Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

Kasion 5

Literaturkontakte Ugarits

Wurzeln und

Internationale Tagung,
Münster, 13.–15. Oktober 2015

Herausgegeben von
Ingo Kottsieper und Hans Neumann

Κάσιον Kasion 5


Kasion-5-Literaturkontakte---Cover.indd 1 17.02.2021 17:58:07

Literaturkontakte Ugarits

Wurzeln und Entfaltungen

Internationale Tagung,
Münster, 13.–15. Oktober 2015

Herausgegeben von
Ingo Kottsieper und Hans Neumann
Publikationen zur ostmediterranen Antike
Publications on Eastern Mediterranean Antiquity

Band 5

Herausgegeben von Sebastian Fink,

Ingo Kottsieper und Kai A. Metzler
Literaturkontakte Ugarits

Wurzeln und Entfaltungen

Internationale Tagung,
Münster, 13.–15. Oktober 2015

Herausgegeben von
Ingo Kottsieper und Hans Neumann

Illustration auf dem Einband: RS 24.244 (P. Bordreuil / D. Pardee:
A Manual of Ugaritic. LSAWS 3. Winona Lake 2009. Text 6).

Literaturkontakte Ugarits. Wurzeln und Entfaltungen.

Internationale Tagung, Münster, 13.–15. Oktober 2015

Herausgegeben von Ingo Kottsieper und Hans Neumann

Kasion 5

© 2021 Zaphon, Enkingweg 36, Münster (

All rights reserved.

Printed in Germany.
Printed on acid-free paper

ISBN 978-3-96327-100-7.

ISSN 2626-7179

Ingo Kottsieper / Hans Neumann .................................................................... 7

Ras Schamra / Ugarit. Ein spätbronzezeitliches Königreich

als Schnittpunkt der ostmediterranen Kulturen
Otto Kaiser ...................................................................................................... 9

KTU 1.2 in its Context and in Relation to Extra-Ugaritic Parallels.

A Reevaluation
Noga Ayali-Darshan ...................................................................................... 31
Mesopotamian Wisdom Compositions in Ugarit and
the “Western Periphery”
Yoram Cohen ................................................................................................ 49
Elemente hethitischer und hurritischer Mythologie in Ugarit
Susanne Görke ............................................................................................... 65
El und das Alphabet. Erwägungen zum Einfluss des Südens
auf die Traditionen Ugarits
Ingo Kottsieper .............................................................................................. 77
The ṣmd-Weapon of Baal in the Light of the Classical Arabic
Sources and the Modern Folklore of the Arabian Peninsula
Giovanni Mazzini ........................................................................................ 105
Ein himmlischer Betrugsversuch und seine Entlarvung.
Edition und narratologische Untersuchung von KTU 1.17 VI
Reinhard Müller / Clemens Steinberger ...................................................... 123
Possible Allusion to Marduk’s Rise to the Supremacy in
the Babylonian Marduk Prayer found at Ugarit (RS 94. 2498)
Takayoshi M. Oshima ................................................................................. 175
Administrative Texts in Ugarit between Tradition and Innovation
Analysis of Two Instances
Juan-Pablo Vita ........................................................................................... 189
The Ugaritian Poets as Inheritors, Transmitters, Transformers and
Wilfred G. E. Watson .................................................................................. 199
6 Inhalt

Mythological Traditions from Late Bronze Age Ugarit to the

Levant (Phoenicia) in the 1st Millennium BCE
Paolo Xella ................................................................................................. 241
Mythological Traditions from Late Bronze Age Ugarit
to the Levant (Phoenicia) in the 1st Millennium BCE

