A Reassessment of Asherah: With Further Considerations of the Goddess 9781463213343

Citation preview

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

GORGIAS UGARITIC STUDIES 2 General Editor N. Wyatt

A Reassessment of Asherah With Further Considerations of the Goddess

STEVE A. WIGGINS

GORGIAS PRESS 2007

First Gorgias Press Edition, 2007 Copyright © 2007 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN 978-1-59333-717-9 ISSN 1935-388X

GORGIAS PRESS 46 Orris Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA www.gorgiaspress.com Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wiggins, Steve A. A reassessment of Asherah : with further considerations of the goddess / Steve A. Wiggins. -- 1st Gorgias Press ed. p. cm. -- (Gorgias ugaritic studies, ISSN 1935-388X ; 2) ISBN 978-1-59333-717-9 (alk. paper) 1. Asherah (Semitic deity) 2. Asherah (Semitic deity)--Biblical teaching. 3. Asherahs (Jewish liturgical objects) I. Title. BL1605.A7W54 2007 299'.2--dc22 2007036338

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents....................................................................................................v Preface to the Second Edition..............................................................................xi Preface to the 1993 Edition .................................................................................xv Acknowledgments ...............................................................................................xvii Abbreviations ........................................................................................................xxi 1 Preliminary Considerations and Review of Previous Scholarship..........1 Introduction ....................................................................................................1 Method .............................................................................................................3 The Primacy of the Ugaritic Information on Athirat ...............................4 Review of the State of Scholarship..............................................................7 M. B. Brink ....................................................................................................10 W. Louie.........................................................................................................13 V. L. Piper......................................................................................................15 J. M. Hadley...................................................................................................16 M. S. Smith ....................................................................................................17 M. Dietrich and O. Loretz ..........................................................................19 Iconography ..................................................................................................22 2 Athirat in the Elimelek Tablets of Ugarit .................................................25 Keret ( KTU 1.14-1.16)................................................................................25 The Baal Cycle (KTU 1.1-6)........................................................................33 Baal and Yam ................................................................................................34 The Palace of Baal........................................................................................42 Baal and Mot .................................................................................................75 Conclusions ...................................................................................................83 3 Other Ugaritic Texts Referring to Athirat................................................85 Shachar and Shalim and Mythological Fragments ..................................86 Shachar and Shalim (KTU 1.23) .................................................................86 KTU 1.8..........................................................................................................92 KTU 1.12........................................................................................................92 KTU 1.114......................................................................................................94 v

vi

4

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH RIH 78/20 .....................................................................................................96 Texts associated with Ritual........................................................................98 KTU 1.39........................................................................................................98 KTU 1.41 and 1.87 .......................................................................................99 KTU 1.46 and 1.65 .....................................................................................101 KTU 1.49......................................................................................................102 KTU 1.112....................................................................................................102 KTU 1.47, 1.118 and 1.148........................................................................103 Conclusions .................................................................................................103 Old Testament Asherah ............................................................................105 Preliminary Considerations.......................................................................105 The Pentateuch ...........................................................................................113 Exodus 34.13...............................................................................................113 Deuteronomy 7.5........................................................................................114 Deuteronomy 12.3 .....................................................................................115 Deuteronomy 16.21 ...................................................................................116 The Deuteronomistic History: Judges ....................................................118 Judges 3.7.....................................................................................................118 Judges 6. 25-30............................................................................................118 The Deuteronomistic History: Kings......................................................122 1 Kings 14.15 ..............................................................................................123 1 Kings 14.23 ..............................................................................................124 1 Kings 15.13 // 2 Chronicles 15.16.......................................................124 1 Kings 16.33 ..............................................................................................127 1 Kings 18.19 ..............................................................................................127 2 Kings 13.6.................................................................................................129 2 Kings 17.10 ..............................................................................................129 2 Kings 17.16 ..............................................................................................130 2 Kings 18.4.................................................................................................130 2 Kings 21.3.................................................................................................132 2 Kings 21.7.................................................................................................133 Josiah’s Reform: 2 Kings 23.4–15............................................................134 Summary of the Deuteronomistic References.......................................137 The Chronicler’s References.....................................................................138 2 Chronicles 14.2 (Eng. 3).........................................................................139 2 Chronicles 15.16......................................................................................140 2 Chronicles 17.6 ........................................................................................140 2 Chronicles 19.3 ........................................................................................141 2 Chronicles 24.18......................................................................................141 2 Chronicles 31.1 ........................................................................................141

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5

vii

2 Chronicles 33.3 ........................................................................................142 2 Chronicles 33.19......................................................................................142 2 Chronicles 34.3, 4 and 7.........................................................................143 The Prophetic References.........................................................................144 Isaiah 17.8 ....................................................................................................144 Isaiah 27.9 ....................................................................................................145 Jeremiah 17.2...............................................................................................146 Micah 5.13 (Eng. 14)..................................................................................146 Rabbinic Sources ........................................................................................148 Conclusions .................................................................................................149 Mesopotamian, Hittite and South Arabian Evidence...........................151 Sumero-Akkadian Evidence .....................................................................152 Sumerian Votive Inscription.....................................................................155 God Lists .....................................................................................................159 AN = Anum.................................................................................................159 The Weidner List........................................................................................160 Nippur God List (CBS 13889) .................................................................161 The Series Tintir = Bābilu.........................................................................162 Cylinder Seals ..............................................................................................163 Ritual Texts..................................................................................................164 The Uruk Temple Ritual ...........................................................................164 The Reisner Texts.......................................................................................165 Mystical Text (B.M. 34035).......................................................................166 Theophoric Names ....................................................................................168 The Marriage of Martu ..............................................................................169 The Taanach Letter ....................................................................................170 Conclusions from the Sumero-Akkadian Materials ..............................171 The Hittite Evidence: The Myth of Elkunirsa.......................................172 Epigraphic South Arabian Sources..........................................................175 RES 856 .......................................................................................................177 RES 2886.....................................................................................................178 RES 3306.....................................................................................................179 RES 3534 B and RES 3550 ......................................................................180 RES 3534 bis...............................................................................................181 RES 3689.....................................................................................................181 RES 3691 and RES 3692 ..........................................................................182 RES 3902, pl. xiii, fig. 5, 1.........................................................................182 RES 4203.....................................................................................................182 RES 4274.....................................................................................................183 RES 4330.....................................................................................................183

viii

6

7

8

9

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH Jamme 852 ...................................................................................................183 Theophoric Names ....................................................................................185 Conclusions from the Ancient South Arabian Evidence.....................186 Conclusions to the Chapter ......................................................................186 Hebrew, Phoenician and Aramaic Epigraphic Evidence ......................189 Khirbet el-Qôm ..........................................................................................190 Kuntillet ʿAjrûd...........................................................................................197 Tel Miqne.....................................................................................................208 Arslan Tash (TSSI 3, no. 23 = KAI 27) ..................................................209 Phoenician Inscriptions Mentioning ʾšrt.................................................212 Tema (TSSI 2, no. 30 = KAI 228) ...........................................................214 Sefire I,B ......................................................................................................215 Conclusions .................................................................................................215 Conclusions .................................................................................................217 Conclusions .................................................................................................217 Etymology....................................................................................................221 The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess .....................223 History of the Associations.......................................................................225 Qedeshet ......................................................................................................228 Tanit..............................................................................................................233 Conclusions .................................................................................................236 Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions..................239 Introduction ................................................................................................239 Biblical Asherahs ........................................................................................243 Verbal Evidence..........................................................................................245 trk..............................................................................................................245 (dg ..............................................................................................................246 Pr#&, r(b, (+n and #$tn ........................................................................247 Deut 16.21 ...................................................................................................248 Mic 5.13 (14)................................................................................................250 Summary ......................................................................................................251 Nominal Evidence......................................................................................251 Summary ......................................................................................................252 BiblicalTree Worship .................................................................................253 Isa 44.14-17 .................................................................................................254 Ezek 20.32 ...................................................................................................256 Hab 2.19.......................................................................................................257 Hos 4.12.......................................................................................................257

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Gen 12.6.......................................................................................................259 Gen 21.33 ....................................................................................................260 Summary ......................................................................................................260 Extra-Biblical “Asherahs”.........................................................................261 Iconography ................................................................................................263 Summary ......................................................................................................268 Conclusions .................................................................................................268 10 Book Reviews..............................................................................................271 Asherah Again: T. Binger’s Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies .................................................................................................271 The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess .................................................................................................278 Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel ......281 Figures ...................................................................................................................285 Bibliography .........................................................................................................291 Index......................................................................................................................361

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION In the fifteen years since the initial publication of my book other research projects and unexpected career changes have intervened to prevent a fully revised second edition, as had been my hope. Negotiations for a reprint began, unsuccessfully, many years ago when colleagues asked about the availability of the book. It had gone out of print and acquiring the rights to reprint it were bogged down with international complications. Now that the issues have been happily resolved, I look with shock on the dated first brush I took at a complex and growing area of study. Even my continuing bibliography seems dated! So it is that I feel the need to explain to readers what this book is and what it is not. It is a retypeset edition of my 1993 book with no changes in the text except corrections of typographical errors and the convention of presenting questionable letters of ancient texts in Roman versus Italic type, rather than using the cumbersome astrixes, as in the first edition. The reasons for this decision were numerous, but mainly it was to honor the request of my colleagues for the text of the original book to be made available again. A number of items I would have readily changed—foremost among them would have been the substituting of “Hebrew Bible” for the “Old Testament” that now strikes my eye as entirely biased. As it stands, however, this volume may be quoted exactly as the first edition was with the only difference being reflected in the page numbers. Also insurmountable at this juncture is the factor of the time required to make a full revision. No longer in the traditional academic world with its sabbaticals and resources for serious research, I find myself without access to research libraries or the time to undertake a serious revision. A further reason for not changing the text, as well as a kind of solace in reprinting it, is that my main contribution, as I understood it, was to provide a kind of comprehensive “laundry list” of ancient West Asian references to Asherah and reasonable interpretations of those references. It was my contention then, and it remains my firm conviction now, that a clear picture of Asherah cannot be had without giving priority to the Ugaritic material on the goddess. In the numerous studies that have appeared on the goddess since my xi

xii

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1993 contribution, none has yet undertaken a thorough reassessment of the Ugaritic material, the substance of my original work. I never believed my first book was the final word on Asherah at Ugarit, but to date it remains the most thorough exploration of the subject. Another purpose of the original book was to be a comprehensive reference for prior studies on the goddess. In this regard, as a period piece, it still stands. I have updated the bibliography in this edition, but given the constraints on resources, it can no longer claim to be comprehensive. In order to make the second edition more useful to the reader on Asherah, I have added three chapters. These chapters are retypeset articles I had previously published on the goddess. They will admittedly make for a little unevenness in the flow of the text, but they are consistent with the conclusions offered in chapter 7 and take the discussion forward in important areas not addressed in the first edition of the book. Chapter 8, “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,” was originally published in UF 23 (1991) and was an excerpt from the original research that went into the dissertation. It was an initial attempt to deal with the issues of iconography and the dangers associated with hastily adding associations to Asherah based on uncertain referents. Chapter 9, “Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions,” was published in JANER 1 (2001). This article deals with the thorny issue of Asherah as a “tree goddess.” The final chapter contains three book reviews on more recent publications on Asherah, those of Tilde Binger, Judith Hadley, and William Dever. These reviews attempt to add to the bibliography of the goddess and to underscore what I have written above, that the final word on Asherah has not yet been uttered. The issue of a comprehensive bibliography is a torch that must be passed to a scholar of Asherah who has ready access to obscure sources and the time to collate them. Ugaritic studies have continued to grow in the publication of numerous editions of UF, RSO, the publication of Nick Wyatt and Wilfred Watson’s Handbook of Ugaritic Studies, my colleague Mark S. Smith’s continuing encyclopedic works on the Baal Cycle and text 23, just to scratch the surface. Being in no position to keep up with the field, it is my hope that someone will continue the task of documenting this fascinating goddess and the literature surrounding her for the future. Internet sources, which were simply not available when I began this project, have added an entirely new dimension to the studies of Asherah. It seems quite clear that Asherah has become a permanent fixture in the modern assessment of the worship of ancient Israel (see the most recent works by Day, Dever, Miller, and Zevit, for example, in the bibliography

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

xiii

below). She will be revisited and reformulated many more times, I am sure. What I am offering is not new or novel, just a few observations that I believe continue to add to the discussion of this most intriguing goddess. Steve A. Wiggins August 2007

PREFACE TO THE 1993 EDITION This monograph began its life as a doctoral dissertation at the University of Edinburgh. Its original title was Athirat, Asherah, Ashratu: A Reassessment According to the Textual Sources. My approach, as the title indicates, reconsidered the evidence which has been used to build the current image of “Asherah”. As sources continued to appear during the course of my research, it became obvious that many scholars were interested in this particular goddess. It also became obvious that many of the foundations upon which many of the studies were built had remained unquestioned for decades. Judging from the amount of information currently being published on “Asherah”, it will only become more difficult to sort through all of the sources in future. Even since the initial submission of my dissertation major studies bearing on “Asherah” have been published (primarily “Jahwe und seine Aschera” Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz and Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen by O. Keel and C. Uehlinger). No doubt additional advanced studies will continue to appear. In the midst of this flurry of information, I have suggested a measure of caution. I have approached the subject from a very basic level: the primary source material on “Asherah” of the first two millennia B.C.E. In my research I found that many unsubstantiated assumptions had been made long ago, and have since remained essentially unchallenged. What I have attempted below is a basic re-evaluation. This work is not intended to be the “final word” on “Asherah”. Indeed, there are many aspects of religious studies where “Asherah” has an impact which lie outside the scope of this dissertation. It is hoped that future studies on this goddess, if this work is consulted, will consider that many previous assertions remain yet to be proven. Dogmatism, in any case, must be avoided. The Hebrew Text upon which the translations are based is that of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Ugaritic texts are cited according to the numbering xv

xvi

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

of KTU, unless no such numbering is yet available. All translations, unless otherwise noted, are my own. Steve A. Wiggins Nashotah, Wisconsin January 1993

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the years since the initial publication of this book, many of the names and situations of the supporting cast have changed. I would like to add to my initial list my personal thanks to George A. Kiraz of Gorgias Press for proactively acquiring the necessary rights to reprint my 1993 book. My thanks also go out to Profs. Dietrich and Loretz, editors of AOAT, for graciously allowing for this reprint. Also, to the original rights holders of the articles that constitute chapters 8–10 I owe a debt of gratitude: again to Profs. Dietrich and Loretz of Ugarit-Verlag for allowing me to reuse my article in UF 23, E. J. Brill for allowing me to reprint my article from JANER 1, Dr. Izak Cornelius for seeing to the permission to reprint my review article of T. Binger’s book from JNSL 24, Dr. Trina Arpin of BASOR for the same role in my review of J. Hadley’s book, and Dr. Ehud Ben Zvi for allowing me to reproduce my review of W. Dever’s work originally published in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures. Nick Wyatt has become a friend as well as a mentor, and his encouragement throughout my career has meant more than I am able to express. I thank him for providing a place in Gorgias Ugaritic Studies for this volume. In addition to my continuing gratitude to the many people listed in my original acknowledgements below, I would add the following: Neal Walls of Wake Forest University, Wayne Pitard of the University of Illinois, Theodore Lewis of Johns Hopkins University, and Mark S. Smith of New York University have been unstinting in their support over the years. Neal and Wayne especially have gone out of their way to ensure that I did not fall between the cracks in the academic floor. Simon Parker, prior to his untimely death, had become a great source of encouragement to me. Jeff Lloyd has remained a constant friend through significant challenges we have both had to face. My brother-in-law, Neal Stephenson, has been the backbone for my continuing academic work more than once. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the able help of Felix Ng in the preparation of the illustrations and Ugaritic characters that appear in chapters 2 and 3 and the Egyptian characters in chapter 8. His attention to detail is evident in the results.

xvii

xviii

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Kay has continued to believe in me even when I had given up, and our daughter Kietra has been a source of unfailing joy since becoming part of our family. It is to the two of them that I dedicate this second edition. [Acknowledgements from 1993 edition] My first debt of gratitude belongs to my wife, Kay Stephenson. Not only did she put aside her own academic ambitions so that I could pursue mine, she enthusiastically agreed to move abroad for three years after only four months of marriage. She has supported me financially and intellectually during the course of my work, listened whilst I rambled on about my dissertation, and even proofread the manuscript. Her help in translating French materials made a difficult task enjoyable. It is to her that I dedicate this work; my debt to her is greater than I am able to reflect here. I wish to acknowledge the guidance of Prof. J. C. L. Gibson and Dr. N. Wyatt throughout my studies at Edinburgh. Their accessibility and hospitality have been exemplary. I thank Dr. W. G. E. Watson, who as my external examiner, directed me to additional important sources at my defence. The staff of New College Library were always friendly and in many cases went beyond the call of duty to locate obscure sources for me. Further notes of thanks are due to Dr. T. Watkins of the Archaeology Department for sparing some of his time to teach several of us the basics of Akkadian. Also concerning the Mesopotamian material I would have been remiss were it not for the kindly assistance of Dr. S. Dalley of Oxford and Prof. W. G. Lambert of Birmingham. They both have supplied me with materials and information. Prof. Lambert read a rough draft of my Mesopotamian material and made many sharp and helpful criticisms. My thanks also to Dr. S. B. Parker of Boston University for supplying offprints and his willingness to share some ideas with me. Dr. Mayer Gruber of Ben-Gurion University has been most generous in the exchange of information and friendship. To Dr. J. Hadley, who sent me a source which was otherwise unavailable, and to the many scholars who kindly sent me offprints, I give my thanks. The late Dr. Harrell Beck of Boston University prompted me to begin this study; his friendship was much appreciated. To my colleague Jeffery Lloyd I owe thanks for many hours of stimulating discussion. Many debts of gratitude are due for the hospitality which he and his wife Carolyn extended to Kay and me as sojourners in a foreign land. I also acknowledge those institutions and individuals who made it possible to study at Edinburgh by their financial assistance. Edinburgh University offered a postgraduate studentship which supported me for three years. The Overseas Research Student Scheme Awards Committee likewise provided the extra funding required of an overseas student. Boston University

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xix

School of Theology provided the Edmund M. Beebe, William Jackson and Anna Worden Lowstuter, and Frank D. Howard fellowships which covered various expenses throughout my work. The generous assistance of Mrs. Lillian Shinkle has been offered throughout my academic life; I offer her a word of special thanks. To my parents my thanks for supporting me all along, and to my wife’s parents my gratitude for their support and their willingness to take care of matters in America whilst we were abroad. I would like to thank Professors M. Dietrich and O. Loretz for accepting this dissertation for publication in the series AOAT. They have been most patient whilst I completed the necessary revisions. Finally to the many people whose hospitality helped us get to Edinburgh, my profound gratitude. We can only hope to repay that debt in kind to future travellers.

ABBREVIATIONS AAAS = Les annales archéologiques arabes syriennes (Damascus) AAASH = Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Budapest) AB = Anchor Bible (Garden City, New York) ABD = Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday 1992) ABRL = Anchor Bible Reference Library series (Doubleday) ABS = Archaeology and Biblical Studies (ASOR and SBL series) AfK = Archiv für Keilschriftforschung (later AfO ) AfO = Archiv für Orientforschung (Horn, Austria, formerly AfK ) AHw = Akkadische Handwörterbuch (W. von Soden, editor) AJA = American Journal of Archaeology (Boston) AJBA = Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology (Sydney) AJSL = American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature (later JNES ) AnOr = Analecta Orientalia (Roma) ANEP = Ancient Near East in Pictures (J. Pritchard, editor) ANET = Ancient Near Eastern Texts (J. Pritchard, editor) AOAT = Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Kevelaer and NeukirchenVluyn) AOS = American Oriental Series (New Haven) ArOr = Archív Orientální (Prague) ARTU = An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (J. C. de Moor) ASORDS = American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series AuOr = Aula Orientalis (Barcelona) BA = Biblical Archaeologist (Baltimore) BAIAS = Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society BARev = Biblical Archaeology Review (Washington, D. C.) BASOR= Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research (Philadelphia) BASORSS = Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research Supplementary Studies BDB = F. Brown, S. Driver, C. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament BibOr = Biblica et Orientalia (Roma) BHH = Biblisch-Historische Handwörterbuch (B. Reicke and L. Rost, editors) BHS = Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BKAT = Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament (Neukirchen-Vluyn) xxi

xxii

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

B.M. = British Museum BN = Biblische Notizen (Bamburg) BSOAS = Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London) BZ = Biblische Zeitschrift (Paderborn) BZAW = Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttstamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin) CAD = Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (I. Gelb, et. al., eds.) CBQ = Catholic Bible Quarterly (Washington, D. C.) CBQMS = Catholic Bible Quarterly Monograph Series CML = Canaanite Myths and Legends (G. R. Driver, editor) CML2 = Canaanite Myths and Legends , second edition (J. C. L. Gibson, editor) CT = Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum CTA = Corpus tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques (A. Herdner, editor) EI = Eretz Israel (Jerusalem) ET = Expository Times (Edinburgh) ETR = Etudes théologiques et religieuses (Montpellier) ETSMS = Evangelical Theological Society Monograph Series GK = Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar HAR = Hebrew Annual Review (Columbus, Ohio) HR = History of Religions (Chicago) HS = Hebrew Studies (Madison, Wisconsin) HSM = Harvard Semitic Monographs (Harvard) HSS = Harvard Semitic Studies (Harvard) HTR = Harvard Theological Review (Harvard) HTS = Harvard Theological Studies (Harvard) HUCA = Hebrew Union College Annual (Cincinnati) ICC = International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh) IDB = Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (G. A. Buttrick, editor) IEJ = Israel Exploration Journal (Jerusalem) IMJ = Israel Museum Journal (Jerusalem) JANER = Journal of Near Eastern Religions (Leiden) JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven) JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature (Atlanta) JCS = Journal of Cuneiform Studies (Baltimore) JEOL = Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux JEA = Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (London) JFSR = Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion (Atlanta) JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago, formerly AJSL) JNSL = Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages (Stellenbosch)

ABBREVIATIONS

xxiii

JQR = Jewish Quarterly Review (Philadelphia) JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (London) JSOT = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (Sheffield) JSOTS = Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements Series JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies (Manchester) JTS = Journal of Theological Studies (Oxford) KAI = Kanaanäische und Aramäische Inschriften (H. Donner and W. Röllig, editors) KTU = Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit (M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Samartín, editors) LXX = Septuagint MANE = Monographs on the Ancient Near East (Leiden) MIO = Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung (Berlin) MLC = Mitos y Leyendas de Canaan (G. del Olmo Lete) MT = Masoretic Text MUSJ = Mélanges de l’Université St. Joseph (Beyrouth) NCBC = New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids and London) NIC = New International Commentary (London) OBO = Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis (Göttingen and Freiburg) OIP = Oriental Institute Publications (University of Chicago) OLP = Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica (Leuven) OTL = Old Testament Library (London) OTS = Oudtestamentische Studien (Leiden) PEQ = Palestine Exploration Quarterly (London, Jerusalem) PIBI = Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Institute PLMU = Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit (C. Gordon) PSBA = Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archœology (London) QDAP = Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine RA = Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale (Nendeln/Liechtenstein) RB = Revue Biblique (Paris) RES = Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique (8 volumes, Paris) RHA = Revue Hittite et Asianique (Paris) RHR = Revue de l’histoire des religions (Paris) RIH = Ras Ibn Hani RLA = Reallexikon der Assyriologie (Berlin, vol. 1 = 1932, vol. 2 = 1938, vol. 3 = 1957–1971, vol. 4 = 1972–1975, vol. 5 = 1976–1980, vol. 6 = 1980–1983) RSO = Ras-Shamra Ougarit (Paris) RSO = Rivista degli Studi Orientali (Rome) RSP = Ras Shamra Parallels (L. Fisher and S. Rummel, editors)

xxiv

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

SBL = Society of Biblical Literature (Atlanta) SBLDS = SBL Dissertation Series SBLMS = SBL Monograph Series SBLRBS = SBL Resources for Biblical Study SBLWAW = SBL Writings from the Ancient World SEÅ = Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok (Lund) SEL = Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici (Verona) SJOT = Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament (Aarhus, Denmark) SOTSMS = Society of Old Testament Study Monograph Series SR = Studies in Religion = Sciences Religieuses (Waterloo, Ontario) SSR = Studi Storico Religiosi StTh = Studia Theologica (Copenhagen) SVT = Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (Leiden) TDOT = Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, editors) ThSt = Theological Studies (Baltimore) TO = Textes ougaritiques (A. Caquot, M. Sznycer, and A. Herdner, editors) TO2 = Textes ougaritiques, vol. 2 (A. Caquot, J.-M. de Tarragon, and J.-L. Cunchillos, editors) TSSI = Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (J. C. L. Gibson, 3 vols.) TWAT = Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament (Stuttgart) TZ = Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) UBL = Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur (München) UF = Ugarit Forschungen (Neukirchen-Vluyn) Ug = Ugaritica (Paris) UUÅ = Uppsala Unviversitets Årsskrift (Uppsala) UL = Ugaritic Literature (C. Gordon) UT = Ugaritic Textbook (C. Gordon) VAT = Tablets in the collection of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin VT = Vetus Testamentum (Leiden) WBC = Word Bible Commentary (Waco) WUS = Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache (J. Aistleitner, editor) YBT = Yale Oriental Series Babylonian Texts (New Haven) YOS = Yale Oriental Series Researches (New Haven) ZA = Zeitschrift für Assyriologie (Weimar, formerly ZK, Leipzig) ZAW = Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin and New York) ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft (Wiesbaden) ZDPV = Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (Leipzig) ZK = Zeitschrift für Keilschriftforschung und verwendte Gebeite (later ZA)

1 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS AND REVIEW OF PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP INTRODUCTION An examination of recent literature on ancient Near Eastern religion reveals an ever-expanding collection of dissertations, books and articles pertaining to Asherah; even since the primary completion of this dissertation new books have continued to appear. In the light of this recent proliferation of secondary material, the writing of another book concerning Asherah appears to require some justification. Much of the recently discovered archaeological material has already been discussed in great detail. Textual references from Ugarit, Mesopotamia and the various epigraphic sources have already been added to the Old Testament material on Asherah. In many of the recent works, we are presented with a large, and still expanding, portrait of the goddess. Her commonly accepted iconographic features add even further detail to this picture.1 To all appearances, Asherah is the most fully documented goddess in West Semitic pantheons: is another monograph concerning her necessary? I think it is, but I believe such a discussion must look at the issue from firmly set parameters. As the title of this work implies, the following is a reassessment of the ancient Near Eastern textual materials concerning the goddess, or goddesses, Athirat, Asherah and Ashratu. In order to emphasize the different cultures in which these goddesses appear, I shall use the form of her name as it is found in the relevant sources in the respective sections. Most recent scholarly studies have presupposed that the same goddess was delineated in the various texts from different cultures in the ancient Near East. The link connecting chronological and geographical distances is the common name “Asherah”, often noted as also occuring in the forms “Athirat” and “Ashratu”. Fairly early in the history of the study of this character, however, K.H. Bernhardt expressed doubts that Ugaritic Athirat and Old Testament Asherah had anything at all in common: 1 I have considered some of these iconographic associations in “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess” UF 23 (1991): 383–394.

1

2

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH dann wäre dazu zu bemerken, daß eine Verwandlung der älteren Meeresgöttin Ascherat in die jüngere Baumgöttin Aschera niemals stattgefunden hat. Die beiden Göttinnen haben nichts miteinander zu tun.2

His early study of the issue provides a question to be kept in mind throughout this dissertation: is “Asherah” to be identified as the same goddess in all of the cultures in which she appears? Most scholars since Bernhardt, however, have not been detained by doubts of Asherah’s identification with Athirat, and on the whole I agree with them. Too much caution would stifle any hopes of discerning the nature of this fascinating goddess. What I am presenting here is a contextual approach which relies heavily upon the Ugaritic material, but which also seeks evidence for common characteristics between this goddess and those of the same name in different cultures. At the outset it must be emphasized that, outside of Ugarit, the information pertaining to Athirat is scanty. A goddess with the name Ashratu appears in ancient Mesopotamian sources beginning in the Old Babylonian period (references begin in the early centuries of the second millennium). References continue into the time of the ancient South Arabian realm of Qataban (one of the four local regions united in the fourth century C.E.). If a goddess of the same nature and character is present in the “Asherahs” of other cultures, this should become evident when she is viewed in the light of Ugaritic Athirat. As assumed in past scholarship, the common name of “Asherah” provides a link between these various figures. Since Mesopotamian Ashratu appears to be a West Semitic goddess in origin, there is no reason to doubt that she developed from the same original character as Athirat. The Old Testament refers to a cultic object (and possibly a goddess) called the asherah. The proximity in geographical space and in time3 between the end of the Ugaritic civilisation and the early Old Testament literature allows for a possible connection here as well. The question is: did these deities develop in the same manner? To date, we possess no written mythology from the Amorites in West Semitic regions which refers to Athirat. We may attempt to discern the original characteristics of this goddess, but without the writ2 “Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament” MIO 13 (1967): 174. See also K. Koch, “Aschera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem” UF 20 (1988): 106–107. 3 See P. James, I. J. Thorpe, N. Kokkinos, R. Morkot and J. Frankish, Centuries of Darkness, a Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology, London, 1991. If their theory is correct, the difference in time between Ugarit and the Old Testament would be considerably shortened.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

3

ten evidence from the earliest sources, our proposals must remain hypothetical. What we may observe, however, is how she developed in each of the cultures where she appears. Past studies have attempted to gather the diverse evidence and produce a larger picture of the goddess. I am approaching the issue from a different perspective. “Asherah” developed differently in different cultures. By observing her characteristics in each context, we may be able to determine her essential nature.

METHOD I begin from the assumption that the primary locus of information pertaining to the character of Athirat is the corpus of Ugaritic tablets. Chapters two and three of this book are based on a thorough examination of the Ugaritic material which refers to Athirat. Chapter two will determine the essential nature and characteristics of Athirat by a close examination of the mythological texts of Elimelek.4 In order to facilitate a more complete understanding of the Ugaritic materials, chapter three will take into consideration the tablets not ascribed to Elimelek, including mythological-ritual texts, fragments and lists. These chapters are followed by investigations of other written sources which refer to Asherah, Ashratu, Ashertu, and Asherat,5 in the Old Testament, Mesopotamian, Hittite and inscriptional sources respectively. In these chapters I shall attempt to discern the character and nature of the goddesses mentioned, according to the individual sources. The Old Testament contains various forms of the word hr#$) forty times. In chapter four, I shall examine each reference separately, considering textual difficulties and re-examining the deuteronomistic impact on these verses.6 The question of the existence of a goddess Asherah in the Old Testament will be addressed. Primarily the Old Testament speaks of a cultic object, which I shall designate as “the asherah”. The references to a goddess (designated as “Asherah”) are not straightforward, but they appear nevertheless. Chapter When I vocalise proper names in the Ugaritic chapters I shall follow the vocalisations as found in J. C. L. Gibson’s CML2, unless otherwise noted. 5Even within these categories the name of the goddess is found with variant spellings; this is true of the Old Testament, Mesopotamian and Hittite references, on which see below. 6The works of T. Yamashita (The Goddess Asherah, Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, 1963) and S. M. Olyan (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34), Atlanta, 1988) stress the deuteronomistic influence on all of the Old Testament references. 4

4

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

five is concerned with further textual references to goddesses with names that are possible equivalents to Athirat according to normal phonetic rules.7 These include a summary of published Sumerian and Akkadian documents which refer to Ashratu, a brief exploration of the Hittite version of the Canaanite Elkunirsa8 myth, and a reconsideration of the epigraphic South Arabian materials. In each of these sections the question of the goddess’s relationship to Ugaritic Athirat will be explored. Chapter six considers the remaining ancient Near Eastern epigraphic references to Asherat. I have intentionally left the Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions until the other substantial sources concerning the goddess have been considered. The primary reason for this organisation is the ambiguity of these and the other published inscriptions. In most cases it is debatable whether or not a goddess is intended in these inscriptions. When this process of contextual examination is completed, we shall be better able to observe the similarities and differences between these goddesses.

THE PRIMACY OF THE UGARITIC INFORMATION ON ATHIRAT Since the discovery of Ugarit, many diverse interpretations of the mythological tablets found there have appeared. In some attempts to explain the stories, the nature and character of mythology have been overlooked. The various interpretations are perhaps encouraged by the fragmented state of many of the texts, which may support more than one theory. Some attempts at mythological interpretations reveal that Ugaritic characters are at times understood as if they were the amplification of the worst aspects of human nature.9 These difficulties are perhaps the result of a basic misun7The

studies of each of the cultures represented in chapter five have occupied many scholars for many years, thus a full sketch of any of them is beyond the scope of this study. Although the material concerning Mesopotamian Ashratu, “Hittite” Ashertu and South Arabian Athirat is sparse, I believe it is necessary to explore it for a more complete record of the goddesses under study. Lacking specialisation in these disciplines, I have relied more heavily upon the opinions of recognised specialists in these fields in chapter five. 8In the section on the Hittite version of this myth, I will vocalise the proper names as found in H. A. Hoffner's “The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered” RHA 76 (1965): 5–16. 9See, for example U. Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Baʿal in Canaanite Religion (Supplementa ad Numen), Leiden, 1969: xi; and L. Bronner, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics against Baal Worship (Pretoria Oriental Series 6), Leiden, 1968: 2.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

5

derstanding of mythology. An examination of the Ugaritic mythology reveals characters with various consistent traits which distinguish them from other characters. It is the nature of myths to convey messages through stories. Strict adherence to logical story lines throughout the corpus is not a criterion of the medium of mythology. There are indeed characters with recognisable attributes, but there are also scenarios between myths which may contradict each other. Mythology does not disparage such inconsistencies; the avoidance of them is a modern problem. When a twentieth century reader attempts to force the texts into a consistent story line, he or she is following the method of a modern historian or novelist, not that of an ancient storyteller. A reasoned approach to ancient religious texts, however, may avoid uncharacteristic, and perhaps uncharitable, interpretations of their mythology. Much damage has been done in the past by gathering small pieces of information from various myths in different cultures, and putting them together to clarify an ambiguous mythological situation. The elements of genre and context are violated by such methods. In order to determine the meaning of a myth, we need first to determine the contexts in which we shall search for evidence. In the case of Athirat, it is essential to realise that the primary source of information concerning her nature and character is the mythology of Ugarit. Only in Ugarit does Athirat appear as an active character in a large body of ancient literature. All other sources provide fragmentary information which needs to be considered in the light of the Ugaritic material. Initially I shall examine the role of Athirat in the myths in which she participates. Even among these passages, we should not expect to find strict, cross-mythical continuity. My first basic division of the Ugaritic texts will be the myths written by Elimelek. Even within the context of the Elimelek’s Ugaritic mythology, it is necessary to determine smaller contexts. Within the Elimelek material, Athirat’s primary activity occurs in the Baal Cycle ( KTU 1.1-6). She also plays a significant role in the story of Keret ( KTU 1.14-16). She does not appear in Aqhat. In the myths not written by Elimelek, her name is mentioned in Shachar and Shalim ( KTU 1.23). These smaller units will be individually considered in the course of this investigation. Of primary importance will be Athirat’s character within the story lines of the individual myths. The name of a particular deity must have carried some connotations of the character of that specific divinity to an an-

6

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

cient listener.10 My method of isolating the various mythological stories from each other should facilitate the determination of some of the essential characteristics of Athirat. Once the essential characteristics of Athirat have been distilled from each of the myths in which she appears, it may then be possible to determine which elements of her divine nature cohere throughout. My study also works with another presupposition; namely, that it is more important to discern the ideology of mythological texts than to attempt to uncover their logic. In this sense it may be possible to find a “theology” in the ancient mythological texts.11 Mythology tends to reflect aspects of reality. Is the reality behind the myth political reality, or an aspect of nature, or even the essence of an abstract idea? These are the kinds of question which reflect the nature of ancient Near Eastern myths. Although the answers to such questions are often beyond our grasp, they emphasize that a proper starting point requires the asking of the right questions. Right questions are those which take the nature of mythology into account. By way of example, a common hypothesis reflecting an un-mythological question is that Athirat and El lived apart because of El’s alleged impotence.12 If the texts required this interpretation it presumably would have had some importance for Ugaritic religion. Instead, if we trace the individual elements which are used to support this hypothesis to their origins, the actual nature of the mythology appears. The evidence comes from three separate aspects of Ugaritic myths: 1) El lives at “the source of the rivers, in the midst of the confluence of the two deeps” ( 10This idea also applies to the iconography of various deities, as noted by R. D. Barnett: “The object of priests and kings must surely have been to ensure that the better educated worshipper would usually recognise the gods whom they were worshipping: and this could only be by their dress and appearance, (indicating sex, age and status), insignia and emblems (indicating powers and function)—much as European mediaeval art does for the Christian saints” (“The Earliest Representation of ʿAnath” EI 14 (H. L. Ginsberg Volume, 1978): 28*). 11For an examination of what he calls the theology of the Baal cycle, see J. C. L. Gibson, “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle” Orientalia 53 (N.S. 1984): 202– 219. See S. B. Parker, (“The Historical Composition of KRT and the cult of El” ZAW 89 (1977): 161–175) for an example of a literary approach to an Ugaritic myth which maintains the literary character of the text. 12See especially M. B. Brink, A Philological Study of Texts in Connection with Attart and Atirat in the Ugaritic Language, D. Litt. dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, 1977: 339.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

7

KTU 1.4.IV.21–22) whilst Athirat does not, 2) El lives so far from Athirat that she must ride an ass a considerable distance to see him ( KTU 1.4.IV.1– 19), and 3) that in text 23 two women supposedly participate in a ritual to overcome El’s alleged impotence. When these three separate elements are added together they produce the wrong kind of question (does Athirat live apart from El on account of his impotence?). Considered individually in the context of their mythological episodes they may be appropriately analysed as follows: 1) El lives at “the source of the rivers, in the midst of the confluence of the two deeps” as a sign of his primordial nature. This is an essential characteristic of the head of the pantheon: he is from the most ancient times; 2) Athirat rides a donkey as a sign of her status; Anat, when she accompanies Athirat, walks. El’s distance is characteristic of his greatness; 3) The interpretation of the scenario on the reverse of Shachar and Shalim is not certain. It is not even certain (or even likely!) that El is impotent, as both women in the text are impregnated by him ( KTU 1.23.51–52). Surely the correct method to interpret these scenes is to observe them in their own contexts. When such factors are analysed with an awareness of the ideology rather than a modern logic, they may be properly interpreted. The essential nature of the characters will appear when these two principles are observed. The context and the ideology provide a reliable indication of the character and nature of the mythological figures.

REVIEW OF THE STATE OF SCHOLARSHIP Much has been written on many aspects of the subject of “Asherah”. The first study after the discovery of Ugarit was a monograph written by W. Reed.13 Reed’s monograph was a revision of his 1942 dissertation, and its main area of concern was to determine the characteristics of the asherah in the Old Testament. The next major study to appear was that of T. Yamashita.14 Yamashita explored the Ugaritic texts further, as well as providing thorough chapters on the Mesopotamian and other extrabiblical evidence. During the 1970’s, a number of substantial works began to appear which delved into the questions of “Asherah”. Many of the volumes were at least partially triggered by the discovery of the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions by Z. Meshel in 1975–76. The voluminous 1977 dissertation by M. B. Brink, written more than a decade after that of Yamashita, was solely con-

13The 14The

Asherah in the Old Testament, Fort Worth, 1949. Goddess Asherah.

8

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

cerned with the Ugaritic material pertaining to Athirat and Athtart.15 A. L. Perlman’s dissertation was completed in the following year and also focused on the Ugaritic material concerning Athirat and Athtart.16 Her work, however, also included substantial conclusions concerning the asherah in the Old Testament. The following year a dissertation was completed by J. R. Engle.17 Engles’s primary concern was to determine the relationship of pillar figurines to the asherah mentioned in the Old Testament, although he also considered the extrabiblical materials. The 1980’s witnessed an even further increase in the secondary literature on the subject. W. A. Maier’s 1984 dissertation on Asherah was later published as a monograph.18 Rather than re-examine the issue of the asherah in the Old Testament, Maier explored the Ugaritic materials as well as various sources on other goddesses considered to be equivalents of Asherah in the ancient Near East. His work also took into account various iconographic representations and epithets believed to have been associated with her. The following year S. M. Olyan completed his dissertation; and his chapter on Asherah was subsequently published as a monograph.19 Olyan’s primary concern was with the Old Testament understanding of Asherah in the light of its Canaanite background. A dissertation by R. J. Pettey appeared in the same year as that of Olyan.20 Pettey was primarily concerned with determining a basic formula for the Old Testament references to Asherah, although he did include notes about other ancient Near Eastern sources. His dissertation has been recently published as a monograph.21 W. Louie was the next scholar to produce a dissertation on Asherah.22 In it he set out to determine the meaning of the word “asherah”, which took him through an overview of the Old Testament, rabbinic, epigraphic and literary sources. Louie also took an interest in the origin and role of Asherah in the 15A

Philological Study. and Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic Literature, Ph. D. dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1978. 17Pillar Figurines of Iron Age Israel and Asherah/Asherim, Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1979. 18ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta, 1986. 19Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh. 20Asherah: Goddess of Israel?, Ph. D. dissertation, Marquette University, 1985. 21R. J. Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel (American University Studies Series VII, Theology and Religion volume 74), New York, 1990. 22The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah in Old Testament Idolatry in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence, Th. D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1988. 16Asherah

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

9

various sources. In 1989 V. L. Piper submitted a dissertation on the phenomenon of tree worship.23 Her thesis draws on information concerning Asherah, but only minimally touches upon ancient Near Eastern materials. J. M. Hadley has recently added a dissertation on the subject of Asherah to the increasing list of studies.24 Hadley’s dissertation gives an informed review of the Old Testament references, but her forte is her thorough study of the Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions. In the current decade, M. S. Smith’s The Early History of God has been published.25 In this book, Smith considers the question of Asherah with a specific interest in Old Testament and Canaanite religion. Although his work is not completely dedicated to the problem of Asherah, it must be considered as an important resource and, therefore, it will be reviewed as well. Two books have recently appeared in German concerning goddesses in general, or Asherah in particular. A study by O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen26 is concerned with iconographic representations of goddesses (on which see below). The second major source is a monograph by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz entitled “Jahwe und seine Aschera” Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot.27 For reasons set forth below, I shall not address iconographic representations of Asherah at length; therefore, I shall not present a full account of the valuable source for that field by Keel and Uehlinger. I shall, however, consider the contribution of Dietrich and Loretz. The most up-to-date dissertation available on the material with which I am concerned is that of Hadley. In her first chapter Hadley offers a critical review of the works by Reed, Yamashita, Perlman, Engle, Olyan, Pettey, and Maier listed above.28 A further critical review of these works here 23Uprooting

Traditional Interpretation: a Consideration of Tree Worship in the Migrations of Abraham, Ph. D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1989. 24Yahweh’s Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery, Ph. D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1989. This dissertation is forthcoming in Cambridge University Press, Oriental Publications Series. 25The Early History of God, Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco, 1990. 26(Quaestiones Disputatae 134), Freiburg, Basel and Wein, 1992. 27(UBL 9), Münster, 1992. 28Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 24–55. Hadley also discusses the iconographic studies of Holland, Winter and Schroer (on which see below).

10

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

would be largely repetitious; therefore, I shall focus my following remarks on the studies not considered by Hadley. M. B. Brink The earliest work to be reviewed here, Brink’s 1977 University of Stellenbosch D. Litt. thesis, is a large work of 916 pages. The sheer volume of this work alone demands attention, and I shall begin my review of the relevant material with an examination of his approach to the Ugaritic material on Athirat. Initially it must be noted that, because of the date of Brink’s thesis, the valuable tools of Gibson’s CML2 and G. del Olmo Lete’s MLC were not available to him. At the outset, Brink declares that context will be the determining factor in his translation of the Ugaritic texts.29 Since his work deals specifically with the goddesses Athtart and Athirat, he undertakes to translate all texts with any mention of these two goddesses. Unfortunately, his arrangement of the texts seems to follow no set order, often jumping from a coherent unit (such as the Baal Cycle) to various fragmented texts, and back again. One major weakness of his approach is that his translations seem to be based not so much on the context as on the opinions of other scholars. His method of presenting a transliteration of the text, followed by his own translation, is given little credence when, for the justification of his translation, he refers almost exclusively to the opinions of other scholars and gives no philological explanation as to why one translation is better than any other. Initially, he explores each passage word by word until enough of the vocabulary is present to hone down the amount of space spent on each pericope. This adds much material to his thesis which is not entirely relevant. The results of his method are often confusing translations which make little sense. By way of example, his translation of KTU 1.114.14-23 reads: El sits near Atirat. El sits in his community house. El drinks wine until he is sated, sweet wine until he is drunk El goes to his house, he enters the court. He is supported by (a)brother(s), Tknm and Šnm and they approach stinker with horns on top and a rear which (he) pollutes/contaminates with excrement and urine. 29Philological

Study: 8.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

11

El, the god, falls like those who are made to descend in the netherworld. Anat and Attart stay prone with malicious intent.30

In addition to the difficulty in translating in run-on sentences which barely hint at parallelism, Brink introduces a confused theme based on a questionable translation, to which he returns for conclusions (namely, Anat and Athtart staying prone, with malicious intent). If more attention had been paid to the context of the poem, Anat and Athtart would not have been left lying on the ground planning evil—a conclusion not supported by the remainder of the text (which Brink does not translate). Based on his interpretation of ʾtrt ym, Brink supposes that Athirat was originally a primordial sea dragon.31 Although there is no evidence that Athirat had dragon-like characteristics, he maintains his view and thus translates KTU 1.4.IV.23–26 as: She flooded a life-giving power on El and he entered The place of separation of the king, Father of the two. At El’s feet she did homage and fell down She bowed down and honoured him.32

Brink suggests that the “possibility that the flooding of Atirat (through her breasts? as may be derived of šd. šd in CTA 23,13...)” was an ancient way of understanding the tides.33 He bases further conclusions on this interpretation of Athirat flooding El by her breasts, although he argues some pages earlier that šd must be translated “field” because Ugaritic already has the use of dd for “breast”. As his interpretations continue, he paints a picture of Athirat as a goddess of extraordinary sexual prowess, thus causing rivalry between El and Baal for her favours. The difficulty with his translations, besides their awkward nature, is that they seem to be slanted towards his theories about the text, rather than his theories being substantiated by the texts. For example, to sustain his conclusion that Athirat is the true head of the pantheon,34 he interprets the giving of the gifts made by Kothar-andKhasis in KTU 1.4.I.23–43 as indicating that Athirat occupies the “position of El”, thus:

30Philological

Study: 231–232. Study: 314. 32Philological Study: 362. 33Philological Study: 379. 34Philological Study: 825–826. 31Philological

12

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH The dais, throne and especially the footstool, (as is shown from the episode with Attar,) the canopy and resting-place all point to reverence for Atirat and new power for the goddess. She is endowed with the position of El. The serpents show recognition of her fecundity...The vase probably depicts her “new” position in which it is shown that the wild bulls are at her (sexual) mercy.35

He does not explain how it is in the power of Kothar-and-Khasis to endow whomever he may choose with the position of El, simply by forging gifts for them. After 725 pages of this analysis, Brink moves on to draw up a chart, based on the technique of Van Zijl’s book, A Study of Texts in Connection with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics. Brink, to determine the character and role of the two goddesses, analyses the texts which he translated according to genre (myth, saga, god lists, rituals, incantations, offering lists, and profane texts), depending upon whether the goddess in question appears alone or with one of her epithets. These he places on a chart according to the following categories for the verbs: military, fighting, movement, speech and senses, moods, theophany, royal, banquet, weather and seasons, building activities, legal, curse themes, sexual intercourse, mortuary rites, mental activities, acts of direct influence on persons, sacrifice, cultic, and childbearing. All of these elements are then divided according to whether they are first, second or third person. The results reflect the ideas presented in his translations of the texts. Thus he finds that Baal is associated with weather more than any other god, and that Athirat is the most sexually active of the set Athtart, Athirat and Baal.36 His chart leads him to conclude that: Baal features with verbs 171 times, Attart 46 times and Atirat 73 times. From this one may deduce tht Atirat was nearly twice as active as Attart, especially in the earlier stages of the UT myths, but not nearly as active as Baal, especially in the later stages.37

The difficulties with this kind of interpretation are legion. First of all, it assumes that we have a representative portion of the activities of all the gods in all the texts of Ugarit, found and not found. The vicissitudes of archaeology are a witness against this assumption. This method also betrays a confusion between grammatical phenomena (verbs and the action they may indicate) and mythological elements (what the gods may be doing in lacunae 35Philological

Study: 282. Study: 750–762. 37Philological Study: 763. 36Philological

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

13

or even in the minds of the hearers who knew the “whole story”, as it were). Given the circumstances, we should be cautious about using superlatives or about interpreting statistics too literally. Such a method could possibly demonstrate that in the surviving texts Baal appears as a very active deity, but we cannot say that he is the most active. This is one of the limitations of our research given the nature of the texts. Finally, this method illustrates a literalistic approach to the texts which cannot be supported in the light of the ideology of the texts. Baal is active in the Baal Cycle, but he barely appears in Keret or Aqhat. Rather than draw sharp lines of distinction between myth and legend, or any other category, each myth should be analysed according to its context. Brink’s dissertation does a service in drawing together many fragmented texts which mention Athtart and Athirat with those more well known. His conclusions seem to dominate his research and translations, however, and they must be approached with caution. W. Louie Louie’s 1988 Th. D. thesis attempts to take a broad view of the materials pertaining to Asherah. After a brief review of previous scholarship, Louie justifies his study by noting that the sources which he reviewed were biased by their supposition that all Old Testament references to Asherah are “deuteronomic”. Thus he writes, “There is a need for a study that presupposes the historicity of the OT... Furthermore, the role of Asherah in the idolatrous system of the OT needs to be evaluated in the light of the above findings”. 38 He begins his study by examining the “meaning of Asherah”. His first chapter is dedicated to exploring the non-goddess interpretations which include a cultic object, a wooden cultic object, an image and a shrine. In his second chapter Louie considers the goddess interpretations, and here he observes various cognate names for Asherah throughout the ancient Near East. This leads him to a summary of the characteristics of Asherah “as a supreme goddess” and “as a fertility goddess” at Ugarit and in the Bible. Louie’s next chapter looks at the origin of Asherah and her worship, particularly her worship in the Bible. His final chapter is dedicated to the role of Asherah in the Bible. Although Louie comes to no firm conclusion on whether Asherah was considered to be the spouse of Yahweh, he does remain convinced that Asherah, Anat and Athtart eventually merged into one goddess. In keeping with his presupposition of the historicity of the 38Meaning,

Characteristics and Role of Asherah: 5.

14

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Old Testament account, Louie understands all mentions of Asherah as violations of the original Israelite monotheism. Louie’s study provides a valuable overview of the material which mentions Asherah; however, it is not without difficulties. Louie does not violate his stated attempt to understand the biblical material as historically accurate. Unfortunately, this leads to a compilation of evidence from all the biblical sources with no regard for text-critical studies. In discussing Deut. 12.3 he writes: Moses told the Israelites to destroy all the places where the nations served their gods as well as the idolatrous objects that are in them. One of these items is Asherim [sic] which Moses commanded them to burn.39

This approach, although internally consistent, enters into no dialogue with the text-critical understanding of the materials. In this way all previous scholarship on the understanding of Old Testament Asherah is effectively ignored. Another difficulty results from Louie’s use of sources which pre-date the discovery of Ugarit. In treating the subject of Asherah in the Old Testament, he utilises commentaries which could not have been aware of Ugarit. This in and of itself is not a faulty method; however, Louie places these works in his text without noting that the Ugaritic discoveries may have modified the views of the authors. By way of example, in his discussion on 2 Kgs. 21.3 // 2 Chron. 33.3, after discussing the interpretations of Montgomery (1951) and Robinson (1976), Louie introduces the interpretation of Curtis and Madsen (1910). Not surprisingly, Curtis and Madsen “suggest a symbolic post representing the goddess Astarte”. 40 This method does not allow Curtis and Madsen the benefit of the doubt concerning the nature of the asherah in the light of Ugarit. Louie also fails to distinguish extrabiblical material on the basis of its date. All sources are compared as if no time had separated them (an exception being his discussion of the origin of Asherah). In general, Louie does not enter into discussion on points raised by previous scholars. He does not question the alleged merger of Asherah with Athtart and Anat, nor does he question the assumptions of Asherah’s character as a “supreme goddess” and a “fertility goddess”. This lack of critical inquiry renders Louie unable to move beyond a recitation of previous opinions and the addition of his own. This having been noted, Louie’s compila39Meaning, 40Meaning,

Characteristics and Role of Asherah: 39–40. Characteristics and Role of Asherah: 32, n. 2.

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

15

tion of extrabiblical sources is the strong point of his work. His dissertation is a useful resource for finding some less obvious references to Asherah. V. L. Piper Piper’s dissertation, although not specifically a study of Asherah, contains some information on the goddess in the context of tree worship. Initially Piper considers modern scholarship on sacred trees; unfortunately none of her modern sources post-date the 1950’s.41 Her discussion ranges over most of the world, and includes ancient Near Eastern information as well as myths from Scandinavia and Uganda. She ends her introduction by noting that tree worship is indicative of the takeover of goddess worship by male gods. Tree worship is all that remains as evidence of the former goddess worship. In her second chapter Piper sets out to demonstrate that the sacred tree represented the goddess in earlier forms of religion. She notes that figurines of women (which she understands as goddesses) date to the paleolithic era. After establishing the antiquity of goddess worship, Piper utilises various sources from ancient Greece, Sumer and Egypt to prove that goddesses were associated with trees. Piper’s third chapter forms the main part of her thesis on the uprooting of traditional interpretation. She begins with a consideration of symbolism in the creation story where, she notes, audiences would have understood the tree of life as Asherah.42 She then discusses tree worship in the Abraham cycle. She cites R. Graves as noting that groves of terebinth were associated with Asherah, and she cites S. Teubal’s suggestion that Isaac was divinely conceived in a hieros gamos in the shrine of terebinths at Mamre.43 Piper next considers the tree symbolism in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, and finally moves on to explore Asherah. She notes that Asherah caused trouble for traditional interpretation because she was Yahweh’s consort. Citing various anthropological scholars, Piper demonstrates Asherah’s associations with palm trees, pillars, and the sea, and shows her characteristics as progenitress of the gods and as a neolithic goddess. Briefly considering Lemaire’s translation of the Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions, she finds evidence of Asherah’s status as Yahweh’s consort. She concludes: 41Uprooting

Traditional Interpretation: 7–47. Piper cites especially Frazer’s Golden Bough, W. R. Smith’s Religion of the Semites, and articles by Sir Arthur Evans. 42Uprooting Traditional Interpretation: 104. 43Uprooting Traditional Interpretation: 110–111.

16

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH This investigation has attempted to utilize just such a broad cultural perspective. As a product of this project, the ethnocentric bias of scholarly and traditional interpretation became apparent. And these culturally biased perspectives produced arid interpretation. By respecting cultural integrity, insofar as it is knowable, interpretation can replenish an arid environment with the revitalizing energy of very ancient roots.44

Piper’s dissertation suffers from attempting to cover too wide an area of investigation. Although her primary area of interest appears to be the Abraham cycle, she spends much of her investigation in pursuit of evidence in cultures far removed from that of the Old Testament. She dwells at length on Taliesin’s “Battle of Trees” and the Irish Tree Alphabet.45 As with Louie’s dissertation, Piper does not discuss the opinions of other scholars, and she seldom expresses her own. The true weakness of this study appears in its bibliography. Although the dissertation was not completed until 1989, Piper does not appear to have been aware of the recent major works on Asherah or Old Testament studies in general.46 Piper’s work gives the impression that the conclusions were drawn from anthropological arguments without a thorough consideration of more recent biblical scholarship. J. M. Hadley Hadley’s dissertation gives a full investigation of the Levantine material concerning Asherah. She begins with an informed discussion on issues pertaining to Asherah and presents a critical review of the previous scholarship. Although Hadley does not translate the relevant Ugaritic texts, she provides an overview of the Ugaritic information on Athirat. She also briefly considers the origin and etymology of Athirat. In her chapter on the biblical references, Hadley begins with a breakdown of the distribution of the term, and discusses the verbs used in conjunction with the asherah. She discusses the deuteronomistic influence on the asherah passages in the Old Testament and this leads her to ask questions about the dating of the deuteronomistic source. This is followed by a consideration of Josiah’s reform. Observing the affixes which occur with asherah in the Old Testament as well as its use with the definite article, she proposes the theory that: what may be happening is that the term “asherah” is in the process of losing its identification with the goddess, and becoming merely the 44Uprooting

Traditional Interpretation: 144. Traditional Interpretation: 29–45. 46She does not cite Maier, Olyan, Reed or even Cross. 45Uprooting

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

17

wooden object. While Asherah was still worshipped as a goddess during the monarchy period, perhaps by the time of dtr himself, and certainly the Chronicler, the term had ceased to be used with any knowledge of the goddess whom it had originally represented, and from which it received its name.47

She then discusses the passages which may refer to the goddess in the Old Testament and finally concludes that the goddess Asherah may have degenerated into a mere cultic object. It is here that the forte of Hadley’s dissertation appears. Her investigation of the Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions is the most thorough to date.48 Having observed the Khirbet el-Qôm inscription personally, she presents a review of past attempts at its decipherment and offers an explanation for its grammatical conundrums. Hadley also explores the issues of and difficulties with the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions. Further, she provides a critique of the assumed connection between the drawings on pithos A and its inscription. Her next chapter surveys the archaeological finds from Lachish, Pella and Taanach which may pertain to Asherah. A brief consideration of female figurines precedes her conclusions. Hadley’s dissertation is undoubtedly a substantial work in the field of studies on Asherah. The main weakness that appears in her treatment is that she does not attempt to re-examine the Ugaritic materials on Athirat. Hadley’s method of utilising the Elkunirsa myth to explain the relationship between Athirat and Baal should also signal caution.49 Other than a brief consideration of the importance of the Ugaritic texts, she limits herself to Palestinian texts and finds. This scope adequately accounts for the evidence which is relevant to the inscriptions which form the primary area of her study. M. S. Smith Smith’s copiously annotated study of the religion of early Israel is presented within the framework of “convergence” and “differentiation” with Canaan-

47Yahweh’s

Asherah: 92. chapters followed her previously published articles on these inscriptions: “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription” VT 37 (1987): 50–62; and “Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ́ʿAjrud” VT 37 (1987): 180– 213. 49Yahweh’s Asherah: 113. 48These

18

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

ite religion.50 In this context, Smith discusses various deities in Israel at the time of the judges, and provides individual chapters on Yahweh and Baal and Yahweh and Asherah. It is with the latter chapter that this study takes its interest. Smith begins this chapter by considering the asherah in Israel and the distinction between the feminine singular “asherah” and the masculine plural “asherim”. Noting that the “asherah was a wooden object symbolizing a tree”,51 Smith reviews arguments concerning the morphology of the cultic object. In his discussion of the inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd he decides against disregarding the grammatical rule and reading ʾšrth as a proper name (see below). This leads to the central question of the chapter: is Asherah an Israelite goddess? In the course of his investigation of this question, Smith discounts the biblical references adduced to support a goddess interpretation of “asherah” in the Old Testament. Noting the possible exception of 1 Kgs. 18.19, Smith states “The other biblical references used to support this reconstruction are susceptible to other interpretations, which would vitiate the view of Asherah as a goddess”. 52 This conclusion leads to the questions of the historical development of this situation and why the deuteronomists so strongly condemned the asherah as a cultic object. Noting the speculative nature of his answers, Smith suggests that the asherah symbol may have outlived recollection of Asherah as a goddess. It may have been rejected because of secondary associations with Athtart, or because of associations of the asherah with healing and fertility. This situation supposes that Asherah did not continue as the goddess represented by the cultic symbol bearing her name.53 Smith then discusses various associations of the imagery of Asherah, including the figure of Wisdom, Wellhausen’s emendation of Hos. 14.9, the Song of Songs, and Jer. 2.27 in comparison with Deut. 32.18. The chapter ends with an excursus on gender language used in connection with Yahweh. The main strength of Smith’s study is his close attention to the limitations of our knowledge of Asherah, particularly outside of Ugarit. He demonstrates that the “majority view” of Asherah as a goddess in Israel is problematic.54 The difficulty with his approach is the speculative nature of his 50Early

History: xxiii–xxiv. History: 81. 52Early History: 93. 53Early History: 94. 54Early History: 89–94. 51Early

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

19

solutions to the problems that his proposed absence of Asherah in the Old Testament raises. After demonstrating that the Old Testament references are uncertain in their evidence for a goddess Asherah, he suggests that the asherah may have been a representation of Athtart.55 The difficulty with the explanation is that confusion between Asherah and Athtart is supported by only a minimum of evidence.56 Smith writes: There is other negative evidence that might support the reconstruction that Asherah was not a goddess in Israel; this sort of evidence is, however, based on the argument from silence, and it has merit only in conjunction with the positive evidence presented above.57

The evidence to which he refers, however, is also based on “negative evidence”, namely, that the Old Testament does not attest the existence of Asherah. Since the cultic object bears the name of a goddess, positive evidence needs to be provided that the asherah was to be associated with some other goddess. This brief consideration of recent scholarship on the questions surrounding the character of Athirat demonstrates that questions still remain. With the many recent books, dissertations and articles considered, we have much assistance in dealing with the question of Athirat’s position at Ugarit. My approach will be based on a contextual consideration of the primary source material. My working presupposition is that the Ugaritic tablets provide our most complete record of the nature and character of Athirat. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz Although the monograph of Dietrich and Loretz on “Ashera” considers iconographic matters, it also addresses several issues which are pertinent for any study of Asherah. Their work begins with an exploration of cultic images in Mesopotamia; evidence from this chapter is later marshaled to help understand the biblical view of images. The Mesopotamian discussion is followed by a thorough discussion of the Ugaritic text KTU 1.43. Text 43 is a ritual text, and it is important for this study because of references to Anat. Dietrich and Loretz read lines 12b–13a as: 55Early

History: 89, 92–93. This idea was also suggested by W. R. Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, new edition, London, 1894: 189, n. 1. 56Judg. 3.7 may point to a late confusion of the two. 57Early History: 93.

20

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH eine Schnauze und ein Gekröse für seine Anat.58

This dedication to Anat is hypothetically reconstructed with a pronominal suffix on a proper noun. Text 43 also mentions ʿntm, translated by Dietrich and Loretz as “die beiden Anat”.59 Detailed word-studies for this text follow, but when lines 10b–16 are reached, difficulties appear. Der Unterabschnitt Z. 10b–16, der wegen der Trennstriche quer über die Tafel als eine geschlossene Texteinheit aufgefaßt werden muß, bietet wegen seines Erhaltungszustands allerlei Restitutions- und Interspretationsschwierigkeiten.60

They soon turn to a discussion of the partially reconstructed ʿnth, “his Anat”. This particular grammatical form is important in the light of the inscriptions of Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd where “his Asherah” is apparently mentioned. The Sitz im Leben of this text is discussed, as well as the cult of the dead in offering texts and the gtr(m) of KTU 1. 43, 109, 112, 108 and 2.4. Chapter three turns to an exploration of Asherah as the spouse of “ElJahwe”.61 The chapter opens with a discussion of the problem of the “mother goddess” in ancient Israel. The distinction is drawn between what the inscriptions say and what the deuteronomists say. Loretz here mentions the kind of psychological shock that may result from such radical discoveries, as it did at the finding of the great Mesopotamian cities last century.62 He next provides a thorough review of previous scholarly opinions on issues related to hr#$) as a symbol or as a goddess in the Old Testament. Suggesting that philological and archaeological arguments should be considered separately, Loretz next examines the inscriptions from Khirbet elQôm, Kuntillet ʿAjrûd and Tel Miqne. In the light of the Ugaritic texts, particularly text 43, he finds support for the reading “his Asherah” in the elQôm and ʿAjrûd inscriptions. The Old Testament polemic against Asherah stems from the deuteronomists’s primary conception of Yahweh’s uniqueness.63

58“Jahwe

und seine Aschera” : 42. und seine Aschera”: 42. 60“Jahwe und seine Aschera”: 54. 61“Jahwe und seine Aschera”: 77. 62“Jahwe und seine Aschera”: 79. 63“Jahwe und seine Aschera”: 101. 59“Jahwe

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

21

When the philological arguments are examined, Loretz finds several points in favour of pairing Asherah and Yahweh: 1) in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, Asherah was paired with a consort, 2) “El/Jahwe” and Asherah, in the light of Canaanite tradition, are a pair, 3) deities were often represented by symbols; thus the existence of Asherah is attested by her symbol (the asherah in the Old Testament), and 4) the deuteronomists’s imprint on the Old Testament is seen in their rejection of Asherah.64 Furthermore, the objection to the asherah may have been instrumental in the Israelites’ rejection of images. Loretz next briefly considers possible biblical references to Anat and Asherah, the forbidding of statues and foreign gods, and the complex issues connected with the development of monotheism. Two excursuses follow: one on Ps. 82 and Deut. 32.8-9, the other on Yahweh and biblical anthropomorphism. Loretz’s chapter four is a slight reworking of an earlier article concerning Wellhausen’s emendation of Hos. 14.9.65 The conclusions in the final chapter once again turn to the larger issues of the rejection of cultic images by the deuteronomists and their unique perspective in the ancient world. Dietrich and Loretz have provided much material for the discussion of “other gods” in the Old Testament. They have covered many of the wider issues, but have also explored the implications for studies on Asherah. The main weaknesses of the connection they make between Yahweh and Asherah concern the nature of the evidence. In KTU 1.43 the “his Anat” is based on a partially reconstructed text; indeed, the h of ʿnth is itself reconstructed. This does not form a solid base from which to judge the ambiguous Khirbet el-Qôm, Kuntillet ʿAjrûd and Tel Miqne inscriptions. The inscriptions from Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, moreover, are written in Hebrew, not Ugaritic. On the four points given by Loretz for the pairing of Yahweh and Asherah, it must be noted that the evidence is circumstantial. These points require that we accept the equation of Yahweh and El (discussed in their chapter three). Even if this connection is granted, it does not necessarily follow that Yahweh would have assumed El’s consort. Specific arguments from their book will be considered at the relevant places below. This book provides much useful information for academic discussion on the many issues relating to Asherah. 64“Jahwe

und seine Aschera”: 104–105. Loretz, “ʿAnat-Aschera (Hos 14.9) und die Inschriften von Kuntillet ʿAjrud” SEL 6 (1989): 57–65. 65O.

22

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

ICONOGRAPHY A note must be included on the issue of the iconography of Athirat. In this study I limit myself to the textual resources concerning Athirat. The reason for not exploring the iconography stems from two basic considerations. The first is the uncertainty involved in iconographic representations of goddesses. No female figurine or relief has come to light which has been explicitly identified by an inscription to be Athirat. Some of the images used in considerations of Athirat’s iconography may represent her; however, my intention here is to begin from what may be known with a measure of certainty concerning the goddess. This information is gleaned from written records which explicitly name her. My second reason is pragmatic. Many studies on the interpretation of ancient Near Eastern iconography have already discussed the associations of Athirat.66 This field itself requires a full-length study, and space does not permit such an exercise here.67 66U. Winter, Frau und Göttin. Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt (OBO 53), Freiburg and Göttingen, 1983; S. Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament (OBO 74), Freiburg and Göttingen, 1987; see also her articles “Zur Deutung der Hand unter der Grabinschrift von Chirbet el Qôm” UF 15 (1983): 191–199, and “Die Zweiggöttin in Palästina/Israel. Von der Mittelbronze II B-Zeit bis zu Jesus Sirach” in Jerusalem. Texte-Bilder-Steine (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 6), M. Küchler and C. Uehlinger, eds., Freiburg and Göttingen, 1987: 201– 225; W. Zwickel, “Die Kesselwagen im Salomonischen Tempel” UF 18 (1986): 459–461; R. Hestrin, “The Cult Stand from Taʿanach and its Religious Background” in Studia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millenium B.C. Proceedings of the Conference held in Leuven 14–16 November 1988 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22), E. Lipiński, ed., Louvain, 1987: 61–77; also “The Lachisch Ewer and the ʾAsherah” IEJ 37 (1987): 212–223; and “A Note on the ‘Lion Bowls’ and the Asherah” IMJ 7 (1988): 115–118; and “Understanding Asherah: Exploring Semitic Iconography” BAR 17 (1991): 50–59; G. del Olmo Lete, “Figuras femeninas en la mitología y la épica del Antiguo Oriente” in La dona en l’antiguitat, Sabadell, 1987: 7–25; E. Lipiński, “The Syro-Phoenician Iconography of Woman and Goddess (Review Article)” IEJ 36 (1986): 87–96; J. G. Taylor, “The Two Earliest Known Representations of Yahweh” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTS 67), L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, eds., Sheffield, 1988: 557–566; and Keel and Uehlinger, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole, especially pages 199–321. 67I offer some preliminary remarks on the difficulties of such iconographic as-

PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

23

In the following chapter I shall approach the references to Athirat in the Elimelek material; first in the Keret texts, followed by those in the Baal Cycle. It is here that the most sustained image of the goddess is presented.

sociations in “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess”.

2 ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT KERET ( KTU 1.14-1.16) The interpretation of Keret is a matter of debate. The basic story line appears to be simple; however, breaks in the text, particularly within and at the end of text 15, leave room for considerable doubt about details. Within this context, although the role of Athirat is small in the preserved columns, it forms a coherent picture in which her role is seen to be quite important.1 As Parker has demonstrated, the recognition of the genre of a text is essential to understanding it.2 This is a principle which assists in determining the ideology of the myths with which we are dealing. Context and genre are essential elements to our understanding of a text. This provides a further reason for not lumping all Ugaritic texts together and drawing out a composite picture of Athirat’s activities. What is important is her character. From the various separate myths, we can perhaps piece together the common characteristics of Athirat, and thus derive an accurate portrait. The Keret story may well be considered a myth,3 yet it does display a more obviously earthly colour than does the Baal Cycle. This has led many scholars to attempt to find a definition other than “myth” for Keret. The activity of the gods in Keret is a mythological feature; however many scholars find the designation “epic” less objectionable. This divergent labelling is not necessary if we keep the genre and context of the myth in mind as we examine it.

1

A. Merrill, (“The House of Keret, a study of the Keret Legend” SEÅ 33 (1968): 10) states that the wrath of Asherah is the “basis for the addition of other ‘narratives’” in the Keret epic. This will be further explored below. 2S. B. Parker, “Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology” Maarav 2 (1979–80): 7–41. 3See J. C. L. Gibson “Myth, Legend and Folk-lore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat Texts” Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT 28), Leiden, 1975: 60–68.

25

26

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Athirat first appears in the narrative as Keret was making his way to Udm, according to the instruction of El ( KTU 1.14.IV.31–43). The text reads: they went a day, and a second, tlkn 32 ym .w tn . after sunset4 the third (day) aḫr 33 špšm .b tlt 34 ym[ġy.] l qdš 35 at[r]tṣrm he came to the sanctuary of Athirat of the two Tyres,5 w l ilt 36 ṣd[y] nm. even to (the sanctuary of)6 the goddess of the Sidonians,

4See the discussion of J. C. de Moor and K. Spronk, “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I)” UF 14 (1982): 165. They present convincing arguments for the interpretation of “sunset” over “sunrise” for špšm. 5There is some dispute about the correctness of Tyre as the place name here indicated. M. Astour (“Place Names” in Ras Shamra Parallels II, 1975: 251f.) has argued for a possible North Mesopotamian location. I prefer to see Tyre and Sidon mentioned here, especially as Athirat appears to be a West Semitic goddess (see below, on the Mesopotamian material). Gray had proposed “Atherat of Deposits / Goddess of Oracles” (“Texts from Ras Shamra” in Documents from Old Testament Times (edited by D. Winton Thomas), London, 1958: 119) but later changed his mind to that of Tyre and Sidon (The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra, second edition, Leiden, 1964: 16, 55). De Moor also reads Tyre and Sidon (Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, vol. 1, (hereafter ARTU), Leiden, 1987: 200), as do del Olmo Lete (Mitos y Leyendas de Canaan, (hereafter MLC), Madrid, 1981: 298), Gordon (“Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit” Berytus 25 (1977; hereafter PLMU): 44), and Gibson (CML2: 87). As far as the structure of the couplet is concerned, I take ṣrm to be a dual, reflecting Tyre as a “twin city” (de Moor and Spronk, “Problematical Passages”: 170, and Gibson, CML2: 87). Gibson understands the dual ṣrm as referring to the island and mainland sections of Tyre. ṣdynm can be understood as a gentilic. 6The lamed requires an object. Since the sanctuary is mentioned in line 34, it should be taken as doing double duty for this, its parallel line.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT tm 37 ydr[.] krt. tʿ 38 iitt. atrt.ṣrm 39 w ilt. ṣdynm 40 hm.ḥry.bty 41 liqḥ aš ʿrb . ġlmt 42 ḥẓry. tnh.wspm9 43 atn w.tlth. ḫrṣm

27

there noble Keret vowed a gift,7 “O Athirat of the two Tyres, and goddess of the Sidonians, If to my house Huray I take, cause the maiden to enter8 my court, twice her (weight) of silver I will give, and thrice her (weight) of gold”.10

The genre of Keret seems to be that of an epic tale centred on questions surrounding the institution of kingship. More specifically, the genre seems to be a literary study in response to the social dangers incurred when a dynasty ends (that is, when there is no heir to the throne). In order to secure further the continuity of his dynasty, Keret interrupts his journey to acquire a wife in order to make a vow to Athirat. El had not commanded him to do this. Besides the retaliation of Athirat later in the myth when Keret’s vow to her is unfulfilled (see below), perhaps a message about obedience is included. In the larger context of the epic, Keret added a precautionary vow to Athirat to the instructions of El, and in the final analysis, he is brought back to the crisis with which the story begins (see below). The interests of the same genre continue with the issue of the implications of a king’s illness (and possible death). When Keret finally recovers, the monarchical problem of an heir apparent being cursed comes to the fore. Within 7The context of this passage, as Parker (“Some Methodological Principles”: 24– 28) has demonstrated, requires that iitt is to be understood as the object of ndr , with the initial aleph as a case of dittography. Parker shows that the correct genre of lines 38–43 to be that of the vow formula. By comparative evidence in ancient Near Eastern vows, the actual vow begins with the divine name, here Athirat in line 38. See also his further discussion of the vow formulae in The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition (SBL Resources for Biblical Study 24), Atlanta, 1989: 70–87. I understand “there noble Keret vowed a gift” (lines 36–38) as a monocolon, followed by the bicolon invoking Athirat. The difficulty with this interpretation is the lack of a convincing etymology for itt . My translation of these lines is therefore tentative. 8First person singular shaphel form of ʿrb, “cause to enter”, or “introduce” (Gibson, CML2: 87). 9Understanding the initial w, as an error for k, , a difference of only one wedge, since silver is the required word-pair component for gold (line 44). 10This passage (lines 21–25) employs a poetic delaying device for a dramatic effect. See W. G. E. Watson, “Delaying Devices in Ugaritic Verse” SEL 5 (1988): 210, 214.

28

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

this genre, how are we to understand Keret’s vow? If a question of obedience is present, this should become clear as our exploration unfolds. Perhaps the best way to understand this incident and its place in the text is to recognise that it is an account of an unfulfilled vow. S. Parker proposed in 1977 that Keret consists of three separate episodes (Keret’s loss of his family and acquisition of another, an account of his illness, and the usurpation narrative).11 What is of special interest to this investigation is the suggested second story, namely, that of a man who is ill and who is then healed.12 The vow enters into the plot during this episode. Albright recognised the section 14.IV.38–43 as a vow, but he did not enter into a prolonged discussion of it.13 In a more recent discussion, Parker has drawn out some comparisons between the vow in Keret and other ancient Near Eastern vows.14 Besides a simple recognition that the actual occurrence of Athirat in this pericope is in the context of a vow, what possible understanding can be gleaned from this fact? The answer lies within the context of the whole of the myth. For this, we should first examine Parker’s study more closely. Using exegetical techniques often applied to Old Testament research, Parker explores the text of Keret from a literary angle. In the course of his study, he notes that the action of Keret’s family being eliminated, his supplication, the vision of El, and the restoration of his fortune form a traditional ancient Near Eastern story line (designated as “A”).15 In so doing, Parker utilises both external literary and internal textual evidence which form a solid case. Parker also examines the illness episode (designated “B”), and then explores the implications of the usurpation story (“C”), which was apparently added on to the cycle of the family restoration and illness narrative.16 The question of the important addition of the vow to the first (A) story of Keret’s loss of family and restoration is of special interest to this study. 11S.

B. Parker, “The Historical Composition of KRT and the Cult of El” ZAW 89 (1977): 161–175. This argument was followed by that for a possible historical setting for the Keret epic by N. Wyatt, “A Suggested Historical Context for the Keret Story” UF 15 (1983): 316–318. 12Parker, “Historical Composition of KRT”: 167–170. 13W. F. Albright, “A Vow to Asherah in the Keret Epic” BASOR 94 (1944): 30–31. 14Parker, The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition: 70–87. 15Parker, “Historical Composition of KRT”: 163–167. 16“Historical Composition of KRT”: 169–170.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

29

Keret is presented as seeking an heir for his throne, and although El provided for him the details of his journey, the story was lengthened by the addition of Keret’s vow to Athirat. Ginsberg notes that this initial vow to Athirat is for securing a wife, and not progeny,17 a distinction which pales when placed next to the fact that a wife was indeed needed to produce an heir. In other words, Keret’s vow to Athirat was a vow used to secure the production of children. In Keret’s dream (14.I and II), it was El who came to him, and instructed him in how to procure progeny. Keret asked for children (I.4), El instructed him on how to secure a wife, and with a wife would come a family (III.48–9). Thus, when Keret paused to make a vow to Athirat, he was doing so with the knowledge that El had already provided instructions to this end. This fact lends credence to the idea that the vow episode was later added to the action of the story which otherwise follows the epic repetition of El’s command. Without the benefit of Parker’s article, Merrill also noted the importance of Keret’s stop at Athirat’s sanctuary: Because of the introduction of the vow to Asherah on the way to ʾUdm, in the parallel version to the dream, we are now suddenly confronted with the understanding that the vow has apparently not been fulfilled. So the wrath of Asherah becomes the basis for the addition of the other “narratives” which are woven around the central concern for the “house of Keret” and find their sub-themes in the three areas of fertility, salubrity, and sovereignty. Further the wrath of Asherah, expressed in a “curse-motif”, helps to frame this additional material for it concludes with a “curse”—the curse of Yṣb by Keret.18

Parker, asking why the vow episode was inserted, concurs with Merrill that it is necessary for the later narrative, but adds that it is “insignificant for the present part”.19 This is because, according to Parker’s analysis, the sickness episode required the vow as a foreshadowing of the actual illness. It may seem excessive to spend much time on the actual structure of the story of Keret, when the role of Athirat is our central concern. The establishment of the context, however, is very important in understanding her role, both here and elsewhere. In the analyses of Merrill and Parker, we can see that the interpretation of Keret’s vow holds an essential place in the narrative. What does this tell us about Athirat? It seems to demonstrate that 17H.

Ginsberg, The Legend of King Keret, a Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age (BASORSS 2–3), New Haven, 1946: 41. 18“The House of Keret”: 10. 19“Historical Composition of KRT”: 164.

30

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

she was influential in the context of the bearing of royal children. Although the Myth of Keret does indeed form a thematic unity,20 the addition of the B section would have served to emphasize this particular aspect of Athirat. This characteristic of Athirat’s concern with royal children will reappear in the examination of the remaining Ugaritic texts where she also has a role. This episode leads to the further activity of Athirat in the myth of Keret. KTU 1.15.III.25-30 states: and Athirat remembered his vow,21 w tḫss.atrt26ndrh. wilt.[ ] and the goddess [ ] 27w tšu.gh.w[tṣḥ] and she lifted her voice and [called out] Look, I beg you, has Keret then [broken(?)] 28ph mʿ .ap.k [rt ] 29utn.nd r[ ] or has [(?)]22 changed23 [his] vow? 30apr. i. . . I will break24... Unfortunately, text 15 is not well preserved, and column III breaks off just as Athirat was beginning to speak. What we can infer from the context is that, if we accept that the vow pronounced by Keret was an addition to the text, then this short section is also a part of an inserted story. This pericope would seem to fit in Parker’s scheme as part of Keret B. What follows is an account of Keret’s illness, which is generally supposed to be the punishment of Athirat for Keret’s failure to fulfil his promise. In the light of the following factors, however, perhaps we ought to see Keret’s sickness as an instrumental punishment used in order to lead to the ironic coup de grâce of Athirat—the cursing of Keret’s heir, the very reason for his initial request, by the king himself. The illness should be considered as part of the punishment of Athirat, coming as it does so shortly after her remembrance of the unfulfilled vow. The further element of the curse on Yaṣṣib, however, should be seen in the light of a more complete understanding of the punishment.

20Gibson,

“Myth, Legend and Folk-lore”: 64. is no reason to see this vow as plural (thus de Moor and Spronk, “Problematical Passages”: 177). 22Perhaps the lacuna contained an appellative for Keret, but as the text is broken, I would not venture to guess what it might have been. 23This is understanding tn as a G, third person singular, cognate with Hebrew šnh , root I (BDB: 1039b), “to change”. 24Taking apr to be from the root pwr, “to break”, with Gibson, CML2: 156. 21There

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

31

The first factor which would make it unlikely that the illness itself was the final punishment of Athirat, is that in 16.V, El himself takes the responsibility for curing Keret of his illness. This in itself does not negate the possibility that Athirat had instituted the sickness, but it does limit its punitive effect. If the illness is her final punishment, she has been overruled by El, the king of the gods. If, on the other hand, the cursing of Yaṣṣib is the ultimate end of Athirat’s punishment, Keret is left without an heir, the breaking of Athirat’s end of the bargain in 14.IV. Another factor which would seem to indicate that the cursing of Yaṣṣib is part of Athirat’s punishment, is that her role is concerned with the progeny of the king. This is supported by the fact that Yaṣṣib is described as the one sucking the milk of Athirat in 15.II.26. Thus KTU 1.15.II.26–28 reads: 26ynq. ḥlb .a[t]rt he [Yaṣṣib] will suck the milk of Athirat, drain the breasts of the virgin [Anat] 27mṣṣ .t d.btlt.[ʿnt] 28mšn q[ ] wetnurse(s)[ ]25 Yaṣṣib is the gift of Athirat to Keret, and Keret’s illness does not remove the benefit of his vow, for he now has a beneficiary. Keret’s cursing of his firstborn, Yaṣṣib, is tantamount to putting him back in the same position he found himself in at the beginning of the myth.26 His hope for a successor is lost. His first choice, the son blessed by the nursing of Athirat, is cursed. Although different words are used in the curses of Athirat (15.III.30) and Keret (16.VI.55–56), the action in both is described as “breaking” (apr in 15.III.30, ytbr in 16.VI.55–56). Who or what does Athirat threaten to break? De Moor and Spronk have noted that pr is the word used specifically for 25F. Løkkegaard (“The Canaanite Divine Wetnurses” StTh 10 (1956): 60–61) argues that the characters of Athtart (whom he equates with Athirat) and Anat would make poor wetnurses. He instead proposes to emend atrt to ktrt, “the Kotharat”, and to fill the lacuna with Miqat (one of the Kotharat) instead of Anat. Unfortunately, the photograph in CTA2 is hopelessly illegible at this point (plate XXII). The difficulty is compounded by the fact that mšnq “wetnurse(s)” does not occur elsewhere in the mythological tablets, and therefore we have no other referent. Despite Løkkegaard’s objection, btlt is the usual epithet for Anat, and we nowhere find Anat paralleled by the Kotharat. N. Wyatt (“The Stela of the Seated God from Ugarit” UF 15 (1983): 273) suggests that Shapash should fill the lacuna. His comparative evidence is compelling; however, there is no evidence that Shapash was ever given the title btlt. 26I am indebted to Dr. N. Wyatt for this suggestion.

32

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

the breaking of treaties and vows.27 Thus we may have a glimpse of the fury of Athirat realised, in the retributive withdrawal of her side of the vow, since Keret did not keep his part. Does this analysis not provide difficulty for an acceptance of Parker’s division of the text into three historical sources? I would understand the addition of the vow to Keret A as a skilfully placed episode which foreshadows Keret B.28 Keret B in turn was the necessary bridge for the cursing of Yaṣṣib in Keret C. The sickness of Keret provided the opportunity to introduce the usurpation attempt of Yaṣṣib, and finally to his cursing by Keret. Parker sees 15.III.16 (“I will give the youngest of them first-born status”) as the only line anticipatory to section C.29 Following Parker’s general division of the text I would argue, however, that Athirat’s curse also anticipates a further punishment following the illness of Keret. This analysis points to a carefully constructed whole which incorporates three familiar themes from the ancient Near East. Keret’s illness, even in the light of the structure of the epic as we now have it, would not seem to be the end of the story. The dénouement of Athirat cancelling her portion of the vow should result in the cancelling of Keret’s request, and that request was not for long life, but for an heir to his throne. If Athirat’s curse is to have any effect, it cannot stop with the death of Keret alone: it must touch his heirs. These three pericopes contain the only references to Athirat in the story of Keret. Despite de Moor’s reconstruction of KTU 1.16.V.6–9 as: O Athiratu....... y ʾatr[t ] bdk.b[ ] in your hand....... Twice her (weight) in silver I will give tnnth [.kspm. ʾatn] thrice her (weight) in gold30 tltth [. ḫrṣm] we need not see another reference to Athirat here. The context of these lines is the search for a cure for Keret. Why should someone be discussing with Athirat “twice her weight in silver” and “thrice her weight in gold” at this point? This portion of the tablet is damaged, and other scholars have translated the lines without finding the reference to Athirat in them. It would seem that perhaps we would find here a reference to someone at27“Problematical

Passages”: 177. (“Historical Composition of KRT”: 169) notes that Keret B was “rather neatly grafted onto A”. 29“Historical Composition of KRT”: 169. 30“Problematical Passages”: 189. 28Parker

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

33

tempting to cure Keret by doing something two, then three times (so Gibson). With such a fragmentary section we do not have enough context to offer a meaningful translation.31 Any suggestions for the translation of this text must remain tentative. The summary of our investigation into the character of Athirat in Keret is that she is associated with the procuring of a royal heir. It is specifically Athirat who was implored, although El appeared to Keret in a dream and gave him the instructions which he needed to attain an heir. It may be that that Elimelek knew of a shrine of Athirat in the region of the setting of his story. However, it is more likely that he chose Athirat as his character because the issue involved was that of royal childbearing. This aspect of Athirat’s character will show up elsewhere in the Ugaritic texts. She is (apparently) paired with Anat in 1.15.II.26–27 as a wetnurse of the gods. The Myth of Keret informs us that the character of Athirat is that of a goddess who could be approached with the request for a royal heir.

THE BAAL CYCLE (KTU 1.1-6)32 In the surviving Ugaritic myths, Athirat appears most active in the Baal Cycle. Her role comes to the fore in two particular instances: when Baal requests a palace, and when he has died and a new monarch of the gods is needed. She is described essentially in terms of her dealings with her consort El. This leads to the obvious question of the role of women in the ancient world,33 as well as to the question of what phenomenon Athirat “represents”. Both of these questions will be addressed in the course of this exploration. In keeping with the stated method of using sound exegetical principles with the text, a pericope must be established. In this matter I fol31The

lines in question follow approximately thirty mostly or completely missing lines. What follows is apparently El’s search for a god to cure Keret’s illness. 32For general discussions of the Baal Cycle, see D. Kinet, “Theologische Reflexion im ugaritischen Baʿal Zyklus” BZ 22 (N.F. 1978): 236–244; M. S. Smith, “Interpreting the Baal Cycle” UF 18 (1986): 313–339 and N. Wyatt, “The AB Cycle and Kingship in Ugaritic Thought” Cosmos 2 (1986): 136–142. For a structuralist approach using the Baal Cycle, see D. Petersen and M. Woodward, “Northwest Semitic Religion: A Study of Relational Structures” UF 9 (1977): 233–248. 33In respect to our contexts, see especially P. A. H. de Boer, Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judean Piety, Leiden, 1974; and A. van Selms, Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature (POS 1), London, 1954. Also see M. Gruber, Women in the Biblical World: A Study Guide (American Theological Library Association: forthcoming).

