Hooke, S. H., ed. Myth, Ritual, and Kingship: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Kingship in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. Oxford: Clarendon (1958). [148-260]

(excerpted by Clifford Stetner)

Langhe, R. De., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship in the Ras Shamra Tablets

Widengren, George. Early Hebrew Myths And Their Interpretation.

Rowley, H. H., “Ritual and the Hebrew Prophets.”

Brandon, S. G. F.,  Myth And Ritual Position Critically Considered

148

Langhe, R. De., Myth, Ritual, and Kingship in the Ras Shamra Tablets

…occasion of royal marriages at Ugarit, reminded worshippers of the divine benedictions which attended those rites and institutions imposed on the community by tradition.

Just as we do not know on which occasions and at which festivities the priests of Ugarit recited the great myths of Ras Shamra, we also do not know what use was made of the tale of Keret. But such as it is, in spite of its merits, it reveals little of the emotions and beliefs which gave it birth. It is possible that the problems solved by similar texts 'are certainly not to be solved out of the lexicon, or, as some have alleged, out of the whole gamut of Semitic lexica'. But at least we have there an efficient and reliable means of control [n1 We have noticed with great satisfaction the conclusion of Professor G. R. Driver: 'That some nucleus of historical fact lies behind the story of Keret appears to indeed probable, but how much may be fact and how much fiction can hardly be determined in the present state of knowledge' (Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edin­burgh, 1956), p. 5).].

In conclusion: an historic stele of Amenophis II discovered at Memphis reports that 'His Majesty the Pharaoh came once to Ugarit and subdued there all his enemies and following this His Majesty set out again with an easy and gay heart having taken possession of all the country'. We have certainly been less fortunate: we have certainly not taken possession of all 'that Ugarit has revealed; there remain enigmas and problems, which are so many enemies. But we take leave of them 'with an easy and gay heart'.

Widengren, George. Early Hebrew Myths And Their Interpretation.

Are there any Hebrew myths, and is it at all possible to speak of any interpretation of these perplexing entities? A review of the history of their actual interpretation will probably teach us something about early Hebrew myths and their explanation.

It is now exactly eighty years since a real start was made in the discovery and interpretation of Hebrew myths when Ignaz Goldziher, later so famous as an Arabist, published his work on Hebrew mythology [n2. Goldziher, Der Mythos bei den Hebrilern und seine geschichtliche Entwickelung, Leipzig, 1876. An English translation has already been published (1877), but this edition not being available to me my references are to the original German edition.]. The unfavourable reception given to this book caused Hebrew and Old Testament studies to lose that great Semitic scholar, with a corresponding gain to Arabic and Islamic studies. We should not forget in this connexion that it was Goldziher who was the real founder of Islamology—the historical  interpretation of Islam.

To be sure, it is not at all difficult to understand the un­favourable impression Goldziher's treatment of Hebrew mytho­logy created among his contemporaries, but at the same time it must be stressed that our modern criticism is of quite a different character from that directed against him eighty years ago [n3 Goldziher himself later on in life disclaimed responsibility for this book!]. The defects of Goldziher's work are easy enough to detect; it is less easy to observe its merits, although they obviously exist.

1 For general surveys the reader is referred to the following articles, occasionally somewhat out of date, because written before the utilization of the Ras Shamra texts: Gunkel, R.G.G.² iv. 381-90, 'Mythus und Mythologie: III A Im AT.'; Peters, E.R.E. iv. 151-5, 'Cosmogony and Cosmology (Hebrew)' J G. Margoliouth, E.R.E. vi. 656-8, 'Heroes and Hero-Gods (Hebrew)'. My distinguished predecessor (as a contributor on the present theme) Professor T. H. Robinson wrote the essay 'Hebrew Myths' in Hooke, ed. Myth and Ritual, Oxford, 1933. This article will of course often be quoted in what follows.

150

Goldziher is completely dominated by the idea that behind the tales of the patriarchs there are to be found old myths. His work is further characterized by the thought that myth is the linguistic expression of the impression made on man by the various phenomena of nature. Also the contrast between nomads and agriculturists is, for him, very important. Moon-mythology,'" concerned with the moon and stars of the night sky, is held to be characteristic of nomad culture, whereas sun-mythology, concerned with the burning sun and the day sky is thought to be equally characteristic of an agricultural people. On points of detail we should note that Goldziher mentions such mythological figures as the winged Sahar, the Dawn, Ps. cxxxix. 9 and the Sun as a young hero in Ps. xix. 6 [n1 Cf. Goldziher, op cit., pp. 135 f. and 134.].

Goldziher also refers to the role played by the moon calendar among the nomads in contrast with the sun calendar prevailing among tillers of the soil [n2 Cf. Goldziher, op cit., pp. 75 ff.].

He had already put forward the interpretation of Jonah as a sun-hero [n3 cf. Goldziher, op. cit., p. 120.]. He further distinguished as a special category of myths the so-called culture-myths, to which he devoted a whole chapter [n4 Cf. Goldziher, op. cit., ch. vi, pp. 242-80.]. Last but not least, he conceived the remarkable notion of myth developing either into religion or into history [n5 Cf. Goldziher, op. cit., p. 301. When Goldziher assumes a development from myth to history he is in a way in line with those modern scholars who speak of 'the historicization of myth', undoubtedly a real and often recurring phenomenon, cf. below, p. 201 n. 1.].

Goldziher drew his comparative material chiefly from Arabian culture, but by no means neglected the wider field including Indo-European mythology [n6 This was, of course, partly due to lack of concrete data from the Semitic field at the time when Goldziher wrote, but one is rather. astonished to see Syrian pagan religion so completely neglected. One is under the impression that Goldziher's ideas of interpretation did not come from carefully collected and sifted material but rather preceded and determined this very collection.]. For this reason we should call his method phenomenological rather than historical, although his use of the Arabian way of life of course has a genetic aspect too [n7 The comparison between Hebrew nomads and nomad tribes of pre-Islamic Arabia has been classical among scholars like Wellhausen and others of his generation. The nomad Hebrew tribes of the times of Moses are often supposed to have been something very akin to Arab badawis.].

151

The next really important step in the interpretation is marked by Gunkel and his school, above all Gressmann, Schmidt, and Mowinckel [n1 Gressmann, Schmidt, and Mowinckel may all be called real followers and pupils of Gunkel who was the founder of a veritable school.]. Gunkel, perhaps the greatest Old Testament scholar of this century, was dominated by the idea that myth was younger than folk-lore, and for this reason was deeply influenced by it. This assumption was common among folk-lorists of his day and may be found even in our own time [n2 Cf. Gunkel, Genesis, 3rd ed. (Gottingen, 1910).]. Gressmann, next to Gunkel the dominating figure among Old Testament exegetes in modern times, shared unreservedly the general convictions of Gunkel which led him to a similar and regrettable neglect of the ritual aspects of myth. For in folk-lore the emphasis is on word and not on ritual action; myth is predominantly conceived of as 'a story of the gods', Gottergeschichte [n3 Cf. Gunkel, op. cit., p. xiv; R.G.G.² iv, p. 383.]. Accordingly myth was chiefly interpreted by this school as a kind of cosmological, anthropological, and cultural speculation. Emphasis was laid on myths of origin, such as creation-myths, paradise-myths, Of myths of nature such as sun-myths, or finally aetiological myths, which played a very great role in the interpretation of the texts [n4 cf. Gunkel, Op cit., pp. xv, xx ff.; R.C.G.2 iv, pp. 382 f.].

In the main it was denied by Gunkel that the patriarchs originally were mythical figures, ancient gods, as had been asserted not only by Goldziher, but also by Winckler representing the Pan-Babylonian school [n5 cf. Gunkel, op. cit., pp. lxvi ff. Winckler, as a typical representative of the Pan Babylonian school, advocates ideas that cannot possibly be taken seriously in our day.], and by the great historian Eduard Meyer, who made a most interesting attempt to establish an association between the patriarchs and the many cult-places mentioned in connexion with them in the sagas of Genesis [n6 Cf. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstumme (Halle, 1906), pp. 249 ff. Behind Meyer we find Noldeke who was always a champion of the same opinion.]. Gunkel followed Goldziher in his interest in the so-called culture-myths [n7 cf. Gunkel, op. cit., p. xvi, with a reference to Gressmann, Z.A.W. xxx (1910).].

152

Gunkel's chief fault was his acceptance of the prevailing opinion that myth is a later development of the tale. But his special merit was his willingness to make comparisons above all with surrounding ancient cultures, e.g. Mesopotamia and (to a lesser extent) Phoenicia and Egypt, whereas the com­parative material from Arabia, so popular among the scholars of an older generation like Goldziher, was more or less ignored by him.

While Gressmann made some original contributions to inter­pretation [n1 Cf. Z.A.W. xxx (1910) pp. 9 ff. and Mose und seine Zeit (Gottingen, 1913), passim.] it must be said that Schmidt in his great work on Jonah did not do more than trace the mythical motifs (which still survive in that book) [n2 Schmidt, Yona (Gottingen, 1907); we have already indicated that this was an old idea, cf. above, p. 150 n. 3.]. In his case we cannot speak of any interpretation of actually existing early Hebrew myths.

Mowinckel, although like Schmidt a pupil of Gunkel, has freed himself in so many respects from his master's influence, and at the same time has been so deeply influenced by other Scan­dinavian scholars, that he must rather be classed as belonging to the so-called Scandinavian school.

We come next to the British 'Myth and Ritual School', which is, of course, not a school in the same sense in which we can speak of Gunkel and his school.

This British line of research was started by Professor Hooke by means of a combination of exegetical, anthropological, and folk-loristic methods. The influence of Frazer (and to some extent Hocart) is conspicuous everywhere. Frazer himself had demonstrated his interest in the Old Testament by publishing his work Folk-lore in the Old Testament, but it is quite obvious that his general views of so-called 'primitive' conceptions or of mythology were not at all accepted by Hooke, the inspiring force of the 'school' [n3 Cf. Hooke, Myth and Ritual, pp. 1 f. where some clear criticisms were presented. For Hooke as the 'starter' of the whole 'Myth and Ritual School', cf. op. cit., p. xiv of the preface written by Simpson. The term 'school' is used here for convenience because it has been customary in literature to speak of 'the Myth and Ritual School'.].

153

Hocart, himself a contributor to the literary products of the 'school', was mainly influenced by the work of Perry [n1 Hocart, who published his book Kingship in London in 1927, worked rather independently, as Professor Hooke has told me (letter of 22 Oct. 1955). He is quoted by Hooke, op. cit., p. 6, and was associated with Hooke's collaborators in the collection of essays presented in The Labyrinth, ed. Hooke (London, 1935), to which he con­tributed the paper 'The Life Giving Myth', pp. 261-81.]. This influence manifested itself inter alia in a complete denial of the evolutionary principles so characteristic of British anthropologists of an older generation (and with typical British conservatism still cherished in some quarters with admirable piety towards tradition). The leader of the 'school', Hooke, by profession an Old Testament 'scholar, had also received an anthropological training, and another of the leading members, Professor James, can be classified also as a professional anthropo­logist besides being an historian of religions.

