process the “facts” of history come to be remembered as

systems of patterned contradiction. Now the function of m yth is to
mediate the oppositions contained in some insoluable paradox by in-
troducing a third element which shares the nature of both opposites,
thus providing a partial but not real resolution of the paradox. For
Leach, the biblical story of Solomon’s succession to the throne of Israel
mediates the major contradiction of endogamy as an ideal vs. exogamy
as a reality. The land of Israel as the gift of God to the people of Israel
provides the basis for the objection to intermarriage; but the taking
of the land from foreigners establishes a situation which leads to inter-
marriage. The story of Solomon, as a myth, tries to blur this contradic-
tion and appears to resolve it.
— 317 —
co. Leach located the structure of the myth in the binary oppositions
(see above, Intro 8 a) of endogamy/exogamy and legitimacy/illegitimacy.
This view of structure requires the removal of such opposites, as well
as the elements (i.e., the characters, objects, and events) which mediate
them, from their context in the narrative. Then they must be classified
according to their similarity to each other. This is a paradigmatic, rather
than syntagmatic, approach to structure (see above, Intro 7 a). The
patterns which emerge from the rearrangement of the surface structure
of the text bear the message of the myth. Structural elements have no
meaning in themselves; meaning is found only in the relationships be-
tween elements or patterns of elements (see above, Intro 5, a-b).
da. The key to Leach’s analysis of the underlying structure of the text
is a group of major roles in the drama (this is the intermediate level of
structure; see above, Intro 2 d and 7 a): an anti-king, or usurper, some-
times with a champion, opposes the king, or legitimate right-holder,
sometimes with a champion, with a female intermediary standing be-
tween (cf. Engnell’s observation about the characters in the K rt text
[above, t7]: such observations did not assist his structural analysis of
the text because he attem pted to locate all the structural elements of
the text in its surface, or syntagmatic structure [see above, oo]; but
the analysis of intermediate structures, as th at of deep structures, must
proceed paradigmatically [see above, Intro 2 d]). These characters keep
appearing in the surface structure in different costumes. That structure
presents a play in three acts: I Sam 4-II Sam 10; II Sam 11-24; and
I Kings 1-2 (see Leach, Structuralism, p. 286, for the “pattern ”
of the story). The play develops two “themes” in parallel: the sex re-
lations of the prologues to each act ring the changes on sexual excess
and sexual inadequacy; and in the various scenes of each act political
relations are unveiled in the struggle of an anti-king for supremacy
against a legitimate king.
ea. W ith these brief comments I have tried to capture something of
the methodological scope of Leach’s complex article. The most interest-
ing aspect of his approach is th a t he applied his structuralist method
diachronically, instead of synchronically (see above, Intro 6 a), by aiming
to demonstrate the structural relevance of the chronological sequence
in the biblical text. This led him to examine all three structural levels
of the text (surface, intermediate, and deep [see above, Intro 2 d])—
the only adequate model of structural interpretation (see above, In-
tro 7 a-b). By the mere application of this model Leach produced a
— 318 —
stimulating study of the material; but the interpreter’s success in this

framework depends on his ability to convincingly demonstrate the con-
nection of the various structural levels. This Teach failed to do.
fa. !,each’s binary oppositions (deep structure) play a significant part
in the narrative (surface) structure of the text, as do the roles (inter-
mediate structure) he has identified. To this point, then, his analysis
provides a promising basis for a genuinely structural interpretation of
the text. But problems arise when one tries to verify Beach’s results.
In the first place, his type of structuralist analysis requires the a priori
acceptance of a number of theoretical statements about the nature of
myth. These include the fundamental value of binary oppositions and
their mediations for the understanding of a myth, and the notion th at
myths arise as the product of societal operations at the unconscious
level. However, what we know of the redactional process which gave
rise to I Sam 4-1 Kings 2 (which itself is an abstraction from a larger
editorial unity) resists Beach’s claim th a t this process was unconscious.
W hatever the weaknesses in Carlson’s discussion of II Samuel, his ap-
proach attem pted to account for the development of the text as a his-
torical process (although he undoubtedly grounded too much of this
process in the final stage of redaction; cf. Knight, Traditions, pp. 337-
338). If the editorial process behind the present form of I Sam 4-1 Kings 2
depends on a series of mostly conscious decisions on the part of the
editors, a major question is raised about the relevance of the category
of m yth as Beach understood it to this material. His interpretation of
the text as a m yth depends on the segregation of “belief” from "his-
tory.” Thus his structuralist ideology causes him to sacrifice history
for the sake of m yth (see above, Intro 2 c)—a sacrifice against which
I have argued from the other direction (see above, 1 n n -w ). In par-
ticular, a different set of philosophical presuppositions gives one reason
to think th at what Beach referred to as “belief” is actually the most
significant aspect of “history” (see above, 1 vv15).
ga. Even if we accept, with reservations, the idea of a m yth as a struc-
ture which mediates a major contradiction, the problem remains of
relating Beach’s binary oppositions and their mediations in a convincing
fashion to the surface structure of the text. Beach’s focus on this deep
structural mode of interpretation contributes to his serious misunder-
standing of the te x t’s narrative structure. This misunderstanding can
be seen most clearly in his separation of II Sam 10 from II Sam 11 and
his perception of I Kings 1-2 as yet another structurally independent
— 319
unit. This defies the well-grounded critical-historical belief in the pri-

mary unity of II Sam 10-20+1 Kings 1-2, a “document” th at shows few
signs of editorial tampering. The intermediate structure th at forms the
bridge between Leach’s surface and deep structures also skews his view
of the narrative structure. His focus on major roles leads to a cyclical
narrative structure, which is really resolved only at the level of deep
structure. Here the Krt-David parallel supplies a strong argument
against his case (see the criticism of Blenkinsopp’s analogous understand-
ing of the “Succession N arrative” above, t t ) . 18
ha. Still, many of Leach’s patterns can be discerned in the text. Where
that is possible, his analysis provides information th at the exegete
should attem pt to incorporate into his understanding of the total mean-
ing of the text. But where Leach’s use of the patterns contradicts the
input of the narrative structure of the text, his interpretation must be
rejected. For this level of structure provides the only check on his
analysis and on the validity of the assumptions under which this analysis
proceeds. The presupposition th a t structure and meaning He hidden
beneath the surface of a text (see above, Intro 8 a) makes most struc-
turalist interpretations inherently impossible to verify. Leach deserves
considerable credit for attem pting an analysis where some verification
is possible. Nevertheless, the type of interpretation represented by the
attem pt to compare the narrative structures of the K rt and David cycles
seems to offer, at this point, a more effective means of broadening our
understanding of the meaning of texts. Perhaps the most significant
point raised by Leach’s analysis is the warning it provides against a
one-dimensional view of a text. Comparative analysis (and structurafist
analysis, as far as it can be cross-checked) offers an essential contribution
to the interpretation of a biblical tradition; but such analysis must be
integrated into all the other relevant kinds of analysis of the text before
we can even begin to claim th at we comprehend something of its meaning.
ia. A final comment concerns Carlson’s treatm ent of I Kings 3-11 (see
above, jj). Methodologically, his approach to the parallel he has adduced
improves on th a t of Engnell (for which see above, 1 j(S-y(3) for several13
13 Other criticisms could be raised against !,each’s view of the text as narrative; e.g., his subjugation
of the entirety of I Sam 4-1 Kings 2 to the figure of Solomon, or his emphasis on succession as the dominant
note of the entire unit. For criticisms of various details of his analysis (many of which reflect his inability
to deal with the Heb. text), see A. Malamat, E JS, VIII (1967), 165-167; and cf. J. Emerton, VT, XXVI
(1976), 79-98. For a discussion of the structural implications of !,each’s work, see R. Culley, VTS, XXII
(1972), 129-142, upon whose helpful remarks I have drawn in these comments.
— 320 —
reasons: he attem pted to incorporate the parallel into a larger internal

analysis of the biblical tradition; this led him to make less grandiose
claims about the contribution of the parallel to our understanding of the
biblical text; these claims do not necessitate the rejection of other parallels;
his parallel is grounded in a formulaic connection (if one accepts the
semantic equivalence of the verb in UT Krt:154 with th at of I Kings
3:15); and finally, his parallel does not require him to distort the meaning
of either the Ug. or Heb. text. It is interesting th at each ancient Near
Eastern parallel adduced by Kapelrud, Carlson, and Herrmann to the
Solomonic narrative focuses on the Gibeon tradition in I Kings 3. The
cumulative evidence indeed supports Carlson’s cautious conclusion th at
the “composition” of this episode reflects a royal “ideology.” The K rt
parallel can probably be pressed no further, but the same cannot be
said for the parallels drawn by Kapelrud and Herrmann. Only when
the relative value of all the ancient Near Eastern structural parallels to
I Kings 3-11 has been properly assessed will the ancient Near Eastern
contribution to the understanding of the biblical unit be fully appre-
hended. This project lies beyond the scope of the present discussion.
a. 128 11:21-111:16 (<CTA 15 11:21-111:16).

b. Bibliography
S. Parker, JB L , XCV (1976), 23-30.
c. Ruth 4:11 b-12
Parker: The lack of comparable materials in either Ug. or Heb. literature
prompts the comparison of the “marriage-blessings” in UT 128
11:21-111:16 and Ruth 4:llb-12. No literary relationship between
R uth and the K rt epic is implied; rather, the “common elements”
of the two passages reflect elements of marriage-blessings as em-
ployed orally in their institutional setting, the wedding. These two
examples of the genre may be identified by their “literary context,
certain formal features, and their common concern.” (See pp. 23, 29.)
d. The immediate context of the biblical passage encompasses Ruth
4:10-13, which includes three movements:
[1] As soon as Boaz has promised to marry R uth and his commit-
ment has been witnessed (w . 10-1 la),
— 321 —
[2] A blessing is pronounced on him (w . 1lb-12),

[3] After which brief notice is given of R uth’s becoming Boaz’s
wife, conceiving and bearing a son (v. 13).
The blessing itself is constructed around three successive subjects: •
[1] Boaz’s bride [v. llb a].
[2] Boaz himself [v. llb p ‫־‬y].
[3] Boaz’s “house,” i.e. his descendants [v. 12].
The blessing has one essential concern: Boaz is to acquire status
through his children by his wife; cf. Gen 24:60 for an expression of
the concern with offspring in a comparable setting. (See pp. 23-24.)
e. The immediate context of the marriage-blessing in the K rt cycle
is found in UT 128 11:2-111:21. At this point in the story K rt has
won Hry, the princess who is to be his wife. The fragmented opening
lines of UT 128 II mention various gods by name (2-7), as well as
K rt (8), and seem to set the scene in K rt’s house (9). Then:
[1] After all the gods are assembled (11:11),
[2] Baal invites El to bless K rt (11:13-16).
[3] El raises his glass and does just th a t (11:18-20).
[4] The blessing is quoted (11:21-111:16, with a gap of about 15 11.
at the beginning of col. III).
[5] The assembled gods bless K rt and depart (111:17-19).
[6] Hry promptly conceives and bears children (111:20-21). (See
pp. 25-26.)
f. The literary setting of the marriage-blessing is the same as th at of
R uth 4:1 lb-12: a formal gathering after the contracting of a mar-
riage and before its consummation. In both Ruth and the K rt epic
the blessing is addressed to the bridegroom, but its first subject
is his bride, and she is spoken of only to introduce the subject of
offspring. The “structure” of UT 128 11:21-111:15 may be pre-
sented schematically as follows:
Your bride will bear
(1) Sons (11:21-111:1).
(a) Summary statem ent (11:21-23).
(b) Enumeration (11:24-111:1).
—Refrain: K rt will be great (111:2-4).
(2) Daughters (111:5-12).
(a) Summary statem ent (111:5-6).
(b) Enumeration (111:7-12).
—Refrain: K rt will be great (111:13-15). (See p. 26.)
— 322 —
The final line of this marriage-blessing (UT 128 111:16: sgrthn .

abkrn, “I will give the youngest of them first-born status”) is a
“conspicuous secondary addition.” I t has an odd syntactical re-
lation to what precedes: the suffix of the first word refers to the fem.
references prior to the second occurrence of the refrain; its content
focuses on the question of an irregular succession, while the rest
of the blessing is concerned with the future greatness of the groom
through his offspring, especially in the endowments of the first-
bom; and it stands outside the structure of the blessing. (See
pp. 26-27.)
h. There are obvious differences between the K rt and R uth passages.
K rt is poetry, Ruth prose. The setting in R uth is relatively close
to ordinary life: the social group to which the bride and groom
belong expresses the blessing, which takes the form of a wish. The
setting in K rt is a “mythic-epic world” : the gods pronounce the
blessing, which can therefore be expressed in the indicative and
spell out the details of the future. Yet the Ug. text may better
reflect the occasion on which such a blessing would have been given—
the marriage feast. In Ruth, on the other hand, the pronunciation
of the blessing by “all the people at the gate and the elders” (4:11a)
seems more likely to be an artificial literary construction than the
reflection of a real-life situation. (See pp. 27-28.)
i. Apart from the general parallels in literary setting (between the
contracting and consummation of a marriage), “form” (blessing ad-
dressed to the groom, but speaks immediately of the bride, who
serves only to introduce the main subject of progeny), and “con-
cem ” (the greatness of the bridegroom), two specific parallels may
be adduced. First, the two marriage-blessings share as a “stylistic
feature” references to remote ancestors of the bridegroom and/or
his people as models of the kind of success pronounced upon the
groom. In Ruth 4:1 lb-12, a comparison of Boaz's wife and family
with those of legendary ancestors conveys the greatness wished on
him. The refrain of the K rt blessing (UT 128 111:2-4 and 13-15)
may also convey the greatness promised to him by a comparison
with what are to be understood as remote ancestors, the rpi ars
and the qbs dtn. Second, the two passages may be reflexes of "royal”
marriage-blessings. The blessing in the K rt epic is addressed to a
king, and in R uth to one who—at least in the present form of the
book—is presented as the ancestor of a king. (See pp. 28-30.)
— 323 —
22
j. Comments
By applying the tools of traditional form critical analysis (i.e., study
of the structure, genre, setting, and intention of a text; see above, In-
tro 2 b) to the parallel he adduced, Parker has convincingly demon-
strated the overall validity of the parallel. The greatest strength of his
methodology is its capacity to incorporate the differences as well as
the similarities of the two bodies of material into an interpretation of
the texts as distinctive yet related entities, and into an understanding
of the genre “marriage-blessing” in a broader context than th at which
could be provided by a single text. However, if one probes the structural
aspects of Parker’s study, one finds th at two major problems can be
raised. The first exists within the methodological framework Parker
has chosen; it concerns his structural analyses of the marriage-blessings
themselves. The second problem relates to the narrative structures in
which the marriage-blessings are embedded; this problem raises a fun-
damental question about the limitations of Parker’s methodology.
k. By examining only the surface structures of the two marriage-
blessings—structures which, of course, are not governed by any nar-
rative principle—Parker operated within the limits of traditional form
criticism (see above, Intro 7 b-c). His representation of the marriage-
blessing in Ruth 4:1 lb -12 is basically accurate, although structurally
vague in th at it merely lists the three subjects around which the blessing
is constructed (see above, d) and indicates neither the nature of the
structural units which make up the blessing nor the relationships by
which they are bound. The "structure” (as he called it) of the blessing
in UT 128 11:21-111:15 reveals more about the composition of the text.
In particular, Parker’s analysis provides a firm foundation for his spec-
ulation about the content of the lacuna between columns I I and III,
and for his proposal th at 111:16 is a secondary addition (see above, f-g;
on the problem of 111:16 in relation to II:24-25a, see above, 2 q 5). Nev-
ertheless, defiencies remain in his structural analysis. One detail should
be noted: the summary statement regarding the sons must almost cer-
tainly be extended to include II:24-25a—both because it can hardly
begin the enumeration of the sons (no m atter how it is translated) and
because it is the second stich of a verse (see above, 2 q5, and note th at
the structural evidence uncovered by Parker confirms an understanding
of the stich in terms of K rt’s “eight” sons against Gordon’s interpolation
of “Octavia”). But there is also a more general inadequacy. Parker’s
schema portrays a structural cohesion th at in reality exists only in the
— 324 —
refrains of 111:2-4 and 1315‫־‬. It is not so much th at his schema is wrong

as th at it is incomplete. The summary statements and enumerations
for the sons and the daughters are quite different, rather than identical—
as Parker’s schema implies. Judging from the treatm ent of the first
son in II:25b-28 and from the length of the following lacuna—which,
as Parker observed, must surely deal with the remaining sons—the
enumeration of the sons includes a sort of blessing on each one (somewhat
reminiscent of the Blessing of Jacob in Gen 49:3-27), while the enumer-
ation of the daughters simply lists them, presumably by name. Likewise,
a closer analysis of the two summary statements shows th at only the
verse in II:23b-25a corresponds to th at in 111:5-6 (and these two verses
are far from identical, but both refer to the “bearing” of sons or daugh-
ters). The opening verse of Parker’s first summary statement (II:21-23a)
identifies the woman who is to bear the children. This identification
should be structurally set apart from the following summary statement
regarding K rt’s sons, since it applies equally to the summary statement
regarding K rt’s daughters. That it is not repeated before the second
summary statement is a significant structural feature of the te x t.1
1. Such structural details did not concern Parker because his com-
parison of the two marriage-blessings did not involve the surface struc-
tures of the two texts in any essential fashion. Since the “structures”
of the texts diverge dramatically, Parker brought them together on the
basis of what he referred to as their “form” (as well as by the other form
critical criteria of genre, setting, and intention). Under the category
“form” Parker described a certain rhetorical stance common to the
blessings: though addressed to the groom, the first subject is the bride,
who functions only to introduce the main subject of offspring (see above,
f and i). This is a valid observation; but it falls short of a structural
interpretation of the parallel. An often neglected but vital step in form
critical methodology is the interpretation of the structural analysis of
a passage. If the tex t’s structure has been analyzed accurately, this
interpretation is what allows the exegete to approach the text on its
1 Parker’s translation of 11. 21-23a in relation to 23b prejudices his case (see p. 26). By rendering the
passage as “The woman you are taking, Krt} . . .Will bear you seven sons,” Parker placed the first verse
in a syntactically dependent relation to the second. But the text could just as well be rendered: “A wife
you have taken, O Krt, . . .She will bear seven sons to you.” This rendition frees 21-23a from 23b at the
level of syntax. However, even if Parker’s attempt to escape the parataxis of the Ug. text is justified, the
structural position of 21-23a in the larger unit depends on both its overt and implied relationships to the
other elements of the unit. A legitimate analysis of surface structure must take “deep structural’’ syntac-
tical relationships into account.
— 325 —
own terms, to seize hold of th^ dominant interests of the text, and to
understand its particular expression of these interests. Because Parker
did not take the structural analysis of the blessings seriously, he was
able only to comprehend the similarities of the texts from the "out-
side.” The same must be said of his analysis of the differences between
the blessings: poetry against prose, divine world ( = indicative form)
against human world ( = wish form) (see above, h). These observations
are not wrong, but they reflect an interpretive stance outside the texts.
They do not grasp the structural peculiarities of each text. Thus Parker
did not recognize what is structurally clear: the biblical blessing focuses
on the bride "coming” into Boaz’s house (cf. the bride which K rt "takes”
into his house in UT 128 II:21-23a) in a way not paralleled in the Ug.
blessing. An appreciation of this distinctive emphasis would refine Par-
ker’s stimulating suggestion about the use of “ancestors” to describe
the greatness of the recipients of the blessing: in the Ug. text only K rt
will be great, but in the biblical text both R uth and Boaz share in the
greatness. The overall structure of the two texts also provides an ad-
ditional control on this suggestion. The “them e” of greatness dominates
the biblical blessing. In the Ug. text it occupies only what Parker ap-
propriately labeled the "refrain.” The essential concern of the Ug. bles-
sing is the enumeration of the children—particularly, it would seem,
of K rt’s sons (see below, u-v).
m. If the problems inherent in Parker’s failure to confront the total
surface structures of the two marriage-blessings may be resolved in the
framework of traditional form critical methodology, his lack of per-
ception regarding the narrative structures in which the blessings are
embedded raises an issue which forces us out of the confines of tradi-
tional form criticism. The crux of this m atter is Parker’s claim th a t there
are no other materials in either Ug. or Heb. literature comparable to
these two marriage-blessings (see above, c). In terms of Parker’s in-
terest in "form,” this may be true. However, it is not true at all th at
these are the only two examples of this type of unit in related narrative
contexts.
n. Parker admitted a more widespread expression of concern with
offspring in the OT and the ancient Near East, and even located other
OT passages which relate this concern to patriarchal figures (p. 24)—
an im portant aspect of his comparison of the blessings in R uth and the
K rt epic (see above, i). However, his narrow methodological focus pre-
eluded his seeking the narrative context of the other examples he ad
— 326 —
duced; and, in fact, he missed virtually all of the OT texts relevant at

the level of narrative structure. Since the one germane reference he
did notice is Gen 18:18, I shall use Gen 18 as a textual vantage point
from which to illustrate the problems inherent in Parker's methodology
and to suggest the potential contribution of a larger interest in narrative
structures to the particular comparison made by Parker.
o. First of all, it should be noted th at the unit of the K rt epic chosen
by Parker (see above, e) is at least as comparable to Gen 18:1-16 as to
R uth 4:10-13 at the level of narrative. Cross, CMHE, pp. 178-180 and
182, gained a purchase on this comparison by noting the parallel visit-
ations of divine beings to the respective protagonists (Abraham and
Krt) in the social context of a feast. Not only does the “motif” of the
gods visiting earth draw the Genesis and K rt passages closer together
at the narrative level than the K rt and Ruth passages, but it also removes
the gap perceived by Parker between the “ordinary life” setting of R uth
and the “mythic-epic” setting of the K rt text (see above, h). Even
more important is the purpose of the divine visitation in both Gen 18
and UT 128: to bless the protagonist with the promise th at his wife will
bear a son/sons. Again, the “blessing” in Gen 18 comes closer to th at
of the K rt epic than the “blessing” of Ruth, since the divine origin of
the blessing in Genesis allows it to take the form of a promise, while
the Ruth blessing must take the form of a wish. After drawing this
convincing parallel between Gen 18 and UT 128, Cross made two mis-
takes (from the perspective of structural interpretation) avoided by
Parker. First, he failed to analyze the blessing of Gen 18 in relation to
th at of UT 128, although these blessings are the climax of the narrative
structure of each passage. Second, he closed what he termed the “epi-
sode” beginning in UT 128 11:11 with the departure of the gods ending
in UT 128 111:19. On the basis of the Ruth parallel, Parker recognized
th a t the episode must include the statement th a t the children are born
as promised (although this element in the narrative structure encom-
passes UT 128 III:20-25a, and not merely 11. 20-21, as Parker indicated;
see above, e, no. 6). Cross made this mistake because he failed to rec-
ognize the traditional nature of the episode which he described.
p. At this point one must turn for assistance to the folklorist. In its
world-wide investigation of traditional literature, the discipline of folk-
lore offers a literary context for the investigation of the so-called mar-
riage-blessing not available to the myopic attention of Cross and Parker
on the isolated unit of the text. When viewed from this larger perspec-
— 327 —
five, the marriage-blessing is seen to play a distinct role in what has

been called the “traditional birth episode.” In her study of messenger
stories occurring in Genesis and ancient Near Eastern texts, Irvin,
Mytharion, encountered the traditional birth episode in Gen 16 and 18,
and in a variety of ancient Near Eastern texts. In its fullest form it
includes eight basic elements:
(1) Childlessness.
(2) Promise [or blessing], which is often replaced in the narrative struc-
ture by a statem ent regarding conception.
(3) Month-counting.
(4) Birth.
(5) Father told.
(6) F ather’s reaction.
(7) Naming and reason.
(8) Predictions. 8
q• This firmly established narrative structure provides an index

against which to measure the Genesis, Ruth, and K rt episodes. I t is
apparent th at none of these examples is structurally pure. The obsession
of the Abraham cycle with the birth of Isaac scatters elements of the
birth episode throughout the cycle, so th at the birth episode of Gen 18
is not completed until Gen 21:1-7 (see above, 2 p4). The birth episode in
UT 128 II-III is aborted after the fourth element in the plot (the birth),
since the plot then shifts to other events. Parker has noted th a t the
narrative structure of Ruth 4:10-13 is obviously an artificial literary
construction (see above, h). But it is also true th at each example clearly
rests on a traditional basis. The promise of Yahweh in Gen 18:10 pre-
supposes the previously established childlessness of Sarah; and she duly
conceives and gives birth to Isaac in Gen 21:2. Abraham names him
in Gen 21:3, for reasons given in 17:17; 18:12-13; and 21:6. The opening
2 See her ‫‘״‬Traditional Episode Table, Sheet 1.*‫ ״‬Irvin's “ideal structure“ is adequate for the pur-
poses of the present discussion, but the methodological presuppositions under which she identified the
elements of the structure limit its usefulness for the comparison of texts. Its breadth allows it to serve
admirably as a vehicle to bring a large number of texts together, but it lacks the detail to reveal subgroup-
ings of the birth episodes. For example, the “motif“ of laughter is central in the birth episode of Gen 18;
but it also plays a role in the Aqht birth episode (see UT 2 Aqht 11:10 [CTA 17 11:10]). Since the study
of a phenomenon such as the “traditional birth episode“ by a folkorist such as Irvin operates by the iden-
tification of “motifs,“ she recognized the “laughter“ in Gen 18 (Mytharion, p. 20), but missed the “merely“
formulaic occurrence in the Aqht epic. As a subtopic of motif research, the detailed analysis of the tra-
ditional birth episode in Ug. literature and the OT will be reserved for RSP IV. I have made some general
comments about the birth episodes of the Patriarchal cycles in relation to those of the Aqht and Krt cycles
above, 2 p and 2 p4.
— 328 —
of the K rt cycle (UT Krt:7b-21a) emphatically describes his childless

situation; E l’s promise of many children in UT 128 11:21111:16‫ ־‬is duly
fulfilled in III:20-25a. The narrative of R uth makes her childlessness
clear; and after the blessing of R uth 4:1 lb -12, she duly conceives and
bears a son.
r. Given the obvious dependence of these examples on the narrative
structure of the traditional birth episode, it is fair to raise two questions
about Parker’s analysis of the “marriage-blessings” in Ruth and the
K rt epic. The first concerns the m atter of “setting.” Parker is prob-
ably right th at both texts put the blessing between the contracting
of the marriage and its consummation. But he skipped from this ob-
servation directly to a conclusion about the “real-life” setting of the
blessing at the marriage feast (see above, h). Methodologically, his con-
elusion is faulty because it omits the evidence to be gleaned from the
traditional episode which stands behind the texts he has chosen for
analysis. In other words, he failed to find the proper context for his
analysis. This context indicates th a t the institution of marriage is not
the primary setting for the type of blessing described by Parker. Of
course, the birth of a child presupposes a marriage in the traditional
episode. But the structure of the traditional birth episode shows plainly
th a t the blessing, or promise, responds directly to the problem of child-
lessness. And childlessness becomes a problem long after the consum-
mation of a marriage, not before it.
s. The childlessness of Sarah may be considered a special case, but
the same observation holds true of other OT birth episodes, such as
th a t of Samson in Judg 13 or th at of Samuel in I Sam 1. In the
K rt epic the fundamental concern is childlessness (above all in UT Krt:
7b-21a, but note also th at K rt’s only request of El is for sons [UT K rt:
57-58]). According to the text K rt obtains Hry only for the purpose
of bearing offspring (UT K rt :142-153; 287b-300a), and this bearing of
offspring is connected directly to the providence of El (UT K rt :150-153;
296-300a). In this perspective it is hard to imagine th at E l’s promise
of children in UT 128 11:21-111:16 is anything other than a direct re-
sponse to K rt’s childless situation. T hat this promise precedes the con-
summation of K rt’s marriage to Hry reflects the narrative structure of
the epic more than an imagined setting in life: K rt’s childlessness arises
from the loss of his original wife and children. El resolves this problem
by giving K rt a new wife, who obviously cannot be barren. The text
has no concern for the consummation of the marriage because its nar
— 329 —
rative structure has no room for any problem to arise from th at con-
summation. In other words, the question of whether or not E l’s blessing
precedes the consummation of K rt’s marriage is inappropriate in light
of the structure of the K rt narrative.
t. There is reason to think th a t the same may be true of Ruth. If

we step outside the arbitrary narrative limits imposed on us by Parker
(Ruth 4:10-13), we see th at the fundamental concern of the present
form of the book is th a t R uth should bear a son whose grandson would
be David (Ruth 4:17b). Parker himself pointed out th a t the blessing
in 4:1 lb-12 must be related to the geneology in 4:17b-22. Moreover,
in terms of traditional narrative it is the birth which is the focus—not
the blessing. And the fundamental concern of this type of narrative
is childlessness, not marriage. By neglecting the obvious literary con-
texts of the blessings in R uth and the K rt epic, Parker arrived at an
unjustifiably broad conclusion about the social context of the blessings.
Parker may be right th a t the examples in R uth and the K rt epic are
“marriage-blessings." But this “genre” (as Parker termed it) must be
regarded as a sub-category of a narrative element not specifically con-
cemed with marriage. The frequent substitution of a statem ent regard-
ing conception for the "promise” in traditional birth episodes is worth
noting in connection with the example in Ruth. For, if 4:1 lb-12 is in-
deed secondary, R uth’s necessary childlessness in 4:10-1 la is resolved
immediately by the marriage, consummation, conception, and birth of
4:13.
u. The second question to be raised about Parker’s analysis of the

“marriage-blessings” in R uth and the K rt epic—given their grounding
in the narrative structure of the traditional birth episode—relates to his
description of the “intention1’ (or, as he called it, the “concern”) of the
blessings. Parker described this intention in terms of the protagonist’s
acquisition of status through his children by his wife (see above, d and i).
He rightly perceived th a t the texts are concerned with the greatness
of the protagonist, and demonstrated the manner in which the texts
display this concern. This interest appears even more emphatically
in the Abraham cycle: God’s promise in Gen 18:17-19 relates directly
to his promise in v. 10 (see also Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-6; and 17:15-17). Thus
the existence of this concern in the texts is clear. W hat must be called
into question is Parker’s claim th a t this interest constitutes the “es-
sential” intention of the texts.
— 330 —
V. In traditional societies the birth of a son would naturally imply

the greatness of the father. In texts which focus on the survival of a
dynasty which is jeopardized by the lack of a son and heir (as do the
K rt and Abraham cycles, and the book of Ruth, although in different
ways and in varying degrees), some expression of the father’s greatness
is likely to surface in a special way in the birth episode; and the natural
vehicle of this expression is the promise, or blessing. Nevertheless, the
essential concern of the traditional birth episode is (to employ a tau-
tology) the birth, not the greatness this implies for the father. The fun-
damental intention of the element of promise in this narrative structure
must reflect the concern of the episode with birth; th at is, the essential
intention of the promise is to announce the birth (again, it is important
to remember th a t the structural equivalent of the promise in the tra-
ditional birth episode is the conception of the child). This is clearly the
case in Gen 18:10, where the announcement of the son stands alone.
The promise of offspring also dominates UT 128 11:21-111:16. K rt’s
greatness appears only in the “refrain,” but the promised children
dominate the substance of the blessing. Not only does the amount of
space given to the children as compared to th at given to K rt support
this view of the text, but also the naming of the children (element no. 7
in Irvin’s analysis of the traditional birth episode) reflects the focus
of the blessing on the children themselves. Admittedly, R uth 4:llb-12
is a special case. Yet even here, the birth of the child constitutes the
essential ingredient without which the wish would be meaningless. This
does not mean th at Parker should abandon his position. He has hit
upon a special interest within the element of promise—an interest ex-
pressed with unique force in R uth 4:1 lb-12. However, his understanding
of this interest as the basic intention of the blessings in R uth and the
K rt epic must be modified in light of the broader literary context in
which such blessings should be interpreted.
w. Parker’s final note on the two blessings points to the “royal” m atrix
in which they exist (see above, i). Considering the direct relationship
of the blessing in R uth 4:1 lb-12 to the Davidic geneology in 4:17b-22,
Parker’s suggestion adds yet another text to the larger Krt-David par-
allel. If one accepts Fisher’s proposal th at Gen 38 represents the begin-
ning of a lost “Judah cycle” related to David’s dynastic concerns (see
above, 2 f) and th at the Patriarchal cycles reflect the specific interests
of the first part of the K rt epic, and if one recognizes the structural and
ideological relationships of the story of David—especially the unit ex
— 331 —
tending from II Sam 9 through I Kings 2 (see above, 2 dd-hh, for Carl-
son’s analysis)—to the last part of the K rt epic, the relationship of R uth
to the K rt epic broadens an already remarkable narrative parallel (see
above, 2 n and 8s) between the various biblical materials relating to
David and the K rt epic. As Parker noted in connection with R uth 4:11b-
12 (see above, c), the evidence is not strong enough to suggest a literary
relationship. Nevertheless, the K rt epic remains our most im portant
source for the study of the transmission of the epic conception of ancient
Near Eastern kingship to the literary portrayal of the early Israelite
monarchy and its institutions.
— 332 —
Ch apter IV
DIVINE NAMES AND EPITH ETS IN TH E UGARITIC TEXTS
by
A ean Co o per
with Introduction and selected Comments by
M arvin H . P o p e
INTRODUCTION
a. The following assemblage of the Ugaritic divine names and epithets with
biblical parallels, manifest or alleged, is actually the work of Alan Cooper
who assumed the task after it had long languished in the slack hand of the
present writer who was diverted by other prepossessions. To Dr. Cooper
special acknowledgment of gratitude is due for his redemption and consum-
mation of the work. To collaborators in the project apologies are in order
for the delay occasioned by delinquency on the part of this penitent who
has learned and too often forgotten th a t it is easier to promise than to per-
form. The reader of this material will be beholden to Cooper for the thorough
compilation of the dispersed and diverse data as well as for his judicious
restraint in comment. The present writer has profited from preliminary
perusal of the material and it is predictable th at others will also find it useful,
evocative and provocative of further research. Comparable or greater re-
straint is obligatory in the indulgence of the privilege of super-commentary,
especially in view of the aboriginal dereliction of the scholiast who has for-
feited any right of massive meddling. Accordingly, annotations by Marvin
H. Pope are few and discretely identified by the initials.
b. Again it is not inappropriate to reaffirm gratitude to Alan Cooper for
rescue of this portion of the parallels project and to the editors whose patience
was sore stretched by the dereliction of this unprofitable and shamefaced
servant. There is nevertheless a creative factor in the procrastination, namely
th a t it made possible inclusion of later material and necessitated revision
of earlier efforts. Completeness in an enterprise of this kind is impossible
to achieve; there is, however, certainty th at the accomplishment is nearer
th a t goal than would have been the case if the original entrepreneur had
assayed to carry it through.
M arvin H . P o pe
— 335 —
IV 1 Ras Shamra Parallels
LIST OF ENTRIES
Divine Names 15. Ym H Nhr 30. Sim

1. Abn 16. Kmt 31. Tnn
2. II 17. Knr 32. Trt
3. Ilib 18. Ktr
4. A nn 19. Ktrt Epithets
5. Ars wSmm 20. Ltn 33. aliyn
6. Itm 21. Mt 34. (bn) il(m), etc.
7. Atr 22. *nt 35. btn
8. Atrt 23. *art 36. gmr
9. B 'l 24. Sdq Msr 37. hyn
10. Dgn 25. Sfin 38. mlk, mlkm
11. Dbb 26. R ty 39. *ly
12. H m 27. Sgr 40. rkb *rpt
13. Yw 28. $hr 41. rpu, rpum
14. Ylhn 29. Slh 42. Snm
ENTRIES
1
a. Abn II ‫אבן‬
607:1.
Cf. PN bn abn: 64:24 (CTA 87 rev:24); 2021 rev:5.
Cf. PN hyabn: 146:20.
Notes
J. de Moor, UF, II (1970), 198, notes the occurrence of this DN in
UT 607:1 and in the PN ’s cited above. On the prevalence of sacred
stones in the Near East, see Smith, Lectures3, pp. 200-212. For Israel see
Beer, Steinverehrung; H. W. Hertzberg, JPOS, X II (1932), 32-42; and
Kapelrud, TDOT I, pp. 50-51.
c. Gen 49:24b
‫מידי אבי ר י ע ק ב‬ by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob
‫מעזם רעה אבן יע(ראל‬ (by the name of the Shepherd, the Rock
of Israel) {RSV)
— 336 —
Divine Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts IV 2
d. Comments
While the epithet ‫ אבן ישראל‬occurs only here, it is usually compared
with 11) ‫ צור ישראל‬Sam 23:3; Isa 30:29); see, in general, Kapelrud,
TDOT I, pp. 50-51.
e. Citing the comment of Driver, Genesis, p. 392, th at ‫ אבן‬is neither
comparable to ‫ צור‬nor applicable to Yahweh, M. Dahood, Bib, XL, (1959),
1002, 1006-1007, emends ‫ אבן ישראל‬to ‫ ז ר ע ישראל‬, “the Arm of Israel.”
f. Albright, Bertholet FS, pp. 3-4, suggests th at gr (= ‫ ) צו ר‬occurs as
an epithet of Baal in UT 125:6. This dubious proposal has been most
recently rejected by B. Margalit, UF, V III (1976), 150. Thus the jus-
tification is removed for Dahood's claim in Bib, XL, (1959), 1007, n. 1,
th a t ‫ צור‬in Deut 32:31 is a “direct reference to Baal.” On ‫ צור‬as a divine
title in the Near East, see Eipinski, Poeme royal, pp. 66-68.
a. II II ‫א ל‬
Passim.
Itpn il dpid: 49 1:21-22; I I I :4, 10, 14 (CTA 6 1:49-50; I I I :4, 10, 14);
51 I V :58 (CTA 4 IV:58); etc.
tr il: 49 I V :34; VI:26-27 (CTA 6 IV:34; VI:26-27); 51 11:10; 111:31;
I V :47 (CTA 4 11:10; 111:31; IV:47); etc.
Cf. Hurrian il brt: R S 24.278:14-15 (Ug. V, p. 510).
b. Notes
Although *7/‫ א ל‬may be used in the Ug. texts and OT as an appellative,
determinative, component of PN ’s, and as a means of expressing the
superlative, only two of its usages will be discussed below: 1) DN (to
be subdivided in OT into cases of Yahweh = El and Yahweh 6‫ ל‬El;
only the latter are considered here, along with examples of a suggested
intermediate situation in which the process of Yahweh’s assimilation of
El may be seen [see below, d-j]); 2) component of various epithets and
cliches (see below, k-r, and cf. below, 34 h-i, m -n).
c. Bibliography
H. Bauer, Z A W , LI (1933), 82-84.
Nyberg, Studien, p. 93.
J. Morgenstern, HUCA, X IV (1939), 39, n. 22; 120-121, n. 195.
— 337 —
Dussaud, Decouvertes, pp. 91-97, 168-174.

Cassuto, E B I, pp. 283-292, 302-305.
Tur-Sinai, E B I, p. 31.
C. Reines, J J S , II (1950/1951), 156-157.
L, 0kkegaard, Pedersen FS, pp. 219-235.
M. Pope, JAO S, IvXXIII (1953), 96-97.
Pope, E U T, passim.
O. Eissfeldt, JS S , I (1956), 25-37.
J. McKenzie, JB L , LXXV (1956), 325-326.
D. N. Freedman, JB L , LX X IX (1960), 151-156.
Jacob, RS, pp. 87-92.
H. L. Ginsberg, JB L , EX X X (1961), 339-347.
F. M. Cross, H TR, EV (1962), 225-259.
Ahlstrom, Syncretism, pp. 12-14, 45.
K. Yaron, A S T I, I I I (1964), 48-51.
Mulder, Goden, pp. 13-24.
Schmidt, KGU I, pp. 22-29, 85-97.
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 104-105.
van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy, pp. 95-99.
Oldenburg, Conflict, pp. 164-176.
Haran, World History, pp. 224-230.
R. Coote, VT, X X I (1971), 390.
Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, pp. 63-64; 169, n. 89.
Cross, CMHE, pp. 3-75.
Caquot, TOML, pp. 55-68.
Kuhnigk, Hoseahuch, pp. 137-138, 142-144.
Cross, TDOT I, pp. 242-261.
d. Gen 14:18, 19, 20, 22 (see also Ps 78:35) (21:33 ;(‫ ;)אל ע לי ץ‬16:13 (‫א ל ראי‬
‫ ;)אל עול ם‬33:20 (‫ ;)אל אל היי ש ר אל‬35:7 (‫ ;)אל בי ת־ אל‬46:3 (‫;)) א ל א ל הי אביך‬
49:25 (‫[ א ל ע די‬MT ‫)]את‬.
Bauer: The Ug. texts place the El-religion of the patriarchs in a new
light by showing th at El is identified as a pre-Israelite god by
various epithets. One can also renew the question whether il was
a generic term or a proper name in PS.
e. Older scholars held two basic views on the subject of the Els in Gen.
The more common one (e.g., Alt, Essays, pp. 1-100; Baudissin, Kyrios,
p. 124 et passim; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 187) was th at they were anonymous
local gods whom the Israelites fused with Yahweh after the Conquest.
The other opinion, associated especially with H. Gressmann (ZA W, X X X
338 —
[1910], 134‫)־‬, was th at the Els were hypostases of a single deity, so th a t

patriarchal El-religion was essentially a pre-Mosaic monotheism.
f. The view of Alt, etc., fell out of favor when the Ug. texts showed th at
il was not only an appellative, but also the proper name of the chief god
of the pantheon. W ith the notable exception of Cassuto (EB, and Genesi,
pp. 60-82), most scholars now understand the patriarchal Els as hypos-
tases or manifestations of the Canaanite il, or at least as combinations
of the DN ‫ א ל‬with other related (or perhaps unrelated) DN’s and epithets.
See, e.g., Cross, Dussaud, Eissfeldt, Mulder, Pope (E U T , pp. 14-15).
g. Although it is generally agreed th a t ‫ א ל‬is a DN in the patriarchal
narratives, the relationship between ‫ א ל‬and Yahweh is still debated:
Cross: Yahweh was originally a cultic name of El, but Yahweh split off
from El “in the radical differentiation of his cultus in the Proto-
Israelite league.” Such traits and functions of El as his kingship,
creativity, and wisdom were retained as traits and functions of
Yahweh. See also Ahlstrom, Oldenburg, and note Freedman’s dis-
cussion of pre-Mosaic and Mosaic aspects of Yahweh.
h. Eissfeldt: Yahweh and El were originally distinct, but the Israelites
assimilated El to Yahweh. Three stages of the assimilation process
may be seen in the OT: 1) the two gods are independent (e.g., Ps 82;
see below, 34 m -n); 2) Yahweh appropriates the title El (e.g., Isa
40:18; see below, i); 3) Yahweh = El (e.g., Pss 104:21; 118:27).
The qualities of Yahweh th at Cross considers to be survivals of his
identity with El are thought by Eissfeldt to have been inherited
via the assimilation process. See also L,0kkegaard, Mulder, Schmidt.
Haran: “ .. .all the divine names containing the component El as a. con-
stituent m ust not be attributed to Canaanite influence, but con-
sidered as echoes from a Hebrew pantheon.. . . The religion of the
Els as it is recorded in the stories in Genesis seems to have been an
original Hebrew legacy.”
i. Isa 40:18; 43:12; 45:22
Eissfeldt: ‫ א ל‬in these vv. should be translated as “E l” : “ ...Y ahw eh
appropriates the epithet El, to which He is not originally entitled,
and takes it as a proper name to the exclusion of other claimants
to i t . . . . ” See also Mulder.
Cross: “In the late literature of Israel only Second Isaiah other than
Job makes extensive use of El as a proper name of the god of
Isra e l.... We judge the phenomenon to be explained by his re
— 339 —
23
utilization of old liturgical forms and his general impulse to archaize

much in the same way as does the author of the dialogues of Jo b ”
(:TDOT I, p. 259).
j. Ezek 28:2
Yaron: The ‫ א ל‬in 2a must be the Canaanite DN, “applied by the prince
of Tyre to himself; but in 28:2b: ‘yet thou art a man and not a god
(El)’ said by the prophet, the word ‘E l’ is used as a general noun.”
See also Cross, CMHE, p. 44; Eissfeldt; Pope, E U T, pp. 9 8 9 9 ‫־‬.
Note Caquot’s comments on the reminiscences of the Ug. description
of E l’s abode here; also Ahlstrom, Cassuto, Clifford.
McKenzie: “The claim of the prince of Tyre to divinity is scarcely more
mythological than the words of Jacob to Rachel (Gen 30:2).”
van Dijk: ‫ א ל אני‬in v. 2a should be translated “I am a god” ; the v. con-
tains no allusion to Canaanite mythology.
k. Exod 34:6 (‫( ) יהוה יהוה א ל רחום וחנץ‬cf. Deut 4:31; Jonah 4:2; Ps 86:15)
Cross: Should ‫ א ל‬be translated “E l” or “God” ? The epithets “merciful”
and “compassionate” are reminiscent of those which express E l’s
same benign attributes [Itpn il dfid, “Beneficent El Benign” ; see
also Eissfeldt; E0kkegaard; Pope, E U T, p. 25], At least the last
three words of the long liturgical name are probably pre-Yahwistic.
l. Judg 9:46 (‫) א ל ברית‬

Cross: ‫“ א ל ברית‬appears to be a specific epithet of Canaanite E l,” al-
though later biblical tradition probably did not understand it this
way (CMHE, p. 44). On the possible parallel in a Hurrian hymn
from Ugarit, il hrt (RS 24.278:1415‫[ ־‬Ug. V, p. 510]), see CMHE,
p. 39; and P. Craigie, UF, V (1973), 278-279 (cf. also below, 9 n).
m. Hos 8:6 (‫) כי מיעזראל‬
Tur-Sinai: The sense “Who is the Bull-El?” may be gained by emending
m t to ‫ כ י מי עזור א ל‬.
Pope: “This brilliant and ingenious suggestion, however, may be regarded
with some dubiety” (EUT, p. 35; see JAO S, L X X III [1953], 96-97,
for Pope’s alternative).
n. Hos 11:7 (‫) ו אל ע ל‬

Kuhnigk: If MT ‫ א ל‬is repointed to ‫אל‬, ‫ ע ל‬may be understood as a divine
title. “El-Al” is a variant of ‫( א ל עליון‬see above, d-h), and refers
to the Canaanite El.
— 340 —
o. Hos 12:1
Nyberg: both ‫ א ל‬and ‫ קדושים‬in this v. refer to foreign gods.
Pope: ‫ א ל‬is here “the proper name of the deity whom the Israelites wor-
shipped as distinct from Yahweh” (E U T , p. 13). See also Cassuto,
Coote, Kuhnigk, Schmidt.
Ginsberg: The v. does not mention foreign gods; cf. Reines.
p. Ps 29:3 (‫) א ל ה כ בו ד‬
Schmidt: “Man wird also mit der Annahme kaum zu weit gehen, dass
solche Ziige im Alten Testament ihren Ursprung in Els Konigtum
haben, d.h. dass die in Jerusalem ansassige Vorstellung vom Kbwd
Gottes [see Pss 19:2; 24:7-10; etc.] der kanaanaischen Religion ent-
stam m t.” See also Rendtorff, Revelation, pp. 33-37.
Cross: The epithet ‫( א ל כ בו ד‬the article is secondary) probably meant
originally not “the god of glory” or “El the Glorious” but “god of
the thunder cloud,” the ‫( ענן כ ב ד‬Exod 19:16), an epithet of Baal
originally (TDOT I, p. 257).
q. Pss 36:7; 50:10(?) ^ (‫ ;) ה ר רי־ א ל‬80:11 (‫) א רזי־ אל‬

Cross: The translation of ‫ א ל‬as “preeminent, grand” 12 is weak in view
of E l’s abode in the “cedar mountains” of the Amanus. “I t is doubt-
ful th at the original connotations of any of these archaisms sur-
vived in Israelite usage after the era when Yahweh ceased to be
an epithet of *el.” On the ‫ א ל‬component as a reference to the DN,
see also Morgenstem.
r. Prov 30:3 (‫) ו ל א ־ ל מ ד תי חכ מה ודע ת קדשים א ד ע‬

Pope: If the first colon is emended to <‫ לו ל מ ד תי חכמ ת >אל‬, the v. trans-
lates: “Would I had learned the wisdom of El, and knew the lore
of the holy ones.” “In view of E l’s distinction for wisdom, as seen
in the Ugaritic texts, it seems likely th at the allusion was to him
specifically.”
s. Comments
If ‫ א ל‬is not to be identified with Yahweh in Hos 12:1, the ‫קדושים‬
1 On the reading ‫ הררי־אל‬in Ps 50:10, see M. Dahood, Bib, X X X V III (1957), 312; P sa lm s I, pp. 307‫־‬
308; Jirku, F u F , X X X II (1958), 212.
2 These passages have been considered prime examples of the use of ‫ אל‬to indicate the superlative;
see S. Rin, V T , IX (1959), 3 2 4 3 2 5 ‫ ;־‬D. W. Thomas, V T , III (1953), 209224‫־‬.
— 341 —
may well refer to the dead, “the saints who are in the ground,” of Ps 16:3;
cf. below, 39 n, oo. (MHP)
t. See below, 33 1, for Pope’s latter day suggestion th at the savant
saints in Prov 30:3 are the deified dead. (MHP)
a. Ilib ‫ן‬/ ‫♦ א ל א ב‬
17:14 {CTA 29 obv:2); 44:3, 5 {CTA 44 A:2, 4); 609 obv:10; rev:1; 2004:5.
b. Notes
The various speculations about the meaning of ilib depend on the defi-
nition of the -ib element: 1) related to ab, “father” : Gordon, UT, § 19.165;
Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 45; A. Caquot, Syria, XLVI (1969), 259-260 (“dieu
ancestral”); M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, UF, VI (1974), 450-451; 2) defined
as “ghost,” with ilib meaning “dead spirits of ancestors” : Albright,
Yahweh, p. 141; similarly J. de Moor, GTT, L X X III (1973), 136, and
J. Greenfield, RB, I,X X X (1973), 48, n. 12; 3) derived from H ittite a-a-bi,
“sacrificial p it” {*a-a-bi >*ayb{i) > eb): M. Vieyra, R H A , L X IX (1961),
53, who claims similar derivation for BH ‫ ; או ב‬cf. H. Hoffner, JB L ,
DXXXVI (1967), 385-401; TDOT I, pp. 130-134, and C. Rabin, Or, X X X II
(1963), 115-116; 4) conjoined with il via the root “to erect, set up” (Arab.
la'aba), and defined as the “divinized sacred stone” : M. C. Astour, JAOS,
LXXXVI (1966), 279 and n. 25; cf. Gordon, UT, § 19.165.
c. Bibliography
K. Koch, Z A , BV III (1967), 214, n. 10.
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 141-142 and n. 80.
d. isa 14:19 (‫) א ל ״ א בני־ בו ר‬

Albright: Noting the Heb. PN ‫ ע ב ד א ל א ב‬on a seal,1 MT should be
emended to ‫ א ל א בי בור‬, “ghosts of the Nether World.”
e. Comments
In RS 20.24:1 {Ug. V, p. 44), *a-bi corresponds to the ilib of the
parallel text UT 17:14. In UT 4:1 (CTA 166:1), in atn, “the god, the
father,” is perhaps a Hurrian translation of ilib (cf. Laroche, Ug. V,
1 See Cooke, N S I , pi. X I, 6.
— 342 —
p. 523). If so, then ilib is likely derived from *ilab. 2 The Ug. form may
result from vowel harmony; cf. Ug. irby — BH ‫ א ר ב ה‬.
f. For discussion of ‫ אוב‬see H. Hoffner, JB L , LXXXVI (1967), 385-
401; TDOT I, pp. 130-134; B. Margalit, UF, V III (1976), 145-150. Any
equation of ib with ‫ אוב‬is phonetically problematic: the derivation of
‫ אוב‬is perhaps (‫ = אב)ת( > *אלאב)ת‬/(‫ אוב)ות‬/.
a. A nn Cf. PN ‫אונן‬
[610 A :Iff]; 1090:17-18.
Cf. PN (bn) ann: 1102:15; 2029:13, 19; 2054 rev:15.
b. Notes
J. de Moor, UF, II (1970), 190, 198, suggests a comparison with the
Sumero-Babylonian deity Anunna; cf. Edzard, Mesopotamien, p. 42.
c. Bibliography
M. Astour, JAO S, LXXXVI (1966), 283, n. 63.
d. Gen 38:4; 46:12; Num 26:19
Astour: The D N . ann may be compared to the PN ‫אונן‬.
a. Ars w$mm // ‫ הארץ השמים‬. . . ‫ו‬

17:24 (CTA 29 obv:12); 609 obv:5; rev:2; cf. 126 111:2 (CTA 16 111:2).
b. Notes
This DN was first attested in UT 609 obv:5; rev :2; and was then restored
in the corresponding line in UT 17:24 (see M. Astour, JAO S, LXXXVI
[1966], 279-280). On the basis of this DN, Dahood offers a new inter-
pretation of UT *nt 11:39-40 (CTA 3 B :39-40), in which Smm and ars
are understood as DN's rather than common nouns (see R SP I, II 207).
c. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Or, X X X IX (1970), 376 (cf. R SP I, II 207).
‫ ־‬On the use of 3‫ א‬in divine titles and epithets, see especially Cross, C M H E , pp. 3-75.
— 343
d. Gen 27:28
Dahood: The v. should be rendered:
‫ וי תן״ל ך האלהי ם‬May God give you
‫ מ ט ל ה^מים‬of the dew of Heaven
‫ ומשמני הארץ‬and of the oil of E arth
‫ ורב דגן ותירש‬and of the spray of Dagan and Tirosh.
The point of the text is th at Israel’s God will provide the fertility
once provided by the Canaanite divinities Heaven, E arth, Dagan
and Tirosh.
e. Comments
Note th at the order of the elements in Gen 27:28 is the reverse of
the Ug. DN. M. Astour, JAO S, LXXXVI (1966), 280, pointed out th at
the sequence of E arth standing before Heaven opposes Sum. and Akk.
usage, as well as the OT cosmogony of P; the creation story of J, how-
ever, preserves the Canaanite pattern.
f. Note also the use of ‫ אר ץ‬in the OT for the (personified) Netherworld
(e.g., Exod 15:12; Num 16:32; see the survey of Tromp, Death, pp. 23-46).
While the word ars in Ug. may denote the Netherworld (see especially
UT 51 VIII:5-14 [CTA 4 VIII:5-14]), there is no evidence that the above
DN is related. See also Wakeman’s characterization of ‫ ארץ‬as "E arth
Monster” in the OT {God’s Battle, pp. 108-112). W. F. Albright, BASOR,
84 (1941), 16, restored the “Underworld Dragon” ars in UT 'n t 111:40
(CTA 3 D:40), but most scholars now read ar[s}. Tromp also mentions
Baal’s daughter arsy, whose name he translates "The One of the Nether-
world” ; but contrast Pope, Syrien, p. 244.
6
a. itm ‫ א ש מ ה ! ן‬,‫א שי מ א‬
609 rev:9.
b. Notes
There is some question whether this DN may be related to BH ‫!אשם‬.
According to Astour, JAO S, LXXXVI (1966), 281-282, Itm is the same
word as the Ug. noun itm = Arab, ’itm = Heb. ‫אשם‬. This deified ‫אשם‬
was a “healer-god,” identical with the Phoen. ’Esmun (recognized by
Noth, Personennamen, p. 124). However, Kellermann (see TDOT I,
p. 429, and note his bibliography on the question) rejects the association
of Ug. itm with Heb. ‫ ;א שם‬see also J. de Moor, UF, I (1969), 178.
— 344 —
c. Bibliography
M. Astour, JAO S, I,XXXVI (1966), 282.
d. I I Kings 17:30
Astour: ‫ איטימא‬is the Aram, form of the DN (cf. Elephantine DN ‫ )א שמביתאל‬.
e. Amos 8:14
Astour: ‫ אשמה‬of Samaria is the same deity.
f. Comments
The suggested association of itm with ‫ אישם‬and Ashimah is dubious;
drawing 'Esmun into the picture further complicates matters. Porten's
strictures concerning Amos 8:14 are well-taken: “'a$mat, ‘guilt of’, was
a deliberate corruption of Ashima (= Eshem) much as Beth-aven
{,awen — wickedness) was of Bethel (Hos. 4:15, 10:5; cf. Am. 5:5)”
(Elephantine, p. 175; cf. pp. 158, 176).
a. Atr !‫אשר ן‬:

62:7 (CTA 6 1:7); 67 V I:25 (CTA 5 VI :25).
b. Notes
S. Rin and S. Rin, BZ, n.s., X I (1967), 177-178, discover Asher, the
male counterpart of the goddess Asherah, in the Ug. texts by interpreting
UT 62:6-7 and 67 V I:23-25 as follows:
b'l mt Ba'al is dead,
my lim bn dgn woe to the people of Ben Dagan,
my hmlt atr b'l woe to the multitude of Asher-Baal!
The problem with this interpretation is its faulty stichometry; see van
Zijl’s discussion of the text and summary of various opinions {Baal,
pp. 177-180). The text should be read and translated:
b'l mt my lim Baal is dead—W hat of/Woe to the
people?/!
bn dgn my hmlt Ben Dagan—W hat of/Woe to the
masses?/!
atr b'l ajnrd bars After Baal I ’ll/we’U descend to the
Netherworld.
It does not appear, then, th at atr is attested as a DN at Ugarit.
— 345
c. Bibliography
S. Rin and S. Rin, BZ, n.s., X I (1967), 177-178.
Rin, AG, pp. 207-208.
M. Gil, J N E S , X X X (1971), 238.
d. Gen 15:17; Deut 33:29; Pss 8:2; 31:8; 69:27
Rin: MT ‫ אשר‬should be read ‫( אשר‬Asher as an appelation of Yahweh)
in these passages.
Gil: Rin is correct.
e. Comments
All of Rin’s interpretations are dubious.
a. am !‫ א ש ר ה ן‬,‫ א ש רי‬,‫א ש ר ת‬
Passim.
b. Bibliography
Reed, Asherah, pp. 26-27, 80-81.
F. Neuberg, JN E S , IX (1950), 215.
W. F. Albright, VTS, IV (1957), 254-255.
Pope, Syrien, pp. 246-249.
Gese, Altsyrien, pp. 149-155.
De Moor, TDOT I, pp. 438-444.
c. I Kings 15:13 (cf. I I Chron 15:16); 18:19; 21:7; 23:4, 6
De Moor: The cult object ‫ אשרה‬in these w . actually represented the
goddess Asherah. De Moor’s view is widely shared: see Reed, Mulder,
Pope, Gese.
d. Isa 6:13
Albright: m t ‫ כ א ל ה ו כ א ל ץ אשר‬should be emended to ‫ כ א ל ה וכ אלון אשרה‬:
“Like the terebinth goddess and the oak of Asherah.” Note th at
in Ug. ill is coupled with atrt.
De Moor: Albright’s emendation should be rejected.
e. Gen 30:13
Reed: The goddess Asherah is referred to in ‫בא שרי‬.
— 346 —
f. Amos 8:14
Neuberg: MT ‫ באשמת‬should be emended to ‫ב א שר ת‬.
g. Comments
Neuberg’s emendation of Amos 8:14 seems gratuitous; see above, 6
e, f. If Gen 30:13 does refer to a deity in some sort of oath, the deity is
probably Asherah. The form ‫ אשרי‬could be an alternate fern, form of
‫אשרה‬/‫ ;אשרת‬cf. BH ‫שרי‬/‫שרה‬, and Ug. tly, pdry, arsy, rhmy—all fern,
(cf. M. Pope and J. Tigay, UF, I I I [1971], 124-125).
h. Most OT references to ‫אשרים( אשרה‬/‫ ) אשרות‬denote wooden cult

symbols or some sort of sanctuary, rather than the goddess herself. Gese,
Altsyrien, p. 151, claims th at the wooden objects "nicht nur ein wesent-
liches Element des A&rakultes gewesen sein, sondem auch der A§era-
konzeption ganz entsprechen haben muss” ; but according to Caquot,
TOML, p. 71: "II n’y aurait done pas lieu de vouloir identifier ,atrt ouga-
ritique et >aserdh b ib liq u e ...” (cf. K.-H. Bernhardt, MIO, X III [1967],
163-174).
i. I t seems unlikely th at a goddess worshipped in Israel would have
no affinity with a goddess of the same name venerated at Ugarit (even
if the Asherah cult were introduced in Israel as late as Ahab; so Reed,
but cf. Ahlstrom, Syncretism, pp. 50-61). E. Lipinski, OLP, I I I (1972), 101-
119, offers an attractive solution when he suggests th at the biblical terms
‫אשרים( אשרה‬/‫ ) אשרות‬do not refer to the goddess, but "m ust be understood
in the same sense as the corresponding Akkadian, Phoenician, and Ar-
amaic terms which designate the shrine, chapel or sanctuary.” He con-
eludes th at “no biblical passage mentions the goddess A tirat or her
emblem”—in complete contrast to Ugarit. However, it should be noted
th at "Asherah(s),” like "Astarte(s),” may be a generalized term for
"goddess(es)” in the OT (cf. Judg 2:13 // 3:7).
j. On Hos 14:9, see below, 22 d.
a. B'1 !‫)ה(בעל)ים( ן‬, ‫בעל ברית‬, ‫בעל זבוב‬, ‫בעל פעור‬

Cf. gn ’s ‫)גור־( בעל‬, etc.
Cf. p n ’s‫בעל‬, etc.
— 347 —
Passim.
PI spn: 1:10 (CTA 34:10); 9:14 (CTA 36:14); 125:6-7, 107 (CTA 16 1:6-7;
11:107); 609 rev:5; etc.
zbl b(l (ars): 49 I I I :9, 21; I V :29, 40 (CTA 6 111:9, 21; IV:29, 40);
67 VI:10 (CTA 5 VI: 10); etc.
b. Notes
Before the discovery of the Ug. texts, Baal was generally thought to
be an appellative rather than a DN (H. Gressmann, BZAW, X X X III
(1918), 191-216, was a notable dissenter from this view). So, for example,
according to Smith, Lectures3, pp. 93-114, the title Baal expresses “the
relation of the gods to particular places which are special seats of their
power. . . , and each of the multitude of local Baalim is distinguished
by adding the name of his own place. . . . As the heathen gods are never
conceived as ubiquitous, and can act only where they or their ministers
are present, the sphere of their permanent authority and influence is
naturally regarded as their residence.”
c. Since the Ug. texts showed th at B (l may be a DN as well as a title, the
old notion th at Canaanite religion was characterized by the worship of
countless local nature-gods (Baals) has been challenged. It is now com-
monly held th at the Baals whose names are qualified by GN’s (or other-
wise) are to be regarded as local hypostases of a single deity. At Ugarit,
this single high god was the ancient West Semitic storm god Hadad;
it is his appellative, 67, which has become a proper name through fre-
quent use.
d. A middle ground has been sought by Eissfeldt, Karmel, pp. 4-5, who
affirms th at local gods may retain their integrity while appearing to be
the hypostases of some universal god. Hillmann (see bibliography)
elaborates this view (which allows 67 to be both an appellative and a
DN, like il), suggesting th at there are two types of Baals: heavenly gods
and mountain gods. The two categories are not strictly delineated,
especially since the mountain Baals may be assimilated to and regarded
as hypostases of the heavenly Baals (at Ugarit, B 'l spn = B 'l hd\ else-
where, mountain Baals may be assimilated to Baal-shamem).
e. In the OT Baal occurs as a DN 76 times (58 singular, always with the
definite article; 18 plural); it is also a component of GN’s and PN ’s.
See Mulder, TDOT II, pp. 192-200, for details; he comments th at the
OT does not reveal whether some other unknown DN, such as Hadad,
lies hidden behind the name “Baal.” However, it does confirm the im
— 348
pression made by the Ug. texts: “it has in mind Baal par excellence, the
god of storm and fertility, who appears in different local manifestations
and nuances.”
f. Ostborn (see bibliography) comments th at “the relation between Yahweh
and Baal in ancient Israel constitutes a phenomenon th at m a y ... be
designated the main problem of the history of the Old Testament re-
ligion.” Most scholars see a double-sided relationship between Yahweh
and Baal, “ . . . krassester Gegensatz einerseits, Entlehnungen ander-
s e its .. . ” (Hillmann). According to Kapelrud, B R ST , p. 44, the worship
of Baal was so deeply rooted in early Israel “th at the only way to master
i t . . . was to identify Yahweh with Baal.” Hvidberg, WLOT, p. 87,
explains that: "The desert god Yahweh could not be the giver of the
crop of Canaan without features from rain- and vegetation-deities being
transferred to him, i.e. without his absorbing Ba'al.” Other aspects of
Yahweh which are often claimed to be adopted from Baal include his
self-revelation in the storm (Cross, CMHE, pp. 147-194) and his divine
kingship (Lipinski, Roy ante de Yahwe\ and Schmidt, K G U I2).
g. As for opposition to Baal, Ahlstrom, Syncretism, pp. 11-12, states: “The

Israelites themselves in all probability did not regard the adaptation. . .
to the Canaanite culture as ‘apostasy’. .. .what influential groups at
a later date . . . understood by ‘pure Yahwism’ cannot be accepted as
the norm for earlier epochs in the religious history of Israel” (see also
F. Eakin, JB L , LXXX IV (1965), 407-414). For Cross, the early syn-
cretism in which aspects of Baalism were absorbed into Israelite religion
gave way in the ninth century to a less wholesome syncretism: the re-
ligion of Yahweh began to yield to the popular cult of Baal. It is this
cult which the prophets attacked; their battle against syncretism was
ultimately sharpened into a simple opposition: Yahweh versus Baal.
h. Kaufmann, Religion, rejects the notion th at Baalism was a significant

factor in the shaping of early Israelite religion: "The conventional opinion
th at the popular religion was Canaanized and worshiped a syncretistic
YHWH-Baal is groundless. .. .there is no record of an independent,
thriving cult of Baal in the period of the judges, nor during the monarchy
before the time of Omri. That YHW H had the epithet ba'al is no evi-
dence for syncretism” (pp. 141-142). There was, according to Kaufmann,
no amalgamation of Yahweh and Baal worship before Manasseh, and
his syncretistic cult “was a royal idiosyncrasy which had no popular
roots” (p. 142).
— 349
i. W ithout taking as extreme a position as Kaufmann, it might be ap-

propriate here to call for some caution in the simple identification of the
Ug. Baal with the Baal of the OT. Mulder, TDOT II, points out the
tendentious nature of the biblical sources: “It was not the intention
of the biblical writers to teach their readers in detail concerning the
character or the peculiarities of Canaanite religion” (p. 193). More im-
portant is the fact th at the first millennium cults of Baal (or Yahweh
as Baal) which were the objects of prophetic and Deuteronomic condem-
nation evidently were not cults of Hadad / B 'l spn (Ug. Baal), b u t prob-
ably of Baal-shamem or related local manifestations. Even if B 'l spn
and Baal-shamem are the same type of god (sky/weather god), they
are not necessarily identical. It has been suggested th at Baal-shamem
is 'A ttar (Albright, Yahweh, p. 228) or El (R. Oden, CBQ, X X X IX [1977],
457-473), rather than Hadad. Furthermore, inner-Canaanite assimilation
and adaptation could have produced a first-millennium Baalism th at
differed markedly from the second-millennium Ug. variety despite the
preservation of names, titles, epithets, cliches, and motifs. Note, for
example, the many scholars who assert th a t the relative status of El
and Baal is in flux in the Ug. texts (especially Oldenburg [see bibli-
ography]). The intense hostility towards Baal in the OT contrasts sharply
with the benign assimilation of El to Yahweh (see especially O. Eissfeldt,
JS S , I [1956], 25-37). That hostility, evidently following a period of
peaceful coexistence between Yahweh and Baal, could have been oc-
casioned by a change in the nature of Baalism as well as by the in-
creasingly aggressive exclusivism of the Yahwists.
j. Bibliography
O. Eissfeldt, ThStK, CIII (1931), 151-160 (I Chron 5:5; etc.).
H. Bauer, Z A W , LI (1933), 86-89.
W. F. Albright, JPOS, XVI (1936), 17-18 (II Kings 1:2; etc.).
H. S. Nyberg, A R W , XXXV (1938), 329-387.
O. Eissfeldt, Z A W , LV II (1939), 14-31 [ = Kleine Schriften III, pp. 183-
199] (Judg 6:25-32; I Kings 18:16-40; Jer 2:8; etc.; Hos 2:10ff.; etc.;
Zeph 1:4; I Chron 5:5; etc.).
R. de Vaux, BM B, V (1941), 7-20 (I Kings 18:16-40).
W. F. Albright, BASOR, 90 (1943), 32 (I Kings 18:16-40).
M. Noth, Z A W , LX (1944), 23-30.
R. Dussaud, Syria, XXV (1946-1948), 209.
B. Maisler, JPOS, X X I (1948), 132-133.
— 350 —
Montgomery, Kings, pp. 291, 308 (I Kings 18:16-40), and 349 (II Kings
1:2; etc.).
M. Avi-Yonah, IE J , II (1952), 118-124.
Kapelrud, B R ST , pp. 43-47 (I Kings 18:16-40; I Chron 5:5; etc.), and
60 (II Kings 1:2; etc.).
Galling, Alt FS, pp. 105-120.
Cassuto et al., E B II, pp. 283-301.
Eissfeldt, Karntel, pp. 41-46 (I Kings 18:16-40).
H. Cazelles, RB, E X II (1955), 332-340.
Albright, A R B , pp. 110-119 (Judg 8:33; etc.), and 155-161 (I Kings
18:16-40; I Chron 5:5; etc.).
E. Dhorme, AnSt, VI (1956), 57-61.
Ostborn, YaJvweh and Baal, pp. 3-35.
A. Caquot, Syria, XXXV (1958), 57.
Alt, Kleine Schriften III, pp. 274-275.
Nielsen, Shechetn2, pp. 111-118.
D. Ap-Thomas, PEQ, XCII (1960), 146-155.
Jacob, RS, pp. 92-99 (II Kings 1:2; etc.).
Kaufmann, Religion, pp. 138-147 (Judg 2:11; etc.; 8:33; etc.; Jer 2:8;
etc.; Hos 2:10ff.; etc.), and 372 (Hos 2:10ff.; etc.).
H. H. Rowley, B JR L , X E III (1960-1961), 190-219.
E. Gaston, TZ, X V III (1962), 247-255.
E. MacEaurin, VT, X II (1962), 439-463.
Mulder, Ba'al, pp. 144ff. (I Chron 4:33; etc.).
E. Wiirthwein, ZThK , E IX (1962), 144, n. 1.
k. Ahlstrom, Syncretism, pp. 23 (Judg 8:33; etc.), and 38-40 (I Chron 4:33;
etc.).
E. Jacob, RH PR, X E III (1963), 250-259 (II Kings 10:18ff.; Hos 2:10ff.;
etc.).
Kapelrud, R S Discoveries, pp. 32-56 (I Kings 18:16-40; II Kings 1:2;
etc.; Jer 2:8; etc.; I Chron 5:5; etc.).
R. du Mesnil du Buisson, RHR, CEXIV (1963), 155.
Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal, pp. 24-26.
B. Mazar, IA S H Proc Eng, I, V II (1964), 20.
Hillmann, Wasser, pp. 95-103, 195-200.
Mulder, Goden, pp. 25-36 (N um 25:3; etc.; II K ings 1:2; etc.).
Pope, Syrien, pp. 253-273 (II Kings 1:2; etc.).
Astour, Hellenosemitica■*, pp. 210, n. 2; 278.
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 145-146 (I Kings 18:16-40), and 197-203 (I Chron
5:5; etc.).
— 351 —
Bronner, Elijah, pp. 9-11.

R. Clements, J S S , X III (1968), 21-32.
Fohrer, Elia2, pp. 65-67 (I Kings 18:16-40), and 81-83 (II Kings 1:2;
etc.).
M. Held, JAO S, L X X X V III (1968), 90-92.
E. Lipinski, RSO, XLIV (1969), 84-85 (I Chron 4:33; etc.).
Oldenburg, Conflict, pp. 176-182.
de Vaux, Ug. VI, pp. 511-512 (Nurn 25:3; etc.).
Aharoni, Galling FS, p. 5.
Lipinski, R A I 17, pp. 39-43 (I Kings 18:16-40).
Preuss, V erspottung, pp. 67-72 (Judg 6:25-32), 80-105 (I Kings 18:16-40),
and 120-131 (Hos 2:10ff.; etc.).
Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, pp. 133-135.
Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 15-20.
F. Vattioni, Aug, X III (1973), 57-73.
Wolff, Hosea, pp. 38-40 (Judg 2:11; etc.; Hos 2:10ff.; etc.), 49-50 (Hos
2:10ff.; etc.; I Chron 5:5; etc.), and 165 (Num 25:3; etc.).
R. Coote, J N S L , V (1977), 3-8.
Gamberoni, T W A T II, cols. 531-534.
Mulder, TDOT II, pp. 192-200 (Num 25:3; etc.; Judg 6:25-32; 8:33;
etc.; I Kings 18:16-40; 22:54; etc.; II Kings 1:2; etc.; I Chron 5:5;
etc.).
Pope, Song, pp. 687-688 (I Chron 4:33; etc.).
]. Num 25:3, 5; Deut 4:3; Hos 9:10; Ps 106:28

Noth: “Nach Num 25 hatte es sich dabei freilich um eine einmalige
Episode auf der Wanderung in das verheissene Land gehandelt.
Aber kultische Beziehungen dieser A rt pflegen in Wirklichkeit nicht
en passant zu entstehen, und die geschichtliche Erinnerung daran
hatte sich kaum erhalten konnen, wenn wir es nicht m it einer Er-
scheinung von einiger Dauer zu tun hatten. Auch danach also haben
israelitische Stamme zeitweilig in der Gegend des Peor als Nachbarn
der Moabiter gesessen, und der K ult des Baal Peor hat in dem nach-
barlichen Verhaltnis anscheinend sogar eine nicht unwichtige Rolle
gespielt.”
Cassuto et al.: Noth is wrong; the ‫ ב ע ל פ עו ר‬tradition is a reminiscence
of covenants th at some Israelite tribes made with Moab and Midian.
Zealots for Yahweh rebelled against those covenants and killed
— 352 —
those who participated in them. Only later was the ‫ ב ע ל פעו ר‬in-
cident regarded as a m atter of religious apostasy.
Habel: Possibly ‫ ב ע ל פעו ר‬is to be associated with Canaanite Baal, but
there can be no certainty. “The events of Beth-Peor offer a notable
example of the conflict motif of Yahweh versus the gods of the land.”
Mulder: ‫ ב ע ל פעו ר‬is a title of the god Baal.
de Vaux: The Israelite battle against pagan religions begins with ‫ב ע ל‬
‫ פ עו ר‬. So also Ostborn, who discerns “a real change to the service
of Baal” in the encounter.
Wolff: Noth is basically correct: “Hosea’s reminiscence of Baal-peor
could have had a historical kernel in Israel’s early period, when
Moabites and Israelites together visited the sanctuary of Baal-peor
which was situated on their border.”
m. Judg 6:25-32
Eissfeldt: the Baal of this story may be Baal-shamem, but this is not
certain.
Mulder: Gideon’s destruction of the Baal altar in this episode shows
th at by the time of the judges, “there is clearly a conflict between
Yahweh and Baal.”
For a full discussion of the anti-Baal polemic in the Gideon story (with
bibliography), see Preuss. Note also the treatm ent of the PN ‫י ר ב ע ל‬
(below, y).
n. judg 8:33; 9:4 (‫( ) ב ע ל ברית‬cf. judg 9:46 [‫)] א ל ברית‬

Albright: ‫ ב ע ל ברית‬may be an appellation of the deity Hrn.
Dhorme: The name ‫ ב ע ל ברית‬has been altered to ‫ א ל ברית‬for polemical
reasons, “pour eviter de profaner 1’Alliance par le contact du Baal.”
Ostborn: ‫ ב ע ל ברית‬should be equated with ‫ א ל ברית‬.
Kaufmann: The names ‫ ב ע ל ברית‬and ‫ א ל ברית‬presumably refer to Yah-
weh. "T hat this Baal was a foreign god (Jud 8:33) is the opinion
of the editor based on the ‘idolatrous’ name.”
Ahlstrom: ‫ ב ע ל ברית‬may be a reference to Shechem’s sky god ‫ א ל ברית‬,
but it is also possible th at ‫ ב ע ל ברית‬is the fertility god Baal.
Clements: ‫ ב ע ל ברית‬should be equated with ‫ א ל ברית‬. Although many
scholars have argued from this DN th a t the Israelites acquired
their notion of covenant from the Canaanites (see also the discussion
of Nielsen), this claim cannot be substantiated. Note also Clements’
discussion of the significance of covenant-making at Shechem
(similarly, Albright).
— 353 —
Mulder: “ . . . i t is questionable whether [El-berith] is to be identified

with Baal-berith or whether we are to assume th at there were two
gods with two tempels in Shechem. The precise meaning of the
name Baal-berith (‘Baal of the Covenant’) has not been explained
satisfactorily enough for us to be able to understand the function
of this Baal in Shechem, or even to be able to explain his significance
in the history of Israelite religion.” Baal-berith is certainly a Ca-
naanite vegetation god (note the festival of Judg 9:27), “a local
manifestation of the Baal par excellence.”
o. I Kings 18:16-40 (cf. / Kings 16:31-32) 1

Eissfeldt, Montgomery, Avi-Yonah, Mazar, Hillmann: The Baal of Carmel
should be identified with Baal-shamem (Avi-Yonah also suggests
th at Baal-shamem = Hadad).
de Vaux, Albright, Cassuto et al., Alt, Rowley, du Mesnil du Buisson,
Oldenburg, Lipinski: The Baal of Carmel should be identified with
Melqart (Cassuto et al. and Oldenburg equate Melqart with Hadad).
Dussaud, Avi-Yonah, Kapelrud, Cassuto et al., Bronner, Oldenburg,
Clifford: The Baal of Carmel should be identified with Hadad
(or B 'l §pn).
Galling, Alt, Ap-Thomas, Wurthwein, Vattioni: The Baal of Carmel is
a local deity who is more or less (or not at all) assimilated to Hadad,
Baal of Tyre, Melqart, or Baal-shamem. Note also Eissfeldt’s dis-
cussion.
Albright: Alt rightly stresses the antiquity and importance of the sane-
tuary of Baal on Mount Carmel; Eissfeldt correctly protests the
scholarly belief th a t the OT “Baals” were merely local vegetation
deities and stresses the cosmic sweep of Baal’s power. However,
the latter’s identification of the Baal of Carmel with Baal-shamem
is unjustified. I t is possible th a t the Israelites identified the Canaan-
ite Baals with which they came into contact with Baal-shamem,
but this is only one of several possibilities. The Baal of the Israelite
monarchy was the Tyrian Baal.
Ostbom: The source of the conflict between Elijah and the Baal-prophets
on Mt. Carmel (as also in Hosea) was the issue of whether Yahweh
or Baal is the provider of rain and fertility.1
1 On the political background of Elijah’s encounter with the Baal prophets, see (in addition to the
standard histories), S. Prentice, JBL, XLII (1923), 33-38; and J. Morgenstem, HUCA, XV (1940), 153-191.
— 354
p. Fohrer: As for the identity of the god of Carmel: “Wie der Baal vom
Karmel naher bestimmt werden muss, ist fur die Geschichte Elias
belanglos[!] und mit Sicherheit auch schwerlich festzustellen. Ist
es ein lokaler Baal, der an denjenigen vom Tyrus angeglichen ist?
Wahrscheinlicher ist es ein Gott von universaler Bedeutung, doch
bleibt dann die Frage, ob es sich um den Melqart von Tyrus oder
den “Himmelsbaal’ Baalschamem handelt. Die Kenntnisse der
kanaanaischen Religionsgeschichte und der geschichtlichen Ver-
haltnisse des Karmelgebietes reichen wenigstens einstweilen nicht
aus, um einen sicheren Schluss zu ermoglichen.”
Aharoni: The location of Mt. Carmel is significant: the fact th at in the
time of Ahab it became again the border between Israel and Phoe-
nicia “suffices to explain the continued conflict between the worship
of Yahweh and Baal at this place which reached its dramatic sum-
m it in the days of Elijah.”
Preuss: "Gegenspieler Jahwes ist Baal, der nicht naher bezeichnet wird,
wenn nicht V. 27—wie zu fragen sein wird—konkrete Angaben fiber
ihn enthalt. Es legt sich durch den Ort der Handlung und die ge-
schichtliche Situation aber nahe, hier zunachst Baal vom Karmel
zu vermuten, der auf Grund der politischen Page unter Ahab und
Isebel wohl m it dem Baal von Tyrus (— Melqart?) verschmolzen
geglaubt wurde. Ffir den Baal Schamem, von dem der Baal des
Karmel vielleicht eine lokale Erscheinungsform war und der ffir
Tyrus bezeugt ist, ist ausserdem das Vorhandensein von Propheten
belegt, und von ihm wird auch gesagt, dass er im Himmel weile
und von dort Feuer herabsende. Der Blitz vor dem Regen als Zei-
chen und Wirkungsweise Baals ist auch in Ugarittexten belegt.”
Mulder: I t is not certain whether Melqart can be identified with the
Baal of Tyre; also, it cannot be inferred from this account th at
the Baal of Carmel was the city-god of Tyre. The biblical author
“regards this Baal as a local manifestation of the storm god th at
had been well known since ancient times.”
q. I I Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16
Bauer, Jack, Montgomery, Kapelrud, Cassuto et al., Jacob, Mulder,
Pope, Bronner, Gese: The Ug. divine title zbl b'l (ars) indicates
th a t ‫ בעל זבוב‬is a corruption (perhaps polemical) of ‫ בעל זבל‬, “Baal
the prince.” Note the reading Beeê|30tiA, in most manuscripts of
Matt 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18ff.; see Gaston.
On the meaning of zbl, see Albright, Held, Coote, and Gamberoni.
— 355 —
24
Note also the element ‫ זב)ו(ל‬in the names 31‫( ל‬Jud^ 9.28f 30, 36
[twice], 38, 41), ‫( זב)ו(ל)ו(ן‬Gen 30:20; 35:23; 46:14; 49:13; Exod 1:3;
etc.), and ‫( איזבל‬I Kings 16:31; 18:4, 13, 19; 19:1; etc.). The first
and third are particularly noteworthy since they occur in contexts
th at also include Baal-worship. The traditional vocalization of ‫איזבל‬
may be polemical, perhaps, as Montgomery suggests, ,‘playing upon
Arab, and Akk.(?) zibl, ,dung'.” Following Bauer, Montgomery in-
terprets the -‫ אי‬element as an abbreviation of -‫אחי‬. Bronner says
th at the -‫ אי‬is a tendentious abbreviation of -‫אבי‬, so th a t a name
th at originally meant “my divine father is a prince,” has been cor-
rupted to mean “un-exalted.”
Fohrer: “Der Baal Sebul von Ekron war nicht eine unwichtige lokale
Gottheit, sondern eine lokalisierte und spezialisierte Form des fur
kanaanaische Gotterwelt so bedeutsamen Gottes Baal.”
r. I I Kings 10:18ff. 2
Jacob: In this passage, which describes Jehu’s extirpation of Israelite
Baal-worship, vv. 28-29 prove “que si le baalisme avait disparu
officiellement il n ’en continuait pas moins a miner par l’interieur la
religion d ’lsrael.” The continuing syncretism was not prevented
because Jehu’s anti-Baalism was politically rather than spiritually
based.
s. Jer 2:8, 23; 7:9; 9:13; 12:16; etc. ([‫)הבעל]ים‬

Eissfeldt: Jerem iah’s use of Baal may be divided into three classes.
In 19:5 and 32:35, ‫ ה ב ע ל‬is “ein allgemeiner Ausdruck fur Gotze.” 3
In 2:8; 12:16; 23:13, 27, Baal is associated with prophetic activity:
“Nun spielen... Propheten im Kulte des von Ahab nach Israel
eingefiihrten tyrischen Ba'al eine besonders grosse Rolle, und so
liegt die Annahme nahe, dass Jeremia bei dem Ba'al, in dessen
Namen seine Gegner prophezeien, eben diesen tyrischen Ba'al, also
Ba'alsamem, im Auge h a t.” In the third group of vv., 7:9; 11:13,
17; 32:29, the reference is to offerings for the Baal. Here a definite
conclusion cannot be drawn, but it is possible th at the offerings
are for Baal-shamem.
Kaufmann: “Jeremiah refers to prophets who prophesied by Baal (2:8;
23:13), but throughout this book Baal serves to denote idolatry in
2 A comprehensive listing of occurrences of Baal in the historical books would not further the present
discussion. Note especially I Kings 22:54; II Kings 3:2; 11:18; 21:2ff.; 23:4ff.; for a survey see Mulder.
3 The context is the Tophet cult, which is not otherwise associated with Baal.
— 356 —
general (the worship at Topheth is ‘Baal’ worship [19:5; 32:35], the

astral cults performed on rooftops are to ‘Baal’ [32:29]), and then,
by extension, comes to mean falsity and vanity; with 2:8 compare
5:31, ‘the prophets speak falsely’. The prophets with whom Jeremiah
has actually to contend all speak in the name of YHWH, and Jere-
m iah’s claim is th at they invent their prophecy out of their own
heart; Baal does not figure at a l l ..
Kapelrud: Jer 23:37 “gives us a brief glimpse of an age-long rivalry
between Yahweh and Baal and of a real conflict to decide which
of them should be Israel’s god.”
t. Hos 2:1 off.; 11:2; 13:1 ([‫) הבעל]י ם‬
Kaufmann: “The Baals of 11:2, in parallelism to images, are, as often
in Jeremiah, no more than a derogatory reference to idol-worship
in general, not to actual Baal-worship.” Hosea is not condemning
a syncretistic Yahweh-Baal cult. Cc. 1-3 refer to the ninth-century
Baal-cult which “only court circles promoted,” while in cc. 4ff.
“there is no clearly defined pagan cult, no specific mythology, priests
or temples.”
Preuss: “Hoseas Polemik und sein Spott sind grundsatzlich von seinem
konkreten Gegeniiber, von der Gefahr der Baalisierung Jahwes, her
bestim m t.” See also Ostborn and Jacob.
Wolff: Hos 2:18 “presupposes the existence of a syncretism in which
Yahweh was worshipped as Baal.” In Hos 2:15, 19; 11:2, there is
good reason for the plural ‫ ב ע לי ם‬, “not only because of the numerous
Baal sanctuaries (Jer 2:28), but more importantly, because of the
numerous, distinguishable Baals. In Hosea ‘Baal’ has become a
collective term for Canaanite deities (= foreign gods in 3:1; cf.
1 3 :4 )....” See also Eissfeldt, who likewise refers to Hosea’s use of
‫ ה ב ע ל‬as collective. 4
u. Zeph 1:4 (‫) ה ב ע ל‬
Eissfeldt: “Bei Zeph 1:4, wo es in einer Umgebung, die von der Besei-
tigung anderer Kulte spricht, im Munde Jahwes mit Bezug auf
Jerusalem heisst: ‘Ich rotte aus von dieser Statte den Ba'al bis auf
den Rest’ liegt der Gedanke an einen bestimmten Ba'al, und zwar
an Ba'alsamem, sehr nahe.”
4 It should be noted that Wolff, Hosea, p. 39, misrepresents Eissfeldt’s position; nowhere does Eiss-
feldt associate the Baals of Hosea with Baal-shamem, as Wolff claims. Moreover, the English translation
of Wolff is incomprehensible at this point.
— 357 —
Sabottka: MT ‫ שאר‬should be emended to ‫ שאר‬: “Die Sippe des Baal,

die Jahwe zu vemichten droht, sind die Verehrer des Baal.” Also,
Zeph 1:5 is not an allusion to an Assyrian astral cult, as most com-
mentators believe, but a reference to Baal-shamem.
v. judg 2:11; 3:7; 10:6; etc. (‫) ה ב ע לי ם‬

Kaufmann: The Baals are anonymous idols which are “comprised under
the common rubric ,Baals’. .., or, when it is desired to differentiate
male from female images, ,Baals and Ashtoreths’. . . . These images
have neither priests, prophets, nor temples. Evidently they are
the figurines th at have been found in such numbers in Israelite
Palestine.”
Wolff: “As a generic term for foreign deities, ,Baalim’ was taken over
from Hosea—in addition to Jeremiah (2:23; 9:13)—only by the
Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Histories.” See also Cassuto et al.
and Caquot, who point out th a t the ‫ ב עלי ם‬and ‫ עשתר)ו(ת‬may be
references to foreign (or Canaanite) gods in general, comparable to
Akk. ilani u istarati; cf. below, 23 e.
w. I Chron 4:33; I I Chron 26:7 (‫ ד ־ [ ב ע ל‬1‫ ;)]ג‬Josh 11:17; 12:7; 13:5 (‫;) ב ע ל]־[ג ד‬
Cant 8:11 (‫ ;) ב ע ל המץ‬I I Sam 13:23 (‫ ;) ב ע ל חצור‬Judg 3:3; I Chron 5:23 (‫ב ע ל‬
‫ ;)חרמון‬Num 32:38; Josh 13:17; Ezek 25:9; I Chron 5:8 (‫ ;)] בית[ ב ע ל מע ץ‬I I Sam
5:20; 1 chron 14:11 (‫ ;) ב ע ל ־ פ ר צי ם‬Exod 14:2, 9; Num 33:7 (‫;) ב ע ל צפ]ו[ן‬
I I Kings 4:42 (‫ ;) ב ע ל שלשה‬Judg 20:33 (‫ ;) ב ע ל תמר‬Num 22:41; Josh 13:17
(‫ ;) במות ב ע ל‬josh 15:60; 18:14 (‫) ק רי ת ־ ב ע ל‬
It is usually assumed th at these GN’s allude to the local sanctuaries of
Baal (or sanctuaries of local Baal-deities). For surveys, see the biblical
dictionaries and especially Mulder. Only special details are noted below.
Lipinski: ‫ גור‬is a common noun in the purported GN ‫גו ר ״ ב ע ל‬, which is
to be translated “dans le voisinage de Baal.” The LXX helps in the
identification of the site.
‫( ב ע ל המון‬modern Tel Bel Ameh, near Jenin?) is perhaps the most dif-
ficult of these GN’s. The versions generally take the name to mean
“Lord of the Crowd.” I t has also been suggested th at the name is poetic
or imaginary, and it has been emended to ‫ ב ע ל ה רמ ץ‬and ‫ ב ע ל חמץ‬.
Cassuto et a l.: ‫ ב ע ל המ ץ‬is neither a GN nor a DN, but the title of the
person in charge of the vineyard.
Astour: The Phoen. god ‫“( ב ע ל המץ‬the Lord of Tum ult”) “seems to
have been a Dionysos-like figure. . . . His name belongs to the same
category as Bromios, ,tum ultuous’, a common epithet of Dionysos.
— 358 —
Perhaps it is not by chance th at the locality Ba'al-Hamon was

famous for its vineyards.”
x. Pope: The emendation of MT ‫ ב ע ל המון‬to ‫ ב ע ל חמוץ‬should be accepted;
there is an allusion here to a shrine of Astarte at Harnmon.
Clifford: The god ‫ ב ע ל ה ר מ ץ‬may be Canaanite El rather than Baal Hadad.
The relationship between ‫ ב ע ל הרמ ץ‬and ‫ בעל)"(גד‬is problematic; see the
remarks of Cassuto et al.
Ahlstrom: In the ‫ ב ע ל ״ פ ר צי ם‬episode the etiology of the GN shows th at
“It was thus Yahweh, not Baal, who crushed his enemies. This
version is understandable from the traditionists’ point of view. The
name of the god Baal was unacceptable: nothing could be done
about the place name. They interpreted it as meaning th at Yahweh
was recognized as the owner, the lord, of the place. I t is however
probable th at this was an ancient Canaanite cult centre which did
not come under Israelite domination until the time of David.”
On ‫ ב ע ל צפ)ו(ן‬see below, 25 h; and Astour, R SP II, V I I I 89 b, 1, p. Note
also Cazelles.
Astour: Concerning ‫ ב ע ל שלשה‬, “the custom of ploughing thrice was
common for Greece and Syria. . . . 5 Apparently, in this sense the
toponym Ba*al-5ali5d. . . should be understood. The god after whom
it was named was, it may be assumed, a ploughman, like Triptole-
mos.”
y. 1 chron 5:5; etc. (7‫ ;)בעל‬14:7 ( ‫ ב ע לי ד ע‬6); 12:6 (‫ ;)בעליה‬8:33 (‫ ;) א׳שבעל‬Judg

6:32 (1 ;(8‫ י ר ב ע ל‬Chron 8:34 (9‫) מ רי ב ב ע ל‬
The most striking feature of the biblical treatm ent of these PN ’s is the
polemical substitution of ‫ב שב‬, “shame” (see also Jer 3:24; 11:13; Hos
9:10), and in one case of ‫ א ל‬, for the ‫ ב ע ל‬element. For discussions, see
Eissfeldt, Nyberg, Kapelrud, Dhorme, and Mulder. The onomastica of
the Samaria ostraca have been cited as evidence for Yahweh-Baal syn-
cretism during the monarchic period. For discussions, see Maisler and
Albright.
Cassuto et al.: In the PN ‫בעלי ה‬, ‫ ב ע ל‬is a verbal element; the name means
“Yahweh rules.”
* Cf. the mourning rite of UT 62:5 (CTA 6 1:5) and 67 VI:21 (CTA 5 VI:21).
• Cf. II Sam 5:16 (‫)אלידע‬.
7 Cf. II Sam 2:8 (‫ת‬0 ‫ ב‬0 ‫)אי‬.
8 Cf. II Sam 11:21 (.(‫ת‬0 ‫ירב‬
‫י‬ Cf. II Sam 4:4; etc. (‫)מסיבשת‬.
— 359 —
Wolff: The PN ‫ ב ע לי ה‬, which means “Yahweh is Baal,” provides evidence

of a syncretism in which Yahweh was worshipped as Baal. See also
MacEaurin.
Albright: The PN ’s ‫ ב ע ל‬$ ‫ א‬and ‫ מריב ב ע ל‬may be survivals of older Ca-
naanite paganism in the time of Saul. However, this point cannot
be pressed because of evidence for Jews bearing names with pagan
theophorous elements in later times. See also Cassuto et al., who
cite the example of the modern name Isidore, whose bearers are
not likely to be devotees of Isis.
Eissfeldt: "Die Jdc 6:32 gegebene Erklarung des Namens [‫‘ ]י ר ב ע ל‬Baal
streite gegen ihm!’ ist ja sicher unzutreffend.” More likely, ‫י ר ב ע ל‬
is a sentence name with a verbal element extolling Baal’s greatness.
“Jedenfalls steht der Trager des Namens zu dem Ba'al in positiver
Beziehung; dieser ist sein G ott.” See also Kapelrud.
Albright: Eissfeldt,s explanation of the PN ‫ י ר ב ע ל‬is correct, and this
was the original name of the Israelite judge. His name was changed
to ‫" גדע ץ‬after he had gained a reputation as an image-destroyer.” 10
The fact th at the father of ‫ י ר ב ע ל‬bears a Yah wist name ‫ אש‬1‫ י‬sug-
gests the possibility that ‫ ב ע ל‬was an appellative of Yahweh, but
this is uncertain.
z. Comments
A consideration of the practices associated with ‫( ב ע ל פעו ר‬see above,
1) may help to identify the god. Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 73-74, has
correctly noted th at the ‫ זבחי מתים‬of Ps 106:28 and the ‫ זבחי אלהיהץ‬of
Num 25:2 are banquets of the deified dead. Those funerary feasts,
coupled with the sexual licentiousness depicted in Num 25, suggest that
the cult of ‫ ב ע ל פעו ר‬was an orgiastic cult of the dead. ‫ ב ע ל פעו ר‬would,
therefore, be more likely to be a chthonic deity than a storm god such
as Baal Hadad. The most obvious identification of ‫ ב ע ל פעו ר‬is with
Chemosh; both gods are associated with Moab, and both fit the require-
ment of the cult th at they be chthonic deities (see W. F. Albright,
BASOR, 90 [1943], 32; and cf. below, 16).
aa. For alternatives to the view th at ‫ ב ע ל זבוב‬is a corruption of ‫ב ע ל זבל‬
(above, q), see below, 11 d-e. Note also Gaston’s interpretation of Bee/.-
Ceflou^ as “Ford of the Temple” (= Baal-shamem = Satan). And see
10 Note the use of ‫ גדע‬in connection with idol-destroying in Deut 7:5 and 12:3.
— 360 —
the attem pt of M. Riemschneider, Ac Ant, IV (1956), 1729‫־‬, to find a

H ittite source for ‫זבוב‬.
bb. The many indirect OT allusions to Baal are beyond the scope of
the present discussion, but a few remarks on the golden calf (Exod 32)
and the calves of Jeroboam (I Kings 12) may be in order. Gressmann, Mose,
p. 207, long ago commented: “Nach der einstimmigen Uberlieferung aller
Religionen im vorderen Orient ist der Stier das A ttribut des Gewitter-
gottes, der die Vegetation verursacht. . . . So sind Bauernreligion, Stier-
dienst und Baal-Kultus fur die Kanaaniter untrennbar verbunden.”
cc. Many scholars have argued th at the calf-images were symbols either
of Baal or of the syncretized Yahweh as Baal (e.g., Ostbom, Yahweh
and Baal, pp. 3-35; Gray, LC, p. 150; and Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal,
pp. 20-21). This notion gained additional support from the striking Ug.
parallel to the account of the destruction of the golden calf (Exod 32:20)
in UT 49 11:33-35 (CTA 6 11:33-35); see F. Fensham, IE J, XVI (1966),
191-193; and S. Eoewenstamm, Bib, XL/VIII (1967), 490.
dd. Against the notion th at the calves were Baal-images, some scholars
consider them to represent Yahweh as El. A further possibility is that
the calves were associated with Yahweh before he came into contact
with Baal. See Eissfeldt’s advocacy of this view, according to which
the “Stierbild” was an ancient “kultisch-kriegerisches Emblem” which
suffered the ignoble fate of being branded idolatrous because of its later
association with Baal [ZAW, E V III [1940-1941], 190-215 [= Kleine
Schriften II, pp. 282-305]); see also F. Eakin, JB L , EXXXIV (1965), 412.
10
a. Dgn II ‫ ת ן‬, pH
Cf. g n ‫בי ת)־( תון‬
9:3 {CTA 36:3); 69:2; 70:2; 77:14 (CTA 24:14); 609 rev:4; 613:21; etc.
b. Notes
The god Dgn is as enigmatic in character as he is well-attested. At
Ugarit, he plays almost no role in the myths (a minor part in the Nikkal
poem [UT 77:14] excepted), but two dedicatory stelae (UT 69:2; 70:2)
and three offering lists (UT 9:3; 609 rev :4; 613:21) attest to his impor-
tance in the cult. Although many scholars relate the DN to ‫דגן‬, “grain,”
the etymology is far from certain; for surveys of various opinions, see
— 361 —
Mulder, Goden, pp. 71-75; Pope, Syrien, pp. 276-278; Gese, AUsyrien,
pp. 107-113; and Ringgren, T W A T II, col. 148. F. J. Montalbano, CBQ,
X III (1951), 381-397, claims th at Dagan was a Mesopotamian weather
god who was taken into the Canaanite pantheon as a grain god; but
J. Healey, J N S L , V (1977), 43-51, amasses considerable evidence to
show th at Dagan was connected to the funerary cults of Mesopotamia
and Ugarit (note the earlier equation of Dagan with Mot made by F.
D0kkegaard, StTheol, V III [1954], 69-72).
c. The epithet of Baal, bn dgn, only compounds the difficulties, since Baal
is generally assumed to be the son of El. Du Mesnil du Buisson, Etudes,
p. 49; and van Zijl, Baal, pp. 337-339, suggest th at it is not physical
sonship th at is reflected in the epithet, but the character of Baal. Van
Zijl even asserts th at it is only a logical deduction, rather than an es-
tablished fact, th at Baal is a son of El. But see, e.g., Cross, CM HE,
p. 15; and Gese, Altsyrien, pp. 75-76, n. 96. Van Zijl further suggests
th at the confusion ,‘reflects the variability of the pantheon,” in line with
Kapelrud’s (B R S T , pp. 52-57) notion th at Baal’s descent from El is a
secondary development at Ugarit. Pope, E U T, p. 47, n. 95; and Gese
appeal to Philo of Byblos for solutions to the problem. Finally, J. Fon-
tenrose, Oriens, X (1957), 277-279, argues for the equation of El and
Dagan, despite their separate occurrences in the offering lists.
d. Bibliography
J. Fontenrose, Oriens, X (1957), 277-279.
M. Delcor, FT , X IV (1964), 136-154.
Albright, Yahweh, p. 186.
M. Dahood, Or, X X X I X (1970), 376 (cf. R SP I, II 207).
Gese, AUsyrien, pp. 107-113.
Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, pp. 96-97 (Hos 7:14), and 109-112 (Hos 9:1).
Ringgren, T W A T II, cols. 148-151.
e. Gen 27:28
Albright: The words for “grain” (pfT) and “wine” (‫ )תירש‬are derived
from Canaanite DN’s, although these derivations do not indicate
th a t the Israelites venerated the deities.
Dahood: In this v. is the Canaanite god D agan.1
1 See above, 5 d, for Dahood’s translation and interpretation of Gen 27:28.
— 362 —
f. Hos 7:14
Dahood,Kuhnigk: In this v. ‫ דגן‬is the Canaanite god Dagan.
g. Hos 9:1
Kuhnigk: In this v. ‫ דגן‬is the Canaanite god Dagan.
h. Judg 16:23; I Sam 5:2-5, 7; I Chron10:10

‫ דגון‬is the biblical designation for the god of the Philistines. Note th at
the vocalization differentiates the DN from the common noun F ; see
Gese and Mulder for explanations. Delcor provides a detailed discussion
of the biblical treatm ent of Dagon with a survey of the history of in-
terpretation; see also Ringgren and Mulder. Note especially the general
rejection of the older notion th at I Sam 5:4 provides evidence for an
ichthyomorphic Dagon; see Delcor, Mulder, and Ringgren, but also Fon-
tenrose.
i. Josh 15:41; 19:27

Ringgren: The GN’s ‫ן‬1‫“ בית)"(דג‬bewahren . . . die Erinnerung an die
Verehrung des Dagon.”
j. Comments
Ringgren, T W A T II, cols. 148-151, discerns no DN’s in Gen 27:28
and Hos 7:14. He considers the combination of ‫ דגן‬and ‫( תירש‬and
‫—י צ ה ר‬cf. Albright's claim in Yahweh, p. 186, th at even this term is
derived from a Canaanite DN) natural, so th at Canaanite influence on
the use of these terms in the OT is uncertain.
k. In view of the problematic nature of the deity and the paucity of
evidence concerning his cult, any equation between Ug. dgn and Phi-
listine ‫ דגון‬must remain tenuous.
l. In dissenting from the preceding opinion, there can scarcely be any
doubt th at the Dagan allegedly worshipped by the Philistines was the
ancient deity of the Western Semites who was at home in the area before
and after the brief Philistine domination. (MHP)
11
a. Dbb Cf. ‫ ב ע ל זבוב‬, # ‫ * ד ב ב א‬,‫ביב א שו‬#, ‫ בבי ם‬#

'nt 111:43 (CTA 3 D:43).
— 363 —
b. Notes
Among A nath’s boasts are the following (UT 'n t 111:40-43):
(40) mhst mdd ilm ar I smote the beloved of the gods, Light.
(41) smt 'gl il 'tk I annihilated the divine calf, 'tk.
(42) mhst klbt ilm ist I smote the bitch of the gods, Fire.
(43) kit bt il dbb I destroyed the divine daughter, Dbb.
This interpretation of 1. 43 is not universally accepted. According to
the summary of opinions given by M. Dahood, Bib, L III (1972), 402,
scholars equate Ug. dbb either with BH ‫זבוב‬, “fly,” or with BH ‫בי ב‬$,
“flame.”
c. Bibliography
C. Virolleaud, GLECS, II I (1937-1940), 72.
Cassuto, GA, p. 83.
Kapelrud, B R ST , pp. 60-61.
Gordon, UT, § 19.719.
Pope, Syrien, p. 254.
S. Talmon, Tarbiz, XXXV (1966), 301-303.
F. C. Fensham, Z A W , UXXIX (1967), 361-363.
M. Dahood, Bib, B ill (1972), 402-403.
d. I I Kings 1:2, 3 ,6 , 16
Since Cheyne, Enc. Bib. I, cols. 407-408, many scholars have argued
th at ‫ ב ע ל זבוב‬is a corruption of ‫* ב ע ל זב)ו(ל‬, known from the Ug. texts
(zbl b'l) to mean “ Baal-the-Prince.” Such a corruption could be an ex-
ample of purposeful scribal corruption of a non-Israelite DN. See Kapel-
rud, Pope, and Fensham.
e. Virolleaud, Gordon: The divine title ‫ ב ע ל זבוב‬is comparable to il dbb
in UT ‘n t 111:43.
Fensham: BH ‫ זבוב‬possibly could be derived from Ug. dbb with the mean-
ing “flame.” Thus ‫ ב ע ל זבוב‬could mean “ Baal, the Flame,” which
would comport well with the fire motif of the Elijah stories.
f. Hos 8:6
Dahood: MT ‫ כי״ שבבי ם יהיה עגל שמרון‬should be translated: “For the
bullock of Samaria will turn into flames.” This is evidently an
allusion to UT 'n t 111:40-43, where 'gl is associated with dbb.
g• Amos 7:4
Talmon: A double-barrelled DN (*dbb wist, or the like) may be recon-
structed from UT 'n t 111:42-43. On this basis, MT !‫ ל ר ב באע‬should
— 364 —
be emended to ‫ ל ד ב ב א ש‬, which is the proper name of the destructive

force th at Yahweh calls down against the ‫ תהו□ רבה‬.
h. Job 18:5; Sir 8:10; 45:19
Cassuto, Talmon: 1‫ שביב אש‬is related to the Ug. DN(’s).
Dahood: The phrase 1‫ שביב אש‬shows th at when UT 'n t 111:42-43 balances
dbb and 1st, the poet breaks up a composite expression. The paral-
lelism ‫אור‬//‫ ו‬1‫ שביב אע‬in Job 18:5 confirms the reading ar, “Light,”
in UT 'n t 111:40, and supports the equation dbb — ‫ שביב‬, “flame.”
i. Comments
Dahood may be right th at ‫ שביב אעזו‬supports the claim th at dbb
and ist are a stereotyped pair which has been broken up in UT 'n t III:
42-43. The Ug. order, however, is the reverse of the Heb., and the evi-
dence is scanty.
j. Talmon’s interpretation of Amos 7:4 seems rather forced, and it
runs into phonetic difficulties in equating Ug. d with Heb. ‫ ד‬. For other
recent discussions of Amos 7:4, see D. Hillers, CBQ, XXVI (1964), 221-
225; and J. Limburg, CBQ, XXXV (1973), 346-349.
12
a. Hm Cf. GN‫׳‬s‫ח)ו(ר)ו(נים‬, ‫חורן בית)־(ח)ו(ר)ו(ן‬,

Cf. p n p n
127:55 (CTA 16 VI:55); 607:58, 61, 67; 608:6, 13; etc.
Cf. PN hm: 2078:14.
Cf.PN bn hm: 322 VI:1 (CTA 102 AVI:1);2087:13.
b. Notes
The principal attestations of the chthonic deity H m in Ug. are in a curse
formula (UT 127:55; restored in UT 137:7 [CTA 2 1:7]) and in the two
snake-bite texts (UT 607 and 608). On the god in general, see W. F.
Albright, A JS L , L III (1936), 1-12; C. Virolleaud, R ES, 1937, pp. 36-41;
J. Gray, JN E S , V III (1949), 27-34, and LC2, pp. 178-179; Dahood,
Deities, pp. 82-83; Pope, Syrien, pp. 288-289; A. Caquot, Syria, XLVI
(1969), 241-254; Gese, Altsyrien, pp. 145-146; and P. Xella, A I ON,
X X X II (1972), 271-286. For Eg. evidence, see, in addition, W. F. Al-
bright, BASOR, 84 (1941), 7-12; G. Posener, JN E S , IV (1945), 240-
242; V. Leibovitz, Erlr, III (1954), 46-50; and Stadelmann, Gottheiten,
pp. 76-83.
— 365
c. Bibliography
B. Maisler, J N E S , X (1951), 265-267.
IyOewenstamm, EB II, pp. 73-75.
Dahood, Deities, pp. 82-83.
IyOew enstam m , E B I I I , pp. 285 an d 300-301.
Jacob, RS, p. 107.
Z. Kallai and H. Tadmor, E rlr, IX (1969), 138-147.
d. josh 10:10,11; 16:3,5; 18:13; e tc .(‫ף בית]־[ח]ו[רנו[ן‬

Gese: “Der palastinische Ortsname des Alten Testaments Beth Horon
lasst sich in Analogie zu Beth Schemesch, Beth Anath nur als Ort
einer urspriinglichen H oronverehrung deuten” (this is the commonly
held opinion; see the treatm ent of the GN, with bibliography, by
IyOewenstamm, E B II).
Maisler, Eoewenstamm (EB II), Dahood, and Kallai and Tadmor: An
eighth-century ostracon from Tell Qasile mentions p n ‫ בי ת‬, but it
is not clear whether it refers to the biblical GN or to a Horon temple
elsewhere (probably in the vicinity of Yavneh).
Jacob: Because Horon is already attested in 19th-century Eg. sources,
‘Ton peut se demander si la divinite qui figure dans les localites
de Beth Horon . . . remonte a des souvenirs cananeens ou a des
influences exercees par l’Egypte.”
e. Isa 15:5; Jer 48:3, 5, 34 (‫)ח]ו[ר]ו[נים‬

IyOewenstamm (EB III): The meaning of this GN is not entirely clear.
It is usually derived from hot, “p it,” or from hawr, “valley” ; but
it should be analyzed as the DN ‫ ח)ו(ר)ו(ן‬4 ‫ ־‬the locative ending CP_-.
f. Ezek 47:16, 18 (pin)

Pope: “Die urspriingliche Form des semit. Namens des H[drdn] war
Hawr an, wie der Name der Landschaft ostlich des Jordan.” On
the vocalization of the DN, see also Albright.1
1 On the attestation of Beth Horon in the Amarna letters, see Albright, Yahweh, pp. 120-121; and
Z. Kallai and H. Tadmor, E r l r , IX (1969), 138-147 (with a discussion of the cuneiform writing of the DN).
— 366 —
g. I Chron 2:46 (pn)

Iyoewenstamm (EB III): Although various interpretations of this PN
have been offered, the I,X X Luc transcription Q qov supports the as-
sociation of the PN with the DN hordn.
h. Comments
Note also the suggestion th at ‫( ב ע ל ברית‬Judg 8:33; 9:4) is an hypos-
tasis of Hrn\ see Albright, A R B , pp. 80-81; Pope, Syrien, pp. 288-289;
and see above, 9 n.
13
a. Yw ‫יהרה ! ן‬
'wt pi. X : IV :14 (CTA 1 IV: 14).
b. Notes
This problematic 1. reads (according to Gordon, UT, p. 256): s m . bny .
y w .il[ ]. Herdner, CTA, p. 4, n. 3, claims th at the reading yw
is certain, and denies the possibility of the reading yr (Akk. dru, “spawn")
proposed by Albright, Stone Age, p. 197.
c. Bibliography
R. Dussaud, C R A IB L, 1940, p. 370.
Murtonen, Divine Names, pp. 90-92.
R. Dussaud, Syria, XX XIV (1957), 237.
E. MacDaurin, VT, X II (1962), 449-450.
Gordon, UT, § 19.1084.
Aistleitner, Worterbuch, no. 1151.
d. Passim
Dussaud: Yw should be identified with 1‫( יהרה‬cf.Gordonand Aistleitner).
Moreover, certain biblical passages (e.g., Deut 32:8ff.)depict Yahweh
as E l’s son.
Murtonen: Yw is a variant or epithet of Ym/D\ The interchangeable
PN ’s ‫ אביה‬and ‫( אבים‬on which see below, 15 zz) “would seem to
show th at among the Israelites . . . there were people who regarded
these two deities as identical.”1
1 Subsequent discussion has been extensive, with evidence adduced from the now-discredited Negebite
hypothesis and from various onomastica.
— 367 —
MacLaurin: ‫ ים‬was the original form of the DN which developed via

Yw to ‫ ■יהרה‬Also, ‫ אל הי ם‬is a composite formed of ‫ א לו ה‬+ ‫י ם‬, “the
god Yam.”
e. Comments
Most commentators reject the equation of Yw with ‫יהוה‬. According
to J. Gray, J N E S , X II (1953), 278-283, “Dussaud’s theory of the Ca-
naanite origin of Jahweh and the mention of the deity in the Ras Shamra
texts rests on the flimsiest of textual bases.” Dahood, Deities, pp. 92-93,
claims th at “Yahweh cannot linguistically be derived from yw”; for the
arguments on which this claim is based, see de Vaux, Davies FS, p. 53.
Other parallels to Yw have been sought, especially in Phoen. Teum
(Eusebius, Praep. Evan., I 9:21); cf. Eissfeldt, Sanchunjaton, pp. 32-35;
J. Gray, JN E S , X II (1953), 278-283; Mulder, Goden, pp. 89-90; Pope,
Syrien, pp. 291-292; and Oldenburg, Conflict, pp. 126 and 171.
14
a. Yihn Cf. GN’s ‫באר ל חי ראי‬, ‫בית לח ם‬

Cf. pn ‫מתושלח‬
49 1:20 (CTA 2 1:48).
Cf. PN ypln bn ylhn: 80 1:8 (CTA 85 1:8).
b. Notes
Van Seims, Vriezen FS, considers Lah to have been “an ancient Canaanite
god of vital sap and vigour as manifestated (sic) in trees near a source
or well,” whose cult was “already on the wane in the 14th century.”
The DN was also pronounced lahay, Vhi, and yalhan. Thus the phrase
yd' ylhn in UT 49 1:20 breaks down into the epithet yd' and the DN
ylhn, who is elsewhere called lah. In the PN ypln bn ylhn, the last term
is also probably the DN.
c. Bibliography
Van Seims, Vriezen FS.
d. Gen 5:21, 22, 25, 26, 27

Van Seims: The PN ‫ מתושלח‬should be understood as “man of Lah,”
a name formed analogously to th at of ‫( מתו^זאל‬Gen 4:18), “man
of god/El.”
368 —
e. Gen 16:14; 24:62; 25:11

Van Seims: In the GN ‫ ב א ר ל חי ראי‬, the middle term must be taken as
a whole and related to the god Lah through the association of the
roots LH H and L H Y . This connection is supported by the deri-
vation of ‫ ראי‬from the root R W Y known in Arab., “to be flourishing
and fresh, luxuriant, juicy, succulent or sappy, by reason of plen-
tiful irrigation,” a root which Arab, lexicographers tended to con-
fuse with R ’Y.
t. Gen 35:19; 48:7; Josh 19:15; Judg 12:8, 10; etc.
Van Seims: The original meaning of both GN’s ‫ בית לח ם‬was “house,
sanctuary, of the god lehem” {— lah + mimation).
g. Comments
There is no objection to taking ylhn as a component of a double-
barrelled DN. The name yd* ylhn could mean “knowing, understanding”
(see Driver, CML, p. I l l ; Gordon, UT, § 19.1368; and Grondahl, P TU ,
p. 155). Thus van Selms’s interpretations of both the Ug. and Heb. ex-
amples are unconvincing. On ‫זלח‬2‫ מ ת ר‬, see below, 29 e.
h. In yd' ylhn both elements appear to be verbs, and the context sug-
gests th at the “root” of the second is LH N , meaning “perform, func-
tion,” or the like. The concern of the context is th at the new replacement
for the defunct Baal will know how and be able to perform adequately
in the vital function of providing water to sustain life. In a sense the
rain of Baal and the irrigation waters of Htr which fertilize the earth
could be seen as semen, like the ‫ ל ח‬, “juice,” of Moses unabated at the
age of six score years (Deut 34:7), but it seems doubtful th at Ug. ylhn
has anything to do with this conceit. W. F. Albright, BASOR, 94 (1944),
32-35, first proposed the connection of Moses’ sexual succulence with
Ug. slh construed as a causative of LH H in UT 2 Aqht VI :18 (CTA 17
V I:18), waslhk, but later changed his mind and acceded to Ginsberg’s
view th at the root here is simply §LH , “send” (see A N E T , p. 151). Still,
the effort to find Ih in the sense of vital juice elsewhere in Ug. and the
Bible persists; cf. Pope, Job3, pp. 47 and 215. (MHP)
15
a. Y m !‫ ן‬Nhr // (‫ ימ)ים‬// (‫ים‬/‫נהר)ות‬
cf. p n ’s ‫ א בי ם‬,‫י מו א ל‬
Passim.
Cf. PN ymil: 322 V:4 (CTA 102 A V:4); 1039:3.
— 369 —
b. Notes
Ym is the deified sea; his complete title is Zbl Y m Tpt Nhr (see W. F.
Albright, JPOS, XVI [1936], 17-21; and S. Loewenstamm, E rlr, IX
[1969], 96-101). Some early interpreters, such as H. Bauer, Z A W , L I
(1933), 92; and Nielsen, R § Mythologie, pp. 28-30, identified Y m as
“day.” While th at view is now generally rejected, J. de Moor, UF, II
(1970) , 193 and 201, says th at alongside Ym , “Sea,” there is a goddess
named Ym, “Daylight” (UT 51 VII:55; frag.: 8 [CTA 4 VII:55; 8:8]).
c. Over thirty years before the excavations at Ugarit began, Gunkel, Schof-
fung und Chaos, isolated remnants of an OT “Chaosmythus” using paral-
lels with Enuma Elish. The publication of UT 68 (CTA 2 IV), which
depicts Baal’s battle with Ym, added a new dimension to the discussion.
Gunlcel’s assertion th a t the battle between Yahweh and the forces of
chaos was cosmogonic, like Marduk’s encounter with Tiamat, has been
called into question because of the absence of any clear reference to
creation in UT 68. Note, however, Caquot’s collection of suggestions
arguing for the presence of creation in UT 68 (TOM E, pp. 114-117).
d. Questions related to this debate include the following: Can creation be
conceived at all in terms of a Chaoskampf, or should it be limited by
definition to a concern with ultim ate origins? Does the OT actually
attest a Chaoskampf of Yahweh with the Sea, or has Israel simply as-
sumed some of the mythological imagery in order to describe certain
historical and/or cultic experiences? If the latter is the case, at what
stage and in what role does the ancient Near Eastern creation-battle
mythology enter the Israelite tradition? In addition to the discussion
of Rummel (see above, I I I 1) and the bibliography cited below, note
also the comments of D. Neiman, JN E S , X X V III (1969), 243-249. On
most of the following verses, Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, and Wen-
sinck, Ocean, should be consulted, although, in general, only post-
Ugaritic scholarship is cited below.
e. Bibliography
Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, pp. 29-30 (Exod 15:1; etc.; Isa 51:9-10; Pss 74:
13-15; 89:10; 114:3, 5; Job 26:12).
J. Montgomery, JAO S, LV (1935), 269-272.
C. Virolleaud, Syria, XVI (1935), 39.
T. H. Gaster, Iraq, IV (1937), 21-32 (Hab 3:8; Ps 93:3-4).
U. Cassuto, Keneset, V III (1943), 121-142 [ = Cassuto, Literatures, pp. 62-
90; = Cassuto, Studies II, pp. 69-109].
— 370 —
Patton, CP Psalms, p. 27.