34

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

low the direction of J. C. L. Gibson in dividing the Baal Cycle into: Baal and Yam (KTU 1.1–2), the Palace of Baal (KTU 1.3–4), and Baal and Mot (KTU 1.5–6).34 These divisions provide a useful outline for study of the myth;35 within these episodes we may reasonably assume some continuity of theme and story line. All three stories revolve round the exploits of Baal, his striving to achieve and maintain kingship among the gods. It would also seem that these three episodes form a coherent “cycle”, and the cycle ends with text 6, as indicated by the extended colophon at the end of the tablet. Athirat’s role in the cycle, although limited, demonstrates the important role which she played in the Ugaritic pantheon. This will become apparent as we examine the texts. To divide the texts further into columns and lines for separate examination will be necessary throughout this chapter. I will delimit smaller units as I come to them. Since the issue of the order of the tablets is far larger than the scope of this study, I shall simply follow the KTU and CTA order of 1–6.36 Although a variant order has been proposed,37 such an order should not affect my conclusions, unless so noted. With these preliminary notes, we move on to the texts themselves. Baal and Yam In the section “Baal and Yam”, Athirat seems to appear once, under the general title ilt “Goddess”. This appearance is actually in the middle of the difficult text KTU 1.1.IV. Despite the fragmentary nature of this text, we stand to learn quite a bit about the Baal Cycle from it. In the smaller context of “Baal and Yam”, it may be the only place where we can discover anything about Athirat (if she does indeed appear here). As her epithet rbt atrt ym seems to include some aspect of the sea, we might be able to discern some relationship between Athirat and Yam in this text concerned with Yam’s “coronation”. Thus it behooves us to look at column IV in its entirety.38 34CML2:

2–19. divisions do not strictly delimit where in the story Yam and Mot appear. Mot’s name, for example, makes an appearance in the final column of text 4, and Yam’s name also appears after he has been vanquished, in text 4. A coherence of all three episodes thus does pervade the texts. 36For a discussion of this issue see G. del Olmo Lete, “Atiratu’s Entreaty and the Order of the Ugaritic Tablets KTU 1.3/4”, AuOr 1 (1983): 67–71. 37De Moor, ARTU: 1–108. 38Due to the great amount of missing material, instead of arranging this passage 35These

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT [ ]m.ṣ/yt/pr[ ] gm. ṣḥ.l q [rbm39 ] l rḥqm.l p [ṭr40 ] ṣḥ.il.ytb.b m [rzḥ ] 5 btt. ʿllmn.x[ ] ilm.bt.b ʿlk.[ ] d l.ylkn.ḥš .b a[rṣ ] b ʿpr.ḫbl ṭtm.[ ] šqy.rta.tnmy.ytn[ks.b yd] 10krpn.b

klat yd.[ ]

35

[ ] . . . Cry aloud to the [near ones ] to the distant ones, to [the separated ones ] cry out, “El sits in [the Mrzḥ ] the shame of caprice41 [ ] the gods, the house of your lord[ ] who indeed walks quickly on the ea[rth ] in the dust acts of corruption42...[ ] A drink of curdled milk was... he put [a cup into hand,] a carafe43 into both hands44[ ]

according to stichometry, I have presented it according to the line numbers of KTU. 39I understand the initial section of this passage to be an invocation, or perhaps an invitation of the gods, both near and far, to the event about to be celebrated. The context seems to support this reconstruction, although it must necessarily remain hypothetical. Many scholars restore q [rbm ] in the lacuna, thus rendering “to those near by” and the following line, as a merismus, including all those near, far, and inbetween. CML2: 39; MLC: 158. Compare the use of far/near as a word pair, W. G. E. Watson “Some Additional Word Pairs” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTS 67), L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, eds., Sheffield, 1988: 189. 40I restore pṭr as cognate with the Hebrew pṭr, “separate, remove, set free” , (BDB: 809b). 41This is to understand ʿllmn as being from the root ʿll. The form taʿalûlîm, meaning “wanton, caprice” occurs in Isa. 3.4; 66.4. 42I take ḫbl as cognate with the Akkadian ḫabālum, “to commit a misdeed, harm”. The choice of this word is not arbitrary; indeed, the context is broken and uncertain, but it seems that the “shame of caprice” is mentioned in line 5, and an act of corruption does parallel this. 43Suggestion was made in an Ugaritic class that krpn may be related to the modern English word “carafe”. Upon checking the etymology of carafe in the Oxford English Dictionary, I found two possibilities offered: Arabic gharafah and Persian qarābah. As the word is apparently Semitic, although the actual form of a carafe may be a modern phenomenon, I believe the use of the word is not inappropriate in this instance. I would like to acknowledge the astute observation on the part of Mrs. C. Butler at this point. 44The bicolon, literally “he gave a cup in hand, a carafe into both hands” is also found at KTU 1.3.I.10. The rendering into English is awkward as the subject of the

36 k mll.k ḥṣ.tus p[ ] ] tgr.il.bnh.tr [ w yʿn.lṭpn.il.d p[id ] šm.bny.yw.ilt [ ] 15wpʿr.šm.ym[.wilt.w ] t ʿnyn.l zntn[.ym ]

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH like wheat,45 like sheaves46 were gathered [ ] they sojourn47 with El, his son with the bull[ ] and the Benevolent48 El the Compassionate spoke[ ] “the name of my son is Yaw, o Goddess49[ ] even proclaim a name for Yam” [And Goddess50 and ] answered, “For our sustenance51[ ]

giving is unknown. 45This is to understand mll as cognate with Hebrew mll, “to rub, scrape”. The form melîlōt occurs in Deut. 23.26 meaning “ear of wheat”. Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (TO: 308, note j) point to the Mishnaic Hebrew word of the same meaning. 46De Moor (ARTU: 25) suggests “gravel”, probably on the basis of Hebrew ḥṣṣ, which can have that connotation. I take ḥṣ as cognate with the Semitic root (BDB: 300b) ḥwṣ II, meaning “bound, sewn together”, or “compressed”. Thus “sheaves” would provide a fitting parallel to “wheat” in the same line. Although the readings “wheat” and “sheaves” are both hypothetical, they do (despite any seasonal implications which could be read into such a context) have the connotations of being “gathered in”, just as the guests are apparently being gathered in to the event which the text describes. 47Perhaps tgr is related to the Hebrew gwr, “to sojourn”; this would continue the description of the assembling of the gods described in the previous lines. 48This is de Moor’s rendering of lṭpn, ARTU: throughout. 49N. Wyatt (“‘Jedidiah’ and Cognate Forms as a Title of Royal Legitimation” Biblica 66 (1985): 121) offers the possibility “The name of my son is Lord of the god[s”, supposing ilm rather than ilt. This difference in interpretation points to the difficulties of dealing with such a fragmentary text. The photograph in CTA 2 is not clear at this point. I have viewed Dr. Wyatt’s close-up slide of this section of text one. The slide clearly shows , which may either be t or the first stroke of m. This line is the crux for Athirat’s possible mention in Baal and Yam. See the following discussion. 50Gibson (CML2: 39) restores .wilt.w in the lacuna, de Moor (ARTU: 25) supplies “Lady Athiratu”. Whichever restoration is chosen, the context may allow such an interpretation. I have followed Gibson’s restoration, although its use for the following discussion is minimal. It would be too tenuous to supply the missing subjects, although bnh, “her sons” is a common element to follow atrt, but perhaps not ilt. In any case, the following verb seems to indicate that a plural subject is understood. I shall draw no conclusions on the basis of this hypothetical restoration. 51With Gibson (CML2: 39), who cites Arabic zâna as cognate; see also N. Wyatt,

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT at.adn.tpʿr[ ] ank.lṭpn.il [.dpid ] ʿl.ydm.pʿrt[ ] 20 šmk.mdd.i[l ] bt.kspy.d t[ ] bd.aliyn b[ʿl ] kd.ynaṣn [ ] gršnn.l k [si.mlkh.lnḫt l kḥt]52 25 drkth.š x[ ] whm.ap.l [ ] ymḫṣk.k [ ] il.dbḥ.[ ] pʿr.bn[h ] 30 ṭbḫ.alp [m.ap.ṣin.šql] trm.w [mri.ilm.ʿglm.dt.šnt] imr.[qmṣ.llim ]

37

you have indeed proclaimed him lord[ ] I, Benevolent El [the Compassionate ] on the hands, I have proclaimed [ ] your name is beloved of El[ ] my house of silver which[ ] from (?) the hand of Mighty Baal[ ] as they who spurn[ ] drive him out from the s[eat of his kingship from the rest on the throne of] his dominion[ ] And if then . . . [ ] he will smite you like[ ] El, sacrifice[ ] he proclaimed [his] s[on king(?) ] Slaughter catt[le, also fell sheep] bulls and [fatted rams, yearling calves] lambs [strangle53 and kids…]

At the outset it must be said that any hypotheses based on this text must remain tentative. The information contained in this broken column may confirm some of the characteristics of Athirat which appear elsewhere in the Baal Cycle; however, of this we cannot be certain. My reason for exploring this text is this: it has been suggested that ilt, elsewhere an epithet of Athirat, occurs here. If it does, then the text may be compared to other references to Athirat. This scene appears to portray an important event, with the first lines being an invitation (or perhaps an invocation?) to the gods. De Moor understands the opening of this text as being a complaint of Athirat to El.54 This suggestion is difficult to substantiate, but as Athirat may be present we should not rule out the possibility that she may be speaking as the text begins. If Athirat is indeed present at this event, de Moor can do no more “‘Jedidiah’”: 121. 52Restored (as in KTU) on the basis of 3.IV.2–3. 53With Coogan (Stories from Ancient Canaan, Philadelphia, 1978 [hereafter cited as SAC]: 104), who follows Driver (CML: 77) who takes qmṣ from the same root in Hebrew “to grasp” (CML: 144). 54ARTU: 24.

38

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

than appeal to plausibility on the point of who is speaking. I do not have any suggestion for the speaker at the broken beginning of this section. The event portrayed occurs, it would seem from line 6, in “the house of your lord”. Both Gibson and Wyatt suggest that the lord here referred to is Yam;55 de Moor suggests Baal and therefore places this tablet after text 3.56 I see no reason to change the order of the tablets on the basis of bʿlk “your lord” alone. Throughout the Baal Cycle various gods are given, or seize for themselves, dominion over the others.57 The understanding of the sequence of events in ordering the tablets 1–6 need not be rearranged on the broken context of text 1. If the ceremony portrayed here is the renaming (or coronation) of Yam, it would be reasonable to suppose that he is the lord indicated. Phrases with the nuance of corruption (lines 5 and 8) remain enigmatic, but the point seems to be that the gods are being gathered together, like wheat or sheaves (line 11). What follows appears to be a renaming of Yam, or perhaps his coronation. A crucial point for the discussion of Athirat in the text is the understanding of lines 14 and 15: šm.bny.yw.ilt [ ]/wpʿr.šm.ym. Gibson reads them as “‘the name of my son is Yaw, o Elat [and ] / so do you proclaim a (new) name for Yam’”, thus it is rendered as a phrase addressed to Elat.58 This CML2: 39; Wyatt, (“‘Jedidiah’”: 121) suggests that “lord” in this passage is part of Yam’'s fivefold titulary. 56ARTU: 25 for his reading Baal; the arrangement of the texts is evident in his table of contents and his remarks at the beginning of each tablet. 57For example, Yam (text 2), Baal (throughout), Mot (texts 5 and 6), Athtar (text 6). I raise this point without wishing to enter the debate of the position of El in the pantheon, versus that of Baal. Kapelrud (Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, Copenhagen, 1952: 73–109); Pope (El in the Ugaritic Texts (SVT 2), Leiden, 1955, and “The Status of El at Ugarit” UF 19 (1987): throughout); and Oldenburg (The Conflict Between El and Baʿal: 70–155, and throughout) have argued strongly for a conflict between the two deities, whilst Gibson (“The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle”: 206–210); C. E. L’Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods, El, Baʿal , and the Rephaʾim (HSM 21), Missoula, 1979: 18–49; and Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh : 38–61 soundly refute this view. This is evident in the Baal Cycle: it is necessary for Baal to have El’s permission to build his palace (texts 3–4); that El invites Athirat to name a successor to Baal (text 6); and that Mot surrenders his struggle with Baal because of El’s threat to uproot his dominion (6.VI). 58CML2: 39. 55Gibson,

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

39

implies that Athirat is being given an active role in the renaming of Yam. Driver suggests “‘The name of my son is Yaw god.../And he did proclaim the name of Yaw [to be Yaw]”.59 El is on such an approach tautologically proclaiming Yaw’s name to be Yaw, and the Goddess is absent. Gordon likewise supposes the absence of the Goddess, and adds the il(t) to the name Yaw, thus: “The name of my son is Yaw-El(at)?[ ] /And he proclaims the name of Yamm[ ]”.60 Both Driver and Gordon understand the lines as referring to El, and do not see a goddess present at all. De Moor stresses the presence of Athirat, but translates the lines as “‘My son [shall not be called] by the name of Yawwu, o goddess, [but Yammu shall be his name]!’ So he proclaimed the name of Yammu”.61 The question is therefore, who is declaring the name of Yam? It is also important to ask what evidence we have for Athirat being present at all. Del Olmo Lete understands this perplexing passage as saying “[‘De seguro proclamaré] el nombre de mi hijo Yawu ; / diosa, [su nombre es: ‘Amado de Ilu’”]./Y proclamó el nombre de Yammu”.62 This translation assumes the presence of a goddess. Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner translate the troublesome lines as “‘Le nom de mon fils (est) Yaw, /Elat [ ] et proclamez le nom de Yam [ ]’”63 They understand that a goddess Elat is present, and she is asked to name Yaw in line 15 (they translate pʿr as an imperative). It is obvious that no consensus has been reached on this difficult passage. In attempting to divide the passage into poetic cola, one is met by the difficulty of half lines being preserved: this makes any reconstruction of the versification tenuous. The question becomes one of understanding the verb and the appearance of ilt at the end of the existing line. The form of pʿr allows for its interpretation as either an imperative, or as a third person masculine singular form of the suffixing conjugation. Either, as demonstrated by the examples above, makes sense of the text. Are there any factors to help determine what is meant? Since Yam is generally construed as a masculine deity,64 it would seem that Gordon’s rendering of Yaw-El(at) is unlikely. We have no reason to suspect that Yam would be named “Yaw-Goddess”. Line 15 could read, 59CML:

75. : 88. 61ARTU: 25. 62MLC: 159. 63TO: 309–310. 64The finite verbs used of Yam in 2.IV are masculine. 60PLMU

40

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

however, “And he proclaims the name of Yamm” (with Gordon). Driver’s explanation is possible, but it does multiply the number of “Yaw”s in the text, followed by the giving of a new name. Should El be stressing the old name of Yaw more than the new one to be assigned? I have closely examined the photograph of this section of the tablet by N. Wyatt.65 The photograph clearly shows at the broken end of the tablet in line 14. It is possible that the first stroke of a m ( ) is intended here, but the line breaks off just at the end of the horizontal wedge. Thus, the tablet would be able to support either reading. I would simply note here that Caquot, Szyncer, and Herdner, Gibson, del Olmo Lete, and de Moor read the word represented at the end of line 14 as ilt. I shall now consider what information the text would provide, if the word in question were to be read as ilt. Any conclusions are tentative, and I shall use them only for the purposes of comparison with the attributes of Athirat as more solidly supported elsewhere in the Baal Cycle. Although we may read ilt at the broken end of line 14, this suggestion does not clarify what is happening in the story. Is Athirat being asked to rename Yaw (Gibson), or is El simply addressing an unspecified goddess (del Olmo Lete)? The interpretation depends on the understanding of the verb pʿr in line 15. The usual narrative “tense” in Ugaritic mythology seems to be the “prefixing conjugation” (roughly similar to the Hebrew imperfect). We should note that both prefixing and suffixing conjugations are used with this verb in the following lines.66 The amount of assistance the verb form may lend is limited in this instance. We could appeal to another factor which supports the presence of a group of deities in the form of tʿnyn “they answered” in line 16. In the paradigms given by Gordon, this form could be interpreted in a number of ways.67 The prefixed t and suffixed n could point to a second or third person dual form of either gender, as well as a second or third person plural of either gender. The verb could even be a third feminine singular with an energic n, or a second person singular of either gender. This practically rules out only third masculine singulars and first person verbs. The appeal to context depends on who is present, thus 65I am indebted to Dr. Wyatt for offering me the use of his close-up slides of the tablets. 66The prefixing conjugation tpʿr occurs in line 17, the suffixing conjugation pʿrt occurs in line 19. Both have been partially restored. 67UT: 154.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

41

causing circular arguments. The verb form, therefore, does not necessarily indicate the presence of a goddess, nor does it demonstrate any role which a goddess may be playing in the text. It may seem that I have spent an excessive amount of time on an obscure text. The point of interest is the possibility that Athirat may be mentioned here together with Yam. Her title rbt atrt ym has attracted much speculation. Without entering into the question of etymology here,68 we must note that to explore the evidence for Athirat being associated with Yam or with the sea we must pause wherever we may possibly find such evidence. Athirat and Yam appear to be mentioned together in the context of KTU 1.4.II. Again the text is broken, but we may, by examining the pieces, be able to distil some information on this relationship indicated in Athirat’s epithet. The obvious event being portrayed in 1.IV is the renaming of Yam. His titles zbl and tpt are an indication of some kind of sovereignty. It is also apparent from KTU 1.2.III (also badly broken) that Yam has been chosen for some special purpose by El, a purpose which includes having a palace built. For Baal, the building of a palace is a sign of his kingship among the gods. It would therefore seem reasonable to suppose that this is also the case for Yam. I have noted that Athirat may be present, but this is a point which I cannot consider proven. Why might Athirat have been present in this text? Firstly, because she is the mother of Yam (as she is the mother of all the gods), she would naturally appear in a ceremony (?) honouring her son. Secondly, El may have asked Athirat to proclaim a new name for Yam, indicating that she may have had an important role in the scene.69 Here, El asking Athirat to rename Yam, would perhaps anticipate his later request of her to name a successor to Baal (6.I). The evidence in the latter passage points to this as a functional role of Athirat, although its specific nature cannot be declared with any certainty here. Gordon has suggested that Ugaritic rbt should be understood as the “queen mother”, and therefore, the one supposed to name the successor to the throne.70 Although this theory would provide 68I shall address this issue in my conclusions, after the relevant material has been examined. 69The phenomenon of renaming a person (here a divinity) at a new stage of life is familiar from the Old Testament. One need only recall the accounts of Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17), and Jacob (Gen. 32.28), or even the New Testament account of Simon Peter (Matt.16.18) to consider its prevalence. 70C. Gordon, “Ugaritic rbt /rabītu” in Ascribe to the Lord: 127–132.

42

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

some answers to the situation as it is presented in KTU 1.1.IV, we cannot be certain of it in this context. I shall consider further the office of the rabītu below. The fragmentary state of this text only allows us to determine that Athirat may have been present, and that her word may have been requested by El. Also, we must note, if this reconstruction of the scenario is correct, that Athirat declined the offer to rename her son, and the honour is given to El. This could reflect a formality of court life at Ugarit, but we have no records to substantiate this idea. It is interesting to note that, if the texts do follow in their commonly assigned order, this could be the first mention of Athirat we have in the Baal Cycle, and consequently it would come before the title rbt atrt ym is used of her. Perhaps as an accident of the state of the texts, this is the only instance in our sub-division of Baal and Yam where Athirat may appear. We may learn from it that she is given a special status in the renaming of Yam, possibly reflecting her status as queen mother. Also of interest in this instance is that if Athirat is mentioned, it is in association with El, not on her own. This pattern is reflected elsewhere in the Baal Cycle, as we shall see.71 The Palace of Baal In the “Palace of Baal” section of the Baal Cycle, Athirat appears in a larger role. Her name appears in formulaic expressions, and as a character she appears in active situations. The first mention of her in the surviving texts is in KTU 1.3.I.15. The text is in a good state of preservation here, but the content is open to interpretation. The scene is that of a banquet, apparently celebrating Baal’s victory over Yam, as it occurs shortly after their combat scene. Lines 10-17 read: 10ytn.ks.bdh he put a cup into his hand, a carafe in both of his hands, 11krpnm.b klat.ydh a great jar mighty to behold, 12bk rb. ʿẓm. ridn 13 mt.šmm. a tankard72 of the men of heaven, 71The

assumption is made that Elat is an epithet for Athirat. Her name appears in parallel with this title in KTU 1.14.IV.34–36, and as the consort of the head of the pantheon, the title “Goddess” is just as appropriate for her in this mythological cycle as “El” is for her consort. 72The word ridn is uncertain, but the parallelism seems to demand a general synonym for cup (ks), carafe (krpnm), and “jar” (?) (bk). In this context, a tankard, as a large drinking vessel, would be suitable. See M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Die ugaritischen Gefässbezeichnungen ridn und kw” UF 19 (1987): 27–32 and W. G. E.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT ks. qdš 14 l tp hnh.att. krpn 15 l tʿn.atrt. alp 16kd.yqḥ. b ḫmr 17rbt.ymsk. b mskh

43

a cup of holiness (which) no woman could see, a carafe (which) Athirat might not regard. A thousand jars he took from the wine vat,73 a myriad he mixed in his mixture.

The story of a divine banquet is being told, and the particular vessel from which Baal is drinking is described with considerable mythological detail. As in the Norse tales of Thor who could drink great quantities of mead, Baal is pictured here drinking an enormous amount of wine. The tantalising reference to a woman (att) in line 14 is paralleled by atrt in line 15. The difficulty is to interpret what this reference means. If administrative records point to a patriarchal society, then we may assume that women were excluded from certain events, but why from a victory feast? The goddesses are clearly present at the meeting of the gods when Yam’s embassy arrives (2.I), since Anat and Athtart prevent Baal’s harming of the messengers. When celebrating the building of his palace, Baal invites the gods and goddesses (ilht) to a feast (4.VI.45–54). Why, then, is it mentioned that no woman could see the cup from which Baal is portrayed as drinking in text 3.I? Why is “woman” paralleled by Athirat? The question of why no woman could see the cup is lost to us in the lack of our knowledge of Ugaritian social customs, but a hint may exist in 4.III.17–22 (see below). As the text stands, however, the l s in lines 14–15 could be asseverative as well as negative particles. The cup may have been one which “women indeed saw”, and which “Athirat indeed regarded”. This difference in perspective still does not illuminate the social situation in which women are referred to in relation to goblets. One factor is conspicuous; atrt is the “B word” paralleled with att as the “A word”. In the light of this, the translation of the atrt as Athirat could be questioned.74 Margalit has recently argued that the word atrt here does not refer to the goddess but is a generic word for “woman”.75 He bases his hypothesis on the parallelism, concerning which he argues, “Nowhere in Ugaritic poetry does the divine name atrt stand as a B-word parallel to an Watson, “Notes on Some Ugaritic Words” SEL 6 (1989): 50. 73I have followed the suggestion of N. Wyatt for ḫmr = “wine vat” here, on the basis of context. 74Indeed, Gibson (CML2: 46) translates the word as “goddess”, suggesting that it is a generic term. Driver (CML: 83) generalises even further to “deity”. 75B. Margalit, “The Meaning and Signficance of Asherah” VT 40 (1990): 271– 274.

44

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

epithet”.76 I would suggest, however, that att is not to be understood as an epithet here. Also, Margalit cannot provide any evidence for an Ugaritic common noun atrt meaning “woman” except this instance. Indeed, this meaning is not attested in any Semitic language which knows of a goddess by this name. I suggest that the question should be “why is Athirat placed in parallelism with the word for woman?”. (See also the discussion on 4.III.17–22, below.) As to the reason that “woman” and Athirat are used in parallelism, we also may be able to venture a hypothesis. Since Athirat is later portrayed with a spindle (see below), the internal evidence supports her association with human women. Although she is the great goddess, she does seem to share some of the traits of an earthly woman. This aspect will appear again in the Baal Cycle. When the evidence for Athirat’s activity being that of mortal women is considered (4.II), the use of her name as a parallel for “woman” should not be supposed to be impossible. Indeed, Athirat seems to have a special significance as the “womanly” goddess in the texts as we have them. Anat’s role encompasses the violent aspect of goddesses, whereas Athirat seems to embody the more maternal aspect. As a generalisation, this observation cannot be strictly applied, but it does seem to support the reading “Athirat” (in conjunction with evidence presented below) in 3.I.15. Athirat’s name next occurs in 3.IV.48–52 (largely reconstructed on the basis of parallel texts throughout the “Palace of Baal” section). The section under consideration is either partially or wholly repeated in KTU 1.3.V.3–4, 35–44; 1.4.I.4–18; 1.4.IV.47–57; 1.4.IV.62–V.1. The passage deals with Baal’s plea for a house, and since it occurs in relatively complete form at 3.V.35–44, I shall use that particular text as my pericope for translation. 35 any.l yṣḥ.tr il.abh. Groaning indeed he calls out to Bull El his father, El the king who begot77 him, il 36 mlk.d yknnh. he cries to Athirat and her children, yṣḥ.atrt 37 w bnh. 78 to the goddess and the gathering of her company, ilt.w ṣbrt.arḫh

76“Meaning

and Significance of Asherah”: 273. root kwn, which seems to lie behind the Ugaritic yknn, besides the notion of “founding”, or “establishing”, may also connote “making” in the poʿlel, even in the context of making a person in the womb (BDB: 466b, cf. Job 31.15, Ps. 119.73). Thus we could perhaps render the phrase as “the king who begot him”. This would seem to be the line of understanding which Gordon takes (PLMU: 89). 77The

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT 38wn.in.bt[.]l

bʿl.km.ilm 39ḥẓr.k b[n.] atrt. mtb.il 40mẓll.b [nh. m]tb.rbt.atrt 41ym. mtb.[pdr]y.bt.ar 42[mẓll.] ṭl y[.bt.] rb mtb 43[arṣy.bt.yʿbdr.] mtb 44[klt.knyt]80.

45

“Now there is no house for Baal like the gods, (nor) a court79 like the children of Athirat, the dwelling of El is the residence of [his] so[n], the dwelling of Lady Athirat of the Sea is the dwelling of [Pdr]y, daughter of mist, [the residence of] Ṭly [daughter of] rain, the dwelling of [Arṣy daughter of ?] the dwelling of [the perfect brides]. . .

Parts of this pericope are repeated to the extent that they may be regarded as formulas. In the context of the poetry, however, this repetition should not be considered unusual. We do stand to gain some knowledge of Athirat from it, as her name appears three times within it. The first observation to be made is that the text supports an alternative interpretation. Since the expected preposition l is absent before the objects of Baal’s supplication, it could be assumed that the gods are the ones speaking. Thus de Moor’s rendering: The Bull Ilu, his father, groaned (and) cried out, Ilu, the King who had created him, Athiratu and her sons cried out, the Goddess and the troop of her kin81

The verb ṣwḥ, however, is commonly found with and without the preposition l.82 The only method of deciding between the two interpretations is according to context. It would be reasonable to suppose that since as aryh on the basis of the parallel passages. Since ḫ ( ) and y( )are very similar in cuneiform, this reconstruction is plausible. The difficulty with this is the translation of this word. Gibson (CML2: 142) has suggested a possible cognate in the Egyptian iry, “companion”. Aistleitner (WUS: 35) has essentially the same translation, based on Arabic ʾarā. In any case, the parallelism gives a clear enough meaning in this context. 79Understanding Ugaritic ḥẓr as cognate with Hebrew ḥṣr I “enclosure, court” (BDB: 346b). Another possibility is a relationship to ḥdr, “chamber, room” (BDB: 293b). 80Restored on the basis of 4.I.14–15. 81ARTU: 18. 82I am indebted to Prof. J. C. L. Gibson for pointing this out to me. 78Taken

46

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

the message is given to Anat, Athirat, and El, all included among the suppliants, they are actually being addressed by Baal’s prayer rather than pleading for him. Indeed, to whom would El cry out if Baal had no house, as he is the chief god? The most obvious answer to this reasoning is that the language is stereotypical poetic language. As the initial occurrence of the lines in question seems to be presented by Baal to Anat (as indicated by the feminine singular wtʿn in 3.IV.47) it has the flavour of a supplication on the part of Baal. It is to the gods that Baal appeals for a house, and he cannot build it until he has the permission of El. Given the fact that the language is poetic, this allows for the repetition of prayers even in the mouths of the ones being petitioned. What is ultimately being sought is the permission of El. Since El is primary in the list of those being invoked, it can be understood that Baal is praying to the other gods. The complaint is, after all, Baal’s. It is important to note that Athirat appears in parallel to El, thus demonstrating their similar roles as the parents of the gods. Athirat is here pictured in her role as mother of the gods, and the second mention of her name is precisely in that setting. She and her children are being approached for the sake of Baal. We should note that atrt occurs in parallel with ilt here, thus demonstrating her connection with this title. Neither ilt nor rbt seem to be unique titles of Athirat, as they can be found in connection with other goddesses in other contexts. Ilt, however, in connection with El, or in parallelism with atrt, does seem to indicate Athirat, as it does here and possibly in 1.IV.14. Further, it is possible to discern that Athirat has a dwelling. This point should not be pressed too far. The point of this poetic expression (hyperbole?) is that all of the gods have dwellings, except Baal (and therefore his daughters). The passage does not state that El and Athirat live apart, and the parallelism of their names would rather indicate the opposite. The residence of El and Athirat is also the residence of Baal and his daughters; that is to say, the main point is especially emphasized: Baal has no house. Van Selms approaches the issues of family arrangements at Ugarit, and he begins with this assumption: “We suppose that the life of gods and mythical heroes as depicted in the epical texts is on the whole a reflection of human life as known to the poets of Ugarit”.83 That the gods’ lives contained elements of human life seems unquestionable, but to assume the lives in detail are

83Marriage

and Family Life: 10.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

47

such a reflection is dubious.84 An important lesson is presented by this scenario. The concern of myth is not to reflect accurately human realities—this could be done in secular texts. The myth makes a point. Here we are simply informed that Baal’s daughters lived with El and Athirat, just as he himself did, as a circumstance which called for his own palace to be built. We should not read too much of everyday life into this. What can be distilled about Athirat? The most obvious information is that Athirat is considered a mother to Baal and his daughters. This is important to note, as it calls into question the assumption that the enmity between Athirat and Baal in other mythologies (as in the Elkunirsa myth) carried directly through to Ugarit. The “family life” of the gods is not as much the emphasis of the myths, as is the outcome of their actions. One proper question applied to such a text as this, which is repeated several times, is: in what contexts within the story does it occur? Another valid question is: does this affect its form at all? To answer the first question, the statement of Baal’s lament is found on the lips of Baal (3.IV.47– 53), Anat (3.V.35–44), and Athirat (4.IV.47–57). Since all three deities use the same formulation, even when they are included in the number of those petitioned by Baal, their words may be regarded as a standard formula. The actual context suggests that these words are ultimately a message to be presented in the hearing of El. They appear as a form of lament. In each case where the message of lament is uttered, it is in the form of an appeal for help; Baal requires a house to establish his kingship, but he does not have the sanction of El to build one. The plea is presented to Anat, who is supplicated in the “third class” of gods, “the children of Athirat”. Thus, the primary position in his standard lament is filled by the appeal to El himself. Ultimately, it is El who must give the order to have the house built. This is demonstrated by the texts regarding the palace of Yam in KTU 1.2.III.7–11, as well as being supported by 2.III.18–20, regarding Athtar’s lack of a house. What is important in the context of this study is that Athirat’s intervention is needed to win the approval of El. Thus, in Baal’s lament, the second deity to whom he appealed was Athirat. The very fact that Baal and Anat had to approach Athirat on the matter demonstrates that Anat’s forceful appeal to El was not granted.85 As stated above, Anat is classed in the 84For

instance, Baal, as cited at KTU 1.3.I.10–17, is drinking myriads of draughts of wine, and Kothar-and-Khasis builds a mansion for Baal by burning it for seven days (4.VI.22–35). 85I see no need to rearrange the tablets in order to form a coherent seasonal

48

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

tertiary division of gods, that of the children of Athirat. Thus, in the course of the circulation of his supplication, the words of Baal are presented, in reverse order, to the gods to whom he must appeal. Initially he gives his lament to Anat. Then, in ascending rank, he cries to Athirat (the “second class”, outranking Anat), and finally, via Athirat, to El (the “first class”, the god whose permission is required). A subtle, literary chiasmus is evident in this arrangement of Baal’s lament, and in the order of the gods to whom he makes it. The point to grasp here for the study of Athirat in the Baal Cycle is that she is the means by which to reach El. Anat burst directly into El’s dwelling to make her demand (3.V), but did not achieve her goal. Athirat, approaching her consort respectfully (see below), has success. The next text with importance for our study is KTU 1.3.VI.9–11. The context seems to point to Baal sending a message to Kothar-and-Khasis, interestingly enough, via Athirat’s messenger(s) and not his usual messenger(s) Gupn-and-Ugar. The text reads: . . . Start,86 O Fisherman of Athirat . . . šmšr 10 l dgy.atrt 11mġ.l qdš .amrr 87 Go, O Qodesh-and-Amrur This passage introduces the character of the “fisherman of Athirat”, Qodesh-and-Amrur. Some scholars have argued that Athirat’s epithet of rbt atrt ym should be understood in the sense of her association with the “day”, that is, as a sun goddess.88 I have suggested above that she may have had a pattern, as with de Moor, The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Baʿlu (AOAT 16), Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1971: 39–42. His suggestion that El could not resist the forceful approach of Anat is to betray a misunderstanding of the mythology. Surely a system of mythological thinking which could allow Baal to come back after having died could also permit El to deny the desire of an irate Anat. 86Following Gibson’s rendering (CML2: 152) based on the Akkadian cognate mutaššuru. Other suggestions, “proceed” (Gordon, PLMU: 84) and “cleave the skies” (de Moor, ARTU: 19), suggest the same kind of action; the context seems to demand this. 87The name here appears without the w which normally links this binomial together. See, for instance, 4.IV.13. 88Usually on the basis of South Arabian evidence, for example, D. Nielsen, Ras Šamra Mythologie und Biblische Theologie (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 21), Leipzig, 1936: 27–37. Although he maintains the meaning “sea” for ym in Athirat’s title, E. Lipiński (“The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” OLP 3 (1972): 101–119) argues that she is to be under-

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

49

special connection with Yam, the god of the sea. Although her servant being a fisherman does not, prima facie, rule out the possibility that Athirat could have been associated with the sun at Ugarit, it does require some explanation if that is the case. The fact remains that Athirat does maintain a marine connection through her fisherman, and his character must be discussed in this context. De Moor suggested that the important Amorite god Amurru had been demoted to the position of Athirat’s servant in the person of Qidsu waAmruru (his vocalisation).89 Perlman, in her dissertation on the goddesses Athtart and Athirat,90 took up the dicussion of the nature and possible origin of Qodesh-and-Amrur. She writes: Atirat’s other helper (or is dgy an epitheton?), while possibly “Holy-andExalted,” is more likely the name of the god Amurru compounded with his epithet qdš, “holy.” This god was no coastal deity; he belonged in the Syrian steppe, probably riding a donkey. It appears quite likely that our Atirat was Amurru’s consort transplanted to the Western coast.91

Although Perlman does not press her point, the suggestion on the nature of Qodesh-and-Amrur should be considered seriously. The reconstructions of de Moor and Perlman appear to be given strength from the fact that Ashratu was known as the consort of the god Amurru in Mesopotamia.92 When we see the two together in the Baal Cycle, two questions arise: 1) do these two deities naturally go together, or 2) is it simply a matter of coincidence that two sets of deities with the same names appear in two separate mythological spheres? Attractive as Perlman’s hypothesis is, it does come as the result of crossing cultural gaps. The material available on Amurru comes from Mesopotamia. The binomial element qdš does not appear to have been applied to Amurru in Mesopotamia,93 and he does not otherwise occur in stood as a solar deity. 89Seasonal Pattern: 52. 90A. L. Perlman, Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic Literature, Ph. D. dissertation, Graduate Theological Union, 1978. 91Perlman, Asherah and Astarte: 83. 92P. Jensen, “Die Götter Amurru(ū) und Ašratu.” ZA 11 (1896–97): 302–305, see below. 93A. Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum, Nomina Deorum e Textibus Cuneiformibus Excerpta et Ordine Alphabetico (Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici), Rome, 1914: 177–178; K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta, mit einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der prädikativen Elemente der sumerischen Götternamen (Studia Orientalia Edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica VII), Helsinki, 1938: 251.

50

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

the Ugaritic mythological texts. Where the place name Amurru occurs (4.I.41, see below), it is spelled amr, rather than amrr, as here. In order to weigh the evidence properly a study of Amurru in the Amorite material would be required.94 Such an exploration is beyond the scope of this dissertation; however, I shall discuss the relationship of Ashratu and Amurru in my chapter on the Mesopotamian material. We can perhaps discover something about Athirat by the fact that her messenger(s) is being sent on a mission by Baal. Such a scenario would seem to suggest that somewhere before 3.VI Athirat had sent some message to Baal. Otherwise we would have difficulty in trying to determine why Baal is using her messenger(s) rather than his own. If this reconstruction were to prove tenable, I would further suggest that Athirat’s postulated message to Baal did not require an immediate reply, thus there is time for the messenger(s) to be sent to Kothar-and-Khasis in order to attain gifts to present to Athirat. Perhaps it is because a gift is being ordered for Athirat that Qodesh-and-Amrur was sent. Certainty is not possible on this matter. Following the instructions given to Qodesh-and-Amrur, tablet three breaks off. When tablet four becomes legible, the message of Baal is being delivered to Kothar-and-Khasis. The lament of Baal is repeated (again to a god of the third stratum, one of the “children of Athirat”, thus keeping within the scheme presented above), and instructions are given concerning gifts for Athirat. 4.I.20–22 reads: I say to you, make ready,95 I pray, 20 argmk. šskn.mʿ 21mgn.rbt.atrt ym a gift96 for Lady Athirat of the Sea,

94See J.-R. Kupper, L’iconographie du dieu Amurru dans la glyptique de la Ire dynastie babylonienne (Classe des lettres, mémoires 25), Brussels, 1961. 95Causative form of skn, “to prepare”, cognate with the Akkadian sakānu. 96This is to see Ugaritic mgn as cognate with Hebrew māgan, “to deliver up, give”. In this case, it must be taken as a substantive, therefore rendering “a gift”. See M. O’Connor, “Yahweh the Donor” AuOr 6 (1988): 47–60.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT 22 mġẓ.qnyt.ilm

51

a present97 for the Bearer of the gods.

Baal wished to seal his petition with a gift. This does not demonstrate that Athirat in the Baal Cycle is corrupt, accepting bribes for illicit activities. It would rather seem, from her reaction at the approach of Baal and Anat (see below), that she is innately afraid of the pair. The gift takes the edge off of her fear, as it also does in KTU 1.4.II.21-26. Immediately following Baal’s request for a gift for Athirat, Kotharand-Khasis is portrayed as producing a wealth of presents.98 This list finishes with an unusual tricolon (4.I.41-43) which reads: a divine bowl whose handle100 (was shaped) as (in) 41ṣʿ 99 .il.dqt.k amr Amurru,101 42sknt .k ḥwt.yman appearing102 like the beasts103 of Yman, word is most difficult. Obviously, by parallelism mġẓ must approximate to “gift” of line 21. Gibson (CML2: 151) suggests a root ġẓy, but does not offer a cognate. Maier (ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 6) also presents the same root, but translates on the basis of context. Del Olmo Lete (MLC: 193) does not offer a cognate. Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (TO: 194, n. d) draw attention to the Arabic ġaḍā, “to dim, obscure”, and ʾaġaḍā, “to close the eyes”, intending to demonstrate its force as a bribe. De Moor (ARTU: 45) and Gordon (PLMU: 89) render the noun as “bribe”; Gordon adding in a footnote, that “Nothing pejorative is intended by the word ‘bribe’”. Although the context denotes such a sense for the present, I find the word “bribe” a little too strong for the integrity of the characters. “Present” suggests the winning of favour without implying corruption. See especially J. C. de Moor, “Ugaritic hm—Never ‘Behold’” UF 1 (1969): 202, n. 6. 98For a profusely illustrated study of the list of gifts which Kothar-and-Khasis produced, see R. Heyer, “Ein Archäologischer Beitrage zum Text KTU 1.4 I 23– 43” UF 10 (1978): 93–109. 99Correcting KTU’s error sʿ. 100I understand dqt to be the relative d added to the noun qt, “handle” (see J. A. Emerton, “Ugaritic Notes” JTS 16 (N.S., 1965): 440–441 for discussion and cognates). See also Gibson, CML2: 56 and TO: 196. If dqt were to be taken as an adjective, its form would appear to be feminine. As ṣʿ is masculine, this seems unlikely. I am indebted to Prof. J. C. L. Gibson for drawing my attention to this discrepancy. 101Or “lamb”, depending on which word of the next line is taken to be in parallel with it. 102Gordon maintains the view of Ginsberg and Gaster (as cited in TO: 197, n. s) that sknt should be translated “stele” (PLMU: 90). This would be an unlikely conclusion to a list essentially composed of furniture. Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner 97This

52 43dbh.rumm.l

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH rbbt

in which were wild oxen by myriads.

The translation of this tricolon presents several difficulties and therefore remains tentative. However, for the present study I would indicate the possible reference to Amurru in line 41, denoting the style of the bowl. This passage is followed by a double line in the text, which indicates the intended end of the episode. The possible mention of Amurru in line 41 may point to the land of Athirat’s origin. The “bowl” is the climax of the list of presents, and it is described in detail. It would be fitting (although I cannot insist that this interpretation is the correct one) if the pièce de résistance of Baal’s gifts were a reminder of Athirat’s “homeland”.104 We next find Baal and Anat approaching Athirat whilst she was engaged in an enigmatic activity. KTU 1.4.II.2–11 reads: 2 labn[ ] to the stone [ ] She grasped her spindle [in her hand,] 3 aḫdt.plkh[.b ydh] her spindle whorl105 in her right hand.106 4 plk.tʿlt.b ym nh Her garment of covering107 she let loose,108 5 npynh.mks.bšrh tentatively suggest “(et) la base au pays de Ymʾan” (TO: 197). Gibson and de Moor take the approach of supposing sknt to be taken as “appearance” and “shaped” respectively (CML2: 56, and ARTU: 46). Gibson notes that sknt is literally “image” (56, n. 7), and del Olmo Lete offers the noun “forma” (MLC: 595). I understand sknt as a participle modifying qt, “handle”. 103See Emerton, “Ugaritic Notes”: 439; ḥwt may be cognate with Hebrew ḥyh, “living thing, animal” (BDB: 312b). 104For more on Amurru, see below in the chapter on Akkadian material. 105This meaning requires reading qlt rather than tʿlt in line 4. For this interpretation see B. Margalit, A Matter of “Life” and “Death”, a Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4–5–6) (AOAT 206), Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1980: 28–29. His suggestions will be discussed in the text. 106W. G. E. Watson (“Strophic Chiasmus in Ugaritic Poetry” UF 15 (1983): 261) understands this couplet as an example of partial chiasmus: She grasped her spindle in her hand, (her) spindle she lifted up in her right hand. 107The root of mks would seem to be ksy, of which mks is a participial form. ksy would be cognate with Hebrew ksh, “to cover”, which occurs in the form mekasseh in Lev. 9.19 and in Isa. 23.18 it actually denotes fine clothing. It is in parallel with mdh, “her clothing” in line 6. 108Coogan’s rendering “she tore off the garment which covered her flesh” (SAC: 97) may seem rather forced, especially when his verb “tore” has to be sup-

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT 6tmtʿ.mdh.b

ym. tn 7npynh.b nhrm 8 štt.ḫptr.l išt 9 ḫbrt.l ẓr.pḥmm 10tʿpp.tr.il.dpid 11 tġẓy.bny.bnwt

53

she carried109 her clothes into the sea, her two garments into the river. She placed a cauldron on the fire, a pot on top of the coals. She fluttered her eyelids110 (at) Bull El the Compassionate she winked111 (at) the Creator of Creatures.

The actual activity represented here has been variously explained. Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner apparently suppose Athirat to be frightened to the point of incontinence at Baal and Anat’s approach.112 Maier supposes that Athirat is praying to El.113 Gibson suggests that Athirat is about her “woman’s work” by the sea shore.114 De Moor also sees this as evidence that she is doing her spinning and laundering by the sea.115 The text supports the activities of laundering; however, the mention of winking and fluttering eyelids would appear to suggest that something more than spinning or washing is being done, at least in Athirat’s mind. The difficulties when plied by parallelism with a hypothetical definition. His understanding of what is actually happening, however, may very well be correct. I shall discuss this possibility below. 109Many commentators suggest that Athirat carried her clothes into the sea, interpreting the text as a laundering episode. For a cognate Gibson (CML2: 152) turns to Arabic mataʿa, “carried off”. Aisleitner puts forward the same cognate, with the same meaning (WUS: 199), as does del Olmo Lete (MLC: 586). I concur with the laundering interpretation, although I believe the text supports flirtatious undertones. 110This word presents a difficulty, both in meaning and in interpretation. Clearly the action is directed to El, but his presence would make the scenario of Athirat’s trip to his abode redundant. It seems that the root is ʿwp, “to fly”, which Gibson (CML2: 154) further qualifies as an L stem, meaning to “flutter the eyelids”. 111As a parallel to “she fluttered her eyelids”, ġẓy would seem to have some ocular connotation as well. The Hebrew root ʿṣh (BDB: 781a) would be consonantally sound, and the meaning appears to be “shut the eyes”, therefore, in this context, “wink”. 112TO: 197–198. 113ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 33. 114CML2: 10. 115ARTU: 47, notes 207 and 208.

54

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

approaching what an ancient character is supposed to be thinking are legion. No hard evidence can be adduced by asking the writer, and the text is an enigma at this point. This stated, we may be able to glean some information from the text itself. The first point I would like to make is that this episode is similar to the sea shore episode in text 23. Perhaps the first similarity to notice between KTU 1.4.II.2–11 and 1.23 is that both obviously take place by the sea. This is stated in KTU 1.23.30, on the reverse of text 23. The next point of similarity is that mention is made of something (a “cauldron” in the case of 4.II, and a “bird” in the case of 23) placed on the fire//coals. We are made aware that text 23 has sexual overtones by the euphemistic kissing and embracing, with pregnancy resulting (lines 49–51, 55–56). Finally, both texts contain mention of some “symbol” of the deity involved. Athirat is portrayed with her spindle, and El, in text 23, is portrayed as having a “sceptre”, ḫṭ. El’s sceptre in this text is a euphemism for phallus, as is indicated by the juxtaposition of the two women calling out that El’s sceptre has been lowered (23.46–48), with El’s subsequent impregnation of the women (48– 51). I shall be dealing more fully with text 23 in the next chapter, but I would put forward these similarities to help make sense of the present text. It must be admitted that KTU 1.23 is not an Elimelek tablet, and that utilising an episode from that tablet to enlighten one in the Baal Cycle is to be done with caution. It is probable, however, that certain motifs were known by different Ugaritic mythological writers, and that some overlapping may have occurred. A consideration of the spindle of Athirat may also enlighten the issue. Here the justification of translating tʿlt as “whorl” (following the suggestion of Margalit116) should be discussed. In his interpretation, three reasons exist for favouring the reading q as opposed to tʿ (the wedges for either reading are very similar, tʿ = q= ): 1) it causes alliteration, 2) qlt occurs in parallelism with p [lk] in 4.III.15, and 3) qlt provides a suitable interpretation.117 Of these three reasons, the second and third seem to carry the most weight. The characteristic of alliteration may indeed occur in Ugaritic poetry, but it should not be decisive for supplying a textual variant. It is better to recognise alliteration where it occurs rather than make it a criterion for possible textual emendations. The second reason, that qlt appears in parallelism with *plk in 4.III.15, deserves some attention. I will discuss the inci116Matter 117Matter

of Life and Death: 28–29. of Life and Death: 28.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

55

dent in column III below; however, initially I should state that the context of the occurrence seems to be a feast which has caused Baal distress. Immediately following the suggested restoration of “spindle” and the reading “whorl”, Baal delineates three types of feasts which he hates. The one matter which all three have in common is their sexual immorality (on which see below). The trouble with this interpretation for Margalit’s argument is that he misconstrues the role of the spindle by the sea in 4.II.3–11: Even those who have realized that the text depicts Asherah laundering, preface the latter activity with some spinning-by-the-sea. There is in fact no basis for this assumption. The spindle, though designed primarily for spinning or winding wool and flax, could be—and was—put to other uses as well...of particular significance here—as a weapon wielded by a rebuffed Asherah. In the text at hand it should be understood as serving as a bat to beat laundry.118

Even if a spindle could be used as a “bat”, this interpretation does not help explain the winking at El which Asherah seems to be doing whilst at her work. A further consideration is that Margalit’s suggestion that the spindle could be used as a weapon of Athirat is derived from a troublesome borrowing from the Elkunirsa myth, to be discussed below. The interpretation of the spindle has other nuances to be considered. The spindle has been considered by some scholars as Athirat’s symbol of sovereignty. This, at first consideration, seems unlikely. The spindle was an emblem of an everyday woman’s work, hardly the sceptre of a queenly figure.119 Even El, the head of the pantheon is not pictured with a symbol of his authority, other than perhaps his “beard” in KTU 1.4.V.4, or his “sceptre” in text 23. In fact, traditional regalia seem to be strangely absent from the supreme heads of the Ugaritic pantheon, as presented in the texts. However, they are present, apparently, in KTU 1.23.8–9:120 Mt-w-Šr sat, in his hand a sceptre of bereavemt.wšr.ytb.bdh. ḫṭ.tlk bdh ment, in his hand a sceptre of widowhood ḫṭ.ulmn.yzbrnn.zbrm.gpn Apart from the difficulties in understanding text 23 as a whole (see below) the first several lines contain many allusions for which we have no cer118Matter

of Life and Death: 28. am not suggesting that Ugaritian queens did not practise spinning and weaving, but simply that it was a common practice of women. 120The word ḫṭ is used here, with the general meaning of “stick, scepter”. 119I

56

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

tainty of interpretation. In this perplexing context, I have no suggestions with which to venture to understand the meaning of these lines. However, the “royal emblems” are present, in the hands of a deity(?). The sceptre (ḫṭ) also appears in the context of Athtar’s subterfuge (2.III, ḫṭ occurs in line 18), and of Mot’s attempt at usurpation of Baal’s position (6.VI.1–30). Both of these occurrences are uttered from the mouth of Shapash, warning the respective deities that El will not support them, and indeed, he will “break the sceptre of your rule” (lytbr. ḫṭ.mt pṭk). Other mentions of ḫṭ can be translated by “stick” or “wand”, not as royal symbols.121 The point of this digression is that El appears without symbols of royalty, and Athirat, other than perhaps her spindle, does likewise. Their authority is inherent; and as the texts indicate, respect is shown to them.122 This, together with the pedestrian nature of spindle and whorl, should suggest that, since we have an alternative solution for the word tʿlt, the spindle is not specifically a symbol of authority. For its nature we must look to the character of Athirat. If the spindle is not a royal symbol, it is indeed a woman’s utensil. Athirat shares some qualities of human women, as shown by the parallelism of her name with the common word for “woman” in 3.I.14–15 (see above). The question arises: what aspect of an everyday woman’s life is being shared by Athirat in her use of the spindle? The solution could be as simple as her being the goddess of weaving, but for this we have no textual support. We should not wander too far from what the text allows us to suggest. The allusion to spinning utensils implied in the use of the symbol may connote sexual activity rather than the actual task of spinning. The text does support this interpretation in the light of the winking and fluttering of eyelids at El (whether or not he is actually present). The purpose of this “eyeing” can hardly be other than seduction. The shape of a spindle would be as than text 23 and the instances discussed in the text, ḫṭ occurs as a noun in 19.I.14; 95.3; and 114.I.8. 122One may object that Yam’s messengers do not bow to the assembly of the gods, presided over by El. This bicolon in KTU 1.2.I.31 is ambiguous. It begins with a l which could be either a negation or an asseverative. I would understand it as the latter. To argue for insubordination on such a text is tenuous. The other objection that might be raised is Anat’s violent approach to El, and her demands (3.V.27–32) indicate disrespect. In keeping with the understanding of the texts presented here, namely, that “character” is the overwhelming trait of the story, as opposed to a strictly coherent story line, I would suggest that the threats of Anat are a reflection of her characterisation, not of general disrespect for El. 121Other

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

57

suggestive as to evoke associations as a phallic symbol. Without venturing too far into an anthropological realm of interpretation, I would suggest that the character of Athirat, as presented in the texts as the consort of El, allows this interpretation. We must keep in mind the character of Athirat which we have been able to distil to this point (i.e., as a “consort”), as well as interpreting what the text actually states. The interpretation of the spindle and whorl with this association will recur shortly (see below). At this occurrence of Athirat in the Baal Cycle, we again find her associated, by proximity, with the sea. I have noted above that in light of Athirat’s epithet, rbt atrt ym, we should especially note passages where she is associated with the sea. Here, I believe, the text supports Athirat contemplating sexual activity with El by the sea as she is laundering her clothes. I do not think that this presses the text too far—the other interpretations which have been presented also leave many questions unanswered. Admittedly, the text is fragmentary as this scene begins, and dogmatism must be avoided. Such sexual interests of Athirat do seem to be supported by KTU 1.4.III.10–22. KTU 1.4.II.12–21 narrates the interruption of Athirat’s “eyeing” El. Her sudden mood change is described in what is a stereotyped response to bad news.123 The text reads: with the lifting of her eyes she saw, 12 b nši. ʿnh.w tphn Athirat124 indeed perceived125 the approach126 of 13 hlk.bʿl.attrt 14k tʿn. Baal, 123For this poetic description see D. Hillers, “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: the Reaction to Bad News” ZAW 77 (1965): 86–90. 124KTU and most commentators take this word to be a mispelling of atrt; the context would certainly support this. Although the issue of the confusion between Athirat and Athtart has been fuelled by this error, the argument has several difficulties to which to answer. First of all, Athtart begins with an ayin, and Athirat with an aleph; this word begins with an aleph. Secondly, Athtart does not appear in text 4, thirdly, Athtart appears in parallel with Anat in texts 2 and 114, but Athirat and Athtart do not occur in parallel. In the general course of the argument for the (con)fusion of Athirat and Athtart, Old Testament evidence is usually presented. The difficulties of Judg. 7.5 will be discussed below, along with the inconsistency of supposing that Baal and Asherah had become consorts by the Iron Age (see below). 125The word order in this passage is difficult. In order to make sense of the verse structure, I would understand the first four lines of this pericope to be a bicolon followed by a tricolon. Line 13 places “Athirat” [corrected] as the subject, at the

58 hlk.btlt 15 ʿnt tdrq.ybmt 16[limm]. bh.pʿnm 17[tṭṭ. bʿ]dn.ksl 18[ttbr. ʿln.p] nh.td[ʿ] 19 tġṣ[pnt.ks] lh 20 anš.dt. ẓr[h] 21tšu.gh.w tṣḥ . . .

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH the approach of Virgin Anat, the swift arrival of Ybmt [Limm],127 at this (her) feet [stamped, beh] ind (her) loins [broke, on top] her [f]ace sweated,128 [the joints of] her [lo]ins convulsed, those of [her] back became weak,129 she lifted up her voice and cried. . .

When Athirat spies the approach of Baal and Anat, her response is one of fear or rage. It is for this reason that Baal had had Kothar-andKhasis prepare gifts for Athirat. This normal response is not characteristic of Athirat alone; neither is the offering of gifts limited to Athirat. It would seem that certain stock reactions and phrases are consistently used throughout the corpus of the Elimelek tablets. The reaction to bad news is found also in Aqhat (19.II.45–49),130 and the offering of gold and silver in response to ill feelings is witnessed in Keret (14.II.52–53).131 first position in the first line of the tricolon; this emphasizes Athirat as the subject. The k of ktʿn has an asseverative force; thus the word order builds excitement, until after the tricolon the standard reaction to bad news is portrayed. 126hlk here should be understood as an infinitive absolute, standing as a substantive. 127The difficulties in construing this epithet of Anat are many. Gibson (CML2: 56) proposes “sister-in-law of peoples”; Maier (ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 8) concurs. Coogan (SAC: 98) reads “the Mistress of the Peoples”; Gordon (PLMU: 91) has tentatively, “the Progenitress of Heroes”. Del Olmo Lete (MLC: 195) translates “Pretendida de los pueblos”; Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (TO: 198) decline to translate it. De Moor (ARTU: 47) proposes “the Wanton Widow of the Nations”. In a private communication, N. Wyatt has suggested that the epithet might be understood as “beloved of Limm”, “Limm” being another name for the storm god. Whatever approach is taken, we are left without certainty as to its precise meaning. 128Following Gibson (CML2: 148), with the Arabic cognate wadaʿa, “flowed” and the Ethiopic wazaʿa “sweated”. 129I understand dt as a relative pronoun, referring back to “joints” pnt, which does “double duty”. I take anš to be cognate with Hebrew ʾnš, “to be weak” (BDB: 60b). 130Although the text is broken, enough of the original words remain to allow

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

59

It would appear that Baal anticipated Athirat’s frightened reaction, and brought gifts to soothe her worries. We shall return to the reason for her adverse reaction below, but already the hints are given in lines 21–29. . . .“Why is Mighty B[aal] approaching? . . .[i] k 22mġy.aliyn.b[ʿl] why is Virgin Anat approaching? 23ik. mġyt.b [t] lt 24ʿnt. (are they) my smiters, or the [sm]iters my chilmḫṣy hm[.m] ḫṣ 25bny. dren, hm[.mkly.ṣ]brt 26 aryy or (are they) the destroyers of my gathered kin? The [plating132] of silver [A]thirat indeed saw, [ẓl].ksp.[a]trt 27k tʿn the plating of silver and [ ] of gold, ẓl.ksp.wn[ ] 28 ḫrṣ Lady Ath[irat] of the Sea rejoiced. . . šmḫ.rbt.at[rt] 29 ym. . . The question which immediately presents itself is: what does Athirat mean by her query as to who the intended victims of Baal and Anat’s violence are to be? This could be interpreted as the fear of the mother of the gods for the safety of her children at the approach of the storm; an earthly concern transferred to the divine realm. While this possibility cannot be ruled out, the hopes of finding a mythological solution in the texts themselves would prevent a simple acceptance of this answer. The problem is that the only account that we have in the Baal Cycle of Baal specifically smiting the children of Athirat in general is 6.V.1–4, which occurs after the present scene. Another solution is possible. We are here concerned with an incident which occurs following the defeat of Yam by Baal. We have seen above that Athirat is in some way closely associated with the sea (ym). Could Daniel’s reaction to be restored. 131Since about 7 lines of El’s speech are missing (KTU: page 38), and since Keret responds with the question of “what do I (need of) silver and gold”? (restored on the basis of parallels throughout the text), it would seem that El has offered this to him in response to his weeping. 132I understand ẓl as being from the root ẓll, in Hebrew ṣll, meaning “shadow, covering, tingle, quiver”. Although the general sense of the word is obvious enough, the exact term with which to translate it is difficult to narrow down from this sphere of meaning. Gordon (PLMU: 91), Coogan (SAC: 98), and de Moor (ARTU: 48) take the line that ẓl describes a quality of the silver, whereas Gibson (CML2: 57) understands it as a covering. In light of the fact that no silver “covering” is mentioned in the listing of the gifts at 4.I.29–43, I would press the meaning to mean “plating” as may be implied from some of the uncertain metallurgical terms in that pericope.

60

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

it be that she fears for the safety of her offspring in the light of the battle between the “beloved of El”, Yam, and Baal? The text itself would support this interpretation.133 The mood of Athirat again takes a sudden change as she spies the presents being brought by Baal and Anat (lines 26–29). This does not reflect an aspect of corruption in Athirat; as noted above, it is merely a reaction of relief that her fears were unfounded. As the text continues, Athirat instructs her servant to throw a net into the sea. KTU 1.4.II.29–36 reads: 29...gm.l ġlmh. k[tṣḥ] Moreover to her squire134 indeed [she called] “see the cunning work, moreso[ ] 30 ʿn.mktr.135apt[ ] 31 dgy.rbt.atr[t.ym] O Fisherman of Lady Athir[at of the Sea] 32 qḥ.rtt.bdkt[ ] Take a net136 in your hand[ ] A great one upon both hands[ ]137 33 rbt. ʿl.yd m[ ] Into138 the beloved of El, Ya[m ] 34 b mdd.il.y[m ] 35 b ym il.d[ ] Into the divine Yam, who[ ] 36 hr.il.y[m ] the divine [r]uler139 of the s[ea ] Following this episode, the text becomes too fragmentary to reconstruct, to the end of the column. This leaves us with the perplexing task of deciphering what is happening in this section. Gordon supposes that a ban133This

is suggested already by de Moor (ARTU: 48, n. 212). am aware that this use of a feudal term is anachronistic; however, the proposed translations of “page” or “lad” lack the sense of status to be associated with a divine being. 135This form is a hapax. The root would seem to be ktr, “clever, skilful”. The preformative m would seem to indicate a participial form; therefore, I have rendered it as “cunning work”. See also TO: 199, n. n. 136We have an excellent cognate in the Hebrew rešet, “net” (BDB: 440a). This would be an appropriate command for a deity whose epithet is “Fisherman”. 137The poetic structure of this pericope seems to require that a verb be supplied for this lacuna. This would make sense of the following line as well. I could speculate as to what the verb might be, but no matter what the exact word, the context indicates clearly enough that a net is being cast. 138The net is being placed, or thrown into the sea. In order to demonstrate that this is not just an ordinary fishing expedition, the text states that this is the “beloved of El” Sea—that is, Yam, the mdd.il. 139This is to restore a n before hr, the common epithet of Yam. 134I

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

61

quet is perhaps being arranged.140 De Moor, in keeping with his seasonal presuppositions, determines that this passage indicates the reopening of the fishing season, in March, and that Athirat is treating her guests to seafood.141 Either of these interpretations is defensible; the fisherman is casting his net into the sea, and the text is too broken to determine much more. Although these two suggestions appear to be straightforward, they do not address the issue of why the sea here is called mdd il, “the beloved of El”. Since, with Gibson,142 I suppose Yam to be an ever-present threat, I would see here an allusion to his (Yam’s) having to be restrained at the approach of Baal. Baal was his natural enemy; Athirat has some measure of control over the sea. Thus when Athirat perceives that Baal’s mission is peaceful, she orders his old (and continuing) rival to be held back by a net.143 I would not suggest “borrowing” in any direct sense here; however, in Enuma Elish, Marduk restrains Tiamat with a net, and in Ezekiel 32 Yahweh metaphorically nets the Pharaoh as a sea monster. It would appear that the motif of netting the sea monster may have been widespread in the ancient Near East. This may be a further indication of Athirat’s relationship with the sea.144 Following her instructions to her servant, the text breaks off. It would seem, however, when the text does resume at column III, that Anat is speaking to Baal before their actual arrival in the presence of Athirat. Her speech is fragmented, but we can begin to make sense of Baal’s answer, especially in the light of parallel passages within the myth. KTU 1.4.III.10– 22 reads: Mighty Baal replied, 10 y[t]b.aliyn.bʿl the Rider of the Clouds responded: 11 y tʿdd.rkb.ʿrpt 140PLMU:

91. Pattern: 144, and ARTU: 48, n. 214. 142“Theology of the Baal Cycle”: 215–216. 143See already TO (199, n. o): “Ou faut-il entendre qu’Athirat, gagnée à la cause de Baʿal, est disposée à prendre son parti dans la lutte qui l’oppose au dieu de la mer (b-ym aux lignes 34 et 35 pourrait se traduire ‘contre Yam’)?” 144M. B. Brink (A Philological Study of Texts in Connection with Attart and Atirat in the Ugaritic Language, D. Litt. dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, 1977: 63, 314– 322) proceeds far beyond the evidence when he begins to argue that Athirat and Yam are to be identified. They certainly may be associated, but we have no evidence, textual or otherwise, to support the contention that the two merged into a single deity. 141Seasonal

62

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

12 [ql(?)].ydd.w yqlṣn 13 yqm.w ywptn. b tk 14 p[ḫ] r.bn.ilm. štt 15 p[lk].147b tlḥny. qlt 16 bks. ištynh 17 b(?)m.tn.dbḥm.

šna.bʿl.

tlt 18 rkb. ʿrpt. dbḥ 19btt. w dbḥ .w dbḥ 14820 dnt. w dbḥ .tdmm 21amht. k bh.btt.l tbṭ 22 w bh.tdmmt.amht

“The beloved145[ ] and mocked146 me, he arose and spat on me, in the midst of the assembly of the gods. The sp[indle] was placed on my table, the whorl into the cup from which I drank. [ ] two sacrifices Baal hates, three the Rider of the Clouds, a sacrifice of shame, and a sacrifice of fornication, and a sacrifice of the seduction of maidens, for in them shame is seen, and in them is the seduction of maidens.

Several issues pertinent to our subject arise from this short discourse. The first issue is perhaps the identification of the “beloved” of my translation. Although “beloved” is known to be a title of either Yam or Mot, two separate words are employed: ydd and mdd. Yam is normally referred to as mdd, but in the broken context of 4.VI.12, only the -dd remains. The ydd form is generally applied to Mot, although he is once referred to as mdd as well (KTU 1.4.VIII.23). Some evidence is available to suggest that ydd here might refer to Yam. When giving instructions not to have a window installed in his palace, Baal gives the following reason to Kothar-and-Khasis, (4.VI.12–13): [ [

] dd.il.ym ] qlṣn.wptm

[lest(?) the be] loved of El, Yam [(?)] mock me and spit on me.

145In the AB Cycle, ydd and mdd both appear to mean “the beloved”, usually in the context of the fuller title -dd il, “the beloved of El”. The two deities to whom these titles are applied are Yam and Mot. Since the cycle has already dealt with the case of Yam, and the story of Mot is yet to come, it seems reasonable to suppose that Yam is being indicated by this word. Further support is forthcoming. 146The root of this form would seem to be qlṣ. TO (176, n. s) suggests an Arabic cognate qalaṣa, “être en émoi”. Gibson (CML2: 157) suggests a Hebrew cognate qillēs, meaning “despised” or “abased”. The actual form of the verb is a third masculine singular, with a third person masculine suffix. 147Restored following Margalit, Matter of Life and Death: 37. See pages 41–42 for a detailed defence of this restoration. 148This is an obvious case of dittography, and should be disregarded in translation.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

63

The same two verbs (qlṣn and wpt) are also used in this passage, along with the -dd of “beloved”, to be understood as the title of Yam here. If we have a parallel account of Yam spitting at Baal, as well as an account of his mockery, the possibility emerges that Yam could indeed be the culprit of 4.III.12–14. It is also possible that “mocking” and “spitting” are standard terms of contempt, in which case the “beloved” in our text cannot be named with certainty. I propose no myth to explain the situation being presented in this scene. In order to translate the passage adequately, we should hope for context to be our guide. As the immediate context is unclear, I would suggest recourse to other similar contexts within the same mythological cycle. In doing so, we find Baal fearing an affront by Yam spitting at him in 4.VI.12–13, and we see Athirat pictured with a spindle and whorl in 4.II.3–4. The spitting and the spindle appear to recur in this passage. We are also aware that Athirat and the sea seem to be linked in some respect. We do not possess the broken section of Anat’s speech to Baal at the beginning of column III; neither do we possess the broken end of column II. I am not suggesting anything to fill this lacuna; rather I am pleading for our ignorance of what belongs in it. Baal seems to be responding to a speech by Anat, the contents of which we do not know. In my attempt to make some sense of the context, I find some of the explanations of Margalit149 at this point fitting in this context. We do know that Baal ennumerates the three kinds of sacrifice which are abhorrent to him, a feast of shame (btt), a feast of fornication (dnt), and a feast where maidens are seduced (tdmmt amht). These three types of sacrifice have the common element of sexual impurity. The description of these feasts follows immediately after the enigmatic incident involving a table and cup, a spindle and whorl. There is no room for dogmatism here, but it might be reasonably suggested that the presence of Athirat’s emblems at Baal’s place at a banquet also suggested sexual impurity. The case, however, seems to be overstated by Margalit : . . . it is the depth of understanding which this restoration imparts to the overall passage that clinches the case beyond any reasonable doubt. That the latter half of our passage has orgiastic overtones is self-evident, as is the role of the spindle as a female and phallic sexual symbol. But more important still is the association of Asherah simultaneously with both the spindle and sexual activity.150 149Matter 150Matter

of Life and Death: 36–44. of Life and Death: 41–42, emphasis in the original.

64

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Margalit then cites the Elkunirsa myth as evidence. As we have seen, this kind of direct borrowing across cultural boundaries does not offer us valid evidence. We would need to know the context of the myth contained in the Hittite Elkunirsa fragment. We may, however, take Margalit’s point that the feasts hated by Baal do indicate sexual promiscuity, and that the spindle seems to be symbolic in this situation. Taken together with KTU 1.4.II.3–11, a coherent picture begins to emerge. Athirat is described by the sea shore, washing her clothes and holding her spindle, as she makes eyes at El. As Baal and Anat approach Athirat, they are discussing a sacrifice at which Baal was dishonoured, and seeing a spindle on the table caused him distress. It would seem from this much of the Baal Cycle, that Athirat was considered to be a sexually active goddess. The broken beginning of 4.III.12 does not permit us to declare with certainty which character is to be understood by ydd. If it is Yam, this scene may point to a connection between Athirat and Yam. The text continues (KTU 1.4.III.23–36): Thereafter Mighty Baal arrived, 23 aḫr.mġy.aliyn.bʿl Virgin Anat arrived, 24 mġyt.btlt. ʿnt they petitioned151 Lady Athirat of the Sea, 25 tmgnn.rbt atrt ym they gave presents152 to the Bearer of the Gods, 26 tġẓyn.qnyt ilm And Lady Athirat of the Sea answered, 27 w tʿn.rbt.atrt ym “Why do you petition Lady Athirat of the Sea, 28 ik.tmgnn.rbt 29 atrt.ym. (why) do you give presents to the Bearer of the tġẓyn 30 qnyt.ilm. Gods? mgntm 31 tr.il.dpid. Have you petitioned Bull El the Compassionate, or have you given presents to the Creator of hm. ġẓtm 32 bny.bnwt Creatures?153 And Virgin Anat answered, w tʿn 33 btlt. ʿnt. nmgn 34[ ]m.rbt.atrt.ym “We would petition. . . Lady Athirat of the Sea, [give] presents to the Bearer of the Gods, 35[n] ġẓ.qnyt.ilm 151Understanding

mgn as cognate with Arabic majana (Gibson, CML2: 150), “im-

portuned”. 152See note 97. 153The structure of Athirat’s answer indicates that a question would be an appropriate way to translate, thus del Olmo Lete (MLC: 198), Gibson (CML2: 58), Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (TO: 201–202), Gordon (PLMU: 92), and de Moor (ARTU: 50).

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT 36[

].nmgn.hwt

65

[then] we shall petition him.154

Athirat asks the obvious question: why petition her when it was El’s permission that was needed? It was in the light of Anat’s unsuccessful attempt at coercing El that this approach to Athirat was made. Baal and Anat realised that it is only through Athirat that El’s permission could be gained. Perhaps Anat’s reply was only a matter of formality; we cannot know for certain. This text again points to the nature of Athirat as having its most important aspect in relationship to El. El is not easily persuaded: his mind could be changed; but only with the influence of Athirat. The next three lines of text are broken, reading “Mighty Baal”, “Lady Athirat of the Sea” and “Virgin Anat”, respectively. Thereafter follows the description of a feast of the gods, in formulaic verse.155 This is the end of the column as we have it. When column four becomes legible, Athirat is preparing for her journey to bring Baal’s petition to El. KTU 1.4.IV.1–19 is as follows: 1 tr[il. ] Bull [El ] [.rbt] 2 atr[t.ym.] [Lady] Athir[at of the Sea,] [“Hear o Qodesh-] and-Amr[ur] [šmʿ.l qdš] 3 w amr[r] [ .rbt] 4 atrt.ym [ Lady] Athirat of the Sea,

154I

noun.

understand hwt as an object pronoun, used here instead of a suffixed pro-

155See J. Lloyd, “The Banquet Theme in Ugaritic Narrative” UF 22 (1990): 169– 193 for discussion.

66 [mdl.ʿr] 5 ṣmd.pḥl. š[t.gpnm.dt] 6 ksp. dt.yrq[.nqbnm] 7 ʿdb.gpn.atnt[y] 8 yšmʿ.qd.w amr[r] 9 mdl. ʿr. ṣmd.pḥl. 10 št.gpnm.dt.ksp 11 dt.yrq.nqbnm 12 ʿdb.gpn.atnth 13 yḥbq. qdš.w amrr 14 yštn.atrt.l bmt. ʿr 15 l ysmsmt.bmt. pḥl 16 qdš.yuḫdm.šb ʿr

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH [saddle156 the ass,] harness157 the donkey, pl[ace on guide ropes which] are silver, [trappings] which are yellow gold, prepare the guide ropes of [my] she-ass,158 Qodesh-and-Amru[r] obeyed, he saddled the ass, harnessed the donkey, placed on the guide ropes which are silver, the trappings which are yellow gold, he prepared the guide ropes of her she-ass. Qodesh-and-Amrur clasped, he set Athirat on the back of the ass, on the comfortable159 back of the donkey. Qodesh took hold of a torch,

156On the matter of whether or not saddles were in use in the Bronze Age, and descriptions of the various animal trappings used, see R. Good, “Some Ugaritic Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals” UF 16 (1984): 77–81, and W. G. E. Watson, “Unravelling Ugaritic MDL” SEL 3 (1986): 73–78. Lexicographically and historically, the question is a difficult one. Good (80) admits that saddles were in use in the Bronze Age, but he doubts the proposed etymology of mdl. His own etymology (cognate with Aramaic dallel “to lead”) also cannot be considered proven. Arguing against the saddle interpretation he writes “Even the goddess Astarte rode without saddle, and this makes it seem highly improbable that, to cite a pertinent Ugaritic example, the goddess Asherah should have her mount equipped with a saddle” (80). Athirat is, however, portrayed with quite fashionable trappings—gold and silver. Perhaps Watson’s etymology (Akkadian muddulû, “elastic strip”) is more likely, but I see no need to discount the possibility of a saddle being used when they were in fact known in the Late Bronze Age. See, for example, M. Littauer and J. Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Handbuch der Orientalistik), Leiden, 1979: especially pages 65–66 and figure 38. 157On this word also see Good, “Some Ugaritic Terms”, and also J. Healey, “Swords and Ploughshares: Some Ugaritic Terminology” UF 15 (1983): 48, especially in relation to the use of the term discussed below. 158Lines 4b–5a, 7 are a strophic chiasmus into which an additional couplet has been inserted, (Watson, “Strophic Chiasmus”: 264). 159ysmsmt is an uncertain word. Normally, we would expect an adjective to follow its noun, but here ysmsmt is before bmt “back”.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT 17 amrr.k

kbkb.l pnm ʿnt 19w bʿl.tbʿ.mrym. ṣpn

18 atr.btlt.

67

Amrur was like a star in front, behind (came) Virgin Anat,160 but Baal departed to the heights of Sapon.

Once the decision had been made to visit El, Athirat ordered Qodeshand-Amrur to prepare her beasts of burden. Ass-riding was a common method of transport, although it has been debated whether or not a saddle was being described here.161 Littauer and Crouwel note in their monograph on the subject that: “In the Sinai graffiti the riders—Asiatic chiefs—also wear long robes and are apparently seated sideways, their asses being led (by a line attached to a nose ring) by attendants on foot”.162 This matches the picture with which we seem to be presented in this text. Gibson notes that the donkey was not specifically the mount of royalty,163 but our attention is drawn to the portrayal of Anat as walking while Athirat rode. The text itself gives us no grounds to determine why this difference in modes of transport is mentioned, other than the fact that Athirat is the matron and Anat her offspring. We can draw no firm conclusions from it.164 The matter of whether Anat is pictured as accompanying Athirat or not is still debated. Maier sees Anat and Baal as departing to Sapon together, while Athirat rides on to El’s abode.165 The trouble with this interpretation is that when Athirat does acquire the permission she sought, it is Anat who is aware of this news before Baal (4.V.20–27). Anat does, in fact, break the happy news to Baal. I would see in this scenario a case for supposing that Anat is present with Athirat as she journeys to El. On the other hand, it could be argued that Anat is not in the scene when Athirat actually visits El. In spite of this valid point, Anat is on hand to receive the news and to give it to Baal. These issues are perhaps modern concerns, and not 160W. G. E. Watson (“Parallels to Some Passages in Ugaritic” UF 10 (1978): 398–399) points to a comparison of lines 7–18 with the Akkadian text STT 366. This comparison serves to demonstrate the wealth of the trappings of Athirat’s donkey, and may also point to her riding as a sign of her rank. 161In addition to the notes in Good and Watson, cited in note 156 above, iconographic representations are presented in Littauer and Crouwel, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals: throughout. 162Wheeled Vehicles and Riding Animals: 66. 163CML2: 59, n. 1. 164For a brief discussion see M. S. Smith, “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank” UF 16 (1984): 359. 165 ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 14.

68

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

matters over which an Ugaritian would brood. The text is our guide, and although I have made my preference known in my translation, the ambiguity of the wording makes certainty impossible. Perhaps the only specific information afforded us about Athirat in this passage is that she alone, of the deities in the Baal Cycle, is portrayed as riding a donkey. The significance of this to her character is lost to us. The text continues (KTU 1.4.IV.20-39): Then indeed she set her face towards El, 20 idk.l ttn.pnm 21 ʿm.il. mbk.nhrm at the source of the rivers,166 22 qrb.apq.thmtm in the midst of the confluence of the two deeps. 23 tgly.dd.il.w tbu she uncovered167 the tent168 of El, 24 qrš.mlk.ab. šnm and she entered the room of the King, Father of Years,169 166“Rivers”

could be either dual or plural here. Coogan (SAC: 99), Gordon (PLMU: 93), de Moor (ARTU: 52), del Olmo Lete (MLC: 200), and Maier (ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 14) all read “two rivers”. Gibson (CML2: 59) and Caquot, Sznycer and Herdner (TO: 204) read an unspecified number of rivers. The primary reason for seeing this form as a dual is that the parallel line does indeed mention the “two deeps”. Cosmologically speaking, it would perhaps be arguable that there are four rivers (as suggested in a private communication by Dr. N. Wyatt). In either case, the point being made by the text is that El dwells where the rivers originate. 167Third feminine singular verb of the prefixing conjugation. The root is gly, cognate with the Hebrew root glh, “to uncover, remove” (BDB: 162b). 168R. Clifford (“The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting” CBQ 33 (1971): 221–222) argues for the translation of dd as “tent”. He admits that “there is no extra-Ugaritic evidence for dd as ‘tent’”, but, he suggests, “the intra-Ugaritic evidence is strong.” (222, n. 4). Del Olmo Lete, on the other hand, notes that “the specific meaning of ‘tent, pavilion’ cannot be justified etymologically, although it has in its favor the semantic parallelism with qrš /ahl ; in this sense ar. dāda offers some support, but turns out to be semantically risky and imprecise” (“Notes on Ugaritic Semantics IV” UF 10 (1978): 43). He proposes a cognate in the Hebrew zdh of the Siloam tunnel inscription (44). He does admit that his cognate is hapax, and although his etymology does bring into question any easy acceptance of dd being understood as “tent”, the verb gly does have an evident cognate in Hebrew glh (see previous note). Clifford’s argument is supported by the apparent parallelism between dd and ahl in KTU 1.19.IV.51–52. On the basis of context, and in consideration of the verb, I would tentatively retain the translation “tent”. 169This meaning is much disputed. šnh, “year” in Hebrew, occurs in both masculine and feminine forms in the plural (BDB: 1040a). Many scholars still hold to

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT 25 l

pʿn.il.thbr.w tql 26 tštḥwy.w tkbdh

27 hlm.il.k yphnh 28 yprq.lṣb.w yṣḥq 29 p ʿnh.l hdm.ytpd. wykrkr 30 uṣbʿth. yšu.gh.w y ṣ[ḥ] 31 ik. mġyt.rbt.atr[t.y]m 32 ik.atwt.qnyt.i[lm] 33 rġb.rġbt.w tġt [ ] 34 hm. ġmu.ġmit.w ʿs[ ] 35 lḥm.hm. štym. lḥ[m] 36 b tlḥnt. lḥm št 37 b krpnm.yn. bk172 ḫrṣ 38 dm. ʿṣm. hm.yd.il mlk 39 yḫssk. ahbt.tr.tʿrrk

69

at the feet of El she bowed down and fell, she prostrated170 herself and she honoured him. Behold, El indeed saw her, he parted the throat and laughed, he placed his feet on the footstool, he twirled171 his fingers, he raised his voice and shou[ted] “Why has Lady Athirat of the Sea arrived? Why has the Bearer of the G[ods] come? Are you indeed hungry and journey [worn(?)]? Or are you indeed thirsty and weary? Eat, indeed, drink! Ea[t] food from the tables! Drink wine from carafes! From a cup of gold the blood of trees, or does the hand of El the King tempt you?173 The love of the Bull arouse you?

This encounter between El and Athirat has spawned a great deal of speculation. Some scholars appear to read modern concerns into the study of the the marital relationship between the gods El and Athirat in the Ugaritic myths. Nowhere in the texts, as we have them, do we find the poet this interpretation as a befitting title for the creator of the gods. See de Moor (ARTU: 16), Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (TO: 204), Gibson (CML2: 59), Coogan (SAC: 99), and del Olmo Lete (MLC: 200). See also Smith, The Early History of God: 32, n. 46. 170For two detailed studies of this word, see J. Emerton, “The Etymology of hištaḥawāh” OTS 20 (1977): 41–55, and S. Kreuzer “Zur Bedeutung und Etymologie von hištaḥawāh / yštḥwy” VT 35 (1985): 39–60. 171For the basic meaning of the root of krkr, see M. I. Gruber, “Ten DanceDerived Expressions in the Hebrew Bible” Biblica 62 (1981): 338. 172The original bk is recognised as a scribal error for b ks, thus KTU: page 17. 173The cognate roots of this verb would seem to be the Akkadian ḫasāsu, Arabic ḥassa, and Ethiopic ḫašaša; (Gibson, CML2: 147, del Olmo Lete, MLC: 552, Aistleitner, WUS: 114–115). The sense of arousal is rather straightforward. El seems to be guessing at why his spouse may have come, thus “tempt” is an appropriately suggestive translation.

70

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

attempting to demonstrate the character of a marital relationship for its own sake. The point of this passage is not to describe the family life of El in the sense of a marriage in which he lives separately from his spouse (“montfrei” marriage) as put forth by Brink, following van Selms.174 Brink explains the situation thus: The relationship of Atirat and El appears to be “montfrei” since the husband has no legal powers over his wife. On this evidence Van Selms (1954, p.65) would have it that the poets wish to convey that the period of sexual intercourse between the father god and mother god is past, something which occurred before the beginning of the present era in which a multitude of younger gods cavort around the place.175

The main difficulty with such an approach is that it does not consider the plot of the myth, nor the character of mythology in general. Athirat has just been solicited for bearing Baal’s petition to El. In order to emphasize the extreme remoteness and holiness of El, a long journey is described by the poet. El is so holy that even Athirat has to journey far to see him. It is an indication of El’s rank, not of his marital status, that Athirat bows before him.176 Surely the intention of the poet is to demonstrate the extreme sanctity of El, no matter who may be calling. It is exactly the opposite that the poet wishes to express when he portrays Anat as bursting in and making her demand to El with threats (3.V). As we have noted above, the text itself demonstrates that this method is futile.177 This informs us about Athirat as well. She is a most welcome guest in the remote abode of El, and she pleases him. This is important to the plot of the story, since her aim is to acquire permission for a house to be built for Baal. This request on behalf of Baal may also point to her role as queen mother. The method of achieving her goal is to please El. We know from the remainder of text four that her mission was a success. The poet next moves directly to the point of Athirat’s visit. Thus we read in KTU 1.4.IV.40–47: And Lady Athirat of the Sea answered, 40 w tʿn.rbt.atrt ym “Your decree El, is wise, 41 tḥmk.il. ḥkm. 174Brink,

Philological Study, following van Selms, Marriage and Family Life: 65. Philological Study: 339. 176Dr. N. Wyatt has drawn my attention to the similarity between this passage and 1 Kgs. 1.16 where Bathsheba bows before David. 177So Gibson, “The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle”: 206–210. 175Brink,

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT ḥkmt 42 ʿm ʿlm. ḥyt. ḥẓt 43 tḥmk mlkn.aliy[n.] bʿl 44 tpṭn.w in.d ʿlnh 45 klnyn.q[š]h[.]nb[ln] 46 klnyn[.] nbl.ksh 47 [an]y [.] l yṣḥ.tr il abh

71

(your)178 wisdom is forever, a life of rejoicing is your decree. Our king is Aliy[n] Baal, our ruler and there is no one above him, both of us179 will car[ry] his chal[ice], both of us will carry his cup,180 [Groan]ing indeed he cries to Bull El his father...

Hereafter follows a repetition of the formula we explored above. The startling juxtaposition of Baal’s position as the king of the gods and his lack of a house is the mainstay of this appeal. After Anat’s brash approach to El, she also used this reasoning (3.V.29–44). It would be unwise in the light of the stereotyped nature of this speech, to attempt to discern any specific characteristic of Athirat. She simply affirms her support of Baal’s kingship, perhaps as a reflection of her supportive role as rabītu. Following the repetition of Baal’s lament, El responds to the plea (KTU 1.4.IV.58–V.1). And Benevolent El the Compassionate an58 w y ʿn lṭpn.il.dpid swered, “so, a servant am I, a lackey of Athirat?181 59 p ʿbd.an. ʿnn.atrt so, a servant am I, to grasp182 a trowel?183 60 p ʿbd.ank.aḫd.ult or is Athirat a slavegirl who makes bricks? 61 hm.amt.atrt.tlbn 62 l bnt. 178The

personal pronoun of tḥmk “your decree” should be understood as doing “double duty” here. 179Apparently kl with the first person dual suffix -ny (UT: 37) and n energic “both of us”, see Gibson (CML2: 60). 180Watson also cites this couplet as an example of partial chiasmus (“Strophic Chiasmus”: 261). 181The root of ʿnn has prompted suggestions of several cognates. Del Olmo Lete (MLC: 602) presents several possibilities, Arabic ʿanna, Hebrew ʿānān, Arabic ʿawwana , and Hebrew ʿōnēn. The meanings of these possible cognates would seem to find support in the ʿbd in the first half of each line. The difficulty is to determine what exactly the poetic structure is—is it line 59 paralleled with line 60, or is it 59a paralleled by 59b, and 60a paralleled by 60b? Clearly the sense is that El is questioning who is to build this house. 182Understanding aḫd as cognate with Hebrew aḥz, “to take, seize” (BDB: 28a). 183ult is apparently a metal implement of some kind, as it appears in KTU 4.390, a list of metal implements.