Accordingly it is the emphasis on anthropology and folk-lore which constitutes the special mark of this British 'Myth and Ritual School'. The predilection for folk-loristic methods is thus a trait shared with the school of Gunkel, but while Gunkel above all is interested in folk-stories, Hooke and his followers are more concerned with popular customs. Another common trait is the presupposition that the ancient Near East was the home of the mythical conceptions met with in the Old Testament. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and pre-Israelitic Canaan are invoked to assist in the interpretation of difficult passages, where a Hebrew myth is assumed to be found. The special contribution of the school is, however, the theory of a general pattern of myth and ritual in the Ancient Near East, including Israel [n2 Cf. Hooke, Myth and Ritual, pp. 1 ff. 'The Myth and Ritual Pattern of the Ancient East'.]. In this we are re­minded of the American anthropologist Ruth Benedict's 'patterns of culture' [n3 It should be observed that Benedict did not publish her book Patterns of Culture until 1934. Hooke speaks, op. cit., p. 5, of 'culture patterns'. Professor Hooke has told me (letter of 22 Oct. 1955) 'that Ruth Benedict had no influence whatever on the Myth and Ritual movement'.], and the trend in modern cultural anthropology represented by her; though it is very doubtful whether her influence can be traced here.

154

Compared with the definition of myth given by Gunkel we have to note a great advance, for emphasis was laid by Hooke on the cultic aspect of myth: 'the original myth, inseparable in the first instance from its ritual, embodies in more or less sym­bolic fashion, the original situation which is seasonally re-enacted in the ritual' [n1 Hooke, Op. cit., p. 3.]. This definition of the essence of myth has played a dominating role in subsequent discussion.

The Scandinavian school is still less a school in the true Ger­man sense of the word than the British 'Myth and Ritual School'. It can be said to be a certain trend, in a way running parallel with the two schools already mentioned and at the same time in its later phases being partly, sometimes deeply, influenced by the British scholars [n2 Engnell has declared himself a convinced 'patternist'. The present writer has often, especially in the various volumes of the series 'King and Saviour', declared his adherence to the principles advocated by Hooke and his followers. On the whole all members of the so-called Upsala school (the term is used here for convenience) have learnt much from British scholarship in this regard.]. The Scandinavian school starts from the strong influence exercised by the Danish philologist and historian Gronbech and his interpretation of cult as a ritual drama, and this influence is met with especially in the important works of Mowinckel and Pedersen [n3 Cf. the work of Gronbech, The Culture of the Teutons (London, 1931), with the essay on 'Ritual Drama', ii. 260 ff. As to Gronbech, cf. Widengren, 'Die religionswissenschaftliche Forschung in Skandinavien in den letzten zwanzig Jahren', Z.R.G.G. v (1953), ii, 'Die danische Forschung', Heft 4. In The Old Testament and Modern Study, ed. Rowley (Oxford, 1951), p. 189, Gronbech is called 'anthropologist'. He was, however, above all a philologist, trained by VilhelmThomsen, and published his thesis on a Turkish subject and afterwards became a university lecturer in English. On the influence exercised by Gronbech on Mowinckel and Pedersen cf. Anderson, 'Hebrew Religion', The Old Testament and Modern Study; pp. 292, 295; Widengren, op. cit., pp. 320 f. Both Mowinckel and Pedersen expressly acknowledge their debt to Gronbech.]. From the very outset the cultic aspect of myth accordingly prevails to the utmost degree among Scandinavian scholars in their interpretation of myth and legend [n4 For this reason the cultic aspect is emphasized also by many New Testament scholars of Uppsala, not least those of an older generation, e.g. Gillis Wetter.], thanks to this influence of Gronbech. Some scholars in Uppsala who had been deeply influenced by the works of Mowinckel and Pedersen, were later to a certain extent influenced also by the British 'Myth and Ritual School' [n5 This holds true especially of the present writer.].

155

If anything can be said to be characteristic of this Scandinavian school it is that it was dominated by studies in Semitic languages and cultures, rather than by folk-lore and anthropology, and that the history of religions, based on an accurate philological interpretation of the texts, was given priority over general. comparisons based on folk-lore and anthropology. This fact is due, of course, to the education and training received by the Scandinavian scholars. A marked anti-evolutionary trend is conspicuous everywhere, except in Mowinckel, who also stands more aloof from Pedersen and the younger Swedish scholars [n1 For a discussion and criticism of the principles of evolutionism cf. Widengren, 'Evolutionism and the Problem of the Origin of Religion', Ethnos, x (1945), pp. 57­96.]. The theory of a general myth and ritual pattern was accepted, in some quarters with en­thusiasm, in others with more reserve [n2 For some criticisms cf. Widengren, R.o.B. ii (1943), p. 50 where it is said that the Old Testament passages have not been sufficiently analysed and that for this reason the work of the school sometimes suffers from a certain schematic and 'con­structive' character. (It belongs to 'life's little ironies' that the same charge was eventually brought against me too!) But I ought to have observed the obvious fact that the books published were intended chiefly to introduce a point of view.]. Again Mowinckel took his own course by explicitly criticizing the hypothesis of a Near Eastern pattern in myth and ritua1 [n3 Cf. Mowinckel, Ban som Rommer (Copenhagen, 1951, Engl. transl. 1956), pp. 26 f., where the criticisms presented by Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, 1948), are accepted. He seems to be more positive in his book Offersang og sangoffer (Oslo, 1951), p. 36, but on p. 61 he denies the thesis that there ever existed a common Near Eastern royal ideology (if I have understood him correctly, his terminology being very loose, because he speaks of 'the king in all oriental religions', but no one has included other religions than those of the ancient Near East).].

The discovery of the Ras Shamra texts and their interpretation exercised a great influence on both the British and the Scandina­vian schools. In the Ugaritic mythological poems a connecting link was found between Israel and Canaan, with the ancient Near East providing the general cultural background. It was this Canaanite-Syrian literature that provided us with definite proof that Canaan and Israel belonged to the same culture area as Mesopotamia [n4 Incidentally it may be observed that this term 'culture area' was used both by Hooke, Myth and Ritual, p. 5, and by Widengren, Ethnos, p. 95 (with a reference to Goldenweiser, Anthropology (London, 1937), pp. 457 ff.). I am not quite sure whether Professor Hooke considers the whole ancient Near East one vast culture area with Mesopotamia as its centre and with one general myth and ritual pattern, cf. Myth and Ritual, p. 70, or if he thinks of several developments of a common, older pattern, cf. The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1935 (London, 1938), p. 57. (The difference of opinion has been observed by Anderson, op. cit., p. 294 n. 1.) Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation as Religious Documents (Stockholm, 1937), pp. 1 ff., esp. p. 17, emphasized that Palestine and Syria were only offshoots of Babylonian civilization.].

156

It was now possible to demonstrate in detail Early Hebrew Myths and that Israel had been profoundly influenced by the old inhabitants of Canaan; this had, of course, been assumed long ago, but demonstrations had fallen short of convincing proof. Incidentally it is curious to observe to what extent the convincing demon­strations were made by scholars outside the British and Scandinavian schools. Of course many contributions were furnished by members of these schools also, but so far as the British 'Myth and Ritual School' is concerned it would seem as if the Second World War had a devastating effect, for since 1940 its members have published very little on the same lines as before. The more welcome therefore is the present volume.

The chief value of the Ugaritic texts from a more general point of view of myth-interpretation lies in the fact that they so clearly exhibit the ritual aspects of myth. This has been emphasized among others by Pedersen [n1 Cf. Pedersen, ed. Illustreret Religionshistorie (Copenhagen, 1948), pp. 200, 202 f., 204 f., 206 f., 210; 'Canaanite and Israelite Cultus', A.c.O. xviii (1939), pp. 1-14.]. For this reason these mythological poems possess typical value for the interpretation of ancient Hebrew myths.

This short and admittedly very incomplete survey of the history of interpretation has shown us myths in their close association with rites and ceremonies, as part of a ritual. Further, the theory of a general myth and ritual pattern of the ancient Near East has proved a very useful clue and must obviously be given the most careful consideration. At all events we have to look upon Israelite Canaan as part of a vast culture area of the Near East, dominated by Babylonian culture patterns, and this not only in the field of religion but in spiritual and material cul­ture in genera1 [n2 The spread of cuneiform writing and literature, of Mesopotamian seals, of cosmology, of temple architecture and symbolism, of art patterns, &c., as well as of many Babylonian loanwords would seem to be most typical.].

157

Egypt, which certainly exercised a considerable  influence on Canaan, constitutes an entirely separate culture area [n1 Thus far we may admit that criticisms (e.g. Frankfort, Mowinckel, &c.) were right to a certain degree. But from a more general point of view, when, e.g., the whole culture area of Egypt and the Near East is considered, both these smaller culture areas can be regarded as constituting one single culture area as contrasted, for instance, with the Mediterranean culture area. In this case the lack of orientation in cultural anthropology in its modern aspect (perhaps coupled with apologetic inclinations) have caused a certain bias and much unnecessary bitterness in polemics, e.g. on the side of Frankfort and Mowinckel.].

Myth as a literary creation has to be seen as older than those popular tales, stories, sagas, and legends where corre­sponding motifs are found [2 For a general survey cf. Widengren, Religionens varld, 2nd ed. (Stockholm, 1953), pp. 151-62.]. There has been a certain ten­dency in modern interpretation of Hebrew myths to neglect their speculative force and importance [n3 But already Gunkel, Genesis, pp. xv f. had stressed the 'philosophical' implications of some of the Old Testament myths.]. But actually cosmo­logical myths have played a considerable role in the religious life of Israel and it would seem to be quite obvious that myth in Israel as elsewhere is very often on the verge of developing into a kind of theory of the world and of life [n4 It is to Radin that the credit should be given of having shown the importance of 'the speculative element among non-literate peoples, cf. Primitive Man as Philosopher (New York, 1927). For Africa we may refer to the various interesting publications of Griaule, cf., e.g. (together with G. Dieterlen), 'The Dogon', African Worlds 1953, pp. 83 ff.; 'Mythe de l'organisation du monde chez les Dogons du Soudan', Psyche, vi (1947), pp. 443 ff.; 'Descente du troisieme verbe chez les Dogons du Soudan', ibid., xiii-xiv (1947), pp. 3 ff., and many articles in Journal de la Societé des Africanistes, 1948-50, 1952. Among ancient Indo-European peoples the specu­lative spirit in myth is most conspicuous, cf. the many epoch-making works of Dumezil and for this question in general Widengren, Religionens varld, pp. 133, 151 f.]. Even in an agricultural society there was room for thought about more things than 'certain practical and pressing problems of daily life' [n5 Hooke, Myth and Ritual, p. 2.].

The question we put forward in our introductory sentence can without any doubt be answered in the affirmative. The history of interpretation of what scholars have called Hebrew myths has already achieved much, demonstrating in the most convincing way that there once existed in Israel a very rich treasure of myths—real, i.e. ritual myths—playing a central role in the religious system and life of the Hebrew people.

158

I should like to stress the word 'system', for in Israel as elsewhere in the Ancient East there existed a real system of ideas, a veritable Weltanschauung.

