Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Canaanite subgroups is defined on the basis of four features, most of which are vocalic; however, the attested Canaanite dialects, with the exception of Biblical Hebrew, are unvocalized. It is, therefore, difficult to ascertain the genealogical affiliation of new or even existing texts based on these features. In this paper we propose two new morpho-syntactic features, which can be identified in texts written primarily in consonantal orthography. These features will help with the correct linguistic identification of texts discovered in the future.

According to a common scholarly model of Israelite religion, the deity El disappears under a rising tide of Yahwism sometime in the early monarchic period. In this article, by contrast, I use several texts preserved in the Jacob cycle to argue that El remained a distinct deity at Bethel until at least the eighth century BCE and possibly much later. I also argue on the basis of 1 Kgs 12:25-30 that El did not begin to lose ground to YHWH at Bethel until Jeroboam II introduced YHWH to Bethel as a subordinate deity in the eighth century BCE.

This paper aims to clarify the relationship between the superficially similar direct object markers attested in Modern South Arabian, Ge'ez, Arabic, Aramaic, Samalian, Hebrew, and Phoenician. I argue that the direct object markers in Aramaic and the Canaanite languages derive from a single innovative form, which I reconstruct as *ʾayāt-. I further claim that the remaining forms are unrelated.

Abstract Although scholars have generally treated Ugaritic ltn as a cognate of Hebrew liwyātān, the vocalization of this word and its relationship to the Hebrew form remain debated. In this article, we will argue that ltn should be vocalized /lītan-/ and that Ugaritic ltn and Hebrew liwyātān derive from Proto-Northwest Semitic *lawiy-(a)t-an- through a series of attested sound changes. We will also discuss the morphology of *lawiy-(a)t-an- and the syntax of the Northwest Semitic formula *lawiy(a)tanu baṯnu barīḥu ... baṯnu ʕaqallatānu \"Leviathan, the fleeing serpent ... the twisting serpent\" found in KTU 1.5 i 1-3 and Isa 27:1.

One of the sub-branches of Central Semitic, Northwest Semitic, contains a number of languages with no established hierarchical relation among them: Ugaritic, Aramaic, Canaanite, Deir Alla, and Samalian. Over the years, scholars have attempted to establish a more accurate sub-branching for Northwest Semitic or to suggest a different genetic affiliation for some languages, usually Ugaritic. In this paper, we will argue that Aramaic and Canaanite share a direct ancestor, on the basis of a number of morphosyntactic features: the fs demonstrative ∗ðaˀt, the direct object marker ∗ˀayāt, the development of dative subjects with adjectival predicates, the use of the construct state with prepositions, the G imperfect inflection of geminate verbs, and the plural form of *bayt. We will also address arguments that Ugaritic is a Canaanite dialect, or that Canaanite and Ugaritic are more closely related. This proposal not only outlines a more coherent family tree for Northwest Semitic, but also accounts for numerous “Aramaic”-like features in some Canaanite dialects, primarily Biblical Hebrew, which have thus far been treated as the result of language contact in the early Iron Age.

According to a common scholarly model of Israelite religion, the deity El disappears under a rising tide of Yahwism sometime in the early monarchic period. In this article, by contrast, I use several texts preserved in the Jacob cycle to argue that El remained a distinct deity at Bethel until at least the eighth century BCE and possibly much later. I also argue on the basis of 1 Kgs 12:25–30 that El did not begin to lose ground to YHWH at Bethel until Jeroboam II introduced YHWH to Bethel as a subordinate deity in the eighth century BCE.

Although D. Petrovich's recent book The World's Oldest Alphabet: Hebrew as the Language of the Proto-Consonantal Script advances several claims about the origin of the alphabet and biblical history, its main arguments are linguistic. In particular, Petrovich identifies the language of the early alphabetic inscriptions as Hebrew as part of a larger argument for the historicity of the biblical Exodus tradition. In this review essay, I will summarize and critique Petrovich's linguistic arguments. Along the way, I will consider two important questions in the classification of the Canaanite languages.

Abstract Both the role of the deity (El) Shadday in the religions of ancient Israel and the etymology of the name šadday remain poorly understood. In this article, I will propose a new etymology for the name šadday and then leverage this etymology into a better understanding of (El) Shadday's character. I argue that šadday is a nomen agentis from the root sdy 'to help' and originated as an epithet of the deity El, which highlighted his benevolent qualities. A comparison of El in the Ugaritic epics and El Shadday in the Priestly Source (P) suggests that El Shadday was thought to help his worshippers by providing them with children. El Shadday thus represents one way in which the deity El survived in the religions of ancient Israel.

In this paper, I argue that the Semitic kinship terms *ʔab-‘father’, *ʔaḫ- ‘brother’, and *ḥam- ‘father-in-law’ originally ended in a w, which left traces in several of their forms. In the singular, the w contracted with the case vowels leaving a distinctive pattern of short and long vowels in the unbound, bound, and suffixal forms. In the plural, the w was retained in several languages due to the insertion of an a-vowel between the final two root consonants, a common Afro-Asiatic pluralization strategy: *ʔabw- > *ʔabaw. I further suggest that the West Semitic plural morpheme -aw was derived by analogy with the plurals *ʔabaw and *ʔaḫaw, and is not, as commonly suggested, an inherited Semitic or Afro-Asiatic plural marker.

Scholars have often noted YHWH's apparent absence from the Song of Songs. At best, he appears under the name Yah in the difficult and morphologically frozen term שלהבתיה in Song 8:6. In this article, I go beyond שלהבתיה to suggest that love plays the role of YHWH in the Song. Using Calvert Watkins's work on inherited formulae, I argue that Song 8:6b–7a draws on the Northwest Semitic combat myth to identify love with YHWH, the victorious divine warrior. As part of this argument, I identify three inherited formulae in the Hebrew Bible, the Baal Cycle, and later Christian and Jewish literature: “Leviathan, the fleeing serpent, the twisting serpent,” “rebuke Sea,” and “strong as Death.” Within the Song, the phrase “strong as Death” connects this passage with the Baal Cycle, while the references to מים רבים and נהרות evoke scenes of mythic combat from the rest of the Hebrew Bible. This interpretation, I argue, also has mythic resonances in the adjuration refrain in Song 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4 and the phrase “sick with love” in Song 2:5 and 5:8.