Paolo Xella

In two previous meetings organized in Münster in 1993 and 2013, I was invited
to examine the relationship between Ugarit and Phoenicia, from the perspective
of political-cultural history1, and from the point of view of pantheon and cultic
traditions2, respectively. On this occasion, which concludes what can modestly be
defined as a small trilogy, I focus on the mythological traditions in Syria-Pales-
tine, taking as a point of reference the Ugaritic myths in the Late Bronze Age on
the one hand, and what we can glimpse of the Phoenician mythology during the
Iron Age, on the other.
I must start by saying that there is a great imbalance in our sources. The Uga-
ritic texts have preserved a representative selection of local myths, whilst the
Phoenician epigraphic (and other) sources are basically nearly silent about the
mythological traditions of this area during the Iron Age.
Nevertheless, the situation is not completely desperate, as we can see below,
because some direct data, and chiefly some indirect sources allow us to regain at
least some elements of the Phoenician myths (although with precise limits) and to
try to arrive at an assessment of the problem of continuity / discontinuity between
the cultures and the epochs.
The strategy I follow here is to enucleate some mythical motifs from Ugarit,
and to verify if and how they are maintained in later Iron Age traditions.
Possible topics to be investigated are: cosmogony (the origin of the universe,
from chaos to cosmos), theogony (divine genealogies), anthropogony (the origin
of mankind), different levels of power in divine world, the mythological back-
ground of kingship (Ugaritic and Phoenician kings), myths of ‘dying and raising
gods’ (Haddu, Baal of Ugarit; Phoenician city gods such as Milqart, Baal of Tyre,
Ešmun, Baal of Sidon, ‘Adonis’, Baal of Byblos), the decisive role played by a
great goddess (Anatu [and Šapšu] at Ugarit; Aštart in Phoenicia), and, of course,
particular traditions regarding individual gods testified to both in Ugaritic and
Phoenician documentation.
For the sake of time and space, from all these possible themes I select only the

Xella 1995.
Xella 2014.
242 P. Xella

• cosmogony (including theogony and anthropogony),

• the mythological background of the kingship,
• the so-called ‘dying and rising gods’.

Before the discovery of Ras Shamra-Ugarit and its extraordinary archives, our
knowledge of the mythological traditions of ancient Syria-Palestine was practi-
cally non-existent. The outstanding Ugaritic textual corpus – mythical and ritual
– written in the local language has opened a direct and unexpected window on a
world that, until then, we could only glimpse through allusions and partial, indi-
rect and late witnesses.
Whilst for the Late Bronze Age direct North-west Semitic mythological
sources were lacking before 1929, for the Iron Age we possessed biblical data (to
be used with caution and after decoding), information provided by classical au-
thors for a later (chiefly Hellenistic) period, and a number of Phoenician inscrip-
tions, essentially dedicatory in character, very laconic and characterized by stere-
otyped formularies3. The names of several deities were preserved, together with
some of their epithets, but little or nothing was known to us of the mythological
framework in which they acted and were venerated. Moreover, all of this possibly
concerns the Iron Age and it seemed arbitrary to project indiscriminately these
data back to the 2nd millennium Syria-Palestine, i.e., before the historical clash
that marked the passage from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age.
To be honest, there was (and is) a remarkable exception in this nearly desolate
landscape of sources4: the fragments of the “Phoenician History” written in Greek
by Philo of Byblos, also known as Herennius, an author who lived in the late 1st
or early 2nd cent. CE. He claimed to give an account of ancient Phoenician tradi-
tions, translating a native source written by a priest from Beirut named Sanchouni-
aton (a Semitic theophoric personal name, probably, *sknytn, “[the god] Sakon
has given”), who, in turn, would have lived “before the Trojan war” (roughly, the
Late Bronze Age) and would learned his doctrine from Taautos, a version of the
Egyptian god Toth5.
Unfortunately, this text is the final product of a complicated literary transmis-
sion of which it is difficult to verify authenticity and age: the most of the frag-
ments are quoted by Eusebius of Caesarea (3rd–4th cent. CE) in his work Praepa-
ratio Evangelica6, who wanted to confute the pagan traditions, and particularly

See in general Krings 1995, Chapter 2: “Les Sources” (by different authors).
For some further information about Phoenician mythological traditions, see S. Ribichini,
“Les sources gréco-latines”, in Krings 1995, 71–83.
Eus. Praep. Ev. I 9.23–29 and I 10.6. Add that Sanchouniathon would have been in-
formed by a certain Hierombalos, a priest of the god Ieuo (sic!), who wrote for a Phoeni-
cian sovereign, Abibalos (= Abibaal), king of Beirut.
Eus. Praep. Ev. I 9.23–I 10.31.
Mythological Traditions from Late Bronze Age Ugarit to the Levant (Phoenicia) 243

