105 3.3.3.1 Burial and mourning Mourning in Ugarit seems to have taken forms familiar from other ...

23 Pages·2012·0.16 MB·English

3.3Ugarit 105
3.3.3.1Burialandmourning
MourninginUgaritseemstohavetakenformsfamiliarfromothercultures,ifthe
BaalCycleisanyindication:60UponBaal’sdeath,ElandAnatbothwail(sh),put
˙˙
onaspecifictypeofclothing(mizrt),andgashtheirfaces,arms,andtorsos(see
CAT 1.5 vi:14–1.6 i:7). El further puts dust on his head. In the Kirta epic, the
eponymouskingretirestohisroom,weeping,afterthedeathofhisentirefamily
(CAT1.14i:26–35).Itisnotclearwhethertheensuingsacrificeontherooftops
(1.14ii:19–24)isrelatedtothedeaths61orissimplypartofanefforttoelicita
better fate fromthe gods.As for specificallyroyal funerary practices,thecom-
mand to mourn over the throne and footstool of the dead king (CAT
1.161:13–14)suggeststhatachairservedasaplaceholderforthedeceased’sspirit,
asinMesopotamianandHittitefunerals.
3.3.3.2TheUgariticdead
TheUgariticcultofthedeaduptothe“Spronksynthesis”
In the same year that Schaeffer published his analysis of Ugarit’s tombs, he
publishedasyntheticstudyofUgaritictexts,ofwhichonechapterwasentitled
“FertilityCultandCultoftheDeadatUgarit.”62Hearguedthattheaforemen-
tionedtextfromtheBaalCycle,whichspeaksofpouringlibations“intothemidst
of earth,” reflected a ritual intended to secure the goodwill of “Aliyan, son of
Baal”andtherebytoensurethefertilityofthetreesandfields.63Schaeffercom-
paredthisritualwiththeGreekmythoftheDanaids,whokilledtheirhusbands
andweresentencedbythegodstopourwaterintoabottomlesspot.Hesuggested
that that task was not originally a Sisyphean punishment, but was intended to
providecareforthedeceasedhusbands.64
Becausemanyofthekeytextswerenotavailableinwidepublicationuntilthe
1960s and 1970s (e.g., CAT 1.20–22 and 1.161; see below), Schaeffer’s theory
initiallyseemstohaveelicitedlittlereaction.However,inthewakeofnewpu-
blications,inthe1970sand1980sthestudyoftheUgariticcultofthedeadwas
takenupenthusiasticallybyanumberofscholars.JohannesC.deMoor(1972)
60 Thequestionofwhethertheactionsofthegodsreflecttheritualactionsofhumankindisa
crucialoneininterpretingUgariticreligion.JackM.Sassonhascalledforgreatermethodolo-
gicalrigorininterpretingtheUgariticstories(“LiteraryCriticism,FolkloreScholarship,and
Ugaritic Literature,” in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic [ed. Gordon
D.Young;WinonaLake,Ind.:Eisenbrauns,1981],81–98).Inthiscase,theextensivecompara-
tivedataonmourningallowonesafelytodrawconclusions.
61 ThisconclusionistemptinginlightofthecollocationinJer19:10–13ofrooftopsacrifice
withtheTophetcultofhumansacrifice(see§4.4.3.2.1).
62 Chapter3inClaudeF.A.Schaeffer,TheCuneiformTextsofRasShamra-Ugarit(Schweich
Lectures;London:OxfordUniversityPress,1939).
63 Schaeffer,CuneiformTextsofRasShamra-Ugarit,46.(CAT1.3iii16)
64 Schaeffer,CuneiformTextsofRasShamra-Ugarit,53.
106 3.DeathandtheDeadinSyria-PalestineoutsideIsraelandJudah
theorizedthat“communionwiththedead,”includingthepouringoflibations,
was a major feature of the Ugaritic “New Year’s festival.”65 Jonas C.Green-
field66 andespeciallyMarvinH.Pope67werealsointhevanguardofthemove-
ment.
TheworkofthatentiregenerationofUgaritologistsismeticulouslycompiled
inKlaasSpronk’sBeatificAfterlifeinAncientIsraelandintheAncientNearEast
(1986), initially a dissertation written under de Moor. As the title suggests,
Spronk’s own interests led him to other matters, but en route his survey still
representsthemostambitiousattempttoargueforwidespreadcultsofthedead
throughouttheancientNearEast.GivenSpronk’sintellectualheritage,itisnot
surprisingthathisworkontheUgaritictextswasparticularlythorough,ifper-
hapstoofar-reaching.68Ihavecitedhisforebearsoccasionallyinwhatfollows,but
afullersenseoftheliteratureisbestgainedbyreadingtherelevantpassagesin
BeatificAfterlife.Thus,“Spronk”becomes,forthesakeofsimplicity,ametonym
fortheaccumulatedviewsofthepreviousgeneration.