When mentioning cosmological myths we have already touched upon one kind of myth, incontestably preserved among older parts of Old Testament literature. Although Israel, according to the judgement of Gunkel, was unfavourably disposed towards myths [n1 'Israel ist den Mythen nicht gunstig gewesen', R.G.G.² iv. 381. This is better expressed in his Genesis, p. xiv: 'Der eigentliche Zug der Jahve-Religion ist den Mythen nicht gunstig.'] we nevertheless meet with a great many passages in the Old Testament containing allusions to cosmo­logical myths, as indeed Gunkel himself has demonstrated [n2 Above all in his classic work Schopfung und Chaos (Gottingen, 1895); 2nd impr. 1921.]. Actually there is here a confusion, which recurs rather often, between the Old Testament and Israel itself. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Old Testament, as it is handed down to us in the Jewish Canon, is only one part—we do not even know if the greater part—of Israel's national literature [n3 Cf. Pedersen, Z.A.W. xlix (1931), p. 161: 'Fragen wir, was das AT ist, muB die Antwort zunachst ganz einfach lauten : Es ist die nationale Literatur des judischen Volkes, wie sie etwa 1-2 Jahrhunderte vor dem Anfang unserer Zeitrechnung vorlag.']. And, more­over, this preserved part has in many passages quite obviously been exposed to censorship and correspondingly purged [n4 For this criticism of myth cf. Peters, op. cit., p. 154 b; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 119 f., and in general Oesterley-Robinson, Hebrew Religion, its Origin and Development, 2nd. ed. (London, 1937), p. 173; cf. also Gressmann, The Expositor, ser ix. 3 (1925), p. 4-17.]. In such circumstances it is in fact quite remarkable that we are still able to detect so many traces of myths in the Old Testament. It surely calls for notice that Old Testament poetry has kept intact some ancient Near-Eastern myths to a considerably greater extent than its prose narratives, and it is astonishing to find so many traces of myths also in those poetical parts of the Old Testament that may almost certainly be dated to exilic and post-exilic times [n5 Above all in Isa. xl-lxvi and in Job.].

159

To these poetical parts must, however, be added Genesis, although there are certain arguments in favour of the hypothesis that Genesis as far as its mythical mate­rial is concerned is largely based upon epic traditions [n1 Sievers's old theory of an original metric version of Genesis went too far, but that traces of poetic texts have been discovered by Gunkel in his commentary is well known. Through the work of Cassuto the whole problem has received a fresh stimulus and ought to be examined anew. We hope to be able to revert to this problem. (Professor Burney also attempted to prove the metrical character of Genesis.)]. But on the whole it is in the poetry rather than in the prose that we are confronted by Hebrew myths. How, then, can we explain, in a text admittedly rather late like Job, the astonishingly large number of allusions to ancient Hebrew myths? This question has been the subject of discussion [n2 Cf., e.g., Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 158 ff., 162; Robinson, in Myth and Ritual, p. 176. It is a matter for regret that the thesis of Feinberg, 'Ugaritic literature and the Book of Job' (Baltimore 1945), remains unpublished, for obviously such a problem must have been treated there. For the solution offered by Albright cf. below, p.202.] and we shall revert to the problem.

First of all when treating of existing Hebrew myths we should not forget—as is usually done—that the description of the appearance of Yahweh himself is based upon mythical notions and very often possesses a definite mythical-anthropomorphic colouring [n3 It should be observed that, e.g., Eichrodt, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Leip­zig, 1935), ii. 3 speaks of 'der Form naturmythologischen Denkens'.]. We have in Deut. xxxiii. 2-3 a short, unfortunately rather enigmatic, description of Yahweh's triumphal procession in old times from Sinai [n4 A detailed philological and historical commentary on this passage was given by Nyberg, Z.D.M.G. xcii (1938), pp. 320-44.]. Here it is said that He comes from 'Myriads of Holy Ones', which may be taken as the name of a place [n5 Cf. Nyberg, of. cit., p. 336.] or as a designation of His divine court. At any rate this expression must be associated with other similar passages, de­scribing God as surrounded by His royal household or His assembly: (e.g.)

El is a terrible master in the great council of the Holy Ones,

and awe-inspiring above all those round about him. (Ps. lxxxix. 8) [n6 Ibid.]

160

These Holy Ones in Ps. xvi. 3 appear in an obscure context, but obviously in this passage too they are thought of as indepen­dent, divine beings [n1 An attempt at emendation and reconstruction of the text by Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche, U.U.A. 1935: 6, pp. 118 ff.]. In Zech. xiv. 5 we further read:

And Yahweh, my God, will come,

all thy Holy Ones with thee [n2 Cf. Nyberg, of. cit., p. 336.].

In Daniel viii. 13 the seer is listening to the conversation between two of the Holy Ones [n3 Cf. Montgomery, The Book of Daniel, I.C.C., 1927, pp. 231 f. (rather unsatisfactory).]. Cf. also Ecclus. xlii. 17 [n4 The text: 'Nor have the Holy Ones of God been able to tell the wonders of Yahweh.' Smend, Die Weisheit des Yesus Sirach (Berlin, 1906), p. 44, adopts the marginal gloss [HEB]) instead of [HEB]. Usually Job xv. 15 is compared with the passage in question.]. Just because the Holy Ones constitute the assembly of Yahweh He is glorified as unsurpassable among them as we see from Exod. xv. II:

Who is like thee among the gods, Yahweh,

who is like thee, glorious among the Holy Ones [n5 It is not necessary to emend [HEB] if we take. [HEB] as an abstract substantive possessing the value of a broken plural, cf. Nyberg, Z.D.M.G. xcii (1938), pp. 335 f. (it is true that Nyberg did not quote this passage, but the omission was perhaps only due to an oversight).]?

This passage is especially valuable when compared with Ps. lxxxix. 6 f., where in the two stichoi immediately preceding the already quoted passage it is said:

The heavens praise thy miracle, Yahweh,

yea, thy faithfulness in the assembly of the Holy Ones.

For who in the clouds is equal to Yahweh,

can be like Yahweh among the sons of the gods.

Here we can clearly see that 'the assembly of the Holy Ones' is the same as 'the sons of the gods', i.e. according to usual Hebrew and Semitic idiom 'the gods' [n6 I cannot find any reason for emending [HEB] in v. 6. It goes without saying that it would be more correct to translate [HEB] as 'gods'. The conven­tional translation is used here. Cf. also Winter, Z.A.W. lxvii (1955), pp. 40 ff.].

161

Very impressive indeed is the scene depicted in Ps. lxxxii, where God (El) is standing in the assembly. of the gods, judging them [n1 In the text I have left out the passage Hos. xii. 1, which is difficult. For interpretation and translation cf. Nyberg, Studien, pp. 92 f. No emendation being necessary I would rather like to translate: 'But Judah is seeking pasture with El, and with the Holy Ones she is faithful', interpreting this saying somewhat differently from Nyberg (who, however, Z.D.M.G. xcii (1938), p. 336 n. 2, admitted that the lower Canaanite deities might be alluded to by the prophet). I would suggest that because El and the Holy Ones together constitute the assembly of the gods there is no opposition between them in this passage and that [HEB] and [HEB] for this reason must possess a synonymous meaning. Therefore I take [HEB] in the meaning of Arabic [HEB] (but in another sense than Nyberg). The meaning would be that Judah is seeking refuge with El and is clinging to his assembly, the Holy Ones. For Ps. lxxxii cf. Morgenstern, 'The Mythological Background of Psalm 82', H.U.C.A. xiv (1939), pp. 29-126; Nyberg, , Studien, pp. 122-5.]. Yahweh is accordingly the highest god in a councilor assembly of gods, called 'the Holy Ones', or 'the Holy Ones of God' or simply 'the gods' ('the sons of the gods').

This assembly of the Holy Ones is found in Canaanite mytho­logy. In the Phoenician inscriptions there is, for instance, such a passage as Esmunazar inscr. 11. 9, 22, where the phrase 'the(se) holy gods' [n2 Quoted from N.S.I. No. 5: [HEB]. For the plural meaning cf. op cit., p. 24 note to no. 3: 10, and Harris, A Grammar of the Phoenician Language (New Haven, 1936), p. 77, S.V. [HEB] 'these'.] occurs; or, still more interesting from our point of view, 'the congregation of the holy gods of Byblos', Yehimilk of Byblos 11. 4-5 [n3 Quoted from Harris, op. cit., p. 77, s.v. [HEB] 'god', and Albright, J.A.O.S. xvii (1947), pp. 156 f.]. In the Ugaritic texts, moreover, the expres­sion 'the Holy Ones' is synonymous with 'the gods' (texts no. 137: 20 f., 38; 2 Aqhat i. 4,9, 14.).

In the case quoted from the Yehimilk inscription the word for assembly is mphrt, which corresponds to the same term in Ugaritic where we meet with the corresponding expression 'the assembly of ' the sons of El (the gods)', mphrt bn il, which has a synonymous term in phr bn ilm or phr ilm [n4 Quoted from Gordon, U.H., Glossary, p. 262: 1629. There is a second expression for assembly, viz. ‘dt ilm, U.H., Glossary, p. 255: 1455, and a third one dr bn il, U.H., Glossary, p. 224: 560 (add to the references 128, iii. 19).]. In the Ras Shamra texts this conception of an assembly of the gods recurs very often and it is clearly thought of as being under the leadership of EI, 'the father of the gods' [n5 Cf. the text 2 in Gordon, U.H., 1. 33 lab bn il. The father of the sons of El (God) cannot possibly be any other god than El himself.].

162

Behind the Canaanite idea of a high god and his assembly of holy gods, where he is as it were the president and redoubtable leader, we discern without any difficulty the Mesopotamian conception of Marduk and the assembly of the gods, the puhur ilani, as it occurs especially in the Epic of Creation, Enuma elis, tablet IV. In Mesopotamia we also have abundant proof of the idea that the high god is considered the father of the gods [n1 Cf. Tallqvist, Akkadische Gotterepitheta (Helsingfors, 1938), p. 1; s.v. abu.].

So the mythical idea of God surrounded by his assembly has evidently been taken over from the Canaanites, who shared this conception with the inhabitants of Mesopotamia.

We may now pass on to the various forms of the epiphanies of Yahweh. It is well known that He is a god associated above all with storm, lightning, and thunder. His epithets or the invo­cations of him give sufficient indication of his character, for he is 'the rider on the clouds', Ps. lxviii. 5, or 'the rider of heavens', Deut. xxxiii. 26 (Ps. lxviii. 34), or 'the rider on the cloud', Isa. xix. 1. With a still stronger mythical colouring it is said that he is riding on the Cherub, 2 Sam. xxii. 11; Ps. xviii. 11. In Hab. iii. 8 Yahweh is even depicted as borne on His horses. Among these passages, as has been observed long ago, Ps. lxviii. 5 is of special interest, for the Hebrew expression runs: rokeb ba’arabot. This epithet was not understood until the Ugaritic exhibited in several passages the corresponding epithet rkb ‘rpt, given to Ba’a1 [n2 Observed already by Bauer, Z.A.W. li (1933), pp. 88 ff. Cf. further Gordon, U.H., Glossary, p. 259: 1539.]. In this case too the mythical image has been inherited by the Israelites from Canaan, though we can trace the same conception back to Mesopotamia. Here the godhead is sometimes depicted as riding in the sky in his car [n3 rakib ^isnarkabti.], or as riding on the storm or hurricane [n4 (rakib umi = ) ud.da us.a; (rakib ugalla = ) u.gal.la us.a.], or on the typhoon [n5 rakib abubi. All these epithets are indexed in Tallqvist, Ope cit., p. 175, s.v. rakiibu.]. This is true especially of Adad, the East-Semitic counterpart of the West-Semitic Hadad, whom we meet in the RS texts as Ba’a1 [n6 Cf., e.g., Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen, 1952), pp. 50­-52. The identification of Hadad with Ba'al is clearly expressed in the Amarna letters, cf. the discussion by Gressmann, B.Z.A.W. xxxiii (1918), pp. 191-216, where, however, the conclusions should be supplemented and corrected in the light of the RS texts.]. This would seem to be of special importance as we shall see from what follows.

