Talk:Ugarit/Archive 1

Untitled

"-Mid doesn't fit, but High does it-'"!

This was formerly in the article. Comments on the article should generally be in the talk page, not the article itself:

its location was forgotten but rediscovered in 1928 by a female peasant of the Alaouite tribe plowing a field, accidentally opening an old tomb. (I have never heard about a female farmer - in most publications the name of farmer is rendered "Mahmoud Mella az-Zir" - evidently a male name.)

Biblical References to Ugarit?

The first paragraph of this article includes the statement

"Repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament, [Ugarit's] location was forgotten..."

but no verses are cited anywhere in the article except to show biblical parallels to features of Ugarit's mythology. I would be curious to know where even a few of these references occur. Is there another city name used in the Bible which has been identified with Ugarit? Americist 20:02, 2004 Sep 23 (UTC)

A very good point. Ugarit was laid waste before the Hebrews arrived in Canaan. The references in OT are to gods (Baal etc) who had been worshipped at Ugarit, but not to the city itself after all. Greg Herrick, "Baalism in Canaanite Religion and Its Relation to Selected Old Testament Text" at http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2053 might make a useful External link at this entry. Wetman 20:19, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ugarit the "home" of the Hyksos?

I have moved the following here, for editing:

"The site is the known home the Canaanite people mentioned in the Bible, known to the Egyptians as the Hyksos."

The rationale for connecting the Hyksos mentioned in Egyptian texts of the 16th and 15th centuries so definitively and specifically with Ugarit in the opening paragraph needs some explanatory context. Is the connection based on the appearance of deities' names-- say Anat-- or on similarities of Ugarit and Hyksos personal names? A secure Hyksos-Ugarit connection would be an archaeological revelation that would have been published somewhere. Where does this connection come from, before it gets made in Wikipedia? Who has connected the Hyksos in Egypt with their "known home" of Ugarit? Not Wolfgang Helck, 1964. A quote from Helck would prove me wrong. Can we set this idea in some context rather than making the assertion in the opening paragraph? --Wetman 05:23, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Hyksos and Ugaritians were both Canaanites, but that's about the only connection so far as I know. Ugarit was a single Canaanite city; the Hyksos seem to have come from Canaan in general, not Ugarit in particular.--Rob117 23:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Problematic Addition

The following was added anonymously to the "Neolithic" section earlier today.

It was found the evidences of a residence at the top of the hill, where the remains of the Bel Temple is now, and also under thee royal palace.

I removed it because of the poor form, and because the information it alludes to is ambiguous and not especially coherent.

If anyone wants to restore it in a better, clearer form, I'd be delighted.

--Americist 22:27, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

King Names, Equivalent Meanings

Maybe someone can put some speculated, equivalent meanings for the Kings List, names? I assume a few may be extremely easy to figure out. MichaelMcAnnis, in YumaAZ.

Ugaritic Literature and Religion

User:Codex Sinaiticus is pushing a POV point of view in the fact that he apparently has no problem saying that Ugaritic religion was related to that of the Phoenicians and Philistines, but will only allow us to say that it was "possibly" related to Israelite religion. The Ugaritic archives are considered extremely important among biblical scholars due to the clear parallels they have to the literature of the Hebrews. Pick up a book by Frank Moore Cross or Mark S. Smith. Even the Jewish Publication Society's edition of the Hebrew Bible, in its introduction, notes of Ugaritic- "Both the language and its literature have have shed much light on the Hebrew Bible."

Why is it okay to come to the conclusion that ancient religions of the same general area influenced each other, but all of a sudden "POV" to extend this conclusion to include modern religions from that area as well? It does a disservice to readers to omit information widely known and accepted among academics, for fear of offending religious sensibilities.

Additionally, I am unaware of any historical events that are referred to by both the Bible and Ugaritic archives. Religious concepts yes; but not historical events.

Please discuss.--Rob117 21:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Deriving Israelite beliefs directly from Ugarit is definitely more controversial, but I believe a neutral wording could be found. Your wording 'directly or indirectly' is workable, I was just sorry to see all my other edits get thrown out along with it, so I rv'd.

It is controversial because while this pov may be "widespead" it is still not universal, so a more neutral wording is in order; a significant number accept traditions that Judaism was revealed by YHWH, and while the Ugarits may have included EL in their pantheon, they were not necessarily the first to do so. The Hebrews place Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in Canaan around this same time, so the Canaanites could equally as likely have been influenced by them. Codex Sinaiticus 04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but the importance of the Ugaritic archives for biblical studies is indeed virtually universal among mainstream (that is, non-fundamentalist and non-minimalist) biblical scholars. Those scholars who dispute the connection (such as Kitchen and Davies) definitely fall outside the mainstream of biblical scholarship. NPOV does not mean we report all points of view; only that we report all points of view provided they have a noticeable following among mainstream academia in the relevant fields.

Saying the Canaanites could have been influenced by Abraham is also not valid for several reasons: it is unknown if and when Abraham existed; biblical genealogies cannot be used to establish reliable dates as they were not written down until long after the events they describe were supposed to have taken place; the Israelite material culture, which first appears in the late 13th century BC, is basically a regional variant of the Canaanite material culture (see W.G. Dever 2001, 2003, I. Finkelstein 2001, M.S. Smith 2002); cross-pollination of religious ideas is a given between neighboring cultures (this is not a controversial assertion when applied to relationships between the Canaanites and the Philistines, but when Israelites enter the picture it becomes controversial). The convergence of different lines of evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the newer Israelite culture was influenced by Canaanite precursors. As far as I know, nobody claims that it was Ugarit itself that influenced the Israelites (or Philistines, or Phoenicians); rather it was the larger Canaanite cultural complex that Ugarit was a part of, and from which the Phoenicians, Israelites, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites, Kenites, Aramaeans, and Philistines all drew from directly and indirectly.