Spronk was followed three years later by Lewis, whose Cults of the Dead in
UgaritandIsrael(1989)isamorelimitedbutalsomorejudicioustreatmentof
theUgaritictexts.Lewisimplicitlyrestrictedthescopeofhisstudybyfocusing
lessontheepic/mythicaltexts(whichhadmadethestrongestfirstimpressionon
thefield)andmoreonritualtexts,69perhapsbecausetheseweretakentobemore
reliableindicatorsofactualUgaritic(/“Canaanite”)practices.70WhileLewisdis-
agreed with Spronk on certain details, his work reinforced many of Spronk’s
65 J.C.deMoor,NewYearwithCanaanitesandIsraelites(Kampen:Kok,1972),8;idem,
“Rapi’uma–Rephaim,”ZAW88(1976):331.
66 J.C.Greenfield,“Unritereligieuxarame´enetsesparalle`les,”RB80(1973):47.
67 Furtherdiscussionandliteratureat§4.2.3.SeeM.H.Pope,“NotesontheRephaimTexts
fromUgarit,”inEssaysontheAncientNearEastinMemoryofJacobJoelFinkelstein(ed.M.de
JongEllis;MemoirsoftheConnecticutAcademyofArtsandSciences19;Hamden,CT:Archon
Books,1977),163–82;idem,“TheCultoftheDeadatUgarit,”inUgaritinRetrospect:FiftyYears
ofUgaritandUgaritic(ed.G.D.Young;WinonaLake,Ind.:Eisenbrauns,1981),159–79;idem,
“Le mrzh a` Ougarit et ailleurs,” Annales Arch´eologiques Arabes Syriennes 29–30 (1979–80):
˙
141–43:“lanatureessentielledumarzeah[est]commebanquetpourlesmortsaussibienque
˙
pourlesvivants”(143).MuchthesamesummaryisgivenbyMichaelC.Astourin“TheNether
WorldandItsDenizensatUgarit,”inDeathinMesopotamia:PapersReadattheXXVIeRencontre
AssyriologiqueInternationale(ed.BendtAlster;Mesopotamia8;Copenhagen:AkademiskFor-
lag,1980),227–38.
68 Foracriticalviewofthebook,seeMarkS.SmithandElizabethBloch-Smith,“Deathand
Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel,” JAOS 108 (1988): 277–84. Another ambitious synthesis and
systematizationofUgariticbeliefswasundertakenbyMassimoBaldacci,astudentofDahood’s:
IlLibrodeimortidell’anticaUgarit:Lepiu` antichetestimonianzesull’Aldila`primadellaBibbia
(CasaleMonferrato:EdizioniPiemme,1998).
69 Lewis’sCultsoftheDeadfocusesonfourkeytexts:theUgariticFuneraryText(CAT1.161
=RS34.126),theUgariticKingList(CAT1.113=RS24.257),theDutiesofanIdealSon(CAT
1.17.1.26–34),andtheDaganStelae(CAT6.13–14).
70 Onthistopic,seeSasson,“LiteraryCriticism,FolkloreScholarshipandUgariticLitera-
ture.”
3.3Ugarit 107
essential conclusions about the Ugaritians’ view of death and the dead. The
followingsectionssummarizeandassesstheargumentsaboutkeyissues.
Therpum(etal.)
TwokeyUgaritictermsforthedeadaremtandrpum(cognatewithHebrewtmÈ
and ÕiaÇpÄrÂ). As in Hebrew, the etymology of the latter term is not settled (see
§4.4.2.2),butanoldertheory–thatthetermisderivedfromtheSemiticroot
rph, “sink down, be weak” – has largely been set aside in favor of a derivation
fromtherootrp,“heal.”71Thus,thetypicalunderstandingisthatthedeadwere
seenassupernatural“healers”orhelpersoftheliving.72
The rpum appear some fifty times in the Ugaritic literature, in a number of
contexts. A passage from the Baal Cycle illustrates the potential interpretive
problems:
ˇspˇs.rpim.thtk Sˇapsˇu,youruletheRapa’uma,
ˇspˇs.thtk.˙ilnym Sˇapsˇu,yourulethedivineones.
˙
dk.ilm Thegodsareyourcompany;
hn.mtm. dk eventhedeadareyourcompany.(CAT1.6vi:45–47)
Theinterpretationofthepassagedependsgreatlyonthetranslationoftheword
mt,whichcanmeaneither“dead(person)”or“man.”Schmidtarguesthatthe
parallelism of the second couplet comprises a merismus (gods/men),73 but the
synonymousparallelismofthecoupletsdoesnotsupportsuchaninterpretation.