163

In the magnificent picture of Yahweh's epiphany in Hab. iii, the Canaanite background of which was demonstrated by Cassuto in 1938, we read:

Before him Pestilence marched,

and Plague went forth at his feet.

(Hab. iii. 5)

[n1 Transl. Albright, 'The Psalm of Habakkuk', Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented to Professor Theodore H. Robinson (Edinburgh, 1950), p. 12. Albright assumes vv. 3-7 to be 'taken with little alteration from a very early Israelite poem on the theophany of Yahweh as exhibited in the south-east storm', and vv. 8-15 to be 'adapted from an early poem or poems of Canaanite origin', op. cit., p. 8.]

We find here two of the bodyguards of the Israelitic high god, Rasaf and Dabar. Of these Rasaf is a well-known west-­Semitic deity [n2 Cf. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore 1946), 3rd ed. 1953, p. 79 with references p. 196 n. 24 (also an article by Vincent, R.B. 1928, pp. 512 ff.). The mythological background of Hab. iii. 5 was pointed out by Oesterley, in Myth and Ritual, pp. 1 19 f. Cf. also my thesis The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation, p. 256. Rasaf is now found also in the Karatepe inscription.], and presumably Dabar is another, minor deity.

In the same poem in Hab. iii the lightnings of Yahweh are also mentioned in verse 11 as His arrows and His spears [n3 This verse causes no philological difficulties.]. The same image of Yahweh as the thundering and lightning god is met with in Pss. xviii. 14-15 and xxix, whose Canaanite back­ground has long been recognized [n4 Cf. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 129. As to Ps. xxix we refer to Ginsberg, Atti del XIX Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti, 1938, pp. 472 ff. As shown by Ginsberg ‘this psalm swarms with Canaanitisms in diction and imagery; there can be no doubt that it is a relatively little changed adaptation of a Baal hymn to the cult of Yahweh, probably in or about the tenth century B.C.', Albright, op. cit., p. 6. In this connexion it should be noted that 'the Sons of God' are found in Ps. xxix. 1.]. In the RS texts Ba’al with his mace and his spear, the symbol of lightning [n5 Cf. Syria, xiv (1933); pl. xvi; Dussaud, Les Decouvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l'Ancien Testament (Paris 1937), p. 41.], furnishes us with a good illustration of Hab. iii. 11.

164

To the retinue of Yahweh there also belong other divine beings met with in Canaanite mythology, namely the hypostases Saedaeq and Mispat, Sahar and Salom (Salem) [n1 Cf. Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation, p. 71; Psalm 110, U.U.A. 1941: 7, 1, p. 10; a detailed discussion in Ringgren, Word and Wisdom, (Uppsala, 1947), pp. 86, 150 ff., where all the divine hypostases are investigated.]. Now Saedaeq and Mispat have their counterparts in the Sydyk and Misor of Philo Byblius (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evang. i. 10, 14), while Sahar and Slm appear in the same form in the Ugaritic poems. There are also traces of another deity, the Dew, Tal, in the Old Testament texts [n2 Cr. Widengren, Psalm 110, pp. 9 ff. Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Uppsala 1943), p. 82 n. 5, has added a reference to proper names composed with tal.].

Enough has been said to show that the oft-repeated saying that the monotheistic spirit of Yahwistic religion did not tolerate any mythology certainly needs some qualification. In older times Israelite religion was a rather complex entity, embracing also—­as we have seen—the idea of God surrounded by His divine assembly and council, and accompanied by His bodyguards. In this polytheistic trend there was a tendency to express more fully all the richness of divine essence and to get it more concretely visualized.

We may now proceed to the habitation of Yahweh. This is originally Sinai, but with the conquest of Jerusalem Yahweh also takes His seat on Sion. Now this mountain of Sion is explicitly identified with Safon in Ps. xlviii. 3 [n3 The qualification iarkete safon is given to Sion in spite of the fact that Sion is not at all situated in the north. It is a foreign geographical perspective adapted to Jerusalem as is the case also in Ps. lxxxix. Cf. Gunkel, Die Psalmen (Gottingen 1926), p. 206 (comparing Isa. xiv. 13 f.), and Widengren, Psalm 110, p. 24.]. Here the moun­tain of the gods is situated, to which we shall now direct our attention. This mountain is the earthly paradise, surrounded by the paradise rivers which stream forth from below it, and in­cluding the garden of paradise where Primordial Man is its ruler. God has His seat here on the top of the cosmic mountain which is, as it were, His throne [n4 Selected literature: Wensinck, The Ideas of the Western Semites concerning the Navel of the Earth, Amsterdam 1916; Myth and Ritual, p. 180; Widengren, Psalm 110, pp. 5-7, 15, 24 (literature indicated p. 15 n. 3); The King and the Tree of Life, U.U.A. 1951: 4, pp. 11, 44 f., 56 ff., 64 with fig. 22 on p. 66; Religionens varld, pp. 278 ff.].

165

But this mountain of Safon is well known from Ugaritic literature where it plays a central role in mythical cosmography. Here we have the place of the divine assembly where Ba’al is enthroned as ruler [n1 Cf. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon, Zeus Kasios und der Durchzug der Israeliten durchs Meer (Halle, 1932), pp. 20 ff.; Kapelrud, op. cit., pp. 57 f. and Joel Studies, U.U.A. 1948: 4, pp. 93-108.]. It seems indisputable that the intruding Israelitic tribes have taken over all this mythical geography from Canaan [n2 Cf. Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 20: 'Zu den Elementen, die Jahwe anderen Gottern, Kulten und Mythen entwindet und sich zu eigen macht, gehort auch die Vorstellung von einem in den Himmel ragenden Berg, dem Zaphon, der Sitz und Thron des Baals dieses Berges ist; der Baal wird entthront, und Jahwe nimmt seinen Platz ein.'], where it had been introduced in its turn from Mesopotamia. For it is only there that we find it fully elaborated and set in its proper context. Here too we find a common pattern underlying the mythical ideas in question.

As is well known, the Hebrew Paradise story in Gen. ii-iii exhibits all the distinctive features of an original myth; this has been demonstrated by Gunkel with a wealth of evidence that still commands respect [n3 Cf. Gunkel, Genesis, pp. 25-40.]. By comparing it with other Old Testa­ment passages Gunkel was able to show that it had lost much of its original colouring and become emasculated. In the early form of the story Primordial Man is a divine or semi-divine being, the snake a demon, and paradise the abode of God Himself; but in Genesis, while the special properties of the two trees in paradise are retained, that of its water has disappeared, and even the expression 'the Garden of God' is no longer used [n4 Cf. Gunkel, of, cit., p. 39.].

For Gunkel's demonstration the famous passage Ezek. xxviii was of primary importance [n5 cr. Gunkel, op. cit., p. 34; Robinson, Myth and Ritual, pp. 180, 182; Hooke, op. cit., p. 11.]. Because this text from various points of view is still one of the key texts and much labour has been expended on both its textual and ideological elucidation, we quote here in our own translation the relevant passages [n6 A detailed commentary was given in Widengren, Psalm 110, pp. 15 ff.; The Ascension of the Apostle and the Heavenly Book, U.U.A. 1950: 7, pp. 26,94-97.].

166

Thou wast a sealer of the preserved (thing), full of wisdom and accom­plished in beauty.

In Eden, the Garden of God, thou wast, every precious stone being thy cover, ruby, chrysolith, diamond, topaz, shoham, jasper, sapphire, malachite, beryl, hyacinth, agate, amethyst and gold.

The works of thy settings and thy trappings on thee, the day thou wast created they were prepared. Thou wast a cherub, oh, what an anointed of the Shadower, and I placed thee on the holy mountains.

A god thou wast, in the midst of stones of fire thou didst walk. (Ezek. xxviii. 12-14)

We should note in this text the following important points: in the Garden of God, situated. 'on the holy mountain', there was dwelling a divine being, anointed by God, who is called 'the Shadower', either because the godhead is overshadowing him with his wings (cf. Ps. xvii. 8; lvii. 2; Ixi. 5; Ixxiii. 8) [n1 Cf.. the discussion in Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of Lamen­tation, p. 253.] or because the deity is thought of as a mighty tree in the shadow of which he is living (cf. Hos. xiv. 9; Ezek. xxxi. 2-9; Dan. iv. 7-9) [n2 Cf. Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life, pp. 56 ff. When not the godhead but the king is depicted with the traits of this symbol we meet with the same pheno­menon as in Mesopotamia, where the king as 'Tammuz' has taken over the symbols of this god, cf. Widengren, op. cit., pp. 42. ff.]. This divine being is called a 'cherub' and an 'anointed (one)', the former epithet indicating his association with the garden as its guardian (Gen. iii. 24) and with God as that upon which the Deity rides (Ezek. x. 6 ff.) [n3 For the mythical being called 'Cherub' cf. Lods, Israel des origines au milieu du VIIIe siècle (Paris, 1932.), p. 533. The English transl. was not accessible to me.], the latter his royal status, because he has received his anointing from God—just like a corresponding Mesopotamian figure, the Primordial Man called Adapa [n4 Cf. Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life, pp. 21 n., 59 f.]. And we should not forget that the whole description applies to the king of Tyre (Ezek. xxviii. 1). Accordingly the Phoenician ruler from the point of view of royal ideology is both the guardian of the Garden of God and God's anointed. His garment reflects his wonderful nature, being set with twelve precious stones, and he is walking about in the midst of 'stones of fire', i.e. the stars.

