PUBLICATIONS DE L'INSTITUT NEERLANDAIS POUR LE PROCHE ORIENT

sous la direction de A. A. KAMPMAN et J. P. M. VAN DER PLOEG O.P.

Tome Ik

COMPTE RENDU de la Troisième Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, organisée à Leiden du 28 juin au 4 juillet 1952 par le Nederlands In- stituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 1954, 8vo, Vl et 164 pp. 1 frontispiece, 11 planches, 18 Ee 5 40.—

STUDIA EFRANCISCI SCHOLTEN MEMORIAE DICATA

edita ab A. A. KAMPMAN

Volumen Is

J. Simons, SJ. Jerusalem in the Old Testa-

ment, Researches and Theories. 1952, Roy. to,

XVI and 518 pp, 33 pls., 63 maps and figures. Bound in buckram. Price on request

Volumen II:

J. Simons, SJ. The Geographical and Topo- graphical texts of the Old Testament. A Concise Commentary in XXXII Chapters with 10 maps. 1959. Roy. 4to, XIV and 614 pp.

Bound in buckram f 200.—

SCHOLAE ADRIANA DE BUCK MEMORIAE DICATA editae ab A. A. KAMPMAN et A. KLASENS

Scholae I: 1961

D. B. Emery (London), A Funerary Repast in an Egyptian Tomb of the Archaic Period. 1962, 4to, VIII and 14 pp., 9 plates and 4 illustrations in the text. í 15

Scholae II: 1963

G. Posener (Paris), Les inscriptions de Mir- gissa. Manuscript pas reu Scholae III: 1965 _

‘K. Michatowski (Varsovie), La Cathédrale de Faras, Centre Artistique de la Nubie Chré- tienne. 1966, 4to, VIIl et 40 pages, 20 planches, 1 frontispiece en couleur. f 30.— Scholae IV: 1968

B. van de Walle (Brussel), L'humour che

8 planches. f 20.

Scholae V: 1970

John A. Wilson, Herodotus in Egypt. 1970, 4to, VIII and 20 pages, 2 planches. f 20.

les anciens Egyptiens. 1969, 4to, VIII et 24 pages,

Tome IL:

COMPTE RENDU de la XI Rencontre Assy- riologique Internationale, organisée à Leiden du 23 au 28 juin 1962 par le Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. 1964, 8vo, XII et 120 pp. 9 planches, 15 figs. Í 40—

Volumen III:

Th. A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von — Salomo bis Herodes. Eine archäologisch-historische Studie unter Berücksichtigung.des Westsemitischen Tempelbaus. 1970. Roy. 4to, XVI und 720 Seiten,

2 Tafeln, 172 Abb. und Karten.

Bound in buckram f 250.—

Volumen IV:

Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae. Edide- runt M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, J. Rijckmans. 1973, Roy. 4to, VIII + 400 pp. frontispiece. Buckram binding. f 250—

PHOENIX

Bulletin de la Société Orientale Néerlandaise „Ex Oriente Lux” fondée à Leiden, publié par K. R Veenhof, in-8.

Tome I-V1I1 (1955-1962), XVI + 460 pp. 266 ill. f 80.—

Tome IX-XIL (1963-1966), VIII + 391 pp, 180 il. f 40.—

Tome XIII-XVI (1967-1970), ca. 400 pp. 200 ill. f 45.—

Le Bulletin PHOENIX est publié depuis 1955 pour

donner des informations aux Membres de la Sociëté

Orientale Neérlandaise „Ex Oriente Lux” sur les re- cherches orientalistes et les fouilles et les prospections

archéologiques et géographiques dans le Proche Orient.

Ln les fascicules sont illustrés d'une manière abon- ante.

RE he

de he

BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS

4 4 JAARGANG XXXI ä 1974

E di eid

dan

Ck Li Ee Se

ki edaad

Ne.

BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS

UITGEGEVEN VANWEGE HET

NEDERLANDS INSTITUUT VOOR HET NABIJE OOSTEN TE LEIDEN

ONDER REDACTIE VAN

A. A. KAMPMAN F. M. Th. DE LIAGRE BÔHL H. J. A. DE MEULENAERE R. FRANKENA s C. NIJLAND

JAARGANG XXXI 1974

NEDERLANDS INSTITUUT VOOR HET NABIJE OOSTEN TE LEIDEN — 1974

REDACTIE EN ADMINISTRATIE Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Noordeindsplein 4-6, Leiden : N H Ö u D

VAN

JAARGANG XXXI, 1974 (nos 1-6)

: NECROLOGIE RINTJE FRANKEMA 16.8.1925-23.11.1974 par Th. C. Vriezen . . … ee eee IV RENÉ LABAT 5.6.1904-3.4.1974 par Joseph Klíma . . . … … … ee « 191193 HOOFDARTIKELEN

AARTUN, Kjell Notizen zur hebräischen Nominalmorphologie . … mt) BARTA, W. Zur Stundenanordnung des Amduat in den ramessidischen Königsgräbern . . 197-201 BRANDEN, Á. Van den Quelques notes concernant l'inscription Trip. 37 — KAL 119 . . . 223—226

BRENTJES, B. Einige archäologisch-kunsthistorische Beobachtungen anlässlich einer Reise nach den Sowjetrepubliken Georgien und Armenien . . … - «eee 52—53 DonzeEL, E. van Two Ethiopian Letters of Job Ludolf . . . . … … … … « 226—238 HALDAR, À. Tradition and History . . … f 26—37 HEINEN, Heinz Das ptolemäische Alexandrien. Bemerkungen zu ‘einem ì Werk B M. Frasers . . 201—207 IN DER SMITTEN, Wilhelm Th, K.H. $$ 226f: galläbu=—=’Tätowierer’ . . . 42 JANSMA, T. Neue Schriften des Johannes von Apameia. Bemerkungen zu 1 einer ‘ Edition . f 4252 Moor, J. C. de and P. van der Lucr, The Spectre of Pan-Ugaritism. . . en 3—26 Copyright 1974 RöMER, W. H. Ph. Fünf und zwanzig Jahre der Erforschung sumerischer literarischer Texte . . « 207223 Stichting Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten SALONEN, Armas U > A im Sumerischen . . EEE 37—38 SALONEN, Armas Nomen Unitatis im Akkadischen EES at acre: bean Ane eee oa 38 SNELL, Daniel C. Hebrew Verbs . . EEE 00 OO 40—42 : , f 7 : ne SToL, M. Altbabyl hes ”Aus dem Boden st nf 2 222223

All rights reserved, including the right to translate this periodical or parts thereof in any Form Warre, B. van de Ee kde Aus dem Ì oden Sole Beyptologique Rene “Elisabeth GIO2SL OT nn en mee ar 5 …… … … 194—197

BOEKBESPREKINGEN

ABDEL-MALEK, A., A-A. BELAL, H. HANAFI, Renaissance du Monde Arabe ud Paret). . . . . 326—327 ALDRED, Cyril Die J uwelen der Pharaonen (Birgit Nolte). . ge Se LP ALTENMÜLLER, H. & A. M. Moussa, The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay (Henry G. Fische D. Ee 66—69 AMIET, Pierre Les civilisations antiques du Proche-Orient (H. A. Brongers). . 85—86

ANATOLICA, Annuaire pour les civilisations de l'Asie Antérieure No. IV, 1971-72 ng eld J. M e E link) : rrd 283 ARTAMANoOV, M. T. Sokroniëta Sakov (Die ‘Schätze der Saken) B. B ren ti e 5). MERE 337338 AUBET, Maria Eugenia Los marfiles orientalizantes de Praeneste (M. Delcor). . 118—119

AUFSATZE ZUM 70. GEBURTSTAG VON HERBERT RICKE, ed. von Gerhard Hainy (Gerald E. Kadish) . 245—247

AUGUSTINUS Philosophische Spätdialoge. De quantitate animae. ‘De magistro. Textes ‘édités,

traduits et pourvus d’une introduction par MM. Karl-Heinrich Lütcke et Gün- ther WEeIGEL, avec une étude Bene de Carl ANDRESEN (Frédéric van

der Meer) . . 153—154 BaAQAr, Moin & Irving BRECHER, Development, Planning & Policy in “Pakistan, 195 0-1970 (Annemarie Schimmel) . . : 334 BARTA, Winfried Untersuchungen zum Götterkreis der Neunheit (Dieter Mi ü 1 1 e D. $ 259260 BEHRENS-ABOUSEIF, Doris, Die Kopten in der ägyptischen Gesellschaft von der Mitte des 19. J ahrhunderts bis 1923 (Otto Meinardus). . … … « 269—271 BELAL, A.-A., H. HANAFI, A. ABDEL-MALEK, Renaissance du. Monde Arabe (Rudi P a re D. a 326—327 PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS BELENIZKII, A. M. Monumental’noe Iskusstvo PendZikenta (Monumentalkunst Pendshikents) Zivo- pis’, Skul’ptura (Malerei, Skulptur) (B. Brentjes). 338

BENGTSON, Hermann Römische Geschichte. Republik und Kaiserzeit bis 284 n. Chr: E. Jlonker 5) 141—142

ENEN VERTELDE NOR err

VI INHOUD

BERGMANN, E., Ake W. SJöBERG, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple VE G. B. Grace, The Kes Temple Hymn (W. H. Ph. Römer) . : swt at De Koptos à Kosseir (John F. Oate 5). : Le Paneion d'El-Kanaïs: Les inscriptions Grèques q ohn F. o ate 8: Theben-West (Lugsor), Vorbericht über die ersten vier Grabungskampagnen (1969-1971) (Gun Björkman). . : The Politics of Iran. Groups, Classes and Modernization (E. A. B ayne di. ' Altmesopotamische Weihplatten. Eine sumerische Ee des 3. J ahr- tausends v. Chr. (P. Calmeyer). The Struggle of Islam in Modern Indonesia (C. A. O. van Nieuwenhu nij z ) BoURGvUET, S.J., P. du Translated by C. HAY-SHAQ, Coptic Art (M.-M. Rassar t). 8 BOwMAN, Raymond A. Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis (R. Degen). BRECHER, Irving & Moin BaQai, Development, Planning & Policy in Pakistan, 1950-1970) (Annemarie Schimmel) . p Brock, S. P., C. T. FriTscH, S. JELLICOE, A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint M. Delco D. CALMEYER, P. Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirmanshah (R. D. Barnett). . Cassuro, U. (Translated by Israel ABRAHAMS), The Goddess Anath. Canaanite ee of the Patriarchal Age (B: van der Lugt). D : Die Kirche in der antiken ‘Welt G. N. B akhuizen van ì den B rink). 4 Sanain. Architekturnyi Ansambl’ Armenii X-XII Vekov (Sanain. Architektoni- sches Ensemble Armeniens aus den 10.-13. Jahrhundert) (B. Brentje Ds CHAMPOLLION, Jean-Frangois, Notices descriptives, Vol. 1 et 2 (Erhart Graefe). . Curist, Karl Römische Geschichte. Quellenkunde, Bibliographie (E. J. Jon nk, er 9). : CLIFFORD, Richard J. The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Gerhard F. Hase D DARIS, Sergio Il Lessico Latino nel Greco d’Egitto (L. Mooren). Davip, A. Rosalie Religious Ritual at Abydos (c.1300B.C.)(L. Kákosy). . Davies, L. G. and Max MALLOWAN, Ivories in Assyrian Style. Ivories from Nimrud 1949- 1963, fasc. I, Commentary, Catalogue and Plates (B. Hrouda). Neue palästinisch punktierte Bibelfragmente veröffentlicht ‘und auf Text und Punktation untersucht (Gerhard F. Hasel). f DREVNII VOSTOK, GORODA 1 TORGOVLJA (Alter Orient, Städte und Handel B. Brent je 8). Drivers, H. J. W. Old-Syriac (Edessean) Inscriptions (Rainer Dege n). … DSHAPARIDZE, Otar Michailovië und Aleksandr Ivanovië DsHAVACHISVILI, Frühe Ackerbaukulturen “auf dem Territorium Georgiens (in georgischer Sprache mit russischem Resumee) B. Brentjes) . From Solon to Socrates. Greek History and Civilization During ‘the 6th and ‘sth Centuries B.C, (E. J. Jonkers). . . 8 Jesaja II BKAT XI, 1, 2, 3, 4) (H. A. Brongers). s Das Kitab an-Nakt des Nazzam und seine haan im Kitab al-Fua ‘des Gahiz (R. M. Frank) . n k

Fenr, Burkhard Orientalische und griechische Gelage FE. T. van s Ù ra t e id.

FINKELSTEIN, J. J. Late Old Babylonian Documents and Letters (M. Birot).

FisneEr, Loren R. (Ed.) Ras Shamra Parallels, Vol. 1 (J.C. de Moor and P, van der Lug D. FOHRER, Georg Hebrew and Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament (J. H. Hospers). FRASER, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria (H. Heinen). .

Frirscn, C. T., S. JeLLICOE, S. P. Brock, A Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint (M. Delco D. Fuss, Werner Die deuteronomistische Pentateuchredaktion in Exodus 3-17 (J. H. Hospers)

GABOURY, Antonio La structure des Evangiles Synoptiques (J. Cool a:

GARBINI, Giovanni Le Lingue Semitiche (A. van Sel ms). :

GERLEMAN, Gillis Esther (BKAT XXI 1,2) (H. A. Bronger 9).

GrarI, Abrahim Amin L’Egypte nationaliste et liberale. De A Kamel à Saad Zagloul (Eritz Steppat) . E

GHOUGASSIAN, Joseph P. Kahlil Gibran: Wings of Thought. The People’ s Philosopher (C. Ni ij î ai n nd)

GODRON, Gérard Textes coptes relatifs à Saint Claude d’Antioche (K. H. Ku h oe

GöBL, R. Der säsânidische Siegelkanon (Rika Gyselen). .

GOEDICKE, Hans Die privaten Rechtsinschriften aus dem Alten Reich B. Me en u.

GÖTTLICHER, Arvid, Walter WERNER, Schiffsmodelle im alten Ägypten (Alan B. Lloyd).

GRAGG, G. B.

BERNAND, André BERNAND, André BreraAK, Manfred

Bir, James Alban Boese, Johannes

BorLAND, B. J.

CHADWICK, Henry CHALPACKÈ'JAN, O. Ch.

DrierricH, Manfred

EHRENBERG, Victor

ELLiGer, Karl Ess, Josef van

The Kes Temple Hymn. Ake W. SröBERG and E. BERGMANN, The he Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (W.H. Ph. Römer).

ERUMUMEUEEKKER RNI MEE EER ANNI

88—90 78—79 260—261 „7071 130—131 275—278 330—333 84—85 124—127 334

302

129

112

157

„ 339—340 . 244245 323—324 112—115 81

13—74 9394 115—118 132 293296 133

. 321—322 104—105 148—149

. 320—321 . 271—272 326

301

. 201—207 302 304—305

„ 154—156 . 239-240 106—107 61—62

329

. 261—263 ‚ 333334 64—66 75—78 88—90

INHOUD

GRAYSON, Albert Kirk Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. From the REE to Ashur-resha.ishi I eik

Schramm) .…

GRELOT, Pierre Documents araméens d Egypte E. Li i D. insk D. ô

GUEVORKIAN, Astghí The Craft and Mode of Life in Armenian Miniatures (B. B ren t je hed.

GuLIAMov, Ja. G. (Red.) Afrasiab, BandII(B.Brentjes). .

HagacHi, Labib The Second Stela of Kamose, and his Struggle against the ‘Hyksos } Ruler and his Capital (M. Gitton). .

HAMMOND, Mason The City in the Ancient World H. ‘W.Pleke D. :

HANAFI, H., A. ABDEL-MALEK, A-A, BeLAL, Renaissance du Monde Arabe (Rudi Pare D.

HaspeLs, C. H. E. The Highlands of Phrygia. Sites and Monuments (George M.A. Hanfma n 5)

Haw1, Khalil S. Kahlil Gibran. His Background, Character and Work (C. Nijland).

HEBREW UNION COLLEGE ANNUAL, Vols. XL-XLI (C.J. Labuschagne). ’

Herck, Wolfgang Die Ritualdarstellungen des Ramesseums (Michel Gitton).

HENTSCHKE, Ada und Ulrich MURLACK, Einführung in die Geschichte der klassischen Philologie ov: den Boet) . kn fte AR ot

Ethiopian Semitic (David L. Al P Pp le Sy a r d.

Studien zur Geographie des Reiches um Pylos nach ‘den mykenischen und ‘home-

rischen Texten (Alfred Heubeck). .

INSCH RIFTEN DER GRIECHEN. Grab-, Weih- und Ehreninschriften herausgegeben ‘und eingeleitet von Gerhard Prom (E.J. Jonkers). .

ISLAM: Studie en Dialoog. Referaten gehouden op de landelijke studiedag te Utrecht op 15 mei 1973 (An- nemarie Schimmel) .

ISLAMIC CARPETS FROM THE EEEN OF JOSEPH v. MeM ULLAN. Exhibition Catalogue J.M. Rogers) . .

JAGERSMA, H. „Leviticus Ío” Identiteit - . Bevrijding - _ Gemeenschap 0 oh. Wm. We ever 9.

JAHAN, Rounag Pakistan, Failure in National Integration (A. Sc himmel). .

JAHRBUCH FUR ANTIKE UND CHRISTENTUM 11/12 (1968/1969) (M. J. Verma sere D).

JAHRBUCH FUR ANTIKE UND CHRISTENTUM 13 (1970) (M. J. Vermaseren) . .

JAKOBIELSKI, Stefan A History of the Bishopric of Pachoras on the Basis of Coptic Inscriptions. Faras

UI (Tito Or! andi) .

Stress in Arabic and Word Structure in the Modern Arabic Dialects fen 0.

Schuman) …

JELLicor, S., S. P. BRoCK, C. T. FRITSCH, À Classified Bibliography of the Septuagint M. Delco D.

KELLER, Carl A. et René VeirLEuMIER, Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Sophonie (Hubertus C.M. Vogt)

Kerry, J.N. D. Early Christian Creeds (Third Edition) (J.N. Bakhuizen van den Br in k)

KENNA, V. E. G. The Cretan Talismanic Stone in the Late Minoan Age (J ohn H. Betts).

KIDAIS-POKROVSKAJA, N. V. (Kommentar), A. S. MIRBADAIEVA (Red.) u.a., Rustamchan, Uzbekskii geroiko-

romantiëeskij Epos (Rustamchan, usbekisches romantisches Heldenepos) (B.

Brentjes)

Um das Prinzip der Vergeltung in Religion und Recht ‘des Alten Testaments

(H. Bardtke) . . Meen 2 tenen Er dk

Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen, Band IUI

und IV (R. Labat). .

Narodnoe Iskusstvo Mongolov (Die Volkskunst ‘der Mongolen B. B r e n t j e 5)

Das Westtor. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen 1964-1968 (L. B. van der Meer)

Österreichische Ausgrabungen in Giseh (VAR). Vorbericht über die en

kampagne 1971 (Fekri Hassan). .

KüsBeL, Paul Schuld und Schicksal bei Origines, Gnostikern und ‘Platonikern G. Q° uis sp e D

LAYARD, Austen Henry Auf der Suche nach Ninive (H. A. Brongers). .

Lesko, Leonard H. The Ancient Egyptian Book of Two Ways (Ph. Derc hai ».

LesLavu, Wolf Hebrew Cognates in Amharic (E. van Donzel). .

LracreE BönL, F. M. Th. Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl Dedicatae (J osef

HETZRON, Robert Hir LER, Stefan

JANSSENS, Gerard

KocH, Klaus KöcHer, Franz KoërskKov, N. V.

KRAUSE, Clemens KROMER, Karl

Klífíma). . LINDNER, Helgo Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Heinz Heinen) . . ze ne BENK: Lrrvinskir, B. A. Mogil'niki zapadnoi Fergany (Hügelgräber des Westferghanagebiets) (B.Brent-

jes)

Lütcke, Karl-Heinrich und Günther WEIGEL, “Augustinus, ‘Philosophische ‘spätdialoge. De quantitate ani- mae. De magistro. Textes édités, traduits et pourvus d'une introduction, avec une Étude préliminaire de Carl ANDRESEN (Frédéric van der Meer). :

VII . 278—279 ‚ 119—124 339 336 249— 251 .… _ 56—58 326—327 287—289 329 . _98—99 253255 134 150—151 314—318 318—320 329330 147—148 305—306 131—132 152—153 153 266—269 146—147 302 105—106 154 . 309314 337 . 306—307 9495 336 318 71—72 340—341 93 . 247—249 152 53—56 325— 326 337

153—154

VII INHOUD

LuMLEY-WoopyYear, Henry de, La paléolithique inférieur et moyen du Midi méditerranéen dans son cadre géologique, Tome I (Jean Chavaillon). 8

Macqurry, William Tutankhamun, The Last Journey (Suzanne Rati 6. 8

MALLOWAN, Max and L. G. DAvIEs, Ivories in Assyrian Style. Ivories from Nimrud 1949- 1963, fasc. I. Commentary, Catalogue and Plates (B. Hrouda). R

Preceramic Sites (Romuald Schild). ô

Etudes de vingt-six boules d'argile inscrites trouvées à Enkomi et Hala ‘Sultan

Tekké (Chypre) (C. J. Ruiĳgh). .…

MAssoN, W. M. und W. I. SARIANIDI, Sredneaziatskaja Terrakotta Epochi Bronzy (Mittelasiatische ‘Terra- kotten der Bronzezeit) (B. Brentjes). . Untersuchungen zur Grammatik des Mittelassyrischen q. N. Post Ip at ©).

MELLAART, James Excavations at Hacilar 1 and II (Lucienne Laroche). . . ie

MENARD, Jacques-E. L'Evangile de Vérité (J. Helderman). .

MENDENHALL, George E. The Tenth Generation. The Origins of the Biblical. Tradition (Simon ĳ de

Vries) :

Le régime juridique ‘des terres et ‘du personnel attaché à à la terre ‘dans le Papyrus

Wilbour (Schafik Allam) . . ige ol ne

Ibn Bädis, Commentateur du Coran (Hady Roger il d ri 9). à

Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Judentum und Hellenismus (M. D e 1 co o»)

Der Islam von Mohammed bis Nasser (D. S. Attema).

The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu. According to the Version

of Ilimilku (M. Dahood). .

Die Christenverfolgung im römischen Reich q. N. B akhuizen van ‘den

Brink) .

Moussa, A. M. & H. ALTENMÜLLER, The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-Hay (Henry G. Fi i s c h e D. s

MurrLack, Ulrich und Ada HENTSCHKE, Einführung in die Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (W. den

Boer) . …

Copper and Tin. “The Distribution of Mineral Resources and the Nature of the

Metals Trade in the Bronze Age (H. Limet). . Rn

Monetnye Klady Armenii (Münzschatze Armeniens) B. B r e n t je 8).

The Development of the Aramaic Script (E. Lipinski). .

Das ägyptische Totenbuch der XVII bis XX. Dynastie (Einleitung) (Erik Hi: Oo r-

nun g)

Le chrétien devant la souffrance. “Etudes sur la pensée de 3 ean Chrysostome

J. Cools) .

Zentral'noaziatskii Otag ‘pervobytnogo isskustva (PeSternye rospisi ‘Choit-

Zenker Agui (Sengri Agui), zapadnaja Mongolija (Ein zentralasiatisches Zentrum

prähistorischer Kunst, die Höhlenmalereien von Choit-Zenker Agui DE Agui), Westmongolei) (B. Brentjes). . . en #

ORCHARD, J. J. Equestrian Bridle-Harness Ornaments (J. A. H. Po trat D.

O’SHAUGHNESSY S.J., Thomas, Muhammad’s Thoughts on Death. A Thematic Study of Qur anic Data (M. van Damme) . .

OTTEN, Heinrich Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Einundzwanzigste Heft B. R os sen nk ran ).

OVERBECK, John C. & Stuart Swiny, Two Cypriot Bronze Age Sites at Kafkalli kali Jb H. Cro uwe)

PERKINS, Ann The Art of Dura-Europos (D. C. Baramki). 5

PERROT, G. & C. Cuipprez, L’Egypte (Alexander M. Badawi). .

PronL, Gerhard Inschriften der Griechen. Grab-, Weih- und Ehreninschriften @. J. 7 onker 15

PLATON Der Staat, übersetzt und erläutert von Rudolf RUFENER, mit einer RR von

Olof GIGON (E.J. Jonkers). .

Catalogue des ostraca hiératiques littéraires de Deir el Médineh no. 1227-1266

Tome I1(3) (H. Goedicke). ®

Reform and Rebellion in Afghanistan, 1919- 1929. King Amanullah’s Failure to

Modernize Tribal Society (C. Rathjens). . ale

Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament IT (A. S. K a Pp el r u d). re

Oëerki Istorii Knigopeëatanija v Turzii (Grundriss der Geschichte des Buch-

drucks der Türkei) (B. Brentjes). . . Re En 4

Das koranische Jesusbild (D. S. Attema).

The Idea of Divine Hardening. A. Comparative Study of the Notion of Divine

Hardening, Leading ii and en to Evil in the Bible and the Qur'an

(D. A. Attema). En a

MARKs, Anthony MASSON, E.

MAYER, Walter

Menu, Bernadette MERAD, Ali MIDDENDORP, Th. MIQUEL, André Moor, Joh. C. de

MOREAU (Ì), Jacques

Murry, James David MUSEcIaN, Ch. A. NAVER, Joseph NAVvILLE, Edouard Nowak, Edward

OKLADNIKOV, A. P.

POSENER, Georges POULLADA, Leon B.

Rap, Gerhard von — RAFIiKov, A. Ch.

RAIsSÄNEN, Heikki RAISÄNEN, Heikki

58—60 72—73

9394 63—64

291—293 133—134

5 273-214 5 286-287

263—266 302—304

. 255—259

148 107 145—146

107—108

156—157 66—69

134 241—243 339 127—128 7475

341—342

339 279—281

144—145 283284 290—291 299

62 318—320

322—323 69—70

. 334—336

97—98 336

\ 346-348

344— 346

INHOUD

Reep, W. L. and F. V. WINNET, Ancient Records from North Arabia with contributions by J. T. Mirik

and J. STARCKY (Jacques Ryckmans). .

Palaeoethnobotany. The Prehistoric Food Plants of the Near East and Burope

(W. van Zeist) . 4‘

REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTIQUITIES, ‘CYPRUS 1972 (D. C. B ar ramki) ;

Ricke, Herbert Aufsätze zum 70. Geburtstag von Herbert Ricke (Gerald E. Kadish) .

RINGGREN, Helmer (Translated by John Srurpy), Religions of the Ancient Near East (C.J. Bleeker) .

RoccAri, Alessandro & Mario Tost, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir el Medina (Dominique V albelle).

ROpINSON, Maxime Marxisme et monde musulman (Renate Jacobi). .

RUFENER, Rudolf Platon, Der Staat, übersetzt und erläutert von Rudolf Rufener, mit e einer Ein-

leitung von Olof GIGoN (E. J. Jonkers).

Priesthood. A Comparative Study (M. Delcor). .

Amêl-Marduk 562-560 B.C. A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament,

Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources (M. Dandamayey). .

The Polyphemus and Scylla Groups at ee (A.N.Zadoks-Jo s e p h us

TRitta)e …

Alexander der Grosse. Das Problem seiner Persönlichkeit und seines s Wirkens

(E. Meyer)

Sammlung Eduard Glaser VIL Sabäische Inschriften aus verschiedenen Fund-

orten (J. Ryckmans). . rid

Islamic Literatures of India (J. M. s. Ba 1 o mn). k

Iam God your Saviour. A Form-Critical dd to the Main Genres of IS. XL-LV

(M. Delcor) . .

Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung i im alten Israel S 5. de Vr rie 5).

Paläographie der lateinischen Papyri (Robert Cavenaile). ae

SIEGELOVÁ, Jana Lehrbuch der modernen hebräischen Sprache (G. Janssens).

SrMON, Heinrich Appu-Märchen und Hedammu-Mythus (Gabriella Sz ab ó).