G. R. Driver, J T S , X LV II (1946), 156-157.
Leslie, Psalms, pp. 82 (Ps 98:7-8), and 189 (Ps 24:2).
Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, pp. 11-13.
J. McKenzie, Th Studies, X I (1950), 275-282.
Murtonen, Divine Names, pp. 90-92.
Eissfeldt, Pedersen FS, pp. 76-84 [— Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften III,
pp. 256-264] (Ps 74:13-15; Job 3:8; 7:12).
Johnson, Kingship, pp. 57-58.
H. May, JB L , LXXIV (1955), 9-21.
P. Grelot, RH R, CXLIX (1956), 46.
Loewenstamm, E B III, pp. 700-701 (Gen 46:10; etc.).
Reymond, L'eau, pp. 182-198.
Kaiser, Meeres, pp. 130-134 (Exod 15:1; etc.), and 140-159 (Isa 51:9-10;
Ps 89:10; Job 26:12).
M. Dahood, JB L , LX X X (1961), 270-271 (Job 7:12).
Gaster, Thespis2, pp. 137-153 (Isa 51:9-10; Nah 1:4; Hab 3:8; Pss 74:
13-15; 89:10; 93:3-4; Job 7:12; 26:12).
Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal, pp. 58-67 (Exod 15:1; etc.; Ps 74:13-15),
and 82-84 (Hab 3:8; Ps 89:10).
M. Dahood, Bib, XLVI (1965), 319 (Isa 57:20).
Gordon, UT, § 19.1106.
f. Lipinski, Royaute de Yahwe, pp. 122-135 (Isa 51:9-10; Jer 5:22; Nah 1:4;
Hab 3:8; Pss 74:13-15; 89:10; 93:3-4; Job 9:8; 26:12; 38:8).
Pope, Syrien, pp. 289-291 (Jonah 2:4).
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 279-280 (Pss 46:3-5; 89:10).
Schmidt, KGUD, pp. 43-53 (Isa 51:9-10; Nah 1:4; Hab 3:8; Pss 74:13-15;
77:20; 89:10; 93:3-4), and 77-78 (Ps 93:3-4).
H. Donner, Z A W , LX X IX (1967), 338-344.
Lipinski, Poeme royal, pp. 52-53 (Ps 89:26).
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 205-206 (Ps 74:13-15), 233 (Ps 77:20), and 317
(Ps 89:26).
van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy, pp. 2, 33-37, and 57.
S. Loewenstamm, E rlr, IX (1969), 96-101 (Isa 17:12; 51:9-10; 59:19;
Jer 5:22; Pss 46:3-5; 65:8; 66:6; 74:13-15; Job 7:12; 26:12).
Tromp, Death, pp. 57-66.
M. Wakeman, JB L , L X X X V III (1969), 313-320 (Isa 51:9-10; Job 7:12).
Sabottka, Zephanja, p. 71.
— 371 —
25
J. Barr, JS S , X V III (1973), 23-24.

Pope, Jofr, pp. 26, 30 (Job 3:8), 60-61 (Job 7:12), 70 (Job 9:8), 180, 185
(Job 26:12), and 293 (Job 38:8).
Wakeman, God’s Battle, pp. 92-101 (Isa 50:2; 51:9-10; Hab 3:8;
Pss 66:6; 68:31; 74:13-15; 89:26; 93:3-4; 98:7-8; Job 3:8; 7:12;
14:11; 26:12).
A. Eelievre, RH PR, LVI (1976), 253-275.
Pope, Song, p. 673 (Jonah 2:4; Cant 8:7).
g. Exod 15:1, 4, 10, 21

Eissfeldt: The Exodus tradition was not originally associated with the
creation m yth: “ ...e s ist nicht das Hinzutreten des Schopfungs-
my thus, was die Auszugstradition ins Mythische erhoben hat, viel-
mehr liegt hier ein selbstandiger Mythus vor, wobei die Frage offen
bleiben mag, ob im letzten Grunde doch beide mythischen Tra-
ditionen Ableger eines Urmythus darstellen.”
Cassuto: The Song at the Sea uses many components of the epic of Yah-
weh’s cosmogonic battle with Sea. The Song represents a continu-
ation of the literary tradition of th at epic, using the epic to depict
God bending the Sea to his will in order to save Israel from its en-
emies. See also Kaiser and Habel.
Cross: "There is no question here of a mythological combat between
two gods. Yahweh defeats historical, human e n em ie s....” The
association of the Exodus traditions with the cosmogonic battle
with Sea is a later development.
h. Josh 5:1
Cross: "Yahweh dried up River as he had S e a .... The cultic identity
of River and Sea, of course, lies close at hand in Canaanite m yth
in which Prince Sea and Judge River are formulaic pairs.”
i. Isa 17:12
Montgomery: "Mythological language is inserted into the historical
prospect with an inimitable alliteration and syntax—like instances
in the Ras Shamra te x ts .. . . ”
Cassuto: In this allusion to the m yth of combat between God and Sea,
the enemies of God are likened to the rebellious sea. See also Rey-
mond and Loewenstamm.
— 372 —
j. Isa 19:5
Cassuto: The reference to the Nile is borrowed from the m yth of God’s
battle ■with Sea, in which God dries up the ‫נהרות‬, the waters th at
come from Sea’s territory; cf. Job 14:11 (below, uu).
k. Isa 44:27
Johnson: ‫ נהר‬may be used here to denote the currents of the primeval
ocean, as in Ug. See also Cassuto and May.
l. Isa 50:2
Cassuto: This v. is related to the m yth of God’s combat with Sea.
Wakeman: “The pair [‫ ים‬// ‫ ] נהרות‬retains enough of its mythic con-
notations to be expressive in proof of God’s strength.”
m. Isa 51:9-10
Lipihski: “ ...l e prophete demande a Dieu de renouveler les prouesses
accomplies a l’origine des temps, de faire montre une nouvelle fois
de sa puissance, qui s’est manifestee contre Rahab, Tannin, Yam,
et Tehom rabbd. Mais c’est l’Egypte, le prototype de l’ennemi na-
tional, qui se substitue aux monstres du chaos.” See also Cassuto,
McKenzie, May, Grelot, Gaster, Loewenstamm, and Wakeman.
Schmidt: “ ...d a s Volksklagelied Jes 51:9-15 erinnert zu Beginn an
Jahwes Ringen m it Meer und Drachen, ohne in ihm einen Schop-
fungsakt zu sehen.”
Wakeman: The statements about ‫“ ים‬appear to be naturalistic reinter-
pretations of the mythological references.”
Belie vre: “Bref, Es 51,9-16 nous parait typique de cette double per-
spective: la redemption et l’histoire dans des allusions au passage
de la Mer Rouge; la creation et la mythologie dans le theme du
combat contre les gros monstres prim ordiaux. . . . Be mythe paien
des origines va apporter a la theologie israelite du salut dans l’his-
toire une conviction nouvelle: celui qui fait sortir Israel hors de
l’Egypte est aussi le Createur.” See also Eissfeldt, Reymond, Kaiser,
and Cross.
n. Isa 57:20
Virolleaud: ‫ כים נגרש‬finds a parallel in grs ym of UT 68:12 (CTA 2 IV :12),
“Drive out Yamm!” The root ‫“ גרש‬exprime l’agitation de la mer.”
See also Montgomery and Gordon.
Dahood: The “driven Sea” of the verse might allude to the banishment
of Yamm described in UT 68:12.
— 373 —
o. Isa 59:19
Loewenstamm: ‫ נהר‬symbolizes the power of God’s enemy, a motif derived
from the myth of God’s battle against ‫ ים‬// ‫ נ ה ר‬. Since Ym/U'' can
appear alone (in UT 1003 as well as in the OT), it is not surprising
th at ‫ נהר‬can as well.
p. Jer 5:22
Cassuto: This v. refers to the conflict between Yahweh and Sea. See
also Reymond, Lipinski, and Loewenstamm.
q. Jer 46:7-8
May: “Although the imagery of the inundation of the Nile is present,
the ,rivers’ . . . suggest the insurgent waters, and the figure becomes
th at of creation completely engulfed by the w a ters.. . . ”
r. Jer 51:36
Cassuto: The image applied to Babylon in this v. is drawn from the
m yth of the battle between Yahweh and Sea.
s. Ezek 26:17
van Dijk: MT ‫ נושבת מימים‬should be read ‫ נשבת מי מ״ ם‬, and the resulting
‫ נשבת מי מ״ ם העיר ה ה ל ל ה אשר היהת חזקה בים‬should be translated:
“Are you shattered by the Sea, O city renowned, th at was mightier
than the Sea.” As in Canaanite literature the god Sea was feared
for his strength, so Tyre was once stronger than the sea, but now
is broken by it.1
t. Ezek 27:26
May: Here “we have the Mediterranean, but the waters of the Mediter-
ranean belonged to the primordial deep.”
Tromp: In the related v. Ezek 27:34, the waters are to be associated
with Mot rather than Yamm: “The Tyrians were swallowed up by
the unfathomable throat of Death.”
u. Jonah 2:4
Johnson: The parallelism of ‫ ימים‬and ‫ נהר‬in this v. suggests th at ‫נהר‬
is used here in the special sense of the current of the primordial
ocean.
1 Van Dijk also suggests other occurrences of ‫ ימים‬misconstrued as plural: Ezek 27:34; Jonah 2:4;
Nah 3:8; Ps 8:9; etc.; he does not mention the DN in these contexts.
— 374 —
Pope: The reference is not to the waters of Sea/River, but to those of

Death and the Netherworld. See also Tromp.
v. Nah 1:4
Cassuto: Here is a clear allusion to Yahweh’s battle with Sea. See also
May, Reymond, Lipinski, Schmidt, and Cross.
Gaster: “ . . . i t is probable th at the hymn was originally adapted to
some other Canaanite god, such as Baal, lord of the storm. In it,
allusion was m ade. . . to his conquest of the Dragon. . . , since this
provided an excellent ‘object lesson’ against Nineveh.”
w. Hab 3:8
Gaster: “The picture of Israel’s god riding forth to combat conjures up
th at of his primordial combat with the Dragon.” See also Cassuto,
May, Reymond, Habel, Schmidt, and Cross.
Albright: m t ‫ הבנהרים ח רה יהוה אם בנהרים א פ ך א ם־ בי ם ע ב ר ת ך‬should
be emended and translated as follows:
‫ הבנהו ם חרה יהוה‬Is Thy wrath, O Yahweh, against
River—
‫ > ה <בנהר־ ם >חרה< א פ ך‬Against River is Thy wrath <directed?>—
1>‫ > א ם בים ע ב ר ת ך‬Or is Thine anger against Sea?
Lipinski: “ .. .Yahweh semble s’irriter contre Yam et Nehdrot, mais ce
sont bien les nations qu’il pietine, allant au secours de son peuple
et de son oint (Hab 3:12-13).”
Wakeman: Although ‫ ים‬and ‫ נהר‬appear frequently as a poetic cliche,
only Hab 3:8 “reflects the m yth directly, mentioning the wrath of
God and his preparations for battle, and here the pair is broken
and in v e rte d ....”
x. Hab 3:9
Cassuto: A reference to Tpt Nhr is found here.
y. Hab 3:15
Cassuto: Yahweh’s trampling the defeated Sea is one of the components
of the battle myth; cf. Enuma Elish IV:104, 118.
Albright: MT ‫ ד ר כ ת בים סוסיך חמר מים רבים‬should be emended and trans-
lated as follows:
‫ > ה <דרכת בים סוסיך‬Thou didst make Thy horses trample
Sea,
‫< > כ<חמר)?( מים רבים‬L,ike> the roaring of many waters!
— 375 —
May: ,‘The ,many waters' a r e ... here associated with the ,rivers’ and
the ,sea’ which Yahweh fights and conquers, even as Baal struggled
with Sea and River in the Ugaritic m yth.”
z. Zeph 2:4-5
Sabottka: Note the use of !‫ גרע‬here, as in UT 68:12 (CTA 2 IV:12) and
Isa 57:20 (see above, n): the v. may allude to the banishment of
the sea-god Yamm.
aa. Zech 10:11

Cassuto: This v. alludes to Sea’s rebellion against God; note especially
the use of ‫)גאון( גאה‬, which is characteristic of the battle m yth (cf.
Pss 46:4 [below, dd]; 89:10 [below, kk]; and Job 38:11).
bb. Ps 24:2
May: ,,The passage contains an echo of the struggle of Yahweh with the
sea and rivers.” See also Montgomery and Beslie.
Believre: An ancient connection between the Temple and God’s dominion
over Sea is expressed in Ps 24, “ou le temps de l’affrontement entre
YHW H et la Mer est depasse; elle est definitivement soumise, au
point que la terre qui y flotte est stable. A ce haut royal est jointe
la procession cultuelle de l’arche entrant a Jerusalem au milieu des
acclamations YHWH-roi (vts 7-10).”
cc. Ps 33:7
Cassuto: This v. may allude to th at aspect of Yahweh’s battle with Sea
in which the victorious Yahweh imposes a boundary on the van-
quished Sea. See also Reymond.
dd. Ps 46:3-5
Montgomery: ,,The indeterminate noun, ,river’, whose ,channels rejoice
the city of G o d '... may be the River of our m yth [UT 68].”
Cassuto: This v. alludes to Yahweh’s battle with Sea; the ‫ גאות‬of v. 4
is Sea’s. See also Boewenstamm.
Dahood: The use of ‫ ל ב‬with ‫ ב ל ב ימים( ים‬, v. 3) may reflect an origin in
the personified Sea of Canaanite myth. ‫ ימים‬is either the plural of
majesty or ‫ ים‬+ enclitic ‫ ;־ם‬the suffixes of v. 4 suggest a singular
antecedent.
Believre: Here “la mythologie est au service de l’histoire.” The menacing
armies (probably Assyrian) are described “sous les traits legendaires
des eaux de la Mer.” As for v. 5: "Peut-etre aussi le psalmiste ose-
— 376 —
t-il un nouveau renversement lorsqu’il evoque Nahar, ‘le Fleuve’.

On se souvient que c’est l’un des synonymes de Yam, ‘la Mer’,”
who is Baal’s adversary at Ugarit. “E t void que, a Jerusalem
conquise par YHWH: Nahar \ ses bras font sourire la ville de Dieu.”
ee. Ps 65:8
Cassuto: The racket made by Sea is one of the components of the battle
myth.
Loewenstamm: This v. should be compared with Ug. texts about Ym.
ff. Ps 66:6
Eoewenstamm: While ‫ ים‬parallels ‫ נהר‬here, the terms are not equivalent
as in Ug.: “Sea” designates the Red Sea, and “River” the Jordan
River. Nevertheless, the traditions of the cleaving of the Red Sea
and the splitting of the Jordan developed from the m yth of the
battle with Ym/Nhr.
Cross: The parallelism attests the “cultic identity of River and Sea,”
the basis of which is in Canaanite myth.
Wakeman: We "m ust consider the possibility of a personality” here.
“The punishment of the monster has been translated into terms
appropriate to a body of water.”
Lelievre: “Mer Rouge et Jourdain sont les lieux et les moments exem-
plaires des delivrances de Dieu qui lutte toujours contre les ennemis
contemporains qui menacent son peuple (vts 7 et 5 ) . . . . ”
gg. Ps 68:31
Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 66-68, emends MT ‫ כעגלי עמים‬to
‫ ב ע לי עם ים‬. He then translates the v.: “ [Jahwe] hat gescholten die Tiere
des Schilfes, die Versammlung der Gotter, die Volksgebieter. Das auf-
gewiihlte Meer machte er lauterer als S ilb er.. . . ” He finds many of the
components of the “Chaosmythus” here. See also Wakeman.
hh. Ps 74:13-15
Eissfeldt: ‫ים‬, ‫ תנינים‬, and ‫ לויתן‬are certainly “Namen des Chaosunge-
heuers.” See also Cassuto, Patton, Grelot, Reymond, Jacob, Gaster,
and Loewenstamm.
McKenzie: The reference here is to creation, not the Red Sea, but there is
no Heb. creation myth, only the assimilation of mythological language.
May: “Here the dividing of the sea (the Red Sea deliverance?) is the
breaking of the heads of dragons and the defeat of the Ee via than.”
See also Patton.
— 377 —
Habel: There is no reference to an independent mythological battle be-

tween Yahweh and a dragon here, but the application of Canaanite
imagery to the revelation of Yahweh’s kingship in the Exodus battle.
Eipinski: These vv. “considere la victoire mythologique comme un gage
de la victoire sur les ennemis historiques d ’Israel.” Like Baal (UT
68) and Marduk (Enuma Elish IV :37), Yahweh smashes the head
of his adversary. See also Dahood.
Schmidt: “Der Ubergang vom Geschehen auf der Erde fiber des Meeres-
kampf zur Schopfung im Ps 74:12ff. wie die Gesamtkomposition von
Ps 89 m it dem haiifigen Themenwechsel deuten doch wohl auf eine
Traditionsmischung hin.”
ii. Donner: "Terminologischen Ubereinstimmungen” are not sufficient basis
for Eissfeldt’s identification of ‫ ים‬as the DN in Ps 74:13. The most
one can say is th a t Syria-Palestine possessed a repertoire of myth-
ological motifs, which could be actualized in different ways under
varying conditions. ‘‘Auf dem Wege fiber die kanaanaische Vor-
bevolkerung Palastinas hat Israel aus diesem Repertoire ebenso ge-
schopft, wie es die ugaritischen Mythopoeten des Nordens getan
haben. Darin besteht die Gemeinsamkeit. Sie sachgemass zu in-
terpretieren, ist eine noch nicht erledigte Aufgabe der Alttestament-
ler und Ugaritologen.”
Wakeman: In the ‫ נהרות‬of v. 15, the cosmological reference is combined
with a faint echo of the battle myth. On the other hand, ‫ ים‬in v. 13
is definitely a proper name, to be distinguished from the springs,
brooks, and streams (‫מע ץ‬, ‫ נ ח ל‬, and ‫ )נהרות‬of v. 15.
Lelievre: There is no allusion to the Red Sea here. Rather, these w .
“reprennent plusieurs mythes cananeens: celui de la victoire de
Ba'al contre la Mer, le Dragon, Leviathan; celui du combat de Ba'al
contre Mot; celui du role du dieu supreme phenicien. Contrairement
a ce qui se passe dans d ’autres passages bibliques [e.g. Isa 51], ici
n ’y a pas le souci d ’historiciser le mythe et de le demythiser.”
jj. Ps 77:20
Dahood: In ‫ ים‬we find ‘‘a demythologized allusion to the Canaanite
Sea-god Yamm.”
Cross: In this v. and in the psalm in general, “the creation m yth is fully
combined with the Exodus-Conquest events." See also May and
Schmidt.
Lelievre: Ps 77:17-20 comes from a different poet than the rest of the
psalm: “ .. .il n’y a plus la inoindre allusion aux Egyptiens. II y a
— 378 —
settlement un choc entre Dieu et la Her, un terrible face a face entre

elle et un dieu celeste, dieu de l’Orage. . . . On a nettem ent l’impres-
sion que les vts 17 a 20 ont une origine toute differente des tradi-
tions relatives au passage de la Mer Rouge et que, malgre leur ar-
riere-plan cosmogonique, ils lui ont ete adaptes.”
kk. Ps 89:10
Eissfeldt, Patton, May, Grelot, Reymond, Kaiser, Gaster, Lipinski,
Dahood, Schmidt (see above, hh), Tromp, Cross, Lelievre: ‫ ים‬in this v.
is the mythological Sea.
Habel: “Yahweh, unlike Baal, is the sovereign lord who does not need
the permission of El for his temple theophany. He comes from
His holy ones to conquer the sea (Yam) and destroy Rahab, as the
polemic of Psalm 89:6-11 expresses it.”
11. Ps 89:26
lipinski: MT ‫ ושמתי בים ידו ובנהרות ימינו‬should be emended and trans-
lated as follows:
T ‫ שמת בים‬J ’ai pose sa main sur Yam,
‫ בנהרת ימן‬sa droite sur Neharot.
“Dans le texte original, le v. 26 evoquait le mythe du combat de
Yahwe contre la mer abyssale. On sait en effet que Yam-Nahar
est l’antagoniste de Baal dans les mythes d’Ugarit et qu’il apparait
dans l’Ancien Testament comme l'adversaire cosmique de Yahwe__
Bref, Yahwe garantit a David l’empire sur Yam-Neharot.”
Dahood: Although ‫ ים‬and ‫ נהרות‬are usually identified with the Mediter-
ranean and the Euphrates, respectively, they may well be mythical
terms here.
Wakeman: I t is not necessary to refer to Baal’s conflict with Ytn/Nhr
here: ‫ נהרות‬is fern., and therefore cannot refer to the same “person”
as ‫י ם‬.
Lelievre: We find here “une designation geographique, un endroit oh
peut s'exercer le pouvoir des rois Israelites (cf. Ps 72,8), car YHW H
a vaincu la mer.”
m m . Ps 93:3-4
Montgomery: Ps 93 is a “brief commentary” on the m yth of the rebel-
lion of the waters personified in the Sea and the River (i.e., UT 68).
Gaster: Yahweh is here but a sublimated Baal who annually has to
fight and conquer the lords of sea and river before he can ascend
— 379 —
the throne and reaffirm his dominion over the earth. See also Cas-
suto, Johnson, Reymond, Jacob, Schmidt, Tromp, and Cross.
Ripinski: “Yam, bien qu’ecrit sans article et traite comme le nom propre
de l’antagoniste de Yahwe, est deja en quelque sort depersonnali-
s e .. . . Re my the du triomphe de Yahwe sur le dragon aquatique ne
serait done pas evoque pour lui-meme seulement, mais en raison
surtout de sa valeur typique.” Sea becomes the “type” of all
- Israel's enemies.
Wakeman: Here ‫ ים‬and ‫ נהרות‬are "merely poetic hypostatization.”
Relievre: “YHW H est plus magnifique que ces fleuves et infiniment su-
perieur. Son regne est permanent, fonde sur la victoire des origines,
et lie a l’existence presente du temple et du culte israelite que nous
trouvons, pour la premiere fois, places aux cotes de la mythologie
pour affirmer la royaute de YH W H.”
nn. Ps 95:5
Relievre: God’s kingship is here juxtaposed with his domination of Sea,
as is the case with Baal and Marduk.
oo. Ps 98:7-8
Reslie: The reference here is to Sea, which was formerly the enemy,
but now acclaims Yahweh. See also May and Relievre.
Wakeman: Here ‫ ים‬and ‫ נהרות‬are “merely poetic hypostatization.”
pp. Ps 106:9
Relievre: “YHW H fulmine contre la Mer; elle est maudite et elle seche;
cf. aussi Na 1,4” (see above, v).
qq. Ps 114:3, 5
Cross: Ps 114 shows Israel’s pairing of River and Sea—as in Canaanite
m yth—in the context of the Gilgal cult.
Relievre: “Bien stir, on pourrait avancer que les elements de la nature
designent implicitement les Egyptiens, ou les habitants de Jericho,
ou les sanctuaires cananeens, et qu’il n 'y a la qu’un procede poet-
ique. Mais nous ne pensons pas que ce soit la bonne explication dans
Ps 114 oh l’Egypte n’est plus ennemie, mais seulement le lieu d ’une
migration.” The battle is with Sea, who panics before God. See
also Eissfeldt.
rr. Job 3:8
Eissfeldt, Jacob, Wakeman: MT ‫ יום‬should be emended to ‫י ם‬. This sug-
gestion stems from Gunkel, Schoffung und Chaos, p. 59, n. 1.
— 380 —
Pope: The v. should be translated: "Let the Sea-cursers damn it, Those
skilled to stir Leviathan.” The curse here placed on Sea is paral-
leled by the incantations pronounced by Kothar on the weapons
Baal uses against Yamm.
SS. Job 7:12
McKenzie: “ Recent commentators have seen a clear allusion to the
mythological monster of the Ugaritic texts; the language of Job
is scarcely justified by taking ‘sea’ and ‘serpent’ in the ordinary
sense.” See also Cassuto, Eissfeldt, Reymond, Gaster, Loewenstamm,
Wakeman, and Cross.
Dahood: The imagery of the v. is that of putting a "muzzle” (‫ מ ר‬$ ‫) מ‬
on ‫ ים‬and 2. ‫תנץ‬
Pope: Dahood’s suggestion “does not suit the context.” The imagery
of the v. is th at of setting a "guard” over the Sea and the Dragon.
See also the discussion of Barr.
tt. Job 9:8
Reymond: The v. "qui dit que Dieu foule les ‘hauteurs de la mer’ [‫במתי‬
‫ ]ים‬indique peut-etre par la que, dans sa marche, Dieu ‘ecrase’
les sommets des vagues.”
Lipinski: ‫ במה‬means “back” here; ‫[ במתי ים‬MT ‫ ודורך ע ל " ]במתי‬should
be translated: “lui qui marche sur le dos de la mer.” See also Cas-
suto (who compares Hab 3:15 [see above, w]) and Cross.
Pope: We find here "a reference to the m yth of the victory of Baal over
the sea-god Yamm and the trampling of the body of the fallen foe.”
uu. Job 14:11
Cassuto: This v. refers to Yahweh’s battle with Sea. One aspect of God’s
victory is His drying up of Sea; cf. Isa 19:5 (above, j) and b. Hag.
12a.
Wakeman: Job 14:1 Iff. “may be interpreted in the light of the myth
as follows: As Yam-Nahar was defeated, so a man cannot be roused
.. .from the sleep of death. So let me, like the monster, rest in
Sheol, harmless behind your b a rr ie r....”
vv. Job 26:12
Pope: The v. should be translated: “By his power he quelled the Sea
[‫ ;] רגע הים‬By his cunning he smote Rahab [‫] מחץ רהב‬.” The v. is an
On the notion of “muzzling” the dragon, see also below, 31 d; and 35 e, h.
— 381 —
‘‘appeal to Yahweh’s creative power and his defeat and control of

the boisterous sea.” 3 See also Eissfeldt, Cassuto (who cites b. B.
Bat. 74b), Grelot, Reymond, Kaiser, Gaster, Dipinski, Loewenstamm,
Cross, and Wakenian; contrast the cautionary remarks of Donner
(see above, ii).
ww. Job 38:8
Pope: The v. should be translated: “Who shut the sea within doors when
it came gushing from the womb[?]” This is “an otherwise unknown
motif, the birth of the sea-god and the use of swaddling bands to
restrain the violent infant.” See also Cassuto, McKenzie, Grelot,
Tipinski, and Cross.
xx. Prov 8:29
Cassuto: This setting of impassable boundaries is one of the elements
of God’s victory over Sea.
McKenzie: This v. denotes the imposition of limits on the primeval sea,
as in Isa 51:10 (see above, m) and Job 38:8-11 (see above, ww).
yy. Cant 8:7
May: “The many waters of the great deep and its rivers cannot extin-
guish or overcome [love]. Tike the storm-god himself it remains
unbowed in the battle against its enemy.” See also Reymond.
Pope: “The crucial point here overlooked by May is the reference to
Death [Cant 8:6]. The waters in question are not those represented
by Prince Sea or Chief R iver. . . . The waters are rather those of
Death and the Netherworld.” See also Tromp.
zz. I Kings 14:31; 15:1, 7, 8

Driver: The PN ‫ אבי ם‬signifies “My/a (divine) father (is) Yarn.” “Is
Y m then the name of the god of the day, as Yrh seems to be th at
of the god of the m onth?” However this may be, the ‫ים‬- element
is not to be confused with the -yama ending of the Murashu docu-
ment PN ’s, 4 which is the Neo-Babylonian representation of Yahweh.
‫ אבים‬was changed to ‫( אבי ה‬I Chron 3:10; II Chron 11:20, 22; 12:16;
13:1; etc.), or ‫( אביהו‬II Chron 13:20, 21), in order to eliminate the
Canaanite deity from the name.
3 Note also the parallel use of ‫ מחץ‬here and in Ug. (m h s : UT 67 1:1, 27 [CTA 5 1:1, 27]; 68:9 [CTA
2 IV:9]; 1001 obv:l).
4 Note especially A b iy a m a .
— 382 —
Murtonen: The equation of ‫ אבים‬and (‫‘‘ אביה)ו‬would seem to show that

among the Israelites.. .there were people who regarded these two
deities [‫ ים‬and (1)‫ ]יה‬as identical.” 5
aa. Gen 46:10; Exod 6:15

Driver: The PN ‫ ימואל‬signifies “Yam (is a) god” ; cf. the Ug. PN Ymil.
The PN ‫( נמואל‬Num 26:12; I Chron 4:24) is either a variant or a
tendentious alteration of ‫י מו א ל‬.
ba. Comments
Note Kaiser’s rejection of the emendation of ‫ ם‬1‫ י‬to ‫ ים‬in Job 3:8
(Meeres, p. 145, n. 230a): ‘‘Unter Verweis auf Hi 26:13 bleibe ich gegen
Eissfeldt Hi 3:8 bei der herkommlichen Lesung jom”; so also many com-
mentators (see the discussion of Pope, Job3, p. 30).
cu. Loewenstamm, EB III, pp. 700-701, says th at the L,XX tran-
scription and Masoretic pointing of the PN ’s ‫ ימואל‬and ‫ נמואל‬argue against
Driver’s analysis. W. F. Albright, JPOS, V III (1928), 249, n. 3, seeks
a Minaean source for the name.
da. On ‫ ים‬in Ps 68:23, see below, 35 e, f, h.
16
a. Kmt !‫ז‬2^‫ן כמ‬

607:36; 608:16; 610 A :5.
b. Notes
Thislittle-known deity (on which see Gray, LC, pp. 125-126; Pope,
Syrien, p. 292; and Gese, Altsyrien, pp. 140-141) is attested in Ug. in
the binomials tt wkmt (UT 607:36; 608:16) and 't wkmt (UT 610 A:5).
According to M. Astour, JAO S, UX XXV III (1968), 278, the tt and H
elements, along with Assyrian evidence, suggest th at kmtj'tir\K2 was a
chthonic or infernal god (see also JN E S , X X V II [1968], 20).
c. Bibliography
Gray, LC, pp. 125-126.
5 This notion is bound up with the hypothesis that Ug. Ym = Yw = Heb. Yahweh; see above, 13 d, e.
— 383 —
d. Num 21:29; Judg 11:24; I Kings 11:7, 33; I I Kings 23:13; Jer 48:46
Gray: In Judg 11:24, Jephthah refers to ‫ כמוש‬as the Ammonite god.
This reference implies th at Kemosh and Milcom (the usual desig-
nation of the Ammonite deity) are identical. Along with Milcom
and Shalem, Kemosh is one of the hypostases of 'ttrfVenus. The
god was worshipped in one or another of those hypostases in Pal-
estine and even in Israel in the period of the monarchy. The Mo-
abite composite DN Ashtar-Kemosh suggests th at those two deities,
“if not actually identical, could be assimilated without difficulty.’’
Pope: Kemosh is described as the god/abomination of the Moabites.
His cult was reportedly introduced in Israel by Solomon and wiped
out by Josiah.
e. Comments
The Midrash Teqah Tob, apropos of Num 21:29 and Judg 11:24,
alleges th at Kemosh was worshipped as a black stone in the form of a
woman and goes on to connect her shrine with Mecca, thus identifying
the black stone of the K a'bah with Kemosh. Cf. Pope, Song, p. 314.
(MHP)17
17
a. K nr Cf. ‫מ ו ר‬
Cf. g n ‫כנרות‬
17:10 (CTA 29 rev: 10); 609 obv:9.
b. Notes
Gordon, UT, p. 163, read wnr in UT 17:10, but the Akk. parallel &Gl^ki-
nar-um in RS 20.24:31 (Ug. V, p. 44) allowed him to correct this reading
to k!nr (UT, p. 541). The attestation of a DN knr in Ug. revived the
old dispute over the etymology of the name of the Cyprian King Kinyras,
father of Adonis. J. P. Brown, JS S , X (1965), 197-219, rejects any Se-
mitic origin. Albright, Yahweh, pp. 144, n. 91; and 147; and A. Jirku,
Z A W , UXXII (1960), 69; and FuF, X X X V II (1963), 211, associate
Kinyras with K n r‫׳‬, cf. also Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 59; and M. Dahood,
Bib, XlyVI (1965), 329. Pope, E U T, pp. 53-54, calls this identification
"dubious,” and suggests th at Kinyras is derived from the epithet of El
qn ,rs, “Creator of the E arth ” ; so also Z. Kapera, FO, X III (1971), 131-
142, who has a thorough review of the m atter (although he ignores Pope’s
treatment).
— 384 —
c. The mind and mood altering power of music suffices to explain the div-
inization of the lyre, but the determinative for wood, GlS/ts, between
the divine determinative and the name of the instrument retains touch
with reality. (MHP)
d. Bibliography
A. Jirku, Z A W , L X X II (1960), 69.
A. Jirku, FuF, X X X V II (1963), 211.
e. I Sam 16:16
Jirku: The divine power of K nr is evidenced by the ability of the lyre
(‫ ) מ ו ר‬to remove the evil spirit from Saul.
f. Josh 11:12
Jirku: A female counterpart of Knr is found in the GN ‫כנרו ת‬. The GN
is analogous to other GN's based on the names of local deities, such
as Anatoth and Baalah.
g. Comments
Is it the lyre itself, or the skill of the inspired musician (David)
which is capable of soothing the king? The ‫ מ ו ר‬in the OT has numerous
associations, e.g., with religious celebrations (Ps 150:3), and with mourn-
ing (Isa 16:11). The case for relating the use of the lyre to any pur-
ported function of the god K nr is tenuous.18
18
a. Ktr C f.‫כ שי ר‬,‫כי שור‬

5:8 (CTA 33:8); 51 V:103, 106, 120; V I:14 (CTA 4 V:103, 106, 120;
VI :14); etc.
b. Notes
Kothar is the divine artisan and smith, usually known by the double-
barrelled name Ktr wHss, “Sir Adroit and Cunning” (Gaster, Thespis,
pp. 161-162), "the Very Skillful and Intelligent One” (Albright, Yahweh,
pp. 136-137). He is the weapon-maker par excellence, and is also skilled
as a fisherman, musician, and magician (cf. Gaster for parallels). Despite
the evident relationship of the roots of Ktr and the Ktrt (on which see
below, 19), Ktr and the Ktrt appear together nowhere in Ug. literature,
and the nature of their connection is uncertain.
385 —
c. The mention of washing in connection with ktrm in UT 129:20-21 (CTA 2

111:20- 21):
(20) trhsn ktrm [ ] The ktrm will w a sh ...
bb[ht] (21) [zbT] ym In the hou[se] of [Prince] Sea,
bhkl tpt nhr In the palace of Chief River,
recalls the reference to Kawthar in the Qur’an, Sura 108:
Verily we gave you al-K aw thar,
So pray to your lord and slay.
Verily he who hates you shall be childless.
The identity of al-K aw thar has puzzled commentators. The traditional
explanation is th at it is the name of a pure spring or the river (s) of Par-
adise. The prophet himself said it was his personal water-basin shown
him on his visit to Paradise. The association of Kawthar with midwifery
among Palestinian Arabs (see Granqvist, Arabs, pp. 102; 244, n. 43)
appreciates in interest in the light of the Ug. and Qur’anic references.
The midwife’s modest fee was said to be two brooms and two pieces of
soap; one of the brooms was to sweep the blood in eternity and one of
the pieces of soap was in order to wash herself in the water of Kawthar.
Despite the obscurity and apparent confusion, the association of Ktr(m)
with washing and midwifery is provocative. The situation of the frag-
m entary Ug. text UT 129 is th a t the sea god complains to his father
El th at he has no house: ank in bt [ly k]ilm [w]hzr [kbri] [qd‫\־‬s (11. 19-20),
“As for me, [I have] no house [like] the gods, [nor] court like [the children
of Qd]s (i.e. Athirat). Apparently also the sea god has no wife, like some-
one whose designation or name begins with k: wn in . att \ly\ k . k[ ]
(1. 22). (MHP)
d. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Bib, XUIV (1963), 531-532.
Albright, Yahweh, p. 136, n. 67.
M. Uichtenstein, A N E S , IV (1972), 108-109.
e. Ezek 33:32
Dahood: ‫ כעדר עגבים‬should be translated “skillful with reedpipes.” This
phrase alludes to the Canaanite god Ktr.
f. Prov 31:19
Albright: ‫ כיעזור‬here means “skill” rather than “spindle.” The point is
amplified by Uichtenstein.
— 386 —
g. Comments
Mention should also be made of the claim of G. Hoffmann, Z A ,
X I (1896), 253-256, th at LX X B Xonaapaaffaip, and Josephus’ Xonoapho?
support the hypothesis th at the original form of the PN ‫רשעתים‬
(Judg 3:8, 10), corrupted in MT, may have included the DN "WD.
19
a. Ktrt I/ivntfD
77:75, 40, 50 [CTA 24:15, 40, 50); 2 Aqht 11:26, 29-30 [CTA 17 11:26,
29-30); etc.
b. Notes
The Ktrt are a band of female deities. The contention of Gray, LC2,
p. 246, th at they are human is refuted by the epithet ilht applied to
them in UT 77:11 (CTA 24:11). According to the two most widely ac-
cepted theories, they are either "songstresses” or else they are involved
in domestic affairs—"midwives” or “bridesmaids” ; cf. the summary of
various opinions by B. Margulis, A N E S , IV (1972), 53-54. On the re-
lationship of the Ktrt to the god Ktr, see above, 18 b-c.
c. Bibliography
H. T. Ginsberg, BASOR, 72 (1938), 13-15.
W. F. Albright, HUCA, X X III, I (1950-1951), 19.
M. Dahood, Bib, X IyIV (1963), 531-532.
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 136, 143, and 187.
B. Margulis, A N E S, IV (1972), 52-61, 113-117.
M. Lichtenstein, A N E S, IV (1972), 97-112.
d. Ps 68:7[6]
Ginsberg: m*WD is to be identified with the Ug. K trt:1 “If, however,
ktrt in Ugaritic means ‘(female) singers’, kosarot, Ps. 68:7, must
mean ‘song’, ‘music’, or the like” (so also Albright [HUCA] and
Dahood).
Albright [Yahweh): ‫ כ גז רו ת‬, " ‘birth pains’ (literally, divine midwives)”
(p. 136), or " ‘the process of birth’, originally the goddesses of birth”
(p. 187), is related to Ktr and the Ktrt.
1 Many scholars accept this suggestion, but there is no unanimity in the matter of interpretation.
— 387 —
26
Margulis: The ‫ כגז רו ת‬in this v. are the Ktrt, the “patronesses of wedlock
and childbirth.” The “them e” of the v. is matrimony (in its widest
sense).
e. Lichtenstein: Margulis’s treatm ent of the v. must be rejected. The Ktrt
as songstresses, or as bridesmaids or midwives, are irrelevant to
the interpretation of ‫ כושרות‬in Ps 68:7. T hat interpretation should
focus on the name, rather than the activities, of the Ktrt, and more
specifically on the root K T R . The usage of this root in Ug. limits
the range of possibilities for ‫ בכושרות‬to two basic meanings. The
first meaning depends on the significance of ktrm in UT Krt:16
(CTA 14 1:16). Scholars have understood this construction to mean
either “in health” or “at birth” ; 2 but context supports the former
rendition. In this perspective, ‫ בכושרות‬would signify “safe and
sound, unscathed.” A second meaning of the root in Ug. is most
clearly seen in the DN’s Ktr wHss and Ktrt, which indicate K T R
to mean “to be skilled, expert.” In this perspective, ‫ בכושרות‬would
signify “deftly, with prowess.” Both these possibilities fit the con-
text of Ps 68:7. However, the problem of th a t v. “need not find
its resolution in the Ugaritic, or, more generally, the ancient Near
Eastern material unearthed to date, and one should remain open to
new possibilities.”
20
a. Ltn !‫לד תן ן‬
67 1:1, [28] (CTA 5 1:1, [28]).
b. Notes
Although most scholars accept the identity of Ltn and ‫לוי תן‬, the relation-
ship between Ltn and Ym (on which see above, 15) is unclear. Reymond,
L ’eau, pp. 189-193, equates the two, along with all other designations
of the “dragon” ; see also P. Humbert, AfO, X I (1936-1937), 235-237,
and Pope, Syrien, p. 290. Contrast, e.g., S. Loewenstamm, Erlr, IX
(1969), 96-101, who distinguishes Y m from Ltn: the two may initially
2 Lichtenstein gives a summary of interpretations of UT Krt:1617‫( ־‬CTA 14 1:1617‫ )־‬on p. 106.
— 388 —
have been confederates, but both at Ugarit and in the OT there are
also independent (and divergent) traditions about them.
Since the parallel between UT 67 1:1-2 and Isa 27:1 has already been
discussed by Schoors, R SP I, I 25 (see also Whitaker, R SP III, II Supp 1),
the following discussion will deal only with supplementary bibliography
and texts.
Bibliography
Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, pp. 23-24, 29-30 (Isa 27:1; Ps 104:26).
R. de Vaux, RB, XEVI (1937), 545.
H. Wallace, B A , X I (1948), 6 1 6 8 ‫־‬.
J. McKenzie, Th Studies, X I (1950), 280-281.
Eissfeldt, Pedersen FS, pp. 80-81 [= Kleine Schrijten III, pp. 260-261]
(Ps 104:26).
Driver, Levi Della Vida F S I, pp. 239-240.
Kaiser, Meeres, pp. 149-151.
Cassuto, EB IV, pp. 485-486.
G. R. Driver, JS S , V II (1962), 19-20.
Eipinski, Royaute de Yahwe, pp. 128-131.
Pope, Syrien, p. 290 (Isa 27:1).
Gordon, Biblical Motifs.
H. Donner, Z A W , E X X IX (1967), 338-344.
S. Eoewenstamm, E rlr, IX (1969), 96-101.
Dahood, Psalms I I I , p. 45.
de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 244, n. 8.
Preuss, Verspottung, pp. 108-110.
Cassuto, Literatures, p. 75.
Pope, Job3, pp. 329-331 (Isa 27:1; Job 40:25).
Wakeman, God’s Battle, pp. 62-68.
J. K. Wilson, VT, XXV (1975), 10-12.
A. Eelievre, RHPR, LVI (1976), 257.
Isa 27:1
Eissfeldt: ‫ תנץ‬in this v. should be identified with Egypt, and ‫ לויתן‬with
Syria. See also the discussion of Preuss.
Eoewenstamm: Isa 27:1 (along with Ezek 29:3; 32:2 [see below, 31 1];
Ps 104:26; Job 40:25-32 [see below‫׳‬, f-h]; and Job 3:8 [see above,
— 389
iv 0‫נ‬ Ras Shamta Parallels
15 r r and ba]) shows the individual development of the combat

motif in the OT, since there is no connection here with any battle
with Ym.
de Moor: The parallel between Isa 27:1 and UT 67 1:1-3 is part of a
larger parallel between Isa 26:19-27:5 and “the Canaanite concep-
tion of the events just before and after New Year’s day.”
Pope: “The Ugaritic texts give no detailed description of Leviathan
and it is difficult to tell because of the poetic parallelism whether
the attributes mentioned apply to the same or different monsters.”
Lelievre: There is no historicization of the Ltn-myth in Isa 27:1. The
context, rather, is “nettem ent eschatologique.”
e. Ps 74:141
Jack: “We know from Ps 74:14 th a t Leviathan was believed to have

several heads, but [UT 67 1:1-3], which numbers them at seven,
gives us a more precise idea of this fantastic reptile.” 12
f. Ps 104:26
Eissfeldt: This text “klingt deutlich der Kampf des Schopfergottes m it
dem Chaosungeheuer n a c h .. . . ” The v. means th at “Ja h w e h atih m
gebildet, um m it ihm zu spielen oder mit ihm zu turnieren” (the
object of pnfr can be introduced with ‫) ב‬. Note th at in reference to
this v., b. 'Abod. Zar. 3b states th at God plays with Leviathan three
hours each day. The v. thus illustrates the double-sided relation-
ship of Yahweh with Leviathan: both creator and conqueror.
De Vaux, Kaiser, Jacob, Gordon, and Wilson: Leviathan is subdued,
or demythologized, here.
Driver: Eissfeldt’s interpretation of ‫ ל ש ח ק״בו‬must be rejected in favor
of “to sport therein” (i.e., in the sea, v. 25). Eissfeldt “not only
assigned a new idiom to the Hebrew language but also imported a
foreign element into the old myth, in which no god sports or jousts
with a monster of the sea.” The term ‫ ל ד תן‬may designate a natural
marine creature such as the porpoise or the whale. The psalmist
is dealing with such natural creatures. There are no mythological
1 On Ps 74:1315‫־‬, cf. above, 15 h h ‫־‬ii.

2 See the photograph of the seven-headed dragon on the Tell Asmar seal in Gordon (= A N E Pt no. 691).
— 390 —
sea creatures in the parallel passage of the Aten Hymn (see Wilson,
A N E T 3, p. 370): “The fish in the river dart before thy face;
Thy rays are in the midst of the great green sea.” See also
McKenzie.
g. Dahood: The Canaanite monster is found here. The phrase ‫ ל שח ק״ בו‬is
“admittedly ambivalent, so th at RSV's ‘to sport in i t ’ cannot be
discounted. The expression, however, in Job 40:29, hateSaheq bo,
‘Will you sport with him [namely Leviathan] ?’ serves to remove
much of the ambivalence.” See also Cassuto.
Preuss: ‫ לע(חק־בו‬is an addition by the Heb. psalmist; it has no basis in
the Kg. Vorlage. Leviathan is the mythological figure, but in a
grotesquely powerless form, th at Yahweh can play with him. The
powerlessness of Leviathan is a polemic against Egypt: “Urdrache
wie Agypten sind fur Jahwe nur Spielzeuge.”
h. Job 40:25 [41:1]

Wallace, Cassuto, and Pope: Leviathan in this v. is the legendary serpent.
Wilson: Job 40:25-32 [41:1-8] portrays Job’s ineffectual assumption of
the role of a “Hero-god” or "Dragon-slayer.” This theory “will
hold together only if Leviathan is a mythological animal.”
Leviathan is often considered to be a real animal, usually the crocodile,
but sometimes the tunny, dolphin, or whale. See Wilson’s survey of
scholarship, and note especially Jacob, Lipinski, Preuss, and Lelievre;
cf. also Driver’s comments (above, f).
McKenzie: “The crocodile has been transfigured into a monstrous figure
here”—but it is still a crocodile, not a mythological being. So also
Kaiser.
Wakeman: The mythological allusions and the name “Leviathan” are
“poetic hyperbole” used to embellish the description of the crocodile.
i. Comments
Scholars have debated the identity of L tn’s conqueror (see W. F.
Albright, BASOR, 84 [1941], 14-17; H. L. Ginsberg, BASOR, 84 [1941],
12-14; and Cross, CMHE, pp. 118-120 and 149-150), and the method
of his disposal (see Reymond, L ’eau, pp. 189-193; and Wakeman, God’s
Battle, pp. 62-68). These and further difficulties prompt H. Donner,
Z A W , LX X IX (1967), 338-344, to issue a stern warning against equating
Ltn with ‫ לויתן‬merely on the basis of “terminologischen Ubereinstim-
mungen” (cf. his comments above, 15 ii).
— 391 —
21
a. Mt !‫מות ן‬
Cf. g n 's ‫)בית־(עזמות‬, ‫חצ ר מו ת‬
Cf. p n ‫׳‬s ‫אחימות‬, ‫עזמות‬
Cf. ‫צלמות‬, ‫שדמ)ו(ת‬
Passim.
Cf. bn mt: 2021 obv:16; 2139:6.
Cf. sdmt: 52:10 (CTA 23:10); 137:43 (CTA 2 1:43).
b. Notes
Mot is Death personified in the Ug. texts. H A L, p. 534, gives the fol-
lowing references for ‫ מות‬as “personifiziert: Todesgott” : Jer 9:20; Hos
13:14; Pss 18:5; 49:15; 116:3; Job 18:13; Prov 13:14; Cant 8:6. While
the personification of Death is hardly in doubt, identification with the
Ug. deity is less certain; see, e.g., the confusing statem ent of Kapelrud
R S Discoveries, p. 66. Part of the reason for this confusion is th at Mot’s
role in the Ug. myths is still in dispute. See V. and I. Jacobs, H TR ,
X X X V III (1945), 77-109; and T. Worden, VT, I I I (1953), 273-297; and
contrast U. Cassuto, IE J , X II (1962), 77-86. More recently, see S. Doe-
wenstamm, Or, XUI (1972), 378-382; and P. Watson, JAO S, XCII (1972),
60-64. The problem is compounded by the possibility th at OT ‫ מות‬may
also signify the superlative; see D. W. Thomas, VT, III (1953), 219-224
(on Cant 8:6 and Ps 18:5-6); and S. Rin, VT, IX (1959), 324-325 (on
Ps 18:5-6).
c. Bibliography
Johnson, Labyrinth, pp. 91-95 (Pss 48:15; 68:21).
U. Cassuto, A SE , II (1935-1937), 20 (Hab 3:13).
P. Zerwick, VD, X X (1940), 156-157.
H. D. Ginsberg, JB L , UXII (1943), 109-115.
A. D. Singer, B IE S , X I (1943), 18-22.
S. Uoewenstamm, B IE S , X III (1946), 16-19.
Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, pp. 11, 13, 17 (Hab 3:13).
Cassuto, GA, pp. 28-29 (II Sam 23:31; etc.; Cant 8:6).
F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, JB L , UXXII (1953), 15-34.
M. Lehmann, VT, I I I (1953), 361-371.
H. Ringgren, VT, II I (1953), 265-272.
T. Worden, VT, I I I (1953), 273-297.
M. Dahood, CBQ, XVI (1954), 18 (Ps 48:15).
— 392
Johnson, Kingship, pp. 73-74 (Ps 68:21), and 81 (Ps 48:15).

S. I wry, BASOR, 147 (1957), 28-29.
N. Sarna, JB L , DXXVI (1957), 16, n. 14 (Isa 25:8).
M. Dahood, Bib, X X X IX (1958), 309 (Cant 8:6).
J. McGovern, CBQ, X X I (1959), 350-358.
S. Rin, VT, IX (1959), 324-325.
Gaster, Thespis2, pp. 188-189 (Jer 9:20), and 202-203 (Isa 25:8; Hab 2:5).
U. Cassuto, IE J , X II (1962), 77-86 (Isa 28:15, 18; 38:18; etc.; Jer 9:20;
Hab 2:5; Pss 18:5-6; 49:15; Job 18:13; Cant 8:6; I Chron 6:10).
J. Croatto and J. A. Soggin, Z A W , DXXIV (1962), 44-50.
D. W. Thomas, JS S , VII (1962), 191-200.
Albright, Driver FS, p. 7 (Cant 8:6).
Dahood, Proverbs, p. 36 (Prov 16:14).
Kapelrud, R S Discoveries, p. 66.
N. Sarna, JB L , D X XXII (1963), 315-318 (Hab 2:5; Job 18:13).
Gottwald, Kingdoms, p. 161.
d. H. Kosmala, A S T I, III (1964), 148.
G. R. Driver, JS S , X (1965), 120-121.
Gray, LC2, p. 288.
Pope, Job, p. 126 (Job 18:13).
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 105 (Ps 18:5-6), 144 (Hab 1:12), 203 (Ps 33:19),
and 300 (Ps 49:15).
M. Dahood, Bib, XDVIII (1967), 435-436 (Isa 28:15, 18; Cant 8:6).
Grondahl, P TU , p. 162.
Wachter, Tod, p. 44, n. 265.
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 144 (Ps 68:21), 303-304 (Job 33:22), and passim.
S. Paul, Bib, X L IX (1968), 373-376.
Tromp, Death, pp. 50-53 (Deut 32:32; etc.), 100 (Gen 10:26; etc.; II Sam
23:31; etc.), 100, n. 7 (Cant 8:6), 101, n. 14 (Ps 68:21), 101-102 (Isa
28:15, 18; Pss 55:16; 118:18), 103, n. 24 (Jer 9:20), 105 (Hab 2:5),
107 (Hos 13:14), 109 (Ps 33:19), 120-121 (Ps 49:15), 127 (Ps 18:5-6),
140-142 (Isa 9:1; etc.), 162 (Job 18:13; Prov 16:14), 172 (Isa 25:8),
203 (Hab 1:12), and passim.
Dahood, Psalms I I I , p. 155 (Ps 118:18).
de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 175, n. 26.
M. Mannati, VT, X X II (1972), 420-425.
Cross, CMHE, p. 144.
— 393 —
Miller, Divine Warrior, pp. 109-110.

Pope, Job3, pp. 135 (Job 18:13), 136 (Ps 49:15), and 251 (Job 33:22).
D. Tsumura, UF, VI (1974), 412-413.
e. Isa 25:8
Gaster: Mot’s description of his sorry state in UT 67 1:5 (CTA 5 1:5)
is studded with subtle irony. "Himself proverbially all-devouring,
he now finds th a t it is he who is in fact being ‘eaten up’—a turn
of expression reminiscent of Isaiah’s reference (25:8) to Yahweh’s
eventually ‘swallowing up Death (Mot) for ever’.” See also Sarna,
Tromp, and Cross.
f. Isa 28:15, 18
Cassuto: The reference to the "covenant” (‫ )ב רי ת‬with "Mawet’’ (‫)מות‬
and the "agreement” (‫חזה‬, ‫ ) חזות‬with “Sheol” (‫ )שאול‬in these w .
envisions “Mawet-Sheol as an ally.” See also Rin and Tromp.
Gottwald: These w . allude to a treaty with Mot, “whom Judeans have
appeased by renewed worship.”
Dahood: ‫ מות‬here "denotes ‘the place of death’.”
Jer 9:20
Cassuto: " It would seem to have been a conception well-founded in
tradition th at Mawet/Mot was in the habit of entering houses by
the windows.” The allusion to Mawet’s climbing through the window
in Jer 9:20 finds a parallel in UT 51 V-VI (CTA 4 V-VI), where
Baal’s reluctance to have windows in his house is due to fear of
attack by Mot. See also Ginsberg, Singer, Loewenstamm, and Mul-
der; for a different explanation of the same parallel, see Worden.
Gaster: Cassuto’s parallel must be rejected because it is Yamm th at
Baal fears in the Ug. passage, and not Mot. So also Habel, Tromp,
and van Zijl.
Paul: The activity of the Mesopotamian lamastu-demon offers a more
instructive parallel to Jer 9:20 than the Ug. passage cited by Cassuto.
h. Hos 13:14
‫מיד עזאול א פ ד ם‬ Shall I ransom them from Sheol,
‫ממות אגאלם‬ Shall I redeem them from Death?
‫אחי ד ב רי ך מות‬ O Death, where are your plagues,
‫אחי ק ט ב ך עואול‬ O Sheol, where is your destruction?
(RSV)
— 394 —
Worden: “Deliverance by Yahweh is described in terms reminiscent of

Baal’s delivery from Mot.”
Tromp: Death and Sheol in the first two cola stand for a personal re-
ality; in the last two cola ‫ ד ב ר‬and ‫ ק ט ב‬are “apparently considered
as his servants or messengers.” 1 See also, Rin, Kosmala, and
Mulder.
de Moor: The Israelites possibly connected the sirocco depicted in Hos
13:15 with Mot, the god of death.
1. Hab 1:12
Dahood: MT ‫ ל א נמות‬should be emended to ‫ ל אן מות‬, “the Victor over
Death” (cf. below, 33 d). See also Tromp.
j• Hab 2:5
Cassuto: The mention of Mawet (‫־‬Sheol) in this v. recalls the well-attested
rapacity of Mot (see especially UT 67 1:14-22 [CTA 5 1:14-22], and
cf. Isa 5:14, which mentions Sheol but not Mawet). See also Rin,
Gaster, Sama, Gray, Mulder, Tromp, and de Moor.
k. Hab 3:13
Albright: MT ‫ מבית‬should be emended to ‫( מות‬cf. I,X X Oavatov); the
v. then refers to Yahweh’s destruction of Death. See also Cassuto.
Wakeman: Should Albright's reading be accepted, Hab 3:13 “would be
the only direct reference to a conflict between Yahweh and Mot.”
1. Ps 18:5-6 (= I I Sam 22:5-6) *
‫אפפוני ח ב לי־ מו ת‬
The breakers of Death encompassed me.
‫ונחלי ב לי ע ל יבעתוני‬
The torrents of Belial overwhelmed me.
‫ח ב לי עזאול סבבוני‬
The cords of Sheol surrounded me.
‫קדמוני מוק^זי מות‬
The traps of Death confronted me.
(Dahood)
Zerwick: The association of personified Death with “flu c tu s...e t tor-
rentes” strengthens the parallel with Ug. See also Cross and Freed-
man, Cassuto, Mulder, Dahood, and Tromp.
McGovern: There is no reference to the underworld here; a naturalistic
explanation of the passage may be found in the “rushing torrents
and wadies of Palestine.” The expressions here are genitives of
quality, e.g. “death-bringing waters,” “deathly torrents.”
1 Cf. Prov 16:14.

s Ps 18:5a = Ps 116:3a; for ‫י מות‬#‫ מק‬see also Prov 13:14b.
— 395
m. Ps 33:19
Dahood: This v. alludes to the insatiability of ‫ מו ת‬. See also Tromp.
n. Ps 48:15
Johnson: Ps 48 indicates the way in which the victory over “D eath”
is secured; v. 15 emphasizes how Yahweh leads his people in the
campaign against Death. See also Dahood and Mulder.
o. Ps 49:15
‫ כצאץ־ל שאול עתו‬Like sheep they will be put into Sheol,
‫ מות ירעם‬Death will be their shepherd. (Dahood)
Cassuto: Death is “metaphorically depicted as a shepherd marshalling
the flock of the dead.” See also Pope.
Dahood: The imagery of this passage is much elucidated by UT 51 V III:
15-18 (CTA 4 VIII:15-18):
(15) al (16) tqrblbn tint Do not approach divine Mot
(17) mt
al y'dbkm (18) kimr bph lest he put you like a lamb into his
mouth.
So also Mulder and Tromp.
p. Ps 55:16
T rom p: ‫ ישימות עלי מו‬may be understood as “Let Death come upon them ,”
but this interpretation remains uncertain.
q. Ps 68:21
Johnson: Death is the arch-enemy over whom Yahweh has triumphed.
The purpose of this v. is to “celebrate the ritual triumph of Jahweh,
the great King, who brings ,salvation’ to his people or, in other
words, gives them the victory over ,D eath’.”
Dahood: The reference here is to “death in Egypt or when pursued by
the Egyptians.”
Tromp: The personification of Death is “possible” here.
Miller: “The last colon of verse 21 seems to contain a reference to Yah-
weh’s victory over Mot (Death). . . . ”
r. Ps 73:4
Ringgren: MT ‫ למותם‬does not need to be emended, as is customary,
to ‫ ל מו תם‬. One interpretation th a t retains the MT is th at the v.
“konnte ein israelitisches Gegenstuck sein zum kanaanaischen Gott
M o t....”
396 —
Mannati: The idolators mentioned in Ps 73 are the servants of the Ca-

naanite god Mot, who is alluded to in v. 9 and designated by name
in v. 4 .3
s. Ps 118:18
Tromp: “A personal approach to Death” may be suspected here. See
also Dahood.
t. Job 18:1.3
Cassuto: In the phrase “the first-born of Mawet” (‫) ב כו ר מות‬, "Mawet
is a definite being who has a first-born son.” This offspring may
be compared with the Babylonian Namtar, first-born son and mes-
senger of Ereshkigal, queen of the netherworld. See also Sama,
Tromp, and Wakeman.
Pope: ‫ בכו ר מות‬may be taken as a metaphor for “any death-dealing
force,” 4 but the phrase may also be treated as an appositional gen-
itive, “First-born Death.” Note the use of ‫ בכו ר‬as a royal title
in Ps 89:28.
u. Job 33:22
Dahood: MT ‫ לממתים‬should be read ‫ ל מ מתים‬, “to Death,” parallel to
‫לעזחת‬, “to the P it.” The reference is to the place of death.
Pope: MT ‫ לממתים‬should be emended to ‫ ל מי מו ת״ מו‬, “to the waters of
Death,” a reference to the netherworld; cf. Ps 18:5 (see above, 1).
v. Prov 16:14
Dahood: ‫ מ ל א כי ״ מו ת‬, “Death’s two messengers,” finds a parallel in UT
67 11:16-17 (CTA 5 11:16-17), where Mot appears to have two mes-
sengers. See also Tromp.
w. Cant 8:6
Cassuto: ‫ כי ״ עז ה כמות א ה ב ה‬, “For love is strong as Mawet,” finds a parallel
in UT 54:11-13 (CTA 53:11-13), as interpreted by H. L. Ginsberg
and B. Maisler, JPOS, XIV (1934), 243:
(11) w yd (12) ilm ft Indeed, the love of the gods is here like
kmtm (13) '2 mid death, very fierce.
Note also the reference to Mot’s strength in UT 51 V III :17-20
(CTA 4 V III :17-20). See also Rin and Albright.
3 On further allusions to Mot in Ps 73, see Tromp, Death, pp. 72-73, 83, and 112-113.
4 So also many older commentaries.
— 397 —
Dahood: Ginsberg and Maisler have misunderstood UT 54:11-13, and

Tm/mt both in Cant 8:6 and UT 54:12 denotes “the place of death.”
Tromp: Dahood is right th at Ginsberg and Maisler have misunderstood
UT 54:11-13, and a personal interpretation of ‫ מות‬in Cant 8:6 is
uncertain.
x. I I Sam 23:31; I Chron 8:36; 9:42; 11:33; 12:3; etc. (‫ ;)עזמות‬Ezra 2:24; Neh
7:28; 12:29 (‫)]בי ת־[עז מו ת‬
Perhaps this is a theophoric name (but contrast Noth, Personennamen,
p. 231). See Cassuto, Lehmann, Rin, Driver, Mulder, and Tromp; and
note the discussion of Cant 8:6 (see above, w, and below, gg).
y. Gen 10:26; I Chron 1:20

Lehmann: the GN ‫ חצרמות‬is surely the South Arabian Hadram aut,
perhaps “settlement, enclosure of death.” Similarly, Rin, Driver,
Mulder, and Tromp.
z. I Chron 6:10
Cassuto: The PN ‫ אחימות‬may be compared to the PN Ahimiti (see
A NET*, p. 286).
Groudahl: The PN may be compared to the Ug. bn ml.
aa. Isa 9:1; Jer 2:6; 13:16; Ps 23:4; Job 12:22; etc.
Lehmann: The ‫ צ ל‬component of ‫ צל מו ת‬derives from ‫ צ ל ל‬, “to sink” ;
thus the term ‫ צ ל מו ת‬denotes depth, rather than darkness (e.g.
Job 12:22). In Ps 23:4, the "full term ” ‫ גיא צל מו ת‬may originally
have meant “the valley where Mot is sunken, or buried.” Provision-
ally, ‫ צל מו ת‬may be considered a synonym of ‫( שלמ)ו(ת‬on which see
below, bb).
Tromp: Among the various alternatives, the traditional division of ‫צלמו ת‬
into ‫ צ ל מות‬is most defensible. The term should be understood as
“utter darkness,” “tenebrae mortis.” “In later development the
word stands for a department in Sheol.” See also Thomas.
bb. Deut 32:32; I I Kings 23:4; Isa 16:8; Jer 31:40 (Q); Hab 3:17; cf. Isa 37:27;
Ps 129:6
Lehmann: The term ‫ שדמ)ו(ת‬is to be taken as a compound ‫* שד מ)ו(ת‬,
“Field of Mot.” It is a technical term for "the perennial grounds
dedicated to the Mot cult.” The use of the term in the OT provides
evidence of a Mot cult in Israel which “existed in a very limited
— 398 —
area only, namely th at of the Kidron Valley and its extension

outside of J e ru sa le m ....”
Iwry: The reading of ‫ שדמה‬in Isa 37:27 must be rejected, primarily on
the basis of II Kings 19:26 and the reading of lQIsa*.
Croatto and Soggin: Lehmann’s interpretation of the term “gibt bis
jetzt die bestmogliche Erklarung und Ubersetzung.” Iwry is wrong
about Isa 37:27. The Heb. form ‫(ת‬1)‫ שדמ‬is not the expected reflex
of Ug. sdmt, because Ug. sd is always the equivalent of Heb. (‫ שד)ה‬.
Therefore, ‫(ת‬1)‫ שדמ‬was loaned into Heb. as a technical term.
Tromp: ‫ שדמ)ו(ת‬is equivalent to Ug. sdmt. Its literal meaning is “fields
of Mot,” to be understood as “dead land,” i.e. uncultivated, water-
less land. See also Tsumura.
cc. Comments
Many commentators relate the “covenant with death” in Isa 28:15,
18, to political agreements such as the vassal treaty of Ahaz; see Gott-
wald, Kingdoms, p. 161; Childs, Isaiah, pp. 28-31; and Heschel, Pro-
phets I, pp. 65-67. Note also UT 67 11:8-12 (CTA 5 11:8-12), where Baal
seems to want to enter into a treaty agreement with Mot.
dd. There is no mention of a treaty in UT 67 11:8-12, but Baal is sub-
missive and replies to Mot: *bdk an wd'lmk, “Your slave am I, and th at
your eternal one” (1. 12). (MHP)
ee. Note the earlier comments on Hab 3:13 by F. Stephens, JB L , X L III
(1924), 290-293, who emends MT ‫ מבית‬to ‫ ב ה מו ת‬. As for Wakeman’s
remark on the v., compare the comments of Johnson and Miller on
Ps 68:21 (see above, q). In regard to ‫ ע ל ״ מו ת‬of Ps 48:15, note the re-
vocalization by L. Krinetzki, BZ, IV (1960), 73, as ‫ ; ע ל מו ת‬see also Dahood,
Psalms I, p. 293 (against his earlier interpretation, for which see above,
n); and Tromp, Death, pp. 100-101. Note also th at many commentators
transfer the term to the superscription of Ps 49; cf. Ps 9:1. On Ps 55:16
see Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 34, who apparently finds no personification
of death here.
ff. Cassuto’s view of Job 18:13 as an attestation of a son of Mot is prob-
lematic because of Mot’s apparent childlessness in the Ug. texts. Note
the comment of Tromp, Death, p. 162, th at Mot’s lack of offspring “is
an expression of his sterility.” In regard to Dahood’s claim th at two
messengers of Mot appear in Prov 16:14 and UT 67 11:16-17 (CTA 5
11:16-17), it may be objected th at there is no indication th at the mes
— 399
IV 22 Ras Sharnra Parallels
sengers in UT 67 are Mot’s; they could be Baal’s; see H. L. Ginsberg,

BASOR, 95 (1944), 25-30.
gg- Against Cassuto’s claim of a Ug. parallel to Cant 8:6 in UT 54:11-13
(CTA 53:11-13), it seems more likely th at yd means “hand” rather than
“love” in the expression yd ilm (UT 54:11-12), which may refer to some
calamity such as plague; cf. Pope, Song, p. 668. (MHP)
hh. Many other OT occurrences of personified Death are cited by schol-
ars without comment. Note especially Isa 38:18; Pss 6:6; 9:14; 18:5;
22:16; 89:49; 107:18; 116:3; Prov 2:18; 5:5; 7:27; 13:14; 14:12, 27; 16:25;
and Dam 1:20. See Cassuto, Kapelrud, Dahood, Wachter, and Tromp.
22
a. **a II ‫ענת‬, ‫ענות‬, ‫ענ מל ך‬

Cf. gn ’s ‫בי ת־ענ ת‬, ‫בי ת־ענו ת‬, ‫ענת)ו(ת‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫ענתות‬, ‫ענתתיה‬, ‫עמגר בן־ ענ ת‬
Passim.
b. Notes
Anath never occurs in the OT as a DN in an uncontroversial context,
although her popularity at 5th-century Elephantine shows th at she was
not unknown in Jewish circles (see Porten, Elephantine, pp. 170-171).
Patai, Goddess, suggests th at ‫תו*ת‬$‫( ע‬on which see below, 23) denotes
Anath in the OT. It is possible th at the cults of Anath and Astarte be-
came blended to the extent th at the deities were assimilated to one an-
other. Such a development, clearly attested by the name of the “Syrian
Goddess” Atargatis, may already be intim ated by the Ug. composite
DN *ttrt w'nt (see J. de Moor, UF, I [1969], 170-172).
Bibliography
W. F. Albright, A JS L , XDI (1925), 84 (Judg 3:31; 5:6).
Chicago Bible, p. 835.
W. F. Albright, HUCA, X X III, I (1950-1951), 15, 28-29, 38 (Ps 68:24).
Cassuto, GA, p. 50.
Uoewenstamm, E B II, pp. 95-96.
F. Fensham, J N E S , X X (1961), 197-198.
Kaufmann, Judges, pp. 113, 134.
E. Danelius, JN E S , X X II (1963), 191-193.
A. van Seims, VT, X IV (1964), 294-309.
— 400 —

R. Edelmann, VT, XVI (1966), 355.
R. N. Whybray, VT, X V II (1967), 122.
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 187-188 (Ps 68:24).
Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften IV, pp. 276-284.
A. G. Auld, Tel Aviv, IV (1977), 85-86.
de Moor, TDOT I, p. 441.
A. Deem, JS S , X X III (1978), 25-30.
d. Hos 14:9 [14:8]

Chicago Bible: In accordance with Wellhausen’s suggestion, MT ‫אני‬
‫ עניתי ואעוותו‬should be emended to ‫ אני ענתו ואשרתו‬and trans-
lated, “I am his Anath and his Asherah.”
de Moor: Sellin is right th at this conjecture is probably “more ingenious
than correct.”
e. Ps 68:24
Albright: The v. may be emended and translated as follows:
‫ לם ענת)?( תרחץ רגלך בד ם‬Why, 0 Anath(?) dost thou wash Thy
feet in blood,
‫ לשן כ ל ב ך בד ם איבם‬The tongues of thy dogs In the blood
of the foes?1
This interpretation, however, is "probably more ingenious than
convincing.” 12
f. Exod 32:18
Edelmann: The third ‫ ענות‬should be emended to ‫ענת‬, the name of the
goddess.
W hybray: Edelmann’s interpretation is correct, but the emendation is
unnecessary because “the spelling ‫ ענות‬represents a dialectical
variant of the pronunciation of the goddess’ name,” which is found
in the g n ‫( בי ת־ענו ת‬josh 15:59). On the variation of ‫ענות‬/‫ענת‬,
see Eoewenstamm and Pope.
Deem: A root ‫ענ ה‬, “to love, to make love,” provides the etymology
of the DN as well as a variety of Heb. terms. The third ‫קול ענות‬
in Exod 32:18, however, should be rendered “the sound of an orgy.”
1 Cf. UT ‫׳‬nt 11:34 (CTA 3 B:34).

2 But note that he retains it in Yahw eh.
— 401 —
g. Judg 3:31; 5:6

Albright, Cassuto: The PN ‫ שמגר בן “ ענ ת‬indicates th a t Shamgar hailed
from the city of Beth Anath.
Fensham: ‫ בך*ענת‬is “the son of a Hanaean,” referring to the GN H anat
(modem 'Anah) on the middle Euphrates.
Kaufmann: Shamgar was a foreigner who settled in Israel and adopted
its religion.
Danelius: The PN refers to the GN “Del-'Anath” (A‫]»׳‬Xavafi, LX X Josh
17:7 — MT 3 ‫) מכ מ ת ת אשר ע ל ־ פני ע!כם‬, possibly a sacred region as-
sociated with Anath and tended by ‫ בני ענת‬.
Van Seims: Shamgar performed a feat of heroism which earned him the
honorary epithet, “son of A nath” ; similarly, Eissfeldt.
Pope: ‫“ בן ענת‬einen Kurznamen fur 'abd 'anat 'Diener der A.' enthalten
mag. Man hat auch vermutet, dass Samgar das Kind einer Hiero-
dule im Kulte der 'A. war oder 'Anat fur Bet 'A. s te h t.. . . ”
h. Josh 19:38; Judg 1:33 (‫ ; ) בי ת־ ענ ת‬Josh 15:59 (‫ ; ) בי ת־ ענו ת‬Josh 21:18; I Kings
2:26; e tc .(‫ ;)ענת]ו[ת‬Neh 10:20; 1 Chron 7:8 (1 ;(‫ ענתות‬Chron 8:24 (‫)ענתתיה‬
All of these names appear to contain the theophorous element ‫ ענ ת‬,
although Auld challenges MT of Josh 15:59. See Pope for a general
discussion; on the PN ’s, see Noth, Personennamen, pp. 122-123.
i. Comments
Note E S F 's “the sound of singing” for ‫ קול ענות‬in Exod 32:18,
and see the commentaries for various interpretations th at make no men-
tion of the DN. In regard to Judg 3:31 and 5:6, one wonders if ‫ ענת‬might
be a hypocoristic PN; cf., e.g., ‫( ע לי‬on which see below, 39 nn). As for
the GN ‫ענת)ו(ת‬, see Sm ith’s comment th at “the place name Anathoth
means images of Anath in the plural” (Lectures*, p. 211); but note that
Cassuto, GA, p. 50, n. 1, denies any relationship between the goddess
and the GN, and finds in ‫ ענת)ו(ת‬the sense of ‫ מע תו ת‬, “dwellings.”
j. On the great goddess of love and war as the prototype of the female
protagonist of Cant, see Pope, Song, passim, and in particular pp. 600-
612. (MHP)
k. On the DN ‫ ענ מל ך‬in II Kings 17:31, see below, 38 t.
* Cited incorrectly by Danelius.
— 402 —
23
a. Htrt !‫עשתרת ן‬, ‫ע'שתר)ו(ת‬

Cf. g n ’s ‫עשתר)ו(ת‬, ‫עשתרת קרבים‬, ‫בעשתרה‬
Cf. ‫עישתרתי‬, ‫עשתר)ו(ת צאנך‬, ‫בית עשתרות‬
68:28 (CTA 2 IV:28); 127:56 (CTA 16 VI:56); 601:1; 2001:2; Krt:146
(CTA 14 111:146); etc.
b. Notes
Astarte is the most ubiquitous of all ancient Near Eastern goddesses.
W. Herrmann, MIO, XV (1969), 6-55, gives a comprehensive discussion
of early Northwest Semitic, Hellenistic, and Egyptian data on Astarte.
While most scholars associate the goddess with fertility and sexual love,
Herrmann argues th at her primary trait is pugnacity; her fertility aspect
is a later development, not to be applied anachronistically to early Ca-
naanite sources. Indeed, the few appearances of Htrt in the Ug. myths
emphasize her involvement with battle and the hunt, although her
beauty is proverbial.
c. Bibliography
J. Lewy, HUCA, X III (1944), 437.
Albright, Ginzberg Jub. V01., pp. 63 and 69.
Noth, Josua2, p. 99.
Eoewenstamm, E B II, p. 304 (Josh 21:27).
Gray, LC, pp. 129-130.
W. Herrmann, MIO, XV (1969), 6-55.
Loewenstamm, E B VI, pp. 406-412 (Deut 7:13; etc.; Judg 2:13; etc.).
Mazar, E B VI, pp. 404-406.
M. Delcor, UF, VI (1974), 7-14.
d. / Kings 11:5 (11 ;(‫)עשתרת אלהי צדנים‬, 33 (‫ עשתרת אלהי צדנין‬Kings 23:13
(‫)עשתרת שקץ צידנים‬
According to these w ., Astarte was venerated in Jerusalem from the
time of Solomon until the demolition of her high places by Josiah. The
BH vocalization of the DN, # 5 ‫תךת‬, is corrupted by the superimposition
of the vowels of ‫בשת‬, “shame,” on the consonants of the name. On the
term “god of the Sidonians,” see Herrmann.
— 403 —
27
e. Judg 2:13; 10:6; I Sam 7:3, 4; 12:101

Mulder: Although Astarte, like Baal, may well have played an im portant
role in Israel’s early religious history, in these w . ‫ (ת‬1)‫ עשתר‬is just
a generalized term for “goddesses” ; cf. Akk. ilani u istarati.
Herrmann: Since Astarte was the dominant goddess, “ihr Name im
Sinne eines pars pro toto genannt werden konnte.” But the plural
also suggests “die A start der verschiedenen O r te ..., die m itunter
auch einen besonderen Beinamen erhalten konnten.” Cf. such Ug.
compounds as Htrt ndrgd (UT 1004:18) and Htrt abdr (TJT 1004:19).
Loewenstamm: The plural form “designates all the goddesses the Israel-
ites worshipped.” See also Plessis, I star-Astarte, p. 183; and Pope.
On the tendentious character of the biblical presentation of Astarte,
see the remarks of Torge, Aschera, pp. 39-40: “Der Erzahler h at das
Bestreben, zu zeigen, dass jeder Abgotterei, die einmal im Lande exis-
tiert hat, griindlich ein Ende bereitet worden ist.”
f. Deut 1:4; Josh 9:10; 12:4; 13:31; I Chron 6:56
The GN ‫ עשתר)ו(ת‬is probably the same place as ‫( עשתרת קרנים‬see below,
g ); it is the home of the legendary Og, last of the Rephaim, and perhaps
of the Ug. rpu mlk *Im (see below, 41 c-d and h).
Mazar: This GN is an abbreviation of ‫בית~עשתר)ו(ת‬, “House (Temple)
of A starte.” Cf. ‫( בעישתרה‬below, h).
g. Gen 14:5
Most older scholars shared the opinion of Smith, Lectures3, p. 310: “As-
tarte herself was figured crowned with a bull’s head and the place name
Ashteroth Karnaim [‫ ] עשתרת קרנים‬is probably derived from the sane-
tuary of the horned A starte.” According to Mulder, these horns sym-
bolize her character as a fertility goddess; see also Plessis, Htar-Astarte,
p. 199, n. 1; and Pope. Note, however, the translation of W. R. Arnold,
A JS L , X X I (1904-1905), 172: “Astarte of the two braids” ; and see the
comment of G. Moore, JB L , X V I (1897), 155: The ‫ קרנים‬are “a double-
peaked mountain sacred to Ashteroth.”
Herrmann: The name should be translated “A. in der Nahe von K .”
Gese: The term ‫ קרנים‬indicates th a t “*Astarte wie *Anat m it Kuhhomern
vorgestellt wurde. Es ist gut moglich, dass diese Vorstellung der
'Astarte erst durch die Verbindung m it dem W ettergott und m it
'Anat entstanden ist.”
Note that there is some confusion in the 1,XX of these passages; see Plessis, I Star-A starts, pp. 181-
183; and Mulder.
— 404 —
Mazar: When Ashtaroth was destroyed, its cult was transferred to nearby
Qarnayim. The biblical authors glossed the name of ancient Ashta-
roth with the name of the city th a t would be familiar to their con-
temporaries. This view was held long ago by Kuenen, who is cited
in the discussion of Smith.
h. josh 21:27 (‫)בע שתרה‬
The parallel in I Chron 6:56 reads ‫ עו ת רו ת‬, suggesting th a t this is a
variant or corruption of th at name; but Noth argues th at Chronicles
contains a lectio facilior based on the numerous occurrences of ‫תר)ו(ת‬$‫;ע‬
the two GN’s are not to be identified.
Albright, Mazar: The initial ‫ ב‬of !‫ בעשתרד‬is derived from the word ‫; בי ת‬
this supports the notion th at ‫( ת‬1)*‫ עשתו‬is an abbreviation of ‫בי ת״‬
‫ (ת‬1)‫( עשתר‬see above, f). But see Loewenstamm.
i. 1 chron 11:44 (‫) עזיא העשתרתי‬

Uzziah, mighty man of David, is called an “Ashtarothite” ; but Dewy
derives ‫ עשתרתי‬from ‫( עשתרה‬singular), not from ‫( ת‬1)*‫( עשתו‬plural);see
also Herrmann.
j. Deut 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51
A venerable view held by Driver {Deuteronomy, p. 103) and Smith {Lee-
tures8, p. 310) is th at the term ‫( ת צאנך‬1)*‫ עשתו‬is derived from the name
of the goddess because, in one manifestation, she was represented as
a homed sheep. There have been many efforts to find the sense of "fe-
cundity” in the etymology of the DN and in this term; see Plessis {Uttar-
Astarte, pp. 1-14, 181), Herrmann, and Delcor for surveys of those en-
deavors.
Loewenstamm: The young of the flock were originally considered "the
gift of A starte.” See also Mulder and Pope.
Delcor: All etymologies are uncertain. The view of Driver and Smith
suffers from the fact th at "on n ’a pas trouve en Palestine de figu-
rines d ’Astarte en forme de brebis.” However, “l’idee de fecondite
est derivee de certains prerogatives attachees au culte de la deesse
et non le contraire.” As for the significance of the term: “Le tour
de force de l’ecrivain deuteronomiste aurait ete de transformer ces
noms divins en de simples substantifs car dans sa version Yahwiste
ce n'est plus Astarte ou sgr [see below, 27] qui donnent la fecondite
aux brebis ou aux vaches mais Yahweh. C’etait peut-etre pour
l’auteur monotheiste une maniere de demythiser des croyances pro-
fondement enracinees dans l’ame des paysans israelites.”
— 405 —
k. 1 Sam 3 ‫ו‬: 10 (‫) בי ת עו ת רו ת‬

MT ‫ עשתרות‬is all but universally emended to ‫ע שתרת‬, but the parallel
‫ בית אל הי ה ם‬in I Chron 10:10 creates the situation described by Hermann:
“Man schwankt in der Meinung dariiber, wo der Astart-Tempel gesucht
werden miisse.” Herrmann says th at the fact th at Saul's weapons are
offered as tribute to Astarte points up her “Eigenschaft als kampfstarker
Got tin.” See also Torge (Aschera, pp. 37-57), Gray, Mulder, and Gese;
but contrast Plessis (Istar-Astarte, pp. 170-171): “ ...d u fait qu’on y
suspende les armes de l’ennemi vaincu, il ne resulte pas que la divinite
soit necessairement une divinite guerriere.”
1. Comments
Relevant to any discussion of Astarte is the cult of the anonymous
‘‘Queen of Heaven” (Jer 7:18; 44:17ff.). M. Dahood, RivBiblt, V III
(1960), 166-168, has identified her with Sps on the basis of a dubious
Ug. parallel (UT 52:54 [CTA 23:54]). Hvidberg (WLOT, pp. 116-117)
and Porten (Elephantine, pp. 164-165) equate the “Queen” with Anath,
who is styled “Lady of Heaven” in Eg. sources. But practically every-
one else associates her with Istar/Astarte (see the bibliographic note of
W. Herrmann, MIO, XV [1969], 29, n. 67; also M. Weinfeld, UF, IV
[1972], 133-154; and Cogan, Imperialism, pp. 84-88).
m. However, the relationship between Istar and Astarte is by no means
well-defined. In addition, the Ug. goddesses AM , *nt, and Htrt are yet
to be delineated satisfactorily. No solution can be attem pted here, but
C. Virolleaud’s (RES, 1937, p. 21) equation of *nt with Htrt (so also Hvid-
berg, WLOT, p. 57) should be reconsidered in view of Ug. V. On the
biblical assimilation of the goddesses to one another, see Patai, Goddess.
n. Note, finally, M. Delcor’s (RHR, CLXXXVII [1975], 144) revival
of the opinion th at ‫( הר שעה‬Zech 5:8) and ‫( המרשעת‬II Chron 24:7) might
be polemical corruptions of ‫ע ש תר ת‬: “En effet il n ’est pas impossible que
le prophete ait voulu ridiculiser ainsi le divinite.”
24
Sdq Msr // ‫ צד ק‬, ‫ישר ; צדי ק‬, ‫מישרים‬

Cf. p n ’s ‫צדוק‬, ‫ א דני־ צ ד ק‬, ‫מ ל כי ־ צ ד ק‬
610 A:14.
— 406 —
b. Notes
The DN Sdq was known before the publication of UT 610 from various
onomastica and from Philo of Byblos’ Xvfrux (see Eusebius, Praep. Evan.,
I 10:13, 14, 25, 38). The Ug. attestation (for the reading, see M. Astour,
JAO S, L X X X V I [1966], 282-283) facilitates the following equation: Ug.
Sdq Msr = Philo’s S v &v x / M i g w q (Eusebius, Praep. Evan., I 10:13, 14) =
Heb. ‫יער‬/‫ = צד)י(ק‬Babylonian KettujMesaru. Du Mesnil du Buisson,
Nouvelles etudes, pp. 99-102, suggests th at Sdq = El.
c. Toy, Proverbs, p. 403, recognized ‫ צדי ק‬as an appellative of Yahweh in
1899. Many subsequent scholars have suggested th at the epithet is
derived from the name of a god who was venerated in pre-Davidic
Jerusalem. According to R. Rosenberg, HUCA, XXXVI (1965), 163,
“The divine name Sedeq. . . plays a prominent part in the traditions
clustered about Jerusalem.” For an effort to locate the p ^ - c u lt outside
Jerusalem, see J. Gammie, JB L , XC (1971), 385-396.
d. Bibliography
H. S. Nyberg, A R W , XXXV (1938), 356.
Widengren, Psalms, p. 71.
H. H. Rowley, JB L , LV III (1939), 123.
N. Porteous, TGUOS, X (1940-1941), 4-5.
Rowley, Bertholet FS, pp. 464-465.
Gray, LC, pp. 136-137.
Pope, Syrien, p. 307 (Ps 85:11).
R. Rosenberg, HUCA, X X XVI (1965), 161-177.
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 69-70 (Ps 11:3, 5, 7), and 191 (Ps 31:19).
van Dijk, Ezekiel’s Prophecy, p. 19.
Dahood, Coppens F S I, pp. 29-30 (Ps 119:137).
Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 128 (Ps 112:4), 189 (Ps 119:137), 231-232 (Zeph
3:5; Pss 11:7; 129:4), and 311 (Ps 141:5).
van der Weiden, Proverbes, pp. 133-134.
Sabottka, Zephanja, p. 107.
C. F. Whitley, VT, X X II (1972), 469-475.
du Mesnil du Buisson, Nouvelles etudes, pp. 99-102.
Pope, Job*, p. 257 (Job 34:17).
Vigano, Nomi, pp. 154-172.
e. Isa 1:26; Jer 33:16
Porteous: The association of ‫ צ ד ק‬with Jerusalem “may go back to a
— 407
Sedeq deity originally worshipped in Jerusalem.” On Isa 1:26,

see also Rosenberg and Whitley; and cf. Isa 1:21.
f. Isa 41:10; 45:8; 51:1, 5; 61:3; 62:1; Jer 31:23; 50:7; Hos 10:12; Pss 4:6; 17:1;
48:11; 85:12, 14; 118:19
Rosenberg: In these passages ‫ צ ד ק‬should be regarded not as an abstract
poetic concept, but as a hypostasis, or attribute, of Yahweh. Ps 4:6
exemplifies the process by which an independent deity became a
hypostasis of Yahweh. Note th a t in Isa 41:10 and Ps 48:11 ‫ צ ד ק‬is
hypostasized as the “right hand” (‫ )י מ ץ‬of Yahweh. In Jer 31:23
and 50:7 ‫נו ה ״ צ ד ק‬, “the habitation of Sedeq,” refers to the holy
mountain of Jerusalem. See also Widengren (on Ps 85:12, 14),
van Dijk (on Isa 51:1 and 61:3), Whitley (on Ps 4:6), and Vigano
(on Isa 51:1; 61:3; and Jer 31:23; 50:7).
Whitley: In Isa 41:10 ‫ בימ ץ צ ד קי‬should be translated “with the right
hand of my Sedeq,” i.e., of my being. ‫ צ ד קי‬thus represents the power
of Yahweh, and is parallel to ‫ אני א ל הי ך‬in the previous line. Isa
45:8 stands in a context which describes Yahweh’s exclusive sover-
eignty; here ‫ צ ד ק‬should be translated “divine rule.”
g. Ps 85:11
Porteous: Here it almost looks as though the old deities of Jerusalem,
‫ צ ד ק‬and ‫ ע לו ם‬, are to become alive again.
Rosenberg: ‫ צ ד ק‬is here associated with “Peace” (‫ ע לו ם‬, the manifestation
of Salim). See also Widengren, Gray, and Pope.
h. Pss 89:15; 94:15
Rosenberg: Sedeq is here associated with ‫ מ ע פ ט‬. See also Whitley; and
on Ps 89:15, see also Widengren and Vigand.
i. Isa 45:19
Rosenberg: In this v. ‫ צ ד ק‬and ‫ מיעדי ם‬are attributes of Yahweh; cf. Isa
59:4, 9.
Whitley: In the terms ‫ צ ד ק‬and ‫ מיעדי ם‬there is a possible reminiscence
of Kettu and Mesaru, but it is significant th a t here it is Yahweh
himself who speaks ‫ “( צ ד ק‬a divine decision”) and declares ‫מיעדי ם‬
(“what is destined” ).
j. Isa 24:16; 53:11; Jer 12:1; Prov 21:12
Vigand: In these w . ‫ צ די ק‬, “il Giusto,” should be regarded as a divine
title of Yahweh. On Prov 21:12, see also Toy, Proverbs, p. 403;
and van der Weiden.
— 408 —
k. Zeph 3:5; Pss 11:3, 5; 31:19; 112:4; 129:4; 141:5

Dahood: In these vv. ‫ צ די ק‬, “the Just (One),” is a divine title of Yahweh.
See also Vigano; and on Zeph 3:5, see also Sabottka.
l. Job 34:17
Pope: ‫ צ די ק‬, “the Just One,” is a divine title of Yahweh. Similarly al-
ready Toy, Proverbs, p. 403. See also van der Weiden and Vigano.
m. Ps 11:7
Dahood: ‫ צדי ק יהרה‬may be rendered “the Ju st One is Yahweh,” but it
is better taken as a composite divine title, "the Just Yahweh.”
See also Vigano.
n. Deut 32:4
Vigand: ‫ צ די ק וישר‬, “il Giusto e il Retto,” is reminiscent of Sdq Msr.
o. Ps 119:137
Dahood: ‫ צדי ק אתה יהוה וישר מ שפטיך‬should be translated “You are the
Just One, Yahweh, and the Upright One in your judgements.”
When predicating ‫ צדי ק‬and ‫זר‬#‫ י‬of Yahweh, the psalmist evokes the
composite divine title of Ps 11:7 (see above, m) and of Phoeu.
mythology.
Vigano: ‫ מ שפטיך‬should be moved to v. 138, and ‫ צדי ק אתה יהוה וישר‬trans-
lated “Sei tu il Giusto, O YHWH, e il R etto.”
p. I I Sam 8:17; 15:24, 25, 27, 29; etc.
Rowley: The PN ‫ צדו ק‬is related to the DN Sdq. The priest Zadok was
originally associated with the Jerusalem cult of th at god. See also
Gray and Rosenberg.
Cross: The PN is a hypocoristicon of DN-saduq, “The god N is righteous,”
and is not connected with a DN Sdq.
q. Gen 14:18; Ps 110:4 (‫ ;) מ ל כי ־ צ ד ק‬Josh 10:1, 3 (‫) א תי ־ צ ד ק‬
Nyberg, Porteous, Gray, Rosenberg, Whitley, and du Mesnil du Buisson:
In these theophorous PN ’s, the divine element is apparently ‫ צ ד ק‬.
Both persons are associated with Jerusalem, suggesting th at the
god was worshipped there.
r. Comments
Note the N J V translation of ‫ ימץ צ ד קי‬in Isa 41:10: "My gracious
right hand” ; R SV , NEB: “my victorious right hand.” N J V renders
‫ צ ד ק‬in Isa 45:8 as “victory.” In Isa 45:19, N J V translates ‫ צ ד ק‬as the
— 409 —
adverb “reliably,” and ‫ מגז רי ם‬as “what is true.” In Isa 51:1, N J V takes
‫ צ ד ק‬as the common noun “justice,” rather than the divine title. Finally,
N J V renders ‫ קרוב צ ד קי יצא י^זעי‬in Isa 51:5 as "The trium ph I grant
is near.”
s. Note also W hitley’s separate treatm ent of Deutero-Isaiah, where he
says th a t “the functions of Sedeq are inseparable from the being and
nature of Yahweh,” because the author “could not conceive of the exist-
ence of another deity or entity independent of [Yahweh].”
25
a. spn Cf. g n ’s ‫צפץ‬, ‫בעל צפ)ו(ן‬, ‫הר־מועד בירכתי צפץ‬, (‫) הר־ציץ ירכתי צפץ‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫צפניה‬,‫צפניהו‬
See Astour, R SP II, V III 89 a-b.
b. Notes
Spn is the mountain abode of Baal; see Astour, R SP II, V III 89 c-I,
for discussion of Ug. references. I t is here assumed th a t the mountain
is itself deified. Since Spn as a GN has already been discussed by Astour,
R S P II, V III 89, the following discussion will treat only supplementary
bibliography and texts.
c. Bibliography
Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon.
De Langhe, Textes de Ras Shamra Ugarit, II, pp. 211-244.
Albright, Bertholet FS.
J. de Savignac, NC, V (1953), 216-221.
J. de Savignac, FT , II I (1953), 95-96.
E. Vogt, Bib, X X X IV (1953), 426.
Pope, E U T, pp. 102-103 (Isa 14:13).
P. Grelot, RH R, C X IJX (1956), 20-21.
Gray, LC, p. 209.
E. MacLaurin, V T, X II (1962), 452.
O. Mowan, VD, X U (1963), 11-20.
Pope, Syrien, p. 258 (Isa 14:13; Pss 48:3; 89:13; Job 26:7).
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 289-290 (Ps 48:3).
— 410 —
Schmidt, KG U I2, pp. 33-35.