167

He was not only 'accomplished in beauty' but also 'full of wisdom', and 'a sealer of the preserved (thing)', just as Marduk in the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation sealed the tablets of destiny, Enuma elis, iv. 122 [n1 This idea lives on in the Jewish notion of the 'heavenly tablets', Enoch xciii. 2.; Book of Jubilees v. 13; xvi. 9; xxxii. 21 and ultimately in the Qur'anic lauh mahfum, cf. Widengren, Muhammad, the Apostle of God and His Ascension, U.U.A. 1955: 1, pp. 117ff.; The Ascension of the Apostle, pp. 27 f., 36ff.]. Actually it can be shown without difficulty that the Primordial Man wears the same pectoral as the Israelite high-priest wears in virtue of his office (Exod. xxviii. 17-20), the twelve jewels in both cases being exactly the same. We know further that Phoenician and Mesopotamian rulers really were equipped with a pectoral [n2 For the following cf. Widengren, Psalm 110, pp. 13 ff.; Sakrales Konigtum in Alten Testament und im Judentum (Stuttgart, 1955), p. 27.]. Such a pectoral has been found in the excavations of Byblos, in the same square form as that worn by the high-priest of Yahweh, and moreover inlaid with twelve (?) stones [n3 Cf. Montet, Byblos et l'Égypte (Paris, 192.9), pi. xciv.]. For this reason it is quite conceivable that the Palestinian princelets before the Israelite conquest of Canaan were equipped with such a pectoral, taken over by the Davidic ruler of Jerusalem. But the mythical significance of this garment lies above all in the fact that the Urim and Thummim, contained in the so-called hosean mispat, correspond to the Mesopotamian Tablets of Destiny. Accord­ingly Primordial Man, the mythical exemplar of both the Phoenician and Israelitic ruler, was wearing the Heavenly Tab­lets, deciding the destinies of the world. They were fastened to his breast in a pouch in exactly the same manner as Marduk wore them in Enuma elis, iv. 121-2 (cf. i. 156-7). But these tablets are in reality—as was seen long ago—nothing but the Tablets of Law, delivered by God to Moses [n4 Cf. Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle, pp. 22. ff.; Psalm 110, p. 19 n. 3 (with references).]. By means of the possession of these Divine Tablets the Primordial Man in paradise in fact was—what he is called—'a sealer of the preserved (thing), full of wisdom'. Here another detail calls for notice. The Israelite king on the day of his enthronement received a copy of the Law,

168

that is these same Heavenly Tablets, given by Yahweh to Moses. This is accordingly the perfect ritual counterpart of the mythical conception we have been tracing here. The Israelite king is also as the possessor of the Tablets of Law 'full of wisdom', a proclaimer of God's revealed will. We cannot, however, pursue farther this line of thought [n1 Cf. in addition to Psalm 110, pp. 13 ff., and The Ascension of the Apostle, pp. 22 ff.; also Sakrales Konigtum, pp. 28ff. and above all Y.S.S. ii (1957), pp. 1 ff.]. Here we should only like to point out the fact that the legendary Mesopotamian king Enmeduranki of Sippar on the occasion of his enthronement in the temple Ebarra was given 'the tablets of the gods, the bag with the mystery of heaven and earth' [n2 Cf. Widengren, The Ascension of the Apostle, pp. 7 f.]. For this reason we think that in this case too it has been possible to trace the myth and ritual pattern from Israel via Canaan back to Mesopotamia, even, if in this case the interpretation of the Ugaritic texts does not yield any really reliable results [n3 Attempts to find parallels have not been lacking, cf. Widengren, Psalm 110, p. 13, where Gaster, Iraq, vi (1939), p. 136, is quoted, but cf. on the other hand Sakrales Konigtum, pp. 91 f., where strong scepticism is expressed.].

We have already hinted at the fact that Primordial Man is conceived of as the guardian of paradise. He is therefore also the Gardener par excellence. The paradise garden contained within it not only the Tree of Life but also the Water of Life, a fact inferred from the references collected by Gunkel [n4 Cf. Gunkel, Genesis, p. 36,with the following references: Ezek. xlvii. 1-12; Joel iv. 18; Zech. xiv. 8; Rev. xxii. 1 f. cf. further Widengren, Psalm 110, pp. 23 f., with reference to Ps. xlvii. 5, and Sakrales Konigtum, p. 104 (a slip there should be corrected: the text of course should be read [HEB].]. For the ritual background of this mythical conception it is important to note that we find in Palestine a connexion between water and tree, between temple basin and sacred grove, which clearly reflects the Water of Life and Tree of Life in paradise. Once more we are carried back to Mesopotamia where this association has its special raison d' etre in the Ea-Eridu circle [n5 Cf. Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life, p. 36.].

169

Primordial Man as the Gardener is a widespread mythic-­ritual conception in the ancient Near East, especially associated with royal ideology. The king in Mesopotamia, for example, is the living  representative of the mythical Gardener in paradise [n1 Widengren, Op. cit., pp. 9 ff.]. The Tyrian ruler, as the incarnation of Primordial Man in paradise, carries on this mythical tradition and in the Israelite combination of Primordial Man and ruler the idea is still living, the Saviour-King of future Messianic times having acquired traits which connect him with the First Man, Adam [n2 Cf. Widengren, R.o.B. ii (1943), pp. 71, 74. A detailed elaboration of this idea was later on given by Bentzen, Messias-Moses Redivivus-Menschensohn (Zurich, 1948). The English transl. King and Messiah (London, 1955), was not accessible to me.]. In the Ugaritic text depicting the life of the hero Krt, the high god El is called ab adm, 'the father of Adam (Mankind)'. Adam, Primordial Man, is accordingly the son of El.

Curiously enough, the sacral king may be looked upon sym­bolically not only as the Custodian of the Tree of Life, a branch of which he is carrying in his hand as his scepter [n3 Cf. Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life, pp. 27 ff.], but even as this tree itself [n4 Cf. Widengren, op cit., pp. 49 ff.]. Obviously this holds true of both Syrian-­Canaanite and Israelite culture. Above all would seem to be important in this case the idea of the coming Saviour-King as 'the Shoot', saemah, a notion found in Phoenician inscriptions as well as in the Old Testament. There is even an exact parallel to 'the righteous shoot' (Jer. xxiii. 5; xxxiii. 15) in Phoenician inscriptions, where the same term is found [n5 Cf. Widengren, op cit., pp. 51 f., [HEB] corresponding to Phoenician [HEB].], as we might have expected, for this mythical idea a wider context is to be seen also in Mesopotamia [n6 Cf. Widengren, op. cit., pp. 42 ff.]. It was one of Gunkel's special merits to have devoted a great monograph, now a classic, to the investiga­tion of Yahweh's activity as a creator [n7 Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos. Gunkel's methods were criticized by no less a person than Wellhausen in his Skizzen und Vorarbeiten (Berlin 1899), vi. 225 ff., so far as the interpretation of apocalyptic literature was concerned. But in this case, too, Gunkel on the whole saw more clearly than Wellhausen, whose criticisms were answered by Gunkel, Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstandnis des Neuen Testaments (Gottingen, 1903), pp. 11 ff. Wellhausen's criticisms were quoted with approval by Bentzen, Moses Redivivus-Messias-Menschensohn, p. 24, evidently without knowledge of Gunkel's refutation. Actually what Gunkel has to say in this connexion is in our day still more relevant (against Bentzen and Mowinckel). Of modern studies on this theme we may mention Gray, Transact. Glasgow Univ. Oriental Society, xiv (1950-2), pp. 47 ff.]

170

He has no difficulty in reconstructing an old Israelite myth, according to which Yahweh had conquered the Primordial Dragon—the rebellious waters of Primeval Chaos—split it asunder, and created cosmos out of chaos. For the necessary background of his reconstructive work, by means of which he had to piece together many mythical fragments and allusions in the Old Testament, Gunkel out of sheer necessity was forced to rely almost exclusively on Mesopotamian mythical poems, above all on the great Epic of Creation, Enuma elis. In our days, thanks to the important new Ugaritic material, we are in a position to compare the Israelite myth with corresponding Canaanite mythical themes. Actually this may be said to be the point of contact where we are able to analyse with most reliability the historical connexions between Israel and Canaan.

The locus classicus for Yahweh's fight against the Dragon is found in the Psalms and was quoted by Oesterley in his essay on 'Early Hebrew Festival Rituals' [n1 Cf. Myth and Ritual, p. 129 and Robinson, op. cit., p. 176 n. 3 (only a reference).].

God is my King from of old,

    achieving victories in the midst of the earth.

Thou didst split in twain the Sea in thy strength,

    Thou didst break in pieces the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Thou didst smash the heads of Leviathan,

    Thou wilt give him for food, for food to the people of the desert.

Thou didst cleave fountain and flood,

    Thou didst dry up ancient rivers.

(Ps. lxxiv. 12-15)

[n2 Some slight changes have been introduced in the translation given by Oesterley.

The conjecture [HEB] in Kohler-Baumgartner, Lexicon, p. 715 b, 'to the sharks of the sea' apart from philological difficulties—the word being only hypotheti­cally constructed—only yields a rather trivial meaning.]

The best-known name for this redoubtable enemy of Yahweh is Leviathan, which we meet with in this passage. Another name for the Dragon is Rahab, found, for example, in another famous passage, Ps. lxxxix. 10- 15.

171

Here emphasis is laid on the great deed of creation which Yahweh achieved by conquering Rahab. A third term is Behemoth, met with, for instance, in Ps. lxviii. 30, as 'the beast of the reeds', to quote what is probably the oldest extant passage.

The great Primordial Dragon is accompanied by other ser­pent- or dragon-like monsters, Tanninim, the leader of which is sometimes called Tannin, taken in the sense of a proper name. We may refer to Ps. lxxiv. 13 f. (already quoted) and Job vii. 12. Now these accompanying monsters are often called 'the helpers of Rahab', ‘ozre Rahab:

God doth not turn back his anger,

    the helpers of Rahab did stoop under him.

(Job ix. 13)

But we also meet with more general designations such as Tehom, 'the Deep', or the Sea, Yam, or River, Nahar [n1 A survey of the different terms is found in Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 30 ff., 41 ff., 61 ff., 69 ff., 81 f., 91 ff., 97; Genesis, p. 121; Robinson, Myth and Ritual, p. 176. For the terms for 'Sea' cf. above all Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 91 ff.]. We may compare for Tehom the most famous of all creation-texts, Gen. i. 2 (and Ps. civ. 6); for Yam and Nahar the magnificent description of the divine epiphany in Hab. iii. (already alluded to), where we read in verse 8:

Is against the River(s) enflamed, oh Yahweh,

    yea, against the River(s) thy wrath,

        or against the Sea thine anger?

(Hab. iii. 8)

[n2 The Hebrew text runs: [HEB] I think we can translate the MT as it stands. For this reason I cannot follow Al­bright. in his very drastic reconstruction of the text, cf. Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, p. 11, though he may be quite right in reading the sg. [HEB] (with enclitic [HEB]), the plur. used in v. 9 being [HEB]. On the other hand Hebrew, like other Semitic languages, prefers variation. It should be mentioned that Albright's emendations on the whole have no support in the versions. Cf. also the general trend in Mowincke1's article in Theologische Zeitschrift, ix (1953), pp. 1-23.]

172

Special details call for notice. Thus we should first of all note that Leviathan has several heads, Ps. lxxiv. 14. Secondly, when conquering the Sea-Dragon or the Deep, Yahweh before the fight rebukes, ga’ar, his adversary. So in the following passage:

He rebuketh the Sea and drieth it up,

    and the rivers he causeth to run dry.

(Nah. i. 4)

For this motif we should also compare such passages as Ps. civ. 7; cvi. 9 and Isa. xvii. 13 [n1 Cf. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, p. 108; Haldar, Studies in the Book of Nahum, U.U.A. 1946: 7, pp. 99 ff.].

Thirdly the epithets of Leviathan, nahas bari^ah ‘aqallaton, Isa. xxvii. 1, deserve special mention.

As will soon be seen these three details are of primary impor­tance. Gunkel when writing his monograph had access only to Mesopotamian material, Phoenician texts at that time being non-existent. Now, thanks to the RS texts, we are able to check the results achieved by Gunkel.