72 ybn.bt.l bʿl 1 km.ilm. w ḥẓr.k bn.atrt

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH Let a house be built for Baal like the gods, even a court like the children of Athirat.

The sentiments expressed by El in this passage are by no means certain; perhaps he is being ironic, perhaps irritated, perhaps teasing. Nevertheless he approves of Athirat’s request without any argument (although perhaps reluctantly as lines 59–61 may indicate). This may support the theory of Athirat’s function in the role of the rabītu. El grants her request for Baal’s palace; the palace is a symbol of Baal’s kingship. It is the role of the rabītu to ensure that the king’s office is secured. The status of Athirat as rabītu appears again further along in the Baal Cycle. Athirat then rejoices (KTU 1.4.V.2–19), for her part in the task at hand is complete: she has obtained the permission of El. And Lady Athirat of the Sea answered, 2 w tʿn.rbt.atrt.ym “You are great, O El, indeed you are wise, 3 rbt.ilm.l ḥkmt 4 šbt.dqnk.l tsrk the greyness of your beard indeed instructs you, [the compassion?] which is in your breast184 5 rḫnt.dt.l irtk (indeed instructs you). Now is even the time185 of his rain, 6 wn ap. ʿdn.mṭrh let Baal appoint the time187 of gushing in 7 bʿl.yʿdn. ʿdn.trt.186b glt flood,188 184These words have been variously translated. De Moor reads them as, “Surely the greyness of your old age is wisdom,/ surely the compassion which is in your breast instructs you?” (ARTU: 54). Gordon (PLMU: 95) and Gibson (CML2: 60) take irtk to be “your breast”, but they do not translate the entire line. TO (207) offers, “Tu [fais sortir ] de ta poitrine une voix douce”. N. Wyatt (in a private communication) has suggested “You are great, O El! / The greyness of your beard does indeed make you wise; / the compassion which comes from your breast (does indeed instruct you)!” I offer the translation above on the understanding that the verb ltsrk does double duty for lines 4 and 5. Lines 4 and 5 are a bicolon following the monocolon of line 3. The translation of irtk as “your breast”, according to the Akkadian cognate irtu seems to be sound (see Gibson CML2: 142). 185The root of ʿdn would seem to be ʿdd, which occurs in Hebrew as ʿd. The n should be considered energic. The basic meaning of ʿdd appears to be some aspect of time reckoning, thus I have translated it simply as “time”. 186Reading r( ) for KTU’s k ( ). See note 187. 187As in the previous line, ʿdn would mean “time”. Here it follows a jussive

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT 8w

tn.qlh.bʿrpt 9 šrh.l arṣ.brqm 10 bt.arzm.ykllnh 11 hm.bt.lbnt.yʿmsnh 12 l

yrgm.l aliy bʿl bhmk191 14 ʿdbt.b qrb.hklk 15 tblk.ġrm.mid.ksp. 16 gbʿm.mḥmd.ḫrṣ 13 ṣḥ. ḫrn.b

73

and let him give his voice from the clouds, let him loose to the earth (his) lightnings. Is the house of cedars? He will complete it.189 Or is the house of bricks? He will construct it.190 Indeed let it be told to Mighty Baal: “Call a caravan192 into your mansion, wares193 into the midst of your palace, may the rocks bear you194 much silver, the hills choicest gold,

form of a verb of the same root, and together they may be understood as “let ... appoint a time”. 188The final two words of line 7 are difficult, and although context does provide enough evidence for a general, weather-related phenomenon, it does not give us an exact answer. Scholars are divided on the meaning, Gibson (CML2: 60) and de Moor (ARTU: 54) read a reference to a barque of snow. Gordon suggests a ship on the ocean (PLMU: 95). I have followed the suggestion of Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (TO: 207), who explain CTA’s (and KTU’s) tkt as trt (note t) and glt as “flood” as it appears in parallel with thmt in PRU 5.1, line 5 (= KTU 1.92.5). I have examined the photographs in CTA volume 2, but this particular section on both pictures is indistinct. In the line drawing, the k is shaded, and a r would be a reasonable suggestion, all the more so as it provides a good parallel to the previous line. 189The lines 10 and 11 throw off the pattern formed by the preceeding lines, and seem to indicate that no matter what type of house he desires, Baal will be able to accomplish his wish. The form ykllnh is from the root kll, in the prefixing conjugation with a third masculine singular suffix. The pattern is repeated in line 11 as well. 190The root ʿms appears to be used in a building context in Neh. 4.11 (so Gibson, CML2: 154). Although the final radical in BHS is ś, there is textual support for the reading of s. Gibson also provides Arabic ġammasa “set in cement” as a possible cognate. 191I follow KTU in correcting bhmk to bhtk on the basis of parallel passages. 192A possible cognate may be found in the Akkadian ḫarrānu, “road, path”. The context does seem to dictate that it is the goods of a “caravan” that are being summoned. 193Hebrew has ʿizzābôn, “wares” which may be a cognate. 194The root of tblk is ybl “to bear”. This is a jussive form with a second person singular suffix attached.

74

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

17 yblk.udr.ilqṣm 18 w bn.bht.ksp.w ḫrṣ 19 bht.

ṭhrm.iqnim

may magnificent gems be brought to you,195 thus build a mansion of silver and gold, a mansion of pure lapis lazuli”.

Athirat first praises the wisdom of El, then she utters what appears to be a blessing on the building of Baal’s house. We should not read too much into this episode. Athirat was approached to obtain permission for Baal to build a house. The appropriate channel for acquiring the approval of El was through her. Athirat’s rejoicing at the end of her mission does not spell out any specific details about her character; rather, it marks the successful end of her journey. After the building of Baal’s palace was completed, Baal invited the gods to a feast. In describing the guests, two collective epithets are used: “his kinfolk” (a[r]yh, KTU 1.4.VI.44) and “the seventy children of Athirat” (šb ʿm bn atrt, line 46). This juxtaposition demonstrates that strict, logical family trees which exclude Baal from the number of Athirat’s children are a misunderstanding of the mythological nature of the text.196 The seventy children of Athirat are the gods. This collective epithet points out that Athirat was considered to be the mother of the gods. This is the final mention of Athirat in the “Palace of Baal” section of the Baal Cycle. Her role as queen mother appears to be emphasized throughout the episode, in her support of the king of the gods. Athirat is demonstrated to be most important in her relationship to El, and also important in relationship to the other gods who are her progeny. Thus far we have been able to discern from the Baal Cycle that Athirat was cast in the role of mother of the gods, and that she had some special relationship with the sea. She appears to be especially concerned with the reigning king among her children. Her “definition” would seem to emerge from relationships, a trait which will further appear as we explore the final section of the Cycle, “Baal and Mot”. 195No consensus has been reached on the interpretation of this line. I have chosen to follow Gibson (CML2: 61) and del Olmo Lete (MLC: 203), as their translations fit the context well. 196As opposed to Maier (ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 36, where he suggests that “ʾAtirat’s sons, here also called the brothers of Baʿl, are not actually his physical brothers (brothers via adoption?)”). The point of the text is to convey the message that Baal is among the number of the gods, the bn atrt, not to trace his lineage. See also N. Wyatt, “The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad” UF 12 (1980): 375–379 for an explanation of Baal’s epithet bn dgn.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

75

Baal and Mot Athirat appears only in text 6 of this final section of the Cycle. During what remains of the negotiations between Baal and Mot, she does not appear. This could be by accident of the state of the texts. Both texts 5 and 6 are badly broken. When Athirat does appear in KTU 1.6.I.39–55, it is in relation to first Baal, then El. The text reads (Anat is speaking as the translation begins): “Now Athirat and her sons will rejoice,197 39...tšmḫ ht 40 atrt.w.bnh. ilt.w ṣb 41rt.aryh. the Goddess and the company of her kin, for dead is Mighty Baal, k mt.aliyn 42 bʿl. for perished198 is the Prince, Lord of the Earth.” k ḫlq.zbl.bʿl 43 arṣ. gm.yṣḥ il El cried aloud, “Hear O Lady Athirat of the Sea, 44 l rbt.atrt ym. šmʿ O Lady Athira[t] of the Sea, 45 l rbt.atr[t] ym. tn 46 aḥd.b.bnk.amlkn give one of your sons and I will make him king.” And Lady Athirat of the Sea answered, 47 w tʿn.rbt.atrt ym “shall we not199 make him king who knows (and 48 bl.nmlk.yd ʿ.ylḥn is) intelligent?”200 And Benevolent El the Compassionate an49 w y ʿn. .lṭpn.il dpi 50 d. swered,

197The

primary radical has shifted to ś from š in Hebrew. The Arabic cognate retains the š (del Olmo Lete, MLC: 629). 198An Akkadian cognate for ḫlq is ḫalāqu, so Gibson (CML2: 147) and del Olmo Lete (MLC: 552). 199bl in Hebrew is clearly a negative adverb (BDB: 115). In order to accommodate it within the translation, I have followed de Moor (ARTU: 85) in rendering this monocolon as a query. 200Caquot, Sznycer, and Herdner (TO: 256, n. h) cite various attempts at translating the difficult ylḥn. They provide an Arabic cognate laḥina “être intelligent”. The same cognate is offered by Gibson (CML2: 150) and del Olmo Lete (MLC: 571).

76

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

dq.anm.l yrẓ 51 ʿm.bʿl.l yʿdb.mrḥ 52 ʿm.bn.dgn.ktmsm

ʿn.rbt.atrt ym 54 blt.nmlk. ʿttr. ʿrẓ 55 ymlk. ʿttr. ʿrẓ

53 w

“One who is small of vigour201 cannot run,202 (compared) with Baal he cannot release203 the spear204 (compared) with the son of Dagon he is weak.”205 And Lady Athirat of the Sea answered, “shall we not make Athtar the Terrible206 king? “Let Athtar the Terrible be king!”

Here we see Athirat in her position of authority as queen mother. When news of Baal’s death is brought, it is she who nominates his successor. This pericope begins with the puzzling statement of Anat that Athirat should rejoice that Baal is dead (lines 39–43). Maier suggests that Athirat may be exalting in her opportunity to put forward one of her sons to accept

would seem to be cognate with Hebrew ʾôn, “vigour, wealth” (BDB: 20a), so Gibson (CML2: 75), de Moor (ARTU: 85) and del Olmo Lete (MLC: 225). 202KTU calls the reading yrẓ into question, and proposes a possible yrq. The photograph in CTA 2 is unclear at this point, and with both possibilities open, one must chose from context. The point which the text seems to be making is that an intellectual who is not physically fit cannot fill Baal’s place. 203Following Gibson (CML2: 154), I would take ʿdb to be cognate with the Hebrew ʿzb “to loose”, in this case “to release”, thus BDB: 736b. 204This word appears to have an Egyptian cognate mrḥ. For the suggestion of the apparent metathesis in Hebrew, see Gordon (UT: 437–438) and the reference he makes there. 205This word is difficult. The root appears to be either mss, del Olmo Lete (MLC: 580) or kms (with an Akkadian cognate kamāsu “to kneel” (CML2: 149)). I take this to be a verbal form, perhaps a Gt stem of the latter root. Although the exact form is unknown, this connotation seems to fit the context well, as the comparison is being made between the physical ability of Baal and of his proposed replacement (see note 202). Gibson (CML2: 75) and Watson (“Parallels to Some Passages”: 399), following TO, read k.msm. This understanding suggests that Athirat’s proposed king could not cause a rainstorm at the opportune moment. I have followed the stichometry of N. Wyatt, private communication. 206See P. C. Craigie, “Helel, Athtar and Phaethon (Jes 14 12–15)” ZAW 85 (1973): 223–225 and M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Ein Spottlied auf ʿAttar (KTU 1.6 I 50–52), Zu ug. ʿm, rmḥ, und kms” UF 9 (1977): 330–331. 201anm

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

77

the kingship.207 His point should not be dismissed, as it offers an alternative to one that assumes that hatred between Athirat and Baal is portrayed in the texts. Could it not be that Athirat does rejoice in her chance to display her authority? We have seen all along that Athirat is portrayed in relationship to other gods, and this is also true in this instance. Here Athirat is responsible for suggesting who the new king will be, as she perhaps was asked to proclaim a name for Yam, and as she supported Baal’s kingship in his request for a palace. This scenario represents the suggestion made by Gordon, mentioned above; namely, that Athirat, as rabītu, was the “queen mother”, one of whose functions was to name the successor to the throne.208 Since the evidence comes from the text itself at this point, perhaps we should examine Gordon’s suggestions and weigh them in the light of the evidence. Rbt (vocalised by Gordon as rabītu) seems to indicate an office of considerable standing. In a recent article Gordon has noticed the lack of an appropriate translation for rabītu.209 Gordon’s first piece of evidence for this office from the Ugaritic texts is that in the divorce documentation of King Amištamru II. Amištamru’s wife Piddu left him and created a crisis for the royal household in Ugarit. It was her son Utrisharruma who was to be the royal heir, and the title of rabītu was applied to her mother.210 One of the Ugaritic divorce documents, in Akkadian, after settling the matter of Utrisharruma’s position as heir-apparent, contains the following provision: And in the course of time the daughter of Bentešina [Piddu] with regard to her sons, her daughters and her sons-in-law (?) shall raise no claim: they belong to Ammistamru, king of Ugarit. If she raises a claim this tablet he will produce against her. [Yaron’s translation].211

Much care is taken to lay claim to the children of Amištamru’s estranged wife. This would seem to support Gordon’s suggestion that it was the rabītu who was the mother to the heir-apparent. Gordon next draws out the evidence from our present text. He notes that Athirat is asked to provide one of her sons to replace Baal, and that El rejects her first suggestion. He then states:

ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 36. rbt”: 130. 209“Ugaritic rbt”: 127. 210See also R. Yaron “A Royal Divorce at Ugarit” Orientalia 32 (N.S., 1963): 21. 211“Royal Divorce” : 23. 207

208“Ugaritic

78

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH It is to be noted that the successor to the throne must be a son of the Rabitu (= Asherah), subject to the approval of the Rabitu’s royal husband who has advisory and veto power as to which one of her sons shall rule.212

Gordon also presents details of the royal households of Israel and Judah.213 Although his approach cuts across cultures, it should be considered that the genres are all “royal” and the cultures are linked in some respects. Although the evidence from the reign of Amištamru is taken from Akkadian legal documents, it is probable that the situation presented in the Ugaritic mythology reflects such a cultural reality. El is presented as king in the mythological texts, and Athirat is his consort. She does in KTU 1.6.I.39–55 suggest one of her offspring as the new king, at the request of El. It might be objected that since the gods collectively are her offspring, no matter who she might nominate would of necessity be her son. I would argue that this insists on too much of a modern rationalisation of the story for the study of an ancient mythology. Athirat has the title of rabītu, and in the light of the meaning of this title we would expect her be the one to nominate the next king, no matter if all the candidates are her children. What is important is that the gods carry out their roles in the myth. In the light of the evidence presented by Gordon, and in consideration of what this text tells us, I am inclined to see the rbt of Athirat’s title as indicating her role as the “queen mother” of Ugaritic mythology in the Baal Cycle. I have suggested above that Maier’s reason for the rejoicing of Athirat at Baal’s death (that she now has the opportunity to exercise her role as queen mother) was to be considered plausible. Other scholars have suggested that her rejoicing is the result of her being affronted by Baal as presented in the Hittite Elkunirsa myth.214 Such a solution requires stepping outside the narrative as we have it in the Baal Cycle to complete it by another narrative. It also borrows a theme from a myth found within another 212“Ugaritic

rbt”: 130. further reading on the queen mother in the Old Testament see G. Molin “Die Stellung der Gebira im Staate Juda” TZ 10 (1954): 161–175; H. Donner “Art und Herkunft des Amtes der Königinmutter im Alten Testament” in Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27. August Gewidmet, R. von Kienle, A. Moortgat, H. Otten, E. von Schuler and W. Zaumseil, editors. Heidelberg, 1959: 105–145; G. Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion, Lund, 1963: 57–88; and N. Andreasen “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society” CBQ 45 (1983): 179– 194. 214Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 46. 213For

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

79

cultural context (Hittite). This deductive method cannot be used to establish a coherent story line when a specific incident is being explored. The reasons for Athirat’s exultation should be found in the Baal Cycle, or left open to question. I believe that Maier’s suggestion does find support in the text itself. Another possible reason for the rejoicing of Athirat would recall the reason for her fearful reaction at the approach of Baal and Anat. Could it be that she still resents the harm brought onto Yam by Baal? The text does not state this explicitly, but we may infer it from the contexts in which Athirat is portrayed as distressed at Baal’s arrival, and in her title which also connects her with the sea.215 The final mention of Athirat in the Baal Cycle is again in regard to her role as the mother of the gods. In a broken context, after the resuscitation of Baal, a curious incident is recounted in which he is portrayed as smiting the children of Athirat (bn atrt). KTU 1.6.V.1–6 reads: Baal seized216 the children of Athirat, 1 yiḫd.bʿl.bn.atrt he smote the great ones with a broad-sword,217 2 rbm.ymḫṣ.b ktp he smote the crushers218 of Yam with an axe,219 3 dkym. ymḫṣ.b ṣmd 215See N. Wyatt “Who killed the dragon?” AuOr 5 (1987): 185–198 for the suggestion that Athirat was involved in the overcoming of the sea. 216See the discussion of this word in the section on KTU 1.4.IV.58–V.1, above. 217I follow Gibson (CML2: 149) in his choice of English words, but I would suggest the Hebrew ktp (BDB: 509a) as a cognate. R. Good, in his article “Some Ugaritic Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals” notes that in order to understand the development of the parallel word in this passage (ṣmd), its original meaning of “shoulder” must be brought to light (page 79). The development would then be from “shoulder” to “shoulder blade” to “weapon shaped like a shoulder blade” (79). This deduction provides, along with the cognate given by Gibson (Arabic katîfu), useful information as to the nature of the weapon. 218The interpretation of this word is most difficult, as it can support many translations. I have taken it to be from the root dky, in Hebrew dkh, “to crush” (BDB: 194a). I understand it to be in the construct state. It is also possible that there may be a reference to Yam here as well; on this see the text. 219So Good, “Draught and Riding Animals”: 79.

80

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

4 ṣġrm.ymṣḫ.l

arṣ 5 p(?)y[ʿ l.]bʿl.l ksi.mlkh 6[

].l kḥt.dr th

the small ones220 he dragged to the ground,221 Then (?) Baal [ascended222] to the throne of his kingship [ ] to the seat of his dominion.

That this passage presents difficulties to the translator is evident in the many different interpretations which it has generated. Gibson translates: Baal seized the sons of Athirat he smote the great ones with the broad-sword, he smote the “pounders” of the sea with the mace, he dragged the yellow ones of Mot to the ground.223

whilst Gordon offers: Baal seizes the son of Asherah The great one he smites with a weapon The tyrant he smites with a stick. Mot is vanquished Trampled to earth.224

and de Moor suggests: Baʿlu will seize the sons of Athiratu. The big ones he will slay with an axe-blade, those who are like Yammu he will slay with an axe, the small ones he will pull to the ground.225

220ṣġrm

seems to be cognate to Hebrew ṣʿr “small, insignificant” (BDB: 858b–

859a). the sense of ymṣḫ is obviously one of combat, an exact word is open to question. Virolleaud mentions the possibility of mṣḫ being mḫṣ having been changed by metathesis (“Un Poème Phénicien de Ras-Shamra, la Lutte de Môt, Fils de Dieux, et d’aleïen, Fils de Baal” Syria 12 (1931): 223. The word mṣḫ, however, does occur with violent connotations elsewhere (for example KTU 1.3.V.1) and the cognate proposed by Gibson (Arabic maṣaḫa, CML2: 151) makes sense in this context. 222Although the word is missing in the text, the sense is clear enough from context. Other suggestions would be “returned” or “sat” or the like. 223CML2: 79. 224PLMU: 115. 225ARTU: 94. 221Although

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

81

These samples will serve to demonstrate the range of interpretation in recent scholarship. This passage seems to say that Baal is smiting someone. The difficulty is to determine who is being attacked. The inclusion of the rbm “great ones” in line 2 and the ṣġrm “small ones” in line 4 appear to be a merismus. Yet the various translations seem to indicate a lack of consensus even on this point. The issue is further confused by the range of possible translations for the letters dkym in line 3. The text may support a mention of the god Yam at this point. Scholars have long recognised the similarities between this passage and Psalm 93.226 Dahood, in the light of this similarity, would understand rbm and dkym as “plurals of majesty serving as epithets of Baal”.227 P. van Zijl, on the other hand, would leave the questioned words untranslated, content with the knowledge that they are epithets.228 Our understanding of Athirat’s association with the sea in her title rbt atrt ym would demand our attention when any possible clue is offered by the texts themselves. As this text does seem to offer clues, we should pay close attention to it. Our first line of inquiry should be, why Baal is smiting the children of Athirat. We do know that Athirat was frightened at the approach of Baal and Anat in KTU 1.4.II.12–21, and that she was expected to rejoice at the news of Baal’s demise in 6.I.39–43. I have argued that this was in response to Baal’s slaying of Yam, as well as (in the latter case) her opportunity to exercise her personal function as rabītu. Here we are presented with a text which follows more than half a column of missing information. Column IV, immediately preceding this passage, is broken off, and the second half of column V is missing as well. Within this isolated context, there appears to be a mention of either Yam or of some beings (?) related to the sea (line 3). The list of the smitten person(s) is headed by the category bn atrt.229 As 226See

P. van Zijl, Baal. A Study of the Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1972: 213–215; Caquot, Sznycer and Herdner, TO: 265, n. c; M. Dahood, Psalms II (AB), New York, 1968: 340–342. On “cosmic waters” in general, see H. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm, ‘Many Waters’” JBL 74 (1955): 9–21. 227Psalms II: 341. 228Baal: 215. 229See the informative article by F. C. Fensham “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat” PEQ 109 (1977): 113–115. His remarks about the slaying of the seventy sons show affinity with the episode here presented: It is thus clear from the examples from Shechem, Samaria and Samʾal that the

82

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Gordon’s translation demonstrates, this could be construed as a singular, “the son of Athirat”. It could also be considered a plural construct, “the sons (children) of Athirat” rbm “the great ones” appears to be in parallel with bn atrt, but it could also be construed as a singular (thus Dahood and Gordon). Line 3 has a possible reference to Yam, dkym. The dk has been understood as “those like” Yam taking the d as a relative pronoun and the k as a preposition.230 It has also been explained as the waves of the sea,231 and as an epithet which links the children of Athirat to their mother.232 It could also be construed as a title of Mot,233 or of Baal,234 or of those being attacked.235 Grammatically, most of these suggestions could be supported. Our recourse to context is of no avail because of its broken state. I would therefore suggest that we appeal to the fact that Athirat is known to have associations with the sea. I would understand “the crushers of Yam” to be associates of the sea god, as the children of Athirat. Athirat is portrayed as the mother of the gods, and “the crushers of Yam” appear in parallel with the bn atrt as well as the “great ones” and “small ones”. Perhaps in these broken contexts the answer lies as to why Athirat is associated with the sea, but certainty at this stage is impossible. With this passage our information on Athirat in the Baal Cycle comes to a close. The section “Baal and Mot” confirms that Athirat is the mother of the gods, “the seventy sons of Athirat”. She is also the rabītu, and thus has the power to suggest the candidate for kingship when the position is vacant. In the light of this consideration of Athirat’s character and role in the Baal Cycle, it is now possible to draw some conclusions.

princes of the royal house were called “seventy sons” or “seventy brothers”. It is also clear that only one of them could somehow lay claim to the throne of his father or his brother. With a coup it is very important for the rebel to kill these princes and to destroy any possible legitimate claim to the throne. Certain circumstantial similarities between the events at Shechem and Samʾal are evident. In both cases the killing was done from the inner-circle of the seventy. In the case of Samʾal it was done by a son of Barṣur and at Ophrah by a son of Jerubbaal. (“Numeral Seventy”: 115.) 230De Moor, ARTU: 94; del Olmo Lete, MLC: 231. 231Caquot, Sznycer and Herdner, TO: 265; Coogan, SAC: 114. 232Gibson, CML2: 79, n. 2. 233Gordon, PLMU: 155. 234Dahood, Psalms II: 341. 235Van Zijl, Baal: 215.

ATHIRAT IN THE ELIMELEK TABLETS OF UGARIT

83

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have examined the Ugaritic evidence concerning Athirat in the texts written by Elimelek. I have attempted to address the concern about the role of women as “embodied” in Athirat, and such an attempt has shown that, if women were the “role models” for the primary goddess, they were essentially seen as being in relationship with their husbands and children. Many scholars cast Athirat in the role of the “mother-goddess”. Athirat does not appear as the amorphous mother-goddess in the sense described by James: From the foregoing survey of the Goddess cult in its many forms, phases and manifestations the life-producing Mother as the personification of fecundity stands out clearly as the central figure. Behind her lay the mystery of birth and generation in the abstract, at first in the human and animal world with which Palaeolithic Man was mainly concerned in his struggle for existence and survival; then, when food-gathering gave place to food-production, in the vegetable kingdom where Mother-earth became the womb in which the crops were sown, and from which they were brought forth in due season. With the establishment of husbandry and the domestication of flocks and herds, however, the function of the male in the process of generation became more apparent and vital as the physiological facts concerning paternity were more clearly understood and recognized. Then the Mother-goddess was assigned a male partner, either in the capacity of her son and lover, or of brother and husband. Nevertheless, although he was the begetter of life he occupied a subordinate position to her, being in fact a secondary figure in the cultus.236

Perhaps the most common description given of Athirat or “Asherah” is that of the mother-goddess. This modern epithet is often found in discussions of the goddess,237 but it must be qualified. The Ugaritic evidence from Elimelek’s work does point to a maternal aspect of Athirat, but in relation to two specific sets of offspring: the gods and royal children. Athirat does not appear to be connected with a fertility cult in Keret or the Baal Cycle; the mythology recorded by Elimelek does not connect her with agri236E. O. James, The Cult of the Mother-Goddess, an Archaeological and Documentary Study, London, 1959: 228. 237See Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 193; W. Louie, The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah in Old Testament Idolatry in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence, Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1988: 151–179; Smith, Early History of God: xix.

84

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

culture or husbandry. She is the “Bearer of the gods” (KTU 1.4.I.22), and Yaṣṣib, the royal heir, will suck her milk (15.II.26). She is not generalised into a mother-goddess in an anthropological sense.238 Athirat’s actions are primarily presented in her status of having important relationships among the pantheon: she is consort to El, the mother of the gods, and the rabītu. As queen mother Athirat named the heir to the throne, and appears to have supported the reigning king. Although Athirat moved in royal circles, the texts portray her as sharing some characteristics with earthly women. She is pictured with a spindle, the pedestrian utensil of a housewife (4.II.3). Her name occurs in parallel with the word “woman” (3.I.14–15). We have also noted that the Baal Cycle demonstrates by its repeated usage of the title rbt atrt ym, and by the circumstances in which Athirat appears by the sea side or in association with Yam, that she is related in a special way to the sea (Yam?). The precise nature of this special relationship cannot be gathered from the texts as they are, but we are able to determine with certainty that some relationship does exist. Any hints of sexual activity connected with Athirat point to her status as the consort of El. She is not pictured as the lover or consort of Baal. She is the proper means by which to approach El, and she is able to change his mind. These are the characteristics of Athirat as portrayed in the Elimelek tablets. An examination of the remaining Ugaritic references to Athirat may add to our knowledge of her nature.

238For a good critique of the prevalent acceptance of mother-goddess theories see P. J. Ucko, Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece, (Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 24), London, 1968: 409–426. For a further archaeological critique of these theories in a European context see A. Fleming, “The Myth of the Mother Goddess” World Archaeology 1 (1969–70): 247–261; P. Muhly, “The Great Goddess and the Priest-King” Expedition 32 (1990): 54–61; R. Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles, Their Nature and Legacy, Oxford, 1991: 4–6, 37–41; J.-P. Duhard, “The Shape of Pleistocene Women” Antiquity 65 (1991): 552–561; and L. E. Talalay, “Body Imagery of the Ancient Aegean” Archaeology 44 (1991): 46–49.

3 OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT Having considered the mythological texts of Elimelek, I shall now move to examine the Ugaritic texts which do not fit into his mythological cycles, but which mention Athirat. Although an examination of these smaller texts certainly has a place in a study of Athirat, a question concerning method is raised. I now propose to deal with small, sometimes isolated sections, and up to this point I have been “contextualising” the information about Athirat into groups which have formed somewhat coherent units, such as “Keret” and the “Baal Cycle” of Ugaritic mythology. Can this method be carried over into a study of loosely related texts? What is the “glue” which holds together small mythological fragments? It must be admitted at the outset that our knowledge of Athirat’s character will not, perhaps, be vastly increased by a collective dossier of coherent facts by examining these small texts. In fact, the information which we stand to glean from such an exploration is small compared with that which we found in the ordered cycles of Elimelek. The value of such a study as this lies principally in the ability which such divergent texts have to confirm or deny characteristics which we have already discerned for the Ugaritic “Elimelek” understanding of Athirat. Such texts as offering-lists also provide a glimpse into the cultic life which mythological texts do not always offer. Included among these smaller texts is the relatively complete Shachar and Shalim (text 23). Since this is the largest text which will occupy our attention in this chapter, it will be dealt with at the outset. We shall then move on to other brief or isolated mythological texts. After the fragments I shall discuss the texts which appear to have ritual connections: offering-lists, god-lists, and ritual calendars. Comparisons of such texts with each other demonstrate interesting variations. Although they do not allow us to conclude that sequentially mentioned deities are related as consorts or families, their ordering of the deities appears to be significant. Taken together such texts form a loosely connected genre which provides a context from which to glean cultic information. Studies have

85

86

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

been carried out concerning the ritual texts, and these presentations remain useful for such an investigation.1

SHACHAR AND SHALIM AND MYTHOLOGICAL FRAGMENTS Shachar and Shalim (KTU 1.23)2 KTU 1.23 is a most difficult fusion of myth and ritual. The difficulty is, in the words of Driver, that “the connexion between the poetical pieces and the directions is not always clear”.3 The obverse of the tablet deals with what seem to be rubrics interspersed with mythological allusions. Athirat is mentioned several times, and therefore this section deserves our attention. The reverse of the tablet bears a narrative of the begetting of Shachar and

1Notably J. C. de Moor, “The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit” UF 2 (1970): 187– 228; J. Healey, “The Akkadian ‘Pantheon’ List from Ugarit” SEL 2 (1985): 115– 125, and also “The ‘Pantheon’ of Ugarit: Further Notes” SEL 5 (1988): 103–111. See the summary of such lists in W. A. Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta, 1986: 38–44. See also B. A. Levine, “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Format and Functional Features of the Genre” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ASOR Special Volume Series 1), C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, eds., Winona Lake, 1983: 467–475. I shall not be considering KTU 1.43 in the light of the recent work by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (“Jahwe und seine Aschera” Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9), Münster, 1992). This text receives a full discussion in their monograph; and it does not mention Athirat. 2For a study of a possible origin see: B. Cutler and J. Macdonald, “On the Origin of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.23” UF 14 (1982): 33–50, and for general interpretation, E. Lipiński, “Fertility in Ancient Ugarit” in Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean, Papers Presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, the University of Malta, 2–5 September 1985, A. Bonanno, ed., Amsterdam, 1986: 207–216; M. Pope, “Ups and Downs in El’s Amours” UF 11 (Schaeffer Festschrift 1979): 701–708; S. Segert, “An Ugaritic Text Related to the Fertility Cult (KTU 1.23)” in Archaeology and Fertility Cult : 217–224; D. Tsumura, “A Problem of Myth and Ritual Relationship—CTA 23 (UT 52): 56–57 Reconsidered—” UF 10 (1978): 387–395; N. Wyatt, “Sea and Desert: Symbolic Geography in West Semitic Religious Thought” UF 19 (1987): 380–383; and T. L. Hettema, “‘That it be Repeated’: A Narrative Analysis of KTU 1.23” JEOL 31 (1989–90): 77– 94. 3CML: 22.

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

87

Shalim by El. I will first explore the obverse, then discuss the relevance of the reverse for our investigation. The first seven lines of the text seem to be an introduction, beginning with “I proclaim the gracious gods” (iqra.ilm.nʿ[mm]), and ending with a benediction to the king and his retinue. The following lines are set off by a line drawn across the tablet, and they tell of someone called mt wšr; but we cannot be detained with the identity of this character here.4 What we can glean from this section of the text, however, is that it is concerned, in some sense, with “fertility” themes. This is hinted at by the references to mt wšr being harvested (?) like vines (lines 9–11). I mention this aspect since it may allow us a perspective from which to begin to consider the mythological part of the text. A rubric follows (line 12), which calls for a sevenfold repetition. Lines 13 through 15 are set off by lines across the tablet. They read: 13 w. šd. šd.ilm. And the field5 is the field of the gods, šd.atrt.w rḥm the field of Athirat and Rahma upon the fire seven times a hero with good 14 ʿl.išt. šbʿd.ġzrm g.ṭb. voice,6 4For

a discussion of this character, see N. Wyatt, “The Identity of Mt wŠr” UF 9 (1977): 379–381, and the references therein. 5Driver (CML: 121) suggested “effluence” as a translation for šd, based on the Syriac šdāyâ , “discharge”(148). T. Gaster has suggested (Thespis, Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East, New York, 1950: 225, 242) that šd might be understood as “breasts” as šd could be substituted for the usual Ugaritic td, “breast”. This idea finds support in the fact that both dd and zd are substituted for td with the meaning of “breast” in text 23 itself (Gordon, UT: 501), and all four words begin with either a sibilant or a dental, and end with dalet. The fact that šd has no direct West Semitic attestation as “breast”, however, calls for caution in consideration of this hypothetical definition. 6This line is exceptionally difficult. After closely examining the photograph in CTA 2, I have determined that the word concerned is written dġzrm. In the context, this is very difficult to understand. Since the list seems to indicate items to be placed upon a fire, and since dġt , “incense” appears twice in line 15, I would propose a possible emendment of šbʿd.ġzrm to šbʿ.dġt [.]rm as z ( )and t ( ) are very similar in shape, and misplaced word dividers are not unknown in Ugaritic. I would then suggest that the rm might be an imperative form of rmh (in Hebrew, “to shoot, cast”, BDB: 941a) “cast incense”. The difficulty with this suggestion is that it leaves the gimel following ġzrm unaccounted for. I would recommend emendation as a final course of action, particularly with such a difficult text. My tentative reading,

88

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

[g]d. bḥlb.annḫ bḫmat 15 wʿl.a gn.šbʿdm.d ġt?t[.dġ]tt

coriander in milk, mint in butter, and upon the flame7 seven times indeed8 the essence of incense.9

These lines are notoriously difficult, and any reconstructions remain necessarily hypothetical. Although most of the words can be determined on the basis of cognates, they do not seem to fit together coherently. This may simply be the result of their being part of a ritual text, which, although meaningful to the initiated Ugaritian, remains opaque to us. I would suggest that since they contain a mention of Athirat and Rahmay, these lines concern themselves mainly with some aspect of the goddesses, involving a concoction to be placed on a fire. What aspect they reveal we are unable to determine. For our study, we would take interest in the mention of Athirat in line 13. The context is far too concise to inform us greatly about her nature. We may deduce that she is associated with a “field” and with a goddess called Rahmay. The divine “fields” which are mentioned in line 13 again seem to point to fertility-related issues, but in what context we cannot say. Since this section, like several others on the face of the tablet, is scored off by lines, they would appear not to form a continuous narrative with the lines before or after. The next line, however, does make a reference to hunting (wtṣd) which was presumably carried out in “fields”. The identity of Rahmay has been much discussed by scholars, many of whom understand her to be a form of Anat.10 Another line of interpretation is to take Rahmay as an epithet of Athirat, as do Gordon and TO.11 This issue is of much interest to our study of Athirat, but the text does not easily provide an answer; thus it is a matter of interpretation. Nowhere else in our

however, does seem to bring some order into the chaos, without disturbing the integrity of the text too much. 7I take agn to be an Indo-European loan word for “fire” (Gordon, UT: 351). 8dm would seem to be an emphatic particle here, as šbʿ alone could have the connotation of “seven times” (see previous line, and CML2: 144, 158). 9Literally, “incense of incense”; I understand this to point to the basic quality of incense, its “essence”. 10Driver, CML: 121; Gaster, Thespis : 225, 242; de Moor, ARTU: 120; Gibson, CML2: 157; and del Olmo Lete, MLC: 623. 11Gordon, PLMU: 60 reads this as a double name, Asherah-and-Raḥm, and Caquot, Sznycer and Herdner (TO: 371, note m) suggest she is “un doublet d’Athirat”.

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

89

Ugaritic mythological texts do we see a double name of Athirat-Rahmay, nor can “Rahmay” be said to refer explicitly to Anat. The following three lines, 16–18, are damaged, but seem to contain a reference to the goddess(es) again. 16 tlkm.rḥmy.w tṣd [ ] Rahmay went out and hunted[ ] they girded on, the pleasant hero[ ] 17 tḥgrn.ġzr.nʿ m.[ ] and the name entered . . [ ] ] 18 wšm. ʿrbm.yr[ Since Rahmay is mentioned in line 16, and since line 17 begins with what may be a feminine plural verb, we may speculate that Athirat was in parallel with her in the missing part of line 16.12 As such a conjecture cannot be textually supported, I shall only mention it as a possibility. The next certain mention of Athirat comes in the refrain at lines 23– 27, which are also set off by a line before and after them. I call on the gracious gods, 23 iqran.ilm.nʿmm [.agzrym.bn] ym [the ones dividing13 the sons of] the sea, 24 yn qm.bap zd.atrt.[ ] the ones sucking the nipple of the breast of Athirat [ ] 25 špš.ms?/ṣ?prt.dlthm Shapash numbering their branches14 [ ]26 wġnbm. [ ] and grapes, peace to the ministers and soldiers šlm. ʿrbm.tn nm the ones coming in to the gracious sacrifice 27hlkm.bdbḥ nʿmt Again we are faced with problems of interpretation. The identity of the gracious gods is not clearly revealed, although it is of interest that they are associated with both Athirat (whose nipples they suck) and the sea (whose sons (?) they divide). We have noted in the previous chapter that Athirat is 12This was also tentatively restored by TO: 371, as well as by del Olmo Lete MLC: 442. 13The lacuna is restored on the basis of lines 58–59. As agzrym may be construed as a dual, I would read it as such, thus removing the difficulty of two mentions of the sea in the line. The word agzrym itself is interesting. N. Wyatt (private communication) has pointed out that a form of this verb in Hebrew occurs in parallel with ʾkl in Isa. 9.19 (Eng. 20); thus allowing for the suggestion of “devourers”. 14msprt appears to be a feminine participle of spr, “to count”; dlthm could be from dālît, “branch” (BDB: 194b). In a context of fields and vines in the text as a whole, it would make sense to have a line stating that the sun was numbering the fruits of (the land ?).

90

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

associated with the sea, but the exact relationship is not specified. Once again, although this time beyond the mythological cycles of Elimelek, we see a tangential relationship of Athirat and the sea—those who suckle at her breasts divide (?) the sons of the sea. Also from this section we note that Athirat is here mentioned, not with Anat, but with Shapash. The reference to a numbering of branches in line 25 may point to an agricultural concern for the text. A maternal aspect also seems to be demonstrated by the mention of the suckling at Athirat’s breasts. Her previously noted role as the mother of the gods in the Elimelek cycles also seems to be reinforced here. This passage is immediately followed by a partial repetition of line 13, restored as: šd.ilm. šd.atrt.w rḥmy the field of the gods is the field of Athirat and Rahmay Does this have anything to do with the preceding fertility motifs of suckling and branches? The difficulty of relating the refrains and other scored-off pieces of the texts adds to the interpretative troubles. The following line, 29, is too damaged to translate, but it does not appear to be the same line which follows line 13, as the legible letters are the wrong ones. This brings us to the end of the obverse. The texts with which we have been concerned are marked by their difficulty. Alternative translations and interpretations may be supported for the lines which I have translated; however, I believe that my translations reflect the basic nature of the text. Concerning Athirat we have been able to see that certain aspects of her character delineated by Elimelek may have carried through to other Ugaritic myths. She apparently retains some relationship to the sea, as well as retaining maternal features (lines 23–24). Now we must consider whether the reverse of the tablet concerns Athirat, or simply unnamed women. The difficulties in understanding the relationship between the two sides of this tablet are pronounced.15 The text of the reverse is in relatively good condition, and the repetitiveness assists in filling in the gaps. The narrative relates how El, seeing two women (mštʿltm in lines 31, 35, 36 and also attm in lines 39, 42, 43, 46, 48), subsequently seduces them. They conceive 15It may not be stated with certainty that “the two parts of the text are a unity. Whereas the ritual part addresses a problem of deprivation and abundance, the narrative part extends this opposition by means of a myth” (Hettema, “‘That it be Repeated’”: 81). The two sides of the tablet may well express the same concerns; however, they are not a continuous narrative.

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

91

and give birth to two sets of children: first Shachar and Shalim, and then the gracious gods. The first interpretative difficulty encountered is that the women are nowhere named. The only goddess named in the narrative part of the tablet is Shapash in line 54: šuʿdb.l špš.rbt.w kbkbm.kn[ ] Raise, prepare for Shapash the Lady and the established stars [ ] Apparently an offering is being presented to Shapash, presumably for the birth of Dawn and Dusk. The title rbt, discussed in the previous chapter, is used for Athirat in the Elimelek cycle, but we must be cautious about suggesting that it would necessarily refer to her here. Elimelek gives us no grounds for supposing that Athirat is a solar deity. Likewise, Athirat is not given the title rbt in text 23, and when the title is given to her in the Baal Cycle, it is in the fuller form rbt atrt ym. We cannot equate the two goddesses on the basis of this title, especially when the forms of the two myths involved are so different. In any case, it does not seem that Shapash is considered to be the mother of the gods in the narrative. She does, however, appear to be credited with some kind of thanks for their birth. She is mentioned with the “established stars”, placing her in the heavens, where Shachar and Shalim (probably the two phases of Venus as morning and evening star) are located. We should expect no less of a sun goddess. The meaning of line 54 is not altogether clear, and the following lines do not dissipate the obscurity, for they are a repetition of the account of El impregnating the women. Are these two women in the narrative section the goddesses mentioned on the obverse? Many scholars answer this question in the affirmative. One of the first difficulties with this interpretation is the identity of Rahmay—is she a double of Athirat, or is she Anat, or another goddess? Does she count as one of the women (she is treated as an individual in line 16), or is she to be considered one with Athirat? Shapash also appears to be mentioned on the obverse (line 25); is she one of the two women? If Rahmay is Anat, then the mention of Shapash increases the goddesses mentioned to three. The problem becomes more acute in that the gracious gods are said to suck the breasts of “the Lady” (št) in line 61 (and perhaps also 59). This title appears in Aqhat as a title of Anat, but any of the goddesses could conceivably be called “the lady”. In the light of the general difficulty in interpreting this text, and the profusion of titles and names of goddesses, it cannot be stated with certainty that the two women are Athirat and Rahmay. The birth of two sets of children does seem to indicate a fertility aspect to the reverse of the text, but that does not necessitate the presence of Athirat. In consideration of

92

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

these problems, I believe we should suffice with what we have gleaned about Athirat above: she is portrayed as related to the sea (indirectly) and she is related to the maternal aspect of fertility in some respect. To suggest any more is to go beyond the present evidence.

KTU 1.8 KTU 1.8 is apparently either column number II or V of a six column tablet, according to Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartin.16 In content, it appears to be part of a recension of the Baal Cycle. This small fragment contains some 17 lines which juxtapose small sections gleaned from a myth similar to tablet KTU 1.4. The first two lines nearly repeat 4.I.21–22, which are Baal’s instructions to Kothar-and-Khasis to make a gift for Athirat. The lines in text 8 read: 1 ik.mgn.rbt.atrt 2[y]m. a gift for Lady Athirat of the Sea,(?)17 a present for the Bearer of the Gods. mġẓ.qnyt.ilm The text next moves on to Baal’s request for a house in lines 3–5 and thereafter to the enigmatic statement of Baal to his servants in 4.VII.54f. This would appear to be a summary of some of the main elements of the Palace of Baal episode. For our present concern, it does mention Athirat, but unfortunately it does not add anything to our observations about her characteristics.

KTU 1.1218 This text is most difficult to translate. This is in part due to its unfortunate break which leaves us without the very top of the tablet and without the second half of much of column II. Briefly summarised, the text tells of the birth of the “devourers” (ʿqqm) by Dmgy, the handmaid of Athirat (amt atrt).19 Baal spies and “covets” (ḥmd)20 the creatures. After pursuing them, 16See

KTU page 30, note 1 on text 8. corresponding text in 1.4.I.20–22 has mʿ preceeding mgn. With the broken context, I can make no sense of ik here. 18For studies of this text, see A. Kapelrud, “Baal and the Devourers” Ug 6 (1969): 319–332; J. Gray, “The Hunting of Baʿal: Fratricide and Atonement in the Mythology of Ras Shamra” JNES 10 (1951): 146–155; and N. Wyatt, “Atonement Theology in Ugarit and Israel” UF 8 (1976): 415–430. 19KTU 1.12.I.16–17. 20See Gordon, PLMU: 121. 17The

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

93

Baal has a fall, later apparently to be found by his siblings. The text, as we have it, thus ends. De Moor, who supposes the text to have been written by an inexperienced scribe, concurs with many scholars that the text may well have ended at the close of column II.21 The reverse of the tablet is blank, which supports this. Gordon simply notes that double lines at this point indicate that the scene has ended.22 Our concern is what we may learn about Athirat from this broken tablet. Athirat plays no direct part in what is left of the myth; it is her handmaid (along with Tlsh, the handmaid of Yarikh) who bears one of the “devourers”. This indirect parallelism between Yarikh and Athirat is unique in the Ugaritic corpus, and it occurs in an obscure myth. Gray attempts to understand the role of the goddess by stating “We take ʾamt in apposition to ʾatrt and in construct relationship to yrḫ, the Moon-god or El”.23 He further suggests, “El himself is probably the Moon-god and Atirat his consort”.24 Gray understands the point of the text to be the consideration of fratricide and the punishment of the blood-guiltiness of Baal. Kapelrud does not take great pains to identify the handmaids, but he does offer an alternative interpretation. He supposes that the devourers are locusts, impregnated by Baal, which increase and cause famines.25 Brink does not draw any explicit relationship between the handmaids and Athirat, but he argues that the purpose of the text is to demonstrate the positive relationship between Athirat and Baal.26 Wyatt argues that this text deals with the same fight between Baal and Mot presented in text 6.27 As to the identity of the handmaids, Wyatt contends that: The two mothers-to-be, called “Tlš the handmaid of Yariḫu” (i 14f.) and “Dmgy the handmaid of Atirat” (i 16f.) or perhaps better “the handmaid Atirat”, are to be understood as the wives of El. They call El “our father”, as we have seen, and El’s wives in CTA 23 do the same (i 33, ii 9). In that text the wives are Atirat and Rḥmy, the latter probably to be un21ARTU:

128, see also Gray “The Hunting of Baʿal”: 152, Wyatt, “Atonement Theology”: 415. 22PLMU: 125. 23Gray, “The Hunting of Baʿal”: 146, note 8. 24Gray, “The Hunting of Baʿal”: 148, note 21. 25Kapelrud, “Baal and the Devourers”: 222–225. 26M. Brink, A Philological Study of Texts in Connection with Attart and Atirat in the Ugaritic Language, D. Litt. dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, 1977: 499–500. 27Wyatt, “Atonement Theology”: 420.

94

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH derstood not as ʿAnat (which would make nonsense of the mythological structure of the episode) but as Šapš, the sun-goddess, ultimately to be identified with Atirat, herself an ancient sun-goddess.28

The suggestions presented above are worth considering, but the text itself, as we have it, does not state that Athirat is indeed one of the mothers. The myth, even if contained on only two columns, is too badly broken to determine its genre with certainty (although the falling and rescue of Baal may indicate a possible rebirth).29 I suggest that all we can learn about Athirat in this context is that she is indirectly associated with childbirth. Her handmaid is sent to the desert to bear a child. This maternal aspect accords with what we know of her through the myths of Elimelek, but to state much more about her in this context goes beyond the available evidence.

KTU 1.114 This intriguing text has been interpreted in several ways by many scholars. The mythological tale of a divine feast is followed by a break in the tablet, then a rubric appears, perhaps for curing a hangover. The text clearly ends following this rubric. The interest which this text has for our present study is that some scholars have suggested that Athirat appears in it, in a mere mention. Other scholars have supposed that the text supports some other interpretation. The relevant lines are 14–16, which are somewhat damaged: to El his father he gave rebuke, 14 b il.abh.gʿr. ytb.il.w l 15atr[t.] El sat and (?) Athirat (?), il.ytb.b mrzḥh El sat in his marzeah, he drank wine until satisfied, 16yšt.[y]n. ʿdšbʿ. 30 new wine until drunk. trt. ʿd škr The difficulty with this section of the text is that the damaged portions obscure the parallelism. Supposing that ytb il in line 14 begins a bicolon, paralleled by a similar il ytb in line 15, it might be proposed that atr[ ] should be parallel with mrzḥh.31 The restoration to atrt is conjectural, and many 28Wyatt,

“Atonement Theology”: 417. has been tentatively suggested in my article “Old Testament Dagan in the Light of Ugarit”, forthcoming in VT. 30I have, for the sake of convenience, followed the text as presented by KTU. 31For a discussion of the mrzḥ as an institution see J. C. Greenfield “The marzeaḥ as a Social Institution” AAASH 22 (1974): 451–455. 29This

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

95

scholars have suggested alternative readings for this word and for other uncertain letters in lines 14–15. De Moor had originally accepted this restoration and read lines 14–15 as: (but) Ilu and the sons of Atiratu remained seated, Ilu remained seated among his mrzḥ -guests.32

He later decided that the reading should follow Virolleaud’s original reading in Ugaritica V, which he restored as kb ʾašk[rr]. Ilu is sitting as if he is on the henbane drug, Ilu is sitting with his society.33

This proposal, however, has not found a wide following, although Pardee’s recent study affirms the reading ʾašk [--].34 Rainey also dismissed the reconstruction of atrt: “The awkward expression, bat[rt] (Virolleaud followed by Loewenstamm) does not commend itself. In any event the passage is not crucial for the main line of thought in the text”.35 Although Rainey is correct in pointing out that the line is not crucial for understanding the text, our concern is to discover if Athirat is mentioned. Pope reconstructs lines 14–1 5 as: El his father he chided. El sat [in] b il abh.gʿr.|| ytb.il.[b(?)] at[rh] ||il.ytb.bmrzḥh [his pl]ace. El sat in his mrzḥ 36 Pope further comments: “There is no objection to El sitting with his sometime consort and mother of his numerous progeny, but she is not mentioned elsewhere in the text and the parallelism suggests a place rather than a person”.37 The objection to Athirat not being mentioned elsewhere could be countered by the fact that Tkmn-and-Šnm is only mentioned once in the text, and that Ḥby also appears just once. The issue of the parallelism is the

32J.

C. de Moor, “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra I” UF 1 (1969): 168. 33J. C. de Moor, “Henbane and KTU 1.114” UF 16 (1984): 355–356. 34D. Pardee, Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961) (RSO 4, Mémoire 77), Paris, 1988: 14–15, 18 and 54. 35A. F. Rainey, “The Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica 5” JAOS 94 (1974): 187. 36M. H. Pope, “A Divine Banquet at Ugarit” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring, J. Efird, ed., Durham, North Carolina, 1972: 171, 172. 37Pope, “Divine Banquet”: 190.

96

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

crux, but the broken end of line 14 seems to preclude any certainty. Xella follows Pope’s reconstruction.38 Margalit, basing his arguments on his stichometry and alliteration, reconstructs the passage thus: (But) El was presiding in [his] thiasus, ytb.il. [w]? l atr[h.] El was presiding in his “symposium”.39 il.ytb.bmrzḥh However, even with his elaborate criteria for understanding the metre and phonetic structure of the passage, Margalit is forced to rely on scribal error to account for the troublesome lacuna at the end of line 14.40 Cathcart and Watson do find a mention of Athirat in the text, proposing: He reproves his father El. bil[.] abh.gʿr. ytb.il.kb[n]/at[rt] il.ytb.bmrzḥh

El continues to sit like a s[on of Athi]rat, El continues to sit at his banquet.41

They do not comment further on the mention of Athirat. The possible reference to Athirat in this passage must remain just that. The lacuna at the end of line 14 does not permit any reconstruction with certainty, despite the many attempts at a solution. Studies which point to parallelism are likewise based on assumptions about the missing characters at the end of the line. For the purposes of this study it is sufficient to state that some scholars consider Athirat to be mentioned in this text, but it is in a context which would add very little to our understanding of her character. RIH 78/20 One final text must be considered under our consideration of mythological mentions of Athirat. One of the texts found at Ras Ibn Hani in 1978 is a well-preserved tablet that mentions Athirat. Bordreuil and Caquot classify

38P.

Xella, “Studi sulla Religione della Siria Antica I El e il Vino (RS 24.258)” SSR 1 (1977): 238, 240. 39B. Margalit, “The Ugaritic Feast of the Drunken Gods: Another Look at RS 24.258 (KTU 1.114)” Maarav 2 (1979–80): 98. 40Margalit, “Ugaritic Feast”: 104–105. 41K. J. Cathcart and W. G. E. Watson, “Weathering a Wake: A Cure for a Carousal, A Revised Translation of Ugaritica V Text 1” PIBA 4 (1980): 36, 38.

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

97

the text as “mythologique”,42 de Moor43 and Avishur44 both consider it an incantation, and Saracino suggests that it is a cure for impotence.45 More recently Caquot has labelled the text an “exorcisme” after the initial word ydy.46 That the text involves some kind of “driving out” is apparent from the use of ydy, but the object being driven is still debated. Our concern is why Athirat is named in a text for expelling a malady or spirit. We are not assisted by knowing what the nature of the exorcised entity is. The reference to Athirat occurs in line 16. The two previous lines appear to be a bicolon, as do lines 16 and 17. The difficulty comes in that the beginning of 17 is broken, and thus we are not able to determine the parallelism of the bicolon. 16 hn.bnpš.atrt.rbt.bl behold from the throat of Lady Athirat, from(?) 17 xx]rk.lttm.itbnnk [ ] ? . . . I perceive you47 The obvious difficulty is the broken context. Avishur does not attempt a translation of these two lines, content to recognise the words “the Lady Ashera”.48 De Moor understands 16–18 as two bicola: lo, in the soul of Athiratu, the Lady, in the h[eart of] your [ ] may you be moulded! Let me observe you intently [ ] and certainly do not enter! 49

42P. Bordreuil and A. Caquot, “Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à Ibn Hani” Syria 57 (1980): 343–351. A very clear photograph of the text appears on page 368. 43J. C. de Moor, “An Incantation against Evil Spirits (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20)” UF 12 (1980): 429–432. 44Y. Avishur, “The Ghost-Expelling Incantation from Ugarit (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20)” UF 13 (1981): 13–25. 45F. Saracino, “Ras Ibn Hani 78/20 and Some Old Testament Connections” VT 32 (1982): 338–343. 46A. Caquot, J. de Tarragon and J. Cunchillos, Textes ougaritiques, Tome II textes religieux, rituels, correspondance (Littératures Ancienne du Proche-Orient 14) Paris, 1989: 54. Hereafter cited as TO2. 47The form itbnnk appears to be a tL form, according to Gordon’s paradigms (UT: 155). I follow Bordreuil and Caquot (“Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques”: 349) in understanding the root for bnn in Hebrew byn, which appears in the form of yebônenēhû in Deut. 32.10 (BDB: 107a). 48“The Ghost-Expelling Incantation”: 16. 49“Incantation against Evil Spirits”: 430.

98

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Caquot translates: Voici, dans la gorge de la Dame Athirat sans ton [ . . .] - - - je te discerne.50

Caquot and Bordreuil suggest that Athirat is present here in the role of the “patronne de la mer”;51 however her maritime role is not obvious. In this fragment we have Athirat mentioned in connection with some kind of exorcism. Her exact role, and thus any information on her character, is, at present, lost to us.

TEXTS ASSOCIATED WITH RITUAL52 KTU 1.3953 This text is an offering-list, wherein Athirat, mentioned in line 6, is given a sheep. The arrangement of gods is most interesting. Initially El is mentioned in the first two lines, where he is presented with two ewes, a dove, two kidneys, a liver of a bullock, and a sheep. Line 3, although obscure, mentions Tkmn-and-Šnm, and line 4 names Resheph. Next Baal is mentioned as receiving a sheep, then Athirat followed by Tkmn-and-Šnm. Line 7 enumerates like offerings for Anat and Resheph, and mentions the family of El (dr il) and the assembly of Baal (p[ḫ]r bʿl). The fact that Athirat follows Baal in this list speaks nothing of the alleged mythological association of the two.54 An offering-list would be inclined to show the objects of personal devotion rather than to sketch mythological scenarios. What is interesting about this particular listing is that it places a relatively infrequently mentioned Tkmn-and-Šnm twice in the first six lines. This double-god55 appears in KTU 1.114, which may also 50“Une nouvelle interprétation de la tablette ougaritique de Ras Ibn Hani 78/20” Orientalia 53 (N.S. 1984): 175; TO2: 60. 51“Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques”: 349. 52For a relatively complete study of the various ritual texts see P. Xella, I Testi Rituali di Ugarit—I (Pubblicazioni del Centro di Studio per la Civiltà Fenicia e Punica 21, Studi Semitici 54), Rome, 1981. 53For a study of this text see TO2 : 135–139. See also M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartín “Die Texteinheiten in RS 1.2 = CTA 32 und RS 17.100 = CTA Appendice I” UF 7 (1975): 141–146. 54See S. M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34), Atlanta, 1988: 47 55Possibly to be identified with the divine pair Shukamuna and Shumaliya (N.

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

99

mention Athirat. In this text he (they) is (are) presented as helping the drunken El reach his house. Resheph is also mentioned twice, but the major mythological figures of Baal, Athirat, and Anat appear only once. This should caution against using offering-lists to explain mythological scenarios. We do have here, however, evidence that Athirat was worshipped in the cult of Ugarit, as well as being portrayed in the mythology.

KTU 1.41 and 1.87 This ritual text is similar to text 1.39,56 and is partially restored on the basis of text 1.87, of which it seems to be a duplicate.57 Athirat is mentioned twice in preserved lines, and once in a restoration (line 35). Her first mention is in line 15 (1.87.16), amid the same order of deities presented in text 39. Even with the assistance of text 87, the proposed second mention of Athirat in line 35 (1.87.38) is not certain. Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín leave the section concerned untranscribed (or restored), and Xella does not read Athirat there.58 De Tarragon proposes to restore lines 34–36 as: . . . une génisse pour [Baʿal] d’Ou[ga]rit; un mouton pour le di[eu]-père, [ Athirat;] et [des oiseaux] pour . . .?59

De Moor argues for a seasonal interpretation relating to the New Year festival for this text.60 His lines 35 and following read: a ram for Baʿlu of Ugarit, a ram for Ilʾibu, . . [ ] for Ilu, a ram for Athiratu and two birds for Riʾthu.61

The letters remaining in this broken section are, on the basis of 1.87, read as ...rt by KTU. This combination certainly would support the name Athirat, Wyatt, “The Story of Dinah and Shechem” UF 22 (1990): 446–447). 56TO2: 135, concerning 1.39 “Le texte 1.41 en est très proche (ansi que 1.87)”. 57TO2: 152; Xella, Testi Rituali: 63, 74. 58Dietrich, Loretz and Sanmartín, “Texteinheiten in RS 1.2”: 144, and also in KTU, page 75; Xella, Testi Rituali: 60, 62. 59TO2: 157. 60ARTU: 157–158. 61ARTU: 163.

100

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

but of this we cannot be certain. If Athirat is mentioned here, we have her name presented among a differing list of gods than that presented above. Her name does appear in line 40, but again the context is difficult. De Tarragon reads lines 38–41 as: Au cinquième (jour), [(au) temple de El, un sicle d’ar-] [gent] (en) hommage, et un sacrifice-db[ḥ ] [pour] Athirat; des oiseaux [pour inš des dieux.] [On re]vient (à) l’autel de Baʿal: une génis[se pour Baʿal;]62

De Moor renders them as: On the fifth: One full shekel of silver for the House of Ilu and sacrifice like [ ]. [ ] for Athiratu, two birds for the Most Amiable of the gods. Repeat: “Altar of Baʿlu.”63

Maier simply translates the relevant line: ʾAtirat ; birds for the ʾinš of the gods. . .64 The deities mentioned in this list vary in order and in who is included. Athirat is clearly mentioned following the house of El (restored on the basis of 1.87), and immediately preceeding the inš ilm. De Moor’s rendering seems to be based on root II of ʾnš “be inclined to, friendly, social” in BDB.65 This root does support other connotations such as “to be weak”, “to be soft”, and in the Old Testament in general it seems to be a description of the human condition.66 In any case, for our consideration the question should be asked: is inš ilm intended to be parallel to Athirat? As the ritual texts, such as these, were probably not intended for recitation as much as to preserve priestly ritual, we should not expect them to be poetic in the same sense as the narrative poems of Elimelek, or the mythological fragments. An examination of the list under discussion also gives us no grounds for considering a parallelistic structure as opposed to a simple 62TO2:

157. 163–164. 64Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 40. 65BDB: 60 b. 66BDB: 60–61. 63ARTU:

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

101

enumeration. As noted above, the order of the deities, which inevitably varies between individual lists, and even between sections within a single list, cannot inform us as to the mythological relationships between the gods. What this text does seem to indicate is that Athirat had a thriving cult at Ugarit, and she was considered worthy of offerings.

KTU 1.46 and 1.65 Text 1.46 has caused much speculation about the relationship between Baal and Athirat, since they are mentioned as the joint recipients of a bullock in line 8.67 This is an example of the result of gathering information about “Asherah” from divergent sources taken from varying genres and piecing together a larger picture of the goddess. This method may have been useful in the earlier days of Ugaritic studies in order to appreciate the scope of a deity’s importance. Now that several years of this practice have transpired, we must examine the evidence within its own context to test the general theories which have grown out of this method. I have noted above that offering-lists are notorious for spawning speculation about mythological relationships, although this was not their intended purpose. If we were to interpret modern religious dedications in such a way, many commentators would be hard-pressed to explain such church names as “St. Paul’s and St. George’s” or “St. Andrew’s and St. George’s”. If two gods are offered a sheep together it does not indicate that a consort relationship exists between them. Such dedications may exhibit nothing more than an indication of when a particular “feast day” fell, or they may be simply a measure of popular piety: a worshipper may have offered a bullock to both Baal and Athirat because of a vow. In our present state of uncertainty of cultic practice at Ugarit, we have no basis to connect these god lists with our mythological episodes. In the light of the present discussion, KTU 1.65 should also be mentioned. Line 5 of this text reads il w atrt, which immediately follows trmn w šnm.68 This text alone would not allow us to determine that El 67As

argued by A. Kapelrud, Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts, Copenhagen, 1952: 77, M. Pope, “Atirat” in Wörterbuch der Mythologie, H. W. Haussig, ed., Stuttgart, 1965: 248–249; M. Brink, Philological Study: 539–540. But see also Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 41–42, 47. 68The deity referred to here may be tkmn w šnm, known from other texts. In consideration of the fact that tkmn occurs in other lists as well, we should not discount the possibility that this deity is intended here. The difference between the names in cuneiform only involves two wedges: r = ( ) and k = ( ).

102

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

and Athirat were consorts. Their names are connected by w; this is not necessarily a sign of a consort relationship since it is known from the names of double-gods such as Kothar-and-Khasis and Qodesh-and-Amrur. Without the mythological texts to support this relationship, we would not be able to assert the consortship of El and Athirat from the god-lists. The same is true of Baal and Athirat in text 46. Placing them together as consorts strains the evidence, and elsewhere in this same text (46.6) we have a reference to Athirat in a straightforward list with other deities. Line 6 allocates a sheep to El (partially reconstructed), Baal, Athirat and Yam, respectively. Line 3, following a lacuna, records a sheep for El, Baal and Dagon, in that order. Rank would seem to be more the concern than consort relations. Extreme caution must be exercised when one attempts to make mythological assumptions on the basis of ritual lists.

KTU 1.49 This tiny fragment is another offering-list which names Athirat, albeit in a partially reconstructed context. She apparently follows El (also partially reconstructed) and preceeds Pidray (likewise reconstructed) and Athtart. Each deity is offered a gift, but what is important for our study is the order of the gods mentioned. The mention of Pidray is unusual, and if such lists betrayed mythological episodes, we should be at a loss to explain it here. The order of names in offering-lists, as this example demonstrates, varies by factors beyond our knowledge.

KTU 1.112 This text is another offering-list. Athirat appears on the reverse, in line 24, as the recipient of two sheep. Her name occurs in a list of deities and their offerings on the preserved portion of the text. She follows El, Baal Zephon, and the Baal of Ugarit, each of whom receives one sheep. This may indicate a high status for Athirat in the devotional life of Ugarit, but we cannot decide this certainly on the basis of just one such tablet. Our recovered tablets contain the names of many gods in several orders, and the deities receive different offerings in different contexts. It is interesting to note here, however, that Baalat appears to be mentioned separately in line 4 of the obverse of this text. Baalat is often considered as an epithet of Athirat, but such an offering text as this may indicate that she had a separate cult at Ugarit.

OTHER UGARITIC TEXTS REFERRING TO ATHIRAT

103

KTU 1.47, 1.118 and 1.148 This god list is of special interest because it exists in both Ugaritic and Akkadian recensions.69 RS 20.24 provides Akkadian forms of the Ugaritic names in texts 1.47 and 1.118, and text 1.148 is an offering-list which largely follows the order of these two lists. Athirat appears in line 19,70 paralleled by Ašratum in RS 20.24, and she is offered a sheep in text 148. There has been speculation about this list as well, since so many major figures appear so far down the list. Although such a list, appearing as it does in two languages, appears to have a “canonical” aspect about it, we must remember that it is only one of a large number of god lists found at Ugarit. It should also be noted that 148 varies the order of some of the divinities; for example, Ušḫry and Athtart change places, and Utbt drops out following Yam in text 148. Extreme caution should be shown before declaring any one list as more indicative of Ugaritic religion than any of the others. In this particular list, Athirat follows ġrm w [ʿmqt] and preceeds Anat. A further varied order is thus added to our list.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has taken into account the references to Athirat outside of the Elimelek corpus. Although most of the texts are either ritual texts or fragmentary, they do offer support to certain of Athirat’s characteristics observed in the Elimelek tablets. In KTU 1.23 Athirat once again appears to possess a maternal aspect. Since she gives suck to mythological creatures there, this may well be a reflection on her role as the mother of the gods. Other characteristics of Athirat do not appear to be evoked in these tablets. The ritual texts demonstrate that Athirat was actively worshipped in the cult of Ugarit. It is important that the order of deities in these lists not be forced into mythological hypotheses. As offering-lists, they simply tell us about the cultic life of the city. This is an area in which more study is necessary. With these characteristics of Athirat in mind, we are now ready to examine the evidence of the Old Testament concerning Asherah.

69I

am indebted to N. Wyatt for pointing this fact out to me. reference to Athirat is completely missing in KTU 1.47; however, on the basis of the preserved sections of this list it has been linked to the other two texts. 70The

4 OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS In chapters two and three of this study, I have examined the solid information concerning the character of the goddess Athirat in the Ugaritic material. Since Ugarit is the locus of the most abundant information on her character, it must be used as a touchstone for other ancient Near Eastern references to goddesses of the same name. The questions to be put forth in this chapter are “Is there an Old Testament goddess Asherah? If so, is she to be identified with the goddess Athirat as established by Ugaritic materials?” Although many scholars dealing with the issue of the asherah in the Old Testament admit the presence of a goddess there, dissenting voices are still to be heard.1 I shall not assume that she is present unless the evidence so indicates. A word concerning terminology is necessary. Since hr#$) in the Old Testament may refer to a cultic object, or perhaps to a goddess, I shall differentiate between these two usages by capitalising the name of the goddess. The cultic object will not be italicised, except where it represents a strict transliteration. Where the context is ambiguous, I shall use hr#$). Upon examining the contemporary studies on Asherah, one discovers that many attempts at a text-critical approach to the Old Testament references are to be found. The monograph of W. Reed carefully considers which verbs are used with the asherah and which cultic objects are mentioned in the same verses with it.2 The dissertations of J. Engle, A. Perlman and R. Pettey3 compare the cultic objects mentioned or attempt to discern a 1See espcially E. Lipiński, “The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” OLP 3 (1972):116, and A. Lemaire, “Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BAR 10 (1984): 46–47. 2W. Reed, The Asherah in the Old Testament, Fort Worth, 1949, chapters III, IV, and V. 3J. Engle, Pillar Figurines of Iron Age Israel and Asherah/Asherim, University of

105

106

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

formula which the Old Testament utilises concerning the asherah. T. Yamashita, following the Old Testament work of Reed, demonstrated a deuteronomistic source for many Old Testament asherah references.4 Although the information gathered from such investigations is helpful, a textual investigation into each of the forty verses where a form of the word hr#$) appears will still be most instructive. In the Old Testament hr#$) is found in deuteronomistic sources (in deuteronomistic passages of the Pentateuch5 and in the Deuteronomistic History), in the chroniclers’ account of Israelite history, and in the prophetic books. In this chapter I shall examine each of these three categories in turn. I shall examine the deuteronomistic background of many of the Old Testament references to hr#$) and shall attempt to determine if the textual history of the verses yields any information on the goddess Asherah. A thorough investigation into the nature of the deuteronomistic redactors of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History is beyond the scope of this dissertation. It must suffice to say that the deuteronomists have been widely recognized in their editorial work on passages dealing with cultic matters in the Old Testament.6 Is it possible to determine if Old Testament writers or redactors knew of Asherah as a goddess? Text-critical principles may be used to elucidate the issue, although they cannot finally demonstrate if a goddess was recognised. In this chapter I shall note the textual difficulties as they appear. If these difficulties perhaps indicate that the writer or redactor knew of Asherah, I shall note this point. My principle concern, however, will not be to determine the date or authorship of the various passages discussed; neither shall I attempt to determine the overall form of the asherah as a cultic Pittsburgh, 1979; A. Perlman, Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic Literature, Graduate Theological Union, 1978; R. Pettey, Asherah: Goddess of Israel?, Marquette University, 1985 (but see now his Asherah, Goddess of Israel (American University Studies series VII, Theology and Religion volume 74), New York, 1990). 4T. Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah, Yale University, 1963. 5Exod. 34.13 is possibly an exception to this category. See below. 6M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford, 1972: 190; E. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford, 1967: 112; I. Provan, Hezekiah and the Book of Kings (BZAW 172): 57–90; R. Clements, Deuteronomy (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield, 1989: 60–63 (see also his “Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition” VT 15 (1965): 300–312). For a discussion of the dating of the deuteronomistic redaction see J. M. Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1989: 82–84.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

107

object. As will be shown, this cultic object is generally conceived of as a wooden object, and therefore the assistance of archaeology in this situation is extremely limited. The texts themselves tell us little about its actual shape. Instances where the texts give us insight into possible forms of the asherahs will be noted. Each verse’s contribution in this respect will also be considered in its own context. An insistence on a consistent form of the asherah in each verse, imposed from a modern perspective, should be avoided. In this chapter, however, my primary objective is to determine what, if anything, the texts themselves tell us about the nature and character of Asherah. Many scholars have followed on the groundwork laid out by Yamashita, which argues for the deuteronomistic nature of the references to hr#$) in the Old Testament. This interpretation does account for many of the hr#$) references; nevertheless a difference is discernible between earlier and later texts. I shall look closely at the language of each verse or pericope concerning either the cultic object or the goddess. This exercise will reveal some interesting tendencies to be found in the Masoretic Text, and perhaps will shed some light on deuteronomistic theology. This is an area in which new information may be gleaned for discussions of Asherah. Concerning matters of method: conclusions drawn from our study of Athirat should not be initially incorporated into the Old Testament understanding of Asherah. It is necessary first to test the Old Testament materials to determine what they tell us about Asherah. I shall limit the textual study to what the texts themselves will support. After a thorough examination of the evidence, I shall attempt to determine if the nature and character of Old Testament Asherah coincide with Ugaritic Athirat.7 A method which I shall avoid is that of using tentative support from the Old Testament to give credence to composite theories based on several sources of information. An example of this kind of theory is one which states that the Old Testament views Asherah and Baal as consorts. This theory is built upon the assumption that Ugaritic El was eventually supplanted by Baal, who subsequently seized his spouse. The Old Testament cultic sites are adduced as evidence. Ultimately the basis of this presupposition of the consort relationship between Asherah and Baal in the Old Testament is based on two faulty pillars. The first is that deities mentioned together in the Old Testament are neces-

7On this issue see K.-H. Bernhardt, “Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament” MIO 13 (1967): 163–174.

108

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

sarily consorts (a matter I have discussed in an Ugaritic context above).8 This assumption is often further qualified to include only those deities mentioned together at a shrine; thus, when the asherah (as a cultic object) is mentioned together with the baal, it is supposed that they are consorts. Notwithstanding the vexed issue of who is meant by the baal,9 this hypothesis does not account for the references to asherahs at “high places”.10 The asherahs are also referred to in some verses together with altars, pillars and images.11 The text does not indicate to whom these other cultic objects were dedicated. Who was the deity of the hbcm (Exod. 34.13)? To whom was the lsp (Deut. 7.5) dedicated? Indeed, was the hr#$) dedicated to Asherah?12 The MT does not directly answer any of these questions; indeed, it is not concerned to give a full outline of “pagan” religion. The texts are polemical, arguing that the very presence of these “foreign” objects is offensive to Yahweh. Unless we are willing to assume (as the logic behind pairing together deities mentioned at the same shrine would oblige us to do) that we have a complex consort arrangement of unknown gods and goddesses at every shrine, some of which (according to Deut. 16.21) contained Yahwistic altars,13 we cannot hold to this presupposition. Further, an ex8See

also the discussion by S. M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh (SBLMS 34), Atlanta, 1988: 38–61. 9B. Halpern, “‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: the Development of Israelite Monotheism” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (H. L. Ginsberg Festschrift), J. Neusner, B. A. Levine, and E. S. Frerichs, eds., Philadelphia, 1987: 92–95. See also N. Wyatt, “Of Calves and Kings: the Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel” SJOT 6 (1992): 75. I thank B. Halpern for providing me with a copy of his paper “The Baal (and the Asherah) in Seventh-Century Judah: Yhwh’s Retainers Retired” (forthcoming in the OBO Festschrift for Klaus Baltzer), which also addresses this issue. 10For recent research on the subject see P. Vaughan, The Meaning of “bāmâ” in the Old Testament: a Study of the Etymological, Textual and Archaeological Evidence (SOTSMS 3), Cambridge, 1974; W. B. Barrick, “On the ‘Removal of the “HighPlaces”’ in 1–2 Kings” Biblica 55 (1974): 257–259, and his “What do we Really Know about ‘High Places’?” SEÅ 45 (1980): 50–57; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, London, 1961: 284–288; I. Provan, Hezekiah: 57–90, and the sources cited in these. 11Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 53. 12For alternative views see J. C. de Moor, “hrf#$')j ʾashērāh” TDOT, vol. 1: 441; M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco, 1990: 94. I shall return to this question at the end of the chapter. 13See also Provan, Hezekiah: 60–65.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

109

amination of the Old Testament evidence reveals that the baal, asherahs and all the hosts of heaven are referred to at the same shrines (2 Kgs 17.16; 21.3; 23.4; 2 Chron. 33.3). Scholars have not proposed that the “hosts of heaven”, whoever they may be, should be considered in any kind of consort relationship with either Baal or Asherah, or both. The second faulty pillar upon which this kind of theory rests is that it assumes information from various ancient Near Eastern cultures can simply be amalgamated to produce a fuller understanding of ancient Near Eastern religion. This method is not inherently faulty; however, it can be utilised only after each separate context is examined. Otherwise two halfunderstandings from different cultures do not always add up to a whole understanding in general. Such methods have led to the commonly supposed associations of Asherah with snakes and lions.14 We have not found these associations at Ugarit, and we shall note that the Old Testament does not support these associations either. The Old Testament material has not provided clear-cut solutions to the question of Asherah. That hr#$) and some kind of tree and/or wooden cultic object are related is obvious,15 but this relationship is not clearly spelled out. When all the material has been presented we are still left without clear indications as to how Asherah influenced Israelite religion, if at all. 14J.

Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature” JBL 105 (1986): 389; S. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 70; F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973: 33–34; J. W. Betlyon, “The Cult of ʾAšerah/ʾĒlat at Sidon” JNES 44 (1985): 55; W. G. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd” BASOR 255 (1984): 25; W. A. Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta, 1986: 81–102. It is worth noting that W. G. Lambert (“Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia” BSOAS 48 (1985): 435– 451) gives convincing evidence that trees and lions have some association with the storm god, an association which may also include snakes. Caution is to be exercised before declaring that any of these symbols exclusively points to Asherah. I have considered this issue in, “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess” UF 23 (1991): 383–394. 15Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible”: 392–398; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 1–3; J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: the Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” ZAW 94 (1982): 15–19; M. Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ʿAjrud Inscriptions and their Significance” SEL 1 (1984): 121–122; B. Margalit, “Some Observations on the Inscription and Drawing from Khirbet ElQôm” VT 39 (1989): 371–375.

110

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

This is complicated by the general lack of knowledge about the Israelite temple cult, given the sketchy nature of the Old Testament material. Attempts at understanding the texts have led scholars to such divergent conclusions as (to demonstrate the extremes) that the evidence supports an essentially monotheistic Israel,16 and that Asherah was none other than the consort of Yahweh.17 In addition to the forty occurrences of hr#$) in the MT, many scholars have suggested that certain texts be emended to refer to the goddess Asherah, or simply refer to her in a disguised form.18 I shall not look at these verses in the course of this study. My purpose is to find out what the MT tells us about the goddess: any information gathered from an emended text or an implied reference could be tentative evidence at best.19 With forty occurrences in the Old Testament, hr#$) would seem not to be an excessively rare word. By examining the various usages, each in its own context, as astutely suggested by Margalit,20 we are able to weigh the evidence from different sources. Old Testament hr#$) certainly points to a cultic object, one which is referred to in the plural by both the masculine and feminine genders. In deuteronomistic literature, the hr#$) are referred 16J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31), Atlanta, 1986: throughout. 17Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 43; M. S. Smith “God Male and Female in the Old Testament” ThSt 48 (1987): 333–340; Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?”: 21–37. 18This has been suggested for Gen. 30. 10–13 (R. Patai, “The Goddess Asherah” JNES 24 (1965): 40–41; C. F. Burney, The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes, London, 1918: 197–198); Hos. 14. 7–9 (Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah: 130; O. Loretz, “ʿAnat–Aschera (Hos 14,9) und die Inschriften von Kuntillet ʿAjrud” SEL 6 (1989): 57–65, J. Day “A Case of Inner Scriptural Interpretation” JTS 21 (N.S. 1980): 309–319: this suggestion may be traced back to Wellhausen, see J. C. de Moor, “hrf#$')j”: 441; Loretz: 57); Amos 8.14 (Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah: 135); Gen. 49.24–26 (M. S. Smith, The Early History of God: 16–17); 2 Kgs. 17.30 (J. Gray, I & II Kings, A Commentary (OTL), London, 1964: 596); Jer. 2.27 (S. M. Olyan, “The Cultic Confessions of Jer 2,27a” ZAW 99 (1987): 254–259; in the tribal name Asher (G. A. Barton, “The Kinship of Gods and Men among the Early Semites” JBL 15 (1896): 173–174), and in the figure of Wisdom (Smith, “God Male and Female”: 337; and Early History of God: 94–95). 19Concerning the discussion of M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (“Jahwe und seine Aschera” Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9), Münster, 1992) on Hos 14.9 will be discussed in chapter six. 20“Some Observations on the Inscription”: 371–372.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

111

to as the asherot (twOr#$')jhf, Judg. 3.7)21 and the asherim (Myri#$')jw,A 1 Kgs. 14.23; 2 Kgs. 17.10; 23.14). This in itself is instructive. Does it perhaps indicate a point in time when the original meaning of hr#$) had been forgotten? To suppose that deuteronomistic scribes had forgotten that a feminine singular noun normally forms a feminine plural strikes me as incredible. Perhaps “asherim”, as a collective for cultic objects, was given a masculine ending; but why this distortion when the feminine plural form could have been used? It would seem that “asherim” is a denuded form of the goddess’s name. In other words, the title was probably not transferred from the cultic object to a goddess, as we know of an earlier Ugaritic goddess bearing a phonetically comparable name. There may be a touch of irony in this use of a masculine plural for a feminine noun.22 The distribution of these masculine plural forms may display a propensity towards deuteronomistic polemic from after the time of Josiah, as will be considered more thoroughly below. The references to the asherah in the Old Testament are mostly found in the historical books, particularly those of the Deuteronomistic History.23 This concentration of occurrences should tell us something about the asherah. It indicates that the deuteronomists24 were perhaps more concerned about the hr#$) issue than the prophets, who were generally silent on the subject (see below). The majority of the deuteronomistic passages concerned with hr#$) attempt to explain the anger of Yahweh with Israel and Judah, or to commend the reform movements of righteous kings. 21According to the apparatus in BHS, two Hebrew manuscripts and two versions (the Syriac and the Vulgate) read ʾaštārôt rather than ʾašērôt. This would seem to demonstrate confusion on the part of the translators, indicating a textual error; however, most of the Hebrew manuscripts retain the ʾašērôt, see below. 22For examples of ironic designations of particular deities, see A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State, vol. 1, London, 1874: 303–304; W. Baudissin, Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte, vol. 1, Leipzig: 108; and M. Jastrow, “The Element t#$b in Hebrew Proper Names”, JBL 13 (1894): 27. 23The complete listing of the occurrences is as follows: Exod. 34.13; Deut. 7.5; 12.3; 16.21; Judg. 3.7; 6.25, 26, 28, 30; 1 Kgs. 14.15, 23; 15.13; 16.33; 18.19; 2 Kgs. 13.6; 17.10, 16; 18.4; 21.3, 7;23.4, 6, 7, 14, 15; 2 Chron. 14.2 (3); 15.16; 17.6; 19.3; 24.18; 31.1; 33.3, 19; 34.3, 4, 7; Isa. 17.8; 27.9; Jer. 17.2; Mic. 5.13(14). 24Thus Weinfeld (Deuteronomy: 3, 320) includes the phrase “to worship the Baal/Baalim and the Asharoth/Asheroth” among those which characterise deuteronomic theology.

112

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Yahweh is angry because the kings and people associate wooden cultic objects25 of some kind with their altars. Again, this tells us something, albeit rather obscurely, of the cult during the monarchy. The people were in the practice (if we take the historical books as reflecting actual cultic practice) of associating asherahs with cultic sites. The passages in the historical books follow a familiar pattern of condemning the people for making (h#&()26, or planting ((+n),27 asherahs, or tell of their hewing down ((dg),28 and burning (Pr#&)29 the asherahs. This terminology obliges one to see some wooden object being recognised as an asherah.30 Reed argues for an image of the goddess Asherah rather than for a pillar or tree.31 Although he provides evidence to support his supposition, the Old Testament does not insist upon a single type of object as an asherah (see below).32 To argue for a living or stylised tree may be a worthwhile exercise;33 however, the issue cannot be resolved by the texts. If each verse is considered on the basis of its internal evidence, several possible forms may be suggested for the asherahs. We cannot unreservedly gather all Old Testament information about hr#$) without first considering each mention of asherah in its own context. In the majority of cases hr#$) appears in formulas which became indicative of the deuteronomists’ polemic against hmb-sanctuaries34 and other foreign intrusions. Holladay has convincingly argued that the formula “on every high hill and under every green tree” originated in Hos. 4.13:35

25W.

L. Reed, Asherah in the Old Testament: throughout. Kgs. 17.16. 27Deut. 16.21. 28Deut. 7.5. 292 Kgs. 23.15. 30R. Patai, “The Goddess Asherah”: 37–39. 31Asherah in the Old Testament: 42. 32Olyan (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 5) has shown that such attempts to declare the asherah an image or a tree miss the point of the discussion. See also Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 89. 33Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible”: 404; Emerton, “New Light”: 19. 34W. B. Barrick, “On the ‘Removal of the “High-Places”’”: 257–259. 35W. Holladay, “‘On Every High Hill and Under Every Green Tree’” VT 11 (1961): 170–176. 262

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

113

On the tops of the mountains they sacrifice, and upon the hills they make offerings smoke, under oak, and poplar and terebinth that are good for shade, thus your daughters commit fornication, your daughters-in-law commit adultery.

This formula is of special interest in this study because the word hr#$) appears in association with it in 1 Kgs. 14.23; 2 Kgs. 17.10; and Jer. 17.2. hr#$), however, does not appear with this formula in the book of Hosea. Perhaps at the time of Hosea (who frequently condemned worship of the baal) the hr#$) was not considered a particular threat. Clearly what is needed is a contextual examination of the texts which mention hr#$). I shall therefore explore the passages referring to hr#$) in the MT in the order of their occurrence within the categories of the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles and the Prophets. In the course of this study, some significant points will appear.

THE PENTATEUCH Exodus 34.13 Exod. 34.13 is the first reference to the asherahs. The verse reads, “Indeed their altars you will pull down, and their pillars you will shatter, and his asherahs (wyrf#$'))j you will cut down”. This verse is found in the context of instructions to be carried out once the promised land is reached. Scholarly opinion on the composition of Exod. 34 varies widely. Verse 13 is part of a particularly difficult section of this chapter.36 Noth observed: There are additions in vv. 11b-13 in deuteronomistic language, in which the people are addressed partly in the singular and partly in the plural; they introduce the warning, frequent in Deuteronomy and the deuteronomistic writings, against the inhabitants of the land which is to be taken in possession and against their cultic institutions.37

His observations are relevant to this study in that he notes the deuteronomistic element present in these verses and that he also notes that the people are addressed in both the singular and the plural. Verse 13 also refers to the cultic objects of the inhabitants of the land with both plural and singular possessives. The asherahs, however, are the only elements assigned a singu36E.

Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk (Forschung zur Bibel 3), Würzburg, 1971: 228. 37M. Noth, Exodus, a Commentary (OTL), London, 1962: 262.