Lastly, I am well-aware that many Westerners adhere to the divine inspiration of the Bible. But while many Hindus similarly adhere to the divine inspiration of the Vedas, this fact does not stop Wikipedia from analyzing the texts critically. An encyclopedia article on an archaeological site does not have the responsibility to incorporate religious views into its overall conclusions; the article's purpose is to provide an overview of the evidence and of the conclusions reached by mainstream scholars.

This is suitable, correct?: The discovery of the Ugaritic archives has been of great significance to biblical scholarship, as these archives for the first time provided a detailed description of Canaanite religious beliefs during the period directly preceding the Israelite settlement. These texts show significant parallels to Biblical Hebrew literature, particularly in the areas of divine imagery and poetic form.--Rob117 05:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is suitable. I have no problem with that paragraph; but let me remind you that those who claim to represent "mainstream scholarship" (as if there were anything like a uniform consensus whatsoever on such things) don't get to simply cut out the opposing side and present only their viewpoint, just because they have been unsuccessfully trying to suppress other views in just this way for some time. Codex Sinaiticus 05:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, NPOV is not a license to post views that are purely religious in nature. This has nothing to do with "suppressing" opposing views. When I see peer-reviewed literature arguing that Abraham taught the Canaanites about God, then it'll be a different story.--Rob117 05:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

El as child of Yaw?!

There has been an ongoing conflict over the translation of the following from Ugaritic to English:

sm . bny . yw . ilt

"Codex Sinaiticus" (pretending to understand Ugaritic syntax, which does not share the same grammatical structure as English) appears to have perpetually inserted the mistranslation “The name of El, the son of YW.”

There are several reasons why this is incorrect.

First, the name "ilt" is being mistranslated as the name El. In Ugaritic the name El is written as il, not ilt. The name in this sentence is Ilatu, the goddess also known as Asherah. She could not be the "son" of anyone.

Second, the god El is universally known as the chief deity of this pantheon. The name El itself is the root word of several names meaning god. Elohim, for example, is a derivative of the name El. The longer name of the god El is Elyon, meaning "most high" to signify that he is the highest ranking deity of this religion, and is often portrayed as standing alone.

Third, there are plenty of sources other than this one snippet to verify that Yaw was not the chief deity of this pantheon, and certainly not the father of the "most high" Elyon. The very suggestion is ridiculous.

Just take a look at the Wikipedia entries for El or Elohim and examine the Levantine pantheon, where he is clearly listed as the father of Yaw, Hadad, and Mot.

Fourth, the constant assertion that the position of the name YW in the sentence suggests a different meaning shows a complete ignorance of the correct syntax of Ugaritic, and appears to rely on English syntax, which is completely unlike Ugaritic.

This all appears to be a misguided attempt at revisionism to make Yaw into the chief deity of this religion, probably to pretend to the same high status that Yahweh has in Judaism and Christianity.

El isn't even the god being referenced in this translated text! It's the goddes Ilatu, the constort of El!

No, that's simply what it says... if you have other sources than this one snippet, provide them. This is the only one I've seen in this article, but if you have others, they should be here as well. My understanding of Semitic syntax is based on the structure of how Semitic languages work; sm . bny . yw . ilt, word for word, Name (of) son (of) Yaw, Ilt. If it read sm . bny . ilt . yw you might have a stronger case, because in Ugaritic (as in Biblical Hebrew) possession could be shown by the following noun, not by skipping a noun. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal theory that contradicts scholarship. The comment previous to Sinaiticus' is compelling and the note about Ilatu merits further discussion, but with citation. Castanea dentata 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that the best you can do to assert that the Ugarits made Yaw the son of Ilt? I thought there were some other tablets or something you were going to quote that established this relationship. You may have scholars who give this translation, but I'm just not convinced they are right. Not one of them offered any explanation of how SM BNY YW ILT can possibly be construed to make "Son of Ilt" instead of "Son of Yaw". No one so far has been able to explain to how Ugaritic syntax could be so convoluted and so radically departed from all other Semitic languages, that they could write "(Name) (son of) A, B" and have B be the father of A!!! Do you honestly deep down believe this is convincing? Trust me, I have no agenda for "making" Yaw higher in the Ugaritic pantheon if he isn't... I could care less what their pantheon was, as it has no effect whatsoever in my mind either way on my faith, or on any modern doctrine of any modern religion - but it makes you wonder, when the word order is so crystal clear, why some translating "scholar" would deliberately falsify the translation, and why they are sooooooo desperate to mislead people into thinking that Yaw was the son??? If that's what the Ugarites wanted to indicate, why didn't they write "(Name) (FATHER OF) Yaw, Ilt", instead of bny "SON OF" ??? If anyone claims to be such an expert on Ugarit syntax, please explain how and why the translator came up with this highly questionable translation, or how "son of" can magically skip a name and apply to the next name, in Ugaritic word order. You might swallow it blindly, but I don't. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that since this is a collaborative effort, one can't expect people to agree with everything one has to say when one is alone saying it.

