English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
Ugaritic was an ancient language spoken in the city of Ugarit (on the Mediterranean coast of Syria) contemporaneously with many events in the Old Testament. Discoveries from the excavations of the city and the language (a Semitic language somewhat similar to ancient Hebrew) have provided us with a clearer understanding of certain aspects of Canaanite culture and worship. This knowledge has also aided in comprehending some challenging words in ancient Hebrew that were hard to translate.
Due to the Old Testament being an ancient text distant from modern language and culture, there are numerous assumptions or understandings that the original audience would have had, which are now lost to us. While our modern translations are excellent, further insights into ancient culture can enhance our understanding of the text’s meaning. This is not to suggest that the Scripture text is incomprehensible without extensive knowledge of ancient languages and cultures, but such knowledge does contribute to a more complete understanding. It could be likened to watching a movie on a color television instead of a black and white set.
In 1928, a farmer in Syria was plowing his field when he stumbled upon an ancient tomb. Inside, he discovered some valuables, which he later sold. Subsequently, news spread about the discovery, leading to the proper excavation of the site, now known as Ras Shamra, uncovering the ancient city of Ugarit. Among the findings were cuneiform tablets inscribed in a Semitic language akin to Hebrew. Through translation principles and comparisons with Hebrew, scholars eventually decoded the tablets, resulting in one of the most significant literary discoveries in the world.
The majority of the tablets consist of poetry, with many poems recounting myths about the city’s primary god, Baal. This literature sheds light on beliefs about Baal and the rituals associated with his worship. A comparison between the worship poetry of Ugarit and the Hebrew Psalms reveals similarities and differences in religious practices and beliefs.
There are often remarkable similarities. The people of Ugarit commonly attribute to Baal what the people of Israel attribute to Yahweh. For instance, Ugaritic literature reveals that Baal was believed to be the god of thunder and storm, while Psalm 29 credits storm-making to God. It’s as though David was conveying, “You Canaanite peoples attribute this power to Baal, but we acknowledge that it is indeed Yahweh who governs the storm.” The biblical psalms were not just isolated songs of praise, but they likely served as polemic as well.
The discovery of Ugaritic aids us in comprehending the incident involving Elijah on Mt. Carmel. King Ahab and the people had been worshipping Baal, yet that false deity could not bring rain to the land—there had been a three-year drought as Elijah, the prophet of Yahweh, had foretold. Elijah’s declaration implied a confrontation between Baal and Yahweh. On Mt. Carmel, Yahweh responded with fire (lightning?) to consume Elijah’s offering and even the stones of the altar, demonstrating His supremacy over Baal’s domain. Only after the prophets of Baal were slain did God send rain (see 1 Kings 17–18). While we can grasp the narrative without detailed knowledge of Baal beyond being a rival god, the additional insights from Ugaritic poetry enhance our understanding of how the people of Israel might have perceived the event.
Certain passages in the Old Testament pose challenges for translators in determining the precise meaning of specific words. Comparing Hebrew to Ugaritic at times provides additional context for these words, enabling us to achieve a clearer comprehension of the text.
For instance, in Amos 1:1, Amos is identified as “one of the shepherds of Tekoa.” The Hebrew term for “shepherd” is not the usual one used, leading to some ambiguity among translators regarding its exact meaning. In Ugaritic, the corresponding term signifies “manager or owner of large flocks of sheep.” Hence, Amos was likely not merely a humble shepherd or u.
Amos was not the uneducated “dirt farmer” often portrayed in sermons. He was likely a prosperous businessman. This insight into Amos’s background does not alter the text’s meaning but provides a deeper understanding of who he was. When Amos followed the Lord’s command to preach in the northern kingdom, he may have sacrificed a significant livelihood. In denouncing social injustice in Israel, Amos spoke from a position of privilege, not poverty (see Amos 1:6-7).
In Judges 5:17, the tribe of Dan is rebuked for failing to assist Deborah and Barak in defeating the Amalekites: “And Dan, why did he linger by the ships?” This rhetorical question is puzzling because Dan did not have coastal territory or a reputation for maritime activities. By examining Ugaritic, we learn that the term translated as “ships” can also mean “to be at ease.” Therefore, it is more appropriate to interpret the phrase as “And Dan, why did he linger at ease?” or as the NLT phrases it, “Why did Dan stay home?” The fundamental message remains unchanged—Dan neglected to support Israel when necessary—but the context is clarified. Dan remained “at ease,” not “in ships.”
Studying Ugaritic enhances our comprehension of the culture and language in the Old Testament. While it does not alter the core meaning of any Scripture, it adds depth and richness to the text.
