PATRICK CONSIDINE - CNRsmea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Considine...study of origins. A...

THE THEME OF DIVINE WRATH IN ANCIENT EAST MEDITERRANEAN LITERATURE 1

by PATRICK CONSIDINE

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine the treatment of the theme of divine wrath in Ugaritic, Greek and early Hebrew literature, with reference also to illuminating parallels in Mesopotamian and Hittite texts. The method followed is to isolate passages in which the gods are presented as angry, with men or with each other; to classify these passages and to compare those which seem to invite comparison; and to ask whether any noteworthy similarities of treatment are present and, if so, whether they can be taken as evidence for relationship between the literatures concerned.

The present article was inspired by a remark made by C.H. Gordon in his Homer and the Bible 154: «A book, many times the size of this monograph, could and should be written about the Bible theme of the wrath of God against the background of East Mediterranean epic. » (It is not meant to implement his suggestion: a thorough study of the theme of divine wrath in the Old Testament against the Ancient Near Eastern background still

1 This article consists of cc. 3-5 and c. 7 (with minor corrections, additions and alterations) of my London Ph.D. thesis The Concept of Divine Wrath in Ancient East Mediterranean Literature (1967). Further extracts are published in my article Some Homeric Terms for Anger Acta Classica 1966 and in Moses and Odysseus Proceedings of the Mrican Classical Associations 1967.

Neither the thesis nor this article could have been completed had it not been for the great kindness shown by Professor T.B.L. Webster in reading and commenting on drafts at very short notice. I am very grateful to him for his advice and suggestions and for pointing out a number of errors. The responsibility for the blemishes which remain is of course entirely my own.

86 P. Considine

could and should be made). The pioneering work of Gordon and others 2 has brQught to light a wealth of parallels between the literatures of the Andent Near East and has es~ablished beyond reasonable doubt that there was an East Mediterranean epic tradition with its roots in the third millennium B.C. and still flourishing and developing in the first half of the first millen-nium. But while Gordon may reasonably claim that it is not his business to point out obvious differences between the various literary traditions, it is nevertheless essential, if the comparative studies for which he has done so much are not to remain a stunted growth, that a large number of well defined subjects should be investigated in reasonable detail in such a way as to put any similarities which may be observed in perspective, neither ignoring parallels nor concentrating exclusively upon them. Resemblances cannot be understood apart from differences nor differences apart from res'emblances .

The characteristic relationship here envisaged is that which is observed when a similarity in subject matter is matched by a similarity in story pattern. If two literatures present a reflex of the Diomedes/ Aphrodite motif (see below, pp. 90-91, 147), the diffusion of a story pattern may be deduced; if the same literatures reflect a belief that when the crQPS fail the gods are angry, the fact has great intrinsic interest but is not in itself evidence for literary relationship 3.

It is better to err on the side of caution in identifying simiJ.ar passages as specifically Ancient East Mediterranean parallels. I have tried tQ observe this principle throughout by maintaining a distinction between what Gordon calls 'general' and 'specific' parallels. By a 'gener.al' parallel I mean a common feature which is of interest for one reason or another but which does not of

2 Some of the most stimulating contributions are: G. Germain Genese de l'Odys-see; M.C. Astour Hellenosemitica; C.H. Gordon Homer and the Bible, Before the Bible and Ugarit and Minoan Crete; H. Haag Homer, Ugarit und das alte Testament; A. Lesky A History of Greek Literature; L.A. Stella Il Poema di Ulisse; T.B.L. Webster From Mycenae to Homer; P. Walcot Hesiod and the Near East. S.N. Kramer's The Sumerians, History begins at Sum er and Sumerian Mythology are indispensable for the study of origins. A salutarily cautious, if not sceptical, attitude to the whole subject (at least as far as Homer is concerned) is to be found in G.S. Kirk's The Songs of Homer. C.S. Starr The Origins of Greek Civilisation is an example of a more hostile approach.

References to other work, including the extensive periodical literature, can be found in the above. I have not given detailed references to the secondary literature when presenting well known material.

3 If certain features can be identified as specifically Ancient East Mediterranean, they may be so either by parallel development from a common source or by dependence of one on the other. These questions of the transmission of the tradition are of great importance, but are not discussed in the present article, which is intended to present the evidence for the study of one theme and to isolate possible parallels. Some com-ments on certain aspects of the transmission were included in my thesis in c. 6 Aspects of Transmission and c. 1 Literary and Religious Background.

The Theme of Divine Wrath 87

itself suggest direct contact between the two literatures in which it occurs: in other words, a feature which common sense would be willing to ascribe to coincidence. By a 'specific' parallel I mean a common feature which does suggest direct contact, because of some striking similarity in content, expression or arrangement and which therefore common sense would think unlikely to be the result of coincidence. The appeal to common sense ds of course far from fool proof, but it is at least a constant encouragement to be as objective as possible 4.

The references to Hittite and Mesopotamian literature are mainly to ANET; other sources are noted ad. lac. The Egyptian records are not discussed, because the theme of divine wrath is rarely if ever found in them. (Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods 209 goes so far as to say: «Egyptian religion ignored the theme of the wrath of God. The state felt secure under the guidance of the living Horus, the Son of Re. ») Quotations are in English. The translations from Greek and Hebrew 'are my own: they have been made from the OCT of Homer 4a and from Kittel's Biblia Hebraica. The Ugari-tic translations are from Gordon's Ugarit and Minoan Crete (UMC), the Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite from ANET, except where otherwise stated. In one or two cases where no English version is available I have cited the translation of the scholar whose edition has been used. For Ugaritic Driver's Canaanite Myths and Legends (CML) has been invaluable.

I should perhaps add a word about the arrangement of the material. The arrangement under the headings Causes, Manifestation, Results and Remedy is obvious for a religious study but has some disadvantages for a literary one. The most serious objection to it is that, in order to judge whether parallel incidents featuring divine wrath are specific Ancient East Mediterranean parallels, the incidents often need to be considered complete, and not in terms of the stages of development of a theme. But this disadvantage is in fact a much less serious one than results from operating from the outset with episodes. It can be greatly reduced by the admission of a certain amount of repetition and by a drawing together of threads at the end; whereas, if the procedure of comparing similar episodes is followed, it is very difficult not to give greater prominence to similarities than to differences and so to be in danger of pre-judging the question.

4 See further below, pp. 145-158. The introductory chapter of my thesis is also rele-vant, esp. pp. 7-11 (Assessing the significance of parallels) and pp. 38-50 on the 'myth and ritual' debate. «The 'specific' parallels which this study seeks to identify are so termed because of common circumstantial detail for which direct borrowing is on any hypothesis the only reasonable explanation ». (lb. pp. 46-7).

4a I, Il, III etc. and i, ii, iii etc. are sometimes used alone to refer to the Iliad and Odyssey respectively.

88 P. Considine

Chapter One THE CAUSES OF DIVINE WRATH

In the most general terms there is only one cause of divine wrath, and it is opposition to the divine will. There is a variety of specific causes, but opposition is usually regarded as an element, even in those cases in which a man unwittingly and even unwillingly incurs the divine wrath. The following survey of representative texts from the various literatures will show what elements in the narratives are likely to be significant for the question of literary relationship.

1. Refusal to accede to a god's request or command

In the Ugaritic legend of Aqhat, the goddess Anath asks the hero Aqhat to give her the bow and arrows obtained for him by his father Danel from the divine craftsman Kothar-and-Hasis; in return she promises him the gift of immortality. Aqhat refuses with a spirited and mocking speech which rouses Anath's wrath.

Do not beguile me, 0 Virgin For to a hero thy lies are loathsome!

As for man, what does he get as his des1;iny? What does a man get as his tate? ...

[And] I'll die the death of everyone Yea I shall surely die!

[Also anoth]er thing I shall tell: The bow [is a weapon of h]eroes

Could a female really hunt [therewith]? (2 Aqhat: VI 34 ff.; UMC 127)

Anath laughs and replies:

[Recon]sider, 0 Hero Aqhat, ... [Other] wise shall I not meet thee on the path of sin [Nor] fell thee on the path of pride

Under [my feet], 0 Good One, strongest of men? (lb. 43 f.)

Anath now goes to El and threatens him with physical violence if he does not allow her to punish Aqhat as she thinks fit. He replies mildly that she may do as she wishes.

I shall make [thy gray hair] flow [with blood The gray of] thy [beard] with gore,

And [then] will Aqhat save thee Or will Danel's son rescue thee

The Theme of Divine Wrath

From the hand of the Virgin [Anath]? And Lutpan, God of Me[rcy], replies: -I know thee, my daughter, that thou art impetuous

And there is no forbearance among goddesses. So depart, my daughter -The joy that there is in thy liver

Thou shalt put in the midst of thy breast. (3 Aqhat: «rev.» 10 ff.; UMC 128)

89

Anath now enlists the help of Yatpan, the god 'ready in battle' and gives him the form of an eagle, under which he kills Aqhat.

Aqhat's reply to the proposition made by the goddess could hardly have been more offensive. He refuses Anath's request; contemptuously rejects her offer of immortality; and mocks her pretensions to use a warrior's weapons.

The theme of a mortal refusing a god's request for a weapon is not paralleled elsewhere, though it is common enough in epic for a god to give weapons to a mortal; cf. BB p. 160.

