Why Are The Ugaritic Texts Important To Bible Study?
Most Christians, including a lot of pastors, have never heard of the Ugaritic texts, much less considered how they can aid us in understanding ancient Hebrew literature and life. Yet,
certain Old Testament books actually quote from the Ugaritic religious texts. This will be discussed later in this article. First, let's get some information about where the Ugaritic texts came from.
In 1982, near Ras Shamra, a Syrian farmer was plowing his field when his plow struck an unusual rock which had an unnatural square shape. When the farmer removed the rock, he discovered an underground vault.
The vault was filled with vases, jugs, tablets, gold, silver, and pieces of ivory. Quite accidentally, the Syrian farmer had discovered the ancient Phoenician city of Ugarit, today known as Ras Shamra. Ras Shamra is approximately seven miles north of Laodicea, approximately fifty miles east of Cyprus.
However, the greatest discovery involved the finding of a scribal school and library. This amazing discovery revolutionized Biblical scholarship.
The clay tablets discovered and deciphered in the late 1920s and early 1930s opened a window to look into the life and religious worldview of the ancient Israelites.
Ugaritic language is important in that its vocabulary is so close to biblical Hebrew. Many Ugaritic words are letter-for-letter the same as biblical Hebrew. The similarity of the languages helped scholars get a better understanding of the Hebrew language, particularly in cases where the Bible may use a word only once.
The texts found also included a wide variety of languages. Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Hittite hieroglyphics, and native cuneiform texts were represented.
All these gave ancient language scholars a wealth of knowledge enabling scholars to interpret previously impossible passages.
It is the religion of Ugarit, however, that is especially important to Old Testament scholarship.
Sadly, most Christians have settled on the idea that we know everything we need to know about the religion of the Israelites from the Bible. Although I believe the Bible contains all we need to come to a saving faith in Jesus Christ, many phrases and events in the Bible remain a mystery to us. Other ancient texts can help us to understand these tough passages and ideas.
To be honest, a lot of the Bible is pretty foreign to the 21st century reader. The Biblical writers were writing to people in their time, not for a technological society. Words, phrases, descriptions, and concepts that were completely familiar to an Israelite are lost on us.
The availability of ancient texts from that same time and area help us to understand what is being said and how it was received by its original audience.
Also, ideas from other religions, especially Baʿal worship, influenced the Israelite's thoughts and ideas about God. You have to wonder why, to paraphrase Elijah (1 Kings 18:21), Israel kept halting between two opinions as to who was the true God.
1 Kings 18:21 "
And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baʿal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word."
Yet, because the Israelites were not in a bubble separated from their Mesopotamian neighbors, but rather, interacted with them in commerce and day to day living, the ideas and believes of those around them would influence them.
We can see in our own country where the different philosophies of our neighbors, and the changes in culture, have influenced various churches and church leaders. It would not be different for the ancient Israelites.
The ancient literature of Ugarit sheds a lot of light on these issues and others . The destruction of Ugarit can be accurately dated to around 1200 BC. That means these tablets, and the ideas they convey, were around earlier than most of the books of the Hebrew Bible.
Given that chronology, (the texts pre-dating the Bible), scholars were surprised to find so many striking parallels to words, phrases, pericopes (an extract from a text, especially a passage from the Bible), and ideas previously known primarily and in some cases, only from the Hebrew Bible.
Before the discovery of the library of Ugarit, scholars of the Hebrew Bible and the languages of the ancient Near East presumed that Mesopotamian religious texts provided the best parallels to those found in the Hebrew Bible. The cuneiform tablets of works such as the Gilgamesh Epic and Atrahasis (the flood story) were first translated, revealing similarities to stories in the Bible in written material centuries older than the Bible.
Indeed, many skeptics claimed, and still claim, the Bible actually stole from these earlier stories.
After the discovery of Ugaritic, the idea that Israelite beliefs came from foreign civilizations in Mesopotamia was abandoned.
The Ugaritic texts showed that people in Canaan living during biblical days were quite literate, a realization that was important, since the oldest manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Bible at the time dated to roughly 1000 AD.
The Ugaritic importance in understanding the Bible:
One of the most important principles of interpretation is to put every text into its proper context. That is, to read the text to be interpreted in perspective to its meaning to its original audience.
We look not only at the text that comes before and after the text to be interpreted in the Bible, but also to the social, historical, cultural, and literary traditions of the world in which it was produced. The texts recovered at Ugarit provide a key piece of literary, social, and religious context for certain passages of the Old Testament.