We may, then, state that, as the result of recent comparative researches into the Hebrew myth of the Dragon-fight and the corresponding motifs in Ugaritic mythological texts, a perfect parallelism between the two has been demonstrated. It has been rightly said that we meet here with one of the most striking points of agreement between Ugarit and Israel [n2 Cf. Baumgartner, Th.R., N.F. xiii (1941), p. 162.]. The text III AB especially furnishes us with many details of the fight between the high god Ba’al and his opponent Prince Sea, Zabul Yam [n3 Text published U.H., no. 129+137+68; transl. U.L., pp. 11-I7; A.N.E.T., pp. 129-31. The 'historical' interpretation tentatively proposed by Obermann. J.A.O.S. lxvii (1947). pp. 205 f. would hardly seem to be acceptable in the light of comparative evidence from Israel and Mesopotamia.]. There are, however, in the other texts also some allusions to the same myth, so that we can elucidate the three points in the Hebrew myths just singled out as especially significant. Thus we find that the exact equivalent of Leviathan, here called (Lawtan>) Lotan, is described as having seven heads, slyt dsb’t rasm, Anat. iii. 39. He is further called ltn bsn brh/bsn ‘qltn,

173

A i. 1-3, 27-30, and accordingly receives the same epithets as in the Old Testament [n1 On the meaning of brh = bar^eah cf. the discussion in Albright. Studies in Old

Testament Prophecy. p. 2 n. 9. where he argues with good reason for the meaning 'primordial'. It is usually rendered 'fleeing. gliding'. so in Kohler-Baumgartner, Lexicon. p. 149 b.]. The verb 'rebuke', g’r, also recurs in the same myth, though not exactly in the situation we should expect. Here we still have to rely on the passage Enuma elis, iv. 76 ff., where Marduk before engaging in the battle with Tiamat makes his accusations against her [n2 Already observed by Gunkel. Schopfung und Chaos. p. 113: 'Scheltrede'.]. The 'helpers' of Rahab likewise have their only counterpart in the 'helpers' of Tiamat [n3 Observed by Gunkel, op. cit.. p. 38; cf. Enuma elis., 105 ff.; as in Job ix. 13, they are not killed but subdued and fettered.], who by the way is the Accadian etymological counterpart of Tehom, as was seen long ago [n4 T^ehom = *tiham, cf. Arabic tihamat^un: Accadian ti’amat. One could of course, invoke the fact that Prince Sea in the Ugaritic poem has his helpers. i.e. his 'pages' or 'knights' (not 'lads') who act as his messengers, but we do not know whether they assist him in battle.].

We should also observe that Ugaritic material confirms the view that various myths, circling around the motif of the fight against the Sea, had been spread in Canaan and taken over by the Israelites. Thus, for example, the battle against the River is obviously an independent myth in both Ugaritic and Israelite mythology, though it was ultimately merged in the other myths of the fight against Primordial Ocean.

This mythical battle in the Old Testament texts is described as ending in Yahweh's victory over his enemies, followed by his creation of the world, Gen. i (and many other passages) [n5 Cf. Ps. civ. 5-9. and the commentary given by Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 91 ff.. where related passages are quoted.]. There is, moreover, another myth of creation, describing the original state of the scene of the Creator's activities as 'an uninhabited waste, untilled by man, and without rain or the vegetation which rain produces' [n6 Hooke, In the Beginning (Oxford. 1948). p. 24.]. This myth, too, has a clear Canaanite background, the fertilization of the soil being thought of as dependent upon the rains sent by Yahweh to bring fertility [n7 Cf. Hooke, op. cit., p. 24 f.; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 5.].

174

There also comes forth from the ground a river or a source of water, ed, watering the whole surface of the earth, adamah. Then Yahweh formed earthly Man, adam, out of earth, adamah, as dust, 'apar. This statement with its play upon adam and adamah indicates that Man was fashioned by God from the red dry particles of earth, adamah meaning the red arable soil [n1 Cf. Kohler-Baumgartner, Lexicon, s.v. [HEB], p. 12 a (the Ethiopic word 'adama is misprinted), and s.v. [HEB], p. 13 a.]. Now this pun takes us of course back to Canaan, where we find adam not only as the designation of mankind but also as the name of a deity of earth [n2 Cf. Lidzbarski, N.G.G.W., Phil.-hist. KI. (Gottingen, 1916), pp. 90 f.], and where in the RS texts El is called 'ab adam, as was indicated above [n3 Cf. above, p. 169. For Phoenician [HEB], man, cf. Harris, of. cit., p. 74.]. This manner of creating mankind by fashioning a being out of the dust of earth is a well-known theme in Mesopotamian mythology [n4 Cf. the manner in which Aruru created Man, A.N.E.T., p. 437 (the Ludlul bel nimeqi text) = Langdon, Babylonian Wisdom (London, 1923), p. 63, and above all the Epic of Gilgames, I CoI. ii. 34. In this case the material is clay, cf. Dhorme, La Religion assyro-babylonienne, pp. 183 f.] and we are taken back once more to Mesopotamian mythical stories, at the same time clearly discern­ing the specific Canaanite colour of the narrative in Genesis ii f.

While one tradition (Gen. i. 26) considers this Primordial Man the image of God, another statement (Gen. ii. 7), which we have just mentioned, says that Yahweh breathed into him His breath of life. At any rate the connexion between God and Primordial Man is very intimate and we may find here a faint trace of the original Canaanite idea according to which El was the father of Adam, Mankind. Primordial Man would then be entitled to be called the Son of God, as has been noted already. We saw that for this mythical conception a ritual association was found in so far as the king was looked upon as a living incarnation or representative of this Primordial Man. Now, certain hints in both Ugaritic and Old Testament texts would seem to indicate that the ruler as son of the godhead was given the special designation of 'firstborn', cf. Ps. lxxxix. 28, where God gives the following proclamation concerning David:

I shall put him as the Firstborn,

    as the Highest one for the kings of earth.

175

This proclamation assumes that it is possible to elevate a person to the position of the firstborn (cf. the story of Esau and Jacob). Actually in the Ugaritic Krt text the same institution appears in a context which shows a remarkable coincidence with Ps. lxxxix. 28 [n1 Cf. Krt. iii. 13-19:

Be most exalted, oh Krt!

    In the midst of the Rephaim of the earth,

in the assembly of the gathering of Datan,

    I shall make the youngest of them the firstborn.

A detailed commentary cannot be given here; it may suffice to point to the legend 1 Sam. xvi, where David as the youngest of Jesse's eight sons is elevated above them. In the Krt text 'seven, yea eight' sons are announced to Krt (the number 'seven, yea eight' being significant). For the notion of the firstborn cf. Widengren, Sakrales Konigtum, p. 54. The connexion with the Datan of Num. xvi is still enigmatic. Gordon, Introduction to Old Testament Times (Ventnor, N.J., 1953), p. 294, pointed out the general agreement between the Ugaritic and Old Testament passages. The Ugaritic text, however, refers to a female being.]. What is of primary importance is the fact that Krt is depicted entirely as a Primordial King. The connexion between Primordial Man and the actual ruler for this reason cannot be doubted and therefore the mythical conception of paradise and Primeval Man has played a considerable role in royal ideology, the king being as it were the Son of God, just because he is the representative of Primordial Man [n2 Cf. above, p. 169 n. 2, the references to the opinions of Widengren and Bentzen.]. Such is the case in Mesopotamia too, where the king may be styled, 'man, the son of his god' [n3 Cf. Widengren, R.o.B. ii (1943), p. 55.].

The creation story of Genesis is enacted during seven days and this fact has been compared to the seven tablets of the Babylonian Epic of Creation as well as with the seven days of the Israelitic Festival of Booths. It has been surmised by Hum­bert that the Hebrew story of creation was used as a cult text or at least served 'a liturgical purpose' [n4 Cf. Humbert, R.H.Ph.R. xv (1935), pp. 1-27, and Hooke, In the Beginning, p. 36, whence I have borrowed the expression 'a liturgical purpose'.]. For this hypothesis the close resemblance between part of the creation story in Genesis and Ps. civ with its unmistakable liturgical background is a strong argument.

176

Loosely attached to the stories of creation and origins are other mythical fragments and allusions as, for example, the Fall of the Angels and the story of the Great Flood.

The Fall of the Angels is preserved in the Old Testament in a very fragmentary state but the Ethiopic Book of Enoch gives some supplementary details which cannot possibly be ascribed to the imagination of later generations. The passage in I Enoch vi. 1 ff. is also of considerable interest because it is held to belong to an Apocalypse of Noah, of which fragments are found in I Enoch. Especially valuable is the fact that the angels are located on Mount Hermon, thus furnishing us with a definite local background to the myth in question. Conceivably a clear indi­cation is found here of a Sidonian or Tyrian origin of this myth which accordingly would seem to have been taken over by the Israelites from the former inhabitants of Canaan as is the case with so many other Hebrew myths. It should not be forgotten that Hermon is definitely outside Israelite territory in Palestine; at the same time it plays a role in some psalms for which a North­-Israelite adaptation of Canaanite psalms may be presumed [n1 Cf. Morgenstern, The Mythological Background, pp. 113 f., and in general, pp. 86 ff.]. Similarly the famous myth of Helal ben Sahar and his casting down belongs to the circle of myths treating of the fall of divine beings [n2 Cf. Gunkel, Schopfung und Chaos, pp. 132.-4.].

In his essay on 'Hebrew Myths' in Myth and Ritual, Professor Theodore Robinson made the following statement when dealing with some special topics of the myth and ritual pattern. It deserves quoting in full:

We turn now to another, which springs out of the Creation myth, and which seems to have exercised a very deep influence on the cultus, not only of Mesopotamia, but also of Palestine. This is the 'Tammuz' story. It suggests the annual death and renewal of nature, and is thus, in a sense, a development of the Creation myth itself. Two elements are prominent in it, that of the dying god and that of the divine marriage which assures the fertility of the earth for the ensuing year.

177

This subject has been closely studied in recent years, and it is generally (though not universally) agreed that a ritual involving a dying God, a divine marriage, and a ceremonial procession, was found in Israel. It would be strange if it were not so, for some such ceremonial is almost universal among agricultural peoples, though in many instances it has lost one or more of its characteristic features.

[n1 Cf. Myth and Ritual, pp. 183 f. Cf. also Hyatt, The Journal of Bible and Religion, 1942., pp. 67-75, and especially p. 74, where he says: 'The myth of the dying-rising god was undoubtedly known to the Hebrews and there are many passages in which it is possible to see echoes or influences of the various elements in this myth. The following passages are offered as possibilities: (a) the death of the god, Hos. v. 6-7; v. 13-vi. 3; xiii. 1 ff.; (b) the mourning rites, Hos. vii. 14-16; I Kings xviii. 28; Jer. vi. 26; xvi. 6; Ezek. viii. 14; Amos viii. 10; Joel i. 8; Zech. xii. 10 f.; Judges xi. 38ff.; (c) the search for the god, Hos. ii. 7 f. ; x. 12.; and (d) the resurrection of the god, Hos. vi. 2.; xi. 7; xiii. 14.']

Professor Robinson then goes on to point out 'that the repre­sentation of the sacred marriage involved features which were repulsive in the extreme to the mind of the nomadic element in Israel'. He further thinks that 'some of the practices eliminated by Josiah seem to have been associated with this cult'. As to the traces left in the Old Testament of such a mythology he rightly observes that 'for the most part we have to rely for our informa­tion on occasional references whose full import is realized only in the light of comparative mythology' [n2 Cf. Myth and Ritual, p. 184.]. I should like to emphasize this methodological remark with which I fully agree but which is obviously not everywhere accepted [n3 Cf. Johnson, E. T. (1950) p. 41. I hope to be able to discuss in another connexion the questions of method in the field of Old Testament exegesis.].