Go to the library and check out the Baal Cycle (you may need an interlibrary loan or buy it online). There are other primary sources as well. In the Ugaritic myths it is quite clear that El (God) is the ancient of days, Hadad the most high, and Yaw a lesser deity of tempests rising from bodies of water. El is the creator, and Yaw the created. There is no other way to look at it. Too many stories survived from the myths.

Don't forget to smile. This is just Wikipedia, you know. Castanea dentata 17:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I may be speaking only for myself here on the discussion, but I think that "scholarly" translation is Hogwash, for the reasons I gave above. And here's some more: Are these 4 two- and three-letter words found as an isolated fragment??? Or are they taken out of context from a larger sentence? If a larger sentence, what does it say in full? If this is just a tiny fragment of clay wehere someone found four tiny words SM BNY YW ILT, how can anyone claim to know what it means out of context, or even know a noun from a verb, let alone be so confident that they can go trumpeting and parading around with these four tiny words as if they undermine everything we know about space and time? Give me a break! OK, but seriously, all anyone can do with this little snippet is guess, so how can we be sure it doesn't say "Hear, children of the LORD our God!"?? (Actually, BNY does look more like a plural than BN, if you ask me)... Just some thought for discussion, not suggesting any of this appear in the article text... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reducing) OK, I just found an Ugaritic grammar at http://www.theology.edu/ugraintr.htm , and am studying it now... This is fascinating stuff, doesn't look like bny is the plural, but -y is the suffix for "my", as in "my son"... Check it out, will get back when I have learned more... (luckily I'm a fast learner!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another update - it's not a four word fragment, just found the whole text of the tablet, in context, here: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/baalyam.html#14

Haven't read it yet, but I'm about to... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... the translation of those four words offered by that Ugaritic scholar on that last link (who herself, cites two other scholars of Ugaritic) seems infinitely more plausible, and in line with the rules of Ugaritic grammar that I just read at the grammar site. Namely: "...my son by the name of Yawu, O goddess `Elat..." Note that bny is rendered as "my son", which I had anticipated as soon as I read that -y is the suffix for "my".

What's even more interesting is the larger context. There are many lacunae in this tablet that make this difficult. However, the previous line, the rest of this line, and the following line are preserved enough to make it quite evident that "El the Beneficent" is telling his wife "Elat" that he did NOT call his son by the name of Yawu, but rather, by the name of Yam...!!! So all of this stuff with the four words by themselves (conveniently skipping the verb and the negative) intended to "prove" that "Yaw was the son of El", just fell through; and this translation should also be cited with references. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you're talking. I haven't looked closely at the whole page you mention, but if the author says that there, I think you ought to update the translation to read what she says: "...my son by the name of Yawu, O goddess `Elat..." . I find this thoroughly convincing. Just cite it (I will back you up if you do this and remove the other citations to support this reading). If you don't adopt this reading, I just might change it myself after I have examined what you are referring to.

I think you should do it, however, so you get the credit for finding it.

However, Yam is Yaw. Yam means "sea." It is an ordinary word, not just the name for a deity. (The word appears in Masoretic texts of the OT.) Sometimes this deity is even called "Nahar" (river). Yaw is an alternate name, and probably the older, since there is no agreement on exactly what it means. Also, Yam/Yaw is not the only sea-god; he is just one of the mean ones. Both words appear to be built on a stem "ya-," found in other Semitic words meaning water, spring, pouring. In regard to Yaw=Yam, I am speaking of research I have done at a university library, but if you look around, you will find the identification of Yaw with Yam online, even on Wikipedia. If you are not yet convinced, it may take some time to read through all the sources carefully. Alternate names for gods are common to all mythologies, many names for one god are part of his bragging rights.

Some of this is explained at Yaw (god), an excellent article.

I like what you say so far. Keep up the good work! Castanea dentata 19:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No prob.... Perhaps we should also note the negative and the verb, rather than present it as it is somewhat out of context... I think I'm beginning to see how the Canaanites got everything so confused! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the link? Do you mean Yon, Marguerite, 2005? I would keep the quotation exactly as the author wrote it. If you want to include the negative, you ought add that as another quotation, even if it is long. If you are using a printed source, give a full citation with page number. And if it is not online, it is important to quote more rather than less, since not everyone can find the book quickly and read the whole context for themselves.

By the way, if you can prove firmly that Yaw/Yam is not the son of El, it would make a lot sense, since Yaw/Yam is the deity of the primordial chaos, which precedes the arrival of the benevolent gods. A comparison of Yam/Yaw with Ophion and the Greek Titans may be useful to understand what I mean. Nice work. Castanea dentata 20:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. This is an excellent link which I had not seen before. Thanks! I have added this link to a few other relevant articles. I think what it means is that El will not call him Yaw, but Yahm instead. It seems to be an explanation of the two different names. It appears that Yahm is a more sympathetic name, since he is then called "beloved of El." I believe Yaw may mean "water-destruction" or "water-tempest", but I don't have the expertise here to be sure. El is here setting up the scenario whereby Yaw challenges Hadad ("Baal") and gets his butt whupped. in effect, El is saying, "I love you Yam, now I dare you to fight mighty Hadad, the king of the gods, ha ha." Absolutely fascinating. Castanea dentata 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls are in a better state of presentation as far as lacunae go, so I don't know how much can feasibly be assumed or read into these little tidbits... but to continue the speculation, the comparison that comes to my mind is Bahr, another Semitic word for "sea" or "expanse", that some polytheists also worshipped as the name of a god... but this too could well be a corruption of the original "Ruler of the Universe" known to monotheists - since "Bhr" also means "expanse" in the sense of "Universe all around us", and the "Ruler" was identified long ago as the Force that controls it... The Biblical understanding is that people after Noah went astray from an original monotheism, and made gods out of created things like the Sun, moon, ocean, etc. as well as turned to worshipping statues. More recent philosophers have attempted to turn this on its head, and posit that monotheism grew out of an original polytheism. The fact that the Canaanites had what seems a rather distorted pantheon of the Cosmos, doesn't really prove either assumption, one way or another, and in fact doesn't add anything new that hasn't already been known since Sanchunathio -- who was earlier than any other historian known to humanity. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Baal Cycle and other texts