To understand the Bible, you must understand
the literary context. First of all, it's important to understand that the biblical writers, though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, followed the ordinary forms of literature that were current in their day when they wrote. If, for example, the biblical writer was describing a covenant treaty between God and his people, his description conforms in style to covenant treaties known elsewhere in the ancient world. To depart from this style would have seemed strange to the ancient readers: “What kind of covenant treaty is this? Didn’t this guy know how to write one?”
The apostle Paul wrote his letters to the churches in the style and format of the day. The recipients of Paul’s letters knew what a letter was supposed to look like. The Bible is written in the language, expressions and style of the times in which it was recorded. We wouldn't write a personal letter and put footnotes in it, or write a recipe to share and use scientific terminology. Likewise the biblical authors wrote using the literary conventions and styles that would be expected by their audience.
Also, we must understand that every word in the Bible is not an original thought. The Apostle Paul often quoted Greek philosophers and other ancient writers. Jude quoted the Book of Enoch. Old Testament writers also quoted from other texts and cultures.
Christian preachers and authors today quote commentaries, devotionals, journals, newspapers, and even television shows to illustrate a lesson or make a point. Similarly, the biblical writers used external material to draw attention and make a statement.
Paul quotes from pagan Greek poets. The psalmists and prophets borrow vocabulary and paraphrase material from ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Syrian literature. The people of biblical times knew the quoted material wasn't inspired, but it had meaning for them and their audience.
Biblical writers didn't just use the forms of contemporary non-inspired literature, they were also influenced by the literature itself. The stories and philosophies affected how the writers and their readers thought, just as what we read and watch influences our thoughts and opinions. The lens through which we see the world is colored by what we read and see. It was the same for Biblical writers and their audiences.
We also must consider
the religious context of the writings. The religion of Ugarit and the religion of ancient Israel were not the same, but there were some striking similarities. For example, the name of the ultimate divine authority at Ugarit was El, which is also one of the names of the God of Israel (e.g., Gen 33:20).
Genesis 33:20 "
And he erected there an altar, and called it El-elohe-Israel."
El was described as an aged god with white hair, seated on a throne. However, at Ugarit, El was sovereign, but another god ran things on earth for El as his vizier. That god’s name was Baʿal. At Ugarit Baʿal was known by several titles: “king of the gods,” “the Most High,” “Prince Baʿal” (Baʿal zbl), and "the Rider on the Clouds.”
Baʿal’s position as “king of the gods” in Ugarit, Israel’s northern neighbor, helps explain the “Baʿal problem” in the Old Testament. Jereboam’s religion in the northern kingdom borrowed from Baʿal worship, and it soon began to look like there was no difference, or if there was a difference, they were so close that worshipping one or the other was just theological hair-splitting.
We see this same problem with contemporary Christianity, with so many of the cults claiming to worship the God of the Bible, yet with so many contrary teachings. Indeed, to properly communicate with the followers of the cults, we must first define terms, since they use terms like born-again, sanctified, etc, in ways that differ from how the Bible uses them.
This is what prophets like Elijah had to contend with. The people had no Bible. They had only the prophets and their words. When a prophet wasn’t around to set the record straight, it was easy to just do what the neighbors were doing, especially if your king didn’t care, or actually preferred it that way.
Given this state of affairs, it is not surprising that the prophets counted on familiarity with Baʿal to make their case that it was Jehovah, not Baʿal, who was the heavenly king.
We know this was the case, since
certain Old Testament books actually quote from the Ugaritic religious texts, most notably the one that modern scholars have called the Baʿal Cycle. Whereas the Baʿal Cycle would give Baʿal credit for things like sending rain and making the crops grow, the prophets would credit those things to Jehovah. The showdown at Carmel is such a case. God had withheld rain for three years and Elijah challenged Baʿal, the rain giver, to a showdown, which God won in an astounding and impressive manner (1 Kings 17-18).
To fully understand the bible, we must put it in its original context of time and culture. God preserved the Bible for this generation and all generations. It is relevant and contains the truths God's people need. But we must understand, the Bible was not written by this generation nor for this generation, It was written at a specific time for a specific audience to convey a specific message. Putting the Bible into its ancient social, historical, and religious context doesn't harm it. Rather, the text is illuminated for those people who are culturally removed from their origin.
“The Cloud Rider”
Throughout the Ugaritic texts, Baʿal is repeatedly called “the one who rides the clouds,” or “the one who mounts the clouds.” The description is recognized as an official title of Baʿal. No angel or lesser being bore the title. As such, everyone in Israel who heard this title associated it with a deity, not a man or an angel.