SIöBERG, Äke W. and E. BERGMANN, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. G. B. ‘Geaen, The Kes Temple Hymn (W.H. Ph. Römer). . :

SMITTEN, Wilhelm Th. In der, Esra. Quellen, Überlieferungen und Geschichte (M. D. e Le co D.

STAMBAUGH, John E. Sarapis under the Early Ptolemies (Anna Swiderek).

STROTHMANN, Werner Johannes von Apamea (T.Jansma). .

SwiNy, Stuart and John C. OvERBECK, Two Cypriot Bronze Age Sites at Kafkalli (Dhali) 9. H. cr rou IW e D

SYMBOLAE BIBLICAE ET MESOPOTAMICAE F. M. TH. DE LIAGRE BÖHL DEDICATAE Josef

Klíma). .

Der Diabetestraktat <Adb al-Latif al-Bagdad?’ s Untersuchungen zur r Geschichte

des Krankheitsbildes in der arabischen Medizin J.N. Mattock). 5

Le culte des divinités orientales en Campanie (V. Wessetzsky).

Dictionnaire frangais- „arabe, Allusions littéraires et historiques. Proverbes et

vieux dictons (C, Nijland). .

Tosi, Mario & Alessandro Roccari, Stele e altre epigrafi di Deir el Medina (Dominique v a Ì be 1 l 5D.

VANDERLIP, Vera Frederika, The Bens Greek Hymns of Isidorus and the Cult of Isis (Etienne Bernan ie

VEENHOF, K. R. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology (L. Matous). .

VUILLEUMIER, René et Carl A. KerLEr, Michée, Nahoum, Habacuc, Sophonie (Hubertus C. M. Vog D.

WeIGEL, Günther und Karl-Heinrich Lütcke, Augustinus. Philosophische Spätdialoge. De quantitate ani- mae. De Magistro. Textes édités, traduits et pourvus d'une introduction. Avec

une étude préliminaire de Carl ANDRESEN (Frédéric van der Meer). :

The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga (Peter J. Huber). .

The Evolution of the Egyptian-National Image. From its Origins to Ahmed Lutfi

al-Sayyid (G. Juyn bolt) .

Die hellenistisch-römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum J udentum und Chris-

tentum (G. Quispel) . . ae:

WERNER, Walter und Arvid GÖTTLICHER, Schiffsmodelle i im alten Keypten (Alan B. L 1 o y D.

West, M. L. Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (C. J. de Vogel). . .…

WESTERMANN, Claus Genesis (BKAT 1/7 und1/8) (H. A. Brongers).

WIJNGAARDS, J. Deuteronomium uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd GJ. Ei H o s P er 5).

WiLLi, Thomas Herders Beitrag zum Verstehen des Alten Testaments (N. J. Tromp).

WirLi-Prein, Ina Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Alten Testaments (S. J. de Vrie s)

RENFREW, Jane M.

SABOURIN S.J., Leopold Sack, Ronald Herbert

SÁFLUND, Gösta SCHACHERMEYER, Fritz SCHAFFER, Brigitte

SCHIMMEL, Annemarie ScHOORS, Antoon

SCHULTE, Hannelies SEIDER, Richard

Tures, Hans-Jürgen

TRAN TAM TINH, V. TorkraA, Edouard

Weir, John D. WENDELL, Charles

WENDLAND, Paul

WINNET, F. V. and W. L. Reep, Ancient Records from North Arabia with contributions oe J. T. Mirik and J. STARKY (Jacques Ryckmans). : é

IX 143144

. 240—241 . 289-—290 . 245—247 243244 EA) 327—328

. 322—323 342—343 281—282 142—143 137—140 149—150 330

307— 308 99— 100 324

285 299— 301 88-—90

307

79—80 4252 290—291 53—56

| 329 343-344

. 328329 . 251252 81—84 90—92 105—106 153—154 86—88

„ 140—141 715—78 134—137 103—104 304

103 101—102 143—144

OUDEREN KAI VIA AED NAADGTNKR MIO KRIS ANNI EAN AO

X INHOUD INHOUD XI WIPszZYcka, Ewa Les ressources et les activités économiques des cd en Egypte du IVe au ITTEN, W. Th. 42 PLEKET, H. W. 56—58 VIIe siècle (J.D. Thomas). . en - 157—159 Sd. 348— 349 Proeg, O.P., J.P. M. van der 159 WürTHWEIN, Ernst Der Text des Alten Testaments (G. Walli 5). : „ 301—302 Renate 327—328 PosTGATE, J. N. 273—274 YEIvIN, Sh. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan (Manfred Weippert). . 296—299 EEA T 42—52 POTRATZ, J. A. H. 279281 ZAKARJA, Parmen Drevnie Kreposti Gruzii (Alte Festungen Georgiens) (B. Bren t je 5. 132—133 ns G. 299301 QUISPEL, G. 140—141, 340—341 ZAUzicH, Karl-Theodor _Einige karische Inschriften aus Ägypten und Kleinasien und ihre Deutung nach TONKERS ED. 141—142, 318—320, RASSART, M.-M. 84— 85 der Entzifferung der karischen Schrift (A. Heubeck). . 9597 i 321—322, 322-323, RATEJENs, C. 334-336 ZijL, Peter J. van Baal. A Study of the Text in Connexion with Baal in the Ugariti pis a J 323—324 RaATiÉé, Suzanne 12—73 Mulder) 108—112 JOYNBOLL, G. 60 Rogers, M. J. 147—148 Kapisa, G. E. 245— 247 Ee A Le ek aon Kaxosy, L. 1374 OSENKRANZ, B. — 9798 Rumor, C. J. 291—293 COMMENTATIONES en poe 5356, 191—193, RYCKMANs, J. 143—144, 149— 150 \ 350—351 SALONEN, A. 37— 38, 38 ProrG, J. P. M. van der Centenaire de S. Ephrem (373) . . . 159 KONINGSVELD, P. Sj. van 160 ScHILD, R. 6364 KONINGSVELD, P. Sj. van Supplementary List of Arabic Manuscripts from the collection of René Basset, Kuan, K. H. 261—263 SCHIMMEL, Annemarie 131—132, 329330, 334 acquired recently by the Leyden University Librairy . … ed 160 LABAT, R. 9495 SCHRAMM, W. 278279 ISSERLIN, B. S. J. Report on the Third International Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory . 2 348— 349 LABUSCHAGNE, C. J. 98—99 SCHUMAN, L. O. 146 LA KrIMA, Josef Internationale Tagung der Keilschriftforscher der sozialistischen Länder in Buda- LAROCHE, Lucienne 286— 287 SELMS, A, van 239— 240 pest (23.-25. April 1974) . : 350— 351 Lier, H. 241— 243 SNELL, D. C. 4042 Hospers, J. H. Symposium „Applied Linguistics and the Teaching of the dead Hamito-Semitic Lipinski, E. 119124, 127—128 STEPPAT, F. 6162 Languages”, Groningen, 7-8 November 1975. . … 351352 Lroyp, A. B. 1538 Stor, M. 222223 ORIENTALIA MISCELLANEA XXXIX-XL .… . : ‚ 161188 Lust, P. van der 3— 26, 112 STRATEN, F, T. van 320—321 352355 MAarous, L. 90—92 SWIDEREK, Anna 79— 80 MATTOCk, J. N. 329 SzABóÓ, Gabriella 285 Meer, F. van der 153—154 TroMmas, J. D. 157—159 Meer, L. B. van der 318 TROMP, N. J. 103 LIJST VAN MEDEWERKERS MEINARDUS, O. 269271 VALBELLE, Dominique 251—252 MEr LINK, Machteld J. 283 VERMASEREN, M. J. 152—153, 153 AARTUN, K. 38—39 Coors, OP. J. 154—156, 341— 342 Menu, B. ii VogeL, C. J. de 134137 Meyer, E. 137— 140 Voer, H. C. M. 105—106 ALLAM, S. 255—259 CROUWEL, J. H. 290—291 Moor. 5. C. de 326 VRIES. S. J. de 99100, 101—102, APPLEYARD, D. L. 150—151 Daroop, M. 107—108 Moen DL 81 Ten 302304 ATTEMA, D. S. 145—146, 344— 346, DAMME, M. Van 144— 145 KDE M.J. 108112 VRIEZEN. Th. C. I—_IV 346348 DANDAMAYEV, M. 281—282 Mürter D. 259—260 w B de 194197 Bapawy, A. M. 62 DEGEN, R. 124—127, 293-296 NE OA OVS 0333 ke ER 301402 BAKHUIZEN van den BRINK, J.N. 154, 156—157, 157 DeLcor, M. 107, 118—119, 302, 307, A th AE u: B Norte, Birgit 252253 WEerPPERT, M. 296—299 ALJON, J. M. S, 329330 307— 308, 342— 343 NERD 328-329. 329 * w v 343-344 BARAMKI, D. C. 289290, 299 DERCHAIN, Ph. 247— 249 Bae: î sa pn ee BARDTKE, H. 306—307 DONzEL, E. van 152, 226—238 OATEs, J. F. 7879, 260—261 WEVERS, J. M. me: BARNETT, R. D. 129 Fiscuer, H. G. 6669 ORLANDI, T. 266269 ZADOKS-JOSEPHUS JITTA, A. N. 142—143 BARTA, W. 197—201 FRANK, R. M. 148—149 PARET, R. 326—327 Zeist, W. van 240241 BAYNE, E. A. 130—131 GITToN, M. 249-251, 253—255 BERNAND, Etienne 81—82 GOEDICKE, H. 69— 70 Berts, J. 309314 GRAEFE, E. 244245 Biror, M. 271272 GYSELEN, Rika 333334 BJÖRKMAN, Gun 70—71 HALDAR, À. 26—37 BLEEKER, C.J. 243—244 HANFMANN, G. M. A. 287— 289 Boer, W. den 134 HAasrL, G. F. 112—115, 115—118 BRANDEN, A. van den 223— 226 HASSAN, F. 71—72 _BRENTJES, B. 5253, 132, 132—133, HEINEN, H. 201—207, 325—326 133, 133—134, 336, 337, HELDERMAN, J. 263—266 337— 338, 338, 339, HEeuBeck, A. 9597, 314—318 339340 HoRNUNG, E. 7475 BRONGERS, H. A. 85—-86, 93, 103—104, Hospers, J. H. 301, 304, 304—305, 104— 105, 106— 107 351—352 CALMEYER, P. 275—278 Hroupa, B. 9394 CAVENAILE, R. 324 Hurer, P. 86—88 CHAVAILLON, J. 58—60 Ipris, H. R. 148

Jaargang XXXI No 1/2 Januari-Maart 1974.

BIBLIOTHECA

UITGEGEVEN VANWEGE HET

NEDERLANDS INSTITUUT VOOR HET NABIJE OOSTEN

ONDER REDACTIE VAN

A. A. KAMPMAN, hoofdredacteur, F. M. Th. de LIAGRE BÖHL, H. J. A. DE MEULENAERE, R. FRANKENA en C. NIJLAND

Redactie en Administratie: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten Noordeindsplein 4-6, Leiden (Nederland)

gr A ETR le 1 ne

ORIENTALIS

Tweemaandelijks recenserend en bibliografisch tijdschrift op het gebied van het Nabije Oosten Abonnementsprijs HÉ. 150— per jaar

me . INHOUD HOOFDARTIKELEN: KROMER, Karl, Österreichische Ausgrabungen in Giseh (VAR), icht ü ie Frü k: 1971 (Fekri A. H J. C. de MOOR, P. van der LUGT, The Spectre of PT Vorbericht über die Frühjahrskampagne (Fekr ol a En TTY, William, Tutankh Ss Ratié A. HALDAR, Tradition and History reuen. Maere lelien een neen Armas SALONEN, u B A im Sumerischen bbssoosennoaeen 37 — 38 DAVID, An Rosalie, Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 BC.) Armas SALONEN, Nomen Wnitatis im Akkadischen … 38 (ERO EE 73— 74 Kjell AARTUN, Notizen zur hebräischen Nominalmorphologie NAVILLE, Edouard, Das Ägyptische Totenbuch der XVIIL bis 38— 39 XX. Dynastie (Erik Hornung) …..nseennen 74— 75 Daniel C. SNELL, Hebrew Verbs ….………… 40— 42 GÖTTLICHER, 5 Arvid und Walter WERNER, Schiffsmodelle im

Wilhelm Th. IN DER SMITTEN, K H $$ 226f: galläbu = KLO WIeTe TER Neen EN Nee nnee 42 T. JANSMA, Neue Schriften des Johannes von Apameia. Bemer- SUG en UR Te AEL OAN ete 42 52 B. BRENTJES, Einige archäologisch-kunsthistorische Beobachtun- gen anlässlich einer Reise nach den Sowjetrepubliken Georgien UO RAT en enen Neenee nn Seen oaeen evesrdent 52— 53

BOEKBESPREKINGEN:

SYMBOLAE BIBLICAE ET MESOPOTAMICAE F‚ M. TH. DE LIAGRE BÖHL DEDICATAE. Ediderunt M. A. Beek, A. A. Kampman, C. Nijland, J. Ryckmans (Josef Klima) 53— 56

HAMMOND, Mason (assisted by Lester J. Bartson), The City in the Ancient World (H. W. Pleket) … … … … … 56— 58

LUMLEY-WOODYEAR, Henry de, Le Paléolithique inférieur et moyen du Midi méditerranéen, dans son cadre géologique (fn Gravatiilomeete en 58— 60

WENDELL, Charles, The Evolution of the Egyptian National Image from its Origins to Ahmad Lutfi al-Sayyid (G. H. A. AES AD KNEDEN eenen etna enve ado sesdraen eene ss 60

GHALI, Ibrahim Amin, L'Egypte nationaliste et libérale. De Mou- stafa Kamel à Saad Zagloul (Fritz Steppat) … 61— 62

PERROT, G. and C, CHIPIEZ, Histoire de l'Art dans Y'Antiquité (Alexander M. Bada wy) 62

MARKS, Anthony E, Preceramic Sites (Romuald Schild)

Sastonsuveasavvacsenverenseesvense

63— 64 GOEDICKE, Hans, Die privaten Rechtsinschriften aus dem Alten REichw(Berpadette PME) oons. oa 64— 66

MOUSSA, Ahmed M. and Hartwig ALTENMÜLLER, with pho- tographs by Dieter JOHANNES, Old Kingdom Tombs at the

‘ Causeway of King Ünas at Saqgara: The Tomb of Nefer and Ka-hay (Henry G. Fischer) 66— 69 POSENER, Georges, Catalogue des Ostraca Hiératiques Littéraires de Deir el Médineh, Nos. 1227-1266, Tome II, Fasc. 3 (Hans Goedicke) 69— 70 BIETAK, Manfred, Theben-West (Lugsor). Vorbericht über die ersten vier Grabungskampagnen (1969-1971) (Gun Björkman) 70— 71

vrabevesaevsnoouneereneerre

RT,

alten Ägypten (Alan B. Lloyd) ….…….. nn 75— 78 BERNAND, A, De Koptos à Kosseir (John BP. Oates)

STAMBAUCH, John E., Sarapis under the Early Ptolemies (Annas kerde riek): %.onerneordeennseeden ree naderen 79—80

DARIS, Sergio, Il lessico latino nel greco d'Egitto (L. Moor En)

VANDERLIP, Vera Frederika, The Four Greek Hymns of Isidorus

and the Cult of Isis (Étienne Bernand) ….….……. 81— 82 BOURGUET, Pierre du, Coptic Art (Marguerite-Marie R a 5 2 ar 8

AMIET, Pierre, Les civilisations antiques du Proche-Orient (ELSASBB Ir MICRERIS IR ee Aere eee oee Eneas 85— 86 WEIR, J. D., The Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga (Peter J. Ve Ae steen tete EE 86— 88 SJÖBERG, A. and E. BERGMANN, SJ, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns (W.H. Ph. Römer) … … 88— 90 GRAGG, G. B, The Kes Temple Hymn (W.H. Ph. Römer) 88— 90

VEENHOF, K. R, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Termi- holoa vk (PERM OE) taten ann senen denn 90— 92 LAYARD, Austen Henry, Auf der Suche nach Ninive (H. A. Ve Nh EE 93

MALLOWAN, Max and Leri Glynne DAVIES, Ivories in Assy- rian Style. Ivories from Nimrud (1949-1963). Fascicule II (BIE ro UA) A ern eraann reien diene Arade dan elfnand 93 04

KÖCHER, Fr, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. Bd III und IV (René Labat) … 94 95

ZAUZICH, Karl-Theodor, Einige karische Inschriften aus Ägypten und Kleinasien und ihre Deutung nach der Entzifferung der kari- . schen Schrift (Alfred Heubeck) … 95— 97

RAD, Gerhard von, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, Band II (Arvid S. Kapelrud) …. ne. 97— 98

HEBREW UNION COLLEGE ANNUAL, Volumes XL-XLI

(Gele DAS IC MANEN overnamen bereed darischane 98 99 SCHULTE, Hannelis, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel (Simon J. de Vries) … … 90100

2 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

WILLI-PLEIN, Ina, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb des Al- ten Testaments. Untersuchungen zum literarischen Werden der auf Amos, Hosea und Micha zurückgehenden Bücher im hebräischen

Zwölfprophetenbuch (Simon J. de Vries) ….………… 101—102 WILLI, Thomas, Herders Beitrag zum Verstehen des Alten Testa- ments( Nie. Je T.FO MP) avrerdivorsarrmen veardrene 103 WESTERMANN, Claus, Genesis, Lfg. 7.8 (H. A. Brongers) 103— 104

ELLIGER, K., Jesaja II (H. A. Brongers) ….………………. 104—105 VUILLEUMIER, R. et C-A. KELLER, Michée, Nahoum, Ha- bacuc, Sophonie (Hubertus Vogt) …...………. 105—106 GERLEMAN, Gillis, Esther (H. A. Brongers) …… 106—107 MIDDENDORP, Th. Die Stellung Jesu Ben Siras zwischen Juden- tum und Hellenismus (M. Delcor) ennen 107

MOOR, Johannes C. de, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu: According to the Version of Ilimilku (M. Dahood)

107—108

ZIJL, Peter J. van, Baal. A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (M. J. Mulder) ….….………n……. 108—112 CASSUTO, U, The Goddess Anath. Canaanite Epics of the Pa- triarchal Age (P. van der Lugt) … nnen ennen 112 CLIFFORD, SJ. Richard J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Gerhard F. Hasel) ….……………. 12115

DIETRICH, Manfried, Neue palästinisch punktierte Bibelfragmente veröffentlicht und auf Text und Punktation untersucht (Gerhard Eesbltas el): normen veen erkanerngeedhe 115—118

AUBET, Maria Eugenia, Los marfiles orientalizantes de Praeneste

(MSIE GOM) arran tte neten raa dieen vene earke a see 118—119 GRELOT, P., Documents araméens d'Egypte (E. Lipiâsky) 119124 BOWMAN, Raymond A, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis (RELLEN eren ere Ae ade 124127 NAVEN, J, The Development of the Aramaic Script (RSE Ae 127—128 CALMEYER, Peter, Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Kirman- shah (RSDB aff ett) vveneeatdenvees rete 129 BILL, James Alban, The Politics of Iran: Groups, Classes and Mo- dernization (E. A. Bayne) ……...…..uunvennnvennnenn. 130-131 JAHAN, Roumag, Pakistan, Failure in National Integration (Anne- marie schimmel) ema oren ended. 131—132

DREVNII VOSTOK, Goroda i Torgovlja (Alter Orient, Städte und Handel) (B. Brentjes) …..uvvnnnnnnn 132

ZAKARAJA, Parmen, Drevnie Kreposti (Alte Festungen Geor- giens) (B. Brentjes) … … …… ner vane aad en 132—133

MASSON, W. M. und W.L. SARIANIDI, Sredneaziatskaja Terra- kotta Epochi Bronzy (Mittelasiatische Terrakotten der Bronze-

EAN gd A 133—134 HENTSCHKE, Ada und Ulrich MUHLACK, Einführung in die Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (W. den Boer) 134 WEST, M. L, Early Greek Philosophy and the Orient (C. J. de NON eea lee aen 134—137 SCHACHERMEYR, Fritz, Alexander der Grosse (Ernst Me yer) 137—140

WENDLAND, Paul, Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zum Judentum und Christentum (G. Quispel)

140—141

BENGTSON, Hermann, Römische Geschichte (E. J. Jonkers) 141142

SAFLUND, Gösta, The Polyphemus and Scylla Groups at Sper- longa (A. N. Zadoks-Josephus Jitta) ….… 142—143 WINNETT, FE. V. and W. L. REED, Ancient Records from North Arabia (Jacques Ryckmans) …….nneneneenenn 143—144

O'SHAUGNESSY, SJ, Thomas, Muhammad's Thoughts on Death (ME van DD Ae) oasen arne satanmee oant dead ante 144—145

MIQUEL, André, Der Islam von Mohammed bis Nasser (D. S.

ACE) nt nn eran aaneen 145—146 JANSSENS, Gerard, Stress in Arabic and Word Structure in Mo- dern Arabic Dialects (L.O, Schuman) ….….……………. 146—147 ISLAMIC CARPETS FROM THE COLLECTION OF JOSEPH V. McMULLAN (J.M. Rogers) …..…...nnn. 147—148 MERAD, Ali, Ibn Badis, Commentateur du Coran (Hady Roger IAS) wateren nadele 148

ESS, Joseph van, Das Kitâb an Nakt des Nazzäm und seine Re- zeption im Kitâb al-Futyâ des Gahiz (R. M. Frank) 148—149

SCHAFFER, Brigitte, Sammlung Eduard Glaser VII. Sabäische Inschriften aus verschiedenen Fundorten (Jacques Ryckmans)

149150

HETZRON, Robert, Ethiopian Semitic, Studies in Classification (Di EAipp WEVATEN roteert Been seanads 150—151 LESLAU, Wolf, Hebrew Cognates in Amharic (E. van Donzel) 152

JAHRBUCH FÜR ANTIKE UND CHRISTENTUM 11/12, 1968/1969 (M. J. Vermaseren) ….nn 152—153 JAHRBUCH FÜR ANTIKE UND CHRISTENTUM 13, 1970 (MI Je Vie arse riet), oever otten reveenierwneesd 153

AUGUSTINUS, Philosophische Spätdialoge, De quantitate ani- mae. De magistro; textes édités, traduits et pourvus d'une intro- duction par MM. Karl-Heinrich LÜTCKE und Günther WEI- GEL; avec une étude préliminaire de Carl ANDRESEN (Frédéric

vatieder MEEL) arenden sanca aten AGREE 153—154 KELLY, J.N. D, Early Christian Creeds (J.N. Bakhuizen van de Br AM) ee oaeen enne eeen eunmeedee 154 GABOURY, Antonio, La Structure des Evangiles Synoptiques (Ps C6 018 OP.) zen eorsseden serdandetaeaneess veele 154—156

MOREAU 4, Jacques, Die Christenverfolgung im römischen Reich. 2. Auflage (J.N, Bakhuizen van den Brink) … 156—157

CHADWICK, Henry, Die Kirche in der antiken Welt (J. N, Bakhuizen van den Brink) … en 157

WIPSZYCKA, Ewa, Les ressources et les activités économiques des églises en Egypte du IVe au VlIlle siècle (J. David T homas)

157—159 COMMENTATIONES:

J. P. M. van der PLOEG, Centenaire de S. Eprem(4 373) 159

P. Sj. van KONINGSVELD, Supplementary list of Arabic Ma- nuscripts from the collection of René Basset, acquired recently by the Leyden University Library ….…… ene

ORIENTALIA MISCELLANEA XXXIX 161—188

TEN MMM GREED N MMI RT

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 3

EER OOFDARTIKELEN

The Spectre of Pan-Ugaritism *)

The formidable undertaking of collecting all parallels that have been discovered between the Ugaritic texts and the Old Testament was initiated in 1966 by Loren R. Fisher, the general editor of the series Ras Shamra Parallels. Thanks to generous gifts a project office could be established at the Claremont Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. The help of Ugaritologists from both the U.S.A. and Europe was enlisted.

Eleven categories of parallels have been selected for treatment under the auspices of the editorial team: 1, Literary Phrases; 2. Parallel Pairs; 3. Flora, Fauna and Minerals; 4. Motifs; 5. Formulae; 6. Institutions; 7. Place Names; 8. Personal Names; 9. Divine Names; 10. Wis- dom; 11. Literary Structures. Only the three first men- tioned have been included in the present volume: Literary Phrases by Antoon Schoors (pp. 3-70), Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs by Mitchell Dahood (pp. 71-382), Flora, Fauna and Minerals by Jack M. Sasson (pp. 383-452, including food and beverages). There follow extensive indices of texts and words. They were prepared by F. B. Knutson, D. E. Smith and D. F. Morgan.

The authors sought to include all previous literature up to 1969; in some cases they were able to go beyond that date. To our regret we have to confess that we found the bibliography often far from complete. We did not, however, attempt seriously to supplement what is mis- sing, partly because of the magnitude of the task, partly because it may be expected that the gaps will soon be filled by the bibliography of Dietrich and Loretz.

With regard to the categories selected for treatment it is clear that they do not cover all areas of possible com- parison. Why, for example, should we study the parallels in the fields of flora, fauna and minerals, but not those regarding agriculture, architecture, cosmology, medicine, music, technology or utensils, to mention only a few possibilities. Also one wonders whether it is feasible to view the numerous religious parallels between Ugarit and the Bible from the narrow angle defined by literary cor- respondencies and cultic institutions. Finally a certain overlapping is bound to occur between the categories of a literary nature: phrases, pairs, motifs, formulae, struc- tures. Incidentally, it would seem difficult to draw a sharp line between these topics and what are called “general stylistic, grammatical or lexicographical parallels” (p. XIV) which are said to fall outside the main concern of the editors.

The authors were given complete freedom to express their own judgment about previous. scholarship. In our opinion this policy has produced two undesirable side effects. Suggested parallels which in the light of subse- quent research proved to be wholly erroneous have often been omitted. They should have been included without

1) A review-article of Loren R. Fisher, ed., Ras Shamra Paral- lels, wol. 1 (Analecta Orientalia, 49) Roma 1972. Price L. 12.900, $ 21.50. For abbreviations see the lists in the later volumes of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary and in the annual Ugarit-Forschungen. The Ügaritic texts are cited according to the system recommended by M. Dietrich-O. Loretz, Konkordanz der ugaritischen Textzäh- langen (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, 19), Neukirchen 1972.

exception, not only for the sake of comprehensiveness, but also to guide the uninitiated. Furthermore: Ne quis judex in propria causa. The work of Mitchell Dahood and his disciples has been criticized from many quar- ters 2). In a major book of reference like that under dis- cussion it should have been subjected to a very detailed and objective analysis. Given the fact that Dahood wrote the largest portion of RSP I and edited at least part of the rest, the circumstances did not favour such an im- partial approach.

In the introduction it is stated: “Ultimately it is the reader who must decide what is parallel, what is uncer- tain, and what is different about these two bodies of literature” (p. XVI). At first sight this appears to be a truism. However, Ugaritic is a very difficult language which often lends itself to a wide variety of opinion. This is a major problem for Old Testament scholars who want to know whether Ugaritic might provide them with a helpful parallel to a certain word or expression. When they see, for example, that Dahood renders CTA 6: IV. 46 ‘an Pan yöps now “Alas, alas, O Shapsh!" 3), then “Where, Oh where, O sun goddess?” 4), and then again “Where is the Victor, O Shapsh?” 5), every time as a parallel to a different Hebrew expression, they are un- derstandably confused. Is it realistic to demand that they will be able to judge such a case which even professional Ugaritologists cannot solve in a really satisfactory way? 6). Or how are they supposed to judge when they discover — if they do! — that in Psalms III, p. 106 Da- hood advocates the translation “abuse” for the parallel pair dm // dm in CTA 12: I1.47f,, but renders the same pair by “blood” in RSP 1, ii, 154, without any explana- tory note? Such cases prove that it would have been a very helpful idea to provide the general reader with a full discussion of all doubtful interpretations.