114

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

lar possessive. The verse is otherwise well balanced—their detestable things and their fate, their detestable things and their fate, but then, his detestable things and their fate. Commentators often note the deuteronomistic character of the verse, but do not discuss the textual problem.38 Durham notes, “the source criticism of Exod 34: 10–28, beyond broad designations, is very subjective and therefore of somewhat arbitrary conclusions”.39 The suggested deuteronomistic origin of this verse is not certain,40 although the verse addresses issues of concern to the deuteronomists.41 The LXX, Syriac, one Hebrew manuscript and two Targums correct the imbalance of the possessives to “their asherahs”,42 but the MT of BHS retains it, perhaps as the lectio difficilior. Even if we were to emend the text, we would still need to ask ourselves, why in some important manuscripts does this verse mention his asherahs, and who is the “he” being mentioned? A possibility is that the writer had someone in mind as having asherahs. As cultic objects, perhaps asherahs were envisaged as being possessed by Yahweh; however, the antecedents to the other cultic objects in this verse are the Canaanites. Another option is that the text has been corrupted in the process of textual transmission. Intentional distortion of the meaning of the verse does not appear to be present.43 Could it be that the writer or editor had a purpose in singling out the asherahs? They are referred to here in the masculine plural, perhaps indicating that a writer wished to dissociate them from Asherah. Deuteronomy 7.5 The next instance of hr#$) in the MT is in Deut. 7.5. The text states “But thus you will do to them; their altars you will pull down, and their pillars you will shatter, and their asherahs (Mher'y#$'))j you will hew down and their images you will burn with fire”. This verse also falls within the context of 38J. Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus (NCBC), London, 1971; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem, 1976. 39J. Durham, Exodus (WBC), Waco, Texas, 1987: 458. 40S. Schroer (“Die Zweiggöttin in Palästina/Israel. Von der Mittelbronze II B– Zeit bis zu Jesus Sirach” in Jerusalem, Texte-Bilder-Steine (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 6), M. Küchler and C. Uehlinger, eds., Freiburg and Göttingen, 1987: 217) notes that this is the oldest Old Testament reference to the asherah. 41Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 18. 42B. Childs, Exodus, a Commentary (OTL), London, 1974: 604. 43M. Barker (The Older Testament, London, 1987: 142–154) seems to overstate the case for such intentional distortion.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

115

instructions of how to deal with the inhabitants of the promised land, and it is very similar to Exod. 34.13.44 To avoid the danger of infiltration by the Canaanite cult, the Israelites are commanded to rid the land of their (the Canaanites”) asherahs. Of interest to us here is the fact that “asherahs” is given the unusual plene spelling, whilst the possessive suffix is spelled defectively. This verse demonstrates no knowledge of “Asherah” as a personal name. We would perhaps expect Mheyr'#$')j here, the spelling attested in Deut. 12.3. Of the forty occurrences of hr#$) in the MT, only three are spelled plene, and the other two occurrences appear in exilic or post-exilic additions.45 Mayes recognised the divided nature of the pericope of Deut. 7.1– 26,46 and this text bears a distinct similarity to Exod. 34.13. If this verse came from the same hand as Exod. 34.13 with its textual difficulty, perhaps we have evidence indicating a period when the origin of the term hr#$) had caused the word to be distorted from a recognisable form of the name Asherah. Up to this point the Pentateuch does not refer to the goddess. Deuteronomy 12.3 Deut. 12.3 occurs in the context of instructions for the centralisation of the cult of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Unlike straight narrative style, this verse consists of a polysyndetic structure that follows the pattern: verb, object: verb, object: object, verb: object, verb: verb, object: And you will pull down their altars, and you will shatter their pillars, and their asherahs you will burn with fire, and the images of their gods you will hew down, and do away with their name from that place.

The chiastic structure in this presentation of the cultic objects and their fates is poetic.47 This verse does not appear to be corrupt, but the LXX 44A.

D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (NCBC), Grand Rapids, 1981: 184; S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh, 1895: 99; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 18. 45These are 2 Kgs. 17.16 and Mic. 5.13 (Eng. 14). For the exilic date of 2 Kgs. 17.16 see I. Provan, Hezekiah: 70–73. For the late date of Mic. 5.3 see below, “The Prophetic References”. The dating of this text, however, is extremely difficult and is open to differing interpretations. 46Deuteronomy: 181. 47Compare W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, A Guide to its Techniques

116

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

leaves out the mention of the asherahs and the “images of their gods” (Mheyh'$l)v Myl'ysip); referred to in this verse. Since the Hebrew manuscripts retain these two items, however, we should also retain them rather than emend the text. Verses 4–5 appear to be a later addition (along with 7–15, and 25–26) to the “basic text”.48 As Pettey has noted, this verse stands at the head of the “great legal section of Deuteronomy, delineated by von Rad as 12:2–26:15”.49 The verse also immediately follows a “high mountain, hills, and every green tree” formula.50 This poetic destruction formula at such an important place in the text is like a refrain which appears in modified form in other narratives concerning Israel’s sin. Of particular interest in Deut. 12.3 is that the MT lists the asherahs before the “images of their gods”. If the verse is reckoned as poetry, as I have suggested above, the asherahs and the “images of their gods” are in parallel. This may be an allusion in the text to the morphology of the asherahs in this verse, and it is given support in that the images are to be hewn down ((dg), a verb also used in relation to the asherahs in Deut. 7.5. I would suggest that the asherahs here are counted among the images of the foreign gods, but I would also hasten to add that we cannot suppose that every reference to the asherah in the Old Testament necessarily indicates an image. Each verse must be considered in its context. The masculine plural form of “their asherahs” (Mheyr'#$'))j occurs in this verse with the plene and defective spellings of Deut. 7.5 reversed. Deuteronomy 16.21 Deut. 16.21 has provoked much discussion on the morphology of asherahs: “You will not plant for yourself an asherah, any tree beside the altar of Yahweh your God which you will make for yourself”. To begin with, asherah here is simply hr#$), with neither article nor suffix. This is the only place in the Old Testament where asherah is mentioned as being planted, (+n. The asherah is also mentioned alongside “any tree”. The structure of this verse is peculiar. The asherah in apposition to any tree (C('-lk@)f may be an asyndetic construction, serving to heighten the intensity of the latter phrase, “You will not plant for yourself an asherah, any tree...”51 In such a (JSOTS 26), Sheffield: 187–188. 48Mayes, Deuteronomy: 181–182. 49Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 91. 50Holladay, “‘On Every High Hill’”: 170–176. 51I am indebted to Mr. D. Dawson for offering me this suggestion.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

117

case a tree next to an altar would be considered just as offensive as an asherah. The word asherah is certainly in apposition to “any tree”, and as the pointing shows, it is not in the construct state. This verse, as opposed to the suggestion implied from the last verse, would seem to indicate that the asherah could simply be a tree. The traditional suggestion that C('-lk@f is a gloss would also point to the understanding of the asherah as a tree. In the present state of text criticism, this verse is considered to be predeuteronomic by some scholars.52 Unlike the previous three verses already explored, the asherah here is not referred to in the masculine plural. This may simply be because the author chose to utilise a singular noun, or it may be that since it is in an earlier verse, the writer understood the meaning of hr#$), and only condemned it in the context of a Yahwistic shrine. Asherahs and trees are associated explicitly with the altar of Yahweh in this verse. This does not indicate a consort relationship between the deities being revered, as argued above.53 The use of asherahs was apparently not considered offensive to all Yahwists earlier than the reign of Josiah.54 The difficulty for the deuteronomist is clearly that a tree planted beside the altar of Yahweh implies something offensive. The tree in the ancient Near East has many associations.55 The story of the two trees in J’s account of the Eden narrative in Gen. 3 demonstrates that trees in themselves were not considered an offense to Yahweh. Why then, in the pre-deuteronomic Deut. 16.21, are trees a threat? The associations with Canaanite religion appear to have influenced this perspective.56 The answer, I believe, may be that this verse was written by an author who, aware of the meaning of the asherah (namely that it was named after and therefore represented a Canaanite goddess), did not condemn cultic trees implicitly, but insisted that they should not be connected with Yahwistic altars. This verse is the final reference to the asherah in the Pentateuch. To this point no verses have mentioned the goddess Asherah; therefore they allow us to state nothing of her character in the Old Testament. 52Mayes,

Deuteronomy: 263, 265. the opposite view, see Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 43. 54Cf. Provan, Hezekiah: 57–90. 55See E. A. S. Butterworth, The Tree at the Navel of the Earth, Berlin, 1970, for some ancient anthropological associations of trees with goddesses. See also G. Widengren, “The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion (King and Saviour IV)” UUÅ 4 (1951): 5–70. 56P. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NIC), London, 1976: 248. 53For

118

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY: JUDGES Judges 3.7 Judg. 3.7 reads, “And the children of Israel did evil in the eyes of Yahweh and they forgot Yahweh their God, and they served the baals and the asherahs”. In this reference the text has moved from prohibition to description. An explanation is being proffered for the fall of the nation; the people are being reminded of their sinful beginnings. Of special interest to us is the fact that here the asherahs are rendered by the feminine plural, twOr#$')jh.f In the majority of cases employing the plural of asherah, asherim is utilised. twOr#$')j occurs in only two other instances in the MT, both in the later text of 2 Chron. Also of interest is that Mli(fb@;hf are also mentioned in this verse. Since the baal(s) and the ashtarot (twOrtf#$;(ah)f are mentioned together in the other deuteronomistic passages of Judg. 2.13, 10.6, 1 Sam. 7.4, and 12.10, and since two Hebrew manuscripts, as well as the Syriac and the Vulgate versions read twOrtf#$;(ahf in this verse, it seems likely that a confusion exists here.57 This verse is often considered to be a deuteronomistic addition. If this is so, we once again find an unclear understanding of the “asherah” in the deuteronomistic sources. I concur, however, with the scholars who understand this reference to be to Astarte rather than Asherah. In any case, if the asherahs were intended by the author, this does not place Asherah in a consort relationship with Baal as suggested by some scholars (see above).58 The plurals would appear to indicate that classes of deities were being served; not an individual god and goddess. Judges 6. 25-30 The next occurrences of references to the asherah are in the story of Gideon. Besides being an intriguing story, the text is difficult, raising many queries from the reader. Here the altar of the baal is mentioned alongside the asherah, in this case also a cultic object. Even without determining whom “the baal” is meant to indicate,59 it is obvious that no personal relationship between deities is occupying this writer. He is simply recounting

57Hadley,

28.

58Pettey, 59See

Yahweh’s Asherah: 93–94; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 10, n.

Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 98. Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 99.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

119

the cultic trappings owned by Joash which his son Gideon destroyed. Judg. 6. 25–30 reads: It happened that night that Yahweh said to him “Take the bullock of the cattle which is your father’s, and the bullock of seven years [the wording is awkward in Hebrew, causing GK to declare the verse corrupt on two grammatical points60] and you will break down the altar of the baal which is your father’s and the asherah which is next to it you will cut down. (26) And you will build an altar to Yahweh your God at the summit of this place of refuge (or fortress) in an orderly way [again the text is difficult] and you will take the second bullock and you will offer a holocaust on the wood of the asherah which you cut down.” (27) And Gideon took ten men from his servants and he did just as Yahweh his God spoke, but it happened that as he feared the house of his father and the men of the city to do it by day, he did it at night. (28) The men of the city arose early and behold, torn down was the altar of the baal and the asherah which was next to it was cut down and the second bull had been offered upon the altar which had been built. (29) And they said, man to his companion, “Who did this deed?”, and they inquired and sought and they said “Gideon son of Joash did this deed.” (30) And the men of the city said to Joash “Bring out your son and let him die because he pulled down the altar of the baal and because he cut down the asherah which was next to it.”

The primary concern of the story of Gideon is not to explain the tenets of the cults which he defiled, nor is it to illuminate consort relationships of deities at the same shrine. The point does seem to be to explain the renaming of Gideon to Jerubbaal.61 The text of this deuteronomistic pericope is corrupt.62 The grammar of verse 25 is difficult, especially concerning the bullocks. In the initial command to Gideon, Yahweh orders him to take a sacrificial bullock (seven years old) as well as a working animal to pull apart the altar, and here the text is corrupt. Consulting the commentaries, Moore states that the phrases about the bulls in v. 25 “are meaningless and grammatically impossible collocations of words”.63 Boling notes the difficulty 60In

§§ 126 w and 128 c. A. G. Auld, “Gideon: Hacking at the Heart of the Old Testament” VT 39 (1989): 257–267, for a recent study of the Gideon story and especially page 264 for the renaming motif. 62Although Auld dates this narrative as a late story (“Gideon”: 263), the theme of destroying the cultic objects certainly reflects deuteronomistic theology. 63G. F. Moore, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC, Second Edition), Edinburgh, 1898: 192. 61See

120

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

but offers no comment on a solution other than trying to make sense of the text as it stands.64 Soggin, however, draws attention to some interesting points.65 He notes that rwO#$%ha-rp%f is utilised here rather than the more common rqfb@f-Nb@e [email protected] He also indicates that rp also frequently represents a sacrificial animal. Further he notes that a parallel with 1 Kgs. 18 may be present, a text which tells of the sacrifice of two bulls on Mount Carmel in the Elijah-versus-the-prophets-of-the-baal story. This connection may be more significant than it seems at first, since that chapter also contains a disputed mention of the prophets of the asherah. When he comes to make a decision, however, even Soggin must state “The text remains a typical crux and at present its reconstruction is impossible”.66 This corruption may simply be accounted for by textual transmission. However, we have also noted confusion in verses concerning cultic matters in the deuteronomistic texts above. Were the deuteronomists unaware of the significance of the cultic details of the story? Did they understand the context, but not render it clearly? The next point of interest comes in v. 26. When Gideon is commanded to build an altar to Yahweh, he is told to do so “on top of this fortress in an orderly way (hkfrf(jm@ab)@a ”. What is the fortress to which this verse refers? There is no previous mention of a fortress, merely a cultic location in Ophrah being under the care of Gideon’s father. Temples, as the dwelling places of deities, may have been considered as fortified locations;67 but this pericope does not describe the structure in detail. That reference is being made to a fairly developed cult may be indicated by the expression ry(ihf y#$'n:)a w@myk@i#$;yAw,: “the men of the city arose early” (v. 28). We encounter this idea of early awaking in the story of Dagon at Ashdod in 1 Sam. 5.1–5.68 In fact, the same word is used by the writer of the story of Dagon, (Mk#$). R. de Vaux has argued that the cultus had the responsibility of awaking the deity in the morning.69 Furthermore, this again points to the story of 64R. 65J.

G. Boling, Judges (AB) New York, 1975: 134. A. Soggin, Judges, a Commentary (OTL, Second Edition) London, 1987: 123–

125.

66Judges:

124. Judges: 124. 68See my article, “Old Testament Dagan in the Light of Ugarit” VT, forthcom67Soggin,

ing.

69“Les prophètes de Baal sur le Mont Carmel” in Bible et Orient, Paris, 1967: 493–494. See also B. F. Batto, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

121

Elijah on Mount Carmel. His taunting includes a reference to the waking of the baal of the prophets (1 Kgs. 18.27). I should also note in this context, that Ps. 44.24 (Eng. 23) contains a cry for God to awake. If the Psalms were indeed the liturgical song book of the temple, we might expect to find cultic references therein. Could it be that the language of this verse retains the introduction to a cultic ceremony? Although this involves speculation, outside evidence suggests that this was a prevalent practice in the ancient Near East. De Vaux cites the Talmud as stating that this cultic act of calling out to awaken the deity continued in Judah until the time of John Hyrcanus.70 Considering the fragmentary cultic evidence present in Judg. 6.25–30, I would suggest that the text only tells us enough to cause us to wonder whether an instance of a cultus not fully explained by the later redactors of the passage is present. A further point of contact with the two bulls may be represented in this passage. The episode of Jeroboam I’s reform in the north narrates his making of two golden calves (I Kgs. 12.28) which were placed in cultic locations.71 In this story we again have a cultic setting, with the presence of two, albeit molten metal, bovines. The stories are too dissimilar to suggest any exact duplications of ideas, but they perhaps indicate a common stratum of cultic life. With the corrupt state of the text in Judges, however, certain conclusions are impossible. Thus the story of Gideon, often overlooked in studies of the asherah, is instructive. It points to a time in the mind of the redactor when, from a deuteronomistic perspective, the people of the unconfederated tribes considered the worship of foreign gods to be normal. Gideon appears as the innovator and were it not for an ironically Yahwistic argument by Joash (v. 31—if the baal is a god he will defend himself), he would have been executed for his Yahwistic enthusiasm. The identities of the deities mentioned in this pericope concerning the worship of foreign gods are not explicit: the asherah is beside an altar of an unidentified baal. This narrative continues to support the hypothesis that deuteronomistic texts, perhaps purposefully, do not clarify the cultic implications in verses where asherahs are mentioned. of Divine Sovereignty” Biblica 68 (1987): 153–177; T. H. McAlpine, Sleep, Divine & Human, in the Old Testament (JSOTS 38), Sheffield, 1987: 181–199; and M. S. Smith, Early History of God: 42. 70“Les prophètes de Baal”: 493. 71For another interpretation see E. Danelius, “The Sins of Jeroboam BenNebat” JQR 58 (1967–1968): 95–114, 204–223.

122

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

The references to the asherah in Judges, however, do not present Asherah as a goddess.

THE DEUTERONOMISTIC HISTORY: KINGS The books of Kings contain several references to hr#$). When we explore the books of Kings we find a general correlation between the masculine plural references to the asherim and the hmb-sanctuary passages which are distinguished as later additions by Provan.72 Provan’s theory, that much of 1 Kgs. 3–2 Kgs. 15 corresponds well with a Hezekian theme (excluding later deuteronomistic insertions) written at the time of Josiah, drew my attention to the distribution of variant spellings of the asherahs as cultic objects. Concerning the hmb-formulae in Kings, Provan notes: If it is now no longer acceptable simply to assume that one author is responsible for most of the formulae, then the question arises as to whether variations within these with regard to the view taken of the twmb are also best understood as the result of redactional activity.73

Might this statement also apply to the hr#$) references? Although Provan’s study only tangentially concerns hr#$), it is illuminating to compare his results with the references to the asherim in Kings. I have suggested above that polemical deuteronomistic passages appear to distort the name of the asherah as a cultic object, as indicated by their use of the masculine plural in reference to it. The pre-exilic references to hr#$) which broadly fit into Provan’s proposed “first edition” of Kings utilise the singular form of “asherah”.74 This could be accounted for by arguing that the author had only a single asherah in mind, and therefore used the feminine singular form. This may be the case. It is of interest, however, that the later, exilic additions to the texts dealing with the hmb-sanctuaries often refer to the plurals of these cultic objects in the masculine form “asherim”. The correspondences are not exact, but close enough to attract our interest. The distinction between pre-exilic and exilic verses is not always clearly delineated, but at least a double, if not a triple redaction does appear to fit the evidence75 of the verses which mention hr#$). 72See Provan, Hezekiah: 57–90 for the details of his redactional history of the various passages which mention the asherahs. 73Hezekiah: 74. 741 Kgs. 14.15 may be an exception to this statement, see below. 75See R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTS 18),

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

123

Many commentators on the books of Kings maintain a Josian date for the “first edition”.76 This is also of interest in consideration of the asherahs. Until the time of Josiah they were not implicitly condemned (see on Deut. 16.21 above). This pattern parallels, to some extent, Provan’s idea that some twmb were worse than others: after Josiah’s reign the twmb and asherahs were all considered as aberrations. 1 Kings 14.15 The first reference is in 1 Kgs. 14.15: Yahweh will smite Israel, as a reed in the water he will waver, and he will root out Israel from upon this good land which he gave to their fathers and he will scatter them beyond the river because they made their asherahs, provoking Yahweh to anger.

The context of this verse is the condemnation being delivered to Jeroboam by Ahijah on account of Israel’s sins. The specific offence mentioned in this verse is that Israel had made asherim.77 In the following verse “the sins of Jeroboam” are mentioned, and verse 9 charges him with making other gods and molten images. This verse appears to date from after the Sheffield, 1981, throughout. 76See, for example, G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings (NCBC), Grand Rapids and London, 1984, especially his review of the previous scholarship on the subject. See also Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 108–109. 77I do not wish to bring comparative evidence into this study prematurely; however, in this verse a literary parallel with Ugarit may be present. The context tells us that the above verse is spoken by the aged prophet Ahijah on the occasion of the sickness of Abijah, Jeroboam’s son. Note that the son of Jeroboam has a good Yahwistic name. This story is similar to, but not exactly dependent upon, the story of Keret (KTU 1.14–16). In the case of Keret, the question is, why is the king (or in the case of Abijah, the king’s son, heir to the throne) ill? What will happen to the people if the king or king elect dies? We know that Keret was ill because he neglected to fulfil a vow—a vow to Athirat (KTU 1.14.IV.34–43). Abijah is being punished, according to Ahijah, because of the sin of Jeroboam, namely, the making of asherim. In a possible antithesis, the royal family is being plagued on account of Athirat in the case of Keret, for not fulfilling his vow to her, and on account of the asherim in the case of Jeroboam. The result in both cases is essentially the same. Keret recovers but curses his son and heir (KTU 1.16.VI.54–58), and in the Jeroboam story, his son dies as his wife steps over the threshold (1 Kgs. 14.17). No strong case can be made for this connection; however, the phonetic correlation of the names Athirat and “Asherah” draws the episode of Keret to our attention.

124

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

northern exile on the basis of the specific reference to Israel being “scattered beyond the river” rhnl rb(m Mrzw.78 Although this verse is not necessarily exilic, the masculine plural form of asherim is used here. This form appears to be an exception to my hypothesis that only late deuteronomistic references use the masculine plural asherim; however, this verse does exhibit some polemical deuteronomistic traits. One such trait is the censure of the king for the cultic aberrations of Israel.79 The editor, whilst drawing no explicit connection between the cultic objects and the foreign goddess, obviously considers the asherahs to be implicitly offensive to Yahweh. This condemnation of cultic objects outside of Jerusalem also corresponds to deuteronomistic theology. Whether this verse is late or not, it does oppose the construction of asherim. The text, however, does not provide any information on the nature or character of Asherah. 1 Kings 14.23 The next occurrence is in 1 Kgs. 14.23, one of the passages utilising the Hosea formula mentioned above. The verse reads: “They even built for themselves high places and pillars and asherahs upon every high hill and under every luxuriant tree”. This verse is dependent upon Hosea 4.13, as demonstrated by Holladay.80 This hmb-sanctuary reference interrupts “the perfectly consistent picture” of the hmb formulae in 1 Kgs. 3–2 Kgs. 15, according to Provan.81 In this case, Rehoboam is being condemned as was Jeroboam earlier in the same chapter. The writer is drawing to the reader’s attention the fact that both Israel and Judah were guilty of the offence to Yahweh by building such cultic sites. The perspective is exilic, explaining that the sins of Judah were present at the very beginning of the divided monarchy. The asherahs are designated by the masculine plural form. Once again, a later editor appears to disguise the origin of the word hr#$). 1 Kings 15.13 // 2 Chronicles 15.16 1 Kgs. 15.13 is parallel with 2 Chron. 15.16, and their comparison raises some interesting issues. 1 Kgs. 15.13 reads:

78J.

Gray, I & II Kings, A Commentary (OTL), London, 1964: 306. The Asherah in the Old Testament : 60; Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 111. 80“‘On Every High Hill’”: 170–176. 81Hezekiah: 75. 79Reed,

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

125

And also Maakah his mother he removed from being queen mother (hrfybig@:mi) because she made a horrid thing for the asherah(hrf#$')jlf); and Asa cut down her horrid thing and burned it in the valley of Qidron.

2 Chron. 15.16 reads: And also Maakah mother of Asa the king removed from being queen mother because she made for Asherah (hrf#$')jla) a horrid thing; Asa cut down her horrid thing and pulverised and burned it in the valley of Qidron.

These two verses are very similar. The differences, however, lead to a question about the use of the definite article with a proper noun.82 In 1 Kgs. 15.13, Maakah made a horrid thing for the asherah; the vowel under the lamed is a qameṣ, indicating that the noun is definite. In 2 Chron. 15.16, similar wording occurs, but the Masoretes pointed this hr#$)l with a pataḥ under the lamed. This is standard indefinite construction when the prefix comes before a ḥaṭep-pataḥ. Thus, in parallel cases, we apparently have the name of the goddess Asherah occuring with and without the article. Another possibility is that the reference in 1 Kgs. 15.13 was intended to indicate the cultic object, the asherah. When the chronicler utilised this passage, he understood the hr#$) to be a divine name. Many scholars have noted the possibility (or certainty) that the goddess is intended in these verses.83 The definite article in the reference to “the asherah” in 1 Kgs. 15.13 may perhaps be understood in the sense of the hr#$) being an example of “whole classes ...restricted (simply by usage) to particular individuals”.84 In other words, a prominent asherah may have assumed a particular status as “the asherah”. In any case the use of the definite article does not preclude the possibility of a proper name in all cases.85 82See

GK §§ 125d, 126e; Lemaire, “Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah?”: 47. The Asherah in the Old Testament: 61; G. W. Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (Horae Soederblomianae V), Lund, 1963: 58–59; P. K. McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data” in Ancient Israelite Religion, Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, eds., Philadelphia, 1987: 144; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 9; Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 114. Hadley (Yahweh’s Asherah: 95–96) suggests that the chronicler did not fully understand this verse. 84GK § 126e. 85GK § 125d. Scholars have long assumed “Baal” in the Old Testament to be a proper name, even when it has the article, as a glance at the commentaries will demonstrate. See the discussion on this topic in J. Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 92. 83Reed,

126

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Some scholars have recently argued that the goddess Asherah does not occur in the text of the Old Testament.86 In these two verses the later, Masoretic pointing is the crux. A case may be made for either the goddess or the cultic object on the basis of the unpointed text hr#$)l. The pointed text of Chronicles is unambiguous about it; a horrid thing was being made for Asherah.87 The chronicler, who quoted this verse almost directly, appears to have understood Asherah as a proper name, according to the Masoretes.88 Since the definiteness of hr#$) is ultimately a matter of pointing, dogmatism on the presence of Asherah must be avoided. In both verses, we have an interesting grammatical construction in the second halves of the verses. Asa cut down her horrid thing; (h@tfc;lap;m)i ; the mappiq indicates the consonantal value of the he: her horrid thing. The nearest available feminine antecedent to the “her” is not Maakah, but Asherah. If the image belongs to Asherah, it would appear that the goddess is being designated. If hr#$) is not a goddess the writer could also have intended for Maakah to be the antecedent. Either case may be argued. The texts thus far may be used to support three possible manifestations of hr#$): as an image, as a tree, and as a goddess. This text manifests an association between the asherah/Asherah and the queen mother.89 This association will be considered more fully below.

86Lipiński, “The Goddess Atirat”: 116, Lemaire, “Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah?”: 46–47. 87Jones, 1 and 2 Kings: 283–284. 88On which see C. Frevel, “Die Elimination der Göttin aus dem Weltbild des Chronisten” ZAW 103 (1991): 263–271. 89G. Molin, “Die Stellung der Gebira im Staate Juda” TZ 10 (1954): 161–175; H. Donner, “Art and Herkunft des Amtes der Königinmutter im Alten Testament” in Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27. August gewidmet, R. von Kienle, A. Moortgat, H. Otten, E. von Schuler and W. Zaumseil, eds., Heidelberg, 1959: 105–145; Ahlström, Aspects of Syncretism: 57–88; N. E. A. Andreasen, “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society” CBQ 45 (1983): 179–194; Z. Ben-Barak, “The Status and Right of the Gĕbîrâ” JBL 110 (1991): 23–34; S. Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel” paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Kansas City, 24 November 1991. I express my thanks to Dr. Ackerman for sending me a copy of this paper.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

127

1 Kings 16.33 The next reference is 1 Kgs. 16.33. “And Ahab made the asherah, and Ahab increased the acts to provoke Yahweh the God of Israel more than those before him.” With this passing mention of the asherah, we should note that among all the sins for which Ahab was infamous, the erecting of an altar for the baal (v. 32) and the making of the asherah, are singled out as the ones which particularly provoked Yahweh. Although this passage obviously reflects the deuteronomistic bias against foreign cultic objects, it does not appear to be exilic. This passage would likely have been composed after the fall of the northern kingdom, perhaps during the reign of Josiah. The asherah is here construed as singular; the definite article indicates that a specific asherah is being considered. 1 Kings 18.19 The story of Elijah on Mount Carmel contains perhaps a second reference to Asherah. Although the four hundred prophets of Asherah in 1 Kgs. 18.19 are normally considered a gloss, we should consider the state of this verse on its own merits. In 1 Kgs. 18.19, Elijah is speaking: “‘Now send, gather to me all Israel to Mount Carmel and the four hundred fifty prophets of the baal and the four hundred prophets of the asherah who eat at Jezebel’s table’”. The standard argument is that the prophets of the asherah are nowhere else mentioned in the story, and therefore, either they were approved of by Elijah90 (hardly probable in this context!) or they were a gloss on the 450 prophets of the baal.91 The fact that four hundred prophets of Asherah are mentioned against four hundred and fifty prophets of the baal could provide evidence that the writer had two distinct groups in mind. With different numbers, the likelihood that the two groups were confused or simply doublets is minimal. Also in favour of including the prophets of the asherah is the fact that the asherahs and other cultic implements, including altars of the baal, are often mentioned in the same verses.92 Reed points out that in the LXX the prophets of Asherah are mentioned again in v. 22 90R.

Patai, “The Goddess Asherah”: 46. statement that “all critical commentators agree that the words ‘the 400 prophets of Asherah’ are interpolated” (“Syro-Palestinian Iconography”: 91, note 14) is exaggerated. The commentaries of Gray and Jones, for example, do not insist on this interpretation. 92See J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC), Edinburgh, 1951: 300. 91Lipiński’s

128

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

and suggests that they could just as likely have been “accidentally lost” in the MT of v. 22 as they could have been a later addition to v. 19.93 Although Jones’ commentary appears to confuse Asherah and Astarte, he does note the transitional nature of this verse, and argues that these prophets should not be deleted.94 Hadley further notes, “If it is an addition, it is interesting that the Baal and the Asherah are singular, against the natural tendency of the later redactors to use the plural”.95 Many exilic verses mentioning hr#$) do indeed utilise the masculine plural. Lipiński’s criterion for deleting the prophets of the asherah from the verse seems to be that it militates against the view that Asherah does not appear in the Old Testament.96 Olyan’s only argument against including them is that they appear no more in the story.97 The evidence to support leaving the asherah’s prophets intact appears to be just as strong as that for deleting them as a gloss. Within the actual verse itself, we find many items worthy of comment. Primarily, we have the baal (l(bh) and the asherah (hr#$)h), but also the Carmel (lmrkh). If the argument is put forth that the article interferes with interpreting proper nouns, we have a difficulty. In this verse, with three possibly proper names, each of them has the article. If Carmel is being referred to, could not Asherah be intended as well? If so, in this verse, we have the prophets, not of the cultic object asherah, but of the goddess Asherah. Carmel, as a place name, occurs with and without the article in the MT. Even if the choice of whether or not to include it was arbitrary on the part of the writer, its presence in this verse should not be used as evidence against the goddess in the Old Testament. As Hadley has further pointed out, the one Old Testament occurrence of the Mesopotamian divine name Tammuz (Ezek. 8.14) spells the proper name with the definite article.98 Context also appears to demand the presence a deity. The problem of the identity of the baal has been discussed by many scholars, and I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. Jones appropriately states that, “Obviously an exact identification of the Carmel deity is by now impossible”.99 The reasons for removing the prophets of the asherah are not compelling. 93Reed,

The Asherah in the Old Testament: 55. and 2 Kings: 317. 95Yahweh’s Asherah: 97. 96“Goddess Atirat”: 114, “Syro-Palestinian Iconograpy”: 91. 97Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 8. 98Yahweh’s Asherah: 116. 991 and 2 Kings: 316. 941

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

129

We must simply note here the connection with the legend of Gideon, namely, the two bulls, and the cultic settings of the verses. Thus in two cases in the Deuteronomistic History, hr#$) may be interpreted as a goddess. This verse does not appear to be late. 2 Kings 13.6 The asherah is next mentioned in 2 Kgs. 13.6: “Indeed they did not cease from the sins of the house of Jeroboam with which he caused Israel to sin, he walked in it; and still the asherah stood in Samaria”. This verse is fraught with textual difficulties. First, we should note that the sins of the house of Jeroboam are made into a singular by Codex Alexandrinus. If this emendation were to be accepted, then we would have the making of the asherah singled out as the most offensive act which the king committed. Since the Hebrew and other versions do not insist on this, however, we should retain the MT; also, the MT’s use of the plural makes perfect sense here. The next observation is that y+ixvh,e the hiphil perfect of )+x, is misspelled here. BDB notes100 that many manuscripts correct this error. This verse also seems to contain later intrusions.101 Next, the syntax of the phrase r#$) Klh hb l)r#&y t) y+xh is difficult; it would seem to indicate a singular sin, rather than the “sins” previously mentioned. Several versions, the LXX (except Vaticanus), the Vulgate, the Syriac, and Targum Onkelos, correct hb to a plural. All of this documentary correction demonstrates that many of the ancient translators recognised the difficulties with this verse. I have no solution to offer to the textual problems, but I would note that the presence of the asherah in Samaria is considered a paramount sin. This verse appears to be an instance of a later addition which retains the singular. Even the later editors, who tended to disguise the meaning of asherahs with a masculine plural, would have recourse to the singular if only one specific object were being discussed. 2 Kings 17.10 2 Kgs. 17.10, like 1 Kgs. 14.23, incorporates the Hosea formula. “And they set up for themselves pillars and asherahs on every high hill and under every luxuriant tree.” The article is not used with the asherahs in this verse, and the form is again the masculine plural. The textual transmission of 2 100307

b.

101Jones,

1 and 2 Kings: 497–500.

130

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Kgs. 17 is complex.102 V. 10 is a later addition which again supports the hypothesis that it was the later redactors who misconstrued the asherahs in the masculine plural. 2 Kings 17.16 Some commentators would suggest that 2 Kgs. 17.16, a further list of crimes against Yahweh, is from a yet later redactor.103 Vv. 16–17 explain the fall of Israel narrated in the next verse: And they left all the commandments of Yahweh their God, and they made for themselves a molten image, two calves, and they made an asherah and they did obeisance to all the hosts of heaven and they served the baals. And they made their sons and daughters pass through the fire and they practised divination and they observed signs and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of Yahweh to provoke him.

Asherah in this verse occurs without the article, and without any suffix. It is spelled plene, as in Deut. 7.5. The mention of two calves in v. 16 attracts our attention in the light of the two bulls of the Gideon story and the two bulls of the Mount Carmel episode. We cannot be detained by the question of whom the calves are meant to represent.104 It is important, however, to note that the two bovines occur in cultic contexts, often in passages which mention an asherah. This does not indicate a particular relationship between bulls and Asherah, but allows us to support the cultic nature of the deuteronomistic Gideon story (see above). 2 Kings 18.4 The next passage mentioning the asherah is 2 Kgs. 18.4, in Hezekiah’s reform. He removed the high places and shattered the pillars and cut down the asherah and crushed the serpent of bronze which Moses made, for until

102Provan,

Hezekiah: 70–73; Jones, 1 & 2 Kings: 542–543. 1 and 2 Kings: 543. 104See E. Danelius, “The Sins of Jeroboam Ben-Nebat”: 95–114, 204–223; A. H. W. Curtis, “Some Observations on ‘Bull’ Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and the Old Testament” OTS 26 (1990): 17–31; N. Wyatt, “Of Calves and Kings”: 68– 91. 103Jones,

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

131

those days the children of Israel were offering incense to it, and he105 called it Nehushtan.

Hezekiah’s reform demonstrates the trappings which the cult of Jerusalem had accrued. This text recalls the standard equipment, the hmb-sanctuaries, the pillars, the asherah (in this case, the asherah, singular, with the article), followed by the mention of Nehushtan, the bronze serpent. A particular asherah is being referred to in this verse, thus the singular form is utilised. The verse does not appear to be late. Many commentators have been tempted to associate the bronze serpent and the asherah (and therefore Asherah) in this verse.106 The evidence adduced to support this claim is tenuous. The argument is based on the supposed association of Asherah with the “fertility cult” and with serpents. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we have evidence that Asherah was associated with serpents. This evidence is also absent at Ugarit. The evidence presented by Olyan is based on Cross’s analysis of Phoenician Tanit’s identification with Asherah.107 This identification is based on two uncertain associations: 1) the association of the epithets of Tanit as “the one of the serpent” with “the one of the lion” (assumed to be an epithet of Asherah, see below), and 2) the closeness of Tanit’s epithet “the one of the serpent (or dragon)” with Asherah’s (allegedly) full epithet at Ugarit, “the Lady who treads on the Sea (-dragon)”.108 The difficulties with these identifications are legion. First, although Tanit may be construed as “the one of the serpent”, this puts us no closer to an identification with Asherah, who is not elsewhere identified with serpents. Second, the “one of the lion” does not necessarily indicate Asherah either. We have no evidence that she was associ105See

K. Joines, “The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult” JBL 87 (1968): 245. I & II Kings: 608; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings: 562; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 70; Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 130. 107F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 32–33. Likewise, the evidence for associating Asherah and Tanit given by Maier (ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 99) is built on that given by Cross in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic and the identification with Qudshu (see below). R. A. Oden (Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea (HSM 15), Missoula, Montana, 1977: 92–93) also bases his identification of the two on Cross’s work, as well as the associations with the sea and motherhood. Motherhood is not a surprising attribute for most goddesses, and even in the Ugaritic texts, the sea is not the domain of Athirat alone, for Yam is the god of the sea. J. B. Carter (“The Masks of Ortheia” AJA 91 (1987): 378) only cites “some degree of variation and syncretism” for the association of Tanit and Asherah. 108Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 32–33. 106Gray,

132

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

ated with lions in the Old Testament, or, more importantly, at Ugarit. Cross initially made the “lion lady” identification with Anat.109 Further, the identifications gleaned by this method cross many cultural boundaries and many years. There is not sufficient evidence, furthermore, to complete the meaning of Athirat’s epithet at Ugarit as “the Lady who treads on the Sea (dragon)”. Ugarit knows of no myths in which Athirat treads a sea-dragon, and the interpretation of her name, atrt as from the verb “to tread” is far from certain.110 Appeals to the title dt btn in the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions do not strengthen the case, as their interpretation is still debated.111 The connections with “Qudshu” likewise suffer on the basis of no substantial evidence. We possess no texts or iconographic representations which suggest that Asherah was identified with “Qudshu” in the ancient Near East.112 Without evidence for Asherah’s association with snakes, her connection with Nehushtan is tenuous at best. A consideration of the grammar of 2 Kgs. 18.4 reveals that trkw and ttkw should be, according to the general formation of Hebrew prose narrative, imperfects. For hr#$)h the LXX, Syriac, Vulgate, Targums, and one Hebrew manuscript read twr#$)h. These two difficulties do not necessarily point to a late date for this passage. The feminine plural of the asherah in the variants would appear to be a later understanding. The MT should be retained, although the verbs throughout this verse are unusual. 2 Kings 21.3 Manasseh is the next king accused of making the asherah. 2 Kgs. 21.3 reads: And he turned and he built the high places which his father Hezekiah destroyed and he erected the altars to the baal, and he made an asherah just as Ahab king of Israel made and they bowed to all the hosts of heaven and he served them.

109F.

M. Cross, “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet” EI 8 (1967, Sukenik Volume): 13*. 110See Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 74–78 and the references there. For a recent attempt at an etymology see B. Margalit, “The Meaning and Significance of Asherah” VT 40 (1990): 264–297. In support of the view that Asherah does tread on the dragon see N. Wyatt, “Who Killed the Dragon?” AuOr 5 (1987): 185–198. 111For Albright’s rendering see The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their Decipherment (Harvard Theological Studies 22), Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969. 112Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah: 116–122, Wiggins, “The Myth of Asherah”.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

133

With regard to the grammar, the only difficulty is that wxt#$yw is a masculine plural form where we would expect a singular. The rendering “he made an asherah, and they bowed down to all the hosts of heaven and he served them” seems unlikely. Either the verb should be singular, meaning that Manasseh was bowing to the hosts, or the remaining verbs should be plural, indicating the collective sin of Israel. Although this verse probably comes from a later redactor of Kings, the form of asherah is the “pure” form, with no article and no suffix.113 This perhaps points to an even later time when the original meaning of hr#$) was forgotten, or else it had ceased to be a threat,114 or perhaps the writer had one specific asherah in mind. 2 Kings 21.7 And he put the image of the asherah which he made in the house of which Yahweh said to David and to Solomon his son “In this house and in Jerusalem which I chose from all the tribes of Israel shall I place my name forever.”

This verse contains the third possible deuteronomistic reference to the goddess Asherah in the Old Testament. The verse clearly states that Manasseh placed an image of the asherah (hr#$)h lsp) in the temple.115 The definite article does not necessarily preclude a proper name, as argued above. It has been widely noted that the chronicler’s parallel to this verse reads lmsh lsp (2 Chron. 33.7).116 This additional perspective is of little assistance, however, as the meaning of lms is not clear. We may also have here further evidence that an asherah was an image of the goddess. This suggested identification holds true only for this verse, however; as Deut. 16.21 indicates, it may also have been a tree. This verse may witness to an introduction of a cult of Asherah in the Jerusalem temple. The details provided, however, do not permit a firm conclusion to this effect. The final five references to hr#$) in the Deuteronomistic history appear in the reform of Josiah.

113Hadley,

Yahweh’s Asherah: 88. Yahweh’s Asherah: 92. 115Gray, I & II Kings: 644; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings: 597. 116See especially C. Dohmen “Heißt lmese ‘Bild, Statue’?” ZAW 96 (1984): 263– 266; Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 100. 114Hadley,

134

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Josiah’s Reform: 2 Kings 23.4–15 2 Kgs. 23.4–15 reads: And the king ordered Hilkiah the high priest and the priests of the second order and the watchers of the threshhold to bring out from the temple of Yahweh all the vessels made for the baal and for the asherah and all the hosts of heaven and burn them outside of Jerusalem in the field of Qidron and he carried their dust to Bethel. (5) And he removed the priests to the idols who inclined the kings of Judah to burn incense at the high places in the cities of Judah and the surroundings of Jerusalem and the ones burning incense to the baal, to the sun and the moon and to the constellations and to all the hosts of heaven. (6) And taking the asherah from the house of Yahweh to outside Jerusalem to the Valley of Qidron he burned it in the Valley of Qidron and he pulverised it to dust and he flung its dust on the graves of the sons of the people. (7) And he pulled down the shrines of the qedeshim which were in the house of Yahweh where the women were weaving shrines for the asherah there. (8) And he brought in all the priests from the cities of Judah and he defiled the high places in which the priests from Geba to Beer-Sheba burned incense, and he pulled down the high places of the gates which were at the entrance to the gate of Joshua, the ruler of the city, which are upon one’s left at the gate of the city. (9) Indeed, the priests of the high places did not go up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem, except they did eat unleavened bread among their brothers. (10) And he defiled the Tophet which is in the valley of Ben-Hinnom so that a man could not cause his son or daughter to pass through the fire for Molek.117 (11) And he removed the horses which the kings of Judah had given to the sun from the entrance of the house of Yahweh, to the halls of Nathan-Melek the eunuch, which is among the colonnades, and the chariots of the sun he burned with fire. (12) And the altars upon the roof chamber which Ahaz, king of Judah had made and the altars which Manasseh made in the two courts of the house of Yahweh, the king pulled down, and he ran from there and flung their dust on the valley of Qidron. (13) And the altars which were outside Jerusalem, which were south of the Mount of Destruction, which Solomon king of Israel built to Ashtoret the detestation of the Sidonians, and to Chemosh the detestation of Moab, and to Milcom, the abomination of the sons of Am117For Molek see G. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment (JSOTS 43), Sheffield, 1985; M. Weinfeld, “The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and its Background” UF 4 (1972): 133–154; and J. Day, Molech: a God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 41), Cambridge, 1989.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

135

mon, the king defiled. (14) And he shattered the pillars and cut down the asherahs and filled their places with bones of men. (15) Indeed, the altar which is in Bethel, the high place which Jeroboam the son of Nebat made which caused Israel to sin, even that altar and high place he tore down and he burned the high place and pulverised to dust and burned asherah.

In zeal for a reformed cult of Yahweh, Josiah attacked not only the elements he considered offensive in the temple cult, but also the items throughout the land which were considered as stumbling blocks, even the asherah and high place in Bethel. In association with hr#$), five separate “abominations” are mentioned. First, in v. 4 are the vessels for hr#$); in v. 6 it is the temple asherah itself; in v. 7 it is the shrines being woven for hr#$); in v. 14 it is the asherahs in the countryside; and in v. 15 it is hr#$) of Bethel. Each of these elements will be discussed separately. The redactional development of this passage would seem to be comprised of at least two stages.118 According to Jones, v. 14, the only verse utilising the masculine plural of hr#$) in this pericope, is from an editor later than the prophetic Deuteronomist, DtrP.119 Initially it should be noted that with the exception of v. 14, all the references to hr#$) are in the singular. As indicated above, the singular references may be utilised to express the presence of one asherah as cultic object, or perhaps to express the personal name of the goddess. That a goddess is intended in at least part of this pericope may be indicated in that she had offerings presented to her. This may be surmised from the mention of the vessels, hr#$)lw l(bl Myw#&(h Mylkh, in the temple in v. 4. Both names are prefixed with prepositions, thus the presence of the article before both is only a matter of pointing. Although the definite article does not necessarily preclude the mention of a divine name (see above), there is no decisive textual way of determining whether cultic images or actual deities are being mentioned here. I have noted above three other deuteronomistic verses which possibly refer to the goddess; likewise she may be intended in this verse. V. 4c is often considered to be a later addition because of the reference to Bethel; however, this interpretation does not affect the present study. 118Jones,

1 and 2 Kings: 605, 616–617; Koch, “Aschera als Himmelskönigin”: 103–105. 119Jones, 1 and 2 Kings: 617.

136

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Following the removal of the vessels, the asherah, hr#$)h, was removed from the temple (v. 6). This asherah may have been the one placed in the temple by Manasseh. Manasseh is the first southern king explicitly said to have put an asherah in the temple (2 Kgs. 21.7).120 The singular reading rbq, “grave” of the sons of the people, should be corrected to the plural, as with most of the versions. When the asherah itself had been removed, Josiah next moved to evict the women who were weaving Mytb for hr#$) (v. 7). I have translated this word as “shrines”. Since the meaning of Mytb is normally “houses”, which does not seem to fit here, a widely considered alternative “clothes” is often advocated.121 The suggestion that the “weaving of battim may be a euphemism for sexual intercourse”122 is completely without textual support. I would suggest that the MT reading be retained, with the understanding that the “houses” being woven for hr#$) designate shrines in which the asherahs would have stood. That many cultic sites existed for worship involving asherahs is sufficiently demonstrated by the texts themselves. That such cultic areas were enshrined in some kind of tent is possible. The bedouin of today still weave tents of goat’s hair.123 Some of the Psalms (61.5 (Eng. 4); 78.60; 15.1; 27.5–6) picture Yahweh as living in a tent. This being the case, it should not be unlikely that the gods were worshipped in tents. The Israelite desert tradition is even centred on the d(wm lh) where the ark is housed: the tent, the dwelling place, of Yahweh among his people. Perhaps such a cultic tradition is referred to in this verse. The identity of the My#$dq in v. 7 is still a matter of debate. Although many commentators suppose the qedeshim to be male cultic prostitutes, as Gruber has pointed out, this interpretation is not certain.124 He suggests 120See Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 9. Although Olyan is partially correct in stating that “Aside from the time of cultic reforms under Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah, the asherah seems to have played a role in the cult of Yahweh, in the Jerusalem temple and at various other sanctuaries, as it did in the north”, we have no evidence that the asherah stood in the Jerusalem temple until the time of Manasseh. 121R. Patai, “Goddess Asherah”: 50; Gray, I & II Kings: 668; Jones, 1 and 2 Kings: 619. 122De Moor, “hrf#$')j”: 441; see also Pettey, Asherah, Goddess of Israel: 138–139. 123T. Faegre, Tents: Architecture of the Nomad, London, 1979: 9–10. 124M. Gruber, “Myrx) twrwqmbw Myklm rpsb #dqh” Tarbiz 52 (1983): 167– 176. His argument is summarised in English in “Hebrew qĕdēšāh and her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates” UF 18 (1986): 133, n. 1.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

137

that they be understood as cultic functionaries. Certainly the mention of the asherah in this verse does not suggest any sexual activities on the part of the qedeshim; the function of Asherah as a “fertility goddess” in the Old Testament is not attested (see below). The asherah in v. 7 is preceded by a prepositional prefix, and the definiteness assigned to the noun is the suggestion of the Masoretes. If either a cultic object or a goddess (and thus perhaps an image of the goddess) is understood in this verse, a shrine might have been utilised in its worship. The next reference to hr#$) during Josiah’s reform is in v. 14. The asherahs, masculine plural, were removed. As mentioned above, this verse appears to be later than the other asherah (singular) references in this chapter. The use of the piel perfect with the waw-consecutive is one indication of this lateness.125 The other verbs in the verse are imperfects with the wawconsecutive.126 In v. 15 the final reference, the asherah of Bethel was destroyed by Josiah. The mention of Bethel may mark this verse as a latter addition as well. A specific, and therefore singular, asherah is mentioned. The wording of v. 15 is emphatic: “the altar which is in Bethel, the high place which Jeroboam son of Nebat made which caused Israel to sin, even that altar and high place he tore down and he burned the high place and he pulverised to dust and burned asherah”. The deuteronomists were intent on making the point that Josiah attempted to eradicate completely the cult of the asherah. In v. 15 asherah appears in its “pure” form, without the article and without any suffix. Since a definite asherah is being referred to, we would expect the definite article here. Perhaps the deuteronomist deliberately used the unaugmented form, indicating that the goddess herself, symbolised by the cultic object, was finally destroyed. This is the final mention of hr#$) in the Deuteronomistic History.

SUMMARY OF THE DEUTERONOMISTIC REFERENCES I shall now summarise what we have learned of Asherah from the deuteronomistic sections of the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History. We have seen that the deuteronomists refer to the cultic object in both the 125Jones,

1 and 2 Kings: 617. the verb forms in this pericope see Koch, “Aschera als Himmelskönigin”: 103–104. Koch suggests that layers of tradition may account for the differing verb tenses (which appear at the beginnings and endings of sub-sections in the pericope). 126On

138

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

feminine singular and masculine plural forms. The distribution of these forms appears to concur with a “double redaction” of the deuteronomistic writings, in which pre-exilic references to the asherah largely utilise the feminine singular. The exilic references, except when referring to a single, specific asherah, generally utilise the masculine plural. This perhaps points to an “ironic” masking of the goddess’s name, by which the cultic object was called. Such distortion coincides well with the deuteronomistic theology concerning foreign deities, namely, that they are not deities at all. We have noticed that as cultic objects, some textual support may be found for morphologies both of a tree and of an image. If a specific verse does not allude to the morphology of the object, we cannot dogmatically state that it is one or the other. We have also noted that there is no certain reference to the goddess Asherah in the deuteronomistic writings. Since prefixed prepositions hide the article in an unpointed text, and since the definite article does not preclude the possibility of a proper noun in all cases, there is ambiguity. The three (or five) possible references to the goddess would tell us little of her character. They do not, however, support the alleged associations of Asherah with a “fertility cult”, serpents, lions, or the sea. The asherah may have some connection with bulls, but this may simply be a matter of the cultic settings in which the object is found. The asherah may have been associated with the queen mother. We shall now turn to the remaining Old Testament references in an attempt to discern if a goddess Asherah is indicated.

THE CHRONICLER’S REFERENCES The references to hr#$) in the book of 2 Chronicles do not all correspond to those of its Vorlage. The spelling of the word hr#$) as a cultic object is irregular. Both the masculine and feminine plural forms are employed. C. Frevel, in extending a proposal put forward by J. P. Weinberg, argues that the chronicler deliberately masked any references to the asherah which would admit to the presence of a goddess.127 He presents evidence from various aspects of the parallels with Kings and internal evidence from 2 Chronicles to demonstrate that the chronicler attempted to hide mentions of hr#$) which specifically refer to the goddess. This can be seen in the chronicler’s consistent use of the plural when referring to hr#$). 2 Chronicles parallels three of the deuteronomistic references which possibly name 127“Die

Elimination der Göttin”, throughout. The reference to Weinberg is his.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

139

the goddess Asherah. All three verses in Chronicles display difficulties with hr#$), as will be discussed below.128 Perhaps evidence for an intentional attempt to hide the goddess will be seen, but we should bear in mind that the phenomena observed by Frevel may have resulted from the chronicler’s genuine forgetting of the reasons for the past difficulties caused by hr#$). To the references to hr#$) in 2 Chronicles we will now turn our attention. 2 Chronicles 14.2 (Eng. 3) The first instance concerns the righteousness of Asa. In 14.2 (Eng. 3) he is portrayed as reforming the cult in Judah: “He turned from the foreign altars and the high places, and he shattered the pillars and hewed down the asherahs”. The asherahs here, as we would expect in a late text, are construed as masculine plurals and bear the definite article. There appears to be no knowledge of Asherah as the name of a goddess. Williamson writes concerning Asa’s reform in 2 Chronicles: The Chronicler’s account of the opening years of Asa’s reign largely represents his own expansion of 1 Kg. 15:11–12. The description there, however, of “the male cult prostitutes” and “all the idols that his fathers made” did not accord well with his presentation of the previous reigns; consequently he has made Asa’s reform much more “Deuteronomic”, thus anticipating the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah, and suggesting that the abuses rectified were not wholly pagan, but rather “internal” Israelite practices.129

This description of the chronicler’s account could also be construed as evidence for a deliberate hiding of other foreign elements in the cult of Judah, or conversely, a genuinely forgotten situation. This particular reference does not have a parallel in Kings, so the question needs to be asked: why, if a deliberate hiding is taking place, does the chronicler add this extraKings mention of asherahs?

128The

four Deuteronomistic references are 1 Kgs. 15.13; 18.19; 2 Kgs. 21.7; 23.4. The reference to Asherah in 1 Kgs. 18.19 is not dealt with by the chronicler, as he does not concern himself with the history of the northern kingdom. This supports Hadley’s argument that “perhaps by the time of dtr himself, and certainly the Chronicler, the term had ceased to be used with any knowledge of the goddess whom it had originally represented” (Yahweh’s Asherah: 92). 129H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC), Grand Rapids and London, 1982: 259.

140

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

2 Chronicles 15.16 The reference in 2 Chron. 15.16 has been discussed with its parallel in 1 Kgs. 15.13. Since, however, this is the chronicler’s only mention of hr#$) which arguably refers to the goddess, I will consider Frevel’s understanding of the verse here. First, he notes three variations from the Kings account in 2 Chron. 15.16, 1. Die Pendenskonstruktion wird aufgelöst. 2. Die Glieder der unklaren Verbindung werden umgedreht: Anstatt hr#$)l tclpm jetzt hr#$)l tclpm. 3. Die Vernichtungsnotiz wird durch qqd erweitert und so verschärft.130

He suggests that these differences are intended to confine the meaning of hr#$) to a cultic object.131 Frevel acknowledges that although this one instance of the singular does not fit the plural usage elsewhere, it should not be considered as a contradiction to the goddess-elimination Tendenz of the chronicler.132 Frevel’s observations are cogent. The name of Asherah here and in the parallel passage in 1 Kgs. 15.13 can only be supported on the basis of context and pointing. If the context is ambivalent, as it is in both of these instances, either case may be argued. Frevel’s understanding does account for the differences in wording between 2 Chron. 15.16 and 1 Kgs. 15.13; however, it may also be accounted for on the basis of the meaning of the word hr#$) confusing the chronicler.133 2 Chronicles 17.6 Jehoshaphat is described in 2 Chron. 17.6 as destroying asherahs. “He was lofty in his heart in the ways of Yahweh and he also removed the high places and the asherahs from Judah.” This reference reverts to the masculine plural form with the definite article for the asherahs. Once again we should note that this passage has no Vorlage in Kings which mentions asherahs. This may suggest that the asherahs had lost some of their poten-

130Frevel,

“Die Elimination der Göttin”: 266. Elimination der Göttin”: 267. 132“Die Elimination der Göttin”: 267. 133Hadley notes: “The parallel account in II Chron. xv 16 mentions asherah in the singular, against all other places where the Chronicler uses the plural. It is also indefinite, but the article in both verses is only a matter of pointing. It may be that the Chronicler did not fully understand this text” (Yahweh’s Asherah: 96). 131“Die

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

141

tial threat, and had become simply cultic objects to be removed in the interests of orthodoxy, in the eyes of the chronicler. 2 Chronicles 19.3 Jehoshaphat was further commended in 2 Chron. 19.3: “Certainly good matters are found with you because you burned the asherahs from the land setting your heart to seek God”. In this verse the asherahs are designated in feminine plural form, with the definite article (twr#$)h). This prompts the question: had the threat of asherahs become a matter of past, pre-exilic days, which was no longer understood? I have argued above that the masculine plural form was applied to the feminine asherah in an attempt to disguise ironically the name of the goddess. Here the feminine plural appears, as if no difficulty attended it. We should also note the curious use of the definite article with elohim for “God” (Myhl)h) in this verse. The picture is one of a chronicler who did not view the asherahs as remaining a threat to the restored nation, but who wished to remind the people of the causes of their exile. 2 Chronicles 24.18 Joash is brought into the asherah controversy in 2 Chron. 24.18. “And they forsook the house of Yahweh the God of their fathers, and they served the asherahs and the idols and it happened that wrath was upon Judah and Jerusalem because of this offence.” The masculine plural and definite article are used to designate the asherahs in this verse. This is the third of the chronicler’s accounts of the asherahs with no parallel in Kings. In the eyes of the chronicler, the asherahs persistently stood in Judah and were only removed by the great reformer kings. Otherwise they were stumbling blocks which were left standing despite the anger of Yahweh. 2 Chronicles 31.1 2 Chron. 31.1 concerns the reform of Hezekiah. As they finished all this, all of Israel found in the cities of Judah went out and they shattered the pillars and hewed down the asherahs and they pulled down the high places and altars in all of Judah and Benjamin, Ephraim, and Manasseh to completion, and the sons of Israel returned to their cities, each man to his possession.

142

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

We cannot be detained here by the question of the historicity of the reform of Hezekiah.134 The reference to the asherahs is once again in the masculine plural. This verse very roughly parallels 2 Kgs. 18.4 with the removal of the high places, pillars, and asherah(s) mentioned in each case. In 2 Kings, however, asherah is given in the singular form. The use of the masculine plural here could be understood as evidence for either intentional avoidance of the singular (thus evoking memories of the goddess), or as evidence that the actual connotations of the asherah had been forgotten. 2 Chronicles 33.3 2 Chron. 33.3 parallels 2 Kgs. 21.3. “He turned and he built the high places which Hezekiah his father had torn down, and he built altars to the baals and he made asherahs and bowed to all the hosts of heaven and served them.” The sin of Manasseh is described in similar terms to that of the chronicler’s Vorlage, except that the asherah, which was feminine singular in 2 Kgs. 21.3, appears here as the feminine plural. The use of the plural “to accentuate Manasseh’s apostasy”135 does not readily account for this subtle difference. To the chronicler asherah without an article and without a plural rendering in 2 Kgs. 21.3 was perhaps confusing. Rather than assign a feminine singular a masculine plural as the deuteronomists had normally done, the chronicler rendered the form in the more natural feminine plural. Once again the evidence points to a misunderstanding as to the original problematic associations of the asherahs. 2 Chronicles 33.19 The next occurrence of asherahs, in 33.19, employs the masculine plural. “And his prayer and the supplication by him, and all his sins and treachery and the places in which he built high places and he erected the asherahs and the images before his humbling, behold they are written in the words of Hoza.” This verse does not appear in the Vorlage, as Manasseh is not recorded as repenting by the deuteronomists. It is curious that when no deu134The issue is dealt with in an essay by A. C. Welch, The Work of the Chronicler, Its Purpose and Date (Schweich Lectures 1938), London, 1939: 97–121. For the direction of scholarly opinion about the work of Hezekiah see H. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles: 350–388; J. M. Myers, II Chronicles, Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB), Garden City, New York, 1965: 165–194; R. B. Dillard, 2 Chronicles (WBC), Waco, Texas, 1987: 226–261, and the references given therein. 135Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles: 390.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

143

teronomistic Vorlage exists (as far as we know), the chronicler utilised the masculine plural shortly after the feminine plural for the same cultic objects. Perhaps when faced with a feminine singular in v. 3, the chronicler assumed a feminine plural, whereas in 19 he reverted to a formulaic condemnation of making asherim. The other instance of the feminine plural in 19.3, however, has no Vorlage in Kings. I would see this as evidence of confusion over what exactly asherahs were meant to signify when they had been a problem before the exile. Before leaving the reign of Manasseh, we should consider one instance in which Chronicles differs in the choice of words for the asherah in its Vorlage. In 2 Chron. 33.7 we read that Manasseh placed the image of the idol, lmsh lsp, in the temple.136 In the parallel verse in 2 Kgs. 21.7, one of the possible deuteronomistic references to the goddess Asherah, we read hr#$)h lsp. For Frevel, this is prime evidence that the chronicler consciously sought to eliminate the goddess.137 The chronicler even chose an obscure word as the substitute for hr#$). Either the chronicler deliberately hid the word hr#$), or he had a different account in front of him, or he was unclear as to how Manasseh could have made an image of a cultic object and chose to emend the text. 2 Chronicles 34.3, 4 and 7 The final three uses of hr#$) in 2 Chronicles occur in the shortened account of Josiah’s reform. 2 Chron. 34.3, 4, and 7 read: And at eight years he ruled, and when he was still a lad he began to seek the God of David his father; in his twelfth year he began to purify Judah and Jerusalem from the high places and the asherahs and the images and molten images. (4)And they tore down before him the altars of the baals and the incense altars which were over above them and he hewed off the asherahs and the images and the molten images and he shattered and pulverised and scattered them on the face of the graves of the ones sacrificing to them. (7) And he tore down the altars and the asherahs and the images he crushed to dust, and he hewed down all the incense altars in all the land of Israel and he returned to Jerusalem.

All three mentions of the asherahs are in the masculine plural with the definite article. Of special interest is that whereas 2 Kgs. 23 has five refer136See

Dohmen, “Heißt lmese ‘Bild, Statue’?”: 263–266. Elimination der Göttin”: 267–268.

137“Die

144

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

ences to asherah-related phenomena, 2 Chron. 34 only lists three. This fact again illustrates the difficulties the chronicler had with the connotations of asherah, as the two references which he left out could be interpreted as indicating the goddess. The vessels for the asherah in 2 Kgs. 23.4 perhaps demonstrate that the pre-exilic deuteronomist knew of the goddess Asherah. The chronicler does not mention them. In 2 Kgs. 23.7, where women were weaving shrines for the asherah, hr#$) appears without a plural ending. This too is missing from the chronicler’s account. Frevel utilises this information as evidence for his hypothesis.138 The information presented in the book of Chronicles allows itself to be interpreted in that way. I suggest that the chronicler had lost sight of the difficulties which had attended references to the asherahs in the pre-exilic times. Confronted with asherim as a plural for a cultic object, he utilised it himself, but not consistently. In the absence of asherim in his Vorlage, he twice utilised the more normal feminine plural. In any case, he did not mention the goddess Asherah, except perhaps in 2 Chron. 15.16. What emerges from all of this is that a confused image of hr#$) is present in 2 Chronicles. The evidence is not enough to allow us to determine any attributes of the goddess, unless it points to a time when the goddess was no longer remembered. This is what we might expect from a post-exilic explanation of the fall of Israel.

THE PROPHETIC REFERENCES The prophetic references to the asherah number only four. They are Isa. 17.8; 27.9; Jer. 17.2 and Mic. 5.13 (Eng. 14). It would seem that none of these references can actually be attributed to the prophets themselves in whose books they appear (see below). The question of why the prophets did not condemn the asherah (cultic object or goddess) has often been raised, but any speculation is ultimately an argument from silence. No adequate solution appears to be in sight. Isaiah 17.8 The first reference is Isa. 17.8. “He will not gaze upon {the altars} the work of his hand, and he will not look upon what his fingers made {even the asherahs and incense altars}.” This passage comes within the wider category of the oracles against the foreign nations. Within this oracle against Damascus in Isa. 17, vv. 7–8 fit only with difficulty. Many commentators, and also 138“Die

Elimination der Göttin”: 265–266.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

145

BHS, point to the difficulty with “the altars” and “the asherahs and incense altars” in v. 8,139 with some suggestion that they should be omitted. The grammatical form of the asherahs is the masculine plural with the definite article. The previous considerations of the masculine plural form supports the suggestion that the asherahs (and therefore possibly the other cultic objects in this verse) are perhaps later additions to a text which might otherwise be an Isaianic prophecy. Clements argues that vv. 7–9 are entirely later additions, and if we understand the message of the verses to be advocating that “Jerusalem alone was claimed as the sole authorised place of sacrificial worship”140 the text gains a deuteronomistic flavour.141 The reference to the desolation of the land in v. 9 does at least point to the exilic period for the origin of this addition. Isaiah 27.9 The next mention of the asherahs comes in the Apocalypse of Isaiah (chapters 24–27). Virtually no critical commentators attribute this section to Isaiah himself, with many judging it to be post-exilic.142 Isa. 27.9 reads, “Therefore, in this will the transgression of Jacob be atoned for, and this all the fruit of the removal of his sin, in his making all the stones of the altar like pulverised limestone, and they will not raise asherahs and incense altars”. Even among the apocalyptic chapters of Isaiah, this pericope is difficult.143 Watts dates it to the exile, and Clements to the hellenistic era.144 139R. E. Clements, Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC), Grand Rapids and London, 1980: 157, 159; G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I–XXXIX (ICC), vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1912: 301; O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39, A Commentary (OTL), London, 1974: 83–84; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33 (WBC), Waco, Texas, 1985: 235, 237; H. Wildberger, Jesaja (BKAT) vol. 2, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978: 634, 637, 640. The two more conservative commentaries of E. Young (The Book of Isaiah (NIC), vol. 1, Grand Rapids, 1972: vii) and J. Oswalt (The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39 (NIC), Grand Rapids, 1986: 25) both consider most of the material in Isaiah 1–66 as originating with Isaiah himself, thus they see no difficulty with this passage. 140Clements, Isaiah 1–39: 159. 141Gray, Isaiah I–XXXIX: 301. 142See O. Kaiser, (Isaiah 13–39: ix) who vies for a date between the “second half of the fourth century and the first third of the second century BC”. Young (Book of Isaiah) and Oswalt (Book of Isaiah), however, do represent the opposite opinion. 143Clements, Isaiah 1–39: 220; Kaiser, Isaiah 13–39: 226; Gray, Isaiah I–XXXIX: 456. 144Watts, Isaiah 1–33: 310; Clements, Isaiah 1–39: 221.

146

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

The punishment of Leviathan introduces Isa. 27 and continuing, the oracle expresses Yahweh’s care for Israel. V. 9 appears to provide the conditions of Israel’s repentance, already fulfilled by the exile.145 The asherahs are once again construed by the fixed masculine plural form of the later editors. Once again, Clements notes the tendency towards considering Jerusalem as the only legitimate cultic site in this verse.146 This, in turn, appears to indicate the work of the deuteronomistic theologians. Jeremiah 17.2 Jer. 17.2 makes use of the formula initiated by Hosea:147 “As their children remember their altars and their asherahs under every luxuriant tree upon the high hills”. The text of Jeremiah has long been noted for its difficulty. Although chapter 17 may be considered as originating from Jeremiah,148 vv. 1–4 present special difficulties. First of all, they are omitted by the LXX, although this may be due to haplography.149 If the verses are retained, v. 2, or at least the mentions of the asherahs and altars, appears to be a later addition to the text.150 A suffixed form of the masculine plural of asherahs appears in v. 2, and once again, this would fit the exilic usage of this form cited above. Micah 5.13 (Eng. 14) Mic. 5.13 (Eng. 14) simply reads: “I will root out your asherahs from your midst, and I will destroy your cities”. Once again, the text which concerns us can be dated only with difficulty, if at all. There is no scholarly consensus on the extent of the additions to the oracles of Micah, but many commenta-

145Watts, however, construes the opening lines of v. 9 as a question; “Therefore, by this will the guilt of Jacob be expiated? And (is) this all the fruit of the removing of this sin?” (Isaiah 1–33 : 346) and indeed, the entire pericope as a dialogue. 146Isaiah 1–39: 222. 147W. Holladay, “‘On Every High Hill’”. 148J. Bright, Jeremiah, Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB), Garden City, New York, 1965: 119. 149W. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC), vol. 1, Edinburgh, 1986: 384; W. L. Holladay, Jeremiah 1, A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25 (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, 1986: 484. 150McKane, Jeremiah : 387–388; R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah, A Commentary (OTL), London, 1986: 349; W. L. Holladay, The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20, Lewisburg and London, 1976:160–163.

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

147

tors consider 5.13 (14) to be late.151 The argument is usually based on a change of the reasons for and basis of the punishment decreed by Yahweh. The grammatical form of “your asherahs” is suffixed masculine plural, which we have noted in exilic texts. It is spelled plene (Kyry#$)), as in Deut. 7.5, and 2 Kgs. 17.16. The parallelism of asherahs with cities is unexpected. Many commentators resort to emendation. Wolff proposes to emend “your asherahs” to “your enemies”,152 whilst other commentators would emend “your cities” to “your idols”153 and others attempt to explain the combination as it stands.154 If we realise that Yahweh is intending the same fate for the two objects mentioned, namely, their destruction, then we should assume that some similarity exists between the objects. At first, we should have difficulty discovering anything that cities should have in common with asherahs. To state that they are both “idolatrous” begs the question. That they were common institutions in the life of the people may be a solution. Yahweh was angered by the everyday structures of society, their cities, and their asherahs. Mays understands “asherahs” and “cities” to represent the cultic and military aspects which are condemned in 5.9–14 (Eng. 10–15).155 I suggest that this is as acceptable a solution as an emendation would be. One further possibility should be considered here. The verb used to describe the destruction of the asherahs is #$tn, “to root or pluck out”. Although the verb may be used figuratively elsewhere,156 it may be understood in its basic sense here. Although argumentation from verbal forms does not supply indisputable evidence, this verse may represent the asherahs as trees. As with Deut. 16.21, this cannot be defended dogmatically, but it appears to be the basic meaning of the poetic denunciation. 151J. M. P. Smith, W. H. Ward and J. A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC), Edinburgh, 1912: 16, 113; J. L. Mays, Micah, A Commentary (OTL), London, 1976: 24–25, 124; D. R. Hillers, Micah (Hermeneia), Philadelphia, 1984: 73–74; R. Mason, Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (Old Testament Guides), Sheffield, 1991:24. 152H. W. Wolff, Micha (BKAT), Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1982: 132. 153Hillers, Micah: 73; L. C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NIC), London, 1976: 356, 359–360. 154Mays, Micah: 127. 155Micah: 127. 156W. Louie, The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah in Old Testament Idolatry in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence, Th. D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1988: 13, note 2; Reed, Asherah in the Old Testament: 36.

148

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

The goddess Asherah is thus not mentioned in the prophetic books. The cultic object, referred to four times in the masculine plural form, is evident in later additions. It appears, therefore, that the asherahs were not of particular concern to the prophets.

RABBINIC SOURCES For the sake of completeness, a brief consideration of Rabbinic sources must be included. The Mishnah refers to the asherah in four chapters,157 one in the tractate ʿOrlah (“the fruit of young trees”158), one in Sukkah,159 one in ʿAbodah Zarah (“idolatry”),160 and one in Meʿilah (“sacrilege”).161 The asherah is discussed in the corresponding sections of the Gemara of the Babylonian Talmud for Sukkah,162 ʿAbodah Zarah,163 and Meʿilah.164 In addition, the asherah is also mentioned in the Gemara of Pesaḥim.165 Without going into the details of the Rabbinic discussions, it may be stated that the asherah is understood to be a tree. The traditions recorded in ʿOrlah, Sukkah, Pesaḥim, and Meʿilah are all concerned with the use of items associated with trees which were asherahs. ʿAbodah Zarah enters into discussion on what an asherah is, and the Mishnah states: Three kinds of Asherah are to be distinguished: if a tree was planted from the first for idolatry, it is forbidden; if it was chopped and trimmed for idolatry and it sprouted afresh, one only need take away what has sprouted afresh; but if a gentile did but set up an idol beneath it and 157Louie,

Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah: 16. Mishnah, edited and translated by H. Danby, Oxford, 1933: 89; literally “uncircumcision” (M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols., New York, 1926.) The reference is 1:7. 1593:1–5. 1603:5–10. 1613:8. 162“Sukkah” in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʿed, trans. I. W. Slotki, ed. by I. Epstein, London, 1938: chapter 3, folio 31b. 163“ʿAbodah Zarah” in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Neziḳin, trans. A. Cohen, ed. I. Epstein, London, 1935: chapter 3, folios 45b–46a, 47a, 48a–49b. 164“Meʿilah” in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Ḳodashim, trans. I. Porusch, ed. I. Epstein, London, 1948: chapter 3, folio 14a. 165“Pesaḥim” in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʿed, trans. H. Freedman, ed. I. Epstein, London, 1938: chapter 2, folio 25a. 158The

OLD TESTAMENT ASHERAH

149

then desecrate it, the tree is permitted. What is an Asherah? Any tree under which is an idol. R. Simeon says: Any tree which is worshipped.166

The discussion which attends these statements in the Talmud confirms the understanding of the asherah as a tree.

CONCLUSIONS In this chapter I have examined all forty references to hr#$) in the Old Testament. In the deuteronomistic literature, hr#$) appears as a cultic object which in some cases seems to have been an actual tree, and in other cases an image. Still other cases could possibly refer to some other cultic object. This indicates that the insistence on one kind of object as an asherah may be a modern qualification being read into the actual text. Perhaps at different times and places asherahs, as cultic objects, were found in different forms. A pattern may be discerned which indicates that exilic texts edited by the deuteronomists refer to the asherahs in the masculine plural form. This, I believe, points to an ironic masking of the name of the cultic object which originated from the name of a goddess. Most of the texts in which the masculine plural appears have been determined to be exilic by Old Testament scholars, based on factors outside of the scope of this dissertation. I have noted that in three (or five) instances in the deuteronomistic literature, hr#$) perhaps refers to a goddess. If the goddess does appear in these texts, they do not tell us much about her nature or character. Grammatically or contextually, it may be argued that Asherah does or does not appear in the Old Testament. In verses with a prefixed preposition, context is our guide. Unfortunately, the context in these verses is open to either interpretation. Negatively, it may be said that the Old Testament does not lend support to the conception of Asherah as a “mother-goddess”. This characteristic is built up from outside sources. Neither does Asherah appear in a role as a “fertility goddess”, as far as the texts will allow us to determine.167 Nowhere is it stated that the veneration of Asherah had any relationship to fertility, either agricultural or human.168 166ʿAbodah

Zarah, 3:7 in The Mishnah, (Danby’s translation): 441. J. A. Hackett, “Can a Sexist Model Liberate Us?” JFSR 5 (1989): 65–76; as well as M. Gruber, “Hebrew qĕdēšāh”: 138. 168The assertion that Asherah assisted in childbirth (R. Patai, “Goddess 167See

150

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

The relationship between trees and Asherah appears to be present, but its precise nuances cannot be determined with any certainty. This relationship depends on Asherah being the deity to whom the asherah was dedicated. The question of whether or not this reflects the actual situation has recently been raised.169 The existence of a goddess with the name Athirat at Ugarit supports the idea that the cultic emblem was dedicated to Asherah; however, the absence of an explicit reference to Asherah in the Old Testament invites scepticism. This point stands to indicate the ambiguity of the Old Testament evidence. One association, however, which appears both in the Ugaritic literature and the Old Testament is the relationship of Athirat and the asherah/Asherah with the role of the gĕbîrâ or rabītu. The “queen mother” apparently determined the heir to the throne (and was the mother of that heir).170 Athirat appears to have functioned in this role in Ugaritic mythology. The Old Testament connection appears more vague, but is still present. Maakah, Asa’s mother, made a horrid thing for the asherah/Asherah. Was this because of her role as the queen mother? Once again, the texts do not provide explicit answers, but the possibility remains for this connection between the two. The arguments of Bernhardt are not to be ignored.171 Much time and space do separate Ugarit from ancient Israel. The characteristics of biblical Asherah, if she appears as a goddess, are not pronounced. The grammatical ambiguity of the verses which may mention Asherah render definite conclusions impossible.

Asherah”: 41) is speculative and requires an unwarranted textual emendation. 169Smith, Early History: 93–94. Evidence from 6th–4th century Greece points to the practice of devoting figurines of various deities to the main god of a temple (B. Alroth, “Visiting Gods—Who and Why” in Gifts to the Gods, Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Boreas 15), T. Linders and G. Nordquist, eds., Uppsala, 1987: 9– 19. 170C. Gordon, “Ugaritic Rbt /Rabītu” in Ascribe to the Lord, Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTS 67), L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, eds., Sheffield, 1988: 127–132. 171“Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament”: 163–174.

5 MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE In the previous chapters, material which deals with Athirat or Asherah has been contextualised into units which do not place undue demands across genres or different textual categories. When abundant evidence for the character of a deity is extant, as at Ugarit, and possibly within the Old Testament as well, the task is not to attempt to combine that which does not belong together. We cannot, for example, take all the evidence available for Athirat/Asherah, ignoring cultural and textual boundaries, to present a composite figure, then claim that this generic character fully represents the goddess. At the outset, a similar caution must be utilised for the Mesopotamian, “Hittite”, and Old South Arabian texts about to be examined. To assert that fragments spread over centuries and scattered across hundreds of miles can begin to furnish us with a picture of a single goddess “Asherah” would demand far more than the texts will allow. I shall examine each instance of Ashratu/Athirat separately and within its own context. The syllabic nature of the Akkadian and Hittite texts lends itself to variant spellings of the name which is generally considered to be equivalent to Athirat. In the course of this study I shall examine the names spelled as Ashratu(m), Ashirtu, Ashrat, and Ashiratum, which are possible equivalents of Athirat by normal phonetic rules. Initially I shall present the Mesopotamian evidence for a goddess of the same name as Ugaritic Athirat. When referring to this goddess, I shall use the name Ashratu, unless a specific reference cites a variant form. I shall then look briefly at the Elkunirsa myth, which, although written in Hittite, seems to be Canaanite in origin. A short examination of Epigraphic South Arabian evidence will then follow. At the outset it is important to note that although these sources do mention a goddess bearing the same name as Ugaritic Athirat, they are not major sources for adding to our understanding of the character of the goddess as a whole. We should expect that each occurrence of Ashratu/Athirat in a different cultural context will certainly display cultural idiosyncrasies. They may indeed confirm what we have been able to determine safely above, but 151

152

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

when such smaller sources of information contradict the more certain evidence we must interpret the material accordingly.

SUMERO-AKKADIAN EVIDENCE What I hope to accomplish with the Sumerian and Akkadian source material is the determination of the characteristics of Ashratu inasfar as the texts themselves will allow. Initially this was simply a compilation of references to Ashratu in Mesopotamian source material. Many of the past studies on “Asherah” have made use of the Mesopotamian material concerning Ashratu;1 however, just as “Asherah studies” are advancing, so are Mesopotamian studies. Each field is becoming specialised to a point that dialogue between them is required to present the evidence clearly. Various publications of the same source materials are cited in different sources on “Asherah” creating a labyrinth from which only the specialist may hope to emerge. Even Oppenheim warned of the difficulties of attempting to reconstruct a Mesopotamian religion: It is extremely difficult to penetrate to the individuality of the divine figures. The Sumerian custom of speaking of the deity as the lord or lady of the city rather than of mentioning it by name (only rarely was such an individualization of the city’s patron and ruler admitted) presents a serious obstacle. The formalization of the god-man attitude and the narrow range of the hymnical terminology which favored an extensive interchange of epithets among deities, blurs still more the individuality of all but the most outstanding and characteristic divine figures.2

1

Especially W. Reed, The Asherah in the Old Testament, Fort Worth, 1949: 72–75; T. Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah, Ph. D. dissertation, Yale, 1964: 3–30; E. Lipiński, “The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” OLP 3 (1972): 103–106; J. Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature” JBL 105 (1986): 385–408; W. A. Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta, 1986: 199–207; W. Louie, The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah in Old Testament Idolatry in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence, Th. D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1988. Specifically on Ashratu see E. Ebling, “Ašratu” in RLA I: 169. 2L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, Portrait of a Dead Civilization, Chicago, 1977: 194. Even Oppenheim’s observation on the “most outstanding and characteristic divine figures” meets with difficulties. Lambert has noted that the original characteristics of the more important of the gods are confused by their usurpation of the attributes of other gods (private communication 15 February 1992), thus adding to

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

153

In the light of these difficulties, my work in this section will rely heavily upon the advice of specialists in Mesopotamian studies.3 I have attempted to collate the references to Ashratu as cited in past studies of the goddess and to draw some preliminary conclusions. This exercise necessitates the citation of outdated sources on Mesopotamian studies and the consideration of the suggestions of past studies on the goddess. It is hoped that this synthesis of disparate sources will not further confuse the issue, but will provide an outline from which further work may be done. Assyriologists have long recognised that Ashratu is known as the spouse of Amurru in the Mesopotamian material.4 This relationship points to Ashratu’s Amorite origins. It is from this context that the goddess must be explored.5 I am not beginning from the assumption that the Akkadian Ashratu is the same mythological character as Ugaritic Athirat. Since Mesopotamian Ashratu was understood to be an Amorite deity, a connection between Ashratu’s and Athirat’s origin appears to be virtually certain. Being transferred to a different culture, however, would have led to some adaptation of the goddess to her new culture. This should stand as a caution not to apply specific details of Ashratu’s characteristics as they developed in Mesopotamia to Athirat simply because the earliest records attest to the former.6 When dealing with the complex Akkadian evidence we must let the the general difficulty of this exercise. 3For information throughout this section I am indebted to helpful private communications from Prof. W. G. Lambert of Birmingham University and Dr. S. Dalley of the Oriental Institute of Oxford University. They helped make some sense of the many diverse sources which I had located, and also drew my attention to the more updated versions and editions. I will draw attention to the information which they have generously supplied; however, the interpretation of the material and any mistakes are my own. 4P. Jensen, “Die Götter Amurru(ū) und Ašratu” ZA 11 (1896–1897): 302–305; H. Zimmern, “Religion und Sprache” in Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, third edition, E. Schrader, ed., Berlin, 1902: 432–434; Ebeling, “Ašratu”: 169. I shall present the evidence for this relationship in the course of this study. For a detailed study of Amurru see J.-R. Kupper, L’iconographie du dieu Amurru dans la glyptique de la Ire dynastie babylonienne (Classe des Lettres, Mémoires 55), Brussels, 1961. 5I wish to thank Prof. Lambert for drawing my attention to this essential point. 6This is a difficulty found in Yamashita’s study. He states that: It is apparent that the position of the goddess Asherah is that of kallātu in the Old Babylonian pantheon, because Amurru is the son of the heaven-god, and the goddess Asherah, having come from another land to be his bride, eventually takes the position of the “crown princess”. In the Ugaritic text II AB I 15–16, IV–V 53–

154

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

texts and contexts inform us of Ashratu’s character and nature. I hope that by the end of this exploration, some preliminary hypotheses may be adduced as to the characteristics of the figure Ashratu as she developed in Mesopotamia. A word should be added about my use of the terms “Mesopotamian” and “Akkadian”. Mesopotamia, the land “between the rivers”, originally referred to the region of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. It was approximately comprised of what is now the territory of Iraq. This area was divided into the nations of Babylonia in the south and Assyria in the north. The language of these states was Akkadian. The Sumerian culture preceded the Babylonian culture in the south of Mesopotamia. I shall be using “Akkadian” to designate the various dialects of the written scripts of Babylonian and Assyrian nations. Akkadian is attested from about the middle of the third millennium B.C.E. and although it overlaps with the Sumerian language, it superseded it in many respects. Ashratu is mentioned in both Sumerian and Akkadian sources. She is referred to in materials from the extremities of the empires, as well as in the oldest cities within them. In this area of study caution is required. Too much caution would eliminate our investigation altogether; yet research unaware of this necessary reminder runs the risk of assuming far too much.7 In the course of this study, I shall attempt to keep the difficulties in the forefront, but not to stifle what may be gleaned from extant sources concerning Ashratu. Initially it should be noted that in the major collections of divine names and epithets from the early part of this century, namely the studies of Deimel8 and Tallqvist,9 Ashratu does find a mention. Roberts, although he 54, Asherah is in parallel with the perfect daughter-in-law... The same epithet is attributed to the Sumero-Akkadian and Ugaritic Asherah. (The Goddess Asherah: 13– 14.) This analysis assumes a parallel development between Athirat and Ashratu, without offering further textual support. 7For a reasoned approach to this problem see W. G. Lambert, “The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism” in Unity and Diversity, Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies), H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, eds. Baltimore, 1975: 191–200. 8A. Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum. Nomina Deorum e Textibus Cuneiformibus Excerpta et Ordine Alphabetico (Scriptal Pontificii Instituti Biblici) Rome, 1914; see also the second edition in Šumerisches Lexikon, part 4/1, Rome, 1950. 9K. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta, mit einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

155

does mention Ashratu in a footnote, does not count her among the members of the “earliest Semitic pantheon”, as she does not appear to be “attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III”.10 Sumerian Votive Inscription One of the most important sources for discovering the attributes and epithets of Ashratu is an inscribed limestone slab from the reign of Hammurabi (B. M. 22,454). This slab contains a Sumerian votive inscription accompanied by a bas-relief of Hammurabi. The provenance is uncertain, but many scholars favour Sippar. Hammurabi’s dates are c.1792–1750 B.C.E., according to the middle chronology of his reign. These dates provide a terminus ad quem for the inscription. Translations of this text are available in King,11 Sollberger and Kupper,12 Yamashita,13 and most recently in Frayne.14 This inscription has been the subject of much discussion for many decades.15 The translation here presented is that of Frayne, with discussion following. Transcriptions of the Sumerian are also found in King, Yamashita, and Frayne. 1–10) For [the goddess Aš]ratum, daughter-in-law of the god An, the one suitable for ladyship, lady of voluptuousness and happiness, ten-

prädikativen Elemente der sumerischen Götternamen (Studia Orientalia Edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica VII), Helsinki, 1938: see especially pages 26, 60, 111, 252, 265, and 318. 10J. J. M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III, Baltimore, 1971: 63, footnote 6. The quote is from the title of the book. 11L. King, Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi (Luzac’s Semitic Text and Translation Series 8) vol. 3, London, 1900: 159 (King’s number 66). 12E. Sollberger and J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes (Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 3), Paris, 1971: 219. 13Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah: 3–7. 14D. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 B.C.) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 4), Toronto, 1990: 359–360. I am indebted to Prof. Lambert for directing me to this source. 15See for example, H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, vol. 2, Leipzig, 1894: 145–146, A. Sayce, “Recent Biblical Archaeology” ET 10 (1898–99): 267–268, M. Stol, Studies in Old Babylonian History (Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 40), Leiden, 1976: 83, as well as Frayne, Old Babylonian Period: 359, and the references there.