Boththerpimandthemtmareparalleltodivinebeings(ilnym,ilm).74Schmidt
wouldprefertoseetherpumasonlysemidivine,orperhapsonlyheroic;butwhilea
few unclear occurrences may point to a second sense of the rpum as a class of
warriors75oramytho-historicaltribe(asintheHebrewBible;e.g.,Deut3:11–14),
Spronk is probably right that in general “rp’m is a name for the deified royal
ancestorswhoarecalledupfromthenetherworld,wheretheylivelikeshades.”76
71 TheodoreJ.Lewis,“TowardaLiteraryTranslationoftheRapiumaTexts,”inUgarit,Re-
ligionandCulture:EssaysPresentedinHonourofProfessorJohnC.L.Gibson(ed.N.Wyattetal.;
Ugaritisch-biblischeLiteratur12;Münster:Ugarit-Verlag,1996),118.Schmidttentativelysug-
geststranslatingrpumas“GreatOnes,”basedonatheorizedcognaterelationshipbetweenrp
and Akk. raba¯um (Israel’s Beneficent Dead, 92–93). The root rp is rare in Ugaritic outside
referencestotherpum,butitdoesexist;seeCAT1.114:28.
72 DeMoor,“Rapi’uma–Rephaim,”323–45;Andre´Caquot,“LesRephaimOugaritiques,”
Syria37(1960):72–93.
73 Schmidt,Israel’sBeneficentDead,87.
74 Tromp,PrimitiveConceptions,177;TheodoreJ.Lewis,“Dead,”DDD2,227.
75 Schmidt(Israel’sBeneficentDead,89–90)cites4.232:8,33inthisregard.However,the
phrasethereisbnrpiyn,whichmayshedverylittlelightontherpumproper.Thiscouldjustas
easilybeagroupofhumansunderthedivinepatronageoftherpum.
76 Spronk, Beatific Afterlife, 195. In the Hebrew Bible, the Rephaim frequently appear in
parallelwith“thedead”andinotherunderworldcontexts(e.g.,Ps88:10;Isa14:9;see§4.4.2.2
below).
108 3.DeathandtheDeadinSyria-PalestineoutsideIsraelandJudah
Thisconclusiondrawsfurthersupportfromtheoccurrencesofformsofrp asa
theophoricelementinpersonalnames.77
Anumberoftextsenumerateamongthegodstheilib,usuallytakentomean
“thedivineancestor.”78Twotextsfromtheroyalcultaffirmthehypothesisthatat
leastthekingsofUgaritwerethoughttohavebeendivinizedafterdeath.79The
firstoftheseisthe“UgariticKingList”(CAT1.113),ofwhichthereverseisalist
ofroyalancestorsprecededbytheword il,“god,”forexample, ilnqmd.80Con-
siderable controversy surrounded the understanding of il in the titles of the
ancestors–somescholars,suchasSchmidt,arguedthatitsimplymeans“thegod
of RN”81 or simply withheld judgment – but the 1998 publication of a syllabic
version of theking list(RS 94.2518)usingtheSumero-Akkadiandivinedeter-
minative (i.e., reading dingir RN instead of il RN) erased doubts about the
divinizationofdeadkings,evenamongskeptics.82DennisPardeehasalsonoted
that there are check marks on both texts that seem to indicate their sacrificial
usage, making it probable that they were associated with a kispu-type ritual.
Presumablythemarkswereusedtoindicatethefulfillmentofofferingsforeach
divinizedking.83Thus,onemustunderstandanamesuchastheaforementioned
ilnqmdtomean“thedivineNiqmaddu,”andsoforth.84Notsurprisingly,Lewis
deemedCAT1.113“amostimportantpieceofevidencefortheexistenceofacult
ofthedeadatUgarit.”85
ThesecondtextattestingtothedivinizationofroyaldeadisCAT1.161,some-
times known as the “Liturgy of the Shades,” or simply as the “Ugaritic Royal
FuneraryText.”Thisdocumentisentitledsprdbhzlm,“documentofthesacrifice
˙˙
77 FraukeGrøndahl,DiePersonennamenderTexteausUgarit(StudiaPohl1;Rome:Pontifi-
calBiblicalInstitute,1967),180.
78 1.47:2;1.118:1;etc.Seediscussionof1.17i:26below.
79 SeediscussionbyN.Wyatt,“TheReligionofUgarit:AnOverview,”inHandbookofUga-
riticStudies(ed.W.G.E.WatsonandN.Wyatt;Leiden:Brill,1999),560–62.Indeed,Wyatthas
morerecentlysuggestedthattheking“somehowsharedintheontologyofthedivinerealm”
evenwhileliving(“TheReligiousRoleoftheKingatUgarit,”UF37[2005]:695–727).
80 Theobverseisfragmentary,butappearstoindicateamusicalritualinvolvingdrumand
pipes.
81 Schmidt,Israel’sBeneficentDead,69–70.
82 D.Arnaud,“Prole´gome`nesa`lare´dactiond’unehistoired’OugaritII:Lesbordereauxdes
roisdivinize´s,”StudiMiceniedEgeo-Anatolici41(1998):153–73;DennisPardee,RitualandCult
atUgarit(WAW10;Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature2002),199.Inadditiontothedata
uniquetotheAkkadiantablet,Pardeegrantsthatitisprimafacieunlikelythateachkingina
dynastywouldhaveadifferentgodandthatatextintendedtohonorallthesedifferentgods
wouldleavethemallunnamed(RitualandCultatUgarit,195).