The refusal of the offer of immortality is of greater interest. The same theme occurs in Homer, where it receives characteristically more delicate treatment. In v 203 ff., Calyps.o graciously tells Odysseus that he is free to leave her, but hints that he would be wiser to remain and enjoy immortal life with her; Odysseus courteously declines the offer, but acknowledges that his doing so could be thought adequate reason for an outbreak of divine anger:

But if you really knew all that you will have to suffer before you reach your own country, you would stay here and share my home with me and be immortal, in spite of your longing to see your wife - yes, I know you are pining for her the whole time. I'm quite sure I have just as good a figure as hers, and that I'm just as good looking -it wouldn't be right for a mortal woman to have a better figure or better looks than an immortal.

The diplomatic Odysseus replied: .« Lady goddess, don't be angry with me ».

A similar incident, without the explicit mention of immortality, occurs in the Gilgamesh Epic VI, 1 ff. (ANET 83-4) where Gilgamesh refuses Ishtar's offer of marriage and mocks her for her insincerity:

When Gilgamesh had put on his tiara, Glorious Ishtar raised an eye at the beaury of Gilgamesh: Come Gilgamesh, be thou (my) lover! Do but grant me of thy fruit. Thou shalt be my husband and I will be thy wife.

Gilgamesh mockingly reminds her of her treachery to other lovers:

Which lover didst thou love for ever? ... If thou shouldst love me thou wouldst [treat me] like them.

(VI, 42, 78)

90 P. Considine

Ishtar goes to Anu and threatens him with the consequences of her wrath if he does not help her to get her revenge on Gilgamesh for insulting her:

When Ishtar heard this, Ishtar was enraged and [mounted] to heaven ... Ishtar opened her mouth to speak, Saying to [Anu, her father]:

My father, make me the Bull of Heaven [that he smite Gilgamesh], [And] fill Gil [gamesh ... ]! If thou [dost not make] me [the Bull of Heaven], I will smash [the doors of the nether world], I will [ ... ], I will [raise up the dead eating (and) alive], So that the dead shall outnumber the living!

(VI, 79-80; 92-100)

Ishtar and Anath are both angered by the way in which a mortal hero contemptuously exposes a specious offer of glory; each assures the father of the gods that he will feel the effects of her anger if he does not co-operate in avenging her by the destruction of the offending mortal; and in both cases an animal is the instrument of vengeance, and is specially fashioned for the purpose.

A rough parallel to both the Ugaritic and Mesopotamian stories is found in the Hittite Myth 0/ Illuyankas (ANET 125). The goddess Inaras asks for the help of Hupasiyas, a mortal, in capturing the dragon Illuyankas. Hupasiyas agrees on condition that Inaras lets him sleep with her. His request is granted, Illuyankas is overthrown and killed, and Inaras builds Hupasiyas a house 1:0 live in. He begins to pine for his wife and children, and Inaras quarrels with him and kills him.

Thus in the Greek, Hittite and Mesopotamian stories appears the concept that a goddess may be angry because ·a mortal does not value her favours; in the Greek and Hittite, the man has to choose between the goddess and his own wife. In the Greek story there is an accompanying offer of immortality which is the whole extent of the f.avour in the Ugaritic. In the Ugaritk, Mesopotamian and Hittite, a violent end is planned for the recal-citrant mortal; but Anath shows remorse over Aqhat's fate and possibly did not intend his death and it is not quite certain that Inaras intended to kill Hupasiyas in the quarrel.

It may be noted that in both the Mesopotamian and the Ugaritic stories a seven year drought is the sequel to the hero's death. Cf. 2 Sam. 1: 21, and see below, pp. 117-8. Cf. also p. 125, where Ishtar's threat to descend to the underworld is compared with that of Helius in Od. xii.

The theme of a mortal hero mocking a goddess who aspires to use the weapons of a warrior and huntsman, appears in the Iliad, though with no


specific mention of divine wrath. In v 330 H., the hero Diomedes wounds the goddess Aphrodite in the wrist, and mocks her for her military ambitions:

Then Diomedes of the loud war cry roared at her: «Get back, daughter of Zeus; leave war and fighting alone. Haven't you enough to do in getting defenceless women into trouble? If you carry on trying to be a soldier, I don't think it will be long before you tremble at the slightest hint of a battle».

Aphrodite £lees to Olympus, where she is comforted by Dione with the assurance that Diomedes will perish if he presumes to oppose the immortals, and gently addressed by Zeus. Apollo is himself opposed by Diomedes and enlists the support of the war god Ares to deal with him. Cf. 2 Aqhat VI:15 H. with Iliad V, 311-459.

The Homeric story is a good deal more complex and sophisticated than the Ugaritic, but in both the pattern of events is the same; a human being mockingly warns a female goddess to leave fighting to men, the goddess is comforted by the father of the gods, destruction is promised for the man who has set himself against the immortals, and the war god is engaged to deal with him. Of the two possible explanations that the similarities are no more than might be expected in stories told against a background of a pantheon of gods having dealings with men, and that the basic theme of the Ugaritic story has been elaborated in a related tradition at a later stage, the latter seems preferable. If this explanation is correct, it is not at all surprising that the wrath of Anath is not matched by a wrath of Aphrodite, whose reaction of fear, distress and flight represents a re-working of the original tradition by Homer in the interests both of novelty and of the place of the incident in the story of Diomedes.

Thus the Ugaritic story included the two distinct themes of a hero rejecting a goddess's oHer of immortality and of a hero mocking a goddess's aspirations to use a warrior's weapons. The themes both appear in Homer, the first in the Odyssey, the second in the Iliad; only the first occurs in the other literatures mentioned. For two further comparisons see Moses and Odysseus, sup. cit., and see Table III below.

When a god is angry with a whole community of human beings, it sometimes happens that he wishes to destroy the entire community. If for any reason this wish is not fulfilled, the factor which prevents its fulfilment becomes a new cause of wrath.

Thus in 1 Sam 28: 18 Yahweh is angry with Saul for not destroying all the Amalekites; as a punishment he abandons him to his enemies and gives his kingdom to David:

It is because you did not carry out Yahweh's instructions, because you did not make the Amalekites feel the fury of his anger, that Yahweh has done this to you today.

92 P. Considine

In Gilgamesh XI 170 H. (ANET 95) Enlil is angry because not all men were destroyed in the flood:

When at length as Enlil arrived, And saw the ship, Enlil was wroth, He was filled with wrath over the Igigi gods:

'Has some living soul escaped? No man was to survive the destruction!'

Similarly in Il. IV:20 H., Zeas says in reproach to Hera that her wrath would only be satisfied if she devoured Priam and all the Trojans:

If you could get inside the gates and the high walls, and eat to the last mouthful the raw flesh of Priam and Priam's sons and the other Trojans, that might be enough to put an end to your anger. (34-6)

Zeus suggests that he might himself be equally destructive if roused to wrath against a community of men:.

When I set my heart on destroying a city, and choose one where there are people you are fond of, don't try to put me off being angry; just leave me to get on with it. ( 40-2)

There ,are no noteworthy similarities in the patterns of the stories in which this feature occurs; but the prominence given in each to the concept that divine wrath may demand the total destruction of ,a human community and that its not being destroyed is a cause of renewed wrath, seems worth mentioning; though it should be added that in the Iliad, strictly speaking, the frustration of the desire to destroy the entire community is a cause of continued rather than renewed wrath.

2. Challenge to a god's power by a human being

It is not surprising that in the Iliad this theme is most clearly and most frequently illustrated by examples of men attempting to engage gods in physical combat. In V:40 H., Diomedes attacks the wounded Aeneas four times, although he knows that Apollo is guarding him. On the fourth attack Apollo sternly warns him not to imagine himself an equal of the gods; « When he heard this warning, the son of Tydeus gave ground a little, to avoid the wrath of Apollo the far-shooter.» In XVI 710 H. Patroclus features in an exactly similar incident. V:443-4 = XVI 710 H., except that Patroclus retreats farther than Diomedes. In VI:128 H. Glaucus tells Diome-des that Lycurgus roused the anger of the gods by fighting them, and paid the penalty of his arrogance.


Then the gods who live at their ease were angry with Lycurgus, and the son of Kronos made him blind; he didn't last long, with all the immortals against him.

A similar passage in the Odyssey is xi:305, where Zeus slays Otus and Ephialtes for . waging war on the gods. There is no explicit wrath term, but it is dear that divine wrath has in fact been aroused.

Other instances of men taking arms against the gods are given by Dione in the speech in which she comforts her daughter Aphrodite, who has been wounded by Diomedes: Otus and Ephialtes bound Ares in a jar, and Herades wounded Hera and Ares. These three examples hardly amount to 'a cat.alogue of the deities bested in battle' (Gordon, BB 261), although Dione does say that many gods have suffered in battle at the hands of men. A much more serious misrepresentation comes later on the same page: «Odyssey (4:397) states ,that « hard is a god for a mortal man to master », but the outstanding heroes were in many cases equal to it ». Diomedes-Aphrodite and Anath-Aqhat are quoted as examples. The point need not- be laboured that such observations are at best superficial. It is a fundamental datum of divine-human relationships in Homer that no man can attack or oppose a god with impunity, unless indeed he has the encouragement and protection of another god in doing so: and even then he is taking a serious risk (cf. Iliad XX: 293 H.). This fact is so obvious that it is not worth while to review the evidence, except to comment on Gordon's examples. It is true that Diomedes apparently gets the better of Aphrodite; but much of the dramatic purpose of the incident is to show the development of hubris in Diomedes, a hubris which must inevitably result in disaster for him s. It is in fact a triumph of the Homeric art that an incident so entertaining in itself, and apparently making fun of a deity in a most irreverent way, is also part of a solemn demonstration of the dangers of man opposing the immortals. While enjoying the amusing anecdote of the goddess of love being worsted in battle by the hero, the listener must have been half consciously waiting for the assurance given by Dione when her daughter comes to her for comfort:

And now the grey-eyed goddess Athene has set this poor fool on to you. What the son of Tydeus does not realise, is that no-one lasts long who fights with the im-mortals; his children don't sit on his knee and call him 'Daddy' when he gets home exhausted from the grim struggle on the battlefield. (V: 406-9)

And more in the same vein. For the reference to Athene's encouragement of Diomedes, cf. 130 H.