Part of the literary strategy of the Israelite prophets was to take this well-known title and attribute it to Jehovah in some way. Consequently, Jehovah, the God of Israel, bears this descriptive title in several places in the Old Testament (Isaiah 19:1; Deuteronomy 33:26; Psalm 68:33; 104:3). For a faithful Israelite, then, there was only one god who “rode” on the clouds: Jehovah.
Until we hit Daniel 7, that is. You know the story, but you likely don’t know the full context, since Ugaritic provides that for us:
Daniel 7:9-14 "
I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. 10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. 11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. 12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. 13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."
The plurality of thrones in the passage tell us plainly that we have here what scholars of the Hebrew Bible call a divine council scene. We have the Most High seated in his throne room, meeting with the heavenly host. The literature of Ugarit has many such scenes, and the biblical divine council and the council at Ugarit are very similar.
In point of fact, the flow of Daniel 7 actually follows the flow of a divine council scene in the Baʿal Cycle:
In the Ugarit / Baʿal Cycle we have:
(A) El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council.
(B) El bestows kingship upon the god Baʿal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baʿal defeats the god Yamm in battle.
(C) Baʿal is king of the gods and El's vizier. His rule is everlasting.
In Daniel 7 we have:
(A) The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne. Like Ugaritic El, he is white haired and aged. (We see this throne also in Ezekiel 1.)
(B) Jehovah-El, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the sea (yamma) is destroyed.
(C) The Son of Man is given everlasting dominion over the nations. He rules at the right hand of God.
The striking parallels are especially noteworthy given that this is the only time in the Old Testament where a second person other than Jehovah is described as “coming with or upon the clouds.”
That the intent of the author to describe this “son of man” with a title reserved only for Jehovah, (the rider of the clouds), is clear by virtue of how the scene followed the Baʿal literature, the literary cycle whose central character, Baʿal, held the Cloud-Rider title.
The Jewish audience reading Daniel would have clearly understood the implications. The prophet Daniel was describing a second power in heaven, a second being at the level of Jehovah to whom Jehovah himself granted authority. Although we naturally think of the idea of a godhead as distinctly Christian, we have evidence here that this idea is found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
We find that Jewish theological (noncanonical) writing during the second temple period is filled with references to the “second power in heaven” and attempts to figure out how to articulate what was going on in heaven in light of monotheism.
Jewish writers speculated that the “second god” was the archangel Michael, or perhaps Gabriel. Some Jewish writers even wrote that Abraham or Moses occupied that position! However, for Christians the answer is obvious. This second person in the Godhead is Jesus, pre-incarnate.
It is well known that Jesus’ favorite title for himself while on earth was “son of man.” The term means two things: (1) human being (Jesus enjoyed being human!), and (2) the deity figure to whom all authority was given. The latter usage is perfectly evident in Matthew 26, as Jesus stood before Caiaphas, someone who knew his Old Testament, waiting to fulfill his destiny on the cross.
When asked to give the Sanhedrin a straight answer about who he was, Jesus quoted Daniel 7:
Matthew 26:62
"And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? 63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."
By quoting this passage, Jesus was making an open, unmistakable claim to be deity, he was the one who rides on the clouds. That this is the interpretation is evident from Caiaphas’ reaction:
65 "Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. 66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."
The statement is only blasphemous if one is claiming to be the rider on the clouds.
The idea of a second person in the Godhead may have been acceptable to Jews at the time, but it was simply intolerable that this man Jesus of Nazareth would claim to be the incarnation of the second power.
What many may think is an odd answer, or even a deliberate deflection of Caiaphas’ demand, is the exact opposite. Jesus could not have been more direct. He was the “second deity” of Daniel 7.
The meaning would be clear to those present. The concept of a godhead is not a Christian innovation; it is rooted in Israelite religion and Jewish theology, and was accepted doctrine for Jews until the second century A.D. when, in response to the worship of Jesus by Jews converting to Christianity, the rabbis declared the second power idea a heresy.
Are the Ugaritic texts important for the Christian? I say an emphatic, "Yes!" We are able to see the beginnings of the Christian doctrine of the godhead in the Hebrew Bible with the help of the context supplied by the literature of Ugarit. We are able to better understand exactly what the writers were telling their audience in the context of the time.
Does this mean I believe every Christian should devote himself to studying ancient texts? No. But those of us who claim to be called to teach should familiarize ourselves with the ancient texts, not only the Ugaritic texts, but the ancient Hebrew writings, which though not canonical, influenced the Biblical writers and the people to whom they wrote.
We need to read and study our Bibles. We need to know the Word of God. But, when we see something unusual, we need to see if there are other writings of the period that may shed light on those texts. As teachers and students of the Word, we need to be diligent in our study.
2 Timothy 2:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Posts