Does anybody have a link to some Ugaritic texts, for example the Baal Cycle, that we could put in the links section?--Rob117 02:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/2938/baalyam.html#14 (Thanks to User:Codex Sinaiticus above). - C. dentata 06:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yaw/Yam as Yahweh... since when?

The only place I've ever seen this connection made is on the internet, and never by a professional researcher. Having read recent books by Dever, Mazar, Cross, and Smith, the only suggestion for a pre-Israelite Yahweh ever brought up is the 14th-century BC Egyptian reference to "Yhw in the land of the Shasu." The references to "Yah" at Ebla are difficult for me to even verify their existence... there are a lot of rumors that go around the web in the realm of Biblical studies, and I think it's a good rule of thumb to cite them from a published book or peer-reviewed article before putting them here. Unreliable rumors are just as prevalent among neopagan groups and ultra-minimalists as they are among Christian fundamentalists, so we should be careful which sources we trust.

Additionally, if "Ya" and "Yaw" come from a root meaning "water," their etymology is distinct from the name "Yahweh," which is an archaic third-person imperfect of the verb "hwh," meaning "to be."--Rob117 03:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you post a link as to the stem "ya" or whatever root "yam" is from, because I could not find it in the American Heritage Dictionary's list of Semitic roots.--Rob117 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant question, actually.

The two big logical links are between Yam(mu) and Yaw(u), and Yaw(u) and Yahweh. The link between Yamm and Yaw is made explicitly in the Ba'al Cycle, which Codex Sinaiticus found online (see above). To answer your question, you will need to focus on linguistics, not Biblical studies. (I think that when this article here started, it was as a "Linguistics stub".) You rightly saw as a linguistics issue when you looked up roots. Unfortunately, Semitic etymology hasn't yet met nearly the same standards as that in Indo-European linguistics. Biblical scholars seldom discuss this linguistic question.

The connection is more than a web rumor. The problem is that there is not much overlap between linguistics and Biblical studies. It sounds like you may have access to a large university library; if so, do a keyword search in the catalog for "Ugarit" and also browse through the middle eastern linguistics sections. I have already found Yaw and Yahweh called "cognates" in at least a few peer-reviewed sources. Normally, I would go find them for you, but I don't have the time right now. However, I did find one source online: The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (2001) by Johannes C. de Moor. De Moor explicitly links Yaw to Yahweh and explains why. This seems to be a more daring, if scholarly book in Biblical studies.

If the establishment of the two words as cognates is not controversial among linguists, a connection between the two deities is controversial within Biblical studies. The issue doesn't seem to crop up often, but a hostile review of de Moor's book was published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies of April 2001. At least this peer-reviewed monograph should prove for you that it is no web rumor.

That gives you one secondary source. Here is a little primary source information which you may find interesting:

The article on Iaoue explains how Yahweh has been spelled in alphabetic scripts. If you know Greek, you will know that ιαουε in English orthography is Yawé, and that ιαου is transcribed either Yau or Yaw equally (ου becomes u or w). If you are familiar with Hebrew, you also know that the h's in Yahweh are silent, which is why some scholarly publications spell it Yahwe and Yawé. In Ugarit, Yaw has the grammatical affix -u, Yawu. If you know something about Semitic linguistic history, you will further know that Hebrew is considered a dialect of ancient Aramaic spoken in ancient southwestern Syria ("the Levant"). Thus, ancient Hebrew and the language of Ugarit are dialects of the same language. So at very least, that two words spelled almost the same or exactly the same in two related dialects is not coincidence. This means that what linguists have to say makes some sense.

You also may consider that Sanchuniathon talks about a god Ieuo and that "Yeho" was a god worshipped by polytheists throughout the region as well.

You also may consider that Richard Freund[1] finds imagery from the sea on a Judean patera (religious incense holder), depicting the Greek goddess Thetis, the mother of the nereids, and he also discusses sea-imagery on the Menorah depicted on the Arch of Titus in Rome of Thetis, a sea-dragon, sea-horses and fish. This is interesting because Yaw is a sea-god, yet this is a Menorah from Titus's sack of the temple in Jerusalem.

Since you have read Smith and others, you will have already encountered the bold, revolutionary ideas that Yahweh can be discussed as one god among many. Further, you will be familiar with ideas that in Masoretic texts, Yahweh is described performing acts also associated with other polytheistic deities such as El the ancient of days, or Hadad the most high (the epithets here are the same as used in the Ba'al Cycle). This thesis is that Yahweh, the one god, somehow took on the characteristics of other gods of the region This thesis is so daring, I am at a loss to explain how the discussion remains so sanguine, and why even Methodist church sites online discuss it. I asked a Jewish professor of Religion I know about this, and he says the discussion has been ongoing for some time among scholars.