Astour, Hellenosemitica2, p. 269.
H. L. Ginsberg, VTS, XVI (1967), 79.
Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 314 (Ps 89:13).
Cross, CMHE, p. 38.
Pope, Job*, p. 183 (Job 26:7; 37:22).
Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 1-3.
Caquot, TOML, pp. 80-84.
J. M. Roberts, Bib, LVI (1975), 554-557.
d. Ezck 32:30
Eissfeldt: ‫ צפון‬is not “north” here, but ‘“Berg Zaphon’ oder besser ‘Land
des Berges Zaphon’.”
e. Ps 89:13
Eissfeldt: The v. should be translated:
‫ צ פ ץ ר מ ץ אתה בראתם‬Sapon und jamin du hast sie geschaffen
‫ תבור והרמץ בעזמך ירעו‬Tabor und Hermon jubeln dir zu.
The parallelism demands th at ‫ צ פ ץ‬and ‫ ימץ‬be mountains which
were cult sites, like Tabor and Hermon; ‫ = ימץ‬Amanus. So also
De Langhe, Jacob, Mowan, Pope, and Dahood.
Patton: As shown by LXX, ‫ ימץ‬is “the sea.” The v. should be trans-
lated “Sapon and the sea, thou hast made them; Tabor and Hermon
in thy name exult.”
de Savignac: MT ‫ ימץ‬should be emended to ‫ימים‬, “sea,” on the basis of
LXX and Gen 1:10. The first part of the v. should be translated
“Tu as cree le ciel nuageux et la mer.” See also Vogt.
van Zijl: Following R SV , ‫ צ פ ץוי מ ץ‬should be translated “the north and
the south.”
f. Job 26:7
Eissfeldt: Here ‫ צ פ ץ‬is not “north,” but “ ...vielm ehr muss h ie r...a n
ein riesiges Bergmassiv gedacht sein, das mit seinen Spitzen in den
Himmel ragt und in ihn uberzugehen scheint.” See also De Langhe,
Pope, and Roberts.
Clifford: “Zaphon’s meaning seems to be practically ‘heavens’.” See
also de Savignac and Vogt.
— 411 —
g. Job 37:22
Pope: “Zaphon here is not simply the direction ‘north’, but the name
of the holy mountain of Baal.”
h. Exod 14:2, 9; Num 33:7
Albright: Eissfeldt’s identification of ‫(ן‬1)‫ ב ע ל צפ‬is wrong because it is
anachronistic and because it is not on the ancient caravan route.
To be preferred is Tell Defne. See also Clifford.
i. Isa 14:13
Eissfeldt: ‫ ה ר״ מו ע ד בירכתי צ פ ץ‬refers to the mountain in N. Syria. The
term ‫ ירכ תי‬does not denote its great distance, but its great height;
cf. Isa 37:24. See also Pope, Grelot, Schmidt, Astour, and Roberts.
Jacob: There is no specific geographical reference here. Rather, the
author ‘‘pense a quelque lointain et inaccessible Olympe.” So also
De Langhe.
Clifford: The stichometry of the v. should be altered so th at ‫ירכ תי צפון‬
is not parallel to ‫ ה ר ״ מו ע ד‬, but to ‫ במתי ע ב‬in v. 14. A sa result,‫ירכ תי‬
‫ צפון‬practically means “heavens.” See also de Savignac and Vogt,
who argue th at ‫ צפון‬means “sky” in a number of instances; so too,
in this case, Ginsberg.
Cross: ‫ ירכ תי צ פ ץ‬should be understood as “the distant north” . The
reference is not to Baal’s mountain, but to the territory in the Ama-
nus (and farther north) where E l’s council was held (‫) ה ר ״ מו ע ד‬.
j. Ps 48:3
Eissfeldt: In the phrase ‫ ה ר״ ציון ירכ תי צפון‬Mt. Zion’s assimilation of Mt.
Zaphon may be seen. Yahweh thus triumphs over Baal and as-
sumes his throne; cf. related contexts which extol Yahweh’s moun-
tain: Isa 2:2-4; Ezek 40:2; Mic 4:1-4; and Zech 14:10. See also Pope,
Dahood, and Clifford.
de Savignac: ‫ ירכ תי צ פ ץ‬are “les retraits (penetralia) des nuees oil la di-
vinite fait sa residence.”
Vogt: Here ‫ צ פ ץ‬denotes the sky.
Caquot: “ ...p o u r les Israelites de l’age classique le Sapon est ou est
devenu un lieu mythiqiie, puisque Ps 48,3 l’assimile au mont Sion.”
See also De Langhe, Gray, and Jacob.
k. Jer 21:1; 29:25, 29; 52:24; Zeph 1:1; etc. (‫ ;)צפניה‬I I Kings 25:18; Jer 37:3
(‫)צפניהו‬
Sabottka: The ‫ צפן‬element in these PN ’s is originally derived from
412 —
B 'l Spn. The PN ’s mean “Sapon ist Jahwe.” This original sense
was forgotten, and ‫ צ פן‬was then understood as a verb: “Jahwe
birgt/schiitzt.” See also Macl,aurin.
l. Comments
Roberts makes a strong case against the claim of de Savignac, Vogt,
and Clifford th at ‫ צ פ ץ‬may denote the sky. Note especially his charac-
terization of Clifford’s stichometry for Isa 14:13-14 as "weird, tortured.”
Special note shoiild also be made of De Langhe’s objections to Eissfeldt’s
understanding of ‫ צפון‬in Ezek 32:30 (Textes de Ras Shamra Ugarit, II,
pp. 231-234); see also Astour, R SP II, V III 89 o.
m. I t is apparent th at the biblical ‫ ירכ תי צפון‬is equivalent to the Ug.
cliche srrt spn and th at the reference is not to distance, which was not
great, but to the difficulty of access. The term ‫ ירכ תי‬is used of Mount
Ephraim (Judg 19:1, 18), the Lebanon (II Kings 19:23; Isa 37:24), the
recesses of a cave (I Sam 24:4), a part of the temple (I Kings 6:16), the
inside of an ordinary house (Amos 6:10; Ps 128:3), and the hold of a
ship (Jonah 1:5). Cf. Pope, E U T, p. 103; and Job*, p. 183. (MHP)
26
a. Rsp !‫רשף ן רשפים‬,

1:4, 7 (CTA 34:4, 7); 3:16 (CTA 35:16); 17:5 (CTA 29 rev:5); 128 11:6
(CTA 15 11:6); etc.
Cf. VI hz rsp: 1001:3.
b. Notes
Rsp isa god of the underworld (although contrast D. Conrad’s view
of Rsp as a high god of the sky, weather, and war [ZAW, L X X X III
(1971), 157-183]). Fulco, ReSep, surveys both primary sources and second-
ary literature (for Ug., see pp. 36-44).
c. Bibliography
Albright, Haupt FS, pp. 146-151 (Job 5:7).
Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, p. 14 (Hab 3:5).
A. Caquot, Sem, VI (1956), 53-68.
Albright, Driver FS, p. 7 (Cant 8:6).
Pope, Syrien, pp. 305-306 (Job 5:7).
F. Vattioni, A IO N , XV (1965), 39-74.
Dahood, Phoenician, p. 134 (Cant 8:6).
— 413 —
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 218 (Ps 76:4), 237 (Ps 78:48), and 331-332
(Ps 91:5-6).
A. van den Branden, BibOr, X III (1971), 211-225.
A. van den Branden, ParOr, I (1971), 389-416.
Fulco, Resep, pp. 56-60.
Pope, Song, p. 670 (Job 5:7; Cant 8:6).
d. Deut 32:24
Caquot, Vattioni: ‫ רשף‬and ‫ ק ט ב‬are proper names of demons in this v.
See also Fulco.
van den Branden: ‫ ר ע ב‬also is personified here (as famine).
e. Hab 3:5
Caquot, Vattioni: ‫ רשף‬and ‫ ד ב ר‬should be understood here as mytho-
logical figures; they are lesser divinities who accompany Elohim as
natural forces at his command. See also Albright, van den Branden,
and Fulco.
f. Job 5:7; cf. Ps 91:5-6
Caquot: The ‫ בני" רשף‬are “demons ailes peuplant l’espace intermediaire
entre le ciel et la terre.” Similarly, Albright, who notes the image of
the vulture flying over the dead.
Pope: “I t is problematic whether ‘Reshef’s sons’ in the present passage
is a poetic image for flames or sparks, or a more direct allusion to
the god of pestilence. . . . The various forms of pestilence may have
been thought of as Reshef’s children.”
Vattioni: Any direct connection with demons m ust be rejected; the
‫ בני" רשף‬are “flames,” as in Cant 8:6 (see below, i).
van den Branden: The ‫ בני״ר שף‬are associated with the ‫ רשפים‬of Ps 76:4
(see below, h).
Dahood: In Ps 91:6, ‫ ד ב ר‬and ‫ ק ט ב‬are demonological references. Like-
wise, in v. 5 ‫ ח ץ‬, *‘arrow,” is a symbol of Resheph, who in Ug. is
termed b'l hz rSp.
Fulco: W ith the presence of ‫ ד ב ר‬and ‫ ק ט ב‬in Ps 91:6, it is hard to believe
th at ‫ חץ יעוף‬in v. 5 is not ultimately a reference to Resep. Ps 91:5-6
thus offers a “striking parallel” to Job 5:7.
g. Ps 78:48
Dahood: MT ‫ ב ר ד‬, “hail,” should be retained, and ‫ רשפים‬should be un-
derstood as “thunderbolts.”
Fulco: MT ‫ ב ר ד‬should be emended to ‫ ד ב ר‬, and ‫ רשפים‬should be taken
— 414 —
as an allusion to Resep. Deber and ReSeps are “malevolent spirits

accompanying God in his destructive wake.” Context alone makes
it far more likely that God afflicted the animals with plague and
diseases than with hail and lightening or thunderbolts, since the
allusion is to the plagues in Egypt.
h. Ps 76:4
Caquot: “II s'agit de savoir si les adversaires de Yahwe auxquels le psaume
fait allusion sont des adversaires surhumaines ou des adversaires
‘historicises’, des ennemis terrestres du peuple.”
Vattioni: This text suggests the image of Resep, armed with his bow
and bent upon destruction; cf. Isa 49:2 and Ps 18:13-15.
Dahood: ‫ רשפי‬is to be translated “his thunderbolts” ; the form is an
accusative of means with third person masc. sing, suffix ‫י‬-.
Fulco: ‫ר שפי־ק שת‬, “ Reseps of the bow,” seems to be “a demythologization
of the original image of Resep.” Apparently, ‫ רשף‬here means little
more than "vicious assault (associated with bow and arrows).”
i. Cant 8:6
Caquot: ‫ רשפים‬here is a common noun, although the character of the
deity is reflected obliquely. See also Fulco.
Albright: There is a possible reference to the deity here.
Vattioni: Albright is wrong: “la referenza mi appare molto remota.”
Dahood: ‫ רשפיה‬signifies “a divine spark” (‫) ר ש פ״י ה‬, and ‫ רשפי‬should be
taken as “its spark” (with ‫י‬- as the third person masc. sing, suffix).
Pope: ‫ רשפים‬means “darts,” here explicitly connected with “fire” (‫)אש‬.
The term is cognate with the name of the god Resep.
j. Comments
There is no direct connection between the Ug. R fy and the biblical
‫רשף‬//‫רשפים‬. For D. Conrad, Z A W , L X X X III (1971), 157-183, the ‫רשף‬
of the OT “nur noch eine depotenzierte Form des alten Gottes ist.”
While Fulco speaks of the “demythologization” of ‫ רשף‬in the OT, he
also observes th at in most contexts where the term occurs, “it is not
difficult to trace the literary trope back to its mythological roots.”
27
a. $gr c f . ‫שגר‬
609 rev:9.
Cf. $gr: 67 111:16, 17 (CTA 5 111:16, 17); 2001 obv:13.
— 415 —
b. Notes
The existence of the DN Sgr had been surmised from the Punic PN
‫ ; ע ב ד עג ר‬see Uidzbarski, Ephemeris III, p. 56; Harris, Grammar, pp. 130
and 149; and Benz, Names, p. 413. I t is attested at Ugarit as half of
the binomial DN Sgr wltm (UT 609 rev :9; on Itm, see above, 6), and
as a common noun; see Gordon, UT, § 19.2384; and M. Astour, JAO S,
LXXXVI (1966), 281.
c. Bibliography
Iyoewenstamm, EB VI, p. 407.
M. Delcor, UF, VI (1974), 14.
d. Exod 13:12 (‫ ; )שגר ב ה מה‬Deut 7:13; 28:4, 18, 51 (‫) שגר]־[אלפיך‬
These expressions denote the young of the herd. In Deut, ‫שגר)"(אלפיך‬
always occurs together with ‫תר)ו(ת צאנך‬#‫ ע‬, “the young of the flock.”
The comments on the latter phrase (for which, see above, 23 j) apply,
in general, to ‫ ; שגר)"(אלפיך‬see also Loewenstamm and Delcor.
28
a. Shr !‫שחר ן‬, ‫משחר‬

Cf. g n ‫צ ר ת הישחר‬
cf. p n ’s ‫אחישחר‬, ‫שחריה‬
Shr wSlm: 52:52, 53 (CTA 23:52, 53); 607:52; 608:18; 610 A :11.
Cf. shr: 75 1:7 (CTA 12 1:7).
Cf. bnt hll snnt: 77:6, 15, 40-41 (CTA 24:6, 15, 40-41); 2 Aqht 11:26-27, 31
{CTA 17 11:26-27, 31); etc.
b. Notes
The god Shr is attested at Ugarit as half of the divine pair Shr wSlm.
When Shr occurs independently, it is probably a common noun meaning
“dawn.” See Xella, Shr e Sim, pp. 106-119, for references and discussion;
note also the comments of Astour, Hellenosemitica2, p. 154, on UT 75 1:7.
The god is usually considered to be the deified dawn or the hypostasis
of 'Attar/Venus as the Morning Star. The feminine characteristics of
Shr are well in keeping with the androgynous nature of Venus. Along
with the bibliography listed below, see also Dahood, Deities, p. 91, on
the nature of Shr.
— 416 —
C. Bibliography
S. Langdon, E T, X I J I (1930-1931), 172-174.
Nielsen, R $ Mythologie, pp. 53-54 (Isa 14:12; Ps 139:9), 58, and 112
(Isa 14:12).
R. de Vaux, RB, XLVI (1937), 546-547.
J. Morgenstern, HUCA, XIV (1939), 108-126.
A. Jirku, Z A W , LXV (1953), 85-86.
Pope, E U T, pp. 102-103 (Isa 14:12).
Albright, A R B , pp. 84 and 86.
P. Grelot, RH R, CXLIX (1956), 18-48 (Isa 14:12; Amos 4:13).
P. Grelot, VT, VI (1956), 303-304 (Isa 14:12).
Gray, LC, pp. 202 (Ps 110:3), and 209 (Isa 14:12).
Baumgartner, A T , pp. 157-158.
Jacob, R S, pp. 104-105.
Hvidberg, WLOT, p. 131.
K. Yaron, A S T I, II I (1964), 51.
Pope, Syrien, pp. 306-307 (Isa 14:12).
Astour, Hellenosemiticas, pp. 138-139 (Isa 14:12), 154-155 (Josh 13:19;
etc.; Ps 22:1), and 268-270 (Isa 14:12).
d. Albright, Yahweh, pp. 187 and 231-232.
Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 55 (Ps 57:9; etc.).
Rin, AG, p. 284.
Dahood, Psalms I I I , p. 116 (Ps 110:3).
J. Holman, BZ, X IV (1970), 53.
J. McKay, VT, X X (1970), 451-464.
du Mesnil du Buisson, Etudes, pp. 2-15.
U. Oldenburg, Z A W , L X X X II (1970), 206-208.
Preuss, Versfottung, pp. 140-141.
P. Craigie, Z A W , LXXXV (1973), 223-225.
du Mesnil du Buisson, Nouvelles etudes, pp. 160 and 202-203.
Pope, Job3, p. 295 (Job 38:12).
Schlisske, Gottessohne, pp. 34-35.
Xella, Shr e Sim, pp. 106-119.
Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39, pp. 38-41.
O. Loretz, UF, V III (1976), 133-136.
Pope, Song, p. 572 (Cant 6:10).
417 —
e. Isa 14:12
Gunkel suggested long ago th at a Phoen. theomachy underlies Isa 14:
12-15 (Schdpfung und Chaos, pp. 132-134). In this passage ‫הי ל ל בן״ שחר‬
vainly attem pts to usurp the heavenly throne of El and he suffers the
consequences. See also Nielsen, Morgenstem, Albright, Yaron, Olden-
burg, Clifford, and Schlisske. Mesopotamian parallels have also been
sought, notably in the E rra Epic (Langdon) and the Myth of E tana
(Preuss).
de Vaux, Hvidberg, du Mesnil du Buisson: ‫ הי ל ל‬should be equated with
Ug. hll (in the epithet of the Ktrt, bnt hll snnt).
Grelot: The equation of hll with ‫ הי ל ל‬is dubious; the epithet hll is ,,ap-
plicable a diverses divinites astrales: ‘celui que brille, le brillant’.”
See also Loretz.
Gray: That portion of the Baal cycle (UT 49 I:26ff. [CTA 6 I:54ff.]) th at
describes *Attar’s attem pt to assume Baal's throne is parallel to
the biblical passage. Both texts depict the fall of the bright Venus
star, who proved an inadequate king. See also Albright, Jacob,
Hvidberg, Gese, McKay, du Mesnil du Buisson, Preuss, and Craigie.
f. Baumgartner, McKay: A parallel to Isa 14:12-15 may be found in the Greek
m yth of Phaethon, son of Eos (Homer, Hesiod). The Ug. *Attar,
the Heb. ‫ הי ל ל‬, and the Greek Phaethon may reflect the common
mythological motif of divine hybris and revolt. See also Grelot
and Astour.
Pope: Isa 14 uses a m yth “die uns aber unbekannt ist.”
Astour: There is no similarity between ‫ הי ל ל‬and *Attar. See also Oldenburg.
Preuss: In Isa 14:12-15, the original m yth has been adapted and his-
toricized in a four-stage process.
Craigie: ‫ הי ל ל‬is *Attar in descent (i.e., the fall of Venus at dawn); ‫בן״ שחר‬
is not a genealogical indication, but a reflection of the character
of Venus in its dawn descent.
Kaiser: While Ug. illuminates details of Isa 14:12-15, it offers no direct
parallel.
Eoretz: The mythological material in Isa 14:12-15 is secondary: the
m yth of ‫ הי ל ל בן־ שחר‬is applied to the hybris and fall of the Baby-
Ionian ruler in order to mythicize his fate.
g. Amos 4:13
Grelot: The poetic personification of ‫ה ר‬#, “Dawn,” here echoes ancient
mythology.
— 418 —
h. Ps 22:1
Jirku: ‫“ איל ת העזחר‬war ein Died, das von dem der gottlichen Morgenrote
heiligem Tier handelte.”
Astour: The expression ‫ אי ל ת השחר‬, “doe of the dawn,” suggests th at
‫ שחר‬was female.
i. Pss 57:9; 108:3
Dahood: The image here is “probably an allusion to the Canaanite god
of dawn.”
McKay: Here ‫ שחר‬is a “personalized being.” See also Morgenstern.
j. Ps 82:7
Morgenstern: m t ‫ ו כ א ח ד השרים תפ לו‬should be emended to ‫ו כ הי ל ל בן שחר‬
‫ ת פ לו‬, “Even as Helel ben Shahar shall ye fall (to earth).” The
clause refers to the myth found in Isa 14:1215‫־‬, “the currency of
which in Judaism at the time of the composition of this Ps. we have
definitely established.’’
k. Ps 110:3
Gray: MT ‫ מרחם משחר‬should be read as ‫( מ ר ח־ ם שחר‬enclitic ‫)־ם‬, “from
the breath of dawn.”
Dahood: Here ‫ משחר‬should be understood as “the dawn of life.”
McKay: ‫ מרח ם משחר‬should be translated “from the womb of §hr.” The
form ‫ משחר‬is a variant of ‫ שחר‬or else the initial ‫ מ‬is to be deleted
as a dittography. The image “may reflect an ancient belief in a
personalized feminine dawn.”
l. Ps 139:9
Holman: There is a possible mythological allusion in ‫ ; כנ פי״ ש ח ר‬note
various representations of winged sun disks. See also Nielsen.
McKay: ‫ שחר‬is described here as a winged being who has access to the
remotest parts of the earth.
m. Job 3:9; 41:10
McKay: The mentions of Shy’s “eyelids” (‫ ) ע פ ע פי״ ש ח ר‬are almost cer-
tainly references to the Dawn-goddess.
n. Job 38:12
Jacob: ‫ שחר‬is a reference to the deity ‘TAurore” here. See also Pope.
o. Cant 6:10
McKay: The imagery of this v. attests to the femininity of ‫שחר‬, "Dawn.”
— 419 —
28
Pope: There is an affinity of *IfflZMDD with Ug. km shr (UT 75 1:7), but
the.se expressions must be distinguished from references to the god
Shr.
p. josh 13:19 (1 ;(‫ צ ר ת השחר‬Chron 7:10 (‫ ; )אחי שחר‬8:26 (‫) שחריה‬
Jirku, Astour, Rin, Xella: In these names ‫ שחר‬is a theophorous element.
q. Comments
The relationship between personified “Dawn” as a figure of speech
in the OT and the deity Shr is rarely certain. Note, however, McKay’s
claim th a t even such notions as th at of dawn “rising” (Gen 19:15; 32:
26-27; Josh 6:15; etc.) “may depend on an earlier conception of the
dawn as a divine being.”
r. In regard to the meaning of ‫ ע פ ע פי״ ש ח ר‬in Job 3:9 and 41:10, see
Pope’s note in Job3, pp. 30-31: ‫ ע פ ע פי ם‬signifies not “eyelids” but “eyes.”
29
a. Slh II ‫ישלח‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫ ע ל ח‬, ‫מתועזלח‬
Krt:20 (1CTA 14 1:20).
Notes
M. Tsevat, VT, IV (1954), 41-49, offers a comprehensive discussion of
the DN Selah, but is not aware of any Ug. attestation of the DN. The
key passage is UT K rt: 16-21 (CTA 14 1:16-21):
(16) mtltt ktrm tmt One third died at birth / in health;
(17) mrb't zblnm One fourth in sickness;
(18) mhmst yitsp (19) rsp One fifth Reshef gathered unto himself;
mtdtt glm (20) ym One sixth Yamm engulfed;
msb'thn bslh (21) ttpl One seventh of them were felled by Selah.
Many commentators have understood slh as "sword” (e.g., Ginsberg,
L K K , p. 14). However, D. Leibel, Tarbiz, X X X III (1964), 225-227,
argues th a t slh refers to the river of the Netherworld. While M. Held,
A N E S, V (1973), 174, n. 12, comments th at etymologies for both mean-
ings are problematic, O. Uoretz, UF, V II (1975), 584-585, who follows
Tsevat’s assertion th at Selah is the god of the “infernal river,” claims
th at slh in UT K rt :20 is the DN.
— 420 —
Bibliography
M. Tsevat, V T, IV (1954), 41-49.
D. Eeibel, Tarbiz, X X X III (1964), 225-227.
M. Held, A N E S , V (1973), 172-190.
Pope, Job3, p. 250 (Job 33:18; etc.; Gen 10:24; etc.).
O. Loretz, UF, V II (1975), 584-585.
Pope, Finkelstein Mem. Vol., p. 166 (Gen 10:24; etc.).
Job 33:18; 36:12

Tsevat: ‫“ ’שלח‬can mean only the infernal water current, the river of the
netherworld, and the phrase ‫‘ ע ב ר בשלח‬to pass the River of the
netherworld’, i.e. ‘to die’.” Cf. also Teibel and Pope, and note es-
pecially the parallelism of ‫ שלח‬with ‫שחת‬, “Netherworld,” on which
cf. Held’s exhaustive treatm ent.
Eoretz: In Job 33:18 ‫ שלח‬should be understood as the deified “Unter-
weltsfluss” or as a mythological aspect of the God Selah. “Ferner
bleibt zu beachten, dass Job 36,11-12 sekundar ist und deshalb de
facto nur ein Beleg fur den GN SL H in Job 33,18 zur Verfiigung
steht.”
Gen 10:24; 11:14; I Chron 1:18 (‫ ;)שלח‬Gen 5:21, 22, 25, 26, 27; I Chron 1:3
(‫)מתושלח‬
Tsevat: “The second element of the name of the patriarch [Methuselah]
is usually explained as a divine name. I t also occurs alone as Selah
in other lists of patriarchs.” Cf. Pope and Eoretz.
Comments
Dhorme in his great commentary Job divined the proper sense of
‫ שלח‬in Job 33:18 by7 rendering ‫ וחיתו מ ע ב ר בשלח‬as “E t sa vie de passer
par le Canal,” the Canal being the conduit to the netherworld. (MHP)
30
Sim Cf. g n ’s ‫שלם‬, ‫ירושלם‬

cf. p n ’s ‫אבשל)ו(ם‬, ‫שלמה‬
Cf. ‫יהוה שלום‬, ‫השולמית‬
1:8 (CTA 34:8); 17:12 (CTA 29 rev:12).
Shr wSlm: 52:52, 53 (CTA 23:52, 53); 607:52; 608:18; 610 A:11.
b. Notes
This DN occurs as half of the divine pair Shr wSlm. UT 607:52 describes
the gods’ abode as smmh, “in the heavens,” which comports well with
the usual identification of the pair as “Dawn and Dusk” (see Dahood,
Deities, p. 91), or “Morning Star and Evening Star,” hypostases of
'Attar/Venus (see Gray, LC, pp. 136-137). On Shr, see above, 28. The
DN Sim also occurs by itself in an offering list (UT 1:8) and a god list
(UT 17:12). It is also a component of numerous PN ’s (see Xella, Shr
e Sim, pp. 106-119, for references).
c. Albright, Yahweh, p. 144, n. 92, equates the independent Sim ‫־‬with the
second half of Shr wSlm; but M. C. Astour, JA O S, LXXXVI (1966),
281, rejects th at equation, considering the former to be the deified slm-
offering (on which see Levine, Presence, pp. 8-20). Gese, Altsyrien, p. 170,
associates the independent Slm with the chthonic healer god Sulmdnu
rather than with Shr wSlm.
d. Gese’s suggestion raises further difficulties, since the relationship be-
tween Slm and Sulmdnu is by no means well-defined. The two are
equated by W. F. Albright, AfO, V II (1931), 164-169; Jack, R S Tablets,
p. 21; and Pope, Syrien, pp. 306-307; but th at equation is based on gram-
mar rather than on function. Astour, Hellenosemitica2, pp. 154-155,
uses Akk. evidence to claim th at SulmitujSulmdnitu is equivalent to
Ishtar/Venus, a female variant of Slm/*Attar/Venus; but cf. Albright’s
use of the same evidence to show th at Sulmanitu was a goddess associated
with the netherworld deity Sulmdnu. Note also Meek’s equation of
Slm with Tammuz (Song, pp. 53-55). For later developments in the
Greco-Roman world, see du Mesnil du Buisson, Nouvelles etudes, pp. 106-
119.
e. Bibliography
W. F. Albright, AfO, V II (1931), 164-169.
H. Bauer, Z A W , LI (1933), 99.
J. Lewy, RHR, CX (1934), 60-65.
Jack, R S Tablets, p. 21.
H. S. Nyberg, A R W , XXXV (1938), 352-357.
J. Lewy, JB L , LIX (1940), 519-522.
N. Porteous, TGUOS, X (1940-1941), 1-7.
C. Mackay, PEQ, 1948, pp. 121-130.
Gray, LC, pp. 136-137.
E. MacLaurin, VT, X II (1962), 452.
— 422
Albright, Driver FS, pp. 5 6 ‫־‬.

Ahlstrom, Syncretism, pp. 2021‫־‬.
R. Rosenberg, HUCA, X X XVI (1965), 166.
Rin, AG, p. 284.
Eisenbeis, SLM , pp. 125-127 (Judg 6:24), and passim.
Z. Kallai and H. Tadmor, E rlr, IX (1969), 138-147.
du Mesnil du Buisson, Nouvelles etudes, pp. 106-119.
Pope, Song, pp. 596-600.
f. Gen 14:18; Ps 76:3 [76:2] (‫ ;) שלם‬Josh 10:1; etc. (‫)י ח ש ל ם‬

Eewy: These GN’s are associated with Salim, an Amorite deity venerated
in Jerusalem in pre-Israelite times. This is shown by EA 290:16,
where BU-Ninurta = Bit-Sulmdnu — Jerusalem. See also Gray
and Rosenberg (who translates ‫“ ירושלם‬Foundation of Salim”); but
note th at the GN Shalem is not always identified with Jerusalem
(see the survey of H. W. Hertzberg, JPOS, V III (1928), 172-178;
along with Nyberg and Mackay).
Jack: Ug. Sim is related to the ‫ שלם‬of these GN’s; ‫ ירושלם‬should be
translated “City of the God Shalem.” See also Bauer, Rin, and
du Mesnil du Buisson.
Porteous: The ‫ שלם‬element of ‫ ל ם‬2‫ ירה‬was an important influence on
biblical thought. The “peace motif” in the OT, derived from the
popular understanding of the name as “city of peace” (e.g.,
Ps 122:6-7) after the original connection with the DN was forgotten,
“runs like a golden thread through so much of the OT, intertwined
with the thought of Jerusalem and the Messiah its ideal ruler” ;
see Isa 9:5; 32:17-18; 52:7; Jer 4:10; 6:14; 14:13; 23:16; 29:10-11;
Ezek 13:10, 16; 37:24-26; Mic 5:5; Hag 2:9; Zech 9:9-10; Pss 72:3-7;
122:6-8; 128:5-6; 147:12-14. This motif ultimately goes back to
the association of Jerusalem with the god Sim.
Kallai and Tadmor: Eewy’s analysis of EA 290:16 is wrong; Blt-Ninurta
is Beth Horon.
g. I I Sam 3:3; 13:1, 20, 22 (twice); etc. (‫[ם‬1]‫ ;) אבשל‬I I Sam 5:14; 12:24; I Kings
1:10, 12, 13; etc. (‫) שלמה‬
Many scholars find the DN in these two P N ’s. Their association with
the family of David in Jerusalem is significant for any discussion of
religious syncretism during the early Israelite occupation of the city.
See Meek, Song, pp. 53-55; along with Jack, Nyberg, and Gray; and
cf. above, 24 c, e, f, g, p, q.
— 423 —
MacEaurin: The meaning of ‫ שלמה‬is ‘,Sim is Yah,” a combination of

two DN's.
Rosenberg: D(1)‫ אבשל‬should be translated "the father is Salim” ; ‫ע ל מ ה‬
means “belonging to Salim.”
h. judg 6:24 (‫) יהוה עלו ם‬

Porteous: It is significant th at ‫ עלו ם‬is linked with Yahweh here, although
the original connection with the god Sim "was doubtless forgotten.”
On the passage in general, see Eisenbeis.
Ahlstrom: This name shows “th at Yahweh was evidently associated
with the West Semitic god Salem.”
i. Cant 7:1
Albright: ‫ ה עו ל מי ת‬, the designation of the woman in Canticles, should
be equated with Sulmanltu. See Pope for a discussion of this view
and a survey of other opinions.
j. Comments
On ‫ ע לו ם‬in Ps 85:11, see above, 24 g.
31
a. Tnn // (‫תנינ)]י[ם‬, ‫תנים‬

Cf. g n ‫ע ץ התנין‬
62:50 (CTA 6 VI:50); 126 V:31, 32 (CTA 16 V:31, 32); 1001 obv:1; 1003:8;
'nt 111:37 (1CTA 3 D:37).
b. Notes
Tnn is an adversary of Baal and Anath; on A nath’s involvement, see
W. F. Albright, BASOR, 84 (1941), 14-17; and H. E. Ginsberg, BASOR,
84 (1941), 12-14. The name is vocalized Tunnanu in Ug.; Heb. ‫ ועין‬is
due either to quttal > qattil or to analogy with ‫תנים‬, “jackals” ; see S. Foe-
wenstamm, JS S , X X (1975), 22-27. Note, too, th at ‫ תנים‬is evidently
a variant spelling of ‫ ועץ‬in Ezek 29:3; 32:2; perhaps also Ps 44:20.
c. The relationship of Tnn to other combatants in the Ug. myths is un-
certain. According to P. Humbert, AfO, X I (1936-1937), 235-237; and
Kapelrud, B R ST, pp. 101-102, Tnn = Ltn — Ym. Dussaud, Ddcou-
vertes, p. 120, says th at Tnn must be distinguished from Ltn. Kaiser,
Meeres, pp. 75-76, suggests th at perhaps Ltn — Tnn, but the association
of Y m with Tnn is ambiguous: they seem distinct in UT 'n t 111:34-44
— 424 —
(CTA 3 D :33-44), but are probably equivalent in UT 1003. This ambi-

valence leads S. Uoewenstamm, E rlr, IX (1969), 100-101, to suggest
th at at Ugarit, as in the OT, there are divergent adaptations of the battle
tradition.
d. Some controversy surrounds the method by which Tnn is subdued:
istbm tnn (UT *nt 111:37); tnn Ubm tst (UT 1003:8-9). The word sbm is
usually taken to denote the “muzzling” of the creature. See S. Uoewen-
stamm, IE J , IX (1959), 260-261, for a discussion of etymology and
parallels; but note the critique of J. Barr, JS S , X V III (1973), 17-39;
and the rejoinders of S. Loewenstamm, JS S , X X (1975), 22-27; and
Pope, Song, p. 612. See also above, 15 ss; and below, 35 e, h.
e. Bibliography
Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, p. 27.
Oesterly, Psalms II, pp. 441-442.
J. McKenzie, Th Studies, X I (1950), 279.
Kapelrud, B R ST, pp. 101-102.
F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, JN E S , X IV (1955), 247-248.
Fohrer, Ezechiel, pp. 166-168.
H. G. May, JB L , UXXIV (1955), 15, nn. 3-4, and 19.
Gaster, Thespis'1, pp. 145-147.
Lipinski, Royaute de Yahwe, pp. 128-133.
Tromp, Death, p. 41.
Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 354-355.
Cassuto, Literatures, pp. 84-85 [= Cassuto, Studies II, pp. 101-102].
A. Belidvre, RH PR, UVI (1976), 257.
f. Gen 1:21
McKenzie: In this instance the word ‫“ תנינם‬has lost any mythological
force.” See also Eissfeldt.
Cassuto: This passage is a polemic against the widespread notion that
Yahweh had to battle and subdue these monsters in order to create
the world; cf. Ps 104:26 (above, 20 f-g), and Ps 148:7 (below, k).
See also Wakeman and believre.
g. Exod 7:9, 10, 12

Wakeman: Although most commentators would say th at ‫ ועץ‬means
“snake” here, it should not be understood as merely a synonym
— 425 —
for ‫נחש‬. First, “swallowing” (‫ ב ל ע‬, v. 12) is characteristic of the

monster (Jer 51:34 [see below, h]); second, the rod is often used in
connection with control over the waters (Exod 7:17; 14:16; 17:5);
and third, the water of the Nile turns to blood, as in Ezek 32:6.
h. Jer 51:34
Eissfeldt: In this case, ‫ תנץ‬is not the mythical creature, but “ein in der
alltaglichen Wirklichkeit vorkommendes Tier wie in Gen 1:21;
Ex 7:9, 10, 12; Deut 32:33; Ps 91:13.”
Eipinski: Once the monster is historicized as Egypt (Isa 51:9 [above,
15 m ]; Ezek 29:3; 32:2 [below, 1]), “l’image s’etend a d’autres ennemis
historiques, et c’est ainsi que Jer 51:34 compare Nabuchodnosor au
T a n n in ” See also Kapelrud and Lelievre.
1. Ps 91:13
Wakeman: Although ‫ תנין‬means "snake” here, the idiom ‫“ ד ר ך ע ל‬is
reminiscent of the m yth.” 1
J• Ps 104:26
Oesterley: MT ‫ אניות‬should be emended to ‫תנינים‬. See also above, 20
H
k. Ps 148:7
McKenzie: In this instance the word ‫“ תנינים‬has lost any mythological
force.”
Dahood: Here the ‫ תנינים‬are “sea monsters” who are denizens of "the
netherworld’‫) הארץ( ׳‬. See also Cross and Freedman, Tromp, and
Eelievre.
Cassuto: The suggestion th at the sea monsters honor Yahweh is a polemic
against the notion th at they were His primordial adversaries; cf.
his comment above, f.
l. Ezek 29:3; 32:2
Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 71-77, reads ‫ ועץ‬for MT ‫תנים‬. He
finds the equation of Pharaoh with ‫ תנין‬as crocodile problematic. The
conclusion is unavoidable th at “wir haben hier nicht eine erdichtete
Allegorie, sondem eine allegorisierte Erzahlung. Wer ‘der Drache im
Meere’ urspriinglich gewesen ist, wird aus deni Zusammenhange deut-
lic h .. . . ” The Dragon is “ein mythisches Ungeheuer, die Personifikation
1 Cf. Job. 9:8; Hab 3:15 (see above. 15 y), 19.
— 426 —
des ‘Meeres’ oder des ‘Stronies’.. . See also May, Gaster, Lipinski,
and Wakeman.
Eissfeldt: Here the term takes on an Eg. coloring because, when the
Baal Zaphon cult came from Syria to Egypt “und dabei natiirlich
seinen Kultus und Mythus mitgebracht hat, erganzt jene Folgerung
dann dahin, dass der in jenen Termini zum Ausdruck konnende
My thus von Syrien nach Agypten gedrungen i s t . .
McKenzie: Pharaoh is compared here with the crocodile, which was
regarded by the Israelites as a monstrous being; cf. Job 40:25ff.,
where ‫ לד תן‬is the crocodile (see also above, 20 h).
Fohrer: Gunkel’s objections may be countered by referring to the Vic-
tory Hymn of Thutmose III (see Wilson, A N E T 3, p. 374): “I cause
them to see thy majesty as a crocodile, The lord of fear in the water,
who cannot be approached.” Ezekiel blends Eg. conceptions of
Pharaoh as crocodile with the motif of the dragon as Yahweh’s
adversary.
Habel: In Ezek 29:3-5 ‫‘‘ תנץ‬is used as a metaphor to describe Pharaoh
who is given the ‘scattering treatm ent’ applied to Y a m .. . . ”
m. Ps 44:20
Gunkel, Schoffung und Chaos, pp. 70-71, reads ‫תנץ‬, “Drache,” for MT ‫תנים‬.
Wakeman: While ‫ תנים‬is equivalent to ‫ תנין‬in Ezek 29:3 and 32:2, “It
is not possible to say whether the one responsible for the form in
Ps 44:20 was aware of the mythological connotation.... He may
very well have made more sense out of ‘jackals’ th at are frequently
associated with desolation.” On the other hand, “the fact th at the
Hebrew word for ‘jackal’ is related in form to the word for ‘monster’
may be taken as evidence of an awareness of the connection between
the mythological monster and this animal.”
n. Neh 2:13
Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, p. 69, comments: “Die religiose Phantasie
hat sich auch Quellen als Wohnsitze von Drachen gedacht. Als einziger
Rest dieser Vorstellung ist uns der Name einer Quelle bei Jerusalem
‘Drachenquelle’ ‫ ע ץ התנץ‬Neh 2:13 iiberliefert.” See Smith, Lectures3,
pp. 168-172, on the association of dragons with sacred springs. Compare
also the “Serpent Stone” (‫ ) א בן הזחלת‬of I Kings 1:9, and the “Snake
Pool” of Josephus, Bell. Jud., V iii :2.
There has been considerable controversy over the identification of the
site; see E B VI, p. 209, for a survey of scholarship.
— 427 —
o. Comments
On ‫ תנין‬in Isa 27:1 and 51:9, see above, 20 b, d, and 15 m , respec-
tively. On ‫ תנינים‬in Ps 74:13, see above, 15 hh-ii. Finally, on ‫ ועץ‬in
Job 7:12, see above, 20 ss.
32
a. Trt !‫ן תיר)ו(ש‬
1:16 (CTA 34:16); 614 A:9.
b. Notes
Even before the attestation of this DN at Ugarit, the existence of this
god was surmised from the PN mabdi (ARAD) -tir-U (EA 228:3); see
M. Astour, JAO S, LXXXVI (1966), 284; and Gese, Altsyrien, p. 111.
W. F. Albright, BASOR, 139 (1955), 18, thought the deity would have
been a kind of Canaanite Bacchus from whose name the Israelites derived
their poetic word ‫ תיר)ו(ש‬for “wine” (see also A R I 4, p. 220, n. 115; and
Yahweh, p. 186).
c. Bibliography
M. Dahood, E TL, X U V (1968), 53 (Hos 7:14).
M. Dahood, Or, X X X IX (1970), 376 and 378 (Gen 27:28; Hos 7:14)
(cf. R SP I, II 207).
Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, pp. 96-97 (Hos 7:14), 109-110, and 112 (Hos 9:2).
d. Gen 27:28
Dahood: In this v. ‫ תירש‬is the Canaanite god T irosh.1
e. Hos 7:14
Dahood, Kuhnigk: In this v. ‫ תירוש‬is the Canaanite godTirosh.
f. Hos 9:2
Kuhnigk: In this v. ‫ תירוש‬is the Canaanite god Tirosh.
33
a. aliyn // ‫לאי לאן‬, ‫לא‬,
Passim.
Cf. Ian: 127:14 {CTA 16 VI:14).
Cf. PN liy: 80 11:15 {CTA 85 IV :5); 1036:2; 1064:25; 1081:5; 1143:12; etc.
1 See above, 5 d, for Daliood’s translation and interpretation of Gen 27:28.
— 428
b. Notes
This epithet of b'l is generally derived from a root V Y , “to be strong,
prevail.” See van Zijl and Vigano for surveys of scholarship. Forms
derived from this root have been isolated in the OT in the difficult word
‫( נלאה‬Ps 68:10: E. Lipinski, Syria, XL,II [1965], 68, n. 3; M. Dahood, Bib,
XL,VII, and Psalms I I , pp. 139-140; Vigano); in the P N ’s ‫ ל א ה‬and
‫( ל אי תי אל‬Dahood, Proverbs, p. 57; E. Lipinski, VT, X V II [1967], 74; Rin;
van Zijl); and in the idiom T ‫( * ל א ל‬Gen 31:29; Deut 28:32; Mic 2:1;
Prov 3:27; Neh 5:5), which Cross, TDOT I, pp. 260-261, and W. Watson,
Bib, L V III (1977), 213-215, have redivided ‫ ל א לי ד‬. See also J. Holman,
BZ, XIV (1970), 46-48, on ‫( פ ל אי ה‬Ps 139:6); and note Margulis’s daring
emendation of Exod 15:2.
c. Bibliography
Dahood, Melanges Tisserant, p. 92 (Hab 1:12).
M. Dahood, Bib, X LV II (1966), 408 (Hab 1:12).
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 46 (Ps 7:13), 69 (Ps 27:13), and 144 (I Sam 2:3;
Hab 1:12; Pss 22:30; 75:7; 85:7; Job 13:15).
S. Rin, BZ, X I (1967), 174.
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 212-213 (Ps 75:7; Job 36:5), and 288 (Ps 85:7).
Blommerde, NW SG J, pp. 66-67 (Job 13:15), 69-70 (Job 14:4), 92-93
(Job 21:16), 105-106 (Job 27:19), 118-119 (Job 33:14), and 125
(Job 36:5).
Tromp, Death, pp. 75 (Job 27:19), and 203 (Hab 1:12; Ps 22:30; Job 13:
15).
Dahood, Psalms I I I , p. 67 (Job 41:4).
Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 17 (Mai 2:15); 63, n. 212 (Zeph 2:1); 133-134
(Job 41:4).
M. Dahood, Bib, LV (1974), 287-288 (Job 23:16-17; 24:1; 32:14; 37:
23-24).
Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, pp. 109-112.
B. Margulis, Z A W , LXXXVI (1974), 4, n. 6.
d. I Sam 2:3; Hab 1:12

Dahood: In I Sam 2:3 ‫ ולא נתכנו‬should be emended to ‫) ל אן תכן‬, and the
second half of the v. translated “For a God of knowledge is Yahweh,
and the Victor is a weigher of actions.” The form ‫ ל אן‬may be com-
pared with Ug. Ian (on which see Margulis; on I Sam 2:3 see also
— 429 —
van Zijl and Vigano). In Hab 1:12 ‫ ל א נמות‬should be emended to

‫ ל אן מות‬, “the Victor over D eath” (so also Tromp and Vigano).
e. Isa 9:2; Hos 11:7; Ps 100:3; Job 11:11; 14:16; 33:13; Prov 30:3
Vigano: MT ‫ ל א‬should be read as ‫ ל א‬, “il Vincitore,” ‘TOnnipotente.”
f. Hos 9:2
Kuhnigk: MT ‫ ל א ירעם‬should be emended to ‫ ל אי רעם‬, and the v. trans-
lated “Auf Tenne und Kelter den Starken/Schwachen (Baal), Don-
nerer/der Verstorte und Tirosch thront in ihm ” (on the semantic
polarity of ‫ ל א ה‬, see Rin and van Zijl). The form ‫ ל אי‬may be com-
pared to the Ug. PN liy.
g. Zeph 2:1; Mai 2:15

Sabottka: “Moglicherweise soil 10' [in Zeph 2:1] eine Verdrehung von
/^’-‘Sieger’ sein, das dem ugaritischen Baalstitel aliyan entspricht.”
In Mai 2:15 MT ‫ ל א‬should be read as ‫ ל א‬, “der Machtige.”
Vigano: ‫ ל א‬, “il Vincitore,” should be read for MT ‫ ל א‬in Mai 2:15.
h. Pss 7:13; 22:30; 27:13; 75:7; 85:7; Job 13:15; 23:16-17; 24:1; 32:14; 36:5;
37:23-24; 41:4
Dahood: MT ‫ ל א‬should be read as ‫( ל א‬except for Ps 27:13, where MT
‫ לו ל א‬should be emended to ‫) ל ל א‬, “the Victor,” “the Omnipotent,”
“the Almighty.”
Blommerde: The emendation should be made in Job 13:15 and 36:5.
Tromp: The emendation should be made in Ps 22:30 and Job 13:15.
Sabottka: The emendation should be made in Job 41:4.
Vigano: The emendation should be made in Pss 7:13; 22:30; 75:7; 85:7;
Job 13:15; 23:16-17; 32:14; 36:5; and 37:23-24. In Ps 27:13 MT
‫ לול א‬should be divided into ‫ לו ל א‬, “O, Vincitore” (instead of Da-
hood’s “in the Victor”).
i. Job 14:4; 21:16; 27:19; 33:14

Blommerde: MT ‫ ל א‬should be read as ‫ ל א‬, “the Mighty One.”
Tromp: The emendation should be made in Job 27:19.
Vigano: All of Blommerde’s emendations should be accepted.
j. Comments
Although the reconstructed Heb. epithets are usually taken in
reference to Yahweh, note th at ‫ ל אי‬in Hos 9:2 is an epithet of Baal (cf.
the possibility for Zeph 2:1 suggested by Sabottka).
— 430 —
k. Pope, Job3, p. 100, notes Dahood’s suggestion for Job 13:15 and
finds support for it in the L,XX. Nevertheless, he does not adopt it in
his translation. On pp. 106-107 Pope cites Blommerde’s suggestion for
Job 14:4, but also comments th at “the various modem emendations are
scarcely worthy of serious notice. It seems better to delete or bracket
the verse.” Pope likewise rejects Blommerde’s emendation of Job 27:19
(pp. 193-194).
l. The alleged divine title ‫ ל א‬seems unlikely in Prov 30:3. I t seems
preferable to construe it as precative :‫ל א‬
‫ ו ל א״ ל מ ד תי חכ מ ה‬Would I had learned wisdom,
‫ וד ע ת קדעזים א ד ע‬And knew the lore of the saints.
The “saints” here are the deified dead whose ghost (‫ )אוב‬was regarded
as especially knowing, ‫לדעני‬, and hence consulted in necromancy. (MHP)
34
a. (bn) il(m), etc. // (‫)בני( אל)]ה[]י[ם‬, etc.

(bn) il(m): passim.
bn qds: 137:21, 38 (CTA 2 1:21, 38); 2 Aqht 1:4, 9, 14 (CTA 17 1:4, 9, 14);
etc.
dr (bn) il: 1:7 (CTA 34:7); 2:17, 25-26 (CTA 32:17, 25-26); 107:2 (CTA
30:2); 128 111:19 (CTA 15 111:19); etc.
'dt ilm: 128 11:7, 11 (CTA 15 11:7, 11).
phr ilm : 17:7 (CTA 29 rev:7); 609 obv:9.
phr kkbm: 76 1:4 (CTA 10 1:4).
phr m id: 137:14, 15, 16-17, 20, 31 (CTA 2 1:14, 15, 16-17, 20, 31).
sbu Spt: 3:47 (CTA 35:47).
Cf. mlk sbu sps\ 3:53 (CTA 35:53).
b. Notes
Biblical equivalents or parallels have been proposed for several of the
Ug. terms th at designate all or part of the pantheon:
Ugaritic Hebrew
(bn) il(m) (1 (‫( בני( אל)]ה[]י[ם‬see below , g-p)
bn qds ‫קדש‬, ‫)י(ם‬$(‫( קד)ו‬see below, g, o, q-V, bb)
1 The variants ‫אלהים‬, “gods," and ‫ בני אלהים‬are not treated here (with the exceptions of ‫ אלהים‬in
Ps 82:1 [see below, m ‫־‬n] and ‫ בני אלהים‬in Job 38:7 [see below, p]); see Cooke and Schlisske.
— 431 —
dr (bn) il ‫( ד ר‬see below, w)

'dl ilm ‫ ע ד‬, ‫( ע ד ת ־ א ל‬see below, m -n, x)
phr ilm ‫( פ ח ר אלי ם‬see below, r)
phr kkbm ‫ ב ק ר‬/ ‫( כוכ בי)״( א ל‬see below, p, y-z)
phr m'd ‫( ) פחר( מו ע ד‬see below, y-z)
sbu sps 2‫( צ ב א השמים‬see below, aa)
c. The most controversial of the above terms has been bn ilm. Three vexing
questions are at issue: Is ilm singular or plural? If the former, is il a
DN or an appellative? In either case, is bn to be taken literally or does
it signify membership in a group (i.e., genus: god)? Although these
questions have not been resolved, see Herrmann for an attem pt to iden-
tify the bn ilm with some precision; his cautious approach to the com-
parison of bn ilm with Heb. ‫ בני אלי ם‬is noteworthy. On the more gen-
eral problem of Israelite adaptations of the Canaanite (and Mesopota-
mian) conception of the divine assembly, see H. W. Robinson (J T S ,
XhV [1944], 151-157), Wright (OT Env., pp. 30-41), F. Cross (JN E S,
X II [1953], 274), Brown, Widengren (M R & K , pp. 159-162), and Miller.
d. Ug. bn qds presents the same ambivalence as bn ilm. Is it to be translated
“sons of Holiness, Holy Ones” or “sons of qds (=A sherah)” ? Note also
Schmidt (KG U I2, p. 28), who argues th at qds is an epithet of El. The
fact th at qdim is not yet attested as a designation of the Ug. pantheon
seems to be accidental in view of Phoen. ‫( ) ה(אלנם הקדשם‬KAI 14:9, 22),
‫( ד ר כ ל קדשם‬k a i 27:12), and ‫( מ פ ח ר ת א ל גבל קדשם‬k a i 4:4-5). Only
those attestations of ‫ קד ש‬/ ‫(ש)י(ם‬1)‫ קד‬which have been associated with
the Canaanite pantheon are discussed below.
e. Bibliography
H. Bauer, Z A W , E l (1933), 94.
S. Mowinckel, ZN W , X X X II (1933), 103.
T. H. Gaster. J R A S , 1935, pp. 21-22, n. 73.
C. Gordon, JB L , EIV (1935), 139-144.
Nyberg, Studien, pp. 122-125.
Ginsberg, K U , pp. 129-131 (Pss 29:1; 89:6-8).
Nielsen, R § Mythologie, pp. 19-26.
R. de Vaux, RB, XEVI (1937), 545.
J. Morgenstem, HUCA, X IV (1939), 29-126.
2 Note also ‫ צבא המרום‬, Isa 24:21.
— 432
Albright, Stone Age, p. 227 (Isa 14:13; Job 38:7).

H. L. Ginsberg, BASOR, 98 (1945), 21, n. 52 (Ps 82:1).
J. Wilson, J N E S , IV (1945), 245.
T. H. Gaster, JQR, X X X V II ( 1 9 4 6 6 5 ‫ ־‬1947), 55‫־‬.
F. M. Cross, B A , X (1947), 65 (Isa 14:13).
F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, JB L , LXVII (1948), 199202‫־‬, nn. 9,
13, 14, 19 (Deut 32:8; 33:2, 3).
F. Neuberg, J N E S , IX (1950), 215217‫־‬.
Eissfeldt, El, pp. 11-28 (Ps 29:1).
F. M. Cross, JN E S , X II (1953), 274 (Exod 15:11; Isa 14:13; Amos 8:14;
Pss 29:1; 82:1; 89:6-8; Job 38:7).
R. J. O’Callaghan, CBQ, XV (1953), 311314‫־‬.
Johnson, Kingship, pp. 55 (Ps 29:1), and 99 (Ps 89:68‫)־‬.
Pope, E U T, pp. 9 (Ps 29:1), 1314‫( ־‬Isa 14:13; Ps 16:3; Prov 9:10), 4749‫־‬,
and 102103‫( ־‬Isa 14:13).
P. Winter, Z A W , LXVII (1955), 4 0 4 8 ‫־‬.
0 . Eissfeldt, JS S , I (1956), 2829‫( ־‬Deut 32:8; Isa 14:13; Ps 82:1).
J. Gray, VT, VI (1956), 275.
P. Grelot, RH R, CXLIX (1956), 21.
H. Hummel, JB L , LXXVI (1957), 101-102.
R. Brown, CBQ, X X (1958), 417421‫־‬.
Eissfeldt, Das Lied Moses, pp. 9, 14 (Deut 32:8, 43).
W. Herrmann, ZRGG, X II (1960), 242-251.
Cazelles, Gelin GS.
Meyer, Rudolph FS.
Ahlstrom, Syncretism, p. 74, nn. 3-4.
L. Dequeker, E T L , X X X IX (1963), 469-484.
F. C. Fensham, O TW SAP, VI (1963), 8 4 9 9 ‫־‬.
A. Gonzalez, VT, X III (1963), 293309‫־‬.
G. Cooke, Z A W , LXXVI (1964), 22-47.
Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal, pp. 8 6 8 8 ‫־‬.
1. Seeligmann, VT, X IV (1964), 76-81.
K. Yaron, A S T I, II I (1964), 51.
M. Dahood, Or, X X X IV (1965), 170172‫( ־‬Isa 14:13; Job 38:7).
Lipinski, Royaute de Yahwe, pp. 143153‫־‬.
J. Shenkel, Bib, XLVI (1965), 412413‫־‬.
Cross, Biblical Motifs, pp. 24-25 (Num 10:36).
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. 87-88 (Ps 16:3).
— 433
Schmidt, K G U I2, pp. 26-29 (Ps 16:3), 40-43 (Pss 58:2; 82:1), and 55-56
(Ps 29:1).
H. L. Ginsberg, VTS, XVI (1967), 79 (Isa 14:13).
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 166-167 (Deut 32:8, 43; Isa 14:13).
Dahood, Psalms II, pp. 57 (Ps 58:2), 230 (Ps 77:14), and 343 (Ps 93:5).
D. W. Thomas, VT, X V III (1968), 121.
H. L. Ginsberg, E rlr, IX (1969), 45-47 (Deut 32:8; Pss 29:1; 89:6-8).
Jiingling, Tod der Gotter, pp. 38-69.
B. Margulis, Bib, LI (1970), 335.
H. Strauss, Z A W , L X X X II (1970), 98-102.
O. Loretz, UF, I I I (1971), 113-115.
Preuss, Versfottung, pp. 107108‫( ־‬Ps 29:1), and 112-117 (Pss 29:1; 82:1;
89:6-8).
Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain, p. 161, n. 84.
Kraus, Psalmen I 4, pp. 235-236 (Ps 29:1).
Kraus, Psalmen I I 4, pp. 569-573 (Ps 82:1), and 618-621 (Ps 89:6-8).
Cross, CMHE, pp. 44-46 (Exod 15:11; Isa 14:13; Pss 29:1; 82:1), 129
(Exod 15:11), and 186-190 (Ps 82:1).
Miller, Divine Warrior, pp. 14 (Isa 14:13; Ps 82:1); 66 (Ps 82:1; Job 16:
19); 67 (Job 38:7); 69 (Ps 29:1); 76-81 (Deut 33:2, 3); 145-146 (Num
10:36); 184, nn. 20-21; 187, n. 35 (Isa 14:13); and 219, n. 54 (Ps 77:14).
Pope, Job3, pp. 9 and 292 (Job 38:7).
Schlisske, Gottessohne, pp. 15-78.
J. Tigay, JB L , XCII (1973), 517-522.
A. Fitzgerald, BASOR, 215 (1974), 61-63.
Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39, p. 28, n. d.
Cross and Freedman, Studies, pp. 51, 61 (Exod 15:11).
O. Loretz, UF, V II (1975), 586-589.
Cross, TDOT I, pp. 254-255 (Exod 15:11; Ps 82:1).
g. Exod 15:11
Cross: The v. should be translated: ,,Who is like you among the gods
[‫] ב א ל ם‬, Yahweh? Who is like you, terrible among the holy ones
[‫ ”?]בקדעז‬This is the sole OT example of the living use of the plural
‫ אל ם‬as an ordinary generic appellative before the time of late apoc-
alyptic (see Dan 11:36). See also Cross and Freedman.
h. Deut 32:8, 43
LX X ayye\(£>v Oe.ou for MT ‫ בני ישראל‬in Deut 32:8 suggests th at the
Heb. should read ‫ אלהי ם‬/ ‫ אלי ם‬/ ‫ בני א ל‬. A Qumran fragment published
— 434 —
by P. Skehan, BASOR, 136 (1954), 12-15, has ]‫ בבי א ל‬. Skehan sub-
sequently completed the second word as ‫{ אלהי ם‬JBL, LX X V III [1959],
21-25). Deut 32:43 presents a serious text critical problem. MT has
four stichoi, 4QDeut« (Skehan, BASOR) has six; LXX has eight. MT
lacks the second stichos; 4QDeut« reads: ‫ כ ל אלהי ם‬1‫ ; והשתחוו ל‬LXX
reads: xai jtQoaxnvqaaTtoaav aiitcp jravreg ihoi Oeon. Skehan (BASOR; see
also CBQ, X III [1951], 153-163) suggests a retroversion from L,XX as
the Heb. original, reading the final words as ‫( כ ל בני אלי ם‬similarly, Eiss-
feidt: ‫) כ ל בני א ל‬.
W inter: These w . express the idea th at lesser supernatural beings serve
as guardians. See also Cross and Freedman.
Eissfeldt: ‫ בני א ל‬should be read in Deut 32:8 (so also Ginsberg). The
v. expresses the notion th at ‫ ) א ל =( עליון‬is the high god who ap-
portions the land. This notion is glossed over by the authors of
the poem, for whom Yahweh was supreme God (v. 43).
i. Herrmann: The ‫ בני אלי ם‬are “vollwertige Jahwe gleichgeordnete Got-
ter.” So also Eissfeldt.
Ahlstrom: The term ‫ בני אלי ם‬in Deut 32:8 was tendentiously altered
by a group th at could not accept its mythological connotations.
This possibility is raised by Winter, who suggests, however, th at
the cause of the change (in both 8 and 43) was th at “zwei urspriing-
lich thematisch verschiedene Eieder zu dem uns bekannten ‘Mose-
lied’ verschmolzen sind.”
Albright: There is clear Canaanite influence in Deut 32:8, though the
“sons of God” are the angels, as elsewhere in Heb., and not the gods
as in Ug.
Schlisske: The mythological concept in Deut 32:8 is th at the dualism
between Yahweh and other gods is the model for the relationship
between Israel and the nations (so also Meyer). V. 43, as in Pss 29
and 82, “b ie te t.. .noch einmal eine Art Korrektur gegen eine Miss-
deutung der aufgenommenen mythischen Id e e n .. . . ”
j. Ps 29:1
Ginsberg: The use of ‫ בני אלי ם‬in this v. is part of the evidence suggesting
th at Ps 29 was originally a non-Israelite hymn composed in Syria.
In two parallel passages, Ps 96:7ff. and I Chron 16:28ff., ‫בני אלי ם‬
has been altered to ‫ מ שפחות עמים‬. The bn ilm hold an honored place
at Ugarit. See also Kraus and Fitzgerald (who uses an unusual
stylistic argument).
— 435 —
29
Gaster: The ‫ =( בני אלי ם‬Ug. bn ilm) are members of the pantheon who
pay homage to Yahweh (cf. Enuma Elish VI:47, 51; etc.; UT 51
VI:44ff. [CTA 4 VI:44ff.]).
Cross: The terminology of the “Court of E l,” the assembly of the ‫בני‬
‫ א לי ם‬, is taken over from mythological sources and applied to Yah-
weh’s heavenly court.
Johnson: The ‫ בני אלי ם‬are “lesser members of the divine assembly or
community of the gods.”
Herrmann: Here there is no subjection of foreign gods to Yahweh in
the interests of monotheism, only the “beliebtes Motiv” of “die
Verherrlichung des hochsten Gottes durch die iibrigen Gotter.”
‫ בני אלי ם‬/ bn ilm functions as a technical term both in Ug. and in
Heb., but not necessarily in precisely the same sense.
Cooke: “The reference to divine beings here would seem to be beyond
question.. . . ”
k. Margulis: Here a decision between generic plural ‫ אלי ם‬and the proper-
singular (with enclitic ‫ )־ם‬is no less difficult than in Ug. 3 In either
case, the reference is to the Canaanite pantheon. See also Cazelles.
Preuss: “Ps 29 ist ebenfalls ein alter ausserisraelitische Hymnus, der
von Israel ubernommen wurde und Funktionen, Eigenarten und
Pradikate Els und Baals jetzt Jahwe beilegt und auf ihn iibertragt.
Die Verse 1-2 und 9b-10 sind dabei starker durch El, die Verse 3-8
durch Baal als ‫ ב ע ל שמים‬gepragt.” See also Schmidt and Kraus.
Miller: The use of ‫ בני אלי ם‬here shows the role of the divine council as
“a worshiping coterie in the divine theophany.” Some view this
worshipful attitude as a demythologization of the pantheon; see
Fensham, Habel, Preuss, and Kraus.
Schlisske: “ Kiirzung der Vorlage und Uminterpretation haben dennoch
den Mythus vom himmlischen Hofstaat des Gotterkonigs und seiner
Erscheinung in den Naturgewalten iibriggelassen. . . . Ohne dass der
Psalm polemische Ziige aufgeweist, mochte man den Hauptanlass
der Ubernahme in der Auseinandersetzung des Jahweglaubens m it
Kanaans Gotterwelt sehen. . . . Die Entmachtigung der Gotter ist
weiter vorangetrieben als in Ps 82. Sie sind zwar vorhanden, doch
fast ohne Eigenbedeutung.”
8 On grammatical problems surrounding the interpretation of ‫ בני אלים‬, see especially Morgenstem,
Eissfeldt, Pope, Hummel, Herrmann, Gonzalez, Jiingling, Strauss, and Schlisske.
— 436 —
1. Ps 58:2
Cooke: MT ‫ אל ם‬should be emended to ‫ א ל ם‬, “gods.”
Schmidt: As in Ps 82, “Auch Ps 58:2f. wirft den Gottem vor, dass sie
nicht Recht sprechen, sondern das Unrecht fordem.”
Dahood: MT ‫ אל ם‬should be read as ‫ א ל ם‬, literally “rams,” here used
metaphorically for “leaders.”
m. Ps 82:1
Many scholars understand ‫ עדת־אל‬as “the council of El / the divine
council” here, and take the second ‫ אלהים‬to mean “gods.” On the latter
point, see especially Gordon. For histories of interpretation, see Mor-
genstem and Jiingling. For general comments on the divine council
and the gods in the v., see Nyberg, Patton, Cross, Brown, Cooke, Kraus,
and Miller. Note also th at the first ‫ אלהים‬is often emended to JTirp; see,
e.g., Morgenstern.
O’Callaghan: The plight of the ‫ אל הי ם‬of Ps 82, threatened with death
or m ortality for their injustice, may be compared with the predica-
ment of Krt in UT 125:4-38 (CTA 16 1:4-38). See also Gonzalez.
Fissfeldt: The v. shows the “monarchic status of El, superior to th at
of the other gods and among them Yahweh.” Yahweh is a member
of the council led by El, but Ely on’s (= E l’s) power (Deut 32:8)
is claimed by Yahweh in Ps 82:8.
Gray: Ps 82 “seems to us obviously based on the Ugaritic text [UT 137
(CTA 2 I)]...w h ere Baal is the only effective god in the divine
assembly. H ere. . . , however, we note the specifically Hebrew de-
velopment of the Canaanite theme, the establishment of order not
only in nature but in society.”
Ahlstrom: Since the name of Yahweh never occurs in the psalm, Eiss-
feldt “should at least have asked whether this might not be a pre-
Jerusalemite or pre-israelite psalm, taken over by the Israelites.”
Gonzalez: There is no reference to the Canaanite pantheon here. As
for ‫ ע ד ת ־ א ל‬, “C’est de l’ensemble des dieux qu’il s’agit, sans reference
a quelque pantheon ou a quelque nation que ce soit. E t s’il en est
ainsi, l’origine ugaritique de notre psaume devient des plus dou-
teuses.”
n. Schmidt: “In Els Thronrat steht Jahwe; ihm kommt das Richter- bzw.
Herrscheramt zu (DDtf), das nach den Ras Schamra-Texten Baal
in n e h a t.... So ist der Richtergott (hier: Jahwe) deutlich von dem
H aupt der Gotterversammlung (El) unterschieden.” See also
Schlisske.
— 437 —
Jiingling: “Dieser atl Vorstellungskomplex [i.e., the gods and their divine
council] erwies sich als aus urspriinglich einander nicht zugeordneten
Traditionen zusammengesetzt: der kanaanaischen Gotterversamm-
lung und der assyrischen Vorstellung vom Himmelsheer.”
Loretz: “ .. .in Ps 82 altestes Gut kanaanaischen Uberlieferung bewahrt
worden ist, jedoch verbunden mit einer vom Glauben an Jahwe
getragenen interpretatio israelitica sowie einer Glossierung.” This
observation is supported by an analysis of the composite structure
of the psalm.
Cross: In Ps 82 Yahweh judges in the ‫ ע ד ת ־ א ל‬, “the Assembly of El (=
Yahweh),” condemning the gods of the council to death. 4 The
reference is not to a “Council of E l” in which Yahweh stood. The
passage should be placed among those in early poetry where ‫ א ל‬is
regarded as a proper name of Yahweh. The origin of the term,
though, is in Canaanite myth. See also Preuss, who cites biblical
parallels to this “ Rechtstreit” between Yahweh ( = El) and the
foreign gods (e.g., Judg 6:25-31; I Sam 5:1-5).
Schlisske: “Mogen sie [the gods] auf die Erde noch eigenmachtig ein-
wirken kounen, Jahwe hat ihnen schon das Urteil gesprochen. Da-
mit wird ihnen ihre selbstandige Existenz bestritten. Jahwe ist
allein der Machtige.” For further discussions of the degradation
or demythologization of the Canaanite pantheon in the psalm, see
Jiingling, Preuss, and Kraus.
o. Ps 89:6 (‫ ק ד שי ם‬5), 7 (‫ ב נ י אלים‬6), 8 (‫)® קד שי ם‬
Ginsberg: Here the term ‫ בני אלי ם‬in used in the context of Yahweh’s
battle against the sea-monster.
Johnson: The ‫ בני אלים‬are “lesser members of the divine assembly or
community of the gods.”
Herrmann: The ‫ בני אלי ם‬are not all gods, but a group "die in der Jahwe-
religion eine Rolle spielte. Die zum Vergleich angefiihrten Gotter
werden nicht in ihrer gdttlichen Wiirde geschmalert. Das lehren
gleichartige Beispiele aus der Umwelt. Allein in der Vorstellung der
Glaubigen tritt eine Rangordnung ein.” Contrast Job 1:6; 2:1.
Preuss: According to the polemic of Ps 89, the foreign gods have no
choice but to honor Yahweh, incomparable in his majesty. Those
4 Or to mortality; see Ginsberg and Schlisske.

6 On ‫קד^זים‬, see above, d, and note especially Morgenstem, Cross, Dequeker, and Kraus.
• On ‫בני אלים‬, see above, c, and cf. the discussion of Ps 29:1 (above, j‫־‬k).
— 438 —
gods “sind wiederum dem Hofstaat Jahwes eingegliedert, damit

durch Absorbierung e n tm ac h tet.. . . ”
Schlisske: “Die Himmlischen konnen Jahwe nur nocb loben. Aus der
mythiscben Sprache wird nun fast ein stilistisches M itte l.. . . ” The
archaic mythological elements have become poetic figures of speech
in the context of the psalm.
p. job 38:7 (‫כוכ בי ב ק ר‬, ‫) בני אל הי ם‬

Cross: “The heavenly bodies, given ‘personality’ in protological fashion,
were conceived as part of the host of beings about the throne of
Yahweh.” See also Albright, Dahood, Clifford, and Miller.
Herrmann: “Da die Gottersohne Hi 38:7 in Parallele zu dem yhd kwkby
bqr stehen, der in Beziehung zu den beiden eben genannten ugari-
tischen G estim gottem 7 gesetzt werden kann, liegt es am nachsten,
sie in der Rangliste der gdttlichen Wesen neben sie einzuordnen. . . .
Im Verstandnis der Juden die Gruppe der Stemgotter und die
Gottersohne als Jahwe untergeordnet vorgestellt worden.”
Pope: “The stars were mighty gods in the pagan cults (cf. II Kings xvii
16; xxi 3; Deut iv 19), but were relegated to subservience in the
celestial army of Yahweh (cf. Isa xl 26).” The ‫“ בני אל הי ם‬are lesser
members of the ancient pagan pantheon who are retained in later
monotheistic theology as angels.”
q. N um 10:36
Cross: MT ‫ רבבות‬should be reconstructed as <$‫ ר בו ת >קד‬, “the myriads
of <holy ones).” See also Miller.
r. Deut 33:2, 3
Cross and Freedman: In Deut 33:2 MT # ‫ ואתה מ ר ב ב ת ק ד‬should be emend-
ed to <‫] [ את״* ם ר ב ב ת קדע>ם‬, “W ith him were myriads of holy
ones.” in v. 3 m t ‫ כל״ ק ד ע רו בי ד ך‬should be emended to ‫כ ל ק דשם‬
‫ בי ד ך‬, ‘‘All the holy ones are at hand.” The reference is to “the
heavenly assembly,” which is “a characteristic feature of Canaanite
religious poetry.” See also Cooke and Miller.
Seeligmann: In the first stichos of Deut 33:3 MT ‫ א ף ח ב ב עמי ם‬should
be emended to ‫ ל א פיו פ ח ר אלי ם‬, “a congregation of gods goes before
him.” Cross and Freedman’s version of the second stichos should
be accepted; this yields the parallelism ‫ י ם‬$ ‫ כ ל ק ד‬// ‫ פ ח ר אלי ם‬. See
the discussion of Tigay, who is dubious of the emendation.
7 Shr u/Slm, on which see above, 28 and 30.
— 439 —
S. Ps 16:3
Dahood: In this v. ‫ ק דו חי ם‬, “holy ones,” is the name of the Canaanite
gods. See also Nyberg, Pope, and Schmidt.
t. Ps 77:14
Dahood: Here E?*Tp, “the holy ones,” is a collective which designates
the gods or celestial beings who comprise Yahweh’s divine council.
See also Miller.
u. Ps 93:5
Dahood: In this v. ‫ קד ש‬, “the holy ones,” are "the gods or divine beings
composing Yahweh’s celestial council,” i.e., the ‫ בני אלי ם‬of Ps 29:1.
See also Shenkel; but contrast Lipinski, who understands ‫ קדש‬as
“le sanctuaire.”
V. Prov 9:10
Pope: Here ‫ קדשים‬is used as a synonym of Yahweh. However, this case
is unique in the OT, and, in the light of w . such as Hos 12:1; Zech
14:5; and Ps 16:3, is to be regarded as “a clumsy modification of
the older Canaanite formula in which ‫ א ל‬stood in parallelism with
‫ קדשים‬.‫״‬
w. Amos 8:14
Neuberg: MT ‫ זיךך‬should be read as 1‫י ך ף‬, "thy pantheon” (// ‫ א ל הי ך‬,
“thy gods”). See also Cross and Brown.
X. Job 16:19
Mowinckel, Miller: Here ‫ ע ד‬denotes the divine assembly.
y• isa 14:13 (‫ כו כ בי ־ א ל‬, ‫) ה ר ־ מו ע ד‬

de Vaux: The ‫ א ל‬of ‫ כו כ בי ״ א ל‬should be equated with Ug. II.
Pope: ‫ ה ר־ מו ע ד‬is the mountain where the divine council met. This moun-
tain is Mt. Saphon, the “mount of assembly” of Canaanite-Phoen.
mythology (see above, 25 i, 1, m; and see Astour, R S P II, V III
89 n). See also Morgenstem, Cross, Grelot, Clifford, Miller, and
K aiser.8 ‫ כו כ בי ״ א ל‬should be translated “the highest stars.” See
also Thomas and Kaiser.
Note the use of m w 'd to designate a governing assembly in the Wen-Amun Report; see Wilson,
Cross, Brown, and Miller.
— 440 —
Eissfeldt: De Vaux’s position is correct. El is “a great god, different

from Yahweh and probably at first recognized by him as superior.”
The reference to El as high god here is appropriate because the v.
is concerned with a non-Israelite. So also Yaron.
Grelot: “Ees etoiles d’El nous paraissent identiques aux etoiles filles
d’El dont la naissance est racontee au texte 52:54; une autre al-
lusion a cette mythologie se rencontre en Job 38:7, oh les ‘etoiles
du m atin’ sont en parallele avec les ‘fils d ’Elohim’.”
z. Dahood: "Stars of E l” is the best translation of ‫ כו כ בי ״ א ל‬because of
"the special friendship existing between El and the stars.” 9
Ginsberg: MT ‫ ב ה ר״ מו ע ד‬should be emended to ‫ ב פ ח ר ״ מו ע ד‬. "In the Ugar-
itic passage the Assembled Company are enthroned gods; so also
in Isa 14:13, because a pagan is speaking.” Tigay accepts the emen-
dation, but for Miller it is "enticing,” but "not convincing.”
Albright: ‫ כו כ בי ״ א ל‬refers to "the far northern stars which never set.”
Clifford: The stars of Isa 14:13 "are to be identified with the members
of the divine assembly.”
Cross: “The northern stars” (‫ ) כו כ בי ־ א ל‬is a "frozen, archaic phrase having
its origin in Canaanite mythic language.”
aa. I Kings 22:19
Bauer, Nielsen: ‫ צ ב א השמים‬is equivalent to Ug. sbu spL Moreover, Ug.
tnlk sbu SpS finds its equivalent in ‫ ה‬1‫( ש ר״צבא)"(י ה‬Josh 5:14, 15).
bb. Comments
On ‫ קדושים‬in Hos 12:1, see above, 2 o and s; on ‫ קדשים‬in Prov 30:3,
see above, 2 r and t, and 33 1.
35
a. btn II ‫בשן‬
67 1 :1,2 (CTA 5 1:1, 2); 'nt 111:38 (CTA 3 D:38).
b. Notes
Btn, "serpent,” is an epithet of Ltn (on which see above, 20) in two par-
allel expressions: btn brh // btn 'qltn (UT 67 1:1, 2; for the latter epithet •
• Note the parallelism of bn il and p h r kkbm in UT 76 1:34‫( ־‬CTA 10 1 :3 4 ‫)־‬, and cf. Job 38:7 (above, p)
and the Pyrgi Inscription (KAI 277; on which see J. Fitzmyer, J A O S , LX X X V I [1966], 295). Albright
states that ‫ “״‬sons of god' is a poetic name for stars.'‫״‬
— 441
see also UT 'n t 111:38, where it parallels Tnn [on which see above, 31]
of 1. 37). The term 'qltn is generally explained as “coiling” or “twisting,”
but brh has been more controversial than the alternatives “fleeing” or
“evil” discussed by Schoors, R SP I, I 25 j, indicate. Other sugges-
tions are: 1) Jack, R S Tablets, pp. 45-46: “swift, darting” (so also van
Zijl, Baal, pp. 157-158, with a survey of scholarship); 2) W. F. Albright,
BASOR, 83 (1941), 39, n. 5: “primeval” ; 3) A. Tods, C R AIB L, 1943,
pp. 283-297: “verrou” ; 4) T. H. Gaster, J R A S , 1944, p. 47: “slang,”
i.e. ill-omened, sinister (but cf. Thespis2, p. 203: “evasive”); 5) C. Rabin,
J T S , X IyV II (1946), 38-41: “slippery” or "convulsive/tortuous” (the
latter is suggested by the association of ‫ נחש בריח‬with the constellation
Draco in Job 26:13; but contrast Whitaker, R SP III, II Supp 1 d);
6) Gese, Altsyrien, pp. 60-61: “fliichtige.”
c. Btn
is also a common noun in Ug.; the Heb. equivalent is ‫ פ תן‬, and perhaps
also ‫בשן‬. However, ‫ נחש‬must also be drawn into the larger comparison,
on the basis of ‫ לויתן נחש ברח‬// ‫ לויתן נחש עקלתון‬in isa 27:1 (on which
see above, 20 b, d; and cf. Dahood, R SP I, II 121). Note also the inde-
pendent occurrence of ‫ נחש בריח‬in Job 26:13 (on which see Whitaker,
R SP III, II Supp 1 d-e), and the simple ‫ נחש‬in Amos 9:3.
d. Bibliography
W. F. Albright, HUCA, X X III, I (1950), 27-28.
Mowinckel, 68th Ps, pp. 42-45, 48-50.
F. C. Fensham, JN E S , X IX (1960), 292-293.
M. Dahood, JB L , TX X X (1961), 270-271.
Cross, apud P. Miller, H TR, TXVII (1964), 240.
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 145-146.
Cassuto, Studies I, p. 269, n. 71.
Miller, Divine Warrior, pp. 107, 111.
Pope, Job*, pp. 61-62.
J. Gray, JS S , X X II (1977), 7-10.
Pope, Finkelstein Mem. Vol., p. 171.
e. Ps 68:23 (‫) מבען אשיב אשיב ממצלות ים‬
Albright: MT should be emended and translated: ‫ אשוב‬/ ‫ממחץ בשן אשוב‬
‫ מצמת ים‬, “From smiting the Serpent I return / 1 return from destroying
Sea.” The v. is “undoubtedly of Canaanite origin” {HUCA).
Mowinckel: MT should be translated: "Ich bringe zuriick (selbst) von
der Schlange, von Meerstiefen bringe ich zuriick.” Note th at
442 —
" . . . wenn es der Urmeerdrache selbst. . . in den Tiefen des Meeres ware,
der Israel uberwaltigen wiirde, so .wird Jahwe sie auch von der
Schlange befreien und aus den Tiefen der U nterw elt. . . zuriick-
bringen.” See also Pope (Finkelstein Mem. Vol.), who, however,
leaves ‫ בשן‬untranslated.
Fensham: On the basis of Isa 11:8 and UT 2001 obv:6, MT should be
emended and translated: ‫ אשיב מ מצלו ת ים‬/ ‫ מ ח ר בשן אשיב‬, “From
the hole of the snake (or Bashan) I will bring back, / I will bring
back from the depths of the sea (or Yam).” Bashan and Yam are
proper names here.
f. Dahood: On the basis of UT 'n t 111:37-38, MT should be emended and
translated: ‫ א שב ם מצלו ת ים‬/‫ א שבם ב שן‬, “I stifled the Serpent / muzzled
the Deep Sea.” See also Miller, Albright (Yahweh), and Pope (Job3).
Cross: MT should be emended and translated: <‫ >מחצת‬/ ‫אשבם בשן אשבמנה‬
‫ מ צ לו ת ים‬, “I muzzled the serpent, I muzzled him. / I smashed the
deep sea.”
Cassuto: The v. possibly alludes to two symbols of the powers of wicked-
ness, namely the sea and the serpent (‫ = בשן‬btn).
Gray: MT should be emended and translated: ‫ אשיב ממצולות‬/ ‫בשן השב אשיב‬
‫י ם‬, “I shall assuredly bring back the serpent / I shall bring back
Sea from the abyss.” The sense of the v. is th at God is bringing
Sea back for a “showdown” which will ultimately result in victory
for Israel.
g. Comments
Johnson, Kingship, p. 73, n. 8, argues against the proposal th at
‫ בשן‬in Ps 68:23 is the equivalent of Ug. btn, and th at the v. as a whole
contains a reference to the mythical monster of the Deep: “This sug-
g estio n .. .fails to do justice to the context, and it exaggerates the sig-
nificance of the parallelism. The ideas actually involved find ready
illustration in Amos 9:3.”
h. J. Barr, JS S , X V III (1973), 18, 38, considers the translation of
sbm as “muzzle” to be philologically unsound (cf the renditions of Da-
hood and Cross). He suggests th at the sense of Ps 68:23 might be that
the enemies of God are brought back to Mt. Bashan, and th at ‫ בשן‬and
‫“ ים‬represent the utmost height and the deepest abyss” (cf. J. Aistleitner,
BZ, X IX [1931], 33-34). While Barr’s strictures concerning sbm (see
further above, 31 d) should not be taken lightly, the equation of ‫בשן‬
with btn remains attractive. See also F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman’s
— 443 —
(JBL, IyXVII [1948], 208, n. 74) recovery of the common noun ‫ בשן‬in
Deut 33:22 (cf. Gen 49:17).
i. The relationship between ‫ בשן‬here, Mt. Bashan (Ps 68:16; etc.),
and the territory of Bashan (Num 21:33; etc.) is a m atter of some interest.
Dahood (Psalms II) places Mt. Bashan in the land of Bashan, but Mo-
winckel associates the mountain with the snake, and not with the ter-
ritory (his comments on the religious and historical significance of the
“Schlangenberg” are important). On the land of Bashan, see Pope
(Finkelstein Mem. Vol.).
36
a. gmr // ‫גמר‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫גמר‬, ‫גמריה‬, ‫גמריהו‬
137:46 (CTA 2 1:46).
b. Notes
The precise meaning of gmr in Baal’s epithet gmr hd is the subject of
some disagreement. Gordon, UT, § 19.592, feels th at it is “a kind of
animal capable of fighting ferociously,” perhaps the hippopotamus. Cf.
also Rin and Rin, who cite Gordon, and add the further possibility th at
gmr means “fire, flame,” based on Sir 43:4, 5. Dahood’s translation,
“A ven ger,” has been widely accepted. Toretz, however, objects to Da-
hood’s analysis of Heb. ‫גמר‬/‫גמל‬, preferring Akk. gamaru, “zuende brin-
gen,” as the source of our epithet. Held, Landsberger FS, p. 400, equates
this verb semantically with Heb./Ug. !]b’D/kly, “consume, put an end to .”
c. Bibliography
M. Dahood, Th Studies, XIV (1953), 595-597.
O. Loretz, BZ, n.s., V (1961), 261-263.
S. Rin and S. Rin, BZ, n.s., X I (1967), 176.
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 49, 51.
d. Ps 57:3 (‫)לאלהים עליק לאל גמר עלי אקרא‬

Dahood: " I call to God, Most High, to the Avenger El, Most High”
(Psalms II).
Loretz: “Ich schreie zu Jahwe, dem Hochsten, zu Gott, der machtvoll
fur mich eintritt.”
— 444 —
e. Gen 10:2 (‫ ;)גמר‬je r 29:3 (‫ ;)גמריה‬36:10 (‫ ;) גמריהו‬Hos 1:3 (‫)גמר‬

Rin and Rin: The epithet is attested in these PN ’s, of which ‫ גמר‬is an
apocopated form.
f. Comments
Dahood separates the components of the second half of Ps 57:3 into
‫ א ל גמר‬and ‫ ע לי‬. But the Ug. parallel, gmr hd (UT 137:46), suggests, rather,
‫ א ל‬and ‫( גמר ע לי‬since Hd = B 'l — 7y). See Pope, Syrien, p. 255.
g. On the Rins’ suggestion, see Noth, Personennamen, p. 175.
37
a. hyn // ‫היץ‬
51 1:24 (CTA 4 1:24); 2 Aqht V:18, 24, 32 (CTA 17 V:18, 24, 32); *nt
V I:22-23 (CTA 3 F :22-23); *nt pi. IX :III:4 (CTA 1 II I :4).
b. Notes
Hyn, “deft, expert,” is the principal epithet of the god Ktr (on which
see above, 18).
c. Bibliography
W. F. Albright, BASOR, 91 (1943), 40, n. 11.
Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, pp. 9-10, n. 32.
Pope, Job3, p. 338.
d. Hab 2:5a (cf. IQpHab 8:3)
Albright: MT ‫ היץ‬should be revocalized as ‫ הין‬, and the line understood
as “a proverb referring to hyn, the Canaanite Hephaestus.”
e. Job 41:4[12]
Pope: ‫ הץ‬should be read for MT ‫ ח ץ‬, “an accidental corruption of a name
or epithet of the God Koshar.”
38
a. mlk, mlkm II ‫ ל ך‬9 , ‫ מל ך‬, ‫?ןלכם‬, ‫מ ל ק‬

Cf. d n ’s ‫אדרמלך‬, ‫ענמלך‬
a . ‫גן ה מל ך‬
mlk: 607:41; 608:17.
Cf. zbl mlk 'lim y: 124:10 (CTA 22 B:10).
mlkm: 17:11 (CTA 29 re v :ll); R S 24.264+:32.
— 445 —
b. Notes
The identity of mlk has been a vexed question, especially since Eissfeldt
heralded the “end of the god Moloch” in 1935. Eissfeldt’s thesis may
be summed up in a single Heading (Molk, p. 36): “‫( מ ל ך‬molek) Opfer-
terminus, nicht Gottesname.” While some scholars, notably Cazelles and
Albright, essentially follow Eissfeldt, others, especially de Vaux, Dhorme,
and Gray, accept Eissfeldt’s analysis of Punic sacrificial terminology, but
reject his biblical exegesis. See Cazelles and Green for a detailed history
of scholarship. The most im portant recent treatm ent is Weinfeld’s; he
reviews the evidence and rejects all of Eissfeldt’s conclusions.
c. The following points are relevant to the present discussion:
1) As Weinfeld has shown, mlk is not an “Opferterminus” in Punic, Ug.,
or Heb. Rather, it is a divine title which could, in principle, be borne by a
number of gods. The problem is which deity bears th at title in any
particular context.
2) The Ug. texts provide evidence for an autochthonous mlk cult in
Canaan th at should not be rejected out of hand as a parallel to the bib-
lical Molech cult (contra Weinfeld). There is no conclusive proof th at
Molech worship was imported into Israel by Ahab (Dronkert) or Ahaz
(Weinfeld). See also the attractive suggestion of Cogan.
3) Despite the identifications of Heb. Molech with *Attar/Venus (Gray)
and Adad (Weinfeld), the preferred equation is Molech = Mot (Lehmann,
Mulder). Of course, ‫ מ ל ך‬may denote Yahweh (according to Schmidt,
K G U I2, p. 91, “Jahwes ‘Konigtum’ ist ein Erbe Kanaans”), and pos-
sibly Baal (Sabottka; note Jer 19:5 // 32:35). The relationship between
Milcom and Molech in the OT is uncertain. Both titles are clearly derived
from M LK , but the two need not be hypostases of the same deity. Could
Heb./Ug.(?) Molech = Mot, while Ammonite/Arabian(?) Milcom =
*Attar/Venus, and Assyro/Aramaean Malik = Adad? The biblical text
(especially in view of LXX) is too confused to provide a solution.
4) At Ugarit, Pope has suggested th a t mlk = rj>u mlk *lm ( = Mot?).
Furthermore, Ug. mlkm represents neither Milcom nor deified mlk-
offerings (M. Astour, JAO S, LXXXVI [1966], 281), but the gods of the
underworld (J. F. Healey, UF, V II [1975], 235-238). Thus, rpu : rfium ::
mlk : mlkm.
d. The problem of human sacrifice in ancient Israel cannot be separated
from questions concerning Molech. For general surveys, see Dronkert,
Mulder, Albright, and Green; see also the controversial discussion of
Weinfeld and the response of Smith.
— 446 —
On all the vv. cited below, see Eissfeldt, de Vaux, Komfeld, Dronkert,
Dhorme, Cazelles, and Weinfeld. Only special details are noted here.
e. Bibliography
Eissfeldt, Molk (Lev 18:21).
R. de Vaux, RB, XLV (1936), 278-282 (II Kings 17:31; Isa 30:33; 57:9).
W. Komfeld, W ZK M , LI (1948-1952), 287-313.
Dronkert, Molochdienst.
M. Lehmann, VT, I I I (1953), 361-371.
Tur-Sinai, Ha-Lashon I, pp. 84ff.
O. Eissfeldt, AIPH O , X III (1953 [1955]), 158-159 [ = R hine Schriften
III, p. 339] (II Kings 17:31).
K. Elliger, Z A W , LX V II (1955), 17.
E. Dhorme, AnSt, VI (1956), 57-61.
Cazelles, SD B V, cols. 1337-1346.
G. O’Ceallaigh, VT, X II (1962), 179-189.
Donner-Rollig, K A I II, p. 76.
de Vaux, Sacrifice, pp. 52-90 (Isa 30:33).
Gray, LCa, pp. 169-174.
Mulder, Goden, pp. 57-64 and 70.
Gese, Allsyrien, pp. 110, 170, and 175-177.
Sabottka, Zephanja, pp. 24-25 (Zeph 1:5), 36-38 (Jer 49:1, 3; Amos 1:15;
Zeph 1:8), and 128 (Zeph 3:15).
M. Weinfeld, UF, IV (1972), 133-154.
Cogan, Imperialism, pp. 77-83.
Green, Sacrifice, pp. 179-187.
M. Smith, JAO S, XCV (1975), 477-479.
S. Ribichini, RSO, L (1976), 43-55.
Pope, Finkelstein Mem. Vol., pp. 170-172.
S. Kaufman, J N E S , X X X V II (1978), 101-109.
£. Lev 18:21
‫ומזרעך ל א״ ת תן ל ה ע בי ר ל מ ל ך‬
Do not allow any of your offspring to be
offered up to Molech. (NJV)
The verb ‫ ה ע בי ר‬, “make to pass,” is usually interpreted in conjunction
with other texts (e.g. Deut 12:31) as a reference to human sacrifice. But
see Weinfeld’s reinterpretation.
Elliger: In the context of Lev 18, ''diirfte der Satz seine Einfiigung dem
freilich nur zu vermutenden Umstande verdanken, dass gerade der
— 447 —
Molechdienst ein Unzuchtskult war etwa in der Gestalt, dass die

neugeborenen Kinder, die das Ergebnis unziichtiger kultischer Be-
gehungen waren, dem Gotte wieder geopfert wurden.” Such un-
fortunate offspring would have resulted from the adulterous unions
described in the chapter. See also Mulder.
Dhorme: Lev 18:21 may be compared to Exod 13:12, which indicates
th at Yahweh is the proper recipient of the first-born.
Note the following explanations of the vocalization of ‫ מ ל ך‬:
1) ‫ מ ל ך‬, “king,” with the vowels of ‫בשת‬, “shame” (this suggestion
goes back to Geiger [see Weinfeld]).
2) ‫ מ ל ך‬, with the vowels of ‫מות‬, “death” ; then a > o (Lehmann).
3) G part. (i.e. ‫) מ ל ך‬, “He who reigns” (O’Ceallaigh; see also evidence
for malik / mulik [ = ‫ ]? מ ל ך‬/ muluk [‫ =־‬Moloch?] from Mari and
Ugarit, cited by Cazelles and Weinfeld).
4) Form derived from Phoen. sacrificial term *tnulku / molk (Eiss-
feldt, Cazelles, Albright).
5) H / Yiphil part, of ‫יל ך‬/‫( ה‬Donner-Rollig).
g. Lev 20:2-5 (‫) מ ל ך‬

Dhorme: This is the most significant text for disproving Eissfeldt’s
theories.
Weinfeld: Against Eissfeldt, Lev 20:5 “can under no circumstances be
interpreted as referring to a vow and a sacrifice.” In the “precise
language” of the legal sources, the verbs ‫ נתן‬and ‫“ ה ע בי ר‬do not in
themselves suggest burning or killing but rather transference to
another authority.”
h. I I Sam 12:30; I Chron 20:2

O’Ceallaigh: MT ‫ מ ל כ ם‬, “their king,” should be read as ‫ מ ל כ ם‬, “their
Molech.”
Mulder: This proposal is somewhat dubious.
i. I I Sam 12:31
Dronkert: Masoretic Q ‫ מ ל בן‬should be accepted here; earlier interpre-
tations th at use the K ‫ מ ל כן‬as evidence for Davidic Molech-worship
must be rejected. See also Mulder.
O’Ceallaigh: The correct reading is the K, which represents the Aram,
form ‫ מ ל ק‬- ' ‘the Molechs.” The Aram, plural is used to make it
clear th at it is the idol th at is referred to, not “kings” ; the foreign
form is also used to express contempt.
— 448 —
j. 1 Kings 11:5 (‫)מלכם‬, 7 (‫)מלך‬, 33 (‫) מלכ ם‬

Dronkert: Any reading of ‫ מלכ ם‬as Molech must be rejected; so also Mul-
der, who suggests emending ‫ מל ך‬in v. 7 to ‫ מ ל כ ם‬.
Dhorme: “Au lieu de Milcom, qui gardait la temiinaison primitive, le
terme employe pouvait, en hebreu, etre ramene a la forme simple,
melek, ‘Roi’. C'est bien ce terme qui figurait dans I Rois x i,7 .. . . ”
O’Ceallaigh: ‫ מ ל ך‬should be read in all three w .; note especially LXX
of w . 5 and 33, which suggests ‫( מל כ ם‬on which see his comment
above, h).
Gray: Kemosh and Milcom (‫ ) מ ל כ ״ ם‬are hypostases of the same deity,
and were not introduced to Israel by Solomon, “but were already
domiciled there.”
k. 11 Kings 23:10 (‫)מלך‬, 13 (‫) מלכ ם‬

O'Ceallaigh: The reference to Molech in v. 13 is concealed by mispointing.
l. Isa 30:33
de Vaux: Here ‫ מל ך‬is the DN. So also Dronkert and Mulder.
m. Isa 57:9 «
de Vaux: In this v. ‫ מ ל ך‬is “certainement un nom divin.” So also Dron-
kert and Mulder.
Weinfeld: The mention of ointment and perfume here may be related
to spice offerings recorded in Neo-Assyrian documents.
n. Jer 32:35
Dronkert: In regard to the juxtaposition of ‫ ב ע ל‬and ‫( מ ל ך‬following an
earlier suggestion of Duhm): “ .. .de hoogten zijn gebouwd voor de
ba'al, m a a r...d e offers golden voor de Moloch.” LXX xq> |xok>x
|3aadet for MT ‫ ל מ ל ך‬is obviously a double reading. See also Wein-
feld.
o. Jer 49:1, 3
O’Ceallaigh: In both w . MT ‫ מל כ ם‬should be read as “their Molech.”
See also Sabottka.
Weinfeld: In v. 1 MT ‫ מל כ ם‬should be read as "Milcom.”
p. Amos 1:15
O’Ceallaigh: MT ‫ מל כ ם‬should be read as "their Molech” here. See also
Sabottka.
Mulder: MT ‫ מל כ ם‬should be read as “Milcom.”
— 449 —
IV 38 Ras vShamra Parallels
q. Amos 2:1
Tur-Sinai: m t ‫ מ ל ך״ א דו ם לשיד‬should be emended to .‫מ ל ך אד ם לשוד‬
‫ ע ל־ ש ר פו עצמות מל ך אד ם לשוד‬should then be translated: ‘‘for he
burned the bones of a human sacrifice out of violence.”
Albright: Tur-Sinai’s ‫ מ ל ך אד ם‬is the correct reading, but MT ‫ לשיד‬should
be emended to ‫( ל שד‬cf. Ps 106:37). The phrase may then be trans-
lated: “Because he burns the bones of a human sacrifice to a demon.”
Weinfeld: Both suggestions assume th at Punic ‫ מ ל כ א ד ם‬denotes a human
sacrifice (following Eissfeldt, Molk). Since th at assumption is un-
founded, the emendations here are “arbitrary, logically indefen-
sible.”
r. Amos 5:26
O’Ceallaigh: ‫ ונשאתם את סכות מ ל כ כ ם‬should be translated: “You raised
aloft the tabernacle of your Molech” (cf. LXX and Acts 7:43). See
also Pope; and cf. below, 41 k.
Weinfeld: This v. refers to a procession in which the image of the king
(Hadad / Adad) and the symbol of the queen (Ishtar) were carried
in a ‫ ס כ ה‬.
8. Ze-ph 1:5 (‫)מלכם‬, 8; 3:15 (‫) מלך‬

O’Ceallaigh: In Zeph 1:5 MT ‫ מ ל כ ם‬should be read as “their Molech.”
Mulder: MT ‫ מל כ ם‬should be read as “Milcom.”
Sabottka: In these vv. ‫ מ ל ך‬is an epithet of Baal. In Zech 1:8 the “sons
of Melek” are his worshippers.
Weinfeld: The repointing of MT ‫ מל כ ם‬to ‫ מ ל כ ם‬in Zeph 1:5 is “unjusti-
fied,” because‘“the reference is definitely to King Hadad / Adad.”
Zephaniah is describing Judean syncretism in the period prior to
Josiah’s reforms. The “king’s sons” of Zeph 1:8 are probably “of-
fice-bearers” from whose ranks the “idolatrous priests” of v. 4
“were undoubtedly recruited.”
t. I I Kings 17:31
de Vaux: The names of the deities venerated by the Sepharvites are
composite DN’s: “Adad-Melek” (‫ ) א ד ר מ ל ך‬and "Anum-Melek” (‫) ענ מל ך‬.
Eissfeldt: ‫ א ד ר מ ל ך‬is associated with Eusebius’ ''Abfoboq (= Zeus De-
marus; Prae-p. Evan. I 10:31) and Plutarch’s MdtacavSpog (De Is.
et Os. 15).
Cazelles: Possibly ‫ ש מ ל ך‬represents AN-muluk (see ARM[T] I I I 73:20:
Hum [AN] -nm -lu-uk[ki\).
— 450 —
Weinfeld: “Adramelech ( = Adadmelekh) and Anammelech ( = Anat-

melekh) are. . . apparently Adad / Hadad and Anat / Is ta r___”
The distortions of the names Anat and Adad might be deliberate.
See also Gese; but cf. Kaufman’s critical review of the cuneiform
evidence for the DN Adadmelekh.
Note the frequent Phoen. / Punic DN’s composed with the element ‫מ ל ך‬
‫ מ ל כ א ס ר‬, ‫) מלכעעזתרת‬, etc.), usually taken to represent Melqart. But see
Ribichini, who derives the ‫ מ ל ך‬of ‫ מלכע שתר ת‬from Ug. mlk.
u. I I Kings 25:4; Neh 3:15

Gray: The “king’s gardens” (‫ )גן ה מל ך‬were located by the Siloam Pool,
near the confluence of the Kidron Valley and the Valley of Hinnom,
scene of the sacrifices to Molech. These gardens were “the precinct
of the god M elech.. . . ”
v. Comments
The Qur’an 43:77 mentions Malik as the ruler of infernal region.
J. A. Montgomery, JB L , X X V II (1908), 41, n. 63, suggested th at here
“we have the trace of the ancient cult of Melek.” We may have some-
thing more of interest in the vocalization of the form as the part, malik
which would become in Heb. ‫ מ ל ך‬. Accordingly, the ‫ בשת‬vocalization
affected only the short vowel and the stress. (MHP)
39
a. Hy II ‫ ע ל‬, ‫ ע ל ו‬, ‫לי‬$?/‫?לי‬

Cf. p n ‫ע לי‬
126 I I I :6, 8 (CTA 16 III :6, 8).
Cf. PN yrm'l: 2106:4.
b. Notes
H. S. Nyberg (Studien; A R W , XXXV [1938], 329-387) argued for a
divine title ‫ ע ל‬in the OT primarily on the basis of West Semitic onomas-
tica and the comparable title ‫ ע ליון‬. UT 126 111:5-9 (CTA 16 111:5-9)
confirms the essentials of his hypothesis:
(5) lars mtr b'l Unto the earth rains Baal,
(6) wlsd mtr *ly Yea, unto the field rains Bli.
(7) n ‫״‬m lars mtr b'l Sweet to the earth is the rain of Baal;
(8) wlsd mtr *ly To the field the rain of Eli.
— 451 —
30
c. Problems remain, nevertheless, not least because the Masoretes failed

to recognize (‫י‬/‫ על)ו‬as a deity. In addition, the relationship between
'Zy and ‫ עליון‬is by no means clear, in spite of their grammatical affinity.
For example, while Rendtorff, 4th World Congress, pp. 167-170, has no
doubt th a t the two are comparable, Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal, p. 48,
n. 14, finds no indication th a t the two are to be equated.
d. The most obvious difficulty is th at 7y is an epithet of BH at Ugarit, while
‫ עליון‬is associated with El in the OT (see Gen 14:18-20). According to
Cross, CMHE, pp. 50-52, ‫ עליון‬was an early epithet of the Canaanite
El; but G. Levi della Vida, JB L , L X III (1944), 1-9, argues th a t ‫א ל עליון‬
corresponds to no actual deity in the Canaanite pantheon and was a
peculiar Israelite development (similarly Rendtorff, and R. Lack, CBQ,
X X IV [1962], 44-64, both of whom connect ‫ ע לי ץ‬with Baal-shamem).
e. On the position of Elyon as the first in the four generations of the an-
cient theogony and theomachy, corresponding to Alalu of the Kumarbi
myth, see Pope, E U T, pp. 55-58. Elyon was two generations earlier
than El in the theogonic tradition, so it seems unlikely th at the former
was an early epithet of the latter. (MHP)
f. It is clear from the Ug. reference th at 'Aliy is a cognomen of Baal and
quite separate from the older Elyon. The vocalization 'Aliy seems in-
dicated by the circumstance of the Shiite Muslims’ deification of the
Caliph 'Aliy and the stricture by the poet Ishaq bin Suwaid al-'Adawi
against those who worship the clouds as they invoke the name of 'Aliy.
This would suggest th at the Caliph’s name was identical with th at of
the ancient weather god. Cf. Pope, Syrien, pp. 254-255. (MHP)
g. The following entries do not include biblical references to ‫ עליון‬because,
whoever he is, he is not found at Ugarit. On the ‫ ע לי ץ‬question, van Zijl,
Baal, pp. 282-284, offers a convenient summary.
h. Bibliography
Nyberg, Studien, pp. 57-60 (Gen 27:39; 49:25; I Sam 2:10; Isa 59:18;
63:7; Hos 7:16), 74 (Hos 10:5), 89 (Hos 11:7), and 120 (Ps 16:2-3).
G. R. Driver, E T , L (1938), 92-93.
H. S. Nyberg, A R W , XXXV (1938), 341 (I Sam 1:3; etc.), 344 (I Sam
2:10; Ps 18:14), 372-373 (Deut 33:12), 377-378, and 382 (II Sam
23:1).
W. F. Albright, CBQ, V II (1945), 31, n. 89 (I Sam 1:3; etc.; 2:10).
F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, JB L , LXVII (1948), 194 (Deut 33:12),
and 204-205 (Deut 33:12; I Sam 2:10).
— 452 —
Divine Names ancf Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts IV 39
F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman, JB L , D X XII (1953), 25; 33, n. 97

(Ps 18:14).
M. Dahood, Th Studies, X IV (1953), 452-457 (Deut 33:12; I Sam 1:3;
etc.; 2:10; Pss 7:11; 18:14; 57:3), and 596 (Ps 57:3).
P. de Boer, VTS, IV (1957), 49, n. 1.
Cazelles, Robert FS, p. 133.
Gordon, UT, § 19.1855.
Pope, Syrien, pp. 254255‫( ־‬I Sam 2:10).
Dahood, Psalms I, pp. X X XVI (II Sam 23:1), 45-46 (Ps 7:9, 11; Dam
3:61), 79 (Ps 13:6), 89 (Ps 16:6), 108-109 (Ps 18:14), 117 (Ps 18:42),
194 (Ps 32:4), 195 (Ps 32:5), and 251 (Ps 41:8).
Albright, Yahweh, pp. 20-21 (I Sam 2:10).
Dahood, Psalms I I , pp. 38 (Ps 55:23), 47 (Ps 56:13), 49, 51 (Ps 57:3),
92 (Ps 62:8), 106 (Ps 64:9), 149 (Ps 68:30), 151 (Ps 68:35), and 295
(Ps 86:13).
Blommerde, N W SG J, pp. 49-50 (Job 7:20), 58-59 (Job 10:2), 109 (Job
29:4), 128-129 (Job 36:30), and 131-132 (Job 37:16, 22).
Buss, Hosea, pp. 88-89.
Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. X IX (Ps 32:5), 69 (Ps 106:7), 119 (Ps 110:7),
185 (Ps 119:104), 187 (Ps 119:127, 128, 129), 188 (Ps 119:136), 201
(Ps 121:5), 229 (Ps 128:6), 293 (Ps 139:14), 310 (Ps 141:3), 320 (Ps
142:8), and 341 (Ps 146:5).
J. C. Holman, BZ, XIV (1970), 65.
H. N. Richardson, JB L , XC (1971), 259-262.
N. Airoldi, BibOr, XIV (1972), 102.
Cross, CM HE, pp. 50-52 (II Sam 23:1); and 148-149, n. 4 (Job 36:30).
Pope, J0&, pp. 180, 184 (Job 26:9), 209 (Job 29:4), 275 (Pss 7:9, 11;
57:3; Job 36:30), and 276-277 (Job 36:33).
Kuhnigk, Hoseabuch, pp. 100-101.
i. Gen 27:39; 49:25

Nyberg: The expression ‫ מ ע ל‬in these vv. contains the divine title ‫ ע ל‬.
j. I I Sam 23:1
Nyberg: Here ‫ ע ל‬is the divine title. See also Driver, de Boer, Dahood,
and Richardson.
Cazelles: Here ‫ ע ל‬is a short form of ‫ ; ע לי ץ‬so, on this v. (and Hos 11:7),
already Ibn Ezra.
Cross: The divine title is not found here because of the 4QSam reading ‫ א ל‬.
— 453
Vigano: The Qumran reading supports the understanding of ‫ א ל‬as the

divine title: 4QSam understood the sense of the epithet, but opted
for a lectio facilior.
k. Isa 59:18; 63:7; Hos 11:7
Nyberg: In these w . ‫ ע ל‬is to be understood as the divine title. See also
Driver. On Isa 59:18 and 63:7, cf. Ps 57:3 (below, ee; and see above,
36 b, d, f).
1. Hos 7:16
Nyberg: ‫( היו כקשת רמיה י פ לו ב ח ר ב‬m t ‫ ישובו ל ע ל ) ל א ע ל‬should be trans-
lated: “Sich zu ‫ ע ל‬bekehrend wurden sie wie ein schlaffer Bogen,
indem ihre Fiihrer durchs Schwert fielen,” i.e. “als sie sich zu ‫ע ל‬
bekehrten, wurden sie ein schlaffer Bogen, und ihre Fiihrer fielen
durchs Schwert." An “Anspielung” of this v. may be found in
Ps 78:56-57. The later psalmist correctly uses ‫ עליון‬instead of ‫; ע ל‬
for him, “der Gegensatz zwischen Jahwe und *Eljon vollig fremd
war,” so he gave the v. a new sense. See also Driver and Buss.
Kuhnigk: The first part of the v. should be emended to: ‫ ישובו ]ל["לא ע ל‬,
“Sie wandten sich zum Nicht-Hochsten” ; cf. ‫ ל א א ל ה‬inD eut 32:17,
and ‫ ל א ־ א ל‬in Deut 32:21.
m. Hos 10:5
Nyberg: MT ‫ ע ליו עמו‬should be read as ‫על ועמו‬, “ ‫ ע ל‬und seine Gemein-
de." See also Driver.
n. Ps 16:2-3
Nyberg: The text should be emended and translated as follows:
‫ אמרת ליהוה‬Ich sagte zu Jahve:
‫“ אדני את‬Du bist mein H err!”
‫ סב תי ב ל ע ל‬Mein Gutes ist nicht ,‫ע ל‬
‫ ב ל יקדשם אשר ב אר ץ‬Nicht die “Heiligen,” die im Lande sind.
The parallelism of ‫ ע ל‬and ‫ ק דשם‬may be compared to th at of ‫ א ל‬and
‫ קדושים‬in Hos 12:1 (on which see also above, 2 o).
o. Pss 68:30; 119:136; 121:5; 139:14; 141:3
Dahood: In these w . ‫ ע ל‬, “Most High,” is a divine title of Yahweh. See
also Holman (on Ps 139:14), and Vigano.
P• Job 10:2; 37:16

Blommerde: Here ‫ ע ל‬is the divine title “Most High.” See also Vigand
(on Job 10:2).
— 454 —
q. Job 37:22
Blommerde: In this v. ‫ ע ל אלוה‬should be translated “the Most High
God.”
r. Pss 7:11: 62:8
Dahood: In these w . ‫ ע ל אלהי ם‬should be understood as the composite
DN “the Most High God.” See also Gordon (on Ps 62:8), Pope
(on Ps 7:11), and Vigand.
s. Ps 18:42 {= I I Sam 22:42)

Dahood: In Ps 18:42 ‫ ע ל יהוה‬should be translated “the Most High Yah-
weh.” However, because the redactor of II Sam 22 did not under-
stand the meaning of ‫ ע ל‬, he altered it to the preposition ‫ א ל‬. See
also Driver, Cross and Freedman, and Vigand.
t. Pss 55:23; 146:5
Dahood: In these vv. ‫ ע ל יהוה‬should be translated “the Most High Yah-
weh.” See also Vigand.
u. Ps 68:35
Dahood: ‫&ראל‬7‫ תנו עז אל הי ם ע ל "י‬should be translated: “Give praise
to God, the Most High of Israel.”
v. Ps 128:6
Dahood: Here ‫ ע ל י^זראל‬should be understood as “Israel’s Most High.”
See also Vigand.
w. Isa 24:15; Jer 10:21
Vigand: In these w . ‫ ע ל כן‬represents Yahweh’s title ‘TAltissimo, il
Retto.”
x. Pss 110:7; 119:104, 127, 128, 129
Dahood: In these w . ‫ ע ל כן‬should be rendered "Most High Legitimate/
Honest One.” See also Vigand.
y. Ps 25:8
Vigand: In this v. p ‫ יהוה ע ל‬should be understood as “YHW H l’Altis-
simo.”
z. Deut 33:12
Nyberg: The first instance of ‫ עליו‬should be emended to the divine title
'Aiu (‫) ע לו‬.
— 455 —
Cross and Freedman: The first ‫ עליו‬should be emended to ‫ ע ל‬, “the Ex-
alted One.” Similarly, Dahood and Vigano.
aa. I Sam 2:10
Nyberg: There is no doubt th at ‫ ע לו‬here is the divine title 'Alu. See
also Driver, Albright, Cross and Freedman, Dahood, Gordon, Pope,
and Vigand.
bb. Jer 6:26; 34:4; 51:56
Vigano: In these w . ‫( ?? לי‬bound to pronominal suffixes) represents the
divine title 'TAltissimo.”
cc. Pss 7:9; 13:6; 16:6; 32:4, 5; 41:8; 86:13; 142:8
Dahood: In these w . ‫( ע לי‬the second instance in Ps 41:8) is Yahweh’s
title “Most High.” See also Airoldi (on Ps 41:8), Pope (on Ps 7:9),
and Vigand.
dd. Ps 18:14 (= I I Sam 22:14)
Dahood: MT ‫ ע לי ץ‬is a late revision of ‫ ע לי‬. See also Nyberg, and Cross
and Freedman.
ee. Ps 57:3
Dahood: Here ‫ ע לי‬, “Most High,” parallels ‫ ע לי ץ‬, “Most High.” 1 See
also Pope and Vigano.
ff. Ps 64:9
Dahood: ‫ ע לי‬, “the Most High,” should be broken out of MT ‫ ע לי מו‬.
gg. Ps 106:7
Dahood: Although most commentators emend MT ‫ ע ל ״י ם‬to ‫ ע ליון‬, it is
better to read ‫ ע לי ם‬, “the Most High,” which requires no consonantal
changes. The final consonant may be explained either as enclitic
D- or as a plural of majesty. See also Vigano.
hh. Job 7:20
Blommerde: Here ‫ ע לי‬should be understood as the divine title “Most
High.” See also Vigand.
ii. Job 26:9; 36:30, 33
Pope: In Job 36:30, 33, and perhaps in Job 26:9, the preposition ‫עליו‬
For Dahood’s translation of this v., see above, 36 d.
— 456 —
hides the ancient name of the weather-god 'Aliy. See also Blommerde
(on Job 36:30), Cross (on Job 36:30), and Vigano (on Job 36:30,
33).
jj. Lam 3:61
Dahood: Here ‫ ע לי‬is Yahweh’s title, "Most High.”
kk. Ps 56:13
Dahood: Here ‫ ע לי אלהי ם‬should be understood as "God Most High.”
See also Vigano.
11. Job 29:4
Blommerde: Here ‫ אלוה ע לי‬signifies “God Most High.” See also Pope
and Vigano.
mm. Job 37:15
Vigano: ‫ ע לי‬should be broken out of ‫ ע לי ה ם‬, and the resulting ‫אלוה ע לי‬
should be translated "Eloha l'Altissimo.”
nn. I Sam 1:3; etc.
Nyberg: The PN ‫ ע לי‬is a by-form of the divine title ‫ ע לו‬.
Albright: The PN is a hypocoristicon for ‫( י חועלי‬Samaria Ostracon, no. 55)
or the like. See also Dahood, and note the Ug. PN Yrm'l.
oo. Comments
In Ps 16:3 the "saints” who are in "the land” are the deified dead
in the ground, as confirmed by the succeeding allusion to blood libations
and invocation of their names. The text of Ps 16:2-4 has suffered, per-
haps intentionally. The following arrangement makes sense:
I said, "O Yahweh, you are my Lord, my Good!
Not 'Aliy, <nor> all saints in the ground,
The heroes in whom all delight.
Multiplying their idols, there they throng.
I will not pour their blood libations,
Nor lift their names on my lips.
Here 'Aliy is set in contrast to Yahweh and associated with obsequies
to the dead. (MHP)
pp. Note th at Pope, Job3, p. 80, says th at the case for the divine title
in Job 10:2 "is not so strong here as in other instances.”
qq. A slightly different arrangement of Ps 68:35 than th at proposed by
Dahood may be preferable:
Ascribe power to God,
— 457 —
<To> *Al<iy>, O Israel,

His majesty and might in the skies.
This accords with a common feature of Ug. poetry, the preposition ex-
pressed once but applying also to the corresponding element in the par-
allel line. (MHP)
40
a. rkb 'rpt // ‫ר כ ב ב ע ר בו ת‬
51 111:11, 18; V.122 (CTA 4 111:11, 18; V:122); 67 11:7 (CTA 5 11:7);
68:8 (CTA 2 IV:8); etc.
b. Notes
This is the most common epithet of Baal. For a convenient survey of
scholarship, see van Zijl. While the usual translation is “ Rider of the
Clouds,” some scholars have argued for other meanings. Thus De Langhe
claims th a t the primary meaning of rkb is “mount, ascend” ; rkb 'rpt,
therefore, means “He Who Mounts the Clouds.” Ullendorff appeals to
South Semitic evidence to show th a t rkb means "join, combine.” Baal’s
epithet is “Cloud-Gatherer,” which parallels Greek vecpeA^yeQeTa (but
see Weinfeld’s arguments to the contrary). Against such fertility images,
Mowinckel argues for a m artial image: the epithet depicts Baal as a divine
charioteer, driving (not riding) his chariot—the thunder cloud—across
the sky (against this view, see Moran).
Ps 68:5 is all but universally cited as a parallel to rkb 'rpt. The following
bibliography represents an attem pt to illustrate the spectrum of opinion
on the nature and significance of the Ug.-Heb. parallel.
c. Bibliography
H. Bauer, Z A W , h i (1933), 88-89.
Ginsberg, K U , p. 24.
R. de Vaux, RB, XLVI (1937), 533.
W. Baumgartner, TZ, X III (1941), 5.
H. h. Ginsberg, JB L , B X II (1943), 112, n. 6.
R. De Langhe, HPC, X V II (1947), 96.
Kapelrud, B R ST , pp. 61-62.
T. Worden, VT, I I I (1953), 286.
W. Galling, ZThK , B U I (1956), 131, 144-145.
P. Grelot, RHR, CXLIX (1956), 21.
— 458 —
R. De Banghe, OBB, I (1957), 83-87.

