Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Roles of messenger deities in Ugaritic literature
As Cho (2007:137) has observed, it would seem that all the deities other than El were generally identified as lesser deities, and that these deities had designated roles of which that of messenger, while it may have been the main one, was in fact just one of them. The following is his observation in this regard: The roles of the lesser deities in the Ugaritic texts and the Hebrew Bible can be arranged broadly as messengers, warriors and others such as mediators, guardians, chanters or servants. Among them, the “messenger” role is taken as one of the primary tasks of their mission in the Ugaritic texts and the Hebrew Bible.
From this observation, it would seem that while the messenger role was one of the primary tasks carried out by the lesser deities, it surely was not their only responsibility. Evidently, different classes of lesser deities carried out different designated tasks.67 That being said, our main concern in the present section is to discuss the role of the messenger deities; that is, the lesser deities who were categorically designated as such. For as Alomia (1987:218) has pointed out, there were in fact certain gods whose sole mission was that of messenger. Stressing the role of message delivery as the messengers’ primary role, Handy (1994:159) likewise writes, “Their entire existence, as presented in the surviving Ugaritic literature, consisted of a highly restricted series of actions, all related to the conveyance of divine communication.” Thus, there is no question that the main role of the messenger deities was the delivery of messages between the major gods. The message conveyance role was so characteristic of the messengers so much in fact that the messengers simply became the messages they delivered (cf. Handy 1994:160). All so, because the messengers repeated the message they delivered verbatim (cf. KTU 1.2.I.17-19; 33-35). Put differently while describing the same concept, the messengers were representatives or simply extensions of the gods who sent them on errands (Handy 1994:160). In other words, what made these messengers essential was not anything intrinsically embedded into their nature but rather the message they were to deliver on behalf of their master gods.68 Right from the outset, it is important that we take into consideration an important observation made by Handy (1994:149), “In performing this function, the messengers delivered the text of their superiors’ speeches without amplifying the content, adding their own comments, or in any way inserting themselves into the job.” From this, it seems evident that messengers occupied such a low status in the pantheon from which they did not even have the power to make decisions. Any activity they performed relied solely upon their master deities. They were obedient servants whose duty was to implement the will of their masters. Another way in which their subservient status in the divine assembly is attested is the fact that they had to meticulously take specific orders on how the message was to be delivered to the recipients. A practical example in this regard is evident from the manner in which Yam sent his messengers with a message to the divine council (KTU 1.2 i 13-19). In this text, Yam instructs his messengers regarding some protocol they needed to follow before delivering the message to the recipient.
Further, reading from KTU 1.16 iv, though heavily damaged, it is evident that another duty of the messenger deities was to summon all the gods in the pantheon to meetings that were duly called for by El. Thus Ilsu (ngr il—“divine herald”) is one of the named messengers sent to the gods, summoning them to attend a meeting with El.69 An important observation worth noting is that in all their message delivery missions, or whichever way they were engaged, the messenger deities did their work diligently —that is, promptly, willingly, and correctly (see Alomia 1987:234, 240). This submissiveness on their part seems to have been an important virtue which qualified them for the nature of work they undertook. Only a submissive heart can be able to do the work of a servant with unquestionable success. Regarding the role or function of messenger deities in Ugaritic literature, we need to stress that at no time was their mission extended to humans beings, as they operated between gods. As Handy (1994:161) notes: Communication between the gods in De Dea Syria and their devotees was also direct, through the statues representing the gods in their temples”
Moreover, as one of their roles, Ugaritic messenger deities were believed to have the power to help sterile couples dealing with issues of infertility (see De Moor 1980:305-10). It is not very clear how this role was carried out in practise.