Back to de Moor. The review critical of his book disbelieves the etymology he brings up because Yahweh in Masoretic texts is said to slay Loviathan, the dragon. I imagine that the answer to this is that Yahweh has been given the attributions of Hadad who in Ugarit slays the dragon (Lotan). As others note, Yahweh has been given the attributes of other "gods" as well. The idea is that in this monotheistic religion, there is but one God, so all divine acts will have been performed by him.

- C. dentata 06:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the problem is that I don't have access to a large library; just a local one that only has popular scholarly overviews, not technical ones, and a Barnes and Noble that doesn't have any books on the subject at all. I use amazon sometimes, but I don't have the money to buy every relevant book on the subject, especially those $200 tomes that are considered "essential reading" on the subject (i.e., Finkelstein's From Nomadism to Monarchy).

The concern is this: I am aware that a few have concieved of a connection between Yahweh and Yaw, but they do seem to be a small minority. Yamm, who is identical to Yaw in Ugaritic mythology, is in fact mentioned by name in the Bible as one of the sea dragons defeated by Yahweh (although his name is usually just translated as "The Sea" in English, it has no definite article in Hebrew, suggesting that in this context it is in fact a proper name). So unless we speculate that Yaw/Yamm was separated into two deities by the Hebrews, I don't see how this connection could work. Ieuo among the Phoenicians is almost certainly the same as Yaw, but the connection to Yahweh still remains speculation. Words that sound alike do not necessarily have a common etymology.

William Dever (i.e. What did the Biblical Authors Know and When did they Know It?, Did God have a Wife?, etc.) connects the name Yahweh to the Canaanite word yahu, which is the third person imperfect form of the verb hwh, "to be." (Hebrew and Ugaritic are Canaanite dialects, not Aramaic dialects BTW) "Yahu" is also the form of "Yahweh" used in many Hebrew personal names (i.e. Yirmiyahu ("Jeremiah"), Yeshayahu ("Isaiah"), Eliyahu ("Elijah"), Uriyahu ("Uriah"), etc.). The form "Yaw" is a transliterated Greek form only.

The worship of Yeho, Iao, etc. by polytheists in the region in Hellenistic times is usually attributed to the spread of syncretistic quasi-Jewish sects that combined attributes of Judaism and Hellenism; these are classified among the "mystery religions" of the Hellenistic world of which Mithraism and Gnosticism are the most famous examples.

Also, this:

• :Since you have read Smith and others, you will have already encountered the bold, revolutionary ideas that Yahweh can be discussed as one god among many. Further, you will be familiar with ideas that in Masoretic texts, Yahweh is described performing acts also associated with other polytheistic deities such as El the ancient of days, or Hadad the most high (the epithets here are the same as used in the Ba'al Cycle). This thesis is that Yahweh, the one god, somehow took on the characteristics of other gods of the region This thesis is so daring, I am at a loss to explain how the discussion remains so sanguine, and why even Methodist church sites online discuss it. I asked a Jewish professor of Religion I know about this, and he says the discussion has been ongoing for some time among scholars.

This thesis is not really bold and revolutionary anymore, it's become standard. Not among theologians or the general public, but among biblical scholars and archaeologists. The inscription often cited as the earliest (and only known pre-Israelite) reference to Yahweh is the inscription in the Temple of Amun at Karnak, dating to the reign of Amenhotep III (1390-1352 BC), referring to Yhw in the land of the Shasu. The Shasu were nomads in Transjordan, Sinai, and parts of Palestine who were probably linguistically Canaanite, and likely were a component in the early ethnogenesis of the Israelites, as well as the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Amalekites, Midianites, Kenites, and Negebites. Some early biblical poems, such as the Song of Deborah (10th-9th centuries BC?) refer to Yahweh as "coming forth from Edom" or some other southern location; he is sometimes associated with the Midianites and Kenites. The association of Yahweh with the Sinai may stem from this origin as well. The general opinion among biblical scholars tends toward the idea that Yahweh was a god from southern Transjordan who was incorporated by the early Israelites into their pantheon, after some time assimilating El, and more gradually taking on the attributes of other gods like Baal, until he began to supplant them entirely in late monarchic times. This doesn't seem to leave room for the Ugaritic Yamm/Yaw in the origins of the biblical god. El and Baal, definitely, but not Yamm.

Ultimately, my point is that as an encyclopedia article this should reflect current trends in biblical scholarship; minority views like the Yaw theory should definitely be included, but should be labelled as such.--Rob117 23:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

This article is not about the Bible. Ugaritic studies are not part of Biblical studies, and there is only a very little borrowing thence to Biblical studies. This is why you may not find much about Yaw when reading about the Bible. Ugaritic myths are studied by mythologists, linguists and middle eastern archaeologists.

Thus, this article is not about the Bible, although it bears great interest to Biblical studies and merits more than a single line in this article referencing Yahweh. If you found the above books by Biblical scholars, you should be able to find relevant books by linguists among whom there is not controversy equating Yaw and Yahweh as cognates.

I note in you user page that you are an atheist. If so, you may understand the extreme reluctance for Biblical scholars to equate Yahweh with a pagan deity that for all intents and purposes sounds like the Devil.

I pointed out to you that Smith et al state sanguinely that Yahweh was a god among many and that that was bold and revolutionary. You rightly replied that this is now mainstream. But let me tell you, to say that Yahweh/God is just one deity among many is unheard of in most all churches in the USA, and if you discussed it, you would be quickly shown the door. (You are right that it is not a standard among the public.)