R. De Banghe, HPC, X V III (1959), 96.
Jacob, RS, p. 68.
F. M. Cross, H TR, BV (1962), 254.
Hvidberg, WLOT, p. 42, n. 1.
S. Mowinckel, VT, X II (1962), 299.
W. Moran, Bib, X B III (1963), 243.
E. Ullendorff, B JR L , XBVI (1963), 243.
Habel, Yahweh Versus Baal, p. 81.
Gray, BC2, p. 26, n. 3.
Dahood, Psalms I, p. 107 (Ps 18:11).
Gordon, UMC, p. 76.
S. P. Brock, VT, X V III (1968), 359-397.
Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 136 (Ps 68:5).
Rin, AG, p. 68.
Dahood, Psalms I I I , pp. 34-35 (Pss 68:5; 104:3).
de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 98.
Miller, Divine Warrior, p. 105.
M. Weinfeld, A N E S, V (1973), 421-426.
d. Ps 68:5
Bauer: In light of the Ug. parallel there are three possibilities for ‫ר כ ב‬
1 :‫ ) ב ע ר בו ת‬emend ‫ ע רבו ת‬to ‫( ע ר פו ת‬so also Jacob, Albright, and Miller);
2) understand ‫ ע רבו ת‬as a variant form of ‫“ ע ר פו ת‬mit Assimilation
des p and die stimmhaften * und r ” (similarly, Dahood and Rin,
who argue for a non-phonemic b!p interchange in Northwest Semitic
which obviates emendation); 3) emend ‫ ע רבות‬to ‫( עבו ת‬cf. Isa 19:1).
De Banghe: ‫ ר כ ב בע רבו ת‬means "He Who Mounts the Clouds,” as does
Ug. rkb 'r f t . See also Gray and Dahood.
Worden: This use of Baal’s epithet for Yahweh is part of the larger de-
pendence of the description of Yahweh as the bringer of fertility
on Ug. expressions used of Baal.
Mowinckel: The meaning of the image is not th at God sits upon a cloud
and is transported through the air, “but th a t he drives his chariot
over the skies. The thunder cloud is mythopoetically considered
as the chariot of the g o d .. . . ” See also Galling, Dahood, and Miller.
— 459
e. Habel: The Heb./Ug. parallel “may reflect a conscious religious polemic

against Baal both in the borrowing of Baal’s distinctive title as the
storm god ‘who rides the clouds’ and in the application of similar
storm imagery to the advent of Yahweh from the heavens.”
Brock: “Cloud Rider” is the correct interpretation of ‫ ר כ ב בע רבו ת‬, but
not of rkb 'rpt. The original connotation of the epithet, "cloud
gatherer,” was unknown to the psalmist.
Gese: The interpretation of ‫ ר כ ב בע רבו ת‬th at was commonly held before
the discovery of the Ug. texts, "der durch die Steppen Fahrende,”
may still be maintained. The parallel of ‫ ר כ ב בע רבו ת‬with rkb *rpt
is uncertain because, in the context of Ps 68, Yahweh appears from
Sinai, via the wilderness.
f. Comments
Many scholars cite further OT parallels to rkb 'rpt (usually without
comment, but see especially De Banghe and Mowinckel) in the concept
of God as Rider/Mounter/Driver in/of the Clouds in the following vv.:
Deut 32:13 (De Banghe, Mowinckel, and Moran); Deut 33:26 (De Banghe,
Mowinckel, Gray, and Gese); I Kings 8:1012‫( ־‬Rin); Isa 19:1 (De Banghe,
Mowinckel, Rin, Gese, and Miller); Hab 3:8 (Miller); Ps 18:11 ( = II Sam
22:11) (De Banghe, Mowinckel, Dahood, Gese, and Miller); Ps 68:34
(De Banghe, Mowinckel, and Gray); Ps 104:3 (Gray, Dahood, and Mil-
ler); Job 22:1314‫( ־‬Rin); cf. also Isa 14:14 (de Vaux, Grelot, and Rin).
41
a. rpu, rpum 11 ‫)ה(רפאים‬, (‫ הרפא)ים‬/ ‫( ה ר פ ה‬etc. ,‫)יל]י[די‬

Cf. g n ‫ע מק)־(רפאי ם‬
Cf. p n ‫ר פ א ל‬
Cf. ‫אלהים‬, ‫מל ך עול ם‬
rpu mlk 'Im: 602 obv:1; rev:4-5, 6, 7.
mt rpi: 1 Aqht:20, 36-37, 38-39, 47, 175 (CTA 19 1:20, 36-37, 38-39, 47;
IV: 175); etc.
rpum: 62:45 {CTA 6 V I:45); 121 11:6 {CTA 20 B:6); 122:3, 9, 11 {CTA
21 A :3, 9, 11); etc.
rpi ars (// qbs dtn): 128 111:3-4, 14-15 {CTA 15 111:3-4, 14-15); R S 34.
126:9-10.
rpu b*l: 124:8 {CTA 22 B:8).
— 460
Cf. ilm ars: 62:18 (CTA 6 1:18); 67 V:6 (CTA 5 V:6); 1 Aqht:112, 127,
141 (CTA 19 111:112, 127, 141).
Cf. ilnytn: 62:46 (CTA 6 VI:46); 121 1:2 (CTA 20 A:2); 122:4 (CTA
21 A:4); 'nt I V :79 (1CTA 3 D:79); etc.
b. Notes
Rpu and the rfum have held center stage in Ugaritology since the pub-
lication of Ug. V (and now RS 34.126). Dietrich, Roretz, and Sanmartfn
give the most complete survey of the state of the question. In Ug. the
problem is to untangle the web of interrelationships among the terms
rpu mlk 'lm, mt rpi, rpum, rpi ars, and rpu b'l. Rpu is generally under-
stood as a divine title, variously of El (first by Virolleaud, Ug. V, p. 553,
then Blau and Greenfield, Gese, Cross, R’Heureux, and Roewenstamm),
Baal (Dussaud, Astour, and de Moor), some other god or a deified shade
(Caquot, Jirku, Margulis, Parker, and Dietrich, Roretz, and Sanrnartin).
Pope suggests th a t rpu mlk *lm = mlk (see above, 38 c).
C. A key text in the discussion is UT 602. B. Margulis, JB L , RX X X IX
(1970), 292-293, reads and translates 602 obv:l-3a as follows (see also
Pope, Finkelstein Mem. Vol., pp. 169-170):
(1) .. .h]n - y$t rpu mlk 'lm ...B ehjold (the) Rapha, king eternal,
imbibes,
wyst (2) \il?] gtr [the god?] drinks gtr)
wyqr il ytb b'ttrt While the Honor of El sits (enthroned)
in Ashtaroth
(3) il tpt bhdr'y El rules in Edrei.
d. Many scholars reject Margulis’ word division and basically follow Virol-
leaud, Ug. V, p. 551; A. J. Ferrara and S. Parker, UF, IV (1972), 37-39;
and M. Gorg, UF, VI (1974), 474-475, take up Margulis’ argument in
detail; see also Cross, CMHE, pp. 21-22. Van Zijl, Baal, p. 355, reads
and translates 602 obv:l-3 as follows (see also A. Caquot, Syria, R III
[1976], 295-304; and J. C. de Moor, Z A W , RX X X V III [1976], 323-345):
(1) (h)n . y $ t. rp'u . mlk Behold, may drink, R api’u, the Eternal
. Tm King
w y st. (2) (il) gtr . wyqr Behold, may the god drink, the strong
and noble,
i l . ytb . b'ttrt the god (:Rapi’u) sits with 'A ttart
(3) i l . t p t . bhd the god tapit (the Judge) with Hadad
r'y . d . ysr . wydmr the Shepherd who sings and plays.
— 461 —
e. Bibliography
R. Gordis, JQR, n.s., X X V II (1936-1937), 55-56.
C. Virolleaud, RES, 1940, pp. 77-83 (Gen 15:20; etc.; II Sam 21:16;
etc.; Isa 14:9; etc.; I Chron 26:7).
Dussaud, Ddcouvertes, pp. 185-188.
C. Virolleaud, Syria, X X II (1941), 1-30 (Isa 14:9; etc.).
Albright, A R I, p. 218.
Ginsberg, L K K , p. 41.
J. Gray, PEQ, LX X X I (1949), 127-139.
J. Gray, PEQ, LXXXIV (1952), 39-41.
Dussaud, Deonna FS.
F. Willesen, JS S , I I I (1958), 327-335.
F. Willesen, StTheol, X II (1958), 192-210.
A. Caquot, Syria, X X X V II (1960), 75-93.
Jacob, RS, pp. 5859‫־‬.
E. Upinski, Bib, X U V (1963), 425 and 429-430 (Jer 10:10; etc.).
Gray, LC%, p. 108.
A. Jirku, Z A W , LX X V II (1965), 82-83.
Astour, Hellenosemiticaa, pp. 233-240.
Wachter, Tod, p. 190.
C. Rabin, E rlr, V III (1968), 251-254.
J. C. de Moor, UF, I (1969), 176 (Isa 14:9; etc.).
H. Muller, UF, I (1969), 90.
Tromp, Death, pp. 176-180.
J. Blau and J. Greenfield, BASOR, 200 (1970), 12.
B. Margulis, JB L , L X X X IX (1970), 292-302.
S. Parker, UF, II (1970), 243-249 (Isa 14:9; etc.).
f. A. van Seims, UF, II (1970), 367-368.
de Moor, Seasonal Pattern, p. 184 (I Sam 28:13; etc.).
Sperling, Enc. Jud. XIV, cols. 79-80.
A. J. Ferrara and S. Parker, UF, IV (1972), 37-39.
E. Lipinski, OLP, I I I (1972), 106-109 (Isa 14:9; etc.).
S. Parker, UF, IV (1972), 97-104 (II Sam 21:16; etc.; Isa 14:9; etc.),
M. C. Astour, UF, V (1973), 35-36.
Caquot, TOME, pp. 461-468.
Gaal, Wessetzky FS.
— 462 —
M. Gorg, UF, VI (1974), 474-475.

C. I/H eureux, H TR, LX V II (1974), 265-274 (Gen 15:20; etc.; Deut
3:10-11; etc.; Isa 14:9; etc.).
L, oewenstamm, E B VII, pp. 403-407.
A. Rainey, JAO S, XCIV (1974), 187-188.
A. Caquot, Syria, R III (1976), 295-304.
M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, UF, V III (1976), 45-52.
Gaster, Rose FS.
C. I/H eureux, BASOR, 221 (1976), 83-86 (Josh 15:8; etc.); II Sam 21:16;
etc.).
J. C. de Moor, Z A W , L X X X V III (1976), 323-345 (Deut 3:10-11; etc.;
I Sam 28:13; etc.; Isa 14:9; etc.; Jer 10:10; etc.).
Xella, Mito, p. 76.
Pope, Finkelstein Mem. Vol.
g. Gen 15:20; Deut 2:11, 20

In these cases the ‫ רפאים‬are the giant aboriginal inhabitants of Trans-
jordan. Karge, Rephaim, argued th a t the large megalithic dolmens of
the area appeared to later inhabitants to have been erected by an ex-
tinct race of giants.
Virolleaud: The Rephaim were ancient Canaanite gods identified with
Shechem, who were transformed in late Israelite thought into a
race of giants. Similarly Muller, who says th at the transformation
“m a g .. .aus eine Depotenzierung der kanaanaischen rpum im Sinne
der israelitischen Monolatrie zuriickgehen.”
Albright: These passages refer to an historical warrior guild. The “land
of the Rephaim” in this context is the legendary kingdom founded
by those warriors. Only subsequently do those Rephaim give their
name to all the ancestors or heroes of the netherworld. See also
Margulis and I/H eureux.
Roewenstamm: The original sense of ‫( רפאים‬and Ug. rpum) must have
been “great men; mighty men”—and only later “spirits of the
dead.”
h. Deut 3:10-11; Josh 12:4; 13:12 (cf. Gen 14:5)

Margulis: OT references to Og of the rem nant of the Rephaim, who
dwells in Ashtaroth (‫ ) עו ת רו ת‬and Edrei (1, ( ‫ א ד ר עי‬may depend
1 Note also Num 21:33; Deut 1:4; 3:1; Josh 9:10; 13:31.
— 463 —
directly on the “formula” in UT 602 obv.2-3 (ytb bHtrt. .. tpt bhdr'y,

see above, c). See also Rainey.
L’Heureux: Since the Ug. rpum are an “aristocratic warrior guild,” the
OT references to Og might be historically correct. See also Rabin’s
quest for the historical Og.
Pope: Rpu mlk 'lm and Og have the same address, as Margulis has shown.
Og is a mythical character, but he is not to be identified with rpu
mlk 'lm .
i. Isa 14:9; 26:14, 19; Ps 88:11; Job 26:5; Prov 2:18; 9:18; 21:16
These ‫ רפאי ם‬are the shades of the dead. Many scholars connect rpu /
rpum with “healing” (R P ’), usually in the sense of providing potency
and fecundity (so Virolleaud, Dussaud, Gray, Xella; similarly de Moor
[but in the sense of “saving” rather than providing fertility], and Caquot
[rpu ars function as “protecteurs de la cite”]; contrast Jirku and Toe-
wenstamm). For de Moor, the great healer of the OT is Yahweh himself.
The impotent shades of the OT have, therefore, been deprived of their
“healing” power (see also Jacob and Parker). Note also the comment
of Wachter: “mag das wort urspriinglich nicht von rph, ‘schwach sein’
abgeleitet worden sein, so hat man es in Israel doch in solchem Sinne
verstanden.” Already Gordis suggested th at !‫ך‬/‫ רפא‬might be “a single
root, differentiated into the two contradictory meanings: a) grow weak;
b) make strong.”
Albright, Margulis, L ’Heureux, Loewenstamm: The Rephaim and the
land of the Rephaim only secondarily become the shades and their
abode.
Gray: The Rephaim are human agents or cultic functionaries.
j. Astour: The Ug. rpum, the ‫ רפא ם‬of Phoen. texts, and the OT ‫ רפאים‬are
the same, namely the shadows of the dead (see also Lipinski; Die-
trich, Loretz, and Sanmartln; and Pope). “Those who are amazed
by the etymology of Rephaim from raphd' ‘to heal’, simply do not
understand the organic association between the notions of the
Nether World—the chthonic cycle—and of healing, i.e. granting
health, strength, fertility, and fecundity.” The Ug. rpi ars may
be compared with the ‫ אר ץ רפאי ם‬of Isa 26:19; in both cases ars
is used in the chthonic sense of the abode of the dead (see also Parker
and Pope; contrast Ginsberg, Gray, and de Moor). The Ug. qbs
dtn may be compared to the ‫ ק ה ל רפאי ם‬of Prov 21:16 (see also Ca-
quot).
— 464 —
van Seims: There is not sufficient proof th at the ‫ רפאים‬were considered

divine beings in Israel, as rpum were in Ugarit. The “healers” of
the Ug. texts are not related to the “shades” of the OT.
Gaster: The ‫ רפאים כ ל ״ ע תו די אר ץ‬of Isa 14:9 may be compared with the
phrase qra tr *limn of RS 34.126:7; further parallels exist for the
use of animal names as metaphors for “lord, chieftain” ; cf. also
zbl mlk *limy (UT 124:10 [CTA 22 B:10], on which see now Pope).
k. Amos 5:26
Pope: Note LXX Paixfav for MT ‫( כי ץ‬see also Acts 7:43), which is usually
assumed to be an inner ‫־‬LXX corruption; “the collocation of MLK
and R P— is significant in light of the Ugaritic association of RPU
and MLK.” See also Gese; and cf. above, 38 r.
1. 11 Sam 21:16, 18 (1 ;(‫)יל]י[די ה ר פ ה‬, 20 (‫)ילד להרפה‬, 22 (‫ י ל דו להרפה‬Chron
20:4 (‫)ילדי הרפאי ם‬, 6 (‫)נולד להרפא‬, 8 (‫) נולדו להרפא‬
These Philistine adversaries of David are usually taken to be descen-
dants of some ‫) ה( ר פ ה‬. According to Sperling, “the biblical eponym
Rapha(h) can be considered as an undeified god Rpu, more in keeping
with biblical thought” ; see also Virolleaud, Margulis, and Parker.
Willesen: The usual interpretation is wrong; ‫ יל)י( ד‬does not denote de-
scent, but membership in a group. Those Philistines “were members
of a special band of well-trained, presumably professional war-
r i o r s ....” The Chronicler’s corrupt adaptation of the II Samuel
passage is the source of the notion th at ‫ ה ר פ ה‬is an eponym associat-
ed with the Rephaim (‫[ י ל ד ; ה ר פ א > ה ר פ ה‬Dp] > ‫[ י ל ד‬N]); ‫ ה ר פ ה‬has
nothing to do with the Rephaim and is related to Greek dQjnj,
“sickle, scimitar.” The ‫ יל)י(די ה ר פ ה‬were warriors dedicated to a deity
whose symbol was the royal Syro-Palestinian scimitar, perhaps Perseus.
L ’Heureux: Willesen is right except for his analysis of ‫ ה ר פ ה‬. The Philis-
tine fighting men are “votaries of Rapha” (to be understood as the
“Hale/Vigorous One”); ‫ ) ה( רפ א‬was the patron of this elite group
of fighting men, and ‫ * יל)י( ד ה רפ א‬provides a nearly exact semantic
parallel for Ug. mt rfi. The II Samuel forms with final ‫ ה‬- either
exhibit the common interchange of ‫ ה‬/‫ א‬, or else they represent a
malicious pun, i.e. ‫ ה ר פ ה‬, “the weak one.”
m. Josh 15:8; 18:16; I I Sam 5:18, 22; 23:13; etc.

The GN ‫ עמק) “( רפאי ם‬is often explained as “Valley of the Rephaites /
Rephaim.” See Karge, Rephaim, pp. 633-636; for a discussion, see
Dietrich, Loretz, and Sanmartin.
— 465 —
L ’Heureux: Two further explanations may be offered: 1) it was one of

the places where Israel fought the 2 ;‫ ) י ל די ה רפ א‬it was an ancient
site with cultic or historical significance for the votaries of Rapha.
n. I Chron 26:7
Jirku: The PN ‫ ר פ א ל‬means “ Rapa’u ist G ott.” See also Virolleaud.
o. I Sam 28:13; Isa 8:19, 21

Tromp, de Moor, Sperling, Caquot: The use of ‫ אלהי ם‬as “divine being(s),
ghost (s)” in these w . may be compared with two Ug. terms related
to the rpum: ilm ars ("gods of the nether world”) and ilnym (“divine
beings”).
van Seims: This use of ‫ אל הי ם‬is not evidence for relating the biblical
Rephaim to the Ug. rpum.
p. Jer 10:10; Ps 10:16

Many scholars compare Yahweh’s epithet ‫ מ ל ך עול ם‬with rpu’s title mlk
*Im. See Blau and Grreenfield, Cross, and especially the critique of various
translations by Caquot (he prefers “roi d’antan” to "roi du monde” or
"roi etem el”). Note th at Ps 10:16 may well be corrupt; see Lipinski,
who suggests reading ‫ מ ל ך‬for MT ‫ מ ל ך‬.
Gaal: The epithet “is the accurate literal translation of the E g y p tian ...
hfo d.t,” often used in connection with Osiris. On the basis of this
epithet, Rpu is seen to be “an Ugaritic Osiris, i.e., the king of the
dead.”
de Moor: The title, which is also attached to nmry (Amenophis III;
but see Rainey) in UT 2008:9, is “probably a translation of Babylo-
nian sarru ddru.”
q. Comments
Surely "E l heals” is preferable to Jirk u ’s interpretation of ‫ר פ א ל‬
(see above, n); see the remarks of Blau and Greenfield.
r. In Isa 8:19 (see above, o) the ghosts or knowing ones are called
“chirpers” and “croakers” in derision of the noises believed to be made
by them in response to the necromancer. In 8:21-22 it is averred th at
these will disappoint, distress, and enrage whoever resorts to them so
th at "he will curse his MLK and his gods and face upward,” i.e. toward
YHWH, rather than toward the dismal denizens of darkness. Despite
obscurities, it is patent th at the reference is to resort to the dead as gods.
(MHP)
— 466
s. Gaal's suggestion (see above, p) is extremely attractive. Note also

the use of (lm and its equivalents to denote the eternity of the dead in
Semitic (H. Tawil, A N E S, II I [1970-1971], 32-36) and Egyptian (Wach-
ter, Tod, p. 77, with bibliography). Perhaps this sense of Tm is appli-
cable to Jer 10:10; Yahweh is “the true god: god of the living and the
dead.”
t. There is no grammatical reason to suspect textual corruption in
Ps 10:16 (see above, p). The affirmation th at YHWH is ruler of the eter-
nal realm, asserting his hegemony over the dead as well as the living,
is followed by the prediction th at the ‫ גדם‬will perish from his land, a
consummation oft devoutly wished in biblical and post-biblical writ.
(MHP)
42
a. snm Cf. ‫ענים‬, ‫עונים‬, ‫אבי ע ד‬, ‫עתיק יומץ‬

49 1:8 (CTA 6 1:36); 51 I V :24 (CTA 4 IV :24); 2 Aqht V I:49 (CTA 17
VI :49); etc.
Cf. DN Tkmn w$nm: 1:3, 6 (CTA 34:3, 6); 107:4 (CTA 30:4); 601:18-19;
610 A :8; etc.
b. Notes
One of the most controversial divine titles in Ug. has been El's epithet
mlk ab Snm, “King, Father of $nm .” The most comprehensive survey
of the various views is found in Caquot, TOML, pp. 59-60. Some com-
mentators understand $nm as a common noun. Virolleaud’s original
proposal (see Syria, X II [1931], 195 and 198) th a t §nm is a masc. plural
form of Int, “years,” has been followed by Albright, H. Bauer (Z A W ,
1,1 [1933], 82), Cassuto, Emerton, Hvidberg, Cross, and Caquot. Eiss-
feldt, El, p. 31, relates the term to Heb. ‫ ענ ה‬, "to change.” El is, then,
the father of those who change, i.e., all mortals. Gray (LC2, p. 156) and
Pope cite Arab, saniya, “to be eminent, exalted,” and understand ab
5nm as “father of the exalted ones,” i.e., the gods. Aistleitner (W orter-
buck, no. 2651) compares Arab, sanam, “elevation,” and translates Sntn
as "zenith.” Oldenburg (Conflict, pp. 17-18) prefers Arab, saniyy, “bril-
liant,” and takes ab snm to be “father of the luminaries.”
c. H. Iy. Ginsberg (Or, V [1936], 164) objects to Virolleaud's suggestion
on grammatical grounds, but he leaves Inm untranslated. Other scholars
take Snm to be a DN and cite various parallels. A. Jirku (ZAW , L X X X II
— 467 —
31
[1970], 278-279) notes the Cassite DN Shunama. Rin (AG, p. 39) con-
siders snm to be a variant of Sim. C. Gordon (J N E S , XXXV [1976],
261262‫ )־‬refers to the double-barrelled DN Tkmn wSnm, and notes th at
in UT 601:15-19 these gods carry El when he is drunk with wine. Since
UT 2 Aqht 1:31-32; 11:5-6, 19-20 (CTA 17 1:31-32; 11:5-6, 19-20) shows
th at this is a service which a model son provided his father, E l’s title
ab Snm should be understood as “Father of (the god) Snm.” 1
d. Bibliography
W. F. Albright, JPOS, X II (1932), 197.
D. W. Thomas, Z A W , L II (1934), 236-238.
Cassuto, GA, p. 44.
Pope, E U T, p. 33.
J. Emerton, J T S , IX (1958), 225-242.
Hvidberg, WLOT, pp. 31-32.
Porteous, Daniel, pp. 101-102.
Cross, CMHE, p. 17.
A. Wieder, B IJ S , I I (1974), 108-109.
e. Hab 3:2
Wieder: In this v. CHE? is comparable to Ug. snm, to be understood (fol-
lowing Pope) as “exalted ones.” Thus ‫ ב ק ר ב שנים‬means “in the
midst of the exalted,” a phrase th at is syntactically similar to ‫ב ק ר ב‬
‫( אלזזים‬Ps 82:1).
f. Prov 24:21
Thomas: Here ‫ חזונים‬should be interpreted on the basis of Arab, saniya;
thus ‫ עם״שוגים א ל־ ת ת ע ר ב‬should be translated: "B ut meddle not
with those of high rank.” Similarly Pope, who relates this word to
Ug. Snm.
Wieder: The v. “can hardly be solved on this basis,” because ‫ת תערב‬
should be used with ‫ב־‬, not ‫ ע ם‬, and because Thomas’ translation
is inappropriate to the context.
g. Isa 9:5 (‫ ;) א בי ע ד‬Dan 7:9 (‫) ע תי ק יומץ‬

Albright, Emerton, Hvidberg, Porteous, Cross: These titles of Yahweh
are comparable to Ug. ab Snm, “Father of Years.” See also Cassuto,
1 For further discussion of T km n w S n m , see Gese, A ltsy rie n , pp. 102-104.
— 468 —
who notes a connection between ab §nm / II and jrQovog / Kgovog (Kl’s

Greek equivalent).
Gese: The parallel must be rejected as imprecise,
h. Comments
I t is by no means certain th at the Masoretes have rightly divided
Prov 24:21. The following arrangement and interpretation of Prov 24:
21-22 is worth considering in view of persistent dissatisfaction with the
traditional stichometry:
Fear YHWH, my son.
But with MLK and the Mighty mix not.
Suddenly their calamity may rise,
Destruction of the Mighty, who knows?
In support of this interpretation is the fact th at ‫ איד‬and TD with pos-
sessive suffixes regularly refer to the object(s) of the destruction rather
than the agent(s), e.g., Jer 49:32; Ezek 35:5; Ps 18:19; Job 30:12; Prov
1:26; 27:10. Accordingly, we have here a reference to the infernal ML,K
and his minions, the deified dead designated by the honorific Sum. (MHP)
— 469 —
Ch apter V
DIVINE NAMES AND EPITH ETS IN T H E AKKADIAN TEXTS
by
F . B r e n t K nutson
INTRODUCTION
a. Because of the nature of the Akkadian texts from Ras Shamra so far
published, this chapter is essentially a supplement to Chapter IV, “Divine
Names and Epithets in the Ugaritic Texts.” The "religious” texts from
Ras Shamra are predominantly Ugaritic and Hurrian. For the most part,
we lack such fertile sources of divine names and epithets as myths, hymns,
epics, and prayers in Akkadian. In Ug. V, there are several lists of divine
names and a few examples of “Mesopotamian” religious literature, which
show th at the priests/scribes at Ugarit held Mesopotamian religion in con-
siderable regard. Our sources are primarily these god lists, plus the
mention of gods in other texts (“treaties” in P R U IV), and personal names.
For the latter the works of Kinlaw (Personal Names) and Grondahl (P T U )
have been extremely useful.
b. In personal names, we are concerned with theophoric elements and
divine epithets. Divine epithets are substantives, adjectives, or phrases
which indicate some quality or attribute regarded as characteristic of the
deity, or else they are descriptive names or titles of the deity. They are often
easily recognized; e.g., in the PN Abi-ilu, “My father is E l,” abi is an epithet.
Dikewise, in 4Ba'al-ddnu, “Baal is judge,” danu is an epithet. However,
some of the more common epithets can occur as theophoric elements. Theo-
phoric elements are either divine names proper, or else they are names, titles,
or divine epithets used in place of divine names. Divine names are usually
easily recognized, in Akkadian texts by the divine determinative, and in
both Akkadian and Ugaritic by their occurrence in offering lists or god lists,
etc. It is the other type of theophoric element which is of concern. For ex-
ample, in the Ugaritic personal names Ktr-mlk, “Kotar is king,” Pdr mlk,
"Pidar is king,” and RSp-mlk, “ Rasap is king,” mlk is a divine epithet. But
in Mlkabn, “MLK is our father” (cf. Akkadian Abi-milku, “My father is
Milk”), and 'bdmlk, “Servant of MLK,” mlk seems to be a theophoric element
(see Grondahl, P TU , p. 47). Therefore, the same word may be a theophoric
element in one personal name, a divine epithet in another.
— 473 —
V I Ras Shamra Parallels
LIST OF EN TRIES
Divine Names 17. *Nabu 31.

1. <»Adad 18. dNdru 32. ammu
2. *Anatu 19. dNergal 33.
3. dASratu 20. ‫״‬QadiStu 34. beltu
4. *ASSur 21. dRaSap 35.
5. dAStar 22. *Salim 36. ddnu
6. dBa'al 23. ‫״‬Samu 37. gdmir
7. dDagdn 24. *Samti ii dErsetu 38. na'am
8. dDud 25. dTdmtu 39. nuru
9. dHagab 26. dTalaya 40. rabti
10. *IShara 27. dYamm 41. rakub
11. *IStar 28. *Yarik 42.
12. dKamaS 43. rapu
13. d°18Kinnaru 44.
Epithets 45.
14. *KuSar
15. dM alik 29. a&tt 46. zib(i)lu
16. dMarduk 30. adunu 47. zimru
ENTRIES
1
a. *Adad // ‫הדד־רמון‬
a. p n 's ‫הדד‬, ‫הדדעזר‬, ‫בן־הדד‬
*adad (IM) R S 20.24:5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (Ug. V, p. 44).
*adad (IM) be-el hurSdn (HUR.SAG) ha-zi R S 20.24:4 (Ug. V, p. 44).
bin (DUMU) -Hadda (Ud‘j* -ya R S 15.09 A:4 (PRU III, p. 195).
mga-mi-rad-du R S 16.148-\- rev:1V (P R U III, p. 115) (cf. mga-mi-rad-di
[genitive] R S 16.148+ rev:8' [PRU III, p. 115]).
lm'niq-ma-*addu (dIM) R S 17.334:2 (PRU IV, p. 54).
mni-qi-m a-d 1i R S 20.01:8 (Ug. V, p. 187).
mni-iq-m a-an-du R S 17.227:5, passim (PRU IV, p. 40).
b. Notes
Weather-god of Mesopotamia and Syria (Edzard, Mesopotamien, pp. 135-
137); equated with Baal at Ugarit (Pope, Syrien, pp. 253ff.). The DN
— 474 —
Divine Names and Epithets in the Akkadian Texts V 1
appears in Ug. as hd, hdd, or add. In the syllabic texts it usually is written
either as dIM or dU. Since both of these ideograms stand for Adad,
Ba'al, or Tessub, external criteria are necessary to certify the correct
reading in each particular instance. For discussion of Adad, see Grondahl,
P TU , p. 131, and Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 257; for Baal see below, 6;
and for Tessub see Grondahl, P TU , p. 263, and Kinlaw, Personal Names,
p. 214.
c. The DN sometimes appears in P N ’s syllabically written as a(d)-du,
e.g. mga-mi-rad-du. When written ideographically, the reading intended
by the author may be defined by a phonetic complement, as in DUMU-
dUdi-ya. This phenomenon is rare, but comparison with alphabetic
PN ’s can more often suggest (though not guarantee) th at the ideograms
IM or U be read as Ad(d). Thus Ug. nqmd indicates the reading mm q-
m a-Aaddu for mniq-m a-AIM. In this example syllabic orthography such
as mni-qi-m a-du, or the more common mni-iq-m a-an-du (in texts of
H ittite provenance), confirms this reading. The evidence of the PN ’s
establishes the use of the DN Adad in the syllabic texts from Ugarit,
but it also points to the difficulty of fixing the reading of the ideograms
IM and U: the certainty of the reading decreases as the strength of the
external indicators lessens. Grondahl, P TU , pp. 132-133, and Kinlaw,
Personal Names, pp. 257-259, list the syllabic PN ’s which probably con-
tain the DN Ad(d).
d. PN ’s also witness the common use of the DN's Baal (see below, 6 a and c)
and Tessub (Ug. ttb), the Hurrian storm god (see Grondahl, P TU , pp. 263-
264, and Kinlaw, Personal Names, pp. 214-215). Although the reading
of the ideograms IM/U was not arbitrary, the threefold referent of each
ideogram made for a chaotic situation, since absolute stability of reading
is also unlikely. The place of origin of certain kinds of texts (e.g., “trea-
ties,” judgments) provides a clue to the way the sender read the DN,
but the built-in ambiguity of the ideograms lent itself to different in-
terpretations by the receiver.
e. In religious texts, the reading depended on the congregation involved.
RS 20.24 (Ug. V, p. 44) is a god-list which duplicates the alphabetic text
UT 17 (so Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 43). According to Nougayrol the Akk.
text influenced the Ug. text. In RS 20.24:4 dIM be—el h u rsan (HUR.
SAG) ha-zi corresponds to VI spn of 17 (rev) :17, and dIM of RS 20.24:
5-10 corresponds to Vim in 17 (rev) :18-23. (The Ug. text is badly broken;
see the reconstruction by Nougayrol, Ug. V, pp. 44-45, and contrast
Gordon’s reading, UT, pp. 163-164.) Nougayrol reads dIM as &adad
— 475 —
V2 Ras Shamra Parallels
(the Mesopotamian form of the DN), reasoning th at the Ug. scribe

transposed b'l to its “Babylonian” equivalent. He applies this principle
to the phrase dIM *™■**■0ha-zi in “Babylonian” texts from P R U I I I
and IV (Ug. V, p. 47). However, the sender-receiver/congregation factor
negates any absolute distinction. The specification of the storm-god
figure depended primarily on who was reading the tablet. Nougayrol
pays hommage to this circumstance when he lists all the occurrences
of dIM/U in P R U IV under the heading: Adad—or other storm gods
(p. 257).
f. Z e c h 12:11
Hadad-Rimmon (‫ ) ה ד ד ־ ר מון‬was the object of apparently famous mourn-
ing rites in the plain of Megiddo (“On th at day the mourning in Jeru-
salem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-Rimmon in the plain
of Megiddo”); hence he was a fertility god. Albright, Yahweh, p. 127,
suggests th a t this is the Aram, form of Hadad, a view supported by
the reference to a Syrian god Rimmon in II Kings 5:18.
g. Gen 36:35, 36; I Chron 1:46, 47; cf. Gen 36:39; I Chron 1:50, 51
Hadad (‫ ) ה ד ד‬is included in a list of Edomite kings. A later Edomite
king of the same name is mentioned in I Kings 11:14, 17, and 19; this
PN also occurs in v. 17 as ‫ א ד ד‬.
h. I I Sam 8:3
Hadadezer (‫ ) ה ד ד עז ר‬was a king of Zobah.
i. I Kings 15:18
Ben-Hadad (‫ ) בן ״ ה ד ד‬was a king of Damascus.
j. Comments
The mention of Hadad(-Rimmon) in Zech 12:11, plus the occur-
rence of the DN in various PN ’s suggests the extent of his influence:
Damascus, Zobah, Edom, and even Megiddo.
2
a. *Anatu // ‫ענת‬, ‫ענות‬, ‫ענ מלך‬
Cf. g n ’s ‫ בי ת־ ענ ת‬, ‫בי ת־ענו ת‬, ‫ענת)ו(ת‬
Cf. p n 's ‫ענתות‬, ‫ענתתיה‬, ‫ מגר בן־ ענ ת‬#
Aa-na-tum R S 20.24:20 (Ug. V, p. 44).
See 'nt (IV 22).
— 476 —
b. Notes
The goddess Anat (Ug. *nt), consort of Baal (see Pope, Syrien, pp. 235-
241). This DN appears in god lists (above and RS 20.123-!- IVb:12 [Ug.
V, p. 240]) and in PN ’s: « -IGI‫( ‘״‬ena-at), RS 11.839:12, 16 (PRU III,
p. 194); *abdi (ARAD) -a-na-ti, RS 16.129:19 (PRU III, p. 32); and
others (Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 264; Grondahl, P TU , p. 111).
a. *A&atu ‫ א ש ר ה !ן‬,‫ א ש רי‬, ‫אשרת‬

*ai-ra-tum R S 20.121:176 (Ug. V, p. 212); R S 20.175:10 (Ug. V, p. 220).
See Atrt (IV 8).
b. Notes
West Semitic goddess (see Pope, Syrien, pp. 246-249); in Babylon, she
was the consort of Amurru, and equated with Martu, Ug. Atrt, consort
of El and “creatress of the gods” (qnyt ilm). Asherah figures prominently
in ritual and mythological texts of Ugarit. See K.-H. Bernhardt, M IO,
X III (1967), 163-174; and E. Uipinski, OLP, II I (1972), 101-119, for
surveys of the characteristics of the goddess throughout the ancient
Near East.
c. This DN appears in god lists (above and RS 20.123+ 111:36” [where she
is equated with NIN.LIE], IVb:7 [Ug. V, p. 240]), and in the PN mabdi
(ARAD) -a-sar-ti, RS 16.155 A:3, 5 (PRU III, p. 205), and RS 17.61:20
(Ug. V, p. 13); see Kinlaw, Personal Names, pp. 267-268; and Grondahl,
P TU , p. 103.
a. *ASSur cf. gn ‫אשור‬

a$-5u-ra-na R S 16.359 B:4 (PRU III, p. 198).
See atr[y]m (RSP II, V III 13); A&ur (RSP II, V III 126).
Cf. Atr (IV 7).
b. Notes
Either the land or the god Assur (see Edzard, Mesopotamien, pp. 43-44)
is found in the PN as-su-ra-mâ] (above); see Grondahl, P TU , p. 103.
— 477 —
y 5 Ras Shamra Parallels
a. •AStar // ‫עעזתרת‬, ‫זתר)ו(ת‬0‫ע‬

Cf. g n ’s ‫עשתר)ו(ת‬, ‫עעזתרת ק תי ם‬, ‫ב ע ע ת ר ה‬
Cf. ‫עשתרתי‬, ‫עשתר)ו(ת צאנך‬, ‫ תר)ו(ת‬0 ‫בית ע‬
a,S-ta-ru R S 20.123+ IVb:16 {Ug. V, p. 240).
Cf. Htrt (IV 23).
b. Notes
West-Semitic and Arabian god, Ug. 'A ttar {'ttr), male counterpart of
'A ttart {'ttrt); see Pope, Syrien, pp. 249-250. The DN occurs in the list
(above) and in the PN ’s ‫< ״‬iS-tar-a-bi, RS 16.134:3 {PRU III, p. 141)
and RS 20.176:26 {Ug. V, p. 180); and •bin (DUMU) -a5-tar-mi, RS
15.109+:29 (P R U III, p. 102); see Grondahl, P TU , p. 113).
a. *Baal // (‫) ה( ב ע ל)י ם‬, ‫ ב ע ל ב רי ת‬, ‫ ב ע ל ז בו ב‬, ‫ב ע ל פ ע ו ר‬

a. g n 's ‫) ג ו ר ־ ( ב ע ל‬, etc.
Cf. p n ’s ‫ ב ע ל‬, etc.
ba-a-lu R S 20.123+ IVb:17{7) {Ug. V, p. 240).
*ba'al (IM) huHan (HUR.SAG) ha-zi R S 17.243 rev:3' {PRU VI, p. 59).
0ba'al (IM) be-el hurSan (HUR.SAG) ha-zi R S 20.24:4 {Ug. V, p. 44).
*ba'al (IM) bel (EN) hurUn (HUR.SAG) ha-zi R S 16.144:12 {PRU III,
p. 76); R S 16.157:27 {PRU III, p. 83); cf. R S 16.238:18 (broken)
{PRU III, p. 107).
mba-a-la-lu R S 20.15:19 {Ug. V, p. 143).
mba-a-la-^nu R S 20.176:18 {Ug. V, p. 180).
‫* ‘י‬ba'ala (IM‫ )״׳‬-na R S 17.393:23 {PRU IV, p. 226).
See BH (IV 9).
b. Notes
Northwest Semitic god identified with Adad at Ugarit (Pope, Syrien,
pp. 253-264) (Ug. bH). Since this DN is usually written ideographically—
either aIM or dU—external criteria alone can indicate whether the ideo-
gram should read Ba'al or Adad (or TeSsub). For discussion of the con-
fusion created by the ideographic writing, see above, 1 b-e, along with
Grondahl, P TU , pp. 114-115, and Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 271.
— 478 —
c. The reading is certain only when a phonetic complement accompanies

the ideogram (or, of course, in the rare instance where the DN is written
syllabically, e.g. in the PN mba-a-la-lu), as occasionally happens in
PN ’s. Comparison with alphabetic PN 's frequently yields collateral
support. The PN Ba'aldnu benefits from all three criteria: it appears
both as mba-a-la-nu and m *ba'ala (IM*‫ )״‬-na (genitive), and may be
compared to alphabetic b'ln. See Grondahl, P TU , pp. 114-116, and
Kinlaw, Personal Names, pp. 271-272, for lists of syllabic PN ’s from
Ugarit which probably contain the DN Ba'al.
d. To the discussion above, 1 e, of dIM (EN) «‫ ״‬b.8a°ha-zi in RS 20.24:4,
add Nougayrol’s reading of dIM as *ba'al in RS 17.243 rev:3‫ ׳‬. In a note
to th a t reading (P R U VI, p. 59, n. 2), he distinguishes *ba'al in "local”
judicial texts of P R U III (RS 16.144:12 [p. 76]; RS 16.157:27 [p. 83];
RS 16.238:18 [p. 107]) from "Adad du Mont Casius” (ha-zi) in "inter-
national” texts of P R U IV.
e. Note also the polyglot vocabulary RS 20.123+ IVb:17(?): ba-a-lu.
This represents the Ug. correspondent of Sum. 4im .z u .a n .n a and Hur.
te-e§-§a-a\b], Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 249, n. 2, is undoubtedly right th at
the Hur. and Ug. columns respond only to Sum. dim. In any case, this
reading definitively establishes the use of syllabic DN *ba'al at Ugarit.
(The Ug. column of RS 20.123+ 11:30‫[ ׳‬Ug. V, p. 240] reads ba-a-lu-ma
for the ideogram EN [= belu]. For EN as a divine epithet see below,
35 a-b.
a. *Dagdn // ‫ ד ק‬, ‫ד ק‬
Cf. g n ‫בי ת ) ־ ( ד ק‬
*da-gan R S 20.24:3 (Ug. V, p. 44).
See Dgn (IV 10).
b. Notes
"Corn-god” well known in Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine (Edzard,
Mesopotamien, pp. 49-50); at Ugarit, the father of Baal (see Pope, Syrien,
pp. 276-277; Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 47). The DN appears in god lists
(above and RS 20.121:138 [Ug. V, p. 212]; RS 26.142:17‫[ ׳‬Ug. V, p. 321])
and in the PN [m<‫>׳‬a]m -m i-ni-da-ga-an, RS 16.273:4 (PRU III, p. 44);
see Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 277; and Grondahl, P TU , pp. 1122-123.
— 479
V8 Ras Shamra Parallels
8
a. *DM ‫דו ד ! ן‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫ א ל ד ד א לי ד ד‬,
[*d]u13(})-du 13 R S 20.121:121 {Ug. V, p. 212).
b. Notes
ddua-duis may be cognate to Akk. dadu, “favorite, beloved.” Huffmon,
Amorite Personal Names, pp. 181-182, lists PN 's with this element, and
Kinlaw discusses it {Personal Names, pp. 278-279). This DN may be
present in PN's: mbin (DUMU) -da-te-e[-y]a{?), RS 16.257+ A 1:9‫׳׳‬
(PRU III, p. 199); *bin (DUMU) -du-da-a-ya, RS 16.182+:6 {PRU
III, p. 148); mdu-dur-nu, RS 20.176:19 {Ug. V, p. 180); and others (see
Grondahl, P T U , p. 122). In Heb. ‫ דו ד‬as a common noun signifies “belov-
ed” or “uncle."
c. Amos 8:14
The emendation of MT ‫ ךךןד‬to ‫ ל ד ד‬, with ‫ דו ד‬understood as an epithet
for the patron deity of the holy place (see Wolff, Joel & Amos, pp. 323-
324, for a summary of the discussion), is widely accepted. V. 14a then
reads:
‫מרון‬# ‫מת‬#‫בעים בא‬#‫ הנ‬Those who swear by Ashimah of Samaria,
‫ ואמרו חי א ל הי ך דן‬and who say: “As your God lives, Dan,
‫ וחי ד ד ך ב א ר־ ש ב ע‬as your ‫ דו ד‬fives, Beersheba.”
The parallelism of ‫מת‬#‫ א‬and ‫ א ל הי ך‬suggests th a t ‫ ד ד ך‬as a DN is prefer-
able to ‫ ד ר ך‬, ‫‘ ׳‬way,” although no textual variants support such an emen-
dation. The use of ‫ דו ד‬may be ironic here (in the sense of “beloved” or
“uncle”), as is likely with ‫ מ ה‬# ‫ א‬, “guilt.”
d. Num 11:26, 27
The PN ‫ א ל ד ד‬signifies “El is (my) beloved.”
e. Num 34:21
The PN ‫ א לי ד ד‬signifies “My God is beloved.”
f. Comments
For Neuberg's emendation of MT ‫ ך*ך*ןד‬to ‫ ד ך ף‬, “thy pantheon,” in
Amos 8:14, see above, IV 34 w.
9
a. *Hagab Cf. PN ‫חגב‬
•abdi(?) (ARAD) -ha-gab R S 12.34+:4 {PRU III, p. 192).
— 480 —
b. Notes
T hat some occurrences of this word, “grasshopper(?)” (Ug. hgb, Heb.
‫)חגב‬, are a DN was suggested by R. Uyechi (cited by Kinlaw, Personal
Names, pp. 286-287). I t occurs in PN ’s: mabdi(7) (ARAD) -ha-gab
(above; cf. the Ug. PN 'bdhgb [UT 400 1:23 (CTA 113 1:23)]); •fra-ag-
ba-nu, RS 15.09 B 11:5 (P R U III, p. 195; cf. the Ug. PN hgbn [UT 400
1:19 (CTA 113 1:19); etc.]); see Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 287; and
Grondahl, P TU , pp. 134-135.
c. Ezra 2:46
Hagab (‫ )חגב‬was the head of a family of returning exiles.
10
a. *Hfrara Cf. PN ‫א^ חו ר‬

*iS-ha-ra R S 20.24:23 (Ug. V, p. 44); R S 20.121:167 (Ug. V, p. 212).
b. Notes
Hur. goddess (see Edzard, Mesopotamien, p. 90), Ug. uShry (UT 1:13
[CTA 34:13]; 17:2 [CTA 29 rev:2]; etc.). The DN occurs in lists (above)
and as one of several gods involked to witness an oath in a “verdict”
of Tudhaliya IV in RS 18.06+:9‫( ׳‬PRU IV, p. 137) and RS 17.459 rev:4‫׳‬
(PRU IV, p. 138). Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 56, suggests an equation of
Ishara with Hstar (UGUN) hur-ri, “Hurrian Istar,” RS 18.01:3, 5 (PRU
IV, p. 230), and *itiar hu-r[i(7)], RS 17.410 B obv:7‫( ׳‬PRU VI, p. 35).
c. I Chron2:24; 4:5
Ashhur (‫ ר‬1‫) אשח‬, son of Caleb, is mentioned twice in Judahite genealogies.
11
a. *istar // ‫תר)ו(ת‬#‫עעזתרת ע‬,

Cf. g n ’s ‫ע'שתר)ו(ת‬, ‫עשתרת קרנים‬, ‫בעעזתרה‬
C f . ‫עשתרתי‬, ‫עשתר)ו(ת צאנך‬, ‫בית עו ת רו ת‬
n§taru tar R S 20.24:24 (Ug. V, p. 44).
See Htrt (IV 23).
b. Notes
The great goddess of Mesopotamia, whose worship spread over all the
Near East (see Edzard, Mesopotamien, pp. 81-89). In the god list above,
— 481 —
V 12 Ras Shamra Parallels
we find dUGUN“ *‫״‬r. Note also dUGUN, RS 20.235:18 (Ug. V, p. 178),

and dNIN, RS 1 7 . 2 2 4 2 3 ,22 ,21:‫( ־‬Ug. V, p. 8). Local Istars are men-
tioned: dNIN VRVa-la-la-ah, RS 17.340 rev:20‫( ׳‬P R U IV, p. 148);
dNIN sen (EDIN), “Istar of the steppe,” RS 17.352:12 (PRU IV, p. 121);
dUGUN zi-in -za -ri, RS 18.02:3 (P R U IV, p. 201); dUGUN ™Hitr-
ni-ip, RS 18.064-:7‫( ׳‬PRU IV, p. 137). Note also dUGUN hu-r[i(?j],
“Hurrian Istar,” RS 17.410 B obv:7‫( ׳‬PRU VI, p. 35), and dUGUN
hur-ri, RS 18.01:3, 6 (P R U IV, p. 230), whom Nougayrol suggests may
be Ishara (Ug. V, p. 56). Albright, Yahweh, pp. 143 and 149-150, equates
her with Istar of Nineveh. At Ugarit, Istar is equated with 'ttrt, consort
of *ttr (see Pope, Syrien, pp. 250-252).
12
a. *Kamai II ‫כ מו ע‬
bin-ka-ma-Si R S 15.09 A :2 (PRU III, p. 195).
See Kmt (IV 16).
b. Notes
Moabite god (see Pope, Syrien, p. 292), Ug. kmt (Grondahl, P TU , p. 150).
The DN occurs in a PN: bin (DUMU) -ka-m a-si (above).
13
a. dmiKinndru Cf. ‫ ר‬1‫כנ‬

cf. gn ‫כנרות‬
*ai&ki-na-rum R S 20.24:31 (Ug. V, p. 44).
See Knr (IV 17).
b. Notes
“Lyre” here is a deified musical instrument, undoubtedly used in the
cult (Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 59); cf. d°lizannaru (ZA.MIM) in the god
list RS 26.142:6‫( ׳‬Ug. V, p. 321).14
14
a. *KuSar Cf. ‫כעדר‬, ‫כיעזור‬

ku-iar-ru R S 20.1234‫ ־‬IVa:19 (Ug. V, p. 240).
See Ktr (IV 18).
— 482 —
b. Notes
The craftsman god (Ktr) of the Ug. myths (see Pope, Syrien, pp. 295-
296). The DN ku-sar-ru occurs in a trilingual vocabulary (above), where
it is equated with *a-a (Ea) and e-ia-an (Eyan); see Nougayrol, Ug. V,
p. 51, for the equation of Ea and Ktr; see also M. Astour, JAO S, EXXXVI
(1966), 280. The DN also occurs in PN ’s: »ku-sar-a-bi, RS 16.242:5
(.PRU III,p . 154); *abdi (ARAD) -ku(?)-sa-ri, RS 20.07:9 (Ug. V ,p. 191);
see Grondahl, P TU , p. 152.
15
a. *Malik // ‫לך‬$, ‫כל ך‬, ‫ מלכ ם‬, ‫מ ל כן‬

Cf. d n 's ‫ א ד ר מ ל ך‬, ‫ענ מל ך‬
Cf. ‫גן ה מל ך‬
*ma-lik R S 20.121:81 (Ug. V, p. 212).
See mlk, mlkm (IV 38).
b. Notes
West-Semitic god assimilated to Nergal. The DN *ma-lik occurs in the
A n list (above); RS 20.24:32 (Ug. V, p. 44) contains *MA.EIK.MES
(= Ug. mlkm) (see Pope, Syrien, p. 299; Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 60). The
DN occurs in PN ’s, although, as in Mari PN ’s (Huffmon, Amorite Per-
sonal Names, pp. 230-231), without a divine determinative it is not al-
ways possible to distinguish between the DN and the part, mdliku,
“prince, counselor.” Note the PN ’s cited by Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 60:
mnuri (NE) -*ma-l[ik], RS 20.196 A Colophon:3 (Ug. V, p. 252); ,ma-
li-ki-lu, RS 17.354:5 (PRU VI, p. 115); - m i-il-k i-lu , RS 17.360:26
(PRU VI, p. 41); ‫״׳‬Him (AN) ‫״־״‬- m u-lik, RS 17.288:27 (PRU IV, p. 215);
mili (AN) -m u-lik, RS 17.242:16 (PRU VI, p. 80). M ilku is clearly an
epithet in *sapas (UTU) -m ilku (EUGAE), RS 16.114 rev:14‫( ׳‬PRU III,
p. 33), and perhaps also in PN ’s as mabdi (ARAD) -m ilku (EUGAE),
RS 16.154:4 (PRU III, p. 127); ‫ ״‬a-bi-milku (EUGAE), RS 17.38:2 (Ug. V,
p. 12).
16
a. *Marduk // ‫מ ר ד ך‬
Cf. pn ‫מ ר ד ך ב ל א דן‬
*marduk R S 17.155:1, passim (Ug. V, p. 29).
— 483 —
32
b. Notes
One of the most im portant Babylonian gods (see Edzard, Mesopotamien,
pp. 96-97). The DN 4marduk (AMAR.UTU) occurs also in RS 25.460:15‫ ׳‬,
25‫׳‬, 26‫׳‬, 29‫׳‬, 33 ‫( ׳‬Ug. V, p. 267); RS 22.439 IV:16‫( ׳‬Ug. V, p. 277); and
the list An, RS 20.121:61 (Ug. V, p. 212).
c. Jer 50:2
The DN Marduk, pronounced ‫"( מרז*ןי‬cursed[?]”), is found in parallel
with Bel (LV TL, p. 564).
d. 11 Kings 20:12 (‫ ;) ב ר א ד ך ב ל א דן‬isa 39:1 (‫) מ ר ד ך ב ל א דן‬
The DN Marduk is found in the name of a Babylonian prince. M'rodak
BaVttddn is equivalent to Akk. Marduk-apld-idin (LVTL, p. 564).
17
a. 4Nabu // ‫נבל‬
Cf. pn ‫נבכדנ אצ ר‬
11nabu R S 20.196 A Colophon:4 (Ug. V, p. 252).
b. Notes
The name of this Akk. god, the son of Marduk and Sarpanitu (see Edzard,
Mesopotamien, pp. 106107‫)־‬, occurs in two different contexts in the
Ras Shamra texts. The DN is found on the colophon of three texts
(above; RS 20.14:2 [Ug. V, p. 252]; RS 6.X:2 [Ug. V, p. 252]), twice
in the form “AG, once (above) in the form dAD. In the list An, the DN
is found directly following Marduk and Sarpanitu, Ana-bi-um, RS 20.
121:63 (Ug. V, p. 212).
c. Isa 46:1 ‫ן‬
The DN Nabu, pronounced ‫נבו‬, is found here in parallel with Bel.
d. I I Kings 24:1, 10, 11; 25:1, 8, 22; etc.
Here the DN is contained in the name of the Babylonian king ‫נ ב כ דנ א צ ר‬.
Nebuchadnezzar is equivalent to Akk. N abu-kudurri-usur (LVTL,
p. 587).
18
a. *Nam // (‫ים‬/‫נהר)ות‬
[4na-a-]ra R S 17.353:4' (PRU IV, p. 88).
See Ym // Nhr (IV 15).
484 —
b. Notes
Deified “river” (Euphrates) was a judge in ordeals in Babylon and As-
syria (CH, § 2; Middle Assyrian Laws, § 25); see von Soden, AH , p. 748.
The DN occurs in a list of gods in a “treaty” between Murshilish II and
Niqmepa (above). It also is found in PN ’s: (AN) -naru (ID), RS
16.158:3, 4 (PRU III, p. 62); *m i-il-k i-in -a -ri, RS 17.67:5‫{ ׳‬Ug. V,
p. 14); and u-lu-na-a-ri, RS 16.257+ B 111:48 (PRU III, p. 199; cf.
Ug. ulnhr, and see Grondahl, P TU , p. 165). At Ugarit, Naru was the
Akk. equivalent of Ug. Nhr, an alternate name for Yamm.
19
a. dNergal // ‫נ ת ל‬
Cf. pn ‫נ רג ל־ ש ר־ א צ ר‬
*n[e-er}e-[ga\l(l) R S 20.121:76 (Ug. V, p. 212).
Cf. *Rasap (V 21).
b. Notes
The Babylonian underworld god (see Edzard, Mesopotamien, p. 110).
In RS 20.24:26 (Ug. V, p. 44), dGt R .UNU.GAL is equated with Ug.
Rsp (see Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 57; Pope, Syrien, p. 305; Albright, Yahweh,
p. 139). Many P N ’s contain the DN written either ‫״‬GIR.UNU.GAly.IyA,
4MAS.MAS or dKAL,. If there is no equivalent PN in Ug., it is not cer-
tain whether Nergal or Rasap is to be read (see Grondahl, P TU , p. 181).
c. I I Kings 17:30
After the Northern kingdom was resettled, different peoples built their
unique cultic idols. Among these peoples, the Babylonians from the
city of Cutha “built (a statue of) ‫ נ ת ל‬,” the patron diety of Cutha.
d. J et 39:3, 13
The DN Nergal is found in the name of the Babylonian ‫ רב״ מג‬: " ‫נ ת ל‬
‫ע<ר״אצר‬. "Nergal-Sharezer” is equivalent to Akk. Nergal-sarri-usur
(see L V T L , p. 635).
20
a. <*Qadistu // !‫קד שו‬

<bin(?)-)qa-dis-ti R S 17.36:14 (Ug. V, p. 10).
— 485 —
b. Notes
Grondahl, P TU , p. 176, sees the name of the goddess Qadistu (Ug. qcUst,
UT 1004:17) in this PN: <««(?) (DUMU)> -qa-diS-ti (above). On this
reading, see Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 11, who suggests th at a scribal haplo-
graphy is responsible for the omission of the DUMU. Cf. the Ug. PN
bn qdU (UT 400 V :ll [CTA 113 V :ll]). An alternative understanding
of qa-dii-ti is ‘‘priestess.”
c. Gen 38:21 (twice), 22; Deut 23:18; Hos 4:14
In these vv., n tflp (plural D1C?*1|7) designates sacral prostitutes.
21
a. *Ratap // ‫רעף‬, ‫רעפי ם‬

»,abdi-*ra§ap R S 16.257+ B 111:50 (P R U III, p. 199).
See R ip (IV 26).
Cf. *Nergal (V 19).
b. Notes
West Semitic god of pestilence and the underworld, equated with Nergal
in a list at Ras Shamra, RS 20.24:26 (Ug. V, p. 44) (see Pope, Syrien,
pp. 305-306; Albright, Yahweh, p. 139). Rasap is seldom mentioned in
Ug. mythological and epic texts, but the occurrences of the DN in ritual
texts show he was prominent in the cult at Ugarit. In the Akk. texts,
the DN occurs frequently in PN ’s written both syllabically and ideo-
graphically: ‘MAS.MAS (above), -KAU, ‘GlR.UNU.GAU.LA, or ra-
si-ip. PN ’s containing the DN include: mabdi (ARAD) -*raSap (above;
cf. Ug. 'bdr&py, [‫״־‬a]hi (SES) -*ra&ap, RS 16.257+ B 111:36; cf. Ug.
a m p )] Hli (AN) -*rasap, RS 16.344:4 (P R U III, p. 75; cf. Ug. iMp)]
[1‫* ״‬rasap-a-bu, RS 17.33:1', passim (Ug. V, p. 5; cf. Ug. rSpab). See
Grondahl, P TU , p. 181.
22
a. *Salim Cf. g n ’s ‫על ם‬, ‫יר^זל ם‬

cf. p n ’s ‫אבעל)ו(ם‬, ‫ע ל מ ה‬
cf. ‫יהוה עלו ם‬, ‫העולמי ת‬
*sa-li-mu RS 20.24:33 (Ug. V, p. 44).
See Sim (IV 30).
— 486 —
b. Notes
This god, attested in Mesopotamia and Asia minor, is also found in the
Ug. mythological texts (Shr w$lm; see Pope, Syrien, pp. 306-307). In
addition to occurring in a god list (above; see also UT 17:12 [CTA 29
rev:12], and note the discussion of Nougayrol, Ug. V, pp. 60-61), this
DN occurs in PN ’s: mili (DINGIR) -sa-lim / Sa-li-ma, RS 16.281:6
(.PRU III, p. 161); RS 15.89:6 (PRU III, p. 53); and others (Kinlaw,
Personal Names, p. 322; Grondahl, P TU , p. 193). I t is not certain wheth-
er in these PN's Sa-lim / li-ma is a DN or an epithet (see Nougayrol,
Ug. V, p. 61; and Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 322).
23
a. *Samu // ‫העמים‬
Sa-mu-ma R S 20.123+ 111:33" (Ug. V, p. 240).
See Ars wSmm (IV 5).
b. Notes
“Heaven” occurs in the vocabulary list (above), spelled Sa-mu-ma and
equated with AN. See dSamu u dErsetu (below, 24).
24
a. *Samu u ,1Ersetu // ‫ ה אר ץ‬. . . 1 ‫העמים‬

dIDIM a IDIM R S 20.24:11 (Ug. V, p. 44).
See Ars wSmm (IV 5).
b. Notes
Divine “heaven and earth” occur in one god-list (above) as dIDIM ii
IDIM (see Nougayrol, Ug. V, pp. 48-49). In another list we have *ersetu
(KI) [ii $amu(}}]\, RS 26.142:14' (Ug. V, p. 321). The pair occurs in
god-lists in “treaties” RS 17.338 rev:4' (PRU IV, p. 85) (lacking the
divine determinatives); RS 18.06-|-:6‫( ׳‬PRU IV, p. 137). Note also
Weidner, Politische Dokumente 1 rev:54; 2 rev:43; 3 IV:44.25
25
a. «*Tdmtu // ‫תהום‬
Hamtu R S 20.24:29 (Ug. V, p. 44).
— 487 —
b. Notes
“Sea,” Babylonian Tiamat (Edzard, Mesopotamien, p. 129), is found in
two forms in the Akk. texts at Ugarit. Ideographically, dA.AB.BA
(above) is equated with Ug. Ym . In RS 20.123+ 111:34‫( '׳‬Ug. V, p. 240)
ta-a-m a-tum is found associated with an-tum (for the association of
an-tum and Asherah, see Nougayrol, Ug. V, p. 54). In a list of witness-
gods in a “treaty ” between Murshilish II and Niqmepa, RS 17.338 obv:4'
(PRU IV, p. 85), we find [dA].AB.BA.GAL, \ta\mtu rabitu, “great sea,”
i.e. the deified Mediterranean. The preceding line (3') of the same text
contains an-tum (Aa-an-t[um]).
c. Gen 1:2; Ps 104:6; Prov 8:27; etc.
In these passages ‫ תהום‬denotes the primeval ocean (s).
26
a. dTalaya Cf. PN ‫א בי ט ל‬
Hd-la-ia R S 16.156:8, 17 (P R U III, p. 61).
b. Notes
The DN, occurring only in this fern. PN, is the Ug. goddess Tly, a daugh-
ter of Baal. For the reading td-la-ia, as opposed to the ta-la-ia of the
editio princeps, see Grondahl, P TU , p. 202. In Heb. and Ug. the common
noun ‫ ט ל‬/# means "dew.”
c. I I Sam 3:4; I Chron 3:3
In the PN Abital (‫) א בי ט ל‬, "My father is Tal(?),” ‫ ט ל‬may be a theophoric
element.
27
a. dYamm 11 (‫ימ)ים‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫אבים‬, ‫ימואל‬
mar abdi-yammu R S 16.257-f A 1:16" (PRU III, p. 199).
See Y m 11 Nhr (IV 15).
b. Notes
The Ug. sea-god (Ym) is found in the PN abdi (ARAD) -yammu (A.
AB.BA) (cf. Ug. *bdym) (Grondahl, P TU , p. 144).
— 488
28
a. •1Yarik // ‫ירח‬
mabdi-‫״‬yarih R S 17.61:7, 13 (Ug. V, p. 13).
b. Notes
The name of the West-semitic moon god is found in the PN adbi (ARAD)
- Ayarih (BA), (above; cf. Ug. *bdyrh; see Grondahl, P TU , p. 145).
c. Deut 4:19; 17:3; I I Kings 23:5; Jer 8:2; Job 31:26
In these vv. the moon (‫ )י ר ח‬is regarded as a male deity, the object of
cultic worship.
29
a. abu / / ‫אב‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫ אביאל‬, ‫ א בי ה‬,‫ א בי הו‬, ‫א לי א ב‬
‫ *״‬Ae-a-a-bi R S 16.133 rev:8 (P R U III, p. 59).
b. Notes
Common Semitic “father” is a frequently occurring divine epithet (see
Tallqvist, AGE, pp. 1-2). It occurs in a number of PN ’s: m Ae-a-a-bi
(above); mku-5ar-a-bu, RS 20.12:27 (Ug. V, p. 189); mas-tar-a-bi, RS
20.176:26 (Ug. V, p. 180; cf. Ug. Htrab [UT 1046:12]); ‫ ״‬Arasap (MAS.
MAS) -a-b[i], RS 17.22+:15 (Ug. V, p. 8; cf. Ug. rspab [UT 300 obv:5
(CTA 82 A :5); etc.], and abrsp [UT 321 1:35 (CTA 119 1:35); etc.]); see
Grondahl, P TU , pp. 86-87. Note also E l’s epithet mlk ab snm (on which
see above, IV 42 a-c).
c. Deut 32:6; Isa 63:16(twice); Jer 3:4, 19; etc.
In these passages ‫ א ב‬, “father,” is an epithet of Yahweh.
d. I Sam 9:1; 14:51; I Chron 11:32
The PN ‫ א בי א ל‬means “My father is E l.”
e. 7 Sam 8:2; I Kings 14:1; I Chron 2:24; 3:10; 6:13 [6:28]; etc.
The PN ‫ א בי ה‬means "My father is Yah.”
f. I I Chron 13:20, 21
The PN ‫ אביהו‬means “My father is Yahu.”
g. N um 1:9; 2:7; 7:24, 29; 10:16; etc.
The PN ‫ א לי א ב‬means “My God is father.”
h. Comments
On the PN ’s ‫ אביה‬and ‫ א בי הו‬, see also above, IV 15 zz.
— 489 —
V 30 Ras Shatnra Parallels
30
a. adunu // ‫ ה א ד ן‬,‫א ד נ י‬
Cf. p n ' s (‫אדניה)ו‬, ‫א דני ־ צ ד ך‬
•t 1-du-ni-*ba'al R S 15.42+ 11:20' (P R U III, p. 196).
b. Notes
West Semitic “lord” occurs as an epithet in a PN: ma -d u -n i-ibdtal (U)
(above). I t is perhaps a theophoric element in the PN ma-da-nu-um -
mu, RS 16.262:9, 10, 13 (P R U III, p. 67). For discussion of these and
Ug. PN ’s containing the element “lord,” see Grondahl, P TU , pp. 89-90;
cf. Kinlaw’s comments on aduna (.Personal Names, pp. 259-260).
c. Exod 23:17; 34:23

‫ ה אדן יהוה‬means “The lord Yahweh.”
d. Gen 15:2, 8; Deut 3:24; 9:26; Josh 7:7; etc.
‫ אדני יהוה‬means “Lord Yahweh.”
e. Hob 3:19; Pss 68:21; 109:21; 140:8; 141:8
‫ יהוה א ת י‬means “Yahweh, my lord.”
f. Pss 38:16; 86:12
‫ אדני א ל הי‬means “My lord, my God.”
g. Ps 35:23
‫ א ל הי ו א תי‬means “My God and my lord.”
h. I I Sam 3:4; I Kings 1:5, 7, 8, 9; etc.
The PN (‫ אדניה)ו‬means “My lord is Yah(u).”
i. Josh 10:1, 3
The PN ‫ א ת י ־ צ ד ק‬means “My lord is righteous.”
j. Comments
These and numerous other texts show th a t (‫ א ת )י‬is a divine epithet
in the OT. For a full discussion, see Eissfeldt, TDOT I, pp. 59-72.
31
a. ahu Cf. pn (‫אחיה)ו‬

[‫ ״‬a]hi-*ra$ap R S 16.257+ B 111:35 (P R U III, p. 199).
— 490 —
b. Notes
Common Semitic “brother” (see Tallqvist, AGE, p. 6) is an epithet in
the PN [ma\hi (§E§) - ‫״‬rasap (MAS.MAS) (above; cf. the Ug. PN ahrsp
[UT 2067 obv:7]); see Grondahl, P TU , p. 92.
c. I Sam 14:3, 18; I Kings 4:3; 11:29, 30; etc.
The PN (1)‫ אחיה‬means “My brother is Yah(u).”
32
a. ammu Cf. PN ’s ‫י ק מ ע ם‬, etc.

mam-m[u]-ra-pi R S 13.7 B:2 (P R U III, p. 6).
b. Notes
“Paternal uncle” (see Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, pp. 196-197,
on the meaning of the term) is a theophoric element in the PN mam -
m[u]-ra-pi (above); cf. the Ug. PN *mrpi (UT 2060:2; see Grondahl,
P TU , p. 109; and Kinlaw, Personal Names, pp. 262-263, who follow
Huffmon on the meaning of ammu). Gordon, UT, § 19.1864, sees lm
as a theophoric element in several PN ’s, including Yrb'm, “Jeroboam”
(UT 1046:38), and Tb'm (UT 150:10 [ = 1058:10]; 1024 obv:21; 2011:7;
2026:10; 2079:6, 8; cf. ‫״־‬Su-ub-am-mu, RS 16.156:5 [PRU III, p. 61];
etc.). When Tb(m is compared to the PN Tbil (UT 10:6 [CTA 101:6];
1071 rev:5; 1082 obv:2; 2001 obv:l; 2040:25; 2070 rev:8), it seems clear
th at 'm is a theophoric element.
c. I Chron 23:19; 24:23
The PN ‫ יקמע ם‬means “ (My) uncle raises up.”
d. I Kings 11:26, 28, 29, 31, 40 (twice); etc.
The PN ‫ ירבע ם‬means “ (My) uncle makes great.”
e. N um 13:12; I I Sam 9:4, 5; 17:27; I Chron 3:5; 26:5
The PN ‫ ע מי א ל‬means “My uncle is E l.”
f. N um 1:10; 2:18; 7:48, 53; 10:22; etc.
The PN ‫ ע מי הוד‬means "My uncle is m ajesty.”
g. I Chron 27:6
The PN ‫ ע מיז בד‬means “My uncle has given.”
h. N um 1:7; 2:3; 7:12, 17; 10:14; etc.
The PN ‫ ע מינד ב‬may mean "My uncle is willing.”
— 491 —
i. Exod 6:18, 20; N um 3:19; 26:58, 59; etc.

The PN ‫ ע מר ם‬means “ (My) uncle is exalted.”
j. I Kings 11:43; 12:1, 3, 6, 12; etc.
The PN ‫ ר חבע ם‬may mean “ (My) uncle makes wide.”
k. Comments
Noth, Personennamen, p. 77, finds the theophoric element ‫ ע ם‬in
these PN ’s by comparing them with similar PN ’s in which an element
th a t is clearly theophoric (e.g., 1] ,‫] א ב‬iT) stands in place of the ‫ ע ם‬. To
his list L V T L , p. 710, adds ‫( אלי ע ם‬II Sam 11:3; 23:34), ‫( אניעם‬I Chron
7:19), 11) ‫ יתרעם‬Sam 3:5; I Chron 3:3), ‫( ע מי הוד‬II Sam 13:37 [K]), and
‫( עמיעזדי‬Num 1:12; 2:25; 7:66, 71; 10:25). However, the ‫ ע ם‬element in
‫“( אניעם‬Lament of ‫ )” ע ם‬and ‫“( יתרעם‬Remainder of ‫} )” ע ם‬fields better
sense when it is understood as “people.”
33
a. bant Cf. GN ‫יבנאל‬
Cf. p n ’s (‫בניה)ו‬, ‫י מי ה‬. ‫י ב ד ה‬
ba-ni amUutiME& R S 17.155:33 (Ug. V, p. 29).
b. Notes
“Creator” (bani, stative of banu) is part of an epithet of Marduk, ba-ni
LUMES, “creator of mankind” (above; cf. Tallqvist, AGE, pp. 68-70).
Note also the Ug. epithet of El: bny bnwt, “creator of creatures” (UT
49 I I I :5, 11 [CTA 6 I I I :5, 11]; 51 11:11; 111:32 [CTA 4 11:11; 111:32];
2 Aqht 1:25 [CTA 17 1:25]).
c. Josh 15:11; 19:33
The GN ‫ יבנאל‬means "E l creates.”
d. I I Sam 8:18; 20:23; 23:20, 22, 30; etc.
The PN (‫ מי ה)ו‬means either "A builder / creator is Yah(u)” or “Yah(u)
creates.”
e. 7 Chron 9:8
The PN ’s ‫ י מי ה‬and ‫ י מי ה‬mean “Yah creates.”
34
a. beitu Cf. g n ’s‫ ב ע ל ת‬, ‫ב ע ל ת באר‬

mabdi-Abeltu R S 16.257+ A 1:3" (P R U III, p. 199).
— 492 —
b. Notes
“Lady” is both an epithet (Tallqvist, AGE, pp. 57ff.) and a DN at RS.
As a DN, it occurs in the PN mabdi (lR) - dbeltu (NIN) (above, passim),
which Grondahl, P TU , pp. 104, 117, and 316, suggests be read abdi-
ba'alat. In [dlNIN ku-ba-ba GA&AN kur v*vkar-ga-mis, RS 17.146:50
(PRU IV, p. 154), dNIN {beltu) is part of the DN, and GAgAN (also
beltu) is part of the epithet relating “Lady Kubaba” to Carchemish.
4NIN.GAL [GA]$AN VRVnu-ba-an-ni / gur-a-ti occurs in 11. 51 and 52
of the same text. For a syllabic rendering, see dbe-el-ti VRV[la-in-ta(l)],
RS 17.349 B rev:7‫{ ׳‬PRU IV, p. 87).
c. Josh 19:44; I Kings 9:18; I I Chron 8:6
‫ ב ע ל ת‬is the GN Baalath.
d. Josh 19:8
‫ ב ע ל ת באר‬is the GN Baalath Beer.
35
a. beiu Cf. pn ‫ב ע לי ה‬
ili-belu R S 16.145:4 (P R U III, p. 169).
b. Notes
Although it is a Babylonian DN,“lord, m aster” is also the epithet of
a number of gods in Mesopotamia (see Tallqvist,AGE, pp. 39ff.) and
at RS. The epithet may be written syllabically or with the ideogram
EN, which distinguishes it from the DN Ba'al (Adad), written IM or U
(see above, 6). I t occurs in the PN ili (AN) -belu (EN) (above). Baal
was the “lord” of Mt. Saphon according to RS 20.24:4 (Ug. V, p. 44):
dIM be-el hursan (HUR.SAG) ha-zi. Note also EN / be-luiVE^ m a-
mi-ti, “Lord(s) of the oath,” in “treaties” : RS 17.04 rev :l‫{ ׳‬PRU IV,
p. 99): RS 17.146:53 {PRU IV, p. 154): RS 17.459 rev:4‫{ ׳‬PRU IV,
p. 138); RS 18.06+:9‫{ ׳‬PRU IV, p. 137); cf. Weidner, Politische Do-
kumente 1 rev :61, 63; 2 rev :53; 3 IV :25.
c. I Chron 12:6
If the PN ‫ ב ע לי ה‬is understood as “ (My) lord is Yah,” the ‫ ב ע ל‬element
is a divine epithet.
d. Comments
See above, IV 9 y, for interpretations of the ‫ ב ע ל‬element in the
PN ‫ ב ע לי ה‬as either verbal or as the DN “Baal.”
— 493 —
36
a. ddnu Cf. p n ’s ‫אבידן‬, ‫דנ)י(אל‬
1»‫* נ‬ba'al-danu R S 17.332:3 (Ug. V, p. 21).
b. Notes
"Judge” is a well-attested divine epithet in Mesopotamia, especially for
Samas, and also for Adad (see Tallqvist, AGE, pp. 7982‫)־‬. I t occurs in
PN ’s: [mI *ba'al (U) -ddnu (DI.KUD) (above), and m *ba'al (U) -da-nuja,
RS 20.176:20, 22 (Ug. V, p. 180); cf. the Ug. PN B'ldn (UT 1032:13).
Note also - *addu (IM) -dayydnu (DI.KU 5), RS 17.424 C + :l (P R U IV,
p. 219), which Grondahl, PTU , p. 123, would read ba'al-ddnu. Finally,
cf. the Ug. PN Dnil (UT 121 11:7 [CTA 20 B:7]; etc.).
c. Num 1:11; 2:22; 7:60, 65; 10:24
In the PN ‫ א ביז ץ‬, “My father is judge,” ‫ דן‬is probably a theophoric el-
ement.
d. Ezek 14:14, 20; 28:3; Ezra 8:2; Neh 10:7; etc.
The PN ‫ דנ)י(אל‬means "My judge is El.”
37
a. gdmir // ‫גמר‬
Cf. p n ' s ‫גמר‬, ‫ג מ רי ה‬,‫ג מ רי הו‬
mga-mi-rad-dl R S 16.148A- rev:8' (PRU III, p. 115).
mga-m i-rad-du R S 16.148+ rev:11' (PRU III, p. 115).
See gmr (IV 36).
b. Notes
Gamdru means "bring to an end, finish” ; gamru, “whole, effective” ;
while gdmiru is “strong, able” (cf. Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 284).
We have an epithet in the PN mga-mi-rad-d\Ju, “Adad is whole / strong”
(above; see Grondahl, P TU , p. 128). Note also mgi-im -ra-du, RS 16.257+B
IV:10 (PRU III, p. 199); cf. the Ug. PN Gmrd (UT 300 obv:14, 23, 24;
rev:17, 18 [CTA 82 A:14, 23, 24; B:17, 18]; etc.). For other examples
of the epithet, see Tallqvist, AGE, pp. 76-77.38
38
a. na'am // ‫נ ע מ ני ם ! ע ם‬
mna*am-arasap R S 15.143-\-•rev:14 (PRU III, p. 117); etc.
— 494 —
b. Notes
“Pleasant, gracious, good, lovely” is an epithet of Rasap in the PN
mna'am (SIG5) - AraSap (KAL,) (above). Note also mnu-ma-re-§a-ip,
RS 20.07:2 (Ug. V, p. 191); see Grondahl, P TU , p. 163; cf. Huffmon,
Amorite Personal Names, p. 137. In Ug. n'm is an epithet of heroes (Krt:
UT 128 11:20 [CTA 15 11:20]; Krt:40, 61 [CTA 14 1:40; 11:61]; Aqht:
UT 2 Aqht VI:45 [CTA 17 VI:45]), and of gods {Ilm n'mm: UT 52:1,
23, 58, 60, 67 [CTA 23:1, 23, 58, 60, 67] [see Gordon, UT, § 19.1665];
Anat: UT 603 rev :3).
c. Pss 27:4; 90:17
‫נעם‬, “loveliness,” is attributed to Yahweh in these w .
d. Isa 17:10
If ‫ נטעי נעמנים‬is understood as “gardens of Adonis” (L V T L , p. 622),
then ‫ נעמנים‬is an epithet of Adonis ( = Baal). That ‫ נעמנים‬is parallel
to ‫ז ר‬, “alien,”suggests th at it is not to be taken literally (cf. RSF:
“pleasant plants”).
39
a. nuru Cf. PN (1)‫נריה‬
mnuri-*rasap R S 16.186:8' (P R U III, p. 168).
b. Notes
The divine epithet “light” (cf. Tallqvist, AGE, pp. 133-134) occurs in
PN ’s: mnuri (NE) - Arasap (MAS.MAS) (above; see Grondahl, PTU ,
p. 166, for the reading of MAS.MAS); mnuri (NE) - Ama-l[ik], RS 20.
196 A Colophon:3 (Ug. V, p. 252). Note also mnur (NE) -a-na, RS 8.
213:26 (Syria, X V III [1937], 251), which may, according to Grondahl,
be “!,icht des *Anu.” In Ug., nrt ilm, “illuminator of the gods” (UT
49 11:24 [CTA 6 11:24]; etc.), is an epithet of SpS, and nyr smm, “illu-
minator of the heavens” (UT 77:16, 31 [CTA 24:16, 31]) is an epithet
of Yarik; see Gordon, UT, § 19.1644.
c. Jer 32:12, 16; 36:4, 8, 14; etc.
The PN (‫ נריה)ו‬means “My light is Yah(u).”
40
a. rabu //‫רבה‬
ildniKSi ra-ab-bu-ti R S 22.421 1:9 (Ug. V, p. 302).
— 495 —
b. Notes
"G reat” is a common epithet for Mesopotamian (see Tallqvist, AGE,
pp. 169-173) and Ug. (see Gordon, UT, § 19.2297) deities. In the “Flood
Story” fragment (above) we find ildniME& (ANmeS) ra-ab-bu-ti, "the
great gods.” For PN ’s with rabu, see Grondahl, PTU , pp. 178-179.
c. Ps 89:8
In this v. ‫ רבה‬is used of Yahweh:
‫ א ל נערץ בסוד־קדעןים‬A God feared in the council of the holy
ones,
‫ רבה ונורא ע ל ־ כ ל ־ ס בי ביו‬Great and terrible above all th at are
round about him.
Although the Masoretes divided the v. after ‫ ר ב ה‬, virtually all commen-
tators agree in placing it with the second colon. The form of the word
is also troublesome. Most scholars emend ‫ רבה‬to ‫ ר ב‬or ‫ ר ב הוא‬, following
LXX. However, see Dahood, Psalms I I , p. 313, who explains ‫ רב ה‬as
"the archaic qatala form.”
41
a. mkub // ‫ר כ ב בערבו ת‬
bin-ra-kub-Abafal R S 15.09 B 1:16 (P R U III, p. 195).
See rkb ,r ft (IV 40).
b. Notes
"R ider” as an epithet of Baal is well known (Ug. rkb 'rpt). For the
epithet rakib, see Tallqvist, AGE, p. 175. In the PN bin (DUMU) -ra -
kub-^ba'al (U) (above), rakub (explained by Grondahl, PTU , p. 72, as
a part.) is an epithet of Baal. Cf. the PN [bin] ([DUMU]) -ili (AN) -m a -
ra-kub, RS 15.42+ 1:8 (P R U III, p. 196). Note also the Phoen. deity
Rkb’l (see Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, p. 261).
42
a. rdmu cf. p n ’s ‫אברם‬, ‫אחירם‬, ‫יהורם‬

'*[}]lu-ra-mi R S 20.232:1 {Ug. V, p. 154).
b. Notes
T hat this West Semitic word (Gordon, UT, § 19.2311: *r[wjy]m, "to be
— 496 —
high, exalted”) is a divine epithet is seen in PN ’s: m[i]lu ([A]N) -ra-m i

(above; cf. the Ug. PN Ilrm [UT 2022:16]); ‫>״‬a-bi-ra-m i, RS 15.63:1
(.PRU III, p. 20; cf. the Ug. PN Abrm [UT 2095:2, 4]; see Grondahl,
P TU , p. 182; and Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, p. 262); ma -hi-
ra-mu, RS 19.42:14 (P R U VI, p. 77).
c. Gen 11:26, 27, 29,31;12:1; etc.
The PN ‫ אבר ם‬means “ (My) father is exalted.”
d. Num 26:38
The PN ‫ אחיר ם‬means “My brother is exalted.”
e. I Kings 22:51 [50]; I I Kings 1:17 (twice); 3:1, 6; etc.

The PN ‫ יהורם‬may mean “Yah is exalted.”
43
a. rapu // ‫רפא‬, ‫)ה(רפאים‬, (‫ הרפא)ים‬/ ‫( ה רפ א‬etc. ,‫)יל]י[די‬

Cf. g n ‫עמק)־( רפאים‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫ ר פ אל‬, ‫בית רפ א‬
«abdi-rap-i R S 16.139:8 (P R U III, p. 145).
See rpu, rpum (IV 41).
b. Notes
“Healer” is a theophoric element in P N ’s: mabdi (ARAD) - rap~i (above;
cf. the Ug. PN ,bdrpu [UT 1099:15; 2011:33]); “am-m[u]-ra-pi, RS 13.7
B:2 (P R U III, p. 6; cf. the Ug. PN 'mrpi [UT 2060:2]); see Grondahl,
P TU , p. 180. A relationship to the Ug. rpum, “shades,” is probable.
c. Exod 15:26
‫ כי אני יהוה ר פ א ך‬For I, Yahweh, am your healer.
This epithet is contained in an exhortation to Israel to keep the
commandments, with the consequences that: “none of the diseases
which I put upon the Egyptians will I put upon you; for I, Yahweh,
am your healer.”
d. I Chron 4:12
‫ בית רפ א‬is the PN Beth Rapha.
e. Comments
For other OT parallels, see above, IV 41 g-t.
— 497 —
44
a. §ipat !‫) ה(ע(פט ן‬

Cf. p n ’s ‫יהועזפט‬, ‫ ע פ טי ה‬,‫ש פ טי הו‬
‫״־‬si-pat-*ba'al R S 20.221 edge:5 (Ug. V, p. 151).
b. Notes
“Judge” occurs as an epithet in PN ’s: msi-pa.t-Aba al (IM) (above);
™sipat (DI.KUD) -*ba'al (U), RS 20.425:7 (Ug. V, p. 192); *Si^pi-et-
4ba'al (IM), RS 17.86+:14 (Ug. V, p. 262). I t is perhaps a theophoric
element in the PN ,bin (DUMU) -si-ip-te*, RS 20.178 obv:2 (Ug. V,
p. 147). In Ug. we find tpt nhr, "Judge River” ( = Yamm); also, Baal
is acclaimed as tptn, “our judge” (// mlkn, "our king”) in UT 51 IV:44
(CTA 4 IV :44) and 'n t V:40 (CTA 3 E:40).
c. Judg 11:27
‫ ישפט יהוה העזפט היום‬May Yahweh, the Judge, judge today.
Here ‫ השפט‬is clearly a divine epithet.
d. Jer 11:20
‫יהוה צבאות שפט צ ד ק‬ Yahweh of hosts, righteous judge.
e. Ps 75:8
‫כי־ א ל הי ם ע פ ט‬ For God is the judge.
f. Ps 94:2
‫ עזפט הארץ‬here is a divine title: “judge of the earth.”
g- I I Sam 8:16; 20:24; I Kings 4:3, 17; 15:24; etc.
The PN ‫ יהושפט‬may mean "Yahu judges.”
h. I I Sam 3:4; Jer 38:1; Ezra 2:4, 57; 8:8; etc.
The PN ‫ שפטיה‬means “Yah judges.”
i. I Chron 12:6; 27:16; I I Chron 21:2
The PN ‫ ע פ טי הו‬means “Yahu judges.”
j. Comments
In these PN ’s, we probably have verbs, not epithets (substantives
or adjectives).
45
a. tabu !‫טוב ן‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫אביטוב‬, ‫אח)י(טוב‬, (‫ט)ו(ביה)ו‬
ilu-ta-ab-i R S 17.360:27 (PRU VI, p. 41).
— 498 —
b. Notes
The epithet “good” (Ug. tb), applied to Marduk and Istar in Mesopotamia
(see Tallqvist, AGE, pp. 101-102), is seen in such PN ’s as ilu (DINGIR)
-ta -ab-i (above), and Hab-ra-am-mi, RS 17.231:8, 15 (P R U IV, p. 238).
c. Bibliography
Noth, Personennamen, p. 153.
Kinlaw, Personal Names, p. 328.
d. I Chron 8:11 (‫ ;) אביטוב‬I Sam 14:3; etc. (‫ ב‬1‫ ;) אח]י[ט‬Zech 6:10; e tc .([‫)ט]ו[ביה]ו‬
Noth, Kinlaw: These PN ’s designate the deity as “good” : ‫( אביטוב‬LXX
Aflixo)(1!), “My father is good” ; ‫( אח)י( טוב‬LXX A / ikoP), “My brother
is good” ; (‫ט)ו(ביה)ו‬, “Yah(u) is good.”
e. Pss 34:9; 100:5; 135:3
These passages have what may be a formula in the Psalms:
‫ כי״ טו ב יהוה‬For Yahweh is good.
‫ כי־ טו ב‬also refers to Yahweh in Pss 106:1; 107:1; 118:1, 29; 136:1; cf.
52:11; 54:8.
46
a. zib(i)lu // ‫ז בל‬
Cf. p n ’s ‫זבל‬, ‫איזבל‬
Cf. ‫זב)ו(ל)ו(ן‬
‫' ״‬pi-zi-bi-l[i] R S 15.42+ 1:14 (P R U III, p. 196).
'p i-zi-ib -li R S 16.263:14, 15 (P RU III, p. 49).
See B 'l (IV 9 q).
b. Notes
In Ug., “prince” is an epithet of Baal (UT 49 I I I :9, 21; IV:29, 40 [CTA
6 I I I :9, 21; IV :29, 40]; 67 VI:10 [CTA 5 VI:10]; etc.), of Yamm (UT
68:7, 14, 16, 22, 24 [CTA 2 IV:7, 14, 16, 22, 24]; etc.), and of Yarih (UT
1 Aqht:164 [CTA 19 IV:164]). This epithet may also be present in the
PN ’s m *pi-zi-bi-l[i] and fp i-zi-ib-li (above).
47
a. zimru Cf. GN(?) ‫זמרי‬
Cf. p n ‫זמרי‬
cf. ‫זמרה‬
zi-im -rad-du R S 12.34-\-:33 (P R U III, p. 192).
— 499 —
33
b. Notes
"Protection” is an epithet in PN ’s: zi-im -rad-du (above), and a variant
i-im -rad-du, RS 17.112:16 (P R U IV, p. 234). Cf. the Ug. PN ’s Dmrb'l
(UT 322 11:5 [CTA 102 A 11:5]), Dtnrd (UT 2153:10), Dmrhd (UT 322
V I:7 [CTA 102 A V I:7]). Note also ‫״‬zi-im -ri-4 im (IGI), RS 17.110:2,
4, 7, 11, 14 (P R U IV, p. 178). This epithet is common in Mari PN ’s:
see Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names, p. 188.
c. Jer 25:25
‫ זמרי‬is the GN(?) Zimri.
d. Num 25:14; I Kings 16:9, 10, 12, 15; etc.