Our strongest objections, however, to the first volume

2) Cf. G. R. Driver, JSS 10 (1965), pp. 112-117; H. Donner, ZAW 79 (1967), pp. 322-350; J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford 1968, pp. 100, 112, 153, 303; E. Jenni, JSS 14 (1969), pp. 256-259; R. Gordis, JQR 61 (1970), pp. 94£; M. Greenberg, JAOS 90 (1970), pp. 536-540; W. Zim- merli, Bibl 51 (1970), pp. 144-149; A, Barucg, Bibl 52 (1971), pp. 256-262; W. M. McKane, JSS 16 (1971), pp. 222-236; T. A. Ni- cholas, Westminster Theological Journal 34 (1972), pp. 118-136; B. Vawter, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 158-171; O. Loretz, UF 4 (1972), pp. 167-169; J. A. Emerton, VT 22 (1972), pp. 506f., 509.

3) M. Dahood, Psalms III (Anchor Bible, 17a), Garden City N.Y. 1970, p. 150.

4) Op. cif, p. 288, both times without a question-mark.

5) Bibl 52 (1971), p. 346, n. 2 and now also in RSP 1, ii,49,322, without revoking his earlier translations.

6) The problems are discussed at length in De Moor's The Sea- sonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu (AOAT, 16), Neu- kirchen 1971, p. 224.

Actually, the word Pan in U 5 V, 8: 12,20 and U 5 V, 2: Rev. 7f, 9. (see L. R. Fisher, HTR 63 (1970), p. 490, n. 20 and UF 3 (1971), p. 356) means “strength, power”. For U 5 V, 2: Rev. 7É, Of, see J. C. de Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites, Part 2, Kampen 1972, pp. 26f. With regard to Pan in U 5 V, 8: iof, the meaning “strength” had already been established by J. Blau-J. GC. Greenfield, BASOR 200 (1970), p. 14. We would propose a somewhat different stichometry: ’isp 3pö lhrm gepl / ‘| ’ars Pan hmt / lp nék ‘abd / Ip 'akl tm dl “Remove, O Sun, the fog from the mountains, / the strength of poison from on the earth, / the destructive venom from the mouth of the Biter, / the terror (cf. Hebr. Smm) of suffering (cf. Akkad. dullu) from the mouth of the Devourer”.

4 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

of RSP centre on a tendency to over-estimate the indeb- tedness of the Israelites to the Canaanites (read: Ugari- tians). Nobody will deny the immense importance of the discoveries at Ras Shamra, but it would be tragic if we were to fall into the old error of the Pan-Babylonists all over again. It must never be forgotten that the very same excavations at Ras Shamra have shown that Ugarit was a metropolis, open to influences from many sides. The Canaanites and the Israelites were children of their age. If we are looking for common elements, we should take into account all cultural remains of ancient Oriental civi- lizations known to us. Deliberate limitation of the scope of an inquiry may be justified for economical reasons, but then it should be clear from the start that such an in- vestigation can never lead to far-reaching conclusions about the indebtedness of one culture to another. As we shall show in detail below, it has to be feared that the contributors to the present volume did not realize the importance of this restraint. Their general mood may well be illustrated by Sasson's exclamation over a dubious emendation of a biblical text, purportedly based on Uga- ritic: “Dahood seems to score again!" (iii, 65f.). Exactly this paragraph features as a sample in Fisher's introduc- tion (pp. XXIIÉ.).

It cannot be doubted that the scribes of Israel were well-versed in the foreign literatures of their days and were thoroughly acquainted with the proto-scientific achievements of their time. Naturally they learned much from the original population of Canaan. However, it is fit to add that the establishing of identity or near-iden- tity is of only limited historical interest, if it is not matched by a persistent effort to indicate the differences. These will have to put us on the track as soon as we want to describe the distinctiveness of either the Ugaritic or the Israelite religion and culture. Therefore a project like that of the Claremont group is also unsatisfactory in so far as it deals with only one side of the compa- rison.

Chapter 1

The chapter on literary phrases shared by Ugaritic and Hebrew occupies only 68 pages of the book. Fortu- nately, its author Antoon Schoors often has the courage to criticize parallels that have been proposed: i. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 (wrongly), 12, 17 (partially), 24, 27, 33, 34, 40, 50, 55, 57. For reasons to be given under the heading “details below we would add the following to the list of paragraphs that amount to nothing: i. 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 37, 38, 39, 48, 49, 56. Thus nearly half of all the supposedly parallel literary phrases dealt with by Schoors appears to be unacceptable. Therefore one is tempted to ask whether these are the “many unquestion- able and impressive instances of parallel phrases’ men- tioned in Schoors’ introduction (p. 3). We believe, how- ever, that he may have been really too sceptical in stating that “all parallel phrases have been discovered already” (p. 3). Certainly he did not succeed in collecting every- thing that has been proposed 7).

7) The following examples, chosen at random, may serve to illustrate our point: CTA 3: A10: cf. Gen. 40: 13; Ilias XVIII. 545f.; Odyssey III. 51,53; CTA 6: V. 20f: cf. Gen. 27: 45, etc, AOAT 16, p. 233; CTA 17: II. 43f: cf. Job 39: 2; Atra-hasis 1. 278ff.; CTA 19: III. 160: cf. Job 18: 16; KAI 14: 11f; CTA 23: 63f, cf. Is. 9: 19, See also the following note.

Schoors states that “Ugaritic and biblical literature do have a common background” (p. 3). This statement is cautious enough. Doubtlessly the remarkable analogies must be explained by a shared dependence on a very broad Canaanite tradition of oral literature. Therefore, it may be questioned whether it is justified to exclude other witnesses of this tradition, It has been demonstra- ted that certain literary phrases have their parallels not only in Ugaritic, but also in Phoenician, Moabite and other West-Semitic languages.

Moreover, it becomes ever clearer that the Canaanites in turn borrowed a large part of their stock of standard- ized poetic devices and expressions from Mesopota- mia 8). Sometimes their ultimate origin may be traced back to the oral literature of the Sumerians 9). What is the use of knowing that a certain literary expression has a parallel in Ugarit, if we are not informed about its at- testation elsewhere in the Ancient Near East? By limiting the scope of his work to Hebrew-Ugaritic parallels the author may unintentionally have created the false impres- sion that there exists a rather special kind of relationship between Hebrew and Ugaritic. But the “common back- ground” of which he speaks is the whole wide world of the ancient civilizations.

Details

il. The formula has not fully been understood. The degree of parallelism is much more impressive, as shown in De Moor, The Peace-Offering in Ugarit and in Israel, published in: Schrift en Uitleg. Studies … W.H. Gispen, Kampen 1970, pp. 112-117.

5. Add to the bibliography several studies mentioned in AOAT 16 (1971), p. 219, n, 12. With regard to the name of ’isb'l Schoors might have consulted BiOr 26 (1969), p. 106; BZ 13 (1969), p. 194, n. 34.

i,6. Several studies published before 1969 (cited AOAT 16, p. 218, n. 3) should have had prevented Schoors from describing this “eschatological tradition” (sic) as “undoubtedly rooted in Canaanite language and ideas”.

i, 10. Bauer's hypothesis must be rejected. Punic ’yb'l corresponds to ’iyb'l in Ugaritic. The element ’iy can ne-

8) Some examples: “To break someone's staff (of judgeship)”: Akkad. haffaëu lisbir, CH Rev, XXVI. 50f.; Ugar. lytbr hf mfptk, CTA 6: VI. 29; Phoen. éhésp hfr möpth, KAI 1: 2; Hebr. sbr yhwh méh r8'ym Sbf mölym, Is. 14: 5, see also Jer. 48: 17.

“To overturn the throne (of someone's kingship)'': Akkad. kus- sâka lisbalkitu, KBo 1, 1: 64, kussê Sarrüfiëu lisbalkitma, VAB 7, 244: 76, 248: 93; Ugar. lyhpk ks’a mlkk, CTA 2: “III. 176; 6: VI. 28; Phoen. fhépk ks’ mlkh, KAI 1: 2; Hebr. whpkty ks’ mmlkwt, Hag. 2: 22.

“As long as sun and moon exist: Akkad. Sa kima Sin u Samas därium, YOS 9, 35: 149f,; Ugar. lymt Sp w yeh, U 5 V, 2: Rev. 11; Phoen. km 5m ömö wyrh, KAI 26: A. IV. 2f., C. V. 6f; Hebr. Ee köms ngdy kych ykwn ‘wlm, Ps. 89: 37f,, see also Ps. 72: “To drink tears and to be sated with weeping” and “bread of tears’ have their parallels both in Akkadian (CAD (B), p. 224; (D), p. 147; (K), p. 580) and in Ugaritic (CTA 6: I. 9). Cassuto, Anath, p. 21 collected the Hebrew material long ago.

Strangely enough Antoon Schoors does not discuss any of these rather interesting literary parallels. Have they been reserved for the chapter on “formulae'"?

9) On this subject one may now consult B. Alster, Dumuzi's

Dream. Aspects of oral poetry in a Sumerian myth, Copenhagen 1972, pp. 15ff,

EMM ECI HOR FUT EEEN ECTTST MOETST ACER ICN PORR TIEL ECS M OOST PEIO KKRRRIC UU LOOKEREN TAMMO UIR ZEENSCHHT WII HNG EU IMMO

ggn

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 5

â an abbreviation for “my brother , ie Bee ganitc ’i nor the y can be ee eee have to assume a full form 'ahb'l = ’ahiba'lu. Com- pare Ugaritic 'abmik = 'abimilkt.

ii, Adda reference to CTA 53: 12f.

„12. We do not understand why the nde avallel Deut. 33: 17 has not been discussed more fully. Read this text instead of 23: 7 under i. 12e.

„15, Not a borrowed literary phrase, but a En case of combined parallel pairs, see Ù, 332 and ij, 335, Because the “tables” and the “goblets” are me in Prov. 9: 5, the two phrases are not as closely related as Schoors seems to think.

17. Because similar phrases were adopted in ir tian literature, we know for certain that in , the reading must be ki-ma dba'la, cf. ThWAT LL, col. 709. Rs ®

18. The root is not Sch, but sry to let loose” in Ugaritic; see AOAT 16, p. 150.

j,19. It should have been noted that the proposal of Dahood involves an etymological problem. Moreover, the context of Job 18: 15 is totally different. There it is the house of the sinner which will be destroyed. In the Uga- ritic text the fire is used in connection with the construc- tion of the house of Ba'lu.

121, Again it must be observed that the parallel is not peculiar to Ugarit and Israel. See LKA 90: Rs. 7 itti mitüti lim-ma-nu-ú and BAL IJ, 90: 63, 91: 86 a-na KUR.NU.GI, ú-ri-du, Dreambook, 327: 71ff.ana erseti úerid(-ma), EA 264: 17 nu-ra-ad i-na er-sé-te, Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, No. 71: 15 wrgmyw P yhtwnSwl.

Schoors’ highly original remarks on bf Aptt certainly deserve special notice, but other possibilities could have been treated more fully. See now E. Lipiúski, RSO 44 (1970), pp. 86-93; De Moor, AOAT 16, pp. 185f.

i 23. On the reading of the text see now De Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites, Il, pp. 18f. The reading tb[h] as well as its rendering (“to cook”, but it is always ‘to slaughter") were often adapted to make the parallel look more impressive. _

i. 24. This parallel does not exist. The Ugaritic text has been misinterpreted (cf. De Moor, New Year, Il, p. 21, n. 82).

125. The epithet bäriah may be regarded as the pe- trified original form of the participle of brh “to flee’ (attested in Ugaritic). This is suggested by LXX Pedyovra, 1 QlIsa bwrh and 11 QtgJob 26: 13 fnyn ‘rq. The underlying imagery is that of the great sea-serpent which tries to catch up with its own tail (see B. H. Stricker, De grote zeeslang, Leiden 1953). The names of lin (Ugaritic) and liwyätän (Hebrew) may have the same origin. Both can be derived from a word *lawyatu “wreath’” which became *lóyatu in Ugaritic (AOAT 16, p. 224), but liwyäh in Hebrew. From these nouns the descriptive term “the wreath-like, the circular” was for- med by adding the ending -än (cf. J. Barth, Nominal- bildung, pp. 337ff., esp. 341f.). The further develop- ment in Ugaritic was “lôyat-änu > löytänu (shifting of stress) >lótänu, in Hebrew *liwyat-äân > liwyätän.

i26. We repeat that the Ugaritic text must be ren-

dered “the spring attracts the herd of does” (UF 1 (1969), pp. 185-187). Then the parallelism with Ps. 42: 2 becomes rather superficial (change of subject). In i26f. Schoors fails to take into account the reading krumm of U 5 V, 4: Obv. 7 which renders it very likely that kdd should be interpreted as k + dd, In i, 26g he rejects De Moor's rendering because the latter's reading [m]sbt would be an emendation “without further proof”. Because the hand-copy clearly shows a lacuna before [_15bât (Ugaritica V, p. 560), proof would seem to be required from him who asserts that nothing is mis- sing between the preceding word-divider and sbât. But even if the correct reading were Sböt, the parallelism with tksd in CTA 5: 1.16 can only be understood if both are a third person feminine of a verb. Therefore neither rumm nor its parallel (dd) ’aylt can be taken as a sub- ject.

127. Add J. Hoftijzer, BiOr 24 (1967), p. 67 and F. C. Fensham, VT 19 (1969), pp. 312-321.

28. The problems posed by the Ugaritic text have been oversimplified. See AOAT 16, pp. 194f, Add a reference to i. 21.

1,29. The particle ht does not mean “lol”, but “now”. See S. E. Loewenstamm, Tarbiz 32 (1962-63), p. 315; De Moor, BiOr 24 (1967), p. 209. This reduces the stylistic resemblance.

135. Add the parallels from classical sources cited by C. H. Gordon, in: Ugaritica VI, p. 282. And for Syr with accusative: Ps. 49: 17; 89: 2; 101: 1; possibly also CTA 19: I. 11,

136. Add to the bibliography: A. Jirku, Der Mythus der Kanaanäer, Bonn 1966, pp. 72; T. H. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the OT. London 1969, pp. 568Éf.

i37-39. The nature of this little tablet is disputed, see UF 2 (1970), p. 205, n. 4 (with some additional bibliography), furthermore pp. 199, 201, 225 and 227.

In CTA 31: 9 the reading should be ’il hs ’il ‘add, see U 5 V, 10: Rev. 13 ’il hs ’aldd] and for the explanation of these divine names UF 2 (1970), p. 198 and AOAT 16, p. 118. In CTA 30: 7 nsbt can hardly be rendered “[ stood”, because the active participle of the G-stem nsb is used in a transitive sense in CTA 17: 1.27 vrg par.): “one who sets up”. This robs the parallels of their supposed strength.

40. Since 'ik is not the same as k, we have to trans- late: “How can you possibly die” (paronomasia, see UF 1 (1969), p. 172, n. 30). Again the similarity va- nishes. A better though rather general parallel might be provided by CTA 17: V1.38.

1,43, Add S. E. Loewenstamm, Leshonenu 32(1967- 68), p. 33.

i,44. Add S. Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel, Chicago 1963, pp. 84-87; G. R. Driver, in: Studia Semitica … J. Bakos, Bratislava 1965, p. 108,

With regard to the word är‘ also U. Cassuto, Or 8 (1939), p. 239, n. 6; E. A. Speiser, JBL 69 (1950), pp. 377f.; Aistleitner, WUS, No, 2689; W. L. Moran, Bibl 43 (1962), pp. 320-322; G. Rinaldi, BibOr 5 (1963), p.

: À NS 46. This ör‘ survives also in peasant Arab. Sa'rä, cf. A.

6 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

Jaussen, Coutumes des Arabes au pays de Moab, Paris 1948, p. 324.

i,45. It should have been noted that the formula is very common in the Ugaritic letters and corresponds to the formula ana Sëp(&) NN maqätu of the Babylonian letters of the time. See S. E. Loewenstamm, BASOR 188 (1967), pp. 41-43; E‚ Salonen, StOr 38 (1967), pp. 66ff., 75f; O. Kaiser, ZDPV 86 (1970), pp. 20f.

i47. Add a reference to CTA 16: VL45f.

i, 48. Because the subject is the mortal king in Ps. 21: 5, we have to reckon with a hyperbolic concept of eternal life. Therefore the very late text Dan. 12: 2 is not relevant to the matter in hand.

149, The Hebr. b'd never means “with”. As stated repeatedly by Dahood and his students, the LXX is an unreliable witness in such cases (against p. 63, n. 1). The expression bd hhlwnym in the following verse (Joel 2: 9) proves that b'd in vs, 8 must be translated by “through”. ì

53. Add to the bibliography De Moor, JNES 24 (1965), pp. 357f. (with reference to Dan. 3: 17) and A. F. Rainey, Leshonenu 30 (1965-66), p. 269.

54, The Qerê is nfyw, not nfwy! Read perhaps ntt and compare Ps. 18: 37; 37: 31; 38: 17; Job 12: 5; Prov. 25: 19 as well as Enel. IV.90 Sursië malmalië itrurä isdäsu.

i,56. The parallel is not close enough (different verb, different preposition, different parallelism) to warrant the assumption of Dahood. In. Ps. 89: 10 the seemingly transitive use of n& has its parallel in the elliptic use of Akkad. nasû (Von Soden, AHW, p. 763 sub 6, compare also p. 762 sub I.lb, B, a usage that is equally attested in Ugaritic: De Moor, New Year, Il, p. 23, n. 23 on CTA 23: 54,65).

Chapter II

The chapter on Ugaritic-Hebrew parallel pairs was written by Dahood. As is well known, Hebrew and Ugaritic poetry were based mainly on the principle of parallelismus membrorum, the careful balancing of usu- ally synonymous or antonymous semantic units within verses consisting of two or more cola. It has been ob- served several times that the poets often use the same pairs of semantic units in different verses and that these more or less fixed pairs are often identical in the case of Ugaritic and Hebrew poetry. Dahood must be given full credit for making the first comprehensive and syste- matic inquiry in this area of research. Many of the pairs listed by him had not yet been discovered by others.

Also, Dahood rightly stresses the importance of the study of parallel pairs for textual criticism and lexico- graphy. In his view the study of parallel pairs may help to determine what are the poetic passages in the Hebrew Bible. He thinks that many prose texts are actually poetry. To some extent this too is a proper observation. However, we should keep in mind the phenomenon of what the Germans call ‘“gehobene Sprache", prose which acquires certain characteristics of poetry through the elevated mood of the speaker or writer.

We believe, however, that Dahood overstates the im- portance of the pairs for the literary history of the Bible

TAK KNIT ATAIBAANASD ISOTAK

books. If it is true that Ugaritic and Hebrew poets drew from the same reservoir of parallel pairs, the circum- stance that many of these pairs are only attested in the book of Job need not mean a thing for the literary his- tory of that book. If not by accident, the phenomenon could be explained by the level of education of Israel's sages.

We take most strongly exception to Dahood's exag- geration of the indebtedness of Israelite poets to their Canaanite colleagues. He seems to think that in fact many a Hebrew poet was a Canaanite converted to Yahwism (cf. ii, 483e). In our carefully considered judg- ment Dahood is possessed by an obsessive zeal to force up the number of similarities between Ugaritic and He- brew. In the process he does not shrink from using very dubious or even totally wrong evidence. Of the 624 pa- rallel pairs recorded by Dahood we believe that for various reasons to be expounded in detail below as many as 129, or 20.7 per cent, cannot be regarded as valid 10), It is particularly aggravating that mostly the dubious nature of these paragraphs can only be discerned by the specialist.

For ourselves we would also exclude from a manual like that under discussion all those cases where up till now no real poetical parallelism has been found in one of the two languages concerned. Mere juxtaposition or collocation, often only in prose, even administrative lists, does not prove that the pair was ever used in poeti- cal parallelism. Therefore the value of a further 157 paragraphs may be questioned 11), This means that a staggering total of 45,9 per cent of Dahood's para- graphs cannot be regarded as truly reliable.

But even if we do admit those 157 paragraphs, the remaining total of 495 correspondencies 12) does not justify the far-reaching conclusions drawn by Dahood. According to him, Ugaritic and Hebrew poets alike would have drawn from some sort of Canaanite thesau- rus of parallel pairs (ii Intro 1). We would be compel- led to recognize the stylistic dependence of the Hebrew on the Ugaritic literature (ii Intro 3a). At times, He- brew is even allowed to repay its “debt” to the Ras

10) The paragraphs are: 13, 20, 27, 28, 33, 35, 37, 39, 60, 64, 65, 75, 104, 110, 113, 115, 116, 126, 126A, 132, 133, 134, 137, 140, 142, 144A, 149, 157, 167, 171, 180, 185, 186, 189, 192, 194, 199, 200, 202, 207, 210, 219, 224, 227, 229, 234, 235, 241, 244, 247, 259, 263A, 274, 292, 294, 302, 318, 322, 327, 330, 342A, 344, 356, 358, 363, 371, 373, 375, 377, 387 A, 392, 397, 406, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 415, 424, 426, 428, 429, 430, 431 A, 436, 444, 447, 447 A, 450, 452, 453, 459, 460A, 466, 469, 470, 474, 477, 478, 482, 488, 489, 491, 492, 499, 500, 500A, 509, 513, 518, 521, 525, 538, 541, 547, 550, 551, 557, 561, 564, 565, 566, 568, 569, 584, 593, 596, 607.

11) No real poetical parallelism in Ugaritic: 4, 8, 9, 11, 24, 38, 41, 42, 46, 47, 53, 59, 63, 77, 84, 87, 107, 111, 125, 127, 131A, 141, 143, 146, 148, 155, 161, 164, 166, 170, 172, 174, 176, 179, 182, 187, 190 „193, 196, 197, 203, 204, 215, 222, 226, 239, 242, 248, 258, 261, 265, 267, 269A, 286, 287, 299, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 310, 321, 325, 326, 329, 336, 339, 340, 351, 354, 362, 367, 368, 369, 374A, 386, 388, 389, 390, 398, 437, 440, 445, 461, 473, 475, 484, 494, 496, 504, 505, 512, 514, 516, 522, 526, 530, 533, 535, 540, 543, 558, 560, ee 563, 570, 581, 582, 585, 595, 600, 606, together 113 para- graphs.

No real poetical parallelism in Hebrew: 12, 14, 25, 72, 73, 76, 119, 120, 166, 175, 178, 225, 246, 257, 263, 270, 285, 290, 300, 303A, 337, 346, 359, 370, 384, 393, 394A, 396, 405, 414, 423, 432, 463, 468, 486, 502, 510, 515, 524, 539, 553, 573, 575, 588, together 44 paragraphs.

If necessary these cases too will be discussed in detail below.

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 7

| ii ), All this culminates in Shamra tablets (ü Intro 5f.) Re Pallnark

atements like the following: repe vas a ; e Canaanite poetry” (ii Intro 6a) and gene Euper dian verse" Ugaritic gra eon poetry were char. i ism (ii Intro 1). , ei ee that a scholar of Dahood's standing and position would not know that the principle of pa- rallelismus membrorum was invented by the ne and was taken over by the Akkadians and other Semitic eoples of the ancient world. Therefore we have to as- sume that the utterly misleading statements quoted above were written down in a moment of blindness caused by a far too ardent desire to claim a highly exclusive rela- tionship between Ugaritic and Hebrew. k We have taken the trouble to check for everyone o the 495 paragraphs mentioned above whether the er pairs were used in Sumerian and Akkadian poetry 3). Even on the basis of our very modest and certainly in- complete files we were able to establish that 47 pairs are also to be found in Sumerian poetry (9.5 per cent) 14) and 212 in Akkadian poetry (42.8 per cent)!5). Had our collections been really comprehensive, the percent- ages would doubtlessly have multiplied. Also, we be- lieve, it would have been easy to demonstrate that Uga- zitic shares at least as many parallel pairs with Akkadian as with Hebrew. At any rate, it appears very unwise to infer too much from the number of parallel pairs shared by Ugaritic and Hebrew. And it is certainly misleading to create the impression that parallelism would have been a Canaanite speciality.

12) Incidentally, the En ge he erde the “scores” of us scholarship (iüì Intro is debatable. Been Aen Ee also checked Aramaic. We found ee parable pairs of words for the numbers 47, 80, 245, 455, 456, 505, 548, 604,

14) The numbers 16, 18, 29, 40, 43, 47, 69, 72, 84, 85, 105, 118, 129 130, 154, 169, 170, 172, 190, 223, 232, 240, 275, 301, 303, 323, 324, 334, 337, 345, 354, 365, 376, 433, 443, 502, 503, 505, 536, 537, 549, 554, 560, 572, 577, 604, 608, together 47 paragraphs.

15) Full etymological parallels: 118 (23.8 per cent). They are: 16, 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 38, 43, 47, 50, 51, 54, 55, 62, 71, 73, 79, 82, 84, 105, 106, 107, 108, 117, 118, 122, 124, 128, 129, 154, 165, 170, 182, 198, 214, 217, 223, 228, 230, 232, 236, 238, 239, 255: 258, 271, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 295, 301, 303, 303A, 314, 317, 323, 324, 325, 328, 331, 338, 341, 347, 354, 374, 382, 391, 304, 308, 407, 410, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 433, 455, 456, 457, 458, 464, 501, 504, 505, 506, 507, 517, 522, 527, 531, 546, 548, 554, 559, 571, 572, 574, 578, 579, 587, 508, 602, 604, 609. Full references are given under “details”.

However, we have to take into account the linguistic differences between the Canaanite dialects and the Akkadian language. Even if we assume for a moment, only for the sake of argument, that the Canaanites borrowed the pairs directly from Akkadian, it is clear that they would translate Sarru by mlk, tämtu by ym, paësüru by flhn, zunnu by mtr, eqlu by 8d, ina by b, märu by bn, Sadû by gr or he, mäfu by ’rs, alu by ‘tr, sêru by (m)dbr, baläfu by hw/yy, and so on. In all these cases it would be quite impossible to give a rendering which was both etymologically and semantically close to the Akkadian model. Therefore we feel that it is justified to in- clude a number of parallel pairs which are only partially or even not at all related in an etymological sense.

Partially related: 48 (9.7 per cent). They are: 7, 18, 26, 36, 40, 63, 85, 119, 127, 136, 156, 172, 201, 209, 211, 213, 220, 221, 226, 233, 249, 262, 275, 290, 297, 299, 300, 326, 334, 335, 360, 372, 393, 395, 417, 437, 462, 467, 476, 485, 523, 524, 555, 560, 570, 576, 577, 601.

Only semantically related: 46 (9.3 per cent). They are: 19, 49, 52, 56, 59, 69, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 98, 112, 114, 145, 150, 153, 168, 169, 184, 203, 205, 231, 254, 306, 311, 312, 316, 332, 340, 345, 350, 353, 357, 361, 362, 365, 427, 451, 487, 490, 503, 520, 535, 549, 597.

To prevent any misunderstanding we want to add here that we do not advocate the assumption of any direct and conscious borrowing of parallel pairs by Canaanites from Akkadians, or, for that matter, by Is- raelites from Canaanites. We believe that once the principle of parallelism had been adopted, the creation of many of these pairs took place in a spontaneous, quite natural way. In any language “right” and “left”, “light” and “darkness”, “to be low” and “to be high” and so on, are complementary ideas. The closer the linguistic relationship between two languages exploiting such com- plements is, the higher the number of identical parallel pairs one may expect. Of course this is mainly due to linguistic factors 16), although cultural contacts’ may have added some good inventions. In this connection we think especially of the carriers of oral and scribal tradi- tions, who used to travel abroad fairly often. But there is no reason at all to speak of debts to be paid to Ca- naanites or, for that matter, to Sumerians and Akka- dians.

Details 17) iü Intro 5c. See below on ii. 470. iü Intro 5f. With regard to CTA 5: 11.3 this obser-

vation is far from new (see the literature cited AOAT 16, p. 178), but apparently the argument did not con- vince Herdner.

The restoration of U 5 V, 3: 1 is far less certain than Dahood seems to think. See below on ii. 274.

i Intro 5g. With regard to the meaning of Ugaritic mlhmt the arguments of De Moor were based on Uga- ritic evidence which Dahood does not bother to refute. See also below on ii. 356.