the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry (3rd cent. CE), who also knew the work of
Philo (de abst. II 56) and quoted and paraphrased extensive excerpts of him.
It is not necessary to recall here the debate about the real or supposed antiquity
of Philo7, complicated by author’s Euhemeristic approach8; in short, even though
his source seems generally closer to his time than to the Late Bronze Age, Philo’s
work has been rehabilitated by modern scholarship, starting from O. Eissfeldt9, as
a source for North-West Semitic mythology, and the judgment of Attridge and
Oden can be basically shared: “(…) this work remains a valuable witness to Ca-
naanite mythology and to the ways in which that ancient religious tradition was
perceived and interpreted in the first centuries of our era”10.
In addition to Philo’s work, the existence of two other Phoenician cosmogo-
nies is known thanks to Damascius11 but, at all events, this group of sources was
really a small documentation, and the biblical witnesses about the Canaanites –
with all their limits of objectivity and reliability – were the most influential source
about Canaan for a long time. As a consequence, in the popular imagination, Ca-
naan, with its culture and religion, was the land of sin and degradation, or, at best,
could be regarded as an inferior culture: debauched deities (Baal and company),
bloody rites (‘Moloch’ and so on), no ethics in comparison with the biblical Welt-
anschauung12. Once Ugarit was discovered, and the texts decrypted and trans-
lated, a new world opened to the scholars, even if it deals with a local tradition,
certainly spread in the Syro-Palestinian milieu, but in any case tied to this small
kingdom and a particular historical period. To what extent the mythological tra-
ditions and rituals of Ugarit can be considered representative of a wider cultural
area, continues to be a question to which it is difficult to give a precise answer.
As a matter of fact, the Ugaritic texts are the tip of an iceberg, the result of a
long and deliberate selection, begun at the level of oral transmission, continued
with the written version mostly generated in the palatine milieu, where some par-
ticular mythological tales were chosen notably to establish and consolidate the

See, among others: Clemen 1939; Eissfeldt 1939, 1952, 1960; Troiani 1974; Barr 1974–
1975; Ebach 1979; Attridge / Oden 1981; Ribichini 1987; Edwards 1991; Baumgarten
1992; Cors i Meya 1995, 1999–2000; Dochhorn 2002; López-Ruiz 2010.
Winiarczyk 2002; “Evemerismo”, in DECF: Dizionario Enciclopedico della Civiltà
Fenicia, Roma 2011 (P. Xella):
E.g., Eissfeldt 1960.
Attridge / Oden 1981, 9.
A Sidonian cosmogony reported by Eudemos of Rhodes, a Peripathetic of 4th–3rd cent.
BCE and another cosmogony by Mochos, a Phoenician learned man considered as con-
temporary of Sanchouniaton: Dam. De princ. 125ter = FGr Hist III C 784, *4: see Ebach
1979, 431ff.
Cf., among others, Xella 1982a, Chapter I; Smith 2001 (the related bibliography is very
244 P. Xella

royal ideology13. Of course, much richer material must have been spread at dif-
ferent levels (including the oral), where key issues like cosmogony, theogony and
anthropogony, struggles between chaos and order, and events involving gods and
cultural heroes were at the centre of the narratives. What has come down to us, in
many cases, are only allusions to these topics, e.g., the creator role of Ilu, the
struggles of Baalu, Anatu and their allies against enemies other than Yammu and
Motu14, whilst we are told virtually nothing about the origin of man, at least di-
rectly (but see Ilu’s epithet ab adm!).
Let us remember these points, attempting a comparison of what we know from
Ugarit and what we know from Phoenicia.

Cosmogony, theogony and anthropogony are not explicitly told by the Ugaritic
texts, but we have enough evidence to be able to say that these types of myths
existed, at least at the level of oral tradition15. Moreover, we also know that the
protagonist of these feats was the god Ilu, thanks both to his epithets (sufficiently
explicit in themselves) and some other textual data, such as, e.g., the genealogical
relationships between the gods. Also according to Ilu’s attitude during the strug-
gles between Baalu and his different chaotic enemies, it is possible to affirm that
Ilu is precisely the one that created the cosmos, if not from the beginning (even if
it cannot be excluded), at least in a decisive phase. Subsequently, it will be the
task of Baalu to preserve the cosmic order against the various opponents and to
exercise an active and vigorous kingship. For his part, Ilu is characterized by ep-
ithets like mlk ab šnm / šnt16, which can be interpreted as an allusion to his pri-
mordial role in the universe’s history, when he also generated superhuman char-
acters such as Motu and Yammu, both defined as “sons of Ilu”.
As far as the birth of the other gods is concerned, it is also clear that Ilu and
the goddess Athiratu (mother of the divine ones) are the primordial couple from
which the divine generations descend (the origin of Baalu is a separate problem):
in fact, all the gods, both individually (mdd il)17 and collectively (pḫr bn il)18,
belong to Ilu’s genealogy, including deities of admittedly foreign origin like, e.g.,
Regarding mankind, its origin must also be attributed to Ilu, according to his
epithets such as “father of mankind” (ab adm)19 and “creator of creatures” (bny