‫ זמרי‬is the PN Zimri.
e. Exod 15:2; Ps 118:14; cf. Isa 12:2

‫ עזי חמר ת יה‬My strength and protection is Yah,
‫ וי הי־ לי ליעזועה‬And he has become my salvation.
In light of the epithet dmr / zimru at RS, and of the parallel words ‫עז‬
and ‫יעזועה‬, ‫ זמרת‬should be translated "protection” (cf. Dahood, Psalms I I I ,
p. 154: "sentinel”) rather than R S V “song” (cf. L V T L , p. 260).
— 500 —
INDICES
The indices are divided into three categories: texts (Index A), words (Index B), and subjects
(Index C). The first two categories have four indices apiece; the last category consists of a single index.
A description of the m o d u s o p e r a n d i for indexing is given at the beginning of each index. References
to R S P III are cited according to the following format: chapter, entry, and paragraph. Thus “II 64 g”
is to be read as “chapter II, entry 64, paragraph g.” An asterisk following the paragraph designation
indicates that a parallel is specifically discussed in that paragraph.
Index A: Texts
The textual indices are divided into four sub-categories: A-l, Hebrew Bible; A-2, Ugaritic Texts;
A-3, Ras Shamra Akkadian Texts; and A-4, Other Texts.
A-l H eb rew B ib le
All texts in the Hebrew Bible (including the Aramaic portions) are found in this index. Texts
are arranged by the order of the MT. Non-biblical Hebrew texts appear in the “Other Texts“ index
(A-4).
G en esis G en esis G en esis
1:1-2:3 III Intro 7 c, c1; 5:26 IV 14 d; 29 e 12:4-9 III 2 e1
1 efi*, gg5, ifi; 2 aa* 5:27 IV 14 d; 29 e 12:10-13:1 III 2 e, e1
1:1-5 III Intro 7 c1 7:22 I 287 e 12:16 I 317 g
1:2 V 25 c 10:2 IV 36 e 13:2-18 III 2 e1
1:10 IV 25 e 10:24 IV 29 c, e 13:8 I 7 d, e
1:21 IV 31 f, h 10:26 IV 21 d, y 14:1-24 III 2 e, e1
1:29 I 260 e 11:1-9 I 233 e 14:5 IV 23 g; 41 h
2:5 I Supp 61 b 11:14 IV 29 e 14:18 I 23 g; IV 2 d; 24 q; 30 f
2:9 I 75 f 11:26 V 42 c 14:19-20 I 181 e
3:19 I 91 e; 282 g 11:27-25:11 III 2 c*, e*, e1 14:19 I 23 g; IV 2 d
3:24 I 301 e 11:27-12:3 III 2 e, e1 14:20 I 23 g; IV 2 d
4:8-9 I 312 d 11:27 V 42 c 14:22 I 23 g; 30 f; IV 2 d
4:18 IV 14 d 11:29 V 42 c 15:1-21 III 2 e1
5:21 IV 14 d; 29 e 11:31 V 42 c 15:1-6 III 3u
5:22 IV 14 d; 29 e 12:1-3 III2 l;3u 15:2 I 37 g, j; V 30 d
5:25 IV 14 d; 29 e 12:1 V 42 c 15:8 V 30 d
— 501 —
A -l Ras Shamra Parallels
G en esis G en esis G en esis

15:17 IV 7 d 25:23 III 2 p< 36:39 V lg
15:20 IV 41 e, f, g 26:1-35 III 2 e, e1 37:2-50:26 III 2 c*, e*, el
16:1-16 III 2 e1; 3 p 27:1-45 III 2 e1 37:2-36 III 2 e, el, p1
16:11 I Supp 98 c: II Supp 4 b 27:1 III 2 el 37:15 I 293 g
16:13 IV 2d 27:28 I 121 e; II 4 d*, e; 37:25 II 3d*
16:14 IV 14 e IV 5 d, e; 10 e, el,j;32c, 38 III 2 e\ f, n, ss; 3 w
17:1-27 III 2 e1 d, dl 38:4 IV 4 d
17:15-17 III 3 u 27:39 II 4 d*; IV 39 h, i 38:21 V 20 c
17:17 III 3 q 27:46-28:9 III 2 e1 38:22 V 20 c
18:1-19:38 III 2 e1 28 III 2 j, m 39:1-41:57 III 2 e1
18 III 3 p, p2, q 28:1-9 III 2f 39:4 I 50 e
18:1-16 III 3 n, 0 , q 28:10-22 III 2 e, e\ j 39:8 I 50 e
18:2 II 3d*; 1112c1 28:17 I Supp 30 c 39:15 II 2 d*, e*
18:10 III 3 q, u; v 28:18 I 179 d 39:18 II 2 d*. e*
18:12-13 III 3 q 28:20-28 III 2 c* 42:1-45:28 III 2 e1
18:17-19 III 3 u 28:20-22 III 2 j 42:1-38 III 2 e
18:18 III 3 n 29:1-30 III 2 e1 43:29 II 3d*
18:20 I Supp 56 b, c, d 29:31-30:24 III 2 el 45:8 I 1 e, f
19:15 IV 28 q 30:2 IV 2 j 46:1-7 III 2 e1
20:1-18 III 2 e, e1 30:13 IV 8 e, g 46:3 IV 2d
20:12 I 12 e 30:20 IV 9 q 46:8-27 III 2 e1
20:18 I 62 e 30:25-43 III 2 e1 46:10 IV 15 e, aa
21:1-21 III 2 e1 30:43 I 317 f 46:12 IV 4 d
21:1-7 III 2 p, p4; 3 q 31:1-32:1 III 2 e1 46:14 IV 9 q
21:2 III 3 q 31:21 II 1 d*. g*, i 46:28-34 III 2 e1
21:3 III 3 q 31:29 IV 33 b 47:1-6 III 2 el
21:6 III 3 q 32:2-22 III 2 e1 47:7-12 III 2 e1
21:22-34 III 2 e1 32:23-33 III 2 e1 47:13-26 III 2 e1
21:33 IV 2d 32:26-27 IV 28 q 47:27-31 III 2 e1
22:1-19 III 2 e1 33:1-17 III 2 e1 48:1-22 III 2 e, el
22:20-24 III 2 e1 33:1 III 2 d, e1 48:7 IV 14 f
23:1-20 III 2 e, e1 33:18-34:31 III 2 e1 49:l-28a III 2 e1
24:1-67 III 2 e, e1 33:20 IV 2d 49:3-27 III 3 k
24:7 I Intro g4; 2 h; 69 g; 35:1-15 III 2 e1, j 49:7 I Supp 56 b, c, d
Supp 28 b 35:7 IV 2d 49:8-9 I8f,g
24:35 I 317 g 35:8 I Supp 25 b 49:9 I 59 f
24:60 III 3d 35:13-14 I 54 e, g 49:13 IV 9 q
24:62 IV 14 e 35:14 1311 d 49:17 IV 35 h
24:63 II 3d*; 1112 c1 35:16-20 III 2 e, e1 49:21 I 14 f, g; 214 d;
24:64 II 3 e*; III 2 c1 35:19 IV 14 f Supp 77 c
25:1-11 III 2 e, e1 35:21-26 III 2 e, e1 49:24 I 126 e
25:11 IV 14 e 35:23 IV 9 q 49:24b IV 1 c*
25:19-35:29 III 2 c*, e*, e1 35:27-29 III 2 e, e1 49:25 I 299 g; IV 2 d; 39 h, i
25:19-34 III 2 e, e1 36:35 V lg 49:28b-33 III 2 el
25:21-26 HI 2 p, p4 36:36 V lg 50:1-14 III 2 e, e1
— 502 —
Indices A -l
G en esis Exodus Exodus

50:15-21 III 2 e, e1 15:5 III 1 k* 32 IV 9 bb
50:22-26 III 2 e, e1 15:6-8 III 1 u 32:18 IV 22 f, i
15:6 III 1 k* 32:20 IV 9 cc
E xodus 15:7 III 1 k* 34:6 IV 2 k
1:3 IV 9 q 15:8 I 287 e; III 1 k*, p*. 34:23 V 30 c
2:12-13 I 33 f u*, cc*, ii 34:24 I 111 e
2:22 I Supp 98 c 15:9-11 III 1 u 35:21-29 III 1 qp*
3:2ff. III 1 aa 15:10 III 1 k*, p*, u*. ii; 40:34-38 III 1 qp*
3:15 I Supp 81 c IV 15 g 40:35 1303 d
4:10 I 158 d 15:11 III 1 k*. w, y*;
6:15 IV 15 aa IV 34 e, f, g L e v itic u s
6:18 V 32 i 15:12 III 1 k*. p*. u, y*. 18 IV 38 f
6:20 V 32 i gg, ii; IV 5 f 18:9 1 12 e
7:9 IV 31 g, h 15:13-18 III 1 u, v, ii 18:21 IV 38 e, f
7:10 IV 31 g,h 15:13-16a III 1 cc* 20:2-5 IV 38 g
7:12 IV 31 g,h 15:13-14 III 1 u 20:5 IV 38 g
7:17 IV 31 g 15:13 III 1 k* 23:40 I 260 e
10:15 I 260 e 15:14-16 III 1y*, gg, ii 24:2 I 104 h
12:39 I 137 e 15:14 III 1 k*
13:9 I 60 e 15:15-16 III 1 u N u m b e rs
13:12 IV 27 d; 38 f 15:15 III 1 w 1:7 V 32 h
14:2 IV 9 w; 25 h 15:16 III 1 k* 1:9 V 29 g
14:7 I 342 d 15:16b-17 III 1 cc* 1:10 V 32 f
14:9 IV 9 w; 25 h 15:16b III 1 g, p, ww 1:11 V36 c
14:16 IV 31 g 15:17-18 I 199 f 1:12 V 32 k
14:19 III 1 aa 15:17 I 192 g; 199 d; 2:3 V 32 h
15:1-18 III 1 vv« III 1 k*, u*, w, y* 2:7 V 29 g
15:1-12 III 1 cc* 15:18 III 1 k*, p*. u*, w, y*, 2:18 V 32 f
15:1-10 HI 1 y*. gg CC* 2:22 V 36 c
15:1 III lk*; IV 15 e, g 15:21 III 1 vv15; IV 15 g 2:25 V 32 k
15:lb-18 III 1 g*. p*. u*. z*. 15:21b III 1 vv1s 3:19 V 32 i
cc*, ii, 11, nn, oo, pp, 15:26 V 43 c 7:12 V 32 h
qq, rr, rr11, rr19, ss, 17:2 I 149 e 7:17 V 32 h
ss19, tt, uu, w, w 1s, 17:5 IV 31 g 7:24 V 29 g
ww, yy*, ca*, ia19*, 19:16 IV 2 p 7:29 V 29 g
ja, ja20, ka, ra*, eg* 22:4-5 I 136 f 7:48 V 32 f
15:lb-12 III 1 u*, v, ii 23:17 V 30 c 7:53 V 32 f
15:lb-10 III 1 ii 24:4 III 1 aa 7:60 V 36 c
15:lb+2b III 1 u 24:12-40:38 III 1 jp*, qp*, 7:65 V 36 c
15:1b III 1 w 19 xp 7:66 V 32 k
15:2 III 1 k*. w; 24:12-18 III 1 q|3* 7:71 V 32 k
IV 33 b; V 47 e 25S. III 1 sp 10:14 V 32 h
15:3-5 III 1 u 27:20 I 104 b 10:16 V 29 g
15:3 III 1k*, p*, ii 29:21 I 88 d 10:22 V32 f
15:4 III 1 k*, w; IV 15 g 30:24 I 104 h 10:24 V 36 c
— 503 —
A 1‫־‬ Ras Shamra Parallels
N u m b e rs D e u te ro n o m y D e u tero n o m y
10:25 V 32 k 3:4-5 I 198 i 32:8 I 17 g; IV 34 e, f, h, i, m
10:36 IV 34 f, q 3:10-11 IV 41 f, h 32:10-11 I 65 d; Supp 88 c
11:26 V8 d 3:24 V 30 d 32:13 IV 40 f
11:27 V8 d 4:3 IV 91 32:14-15 I 88 e
13:12 V 32 e 4:19 IV 34 p; V 28 c 32:17 IV391
13:20 I 45 g 4:21 I 44 g 32:20 I 93 e
13:26 I 45 g 4:31 IV 2 k 32:21 I 24 e, f; IV 39 1
15:19 I 175 e 4:38 I 44 f 32:24 IV 26 d
16:14 I 44 g 4:39 I 328 f 32:31 IV 1 f
16:32 IV 5 f 7:5 IV 9 y10 32:32-33 I 134e
20:26 I 205 e 7:13 IV 23 c, j; 27 d 32:32I Supp 31 b; IV 21 d, bb
21:28 I 65 e, f, g 8:8 I 104 i 32:33 IV 31h
21:28b I 254 d, e 8:17 I 230 f 32:39 I 187 d; 209 d
21:29 I 65 g; IV 16 d, e 9:26 V 30 d 32:43 IV 34 e, f, h
21:33 IV 35 i; 41 h1 9:27-28 I 33 f 32:50 I 205d
22:41 IV 9 w 11:14 I 141 e, f 33:2 IV 34 e, f, r
23:10 I Supp 75 b 12:3 IV 9 y1‫״‬ 33:3 IV 34 e, f, r
24:16 I 32 d; 312 f 12:31 IV 38 f 33:6 I 107 d, f
24:23-24 I Supp 46 b 15:2 I 86 h 33:12 I 60 e; 304 e, h;
25 IV 91 15:7 I 125 h IV 39 h, z
25:2 IV 9 z 17:3 V 28 c 33:13 I 121 f; 122 f
25:3 IV 9 k, 1 17:8 I 86 h 33:22 IV 35 h
25:5 IV 91 17:9 I 86 h 33:26 IV 40 f
25:14 V 47 d 18:7-8 I 9f 33:27-28 I 301 e
26:12 IV 15 aa 23:18 V 20 c 33:28 I 121 f; 122 f; 250 d
26:19 IV 4 d 26:1 I 44 g; 338g 33:29 IV 7 d
26:38 V 42 d 26:2 I 45 h 34:7 IV 14 h
26:58 V 32 i 26:14 I Supp 5 b
26:59 V 32 i 27:22 I 12 e J o sh u a
32:38 IV 9 w 28:4 IV 23 j; 27 d 3-5 III 1 aa
33:7 IV 9 w; 25 h 28:18 IV 23 j; 27 d 3:5 III 1 aa
33:54 I 44 g 28:32 IV 33 b 4:1-9 III 1 aa
34:17 I 44 i 28:40 I 104 g; 289 d 4:21-24 III 1 aa
34:18 I 44 i 28:42 I 260 f 5:1 IV 15 h
34:21 V8 e 28:51 IV 23 j; 27d 5:2-8 III 1 aa
36:2 I 44 f 28:52 I 343 e 5:13-15 III 1 aa
28:68 I 317 g 5:14 IV 34 aa
D e u te ro n o m y 30:20 I Supp 100 b 5:15 IV 34 aa
1:4 IV 23 f; 41 hl 32:1 I 312 f 6:15 IV 28 q
2:11 IV 41 g 32:2 I 250 e; 251 g, h 7:6 I 284 f
2:20 IV 41 g 32:4-5 I 16 d 7:7 V 30 d
2:21 I 338 g 32:4 I 95 e, f; 253 g; IV 24 n 7:23 I 179 d
2:22 I 338 g 32:5 I 93 g 7:26 I 74 f
2:28 I 149 e 32:6 V 29 c 8:29 I 74 f
3:1 IV 41 h1 32:8ff. IV 13 d 9:10 IV 23 f; 41 h1
— 504 —
Indices A -l
J o sh u a Ju dges 1 Sam uel

10:1 IV 24 q; 30 f; V 30 i 5:5 I 18 e, g 2:3 I 16 d, i; IV 33 c, d
10:3 IV 24 q; V 30 i 5:6 IV 22 c, g, i 2:5 I 296 g
10:10 IV 12 d 5:20 III 1 XX* 2:6 I 208 g
10:11 IV 12 d 5:21 III 1 XX* 2:10 I 90 d; IV 39 h, aa
11:2 IV 17 f 5:27 I 216 e 4-1 Kings 2 III 2 aa, fa, ga13
11:17 IV 9 w 5:28 I 185 e ! 4-II Sam 10 III 2 da
12:4 IV 23 f; 41 h 5:31 Ill 1 XX* 4:18 I 62 f
12:7 IV 9 w 6:24 IV 30 e, h 5:1-5 IV 34 n
13:5 IV 9 w 6:25-32 IV 9 j, k, m 5:2-5 IV 10 h
13:12 IV 41 h 6:25-31 IV 34 n 5:4 IV 10 h
13:17 IV 9 w 6:25 I 64 g 5:7 IV 10 h
13:19 IV 28 c, p 6:30 I 64 g 7:3 IV 23 e
13:31 IV 23 f; 41 hl 6:32 IV 9 y 7:4 IV 23 e
15:8 IV 41 f, m 6:39 I 122 e 8:2 V 29 e
15:11 V 33 c 8:33 IV 9 j, k, n; 12 h 9:1 V 29 d
15:41 IV 10 i 9:4 IV 9 n; 12 h 10:1 I 179 d
15:59 IV 22 f, h 9:7 II 2 e* 12:10 IV 23 e
15:60 IV 9 w 9:28 IV 9 q 14:3 V 31 c; 45 d
16:3 IV 12 d 9:30 IV 9 q 14:18 V 31 c
16:5 IV 12 d 9:36 IV 9 q 14:41 V 29 d
18:13 IV 12 d 9:38 IV 9 q 15 III 2 w»
18:14 IV 9 w 9:41 IV 9 q 16-1 Kings 2 III 2 q*, 11
18:16 IV 41 m 9:46 IV 2 1; 9 n 16 III 2 11
19:8 V 34 d 10:6 IV 9 v; 23 e 16:1-13 III 2 w»
19:15 IV 14 f 11:24 IV 16 d, e 16:10-11 III 2 q*
19:27 IV 10 i 11:27 V 44 c 16:16 IV 17 e
19:33 V 33 c 12:8 IV 14 f 17:6 I 60 e, g
19:38 IV 22 h 12:10 IV 14 f 17:45 I Supp 19 b
19:44 V 34 c 13 III 3 s 18:20-27 III 2 q*
21:18 IV 22 h 16:3 I 10 e 21:14 I 240 e
21:27 IV 23 c, h 16:23 IV 10 h 24:4 IV 25 m
19:1 IV 25 m 26:10 I 208 j; 226 d, e
Ju dges 19:18 IV 25 m 28:6-7 I 293 g
1:33 IV 22 h 20:33 IV 9 w 28:7 I Supp 34 b
2:11 IV 9 j, k, v 21:21 I 97 e 28:13 IV 41 f, o
2:13 IV 8 i; 23 c, e 21:23 I 97 e 31:10 IV 23 k
3:3 IV 9 w
3:7 I 64 h; IV 8 i; 9 v I S a m u e l I I Sam uel
3:8 IV 18 g l-II Sam III 2 w, w» 1-24 III :2 v, w, x*, qq, rr,
3:10 IV 18 g 1-31 III 2 zz ww, zz, fa
3:31 IV 22 c, g, i 1 III 3 s 1:20 I Supp 27 b
5 III 1 xx*, ia*, ja 1:3 IV 39 h, nn 1:21 I Supp 2 c; II Supp 6 b
5:4-5 III 1 wa 1:21 I Supp 32 b 1:27 I 215 d
5:4a III 1 XX* 2:2 I 157 e, g 2-1 Kings 2 III 2 v*
5:4b-5 III 1 XX* 2:3-4 I 118 e.f 2-7 III 2 x
505 —
I I Sam uel I I Sam uel I I Sam uel

2:8 IV 9 y7 10:1-11:1 III 2 dd* 21:1-14 III 2 cc*, ee*, hh*,
2:12-4:12 III 2 y, qq 10 III 2 ga jj> uu
3:2-5 III 2 y*. qq 11-24 III 2 da 21:16 IV 41 e, f, 1
3:3 IV 30 g 11 III 2 ga 21:18 IV 411
3:4 V 26 c: 30 h; 44 h 11:2-27 III 2 tt 21:20 IV 41 1
3:5 V 32 k ll:2-27a III 2 dd* 21:22 IV 41 1
3:14 III 2 q* 11:3 V 32 k 22 IV 39 s
4:4 IV 9 y• 11:21 IV 9 y8 22:5-6 IV 21 1
5:13-16 III 2 y* ll:27b-12:15a III 2 dd*, yy 22:8 III 1 h
5:14 IV 30 g 12:5-6 HI 2 gg* 22:11 III 1 h; IV 40 f
5:16 IV 9 y• 12:15b-25 III 2 tt 22:14 III 1 h; IV 39 dd
5:18 IV 41 m 12:15b-23 III 2 dd* 22:16 I 287 e; III 1 h
5:20 IV 9 w 12:18 III 2 q* 22:28 I Supp 56 d
5:22 IV 41 m 12:20 I 289 f 22:35 I 126 d
6 III 2 s* u*, z*, bb*, pp, 12:24-25 III 2 dd* 22:38-39 III 1 i
qq- y y 12:24 I Supp 98 c; IV 30 g 22:41 III 1 i
6:1-2 III 2 z* 12:26-31 III 2 dd* 22:42 IV 39 s
6:1 III 2 u* 12:30 I 234 e; IV 38 h 23:1-7 III 2 bb
6:6-11 III 2 u*, z*, yy 12:31 IV 38 i 23:1 IV 39 h, j
6:10 III 2 u* 13-1 Kings 2 III 2 hh* 23:3 IV 1 d
6:11 III 2 z* 13-24 HI 2 jj 23:5 I Supp 29 b
6:12-19 III 2 aa* 13-20 III 2 ff* 23:7b I Intro i;
6:12 III 2 aa* 13-14 III 2 tt Supp 18 b, d
6:16 III 2 aa* 13:1 IV 30 g 23:13 IV 41 m
6:20-23 III 2 y*. aa* 13:20 IV 30 g 23:20 V 33 d
7 III 2 ii 13:22 IV 30 g 23:22 V 33 d
7:4-17 III 2 bb* 13:23 IV 9 w 23:30 V 33 d
7:5-16 III 1 wp 13:37 V 32 k 23:31 IV 21 c, d, x
7:5-7 III 1 yp 14:19 I Supp 37 b 23:34 V 32 k
7:llb-16 III 2 bb 15:1-21:14 III 2 cc* 24 III 2 ee*, jj, uu
7:12 III 2 y* 15-20 III 2 dd*, ee:*, rr, tt, uu 24:13 III 2 q*
8:3 V 1h 15:2-6 III 2 dd*
8:16 V 44 g 15:24 IV 24 p I K in g s
8:17 IV 24 p 15:25 IV 24 p 1-2 III 2 n, cc10, ee*, if*, qq,
8:18 V 33 d 15:27 IV 24 p tt, vv, zz, da, ga
9-1 Kings 2 III 2 rr, uu, zz; 3 w 15:29 IV 24 p 1:1-4 III 2 cc“
9-24 III 2 x 16:22 III 2 cc“* 1:5 V 30 h
9-20 III 2 n, qq 17:10 I 59 e 1:7 V 30 h
9:4 V 32 e 17:27 V 32 e 1:8 V 30 h
9:5 V 32 e 18:17 I 74 f 1:9 IV 31 n; V 30 h
10-1 Kings 2 III 2 dd*, ee*, 20:1 I Supp 61 c 1:10 IV 30 g
tt, vv 20:23 V 33 d 1:12 IV 30 g
10-20 III 2 ee*, vv, zz, ga 20:24 V 44 g 1:13 IV 30 g
10-12 III 2 cc*, dd*, ee*, 21-24 III 2 dd*, ee*, uu, vv, 2:26 IV 22 h
hh*, rr, tt, ww ZZ 2:30-31 I 318 e
— 506 —
Indices A -l
I K in g s I K in g s I K in g s
3-11 III 2 jj*, ia 8:39 I 192 g 16:31 IV 9 q
3 III 1 pp; 2 ia 8:43 I 192 g 17:6 I 68 e, g
3:2 III 1 wp27 8:62-66 III 1 op* 18:4 IV 9 q
3:4-11:40 III 1 wp 9:1-9 III 1 op*, wp 18:13 IV 9 q
3:4-9:9 III 1jp*. op* 9:1 III 1 yp 18:16-40 IV 9 j, k, o
3:4-15 III 1 pp, vp, wp, wp28 9:2 III 1 op*, pp*. wp27 18:19 I 64 g; IV 8 c; 9 q
3:5 III 1 op* 9:6-9 III 1wp27 18:27 IV 9 p
3:8 I Supp 75 b 9:18 V 34 c 19:1 IV 9 q
3:9 III 1 op 9:26-28 III 1 op* 21:7 IV 8 c
3:15 III 1 wp28; 2 jj*, ia 10:1-10 III 1 wp 22:10 II Supp 8 b
3:16-5:14 III 1 wp 10:13 III 1 wp 22:19 IV 34 aa
4:1-5:8 III 1 pp 10:23-24 III 1 wp 22:51 V 42 e
4:3 V 31 c; 44 g 11:5 IV 23 d; 38 j 22:54 IV 9 k, r2
4:17 V 44 g 11:7 IV 16 d; 38 j 23:4 IV 8 c
5-9 III 1 pp 11:14 VI g 23:6 IV 8 c
5:9-14 III 1 pp 11:17 VI g
5:15-9:9 III 1 vp 11:19 V lg II K in g s
5:15-19 III 1 op*, pp*, 11:26 V 32 d 1:2 IV 9 j, k, q; 11 d
wp 11:28 V 32 d 1:3 IV 9 q; 11 d
5:17 III 1 wp 11:29 V 31 c; 32 d 1:6 IV 9 q; 11 d
5:19 III 1 yp 11:30 V 31 c 1:16 IV 9 q; 11 d
5:20 III 1 op* 11:31 V 32 d 1:17 V 42 e
5:24 III 1 op* 11:33 IV 16 d; 23 d; 38 j 3:1 V 42 e
5:26 III 1 wp 11:40 V 32 d 3:2 IV 9 r*
5:27-32 III 1 op* 11:41 III 1 wp 3:6 V 42 e
5:29 I 102 g 11:43 V 32 j 4:41 I 179 d
6ff. III 1 sp 12 IV 9 bb 4:42 IV 9 w
6:1-2 III 1 yp 12:1 V 32 j 5:18 VI f
6:4-6 III 1yp 12:3 V 32 j 9:24 I 126 f
6:9-10 III 1 yp 12:6 V 32 j 10:18ff. IV 9 k, q
6:14-38 III 1 yp 12:12 V 32 j 10:28-29 IV 9 r
6:16 IV 25 m 14:1 V 29 e 11:18 IV 9 r*
6:18-22 III 1 op* 14:23 I Supp 105 b 12:18 II 1 e*, g*
6:38 I 86 i; III 1 yp 14:31 IV 15 zz 13:16 I 126 f
7:48 III 1 yp 15:1 IV 15 z z 17:10-11 I 219 d
7:51 III 1 yp 15:7 IV 15 zz 17:16 IV 34 p
8:1-11 III 1 op* 15:8 IV 15 zz 17:26 I 30 e; 84 d
8:5 I Supp 75 b 15:13 IV 8 c 17:27 I 30 e
8:6 I 269 e 15:18 V 1i 17:30 IV 6 d; V 19 c
8:10-12 IV 40 f 15:24 V 44 g 17:31 IV 22 k; 38 e, t
8:10 I 269 g 16:9 V 47 d 18:20-21 I 244 d
8:12-53 III 1 op* 16:10 V 47 d 19:23 IV 25 m
8:13 I 192 g 16:12 V 47 d 19:26 IV 21 bb
8:23 I 328 f 16:15 V 47 d 19:30 I 74 e
8:36 III 1yp 16:31-32 IV 9 0 20:12 V 16 d
— 507 —
A 1‫־‬ Ras Shamra Parallels
II K in g s I s a ia h I s a ia h
21:2ff. IV 9 r2 10:24 I 152 h, k 22:1-2 I 79 d
21:3 IV 34 p 11:1-9 III 1 yy*. ha*, ia*. 22:2 I 207 g
23:4fT. IV 9 r2 ia1•* 22:16 I 233 e
23:4 IV 21 bb 11:1-3 III 1 ha* 22:20-21 I 277 d
23:5-6 I 144 d 11:4-5 III 1 ha* 22:22 I 35 e
23:5 I 319 d; V 28 c 11:6-8 III 1 ha* 23:2-3 I 195 e
23:7 I 52 d 11:8 IV 35 e 23:2 1 195 g
23:10 IV 38 k 11:9-10 I Supp 103 b 23:8-9 I 344 f, g
23:13 IV 16 d; 23 d; 38 k 11:9 III 1 ha* 23:16 I 322 h, i
24:1 V 17 d 12:2 V 47 e 24:1-25:8 III 1 ra*
24:10 V 17 d 13:15 I Supp 68 b 24:1-13 III 1 ua*
24:11 V 17 d 13:16 I 235 d 24:1 I 151 d
25:1 V 17 d 13:21 I 303 e 24:5 I 151 f
25:4 IV 38 u 14 IV 28 f 24:6 I 151 d
25:8 V 17 d 14:2 I 317 g 24:9 I 327 f
25:18 IV 25 k 14:9 IV 41 e, f, i, j 24:11 I 309 h
25:22 V 17 d 14:12-15 IV 28 e, f, j 24:14-16a III 1 ua*
25:28-29 I 150 e 14:12 IV 28 c, e 24:14 I 292 e
14:13-14 IV 251 24:15 IV 39 w
I s a ia h 14:13 I 31 e, g; IV 25 c, i; 24:16 IV 24 j
1:11 I Supp 69 b 34 e, f, y, z 24:16b-18b III 1 ua
1:21 IV 24 e 14:14 IV 25 i; 40 f 24:18c-22 III 1 ua*
1:26 IV 24 e 14:19 IV 3d 24:19-23 III 1 sa*
2:2-4 IV 25 j 14:31-32 I 196 d 24:21 IV 34 b*
2:3 I 237 e 15:2 I 236 d 24:23 III 1 ua*
2:6-8 I 193 d 15:5 I 335 f, g; IV 12 e 25:1-4b III 1 ua*
3:7 I 72 e 16:5 I 192 e 25:6-8 III 1 ua*
3:26 I 151 f 16:8 I Supp 31 b, c; IV 21 bb 25:8 IV 21 c, d, e
4:2 I 45 g 16:9-10 I 39 e 26:1-2 I 343 f
5:1 I 169 e 16:11 IV 17 g 26:14 IV 41 i
5:14 I Supp 48 c; IV 21 j 17:3 I 198 h 26:17 I 100 f
6:10 I 333 e 17:4 1159 e, g 26:18 I 100 e
6:13 IV 8 d 17:6 I Intro h; 103 e, g 26:19-27:5 IV 20 d
7:14 I Supp 98 c 17:10 V 38 d 26:19 I 41 e; 122 d; IV 41 i, j
8:3 I 278 d, e 17:12-13 III 1 h 26:20 I 105 e
8:19 IV 41 o, r 17:12 IV 15 f, i 26:21 III 1 sa*
8:21-22 IV 41 r 17:13 III 1 h 27:1 II Supp 1 e; III 1 h, i,
8:21 IV 41 0 18:4 141 f s1; IV 20 b, c, d; 310; 35 c
9:1 I 118 g; 123 d; IV 21 d, aa 19:1 IV 40 d, f 27:4 I 35 g
9:2-3 I 118 d, g 19:5 III 1 i; IV 15 j, uu 28:15 IV 21 c, d, f, cc
9:2 IV 33 e 19:15 I Supp 94 c 28:18 IV 21 c, d, f, cc
9:5 121 f*; 277 f; IV 30 f; 42 g 19:21 I Supp 32 b 28:23 I 312 f
9:9 I 42 d, e 21:5-6 I Supp 2 b 28:24 I 297 f
9:13 I Supp 94 c 21:5 I Supp 2 c 28:27 I 114 h
10:16 I Intro d; 159 f, h 21:14 I 154 f 29:12 I 277 f
— 508 —
Indices A -l
I s a ia h I s a ia h I s a ia h
29:13 I 158 e, f 42:7 I 73 d 51:8 III 1 la
29:23 I Supp 46 c 42:10-16 III I la*, pa* 51:9-16 III 1 la*, ma*;
30:8 I 176 e; 177 e 42:10-12 III 1 pa* IV 15 m
30:27-28 I 287 d 42:11 I 223 e 51:9-15 IV 15 m
30:29 IV 1 d 42:13-15 III 1 pa*, sa* 51:9-11 III 1 oa*
30:33 IV 38 e, 1 42:13 III 1 ma* 51:9-10 IIIls 11, la*, la*1*, qa8;
31:3 I Supp 79 b 42:16 I 98 e; III 1 pa* IV 15 e, f, m
32:5-6 I Supp 57 b, c 43:12-13 I 95 e 51:9-10a III 1 oa*
32:7 I 86 f; Supp 57 d 43:12 IV 2i 51:9 I 188 e, f; III 1 i, la*,
32:14 I 296 g 43:15 I 271 e, h; III 1 ma* oa*; IV 31 h, 0
32:17 I 262 f 43:16-21 III 1 la*, pa* 51:10 III 1 i, la*1*, oa*;
32:18 I 307 e 43:16-17 III 1pa* IV 15 xx
33:5 1303 d 43:18-19a III 1 pa* 51:10a III 1 la*
33:10 I 244 d 43:19b III 1 pa* 51:10b III 1 la, oa*
33:17 I Supp 67 b 43:20-21 III 1 pa* 51:11 III 1 oa*
34-35 III 1 roc*, toe* 43:20 1321 e 51:15 III 1 h, i
34:1-4 III 1cot*, ta* 43:25 I 37 i 52 III 1 na*
34:4 III 1 sa* 44:12 I 115 d 52:4 I 281 d, e
34:5-7 III 1ta* 44:23 I 328 e 52:7-12 III 1 la*, pa*
34:8-17 III 1 ta* 44:27 III 1 i; IV 15 k 52:7-8 III 1 pa*
34:8-10 III 1 sa* 45:1 I 38 g 52:7 III 1 na*; IV 30 f
34:12-13 1198 j 45:8 IV 24 f, r 52:8 I 292 e
35 III 1 sa* 45:10 I2g 52:9-10 III 1 pa*
35:1-10 III 1sa* 45:13 I 37 g 52:11a III 1 pa*
35:1-7 III 1ta* 45:19 IV 24 i, r 52:llb-12 III 1 pa*
35:1-2 III 1 sa* 45:22 IV 2 i 52:13-53:12 III 1 na*
35:1 I 80 f 46:1 V 17 c 53:4 I 102 e
35:3-6a III 1sa* 46:4 I 102 f 53:11 I 92 d; IV 24 j
35:3 I 125 g 46:8 I 332 g 54:3 I 338 e
35:6b-7 III 1 sa* 46:15 III 1 h 54:5 III 1 na*
35:8-10 III 1 sa*, ta* 47:1 I 151 e 54:9-10 III 1na*
37:24 IV 25 i, m 47:14 I 154 e, g 54:9 III 1 na*
37:27 IV 21 bb 48:10-11 I Supp 22 c 54:13-14 I 262 g
37:31 I 74 e 48:18 I 262 e 55 III 1 na*
37:32-33 I 318 e 48:20 I 292 f 55:9 I 94 e, f; Supp 14 b
38:18 IV 21 c, hh 48:21 I 255 e 56-66 III 1 ra
39:1 V 16 d 49:2 IV 26 h 56:7-8 III 1 ra*
40:18 IV 2 h, i 49:8 I 44 d; 229 d 56:10 I Supp 3 c
40:23 I 35 f 50:2-3 III 1sa* 57:5 I Supp 23 c
40:26 IV 34 p 50:2 III 1 h, i; IV 15 f, 1 57:9 IV 38 e, m
40:29 I 3511 51-55 III 1 na* 57:14 III 1 ra*
40:31 I 237 e 51 Illlna*; IV 15 ii 57:15 I 304 f
41:2 I 277 d 51:1 IV 24 f, r 57:20 IV 15 e, n, z
41:10 IV 24 f, r 51:5 IV 24 f, r 58:5 1283 d
41:18 1184 f 51:6 I 151 d; 328 f 58:6 III 1ra*
— 509 —
I s a ia h I s a ia h J e r e m ia h
58:7 I Intro i; 68 d, f; 63:19b-64:2 III 1 ra*, sa*, 4:25 I 211 £
72 h, i wa*, a|J*, gP 5:6 I 332 e
58:10 I Intro f; 218 e, f 64:10 I 269 f 5:22 III 1 h, i; IV 15 f, p
58:11 I 189 g, 11 65:1-2 I Supp 46 d 5:27 I 193 d
58:14 I 44 g 65:1 1293 d 5:28 1253 k
59:1 III 1 rot* 65:9 I 146 e; III 1 ra* 5:31 I 252 h, 1; 253 k; IV 9 s
59:3-4 I 86 e; 25311 65:17 III 1 ra* 6:8 I 153 d
59:4 IV 24 i 65:18 180 f.g 6:14 IV 30 f
59:5 I 206 d 65:19 I 80 e 6:19-20 I 45 i
59:9 IV 24 i 66:1 III 1 ra* 6:26 IV 39 bb
59:15b-20 III 1 rot*, va*, wa*, 66:11 I 160 d 6:27-28 I 98 i
aP*, gP 66:15-16 III 1 ra*, sa*, wa*, 7:6-7 I 302 g
59:15b-16a III 1 va* ap* 7:9 IV 9 s
59:16-19 III 1 sa* 66:15 III 1 h 7:12 I 302 h
59:16b-18 III 1 va* 7:18 IV 231
59:18 IV 39 h. k J e r e m ia h 7:20 I 260 d
59:19 III 1va*; IV 15 f, o 1:14 I 66 d; Supp 92 b 7:29-30 I 93 f, h
59:20 I 332 f; III 1 va* 1:15 I 343 e 8:2 V 28 c
60:9 I 165 g 1:16 I 86 f 8:12-13 I 39 d
60:10-11 I 343 f 1:17-18 I Supp 10 b 8:13 I 35 g
60:10 I 197 g 1:17 I Supp 19 c 8:14 I 89 e
60:16 I 129 e 1:18 I 330 d 9:9 I 211 g
60:17 I 262 e 2:2 I 182 d 9:13 IV 9 s, v
60:18 I 343 f 2:5 1 11 e 9:20 IV 21 b, c, d, g
60:21 I 212 d 2:6 I 237 e; IV 21 aa 9:21 I 39 e
61:3 IV 24 f 2:7 I 44 d; 45 d 9:25 I 257 d
61:8 I 253 g, 1 2:8 I 11 e; IV 9 j, k, s 10:10 I 239 d, f; IV 41 e, f, p, s
61:9 III 1ra* 2:23 IV 9 s, v 10:13 I 66 e
61:10 I 80 f 2:27 I 2d; 33 e 10:16-17 I 4411
62:1 I 136 e, g; IV 24 f 2:28 I 25 h; IV 91 10:21 IV 39 w
62:6-12 III 1ca”* 2:30 I 59 e 10:23 I 98 f; Supp 47 c
62:8 I 149 d; 296 g 2:31 I Supp 13 b, c 11:13 I 76 d, f; IV 9 s, y
62:10 III 1 ra* 3:1 I 245 e 11:16 I Intro h; 103 d, 11
63:1-6 III 1 ra*, wa*, g|J 3:2-3 I Intro j; 46 h 11:17 IV 9 s
63:lab III 1 wa 3:2 I 184 f; 245 e 11:19 I Supp 17 b, c
63:1c III 1 wa 3:4 V 29 c 11:20 V 44 d
63:2 III 1 wa 3:9 I 245 d, e 11:22 I 207 f
63:3-6 III 1 wa 3:12-13 I 332 i 12:1 I 86 k; IV 24 j
63:5 III 1 ra* 3:18 I 44 j 12:12 1 184 e, g. h
63:7 IV 39 h, k 3:19 I 44 d; 277 f; V 29 c 12:15 I 44 e
63:11-13 III 1ra* 3:24 IV 9 y 12:16 IV 9 s
63:11-12 I 237 e 4:4 I 136 e,g 13:10 1 11 e
63:15-16 III 1 ra* 4:10 IV 30 f 13:16 IV 21 aa
63:15 I 310 g 4:11 I 184 e, g 13:17 I Supp 24 c
63:16 V 29 c 4:12 I 86 f 13:19 I 305 e, f
— 510 —
Indices A -l
J e r e m ia h J e r e m ia h E z e k ie l
14:13 IV 30 f 34:17 I 277 e 5:12 I 84 g
14:22 I 50 f 34:22 I 35 f 6:9 I 11 d
15:7-8 I 215 f 36:4 V 39 c 6:12 I 84 g; Supp 72 b
16:3 I 2 f 36:8 V 39 c 9:7-8 I 318 e
16:18 I 44 d 36:10 IV 36 e 9:9 I 193 d
17:4 I 44 e 36:14 V 39 c 13:10 IV 30 f
18:15 I 225 f; Supp 22 d, e 37:3 IV 25 k 13:16 IV 30 f
18:21 I 207 d. h 37:17 I 50 d 14:14 V 36 d
18:22-23 I 300 g 38:1 V 44 h 14:20 V 36 d
19:5 IV 9 s; 38 c 39:3 V 19 d 16:3 I 168 e, f
20:15 I 2 g; 67 d; 131 e, f 39:5 I 86 f 16:9 I 88 d; 191 e; 289 e
21:1 IV 25 k 39:13 V 19 d 16:12 I 5d
21:8-9 I 152 i 42:15 II 1 {* , h 17:8 I 298 d
21:9 I Supp 72 d 43:11 I 207 d 18:8 I 252 i; 253 f
21:12 I 136 e,g 43:12 I Supp 18 c, e 18:21-22 I 332 h
21:13 I 155 e, f; 256 d, e 44:17ff. IV 231 18:28 I 332 f
23:13 IV 9 s 46:7-8 IV 15 q 18:30 I 332 f
23:16 IV 30 f 48:3 IV 12 e 19:4 I 116 e
23:27 IV 9 s 48:4-5 I 335 e, g 20:16 I 11 e
23:37 IV 9 s 48:5 IV 12 e 20:34 I 318 e
25:23-24 I 257 d 48:18 I 238 f, g 21:35 I 168 f
25:24 I 257 e 48:32-33 I 39 e 21:37 I 75 f
25:25 V 47 c 48:34 IV 12 e 22:11 I 12 e
25:34-35 I 215 e 48:46 IV 16 d 24:2 I 325 f
26:3 I 333 f 49:1 I 338 e; 24:6-7 I 318 e
26:18 I 297 e IV 38 e, 0 24:16-17 I 57 d, e
29:3 IV 36 e 49:3 IV 38 e, 0 25:9 IV 9 w
29:10-11 IV 30 f 49:32 IV 42 h 26:10 I 343 f, g
29:21 I 200 f 50:2 V 16 c 26:17 IV 15 s
29:25 IV 25 k 50:3 I 151 d 27:7 I 77 e
29:29 IV 25 k 50:4-5 I 293 i, h 27:9 I 36 d; 77 e
31:23 IV 24 f 50:7 IV 24 f 27:26 IV 15 t
31:35 III 1 h, i 50:8 I 238 g 27:30 I 284 f
31:40 IV 21 bb 50:37 1203 d 27:34 IV 15 s1, t
32:12 V 39 c 51:16 I 66 e 28:2 IV 2 j
32:16 V 39 c 51:34 IV 31 g, h 28:3 V 36 d
32:29 IV 9 s 51:36 III 1 i; 28:8 I 208 h, i; 300 f, i
32:35 IV 9 s; 38 c, n IV 15 r 28:12 I 163 e
32:41 I 212 e 51:53a I 233 d, e 28:13 I 140 d, f
33:16 IV 24 e 51:55 III 1 h 29:3-5 IV 31 1
34:4 IV 39 bb 51:56 IV 39 bb 29:3 I 75 e; IV 20 d; 31 b, h,
34:9 I 317 e 52:4 1197 f 1, m
34:10 I 317 e 52:9 I 86 f 29:5 I 39 d
34:11 I 317 g 52:24 IV 25 k 29:14 I 168 f
34:16 I 317 e 52:32-33 1 150 e 30:16-17 I 112 d
— 511 —
E z e k ie l H o se a A m os
31:14 I 208 j 8:6 I 19 e*, f, g; IV 2 m; 11 f 5:26 IV 38 r; 41 k
32:2 IV 20 d; 31 b, h, 1, m 9:1 IV 10 d, g 6:6 I Supp 2 c; 80 b, c
32:4-5 I 303 d, f 9:2 IV 32 c, f; 33 f, j 6:10 IV 25 m
32:6 IV 31 g 9:2b3‫־‬a I 210 k, 1 7:4 I 286 d; IV 11 g, j
32:30 IV 25 d, 1 9:4 I 72 h; 247 e,f 8:8 I Supp 15 b
33:9-10 I 332 h 9:10 I 76 e; IV 91, y 8:14 IV 6 e, f; 8 f, g; 34 w;
33:12 I 332 d 9:11-12 I 323 e, f V 8 c, f
33:27 I 84 g 9:14 I 299 f 9:3 IV 35 c, g
33:32 I 120 e, f; 322 f; IV 18 e 10:1 I 45 e, j; 46 j, k 9:5 I Supp 15 b
34:29 I 212 h; 308 f 10:4 I 86 i
35:5 IV 42 h 10:5 IV 6 f; 3911, m O b a d ia h
36:30 I 260 e 10:11 I 6 d; 297 f 21 I Supp 22 d, f
37:24-26 IV 30 f 10:12 IV 24 f
39:19 I 296 k 11:2 IV 91 Jonah
40ff. III 1s|3 11:7 I 16 d; IV 2 n; 33 e; 1-4 III 1 xoc*
40-48 III 1 jp*. r(J*, xp 39 h, j, k 1:5 IV 25 m
40:1-4 III 1 rp* 11:9-10 I 11 f 2:4 IV 15 f, s\ u
40:2 IV 25 j 11:9 I 16 d 2:6 1283 d
44:3 I 154 f 12:1 IV 2 0 , s; 34 v, bb; 39 n 2:7-8 162 f
44:18 I 282 e 12:12 I 83 d, e 4:2 IV 2 k
47:16 IV 12 f 13:1 IV 9 t
47:18 IV 12 f 13:4 I 127 d; IV 9 1 M ic a h
13:12 I 266 e 1:15 I 338 e
H o sea 13:14 I 84 f; IV 21 b, d, h 2:1 IV 33 b
1-3 IV 9 t 13:15 IV 21 h 3:5 I 277 e
1:3 IV 36 e 14:8 I Supp 53 e, f 3:11 I Supp 60 b
2:4 I 340 d 14:9 IV 8 j; 22 d 3:12 I 297 e
2:10ff. IV 9 j, k, t 4:1-4 IV 25 j
2:15 I 63 g; IV 91 J o e l 5:5 IV 30 f
2:18 IV 9 t 1:5 I 327 e 5:13 I 65 g; 254 e
2:19 IV 9 t 1:20 I 298 e 6:4 I 69 h; Supp 28 c
3:1 IV 9 t 2:7 I 237 e 6:5 III 1 aa
4ff. IV 9 t 3:2 I 317 e 6:10 I 66 d
4:13 I 162 g 6:15 1 104 g
4:14 I 162 g; V 20 c A m o s 7:1 I 217 h, j
4:15 IV 6 f 1:6 I 305 f 7:2 I 87 e
5:13-14 I 37 h 1:15 IV 38 e, p 7:3 I 86 j; 217 g
6:2-3 I 128 d 2:1 IV 38 q 7:6 I 162 g
6:4-5 141 d 2:7 I 284 d, g
6:5 III 1 i 2:10 I 237 e N ahum
7:1 I Supp 35 c 4 III 2 ee12 1:2 III 1 b
7:4-5 I Supp 49 b 4:4 HI 2 j 1:4 III 1 h, i; IV 15 e, f, v, pp
7:12-13 I 211 g 4:8 I 296 j 1:5 I 151 d
7:14 IV 10 d, f, j; 32 c, e 4:13 IV 28 c, g 1:8 III 1i
7:16 I 113 e, h; IV 39 h, 1 5:5 IV 6 f 1:9 III 1 i
— 512 —
Indices A -l
N ahum H aggai Z e c h a ria h

2:2 I 38 e 1:6 I 296 i; Supp 97 b 14:4-5 III 1 cp*
2:6-7 I 343 f 1:10 I 121 f 14:5 IV 34 v
2:8 I 231 d, f 2:9 IV 30 f 14:6-8 III 1 cp*
2:11 I 38 f, h 14:9-11 III 1 cp*
2:14 I Supp 5 c Z ec h a ria h 14:9 I 200 e
3:8 IV 15 s» 3:2 III 1h 14:10 IV 25 j
5:8 IV 23 n 14:12-15 III 1 cp*
6:10 V 45 d 14:16-19 III 1 cp*
H abakkuk
8:8 I 75 e 14:20-21 III ;cp*
8:12 I 121 f
1:12 I 16 g, i; IV 21 d, i; 9-14
33 c, d 9-11 III 1 za M d la c h i
2:5 I 205 f; IV 21 c, d, j 9 III 1 bp 1:6 I 1 e, f
2:5a IV 37 d 9:1-7 III 1 za* 1:7 I 34 d, e
2:16 I 274 d, e; 275 e; 296 h, 1 9:3-4 III 1 za* 1:14 I 200 d
3:2 I 128 d; IV 42 e I 48 d 2:9 I 35 e
9:3 I 61 d, e 2:13-14 I 33 f
3:5-12 III 1 ca* 9:4
3:5 IV 26 c. e 9:5 I 48 e 2:15 IV 33 c, g
3:6 III 1 i 9:8 I 336 e
3:8 III 1 h; IV 15 e, f, w; 40 f 9:9-10 III 1 za* P s a lm s
3:9 III 1 h, i; IV 15 x 9:9 IV 30 f 1:1 I 152 g, j
3:10 III 1h 9:10 III 1 za* 1:3 I 260 g
3:11 III 1h 9:11-13 III 1 za* 2 III 1 yy*
3:12-13 IV 15 w 9:14 III 1 za* 2:1-3 III 1ga*
3:12 III 1h III 1 za* 2:4-5 III 1 ga*
9:15 III 1 za* 2:6 I 289 g
3:13 III 1i; IV 21 c, k, ee 9:16-17
3:14 III 1h III 1 za* 2:8-llb III 1ga*
10 III 1 za*, ap* 2:8 I 44 h
3:15 III 1 i; IV 15 y, tt; 10:1-3
31 i1 III 1 ap 2:11c III 1 ga*
3:17 IV 21 bb 10:410:4-6a III 1 ap* 3:3-4 I Intro i; 283 d, f
3:19 IV 31 il; V 30 e III 1 ap* 4:6-7 I 213 e
10:5-6a III 1 ap* 4:6 IV 24 f
10:6b-10 III 1 ap* 6:6 IV 21 hh
10:11 III 1 h, i, ap*; IV 15 aa 7:9 IV 39 h, cc
Z e p h a n ia h 10:12 III 1 ap* 7:11 IV 39 h, r
1:1 IV 25 k 12:1-13:6 III 1 bp 7:13 IV 33 c, h
1:4 IV9 j, u; 38s 12 III 1 za*, bp*, cp* 7:15 I 101 e
1:5 IV 9 u; 38 e, s 12:1-3 III 1 bp* 8:2 IV 7 d
1:8 IV 38 e, s 12:1 III 1 bp 8:9 IV 15 s1
1:18 III 1i 12:4 III 1 bp* 9 III 1 yy*
2:1 IV 33 c, g, j 12:5-9 III 1 bp* 9:1 IV 21 ee
2:4-5 IV 15 z 12:10-14 III 1 bp* 9:6-7 III 1 ga*
3:5 I 253 f; IV 24 d, k 12:11 VI f,j 9:6 III 1 h
3:9-10 I 227 d 14:1-21 III 1 za*. bp, cp* 9:7 I 330 e, g
3:15 IV 38 e, s 14:1-2 III 1 cp* 9:8-9 III 1 ga*
3:19 I 308 d, e 14:3 III 1 cp* 9:10-11 III 1 ga*
— 513 —
P s a lm s P s a lm s P s a lm s
9:12-13 III 1 ga* 21:11 I 45 g 32:4 IV 39 h, cc
9:14 IV 21 hh 22:1 IV 28 c, h 32:5 IV 39 h, cc
10:6 I 172 g, h 22:10-11 I 299 i 32:17-18 IV 30 f
10:12 I 124 f 22:10b-lla I 299 e, i 33:3 I 322 e, i
10:16 IV 41 p, t 22:16 IV 21 hh 33:7 III 1 i; IV 15 cc
11:2 I Supp 22 c 22:17b-18a I 230 e, h 33:8 I 151 d
11:3 IV 24 d, k 22:22-23 I 8 e, g 33:14 I 192 g
11:4 I 270 e, g 22:23 I 75 f 33:19 IV 21 d, m
11:5 IV 24 d, k 22:30-31 I 142 e 34:9 V 45 e
11:7 IV 24 d, m, o 22:30 IV 33 c, h 34:16-17 1241 e
12:3 I 103 f 23:4 IV 21 aa 35:9 I 80 e
13:6 IV 39 h, cc 23:6 I 43 f 35:23 V 30 g
15:2b-3a I 232 i, j 24 III 1 yy*;IV 15 bb 36:7 IV 2 q
15:5 12321 24:1 III 1 ga* 37:31 I 172 e
16:1 I 128 e 24:2 III 1ga*; IV 15 e, bb 38:16 V 30 f
16:2-4 IV 39 oo 24:3-6 III 1 ga 39:6 I 35 e
16:2-3 IV 39 h, n 24:7-10 III 1 aa*. ba*, ga*; 40:9 I 75 f
16:3 IV 2 s; 34 e, f, s, v; 39 oo IV 2 p; 15 bb 41:8 IV 39 h, cc
16:5-6 I 214 f 24:8 III 1 ba* 42:5 I 292 f
16:6 I 214 e, f; IV 39 h. cc 25:8 IV 39 y 44:19 1172 e
16:10-11 .130011 25:15-16 I 241 g 44:20 IV 31 b, m
16:11 I 258 d, e 26:10 1252 k 45:12 I Supp 66 c
17:1 IV 24 f 27:4 1293 d; V 38 c 46 III 1 yy*
17:13-14 I Supp 45 b, c 27:13 IV 33 c, h 46:2-7 III 1 ga*
18:5-6 IV 21 b, c, d, 1 29 III 1 yy*, da*, da18*, ea*, 46:3-5 IV 15 f, dd
18:5 IV 21 b, u, hh ka; IV 34 i, j. k 46:4 III 1 h; IV 15 aa, dd
18:5a IV 21 1* 29:1-2 III 1 da*, ea*; IV 34 k 46:5 I 23 f; IV 15 dd
18:8-16 III 1wa 29:1 I 17 d; IV 34 e, f, j, o«, u 46:7-8 III 1 fa*
18:8 III 1 h 29:3-9b III 1 da* 46:7 III 1 h
18:11 III 1 h; IV 40 c, f 29:3-9a III 1 ga* 46:8 III 1 ga*
18:13-15 IV 26 h 29:3-8 IV 34 k 46:9-12 III 1 ga*
18:14 III 1 h; IV 39 h, dd 29:3 III 1 h; IV 2 p 47 III 1 yy*
18:16 III 1 h 29:6 I 173 d 47:2-4 III 1 ga*
18:19 IV 42 h 29:8 III 1 h 47:2-3 I 23i
18:28-29 I Supp 56 c 29:9 III 1 da* 47:2 I 292 f
18:28 I Supp 56 d 29:9b-10 IV 34 k 47:3 III 1 yy*
18:29 I 221 e 29:9b III 1 ga* 47:5 III 1 ga*
18:35 I 126 d 29:9c-10 III 1 da* 47:6 III 1ga*
18:38-39 III 1i 29:10 III 1 i, ea*, ga* 47:7-8 III 1 ga*
18:41 III 1i 29:11 III 1 ga* 47:9-10 III 1 ga*
18:42 IV 39 h, s 31:6 I 124 g 47:9 I 270 f, g
19:2 IV 2 p 31:8 IV 7 d 48 III l yy*. bp*; IV 21 n
19:3 I 32 d 31:19 IV 24 d, k 48:3 IV 25 c, j
20:7 I 310 f 31:23 I 312 e 48:5 III 1 ga*
21:3-4 I 47 d 32:2 I Supp 61 b 48:6-8 III 1 ga*
— 514 —
Indices A -l
48:7 III 1 h 65:6 III 1 ga* 69:36 I 338 f
48:9 III 1 ga* 65:7-8 III 1 ga* 71:10 I 312 d
48:10-12 III 1 ga* 65:8 III 1 h; IV 15 f, ee 71:12 I Supp 42 b
48:11-12 I 194 d 65:9 III 1 ga* 72:3-7 IV 30 f
48:11 I 194 e; IV 24 f 65:10-13 III 1 ga* 72:3 I 262 g
48:13-14 III 1 ga* 66:3-4 I 161 e 72:6 I 46 i
48:15 III 1 ga*; IV 21 c, n, ee 66:5 IV 15 ff 72:7 I Supp 48 b
49 IV 21 ee 66:6 III 1 aa; IV 15 f, ff 72:8 IV 1511
49:15 IV 21 b, c, d, o 66:7 IV 15 ff 72:15 I Supp 39 c
50:1-6 III 1 fa* 66:9 I Supp 39 d 72:16 I 45 h
50:10 IV 2 q, q* 68 I 324 e; III 1 yy*; IV 40 e 73 IV 21 r, r*
50:13-14 I 4e 68:1-2 III 1ga* 73:1-2 I 172 g
50:14 I 23 f 68:3 III 1 ga* 73:4 IV 21 r
51:4 I 46 g 68:5 II Intro f*; IV 40 b, c, d 73:9 IV 21 r
51:6 I 86 d 68:7-8 III 1 ga* 73:11 I 23 e
51:15 1332 k 68:7 171 d; IV 19 d, e 73:24 I 11 e
52:7 I 29 g 68:8 III 1 i 73:26-27 1263 d
52:11 V 45 e 68:9-10 III 1ga* 73:27 III 1 i
54:7 III 1 h 68:9 I 18 e, g 73:28 I 326 h
54:8 V 45 e 68:10 I 27 d; IV 33 b 74:12ff. IV 15 hh
55:7-8 1211 e 68:11-14 HI 1.ga* 74:12-17 III 1 yy*
55:16 IV 21 d, p, ee 68:15-18 III 1ga* 74:12 III 1i
55:20 I Supp 86 b 68:16 IV 35 i 74:13-15 IV 15 e, f, hh; 20 e1
55:23 IV 39 h, t 68:19-20 III 1 ga* 74:13 IV 15 ii; 31 o
56:8-9 I 142 d, g 68:21 III 1 ga*; IV 21 c, d, q, 74:14 IV 20 e
56:13 IV 39 h, kk ee; V 30 e 74:15 III 1 i; IV 15 ii
57:3 I 23 h; IV 36 d, f; 68:22-25 III 1yy* 75:4 1 151 d
39 h, k, ee 68:22-23 III 1 ga* 75:7-8 I 16 h, i
57:5 I 113 g 68:22 III 1i 75:7 I 138 e, g; IV 33 c, h
57:9 IV 28 d, i 68:23 IV 15 da; 35 e, g, h 75:8 I 18 d, f; V 44 e
58:2f. IV 341 68:24-27 III 1 ga* 76 III 1 yy*
58:2 I 86 d; IV 34 f, 1 68:24 III 1i; IV 22 c, e 76:3 IV 30 f
58:3 I 252 g, k 68:26 I 324 d 76:4-8 III 1 ha*
59:13-14 I Supp 74 b 68:28-35 III 1 ga* 76:4 IV 26 c, f, h
59:13 I Supp 74 c 68:30 IV 39 h, 0 76:7 III 1 h
59:14 III 1i 68:31 III 1 h; IV 15 f, gg 76:9-10 III 1 ha*
60:5 1135 f 68:32 I Supp 7 b 76:11-12 III 1 ha*
61:6 I 313 d, e, f 68:34 III 1 h; IV 40 f 76:13 III 1 ha*
62:8 IV 39 h, r 68:35 IV 39 h, u, qq 77:10-11 I 23 e
63:2 I 189 f 69:5 I 3 d, f 77:14 1 157 g; IV 34 f, t
63:10 I 328 e 69:22 1321 d 77:17-21 III 1 yy*, ha*
64:5 I 143 d 69:23-24 I 38 g 77:17-20_ IV 15 jj
64:8 I Supp 35 d, e 69:27 IV 7 d 77:17-19 III 1 h. ha*
64:9 IV 39 h, ff 69:29 1 108 e, f 77:18-19 III 1 h
65 III 1 yy* 69:31-32 I 322 g 77:18 III 1 h
— 515 —
34
77:20 III 1 ha*; IV 15 f, jj 89:6-9 Ill 1 ea*, ha* 96:10 I 199 e
77:21 III 1 ha* 89:6-8 IV 34 e, f 96:11‫־‬12 I 132 e
78:20 I 255 e; 294 e 89:6 I 310 e; IV 34 0 97 III 1 yy*
78:24-25 I 261 e 89:7 I 17 d; IV 34 0 97:1‫־‬6 III 1fa*
78:26 I 268 e, f 89:8 IV 34 0 ; V 40 c 97:1‫־‬2 III 1 ha*
78:35 I 23 g; IV 2d 89:10-13 III 1 ha* 97:3‫־‬5 III 1 ha*
78:41-42 I 124 e 89:10 III 1 h, i, ea*; IV 15 e, 97:6‫־‬7 III 1 ha*
78:48 IV 26 c, g f, aa, kk 97:8‫־‬9 III 1 ha*
78:50 I 84 e 89:11-19 III 1 ha* 97:9 I 30 d
78:56-57 IV 39 1 89:11 III 1 h, i 98 III 1 yy*, fa*
78:56 I 23 f, j 89:12‫־‬13 III 1 ea* 98:1‫־‬2 III 1 ha*
78:60 I 304 g 89:13 IV 25 c, e 98:3a III 1 ha*
80:6 I 296 g 89:14 III 1 i, ea* 98:3b III 1 ha*
80:9-10 181 e, f; 212 f 89:15‫־‬16 III 1 ea* 98:4‫־‬9 III 1 ha*
80:10 I 329 e 89:15 IV 24 h 98:7‫־‬8 IV 15 e, f, oo
80:11 IV 2 q 89:19 III 1 i 99 III 1 yy*
80:18 I 125 e 89:20 I 85 e, f 99:1 I Intro h; 271 f, i
81:6-7 I 320 d; 341 d 89:22-23 1252 j 99:3‫־‬4 1271 g
82 IV 2 h; 34 i, k, 1, m, n 89:22 I 125 g 99:7 I Supp 22 c
82:1 I 22 h; 28 e; IV 34 b1, e, 89:26 IV 15 f, 11 99:9 I Intro h; 271 f, i
f, m; 42 e 89:28 IV 21 t 100:3 IV 33 e
82:2 I 253 j 89:35‫־‬36 I 272 e 100:5 V 45 e
82:5 I Supp 47 b 89:35 I 272 f 101:5 III 1 i
82:6 I 17 f; 23f 89:37‫־‬38 I Supp 78 b, c 101:8 III 1 i
82:7 IV 28 j 89:49 IV 21 hh 102:16 I 200 f
82:8 I 44 j, k; IV 34 m 90:17 V 38 c 102:27‫־‬28 I 330 f
84:3 I Supp 44 c 91:5-6 IV 26 c, f 104 III 1 gg’, yy*
85:7 IV 33 c, h 91:13 IV 31 h, i 104:1‫־‬9 III 1 fa*, ha*
85:9 I 333 f 92:10 II Supp 2 b 104:3 IV 40 c, f
85:11 I 262 f, h; IV 24 d, g; 93 III 1 yy*, fa*; IV 15 mm 104:6 V 25 c
30 j 93:1 III 1 i 104:7 III 1 h
85:12 IV 24 f 93:3-4 IV 15 e, f, mm 104:9 III 1 i
85:14 IV 24 f 93:3 III 1 h 104:10‫־‬30 III 1 ha*
86:12 V 30 f 93:4 III 1 h 104:12‫־‬13 1321 e
86:13 IV 39 h, cc 93:5 I 43 e, g; 269 h; IV 34 f, u 104:13 I 45 g
86:15 IV 2 k 94:1-2 I 28 d 104:14 I 228 f, h
88:5‫־‬6 I 208 h 94:2 V 44 f 104:21 IV 2 h
88:7‫־‬8 I 325 e 94:15 IV 24 h 104:25 IV 20 f
88:8 I 325 f 94:23 III 1 i 104:26 III 1 i; IV 20 c, d, f;
88:9 I 290 e, f 95:3 III 1 yy* 31 f, j
88:11 IV 41 i 95:5 IV 15 nn 104:31‫־‬35 III 1 ha*
89 III 2 bb; IV 15 hh; 34 o 95:6-7 I Supp 43 b, c 104:31 III 1 fa*
89:2-19 III 1 cot‫* ״‬ 95:7 I 124 i 104:34 I 249 d, f
89:6-19 III 1 yy*, zz*. ea*, ha* 96 III 1fa* 105:41 I 255 e
89:6-11 IV 15 kk 96:7ff. IV 34 j 105:43a I 146 e
516 —
Indices A -l
105:44b I 146 e 118:15 I 292 f 140:11-12 I 99 d, e
106:1 V 45 e 118:17-18 I Supp 39 b, e 141:3 IV 39 h, o
106:7 IV 39 h, gg 118:17 I 107 e; 108d 141:5 IV 24 d, k
106:9-13 III 1 yy*, ha* 118:18 IV 21 d, s 141:8 V 30 e
106:9-10a III 1 ha* 118:19 IV 24 f 141:9 I 126 d, g
106:9 III 1 h; IV 15 pp 118:27 IV 2 h 142:4 I Supp 47 c
106:10 I Intro e 118:29 V 45 e 142:8 IV 39 h, cc
106:10b III 1 ha* 119:21 III 1 h 143:11-12 I 139 d, e
106:11-13 III 1 ha* 119:42-43 I 86 g 144:8 I 133 d
106:26-27 I 182 e; 216e 119:104 IV 39 h, x 144:11 I 133 d
106:28 IV 9 1, z 119:127 IV 39 h, x 145:1 I 200 e
106:37 IV 38 q 119:128 IV 39 h, x 145:13 II Supp 3 d
106:38 I 117 e 119:129 IV 39 h, x 145:15-16 I 240 g
107:1 V 45 e 119:136 IV 39 h, o 146:5 IV 39 t
107:7 I 98 i 119:137 IV 24 d, 0 146:6-7 I 253 e
107:11 I 23 e 119:138 IV 24 0 146:7 I 147 e
107:18 IV 21 hh 119:172-173 I 229 f 147:9 I 277 f
107:22-23 I 142 f 120:5-6 I 304 e 147:12-14 IV 30 f
107:23 I 195 d 120:7 I 157 f, h 148:6 III 1 i
107:34 I 45 f 121:5 IV 39 h, o 148:7 IV 31 f, k
107:36 I 192 f 122:6-8 IV 30 f 148:8 I 288 d
108:3 IV 28 i 122:6-7 IV 30 f 148:9 I 260 f
109:18 I 191 e; 315e 123:2 I 240 e; 317 e 149:2 III 1 yy*
109:21 V 30 e 125:3 I 252 f 150:3 IV 17 g
110 III 1 yy* 127:2 I 154 d
110:1 III 1 ha* 128:3 IV 25 m Job
110:2 III 1 ha* 128:5-6 IV 30 f 1:6 IV 34 0
110:3 III 1 ha*; IV 28 c, d, k 128:6 IV 39 h, v 1:19 I Supp 72 c
110:4 III 1 ha*; IV 24 q 129:3 I 243 f, g 2:1 IV 34 0
110:5-7 III 1 ha* 129:4 IV 24 d, k 2:2 I Supp 35 c
110:5 I Supp 66 b; III 1 i 129:6 IV 21 bb 2:5 I 230 e
110:6 III 1 i 132 Illlc a 17*; 2 bb 2:8 I 75 f
110:7 IV 39 h, x 134:1-2 I 269 e 2:10 I 267 e, f
112:4 IV 24 d, k 135:3 V 45 e 2:12 I 284 f; Supp 85 c
114 IV 15 qq 135:7 I 66 e 2:13 I 151 e
114:1a III 1 aa 135:17 I 287 d, f 3:6 I 178 h, j
114:3-5 III 1 aa 136:1 V 45 e 3:8 IV 15 e, f, rr, ba; 20 d
114:3 IV 15 e, qq 139:4 I 127 f 3:9 I 178j; IV 28 m,r
114:5 IV 15 e, qq 139:6 IV 33 b 3:11-12 I 299 h
115:17 I 208 g 139:9 IV 28 c, 1 3:14 I 197 e, h
116:2 I 157 e, h 139:14 IV 39 h, o 4:3-4 I 125 g
116:3 IV 21 b, hh 139:15 I 328 e 4:9 I 287 e
116:3a IV 211* 139:17 I 140 e 5:5 I 116 d
118:1 V 45 e 140:4 I 316 f, g 5:7 IV 26 c, f
118:14 V 47 e 140:8 V 30 e 5:9-10 I 148 d
— 517 —
Job Job Job

5:19 I 54 e, h 17:4 I 202 d 27:16 I 164 d
5:20-21 1113 e 17:9 I 125 f 27:19 IV 33 c, i, k
5:20 I 207 d 18:5 IV 11 h 28:2 I 179 d,e
5:21 I Supp 35 c 18:13 IV 21 b. c, d, t 28:5 I 328 d, g
6:9 I 124 h 19:9 I 234 d, e 28:9‫־‬10 I 240 f
6:16 I 329 e 19:13 I 13 f 28:13 I Supp 29 c
7:6-7 I 273 e 19:20-21 I 230 g 28:22 I 312 e
7:9 I 237 f 19:27 I Supp 83 b 29:2-3 1221 d
7:12 III 1 i; IV 15 e, f, ss; 31 0 20:8-9 I 41 b; Supp 83 c 29:3 I 234 e
7:20 IV 39 h, hh 20:8 1211 d 29:4 IV 39 h, 11
8:6 I Supp 88 c 20:16 I 259 d, e 30:4 I 154 g
8:8 I Intro m; Supp 96 b 20:19 I 56 g, h 30:5-6 1301 e
8:12-13 I 16 f 20:20 I 54 f. h 30:8 I Supp 98 d
8:17 I 74 d, f 21:7 I 109 e, f 30:11 I 242 e, f
8:20-21 121 e* 21:12-13 I 120 d 30:12 IV 4211
8:21 I 21 h 21:14 I 16 d 30:14 I Supp 23 d
9:7-8 I 62 e 21:16 I 16 d; IV 33 c, i 30:21 I 230 f
9:8 III 1 i; IV 15 f, tt; 31 i1 21:22 I 28 e; 95 g 30:22 I 291 d, e
9:13-14 I 229 e 22:11-12 1 190 d 30:25 I 58 d, e*
9:13 III 1 h 22:12 131 f 31:5 I 96 d
9:25 1273 d 22:13-14 IV 40 f 31:7 I 11 d; 172f
9:33 151 h; 60 d 22:13 I 28 e 31:9 I 242 f
10:2 IV 39 h, p, pp 22:14-15 I 98 g 31:26 V 28 c
11:11 IV 33 e 22:24 I 166 f 32:10 I 314 e
11:15 I 265 e, f 22:25 I 166 e, f 32:13-14 I 16 d
12:15 III 1i 23:16-17 I 16 d; IV 33 c. h 32:13 I 20 g, i
12:21-22 I 318 d 24:1 IV 33 c, h 32:14-15 1 118 d
12:22 IV 21 aa 24:9 I 235 e, f 32:14 I 16 i; 118 h; IV 33 c, h
13:3-4 I Supp 20 b 24:10-11 I 98 e 32:15 1 119 d, e
13:15 IV 33 c, h, k 24:12 130011 33:3-4 I 128 h
13:17 I 314 g 24:13 I 225 e 33:3 I 32 d, f
13:22-23 I 332 h, i 25:4-5 I 21 f*. i 33:8 I 312 e
14:4 IV 33 c, i, k 26:5 IV 41 i 33:13 IV 33 e
14:8-9 I 212 g 26:7-8 I 266 f 33:14 1 16 d, i; IV 33 c, i
14:8 I 212 i 26:7 IV 25 c, f 33:18 IV 29 c, d
14:1Iff. IV 15 uu 26:9 IV 39 h, ii 33:21-22 I 246 e
14:11 III li; IV 15 f, j, uu 26:10 III 1 i 33:22 I 246 f; 300 e, h;
14:16 IV 33 e 26:11-13 III 1 fa* IV 21 d, u
14:18-19 I 215 e 26:11 III 1 h 34:11 I 306 d
15:11 1 16 d 26:12 III 1 i; IV 15 e, f, vv, ba 34:17 IV 24 d, 1
15:15 I 310 d 26:13 II Supp 1 d*. e; III 1 i; 34:23 I 16 f
15:17 I 314 f IV 35 b, c 34:34 I 312 e
15:19 I 75 f 27:2-3 121 j 34:37 I 60 e, h
16:4 I 283 d 27:3 I 287 e 35:9 I 285 d, e
16:19 IV 34 f, x 27:14-15 I 207 g; 295 d 35:15 I 12711
518 —
Indices A -l
Job Job P ro ve rb s
36:2-3 I 26 h, i 41:4 IV 33 c, h; 37 e 12:3 I 74 g
36:3 I Supp 51 b 41:10 IV 28 m, r 12:7 I 74 g
36:5 IV 33 c, h 42:8 I 62 d; 237f 12:9 I 228 d, g
36:9-10 1332 j 42:11 I 13 e; 72f 12:11 I 228 e
36:11-12 IV 29 d 12:18 1113 f
36:12 IV 29 d P ro ve rb s 13:4 I Intro f; 218 e, g
36:14 I Supp 70 d 1:14 I 75 e 13:9 I 220 d, e
36:16-17 I 193 d 1:15 I 225 e 13:14 IV 21 b, hh
36:16 I 329 d. e 1:18 I Supp 33 c 13:14b IV 21 1*
36:19-20 I 118 i 1:20 I 292 d, h 13:21-22 I 264 e
36:28 I Supp lib 1:21 I 343 g 13:22 I 264 d
36:30 I Supp 11 b; IV 39 h, ii 1:26 IV 42 h 14:10 I 130 d, e; 249 e, f
36:31 I 90 d, e 2:3 I 277 d 14:12 IV 21 hh
36:33 IV 39 h, ii 2:18 IV 21 hh; 41 i 14:13 I Supp 99 c
37:3 1261 d 3:13 I Intro e 14:27 IV 21 hh
37:4-5 I 16 e; III 1 h 3:27 IV 33 b 14:29 I 287 d
37:4 I 11 d; III 1 h 5:5 1208 i; IV 21 hh 15:6 I 70 d, e
37:6 I Supp 16 b 6:17 I 53 d 15:31 I 110 e
37:15 IV 39 mm 6:19 I 201 d,e 16:12 I Supp 59 b
37:16 IV 39 h, p 7:4 I 13 d 16:14 I 171 d; IV 21 c, d, h\
37:18 I 280 d 7:25 I 225 e v, S
37:22 IV 25 c. g; 39 h, q 7:26-27 I Supp 72 d 16:25 IV 21 hh
37:23-24 IV 33 c, h 7:27 I 208 i; IV 21 hh 16:32 I 287 d
38:4-5 I Intro d; 60 f, i 8:1 I 277 d 17:8 I 241 g
38:7 I 17 e; IV 34 e, f, p, y, z» 8:2 I 225 e 17:21 I 2e
38:8-11 III 1i; IV 15 xx 8:3-4 I 292 g 17:24 1241 f
38:8 IV 15 f, ww 8:3 I 276 d, e; 292 h 17:25 I 2d
38:11 III 1 h; IV 15 aa 8:26 I 284 e; Supp 16 b 19:16 I Supp 70 e
38:12 IV 28 d, n 8:27-29 III 1i 19:20 I 267 f
38:26-27 I 138 f, h; 183 e,f 8:27 V 25 c 19:27 I 32 e
38:28-29 I 121 d, g 8:29 IV 15 xx 20:7 I Supp 4 e
38:28 I 2d 8:35-36 I Supp 38 b 20:16 I 248 d, e
38:36-37 I 326 g, i 8:36 I Supp 70 c 21:9 I 78 e
39:17 I 20 h 9:10-11 I 110 h 21:12 IV 24 j
39:18 I Supp 22 c 9:10 IV 34 e, v 21:16 IV 41 i, j
39:23-24 I 292 g, h 9:14-15 I 152 h 21:27 I 82 d
39:24-25 I 55 d 9:14 I 279 d 22:10 1137 f
39:29 I 15 d, e 9:18 IV 41 i 23:2-3 I 217 i, j
40:13 I 285 e 10:2 I 66 d 23:22 I 2f
40:20 I 232 g 10:3 I 217 f 23:24 I 2d; 80 d; 131 e, g
40:2511. IV 31 1 10:12 12521 23:31 I 280 e, f; Supp 55 b;
40:25-32 IV 20 d, h 11:19 I Supp 63 b, c 58 b
40:25-26 III 1i 11:22 I 53 i 24:21-22 IV 42 h
40:25 IV 20 c, h 11:25-26 I 283 d, f 24:21 IV 42 f, h
40:29 III 1 i; IV 20 g 11:30 I 110 f; 260 e 24:32 1 178 i
— 519 —
P ro ve rb s C a n tic le s L a m e n ta tio n s
25:24 I 78 e 5:11-12 I Supp 85 b 2:10 I 238 e; 284 f
25:25 I 189 e 5:15-16 I 186 d 2:11‫־‬12 I 231 e
25:26 I Supp 84 b 6:10 IV 28 d, o 2:19 I 283 e
26:2 1211 h 7:1 IV 30 i 3:9 I 225 e
26:11 I 334 e 7:7 I 331 g 3:29 I 50 g
27:10 IV 4211 7:9-10 I 134 e 3:52‫־‬53 I 3e
27:13 I 248 d, e 7:9 I 10 d; 40 e, f 3:61 IV 39 h, jj
27:27 I 72 f; 218 d 8:5 I 101 f 4:14 I 174 e
28:6 I 98 h 8:6 IV 15 yy; 21 b, c, d, w, x, 4:20 I 287 e
29:26‫־‬27 I 253 i gg; 26 c, f, i
30:3 IV 2 r, t; 33 e, 1; 34 bb 8:7 IV 15 f, yy E sth e r
30:4 I 204 e, f 8:11 IV 9 w 5:6 I 293 e
30:10 I 180 e 7:2 I 293 e
30:16 I 49 d E c c le sia ste s 7:3 I 293 e
30:23 I 145 d 1:7‫־‬8 I 193 d 9:12 I 293 e
30:25-26 I 72 d 1:11 ISupp 61 c 9:24 I 215 g
31 I 156 f 1:16 I 330 d
31:5-6 I 150 f 2:2 I Supp 99 c D a n ie l
31:6-7 I 149 d 2:5 I 260 f 1:12 I 149 e
31:19 IV 18 f 2:7 I 317 g 3:33 II Supp 3 b*. d
31:23 I 156 e 2:21 I 50 d 4:31 II Supp 3 c*. d
31:27 I 72 g 2:24 I 124 j 7:2‫־‬15 III 1 dp*
31:30 I53g,j 3:12 I 128 g 7:9 IV 42 g
4:17 I 127 g 10:5‫־‬6 I 38 f
R u th 5:10 I 170 f, g 11:17 II 1 e*. g*
1-4 III 3 v, w 5:14 I 54 e 11:18 II 1 e*, g*
2:7 I 11 e 5:18 I 224 d 11:36 IV 34 g
3:11-12 I 244 d 6:1‫־‬2 I 50 f 12:2 I 239 e
4:10-13 III 3 d, o, q, t 6:8 I 128 g
4:10-lla III 3 d, t 6:12 I Supp 4 d, g E z ra
4:11a III 3 h 7:12 I 110 g; 123 e; 128 h 2:4 V 44 h
4:llb-12 III 3 c*, d*, f*, i*, 7:15 I Supp 36 b 2:24 IV 21 x
k, q, t, v, w 8:12 I Supp 36 b 2:46 V9 c
4:13 III 3 d, t 9:1 I 124 j 2:57 V 44 h
4:17b-22 III 3 t, w 9:5 I 127 e, g; 128 f 8:2 V 36 d
4:17b III 31 9:14 I 197 f 8:8 V 44 h
10:5-6 I 50 d 8:22 I 293 g
C a n tic le s 10:18 I 170 g 10:2‫־‬3 I 244 d
1-8 IV 22 j 10:19 I Supp 99 d
1:14 I 167 f 11:6 I 170 e, g N e h e m ia h
1:16 1331 f 2:13 IV 31 n
4:2-3 I 316 e L a m e n ta tio n s 3:15 IV 38 u
4:10-11 I Supp 71 b 1:2 I Supp 24 b 4:11 I 102 g
4:11 I 167 g 1:20 1 207 e; IV 21 hh 5:5 IV 33 b
4:13 I 167 g*, i 2:2 I 198 h 7:28 IV 21 x
— 520 —
Indices A-2
N eh etn iah I C h ro n icles I C h ro n icles

8:15 I 104 g 6:10 IV 21 c, z 20:8 IV 41 1
10:7 V 36 d 6:13 V 29 e 22:9 I 307 d
10:20 IV 22 h 6:56 IV 23 f, h 23:19 V 32 c
12:29 IV 21 x 7:8 IV 22 h 24:23 V 32 c
7:10 IV 28 p 26:5 V 32 e
7:19 V 32 k 26:7 IV 41 e, n
I C h ron icles 8:11 V 45 d 27:6 V 32 g
1:3 IV 29 e 8:24 IV 22 h 27:16 V 44 i
1:18 IV 29 e 8:26 IV 28 p 27:25 I 21 g*
1:20 IV 21 y 8:33 IV 9 y 29:3 I 50 d; 269 f
1:46 VI g 8:34 IV 9 y
1:47 V lg 8:36 IV 21 x
1:50 V lg 9:8 V 33 e II C h ron icles
1:51 V lg 9:12 121 g* 1-7 III 1 vp
2:15 III 2 q* 9:42 IV 21 x 1-2 III 1 pp*
2:24 V 10 c; 29 e 10:10 IV 10 h; 23 k 2ff. III 1 sp
2:46 IV 12 g 11:32 V 29 d 8:6 V 34 c
2:55 I 339 e 11:33 IV 21 x 11:20 IV 15 zz
3:3 V 26 c; 32 k 11:44 IV 231 11:22 IV 15 zz
3:5 III 2 hh; V 32 e 12:3 IV 21 x 12:16 IV 15 zz
3:10 IV 15 zz; V 29 e 12:6 IV 9 y; V 35 c; 44 i 13:1 IV 15 zz
4:5 V 10c 14:7 IV 9 y 13:20 IV 15 zz; V 29 f
4:12 V 43 d 14:11 IV 9 w 13:21 IV 15 zz; V 29 f
4:24 IV 15 aa 16:28ff. IV 34 j 15:16 IV 8 c
4:33 IV 9 j, k, w 16:32 I 132 e 20:3 II lg*
4:36 I 21 g* 17:26-27 I 244 d 21:2 V 44 i
5:5 IV 9 j, k, y 20:2 IV 38 h 24:7 IV 23 n
5:8 IV 9 w 20:4 IV 41 1 26:7 IV 9 w
5:23 IV 9 w 20:6 IV 41 1 29:5 I 269 h
A-2 U g a ritic T ex ts
The enumeration and order of these texts is based on the system set forth in Gordon, U T . All
numbered texts appear in sequence, with the named texts (i.e ., 1 Aqht, 2 Aqht, 3 Aqht, Krt, and
*nt) following. Texts for which provision has been made in Gordon’s system but which do not appear
in U T include: the 600’s (U g . V), the 700’s (C R S T ), and 2124ff. (P R U V texts not available to Gordon
at the time of the publication of U T ) . Texts for which no provision has been made in Gordon’s system
are given at the end of the index and arranged according to excavation number (or publication data).
1:3 IV 42 a 1:10 IV 9 a 3:1-2 I 134 b, d

4 IV 26 a 13 V 10b 16 IV 26 a
6 IV 42 a 16 IV 32a 47 IV 34 a
7 IV 26 a; 34 a 2:17 I 93 b; IV 34 a 53 IV 34 a
8 IV 30 a, b 25-26 IV 34a 5:8 IV 18 a
— 521 —
A-2 Ras Shamra Parallels
6:13-14 I 42 e 49 11:29‫־‬30 I 172 b 49 VI :30 III 1 X*

31-32 I 129 b, d 31-33 I 112b 33-35a III 1 e
9:3 IV 10 a, b 31-32 1206 b 35 III 1 X*
6 I 64 b 31 1207 b 51 III 1 a*, m*. q*, bb*, dd*.
8 I 64 e 33-35 IV 9 cc If, 1p*, sp. up, yp
14 IV 9 a 33-34 I 49 b 51 I III 1 m
10:6 V 32 b III :4 118 b; IV 2 a 1:511. III 11p*
17 V 1e 5 V 33 b 13-14 I 17 b; Supp 53 c
17:2 V 10 b 6-7 III 1 bb*, ca* 15-19 I 162 b
5 IV 26 a 8 I 128 b 16 1163 b
7 IV 34 a 9 IV 9 a; V 46 b 17-18 I 41 b; Supp 53 c
10 IV 17 a, b 10 118 b; IV 2 a 18-19 I 122 b
11 IV 38 a 11 V 33 b 22-23 I 181 b
12 IV 30 a, b; V 22 b 12-13 III 1 bb*, ca* 24 I 201 b; IV 37 a
14 IV 3 a, e 14 IV 2 a 26-27 1201 b
17 V 1e 16 II Intro d 32 I 166 b
18-23 V 1e 17 II 2 a* 34-35 I 166 d, f
24 IV 5 a, b 21 IV 9 a; V 46 b 35 I 166 b
44:3 IV 3 a 24 1221 b 11:10 I 18 b; IV 2 a
5 IV 3 a 44+47-48 I 65 b 11 V 33 b
46:3-4 I 270 b, d 47 I 65 d 12 II 3 a*
491:4-6 I 22 g IV:26-27 1297 b 13 I 64 e
4 II 1 a* 27 1243 b 14-16 I 98 b
8-10 II Intro e 29 IV 9 a; V 46 b 24-26 I 59 b; 61 b
8 IV 42 a 31 II 1 a* 26-28 1123 b, d
11-13 I 59 b; 61 b 32 1221 b 28-29 I 309 b, g
11 I 223 b; 224 b; 309 e; 33 II 2 a* 111:11 IV 40 a
II 2 a* 34-35 I 29 b 14-16 I 275 b, d
13-15 II Intro f 34 IV 2 a 15-16 I 274 b, d
20 IV 14 a, b 37-38 1297 b 15 I 275 d
21-22 IV 2 a 38 I 243 b, d; 297 d 18 IV 40 a
26ff. IV 28 e 40 IV 9 a; V 46 b 20 I 82 b
29-30 1238 b 42-43 I 232 e, g 25-26 I 181 b
29 1266 b 44 I 254 e 28-30 I 181 b
30 I 210 e 48 I 254 e 31 I 18 b; IV 2 a
32-33 1281 b V:l-6 III 1 e 32 V 33 b
34 1266 b 5-6 III 1 b, e 33-35 I 181 b
35 I 238 b 6 III 1 c 37-38 I 64 b
36-37 1161 b 8-9 III 1 e IV:19 1202 b
37 I Supp 6 c 10-11 II 2 a* 20-22 I 22 g
11:8-9 I 172 b 13-16 I 49 b 20 II 1 a*
9 I 265 d VI: 13 1223 b 24 IV 42 a
10-11 I 265 b, d 21-22 III 1 X* 25-26 II Intro e
11-12 II 2 a* 24-25 1209 b 28 II Intro d
22-23 137 b 26-27 IV 2 a 29-30 III 2 aa*
24 I 221 b; V 39 b 28 1337 b 38-39 I 124 d
— 522
Indices A-2
IV:38 I 124 b 51 VI:35b-38a III 1 yp 52:54 IV 231; 34 y

41-43 I 24 d 38-59 III 1 bb* 58 V 38 b
41-42 I 24 b; 110 b 44ff. IV 34 j 60 V 38 b
41 I 20 b VII III 2 u* 61 I 40 b, d; 299 d
42 1239 b VII :9-12 III 1 bb* 63-64 I 133 b
43-44 III 1 m* 18-30 III 1 bb* 66-67 121 d
44 V 44 b 27-39 III 1 bb* 67 V 38 b
45-46 I 135 d 29-35 III 1 ca* 68-69 I 182 b
45 I 135 b 29-30 I 150 b; 272 b 68 1257 b
46 I Supp 58 b 29 I 150 d 71-72 I 50 b
47 IV 2 a 30 I 272 f 72 I 50 b; 149 b
48-50 I 59 b; 61 b 40-41 I 268 b, d 54:11-13 IV 21 w, gg
48-49 1164 b 40 1240 b 11-12 I 124 b
48 I 199 b 42-44 I 69 e 12 IV 21 w
52 I 17 b 55 IV 15 b 18-19 1326 b
54-57 1162 b VIII :5-14 IV 5 f 62+49 III 1 a*, m, r, dd*, ff
54 I 163 b 7-9 I 69 b; 142 b 62:5 IV 9 x*
58 I 18 b; IV 2 a 11-13 1279 b 6-7 IV 7 b
V-VI III 1 x*; IV 21 g 12-13 I 99 b 7 IV 7 a
V:65-66 I Supp 40 b 13-14 I 44 b 9-10 I 296 b, g
65 I 20 e 13 I 116b 9 1295 b
68-72 III 1 yp 15-18 IV 21 0 11-12 1319 b
68-71 III 1 bb*, ca* 17-20 IV 21 w 13-14 1319 b
69 III 1 m* 32-33 I 16 b 15-17 1236 b
72-VI:35a III 1 m* 32b-37a HI 1 yp 16 1266 b
72-73 I 42 b frag. :8 IV 15 b 18 I 30 b; IV 41 a
75-76 I 56 e 52:1-3 1277 b 24+28 114 b
80-81 III 1 y(J 1-2 I 17 b; 214 b 28 I 14 d
84 II 1 a* 1 I 23 b; V 38 b 41-43 1294 b
95b-97a III 1 y(J 2 I 214 d 42 I 294 d
97-98 I 309 b 3 I 23 b 43 I 175 b
103 IV 18 a 4 1184 b, d 45 IV 41 a
106 IV 18 a 10 IV 21 a 46 IV 41 a
107 I Supp 104 b 13 I 299 b, d 50-52 III 1 i
108-109 1258 b 21-22 I Supp 98 b 50 I 147 b; IV 31 a
117 1266 b 22 I 214 d 52 I 147 b, d
120 IV 18 a 23 V 38 b 64:24 IV 1 a
122 IV 40 a 24 I 40 d; 299 d 67 III 1 a*, m, r, dd*, ff
VI III 1 1p* 28 I 299 b, d 671:1-5 III 1s1, ca*
VI :2-4 I 333 b, d; 334 d 33 1124 b 1-3II Supp 1b, e; IV 20 d, e
2-3 1334 b 34 I 124 b 1-2 II Supp 1 a*; IV 20 b
14 IV 18 a 35 I 124 b 1 IV 15 vv*; 20 a; 35 a, b
19 I 186 b 38 1143 b 2 IV 35 a, b
21 1186b 39 I 53 b, d 5-6 1226 b
22-35a III 1 yp 52 IV 28 a; 30 a 5 IV 21 e
35b-59 III 1 m* 53 IV 28 a; 30 a 6 I 208 e
— 523 —
67 1:9-10 II 1 a* 68:8-9 II Supp 2 a*, b 76 11:27-28 I 242 b, d

11 I 202 b 8 IV 40 a 27 II 3 a*
13-14 I Supp 70 b 9-10 III 1 bb* 29 I 97 b
14-22 IV 21 j 9 I 3 b; IV 15 vv3 111:8-9 I 193 b
14-15 I 217 b, d; 218 d 10 II Supp 3 a*, d 14-15 III 1e
14 1218 b 11-13 III 1 r 14 III 1c
22-23 I 8b 12 IV 15 n, z 35-36 I 67 b
24-25 I 8b 14 III Id; V 46 b 36 I 131 b
25-26 I Supp 35 b 16 III Id; V 46 b 38 I 67 b; 131 b
26 I Supp 35 c 19-20 III 1 r 77 III 2 t
27-30 II Supp 1 b, e 22 III 1 d; V 46 b 77:6 IV 28 a
27 IV 15 vv3 24-25 III 1 d 7 II Supp 4 a*
28 IV 20 a 24 V 46 b 8-9 I Supp 44 b, c
11:3-4 I 158 b 28-40 III 1 m* 8 I 299 d
5-6 I 45 b; 103 b; 260 b 28 I 76 b; 308 b; III 1 h: 11 IV 19 b
7 IV 40 a IV 23 a 12 I 299 d
8-12 IV 21 cc, dd 29 III 1 d 14 IV 10 a, b
9-10 I 16 b 31 I 76 b; III 1 d 15 IV 19 a; 28 a
15-16 I 99 b 32 III 1 b, d, r*, x* 16 V 39 b
16-17 IV 21 v, ff 34 III 1 d 22-23 I 169 b
16 I 44 b; 116 b, d 69:2 IV 10 a, b 31 V39 b
20-21 I 309 b, g 70:2 IV 10 a, b 33-37 I 1d
111:16 IV 27 a 75 I 138 d 40-41 IV 28 a
17 IV 27 a 75 1:7 IV 28 a, b, 0 40 IV 19 a
V:6-8 1251 b 10-11 I 160 b 50 IV 19 a
6 I 30 b; IV 41 a 14-17 I 144 b 801:8 IV 14 a
7-8 1251 h 15 I 230 d 11:15 IV 33 a
8 I Supp 16 b 19 I 138 b, d 95:10-14 1307 b
14-16 I 69 b; 142 b 21-22 I 183 b, d 100:6 I 306 b
15-17 I 208 e 21 I 138 b, d 8 1306 b
17-18 I 63 b 23-27 I 168 d 101:1 1306b
18 I 6b 23-25 I 168 b; 230 d; 5 1306 b
VI :6-7 I 84 b, d 300 d 107:2 I 93 b; IV 34 a
9-10 II Intro f 24 I 230 b; 300 d 4 IV 42 a
10 IV 9 a; V 46 b 35 I 138 d; 257 b 119:23 I 262 b
13-14 I 151 b 40 I 158 f 120:14-16 I Intro g; 104 b
15 1284 b 11:38-39 I 38 b, d 121 1:2 IV 41 a
21 IV 9 x6 45-46 I 21 b, d 11:6 IV 41 a
23-25 1208 b; IV 7 b 47 I 87 b; 174 b, d 7 V 36 b
25 IV 7 a 761:3-4 IV 34 z® 122:3 IV 41 a
68 III 1 a*, m*, q*, bb*, dd2, 4 IV 34 a 4 IV 41 a
ff, 1|J*, sp, up; IV 15 c, 11:1-9 III 1 e 9 IV 41 a
dd, hh, mm 14 II 3 a* 11 IV 41 a
68:1-27 III 1 m* 20 I Supp 36 b 124:4-5 1320 b
7-10 III 1 r 24-25 I 212 i 8 IV 41 a
7 III Id; V 46 b 24 1212 b 10-11 I 211 b; 261 b, d;
— 524 —
Indices A-2
323 d 127:9 1234 b; 283 b 12811:13-16 III 3 e

124:10 IV 38 a; 41 j 10-11 I 91 b; 92 b; 16-27 III 2 cc10
11 1323 b Supp 22 b 18-20 III 3 e
13-14 I Supp 77 b 11 1283 b 20 V 38 b
13 I Supp 69 b 13-14 I 118 b, g 21-111:16 III 3 a*, c*,
125-127 III 2 a*, h, j, n, V, 13 I 119b e*, q, s, v
dd*, rr 14 IV 33 a 21-111:15 III 3 f*,k
125 III 2 dd* 15-16 1223 b 21-111:1 III 3 f*
125:4-38 IV 34 m 17-18 I 34 b 21-23a III 3 k, k\ 1
5 III 2 hh 20 I 34 b 23b-25a III 3 k
6-7 IV 9 a 23-24 I 152 b; 210 h 23b-24 III 2 q‘
6 IV 1 f 25-26 I 153 b 23b III 3 k1
12-14 II Supp 5 b 27‫־‬29 I 1b 24-25a III 3 k
13-14 II Supp 5 a* 30-31 I 85 b, d 24 III 2 q5
14-16 I 109b 31-34 I 86 b 25 III 2 q‘
19 III 2 hh 32 1252 b; 253 b 25b-28 III 3 k
25-28 I 57 b 34 I 253 b III III 2 11
26-27 I 89 b 35-36 I 7b 111:2-4 III 3 f*. i*. k
32-33 I 13 b 38 I 152 e 3-4 IV 41 a
34-35 I 191 b, d; 325 b 41-54 III 2 dd* 5-12 III 3 f*
34 I 298 b 43-46 I 86b 5-6 III 3 f, k
43 I 302 e 43-44 I 85 b, d 5 1278 b
46 II Intro f 45 I 252 b; 253 b 7-12 III 2 q5
54-55 I 335 b, d 47-48 I 235 d 13-15 III 3 f*, i*, k
83 II Intro f 47 1253 b 14-15 IV 41 a
84-85 III 2 z* 48-49 1235 b 16 III 2 p», q‘; 3 g, k
89-90 1343 d 50-52 I 7b 17-19 III 3 e
97-98 II Supp 5 b 53-54 I 152 e 19 III 3 o; IV 34 a
107 IV 9 a 55 IV 12 a, b 20-25a III 2 rr; 3 0 , q
126 III III 2 q*, uu 56 IV 23 a 20-21 III 3 e, o
III :2 IV 5 a 57-58 I 273 b, d 20 1278 b
5-9 IV 39 b 128 III 2 a*, t7, dd*, rr 21 I 278 b
6 IV 39 a 128 1:1-111:25a III 2 h,n 22 III 2 vv
8 IV 39 a I-II III 2 q* 25-30 III 2 dd*
IV:2 1312 b, d I III 2 dd*, hh* 25b-VI :9 III 2 h, j,
3 I 20 b 1:6 1231 f n, rr
V:24-25 I 210 b II-III III 2 dd* IV-VI III 2 dd*
25-27 I 304 b, d II III 2 11 IV:6-7 1344 b
27-28 I 81 b, d; 301 b, 11:2-111:21 III 3 e, o, q 17-18 1344 b
d; 303 b 11:2-7 III 3 e 18 I 247 b, d
31 IV 31 a 6 IV 26 a 21 I 70 b; 247 b, d
32 IV 31 a 7 I 22 e; IV 34 a 22 I 247 d
127:1-2 I 118 b, g 8 III 3 e 25-27 I 68 b
1 I 119b 9 III 3 e V:8-10 I 68 b
3 I 70 b 11 I 22 e; III 3 e, 0 ; 129 III 1 a*, dd*, ff, lp*, sp;
9-10 I 232 b, g; 282 b, d IV 34 a IV 18 c
525 —
129:19-20 IV 18 c 322 VI:7 V 47 b 607:2-3 I 22 b, g

20-21 IV 18 c 323 111:12 I 43 b 9 I 202 b
22 IV 18 c 4001:19 V9 b 36 IV 16 a, b
130:11-12 I 122 b 23 V9 b 41 IV 38 a
130-131 III 1 tp” V:ll V 20 b 52 IV 28 a; 30 a, b
132:5-6 I 101 b, d 601:1 IV 23 a 58 IV 12 a, b
137 III 1 a*, q*. bb*, dd«, If, 2 I 26 g 61 IV 12 a, b
1p*, up; IV 34 m 3-4 1327 b 64-65 I 248 b, d; 300 d;
137:7 IV 12 b 3 I 296 e Supp 17 c
14 IV 34 a 5-6 1329 b 65 1300 b
15 IV 34 a 8 1329 b 67 IV 12 a, b
16-17 IV 34 a 11-12 I Supp 30 b 70-71 I 56 b
17 II Intro f 15-19 IV 42 c 608:6 IV 12 a, b
20 IV 34 a 16 I 296 e; 327 d 13 IV 12 a, b
21 IV 34 a 18-19 IV 42 a 16 IV 16 a, b
22 I 195 b; 196 b 602 IV 41 c 17 IV 38 a
25-26 I 177 b, d 602 obv:l-3 IV 41 d 18 IV 28 a; 30 a
26 I 195 b; 196 b l-3a IV 41 c 31 I Supp 8 b
28 I 195 b; 196 b 1 IV 41 a 39 1185 b, d; 216 b, d
30 I 195 b; 196 b 2-3 IV 41 h 609 obv:5 IV 5 a, b
31-32 I 32 b 2 I 140 b 9 IV 17 a; 34 a
31 IV 34 a 3-4 1324 b 10 IV 3 a
32-33 1113b 3 I 28 b 19 1204 b
33-34 II Intro f 5 I 170 b rev:l IV 3 a
36-37 I 227 b; III 1 r 6-8 I 94 d 2 IV 5 a, b
38 IV 34 a 7 I 94 b 4 IV 10 a, b
43 IV 21 a 9-10 I Supp 77 b, c 5 IV 9 a
45 II Intro f 10 I 214 d 9 IV 6 a; 27 a, b
46 IV 36 a, f rev :4-5 IV 41 a 610 IV 24 b
138:6-7 1176 b, d 6 IV 41 a 610 A:5 IV 16 a, b
13 1200 b 7 IV 41 a 8 IV 42 a
146:7 I 95 b 10-11 I 75 b 11 IV 28 a; 30 a
20 IV 1 a 11 I 75 d 14 IV 24 a
150:10 V 32 b 603 obv:l-4 III 1 e, hh, ca* 16 IV 4 a
173:1-2 I 134 b, d 1-2 I 255 b, d B:3 I 271 b, d
300 obv:5 V 29 b 1 I 155 b; III 1 e 611 III Intro 7 c1
14 V 37 b 2-3 I 27 b 611:9-10 1305 b
23 V 37 b 3-4 I 66 b 613:21 IV 10 a, b
24 V 37 b rev:3 V 38 b 614 A:9 IV 32 a
28 I 262 b 8 I 63 e 1001 obv:l III 1 ca*; IV 15
rev:17 V 37 b 604:2-4 I 218 d vv*; 31 a
18 V 37 b 2-3 1218 b 3 IV 26 a
321 1:35 V 29 b 2 I 217 b, d; Supp 70 b 4-5 I 80 b, d; 316 b
322 11:5 V 47 b 4 1217 b, d 5-6 1276 b
V:4 IV 15 a 606:2 I Supp 8 b 6 1292 b
VI:1 IV 12 a 607:1 IV 1 a, b 14 I 125 b, d
— 526 —
Indices A-2
1001 obv:15~16 I 117 b.d 1104:7 I 95 b 2076:38-39 1198 b

rev:7-8 1225 b 1116:11 1262 b 2078:14 IV 12 a
1002:45-46 I 63 e 1121:1-2 1203 b 2079:6 V 32 b
46-47 I Supp 3 b 8-9 I 114 b 8 V 32 b
50-51 I 37 e 1123:7-8 I 114 e 2087:13 IV 12 a
61-62 I 90 b 1126:6-8 I 104 e 2095:2 V 42 b
1003 IV 15 0 ; 31 c 1143:12 IV 33 a 4 V 42 b
1003:3-10 III 1 s1 1151:3-4 I 105 b 2106:3 I 326 e
8-9 IV 31 d 1161:5-9 I Intro m 4 IV 39 a
8 IV 31 a 1175:2 I 162 e 11-12 I 36 b
1004:7+9 I 29 e 2001 obv:l V 32 b 11 I 165 b
17 V 20 b 2 IV 23 a 16-17 I 165 e
18 IV 29 e 6 IV 35 e 2127 b:3 I 314 b, d
19 IV 29 e 13 IV 27 a 2139:6 IV 21 a
1005 I 262 d rev:7 I 111 b, d 1 Aqht:15-16 I 187 b
1005:4 I 262 b 2004 III 1 m 20 IV 41 a
10 1262 b 2004:5 IV 3 a 22-23 IISupp 8 b
14 I 262 b 2008 obv:9 IV 41 p 22 I 156 b
1007:7 I 197 b rev:10 1293 b 28-29 II 3 a*
1012:17 I 330 d 13 1293 b 32-33 1233 b
1013:6-7 I 25 b 2009 obv:8 1306b 36-37 IV 41 a
1015:7 I 130 b; 249 b 11 1306b 38-39 IV 41 a
9-11 1220 b 2011:7 V 32 b 40-42 I 250 b
11 1249 b 33 V 43 b 40-41 :I 141 b, d; 251 e
14-15 1305 b 2013:2-3 I 15 b 42-46 III 1 ca*
1016:5-6 I 25 e 5-7 I 15 b 44-45 1286 b;
1018:22 I 25 e; 254 b 2021 obv:16 IV 21 a II Supp 6 a*
24 1254 b rev:5 IV 1 a 46 1120 b
1019:2-3 I 25 b 2022:16 V 42 b 47 IV 41 a
15-16 1149 b 2026:10 V 32 b 50-52 I 341 b
1020:4 I 35 b, d 2029:13 IV 4 a 76 II 3 a*
1024 obv:21 V 32 b 19 IV 4 a 79-80 I 5b
rev:5-6 1115b 2039:5 1262 b 109 II Supp 7 a*
7-8 I 115b 2040:25 V 32 b 110-111 1315 b
1032:13 V 36 b 2054 rev: 15 IV 4 a 112 IV 41 a
1036:2 IV 33 a 2059:10-13 I 171 b 116-117 I 159 b
1039:3 IV 15 a 16-17 1285 b 117 1315 b
1046:38 V 32 b 2060:2 V 32 b; 43 b 125 1315 b
1058:10 V 32 b 34-35 151 e 127 I 30 b; IV 41 a
1064:25 IV 33 a 2062 A: 1 I 317 d 130-131 1159 b
1071 rev:5 V 32 b B:l-3 I 317 b, d 131 1315 b
1081:5 IV 33 a 2063:11-12 I 198 e,g 134-135 II 3 a*
1082 obv:2 V 32 b 14-16 1213 b, d 138-139 I 159 b
1090:17-18 IV 4 a 2065:14-17 I 47 b 139-140 1315 b
1099:15 V 43 b 2067 obv:7 V 31 b 141 I 30 b; IV 41 a
1102:15 IV 4 a 2070 rev :8 V 32 b 144-146 1178 e
— 527 —
144-145 I 159 b 157 b, d Krt:10-21a III 21*

145 1315 b 2 Aqht V:18 IV 37 a 11 I 192 b, d
154 1244 b 24 IV 37 a 12-14 I Supp 91 b;
161-162 1244 b 26-27 I 126 b III 2 q*
164 V 46 b 30-33 I Supp 6 c 16-21 IV 29 b
170-171 II Intro e 30-31 I Supp 6 b 16-17 IV 19 e*
175 IV 41 a 32 IV 37 a 16 I 205 b; IV 19 e
184-187 I 31 b 35-36 I 267 b, d 18-21 I 39 b
190-193 I 190 b VI:16-17 1313 b 18-19 1205 b
191-193 I 31 b 18 IV 14 h 20-21 I 330 d
196-197 I 9b 20-21 I 173 b 20 IV 29 a, b
197 I 9 d; 231 b 27-28 I 107 b; 21 1215 b
199-200 1341 b 108 b, f; 148 b 2lb-306 III 2 i
201-202 I 9b 42-43 1332 b 21b-153 III 2 i
202 I 9 d; 231 b 45 V 38 b 21b-31a III 2 t*
204-205 I 132 b 49 IV 42 a 23-24 1336 b; 339 b
222-223 I 259 b 50 I Supp 93 b 23 1 192 b, d; 338 b
I-II III 2 p 51-52 I 180 b, d 24 I 215 b; 330 b, d
1:4 IV 34 a 3 Aqht 'obv’:18-19 I 154 b 25 1338 b
9 IV 34 a 19-20 I 233 b 26-27 I 58 b, d
14 IV 34 a 21-22 I 60 b 31 I 335 g
17b-22a III 2 p 23-25 1318b; 31b-43 III 2t*
19-20 I 8b Supp 33 b 32-155 III 2 z*
21-22 I 8b 24-26 I 288 b 40 V 38 b
25 V 33 b 25‫־‬26 1287 b 52b-54a III 2 y*
26 I 74 b 29 I 154 b 53-56 III 2 t
27-28 I 219 b 30-31 I 233 b 55-56 1342 b
31-32 IV 42 c 31-33 I 60 b 57-58 III 2 y*; 3 s
32-33 I Supp 6 b 34-36 I 318 b; 59-79a III 2 t*
11:5-6 IV 42 c Supp 33 b 61 V 38 b
10 II Intro d; 36-37 I 287 b; 62b-136a III 2 dd*
III 3 pa 288 b 65 I 248 b; III 2 cc10*
14-15 I 8b 36 I 139 b 70-72 I 179 b
19‫־‬20 IV 42 c 38 I 139 b 74-76 1291 b
21-22 I Supp 6 b 'rev* :14-15 I 229 b 76 I 83 b, e
24-25 II Intro e 16 I 127 b 79-81 I 79 b
26-27 IV 28 a 18-19 I 51 b, g 79b-85a III 21*
26 171 b; IV 19 a Krt III 1 yp; 2 a*, h, i, j, m, 80-82 I 78 b
29-30 IV 19 a n, s*, t*, t7, u*, dd*, 82-83 I 72 b
31 IV 28 a oo, pp, rr, da 85b-114a III 21*
39-40 171 b Krt:l III 2 e1 88-89 III 2 z*
41-42 I 100 b 7b-21a III 2 i, 1, 96 I 73 b
V:6-7 II Supp 8 a* cc10, ee*; 3 q, s 98-99 I 102 b
6 I 156 b; 222 b 8b-9 III 2 q* 100-102 I 136 b, d
9 II 3 a* 9 III 2 q* 101 I 106 b
10-11 I 98 b; 10-153 III 2 t7 103-106 1302 b
528 —
Indices A-2
103-105 I 257 e Krt :203-206 I Supp 52 b 'nt 11:25-26 I 194 b

105 I 257 b 207-208 II Intro e 29-30 1188 b; Supp 21 b
106-108a III 2 aa* 209 I 11 b 30-32 I 54 b, d
106 II Intro e 21Ob-211 III 2 aa* 30b-43a III 1 hh
108b-109 III 2 aa* 218-300a III 2 t* 31 I 54 d; 88 b
114b-153 III 2 t* 218-219 II Intro e 34 IV 22 e1
114b-119a III 2 aa* 252-253 1342 b 38-41 I 289 b, d;
125-129 III 2 1 256-259 III 2 u* III 1 pp1‫״‬
128 I 342 b 281-306 III 2 dd* 38-40 II 4 a*
133-135 III 2 u* 281-300a III 2 1* 38-39 1 191 b, d
136b-153 III 2 t*, dd* 282-283 III 2 y* 39-40 1311 b; II 4 e;
137b-138 III 2 y* 285-286 1342 b IV 5 b
140 I 342 b 286-288 I 54 b 39 I Intro j; 46 b; 121 b
142-153 III 3 s 287b-300a III 3 s 40 I 121 b
142 135 d 288b-295 III 2 hh* III-VI III 1 s£, vp
143-148a III 2 hh* 296-300a III 3 s III III 1 tp22
146 IV 23 a 297-298 I 2b 111:3-4 I 41 b; 63 e
150-153 III 3 s 298-300a III 2 y* 4-5 1122 b
151-152 I 2 b ,nt III 1 m, dd8, hh 1lb-14 III 1 hh
152-153 III 2 y* 'nt I-VI III 1 e, hh 12 I Supp 16 b
154-306 III 2 i, V 1:2-17 III 1 hh 13-14 I 46 e, g
154 III 2 jj, ioc 2-4 II Intro f 15-28 III 1 hh
156-280 III 2 dd* 2 I 228 b 19-21 I 245 b
156-171a III 2 1* 5 1228 b 26-27 1264 b
159-160 1248 b 6 1340 b 26 I 27 b
159 III 2 cc‫*>״‬ 9-10 1321 b 28 I 27 b
163-164 I 179 b 12-14 1280 b 30-31 I 62 b
166-168 1291 b 13-15 I 52 b 34-44 IV 31 c
168-169 I 83 b, e 13 1310 b 35-IV:47 III 1 hh
171-172 I 79 b 18 I 55 b 35-43 III 1 coc*
171b-176a III 2 1* 20 I 55 b; 120 b, f; 35-39 III 1 s1
172-173 I 78 b 322 b, d 37-38 IV 35 f
173-174 I 72 b 21-22 1266 b 37 III 1 i; IV 31 a, d
176b-217 III 2 1* 22-25 I 33 b; 241 d 38-39 II Supp 1 b
178b-179 III 2 z* 23-25 1241 b 38 IV 35 a, b
186-187 I 102 b 24 I 41 b 40-43 IV 11 b, f
189-190 I 106 b; 136 d II III 1 pp1‫״‬, tp2‫״‬ 40 IV 5 f; 11 h
192-195 1302 b 11:2-3 I 167 d 41-43 H 9g
193-194 1257 b 2-3a III 1 hh 41 1263 b
194-230 III Intro 7 b 2 I 167 b 42-44 I 48 b
194b-206 III 2 dd* 3b-30a III 1 hh, rr12 42-43 IV 11 g, h, i
195-196 I 11 b 4-6 1256 b 43-1V :46 I Supp 26 b, c
195b-199 III 2 z* 5-7 I 188 b; Supp 21 b 43-44 I 48 e; 145 b
199-206 III 2 c* 17-18 II Intro e 43 I 263 b; Supp 18 d;
199b-206 III 2 t*, z, oo, 19-20 1188 b IV 11 a, b, e
yy 23-24 I 188 b 44-IV:45 I 146 b
— 529 —
45-46 I 137 b, d Supp 53 c ‘nt pi. IX:III:1 I 44 b