As far as hrb is concerned, Dahood implies that it cannot denote a cutting blade in Ugaritic, when in the Hebrew pair it means a sword (see also ii, 195e). If this line of reasoning is admissable, many more of the pa- rallel pairs collected by Dahood must be given up for the simple reason that he had to assume a difference in meaning or could only point to identity of parallel roots. A few instances chosen at random: ii. 110, 115, 196 (Ez, 5: 1 not “scabbard”’, but “razor'), 265, 270, 272, 290, 382d (see below), 391, 401, 477, 482, 497, 498, 499F, 506, 530, 565, 567, 575, 599,

ü Intro 5d. See below on ii. 413.

ii Intro 5e. As far as Ps. 139: 5, 9 are concerned, see our comment on ii. 538.

i Intro 7b. See below on ii. 515 and ii. 157,

iü Intro 8. See below on ii. 61, 254,

iü Intro 9c. See below on ii. 550,

i Intro 10. As we have seen above, Hebrew and Ugaritic share numerous parallel pairs with Akkadian.

16) To some extent this was perceived by T. Donald, JSS 10 (1965), pp. 99-101 and P. C, Craigie, JTS 22 (1971), pp. 140-143. The latter is harshly rebuked for this by Dahood. .

17) For economical reasons we do not give the parallel pairs collected from other bodies of poetry in transliteration. The original readings can be found easily by means of our references to the editions. An asterisk over our rendering of an Akkadian or Aramaig word indicates etymological relationship with the Canaanite word,

8 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

Therefore these pairs are not very significant as a crite- rion for the linguistic classification of Ugaritic.

ij. 2a. Rather 'ab +dr // mphrt.

iü.3f. We would not subscribe to the conclusion that the parallel implies that YHWH is depicted as the Be- getter of man.

iü5j. Read Ps. 74: 3f,

ü,6h. We do not recognize the stichometry as new.

i,7a, Also in Akkadian: enemy // hater: YOS IX, Ree 1.43, and hater // “enemy: Or 36 (1967), pp. 116f.: 10f.

ii, 7h. Deut. 30: 7 rather 'wyb + én’.

ij, 13a. The meaning of the word mgn in the context involved is much too uncertain to warrant the drawing of any parallel.

ij. 16a. Also in Sumerian: brother // brother: Curse of Agade, 219; Wilcke, Lugalbanda, pp. 79: 154,

Also in Akkadian: *brother // *brother: En.el. 1,20f.; Erra IV.135; Shurpu 11.26.

ü.16d. Gen. 38: 8 and 42: 34 can hardly be termed poetic. Usually the middle one of the three sayings of Prov. 27: 10 is regarded as a gloss. See in particular the parallel from Ahikar cited by Renard in the series of Pirot-Clamer, tome VI, Paris 1946, pp. 164f. Yet the purported parallelism is with this gloss.

ii, 18a. Also in Sumerian: brother // friend: Wilcke, Lugalbanda, pp. 79, 81: 164f.; Lugalbanda, 225, 338f.

Also in Akkadian: *brother // friend: BWL, pp. 34f.: 84f.; Maglâ IV.78; Shurpu I1.26f., 89f.

i. 18h. For Prov. 27: 10, see above on ii. 16d. zn en Also in Akkadian: to seize // to seize: Gilg.

51E.

iü,19d. Ruth 3: 15 must be deleted (direct speech and narrative).

i, 19e, Again we object that “indebtedness" is a rather too strong way of putting it.

iü. 20. Both Ug. 'uhryt and ’afryt mean nothing more than “future”, as seen by S. Gevirtz, VT 11 (1961), pp. 147É, n, 6 and p. 148, n. 3; see also M. Liverani, RSO 39 (1964), p. 163. These studies might have been cited. The word ’uhryt must be derived from the root br “to be behind”, otherwise attested by 'ahr “after- wards”. The latter is even present in CTA 24: 32, in spite of Dahood's repeatedly advocated translation “with”. For of course we have to compare terse ex- pressions like those of 2 Sam. 2:10 1 Ki. 1:7 and Hos. 1:2. Furthermore, we have Ugaritic ’uhry “extremity, lower end (of a walking-stick)” and perhaps the verb ‘hr itself (AOAT 16, p. 133). The verb ’fr means “to follow” (JNES 24 (1965), pp. 359f.; AOAT 16, p. 173) and the root is otherwise attested by ’afr “after, behind” (AOAT 16, p. 194). Thus both roots express approxim- ately the same idea. A similar development may be observed in Akkadian where we have arki “after, behind” and arkitu, arkû “future, sequel". We believe that B. Vawter, JBL 91 (1972), pp. 158-171 (especially p. 165) rightly rejects Dahood's contention that these words refer to the afterlife,

Dahood's interpretation of Eecl. 6: 12 is unconvincing. Who is the one “making” destiny? According to the

MAMMA MAKKIE IOM HERT WODAN CTU ADO AARDAME NK KIO RRA

context certainly not God, The verse is not so difficult, as can be seen from the commentaries of Siegfried (HAT), Aalders (COT) and Hertzberg (KAT).

iü,2la. Also in Akkadian: *where? // *where?: BWL, pp. 70f.: 5ff; AGH, pp. 130f: 15-17; Maglû IIL34,

ij. 23a. Also in Akkadian: *to eat // *to eat: AfO 23 (1970), p. 42: 5. In CTA 19: I1.68f, 72 ’aklt denotes a cracked-up field (Akkad. akkullätu), next to hmdrt (1. 72), likewise borrowed from Akkadian (cf. J. C. Green- field, JCS 21 (1967), pp. 89). Therefore the connec- tion of this word with the root ’kl is doubtful.

ii. 24d. Dahood rightly maintains 2 Sam. 22: 9% against modern commentators like Kraus (BK) and Van der Ploeg (BOT).

ij. 24e, Is. 10:17 rather °kl + b'r.

ü.24f. It is not “this parallelism’" which suggests the stichometry proposed for Lam. 2: 3c! Incidentally, the poetic structure of the lament speaks against Da- hood’s proposal.

ij, 26a. Also in Akkadian: *fo eaf, to devour // to consume: Maglûâ 1.116, 11.132; AfO 23 (1970), p. 41: 24, p. 42: 10, 12f.

iü27. PRUS5, 114: 8, 10 cannot be regarded as true cases of poetical parallelism. In Jer. 12: 10 krmy is pa- rallel to hlqgty, not to ’klh in vs. 9.

ij, 28e. The metaphorical meaning of the Aramaic expression ’kl grs’ in Dan. 3: 8; 6: 25 shows beyond doubt that it has been borrowed from Akkadian karst akälu, not from Ugaritic or any other Canaanite lan- guage.

ü.29a. Also in Sumerian: to eat // to drink: Dumu- zi's Dream, 112f.; Curse of Agade, 14f.; Pettinato, Men- schenbild, pp. 87f.: 24f,

Also in Akkadian: *to eat // *to drink: Atra-hasis .ii.43; Gilg. 11.86-88, 92ff; XIL103, 105; EA 356: 30f; BWL, pp. 144£,: 16; AGH, pp. 120f.: B.5; Shurpu UIL131f., 1356.

i.29f. Ex. 34: 28, 1 Sam, 30: 12 and Ezra 10: 6 rather ’kl … sth.

iü3la, Also in Akkadian prohibitive: not // not: Enel. 11.129, and negative: *not // *not: Atra-hasis 1.71, 73; Descent of Ishtar, 77f., etc.

ü3lc. In CTA 2:1.15 possibly not used as a nega- tive particle, see AOAT 16, p. 129.

32, Disregarding for the moment Gen. 14: 186, we are not prepared to translate “El” in the other pas- sages cited, Then it is fit to add that the pair *god // “god is attested in Akkadian, e.g. En.el. IV.63f.; AGH, pp. 5Of.: A.129F,

ü, 33. Probably Ugaritic bn qd has to be rendered “sons of Qudshu” which is a variant of bn ’atrt “sons of Athiratu”. See De Moor, AOAT 16, p. 130 and ThWAT IL, fasc. 4, col. 475.

ij, 34. Since bl hmh also occurs in Prov. 29: 22 the translation Baal’ is impossible. To us the collocation seems to be accidental, But even if this were not so, ’l should be rendered “god” and bl “lord” in this verse. Then we may compare Akkadian: *god // *lord: Maglû 11.100; Shurpu ILO91f,

BRMMMANMTH RTK REN

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 9

ii ebrew passages are entirely different B Den gien the Ugaritic ones because there the De ositive value which would require negatives have a P f d hlw’ in Hebrew. Moreover, the following observations would. seem in order, In Is. 54: 4 and Sir. 4; 3f, rather sal f/ ’al and Ww' // Ww’, thus belonging to ii. 31d. In Is. 36: 14 and Jer. 10: 5 ’l is regularly used with the jussive form next to Iw’ with the indicative. In Sir. 16: 13 lw' is an attested variant.

ji. 36a. Also in Akkadian: *god // king: Maglû W.73f., and *god // queen: Or 36 (1967), pp. 122f,: 118f,

i. 36e. Rather’! // mlk.

i,37. No particular importance should be attached to this parallel, because every country of the Ancient Near East had its gods.

ij. 38a. Also *god + *great in Akkadian: see Von Soden, AHw, s.v. ilu A.2a and rabû Cl.

iü. 39. We are not convinced by Dahood's conjectu- ral reading for Am. 8: 14. Ugaritic dr (bn) ’il can be paraphrased as “pantheon”, but not dr alone. See also Wolff, BK XIV, p. 372.

ii, 40a. It is noteworthy that the comparable Sume- ro-Akkadian pair “widow // orphan is in so far dif- ferent that the orphan is always a girl, cf. CAD (A)1, pp. 362ff., (E), p. 73.

ii, 42e. Possibly Ps. 90: 4 can be added here.

ij, 43a,b. It is a complete mystery to us why Dahood omits to cite the poetical passages CTA 1: IV.30; 4: V140f.; 22: B‚12. Again we are able to point to Meso- potamian parallels; see for Sumerian: Van Dijk, SG Il, pp. 109, 112: IV.9; Curse of Agade, 240f., and for Ak- kadian: *oxen // *small cattle: CAD (S), pp. 129f.

iü 43g. Rather ’lp … sn.

ij. 46a,b. No poetical parallelism (letter).

iü,47a, Also in Sumerian: father // mother: Falken- stein, SG 1, pp. 108, 110: 55f.; Van Dijk, SG II, pp. 58f.: 18£.; mother // father: Gudea Cyl. A, IHL6f.; Lugal- banda, 3f., 126f; Krecher, SK, pp. 55, 68: 11.55.

Also in Akkadian: *father // *mother: JNES 15 (1956), pp. 136f.: 89F; AGH, pp. 74E: A.22; AfO 23 (1970), p. 40: 10; “mother // *Father: Gilg. VIILi, 3£.; CT XIII, 42: 2.

Also in Aramaic: “father // *mother: Ahikar, 138.

ü47A, CTA 50: 5f. offers no poetical parallelism, whereas the uncited passages CTA 23: 33 and U 5 V, 7: 1E, (+ par.) do.

ü, 49. See our discussion of the phrase involved above, p. 3. If, however, 'an means ‘“where?", we may point to the fact that the pair where // where is also found in Akkadian: BWL, pp. 70f.: 5f.; AGH, pp. 130f.: 15ff; Maglâ (11.34.

ü,50a, Also in Akkadian: “there is not // *there is not: EA 153: 13.

iü,5la, Also in Akkadian: *1 // *I: Gilg. Lv.1f; EA 106: 6f.; RA 19 (1926), p. 108: 10, 13.

üS5lf, In Is, 45: 12f. triple parallelism.

ü, 52a. Also in Akkadian: there is // there is not: Shurpu 11.38f.

ü52b. We would add CTA 19: IIL117 (+ par.) // MIL145.

ü53g. We are happy to endorse the opinion of Dahood. Fortunately others were more prudent than Eissfeldt, e.g. Von Rad (ATD).

ij. 54a. See our comment on ü, 5la.

ij.55a. Also in Akkadian: “1 // “you: Shurpu VII, 51f; *gou // *I: EA 357: 82, 84f.; KAR 73: 21.

ü.55f. 1 Sam. 17: 43 cannot be regarded as a valid case of parallelism.

i.58a. Also in Akkadian: fo shine // to shine: BWL, pp. 136f.: 176f,

ij. 58e. In Ps. 139: 12 not verb // verb, but verb // noun.

ij. 59a, For “to shine" as said of the moon, see also AGH, pp. 6f.: 1ÉÉ., etc.

iü60. It seems preferable to us to interprete ’'ar as a type of dew in the Ugaritic passages involved. The same occurs as ’'ör in Is. 18: 4 (// fl, see I. Eitan, HUCA 12-13 (1937-38), pp. 65f.) and possibly as ’oröt in Is. 26: 19 (// tl). See also AOAT 16, pp. 82f. (not “honey-like’"', however, see R, Degen, OLZ 66 (1971), col. 265).

iü.61d., Next to Dahood himself, at least M. Held, AS 16 (1965), pp. 398-401 should have been cited.

ü.6lh. The identification was due to H. L. Gins- berg, Kitbe Ugärit, pp. 85, 145; Or 5 (1936), p. 192, It would have been fair to add that initially Gordon fol- lowed this (UG 14.296).

i.62a. Also in Akkadian: “earth // “earth: Gilg. XIL.50Off., 56ff; Maqlû VI1.26.

ii, 63a. Also in Akkadian: steppe // “earth: Gilg, Xi, 1Of.

ü.63e,f. Additions in Lev. 16: 22; Hos. 2: 5; Jes. 21: 1; Jer. 2: 2; Ps. 107: 35 qualify ‘rs.

ii.64. The Ugaritic parallel simply does not exist (Cars // mm, separated by a stichos from Smm // ym). With regard to ii. 64f. it must be observed that the parallelism is between ’rs and hrym.

iü.64h. Is. 49: 12 “from the north and from the west”. Ez. 27: 29: misconstrued, 29Aa // Bb and 29A.b // Ba.

ü.65d. The most recent discussion is that of AOAT 16, p. 204 which was known to Dahood. There the ren- dering “on the whole wide earth’ was advocated. Cou- royer makes the same mistake as Gese.

We may add here that instances like yérl klh “all Israel” (2 Sam. 2: 9, cf. Ez. 11: 15; 20: 40, etc.) lmw’b klh (Is. 16: 7; Jer. 48: 31), msrym klh (Ez. 29: 2), 'dwm klh (Ez. 35: 15, cf. 36: 5) and tbl klh (Job 34: 13) prove that Ug. klh must indeed be analysed as an apposition with ‘ars and hkpt, not with ’il.

With regard to the Hebrew evidence (ii. 65e) - Job 34: 13: apposition is not the same as parallelism, tbl often // ’rs. Job 38: 18: klh is not parallel to ’rs.

iü.69a. Also in Sumerian: earth // mountain: Petti- nato, Menschenbild, pp. 91, 93: 5f; mountain // earth: ibid, pp. 92, 94: 26; Wilcke, Lugalbanda, pp. 79: 150.

Also in Akkadian: *earth // mountain: BWL, pp. 136f.: 169f.

NN em

ne enh

10 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI N° 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

i.69h, swr and ’rs should change places. Moreover, swr means “rock” in at least some of the cases.

ü.70g. Few readers will suspect that this remark rests on previous work of:-M. Dahood, Bibl 44 (1963), pp. 297f; PNSP, pp. 62f; Bibl 47 (1966), p. 280; 50 (1969), pp. 337, 349; CBQ 30 (1968), p. 516; Or 41 (1972), p. 316; Psalms II, p. 208, and some of his stu- dents, cited by W.G. E‚. Watson, VT 20 (1970), p. 502, n. 2.

ii. 7la. Also in Akkadian: *earth // *heaven: BWL, pp. 58f.: 37. Ug. ‘ars + Smm occurs in CTA 16: [11,2 and in the name of the Ugaritic god ’ars wsmm. See further below on ii. 554,

i.72a. Also in Sumerian: Falkenstein, SG L, pp. 13, 21: 42f.

i,73a. Also in Akkadian: “to request // “to give: Craig, ABRT II, 19: 8.

iü,74d. Ps. 78: 62-64 triple parallelism.

ü.75d. This kind of reasoning is inadmissable, as appears from the parallel passage CTA 6: 111,34£., which has Sd instead of ym. Thus no parallel pair ’ist // ym is attested in Ugaritic.

ij. 77h. In Is. 9: 4 $rph is a noun, not a verb. i.78f, Add a taw in the first word of the last line

and see Dahood, Psalms 1, p. 247. It is Ps. 70: 6 which omits this faw.

ij, 79a. Also in Akkadian, see our note on ii, 55a.

ij, 80a. Also in Aramaic, see KAI No. 222: B.28, 31E; 224: 11f.

i.82a. Also in Akkadian: *you (pl) // *I: Maqglû 139; *1 // *you (pl.): Maglû 1.40, 48f.

iü,84a,b. Thus far no poetical parallel in Ugarit. However, the pair arrow // quiver occurs in Sumerian poetry: Gudea, Cyl. B. XIV.5f. Akkadian “arrow … “quiver occurs in BiOr 6 (1949), p. 166: 4, and *arrow // *quiver in BWL, pp. 178É.: 13.

iü.85a. Also in Sumerian: wife // son, child: Lugal- banda, 11; Exaltation of Inanna, 141.

Also in Akkadian: *wife // son, child: Gilg. X11.24- 27; BWL, p. 255: 11f,

iü. 87-94. In our opinion it is fundamentally wrong to differentiate these pairs of morphologically identical prepositions according to our modern (English) trans- lations. They should have been dealt with under one and the same heading.

ii. 87b. No poetical parallelism is attested in Ugari- tic.

ij, 89a. Akkadian ina, semantically the closest paral-

lel Ë b, occurs also as from // from, eg. Maglâ V. 170Ef.

ii, 89f. Hos. 7: 14 by corresponds to ‘ly, not to blbm.

ij, 90a, Also in Akkadian: in // in, e.g. Erra IV.76f,; V.55-57; AGH, pp. 112f: C5f; pp. 114f.: A7f; Or 36 (1967), pp. 122f.: 104f.

iü.91lb,c. This interpretation is unlikely in the case of CTA 12: 11.53 (rather “at’) and 14: 1,35f. (rather

“in” )

ü,91ld, The absurd consequences of a single-minded

EET A BER OE AI EEE MEM IIEP ETAM MYRA AV UMM ERKERS

approach become manifest if one realizes that the first b belongs to the source P, the other to J (Eissfeldt: L). See O. Eisfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, Leipzig 1922, pp. 2*-3* and many, many others.

ij. 92a. This nuance also with Akkadian ina: with // with: Erra IV.85f; Maqlâ V1143-46; AGH, pp. 106f.: of,

ü,92d. Arguments for a different division have been expounded in AOAT 16, pp. 192f. Although Dahood's reference to 2 Ki. 1: 8 is very ingenious, psltm remains an obstacle to his interpretation.

i.93a. The causal meaning of Akkadian ina is at- tested as a pair in ASKT, pp. 88f.: 22f.

i.94e,g. There is no reason at all to challenge the word mgqhlym in Ps. 26: 12, The prefix m is corroborated by Ps. 68: 27 and Num. 33: 25f. (nomen loci!). To use one of Dahood's favourite lines of reasoning: if Ugari- tians could use mphrt bn ’ilm next to phr bn ’ilm, we must make do with MT (cf. p. 121) using mqhl(h) next to qhl(h).

i,95a. Also in Akkadian: in // between, e.g. Gilg. XI191É.

i,95Ad. Lev. 16: 17 and Ez. 22: 30 are not valid,

ij, 98a. Also in Akkadian: in // upon, to: Erra 1.192, etc,

ii, 98b. Read CTA 6: 1,57-58.

ii. 99, h, It is a pity that Brekelmans’ wise advice has not been followed. Of course ywsb cannot be se- parated from b.

iü.99g. Dahood's rendering of (part of) Is. 27: 13 fails to appreciate the antithetical parallelism between b°rs 'Swr, brs msrym on the one hand and bhr hqds, byrwslm on the other.

ü, 10lc,d. One of our students, Mr. A. A. R. Ka- mermans, suggested a very simple solution for the some- what peculiar application of the preposition thé in CTA 17: V.6. It must be assumed that the nobles ('adrm) were standing behind the king who was seated (yéb). Just as the West Semitic languages may use the pre- position ‘! “above” if they take the viewpoint of those standing by/before a seated superior (in Ugaritic eg. CTA 2: 1.21), so they can. use thf if they describe the situation from the opposite angle.

ij. 103d. In Prov. 7: 20 the prepositions are not used in parallelism.

104. Actually a combination of ii, 90 and ii. 230 and therefore:not to be adduced as a separate case.

ii, 105a, It might have been useful (see below) to indicate that CTA 6: L9f; 14: 1.31, 11,6Of. and 27: 10f. do not have verbs, but nouns.

Again the sequence occurs also in Sumerian: to weep // to shed tears: Krecher, SK, pp. 54, 64: 23.

Also in Akkadian: *to weep // *tears: Gilg. X1.290f.; Descent of Ishtar, 83f; BWL, p. 36: 109f,

ii, 105g, h. Mal. 2: 13 and Is. 16: 9 nouns! See above on ii. 105a,

ii, 106a. Also in Akkadian *to weep … *to mourn, to beat the breast, see Von Soden, AHW, p. 1024.

ii, 107a. Also in Akkadian: *fo wee *fo bury: Gilg. X.i.5f. Ek

ge"

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 11

ü a, Also in Akkadian: “without //_ “without: Male dort. VLI13f; AGH, pp. 38f.: 30f.

H.108d. Is. 44: 9 triple parallelism. ‚

ii. 108e. Really “Thanks to this parallelism"?

ji. 109b,d. Since mrqdm dèn recurs in CTA 19: IV. 189f., as noted in UF 1 (1969), p. 177, the possibility of reading bm rqdm can be ruled out.

ji. 109e. In Is. 43: 2 bmw is not parallel to bk.

ji, 110. Not a single one of the Hebrew texts exhi- bits a poetical structure and it cannot be demonstrated that the authors repeated the word bmh with poetical intentions.

ii 1lla-e. Everything depends on the interpretation of ‘abn in CTA 3: C.23. Surely it has to be welcomed that Dahood points to the circumstance that the same verbal pattern occurs elsewhere in the Ugaritic text. T'his corroborates the opinion of those who regard ‘abn as a verb. Also, it must be granted that the biblical pa- rallelism byn // byn seems to suggest a derivation from this verb, as has been observed by several scholars. However, ‘abn is parallel to yët and yb'r in CTA 3: D.69f. (ZAW 78 (1966), pp. 69ff.; AOAT 16, p. 107). Therefore a large number of scholars has felt that a derivation from bny “to build, to create” is much more likely. Even if Dahood does not accept this, he should have mentioned this opinion to enable the reader to form a judgment on the problem involved.

ü.112a. Also in Akkadian: son // son: En.el. 1.101; Erra IIc.33; IV.95.

i. 112b. The collocation in PRU 2, 89: 9, would seem to be purely accidental.

ü, 113. Another case of condemnable delusion. Al- ready Virolleaud rightly translated the b‘lm of PRU 2, 80 by “travailleurs”. It cannot have any other meaning here, but only those who take the trouble to consult PRU 2, 80 (UT 2080) will discover this when they compare the six(!) occurrences of this term in the tablet concerned. All others will have to swallow Dahood's fallacious rendering “husband”.

ü.1l4a. Also in Akkadian: son // daughter: Erra IIc.33f.; Maglû IV.3.

115. In Amos 3: 1 the parallelism is not between “son” and “clan”, as stated in ii. 115f,, but between ‘the children of Israel” and “all the families". Moreover, Wolff, BK XIV, p. 212 gives five good reasons for as- suming that the second half of the verse, containing msphh, is a gloss. As a result not a single real parallel from the O.T. has been mentioned.

iü, 116. In Job 5: 3 “taking root” has nothing to do with procreation (Fohrer, KAT; Horst, BK) and there- fore it is not parallel to bnyw in vs. 4. The whole paragraph should be deleted.

ü, 117a, Dahood could have added a reference to CTA 19: IV.185-187, 191-193, where we have 'ilm “gods” // Smym “celestials"” // dkbkbm “lords of the stars’, cf. De Moor, JNES 24 (1965), p. 356; UF 2 (1970), p. 200; AOAT 16, p. 241.

ij 118a, Also in Sumerian: to build // to build: Gu- dea, Cyl. AIX.7f; Curse of Agade, 10f.

Also in Akkadian: *to build // *to build: En.el. 1.81£,; AGH, pp. 76f.: 31.

ii, 119a. Also in Akkadian: to (make) high // “to build: Enel. VL62f.

ij. 121f. See above on i. 25j.

iü.122a. Also in Akkadian: *fo bless // *to bless: Frankena, Täkultu, p. 7: VIL39f.

iü123d. See also UF 1 (1969), p. 186.

iü,124a. Also in Akkadian: *to bring (pleasant) news // *to bring (pleasant) news: ZA 51 (1960), p. 138: 60 and p. 154: Rev. 6.

ij. 125a-d. We are not convinced that the juxtapo- sition is attested in the badly broken line CTA 24: 9. Compare ii. 527.

ü. 126. Dahood suppresses the fact that the phrase “NN rejoiced (Smh)" occurs frequently without a pa- rallel colon in Ugaritic (on the phenomenon of the mo- nostich see now N. H. Ridderbos, BZAW 117 (1972), pp. I2f.). See CTA 4: 11.28, V.82, 97f., VIL.35E.; 5: 1.20; 6: 11.14. Quite contrary to Dahood's contention, there- fore, it is very improbable that CTA 10: 111,38 would be parallel to CTA 10: [I1.35.

iü. 126A. No real Hebrew parallel has been adduced. In the Ugaritic text the words are not used in poetical parallelism.

i. 127a. Dahood dutifully notes that the parallelism is not attested in Ugaritic. If it were, however, one might compare the Akkadian pair “house // country: Maglû IL21.

ü.127e. Joel 1: 14 certainly not parallel.

i, 128a. Also in Akkadian: “daughter // “daughter: BWL, pp. 108f.: 15f.

i.129a. Also in Sumerian: house // house: Curse of Agade, 25f.; Krecher, SK, pp. 53, 63: lÉ; pp. 54, 64: 22f.

Also in Akkadian: “house // *house: Shurpu 11.125; CT XXVII, 3: Obv. 19.

i, 130a. Also in Sumerian: house // palace: TCS 3, p. 19: 48f.; Krecher, SK, pp. 53, 63: 14.

ü.13id. If UE 1 (1969), p. 34 could be cited, then also ibid, pp. 71, 172, 205.

ü.131Ah. In Jer. 22: 14 rather juxtaposition.

ü. 132. The word nsrt is clearly parallel to bkt, as observed by most commentators. In any case it is im- possible to connect the word with a derivative of the Hebrew root nsr, because the corresponding Ugaritic root is núr (see eg. M. Dietrich-O. Loretz, WO 4 (1968), p. 307; A. F. Rainey, Leshonenu 35 (1970-71), pp. 11-15; De Moor, AOAT 16, p. 224; Loewenstamm'’s reply in Leshonenu 36 (1971-72), pp. 67-70 was far from convincing).

ü. 133. Dahood misrepresents De Moor, UF 2 (1970), p. 319 in omitting the latter's absolutely con- clusive argument. The interpretation advocated by Da- hood ‘is doubtlessly false because in that case the ritual instructions for the fourteenth would be lacking entire- ly”. The whole paragraph must be deleted.

ii. 134. In our opinion the lines CTA 14: 11.96, 98 (not 96-98!) cannot be regarded as truly parallel.