Xella 1991.
See e.g. KTU2 1.3 III 37ff.; 1.5 I 1ff. and parallels.
Cf., e.g., Caquot 1959; Clifford 1994; López-Ruiz 2010.
KTU2 1.4 IV 24 and parallels.
KTU2 1.3 III 38ff.; 1.4 VIII 23 ff.
KTU2 1.14 III 14 and parallels.
KTU2 1.14 I 37 and parallels.
Mythological Traditions from Late Bronze Age Ugarit to the Levant (Phoenicia) 245

bnwt)20. In keeping with this, the protagonists of texts such as Kirta or Aqhatu are
also defined as “son(s) of Ilu”.
Now, once the role of Ilu is established, it must be noted that (in similarity to
what happens in the Indo-European tradition, e.g., in Anatolia and Greece)21, the
work of the creator at Ugarit must be – so to speak – continued and completed by
a young, powerful and warrior22 god (Baalu): in addition to the annihilation of
former chaotic opponents (see the allusions in the myths), he reduces the powers
of entities such as Yammu and Motu, which must still continue to be part of pre-
sent reality; in this case, we are at a level that can be defined as cultural assess-
ment, rather than cosmogonic.
It has been frequently observed that the divine universe of Ugarit is centred on
a diarchy of powers represented by Ilu and Baalu, responsible for the actual crea-
tion, and of the cultural order of the cosmos created by Ilu, respectively23. I won-
der whether is possible to determine if this system continues – mutatis mutandis
– during the Iron Age, and also what we do know about Phoenician cosmogonic
From a more general perspective, we are well aware that the Phoenicians and
their city-states are the heir of the previous Syro-Palestinian kingdoms of the Late
Bronze Age, partially preserving the former organization, institutions, and the
structure of the pantheon. Territorial states had a polyadic god – flanked by a
parhedra and a divine assembly – who is considered the owner of the kingdom.
A comparative assessment of Haddu, Lord of Ugarit, and Phoenician city-gods
such as Milqart, Lord of Tyre, to the extent permitted by our (especially Phoeni-
cian) sources, clearly shows their close functional affinity, and their role of active
holders of divine kingship in its various manifestations.
But what about the ancient Ugaritic diarchy of divine powers and the dichot-
omy creator/fighter? Well, several clues suggest that this system has not com-
pletely disappeared in the Iron Age, even if all reconstruction is admittedly highly
First of all, a deity like the Ugaritic Ilu, bearing exactly this name, is variously
but well testified to in the Phoenician and Punic documentation. A god named ʾl
qn ʾrṣ, literally “El creator/owner of the earth” (astral character?), is mentioned in
the inscription of Azatiwada at Karatepe (8th cent. BCE)24, which probably corre-
sponds to Elkunirša, mentioned in an originally Semitic mythological text trans-
lated into Hittite, and found in the archives of Hattuša. Elkunirša is not only de-
scribed as the husband of the goddess Asherah, but some details that concern him
closely recall the god Ilu (e.g., his dwelling place). About 1000 years later, a Neo-

KTU2 1.14 II 11 and parallels.
West 1997 (basic work); see recently López-Ruiz 2014a, 2014b and 2017.
Smith 2014.
Xella 2014, 527ff.
KAI 26 A III 15.18.
246 P. Xella