156

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH derly cared for in the mountain, lady with patient mercy, who prays reverently for her spouse, his lady, 11–13) for the li[fe] of Ḫammu-r[āpi], king of the Amo[rites], 14–20) Itūr-ašd[um], chief of the [S]ilakku canal (district), son of Šubāil[ān], the servant who re[verences her, set up] as a wonder a protective genius befitting her d[ivi]nity, [in her] beloved residence.16

This particular inscription was the basis for Yamashita’s study of Mesopotamian Ashratu,17 and indeed, it may be the most important source of information on her found in Mesopotamia. I shall summarise Yamashita’s conclusions, then reassess the inscription itself to determine what it may add to our knowledge of Ashratu. Yamashita summarised the information in four points: 1. Asherah is the “lady of the mountain”. 2. She is the daughter-in-law of the heaven-god. 3. She has the same epithet as Ishtar. 4. She is an Amorite deity.18

If the characteristics listed by Yamashita are indeed correct, they would point to substantial differences between the development of this goddess and the Ugaritic Athirat. Before any certain statement can be made, however, the epithets contained in this inscription must be considered. Firstly I shall discuss Yamashita’s third point: Ashratu has the same epithet as Ishtar. This, he believes, points to a confusion of the two goddesses. The epithet in question is nin šà-lá-sù, which he translates as “the merciful lady” (Frayne’s “lady with patient mercy”). Although this epithet is also applied to Ishtar, it does not give explicit evidence of any confusion between Ashratu and Ishtar as Yamashita suggests.19 The epithet is also applied to Marduk, Ninurta, Nergal, and Sîn;20 and in view of its wide usage, it should not be considered as indicative of confusion. Yamashita supplements this title with evidence from the epithet bēlit ṣēri, also applied to both Ishtar and Ashratu.21 This epithet, however, has specific associations for Ashratu as the spouse of Amurru, as I shall discuss below. It is of interest, 16Frayne,

Old Babylonian Period: 359–360. The Goddess Asherah: 3–30. 18Yamashita, The Goddessa Asherah: 7. 19The Goddess Asherah: 19–22. 20Lambert, private communication 15 February 1992. 21The Goddess Asherah: 20. 17Yamashita,

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

157

however, that this epithet has been taken to suggest underworldly connotations for Ashratu.22 It also appears that “Ashrat of Esagila” and Ishtar were identified in a late mystical text (see below). Caution, however, is necessary. As Oppenheim has noted, the sharing of epithets is a common feature of different deities in Mesopotamian religion,23 and not necessarily a sign of confusion. Yamashita’s third piece of evidence for the confusion of Ashratu and Ishtar is the theophoric names in El-Amarna letters 61–65, although he does note that this does not prove that any confusion necessarily existed between the two.24 In the light of the fact that epithets are often shared by Mesopotamian deities, the sharing of two titles by Ashratu and Ishtar occasions no surprise. The major gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon collected many epithets, and Ishtar is a major deity. I simply note here that Yamashita suggests an identification of the two. We must now turn to the epithets as found in the inscription. The first title of Ashratu to appear in this inscription names her as the daughter-in-law of the heaven-god, An. There has been a dispute over the correct translation of the phrase behind this epithet. King, Sollberger and Kupper, read é-gi4-a-an-na as “bride of An”.25 Lambert, Frayne and Dalley translate it as “daughter-in-law of An”.26 The correct understanding of this phrase is important for determining how the Mesopotamian world understood Ashratu. Mesopotamian Ashratu is normally considered to be the consort of Amurru. Is she here the bride or the daughter-in-law of An? The answer to this question lies in the interpretation of é-gi4-a (= kallatum), a term which may denote “daughter-in-law” or “bride”.27 The resolution of the difficulty may be that kallatum is used in the sense of “daughter-in-law, i.e. bride chosen by father of groom”;28 thus in both translations the daughter-in-law connotation is primary. This term is generally used as “daughter22K.

Tallqvist, Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt (Studia Orientalia Edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica v 4), Helsinki, 1934: 17–22. See also S. Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies, Paris, 1913: 129, n. 5. 23Ancient Mesopotamia: 194. 24Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah: 22. 25King, Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi: 196; Sollberger and Kupper, Inscriptions royales: 219. 26Lambert, private communication of 15 February 1992; Frayne, Old Babylonian Period: 359; S. Dalley, private communication of 23 January 1991. 27von Soden, AHw: 426, “Schwiegertochter; Braut”. 28I am indebted to S. Dalley for this information, private communication 23 January 1991.

158

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

in-law” in connection with goddesses.29 In the light of this information and of the consideration of the relationship of Ashratu and Amurru as consorts, this phrase should be understood as “daughter-in-law”. The second epithet applied to Ashratu in this inscription is “the one suitable for ladyship”.30 We should probably not read too much into this title, as it would be an appropriate expression of respect for any goddess. The epithet “lady of voluptuousness and happiness” (line 4) may point to an erotic aspect of the goddess. Although Athirat appears to be of a sexually active nature in the Ugaritic Baal Cycle, this does not indicate that she was considered to be an erotic figure there. The phrase ḫi-li (luxury, voluptuousness) also appears in connection with Ashratu in the series Tintir = Bābilu (see below). Lines 5-6 read “tenderly cared for in the mountain”.31 Sollberger and Kupper render it as “s’occupent tendrement de la montagne”.32 This phrase indicates a connection with a mountain, as noted by Yamashita.33 This connection with “the mountain” also appears in Amurru’s epithet bēl šadī, “lord of the mountain”.34 This common association with the mountain supports the consort relationship of Amurru and Ashratu. The phrase probably refers to Ashratu’s being looked after by Amurru.35 Her further characterisation as the “lady with patient mercy, who prays reverently for her spouse” could simply be understood as underscoring Ashratu’s divine qualities and faithfulness. An interesting aspect of this inscription is the dedication of a “protective genius” (dlamma) for Ashratu. Frayne considers the possibility that this limestone slab may have been “a fragment of a lamassu figure”.36

29CAD

K, vol. 8: 81–82. translation, Old Babylonian Period: 359. 31Frayne, Old Babylonian Period: 359. 32Inscriptions royales: 219. 33The Goddess Asherah: 8–11. 34Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum: 177; Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta: 251. See G. Reisner, Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln Griechischer Zeit (Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen X), Berlin, 1896: 139, lines 141–144. 35This aspect was pointed out by Lambert, private communication of 15 February 1992. 36Frayne, Old Babylonian Period: 359. 30Frayne’s

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

159

God Lists Ashratu appears, to my knowledge, in three of the main god lists which have survived from ancient Mesopotamia.37 The names in these lists are arranged according to various theological or lexical criteria.38 AN = Anum The largest god list known from ancient Mesopotamia is AN = Anum (also cited as AN= (ilu) Anum). This list is based on predecessors from the Old Babylonian period; however, it has been much reworked during the course of its transmission. We are able to determine that Ashratu entered the tradition in post-Old Babylonian times. The format of this list is double column, with the second column offering further information on the deity list in the first. Parts of AN = Anum are known in several recensions. The hand copies of King in CT 24 and 2539 were based on the tablets in the British Museum which were known to him. Zimmern published a study of this list in preparation for an edition.40 This list is analytically arranged according to seniority in the pantheon of the particular deity, who is followed by his or her family or courtiers.41 Ashratu occurs in this list as the spouse of Amurru. Unfortunately her list of names is not very helpful, as they are obscure.42 The relevant section is Tablet VI, lines 251 to 265, which contains the following Semitic epithets of Ashratu: da-ba, da-ba-ba,43 da-na-tum, da-batum, dat-ku-pí-tum, dì-lí-ia-tum, and dé-kur-ri-tum.44 Given the obscure nature of some of these names, they add little to our present knowledge of the goddess Ashratu, other than confirming her place in the pantheon as the spouse of Amurru. The final epithet cited, however, is of some interest. “Ekurrītum is a feminine adjectival form from Ekurru ‘temple’ or ‘nether37I do not include epithets in the following exploration unless they are explicitly connected with Ashratu in the lists. 38For a synopsis of the major lists see W. G. Lambert “Götterlisten” in RLA 3 (1957–1971): 473–479. 39L. W. King, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, parts XXIV and XXV, London, 1908 and 1909. 40H. Zimmern, “Zur Herstellung der großen babylonischen Götterliste An = (ilu) Anum.” BSGW 63 (1911): 83–125. 41Lambert “Götterlisten.”: 475. 42Lambert, private communication, 26 May 1991. 43These first two names are not certainly Semitic. 44I am indebted to Prof. Lambert for providing me with this information in his letter of 26 May 1991.

160

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

world’”.45 This is of interest in that Tallqvist associated Ashratu with the realm of the dead by her epithet bēlit ṣēri.46 The Weidner List47 Besides the well known god list AN = Anum, Schroeder published “a new type of god list from Assur” in 1921.48 Schroeder divided the five fragments from Assur which comprise this list into three catagories, depending on how much remained of the original text.49 Although partially reconstructed on the basis of an El-Amarna fragment, Ashratum appeared in his list.50 Weidner worked further on this text, expanding the number of member fragments to eight.51 His work pushes the date for the origin of this list back to Old Babylonian times.52 The list from which these fragments come is now completely preserved and has been published by A. Cavigneaux.53 The context would seem to indicate that at the time of Ur III Ashratu was considered to be the spouse of Amurru. The context, according to Cavigneaux’s ordering is: Amurru 187 dmar.dú Amurru 188 dAN.mar.dú d Ašratum54 189 aš-ra-tum This list is known in several recensions. A late Babylonian edition from Kish was published by van der Meer.55 Nougayrol published recen45Lambert,

private communication, 26 May 1991. Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt: 17–22. This idea is also reflected in Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies: 129, n. 5. 47This is the name provided for this list by Lambert (“Götterlisten.”: 474). 48O. Schroeder, “Ein neuer Götterlistentypus aus Assur” ZA 33 (1921): 123– 147. 49Schroeder, “Götterlistentypus”: 126–127. 50Schroeder, “Götterlistentypus”: 133, 135. 51E. Weidner, “Altbabylonische Götterlisten” AfK 2 (1924–25): 1–18, 71–82. 52Weidner, “Götterlisten”: 2–7. 53A. Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša ḫarê (Texts from Babylon 1), Baghdad, 1981. 54Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires: 94, the transcription of the names is according to the rendering of Lambert, private communications. 55P. E. van der Meer, Syllabaries A, B1 and B with Miscellaneous Lexicographical Texts from the Herbert Weld Collection (Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 4), Oxford, 1938: 58 (no. 143). 46Tallqvist,

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

161

sions found at Ugarit (RS 20.175 and 20.121).56 Besides informing us of the association of Ashratu with Amurru, these god-lists serve to demonstrate how widely known this particular alternate list to AN = Anum was. It was known in at least Kish, Babylon,57 Sippar, Assur, Ugarit and El Amarna.58 The Mesopotamian lists range from the Old to Late Babylonian periods, whilst the text from Ugarit dates from the Late Bronze Age, the destruction of Ugarit being its terminus ad quem. In relation to the Ugaritic understanding of Athirat, it should be pointed out that the scribes of Ugarit had in their possession this list (to them foreign) which denotes Ashratu as the spouse of Amurru. We are at a loss to know if they considered this unusual in the light of her Ugaritic association as the spouse of El. Perhaps the equation of Ashratu with Athirat was not made by these scribes, or perhaps they equated Amurru with El. Unfortunately, we have no documentation to assist us on this matter. Nippur God List (CBS 13889) Among the oldest sources for referring to Mesopotamian Ashratu is a god list from Nippur, published by Chiera in 1929.59 In Chiera’s text number 122 Rev., Col. V, (text 124 Rev. line 21 seems to be a duplicate list) line 17 reads: daš-ra-tum. This text dates from the early centuries of the second millennium B.C.E. Chiera suggested that in regard to this text some added information may be gleaned: Of special importance in this respect is No. 122, Col. VII. The scribe had already written down all the names of gods preceded by the determinative. In this last column he lists the foreign gods, without determinative. Among these foreigners we find the well-known Ea and Ishtar.60

56J.

Nougayrol, “Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit” Ug 5 (1968): 54, 220. 57Cavigneaux points to Babylon as the source of this list. 58Lambert has informed me of the Sippar and El-Amarna lists; however, I do not have access to any actual editions of the texts. 59E. Chiera, Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur (OIP XI), Chicago, 1929: 63. This is the list with which C.-F. Jean was concerned in his article “Noms divins sumériens listes des élèves-scribes de Nippur” RA 28 (1931): 179– 194. 60Chiera, Sumerian Lexical Texts: 1–2.

162

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

As Lambert has pointed out, however, the deities in this list are not all foreign, as Chiera had supposed.61 The context of Ashratu’s place in the list is unfortunately not too helpful, as she appears near the end in a disorderly section.62 The reconstructed sequence reads: dimin.bi The Seven (Pleiades) daš-ra-tum

Ašratum

dDÌM.ME

(the female demon) Lamaštu63

Such a text naming Ashratu indicates that the priests of Nippur, by their possession of this list, did know of her. The text does not add any characteristics to our understanding of the goddess, or any details indicating from whence she came. The Series Tintir = Bābilu From the ancient series Tintir = Bābilu comes a mention of Ashratu. A recension of this list (K. 3089) was published as early as 1900 by Pinches.64 Unger provided a study of this series, as did van der Meer.65 Line 17 of Tintir = Bābilu IV reads: é. ḫ i.li.kalam.ma = bīt daš-ra-tum Lambert translates this as “House of the luxury of the land = temple of Ašratum”.66 Although there is not much that we can gather from this brief mention, it is clear that Ashratu was a possessor of a temple in Babylon itself, and therefore she presumably had an active cult there. Clay published a calendar which specifies the offerings and rites for Babylonian temples for the months of Marchesan, Kislev, and Tebet.67 In his transcription we find 61Private 62As

communication 15 February 1992. indicated in a private communication of Prof. W. G. Lambert, March

1991. 63Quoted Prof. Lambert’s letter, March 1991. 64T. Pinches, “The Temples of Ancient Babylonia I.” PSBA 22 (1900): 358– 371. 65E. Unger, Babylon, die Heilige Stadt nach der Berschreibung der Babylonier, second edition, Berlin, 1970 (this is a photo-mechanical reprint of the original 1931 text): chapter 24; P. E. van der Meer, “A Topography of Babylon” Iraq 5 (1938): 55–64. 66Private communication, March 1991. 67A. Clay, Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, part 4, New Haven, 1923: 44, 58.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

163

dAš-ra-tum

E-ḫi-li-kalam-ma,68 that is, the same formula in the previous Tintir = Bābilu listing.69 These two pieces of evidence permit us only the privilege of knowing that Ashratu’s temple took part in the rites carried out in the general inventory of Babylonian temples and that her temple was known as “the house of the luxury of the land”.70 It is also of interest that the Sumerian term ḫi-li used in this expression is the same term used to describe Ashratu as a “lady of voluptuousness” (ḫi-li) in the Sumerian votive inscription discussed in 5.A.i. above. Cylinder Seals Sayce published an Old Babylonian cylinder seal which pairs Ashratu with the god Rammanum.71 The name Rammanum on this seal is translated as “rumbler” and is elsewhere explicitly identified with Amurru.72 From the reign of Rîm-Sin of Larsa (c. 1822–1763) we possess four administrative documents, the seals of which bear the name dA-ši-ra-tum.73 This evidence testifies to the fact that she was known in the early second millennium at Larsa. The spelling of her name as “Ashiratum” also points to her West Semitic origins. Since “Akkadian does not tolerate 3 short vowels separated by single consonants”74 this name would not appear to be East Semitic in origin. With the dropping of the middle i, the name becomes the more common form of “Ashratu”. The Old Babylonian period also coincides with the beginnings of the Amorite influence in the regions of Sumer and Akkad, thus further supporting Ashratu’s West Semitic origins.75 68Clay,

Babylonian Records: 58 (number 25, line 38). of these two quotations may also be found in E. Unger, Babylon: 230,

69Editions

260–261. 70See also E. Unger, “Babylon” in RLA 1: 351. 71A. Sayce, “Babylonian Cylinders in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg” ZA 6 (1891): 161. 72W. G. Lambert, “Near Eastern Seals in the Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art, University of Durham” Iraq 41 (1979): 13; W. A. Maier, ʾAšerah : Extrabiblical Evidence: 204, note 6. 73D. E. Faust, Contracts from Larsa Dated in the Reign of Rîm Sin (YBT VIII), New Haven, 1941: no. 19, seal, no. 31, seal, no. 45, seal, and no. 72, seal. I am grateful to S. Dalley, private communication, 5 May 1991, for pointing out this reference to me. 74Lambert, private communication,15 February 1992. 75I thank Prof. Lambert for explaining this connection to me, private communi-

164

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

The index of S. Feigin’s Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-Iluna refers to two further documents bearing seals with the name dAš-ra-tum.76 In fact, neither seal clearly reads “Ashratum”, and there is some doubt that she is mentioned in them at all.77 In this same collection of texts, a gudu 4 -priest of Ashratu is mentioned, testifying to an active cult for her at this period (c. 1749–1712) in the First Dynasty of Babylon.78 Other cylinder seals, to which I have no access, also refer to Amurru and Ashratu.79 These references add little to our knowledge of Ashratu’s character, but they do point to her Amorite origins and indicate various times when she was known. Ritual Texts Ashratu appears in at least three ritual texts. One is a ritual of the Seleucid period in Uruk, translated by Thureau-Dangin. The others are ritual texts from the same period published by Reisner. These texts display specialised ritual arrangements which may add to our knowledge of Ashratu at this period. The Uruk Temple Ritual Thureau-Dangin published ritual texts of the temple of Anu in Uruk from six tablets.80 He divided these rituals into four chapters: 1. The daily sacrifices of the temple of Anu 2. The new year festival at Uruk 3. The festival of Ishtar 4. A nocturnal ceremony in the temple of Anu81 cation, 15 February 1992. 76S. I. Feigin, Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-Iluna (YBT XII), New Haven, 1979: 62, the seals are on documents 402 and 462. 77Lambert (private communication, 15 February 1992) has demonstrated the difficulties of both impressions to me. 78Feigin, Legal and Administrative Texts: no. 353, line 26. Dalley, private communication, 5 May 1991, drew my attention to this reference. This is the source of the information for J. Renger’s reference to a g udu 4 priest of Ashratu (“Untersuchungen aum Priestertum der altbabylonischen Zeit 2. Teil” ZA 59 (N.F. 25, 1969): 158–159, cited by Louie, The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah: 81). 79These sources were drawn to my attention by Lambert, private communication of 15 February 1992. 80F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, Paris, 1921: 61–125.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

165

The references to Ashrat occur in the tablets describing the new year festival. The text concerned (VAT 7849) deals with the akītu of the month Nisan. Although the text was found in Assur, Thureau-Dangin notes that it probably originated at Warka.82 These detailed instructions mention Ashrat three times in a list of other deities in the procession of Anu. The first reference in this text is column I, line 15. Ashrat occurs in the following list of deities: Bêlit-ilê, Šala, the daughters of Anu, Aya, Gula, Nin-eš-gal, Amasag-nu-du, Sa-dar-nun-na, Ašrat, and Šarrat-šamê.83 The next reference to her is column II, line 6. Here Ashrat occurs in the same list of deities with the exception of Gula, who is replaced by the names Meme and Bau.84 The final reference in column III line 25 maintains the order of deities in column II line 6, with Nin-si-an-na replacing Bêlit-ilê.85 These references to Ashrat in the rituals of the temple of Anu at Uruk simply point to the fact that she held a place in the pantheon there and was active in the cult of Anu. Her place in a formulaic listing of other deities informs us little of her character. The Reisner Texts Text IV of the appendix of G. Reisner’s Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit dates from the Arsacid period86 (from the second century B.C.E. into the Common Era). This text is a bilingual hymn giving Akkadian equivalents to Sumerian deities. Among the deities listed is Ashratu. Although the colophon is missing, the text is dated by comparison with similar hymns. Lines 141–144 of text IV read in both Sumerian and Akkadian: Amurru, who is lord of the mountain. Ashratu, the lady of the steppe.87

81Rituels

accadiens: 61. accadiens: 99. 83Rituels accadiens: 100, 104. 84Rituels accadiens: 101, 105. 85Rituels accadiens: 102, 106. 86Pages viii–x. More up-to-date translations can be found in Mark E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of the Ancient Mesopotamians, Potomac, 1988 (cited by Lambert, unavailable to me). 87Translation based on the reading of Yamashita, Goddess Asherah: 8. 82Rituels

166

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

This text equates Gubarra with Ashratu, as do Reisner’s text No. 50 (VAT 415)88 and a late mystical text (see below). Furthermore, the epithet bēlit ṣēri is also applied to dgú-bar-ra, spouse of dmar-dú in this text.89 The title bēlit ṣēri, “lady of the steppe”, has led to various considerations of Ashratu’s characteristics. Lambert suggests that the epithets here again demonstrate that Amurru and Ashratu were consorts.90 The title “lord of the mountain” (bêl šadî) is applied to Amurru. A. Heidel suggested in 1949 that the Akkadian word šadû also had connotations of “steppe” or “open country”.91 This meaning is also accepted by CAD.92 Thus Ashratu and Amurru have similar epithets which relate them to the steppe-land.93 This title of Ashratu was used by Tallqvist to associate her with the underworld.94 He notes that “steppe” is a common designation for the realm of the dead and that the application of this title to Ashratu indicates her association with the netherworld. This association of the steppe and the realm of the dead has much to commend it. However, as it is not the primary meaning of the term ṣēru,95 we must not assume that Ashratu was necessarily associated with the underworld on the basis of this epithet. Mystical Text (B.M. 34035) A late mystical text (B.M. 34035) was originally published as planetary tablet Sp. I. 131, by Epping and Strassmaier.96 It dates from 138 B.C.E. and was found in Borsippa. Epping and Strassmaier had classified this tablet as an astronomical work. A. Livingstone, however, has demonstrated that this text is actually a “mystical explanatory work”.97 The key to understanding the information provided in such texts is to understand how Mesopotamian 88Sumerisch-babylonische

Hymnen: 92. Hymnen: 92; see Zimmern, “Religion und Sprache”: 433– 434; and Jensen, “Die Götter Amurru(ū) und Ašratu”: 303–304. 90Private communication, 15 February 1992. 91“A Special Usage of the Akkadian Term šadû” JNES 8 (1949): 233–235. 92Š, vol. 17, part I, šadû A: 49–59. 93I am indebted to Prof. Lambert for informing me of this association. 94Tallqvist, Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt: 17–22. 95CAD vol. 16, Ṣ, ṣēru: 138–150. 96J. Epping and J. Strassmaier, “Neue babylonische Planeten-Tafeln.” ZA 6 (1891): 241. 97Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, Oxford, 1986: 61–62. 89Sumerisch-babylonische

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

167

scholars understood their mystical scholarship. Livingstone has explored the various methods which comprised this intellectual tradition. It was usual for almost every type of information to be summarized and recorded by listing pairs of associated items, arranged in columns. This technique acquired specialised conventions appropriate to the particular subject matter involved. The principle of expressing information by simple juxtaposition is so universal in the literature that it is sometimes necessary to raise the question of the extent to which the actual thinking of the ancient scholars was influenced by this aspect of their practical methodology.98

This mystical text falls into Livingstone’s category of philological associations.99 On what seems to be a superficial level to modern scholars, the writers of this tablet demonstrated the relationship between Ashrat and Gubarra. I will follow the transcription and translation of Livingstone’s study here. Lines 8–13 read as follows: d

gú.bar.ra: aš-rat : gú: ki-šá-du: bar: za-a-ri d d aš-rat šá é-zi-da ṣabītu (maš.dà) šú-ú u kišād-su zi-i-ri aš-rat šá é-sag-íl d d d šar-ra-ḫi-tu 4: inanna ! : ši-i : šá-ra-ḫi-i-tú : aš-rat a-ḫi-i-tu 4 mul-ṭu u mu-šá-lu šá ina qātē II-šú kak-ku sak-ku šu-ú muš-šu-lu šá múladda eš.bar pu-ru-us-su-ú : eš: še-la-ša-a 4: bar: meš- li d

ulta (ta) ud.15.kam šar-rat LÁ-ma purussê (eš.bar) i-šak-kan Gubarra: Ašrat. gú: neck. bar: to hate. Ašrat of Ezida is a gazelle, and she is shunned. Ašrat of Esagila is Šarrāḫītu, Inanna. Šarrāḫītu (the proud one) is Ašrat the foreigner (ašrat aḫītu) The comb and mirror in her hands—it is obtuse and obscure—is a representation of the corpse star. eš.bar: decision. eš: 30. bar: half. It is from the 15th day that the divine queen... and makes the decisions.100 Such a late text can tell us little about the character of Ashratu as it had been in the earlier periods. By the time this text was written, Ashrat (Ashratu) had become associated with the Sumerian goddess Gubarra, and thus 98Livingstone,

Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works: 2. Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works: 2–3. 100Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works: 61. 99Livingstone,

168

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

shared her epithets. This text also makes an identification of Ashrat of Esagila with Inanna (Ishtar). This identification is not supported for earlier attestations of Ashratu in Mesopotamian texts; the common epithet cited by Yamashita does not point to an identification of the characters at that early period.101 In the course of the development of her character, however, she was identified with Ishtar by the second century B.C.E. Since the mystical nature of the identifications here presented is not fully understood, we must be careful when building upon them. In consideration of the epithet ekurrītum in the god list AN = Anum, the association of Ashrat here with the “corpse star” may provide slight support for an underworldly connection for Ashratu. Theophoric Names Thureau-Dangin published two separate contracts on which the personal name Ashratum-ummi, “Ashratum is my mother”, appears.102 Both of these contracts date from the reign of Hammurabi. They testify to the use of Ashratu’s name in a theophoric personal name, but only tell us that the parents of this individual apparently worshipped her. I also include the Tell El-Amarna letters which mention Abdi-Ashirta in this chapter since they were written in Akkadian, although the subject matter actually concerns Egypt and Amurru. The El-Amarna tablets provide little further information concerning Ashratu. Some 52 tablets from El-Amarna contain the name of a prince of Amurru called Abdi-Ashirta, “servant of Ashirta”.103 His name occurs some 92 times, and it is spelled variously as abdi-a-ši-ir-ta, abdi-a-ši-ir-ti(te), abdi-aš-ra-tum, abdi- iltu aš-ra-tum, abdi-aš-ra-ti, abdi- iltu aš-ra-ti, abdi-aš-ra-ta, ab-di-aš-ta-ti, abdu-iltu aštarti, ad-ra101See

the discussion under section 5.A.1. Sumerian Votive Inscription. Thureau-Dangin, Lettres et contrats de l’époque de la première dynastie babylonienne (Musée du Louvre—Département des Antiquités Orientales {Textes Cuneiformes 1}), Paris, 1910: numbers 89, line 7; 98, line 8; and 99, line 8. Number 99 is the envelope for number 98. 103For editions of the El-Amarna correspondence see H. Winckler, “Die Thontafeln von Tell-El-Amarna” in Sammlung von assyrischen und babylonischen Texten im Umschrift und Ubersetzung (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek V), E. Schrader, ed., Berlin, 1896; J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (Reihenfolge des Erscheinens der Vorderasiatischen Bibliothek 2), 2 vols., Leipzig, 1915; S. A. B. Mercer, The Tell ElAmarna Tablets, 2 vols., Toronto, 1939; and W. L. Moran, in collaboration with V. Haas and G. Wilhelm, Les lettres d’El-Amarna (Littératures Anciennes du ProcheOrient 13), Paris, 1987. 102F.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

169

aštarti.104 Some of the differences in spelling can be accounted for by the vicissitudes of the syllabic Akkadian script; however, when the name occurs as Abdu-Ashtarti, a certain confusion appears to be present. Was the goddess Ashratu confused with the goddess Athtart by the dictator of the letter, or the scribe? Considering the contemporaneity of the El-Amarna tablets with Ugarit, it would appear unlikely that an Amorite prince would have confused these two goddesses, since Athirat and Athtart were clearly distinguished at Ugarit. Since there are no Egyptian records directly naming the goddess Ashratu (or Athirat), it is perhaps possible that the distinction of the two was unknown in Egypt. Whatever the reason for this confusion of names, we are given no information on the character of the goddess Ashratu, other than the fact that her name was utilised as the theophoric element in the personal name of an Amorite prince. The Marriage of Martu A text published by E. Chiera in 1924 is concerned with the story of the Marriage of Martu.105 “Martu” is the Sumerian form of “Amurru”, the consort of Ashratu. Although this text does not directly mention Ashratu, it has long been considered to refer to her in the spouse of Martu.106 S. Kramer summarised the story in his Sumerian Mythology,107 but did not name Martu’s spouse as Ashratu. The story relates how Martu came to be married. Observing that all his friends had wives, Martu asked his mother to arrange for him to have one as well. She agreed to do this after he built a temple. Martu built the temple and was given the hand of his bride. Kramer has recently published this myth as well.108 According to Kramer, the bride is called dadní-ki-šar.109 In AN = Anum VI 261, among the epithets of Amurru’s

104The spellings follow the rendering of O. Weber, in Knudtzon, Die ElAmarna-Tafeln: 1555. 105Sumerian Religious Texts (Crozer Theological Seminary Babylonian Publications 1), Upland, Pennsylvania, 1924: 14–23. 106See Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah: 26–28. 107Sumerian Mythology, a Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 21), Philadelphia, 1944: 98–101. 108Prof. Lambert has informed me of this publication, which is unavailable to me: S. N. Kramer, “The Marriage of Martu” in Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology dedicated to Pinḥas Artzi, Bar-Ilan, 1990: 12–27. 109As cited by Lambert, private communication, 15 February, 1992.

170

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

spouse is the name dad-NÍG ni-ki-šáršar.110 In this same list Ashratu is named as the spouse of Amurru, thus equating the two goddesses. By deduction, therefore, we find a reference to Ashratu in this text. Unfortunately, although this text confirms Ashratu’s status as the spouse of Amurru, it does not add any further information to our understanding of her character. The Taanach Letter One further piece of evidence must be included under the heading of Sumero-Akkadian sources, although the tablet in question was actually found in the Palestinian tell Taanach.111 Among the materials discovered at Taanach was a tablet written in Akkadian cuneiform which mentions Ashratu. Although this text is frequently cited in studies on Asherah, it informs us little of her nature or character. After many years of the acceptance of Hrozný’s rendering of the phrase u-ba-an iluA-ši-rat (lines 20-21) as “der Finger der Aširat”112 by many scholars, Albright demonstrated that the reading should be understood as u-ma(!)-an dA-ši-rat.113 He translated this phrase as “a wizard of Asherah”,114 and has been subsequently followed by many scholars concerned with this text. This letter is addressed to a certain Rewašša, and after the greeting reads: Further, and if there is a wizard of Asherah, let him tell our fortunes, and let me hear quickly (?); and the (oracular) sign and interpretation send to me.115

This letter dates from the Amarna period, and appears to suggest that Ashirat had a diviner in Taanach. The Ashirat mentioned in this text occurs in the northern part of Palestine during the period in which Ugarit was flourishing. There is no reason to doubt that Athirat is the goddess in110I

am indebted to Prof. Lambert for pointing this connection out to me. Sellin, Tell Taʿannek (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse L), Vienna, 1904. The letter (number 1) was transliterated and translated by F. Hrozný in “Keilschrifttexte aus Taʿannek” in the same volume, pages 113–114. 112“Keilschrifttexte”: 114. 113W. F. Albright, “A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B.C.” BASOR 94 (1944): 18. 114“Prince of Taanach”: 18. 115Following the translation of Albright, “Prince of Taanach”: 18. 111E.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

171

tended here; her name is spelled according to a standard Akkadian transliteration of the Ugaritic spelling. This letter indicates that Ashirat was known in Palestine at an early period. Conclusions from the Sumero-Akkadian Materials The Mesopotamian materials mentioning Ashratu are our earliest sources concerning this goddess. These sources indicate that Ashratu was understood to be an Amorite goddess and the consort of Amurru. Her appearance in the Mesopotamian sources from the Old Babylonian period coincides with the influx of Amorite elements in the area of southern Mesopotamia. Since Ugaritic Athirat appears in a kingdom neighbouring Amurru during the lifetime of the Akkadian-speaking empires, there is no reason to doubt that they were the same character in origin. In each culture, however, the goddess developed to meet the requirements of the individual culture. Mesopotamian Ashratu is characterised primarily by her relationship with Amurru. This is demonstrated in the god lists, cylinder seals and in the Sumerian votive inscription from the reign of Hammurabi. The Sumerian inscription is perhaps the most informative piece of information on the goddess. It allows us to conclude that Ashratu was considered to be the daughter-in-law of An; however, the significance of this relationship is lost to us. Her erotic nature may be emphasized in the phrase “lady of voluptuousness and happiness” (line 4). She is associated with a mountain, and this is probably an indication of her connection with Amurru. The god lists confirm Ashratu’s status as the consort of Amurru. AN = Anum provides further Semitic epithets for Ashratu; however, the significance of many of them is lost to us. The title ekurrītum is connected with either “temple” or “netherworld”, and the latter interpretation may be supported by her epithet bēlit ṣēri. The series Tintir = Bābilu connects Ashratu with the “luxury of the land” and attests to her having had a temple in Babylon. The ritual texts, theophoric names and Taanach letter do little more than attest to the presence of Ashratu in their various locations. The late mystical text from Borsippa demonstrates a connection between Ashrat of Esagila and Ishtar in the second century. How early this association developed we cannot state with certainty. This text may also point to a connection of Ashratu with the realm of the dead. Although Athirat and Ashratu most likely share a common origin, differences in development have occurred. Athirat of Ugarit is associated especially with the sea, as demonstrated above. Mesopotamian Ashratu appears to have developed a connection with the plain and mountain. We

172

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

have no evidence that she was connected to the sea. An original association with the steppe may appear in Athirat’s riding of a donkey in KTU 1.4.IV; however, this may be simply a sign of her status. In the existing Ugaritic tablets, we have no indication that Athirat was associated with the prosperity of the land in particular, nor does Athirat appear to have underworldly associations. These observations point to the differences in the development of the goddess in these two cultures. One common original characteristic may be present in her status as the consort of a major god. Although Amurru was not a major Mesopotamian deity, he was perceived to be the national god of the region of the Amorites (the west?). Ashratu appears to retain the status of a consort of an important god.

THE HITTITE EVIDENCE: THE MYTH OF ELKUNIRSA Since H. Otten’s study of the myth now known as the “Myth of Elkunirsa” was published in 1953,116 scholars dealing with the figure of Athirat/Asherah have taken an active interest in it. The story is contained on four small fragments and it is generally reconstructed along the following lines: Ashertu117 has attempted to seduce the Storm God (generally assumed to be Baal). The Storm God refuses her advances and reports the matter to Elkunirsa, the spouse of Ashertu. Elkunirsa hears the report of the Storm God and instructs him to sleep with Ashertu and humiliate her. The Storm God does so, informing Ashertu that he has slain 77/88 of her children. She grieves for seven years. The other episode is generally added after this, although the order of the fragments is not certain.118 This additional fragment relates how Elkunirsa and Ashertu plot against the Storm God, but the Storm God is assisted by Ishtar, who listens like a bird on the wall in Elkunirsa’s bed chamber. 116H.

150.

117I

Otten, “Ein kanaanäischer Mythus aus Boğazköy” MIO 1 (1953): 125–

follow the spelling of the name of this goddess as used by H. A. Hoffner, Jr. (Hittite Myths (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 2), Atlanta, 1990). The d d name presented in the texts appears with various spellings ( A-še-er-du-uš, A-še-erd tum, and ŠA A-še-er-ti); H. A. Hoffner, “The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered” RHA 76 (1965): 6, note 5; compair Otten, “Kanaanäischer Mythus”: 126, (Bo 2567 I) line 10. 118Hoffner, “Elkunirsa Myth”: 9.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

173

What is immediately striking, upon the realisation that the Hittite scholars show considerable caution with this text, is how readily it is used to support theories about Ugaritic Athirat. In the initial translations of this fragmentary text many key words had been designated as uncertain. Besides the difficulties of applying a text from a different cultural context directly to the mythology of Athirat, we are here faced with a text which does not provide us with a certain reading. Although the text displays the characteristics of a Canaanite myth, we must keep in mind the cultural contexts of both Boghazköy and Ugarit. They indeed influenced each other, but they were not identical. With this in mind, we must consider the identifications of the characters in these mythological fragments with their assumed Ugaritic counterparts. d Elkunirsa ( el-ku-ni-ir-ša) has been generally assumed to be a rendering of the Semitic ʾl qn(y) ʾrṣ, “El creator of the earth”.119 The difficulties with this association have not yet been resolved. Otten displayed caution with it: Will man auf eine Deutung des Gottesnamens Elkunirša nicht bewußt verzichten, so darf man auf das Götterparr Ascherat-El in den Mythen aus Ugarit verweisen, so daß der Versuch einer Gleichsetzung mit El qn ʾrṣ sowohl aus sachlichen wie sprachlichen Gründen durchaus gewagt werden muß.120

Goetze, in his translation in ANET notes, “This has been explained as Canaanite qōnē ʾarṣ ‘(El), creator of the earth’; but there are still some details connected with this identification that are not yet clear”.121 Specifically, the difficulties of explaining away the supposed shift from ṣade to shin remain an obstacle to this identification.122 Although the name certainly appears to be Semitic, a certain etymology is beyond our ability at this point. The identification of Elkunirsa with El is also partially based on his status as the spouse of Ashertu, just as Ugaritic El is the spouse of Athirat. We cannot rule out the possibility that Elkunirsa was a form of El, but it should be kept in 119See,

for example M. Pope “El” in Pope and H. Röllig, “Syrien” in Wörterbuch der Mythologie, ed. H. W. Haussig, Stuttgart, 1965: 280; and W. A. Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 34. 120H. Otten, “Kanaanäischer Mythus”: 138. 121A. Goetze, “El, Ashertu and the Storm-god” in ANET Supplement, Princeton, 1969: {519}, n. 1. 122See I. Gelb “The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples” JCS 15 (1961): 43.

174

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

mind that this association is not certain. In the light of these circumstances we should next examine the connection of Ashertu with Athirat. The name of Elkunirsa’s spouse in these fragments varies from place to place. The Hittite spelling is da-še-er-du-uš. The use of “Akkadianised” forms would seem to be an indicator of the borrowed nature of the myth. It is curious, however, that the writer used varying forms of a single character’s name; this may also point to the borrowing of the myth. The only certain source of information we have on the character of Athirat is the corpus of Elimelek cycles from Ugarit. Does the “Asherdush” of the Hittite version match the Ugaritic model? A possible interpretation of KTU 1.4.III.10–22 (see above) may tentatively support a desire of Athirat for Baal; however, this interpretation of a damaged section of the text must remain tentative. Ashertu’s plotting against the Storm God could be reflected in Anat’s cry in KTU 1.6.I.39–42: Now Athirat and her sons will rejoice, the Goddess and the company of her kin, for dead is Mighty Baal. . . Again the connection is circumstantial, although what we know of Athirat’s character may support such a relationship. The mourning of Ashertu in this text should be considered a standard reaction to any mythological character robbed of his or her progeny. In name Ashertu may match Athirat, and other indicators may point to an overlapping of their characters as well. The Storm God has been associated with Baal. This connection is problematic for Ugaritic connections. Baal is never pictured as sleeping with Athirat in the Ugaritic corpus. Both the Storm God of this text and Baal are associated with violent weather, but many storm gods are known from the ancient Near East, sometimes existing side by side.123 The Storm God in the Hittite myth is not named. If the writer intended to convey an Ugaritic tale, why did he not utilise the name or title of one of the chief characters? The association of the Ishtar of the Elkunirsa Myth with Anat (as many scholars suppose) is even more problematic. The name that appears in the text is written as an ideogram dIŠTAR.124 The connection with Anat 123This is the case, for example, in Mari: G. Dossin, “Le panthéon de Mari” in Studia Mariana, A. Parrot, ed., Leiden, 1950: 44–45; see E. Dhorme, “Les avatars du dieu Dagon” RHR 138 (1950): 129–144 where the storm god characteristics of Itour-Mêr are discussed. 124See Otten, “Kanaanäischer Mythus”: 142, and Goetze, “El, Ashertu and the Storm-god”: {519} note 5.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

175

is based on the speculation of the apparently Canaanite origin of the text, and the assumption that all the characters match Ugaritic ones. The Canaanite origin of this myth, however, has not been identified overtly as a scenario from Ugarit where Anat plays a major role. In conclusion, we have seen that the characters of Elkunirsa and Ashertu may be connected with El and Athirat of the Ugaritic Elimelek corpus. The cases for associating Baal and the Storm God or Anat and Ishtar are on less firm ground. This myth may indeed be a borrowed Canaanite story, but in the process of translation and transformation to another cultural context, we cannot assume that it remained unchanged. For our purposes, we can state that Ashertu would seem to fit the character of Athirat, but we should not use this fragmentary myth to build a hypothetical scenario to explain difficulties in the Ugaritic mythology. The remark of Otten concerning the Canaanite origin of this text should be kept in mind, “In Form und Aufbau stimmt die Erzählung mit den sonstigen Mythen aus Boğazköy weitgehend überein.”125

EPIGRAPHIC SOUTH ARABIAN SOURCES A further area which is relevent to our study of Athirat is that of PreIslamic South Arabia. The initial difficulty of a character study involving Old South Arabian Athirat is the scarcity of material sources. All that we know of the religion of this area has been gleaned from monumental inscriptions dating roughly from the middle of the first millennium B.C.E.126 to the middle of the first millennium C.E. Although these inscriptions, given their often dedicatory nature, bear directly upon the religious life of the people, they do not inform us much about the character of this individual goddess.127 In the early scholarship concerning South Arabian religion, an allpervasive astral triad was used to make sense of the confusing profusion of

125H.

Otten, “Kanaanäischer Mythus”: 135. Ryckmans, “Le panthéon de l’Arabie du Sud préislamique: Etat des problèmes et brève synthèse” RHR 206 (1989): 153; see also W. A. Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 200; A. F. L. Beeston, “Vorislamische Inschriften und vorislamische Sprachen des Jemen” in Jemen, ed. W. Daum, Innsbruck and Frankfurt, 1988: 102. 127W. Caskel, “Die alten semitischen Gottheiten in Arabien” in Le Antiche Divinità Semitici (Studi Semitici 1), S. Moscati, ed., Rome, 1958: 99. 126J.

176

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

divine names and bi-names.128 This triad was thought to consist of a lunar father-god, a solar mother-goddess, and a Venus-god son; a scheme in which Athirat was generally conceived of as a solar deity. According to the secondary literature such a triad is undoubtedly extant, although no agreement has been reached as to which of the many secondary deities belong to it. Athirat is seldom attested, but when she does appear it is sometimes in association with a major deity. The primary deities of the triad are generally understood to be the major god of the individual state and his consort, with Athtar nearly always as the Venus-son. In order to begin to make sense of the many divine names, a short exploration of the political constitution of ancient South Arabia is necessary. This region, located at the south-western corner of the Arabian peninsula, consisted of various co-existing nations in the first millennium. The four major states, prior to their unification under the nation Himyar in the fourth century C.E. were Maʿin, Saba, Qataban and Hadramawt.129 These realms left inscriptions of enough variation to justify their division into the Sabaean, Minaean, Qatabanian and Hadrami dialects.130 In the light of these political divisions, the more recent scholarship on South Arabia tends to discuss “national deities” rather than attempting to fit all divinities into one of the characters of the stellar triad.131

128See especially D. Nielsen, “Zur altarabischen Religion” in Handbuch der alterarabischen Altertumskunde I, D. Nielsen, ed., Copenhagen, 1927: 206–234; and D. Nielsen, Ras Šamra Mythologie und biblische Theologie (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 21, 4), Leipzig, 1936: 9–69. 129J. Ryckmans, “Le panthéon de l’Arabie du Sud”: 153. 130A. F. L. Beeston, A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian, London, 1962: 6–8. See also A. F. L. Beeston, “Vorislamische Inschriften”: 102. 131J. Ryckmans, “Le panthéon de l’Arabie du Sud”: throughout; J. Ryckmans “Die altsüdarabische Religion” in Jemen, W. Daum, ed., Innsbruck and Frankfurt, 1988: 111–115. Even in his review of the research on the pantheon in 1947 A. Jamme was able to review and criticise this exclusive view (“Le panthéon SudArabe préislamique d’après les sources épigraphiques” Le Muséon 60: 57–60. G. Ryckmans noted in 1951 (Les religions arabes préislamiques (Bibliotèque du Muséon 26), Louvain: 41) “L’hypothèse de la triade primitive exclusive de tout autre élément divin est loin d’être vérifiée”.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

177

Most of the inscriptional material belongs to the region of Saba.132 The inscriptions mentioning Athirat, however, generally occur in the realm of Qataban. The relevent texts are RES133 856; 2886; 3306 A; 3534 B; 3534 bis; 3550; 3689; 3691; 3692; 3902, pl. xiii, fig. 5; 4203 (?); 4274; and 4330.134 Also of interest is an inscription on an alabaster plaque published by A. Jamme (Jamme 852), which mentions Athirat.135 Two or three North Arabian theophoric names may also point to the presence of Athirat. We shall examine each of these inscriptions in turn to learn what may be discerned concerning Athirat’s character, and to attempt to discover if a solar nature of Athirat can be defended.

RES 856 Text 856 is a votive inscription on stone in the Qatabanian dialect. The four lines of the inscription are translated by Halévy: 1 ʿbd ʾl. mʿ dn. dh 2 wfʿm. ybn. ḥḍr 3 m. rdʾ. l ʾtrt. t 4 sʿn. bḥtn. lwfy 136

ʿA] bdʾêl Maʿadite de Haufaʿ m et Ben-Ḥaḍrm a voué à Athrat neuf jeunes chamelles, pour le salut...(?)137

This inscription seems to indicate that Athirat was known as a goddess in Qataban, although Maier calls this assumption into question. He notes that 132Beeston,

Descriptive Grammar: 6–7; M. Höfner, “Die vorislamischen Religionen Arabiens” in H. Gese, M. Höfner, and K. Rudolph, Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer (Die Religionen der Menschheit 10, 2), Stuttgart, 1970: 240. See also J. C. Biella, Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect (HSS 25), Chico, California, 1982. 133Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique, publié par la Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres), 8 vol., Paris, 1900–1968 (cited as RES). 134Listed according to E. Lipiński, “The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” OLP 3 (1972): 101. 135A. Jamme, “A Qatabanian Dedicatory Inscription from Hajar Bin Ḥumeid” JAOS 75 (1955): 97–99. 136I will follow the transliteration of Biella, Dictionary: throughout, with the following exception; I substitute ḫ for her x. The pronunciation of the sibilants of Old South Arabian are still uncertain; A. F. L. Beeston, “Vorislamische Inschriften”: 103. 137As cited in RES II: 231–232.

178

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

several of the inscriptions are ambiguous, possibly referring to an ʾtrt as “a structure”.138 This dilemma is the same as that which faces us in the Old Testament where Asherah appears sometimes as a cultic object and sometimes as a goddess. As will be demonstrated further below, Athirat appears in some inscriptions with other divinities: this indicates that she was known as a deity. Although the vexed issue of how we are to decide between the goddess and a structure here remains, we stand to gain little from resolving it. If the goddess Athirat is intended, the dedication of nine young shecamels to her tells us little about her nature or character.

RES 2886 This inscription is in the Minaean dialect, and consists of four lines with a mention of ʾtrt apparently as a substantive in the construct state.139 The inscription appears to be a decree of Ḥufnum Ṣadiq, king of Maʿin (line 1). Following his personal introduction, the inscription reads: 3 d(s) ʿd ʾl. kʾy. ʾtrt [.] šw ʿnyhn.w 4 ʾwl. ft. ʾḥdh. ʾwl By way of translation, Halévy offers “selon. . . . . . : . . . . . les deux prêtres, et. . .” 140 leaving ʾtrt untranslated. Perhaps ʾtrt is best understood as a “sanctuary” in this context, a meaning which is attested for this word in Phoenician.141 “The sanctuary of the two priests” would also be a reasonable translation. This inscription does not attest to either the name or character of the goddess.

ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 200–201. V: 216–217. 140As cited in RES V: 217. 141See J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Volume III, Phoenician Inscriptions, Oxford, 1982: 120; KAI 19, volume II: page 28. See also R. S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages (SBL Dissertation Series 32), Missoula, Montana, 1978: 36. His translation as “sacred grove”, however, unfortunately hearkens back to the Authorised Version’s translation of ʾšrh in Hebrew. See below on Phoenician sources. 138

139RES

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

179

RES 3306 This inscription also occurs in Minaean, although it displays some peculiarity for that dialect.142 The text is divided into two columns, of which the right-hand side is the better preserved. The inscription apparently involves instructions for a hieros gamos, involving Athtar and ʾnt(ht)y, “women”.143 The mention of ʾtrt is incorporated in the phrase du-ʾtrt “the one of ʾtrt” apparently in the context of a month name. Lines 7–8 read: 7 ... bn. bt. lgzz. dn. ftḥn. ywmnt. ftḥn. wmtbtn. sdt. ṭʿn.dʾt 8 rt. dkbrh. hwf ʾl. dwkl. qdmn. kbrs... This is translated by Rhodokanakis, “... sowohl was er (vorher) verkündet hat (davon) als auch das in diesem Erlasse Festgesetzte. Das Datum dieses Erlasses und dieses Reskriptes in der 6 Dū-TRat des Kabirats144 des HỤFL, Sippe ỤKL, in seinem 1 Kabirat;...” 145 What we are able to learn about Athirat from this inscription is limited. It does appear that a month was called “that of Athirat”; and there appears to be South Arabian evidence for months being named after gods for which festivals were held.146 Maier believes that a divine name here is not certain.147 It is conceivable that the month could be “that of the sanctuary” or perhaps “that (of the region) of Athirat”; however, months named after divinities are not uncommon in ancient South Arabia.148 It is of interest that whilst in Maʿin a month named for Athirat is attested, no such month name has appeared for Qataban. This may be the result of the accidents of archaeology, but what we learn from this inscription is that Athirat was known and worshipped in this region. Little detail about the nature or character of Old South Arabian Athirat is given here.

142Especially

in its usage of enclitics, see Beeston, Descriptive Grammar: 66–67. Ryckmans, “Le panthéon de l’Arabie du Sud”: 161. 144On the office of the kabir, see A. F. L. Beeston, Epigraphic South Arabian Calendars and Dating, London, 1956: 25–35. 145As cited in RES VI: 87–88. 146Beeston, Calendars and Dating: 15; E. Lipiński, “The Goddess Atirat”: 102. 147 ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 201, although the reference to Torrey noted in his footnote (p. 206, n. 27) is based on a footnote in a privately published volume, and is beyond my verification. 148Beeston, Calendars and Dating: 15. 143J.

180

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

RES 3534 B and RES 3550 Inscription 3534 B is in the Qatabanian dialect and treats the restoration of the temple of Wadd and Athirat. ... wkl. mhlk. wḥdtn. byt. wdm. w ʾtrt wmḫtn. mlkn “... and all the fulfilment149 and he restored the temple of Wadd and Athirat and the Makhtân of the king” Similarly RES 3550 treats the restoration of the temple of these two gods by Yadaʿ ʾab Dhû-Bayyim (line 1): ... brm. wḥrb. wbny. wsḥdt. byt. wdm. w ʾtrt. wmḫtn... (line 4) “... Brm and Hrb. And he [Yadaʿ ʾab Dhû-Bayyim] built and restored150 the temple of Wadd and Athirat and the Makhtân...” These inscriptions have led scholars to believe that Athirat and Wadd were considered to be consorts. Once again we are confronted with the question: are deities worshipped together necessarily consorts? We have not found this necessarily to be the case in other ancient Near Eastern religions. The information from ancient South Arabia is scarce and does not permit firm conclusions.151 On the other hand, it is not unusual that the gods should appear with consorts. This issue is of particular importance as Wadd, with whom Athirat is here mentioned, is a moon deity. This has been the basis of the claims that Athirat is a solar goddess. The statement by RES that Athirat is a “divinité solaire qatabanite, épouse de Wadd”152 is based on the work of Nielsen, who advocated the inclusiveness of the astral triad. Now that this triad is no longer considered to be all-embracing, the uncertainty about the character of such a scarcely attested deity as Athirat becomes prominent. We have found in our investigations above that deities mentioned together at one cultic site need not have been considered to be consorts.153 This ambiguity remains in Old South Arabian studies. Athirat 149RES

VI: 192, mhlk is defined by its Arabic cognate. form is a causative with the normal Qatabanian prefix s - (Beeston, Descriptive Grammar: 19); the root is therefore ḥdt, “renew, repair, make newly” (Biella, Dictionary: 167). 151J. Ryckmans, “Le panthéon de l’Arabie du Sud”: throughout. 152RES VI: 192. 153The exception to this caution is the Mesopotamian god lists, which are known to have been deliberately arranged according to divine family relation150The

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

181

may have been considered to be the spouse of Wadd; however, their mere mention together at a temple does not prove this.

RES 3534 bis This small part of a Qatabanian inscription contains a dedication to Athirat. The inscription reads: ... n. dḫwln. ḥr. sqny. ʾtrt... This is translated in RES as “... n, de Khaulân-Ḥûr(?) a dédié à ʾAthirat...”154 Other than demonstrating that Athirat (or a sanctuary) received dedications, this inscription does not add to our knowledge of the goddess.

RES 3689 This Qatabanian text deals with the taxation of the harvest. In line 5 reference is made to the offerings for ʿAmm and Athirat: ... l ʿṣm. wdm. wbnt. m. wšftm. (l ʿ)m. w ʾtrt... This is translated by Rhodokanakis as “davon als gesetzmäßige Abgabe zu leisten ‘das nicht-obligatorische Opfer’ und ‘das Geschenk’ und ‘das Gelübde’ für (den Gott) ʿAmm und die (Göttin) ʾTRT”. 155 This text appears to place Athirat and ʿAmm together in the same way she was placed together with Wadd in RES 3534 B and 3550. This and similar inscriptions (see below) have led some scholars to see Athirat as the consort of the moon god ʿAmm. ʿAmm was the national god of Qataban.156 Although it is conceivable that such a scarcely attested goddess could have been perceived as the consort of two major gods, it is equally likely that she could have been worshipped with them without being their consort. Another possibility is that Wadd and ʿAmm are two manifestations of the moon god, as worshipped in different regions. The implications of these scenarios will be discussed in the conclusions. ships—see above. 154RES VI: 192. 155N. Rhodokanakis, Ḳatabanische Texte zur Bodenwirtschaft (Sitzungsberichte Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 194:2) vol. 1, Vienna, 1919: 58. 156M. Höfner, “Die vorislamischen Religionen Arabiens”: 282.

182

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

RES 3691 and RES 3692 These Qatabanian inscriptions concern the same subject matter as RES 3689 using similar terminology. Lines 4–5 of inscription 3691 and line 3 of inscription 3692 contain the following: ... l ʿṣm. wdm. wbntm. wšftm. lʿm. w ʾtrt... translated by Rhodokanakis in the same way as the preceeding inscription.157 It adds nothing new to our discussion of Athirat.

RES 3902, pl. xiii, fig. 5, 1 This inscription is taken from the base of a statuette, and is cited by a reference number of a photograph album of a private collection in which it appears. The inscription is broken and it is in the Qatabanian dialect. sq] ny. ʾtrt …. bhrbt. ʾ … ʿsnsm.wmṣ This is translated in RES as “... a con] sacré à ʾAthirat ... à Haribat. . . ... leur fondement et. . . 158 Once again we are left without much additional information concerning Athirat. She appears to have had a statuette dedicated to her, but this does not inform us about her character or nature.

RES 4203 This Sabaean (!) inscription159 is part of a single mutilated line consisting of two words: ʾtrt. bḥtnyhn Perhaps this is to be translated “(to) Athirat two votive objects”.160 This witnesses to Athirat’s presence, but nothing more. This inscription is unḲatabanische Texte: 122, 130–131. VI: 372. 159RES VII: 138. 160The ending of -nyhn is a Minaean emphatic dual (Beeston, Descriptive Grammar: 157Rhodokanakis, 158RES

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

183

usually found in the Sabaean dialect; it is the only known reference to Athirat in that language.

RES 4274 RES 4274 is another Qatabanian dedicatory inscription to Athirat. The twoline inscription reads: ... n. dḫwln. ḥr. sqny. ʾtrt bmḥ] rms. ysl. bḥtm RES translates as follows: “... ân, de Khawlân-Hûr a dédié à ʾAthirat dans] son [tem] ple de Yasil une offrande pure”.161 Once again, this inscription attests to Athirat’s presence, but informs us little about her character or nature.

RES 4330 This Qatabanian inscription concerns the establishment of a well by Nbṭʿm (line 1), l ʾrḍs. ddrʿt. wd ʾtrt “for his land ‘that of Drʿt’ and ‘that of Athirat’” (line 2). Such usages of the relative pronoun with a proper name to designate an area are common in Old South Arabian. What is of interest to us is that Athirat is here cited as the “matron” of a region of Qataban. This appears to indicate that she was a relatively important figure, but it does not inform us concerning her character. Jamme 852 Whilst excavating the city of Hajar Bin Ḥumeid in what was formerly Qataban, the archaeologists found an alabaster plaque containing an eleven-line inscription. The inscription deals with the installation of priests, including “procurators of Athirat”: 1 wdʿl. wyšrm. bnw. ʾbʾns. bnw. mghmm. śḥrw 2 ʿm. ryʿn. wsśḥr. ʾḫysmy. nbṭʿm. wlḥy ʿm. w 3 sśḥr. yšrm. bnyhw. ṣbḥm. wṣdqm. w ʾbnm. q 32–33). The root bḥt, means, as an adjective “pure”, and as a noun “unit of weight” and “votive object” (Biella, Dictionary: 40). 161RES VII: 175.

184

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

4 ẓrw. ʾtrt. wsqẓr. wd ʾl. bnyhw. ʿśbm. wkl 5 ybm. wbny. lḥy ʿm. wnbṭ ʿm. w ʿmkrb. qẓrw. ʾ 6 trt. wwd ʾl. wyšrm. wṣbḥm. wṣdqm. rbyw. ʾ 7 trt. bʾsḫr. wršw. rbš. dnhlb. wd ʾl. wṣbḥm 8 sqnyw. ʿm. ryʿn. mśndn. wkl. šrʿs. bn. fr [ʿ] 9 frʿw. lʿm. rtdw. ʿm. ʾwl [dsm. bn. mʿ] 10 ndsm. bʿttr. wb. ʿm. wb. ʿm. [ ryʿn. wśḥrm.w] 11 b ʾtrt. w ʾlhy.t wd [ʿm. ... Jamme translates this as follows: 1 Waddʾil and Yašrum, sons of ʾAbʾanas, of [the family of] Maghûmum, priests 2 of ʿAmm Rayʿân;—and [Waddʾil] has made priests the two brothers of both of them, Nabaṭʿamm and Laḥayʿamm, and 3 Yašrum has made priests his sons Ṣabḥum and Ṣaduqum and ʾAbnum,— pro4 curators of ʾAtirat,—and Waddʾil has made procurators his two sons ʿAśbum and Kula5 ybum and the two sons of Laḥayʿamm, Nabaṭʿamm and ʿAmmkarib, [as] procurators of ʾA6 tirat, and Waddʾil and Yašrum and Ṣabḥum and Ṣaduqum [being] administrators of ʾA7 tirat in ʾAsḫar, and [Waddʾil] the priest of [the temple] Rabiš, which Waddʾil and Ṣabḥum have cleared, 8 have dedicated to ʿAmm Rayʿân this inscription and all his due from the first-fr[uits] 9 [that] they have collected for ʿAmm. They have entrusted to the care of ʿAmm Rayʿân [their] chil[d] ren [against any who would with] 10 stand them. By ʿAttar and by ʿAmm [Rayʿân and Śaḥarum and] 11 by ʾAtirat and the gods of reconcilia[tion(?)... 162 162A.

Jamme, “Qatabanian Dedicatory Inscription”: 97.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

185

Here we find reference to “procurators” qẓrw and rbyw (both construct plurals)163 of Athirat. It appears that Athirat is named in the third place of the closing invocation. Although the “Rayʿân” of ʿAmm Rayʿân and “Śaḥarum” are reconstructed because of a break in the lower left-hand corner of the plaque, we do know that Athirat is the final deity properly named. This may be of importance as in Old South Arabian inscriptions it is generally the sun goddess who is cited in last place when the triad is named.164 Unfortunately the text is broken just as the invocation begins, and does not allow us to declare with certainty that the astral triad is being invoked. This inscription does witness to a substantial cult of the goddess, perhaps indicating that her relatively scarce mention in the epigraphic sources may be due to the accidents of archaeological discovery. Theophoric Names According to E. Lipiński’s study on Athirat, he states that the worship of the goddess is attested “by two or three Thamudic personal names”.165 The names to which he refers are: Bi-ʾAtirat, Tur-ʾAtirat, and perhaps Mʿd-ʾtr.166 The first name was published in A. van den Branden’s Inscriptions thamoudéennes,167 the second in his Histoire de Thamoud.168 G. Ryckmans, in Les noms propres sud-sémitiques, notes the divine name Athirat, but does not count the names presented above among the proper names.169 The elements of the first name could be construed as bʾ-trt, from the verb bʾ, followed by a personal name trt.170 Ryckmans does not list the element Turʾ in his enumeration, nor does he list Tur-ʾAtirat as a proper name. The third name, Mʿdʾtr, lacks a final t, and thus is probably not to be understood as referring to Athirat. 163Jamme,

“Qatabanian Dedicatory Inscription”: 97–98. “Le panthéon Sud-Arabe préislamique”: 101. 165“The Goddess Atirat”: 101. 166“The Goddess Atirat”: 101, n. 3. 167(Bibliothèque du Muséon 25), Leuven-Heuerlé, 1950: 286. 168(Publications de l’Université Libanaise, section des études historiques VI), Beyrouth, 1960: 94. 169(Bibliothèque du Muséon 2), vol. 1, Leuven, 1934: 7. 170Noms propres: 50, 283. 164Jamme,

186

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Thus two North Arabian proper names may contain the theophoric element Athirat, although this is not certain. In any case, the most we could gain from such references is a witness to Athirat in the northern kingdoms of the Arabian penisula. Conclusions from the Ancient South Arabian Evidence The consensus among scholars of Epigraphic South Arabian religion still appears to support the concept of an astral triad, although its all-pervasive nature has largely been rejected. Modern scholarship tends to see national deities and minor divinities present in all of the regions. Within this civilisation, inscriptions in three of the four major dialects witness to the presence of a goddess Athirat. She is paired with two lunar gods, although her consort status with either is not certain. If Athirat is to be considered the consort of Wadd or ʿAmm, this would be another instance of a goddess bearing this name occupying the position of the spouse of a prominent god. Although such a scenario may be likely, the question arises whether being the consort of a moon god requires Athirat to be a solar goddess. Without strict adherence to the old triad hypothesis, this does not appear to be a necessary interpretation. Jamme 852 could circumstantially support the solar interpretation by the apparent place of Athirat in the closing invocation; however, the broken state of the plaque prevents this from being certain. These inscriptions do not give us enough information about Athirat to affirm that she has solar characteristics, although this remains a possibility.

CONCLUSIONS TO THE CHAPTER The earliest references to Ashratu come from Mesopotamian sources. In origin the Mesopotamian Ashratu is likely the same figure as Ugaritic Athirat. In each separate culture, however, the goddess developed characteristics to find a place in the pantheon. Unfortunately, we are left with few sources of information on the Mesopotamian goddess. Primarily we have been able to confirm that she is the consort of Amurru; as such she is related to a mountain, or the mountain. She also appears to have been considered a voluptuous character, but this term is also used to designate the luxury of the land in the name of her temple in Babylon. That she had an active cult is amply attested by god lists and ritual texts. Her epithet bēlit ṣēri connects her with the steppe, and is probably a further indication of her origin. This title may have underworldly connections, and this may be reflected in the epithet ekurrītum. Ekurrītum, however, may equally be connected with the word for “temple”.

MESOPOTAMIAN, HITTITE AND SOUTH ARABIAN EVIDENCE

187

The Hittite myth of Elkunirsa mentions Ashratu. She appears to have a common origin with Ugaritic Athirat in this culture as well. The myth as we have it appears to have been borrowed from a Canaanite source, but it is too brief to provide much information on Ashratu’s nature or character. The South Arabian materials witness to the presence of Athirat. This goddess was mentioned with Wadd and ʿAmm, two ancient moon gods. Although we cannot be certain that she was related to them as a consort, this juxtaposition may point to her having developed solar characteristics in this region. The South Arabian Athirat is far-removed from the Ugaritic Athirat in time and distance. The cultures which knew of her adapted her to meet their needs. The area between these realms, the lands of Israel and Judah, may have known of the goddess as well, thus a connection is possible. What may be said with certainty is that each culture that knew of Athirat/Ashratu perceived her according to their own situation. In the cultures where she appears she is understood to be related to an important deity, often a head of the local pantheon.

6 HEBREW, PHOENICIAN AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE Perhaps the most controversial pieces of evidence in the recent discussions concerning Asherah are the inscriptions from Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd.1 Here, if the goddess is mentioned, she is cited alongside Yahweh in a blessing formula written in Hebrew of the first quarter of the first millennium B.C.E.2 Unfortunately, there are difficulties with the inscriptions from both sites; in the case of Khirbet el-Qôm the stone is badly scratched,3 and in the case of Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, complete editions and pho1When

citing Hebrew inscriptions in this chapter I shall utilise the numeration of G. I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance, assisted by M. N. A. Bockmuehl, D. R. de Lacey and A. J. Poulter, Cambridge, 1991. There has been no previously published systematic numbering of the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions. For other inscriptions I will give the numeration of both Gibson’s TSSI and Donner and Röllig’s KAI. (When citing Gibson, TSSI will be followed by the appropriate volume number. To cite his inscription numbers I shall use the form TSSI 2, no. 30. To cite his page numbers I shall use the form TSSI 2: 148. When citing Donner and Röllig, KAI followed simply by a number will indicate the inscription number. KAI followed by a number, colon and another number (KAI 2: 278) will indicate the volume and page numbers.) 2For the dating of the sites see: for Khirbet el-Qôm, see W. G. Dever “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kôm” HUCA 40–41 (1969– 1970): 163–165; for Kuntillet ʿAjrûd see Z. Meshel “Kuntillet ʾAjrud [sic] An Israelite Religious Center in Northern Sinai” Expedition 20 (1978): 50–54; also see his Kuntillet ʿAjrud: a Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai (Israel Museum Catalogue 175), Jerusalem,1978. 3Even if the proposed tree of B. Margalit (“Some Observations on the Inscription and Drawing from Khirbet el-Qôm” VT 39 (1989): 371–378) is present, the surface of the stone, as seen from the photographs, is badly scratched; Dever, “Iron Age Epigraphic Material”: 159.

189

190

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

tographs of the inscriptions are yet to be published, and their interpretation is complicated by the drawings on the pithoi. Moreover, the inscriptions present difficulties in relation to accepted grammatical standards of classical Hebrew. These inscriptions have often been used as evidence that Asherah was considered to be the consort of Yahweh in the pre-exilic period; however, this hypothesis is still hotly debated. The studies of J. M. Hadley have carefully considered the nature and interpretation of these inscriptions and are a most valuable resource for this evidence.4 Further studies have also appeared since her dissertation, which may also aid our understanding. In this chapter I shall re-examine these inscriptions in their separate contexts to attempt to determine what (if anything) they tell us about the goddess Asherah. I shall also deal with some recently discovered inscriptions from Tel Miqne which mention Asherah,5 as well as an Aramaic inscription which appears to refer to her. In this chapter I shall also briefly consider the Phoenician evidence for the goddess Asherah. Included will be a discussion of the proposed reference to Asherah in the Phoenician inscription in Aramaic script from Arslan Tash in northern Syria, and an examination of inscriptions mentioning atrt as sanctuaries, one of which mentions an atrt of Ashtart. Finally, I shall examine two Aramaic inscriptions which may shed some light on this subject.

KHIRBET EL-QÔM Tomb inscription 3 from Khirbet el-Qôm (Davies’s number 25.003) was found shortly after having been robbed from Tomb II of that site and was subsequently published by W. Dever.6 On paleographic grounds, the inscription was dated to about the middle of the eighth century B.C.E. Dever translated it, very tentatively, as: (Belonging to) ʾUriyahu. Be careful of his inscription! Blessed be ʾUriyahu by Yahweh. 4J.

M. Hadley, “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription” VT 37 (1987): 50–62; “Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” VT 37 (1987): 180–213; and Yahweh’s Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1989: 121–201. 5“Cultic Inscriptions Found in Ekron”, W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem BA 53 (1990): 232. 6“Iron Age Epigraphic Material”: 146, 158–168.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 191 And cursed shall be the hand of whoever (defaces it)! (Written by) ʾOniyahu.7 Seven years following its publication the inscription was examined in an article by A. Lemaire, who found a mention of asherah in it.8 Although Dever himself later wrote that he had thought of reading the inscription with Asherah mentioned, he has not yet retranslated the Khirbet el-Qôm inscription to reflect this.9 This reference to Asherah/asherah was reinforced by similar inscriptions found at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd by Z. Meshel,10 and many scholars soon joined the debate over the meaning of these inscriptions. Despite the enthusiasm for this debate, a clear reading for the Khirbet el-Qôm inscription has yet to appear. The soft rock surface on which the inscription was engraved was apparently striated before the inscription was written, the letters were carved with varying degrees of pressure, and some were inscribed more than once, causing several ghost letters.11 A thorough review of the previous scholarship on this inscription is presented by Hadley.12 I shall therefore present the previous arguments considered by Hadley only when they contribute to difficulties which still remain in the interpretation of the text. Hadley’s own reading of the text is based on her personal examination of the inscription. Her reading is: Uriyahu the rich wrote it. 1. ʾryhw. h ʿšr. ktbh Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh 2. brk. ʾryhw. lyhwh For from his enemies by his(YHWH’s) asherah 3. wmṣryh l ʾšrth hwšʿlh he(YHWH) has saved him. 7“Iron 8“Les

Age Epigraphic Material”: 159. inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qôm et l’ashérah de Yhwh” RB 84 (1977):

595–608. 9W. Dever “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” BASOR 255 (1984): 22. 10Z. Meshel, “ynys lwbgb hkwlmh tpwqtm rt)—dwryg( tlytnwk” Qadmoniot 9 (1976): 118–124; “Kuntillet ʿAjrud An Israelite Religious Center”: throughout. 11Z. Zevit, “The Khirbet el-Qôm Inscription Mentioning a Goddess” BASOR 255 (1984): 39. Margalit, however, upon his examination of the stone, concluded that some of the striations were carved after the inscription (“Some Observations”: 376, n. 2). 12Yahweh’s Asherah: 121–142.

192 4. 5. 6.

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH l ʾnyhw l ʾšrth wlʾ [ ]rth

by Oniyahu and by his asherah his a[she]rah13

As may be gleaned from Hadley’s prolonged discussion of this inscription, many difficulties remain. Unfortunately I have not been able to examine this inscription personally; however, my scrutiny of the published photographs independently produced the same letters as read by Hadley for lines 1–4. The translation of lines 2 and 3 is the crux, and it is still in question. Hadley explains the difficulties in these lines as the result of “an idiom similar to hendiadys”, thus: “if we treat these two lines as a verbal hendiadys (or at least a ‘compound linguistic stereotype’ which has been broken up), they can be translated ‘Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh (and) by his asherah, for from his enemies he has saved him’”.14 The text, however, reads wmṣryh before l ʾšrth hwšʿlh, with the conjunctive waw attached not to “his asherah” but to mṣryh. One of the persistent difficulties in dealing with this text is the supposition that the l ʾšrth is an agent of blessing or savation. This difficulty was also noticed by B. Margalit (commenting on the interpretation of Miller15): Miller, pp. 361 ff., who, while conceding that Lemaire’s emendation makes for a “smoother” reading (n. 15), objects, that “even if there is a displacement... we have two essentially poetic lines creating a psalm of thanksgiving”. Notwithstanding the qualification “essentially”, this statement begs the notoriously moot question of criteria for determining poetry from pose [sic] in ancient Hebrew literature, and is further totally dependent on one’s understading of the term... l ʾšrth. But Miller chooses to avoid this question (n. 18), as does Hadley when she labels the phrase “a verbal juxtaposition... a ‘paired set’”. The fact remains that in Ugaritic literature, for example, one never finds Baal-Anat or ElAsherah used in synonymous parallelism. “Fixed pairs” tend to be either verbal synonyms or two parts which together make up one whole.16

13Translation in “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription”: 51, with her most likely renderings of the inscription in Yahweh’s Asherah: 139. 14Yahweh’s Asherah: 133, 134. 15P. D. Miller, “Psalms and Inscriptions” in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980 (SVT 32), J. A. Emerton, ed., Leiden, 1981: 311–332. 16“Some Observations”: 377, n. 11.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 193 Margalit himself offers a poetic explanation which calls for hypothetical missing words, and leaves the troublesome l ʾšrth out of the “upper” inscription: Ur(i)yahu the rich composed it: 1. ʾryhw. hʿšr. ktbh “Blessed is Ur(i)yahu unto YHWH– 2. brk. ʾryhw. lyhwh. enemies >, And from his foes {...} he saved him”.17 3. wmṣryh {...} hwšʿ.lh He believes, however, that l ʾšrth does belong in the “lower” inscription, to be translated as “his consort”: Lower {= lines 5 and 6} [(Dedicated) to YHWH] and to his consort [lyhwh.] wl ʾ rth (supralinear correction: l ʾšrth) (Asherah).18 It is unfortunate that photographs of the actual place from which this inscription was taken were not published in Dever’s initial report; however, Dever did state: “A recess in the east pillar revealed where Inscription 3 had recently been removed; the lateral dimensions and the smoothly dressed sides of the inscription fit this hole perfectly”.19 It would not appear that much room remained on the pillar for additional words or letters as required by Margalit’s reconstruction. Also, Margalit separates the “upper” and “lower” inscriptions (lines 1–4 and 5–6, respectively), and he states that the lower inscription ought to be treated separately from the upper one. Yet when he translates the lower inscription, he inserts lyhwh in order that Yahweh may be paired with l ʾšrth, “his consort”. All of this epigraphic emendation leads to considerable doubt concerning this interpretation. W. Shea, following on the work of Hadley, has suggested a different interpretation, whilst accepting all of the letters presented above (except that he reads the ayin of line one as a second aleph).20 Taking the inscribed, downward-facing hand as integral to the understanding of the writing, Shea translates:

17“Some

Observations”: 373. Observations”: 373. 19“Iron Age Epigraphic Material”: 146. 20“The Khirbet el-Qom Tomb Inscription Again” VT 40 (1990): 110. 18“Some

194

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1. Uriyahu was the one who wrote it. 2. Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh, 3. And his Egyptian (servant) by his asherah, and here is his handprint: 4. (hand in sunk relief) for Oniyahu. 5. By his asherah 6. And by his a.erah21 Shea understands the awkwardly placed mṣryh as the usual Hebrew word for “Egypt” with a gentilic ending and a pronominal suffix. He is not troubled by the Yahwistic name of the Egyptian servant of Uriyahu, Oniyahu.22 Shea’s solution has the advantage of explaining the troublesome location of the word wmṣryh immediately following lyhwh, which separates it from ʾšrth (this unusual word order led Lemaire to suppose that in the darkness of the cave, the engraver mistakenly transposed the words wmṣryh and l ʾšrth 23). His solution also frees Yahweh from the “his asherah” since the asherah refers to Oniyahu’s dedicatory object. He takes the root of wšʿlh as šʿl “the palm or hollow of the hand”; and thus explains the hand carved in the rock beneath line 3. Shea’s interpretation, however, presents other difficulties. First of all, the reference to “his Egyptian” is awkward, prompting Shea to add the unwritten word “servant”. Furthermore, the evidence that he gives for an Egyptian bearing a Yahwistic name fails to provide any other cases of that phenomenon. He cites Jews bearing Babylonian theophoric names, Egyptian slaves bearing Semitic names, and some Asiatic slaves with Egyptian names.24 He does not, however, provide another example of an Egyptian bearing a Yahwistic theophoric name. Another difficulty is the unanswered question of why a foreign slave is worshipping an asherah which his (Yawistic) master mentions in the inscription. Finally, Shea’s translation of wšʿlh as “and here is his handprint” stretches too far the root meaning of šʿl, which is “hollowness”,25 not “hand”. 21“The

Khirbet el-Qom Tomb Inscription”: 110. Khirbet el-Qom Tomb Inscription”: 113–114. 23A. Lemaire, “Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BAR 10 (1984): 44. 24“The Khirbet el-Qom Tomb Inscription”: 114. 25BDB: 1043. 22“The

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 195 M. O’Connor, following the transcription and translation of Zevit, attempts to explain the inscription on poetic grounds.26 Lines 2 and 3, he suggests, are “an independent verbal clause with a vocative, specifically a double-clause line with three constituents” and “a double-clause line of four constituents”,27 respectively. In support of his analysis of line 2 he cites fourteen examples of Hebrew poetic lines which have the same syntactic elements in three units, although the order of the units varies. The second line of verse (line 3) he notes as being “a less common sort” and he produces seven examples of this type with four units; again, the order of the units varies. The advantage of O’Connor’s interpretation is that it accepts the text without emendation, and his examples from other Hebrew poetic verse illustrate his point well. There are, however, difficulties in O’Connor’s approach as well. He accepts Zevit’s explanation of l ʾšrth as a divine name with a “double feminization”.28 This form of the name, however, is still open to Hadley’s criticism of Zevit’s suggestion, namely: “Whereas his examples are all perfectly justified in themselves, there is no evidence for this double feminine on a personal name, as distinct from a place name. Rather, these should probably be taken as instances of an old ending of direction or intention, now used for the sake of poetical emphasis (GK §90 g)”.29 Also, O’Connor’s explanation relies on the assumption that a vocative lamed does exist in Hebrew. This assertion is still disputed, and it would be best not to utilise it to explain an unclear inscription until we are certain that it was a part of recognised Hebrew usage. R. Hess has recently entered the debate on the question.30 His translation of the inscription combines the Egyptian theory of Shea and the Asherata explanation of Zevit. He translates lines 2 and 3 as: “Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh, and his Egyptian by Asherata. He has delivered him...”31 As noted above, Shea’s hypothesis does not sufficiently account for the difficulties in the reading “his Egyptian”, and Hess’s translation is 26“The

Poetic Inscription from Khirbet el-Qôm” VT 37 (1987): 224–230. Poetic Inscription”: 225 and 227. 28“The Khirbet el-Qôm Inscription”: 45. 29Yahweh’s Asherah: 136. See also J. H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods, Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31), Atlanta, 1986: 29–30. 30R. S. Hess, “Yahweh and His Asherah? Epigraphic Evidence for Religious Pluralism in Old Testament Times” in One God, One Lord in a World of Religious Pluralism, ed. A. D. Clarke and B. W. Winter, Cambridge, 1991: 23–26. 31“Yahweh and His Asherah?”: 24. 27“The

196

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

also open to the same criticism. Whilst accepting Zevit’s vocalisation of Asherata, Hess adds support for this vocalisation from the El-Amarna letters which preserve “an ‘a’ vowel between the final two consonants”.32 He further argues: The objection that there are not examples of this double feminization in feminine personal names in Biblical Hebrew is not decisive. After all, this is not a feminine personal name but rather a feminine divine name, something which is extremely rare in Hebrew texts. It is likely that this ending may preserve an ancient spelling of the name of the goddess, perhaps simply a “frozen form” of a name.33

The fact remains, however, that nowhere outside the inscriptions bearing this proposed emended spelling does this spelling of the name actually occur. Where the Old Testament speaks of the goddess, the name is spelled hr#$). At Ugarit, the spelling ends in -t, not -tah (as there is no feminine form -ah in Ugaritic).34 The name found in the recently discovered Tel Miqne inscriptions is simply ʾsrt.35 If Asherata is a frozen form, why is it not consistently found? This short exploration of the solutions offered for this troublesome inscription since Hadley’s study highlights Margalit’s point that “no truly satisfactory sense can be made of the Upper Inscription precisely as it stands”.36 I have no alternative translation to offer. Perhaps a solution would be to surrender the standard assumption that Yahweh had an asherah/Asherah. Textually considered, only the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscription holds these two deities together, and the understanding of that inscription (although written more clearly than that of Khirbet el-Qôm) is not perfect. Perhaps we should seek a different understanding of the word(s) l ʾšrth which fits what we know of Hebrew grammar and syntax. It may also be that the third line of the inscription actually reads differently than it has been transcribed. Until more certain sense can be made of this inscription, it should not be used to provide evidence that Yahweh had a consort in Judah.

32“Yahweh

and His Asherah?”: 14. and His Asherah?”: 14. 34C. Gordon, UT: 52–53. 35“Cultic Inscriptions”: 232. 36“Some Observations”: 372. 33“Yahweh

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 197

KUNTILLET ʿAJRÛD Several inscriptions were found at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd (modern Ḥorvat Teiman) in the Sinai, by Z. Meshel in the course of his excavations in 1975– 1976.37 Apparently this remote site was used as a stop-over or caravanserai, for the benefit of those on journeys through the Sinai desert. The assertion that the site was a sanctuary is still questioned, and Hadley’s arguments against such a conclusion are cogent.38 Several inscribed objects were found at the site, among them the pieces of two large pithoi, or storage jars, on which had been painted graffiti. Among the inscriptions are several blessings. Since these inscriptions appear to reinforce the blessing formula of “I bless you by Yahweh... and his asherah” proposed for the Khirbet el-Qôm inscription, many scholars have debated their significance.39 Once again, Hadley’s examination contains a thorough consideration of earlier discussion on these inscriptions.40 I shall cite these sources only when they may shed light on our understanding of the inscriptions. Meshel originally read inscription 8.017,41 from pithos A, as: “X said to Y and to Z and to Yoʾasah and ... [May you be blessed] by the Lord who guards us and his asherah [cella, divine representation or the like]”.42 Later, however, Meshel published the inscriptions of Kuntillet ʿAjrûd with Asherah tentatively represented as a divine name, and exploring the possibility that šmrn could be read as “samaria”.43 ʿAjrud: Israelite Religious Center”: throughout. Yahweh’s Asherah: 145–147, 201. 39See M. Gilula, “htr#)lw nrm# hwhyl” Shnaton 3 (1978–79): 129–137; Z. Meshel, “Did Yahweh have a Consort? The New Religious Inscriptions from the Sinai” BAR 5 (1979): 24–35; J. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” ZAW 94 (1982): 2–20; W. G. Dever, “Recent Archaeological Confirmation of the Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel” HS 23 (1982): 37–43; also his “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd” BASOR 255 (1984): 21–37; M. Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ʿAjrud Inscriptions and their Significance” SEL 1 (1984): 121–130; A. Lemaire, “Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet ʿAjrud” SEL 1 (1984): 133–143; and Hadley, “Some Drawings and Inscriptions”: 180–213. 40Yahweh’s Asherah: 143–201. 41I am here following Davies’s numbering system, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: 81. 42“Kuntillet ʿAjrud An Israelite Religious Center”: 52. 43“Did Yahweh have a Consort?”: 30–32. His reading of “Samaria” followed 37“Kuntillet 38Hadley,

198

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Hadley reads inscription 8.017 as: “X says: say to Yehal[lelʾel] and to Yoʿasah and [to Z]: I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and by his asherah”.44 Unfortunately I have not been able to examine the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions personally. I have scrutinised the photographs of the published portion of inscription 8.017, and my examination found no inconsistencies with Hadley’s rendering: ʾmr. ʾ...h...k. ʾmr. lyhl wlyw ʿśh. w... brkt. ʾtkm. lyhwh. šmrn. wl ʾšrth.45 Hadley discusses the reconstructions proposed for the lacunae and the implications of the phrase “Yahweh of Samaria”, and particularly the relevance this phrase has for the hypothetically Canaanite nature of the city.46 She concludes that “asherah” in this inscription most likely refers to a wooden cultic object.47 Inscription 8.021, from pithos B, is longer and also mentions l ʾšrth with Yahweh: ʾmr ʾmryw ʾmr l. ʾdny hšlm. ʾt brktk. lyhwh tmn wl ʾšrth. ybrk. wyšmrk wyhy ʿm. ʾd[n]y...k Hadley translates this as: “Amaryau says: say to my lord: Is it well with you? I bless you by Yahweh of Teman and by his asherah. May he bless you and keep you and be with my lord...” 48

She discusses the construction hšlm. ʾt and the implications of the phrase “Yahweh of Teman”.49 She also considers a third inscription (8.022), which does not mention l ʾšrth, before debating the significance of the drawings on pithos A.50

Gilula’s article “htr#)lw nrm# hwhyl”: 129–137. 44Hadley “Some Drawings and Inscriptions”: 182; see also Yahweh’s Asherah: 160. 45Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 160. I have omitted her reconstruction. 46Yahweh’s Asherah: 160–164. 47Yahweh’s Asherah: 165. 48Yahweh’s Asherah: 165. 49Yahweh’s Asherah: 165–170. 50Yahweh’s Asherah: 171–173.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 199 Since Hadley’s work, Margalit has published a substantial article which deals with the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions.51 His hypothesis is that the inscription on pithos A cannot be understood without a consideration of the drawing which partially overlaps it. Although my approach to the study of Asherah is primarily based on the textual sources, Margalit’s discussion requires a brief look at the iconographic material at this site. Margalit states that he does “not intend to argue here the merits of these conclusions [that the drawings illustrate the inscription] which serve as [his] point of departure”.52 The difficulty with this assertion is that perhaps the largest obstacle to a clear understanding of the inscription concerned is its relationship to the drawing. The primary study concerning the iconography of Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, including the figures below inscription 8.017, is the article by P. Beck.53 Her detailed study came to the conclusion that the inscription overlapping the headdress of the left hand figure was written after the middle and left characters were drawn (see figure 1).54 She concludes that the figures and the drawing are probably unrelated.55 The inscription concerned was painted on the pithos “using the incised shoulder lines as guidelines”,56 and in as far as I can determine from the published photographs and drawings, the inscription consists of two lines, the bottom of which overlaps the headdress of the left hand figure. Since a photograph of the full inscription has not yet been published, it is impossible to tell if the blessing was separated into two lines on account of space. A fact that is sometimes overlooked when dealing with these drawings is that they are not high art. The analyses frequently argue for an amount of detail for which the drawings are insufficient.57 They are, on the whole, 51B.

278.

Margalit, “The Meaning and Significance of Asherah” VT 40 (1990): 274–

52“Meaning 53“The

68. 54“The

and Significance”: 273. Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud)” Tel Aviv 9 (1982): 3–

Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman”: 46. Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman”: 46. 56“The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman”: 45. 57For example, W. G. Dever (“Asherah, Consort of Yahweh?”: 23) argues that the polka dots on the right hand figure (whom he takes to be Asherah) represent “a long wig or coiffure of tightly-twisted curls and ringlets”. This same artistic device of polka dots, he argues, may have been used to represent a figure who “is bare55“The

200

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

crudely executed and lacking in artistic detail. Given the images as they are, the centre and left hand figures can safely be understood as Bes-figures, as the careful analyses of Beck and Hadley demonstrate.58 No other figure suggested can account for the characteristic headdress, tail (or phallus) projecting between the legs, and the posture; all of which are reminiscent of Bes. The lyre player may or may not be related to the overlapping Besfigures. With these preliminary remarks in mind, we now turn to Margalit’s hypothesis. Margalit translates the two inscriptions discussed above as “... I have blessed you to [= ‘in the name of’] YHWH-of-Samaria and to his ʾŠRH” and “I have blessed thee to YHWH-of-Teman and to his ʾŠRH. May he bless and keep thee and may he be with my lo[r]d”.59 He argues that only a divine persona can be the agent of blessing intended by the phrase brk l-, and then discusses the grammatical difficulties.60 Margalit insists that the etymology of ʾšrh as “follow behind (in someone’s footsteps)” and therefore as denoting “wife, consort”, is necessary to understand this scene correctly.61 This is graphically represented, he suggests, by the fact that the Besfigures (whom he takes to be Yahweh (left) and Asherah (right)) overlap, indicating that Asherah is “following behind” Yahweh.62 Margalit has even discerned what he believes the artist intended to be Yahweh’s footprint, into which Asherah is about to step.63 There are difficulties with this general interpretation as well as with the particular details of it. First of all, Margalit is unable to produce a Hebrew nominal form ʾšrh which means “wife” or “consort”. His evidence from the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.3.I.10–15) leaves itself open to differing interpretations (see above, chapter two), and this one instance of an Ugaritic word should not be counted as decisive for several Hebrew inscriptions or Hebrew lexicography in general. The Semitic root ʾšr does not occur with the breasted but wears a long, thick tufted woolen skirt and similar shaw”. The drawing does not admit of that much detail; and as Hadley has shown, it is not certain that this figure is even a female (Yahweh’s Asherah: 186–192). 58Beck, “The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman”: 27–31; Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 175–185. 59“The Meaning and Significance of Asherah”: 275. 60“The Meaning and Significance of Asherah”: 276. 61“The Meaning and Significance of Asherah”: 277–284. 62“The Meaning and Significance of Asherah”: 277. 63“Some Observations on the Inscription”: 378, n. 18.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 201 basic meaning of “wife, consort” unless it does so in the character of Asherah. To use “Asherah” as evidence for this etymology is to beg the question. Another difficulty lies in Margalit’s interpretation of the drawings. He argues against the Bes interpretation of the centre and left hand figures on the grounds that they are bovine rather than leonine. The painted figures are not sufficiently detailed to decide the issue, although I see nothing in their appearance which contradicts leonine attributes. It must also be noted that nowhere does Asherah have bovine characteristics. We have not observed any connection with cows in the Ugaritic texts, nor in the Old Testament, nor in the Akkadian and South Arabian material. El’s familiar epithet at Ugarit (tr il, “Bull El”) is to be taken metaphorically rather than literally, and thus provides no evidence for bovine characteristics of Asherah.64 Since we have no other iconographic material (outside of the proposed interpretation of this inscription) that can certainly be interpreted as representing Yahweh, the assertion that he should appear in bovine form is without evidence. On the larger issue of the relationship of this drawing to inscription 8.017, the following observations must be taken into consideration. Beck points out that the drawing under discussion has another inscription beside it and one below it as well.65 Are these inscriptions also to be taken as commentary on the drawing? This issue has not been addressed by those who wish to see such a connection for inscription 8.017.66 Secondly, if there are other inscriptions which mention Yahweh and his asherah, why are they not illustrated as well? This question may raise a moot point, but it serves to show that until all the inscriptions of the pithos are considered in relationship to the various drawings, no firm conclusion may be reached. The publications do not give a proper perspective when they do not show the location of the other inscriptions; generally, the published photographs show 64El,

unlike Zeus in Greek mythology, does not appear to act in the form of a bull in any of the Ugaritic texts as we have them. It is not acceptable to argue the case from the perspective of Baal’s occasional appearance as a bull, as Baal is never pictured as Athirat’s consort. 65“The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman”, 45. 66This may partially be the result of the method in which the inscription and drawing have been published to date. Generally the photographs (as reflected in figure 1) detail the Bes figures overlapped by part of inscription 1. As far as I am aware, the photographs of the other inscriptions on pithos A have not yet been published.