12 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

ii, 136a. Also in Akkadian: *house // table: AGH, pp. 54f: A.13É.

iü. 136d-e. This cannot be accepted because b'lt b(h)tm is the name of a goddess, see M. C. Astour, Hellenosemitica, pp. 160f.; AOAT 16, p. 86, n. 4.

iü, 137. Everyone takes tgr in PRU 2, 7: 6 as “quar- dian”, only Dahood seems to able to read “gate” into the text. In our opinion the parallel pair is not attested in Ugaritic, If it was, we would like to note that the pair *house // gate is also attested in Akkadian: Atra-hasis 1.80Éf., and the reverse in Shurpu I1.124f,

ij, 140d-e. The parallel is not valid since the “origi- nal’ meaning of this geographical name was lost to the Israelites (cf. Hebr. peten and RSP I, i. 25 with its characteristic substitution of nhs for bén).

ü. 142d. Dahood's rendering of Ugaritic gly is cer- tainly preferable to other recent attempts (Oldenburg, Lipifski, Clifford). But we do not understand why only Dahood and one of his supporters (read: M. J. Mulder) have been cited. At least M. H. Pope, SVT 2 (1955), pp. 64f. must be added. Already H. Bauer, OLZ 37 (1934), col. 241 aptly pointed to the English verb “to clear” as a semantic parallel.

iü.142e-f. The expression glh knp in Deut. 23: 1 and 27: 20 as compared with Ruth 3: 9 proves that glh in Ruth 3: 4, 7 has the meaning “to uncover”’, as it has always been understood.

iü. 144A. No real Ugaritic parallel has been cited. It appears from Rev. 7 of the same tablet that the collo- cation is entirely accidental. Moreover, an impartial re- corder would have noted that in AnOr 48 (1971), pp. 40f. (known to Dahood) P. D. Miller gives an inter- pretation which differs sharply from that of Dahood, bidp. at

ii, 145a. Also in Akkadian: who, which // who, which: AGH, pp. 1Of: Bf, pp. 16f.: 17; pp. 18£,: A.35f., etc.

ij. 146a-c. Thus far no real Ugaritic parallel has been found. The collocation indicated by Dahood is ac- cidental, because d'iy belongs to a formula which has been used several times before.

ü147e. To prevent misunderstanding it would be more prudent to say that the motif is attested in Ca- naanite mythology (Dahood: “attested for the Canaanite world”). See AOAT 16, p. 95,

ij. 148a-c. The terms are not parallel, but only col- located in RS 61/24.277: Aa. Therefore no real Ugaritic parallel exists.

ii, 149, In the opinion of many specialists Ug. ‘srt does not mean “libation', but “banquet, drinking-bout”’, cf. AOAT 16, pp. 71f, It is a grave omission to keep silent about this.

Since contributions to the temple formed the substance of the sacrificial banquets, there is no reason to deviate from the usual interpretation of Hebr. m'ér “tithe”'.

Incidentally, we do not see why Deut. 12: 6 would be // {so ü, 149£,), but Deut. 12: 11 + (so ii. 149g), since the enumeration is identical in both cases.

E je. Also in Akkadian: steppe // field: 4 R 18*,

AUM MIOUUDEM MAK HERT UDO EN UIR RARADD IOO RDG EDGAR MIO RAARSTE

ü 152a. Adda reference to ii, 212,

ü.152d. Although in our opinion this digtession is unnecessary at this point, we feel that we should react to it, because it contains two grave errors. In the first place, U 5 V, 3: Rev. 8 may not be “filled in”, because the scribe was prevented from completing the text. In the second place, CTA 7: IL.11 proves that what is mis- sing is not Ba'lu's epithet rkb ‘rpt (so Dahood), but the name of pdry. Both errors could have been prevented had Dahood stooped so low as to consult UF 1 (1969), p. 180. Incidentally, we are not acquainted with “Ug VII”, cited on p. 165.

ii, 153a. See also ii, 40 and ii. 262. In Akkadian the pair weak // orphan is attested: AGH, pp. 50f.: B.15.

ij. 154a-c. We are glad to see that an even “better sense" than that of Psalms III, p. 106 appears to be pos- sible. For an explanation (fratricide) see M. H. Pope, in: H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies … W.F. Albright, Baltimore 1971, p. 396, n. 8.

The pair blood // blood is also attested in Sumerian: Curse of Agade, 194; Krecher, SK, pp. 55, 68: I11.2.

Also in Akkadian: *blood // *blood: AMT 9, 1: 26f.

ii, 154d. Add Deut. 32: 42.

iü, 156a. Also in Akkadian: “to judge // to decide: AGH, pp. 46f: 74; pp. 56f.: 12; pp. 78f: 59; Maglû 1114.

ii 157. De Moor maintains his rendering of ktmsm “one who knuckles down” // dq 'anm “one of feeble strength". See AOAT 16, p. 203. We fully agree that both in ancient and modern times it may have been re- garded as an advantage if an athlete is handsome. But never it was the first requisite for javelin-throwing, which is what the Ugaritic text says in Dahood's trans- lation.

ü158f. A fuller bibliography may be found in De Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites, II, pp. 24f,

ij, 16la-c. No poetical parallelism in Ugaritic.

ij, 163a. Also attested in EA, cf. CAD (A)1, p. 358.

ii, 165a. Also in Akkadian: *to go // *to go: Erra 1.99,

i. 166a. Adda reference to ii. 474 (actually doubling our paragraph, with some interesting variants).

ii, 166b. In PRU 5, 1: 2 swd[t?] probably means “huntress” (cf. UF 1 (1969) p. 174) and belongs to ‘ttrt, as appears from the name of the Old Assyrian deity Istar-säd (thus not “being fiery red’, as proposed by H. Lewy, AS 16 (1965), p. 274). For this reason we ce that swd[t?] is parallel to lk in the following ine,

i. 166i-j. No real Hebrew parallel has been ad- duced.

ii. 167. It has been demonstrated over and over again that hll in bnt hll is the name of a god (Hilalu) who receives the epithet b'l gml “Lord of the Crook” in CTA 24: 42. See eg. Ch. Virolleaud, Syria 17 (1936), p. 214; A. Goetze, JBL 60 (1941), p. 360; J. Aistleitner, WUs, No. 832; J. C. de Moor, JNES 24 (1965), pp. 356f.; A. Jirku, Der Mythus der Kanaanäer, Bonn 1966, pp. 63f.; W. Herrmann, BZAW 106 (1968), p. 6; J. W.

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 13

VT 20 (1970), pp. 451Ef. Of course everyone Ee be Bon. Ligd objective recorder would have noted that only a few specialists share his view. ji, 168a. Also in Akkadian: they // they: Erra 144É,, IV.18.

ji, 169a. Also in Sumerian: mountain // earth, land: Wilcke, Lugalbanda, pp. 79f.: 150; Pettinato, M enschen- bild, pp. 92, 94: 26; and earth // mountain: Pettinato, ibid, pp. 91, 93: St. On Akkadian: mountain // land, country: Gilg. VL 17; BWL, pp. 126f.: 19f.; and “earth // mountain: BWL, pp. 136f.: 169f.

ii, 170a. Thus far no real parallel could be found in Ugaritic. The pair to conceive // to bear occurs, how- ever, in Sumerian: Gudea, Cyl. A.llL.8.

Also in Akkadian: *fo conceive // “to bear: see CAD (E), p. 326.

ji, 17le-f. There is no need at all to accept Dahood's proposal. See for Hos. t: 2 Van Gelderen-Gispen (COT) and for Hos. 7: 1: Jud. 20: 37; 1 Sam. 27: 10; 1 Chron. 14: 9, 13.

ii, 172a. Thus far no real parallel in Ugaritic. Again it may be found, however, in Sumerian: fo embrace // fo kiss: Lugalbanda, 247; Dumuzi's Dream, 115f.

Also in Akkadian: fo embrace // *to kiss: Enel. L53f.

ii, 173. Why has it been concealed that several au- thors gave a different interpretation of the lines in ques- tion? Or that the same rendering was defended by E. Lipifski, Syria 42 (1965), p. 69? Recently it was ques- tioned by D. Marcus, JSS 17 (1972), p. 82 and S. M. Paul, JNES 31 (1972), p. 352, n. 9.

iü,174£, In Ps. 106: 20 kbwd is neither “adoration” nor “religion”, but the “glory” of JHWH, as it has always been understood. There does not exist any parallelism with “to bow down”.

ii, 176a-b. No poetical parallel in Ugaritic.

iü177c. Not “spelt”, but “emmer-corn”, cf. AOAT 16, p. 191.

ü. 179a-b. No poetical parallel in Ugaritic.

ij, 180a-c. The parallelism is between hz and ’abn (yd), certainly not between hz and yd.

ii, 181d, Because ys in Jer. 5: 1 has nothing to do with the oath-formula hy yhwh in Jer. 5: 2, the para- graph has no foundation in Hebrew.

iü, 182a-c,. No poetical parallel could be found in Ugaritic. As noted by Virolleaud, PRU 2, p. 34 the same connection occurs in Akkadian.,

ij. 184a. Also in Akkadian: life // life: En.el. IV. 17E, compare AGH, pp. 64f.: 5f.

ü. 185. Because neither in Ugaritic nor in Hebrew real parallelism is attested (in Job 36: 6 hyh pi. // nén mspt, not nén alone), the paragraph should be deleted. Incidentally, “to give life” is also attested in Akkadian. ‚186. PRU 2, 18: 21f. proves that hy in 1, 18 can- not be parallel to pn in 1. 19. Moreover, pnyk in Ps. 16: En E parallel to bymynk. The paragraph is better de- eted.

ü 187. No real parallelism exists in Ugaritic. The

word dqn in Sbt dqn should be rendered “old age”, as demonstrated long ago by Gaster, Cassuto and Loe- wenstamm on the strength of biblical parallelism (cf.

AOAT 16, p. 112).

ij. 189, Dahood fails to observe that Ugaritologists use to take ‘m as the well-known preposition in the pas- sages under discussion. Although we readily admit that some of his Hebrew examples are attractive, we are not convinced that there exists a word ‘m “sagacity” in Ugaritic.

ii. 190a. No poetical parallelism has been detected in Ugaritic. In Sumerian we find the triple parallelism butter // Fat // milk: Lugalbanda, 156EEf.

ü. 192d-f,. The connection with Hebr. Swr poses an etymological problem. See also AOAT 16, p. 217. No acceptable Hebrew parallel has been adduced.

ij. 193a-c. Rather collocation. We translate U 5 V, 7: 4E£, (+ par.): “My formula is: The poisonous ser- pent, the strangling serpent has bitten (N.N.)! Is there someone who can charm the destructive venom for him? Is there someone who can drive out the poison for him? Behold, may he bind the serpent, may he feed the strang- ling serpent, may he arrange a chair and sit down!”

ii, 194. In our opinion the Ugaritic parallel is much too uncertain to be used as evidence. Since no real Hebrew parallel has been adduced either, the whole paragraph is far from convincing.

ü.195f, In Am. 1: 11£. and Job 1: 15f. certainly not parallel.

iü.196d. In Jer. 47: 6 the words are merely collo- cated. In Ez. 5: 1 not “scabbard’', but “razor”’.

i. 197a-d, No poetical parallelism in Ugaritic.

‘ii. 197e. Add M. Dietrich-O. Loretz, BiOr 23(1966), p. 128.

iü. 198a. Also in Akkadian: “to be in labor // “to give birth: BA 2, 634: 8.

iü.199. The Ugaritic words do not have the meaning attributed to them by Dahood, See E. Lipiúski, UF 2 (1970), p. 84; De Moor, AOAT 16, p. 75; M. Dietrich- O. Loretz, UF 4 (1972), p. 28. The genitive construc- tion hmr yn in CTA 23: 6, also attested in Phoenician (EF. M. Cross, IEJ 18 (1968), pp. 226ff.) must be re- garded as a hendiadys meaning “foaming new wine”. Compare the reverse order in Ps. 75: 9 and see M. Held, BASOR 200 (1970), pp. 37f.

ü. 200e-f. This reference is not valid since the verbs occur in a sequence from one to seven (CTA 16: V.9- 20) which is attested many more times in Mesopotamia, Ugarit and Israel.

i, 200h. In 2 Kings 13: 19 five or six are used to say: more than three times (2 Kings 13: 18). The nu- merals do not form a poetical pair,

ii. 20la-c. In U 5 V, 1: Obv. 21 the forms are not verbs, but nouns. Instead of a reference to Gordon it would have been appropriate to quote RS 17.120: 9 after the photograph, Ugaritica V, pp. 625-27.

Also in Akkadian: excrement // “urine: TCS 2, 6: 8f., and *urine // excrement: OIP 2, p. 47: VL.32.

ü, 202a-b. A form of a verb hö “to hasten” exists only as a LW in Ugaritic (cf. UF 2 (1970), p. 198;

TU MOM IPRA NONO MNC RARA TIEM MOM M IO RS

14 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

AOAT 16, pp. 118, 165). The genuine Ugaritic verb is hi. So the parallel does not exist in Ugaritic,

ii. 203a-c. No poetical parallelism in Ugaritic. How- ever, the pair good (thing) // good (thing) does exist in Akkadian, e.g. Maglû IIL8f; SBH, p. 60: Rev. 7Éf.; Gilg. X1.295f.

ij. 204d. Delete the hé.

ij. 205a-c. Because a better definition of rbb would be “mist, drizzle” (AOAT 16, pp. 83, 99) it is possible to compare the Akkadian pairs dew // mist (Or 23 (1954), pp. 213É.: 5) and mist // dew: Atra-hasis II, ü. 16£,, 30 £.; Maglû V.83; AfO 23 (1970), p. 40: 14.

i, 207d-f. Dahood's interpretation of Gen. 27: 28 is not only inconsistent with monotheism, as already noted in AOAT 16, p. 97, but it is also based on the totally un- founded presumption that the Canaanite deities dgn and trt would have governed the “spray” (rb). Moreover, the proposal reveals once again that Dahood often does not bother to consult the context. Gen. 27: 37 ought to have prevented him from offering such an irresponsible …_exegesis. Finally, because dgn and tyrws are also paired in Hos. 2: 10, 11 (cf. 2: 7!) as commodities granted by JHWH (so also the Deuteronomist: Deut. 7: 13; 11: 14; 12: 17; 14: 23; 18: 4; 28: 51, cf. H. W. Wolff, ThLZ 81 (1956), col. 83-94), it is very unlikely that in Hos. 7: 14 the prophet would have in mind two foreign gods who were far from important to the Canaanites themselves.

ij, 209a. Also in Akkadian: *to bring, to carry // *to bring, to carry: Atra-hasis 1.195f.; Erra 1.57Éf., V.37f,

ü, 210. Everything depends on the correctness of Dahood's etymology for Ug. mnh(y). We believe that in nh 16, p. 132 it was shown that this etymology is false,

ü.21la. Also in Akkadian: fruit // *produce: 4 R 18*, 3: i, 14Ef.

ii, 212a,. Add a reference to ij. 152.

iü. 212b-c. Although in CTA 23: 33É, yd ’il “the hand of Ilu” is a euphemism for his penis, Dahood rightly translates the yd (’il) of CTA 4: IV. 38 by “affection” because there is a difference of gender (CTA 4: IV.39 yhssk versus tfirkm and the infinitive ‘ark in CTA 23: 33f., yd “hand” being feminine according to CTA 19: 11.66, 73).

ij, 213a. In Akkadian we have *arm // finger: Maq- la VI.4f, A0 ú

ii, 214a, In Akkadian: *arm // *knee: BWL, pp. 42f: 77E; AGH, pp. 86f.: A.23f; Maglâ 1.101, and “knee // “arm: Maglû 1I1.34f.; II1.97f,

ii. 216h. Is. 49: 2 rather collocation.

ij, 217a. Also in Akkadian: *arm // “arm: Maglû IIL98f., and hand // hand: Maglâ VII.178.

ii, 218d. The reference to Seasonal Pattern is whol- ly erroneous. Read UF 2 (1970), p. 305! In UF 1 (1969), p. 227 De Moor only established the meaning of the word qs‘t.

ij, 219a-c. Because it is very unlikely that ydm in CTA 1: IV.19 is parallel to Smk in IV.20 and because the Hebrew texts (Is. 44: 5; Jer. 11: 21; 16: 21) do not possess probative value, we would drop the paragraph.

END DIUMNMERKRRAS,

i. 220a. Also in Akkadian: *lip // hand: En.el. IV. 61f,

ü,22la. In our opinion only CTA 3: C.24, D.59, see above on ii, 111, Add CTA 1: IIL15.

Also in Akkadian: *to know // to understand: BA 3, 293: Rev. 15.

ij. 223a. Also in Sumerian: to know // to know: Pettinato, Menschenbild, p. 88: 21£.

Also in Akkadian: *to know // *to know: Erra IV. 7Ef; Shurpu VILS1f.; Maglû 1.39f.; KAR 73: 21.

ij. 224a-c. It appears from Psalms III, pp. 191, 260 and CBQ 30 (1968), p. 519 that Dahood is perfectly aware of the correct translation of PRU 5, 60: 13-16. Therefore it would seem a case of conscious delusion when in Psalms III, p. 449 and RSP I, ij. 224 he boldly asserts that yd‘ is parallel to ‘m. Thus, no valid Ugaritic parallel having been adduced, the paragraph should be deleted. Nevertheless it may be observed that the pair is actually attested in Job 15: 9 (not in Ps. 50: 11, see the correct pairing in ii, 319el) and also in Akkadian: “to know // (to be) with: AGH, pp. 30f.: BOf, and the reverse in AGH, pp. 46f.: 75f.; pp. 56f.: 13f.

ij. 225e-f. Because in our opinion the words are me- rely collocated in Ps. 68: 6f,, no real Hebrew parallel seems to exist.

ü. 226a-f. No real parallelism in Ugaritic. It is, how- ever, attested in Akkadian: *to give birth // son: Erra IV.95, and the reverse: En el. IV.79f,

ü. 227. Contrary to the impression created by Da- hood the “flock” in CTA 11: 6 is not the offspring of certain animals, but the flock of the swallow-like god- desses of birth. Because in Job 39: 3 the meaning “foe- tus” would seem preferable, the pair is neither attested in Ugaritic nor in Hebrew.

ij. 228a. Also in Akkadian: *to give birth // “fo give birth: RA 24, p. 106: 6f; KAR 196: Rev. i, 33f.; AGH, pp. 74f.: A.38f.

ii. 229. YJ. Vlaardingerbroek, Psalm 68, Amsterdam 1973, pp. 101-104 argues convincingly against this in- terpretation of Ps. 68: 23. Incidentally, a glance in BiOr 8 (1951), p. 60 would have revealed that S. I. Feigin was the auctor intellectualis of the unhappy idea to take bsn as “serpent”. The Ugaritic pair ym // bin was re- placed by ym // nh$ in Hebrew (Am. 9: 3). See our comment on ii, 140.

ij, 230a,. Also in Akkadian: *day // *day: Gilg. VII. vi.6ff., XI.142Ef,

ij, 23la. Also in Akkadian: sea // sea: Erra IV.131.

ii. 232a-f. In PRU 2, 155: 1f, and 156: 1f. the words are merely collocated in dates. However, it is possible to argue that in the literary formula lymm lyrhm they are actually parallel (against ii. 232d).

Also in Sumerian: day // month: Lugalbanda, 259.

Also in Akkadian: “day // *month: Shurpu IIL115; Maglâ VIIL.142; AGH, pp. 134f.: 72.

ü, 233a, Also in Akkadian: sea // *river: Atra-hasis IH.iv.6f.; BWL, pp. 136f: 172f; Maqlâ VI100f, and the reverse: BWL, pp. 70f.: 23f.

ii, 234, The same triple parallelism occurs in Akka- dian (ABL 1410: Rev. 6), but in our opinion the He-

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 15

jlel Ps. 61: 7f. is not valid, because there ymym

Ne (cf. ii. 238) and dr wdr // ‘wlm (cf. ü. 254).

ji. 235. In the Ugaritic passage not yr // Sps. De hp ym // sat Sps (ie. west-east, cf. AOAT 16, pp. 90, 94) which is something quite different. Because Ee ge nuine Hebrew parallel exists either, the paragraph has o be deleted. ji, 236a. Also in Akkadian: sea // Hood, deep: BWL, pp. 136f.: 172 and the reverse: pp. 128f,: 37f.

ji, 238a. Also in Akkadian: “day // “year: Enel. 1.13; Maglâ V.83; AGH, pp. De Do

ij, 239a. No real parallelism in Ugaritic. it occur- ei Ee might Ee nhre “mouth // “left (hand) // “right (hand) in Akkadian: PBS 1/1, 13: 14.

i240a. Also in Sumerian: right // left: TCS 3, p.

nd in Akkadian: *right // “left: En.el. IV.55E.; Atra-hasis 1.257f.; BRM 4: 8, 24; AGH, pp. 22f: B.5f; pp. 50f.: A.122, etc.

ij. 241. There is no real difference between this pa- ragraph and ii, 238 because ymt is only an alternative plural of ym (this was first argued on the basis of pa- rallelism by De Moor, UF 1 (1969), p. 179).

ii 243a-c. The translation “the blood of vines” is misleading. Ugaritic has simply “blood of trees". Since dm may denote any kind of juice or resin (AOAT 16, pp. 146f., add CAD (D), p. 79a for more Akkadian examples and for some Ethiopic parallels see M. L. Eisher, The Lexical Relationship between Ugaritic and Ethiopic, diss. Brandeis Univ. 1969, pp. 66f.) the differ- ence between the Ugaritic and the Hebrew parallelism may serve to illustrate that we are dealing with different languages.

i, 244. Because neither in Ugaritic nor in Hebrew yn and hms are used in poetical parallelism, the para- graph cannot be accepted as valid.

ij, 245a. Also in Aramaic: wine // wine: Ahikar, 93f,

i.245b. It is difficult to understand why Dahood does cite a large number of non-poetical economic texts, but omits CTA 4: VI47Ef, and CTA 22: B17ÉF. which are far more pertinent.

ij, 245d. In Jer. 13: 12 repetition, which is not the same as poetical parallelism.

ii, 247. Because in Prov. 23: 31 it is the suffix of ‘ynw which refers back to yyn, the two words are cer- tainly not parallel. In Ugaritic only a genitive construc- tion occurs.

ij. 249a. In Akkadian: “oil // wine: Gilg. X1.72.

ii. 252b. Read 51: 1.27-30 (CTA 4: 1.27-30).

i, 254a. Also in Akkadian: to fear // to be afraid: Erra IV.27; KAR 64: Rev. 9; STT 1, 64: 16; LKA 111: 14; AGH, pp. 30f.: B.20; pp. 46f.: 84.

iü, 255a. Also in Akkadian: *to descend // *to des- cend: BAM 124: IV.12f,

iü,255d. Jer. 18: 2, and Ez. 26: 20 unconvincing.

ü, 258a-f. No genuine parallelism in Ugaritic. For Mesopotamian parallels see our comment on ii. 232. iü, 258b. Add CTA, p. 137.

ij. 259a. Also in Akkadian: moon(god) // moon- (god): AGH, pp. 6f.: 1É,

iü.259b. The reference to PRU 2, 88 fragm. a, b should be deleted, because these fragments belong to a list of months and as such have nothing to do with pa- rallelism. Moreover, it is generally accepted that yrh “moon” and yrh “month were pronounced differently.

ü. 259c. Delete “month”,

ij. 259d. The Hebrew parallel is not valid (direct and reported speech, not poetical parallelism).

ij. 260b. Add CTA 14: 1,33f. nt “sleep” // nhmmt “slumber”’.

ú262a. Add a reference to ü. 153. Also in Akka- dian: orphan // *widow: AGH, pp. 78f.: 37,

ij. 263a-c. The Ugaritic words in question are not verbs, but nouns.

ü. 263e-f. With regard to Ps. 105: 32 the wise restraint of Psalms Ill, p. 61 (“the well-established phrase ’&$ lehäbäh, literally ‘fire of flame’, can be in- voked in defence of MT”) should never have been abandoned. Since brd “hail” and ’s “fire” form a pair in Ps. 18: 13f. and 148: 8 (see also göm //’S in Ez. 38: 22) Dahood’s new interpretation must be rejected.

As far as Job 2: 4 is concerned, there is not the slightest warrant for Dahood's emending of MT, be- cause kl’Sr lis a standard expression: Gen. 12: 20; 13: 1; 14: 23; 19: 12; 20: 7; 24: 2, 36, etc.

i, 263A. In our opinion the verbs cannot be regarded as parallel in CTA 17: V1I,24 (different subjects and objects). In Job 35: 6f. the pairs are p'l // ‘sh and nén // Iqh (so also ii. 266e!).

ü. 270a-c. The Ugaritic text does not have verbs, but nouns. The pair occurs many times more, see R. E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature, Cambridge (Mass.) 1972, p. 287.

ii. 27la. Also in Akkadian: *to sit // “to sit: JCS 22 (1968), p. 27: 58.

ü 272. The Ugaritic texts do not have verbs, but nouns. The same is true of Ex. 15: 17,

i. 273a.. Also in Akkadian: *to sit // “rest: Gilg. Vilt. 43; Vllliii. 2; LIH 95: 40., and *to rest // “to sit; AGH, pp. 38f.: 19.

ü. 273i. Rather parallelism.

ü. 274a-d,f. The restoration of the Ugaritic text is much too uncertain to warrant its inclusion as a wit- ness. Virolleaud (unmentioned) read r[‘y], but it has been shown that CTA 13: 9 suggests the reading r[bs] (UF 1 (1969), p. 181). The resulting parallelism be- tween yfb and rbs is corroborated by Is. 13: 20.

ü. 275a. Also in Sumerian: to sit // to judge: Inan- na's Descent, 162f.

Also in Akkadian: *to sit // to judge: BBR No. 1-20: 122; 75-78: Rev. 60; JCS 22 (1968), p. 26: 29f,

i. 275b. It cannot be proved that the noun tbé in CTA 6: V1.28 is truly parallel to the noun mépf in V1.29. The two are separated by mlk. Add, however, CTA 17: V.6-8 and 19: 1.22-24 (verbs).

ü. 275£, In our opinion Is. 16: 5 may be regarded as fully parallel.

16 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

ü. 276, 277, 279, 280. See our remark on ii. 87-94, Moreover, with all the best will in the world we are un- able to discern the doubtlessly subtle difference between ii, 276 and ii. 280.

Also in Akkadian: “because, since, when, etc. // *be- cause, since, when, etc, see CAD (K), pp. 316ff,

For k // k “how?” // “how?'', omitted by Dahood, see CTA 16: 1.15-17 (with UF 1 (1969), p. 171) and for the Hebrew parallels: W. F. Albright, in: Mélanges … A. Robert, Paris 1957, pp. 2-26. This too is attested De AGH, pp. 60f.: B.20 and CAD (K), pp. 320ff.

ij, 278, 281, 288, 289. See our remark on ii. 87-94, Also in Akkadian: *like // *like: CAD (K), pp. 322f£.; Erra [.115f.; AGH, pp. 80f.: 69ff.; pp. 118f: 9f.; Maglû 1.25f., 118£,, etc. and for kima, kim&: CAD (K), pp. 367Ef.

ij. 282a-c. See our comment on ii, 117, Also in Ak- kadian: *star // “heaven: En.el. VIL.126 and very often kakkab Samê/Samämi.

ij. 283a. Also in Akkadian: *all // *all: Atra-hasis x Rev. 1.456, Era V.2fr VAB 4 p 146: IL17.

ij. 284d-e. Why should a nice bicolon (Ps. 90: 9) be ruined?