83 SimilarmarksarefoundbythenamesofthekingsintheAkkadian“Genealogyofthe
HammurapiDynasty”(see§1.4.1above).
84 Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, 200. Pardee worries about the use of the unusual
“genitiveofidentification,”butitmayalsobeanappositionalnominative;andfurthermorethe
phrasecanbeunderstoodasasimplecalqueoftheAkkadian.
85 Lewis,CultsoftheDead,49.
3.3Ugarit 109
oftheshades.”86ItincludesapartiallistofdeceasedrulersofUgarit,andappears
to have been written either for the thirteenth-century king Niqmaddu III in
anticipation of his death, or for his heir, Ammurapi. In it, the rpim qdmym
(“ancientRephaim”)aresummoned,somebyname.Thetextcallsformourning
over the throne (ks) and footstool of the king. Next, the sun god, Sˇapsˇu, is
summonedandinstructedtoorderthedeceasedkingtofollowtheRephaimand
“descendintotheearthandlower(himself)intothedust.”Numeroussacrifices
arethencommanded,andthetextcloseswithprayersofwell-beingforthenew
king, Ammurapi,forhisqueen,fortheirhousehold,andforthecity.
ThefuneraryritualreflectedinCAT1.161isseeminglyintendedtoassurethe
descent of Niqmaddu to his place among the royal dead. At a minimum, the
liturgy establishes that Ugaritians understood their dead kings to be divinized
andto“participate”inculticactivities.Althoughitisnotstatedinthetext,the
kingsseemtohavefunctionedasguarantorsoftheroyalsuccessionandprotec-
torsofthecity–aninferencefromtheclosinglines,whichinvokeblessingsfor
the new king and queen, and for Ugarit. Thus, the ritual seems to function
similarlytothekispu;althoughitisnotclearthattheofferings(lines27–30)are
intendedforthedeadkings,thekingsarenamedforasecondtimeimmediately
beforehand (lines 23–26). Spronk perceived that “all deceased members of the
dynastyofUgaritareinvoked.Theancestorsreceivesacrifices:theyarebelieved
toblessthelivingkinginreturn.”87Theinvocationofthedeadancestorsandthe
requestforblessingarestructurallyparalleltotheMesopotamian“Genealogyof
theHammurapiDynasty”(see§1.4.1).88
86 Theunderstandingofthetermzlmiscontroverted;thankfully,itisnotoffirstimportance
˙
tothereconstructionoftheUgariticcultofthedead,sinceitdoesnotoccurintheothertexts
underdiscussion.Mytranslationunderstandszlas“shade,”whichoccursanumberoftimesin
˙
Ugaritic,includinginthephrasezlmt(“shadowofdeath,”CAT1.4vii:55;cf.Ps23:4).Further
˙
supportforthistheoryisfoundintheAkk.titlemuˇsˆelisilli,“raiserofshades,”whichoccursina
˙
lexicallistshortlyaftermuˇsˆelietimmi,“raiserofghosts”(JeanBotte´ro,“Lamythologiedelamort
˙
enMesopotamieancienne,”inDeathinMesopotamia,45n.28).“Shadow”carriestheconno-
tationofprotectioninnumerousSemiticlanguages(Ps91:1;etc.);thus,the“shades”mayalso
beviewed“protectors”ofthedynastyinthiscase.Therearetwoothermajorpossibilitiesthat
havebeenadvancedforzlm:(1)thatitisfromarootofthesamespelling,cognatewithAkk.
˙
sala¯mu,“tobedark,”thusa“nocturnalsacrifice”(Lewis,CultsoftheDead,7,10–12);or(2)that
˙
itmeans“statue,”cognatewithAkk.salmu.ThereareindeedanumberofMesopotamianand
˙
Hittiteritualsinwhichadeadkingissymbolizedbyastatue,andthereferencetothethronein
CAT1.161:20particularlysoundsliketheHittiteRoyalFuneraryRitual.However,suchaword
for “statue” is not otherwise attested in Ugaritic. In any case, none of these conclusions, if
adopted,wouldgreatlyalterone’sunderstandingofthetextasawhole.Forafullersurveyofthe
proponentsofeachtheory,seeSchmidt,Israel’sBeneficentDead,109–10.