202

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

the three figures and part of the overlapping inscription. Finally, the inscriptions contain grammatical difficulties; thus we must be careful not to use one of several obscure drawings to “clarify” a perplexing inscription. Without the drawing to associate with the inscription, Margalit’s main piece of evidence remains unsubstantiated. J. Tigay, in a brief article, has recently argued for the cultic object interpretation of ʾšrth at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd.67 He cites the Tannaitic sources as recording that the altar was addressed during Sukkoth in the second temple period with the calls “Praise to you, O Altar” and “To Yah and to you, O Altar!” Tigay notes that these cultic sayings occasioned surprise then, much as the ʿAjrûd inscriptions do now. He argues that this parallel demonstrates that blessings can be sought by invoking cultic objects, thus there is no need to see a goddess in the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd blessings.68 Tigay’s evidence does point to a personified cultic object being addressed and praised by worshippers, but it does not parallel the actual blessing by a cultic object at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd. It should also be noted that the parallel cited by Tigay is considerably later than the ʿAjrûd inscriptions; nevertheless, his evidence for a personified cultic object associated with Yahweh is of interest for these inscriptions. R. Hess has also addressed the inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd.69 As noted under the discussion of the Khirbet el-Qôm inscription, Hess opts for the “double feminization” interpretation of the goddess’s name in these inscriptions.70 He observes the difficulties in understanding a cultic object being in parallel with the divine name Yahweh, noting “that it would upset the symmetry of ideas such as might be expected in prayers and blessings”.71 This leads to Hess’s support of the double feminization as the best option. In this he finds support from the Tel Miqne inscription (see below). He cautiously translates the inscriptions as “I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and by Asherata” and “I bless you by Yahweh of Teman and by Asherata”.72 67J.

H. Tigay, “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” IEJ 40 (1990): 218. 68“Second Temple Parallel”: 218. 69“Yahweh and His Asherah?”: 11–23. 70“Yahweh and His Asherah?”: 16. 71“Yahweh and His Asherah?”: 19. 72“Yahweh and His Asherah?”: 21.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 203 Hess does add evidence to the “double feminization” interpretation of the inscriptions; however, this rendering is open to the criticisms of Tigay and Hadley.73 Hess adds the support of the Tel Miqne inscription which mentions lʾšrt, “to/for Asherata”,74 noting that the lack of a final he can be accounted for on the basis of variant spellings in Hebrew. The difficulty remains, however, in that no personal or divine names are attested with this “double feminization”. The inscription from Tel Miqne rather indicates that the divine name consist only of ʾšrt, and the form attested in the Old Testament is ʾšrh.75 A number of scholars are now turning to the doublefeminine-ending theory to account for the grammatical difficulties in these inscriptions and the one from Khirbet el-Qôm. The problem with this solution is that it suffers the same weakness as the pronominal suffix on a personal name does—neither construction is attested in the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Another recent attempt to break the inscriptional deadlock is presented by O. Loretz.76 On the basis of Wellhausen’s well-known reconstruction of Hos. 14.9 as: Was hat Ephraim noch mit den Götzen ? ich bin seine Anath und seine Aschera, ich bin ihm wie eine grüne Cypresse, bei mir findet sich seine Frucht. Loretz finds a parallel to the use of a pronominal suffix on the divine names Anat and Asherah.77 He notes that Wellhausen’s hypothesis has not found a wide following; nevertheless it explains the verse better than other interpretations on “kolometrisch” grounds.78 If Wellhausen’s proposal were to be accepted, then the objection to a divine name with a suffix holds no weight. 73Tigay,

You Shall Have No Other Gods: 29–30; Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 136. and His Asherah?”: 19. 75Prof. J. C. L. Gibson has indicated to me that the Tel Miqne inscription simply may be the older spelling of the name with the archaic feminine ending found in Ugaritic, Phoenician and occasionally in Hebrew. 76“ʿAnat-Aschera (Hos 14,9) und die Inschriften von Kuntillet ʿAjrud” SEL 6 (1989): 57–65. This article has been recently revised and published as chapter 4 of M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, “Jahwe und seine Aschera” Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bildervorbot (UBL 9) Münster, 1992. 77“ʿAnat-Aschera (Hos 14,9)”: 61; “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: 181. 78“ʿAnat-Aschera (Hos 14,9)”: 59; “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: 177. 74“Yahweh

204

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Loretz’s argumentation is well-established; given the premise that Hos. 14.9 reads “his Anat and his Asherah”, there is no trouble in seeing the expression “Yahweh and his Asherah” at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd. The difficulty is that the reconstruction of Hos. 14.9 is debated, and no consensus has been reached. Also, a grammatical rule should not be based on an emendation. Even if Asherah were mentioned in Hos. 14.9, this would not provide direct evidence that she was to be connected with Yahweh, which the evidence at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd would seem to do. The exploration by Dietrich and Loretz of KTU 1.43 is also presented as evidence that a divine name may take a possessive suffix.79 This evidence is, however, ambiguous. The only reading of ʿnth in text 43 is partially reconstructed, including the h. Even if we were to accept that “his Anat” is mentioned here, this would only attest such a grammatical phenomenon for Ugaritic, not necessarily for Hebrew. Finally, such a reading also depends upon an emendation for the text of Hos. 14.9; and as I have suggested above, paradigms should not be built upon emended texts. These Hebrew inscriptions present us with ambiguities of translation. The actual expression of “Yahweh of GN” is unparalleled in Hebrew, and at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd the blessings which mention l ʾšrth always add a geographical name after “Yahweh”.80 Meshel’s most complete publication of the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions (found in Israel Museum Catalogue 175) records inscriptions found at this site which mention Yahweh but do not have a geographical name following his name.81 Meshel cites the inscription (8.011) engraved on a large stone bowl: lʿbdyw bn ʿdnh brk hʾlyhw “(Belonging) to ʿObadyau son of ʿAdnah, may he be blessed by Yahwe(h)”,82 and Hadley refers to a third inscription (8.022) which reads kl ʾšr yš ʾl m ʾš ḥnn... wntn lh yhw klbbh “Whatever he asks from a man, may it be favoured...and let Yahw(eh) give unto him as he wishes (according to his heart)”.83 This is a curious dichotomy: when l ʾšrth is mentioned the geographical name follows Yahweh, but Yahweh occurs without the geographical name in other 79“Jahwe

und seine Aschera”: chapter 2. A. Emerton, “New Light on Israelite Religion”: 2–20. 81Kuntillet ʿAjrud: The Inscriptions (this catalogue has no page numbers). See also Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions: 80–81. 82“Did Yahweh have a Consort?”: 32. 83Yahweh’s Asherah: 171. 80J.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 205 inscriptions. It seems as though the references to the asherah of Yahweh are geographically bound. As Teman apparently indicates a region of Edom,84 it is of interest that these inscriptions mention Yahweh as being known in both Samaria and Teman, in the north and south. They also attest the presence of “his asherah” in these two locations as well. As Hadley has noted, the attribution of Yahweh to Samaria casts considerable doubt on the city being regarded as a completely Canaanite city-state.85 The reference to Yahweh of Teman recalls Isa. 63.1 (“Who is this coming from Edom, with red garments from Bozrah”) and Hab. 3.3 (“God [Eloah] comes from Teman, the Holy One from Mount Paran”).86 Both of these verses deal with the wrath of God when he comes from Edom or Teman. “Teman” can also designate “south”,87 but in the light of the reference to Yahweh of Samaria, it is probably best to understand the reference in this inscription likewise to be to a specific area. In the study of these inscriptions, the category of the blessing referred to may assist in understanding the invocations. C. Mitchell has recently published an up-to-date monograph on the subject of the Hebrew word brk, “to bless”.88 Several points in his study are of interest to our investigation. The first item of interest concerns the agents of blessings. Margalit has suggested that only divine personae are invoked in the blessing formula brk l-.89 Although not necessarily employing this formula, Mitchell’s study refers to non-divine agents of blessing such as Abraham (Gen. 12.2), the ark of the covenant (2 Sam. 6.11), and the loins of the needy (Job 31.20).90 As he notes, there is no question but that God is the source of the blessings, but in various circumstances even inanimate objects may be used as agents of blessing. Mitchell also delineates the various uses of blessings in his chapter, “Man blessing man”. Some of these uses are priestly blessings, prayers for blessings, greetings and farewells, and thanksgiving benedictions. He establishes that brk can be used to indicate greetings of the pious or those who 84Emerton,

“New Light on Israelite Religion”: 9–13. Yahweh’s Asherah: 162–163. 86Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ʿAjrud Inscriptions”: 125. 87BDB: 412b. 88C. W. Mitchell, The Meaning of brk “to Bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS 95), Atlanta, 1987. 89“The Meaning and Significance of Asherah”: 276. 90The Meaning of brk: 30, 76, 115. 85Hadley,

206

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

wish to appear pious.91 In these instances, “greetings and farewells are social customs that usually have little religious value”.92 Comparable modern customs may be the use of the phrase “good-bye”93 or saying “God bless you” following a sneeze. These phrases invoke the language of divine blessing, but they have become simple social conventions. The question of importance here is: into which category of blessing do the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions fit? Are they indicative of a religious society at the site which included priests? Are they thanksgiving benedictions for a safe journey? Are they merely greetings? The difficulty is that a context is required to differentiate between these various forms of blessing. The Old Testament, which Mitchell utilises as the basis for his study, often provides the vital clues. At Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, we are left with only the inscriptions and artifacts to help us to determine their meaning. Since Mitchell has demonstrated these various usages of brk formulae, caution must be employed if we are seeking what these inscriptions tell us about ancient Israelite religion. If they are mere greetings, they may imply no more about the religion of Israel than “God bless you” does about the religion of Britain; namely they merely cite to whom the people appealed for blessings. If l ʾšrth in these inscriptions refers to a cultic object or a shrine, we may be able to infer that priests and cultic practices attended it, but it offers no details about the character of the religion. A third point raised by Mitchell which is of interest to this study is that bārûk and ʾašrê are synonymous.94 Koch noted this point whilst discussing the presence of Asherah in the Old Testament: Bemerkenswert an den Stellen ist die Anbindung an das Verb brk in drei Fällen. Da der Segen im Alten Testament mit einer durch ʾašrê eingeleiteten Seligpreisung in Beziehung steht, legt sich nahe, daß die Israeliten ʾašerā mit diesem Lexem “volksetymologisch” zusammengebracht haben, ʾašerā also als eine Art “Kraft zur Glückseligkeit” angesehen haben.95

91The

Meaning of brk: 106–110. Meaning of brk: 106–107. 93Derived from Middle English “God be with ye”. 94The Meaning of brk: 51–52, 180–181. 95K. Koch, “Aschera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem” UF 20 (1988): 100. 92The

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 207

The noun r#$) occurs only in plural or suffixed forms in the Old Testament.96 The gender of the noun appears to be masculine, thus eliminating the possibility that l ʾšrth of the ʿAjrûd and el-Qôm inscriptions is a form of this word. Since all of these inscriptions employ the use of the word brk, it may be considered a possibility that ʾašrth refers to a cultic object admitting of a word play with the synonymous brk. The inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd provide the discussion of Asherah with evidence dating from the monarchic period. If asherah in these inscriptions repesents a goddess, then we have a grammatical difficulty with the pronominal suffix appended to her name. If l ʾšrth refers to a cultic object, the parallelism strikes us as unusual. The dilemma is demonstrated by the difference in opinion by two opposing schools of thought. Both have considered the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions and come to differing conclusions. J. Emerton’s position demonstrates one school’s thought: “the use of a suffix with a personal name is not in accordance with Hebrew idiom as far as we know it, and it is unwise to interpret the newly-found inscriptions in such a way unless there is no satisfactory alternative”.97 Hess concurs; “No one denies that exceptions to any grammatical rule can appear, but the best interpretation should be the one which follows the conventions of the language in which the text is written with a minimum of departures”.98 D. N. Freedman, representing the other school, suggests: “I believe the way to approach a strange grammatical construction is not by invoking a rule that somebody invented in the nineteenth century that says it is impossible but rather by investigating the possible reasons for such an unusual arrangement”.99 This view is put even more strongly by Loretz, “Eine Berufung auf eine hebräische Syntax der zensurierten biblischen Texte dürfte kaum der richtige Ansatzpunkt für die Klärung dieser Frage sein”.100 Our knowledge of classical Hebrew comes primarily from the corpus of the Old Testament itself. The possibilities of adding to this knowl96BDB:

80–81. Light on Israelite Religion”: 14–15. 98“Yahweh and His Asherah?”: 16. 99D. N. Freedman, “Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah” BA 50 (1987): 247. 100“ʿAnat-Ascherah (Hos 14,9)”: 61; although this phrase is lacking in his revised argument in “Jahwe und seine Aschera”: 181. 97“New

208

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

edge are slim if we do not admit the understanding gained from inscriptions, which we have in autograph form, dating from the time when the original documents from the Old Testament were being written. Even GK relies on the Moabite Stone and other extra-biblical sources to explain what occurs in Hebrew. Our interpretation of these inscriptions should rely on their context, but it is open to various hypotheses. Considering Tigay’s second temple parallel, and Mitchell’s indication that the ark of the covenant could be used as an agent of blessing, we should consider the possibility of asherah in these inscriptions as referring to a cultic object. Neither the altar nor the ark were invoked for blessings, but the altar was praised and the ark dispensed God’s blessings. These hints may provide a clue as to the meaning of these blessings. In any case, we gain little in our understanding of Asherah’s character in the present state of scholarship concerning the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions.

TEL MIQNE Some recently unearthed inscriptions from Tel Miqne (Ekron) have added further textual material to the discussion of Asherah. According to the preliminary reports, fifteen inscriptions have been found, and “Asherat” is mentioned more than once.101 S. Gitin, one of the directors of the dig, has informed me that two of these inscriptions mention “Asherat”.102 The published photograph to which I have access clearly reads lʾsrt. 103 Gitin notes: One [of the Asherat inscriptions] appeared on a storejar and had on the opposite side of the jar the word “kds.” Taken together, it could be understood as “dedicated for Asherat.” The other Asherat appeared also on a storejar, but without any other inscription.104

101“Cultic Inscriptions”: 232; S. Gitin, “Ekron of the Philistines Part II: OliveOil Suppliers to the World” BAR 16 (1990): 59, n. 18. 102Private communication 17 May 1992. I wish to thank Dr. Gitin for enclosing the relevant pages of his article “Seventh Century BCE Cultic Elements at Ekron” (forthcoming in the Proceedings of the IInd International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Israel Exploration Society). 103W. F. Albright Institute, “Cultic Inscriptions”: 232. Also, S. B. Parker, in a private communication of 31 January 1992, comments on seeing a slide of one of these inscriptions: “It was plain and unambiguous: qdš l ʾšrt”. 104Private communication, 17 May.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 209 These inscriptions appear to attest to the presence of a goddess Asherat in Ekron of the seventh century. The language of the inscriptions is not yet precisely known, although they may be read with a minimum of difficulty.105 Was Asherat worshipped in one of the Philistine capitals? The published information is too scanty to provide much information at this point, but further research of the materials may prove to be of importance.106

ARSLAN TASH (TSSI 3, NO. 23 = KAI 27) The plaque bearing an inscription in Phoenician found at Arslan Tash107 has been used to support a reference to Asherah at that site. The small plaque appears to be a seventh century apotropaic device against night demons. The plaque portrays a sphinx and a she-wolf on the obverse, and a warrior 105W.

F. Albright Institute, “Cultic Inscriptions”: 232. find is also of interest to the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions. Some of the clay of which ʿAjrûd pottery was made may have come from the Tel Miqne or Ashdod areas (J. Gunneweg, I. Perlman and Z. Meshel, “The Origin of the Pottery of Kuntillet ʿAjrud” IEJ 35 (1985): 280). The composition of the clay of the pithoi with the inscriptions and their typology show their provenance to have been Jerusalem (pages 272, 275). What is of interest is that the pottery possibly indicates a connection between Tel Miqne and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd. To assume a direct connection would be premature, as the history of the pots from the southern coastal region is unknown prior to their resting place at Kuntillet ʿAjrûd. The common use of the word ʾšrt at both locations should be noted. 107Le Comte du Mesnil du Buisson, “Une tablette magique de la région du moyen Euphrate” in Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, vol. 1, Paris, 1939: 421–434; W. F. Albright, “An Aramaean Magical Text in Hebrew from the Seventh Century B.C.” BASOR 76 (1939): 5–11; H. Torczyner, “A Hebrew Incantation against Night-Demons from Biblical Times” JNES 6 (1947): 18–29; T. H. Gaster, “The Magic Inscription from Arslan Tash” JNES 6 (1947): 186–188; F. M. Cross, Jr. and R. J. Saley, “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria” BASOR 197 (1970): 42–49; Z. Zevit, “A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology” IEJ 27 (1977): 110–118; S. D. Sperling, “An Arslan Tash Incantation: Interpretations and Implications” HUCA 53 (1982): 1–10; J. C. L. Gibson, TSSI 3: 78–88; W. A. Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta, 1986: 173–175; and W. Louie, The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah in Old Testament Idolatry in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence, Th. D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1988: 92–97. 106This

210

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

pictured in Assyrian style on the reverse. The inscription was engraved round the figures, and separate inscriptions were engraved on the actual figures themselves. Both the language and translation of the inscription are difficult, and I shall not attempt a full translation here. Lines 1–8 of the inscription name the offensive demons and pronounce that they are not to enter where the protector enters; on this point there is a consensus. The proposed reading of “Asherah” appears in line 10, as the maker of a covenant. In line 14 Baal is mentioned, and Horon in line 16. The question which concerns us is whether or not Asherah is actually mentioned. Albright was the first to suggest that Asher(at?) was to be read for ʾšr in line 10. He read lines 8–11 as: ...k (k ?) ...(for?) the goddess of eternity, Asher(at?) rt.ln.ʾlt hath made a covenant with us, hath made a covenant ʿlm ʾšr (t ?). krt with us, and (so have?) all the gods.108 ln.wkl bn ʾlm He explained that the final t of Asherat must have dropped out “because of the proximity of other sequences of the letters r-t”. 109 The identity with Asherah was based on his reading “the goddess of eternity”, who was the wife of El, the “father of years”. Although explaining ʾšr in a different way, F. M. Cross and R. Saley followed Albright’s suggestion of considering Asherah as the goddess invoked.110 Reading the same consonants as Albright they translated the lines as: The Eternal One has made a covenant with us, Asherah has made (a pact) with us, And all the sons of El,111 They explained the form ʾšr as an unusual spelling for ʾAširo, stating “Usually the form in Phoenician is ʾAširt”.112 This is an interesting assertion since 108“An

Amaraean Magical Text”: 8. Amaraean Magical Text”: 8, n. 16. 110“Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque”: 44–45. 111“Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque”: 45. 112“Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque”: 45, n. 17. 109“An

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 211 Asherah’s name is otherwise unattested in Phoenician inscriptions.113 They are followed in reading Asherah here by Maier.114 The reading Asherah, however, is not universally accepted. Z. Zevit has offered cogent reasons for not accepting the reference to Asherah. He notes that as Arslan Tash was an Assyrian administrative centre at the period of the inscription, the invocation of Assur is not unusual. Furthermore, there are linguistic reasons for not reading Asherah: In the dialect of this inscription, final at did not become a as in Hebrew. Thus, Phoenician ʾlt, “covenant”, may be contrasted to its Hebrew etymological equivalent ʾlh (=ʾālā < *ʾālat). Under these circumstances, the Phoenician equivalent of the name which occurs in Hebrew orthography as ʾšrh (=ʾašērā) should have appeared as ʾšrt, as Albright realized when he suggested the emendment of the inscription.115

S. Sperling also reads the text as it stands and notes that Assur here is to be explained as the displacer of an originally Phoenician god. He notes that Assur displaced Marduk in the Assyrian version of Enuma Elish.116 H. Donner and W. Röllig, although noting the unusual reference to Assur, also find difficulties with the rendering ʾšrt.117 J. C. L. Gibson also reads Assur here, and understands the reference as “an act of deference towards the Assyrian imperial power”.118 Since much of this discussion has transpired, J. Teixidor and P. Amiet have analysed the two amulets from Arslan Tash.119 Teixidor’s study of the epigraphy and Amiet’s consideration of the iconography raise serious doubts as to the authenticity of both plaques found at the site.120 Since the veracity of this artifact is now called into question, and since the reading “Asherah” may only be attained by emendation, the Arslan 113Gibson,

TSSI 3: 85. Extrabiblical Evidence: 174. 115“A Phoenician Inscription”: 115. 116“An Arslan Tash Incantation”: 7. 117KAI 2: 45. 118TSSI 3: 85. 119J. Teixidor, “Les tablettes d’Arslan Tash au musée d’Alep” AuOr 1 (1983): 105–108, and P. Amiet, “Observations sur les ‘Tablettes magiques’ d’Arslan Tash” AuOr 1 (1983): 109. ( I am indebted to Dr. W. G. E. Watson and Prof. J. C. L. Gibson for drawing these sources to my attention.) 120See especially Amiet, “Observations sur les ‘Tablettes magiques’”: 109. 114ʾAšerah:

212

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Tash plaque must not be used to establish the presence of the goddess. Even if the amulet were to prove to be authentic, the only way to see Asherah here would be to posit a scribal error. In an area strongly influenced by Assyrian rule, it is certainly not unexpected that Assur, the Assyrian national god, should be invoked. As the theology of that period reflected in the Moabite stone appears to indicate, the god of the victorious army was the victorious god.121 If Assur had overcome the local gods of Arslan Tash, surely he could have been invoked against night demons. If the plaque is authentic, it does not refer to Asherah.

PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTIONS MENTIONING ʾšrt Without the evidence of the Arslan Tash inscription, the goddess Asherah is not attested to date in any Phoenician inscriptions. The word ʾšrt does, however, occur in Phoenician with the meaning of “shrine” or “sanctuary”. The first such reference is in the Umm El-ʿAmed inscription (number iv: also known as the Maʿṣūb inscription = TSSI 3, no. 31 = KAI 19). This inscription was engraved on a stone plaque and dates from 222 B.C.E. It was purchased at Maʿṣūb, although it was originally from Umm ElʿAmed.122 Line 4 of the inscription reads: l ʿstrt b ʾsrt ʾl ḥmn “to Ashtart in the shrine of El Ḥmn”. A divine name for ʾšrt in this context would be meaningless. This inscription simply commemorates the addition of a portico to the shrine (ʾšrt) which was dedicated to El Ḥmn.123 A second example of this usage of ʾšrt occurs in an inscription published by M. Dothan in 1985.124 This inscription was written in ink on a discarded pottery sherd and it dates to the Persian period: “the fifth century B.C.E., more specifically to the first half of that century and probably to its

121G.

L. Mattingly, “Moabite Religion and the Meshaʿ Inscription” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ABS 2), A. Dearman, ed., Atlanta, 1989: 232–234. 122Gibson, TSSI 3: 118. 123See R. S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages (SBLDS 32), Missoula, Montana, 1978: 36, and P. K. McCarter, “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data” in Ancient Israelite Religion, Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, P.D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, eds., Philadelphia, 1987: 145. 124“A Phoenician Inscription from ʿAkko” IEJ 35 (1985): 81–94.

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 213 early part”.125 The subject matter apparently concerns gifts to be given to the overseer of a shrine (ʾšrt). Lines 1–2 of this seven-line inscription read: bdt lbn ḥrs ʾa ytn ʾgn k bd lslt ʾs ʿl ʾsrt glnm

By order: to the guild of (metal?) artisans; they shall give a valuable basin to slt, the overseer of the shrine(s); (likewise they shall give) metal cups (golden?)126

P. K. McCarter has demonstrated by comparison with Hebrew titles that the office mentioned here is that of an overseer of the shrine.127 Since the objects listed appear to have been intended for use in a shrine or sanctuary, there is no reason to call this interpretation into question. One final Phoenician inscription should be considered in this section. The Pyrgi inscription (TSSI 3, no. 42 = KAI 277) was found in Italy and consists of a “bilingual”128 Phoenician-Etruscan dedication written on gold lamina.129 It dates from the fourth to the fifth centuries B.C.E. The inscription is a dedication of a holy place (ʾsr qds) to Ashtart. Lines 1–3 read: lrbt l ʿstrt ʾsr qds ʾz ʾs pʿl w ʾs ytn tbryʾ wlns mlk...

To Lady Ashtart this holy place (is dedicated)130 which was made and which was given (by) Tbry ʾWlns, king ...

In both TSSI131 and KAI132 it is noted that the Etruscan version names Ashtart as Unialastres “Juno-Ashtart”. That a place is being referred to in this

125Dothan, 126The

“Phoenician Inscription”: 92. transcription and translation are those of Dothan, “Phoenician Inscrip-

tion”: 83. 127“Aspects of the Religion”: 145. See also Dothan, “Phoenician Inscription”: 85. 128Gibson (TSSI 3: 151) observes that from the rendering of the only partially understood Etruscan texts, the three leaves are not exact translations of each other. I use “bilingual” here in the sense of literally “written in two languages”. 129See G. N. Knoppers, “‘The God in His Temple’: The Phoenician Text from Pyrgi as a Funerary Inscription” JNES 51 (1992): 105–120. 130Following the suggested meaning of Donner and Röllig, KAI 2: 331. 131Vol. 3: 154. 132Vol. 2: 331.

214

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

inscription is witnessed by the use of the verbs pʿl “to do, make”133 in line 2, and bntw “I built it” or “he built it” (from bny “to build”134) in lines 5–6. We have sufficient evidence, therefore, that ʾšr(t) denotes “shrine” in Phoenician.

TEMA (TSSI 2, NO. 30 = KAI 228) An Aramaic inscription from Tema also contains a proposed reference to Asherah.135 This inscription was found on a stele in 1880, and dates from the mid-fifth century B.C.E.136 The subject matter concerns the establishment of a new cult under the supervision of a priest named Ṣlmšzb. The gods of relevant places are cited in lines 2–3 and 16 as Ṣlm of Mḥrm, Śnglʾ, and “ʾšyrʾ”.137 The spelling of the name of the third deity led to the hypothesis that Asherah was intended here, and this was supported by the plene spelling of her name in the Old Testament. In both occurrences of the name, however, Gibson has indicated that the r is an uncertain letter.138 S. Dalley has recently studied the nature of the god Ṣalmu mentioned in this inscription.139 According to a new stele discovered at Tema, the names of the main deities listed are Šngl and ʾšymʾ.140 She cites the evidence of the epigrapher A. Livingstone, who worked at the dig.141 Livingstone notes: It can be seen from photographs of the previously discovered Taimāʾ stele... that the fourth letter in the name previously transliterated ʾšyrʾ is 133Tomback,

Comparative Semitic Lexicon: 267. Comparative Semitic Lexicon: 49. 135E. Lipiński, “The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” OLP 3 (1972): 101; Louie, The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah: 89–91. 136Gibson, TSSI 2: 148; KAI 2: 278. 137Gibson, TSSI 2: 150; KAI 2: 278. 138TSSI 2: 149. 139S. Dalley, “The God Ṣalmu and the Winged Disk” Iraq 48 (1986): 85–101. I am grateful to Dr. Dalley for providing me with an offprint of this article, and thus drawing my attention to this reference. 140“The God Ṣalmu”: 85–86. For further discussion see also B. Aggoula, “Studia Aramaica II” Syria 62 (1985): 61–76, especially page 70. 141A. Livingstone, B. Spaie, M. Ibrahim, M. Kamal, and S. Taimani, “Taimāʾ: Recent Soundings and New Inscribed Material 1402 AH–1982 AD” Atlal 7 1988: 111. 134Tomback,

HEBREW, PHOENICIAN, AND ARAMAIC EPIGRAPHIC EVIDENCE 215 badly damaged. The present text mentions a deity ʾšymʾ with all letters clear, and it is certain that ʾšyrʾ in the previously known text should be corrected to ʾšymʾ.142

If this new information is taken into account, then Asherah does not appear in this inscription.

SEFIRE I,B One final Aramaic inscription should be considered here. The inscription entitled Sefire I is engraved on a stele, the pieces of which were acquired in Sefire.143 The stele is dated to the middle of the eighth century B.C.E., and it is inscribed on three sides. The text concerns a treaty between Bar-Gaʾyā, king of Katk and Matiʿ-ʾEl, king of Arpad. The inscription is of interest to us as it attests to an Aramaic use of ʾšrt as “sanctuary”. Side B extols the firmness of the treaty between the gods of the cities. Unfortunately this face of the stele is damaged. Line 11 reads: “[All the gods will guard the h]ouse of Gūš and its people with their sanctuaries (ʾsrthm)”.144 This meaning of “shrine” for ʾšrt thus occurs in Phoenician and Aramaic. This meaning is also attested in Akkadian.145

CONCLUSIONS We have seen that in the inscriptions from Arslan Tash (TSSI 3, no. 23 = KAI 27) and Tema (TSSI 2, no. 30 = KAI 228) there is no reason to find reference to Asherah. The interpretation of the name ʾšr as Assur corresponds to what we know to have been the situation of Arslan Tash in the seventh century; also we have no other attested forms of the name Asherah without a feminine ending. The evidence from this inscription must now be approached with extreme caution in the light of the observations of Teixi-

142“Taimāʾ:

Recent Soundings”: 111. Gibson, TSSI 2: 18–27 for information on the Sefire inscriptions. 144Translation of E. Lipiński, Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 1), Leuven, 1975: 51. KAI 222 marks the r and the h of ʾsrthm as uncertain. 145For the Akkadian evidence see CAD A, vol. 1, part 2. 143See

216

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

dor and Amiet.146 At Tema new evidence has demonstrated that the divine name there is spelled ʾšymʾ, and there is no reference to Asherah. The inscriptions from Khirbet el-Qôm and Kuntillet ʿAjrûd pose a dilemma. In the light of the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions, the reading of the tomb inscription from Khirbet el-Qôm may be seen to refer to Yahweh and his asherah, but we cannot declare this with certainty. The inscription from Khirbet el-Qôm is damaged, and its reconstructed message must remain hypothetical. The inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd are perplexing. The inscriptions appear to read clearly “I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and by his asherah” and “I bless you by Yahweh of Teman and by his asherah”. Classical Hebrew grammar, as we know it, does not allow a pronominal suffix to be appended to a proper noun. Is the reluctance to modify our understanding of Hebrew based on the implications of these inscriptions, or are the grammatical rules of Hebrew well enough established to insist that another interpretation be found? Does the nature of blessings allow for a cultic object to be invoked? The issue of the category of blessings must also enter the question. What kind of blessing is intended by the phrase brk lyhwh? This must be taken into account before considering the ʿAjrûd evidence as formative for our knowledge of Israelite religion. If the graffiti are priestly blessings they indicate a special importance for the site where they were found. If they are merely greetings, then their religious value may have been overestimated. I suggest that further study is needed. Other epigraphic sources need to be explored before Asherah’s role (or presence) in the epigraphic material can be clarified.

146Teixidor, “Les tablettes d’Arslan Tash”: 105–108; Amiet, “Observations sur les ‘Tablettes magiques’”:109.

7 CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS In this study I have examined the primary source materials concerning Athirat in the first two millennia B.C.E. Her name occurs in several cultural spheres within the ancient Near East. My approach has been to consider the goddess within the separate cultural contexts within which she appears. Since Athirat appears most clearly in the Ugaritic tablets, I understand this to be the primary locus of our information about her. In the course of this study it has become obvious that in different cultural contexts, the goddess developed features appropriate to her role in the “receptor culture”. My method of considering the references separately was partially in response to the past studies on “Asherah”. The method of understanding this goddess has frequently been to gather the information from diverse sources and to compile it into a dossier on Asherah. This was a necessary step to initiate studies on the goddess. I believe it is now time to consider the pieces of the puzzle individually, and to see if they actually fit together. After “Asherah studies” had progressed a few decades following the discovery of Ugarit, K.-H. Bernhardt cautioned: Wir haben jedenfalls im phönikisch-kanaanäischen Raum mit einer Fülle von lokalen Göttersystemen und entsprechenden Variationen in den Mythen zu rechnen—eine Fülle, die ungefähr dem politischen Bild der Zersplitterung in zahlreiche Stadtstaaten entsprochen haben mag. Man könnte nun einwenden, daß bei Göttern gleichen Namens und gleicher Funktion an verschiedenen Kultorten die Unterschiede so erheblich nicht gewesen sein können.1

It is in the spirit of this caution that I have proceeded. Unlike Bernhardt, however, I do not believe that it is possible to separate completely the ref1“Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament” MIO 13 (1967): 168. See also K. Koch, “Aschera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem” UF 20 (1988): 106–107.

217

218

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

erences to Athirat and Asherah. The various “Asherah” figures appear to have a common origin, and it is within their different cultural developments that we begin to observe the distinctions. With the distinction of individual states of the ancient Near East in mind, I have explored the information concerning Athirat. The Ugaritic mythological tablets of Elimelek are the most important source for gleaning an understanding of the nature and character of Athirat. The conclusions drawn from this cultural sphere permit the comparison of the nature and character of other ancient Near Eastern goddesses sharing Athirat’s name. The Ugaritic texts portray Athirat as the mother of the gods and as the wet nurse of royal heirs. These two functions appear to be aspects of her role as the rabītu, the “queen mother” who is responsible for bearing and designating the heir to the throne. In the case of Keret’s son Yaṣṣib, where Athirat is not the actual mother to the heir, she legitimates the heir by suckling him. In the Ugaritic myths, Athirat’s character reflects facets of earthly women’s lives. In this aspect her name occurs in parallelism with att, “woman”. Athirat’s status is evident in her relationship with other gods. She is the consort of El, the head of the pantheon. The gods are her children, and they must entreat her for the sanction of El. Athirat is related in some way to the sea, as is evident from her title rbt atrt ym. The precise nature of this relationship is not detailed by the texts as we have them. Yam is the “sea god” of Ugarit, thus his domain is probably not encroached upon by that of Athirat. These are the characteristics of Athirat as presented by the Ugaritic mythological texts. The ritual texts examined in chapter three appear to confirm the maternal aspects of Athirat; however, they do not add further characteristics to this picture. In the Old Testament grammatical difficulties attend nearly every reference to hr#$). These difficulties appear in the form of the word hr#$) itself, as well as in the wording of many of the verses. Despite these difficulties, the context of some of the verses requires the interpretation of hr#$) as a goddess. In general, the references to hr#$) occur in verses which display deuteronomistic influence. The association of Maakah with Asherah/the asherah in 1 Kgs. 15.13 // 2 Chron. 15.16 may reflect a vestige of Athirat’s role as the rabītu (= gebirah). The Old Testament material also raises the question of the relationship of the goddess Asherah to the cultic object asherah. I do not concur with

CONCLUSIONS

219

Olyan that “naming the cult symbol of the deity is synonymous with naming the deity herself”.2 The texts are not explicit about the connection between the cultic objects and the deities. To me it seems unlikely that no connection existed between Asherah and the asherah. It may be that the cultic object outlived the memory of the goddess in ancient Israel.3 We cannot be certain about the nature of the relationship between the asherah and Asherah, but such a relationship is most probable. To understand the Mesopotamian evidence concerning Ashratu properly, it is necessary to consider her as the spouse of Amurru. Ashratu’s relationship to Amurru points to her West Semitic origin. If she was a West Semitic deity, there appears to be no reason to doubt her identity with Athirat. In the course of time in a different culture, however, she developed attributes which do not appear in her character at Ugarit. The epithets attested in the Sumerian votive inscription dedicated to Ashratu from the reign of Hammurabi (B.M. 22,454) are primarily indications of her relationship to Amurru. This relationship is also reflected in the god lists, cylinder seals and ritual texts. The other Mesopotamian evidence points to Ashratu’s association with a mountain, and also with the steppe. Both of these associations are shared with Amurru. There are hints of a possible connection between Ashratu and the underworld in her title “Lady of the Steppe” and in a late mystical text. There are no explicit sources concerning this association. It is generally conceded that the Hittite myth of Elkunirsa is of Canaanite origin. This myth in which Ashertu plays a role has often been used to fill gaps in our knowledge of the mythology of Ugarit. Even information from myths from the same region cannot be indiscriminately shared between mythological cycles. Although this myth may be Canaanite, it may have been modified as it was transplanted to a different culture and translated into a different language. The character of Ashertu may correspond to Athirat, although the scarcity of information contained in the fragments does not provide much material for comparison. The witness of the epigraphic South Arabian inscriptions may indicate that in that society Athirat had solar connections. When she appears mentioned with a god, it is generally with the chief deity of a region. In a broad 2S.

32.

M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34), Atlanta, 1988:

3J. M. Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, 1989: 92.

220

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

sense, this corresponds to her role as the consort of El, the chief god of Ugarit. Given the nature of the information, little can be inferred of her characteristics. ʾšrth occurs in Hebrew inscriptional sources from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd and perhaps from Khirbet el-Qôm. Grammatical difficulties with the translation of these inscriptions as well as with the pronominal suffix of ʾšrth cause uncertainty as to their implications. The suffix precludes the mention of a proper name, although this is disputed. Until the difficulties of translation and interpretation are illuminated by further discovery, the use of these inscriptions for understanding ancient Israelite religion may be asserted only cautiously. The goddess Athirat/Asherah is unattested in Phoenician inscriptions, and appears to be absent from the corpus of Aramaic inscriptions prior to the Common Era. What has this study provided for the understanding of Athirat? I have not attempted to eradicate what previous studies suggested concerning the goddess; rather, I have reassessed the evidence on a basic level. This reassessment has demonstrated that Athirat’s characteristics, as demonstrated at Ugarit, do not preclude the presence of this same goddess in other cultures. In other cultures where she appears vividly enough to glimpse her nature, she appears to have been adapted to the situation of the receptor culture. In Mesopotamia she was considered the spouse of the westerner-god, Amurru. In South Arabia she was apparently associated with the sun. These characteristics are not evident at Ugarit. A common feature of Athirat, however, does appear in the various cultures in which she is found. I have noted that at Ugarit Athirat is primarily considered in relationship to other deities. This appears clearly in her relationship with El; as his consort she may approach him with requests. In the other cultures where she appears, this characteristic remains intact. In Mesopotamia Amurru was not the highest god. He was, however, considered to be the chief god of the Amorites, and Ashratu was his spouse. In South Arabia, when Athirat is mentioned with another deity it is generally the national god of the kingdom. If Asherah was intended in the Kuntillet ʿAjrûd inscriptions, she may have been associated with Yahweh. Her relationship to the chief deity appears to be a constant character trait. Having considered the nature and characteristics of Athirat, we may briefly consider the question of the etymology of her name.

CONCLUSIONS

221

ETYMOLOGY The question of the etymology of the name Athirat is a vexed one. Albright’s suggestion of “Athiratu-yammi” as “she who Walks on the Sea” has gained a wide following.4 The primary difficulty with this interpretation is that the name Ashratu occurs in Mesopotamia half a millennium before the Ugaritic formula.5 If “Athiratu-yammi” was the original form, the absence of the second element of this epithet must be explained. Margalit has recently argued that atrt may be “contextually determined as meaning ‘wife, consort’”.6 This interpretation falters on the linguistic basis that no Semitic nominal form attests this meaning for this word.7 A number of other suggestions have been offered based on the various roots of ʾ-š/t-r-h/t in Semitic languages.8 One suggestion which has been offered to which neither of the above criticisms apply is an earlier proposal by Albright.9 In 1925 he suggested the meaning of “holy place, sanctuary”. As Day has emphasized, there is Phoenician,10 Akkadian,11 Aramaic,12 and Ugaritic13 evidence for the root ʾtr 4W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Ayer Lectures 1941), Baltimore, 1942: 77–78. He is followed in this by F. M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1973: 32– 33), M. H. Pope (“Atirat” in Wörterbuch der Mythologie, Abteilung I: Die alten Kulturvölker, H. W. Haussig, ed., Stuttgart, 1965: 247), W. A. Maier (ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta, 1986: 194–195), N. Wyatt (“Who killed the dragon?” AuOr 5 (1987): 185), and Olyan (Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh : 70–71). 5J. C. de Moor, “hrf#$')j ʾashērāh” TDOT, vol. 1: 438; J. Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature” JBL 105 (1986): 388. 6B. Margalit, “The Meaning and Significance of Asherah” VT 40 (199): 274. 7P. K. McCarter, Jr. “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data” in Ancient Israelite Religion, Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson and S. D. McBride, eds., Philadelphia, 1987: 147. 8For a summary of suggestions see E. Lipiński, “The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” OLP 3 (1972): 111. 9“The Evolution of the West-Semitic Divinity ʿAn-ʿAnat-ʿAttâ” AJSL 41 (1925): 99–100. 10R. S. Tomback, A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages (SBLDS 32), Missoula, Montana, 1978: 36; J. C. L. Gibson, TSSI 3: 167.

222

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

meaning “place”.14 The deification of places is known elsewhere in the ancient Near East.15 To me this seems a likely etymology. Unless more direct evidence appears, however, the precise etymology of the divine name Athirat remains speculative. The nature and character of Athirat as presented at Ugarit is our primary source for further study of the goddess. Although I have not considered iconographic representations of Athirat, such images may nevertheless have existed. Considering the importance of Athirat at Ugarit we should expect some iconographic representations to appear there. When the textual materials have been explored we may begin to seek iconographic representations of Athirat. These images, however, should be consistent with what we know of Athirat from the texts. The texts must also be our touchstone for any proposed further associations of Athirat. This monograph is not intended to be the final word on Athirat. Indeed, one of its main purposes has been to caution against theories which assert too much based on speculation. The rate at which new resources are appearing indicates that studies of goddesses have much to anticipate. I have reassessed the texts of the first two millennia B.C.E. to determine what they tell us about Athirat. Her nature and characteristics as revealed in these texts are our guidelines for further study of this fascinating goddess in antiquity.

11CAD

A vol. 1, part 2: 436–439. I B 11; see also M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols., New York, 1950: 133b. 13Day cites the Ugaritic usage of atr meaning “place”, see Gibson, CML2: 142. 14“Asherah in the Hebrew Bible”: 388. 15A divine name such as Bethel provides a good parallel; more generally, names such as Amurru (“west”), and Yam (“sea”) demonstrate that places could achieve divine status. See also McCarter “Aspects of the Religion”: 147–149. 12Sefire

8 THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS Originally published in UF 23 (1991) 383–394. Republished with permission.1 Asherah is a most talented lady. There appear to be no end to her “representations”. She is a tree goddess, and as such is associated with the oak, the tamarisk,2 the date palm,3 the sycamore,4 and many other species.5 This association led to her identification with sacred trees or the tree of life.6 She is a lion lady, and as such is associated with Qedeshet.7 As the serpent goddess she has connections with Qedeshet, Eve, and Tanit.8 She is 1I wish to thank Prof. J. C. L. Gibson of the University of Edinburgh for critically reading this paper. A version of this paper was read at the 1992 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in San Francisco. 2V. L. Piper, Uprooting Traditional Interpretation: A Consideration of Tree Worship in the Migration of Abraham, unpublished State University of New York Ph.D. dissertation, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1989: 107–120. 3R. A. Oden, Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea (HSM 15), Missoula, Scholars Press, 1977: 151–155; S. M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34) Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1988: 3. 4R. Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer and the ‘Asherah’” IEJ 37 (1987), plate 29 C. 5Deuteronomy 16.21. See also W. Louie, The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah in Old Testament Idolatry in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence, unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1988: 16–21 for a discussion of the various trees of the rabbinic literature. 6J. M. Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery, unpublished Ph.D. disseration, St. John’s College, Cambridge, 1989: 199–200. This dissertation is now forthcoming in Cambridge University Press, Oriental Publications Series. 7W. A. Maier, III, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37), Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986: 81–96. 8J. A. Soggin, “The Fall of Man in the Third Chapter of Genesis” in The Old Testament and Oriental Studies (BibOr 29), Rome, 1975: 88–111; H. N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32), Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1985: 152–157; N. Wyatt, “Cain’s

223

224

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

known as a mother goddess.9 It has been argued that she is the anonymous Queen of Heaven known from Jeremiah (7.18; 44.15-19),10 and that she is represented in the “Kuh und Kalb” motif.11 She is Wisdom, the first creature of God.12 Asherah has become so important that the word ʾlt “goddess” on the Lachish Ewer appears to refer only to her.13 In the past two decades she has become the consort of Yahweh,14 and even more recently has been divorced from him.15 The more artifacts and inscriptions that are discovered, the more Asherah bears the responsibility of being the lonely goddess of ancient Israelite religion. The purpose of this paper is hopefully to provide a path through this forest of representations and avatars and to try to discover who Asherah really is. The method I propose to follow is first to examine the history of the interpretation of Asherah as the “lion lady” and as the “serpent goddess”. It will be necessary to consider her associations with Qedeshet and Tanit in the course of this investigation. Then I will consider the evidence for these hypotheses, iconographic and textual. Finally I would propose some guidelines for making sense of this ever-increasing body of material that continues to come to light, bearing on this goddess. My approach will be limited to the evidence in ancient Near Eastern cultures where Asherah is actually attested. I will avoid the “anthropological” approach, by which I mean the method of culling together the various “universal” traits of goddesses and attempting to apply them to Asherah. This method is admirably utilized by E. A. S. Butterworth in his monograph, The Tree at the Navel of the Earth.16

Wife” Folklore 97 (1986): 91; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 70–71. 9J. Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature” JBL 105 (1986): 389. 10K. Koch, “Aschera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem” UF 20 (1988): 97–120. 11S. Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder, Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament (OBO 74), Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987: 30–31. 12N. Wyatt, private communication. 13F. M. Cross, Jr. “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet” BASOR 134 (1954): 20, note 17. See also R. Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer”, throughout. 14W. G. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd” BASOR 255 (1984): 21–37; B. Margalit, “The Meaning and Significance of Asherah” VT 40 (1990): 264–297. 15W. D. Whitt, “The Divorce of Yahweh and Asherah in Hos 2,4–7.12 ff” SJOT 6 (1992): 31–67. 16Berlin, Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1970.

THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS 225 One more preliminary comment is in order. The main source of our information on the goddess Asherah is without doubt the Ugaritic mythological tablets. The information which they provide is not detailed in the way that we might desire, but it is detailed enough to demonstrate the basic elements of her personality. We may also find textual information about her character in the Hebrew Bible, various Mesopotamian sources, and in the inscriptions from ancient South Arabia. More recently the inscriptions from Khirbet el-Qôm, Kuntillet ʿAjrûd and Tel Miqne have added to the discussion. All of these sources provide a written record that attests to the importance of a figure named Asherah. Clearly, the written sources must be the touchstone for our exploration into the “further associations” of the goddess, particularly for the iconographic sources. The reason for this is basic; many of the iconographic sources portraying female deities are not explicitly connected with any goddess. Arguments have been made for the same figurines to have been representations of the major goddesses, ordinary women, or even toys.17 With the texts, on the other hand, we have sketches of the basic character of the goddesses, and these sketches are the guidelines for any further associations. With this criterion in mind, let us turn to the history of Asherah’s associations with lions and snakes.

HISTORY OF THE ASSOCIATIONS The existence of a goddess named Asherah was debated until the discovery of the Ugaritic tablets. When the tablets were deciphered and translated, it became clear that Asherah filled an important role in the Ugaritic pantheon, and that she was closely associated with El, the head of the pantheon. This information consequently began to shed some light on the ambiguous Hebrew Bible references to a cultic object that bore the same name as this goddess. It was during this era that Palestinian archaeology began to come into its own.18 In 1939 Albright published a report on the figurines he had found at Tell Beit Mirsim, which included some of the “Qadesh type”.19 In the course of his study he suggested that Qadesh might be a form of the 17M. D. Fowler, “Excavated Figurines: A Case for Identifying a Site as Sacred?” ZAW 97 (1985): 333–344. 18See the fine study of P. J. King, “The Contribution of Archaeology to Biblical Studies” CBQ 45 (1983): 2. 19W. F. Albright, “Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beit Mirsim” in Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud, vol. 1, Paris, Libraire Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1939: 107–120.

226

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

“Lady of Byblus”.20 Two years later, René Dussaud suggested that Qadesh should be identified with “Asherat”.21 Since this suggestion has been proposed, the connection between Qedeshet and Asherah has become widely accepted, with few dissenting voices.22 The case appeared to have been clinched when I. E. S. Edwards published a relief of the goddess Qedeshet from New Kingdom Egypt in 1955 (figure 2).23 This stele portrays the goddess in her standard form, with hieroglyphic inscriptions on either side which read “Qedeshet-Ashtart-Anat”. Since Ashtart and Anat are known to have been major Syrian goddesses, it was accepted that the third goddess represented in this inscription must have been a major Syrian goddess as well, namely, Asherah. Since many of these representations of Qedeshet portray her standing on a lion, and holding snakes in her hands, this identification opened the possibility of finding lions and serpents as emblems of Asherah. Further evidence of this identification of Asherah with Qedeshet was based on the assumption that the word qdš in Ugaritic was an epithet of Asherah.24 These associations soon led to further hypotheses about Asherah and her cult in ancient Israel, and indeed, in the ancient Near East. Upon the publication of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, therein Albright could find references to Asherah, based on her serpentine attributes.25 When it was determined that the inscribed el-Khaḍr javelin heads had leonine associations, Asherah became one of the candidates for the unnamed lion goddess.26 It also became possible for the second Taanach cult stand to be as20Albright,

“Astarte Plaques”: 118. Découvertes de Ras Shamra (Ugarit) et l’Ancien Testament, second edition, Paris, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1941: 107. 22One of the dissenting voices is T. Yamashita, The Goddess Asherah, unpublished Yale Ph.D. dissertation, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1964: 116–122. 23“A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College Collection” JNES 14 (1955): 49–51; W. F. Albright “Some Observations on the New Material for the History of the Alphabet” BASOR 134 (1954): 26. 24F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1973 Cambridge, MA, 1973: 33, note 124. He is followed by Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 27–28. 25W. F. Albright, The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their Decipherment (Harvard Theological Studies 22), Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1969: 14. 26J. T. Milik and F. M. Cross Jr., “Inscribed Javelin-Heads from the Period of the Judges: a Recent Discovery in Palestine” BASOR 134 (1954): 8. 21Les

THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS 227 sociated with Asherah, partially on the basis that it portrayed the “lion lady” in the bottom register.27 Tanit was associated with Asherah because of her serpentine (and maritime) qualities.28 The serpent connection allowed for the possibility of glimpsing Asherah in the infamous Nehushtan of 2 Kgs. 18.4.29 The question must finally be asked: where is the evidence for these manifold representations? Does Asherah really embody all of these different forms? It is my contention that all of these associations just mentioned are built upon the common premise that Asherah is somehow connected with lions and/or serpents. Now we must examine the evidence for these associations and see how certain it is. Let us begin with the representation of Nehushtan. The evidence presented by Olyan for Asherah’s connection with the bronze serpent is based directly on Asherah’s serpentine associations.30 The same is true of Asherah’s supposed identification with Eve. The evidence supplied by Wyatt for this hypothesis rests firmly upon the assumption that the goddess is intimately connected with snakes.31 Asherah’s serpentine associations are in turn built on the identifications of Tanit and Qedeshet with Asherah.32 The question is therefore; is Asherah connected with serpents? 27J. G. Taylor, “The Two Earliest Representations of Yahweh” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOT 67) ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1988: 557–566; and R. Hestrin, “The Cult Stand from Taʿanach and its Religious Background” in Studia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium B.C., Proceedings of the Conference Held in Leuven 14–16 November 1985 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22), ed. E. Lipiński, Louvain, Uitgeverij Peeters, 1987: 61–77. 28Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 32–33. He is followed here by Oden, Studies in Lucian: 92–93. 29Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 71. 30Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh: 71. 31“Cain’s Wife”, page 91. 32F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 32–33. Likewise, the evidence for associating Asherah and Tanit given by W. A. Maier (ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 99) is built on that given by Cross in Canaanite Myth and the identification with Qudshu (see below). R. A. Oden (Studies in Lucian: 92–93) also bases his identification of the two on Cross’s work, as well as the associations with the sea and motherhood. Motherhood is not a surprising attribute for most goddesses, and even in the Ugaritic texts, the sea is not the domain of Athirat alone, for Yam is the god of the sea. J. B. Carter (“The Masks of Ortheia” AJA 91 (1987): 378) only cites “some

228

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Initially it must be noted that nowhere in the texts from Ugarit and nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is Asherah associated with snakes. Nehushtan is mentioned in the same verse as the asherah (as a cultic object, 2 Kgs. 18.4), but to argue that a mere mention together in the same verse belies a close association is to assume more than the verse tells us.33 The texts from Ugarit have been used as evidence for the connection of Asherah and serpents based on her hypothetically reconstructed title as “the Lady who treads on the Sea(-dragon)”. This epithet is fraught with difficulties. Firstly, it must be noted that the name Ashratu occurs in Mesopotamian sources half a millennium before the Ugaritic texts were written.34 Ashratu’s name occurs without any further elements, and this is true of her name in all the major Mesopotamian god-lists in which it appears. To suppose that the name originated from the epithet “the Lady who treads on the Sea” must account for this much earlier evidence without any mention of the sea.35 Secondly, the reconstruction “who treads on the Sea(-dragon)”, besides being based on the assumption that the epithet is original, also presupposes that Asherah is associated with serpents. The circular reasoning in this argument soon becomes evident. It must also be noted that the word “dragon” in this title is a completely artificial reconstruction. We must look elsewhere if we wish to find support for Asherah’s serpentine connections.

QEDESHET Once outside of the Ugaritic corpus, the information we find about Asherah from iconographic sources relies on her correspondence with other figures. The two primary sources of evidence are Qedeshet and Tanit.

degree of variation and syncretism” for the association of Tanit and Asherah. 33See my arguments in Athirat, Asherah, Ashratu: a Reassessment According to the Textual Sources, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 1992, chapter 5. 34E. Chiera, Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur (OIP XI, Cuneiform Series 1), Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1929: 63. 35Day, “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible”: 388; J. A. Emerton “New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” ZAW 94 (1982): 8. B. Margalit, “Meaning and Significance of Asherah”: 264–268, has also sufficiently demonstrated that this explanation for the name Asherah is no longer tenable.

THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS 229 Qedeshet is a most intriguing character. The distinctiveness of her appearance has led some scholars to classify figurines according to the “Qadesh” or “qdš type”.36 A note about the vocalization of the name of this goddess is in order. Certain of the stelae which portray her clearly read “qdšt”, the “t” being the loaf or half circle preceeding the determinative (figures 2 and 3).37 Some of the stelae do not show this “t”, but as Gardiner notes in his Egyptian Grammar,38 if a final t is dropped in an inscription when it is known to be part of the name, it is to be assumed. The vocalization, following the convention of inserting e’s for unknown vowels in Egyptian, would yield Qedeshet.39 There is no reasonable doubt that this goddess is associated in some way with serpents. There is, however, some question of whether this goddess is to be equated with Asherah. Since the Ugaritic texts preserve no notion of Asherah’s connection with snakes, the evidence for her association with Qedeshet is limited to the Winchester College stele and the hypothesis that qdš is an epithet of Asherah in the Ugaritic material. Let us begin with the Winchester College piece (figure 2). Unfortunately the Winchester College stele is now missing.40 Since three names occur on this stele the argument generally runs as follows: If two of the goddesses named (Anat and Ashtart) are major Syrian goddesses, then the third (Qedeshet) must also be a major Syrian goddess. In Ugaritic mythology three major goddesses play an active role, and one of them is Asherah; therefore, she must be the goddess intended to be represented by Qedeshet. There are several problems with this explanation. Firstly, why must the third goddess listed not be an independent goddess named Qedeshet? Since the context of its provenance is likely to have been Egypt, it is

“Astarte Plaques”: 117; Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 81–96. Wyatt, “The ʿAnat Stela from Ugarit and its Ramifications” UF 16 (1984): 336, note 54. 38A. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, third edition, Oxford, Griffith Institute, 1982: 66, note 2a. 39I am not able to defend this convention on linguistic grounds; but as a convention it is still in use, and I use it for the sake of convenience. See Wyatt, “The ʿAnat Stela”: 336. 40Dr. P Partner, Curator of The Treasury, Winchester College, private communication of 1 March 1992. 36Albright, 37N.

230

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

not unreasonable to suppose that the identity of Qedeshet was sufficiently developed in that culture to stand on its own. Secondly, the goddess Ashtart is not as active in the extant Ugaritic mythology as Shapshu, the sun goddess, is. Ashtart is indeed known, and her importance flowered during the first millennium,41 but she does not appear to have been very active in the texts as we have them. Why is Shapshu therefore not considered to have been a major goddess? If she is, then there are four major goddesses. Is Ashtart a major goddess during the same period as Anat and Asherah? Is not the three major goddesses interpretation a modern convention? A third difficulty lies in the assumption that three separate goddesses are necessarily represented here. The Ugaritic texts show the beginnings of a close association of Ashtart and Anat.42 These two goddesses apparently later merged into Atargatis in Syria.43 In Egypt the two hands of a Nineteenth Dynasty pharaoh’s chariot were called Ashtart and Anat.44 While in Israel Ashtart was obviously known, Anat was only vestigially present if at all. If these goddesses merged into Atargatis in Syria, and were closely associated in Egypt itself, could they not have merged into Qedeshet? It has also been argued that Qedeshet is merely a representation of one or the other of Ashtart and Anat, on the same piece of evidence, the Winchester Stele.45 The main difficulty in using the Winchester College piece for evidence is that it is itself ambiguous. Unless further evidence can be adduced to indicate that Qedeshet represents Asherah, the stele alone is of no help. It has been argued that in the Ugaritic texts qdš is an epithet of Asherah.46 Cross proposes this hypothesis on the basis of “CTA 14.4.197, 16.1.11, 22” (= KTU 1.14.IV.34, 1.16.I.11, 22). We must therefore examine these passages. 41M. S. Smith, The Early History of God, Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, San Francisco, Harper & Row, 1990: 89–90.

42KTU

43W.

1.114. 22–27; and perhaps 1.2.I. 40–41.

F. Albright, “Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley” BASOR 89 (1943): 15, note 49, observes that Atargatis is indeed represented with lions. Is she Qedeshet? 44W. R. Dawson and T. E. Peet, “The So-Called Poem on the King’s Chariot” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 19 (1933): 167–174. 45E. Lipiński, “The Syro-Palestinian Iconography of Woman and Goddess (Review Article)”, IEJ 36 (1986): 90. 46Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 33, note 124; Maier, ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence: 27–28.

THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS 231 KTU 1.14.33-38 reads: after sunset47 the third (day) aḫr 33 špšm. btlt 34 ym [ġy.] l qdš he came to the sanctuary48 of 35 at[r]t.ṣrm[.] Athirat of the two Tyres,49 even to [the sanctuary of]50 Elat of the Sidonians, wlilt 36 ṣd[y]nm. there noble Keret vowed a gift51 tm 37 ydr[.]krt.tʿ 38 iitt The syntax here appears to require that qdš be translated as “sanctuary”. Otherwise we are presented with an unparalleled expression “he came to Qedesh Asherah” or “the holiness of Asherah”. The supposed epithet qdš nowhere else appears immediately preceeding Asherah. Translating qdš as an epithet also leaves the location ambivalent. This is unlikely since tm appears in line 36, emphasising the location where the vow was made “there noble Keret made a vow.” Surely Keret cannot be at both Tyre and Sidon at the same time. Also if qdš were an epithet of Asherah, it would not be unreasonable to expect it to appear with a feminine ending. We do know from the Egyptian stelae that the name of the goddess was Qedeshet. In the Ugaritic texts we have a minor god whose name is qdš (qdš-w-amrr in full form). This god is the servant of Asherah. Would not the issue be further confused if both servant and mistress bore the same name? If there is another reasonable explanation for qdš, not based on a bias to associate Asherah with Qedeshet, we should consider it. Also, as the use of qdš as a name of Asherah is disputed, to argue that a strophe open to differing in47See J. C. de Moor and K. Spronk, “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I)” UF 14 (1982): 165. 48Here qdš must be understood as the common noun for “shrine, sanctuary”, the poetic structure requires this. 49There is some dispute about the correctness of Tyre as the place name here indicated. M. Astour (“Place Names” in Ras Shamra Parallels II, (AnOr 50), Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975: 251f.) has argued for a possible North Mesopotamian location. I prefer to see Tyre and Sidon mentioned here, in light of their frequent mention together in the MT (Josh. 19.28–29, 2 Sam. 24.6–7, Isa. 23.1–2, 4–5). I follow the explanation of J.C.L. Gibson for “two Tyres” being mainland and island (Canaanite Myths and Legends, second edition, Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1978: 89, note 2. 50The lamed requires an object. Since the shrine is mentioned in line 34, it should be taken as doing double duty for this, its parallel line. 51Following S. B. Parker, “Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology” Maarav 2 (1979–80): 24–28.

232

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

terpretations should be used as evidence for its use as an epithet is to beg the question. The other Ugaritic passage brought forth as evidence for qdš as an epithet for Asherah is KTU 1.16.I.11, 22. Lines 10–11 read: Is Keret then a son of El, ap 10 [k]rt. bnm. il. progeny of the compassionate and holy one? špḥ 11 lṭpn.wqdš This question is repeated in lines 20–22 and elsewhere. The question is: does qdš here refer to Asherah or to El? Both interpretations appear reasonable. Keret, as a divine king, is the offspring of El; but is he also a son of Asherah? The only beings referred to as the sons of Asherah in the Ugaritic texts are the gods. Furthermore, as Margalit has pointed out, nowhere in the Ugaritic corpus does a deity appear in synonymous parallelism with his or her consort.52 It is not unreasonable to suppose that “compassionate and holy one” (lṭpn w qdš) is rather a double epithet of El. In light of the parallelism and the fact that elsewhere gods and goddesses are not matched in such circumstances, it appears that El is here intended by this epithet. This hypothesis would hold true for other references to qdš as an epithet at Ugarit; wherever it occurs, it may be reasonably argued that it refers to El. In general, when the gods are referred to as the children of Asherah the phrase bn atrt is used in parallel with ilm; qdš does not occur in this context.53 Again, we should ask why a feminine form was not used if Asherah was meant. The feminine form qdšt does occur twice in the Ugaritic tablets (KTU 4.69 and 4.412) and both references appear to point to a separate goddess by that name. Furthermore, the argument for the identification of Ugaritic qdš with Egyptian Qedeshet is circular;54 each premise (namely that qdš is a title of Asherah, and that the Egyptian stelae represent this identification) assumes that the other is true. Since we have the form qdšt attested de facto in Egypt, we are not able to prop up the Ugaritic identification on the basis of the masculine epithet. It should also be noted that the stone bowl inscription published by Redford (this bowl is also now missing) which mentions Qedeshet, refers to her as the “lady of the stars of heaven”.55 Nowhere in 52B. Margalit, “Some Observations on the Inscription and Drawing from Khirbet el-Qôm” VT 39 (1989): 377, note 11. 53KTU 1.3.V.4; 1.4.IV.51; and 1.4.V.1. 54N. Wyatt, “The ʿAnat Stela”: 336, note 54. 55D. B. Redford, “New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Ḥoremheb” BASOR 211 (1973): 37.

THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS 233 the texts which we possess is Asherah referred to with astral characteristics, but we do know that Ashtart was known in Egypt as the “mistress of heaven”.56 The headdress of Qedeshet is that of Hathor, and this fact has yet to be explained in the light the rigid artistic conventions of Egypt, if Qedeshet is supposed to be a wholly Syrian goddess. Since Qedeshet offers no support for the association of Asherah with lions or snakes, we now turn to the identification of Asherah with Tanit.

TANIT Arguments have been put forward for the Phoenician goddess Tanit’s identification with Ashtart, Anat and Asherah. This fact alone should signal caution when approaching this figure. The literature on Tanit is immense, and we do not have time to explore all the intricacies of her proposed identifications. The primary source material on Tanit consists only of inscriptions and iconographic representations of her symbol. She is not active in a mythology, and since the information about Phoenician religion is scarce, we must not assert more than the evidence will allow. Many scholars equate Tanit with Ashtart. The argument which has been put forward to counter this theory is that a Carthaginian inscription (KAI 81) of the third or second century B.C.E. refers to Ashtart and Tanit separately.57 Since Ashtart is a separate deity, the lottery is thrown open to Anat (Albright’s favorite), or Asherah (Cross’s choice). The same criticism levelled at Qedeshet’s identification applies here. Tanit need not equal one of the “three major goddesses” of Syria. The further arguments given for this association are not convincing. The primary piece of evidence is the identification of Punic Bʿl Ḥmn with El.58 Bʿl Ḥmn is admittedly a deity on the edge on the Phoenician realm (although reference to him in both Carthage and Zenjirli point to his development from a more central figure).59 Recent discussion has pointed to the local character of much of Phoenician religion.60 The immediate consequence of this diverse nature of Phoenician religion is that local associations should not be considered definitive for all realms of its influence. 56Cross,

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 30. Studies in Lucian: 92. 58Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 25–29. 59J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Volume 3 Phoenician Inscriptions, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1982: 30–39. 60R. J. Clifford, “Phoenician Religion” BASOR 279 (1990): 55–64. 57Oden,

234

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Moreover, the material for the identification of Bʿl Ḥmn with El is late: Philo of Byblos and the classical sources.61 Even if we accept the late identification of this god with El, it does not follow necessarily that his Punic consort Tanit is Asherah. The first evidence adduced for these goddesses is that Tanit and Asherah are both goddesses of the sea.62 It must be pointed out that the nature of Asherah’s association with the sea is by no means certainly understood. In the myths as we have them she does not appear to be a sea-faring goddess, but instead she travels by donkey.63 Her servant is a fisherman, but that does not indicate that his mistress is directly linked with the sea. The main force of this association comes from Asherah’s title rbt atrt ym, “Lady Asherah of Ym”. Nielsen has argued that in light of Old South Arabian information that ym should be translated “day” and Asherah should be seen as a solar goddess, as she appears in Arabia.64 Although this position has not gained a wide following, it serves to remind us that the one interpretation generally accepted need not be the only alternative. In short, although Asherah is associated with the sea, we do not know what her association with the sea is. The Ugaritic deity of the sea is without doubt Yam; thus Asherah is not a “sea goddess” and her role in the Ugaritic tablets is restricted to land (except when doing her laundry).65 Since Asherah’s association with the sea is not clear, we must be cautious about building upon it. The next bit of evidence stems from Tanit’s presumed epithet from the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. There she is called tannittu, according to Cross, “the One of the serpent”.66 This, he argues, is “precisely parallel to the old epithet of Asherah labiʾt(u), the ‘One of the Lion,’”.67 We may legitimately ask: where is the evidence for Asherah’s leonine associations? The answer is in Qedeshet, whose identification, as we have seen, does not

61Cross,

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 25. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 31, Oden, Studies in Lucian: 93. 63KTU 1.4.IV.1–18. See M. S. Smith, “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank” UF 16 (1984): 359. 64D. Nielsen, Ras Šhamra Mythologie und Biblische Theologie, (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXI, 4), Leipzig, Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft, 1936: 27–37. 65KTU 1.4.II.1–11. 66Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 32. 67Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 33. 62Cross,

THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS 235 correspond to that of Asherah.68 Further Cross continues: “Closely parallel also are the epithets dt btn, dāt batni, ‘Lady of the Serpent,’ identified in the Proto-Sinaitic texts by Albright, and rabbat ʾatiratu yammi, ‘the Lady who treads on the Sea(-dragon)’”.69 The word “dragon” is hypothetical and indicates that Asherah had at one time conquered a sea dragon. We know from Ugarit that Baal is the “dragon-slayer”, and not Asherah. When the dragon is removed, the epithets read respectively “lady of the serpent” and “the lady who treads the sea”; the only ground for comparison is “lady”. In addition the interpretation of Asherah’s name, atrt as from the verb “to tread” is far from certain.70 Cross’s final piece of evidence for the correspondance of Tanit and Asherah is the latter’s serpentine and leonine associations in respect to her identification with Qedeshet.71 As we have seen, this identification of Asherah with Qedeshet is not tenable. Tanit’s epithet pn bʿl, face of Baal,72 would appear, prima facie, to suggest that Asherah is not being discussed. This title is similar to Ashtart’s epithet šm bʿl “name of Baal” known from Ugarit.73 Asherah is nowhere presented as the consort or close associate of Baal.74 The references to their common cultic locations in the Hebrew Bible no more suggest that they are consorts than do the church names “St. Pauls and St. Georges” or “St. Andrews and St. Georges” suggests that their patrons are.75 Asherah, according the the Ugaritic material, is solely consort of El. We stand to learn the lesson of the serpent stele of Tell Beit Mirsim (figure 4).76 First published in 1928, the “serpent goddess” stele of Tell Beit 68Cross

initially made the “lion lady” identification with Anat: F. M. Cross, “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet” EI 8 (1967, Sukenik Volume), page 13*. This association seems to me to be much more plausible. 69Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 33. 70See Hadley, Yahweh’s Asherah: 74–78 and the references there. For a recent attempt at an etymology see B. Margalit, “The Meaning and Significance of Asherah: 264–297. In support of the view that Asherah does tread on the dragon see N. Wyatt, “Who Killed the Dragon?” Aula Orientalis 5 (1987): 185–198. 71Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: 34. 72Tracing the references back to Cross, I find no mention of the original source. 73KTU 1.16.VI.56, see also Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends: 4, note 6. 74See especially Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, chapter 3. 75See my dissertation, Athirat, Asherah, Ashratu, chapter 5. 76R. Merhav, “The Stele of the ‘Serpent Goddess’ from Tell Beit Mirsim and the Plaque from Shechem Reconsidered” Israel Museum Journal 4 (1985): 27–42.

236

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Mirsim has found wide acceptance as a representation of a snake goddess.77 Support was given to this find by a plaque from Shechem78 which apparently portrayed the same type of scene: a serpent wound round the legs of a “goddess” with its head resting near her genital area. This stele has captured the imagination of many who sought for evidence of a snake cult in ancient Israel.79 These two stelae, however, have been studied recently by R. Merhav, and he has carefully documented a style of ancient garment iconography which shows robes with a large, coiled edge that corresponds exactly to the iconography of Tell Beit Mirsim and Shechem figures.80 In his paper, Merhav presents substantial evidence to demonstrate the true nature of these two stelae. In the light of his research, the attempt to see the edges of garments as evidence for a serpent cult must be abandoned. His research is an appropriate reminder not to throw caution to the wind in favor of a presupposed association. Without the identification of Tanit and Asherah, the association of Asherah and serpents has little to commend itself.

CONCLUSIONS This leads to my proposed method of dealing with goddesses and any new archaeological discoveries. Foremost, we must keep within sight of the character of the goddesses as we know them from the texts. Asherah is not fully “fleshed out” but enough of her character is evident to draw some conclusions. She is the consort of El, the high god. As such she is the mother of the gods (not necessarily a “Mother-goddess”), and she suckles royal heirs. Her main epithet in the Baal Cycle, rbt atrt ym indicates some association with the sea or with Yam, but the texts do not clarify this relationship. In seeking to add to this general sketch we must be careful when crossing cultural boundaries and bridging gaps of many years. Each culture would adapt Asherah (or any borrowed deity) to fit its own needs. 77Published

by W. F. Albright, “The Second Campaign at Tell Beit Mirsim (Kirath-Sepher)” BASOR 31 (1928): 3, 6. 78F. Böhl, “Die Sichem-Plakette, Protoalphabetische Schriftzeichen der Mittelbronzezeit vom tell balāṭa” ZDPV 61 (1938): 1–25. The photograph is opposite page 1, and the association with the Beit Mirsim find is begun on page 3. 79K. Joines, “The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult” JBL 87 (1968): 247–247, and in Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament, a Linguistic, Archaeological and Literary Study, Haddonfield, NJ, Haddonfield House, 1974, chapter 4. 80R. Merhav, “The Stele of the ‘Serpent Goddess’ from Tell Beit Mirsim”: 27– 42.

THE MYTH OF ASHERAH: LION LADY AND SERPENT GODDESS 237 Finally, a word about the connection of Asherah with the amorphous “mother goddess”. Asherah is the mother of the gods at Ugarit, not The Great Mother. Her title in this context is qnyt ilm “creatrix of the gods”.81 She does not appear in the role of a cosmic mother of all living. This very concept is now becoming increasingly rejected in the studies of European prehistory.82 It is ironic that this concept is slowest to give way in the ancient Near East, where it began. A very basic methodological question is at issue here. Are we able to take a mythological character across hundreds of miles and hundreds of years and assume that no change has transpired? It is more likely that figures were adapted to fit the needs of the receptor culture. The name of a deity might remain the same despite these changes. The situation is analogous someone saying "I”m mad about my flat." Depending on the context of course, in America it would be assumed that the speaker was upset that his car had a flat tire. If the same remark were to be made in Britain, using the same language, the hearer might suppose that the speaker was happy with his apartment. Context is the key to understanding what is intended in these texts. When context is missing, we must be cautious when we attempt to reconstruct ancient associations.

81KTU

1.4.IV.31. Fleming “The Myth of the Mother-Goddess” World Archaeology 1 (1969– 70): 247–261; P. Ucko, Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece (Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 24), London, Andrew Szmidla, 1968: 409– 444; R. Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy. Oxford, Blackwell, 1991: 4–6, 37–41. 82A.

9 OF ASHERAHS AND TREES: SOME METHODOLOGICAL QUESTIONS Originally published in the Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 1 (2001) 158-187. Republished with permission.

INTRODUCTION Despite recent archaeological finds which possibly attest the worship of Asherah in ancient West Asia, particularly in Israel and Philistia, the nature of this worship remains a mystery.1 While it seems likely that some form of Asherah worship took place in Israel, the way in which that worship may have been enacted is speculative and based on exiguous evidence. It has become axiomatic over the past several years, for example, that Asherah was conceived as some kind of “tree-goddess” in ancient Israel, largely based on the polemical references to the asherah in the deuteronomistic literature.2 This meager evidence is well-summarized by Lutzky when she notes: “The Israelite chapter of Asherah’s history seems to be written in

1 Throughout this article, “Asherah” with a capital “A” refers to the goddess by that name and “asherah” with a small “a” refers to the cult object by that name. 2 See, for example, Joan E. Taylor, “The Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree,” JSOT 66 (1995) 29–54; Moshe Weinfeld, “Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree,” VT 46 (1996) 515– 529; and Yutaka Ikeda, “Because their Shade is Good: Asherah in the Early Israelite Religion,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—the City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992 (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993) 56–80. Copiously illustrated, Ikeda’s essay discusses the importance of shade trees in Israel’s climate. One facet of such importance is reflected in the living tree as the standard symbol for Asherah, whose worship continued into the monarchic period.

239

240

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

invisible ink, illegible until the proper treatment is found.”3 The question of what the “proper treatment” is remains open. The purpose of this paper is to explore the evidence for the supposed dendrical associations of Asherah and to ask if these are indigenous to Israel (if they exist there at all), or if they were shared with the cognate religions of the ancient world. Two main forms of evidence exist for this “treegoddess” aspect of Asherah: textual evidence (primarily the HB), and supposed iconographic representations. It has been my contention elsewhere that textual evidence must be considered the primary source for reconstructing ancient religions, but that iconographic evidence presents additional important information.4 That is the position taken in this paper as well. As will shortly become obvious, the question of Asherah’s arboreal associations is at heart a biblical question. All of the external evidence generally presented is based upon interpretations of the biblical material. To assess Asherah’s association with trees, the texts must first be examined. These texts fall into two categories: passages which inform us directly concerning the asherah in Israel’s cult, and passages which indicate the presence of trees in Israel’s cult. Following this consideration, it will be asked whether tree iconography in ancient West Asia either necessarily points to Asherah or if such images suggest her presence in the cultural substrata. The iconography issue is clouded somewhat by the archaeological assessment of wooden remains at cult sites (or the remains of structures which contained wooden objects). Often wooden objects are labeled “asherahs” although their actual shape and form are unknown. A further preliminary note must be added. Although it may be obvious, the presuppositions from which a case is argued are often the lenses through which the investigator views the evidence. Perhaps this is most clearly seen in Keel’s recent addressing of Frevel’s5 method of dealing with the Asherah question.6 Specifically he notes “Frevel’s culture of mistrust and question marks seems to me quite often to derive from a modern Harriet Lutzky, “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet,” VT 48 (1998) 26. A Reassessment of “Asherah”: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. (AOAT 235; Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener Verlag, 1993) 19–20. 5 Christian Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 94, 2 vols.; Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum, 1995). 6 Othmar Keel, Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 261; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 16–19. 3 4

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

241

model of thinking whose favourite instruments are a rigorous syntax and a binary logic, a model for which there hardly exists anything except identity and difference.”7 While Keel does not address my previous work on this topic, which takes the same basic position as Frevel, that work is open to the same criticism. A brief explanation of presuppositions is necessary to prevent the discussion from becoming bogged down in the parties speaking past one another. Being a product of a scientific age, I approach the evidence with a scientific frame of reference. Carl Sagan’s maxim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence8 applies to the field of ancient religions as well. In the case of Asherah it is evident that she has become the “catch-all” goddess of modern reconstructions of ancient Semitic religion.9 The question is, therefore, which claims are extraordinary and which are strongly supported by the evidence. A brief overview will illustrate the current state of scholarship on Asherah. Based on four inscriptions found in two locations (Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom), Asherah is nearly automatically assumed to be Yhwh’s spouse. Her growing associations are such that, using the standard method of modern researchers, one could easily compile the following equation: Asherah = goddess = tree = male deities10 = fish11 = caprids12 = lion13 = cow and calf14 = monkey15 = snake16 = musician17 = female pudenda18 = Keel, Goddesses and Trees 17. This maxim is universally attributed to Carl Sagan, but he did not use it in his written works. 9 The advice of Raz Kletter (The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (BAR International Series 636; Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm, 1996) 77) is to be taken seriously: “Regrettably, varied artifacts were called Asherah in a frenzy of publications during the last decade. Asherah objects multiplied like mushrooms after the rain, so beware—there are many poisonous ones.” 10 Keel, Goddesses and Trees 44. 11 Keel, Goddesses and Trees 24. 12 J. Glen Taylor, “The Two Earliest Known Representations of Yahweh,” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical & other studies in memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTSup 76, L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, eds.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988) 560. 13 William G. Dever, “Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient Israel: An Essay in Archaeological Systematics,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 573; Ruth Hestrin, “A Note on the ‘Lion Bowls’ and the Asherah,” Israel Museum Journal 7 (1988) 115. 14 Silvia Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten 7 8

242

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

“mistress of the beasts”19 = “the one of the breast”20 = tree of life21 = menorah22 = divine divorcee23 . The question veritably erupts: which claims are extraordinary and which are normative? Qualified further, within the context of the nature and fluidity of ancient perceptions of divinity, do these associations find support? Returning to the basic scientific principle of proof, it must be asked: are these equations extraordinary claims? If so, what is the extraordinary evidence? A survey of the existing studies demonstrates that scraps of information gleaned from over many centuries and many cultural boundaries have been agglomerated into a “portrait” of Asherah. This does not indicate extraordinary evidence as much as extraordinary creativity. Extraordinary evidence would be a systematic demonstration that a given trait was consistently applied, in many cultures, for a reasonable length of time. If it is maintained that the above equation is not an extraordinary claim, the question must be raised: what can we really learn of ancient religions if deities were conceived of as apparently random juxtapositions of Testament (OBO 74; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 30–31. 15 Keel, Goddesses and Trees 43. 16 Saul M. Olyan, Asherah in the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 70–71. 17 William G. Dever, “Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd,” BASOR 255 (1984) 21–37. 18 Ruth Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer and the ʾAsherah,” IEJ 37 (1987) 215. 19 John Barclay Burns, “Female Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age: A Study in Text and Artifact,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 36 (1998) 42. 20 Lutzky, “Shadday,” 16. 21 Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative (HSM 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985) 111–14. Wallace does not make a direction connection between Asherah and the tree of life, but he understands her to have been connected with trees and life. In this he was anticipated by L. Yarden, The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah, the Seven-Branched Lampstand (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971) 40. The association of Asherah and tree of life is explicitly made by Brian Colless, “Yahweh and His Asherah: A Canaanite Point of View on the Religion of Ancient Israel,” in To Strive and Not to Yield: Essays in Honour of Colin Brown (Victoria Studies in Religion and Society 1, J. Veitch, ed.; Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington, 1992) 63. 22 E. A. S. Butterworth, The Tree at the Navel of the Earth (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970) 210; Taylor, “The Asherah,” 29–54. 23 William D. Whitt, “The Divorce of Yahweh and Asherah in Hos 2,4–7.12 ff,” SJOT 6 (1992) 31–67.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

243

disparate symbols? As further evidence emerges from archaeological investigations, the portrait grows larger and larger, until the deity becomes so diffuse that she or he has no distinguishing characteristics. It must be asked what the appropriate limits to Asherah’s associations are. I have asked this question before,24 and this paper asks it again. Specifically this essay asks the question: are Asherah’s dendrical associations borne out by the extant evidence?

BIBLICAL ASHERAHS Reed’s classic study of the biblical references to the asherah has been refined over the years by further scholarship, but the basic information he conveys concerning the verbs associated with the asherah remains cogent.25 Likewise, the now-standard list of forty biblical references to the “asherah” in its various permutations has almost become canonical in its own right.26 What has yet to be done, and what this paper attempts to do, is the analysis of these passages specifically to discern how closely Asherah was related to trees. For such an analysis close attention must be given to the wording of those references which point to dendrical associations for the asherah. First, a classification of these references may be suggested. The categories, as defined by the content of the passages, are four in number: 1. Passages which name or list asherahs as cultic paraphernalia with a possible verbal indication of material—these passages utilize verbs which are appropriately applied to wooden objects. The references are: Exod 34.13 (Canaanite (“his”) asherahs commanded to be cut down—trk); Deut 7.5 (Canaanite (“their”) asherahs commanded to be hewn down—(dg); Deut 12.3 (Canaanite (“their”) asherahs to be burned with fire—#$) Pr#&); Deut 16.21 (an asherah is not to be planted—(+n—next to an altar); Judg 6.25 (the Ophrahite asherah to be cut down—trk); Judg 6.26 (the Ophrahite asherah cut down—trk); Judg 6.28 (the Ophrahite asherah cut down— Reassessment and “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,” UF 23 (1991) 383–94. 25 William L. Reed, The Asherah in the Old Testament (Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1949) 29–37. 26 The references are as follows: Exod 34.13; Deut 7.5; 12.3; 16.21; Judg 3.7; 6.25, 26, 28, 30; 1 Kgs 14.15, 23; 15.13; 16.33; 18.19; 2 Kgs 13.6; 17.10, 16; 18.4; 21.3, 7; 23.4, 6, 7, 14, 15; 2 Chr 14.2; 15.16; 17.6; 19.3; 24.18; 31.1; 33.3, 19; 34. 3, 4, 7; Isa 17.8; 27.9; Jer 17.2; Mic 5.13. 24

244

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

trk); Judg 6.30 (the Ophrahite asherah cut down—trk); 1 Kgs 15.13 (Asa cut down—trk—and burned—Pr#&—Maakah’s horrid thing for the asherah); 2 Kgs 18.4 (Hezekiah cut down—trk—the asherah); 2 Kgs 23.6 (Josiah burned—Pr#&—the asherah); 2 Kgs 23.14 (Josiah cut down—trk —the asherahs outside Jerusalem); 2 Kgs 23.15 (Josiah burned—Pr#&— asherah/Asherah of Bethel); 2 Chr 14.2 (3) (Asa hewed down—(dg—the asherahs); 2 Chr 15.16 (Asa cut down—trk—and burned—Pr#&— Maakah’s horrid thing for Asherah/asherah); 2 Chr 19.3 (Jehoshaphat burned—r(b—the asherahs from the land); 2 Chr 31.1 (the people of Judah under Hezekiah hewed down—(dg—the asherahs of Judah); 2 Chr 34.4 (Josiah hewed off—(dg—the asherahs); Mic 5.13 (14) (Yhwh will root out—#$tn—your asherahs).

2. Passages which name or list asherahs as cultic paraphernalia with a nominal indication of material—some indication is given in these passages which points to the material by the use of a noun associated with trees. The references are: Deut 16.21 (an asherah, or any tree—C)-lk); Judg 6.26 (a bullock to be burned on the wood of—yc(b—the Ophrahite asherah). 3. Passages which name or list asherahs as cultic paraphernalia with no indication of material—the references are: 1 Kgs 14.15 (Israelites made— h#&(—“their” asherahs); 1 Kgs 14.23 (Israelites built—hnb—asherahs); 1 Kgs 16.33 (Ahab made—h#&(—an asherah); 2 Kgs 17.10 (Israelites set up—bcn—asherahs); 2 Kgs 17.16 (Israelites made—h#&(—an asherah); 2 Kgs 21.3 (Manasseh made—h#&(—an asherah); 2 Kgs 23.6 (Josiah took out—)cy—the asherah, pulverized—qqd—it, and flung—Kl#$—its ashes onto the graves); 2 Kgs 23.15 (Josiah pulverized—qqd—the asherah/Asherah of Bethel); 2 Chr 15.16 (Asa pulverized—qqd— Maakah’s horrid thing for Asherah/asherah); 2 Chr 17.6 (Jehoshaphat removed—rys—the asherahs from Judah); 2 Chr 24.18 (Joash served— db(—the asherahs); 2 Chr 33.3 (Manasseh made—h#&(—asherahs); 2 Chr 33.19 (Manasseh erected—dm(—the asherahs); 2 Chr 34.4 (Josiah shattered—rb#$—and pulverized—qqd—and scattered—qrz—the asherahs); 2 Chr 34.7 (Josiah tore down—Ctn—the asherahs); Isa 17.8 (Damascus will not see the asherahs they made); Isa 27. 9 (Jacob will not raise—Mwq— asherahs). 4. Passages which name asherahs as rival cults with no indication of material—in these passages asherahs are not simply part of a list of cultic para-

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

245

phernalia, but are the possessors of a rival cult to that of Yhwh. The references are: Judg 3.7 (Israelites served—db(—baals and asherahs); 1 Kgs 15.13 (Maakah made—h#&(—a horrid thing for Asherah/asherah); 1 Kgs 18.19 (four hundred prophets of the asherah); 2 Kgs 13.6 (the asherah still stood—dm(—in Samaria); 2 Kgs 21.7 (Manasseh placed—Mw#&—the image of the asherah in the temple); 2 Kgs 23.4 (Josiah removed the vessels made for the asherah); 2 Kgs 23.7 (Josiah pulled down shrines where women wove shrines for the asherah); 2 Chr 15.16 (Maakah made—h#&(—a horrid thing for Asherah/asherah); 2 Chr 34.3 (Josiah purified the land from the asherahs); Jer 17.2 (the children of Judah remember asherahs). Of these four rough categories, the final two do not have a direct bearing on the material from which an asherah was made, and they may be disregarded for the purposes of this essay.27 A summary of the verbal forms may be found in Reed’s monograph,28 but for this study a deeper investigation into the verbs of the first category must be undertaken, followed by an exploration of the noun-based evidence of category 2. Verbal Evidence trk A simply tally demonstrates that the favored method of describing the destruction of an asherah is by cutting (trk). This verb occurs nine times in asherah contexts (Exod 34.13; Judg 6.25, 26, 28, 30; 1 Kgs 15.13; 2 Kgs 18.4; 23.14; 2 Chr 15.16). Some of these occurrences require qualification. 1 Kgs 15.13 and 2 Chr 15.16 are parallel accounts which describe the destruction of the “horrid thing” (tclpm) made by Maakah for Asherah/the asherah (hrf#$')jl;f and hrf#$')jl,a respectively). This “horrid thing” cannot a priori be equated with an asherah, although that may have been the intention of the authors/redactors of these passages. Just as vessels could be dedicated to an 27 I recognize that other differing categories are possible. It is helpful to divide familiar material into different sets of categories to view it, as my Nashotah House colleague Ralph McMichael puts it, with a “kaleidoscope effect.” For the purposes of the information that is sought in this essay, however, the categories suggested above are sufficient. 28 The Asherah 29–37. Some of these verbs were recently reconsidered by Taylor, “The Asherah,” 35–38.