ü, 285a-c. In CTA 3: D.43f. ’imths is parallel to ’iért, not to klt. Moreover, it has a medial meaning: “to fight for”, cf. AOAT 16, p. 90; M. Dijkstra, UE 2 (1970), pp. 333f.

iü.285e. Add CTA 4: I1.24f,

ii. 286a-c. Thus far no real parallelism has been found in Ugaritic. The pair occurs, however, in Akka- dian: *heart // *kidneys: Maglû IIIL.19f; VI.143.

ii. 287. No real parallelism in Ugaritic. The formula is a translation of the Akkadian phrase itti NN minumê Sulmänu, see PRU 3, pp. 13, 15; PRU 4, p. 196.

ij. 287e. Delete 611: 9-10 (cf. UF 2 (1970), p. 316).

ij. 288-289. See our note on ii. 278.

i, 290a. Also in Akkadian: *wing // pinions as well as the reverse, see CAD (A)1, p. 64; (K), p. 186.

ii, 29la, Also in Akkadian: *wing // *wing: EA 356: 5f. E i

ii. 292. Neither in the Ugaritic passage nor in Eecl. 10: 20 knp and ‘p are strictly parallel.

ii, 294. No true parallelism in Ugaritic. The purpor- tedly parallel instances in Hebrew are unconvincing. In Jer. 51: 7 the suffix of myynh indicates that the words a dad In Ps. 75: 9 rather ks //msk(cf. AOAT

‚pe

i, 295a. Also in Akkadian: *cup // “cup: Sumer 13, 117: 136

ij, 295d. If ii. 296F, is true, Is. 51: 17, 21 must be de- leted here.

ii, 296f. It would have been sporting to recognize that scholars like Duhm and Volz, often rebuked by Dahood for their manipulation of the text, did not need the Ugaritic parallelism to perceive that kws is a gloss.

ij, 297a. Also in Akkadian: *throne // country, land: KBo 1, 1: Rev. 75, cf, ABL 260: 5f.

ij, 299a-c. No real parallelism in Ugaritic. The Uga-

ritic expression ks'u mlk is probably a translation of Akkadian kussû Sarrüti.

ii, 300a. Also in Akkadian: *chair // table, plate: Shurpu IL1O1f, 106f,; JCS 22 (1968), p. 26: 28, 37É., 45f.

ii, 300b. Add CTA 3: I1.36f.

i, 30la. Also in Sumerian: silver // gold: Wilcke, Lugalbanda, pp. 92f.: 18, and the reverse: Curse of Agade, 26f., 138f., 245.

Also in Akkadian: *silver // *gold: Gilg. X1.81£,; TCS 2, No. 11, p. 28: 4; JNES 15 (1956), pp. 140f.: 17, etc.

It is, therefore, a trifle too much to speak of “this well-attested Canaanite pair of nouns” (ii. 301i).

ü. 302. Neither Cassuto nor Gevirtz commits the er- ror attributed to them by ii, 302d, They should have been cited only under 301g. The purported genitive con- struction yrq hrs does not exist in Ugaritic (divide: qh ksp wyrq / hrs yd mgqmh, see J. Hoftijzer, BiOr 24 (1967), p. 67). The meaning “gold” for yrq has analo- gies in Akkadian (Hh XII 257; Malku V 165), Epigra- phic South Arabian (Conti Rossini, Chrestomathia, p. 141) and Ethiopic (Fisher, op. cit, p. 104). The Uga- ritic pair, therefore, is yrq // hrs. This is not exactly parallel to Hebrew yrqrq hrs or, for that matter, to Akkadian huräsu arqu.

ii, 303a-c. No true parallelism in Ugaritic. However, silver // price is attested as a pair in Sumerian (Curse of Agade, 181f.). Also *silver // “price in Akkadian: AAA 22, p. 48: [II.18.

ii, 303f. Mi 3: 11 rather parallel, to be added to 303d.

iü, 303Aa. Also in Akkadian: *silver // *shekel: AnBibl 12 (1959), p. 284: 52.

ü 303Ae. In the prose text Jer, 32: 9 we are dealing with ellipsis, not with parallelism. Because the evidence of Am. 8: 5f. is likewise insufficient, there does not exist a convincing parallel in Hebrew.

ü 304a-c. No real poetical parallelism may be as- sumed in these economic texts from Ras Shamra. Com- pare ii. 176, 177.

ü.305d. Jer. 52: 18f. unsatisfactory (vessels).

ü, 306a-c. No poetical parallelism (economic tablets). In Akkadian: orchard // orchard: MAD 5, 8: 8f,

ij. 307c. Rather “Kition”, see M. C. Astour, JESHO 13 (1970), p. 122 and compare Y. Aharoni, BiAr 31 (1968), pp. 13,

iü,3lla. Also in Akkadian: on‚to // in (ana // ina): Atra-hasis II. iii. 48f.; Erra IV.85f.

ii, 312, 313, 316, 318. See our remarks on ii. 87-94, 276ff., 278E£.

iü,312a,. Also in Akkadian: against // against: Shur- pu V-VI154Éf; Erra IIc. 36f.; En.el. IV.83f,

ii, 312d-e. Although Dahood's translation is by no means impossible, it is a disadvantage that mwt is not balanced in his rendering.

iü,314a, Also in Akkadian: “truly // *truly or the

like (asseverative or precative l[a] // l[a]): Enel. IV. 85; Atra-hasis III.49ff.; Erra IV.89f., etc.

MMT MM MEURINDENOAOCKPINAAATELIGOCONE EEEN EDAGGOOR RAAD EIKES OTA EAM NOOC IRH HANK KIEK AIT RR GUR HK MIO ITN

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 17

ü | CTA 15: IL14£, with i,314b. When we compare Ne Ae!

17: 1.24f., it seems fairly certain to us t is involved . i jj. 316a. Also in Akkadian: fo // open L.16f. b

H,317a. Also in Akkadian: “nof // *not: EA 356: 30f.; Maglâ V.141£; Vv11.183. dl

ji, 318e-h. Ps. 90: 8: m'wr is fully accepta En se Prov. 15: 30 and also our remark on ü, 9e, g. ke 22: read mmt ym and interpret this as “the place O death (cf. Ug. mmt) of the sea (or: the West) ; com-

are AOAT 16, pp. 171, 186. Ps. 76: 12: mwr’ is a clear Ee of abstractum pro concreto, a phenomenon De which Dahood and his pupils have proved to be tho- roughly acquainted. See Is, 8: 13. Finally, Job 29: ie mw'sh is quite normal, see KBL s.v. Thus not a single Hebrew example is unquestionable.

ii, 319a. Add a reference to ii. 426.

ii, 319f. See ii. 426!

H,322. ‘The meaning “victor” for Ugaritic Pan is far from established. See above p. 3, n. 6. Neither in Ps, 75: 7 nor in Hab. 1: 12 is Dahood's conjecture a real improvement. À

i.323a. Also in Sumerian: heart // liver: Dumuzi's Dream, 73. k

Also in Akkadian: “heart // “liver, interior: Desc. of Ishtar, 31, 96; BWL, pp. 50f: 50f.; Maglû V.125f.; AGH, pp. 120f.: B.6; pp. 132f,: 51£,, and the reverse: Erra 1.14.

ji. 324a. Also in Sumerian: heart // heart: Falken- stein, SG I, pp. 108, 110: 64f; Lugalbanda, 338f.

Also in Akkadian: *heart /) “heart: Erra IV113É,; Maglä V.148.

i.325a-c. In CTA 4: IV.60ff. lbn lbnt is parallel to ‘ahd "ult, not to bny. Therefore it is merely a case of collocation. Since the same is attested in Akkadian (En.el. VI.60, 63), the statement of ii. 325f. needs revi- sion.

i. 326a-c. The same collocation is attested in Akka- dian, see CAD (E), pp. 274f.

i, 327. No real parallelism is attested in Ugaritic. In Ez. 31: 15 lbnwn balances hédh, just as ‘dn is parallel to lbnwn in 31: 16. Ps. 104: 16 °rzy lbnwn // ‘sy yhwh. Thus no true parallel can be found in Hebrew either.

i,328a. For Akkadian parallels see E. Lipifski, Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 2 (1971), pp. 17É.

ii, 328e-f. It is curious that Dahood fails to discuss the variant Senir // Lebanon in Ez, 27: 5, reversed in Cant. 4: 8,

330. The purported Ugaritic parallel is not valid. The lbä and kfnt in the administrative tablet PRU 5, 101: 16 and 18 are totally different entries, as indicated by a line dividing them.

ii, 33la. Also in Akkadian: *to clothe // *to clothe: Gilg. 11.67-70.

ii 332a. Also in Akkadian: bread // wine: ABL 78: 3, and wine // bread: ARM 5, 5: 4-6.

ii, 333e, In our opinion the construction is chiastic:

lam // yyn and Smn // lhm. i, 334a-i, The verbs should be rendered: “to give to

eat’ and “to give to drink’ because in the G-stem 5qy can only have a causative meaning (see AOAT 16, p. 72 and R. Degen, WO 7 (1973), p. 174). Then it may be observed that the pair fo give to eat // to give to drink is also attested in Sumerian: Lugalbanda, 249; Römer, SKI, pp. 210, 212: 10. And also in Akkadian: to give to eat // *to give to drink: Gilg. Vll.ii. 36f.; BWL, pp. 102f.: 61; Maglû 1.103f,

ü,335a. For Mesopotamian parallels see our com- ment on ii. 29.

i, 337a. Also in Sumerian: before // behind: Dumu- zi's Dream, 160f,

Also in Akkadian: “before // behind: AGH, pp. 60f.: B.16; pp. 62f.: A31.

i, 338. There is no real difference between this pa- ragraph and ii. 464. If, however, a separate Akkadian pa- rallel is wanted, we might point to Shurpu I1.98f.

ii. 340a. Also in Akkadian: garment // girdle: Gilg. VILii. 6.

ú.34la. Also in Akkadian: *to take // “to take: AGH, pp. 78f.: 54f.

ü,342a-d. The root 3t which is attested in Ugaritic is doubtlessly preferable. If biblical parallelism can be used as an argument, it is apt to point out that 5yf // Iqh occurs in Prov. 24: 32.

ii, 342A. The different order of stichoi in CTA 14: 17Ef. renders Dahood's proposal very improbable, Since no Hebrew parallel pair exists either, the paragraph rests on a shaky foundation.

ii. 344a-d. It can safely be assumed that flk bmdbr “she (‘Attartu) went out in the desert” in PRU 5, 1: Obv. 3 is in no way parallel to Obv. 5 wtglt thmt ‘1[yt] “and the Upper Flood let fall snow” (cf. UE 1 (1969), p. 182).

ii. 345a. Also in Sumerian and Akkadian: what? // what?: Pettinato, Menschenbild, p. 75: 16f., 19£.; ABRT II, 19: 8,

ii, 347a, Also in Akkadian: *to smite, to beat // *to smite, to beat: Gilg. X11.25, 27; BWL, pp. 58f.: 9, 11.

340. It has been demonstrated that Ug. mf and Hebr. mth in these places designate arrows.

ú.350. Also in Akkadian: rain // dew: Wiseman, Vassal-Treaties, pp. 69f.: 530-532.

ü.351f. Jer. 8 23 is not valid, see ii. 495.

ĳ.353a. Add CTA 5: VIL23f. (+ par.), see AOAT 16, p. 194. Also in Akkadian: who? / /Jwho?: AGH, pp. 72f.: B. 9#f; Maglû IV.3.

ü.354a-c. Also in Sumerian: water // oil: Gudea Cyl, A.XI.15E; BIX.5f.

Also in Akkadian: *water // “oil: Gilg. 11.102-105; Descent of Ishtar, 128. |

i, 356. De Moor's argument to the effect that Slm does not mean “peace” but “peace-offering" in this pas- sage remains unrefuted (AOAT 16, p. 104), Moreover, mlhmt is not really parallel to Slm, but to ddym! There- fore the pair is non-existent in Ugaritic and for the time being De Moor persists in his ‘vagary”’. He is happy to note that in this respect he is backed up by many other Ugaritologists (AOAT 16, p. 103).

18 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

ii. 357a. Also in Akkadian: king // lord: Shurpu ILO1Ë,

IL, 358. Contrary to Dahood's contention mlk and ’rs do not form a parallel pair in Ps. 10: 16, 1 Sam. 2: 10 and Ps. 48: 3. Ugaritic did not furnish a case of real pa- rallelism either.

IL. 359e. In Ps. 138: 5 drky yhwh is parallel to kbwd yghwh, not to mlky ’rs of the preceding verse. In Ps. 102: 23 we have ‘mym // mmlkwt and in Job 29: 25 rs // mlk. This invalidates the Hebrew evidence.

ij. 360a. Also in Akkadian: *fo sit // king, cf. CAD (A)2, ps 394,

ü. ge Also in Akkadian: king // king: Atra-hasis „JOLÉ,

iü,361b. PRU 2, 5: 6-8 and 7: 5-7 cannot be con-

strued as instances of real parallelism.

i, 362a-c. No poetical parallelism in Ugaritic. PRU 2, 12 is a letter. But if it were permitted to cite this as evidence, similar Akkadian passages could easily be

found (see CAD (A)2, pp. 244ff.).

iü, 363. No real parallelism is attested in Ugaritic. Because nobody but Dahood would dream of rendering wlm w'd in Ps. 145: 1 as “O Eternal and Everlasting” (meaning God, but see Ps. 145: 21), the whole para- graph is futile.

ii. 365a-c. Because the correct rendering would be “king” // “judge, ruler”, we may compare Sumerian king // judge: Falkenstein, SG I, pp. 18, 24: 137f. ee in Akkadian: king // judge: Or 36 (1967), p. 2,

ij, 368a-c. In the letter PRU 5, 59: 11. msrm and sr are merely collocated.

ij, 369a-c. As is evident from the suffix, 'apnthn in the administrative document PRU 2, 121: 3 cannot be regarded as parallel to mrkbt in line 1,

ij, 371d. In Ps. 106: 28 bl and mfym are not parallel because 28b is the consequence of 28a. See De Moor's study: Räpi'u de Heiland en de Refaïm, Gereformeerd ne al Tijdschrift 73 (1973), pp. 129-146 (pp.

ü.372a. Also in Akkadian: *fo die // to live: Maqlû 119; 11.93, and the reverse: BWL, pp. 40f.: 39.

ü.373. The paragraph rests on circular reasoning. In Psalms L, pp. 98f. Dahood emended the admittedly difficult text of Ps. 17: 14 on the basis of the Ugaritic parallelism between mt and hlg. Now he asserts that the pair is also attested in Hebrew.

iü,374a. Also in Akkadian: *to die // “to die: Erra IV.76E, 85E,

iü.374A. No real parallelism exists on the Ugaritic side. In Job 24: 12 mêtim (a very old conjecture!) is pa-

rallel to hllym, not to nps. Nevertheless the paragraph

can be upheld, because a clear case of antithetical paral- lelism between nps and mwt occurs in Prov. 8: 36, un- noticed by Dahood.

iü. 375. A whole stichos is missing between the lines containing the Ugaritic words. See UF 1 (1969), p. 180 for the strophic structure. Therefore we have no way of ascertaining whether nbl[m] is parallel to s°. Because

ee er CE WA CHE RENEE EERDE KERREMANS

Jer. 48: 12 does not furnish a case of true parallelism, we would drop the paragraph.

ü.376a,e. In CTA 142: 2, 8 and U 5 V, 9: Obv. 21f. certainly not parallelism, but only collocation. Also in Sumerian: honey // oil: Gudea Cyl. A.XVIII.20, BJII17, 22.

i, 377. Since even the p of conjectured p[Fih] in CTA 15: [11.26 is uncertain, we would not have had the audacity to include it in a manual like this. The Hebrew noun pl’ never means “dedication". Only the hiph. of the verb occurs in the transferred sense of making a very special vow.

iü, 380d-e. Now also accepted by J. Vlaardinger- broek, Psalm 68, Amsterdam 1973, p. 43.

ü,382a. Also in Akkadian: *to rest // “to rest: Shurpu V-V1.187Ef,

ij, 385a-c. The Ugaritic nm is not parallel to fb, but to gzr tb ql, see De Moor, AOAT 16, p. 76 and New Year, II, p. 19, n. 75, p. 21, n. 79.

iü, 386a-c. In this administrative list from Ugarit we do not encounter parallelism, but only collocation,

iü. 387A. For the reasons stated (AOAT 16, pp. 170f.) we are unable to accept this proposal.

ii, 39la. The same pair occurs in Akkadian: “throat, etc. // *throat, etc: BWL, p. 288: A.4f.; En.el. IV.17É.; Gilg. X1.25f., etc.

iü, 392. The almost identical phrase w pn mlk nr bn in CTA 50: 17£. shows that w pn öps nr by in PRU 2, 15: Of. is definitely not parallel to w'um tsmh m'ab in

1. 10É.

ij 393a. Also in Akkadian: to sacrifice // *to lift up (hands): Gilg. IL. 9.

iü. 394a. Also in Akkadian: *to lift up // *to lift up: Gilg. X1.50f; Erra V.33f. Ee ne

ü 394Ad. The prescriptions of Ex. 23: 1 are not strictly parallel.

ii. 395a, Also in Akkadian: *fo kiss // to embrace: Gilg. I.v.21f.

ü 397, Because Gen. 49: 17 cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence, as conceded in ii, 397h, neither Uga- ritic nor Hebrew offers a clear case of parallelism.

ii 398a. This collocation is also attested in Akka- dian, e.g. Gilg. VI.20; AGH, pp. 116f.: B.5 and Von Soden, AHW, p. 994,

ii, 400c. Read: “to be numbered"’.

ii, 400d. lt is impossible to take mét as a 2 sq. masc. perfect of mwt, as has been demonstrated by De Moor, BiOr 26 (1969), p. 107 and AOAT 16, p. 186. To the evidence collected there, we may now add Claremont RS 1957: 702, 5, as explained by P. D. Miller in AnOr 48 (1971), p. 39 and by Dahood himself (!), ibid, p. 52.

ü. 4O1f, Num. 23: 10 only if the emendation propo- sed in BHKS3 is accepted.

ii, 404e, Add YJ. Hoftijzer, BiOr 24 (1967), p. 67.

iü, 406. In CTA 17: 1.35, ‘bdh is not parallel to gzr, because the latter is part of the standard pair dn’il mt

rp'i // ger mt henmy. In Ps. 89: 20 ‘zr balances bhwr, not ‘bdy in vs. 21.

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 19

i jan: * “to cross: ii, 407a. Also in Akkadian: “fo cross // Gilg. X.ü. 21-23; ArOr 17/1, 204: 17.

ji, 408e. Dahood's conjecture for Hos. 13: 2 is far

inci e it implies that idols would have from convincing becaus p te fe

ed as sacrificial lambs. EE eten of ii. 408f Greenfield speaks of a pos- sibility only. B

i, 400, The Ugaritic noun ‘d means “dais”, as shown in AOAT 16, p. 161. CTA 23: 12 precludes the rende- ring “seat”. In Ps. 89: 30 I'd clearly balances Ì wlm d / mmnt (vs. 29) and kymy Smym, whereas zr'w is para'le to ksw (cf. 1 Ki. 2: 33). Therefore we continue to ren- der “for ever’. Because no one rules a dais (or a throne) Dahood's proposal for Jer. 22: 30 cannot be taken se- riously.

ü, HoE. Also in Akkadian: “unto //_ “unto: Gilg. X1.244f, en

ji, 411. No real parallel occurs in Ugaritic. We do not understand why only 1019: 6 has been cited, d ‘Im recurring in several other tablets (see Whitaker s Con- cordance, pp. 486f.). In Ps. 138: 8 not ‘d, but b'd!

ji, 412. In our opinion the Ugaritic passage is much too fragmentary to allow oneself such a. hypothesis. In Job 18: 4 it is preferable to translate to forsake, to abandon”, deriving the form from the different, but well-known Hebrew verb ‘zb.

i.413. No parallelism in Ugaritic. Because it seems very difficult to us to prove that there exists a_ strait parallelism” (so ii. 413£) between Ps. 48: 9 and Ps. 48: 15, we do not accept the paragraph as valid, in spite of ü Intro 5d.

ii. 415a-c. The words are not used in parallelism in Ugaritic.

H.415d-e. In no Semitic religion we could find a derivative of m’d being used as a divine epithet. We prefer the traditional rendering of Ps. 46: 2, In any case m°d is not balanced by ‘z. C£. O. Loretz, BibZ 16 (1972), pp. 245ff.

ii. 417a. Also in Akkadian: “over, on // in: Erra IV. 16; V.54f.

i.418-420. See our remarks on ii. 87-94, 276Ïf, 278E£., 312Ef. The same sequence is also attested in Ak- kadian, e.g. Gilg. Liv.18, 20; v.28ff.; vi9f; Erra 178f.

ii, 42la. Also in Akkadian: *to ascend // “to des- cend: Erra 1.184; Atra-hasis 1.17f; JNES 15 (1956), pp. 140f.: 22, etc, see CAD (E), p. 117. And the re- verse: Descent of Ishtar, 85.

ii, 422a. Also in Akkadian: *to ascend // “to sit, to dwell: Atra-hasis IIlL.iii, 48f.

ii. 423a. Also in Akkadian: “to ascend // *to ride: BWL, pp. 218f.: Rev. IV 15f.

ij. 424. No real parallelism in Ugaritic. Because 1 Ki, 17: 19 is a prose-text without true parallelism, whereas in Is. 57: 6-8 the verb ‘Ih can be said at most to be col- ee with the noun mökb, the whole paragraph lacks

orce.

ü.426. See iü, 319f! The words are part of two to- tally independent standard phrases and can in no way be considered parallel or even collocated.

ü.427a. Also in Akkadian: with // with: Gilg. Li.

30ff.; Atra-hasis 1.200f.; Erra IV 85E; Maglû V1I1.43-46; Shurpu V-V1.188Ef; AGH, pp. 26f.:. 30f., etc.

i. 428. Only a person in deliberate search of Uga- ritisms might be tempted to change ‘ammön to ‘immönü in Ps. 83: 8.

429. The problems of Job 22: 21 (see 429e) can be solved in a simpler way by reading tebü’äh.

ii, 430a-d. See also M. Dahood, Bibl 43 (1962), pp. 363f. However, we are not convinced that ‘ahr in the phrase ’ahr nkl yrh yéch (CTA 24: 32.) can be taken to mean with". In our opinion this is a so-called con- structio pfegnans, like Hebrew znh (m)’hry, ‘zr ’hry and hyh ’hr(y), see above on ii. 20. lt is also possible — and this at least should have been mentioned — that ’ahr is an adverb “afterwards” (so Gordon, Driver, Aistleitner, Herrmann).

i.43la. CTA 6: 1.12 should be regarded as parallel to CTA 6: 1.14.

ü.431A. We cannot accept this paragraph as valid because ‘mgq is not balanced by qr(y)t alone, but by bn qr(y)tm “between the two cities”. No real Hebrew parallel exists either.

ii, 432a-d. The interpretation of the verbs is not as simple as Dahood would have it (cf. AOAT 16, pp. 93E).

ii. 433a. Also in Sumerian and Akkadian: “eye // *eye: CT 17, 33: 25f.

ii, 436. The paragraph does not meet Dahood's own requirements (ü Intro 11d) and should be deleted.

1. 437a. No real parallelism is attested in Ugaritic. The pair fo answer // “to hear occurs, however, in Ak- kadian: Maglû 1.56f.

ú.438£. In Prov. 15: 1 Swb hi, balances ‘Ih hi, and has the entirely different meaning of “to appease”.

ii. 438g. In Hos. 7: 10 Swb means “to return to’.

ii. 440d. Elsewhere De Moor will set forth argu- ments in favour of the rendering “eyelashes”.

ji. 443a. Also in Sumerian: wood // wood: Gudea Cyl. A.VIL14E£; Curse of Agade, 238f.

ii. 444. As far as we know all other commentators took ‘sm simply as a plural of ‘s “tree”. M. C. Astour, JNES 27 (1968), p. 25, followed by A. Caquot, Syria 46 (1969), p. 250, rendered Sht by shrub".

ii 447e-f. If the -h of b'rypyh refers back to ’rs, it is impossible that b‘rypyh balances Prs in Is. 5: 30.

i,447A. There is insufficient reason to assume that [ Jet in U 5 V, 9: Rev. 9 should be read as [‘té]rt and not as [dk]}et, [hplet, [at]rt or [ké]rt, all attested Uga- ritic deities. Moreover, if Sgr is parallel to anything, then to 'ifm.

ii. 448a-d. It can be defended that gr and ’il (spn) are used in parallelism, cf. UF 2 (1970), p. 356.

ii, 450. It would be crass folly to accept the rendering “chill” for hlb in Ps. 81: 17. See Ps. 147: 14!

ji. 451la. Also in Akkadian: mountain //_ mountain: Erra IV.142f.

ii. 452. It can hardly be doubted any longer that the root is nr in Ugaritic. See now AOAT 16, p. 224 and A. EF, Rainey, Leshonenu 35 (1970-71), pp. 11-15.

20 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI N° 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

ü,453. In CTA 10: IIL12É, the text is too damaged to warrant any conclusion. With regard to U 5 V, 9: Obv. 5-6 it has to be noted that the divine names Smm and grm are separated by those of five other deities. Therefore Ugaritic does not support the paragraph thus far, even though the parallel pair heaven // mountains occurs in the poetry of Mesopotamia.

ü.454e. Read Ps. 50: 10-11.

ii. 454g. Add a reference to Dahood, Psalms 1, pp. 307f.

ü.455a. Also in Akkadian: “mouth // “tongue: Maglâ 1.28, 31; 111.94; VIL109f., 116f; Sumer 13, 93: 17. Also in Aramaic: *mouth // *tongue: Ahikar, 156.

ii. 456a. Also in Akkadian: *mouth // “mouth: Maglâ I9f; V.145ff. Also in Aramaic: “mouth // “mouth: Ahikar, 99.

i, 457a. Also in Akkadian: *mouth // “teeth: BWL, pp. 52f.: 24, 26.

i,457e. In Mi, 3: 5 rather parallelism.

ii. 458a. Also in Akkadian: *mouth // “lips: BWL, pp. 34f.: 70f; pp. 42f.: 84f; pp. 100f: 26f; pp. 104E: 131; AGH, pp. 42f.: A.33; Shurpu 11,63, etc. Also the reverse: BWL, pp. 52f.: 22, 24,

iü, 459. The words are not really parallel in the Uga- ritic letters cited. The same “pair” occurs in Akkadian letters. Because Ruth 4: 1 is also a prose text, nothing warrants the assumption that the words were ever used in poetical parallelism.

iü. 460A. The Ugaritic expression occurs many times more. Nowhere, however, pnh is directly parallel to zrh. With regard to the purported Hebrew parallel it should be observed that Ug. zr corresponds to shr in Hebrew! Finally, we see no compelling reason to abandon the received interpretation of Ps. 97: 3,

ij, 462a,d. Also in Akkadian: *front // back: 4 R 61: i. 24; ABL 119: 18; ZA 51, 136: 42; MIO 1, 72: 6. i. 464a. Compare ii, 338! Also in Akkadian: “face // gee Gilg. Xi. 476, ii. 5£.; Erra 1.124f.; AGH, pp. 90: 2E,

ij, 464d. Joel 2: 6 rather ‘mym // kl pnym. Nah. 1: 5f, equally unconvincing.

ii, 465a. The Ugaritic text has lpnnh.

ij, 466a-d. For the reasons enumerated in AOAT 16, p. 137, we cannot accept the translation “face” for pnt. The strangest thing is that Dahood himself renders “corner” in ii. 468!

ij. 467a. Also in Akkadian: lower part, Feet // “face: Gilg. Liv.30f. É

ij, 469. The uninitiated would not suspect that the Ugaritic “evidence” is taken from a badly broken pas- sage. In fact, the crucial word npr may just as well be interpreted as “fowls” (cf. CTA 6: 11.37) or even as “heart, mind” (so J. B. Bauer, AfO 18 (1957), p. 130).

ü, 470. Again the Ugaritic passage is too fragmen- tary to warrant a judgment on parallelism. Because Ku- ritu did not change his vow, it is even unlikely that én in ’utn would be a form (what form?) of the verb tny. Why, for example, would a rendering like the following be excluded: “Either your two vows you fulfill or [ will

break …”? As a matter of fact, Kuritu did take two vows (CTA 14: TV.205f.).

With regard to Ps. 89: 34f, it may be observed that the reading ’äsir has very good papers.