Order of message delivery in Ugaritic literature
In the procedure of receiving and delivering messages, it is noted that the messengers literally prostrated themselves before the superior gods as a way of paying homage and thus demonstrating their subordination (Alomia 1987:232), n. 1. In KTU 1.3 iii 10 for example, Baal, in sending his messengers to Anat instructs them, “at the feet of Anat bow and fall down; pay her homage and honour her, and speak to virgin Anat, say to the Beloved of the Powerful One; ‘Message of valiant Baal, word of valiant Warrior”’ (cf. Wyatt 2002:77). It is generally observed that prostrating oneself before a superior being, such as a god in ancient Near Eastern culture, was a way of acknowledging one’s inferior status comparatively (see Gruber 1980:292). Thus, each time the messenger deities received orders from the sending gods with the specific instructions including that of prostrating before the gods, they were perpetually reminded of their low and subordinate status in the pantheon. As observed by Alomia (1987:232), the communication between gods through the messengers could be viewed as a three phased procedure which involved the sender through the messenger to the recipient and then the recipient back to the sender through the same messenger. Elaborating on this procedure, Alomia (1987:232), n. 2 notes:
The triple procedure can be formulated in a general way as: (1) the “sending” or “charging” of the message by the sender to the messengers, (2) the “conveying” of the message to the addressee, (3) the ‘answer” of the consignee to the received message, usually through the same emissaries who transmitted the former communication. This typical pattern is seen in KTU 1.3 iii 9-31 with the charging of a message to Anat from Baal through the messengers. Then in KTU 1.3 iv 7-20, they convey the message of Baal to Anat, and finally in KTU 1.3 iv 22-32, Anat responds to Baal through the same messengers.
The procedural steps followed in the dispatch of messenger deities may be more or even fewer in some cases depending on which perspective the author may be focussing on; yet in principle, the different views seem to be underscoring the same thing. In the case of Alomia as we just saw above, the procedure of dispatch could be summarized into three steps. Though different from Alomia in wording, Cassuto (1971:42) equally sees the procedure of messenger dispatch to be three phased.70 For his part, Cho (2007:163) has expanded it into five parts.71 Moreover, Del Olmo (1980:52-62) unlike all others sees the dispatch procedure to comprise four steps.
Regarding the procedure of message delivery, it was not uncommon for the supreme gods to send some of the major gods instead of the messenger deities. An example to this is found in KTU 1.4 12-41, in which Attart asks Anat to convey her message to Baal. Likewise, Attart and Anat are presented as Baal’s messengers before El, the head of the pantheon (KTU 1.4 iv 13-18).73 It would seem that under circumstances not so much clear to a modern reader, the superior gods had the pleasure of sending some of the senior gods who may have probably willingly complied (Alomia 1987:233).
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Research problem
1.3 Aims and objectives
1.4 Methodology
1.5 Hypothesis
1.6 Chapter division
1.7 Terminology and orthography
CHAPTER 2: DIVINE COUNCIL IN UGARITIC AND PRE-EXILIC ISRAELITE RELIGION
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Why study Ugaritic Religion
2.3 Reliability of the sources
2.4 Divine council in Ugaritic religion
2.5 Divine council in pre-exilic Israelite religion
2.6 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: MESSENGER DEITIES IN THE UGARITIC AND PRE-EXILIC ISRAELITE RELIGIONS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Messenger gods in Ugaritic religion
3.3 Messenger deities in early Israelite religion
3.4 Angelological differences between Ugaritic and Israelite religions
3.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: MONOTHEISM IN POST-EXILIC YEHUD
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Statements about monotheism in Persian period Yehud
4.3 Factors that led to Yahweh’s monotheistic exclusivity in Yehud
4.4 Tracking monotheistic developments in Yehud
4.5 Monotheism and textual redaction in Yehud
4.6. The marriage metaphor in Hosea 2
4.7 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5: FROM GODS TO ANGELS: CANONICAL PICTURE
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Resheph in the Ancient Near East
5.3 Resheph in early Israelite religion
5.4 The characteristics of Resheph and the named angels in Israelite religion
5.5 Deber in the ancient Near East
5.6 Deber in the Hebrew Bible
5.7 Qeteb in the ancient Near East
5.8 Qeteb in the Hebrew Bible
5.9 Azazel in the ancient Near East
5.10 Azazel in the Hebrew Bible
5.11 From Gods to angels—the case for Resheph
5.12 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6: FROM GODS TO ANGELS: THE NON-CANONICAL EVIDENCE
6.1 Introduction
6.2 The non-canonical literature in context
6.3 About the original manuscript of the Hebrew Bible
6.4. From Gods to Angels : The Septuagint (LXX)
6.5 Ancient Near Eastern deities in the Septuagint
בני הֵאלוהים 6.6 and the αγγέλων θεού in post-exilic Yehud
6.7 Angels in the Dead Sea Scrolls
6.8 Angels in the War Scroll
6.9 Angels in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice
CHAPTER 7: SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Introduction, aims and objectives
7.2 Summary of findings and hypotheses
7.3 Recommendation for further study
BIBLIORAPHY