87 Spronk,BeatificAfterlife,191.
88 SeealsoB.A.LevineandJ.M.deTarragon,“DeadKingsandRephaim:ThePatronsofthe
UgariticDynasty,”JAOS104(l984):649–59
110 3.DeathandtheDeadinSyria-PalestineoutsideIsraelandJudah
LewisarguesthatCAT1.161depicts“onlypartofaseeminglyelaboratecultof
thedeadinancientUgarit.”89Heimaginesaritualstretchingoversevendays,90as
isthecasewithanumberofinstancesofmourningintheHebrewBible.91Inline
with his assumption that this is a kispu, he describes the heir Ammurapi as a
paqidu,“caretaker,”aroleattestedintheMesopotamianmortuarycult(§1.4.1),
butnotactuallygivenbythetext.92
Uptothispoint,SpronkandLewisareinagreement,butSpronk’streatment
becomesmoreambitious.Thefirstmajorpointonwhichtheydivergeneedsonly
briefmentionbecauseithasnotfaredwellinthediscussionoftheUgariticdeath
cultsubsequenttoSpronk’swork.ThepassageinquestionoccursintheAqhat
epic(CAT1.17i:26–34,cf.ii:1–8,ii:16–23).Init,BaalasksEltograntDan’ela
sontoperformvariousdutiesforhim:
…sothathissonmightbeinthehouse,
Adescendantwithinhispalace;
Someonetosetupthestela(skn)ofhisdivineancestor(ilibh),
inthesanctuarythevotiveemblemofhisclan;
Tosendupfromtheearthhissmoke,
Fromthedusttheprotectorofhisplace;
Toshutupthejawsofhisdetractors,
todriveoutanyonewhowoulddohimin;
Totakehishandwhenheisdrunk;
tobearhimup[when]heisfullofwine;
Toeathisspelt-offeringinthetempleofBaal,
hisportioninthetempleofEl;
Toresurfacehisroofona[mud]dyday,
towashhisoutfitonamuddyday.93
Popeandothersdubbedthistext“TheDutiesofanIdealSon,”andconcluded
thatitdescribesmortuaryrites–anunderstandablereadinginlightoftheref-
erences to sacrifices and stelae, and also to mud (Ug. tit), a widely recognized
¯˙
componentofunderworldimagery.Popethoughtthatanumberofthesewere
dutiesoftheidealsonintheroleofacaretakerofhisdeceasedancestors,94albeit
89 Lewis,CultsoftheDead,31.
90 Onthebasisofthesevenfoldofferingsattheendofthetext.Lewis,CultsoftheDead,96.
91 E.g.,Gen50:10;1Sam31:13;1Chr10:12;Jdt16:24;Sir22:12.
92 Lewis,CultsoftheDead,34–35.Pitardissurprisedthatnotalltheancestorsarenamed,ifit
trulyisasacrificefortheancestors,butLewisandSpronkthinktheyareincludedinthemore
generalinvocations.
93 AfterPardee’stranslationinCOS1.103.
94 Pope,“CultoftheDeadatUgarit,”226–28;seealsoR.R.Wilson,GenealogyandHistoryin
theBiblicalWorld(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1977),121n.182,whoperceivedthat
“mortuaryrites”performedbyasonforafatherwereinviewhere.Thisviewfindssomesupport
inEgyptiantextsthatdelineatemortuaryresponsibilities,suchastheCoffinTextinwhichason
saystoadeceasedfather,“I...amhereasanadvocateinthetribunalofmen,/settingupyour
boundarystone,holdingtogetheryourdespondentones,/andservingasyourimageonearth,/
3.3Ugarit 111
expressed mostly in metaphorical terms. W.F. Albright suggested that the
“smoke”(qtrh)inline28representsthesoulofthefather,inparallelwithdmr,
˙ ¯
the“protector”summonedfromthedustinthenextline.95Popealsobelieved
thatthephrase“fullofwine”indicatedadrunkenfunerarybanquet.96Following
theseinterpretations,Spronkconcludedthatwhenthetabletsarearrangedprop-
erly,theepicrecounts“thetragedyofDanielwholongedforasontotakecareof
theancestor-cultafterhisdeath,butwhoisnowforcedtoperformsimilarrituals
himselfwithregardtohisson.”97However,Dan’elaskedBaalforasontohelp
himwhileheisliving,notafterheisdead.Itisalsonotclearwhymanyofthe
duties should be presented metaphorically. Lewis concludes that only nsb skn
˙
ilibh in line 26 (“one who sets up the stele of his divine ancestor”) pertains to
mortuaryduties.98Giventhelackofclearsupportfromothertextsfortheidea
that the rest of the duties are mortuary in nature, it is probably better not to
assume that they are. Therefore the text makes only a minor contribution to
one’sunderstandingofthecultofthedead,byattestingtheuseofmortuarystelae
torepresentancestors.
GiventheprominenceoftherpuminreconstructionsofUgariticbeliefsabout
thedead,the“Rapiumatexts”(CAT1.20–22)aresignificant;unfortunatelythey
havealsoprovedverydifficulttointerpret.Thefirsttablet(1.20)begins:[rp]um.
tdbhn–aninvitationtotherpumtodosomething,variouslyinterpretedas“take
˙
partinsacrifice,”99“sacrifice,”100or“feast.”101Thetextisbroken,butattheendof
lines1–3,thetermsrpum, ilnym,andmtmtmareclearlyparallel.Thelastterm,
mtmtm, has proved especially tricky to interpret, although a construct chain
(“menofthedead”/“deadmen”)seemslikely,thusonehasawordplayonthe
twosensesofmt:102
whileyourgatewayissecuredbymeansofthatwhichIdo”(AdriaandeBuck,TheEgyptian
CoffinTexts[7vols.;Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1935–61],1.175–76;citedinJan
Assmann,DeathandSalvationinAncientEgypt[trans.D.Lorton;Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniver-
sityPress,2005],47).