Professor Robinson further proceeds to enumerate the general indications of the once existing sacred marriage in the Israelite myth and ritual pattern. He refers to Ps. xviii. 11 and Isa. iv. 6, where he finds a possible references to a 'booth', 'which', as he states, 'may have been originally derived from one feature of the festival'. He points out secondly the fact that it has 'been con­jectured that the Song of Songs is based on a collection of hymns used in this ritual'. In this case he is, of course, alluding above all to Professor Meek's epoch-making articles. And he further mentions that 'it has, again, been plausibly suggested that much of Hosea's language and metaphor is based on this cult', referring

178

to the pioneering article of Professor May. Lastly he emphasizes the often overlooked fact that in the Jewish community possessing the temple at Elephantine in Egypt in the fifth century a goddess Anat was worshipped in association with Yahweh, obviously 'carried by the Jewish immigrants from Palestine into Egypt with Yahweh' [n1 Cf. Myth and Ritual, p. 185.].

After these observations the following conclusion is offered.

From our Old Testament alone we should never have guessed that Israel associated a goddess with, Yahweh, even popularly, but the con­clusion is irresistible, and we are justified in assuming that she played her part in the mythology and ritual of Israel. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that rites, similar to those found elsewhere, were observed in pre-exilic Israel, and that these included a recital or a representation of the annual marriage of Jahweh and Anath. Details are entirely lacking, and no useful purpose would be served here by endeavouring to supply them conjecturally; the bare fact is sufficient to suggest that the normal pattern was broadly followed [n2 Ibid., pp. 185 f.].

We might compare this statement with that given by Pro­fessor Hooke in his Schweich lectures of 1935 (published 1938). There he stresses three main points: the original significance of the booths made of greenery at the Feast of Tabernacles, the existence of a goddess Anat-Jahu in Elephantine, and 'the very frequent occurrence in the prophetic literature of the represen­tations of the relation between Yahweh and Israel as that of husband and wife', which according to his opinion, 'bears in­direct evidence of the sacred marriage as part of Hebrew ritual at an earlier period' [n3 Cf. Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual (London, 1938), pp. 54 f.].

Comparing this conclusion with that arrived at by Robinson we observe at once the general agreement. The reference to the Song of Songs has been dropped but references to the erotic sym­bols in the book of Hosea are also adduced by Hooke.

In the same year as Professor Hooke published his Schweich lectures there was printed in Copenhagen a most important book which, being accessible only in Danish, has by no means received

179

from scholars outside Scandinavia the attention that it deserves. This is Professor Hvidberg's monograph Weeping and Laughter [n1 Hvidberg, Graad og Latter i det Gamle Testamente (Copenhagen, 1938).].

Hvidberg takes as his point de depart the traces of an older ritual in Israel, but he is of course of the opinion that these ritual ceremonies presupposed certain myths with which they were linked. From the point of view of method his starting-point is in every case Ugaritic literature, which he has subjected to a careful analysis, stating that in the mythical and ritual life as expressed in these texts there were two emotional climaxes, that of laughter, associated with the celebration of the resurrection of the deity and his sacred marriage, and that of weeping, attached to the death of the deity [n2 Hvidberg, op. cit., p. 7.]. The allusions to a ritual weeping and laughing found in the Old Testament are generally so intertwined that it is difficult to isolate them from each other. We are therefore in most cases referred to passages mentioning both jubilation and sorrow, e.g. Hos. x. 5-8 [n3 Hvidberg, op. cit., pp. 82 ff.]. The celebration of the Feast of Tabernacles according to Neh. viii. 10 included eating of the choicest food, drinking of the sweetest wine, giving of gifts, and above all 'joy of Yahweh', haedwat Jahwaeh [n4 Cf. Hvidberg, op. cit., p. 85.]. Psalm cxxvi has also been invoked by Hvidberg as a cultic reminiscence of the mythical situation, depicted in the text I AB i. 16 f. (with its presupposed jubilation over the resurrection, belonging to a context which is unfortunately lost to us):

Restore, Yahweh, our fate like that of the streams in Negeb.

They that sow in tears, they reap with jubilation.

Weeping he goeth forth, bearing the bag of seed,

    he cometh home with jubilation, bearing his sheaves.

(Ps. cxivi. 4-6)

[n5 Cf. Hvidberg, op.  cit., p. 115.]

180

To the references given by Hvidberg to Hosea we should add those adduced by May, who has treated such passages in the book of Hosea where possible allusions to the death and resurrection of the godhead are to be found [n1 Cf. May, A.J.S.L. xlviii (1931-2), pp. 73-98.]. Other contributions in the same direction were made by Graham as far as the book of Micah is concerned [n2 Cf. Graham, A.J.S.L. xlvii (1930-1), pp. 237-58.].

The mythical-ideological background of the symbol of mar­riage between Yahweh and Israel has been analysed by Nyberg in connexion with his studies on the book of Hosea. He stresses the fact that a central role in Semitic tribal culture is played by the worship of the divine ancestor, ‘amm, who is the chief deity of the tribe. In Old Testament proper names compounds with ‘amm are common (such a name as ‘Ammiel, 'My Amm is El', being significant, we may add, as referring to the position held by El as the father of Man) [n3 Cf. above, p. 169.]. The tribe according to this ideology is looked upon as the outcome of the legitimate marriage between the god-ancestor and a wife, herself a divine being and the common mother of the whole tribe, in a way the personified tribe, the tribe as a collective entity [n4 Cf. Nyberg, U.U.A. 1941: 7, 2, pp. 26 ff.]. In Hosea this idea is coupled with the notion of a covenant entered into by Yahweh, the lover, who seeks His bride and after finding her concludes a legitimate marriage with her. Israel, when deserting the wor­ship of Yahweh, commits the sin of adultery, so often sharply rebuked by the prophets [n5 Cf. Nyberg, op. cit., p. 28. On p. 30 we find the observation that Yahweh is jealous, the root [HEB] being used in this very meaning, with references to Gen. xxx. 1 ; Num. v. 14; Song of Songs, viii. 6.].

Nyberg did not refer in clear words to the ritual background of this idea, but it goes without saying that the ritual aspect is of primary importance in this respect, because it shows us how the festival of the sacred marriage could be understood in Yahwistic circles in Israel.

Indeed, some of the epithets given to Israel, to Ephraim, to Judah, or to Sion are most significant, for in Hos. iv. 16 Israel is likened to a young cow, parah, and Ephraim to a heifer, aeglah. We should compare here the fact that Yahweh was worshipped in northern Israel as a bull [n6 For Yahweh worshipped as a bull in Dan and Bethel cf. the well-known text 1 Kings xii. 28-29; further Hos. iv. 15; Exod. xxxii. 4, 8. The interpretation of Albright (and of others before him), Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, p. 156, that the image was thought of only as the postament of the godhead is in itself attrac­tive, but it overlooks the words of Aaron, Exod. xxxii. 4: 'This is Thy God Israel' How could this be said if the deity were invisible and not at all to be seen in the symbol of the bull? Cf. Hempel, Gott und Mensch im Alten Testament, 2nd ed. (Stutt­gart, 1936), pp. 265 f.; Z.A.W. lvii (1939), p. 77.], and that in Ugaritic

181

mythology Ba’al is the young bull, the calf (El being the old ­ bull), while ‘Anat is symbolized as the heifer or a young cow, exactly corresponding terms being used, prt and glt [n1 Cf. the passage I .AB v. 17-19.]. In Israel other female symbols too occur in the texts. Judah is called 'a virgin', and so is Sion and also Israel, Jer. xviii. 13; xxxi. 4, 21; Amos v. 2. But in the RS texts even the goddess ‘Anat can be depicted also as a young woman and called 'the virgin ‘Anat', btlt ‘nt [n2 About twenty-five passages, registered by Pritchard, 'Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses known through Literature', A.O.S., xxiv, 1943.].

Another designation given especially to Sion is that of 'bringer of good tidings', m^ebassaraet, Isa. xl. 9, which also corresponds to the epithet given to ‘Anat in Ugarit where she is the bringer of good tidings, bsrt [n3 Cf. the passage IV AB iii. 34-35.].

It is hardly possible to believe that these epithets, still found­—at least partly—within their mythic-ritual context, were not taken over by Yahwistic circles from the ancient Canaanite cultus.

In this connexion the interpretation of the Song of Songs gains renewed importance. It has been shown that the description of the hut given there (i. 16) quite fits the ritual pattern found ­ in Mesopotamia, where the arbour for the celebration of the sacred marriage between the king and the goddess is described in Sumerian royal liturgies [n4 Cf. Widengren, Religionens varld, p. 192; Mesopotamian Elements, p. 113. Gressmann, The Expositor, Ser. 9: 3 (1925), p. 431 was unaware of the existence of such an arbour but rightly surmised its existence.]. The hut in the Song of Songs is just an arbour of the same kind:

Behold, thou art fait, my beloved, yea, pleasant,

    and our bed is green.

The beams of our house are cedar,

    and cypresses our rafters.

182

That it is said of Yahweh that He possessed His 'hut', sukk, Ps. lxxvi. 3 or His 'booth', sukkah, Ps. xxvii. 5, in Jerusalem, has been stressed before in this connexion by Oesterley [n1 Cf. Myth and Ritual, p. 136 with a reference to Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, Schweich Lectures 1921, p. 69. For the passage in question cf. Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, transl. by H. Freedman (London, 1939), i, p. 500. Detailed discussion in Riesenfeld, Jésus transfiguré (Uppsala, 1947), pp. 146 ff.]. Obviously Yahweh at the Feast of Booths, Sukkot, like His worshippers had an arbour, sukkah, to dwell in [n2 Beside Myth and Ritual, p. 136 cf. also Gressmann, op. cit., pp. 423 ff.].

In Israelite Canaan we accordingly find both the tabernacle of greenery and the male deity living in it during the Sukkot festival. But can the passage in the Song of Songs i. 16 really allude to the sacred marriage? When trying to answer this question we must first of all bear in mind the fact that it has already been indicated that Yahweh possessed a consort in the goddess 'Anat. The mythical fragment in Ps. xix. 5-6 hints at the wedding chamber, for it is said of God, El:

For the Sun he has there set up a tent,

    and as a bridegroom he is going forth from the canopy,

        rejoicing as a hero to run a course.

[n3 In the text [HEB] in v. 5 creates some difficulty. It is generally understood as referring to [HEB] in v. 1. Cf. the commentaries.]

That in this passage we have to do with a mythical fragment from 'a morning hymn, praising the glory of El in the heavens' would seem to be generally recognized [n4 This characterization is borrowed from Briggs, The Book of Psalms, I.C.C. i. 162.]. We should also note here that El himself is not the bridegroom, but the Sun, thus a god, inferior to El, with the original Canaanite hymn taken over by the Israelites [n5 For the adaptation of Canaanite psalms in general cf. Albright, Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, pp. 3 if. Cf. above p. 163 n. 4.]. It is thus a younger god who in this place is thought of as the partner in the Hieros Gamos [n6 Cf. in general Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship, pp. 9, 22, 54 f., 171, but also my critical remarks R.o.B. ii (1943), pp. 66 f.]. Important also is the fact that we meet with the wedding hut in clearly mythical surroundings.

183

That the divine bride must have been such a goddess as 'Anat or Astart, a figure of much the same type, stands to reason [n1 Cf. Widengren, R.o.B. vii (1948),pp. 23 f.].