Don't be so foolish as to fight any of the immortal gods, with one exception; if

5 I do not however know of any classical tradition in which Diomedes is in fact overtaken by nemesis.

94 P. Considine

Aphrodite, the daughter of Zeus, comes on to the battlefield, you can wound her with your sharp bronze sword.

So not only was Diomedes virtually indemnified by Athene in his attack on Aphrodite; but literally in the same breath his patroness warned him not to try condusions with any other god. He takes this counsel very much to heart, 'and later warns his comrades not to fight against the gods (V:601 H.) and tells Athene that it was because of her warning that he did net venture to oppose Ares in battle. It is only when she has emphatically assured him of her protection against Ares er any other of the immortals, thus withdraw-ing her previous prohibition, that he does wound Ares, and even then Athene guides the weapon. (V:814 H.) As for the passages which Gordon quotes 'as evidence for the concept that a hero, again Diomedes, could be 'fit to fight with Zeus' (V:362, 457: 'the son of Tydeus, who apparently would fight father Zeus himself'), the logic of these lines is precisely that of the English vulgarism: «Who does he think he is - God Almighty? »

It will be seen that the evidence adduced by Goroon in support of his contention that « the heroic age indulged itself in the conceit that its famed warr10rs were a match for the gods », proves semething very like the opposite, at least for Greece.

Examples of individual heroes challenging gods in battle and so incurring divine wrath ar'e not paralleled in the other literatures, probably because no poem of the length of the Iliad and with the same background of battle, has come down to us - it is frem the Iliad that most of the Homeric examples naturally come. These passages of Homer should be seen against the back-ground of the common Ancient Near Eastern theme that gods may take sides in battles between mortal armies. It is dear enough in the Iliad itself, not only in cases of individual gods taking part on behalf of an individual favourite or to subdue an enemy, but in passages where it is dear that the gods are for or against a particular side, and may be expected to range themselves in hostile groups upon the battlefield. See e.g. IV: 20 H., where the conflict between cities is linked with the conflict between their protecting deities, and XX: 19 H., where Zeus says that he will not take part in the battle himself, «but the rest of you can make your way to the Trojan and Achaean lines, and start supporting whichever side you symp~thise with. » (23-5 )

A doser relationship between a human army and its protecting deities is seen in a Hittite Ritual before Battle (ANET 354 ii (5) H.):

The gods of the Hatti land have done nothing against you, the gods of the Kashkean country. They have not put you under constraint. But ye, the gods of the Kashkean country, began war. Ye drove the gods of the Hatti land out of their realms and took over their realm for your selves. The Kashkean people also began war. From the Hittites ye took away their cities and ye drove them out of their field (and) fallow


and out of their vineyards. The gods of the Hatti land and the (Hittite) people call for bloody vengeance.

It is clear enough that the Hittite gods are angry at the unprovoked attack. But the identifying of the fortunes of the gods with those of the people they protect is much closer than any such identification found in Homer, with the result that no concept of 'man fights god' is present, at least in a form which would he meaningful for the present investigation. Much the same applies to the Akkadian texts, where the identity of interest between the gods and their people is so close that when a city is captured its gods are regarded as captured with it (a oonception which is the more natural in the light of the significance attached to the images of the gods in Mesopo-tamian religion, and of its basic concept that man was created for the service of the gods in the most crudely physical sense - i.e. that the raison d'etre of the human race was to provide for the gods essential services of the kind performed by human servants for human masters) Sa. A typical statement is that of Sargon II (721-705 B.c.; ANET 286):

I declared the gods residing therein (se. in Ashdod), himself, as well as the inhabi· tants of his country, the gold, silver (and) his personal possessions as booty.

Similarly Tiglath Pileser I (744-727 B.c.; ANET 283) replaced the gods of Gaza, which he captured, with his own gods, 'and declared them to be thenceforward the gods of their country'.

A number of passages in the Old Testament show the theme of a deity fighting battles in anger against human opponents, combined with a close identity of interests between the deity and a human king and community; and in certain cases the anger of the god seems to have been caused by men taking the initiative in engaging him in battle. See Exodus 15:3-12; Judges 5: 4-5, 13, 23; Psalm 110: 5 ff., etc.

In the Ugaritic legend of Keret, the triumph of Keret's military venture is guaranteed by the god El, who does not himself take part.

It is probable that an attack by 'a mortal on a deity featured in the lost ending to the Ugaritic Aqhat. Danel and Pughat are informed by two messengers that Aqhat has been killed by Anath. They vow vengeance. Pughat is furiously angry, arms herself, and sets forth 'to smite the smiter of my brother'. Although the ending of the story is lost, it is generally agreed that Pughat killed Yatpan and that Aqhat was restored to life by Anath. (Similarly Mot kills Baal and is killed in revenge by Anath, after which Baal is restored.) For the concept that it is possible for a deity to perish in

Sa Cf. my thesis, pp. 51·60. The theme of capturing the images of gods is paralleled by the well known stories of the Greek Palladion and the Hebrew Teraphim.

96 P. Considine

battle, cf. the Akkadian Creation Epic (ANET 62) in which Apsu and Tiamat are killed by Ea and Marduk respectively; and see also Iliad V: 385~91.

The well known battle of the gods in the Akkadian Creation Epic is paralleled by the battle of gods and Titans in Hesiod's Theogony; it is noteworthy that divine wrath is a very prominent feature of both narratives. See Tables VI-IX below.

Against this background it would not be surprising to find incidents of divine wrath being provoked as a result of a man opposing a god in battle, but none exist which can be compared with the Homeric examples. However, gods are often directly or indirectly associated with human combatants in battle, and are sometimes said to be acting in anger; in some of these cases the cause may be military provocation by the human enemy, but in view of the uncertainty which exists on this point, and the imprecision necessarily introduced by the identification of divine and human fortunes discussed above, further comment is left for chapter two (pp. 122-4).

Two further forms of challenge to divine power, with resulting anger on the part of the deity challenged, may be briefly mentioned.

In the Old Testament challenges to the power of Yahweh are generally in the form of preferring to worship another god, with obvious implications. This theme is of course found passim in the Old Testament and is best considered in terms of covenant breaking, in connection with which it is discussed below. (When an Old Testament writer speaks of the worship of other gods, he mayor may not believe that the gods worshipped actually exist. In the thought world of the early records, they probably do; in that of the later ones, they do not: in either case, the object of worship, whether deity or image of imaginary deity, is regarded as having no power whatever. To desert Jahweh for such worship is therefore not only treachery, but also supreme folly: it is the surest and most frequent cause of divine wrath in the Old Testament). 6

In Homer divine wrath may be roused by a human being usurping a god's prerogative. In viii:.564 H. Poseidon is angry with the Phaeadans for giving safe sea journeys to all men: ib. 226-8 Apollo is angry with Eurytus for challenging him to a contest with the bow: In II:.594-600 the Muses are angry with Thamyris for boasting that he could sing better than they, and they take his skill from him; in iv:495 Poseidon kills Ajax for boasting that it was in spite of the gods that he had escaped death at sea.

The material considered in this section produces no positive result for the main enquiry in terms of strikingly similar descriptions of a human challenge to a god's power and consequent outbreak of divine wrath.

6 A clear summary discussion, with bibliography, is provided by n.M.G. St~er in Peake's Commentary (Revd. Edn.) pp. 227-8. Further discussion and bibliography in Jacob, Theology of the OT pp. 44 ff. See also Eichrodt, Theology of the OT 220 ff.


3. A god's representative is slighted, or his favourite suffers

A widespread form of this theme is that in which the representative or favourite is the king. (The important question of the relationship between king and gods in Greece and the Ancient Near East cannot be investigated here in any detail but see below, fn.16.). The divine wrath often follows an appeal by or on behalf of the person wronged.

The best Canaanite example is UT 127:55 (UMC 120): Keret's son Yassib suggests that Keret's illness makes it impossible for him to continue to rule, and that he should abdicate in favour of Yassib. Keret indignantly replies:

May Horon break, 0 my son, May Horon break thy head

Astarte-Name-of-Baal, thy pate! May there fall in Byblos

Thy years in thy - --And mayest thou see [ ] .

Although there is no term for anger in the passage, it is dear that Keret envisages Horon acting in 'anger to punish Yassib's impiety, which very probably consists in the slight to the god's representative, with the additional element of failure to show due filial respect.

There is no direct appeal to the deity; Keret's words may be interpreted as a statement of the assured consequences of Yassib's impiety (so Driver: 'Horon will break'), or as a wish, 'May Horon break' 7.

Two interesting passages in Homer show the concept of Zeas as protector of the kingship, Athene -as personal protector of the king and his family. See further below pp. 111-3, esp. fn. 16. In XX: 273 H. Achilles and Aeneas fight and are in danger of killing each other. Poseidon is disturbed at the prospect of Aeneas' death, laments the fact that he has been so foolish as to put his trust in Apollo, and addresses the other gods as follows:

But come along, let us rescue him from death ourselves, in case the son of Kronos should be angry if Achilles kills him: it is fated that he should escape, so that the family of Dardanus shall not be left with no one to propagate it, and vanish without trace; of all the children whom the son of Kronos has had by mortal women, Dardanus was his favourite. For now the son of Kronos has come to hate the family of Priam, and instead the mighty Aeneas and his children's children after him shall rule over the Trojans. (XX 300 ff.)