246

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

asherah, as shown in 2 Kgs 23.4, a “horrid thing” could also be dedicated to an asherah. The tclpm must be treated separately from the actual asherah in order to glean all that the text can reveal about its composition. The temporary removal of these two verses brings the number of references down to seven. Of the remaining seven references, Exod 34.13 refers to indefinite asherahs erected by the indigenous population prior to Israel. The four references in Judges 6 refer to a single asherah in Ophrah. 2 Kgs 18.4 refers to the asherah of the Jerusalem temple, 2 Kgs 23.14 concerns the asherahs in the twmb29 east of Jerusalem destroyed by Josiah. This brings the number of asherahs, or sets of asherahs, down to four. The next step is to assess Reed’s observation that “the use of kārat marks the cult object as one made of wood.”30 The qal of the verb trk is utilized to describe all kinds of severance, not simply the hewing of wood. In Exod 4.25 it refers to the removal of a foreskin, and in Lev. 22.24 a body part (presumably testicles31 ). 1 Sam 17.51 indicates that a human head may be trk, and 1 Sam 5.10 adds hands to the list of body parts. Inanimate objects, such as clothes (1 Sam 24.5, 6, 12 and 2 Sam 10.4) and covenants (trk is the standard verb for making a covenant) may also be cut. Given this list of possibilities, the use of trk alone does not appear to provide a firm foundation for indicating that an asherah was made of wood. It does not discount the idea either: trk has the force neither to confirm or deny a dendrical nature. Further, trk also has the nuance of “destroy.” As such, the referent can be wood only if there are other indications that it is. To rely on the conclusion that the asherah is wooden to prove the point that trk indicates a wooden object is circular argumentation. (dg The term (dg used for the destruction of asherahs occurs four times (Deut 7.5; 2 Chr 14.2 (3); 31.1 and 34.4), all in piel. The piel of (dg indicates sev29 For a recent, important discussion of this phenomenon, see Matthias Gleis, Die Bamah (BZAW 251; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1997). 30 The Asherah 33. 31 Most translations agree on this, although testicles are not specifically mentioned in the verse. It is clear that a missing body part of a sacrificial victim is the referent.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

247

erance as well, and, as with trk, it does not necessarily refer to wood. The piel is used of hewing images (Mhyhl) ylysp; Deut 12.3), images (Mylsp and twksm) and asherahs (2 Chr 34.4); incense stands (2 Chr 34.7), the horns of the wicked (Ps 75.11 (10)) and bars of iron (Isa 45.2; Ps 107.16). Interestingly, the piel of (dg is assumed to refer to trees or wood only in the case of asherahs. The basic idea of (dg in the piel seems to be the action of hacking, without reference to the object’s composition. Once again, this does not form a firm basis on which to build a description of the asherah as a wooden object. Pr#&, r(b, (+n and #$tn Five times the asherahs are burned: Pr#& (Deut 12.3; 1 Kgs 15.13; 2 Kgs 23.6, 15; and 2 Chr 15.16) in qal. As in the case with trk, two of these references, 1 Kgs 15.13 and 2 Chr 15.16, cite the horrid thing made for asherah/Asherah, and not necessarily the asherah itself as a cultic object. This again reduces the number of potentially informative verses, this time to three. The qal of Pr#& is used to describe the incineration of many different types of material: houses (Judg 12.1; Jer 39.8); cities (Josh 6.24; 1 Sam 30.1); bones (Amos 2.1; 1 Kgs 13.2); corpses (1 Sam 31.12), as well as of “burning” bricks (Gen 11.3). As with the previous verbs, wooden objects are not precluded, but burning is not reserved for wooden objects alone. The single reference to r(b (“burning” 2 Chr 19.3) the asherahs, in the piel, is open to the same observation as Pr#&: it is used to refer to the burning and/or destruction of various materials. It is used of oil lamps (2 Chr 4.20); dung (1 Kgs 14.10); evil (Deut 13.6 (5)); the male “temple prostitutes”/”dedicated treasures”32 (1 Kgs 22.47 (46)). Admittedly, r(b frequently refers to burning wood, but it is also frequently used figuratively of destruction in general. (+n and #$tn (“plant” and “uproot”) are opposites which are used as evidence by those who favor a living tree interpretation of the asherah.33 32 Concerning this troublesome concept, see Mayer I. Gruber, “Hebrew qĕdēšāh and her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates,” UF 18 (1986) 133–48; Nadav Na’aman, “The Dedicated Treasures Buildings within the House of Yhwh where Women Weave Coverings for Asherah (2 Kings 23,7),” BN 83 (1996) 17–18. Although of considerable interest, this issue is beside the main thrust of this essay. 33 Taylor, “The Asherah,” 34–38; Ikeda, “Because their Shade is Good,” 73; Ruth Hestrin, “Understanding Asherah: Exploring Semitic Iconography,” BARev

248

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Both words are used of items other than plants, as will be discussed below. Cogent discussions have been offered demonstrating the problems of a literal interpretation of these words in regard to the asherah;34 however, the possibility must remain open that they intend for the reader to consider a living tree. These two unique verses (Deut 16.21 and Mic 5.13 (14) respectively) require special attention. Deut 16.21 You will not plant ((+n) for yourself an asherah, any tree (C(-lk), beside the altar of Yhwh your God which you will make for yourself.

Frevel and Taylor both provide expanded discussions of this verse.35 Frevel’s caution, perhaps overstated, is nevertheless to be kept in mind, that this verse “nur wenig Platz eingeräumt wird, der Beleg als eine Stelle unter anderen eingeordnet wird und keine besondere Relevanz für die Ascheraproblematik insgesamt besitzt.”36 Nevertheless, this verse is important in that it contains a unique glimpse of an embedded explanation of what an asherah was understood to be.37 Also, again noted by Frevel, this verse is the only place where an asherah is explicitly associated with the cult of Yhwh.38 The words “any tree/wood” (C(-lk) are asyndetically related to asherah in this verse. Since asherah is nowhere else so qualified, the obvious question is why the qualification was added at this point. Frevel is undoubtedly correct in considering this verse in its larger context of Deut 16.21– 17.1.39 There is a clear thematic caesura between vv. 20 and 21, and a more attenuated, but nevertheless obvious, break between 17.1 and 2. Deut 16.21–17.1 is concerned with specifically cultic matters and is unified by the prohibitive nature of the commands. The pericope reads:

17/5 (1991) 50–52. 34 Reed, The Asherah 32, followed by Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSup 232, Copenhagen International Seminar 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 122–23. 35 Frevel, Aschera 164–210; Taylor, “The Asherah,” 36–38. 36 Aschera 165. 37 It is important to bear in mind that glosses are part of the text in its final form, and that they cannot simply be dismissed. 38 Aschera 166. 39 Aschera 169–72.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

249

You will not plant for yourself an asherah, any tree, beside the altar of Yhwh your God which you will make for yourself, (22) and you will not erect for yourself a massebah, which Yhwh your God hates, (17.1) do not sacrifice to Yhwh your God a bullock or a sheep in which there is a blemish, anything bad, for it is an abomination to Yhwh your God.

This pericope is further unified by an inclusio which utilizes an explanatory lk: “an asherah, any tree” in 16.21, and “a blemish, anything bad” (rbd lk (r) in 17.1. The phrase “Yhwh your God” occurs four times in these three verses. The three offenses listed: asherahs, massebahs, and offerings (xbz, specifically blemished in this case), as well as the altar of 16.21, are all characteristic of a bamah.40 The unity of these cultic phenomena points to a conscientiously constructed pericope in which the two lk phrases are intrinsic. They also point to the possibility that what is being prohibited here is bamah-worship, which, if it included open space and buildings,41 likely had trees growing in the vicinity. The issue for the asherah question is how the C(-lk relates to the asherah reference. Does C(-lk qualify “asherah” or does it subjoin a further cultic offense to the asherah: “you will not plant an asherah, (nor will you plant) any tree beside the altar of Yhwh”? Without punctuation and without the original intonation, grammar and syntax cannot definitively answer this question. What is clear, however, is that the offense is not simply a tree, it is either a tree or an asherah beside the altar of Yhwh which is a problem. Based on the lack of specific dendrical associations of the asherah in previous verbal instances, I am inclined to understand two separate offenses here: an asherah, or a tree beside a Yhwistic altar. Turning specifically to the verbal aspect of the asherah question, the use of (+n must be addressed. Although the verb (+n is generally used of flora, it is also used with items other than plants.42 Its base meaning appears to be “plant” when used of plants, or “establish” when used figuratively.43 Its figurative use is frequently attested. (+n is used of the establishment of a

Gleis, Die Bamah 80–88, 198–205. Gleis, Die Bamah 65. 42 As pointed out already by Reed, The Asherah 32. 43 BDB, 642; HAL, 694. 40 41

250

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

people (Exod 15.17; 2 Sam 7.10; Jer 24.6; Ezek 36.36; Amos 9.15; Ps 44.3 (2)), the heavens (Isa 51.16), tents (Dan 11.45), and nails (Eccl 12.11).44 Thus in Deut 16.21, (+n literally means “plant” only if the asherah is assumed to be a tree. If the asherah is not assumed to be a tree it may figuratively mean “set up.” To use this word as evidence for the dendrical association of an asherah is therefore to beg the question—the conclusion is being used to read the evidence. What may positively be noted in this verse is that C(-lk is used in apposition with asherah, and thus indicates some point of comparison. The most obvious point would be that both objects were composed of wood, but this is not the only possible point of comparison. This verse likely points to the arboreal association of the asherah, but this should not be treated as a foregone conclusion. Mic 5.13 (14) I will root out (#$tn) your asherahs from your midst, and I will destroy your cities.

Many of the same observations may be made concerning this verse as were made for Deut 16.21. #$tn has the basic meaning of pulling up, and when used specifically of a plant means “uproot.”45 This is so obvious that HAL (737b) lists its qal meanings as “remove, drive out.” In the larger context of this verse, Micah is proclaiming a series of destructions which are about to take place; with this verse the final ones are listed. An “in that day” oracle opens the list in 5.9 (10), and v. 13 (14) is the last verse in the series. No matter what date is assigned to this verse, or whether or not it is an addition to the original litany of destruction, #$tn is here used to refer to the destruction of the asherahs. The question is, does it point to a specifically arboreal nature? #$tn is used most often with nations (Deut 29.27 (28); 1 Kgs 14.15;46 Jer 12.14) and once with cities (Ps 9.7 (6)). In the qal it is never used literally of a plant, unless this verse uses it that way.

44 Taylor, “The Asherah,” 38, who supports the idea of the asherah as a tree, notes this aspect as well. 45 BDB, 684b; HAL, 737b. 46 Interestingly, this verse attributes one of the reasons for Israel’s uprooting as their having made asherahs.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

251

Summary Can only trees be cut? Does only wood burn? Are only trees planted and uprooted? These kinds of questions serve to highlight that the verbs commonly used to argue for the dendrical nature of the asherah, or more specifically, of the wooden composition of the asherah, are all applied to objects which are not composed of wood as well. Clearly this observation must caution against assuming that asherahs were made of wood on this basis. It will be shown below that there are legitimate reasons for supposing an asherah to have been a wooden object, but these verbs do not constitute proof. Nominal Evidence Category 2 above, passages which name or list asherahs as cultic paraphernalia with a nominal indication of material, may be the best indicators of the dendrical nature of asherahs. Interestingly, there are only two pericopes in this category: Deut 16.21 and Judg 6.25–30. Deut 16.21 has been discussed above, thus this discussion will focus on the clearest evidence for a wooden component to the asherah of Ophrah, Judg 6.25–30. It happened that night that Yhwh said to him “Take the bullock of the cattle which is your father’s, and the bullock of seven years47 and you will break down the altar of the baal which is your father’s and the asherah which is next to it you will cut down. (26) And you will build an altar to Yhwh your God at the summit of this fortress in an orderly way and you will take the second bullock and you will offer a holocaust on the wood of the asherah which you cut down.” (27) And Gideon took ten men from his servants and he did just as Yhwh his God spoke, but it happened that as he feared the house of his father and the men of the city to do it by day, he did it at night. (28) The men of the city arose early and behold, torn down was the altar of the baal and the asherah which was next to it was cut down and the second bull had been offered upon the altar which had been built. (29) And they said, man to his companion, “Who did this deed?”, and they inquired and sought and they said “Gideon son of Joash did this deed.” (30) And the men of the city said to Joash “Bring out your son and let him die because he pulled down the altar of the baal and because he cut down the asherah which was next to it.”

47

Please see the textual comments in my Reassessment 103.

252

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

There are several aspects of this narrative which deserve comment. Firstly it must be noted that the story concerns one specific asherah, presumably the asherah of Ophrah. More specifically, v. 25 states that the altar and its asherah are those of Gideon’s father. The question must be raised if all asherahs in ancient Israel conformed to the shape, style, and material of this one.48 This is not a foregone conclusion, in the light of the scant nature of the evidence. Secondly, the asherah is not described as being wholly made of wood, but it is noted that at least part of it was made of wood; “the wood(s) of (-yc() the asherah” (v. 26) would seem to indicate the relevant part of the asherah for the story, namely, the wooden part. This is not to say that the asherah could not have been wholly wood, simply that the narrative does not make this plain. Thirdly, in the light of the previous discussion of verbs, v. 26 is the only part of this pericope which makes it clear that the asherah was at least partially a wooden object (it had at least enough wood upon which to offer a whole burnt offering). Fourthly, because the verb trk is used with an object, at least part of which is wood, it is possible to see that other instances of trk used with asherahs may indicate that they were at least partially composed of wood. This minimalist reading is not intended to preempt discussion on what an asherah might have been, and it has little to do with the opinion of the current author about what an asherah was. It is, however, an attempt to treat critically the biblical information concerning the arboreal associations of asherahs, which turns out to be less forceful than often presented. Summary The biblical references to the asherah do not overwhelm the reader with a dendrical nature for ancient asherahs. Some were undoubtedly composed at least partially of wood; all of them may have been wooden. The texts, however, do not indicate that this was their primary association. Considerable caution must be used when stating unequivocally that the biblical portrait of Asherah is that of a tree-goddess on the basis of this material.49

48 49

Binger, Asherah 123, has also raised this point. Keel, Goddesses and Trees 38.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

253

BIBLICALTREE WORSHIP Elsewhere in the HB, there are vignettes of tree worship. These references do not call the tree an asherah, but the combination of tree and worship has sometimes drawn the interests of those seeking information on asherah cults.50 As a premise, not as a conclusion, the association of trees and asherahs must be recognized as an hypothesis awaiting verification. As has been demonstrated above, the direct references to asherahs do not present an overwhelming case for a connection with trees in general, but only with specific instances (which are beyond our ability to investigate firsthand) in which the asherah is composed, at least partially, of wood. Theories built on unverified hypotheses have little force. Given that at least some asherahs were partially composed of wood, however, some significant passages concerning tree worship deserve attention. Trees are common in the biblical text: some 30 tree varieties are cited in the HB.51 References to cultic acts which involve trees span the “deuteronomistic history” and frequently appear in the diatribes of prophets. Almost always the context of these references is polemical: the author is condemning the behavior described. This point, while not definitive in itself, is important to bear in mind as the citations are examined: are the biblical writers interested in presenting an objective account of how trees functioned in the cult? If not, how can they be critically examined to determine what actually transpired? These importunate questions must never be far from the investigation. A further issue is how to narrow down the number of references. Since the interest of this essay is asherahs, the references will be limited to pericopes in which trees (or wood) are actually said to have been worshipped or treated significantly in actions which point to their divinity. This restricts the field of significant trees considerably, which is in itself an illustrative point—if biblical evidence for arboreal worship is generally lacking, and if the references to asherahs are ambiguous—whence is the evidence that Asherah was a tree-goddess? Only three clear cases of tree worship or devotion are found: Isa 44.14–17; Ezek 20.32; and Hab 2.19. Hos 4.12, however, adds the dimension of the people consulting wood, and therefore it also should be considered in this context. Likewise Gen 12.6, Abram’s For example, Taylor, “The Asherah,” 40–41; Keel, Goddesses and Trees 54–55; Weinfeld, “Feminine Features,” 527–28. 51 Irene and Walter Jacob, “Flora,” ABD II, 803–17. An exact number is difficult to determine since not all plant names have been identified with certainty. 50

254

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

visit to the oak of Moreh, and 21.33, Abram’s planting of a significant tree at Beer-sheba, although neither passage directly indicates tree worship, must be briefly examined. This presentation intentionally excludes the many biblical references to worshipping the work of human hands, which often include a note that such work is made of wood (often in the formulaic, generic, “wood and stone”—for example, Deut 4.28; 28.36, 64; 29.16 (17); 2 Kgs 19.18). These verses are too indistinct to claim support for a specific deity as a “treegod/goddess” and are generally recognized as jejune characterizations of “foreign” cult practice. This word-pair of wood/tree and stone is likely a deuteronomistic polemic which belittles the images made of any material. The purpose here is to demonstrate how tree worship relates to asherahs/Asherah in the biblical text. The content and contexts of verses indicating such devotion will be examined to determine if they refer to asherah worship. Pericopes made to refer to asherahs by textual emendation will not be considered here, since such alteration necessarily prejudges the conclusions. Isa 44.14-1752 Cutting for himself cedars, or he takes a tirzah or an oak, and secures (it) for himself among the trees of the forest, he plants a cedar, and rain makes it grow, (15) and it is used for burning by people, and he takes from it and is warmed, also he kindles a fire, and bakes bread, also he makes (l(p) a god and worships (hx#$53 ) it, he makes (h#&() it an image and prostrates himself (dgs) before it. (16) Half of it he burned in a fire, over the half flesh he eats, 52 For a thorough discussion of this pericope consult Michael B. Dick, “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. B. Dick; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999) 26–30. 53 The root of this word remains problematic. See J. A. Emerton, “The Etymology of hištaḥawāh,” OTS 20 (1977) 41–55 and Siegfried Kreuzer, “Zur Bedeutung und Etymologie von hištaḥawāh / yštḥwy,” VT 35 (1985) 39–60.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

255

he roasts a roast and is satisfied, also he is warm and says, “Ah, I am warm, I see the firelight;” (17) and its remainder he makes into a god, into its image, he prostrates himself to it and worships it, and he prays to it and says, “Rescue me for you are my god!”

In this parody of the idol-maker, the prophet derides the process of using material goods, specifically wood, to make gods. The salient question is whether the god fashioned (h#&() and worshipped (hx#$, dgs) can be related to an asherah or Asherah. The verb h#&( is used with asherahs, a point often cited when the debate of pole-versus-tree arises.54 In this pericope h#&( is used specifically of making an image (lsp wh#&(). An image of the asherah/Asherah (hr#$)h lsp) is referred to in 2 Kgs 21.7 which correlates to the language of v. 15 above. Half of the wood is burned (Pr#&) in v. 16—another verb utilized for the destruction of an asherah. Beyond these juxtapositions, however, are further considerations: the verb l(p (v. 15) is never used of an asherah, the image is cited as a masculine singular (l), v. 15, 17), and nowhere is an asherah specifically mentioned in this pericope. Further, a masculine singular form of asherah does not exist, although a masculine plural is occasionally used in biblical texts. Indeed, this passage loses its force if a specific deity is castigated; the point is precisely that any god made of earthly matter is no god at all. Given the late development of the kind of monotheism represented in this pericope, as well as the exilic (at the earliest) context of these verses, 55 it would seem that the precise form of the asherah had already begun to fade from memory by this point in time.56 This portrait of the idol-maker is Reed, The Asherah 30; Taylor, “The Asherah,” 35. Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 1–4; John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968) 67; R. N. Whybray, Isaiah 40–66 (The New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids/London: Eerdmans/Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981) 98. 56 See Christian Frevel, “Die Elimination der Göttin aus dem Weltbild des Chronisten,” ZAW 103 (1991) 263–71; Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 81–83; and my Reassessment 120–25, for consideration of the “forgotten” aspect of the ex54 55

256

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

polemical as well, probably taking no special care to represent accurately the theology of those who utilized images.57 The type of evidence this passage gives cannot be used to argue that asherahs were wooden or that they were particularly associated with trees. Had that been a major concern, the opportunity presented itself, when the writer was listing various trees in v. 14, to single out the asherah as an example of such non-deities. Ezek 20.3258 And the injustice59 upon your soul, it will surely never come to be, what you are saying— “We will be like the nations, like the clans of the lands, serving (tr#$) tree/wood and stone.”

This verse, in the context of a polemic against Israel’s history of idolatry, declares the end of idol worship among Yhwh’s people. A specific reference is made to the worship of wood (or a tree) and stone. As with the Isaiah passage, this verse is exilic at the earliest. Interestingly, the worship of tree/wood and stone is presented as foreign (Mywgk), and unlike the previous verses, is not a reason for the exile, but rather a desire of the exiles.60 Although this verse does explicitly cite the act of worship of trees or wood, it refers to this worship in the formula Nb)w C(.61 This formula appears to be a carry-over from the generic way the deuteronomists had of referring to idolatry, as noted above. These two elements, wood and stone, are used pars pro toto as a kind of shorthand to ilic/post-exilic references to the asherah. See also the brief remarks in this regard by Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh 18–19. 57 This is a point also made by Dick, “Prophetic Parodies,” 30–34. 58 This verse is difficult from several aspects, but the general sense is nevertheless clear. 59 Taking hl( as from the root lw( III, “unrighteousness” (BDB, 732; HAL, 798a). The form is attested in Isa 61.8. Alternatively, the word may mean “that which comes up,” i.e., “the thought.” 60 That this verse is a natural breaking point, consult Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 404. 61 This phrase is sometimes treated as a later gloss. See Walter Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 278.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

257

refer to any common material from which images were made. They are too general to suggest that the author specifically had an asherah in mind. Hab 2.19 Woe to the one saying to the tree/wood, “Awake,” “Rouse yourself” to dumb stone— will it teach? Behold, it is captured in gold and silver, and there is no breath within it.

Part of the fifth malediction of the second chapter of Habakkuk, this verse is generally treated as part of a late addition to the text.62 As in the previous passage from Ezekiel, tree/wood (C() is paralleled by stone (Nb)), a wordpair which is used synecdochally to refer to any material from which an idol may be made. Furthermore, this pairing appears to have been deuteronomistic in origin, and it is certainly polemical. In this oracle, the wood/tree is not actually worshipped, but its devotees attempt to arouse it to action. The context—in this case the verse is a unit with only the previous verse—is focused on the uselessness of idols in general. The context gives the reader no reason explicitly to associate the tree/wood with an asherah. Presumably, other images could have been manufactured of wood, and therefore a more specific reference is necessary to link it with an asherah. Hos 4.12 My people seek oracles63 from their64 wood, 62 William Hayes Ward, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Habakkuk (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911) 6, 18; Mária Eszenyei Széles, Wrath and Mercy: A Commentary on the Books of Habakkuk and Zephaniah (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids/Edinburgh: Eerdmans/The Hansel Press, 1987) 41. This view, however, is increasingly questioned, see J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991) 127; F. F. Bruce, “Hosea” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary (T. E. McComisky, ed.; vol. 2; Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993) 874; Elizabeth Achtemeier, Nahum–Malachi (Interpretation; Atlanta: John Knox, 1986) 51. 63 For further examples of this meaning of l)#$ see Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 24; New York: Doubleday, 1980) 365; A. A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical

258

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH and their65 staff declares to them,66 for a spirit of fornication made them67 wander, and they fornicated away from68 their God.

This verse occurs within the context of Hosea’s denunciation of the priest for setting a bad example. As usual for Hosea, it couches the worship of material representations of deity in terms of sexual misconduct. The question arises whether or not such language may refer to Asherah/asherah. If Hosea intended his audience to think of Asherah, we are here dealing with an “unspeakable.”69 The evidence for an Asherah connection rests on the language of sexual misconduct (assuming this to have been directed toward a goddess, and therefore Asherah) and the material of the object (wood).70 The sexual misconduct language is ubiquitous in Hosea, and by itself provides little evidence for the worship of a specific deity. More persuasive is the reference specifically to wood. This evidence cannot stand alone, however. As demonstrated above, the dendrical associations of the asherah do not appear to have been strong enough to elicit the image of this object (or goddess) at any reference to wood. I would argue that this is particularly the case with Hosea: the prophet had no aversion to castigating Baal by name. It must be wondered why a prophet who was normally so frank about other deities and sexuality had trouble citing Asherah by name, if he intended her to be understood. Obviously there is no way to answer this question, but it casts doubt on the consideration that Asherah underlies this passage, or much of the book.71

Commentary on Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997) 151; and Hans Walter Wolff, A Commentary on the Book of Hosea (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 84. 64 Literally “his, its,” referring to the singular collective, “my people.” 65 Literally “his, its;” see previous note. 66 Literally “him;” see previous two notes. 67 Literally “her,” referring to Israel as the bride/betrothed. 68 For this understanding of txtm see James Luther Mays, Hosea: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969) 72. 69 Judith McKinlay, “Bringing the Unspeakable to Speech in Hosea,” Pacifica 9 (1996) 121–33. 70 Wolff, Hosea 84, and Macintosh, Hosea 152, suggest that Asherah may lay behind this oracle. 71 Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. “Religious Practices Reflected in The Book of Hosea,” Review and Expositor 90 (1993) 208–9.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

259

A further observation concerning trees and Hosea is that, as pointed out by Yee, Hos 14.9 (8) makes unique usage of arboreal language applied to Yhwh, when Israel’s God says “I am a luxuriant juniper.”72 Without entering into Wellhausen’s emended text to find a direct reference to Asherah (based, as it is, upon a conclusion supported by an altered text),73 it must be noted that in this verse Yhwh is compared to a tree, and that Asherah is not mentioned in the text as we have it. The tree is therefore a metaphor for a masculine deity and not a feminine one in the only certain divine-dendrical comparison in the book of Hosea. Gen 12.6 And Abram passed over into the land, as far as the place of Shechem, as far as the oak of Moreh; and the Canaanites at that time were in the land.

This passage describes the first encampment of Abram in the land of Palestine. The discussion of “sacred trees” centers on the reference to the “oak of Moreh.” hrwm is often understood to denote “oracular”74 and therefore the tree is considered to have been sacred. My purpose is not to dispute whether trees were deemed sacred by the ancients (interestingly there are, however, no direct assertions that this tree is sacred in this verse). Rather the question is: is there any indication that Asherah/asherah is implicated in such a passage? Commentaries tend not to go this route, but the suggestion of a sacred tree is generally noticed by Asherah tradents. The context of this verse is sparse; Abram has entered the land of promise and has chosen to settle near this oak. Apparently it is mentioned simply as a landmark. Likewise, it would appear unsavory to place a character who otherwise appears devoted to the instructions of Yhwh in the realm of what was perceived of as foreign worship. Without any textual hint of

Gale A. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS 102; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 138. 73 J. Wellhausen, Die Kleinen Propheten: übersetzt und erklärt (3rd ed.; Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer, 1898) 134. Most recently this has been revisited in Frédéric Gangloff, “Yhwh ou les déesses-arbres? (Oseé xiv 6–8)” VT 49 (1999) 34–48. 74 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 91; E. A. Speiser, Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 1; New York: Doubleday, 1962) 87; Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977) 178. 72

260

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Asherah/asherah’s presence, this verse does not point to the presence of the goddess or of her “symbol.” Gen 21.33 And he planted a tamarisk in Beer-sheba, and he called there on the name of Yhwh, El Olam.

Once again Abraham is apparently the actor in this verse. Here he plants ((+n) a tree before invoking Yhwh, El Olam. The singularity of El Olam as a title for Yhwh, and one which evokes the name of the native high god El, along with the coincidence of the tree planting, apparently as an act of worship,75 may combine to suggest an asherah behind the text.76 The confluence of El, tree, and worship offers a tantalizing scenario about which the context informs us little. This episode immediately follows Abraham’s pact with Abimelech concerning Beer-sheba, and precedes a summary statement asserting Abraham’s lengthy residence among the Philistines. Unless the tree symbolizes the pact with Abimelech,77 this verse is isolated from its context, leaving its interpretation to what is otherwise known of the practice of tree-planting. Once again the attempt to find a definitive answer is elusive; nowhere else is tree-planting associated with the ancestors and its only reference in a certainly cultic context is Deut 16.21. In other words, this verse adds nothing to our previous discussion of that verse, nor to our understanding of asherah. Summary Having examined the biblical material, paltry evidence is found on which to base Asherah’s characterization as a “tree-goddess.” Trees, according to the texts, were not worshipped in their own right, but only when considered a deity. This association appears to have transpired with the working of the tree into an image which was synecdochally referred to as “wood/tree.” A related question, which cannot be answered with certainty, is how common a component wood was in the manufacture of statuary, at least in ancient Israel.78 On the basis of the prophetic passages explored—and Sarna, Genesis 149. On the suggestion that the LXX translators were uncomfortable because of just such a hidden association, see James Barr, “Seeing the Wood for the Trees? An Enigmatic Ancient Translation,” JSS 13 (1968) 13–14. 77 Sarna, Genesis 149. 78 Thorkild Jacobsen (“The Graven Image,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in 75 76

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

261

many more could be added citing wood as a material for cult objects—it would appear to have been quite a common practice. If many images were made of wood, how is it possible to determine which ones were asherahs? It would seem that the material of composition was not necessarily indicative of the deity. No passages record in detail the manufacture of an asherah. Some verses indicated that it was fashioned in some way, but details concerning precisely how are lacking. Given this tenuous state of our knowledge, it does not seem reasonable to assign the title “asherah” to any wooden cult object cited in the text or found in archaeological contexts. Trees certainly appear in many significant contexts in the HB, as is illustrated by the two Genesis passages discussed. It not my intention to suggest that trees had no cultic role, but simply that they are nowhere specifically adjoined to Asherah/asherah, beyond Deut 16.21. Neither do I intend to suggest that Asherah was never an “unspeakable” behind the text;79 whether she was, however, may depend on if she was truly associated with trees.

EXTRA-BIBLICAL “ASHERAHS” The question remains of whether there is other ancient West Asian evidence that Asherah was associated with trees. A few years ago I attempted to deconstruct some of the modern accretions to the ancient picture of Asherahs,80 especially the associations of this “goddess” with lions and snakes.81 The same question applies to trees: is there evidence from the cultural and literary contexts of the HB asherah, that the goddess Asherah was conceived of in some way as a tree-goddess? A brief survey of the evidence is necessary. Outside of the Bible, the cultures in which Asherah is attested are the north Syrian realm of Ugarit, ancient Mesopotamia (in various locations), ancient South Arabia, and in a single Hittite document. There are scattered Honor of Frank Moore Cross (P. D. Miller, Jr., P. D. Hanson, and S. D. McBride, eds.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 15) indicates that statues were commonly made of wood in Mesopotamia. The question, however, remains how common wooden sacred objects were in Israel. 79 McKinlay, “Bringing the Unspeakable to Speech.” 80 This word is intentionally pluralized. There were goddesses in several West Asian cultures who shared this name, but only a few traits were held in common. In an era in which scholars are becoming more aware of pluralism, it is ironic that there is still a tendency to deny that this was a reality in the ancient world. 81 “The Myth of Asherah,” 383–94.

262

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

epigraphic finds: most notably Khirbet el-Qom, Kuntillet Ajrud, and Tel Miqne have all produced references to either the deity or to a cultic object known as asherah. I have explored each of these arenas in depth elsewhere, although some new finds have been added to the corpus since my earlier work.82 Of these cultural contexts, the Ugaritic material is the most plentiful and provides the clearest picture of who Asherah was in that culture. Asherah appears to have been intimately associated with El, perhaps as consort, and was somehow related to the sea. She was apparently the queen mother in her exercise of authority in the mythological cycle, and she was the mother of the gods. Nowhere in the extant Ugaritic texts does Asherah appear to have been particularly associated with trees. The Mesopotamian evidence is complex and it reflects a complex theological understanding which continues to defy modern exegesis. This is also one of the realms in which new evidence sporadically surfaces.83 Given the intransigence of the material, and since I have elsewhere attempted a systematic treatment of it,84 it must be sufficient here to state that, despite the wealth of associations of “Asherah” in Mesopotamia, to date trees are nowhere specifically associated with her. South Arabian evidence for Asherah consists entirely of dedicatory inscriptions which tend to pair Asherah with the lunar deity85 Wadd or ʿAmm.86 No dendrical associations have yet appeared for the goddess from this region. Likewise, the Hittite story does not connect the goddess with trees.87

See my Reassessment. Wilford G. E. Watson, “Atrt ym: Yet Another Proposal,” UF 25 (1993) 431– 34, cites a new, and potentially informative, Mesopotamian reference. 84 Reassessment 132–50. 85 I use this term tentatively, especially in the light of my discussion of Yarikh at Ugarit, “What’s in a Name? Yariḫ at Ugarit” UF 30 (1998) 761–79. 86 See my Reassessment 153–63. For the most recent discussion of this material see François Bron, “Notes sur le culte d’Athirat en Arabie du Sud préislamique,” in Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (Histoire du Texte Biblique 4; C.B. Amphoux, A. Frey and U. Schattner-Rieser, eds.; Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 1998) 76–79. I thank Prof. Bron for providing me with a copy of this study. 87 Found in Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., Hittite Myths (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 69–70. 82 83

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

263

Despite the suggestion that the Khirbet el-Qom inscription depicts a tree88 (which is based, in turn, on the biblical evidence that Asherah is a tree-goddess), the inscriptional evidence does not mention an arboreal connection for the goddess. The Khirbet el-Qom inscription, still imperfectly understood, is covered with striations of uncertain origin or meaning. To make a case that “one does not need an especially vivid imagination to detect in these alleged ‘scratches’ the outline of a rudimentary tree”89 is tenuous at our current state of knowledge both of the inscription and of Asherah. A similar assertion, that Asherah may be seen in the doodles of the Kuntillet Ajrud pithos, will be considered below under Iconography. Suffice it to say at this point that the inscription itself does not give any basis for making a direct connection between Asherah and trees.

ICONOGRAPHY The issue of Asherah’s iconography must be addressed. In a recent, popular book, neurosurgeon Leonard Shlain has suggested that images were more conducive to goddess worship than texts.90 Although many of his arguments are far too general to contribute significantly to the debate, there is a point to be taken: iconography informs the world of much that texts cannot. Interpretations of my past comments on iconography have led to the suspicion that I disregard the importance of iconography for understanding ancient Israelite religion.91 This is not the case. Iconography is a valuable tool in reconstructing ancient culture and in providing insight to ancient religions. When an iconic representation is securely established on the basis of what is known from texts and contexts, it may add significantly to our understanding.92 When, on the other hand, a tenuous identification is made, only to be bolstered by ambiguous representations, our understanding suffers. I maintain that this is the case with Asherah. Uncertain associations 88 Baruch Margalit, “Some Observations on the Inscription and Drawing from Khirbet el-Qôm,” VT 39 (1989) 371. I wish to thank Prof. Margalit for supplying me with an offprint of this article. 89 Margalit, “Some Observations,” 371. 90 The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict between Word and Image (New York: Viking, 1998). I am grateful to Neal Stephenson for pointing this book out to me. 91 Reassessment 19–20; “Myth of Asherah,” throughout, despite the comments in Burns “Female Pillar Figurines,” 41. 92 As is well illustrated by Izak Cornelius, “Anat and Qudshu as the ‘Mistress of Animals’: Aspects of the Iconography of the Canaanite Goddesses,” SEL 10 (1993) 22.

264

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

have been made, and have been repeatedly built upon, so that an unrealistic representation is offered to, and largely accepted by, historians of ancient religions. Based on the current state of our knowledge, there are no labeled or unambiguous representations of the goddess Asherah.93 This does not mean that no iconographic material exists; some of the female representations from various sites in Western Asia may very well record her likeness. Until, however, such associations are secured, there will be the danger of falsifying the evidence by insisting that any woman portrayed, for example, near a tree, is “Asherah.” Keel certainly presents ample evidence that female figures are often associated with trees in ancient iconography.94 It is possible, even probable, that some of these female figures are intended to represent goddesses, perhaps even Asherah. To begin the discussion, however, from the presupposition that any female portrayed is a goddess, and that trees automatically indicate Asherah, is, I maintain, an extraordinary claim. The reason for this is basic: although the divine name Asherah (or its cognate forms) is attested in several ancient Semitic cultures, little of her recorded “biography” remains. Her association with trees, regardless of possible iconographic representations, stems from the fact that the HB mentions that her cultic object was (at least occasionally and/or partially) made of wood. While the material of fabrication may reveal something about the deity venerated, it does not necessarily provide a direct correlation between the character and the material. Conversely it was likely the form that was characteristic of the deity, no matter what the material was. In short, Asherah’s arboreal associations are based solely upon the supposed material of the cult object which shares her name. It is extraordinary on this basis to maintain that iconography depicting women and trees is necessarily iconography of Asherah. In his admirable work over the past several years, Keel has demonstrated that, without a doubt, there is a strong connection between female figures and floral (sometimes dendrical) iconography. Two essentials remain to be proven, however: that the female figures are goddesses, and that the plants always represent trees. In other words, the existence of the femaleand-plant motif is not called into question, but its interpretation is. As Keel

A point previously made by myself “The Myth of Asherah,” 384, and Cornelius, “Anat and Qudshu,” 29. 94 Goddesses and Trees 20–46 and figures. 93

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

265

himself admits, there are a multitude of goddesses in the ancient world.95 It is safe to assert that there were even more women than goddesses. Of all of these, which are represented in the ancient iconography? Narrowing the divine sphere down to ancient Syro-Palestine, there were several major goddesses.96 Which, it may be asked, if any, are portrayed on these unlabeled iconographic pieces? Likewise, many plants have leafy branches. How are the admittedly stylized iconographic depictions to be positively identified as trees? This applies particularly to the various “tree-goddesses” who are so designated by a leafy depiction on their abdomens.97 The “tree” here is so highly stylized that its identification as a plant hardly seems secure. Until these still unresolved issues can be addressed adequately, this iconography should not be used to reconstruct the worship of one particular goddess, in this case, Asherah.98 The Kuntillet Ajrud pithos A, the Lachish ewer, and the Taanach cult stand have been repeatedly cited as evidence for identifying Asherah with trees. The iconography of all three of these artifacts suffers from ambiguity. Given the ubiquity of these artifacts as evidence for Asherah as a treegoddess, these three objects must briefly be considered. The availability of the photographs and reproductions of these objects obviate the need for drawings in this study; the reader is referred to sources of photographs and drawing in the references below. Goddesses and Trees 37. In my various works I have tried to demonstrate that Asherah does not stand alone as the goddess of the ancient world. See especially my “Shapsh, Lamp of the Gods,” in Ugarit, religion and culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, religion and culture, Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson (N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson and J. B. Lloyd, eds.; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996) 327–50. 97 See also Silvia Schroer, “Die Zweiggöttin in Palästina/Israel. Von der Mittelbronze II B-Zeit bis zu Jesus Sirach,” in Jerusalem, Texte - Bilder - Steine: im Namen von Mitgliedern und Freunden des Biblischen Instituts der Universität Freiburg Schweiz zum 100. Geburtstag von Hildi + Othmar Keel-Leu (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 6; M. Küchler and C. Uehlinger, eds.; Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1987) 201–25. 98 Noteworthy in this regard is the refreshingly precise work of Keel’s student Christoph Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21; K. van der Toorn, ed.; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997) 97–155. 95 96

266

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Kuntillet Ajrud pithos A99 depicts a tree-and-caprids graffito on the same vessel as an inscription which reads (in part) “I bless you by Yhwh of Samaria and by ʾšrth.” The meaning of the inscription on this pithos has been debated since its discovery, and the inscription has been related to any number of the doodles found on the jar. Regardless of the meaning of the inscription, a very real methodological issue is raised here. Those who relate various drawings to Asherah on this pithos start from the assumption that one of several inscriptions was intended to be the crux interpretum of an entire vessel which had been repeatedly scrawled upon, as if the inscription were systematically illustrated by various ancient iconographers. This vessel is covered with doodles and graffiti which have no particular association, and scholars argue for no associations between drawings and inscriptions except this one. This is an extraordinary claim, and it has yet to be backed by extraordinary evidence. The pithos certainly does not constitute sound evidence that Asherah is intended by this motif of tree-and-caprids, and therefore is a tree-goddess. The Lachish ewer100 is illustrated with the caprids-and-tree motif and contains an inscription apparently dedicating the vessel to ʾlt, “goddess.” The proximity of the word “goddess” to a stylized tree has been used to argue that Elat, understood to be Asherah, was a tree-goddess. The proximity of this extremely general word “goddess,” however, to a highly stylized, painted plant neglects the other juxtapositions of the inscription and decorations on the same vessel. Further, if a devotee dedicated a vessel to “Elat” did the donor necessarily depict “her” on the object? This is not selfevident. Further, the connection between “Elat” and Asherah is based on the dendrical depiction, which can only be sustained by a firm association based on the ambiguous biblical references cited above. To suggest that this 99 Good photographs and drawings may be found in André Lemaire, “Who or What Was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BARev 10/6 (1984) 45; accurate drawings and cogent comment may be found in Pirhiya Beck, “The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud),” Tel Aviv 9 (1982) 3–68. The identification of the Bes figures and lyre player with Asherah have been adequately discredited by Uehlinger, “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary,” 142–46, as well as Hadley, The Cult of Asherah 136–52; the discontinuity between the inscription and Bes figures had already been demonstrated by Beck, “The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman,” 27–36. 100 An excellent photograph is found in Hestrin, “Understanding Asherah,” 51. Smaller, but also helpful photos and drawings are located in her “The Lachish Ewer,” 213 and plate 28.

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

267

represents Asherah on the basis of her biblical arboreal associations, which are, in turn, supported by this artifact, is a circular argument, and does not constitute sound evidence. The Taanach cult stand101 also contains an example of the caprids-andtree motif. Three of the four registers of this object depict standard decorative motifs from the ancient world. The second register from the top shows two caprids eating/climbing a stylized tree/plant, and this relief, partially on the basis of the bottom register which depicts a nude woman between two lions, has been used to argue that Asherah was intended in both registers.102 The two scenes frequently associated with Asherah assume that she is associated with lions, for which there is no viable evidence,103 or that she is represented in the tree-and-caprids motif. The association with the tree-andcaprids motif rests upon a firm association of Asherah with trees, which is based on the uncertain biblical evidence examined above. Either a prejudged conclusion or circular argumentation alone may bolster this association. Pillar figurines, it should be mentioned, likewise remain ambiguous. The argument that the pillar represents a stylized tree has been thoroughly discredited by Kletter.104 The evidence from these three major iconographic sources, which are of great importance in their own regard, does not offer any extraordinary evidence that Asherah was associated with trees. In each case it has yet to be adequately demonstrated that Asherah was intended at all. Without this piece of the equation, the rest cannot be assumed. Interestingly, scholars eager to find Asherah in the HB have tended to ignore the tree-and-cherubim motif blatantly set in the context of the temple.105 Cherubim and palm trees alternated on the temple walls according to 1 Kgs 6.29. Unless the deuteronomistic writers condoned a motif widely 101 Photographs may be found in J. Glen Taylor, “Was Yahweh Worshiped as the Sun?” BARev 20/3 (1994) 52, as well as on the cover of BARev 17/5 (1991); smaller, but clear photos are available in Hestrin, “The Lachish Ewer,” plate 30. Good photographs appear in Ruth Hestrin, “The Cult Stand from Taʿanach and its Religious Background,” Studia Phoenicia 5 (1987) 62–64 (unfortunately not as easily accessible). 102 The case is made most forcefully in Taylor, “The Two Earliest Known Representations,” 560. 103 As I have demonstrated in “The Myth of Asherah.” 104 Kletter, The Judean Pillar-Figurines 76–77. 105 The exception to this is Wallace, The Eden Narrative, 107.

268

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

associated with Asherah, which is doubtful at best, the representation appears not to have conjured the image of a tree-goddess. Summary In addition to being often unlabeled, the iconographic evidence is highly ambiguous. Scholars who see Asherah as a “tree-goddess” rely on tree iconography from the ancient world. This juxtaposition must be corroborated by demonstrating that Asherah was conceived of as a tree-goddess of some description. The main body of evidence for this is the HB. When the biblical texts are examined closely, they can be made to fit this theory only by referring to the iconographic evidence. This is a circular argument and is not extraordinary evidence.

CONCLUSIONS What I have attempted to demonstrate is that the long-standing association of Asherah with trees is based on minimal evidence. I do not suggest that Asherah was not associated with trees—what I do assert is that such a connection is far from obvious or definitive for her character. At the current state of our knowledge, the only firm evidence for this association is the biblical material, especially Deut 16.21 and Judg 6.25–30, which indicate that an asherah was made of wood. Extra-biblical texts, including the most complete portrait of Asherah from Ugarit, do not appear to have been aware of any special connection between Asherah and trees. Iconographic representations, despite vociferous claims to the contrary, remain ambiguous about the identity of the women portrayed. The caution which I urge is not a new response to ambiguous evidence. As far back as 1949 Reed suggested that not every tree was an asherah, and that Asherah worship did not evolve from some amorphous “sacred tree” cult.106 Critics might well ask whence this association arose. Although that is the task of another essay, I suggest that a hint may be found in Barr’s in-

106 The Asherah 3: “When one assumes, as he has no right to do, that the Asherah was a tree or a pole, then the field becomes a large one and every stylized tree or upright pole may be called an Asherah” and 37: “it is perfectly clear from the verbs used with the word in the Old Testament that there is no more reason for explaining the Asherah as a descendant of a sacred tree than there is for so interpreting the origin of the graven image or the pillars.”

OF ASHERAHS AND TREES

269

sightful analysis of how hr#$) came to be rendered “groves” in English.107 The origin of this association appears to have been the background of Hellenistic religion, the Zeitgeist of the LXX translators, in which sacred groves were a familiar phenomenon. What was familiar to them became the obvious translation of a word whose significance had been forgotten. The translation “groves” implanted itself in the English-speaking world through the pervasive influence of the King James Version. When more precise translation became an issue, most obviously beginning with Reed’s The Asherah in the Old Testament, the arboreal association had accrued a time-honored status. It has subsequently become impossible, since the days of the LXX, even to ask the question of whether there was a good reason to associate asherahs exclusively with wood. This is the question which I am now asking.108

“Seeing the Wood for the Trees?” 15–16. For further recent bibliography on Asherah, please consult my “Asherah Again: Binger’s Asherah and the State of Asherah Studies,” (review article) JNSL 24 (1998) 231–40. 107 108

10 BOOK REVIEWS ASHERAH AGAIN: T. BINGER’S ASHERAH AND THE STATE OF ASHERAH STUDIES Originally published as a Review Article in JNSL 24/1 (1998) 231-234. Republished with permission. Tilde Binger (1997) has produced a book which falls into the rapidly growing field of Asherah studies. This review article will focus on her book, but will also document and comment upon some of the further developments in this intriguing field of study. Dissatisfied with an unspecified approach to the subject of Asherah, Binger begins her book with a discussion of method. She cites the fields of history, source criticism and historical criticism as the basis of her work (p. 14). Using extreme caution, she reminds the reader that any delineation of a past reality is necessarily a reconstruction, and that any sense of belonging to the heritage of the material under study clouds objectivity. The problem is magnified over the great chronological, geographical and cultural distances between the modern student and ancient subjects. Any study must be written with an awareness of one’s own mindset, and it must be admitted that the ancient material is thus interpreted. The caution applied here is admirable; however, Binger appears to overstate the case when the rest of the book is compared to the idealistic suggestions laid out as the starting point. This will become clear below. From this sketchy discussion of method, Binger moves to definitions of “Ugaritic”, “Israelite”, and “Canaanite”. Understanding “nation” in a modern sense she deems an inappropriate way to define these terms, since the ancient “state” consisted of a king and his territory which included his slaves (i.e., all of his subjects). “Ugaritic” is defined as “material deriving from or belonging to the city-state of Ugarit” (p. 20). “Israelite” she finds a problematic concept. In dealing with “the scholarly fiction of ‘Ancient Israel’” (p. 21), she reluctantly defines it as the geographical area of CisJordan from no earlier than the ninth century down to 586 BCE. “Canaan271

272

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

ite” is discussed for its own sake, but does not appear in the remainder of the book. A further introductory chapter considers the source material for the study, again characterized by extreme caution. Binger surveys the contents, history of transmission, and the physical state of the sources. Noting the factor of chance finds in archaeology, she examines common sources of error in the archaeological record: misspellings, fragmentary preservation, and onomastica. Her discussion of the last topic, onomastica, is an extended deconstruction of their importance and value as evidence: “They tell us nothing at all of which we can be certain pertaining to the culture in which they are used” (p. 29). Binger proceeds to give a sharp denunciation of J. Tigay’s work on the subject (1986) before dismissing onomastica completely as valid evidence. Binger next addresses the short-comings of the Ugaritic tablets for determining ancient religious constructs. The find-spot of the “Baal Cycle”, Binger opines, disallows a continuous narrative, but suggests that CTA 1 and 2 should be treated as separate poems from the remainder of the Baal Texts. (Nevertheless she groups these texts together in her chapter on Ugarit calling them the “Baal-texts” rather than the “Baal Cycle”.) Furthermore, we do not know why these texts were written and this denies modern scholars an important interpretative principle. There is an irony in Binger’s analysis here, in that although some visionary scholars postulated the existence of a goddess named Asherah before these tablets were discovered, it was only after the Ugaritic evidence came to light that her existence could be affirmed confidently. Since that time no corpus of epigraphic evidence has added as much to our knowledge of the goddess as has the Ugaritic material. Israelite era archaeological finds are notorious, according to Binger, for their misuse in attempting to prove the Bible. The Old Testament, the final piece of source material discussed, “is not a very good source, actually it is at most times a very bad source for events and thoughts of the periods it pretends to deal with” (p. 40). This discussion ends Binger’s preliminary study with a sense of how little may be known from ancient sources. This caution is in the spirit of recent approaches to the subject of ancient Near Eastern religions, but it is not applied throughout the remainder of her book. The topic of Asherah is directly addressed in the remaining 106 pages of text. Binger begins her study of the goddess, appropriately, with the Ugaritic material. Her discussion begins with names and epithets of Asherah. Beginning with rbt atrt ym, she argues for the meaning “day” to translate the

BOOK REVIEWS

273

final word of the epithet. Binger finds no convincing reason to translate this word as “sea”, and thus offers the alternative orthographic possibility. A weakness here is an admitted (p. 50) lack of positive evidence. The evidence adduced violates the caution signaled earlier in the book. The suggestion that ym be understood as “day”, however, is a distinct possibility—although the evidence for “sea” is equally strong. The title qnyt ilm is equally difficult, but Binger utilizes it as evidence that Asherah was the creator of all gods, including El: Looking at these two myths [Enuma Elish and Greek mythology] in combination with Asherah’s title of qnyt ilm, it can be supposed that it was she, not El, who created the gods and thus made possible the creation of the world in the as yet unfound Ugaritic myth of creation (p. 51).

This conjecture is all that this title allows us to discern, according to Binger. The title ilt, although used of Asherah, also may be used as a generic noun “goddess”, Binger notes. She suggests that atrt might also be a title rather than a name. Concerning the epithet qdš Binger is ambivalent. After the epithets are discussed, she moves on to a consideration of Asherah’s roles and functions in the texts. The first text discussed at length is CTA 4.II.1–11. Concerning this unusual scene where Asherah is pictured in some activity by the sea, Binger finds no convincing reconstruction of the episode. She offers an interpretation based on the one certain piece of knowledge that Asherah holds a distaff and finds comparative evidence for a weaving vignette. Alternatively she notes that this scene may be “a list of the many virtues of Asherah” (p. 70), and this is why Baal and Anat seek her: she is a picture of the ideal wife. In the light of the fact that even Binger’s translation here finds Asherah doing domestic chores by the sea, it is of interest that no connection is made between the sea and her title rbt atrt ym. Rather than reflecting “treading on sea(-dragon)”, perhaps the title simply reflects whence Asherah originates. Lady Asherah of the Sea could be analogous to the German nobility title von. CTA 4.II.26–30; 4.III.27–36 and most of column IV are translated by Binger without much comment. She offers comments in the light of her construction of Asherah as the “good woman” (p. 71). CTA 4.IV.47–57 is used to demonstrate that El is a son of Asherah on the basis of Binger’s suggested translation of ilm in line 51 as “El” with an enclitic mem. This solution is based on her own predisposition of denying Baal as one of El’s sons, and this forces her to translate the (apparently) singular bnh of line 52 as a plural (pp. 76–77). Her understanding of the text

274

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

here is apparently driven by a pre-decided scenario. To bolster this idea CTA 8.1–5a is presented as evidence for Asherah giving Baal a house, and the suggestion that she is El’s mother is reiterated. Building further on this reconstruction, she notes that it is Asherah’s will which prevails in CTA 4.IV(+V).58–65. CTA 6.I.39–55 is supplied as further evidence of Asherah’s predominance. This investigation leads Binger to conclude that Asherah may be “the real power in the Ugaritic pantheon” (p. 82). In the Kirta epic Binger finds Asherah in the role of one of the wetnurses of the gods. In the final Ugaritic text examined, CTA 3.I.10–15, she tentatively proposes that when understood a certain (admittedly speculative) way, this text could support her theories of Asherah as “the perfect wife” and El as a co-equal son of Asherah along with Mot and Yam (p. 87). In the ritual texts, Binger observes, Asherah does not appear as often or as prominently as her role in the mythological texts suggests she should. Binger concludes “[t]he positive knowledge gained on her is easily summed up: she is Lady Asherah of the Day (or of the Sea), the creatress of gods, and she is one of the wetnurses (of the gods), and that is the sum total of our certain knowledge of the lady” (p. 90). Overall, despite Binger’s caution, the reader is left wondering if there is nothing more that can be concluded concerning these texts where Asherah is so active. Binger finishes the chapter with three and a half pages of possible roles or functions of Asherah at Ugarit which can remain only speculative. The Mesopotamian evidence (some of which is very briefly mentioned) and the Elkunirsa fragment from Boghazköy are treated as subsets of the Ugaritic information. Turning to Israel, Binger next examines the Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions. Beginning with Khirbet el-Qom, she describes the poor state of the inscription, especially the crucial line 3. “One could say that this line functions as a Rorschach-test on the individual scholar’s stand with regard to Israelite religion” (p. 95 n. 5). She then “chooses” (p. 95) a set of characters and translates them. This translation is dicussed line by line. When discussing the vexed third line, Binger proposes whʾwryh, apparently because it “rhymes both visually and orally with Uryahu and Yahweh” (p. 99). The crucial word lʾšrth is read without the final he, which is almost universally included as the correct reading. Despite her decision not to include overlapping letters, the next word begins with an overlapping waw: (w)hwšʾlh [sic]. This she derives from the root šʿl “a handful”, which points to Asherah as the protector of Uryahu (the subject of the inscription). The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions are examined next. Noting that “no official editio princeps exists”, Binger discusses the implications without an

BOOK REVIEWS

275

exploration of the reading of the text: “the following is based on the opinions voiced and readings proposed by the scholars mentioned” (p. 102). Dealing with the implications of two inscriptions together (inscription I: “I bless you by the Yahweh of Samaria and by his Asherah”, inscription II: “I bless you by the Yahweh of Teman, and by his Asherah”) she notes “there seems to be general agreement on what the contents of these inscriptions are” (p. 103). With this questionable premise, she primarily examines “the interpretation of yhwh šmrn and ‘his’ Asherah” (p. 103). After Binger’s very cautious premises concerning evidence, it is shocking to read that, based on no discussion of the reading of problematic inscriptions, “it seems safe to conclude without any shadow of doubt, that Yahweh in eighth and seventh century Israel had a direct relation to ʾšrt” (p. 105). Acknowledging that ʾšrth has a possessive suffix, and that this creates a grammatical difficulty for reading the word as a personal name, nevertheless, “in the following a number of possible solutions will be proposed” (p. 105). It seems that now Binger is allowing her conclusions to color the evidence. When considering difficult material caution is most necessary, but her interpretation of these inscriptions is apparently driven by prejudiced results: “[t]he easiest way out, if one wants to understand ʾšrth as a goddess, is to claim that the final he is part of the name...” (p. 105). Ironically, onomastic evidence is here marshalled from the Amarna letters. Binger herself does not subscribe to any one of the solutions offered for the grammatical difficulty, but states: there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in favor of not being too rigidly adherent to classical Hebrew grammar. Even the most rigid rules have exceptions, and it can thus be assumed that since we are dealing with several [sic] inscriptions, all referring to ʾšrth, we are indeed dealing with a suffixed name in the inscriptions discussed here. (p. 107).

This description of the situation strips the credibility of the reconstructions of ancient Israelite religion which are based upon it. The only true evidence proffered is two (perhaps three) inscriptions, not yet officially published, whose meaning is vigorously debated. Noting that the divine name is geographically determined in two inscriptions (and possibly in a third where she builds on a lacuna and footnotes “This argument ex silentio is naturally worthless in itself, and is only mentioned out of sheer perversity” (p. 107, n. 54)), Binger suggests that the final he of the tetragrammaton may be a suffix, and thus opens the way for a suffix on “Asherah”. She admits that this is a circular argument (p. 107, n. 56), but this does not prevent her from making it. One last possibility men-

276

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

tioned is that the final he of ʾšrth may be a he-locale rather than a pronominal suffix. Assuming that she has proven her case to all (except those who, for personal piety, cannot accept her grammatical tour de force) Binger suggests an identification for this Asherah in ancient Israel. Asherah is described as a goddess with a “legal and official place in the Yahweh religion” (p. 108). After her uncertainty as to Asherah’s consort status with El in the Ugaritic material, it is surprising to read that “Any goddess connected to a god—Baal for instance—in the way that we have seen Asherah connected to Yahweh in the above, would, without any major discussion, be seen as the relevant god’s consort or wife” (p. 108). This, she implies, proves that Asherah was Yahweh’s consort in ancient Israel. The dispassionate reader is left to ask why, if “personal piety” (p. 109, the only reason she finds for not accepting her hypothesis) negates a scholarly argument, why does not a predecided conclusion do the same? When the Old Testament is cited, Binger notes that only passages which correspond to the Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions will be discussed. Here again the question of fair treatment of the evidence arises. Discounting evidence which does not fit a theory is not sound scholarship, no matter how minimalist it may appear. 1 Kgs 15.13 and its parallel 2 Chr 15.16, when compared against the Septuagint, indicate that Asa removed the queen mother for her devotion to Asherah. 1 Kgs 18.19 simply mentions the prophets of Asherah, but 2 Kgs 21.3, 7 indicate that the Deuteronomists “were working from a Vorlage in which Manasseh was regarded as a good king who was doing the right thing” (p. 115) by reestablishing the Asherah cult in the temple. Asherah as a goddess, she contends, also appears in 2 Kgs 23.4, 7. Binger summarizes these references by noting that in five of the six hr#$) has the definite article, and each time she is a goddess. She then sets out to find verses which support the “coupling” (p. 121) of Yahweh and Asherah. Not surprisingly, since the issue is apparently decided before its investigation, she finds such evidence in Deut 16.21 and 2 Kgs 21.7; 23.4–7, (but not in 2 Kgs 18.4). She concludes that Asherah was commonly paired with Yahweh, which causes the reader to wonder why she is so reluctant to allow a coupling with El at Ugarit where the evidence is more direct. Judg 6.25–30, 1 Kgs 16.33 and 18.4 are explored to determine if the definite article on hr#$) indicates a goddess. Finding these verses ambiguous, Binger turns to the question of “whether the goddess became ‘a thing’ in the minds of the Old Testament writers and redactors, and how this could have happened” (p. 129). The correct way, she opines, to interpret

BOOK REVIEWS

277

the biblical references is from the Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom inscriptions. She then speculates how a goddess became an object. The Septuagint knows of asherah as living trees, which leads Binger to suggest: If an attempt is made to find a word in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament that could be the name of a goddess or contain a name, but which is usually interpreted as a tree or a cult-object, in order to find out if the ground-work for the Septuagint interpretation of Asherah is laid in the Hebrew text, the obvious word to investigate is hl) (p. 135).

In addition to being problematic methodology, her theory here is built on complete speculation with no real evidence presented: “all occurrences of the word can be understood as a tree, without doing violence to the text, but in some of these verses one could—with equal ease—read ‘goddess’” (p. 135). No positive evidence is offered for this suggestion, only emended verses and leading questions put to neutral texts. Having convinced herself (largely on the basis of Isa 6.13b, as emended) that hl) can mean both “goddess” and “tree”, Binger next sets out to show how the goddess and tree became associated. This association had been long-standing until “[t]he separation of Asherah and the ašerah [was] then made by the Deuteronomists and signifies a polemical de-sacralization of a goddess who could not be fitted into a monotheist and centralized Yahweh-cult” (p. 140). At this point the reader is left asking what became of the admirable caution with which the study was introduced. The book closes with a discussion of etymology. Binger does not support any particular etymology: her conclusion is that Asherah is the “nametitle” of the primary goddess of the pantheon (p. 146). In the cultures explored, she finally notes, Asherah should not be considered the same goddess in each. Two main weaknesses plague Binger’s work: she strays from her own stated method of using caution (particularly when it comes to ancient Israel and the Old Testament), and there is a lack of important secondary sources on the topic. My own work (Wiggins, 1993a) appears to have been too late to have had a major impact on Binger’s work (p. 7), yet several other sources do not appear to have been utilized. Given the number of further important studies which have appeared since my own book on the subject, I close this review with a brief summary of further works on the topic which appear neither in Binger’s bibliography nor mine. (I use my previous work as a terminus not out of delusions of importance but because of my attempt at providing as full a bibliography of previous Asherah studies as was possible at that time.) Space does not allow

278

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

for a review of these sources, but even a brief mention will demonstrate that Asherah studies are becoming, in their own right, a subset of ancient Near Eastern religion studies. Two further books on Asherah deserve mention: C. Frevel (1995) and J. M. Hadley (forthcoming). Frevel’s book is too massive to summarize here, but it may be said to reflect the more cautious approach to the material regarding Asherah. Hadley’s revised dissertation (Yahweh’s Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery. Cambridge, 1989) contains about 35% new material and is now with the publisher (Cambridge University Press). The dissertation was insightful, and its revised form should prove quite useful. Five articles in the recent OBO volume Ein Gott allein? are concerned with various aspects of Asherah studies. The articles by J. Day, W. G. Dever, J. M. Hadley, A. Lemaire, and M. S. Smith form a substantial contribution on the goddess in various ways. Asherah is also discussed in the general volume by K. L. King, Women and Goddess Traditions. In addition, the following articles have appeared from 1993 to the time of this review: I. Cornelius (1993), M. Dijkstra (1995), D. Edelman (1994), D. Fleming (1994), B. Halpern (1993), Y. Ikeda (1993), P. Merlo (1994), B. Schmidt (1995), J. Schmitt (1994), W. G. E. Watson (1993a and b), M. Weinfeld (1996). I make no claim to completeness with this list: the popular press has also seized the figure of Asherah, while some scholarly sources have yet to be indexed. Even this sampling demonstrates, however, that Asherah has found an enduring place in ancient Near Eastern studies, and her role will continue to be evaluated.

THE CULT OF ASHERAH IN ANCIENT ISRAEL AND JUDAH: EVIDENCE FOR A HEBREW GODDESS by Judith M. Hadley. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Originally published in BASOR 323 2001 102-103. Republished with permis-

sion.

This monograph represents a substantially revised and expanded edition of Hadley’s 1989 Cambridge University doctoral dissertation. After the necessary introductory material and review of previous scholarship, there are six major chapters (numbered two through seven) concerning evidence for Asherah worship. These chapters cover the Ugaritic and HB evidence for the goddess, Khirbet el-Qom grave inscription 3, the Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions and ink figures, other artifactual material, and female figurines.

BOOK REVIEWS

279

This review will concentrate on the archaeological material, but will summarize the textual information as well. It should be noted at the outset that Hadley’s original dissertation has provided carefully researched and cogently presented source material for the many publications on Asherah that have appeared in the 1990’s (C.E.). Now that her book is available, its influence hopefully will become more widely felt. Asherah’s role in the Ugaritic tablets is presented briefly in chapter two. Hadley admits that she is not attempting to add anything new to the discussion in this area (p. 38), but an overview of this material is essential background for the study of the goddess. Her discussion of the HB’s references to Asherah (chapter three) sets the background for the kinds of information to be found in that source. She discusses in some detail those verses which may mention the goddess, but these are few in number. There are some grounds here, however, for associating Asherah with Yhwh. The summation and synthesis of the material is ably done, but without much reference to the archaeological aspect of the asherah in ancient Israel. The fourth chapter, a lengthened and revised version of an earlier article (Hadley 1987a), concentrates on the artifact of the major Khirbet elQom grave inscription (usually designated as “inscription 3”). Although subsequent archaeological activity located the find spot of the inscription, the artifact itself was purchased from an antiquities dealer by William Dever in 1967, after it had been robbed from its original location (Dever 1969– 70). In this chapter Hadley provides a very thorough discussion of this difficult inscription, a discussion which has benefited from her personal examination of the artifact. Despite her facility in handling the inscription, the reader is struck by the destabilized nature of the epigraph itself. Frequent interpretations of characters as “ghost letters,” misreadings or stray marks, as well as the circumstances of the inscription’s original discovery, call for considerable reserve when evaluating this artifact. As Ziony Zevit’s 1984 article on the inscription demonstrated, this inscription requires photography with differing light angles to reveal its nuances. With the technology currently available, this inscription is a worthy candidate for even more advanced photographic study. Hadley’s reading of the inscription leads her to interpret the asherah mentioned as a symbolic representation (asherah) rather than as a reference to the goddess (Asherah). With chapter five the truly archaeological aspect of the study begins. Hadley describes the situation and nature of the one-period site, Kuntillet ʿAjrud (excavated by Zeʾev Meshel in 1975–76). An extended discussion of the function of the two remaining buildings (expanded from her 1993 arti-

280

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

cle) sets the stage for the epigraphic discussion. Hadley concludes that the site was a desert way-station, or caravanserai, and not a religious center, used by various peoples passing through the area in antiquity. Characteristically, her treatment of the inscriptions and iconographical material is thorough and sound. This section of the chapter is also an expanded form of a previously published article (Hadley 1987b). She concludes that the asherah mentioned in the best preserved inscriptions refers to the sacred pole or symbol rather than directly to the goddess. Her discussion here also considers the role Yhwh plays in these inscriptions. Iconographically Asherah may be depicted in the ibex-and-tree-of-life motif on one of the pithoi, but Hadley does not find her in the three-figured “scene” which is partially overlapped by the inscription on pithos A. In her sixth chapter Hadley examines archaeological artifacts from Lachish, Pella, Taanach, Tel Miqne, and Jerusalem. In discussing the Late Bronze Age ewer from Lachish, she defends the suggestion that Asherah is cited as [rb]ty ʾlt “my [lad]y ʾElat,” written immediately above a stylized tree (which is Asherah’s symbol). A golden plaque from the same site depicting a nude, standing female on a horse she takes to represent Astarte, and the burnt remains of a possible asherah at the site is considered to have less force than the ewer for an association with the goddess Asherah. From Pella two cult stands, both damaged, are presented. Tree and lady-on-lion motifs on the stands are taken by Hadley as possible Asherah symbols. For Taanach two cult stands, one found by Ernst Sellin (Sellin 1904) and the other by Paul Lapp (Lapp 1969a and b), are offered as further evidence of Asherah’s connection with Yhwh. Hadley makes this association on the basis of tree-and-ibex scenes and the lions depicted on the stands, in conjunction with symbolic representations of Yhwh. The Tel Miqne lʾšrt inscription and the “Jerusalem pomegranate” inscription are both discussed, but in the end, are considered by Hadley as unlikely to have been associated with Asherah. Chapter seven is concerned with female figurines. Hadley first divides the figurines into plaque (generally Late Bronze), and pillar (Iron II) groups. Plaque figurines may be either recumbent or goddess images. A lion, she contends, often identifies a goddess-type plaque figurine with Asherah. The pillar figurines are carefully discussed. Their distribution and characteristics are detailed. These popular items, she suggests, cannot easily be associated with any one goddess, but they may have been copies of larger Asherah statues at various shrines throughout the country. Hadley’s interpretation of the figurines displays admirable caution. These ubiquitous artifacts defy

BOOK REVIEWS

281

adequate explanation, and are too often assumed to represent Asherah as a “fertility goddess.” As prefigured in her dissertation, Hadley has given the field of Asherah studies a major resource. Her treatment of the textual sources is balanced and carefully argued. Her iconographic interpretations are likewise well-considered. It should be noted, however, that the association of Asherah with lions has come to be questioned. Often, however, it is simply the association of lions with a female in iconographic portrayals which Hadley uses to identify a figure with Asherah in her chapter on artifactual remains. Hadley presents her evidence for Asherah as a possible companion to Yhwh in a coherent and logical way. Many recent treatments, however, present Yhwh and Asherah as a couple. The question of Yhwh’s supposed marital status as perceived in antiquity, however, remains open. If Yhwh was widely held to have had a spouse, the archaeological remains which document this idea are sparse indeed. Each item noted by Hadley may be manipulated into evidence for such a reconstruction (although Hadley does not do this), but alternative interpretations of each item may be offered. It is problematic to place the burden of proof on those who do not find the meager nature of this evidence convincing. The most forceful pieces of evidence are the Kuntillet ʿAjrud inscriptions, full photographs of which have not yet been published. The archaeological evidence for pairing Asherah with Yhwh, the strongest evidence to date, is open to many questions of interpretation. Hadley’s dissertation has been a fixed point in Asherah studies since its completion; however, works on this goddess continue to appear at an astonishing rate. This spate of publications, to judge by advertised volumes yet to appear, has only begun. It is to be hoped that future considerations of Asherah will be as prudent as Hadley has been in their handling of this difficult material.

DID GOD HAVE A WIFE? ARCHAEOLOGY AND FOLK RELIGION IN ANCIENT ISRAEL by William G. Dever. (Grand Rapids\Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2005). Originally published in Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6 (2006) http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review240.htm. Republished with permission.

282

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Dever’s recent contribution continues a long string of publications focusing on ancient Israelite religion, and specifically, Asherah. The distinction of his own interpretation of these phenomena, according to the author, is the full incorporation of archaeological material into the discussion. The work is wide-ranging, seeking to synthesize religion, biblical study, women’s studies, and the development of monotheism. Herein lies an inevitable problem— each of these disciplines, in addition to archaeology itself, is highly specialized and requires considerable finesse. The ability of any one expert in these areas to take on this enterprise would be severely taxed. The book begins with a definition of the very broadly used term “religion” and a review of the history of the study of Israel’s religion. Specialists in the study of religion show no consensus on a definition of religion, but Dever seems to accept a Tillichian “ultimate concern” (p. 2) definition. Immediately this raises the question of what material remains can tell us about this profoundly internal human inclination. The stress on religion, particularly folk religion, as experiential (p. 12), stresses the difficulty of applying archaeological remains in any kind of precise way to the inner lives of largely non-literate people. Dever’s real contribution here is the provision of a context in which folk religions thrived: small communities far removed from the bureaucratic life of the Jerusalem temple. His review of the history of the study of Israelite religion is marred by the pointed blaming of biblical scholars for not taking the archaeological data into account, even though he admits that much of the information has been inadequately published. One wonders how a biblical scholar is to assess the material that even trained archaeologists find difficult to unravel. The third chapter on the “Sources and Methods for the Study of Ancient Israel’s Religions” makes a case for the inclusion of archaeology as a “primary source” of information. Dever notes that many past studies have neglected the archaeological evidence and sharply criticizes biblical scholars for not keeping up-to-date on archaeological developments: “I have suggested that the obliviousness of most biblical scholars to archaeological data is due to their being uninformed. Yet that is hardly an excuse for ‘scholars.’ Some archaeologists read in their field” (p. 78, emphasis in original). Such broadsides overlook the immense field of biblical studies which is itself a fully-developed discipline. If a true cooperation between fields is desired, it would seem that an irenic tone would be more effective. Dever’s fourth and fifth chapters on the cultic terminology and activities in the Hebrew Bible and archaeological evidence for folk religions in Israel are informative, and it is here that the archaeological material is impressively displayed. For biblical scholars seeking the heart of the matter

BOOK REVIEWS

283

without the polemics against their field, this section of the book is most valuable. Chapters six and seven move onto the titular aspect of God’s wife, namely, a review of the Asherah material in the Bible and the archaeological record. Here Dever largely restates conclusions from his earlier publications on the subject of Asherah, but unfortunately takes the approach of classifying Asherah as a somewhat amorphous “Mother Goddess” to be identified with Astarte and Anat (p. 185), who are clearly distinct deities in Canaanite religion. Perhaps more distressing is his extreme reliance on the Winchester Museum plaque, an artifact that has been known to be missing for over a decade, and which is highly questionable in many respects. Dever also tackles the female figurines from ancient Israel, confidently associating them with Asherah, despite the total lack of consensus on this issue among Asherah scholars. Clearly the most relevant archaeological material on Asherah, that of ancient Ugarit, is discussed in a cursory way over less than two pages (primarily p. 210) and is only briefly mentioned elsewhere. Surprisingly, when the discussion turns to the development of monotheism in chapter eight, the discussion becomes textual rather than archaeological. Only after twenty pages of discussion of the biblical text (regarded as highly suspect early in the book), does the archaeological material come into the issue. Even the archaeological data here is shored up by citations of biblical texts, causing the reader to wonder about the sufficiency of archaeology to illustrate this development. Clearly Dever has a great wealth of information on the archaeology of ancient Israel that bears weightily on the subject of religion as practiced by the ordinary folk of the nation. A book that focuses entirely on this evidence alone would be a valuable contribution to the discussion. There are some serious difficulties, however, that permeate this study. At the very start of the book Dever notes that religion can be known only from the inside (p. ix) and yet notes that he is “more a student of religion than a practitioner” (xi). Although he attempts to redress an imbalance skewed toward a textual reading of religion, his own approach frequently notes the deficiencies of the Hebrew Bible for the study and yet uses the Hebrew Bible to support his own interpretations. Archaeology and the Bible surely must communicate, but they must do so respecting the serious work done by those in both disciplines.

FIGURES

Figure 1 After Z. Meshel 1978a

285

286

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Figure 2 After I. E. S. Edwards 1955

FIGURES

Figure 3 After J. B. Pritchard 1954

287

288

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Figure 4 After W. F. Albright 1928

FIGURES

Figure 5

289

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aartun, Kjell 1984 “Neue Beiträge zum ugaritischen Lexikon I” UF 16: 1–52. “ʿAbodah Zarah” 1935 in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Neziḳin. Translated by A. Cohen. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: The Soncino Press. Achtemeier, Elizabeth 1986 Nahum–Malachi (Interpretation). Atlanta: John Knox. Ackerman, Susan 1991 “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel.” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Kansas City, 24 November. 1998

Warrior, Dancer, Seductress, Queen: Women in Judges and Biblical Israel (ABRL). New York: Doubleday.

Ackroyd, Peter R. 1972 “The Temple Vessels—a Continuity Theme” in Studies in the Religion of Israel (SVT 23). Leiden: E. J. Brill: 166–181. 1983

“Goddesses, Women and Jezebel” in Images of Women in Antiquity. Edited by Averil Cameron and Amélie Kuhrt. London: Croom Helm: 245–259.

Aggoula, Basile 1985 “Studia Aramaica II” Syria 62: 61–76. Aharoni, Yohanan 1975 Investigations at Lachish: the Sanctuary and the Residency (Lachish V) (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 4). Tel Aviv: Gateway Publishers Inc.

291

292

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Ahlström, G. W. 1963 Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (Horae Soederblomianae V). Translated by Eric J. Sharpe. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. Aiken, D. Wyatt 1991 “History, Truth and the Rational Mind. Why it is impossible to Separate Myth from Reality” TZ 47: 226–253. Aistleitner, Joseph 1963 Wörterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache (Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Band 106 Heft 3). Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Albrektson, Bertil. 1967 History and the Gods. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. Albright, W. F. 1925 “The Evolution of the West-Semitic Divinity ʿAn-ʿAnat-ʿAttâ” AJSL 41: 73–101, critical notes 283–285. 1928

“The Second Campaign at Tell Beit Mirsim (Kirath-Sepher)” BASOR 31: 1–11.

1932–33

The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (The Richard Lectures delivered at the University of Virginia). Second edition. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.

1938

“Recent Progress in North-Canaanite Research” BASOR 70: 18–24.

1939a

“An Aramaean Magical Text in Hebrew from the Seventh Century B.C.” BASOR 76: 5–11.

1939b

“Astarte Plaques and Figurines from Tell Beit Mirsim” in Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud. Volume 1. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner: 107–120.

1941

“Anath and the Dragon” BASOR 84: 14–17.

1942

Archaeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

1943

“Two Little Understood Amarna Letters from the Middle Jordan Valley” BASOR 89: 7–17.

1944a

“A Prince of Taanach in the Fifteenth Century B. C.” BASOR 94: 12–27.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

1944b

“A Vow to Asherah in the Keret Epic” BASOR 94: 30–31.

1954

“Some Observations on the New Material for the History of the Alphabet” BASOR 134: 26.

1955

“Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East (SVT 3, H. H. Rowley Festschrift). Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 1–15.

1968

Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (The Jordan Lectures, 1968). London: the Athlone Press.

1969

The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and their Decipherment (HTS 22). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Allen, Leslie C. 1976 The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (NIC). London, Sydney, Auckland and Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton. Alroth, Brita 1987 “Visiting Gods—Who and Why” in Gifts to the Gods, Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985 (Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations, Boreas 15). Edited by Tullia Linders and Gullög Nordquist. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: 9–19. Alster, Bendt 1978 “Enki and Ninhursag, the Creation of the first Woman” UF 10: 15–27. Amiet, Pierre 1979–80 “Déesses d’Ugarit au XIVe siecle” AAAS 29-30: 163–166. 1983

“Observations sur les ‘Tablettes magiques’ d’Arslan Tash” AuOr 1: 109.

Amiran, Ruth 1967 “A Note on Figurines with ‘Disks’” EI 8 (E. L. Sukenik volume): 99–100 (Hebrew). English summary 71*. Andersen, Francis I. and David Noel Freedman 1980 Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB). New York: Doubleday.

294

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Andreasen, Niels-Erik A. 1983 “The Role of the Queen Mother in Israelite Society” CBQ 45: 179–194. Angerstorfer, Andreas 1982 “Ašerah als ‘Consort of Jahwe’ oder Aširtah?” BN 17: 7–16. Astour, Michael C. 1965 Hellenosemitica, an Ethnic and Cultural Study in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1966

“Some New Divine Names from Ugarit” JAOS 86: 277–284.

1973

“A North Mesopotamian Locale of the Keret Epic?” UF 5: 29– 39.

1975

“Place Names” RSP II: 251–369.

1980

“The Nether World and its Denizens at Ugarit” in Death in Mesopotamia, papers read at the XXVI e Recontre assyriologique internationale (Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8). Edited by Bendt Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag: 227–238.

Auld, A. Graeme 1977 “A Judean Sanctuary of ʿAnat (Josh. 15:59)?” Tel Aviv 4: 85–86. 1989

“Gideon: Hacking at the Heart of the Old Testament” VT 39: 257–267.

Avishur, Y. 1978 “The Second Amulet Incantation from Arslan-Tash” UF 10: 29–36. 1981

“The Ghost-Expelling Incantation from Ugarit (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20)” UF 13: 13–25.

Avi-Yonah, Michael and Ephraim Stern, editors 1975–78 Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 volumes. London: Oxford University Press. Bailey, Lloyd 1968 “Israelite ʾĒl Šadday and Amorite Bêl Šadê ” JBL 87: 434–438.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Ball, C. J 1899

295

Light from the East, or the Witness of the Monuments. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.

Barag, D. 1970 “Note on an Inscription from Khirbet el-Qôm” IEJ 20: 216– 218. Barker, Margaret 1987 The Older Testament. London: SPCK. Barnett, R. D. 1969 “ʿAnath, Baʿal and Pasargadae” MUSJ 45: 405–22. 1970

“Another Deity with Dolphins?” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. Edited by James A. Sanders. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.: 327–330.

1978

“The Earliest Representation of ʿAnath” EI 14 (H. L. Ginsberg Volume): 28*–31*.

1982

Ancient Ivories in the Middle East (Qedem 14). Jerusalem: Ahva Press.

Barr, James 1968a Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1968b

“Seeing the Wood for the Trees? An Enigmatic Ancient Translation” JSS 13: 11–20.

Barrick, W. Boyd 1974 “On the ‘Removal of the “High-Places”’ in 1–2 Kings” Biblica 55: 257–259. 1980

“What do we really know about ‘High-Places’?” SEÅ 45: 50–57.

Barton, George A. 1896 “Kinship of Gods and Men among the Early Semites” JBL 15: 168–182. 1902

A Sketch of Semitic Origins Social and Religious. New York: The Macmillan Company.

296

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Batto, Bernard F. 1987 “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near East Motif of Divine Sovereignty” Biblica 68: 153–177. Baudissin, Wolf Wilhelm Grafen 1876 Studien zur Semitischen Religionsgeschichte. Volume 1. Leipzig: Fr. Wilh. Grunow. Baumgarten, Albert. 1981 The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos (Études Préliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l’Empire Romain 89). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Bayer, Bathja 1982 “Ancient Musical Instruments” BARev 8: 20–33. Beale, G. K. 1991 “Isaiah vi 9-13: a Retributive Taunt against Idolatry” VT 41: 257–278. Beck, Pirhiya 1982 “The Drawings from Ḥorvat Teiman (Kuntillet ʿAjrud)” Tel Aviv 9: 3–68. Becking, Bob, Meindert Dijkstra, Marjo C. A. Korpel, & Karel J. H. Vriezen 2001 Only One God? Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah (The Biblical Seminar 77). Sheffield: Continuum. Beeston, Alfred Felix Landon 1956 Epigraphic South Arabian Calendars and Dating. London: Luzac & Company, Ltd. 1962

A Descriptive Grammar of Epigraphic South Arabian. London: Luzac & Co. Ltd.

1988

“Vorislamische Inschriften und vorislamische Sprachen des Jemen” in Jemen. Edited by Werner Daum. Innsbruck: Pinguin Verlag; Frankfurt/Main: Umschau-Verlag,: 102–106.

Ben-Barak, Zafrira 1991 “The Status and Right of the Gĕbîrâ” JBL 110: 23–34. Bernhardt, Karl-Heinz 1967 “Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament” MIO 13: 163–174.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

Betlyon, John Wilson 1985 “The Cult of ʾAšerah/ʾĒlat at Sidon” JNES 44: 53–56. 1990

“Saul M. Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel” review article CBQ 52: 332-334.

Beyer, Klaus 1988 “Akkadisches limu und aramäisches M)l ‘Eponymat’” Orientalia 57 (N.S.): 82–83. Bezold, C. 1885 “Ein Fragment zu Sa” ZK 2: 61–71. 1886–87

“Note on the God Addu or Daddu, &c.” PSBA 9: 377.

1888–89

“A Cuneiform ‘List of Gods’” PSBA 11: 173–174.

Biale, David 1982 “The God with Breasts: El Shaddai in the Bible” HR 21: 240– 256. Biella, Joan Copeland 1982 Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect (HSS 25). Chico, California: Scholars Press. Biggs, Robert D. 1967 “Semitic Names in the Fara Period” Orientalia 36 (N.S.): 55–66. Binger, Tilde 1995 “Ashera in Israel” SJOT 9: 3–18. 1997

Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSup 232; Copenhagen International Seminar 2). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Bird, Phyllis 1987 “The Place of Women in the Israelite Cultus” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 397–419. Bisi, Anna Maria 1967 Le Stele Puniche (Stuia Semitici 27). Roma: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente.

298

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Block, Daniel Isaac 1988 The Gods of the Nations, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology (ETSMS 2). Jackson, Mississippi: Evangelical Theological Society. de Boer, P. A. H. 1972 “An Aspect of Sacrifice” in Studies in the Religion of Israel (SVT 23). Leiden: E. J. Brill: 27–47. 1974

Fatherhood and Motherhood in Israelite and Judean Piety. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Böhl, Franz M. T. 1938 “Die Sichem-Plakette, protoalphabetische Schrifzeichen der Mittel-bonzezeit vom tell balāṭa” ZDPV 61: 1–25. Boling, Robert G. 1975 Judges (AB) New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Bordreuil, Pierre and André Caquot 1980 “Les textes en cunéiformes alphabétiques découverts en 1978 à Ibn Hani” Syria 57: 343–373. Borger, Rykle 1967-75 Handbuch der Keilinschriftliteratur. 3 volumes, Repertorium der sumerischen und akkadischen Texte. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & co. 1986

Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste (3. Auflage, AOAT 33/33A). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren, editors 1974-86 Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 5 volumes. Translated by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. van den Branden, A. 1950 Les inscriptions thamoudéenes (Bibliothèque du Muséon 25). LouvainHeverlé: Bureaux du Muséon. 1959

“Le divinités sud-arabes mnḍḥ et wrfw” Bibliotheca Orientalis 16: 183–188.

1960

Histoire de Thamoud (Publications de l’Université Libanaise, section des études historiques VI). Beyrouth: Université Libanaise.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Breasted, James Henry 1948 A History of Egypt. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Bright, John 1965 Jeremiah, Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB). Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Brink, Marthinus Beyers 1977 A Philological Study of Texts in Connection with Attart and Atirat in the Ugaritic Language. D. Litt. dissertation. University of Stellenbosch. Bron, François 1998 “Notes sur le culte d’Athirat en Arabie du Sud préislamique” in Études sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain (Histoire du Texte Biblique 4). Edited by C.-B. Amphoux, A. Frey, and U. Schattner-Rieser. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbra: 75–79. Bronner, Leah 1968 The Stories of Elijah and Elisha as Polemics against Baal Worship (Pretoria Oriental Series 6). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs 1951 A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bruce, F. F. 1993 “Hosea” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. 2 volumes. Edited by T. E. McComisky. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. Budin, Stephanie Lynn 2003 The Origin of Aphrodite. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. van Buren, E. Douglas 1945 Symbols of the Gods in Mesopotamian Art (AnOr 23). Roma: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. Burney, C. F. 1918 The Book of Judges with Introduction and Notes. London: Rivingtons. Burns, John Barclay 1998 “Female Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age: A Study in Text and Artifact” Andrews University Seminary Studies 36: 23–49.