Punic inscription from Leptis Magna (Tripolitania) still preserves the memory of
this ancient divine creator, mentioning a god also named ʾl qn ʾrṣ25.
The existence of Phoenician cosmogonic and theogonic myths whose protag-
onist is a god similar to Ilu, if not identical in name, is further demonstrated by
classical sources. I refer specifically to the aforementioned complex tradition that
goes back to Philo of Byblos, in which a character called El-Kronos26 – considered
as an ancient king of the country according to the Ehuemeristic trend – plays a
major role in ordering the cosmos and establishing various aspects of worship. El-
Kronos does not belong to the earliest divine generations, and he does not directly
exercise a creational activity; nevertheless, he organizes hierarchies of power at
different levels and he performs fundamental acts such as the first human sacrifice
and the founding of cities such as Byblos and Berytos. His advent marks a decisive
detachment from his father Uranos’ reign, and his original character of supreme
god and demiurge (according to the Neoplatonist Damascius) is confirmed by an
unique feature: the possession of 4 eyes and 4 wings, functioning two by two, to
indicate his vigilance and omniscience.

Now I want to examine the mythical-ritual assumptions of the superhuman nature
of the Phoenician king, and compare this with the situation of the Ugaritic king.
As far as kingship in general is concerned, it is worth recalling here syntheti-
cally the main differences between national and territorial states27. Whereas the
king of the national state looks like an ancient tribal chef, whose authority is more
charismatic than theocratic, the king of the territorial state possesses the land vi-
cariously for the divine owner; he is viewed as god’s terrestrial arm and his cha-
risma and authority make him an almost-divine being, in any case a person by far
nearer to the gods than to the humans.
During the Bronze Age, and particularly in Syria, rulers were divinized after
their death. As far as Ugarit is concerned, according to a well-known ritual text28,
the king was ritually installed in the Netherworld, followed by his throne and other
royal symbols and objects. His name – as well as the names of the previous de-
ceased kings – was written with the divine determinative: all were the members
of the Rapi/auma, a congregation of noble ancestors (kings, princes, warriors)
which protected and healed the living, whereas the latter, in turn, honoured and
venerated them29.

IPT 18,1. See Ribichini 2002.
ὁ Ἦλοϛ (τοῦτ’ ἐστιν ὁ Κρόνοϛ) – Ἡλον τὸν καὶ Κρόνον – Κρόνοϛ τοίνυν, ὃν οἱ Φοίνικεϛ
Ἤλ προσαγορεύουσιν (fr. 2, XVI 20.29). See Ribichini 1996.
See recently Xella 2017, esp. 98–99.
KTU2 1.161.
Cf. Niehr 2017 (with the relevant bibliography).
Mythological Traditions from Late Bronze Age Ugarit to the Levant (Phoenicia) 247

During the Iron Age, on the contrary, texts explicitly concerning the funerary
ideology are lacking, and the terms “Rapiuma” (attested in Phoenician and He-
brew as rpʾm) designate all the dead in general. In spite of this, it is very plausible
that the ancient tradition was not entirely lost, and for the Phoenician king a kind
of apotheosis after the death seems to be foreseen30. According to the inscription
(and the scenes) of the sarcophagus of Ahirom (ʾḥrm), king of Byblos (ca 1050
BCE) 31, the dead king is placed “in the eternity” – bʿlm32 – by his son Ittobaal.
This expression presupposes a special funerary ceremony, to which the scenes of
the sarcophagus allude. Four women are depicted in an attitude of funerary com-
plaint, tearing their hair and striking their breasts; a procession is marching toward
the dead king seated on a throne flanked by winged sphinxes, a set table in front
of him. Ahirom holds a lowered lotus flower in his left hand, whereas his right
hand is blessing the procession addressed to him. The procession is guided by a
masculine figure, no doubt the king’s son, who is also holding a fresh lotus, sym-
bol of life. The relationship of both inscription and scenes with the ancient Uga-
ritic tradition about the Rapauma is very clear, although many details escapes us.
Even if the king is now in the Netherworld, his cultic role continues to be stressed,
as well as the function of his son and heir, who has the responsibility for main-
taining his memory.
For once, the Bible gives us considerable help, confirming what other sources,
each in its own way, tell us about the Phoenician kingship, and particularly, the
nature of the ruler, in this case, the Tyrian king.
In the biblical book of Ezekiel, chapters 26–32 include oracles against seven
foreign nations and, particularly, the Phoenician kingdoms of Tyre (26,1–28,19)
and Sidon (28,20–23). In the light of our general historical premise, the depiction
of the king of Tyre as made by the prophet is especially interesting33. The Phoe-
nician ruler is introduced as speaking in the first person: “I am a god; I sit on the
throne of a god in the heart of the seas”. Such self-consideration of the king as a
divine being – which sounds sacrilegious to the ears of the biblical author(s), ac-
cording to which he is but a man and not a god – does not lack a good historical
and religious basis: we see here clearly the identification of the Tyrian ruler with
his god, Milqart, Baal of Tyre. Other textual data (e.g., Ezek. 28,11 ff.) may reflect
the mythical and ritual tradition of Milqart’s death (in the fire) and his resurrec-
tion, a Phoenician ceremony founded in the 10th cent. BCE from Hiram, king of
Tyre. It was one of the most important religious events of the pan-Phoenician
calendar, as the persistence and spread of the ritual function of miqim elim, “he

