gjRV OF pmcij^

MAY 24 1909

y // A

JOURNAL OF THEAMERIC
ORIENTAL
SOCIETY □
Volume 108

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF
ERNEST BENDER, EDWIN GEROW
University of Pennsylvania Reed College

SECTIONAL EDITORS
STEPHEN A. KAUFMAN Hebrew Union College

PAUL W. KROLL University of Colorado

DAVID I. OWEN Cornell University

JEANETTE A. WAKIN Columbia University

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN

ORIENTAL SOCIETY
329 Sterling Memorial Library, Yale Station,
New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A. 06520
1988—ISSN 0003-0279
 REVIEW ARTICLES

DEATH AND AFTERLIFE IN UGARIT AND ISRAEL*

Mark S. Smith Elizabeth M. Bloch-Smith

Yale University University of Chicago

The background of the New Testament concepts of resurrection and afterlife has been studied
intensively in the last two decades, largely under the impetus of the Ugaritic tablets from Ras
Shamra. In the book under review, the author undertakes a comprehensive study of afterlife and
“resurrection” in Northwest Semitic literature. Marshalling extensive textual and archaeological
data, the book explores how “Canaanite” beliefs in “revivification” and the afterlife, as evidenced
by the Ugaritic texts, were transmitted through the “popular religion” of Israel, thusi.paving the
way for the rise of comparable ideas in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The book permits
considerable speculation and bases its conclusions on data that admit of different interpretations.
Perhaps a greater difficulty lies with the evidence itself, which does not provide a’basis for a sure,
diachronic reconstruction of Israelite ideas about afterlife. The review investigates the data and
arguments contained in the book and concentrates on the book’s theoretical underpinnings. The
authors present an alternative reconstruction of Israelite attitudes concerning the dead, based on
a diachronic analysis of the biblical prohibitions against consulting and feeding the deceased.

For millennia the question of life after death has
been a preoccupation of human societies. Descrip­
tions of afterlife express various concerns, needs and
aspirations, and reveal some of the ways humans have
related to the divine and the world. The concept of
afterlife in Judaism and Christianity has exercised the
imagination of millions, in prayers and personal hopes,
in doctrines and the arts. The Christian concept of the
afterlife has especially accentuated resurrection and
subsequent communion with God in heaven, expressed
in part as a banquet. The Hebrew Bible has provided
some illumination for the background of these con­
cepts. The origins of the concept of resurrection have
been pushed back at least to the Hellenistic period
(Daniel 12:2; 2 Maccabees 7:9, 11, 14, 23; cf. 1 Enoch
51:1, 61:5; 2 Esdras 7:32), and perhaps to the Persian
period (Isaiah 26:19?). The heavenly banquet in New
Testament time has a forerunner in the eschatological
banquet described in Isaiah ,25:6-8. The Ugaritic texts
* This is a review article of K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in
Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East (Alter Orient
und Altes Testament 219) Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986. Pp. 298. DM
129, 00. Henceforth referred to by page number. Ugaritic
texts are cited according to the edition of M. Dietrich,
O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus
Ugarit, I (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 24; Neukirchen-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976). Henceforth referred to
as KTU.
have prompted a major reconsideration of the ori­
gins and development of resurrection and afterlife in
Israelite religion, because they describe the death and
return to life of Baal and the feasts of dead heroes
and kings, the Rephaim. In his commentary on the
Psalms,' M. Dahood attempted to exploit the Ugaritic
evidence to demonstrate biblical attestations to the
concept of afterlife in Iron Age Israel. While Dahood’s
conclusions sometimes extended beyond the available
evidence, the directions which he pursued have war­
ranted further research.
The recent dissertation of K. Spronk, directed by
the well-known Ugaritologist J. C. de Moor, has been
published under the title, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient
Israel and in the Ancient Near East. This book repre­
sents a substantial effort to build on the inquiry
undertaken by Dahood and other scholars,^ especially
in their use of the Ugaritic data. Spronk’s first chapter
provides a useful, critical review of the history of
interpretation of afterlife in the Hebrew Bible and
' M. Dahood, Psalms I-III (Anchor Bible 16, 17 and 17A;
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1968 and 1970). See also
his article, “Immortality in Proverbs 12, 28,” Biblica 41
(1960) 176-81. Cf. O. Loretz, Die Psalmen II (Alter Orient
und Altes Testament 207/2; Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon &
Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirehener Verlag, 1979)
462-68; J. Healey, “The Immortality of the King: Ugarit and
the Psalms” Orientalia 53 (1984) 245-54.
^ See Spronk, 61-65, 145-206.

277
 278 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.2 (1988)
Israelite religion. Spronk’s review begins with the
concept of afterlife in early Jewish and Christian
traditions, focusing on the textual witnesses of the
Targumim, the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. He
briefly describes views from the Middle Ages, the
tl *' Reformation and the early modern period. The weight
6 I
of the review falls on nineteenth and twentieth century
attempts to understand the origins of afterlife and
resurrection, especially by recourse to the religions
of Egypt, Persia, Mesopotamia, Greece and Syro-
Palestine.
In the second chapter, Spronk examines the con­
cept of afterlife in ancient texts from Egypt, Meso­
potamia, Persia, Anatolia and Greece. He focuses on
the Ugaritic texts, clearly his area of greatest exper­
tise. As indicated by the title of the final chapter,
“Conceptions of Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel,”
Spronk’s third chapter analyzes the biblical record for
signs of afterlife, especially with the aid of informa­
tion derived from Ugaritic and archaeological data.
To summarize Spronk’s findings (pp. 344-46), “the
history of Israelite Conceptions of afterlife is closely
related to the struggle between Yahwism and Baal­
ism.” The “reluctance to speak about help of Yahweh
after death is . . . due . . . primarily to the fear of be­
coming entangled in the Canaanite religious ideas
about life and death.” “The Israelites were clearly
familiar with the Canaanite belief in Baal rising from
the netherworld every year and taking the deified
spirits of the royal dead with him.” “Yahwism” re­
jected this belief, because Yahweh could not be con­
ti *
ceived of as dead. In the course of time, Canaanite
beliefs about afterlife became incorporated and modi­
fied in later Israelite ideas about resurrection and
afterlife in Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:2. Spronk attri­
butes the survival of such Canaanite ideas to Israel’s
“folk religion” which embraced and transmitted them.
In contrast to “official Yabwistic religion,” “folk” or
“popular” religion was “syncretistic” in accepting
Canaanite ideas about afterlife and the power of the
dead. “Hence ancient Canaanite traditions lived on as
a kind of under-current in the folk religion of Israel.”
(p. 345) As a result, “there was room for the adoption
of the concepts of beatific afterlife from Egypt (via
Canaan), Greece, and Persia.” (p. 346) The term
“beatific afterlife” (first defined on p. 85) refers to
“being forever with God (or the gods) in heaven.” In
short, Spronk addresses the issue of afterlife in an­
cient Israel in three ways: (a) by utilizing fully the
available Ugaritic data; (b) by drawing the archae­
ological data more fully into the discussion of the
textual data; and (c) by re-analyzing the biblical data
in light of the Ugaritic and archaeological records.
I
Each of these three areas as treated by Spronk is
analyzed below in turn.
I. THE UGARITIC DATA
Spronk’s treatment of the Ugaritic data is extensive,
including several “Rephaim texts” {KTU 1.6 VI 45-49
arid 1.20-22), several passages from the major literary
texts (1.15 V 16-20, 1.16 I 9-11, 1.17 I 42-52, II 1-8,
16-23, VI 25-38 and 1.19 IV 22-25), five ritual texts
(1.109, 1.124, 1.142, 1.143 and 1.161), two inscriptions
on steles (6.13 and 6.14), and texts describing the
“marzeah” feast (1.114 and 3.9). The analysis of these
texts is at once very detailed and somewhat specula­
tive, as Spronk uses them to reconstruct a New Year’s
festival during which Baal Rapiu revivified leads the
dead Rephaim to new life (see p. 195-96). This recon­
struction rests on three undemonstrated assumptions:
(1) a New Year’s feast was celebrated at ancient
Ugarit (p. 155); (2) at this festival Baal is resurrected
with the dead Rephaim (pp. 181, 203); and (3) Baal is
to be identified with Rapiu, described in 1.108.1-5
(pp. 171, 181).
The case for a Ugaritic New Year’s festival is cir­
cumstantial, and the evidence cited by Spronk in
support of such a feast has been interpreted in other
ways. D. Marcus and L. L. Grabbe have dealt with
the problems inherent in the reconstruction of a New
Year’s festival.^ The second presupposition of Baal’s
revivification with the dead hinges on Spronk’s con­
necting two features which do not appear together
in Ugaritic texts. Baal’s return to life in the Baal cycle
(1.6 III), perhaps described in the story of Aqhat (1.17
VI 26-33), is never connected explicitly with the post­
mortem activity of the Rephaim in 1.20-22, 1.161 or
the other “Rephaim texts.” The closest that these two
concepts come to being found together is in 1.17 VI
26-33. In this passage Anat offers life to Aqhat:
Ask for life, o hero Aqhat,
ask for life and I will give it to you,
immortality and I will bestow it Upon you.
I will let you count with Baal the years,
with the sons of El you will count the months.
Just as Baal when he brings to life (kyhwh)
is served,
did he bring to life Qiwy), then one serves
and gives him to drink,
’ D. Marcus, Review of J. C. de Moor, New Year
with Canaanites and Israelites, JAOS 93 (1973) 589-91;
L. L. Grabbe, “The Seasonal Pattern and the ‘Baal Cycle’,”
Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976) 57-63.
 Smith and Bloch-Smith: Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel
there improvises and sings before him
a gracious lad (who) answers his (wishes),
so I too can bring to life {^ahwy)
the hero Aqhat. (pp. 151-52)
Anat compares herself to her consort in his ability to
give life to mortals. Unlike most scholars Spronk
takes this claim seriously.'' This passage does not
specify who is brought to life, although the Rephaim
is a reasonable guess. Baal is never described in any of
the “Rephaim texts.” The feasts of the Rephaim are
never “beatific,” i.e. with the pantheon or explicitly in
heaven.
This picture stands in contrast with the eighth cen­
tury Panammu inscription i^KAIllA). King Panammu
describes how the gods blessed him and how the land
flourished under his reign. He expresses the hope that
his son succeeding him shall say to Hadad: “May the
so[ul] of Panammu [eat] with you, and may the [so]ul
of Panammu dri[nk] with you” (line 17).^ Lines 21-22
read;
[Whoever of] my sons grasps the sceptre and sits
upon my seat as king over Yaudi and confirms his
rulership and sacri[f]ices [to? Hadad and] mentions
the name of Panammu, saying: “May the soul of
Panammu eat with Hadad, and may the soul of
Panammu drink with Ha[d]ad.”‘
Unlike the Ugaritic evidence, KAI 214:17, 21-22 ex­
plicitly expresses the wish for a post-mortem life of
feasting with Hadad, although it is not “beatific” in
Spronk’s sense, being explicitly neither “heavenly” nor
“eternal.”
The second assumption that Baal revivifies the
Rephaim is supported for Spronk by his third as­
sumption that Baal is Rapiu (related to the root *rp^,
“to heal”). This hypothesis is highly controversial.
Other scholarly identifications for Rapiu include El,
Mot, Resheph, Mlk (if this is not simply an epithet),
or no identification at all, perhaps except as the first
^ Cf. Ishtar’s threats to Anu in Gilgamesh VI: 99-100
(ANET, 84) and to the gatekeeper in the Descent of Ishtar to
the Netherworld, lines 19-20 {ANET, 107), cited by Spronk,
p. 105.
’ See especially J. C. Greenfield, “Un rite religieux arameen
et ses paralleles,” Revue Biblique 70 (1973) 46-52; also KAI
(used here as an abbreviation for H. Donner and W. Rollig,
Kanaandische und Aramdische Inschriften (vols. I-IH;
Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1968) II, 215, 219.
‘ KA/II, 215,220-221.
219
or the leader of the Rephaim, with whom Rapiu’s
name is cognate. The assumption that Baal is Rapiu is
debatable and therefore undermines Spronk’s exegesis
(pp. 270-71, 283-89) of biblical texts (such as
Deuteronomy 32:39) which call Yahweh “healer.”
Spronk’s interpretation of details are likewise marred
by unproven assumptions. That “Baal has to descend
every year into the Netherworld, but he always re-
tilrns” (pp. 152-53) is based on interpreting the Baal
cycle as reflecting a single annual cycle, a view pres­
ently in disrepute. That T/w kbkbm, “star-gods” in
1.43 refers to the dead (p. 157) and that this forms the
Canaanite background to Daniel 12:2 (p. 342) con­
stitutes a speculative chain of reasoning in which a
dubious interpretation of a Ugaritic text is used to
explain the biblical motif. That the verb yhpn applied
to the dead Rephaim in 1.22 I 9 means “to rustle”
(like birds) (p. 171), or that ndd in the same text and
elsewhere in the Rephaim texts means “to flutter”
(p. 167) or that the root *d^y means specifically “kite”
or refers to the dead (pp. 183-86) are all problematic
lexicographical analyses’ used to provide a Canaanite
background to the dead sounding like birds in Isaiah
8:18 and Psalm 103:5 (pp. 286-87, 314-15). Adducing
such speculative evidence not only mars the synthesis
of beliefs pertaining to the dead in the Ugaritic texts,
but also weakens the examination of the biblical
record based on the reconstruction of the Ugaritic
evidence. In using Ugaritic data, Spronk does not
address the question of cultural, temporal and geo­
graphical discontinuities between Ugarit and Israel. In
one instance (p. 304), Spronk assumes that a biblical
author in the post-exilic period is familiar with the
specific passage in the Baal cycle.
II. CARE AND VENERATION FOR THE DEAD
Although Spronk faults other scholars for appear­
ing to confuse care for the dead with veneration of the
’ Compare the analyses of A. Caquot, M. Scnyzer and A.
Herdner, Textes ougaritiques. Tome I; mythes et legendes
(Litteratures anciennes du proche-orient 7; Paris: Les Edi­
tions du Cerf, 1974) 474-75; M. H. Pope, “Notes on
the Rephaim Texts from Ugarit,” in Ancient Near Eastern
Studies in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein, ed. M. de
Jong Ellis (Hamden: Archon Books, 1977) 167-68; C. E.
L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods; El, Ba’^al,
and the Repha^im (Harvard Semitic Monographs 21; Mis­
soula, MT: Scholars, 1979) 152-56; R. M. Good, “Geminated
Sonants, Word Stress, and Energic in -nnj-.nn in Ugaritie,”
Ugarit-Forschungen 13 (1981) 118; G. del Olmo Lete, Mitos
 280 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.2 (1988)
dead (p. 48), his treatment also suffers from imprecise
terminology. Spronk’s review of the history of schol­
arship in the first chapter would have benefitted from
first establishing precise definitions for “worship of
the dead,” “care for the dead,” “veneration of the
dead” and “cult of the dead.” Because of his failure to
distinguish these terms, Spronk does not classify the
evidence clearly enough to present a convincing posi­
tion regarding the Israelites’ attitude towards and care
for the ancestors.
In his discussion of Israelite funerary customs in
chapter three, Spronk begins with the disclaimer that
funerary customs tend to be conservative and so may
continue in practice although their original meaning
may have been forgotten or rejected. Current anthro­
pological studies indicate that all aspects of burial are
significant and culturally determined.* A practice is
not accepted into a culture unless it can be adapted to
its belief system. Therefore, every aspect of Israelite
burial is significant and should be interpreted within
an Israehte context.
The cursory treatment of Israelite burial evidence
excludes the most recent work’ and presents un­
founded conjectures (pp. 238-44). Burying the Judean
kings in Jerusalem was not unusual, as all monarchs
from both Israel and Judah were interred in their
capital cities. A survey of Iron Age burials dem­
onstrates that very few simple burials date from the
Iron Age. Therefore, Spronk’s statement that “Most
people received a simple interment in these days.”
(p. 239) lacks substantiation. Since the study of
S. Lolfreda in 1968,'° a significant number of tombs
have been found proving that many new tombs were
cut in the Iron Age, especially in the eighth and
seventh centuries b.c.e. (contra p. 239), that reposi­
tories occur in tombs from the twelfth century and are
therefore not an Israelite innovation (contra pp. 239-
40), and that by the eighth century Israelite tombs
y leyendas de Canaan segun la tradicion de Ugarit (Valencia:
Institucion San Jeronimo; Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad,
1981)422-23.
I. Hodder, Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological
Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­
versity, 1982) 9; S. Piggott, “Conclusion,” in The Domesti­
cation and Exploitation of Plants and Animals, eds. P. J.
Ucko and G. Dimbleby (London: Duckworth, 1969) 558.
’ J. R. Abercrombie, “Palestinian Burial Practices from
1200-600 B.C.E.” (Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsyl­
vania, 1979).
S. Loffreda, “Typological Sequence of Iron Age Rock-
Cut Tombs in Palestine,” Liber Annuus 18 (1968) 244-87.
can be distinguished from Canaanite tombs (contra
p. 239).
In ■ the analysis of Israelite funerary customs in
chapter three, burials, mourning customs and the cult
of the dead are reviewed for indications of beatific
afterlife. Spronk concludes the discussion of Israelite
beliefs with the statement, “Apparently the ancient
Canaanite traditions lived on as a kind of under­
current in the folk religion of Israel” (p. 345). How­
ever, his evidence demonstrates no differentiated folk
religion in the few biblical descriptions of actual prac­
tices concerning the interment and care for the dead.
Furthermore, the material evidence from “official”
and “folk” burials throughout the kingdom of Judah
demonstrates no significant differences, except in rela­
tive wealth.
III. BIBLICAL EXEGESIS
Spronk’s analysis of the biblical record in chapter
three is problematic not only because of his handling
of the Ugaritic data. Spronk also assumes (pp. 271-
72) that biblical references to the Rephaim are po­
lemics against Canaanite ideas about revivification
connecting Baal with the Rephaim (pp. 272, 300, 344).
However, the Rephaim are never in any biblical text
associated with Baal. The biblical Rephaim refer either
to the dead or to pre-conquest giants dwelling in
Canaan (pp. 227-29). No biblical text referring to the
dead by the term repd^m exhibits any awareness of
the Canaanite background of the Rephaim (contra
p. 227). Even the best example, Isaiah 14:9-10, which
describes the Rephaim with their thrones, does not
prove that the prophet is familiar with Canaanite
ideas about afterlife (p. 226), only that the motif
of the Rephaim as deceased monarchs, attested in
Ugaritic literature, has also made its way into this
biblical passage. The prophet uses mythological motifs
such as the fall of Helal, the morning star, from
heaven, to dramatize the demise of the king of Baby­
lon, but Spronk has not established his case that the
prophet has a conscious awareness of the origins
or development of these motifs. This example points
to one of the methodological assumptions which
Spronk makes in analyzing biblical passages. If a
motif is attested in both Ugaritic and biblical litera­
tures, oftentimes Spronk assumes that the biblical
attestation is a Yahwistic polemic against Canaanite
beliefs.
In his biblical exegesis, Spronk assumes that Yah­
wistic official religion can be distinguished from the
“popular religion” of Israel which was heavily influ­
enced by Canaanite ideas in the area of practices
 Smith and Bloch-Smith: Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel
concerning the dead (p. 236, 257, 283, 344-45). The
difficulty is whether clear distinctions can be drawn
between “Israelite(s)” and Canaanite(s),” and within
Israelite religion, between “official Yahwistic religion”
and “folk religion.” If not, the argument for “popular
religion” as the transmitter of Qanaanite ideas about
revivification of the dead is cast into doubt. Many
scholars would argue that the growth of Israelite
monotheism took place over many centuries in the
Iron Age in the context of Israelite religion, which
included monotheism and various forms of polytheism
which embraced Yahweh as a or the chief deity. Some
Israelites who considered themselves Yahwists also
venerated some other deity or deities. To use Spronk’s
categories, “Yahwism” was heavily “Canaanite” in the
Iron Age. The term “Canaanite” appears to be em­
ployed polemically in some biblical writings to make
non-monotheistic Yahwists appear to be non-Yah­
wists. However, polytheistic Yahwism was perhaps
more consistently represented iii “official” circles in
pre-exilic Israel than monotheistic Yahwism which
Spronk calls “official” and “normative.” Ultimately,
Spronk neither defines nor demonstrates the existence'
of a distinct “mainstream of Yahwism” or “official
Yahwistic religion,” except that one “could call the
Old Testament the canonical document of official
Yahwistic religion” (p. 236; cf. p. 345). While Spronk
admits that “things were probably more complicated”
than this definition allows, Spronk uses biblical texts
as indicators of “mainstream Yahwism” or “official
Yahwistic religion” without exegeting each passage’s
historical setting and the relationships of the various
biblical authors to this “official Yahwism” in their
own times. Except as a function of the process of
canonization, primarily a post-exilic process, Spronk
(p. 282) .never defines what the constitution or devel­
opment of official Yahwism in the Iron Age was, how
it functioned with official status in the nation, and
how it gave rise to the Hebrew Bible as its official
expression.
Spronk reinforces his categories of analysis by tak­
ing biblical texts as a single synchronic witness to
what “official Yahwism” held." For example, Spronk
examines biblical objections to practices pertaining
to the dead in a synchronic manner. He (p. 257)
concludes:
'' A synchronic analysis of the biblical prohibitions against
practices pertaining to the dead has been adopted also by
T. J. Lewis, “Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit”
(Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University, 1986). Lewis also
aecepts the distinction between “official Yahwism” and “folk
religion” in the area of practices with respect to the dead.
281
From texts like Deut 18:9-22; I Sam 28; and Isa
8:19-20 we learn that the consultation of the,dead
takes the place of listening to YHWH and his proph­
ets. For this reason necromancy seems to be irrecon­
cilable with Yahwism. However, it appears that not
all Israel took this condemnation of all contacts with
the world of the dead seriously. We may speak of an
under-current in the ancient religion of Israel next
to the mainstream of Yahwism. This under-current
is usually connected with common people, but it
should be noted that also king Saul (I Sam 28) and
probably kings like Manasseh and Amon . . . prae-
tised necromancy.
Apart from describing biblical objections to practices
with respect to the dead as anti-Canaanite polemics,
Spronk does not examine their origins and develop­
ment. He does not inquire about what such an
examination might indicate about the distribution or
popularity of these practices.
From a diachronic perspective, it is possible to
argue the case that prior to the middle of the eighth
century, perhaps only necromancy and no other prac­
tices associated with the dead was forbidden in any
biblical text. Necromancy Avas not forbidden or con­
demned by any prophet before Isaiah (8:19; cf. 19:3,
29:4; cf. 57:6) and not by any legal code before the
Holiness Code (Leviticus 19:26-28; 20:6, 27; cf.
Deuteronomy 18:10-11). The only passage suggesting
that necromancy was viewed negatively before 750 is
found in 1 Samuel 28, the story of the witch of Endor.
The chapter tells how Saul inquired of the dead
Samuel via a woman. Verse three relates: “and Saul
had put the mediums and wizards out of the land”
{wesd^ul hesir ha^obot we^et-hayyidde^onim meha-
^ares). This verse claims that Saul had banished necro­
mancers. (One may note that this chapter does not
address other practices for the dead condemned in
later legal and prophetic material.) 1 Samuel 28:3, as
noted by commentators,'^ may be an editorial addi­
tion. The narrator, perhaps a Deuteronomistic hand,
is supplying background information. Indeed, the for­
mulae are reminiscent of Deuteronomy 18:10-11. Like
Deuteronomy 18:10-11, the issue in 1 Samuel 28:3 is
securing information from a source unacceptable to
J. Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” in Studies on
Prophecy; A Collection of Twelve Papers (Vetus Testamen-
tum Supplements 26; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 133. Cf. H. R.
Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books
of Samuel (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh:
T. 4iT. Clark, 1899) 240; and P. K. McCarter, I Samuel
(Anchor Bible 14; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980) 422.
 282 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.2 (1988)
the author.'^ The issue is not simply what is ac­
ceptable to the so-called “normative Yahwistic reli­
gion.” Rather, the issue concerns a form of inquiry
that competed with prophets and prophecy in ancient
Israel. Like Isaiah 8:16-20 and Deuteronomy 18:9-22,
1 Samuel 28:3 frames the question of inquiry of the
dead as a form of appropriating information from
sources which some pre-exilic prophets and Deuter-
onomists deemed unacceptable. To conclude this
discussion of 1 Samuel 28, the chapter may reflect
either a later Yahwistic belief that Saul had banished
necromancers, or a genuine pre-750 negative attitude
towards necromancy.
Like 1 Samuel 28:3, Psalm 106:28 and Numbers
25:2 have been taken as criticisms of death cult prac­
tices. Psalm 106:28 reads: “They yoked themselves to
Baal Peor, and ate. the sacrifices of the dead {zibhe
mettm)." Psalm 106:28 is dependent on the older
passage. Numbers 25:2,“' which does not condemn
practices associated with the dead; rather, it forbids
“sacrifices of their gods (zibhe ^elohehen).” Psalm
106:28 condemns zibhe mettm, “sacrifices of their
gods,” since the dead are called ^eldhtm, “gods,” in
1 Sam 28:3 and Isaiah 8:19. One may compare the
parallelism of rp^im, “Rephaim” with ^ilnym, “gods,”
and the further juxtaposition of these two terms with
=ilm, “gods” and mtm, “the dead,” in KTU 1.6 VI 45-
49. It appears that only Psalm 107:28 and not Num­
bers 25:2 is pertinent to the question of practices for
the dead. In its present form. Psalm 106 is generally
considered to be exilic or later (see verses 40:47).To
See Lust, “On Wizards and Prophets,” 140-42; W. A. M.
Beuken, “I Sam 28: The Prophet as ‘Hammer of Witches’,”
Journal of the Society for the Study of the Old Testament 6
(1978) 15.
M. Noth, Numbers (Old Testament Library; London:
SCM, 1968) 195-97; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and
Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1973)
202, 316. See Spronk, 231-32.
See F. C. Fensham, “Neh. 9 and Pss. 105, 106, 135 and
136. Post-Exilic Historical Traditions in Poetic Form,”
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 9 (1981) 35-51,
esp. 35 n. 6. A. Weiser (The Psalms [Old Testament Library;
London: SCM, 1962] 680, 682) suggests the possibility that
verses 40-47 refer to the fall of the northern kingdom. In this
case. Psalm 106:28 would provide information on “sacrifices
of the dead” as it was perceived in the mid-eighth century or
later. Baal Peor perhaps was remembered, perhaps in the
northern kingdom especially (see Hosea 9:10; cf. Deutero­
nomy 4:3), as the paradigmatic site of great sin, although the
precise nature of the sin was less clearly recalled (cf. the role
be sure, one can argue that verse 28 predates the
Exile. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to argue for
its pertinence for examining practices for the dead
prior to the seventh century.
From this evidence one might conclude that nega­
tive criticism or negative depictions of practices with
respect to the dead first appears around the middle of
the eighth century, perhaps responding to necromancy
as a form of competition to prophecy. Objections to
other practices, such as feeding the dead with the tithe
of Yahweh, appear only later, in the seventh century
(Deuteronomy 26:14; cf. Psalm 16). If this reconstruc­
tion of the development of practices regarding the
dead is roughly correct, it would appear that prior to
the seventh century, feeding the dead and other prac­
tices of care and veneration for the dead flourished in
various social strata and quarters of Israelite society.
Only necromancy may have been viewed negatively, if
1 Samuel 28:3 provides historically reliable informa­
tion. Prior to ca. 750, the people engaged in both
necromancy and other practices (Isaiah 8:18; Deu­
teronomy 26:14; cf. MT Psalm 22:30 discussed below;
Tobit 4:17; Sirach 30:18). The kings had their own
elaborate death cult (2 Samuel 18:18; 2 Kings 9:34-37
and 21; cf. 1 Samuel 20) which at least some priests
tolerated (see Ezekiel 43:7-9). The prophets in the
early periods did not object to necromancy. Here the
criticism against the marzeah feast in Amos 6:1-7
compared with Jeremiah 16:5-9 is illustrative. Amos
deplores the marzeah not because of any funerary
association as in Jeremiah 16, but because of the
exploitation of the poor symbolized in the lavish
luxuries enjoyed in the feast. The story of Elisha’s
bones in 2 Kings 13:20-21 also shows that prophetic
circles in the northern kingdom prior to its fall could
treat the power of the dead in a positive manner.
After necromancy fell under prophetic and legal in­
dictment ca. 750, other practices pertaining to the
dead which had not been criticized previously likewise
fell under condemnation.
This analysis highlights the weakness of the syn­
chronic approach which Spronk utilizes in his histori­
cal reconstruction. A diachronic analysis of the same
evidence suggests that no single group maintained the
views which Spronk labels as “Yahwism.” Neither the
monarchy nor the priesthood nor the prophets con­
stituted reliable or consistent guides to “Yahwistic”
views (cf. Isaiah 28:7, 30:10). Some Israelites who
of Sodom and Gomorrah in the preaching of the prophets,
especially Isaiah 1:9-10, 13:19; Jeremiah 23:14, 49:18, 50:40;
Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9; cf. Deuteronomy 29:23, 32:32).
 Smith and Bloch-Smith: Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel
were monotheistic Yahwists may have participated in
some of the prohibited activities for the dead, espe­
cially since none of the extant prohibitions appear
before ca. 750, a relatively late point in the monarchy.
And prohibitions are no guarantee that monotheistic
Yahwists did not participate in prohibited activities
pertaining to the dead.
The features of Israelite belief which Spronk
(pp. 72-81) interprets as signs of individual hope for a
beatific afterlife should be noted. These features in­
clude the power of God extending beyond the grave,
the rise of individual worth resulting in individual
reward or punishment, and the hope for continued
communion with God. Modern scholars may see these
features as signs of hope for beatific afterlife, par­
ticularly in light of their expression in the New Tes­
tament, and indeed Spronk defines beatific afterlife
(p. 85) by reference to a New Testament passage.
Given what is known of the world of the Hebrew
Bible, it does not seem possible to interpret, for
example, the prayer of Hannah (1 Samuel 2; see
pp. 271-72) as a plea to a God who kills and causes to
live (verse six) as an expression of hope for a beatific
afterlife.
Despite these criticisms Spronk analyses a wide
array of data. He offers fresh insights into some
biblical texts. For example, his exegeses of Psalm
16:3-4 (pp. 334-37) as a critique of observances for
the dead and Psalm 49:15-20 (p. 333) as a reference to
burial practices are helpful. Spronk observes that in
Psalm 22:30 (p. 282) kol-disne-^eres, “all the anointed
of the earth,” refers to the dead, as shown by mrqdm
dsn, “the anointed dancers,” i.e. the Rephaim, in KTU
1.108.5.'* One may extend this interpretation by re­
jecting the emendation in Psalm 22:30 of ^akelu, “they
eat,” to ^ak Id, “surely,” and seeing in this verse a refer­
ence to the dead eating. One can agree with Spronk’s
observations regarding Canaanites prototypes for bib­
lical language even if polemic is not involved. The
language of Yahweh’s overcoming death (Hosea 13:14,
14:2; Isaiah 25:8; Song of Songs 8:6; 1 Corinthians
15:54-55; Revelation 12:4; see pp. 277-304) has
a Northwest Semitic antecedent in Baal’s struggle
against Death (Mot) in KTU 1.5-1.6. Furthermore,
the theme of Baal’s return to life and overcoming
Death in 1.6 III and VI and 1.17 V 25-26, and
perhaps the “rising(?)” {qym) of the dead in KTU 1.22
I 5 formed the Northwest Semitic background to the
The same suggestion was made by M. S. Smith, “The
Magic of Kothar, the Ugaritic Craftsman God, in KTU 1.6
VI49-50,” Revue Biblique 91 (1984) 379 n. 12.
283
biblical idea that the dead “rise,” expressed by the
verb *qwm, “to rise,” in Psalm 88:11 (cf. 2 Samuel
13:21; Job 14:12; Ruth 4:5, 10). These notions in part
laid the basis for the motif of Yahweh’s “bringing
back to life” as a metaphor for preventing the death
of the living (pp. 270-79, 285-89), and for the specific
use of *qwm for divine help in Hosea 6:2. The lan­
guage of the individual’s “rising to life from death”
appears to have been applied to the nation in exile
(Ezekiel 37:1-14; pp. 293-97). In turn, this metaphor
laid the foundation for expressing individual resur­
rection in Daniel 12:2 (pp. 338-43 and Isaiah 26:19
(pp. 297-305). The development is especially clear in
the case of the latter passage, as it uses the verb
*qwm, “to rise,” to describe resurrection.
It must also be stated in Spronk’s defense that some
traits of Baal (such as the storm language) accrued to
Yahweh, but other features of Baal (such as his dying)
did not, since the idea of being dead appears to have
been incompatible with Yahweh’s other characteristics
(pp. 344-45). The question of how Yahweh assimilated
some but not other traits of various Canaanite-Israelite
deities merits further examination.
In the final analysis, the question is whether it
is possible to entertain the hypothesis that motifs
regarding beatific afterlife in Northwest Semitic evi­
dence are present as well in Israelite ideas and prac­
tices. The Ugaritic texts and KAI 214:17, 21-22
describe the dead monarchs feasting, or the wish for
such a post-mortem condition. KAI -214:21-22 is
“beatific” insofar as its setting is “with Hadad.” Al­
though there is no extant Israelite evidence that post­
mortem existence was considered to be “in heaven” or
“with God” or “for eternity,” the possibility should be
considered that in Israel the idea of the dead eating
evolved into being “with God,” in a way comparable
to KAI 214:17, 21-22. The dead were called ^eldhim,
“divine ones” or “gods,” and this belief about the
divine character of the dead perhaps facilitated the
development of the idea that the dead eat “with God”
or in the divine realm. This would approximate
Spronk’s notion of a “beatific afterlife,” although it
does not specify a heavenly location or the timeframe
of eternity. Perhaps the best Israelite evidence for
some modified form of “beatific afterlife” is royal
prayers, such as Psalm 21:3-5 which expresses a belief
that Yahweh has given to the king “length of days
forever and ever” (verse five). In J. Healey’s words, it
included “a special kind of life, including, in some
sense, eternal enjoyment of heavenly blessings.”
” Healey, “The Immortality of the King: Ugarit and the
Psalms,” 253.
284 Journal of the American OrientaL^ociety 108.2 (1988)
Given the affinities between KAI 214 and Deutero­
nomy 26:14, 1 Samuel 20:6, 29 and 2 Samuel 18:18,'®
one could suggest that the idea of the dead eating,
perhaps finding root in the royal cult, was eventually
given an eternal setting “with God.” The difficulty lies
with whether such language reflected a real belief in a
royal heavenly afterlife. With the presently known
See Greenfield, “Un rite religieux arameen et ses paral-
IMes,” 48-50.
data, it is impossible to establish this hypothetical
development.
In conclusion, Spronk has examined extensively the
data concerning the afterlife in ancient Israel and its
surrounding environs. Ultimately the sparseness of the
data prevents scholarship from conclusively establish­
ing beliefs in resurrection or “beatific afterlife” in Iron
Age Israel. This book represents a useful summary
of the data and a significant probing of the pos­
sibilities pertaining to resurrection and afterlife in
ancient Israel.