95 W.F.Albright,“The‘NaturalForce’ofMosesintheLightofUgaritic,”BASOR94(1944):
35.However,seeLewis,CultsoftheDead,59–65;heprefers“song.”Bothroots(“protect”and
“sing”)areattestedfordmrinUgaritic.
96 Pope,“Cultofthe¯DeadatUgarit,”228.
97 Spronk,BeatificAfterlife,161.
98 Pardeeinitiallyobjectedthatilibinline26simplymeans“godofthefather,”i.e.,aclan
deity(COS1.103n.6).ThelaterrevelationofthesyllabicversionofCAT1.113,withitsdivi-
nizedKingList,favorsLewis’sinterpretation.However,Pardeehassincemodifiedhisstanceto
arguethatilibis“theancestralheadof Ilu’sfamily,”i.e.,asortofUr-deityor“primevalcause”
(RitualandCultatUgarit,280).
99 J.C.deMoor,ACuneiformAnthologyofReligiousTextsfromUgarit(Leiden:Brill,1987),
287.
100 DelOlmoLete,MitosyLeyendas,417.
101 Lewis,UgariticNarrativePoetry(ed.SimonB.Parker;WAW9;Atlanta:ScholarsPress,
1997),197.
102 Lewis(UgariticNarrativePoetry,197)translates“theancientdead,”perhapsreflectingthe
112 3.DeathandtheDeadinSyria-PalestineoutsideIsraelandJudah
rp]um103.tdbhn TheRephaimshallfeast
˙
ˇs]bd.ilnym thespirits[sev]enfold
]kmtmtm []liketheancientdead.104
AsNickWyattremarked:“whatevertheprecisenuance,ilnymandmtmtmrefer
totherpum.”105Itisprobablythesamefigureswhoareinvitedtodrinkinline7.
Thus,thedivinizeddeadaresummonedtoasortofbanquet.Thesearegenerally
thoughttoberelatedtotheAqhatlegend,bothbecauseCAT1.21–22arebythe
samescribalhandastheAqhattablets(CAT1.17–19),andbecauseintheAqhat
storyDan’elisrepeatedlyreferredtoasmtrpi,“manoftheRapiu.”Iftheyareto
beappendedtotheforegoingnarrative,thenthesetextstellofDan’elsummo-
ningtherpumtoamortuarybanquetforhisdeadson.106
Thequestionis:Howmanyotherreferencestotherpumarethereintheseso-
called Rapiuma texts? Spronk associates numerous other entities in CAT
1.20–22withtherpum,sothatallofthefollowingbecomenamesforthedivi-
nizeddead:’ilm(1.20i:1,etc.),ahm(“brothers,”1.22i:5),g´zrm(“heroes,”1.22
˘
i:7) mlkm (“(dead)kings,”1.22 i:10),107 zbl (“prince”, 1.22 i:10),‘llmy (“whose
child?”,i.e.,uncared-forspirits,1.22i:10,1.161:7),and brm(“thosewhocross
over,”1.22i:15).Theseequationsinturnleadtoanever-wideningarrayoftexts
that supposedly refer to the divinized dead under various other names:ˇsmym
(“those-of-heaven,” 1.19 iv:24), d’iy (“kite,” 1.108:8), dmr (“protector,” 1.17
¯
i:28),hlmlk(“hostofMalik,”1.41:48;1.87:52),qbsdtn(“communityofDitan,”
˙ ˙
1.15iii:4,15),ilmkbkbm(“star-gods,”1.43:2–3),andgtrm(1.43:9,17).Hesome-
¯
timesachievestheseidentificationsbyreconstructingreferencestotherpumin
understanding,“thedead(est)ofthedead”(soalsoSpronk,BeatificAfterlife,164).DelOlmo
Lete,readingkmtmtm,translates,“whenyoudie.”Aminoritycontradictoryviewisexpressed
byConradL’Heureux,whoarguesforthereadingamtmanddeniesthattherpumarethedead
(RankamongtheCanaaniteGods:El,Ba‘al,andtheRepha’im(Missoula,Mont.:ScholarsPress,
1979),130–31.
103 Thetermrpummayberestoredherewithsomeconfidence,onthebasisofitsoccurrences
inparallelismwithilnyminotherpassages,e.g.,1.21:3–4.
104 Cf.Lewis’stranslation,UgariticNarrativePoetry,197.
105 N.Wyatt,ReligiousTextsfromUgarit(2nded.;Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress,2002),
315.