7 Depending upon whether ytbr is taken as indic. or as jussive. Cf. UT p. 71.

7

98 P. Considine

This short passage contains a number of features of great interest; the one that is relevant here is that Aeneas is the destined means of the conti-nuation of the kingship, and that therefore Zeus would be angry if he were killed. There is no suggestion that the person of Aeneas is of particular value to Zeus; he is to be protected because he is to be king, and divine wrath is likely to be roused if his position is threatened, and not because he is dear to the gods for any other reason.

The Hittite texts do not seem to include the theme of divine wrath directed against a human who threatens the position of the king; the nearest approa


The phrase to 'make quiet the heart of a god' is a technical term for bringing the god's anger to an end.

Also of interest is the Oracular Dream concerning Ashurbanipal (ANET 451):

To the conquest of [your] enemies [she (sc. Ishtar) will march forth] at (your) side. Against Teumann, king of Elam, with whom she is wroth, she has set her face.

These and similar passages are of little significance for present compa-rative purposes: except that the career of Esarhaddon recalls that of David, also a younger son and preferred by Yahweh to his brothers for the kingship. The interest of this feature is however lessened by the fact that David was not of the royal house; see 1 Sam. 16. In 2 Sam. 22 :7 ff. David, the anointed king and Yahweh's protege, celebrates the fact that he appealed to Yahweh for justice and deliverance from his enemies, and that Yahweh responded with wrath against David's enemies, and established him in his rightful position of authority. Cf. vv. 7-8, 18:

In my distress I cried to Yahweh, To my God I cried. From his temple he heard me; My cry for help reached him. Then the earth quivered and shook, The foundations of heaven quaked and trembled: Smoke went up from his nostrils, A devouring fire from his mouth ... (7-8) He rescues me from my powerful enemy, From those who hate me and are too strong for me (18).

The similarities between the stories of David and Esarhaddon are clear; in each case a youngest son is chosen by the god to be king, has a great deal of difficulty in overcoming his opponents, but is rescued and made to triumph over them by the god, who is angry with those who have attempted to keep his chosen one from his lawful position as king. However, this parallel has no significance for literary contacts; the incidents have quite different historical backgrounds, and the patterns of events, though similar, are commonplace, apart from the feature of the choosing of the youngest son. This feature is paralleled also in Ugaritic. El tells Keret that his wife will bear him many sons and daughters:

The wife thou takest to thy house ... Will bear thee seven sons And an eighth (daughter): Octavia. To thee she will bear the lad Ya~~ib

One who sucks the milk of Asherah I shall make the youngest of them the first-born . (UT 128:II:20ff.; UMC 110£.)

100 P. Considine

The Ugaritic passage is compared with the Old Testament story of David by Gordon in wor pp. 159, 297; Esarhaddon is not mentioned. Gordon writes: «No-one will question David's historicity, but neither will any open-minded orientalist fail to see that the manner of recounting his anointment in I Sam. 16 reflects dramatic epic form.» The common interest in the feature of the elevation of the eighth son (or daughter) is certainly noteworthy, and gains interest from comparison with the story of Esarhaddon; but its interest for the theme of divine wrath is peripheral, and it is not discussed in any further detail here.

In the Iliad and Gilgamesh occurs the theme of a god seeking to save a mortal favourite from death and being rebuked by another god, who may be angry at the suggestion. In XVI:440 ff., Hera warns Zeus of the conse-quences if he rescues Sarpedon from Patroclus:

This is a mortal man, whose fate was decided long ago: are you really thinking of saving him from the pangs of death? Save him then; but the rest of us won't all approve - and we are gods too~ And here is something else for you to think about: if you bring Sarpedon home alive, take care that some other god does not wish to bring his own son away from the dangers of the war. Many of the immortals have sons fight-ing around the great city of Priam, and you only put them in a rage.

There is a similar dialogue in Gilgamesh VII: 11 ff. Anu has decreed that Enkidu must die:

Then heavenly Shamash answered valiant Enlil: 'Was it not at my command That they slew the Bull of Heaven and Huwawa?

Should now innocent Enkidu die?' But Enlil turned In anger to heavenly Shamash: 'Because much like One of their comrades, thou didst daily go down to them'.

This parallel is perhaps one of the more interesting of the general class; the correspondences in detail are insufficient to justify its being labelled 'specific' .

A clear Canaanite reference to a deity being roused to wrath by the misfortunes of a favourite is in ur Cnt V (UMC 56). Anath is furious because «Baal has no house like the gods / Nor a court like the sons of Asherah». She threatens El in almost exactly the same words as she used when she was angry about Aqhat's treatment of her, and on this occasion also receives a conciliatory reply:

I know thee, my daughter, that thou art impetuous That there is no forbearance among goddessess.

What dost thou wish, 0 Virgin Anath? ('nt V 36 f.; UMC 57)

The same theme appears in Odyssey i, where Athene reproaches Zeus

· .


for making no attempt to restore her protege Odysseus to his rightful home, from which he is being kept by the goddess Calypso. Cf. i:57 ff.

· Odysseus is longing to see even the smoke from a fire in his own country. He wishes he were dead, and you don't give him as much as a thought ... What has made you so angry with him, Zeus?

A characteristic Homeric refinement is the much more subtle approach of Athene to Zeus, in comparison with Anath's attitude to El. Zeus is never treated in Homer with the disrespect which El sometimes receives; instead of raging at him, Athene suggests that he must be angry with Odysseus since he does not show the least sympathy for him. In both stories a goddess approaches the father of the gods and complains bitterly that her protege is being kept from his lawful home and lawful kingship; both suggest that the head of the pantheon is responsible, should know better, and should take immediate action to right the wrong. Both receive a mild answer designed to pacify them, and a promise that action will be taken, and in both stories there is a 'happy ending'.

For the same theme without the wrath element, cf. 2 Aqhat 1:20 (UMC 122) where Baal approaches El on behalf of Danel, who «has no son like his brothers / Nor a root like his kinsmen! ».

Although the settings of the incidents are of course quite different, the story patterns are strikingly similar, and it is at least possible that the dramatic possibilities of the Ugaritic st'Ory appealed to a pre-Homeric bard, who made use 'Of it for his own purposes.

This parallel is of particular interest in comparison with that of 1) above where a goddess also approaches the head of the pantheon in connection with human affairs, there opposition by the human to the goddess.

The feature of rejection of the divinely instructed leader and consequent divine wrath occurs in the Old Testament in Nu. 6, and in Odyssey xii. See Moses and Odysseus and Table III below.

Some miscellaneous passages may be mentioned, mainly from the Iliad, in which approaches to Zeus by gods wh'O are angry on behalf of m'Ortals are quite common. In 1:9 ff., Apollo is angry because of the insult offered to Chryses; similarly in i:372 Athene is angered by the insult offered to Cassandra; cf. iii: 132 ff. Apollo's anger only becomes effective in response to Chryses' prayer; Athene's is spontaneous. In IV:507 Apollo is angry when Odysseus forces the Trojan,s to retreat; in V:755 ff. Heraasks Zeus if he is not angry with Ares for killing so many Achaeans. In XV: 13 Zeus is very angry - although no wrath word in used - when he sees the Trojans struggling after he has been tricked by Hera.

102 P. Considine

4. The human moral code is infringed

a) The theme of social responsibility towards widow and orphan is found in all the literatures studied: but only in Hebrew and Greek are there explicit references to failure in such responsibilities provoking divine wrath. The omission of this theme in Ugaritic literature is probably accidental. Concern for the widow and orphan is expressed in UT 127:49-50 (UMC 119) and in 2 Aqhat V:8 (UMC 125). Both passages are concerned with the king's responsibility to protect the weak. Danel« judges the case of the widow / Adjudicates the cause of the fatherless ».

The Hittite Daily Prayer of the King contains the following (ANET 397):

Whatever thou sayest, 0 Telepinus, the gods bow down to thee. Of the oppressed, the orphan and the widow thou art father (and) mother; the cause of the orphan, the oppressed, thou, Telepinus, dost take to heart.

. The theme is particularly frequent in Sumerian. Urukagina, isshaku of Lagash in the 24th century B.c. « made a special convenant with Ningirsu, the god of Lagash, that he would not permit widows and orphans to be victimised by the «men of power». (Kramer HBS 93-4). Compare the prologue to Ur Nammu's law code (21st. century B.C.): «He put down injustice: the orphan might no longer be the prey of the rich, or the widow the prey of the powerful, or the man who had one shekel the prey of him who possessed a mina ». (Atlas of Mesopotamia 51). A hymn to the goddess Nanshe contains the lines:

Who knows the orphan, who knows the widow, Knows the oppression of man over man, is the orphan's mother, Nanshe who cares for the widow ... Finds shelter for the weak. (Kramer Sumerians 124-5)

Similarly in Akkadian literature the Epilogue to the Code of Hammurabi reads (ANET 178):

I sheltered them in my wisdom In order that the strong might not oppress the weak That justice might be dealt the orphan and the widow.

A striking Old Testament passage is Ex. 22:21-3:

You will not ill-treat any widow or orphan: if you do ill-treat them and they cry out to me, I shall certainly hear their cry; and my anger will blaze out, and I will kill you with the sword, and it will be your wives who are widows and your children who are orphans.