See inter alia Merlo / Xella 2001.
KAI 1. See Xella 1994, 201ff.; recent bibliography in Lehmann 2015 (also about the
reading of Ittobaal’s name in the Ahiram’s inscription).
See Niehr 1997 for the semantic range of the word.
See Corral 2002; Saur 2008.
248 P. Xella

who awakes the god” clearly demonstrates34.

In the case of Milqart, Baal of Tyre, we have the advantage of having a name
with clear meaning and full of implications. Milqart means “King of the city”, and
studies have thoroughly shown that he is the Iron Age heir of the ancient Syro-
Palestinian tradition of the deceased and divinized kings, already clearly testified
to in Ebla in the midst of the 3rd millennium BCE. Precisely, Milqart is the myth-
ical prototype of the deified king, the exemplary model of a sovereign which
emerges at the beginning of the 1st millennium as a characteristic figure of this
Behind this phenomenon, there was certainly a specific ideology that united
the traditions of this area from the Bronze until the Iron Age. To use a piece of
terminology in vogue some time ago, it is a particular mitologema centred on the
vicissitudes of a young and powerful god, experiencing death, but subsequent re-
turn to life thanks to the intervention of a goddess. It goes without saying that the
myth of Baalu (who died and was resurrected with the help of Anat [and Šapšu])
functions as a paradigmatic model, according to which an experience of a human
type, so to speak, enters the curriculum vitae of a deity. (En passant: we can un-
derstand the embarrassment of the Greeks before a character of this type, anything
but immortal, which they will “translated” in terms of Heracles and Asclepius, the
only Greek gods who have experienced death).
On a previous occasion I already dwelt in detail on the dying and rising gods
of the Syro-Palestinian world, as well as on the ritual occasions on which the
mythical event was celebrated36. I will not return to the issue here. I just want to
remember that various classical sources allow us to reconstruct more or less sim-
ilar events for the Phoenician gods, such that one can speak of a remarkable con-
tinuity in the mythological tradition of this area through the ages, also confirmed
by the persistence of the decisive role of the great goddess (Anat, and subse-
quently Ashtart) beside the Ugaritic or Phoenician Lord/Baal; in the case of By-
blos, the goddess is herself the lady of the city, putting the male god in a secondary

Here I was able to present only a few macroscopic examples of this historical
continuity. There is no doubt that the comparative inquiry needs to be deepened
and broadened to include other aspects of the ritual, and in particular, the data of
material culture. In the near future, work will certainly not be lacking.

Zamora 2017.
See particularly Xella 1982b; Bonnet 1988.
Xella 2001.
Mythological Traditions from Late Bronze Age Ugarit to the Levant (Phoenicia) 249