Take Thomas L. Thompson for example. After he earned his doctorate, he secured a post at a Catholic university in the American upper Midwest. Thompson insists that there is little and for the most part no corroboration for the history as it is narrated in the Old Testament. He was soon out of a job and for the greater part of his adult life he painted houses for a living. At last he found a new position at Copenhagen, and a major revision of his dissertation won a favorable review in the Los Angeles Times.

Since then, Thompson's ideas have become mainstream, and other scholars have joined him at the forefront of the minimalist school of interpretation. They hold that OT history cannot be corroborated in detail with other sources, and in fact is often contradicted by archaeology, etc. Still, the bulk of the religious community believes (for example) that Jericho has been positively identified, although the minimalists say that this is a hopeful guess at best and probably wishful thinking.

That the ideas of Smith et al have become mainstream among Biblical scholars and that Thompson could be readmitted to the academy strongly suggest that a simple pair of cognates (Yaw and Yahweh) will eventually become more mainstream, too. (You ought to find and read de Moore.)

For now, keep Ugarit as an article within Ugaritic studies, while referencing its important impact outside to Biblical studies. Let linguists do linguistics and Biblical scholars the Bible. (I put this in bold just so my main thought stands out.)

  - C. dentata 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: By the way, if you know a passage in the Bible where the sea is personified as a dragon, please let me know. (This is a small point.) Also, the statements you are making about Yahweh are very old -- hundreds of years old at least. That means you are in good company, but it also means you have read only a little of the more recent scholarship. "Canaanite" is not a valid linguistic term; it is exclusively Biblical. There is nothing to separate the ancient Hebrew of Judea from "Canaan" five miles away. To understand what I mean, you will have to do some reading on language history and perhaps avoid Biblical writings for a time (except the book I recommend below). Wikipedia's article on ancient Aramaic is a good outline. Judea was just one tiny district within the large area wherein ancient Aramaic was spoken. Hebrew was not a different language like Egyptian and Judea was not a separate empire or civilization. As for the relation of Yahweh with Yah, it is an assumption that Yah is an abbreviation of Yahweh and alternative theories do exist. The words you list are just examples of names ending in yah. Yahweh may well be related to Yah; but that does not suggest that Yahweh is not a cognate form of Yaw, as linguistics says.

PPS: From what you have said, I should like to recommend Thomas L. Thompson's The Mythic Past; Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (1999). He does not discuss Yaw and Yahweh, but this will give you a framework to understand the state of the scholarship, and I think it will interest you very much. My copy says it is $30.00, but your library may be able to locate it for you for a nominal fee.

PPPS: Well I was about to look up titles on Ugarit from my university's library, but it is offline. I won't be near the campus for some time, so I can't look there for you. However, this gives me an idea. If you are really interested in the linguistics of Yaw and Yahweh, you can find just about any university's library catalog online. Search "ugarit" and look for a book that may have something written by a linguist. Most catalogs will have a description or even a table of contents. When you find a book, look for it on Amazon.com, or try an interlibrary loan with your local library. (Since you say you like Tolkien, I thought you might be familiar with his PPS's in letters.)  - C. dentata 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Canaanite" is not a valid linguistic term; it is exclusively Biblical. HUH ??? This is the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate as a false statement. Just read the article on Canaan. This is the same name that ALL of their neighbours, on all sides, called them, and the name that the Phoenicians continued to apply to themselves for quite a few centuries after that. Enough of the minimalist revisionism already; "valid" and "Biblical" are not automatic opposites. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Canaanite" is definitely a valid linguistic term. See the article on the Canaanite languages. Aramaic and Canaanite were two subgroups of the Northwest Semitic group; of those two, Hebrew was in the Canaanite subgroup. The term "Canaanite" as I used it is purely linguistic; the Hebrews, Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, and Semiticized Philistines (and, surprisingly, the people of Ugarit, according to Mazar, 1991) did not identify themselves as Canaanites, but their languages are classified as Canaanite. The term "Canaanite" as an ethnic term is different; generally it refers in the Iron Age only to the Phoenicians and several Canaanite-speaking groups in the Palestinian lowlands; in the Bronze Age its usage is extended to lowland groups in Syria as well. The people of Ebla may have referred to themselves as Canaanites, even though their language was East Semitic- closer to Akkadian than to the Canaanite languages. The term Canaanite was used by many of these groups to refer to themselves, and by their neighbors as well.

And as for the linguist-biblical scholar difference:

Many (I'd venture to say most, actually) biblical textual scholars are trained in linguistics- not archaeologists, but textual scholars. Cross, Smith, Friedman, and Freedman all have linguistic credentials; they need them in order to analyze the text, to determine which portions of the text are early and which are late, etc. They use the Ugaritic sources extensively to get a feel for the Bible's cultural background and to translate tricky Hebrew words that have cognates that appear in context on the Ugaritic tablets. None of them have suggested that Yahweh and Yaw are cognates as far as I know.

Thompson and other minimalists are not considered to be in the mainstream; they are a small but vocal minority. People who actually work in the field, such as Finkelstein, Silberman, Dever, Mazar, Levy, Ben-Tor, and Na'aman all tend to have a much less radical view of the Bible's historicity than Thompson, who does not work in the field. None of them assert that the Bible is an accurate source for the "prehistoric" period- Genesis through Joshua are generally discarded in historical reconstructions- but Judges is thought to contain a fair amount of historical kernels, and Samuel and Kings are thought (quite reasonably) to get more accurate as they come closer to their date of compilation (late 7th century BC).--Rob117 03:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply (2-9-2006)

Essentially, you are saying that although there are a number of web sites that identify Yahweh and Yaw as cognates, you have not found this in any book you have read at your small public library, so it is a "web rumor." When I pointed out that you could order a number of books through interlibrary loans, or buy them at Amazon.com, you were not interested.