106 Others,however,assumethatitisEl,becauseofhisbanquetforthegodsinCAT1.114
(seebelow).Inthatcase,since1.114hasratherlittlereferencetothedeadortheunderworld,the
relationshipoftheRephaimtextstothecultofthedeadwouldbemuchmoretenuous,relying
onlyonthetermsrpum,mtmtmandmrzy(cf.1.21:5,9).
107 See J.F. Healey, “Malku : MLKM : Annunaki,” UF 7 (1975): 235–58 and idem,
“MLKM/RPUMandtheKispum,”UF10(1978):89–91.Inthefirstarticle,basedprimarilyona
syllabicgodlistfromUgarit,HealeyconcludedthatthemlkminUgarit“probablyrepresenta...
groupofspiritualordemonicpowers”(238).AlthoughakintotheAnnunakioftheMesopo-
tamiannetherworld,theywerenotyetformallyidentifiedwiththegodsoftheunderworld.The
secondarticlearguesthatthemlkmandtherpumrefertothesamegroupofpeople,exclusively
deadkings(91).
3.3Ugarit 113
textswheretheyarenototherwisementioned.108Anotherofhisproceduresisto
notethattherpummaybeportrayedas“fluttering”likebirds,109andthentohunt
forotheroccurrencesofbirdimagerythatcanbeincorporatedintotheunder-
standingoftherpum.Thereasonforthemultiplicityofnames,inSpronk’sview,
is that each captures a different aspect of the dead, e.g.: “Whereas rp’um is an
indicationofthedeifieddeadas‘healers,’mlkmmayhavedenotedtheirstateas
kingsinthenetherworld.”110Withoutexamplesofthetwotermsinparallelusage,
however,suchequationsareproblematic.Thesamemethodologicalflawsplague
hisdiscussionoftheleadersoftherpum:111Spronk’snetisprobablycasttoowide.
Inapolytheisticculture,whyisitnecessaryforonegroupofdivinebeingstobe
so ubiquitous? More likely there were various groups of semidivinities, as in
Mespotamian and Egyptian demonology. It seems better not to readthe rpum
intotextswheretheyarenotfound,butrathertoassumethatdivinebeingsby
othernamesarejustthat.
Spronk’sargumentabouttheresurrectionofthedeadatUgaritisalsotenuous.
ThebestsupportforitcomesfromtheAqhatepic:WhenAnattriestoacquire
Aqhat’s bow, she famously says, “Ask for life, and I will give it to you / For
immortality, and I’ll make it yours” (CAT 1.17 vi:26–28). She continues: “I’ll
make you count the years with Baal / with the sons of the El will you count
months”(lines28–29).Sheseemstocomparethisofferoflifetoonemadeby
Baal:
108 Forexample,compareSpronk’sreconstructionof1.108:17(BeatificAfterlife,179)with
thetextinCAT,wherethewordrpumismissingentirely.
109 Spronkunderstandstheoccurrencesofnddforrpum(e.g.,CAT1.20i:2and1.21:4)asan
imageofthedead“fluttering”likestartledbirds.DUL(“go,move,launch”)andothertrans-
lators offer more sober translations. There is truth to the idea that the dead are frequently
portrayedasbirds;seeChristopherB.Hays,“ChirpsfromtheDust:TheAfflictionofNebuch-
adnezzarinDaniel4:30inItsAncientNearEasternContext,”JBL126(2007):passim.
110 Spronk,BeatificAfterlife,188.
111 Spronk,likeanumberofothers,assumesthatBaalistheleaderoftherpum,basedonhis
titlerpublinCAT1.22i:8.However,itisnotsoclearthatthegodrpumlk lmnamedin1.108:1
isthesame.Rapiu,whoappearsasearlyasMari,isgenerallytakentobeadistinctdeityandmay
infactbeindependentoftherpum(SimonB.Parker,“TheUgariticDeityRapi’u,”UF4[1972]:
97–104).TheproblemiscompoundedwhenSpronkusesoneconjecturetoproveanother,as
whenhejudgesthattheparalleldoubledeitiesin1.108:2,Gathar-and-Yaqar(gtr.wyqr),areboth
¯
among“thefamousancestorsofthedynastyofUgarit,”whoaresummonedfromthenether-
worldalongwithBaalandDitan(1:15iii:4,15).Theparallelphrasesrpi.ars//qbs.ddn(e.g.,
˙ ˙
1.161:2–3)domakeitlikelythatDidanu(orDitanu)wasperceivedasaheroic,semi-divine
ancestor.However,Spronktakesthephraseadnilm.rbm(“LordoftheGreatGods”),which
occursalongsideDitanuin1.124,torefertoBaalandthusconnectstheentiretexttothecultof
the dead, so that it becomes a ritual in which the healing powers of the rpum are invoked
(Spronk,BeatificAfterlife,193–95).Thisistooambitious;areasonablepositionwouldbeto
limittheconversationaboutthepowersofthedeadtotextsincludingcertainimportantkey-
wordssuchasrpum,ilmars,andmt.Itisquitepossibletotalkabouthealingandjudging(or
˙
aboutBaal)withoutanyreferencetocultsofthedead.
114 3.DeathandtheDeadinSyria-PalestineoutsideIsraelandJudah
kbl.kyhwy.ysˇr
˙
AsBaal,whenherevives,invitestoafeast
hwy.ysˇr.wysˇqynh
H˙ einvitesthelivingonetoafeastandoffershimdrink…
apank.ahwyaqhtg´zr
˙
SoIwillgivelifetonobleAqhat. (lines30–33)112
ArecentlypublishedsealfromTellAfismayattestasimilarconviction,sinceit
bearsthenameblhww,arguablytobetranslated“Baalgiveslife.”113Thesetexts
˙
reflectthefactthat,liketheircongenerselsewhere(see§§1.4.3,4.4.4),Ugaritic
deitiescouldbesaidtogiveorrestorelife.
Spronk,however,goessomewhatfurther.CombiningthisAqhatpassagewith
theideathatthedyingandrisingepisodesintheBaalCycle(seeabove)reflecta
yearlycycle,hereconstructsaUgariticfestivalatwhichBaal’srevivificationand
thatoftherpumwerecelebrated.Suchafestival,however,isonlyaconjecture,
and his other primary example is not instructive.114 Anat’s promise to Aqhat
appearstoindicatesimplytheideaoffeastingwiththegodsinthemortuarycult,
asisattestedin,e.g.,thePanammuwainscription(§3.4).115ItistellingthatAqhat
112 Thetranslationismine;forsimilarviews,seeDUL188(ˇsr),379(hwy),840(ˇsqy);Parker,
˙
UgariticNarrativePoetry,61;H.L.Ginsberg,ANET,151.OtherviewsincludethatofPardee,
whoseestherevivedoneas“likeBalu(who),whenhecomes(back)tolife,feasts:/theygivea
feast to the living one, give him drink” (COS 1.103; p.347). Clearly this turns on Pardee’s
interpretationoftheUgariticcultofthedead,whichisdiscussedbelow.Itisnotclearhowhe
derivesapluraltranslation(“theygiveafeast”)fromthesecondoccurrenceofyˇsr,unlesshe
deemsitanimpersonalconstruction.Thisseemstomeanunnecessarymove.Anotherconflict-
ingview,thatBaal“isserved”bythosewhomherevives,hasbeenespousedbyK.vanderToorn
(“FuneraryRitualsandBeatificAfterlifeinUgariticTextsandintheBible,”BO48[1991]:46)
anddeMoor(CuneiformAnthologyofReligiousTextsfromUgarit,238)
113 SeeM.G.AmadasiGuzzo,“UneEmpreintedesceaudeTellAfis,”Or70(2003):318–24;
K.LawsonYounger,“SomeofWhat’sNewinOldAramaicEpigraphy,”NEA70(2007):140.
Thistranslationisnotwithoutproblems,butthespellingwouldbenormalinPhoenician.
114 MuchofSpronk’sargumenthangsonCAT1.22i:6–7,wherehereads:tm.ytbˇs.ˇsm.’il.mtm
/yt(!)bˇs.brkn.ˇsm.’il.g´zrm(“thenameofElrevivifiedthedead;/theblessingsofthenameofEl
revivifiedtheheroes”).Onthisbasis,hearguesthattheRephaim“arerevivifiedwithBaaltotake
partintheNewYear’sfestivalcelebratingBaal’sreturntolife”(Spronk,BeatificAfterlife,195;cf.
155–56,205).Intwicereadingytbˇs,heassumesthatthereexistsanUgariticcognateoftheSˇ-
¯
stemoftheAkk.verbbaˇsuˆ,“tobringintobeing,create.”SpronkcitesdeMooronthispoint.
Theyseemtohavechangedtheirmindayearlaterwhen,inanotherpublication,theycalledthe
formaD-stemoftbˇsandtranslatedit“givesubstance”(CuneiformAnthologyofReligiousTexts
¯
fromUgarit,175).However,thisphilologicalproposalisproblematic.Neitherroothasanyother
attestationinUgariticoranyotherWestSemiticlanguage.Andinanycase,inthesecondline
above(line7),thetextreadsybˇs,ratherthanytbˇs(Wyatt,ReligiousTextsfromUgarit,321n.37).
Indeed, Pitard corrects line 7 to ybˇs (“A New Edition of the Rapi’uma Texts,” BASOR 285
[1992]:56–57),andheisfollowedbyLewis(UgariticNarrativePoetry,203).Theroot bˇsisitself
scarcelyunderstood(DULoffers:“?”,andneitherWyattnorLewistranslatesit).Insum,this
passageisanexceedinglyshakyfoundationonwhichtofoundatheory.SeecritiquebySmith
andBloch-Smith,“DeathandAfterlifeinUgaritandIsrael,”279.
115 ThisthemeiscommonlyattestedfromtheMiddleKingdomonwardinEgypt,whichwas