45 I 146 d; 202 b; 'nt pi. VI:IV:3-5 I 122 b 4 IV 37 a
Supp 26 c 3-4 I Supp 53 c 5-6 I 29 b
46-47 III 1 e 5-6 I 163 b 18-19 I 26 e
47 III 1 c V: 19-20 I 105 b pi. X:IV:2-3 I 26 b
52b-54 III 1 hh 25-26 III 1 hh 2 I 26 g
55-64 III 1 hh 34-35 1105 b 7 I 96 b
58-60 1245 b 35-36 I 127 b 9 1321 b
63-64 I 264 b 38-39 I 24 b; 110 b, d 14 IV 13 a, b
67b-69a III 1 hh 38 I 20 b RS 20.24:5-10 V 1e
68-69 I 46 e 39 1239 b 22.225:2 I 331 b, d, h
69 I 46 g 40-41 a III 1 hh 24.264+ :32 IV 38 a
69b-71a III 1 hh 40 V 44 b 24.266 rev :9-10 1343 b
71b-75a III 1 hh 41-42 I 135 d 11-12 1343 b
78-79 I 26 e 43-44 I 199 b 12-13 I4b
79 IV 41 a 44-45 I 59 b; 61 b; 16-17 I 237 b, d
80 1328 b 164 b 16 I 269 b, d
82 1202 b 47-48 I 17 b; Supp 53 c 18-19 I 343 b;
83-VI:25 III 1 hh 49-50 I Supp 53 c Supp 62 b
83-84 I 12 b; 98 b 50-51 I 122 b 24.271:30-31 1 178 b, g
84-85 I 290 b, d VI :7-8 I 77 b 24.277:29 I 10 b
86-88 1289 b 16 I 44 b 34.126 IV 41 b
86-87 II 4 a* 18-20 II Intro e 34.126:7 IV 41 j
87-88 I 46 b 22-23 IV 37 a 9-10 IV 41 a
87 I 121 b; 311 b pis. IX-X III 1 sp UT, p. 124, n. 3 I Intro g
VI :IV: 1-2: I 17 b; pi. IX:II:18 I 29 b
A-3 Ras Shamra Akkadian Texts
These texts are arranged by excavation number. Akkadian texts from other sites appear in the
‫״״‬Other Texts‫ ״‬index (A-4).
6.X:2 V 17 b 15.42+ 11:20‫׳‬ V 30 a, b

8.213:26 V 39 b 15.63:1 V 42 b
11.839:12 V2b 15.89:6 V 22 b
16 V2b 15.109+:29 V5b
12.34+:4 V 9 a, b 15.143+ rev:14 V 38 a, b
33 V 47 a 16.114 rev:14' V 15 b
13.7 B:2 V 32 a, b; 43 b 16.129:19 V2b
15.09 A :2 V 12 a, b 16.133 rev :8 V 29 a, b
4 V 1a 16.134:3 V5b
B 1:16 V 41 a, b 16.139:8 V 43 a, b
11:5 V9b 16.144:12 V 6 a, d
15.42+ 1:8 V 41 b 16.145:4 V 35 a, b
14 V 46 a, b 16.148+ rev :8' V 1 a; 37 a, b
— 530
Indices A -3
16.148+ revrll‫׳‬ V 1 a; 37 a, b 17.110:7 V 47 b

16.154:4 V 15 b 11 V 47 b
16.155 A :3 V3c 14 V 47 b
5 V3c 17.112:16 V 47 b
16.156:5 V 32 b 17.146:50 V 34 b
8 V 26 a 51 V 34 b
17 V 26 a 52 V 34 b
16.157:27 V 6 a, d 53 V 35 b
16.158:3 V 18 b 17.155:1 V 16 a
4 V 18 b 33 V 33 a, b
16.182+:6 V8b 17.227:5 V 1a
16.186:8‫׳‬ V 39 a, b 17.231:8 V 45 b
16.238:18 V 6 a, d 15 V 45 b
16.242:5 V 14 b 17.242:16 V 15 b
16.257+ A 1:3‫״‬ V 34 a, b 17.243 rev:3' V 6 a, d
9‫״‬ V8b 17.288:27 V 15b
16‫״‬ V 27 a 17.332:3 V 36 a, b
B 111:35 V 31 a*, b 17.334:2 V 1a
36 V 21 b 17.338 obv:3' V 25 b
48 V 18 b 4‫׳‬ V 25 b
50 V21 a, b rev :4' V 24 b
IV:10 V 37 b rev 17.340 :20 ‫׳‬ V ll b
16.262:9 V 30 b B rev 17.349 :7 ‫׳‬ V 34 b
10 V 30 b 17.352:12 V 30 b
13 V 30 b 17.353:4‫׳‬ V 18 a, b
16.263:14 V 46 a, b 17.354:5 V 15 b
15 V 46 a, b 17.360:26 V 15b
16.273:4 V7b 27 V 45 a, b
16.281:6 V 22 b 17.393:23 V6a
16.344:4 V 21 b 17.410 B obv:7' V 10 b; 11 b
16.359 B:4 V 4 a, b 17.424 C + :l V 36 b
17.04 rev:l' V 35 b 17.459 rev:4' V 10 b; 35 b
17.22 + :15 V 29 b 18.01:3 V 10b; 11 b
21 V 11 b 5 V 10 b
22 V 11 b 6 V 11 b
23 V 11 b 18.02:3 V 11 b
17.33:1‫׳‬ V 21 b 18.06+ : 6 ‫׳‬ V 24 b
17.36:14 V 20 a 7‫׳‬ V 11 b
17.38:2 V 15 b 9‫׳‬ V 10 b; 35 b
17.61:7 V 28 a, b 19.42:14 V 42 b
13 V 28 a, b 20.01:8 V 1a
20 V3c 20.07:2 V 38 b
17.67:5‫׳‬ V 18 b 9 V 14 b
17.86+:14 V 44 b 20.12:27 V 29 b
17.110:2 V 47 b 20.14:2 V 17 b
4 V 47 b 20.15:19 V6a
— 531 —
35
20.24 V 1e RS 20.123+ 111:36‫״‬ V3c

20.24:1 IV 3 e IVa:19 V 14 a, b
3 V 7 a, b IVb:7 V3c
4 V 1 a,e; 6 a; 35 b 12 V2b
5 V 1a 16 V 5 a, b
6 V 1a 17(?) V 6 a, e
7 V 1a 20.149 11:9‫׳‬ I 1d
8 V 1a 20.175:10 V 3 a, c
9 V 1a 20.176:18 V6a
10 V 1a 19 V8b
11 V 24 a, b 20 V 36 b
20 V 2 a, b 22 V 36 b
23 V 10 a, b 26 V 5 b; 29 b
24 V 11 a, b 20.178 obv:2 V 44 b
26 V 19 b; 21 b 20.196 A Colophon :3 V 15 b; 39 b
29 V 25 a, b 4 V 17 a, b
31 IV 17 b; V 13 a 20.227 edge:5 V 44 a, b
32 V 15b 20.232:1 V 42 a, b
33 V 22 a, b 20.235:18 V 11 b
20.121:61 V 16 b 20.425:7 V 44 b
63 V 17 b 22.421 1:9 V 40 a, b
76 V 19 a 22.439 IV:16' V 16 b
81 V 15 a, b 25.460:15‫׳‬ V 16 b
121 V8a 25‫׳‬ V 16 b
138 V7b 26‫׳‬ V 16 b
167 V 10 a, b 29‫׳‬ V 16 b
176 V 3 a, c 33 ‫׳‬ V 16 b
20.123+ 11:30‫׳‬ V6e 26.142:6‫׳‬ V 13 b
111:33‫״‬ V 23 a, b 14‫׳‬ V 24 b
34 ‫״‬ V 25 b 17‫׳‬ V7b
A-4 Other Texts
These texts are grouped by the following languages: Akkadian, Arabic, Egyptian, Greek (in-
eluding the sub-group ',New Testament‫)״‬, Hebrew (including the sub-groups ,,Apocrypha,‫ ״ ״‬Quin-
ran,‫ ״‬and ‫״‬Talmud‫)״‬, Phoenician and Punic, and Sumerian.
Akkadian Enuma Elish IV:28 III 1 d

ARM (T) III 73:20 IV 3 8 1 33-122 III 1 aa*
CH, § 2 V 18 b 37 IV 15 hh
EA 228:3 IV 32 b 39-60 III 1 aa*
290:16 IV 30 f 104 III 1 i; IV 15 y
Enuma Elish IV 15 c 111 III 1 i
Enuma Elish 1:109-11:91 III 1 aa* 118 IV 15 y
IV :3-18 III 1 aa* 123-146 III 1 aa*
— 532 —
Indices A-4
Bnuma Elish IV :139-140 III 1 i Victory Hymn of Thutmose III IV 31 1

V:l-66 III 1 aa* Wen-Amun Report IV 34 y
67-89 III 1 aa*
88 III 1 d G reek
110 III 1 d Eusebius, P r a e p . E v a n .,I 9:21 IV 13 e
117-156 III 1 aa* 10:13 IV 24 b
152 III 1 d 14 IV 24 b
VI HI 1 q, jp* , kp*, vp 25 IV 24 b
VI :1-44 III 1 aa* 31 IV 3 8 1
39 III 1 d 38 IV 24 b
45-68 III 1 aa* Josephus, B e ll. J u d ., V iii:2 IV 31 n
45-58 III 1 kp* EXX Deut 32:43 IV 34 h
47 IV 34 j Josh 17:7 IV 22 g
51 IV 34 j Amos 5:26 IV 38 r
59-66 III 1 kp* Plutarch, D e I s . et Os. 15 IV 3 8 1
69-94 III 1 aa*
69-71 III 1 k(J* N ew T e sta m e n t
75ff. III 1 k(J* Matt 10:25 IV 9 q
95-VII:144 III 1 aa* 12:24 IV 9 q
99-100 III 1 d 27 IV 9 q
126-127 III 1 aa* 25:21 I 130 e; 249 f
149-151 III 1 aa* Mark 3:22 IV 9 q
VII :1-2 III 1 aa* Luke 11:15 IV 9 q
59-83 III 1 aa* 18ff. IV 9 q
95 III 1 d Acts 7:43 IV 38 r; 41 k
101 III 1 d II Cor 5:14 I 20 i
162 III 1 d Rev 20:3 III 1 i
Erra Epic IV 28 e
Gilgatnesh Epic XI:182-185 III 2 ee12 H eb rew
Middle Assyrian Laws, § 25 V 18 b Cooke, N S I , pi. XI, 6 IV 3 d
Myth of Etana IV 28 e Samaria Ostracon, no. 55 IV 39 nn
Weidner, P o litisc h e D o k u m en te 1 rev :54 V 24 b
61 V 35 b A pocryph a
63 V 35 b Sir 8:10 IV 11 h
2 rev :43 V 24 b 9:8 I 53 f
53 V 35 b 9:13 I 60 d
3 IV :25 V 35 b 10:1 I 24 f
44 V 24 b 5 I Supp 22 c
14 I 337 e
A r a b ic 11:1 I 222 d
Qur’an 43:77 IV 38 v 26 I Supp 4 f, h
108 IV 18 c 25:20 I 53 h
31:3 I 267 e
E g y p tia n 38:25 I Supp 9 b
Aten Hymn IV 20 f 41:3-4 I 23 e
Sphinx Stela III 1 wp2 ;»‫ ־‬jj 43:4 IV 36 b
— 533 —
Sir 43:5 IV 36 b P h o e n ic ia n a n d P u n ic
8 I 106 d, e KAI 4:2-3 I Supp 36 b
22 I 250 f 4-5 IV 34 d
44:13-14 I Supp 81 b 10:9 I Supp 36 b
45:19 IV 11 h 13:7-8 I 258 e
47:23 I 24 f 14:9 IV 34 d
50:25-26 I 24 f 22 IV 34 d
26 A 1:9-10 I 74 g
Q u m ra n 11:4 I Supp 50 c
4QDeut2 32:8 IV 3411 27:12 IV 34 d
43 IV 3 4 h 37 A:15 I 176 f
4QSam 23:1 IV 39 j 277 IV 34 z»
lQIsa* 17:6 I 103 g 277:10-11 I 31 g
23:2 I 105 g
S u m e r ia n
37:27 IV 21 bb
51:9 I 188 f Gudea Cylinder A 1:27 III 1 nfj*
lQpHab 8:3 IV 37 d II:26ff. III 1 np*
llQ P s‘ 154:15 I 32 g V:17 III 1 np*
VIII :Iff. III 1 np*
T a lm u d
XV:lff. III 1 np*
XVIII :24ff. III 1 np*
b. 'A b o d . Z a r. 3b IV 20 f XX:9-11 III 1 np*
b. B . B a t. 74b IV 15 vv XXV :20-23 III 1 np*
b. H a g . 12a IV 15 uu B 1:20 III 1 np*
11:12-13 III 1 np*
H u r r ia n III 1 np*
V:lff.
RS 24.278:14-15 IV 2 a, 1 XXIV :7 III 1 np*
UT 4:1 IV 3 e XXI V:8 III 1 np*
— 534
Index B: Words
The word indices are divided into four sub-categories: B-l, Hebrew Words; B-2, Ugaritic words;
B-3, Akkadian Words; and B-4, Other Words.
B-l Hebrew Words
This index includes all Hebrew words—both biblical and non-biblical—in the volume, except
those words which occur in longer quotations and are not the object of discussion. Such quotations
are indexed in either the ‫״״‬Hebrew Bible‫ ״‬index (A-l) or the ‫״״‬Other Texts—Hebrew” index (A-4).
The arrangement of the words in this index is based on the system of BD B. Thus the index consists
of three columns: 1) verbal and non-verbal roots; 2) derived nouns and phrases listed under each root;
and 3) the chapter, entry, and paragraph indication. Verbs are always listed in the first column, even
though some are denominative. This creates some variants with the BDB system. Most words are
listed in their standard lexical form. Exceptions occur only when the textual form of a word (or
phrase) is the object of discussion. Likewise, prepositions, proclitic and enclitic particles, and pro-
nominal suffixes are cited only when they are the object of discussion. All listings are in the Hebrew
alphabet, whether or not they are transliterated in the reference. An asterisk following a Hebrew
listing signifies a root or meaning added to BDB.
‫אבד‬ I 215 d*. e*. f*. g*; 330 e*, ‫אבן הזחלת‬ IV 31 n
f*; 336 e*; II Supp 2 b ‫אבן יקרה‬ I 140 f
11 ‫אבה‬ ‫אבן יע(ראל‬ IV 1 c*, d, e
‫אב‬ I Intro g4; 1 e*; 2 d*, e*. f*, ‫אבר‬
g*, h*; 9 f*, g; 12 e*; IV 3 ‫אביר‬ I 4 e*
e*; V 29 a*, c*; 32 k I ‫אדם‬
‫אבי‬ IV 9 q ‫אדם‬ IV 38 q
‫אבי עד‬ IV 42 a*, g* 11 ‫אדם‬
‫אביאל‬ V 29 a*, d* ‫אדרם‬ III 2 u, z, aa, pp; IV 38 q
‫אבידן‬ V 36 a*, c* ‫אדן‬
‫אביה‬ IV 13 d*; 15 zz; V 29 a*, ‫אדון‬ H e * , f; Supp 2 b*; 66 b*, c;
e*. h V 30 j
‫אביהר‬ IV 15 zz; V 29 a*, f*, h ‫האדן‬ V 30 a*, c*
‫אביטרב‬ V 45 a*, d* ‫האדן יהוה‬ V 30 c*
‫אביטל‬ V 26 a*, c* ‫אדני‬ V 30 a*, d*, e*. f*. g*. j
‫אבים‬ IV 13 d; 15 a*, zz*; V 27 a* ‫א תי אלהי‬ V 30 f*
‫אבדם‬ V 42 a*, c* ‫אדני את‬ IV 39 n
‫ל)ו(ם‬#‫אב‬ IV 30 a*, g*; V 22 a* ‫א תי יהרה‬ V 30 d*
‫אבן‬ I 74 f; 245 d*; IV 1 a*, c*, ‫ צד ק‬-‫א תי‬ IV 24 a*, q*; V 30 a*, i*
d, e (‫אתיה)ו‬ V 30 a*, h*
— 535 —
‫‪B -l‬‬ ‫‪Ras Shamra Parallels‬‬
‫אדר‬ ‫איזבל‬ ‫*‪IV 9 q*; V 46 a‬‬

‫אדרמלך‬ ‫*‪IV 38 a*, t*; V 15 a‬‬ ‫איב‬ ‫*‪I 3 d*, e‬‬
‫אהב‬ ‫;*‪I 6 d*; 63 g*; Supp 3 c‬‬ ‫אץ ‪II‬‬ ‫‪I 35 e*, f*. g*. h*; 127 d*,‬‬
‫*‪100 b‬‬ ‫*‪f*. g*. h‬‬
‫אהבה‬ ‫*‪IV 21 w‬‬ ‫אץ ידע‬ ‫*‪I 127 e*, g‬‬
‫אוב‬ ‫איע‬
‫אוב‬ ‫‪IV 3 b, f; 33 1‬‬ ‫איע‬ ‫‪I Supp 37 c‬‬
‫אוד‬ ‫איע ב^ת‬ ‫’‪IV 9 y‬‬
‫איד‬ ‫‪IV 42 h‬‬ ‫איע מנוחה‬ ‫*‪I 307 d‬‬
‫אוה ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪217 h*. i‬‬ ‫אעבעל‬ ‫*‪IV 9 y‬‬
‫אי ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪I 77 e‬‬ ‫אכל‬ ‫*‪I Supp 5 b*, c‬‬
‫אול ‪II‬‬ ‫אבל‬ ‫‪I 15 d*, e‬‬
‫אלם ‪I‬‬ ‫‪IV 34 1‬‬ ‫אל ‪11‬‬
‫אלה ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪IV 8 d‬‬ ‫אל יחד בימי ענה‬ ‫‪I 178 j‬‬
‫‪ IV 8 d‬כאלה וכאלץ אער‬ ‫אל יראה בעפעפי‬
‫*‪ IV 8 d‬כאלה וכאלץ אערה‬ ‫עחר‬ ‫‪I 178 j‬‬
‫אילה‬ ‫*‪I 14 f‬‬ ‫אל מות‬ ‫‪I 107 d*, f‬‬
‫אילת העחר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 h‬‬ ‫אל‬ ‫‪I 291 e; IV 2 n; 39 s‬‬
‫אץ ‪1‬‬ ‫אל‪-‬אבגי‪-‬בור‘‬ ‫‪IV 3 d‬‬
‫און‬ ‫‪IV 6 f‬‬ ‫ואל על‬ ‫‪IV 2 n‬‬
‫אץ ‪II‬‬ ‫אלאב*‬ ‫‪IV 3 a*, d*, f‬‬
‫אוץ‬ ‫*‪IV 4 a*, d‬‬ ‫אלאבי בור‬ ‫*‪IV 3 d‬‬
‫אור‬ ‫אלה ‪I‬‬
‫אור‬ ‫;‪I 41 d*, e*. f*; Supp 11 b‬‬ ‫אל ‪II‬‬ ‫;‪I 16 d*, e*. f*; 17 d*, g‬‬
‫‪IV 11 h‬‬ ‫;*‪20 g*. i; 21 e*, f*. i; 22 h‬‬
‫אץ ‪I‬‬ ‫;*‪23 e*, g*; 24 e*, f; 28 d*, e‬‬
‫אזן‬ ‫*‪I 5 d‬‬ ‫;*‪29 g*; 30 f*; 31 e*. g; 95 e‬‬
‫אחד‬ ‫‪IV 28 j‬‬ ‫;‪124 e*, f*. g*; 140 e*; 291 e‬‬
‫‪ IV 28 j‬וכאחד הערים תפלו‬ ‫*‪IV 2 a*, b, d*. e*, f*. g‬‬
‫אחה‬ ‫*‪h*. i*, j*, k*, 1*, m*. n*. o‬‬
‫אח ‪I‬‬ ‫;‪I 7 d*. e; 8 e*, f*; 9 f*. g‬‬ ‫;®‪p*. q*. q \ q*. r*, s; 9 y, y‬‬
‫*‪13 f*; 87 e‬‬ ‫‪34 a*, b, h*. m*, u*, p*. v*.‬‬
‫אחי‬ ‫‪IV 9 q‬‬ ‫;‪y*, z*; 36 d, f; 39 d, j, 1, n‬‬
‫אחיה)ו(‬ ‫*‪V 31 a*, c‬‬ ‫‪V 40 c‬‬
‫אח) י (טוב‬ ‫*‪V 45 a*, d‬‬ ‫אל אלהי אביך‬ ‫*‪IV 2 d*, e‬‬
‫אחימות‬ ‫*‪IV 21 a*, z‬‬ ‫אל אלהי יעראל‬ ‫*‪IV 2 d*, e‬‬
‫אחירם‬ ‫*‪V 42 a*, d‬‬ ‫אל אני‬ ‫‪IV 2 j‬‬
‫אחיעחר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 a*, p‬‬ ‫אל בית־אל‬ ‫*‪IV 2 d*, e‬‬
‫אחות‬ ‫*‪I 12 e*; 13 d*, e‬‬ ‫אל ברית‬ ‫‪IV 2 1*; 9 n‬‬
‫אחז‬ ‫*‪I 10 d*. e‬‬ ‫אל גמר‬ ‫‪IV 36 d*, f‬‬
‫אחר‬ ‫לאל גמר עלי‬ ‫*‪IV 36 d‬‬
‫אחר‬ ‫‪I 11 d*. e*. f*; Supp 4 d*,‬‬ ‫אל כבוד‬ ‫*‪IV 2 p‬‬
‫‪e*. g‬‬ ‫אל הכבוד‬ ‫*‪IV 2 p‬‬
‫אחרית‬ ‫‪I Supp 4 f*, h‬‬ ‫אל עולם‬ ‫*‪IV 2 d*, e‬‬
‫אי ‪*V‬‬ ‫‪IV 9 q‬‬ ‫אל עליון‬ ‫‪IV 2 d*. e*. n*; 39 d‬‬
‫אי ‪*VI‬‬ ‫‪IV 9 q‬‬ ‫אל ראי‬ ‫*‪IV 2 d*, e‬‬
‫‪— 536‬‬
Indices B -l
‫אל ^די‬ IV 2 d*, e* ‫אני אלהיך‬ IV 24 f

‫אל)י(ם‬ IV 34 a*, b, c, g*, h*, i*, ‫אנכי‬ I 37 g*. h*, i*; Supp 10 b*;
j*, k*, k3, 1*, o*, o6, r*, u* 19 c*
‫באלם‬ IV 34 g* ‫אנף‬
‫אלוה‬ I 20 h*; 26 h*. i; 31 f*; I ‫אף‬ I 281 e; 282 g; 287 d*, e*, f
124 h*; 190 d*; 221 d*; IV * III ‫אף‬ I 40 e*. f
13 d; 39 q, 11, mm ‫אנק‬
*‫אלוה עלי‬ IV 39 11*. mm* ‫האנק דם מתים‬ I 57 e
‫אלהים‬ I 16 g*. h*; 17 e*. £*; 18 d*, II ‫אנע‬
e*; 19 e*. f; 23 f*. h*. i*. j; ‫אנוע‬ I 7 d*, e
25 h*; 27 d*; 30 d*. e*; 111 ‫אנע‬
124 i*. j*; 140 d*. f; 221 e*; ‫אעה‬ I 52 d*; 53 f*. g*, h*, i*, j
271 i; Supp 7 b*; IV 13 d; ‫אנת‬
24 f; 34 a*, b, b1, h*, m*, (‫את) ה‬ I Supp 19 c*; 56 d
p*, w*; 36 d; 39 r, u, kk; ‫אסף‬ I 39 d*, e*; 205 d*. e*. f*
41 a*, o*; 42 e; V 8 c; 30 f, 11 ‫אף‬
g; 44 e ‫אף חבב עמים‬ IV 34 r
‫אלהי ואתי‬ V 30 g* ‫אפל‬
‫אלהי יעראל‬ I 18 g ‫מאפליה‬ I Supp 13 b*
‫אלדד‬ V 8 a*, d* ‫אפן‬
‫אליאב‬ V 29 a*, g* ‫אופן‬ I 114 h*
‫אלידד‬ V 8 a*, e* ‫אפס‬
‫אלידע‬ IV 9 y® ‫אפס‬ I 281 d*. e
‫אליעם‬ V 32 k ‫אצר‬
‫אלם‬ ‫אוצר‬ I 66 d, e*
‫אלם‬ IV 34 1 ‫אוצרות רעע‬ I 66 d
‫‘ אמם‬ 1 ‫ארה‬
‫אם‬ I 231 d*. e*, f; 299 i ‫אריה‬ I 8 e*. f*. g; 59 e*. f*
IV ‫אמה‬ I 232 g ‫ארז‬
I ‫אמן‬ ‫ארז‬ I 42 d*; 186 d*
‫אמת‬ I 232 i ‫ארזי־אל‬ IV 2 q
‫אמץ‬ I 125 e*. g*. h* ‫ארח‬
‫אימץ‬ I 125 f* ‫ארח חיים‬ I 300 h
‫אמר‬ I 33 e*. f*; 312 d, e* ‫ארך‬ I Supp 36 b
‫אמרת ליהוה‬ IV 39 n ‫ארך ימים‬ I 43 e*. £*, g
‫דאמר‬ III 2 el ‫ארץ‬ I Intro g4; 30 d*, e*, f*;
‫אמר‬ I 32 d*. e*. f, g; 312 d, f* 44 d* e*. f*. g*f h*. i*. j*;
‫אמרה‬ I 312 f* 45 d*. e*. f*, g*. h*. i*;
* II ‫אמר‬ 46 h*. i*, j*; 69 g*, h*;
‫אמר‬ I 14 f*; 34 d*. e, f 99 d*, e; 116 e*; 122 d*, e*.
‫אמרי עפר‬ I 214 d; Supp 77 c f*; 151 d*, e*. f*; 153 e;
I ‫אנה‬ 161 e*; 168 f; 197 h; 212 d*.
‫אניעם‬ V 32 k e*. f*, g*, h*, i; 245 d*. e;
II ‫אנה‬ 328 d*. e*, f*, g; 344 g;
‫אניה‬ I 36 d*; 165 g*; IV 31 j Supp 14 b*; 15 b*; 16 b;
‫אני‬ I Supp 10 b* 17 b*, c; 67 b*; 103 b*;
— 537 —
B -l Ras Shamra Parallels
II 4 d*; IV 5 a*, d*. e, f; ‫בבטנו‬ I 54 h

31 k; 41 j*; V 24 a*; 44 f ‫בהר‬ I Supp 22 f
‫ארץ לא זרועה‬ I 182 d* ‫בהטתנותו‬ I 106 e
‫ארץ מאפליה‬ I Supp 13 b* ‫בחמודו‬ I 54 h
‫ארץ רפאים‬ IV 41 j* ‫בלב‬ I 252 k
‫הארץ מתחת‬ I 328 f* ‫במדבר‬ I 184 g, h
‫ארט‬ ‫במו‬ I Supp 22 c*
‫ארטת‬ I 47 d*; 313 e ‫במקום‬ I 54 g
*‫ירטת‬ I 313 d*, e ‫בפרץ‬ I Supp 23 d
‫אט‬ I 48 d*; 49 d*. e; 112 d*; ‫בטט‬ I 54 h
286 e; Supp 18 b*, c*, d, e; ‫באר‬
IV 11 g*, h*, i; 26 i ‫באר לחי ראי‬ IV 14 a*, e*
*‫אט‬ I Supp 37 b*, c I ‫בור‬ IV 3 d
‫אטד‬ *IV ‫בד‬
‫אטדודי‬ I 19 d ‫בדי ^פר‬ I 55 d*, e
‫אטור‬ V 4 a* ‫בהם‬
‫אטימא‬ IV 6 a*, d* ‫בהמות‬ IV 21 ee
‫אטכ)ו(ל‬ I 134 e*; 167 h ‫בוא‬ I 57 e; 247 e*; Supp 35 c
‫אטם‬ ‫לבא‬ II 1 f*. i
‫אטם‬ IV 6 b, f ‫תבואה‬ I 70 d*
‫אטמה‬ IV 6 a*, e*, f; 8 f; V 8 c ‫בוט‬
‫אטר‬ I Supp 4 c, f*, h ‫בטת‬ I 76 d*, e*, f; 308 d*, e, f;
‫אטר‬ I Supp 4 d*. e*, g IV 9 y, y7, y®, y»; 23 d;
‫אטר‬ I 172 e*, f*. g*, h 38 f, v
\
IV 7 a*, d* I ‫בטן‬
‫אטר‬
I ‫בטן‬ I 54 h
‫אטרי‬
:
IV 8 a*, e*, g; V 3 a*
‫אטרה‬ I 52 d*; 64 g*, h*; 65 g;
P I Intro m; Supp 96 b
P I 60 d*, e*. f*, h, i
144 d*; IV 8 a*, c*. d*. g, ‫בינה‬ I 60 i
h, i; 22 d; V 3 a* ‫בית‬ I Intro g®; 43 e*. f*, g; 56 g*;
‫אטרות‬ IV 8 h, i 69 g*. h*; 70 d*; 71 d*. e;
‫אט)י(רים‬ I 254 e; IV 8 h, i
72 d*. e*. £*, g*. h*, i; 74 d*.
*‫אטרת‬ IV 8 a*, £*, g; V 3 a*
e*, f; 269 e*. f*. g*, h*;
‫אטר‬ I 172 h; IV 7 d
Supp 29 b*
I ‫את‬ I Supp 56 d; IV 2 d ‫בית אלהיהם‬ IV 23 k
11 ‫את‬ ‫( תון‬-)‫בי ת‬ IV 10 a*, i*; V 7 a*
*‫ את־■ם רבבת קדטם‬IV 34 r* ‫בית חבר‬ I 78 e*. f
‫אתה‬ ‫בי ת)־( ח)ו( ר)ו(ן‬ IV 12 a*, d*
‫ ואתה מרבבת קדט‬iv 34 r ‫בית כלא‬ I 73 d*
‫בית לחם‬ IV 14 a*, f*
I ‫ב‬ I 5 e; 11 d*, e*. f*; 44 k; ‫בית־עזמות‬ IV 21 a*, x*
54 e*, £*, g, h; 71 e; 106 e; ‫בית־ענות‬ IV 22 a*, f*. g*, h*; V 2 a*
159 h; 167 h; 184 g, h; 232 h*. ‫בית־עגת‬ IV 22 a*, h*; V 2 a*
i; 252 k; 273 d; 284 g; 287 f; ‫בעטתרה‬ IV 23 a*, f*, h*; V 5 a*;ll a*
Supp 22 c*, d*, e, f; 23 c, ‫בית־עטתר)ו(ת‬ IV 23 a*, f*. h*. k*; V 5 a*;
d; 80 b*. c; IV 20 f, g; 42 f 11 a*
— 538 —
‫‪Indices‬‬ ‫‪B -l‬‬
‫בית רפא‬ ‫*‪V 43 a*, d‬‬ ‫בעלים‬ ‫*‪IV 9 a*, e, t*. v*; V 6 a‬‬
‫בכה‬ ‫;*‪I 57 d*, e; 58 e*; 295 d‬‬ ‫הבעלים‬ ‫*‪IV 9 a*, s*, t*. v*; V 6 a‬‬
‫‪Supp 24 c; 43 c‬‬ ‫בעלי עם ים‬ ‫‪IV 15 gg‬‬
‫בכי‬ ‫‪I 236 d*; 335 e*. f*, g‬‬ ‫בעל ‪II‬‬ ‫*‪IV 9 a*, w*. y*; V 6 a‬‬
‫בבכי יעלה בכי‬ ‫‪I 335 g‬‬ ‫בעל ברית‬ ‫*‪IV 9 a*, n*; 12 h; V 6 a‬‬
‫בכרת‬ ‫*‪I Supp 25 b‬‬ ‫ב על)־ (גד‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w*. x‬‬
‫בכ ר‬ ‫בעל המק‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w*, x‬‬
‫בכור‬ ‫‪IV 21 t‬‬ ‫בעל זבוב‬ ‫‪IV 9 a*, q*. aa; 11 a*, d*.‬‬
‫בכור מות‬ ‫‪IV 21 t‬‬ ‫*‪e*; V 6 a‬‬
‫בלה‬ ‫בעל זב)י(ל*‬ ‫‪IV 9 q*, aa; 11 d‬‬
‫בלקדעזסאעזרבארץ‬ ‫‪IV 39 n‬‬ ‫בעל חמץ*‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w*, x‬‬
‫בלת‬ ‫‪I 157 g‬‬ ‫בעל הצור‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w‬‬
‫בלע‬ ‫‪I 65 g; IV 31 g‬‬ ‫בעל הרמץ‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w*. x‬‬
‫במה‬ ‫)בית( בעל מעץ‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w‬‬
‫במתי ים‬ ‫‪IV 15 tt‬‬ ‫בעל פעור‬ ‫* ‪I 76 e*; IV 9 a*, l*,z; V 6 a‬‬
‫במתי עב‬ ‫‪IV 25 i‬‬ ‫בעל־פרצים‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w*, x‬‬
‫במות בעל‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w‬‬ ‫בעל צם) ו (ן‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w*. x*; 25 a*, h‬‬
‫בן‬ ‫;‪I 17 d*. e*; 59 e*, f*; 61 e‬‬ ‫בעל עזלעזה‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w*, x‬‬
‫‪93 e*, f*, g*. h; Supp 98 c*,‬‬ ‫בעל תמר‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w‬‬
‫*‪d‬‬ ‫בעלת‬ ‫*‪V 34 a*, c‬‬
‫בן־הדד‬ ‫*‪V 1 a*, i‬‬ ‫בעלת באר‬ ‫*‪V 34 a*, d‬‬
‫בן־ענת‬ ‫*‪IV 22 a*, g*; V 2 a‬‬ ‫בעלידע‬ ‫*‪IV 9 y‬‬
‫בן־עזחר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 e*, f*. j‬‬ ‫בעליה‬ ‫‪IV 9 y*; V 35 a*, c*. d‬‬
‫בגי אל‬ ‫*‪I 17 g; IV 34 a*, b, h‬‬ ‫בער ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪I 136 e*. f*; Supp 5 b*, c‬‬
‫בני אלים‬ ‫‪IV 34 a*, b, c, h*, i*, j*, k*,‬‬ ‫בע^זתרה‬ ‫;*‪IV 23 a*, f*. h*; V 5 a‬‬
‫*‪k®, o*, o®, u‬‬ ‫*‪11 a‬‬
‫בגי אלהים‬ ‫*‪IV 34 a*, b, b \ h*. p‬‬ ‫בצר‬ ‫*‪I 198 i‬‬
‫בני יעזראל‬ ‫‪I 17 g; IV 34 h‬‬ ‫בצר ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 166 e*, f‬‬
‫בני עליץ‬ ‫*‪I 17 f‬‬ ‫מבצר‬ ‫*‪I 198 h*, j‬‬
‫בגי עגת‬ ‫*‪IV 22 g‬‬ ‫בצר ‪*11‬‬ ‫‪I 233 d*. e‬‬
‫בני־רעזף‬ ‫‪IV 25 f‬‬ ‫בקע‬ ‫*‪I 112 d*; 206 d‬‬
‫בת ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪I 162 g‬‬ ‫כק?«‬ ‫*‪I 293 d*. f*. g‬‬
‫בת אב‬ ‫*‪I 12 e‬‬ ‫בקיזוז‬ ‫*‪I 293 e‬‬
‫כגה‬ ‫‪I 61 d*. e; 197 e*, f*. g \ h‬‬ ‫ברד‬
‫בניה)ו(‬ ‫*‪V 33 a*, d‬‬ ‫ברד‬ ‫‪IV 26 g‬‬
‫יבנאל‬ ‫*‪V 33 a*, c‬‬ ‫ברה ‪11‬‬
‫יבדה ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪V 33 a*, e‬‬ ‫ברית‬ ‫‪IV 21 f‬‬
‫יבדה ‪II‬‬ ‫*‪V 33 a*, e‬‬ ‫ברח‬
‫תבנית‬ ‫‪I 163 f‬‬ ‫בר)י(ח ‪1‬‬ ‫‪II Supp 1 d*; IV 35 b, c‬‬
‫בעד‬ ‫בי ד‬ ‫‪I Supp 43 c‬‬
‫בעד‬ ‫*‪I 62 d*, e‬‬ ‫ביו‬ ‫‪I Supp 43 c‬‬
‫בעל‬ ‫‪I 145 d*; IV 9 y‬‬ ‫ברק‬
‫בעל ‪I‬‬ ‫;‪I 6 3 g * ;6 4 g * ,h * ;6 5 e * ,f, g‬‬ ‫ברק‬ ‫*‪I 66 e‬‬
‫;*‪76 d*, e*, f ; 254 d*. e; 319 d‬‬ ‫בעזר‬ ‫*‪I 67 d*; Supp 27 b‬‬
‫*‪IV 9 a*, h, y*; 38 n; V 6 a‬‬ ‫בעזר‬ ‫;‪I Intro i; 68 d*, e*. f; 72 i‬‬
‫הבעל‬ ‫*‪IV 9 a*, e, s*, t*, u*; V 6 a‬‬ ‫‪Supp 44 c‬‬
‫בען‬ *‫מגו‬ I Supp 2 b*. c

‫ביק‬ IV 35 g, h, i I 181 e*
‫מבען אעיב אעיב‬
!‫מג‬
‫גרע‬ I 81 e*, f; 137 e*, f*; 301 e*;
‫ממצלות ים‬ IV 35 e IV 15 n*, z*
*II ‫בען‬ IV 35 a*, c, e*. f*, h, i
*‫בען העב אעיב‬ IV 35 f*
*II ‫דבב‬
‫גאה‬ IV 15 aa *‫דבבאע‬ IV 11 a*, g*
‫גאוה‬ IV 15 dd ‫דבר‬ I 85 e*; 86 d*. e*, f*. j*, k*
‫גאק‬ IV 15 aa ‫דבר‬ I 86 g*. h*. i*
‫גבה‬ I 94 f ‫דבר‬ I 84 e*, f*. g*; IV 21 h;
‫גבל‬ 26 e, f, g
I 77 e* II ‫מדבר‬ I 138 e*. f*; 182 d*, e*;
‫גבל‬
‫גבע‬ 183 e*; 184 e*, f*, g, h;
‫גבעת אמה‬ I 232 g 257 d*; Supp 13 b*. c
‫מ‬ I 78 e*; 79 d*. e 7‫דגי‬ IV 10 a*, h*, k; V 7 a*
‫גדה‬ ‫דק‬
‫גדי‬ I 167 f*. h ‫דק‬ IV 5 d; 10 a*, b, e*, f*, g*,
‫גדע‬ IV 9 y1‫״‬ h, j; V 7 a*
‫גדעק‬ IV 9 y ‫דוד‬
‫גוה‬ ‫ד)ו(ד‬ V 8 a*, b, c*
‫גוי‬ I 24 f ‫דור‬
‫גוי נבל‬ I 24 f I ‫ד)ו(ר‬ I 93 e*, f*. g*, h; Supp 81 c;
‫גדם‬ IV 41 t II Supp 3 d; IV 34 b, w*;
I ‫גור‬ V 8 f
*IV ‫גור‬ IV 9 w ‫ד)ו(ר )ו(ד)ו(ר‬ I Supp 81 c; II Supp 3 d
‫גור־בעל‬ IV 9 a*, w*; V 6 a* ‫די‬ I 90 d*
II ‫גור‬ P I 253 k
‫גור אריה‬ I 59 f* ‫דנ)י(אל‬ V 36 a*, d*
‫דא‬ ‫דם‬ I 87 e*; 88 d*. e*; 174 e*
‫גיא צלמות‬ IV 21 aa I ‫דמם‬ I 330 g
‫גיל‬ I 80 d, e*, f*; 131 g II ‫דמם‬ I 89 e*
‫גול יגול‬ I 80 d *‫דם‬ I 57 d*. e
‫גילה‬ I 80 g* ‫דמע‬ I Supp 24 c
‫גלה‬ I 231 f ‫דמע תדמע‬ I Supp 24 c
II ‫גלל‬ ‫דמעה‬ I 57 d♦, e; 296 g
‫גל אבנים‬ I 74 f ‫דמ&ק‬ I 37 j
‫גמל‬ IV 36 b ‫ייר‬ I 98 d, e*, g*; 172 d
‫גמר‬ IV 36 a*, b, d*. f; V 37 a* ‫דרך על‬ IV 31 i
‫גמר עלי‬ IV 36 d*. f ‫דיר‬ I 94 e♦, f; 98 f*. h*. i*;
‫גמר‬ IV 36 a*, e*; V 37 a* 152 g♦, h♦, i*. j, k; 172 d;
‫גמריה‬ IV 36 a*, e*; V 37 a* 225 e♦, f*; 293 h; Supp 14 b*;
‫גמריהו‬ IV 36 a*, e*; V 37 a* 29 c; IV 34 w; V 8 c, f
!‫ט‬ ‫בדרך מצרים‬ I 152 k
‫ק אלהים‬ I 140 f ‫דרע‬
‫ק המלך‬ IV 38 a*, u*; V 15 a* ‫אדרעי‬ IV 41 h
— 540 —
‫הלל ‪I‬‬
‫לדרופ‬ ‫‪II 1 g*. i‬‬ ‫הילל‬ ‫*‪IV 28 e*. f*. j‬‬
‫דפא‬ ‫חילל ב ך‪0‬זחר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 e \ f*, j‬‬
‫דפא‬ ‫‪I 138 h‬‬ ‫המה‬ ‫‪I 343 g‬‬
‫המר‬
‫ה•‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪231 f; Supp 2 c‬‬ ‫מהמרות‬ ‫‪I 99 d*, e‬‬
‫העלתיה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪231 f‬‬ ‫הן ‪11‬‬
‫הפריה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪103 g‬‬ ‫הנה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪330 d; III 2 jj‬‬
‫הפרים‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪Supp 2 c‬‬ ‫הסך‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪337 e‬‬
‫‪-‬ה*‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪103 g; 231 f‬‬ ‫הרג‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪207 h‬‬
‫העלתיה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪231 f‬‬ ‫הרגי מות‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪207 h‬‬
‫הדד‬ ‫הרה ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪100 e*. f*; 101 e‬‬
‫הדד‬ ‫*‪V 1 a*, g‬‬ ‫הרר‬
‫אדד‬ ‫*‪V 1 g‬‬ ‫הר‬ ‫‪I Supp 22 f‬‬
‫הדדעזר‬ ‫*‪V 1 a*, h‬‬ ‫הר‪-‬מועד‬ ‫*‪IV 25 a, i; 34 y*. z‬‬
‫הדד־רמץ‬ ‫*‪V 1 a*, f‬‬ ‫הר‪-‬מועד בירכתי‬ ‫*‪IV 25 a*, i‬‬
‫הוא‬ ‫‪I 37 g*. h*, i*; 95 e*; 106 e‬‬ ‫צפון‬
‫הוא דנמ&ק‬ ‫‪I 37 j‬‬ ‫הר״ציון ירכתי צפץ‬ ‫*‪IV 25 a*, j‬‬
‫הוה‬ ‫הררי‪-‬אל‬ ‫‪IV 2 q*. q1‬‬
‫הוה‬ ‫*‪I 217 f*. g‬‬
‫ו‬ ‫‪I 106 e; 131 g; 157 e*. f*, g,‬‬
‫יהוה‬ ‫;‪I 95 f; 157 g; 214 f; 271 i‬‬ ‫‪h; Supp 2 c; 56 d‬‬
‫;‪II Intro i3; III 1 d; IV 2 k‬‬
‫ואת‬ ‫‪I Supp 56 d‬‬
‫; ‪13 a*, d*, e; 15 w; 24 m, 0‬‬ ‫* ‪T‬‬
‫‪I Supp 56 d‬‬

‫ואת‬
‫;‪34 m, aa; 39 n, s, t, y‬‬ ‫והוא‬ ‫‪I 106 e‬‬
‫‪V 30 c, d, e; 43 c; 44 c; 45 e‬‬ ‫ומגן‬ ‫‪I Supp 2 c‬‬
‫יהוה אדני‬ ‫*‪V 30 e‬‬ ‫וישמח‬ ‫‪I 131 g‬‬
‫יהוד• יהוה אל‬ ‫‪-‬ו*‬ ‫;‪I 106 e; 218 g; Supp 17 c‬‬
‫רחום וחנון‬ ‫*‪IV 2 k‬‬
‫‪57 c‬‬
‫יהוה מלך‬ ‫‪I Intro h; 271 i‬‬
‫בחדשו‬ ‫‪I 106 e‬‬
‫יהוה ימלך‬ ‫‪III 1 d‬‬ ‫לבו‬ ‫‪I Supp 57 c‬‬
‫יהוה על כן*‬ ‫*‪IV 39 y‬‬
‫נפ‪#‬ו‬ ‫‪I 218 g‬‬
‫יהוה צבאות פסט‬
‫צדק‬ ‫*‪V 44 d‬‬ ‫זבב‬
‫יהוה פלום‬ ‫*‪IV 30 a*, h; V 22 a‬‬ ‫זבוב‬ ‫;*‪IV 9 q, aa; 11 a*, b, d*. e‬‬
‫יה‬ ‫‪IV 15 zz; 26 i; V 32 k; 47 e‬‬ ‫‪V 6 a‬‬
‫יהו*‬ ‫‪IV 15 zz; V 32 k‬‬ ‫זבח‬ ‫*‪I 213 e‬‬
‫יואט‬ ‫‪IV 9 y‬‬ ‫זבח ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪I 82 d‬‬
‫יהורם‬ ‫*‪V 42 a*, e‬‬ ‫זבחי אלהיהן‬ ‫‪IV 9 z‬‬
‫יהופסט‬ ‫*‪V 44 a*, g‬‬ ‫זבחי מתים‬ ‫‪IV 9 z‬‬
‫היה‬ ‫מזבח‬ ‫*‪I 83 d‬‬
‫היה פדי בצריך‬ ‫‪I 166 f‬‬ ‫מזבחות לבפ ת‬ ‫‪I 76 f‬‬
‫ויהי‬ ‫‪III 2 el‬‬ ‫זבל‬
‫הין ‪*II‬‬ ‫‪IV 37 a*, d, e‬‬ ‫זבל ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪IV 9 q*. aa; 11 d; V 46 a‬‬
‫הלך‬ ‫‪I 96 d*; 97 e*; 98 e*. f*. g*,‬‬ ‫זבל ‪II‬‬ ‫*‪IV 9 q*; V 46 a‬‬
‫‪h*. i*; 237 e*. f*; 302 g*,‬‬ ‫זב)ו(ל)ו(ן‬ ‫*‪IV 9 q*; V 46 a‬‬
‫‪h♦; Supp 47 b♦, c*; IV 38 f‬‬ ‫זה‬ ‫‪I 18 d*. e♦, f‬‬
‫— ‪— 541‬‬
‫זה סעי‬ ‫‪1 18 g‬‬ ‫‪pin‬‬ ‫*‪IV 12 a*, f‬‬

‫זוב‬ ‫‪I 255 e*. f‬‬ ‫חוש ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 96 d‬‬
‫זור ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 130 e‬‬ ‫חזה ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 178 i*, j; Supp 83 b‬‬
‫זר‬ ‫‪V 38 d‬‬ ‫חזה‬ ‫‪IV 21 f‬‬
‫דד‬ ‫‪I 299 d‬‬ ‫חזות‬ ‫‪IV 21 f‬‬
‫דת‬ ‫‪I Intro h; 103 d*. e*, f*.‬‬ ‫חזיון‬ ‫*‪I Supp 83 c‬‬
‫*‪h; 104 g*, h*, i‬‬ ‫חזק‬
‫זמם‬ ‫חזקים כראי מוצק‬ ‫‪I 280 d‬‬
‫זמה ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 82 d*. e‬‬ ‫חיה‬ ‫;*‪I 107 d*. e*, f; 108 d‬‬
‫זמר ‪III‬‬ ‫;*‪109 e*; 110 g*; 128 d*, h‬‬
‫זמרה ‪*III‬‬ ‫*‪V 47 a*, e‬‬ ‫*‪187 d*; Supp 39 b*. c‬‬
‫זמרי ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪V 47 a*, d‬‬ ‫חי ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I Supp 37 b‬‬
‫זמרי ‪11‬‬ ‫*‪V 47 a*, c‬‬ ‫חיים‬ ‫;*‪I 108 e*, f; 110 e*, f*. h‬‬
‫זעם‬ ‫‪128 e*. f*. g*; 218 d; 239 d♦,‬‬
‫זעם לשונם‬ ‫‪I 113 h‬‬
‫*‪e*; 300 h; Supp 39 d‬‬
‫זרע ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪I 182 d‬‬
‫‪ IV 29 f‬וחיתו מעבר בשלח‬
‫זרע‬ ‫*‪I 182 e‬‬
‫חכם‬
‫זרע ‪11‬‬
‫חכם‬ ‫*‪I 110 e*. f‬‬
‫זרוע‬ ‫*‪I 285 d‬‬
‫חכמה‬ ‫;*‪I 20 g*, h*, i; 110 g*, h‬‬
‫זרע ישראל‬ ‫‪IV 1 e‬‬
‫*‪123 e‬‬
‫זרק‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪38 h‬‬
‫חלה ‪I‬‬
‫מזרק‬ ‫‪I Supp 80 c‬‬
‫חלל ‪I‬‬ ‫‪III 1 i‬‬
‫חבל ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 101 e*, f‬‬ ‫*‪ Supp 1 d 11‬חללה ידוגחש בריח‬
‫חבלי־מות‬ ‫‪IV 21 1‬‬ ‫חלל ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 300 f*. i‬‬
‫חבלי שאול‬ ‫‪IV 21 1‬‬ ‫חלם ‪II‬‬
‫חבר‬ ‫חלום‬ ‫‪I Supp 41 b*; III 2 jj‬‬
‫חבר ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 78 e*. f‬‬ ‫חמד‬ ‫*‪I 54 h; 111 e‬‬
‫חגב‬ ‫מחמד‬ ‫*‪I 186 d‬‬
‫חגב ‪I‬‬ ‫‪V 9 b‬‬ ‫חמה ‪I‬‬
‫חגב ‪II‬‬ ‫*‪V 9 a*, c‬‬ ‫חומה‬ ‫‪I 343 e*, f*. g‬‬
‫חדה ‪*III‬‬ ‫‪I 178 h*, j‬‬ ‫חמם‬
‫חדר‬ ‫חמץ‬ ‫‪IV 9 w, x‬‬
‫חדר‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪105‬‬ ‫*‪e‬‬ ‫חמס‬
‫חדש‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪106‬‬ ‫‪d*, e‬‬ ‫חמס‬ ‫‪I 281 e‬‬
‫חדש ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪106‬‬ ‫‪e‬‬ ‫חמץ ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪I Supp 49 b‬‬
‫חוה ‪III‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪314‬‬ ‫*‪e*. f‬‬ ‫חץ ‪I‬‬ ‫‪II Intro is‬‬
‫אחוה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪314‬‬ ‫*‪g‬‬ ‫חמי יהוה‬ ‫*‪II Intro i‬‬
‫חוה ‪* IV‬‬ ‫חץ‬ ‫‪IV 37 e‬‬
‫והשתחוו לו כל‬ ‫חנו!‬ ‫‪IV 2 k‬‬
‫אלהים‬ ‫‪1V 34 h‬‬ ‫ועף‬ ‫*‪I 117 e‬‬
‫חוח‬ ‫תחנף את הארץ‬ ‫‪I 245 e‬‬
‫חוח‬ ‫‪I 116 d‬‬ ‫חסד ‪I‬‬
‫חח‬ ‫*‪I 116 e‬‬ ‫חסד ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 139 e‬‬
‫חול ‪I‬‬ ‫*‪I 38 h; 97 e*; 100 e*, f‬‬ ‫חס! ‪*II‬‬ ‫‪I 204 e*. f‬‬
‫חור ‪11‬‬ ‫חסר ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 15 d*. e‬‬
‫מחר בשן אשיב*‬ ‫*‪IV 35 e‬‬ ‫חצב‬ ‫‪III 1 i‬‬
‫— ‪— 542‬‬
Indices B -l
1 ‫חצץ‬ 11 ‫בול‬ I 232 g

‫חץ‬ IV 26 f ‫יד‬ I 124 e*. f*, g*. h*. i*. j*;
‫חץ יעוף‬ IV 26 f 125 e*. f♦, g*, h*; 126 d*,
11 ‫חצר‬ e♦, f*; 230 e*, f*. g*. h;
‫חצרמות‬ IV 21 a*, y* 240 d*, f*. g♦; 252 f♦, g*,
‫חקק‬ h*. i*, j*. k; Supp 45 c;
‫חק‬ I Supp 48 c 46 c*; 79 b*
111 ‫חרב‬ ‫ידי ורגלי‬ I 230 h
‫חרב‬ I 112 d*; 113 e*. f*, g*; II ‫ידד‬
207 d*, e*, f*, g*; Supp 45 c ‫ידיד‬ I 168 e*
11 ‫חרץ‬ IV 12 a*, g* ‫ידע‬ I 13 e*. f*; 127 d*. e*. f*.
‫ח)ו(ר)ו(ן‬ IV 12 a*, d*. e*, f* g*. h*; 128 d*, e*. f*. g*;
‫ח)ו(ר)ו(נים‬ IV 12 a*, e* 129 e*; 130 d*; 290 f; 341 d*;
1 ‫חרץ‬ Supp 47 b*, c♦; 74 b*
1 ‫חרוץ‬ I 114 h* ‫דעת‬ I 32 d*. e♦, f, g; 128 h♦
11 ‫חרץ‬ ‫ים אדע‬0 ‫ ידעת קד‬IV 33 1
V ‫חרוץ‬ I 48 d*; 61 e ‫ידעני‬ IV 33 1
111 ‫חרר‬ ‫מדע‬ I 13 d*
111 ‫ח)ו(ר‬ IV 12 e ‫מדוע‬ I 185 e*
1 «hn I 243 f*; 297 e*. f *11 ‫ידע‬
#‫חר‬ I 115 d* *11 ‫דעת‬ I 92 d*. e
‫חתה‬ I 29 h ‫יום‬ I 43 e*. f*. g; 178 j; Supp
‫חתך‬ I 29 g*, h 48 b*; IV 15 rr*. ba
‫חתם‬ I 163 f ‫יזע‬
‫חותם תמית‬ I 163 e* ‫יזע‬ I 282 e*. f
‫חתת‬ I 118 d*. g; 119 d* ‫זעה‬ I 91 e*. f; 92 e
11 ‫חת‬ I 118 e*, f ‫זעת אפיך‬ I 282 g
‫יחד‬
‫יחד כוכבי בקר‬ IV 34 p*
1 ‫טוב‬ I 120 e*; 322 f*
‫יחם‬
11 ‫טוב‬ I 168 e*; V 45 a*, e* ‫חמה‬ I 325 f
‫טובה‬ I 170 f*
‫יטב‬ I 322 e*, g*. h*
*‫טבתי בל על‬ IV 39 n*
‫היטיבי נגן‬ I 322 i
(‫ט)ו(ביה)ו‬ V 45 a*, d*
1 ‫טלל‬ ‫יין‬
‫ייז‬ I 134 e*; 135 f*; 327 e*. f*;
‫טל‬ I 41 d*, e*, f*; 121 d*, e*.
Supp 49 b*; 80 c
f*. g; 122 d*. e*, f*; 250 d*.
‫היין‬ IV 37 d
e*. f*; V 26 b, c*
‫ילד‬ I 2 d♦, e*. f*. g*; 67 d*;
‫טל היטמים‬ II 4 d*
101 e*, f*; 121 g; 131 e*. g;
278 e*; IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a♦
*‫—ר‬ I Supp 18 f; 53 f; 57 c; ‫ילד להרסה‬ IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a*
IV 26 h, i ‫ילדו להרסה‬ IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a*
‫כילי‬ I Supp 57 c ‫ילדי הרסא‬ IV 41 a*, m*; V 43 a*
‫יבל‬ I 227 d* ‫ילדי הרסאים‬ IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a♦
‫יובלק מנחתי‬ I 227 e ‫נולד להרסא‬ IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a*
‫יבול‬ I 232 g ‫נולדו להרסא‬ IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a*
— 543
‫יל)י(ד‬ IV 41 a*, 1♦, m*; V 43 a* ‫יצת‬ I Supp 18 f

*‫יל)י(ד הרפא‬ IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a♦ ‫יקר‬ I 140 e*
‫יל)י(די הרפה‬ IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a* I 140 d♦, f
‫ קי‬:
‫מ)ו(לדת‬ I Intro g4; 2 h*; 168 e♦, f ‫יקע‬
‫תולדות‬ III 2 e, el, 1 ‫מ)ו(קעי מות‬ IV 21 1, 1*
♦‫ילך‬ IV 38 f ‫ירד‬ I 142 d*. e*, f*; 208 g*, h♦,
* ‫ל ם‬- IV 12 e i*, 238 ;*‫ נ‬e*, f*; 252 1;
‫ימואל‬ IV 15 a*, aa*, ca; V 27 a* Supp 13 c
‫ימם‬ ‫ירה‬ I 143 d*; 252 1
‫ים‬ I 132 e*; 195 d*, e*, g; ‫יורה‬ I 141 e*, f
II Supp 1 d♦; III 1 pp1‫;״‬ ‫ירועלם‬ IV 30 a*. f*; V 22 a*
IV 13 d; 15 a♦, 1*. m♦, n*, ‫ירח‬
o♦, s♦, w♦, y♦, dd*, ff*. gg♦, ‫ירח‬T
I 144 d*; Supp 48 b*, c;
hh*. ii*, jj♦, kk*, 11♦, mm♦, V 28 a*, c*
oo♦, rr*, ss*, tt♦, vv♦, zz*, ‫ירך‬
ba, da; 35 e, h; V 27 a* ‫ירכתי‬ IV 25 a♦, i*, j*, m
‫כים נגרע‬ IV 15 n* ‫ירכתי צפון‬ IV 25 a*, i*, ]*, m
‫ימים‬ IV 15 a*, s, s1, u*, dd*; ah' I 48 e; 111 e*; 145 d*;
25 e; V 27 a♦ 146 e*; 338 e*, f♦, g*
F ‫ירעה‬ I 313 e
1 ‫ימץ‬ I 133 d*; 258 d♦, e; IV 24 f, ‫תיר)ו(ע‬ IV 5 d; 10 e, j; 32 a*, b,
r; 25 e d♦, e*, f*
‫)ב(ימץ צדקי‬ IV 24 f, r ‫יע‬ I 50 d*. e*. f*, g*, h; 51 h*. i;
*h i ‫ימץ‬ IV 25 e Supp 37 c
1 ‫תימן‬ I 268 e♦, f ‫יעב‬ I 151 d*, e*. f*; 152 h*. i*;
‫ינק‬ I 129 e* 153 d*; 154 d*, e*, f*, g;
‫יסר‬ I 24 f; 153 d♦ 155 e♦, f; 156 e*; 192 d, e*,
‫יעד‬ f♦; 210 k*, 1; 222 d*; 238 e*,
1 ‫עדה‬ I 22 h♦ f♦, g; 336 e♦; 337 e*; 338 e*.
‫אל‬-‫עדת‬ IV 34 b, m♦, n* f♦, g*; 339 e*; Supp 15 b♦;
‫מועד‬ IV 34 b, y*. z* 53 f; 54 c; 86 c; II Supp 8 b
‫מועד‬ I 196 d* ‫ פתח עער‬. . . ‫ יעבים‬II Supp 8 b
‫י ע ץ‬T I 197 h ‫לסבת העמק‬ I 155 f
‫יפה‬ I 331 g♦ ‫נחסכת מימים‬ IV 15 s
‫יפה‬ I 53 i*; 331 f* 1 ‫עבת‬ I 192 g*
‫יפי‬ I 53 f*. g♦, h*; 163 e* ‫מועב‬ I 152 g*
‫יצא‬ I 136 d, e♦, f*, g; 137 e*, ‫יעע‬
f*; 139 d♦; 146 e*; 238 g; ‫יעועה‬ V 47 e
318 d♦, e* ‫יער‬
‫מוציא כ‬ I 71 e ‫יער‬ IV 24 a*, b, n*, o*
1 ‫מ)ו(צא‬ I 138 e*, f*. h ‫מיערים‬ IV 24 a*, i*, r
‫מוצא מים‬ I 189 g* ‫מיער‬ I 155 f
‫מוצא עפתי‬ I 272 e♦, f ‫יתם‬
‫ומוצא עפתי לא‬ ‫יתום‬ I 235 e*
‫ אענה‬f 272 1 ‫יתר‬
‫יצק‬ I 179 d*, e; 265 f; 280 d ‫יתרעם‬ V 32 k
— 544 —
‫כ‬ ‫כלה ‪11‬‬

‫כיגבהו‬ ‫‪1 94 f‬‬ ‫כ)י(ל*‬ ‫‪I Supp 57 b♦, c, d‬‬
‫כיהויה‬ ‫‪1 157 g‬‬ ‫כלי כליו‬ ‫‪I Supp 57 d‬‬
‫כפרץ‬ ‫‪I Supp 23 d‬‬ ‫כליה‬ ‫‪I Supp 57 c‬‬
‫כרב לפרי‬ ‫‪I 46 k‬‬ ‫כלל ‪1‬‬
‫כ מו ב ח ר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 o‬‬ ‫כל‬ ‫‪I 184 h; 261 d; 305 e*, f‬‬
‫כבב‬ ‫כל בני אל‬ ‫*‪IV 34 h‬‬
‫כוכב‬ ‫*‪I 31 f*; 190 d‬‬ ‫כל בגי אלים‬ ‫*‪IV 34 h‬‬
‫כוכבי‪-‬אל‬ ‫*‪I 31 e*, g; IV 34 b, y*, z‬‬ ‫כל אלהים‬ ‫*‪IV 34 h‬‬
‫כוכבי בקר‬ ‫*‪IV 34 b, p‬‬ ‫כל י ^בי בה‬ ‫*‪I Supp 15 b‬‬
‫כבד‬ ‫‪I 158 e*, f‬‬ ‫כ ל עצמותי‬ ‫‪I 230 h‬‬
‫נכבדי ארץ‬ ‫‪I 344 g‬‬ ‫כל־ק ^זיו בידך‬ ‫‪IV 34 r‬‬
‫כבד‬ ‫‪I 158 d*. f‬‬ ‫כל קד^ם בידך*‬ ‫*‪IV 34 r‬‬
‫כב)ו(ד ‪11‬‬ ‫;‪I 159 e*. f♦, g, h; 160 d*, e‬‬ ‫כליל יפי‬ ‫*‪I 163 e‬‬
‫‪323 f; IV 2 p‬‬ ‫כ ל ל ‪11‬‬
‫כבר ‪1‬‬ ‫כלה‬ ‫*‪I 162 g‬‬
‫כביר‬ ‫‪I 285 e‬‬ ‫כלם‬
‫כלמה‬ ‫‪I 308 f‬‬
‫‪°‬ז ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I Intro m; 164 d*; 192 d,‬‬
‫‪e*, f*; 199 e*, f*; Supp 96 b‬‬ ‫כמו*ז‬ ‫*‪IV 16 a*, b, d*; V 12 a‬‬
‫מכק‬ ‫כמת‬
‫*‪I 192 g‬‬
‫מכמתת א*ור‬
‫כוס ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 274 e‬‬ ‫‪G‬י‬
‫‪U‬‬
‫‪IV 22 g‬‬
‫‪a‬‬
‫כור ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 168 f‬‬ ‫כנע‬

‫מצרה‬ ‫‪I 168 e*, f‬‬ ‫מעד ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 168 f‬‬
‫מכרתיך ומלדתיך‬ ‫מף‬
‫מארץ הכנעני‬ ‫‪I 168 f‬‬ ‫מ פי־ ע ח ר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 1‬‬
‫כו ‪0‬ן ר ‪0‬עתים‬ ‫‪IV 18 g‬‬ ‫מר‬
‫כחע‬ ‫‪I 161 e*. f‬‬ ‫טו ר‬ ‫*‪IV 17 a*, e*. g; V 13 a‬‬
‫כח ‪*11 0‬‬ ‫‪I 210 k*, 1‬‬ ‫מרו ת‬ ‫*‪IV 17 a*, f*; V 13 a‬‬
‫כי ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 157 e*, f*, g, h; Supp 56 d‬‬ ‫כפא‬ ‫*‪I 270 e*. f♦; 279 d‬‬
‫כסף‬ ‫‪I Supp 44 c‬‬
‫כי‪-‬אלהים ‪0‬םט‬ ‫*‪V 44 e‬‬
‫כסף‬ ‫;*‪I 61 e; 123 e*; 165 g‬‬
‫כי אני יהוה רפאך‬ ‫*‪V 43 c‬‬
‫*‪166 e*; Supp 60 b‬‬
‫כי אתה‬ ‫‪I Supp 56 d‬‬ ‫כפף‬
‫כי גבהו‬ ‫‪I 94 f‬‬ ‫כפה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪Supp 94 c‬‬
‫כי‪-‬טוב‬ ‫*‪V 45 e‬‬ ‫כ&ר ‪111‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪167 d, f*. g*. i‬‬
‫כי‪-‬טוב יהוה‬ ‫*‪V 45 e‬‬ ‫כרה ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪168 f‬‬
‫כי יתרו פתח ויענני‬ ‫‪I 242 f‬‬ ‫מכרה*‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪168 e*. f‬‬
‫כי מי ‪0‬ךר אל‬ ‫*‪IV 2 m‬‬ ‫מכרתיך ומלדתיך‬
‫כי מישראל‬ ‫‪IV 2 m‬‬ ‫מארץ ה מ ע ר‬ ‫‪I 168 f‬‬
‫כיקדו ^יהוהאלהמו‬ ‫‪i 271 1‬‬ ‫כרם‬ ‫*‪I 169 e‬‬
‫כיון‬ ‫‪IV 41 k‬‬ ‫כ ‪0‬ר‬ ‫‪I 170 e*. g‬‬
‫כים‬ ‫*‪I 280 e‬‬ ‫כערץ‬ ‫*‪I 170 f‬‬
‫כלא‬ ‫‪*TBb‬‬ ‫*‪IV 18 a*, e*; V 14 a‬‬
‫כלא‬ ‫*‪I 73 d‬‬ ‫מ!זיר ענבים‬ ‫*‪IV 18 e‬‬
‫כלה ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 263 d*; III 1 i; IV 36 b‬‬ ‫כת‪8‬ר*‬ ‫‪IV 18 g‬‬
‫תכלית‬ ‫‪I 163 f‬‬ ‫כגזרות‬ ‫*‪I 71 d*. e; IV 19 a*, d*. e‬‬
‫‪— 545‬‬
‫ב כו רו ת‬ ‫*‪IV 19 e‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫מלאכי‪-‬מות‬ ‫‪I 171 e ; IV 21‬‬ ‫*‪V‬‬

‫כי^זור‬ ‫*‪IV 18 a*, f*; V 14 a‬‬ ‫מלאכה‬ ‫‪I 195 d*, f‬‬
‫מלאוך♦‬ ‫‪I 195 e*. g‬‬
‫ל‬ ‫;‪I 32 g; 75 e*. f*; 300 h, i‬‬ ‫לבב‬
‫‪Supp 22 c*. d*. e, f; 63 c‬‬ ‫לבב‬ ‫*‪I 172 g‬‬
‫לאל יד‬ ‫‪IV 33 b‬‬ ‫לב‬ ‫;‪I 32 f; 172 e*, f*. g*, h‬‬
‫לדעת‬ ‫‪I 32 g‬‬ ‫‪252 k; Supp 57 b*, c; IV‬‬
‫למי מות־מו‬ ‫‪IV 21 u‬‬ ‫‪15 dd‬‬
‫לממתים‬ ‫‪I 300 h; IV 21 u‬‬ ‫בלב ימים‬ ‫‪IV 15 dd‬‬
‫ל‪#‬חת‬ ‫‪I 300 i; IV 21 u‬‬ ‫לק‬
‫ל‪#‬ם‬ ‫‪I 308 f‬‬ ‫לבנון‬ ‫*‪I 173 d‬‬
‫למ מתים*‬ ‫‪I 300 h; IV 21 u‬‬ ‫לבנה‬ ‫‪I 42 d*. e‬‬
‫למ ענותם*‬ ‫‪I 243 g‬‬ ‫לבנים נפלו‬ ‫‪I 42 e‬‬
‫למו תם*‬ ‫‪IV 21 r‬‬ ‫מלבן‬ ‫‪IV 38 i‬‬
‫לא‬ ‫;*‪I 16 i; 118 f, h; 130 e; 182 d‬‬ ‫לב*ו‬
‫‪272 f; 289 d; IV 21 i; 33 d,‬‬ ‫לב*ו‬ ‫*‪I 174 e‬‬
‫‪e, f, g, h, i‬‬ ‫לו‬
‫ל א־ אל‬ ‫‪IV 39 1‬‬ ‫לא‬ ‫‪IV 33 1‬‬
‫לא אלה‬ ‫‪IV 39 1‬‬ ‫לו למדתי חכמת אל‬ ‫‪iv 2 r‬‬
‫לא ירעם‬ ‫‪IV 33 f‬‬ ‫לולא‬ ‫‪IV 33 h‬‬
‫לא מות‬ ‫*‪I 107 e‬‬ ‫לוה ‪111‬‬
‫לא נמות‬ ‫‪IV 21 i; 33 d‬‬ ‫לרה‬ ‫‪I 232 g‬‬
‫לא על‬ ‫‪IV 39 1‬‬ ‫לדתן‬ ‫;‪, i‬־"‪IV 15 hh; 20 a♦, b, d*. f‬‬
‫לא תבוא‬ ‫‪I 57 e‬‬ ‫‪31 1; 35 c‬‬
‫לא תעז‪4‬ה‬ ‫‪I 57 e‬‬ ‫ברח‬ ‫לדתן‬ ‫‪IV 35 c‬‬
‫‪ IV 2 r‬ולא־למדתי חכמה‬ ‫‪ IV 35 c‬לדתן ‪ tfm‬עקלתון‬
‫ולא נתכנו‬ ‫‪IV 33 d‬‬ ‫לוח‬
‫לאה ‪*11‬‬ ‫לוח‬ ‫*‪I 176 e*; 177 e‬‬
‫לא*‬ ‫‪I 16 d*. e*. f*. h*. i; 118 d*,‬‬ ‫לחה‬ ‫‪IV 14 e‬‬
‫‪e*, f, g, h; IV 33 a*, b, e*,‬‬ ‫*‪IV 14 a*, e‬‬
‫לחי*‬
‫‪g*, h*, i*, 1‬‬
‫לחח‬ ‫‪IV 14 e‬‬
‫לא ליד*‬ ‫‪IV 33 b‬‬
‫לחם*‬ ‫*‪IV 14 a*, f‬‬
‫לאה‬ ‫‪IV 33 b‬‬
‫‪IV 33 a*, f*. j‬‬ ‫לח‬ ‫‪I Supp 17 c; IV 14 h‬‬
‫לאי*‬
‫לאי רעם*‬ ‫*‪TV 33 f‬‬ ‫לחמו*‬ ‫‪I Supp 17 c‬‬
‫לאיתיאל*‬ ‫‪IV 33 b‬‬ ‫לחי*‬ ‫*‪IV 14 a*, e‬‬
‫לאן*‬ ‫*‪I 16 g*; IV 33 a*, d‬‬ ‫לחם ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 154 e*, g‬‬
‫לאן מות*‬ ‫*‪IV 21 i; 33 d‬‬ ‫לחם‬ ‫‪I Intro i; 34 d*, e; 68 d*.‬‬
‫ולאן ת ק *‬ ‫*‪IV 33 d‬‬ ‫‪e*, f; 72 d*, e*. f*. g*. h*.‬‬
‫לו לא*‬ ‫*‪IV 33 h‬‬ ‫;*‪i; 91 e*; 154 d*, f*; 175 e‬‬
‫ללא*‬ ‫*‪IV 33 h‬‬ ‫*‪228 d*, e*. f*; 294 e‬‬
‫נלאה*‬ ‫‪I 27 d*, e; IV 33 b‬‬ ‫לחם דמעה‬ ‫‪I 296 g‬‬
‫פלאיה‬ ‫‪IV‬‬ ‫‪33 b‬‬ ‫לקח‬ ‫‪I 178 h*. i*; 179 d*, e; 248‬‬
‫לאד‬
‫‪d♦, e‬‬
‫מלאך‬ ‫*‪I 171 d*, e; 195 g; 196 d‬‬ ‫ל‪0‬זן‬ ‫*‪I 180 e‬‬
‫מלאך מות‬ ‫‪I 171 e‬‬ ‫א‪8‬ון‬ ‫‪I 113 e*. f*. g*, h‬‬
‫— ‪— 546‬‬
Indices B -l
*1 ‫ ם‬- I 248 e; 308 e; Supp 17 c; 0 *, P*. ,l*‫ ׳‬s*> u*41 '‫ ׳‬a*,
IV 28 k; 34 k, r; 38 j; 39 gg k*, p♦, r; 42 h; V 15 a*
‫נכרים‬ I 248 e ‫מלך־אדום לעיד‬ IV 38 q*
‫עמתים‬ I 308 e ‫מלך עולם‬ I 239 f; IV 41 a*, p*
*h i ‫מו‬- I Supp 17 c ‫מלבים ויעצי ארץ‬ I 197 h
*11 ‫ ם‬- I 308 e ‫מלך‬ IV 38 a*, b, c, f*, g*, h*.
‫עמודם‬ I 308 e j*, k*, n*. ‫*ס‬, p*, r*. s*;
‫מות‬ I 57 e; 84 g*; 107 d*. e*. f; V 15 a*
205 d*, e*; 206 d*; 207 f*. ‫למלך‬ IV 38 n*
g*; 208 g*, h*. j*; 209 d*; ‫מלוכה‬ I 198 j*
226 d*; 246 e*; 300 e*, h; ‫ממלכה‬ I 198 h*, i*
Supp 70 d*, e*; 72 c*; IV ‫מלכי־צדק‬ IV 24 a*, q*
21 i, u ‫מלכם‬ IV 38 a*, j*, k*, 0*, p*, s*;
‫ממתים‬ IV 21 u V 15 a*
‫מתים‬ IV 21 u *‫מלכן‬ IV 38 a*, i*; V 15 a*
‫מות‬ I 84 e*. f*; 171 d*, e; 205 f; 11 ‫מלך‬ I Intro h; 199 e*. f*; 271 f*,
207 d*. e*, h; 208 i*. j*; i; III 1 d; IV 38 f*, q*. v;
300 g*; Supp 70 c*; 72 d*; 41 p
IV 21 a*, b, f*, h*. i*, k*, *‫מלך אדם‬ IV 38 q*
1*, 1‫־‬, m*, 0 *, p*, t*, v*, w*, *‫מלך אדם לעוד‬ IV 38 q*
bb*; 38 f -‫מן‬ I Supp 22 e
‫יעימות עלימו‬ IV 21 p ‫מבית‬ IV 21 k, ee
‫למותם‬ IV 21 r* ‫מהר‬ I Supp 22 f
‫מות ירעם‬ IV 21 0 ‫מרחם‬ I 299 i
‫ממותי חלל‬ I 300 f*, i ‫מעדי‬ I 299 i
‫מחץ‬ I 187 d*; 188 f; 209 d*; ‫מעע‬ I 54 h
III 1 i; IV 15 vv, vv»* ‫מנה‬
‫מחץ רהב‬ IV 15 vv ‫מנחה‬ I 227 e
*‫ מחצת מצלות ים‬IV 35 f ‫מצא‬ I 306 d*; Supp 68 b*
*‫ ממחץ בען אעוב‬IV 35 e* ‫מצר‬
*‫מחצב‬ I 188 e*, f ‫מצרים‬ I Supp 7 b*
‫מחר‬ ‫מרד‬
‫מרדך‬ V 16 a*, c*
1 ‫מחיר‬ I Supp 60 b* ‫מרדך בלאדן‬ V 16 a*, d*
‫מטר‬ I 141 e*, f; 251 g*; Supp 16 b ‫בראדך בלאדן‬ V 16 d*
‫מי‬ ‫מעה‬ I Supp 2 c
‫מים‬ I 89 e*; 189 d, e*. f*, g*; ‫מעיה‬ I 289 g; Supp 2 c
190 d*; 191 e*; 298 d*. e* 111 ‫מעל‬
‫מים רבים‬ IV 15 y ‫ממעלה‬ II Supp 3 d
‫מלא‬ I 81 e*, f; 193 d*; 194 d*; ‫מת‬ I 300 h
303 d*, e* ‫מתועאל‬ IV 14 d
‫מתועלת‬ IV 14 a*, d*. g; 29 a*, e*
1 ‫מלך‬ IV 38 c
‫מתן‬
1 ‫»לך‬ I 197 e*. f*, g*. h; 200 d*, ‫מתנים‬ I 38 e♦, f♦, g*
e*, f*; 271 e*. g*; 289 g;
Supp 66 b*. c; 67 b*; IV 11 ‫נבו‬ V 17 a*, c*
38 a*, c, f*, h*, j*, 1*, m*. ‫נבכדנאצר‬ V 17 a*, d*
— 547 —
36
‫נבל ‪11‬‬ ‫גכר ‪11‬‬

‫נבל ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 24 f‬‬ ‫נכרי‬ ‫‪I 248 e‬‬
‫מה‬ ‫‪I 123 d‬‬ ‫נמואל‬ ‫‪IV 15 aa, ca‬‬
‫‪P‬‬ ‫‪I 322 i‬‬ ‫נסך ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 289 d, g‬‬
‫מ‪#‬‬ ‫נסכתי מלכי‬ ‫‪I 289 g‬‬
‫נ*ז העם הזה בפיו‬ ‫‪I 158 f‬‬ ‫נסך‬ ‫*‪I 311 d‬‬
‫נדד ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 211 d*. e*. f*, g*, h‬‬ ‫נסיך ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 289 g‬‬
‫נדף‬ ‫‪I 20 i‬‬ ‫נעם ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 331 g‬‬
‫נדר‬ ‫‪I 4d‬‬ ‫נעם‬ ‫*‪V 38 a*, c‬‬
‫נדר‬ ‫*‪I 4 e‬‬ ‫נכים ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 214 e*, f; 331 f‬‬
‫גהר ‪1‬‬ ‫נעמנים‬ ‫*‪V 38 a*, d‬‬
‫נהר‬ ‫‪IV 15 a*, k*, o*. u*, w*.‬‬ ‫נסח‬ ‫‪I 201 d*, e‬‬
‫*‪dd*, ff*; V 18 a‬‬ ‫נפל‬ ‫‪I 39 d*, e*; 42 e; 215 d*,‬‬
‫נהרות‬ ‫‪IV 15 a*, j*, 1*. w*. ii*, U*.‬‬ ‫‪e*, f*, g*; 216 e*; Supp‬‬
‫*‪*; V 18 a‬סס ‪mm*,‬‬ ‫‪68 b*; 72 c*. d♦; IV 28 j‬‬
‫נהרים‬ ‫*‪IV 15 a*; V 18 a‬‬ ‫נס‪#‬‬
‫נרד‬ ‫‪I 211 h‬‬ ‫נם‪#‬‬ ‫‪I Intro i; 92 d*; 189 e*. f*.‬‬
‫נוה ‪11‬‬ ‫;*‪g*. h; 217 f*, g*, h♦, i‬‬
‫גוה‪-‬צדק‬ ‫‪IV 24 f‬‬ ‫;*‪218 e*. f, g, h; 283 d*, e‬‬
‫נוח‬ ‫*‪I 307 d‬‬ ‫*‪Supp 70 c*, d*, e‬‬
‫מנוחה‬ ‫‪I 307 d*, e*; Supp 54 c‬‬ ‫נפת‬ ‫*‪I Supp 71 b‬‬
‫נוס‬ ‫‪I 213 e*, f‬‬ ‫נצב‬ ‫*‪I 219 d‬‬
‫נור‬ ‫נצר ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 65 d; Supp 88 c‬‬
‫גר ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 220 d*. e; 221 d*( e‬‬ ‫נקף ‪1‬‬
‫נריה)ו(‬ ‫*‪V 39 a*, c‬‬ ‫כנקף זית‬ ‫‪I 103 g‬‬
‫גזל‬ ‫‪I 251 h‬‬ ‫נרגל‬ ‫*‪V 19 a*, c‬‬
‫נזר ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 4d‬‬ ‫נרגל־ש(ר־אצר‬ ‫*‪V 19 a*, d‬‬
‫נחל ‪1‬‬
‫נ?(א‬ ‫;♦‪I 102 e*, f*, g*; 222 d‬‬
‫נחלה‬ ‫*‪I 44 d*. e*. f*. g*. h‬‬ ‫;*‪223 e*, f; 224 d*; 265 e‬‬
‫נחל‬ ‫‪I 44 i*. j*, k; 264 d*, e‬‬ ‫*‪291 d*. e; II 2 e*; 3 d*, e‬‬
‫‪T‬‬
‫גחל ‪11‬‬
‫ות‪6‬א עידו ררא‬ ‫*‪II 3 d‬‬
‫נחל ‪1‬‬ ‫‪IV 15 ii‬‬ ‫דז‪4‬א קולו דקרא‬ ‫*‪II 2 e‬‬
‫נחלי בליעל‬ ‫‪IV 21 1‬‬ ‫ומ&אתם את סכות‬
‫נחל ‪*111‬‬ ‫‪I 44 k‬‬ ‫מלככם‬ ‫*‪IV 38 r‬‬
‫‪1‬‬ ‫ותז‪4‬א רבקה את־‬
‫נח*ו ‪1‬‬ ‫‪II Supp Id♦; IV 31 g; 35 b, c‬‬ ‫עיניה ותרא‬ ‫*‪II 3 e‬‬
‫בר)י(ח‬ ‫‪IV 35 b, c‬‬ ‫י&או קול‬ ‫‪I 223 f‬‬
‫נחיזז עקלתק‬ ‫‪IV 35 c‬‬ ‫נשא קול‬ ‫‪I 292 e*I‬‬
‫*‪I 212 e*, f‬‬ ‫נתב‬
‫נטע‬
‫*‪I 212 g‬‬
‫נתיבה‬ ‫*‪I 225 e*. f‬‬
‫נטע‬
‫נתן‬ ‫‪I 35 e*. f*. g*, h*; 50 d*,‬‬
‫נטעי נעמנים‬ ‫*‪V 38 d‬‬ ‫;♦‪e*, f*, g*; 90 d*; 147 e‬‬
‫מטע‬ ‫*‪I 212 d*. h‬‬ ‫‪148 d*; 149 d*, e*; 150 e*.‬‬
‫מטע ליזזם‬ ‫‪I 308 f‬‬ ‫;*‪f*; 277 d*, e*. f*; 307 d‬‬
‫מטע יזזלום‬ ‫‪I 308 f‬‬ ‫‪321 d*. e*; Supp 39 b♦, c*,‬‬
‫נכל‬ ‫‪d*; 51 b*; II 1 g*, h; IV‬‬
‫כילי‬ ‫‪I Supp 57 c‬‬ ‫‪38 g‬‬
‫— ‪548‬‬
‫דתן יהו^פט‬ ‫עגם‬ ‫*‪I 58 d, e‬‬

‫את‪-‬פניו‬ ‫*‪n 1 g‬‬ ‫עדה ‪1‬‬
‫ד תן־לך האלהים‬ ‫*‪II 4 d‬‬ ‫עד ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 21 e*. £*, h, i; 177 e‬‬
‫נתן קול‬ ‫*‪I 292 d‬‬ ‫עד ‪h i‬‬ ‫‪I 65 g‬‬
‫תנו עז אלהים‬ ‫עדיאל*‬ ‫*‪I 21 g‬‬
‫על‪-‬ת‪ 4‬ראל*‬ ‫*‪IV 39 u‬‬ ‫עוב‬
‫נתר ‪11‬‬ ‫*‪I 147 e‬‬ ‫עבות‬ ‫*‪IV 40 d‬‬
‫עוד‬
‫סבל‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪102 e*, f*; 102 h‬‬ ‫עד‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪177 e*; IV 34 b, x‬‬
‫סבל‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪102 g‬‬ ‫תעודה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪177 d‬‬
‫סבל‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪102 g‬‬ ‫עוד ‪*11‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪296 g‬‬
‫סגר ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪105 e‬‬ ‫עד ‪*IV‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪296 g‬‬
‫מסגר‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪73 d‬‬ ‫עול ‪1‬‬
‫סוך ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪289 d, e*. f* g‬‬ ‫על‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪9 f*. g; 235 e*. f, g‬‬
‫נסכתי מלכי‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪289 g‬‬ ‫על האבות‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪9 f*. g‬‬
‫סיגי‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪18 g‬‬ ‫על־עני‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪235 e‬‬
‫סכך ‪11‬‬ ‫עול ‪111‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪253 e‬‬
‫סכה‬ ‫;‪III 2 t, u, x, z, aa, bb, cc‬‬ ‫על ‪*11‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪252 h*, 1; 253 k‬‬
‫‪IV 38 r‬‬ ‫עול‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪252 i*; 253 f*, g* . i*. j‬‬
‫סמך‬ ‫‪I 325 e*. f‬‬ ‫עולה‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪252 f*. j*; 253 f♦, h*, 1‬‬
‫סעף‬ ‫עולה ‪*111‬‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫‪252 g*, k; 253 g*, 1‬‬
‫בסעפי פריה‬ ‫‪I 103 g‬‬ ‫עץ‬
‫בסעפי הפריה‬ ‫‪I 103 g‬‬ ‫מעונות‬ ‫‪IV 22 i‬‬
‫בסעפיה פריה‬ ‫‪I 103 g‬‬ ‫עוף ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 211 d*. e*, h; 323 <;*, f‬‬
‫ספה‬ ‫‪I 226 d*. e‬‬ ‫עוף‬ ‫*‪I 211 f*. g‬‬
‫ספר‬ ‫;*‪I 25 i; 107 d*, e*, f; 108 d‬‬ ‫כעוף יתעופף‬
‫;*‪142 d*, e*. f*; 326 g*. h‬‬ ‫כבודם‬ ‫‪I 323 f‬‬
‫‪Supp 74 b*, c‬‬ ‫עפעף‬ ‫‪I 178 j‬‬
‫מספר‬ ‫‪I 107 d*, f‬‬ ‫עפעפים‬ ‫‪IV 28 m, r‬‬
‫ספר‬ ‫‪I 108 e*; 176 e*, f‬‬ ‫עפעפי‪^-‬חר‬ ‫‪IV 28 m*. r‬‬
‫מספר ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 107 f; 148 d‬‬ ‫עזב ‪*111‬‬
‫עזב‬ ‫‪I 56‬‬ ‫‪g*.‬‬ ‫‪h‬‬
‫עבד‬ ‫‪I 227 d*, e; 228 e*, f*. h‬‬ ‫עזז‬
‫עבד ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 228 d*, g; 317 e*, f*. g‬‬ ‫עז‬ ‫‪V 47 e‬‬
‫עבד‪-‬אדום‬ ‫‪III 2 u, z, aa‬‬ ‫עזה‬ ‫*‪IV 21 w‬‬
‫עבד עגת‬ ‫*‪IV 22 g‬‬ ‫עזיא הע^זתרתי‬ ‫*‪IV 23 i‬‬
‫עבדאלאב*‬ ‫*‪IV 2 d‬‬ ‫עזמות ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪IV 21 a*, x‬‬
‫עבר‬ ‫‪IV 38 f, g‬‬ ‫עזמות ‪11‬‬ ‫*‪IV 21 a*, x‬‬
‫עבר ב^לח‬ ‫‪IV 29 d‬‬ ‫עזר ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 229 d*, e*. f*, g; Supp 79 b‬‬
‫עבר ים‬ ‫‪I 195 g‬‬ ‫עזר ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 85 f‬‬
‫להעביר למלך‬ ‫*‪IV 38 f‬‬ ‫עטה ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I Supp 18 e‬‬
‫עבור ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 228 g‬‬ ‫עץ ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 240 d*. e*. f*; 241 e*. f*.‬‬
‫עגל‬ ‫;*‪g♦; 273 e*; Supp 83 b*. c‬‬
‫עגל‬ ‫*‪I 19 f, g; IV 11 f‬‬ ‫*‪85 c*; II 3 d*, e‬‬
‫בעגלי עמים‬ ‫‪IV 15 gg‬‬ ‫עתים רמות‬ ‫‪I 53 d‬‬
‫עגלה ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 6 d‬‬ ‫עץ‬ ‫‪I 242 e*. f‬‬
‫— ‪549‬‬
‫עץ‬ ‫עלי סמכה חמתך‬ I 325 f

‫עץ גדי‬ I 167 f*, h ‫עלי‬ I 62 d*; 234 e*
‫עץ התנץ‬ IV 31 a*, n* ‫עליהם‬ IV 39 mm
‫מעץ‬ IV 15 ii ‫עליו‬ IV 39 m, z, ii
‫עיר‬ I 65 g; 343 g ‫עליו עמו‬ IV 39 m
‫עיר מתים‬ I 300 h ‫עלימו‬ IV 39 ff
11 ‫עיר‬ I 65 d; Supp 88 c ‫מעל‬ I 234 f
*111 ‫ער‬ I 25 h*; 65 e*. f, g; 254 d*. e 11 ‫עלל‬
‫עי‬ I 10 d*. e*; 233 d*, e; 236 ‫עולל‬ I 231 e*
d*; 237 e*. f*; 238 e*. f*; *‫עלה‬ I 231 d*, f
335 g 11 ‫עלם‬
‫לעלות‬ II 1 e*, i ‫עלמות תועפות‬ I 324 d*
*11 ‫על‬ IV 2 n 111 ‫עלם‬
*‫על‬ IV 39 a*, b, c, i*, j*, k*, ‫ע)ו(לם‬ I 239 d*. e*, f; Supp 81 c;
1*, m*, n*, 0*, p*, q*. r*. s*, II Supp 3 d; IV 41 a*, p*
t*, u*, v*, w*, x*, y* *‫עלמות‬ IV 21 ee
*‫על אלוה‬ IV 39 q* *111 ‫עם‬ I 24 e*, f
*‫על אלהים‬ IV 39 r*, kk* ‫עמל‬
*‫על ועמו‬ IV 39 m* #‫עמל גפ‬ I 92 d*
*‫על יהוה‬ IV 39 s*. t* 1 ‫עמם‬
‫ימ‬
a
>—
*‫על־י&ראל‬ IV 39 u*, v* I 24 f; 158 f; IV 39 m;
1
*p ‫על‬ IV 39 w*, x*, y* V 32 k
*‫לעל‬ IV 39 1* ‫עמים‬ IV 34 j
*‫ללא על‬ IV 39 1* ‫עמי ירדנו‬ I Supp 13 c
*11 ‫מעל‬ IV 39 i* ‫עם‬ IV 42 f
*‫עלו‬ IV 39 a*, c, z*, aa*, nn* -‫ונים א ל‬0 -‫עם‬
*‫עלי‬ IV 39 a*, c, ii* ‫תתערב‬ IV 42 f*
‫יעלי‬ IV 22 i; 39 a*, nn* 11 ‫עם‬ V 32 k
*11 ‫עלי‬ I 214 f; IV 36 d, f; 39 a*, ‫עמיאל‬ V 32 e*
c, bb*, cc*, dd*, ee*, ff*, ‫עמיהוד‬ V 32 f*
gg*, hh*, jj*, kk*, 11*, mm* ‫עמיזבד‬ V 32 g*
*‫יחועלי‬ IV 39 nn* ‫עמיחור‬ V 32 k
*‫עלים‬ IV 39 gg* ‫עמינדב‬ V 32 h*
11 ‫עליץ‬ I 17 f*; 23 e*, f*. g*. h*. i*. ‫עמיעדי‬ V 32 k
j; IV 34 h; 36 d; 39 b, c, d, *‫עמרם‬ V 32 i
g, j, 1, dd, ee, gg ‫עמק‬
‫על‬ I 5 e; 60 d*. e*. f*. h, i; ‫עמק‬ I 155 f; 256 d*
62 e*; 184 h; 214 f; 232 h*. i; ‫(רפאים‬-)‫עמק‬ IV 41 a*, m*; V 43 a*
234 d*, e*, f; 235 f, g; 252 1; 1 ‫ענה‬ I 229 d*. e*, f*; Supp 86 b*;
253 k; 284 g; 299 i; 329 e; IV 22 d
Supp 80 b*; 105 b*; IV 2 n ‫עתה‬ I 244 d*
‫על־ים‬ IV 39 gg 111 ‫עגה‬
‫ פים‬0 ‫על בל‬ I 184 h ‫עני‬ I 235 e*
‫על־מות‬ IV 21 ee *V ‫ענה‬
‫על־שרפו עצמות‬ IV 38 q *‫ענה‬ I 243 f*, g
‫ די אמי‬0 ‫על‬ I 299 i *V1 ‫ענה‬ IV 22 f
— 550 —
Indices B -l
‫ענמלך‬ IV 22 a*, k; 38 a*, t*; ‫ע^זתרת‬ IV 22 b; 23 a*, d*, k*, n;

V 2 a*; 15 a* V 5 a*; 11 a*
1 ‫ענן‬ ‫ ע ^ תרת אלהיצ תים‬i v 23 d
‫ענן כבד‬ IV 2 p ‫ ע^תרת אלהי צ ת ץ‬IV 23 d
‫ענת‬ IV 22 a*, d*, e*. f*. g*, h*, ‫ע^זתרת קרנים‬ IV 23 a*, f*. g*; V 5 a*;
i; V 2 a* 11 a*
*‫עגות‬ IV 22 a*, f*; V 2 a* ‫קץ צידנים‬# ‫תרת‬# ‫ ע‬i v 23 d
‫ענת)ו(ת‬ IV 22 a*, h*, i; V 2 a* *‫תרה‬#‫ע‬ IV 23 i*
‫ענתתיה‬ IV 22 a*, h*; V 2 a* 1 ‫עשתר)ו(ת‬ IV 9 v; 23 a*, e * ,k * ;V 5 a * ;
1 ‫עפר‬ 11 a*
‫עפר‬ I 212 i; 284 d*, e*. f*. g; ‫תר)ו(ת צאנך‬#‫ע‬ IV 23 a*, j*; 27 d; V 5 a*;
Supp 16 b 11 a*
11 ‫עצב‬ i l l ‫תר)ו(ת‬#‫ע‬ IV 23 a*, f*. h*, i*; 41 h;
‫עצב‬ I 65 g V 5 a*; 11 a*
11 ‫ע*צה‬ ‫עשתרתי‬ IV 23 a*, i*; V 5 a*; 11 a*
‫עץ‬ I 245 d*, e; 260 d*, e*. f*. ‫עתק‬ I 109 e*, f; 119 d*, e
g*; Supp 17 b*, c
1 ‫עצם‬ *‫פ‬ I Supp 35 c
‫עצם‬ I 230 f* ‫סשט‬ I Supp 35 c
1 °‫?צ‬ I 230 e*. g*. h; 246 e*, f; ‫סאה‬
315 e* ‫פאה‬ I 257 d*
‫עצר‬ I 133 d*; 158 d*. e*, f
‫פה‬
‫עצר‬ I 49 e ‫לפי‬ I 276 e
‫עצר רחם‬ I 49 e ‫פוח‬ I 66 d; 201 d*. e
‫עצר רחם‬ I 49 e
*‫פחר‬
‫עקל‬
*‫פחר אלים‬ IV 34 b, r*
‫עקלתון‬ IV 35 c
*‫פחר מועד‬ IV 34 b, z*
1 ‫ערב‬
1 ‫ערב‬ I 203 d* ‫פיד‬
11 ‫ערב‬ IV 42 f ‫פיד‬ IV 42 h
‫ערב מערב‬ I 36 e ‫פנה‬ I 33 e*, f*; 241 g*
1 ‫מערב‬ I 36 e ‫פנים‬ I 38 e*. f*; 241 e*, f*; 258
d*, e; 340 d♦; II 1 d*, e*.
i v ‫ערב‬
‫ערבות‬ IV 40 e f*. g*
‫לפני‬ I 38 g*; 329 e
v ‫ערב‬ I 36 e; 130 d*, e; 247 e*, f;
248 d*, e; 249 d*. e* ‫פעה‬
‫ערב מערב‬ I 36 d*. e ‫אפעה‬ I 259 d*
11 ‫מערב‬ I 36 d*, e ‫פעל‬ I 115 d*. e; Supp 51 b*
*v i i ‫ערב‬ ‫פרה‬ I Intro h; 103 e*. f*. g
*11 ‫ערבות‬ IV 40 a*, d*, e*; V 41 a* ‫פרי‬ I Intro h; 45 d*, e*, f*, g*,
‫ערך‬ I Supp 29 b* h*, i*; 46 k; 103 d*, h;
‫ערך‬ I Supp 29 c 260 d*, e*, f*. g*
11 ‫ערף‬ I 250 d*, e*; 251 g*. h 1 ‫פרץ‬
*‫ערמות‬ IV 40 d* 1 ‫פרץ‬ I Supp 23 d
*‫מערף‬ I 250 f* ‫ע‬#‫פ‬ I 332 g*. i*, k*
1 ‫עפה‬ I 57 e ‫ע‬#‫ם‬ I 332 d*. e*. f*, h*, j*
— 551
‫פתח ‪1‬‬ ‫צמם‬

‫פתח‬ ‫‪I 242 f; II Supp 8 b‬‬ ‫צמה‬ ‫‪1 3 f‬‬
‫פתן‬ ‫צמת‬ ‫;*‪I 3 d*. e♦, f; 139 d♦; 263 d‬‬
‫פתן‬ ‫‪I 259 d*; IV 35 c‬‬ ‫‪III 1 i‬‬
‫צנן ‪1‬‬
‫צבא‬ ‫צז‬ ‫‪I 116 f‬‬
‫צבא המרום‬ ‫»‪IV 34 b‬‬ ‫צנה ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 116 f‬‬
‫צבא העמים‬ ‫*‪IV 34 b, aa‬‬ ‫צק‬ ‫;*‪I 202 d*; 264 d*. e; 266 e‬‬
‫צבה ‪111‬‬ ‫*‪IV 25 k‬‬
‫צבי ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 344 f*. g‬‬ ‫צפון ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 66 d; 266 f*; IV 25 e, i‬‬
‫צבר‬ ‫*‪I 61 d*; 164 d‬‬ ‫‪ I 66 d‬מצפץ תפתח הרעה‬
‫צדק‬ ‫צפץ ‪*111‬‬ ‫״*‪IV 25 a*, d*, e*, f*. i*. j‬‬
‫צדק‬ ‫‪I 262 f*; IV 24 a*, b, c, e*,‬‬ ‫‪1, m‬‬
‫‪f*, g*. i*. q*. r, s‬‬ ‫צפניה‬ ‫*‪IV 25 a*, k‬‬
‫צדקה‬ ‫*‪I 139 e; 262 e* f*. g‬‬ ‫צפניהו‬ ‫*‪IV 25 a*, k‬‬
‫צדיק‬ ‫‪IV 24 a*, b, c, j*. k*. 1*,‬‬ ‫צר ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 344 g‬‬
‫*‪m*, n*, o‬‬ ‫צרר ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 266 e*. f‬‬
‫צדיק ויער‬ ‫*‪IV 24 n‬‬ ‫צרת ה ‪ 0‬חר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 a*, p‬‬
‫צדיק יהוה‬ ‫‪IV 24 m‬‬
‫קבל‬ ‫*‪I 267 e‬‬
‫צדוק‬ ‫*‪IV 24 a*, p‬‬
‫קבר‬ ‫*‪I Supp 25 b‬‬
‫צהר‬ ‫קדם‬
‫יצהר ‪1‬‬ ‫‪IV 10 j‬‬ ‫קדים‬ ‫‪I 268 e*. f‬‬
‫צוד ‪11‬‬ ‫קדע‬
‫צידה‬ ‫‪I 261 e*. f‬‬ ‫קדע‬ ‫‪I 269 e*, f*. g♦, h*; 270 e*,‬‬
‫צוה‬ ‫‪f*; 272 e*; 310 f*. g*; IV‬‬
‫צ*ק‬ ‫‪IV 25 a, j‬‬ ‫*‪34 b, d, g*. q♦, r*. t*. u‬‬
‫צוח‬ ‫*‪I 223 e‬‬ ‫בקדע‬ ‫*‪IV 34 g‬‬
‫צוהה‬ ‫*‪I 309 h‬‬ ‫קדוע‬ ‫;‪I Intro h; 271 e*, f*. g* , i‬‬
‫צוק ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪310 d♦, e‬‬
‫צק‬ ‫‪I 265 e*. f‬‬ ‫קד^ז כוהוה‬ ‫‪I 157 g‬‬
‫צור ‪V‬‬ ‫קדועך יהוה‬ ‫‪I 157 g‬‬
‫צור ‪1‬‬ ‫;*‪I 155 e*, f; 255 e*; 256 d‬‬ ‫קד)ו(ע)י(ם‬ ‫‪IV 2 o, r, s; 33 1; 34 b, d, o*,‬‬
‫‪IV 1 d, e, f‬‬ ‫‪o‘, r*, s*, v*, bb; 39 n‬‬
‫צור המיער‬ ‫‪I 155 f‬‬ ‫קדעה‬ ‫*‪V 20 a*, c‬‬
‫צור יעראל‬ ‫‪IV 1 d‬‬ ‫קדעות‬ ‫*‪V 20 c‬‬
‫צחה‬ ‫קהל‬
‫צחצחה‬ ‫‪I 189 h‬‬ ‫קהל רפאים‬ ‫*‪IV 41 j‬‬
‫ציה‬ ‫קול‬
‫ציון יעאלו דרך‬ ‫‪I 293 h‬‬ ‫קול‬ ‫‪I 55 e; 120 e*; 223 f; 292 d*,‬‬
‫צלל ‪111‬‬ ‫‪IV 21 aa‬‬ ‫*‪e*. f*, g*. h; II 2 d*, e‬‬
‫צל‬ ‫‪I Supp 53 f‬‬ ‫קול ענות‬ ‫‪IV 22 f, i‬‬
‫צל החכמה‬ ‫*‪I 123 e‬‬ ‫קול עופר‬ ‫*‪I 55 d‬‬
‫צל הכסף‬ ‫*‪I 123 e‬‬ ‫קום‬
‫צלמות‬ ‫*‪I 118 g; 123 d; IV 21 a*, aa‬‬ ‫מקום‬ ‫‪I 54 g‬‬
‫צמח‬ ‫ןקמעם‬ ‫*‪V 32 a*, c‬‬
‫להצמיח מצא ‪m h‬‬ ‫‪h 138 1‬‬ ‫קור ‪*111‬‬ ‫‪I 276 d*. e‬‬
‫— ‪— 552‬‬
‫קטב‬ ‫רבב ‪1‬‬