There is fine irony in these lines, where the penalty for ill-treating the


widow / orphan is to leave your own family widowed/orphaned. These two aspects of the widow's lot, its helplessness and divine care for it, and conse-quent wrath if advantage is taken of its helplessness, are well represented in the Iliad and Od)'ssey respectively. Andromache gives a poignant account of the lot of the widow and orphan (VI: 431 ff. - cf. 407 ff.; XXII 477 H.; XXIV 725 ff.). The fact that the Iliad does not dwell on divine protection of widow and orphan is to be expected for artistic reasons. In the Odyssey however, concerned with the homecoming and trimph of Odysseus, the theme frequently occurs: the suitors are warned that their taking advantage of the widow Penelope and her son Telemachus will bring upon them the wrath of the gods. In ii:40 ff. Telemachus adddresses them at some length on the situation, and says:

You should feel a proper respect for the anger of the gods; they may be offended by your criminal behaviour, and make you pay for it. (66 f.)

In answer to Antinous' complaints about Penelope's refusal to rpake her choice, and to his suggestion that Telemachus should force h~r hand by dismissing her from the house, Telemachus re-emphasizes the impiety of any such action and its certain punishment by wrathful deities:

For her father will make me suffer for it and so will the gods - they will see to it that as my mother leaves the house she will call down those hateful creatures the Erinyes; and on top of all that, I shall become a social outcast.

Cf. xxi:413; xxiii:63-4; xiv:83-6 (the emphasis in this passage is rather on the wrong done to Odysseus, and this thought is of course also present in other passages).

Thus the Odyssey shares with the Old Testament the concept that taking advantage of the position of widow and orphan incurs divine wrath, which may result in the death of the offenders. The similarity may be fortuitous or may be significant in terms of other similarities between the Odyssey and the story of Moses; see Table III below.

b) The importance of impartial administration of ;ustice is stressed in all three literatures: again, only the Ugaritic does not explicitly associate failures in this sphere with divine wrath. But it is significant that the two human rulers who have prominent positions in the Canaanite legends, Keret and Danel, are renowned for their love of justice. Keret is « the munificent », « the gracious one, servant of El »; and Yassib's taunt at the end of the legend that Keret can no longer administer justice efficiently, shows how important this activity was. Danel's characteristic activity is also the admi-nistration of justice: cf. 2 Aqhat:V:6 H. (UMC 124-5).

Both kings enjoy divine protection and favour - Keret of El, Danel of Baal; and although this favour was not explicitly connected with their

104 P. Considine

righteousness 8, we are clearly in a thought world where the gods favour just kings and are likely to be angry with the unjust.

This theme is given forcible expression in the Epilogue to Hammurabi's law code: after a wish for a long reign for any king who honours the code, Hammurabi prays at great length (nearly three full columns of ANET) that the gods will punish anyone « whether king or lord or governor or person of any rank» who does not honour it. Enlil, Ninlil, Enki, Shamash, Sin, Adad, Zabaka, Inanna, Nergal, Nintu, Ninkarrak and the «Annunaki in their totality» are invoked in turn and asked to destroy the guilty one. Clearly it is thought that the gods should be angry at such behaviour; and the matter is left in no doubt in the prayer to Inanna:

May Inanna ... curse his rule with her great fury in her wrathful heart. (ANET 179)

The theme frequently occurs in the Old Testament, where social justice is a dominant motif. Compare Nu. 15:15-16, Ex. 18:13-26; 20-24, etc. The great importance attached to justice is emphasized by the name of the Torah, the title Shophet, the recurrent pattern of the Book of Judges, and the basic position of the law in the Covenant 9. It is breaking the Covenant that is the stock reason for the wrath of Yahweh in the Old Testament; e.g. Joshuah 23:16. This is sometimes to be interpreted as idolatry, serving other gods, sometimes implies specific breaking of moral commandments and perversion of justice. The singling out of the latter element is most clear and frequent in the Prophets, e.g. Isaiah 1:16-17,26; 10:1-4; Amos 8:4-14 (there is no wrath word but Yahweh is obviously very angry).

A clear statement that dishonesty in litigation incurs the wrath of Yahweh is 2 Chron. 19:10 OB):

Whatever dispute comes before you from your brothers living in their towns: a question of blood-vengeance, of the Law, of some commandment, of statute, or of ordinance you are to clarify these matters for them so that they do not incur guilt before Yahweh.

The thought that maladministration of justice incurs divine wrath is close to the surface in Deut. 16: 19-20 OB):

You must not pervert the law; you must be impartial... Strict justice must be your ideal, so that you may live in rightful possession of the land that Yahweh your God is giving you.

8 But the fact that Keret is 'the gracious one, servitor of El', and that El is 'kindly' and 'merciful' is suggestive.

9 See De Vaux Ancient Israel pp. 143 ff. «The Law, Torah, means in the first place a teaching, a doctrine, a decision for each particular case. Collectively, the word means the whole body of rules governing men's relations with God and with each


In It. XVI 384 ff. the wrath of Zeus is presented as being commonly provoked by perversions of justice. Zeus sends storms and floods when « his wrath is roused by men who make a mockery of justice, and hand down blatantly unjust judgements in the courts, without a thought for what the gods may do to them ».

This passage is part of a long simile and is therefore - at least rela-tively - late. The comparison with Hesiod WD 221, 250 f. is interesting and raises a question of transmission which is not discussed here. (But Leaf does no more than cut the Gordian knot with his comment: «The simile, however, seems to have suffered from the insertion of two lines from Hesiod, 387-8 ».)

The whole passage WD 212-85 is relevant to this theme; see esp. 217-27, 249-51, 263-4. The tone is doser to that of the Old Testament than is anything in Homer.

c) Social injustice of any kind may incur divine wrath. Social justice is one of the dominant themes of the Old Testament. Widows and orphans are very often singled out for mention (see above) as are strangers, with whom they are often associated.

Ex. 22:20-7 makes it clear that the wrath of Yahweh may be expected by anyone guilty of social injustice. Compare v. 23 with v. 27.

In It. XIII 620 ff. Menelaus reproaches the Trojans for abusing the laws of hospitality 10 and so neglecting the wrath of Zeus:

You did not feel the slightest fear of the wrath of loud-thundering Zeus, who protects the guest and who one day will destroy your city on its steep hill. (623 ff.)

Compare xiii 213-4, where Odysseus thinks he has been deceived by his Phaeacian hosts and invokes the wrath of Zeus.

other» (p. 143). The relationship between Law and Covenant is discussed in G.E. Men-denhall's illuminating monograph Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pp. 4-5 are particularly relevant here. «To sum up, the stipulations of the co-venant have to do with the future, while law has to do with a specific action which is in the past. The Decalogue describes the interests of the deity which are protected by the deity, but law protects the interests of the community by averting from itself the punitive action of God» (p. 5). «Religious obligations tend then to become legal obligations, for the community will feel compelled to punish in order to protect itself from the divine wrath which does not single out the culprit alone for punishement » (p. 4). For the theme of communal responsibility, see my thesis pp. 83 ff. It is not here consi-dered necessary to discuss the dates of different parts of the Pentateuch; it is assumed that much of the material was in circulation by the second half of the eighth century B.c. -i.e. by the time of Homer.

10 On hospitality as a theme in the three literatures see Gordon HB pars. 59-68. Some basic Old Testament references are: Gen. 18: 1-8; 24: 15-33. Ex. 2: 15-22; 22: 21 (cf. 23: 9). Lev. 24: 22,35. Nu. 15: 15-16. Deut. 10: 18-19 (an important passage: Yahweh cares for the fatherless, the widow and the stranger); cf. 24: 17.

106 P. Considine

The breaking of a truce is seen as a likely cause for divine wrath in IV 164-8, where Agamemnon tells Menelaus, wounded by Pandarus, that Zeus in his wrath will one day avenge this treacherous breaking of the truce.

In the Hittite Plague Prayer of Mursilis (ANET 395) one cause of the Storm God's anger against the Hittites was that some of their people had broken an oath made jointly with the Egyptians. In general, Hittite treaties are sealed by an oath, and the gods are invoked and asked to bless those who keep the treaty but fiercely to punish those who do not; e.g. ANET 205, 206. (See Mendenhall, sup. cit., for the relevance of Hittite procedure to an understanding of the covenant of the Old Testament).

Similarly in Joshua 9:20, where the Gibeonites have tricked Joshua and the leaders of Israel into making a treaty with them:

This is what we will do with them: we will spare their lives, to save ourselves from the wrath which would follow if we broke the oath we swore to them.

d) Neglect of the obligation to bury the dead may cause divine wrath. The gods are angry with Achilles for refusing to allow Hector to be buried. Zeus instructs Thetis in XXIV 113 H. (compare 134 H.):

Tell him that the gods are displeased with him, and that I am by far the most angry of all the immortals ... to see if he will fear me and give Hector back.

In xi 72-3 Elpenor tells Odysseus to bury him properly lest he incur divine wrath: !J.T) (J..OL 'tL eEWV !J.T)VL!J.tl. yEVW!J.tl.L. The same phrase is used by Hector to Achilles in rebuking him for his disregard of all convention in refusing to permit him to be buried. (XXII 355-60) This theme of taking too vindictive a revenge on a defeated enemy occurs in UT 68:29 f. (UMC 48) where Astarte rebukes Baal for being too vindictive to the defeated Yam: « Shame, 0 Aliyan Baal, / Shame, 0 Rider of Clouds! / For Prince Sea was our captive / For Judge River was our captive. »

In the Sumerian Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living Huwawa rebukes Enkidu for warning Gilgamesh against sparing his life:

~hen he had thus spoken, Enkidu, in his anger, cut off his neck, threw it into an arm-sack, they brought it before Enlil ... Enlil looked at the head of Huwawa, was angered by the words of Gilgamesh. (Kramer Sumerians 197)

The:: importance of proper burial was often stressed in the Old Testa-ment (e.g. 2 Sam. 2:4-6; 2 Ki. 9:10), and the lack of such burial was a great misfortune. Psalm 79:3 pleads that since Israel's enemies have slaughtered Yahweh's people, and caused to them to « be given as food to the birds ... and there was no-one to bury them », therefore Yahweh should


« pour out your wrath upon the gentiles who do not recognise you ». Thus refusal to allow proper burial is singled out as deserving of divine wrath 11.