Attridge, H. W. / Oden, R. A., 1981: Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History.
Introduction, Critical text, Translation, Notes. CBQ 9. Washington DC: The
Catholic Biblical Association of America .
Barr, J., 1974–1975 : “Philo of Byblos and his Phoenician History”. Bulletin of
the John Rylands Library 57, 17–68.
Baumgarten, A. I., 1981: The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commen-
tary. Leiden: Brill.
Bonnet, C., 1988: Melqart. Mythes et cultes de l’Héraclès tyrien en Méditerranée.
Namur/Leuven: Peeters.
Caquot, A., 1959: “La naissance du monde selon Canaan”, in La naissance du
monde. Sources Orientales 1. Paris: Seuil. 177–184.
Clemen, C., 1939: Die phönikische Religion nach Philo von Byblos. Leipzig: Hin-
Clifford, R.J., 1994: Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible.
Washington DC: CBQ Monograph Series.
Corral, M. A., 2002: Ezekiel’s Oracle against Tyre. Biblica et Orientalia 46.
Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.
Cors i Meya, J. A., 1995: Concordance of the Phoenician History of Philo of
Byblos. Sabadell (Barcelona): Editorial AUSA.
Cors i Meya, J. A., 1999–2000: “Traces of the Ancient Origin of some Mythic
Components in Philo of Byblos’ Phoenician History”. In M. Molina / I. Már-
quez Rowe / J. Sanmartín (eds.): Arbor Scientiae: Estudios del Próximo Ori-
ente Antiguo dedicados a Gregorio del Olmo Lete con ocasión de su 65 ani-
versario. AuOr 17–18. Sabadell (Barcelona): Editorial AUSA. 341–348.
Dochhorn, J., 2002: “Porphyrius über Sanchuniathon: Quellenkritische Über-
legungen zu Praep. Ev. 1,9,21”. Die Welt des Orients 32, 121–145.
Ebach, J., 1979: Weltentstehung und Kulturentwicklung bei Philo von Byblos: Ein
Beitrag zur Überlieferung der biblischen Urgeschichte im Rahmen des altori-
entalischen und antiken Schöpfungsglaubens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Edwards, M.J., 1991: “Philo or Sanchuniathon? A Phoenician Cosmogony”. Clas-
sical Quarterly 41, 213–220.
Eissfeldt, O., 1939: Ras Shamra und Sanchunjaton. Halle (Saale): M. Niemeyer.
— 1952: Sanchunjaton von Berut und Ilumilku von Ugarit. Halle (Saale) : M.
— 1960: “Phönikische und griechische Kosmogonie”. In Éléments orientaux
dans la religion grecque ancienne. Colloque de Strasbourg 22–24 mai 1958.
Paris: PUF. 1–16.
IPT: Levi della Vida, G. / Amadasi Guzzo, M. G.: Iscrizioni puniche della Tripo-
litania (1927–1967). Rome 1987: L’Erma di Bretschneider.
KAI: Donner, H. / Röllig, W.: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften, I–III.
1962–1964, 1966–1969. Bd. 1: 5., erweiterte und überarbeitete Auflage, 2002.
250 P. Xella

Wiebaden: Harrassowitz.
KTU2 (CAT): Dietrich, M., Loretz, O. and Sanmartín, J., The Cuneiform Alpha-
betic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (KTU: Second, en-
larged edition). ALASP 8. Münster 1995: Ugarit-Verlag.
Krings, V., (ed.), 1995: La civilisation phénicienne et punique. Manuel de Re-
cherche. Handbuch der Orientalistik 20. Leiden / New York / Köln: Brill.
Lehmann, R. G., 2015: “Wer war Aḥīrōms Sohn (KAI 1,1)? Eine kalligraphisch-
prosopographische Annäherung an eine epigraphische offene Frage”. In
V. Golinets / H. Jenni / H.-P. Mathys / S. Sarrasin (eds.): Neue Beiträge zur
Semitistik. Fünftes Treffen der Arbeitsgemenischaft Semitistik in der Deut-
schen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft vom 15.–17. Februar 2012 an der Uni-
versität Basel. AOAT 425. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 163–180.
López-Ruiz, C., 2010: When the Gods Were Born: Greek Cosmogonies and the
Near East. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
— 2014a:“Greek and Canaanite Mythologies: Zeus, Baal, and their Rivals”. The
Religion Compass 8/1, 1–10 (online journal).
— 2014b: “Greek and Near Eastern Mythology: A Story of Mediterranean En-
counters”. In L. Edmunds (ed.): Approaches to Greek Myth (2nd rev. edition).
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 154–199.
Merlo, P. / Xella, P., 2001: “Da E. Rohde ai Rapiuma ugaritici. Antecedenti vi-
cino-orientali degli eroi greci?” In S. Ribichini / M. Rocchi / P. Xella (eds.):
La questione delle influenze vicino-orientali sulla religione greca. Stato degli
studi e prospettive della ricerca. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale (Roma, 20–
22 maggio 1999). Roma: CNR. 281–298.
Niehr, H., 1997: “Zur Semantik von nordwestsemitisch clm als ‘Unterwelt’ und
‘Grab’”. In H. Kühne / B. Pongratz-Leisten / P. Xella (eds.): Ana šadî Labnāni
lū allik. Beiträge zu altorientalischen und mittelmeerischen Kulturen. Fest-
schrift für Wolfgang Röllig. AOAT 247. Kevelaer / Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Butzon & Hecker. 295–305.
— 2017: “Die rapiʾūma/rephāʾîm als konstitutives Element der westsemitischen
Königsideologie. Herkunft – Rezeptionsgeschichte – Ende”. In L. C. Jonker /
G. R. Kotzé / C. M. Maier (eds.): Congress Volume Stellenbosch 2016. Lei-
den/Boston: Brill. 143–178.
Ribichini, S., 1987: “Traditions phéniciennes chez Philon de Byblos: une vie éter-
nelle pour des dieux mortales”. In C. Kappler (ed.): Apocalypses et voyages
dans l’au-delà. Paris: Cerf. 101–116.
— 1996: “Su alcuni aspetti del Kronos fenicio”. In E. Acquaro (ed.): Alle soglie
della classicità. Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore
di Sabatino Moscati. Pisa-Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici. 371–381.
— 2002: “Il dio El a Leptis Magna: note comparative”. In M. Khanoussi / P. Rug-
geri / C. Vismara (eds.): L’Africa Romana. Ai confini dell’Impero: contatti,
scambi, conflitti. Atti del XV convegno di studio, Tozeur, 11–15 dicembre
Mythological Traditions from Late Bronze Age Ugarit to the Levant (Phoenicia) 251