ü.47le. Prov. 29: 22 and 23 are independent pro- verbs. Zeph. 3: 11 does not convince.

i. 472a-d. Fisher interprets pth and ’ub'a as nouns (UE 3 (1971), p. 356) which would seem preferable.

ii. 473e. Ps. 78: 25 should not have been cited here, see ii. 475d.

i. 474. This paragraph must be deleted since it is already covered by ii, 166,

i. 475a. It should be noted that no real Ugaritic pa- rallel exists. Furthermore, others have advocated the meaning “game” (De Moor, UE 1 (1969), p. 169; 2 (1970), p. 347; H. P. Rüger, UF 1 (1969), pp. 203; see also, however, S. E. Loewenstamm, UF 3 (1971), pp. 357Ef.).

ij. 475b. Read 601: 1-2.

ii, 476a-d. The compound deity sdq mör (cf. M. Li- verani, in: Studi … A. Volterra 6 (1969), pp. 55-74; De Moor, UF 2 (1970), p. 228) could have been men- tioned here. The pair justice // *righteousness is also attested in Akkadian, see Von Soden, AHW, s.v. kittu, misaru.

i, 477a-c. Because the very common formula ysu gh wysh is mostly used without a parallel phrase, it is utterly wrong to assert that in the place cited under 477b nà’ would balance shq.

ü.478. The new text U 5 V, 12: Rev. 2 authorizes the deletion of Dahood's definition “gaze, glance" for Ugaritic sp. “Purity” is doubtlessly better (see De Moor, UF 2 (1970), p. 321).

i, 479a-d. The parallelism is between srrt spn and ars.

ii. 479f. In our opinion not parallel. See also our comment on ii, 358i.

ij. 481-482. Because the parallelism is between qdm and tk pnm, one of these paragraphs (in our opinion 482) must be given up.

i. 485a. Also in Akkadian: voice, thunder // *light- ning: AChAdad 6: 5, 8; 7: 24; 19: 49,

i.485b. Read CTA 4: V.70-71.

iü.487a. Also in Akkadian: voice // voice: Atra- basis S.iv.6f.

ij. 488. Already in 1967 it was demonstrated by W. von Soden that the Ugaritic root is qw/yl (SVT 16 (1967), p. 295, see also De Moor, UF 1 (1969), p. 173). The Hebrew noun qälön should be derived from the en- tirely different root qly, a by-form of qll. Therefore it is unwarranted to compare the two.

i, 489. This paragraph is unacceptable for the same

reason as that mentioned under ii. 488: Ugaritic ql and Hebrew qll are unrelated.

ij, 490a. Also in Akkadian: to rise // to rise: Erra L45f., 132£,

iü, 491. PRU 2, 106: 5f., 16E, and 107: 1 prove that 'iqn’u in CTA 23: 21 is the very common word “lapis- blue”, not a verb “to be zealous”. This as well as a

nn er eee ee ere IE RTE KR RRT KR RTC MOOR CHE MACE p KE 4 A MMS F ALMS kh J 4. Le U NE MAA RAM KRS bf

ge ""

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 21

5 found Ootton of the colours Smt and fn may be fot En Moors De Year with Canaanites and Israelites, Part 2, Kampen 1972, p. 21. 1 p ji, 492a, c. Not ’il “EI, but ’ilm “gods”! No real pa-

rallelism exists in Ugaritic where thus far the Canaanite

ity 'il qn ’rs is not attested. ien. In an objective account the critical Ee of M. H. Pope, JBL 85 (1966), pp. 455f. would not be missing. ê 4

i ‚f. If a verb qwr is hidden in Prov. 8: 3, it Eer in 8: 4. With regard to Ps. 68: 27 Dahood's proposal is much more attractive.

ij. 499-500. Since the parallelism is between qryt and bt hbr, at least one of these paragraphs is superfluous. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether the isolated Ugaritic qryt “city” of CTA 3: B.7 (replaced by grt in 1, 20!) is the same word as the qryt of the Krt-passages. In Psalms III, p. 34 Dahood appeared to be a protagonist of the rendering ““granary” (= Akkadian qaritu). Whether one connects bé hbr with Akkad. bit hiburni or with bit hubüri, ““granary”’ is surely preferable for qryt in the Krt-passages. In any case hbr cannot mean com- pany” (so Dahood in ii. 500), because this is hbr in Ugaritic, as Dahood knows perfectly well (see, eg, i. 158e). Therefore the validity of both paragraphs must be challenged.

ii, 500A. Does the translation “face” mean that Da- hood. has lost the perfect grasp of biblical and Ugaritic usage displayed in Or 39 (1970), p. 378?

For our part we would propose still another possible interpretation of CTA 12: 1.33. The word pn could be a constr.inf. of pny, resulting in a usage to be compared with pnh b in Job 6: 28 and Eecel. 2: 11: “to pay attention to”. Then a literal translation of the noun clause would be: “and to them (would be) Ba“lu's paying-of-atten- tion”'. In other words, the beasts were made attractive to Ba‘lu, which explains his reactions in Il. 38f.

ji, 50la. Also in Akkadian: *horn // *horn: AfO 13, 46: 11.7.

i.502a. Also in Sumerian: horn // head: Falken- stein, SG 1, pp. 14, 22: 71f,

iü.503a. Also in Sumerian: city // city: Curse of Agade, 215.

Also in Akkadian: city // city: Maglû 1.42f.; Shurpu 1L.95Ef.; JNES 15 (1956), pp. 137f: 96.

ii. 504a-c. No poetical parallelism occurs in these administrative documents. Nevertheless *bow // *quiver is an attested pair in Akkadian: AGH, pp. 116: B4. ee zelver // *bow: Gilg. 11241f.; AGH, pp. 1186:

ü,504d. In Lam. 3: 12f, rather colocation. ij, 505a-c. No true poetical parallelism may be ex- pected in this administrative document. However, the

pair bow // arrow is attested in Sumerian poetry: Gudea Cyl. B.XIV 4f,

Also in Akkadian: *bow // *arrow: Erra 1.89f; Zû 11.61; AGH, pp. 116f,: B4.

mie in Aramaic: *bow // “arrow: Ahikar, 126, 128,

ü, 506a-d. No real poetical parallelism is to be found

in this administrative text. Moreover, in trying to define the meaning of Ugaritic nfq we cannot proceed any fur- ther as yet than “a piece of armory'. Because in Ez. 39: 9 n$q occurs next to hsym “arrows” it has to be feared that the situation is not much better with regard to He- brew.

ii. 507a-c. No poetical parallelism occurs in the Uga- ritic texts cited. How many times more should it be pointed out that Ug. ql° has a different meaning? B. Landsberger, AfO 18 (1957-58), p. 379, n. 8; A, B. Rainey, JNES 24 (1965), p. 22; Leshonenu 30 (1965- 66), p. 272 (= UF 3 (1971), p. 172); J. Nougayrol, PRU 6, p. 155, n. 3: CAD (K), p. tall argued convin- cingly that Ugaritic ql° can only be a “‘shield”, Although it is true that E. Salonen, StOr 33 (1965), pp. 134f. as- serted that Akkad. kabäbu, with which ql° is equated in Ugarit (eg. CTA 119), would mean “sling’”’, he was unable to furnish any conclusive proof. Rainey rightly observed that slings cannot be used effectively on cha- riots. Moreover, according to BIN 9, 329: 13 and 15 eight ox hides would yield 32 normal kabäbu's and 2 small ones. T'his is understandable only if a kabäbu was an object much larger than a sling.

ii. 508b. Read CTA 17: VL21, 23.

i, 509. In the Ugaritic passages cited r’is and brk are only collocated, not parallel. Because it is absurd to state that there exists any kind of parallelism between the two in Jud. 16: 19 the whole paragraph must be abandoned.

ji. 513. Because Dahood’s interpretation of the word dkym is a remote possibility at most (for other ideas see AÖOAT 16, p. 227) and since no true Hebrew parallel exists, the paragraph cannot be accepted.

i.514. Neither Ug. rb(b) nor Hebr. rb means “(to be) aged”, see J. C. Greenfield, JAOS 89 (1969), p. 177. In Akkadian literature rabû can denote the great- ness of gods and kings, and sometimes majority or ado- lescence, but never great age. Time and again it has been observed that Ug. dqn in this context must be “old age” (bibliography: AOAT 16, p. 112). With these re- strictions the paragraph may stand, although we empha- size that no strict parallelism is attested in Ugaritic.

i.515a-d. As far as rb(b) is concerned, see under ii, 514. Dahood’s translation of Job 26: 3 cannot be en- dorsed because it is contrary to the train of thought. See vs. 2.

ii. 517a. Also in Akkadian: “great // “great: Shurpu 11.35f.

i,518. It is far from clear that rbb is parallel to ist in the'tiny fragment PRU 5, 3: If, Because no Hebrew parallel exists either, the paragraph does not convince us.

i,519a-d. See our note on i, 44.

i.520a. Also in Akkadian: wind // rain: En.el. V.50. :

iü. 520e-f. These references must be deleted, because brqym is parallel to rwh, not to mtr.

ii,521. De Moor himself wrote in AOAT 16, p. 133: vrfhese lines are very difficult and my interpretation cannot claim reliability”. Further on he pointed to “an attractive alternative interpretation” by A, van Selms, UF 2 (1970), p. 264. Meanwhile, a third possibility,

22 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

closely related to that of De Moor, has been defended by J. Hoftijzer, UF 4 (1972), pp. 155f. In any case it is premature to adopt De Moor's tentative translation in a manual like that under discussion.

ij. 522a-d. The words are not used in parallelism in the Ugaritic letter PRU 2, 19, Line 8 is separated from line 9 by a horizontal line. Moreover, Dahood omits a word from line 9 (dt). In our opinion a more adequate rendering would be: “The wish Í expressed, my brother, my friend has itl Now may he give it to his brother, his friend, his eternal friend!'. We contend that the ending -nn of yfnnn must contain a suffix, as is always the case. The pair “friend // “friend is also attested in Akkadian, see Von Soden, AHW, p. 998 s.v. ru.

ii, 523a. Also in Akkadian: hungry // *thirsty: RB 59, 246: 63; and to be hungry // “to be thirsty: BWL, pp. 144f.: 16; and “to be thirsty // hunger: Atra-hasis II.iv.21f,

iü. 524a-c. It should be noted that rp’'um in CTA 6: VI 45, 20: Al, B6 and 21: A3 is a designation of the spirits of the dead. In U 5 V, 2: Obv. 1, however, rp’u is an epithet of Ba'lu. See J. C. de Moor, Räpi’u de Heiland en de Refaïm, in: Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 73 (1973), pp. 129-146,

Thus we may cite the Akkadian pair “gods // spirits: Bab 12, pl. 3: 36.

ü. 524d. In Sir. 38: 9 yrp’ is not parallel to ’! but to bhwly<k>. Therefore no true parallel exists in He- brew.

ü525. The Ugaritic word*rs balances grds, as in CTA 14: 1.10f. Because no real parallelism is attested in Hebrew either, the paragraph is better deleted. Inciden- tally, Hebr. rês is from rws, not r5s. Cf. M. Weippert, GGA 216 (1964), p. 188, n. 26.

ij. 526a-d. No real parallelism is found in the Uga- ritic document. Moreover, different interpretations have been proposed: J. C. Greenfield, JAOS 89 (1969), p. 177; M. Liverani, in: Ugaritica VI, Paris 1969, p. 378. See also A. F. Rainey, UF 3 (1971), pp. 1594.

ii 527a. Also in Akkadian: “flesh // *blood: CT 15, 38: K.8567: 2; 16, 14: IV.26f; BWL, pp. 44f.: 92.

iü,53la, Also in Babylonian: *seven // “eight: Bab. 12, 40: 1É.

i.533a. See our remark on iü, 514. iü. 534b,d. It is even more hazardous to state that

Sd is parallel to ym in CTA 3: B42f., 19: VI.205 and to dissociate the expression ‘alp öd of these passages from the very frequent 'alp 5d “a thousand Siddu" (CTA Teds D.82, F.17; 4: V.86, 118; VIJL24; 17: V.9;

i, 535a. No poetical parallelism in Ugaritic, but the pairs field // orchard and orchard // field occur also in Akkadian; Shurpu VIII.48, 71,

ii, 536a, Also in Sumerian: field // steppe: Falken- stein, SG 1, pp. 17, 24: 120f. ee

ij, 53/a. Also in Sumerian: field // field: cf. De Moor, New Year II, p. 19, n. 74.

ij, 538e-f. Not even a distant parallelism can be de- fended because, contrary to Psalms III, p. 287, behind and before in Ps, 139: 5 does not “secondarily suggests"

west and east. The words must be taken literally, as ap- pears from very similar expressions in Akkadian prayers: LKA 82: 5; AGH, pp. 60f.: B.16; pp. 62f.: A31, cf. pp. 50f.: A.123f.

ü. 54le. The paragraph is not valid because in Is. 57: 7 we do not have ökb “to lie down", but mskb “bed” which is not parallel to ‘lyt.

ü542e. Read “to bring near’.

iü.542d. Dahood's interpretation can be challenged on several grounds.

iü,546a. Also in Akkadian: *peace // “peace: see E. Salonen, StOr 38 (1967), passim; Sargon 8: 1-3.

ü, 546b. Delete CTA 14: II.130f., VL.274 (not pa- rallelism, but juxtaposition; the meaning is ‘“peace-gifts”’, see De Moor, in: Schrift en Uitleg. Studies … W.H Gispen, Kampen 1970, p. 117).

ü. 546d. Is. 65: 6 not peace // peace, but to recom- pense. In Prov. 7: 14 peace-offerings // to pay.

ii, 547. Neither in Ugaritic nor in Hebrew the words occur in parallelism.

ii 548a. Also in Akkadian: “name // *name: Erra V.51, 56, 61.

Also in Aramaic: “name // *name: Ahikar, 138.

ü549a. Also in Sumerian: to rejoice // to exult: Krecher, SK, pp. 54, 64: 20f.

Also in Akkadian: to rejoice // to exult: BWL, pp. 126f.: 7f; AGH, pp. 40f.: 24; pp. 50f.: 128; pp. 52f.: 12, etc. and the reverse: Descent of Ishtar, 40f.

ü. 550. Apparently it is necessary to spell out again that Herdner's reading proves that the verb is the well- known ‘ahd in both cases, as already noted AOAT 16, p. 94. The text CTA 3: E.30f. runs:

al. ’ahdhm by[mn]y

Pat]b[rh] b. gdlt. ’erkty

“Certainly I will seize it with my right, [erush it?] with my mighty long arm”.

For 'hd bymn see En.el. IV.37 imnaëu usähiz and for ’arkt “long arm" see 4 R 24: No. 1: 36f, and AGH, pp. 116f.: B8. The plural suffix -hm refers back to the plural bhtk.

ü551. The verb smh in CTA 6: IIL.14 has nothing to do with the verb nà’ in III.17 because the latter occurs in the independent formula ys’u gh wysh.

i, 554a. Also in Sumerian: heaven // earth: Gudea, Cyl. AIV.14f; Hallo-Van Dijk, EL, p. 31: 123f.; Lu- galbanda, 119-121, 288; Römer, SKI, pp. 129, 137: 20f.,

etc. N

Also in Akkadian: “heaven // “earth: Gilg. VllL.iv.15; Atra-hasis 1.13É,; Erra 1.109; BWL, pp. 126: 27f.; pp. 134f,: 154f.; AGH, pp. 50f.: A.128; pp. 80f.: 81f., etc. ne pee Also in Akkadian: sea // “heaven: Erra

ij, 556b,d. The statement concerning CTA 19: IV. 186f,, 192É, is grossly erroneous since Smym is balanced not by kbkbm, but by dkbkbm, which simply imposes the rendering “celestials” for Smym (see De Moor, JNES 24 (1965), p. 356; AOAT 16, p. 241). Similar deities have been found in South-Arabia (M. Höfner, WbMy, Abt. 1, Lief, 4, pp. 526f.). Compare also CTA 10: 1,5

dr dt 5mm “the race of heavens".

i sm ing the name” j.557e. The expression zmr Sm to sing nend dio in Ps. 7: 18; 9: 3; 61: 9 and 66: 4. Therefore

we concur with J. Vlaardingerbroek, Psalm 68, Amster-

1973, in rejecting Dahood’s conjecture. ee 559a, Also in Akkadian: “heaven // “heaven: EA 356: 37. se

H.559d. 2 Sam. 21: 10 definitely wrong. N

ii. 560a-g. No real parallelism is attested in lenen The pair “heaven // deep is, however, En , EL tested in Sumerian and Akkadian: TCS Je er Lugalbanda, 78f; Atra-hasis 1.17£, 10165 Ee Le Es AGH, pp. 52f: A12: pp. 62f.: A37; pp. 68f.: A20; pp.

f: B.8f., etc. 1 561a. No poetical parallelism occurs in the Ege tic texts cited. ‘The purported parallel in de 2e gen read by Dahood, is not convincing because o Dt: lee 13. Significantly, Pope did not follow Dahood in this

ect. Gr 564. Because in the Ugaritic economic tablet PRU 2, 127: 3f. the words are also used in mere juxtaposition, the whole paragraph must be deleted. n

Hi, 565. Because the denominative hiphil zyn to give ear” is something quite different from 'zn ear, the pair Sm‘ “to hear” // zn “ear” is attested neither in Hebrew nor in Ugaritic.

566. Sm is definitely not parallel to ‘hb in CTA 5: V.17£, The phrase containing Sm’ belongs to the well- known monostichs (cf. our comment on ii. 126) of Uga- ritic literature. See CTA 4: IV.8; 6: 1.13; 15: IV.14; 16: V1.19; 17: V.21; 19: 11.54. Fortunately, therefore, we do not have to take Dahood's odd translation of Deut. 6: 4 seriously.

ij. 568. So much is certain that we are not dealing with poetical parallelism in the Ugaritic letter cited. Fur- thermore, it is questionable whether Ugaritic hbt may be connected with Hebrew nbt hiphil. The existence of the hiphil in Ugaritic is matter of dispute (Dahood himself seems to prefer the aphel). Also it would be strange that the h of this stem is preserved in wyhbt (and in PRU 5, 62: B.5 thbt). Finally, the meaning of the Ugaritic verb has not yet been established (see Gordon, ur, 19.740).

ü. 569. A large number of Ugaritic discourses begins with an imperative of öm', calling the attention of the listener. In our opinion it is absurd to assume that any verb following this Sm* stands in intentional parallelism with it. See also our comment on ii. 566.

i.570a. No real parallelism exists in Ugaritic, The pair “to hear // to answer is attested in Akkadian: AGH, pp. 72f.: B.3f.

ü.57la. Also in Akkadian: *to hear // “to hear: Erra 162Éf,

ú.572a. Also in Sumerian: gear // month: Gudea, Cyl. BLS, and: month.// gear: Lugalbanda, 259.

Also in Akkadian: “month // *year: AnSt 10, p. 110, 1.32, 34; Shurpu 111115; Maglá VII.142; BWL, p. 36: 106; AGH, pp. 134f,: 72, Therefore, contary to the statement of ii. 572j, this parallelism reveals nothing about the background of Job. E

iü,574a. Also in Akkadian: *ygear // “year: Atra- hasis 1,36£.; Il.iv.9ff.

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 23

ü.576a. Also in Akkadian: to be high // “to be low: Enel. IV.8, and above // “below: Enel. Llf; Atra- hasis ILiv.lf., and “low // high: BWL, pp. 126f.: 31£,; pp. 128f.: 33.

ü.577a. Also in Sumerian: sun // moon: TCS 3, p. 23: 109; p. 170: 50. ì

Also in Akkadian: *sun // moon: Erra IIb.7f.; IIc.14É,

ü.578a. Also in Akkadian: *sun // *sun: Enel. 1.102.

i.579a. Also in Akkadian: “tongue // “lip: Maqlû MILO1Ë.

ij. 582h. A ridiculous overstatement.

ij. 584. In our opinion örs and ’rs are not really pa- rallel in Ps. 80: 10.

ü,585b. Add CTA 4: V.107.

i. 587a. Also in Akkadian: *to drink // “to drink: Atra-hasis IIlii.44; KAR 214, see R. Frankena, Täkul- tu, Leiden 1954, p. 25.

i. 590-591. See our remarks on ii. 87-04, 276fÉ., 278Ef., 312EE., 418ÉE.

ii. 593. One look at Virolleaud's hand-copy and a quick check of CTA, p. 72, n. 8 makes one suspect that Dahood tries to bend the clear evidence of the Ugaritic tablet to his will. At the present state of our knowledge his conjecture for CTA 16: L41É, is unacceptable and the whole paragraph must be deleted.

ü.594d. Actually it was Andrée Herdner who first proposed ‘beauty’. See GLECS 8 (1957-60), p. 92. Al- bright was also preceded by J. C. Greenfield, AcOr 29 (1965), p. 17, n. 2.

i.596. The restoration of CTA 18: IV.16 is entirely gratuitous. It is a mystery to us how Dahood dares to continue advocating his erroneous interpretation of CTA 17: V1L43 after it had been demonstrated in AOAT 16, p. 110 (which Dahood was able to use) that he had overlooked the exact parallel CTA 3: E8. In combina- tion with the idiom of Zech. 1: 3 and Mal. 3: 7 the lh of the latter passage proves that lk in CTA 17: V1.43 is not a form of hlk but simply Ll + k.

Hi. 597a. Also in Akkadian: to return // to return: En.el. IV.24, 26.

ii, 598a. Also in Akkadian: *to break / / *to break: EA 356: 5f.

ii. 601a. Also in Akkadian: table // “cup: Shurpu I1.102f., see also 111.19.

ii. 602a. Also in Akkadian: *three // “four: Sumer

14, 55: 30, 9.

ij. 604a. As noted by C. Roth, VT 12 (1962), pp. 304-309 (but withheld by Dahood) the pair two // three is also attested in Sumerian, Akkadian and Ara- maic.

ij. 607g. Because of the whole tenor of the psalm it is Ee Lale that the poet intended to balance Ps. 106: 20 swr “bull” with Ps. 106: 21 ’l “God.

H.608a. Also in Sumerian: bull // calf: TCS 3, p. 23: 101; Wilcke, Lugalbanda, pp. 75E: 196f. En

j.609a. Also in Akkadian: "six // *seven: Gilg. re w. 14; X1127, 199; TCS 2, No. 9: 4f.; Maglâ TV.109; Sumer 13, 93: 17.

24 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

Chapter III

Without any introduction Jack M. Sasson embarks upon a catalogue of 124 words covering the realms of flora, fauna and minerals. Although this is not indicated by the heading, foodstuffs and beverages have also been included. It is a pity that Sasson decided against an in- troduction because it leaves the reader in the dark about his interpretation of the general guidelines of the Clare- mont project. As we have seen, there might have been occasion to specify and, possibly, to dissent.

Does Chapter III prove that there existed an intimate relationship between Ugaritic and Hebrew with regard to the material culture? Of the 124 words treated, 29 are definitely unacceptable 18), whereas 21 are too un- certain to be regarded as established connections be- tween Ugaritic and Hebrew 19), In all but a few of these cases Sasson himself notices the problem and sounds an appropriate warning. Of the remaining 76 entries, 4 are probably loan-words, partly from non-Semitic langua- ges 20), A further 32 have cognates, often the very same word, in Akkadian, Aramaic and at least one South- Semitic language — they may be termed general Semi- tic?1), Finally, 9 are also attested in Aramaic and South-Semitic 22), 8 also in Akkadian 23) and 1 also in Arabic 2). This means that thus far only 20 of the words collected by Sasson are exclusively attested in North-West Semitic languages, casu quo Hebrew and Ugaritic.

Eloquent though these figures may be, they do not warrant a definitive judgment on the degree of relation- ship between Ugaritic and Hebrew in the areas studied by Sasson. This restriction is necessary because Sas- son apparently did not try very hard to collect everything pertinent to his chapter of RSP I,

In the realm of flora we missed: ‘ah “papyrus(?)”, ’iln, dgn, hdrt, kmn, kpr, lrmn(t), ‘qrbn, gnb, sml, Sr, $smn, [tmr], tph, tm “garlic”, tqd, 325).

In the realm of fauna the following are missing: ’uz, ’'aylt, ’il, ‘alp, 'imr, bhmt, gel, dg, hlmt, ghmr, ynt, Wu, mr’u, nmr, nör, ‘z, ‘kbr, ssw, pri, prt, r'imt, tl, t°Ib,

In the realm of foodstuffs and beverages: bör, dm, din, dnt, hm’at, yn, my, msk, msd, ‘rk, sd, sl°, qmh, Sir. Since lhm and tznt qualified, why not znt, mzn and mlhmt?

In the realm of minerals we encountered only a few omissions: brdl, yrq, prtl, Sn, tn. But then it should be taken into account that in this area the Ugaritic voca- bulary differs considerably from the Hebrew one.

18) They are: 3, 4, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, 23, 32, 33, 42, 43, 44, 51, 56, 58, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 81, 86, 94, 96, 99, 106, 114.

10) Too uncertain: 1, 6, 7, 21, 31, 34, 36, 40, 41, 49, 66, 83, 88, 91, 93 (Hebrew), 95, 98, 103, 116, 122, 124.

20) They are: 46 (Egyptian), 84 (Akkadian), 85 (Hittite), 118 (Hittite).

21) As far as we could ascertain, they are: 2, 5, 10, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29, 50, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 63, 67, 69, 77, 78, 80, 89, 90, 100, 102, 104, 108, 109, 113, 115, 117, 123,

22) They are: 19, 25, 30, 48, 59, 62, 64, 65, 87. doe Also in Akkadian: 11, 12, 13, 54 (donkey), 111, 112, 119,

24) The No, 92,

25) Here and in the following rubrics we merely record Uga- ritic words that to our knowledge have been connected with specific Hebrew words and phrases. We do not express an opinion on these connections, nor do we supplement them.

A total of 64 omissions is definitely too high. Since a number of very common terms is among them, it is possible that contrary to the author of Chapter II Sas- son tried to apply the guidelines aiming to exclude “cul- tural constants’ and “general stylistic, grammatical or lexicographical parallels” (Fisher in the Introduction, p. XIV). But if that was the case Sasson did not apply the rules consistently. Nor does this line of reasoning explain all the omissions noted above.

Details

ii, 2e. Read ! Kings 14: 23,

ii, 3, This interpretation is erroneous, see AOAT 16, p. 107.

ü.3d. Read ANET, p. 136.

ii, 4, The paragraph cannot be sustained any longer, as admitted by Sasson himself in iii, 4b.

ii, 7, Sasson rightly rejects the proposal of Dahood, Bibl 38 (1957), pp. 65f.

ii 8. Driver's arbitrary alteration of the Ugaritic text cannot be accepted. On the analogy of the preceding kht ‘il nht bzr as well as the following n'°l ’il d qblbl ‘In it is practically certain that in hdm ’il dprs’a bbr (CTA 4: 135f.) the first b is a preposition,

ü,ll. Add to the bibliography: C. Virolleaud, GLECS 6 (1951-54), p. 9; W. Helck, BÄV2, p. 508; M. Liverani, RSO 39 (1964), p. 161; M. Dietrich-O. Loretz, OLZ 62 (1967), col. 536; D. Cohen, DRS, fasc. 1, p. 20.

ii, 12d, Read 1 Kings 10: 11-12,

üi, 13. In our opinion it would have been helpful if a selection of alternative interpretations had been of- fered. If, however, ’aln is really “oak”, it should be ob- served that the same word is well attested in Akkadian. Because of Hittite allantaru- A. Goetze, JCS 22 (1968), p. 17 doubts the Semitic origin of the word.

ii, 14, Those following the reference of 14b will look in vain for their information. Since ‘annh does have an Akkadian cognate (De Moor, New Year, II, p. 19), but not a Hebrew one, the paragraph must be deleted.

üi, 15, The uninitiated would not suspect from these notes that Sasson apparently favours the rendering “dog” or “cur” for ’inr, on which De Moor, UF 2(1970), p. 349 might be consulted. In any case no etymological relationship with a Hebrew word having been establish- ed, the paragraph has no solid foundation.

üi, 16. The word ’ar does not mean “honey”, see above on ii. 60.