In Il. VIII 379-80 Athene says that many Trojans will be eaten by dogs and birds if she and Hera help the Achaeans. Both goddesses are angry with Zeus for helping the Trojans. Compare ANET 288 sup. cit. where Ashurbanipal fed corpses of enemies to dogs and birds, in appeasement of divine anger.

This topic presents a number of interesting general parallels, and indeed of striking similarities in culture amongst the nations of the Ancient Near East; but there is no clear evidence of literary borrowing.

5. Siding with a god's enemy

A deity may be roused to wrath if another deity sides with his enemy. In the Iliad and in Ugaritic literature there are several cases of deities being angry, or threatening to be angry, if the father of the gods sides with their human or divine enemy.

In 3 Aqhat: «rev. » 11 Anath declares to El that if he takes Aqhat's side in the dispute ,about the bow, «I shall make [thy gray hair] flow [with blood] ». She adds with fierce sarcasm that he can then get Aqhat to help him. In Il. IV 22 H. and VIII 457 H. Hera and Athene are angry with Zeus for siding with the Trojans. Athene keeps quiet but Hera's wrath breaks out. «Now Athene kept quiet and said nothing, although she was furious with father Zeus, and in fact almost beside herself with rage. But Hera could not control her anger, and said what she thought ». In IV the goddesses are responding to Zeus' tentative suggestion that peace should be made and Troy spared: in VIII to Zeus' restraining them from going to help the Achaeans. To Anath's crude threat should El help the human enemy corresponds a much more subtle warning from Hera (IV 29) 12. « Spare him then, but the rest of us won't all approve ». This is clearly meiosis: « We shall not all approve» = « Some of us will be furious ». Zeus is himself made very angry by the anger of the goddesses; he yields, but warns Hera not to attempt to frustrate his future anger against men should he ever wish to destroy a city dear to her. In XI 217 Poseidon says that if Zeus prevents the destruction of Troy there will be implacable wrath between them; Poseidon is already angry with Zeus for preventing him from helping the Achaeans and he yields with a very bad grace. An important

11 It is interesting that the same passage interprets lack of proper burial for the Israelites as being itself evidence of divine wrath.

12 Athene is given the same line in XXII 181; see below.

108 P. Considine

element in Poseidon's anger is that his dignity is affronted by the overbearing manner of his equal Zeus.

The sea-god's resentment that his enemy should be favoured by the head of the pantheon is a motif of both Iliad and Odyssey and of the Ugaritic Baal, but no similarities in story pattern can be adduced, except that in each case initial successes are followed by final defeat. However, this apparently very general parallel may be more significant than it looks, if a view advanced by M.H. Jameson (Mythology of Ancient Greece in Myths. Anc. World, 262) is correct. Referring to the sky/sea/underworld: Zeus/Poseidon/Hades: Baal/Yam/Mot parallel, he writes: «This tripartite division does not really work in Greek cult and belief: instead of Hades we sometimes find « Zeus of the underworld» and, as we have said, Poseidon is often a god of agri-culture rather than the sea. Consequently a comparable three fold division in Canaanite myth may be more than just a parallel ». One could go farther, and say that originally Poseidon may not have been a sea god at all; but such considerations do not help very much, because there is every reason to suppose that his development as a sea god started as soon as the Greeks settled in Greece. Jameson's reference to «Greek cult and belief» is similarly inconclusive, and fails to see the wood for the trees. Secondary and ancillary functions of deities are commonplate and Poseidon's speech to Iris in XV 184 ff. shows the tripartite division firmly established in Greek tradition; it could be the result of purely internal development. The inte-resting possibility of relationship remains, but is better examined in the light of such facts as that the tripartite arrangement is not prominent outside Greece and Canaan, and that relations between Zeus and Poseidon show similarities to those between Baal and Yam: there is no intrinsic unsuitability about the division in Greek religion.

Traces of the tripartite division can be detected in the Old Testament. See U. Cassuto Baal and Mot in the Ugaritic Texts. Cassuto argues (a) that Mot was «king of the netherworld » and that « dominion over Sheol was the essence of Mot's nature» (p. 81) and (b) that « like Mot, the biblical ' Mawe! is depicted as an insatiable and gluttonous creature ». Cf. Hab. 2:5; Job. 18:13. Ps. 49:14. The conflict between Yahweh and the Sea is well attested; basic references are in Heidel Bab. Gen. 104-14. Heidel himself emphasis the differences between the Hebrew and other traditions 13.

A god who shows excessive kindness to a mortal in seeking to save him from his fate may incur the anger of other gods. Shamash objects to Enkidu's

13 I have not had access to Cassuto's work on « the conceptual connection between the terms of 'the nether parts of the earth' (Heb. tal;1tit haare~) and 'the sea' and 'the river' (Heb. yam-nahar) ». (Baal and Mot ... p. 84, where the reader is referred in n. 24 to the author's discussion in «Tarbiz 12 (1940-41), pp. 6-9 (Hebrew); and in my Italian articles referred to there ».


death and is rebuked by Enlil. Compare Il. XVI 449 where Hera warns Zeus of the anger of the other gods, if he attempts to rescue Sarpedon, 'whose fate was decided long ago' and XXII 168 where Athene says the gods will be angry if Zeus rescues Hector. In the Akkadian Gilgamesh Enlil is angry with the other gods because a human has been allowed to survive the flood. (The other gods have had second thoughts about the flood: their feeling that anything would be better than the complete destruction of the human race has its parallel in Gen. 8:21-2).

There are some noteworthy similarities between a story about Baal and the story of Achilles in Iliad 1. In UT 137:10 H. (UMC 43 H.) two envoys of Yam come to demand that Baal be surrendered to him « so that I may inherit his gold ». Baal is angry with Yam and resents it when El and the gods agree to Yam's demand. He declares that he will be victorious. The envoys seem nervous and El reassures them. Anath and Ashtoreth restrain Baal from ,attacking the envoys with a dagger. The craftsman of the pantheon provides Baal with weapons to slay Yam.

In Iliad I two envoys of Agamemnon . come to demand Achilles' prize Briseis « to show you how much stronger than you I am» (185 f.). Achilles is angry with Agamemnon and tells Athene that he will kill him. Athene co-operates with Hera to restrain him. The envoys are nervous, but are kindly received by Achilles. The craftsman of the pantheon provides Achilles with weapons to slay Hector, who later becomes the object of his wrath. The Iliad story is more complex than the Ugaritic but contains many similar elements which may be listed as follows:

1. The hero 14 is angered by the attempt of an equal to rob him of his honour. .

2. There is a threat to retaliate. 3. The hero is told by the gods to yield. 4. Two female deities are mentioned as restraining him. 5. A pair of envoys comes from the enemy to reinforce his claim. 6. Both pairs are nervous, but 7. The hero is obliged to yield to the envoys. 8. The visit of the envoys follows a·-scene in which the hero has angrily

reproved the enemy for his arrogance and has predicted his humiliation. The natural inference in this case is that the Greek story has been

influenced by the Ugaritic; cf. p. 126 below. The theme that siding with a god's enemy incurs divine wrath is very

common in the Old Testament, especially in terms of the wrath of Yahweh

14 It must of course be borne in mind that Baal is a god and Achilles a mortal. 'Hero' in this section means simply the hero of the story.

110 P. Considine

being aroused by the breaking of the Covenant. To serve other gods is the most flagrant way of siding with Yahweh's enemies. The principle is spelled out in 2 Chron. 19:2:

And Jehu ... said to king Jehoshaphat, 'Does one give help to a criminal? Are you going to be the friend of Yahweh's enemies?' That is the way to bring Yahweh's wrath on your head.

(Jehoshaphat had fought with Ahab against the Syrians).

Cf. Ex. 32:8-10, where Yahweh says to Moses:

Your people ... have made themselves a calf of molten metal and have prostrated themselves before it and sacrificed to it. . They have said 'This is your god, men of Israel' ... so now keep out of my way, so that my anger can blaze out against them and I can devour them.

Nu. 25:3-4:

And Israel joined forces with Baal Peor: and the anger of Yahweh blazed Out against Israel.

The possibility of a deity's anger being diverted to a human or a god that sides with the object of the anger is mentioned in all three literatures. In Odyssey xiii 341-3, Athene speaks of Poseidon's wrath against Odysseus and says she was afraid to oppose Poseidon on Odysseus' behalf; i.e. she was afraid of joining or replacing Odysseus as the object of Poseidon's wrath:

But you know I was not in a position to quarrel with my uncle Poseidon, who resented what you had done - naturally he was angry that you had blinded his own son.

In 3 Aqhat « rev. » 6 H. Anath is angry with Aqhat and will turn her wrath on El if he sides with Aqhat. Old Testament examples are: Nu. 33:55-6:

If you do not drive out the present inhabitants of the country ... I will treat you as I intended to treat them.

1 Sam. 28: 18:

It is because you did not carry out Yahweh's instructions, because you did not make the Amalekites feel the fury of his anger, that Yahweh has done this to you to-day.

Compare also the scenes between Ishtar and Anu and between Enlil and Sham ash mentioned above (pp. 90, 100).