2002. Roma: Carocci. 1557–1564.

Saur, M., 2008: Der Tyroszyklus des Ezechielbuches. BZAW 386. Berlin / New
York: De Gruyter.
Smith, M. S., 2001: Untold Stories: The Bible and Ugaritic Studies in the Twen-
tieth Century. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
— 2014: Poetic Heroes. Literary Commemoration of Warriors and Warrior Cul-
ture in the Early Biblical World. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Troiani, L., 1974: L’opera storiografica di Filone da Byblos. Pisa: Libreria Gol-
West, M. L., 1997: The East Face of Helicon: West Asiatic Elements in Greek
Myth and Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Winiarczyk, M., 2002: Euhemeros von Messene: Leben, Werk und Nachwirkung.
München/Leipzig: K. G. Saur.
Xella, P., 1982a: Gli antenati di Dio. Divinità e miti della tradizione di Canaan.
Verona: Essedue Edizioni.
— 1982b: “Il re, la morte e gli antenati nella Siria antica”. In U. Bianchi / M. J.
Vermaseren (eds.): The Soteriology of the Oriental Cults in the Roman Em-
pire. Leiden: Brill. 614–631.
— 1991: “Tradition orale et redaction écrite au Proche-Orient ancient: le cas des
textes mythologiques d’Ugarit”. In C. Baurain / C. Bonnet / V. Krings (eds.):
Phoinikeia Grammata. Lire et écrire en Méditerranée. Actes du Colloque de
Liège, 15–18 novembre 1989. Namur: Société des Études classiques. 69–89.
— 1995: “Ugarit et les Phéniciens. Identité culturelle et rapports historiques”. In
M. Dietrich / O. Loretz (eds.): Ugarit. Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im
Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven der Forschung I: Ugarit und seine
altorientalische Umwelt. ALASPM 7. Münster: Ugarit Verlag. 239–266.
— 2001: “Baal di Ugarit e gli dèi fenici: una questione di vita o di morte”. In P.
Xella (ed.): Quando un dio muore. Morti e assenze divine nelle antiche
tradizioni mediterranee. Verona: Essedue Edizioni. 73–96.
— 2014: “Dieux et cultes en Syro-Palestine. Idéologies ‘religieuses’ entre Ugarit
et le monde phénicien”. Ugarit-Forschungen 45, 525–525.
— 2017: “Self-depiction and Legitimation: Aspects of Phoenician Royal Ideol-
ogy”. In C. Levin / R. Müller (eds.): Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorien-
talischen Reichen der Eisenzeit. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 97–110.
Zamora, J. Á., 2017: “The miqim elim: Epigraphic Evidence for a Specialist in
the Phoenician-Punic Cult”. Rivista di Studi Fenici 45, 65–85.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen