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 millennium. 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'Odyssee; 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 comments 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 Ugaritic 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 relevant, 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.

P. Considine

88

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

89

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)

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 recalcitrant 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

The Theme of Divine Wrath

91

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 Diomedes that Lycurgus roused the anger of the gods by fighting them, and paid the penalty of his arrogance.

The Theme of Divine Wrath

93

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 AnathAqhat are quoted as examples. The point need not- be laboured that such observations are at best superficial. It is a fundamental datum of divinehuman 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 immortals; 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 withdrawing 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 background 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

The Theme of Divine Wrath

95

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 Mesopotamian 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.

The Theme of Divine Wrath

97

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

7

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

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 continuation 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