ü. 17. We do not understand why only the badly broken line CTA 10: 1.11 has been cited and not the much clearer instances CTA 19: 11.66, 73.

ii, 17d. See our comment on ii. 60.

ii. 18d. Read Jer. 46: 23.

ii, 19b. The word does not mean “cedar"'(cf. AOAT 16, p. 167).

ii. 23. It cannot be doubted that CTA 19: III.112 must be emended because the phrase in question recurs several times in the correct form St bhrt ’ilm ‘ars. What- ever ‘art in PRU 2, 128: 26 means, it is highly unlikely

THE SPECTRE OF PAN-UGARITISM 25

. : been imported that 300 plants of this species would Eee Bee Lear

ich i his t which is probably Memphi ned de Beton js due to Virolleaud, PRU 2,

p. 163. 6 M. Dietrich-O. Loretz, BiOr

NE in 196 4 23 BE 120 proved Dahood's interpretation of

U 5, 67: 3 to be wrong. ' en 28. Virolleaud, GLECS 7 (1954-57), p. 86 cited a text which has hmóm ‘alp bgr. is

ii, 29, See our comment on ü. 140,

i. did. Delete the word “Hebrew” from the quota- tion!

i,32. The paragraph does not belong under the Nn “Flora, Fauna and Minerals”. Many other so- lutions have been proposed. See AOAT 16, Ee ef

ii, 33d, £,g. Read fn and yn respectively (three altet). Gesters emendation is not feasible, see AOAT 16, pp. 231, 234f. ek

jj. 35. Why have the clear instances of gpn ‘vine been omitted? See CTA 23: 9-11.

In our opinion the much-debated gpnm in the expres- sion Sf gpnm dt ksp dt yrq nqbnm is a dual of the same word, “vine-tendrils" being used as a poetic designation of the reins. There is no need to think of real tendrils, as G. R. Driver, OLZ 60 (1965), col. 5 and C. H, Gor- don, in: Ugaritica VI, p. 281 seem to do. Significantly, the passage from Vergil's Aeneid (V1.804), cited by these authors, concerns Bacchus who certainly cannot be compared with the Ugaritic Dani’ilu.

The parallel nqbnm might be a designation of the per- forated leather straps of the harness. The harness of royal horses was often embroidered with gold and silver, see A. Salonen, AASF 100 (1956), pp. 112, 118, 120f., 130f., 136; Y. Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands, London 1963, pp. 191, 212, 214-217, 240f., 454.

ii,39, For a fuller bibliography see AOAT 16, pp. 103£,

ii, 40. For a fuller bibliography and an alternative interpretation see De Moor, New Year, II, p. 21, n. 86.

ii, 42-43, No etymological parallels have been ad- duced by S. Paul and B. Levine. Therefore it was not warranted to adopt their idea in RSP.

ii 44. Since neither in Ugaritic (see now also UF 2 (1970), p. 304) nor in Hebrew the appellative use of dén in the meaning of “aurochs” is attested, there was not sufficient reason to include this paragraph.

ii. 45. It has been demonstrated by J. Blau-J. C. Greenfield, BASOR 200 (1970), p. 14 and J. C. de Moor, UF 2 (1970), p‚ 311 that the proposal of Virol- leaud and Gordon is impossible.

üi 47e-d. It would have been more appropriate to cite the normal meaning of the Hebrew root zmr II, with reference to the more recent Hebrew dictionaries. All of these have recorded the etymological connection.

ii 49. Because Ug. hgb occurs only as an unclear epithet of the god röp and as an element in PNN, it is far from certain that hgb really means “grasshopper”.

ü, 51, Albright's interpretation of hl as “phoenix” seems to have been abandoned by the specialists in the field. Although something might be said in favour of

“ramparts, fortresses' (see J. F, A. Sawyer-J. Strange, IEJ 14 (1964), p. 98 and P. Marrassini, Formazione del Lessico dell’ Edilizia Militare nel Semitico di Siria, Fi- renze 1971, pp. 56EE.), Ginsberg's early proposal “cir- cuit”, based on the root hwl, should not be dismissed offhandedly. His rendering might be refined perhaps if a description of Mt. Kasios (Sapänu) by Ammianus Marcellinus is taken into account: nemorosum et tereti ambitu in sublime porrectum “thickly wooded and rising on high with a rounded contour’ (Rerum gestarum XXIL.xiv.4). Incidentally, the whole passage of Krt may be compared with the beginning of the Vlllth Tablet of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

ii. 53b. But Virolleaud noticed that sms was a scri- bal error: PRU 2, p. 126.

ii, 54a-b. It would seem that hmr “donkey, homer” deserves a different entry with full references. On CTA 5: L19 see now UF 1 (1969), p. 187.

ii. 56. Because nobody has asserted that the name of the mineral(?) is also present in Hebrew, the para- graph is unfounded.

üü.58. Add CTA 22: BOf, where we have to read hyl hh. Because Aistleitner's suggestion does not fit the context of the passages involved it has found no sup- port,

ii. 59, See our remarks on ii, 199,

ii. 62. The Hebrew examples are far from convin- cing; cf. KBL, p. 348.

ii, 64e,g. See our comment on ii. 561f,

ii, 66. See now AOAT 16, p. 90. Gray refers only to Is. 22: 18. The conclusion that this parallel would refute those who regard the passage as a later insertion is unwarranted.

iüi,68. Why have Hebr. kussemet and kussemim been omitted here? On the rendering “spelt” see AOAT 16, p. 191.

üi,71. The word ki may be equated with kt, a yellow gourd (see De Moor, UF 2 (1970), p. 311, further ex- plained in a forthcoming article on Ugaritic lexicography to be published in the series Quaderni di Semitistica edited by P. Fronzaroli). The word has no cognate in Hebrew.

üi, 72. As admitted by Sasson, this is hardly a real parallel. Moreover one wonders whether the entry has anything to do with flora, fauna or minerals.

üi, 74, Since no Hebrew parallel exists or has been invented the paragraph has no place in a book devoted to the comparison of Ugaritic and Hebrew. On the con- trary, this is one of those numerous significant cases where only Akkadian offers a true parallel.

üi. 75. See our comment on i. 25. Because neither lín nor liwyätän is ever used in an appellative sense, it is debatabie whether it was warranted to include this paragraph at this point of the book.

ü. 76. In 76d Sasson errs in suggesting that the idea has to be attributed to Loewenstamm. The latter only repeated the opinion of Ullendorff, JSS 7 (1962), p. 340. However, it was Virolleaud who first connected mgt with Mal. 1: 11 (GLECS 3 (1937-40), p. 81). At the same time Virolleaud clearly understood the difficul-

26 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

ties involved. He saw that the rendering “offering” was definitely excluded, because this would require the Uga- ritic root ngë (later on the same observation was made by G. R. Driver, in: Studia Semitica … J. Bakoë, Bratis- lava 1965, p. 100). The attested Ugaritic verb ngt “to inquire, to scrutinize” (De Moor, UF 1 (1969), p. 173; AOAT 16, pp. 208f.) might suggest a meaning like “a scrutinized, selected one". In any case no Hebrew pa- rallel exists.

üi, 79, Gaster's emendation of Cant. 1: 4 is unaccept- able.

ii, 80. With regard to 80c-f we have to confess that we are still not convinced that there exists a root nwb “to flow’.

üi, 81. No Ugaritic word nhr with a meaning “oil” exists. See UF 1 (1969), p. 187. The meaning “river” does not bear on this chapter of RSP.

ii. 83e. Read Job 39: 26.

ii, 84. Probably ssn as well as its Hebrew equivalent have been borrowed from Akkadian sissinnu.

ii, 86. Because in both cases the well-known verb ‘br “to cross, to enter” is involved, Gordon's proposal is better forgotten.

üi 91. The connection of Ug. ‘rgz with Hebrew ’gz involves an etymological problem (cf. HAL, p. 10).

ii, 94. See now AOAT 16, p. 134 (the gem of CTA 16: VL44 is rendered “debtor” there as a result of a mistranslation in English. It should be “usurer”). There De Moor revokes his translation ‘“woodland"’.

üi, 96, The early idea of Virolleaud has long been abandoned.

ii. 97. See now also AOAT 16, p. 130.

ii, 98. Why was H. A. Hoffner, JAOS 87 (1967), pp. 300-303 left out here?

ii, 99, We agree with Greenfield's judgment. It can- not be maintained that Ug. phd has a Hebrew equiva- lent.

ii, 106. Because the Ug. spr(n)/suparänu (a PN!) must be explained differently (M. Weippert, ZDMG, Suppl. 1 (1969), pp. 215f.) the connection with Hebrew becomes tenuous,

ii, 114. The proposal of Aistleitner would seem to be untenable (cf. AOAT 16, pp. 186f.).

ii, 116. It should have been added that already in 1932 Bauer revised his opinion (Das Alphabet von Ras Schamra, Halle 1932, pp. 19, 22, “thorns”, after P. Dhorme, RB 30 (1931), p. 17).

üi, 120. We do not share the reserve of Sasson. Cf. De Moor, UF 2 (1970), p. 317.

üi, 121, De Moor, UF 1 (1969), p. 170 (sic!) did not propose an etymology. With regard to Hos. 7: 14 see our comment on ii, 207,

üi, 122, The Hebrew examples are unconvincing

(MT in Ps, 35: 8 bsw’h, not ksw’h). ii. 123e. Read Isa. 14: 9.

Kampen, Summer 1973 J. C. DE MOOR

P. VAN DER LUGT

Tradition and History I

The purpose of the following pages is to set forth some comments upon the methods of transmission of OT texts, or more particularly some of the narrative sections of it. This implies that the modern approach to those problems

‘will be briefly discussed, and as the editor of BiOr sent

me a copy of M. Ottosson's dissertation Gilead - Tra- dition and History (Lund 1969) to be used as a starting point for my article, a consequence would be that one purpose will be to discuss the publication mentioned. As to the subtitle of M. Ottosson's study, Tradition and History, which I have used as title of my article, this expression is used by Ottosson in relation to the tradi- tions relating to Gilead and the history of that site. On the other hand, it might also be used in a broader sense and considered to cover approximately the same ideas as are implied in the term “traditio-historical”, which is used by some modern scholars within the field of OT study, for it may as a matter of fact be used as the subtitle of any study of this type, ie. of the tradition history type.

In his introduction, M. Ottosson divides his thesis “into an ideological and a historical section” (p. 9), and on the following page, we find a delimitation of the groups of text to be incorporated, ‘“As my a priori point de départ for the ideological section 1 have chosen to discuss the traditions on Gilead in Gen. and Num. on the one hand and those of the Deuteronomic prologue and the Book of Joshua on the other”. This sentence con- tains a declaration to the effect that Ottosson accepts the opinion on the historical books of the OT advocated

„by some modern writers, and he also expressly says that

he follows “Ivan Engnell's division into the P-work (the Tetrateuch), Gen.-Num., and the D-work, Deut. - 2 Kings” (p. 10). This may accordingly be considered the proper place briefly to comment upon the method which has been adopted by a number of modern scholars and which is designated as the “traditio-historical’’ method by some of them 4). 1. Engnell himself undoubtedly con- sidered his opinions to contain much of an original con- tribution to OT research, although he credited the writers from whose publications he learnt so much. In conse- quence with this, when Engnell enlarged upon his “new method”, he admitted that it was not “new 2). This ad- mission also holds true with regard to the term used to designate this method, for as a matter of fact, W. Zim- merli used the title Geschichte und Tradition von Beer- seba (dissertation of 1932), 1. Hylander, traditionsge- schichtlich (dissertation of 1932; cf. M. Noth, in 1943, überlieferungsgeschichtlich)3), It seems a little comical that 1. Hylander, who in the main accepted the methods and results of literary criticism, and 1. Engnell, one of

1) E. Nielsen, Shechem. A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Diss, Copenhagen 1955); R, A. Carlson, David, the Chosen King. A Traditio-Historical Approach to the Second Book of Samuel (Diss. Uppsala 1964).

2) 1. Engnell, Gamla Testamentet 1 (1945), pp. 186 ff.

3) Jl. Hylander, Der liferarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (1. Sam 1-15) fraditionsgeschichtlich unfersucht (Diss. Uppsala 1932; M., Noth, überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien 1 (= Schriften der Kö- nigsberger Gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswiss. Kl. 18: 2, 1943).

of that school used the same heir methods — two absolute

the most fanatic opponents general term to designate t contrasts.

The negative tendency tion history method, we have

js the polemics against ute Bon Welihausenianism". both with regard to the main-

of the advocates of the tradi- just noted in the case of literary criticism, particu-

onistic views on the literary process of the atie making and the evolutionistic concep- tion of the cultural history of the OT. of course neither of these two points against literary criticism was new, when Engnell started his campaign, as he himself ad- mitted. He appointed J. Pedersen a pioneering scholar in the struggle against literary criticism 4), but as he him- gelf stressed this does not mean that J. Pedersen was the first to oppose that school of OT research. Engnell re- ferred to four different groups of opponents, fundamen- talists 5), Jewish scholars 6), a heterogeneous group of conservative occidental scholars?), and finally, such scholars as P. Volz, J. Pedersen, P, Rubow, and H. S. Nyberg. Of the first-mentioned group, G. Schumann is one example, and in his essay Die Wellhausen sche Pen- tateuchtheorie … (1892), he started his critical remarks by oppösing the view that Deuteronomy is to be sepa- rated from the complex Genesis - Numeri (pp. 4 Éf.). The observation that Deuteronomy does not belong to the same literary unity as Genesis - Numeri, which is one of the basic points of the tradition history school, accordingly also occurs in Wellhausen's system, al- though supported by different arguments. Engnell, fur- thermore, argued that the opinion that Deuteronomy (“the second law”) is a parallel to earlier collections is in agreement with Jewish tradition, and this fact is ob- vious enough “to the attentive reader of the book of Moses", Engnell concluded 8). The “discovery” of the independence of Deuteronomy in relation to the complex Genesis - Numeri and the existence of the “D-work” in addition to the “P-work’ was claimed by Engnell to have been made by himself, for he says that he reached his view before having seen such a work as M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien 1, a copy of which was placed at his disposal by H. S. Nyberg, before he published his Gamla Testament 1 (1945; only in Swe- dish)9). As to the fact that there are no traces of a “deu- teronomistic'” redaction in the “P-work” (Genesis - Nu- merij, Engnell expressed his agreement with Aa. Bentzen and added the phrase, “a conception that is rather com- mon and has recently been maintained by Noth” 10). Thus, when followers of Engnell's refer to his view as to these questions, it is evident that much of the work

4) Engnell, op. cit. 188. i Ì

5) Ibid, p. 186. Particular mention is made of Möller, some o whose books were much read.

©) Ibid, p. 187. U. Cassuto's La questione della genesi (1934) discusses the arguments of literary criticism in favour of “Quellen- schriften", He concluded that they were not valid.

7) E. König, for instance, accepted the theory of written sources but opposed to the evolutionistic view of “Wellhausenianism”. R. ale and W. F. Albright are two important names of this group.

) Engnell, op. cit, p. 210; J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, p. 725, stresses the fact that “the natural point of departure is Deuteronomy, which forms a separate unit”.

9) For references to both of them, see above.

10) Engnell, op. cit, p. 210.

TRADITION AND HISTORY 27

has been done by other scholars, to whom Engnell duly referred.

* * *

To a great extent, the tradition history method was from the beginning based upon the rôle played by oral transmission of OT texts. It is of course easy to over- stress such an idea, when it once has begun to be used as an argument against literary criticism, and particularly when building the arguments advanced upon H. S. Ny- berg’s Studien zum Hoseabuche (1936), which Engnell considered pioneering. As the book of Hosea cannot be used as a source of arguments when analysing the Pen- tateuch, Engnell also quoted passages from other publi- cations of Nyberg's, for instance, the following to the effect that the 5 books of Moses are a large compilation of traditions from various times, because of which he considers possible that their final redactional process must be dated to a relatively late period but that the stuff itself, in its totality, is early and on no point later than the period of the kings t1). It is astonishing that H. S. Nyberg by some scholars is regarded as the pio- neer, when the rôle of oral tradition is considered 12), for as a matter of fact the observation of the rôle of oral tradition was made long before Studien zum Hoseabuche was published. According to Nyberg, one postulate, which is silently made by OT scholars is the following, “Das AT ist ausschliesslich durch schriftstellerische Tä- tigkeit entstanden”’ (op. cit, p. 5). Nyberg's antithesis runs as follows, “Die Überlieferung ist im Orient selten eine rein schriftliche; sie ist überwiegend eine mündliche” (ibid, p. 7), and on the following page we find the wording, “Das schriftliche AT ist eine Schöpfung der jüdischen Gemeinde nach dem Exil; was dem vorausging, war sicher nur zum kleineren Teil schriftlich fixiert”. On the first few pages of his book, Nyberg refers to the methods of textual criticism adopted by Classical scho- lars 13), He might also with profit have cited H. Stein- thal, from whose Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern 1 (1890), 1 quote the fol- lowing passage, “Es kommt hinzu, dass durch Orphiker, Priester, Mysterien, Pythagoreer wirklich eine Art Tra- dition stattgefunden hat: wenn auch nicht eine solche, durch welche wirklich bestimmte Aussprüche und Lehren unverändert von Mund zu Mund, von Geschlecht zu Ge- schlecht, gegangen wären, so doch wenigstens eine der- artige, dass sie gewisse Redewendungen und Anschau- ungsformen aus sehr alter Zeit erhalten konnte, In diese Formen wird aber im Laufe der Jahrhunderte sehr junger Inhalt gezogen; teils wird der alte umgedeutet, und zwar unbewusst, teils wird der neue in den alten Formen er- fasst, …’” (p. 154). To my mind Steinthal's view as to early Greek tradition is much more realistic than the be- lief that oral tradition is unconditionally reliable, as H. S.

1) H.S. Nyberg, Världsreligionernas kärnord, pp. 1216, (= The documents of the OT); cf. Engnell, p. 209. — The period of the kings (“kungatiden") is too general an expression to be suit- able,

12) Cf. G, Widengren, Acta Orientalia 23/1959, p. 202.

13) His only references are W. Kroll, Geschichte der klassischen Philologie (1908; Sammlung Göschen) and A. Gercke, Methodik (in: Gercke-Norden, Einleitung in die Alferfumswissenschait?, 1, pp. 1-128).

28 BIBLIOTHECA ORIENTALIS XXXI NO 1/2, Januari-Maart 1974

Nyberg tries to show, in the case of Iran, by referring to a modern anecdote about a Parsi priest, who was able to recite a text correctly by heart. It should be observed that, in this case, the gentlemen in question had memorized the text from a written copy‚ which is something quite different from read oral transmis- sion, when no written text is available. In this con- nection, it may be of some importance to mention E. S. von Kamphoevener, An Nachtfeuern der Ka- rawan-Serail - Märchen und Geschichten alttürkischer Nomaden 1-2 (1957), in which she makes great literature of the old stories, transmitted orally for centuries.

In her very brief introduction to Vol. 2, Frau von Kamphoevener gives an example to illustrate the fact that “Das Wesen des Erzählers orientalischer Märchen war, ist und wird bleiben vollkommene individuelle Frei- heit der Wiedergabe” 14) (p. 7). Literally translated, the first story of Vol. 2 runs as follows, “Zwei Wolken. Drauf einmal Peri, einmal Ifrit. Zusammenkommen ver- boten, bis menschliche Treue entdeckt, dieses die Strafe. Suchen. Suchen. Warten. Warten. Ein Dichter viel- leicht? Eine Schönheit dazu? Man sollte versuchen, wer weiss — es gelingt? Aman, misslungen? Oder gelungen? Ist ein Gedicht Treue? Ist Schönheit Treue? Allah weiss es und jener strafende Genieh von den Wolken. Suchen. Suchen. Warten. Warten, Zeit ist nicht. Warten. Su- chen. Und Allah ist gnädig’ (p. 8). Frau von Kamphoe- vener adds the following comment, “… die türkische Sprache ist die knappste Form der Ausdrucksweise, die nur denkbar ist. Sie ersetzt vieles durch Gesten und Handbewegungen, durch den Ausdruck der Augen.” To give such stuff a form, which can be understood by a Westerner, the narrator will have to give it a form cor- responding to the mode of narrating of her/his native language.

The narrative style used by the ancient Semites was not of the Turkish sort, perhaps more of the Greek, as described by H. Steinthal. Homer is an example in addi- tion to those mentioned by him. But when we are dealing with prose texts, as we are in the case of the two Historic- al works of the OT, the traditions formed by the Greek circles referred to by Steinthal would be more suitable stuff for comparisons, because of the fact that in OT traditions, partly transmitted orally — as was the case in Greek traditions — many details reflecting conditions of later periods were incorporated, as centuries went by.

The history of Greek literacy actually began in the Minoan Age as early as 2000 B.C.15) from which the early documents in Mycenaean Greek derive. The whole of Greek literature was then gradually created including all its literary categories, the study of which is an im- portant branch of research in early literatures. In an ana- logous way, the OT contains specimens of various lite-

4) “Das liegt ja auch eindeutig in der uralten Lebendigkeit der Stoffe. Diese bleiben in ihren Grundzügen, wie mehrmals hervorge- hoben, immer gleich. Wie jedoch der Ablauf des Geschehens geschil- dert wird, ist Sache des jeweiligen Erzählers, hängt von seiner schöpferischen Kraft und Fähigkeit ab” (von Kamphoevener, p. 7). This being so, people often gathered to hear a certain narrator but did not care to hear another less known. — Similar conditions are met with in pre-Islamic Arabic society.

Us See C. H. Gordon, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 17, p. Ô

rary categories. It is only too obvious that each literary category should be considered against its historical back- ground, its literary history, the date of its final form, and so on. Therefore, to maintain that the tradition his- tory method is a key to all of them, undoubtedly means to overestimate its resources. Was there, for instance, an oral poetic literature in early Israel? 16) Scholars who hold that view, may contemplate the fact that there are examples of isolated passages met with, for instance, in the Amarna letters; one case (Ps 139, 8f.), in Middle Babylonian wording, being almost the exact literal equi- valent of the Hebrew text 17). Even one such passage may be sufficient to indicate, how easy it is to over- estimate the rôle of oral tradition, for these passages oc- curring in several Amarna letters are quotations, not to mention the psalms which have been said to be Canaanite, or Phoenician, texts, which have been incorporated in the OT Psalter 18), or items of wisdom literature.

As to the term “tradition” itself, it would only seem to suit the narrative sections of the OT. H. Gunkel was the pioneering scholar who founded the form literary method, still used by a number of OT scholars, and as far as the book of Genesis is considered, the study of its problems still profits much from H. Gunkel's commentary on that book, issued in many editions and now to be regarded as classical. In the introduction to that commentary, he presented his analysis of the saga material contained in that biblical book — according to Gunkel transmitted orally for centuries. This does of course not mean that there is nothing to be added to Gunkel. On the contrary, since Gunkel's days, so much new stuff has come to light that a modern commentary gives quite a different pic-

ture 19), * * *

As to the contents of the two large extant collections of material, Genesis - Numeri and Deuteronomy - 2 Kings, both of them consist of narrative material and col- lections of laws inserted in the narrative sections. The narrative sections of the “Tetrateuch” display a continu- ous line from the creation until the death of Moses 20).

16) Cf.R. C. Culley, Oral Formulaic Language in Biblical Psalms (1967), who refers to conditions prevailing in modern societies, for Sá Crete (pp. 5É.), South India, Russia, Yugoslavia (pp.

17) J, A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (1915 = Vorder- asiat. Bibliothek 2:1), No. 264.15-19. O. Weber, Vorderasiat, Bibl. 2:2 (1915), p. 1323, was the first to recognize the close relation between those lines and the lines of Ps 139. Weber also compared No. 226.19.25 with Isa 54,10 f, — F. M. T. de Liagre Böhl, “Hym- nisches und Rhytmisches in den Amarnabriefen aus Kanaan” (Theol. Literaturbl, 35, 1914, Sp. 337-340; reprinted in Opera Minora, 1953, pp. 375 ff.), because of the Canaanite glosses, says, the idea that an original in Hebrew or a closely related language is close at hand (p. 375). Böhl also refers to No. 165.4-8 as compared with Ps 27.8, 123,2; No. 147.52-56, compared with Jer 1,18; 15.20. Böhl considers the Amarna passages to be quotations. — Cf. M. Dahood, Psalms II 101-150 (1970; The Anchor Bible), p. 289, who quotes the lines in question from letter No. 264 with a general reference to “Commentators’; he also points to Amos 9.2.

18) See H. L. Ginsberg, “A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter” ee je XIX congresso internazionale degli orientalisti, 1938, pp.

10) “We shall presently quote some important passages from E. A. Speiser, Genesis (1964; The Anchor Bible).

20) Cf. Engnell, op. cit, p. 213.

TRADITION AND HISTORY 29

The consequence is that the book of Been Eb has sent form, must be regarded as a literary MR eeelex a character of its own as compared with the C EE Exodus - Numeri. Scholars ee Me n B i od, int. al, raise the objection - ee it is maintained that the ne ze sis - Numeri has obtained its present form by com À g several written sources with each other by nn ac- tors, in a complicated way, the reasons for suc 8, hen rocess have not been explained. Without defending the theories of literary criticism, we may feel justified to con- tend that the creative activity of various traditionists assumed may appear as difficult to explain, for why have the law units incorporated in the narrative material, and in which way has the book of Genesis obtained its pre- sent form to be put in front of the complex Exodus - Numeri as a kind of introduction? 1. Engnell saw these problems and devoted attention to them. In trying to pro- vide a solution to them, he gathered many of his basic ideas from J. Pedersen's great work Israel LIV (I-1I, 1926; III-IV, 1960), and other publications of his. We may take the second question first, the question why the traditions of Genesis were collected and combi- ned to a literary unit, which was used as an introduction to the following description of the events which led to the origin of the state of Israel. Engnell quoted the fol- lowing wording by J. Pedersen, “By the incorporation of foreign cult myths as an introduction, the history of Israel acquires a cosmic background …” 2) „Engnellconsidered this utterance too strong, since the cult myths in question have been “Israeliticized’’, and furthermore, Israelite civ- ilization was influenced by the Canaanite inheritance, not to be called “‘foreign'’ 22) „When discussing the book of Genesis, Engnell had of course also to form a verdict on Gunkel's commentary on that book, and according to this verdict, a tradition history investigation shows that Gunkel's view on the individual sagas — orally trans- mitted — which grew to circles of sagas, is in the main correct 23), But a reserve is added: Gunkel has carried his literary analysis too far, and the details are therefore not reliable (p. 216). Engnell also stressed Gunkel's view of the sagas as originally associated with local sanctu- aries. So far Engnell on Gunkel, and we may only add the following remark: it would indeed have been most interesting to have seen the “tradition history investiga- tion’ showing whether or not Gunkel was right. 1 am not convinced that Engnell performed such an investigation, but he simply used the term “traditio-historical" as a kind of a magician's rod giving him knowledge of things not known to his colleagues. As a matter of fact, Eng- nell's way of using tradition history as a scholarly method was rather simple: he took over the ideas which suited him as a student of H, S. Nyberg's and often over- stressed them. To my mind, a form literary method, or whatever it is called, is the scholarly method which suits the various kinds of literary stuff met with in Genesis, and whatever view is held on this book, it is evident that its contents derive from various local centres and belong to different literary categories. Personally, I could admit

21) eTsrael IIL-IV, p. 726. 22) Engnell, op. cit, p. 217. 28) Engnell, op. cif‚‚ p. 216.

that Pedersen may be right in maintaining that “the laws of the Book of the Covenant would originate from the same ‘author’ as some of the stories in Genesis" — this contention being based on the view that ‘the laws and the prose narratives are placed on an equal footing, as originating from the same authors” (Israel III-IV, pp. 725 £.)24). My agreement is valid in the case the “au- thor” is disregarded and we assume that the Book of the Covenant derives from the same quarter as some of the stories in Genesis. In order to illustrate this point, we shall have a look at E. A. Speiser's views as to the problems of Genesis 25).

When trying to give a very brief summary of Speiser's contribution to the Genesis question, we may start by