6. A covenant with a god is broken

Yahweh's care for his people within the covenant relationship and his wrath against them when they transgressed the provisions of the covenant are the obverse and reverse of the same coin, and the central theme of the Old Testament. The feature most commonly mentioned is the desertion or dishonouring of Yahweh by serving other gods; but breaking the covenant includes all the other specific oHences which could provoke Yahweh to anger, and « serving other gods» commonly stands for breaking the covenant. Some basic texts are Ex. 6: 2-9; 19-23; Numbers 25:3-4; Deuteronomy 4:23-5; 11:16-17; 29:10-29; 31:17; Joshua 23 : 16, which reads:

When you break the covenant of Yahweh your God, which he has ordered you to keep, and go and worship other gods and prostrate yourselves before them, the anger of Yahweh will blaze out at you, and you will soon disappear from the fertile country which he has given you.

Homer does not present any case of a convenant formed between deity and human like the covenant of Ex. 6: 19-23, where there are specific pro-mises by Yahweh and specified responsibilities to be fulfilled by men. Gordon's comment (BB 256) that « the idea of a covenant between a man and the god of his father ( s) is fully developed in Homeric tradition» is a very misleading way of referring to hereditary connections between deities and heroes in Homer. However, there are numerous instances in Homer of especially intimate relationships between gods and men. Athene is Odys-seus' protector, Poseidon stands in a sort of patron saint-cum-guardian angel relationship to the Phaeacians, Hera says that Argas, Sparta and Mycenae are especially dear to her (IV 51-2); many heroes are sons of deities and enjoy their aHection and care. Thus Achilles is cared for by his mother Thetis, Sarpedon by his father Zeus; but it is noteworthy that both heroes are associated with particularly poignant expressions of the tragedy of human mortality. Cf. also XVI 433-8 and 522, where Glaucus speaks reproachfully of Zeus' neglect of Patroclus: «he does not even help his own son ». The theme of divine wrath aroused by ingratitude, disloyalty or disobedience on the part of the human covenant partner is found (e.g. IlI:413 H.) but is not common. In general in Homer a human favoured by a god shows no inclination to deprive himself of the advantages of the relationship by provoking the god to anger.

In III 413, Aphrodite sends Helen to Paris, whom she has rescued from Menelaus, and is angry at Helen's refusal.

Aphrodite answered her angrily: 'Don't provoke me, you stubborn creature, or I may get angry and send you pack-

ing; so far I have treated you with the greatest affection, but I can be just as goo~ at hating'.

112 P. Considine

Poseidon's resentment of the Phaeacians' giving safe sea journeys to all men should perhaps be interpreted in terms of covenant breaking. As the progenitor of their king (vii 56 ff.), and bestower of their skills as seamen (vii 34-6), he resents their independence in disposing of his gift and usurping his prerogative.

A simple kind of covenant is implied in the Hittite Prayer of Kantuzilis (ANET 400): «My god who was angry at me and rejected me - let the same (god) care for me again and grant me life! » Compare Mursilis' analogy (ANET 395) of the master-servant relationship, in which infringements deserve wrath, but penitence looks for forgiveness 15.

This theme is not found in the extant Ugaritic texts. A deity is angry if his/her claims are disregarded but there are no cases of divine wrath caused by the violation of a special relationship between a deity and human individual or group 16.

7. Failure to honour a god with sacrifices

A frequent cause of divine wrath is failure to honour the god with due sacrifices.

In Iliad I 65 ff. Achilles suggests to Agamemnon that they consult a prophet to discover whether Apollo is angry because of some sacrifice ommitted -

to tell us why Phoebus Apollo is so angry with us - whether he finds fault with us for not fulfilling some vow, or for failing to offer a hecatomb.

In V: 177 H. Aeneas urges Pandarus to shoot at Diomedes « unless he is some god who is angry with the Trojans because they have not sacrificed to -him ». In IX 499 ff. Artemis is angry with Oineus for not offering

15 Hittite treaties are discussed by Mendenhall, sup. cit., pp. 27-35. 16 A widespread theme is the concept of divine protection of the king, testifying to

a close covenant relationship between king and god. See e.g. 2 Sam. 23: 5: «He has made a covenant with me to last for ever; he himself guarantees that its terms will be kept ». (A free rendering of Heb.: 'aruka b~k6l us~mura; irk suggests that the covenant is duly drawn up in correct 'legal' form, smr that it is preserved, i.e. guaranteed, by Yahweh). The possibility of disloyalty incurring wrath is very near the surface in David's song in 2 Samuel 22: 2-51, especially 21-8. And Saul undoubtedly lost the protection of the covenant with Yahweh because of his disobedience. No wrath term is used but clearly Yahweh was angry. See 1 Samuel 10:24; 11: 15; 2 Samuel 8-16.

In Homer the king has the special protection of Zeus, who protects him by virtue of his royal office, whereas Athene protects kings by virtue of a hereditary connection with their family. Telemachus as well as Odysseus, Diomedes as well as Tydeus, are her proteges. The concern of Zeus for the office of king is very clear in Iliad XX 293-


her sacrifice along with the other gods. «The daughter of great Zeus was the only one to whom he did not sacrifice» (536). In iv 351 H. is the story of Menelaus being detained in Egypt because he had angered the gods by not oHering sacrifices to them.

In a Hittite Instruction for a Temple Official (ANET 208) it is laid down that misappropriation of sacrifices must be severely punished and in an Omen Text (ANET 497) a deficient oHering is a possible cause of divine anger. More interesting is the case of the hunter Kdsi, who was punished for neglecting sacrifice to the gods (see p. 122). The Plague Prayer of Mursilis (ANET 395-6) says that a plague was caused by the fact that the Hattians had discontinued sacrifice to the river Mala.

The Old Testament is not much concerned with the failure to make regulation sacrifices to Yahweh but it is very much concerned with (1) the purity of the sacrifice, i.e. no alien Canaanite elements are to be incorporated in sacrifice to Yahweh. Compare 1 Ki. 12:25 H.; 13:1 H.; 15:9-15. 1 Ki. 3:3, 2 Ki. 12:3. (2) The importance of sacrificing o,,!ly to Yahweh. This theme is found passim in the Old Testament and is the' basis of the covenant. (3) The importance of the moral intention of sacrifice and the necessity of the right disposition on the part of the one sacrificing. In the Prophets this theme takes the form of declaring Yahweh's hatred for sacrifices not accompanied by pure intentions. Compare Ps. 40:6; 51:16 H.; Is. 1:10-17; Hos. 6:6-9; 8:4-6.

Failure to satisfy anyone of these conditions may incur divine wrath. See Gray Legacy pp. 192-208 for Canaanite sacrifice and its relation

to ·that of Israel. Divine wrath seems not to be caused in connection with breaches of correct procedure either of the Homeric or of the Old Testament kind.

308 where Poseidon says Zeus will be angry if Achilles kills Aeneas, who is destined to be king of the Trojans.

In Mesopotamian literature also the links between god and king are very close; compare ANET 270, 274, 276, 451. It is worth referring here to the intimate relations between the god Chemosh and the king Mesha, as attested on the Moabite stone (c. 830 B.C.; ANET 320).

In Ugaritic literature there are many indications of the king's special relationship with the gods; Keret is the 'servitor of El', and El is Keret's 'father'. In Aqhat «El took hold of his servant, he blessed / Danel the Rephaite (and) showed favour to the nero» (CML 49). See Gray Legacy pp. 209 H. and compare his Canaanite Kingship in Theory and Practice VT II 1952 pp. 190-220.

On the theme of divine kingship in the Ancient Near East see C.]. Gadd Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient Near East, Schweich Lectures 1945; H. Frankfort Kingship and the Gods, Chicago 1948; The Sacral Kingship = Studies in the History of Reli-gions IV Brill 1959; S.H. Hooke ed. Myth, Ritual and Kingship, Oxford 1958; A. ]ohnson Sacral Kingship, Cardiff 1955; 1. Engnell Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East, Uppsala 1943.

8

I

114 P. Considine

It appears from the above that the Greek, Hittite and Mesopotamian texts present some parallels of general interest but none of a specific nature. The absence of similar passages in Canaanite literature may be fortuitous but the Old Testament is sharply distinguished from the other literatures in its approach to the question.

8. Irrational

In a number of Greek and Hebrew passages divine wrath is aroused for reasons not stated. And it is clear that in both literatures there is a belief that divine wrath could be caused, and recognised by men, without the cause being known. A similar concept appears in Hittite and Akkadian literature. « Irrational» expressions of divine wrath include wrath of which the cause is unknown and unknowable and wrath of which the cause as stated is apparently in conflict with the attitude of the offended deity on other occa-sions. These two types are to be distinguished from cases in which the cause of the wrath is in fact unknown but is capable of being discovered; but common to all three categories is that heightened sense of the numinous which is occasioned by the shock of the unexplained onset of divine anger.

In addition to these categories there are some passages in Homer in which no reason is given for the deity's anger and no assumptions made about its rationality.

Thus in VI 205 no reason is given for the wrath of Artemis, who killed Laodameia in anger. In VI 200 Laodameia's father Bellerophon is said to have become «hated by all the gods» and to have wandered in solitude avoiding human company - possibly a way of saying the gods made him mad as a punishment. The cause of their anger is not stated, but the reference is no doubt to the legend of Bellerophon's attempt to fly to heaven on Pegasus.

In Iliad XXI 522 ff. the destruction of a hypothetical city is mentioned as a commonplace situation in which the wrath of gods is visited upon men. It is not clear whether a particular cause should be assumed - not mentioned because irrelevant - or whether the passage shows a concept of human misfortune being a priori the result of divine displeasure, even if the reason for it is not known and is in fact unknowable.