On the authors you did read, remember that if they do not discuss everything, do not assume that they disagree with any of it. And if the authors' names you mention do not discuss the issue (as you say), why should anyone consult them on it? Moreover, one cannot assume that authors writing about the Bible are also "linguists". Linguistics is an arcane specialty. But this is important only if they discuss the cognate relationship of Yw with Yhwh. You say they do not.

Thomas L. Thompson, PhD, is one of the world's experts in the field. A major school of interpretation of middle eastern history and religion involving the Old Testament arose from his work. You would enjoy reading him.

Since other scholars do discuss the cognate relationship, it is more than a web rumor.

The Hebrew language is a Canaanite language and Ugaritic mythology is a Canaanite mythology. You cite Wikipedia, where Yw is a spelling for a Hebrew deity; Yw is also a Canaanite deity. Hebrew and Ugaritic are very similar and related languages. (The question of how to use the word "Canaanite" in linguistics does not change this.)

The religious traditions that Yahweh derives from a verb "to be" or comes from Edom do not contradict Yahweh's cognate relationship to Yaw. Each may be true.

Since experts in the field and linguists, too, discuss the issue, I support whoever wrote the statement in the article here linking Yahweh to Yw. This is what makes Ugaritic studies interesting.

The section ought to be expanded.

  - C. dentata 23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, all the statements you made I find extremely interesting and thought-out. I am sure you will uncover a lot of information that will look good in the main article. I look forward to reading more from you!  - C. dentata 23:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Books on Ugarit

As I'm interested in Ugarit as well as its history and society, I was wondering about what books on the Ugarit, of Ugaritic and Levantine culture, language and religion is the best ones to get. I've seen a few mentioned here, but I'm wondering if there are any more good books(hopefully not too expensive, like those colossal tomes costing 100$ and such) on Ugarit, and particularly on its religion(and Yaw) in particular. Any help is welcome. Thanks in advance... Satanael 13:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Determination of LH IIIC

The article says because of a sword from pharaoh Merneptah, the LH IIIC is said to begin from 1230 BCE. I don't see why these two things are connected. Pharaoh Merneptah ruled Egypt from 1213 to 1203 BCE, while by then the LH IIIC had begun for years. He couldn't have possibly given the sword anytime earlier before 1213 BCE(as a pharaoh). The description doesn't make much sense, is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lebensraum (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC). --Lebensraum 20:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Ugarit

The article mentions that Ugarit was destroyed around 1190 BCE, but doesn't appear to mention what that means. ---

Ambiguity in "The site"

Under the heading The Site there's a confusing sentence.

"Most excavations of Ugarit were undertaken under extreme political conditions"

My question is what were the extreme political conditions, and why are they relevant? Did the archeologist, or his institution, have a specific bias?

Perhaps it should be reading "Most excavations of Ugarit were undertaken under dangerous and trying political conditions". "Extreme' is not helpful, I'd agree. --Wetman 01:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Intersting

This is a very well-written article on a highly interesting subject. I'd loved to read this one; cheers to it's creator, whoever that might be! R. P. Williams 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Permission to publish

Two paragraphs of text were recently added as a verbatim copy from a copyrighted web site by an anonymous user. I retroactively obtained permission from the copyright holders, Logos Research Systems, Inc, to make the text availble under the GFDL, and added a corresponding comment in the page source. Joriki (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ugarit Religion Section Strikes me as Biased and Glib

The first paragraph is fine, but the second two...

First off, they are written entirely from the viewpoint of an what seems an Old Testament scholar and though it mentions the parallels it doesn't mention (and yes this is a debated topic) how the Ugaritic religon influenced early Judaism. Additionally, not once does it mention that YHWH, the same YHWH the Jews worshiped - at least the people of Ugarit thought so - was a god in the Ugaritic Pantheon. A more anthropological and archaeological viewpoint would be more fitting.

Just look at the quote "That god’s name was Baal, a name quite familiar to anyone who has read the Old Testament. At Ugarit Baal was known by several titles: “king of the gods,” “the Most High,” “Prince Baal” (baal zbl), and—most importantly for our discussion—“the Rider on the Clouds.” to see how wrong this section is. ALL THOSE BAELS WERE DIFFERENT GODS. Baal translates to "The Lord". The Bael most often mentioned in the Old testament and primarily worshiped in Ugarit was Bael Hadad... a storm diety. Baal zbl was a god prayed to to help impotence. The source and the two paragraphs read as if every mention of Bael in the Ras Shamra tablets and bible refer to the same god.

The quote "Baal’s position as “king of the gods” in Ugarit, Israel’s northern neighbor, helps explain the “Baal problem” in the Old Testament...

COME ON! Ugarit was destroyed by then, Baal was worshiped in Caanan not Ugarit exclusively... and yes I'm talking about Bael Hadad, not any old Baal.

Finally the source it quotes is far from biased itself. It uses the Ras Shamra tablets to interpret the Old testament not to supplement them. The section about both Yahweh and Bael riding the clouds was not done, as the source claims, so the writer of Daniel could make a point to Bael's strength. YHWH having the epithet was because at points in Ugaritic history, YWHW was identified as a storm diety.