‫קטב‬ ‫‪IV 21 h; 26 d, f‬‬ ‫רב ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 285 d*. e; 286 d*; V 40 c‬‬
‫קטף‬ ‫‪I 154 g‬‬ ‫רב הוא‬ ‫‪V 40 c‬‬
‫קטר ‪1‬‬ ‫רבה‬ ‫*‪V 40 a*, c‬‬
‫קיטור‬ ‫*‪I 288 d‬‬ ‫רבות קד ‪*0‬‬ ‫*‪IV 34 q‬‬
‫קטר‬ ‫*‪I 219 d‬‬ ‫רב ‪11‬‬ ‫‪V 19 d‬‬
‫קי ץ ‪1‬‬ ‫‪III 2 jj‬‬ ‫רב‪-‬מג‬ ‫‪V 19 d‬‬
‫דקץ ‪#‬למה והנה‬ ‫רב‬ ‫‪I 285 d*. e; II 4 d*, e‬‬
‫חלום‬ ‫‪III 2 jj‬‬ ‫ורב דגן ותיראו‬ ‫‪II 4 d*. e‬‬
‫קלה ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 274 f‬‬ ‫רבבת קד ‪0‬‬ ‫‪IV 34 r‬‬
‫קלון‬ ‫*‪I 274 e*, f; 275 e‬‬ ‫רבבת קד‪#‬ם*‬ ‫*‪IV 34 r‬‬
‫קלל‬ ‫;‪I 180 e*; 273 e*; 274 f‬‬ ‫רבבות‬ ‫‪IV 34 q‬‬
‫‪Supp 93 b‬‬ ‫ירבעם‬ ‫*‪V 32 d‬‬
‫*‪I 274 e*. f; 275 e‬‬ ‫רבב ‪*111‬‬ ‫‪I 46 g‬‬
‫קי ק ליז‬
‫קנה ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 181 e*; III 1 g, p, ww‬‬ ‫רב ‪*11‬‬ ‫‪I 46 j*, k; Supp 11 b; II‬‬
‫קרא ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 227 e; 277 d♦, e*, f*; II‬‬ ‫‪4 d*. e‬‬
‫*‪2 d*, e‬‬ ‫רבב*‬ ‫‪I 286 d*, e‬‬
‫‪ IV 36 d‬אקרא לאלהים עליון‬ ‫רבב א^*‬ ‫‪I 286 e‬‬
‫קרב ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 278 e‬‬ ‫רביבים‬ ‫*‪I 46 h*. i‬‬
‫רבה ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 46 g‬‬
‫קרוב צדקי יצא‬
‫‪ IV 24 r‬י‪#‬עי‬ ‫ארבה‬ ‫‪IV 3 e‬‬
‫קרב ‪11‬‬ ‫רגל‬ ‫‪I 230 h‬‬
‫בקרב אלהים‬ ‫‪IV 42 e‬‬ ‫תל‬ ‫‪I 232 g‬‬
‫בקרב ‪#‬נים‬ ‫*‪IV 42 e‬‬ ‫רגל*‬ ‫‪I 232 i‬‬
‫”רגע ‪1‬‬
‫קרה‬
‫רגע הים‬ ‫‪IV 15 vv‬‬
‫קריה‬ ‫*‪I 79 d‬‬
‫רהב‬
‫קרית־בעל‬ ‫*‪IV 9 w‬‬
‫להב‬ ‫‪IV 15 m, vv‬‬
‫קרת‬ ‫*‪I 276 e; 279 d‬‬
‫רוה‬ ‫‪I 280 e \ f‬‬
‫קיז‬ ‫ראי*‬ ‫‪IV 14 e‬‬
‫קרנים‬ ‫‪IV 23 a, f, g‬‬ ‫רוח‬
‫ק‪#‬ה ‪1‬‬ ‫רוח‬ ‫*‪I 287 d*. e*. f; 288 d‬‬
‫ק‪#‬ה‬ ‫‪I 135 g‬‬ ‫ברוחו &ם ים עפרה‬ ‫*‪II Supp 1 d‬‬
‫ק‪#‬ה ‪*111‬‬ ‫‪I 135 f*. g‬‬ ‫כיח‬ ‫*‪I 167 d, g‬‬
‫ק‪#‬ת‬ ‫‪I 126 d*, e*. f*; IV 26 h‬‬ ‫ריח אף‬ ‫‪I 40 e*. f‬‬
‫מרח‪-‬ם ‪#‬הר*‬ ‫*‪IV 28 k‬‬
‫ראה‬ ‫*‪I 178 j; 280 e*, f; II 3 d*. e‬‬ ‫רום‬ ‫*‪I 53 d; 202 d♦; II 2 d*. e‬‬
‫ראה ב‬ ‫‪I 273 d‬‬ ‫*‪ d 2 11‬הרימתי קולי ואקרא‬
‫ראי*‬ ‫‪I 280 d‬‬ ‫מרום‬ ‫‪I 233 e‬‬
‫ראם‬ ‫תרומה‬ ‫*‪I 175 e‬‬
‫ראם‬ ‫*‪I 173 d‬‬ ‫רחב‬
‫רחבעם‬ ‫*‪V 32 j‬‬
‫רא‪1 #‬‬ ‫;*‪I Intro i; 5 d*; 89 e‬‬ ‫רחה‬
‫‪234 d*, e♦, f; 282 e*; 283 d*,‬‬ ‫רחם*‬ ‫‪I 49 d*. e‬‬
‫‪e*; 284 d*, e*, f*, g; Supp‬‬ ‫רחם ‪1‬‬
‫*‪85 c*; 94 c‬‬ ‫רחם‬ ‫‪I 49 e; 299 e*. f*, g*, h*. i‬‬
‫רא‪#‬נה‬ ‫‪I 281 d*, e‬‬ ‫מרחם מ‪#‬חר‬ ‫‪IV 28 k‬‬
‫— ‪— 553‬‬
‫רחום‬ ‫‪IV 2 k‬‬ ‫שבע‬ ‫*‪I 295 d*; 296 h*, i*. j‬‬
‫רחץ‬ ‫*‪I 289 e*. f‬‬ ‫השביע בצחצחות‬
‫רחק‬ ‫‪I 290 e*, f‬‬ ‫נפשך‬ ‫‪I 189 h‬‬
‫רחק נדד‬ ‫*‪I 211 e‬‬ ‫שבעה‬ ‫*‪I 296 k‬‬
‫הרחקת מידעי מנעי‬ ‫‪I 290 f‬‬ ‫שגב‬
‫רחוק‬ ‫‪I 26 h*, i‬‬ ‫משגב ‪I‬‬ ‫‪I 155 e‬‬
‫ריב‬ ‫שדד‬ ‫‪I 297 f‬‬
‫ירבעל‬ ‫*‪IV 9 m*, y‬‬ ‫שדה‬
‫ירב*ות‬ ‫*‪IV 9 y‬‬ ‫שדי‬ ‫*‪I 132 e‬‬
‫מריב בעל‬ ‫*‪IV 9 y‬‬ ‫שדה‬ ‫;*‪I 132 e*; 297 e*; 298 d*. e‬‬
‫מסיבות‬ ‫»‪IV 9 y‬‬ ‫*‪IV 21 bb‬‬
‫רב בא‪#‬‬ ‫‪IV 11 g‬‬ ‫שד מ)ו(ת*‬ ‫*‪IV 21 bb‬‬
‫רכב‬ ‫‪I 291 d*, e‬‬ ‫שדמ)ו(ת*‬ ‫*‪IV 21 a*, aa*, bb‬‬
‫רכב ערבות‬ ‫‪II Intro f2‬‬ ‫שום ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 308 e; II 1 d*, e*, f*, h‬‬
‫רכב בערבות‬ ‫;*‪II Intro fs; IV 40 a*, d*, e‬‬ ‫*‪ II 1 f‬שום תשמוץ פניכם‬
‫*‪V 41 a‬‬ ‫וישם את־פניו‬ ‫*‪II 1 d‬‬
‫לכב‬ ‫*‪I 203 d*; 342 d‬‬ ‫וישם חזאל פניו‬ ‫*‪II 1 e‬‬
‫תה‬ ‫‪I 292 h‬‬ ‫שוש‬ ‫‪I 80 d*, e*, f*; 223 f‬‬
‫‪I 276 d*. e; 292 d*, e*. g*, h‬‬ ‫משוש‬ ‫*‪I 80 g‬‬
‫רנה ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 292 f‬‬ ‫שחק‬ ‫‪IV 20 f, g‬‬
‫רעב‬ ‫התשחק־בו‬ ‫‪IV 20 g‬‬
‫רעב‬ ‫‪IV 26 d‬‬ ‫לשחק־בו‬ ‫‪IV 20 f, g‬‬
‫רעע ‪1‬‬ ‫שח)ו(ק‬ ‫*‪I Supp 99 c*, d‬‬
‫הרעה‬ ‫‪I 66 d‬‬ ‫שיד‬
‫רפא‬ ‫*‪IV 41 h, j; V 43 a*, c‬‬ ‫שיד‬ ‫‪IV 38 q‬‬
‫רפאל‬ ‫*‪IV 41 a*, n*, q; V 43 a‬‬ ‫שמח‬ ‫;‪I 67 d*; 80 d; 131 e*, f, g‬‬
‫רפה‬ ‫‪IV 41 i‬‬ ‫;*‪194 d*; 220 d*; 224 d‬‬
‫רפה ‪11‬‬ ‫*‪IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a‬‬ ‫*‪249 d*; Supp 27 b*; 99 d‬‬
‫הרפה‬ ‫*‪IV 41 a*, 1*; V 43 a‬‬ ‫שמחה‬ ‫;*‪I 130 e; 249 e*; 309 h‬‬
‫הרפא‬ ‫*‪IV 41 a*. 1*, m*; V 43 a‬‬ ‫*‪Supp 99 c‬‬
‫רפאים ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪IV 41 a*, i*, j*; V 43 a‬‬ ‫ובשמחתו ל א־‬
‫רפאים כל־עתודי‬ ‫‪ I 130 e‬יתערב זר‬
‫ארץ‬ ‫*‪IV 41 j‬‬ ‫שמל‬
‫רפאים ‪11‬‬ ‫*‪IV 41 a*, g*; V 43 a‬‬ ‫שמלה‬ ‫*‪I 204 d, e‬‬
‫רשע‬ ‫שלמה ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 204 d‬‬
‫רשע‬ ‫‪I 66 d‬‬ ‫שפה‬
‫הרשעה‬ ‫‪IV 23 n‬‬ ‫שפה‬ ‫*‪1 272 e*. f; 316 e*, f*;320d‬‬
‫המרשעת‬ ‫‪IV 23 n‬‬ ‫שרה ‪1‬‬
‫רשף‬ ‫ישראל‬ ‫;‪I 17 g; 18 g; IV 1 c, d, e‬‬
‫רשף ‪1‬‬ ‫‪IV 26 a*, d*. e*. f*, h*, i*.‬‬ ‫‪2 d, m; 39 u, v‬‬
‫*‪j; V 21 a‬‬ ‫שרר‬
‫רשף־יה*‬ ‫*‪IV 26 i‬‬ ‫שר‬ ‫‪I 344 f*, g; Supp 2 c; IV‬‬
‫רשפי‬ ‫*‪IV 26 h*, i‬‬ ‫‪28 j‬‬
‫רשפים‬ ‫‪IV 26 a*, f*,‬‬ ‫*‪j; V21 a‬‬ ‫שר־צבא)־(יהוה‬ ‫*‪IV 34 aa‬‬
‫רשפיה‬ ‫*‪IV 26 i‬‬ ‫שרה ‪11‬‬ ‫‪IV 8 g‬‬
‫רשפי־ קשת‬ ‫*‪IV 26 h‬‬ ‫שרי‬ ‫‪IV 8 g‬‬
‫— ‪— 554‬‬
‫שאל‬ ‫‪I 293 d*. f*, g*. h‬‬ ‫אשוב מצמת ים*‬ ‫‪IV 35 e‬‬
‫שאול‬ ‫‪IV 21 f, h, 1, 0‬‬ ‫אשיב ממצולות ים*‬ ‫‪IV 35 f‬‬
‫שאלה‬ ‫*‪I 293 e‬‬ ‫אשיב ממצלות ים*‬ ‫‪IV 35 e‬‬
‫שאף ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 284 g‬‬ ‫מחיובה‬ ‫*‪I 332 e‬‬
‫שאף ב‬ ‫‪I 284 g‬‬ ‫שוה ‪11‬‬ ‫*‪I 85 e‬‬
‫שאף על‬ ‫‪I 284 g‬‬ ‫עדתי עזר‬ ‫‪I 85 f‬‬
‫שאר ‪1‬‬ ‫שוח‬
‫שאר‬ ‫‪IV 9 u‬‬ ‫שיחה‬ ‫*‪I 300 g‬‬
‫שאר ‪11‬‬ ‫עחת‬ ‫;‪I 246 e*; 300 e*, f*. h, i‬‬
‫שאר ‪.‬‬ ‫‪I 294 e*; IV 9 u‬‬ ‫‪IV 21 u; 29 d‬‬
‫שבב ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I Supp 18 c*, e‬‬ ‫שחת מתים‬ ‫‪I 300 h‬‬
‫שביב‬ ‫‪I 19 d; IV 11 a*, b, h*, i‬‬ ‫שוט ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I Supp 35 c‬‬
‫שביב אשו‬ ‫‪IV 11 a*, h*. i‬‬ ‫שולמית‬ ‫*‪IV 30 a*, i*; V 22 a‬‬
‫שבבים ‪*11‬‬ ‫*‪I 19 e*, f, g; IV 11 a*, f‬‬ ‫שור ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 261 d; 323 e*. f‬‬
‫שבת*‬ ‫‪I Intro i; Supp 18 b*. d‬‬ ‫בשורי מהם‬ ‫‪I 323 f‬‬
‫שבם*‬ ‫שור ‪11‬‬ ‫‪I 32 f; Supp 41 b*; IV 22 d‬‬
‫אשבם בשן*‬ ‫*‪IV 35 f‬‬ ‫‪ I 32 f‬ישר לבי אמרי ודעת‬
‫* ‪ i v 35 f‬אשבם בשן אשבמנה*‬ ‫שור ‪111‬‬
‫‪ IV 35 f‬אשבם מצלות ים*‬ ‫שור‬ ‫‪I 83 d*. e; 344 f*. g‬‬
‫שבר‬ ‫*‪I 335 e‬‬ ‫שור אל‬ ‫*‪IV 2 m‬‬
‫שבר ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 335 f‬‬ ‫שחל‬
‫שבת‬ ‫שחל‬ ‫‪I 84 d‬‬
‫נשבת מימ‪-‬ם*‬ ‫‪IV 15 s‬‬ ‫שחר ‪1‬‬
‫שגר‬ ‫אשחור‬ ‫*‪V 10 a*, c‬‬
‫שגר‬ ‫*‪IV 27 a*, d‬‬ ‫שחר ‪11‬‬
‫שגר)־(אלםיך‬ ‫*‪IV 27 d‬‬ ‫שחר‬ ‫‪I 178 j; IV 28 a*, e*. f*, g*,‬‬
‫שגר בהמה‬ ‫*‪IV 27 d‬‬ ‫‪h*. i* j*. k*. 1*. m*. n*. o*.‬‬
‫שד‬ ‫‪I 83 e; IV 38 q‬‬ ‫‪p*. r‬‬
‫שדד‬ ‫‪I Supp 31 c‬‬ ‫משחר‬ ‫*‪IV 28 a*, k‬‬
‫שוד ‪1‬‬ ‫‪IV 38 q‬‬ ‫שחריה‬ ‫*‪IV 28 a*, p‬‬
‫שדה‬ ‫שיר‬ ‫*‪I 322 e*; 324 d‬‬
‫שד‬ ‫‪I 40 e*. f; 299 e*, f*, g*, h*.‬‬ ‫שיר‬ ‫*‪I 322 f*. g*, h‬‬
‫*‪i; 340 d‬‬ ‫שית‬ ‫;*‪I 47 d*; 51 h*; 290 e‬‬
‫שד ‪11‬‬ ‫*‪I 160 d‬‬ ‫‪325 e*; 326 g*, h, i‬‬
‫שדי‬ ‫‪I 166 f‬‬ ‫שכב‬ ‫*‪I Supp 3 c‬‬
‫שדם‬ ‫שמם‬
‫שדמה‬ ‫‪I Supp 31 c; IV 21 bb‬‬ ‫שכם ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 320 d*; 341 d‬‬
‫שדש‬ ‫שק‬ ‫‪I 301 e*; 302 g*, h*; 303 d*,‬‬
‫שש ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I 54 h‬‬ ‫‪e*; 304 e*, f*, g*. h‬‬
‫שוא ‪11‬‬ ‫השטים במדבר‬ ‫‪I 257 e‬‬
‫שאה‬ ‫*‪I 183 d, e‬‬ ‫משק‬ ‫*‪I 304 g‬‬
‫שאה ומשאה‬ ‫*‪I 183 e‬‬ ‫שכר ‪1‬‬ ‫‪I Supp 97 b‬‬
‫משאה‬ ‫*‪I 183 e‬‬ ‫שכר‬ ‫‪I‬‬ ‫*‪327 f‬‬
‫שוב‬ ‫‪I 332 d*, f*. g*. h*. i*. j*,‬‬ ‫שיכור‬ ‫*‪I 327 e‬‬
‫‪k*; 333 e*. f*; 334 e*; Supp‬‬ ‫שלח ‪1‬‬ ‫*‪I 148 d‬‬
‫‪86 b*. c; IV 35 e‬‬ ‫שלח ‪11‬‬ ‫‪IV 29 a*, e*. f‬‬
‫— ‪— 555‬‬
11 ‫שלח‬ hi ‫שגה‬ I 272 f; 334 e*

‫שלחן‬ I 329 d*. e *i v ‫שנה‬
*h i ‫שלח‬ I 201 d*. e *‫שנם‬ IV 42 h
*i v ‫שלח‬ *11 ‫שנים‬ IV 42 a*, e*
*IV ‫לח‬# IV 29 a*, d *11 ‫שונים‬ IV 42 a*, f*
‫שלם‬ I 306 d* ‫שנן‬ I 316 £*, g
‫שלום‬ I 262 e*. f*. g*; 307 d*. e*; 1 ‫שן‬ I 316 e*. g
308 f; IV 24 g; 30 a*, h*. j; ‫שסה‬ I 235 d
V 22 a* ‫שסס‬ I 235 d
‫שלום נתן‬ I 307 d* 1 ‫שער‬
‫שלומים‬ I 305 e*. f 1 ‫שער‬ I 156 e*; 343 e* , f*. g;
11 ‫שלם‬ IV 30 a*, f*; V 22 a* II Supp 8 b
‫שלמה‬ I 307 d*; IV 30 a*, g*; 1 ‫שסה‬
V 22 a* 1 ‫שסי‬ I 184 d, e*. £*. g, h
‫שלש‬ ‫שסח‬
111 ‫שליש‬ I 342 d* ‫שסחה‬ I 317 e*. f*. g*
1 ‫שם‬ I 200 d*. e*. f*; 308 d*, f; ‫משסהה‬ I 339 e*
Supp 46 c*; 98 c*, d* ‫משסהות עמים‬ IV 34 j
‫שמגר‬ ‫שסט‬ I 28 d*, e*; 86 d*, e*, j*;
‫שמגר בן־ענת‬ IV 22 a*, g*; V 2 a* 253 h*. j*; IV 34 n; V 44 a*,
‫שמה‬ c*. d*, e*. f*
‫שמים‬ I 31 e*, f*; 94 e*. f; 121 d*, ‫שסט הארץ‬ V 44 f*
e*. f*. g; 190 d*; 233 e; ‫ שוסט עם יוסר עמו‬I 24 f
261 d, e*; 310 d*, e*, f*, g*; ‫ישסט יהוה השסט‬
II 4 d*; IV 5 a*, d*. e; ‫ העם‬V 44 c*
V 23 a*; 24 a* ‫משסט‬ I 86 f*. g*. h*. i*. k*; 253
‫ הארץ‬. . . ‫ השמים ו‬i v 5 a*, d*, e; v 24 a* e*. f*. g*. i*; k; IV 24 h, o
1 p‫ש‬ I 88 e* ‫שסטיה‬ V 44 a*, h*
p# II 4 d* ‫שסטיהו‬ V 44 a*, i*
‫שמני הארץ‬ II 4 d* ‫שסך‬ I 117 e*; 214 e*,i 318 d*. e*
p# I 88 d*; 104 g*, h*. i*; 191 ‫שסר‬ I 214 e*. f
e*; 289 d; 311 d*; 315 e*; 1 ‫שסר‬ I 214 d; Supp 77 c
Supp 71 b* ‫ש)ו(םר‬ I 55 d*. e
‫ לא תסוך‬p ‫ש‬ I 289 d ‫שקה‬ I 321 d*, e*
p ‫מש‬ I 159 e*. f*. g, h ‫שקה מי ראש‬ I 89 e*
‫שמע‬ I 312 e*. f*; 313 d*; 314 e*. ‫שקמה‬ I 42 e
f*, g*; 333 e*, f*; Supp ‫שרש‬ I 29 h
100 b* ‫שרש‬ I 74 d*. e*. f; Supp 103 b*
1 ‫שמר‬ I 312 d 1 ‫שתה‬ 1 149 d*. e*; 296 h*. i*. j*. k*
‫משמר‬ IV 15 ss ‫שתה יין‬ I 327 f*
‫שמש‬ ‫שתי יין‬ I 327 e*
‫שמש‬ I 319 d* ‫ השתים במזרקי יין‬I Supp 80 c
1 ‫שגה‬ I 106 d*. e; 150 e*, f*; IV
42 b ‫תהם‬
‫שנא‬ I 150 e* ‫תהום‬ V 25 a*, c*
‫שנה‬ I 178 j ‫תהום רבה‬ I 286 d*; IV 11 g; 15 m
— 556 —
Indices B-2
‫תוך‬ pn
‫בתוך‬ I 75 e*, f* ‫תמית‬ I 163 e*. f
‫תור‬ I 242 e*, f ‫תמם‬ I 330 e*, f*. g
‫תחת‬ I 159 h; 328 d*, f*. g; 1 ‫תנן‬
329 d*, e; Supp 23 c, d; ‫תגים‬ IV 31 b, 1, m
105 b* *11 ‫תנים‬ IV 31 a*, b, m*
‫תחת בל העמים‬ ‫תגץ‬ IV 15 m, hh, ss; 20 d; 31 a*
‫יערהו‬ I 261 d b, g*. h*. i*, 1*. m*. 0
‫מתחת‬ I 328 f* ‫תנינ)י(ם‬ IV 31 a*, f*, j*. k*. o
‫תחתי‬ I 328 e* ‫תפף‬ I 324 d*
B-2 Ugaritic Words
This index includes all Ugaritic words in the volume, except those words which occur in longer
quotations and are not the object of discussion. Such quotations are indexed in the ,‫״‬Ugaritic Texts”
index (A-2). The arrangement of the words in this index is based on the Glossary in Gordon, UT.
Thus the index consists of three columns: 1) verbal and non-verbal roots; 2) derived nouns and phrases
listed under each root; and 3) the chapter, entry, and paragraph indication. Verbs are always listed
in the first column, even though some are denominative. This creates some variants with Gordon's
system. Most words are listed in their standard lexical form. Exceptions occur only when the textual
form of a word (or phrase) is the object of discussion. Likewise, prepositions, proclitic and enclitic
particles, and pronominal suffixes are cited only when they are the object of discussion. An asterisk
preceding a Ugaritic listing is part of Gordon's system; an asterisk following a Ugaritic listing signifies
a root, meaning, or form added to Gordon's Glossary.
ab I 1 a*; 2 a*; 12 a*; 29 a*; adddy I 19 d

Supp 1 a*, b; III 2 t; IV 3 b 9hb I 6 a*; 63 a*; Supp 3 a*; 100 a*
ab adtn I Supp 1 b ahbt I 63 d*; 124 d
ab Snm IV 42 b, c, g*; V 29 b ihbt I 63 d*
abrm V 42 b *9wr
abrSp V 29 b ar (II) I 41 a*; Supp 11 a*, b; IV 11 h
ib III* IV 3 b, f ah I I 7 a*
9bd I 215 a*; 330 a*, d; 336 a* ah I I 8 a*; 9 a*; 87 a*, d
abn I I 245 a*; IV 1 a*, b ih I 1 d
ibr I 4 a* aht I 1 d; 12 a*; 13 a*
add V 1b ahrtp V 21 b; 31 b
idk II 1 b*, h 9h i I 10 a*; 265 d
idk lyjttn pnm II 1 b* 9hr
adtn II I Supp 1 b afyr I lia*
udm III 2 u, u8, z, aa, dd, hh, pp uhryt I Supp 4 a*, c
adn I 1 a*, b; Supp 2 a*; 26 a*; ,y* I 77 d
66 a*; II Intro f iht I 77 a*, d
adnkm tpf nhr II Intro f *9yb
udn I 5 a* ib I 3 a*
557 —
B-2 Ras Shamra Parallels
v I 14 a* *,mm III*
*9y n u m t II* I 232 g
in I 35 a*, d; 127 a*; Supp 61 a* ,ms
9kl arris I 125 a*, d
akl I 15 a*; Supp 5 a* 9m r I 33 a*, d; 312 d
il I 17 a*; 18 a*; 19 a*; 20 a*, am r II* I 32 a*; 312 a*, d
d*; 21 a*, d; 22 a*, d*, g im r I 14 a*, d; 34 a*; Supp 77 a*, c
23 a*;24 a*, d; 25 a*, d* im r s p r I 214 d; Supp 77 c
26 a*,d*, g; 27 a*; 28 a* an I I Supp 10 a*; 20 a*; II Intro f
29 d*; 30 a*; 31 a*; 53 d an rg m t ly m b 'lk m II Intro f
95 a*;124 a*; 140 a*; 166 f any I 36 a*
183 d; 190 a*; 221 a*; Supp an yt I 165 a*, d*
6 a*, b*. c; 7 a*; 8 a*; 18 d ank I 37 a*, d*; Supp 10 a*; 19 a*
30 b; II Intro e, i9; III 2 t ann IV 4 a*, d*
IV 2 a*, b, d*, f*, k*; 3 b * 'n p I 38 d
9 d; 34 a*, b, c, y*, z9; 41 c, d ap I I Intro a; 40 a*, d, f; 287 a*;
42 g 299 d
i l ab I 29 a* ap dd I 40 a*, d, f
il a ttm k y p t I 53 d anpn* I 38 a*, d, h
i l dbb IV 11 b, e* *n£ I 1 7 a*
i l klh I Supp 6 c *‫י‬n t
i l m lk d y k n n k I 199 d at I Supp 19 a*
ilm IV 34 a*, b, c, d, j*; V 39 b a/m I Supp 20 a*
ilm a rs IV 41 a*, o* *,n* I
ilm n m m V 38 b a tt I 52 a*; 53 a*, d; III 2 hh
ilt II Intro e; IV 8 d* #s£ I 39 a*; 205 a*
il-ht IV 19 b ap II
ilr m V 42 b apn I 33 d
ilrS p V 21 b apnk II Intro f
il II* I Supp 69 a*, b a p n k g zr ilh u II Intro f
ila b * IV 3 e a p ib I 38 d
ilib IV 3 a*, b, e *a p n I I Intro a; 114 a*, d*
ilh u II Intro f aps I 281 a*
iln isr * I 66 a*, d
iln y m IV 41 a*, o* is r /t I 66 d
u ln
aqht V 38 b
ar III* I Supp 11 b
u ln h r V 18 b
irb y I Supp 12 a*; IV 3 e
a lp I I Supp 9 a*
a rz I 42 a*; 186 a*
*,m a ry I I 8 a*, d; 59 a*
am t I 230 d; Supp 76 a* 9rk I 43 d; Supp 36 a*, b
*9mm I a rk I 43 a*
am t I 230 d a rs I Intro j; 30 a*; 44 a*; 45 a*;
*9mm II 46 a*, d*; 69 a*, d*; 99 a*;
um I 1 d; 9 a*, d; 231 f 116 a*; 151 a*; 161 a*, d;
um t I 231 a*; 235 d 212 a*; 245 a*; 328 a*; Supp
558 —
Indices B-2
13 a*; 14 a*; 15 a*; 16 a*, bky I Intro a; 57 a*; 58 a*, d;

b; 17 a*; 28 a*; 67 a*; 92 a*; 236 a*; 335 a*, d; Supp 24 a*;
103 a*; II Intro f; 4 b*. d*; 25 a*; II Supp 5 b
III 3 i; IV 5 a*, b, e, f; 7 b; y b k y w y in n II Supp 5 b
39 b; 41 a*, b, i* j*, 0 *; V bk I 295 a*; 296 g
23 a*; 24 a* bky* I 335 g
ar$ w Sm m IV 5 a*, b, e; V 23 a*; 24 a* bkr HI 3 g
a rsy I 122 a*; IV 5 f; 8 g bl I
’r$ I 47 a*; 313 a* blm t I Intro a; 107 a*
ar$* IV 5 f bn I 17 a*; 59 a*; 61 a*; 93 a*;
278 d; Supp 98 a*; III 1 c;
iSt I 19 a, g; 48 a*; 49 a*; 112 a*; IV 34 a*, b, c, d, j*. z»
Supp 18 a*; IV 11 b, g*. h*, i bn abn IV 1 a*, b
uShry V 10 b bn il IV 34 a*, b, z»
itn n I Supp 64 a* bn ilm IV 34 a*. b, c, d, j*
it I 50 a*, h; 51 a*, d*. g, i; bn a m t I Supp 76 a*
Supp 37 a* bn a n n IV 4 a*
u tk l* I 134 a* bn dgn III 1 c; IV 10 c
‫י‬tm bn h rn IV 12 a*
itm IV 6 a*, b, f; 27 b
bn m t IV 21 a*, z*
'tr I 172 d
bn qds IV 18 c; 34 a*, b, d
a tr I 172 a*, d; IV 7 a*, b; V 4 a*
bn qdst V 20 b
a tr y t I Supp 4 a*, c
bn q ry tm I Supp 21 b; 82 b
a tr (y )m V 4 a*
bn q rtm I Supp 21 b; 82 b
a trt I 40 d; 52 a*; 64 a*, d*; 144 a*;
bn §pr I 214 d
299 d; IV 8 a*, d*. h; 23 m;
bn srm I 214 d
V 3 a*, b
bn tlh n m I Supp 21 b
a tr t w rh tn y I 299 d
bt I 162 a*, d*
bt i l I Supp 18 d
b I Intro d; 11 a*; 22 g; 54 a*, d;
bn t h ll sn n t IV 28 a*, e*
166 d; 232 a*, d*. g; 273 d;
b n w /y I 197 a*
Supp 21 a*; 22 a*; 23 a*; 80 a*
bny bnw t V 33 b
bbt I 54 d; Supp 21 b
Vd I 62 a*
bm * I Intro d
bm bkyh w y£n* I 335 g
vi 1 I 63 a*, d*; 64 a*, d*; 65 a*;
76 a*; 145 a*; 150 d; 254 a*;
bd I I 55 a*
272 f; 319 a*; Supp 6 a*, b*, c;
*bw ' I 70 a*; 247 a*, d
26 a*, c; II Intro f; III 1 b;
bzr I I * I 166 a*, d, f
IV 9 a*, c, d; 33 b; 36 f; 39 b,
* b yn II
bn I Intro d; 60 a*; Supp 21 a* d; V 1 e; 6 a*, b; 46 a
* b yt b'l h i IV 9 d
bt I Intro a; 43 a*, d; 54 d; 56 a*, b'l h z rSp IV 26 a*, f*
d*; 69 a*, d*; 70 a*; 71 a*; b 'l y tb k tb t g r I 155 d.
72 a*; 73 a*; 74 a*; 269 a*; bn n g th m b p 'n h I 158 f
Supp 21 b; 28 a*; 29 a*; 30 a*, V I §pn IV 9 a*, d, i, 0 ; 25 k»; V 1 e
b; II Intro e V im III 1 b, d; V 1 e
bt hbr I 78 a*. d, f V im y m lk III 1 b, d
— 559
b'lt I 63 d* dbh I 83 a*, e; 213 a*, d

b'ldn V 36 b dbh I 82 a*; Supp 32 a*
b'ln V 6 c dbr I 85 a*, d; 86 a*
b'l II I 115 a*, e;Supp 51 a* dbr I Intro a; 84 a*, d; Supp 13a*, c
b'r I 136 a*, d; Supp 5 a* mdbr I 138 a*, d; 182 a*; 183 a*;
Mr I 198 d*; 233 a*, e 184 a*; 257 a*, e
ybsr 'm mlk I 198 g mlbr I 138 a*, d; 183 a*, d
bsr I 198 a*, g dgn III 1 c; IV 10 a*, b, c, k
bq' I 112 a*; 206 a* dd II I 46 g; 169 a*
bqt I 293 a* dyn I 90 a*, e; 317 d
brh I IV 35 b dnil II Intro e; V 36 b
brh* II Supp 1 b* dnil Ibth ymgyn II Intro e
brh II III 1 h; IV 35 b dll I
brh IV* IV 35 b dl I 235 a*, d
brk II I Supp 43 a* dip I Supp 65 a*
brq I 66 a* dm I I 54 d; 87 a*; 88 a*; 174 a*;
Mr I I 68 a*; 72 i; Supp 44 a*, b, c Supp 33 a*, b*
Mr II I 67 a*; Supp 27 a* dm II
bt I 76 a*; 308 a* dm ym wtn II Intro e
bln I 259 a*; II Supp 1 b*; III dmm I I 57 a*; 89 a*
1 h; IV 35 a*, b, c, f*, g, h dmm 111*
btn brh III 1 h; IV 35 b tdmm II* I 82 a*, e
btn 'qltn II Supp 1 b*; III 1 h; IV 35 h dm' I Supp 24 a*
udm't I 57 a*
g II 2 b*; Supp 5 b d' I
gbl I 77 a* d't I 91 a*, f; 92 a*; 282 a*, d
gg I I 78 a*; 79 a*, e dr I 93 a*; Supp 81 a*, c; II Supp
gdy 3 d
gdm I 167 a*, d dr il IV 34 a*, b
gwl II* I 80 a*, d dr bn il IV 34 a*, b
*gyl I 80 d dr dr I Supp 81 a*, c; II Supp 3 d
gmr drk* I 225 a*, d
gmr IV 36 a*, b, f; V 37 a* drkt I 94 a*, d; 152 a*, d*; Supp
gmr hd IV 36 b, f 14 a*; II Supp 3 d; III 1 b, e
gmrd V 37 b dr' I
gngn I Supp 73 a*, b mdr' I 182 a*
gpn I Supp 31 a* drq I 98 d
grdS I 192 d tdrq I 98 a*
grS I 81 a*; 137 a*, d; 301 a*, d; drS I Supp 34 a*
Supp 26 c; IV 15 n*, z* dtn III 3 i
grS ym IV 15 n*
dbb I 19 a*, d, g; Supp 18 a*, d;
d I I 18 a* IV 11 a*, b, e*, f*. g
dyknnh I Supp 1 b dd II I Intro a; 40 a*, d, f; 299 d
dbb II* dmr (I) I 54 d; V 47 e*
mdb II* I 255 f dmrb'l V 47 b
560 —
Indices B-2
d m rh d V 47 b ypt II* I 53 a*, d

dr* I 285 a* tp II* I 331 a*, d
d rt I Supp 41 a*
dh rt I Supp 41 a* zb l I II Intro f; III 1 d; IV 9 a*, q*
zb l b'l (ar§) IV 9 a*, q*; 11 d
-h I I 191 d zb l y m IV 15 b; 18 c
mh I 191 d zb l m lk *lim y IV 38 a*; 41 j*
hbr II Intro e zb l II I 102 h
hd IV 36 f; 41 d; V 1 b zbl I 102 a*, h
h dd V 1b zd I I 40 d; 299 d
hdr*y* IV 41 c, h zy d * I 299 d; Supp 44 c
h drt III 2 t zd II I 299 d
hw I 37 a*, d*; 95 a* *z y t
h w il I 95 d, f zt I Intro g, h; 103 a*; 104 a*, d*
*hwy I 217 a*
hwt I II Intro e hbl I 101 a*
h ya b n IV 1 a*, b hgb V9b
h yn IV 37 a*, b, d hgbn V9b
h kl II Intro e hdy I 178 a*, d*. g; Supp 83 a*
hi Mr I 105 a*
w h in II Intro e hdt I 106 a*
w h in *nt Ibth tm g y n II Intro e hwy I II Intro e
h lk I I 96 a*; 97 a*; 237 a*, d; tith w y w tk b d (n )h II Intro e
302 a*, d*; Supp 34 a*; II *hwS I 96 a*
Intro e h w t II* I 314 a*, d
Ik y m w tn II Intro e h w t III* I 317 d
hlk I 98 a*; Supp 47 a* h y y (hw y) I 187 a*; Supp 36 a*; 38 a*
hll IV 28 a*, e* hy I 128 a*; Supp 37 a*
hm r h ym I Intro a; 107 a*; 108 a*; 109
h m ry I 99 a* a*; Supp 39 a*
hn II I 330 d h yt* I 110 a*; 239 a*
hpk I 337 a* h km I 20 a*, d*; 110 a*, d; Supp
h ry I I 100 a; 101 a* 40 a*, b
h im I Supp 41 a*; III 2 jj
w I 157 a*, d; 232 g; 278 d; hm d I 111 a*, d
282 d; 299 d; 300 d; Supp 35 m hm d I 186 a*
a*; 89 a*; III 1 d hm y
w M ht I 300 d hm t I 343 a*, d
w zb l III 1 d hm§ I Supp 49 a*
wy*n I 157 d hm r I 14 d
w$d I 299 d hnn II Intro i3
w ttb I 232 g; 282 d h n n il II Intro is
w ld * I 168 d; 278 a*, d hsn I Supp 12 a*
w ld *qqm I 168 d; 278 d h sp
wnr IV 17 b th sp n m h w trh§ II 4 b*
w py* I 331 d hpr I 15 a*, e
561 —
hrb I 112 a*; 113 a*; 207 a*; Supp bzl h m t III 2 cc10
45 a* m zll I Supp 53 b*
h rn IV 9 n; 12 a*, b, h
h rs I Intro a; 114 a*, d*. g ybl I 22 g; 135 d; 227 a*; Supp 58 b
h rr II I 38 h bl III* I 232 g
h r$ I 115 a* ybn t
h rt y b n t ab I 12 a*
m h rth I 243 a*, d; 297 d yd I I 124 a*, d; 125 a*, d; 126 a*;
m h rtt I 243 a*; 297 a* 230 a*, d; 240 a*; 252 a*, d, 1;
h tk I I 29 a*, d* 300 d; Supp 43 a*; 44 a*, b*,
c; 45 a*; 46 a*; 79 a*; IV 21 gg
hbr I 78 a*, d, f y d ilm IV 21 gg
hh I 116 a*, d ydk am s yd I 125 d
ht II III 2 jj bd a tt III 2 hh
*h yl I 97 a*, d; 100 a*; 168 d *zm y d I 230 a*, d
*h ym I ydd I
hm t III 2 cc‫״‬ yd II IV 21 w*, gg
hlq II Intro f ydn I 317 d
hlq zb l b'l a rs II Intro f yd' I I 13 a*; 127 a*; 128 a*; 129 a*;
hnp I 117 a*, d 130 a*; 341 a*; Supp 47 a*;
hpn I 204 a*, d, f 74 a*
h$b I 188 a*, f; III 1 i y d ' y lh n IV 14 b, g, h
hr' I Intro g d 't I 32 a*
¥9 I 48 a*, e m d' II* I 185 a*, d
¥ I Supp 42 a* yw IV 13 a*, b, d*. e; 15 zz*
h tt* (ht I) I Intro a; 16 i; 118 a*; 119 a* *yyn I
yn I I 134 a*; 135 a*. d; 327 a*, d;
tb I 120 a*, f; 170 a*, d; 322 a*, d; Supp 49 a*; 58 a*, b
V 45 b y ld I Intro a; 2 a*; 67 a*; 101 a*;
tbn I 120 a* 131 a*, d; 168 a*, d; 278 a*, d
m IV 16 b ym I I Supp 48 a*; II Intro e;
tt w k m t IV 16 b IV 15 b
til ym h
tl I 121 a*; 250 a*; II 4 b*. d*; y m h bbt d m dm r I 54 d
V 26 b *y m m
tl §m m II 4 b*. d* y m II I 132 a*, d; 195 a*; II Intro f;
tl $m m tsk h I 289 d III 1 b; IV 13 d; 15 a*, b, c,
fly I 41 a*; 122 a*; IV 8 g; V 26 b n0 ,1I‫*״‬, ee*, ff*. 11*, zz»; 18 e;
20 b, d; 29 b; 31 c; V 18 a*, b;
zb y I Intro a; 344 a*, d 25 b; 27 a*, b
* zh r I y m Im t III 1 b
zr I 166 d y m il IV 15 a*, aa*
bzr I 166 d, f ym n I 133 a*; 258 a*; 268 a*
zll I Supp 53 a* yn q I 129 a*
zl I 123 d; III 2 cc>‫״‬ yn qm bap dd I 40 d
z l k sp I 123 a*, d yn qm bap zd a trt I 40 d; 299 d
562 —
Indices B-2
ysr I 153 a*; Supp 40 a*, b k II I Supp 55 a*

y p ln A? Ill I 53 d; 80 d; 157 a*, d; 232 g;
y p ln bn y lh n IV 14 a*, b 267 d; 282 d; Supp 56 a*
y? I 136 a*, d; 137 a*, d; 138 a*, k y 'n I 157 d
d; 139 a*; 146 a*, d; 318 a*; kypt I 53 d
Supp 26 c k yqblh I 267 d
yz* I 138 a*, d k tg w ln I 80 d
sa t n pS I 189 a*, d -k IV I 35 d
sa t Spt I 272 a*, d, f kbd II Intro e
ysg I 179 a* k bd I Intro d; 158 a*, f; 159 a*;
y s q Sm n Sim bs c I 54 d
160 a*, e; 189 d
yqr I 140 a* kbkb I 31 a*; 42 e; 190 a*
y r II* I 141 a*, d kkbm IV 34 a*, b, z»
yr’ I Supp 50 a* *kw n I Intro m; 164 a*; 192 d;
199 a*, d; Supp 1 a*, b; 96 a*, b
y r b 'm V 32 b m knt I 192 a*, d
*yrw I 143 a* kh t I 161 a*, f; 210 a*, d*. g*;
y r III* IV 13 b III 1 b, e
y r 'r p t tm fr bqz I 141 d
k ly I I 263 a*; III 1 i
yrd I 142 a*; 208 a*, d*; 238 a*, d tk ly btn *qltn II Supp 1 b, d
yrh I 75 d; 144 a*; Supp 48 a* k ly II
y r m II
k ly t I Supp 57 a*
y r m 'l IV 39 a*, nn* k ll I
yrt I 111 a*, d; 145 a*; 146 a* kl I Supp 6 c; 15 a*
itr t h rs I 48 e k in y n n b l ksh I Supp 58 b
yrt I 338 a* k ll I 305 a*
ySn I 335 f * k ll II
ySr I Supp 91 a*, b k it I 162 a*, d*; 163 a*, d
ySr II* I Supp 91 b km I
y tm I 235 a*, f k m Shr IV 28 o*
y tn I 35 a*, d; 50 a*; 90 a*, e; km t IV 16 a*, b; V 12 a*, b
147 a*; 148 a*; 149 a*; 150 a*, kny
d; 277 a*; 321 a*; Supp 39 a*; kn yt I 163 a*, d
51 a*; 52 a*, b; II 1 b*; Supp k n \k n \(}) I Supp 73 b
5b knr IV 17 a*, b, e*. f*. g; V 13 a*
y tn gh b k y II Supp 5 b ks I 274 a*, d; 280 a*, d; Supp
ytb I 44 k; 151 a*; 152 a*, d*; 58 a*, b
153 a*; 154 a*; 155 a*, d; ks ‫״‬
156 a*; 192 d; 210 d*. g*; k su I 279 a*; Supp 59 a*; 78 a*;
222 a*; 238 a*; 336 d; Supp III 1 b, e
53 a*; 54 a*; III 1 c, e Ik si m lk h III 1 e
y ttb n III 1 e kSu I 270 a*
tbt I 155 d; 192 a*, d; 336 a*, d; ksp * I Supp 44 c
337 a*, d; 338 a*, d; 339 a*, d ksp I 123 a*, d; 165 a*, d*; 166 a*;
m tb I 210 a*; Supp 53 b* Supp 60 a*
— 563 —
37
*k p p Ihh*
kp I Supp 94 a* Slh IV* IV 14 h
kpr I 167 a*, d Ih II* IV 14 b, h
kry II* I Intro a; 168 a*, d y lh n IV 14 a*, b, g, h
k rm I 169 a* Ihm I I 34 a*; 68 a*; 72 i; 154 a*;
k rt III 2 e1, hh; 3 k*; IV 34 m; 228 a*
V 38 b Ihm I 72 a*; 91 a*; 175 a*; 294 a*
k rt g rd§ m k n t I 192 d Ihn IV 14 h
k rt y h t w h im III 2 jj y lh n IV 14 h
k rt t* III 2 hh Itp n
k tr I 170 a*; II Intro e; IV 18 a*, Itp n %l d p v d IV 2 a*, k*
b, c, e*; 19 b, d*; 37 b; V 14 Itp n htk I 29 a*
a*, b ly t II* I 232 g
k tr w h ss IV 18 b; 19 e* Isb II Intro d
k tr-m lk V Intro b Iqh I 178 a*, d*, g; 179 a*; 248 a*,
k trm IV 18 c; 19 e* e; Supp 52 a*, b
k trt I 71 a*; IV 18 b; 19 a*, b, d*, Isn I Intro a; 180 a*, d; Supp 93
e*; 28 e a*, b
Isn I 113 a*, d; Supp 102 a*
,1 I Intro d; 75 a*, d; 333 d; Itn II Supp 1 b*, d*; III 1 h;
Supp 22 a*; 62 a*; III 1 b, c IV 20 a*, b, d*, i; 31 c; 35 b
ly m t §p§ w y rh I 75 d Un bin brh III 1 h
Ik III 2 q5
Ikrt III 2 e1 nCd I
Inht III 1 b, c, e m id g rd§ tbth I 192 d
Im* I Intro d m gn (I) I 181 a*, d
l II I Supp 61 a* m gn III* I Supp 2 a*
l III I 80 d; 232 g; Supp 63 a* m db I 255 a*, d, f
I ttty I 80 d m dl II I 251 h
l ’y I Intro a; 16 i; 118 a*, g; m hr II I Supp 64 a*
IV 33 b *m w t I Intro a; 84 a*, d; 171 a*;
la n IV 33 a*, d* 205 a*; 208 a*, d*; 226 a*;
a liy n I 16 a*; II Intro f; IV 33 a*, g* Supp 72 a*; III 1 b, d
liy IV 33 a*, f* m t a liy n V I II Intro f
tl i y t I 27 a* mt II I 118 g; 206 a*; 207 a*; 209 a*;
I'k I 171 a*; 176 d 246 a*, d, f; 300 a*, d; Supp
rnlak I 195 a*; 196 a* 70 a*, b*;II Intro f; III 1 b, d;
*Ibb IV 21 a*, o*, w*, z*
lb I 172 a*; Supp 57 a* mh I
Ibn I I 42 a*, e m h r is I 89 d
Ibn II m hs I 187 a*; 188 a*, f; 209 a*;
Ibnn I 173 a* II Supp 2 b; III 1 i; IV 15 vv3*
*IbS
M I 174 a* k tm h s Un btn brh II Supp 1 b, e
*Iwh m hr I I Supp 60a*
Ih I 176 a*, d; 177 a*, d m tr I 141 a*, d; 251 d*
Iht s p r d lik t I 176 d m tr I 251 a*; Supp 16 b; IV 39 b
— 564 —
Indices B-2
my II ndd I 211 a*; 261 d

m y riS I 89 a*, d ndy (?)
m ym I 189 a*, d; 190 a*; 191 a*, d ltd y t£m 7 dl I 235 d
mh III 1 pp10 ndr I 4d
mm I 298 a* ndr I Supp 32 a*
m kk* I Supp 65 a* ndr * I 4d
mV I 81 a*; 193 a*; 194 a*; 303 a* tn dr* I 4 a*, d
m lk I I Supp 67 a*; III 1 b, d nhr II Intro f; IV 15 a*, b, x*,
m lk I Intro h; 197 a*; 198 a*, d*, g; ff*, 11*; 18 c; V 18 a*, b; 27 a*;
199 a*, d; 200 a*; 271 a*, d, h; 44 b
Supp 59 a*; 66 a*; 67 a*; III *n w h I 307 a*; Supp 54 a*
1 b, e; IV 34 a*, aa*; 38 a*, nht I 166 d; III 1 b, c, e
b, c, t*; 41 a*, b, c, d, h, j, n h t bzr I 166 d
k*, p*; 42 b; V Intro b; 15 a*; Inht Ikht d rk th III 1 b, e
29 b nhl I 44 k
m lk ab §nm IV 42 b; V 29 b n h lt I 44 a*; 264 a*
m lk 'lm I 239 f nV I 212 a*
m lk sbu §p§ IV 34 a*, aa* nyr I 220 a*
m lk n V 44 b n y r Sm m V 39 b
m lk m IV 38 a*, c; V 15 a*, b n rt I 221 a*
m lk a b n V Intro b n rt tin t V 39 b
*m ny n m ry IV 41 p
m nt I Supp 75 a* ns I 213 d
m 'd IV 34 a*, b ns II* I 213 a*, d
m gy I 306 a*; Supp 68 a*; II Intro e n sk I 46 g; 289 a*, d, g; 311 a*
m sr nm I 331 a*, d
m srm I Supp 7 a* nm I Intro a; 214 a*; IV 39 b;
mr II V 38 b
m ru I Supp 69 a*, b n 'm n III 2 t
m r i ilm I Supp 69 a*, b n m n g lm i l III 2 t
m $lt I 204 a*, d n gr I 65 d; Supp 88 c
m Sss I 137 d; Supp 26 c *nph
m §r m phm I 201 a*
m Sr IV 24 a*, b, n* npl I 39 a*; 42 e; 215 a*; 216 a*,
mt I d; Supp 68 a*; 72 a*
m t rpi IV 41 a*, b, 1* np§ I Intro b, f; 92 a*; 189 a*, d;
m tn 217 a*; 218 a*, d, h; 283 a*;
m tn m I 38 a*, d, h Supp 33 a*, b*; 38 a*; 70 a*,
b*; 73 a*
n bl II* I 136 d n sb I 219 a*
n bl III* I 136 d nqpt I 21 d; Supp 101 a*
nbt I I Supp 71 a* nqpnt I 21 d
ngb III 2 tI nS' I 102 a*; 222 a*; 223 a*; 224
ngh a*; 265 a*, d; 291 a*; II 2 b*;
tight* I 123 d 3 b*
ngt I 158 f y \t$ u gh y!t§h II 2 b*
565 —
bnSi 'n h w y jtp h n II 3 b* 'd IV

w y jtS u 'n h wy/t* n II 3 b* *d t I 22 a*, d*
ntb I 225 a* 'd t i lm IV 34 a*, b
n tr* I 147 a*, d 'd VI* I 296 g
*d bk I 296 g
s'd II Intro f ’d tSb' bk I 296 g
, d VII* I 21 a*, d
s id zb l 67 a rs II Intro f
*db
sg r I 73 a*
sg r I 105 a* 'd b t I 56 a*, h
sw k * I 289 d 'd b t I 56 d*, h
syr I 213 d 'd r I 229 a*; Supp 79 a*; 90 a*
* 'w d
syr II* I 213 d t'd t I 177 a*, d; 196 a*
sm k I 325 f * 'w p I 261 d; 323 a*
sm k t I 325 a*, d *p t * I 211 a*
sn n t IV 28 a*, e* 'z I IV 21 w*
sf I 226 a* V II* IV 16 b
spr I Intro a; 107 a*; 108 a*; 'f w k m t IV 16 b
142 a*; 148 a*; Supp 74 a* 'zm I I 315 a*
sp r I I Supp 75 a* 'zm II(?)
spr II I 176 a*, d; 326 a*, d* '?m * I 230 a*, d
'z m y d I 300 d
kkw * 'y n II I 157 d; 240 d; 241 a*; 242 a*,
ssw I Intro g d; 273 a*, d; Supp 83 a*; I I 3 b*
*y n b I 273 d
'n I 240 a*, d; Supp 84 a*; 85 a*;
' bd I 228 a*; II Intro f 87 a*; II 3 b*
' bd a liy n 67 II Intro f * 'y r II
'bd I 227 a*; 317 a*, d; Supp 76 V I 255 f
a*; III 2 t 71 I Intro d; 60 a*; 232 a*, d*.
'b d i l III 2 t g; 233 a*; 234 a*; Supp 80 a*;
'b d i l w h d rt III 2 t 105 a*
' bdk a n w d 'lm k IV 21 dd 7 mU I Supp 77 c
'bdhgb V9b 7n* I 62 a*
'b d y m V 27 b 7 II 19 a*, d; 231 a*; 235 a*, d, f
' b d yrh V 28 b 7 dl I 235 a*, d
'b d m lk V Intro b 7 um t I 9 a*, d; 231 a*; 235 d
'b d rp u V 43 b 7y I 10 a*; 236 a*; 237 a*, d;
'b d r f y V 21 b 238 a*, d
'g l I Intro a; 19 g; Supp 77 a*, c; y 'l III 1 c
IV 11 b, f* 7y IV 39 a*, b, c, d; IV 36 f
*g it I 6 a* 7yn* I 23 a*, d
'gm * I Intro a; 58 a*, d 7m I I 24 d; 239 a*, f; Supp 81 a*;
'd I II Supp 3 d; IV 23 f; 38 c;
'd bk I 296 g 41 a*, b, c, d, h*. p*, s
'd tSb' bk I 296 g m lk 'lm IV 23 f; 38 c; 41 a*, b, c, d,
'd II I Supp 78 a* h*. p*
— 566 —
Indices B-2
*lim y * IV 38 a*; 41 j* g lm III 2 t

*m I I 22 g; 24 d; II 1 i g lp
*m *Im I 24 d bglp y m I 132 d
'm II V 32 b
*m rpi V 32 b; 43 b P I I Supp 35 a*, c; 89 a*
*m III* I 24 a*, d; 198 g p II I 133 a*; 158 a*
*mq I I 258 a*; Supp 82 a* P'
*n y fw I 229 a*; Supp 86 a*; II Intro f pat I 257 a*, e
w y* n y g zr ilh u II Intro f p a t m dbr I 257 a*, e
wt*n III 2 ei p d r II
*n t I I 244 a* p d r m lk V Intro b
*nt II II Intro e; IV 22 a * , b; 23 m; p d r y IV 8 g
V 2 a* ph II 3 b*
*nt III* I 243 a* *p w q (?) II I Supp 91 b
'P 'P I Supp 87 a*, b Pb*
*p r I I 284 a*; Supp 16 a* p h r ilm IV 34 a*, b
*prm I Supp 16 b ph r kkbm IV 34 a*, b, z•
*prt I Supp 16 b p h r m*d IV 34 a*, b
I 245 a*; 260 a*; Supp 17 a*!, c p it I Supp 90 a*
*sm* pn y* I 33 a*, d; 38 d; 241 a*, d
*§m II* I 246 a*, f pnm I 258 a*; 340 a*; II 1 b*
*qltn II Supp 1 b*; III 1 h; IV 35 b Ip n n h I 290 d
'm I 168 d; 278 d p*n I 158 f
*rb I 36 a*, e; 130 a*; 203 :a*; ip* n II Intro e
247 a*, d, f; 248 a*, e; 249 a* lp*n i l th br w tql II Intro e
*rk I Supp 29 a* lp*n k tr hbr w q l II Intro e
*rpt I 141 d; 250 a*; 251 a*, <i * ; pgy
III 1 h; IV 40 a*, b. d*. e*, f; pgt I 259 a*, e
V 41 a*, b *p r y
*tq I 109 a*, d; 119 a* pr I Intro h; 45 a*; 103 a*; 260
*ttr IV 14 h; 16 d; V 5 b; 11 b p rq II Intro d
*ttrt IV 22 b; 23 a*, b, e*. m; 41 y p r q Isb w y sh q II Intro d
d, h; V 5 a*, b; 11 a*, b p t* I 332 a*
*ttrt abdr IV 29 e*
*ttrt w*nt IV 22 b sb9
*ttrt n d rg d IV 23 e* sbu f y s IV 34 a*, b, aa*
*ttra b V 29 b sbr I 61 a*
sbrt I 164 a*
gw l* sdq I 262 a*, d
g it II* I 252 a*, d, 1; 253 a*, k, 1 sdq I Supp 91 a*, b; IV 24 a*,
*gw r n*, p*
gr I 155 a*, d; 255 a*, d, f; 256 sdq m §r* IV 24 a*, b, n*
a*, e; IV 1 f sdqSltn I 262 a*, d
g zr I 120 f; II Intro f stqSlm I 262 d
gyr II* I 25 a*, d*. g; 65 a*, d, g; * s(w /y )d (7 )
254 a*; Supp 88 a*, c sd II* I 261 a*, d, f
— 567 —
* $ (w /y )q I 265 a*, d qr' I 277 a*

shq I Supp 99 a*; II Intro d qra tr 'lim n IV 41 j*
*?y h I 223 a*; 309 a*, d*; II 2 b* qrb I I 278 a*, d
sh lq§ ilm I 26 g tqrb w ld bn Ih I 278 d
sm t I 3 a*; 139 a*; 263 a*; III 1 i qrb II I 22 g
s' I 54 d q ry II
sgr qryt I 79 a*; Supp 21 b; 82 a*, b
Sgrthn a b k rn HI 3 g qrt I 279 a*; Supp 21 b; Supp 82
sp n I 202 a*, e; 264 a*, f; 266 a*; a*, b
Supp 92 a*; IV 25 a*, b, k*, m qS I I 135 a*, d, g
srr I qS II
srrt I 266 a* q it I 126 a*
$rrt s p n IV 25 m
r 'y *
qbl* I 267 a*, d ri II* I 280 a*, d
qbs
r'm I
qbs d tn III 3 i; IV 41 a*, j* ru m I 173 a*
qbr I Supp 25 a* riS I 5 a*; 89 a*, d; 234 a*; 281
qdm I 268 a*; Supp 104 a* a*; 282 a*, d; 283 a*; 284 a*;
qd§ I Intro h; 150 d; 269 a*; 270 Supp 85 a*; 94 a*; III 1 h
a*; 271 a*, d, h; 272 a*; 310 I 285 a*; Supp 8 a*
a*; IV 18 c; 34 a*, b, d rbb II* I 46 d*. g
qd$ m lk I Intro h; 271 a*, d, h arb d d I 46 g
q d im IV 34 d *rbb I I Intro j; 46 a*; 286 a*, e;
qd$t V 20 b II 4 b*, e; III 1 pp‫>״‬
*qw l
rbb rk b 'r p t II 4 b*
ql I I 55 a*; 120 a*, f; 292 a* rb I Supp 11 a*, b
qlh qd$ V I y tn I 150 d rb ’ I II Intro e
*qw r(?)
qr I Supp 84 a* rg m II Intro f
* rw h
q tr I 219 a*; 288 a*
* q yz
rh I 287 a*; 288 a*
q? I 141 d rh g d m I 167 a*, d
qyl* I Supp 93 b *r ( w /y )m V 42 b
*?«(?) I 273 a*, d; Supp 93 a*, b; rm I 233 e
II Intro e m rym I 202 a*
Sqlt bglt y d k I 252 d, 1 trm m t I 175 a*
qlt I 274 a*, d, f; 275 a*, d rh III
qlt bks iS tyn h I 274 d rh m (IV) I 49 a*
qll II* I Intro a; 180 a*, dI rh m II
qny rh m y I 299 a*, d; IV 8 g
qn yt I 181 a* rh$ I 289 a*, d; IV 18 c
q n y t ilm V3b trh sn k trm IV 18 c
I 26 g rhq I 290 a*, d; Supp 42 a*
qqln II* I 275 a*, d rhq I 26 a*, d*
qr II I 276 a* rh p I 233 e
— 568 —
Indices B-2
rkb I 291 a*; III 1 h; IV 40 a*, b, Shr IV 28 a*, b, o*. q; 30 a*, b, c;

d*, e*. f; V 41 a*, b 34 p2; V 22 b
rkb cr p t II Intro f2; 4 b*; III 1 h; IV $hr w slm IV 28 a*, b, o*; 30 a*, b, c;
40 a*, b, d*, e*, f; V 41 a*, b 34 p2; V 22 b
m rk b t I 203 a*; 342 a* Sht I 246 a*, d, f; 300 a*, d
rk k * I Supp 36 b Shn I 38 h
rm m * I Supp 95 a*, b *Syr I 322 a*, d; 324 a*
rn n I 276 a*; 292 a* yS r g z r lb ql I 120 f
r 'y IV 41 d Sr I 214 d
r't* I 66 d *Syt I 47 a*; 50 a*, d*. g; 290 a*, d;
rP' 325 a*; 326 a*, d*; Supp 104 a*
rp u IV 23 f; 38 c; 41 a*, b, i*, k*, Skb I Supp 3 a*
p*; V 43 a* Skn I 257 e; 301 a*, d; 302 a*, d*;
r p u VI IV 41 a*, b 303 a*; 304 a*, d
r p u m lk 'lm IV 23 f; 38 c; 41 a*, b, c, d, h* Skr II
rpu m IV 23 f; 38 c; 41 a*, b, g*. h*. Skr III* I 327 a*, d; Supp 97 a*
i* . j*, o*; V 43 a*, b Slh I I 148 a*; IV 14 h
rp i ar ? Ill 3 i; IV 41 a*, b, i*, j* Slh II I 201 a*, e
rSp IV 26 a*, b, f*, j; 29 b; V 19 b; Slh III IV 29 a*, b
21 a* S lyt II Supp 1 b; III 1 h
r$pab V 21 b; 29 b Slyf i Sb't raSm II Supp 1 b; III 1 h
H p - m lk V Intro b Sim I 262 a*, d; 306 a*; Supp 88
a*, c
S II* I 35 d §lm I 54 d; 305 a*; 306 a*; 307 a*;
S’y II* IV 28 a*, b; 30 a*, b, c, d, f*;
s t y II* I 183 a*, d 34 p2; 42 c; V 22 a*, b
S 'l I Intro m; 293 a*; Supp 96 a*, b im I I 200 a*; 308 a*; Supp 46 a*;
S il* I 35 d 98 a*
S’r I sm b u y y w il IV 13 b
Sir I 294 a*, d Sm II
Sbm IV 31 d; 35 h sm m I 94 a*, d; 121 a*; 233 e;
iS tbm tn n IV 31 d 261 a*, d; 289 d; 310 a*; II
Sb' I I 295 a*; 296 a*, d*. g 4 b*, d*; IV 5 a*, b, e; V 23 a*;
Sb'* I Supp 97 a*IV 24 a*; 39 b
Sb' II sm m h IV 30 b
Sb't III 1 h sm ym I 31 a*; 190 a*
Sgr IV 23 j; 27 a*, b sm h I 67 a*; 131 a*; 220 a*; 224 a*;
Sgr w itm IV 27 b 249 a*; 309 a*, d*; Supp 27 a*;
Si I I 132 a*; 297 a*; 298 a*; 99 a*
299 d; IV 21 bb*; 39 b sm h t I 194 a*
Si III* I 299 a*, d* Smn I 159 d
S im t I Supp 31 a*; IV 21 a*, bb* Smn I Intro g; 54 d; 88 a*; 104 a*,
Swr* I 261 d; 323 a*, d d*; 191 a*, d; 311 a*; 315 d;
tStr 'p t Sm m I 261 d Supp 71 a*; II 4 b*. d*
Shi* I 84 d Sm n a rs II 4 b*. d*
Shi m m t I 84 d Smt I Intro d; 159 a*, d; 315 a*, d
— 569 —
£m' I 312 a*, d; 313 a*; 314 a*, d; tp I* I 324 a*

333 a*, d; Supp 100 a* tr ( } ) II I 147 d
Sm 't h w t I 314 a*, d tr t IV 32 a*
£n ttb V 1d
Snl (I) I Supp 101 a*; IV 42 b
Snm IV 42 a*, b, c, e*, f*, g*; V tb r I I 335 a*, d
29 b id. I 160 a*; 340 a*
Snn II Supp 5 b * tw b I 232 g; 332 a*; 333 a*, d;
Snl (II) I 316 a*, d 334 a*, d; Supp 86 a*; III 1 b. e
*sp I y tb III 1 b, c, e
Spt I 272 a*, d, f; 316 a*; 320 a*; y tb V I Ik si m lk h III 1 b
Supp 102 a* y ttb n III 1 e
Sph I 317 a*, d; 339 a* tb il V 32 b
Spk I 117 a*, d; 318 a* tb 'm V 32 b
S pm I 184 a*, d tw y I 85 a*, d
Spr I Intro a; 214 a*, d; Supp 77 c * tw r
sp s I 75 d; 319 a*; IV 23 1; V 39 b tr I Intro a; 83 a*, e; 344 a*, d;
Sqy I 321 a* Supp 9 a*; III 2 t
Sql I II Intro e tr i l IV 2 a*
tStql i l t Ihklh II Intro e tr i l abh III 2 t
y$ tq l d n il Ihklh II Intro e * ty n I I Intro g
Srh I Supp 91 b tk m I 341 a*
Sr' tk m I 320 a*
Sr' th m tm I 286 a* tk m n
SrS (I) I Intro a; 74 a*; Supp 103 a* tk m n w S nm IV 42 a*, c, c 1
SSy* I 80 a*, d tlh n I 329 a*; Supp 21 b
Sty I I 149 a*; 274 d; 296 a*. d*. g; tit I
327 a*, d tit I 342 a*; II Intro e
Sty y n I 327 a* tit r V y m II Intro e
mSt II I Supp 77 c tm (I) I 213 d
tm n y I
th m I 21 d
tm n n q p {n )t 'd
th m tm I 286 a* tm n t i$ r r 't I 66 d
* tw k w tm n t ttm n t III 2 q*
tk II 1 i w tm n tttm n m III 2 q«
btk I 75 a* ttm n t III 2 q*
btk m lb r i l S iy I 183 d tn y I I 150 a*; 334 a*
*tw r I 242 a*, d y t n y V I §at Spth I 272 f
th m II Intro f tn I 106 a*; II Intro e
th m y m V lk m II Intro f t' I 1 d; III 2 f, t, hh
th t I Intro d; 328 a*; 329 a*, e; & I 156 a*; 343 a*, d; Supp 30
Supp 23 a*; 105 a* a*, b
tl '* I Supp 95 a*, b tg r bt i l I Supp 30 b
* tm m I 330 a*, d m I 28 a*; 86 a*
tn n III 1 h; IV 31 a*, b, c, d; 35 b tp t I 253 a*; II Intro f
tn n ISbm tSt IV 31 d tp t n h r IV 15 b, x*; 18 c; V 44 b
— 570 —
Indices B-3
tp tn V 44 b tsm I 235 d
t§* I 235 d it' I Supp 50 a*
B-3 A k k a d ia n W o rd s
This index includes all Akkadian words in the volume. The arrangement of the words is based
on the alphabetic system of von Soden, A H . Thus the index consists of two columns: 1) Akkadian
words and phrases; and 2) the chapter, entry, and paragraph indication. An asterisk following an
Akkadian listing signifies a meaning added to A H . However, DN’s and PN's are not followed by an
asterisk, even though most are not cited in A H . A list of logograms appears at the end of this index.
a b d ia n a ti V 2 b a n tu m V 25 b
a b d ia ia r ti V 3 c d ru IV 13 b
a b d ib a 'a la t V 34 b a ir a tu V 3 a*
a b d ib e ltu V 34 a*, b a iiu r a n a V 4 a*, b
ab d ih a g a b V 9 a*, b a iiu r u V 4 ‫־‬a*
a b d ik u S a ri V 14 b a ita r a b i V 5 b; 29 b
a b d im ilk u V 15 b a ita r u V 5 a*
a b d ir a p i V 43 a*, b
a b d ir a ia p V 21 a*, b b a 'a l bel h u r ia n h a zi V 6 a*, d; 35 b
a b d iti r ii IV 32 b b a 'a l h u r ia n h a zi V 6 a*, d
a b d iy a r ih V 28 a*, b b a 'a la lu V 6 a*, c
abi IV 3 e b a 'a la n a V 6 a*, c
abi-A lu V Intro b b a 'a la n u V 6 a*, c
a b im ilk u V Intro b; 15 b b a 'a ld d n u V Intro b; 36 a*, b
a b ir d m i V 42 b b a a lu V 6 a*, b, c, d, e
a b iy d m a IV 15 zz< bcLalum a V 6 e
abu I I 1 d; V Intro b; 29 a*, b b a ld tu I 218 d
adad V 1 a*, e bani V 33 a*
a d a d bel h u r ia n h a zi V 1 a*, e b a n i a m llu ti V 33 a*
adanum m u V 30 b b a n d IV V 33 b
addu V 1c b elli la in ta V 34 b
addu dayydn u V 36 b beltu V 34 a*, b
adu V 1 c beltu ku b a b a belei! k a rg a m is IV 34 b
aduna V 30 b belu I V 1 a, e; 6 a, d, e; 35 a*, b
a d u n ib a 'a l V 30 a*, b belu m d m iti V 35 b
adunu V 30 a*, b b in a d d a y u V 1 a*, c
a h ird m u V 42 b b in a ita r m i V 5 b
a h lr a ia p V 21 b; 31 a*, b b in d a te y a V 8 b
ah u I V 31 a*, b b in d u d d y a V 8 b
a m m in id a g d n V 7 b b in ilitn a rd k u b V 41 b
am m u I V 32 a*, b b in k a m a ii V 12 a*, b
a m m u rapi V 32 a*, b; 43 b b in q a d iS ti V 20 a*, b
a n a tu V 2 a* binrdkubba* a l V 41 a*, b
— 571 —
B -3 Ras Shamra Parallels
b in S ipte V 44 b k a b tu I 43 d
b it- n in u r ta IV 30 f kam aS u V 12 a*, b
b it-S u lm d n u IV 30 f k ettu IV 24 b, i
k in n a r u IV 17 b; V 13 a*
dddu V 8 b
ku S arabt V 14 b
dagdnu V 7 a* ku S arabu V 29 b
ddnu V Intro b; 36 a*, b ku Saru V 14 a*, b
dudu V 8 a*, b
dudunu V 8 b
la m a S tu IV 21 g
ea 'a b t V 29 a*, b
en at V 2 b m d lik IV 38 f
ersetu V 23 b; 24 a*, b m a lik ilu V 15 b
er$etu u § am u V 24 b m a lik u IV 15 a*, b
m a lik u V 15 b
g a m d ru II IV 36 b; 37 b m dm xtu V 35 b
g d m ir a d d i V 1 a*; 37 a*, b m a r a b d iy a m m u V 27 a*, b
g a m ir a d d u V 1 a*, c; 37 a*, b m a rd u k V 16 a*, b
g d m ir u V 37 a * ,> m a r d u k - a p la - i d in V 16 d*
g a m ru I V 37 b m a rd u k m a S arru III 1 d
g im r a d d u V 37 b m eSaru IV 24 b, i
m ilk ilu V 15 b
hagabu V 8 a*
m ilk in d r i V 18 b
h agban u V 9 b
m ilk u V 15 b
h azu V 1 a, e; 6 a, d; 35 b
m u lik IV 38 f
h u rsa n u I V 1 a, e; 6 a, d; 35 b
m u lu k (k i) IV 38 t
ild n i r a b u ti V 40 a*, b
ila n i u iU a r a ti IV 9 v; 23 e n a 'a m ra S a p V 38 a*, b
ilib e lu V 35 a*, b naam u V 38 a*, b
ilim m u lik V 15 b n a b iu m V 17 b
ilim u lik V 15 b n a b lu I I 136 d
ilin d r u V 18 b nabu V 17 a*
ilira S a p V 21 b n a b u - k u d u r r i- u s u r V 17 d*
iliS a lim V 22 b n a h d lu I I 44 k
i l t S alim a V 22 b n a ru I V 18 a*, b
ilu m - m u lu k IV 38 t n erg a l V 19 a*, b; 21 a
ilu r d m i V 42 a*, b n e r g a l-S a r r i-u s u r V 19 d*
ilu fa b i V 45 a*, b n in g a l belet g u r a ti V 34 b
is u IV 17 c n in g a l belet n u b a n n i V 34 b
iS hara V 10 a*, b n iq im a d u V 1 a*, c
iS tar a la la h V 11 b n iq m a d d u V 1 a*, c
iS ta r h u ri V 10 b; 11 b n iq m a n d u V 1 a*, c
iS tar h u rri V 10 b; 11 b n u m a re S a ip V 38 b
iS ta r tu n ip V 11 b n& rana V 39 b
U ta r z in z a r i V 11 b n u r im a lik V 15 b; 39 b
iS ta ra ti IV 9 v; 23 e n U rtraS ap V 39 a*, b
iS ta ru V 10 b; 11 a*, b nU ru V 39 a*, b
572 —
Indices B-3
p iz i b ili V 46 a♦, b -y d m a IV 15 zz
p iz ib li V 46 a*, b yam m u V 27 a*, b
y a r ih V 28 a*, b
qadiStu V 20 a*, b
za n n a ru V 13 b
ra b u I V 40 a*, b z ib (i)lu V 46 a*, b
rd k ib V 41 b zib l IV 9 q
Yakub V 41 a*, b z im r a d d u V 47 a*, b
rd m u IV* V 42 a♦, b z im r ilim V 47 b
rapu V 43 a*, b z im r u V 47 a*, e*
raS ap V 19 a; 21 a*, b
ra S a p a b i V 29 b A ddendum : L o g o g ra m s
ra S apabu V 21 b A.AB.BA V 25 b; 27 b
ra S ip V 21 b A.AB.BA.GAL V 25 b
AD V 17 b
s ip a r r u I 176 f AG V 17 b
AMAR.UTU V 16 b
se ri V 11 b AN IV 38 t; V 15 b; 18 b;
21 b; 23 b; 35 b; 40 b;
S alim V 22 a*, b
41 b; 42 b
S alim a V 22 b IV 32 b; V 2 b; 3 c; 9 b;
ARAD
S a lim u V 22 a♦, b
14 b; 15 b; 21 b; 27 b;
S am d I V 23 a♦, b; 24 a*, b
28 b; 43 b
Sam u u ersetu V 23 b; 24 a♦, b
bA V 28 b
S am um a V 23 a♦, b
DI.KUt V 36 b
S apaS m ilk u V 15 b
DI.KUD V 36 b; 44 b
Sarru III 1 d
DINGIR V 22 b; 45 b
Sarru d d ru IV 41 p
DUMU V 1 a, c; 5 b; 8 b; 12 b;
S im ra d d u V 1b
20 b; 41 b
S inn u I 316 d V 11 b
EDIN
Sip a t V 44 a♦, b
EN V 6 a, d, e; 35 b
S ip a fb a 'a l V 44 a♦, b
GASAN IV 34 b
S ip etb a 'a l V 44 b
GlR.UNU.GAD V 19 b
S ubam m u V 32 b
GlR.UNU.GAL.LA V 19 b; 21 b
S u lm d n itu IV 30 d, i
G1 S IV 17 b, c; V 13 a, b
S u lm dn u IV 30 c, d, f
5UR.SAG V 1 a, e; 6 a, d; 35 b
S u lm ltu IV 30 d
Id V 18 b
ta la y a V 26 b IDIM V 24 a, b
td m tu (m ) V 25 a♦, b IGI V 2 b; 47 b
td m tu ra b itu V 25 b IM V 1 a*, b, c, d, e; 6 a*, b,
d; 34 b; 36 b; 44 b
fa b rd m i V 45 b 1R V 34 b
fabu V 45 a♦, b KAL V 19 b; 21 b; 38 b
ta la y a V 26 a♦, bV KI V 24 b
KUR V 34 b
u lu n d r i V 18 q LTJ V 33 b
LUGAL V 15 b n i n .U l V 3 c
MA.UK.MES V 15 b SIG, V 38 b
m a S.m a S V 19 b; 21 b; 29 b; 31 b; $ES V 21 b; 31 b
39 b U V 1 a*, b, c, d; 6 b; 30 b;
ME§ V 33 b; 35 b; 40 b 35 b; 36 b; 41 b; 44 b
NE V 15 b; 39 b UGUN V 10 b; 11 b
NIN V 34 b URU V 11 b; 34 b
NfN V 11 b UTU V 15 b
NIN.GAL V 34 b ZA.MlM V 13 b
B-4 O ther W o rd s
These words are arranged alphabetically and grouped by the following languages: Arabic, Ar-
amaic, Egyptian, Greek, Hittite, Hurrian, Phoenician and Punic, and Sumerian.
A r a b ic G reek H ittite
‫י‬itm IV 6 b
ApiTCOjJ V 45 d
a -a -b i IV 3 b
‫י‬a r y u I Supp l i b
r 'y IV 14 e ayy^Xcov IV 3411
rw y IV 14 e *A8c08o<; IV 3 8 1 H u r r ia n
zib l IV 9 q <Sp70) IV 41 1
sa n d m IV 42 b AîtcoP V 45 d ar- I 43 d
s a n iy a IV 42 b, f BeeXêPoilX IV 9 q, aa a tn IV 3 e
s a n iy y IV 42 b A7)Xava<9* IV 22 g brt IV 2 a*, 1
*a sa ra I 49 e &dcvocT0v IV 21 k e ia n V 14 b
fa 'a la I 115 e in a tn IV 3 e
tep&S Y<xf1.0<; III 2 t, aa, cc, hh,
la 'a b a IV 3 b i t brt IV 2 a*, 1
pp, xx, yy
m a lik IV 38 v teSSab V6e
,Ieuco IV 13 e
A r a m a ic xat 7cpo<Txuv7)(TaT(0<Tav atJTcj)
P h o e n ic ia n a n d P u n ic
‫א^מבייתאל‬ IV 6 d 7ravTe<; utol &eou IV 34 h
‫ די *זלטנה *זלטן עלם‬II Supp 3 c* Kp6vo<; IV 42 g ‫אל‬ I 31 g
11 ‫ דר ודר‬Supp 3 b*. c*, d xiipicx; I 95 f ‫)ה(אלנם הקד^זם‬ IV 34 d
‫ ומלכותה ע ם־דר ודר‬Supp 3 c 11 * MaXxotv8po<; IV 3 8 t ‫ארך‬ I Supp 36 b
‫ ו^תלנה ע ם־דר ודר‬Supp 3 b 11* Murcop IV 24 b ‫ארכרח‬ I 43 d
11 ‫ מלכו‬Supp 3 b*, c* IV 38 n ‫את‬ I 258 e
(xoXox
‫ מלכותה מלכות עלם‬II Supp 3 b* ‫ב‬ I 258 e
vscpsXY)Ysp^Ta IV 40 b
‫מלק‬ IV 38 i ‫בת‬ I 74 g
Paicpav IV 41 k
‫עלם‬ II Supp 3 b*, c*, d ‫ם‬#‫דר כ ל קד‬ IV 34 d
SuSux IV 24 b ‫תר‬
p r ‫עתיק‬ IV 42 a, g I Supp 36 b
(jloXox PantXet IV 38 n ‫ככבם אל‬ I 31 g
‫« ל ק‬# II Supp 3 b*, c*, d
XoiioapStx; IV 18 g ‫לח‬ I 176 f
E g y p tia n Xou(Tap(ja9‫־‬a 1(i. IV 18 g ‫מלך‬ IV 38 c, f, t
m w 'd IV 34 y Xp6vo<; IV 42 g ‫מלכאדם‬ IV 38 q
h k t d .t IV 41 p £2pcov IV 12 g ‫מלכאסר‬ IV 3 8 t
— 574 —
Indices B-4
‫מלכפ^זתרת‬ IV 3 8 1 ‫זם‬0‫קד‬ IV 34 d Sumerian

ath p ‫מפחרת אל גבל‬ IV 34 d ‫רב ספרם ולח‬ 1 176 f
‫ספר‬ I 176 f ‫רכבאל‬ V 41 b a'a V 14 b
‫עבד^זגר‬ IV 27 b ‫רפאם‬ IV 41 j im V6e
‫פעל‬ I 115 e I 74 g imzuanna V6e
— 575 —
Index C: Subjects
Actant III Intro 2 d; 1 ja; 2 t7, da, fa, ga Bethel III 2 j; IV 6 f

“Actual” fact III 1 vv 18 Binary opposition III Intro 2 d; Intro 8 a, b;
Adad IV 38 c, r, s, t; V 1 a, b, c, e; 6 b, d; 2 ba, ca, fa, ga
35 b; 36 b; 37 b Bride price III 2q®
Adonis V 38 d
Alalu IV 39 e Calf-image IV 9 bb, cc, dd
'Aliy IV 39 f, ii, 00, qq Carmel, Mt. IV 9 o, p
'Alu IV 39 z, aa Chaoskampf III 1 gg8; IV 15 d
Amenophis III IV 41 p Chemosh I 65 g; 254 e; IV 9 z
Anat(h) I 299 d; IV 22 b, d, e, f, g; 23 g, 1; Chiasmus I Intro i; 26 i; 31 g; 68 f; 72 i; 121 g;
31 b; 38 t; V 2; 38 b 139 e; 157 d; 238 d; 264 e; 268 f; 283 f; 299 i;
Anunna IV 4 b 304 h; 309 g; 330 g; Supp 18 d; 39 e
Apocalyptic III 1 ua, ya, za, cp, hp; IV 34 g Collocation I Intro j, k, n; 44 k; 55 e; 66 d;
Aqht cycle III 2 f, k, p, p4, t7, ss; 3 p2 90 e; 100 g; 117 d; 119 e; 150 d; 204 f; 212 i;
Asher IV 7 b, d 216 d; 235 f; 254 e; 255 f; 343 g; Supp 54 c
Asherah I 299 d; IV 7 b; 8 c, d, e, g, h, i; 34 d; Colon II Intro d1
V 3; 25 b Composite phrase, breakup of I 12 d; 21 d;
Ashimah IV 6 f 68 f; 74 f; 103 g; 270 g; 300 h; Supp 69 b;
Ashtaroth IV 41 c, h IV 11 h, i
Assur V 4 Construct chain I Intro j; 155 f; 258 e; 293 h;
Astar V 5 296 g; 299 d
Astarte IV 8 i; 9 x; 22 b; 23 b, d, e, f, g, j, k, Covenant IV 9 n
l, m; 41 d Creation IV 15 c, d, g, m, hh, jj
Atargatis IV 22 b Absolute beginning III 1 o, gg8
'Attar IV 9 i; 28 b, e, f; 30 b, d; 38 c; V 5 b Banquet III 1 m, q, r, aa, bb, ee, hh, zz,
ia19, na, ta, ua, za, c(3, j(3, kp, 1(3, 0(3, up
Baal I 76 c, d, f; IV 9 b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, 1, Conflict (-victory) III 1 m, q, s, u, v, x, y,
m, n, o, p, q, r, r2, s, s3, t, t4, u, v, w, x, y, aa, bb, cc, ee, gg, gg8, hh, ii, pp, pp10, xx,
z, bb, cc, dd; 10 c; 15 v, y, ii, kk, 11, mm, tt; yy, aa, ba, ca, da, ea, ga, ha, ia, ia19, ka,
21 g, h, cc, dd, ff; 23 e; 25 j; 28 e; 31 b; 33 f, la, la21, ma, na, oa, pa, sa, ta, ua, va, wa,
j; 34 k, m, n; 38 c, n, s; 39 b, d, f; 40 b, d, e; za, ap, cp, dp, ip, 1p, tp, up; 2 s
41 b; V 1 b, d; 2 b; 6 ; 7 b; 26 b; 35 b, d; 38 d; Cosmogonic III 1 1, m, n, o, p, q, t, x, z,
41 b; 44 b; 46 b ee, gg, gg5, hh, pp, vv18, ww, yy, zz, aa,
Baal-shamem IV 9 d, i, m, o, p, s, t4, u, aa; ca, ea, ga, ha, ja, ka, la, la21, ma, na, qa,
34 k; 39 d sa, xa, ya, ep, hp, ip, sp
Bashan IV 35 e, h, i Ordering the cosmos III 1 m, n, o, q, x, y,
Ben-Hadad V 1 i z, aa, bb, cc, gg, gg8, hh, pp10, yy, ga, ep, ip
Beth Anath IV 22 g Out of nothing III 1 o, ep
Beth-aven IV 6 f Temple (building) III 1 m, n, q, t, u, x, y,
Beth Horon IV 12 d, d*; 30 f aa, bb, cc, ee, gg8, hh, yy, zz, aa, ba, ca,
576 —
Indices c
da, ga, na, ra, za, ep, ip, jp, kp, 1p, mp, np, Transitional formula III 2 e1, f
°P> PP. 9P. rP> SP> *P. *P23. UP> 11P24. WP> Function III Intro 2 d
wp27, yp
Theogonic III 1 1, o, p, gg5, ep Genre III Intro 2 b; Intro 3 a; Intro 4 a, b;
Intro 6 b; 1 ii, 11, ww, ww16, ca, ja, up24; 2 c,
Dagan IV 10 b, c, e, f, g, k, 1; V 7 f, g, k, m, aa, mm, zz; 3 c, j, 1, t
Dagon IV 10 h, i, k Conflict myth III 1 q, r, s, s1, t, aa, bb, xx,
Davidic cycle III 2 q, r, w, w9, gg, hh, ii, kk, ga, ia
11, mm, nn, qq, uu, ww, xx, zz, ha; 3 w Divine Warrior (Hymn) III 1 cc, ja, va,
Decoding III Intro 8 a, b, c; 1 hh; 2 j wa, za, a(J, bp, fp, gP
Deuteronomists III 2 w, x, y, bb, ee, ff, hh, History III 1 00, rr13, ss, ss14, tt, uu, vv,
ii, jj, ww; IV 9 v; 23 j aa, ja, oa, pa, qa, ta, ua, va, mp, sp, up;
Dionysos IV 9 w 2 e, f, k, r, t, gg, kk, aa, ba, fa; IV 28 f
Dragon IV 31 1, m, n Hymn III 1 ii, mm, qq, ww16, ca17, da, ja,
Muzzling the dragon IV 15 ss, ss2; 31 d ka, ma, na, sa, cp, gp, hp; IV 15 v
Dud V 8 March of Divine Warrior to battle III 1 ca
Myth III 1 ii, mm, qq, rr, rr13, ss, ss14, tt,
Ea V 14 b uu, vv, ww16, aa, ba, ja, oa, qa, ua, va,
Edrei IV 41 c, h gp, hp, jp, sp, up; 2 t, aa, ba, ca, fa, ga;
El-religion IV 2 d, e, f, g, h IV 15 ii, mm; 28 f, j; 31 i, 1; 34 k
Elijah IV 9 o, o1, p; 11 e Return of the Divine Warrior to take up
Elyon IV 39 e, f Kingship III 1 ca, da, ea, fa
Enthronement III 1 ca, ka, oa Ritual III 2 t, t7, oo
Of Baal III 1 e Royal epic III 2 f, k, 1, m, n, o, p, qq, ss
Of Yahweh III 1 yy, zz, aa, da, ea God, dying and rising III 2 s, t
Epic III 1 g, v, ba, ja, sp, xp; 2 c, f, h, q, q5,
r, w, x, z, bb, cc, kk, mm, nn, ss, zz; IV 15 g Hadad IV 9 e, i, o, x, z; 38 r, s, t; V 11 f, g, j
Royal epic III 2 f, k, 1, m, n, o, p, qq, ss Hadad-Rimmon V 1 f, j
"The Revolt of the Sea" III 1 g, h, i, j, dd, Hadadezer V 1 h
ff, gg5. ii, jj. la, la21 Hagab V 9
Epithet I 94 d; Supp 1 b; II Intro f, f2; 4 e; Hanat IV 22 g
Supp 1 b, e; III 2 e1, t; IV 2 p, q; 9 i, w; 10 c; Hendiadys I 32 f
14 b; 17 b; 24 c; 34 d; 36 e; 37 b, e; 38 s; 39 d, Hieros gamos III 2 t, aa, cc, hh, pp, xx, yy
e, j; 40 b, d, e; 41 p; 42 a; V Intro a, b; 8 c; Historicization of myth III 1 p, v, rr, tt, uu
15 b; 22 b; 29 b, c; 30 b, j; 31 b; 33 b; 34 b; Historiographical presuppositions III 1 ss, uu,
35 b, c; 36 b; 37 b; 38 b, d; 39 b; 40 b; 41 b; vv, ww; 2 fa
42 b; 43 c; 44 c, j; 45 b; 46 b; 47 b “ Hypothetical’1 facts III 1 vv 15
,Esmfin IV 6 b, f
Eyan V 14 b Ishara V 10
Ishtar IV 23 m; 30 d; 38 r, t; V 11; 45 b
Folklore III 2 o; 3 p
Form criticism III Intro 2 b, e; Intro 3 a, b, c; Jeremiah IV 9 s, v
Intro 4 b; Intro 5 b; Intro 6 a; Intro 7 b; Jerusalem IV 24 c, e, f, g, p, q; 30 f, g
Intro 8 b, c; 2 g, o; 3 j, k, 1, m Juxtaposition I Intro j, n; 4 d; 23 j; 32 f;
Formula I 278 d; II Intro b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i; 53 j; 83 e; 92 e; 95 d; 100 g; 111 d; Supp 58 b
III 1 w, jj, 11, mm; 2 d, e1, v, aa, mm, ia; 3 p2;
V 45 e Kamas V 12
— 577 —
C Ras Shamra Parallels
Kawthar IV 18 c Creation-kingship III 1 aa, ja

Kemosh IV 16 b, d, e; 38 j Divine Warrior III 1 ba, cot, cot17, ja, sa, ua,
Kingship III 1 m, t, yy, aa, ba, ca, ia19, ja, va, wa, ap, cp, gp, ip
ka, na, sa, m(i, up; 2 s, t Hybris IV 14 f
Of Baal III 1 d, m, n, q, r, s, x, y, bb, ee, Peace IV 30 f
hh; IV 15 nn Procession to Zion III 1 va
Of Marduk III 1 d, n, q, aa, ee; IV 15 nn Seven III 1 e(l, ip, y(J; 2 c, h, j, q, q8, w,
Of Yahweh III 1 p, u, y, cc, ee, yy, zz, aa, dd, ee, ff, kk, vv; IV 20 e, e2
aa, ba, da, ea, ga, ha, ia, na, pa, ua, va, Mythologization of history III 1 p, v, rr, ss,
za, cp; IV 9 f; 15 hh, mm, nn tt, uu, ja
Of Yamm III 1 q
Kinyras IV 17 b Nabu V 17
Kothar I 71 e; IV 18 b; 37 b, d, e; V Intro b Naru V 18
Krt cycle III 2 c, f, h, h8, i, j, k, 1, m, n, p, Nergal V 15 b; 19; 21 b
p4, q5» w, w9, x, y, z, bb, cc, cc10, dd, ee, ff, Netherworld I 161 d; IV 5 f; 7 b; 15 yy; 21 1,
gg, hh, ii, jj, 11, mm, nn, oo, pp, qq, rr, ss, tt, u; 29 b, d, f; 31 k; 41 j
uu, vv, ww, xx, yy, zz, ha; 3 c, f, i, n, o, p8,
s, v, w Octavia III 2 q8; 3 k
Kusar V 14 Og IV 23 f, h
Osiris IV 41 p
Lah IV 14 b, d, e, f Pantheon IV 34
Leviathan IV 15 hh, rr; 20 b, d, e, f, g, h Parallelism
Line II Intro d1 Distant parallelism I Intro h; 192 d
Literary phrase II Intro h Metrical parallelism I Intro g4
Lyre IV 17 c, g; V 13 P a r a lle lis m u s tn em broru tn I Intro g, g4, h
Semantic parallelism I Intro g4; 265 d
Malik IV 38 c, v; V 15 Patriarchal cycles III 2 e, f, i, k, 1, n, o, p,
Marduk V 16; 17 b; 45 b rr, ss; 3 p8, w
Marriage blessing III 3 c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k^ Abra(ha)m cycle III 2 e, e1, f, i, 1, n, o, p,
1, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t, u, v, w p4; 3 q, u, v
Melqart IV 9 o, p; 38 t Jacob cycle III 2 c, d, e, e1, f, h, i, j, k, 1,
Merismus I 230 h m, n, o, p
Metaphorical use of animal names I 8 d, g; Joseph cycle III 2 e, e1, f, i, 1, n, o, p, p4
59 d; 344 d, g Judah cycle III 2 f, n, ss; 3 w
Milcom IV 16 d; 38 c, j, o, p, s Perseus IV 41 1
Molech IV 38 c, d, f, h, i, j, k, o, p, r, s, u Phaethon IV 28 f
Moloch IV 38 b, f, n Pharaoh IV 31 1
Mot IV 10 b; 15 t, ii, yy; 21 b, e, f, g, h, j, Proto-apocalyptic III 1 pa, sa, za
k, q, r, r8, t, v, w, aa, bb, cc, dd, ff; 38 c Pun I 24 f; 259 e; 344 g
Motif I 76 f; 116 d; 171 e; 274 d; 300 h; Supp
13 c; 17 c; III Intro 1 c; 1 k, w, x, y, z, ee, Qadistu V 20
ee4, 11, mm8, aa, ba, ea, ja20, pa, za, j p, qp, Queen of Heaven IV 23 1
sp; 2 d, o, p, q, q8, s, v, bb, cc, ee12, gg, hh,
uu, xx, yy; 3 o, p2; IV 9 i, 1; 11 e; 15 o, ii, Rapha IV 41 c, d, 1, m, n
ww; 20 d; 31 1; 34 j Rasap V Intro b; 19 b; 21; 38 b
Alliance-enmity III 1 s Rephaim IV 23 f; 41 g, h, i, j, 1, m, o
— 578 —
Indices c
Reshef IV 26 b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j Ideal structure III Intro 3 a, b, c; 1 ee, up,

Return of Baal to throne III 1 e xp; 3 p2
Rimmon V 1 f Individual text III Intro 3 a, b, c; 1 ee, hp,
Ritual Conquest III 1 aa, ia19, ja, oa, sa, va, up, vp; 2 oo
za, ap Intermediate structure III Intro 2 d; Intro
7 a; 1 ja; 2 da, ea, fa, ga
Salim IV 24 g; 30 f, h; V 22 Narrative structure III Intro 2 d; Intro 4 c;
Samas V 36 b Intro 6 b; Intro 7 b, c, d; Intro 8 b; 1 d,
Samu V 23 e, ee, ii, 11, mm, ja, fp, hp; 2 e1, h, i, j, k,
Samu u Ersetu V 24 m, n, o, p, p4, t7, 11, mm, nn, oo, qq, rr, tt,
Sarpanitu V 17 b uu, vv, ww, xx, yy, fa, ga, ha; 3 j, m, n,
Scimitar IV 41 1 o, q, r, s, u, v
Selah IV 29 b, d Non-technical structure III Intro 4 a; 1 ee;
“Setting one’s face” II 1 h, i 2k
Shalem IV 16 d Poetic structure III Intro 7 d; 1 u, ii, ca17,
Shamgar IV 22 g sa, wa; 2 mm, ww
Sheol I 329 e; IV 21 f, h, j, 1, o Relationship III Intro 5 a, b; Intro 8 a; 2 j,
Song of Deborah III 1 xx, ia, ja ca; 3 k, k1
Song of the Sea III 1 k, p, u, v, w, y, z, cc, dd, Surface structure III Intro 2 d; Intro 7 a,
gg, ii, jj, kk, 11, nn, 00 , pp, qq, rr, rr11, rr12, b, c; Intro 8 b; 1 ee, ii, gp; 2 t7, 00 , pp, ca,
ss, ss14, tt, uu, vv, vv15, ww, yy, ca, ia19, ja, da, ea, fa, ga; 3 k, k1, 1, m
ja20, ka; IV 15 g Synchronic treatment III Intro 6 a, b; 1 oo9;
S p n , Mt. IV 25 b, d, e, f, g, h, i, j; 34 y
2 ea
Syntagmatic structure III Intro 2 d; Intro
Stones, sacred IV 1 b 4 c; Intro 7 a, b, c; Intro 8 b; 2 t7, oo, ca,
Structuralism III Intro 2 c, e; Intro 3 a, b, c; da, ea
Intro 4 b, c; Intro 5 a, b; Intro 6 a; Intro 7 a; Technical structure III Intro 4 a, b, c
Intro 8 a, b, c; 2 o, t7 Succession History III 2 n, qq, rr, ss, tt, uu,
Structure III Intro 1 a, b, c; Intro 4 a; 1 ee, yy, zz, ga
ff, hh, ii, kk, mm, oo9, qq, rr, rr11, ss, ss14, tt, Succoth festival III 2 t, u, x, z, aa, bb, pp, xx
ww, ww16, xx, aa, ba, ca, ca17, da, ea, ga, Syncretism IV 9 g, h, i, r, t, y, cc; 38 s
ia, ia19, ja, pa, qa, ta, ua, va, za, ap, cp, fp,
gp, hp, ip, kp, up, vp, yp; 2 c, d, e, e*, f, g, h,
i, j, k, m, n, o, p, t, t7, v, cc10, dd, dd11, gg, ii, Talaya V 26
jj, mm, nn, oo, pp, qq, rr, tt, uu, ww, xx, Tammuz III 2 s, t
zz, aa, ca, da, ea, fa, ha; 3 f, g, j, k, k1, 1, o, Tamtu V 25
q, w Tessub V 1 b, d; 6 b
Deep structure III Intro 2 d; Intro 7 a; Theme I 116 d; III Intro 1 c; 1 g, s1, t, u, v,
Intro 8 a; 2 oo, xx, da, fa, ga; 3 k1 ee, ee4, mm8, ca, ja, ra, sa, ya, bp, op, pp,
Diachronic treatment III Intro 6 a, b; 1 oo9; sp, wp; 2 d, e, e1, v, y, aa, ii, jj, tt, da; 3 1;
2 ea IV 15 m, hh; 19 d; 34 m
Element III Intro 2 d; Intro 5 b; Intro 8 a; Wisdom III 1 op, pp, wp
1 g, h, i, j, m, n, p, q, r, s, z, aa, bb, cc, ee, Theophany III 1 aa, bb, cc, ee, gg5, xx, ba,
hh, ii, mm, mm8, rr, pa, wa, gp, jp; 2 j, da, ea, ja, ka, sa, wa, za, cp; IV 9 f; 34 k
m, n, p, p4, t, t7, dd, gg, oo, pp, rr, zz, ca, Theophoric element III 2 aa; IV 28 p; V Intro
da; 3 c, q, t b; 26 c; 30 b; 32 b, k; 36 c; 43 b; 44 b
— 579 —
38
C Ras Shamra Parallels
Traditional episode III 2 o, p, p3 w, y, bb, cc, dd, gg, hh, kk, 11, mm, oo, pp,
Traditional birth episode III 3 p, p2, q, r, uu, vv, yy, zz, zz5; 20 f, g; 21 e, h, k, n, p;
t, u, v 23 j; 24 c, f, i, j, k, 1, m, o, s; 25 j, k; 26 h;
30 h; 31 f, k, 1; 33 d, j; 34 h, i, j, k, m, n, o,
Unit II Intro d1 p, t, u, v, y; 35 e; 38 c, f; 39 1, o, s, t, w, y,
Uzzah III 2 z cc, jj, oo; 40 d, e; 41 i, p, r, s, t; 42 g; V 29 c;
Venus IV 16 d; 28 b, e, f; 30 b, d; 38 c 30 c, d, e; 38 c; 40 c; 43 c; 44 c, d; 45 e
Vow I 4 d; III 2 c, h, i, j, oo, ww, yy; IV 38 g Yamm g, h, i,
III 1 pp, pp10, xa, l(i; IV 15 b, c, d,
j, 1, m, n, p, r, s, t, u, v, w, y, z, aa, bb,
Vowel harmony IV 3 e cc, dd, ee, ff, gg, hh, ii, jj, kk, 11, mm, 00 ,
Word Pairs I Intro a, b, c, d, e, f, g, g4, h, pp, qq, rr, ss, tt, uu, vv, ww, xx, yy; 21 g;
i, 1, m, n; 42 e; 166 f; 253 1; 282 g; 303 f; 313 f; 31 1; 35 e, f; V 27; 44 b; 46 b
330 g; 343 d, g; II Intro c, g Yarih V 28; 39 b; 46 b
Yahweh I 118 f; 271 i; 304 h; IV 2 e, g, h, i, Zeus Demarus IV 38 t

k, o, q, s; 7 d; 9 f, g, h, i, 1, m, n, p, s, t, u, Zimri V 47 c, d
x, y, cc, dd; 13 d, e; 15 c, d, g, h, m, p, r, v, Zion, Mt. IV 25 j
— 580
GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS
A Aphel verbal stem; stem with preformative vowel.

AAS L es a n n a te s archeologiqu es de S y r i e : R e vu e d*archeologie et
d ’h isto ire (sy rie n n e s).
Abel, G eograph ie F. M. Abel, G eograph ie de la P a le s tin e , vols. I and II. Paris:
Librairie Lecoffre, 1933 and 1938.
AcAnt A c ta a n tiq u a A c a d e tn ia e S c ie n tia ru m H u n g a rica e .
A cO r A c ta O rie n ta lia A c a d e tn ia e S c ie n tia r u m H u n g a rica e .
A c tO r A c ta O rie n ta lia .
adj. adjective.
A evum ,
A e v u m : R a sse g n a d i sc ien ze sto rich e lin g u istic h e e filologiche.
A fO A r c h iv fiir O rien tforsch u n g.
Aharoni, G a llin g F S Yohanan Aharoni, ‘‫״‬Mount Carmel as Border/‫ ״‬in G a llin g FSt
pp- 17‫•־‬
Aharoni, T he L a n d Yohanan Aharoni, T he L a n d of the B ib le : A H is to ric a l Geo -
trans. A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: The Westminster
g ra p h y ;
Press, 1967.
Ahlstrom, Joel G. W. Ahlstrom, J o e l a n d the T e m p le C u lt of J e ru sa le m .
VTS, XXI. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.
Ahlstrom, S y n c re tism G. W. Ahlstrom, A s p e c ts of S y n c r e tis m in I s r a e lite R e lig io n ;
trans. Eric J. Sharpe. Horae Soederblomianae, V. Lund:
C. W. K. Gleerup, 1963.
A IO N A n n a li d e lV Istitu to U n iv e r sita rio O rie n ta te d i N a p o li.
A IP H O A n n u a ir e de V I n s titu t de P h ilo lo g ie et d yH is to ir e O rie n ta tes et
S la v e s.
Aistleitner, M KT /M KT2 J. Aistleitner, D ie m yth o lo g isch en u n d k u ltisc h e n T exte a u s
Bibliotheca Orientalis Hungarica, VIII. Bu-
R a s S ch a m ra .
dapest: Akademiai Kiad6, 1959; second edition, 1964.
Aistleitner, W orterb u ch Joseph Aistleitner, W o rterb u ch d er u g a ritisch en S p r a c h e : 3rd
edition. Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der Sachsischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-histo-
rische Klasse, CVI, III. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1967.
AJA A m e ric a n J o u r n a l of A rch a eo lo g y.
AJSL A m e ric a n J o u r n a l of S e m itic L a n g u a g es a n d L ite ra tu re s.
Akk(.) Akkadian.
Albright, ANET W. F. Albright, ‫״״‬Akkadian Letters,‫ ״״‬in A N E T t pp. 482-490.
Albright, A R II A R P William Foxwell Albright, A rch a eo lo g y a n d the R e lig io n of
I sra e l. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1942;
4th edition, 1956.
— 581 —
Albright, Bertholet FS W. F. Albright, “Baal-Zephon,“ in Bertholet FS, pp. 1-14.

Albright, Driver F S William F. Albright, “Archaic Survivals in the Text of Can-
tides,“ in Driver FS, pp. 1-7.
Albright FS The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of
William Foxwell Albright; ed. G. Ernest Wright. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday & Company, 1961.
Albright F S II Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright;
ed. Hans Goedicke. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,
1971.
Albright, Ginzberg Jub. Vol. W. F. Albright, “The List of Levitic Cities,“ in Ginzberg
Jub. Vol., pp. 49-73.
Albright, Haupt FS W. F. Albright, “Mesopotamian Elements in Canaanite
Eschatology,“ in Haupt FS, pp. 143-154.
Albright, Stone Age William Foxwell Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity:
Monotheism and the Historical Process. Baltimore, Maryland:
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1940.
Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy W. F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,“ in Robinson
FS, pp. 1-18.
Albright, Yahweh William Foxwell Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan:
A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1968.
Alt, Die Staatenbildung Albrecht Alt, Die Staatenbildung der Israeliten in Paldstina.
Leipzig: Alexander Edelmann, 1930.
Alt, Essays Albrecht Alt, Essays on Old Testament History and Religion;
trans. R. A. Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966.
Alt FS Geschichte und Altes Testament: Aufsatze von W. F. Albright
et al. (Albrecht Alt zum siebzigsten Geburtstag am 20. Sep-
tember 1953 in Dankbarkeit und Verehrung dargebracht).
Beitrage zur historischen Theologie, XVI. Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1953.
Alt, Hohe Beamte Albrecht Alt, “Hohe Beamte in Ugarit,“ in Pedersen FS,
pp. 1-11. [== Kleine Schriften III, pp. 186-197.]
Alt, Kleine Schriften Albrecht Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes
Israel, vols. I, II, and III. Miinchen: C. H. Beck'sche Ver-
lagsbuchhandlung, 1953, 1953, 1959.
Al-Yasin, Lexical Relation Izz-al-Din Al-Yassin, The Lexical Relation between Ugaritic
and Arabic. Shelton Semitic Monograph Series, I. New York:
Shelton College, 1952.
ANEP The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Tes-
tament; 2nd edition with supplement; by James B. Pritchard.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969.
ANES The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia
University.
A N E T w !* Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament;
ed. James B. Pritchard. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
582 —
Abbreviations
University Press, 1950; 2nd edition, 1955; 3rd edition with

supplement, 1969.
AnOr Analecta Orientalia.
AnSt :
A n a to lia n S tu d ie s J o u r n a l of the B r itis h I n s titu te of A rc h a e -
ology a t A n k a r a .
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament.
AOS American Oriental Society.
App “Appendices texts published by Herdner in CTA, pp. 134-
138.
Arab. Arabic.
Aram. Aramaic.
A R M {T ) A rc h iv e s ro y a les de M a r i (1t ra n sc rip tio n s
Paris: et tra d u c tio n s).
Imprimerie Nationale; Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,
1950fL
A rO r A r c h iv O rie n ta ln i.
ARW A r c h iv fiir R e lig io n sw isse n sc h a ft.
AS Assyriological Studies: The Oriental Institute of the Univer-
sity of Chicago.
ASE A n n u a r io d i s tu d i eb ra ici.
ASTI A n n u a l of the S w e d ish T h eo lo g ica l I n s titu te .
Astour, H e lle n o se m itic a lH e lle n o se m itic a 2 Michael C. Astour, H e lle n o se m itic a : A n E th n ic a n d C u ltu ra l
S tu d y in W e st S e m itic I m p a c t on M y c e n a e a n Greece. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1964; 2nd edition, 1967.
Aug A u g u s tin ia n u m : P e r io d ic u m q u a d rim e stre C o lleg ii I n te r n a -
tio n a lis A u g u s tin ia n i de U rbe.
AUP A n n a le s de V U n iv e r s iti de P a r is .
BA T h e B ib lic a l A rch a eo lo g ist.
b. *A bod. Z a r. Babylonian Talmud, tractate 'A b o d a Z a ra .
Baltzer, D a s B u n d e sfo rm u la r Klaus Baltzer, D a s B u n d e s fo r m u la r ; 2nd edition. Wissen-
schaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament,
IV. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964.
BAR T h e B ib lic a l A rch a eo lo g ist R e a d e r ; edd. David Noel Freedman
et al., vols. I, II, and III. Anchor Books. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1961, 1964, and 1970.
Barr, P h ilo lo g y James Barr, C o m p a ra tiv e P h ilo lo g y a n d the T e x t of the O ld
T esta m en t. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.
Barton, M e m o r ia l L a g ra n g e George A. Barton, “Danel, a Pre-Israelite Hero of Galilee,“
in M e m o ria l L a g ra n g e. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1940, pp. 29-37.
BASO R B u lle tin of the A m e ric a n Sch ools of O rie n ta l R esearch .
Baudissin, K y r io s Wolf Wilhelm Grafen Baudissin, K y r io s a ls G o ttesn a m e im
vol. Ill;
J u d e n tu m u n d se in e S telle in d er R elig io n sg e sch ic h te \
ed. Otto Eissfeldt. Giessen: Alfred Topelmann, 1921.
Bauer, AK Hans Bauer, ed., D ie a lp h a b etisch en K e ilsc h r iftte x te von R a s
S ch a m ra . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1936.
Baumgartner, AT Walter Baumgartner, Z u m A lte n T e sta m e n t u n d se in e r U m -
w e lt\ A u sg e w d h lte A u fsa tze . Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1959.
— 583 —
B a u m g a rtn e r F S H eb rd isch e W o rtfo rsc h u n g : F e stsc h rift zu m 8 0 . G ebu rtstag von

W a lte r B a u m g a r tn e r ; edd. Benedikt Hartmann et al. VTS,
XVI. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967.
b. B . B a t. Babylonian Talmud, tractate B a b a B a tra .
BDB Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A H e -
brew a n d E n g lis h L e x ic o n of the O ld T esta m en t. Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1907.
Beer, S tein ve re h ru n g Georg Beer, S te in v e re h ru n g bei den I s r a e lite n : E in B e itra g zu r
se m itisch en u n d a llg e m e in e n R elig io n sg esch ich te. Strassburger
wissenschaftlicher Gesellschaft im Heidelburg, Schriften, n.s.,
IV. Berlin: Vereinigung wissenschaftlicher Verleger, 1921.
Bentzen, In tro d u c tio n Aage Bentzen, I n tro d u c tio n to the O ld T esta m e n t, vols. I and
II; 7th edition. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1967.
Bentzen, S a lm e r A. Bentzen, F o r to lk n in g til de g a m m e lte sta m tlig e S a lm er.
Copenhagen, 1939.
Benz, N am es Frank L. Benz, P e rs o n a l N a m e s in the P h o e n ic ia n a n d P u n ic
I n s c r ip tio n s : A C a ta lo g , G ra m m a tic a l S tu d y a n d G lo ssa ry of
E lem e n ts. Studia Pohl, VIII. Rome: Pontifical Biblical In-
stitute, 1972.
Berthier-Charlier, E l- H o f r a Andre Berthier and Rene Charlier, L e sa n c tu a ire p u n iq u e
d 'e l-H o fr a a C o n s ta n tin e ; 2 vols. in 1. Paris: Ars et metiers
graphiques, 1955.
B erth olet F S F e stsc h rift A lfr e d B erth o let zu m 8 0 . G e b u rtsta g ’, edd. Walter
Baumgartner et al. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1950.
Beyerlin, S in a itic T r a d itio n s Walter Beyerlin, O rig in s a n d H is to r y of the O ldest S in a itic
T r a d itio n s ’, trans. S. Rudman. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.
Bezold, BAG Carl Bezold, B a b y lo n isc h -a ssy risc h e s G lossar. Heidelberg: C.
Winter, 1926.
BH Biblical Hebrew.
b. H a g . Babylonian Talmud, tractate H a g ig a .
BHK B ib lia H e b r a ic a ; ed. Rud. Kittel; 7th edition. Stuttgart:
Wiirttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1951.
BHS B ib lia H e b ra ic a S tu ttg a rte n sia ; editio funditus renovata; edd.
K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung,
1968ff.
B ib B ib lic a : C o m m e n ta rii e d iti cu r a P o n tific ii I n s tit u ti B ib lic i.
de Biberstein Kazimirski, D ic tio n n a ire A. de Biberstein Kazimirski, D ic tio n n a ir e a ra b e -fra n g a is.
Paris: Maisonneuve and Co., 1860.
B ib le de la P le ia d e L a B ib le : L ’A n c ie n T e sta m e n t, vols. I and II, by E. Dhorme
et al. Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, CXX and CXXXIX. Paris,
1956 and 1959.
B ib O r B ib b ia e O riente: R iv is ta b im e stra le p e r la conoscen za della
B ib b ia .
B IE S B u lle tin of the I s r a e l E x p lo ra tio n S o c ie ty .
B IJS B u lle tin of the I n s titu te of J e w is h S tu d ie s.
— 584 —
Abbreviations
B iO r B ib lio th eca O rie n ta lis.