The latter goddess was officially worshipped by Solomon in her special form as the deity of the Sidonians, I Kings xi. 5, a fact very often overlooked in modern discussion. In much later times there was a goddess called the Queen of Heaven(s), to whom official sacrifices were offered by kings and princes, both in Jerusalem and in other cities of Judah, Jer. xliv. I7—one more fact that discussion seemingly is inclined to pass by in silence. Now, this Queen of Heaven(s) cannot possibly be any other goddess than Astart, who accordingly as late as c. 600 enjoyed official worship in the kingdom of Judah.

That the sacred marriage should bring as its fruit the birth of the Saviour-King is in accordance with the general myth and ritual pattern and for this reason we will now try to analyse some relevant passages in Old Testament literature, where we find this royal-divine birth alluded to. Here the pre-natal history of Isaac comes to the fore [n2 It has been alluded to in two short notices by Engnell, Studies, p. 133 n. 7, where it is referred, in connexion with Isa. vii. 14 inter alia, to Gen. xvii. 19 and he says: 'In reality it is conceivably the divine-royal euangelion-formula'; cf. also p. 175 n. 4 with a reference to Gen. xxi. I. Obermann, 'How Daniel was blessed with a Son. An incubation scene in Ugaritic', P.A.O.S., Offprint Series, No. 20 (New Haven, 1946), p. 28 n. 64, in connexion with his investigations in the Ugaritic motif found in the Aqhat text (published by Virolleaud, La Légende phénicienne de Danel, Paris, 1936), gave more attention to the birth of Isaac, underlining some resemblances to the RS texts. The stylistic analysis of the birth oracles owes much to Humbert's article, AfO. x (1935), pp. 77 ff. He did not, however, think of the same 'setting in life' as that worked out by me in my article R.o.B. vii (1948), pp. 28 ff. (thanks to a compari­son with corresponding Egyptian oracles, quoted below).]. The traditions in question are now scattered over the chapters Gen. xvii-xviii and xxi, the literary analysis of which must be postponed to another occasion.

The birth-oracle given by God, Elohim, to Abraham, is as it were a model oracle of the birth-oracles of the Old Testament in general, for when God promises a son to Abraham He says:

Nay, but Sarah, thy wife is bearing to thee a son,

    and thou shalt call his name Yishaq.

I shall establish my covenant with him,

    for a covenant in eternity for his seed after him.

(Gen. xvii. 19)

184

In this oracle from the deity we meet with three stylistic elements, always recurring in this connexion [n1 Cf. Widengren, Op. cit., p. 31, compared with p. 29.]: (1) Communi­cation concerning the conception. (2) Order concerning the child's name. (3) Prediction concerning the coming deeds of the child.

The continuation of the action is easily found in. Gen. xviii. 1 ff., especially vv. 9-14. Here we have the description of the visit paid by God together with his two followers. When Abraham had entertained his unknown guests it is related that they asked for his wife Sarah, whereupon Abraham pointed to his tent, where she was standing. God now promised her a son, but Sarah, listening to His words 'laughed within herself', whereupon God repeated his promise, Gen. xviii. 14. The happy fulfilment does not follow until the beginning of chapter xxi, where it is said:

And Yahweh visited Sarah, as he had said, and Yahweh did to Sarah as he had talked. And Sarah conceived and bore to Abraham a son to his old age, at the time about which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son born unto him, whom Sarah had born unto him, Yishaq.

(Gen. xxi. 1-3)

Now it is a well-established fact that Middle Hebrew uses the verb paqad not only in the sense of 'visit', but also. with a special meaning, namely to visit a woman in the sexual sense of the word [n2 Cf. Levy, Neuhebraisches und Chaldaisches Worterbuch, s.v. [HEB]; for the meaning of 'visit' in general cf. 1 Sam. xvii. 18.]. If this special shade of meaning is assumed in this place the original meaning of the passage in question would be that the visiting deity had sexual intercourse with Sarah. It is generally recognized that Sarah is to be understood as sarah, the same word as Akkadian sarratum, meaning queen, princess [n3 Noldeke, Im Neuen Reich, i. 1 (1871), pp. 509 f., was of this opinion.]. This interpretation would imply an Israelitic adaptation of an ancient Canaanite tradition of the visit of a deity to the queen, the sacred marriage, the oracle about the birth of the royal­-divine child, the naming of the child, and the prophesying of its

185

future great deeds, and last of all the account of the birth itself. In the light of what has been said before about the sexual meaning of the 'laughter’, the root being sahaq, the various puns on this root in our traditions and the very name of Yishaq call for special notice.

While discussing the same topic we may briefly mention such passages as the birth-oracle given to the wife of Manoah, concerning the birth of Samson (one more example of the mythical elements in the Samson story) [n1 Cf. the discussion in Burney, The Book of Judges, 2^nd ed. (London, 1930), pp. 391 ff.], Judges xiii. 3-5, and to Hannah, 1 Sam. i, two oracles deserving more space than can be allotted to them in this essay, in order to pass on to the famous, much discussed text Isa. vii. 14-17 [n2 All these oracles (but in Genesis only xvi. 11 ff.) were treated by Humbert, op. cit., pp. 77 ff.], which must be quoted here in full because of its importance.

Therefore, the Lord himself will give to you a sign:

Behold, the young woman is pregnant and beareth a son,

    and calleth his name 'God-with-us' (Immanuel).

Curds and honey shall he eat,

    when he knoweth to reject the bad and choose the good.

For before the boy knoweth to reject the bad and choose the good,

    shall be deserted the land, of whose two kings thou art in dread.

Yahweh shall bring upon thee and upon thy people and upon the

house of thy father

    days such as have not come since the day, when Ephraim with­-

drew from Judah.

[n3 For a detailed exegesis of this text cf. Hammershaimb, S. T. iii (1951), pp. 124 ff., with whom I agree in all essentials. His interpretation has been criticized by Stamm, P. T. iv (1954), pp. 20 ff. I trust the impossibility of Stamm's position will be further made clear by the present exposition with its comparative material. My preliminary remarks on Isa. vii. 14-17 were presented R.o.B. vii (1948), p. 33.]

That this oracle belongs to the same category as the other birth-oracles has already been stated by Humbert [n4 Cf. Humbert, op. cit., p. 78.]. The latest example of the same pattern is actually found in the birth story of the Gospels, the general Jewish background of which was emphasized also by Gunkel.

186

Here again we meet the constantly recurring three points of prediction [n1 Cf. Gunkel, Festgabe fur A. Von Harnack (Tubingen, 1921), pp. 43-60. Humbert ends his exposition with the oracles given to Mary in the Gospels. The Semitic background enables us to clear up a philological difficulty, cf. Widengren, op. cit., pp. 34 f., where the Syriac versions were adduced for this purpose. It was further shown that a bridge has now been established between the interpretations offered by Humbert and those of Norden in his famous work, Die Geburt des Kindes.]. In the Isaac-oracles we assumed a Canaanite mythical motif and it can easily be demonstrated that the very literary category of the oracle about the birth of the divine-royal child goes back to a Canaanite pattern. The definite proof is furnished, as nearly always, by Ugaritic literature, where we refer to the oracles given to Danel and to Krt. In the Aqhat text we read the blessing communicated by El to Danel:

He blesses Danel, Man of Rapi,

    strengthens the Hero, Man of Harnem:

Danel, Man of Rapi, shall get life in (his) soul,

    the Hero, Man of Harnem, in (his) power.

[In his chamber] he shall surely become potent,

    to his couch he shall ascend [and crouch].

As he kisses his wife, [she shall conceive,]

    as he embraces (her), she shall conceive [and become preg]nant,

conceive and bear [to the Man of Rap]i.

(II D i. 36-43) ­

[n2 Cf. Obermann, op. cit., p. 6 (text p. 4). Some slight changes have been made here in his translation. Other translations are offered in A.N.E. T., pp. 149 ff., and in Gordon, U.L., p. 86, but 1 do not think them as good as Obermann's.]

This wedding motif plays a great role in another of the Ugaritic epics, the Krt legend. An important point in the plot is when the king Pabil-Melek offers the hero all kinds of gifts which are declined. Instead of that the royal princess is demanded for wife:

187

But what is not in my house. mayest thou give,

    give me the girl Hry,

the sweetest of progeny, thy firstborn,

    whose charm is like ‘Anat's charm,

whose beauty like Astart's beauty,

    whose pupil is a fruit of lapis-lazuli,

the eyelid a bowl of precious stone,

    whom El gave in my dream,

in my vision the Father of Man:

    that a scion be born unto Krt,

yea, a lad unto the Servant of El.

(I K 287-300; Syria, xxv (1946-8), p. 162b)

[n1 Transl. in all essentials in agreement with Herdner in Syria xxv.]

Accordingly, in this text too the high god gives an oracle of blessing to the future father, not to the mother. For El proclaims to 'the Lovely One, the Servant of El', the following oracle:

The wife thou takest, O Krt,

    the wife thou takest to thy house,

the young woman thou causest to enter thy court,

    she will bear thee seven sons,

yea, octuple (an) eight(h) !

    She will bear thee Ysb, the boy,

he will suck the milk of A[st]art,

    he will suckle the breasts of the virgin [‘Anat],

he will get food [from the goddesses (?)].

(II 21-28; Syria, xxv (1946-8), p. 1642) [n2 Idem.]

We see, then, how the birth of the royal child may be con­sidered an essential motif in Canaanite epics, and that the three stylistic elements, typical of the birth-oracle, also recur in the RS texts. A characteristic detail may also be pointed out. We noted in the Isaac legend the pun on the root shq, leading up to the explanation given of the name Yishaq, 'he laughs'. Now it is a most typical trait of El in Ugaritic mythical literature that he 'laughs', yshq, and this detail here certainly calls for notice for it furnishes us with a raison d'etre for the name of Isaac, Yishaq [n3 Cf. Eissfeldt, El im ugaritischen Pantheon (Berlin, 1951), p. 34, where the passages are registered. Ginsberg, J.P.O.S. xvi (1936), p. 140 n. 3, was the first to note the importance of El's 'laughter' in this connexion, saying 'I am not aware that anybody has yet pointed out that the theophorous personal name which the biblical hypocoristicon Yishaq (Isaac) presupposes could only have been inspired by this Canaanite theology.']. It cannot be denied that this laughter, as Hvidberg has emphasized concerning 'laughter' in general, possesses an erotic touch; compare, for example, the episode in the Ba’al-Anat cycle (text 75 i. 12).

188

So also Danel 'laughs' when a son is born unto him, 2 Aqhat ii. 10. Another detail of terminological parallelism, already several times underlined, is the fact that the young woman in Isa. vii as well as in Ugaritic texts is called ‘almah (Hebrew) = glmt (Ugaritic). Further the term 'Servant of El' calls for notice, because it is parallel to the well-known

expression 'Servant of Yahweh' in the Old Testament [n1 Cf. Virolleaud, La Légende phénicienne de Keret (Paris, 1936), p. 8 n. 3. Cf. further, e.g., Mowinckel, N.T.T. xliii (1942), pp. 24-26.]. And lastly the role played in Old Testament literature by 'the good tidings', already alluded to, may be correctly explained from the RS texts [n2 Cf. Virolleaud, Syria xvii (1936), p. 172 n. 1; Mowinckel, N.T.T. xl (1939), pp. 205-7; Engnell, op. cit., Topical Index, s.v. 'the glad tidings'.], as has often been emphasized by many scholars in this very connexion. The birth of the divine-royal son is the content of the good tidings brought to B