This concept, that misfortune is the result of divine wrath, is clear in a number of Akkadian texts which are - perhaps significantly - the principal examples of cases in which no reason is given for divine wrath and it is assumed that no reason is discoverable; e.g. the Lamentation to Ishtar (ANET 384) and the Prayer to the Moon God Sin (ANET 386). The Prayer


to Every God (ANET 391) is a particularly illuminating commentary on Akkadian views on the identity of misfortune and divine wrath.

The sin which I have done, indeed I do not know The Lord in the anger of his heart looked at me The god in the rage of his heart confronted me When the goddess was angry with me, she made me become ill.

On the Moabite stone no reason is given for Chemosh being « angry with his land ».

Two Old Testament cases of apparently unmotivated divine wrath are 2 Sam. 6:7 and 24: 1. In 2 Sam. 24: 1: «The anger of Yahweh blazed out against Israel, and he roused David against them: «Go and take a census », he said, « of Israel and Judah ». David does so, but then repents of his sin, and the people are punished with a pestilence. This apparently bizarre sequence of events is to be considered in terms of three axioms of Old Testament thought: (1) That God is the ultimate cause of all that happens ( 2) That to take a census is to interfere with matters concerning the increase of the race, which is God's prerogative (3) That misfortune is likely to be the result of divine wrath.

We are still left without a motive for the wrath which seems to be of the 'unexplainable' type, closely linked with misfortune, and so well repre-sented in the Akkadian texts.

In 2 Sam. 6: 7 Yahweh is angry with Uzzah for accidentally touching the Ark. This passage is illuminated by a comment of Otto (Idea of the Holy p. 32): «It is patent from many passages of the Old Testament that this 'wrath' has no concern whatever with moral qualities ... It is 'like a hidden force of nature', like stored up electricity, discharging itself upon anyone who comes too near ». Cf. Nu. 4: 15: «They must not touch the sacred objects, or they will die »; Ex. 33:20: «He said, You can not see my face: nobody sees me and lives ». (A comparison of these passages shows how considerable was the overlap between the semantic fields of the wrath and the holiness of Yahweh in the Old Testament).

The 'explanation' of Yahweh's wrath in this case is implicit in the very concept of his wrath or holiness. In two further passages Yahweh is apparently angry with men for doing what he told them to do. In Nu. 22: 20 H. Balaam goes with Yahweh's approval but then Yahweh is angry with him for doing so. In 1 Ki. 16:7 Yahweh is angry with Baasha for smiting the house of Jeroboam although he had ordered him to do so; see 14:9-10 and 15:29-30. Compare It. . II 1 H. where Zeus sends a deceitful dream on Agamemnon and IV 68 H. where Zeus initiates the breaking of the truce although he is the god who avenges truce breaking.

116 P. Considine

In iv 351 H. and I 65 H. divine anger has no apparent cause but it is assumed that the cause can be discovered. The same concept is found in the Hittite Plague Prayer and Omens (ANET 395 and 497).

Chapter Two THE MANIFESTATION OF DIVINE WRATH

Divine wrath in all the literatures studied is recognised as being mani-fested in a variety of ways. There is no common factor such as the element of opposition to the divine will which generally helps to cause a god to be angry.

The classification of passages in this chapter is rather arbitrary; it is based simply on the isolation of some of the more striking recurrent features in the manifestation of divine anger. Since the circumstances of a god's anger may diHer widely these features fall into a heterogeneous collection of sub-classes.

1. Natural calamity

a. Failure of crops

An angry deity frequently shows his displeasure by interfering with the season's crops; a few examples are given, but it is not to be expected that this theme will provide anything but the most general of parallels unless associated with clearly related story patterns.

A good Old Testament example is Deut. 11: 16-17 where the Israelites are warned of the penalty for idolatry:

The anger of Yahweh will blaze out against you, and he will shut up the skies and stop the rains, and the land will not produce its crops.

Compare 29:22-4:

They will see the land ruined by blight and plague, sent by Yahweh ... and they will say: 'Why has Yahweh treated this country in such a way? What has caused such a devastating outburst of wrath?'

In the Iliad and Odyssey the feature of crops failing is not singled out for mention, but see below on other natural calamities which include such failure. In the Homeric Hymn to Demeter (see especially 301 H.) the theme of Demeter's anger resulting in the failure of the crops is the pivot of the

The Theme of Divine Wrath - 117

whole story. T.H. Gaster (Thespis pp. 453 H.) convincingly interprets the Hymn to Demeter as a « liturgical chant designed for one or other of the great seasonal festivals, and embodying the cult myth peculiar to the occa-sion ». He points to correspondences between the Hymn to Demeter and the ritual of Thesmophoria, at which the rape of Persephone was enacted as a sacred drama. Common elements are: (1) A female torchlight procession; HD 47-8, 60-1. (2) A fast (there was a nine-day lent in Cyprus); HD 40-50, where Demeter wanders for nine days .(3) An absence of merriment and indeed a prevailingly grim mood; HD 200-5. (4) The chanting of obscene Iambic songs to promote fertility; Iambe's jokes make Demeter smile, HD 200-4. (5) The terms used for Iambe are technical terms associated with the festival and are used also by Aristophanes and Pausanias with reference to festivals of Demeter.

Thus, like the Hebrew psalms, the Hymn to Demeter was reLated to « a libretto of the seasonal drama ».

With reference to such features as drought Gaster compares the phraseology of the Hymn to Demeter, the Telepinus Myth, Joel I and the Ugaritic Baal poem. He refers to the havoc caused by « the abduction of Persephone and the grief of her mother Demeter »; but in fact HD clearly emphasizes the wrath of the goddess, which is also stressed in T elepinus and is obvious though not explicit in Joel. In the Hittite T elepinus myth all nature begins to die when Telepinus goes away in anger: «Cattle, sheep and men no longer breed ... the trees dried up ... famine arose, so that man and gods perished from hunger ... The Storm-god... (said) ... He has flown into a rage and taken with him every good thing ». In the book of Joel:

Oblation and libation have vanished from the house of Yahweh. Wasted lie the fields, the fallow is in mourning. For the corn has been laid waste, the wine fails the fresh oil dries up. (1:9 H.) JB.

With these passages compare Hesiod Works and Days 242 H.: «The son of Kronos makes the people suffer the misfortunes of famine and plague at the same time ». A possible Canaanite reference is UT 75 II:45 (UMC 93; CML 73) where « the water-courses were parched dry/for seven years El was filled [with wrathJ/and for eight revolutions of time [with anger] ». (Driver's translation and restoration). The thought world is that of HD where the absence of the crops is also interpreted as a sign of divine anger 17.

17 Gordon's translation of mla by « is abundant» is not entirely convincing in the context; Driver's « was filled» is more literal (cf. UT Glossary s.v. ml'). The real justi-

118 P. Considine

In a Hittite Instruction for a Temple Official (ANET 208) the destruction of crops is one element in the manifestation of a god's anger:

If ... anyone arouses the anger of a god, does the god take revenge on him alone? Does he not take revenge on his wife, his children, his descendants, his kin, his slaves and slave girls, his cattle (and) sheep, together with his crop, and will utterly destroy him?

The Neo-Babylonian Sargon Chronicle says that because of Sargon's irreverence « the great lord Marduk became enraged and destroyed his people by hunger» (ANET 266) but the passage, though interesting, is too late to be really important for the present study.

b. Plague

Reference to the manifestation of divine wrath by means of a plague is a natural enough accompaniment to accounts of destruction of crops caused by divine anger. Such a reference is probably to be seen in the Hittfte passage just quoted, and is explicit in other Hittite texts. The Plague Prayer of Mursilis is a good example:

The Hatti Land was cruelly afflicted ... So I made the anger of the gods the subject of an oracle.

(ANET 395)

fication for the restoration is that a seven-eight year period of drought and deprivation is a commonplace in Ugaritic as well as in other ANE-n literatures, and that it suits the context. Cf. 1 Aqht 42-4: (UMC 132; CML 59): «Seven years may Baal afflict thee / Eight, the Rider of Clouds! Let there be no dew / Let there be no rain». Cf. UT 49:V 7 ff. (UMC 85; CML 113).

The feature occurs in OT in Gen. 41: 17-31 (Pharaoh's dream of the seven fat and seven thin cattle, interpreted by Joseph as seven year cycles of plenty and famine respectively) and 2 Ki 8: 1-3 (


Cf. ib.:

But since the Hattian Storm God is angry for that reason and people are dying in the Hatti land ... because I humble myself ... let the plague stop in the Hatti land!

Plague is also attributed to divine agency in a Ritual against Pestilence (ANET 347).

In Numbers 11:33:

the anger of Yahweh blazed out against the people and Yahweh killed many of the people with a severe plague.

In Numbers 14: 11 Yahweh says to Moses:

I will strike them with a plague, and disinherit them, and make a larger and stronger nation from you.

No term for wrath is used, but it is clear that Yahweh is angry with the people.

A clear Akkadianexample occurs in the probably eighth century Prayer to Every God (ANET 391):

When the goddess was angry with me, she made me become ill.

In Iliad I 9-12 Apollo « was angry with the king for insulting the priest Chryses, and afflicted the army with a plague, of which many died ».

c. Storm and Fire

The part played by plague as a manifestation of divine wrath in Hittite literature is largely, and perhaps f

PATRICK CONSIDINE - CNRsmea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Considine...study of origins. A...

Documents

Transcript of PATRICK CONSIDINE - CNRsmea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Considine...study of origins. A...