B iS B ib lio th eca S a cra .
BJ Paris: L,es Editions du Cerf, 1961.
L a B ib le de J e r u sa le m .
[English edition: T h e J e r u sa le m B ib le . Garden City, New
York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966.]
B JR L B u lle tin of the J o h n R y la n d s L ib r a r y , M a n ch ester.
Blommerde, N W SG J Anton C. M. Blommerde, N o rth w e st S e m itic G ra m m a r a n d
J o b . Biblica et Orientalia, XXII. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1969.
BM B B u lle tin d u M u se e de B e yro u th .
Bodenheimer, A n im a l F. S. Bodenheimer, A n im a l a n d M a n in B ib le L a n d s . Col-
lection de travaux de l’Academie Internationale d’Histoire
des Sciences, X. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1960.
Bonkamp, BLK Bernh Bonkamp, D ie B ib e l im L ic h te d er K e ilsc h riftfo rsc h u n g .
Recklinghausen: G. W. Visarius, 1939.
Borger, A sa rh a d d o n s Riekele Borger, D ie In sc h rifte n A sa rh a d d o n s, K o n ig s von A s -
sy rie n . A fO , Beiheft IX. Graz: Im Selbstverlage der Heraus-
gebers, 1956.
Brekelmans, R a s S ja m r a C. H. W. Brekelmans, R a s S ja m r a en het O ude T esta m en t.
Nijmegen: Dekker et van der Vegt, 1962.
Briggs, P s a lm s Charles Augustus Briggs and Emilie Grace Briggs, A C r itic a l
a n d E x e g etica l C o m m e n ta ry on the B ook of P s a lm s , vols. I
and II. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906 and 1907.
Brinkman, P o litic a l H is to r y J. A. Brinkman, A P o litic a l H is to r y of P o s t- K a s s ite B a b y lo n ia
1 1 5 8 -7 2 2 B .C . AnOr, X U II. Rome: Pontifical Biblical In-
stitute, 1968.
Brockington, H ebrew T e x t L. H. Brockington, T he H eb rew T e x t of the O ld T esta m en t.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Bronner, E lija h L. Bronner, T he S to rie s of E lija h a n d E lis h a as P o le m ic s
a g a in st B a a l W o rsh ip . Pretoria Oriental Series, VI. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1968.
Buccellati, C itie s Giorgio Buccellati, C itie s a n d N a tio n s of A n c ie n t S y r i a : A n
E s s a y on P o litic a l I n s titu tio n s w ith S p e c ia l R eference to the
Studi Semitici, XXVI. Rome: Istituto
I s r a e lite K in g d o m s .
di Studi del Vicino Oriente, 1967.
Burrows, S to n es Millar Burrows, W h a t M e a n T hese S tones? T he S ig n ific a n c e
of A rch eo lo g y fo r B ib lic a l S tu d ie s. New Haven, Connecticut:
American Schools of Oriental Research, 1941.
Buss, H osea Martin J. Buss, T he P ro p h e tic W o rd of H osea: A M o rp h o -
BZAW, CXI. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann,
lo g ica l S tu d y .
1969.
BZ B ib lisc h e Z e itsc h rift.
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft.
c(c). chapter (s).
585 —
CAD T h e A s s y r ia n D ic tio n a r y of the O rie n ta l I n s titu te of the U n iver-

s ity of C h ic a g o ; edd. Ignace J. Gelb et al. Chicago, Illinois:
The Oriental Institute, 1956ff.
CAH T he C a m b rid g e A n c ie n t H is to r y ; 3rd edition; edd. I. E. S.
Edwards et al. Cambridge: University Press, 196211.
Campbell, A r k N a r r a tiv e Antony F. Campbell, T he A r k N a r r a tiv e (7 S a m 4 -6 \ 2 S a m 6):
A F o r m -C r itic a l a n d T r a d itio -H is to r ic a l S tu d y . Society of
Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, XVI. Missoula, Mon-
tana: Scholars Press, 1975.
Caquot, L e s R e lig io n s Andre Caquot and Maurice Sznycer, “Textes ougaritiques,”
in L e s re lig io n s d u P ro ch e-O rie n t a s ia tiq u e : T ex tes b a b y lo n ie n s ,
o u g a ritiq u e s , h ittite s ; by Rene Labat et al. Le tresor spirituel
de Phumanite. Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1970, pp.
351-458.
Caquot, TO M L Andre Caquot, Maurice Sznycer and Andree Herdner, T extes
o u g a ritiq u e s , I, M y th e s et lig e n d e s. Paris: Les editions du
Cerf, 1974.
Carlson, D a v id R. A. Carlson, D a v id , the C h osen K i n g ; trans. Eric J. Sharpe
and Stanley Rudman. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1964.
Cassuto, GA U. Cassuto, ‫ = [ האלה ענת‬T h e G oddess A n a th ]. Jerusalem: The
Bialik Institute, 1951.
Cassuto, G en esi Umberto Cassuto, L a q u estio n e d ella G en esi. Firenze: F. le
Monnier, 1934.
Cassuto, G en esis I/II U. Cassuto, A C o m m e n ta ry on the B o o k of G e n e sis , vols. I
and II; trans. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes
Press, 1961 and 1964.
Cassuto, L ite ra tu re s U. Cassuto, B ib lic a l a n d C a n a a n ite L ite ra tu re s. Studies on
the Bible and Ancient Orient, I. Jerusalem: The Magnes
Press, 1972. [In Hebrew.]
Cassuto, S tu d ie s I/II U. Cassuto, B ib lic a l a n d O rie n ta l S tu d ie s , vols. I and II;
trans. Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1973
and 1975.
Cathcart, N ahum Kevin J. Cathcart, N a h u m in the L ig h t of N o rth w e st S e m itic .
Biblica et Orientalia, XXVI. Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1973.
Cazelles, G elin G S H. Cazelles, “Une relecture du psaume XX IX ?” in G elin
G S , pp. 119-128.
Cazelles, R o b ert F S Henri Cazelles, ”La titulature du Roi David,” in R o b ert F S ,
pp. 131-136.
CBQ T h e C a th o lic B ib lic a l Q u a rterly.
CC L a C iv ilta ca tto lica .
CCD C o n fra te r n ity of C h ristia n D o c trin e V e rsio n of the H o ly B ib le.
New York: Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1962.
CH Code of Hammurapi.
C hicago B ib le T h e C o m p lete B ib le: A n A m e r ic a n T r a n s la tio n ; the OT trans.
J. M. Powis Smith et al.; the Apocrypha and the NT trans.
— 586 —
Abbreviations
Edgar J. Goodspeed. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago

Press, 1939.
Childs, I s a ia h Brevard S. Childs, I s a ia h a n d the A s s y r ia n C r isis. Studies
in Biblical Theology, 2nd series, III. Naperville, 111.: Alec
R. Allenson, Inc., 1967.
Cig, D ie P u g riS -D a g a n T ex te M. Cig et al., D ie P u g r is -D a g a n T ex te d er Ista n b u le r A r -
ch dologischen M u se e n . Helsinki, 1954.
C IL C o rp u s in s c r ip tio n u m la tin a ru m .
C IS C o rp u s I n s c r ip tio n u m S e m itic a r u m . Paris: Academie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 1881ff.
Clifford, T he C o sm ic M o u n ta in Richard J. Clifford, T he C o sm ic M o u n ta in in C a n a a n a n d
the O ld T esta m en t. Harvard Semitic Monographs, IV. Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972.
CNI C h ristia n N e w s fro m Isra e l.
Cogan, I m p e r ia lis m Morton Cogan, I m p e r ia lis m a n d R e lig io n : A s s y r i a , J u d a h a n d
Society of
I s r a e l in the E ig h th a n d S even th C e n tu ries B .C .E .
Biblical Literature Monograph Series, XIX. Missoula, Mon-
tana: Scholars Press, 1974.
col(s). column (s).
Contenau, C iv P h e n G. Contenau, L a c iv ilis a tio n p h e n ic ie n n e ; new edition. Bib-
liotheque historique. Paris: Payot, 1949.
Cooke, NSI G. A. Cooke, A T e x t-B o o k of N o r th -S e m itic I n s c r ip tio n s :
M o a b ite , H ebrew , P h o e n ic ia n , A r a m a ic , N a b a ta e a n , P a lm y r e n e ,
J e w ish . Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1903.
C oppens F S I D e M a r i a Q u m ra n , vol. 1 : L * A n cie n T e sta m e n t et son m ilie u
d ’a p re s les etu des recentes (hommage J. Coppens); by H. Ca-
zelles et al. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum 1 ,0-
vaniensium, XXIV. Gembloux: Duculot, 1969.
Coppens, M e s s ia n is m e J. Coppens, ,
L e m e ssia n ism e ro y a l: S es o rig in e s son d ev elo p p e -
m en t, son a cc o m p lissem en t. Lectio divina, LIV. Paris: Les
editions du Cerf, 1968.
Cowley-Sayce, A r a m a ic P a p y r i A. H. Sayce, ed., with the assistance of A. E. Cowley, and
with appendices by W. Spiegelberg and Seymour De Ricci,
A r a m a ic P a p y r i D isc o ve red a t A s s u a n . London: Alexander
Moring, Ltd., 1906.
C R A IB L C o m p tes re n d u s de V A c a d e m ie des I n s c r ip tio n s et B elles L ettres.
Cross, B ib lic a l M o tifs Frank Moore Cross, Junior, ,‘The Divine Warrior in Israel’s
Early Cult,” in B ib lic a l M o tifs : O rig in s a n d T ra n sfo rm a tio n s
(Studies and Texts, III); ed. Alexander Altmann. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 11-30.
Cross, CM HE Frank Moore Cross, C a n a a n ite M y th a n d H eb rew E p ic . Cam-
bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1973.
Cross and Freedman, S tu d ie s Frank Moore Cross, Jr., and David Noel Freedman, S tu d ie s
in A n c ie n t Y a h w is tic P o e try . Society of Biblical Literature
Dissertation Series, XXI. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press,
1975.
— 587 —
CRST T he C la rem o n t R a s S h a m ra T a b le ts ; ed. Loren R. Fisher.

AnOr, XLVIII. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971.
CT L. W. King, C u n e ifo rm T e x ts fro m B a b y lo n ia n T a b le ts , XIII.
London, 1901.
CTA Ug. text cited according to the enumeration in Herdner,
CTA.
CTM C o n co rd ia T h eological M o n th ly .
D 1) Deuteronomic author or redactor; 2) Piel verbal stem;
stem with doubled second radical.
Dahood, A lb rig h t F S II Mitchell Dahood, S.J., ”Phoenician Elements in Isaiah 52:
13-53:12,” in A lb rig h t F S II, pp. 63-73.
Dahood, B a u m g a rtn e r F S Mitchell Dahood, ”Congruity of Metaphors,” in B a u m g a rtn e r
F S , pp. 40-49.
Dahood, C oppens F S I Mitchell J. Dahood, ”Ugaritic and the Old Testament,” in
C o p p e n s F S I, pp. 14-33.
Dahood, D e itie s Mitchell J. Dahood, ”Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and
Palestine,” in L e a n tich e d iv in ita se m itic h e ; L es d iv in i tis se-
m itiq u e s a n c ie n n e s ; A n c ie n t S e m itic D e itie s ; D ie a lten s e m i -
tisch en G otth eiten \ ed. Sabatino Moscati. Studi Semitici, I.
Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici, 1958, pp. 65-94.
Dahood, G ordon F S Mitchell Dahood, S.J., “Ugaritic and Phoenician or Qumran
and the Versions,” in G ordon F S , pp. 53-58.
Dahood, G ru en th a n er V ol. M. Dahood, ”Northwest Semitic Philology and Job,” in
T h e B ib le in C u rre n t C a th o lic T h ou gh t (Gruenthaner Memorial
Volume); ed. J. L. McKenzie. Saint Marys Theology Studies,
I. New York, 1962, pp. 55-74.
Dahood, M e la n g e s T isse ra n t M. J. Dahood, ”Ugaritic Lexicography,” in M ela n g es E u gen e
T isse ra n t, vol. I: E c ritu re s a in te — A n c ie n O rien t. Studi e
Testi, CCXXXI. Vatican City, 1964, pp. 81-104.
Dahood, M o r ia r ty F S Mitchell Dahood, S.J., ”Some Rare Parallel Word Pairs in
Job and in Ugaritic,” in M o r ia r ty F S , pp. 19-34.
Dahood, M yers F S Mitchell Dahood, S.J., ”Chiasmus in Job: A Text-Critical
and Philological Criterion,” in M y e r s F S , pp. 119-130.
Dahood, P h o e n ic ia n M. Dahood, ”The Phoenician Contribution to Biblical Wis-
dom,” in T h e R ole of the P h o e n ic ia n s in the I n te r a c tio n of
M e d ite rra n e a n C iv iliz a tio n s : P a p e r s P re se n te d to the A rch a e -
ological S y m p o s iu m of the A m e ric a n U n iv e r s ity of B e ir u t ;
ed. W. A. Ward. Beirut, 1968, pp. 123-152.
M a rc h , 1 9 6 7 \
Dahood, P ro ve rb s Mitchell Dahood, S.J., P ro v e rb s a n d N o rth w e st S e m itic P h ilo lo -
g y. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, CXIII. Rome: Pon-
tifical Biblical Institute, 1963.
Dahood, P s a lm s I Mitchell Dahood, S.J., P s a lm s I : 1-50. The Anchor Bible,
XVI. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1966.
Dahood, P s a lm s I I ( 1)/2 Mitchell Dahood, S.J., P s a lm s I I : 5 1 -1 0 0 . The Anchor Bible,
— 588 —
Abbreviations
XVII. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company,

Inc., 1968; 2nd edition, 1973.
Dahood, P s a lm s I I I Mitchell Dahood, S.J., P s a lm s I I I : 1 0 1 -1 5 0 . The Anchor
Bible, XVIIA. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Com-
pany, Inc., 1970.
Dahood, T e x tu a l C r itic is m M. Dahood, “Northwest Semitic Texts and Textual Criticism
of the Hebrew Bible," in Q u estio n s d isp u te e s d 'A n c ie n T e s -
la m e n t : M eth o d e et th eo lo g ie ; ed. C. Brekelmans. Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, no. XXXIII.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974, pp. 1137‫־‬.
Dahood, VHP Mitchell Dahood, S.J., U g a ritic -H e b re w P h ilo lo g y : M a r g in a l
N o tes on R ecen t P u b lic a tio n s. Biblica et Orientalia, XVII.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965.
Dahood, Z ie g ler F S Mitchell Dahood, “Additional Pairs of Parallel Words in the
Psalter and in Ugaritic," in Z ie g le r F S II, pp. 35-40.
Dalman, W orterbu ch Gustaf H. Dalman, A ra m d isc h -n e u h eb rd isch es H a n d w o rte r-
buck zu T a r g u m , T a lm u d u n d M id r a sc h . Frankfort: J. Kauff-
mann, 1901.
D a v ie s F S P ro c la m a tio n a n d P re s e n c e : O ld T e sta m e n t E s s a y s in H o n o u r
of G w y n n e H en to n D a v ie s ;
edd. John. I. Durham and J. R.
Porter. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1970.
Deden, D e klein e P ro fete n D. Deden, D e k le in e P ro fete n . Roermund, 1953.
Delitzsch, P a r a d ie s Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo la g das P a ra d ie s? E in e b ib lisch -
a ssy rio lo g isch e S tu d ie . Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhand-
lung, 1881.
D eo n n a F S D e o n n a -F e stsc h rift: H o m m a g es a W a ld e m a r D eo n n a . Collec-
tion Latomus, XXVIII. Bruxelles, 1957.
Dhorme, Job (E.) Paul Dhorme, L e liv r e de J o b . Paris: V. Lecoffre, 1926.
Dhorme, R e cu eil Edouard (P.) Dhorme, R e c u e il E d o u a rd D h o rm e : E tu d e s bib -
liq u es et o rie n ta tes. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1951.
Dietrich, KTU M. Dietrich et al., D ie k eila lp h a b etisch en T ex te a u s U g a r it,
E in sc h lie sslic h d er k eila lp h a b etisch en T ex te au sserh a lb U g a rits.
AOAT, XXIV. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1976.
Dietrich and Loretz, E llig e r F S M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Der Prolog des Krt-Epos (CTA
14 I 1-35)," in E llig e r F S , pp. 31-36.
van Dijk, E z e k ie ls P ro p h e c y H. J. van Dijk, S.C.J., E z e k ie l's P ro p h e c y on T y re (E z. 2 6 ,1 -
2 8 ,1 9 ): A N e w A p p r o a c h . Biblica et Orientalia, XX. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968.
DN divine name.
Donner-Rollig, KAI H. Donner and W. Rollig, K a n a a n d isc h e u n d a ra m d isch e
In sc h rifte n , vols. I, II, and III. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasso-
witz, 1962, 1964, and 1964.
Dothan, A sh d o d Moshe Dothan, “Ashdod of the Philistines," in N e w D ire c tio n s
in B ib lic a l A rc h a e o lo g y ; edd. David Noel Freedman and
Jonas C. Greenfield. Garden City, New York: Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1969, pp. 15-24.
— 589
Dougherty, T he S h irk u tu Raymond Phillip Dougherty, T h e S h irk u tu of B a b y lo n ia n

D e itie s . Yale Oriental Series, Researches, V, II. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1923.
Dozy, SDA R. Dozy, S u p p le m e n t a u x d ic tio n n a ir e s arabes, vols. I and II.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1927.
Dp Pual verbal stem; passive of the stem with doubled second
radical.
Driver, A r a m a ic D o cu m en ts G. R. Driver, A r a m a ic D o cu m en ts of the F ifth C e n tu ry B .C .;
abridged and revised edition. Oxford: The Clarendon Press,
1957.
Driver, CM L G. R. Driver, C a n a a n ite M y th s a n d L eg e n d s. Old Testament
Studies, III. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956.
Driver, D eu tero n o m y S. R. Driver, A C r itic a l a n d E x e g e tic a l C o m m e n ta ry on D eu -
te r o n o m y ; 3rd edition. The International Critical Commen-
tary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.
D r iv e r F S H ebrew a n d S e m itic S tu d ie s P re se n te d to G o d frey R o lles D riv e r
... in C eleb ra tio n of H is S eve n tieth B ir th d a y , 2 0 A u g u s t 1 9 6 2 ;
edd. D. Winton Thomas and W. D. McHardy. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1963.
Driver, G en esis S. R. Driver, T h e B o o k of G e n e sis ; 9th edition. Westminster
Commentaries. London: Methuen & Co., 1913.
Driver, L e v i d ella V id a F S I G. R. Driver, "Mythical Monsters in the Old Testament,"
in L e v i d ella V id a F S I, pp. 234-249.
Driver, M e la n g e s D u n a n d G. R. Driver, "Things Old and New in the Old Testament,"
in M e la n g e s offerts d M . M a u r ic e D u n a n d . MUSJ, XLV
(1969), 463-478. See also P E Q , CII (1970), 83-91.
Driver, M e la n g e s R obert G. R. Driver, "Problems of Interpretation in the Hepta-
teuch," in M e la n g e s b ib liq u es rddiges en V h on n eu r de A n d re
R o b ert. Travaux de l’lnstitut Catholique de Paris, IV. Paris:
Bloud & Gay, 1957, pp. 66-76.
Driver, R o b in so n F S G. R. Driver, "Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets," in
R o b in so n F S , pp. 52-72.
Dronkert, M o lo c h d ien st Karel Dronkert, D e M o lo c h d ien st in het O ude T esta m en t.
Leiden, 1953.
Duhm, J e s a ia Bernhard Duhm, D a s B u ch J e s a ia \ 2nd edition. Gottinger
Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, III, I. Gottingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.
Dussaud, D ecou vertes Rene Dussaud, L es decouvertes de R a s S h a m ra (U g a rit ) et
V A n c ie n T e s ta m e n t ; 2nd edition. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste
Paul Geuthner, 1941.
Dussaud, D eo n n a F S R. Dussaud, "Les Dii patrii de Lepcis (Leptis Magna)," in
D eo n n a F S , pp. 203-208.
D u ss a u d F S M e la n g e s s y r ie n s offerts & M o n s ie u r R e n d D u ss a u d p a r ses
vols. I and II. Biblioth£que archeologique
a m is et ses dldves,
et historique, XXX. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1939.
— 590 —
Abbreviations
Dussaud, Origines Sacrifice Rene Dussaud, Les origines cananeennes du sacrifice Israelite;
2nd edition. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1941.
Dussaud, Topographie Rene Dussaud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et
medievale. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1927.
E Elohistic source.
EA The Tell el-Amarna correspondence; see also Knudtzon, E A .
EB ‫ אוצר הידיעות על המקרא ותקופתו‬,‫ אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬: Ency-
clopaedia Biblica; Thesaurus rerum Biblicarum alphabetico
ordine digestus. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950ff.
ed(d). editor(s).
Edzard, Mesopotamien Dietz Otto Edzard, “Mesopotamien: Die Mythologie der
Sumerer und Akkader,” in Gotter und M y then im Vorderen
Orient; ed. Hans Wilhelm Haussig. Worterbuch der Mytho-
logie, I, I. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1965, pp. 17-140.
Eg. Egyptian.
Eisenbeis, $L M Walter Eisenbeis, Die Wurzel ‫ עלם‬im Alten Testament.
BZAW, CXIII. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1969.
Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon Otto Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug
der Israeliten durchs Meer. Halle (Saale): M. Niemeyr, 1932.
Eissfeldt, Das Lied Moses Otto Eissfeldt, Das Lied Moses Deuteronomium 32:1-43 und
das Lehrgedicht Asaphs Psalm 78 samt einer Analyse der Um-
gebung des Mose-Liedes. Berichte liber die Verhandlungen der
Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, Phi-
lologisch-historische Klasse, CIV, V. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1958.
Eissfeldt, El Otto Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen Pantheon. Berichte iiber
die Verhandlungen der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Leipzig, Philologisch-historische Klasse, XCVIII,
IV. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1951.
Eissfeldt, Introduction Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction; trans.
Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper and Row, 1965.
Eissfeldt, Karmel Otto Eissfeldt, Der Gott Karmel. Sitzungsberichte der Deut-
schen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse fur
Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, 1953, I. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1953.
Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften Otto Eissfeldt, Kleine Schriften, vols. I-V. Tubingen: J. C. B.
Mohr, 196211.
Eissfeldt, Molk Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Puni schen und He-
brdischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch. Beitrage zur Re-
ligionsgeschichte des Altertums, III. Halle (Saale): Max Nie-
meyer Verlag, 1935.
Eissfeldt, Pedersen FS Otto Eissfeldt, “Gott und das Meer in der Bibel,” in Pedersen
F S , pp. 76-84.
Eissfeldt, Sanchunjaton Otto Eissfeldt, Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von
Ugarit. Beitrage zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums, V.
Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer, 1952.
— 591 —
Eissfeldt, Taautos Otto Eissfeldt, Taautos und Sanchunjaton. Sitzungsberichte

der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin,
Klasse fur Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, Jahrgang 1952,
I. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1952.
Eissfeldt, The Hebrew Kingdom 0. Eissfeldt, ‫״‬The Hebrew Kingdom,‫ ״‬in The Cambridge
Ancient History ; 3rd edition; fascicle 32. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1965.
Eissfeldt, The Old Testament O. Eissfeldt, ‫״‬The Prophetic Literature,‫ ״‬in The Old Tes-
tament and Modern Study ; ed. H. H. Rowley. Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1951, pp. 115-161.
E JB Eranos Jahrbuch.
E JS European Journal of Sociology.
Elliger FS Wort und Geschichte\ edd. Hartmut Gese and Hans Peter
Riiger. AOAT, XVIII. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker,
1973.
Enc. Bib. Encyclopaedia Biblica: A Critical Dictionary of the Literary,
Political and Religious History, the Archaeology, Geography,
and Natural History of the Bible, 4 vols.; edd. T. K. Cheyne
and J. Sutherland Black. London: Adam and Charles Black,
1899, 1901, 1902, and 1903.
Enc. Jud. Encyclopaedia Judaica; edd. Cecil Roth et al.; 16 vols. Jeru-
salem: Keter Publishing House, 1971-1972.
Engnell, Studies Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near
East. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksells Boktryckeri, 1943;
2nd edition, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967.
E rlr Eretz-Israel.
ET The Expository Times.
ethn. ethnic.
ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses.
Eusebius, Praep. Evan. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica.
Falkenstein-von Soden, Hymnen A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische
Hymnen und Gebete. Die Bibliothek der alten Welt, Alte
Orient. Zurich: Artemis-Verlag, 1953.
Feldmann, Isaias Franz Feldmann, Das Buch Isaias. Munich, 1925-1926.
fern. feminine.
Fisher, Gordon FS Loren R. Fisher, ‫״‬The Patriarchal Cycles,‫ ״‬in Gordon FS,
pp. 59-65.
FO Fundgruben des Orients.
Fohrer, Die symbolische Handlungen Georg Fohrer, Die symbolische Handlungen der Propheten; 2nd
edition. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen
Testaments, LIV. Zurich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1968.
Fohrer, Elia2 Georg Fohrer, Elia ; 2nd edition. Abhandlungen zur Theo-
logie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, LIII. Zurich: Zwingli-
Verlag, 1968.
Fohrer, Ezechiel Georg Fohrer, Ezechiel; with a supplement by Kurt Galling.
— 592 —
Abbreviations
Handbuch zum Alten Testament, I, XIII. Tubingen: J. C. B.

Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1955.
Fohrer, H io b Georg Fohrer, D a s B u ck H io b . Kommentar zum Alten Testa-
ment, XVI. Giitersloh: Giiterslolier Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn,
1963.
Fohrer, In tro d u c tio n Ernst Sellin and Georg Fohrer, In tro d u c tio n to the O ld T e s -
ta m e n t ; trans. David E. Green. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1968.
Freedman, H is to r y David Noel Freedman, “Early Israelite History in the Eight
of Early Israelite Poetry," in U n ity a n d D iv e r s ity : E s s a y s in
,
the H is to r y L ite r a tu r e , a n d R e lig io n of the A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t ;
edd. Hans Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. The Johns Hopkins
Near Eastern Studies, VII. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1975, pp. 3-35.
Freedman, W id e n g ren F S I D. N. Freedman, “The Refrain in David’s Eament over Saul
and Jonathan," in W id e n g re n F S I, pp. 115-126.
Freytag, L ex ico n Georg Wilhelm Freytag, ed., L ex ico n A r a b ic o -L a tin u m , 4 vols.
Halle: Saxonum, 1830-1837.
Friedrich, (D ie) S ta a tsv ertrd g e Johannes Friedrich, S ta a tsv e rtrd g e des H a tti-R e ic h e s in he -
vols. I and II. Mitteilungen der Vorder-
th itisc h e r S p ra ch e,
asiatisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft (E.V.), XXXI, I, and
XXXIV, I; Hethitische Texte in Umschrift, mit Ubersetzung
und Erlauterungen; ed. Ferdinand Sommer, II and IV.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1926 and 1930.
Friedrich, G ra m m a tik Johannes Friedrich, P h o n izisc h -p u n isc h e G ra m m a tik . AnOr,
XXXII. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1951.
Friedrich, R a s S ch a m ra Johannes Friedrich, R a s S c h a m r a : E in U b erb lick iiber F u n d e
u n d F o rsch u n g en . Der Alte Orient, XXXIII, I-II. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrichs, 1933.
FuF F o rsch u n g en u n d F o rtsch ritte.
Fulco, R e sep William J. Fulco, S.J., T h e C a n a a n ite G od ReSep. American
Oriental Series, VIII. New Haven, Connecticut: American
Oriental Society, 1976.
G Qal verbal stem; ground stem.
Ga&l, W e sse tzk y F S E. Gadl, “Osiris-Amenophis III in Ugarit (nmry.mlk.Tm),"
in W e sse tzk y F S , pp. 97-99.
Galling, A lt F S Kurt Galling, “Der Gott Karmel und die Achtung der frem-
den Gotter," in A l t F S , pp. 105-125.
G a llin g F S :
A rch d o lo g ie u n d A lte s T e s ta m e n t F e stsc h rift fu r K u r t G a llin g
zu m 8 . J a n u a r 1 9 7 0 \ edd. Arnulf Kuschke and Ernst Kutsch.
Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1970.
Gaster, D u ssa u d F S T. H. Gaster, “The Service of the Sanctuary: A Study in
Hebrew Survivals," in D u s s a u d F S II, pp. 577-582.
Gaster, M y th , L eg en d , a n d C u sto m Theodor H. Gaster, M y th , L eg en d , a n d C u sto m in the O ld
T esta m en t. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.
— 593 —
Gaster, R o se F S T. H. Gaster, ,,An Ugaritic Feast of All Souls/‫ ׳‬in R ose F S ,

pp. 97-106.
Gaster, T h e sp is / T h e s p is 2 Theodor H. Gaster, T h e s p is : R itu a l , M y th , a n d D ra m a in the
A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t. New York: Henry Schuman, 1950; 2nd
edition, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company,
Inc., 1961.
G B (G e se n iu s-B u h l17) Wilhelm Gesenius et al., H eb rd isch es u n d a ra m d isch es H a n d -
w'drterbuch iiber d a s A lte T e s ta m e n t ; revised by Frantz Buhl;
17th edition. Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel, 1921.
Gelb, NPN Ignace J. Gelb et al., N u z i P e rs o n a l N a m e s . The University
of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications, I,VII. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1943.
G elin G S (Memorial Albert
G elin -G ed en k sch rift: A la ren con tre de D ie u
Gelin). Bibliothfcque de la Faculte Catholique de Theologie
de Lyon, VIII. Le Puy, 1961.
Gemser, S p riich e S a lo m o s 2 Berend Gemser, S p riich e S a lo m o s; 2nd edition. Handbuch
zum Alten Testament, I, XVI. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1963.
Gese, A lts y r ie n Hartmut Gese, ,,Die Religionen Altsyriens,‫ ״‬in D ie R e lig io n e n
A lts y r ie n s , A lta r a b ie n s u n d d er M a n d d e r ; by Hartmut Gese,
Maria Hofner, and Kurt Rudolph. Die Religionen der
Menschheit, X, II. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 1970.
Gevirtz, P a tte rn s Stanley Gevirtz, P a tte r n s in the E a r ly P o e tr y of Is r a e l. The
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Studies in
Ancient Oriental Civilization, XXXII. Chicago: The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press, 1963.
Ginsberg, ANET H. L. Ginsberg, “Ugaritic Myths, Epics, and Legends,‫ ׳׳‬in
ANET, pp. 129-155.
Ginsberg, B a u m g a rtn e r F S H. L. Ginsberg, “Lexicographical Notes,‫ ׳׳‬in B a u m g a rtn e r
F S , pp. 7 1 8 2 ‫־‬.
Ginsberg, I s a ia h T he B o o k of I s a i a h : A N e w T r a n s la tio n ; edd. H. L. Ginsberg
et al. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America,
1973.
Ginsberg, K o h eleth h. l . Ginsberg, ‫ וכתובים‬,‫ נביאים‬,‫ לתורה‬trftn 0 ‫ םרו‬:‫ קהלת‬. Tel
Aviv: M. Newman Publishing House, 1961.
Ginsberg, KU H. L. Ginsberg, ‫כתביאמרית‬. Jerusalem: Vaad Halashon, 1936.
Ginsberg, LKK Harold Louis Ginsberg, T h e L eg e n d of K i n g K e r e t : A C a n a a n -
ite E p ic of the B ro n ze A g e . B A S O R Supplementary Studies,
II-III. New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental
Research, 1946.
Ginsberg, RANE H. L. Ginsberg, “Ugaritic Myths and Epics,‫ ׳׳‬in R e lig io n s
of the A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t : S u m e r o -A k k a d ia n R e lig io u s T ex ts
and U g a ritic E p i c s ; ed. Isaac Mendelsohn. The Library of
Religion, IV. New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1955,
pp. 221-279.
Ginsberg, X IX IC O H. L. Ginsberg, “A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter,‫ ׳׳‬in
— 594 —
Abbreviations
Atti del X I X Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti. Rome,

1935, pp. 472-476.
Ginzberg Jub. Vol. Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume on the Occasion of His Seven-
tieth Birthday: English Section; edd. Saul Lieberman et al.
New York: The American Academy for Jewish Research,
1945.
GK W. Gesenius and E. Kautzsch, Gesenius1 Hebrew Grammar;
revised by A. E. Cowley; 2nd edition. Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1910.
GLECS Comptes rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Etudes Chamito-
Semitiques.
GN geographic name.
Gordis, Koheleth Robert Gordis, Koheleth— The Man and His World: A Study
of Ecclesiastes; 3rd edition. New York: Schocken Books, 1968.
Gordon, A N E Cyrus H. Gordon, The Ancient Near East. New York: W. W.
Norton and Company, Inc., 1965.
Gordon, Biblical Motifs Cyrus H. Gordon, ‘,Leviathan: Symbol of Evil/* in Biblical
M otifs: Origins and Transformations (Studies and Texts,
III); ed. Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1966, pp. 1-9.
Gordon, Bib + OS Cyrus H. Gordon, “Hebrew Origins in the Light of Recent
Discovery/’ in Biblical and Other Studies (Studies and Texts,
I); ed. Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1963, pp. 3-14.
Gordon, Common Background Cyrus H. Gordon, The Common Background of Greek and
Hebrew Civilizations. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Gordon, Driver FS Cyrus H. Gordon, “Abraham of Ur,’’ in Driver FS, pp. 77-84.
Gordon FS Orient and Occident* ed. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. AOAT, XXII.
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1973.
Gordon, Loves Cyrus H. Gordon, The Loves and Wars of Baal and Anat
and Other Poems from Ugarit. Princeton Oriental Texts, IX.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943.
Gordon, OT Times Cyrus H. Gordon, Introduction to Old Testament Times.
Ventnor, N.J.: Ventnor Publishers, Inc., 1953.
Gordon, UH Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Handbook. AnOr, XXV. Rome:
Gordon, UL Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature: A Comprehensive
Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts. Scripta Pontificii
Instituti Biblici, XCVIII. Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1949.
Gordon, UM Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Manual. AnOr, XXXV. Rome:
Gordon, UMC Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugarit and Minoan Crete: The Bearing of
Their Texts on the Origins of Western Culture. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1966.
— 595 —
89
Gordon, UT Cyrus H. Gordon, U g a ritic T ex tb o o k . AnOr, XXXVIII. Rome:

Gordon, W o rld of O T Cyrus H. Gordon, T h e W o rld of the O ld T e sta m e n t . Garden
City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1958.
Gottwald, K in g d o m s Norman K. Gottwald, A l l the K in g d o m s of the E a r th : I s r a e lite
P ro p h e c y and I n te r n a tio n a l R e la tio n s in the A n c ie n t N e a r
E a s t. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
Gp Qal passive verbal stem; passive of the ground stem.
Granqvist, A rabs Hilma Natalia Granqvist, B ir th a n d C h ildh ood a m o n g the
A ra b s: S tu d ie s in a M u h a m m a d a n V illa g e in P a le s tin e . Hel-
singfors: Soderstrom, 1947.
Gray, I & I I K in g s j I & I I K i n g s 2 John Gray, I & I I K in g s : A C o m m e n ta ry . The Old Testament
Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964; 2nd
edition, 1970.
Gray, C a n a a n ite s J. Gray, T h e C a n a a n ite s. New York, 1964.
Gray, DOTT J. Gray, *,Texts from Ras Shamra,” in D o cu m en ts fro m O ld
T e sta m e n t T im e s ; ed. D. Winton Thomas. Harper Torch-
books: The Cloister Library. New York: Harper & Brothers,
1961, pp. 118-133.
Gray, I s a ia h George Buchanan Gray, A C r itic a l a n d E x e g e tic a l C o m m en ta ry
on the B o o k of I s a ia h : I - X X V I I . The International Critical
Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Gray, K rt / K r t2 John Gray, T he K r t T e x t in the L ite ra tu re of R a s S h a m ra :
A S o c ia l M y th of A n c ie n t C a n a a n . Documenta et monumenta
Orientis antiqui, V. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1955; 2nd edition,
1964.
Gray, LC / LC2 John Gray, T h e L e g a c y of C a n a a n : T he R a s S h a m ra T ex ts
a n d T h e ir R eleva n ce to the O ld T esta m en t. VTS, V. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1957; 2nd edition, 1965.
Green, S a crifice Alberto Ravinell Whitney Green, T h e R o le of H u m a n S acrifice
in the A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t. American Schools of Oriental Re-
search Dissertation Series, I. Missoula, Montana: Scholars
Press, 1975.
Greenfield, A lb rig h t F S II Jonas C. Greenfield, ,,Scripture and Inscription: The Literary
and Rhetorical Element in Some Early Phoenician Inscrip-
tions,” in A lb rig h t F S II, pp. 253-268.
Greenfield and Mayrhofer, B a u m g a rtn e r F S Jonas C. Greenfield and Manfred Mayrhofer, ‫״‬The
,Algummim/’Almuggim-Problem Reexamined,” in B a u m g a rt-
n er F S , pp. 83-89.
Greg G reg o ria n u m .
Gressmann, M o se Hugo Gressmann, M o se u n d se in e Z e it: E in K o m m e n ta r zu
d en M o se -S a g e n . Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des
Alten und Neuen Testaments, XVIII (n.s., I). Gottingen:
Grondahl, PTU Frauke Grondahl, D ie P e rso n e n n a m e n d er T ex te a u s U g a rit.
Studia Pohl, I. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967.
596 —
Abbreviations
Gt Qal verbal stem plus infixed

GTT G erefortneerd T h eologisch T ijd sc h r ift.
Gunkel, G en esis Hermann Gunkel, G e n e sis’, 3rd edition. Gottinger Hand-
kommentar zum Alten Testament, I, I. Gottingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1910.
Gunkel, P sa lm e n Hermann Gunkel, D ie P sa lm e n . Gottinger Handkommentar
zum Alten Testament, II, II. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1929.
Gunkel, S ch o p fu n g u n d Chaos Hermann Gunkel, S ch o p fu n g u n d C haos in U rze it u n d E n d -
:
z e i t E in e re lig io n sg esch ich tlich e U n tersu ch u n g iiber G en. 1 u n d
A p . J o h . 12. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895.
Gunn, K i n g D a v id D. M. Gunn, T he S to r y of K i n g D a v id : G enre a n d I n te r p r e t
ta tio n .Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement
Series, VI. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament, 1978.
H Hiphil verbal stem; stem with preformative h.
Habel, Y a h w eh V e rsu s B a a l Norman C. Habel, Y a h w e h V e rsu s B a a l : A C o n flict of R e lig io u s
C u ltu res. New York: Bookman Associates, 1964.
HAL H eb rd isch es u n d a ra m a isch es L e x ik o n zu m A lte n T e sta m e n t,
by Eudwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner; 3rd edition,
revised by Walter Baumgartner et al. Eeiden: E. J. Brill,
1967ff.
Haidar, A s so c ia tio n s of C u lt P ro p h e ts Alfred Haidar, A s so c ia tio n s of C u lt P ro p h e ts am o n g the A n -
cien t S e m ite s ’, trans. H. S. Harvey. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wik-
sells Boktryckeri, 1945.
Haidar, N ahum Alfred Haidar, S tu d ie s in the B o o k of N a h u m . Uppsala: Eun-
dequistska Bokhandeln, 1947.
Halevy, Recherches bib liq u es Joseph Halevy, R echerches b ib liq u e s ; 4 vols. Paris: E. Ee-
roux, 1895-1905.
Hanson, A p o c a ly p tic Paul D. Hanson, T he D a w n of A p o c a ly p tic . Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1975.
Haran, W o rld H is to r y M. Haran, “The Religion of the Patriarchs: Beliefs and
Practices,1' in P a tr ia r c h s ’, ed. Benjamin Mazar. The World
History of the Jewish People, I, II. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1970.
Harris, DCD Zellig S. Harris, D ev elo p m en t of the C a n a a n ite D ia le cts: A n
I n v e s tiv a tio n in L in g u is tic H is to r y . American Oriental Series,
XVI. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society,
1939.
Harris, G ra m m a r Zellig S. Harris, A G ra m m a r of the P h o e n ic ia n L a n g u a g e .
American Oriental Series, VIII. New Haven, Connecticut:
American Oriental Society, 1936.
Hartmann, B a u m g a rtn e r F S Benedikt Hartmann, “Mogen die Gotter dich behiiten und
unversehrt bewahren,” in B a u m g a rtn e r F S , pp. 102-105.
H aupt F S O rie n ta l S tu d ie s P u b lish e d in C o m m em o ra tio n of the F o rtieth
A n n iv e r s a r y (1 8 8 3 -1 9 2 3 ) of P a u l H a u p t a s D ire cto r of the
— 597 —
39 •
O rie n ta l S e m in a r y of the J o h n s H o p k in s U n iv e r s ity , B a ltim o re ,

M d .\ edd. Cyrus Adler and Aaron Ember. Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1926.
Heb(.) Hebrew.
Heidel, T he G ilg a m esh E p ic Alexander Heidel, T he G ilgam esh E p ic a n d O ld T esta m en t
P arallels', 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1949.
Helck, D ie B ezieh u n g en Wolfgang Helck, D ie B ezieh u n gen A g y p te n s zu r V o rd era sien
im 3 . u n d 2 . J a h rta u s e n d v. Chr. Agyptologische Abhandlun-
gen, V. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962.
Held, L a n d sb erg er F S M. Held, ,*Studies in Comparative Semitic Lexicography/*
in L a n d sb erg er F S , pp. 395-406.
Held, S tu d ie s a n d E s s a y s Moshe Held, ,,The Y q tl-Q tl (Q tl-Y q tl) Sequence of Identical
Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic,” in S tu d ie s a n d
E s s a y s in H o n o r of A b ra h a m A . N e u m a n ; edd. Meir Ben-
Horin et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962, pp. 281-290.
Held, U g a ritic L ex ic o g ra p h y Moshe Held, ,,Studies in Ugaritic Lexicography and Poetic
Style/‫ ״‬Dissertation: Johns Hopkins University, 1957.
Herdner, CTA Andree Herdner, C o rp u s des tablettes en cu n eiform es a lp h a -
betiques decouvertes a R a s S h a m r a -U g a r it de 1929 a 1939 ,
vols. I and II. Mission de Ras Shamra, X. Paris: Imprimerie
Nationale, 1963.
Herrmann, YN Wolfram Herrmann, Y a r ih u n d N ik k a l u n d der P r e is der
K u ta rd t-G o ttin n e n : E in k u ltisc h -m a g isch er T ext aus R as
S ch a m ra . BZAW, CVI. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann,
1968.
Hertzberg, J o su a , R ich ter, R u th Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg, D ie B u ch er J o su a , R ich ter , R u th ;
2nd edition. Das Alte Testament Deutsch, IX. Gottingen:
Heschel, P ro p h e ts I/II Abraham J. Heschel, T he P ro p h e ts, vols. I and II. Harper
Torchbooks. New York: Harper & Row, 1969 and 1971.
Hillers, L a m e n ta tio n s Delbert R. Hillers, L a m e n ta tio n s. The Anchor Bible, VIIA.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972.
Hillmann, W a sse r R. Hillmann, W a sse r u n d B erg: K o sm isc h e V e rb in d u n g slin ie n
zw isch en d em k a n a a n d isc h e n W etterg o tt u n d J a h w e. Halle
(Saale): (Dissertationsdruck), 1965.
Holladay, L ex ico n William L. Holladay, A C on cise H ebrew a n d A r a m a ic L exicon
of the O ld T esta m en t. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans, 1971.
H o rS H o ra e S oed erb lo m in a e.
Horst, H aggai Theodore H. Robinson and Friedrich Horst, D ie Z w o lf klein en
P ro p h ete n : H o sea bis M ic h a von T heodore H . R o b in so n (aus
d em E n g lisch en u bersetzt vom H erau sgeber); N a h u m bis M a -
leach i von F r ie d ric h H o r s t ;
2nd edition. Handbuch zum Alten
Testament, I, XIV. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1954.
— 598 —
Abbreviations
Hp Hophal verbal stem; passive of the stem with preformative h.

HPC Handelingen van het. .. Vlaamse Filologencongress (Philologenc/
kongress).
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology.
HtD Hithpael verbal stem; stem with preformative ht and doubled
second radical.
HtL Hithpolel or Hithpalil verbal stem; stem with preformative
ht and lengthened vowel after first radical.
HTR Harvard Theological Review.
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual.
Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names Herbert Bardwell Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the
Mari Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore,
Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.
Hur. Hurrian.
Hvidberg, WLOT Flemming Friis Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old
Testament: A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion; ed. F.
Lokkegaard. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.
I A S H Proc Eng Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
(English).
IE J Israel Exploration Journal.
imp. imperfect.
Int Interpretation.
Intro Introduction (to a chapter in RSP).
IOS Israel Oriental Studies.
Irvin, Mytharion Dorothy Irvin, Mytharion: The Comparison of Tales from the
Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. AOAT, XXXII.
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1978.
J Yahwistic source.
Jack, R S Tablets J. W. Jack, The Ras Shamra Tablets: Their Bearing on the
Old Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1935.
Jacob, RS Edmond Jacob, Ras Shamra-Ugarit et VAncien Testament.
Cahiers d'archeologie biblique, XII. Neuchatel: Delachaux &
Niestle, 1960.
Janzen, Jeremiah J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah. Harvard
Semitic Monographs, VI. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
JAO S Journal of the American Oriental Society.
Jastrow, Dictionary Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud
Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, vols. I
and II. New York: Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1950.
JB L Journal of Biblical Literature.
JB R The Journal of Bible and Religion.
JC S Journal of Cuneiform Studies.
Jean-Hoftijzer, DISO Charles-F. Jean and Jacob Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des in -
scriptions semitiques de Vouest.
— 599 —
Jensen, Mythen und Epen P. Jensen, Assyrisch-babylonische M y then und Epen. Berlin:
Reuther & Reichard, 1900.
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient.
Jirku,
MK Anton Jirku, Der Mythus der Kanaander. Bonn: Rudolf
Habelt Verlag, 1966.
Jirku, Mythen und Epen Anton Jirku, Kanaanaische Mythen und Epen aus Ras
Schamra-Ugarit. Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus Gerd
Mohn, 1962.
JJS The Journal of Jewish Studies.
JK F Jahrbuch fur kleinasiatische Forschung.
JN E S Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
JN SL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages.
Johnson, Kingship Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel.Car-
diff: University of Wales Press, 1955.
Johnson, Labyrinth Aubrey R. Johnson, ‫״‬The Role of the King in the Jerusalem
Cultus,” in The Labyrinth: Further Studies in the Relation
between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World; ed. S. H.
Hooke. Uondon: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,
1935, pp. 71-111.
Josephus, Ant. Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae.
Josephus, Bell. Jud. Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum.
Joiion, Grammaire P. Paul Joiion, Grammaire de Vhebreu biblique. Rome: Pon-
tifical Biblical Institute, 1923.
JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society.
JQR The Jewish Quarterly Review.
JR The Journal of Religion.
JR A S Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.
JRH Journal of Religious History.
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies.
JThC Journal for Theology and the Church.
JTS The Journal of Theological Studies.
Jiingling, Tod der Goiter Hans-Winfried Jiingling, Der Tod der Goiter: Eine Unter-
suchung zu Psalm 82. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, XXXVIII.
Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1969.
K 1) Tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum;
2) Kethiv.
KAI Text cited according to the enumeration in Donner-Rollig,
K A I.
Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39 Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39: A Commentary; trans. R. A. Wilson.
The Old Testament library. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1974.
Kaiser, Meeres Otto Kaiser, Die mythische Bedeutung des Meeres in Agypten,
Ugarit und Israel. BZAW, LXXVIII. Berlin: Verlag Alfred
Topelmann, 1959.
Kapelrud, BRST Arvid S. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen:
G. E. C. Gad, 1952.
— 600 —
Abbreviations
Kapelrud, C en tra l Id e a s in A m o s Arvid S. Kapelrud, C e n tra l Id e a s in A m o s. Skrifter Utg. av

det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, historisk-filosofisk
klasse, 1956, IV. Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1956.
Kapelrud, Joel Arvid S. Kapelrud, J o e l S tu d ie s. Uppsala Universitets Ars-
skrift, 1948, IV. Uppsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln,
1948.
Kapelrud, R S D isc o ve ries Arvid S. Kapelrud, T h e R a s S h a m ra D isc o v e rie s a n d the O ld
T e s ta m e n t’, trans. G. W. Anderson. Norman, Oklahoma:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1963.
Karge, R e p h a im Paul Karge, R e p h a im : D ie vorgeschichtliche K u ltu r P a ld s tin a s
u n d P h o n iz ie n s : 2nd edition. Paderborn: Ferdinand Scho-
ningh, 1925.
Kaufmann, Ju dges Yehezkel Kaufmann, ‫ ס פ ר שופטים‬. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher,
1962.
Kaufmann, R e lig io n Yehezkel Kaufmann, T he R e lig io n of I s r a e l fro m I ts B e g in -
n in g s to the B a b y lo n ia n E x i le ; trans. Moshe Greenberg. Chi-
cago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960.
KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazkoi.
King, S even T a b le ts I I , . W. King, ed., T he S even T a b le ts of C r e a tio n , or T he B a b -
y Io n ia n a n d A s s y r ia n L eg en d s C o n cern in g the C rea tio n of
the W o rld a n d of M a n k in d ,
vol. I. Luzac’s Semitic Text and
Translation Series, XIII. London: Luzac and Co., 1902.
Kinlaw, P e rs o n a l N a m e s Dennis F. Kinlaw, “ A Study of the Personal Names in the
Akkadian Texts from Ugarit.” Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis
University, 1967.
Knight, T r a d itio n s Douglas A. Knight, R e d isc o v e rin g the T r a d itio n s of Isra e l.
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, IX.
Missoula, Montana: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973.
Knobel, J e s a ia August Knobel, D e r P ro p h e t J e s a ia . Leipzig: Weidmann'sche
Buchhandlung, 1843.
Knudtzon, EA J. A. Knudtzon, D ie E l-A m a r n a -T a fe ln , vols. I and II. VAB,
II. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1915.
Korosec, H eth itisc h e S ta a tsv ertrd g e Viktor Korosec, H e th itisc h e S ta a tsv ertrd g e: E in B e itra g zu
ih rer ju ristisc h e n Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche
W e rtu n g .
Studien, LX. Leipzig: Theodor Weicher, 1931.
Kramer, S um er S. N. Kramer, D ie G eschichte beg in n t m it S u m e r. Frankfurt-
am-Main, 1959.
Kraus, P s a lm e n I/II<3>/4 Hans-Joachim Kraus, P sa lm e n , vols. I and II. Biblischer
Kommentar Altes Testament, XV, I and II. Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 3rd edition, 1966; 4th edition,
1972.
Kraus, W o rsh ip Hans-Joachim Kraus, W o rsh ip in I s r a e l : A C u ltic H is to r y
of the O ld T e s ta m e n t ; trans. Geoffrey Buswell. Richmond,
Virginia: John Knox Press, 1965.
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazkoi.
— 601 —
Kuhn, K on kordan z K. G. Kuhn et al., K o n k o r d a n z zu den Q u m ra n te x te n . Got-

tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960.
Kuhnigk, H oseabu ch Willibald Kuhnigk, OSB, N o rd w e stse m itisc h e S tu d ie n zu m
H oseabu ch . Biblica et Orientalia, XXVII. Rome: Biblical
Institute Press, 1974.
L Polel or Palil verbal stem; stem with lengthened vowel (6 in
Heb., a in Ug.) after first radical.
1(1). line(s).
Labat et al., L es re lig io n s Rene Labat et al., L es re lig io n s d u P ro ch e-O rie n t a s ia tiq u e :
T ex tes b a b ylo n ie n s, o u g a ritiq u e s, h ittite s. Le tresor spirituel
de Thumanite. Paris: Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1970.
Labat, M anuel Rene Labat, M a n u e l d * ep ig ra p h ie a k k a d ie n n e \ 4th edition.
Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1963.
Lambert, BW L W. G. Lambert, B a b y lo n ia n W is d o m L ite r a tu r e . Oxford: The
Clarendon Press, 1960.
L a n d sb erg e r F S S tu d ie s in H o n o r of B en n o L a n d sb erg e r on H is S e v e n ty -F ifth
B ir th d a y , A p r i l 2 1 , 1 9 6 5 . AS, XVI. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1965.
Lane, S tru c tu ra lism Michael Lane, ed., In tro d u c tio n to S tru c tu ra lism . New York:
Basic Books, Inc., 1970.
De Langhe, T ex tes de R a s S h a m r a -U g a r it, I/II Robert De Langhe, L e s textes de R a s S h a m r a -U g a r it
et le u rs r a p p o r ts avec le m ilie u b ib liq u e de V A n c ie n T esta m en t,
vols. I and II. Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1945.
Largement, H is t R e l R. Largement, ‫*״‬La religion cananeenne,” in H is to ir e des
re lig io n s , vol. IV; edd. Maurice Brillant and Rene Aigrain.
Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1956, pp. 177-199.
Lauha, Z aphon Aare Lauha, Z a p h o n : D e r N o r den u n d d ie N o rd v o lk e r im A lte n
T e sta m e n t. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, B,
XLIX, II. Helsinki, 1943.
Leach, E ssays Edmund Leach, G en esis a s M y th a n d O ther E s s a y s . London:
Jonathan Cape, 1969.
Leach, S tr u c tu r a lis m Edmund Leach, ‫״״‬The Legitimacy of Solomon: Some Struc-
tural Aspects of Old Testament History,” in Lane, S tru c tu r -
a lis m , pp. 248-292.
Leslie, O T R e lig io n Elmer A. Leslie, O ld T e sta m e n t R e lig io n in the L ig h t of I ts
C a n a a n ite B a c k g ro u n d . New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury
Press, 1936.
Leslie, P s a lm s Elmer A. Leslie, T he P s a lm s T ra n sla te d a n d In te r p re te d in
the L ig h t of H eb rew L ife a n d W o rsh ip . New York: Abingdon-
Cokesbury Press, 1949.
Leveque, J o b et son D ie u Jean Leveque, O.C.D., J o b et son D ie u : E s s a i d ’exegese et
de thdologie b ib liq u e , vols. I and II. Etudes bibliques. Paris:
J. Gabalda, 1970.
L£vi, T h e H eb rew T e x t Israel Levi, T he H eb rew T e x t of the B o o k of E c c le sia sticu s.
Semitic Studies Series, III. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1904.
L e v i d ella V id a F S I S tu d i o rie n ta listic i in onore d i G iorgio L e v i d ella V id a , vol. I.
— 602 —
Abbreviations
Pubblicazioni deiristituto per TOriente, LII. Rome: Istituto

per TOriente, 1956.
Levine, P resen ce Baruch A. Levine, I n the P resen ce of the L o r d : A S tu d y of
C u lt a n d S o m e C u ltic T erm s in A n c ie n t I sra e l. Studies in
Judaism in Late Antiquity, V. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1974.
Levi-Strauss, S tru c tu ra l A n th ro p o lo g y Claude Levi-Strauss, S tru c tu ra l A n th ro p o lo g y ; trans. Claire
Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1963.
Levy, W orterbu ch Jacob Levy et al., N eu h eb rd isch es u n d ch a ld d isch es W orterbu ch
iiber d ie T a lm u d im u n d M id r a s c h im ; 4 vols. Reprint of 1924
edition, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963.
Lidzbarski, E p h e m e ris Mark Lidzbarski, E p h e m e ris fu r se m itisch e E p ig r a p h ik , 3 vols.
Giessen: Ricker and Topelmann, 1900-1915.
Lidzbarski, In sc h rifte n Mark Lidzbarski, K a n a a n d is c h e I n s c h r ifte n : M o a b itisc h , a lt-
hebrdisch , p h o n izisc h , p u n is c h . Giessen: A. Topelmann, 1907.
Lindblom, J e s a ja -A p o k a ly p s e Joh. Lindblom, D ie J e s a ja -A p o k a ly p s e : J e s . 2 4 -2 7 . Lunds
Universitets Arsskrift, n.s., I, XXXIV, III. Lund: C. W. K.
Gleerup, 1938.
Lipinski, P o em e r o y a l E. Lipinski, L e p o em e ro y a l d u p sa u m e L X X X I X 1 -5 .2 0 -3 8 .
Cahiers de la Revue Biblique. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1967.
Lipinski, R o y a u te de Y a h w e E. Lipinski, L a ro y a u te de Y a h w e d a n s la p o e sie et le cu lte de
V A n c ie n Isra e l. Brussels, 1965.
Liverani, S to ria d i U g a rit Mario Liverani, S to ria d i U g a rit n elV eta d eg li a rc h iv i p o lit ic i ,
Studi Semitici, VI. Rome: University of Rome, 1962.
Lohfink, D a s H a u p tg eb o t Norbert Lohfink, S.J., D a s H a u p tg eb o t: E in e U n tersu ch u n g
lite ra risc h e r E in le itu n g sfra g e n zu D tn 5 -1 1 . Analecta Biblica,
XX. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.
Lokkegaard, P ed e rse n F S F. Lokkegaard, “ A Plea for El, the Bull, and Other Ugaritic
Miscellanies,” in P e d e rse n F S , pp. 219-235.
Lord, S in g e r Albert B. Lord, T h e S in g e r of T a le s. Harvard Studies in
Comparative Literature, XXIV. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1960.
Low, P fla n ze n n a m e n Immanuel Low, A r a m a isc h e P fla n ze n n a m e n . Leipzig: W. En-
gelmann, 1881.
Lp Polal or Palal verbal stem; passive of the stem with length-
ened vowel after first radical.
Luckenbill, AR Daniel David Luckenbill, A n c ie n t R eco rd s of A s s y r ia a n d
B a b y lo n ia , vols. I and II. Chicago, Illinois: The University
of Chicago Press, 1926 and 1927.
LVTL L ex ico n in V e te ris T e sta m e n ti L ib r o s ; by Ludwig Hugo
Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1953.
lw loan word.
LXX The Septuagint.
LXXA C odex A le x a n d r in u s of the LXX.
LXXB C odex V a tic a n u s of the LXX.
LXXLuc Lucianic recension of the LXX.
— 603 —
IyXXS Codex Sinaiticus of the I,XX.

McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant Dennis J. McCarthy, S.J., Treaty and Covenant: A Study in
Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testa-
ment. Analecta Biblica, XXI. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1963.
McKane, Proverbs William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach. The Old Tes-
tament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1970.
McKenzie, Dictionary of the Bible John L. McKenzie, S.J., Dictionary of the Bible. Milwaukee:
The Bruce Publishing Company, 1965.
McKenzie, Second Isaiah John L. McKenzie, S.J., Second Isaiah. The Anchor Bible,
XX. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1968.
Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon), The Guide of the Per-
plexed; trans. Shlomo Pines. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1963.
Marti, Jesaja Karl Marti, Das Buch Jesaja. Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum
Alten Testament, X. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1900.
Marty, Dussaud FS J. Marty, "Contribution a l’etude de fragments epistolaires
antiques, conserves principalement dans la Bible Hebraique:
Les formules de salutation/‫ ׳‬in Dussaud F S II, pp. 845-855.
masc. masculine.
Meek, Song Theophile J. Meek, "The Song of Songs and the Fertility
Cult," in The Song of Songs: A Symposium; ed. W. H. Schoff.
Philadelphia: Commercial Museum, 1924, pp. 48-79.
Mentz, A R M , XXIX/2 A. Mentz, "Beitrage zur Deutung der phonizichen Inschrif-
ten," in Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes,
XXIX/2. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1944.
Mercer, Tell el-Amarna S. A. B. Mercer, ed., The Tell el-Amarna Tablets, vols. I and
II; Nile edition. Toronto: Macmillan Company of Canada,
1939.
du Mesnil du Buisson, Etudes Robert du Mesnil du Buisson, Etudes sur les dieux pheniciens
herites par VEmpire Romain. Etudes preliminaires aux reli-
gions orientales dans l’Empire Romain, XIV. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1970.
du Mesnil du Buisson, Nouvelles etudes Robert du Mesnil du Buisson, Nouvelles etudes sur les dieux
et les mythes de Canaan. Etudes preliminaires aux religions
orientales dans 1’Empire Romain, XXXIII. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1973.
Meyer, Rudolph FS Rudolf Meyer, "Die Bedeutung von Deuteronomium 32,8f.43
(4Q) fur die Auslegung des Moseliedes," in Rudolph FS,
pp. 197-209.
Michaeli, Textes Frank Michaeli, Textes de la Bible et de Vancien Orient. Ca-
hiers d’archeologie biblique, XIII. Neuchatel: Editions De-
lachaux et Niestle, 1961.
Michel, Job Walter Ludwig Michel, "The Ugaritic Texts and the Mytho-
— 604 —
Abbreviations
logical Expressions in the Book~"of Job (Including a New

Translation of and Philological Notes on the Book of Job).”
Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1970.
Miller, D iv in e W a rrio r Patrick D. Miller, Jr., T he D iv in e W a r r io r in E a r ly I s r a e l.
Harvard Semitic Monographs, V. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1973.
M IO M itte ilu n g e n des I n s titu ts fu r O rie n t{ or schung.
Montgomery, K in g s James A. Montgomery, A C ritic a l a n d E x e g etica l C o m m e n ta ry
on the B o o k s of K i n g s ; ed. Henry Snyder Gehman. The In-
ternational Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1951.
Montgomery, R a s S h a m ra T ex ts James A. Montgomery and Zellig S. Harris, T h e R a s S h a m ra
M y th o lo g ic a l T e x ts. Memoirs of the American Philosophical
Society, IV. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical
Society, 1935.
de Moor, S ea so n a l P a tte r n Johannes C. de Moor, T he S e a so n a l P a tte r n in the U g a ritic
M y th of B a 'lu A c c o rd in g to the V e rsio n of I lim ilk u . AOAT,
XVI. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker, 1971.
M o r i a r ty F S T he W o rd in the W o r ld ; edd. Richard J. Clifford, S.J., and
George W. MacRae, S.J. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Weston
College Press, 1973.
Moscati, C o m p a ra tiv e G ra m m a r Sabatino Moscati, ed., A n In tro d u c tio n to the C o m p a ra tiv e
G ra m m a r of the S e m itic L a n g u a g e s : P h o n o lo g y a n d M o rp h o -
Porta Uinguarum Orientalium, n.s., VI. Wiesbaden:
lo g y.
Otto Harrassowitz, 1964.
Mowinckel, 6 8 th P s Sigmund Mowinckel, D e r a ch tu n d sech zig ste P s a lm . Oslo: I
kommisjon hos J. Dybwad, 1953.
MT Masoretic Text.
Mulder, B a 'a l Martin Jan Mulder, B a 'a l in het O ude T esta m en t. ,s-Graven-
hage: Foto-lithografisch Bedrijf van der Gang en van Wage-
ningen, 1962.
Mulder, G oden Martin Jan Mulder, K a n a d n itis c h e goden in het O ude T e sta -
m en t. Exegetica: Oud- en Nieuw-Testamentische studien, IV,
IV-V. Den Haag: N. V. Voorheen Van Keulen Periodieken,
1965.
Mulder, J e s a ja -A p o k a lip s e Egge Simon Mulder, D ie T eologie v a n d ie J e s a ja -A p o k a lip s e ,
J e s a ja 2 4 -2 7 .Djarkarta: J. B. Wolters, 1954.
Munk, L e g u id e des egares S. Munk, L e g u id e des egares: T ra ite de theologie et de p h ilo -
so p h ie p a r M o is e ben M a im o u n , d it M a im o n id e , 3 vols. Paris:
A. Franck, 1856-1866.
Murtonen, D iv in e N a m e s A. Murtonen, A P h ilo lo g ic a l a n d L ite r a r y T re a tise on the O ld
T e sta m e n t D iv in e N a m e s ‫אל‬, ‫אלוה‬, ‫ אלהים‬, a n d ‫יהיה‬. Studia
Orientalia, XVIII, I. Helsinki, 1952.
M U SJ M e la n g e s de V U n iv e r s ite S a in t-J o se p h .
M yers F S A L ig h t u n to M y P a th ‫׳‬. O ld T e sta m e n t S tu d ie s in H o n o r of
J a co b M . M y e r s ; edd. Howard N. Bream, Ralph D. Heim,
— 605 —
and Carey A. Moore. Gettysburg Theological Studies, no. IV.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1974.
N Niphal verbal stem; stem with preformative n.
n(n). note(s).
NAB T h e N e w A m e ric a n B ib le : by members of the Catholic Biblical
Association of America. Cleveland: World Publishing Com-
pany, 1970.
NC L a N o u v e lle C lio : R e vu e m en su elle de la decouverte h istoriqu e.
NEB T he N e w E n g lish B ib le w ith the A p o c r y p h a . Oxford: Oxford
N e w sle tte r S o c ie ty of B ib lic a l L ite r a tu r e , C a n a d ia n S o c ie ty of B ib lic a l
S tu d ie s, S ectio n fo r U g a ritic S tu d ie s, N ew sletter.
Nielsen, R $ M y th o lo g ie Ditlef Nielsen, R a s S a m ra M y th o lo g ie u n d biblisch e T heologie.
Abhandlungen fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes, XXI, IV.
Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1936.
Nielsen, S hech em 2 Eduard Nielsen, S h e ch em : A T r a d itio -H is to r ic a l I n v e s tig a tio n ;
2nd edition. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1959.
Nikolsky, E tju d y M. N. Nikolsky, I itju d y p o is to r ii fin ik ijs k ix o bS cin nyx i zem -
le d elc esk ix k u lto v. Minsk, 1948.
N JV N e w J e w is h V e rsio n . Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1962ff.
no(s). number(s).
Noth, E xodus Martin Noth, E x o d u s : A C o m m e n ta ry ; trans. J. S. Bowden.
The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1962.
Noth, H is to r y Martin Noth, T h e H is to r y of Israel', 2nd edition; trans. P. R.
Ackroyd. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.
Noth, J o su a 2 Martin Noth, D a s B u ch J o s u a ; 2nd edition. Handbuch zum
Alten Testament, I, VII. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul
Siebeck), 1953.
Noth, N u m b e rs Martin Noth, N u m b e r s : A C o m m e n ta ry ; trans. James D.
Martin. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1968.
Noth, P e rso n e n n a m e n Martin Noth, D ie isra e litisc h e n P e rso n e n n a m e n in R a h m en der
g em ein se m itisch en N a m en g eb u n g . Beitrage zur Wissenschaft
vom Alten und Neuen Testament, III, X. Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1928.
Notscher, P sa lm e n F. Notscher, D a s B u ch d er P sa lm e n . Echter-Bibel, IV. Wiirz-
burg, 1959.
n.s. new series.
NT New Testament.
Nyberg, S tu d ie n H. S. Nyberg, S tu d ie n zu m H oseabuche: Z u g leich ein B e itra g
zu r K ld r u n g des P ro b le m s d er a lttesta m en tlic h en T e x tk r itik .
Uppsala Universitets Arsskrift, 1935:VI. Uppsala: Almquist
& Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.-B., 1935.
OB Old Babylonian.
— 606 —
Abbreviations
Obermann, U g M y th Julian Obermann, U g a ritic M y th o lo g y : A S tu d y of I ts L e a d in g

M o tifs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948.
OBL Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia.
obv obverse.
Oesterly, P s a lm s W. O. E. Oesterly, T he P s a lm s : T ra n sla te d w ith T e x t-C r itic a l
a n d E x e g e tic a l N o te s ; 2 vols. London: Society for Promoting
Christian Knowledge, 1939.
OIP Oriental Institute Publications.
Oldenburg, C on flict Ulf Oldenburg, T h e C o n flict betw een E l a n d B a fa l in C a n a a n ite
R e lig io n . Dissertationes ad historiam religionum pertinentes,
III. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1969.
OLP O rie n ta lia lo v a n ie n s ia p erio d ic a .
OLZ O rie n ta listisch e L ite ra tu rze itu n g .
Or O rie n ta lia .
O rA n t O rien s A n tiq u u s .
O rien s O r ie n s : J o u r n a l of the I n te r n a tio n a l S o c ie ty fo r O rie n ta l R e -
search.
Orlinsky, T o ra h Harry M. Orlinsky, ed., N o te s on the N e w T ra n sla tio n of the
T o ra h . Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of
America, 1969.
Ostborn, Y a h w eh a n d B a a l Gunnar Ostborn, Y a h w e h a n d B a a l: S tu d ie s in the B o o k of
H o sea a n d R e la te d D o cu m en ts. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift,
n.s., I, LI, VI. Lund: Gleerup, 1956.
OT Old Testament.
OTW SAP D ie O u -T e sta m e n tie se W e rk g em e en sk a p in S u id - A f r ik a : Pa -
p e r s f P ro ce ed in g s.
P Priestly source.
p(p)• page(s).
Palmer, In te r p re ta tio n L. R. Palmer, T he In te r p re ta tio n of M y c e n a e a n G reek T e x ts .
Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1963.
Parker, G ra m m a r Simon Bruce Parker, ',Studies in the Grammar of Ugaritic
Prose Texts.” Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity, 1967.
P arO r P a ro le de V O rien te.
Parpola, T oponym s Simo Parpola, N e o - A s s y r ia n T o p o n y m s. Alter Orient und
Altes Testament, VI. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker,
1970.
Parry, L ip it h b te Milman Parry, U e p ith e te tra d itio n n e lle d a n s H om ere: E s s a i
su r u n problbm e de sty le h om eriqu e. Paris: ‫״‬Les belles lettres,”
1928.
part. participle.
Patai, G oddess Raphael Patai, T h e H eb rew G oddess. New York: Ktav, 1968.
Patton, C P P s a lm s John Hastings Patton, C a n a a n ite P a r a lle ls in the B o o k of
P s a lm s . Baltimore, Maryland: The Printcrafters, 1944.
P e a k e 's C o m m en ta ry on the B ib le Peake*s C o m m e n ta ry on the B ib le ; edd. Matthew Black and
H. H. Rowley. London: T. Nelson, 1962.
— 607 —
40
P ed ersen F S S tu d ia O rie n ta lia I o a n n i P e d e rse n se p tu a g e n a rio A .D . V II

ID . NOV. ANNO M C M L III a collegis d is c ip u lis a m ic is
d ic a ta .Hauniae, 1953.
Penar, B e n S ir a Tadeusz Penar, N o rth w e st S e m itic P h ilo lo g y a n d the H ebrew
F ra g m e n ts of B e n S ir a . Biblica et Orientalia, XXVIII. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1975.
PEQ P a le s tin e E x p lo ra tio n Q u a rterly.
pers. person.
pf. perfect.
Pfeiffer, RSB Charles F. Pfeiffer, R a s S h a m ra a n d the B ib le. Baker Studies
in Biblical Archaeology, I. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker
Book House, 1962.
Phoen. Phoenician.
PJB P a ld s tin a j ah rb u ch .
pi. plural.
Plessis, H ta r -A s ta r te Joseph Plessis, E tu d e su r les textes co rn e rn a n t H ta r -A s ta r te :
Recherches su r sa n a tu re et son cu lte d a n s le m on de se m itiq u e
et d a n s la B ib le. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1921.
Plutarch, D e I s . et Os. Plutarch, D e I sid e et O sirid e.
PN personal name(s).
Pope, E U T Marvin H. Pope, E l in the U g a ritic T ex ts. VTS, II. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1955.
Pope, F in k e ls te in M e m . V ol. Marvin H. Pope, *,Notes on the Rephaim Texts from Uga-
rit,” in E s s a y s on the A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t in M e m o r y of Ja co b
J o e l F in k e ls te in ; ed. Maria de Jong Ellis. Memoirs of the
Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, XIX. Hamden,
Connecticut: Archon Books, 1977, pp. 163-182.
Pope, Job I Job 3 Marvin H. Pope, J o b . The Anchor Bible, XV. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1965; third edi-
tion, 1973.
Pope, Song Marvin H. Pope, S o n g of S o n g s: A N e w T ra n sla tio n w ith
In tro d u c tio n a n d C o m m e n ta ry . The Anchor Bible, VIIC.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1977.
Pope, S y r ie n Marvin H. Pope and Wolfgang Rollig, ,,Syrien: Die Mytho-
logie der Ugariter und Phonizier,” in G otter u n d M y then im
V o rd eren Orient', ed. Hans Wilhelm Haussig. W orterbu ch d er
M y th o lo g ie , I, I. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett Verlag, 1965, pp. 217-
312.
Porten, E le p h a n tin e Bezalel Porten, A rc h iv e s fro m E le p h a n tin e : T h e L ife of an
Berkeley: University of Cal-
A n c ie n t J e w is h M il ita r y C o lo n y.
ifornia Press, 1968.
Porteous, D a n ie l Norman W. Porteous, D a n ie l: A C o m m e n ta ry . The Old Tes-
tament Library. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1965.
Preuss, V e rsp o ttu n g Horst Dietrich Preuss, V e rsp o ttu n g frem d e r R e lig io n e n im
A lie n T esta m en t. Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und
— 608 —
Abbreviations
Neuen Testament, XCII [ = V, XII]. Stuttgart: W. Kohl-

hammer, 1971.
Procksch, J e s a ia I O. Procksch, J e s a ia I . Leipzig, 1930.
PRU L e p a la is ro y a l d 'U g a r it.
PS Proto-Semitic.
P s a lm s for M o d e rn M a n T h e P s a lm s for M o d e rn M a n : T o d a y 's E n g lish V e rsio n . New
York: American Bible Society, 1970.
Q Qere.
RA R evu e d 'A ssy r io lo g ie et d 'A rc h lo lo g ie O rien tale.
von Rad, D eu tero n o m y Gerhard von Rad, D e u te r o n o m y : A C o m m e n ta ry ; trans. Do-
rothea Barton. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia:
The Westminster Press, 1966.
von Rad, G en esis Gerhard von Rad, G e n e sis : A C o m m e n ta ry ; trans. John H.
Marks. The Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: The West-
minster Press, 1961.
von Rad, T heology Gerhard von Rad, O ld T e sta m e n t T h eo lo g y , vols. I and II;
trans. D. M. G. Stalker. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1962
and 1965.
von Rad, W is d o m Gerhard von Rad, W is d o m in I s r a e l ; trans. James D. Martin.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1972.
R A I 17 A c te s de la X V I I e rencontre a ssy rio lo g iq u e in te r n a tio n a le :
,
U n iv e rsite lib re de B r u x e lle s 3 0 ju in -4 ju ille t 1 9 6 9 ;
ed. Andre
Finet. Publications du Comite beige de recherches historiques,
epigraphiques et archeologiques en M&opotamie, I. Ham-
sur-Heure: Comite beige de recherches historiques, epigra-
phiques et archeologiques en Mesopotamie, 1970.
Rainey, C onference on S e m itic S tu d ie s Anson F. Rainey, ‫״‬Some Prepositional Nuances in Ugaritic
Administrative Texts,” in In te r n a tio n a l C onference on S e m itic
S tu d ie s , J e ru sa le m , 1 9 6 5 : P ro c e e d in g s . Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1969, pp. 209-211.
Rainey, S crib e a t U g a rit Anson F. Rainey, T h e S crib e a t U g a r it : H is P o s itio n a n d
In flu en ce. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, III, IV. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of
Sciences and Humanities, 1968.
Rainey, Soc. S tru c . Anson F. Rainey, ‫ מחקר בחברה השמית‬:‫מבגה החברה באוגרית‬
‫הברוגזה המארחות‬-‫ = [ המערבית בתקוסת‬T h e {\) S o c ia l S tru c tu re of
U g a rit: A S tu d y of W e st S e m itic S o c ia l S tra tific a tio n . Jerusa-
lem: The Bialik Institute, 1967.
RB R evu e B ib liq u e.
Reed, A sh e r ah William LaForest Reed, T he A sh e r ah in the O ld T esta m en t.
Fort Worth, Texas: Christian University Press, 1949.
REJ R evu e des etu des ju iv e s.
Rendtorff, 4 th W o rld C on gress R. Rendtorff, ”The Background of the Title ‫י‬el *elyd n in
Gen. 14,” in F o u rth W o rld C on gress of J e w is h S tu d ie s P a p e r s ,
vol. I. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1967,
pp. 167-170.
— 609 —
Rendtorff, O pfers Rolf Rendtorff, S tu d ie n zu r G eschichte des O pfers im A lie n

Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
I s r a e l.
Testament, XXIV. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1967.
Rendtorff, R e ve la tio n Rolf Rendtorff, “The Concept of Revelation in Ancient
Israel,’‫ ״‬in R e v e la tio n as H is to r y ; ed. Wolfhart Pannenberg;
trans. David Granskou. New York: Macmillan, 1968.
RES R e vu e des etudes se m itiq u e s.
rev reverse.
R e v H is t R e vu e h isto riq u e.
R evU O R e vu e de V U n iv e rsite d* O ttaw a.
Reymond, L ’eau Philippe Reymond, L ’eau , sa v ie , et sa sig n ific a tio n da n s
V A n c ie n T esta m en t. VTS, VI. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1958.
RHA R e vu e H ittite et A s ia n iq u e .
RH PR R e vu e d ’h isto ire et de p h ilo so p h ic relig ieu ses.
RHR R e vu e de V H isto ire des R e lig io n s.
Richter, H io b Heinz Richter, S tu d ie n zu H io b : D e r A u fb a u des H io b b u ch es ,
d a rg e stellt a n den G attu n gen Theologische
des R ech tsleben s.
Arbeiten, XI. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1959.
Rin, AG Svi Rin, with the collaboration of Shifra Rin, ‫עלילות האלים‬
[ = A c ts of the G ods]. Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical
Research, 1968.
Ringgren, I s r a e lite R e lig io n Helmer Ringgren, I sra e lite R e lig io n ‘, trans. David E. Green.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966.
R iv B ib lt R iv is ta B ib lic a : O rgano dell* A sso c ia zio n e B ib lic a I ta li a n a .
R IA R e a lle x ik o n d er A s s y r io lo g ie ; edd. Erich Ebeling et al. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1928ff.
R obert F S M e la n g e s bib liq u es redigds en V honn eu r de A n d re R obert.
Travaux de l’lnstitut Catholique de Paris, IV. Paris: Bloud
& Gay, 1957.
R o b in so n F S S tu d ie s in O ld T e sta m e n t P r o p h e c y ; ed. H. H. Rowley. Edin-
burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1950.
R ose F S C o n c e p ts , C ritiq u e s a n d C om m en ts: A F e stsc h rift in H o n o r of
D a v id R ose. New York: Privately printed, 1976.
Rosenthal, ANET Franz Rosenthal, “Canaanite and Aramaic Inscriptions,” in
A N E T , pp. 499505‫־‬.
Rowley, B erth olet F S H. H. Rowley, “Melchizedek and Zadok (Gen 14 and Ps 110),”
in B erth olet F S , pp. 461472‫־‬.
RR T h e R e v ie w of R e lig io n .
RS Ras Shamra.
RSO R iv is ta d eg li s tu d i o rie n ta li.
RSP R a s S h a m ra P a ra lle ls: T he T e x ts fro m U g a rit a n d the H ebrew
B ib le.
RSRs R e vu e des scien ces re lig ie u se s.
RSV T h e H o ly B ib le: R e v ise d S ta n d a r d V e rsio n . Cleveland: The
World Publishing Company, 1952.
— 610 —
Abbreviations
Rudolph, E s r a u n d N eh em ia Wilhelm Rudolph, E sra u n d N e h e m ia sa m t 3 . E sra . Hand-

buch zum Alten Testament, I, XX. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr,
1949.
R u d o lp h F S :
V e rb a n n u n g u n d H e im k e h r B e itrd g e zu r G eschichte u n d T heo -
logie Is r a e ls im 6 . u n d 5 . J a h rh u n d e rt v. C h r : W ilh e lm R u -
d o lp h zu m 7 0 . G eb u rtsta g e ; ed. Arnulf Kuschke. Tubingen:
J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1961.
s Shaphel verbal stem; stem with preformative S.
Sabottka, Z e p h a n ja Liudger Sabottka, O.S.B., Z e p h a n ja : V ersu ch ein e r N e u -
iib ersetzu n g m it p h ilo lo g isch em K o m m e n ta r. Biblica et Orien-
talia, XXV. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972.
Sam The Samaritan Pentateuch.
Sanda, K o n ig e A. Sanda, D ie B u ch er d er K o n ig e , vols. I and II. Munster,
1911 and 1912.
Sauer, SA Georg Sauer, D ie S p ru ch e A g u rs: U n tersu ch u n g en zu r H e r -
k u n ft, V erb re itu n g und B e d eu tu n g e in e r biblisch en S tilfo rm
Beitrage
u n te r besonderer B e riic k sic h tig u n g von P ro v e rb ia c. 3 0 .
zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, LXXXIV.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1963.
S B U /S B U 2 Svenskt Bibliskt Uppslagsverk; edd. Ivan Engnell, Anton
Fridrichsen, and Bo Reicke. Gavle: Skolforlaget, 1948-1952;
2nd edition (ed. Ivan Engnell), Stockholm, 1962-1963.
Schaeffer, CTRSU Claude F. A. Schaeffer, T he C u n e ifo rm T e x ts of R a s S h a m ra -
U g a rit. The Schweich Lectures on Biblical Archaeology, 1936.
London: Oxford University Press, 1939.
Schlisske, G ottessohne Werner Schlisske, G ottessohne u n d G ottessohn im A lte n T e sta -
m ent: P h a se n d er E n tm y th is ie r u n g im A lte n T esta m en t. Bei-
trage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament,
XCVII [ = V, XVII]. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973.
Schmid, B u n d e so p fe r Rudolf Schmid, D a s B u n d e so p fe r in I s r a e l : W e se n , U rsp ru n g
u n d B e d eu tu n g d er a lttesta m en tlic h e n S ch ela m im . Studien zum
Alten und Neuen Testament, IX. Munich: Kosel-Verlag, 1964.
Schmidt, K G U lw Werner H. Schmidt, K o n ig tu m Gottes in U g a rit u n d I s r a e l :
Z u r H e rk u n ft d er K o n ig s p r d d ik a tio n J a h w e s ; 2nd edition.
BZAW, LXXX. Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966.
Schmitt, D er L a n d ta g Gotz Schmitt, D e r L a n d ta g von S ich em . Arbeiten zur Theo-
logie, I, XV. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1964.
Scholes, S tru c tu ra lism Robert Scholes, S tru c tu ra lism in L ite ra tu re : A n In tro d u c tio n .
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.
Schoville, S o n g of S o n g s Keith Norman Schoville, **The Impact of the Ras Shamra
Texts on the Study of the Song of Songs.‫ ״‬Ph.D. dissertation,
The University of Wisconsin, 1969.
Scott, P ro verb s R. B. Y. Scott, P ro v e rb s , E c clesia stes. The Anchor Bible,
XVIII. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company,
Inc., 1965.
— 611
SDB D ic tio n n a ir e de la B ib le ... S u p p le m e n t. Paris: Letouzey et

Ane, 1928ff.
van Seims, M a r r ia g e a n d F a m ily A. van Seims, M a r r ia g e a n d F a m ily L ife in U g a ritic L ite r a tu r e .
Pretoria Oriental Series, I. London: Luzac & Company, Ltd.,
1954.
van Seims, V rie ze n F S A. van Seims, “A Forgotten God: L a h ,” in V rieze n F S ,
pp. 318-326.
S em S e m itic a .
S em e ia S e m e ia : A n E x p e r im e n ta l J o u r n a l fo r B ib lic a l C ritic ism .
SH S c r ip t a H ie ro so ly m ita n a .
Sidersky, D u ssa u d F S D. Sidersky, “Contribution a l’etude du Proto-Ph6nicien des
textes de Ras-Shamra,“ in D u s s a u d F S II, pp. 625-640.
Simons, G eo g ra p h ica l T e x ts J. Simons, S.J., T he G eo g ra p h ica l a n d T o p o g ra p h ic a l T ex ts
of the O ld T esta m en t: A C o n cise C o m m e n ta ry in X X X II
C h a p te rs.Studia Francisci Scholten Memoriae Dictata, II.
sing. singular.
Smith, L ectu res 3 William Robertson Smith, L ec tu res on the R e lig io n of the
S e m ite s: T h e F u n d a m e n ta l I n s titu tio n s ; 3rd edition, with an
introduction and additional notes by Stanley A. Cook. Lon-
don: A. & C. Black, 1927.
von Soden, AH Wolfram von Soden, A k k a d isc h e s H a n d w o rterbu ch . Wiesba-
den: Otto Harrassowitz, 1959ff.
von Soden, G ru n d riss Wolfram von Soden, G ru n d riss d er A k k a d isc h en G ra m m a tik
sa m t E rg d n zu n g sh eft zu m G ru n d riss d er A k k a d isc h e n G ra m -
m a tik . AnOr, XXXIII/XLVIL Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1969.
Sokoloff, Job Michael Sokoloff, T h e T a r g u m to J o b fro m Q u m ra n C ave X I .
Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 1974.
Stadelmann, G otth eiten Rainer Stadelmann, S y ris c h -p a ld s tin e n sisc h e G otth eiten in
A g y p te n . Probleme der Agyptologie, V. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1967.
Stadelmann, H eb rew W o rld Luis I. J. Stadelmann, T he H eb rew C o n cep tio n of the W orld:
A P h ilo lo g ic a l a n d L ite r a r y S tu d y . Analecta Biblica, XXXIX.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970.
S tM a r S tu d ia M a r i a n a ; ed. Andre Parrot. Documenta et monumenta
orientis antiqui, IV. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1950.
S tT h e o l S tu d ia T h eologica: S c a n d in a v ia n J o u r n a l of T heology.
Sum. Sumerian.
Supp “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs Supplement,“ RSP II, I;
R S P III, I; “Supplement,“ R S P III, II.
Syr. Syriac.
S y r ia S y r ia : R e vu e d 'a rt o rie n ta l et d ’archdologie.
Tallqvist, AGE Knut Tallqvist, A k k a d isc h e G otter ep ith e t a, m it ein e m G otter -
verze ich n is u n d ein e r L is te d er p r d d ik a tiv e n E lem en te d er s«-
— 612 —
Abbreviations
merischen Gotternamen. Studia Orientalia, VII. Helsingforsiae:

Societas Orientalis Fennica, 1938.
Tarbiz Tarbiz: A Quarterly for Jewish Studies.
Targ. Jon. Targum Jonathan.
TDOT I/II Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vols. I and II;
revised edition; edd. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer
Ringgren; trans. John T. Willis. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.
Tel Aviv Tel Aviv: Journal of the Tel Aviv University Institute of Ar-
chaeology.
TGUOS Transactions: Glasgow University Oriental Society.
ThStK Theologische Studien und Kritiken: Eine Zeitschrift fur das
gesamte Gebiet der Theologie.
Th Studies Theological Studies.
TLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung.
Torczyner, Lachish Harry Torczyner et al., Lachish I (Tell Ed Duweir): The
Lachish Letters. The Wellcome Archaeological Research Ex-
pedition to the Near East Publications, I. London: Oxford
Torge, Aschera Paul Torge, Aschera und Astarte: Ein Beitrag zur semitischen
Religionsgeschichte. Leipzig: A. Pries, 1902.
Toy, Proverbs Crawford H. Toy, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Book of Proverbs. The International Critical Commen-
tary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899.
TR Theologische Rundschau.
trans. translated by.
Tromp, Death Nicholas J. Tromp, M.S.C., Primitive Conceptions of Death
and the Nether World in the Old Testament. Biblica et Orien-
talia, XXI. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969.
Tsevat, Language of the Psalms Matitiahu Tsevat, A Study of the Language of the Biblical
Psalms. JB L Monograph Series, IX. Philadelphia: Society
of Biblical Literature, 1955.
Tur-Sinai, Ha-Lashon I n . h . Tur-Sinai,‫ בעיות יסוד במדע הלשוץ ובמקורותיה‬:‫הלשץ והספר‬
‫בספרות‬, vol. 1. Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute, 1954.
T W A T I/II/III Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament, vols. I, II,
and III; edd. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren.
Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973, 1977, and 1977ff.
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift.
UF Ugarit-F orschungen.
Ug(.) Ugaritic.
Ug. I; II; etc. Ugaritica I; II; etc., edd. Claude F.-A. Schaeffer et al. Paris:
Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939ff.
USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review.
UT Ugaritic text cited according to the enumeration in Gordon,
UT.
v(v). verse (s).
— 613 —
VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek.

Vattioni, E c clesia stico Francesco Vattioni, E c c le sia s tic o : T esto ebraico con a p p a r a to
Istituto orientate di
critic o e v e rsio n i greca, la tin a e sir ia c a .
Napoli, Pubblicazioni del Seminario di Semitistica, Testi, I.
Napoli: Istituto orientale di Napoli, 1968.
de Vaux, D a v ie s F S Roland de Vaux, “The Revelation of the Divine Name
YHWH,” in D a v ie s F S , pp. 48-75.
de Vaux, H is to ire R. de Vaux, O.P., H is to ire a n cie n n e d* Isra el des o rig in es a
V in sta lla tio n en C a n a a n , fitudes bibliques. Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre, 1971.
de Vaux, I n s titu tio n s Roland de Vaux, A n c ie n t I s r a e l , vol. I: S o c ia l I n s tit u ti o n s ;
vol. II: R e lig io u s I n s titu tio n s ; trans. Darton, Longman &
Todd, Ltd. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961.
de Vaux, S a crifice Roland de Vaux, O.P., S tu d ie s in O ld T e sta m e n t S a c rific e ;
trans. Joseph Bourke and Roland Potter. Cardiff: University
of Wales Press, 1964.
de Vaux, S a crifices R. de Vaux, O.P., L es sa crifices de V A n c ie n T esta m en t. Les
cahiers de la Revue Biblique, I. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1964.
VD V e rb u m D o m in i.
VDI V e stn ik d re v n e j is to r ii.
Ventris, D o cu m en ts Michael Ventris and John Chadwick, D o cu m en ts in M y c e n a e a n
G ree k : T hree H u n d re d S elected T a b le ts fro m K n o sso s, P y lo s ,
a n d M y c e n a e w ith C o m m e n ta ry a n d V o c a b u la ry. Cambridge:
The University Press, 1956.
Viganb, N om i Lorenzo Viganb, N o m i e tito li d i Y H W H a lia luce del se m itico
d el N o rd -o vest. Biblica et Orientalia, XXXI. Rome: Pontifical
Biblical Institute, 1976.
Virolleaud, A nat Charles Virolleaud, L a d ie sse fA n a t. Mission de Ras-Shamra,
IV. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1938.
Virolleaud, D anel Charles Virolleaud, L a legen de p h e n ic ie n n e de D a n e l. Mission
de Ras-Shamra, I. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner,
1936.
Virolleaud, K eret Charles Virolleaud, L a legen de de K e r e t ro i d es S id o n ie n s.
Mission de Ras-Shamra, II. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul
Geuthner, 1936.
Vlaardingerbroek, P s a lm 6 8 J. Vlaardingerbroek, P s a lm 6 8 . Privately printed: Amsterdam,
1973.
vol(s). volume (s).
V rieze n F S S tu d ia b ib lica et se m itic a T h eo d o r 0 C h ristia n o V rieze n qui
m u n ere p ro fe sso ris theologiae p e r X X V a n n o s fu n c tu s est, ab
,
a m ic is , co lleg is d is c ip u lis d ed ica ta . Wageningen: H. Veenman
& Zonen N.V., 1966.
VT V e tu s T e sta m e n tu m .
VTS Vetus Testamentum, Supplements.
Wachter, Tod Ludwig Wachter, D e r T o d im A lte n T e sta m e n t. Arbeiten zur
Theologie, II, VIII. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1967.
— 614 —
Abbreviations
Wagner, A r a m a is m e n Max Wagner, D ie le x ik a lisc h e n u n d g ra m m a tik a lisc h e n A r a -

BZAW, XCVI. Ber-
m a ism e n im a lttesta m en tlic h e n H eb rd isch .
lin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1966.
Wakeman, G od's B a ttle Mary K. Wakeman, G od's B a ttle w ith the M o n s te r : A S tu d y
in B ib lic a l Im a g e ry . Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973.
von Waldow, D e r H in te r g ru n d Eberhard von Waldow, D e r tra d itio n sg esc h ich tlic h e H in te r -
g ru n d d er p ro p h etisch en G erich tsreden . BZAW, LXXXV. Ber-
lin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1963.
von Waldow, J e s a ja 4 3 Hans Eberhard von Waldow, "... den n ich erlose d ic h ."
E in e A u sle g u n g von J e s a ja 4 3 . Biblische Studien, XXIX.
Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960.
Ward, R o le of the P h o e n ic ia n s William A. Ward, ed., T he R ole of the P h o e n ic ia n s in the
In te r a c tio n of M e d ite rra n e a n C iv iliz a tio n s : P a p e r s P re se n te d
to the A rch a eo lo g ica l S y m p o s iu m of the A m e ric a n U n iv e r s ity
of B e ir u t ; M arch , 1 9 67. Beirut: American University of
Beirut, 1968.
van der Weiden, P ro verb es W. A. van der Weiden, M.S.F., L e liv re des P ro verb es: N o te s
Biblica et Orientalia, XXIII. Rome: Pontifical
p h ilo lo g iq u es.
Biblical Institute, 1970.
Weidner, P o litisc h e D o k u m en te Ernst F. Weidner, P o litisc h e D o k u m en te a u s K le in a s ie n : D ie
S ta a tsv e rtra g e in a k k a d isc h e r S p ra ch e aus d em A r c h iv von
B o g h a zk o i ,
vols. I and II. Boghazkoi-Studien, VIII and IX.
Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1923.
Wensinck, O cean A. J. Wensinck, T he O cean in the L ite ra tu re of the W estern
S em ites. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van We-
tenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde, n.s.,
XIX, II, 1918.
Wernberg-M011er, M a n u a l of D is c ip lin e P. Wernberg-M011er, T he M a n u a l of D is c ip lin e . Studies on
the Texts of the Desert of Judah, I. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957.
W e sse tzk y F S S tu d ia a e g y p tia c a , vol. 1: R e c u e il d 'etu d es ded iees a V ilm o s
W e sse tzk y a I'occasion de so n 65‫ ״‬a n n iv e rs a ire . Budapest,
1974.
Westermann, B a s ic F o rm s Claus Westermann, B a s ic F o rm s of P r o p h e tic S p e e c h ; trans.
Hugh Clayton White. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1967.
Westermann, D a s B u ch J e s a ja Claus Westermann, D a s B u ch J e s a ja : K a p i te l 4 0 -6 6 . Das
Alte Testament Deutsch, XIX. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966.
Whedbee, I s a ia h a n d W isd o m J. William Whedbee, I s a ia h a n d W isd o m . Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1971.
Whitaker, C oncordance Richard E. Whitaker, A C on cordance of the U g a ritic L ite ra tu re .
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Whybray, S u ccessio n N a r r a tiv e R. N. Whybray, T h e S u c cessio n N a r r a tiv e : A S tu d y of I I S a m -
u el 9 - 2 0 ; I K in g s 1 a n d 2 . Studies in Biblical Theology,
second series, IX. London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1968.
— 615 —
W id e n g re n F S I/II E x Orbe R e lig io rtu m ; edd. C. J. Bleeker et al., vols. I and II.
Widengren, MR&K Geo Widengren, “Early Hebrew Myths and Their Interpre-
tation,“ in M y th , R itu a l a n d K i n g s h i p : E s s a y s on the T h e o ry
a n d P ra c tic e of K in g s h ip in the A n c ie n t N e a r E a s t a n d in
I s r a e l ; ed. S. H. Hooke. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1958,
pp. 149-203.
Widengren, P s a lm s Geo Widengren, T he A c c a d ia n a n d H eb rew P s a lm s of L a m -
e n ta tio n as R e lig io u s D o c u m e n ts: A C o m p a ra tiv e S tu d y .
Stockholm: Thule, 1938.
Widengren, S a k ra le s K o n ig tu m Geo Widengren, S a k ra le s K o n ig tu m im A lte n T e sta m e n t u n d
in J u d e n tu m . Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1955.
Wildberger, J e s a ja Hans Wildberger, J e s a ja : I . T e ilb a n d , J e s a ja 1-1 2 . Biblischer
Kommentar Altes Testament, X/I. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1972.
Wilson, ANET3 John A. Wilson, “Egyptian Hymns and Prayers,“ in A N E T 3,
pp. 365-381; and “Egyptian Oracles and Prophecies,“ in
A N E T 3, pp. 441-449.
Wiseman, AT D. J. Wiseman, T he A la la k h T a b lets. Occasional Publications
of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, II. London:
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1953.
Wiseman, C h ron icles D. J. Wiseman, C h ron icles of C h a ld a ea n K in g s (6 2 6 -5 5 6 B .C .)
in the B r itis h M u se u m . London: The Trustees of the British
Museum, 1956.
WO D ie W e lt des O rien ts.
Wolff, D o d ek a p ro p h eto n 1/2 Hans Walter Wolff, D o d ek a p ro p h eto n 1 : H o sea ,
and D o d ek a -
p ro p h e to n 2 : J o e l u n d A m o s. Biblischer Kommentar Altes
Testament, XIV/1 and XIV/2. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukir-
chener Verlag, 1961 and 1969.
Wolff, H o sea Hans Walter Wolff, H o sea : A C o m m e n ta ry on the B o o k of the
P ro p h e t H o s e a ; trans. Gary Stansell; ed. Paul D. Hanson.
Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.
Wolff, Joel & Am os Hans Walter Wolff, J o e l a n d A m o s: A C o m m e n ta ry on the
B o o k s of the P ro p h e ts J o e l a n d A m o s; trans. Waldemar Janzen
et al.; ed. S. Dean McBride, Jr. Hermeneia. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1974.
Wright, O T E n v. G. Ernest Wright, T he O ld T e sta m e n t a g a in st I ts E n v iro n m e n t.
Studies in Biblical Theology, 1st series, II. London: SCM
Press, 1950.
W ZKM W ie n e r Z e itsc h rift fu r d ie K u n d e des M o rg e n la n d e s.
W ZUL W issen sch a ftlic h e Z e itsc h rift d er K a r l- M a r x - U n iv e r s itd t L e ip -
zig : G esellsch afts - u n d S p ra c h w isse n sc h a ftlic h e R eih e.
Xella, M ito Paolo Xella, P ro b le m i d el m ito n el V ic in o O rien te an tico .
Supplemento agli Annali—Istituto orientale di Napoli, VII.
Naples: Istituto orientale di Napoli, 1976.
Xella, Shr e Sim Paolo Xella, II m ito d i Shr e S im : S a g g io s u lla m ito lo g ia u ga -
— 616
Abbreviations
ritica.Studi semitici, XLIV. Rome: Istituto di Studi del

Vicino Oriente, 1973.
Yadin, Ben Sira Y. Yadin, The Ben Sira Scroll from Masada: With Introduc-
tiont Emendations and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-
tion Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1965.
ZA Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archdologie.
ZAW Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft.
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft.
ZD P V Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstina-Vereins.
Ziegler F S Wort, Lied und Gottesspruch: Festschrift fiir Josef Ziegler,
vols. I and II; ed. Josef Schreiner. Forschung zur Bibel, I
and II. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1972.
van Zijl, Baal Peter J. van Zijl, Baal: A Study of Texts in Connexion with
Baal in the Ugaritic Epics. AOAT, X. Kevelaer: Verlag But-
zon & Bercker, 1972.
ZNW Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.
Zorell, Lexicon F. Zorell and L. Semkowski, Lexicon hebraicum et aramaicum
Veteris Testamenti, fascicles I-IX. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 19591966‫־‬.
ZRGG Zeitschrift fiir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte.
ZT hK Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche.
— 617 —
BIBLICAL ABBREVIATIONS (*)
Gen Genesis Hos Hosea Ps (plural Pss) Psalms

Exod Exodus Joel Joel Job Job
Lev Leviticus Amos Amos Prov Proverbs
Num Numbers Obad Obadiah Ruth Ruth
Deut Deuteronomy Jonah Jonah Cant Canticles
Josh Joshua Mic Micah Eccles Ecclesiastes
Judg Judges Nah Nahum Lam Lamentations
I & II Sam Samuel Hab Habakkuk Esther Esther
I & II Kings Kings Zeph Zephaniah Dan Daniel
Isa Isaiah Hag Haggai Ezra Ezra
Jer Jeremiah Zech Zechariah Neh Nehemiah
Ezek Ezekiel Mai Malachi I & II Chron Chronicles
(*) Abbreviations for the Intertestamental literature, Qumran literature, and the New Testament
conform to those used by the Society of Biblical Literature (see JB L , XC [1971], 513514‫)־‬.
— 618 —
!1
;
H'

Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts From Ugarit and The Hebrew Bible (Analecta Orientalia 49) - Loren R Fisher

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts From Ugarit and The Hebrew Bible (Analecta Orientalia 49) - Loren R Fisher

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANALECTA ORI ENTALI A 51

RAS SHAMRA PARALLELS

PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM BIBLICUM

RAS SHAMRA PARALLELS

PONTIFICIUM INSTITUTUM BIBLICUM

RAS SHAMRA PARALLELS

published under the auspices of

SCUOLA TIPOGRAFICA S . P lO X — V1A D E G LI E t RUSCHI N. 7-9 — R 0 M A — M A GGIO 1981

Claremont, California Stan R umme L

The introduction to R S P I discusses the history of The Ugaritic and Hebrew

Chapter II follows what is called in the introduction to R SP I format I (see

UGARITIC-HEBREW PARALLEL PAIRS

Mit c h e u , D ahood , S.J.

a. This research into Ugaritic-Hebrew word pairs took an unexpected turn

1 In BiOr, XXXI (1974), 3-26.

2 JSS, X (1965), 116-117.

3 See UT, p. 124, n. 3.

h. An offshoot of this collection of word pairs is what I have termed “distant

in parallel in Jer 3:2-3. Should instances of hendiadys with a conjunction be

G Qal verbal stem; ground stem.

1. ab /I adn 29. il ab II Itpn htk 55. bd . . . ql

81. grs . . . mla 118/ tytt II lay 155. ytb + gr

193. mla 11 mla 230. *zm + yd 268. qdm . . . ymn

307. Sim II nh 320. Spt II tkm 333. tb I/ Sm'

but it can scarcely be upheld in Mai 1:6, as observed by D. Hillers, BASO R,

c. “father” . . . (Gp) “to be bom ”

a. ah II ary (see also bn // ary [I 59])

a. ah /I 7 umt (see also 7 + umt [I 231J and 7 dl . . . ytm [I 235])

c. “brother” // “infant of maternal family”

a. aht I/ ybnt ab (see also ah // bn um [RSP I, II 17]1

b. *nt I V :83-84 (1CTA 3 D :83-84)

b. 125:32-33 {CTA 16 1:32-33)

c. “sister” . . . “to know”

a. il . . . aliyn (see also il // tliyt [I 27])

a. il + dbb (see also iSt // dbb [R SP II, I 7])

g. That Hosea was alluding to the Canaanite m yth is further evidenced

e. 128 11:7, 11 (CTA 15 11:7, 11)

a. il II *m (see also hkm . . . 'm [R SP I, II 189])

a. i l / l tliyt (see also il . . . aliyn [I 16])

c. “E l” + “to judge, rule”

a. ilm /I Smym 11 kbkbm

c. “gods” II “heavens” // “stars”

b. 137:31-32 (CTA 2 1:31-32)

d. Num 24:16; Ps 19:3; Job 33:3

g. This pair probably appears in 1lQPsa 154:15:

a. am rjl'pny (see also *n jjp n y [I 241])

f. Nah 2:11; Dan 10:5-6

0‫ ויהיו״גאשדיך כא שכלות הגפן‬may your breasts be like clusters of

h. Jer 10:16-17; Ps 2:8

a. ars . . . pr (see also ybl // j>r [R SP I, II 211])

f. “earth” . . . (A) “to shower”

a. it . . . ytn (see also it //St [I 51])

d. Jer 37:17; Eccles 2:21; 10:5-6 (N); I Chron 29:3

a. it /I it (see also it . . . ytn [I 50])

a. att ‫ן‬/ atrt

a. bky /I dmm . . . udmH

a. bky -+‫* ־‬gm

c. “to weep” + “grief”

a. bn If ary (see also bn // sbr [I 61])

a. bn I) sbr (see also bn // ary [I 59])

g. Judg 6:25, 30; I Kings 18:19

b. 49 111:44+47-48 (CTA 6 111:44+47-48)

c. "lightning” // “treasury, storehouse”