This section needs some serious work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of Ugarit's destuction

In the paragraph explaining how the destruction dates have been arrived at, the sentence It is generally agreed that Ugarit had already been destroyed in the 8th year of Ramesses III. stands out for its passive of non-attribution and lack of a source or explanation of why. Can anyone edit into the text why this statement should be so?--Wetman (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is hebrew before arabic?

Why is hebrew even in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.134.27 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Classical Hebrew and Syriac (Aramiac) are the closest related languges to Ugaritic alphabetic cunieform and Phoenician alphabetic scripts. Valuable as it is, Arabic is more limited in its usefulness in the study of north Levantine written languages of the Bronze Age. One suspects that this question may have a political motive rather than a genuine academic enquiry. We maybe ought to ensure that the academic pursuit of knowledge is not tarnished by political ideologies of any variety. --Wotwotoldchap (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. 98.246.178.234 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Texts Show Similarities between Arabic and Ugaritic Languages (with around 1000 words that are the same in Arabic) http://my.opera.com/macedonians/blog/?id=10241632 Mewoone (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No hint of bias?

The section on Ugaritic religion in the article contains the following rather badly worded sentences:

"Writing of 'religion' in the Ancient Near East is at best a dubious science. Academia prefers to speak of various 'cults' within the ancient context."

followed by a single reference to an Israeli-authored paper. I wonder whether there was any preconception that the Jewish religion which arose later was superior to early "cults" from which it derived many of its myths? 82.1.148.7 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Academia speaks of ancient religions as well, I have what is one of the definitive books on the subject. Removed that and some other stuff for which I found no reference or considered to be OR. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do more work on this. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugarit and "Canaanite High Culture"

User:Dougweller objects to the statement "There is growing scholarly agreement that the material culture of Ugarit should be properly designated Canaanite High Culture" because he quite correctly finds no reference at all to the actual phrase "Canaanite High Culture" (cf. Google Scholar and JSTOR), which suggests strongly that there is no scholarly agreement to use the phrase to designate the material culture of Ugarit. Right. So now, how shall the article express the difference in material cultural remains between the urbane culture of Ugarit and the Early Iron Age Canaanite folk culture that ensued? No problem with that interpretation, I surmise, just with the phrase "Canaanite High Culture". -Yes?-Wetman (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a quick answer to this, except the obvious, we have to find sources that explore the issue and use them. I didn't find any myself in Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR are probably the best way to go but I don't have access to JSTOR at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference mentioned next to "Canaanite high culture" doesn't make mention of that term, and I would presume doesn't make that claim either. I did find, however, a mention of "Philistine high culture" in: "JM Golden, Ancient Canaan and Israel" in reference to the Philistine culture which archaeology has shown to differ from what used to be the general preconception of their culture. I think it would be appropriate to remove that reference and add a citation needed tag.--Xevorim (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I found that also, but I don't see it as enough to leave the claim of 'growing scholarly agreement' about Ugarit. Here's the relevant paragraph: [2]. As you can see, it doesn't mention Ugarit but Ashqelon and Tel Miqne-Ekron (Ekron, I created a redirect as it didn't have one from this form of the name). Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In that passage J.M. Golden is discussing the sophisticated urbane Philistine culture of the C8-C7, which couldn't be described as "sub-Ugaritic" like the simplified, de-urbanized Iron Age I culture that directly followed the collapse of Ugarit, (c 1190-80). That would be like saying that "sub-Roman Britain" didn't apply to the court culture of Edward the Confessor: centuries intervene. Let's drop the "high culture" statement from the article entirely and start from scratch: what may one say to describe the local Iron Age I culture that followed the fall of Ugarit? "sub-Ugaritic" won't do.--Wetman (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletion of text referenced to Finkelstein and Silberman

The reason given was "cut revisionist history weaseling about Ugaritic influence on Bible sourced from fringe view authors". Finkelstein and Silberman are not fringe authors, but I have not restored the text simply because they are not the source of the text although they were used as a cite. The source was not added by the original editor, a James McCann from Trinity in Dublin (or so he signed his edit!) Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I added that ref when I was fixing up the article a bit. I wanted no part of the Religion section, but there was a citation required thing there and I thought the ref met that specific citation call in the middle of the second paragraph of the "revisionist history" that was deleted. I'm fine either way.Ploversegg (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of letters in Ugaritic alphabet

This article says there were 30, and so it would seem from the source (http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/saoc60.pdf), see section 4.4.1 on page 59. But Ugaritic alphabet says there were 31. Debresser (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's 30. The other is punctuation. — kwami (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So there are 31 symbols, of which 30 are letters? Debresser (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

@Kwami, I assume you mean the little wedge usually offset above other characters - @Debresser this is a word-space; it is not a letter - so in the picture of the letters, the very last thing (bottom right) indicates that the preceding letters mark a word or phrase and is not a letter; it is usually indicated by a period in transliteration. The other 30 are the alphabet - but it is possible that the 'original' alphabet had fewer characters - this is an idealization (including in terms of the way the individual characters look). Michael Sheflin (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@Debresser - I see what you mean. There are 30 letters. The word space was included (for whatever reason) in that picture; in some gods lists, Ugaritic uses cuneiform DINGIR to indicate illu as in Akkadian - i.e. 'god' + alphabetic name. It would almost be like questioning whether 'space' or 'comma' or 'period' should be included in an English alphabet, so whatever extraneous symbols may have been used (in a non-alphabetic manner), the alphabet (overall) possessed 30 'letters.' Michael Sheflin (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this clear reply. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)