300

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Burrows, Millar 1941 What Mean these Stones? New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research. Butterworth, E. A. S. 1970 The Tree at the Navel of the Earth. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Buttrick, George A., editor 1962 The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. 5 volumes. Nashville: Abingdon. Campbell, Joseph 1973 The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology. London: Condor. Caquot, André 1959 “Le divinité solaire ougaritique” Syria 36: 90–101. 1984

“Une nouvelle interprétation de la tablette ougaritique de Ras Ibn Hani 78/20” Orientalia 53 (N.S.): 163–176.

1988

“Walter A. Maier III, ʾAšerah: the Extrabiblical Evidence” review article, Syria 65: 464–465.

Caquot, André and Maurice Sznycer 1980 Ugaritic Religion (Iconography of Religions, Section 15, Fascicle 8). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Caquot, André, Maurice Sznycer, and Andrée Herdner 1974 Textes ougaritiques, Tome I mythes et légendes (Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 7). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Caquot, André, Jean-Michel de Tarragon, and Jesús-Luis Cunchillos 1989 Textes ougaritiques, Tome II textes religieux, rituels, correspondance (Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 14). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Carroll, Michael P. 1983 “Myth, Methodology and Transformation in the Old Testament: the Stories of Esther, Judith, and Susanna” SR 12: 301–312. Carroll, Robert P. 1986 Jeremiah, A Commentary (OTL). London: SCM Press Ltd. Carter, Jane Burr 1987 “The Masks of Ortheia” AJA 91: 355–386.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

Caskel, Werner 1958 “Die Alten Semitischen Gottheiten in Arabien” in Le Antiche Divinità Semitici (Studi Semitici 1). Edited by Sabatino Moscati. Roma: Centro di Studi Semitici: 95–117. Cassuto, U. 1971 The Goddess Anath. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. 1976

A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Cathcart, Kevin J. and Wilfred G. E. Watson 1980 “Weathering a Wake: a Cure for a Carousal, a Revised Translation of Ugaritica V Text 1” PIBI 4: 35–58. Cavigneaux, Antoine 1981 Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša ḫarê (Texts from Babylon 1). Baghdad: Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Culture and Information, State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage. Cazelles, H. 1975 “The Hebrews” in Peoples of Old Testament Times. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1–28. Chase, Debra A. 1982 “A Note on an Inscription from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” BASOR 246: 63–67. Chiera, Edward 1924 Sumerian Religious Texts (Crozer Theological Seminary Babylonian Publications 1). Upland, Pennsylvania: Crozer Theological Seminary. 1929

Sumerian Lexical Texts from the Temple School of Nippur (OIP 11, Cuneiform Studies volume 1). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Childs, Brevard S. 1960 Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. London: SCM Press. 1974

Exodus, a Commentary (OTL). London: SCM Press Ltd.

302

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Clay, Albert T. 1912 Personal Names from Cuneiform Inscriptions of the Cassite Period (YOS 1). New Haven: Yale University Press. 1919

The Empire of the Amorites (YOS 6). New Haven: Yale University Press.

1923

(editor) Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan. Part 4, Epics, Hymns, Omens and Other Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Clements, R. E. 1965 “Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition” VT 15: 300– 312. 1980

Isaiah 1–39 (NCBC). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co. and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ. Ltd.

1988

Deuteronomy (Old Testament Guides). Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Clifford, Richard J. 1971 “The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting” CBQ 33: 221–227. 1972

The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (HSM 4). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

1990

“Phoenician Religion” BASOR 279: 55–64.

Clines, David J. A. 1990 “What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Irredeemably Androcentric Orientations in Genesis 1–3” in What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament (JSOTS 94). Sheffield: JSOT Press: 25–48. Colless, Brian 1992 “Yahweh and His Asherah: A Canaanite Point of View on the Religion of Ancient Israel” in To Strive and Not to Yield: Essays in Honour of Colin Brown (Victoria Studies in Religion and Society). Edited by J. Veitch. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington, 1992: 61–70.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

Collon, Dominique 1986 Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum, Cylinder Seals III Isin-Larsa and Old Babylonian Periods. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Coogan, Michael David 1978 Stories from Ancient Canaan. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. 1987

“Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 115–124.

Cooke, G. A. 1903 A Textbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cooper, Alan. 1985 “Review of Mythos im Alten Testament by Claus Petersen” JBL 104: 311–313. 1990

“A Note on the Vocalization of tr,eto#$̄;(”a ZAW 102: 98–100.

Cornelius, I. 1993 “Anat and Qudshu as the ‘Mistress of Animals’: Aspects of the Iconography of the Canaanite Goddesses”, SEL 10: 21–45. Craigie, Peter C. 1973 “Helel, Athtar and Phaethon (Jes 14 12-15)” ZAW 85: 223–225. 1976

The Book of Deuteronomy (NIC). London: Hodder and Stoughton.

1978

“Deborah and Anat: a Study of Poetic Imagery (Judges 5)” ZAW 90: 374–381.

1983a

Psalms 1–50 (WBC). Waco, Texas: Word Books.

1983b

Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Cross, Frank Moore Jr. 1954 “The Evolution of the Proto-Canaanite Alphabet” BASOR 134: 15–24. 1962

“Yahweh and the Gods of the Patriarchs” HTR 55: 225–259.

1967

“The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet” EI 8 (E. L. Sukenik volume): 8*–24*.

304

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1971

“The Old Phoenician Inscription from Spain Dedicated to Hurrian Astarte” HTR 64: 189–195.

1973

Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Cross, Frank Moore Jr. and Richard J. Saley 1970 “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the Seventh Century B.C. from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria” BASOR 197: 42–49. “Cultic Inscriptions Found in Ekron” 1990 W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. BA 53: 232. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. 1960–82 Parts 1–57. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Curtis, A. H. W. 1985 Ugarit (Ras Shamra). Cambridge: Lutterworth Press. 1990

“Some Observations on ‘Bull’ Terminology in the Ugaritic Texts and the Old Testament” OTS 26: 17–31.

Cutler, B. and J. Macdonald 1982 “On the Origin of the Ugaritic Text KTU 1.23” UF 14: 33–50. Dahood, Mitchell J. 1958 “Ancient Semitic Divinities in Syria and Palestine” in Le Antiche Divinità Semitiche (Studi Semitici 1). Edited by Sabatino Moscati. Roma: Centro di Studi Semitici: 65–94. 1960

“Textual Problems in Isaia” CBQ 22: 400–409.

1963a

“Hebrew-Ugaritic Lexicography I” Biblica 44: 289–303.

1963b

“Zacharia 9,1, ʿên ʾādām” CBQ 25: 123–124.

1965

Ugaritic-Hebrew Philology. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

1966–70

Psalms I-III (AB, 3 volumes). New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

Dalley, Stephanie 1986 “The God Ṣalmu and the Winged Disk” Iraq 48: 85–101. 1991

Myths from Mesopotamia, Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others (World Classics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

Danelius, Eva 1967–68 “The Sins of Jeroboam Ben-Nebat” JQR 58: 95–114, 204–223. Danthine, Hélène 1937 Le palmier-dattier et les arbres sacrés dans l’iconographie de l’Asie occidentale ancienne (Haut-Commissariat de la République Française en Syrie et au Liban Service des Antiquités Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 25). 2 Volumes. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Davies, G. I. 1991 assisted by M. N. A. Bockmuehl, D. R. de Lacey and A. J. Poulter. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions, Corpus and Concordance. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge University Press. Davies, Steve 1983 “The Canaanite-Hebrew Goddess” in The Book of the Goddess Past and Present: an Introduction to Her Religion. Edited by Carl Olson. New York: Crossroads: 68–79. Dawson, W. R. and T. E. Peet 1933 “The So-Called Poem on the King’s Chariot” JEA 19: 167–174 (plates XXV–XXIX). Day, John 1979 “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI” VT 29: 143–151. 1980

“A Case of Inner Scriptural Interpretation. The Dependence of Isaiah XXVI.13–XXVII.11 on Hosea XIII.4–XIV.10 (Eng. 9) and its Relevance to Some Theories of the Redaction of the ‘Isaiah Apocalypse’” JTS 31 (N.S.): 309–319.

1985

God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1986

“Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature” JBL 105: 385–408.

1989

Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

306 2000

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (JSOTSup 265). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Deimel, P. Antonius 1914 Pantheon Babylonicum, Nomina Deorum e Textibus Cuneiformibus Excerpta et Ordine Alphabetico (Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici). Romae: Sumptibus Pontificii Instituti Biblici. 1950

Šumerisches Lexikon (Part IV/1 “Pantheon Babylonicum oder Keilschriftkatalog der Babyl. Gn.”) Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici.

Delcor, M. 1967 “Two Special Meanings of the Word dy in Biblical Hebrew” JSS 12: 230–240. Demsky, Aaron 1998 “Discovering a Goddess: A New Look at the Ekron Inscription Identifies a Mysterious Deity” BARev 24: 53–58. Dever, William G. 1969–70 “Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the area of Khirbet elKôm” HUCA 40/41: 139–204. 1982

“Recent Archaeological Confirmation of the Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel” HS 23: 37–43.

1983

“Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient Israel: An Essay in Archeological Systematics” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (American Schools of Oriental Research Special Volume Series 1). Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns: 571–587.

1984

“Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet ʿAjrûd” BASOR 255: 21–37.

1987

“The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early Israelite Religion” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 209–247.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2005

307

Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids\Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Dexter, Miriam Robbins 1990 Whence the Goddesses: a Source Book. New York: Pergamon Press. Dhorme, Édouard 1945 Les religions de Babylonie et d’Assyrie (MANA 1, Les anciennes religions orientales 2). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 1950

“Les avatars du dieu Dagon” RHR 138: 129–144.

1951

“Les religions arabes préislamiques” in Recueil Édouard Dhorme: Études bibliques et orientales. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale: 731–743. Originally published in RHR 1947–48.

Dick, Michael B. 1999 “Prophetic Parodies of Making the Cult Image” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Michael B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns: 1–53. Dietrich, M. and O. Loretz 1972 Konkordanz der ugaritischen Textzählungen (AOAT 19). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. 1977

“Ein Spottlied auf ʿAttar (KTU 1.6 I 50–52), Zu ug. ʿm, rmḥ, und kms” UF 9: 330–331.

1984

“Ugaritisch ʿtr, atr, atryt und atrt” UF 16: 57–62.

1987

“Die ugaritischen Gefässbezeichnungen ridn und kw” UF 19: 27–32.

1992

“Jahwe und seine Aschera” Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot (UBL 9). Münster: UGARIT-Verlag.

Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín 1976 Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Teil 1: Transkription (AOAT 24). Kevelaer : Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

308

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1975a

“Die Texteinheiten in RS 1.2 = CTA 32 und RS 17.100 = CTA Appendice I” UF 7: 141–146.

1975b

“Die Ugaritischen und Hebräischen Gottesnamen il, ilh, ilhm— ʾl, ʾlwh, ʾlhjm” UF 7: 552–553.

Dietrich, W. and M. A. Klopfenstein, editors 1994 Ein Gott allein? Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. OBO 139. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Dijkstra, M. 1995 “El, YHWH and their Asherah: On Continuity and Discontinuity in Canaanite and Ancient Israelite Religion” in Ugarit: Ein ostmediterranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient, Band I: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt. ALASP 7. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, editors. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag: 41–73. Dillard, Raymond B. 1987 2 Chronicles (WBC). Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher. Dion, Paul E. 1983 “yrcb#$#$ and yrwnss” ZAW 95: 111–112. Dohmen, Christoph 1984 “Heißt lmese ‘Bild, Statue’?” ZAW 96: 263–266. Donner, H. 1959 “Art und Herkunft des Amtes der Königinmutter im Alten Testament” in Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27. August. Edited by R. von Kienle, A. Moortgat, H. Otten, E. von Schuler, and W. Zaumseil. Heidelberg: Carl Winter: 105–145. Donner, H. and Röllig, W. 1971–76 Kanaanäische und Aramäischen Inschriften. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Dossin, Georges 1950 “Le panthéon de Mari” in Studia Mariana (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 4). Edited by André Parrot. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 41–50. Dothan, M. 1985 “A Phoenician Inscription from ʿAkko” IEJ 35: 81–94.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

Dougherty, Raymond P. 1930 “A Babylonian City in Arabia” AJA 34: 296–312. Doughty, Charles M. 1943 Travels in Arabia Deserta. New edition. Volume 1. London: Jonathan Cape. Drinkard, Joel F. Jr. 1993 “Religious Practices Reflected in the Book of Hosea” Review and Expositor 90: 205-218. Driver, G. R. 1948 Semitic Writing from Pictograph to Alphabet (Schweich Lectures 1944). London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. 1956

Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: T &T Clark.

Driver, S. R. 1902 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC). Third edition. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Duhard, Jean-Pierre 1991 “The Shape of Pleistocene Women” Antiquity 65: 552–561. Durham, John I. 1987 Exodus (WBC). Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher. Dussaud, René 1934 “Baʿal et Ben-Dagon dans les textes de Ras-Shamra” Syria 15: 301–304. 1937

Les Decouvertes de Ras Shamra et l’Ancien Testament. Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner.

Ebeling, Erich 1926 “Babylonisch-assyrische Texte” in Altorientalische Texte zum Alten Testament (Altorientalische Texte und Bilder zum Alten Testament). Second edition. Edited by H. Gressmann. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.: 108–380. 1932

“Ašratu” RLA 1: 169.

310

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Edelman, D. 1994 “Huldah the Prophet—Of Yahweh or Asherah?” in A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings. A. Brenner, editor. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press: 231–250. Edwards, I. E. S. 1955 “A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College Collection” JNES 14: 49–51. Edzard, D. O. 1957–71 “Geštinanna” RLA 3: 299–301. Eichrodt, Walter 1970 Ezekiel: A Commentary (OTL). Philadelphia: Westminster. Eissfeldt, Otto 1939 “Baʿalšamēm und Jahwe” ZAW 57 (N.F. 16): 1–31. 1956

“El and Yahweh” JSS 1: 25–37.

Emerton, J. A. 1965 “Ugaritic Notes” JTS 16 (N.S.): 438–443. 1977

“The Etymology of hištaḥawāh” OTS 20: 41–55.

1978

“The ‘Second Bull’ in Judges 6:25-28” EI 14 (H. L. Ginsberg Volume): 52*–55*.

1982

“New Light on Israelite Religion: the Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” ZAW 94: 2–20.

Encyclopedia Judaica 1971 16 volumes. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, Ltd. Engle, James Robert 1979 Pillar Figurines of Iron Age Israel and Asherah/Asherim. Ph.D. dissertation (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor), University of Pittsburgh. Engnell, Ivan 1943 Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri. Epping, Jos. and J. N. Strassmaier 1891 “Neue babylonische Planeten-Tafeln” ZA 6: 217–244.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

311

Faegre, Torvald 1979 Tents: Architecture of the Nomad. London: John Murray. Falkenstein, Adam 1959 Sumerische Götterlieder (Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse), part 1. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Faust, David Earl 1941 Contracts from Larsa Dated in the Reign of Rîm-Sin (YBT VIII). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Feigin, Samuel I. 1979 Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-Iluna (YBT XII). New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Fensham, F. C. 1969 “The Son of a Handmaid in Northwest Semitic” VT 19: 312– 321. 1977

“The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat” PEQ 109: 113–115.

1988

“Notes on Keret 194–206 (CTA 14: 194B–206): the Vow at the Sanctuary of Athirat” JNSL 14: 91–99.

Ferrar, A. J. and S. B. Parker 1972 “Seating Arrangements at Divine Banquets” UF 4: 37–40. Ferron, Jean 1986 “La déesse TNT de Carthage. A propos d’un livre recent” Le Muséon 99: 15–37. Fisher, Loren R. 1970 “A New Ritual Calendar from Ugarit” HTR 63: 485–501. Fisher, Loren R. and Stan Rummel, editors 1972–81 Ras Shamra Parallels (AnOr 49, 50, 51). 3 volumes. Roma: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum. Fleming, Andrew 1969–70 “The Myth of the Mother-goddess” World Archaeology 1: 247– 261.

312

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Fleming, D. 1994. “By the Sweat of Your Brow: Adam, Anat, Athirat and Ashurbanipal” in Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible, Manchester, September 1992. UBL 11. G. J. Brooke, A. H. W. Curtis, and J. F. Healy, editors. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag: 93–100. Fowler, Jeaneane D. 1988 Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: a Comparative Study (JSOTS 49). Sheffield: JSOT Press. Fowler, Mervyn D. 1985 “Excavated Figurines: A Case for Identifying a Site as Sacred?” ZAW 97: 333–344. Frankfort, H. 1939 Cylinder Seals: a Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: MacMillan and Co. 1948

Kingship and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Frayne, Douglas 1990 Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 B.C.) (Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Bronze Period 4). Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Frazer, James George 1918 Folk-lore in the Old Testament. 3 volumes. London: MacMillan and Co., Limited. Freedman, David Noel 1987 “Yahweh of Samaria and His Asherah” BA 50: 51–59. 1991

“The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, by Johannes C. De Moor. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, by Mark S. Smith” review article, JBL 110: 693–698.

Frevel, Christian 1991 “Elimination der Göttin aus dem Weltbild des Chronisten” ZAW 103: 263–271. 1995

Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 94. 2 volumes. Weinheim: Beltz Athenäum.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

313

Friedman, Richard Elliot 1979–80 “The mrzḥ Tablet from Ugarit” Maarav 2: 187–206. Fritz, V., M. Görg, and H. F. Fuhs 1979 “Kadesch in Geschichte und Überlieferung” BN 9: 45–70. Gadd, C. J. 1948 Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East (The Schweich Lectures 1945). London: The British Academy. 1953

“Babylonian Myth and Ritual” in Myth and Ritual. Edited by S. Hooke. London: Oxford University Press: 40–67.

Gangloff, Frédéric 1999 “Yhwh ou les déesses-àrbres? (Oseé xiv 6–8)” VT 49: 34-48. Garbini, Giovanni 1988 “Le serpent d’Airain et Moïse” ZAW 100: 264–267. Gardiner, Alan. 1982 Egyptian Grammar. Third edition. Oxford: Griffith Institute. Gaster, Theodor H. 1946 “A King without a Castle—Baal’s appeal to Asherat” BASOR 101: 21–30. 1947

“The Magical Inscription from Arslan Tash” JNES 6: 186–188.

1969

Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament. London: Gerald Duckworth.

1975

Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East. New York: Henry Schuman, 1950. (Second edition, New York: Gordian Press.)

Geiger, A. 1862 “Der Baal in den hebräischen Eigennamen” ZDMG 16: 728– 732. Gelb, I. J. 1961 “The Early History of the West Semitic Peoples” JCS 15: 27–47. Gelb, Ignace J., Nigel Civil, Benno Landsberger, A. Leo Oppenheim, Erica Reiner, editors 1956–89 The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 volumes. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.

314

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

de Genouillac, H. 1923 “Grande liste de noms divins sumériens” RA 20: 89–106. Gese, Hartmut 1970 “Die Religionen Altsyriens” in Hartmut Gese, Maria Höfner and Kurt Rudolph, Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer (Die Religionen der Menschheit 10, 2). Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer: 1–232. Gibson, J. C. L. 1971 Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume 1, Hebrew and Moabite Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1975a

“Myth, Legend and Folk-lore in the Ugaritic Keret and Aqhat Texts” in Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974 (SVT 28). Leiden: E. J. Brill: 60–68.

1975b.

Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume 2, Aramaic Inscriptions, including inscriptions in the dialect of Zenjirli. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

1977

Canaanite Myths and Legends. Second edition. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, Ltd.

1982

Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Volume 3, Phoenician Inscriptions, including inscriptions in the mixed dialect of Arslan Tash. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

1984

“The Theology of the Ugaritic Baal Cycle” Orientalia 53 (N.S.): 202–219.

1989

“Language about God in the Old Testament” in Polytheistic Systems (Cosmos 5, The Yearbook of the Traditional Cosmology Society). Edited by Glenys Davies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press: 43–50.

Gilula, Mordecha 1978–79 “htr##lw nrm#$ hwhl” Shnaton 3: 129–137, English summary: xv–xvi. Ginsberg, H. L. 1941 “Did Anath Fight the Dragon?” BASOR 84: 12–14. 1946

The Legend of King Keret, a Canaanite Epic of the Bronze Age (BASORSS 2–3). New Haven, Connecticut: American Schools of Oriental Research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

315

Gitin, Seymour 1990 “Ekron of the Philistines. Part II: Olive-Oil Suppliers to the World” BARev 16: 33–42, 59. 1992

“Last Days of the Philistines” Archaeology 45: 26–31.

Gleis, Matthias 1997 Die Bamah (BZAW 251). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Goetze, Albrecht 1968 “Akkad Dynasty Inscriptions from Nippur” JAOS 88: 54–59. Good, Robert M. 1984 “Some Ugaritic Terms Relating to Draught and Riding Animals” UF 16: 77–81. Goodison, Lucy and Christine Morris 1998 Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Gordon, Cyrus H. 1937 “Aramaic and Mandaic Magic Bowls” ArOr 9: 84–106. 1941

The Living Past. New York: John Day Company.

1949

Ugaritic Literature (Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 98). Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum.

1953

Introduction to Old Testament Times. Ventnor, New Jersey: Ventnor Publishers, Inc.

1962

Before the Bible: the Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilisations. London: Collins.

1965

Ugaritic Textbook (AnOr 38). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute.

1966

“Leviathan: Symbol of Evil” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (Philip W. Lown Institute Studies and Texts 3). Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press: 1–9.

1977

“Poetic Legends and Myths from Ugarit” Berytus 25: 5–133.

1985

“On Making Other Gods” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Edited by Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns: 77–79.

316 1988

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH “Ugaritic rbt/rabītu” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTS 67). Edited by L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. Sheffield: JSOT Press: 127–132.

Görg, Manfred 1979 “Zum Namen der Punischen Göttin Tinnit” UF 11 (C. Schaeffer Festschrift) 303–306. Gray, George Buchanan 1912 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I – XXXIX (ICC). 2 volumes. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Gray, John 1951 “The Hunting of Baʿal: Fratricide and Atonement in the Mythology of Ras Shamra” JNES 10: 146–155. 1957

The Legacy of Canaan (SVT 5). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

1958

“Texts from Ras Shamra” in Documents from Old Testament Times. Edited by D. Winton-Thomas. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd: 118–133.

1964a

I & II Kings: a Commentary (OTL). London: SCM Press Ltd.

1964b

The Canaanites. London: Thames and Hudson.

1964c

The Krt Text in the Literature of Ras Shamra: a Social Myth of Ancient Canaan (Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui 5). Second edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Greenfield, Jonas C. 1974 “The Marzeaḥ as a Social Institution” AAASH 22: 451–455. 1985

“Baʿal’s Throne and Isa. 6:1” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215). Edited by A. Caquot, S. Légasse and M. Tardieu. Kevelaer : Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag: 193–198.

Greenstein, Edward L. 1982 “The Snaring of Sea in the Baal Epic” Maarav 3: 195–216. Grønbaek, Jakob H. 1985 “Baal’s Battle with Yam—a Canaanite Creation Fight” JSOT 33: 27–44.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

317

Gröndahl, Frauke 1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl 1). Roma: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, Gruber, Mayer I. 1981 “Ten Dance-Derived Expressions in the Hebrew Bible” Biblica 62: 328–346. 1983a

“The Motherhood of God in Second Isaiah” RB 90: 351–359.

1983b

“Myrx) twrwqmbw Myklm rpsb #$dqh” Tarbiz 52: 167–176.

1986

“Hebrew qĕdēšāh and her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates” UF 18: 133–148.

1987

“Women in the Cult According to the Priestly Code” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. H. L. Ginsberg Festschrift. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 35–48.

1995

Women in the Biblical World: A Study Guide. Women in the World of Hebrew Scripture (American Theological Library Association Bibliography Series 38). Scarecrow Press.

Gunneweg, Jan, Isadore Perlman and Zeev Meshel. 1985 “The Origin of the Pottery of Kuntillet ʿAjrud” IEJ 35: 270– 283. Gurney, O. R. 1966 The Hittites. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. 1977

Some Aspects of Hittite Religion (Schweich Lectures 1976). Oxford: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.

Hackett, Jo Ann 1989 “Can a Sexist Model Liberate Us? Ancient Near Eastern ‘Fertility’ Goddesses” JFSR 5: 65–76. Hadley, Judith M. 1987a “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription” VT 37: 50–62. 1987b

“Some Drawings and Inscriptions on Two Pithoi from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” VT 37: 180–213.

318

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1989

Yahweh’s Asherah in the Light of Recent Discovery. Ph. D. dissertation. St. John's College, Cambridge University.

1993

“Kuntillet ʿAjrud: Religious Centre or Desert Way Station?” PEQ 125: 115–24.

2000

Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess: The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah. Oriental Publications Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haldar, Alfred 1971 Who Were the Amorites? (MANE 1). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Halivni, David Weiss 1986 Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara. London: Harvard University Press. Hall, H. R. 1924 The Ancient History of the Near East. London: Methuen & Co., Ltd. Halpern, Baruch 1987 “‘Brisker Pipes than Poetry’: The Development of Israelite Monotheism” in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. H. L. Ginsberg Festschrift. Edited by Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 77–115. 1993

“The Baal (and the Asherah) in Seventh-Century Judah: Yhwh’s Retainers Retired” in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte: Festschrift für Klaus Baltzer zum 65 Geburtstag. OBO 126. R. Bartelmus, T. Krüger and H. Utzschneider, editors. Fribourg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg Schweiz/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 115-154.

Haran, Menahem 1978 Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harden, Donald 1963 The Phoenicians (Ancient Peoples and Places 26). London: Thames and Hudson. Harmon, A. M. 1925 Lucian (Loeb Classical Library). Volume 4. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

Healey, John 1980 “The Sun Deity and the Underworld: Mesopotamia and Ugarit” in Death in Mesopotamia: papers read at the XXVIe Recontre assyriologique internationale (Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8). Edited by Bendt Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag: 239–242. 1983

“Swords and Ploughshares: Some Ugaritic Terminology” UF 15: 47–52.

1985

“The Akkadian ‘Pantheon’ List from Ugarit” SEL 2: 115–125.

1988

“The ‘Pantheon’ of Ugarit: Further Notes” SEL 5: 103–111.

Heidel, Alexander 1949 “A Special Usage of the Akkadian Term šadû” JNES 8: 233–235. 1963

The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. London: Phoenix Books.

Heider, George C. 1985 The Cult of Molek: a Reassessment (JSOTS 43). Sheffield: JSOT Press. Heinsohn, Gunnar 1992 “The Rise of Blood Sacrifice and Priest-Kingship in Mesopotamia: a ‘Cosmic Decree’?” Religion 22: 109–134. Herdner, Andrée 1963 Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques (Mission de Ras Shamra Tome 10, Institute Français d’Archéologie de Beyrouth Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique Tome 79). 2 volumes. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Herrmann, Wolfram 1969 “Aštart” MIO 15: 6–55. Hess, Richard S. 1990 “Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel by S. Olyan” review article, JSOT 46: 127–128. 1991

“Yahweh and His Asherah? Epigraphic Evidence for Religious Pluralism in Old Testament Times” in One God, One Lord in a World of Religious Pluralism. Edited by Andrew D. Clarke and Bruce W. Winter. Cambridge: Tyndale House: 5–33.

320

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Hestrin, Ruth 1987a “The Cult Stand from Taʿanach and its Religious Background” in Studia Phoenicia V: Phoenicia and the East Mediterranean in the First Millennium BC: Proceeding of the Conference Held in Leuven from the 14th to the 16th of November 1985 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 22), Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters: 61–77. 1987b

“The Lachish Ewer and the ʾAsherah” IEJ 37: 212–223.

1988

“A Note on the ‘Lion Bowls’ and the Asherah” IMJ 7: 115–118.

1991

“Understanding Asherah: Exploring Semitic Iconography” BARev 17: 50–59.

Hettema, Theo L. 1989–90 “‘That it be Repeated’: A Narrative Analysis of KTU 1.23” JEOL 31: 77–94. Heyer, R. 1978 “Ein Archäologischer Beitrag zum Text KTU 1.4 I 23–43” UF 10: 93–109. Hillers, Delbert R. 1965 “A Convention in Hebrew Literature: the Reaction to Bad News” ZAW 77: 86–90. 1984

Micah (Hermeneia). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

1985

“Analyzing the Abominable: our Understanding of Canaanite Religion” JQR 75: 253–269.

Höffken, Peter 1984 “Eine Bemerkung zum Religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von Dtn 6,4” BZ 28: 88–93. Hoffner, Harry A. Jr. 1965 “The Elkunirsa Myth Reconsidered” RHA 76: 5–16. 1990

Hittite Myths (SBL Writings from the Ancient World 2). Edited by Gary M. Beckman. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Höfner, Maria 1970 “Die Vorislamischen Religionen Arabiens” in Hartmut Gese, Maria Höfner and Kurt Rudolph, Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandäer (Die Religionen der Menschheit 10, 2). Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer: 233–402.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

321

Holladay, John S., Jr. 1987 “Religion in Israel and Judah Under the Monarchy: An Explicitly Archaeological Approach” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 249–299. Holladay, William L. 1961 “‘On Every High Hill and Under Every Green Tree’” VT 11: 170–176. 1966

“Jer. xxxi 22b Reconsidered: ‘The Woman Encompasses the Man’” VT 16: 236–239.

1971

A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

1976

The Architecture of Jeremiah 1–20. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press and London: Associated University Presses.

1986

Jeremiah I: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1 –25 (Hermeneia). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Hollenstein, Helmut 1977 “Literarkritische Erwägungen zum Bericht über die Reformmassnahmen Josias 2 Kön. XXIII 4ff.” VT 27: 321–336. Hommel, Fritz 1899–1900 “Asherah among the Ancient Minaeans” ET 11: 190. Hooke, S. H. 1953a Babylonian and Assyrian Religion. London: Hutchinson House. 1953b

“The Myth and Ritual Pattern of the Ancient Near East” in Myth and Ritual. Edited by S. Hooke. London: Oxford University Press: 1–14.

1936

The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual (Schweich Lectures 1935). London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.

Hörig, Monika 1979 Dea Syria: Studien zur religiösen Tradition der Fruchtbarkeitsgöttin in Vorderasien (AOAT 208). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

322

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Hours-Miedan, M. 1950 “Les représentations figurées sur les stèles Carthage” Cahiers de Byrsa 1: 15–160. Hrozný, Friedrich 1904 “Keilschrifttexte aus Taʿannek” in Ernst Sellin, Tell Taʿannek (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse Band L). Wien: Alfred Hölder: 113–122. Humphrey, Robert L. 1976 “An Unusual Judean Plaque Depicting a Nude Man and Woman” Levant 8: 150–155. Hutton, Ronald 1991 The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: their Nature and Legacy. Oxford: Blackwell. Hvidberg, Flemming Friis 1962 Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Hvidberg-Hansen, F. O. 1986 “Uni-Ashtarte and Tanit-Iuno Caelestis. Two Phoenician Goddesses of Fertility Reconsidered from Recent Archaeological Discoveries” in Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean (Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, University of Malta 2–5 September 1985). Edited by Anthony Bonanno. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner Publishing Co.: 170–195. Hyatt, J. Philip 1971 Commentary on Exodus (NCBC). London: Oliphants. Ikeda, Yutaka 1993 “Because their Shade is Good: Asherah in the Early Israelite Religion” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East: Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East—the City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo), March 20–22, 1992. Heidelberg: C. Winter: 56–80. Iliffe, J. H. 1934 “A Nude Terra-Cotta Statuette of Aphrodite” QDAP 3: 106– 111.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

323

Inscriptions Reveal. Documents from the Time of the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud 1972 Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Isbell, Charles D. 1975 Corpus or the Aramaic Incantation Bowls (SBLDS 17). Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Izreʾel, Shlomo 1976 “The Symptoms of King Krt’s Illness” UF 8: 446–447. Jackson, Kent P. 1989 “The Language of the Meshaʿ Inscription” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ABS 2). Edited by Andrew Dearman. Atlanta: Scholars Press: 96–130. Jacob, Edmond 1985 “Traits féminins dans la figure du Dieu d’Israël” in Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor (AOAT 215). Edited by A. Caquot, S. Légasse and M. Tardieu. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag: 221–230. Jacob, Irene and Walter 1992 “Flora” in ABD II: 830-817. Jacobsen, Thorkild 1973 “Notes on Nintur” Orientalia 42 (N.S.): 274–298. 1987

“The Graven Image” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 15–32.

James, E. O. 1959 The Cult of the Mother-Goddess: an Archaeological and Documentary Study. London: Thames and Hudson. James, Peter 1991 in collaboration with I. J. Thorpe, Nikos Kokkinos, Robert Morkot and John Frankish. Centuries of Darkness: a Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology. London: Jonathan Cape. Jamme, A. 1947 “Le panthéon sud-arabe préislamique, d’après les sources épigraphiques” Le Muséon 60: 57–197.

324

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1955

“A Qatabanian Dedicatory Inscription from Hajar Bin Ḥumeid” JAOS 75: 97–99.

1956

“La religion arabe pré-islamique” in Histoire des religions. Volume 4. Edited by Maurice Brillant and René Aigrain. Paris: Bloud et Gay: 239–307.

Jaroš, Karl 1980 “Die Motive der Heiligen Bäume und der Schlange in Gen 2–3” ZAW 92: 204–215. 1982

“Zur Inschrift Nr. 3 von Ḫirbet el-Qōm” BN 19: 31–40.

Jastrow, Marcus 1926 A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2 volumes. New York: Verlag Choreb. Jastrow, Morris, Jr. 1894 “The Element t#b in Hebrew Proper Names” JBL 13: 19–30. Jean, Charles F. 1931 “Noms divins sumériens liste des élèves-scriber de Nippur, du 3c millénaire environ avant J.-C.” RA 28: 179–194. Jensen, P. 1896–97 “Die Götter Amurru(ū) und Ašratu” ZA 11: 302–305. Jeremias, Alfred 1911 The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East. 2 volumes. Translated by C. L. Beaumont. London: Williams & Norgate. Johns, C. H. W. 1901–24 Assyrian Deeds and Documents Recording the Transfer of Property, Chiefly of the 7th Century B.C. 4 volumes, some second editions. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co., Ltd. Joines, Karen Randolph 1968 “The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult” JBL 87: 245–256. 1974

Serpent Symbolism in the Old Testament: a Linguistic, Archaeological and Literary Study. Haddonfield, New Jersey: Haddonfield House.

Jones, Gwilym H. 1984 1 and 2 Kings (NCBC). 2 volumes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmanss Publ. Co., and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ. Ltd.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

Kaiser, Otto 1974 Isaiah 13–29, A Commentary (OTL). Translated by R. A. Wilson. London: SCM Press Ltd. Kapelrud, Arvid S. 1952 Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad. 1969a

“Baal and the Devourers” Ug 6: 319–332.

1969b

The Violent Goddess. Anat in the Ras Shamra Texts. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Kautzsch, E., editor 1957 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Second English edition, revised by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Keel, Othmar 1978 The Symbolism of the Biblical World, Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy S. Hallett. London: SPCK. 1998

Goddesses and Trees, New Moon and Yahweh: Ancient Near Eastern Art and the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 261). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger 1992 Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neue Erkenntnisse zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen (Quaestiones Disputatae 134). Freiburg, Basel and Wien: Herder. Kenyon, Kathleen M. 1966 Amorites and Canaanites (The Schweich Lectures 1963). London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Kikawada, Isaac M. 1972 “Two Notes on Eve” JBL 91: 33–37. Kinet, Dirk 1978 “Theologische Reflexion im ugaritischen Baʿal-Zyklus” BZ 22 (N.F.): 236–244. King, K. L., editor 1997 Women and Goddess Traditions in Antiquity and Today. Studies in Antiquity & Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress.

326

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

King, L. W. 1898–1900 The Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi , King of Babylon about B.C. 2200 (Luzac’s Semitic Text and Translation Series 2, 3 and 8). 3 volumes. London: Luzac and Co. King, Philip J. 1983 “The Contribution of Archaeology to Biblical Studies” CBQ 45: 1–16. Kirk, G. S. 1971 Myth: Its Meaning and Function in Ancient and Other Cultures. Cambridge: University Press. Kletter, Raz 1996 The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah (BAR International Series 636). Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm, 1996. Kloos, Carola 1986 YHWH’s Combat with the Sea. A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot. Klostermann, August 1887 Die Bücher Samuelis und der Könige (Kurzgesaßter Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testamentes sowie zu den Apokryphen A. Altes Testament 3). Nördlingen: Verlag der C. H. Beck’schen Buchhandlung. Knoppers, Gary N. 1992 “’The God in His Temple’: The Phoenician Text from Pyrgi as a Funerary Inscription” JNES 51: 105–120. Knudtzon, J. A. 1915 Die El-Amarna-Tafeln (Reihenfolge des Erscheinens der Vorderasiatischen Bibliothek 2). 2 volumes. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Koch, K. 1988 “Aschera als Himmelskönigin in Jerusalem” UF 20: 97–120. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner 1985 Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Second edition. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

327

Korpel, Marjo Christine Annette 1990 A Rift in the Clouds: Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine (UBL 8). Münster: UGARIT-Verlag. Kramer, Samuel Noah 1958 History Begins at Sumer. London: Thames & Hudson. 1963

The Sumerians: their History, Culture, and Character. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

1972

Sumerian Mythology: A Study of Spiritual and Literary Achievement in the Third Millennium B.C. Revised edition. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Kreuzer, Siegfried 1985 “Zur Bedeutung und Etymologie von hištaḥawāh/yštḥwy” VT 35: 39–60. Kuenen, A. 1874 The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State. Volume 1. Translated by Alfred Heath May. London: Williams and Norgate. Kupper, Jean-Robert 1957 Les nomades en Mésopotamie au temps des rois de Mari (Bibliotèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège— Fascicule CXLII). Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles Lettres”. 1961

L’iconographie du dieu Amurru dans la glyptique de la Ire dynastie babylonienne (Classe de Lettres, Mémoires, tome 55, fascicule 1). Bruxelles: Palais de Académies.

Lagrange, M. J. 1905 Études sur les religions sémitiques. Second edition. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre. Lambert, W. G. 1957–71 “Götterlisten” RLA 3: 473–479. 1975

“The Historical Development of the Mesopotamian Pantheon: A Study in Sophisticated Polytheism” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (The Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies). Edited by Hans Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press: 191–200.

1976–80

“Išḫara” RLA 5: 176–177.

328

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1979

“Near Eastern Seals in the Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art, University of Durham” Iraq 41: 1–45.

1985

“Trees, Snakes and Gods in Ancient Syria and Anatolia” BSOAS 48: 435–451.

Landsberger, B. 1933 “Bermerkungen zu einigen in Ungers Babylon Übersetzten Texten” ZA 41 (N.F. 7): 287–299. 1956

“Part I Emesal-Vocabulary (Series dimmir-dingir-ilum)” in Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon IV. Edited by B. Landsberger, R. Hallock, T. Jacobsen, A. Falkenstein. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum: 1–44.

Langdon, Stephen 1913 Babylonian Liturgies. Sumerian Texts from the Early Period and from the Library of Ashurbanipal. Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner. Lapp, P. W. 1969a “The 1968 Excavations at Tell Taʿannek” BASOR 195: 2–49. 1969b

“A Ritual Incense Stand from Taanak” Qadmoniot 5: 16–17.

Laroche, Emmanuel 1968 “Documents en langue hourrite provenant de Ras Shamra” Ug 5: 447–544. Larocca-Pitts, Elizabeth C. 2001 “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and its Early Interpreters (HSM 61). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Leclant, Jean 1960 “Astarté a cheval d’après les représentations égyptiennes” Syria 37: 1–67. Leibovitch, J. 1961 “Kent et Qadech” Syria 38: 23–34. Lemaire, André 1977 “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qôm et l’ashérah de Yhwh” RB 84: 595–608. 1984a

“Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet ʿAjrud” SEL 1: 133–143.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1984b

329

“Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah?” BARev 10: 42–51.

Lemche, Niels Peter 1991 The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites (JSOTS 110). Sheffield: JSOT Press. Levine, Baruch A. 1983 “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (ASOR Special Volumes Series 1). Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns: 467–475. Lewis, Theodore J. 1989 Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit (HSM 39). Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1991

“A Review of Mark S. Smith’s The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel”. Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Kansas City, 23 November.

Lewy, Immanuel 1956 “The Two Strata in the Eden Story” HUCA 27: 93–99. Lewy, Julius 1961 “Amurritica” HUCA 32: 31–74. L’Heureux, Conrad E. 1979 Rank among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baʿal, and the Rephaʾim (HSM 21). Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Lipiński, Edward 1972 “The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit” OLP 3: 101–119. 1975

Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 1). Leuven: Leuven University Press.

1978

“North Semitic Texts from the First Millennium BC” in Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (OTL). Edited by Walter Beyerlin. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd: 227–268.

330

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1986a

“Fertility in Ancient Ugarit” in Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean (Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, University of Malta 2–5 September 1985). Edited by Anthony Bonanno. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner Publishing Co.: 207–216.

1986b

“The Syro-Palestinian Iconography of Woman and Goddess (Review Article)” IEJ 36: 87–96.

Littauer, M. A. and J. H. Crouwel 1979 Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Handbuch der Orientalistik, siebente Abteilung; Kunst und Archäologie, erster Band; Der Alte Orient, zweiter Abschnitt; BVorderasien, Lieferung 1). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Liverani, M. 1975 “The Amorites” in Peoples of Old Testament Times. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 100–133. Livingstone, A., B. Spaie, M. Ibrahim, M. Kamal, and S. Taimani. 1988 “Taimāʾ: Recent Soundings and New Inscribed Material, 1402 AH–1982 AD” Atlal 7: 102–116. Livingstone, Alasdair 1986 Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lloyd, J. B. 1990 “The Banquet Theme in Ugaritic Narrative” UF 22: 169–193. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. 1982 “Did the Goddess Anat Wear Side-Whiskers and a Beard? A Reconsideration” UF 14: 119–123. Løkkegaard, Frede 1953 “A Plea for El, the Bull, and other Ugaritic Miscellanies” in Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedesen Dicata. Hauniae: Einar Munksgaard: 219–235. 1954

“Some Comments on the Sanchuniaton Tradition” StTh 8: 51– 76.

1956

“The Canaanite Divine Wetnurses” StTh 10: 53–64.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

331

Loretz, Oswald 1989 “ʿAnat-Aschera (Hos 14,9) und die Inschriften von Kuntillet ʿAjrud” SEL 6: 57–65. Louie, Wallace 1988 The Meaning, Characteristics and Role of Asherah in Old Testament Idolatry in Light of Extra-Biblical Evidence. Th. D. dissertation. Grace Theological Seminary. Lucian 1976

De Dea Syria (Texts and Translations 9, Graeco-Roman Religion 1). Translated and edited by Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press.

Lutzky, Harriet. 1998 “Shadday as a Goddess Epithet” VT 48 (1998): 15–36. Lys, Daniel 1989 “Walter A. Maier: ʾAsherah: Extrabiblical Evidence” review article, ETR 64: 106–107. Macintosh, A. A. 1997 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea (ICC). Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Maier, Walter A. III 1986 ʾAšerah: Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37). Atlanta: Scholars Press. Malamat, Abraham 1963 “Aspects of the Foreign Policies of David and Solomon” JNES 22: 1–17. 1970

“Northern Canaan and the Mari Texts” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. Edited by James A. Sanders. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.: 164–177.

Margalit, Baruch 1975 “Studia Ugaritica I: ‘Introduction to Ugaritic Prosody’” UF 7: 289–313. 1979–80

“The Ugaritic Feast of the Drunken Gods: Another Look at RS 24.258 (KTU 1.114)” Maarav 2: 65–120.

332

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1980a

“Death and Dying in the Ugaritic Epics” in Death in Mesopotamia: papers read at the XXVIe Recontre assyriologique internationale (Mesopotamia, Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology 8). Edited by Bendt Alster. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag: 243–254.

1980b

A Matter of “Life” and “Death”, a Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (CTA 4–5–6) (AOAT 206). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

1989

“Some Observations on the Inscription and Drawing from Khirbet el-Qôm” VT 39: 371–378.

1990

“The Meaning and Significance of Asherah” VT 40: 264–297.

Mason, R. 1991 Micah, Nahum, Obadiah (Old Testament Guides). Sheffield: JSOT Press. Matthiae, Paulo 1980 Ebla: an Empire Rediscovered. Translated by Christopher Holme. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Mattingly, Gerald L. 1989 “Moabite Religion and the Meshaʿ Inscription” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (ABS 2). Atlanta: Scholars Press: 211– 238. May, Herbert G. 1955 “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm, ‘Many Waters’” JBL 74: 9–21. Mayes, A. D. H. 1981 Deuteronomy (NCBC). Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publ. Co. Mays, James Luther 1969 Hosea: A Commentary (OTL). Philadelphia: Westminster. 1976

Micah, A Commentary (OTL). London: SCM Press Ltd.

McAlpine, Thomas H. 1987 Sleep, Divine & Human, in the Old Testament (JSOTS 38). Sheffield: JSOT Press. McCarter, P. Kyle Jr. 1987 “Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 137–155. McCarthy, Dennis J. 1973 “2 Kings 13, 4–6” Biblica 54: 409–410. McCowen, Donald E., Richard C. Haines, and Donald P. Hansen. 1967 Nippur I, Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings (OIP LCCVIII). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McKane, William 1986 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (ICC). Volume 1. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited. McKay, J. W. 1970 “Helel and the Dawn-Goddess, a Re-examination of the Myth in Isaiah XIV 12–15” VT 20: 451–464. 1973

Religion in Judah under the Assyrians 732–609 BC (Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 26). London: SCM,.

McKenzie, John L. 1968 Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB). Garden City, NY: Doubleday. McKinlay, Judith 1996 “Bringing the Unspeakable to Speech in Hosea” Pacifica 9: 121133. van der Meer, P. E. 1938 Syllabaries A, B1 and B with Miscellaneous Lexicographical Texts from the Herbert Weld Collection (Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 4). Oxford: Oxford University Press. “Meʿilah” 1948 in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Ḳodashim. Translated by I. Porusch. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: The Soncino Press. Meissner, Bruno 1925 Babylonien und Assyrien (Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliothek, 1. Reihe: Ethnologische Bibliothek mit Einschluss der Altorientalischen Kulturgeschichte 4). Volume 2. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.

334

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Mendenhall, George E. 1985 “The Worship of Baal and Asherah: a Study in the Social Bonding Function of Religious Systems” in Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry. Edited by Ann Kort and Scott Morschauser. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns: 147–158. Mercer, Samuel A. B. 1939 The Tell El-Amarna Tablets. 2 volumes. Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited. Merhav, Rivka 1985 “The Stele of the ‘Serpent Goddess’ from Tell Beit Mirsim and the Plaque from Shechem Reconsidered” IMJ 4: 27–42. Merlo, P. 1994 “L’Ašerah de Yhwh a Kuntillet ʿAjrud Rassegna Critica Degli Studi e delle Interpretazioni”, SEL 11: 21–55. Merrill, Arthur L. 1968 “The House of Keret, a study of the Keret Legend” SEÅ 33: 5– 17. Meshel, Zeʾev 1976 “ynys lwbgb hkwlmh tpwqtm rt)—dwryg(-tlytnwk” Qadmoniot 9: 119–124. 1977a

“Kuntilat ʿAjrud, 1975–1976” IEJ 27: 52–53.

1977b

“Kuntilet-Ajrud (Nord Sinai)” RB 84: 270–273.

1978a

“Kuntillet ʾAjrud [sic] an Israelite Religious Center in Northern Sinai” Expedition 20: 50–54.

1978b

Kuntillet ʿAjrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai (Israel Museum Catalogue 175). Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

1979

“Did Yahweh have a Consort? New Religious Inscriptions from the Sinai” BARev 5: 24–35.

1982–83

“The Israelite Religious Centre of Kuntillet ʿAjrud” BAIAS: 52– 55.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1986

335

“The Israelite Religious Centre of Kuntillet ʾAjrud [sic], Sinai” in Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean (Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, University of Malta 2–5 September 1985). Edited by Anthony Bonanno. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner Publishing Co.: 237–240.

Meshel, Zeʾev and Carol Meyers 1976 “The Name of God in the Wilderness of Zin” BA 39: 6–10. du Mesnil du Buisson, R. (le Comte) 1939 “Une tablette magique de le région du Moyen Euphrate” in Mélanges syriens offerts à Monsieur René Dussaud. Volume I. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner: 421–434. 1963

“Origine et évolution du panthéon de Tyr” RHR 164: 133–163.

1966

“Le groupe des dieux Él, Bétyle, Dagon et Atlas chez Philon de Byblos” RHR 169: 37–49.

Meyers, Carol 1976 The Tabernacle Menorah (ASORDS 2). Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1988

Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Milik, J. T. and Frank M. Cross, Jr. 1954 “Inscribed Javelin-Heads from the Period of the Judges: A Recent Discovery in Palestine” BASOR 134: 5–15. Millard, A. R. 1975 “The Canaanites” in Peoples of Old Testament Times. Edited by D. J. Wiseman. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 29–52. Miller, Patrick D. Jr. 1973 The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1980

“El, the Creator of Earth” BASOR 239: 43–46.

1981a

“Psalms and Inscriptions” in Congress Volume Vienna 1980 (SVT 32). Edited by J. A. Emerton. Leiden: E. J. Brill: 311–332.

1981b

“Ugarit and the History of Religions” JNSL 9: 119–128.

336

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1986

“The Absence of the Goddess in Israelite Religion” HAR 10: 239–248.

2000

The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel). London/Louisville: SPCK/Westminster John Knox Press.

The Mishnah. 1933 Translated by Herbert Danby. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. Mitchell, Christopher Wright 1987 The Meaning of BRK “to Bless” in the Old Testament (SBLDS 95). Atlanta: Scholars Press. Mittmann, Siegfried 1981 “Die Grabinschrift des Sängers Uriahu” ZDPV 97: 139–152. Molin, Georg 1954 “Die Stellung der Gebira im Staate Juda” TZ 10: 161–175. Montgomery, James A. 1933 “Notes on the Mythological Epic Texts from Ras Shamra” JAOS 53: 97–123. 1951

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings (ICC). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

de Moor, Johannes C. 1969a “Studies in the New Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra I” UF 1: 167–188. 1969b

“Ugaritic hm—Never ‘Behold’” UF 1: 201–202.

1970

“The Semitic Pantheon of Ugarit” UF 2: 187–228.

1971

The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Baʿlu According to the Version of Ilimilku (AOAT 16). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

1974

“hrf#$')j ʾ shērāh” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, editors. Volume 1. Translated by John T. Willis. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans: 438–444.

1980

“An Incantation against Evil Spirits (Ras Ibn Hani 78/20)” UF 12: 429–432.

1984

“Henbane and KTU 1.114” UF 16: 355–356.

a

BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

1986

“The Crisis of Polytheism in Late Bronze Ugarit” OTS 24: 1–20.

1987

An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Religious Texts in Translation Series NISABA 11). Volume 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

de Moor, J. C. and K. Spronk 1982 “Problematical Passages in the Legend of Kirtu (I) and (II)” UF 14: 153–190. 1987

A Cuneiform Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Semitic Studies Series 6). Volume 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Moore, George F. 1898 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges (ICC). Second edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Moorey, P. R. S. 1978 Kish Excavations 1923–1933. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Moran, William L. 1969 “The Death of ʿAbdi-Aširta” EI 9 (W. F. Albright volume): 94– 99. 1987

with collaboration of V. Haas and G. Wilhelm. Les lettres d’ElAmarna (Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 13). Translated into French by Dominique Collon and Henri Cazelles. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.

Morgenstern, Julian 1927 “The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch” HUCA 4: 1–138. 1966

Some Significant Antecedents of Christianity (Studia Post-Biblica 10). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Moscati, Sabatino 1968 The World of the Phoenicians (History of Civilisations). Translated by Alastair Hamilton. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. Muhly, Polymnia 1990 “The Great Goddess and the Priest-King” Expedition 32: 54–61. Mullen, E. Theodore Jr. 1980 The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (HSM 24 ). Chico, California: Scholars Press.

338

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Myers, Jacob M. 1965 II Chronicles: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB). Second edition. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Na’aman, Nadav 1996 “The Dedicated Treasures Buildings within the House of Yhwh where Women Weave Coverings for Asherah (2 Kings 23,7)” BN 83: 17–18. Naveh, Joseph 1979 “Graffiti and Dedications” BASOR 235: 27–30. Negbi, Ora 1976 Canaanite Gods in Metal: an Archaeological Study of Ancient SyroPalestinian Figurines (Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 5). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. Nelson, Richard D. 1981 The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTS 18). Sheffield: JSOT Press. Nicholson, E. W. 1967 Deuteronomy and Tradition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Niehr, Herbert 1990 Der Höchste Gott: Alttestamentlicher JHWH-Glaube im Kontext syrischkanaanäischer Religion des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr. (BZAW 190). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Nielsen, Ditlef 1927 “Zur Altarabischen Religion” in Handbuch der Altarabischen Altertumskunde. Volume 1, Die Altarabische Kultur. Edited by Ditlef Nielsen. Kopenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag: 177–250. 1936

Ras Šamra Mythologie und Biblische Theologie (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 21). Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft.

North, Robert 1989 “Yahweh’s Asherah” in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S. J. Edited by Maurya P. Horgan and Paul J. Kobelski. New York: Crossroad: 118–137.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

Noth, Martin 1962 Exodus: a Commentary (OTL). Translated by J. S. Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd. 1972

A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Translated by Bernhard Anderson. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Nougayrol, Jean 1968 “Textes suméro-accadiens des archives et bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit” Ug 5: 1–446. O’Connor, M. 1987 “The Poetic Inscription from Khirbet el-Qôm” VT 37: 224– 230. 1988

“Yahweh the Donor” AuOr 6: 47–60.

Obermann, Julian 1948 Ugaritic Mythology. A Study of its Leading Motifs. New Haven: Yale University Press. Oden, R. A. Jr. 1976 “The Persistence of Canaanite Religion” BA 39: 31–36. 1977

Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea (HSM 15). Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press.

Offord, Joseph 1915 “The Deity of the Crescent Venus in Ancient Western Asia” JRAS: 197–203. Oldenburg, Ulf 1969 The Conflict between El and Baʿal in Canaanite Religion (Supplementa ad Nvmen, Altera Series Dissertationes ad Historiam Religionum Pertinentes 3). Leiden: E. J. Brill. del Olmo Lete, Gregorio 1977 “Notes on Ugaritic Semantics III” UF 9: 31–46. 1978

“Notes on Ugaritic Semantics IV” UF 10: 37–46.

1981

Mitos y Leyendas de Canaan (Institucion San Jeronimo para la Investigacion Biblica, Fuentes de la Ciencia Biblica 1). Madrid: Ediciones Cristiandad.

340

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1983

“Atiratu’s Entreaty and the Order of the Ugaritic Tablets KTU 1.3/4” AuOr 1: 67–71.

1987

“Figuras femeninas en la mitología y la épica del Antiguo Oriente” in La dona en l’antiguitat, La mujer en la antigüedad, La donna nell’ antichità, Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo Seminari: “Deesses i Heroïnes en les Mitologies antigues”, Barcelona, 9–13 setembre, 1985 (Orientalia Barcinonensia 1). Sabadell: Editorial AUSA: 7– 25.

Olyan, Saul M. 1984 “Hăšālom: Some literary Considerations of 2 Kings 9” CBQ 46: 652–668. 1987a

“The Cultic Confession of Jer 2, 27a” ZAW 99: 254–259.

1987b

“Some Observations Concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven” UF 19: 161–174.

1988

Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34). Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Oppenheim, A. Leo 1944 “The Mesopotamian Temple” BA 7: 54–63. 1977

Ancient Mesopotamia, Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Revised edition completed by E. Reiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

“ʿOrlah” 1948 in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Zeraʿim. Translated by J. Israelstam. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: The Soncino Press. Oswalt, John N. 1986 The Book of Isaiah Chapters 1–39 (NIC). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Otten, H. 1953 “Ein kanaanäischer Mythus aus Bogazköy” MIO 1: 125–50. Ouellette, Jean 1969 “More on ʾĒl Šadday and Bēl Šadê” JBL 88: 470–471. Pardee, Dennis Graham 1976 “The Preposition in Ugaritic” UF 8: 213–322.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1988

341

Les textes para-mythologiques de la 24e campagne (1961) (RSO 4, Mémoire 77). Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations.

Parker, Simon B. 1977 “The Historical Composition of KRT and the Cult of EL” ZAW 89: 161–175. 1978

“Jezebel’s Reception of Jehu” Maarav 1: 67–78.

1979–80

“Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology” Maarav 2: 7–41.

1989

The Pre-Biblical Narrative Tradition, Essays on the Ugaritic Poems of Keret and Aqhat (SBLRBS 24). Atlanta: Scholars Press.

1991

“Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel”. Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Kansas City, 23 November.

1997

editor. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBLWAW 9). Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Parrot, André and Georges Dossin 1950–85 Archives royales de Mari 1–24. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Patai, Raphael 1965 “The Goddess Asherah” JNES 24: 37–52. 1967

The Hebrew Goddess. New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc.

Pedersen, J. 1947 Israel: its Life and Culture. 4 volumes. London: Oxford University Press. Perlman, Alice Lenore 1978 Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic Literatures. Ph. D. dissertation (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor) Graduate Theological Union. Perrot, Jean 1969 “La ‘Venus’ de Beersheva” EI 9 (W. F. Albright volume): 100– 101. “Pesaḥim” 1938 in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʿed. Translated by H. Freedman. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: The Soncino Press.

342

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Peters, John Punnett 1897 Nippur, or Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates (the Narrative of the University of Pennsylvania Expedition to Babylonia in the Years 1888–1890). 2 volumes. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. Petersen, David L. and Mark Woodward 1977 “Northwest Semitic Religion: A Study of Relational Structures” UF 9: 233–248. Petrie, W. M. Flinders 1906 Researches in Sinai. London: John Murray. Pettey, Richard J. 1985 Asherah: Goddess of Israel? Ph. D. dissertation (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor) Marquette University, Milwaukee. 1990

Asherah, Goddess of Israel (American University Studies Series VII, Theology and Religion volume 74). New York, Bern, Frankfurt am Main, and Paris: Peter Lang.

Philo of Byblos 1981 The Phoenician History (CBQMS 9). Translated and edited by Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Jr. Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America. Pinches, Theophilus G. 1900 “The Temple of Ancient Babylonia, I.” PSBA 22: 358–371. Piper, Vera Lydia. 1989 Uprooting Traditional Interpretation: A Consideration of Tree Worship in the Migration of Abraham. Ph. D. dissertation (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor) State University of New York at Buffalo. Pireene, Jacqueline 1956 Paléographie des inscriptions sud-arabes, contribution a la chronologie et a l’histoire de l’Arabie du Sud antique, Tome I, des origines jusqu’a` l’époque himyarite (Verhandelingen van de Koninlkijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgiö, Klasse der Letteren 26). Brussel: Palais der Academiën. “The Pomegranate Scepter Head- From the Temple of the Lord or from a Temple of Asherah?” 1992 BARev 18: 42–45.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

Pope, Marvin H. 1955 El in the Ugaritic Texts (SVT 2). Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1970

“The Saltier of Atargatis Reconsidered” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. Edited by James A. Sanders. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.: 178–196.

1972

“A Divine Banquet at Ugarit” in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays: Studies in Honor of William Franklin Stinespring. Edited by James Efird. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press: 170–203.

1977

Song of Songs (AB). New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.

1979

“Ups and Downs in El’s Amours” UF 11 (Schaeffer Festschrift): 701–708.

1987

“The Status of El at Ugarit” UF 19: 219–230.

Pope, Marvin H. and Wolfgang Röllig. 1965 “Syrien, die Mythologie der Ugariter und Phönizier” in Wörterbuch der Mythologie. Abteilung I: Die Alten Kulturvölker. Edited by H. W. Haussing. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett: 219–312. Pritchard, James B. 1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known Through Literature (AOS 24). New Haven: American Oriental Society. 1978

Recovering Sarepta, a Phoenician City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pritchard, James B., editor 1950 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1954

The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

1969

Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Provan, Iain W. 1988 Hezekiah and the Books of Kings. A Contribution to the Debate about the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (BZAW 172). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

344

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

von Rad, Gerhard 1966 Deuteronomy: a Commentary (OTL). Translated by Dorothea Barton. London: SCM Press Ltd. Rainey, A. F. 1974 “The Ugaritic Texts in Ugaritica 5” JAOS 94: 184–194. Redford, Donald B. 1973 “New Light on the Asiatic Campaigning of Ḥoremheb” BASOR 211: 36–49. Reed, William L. 1949 The Asherah in the Old Testament. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press. Reicke, Bo and Leonhard Rost, editors 1962 Biblisch-historisches Handwörterbuch, Landeskunde, Geschichte, Religion, Kultur, Literatur. Volume 1, A-G. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Reisner, George 1896 Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit (Königliche Museen zu Berlin, Mittheilungen aus den Orientalischen Sammlungen X). Berlin: W. Spemann. Renfroe, Fred 1990 “South Arabian Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection” Le Muséon 102: 155–165. Renger, Johannes 1900–68 Répertoire d’épigraphie sémitique, publié par la Commission du Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (Académie der Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres). 8 volumes. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. 1967

“Untersuchungen zum Priestertum der altbabylonischen Zeit 1. Teil” ZA 58 (N.F. 24): 110–188.

1969

“Untersuchungen zum Priestertum der altbabylonischen Zeit 2. Teil” ZA 59 (N.F. 25): 104–230.

Rhodokanakis, Nikolaus Ḳatabanische Texte zur Bodenwirtschaft. (Sitzungberichte Academie 1919 der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 194:2). Wien: Alfred Hölder.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1922

345

Ḳatabanische Texte zur Bodenwirtschaft (Zweite Folge). (Sitzung-

berichte Academie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophischhistorische Klasse 198:2). Wien: Alfred Hölder. Ribichini, Sergio 1988 “Beliefs and Religious Life” in The Phoenicians. Bompiani: Palazzo Grassi: 104–125. Ribichini, S. and P. Xella 1991 “Problemi di onomastic Ugaritica: il caso dei teofori” SEL 8: 149–170. Ringgren, H. 1947 Word and Wisdom: Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East. Lund: Häkan Ohlssons Boktryckeri. 1972

“Israel’s Place among the Religions of the Ancient Near East” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (SVT 23). Leiden: E. J. Brill: 1–8.

1981

Israelite Religion. Translated by David Green. London: SPCK.

Roberts, J. J. M. 1972 The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: a Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1991

Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary (OTL). Louisville: Westminster/John Knox.

Rogerson, J. W. 1974 Myth in Old Testament Interpretation (BZAW 134). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Rosenbaum, Jonathan 1979 “Hezekiah’s Reform and the Deuteronomistic Tradition” HTR 72: 23–43. Rowley, H. H. 1939 “Zadok and Nehushtan” JBL 58: 113–141. Ryckmans, G. 1934a Les noms propres sud-sémitiques, Tome I, Répertoire analytique (Bibliothèque du Muséon 2). Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon.

346

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1934b

Les noms propres sud-sémitiques, Tome II, Répertoire alphabétique (Bibliothèque du Muséon 2). Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon.

1935

Les noms propres sud-sémitiques, Tome III, Concordance générale des inscriptions sud-sémitiques (Bibliothèque du Muséon 2). Louvain: Bureaux du Muséon.

1951

Les religions arabes préislamiques (Bibliothèque du Muséon 26). Louvain: Publications Universitaires/Bureaux du Muséon.

Ryckmans, Jacques 1983 “Biblical and Old South Arabian Institutions: Some Parallels” in Arabian and Islamic Studies: Articles presented to R. B. Serjeant on the occasion of his retirement from the Sir Thomas Adams’s Chair of Arabic at the University of Cambridge. Edited by R. L. Bidwell and G. R. Smith. London and New York: Longman: 14–25. 1988

“Die altsüdarabische Religion” in Jemen. Edited by Werner Daum. Innsbruck: Pinguin Verlag; Frankfurt/Main: UmschauVerlag: 111–115.

1989

“Le panthéon de l’Arabie du Sud préislamique” RHR 206: 151– 169.

Sarna, Nahum M. 1989 Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary). Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Saracino, Francesco 1982 “Ras Ibn Hani 78/20 and Some Old Testament Connections” VT 32: 338–343. Sayce, A. H. 1883 “The Gods of Canaan” The Contemporary Review 44: 385–399. 1891

“Babylonian Cylinders in the Hermitage of St. Petersburg” ZA 6: 161–163.

1898–99

“Recent Biblical Archaeology” ET 10: 267–268.

Scagliarini, Fiorella 1989 “Osservazioni sulle Iscrizioni di Kuntillet ʿAġrud” RSO 63: 199– 212.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

Schaeffer, C. F. A. 1935 “Les fouilles de Ras Shamra—Ugarit sixiéme campagne” Syria 16: 141–176. 1939

The Cuneiform Texts of Ras Shamra–Ugarit (The Schweich Lectures 1936). London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy.

1968

“Commentaires sur les lettres et documents trouvés dans les bibliothèques privées d’Ugarit” Ug 5: 607–768.

1971

“El, Elat et Asherat” in Hommages à André Dupont-Sommer. Edited by A. Caquot and M. Philonenko. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve: 139–149.

Scharbert, Josef 1973 “Die Geschichte der bārûk-Formel” BZ 17 (N.F.): 1–28. Schmidt, B. 1995 “The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts” in The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms. CBET 13. D. Edelman, editor. Kampen: Pharos: 75–105. Schmitt, J. 1994 “Yahweh’s Divorce in Hosea 2: Who is That Woman?” SJOT 9: 3–18. Schrader, E. 1888 “Die Göttin Ištar als malkatu und šarratu” ZA 3: 353–364. Schroeder, Otto 1920 Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Verschiedenen Inhalts, Autographiert, mit Inhaltsübersicht und Namenlisten (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 35, Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in Assur, E: Inschriften III). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. 1921

“Ein neuer Götterlistentypus aus Assur” ZA 33: 123–147.

Schroer, Silvia 1983 “Zur Deutung der Hand unter der Grabinschrift von Chirbet el Qôm” UF 15: 191–199. 1987a

In Israel gab es Bilder: Nachrichten von darstellender Kunst im Alten Testament (OBO 74). Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

348 1987b

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH “Die Zweiggöttin in Palästine/Israel. Von der Mittelbronze II B–Zeit bis zu Jesus Sirach” in Jerusalem, Texte-Bilder-Steine (Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 6). Festschrift for Hildi and Othmar Keel-Leu. Edited by Max Küchler and Christoph Uehlinger. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 201–225.

Segert, Stanislav 1971 “The Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible” in Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by Hans Goedicke. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press: 413–431. 1986

“An Ugaritic Text Related to the Fertility Cult (KTU 1.23) in Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean (Papers presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean, University of Malta 2–5 September 1985). Edited by Anthony Bonanno. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner Publishing Co.: 217–224.

Seidensticker, Tilman 1986 “Zur Frage eines Astralkultes im Vorislamischen Arabien” ZDMG 136 (N.F.): 493–511. Sellin, Ernst 1904 Tell Taʿannek (Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philosophisch–Historische Klasse 50). Wien: Alfred Hölder. van Selms, A. 1954 Marriage and Family Life in Ugaritic Literature (Pretoria Oriental Series 1). London: Luzac & Company, Ltd. van Seters, John 1972 “The Terms ‘Amorite’ and ‘Hittite’ in the Old Testament” VT 22: 64–81. Shea, William H. 1990 “The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription Again” VT 40: 110–116. Shlain, Leonard 1998 The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict between Word and Image. New York: Viking.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

349

Skinner, John 1922 Prophecy and Religion: Studies in the Life of Jeremiah. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skipwith, G. H. 1898–90 “Hebrew Tribal Names and the Primitive Traditions of Israel” JQR 11: 239–265. Smith, John Merlin Powis, William Hayes Ward, and Julius A. Bewer. 1912 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel (ICC). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Smith, Mark S. 1984 “Divine Travel as a Token of Divine Rank” UF 16: 359. 1986

“Interpreting the Baal Cycle” UF 18: 313–339.

1987

“God Male and Female in the Old Testament: Yahweh and His ‘Asherah’” ThSt 48: 333–340.

1988

“Divine Form and Size in Ugaritic and Pre-Exilic Israelite Religion” ZAW 100: 424–427.

1990

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

2002

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/Dearborn, MI: Dove Booksellers.

Smith, Ralph L. 1984 Micah–Malachi (WBC). Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher. Smith, Sidney 1949 “Note on Blessings” PEQ 81: 57. Smith, W. Robertson 1894 Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (Burnett Lectures 1888–89). New edition. London: Adam and Charles Black. von Soden, Wolfram 1965–81 Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 volumes. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrossowitz.

350

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Soggin, J. Alberto 1975 “The Fall of Manin the Third Chapter of Genesis” in The Old Testament and Oriental Studies (BibOr 29) Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 88-111. 1987

Judges: a Commentary (OTL). Second edition. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press.

Sollberger, Edmond and Jean-Robert Kupper 1971 Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes (Littératures Anciennes du Proche-Orient 3). Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf. Speiser, E. A. 1962 Genesis: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB). New York: Doubleday. Sperling, S. David 1982 “An Arslan Tash Incantation: Interpretation and Implications” HUCA 53: 1–10. Stade, Bernhard 1885 “Miscellen 10. Anmerkungen zu 2 Kö. 10–14” ZAW 5: 275– 297. Stern, E. 1976 1989

“Phoenician Masks and Pendants” PEQ 108: 109–118. “What Happened to the Cult Figurines?” BARev 15: 22–29, 53– 54.

Stol, Marten 1976 Studies in Old Babylonian History (Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul XL). Leiden: Netherlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut te Istanbul. Stoltz, Fritz 1980 “Monotheismus in Israel” in Monotheismus im alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (Biblische Beiträge 14). Edited by Othmar Keel. Fribourg: Verlag Schweizerische Katholisches Bibelwerk: 143–184. “Sukkah” 1938 in The Babylonian Talmud, Seder Moʿed. Translated by Israel W. Slotki. Edited by Isidore Epstein. London: The Soncino Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

351

Széles, Mária Eszenyei 1987 Wrath and Mercy: A Commentary on the Books of Habakkuk and Zephaniah (International Theological Commentary). Grand Rapids/Edinburgh: Eerdmans/The Hansel Press. Tadmor, Miriam 1982 “Female Cult Figurines in Late Canaan and Early Israel: Archaeological Evidence” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (Papers read at the International Symposium for Biblical Studies, Tokyo, 5–7 December, 1979). Edited by Tomoo Ishida. Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha: 139–173. Talalay, Lauren E. 1991 “Body Imagery of the Ancient Aegean” Archaeology 44: 46–49. Tallqvist, Knut 1934 Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt (Studia Orientalia Edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica V 4). Helsinki: Akateeminen Kirjakauppa and Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. 1938

Akkadische Götterepitheta, mit einem Götterverzeichnis und einer Liste der prädikativen Elemente der sumerischen Götternamen (Studia Orientalia Edidit Societas Orientalis Fennica 7). Helsingforsiae: Societas Orientalis Fennica.

Talmon, Shemaryahu 1966 “The ‘Desert Motif’ in the Bible and in Qumran Literature” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (Philip W. Lown Institute Studies and Texts 3). Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press: 31–63. Taylor, J. Glen 1982 “The Song of Deborah and Two Canaanite Goddesses” JSOT 23: 99–108. 1988

“The Two Earliest Known Representations of Yahweh” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTS 67). Edited by L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. Sheffield: JSOT Press: 557–566.

1994

“Was Yahweh Worshiped as the Sun?” BARev 20/3: 52–61, 90.

Taylor, Joan E. 1995 “The Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree” JSOT 66: 2954.

352

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Teixidor, J. 1983 “Les tablettes d’Arslan Tash au musée d’Alep” AuOr 1: 105– 108. Thureau-Dangin, F. 1910 Lettres et contrats de l’epoque de la première dynastie babylonienne (Musée du Louvre–Département des Antiquités Orientales). Paris: Librairie Paul Geuthner. 1921

Rituels accadiens. Paris: Editions Ernest Leroux.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1986 You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions (HSS 31). Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1987

“Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press: 157–194.

1990

“A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessings from Kuntillet ʿAjrud” IEJ 40: 218.

Tomback, Richard S. 1978 A Comparative Semitic Lexicon of the Phoenician and Punic Languages (SBLDS 32). Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press. Toombs, Lawrence E. 1983 “Baal, Lord of the Earth: The Ugaritic Baal Epic” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday (American Schools of Oriental Research Special Volume Series 1). Edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns: 613– 623. Torczyner, H. 1947 “A Hebrew Incantation Against Night-Demons from Biblical Times” JNES 6: 18–29. Trible, Phyllis 1978 God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Overtures to Biblical Theology). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

353

Tromp, Nicholas J. 1969 Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Nether World in the Old Testament (Biblica et Orientalia 21). Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Tsumura, David Toshio 1978 “A Problem of Myth and Ritual Relationship—CTA 23 (UT 52): 56–57 Reconsidered—” UF 10: 387–395. Tufnell, Olga, Charles H. Inge, and Lankester Harding 1940 Lachish II (Tell Ed Duweir) The Fosse Temple. London: The Oxford University Press for the Trustees of the Late Sir Henry Wellcome. Ucko, Peter J. 1968 Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete with Comparative Material from the Prehistoric Near East and Mainland Greece (Royal Anthropological Institute Occasional Paper 24). London: Andrew Szmidla. Uehlinger, Christoph 1997 “Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh’s Cult Images” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21). Edited by K. van der Toorn. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters: 97-155. Unger, Eckhard 1932 “Babylon” in RLA 1: 330–369. 1970

Babylon die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier. Second edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.

Vaughan, Patrick H. 1974 The Meaning of “bāmâ” in the Old Testament: a Study of the Etymological, Textual, and Archaeological Evidence (SOTSMS 3). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Vaux, Roland 1961 Ancient Israel: its Life and Institutions. Translated by John M. Hugh. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. 1967

“Les prophètes de Baal sur le Mont Carmel” in Bible et Orient. Paris: Les éditions du Cerf: 485–497.

354

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Vawter, Bruce 1977 On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Virolleaud, C. 1968 “Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et lituriques de Ras Shamra (XXIVe Campagne, 1961)” Ug 5: 545–606. 1931

“Un Poème phénicien de Ras-Shamra, la lutte de Môt, fils des dieux, et d’Aleïn, fils de Baal” Syria 12: 193–224.

Vriezen, T. C. 1969 The Religion of Ancient Israel. London: Lutterworth Press. Wakeman, Mary K. 1973 God’s Battle with the Monster. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Wallace, Howard N. 1985 The Eden Narrative (HSM 32). Atlanta: Scholars Press. Wansbrough, John 1983 “Metra Ugaritica: Pro et Contra” BSOAS 46: 221–234. Ward, William Hayes 1911 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Habakkuk (ICC). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Waterston, Alastair 1988 “The Kingdom of ʿAttar and his Role in the A B Cycle” UF 20: 357–364. Watson, Wilfred G. E. 1978 “Parallels to Some Passages in Ugaritic” UF 10: 397–401. 1981

“Gender-Matched Synonymous Parallelism in Ugaritic Poetry” UF 13: 181–187.

1983

“Strophic Chiasmus in Ugaritic Poetry” UF 15: 259–270.

1986a

Classical Hebrew Poetry: a Guide to its Techniques (JSOTS 26). Sheffield: JSOT Press.

1986b

“Unravelling Ugaritic MDL” SEL 3: 73–78.

1988a

“Delaying Devices in Ugaritic Verse” SEL 5: 207–218.

1988b

“Some Additional Word Pairs” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie (JSOTS 67). Edited by L. Eslinger and G. Taylor. Sheffield: JSOT Press: 179–201.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1989

“Notes on Some Ugaritic Words” SEL 6: 47–52.

1990

“The Particle p in Ugaritic” SEL 7: 75–86.

1993a

“Atrt ym: Yet Another Proposal” UF 25: 431-435.

1993b

“The Goddesses of Ugarit: A Survey”, SEL 10: 47–59.

355

Watson, W. G. E. and N. Wyatt, editors 1999 Handbook of Ugaritic Studies (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section 1, The Near and Middle East 39). Leiden: E. J. Brill. Watts, John D. W. 1985 Isaiah 1–33 (WBC). Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher. Weidner, Ernst F. 1924–25 “Altbabylonische Götterlisten.” AfK 2: 1–18, 71–82. 1932

“Der Staatsvortrag Aššurnirâris VI. von Assyrien mit Matiʾilu von Bît-Agusi” AfO 8: 17–34.

Weinfeld, Moshe 1972a Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1972b

“The Worship of Molech and the Queen of Heaven and its Background” UF 4 : 133–154.

1980

“A Sacred Site of the Monarchical Period” Shnaton 4: 280–283 (Hebrew), English summary xi–xiii.

1984

“Kuntillet ʿAjrud Inscriptions and their Significance” SEL 1: 121–130.

1996

“Feminine Features in the Imagery of God in Israel: The Sacred Marriage and the Sacred Tree”, VT 46: 515–529.

Welch, Adam C. 1939 The Work of the Chronicler: Its Purpose and Date (The Schweich Lectures 1938). London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Wellhausen, J. 1898 Die Kleinen Propheten: übersetzt und erklärt. 3rd edition. Berlin: Verlag von Georg Reimer. Wheeler Robinson, H. 1944 “The Council of Yahweh” JTS 45: 151–157.

356

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Whitaker, Richard E. 1972 A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Whitt, William D. 1992 “The Divorce of Yahweh and Asherah in Hos 2,4–7.12ff” SJOT 6: 31–67. Whybray, R. N. 1981 Isaiah 40–66 (NCBC). Grand mans/Marshall Morgan & Scott.

Rapids/London:

Eerd-

Widengren, Geo 1951 “The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion (King and Saviour 4)” UUÅ 4: 5–70. Wiggins, Steve A. 1991 “The Myth of Asherah: Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess” UF 23: 383–394. 1992

Athirat, Asherah, Ashratu: a Reassessment According to the Textual Sources. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.

1993a

A Reassessment of “Asherah”: A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. AOAT 235. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag.

1993b

“Old Testament Dagan in the Light of Ugarit” VT 43: 268-274.

1996

“Shapsh, Lamp of the Gods” in Ugarit, Religion and Culture: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Edinburgh, July 1994. Essays presented in honour of Professor John C. L. Gibson. Edited by N. Wyatt, W. G. E. Watson, and L. B. Lloyd. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

1998

“What’s in a Name? Yariḫ at Ugarit” UF 30: 761-779.

Wildberger, Hans 1978 Jesaja (BKAT). Volume 2, Isaiah 13–27. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Wilhelm, G. 1978–79 “Kuntilet ʿAğrud” AfO 26: 211.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357

Williamson, H. G. M. 1982 1 and 2 Chronicles (NCBC). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co. and London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott Publ. Ltd. Wilson, Veronica 1975 “The Iconography of Bes with Particular Reference to the Cypriot Evidence” Levant 7: 77–103. Winckler, Hugo 1894 Altorientalische Forschungen. Volume 2. Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer. 1896

“Die Thontafeln von Tell-El-Amarna” in Sammlung von assyrischen und babylonischen Texten im Umschrift und Übersetzung (Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek 5). Edited by Eberhard Schrader. Berlin: Verlag von Reuther & Reichard.

1902

“Geschichte und Geographie” in Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (Dritte Auflage mit Ausdehnung auf die Apokryphen, Pseudepigraphen und das Neue Testament). Edited by Eberhard Schrader. Berlin: Reuther & Reichhard: 1–342.

Winter, Urs 1983 Frau und Göttin. Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen Gottesbild im Alten Israel und in dessen Umwelt (OBO 53). Freiburg: Universitätsverlag and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wolff, Hans Walter 1974 A Commentary on the Book of Hosea (Hermeneia). Philadelphia: Fortress. 1982

Micha (BKAT, Dodekapropheton Neukirchener Verlag.

4).

Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Woolley, Leonard 1938 Ur of the Chaldees. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Wyatt, N 1976 “Atonement Theology in Ugarit and Israel” UF 8: 415–430. 1977

“The Identity of Mt wŠr” UF 9: 379–381.

1980

“The Relationship of the Deities Dagan and Hadad” UF 12: 375–379.

1981

“Interpreting the Creation and Fall story in Genesis 2–3” ZAW 93: 10–21.

358

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1983a

“The Stela of the Seated God from Ugarit” UF 15: 271–277.

1983b

“A Suggested Historical Context for the Keret Story” UF 15: 316–318.

1984

“The ʿAnat Stele from Ugarit and its Ramifications” UF 16: 327–337.

1985a

“‘Araunah the Jebusite’ and the Throne of David” StTh 39: 39– 53.

1985b

“‘Jedidiah’ and Cognate Forms as a Title of Royal Legitimation” Biblica 66: 112–125.

1986a

“The AB Cycle and Kingship in Ugaritic Thought” Cosmos 2: 136–142.

1986b

“Cain’s Wife” Folklore 97: 88–95.

1987a

“Baʿal’s Boars” UF 19: 391–398.

1987b

“Sea and Desert: Symbolic Geography in West Semitic Religious Thought” UF 19: 375–389.

1987c

“Who Killed the Dragon?” AuOr 5: 185–198.

1988a

“The Source of the Ugaritic Myth of the Conflict of Baʿal and Yam” UF 20: 375–385.

1988b

“When Adam Delved: the Meaning of Genesis III 23” VT 38: 117–122.

1990a

“The Expression Bekôr Māwet in Job XVIII 13 and its Mythological Background” VT 40: 207–216.

1990b

“The Story of Dinah and Shechem” UF 22: 433–458.

1992

“Of Calves and Kings: the Canaanite Dimension in the Religion of Israel” SJOT 6: 68–91.

Xella, Paolo 1977 “Studi Sulla Religione della Siria Antica I El e il Vino (RS 24.258)” SSR 1: 229–261. 1981

I Testi Rituali di Ugarit–I (Pubblicazioni del Centro di Studio per la Cività Fenicia e Punica 21, Studi Semitici 54). Roma: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

Yadin, Yigael 1968 “And Dan, Why did he Remain in Ships” AJBA 1: 9–23. 1970

“Symbols of Deities at Zinjirli, Carthage and Hazor” in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck. Edited by James A. Sanders. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.: 199–231.

1975

Hazor, the Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Yamashita, Tadanori 1964 The Goddess Asherah. Ph. D. dissertation (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor) Yale University. Yamauchi, Edwin M. 1973 “Cultic Prostitution: A Case Study in Cultural Diffusion” in Orient and Occident: Essays presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (AOAT 22). Edited by Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag: 213–222. Yarden, L. 1971 The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah, the Seven-Branched Lampstand. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Yaron, R. 1963 “A Royal Divorce at Ugarit” Orientalia 32 (N.S.): 21–31. Yee, Gale A. 1987 Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation (SBLDS 102). Atlanta: Scholars Press. Young, Edward J. 1972 The Book of Isaiah (NIC). Volume I. Second edition. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Zenger, Erich 1971 Die Sinaitheophanie. Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistoischen Geschichtswerk (Forschung zur Bibel 3). Würzburg: Echter Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. Zevit, Ziony 1977 “A Phoenician Inscription and Biblical Covenant Theology” IEJ 27: 110–118.

360

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

1984

“The Khirbet el-Qôm Inscription Mentioning a Goddess” BASOR 255: 39–47.

2001

The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London and New York: Continuum.

van Zijl, Peter J. 1972 Baal. A Study of Texts in Connexion with Baal in the Ugaritic Epics (AOAT 10). Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. Zimmerli, Walther 1979 Ezekiel I: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, Chapters 1–24 (Hermeneia). Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Zimmern, Heinrich 1902 “Religion und Sprache” in Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (Dritte Auflage mit Ausdehnung auf die Apokryphen, Pseudepigraphen und das Neue Testament). Edited by Eberhard Schrader. Berlin: Reuther & Reichhard: 343–654. 1911

“Zur Herstellung der großen babylonischen Götterliste An = (ilu) Anum” Berichte über Verhandlungen der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 63: 83–125.

1927

“Neues zu Aschera” in “Deutscher Orientalistentag Hamburg vom 28 Sept. bis 2 Okt. 1926” ZDMG 81 (N.F. 6): XLIII– XLIV.

Zwinckel, Wolfgang 1986 “Die Kesselwagen im Salomonischen Tempel” UF 18: 459–461.

INDEX Abdi-Ashirta, 168 Akkad, 163, 315 Akkadian, xviii, 4, 35, 48, 50, 52, 66, 67, 69, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 86, 103, 136, 151, 152, 153, 154, 163, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 201, 215, 221, 247, 317, 319 alliteration, 54, 96 altar, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 127, 134, 137, 145, 202, 208, 243, 248, 249, 251, 252 altars, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 127, 132, 134, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146 Amištamru, 77, 78 ʿAmm, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 262 Amorite, 49, 50, 153, 156, 163, 164, 169, 171, 294, 348 Amorites, 2, 172, 220, 302, 318, 325, 330 Amurru, 49, 50, 51, 52, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 186, 219, 220, 222, 324, 327 Anat, 7, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 31, 33, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 70, 71, 75, 76, 79, 81, 88, 90, 91, 94, 98, 99, 103, 110, 132, 174, 175, 192, 203, 204, 207, 221, 226, 229, 230, 232, 233, 235, 263, 264, 273, 283, 292, 294, 303, 312, 325, 330, 331, 358 Aqhat, 5, 13, 25, 58, 91, 314, 341 Aramaic, 66, 189, 190, 214, 215, 220, 221, 314, 315, 321, 323, 329

Arslan Tash, 190, 209, 211, 212, 215, 216, 293, 304, 313, 314, 350, 352 asherim, 18, 111, 118, 122, 123, 143, 144 Ashtart, 190, 212, 213, 226, 229, 230, 233, 235 Assur, 160, 161, 165, 211, 212, 215, 347 Assyrian, xxii, 154, 166, 210, 211, 212, 313, 321, 324, 330 Astarte, 8, 14, 49, 66, 106, 118, 128, 225, 226, 229, 280, 283, 292, 304, 310, 341 Athtar, 38, 47, 56, 76, 176, 179, 303 Athtart, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 31, 43, 49, 57, 102, 103, 169 Baal, xii, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 23, 25, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 101, 102, 107, 108, 111, 118, 120, 121, 125, 128, 158, 172, 174, 175, 192, 201, 210, 235, 236, 258, 272, 273, 276, 299, 305, 313, 314, 316, 318, 325, 332, 334, 349, 352, 353, 354, 360 Baal Cycle, 6, 13, 33, 34, 38, 42, 51, 59, 64, 72, 74, 78, 82, 272 Baalat, 102 baals, 118, 130, 142, 143, 245 Babylon, 48, 105, 152, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 171, 177, 186, 214, 221, 301, 326, 328, 329, 353

361

362

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

Babylonian, xxii, xxiv, 2, 148, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166, 169, 171, 194, 291, 301, 302, 303, 304, 309, 312, 313, 321, 328, 330, 333, 340, 341, 344, 346, 350 bēlit ṣēri, 156, 160, 166, 171, 186 Bes, 200, 201, 266, 357 Bethel, 134, 135, 137, 222, 244 blessing, 74, 189, 192, 197, 199, 200, 202, 205, 208, 216 Boghazköy, 173, 274 Borsippa, 166, 171 breasts, 11, 31, 87, 90, 91 bull, 36, 119, 201, 251 calendars, 85 calves, 37, 121, 130 Canaanite, xxii, 4, 8, 9, 18, 21, 29, 31, 38, 108, 109, 115, 117, 131, 136, 151, 173, 175, 187, 198, 205, 219, 221, 224, 226, 227, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 242, 243, 247, 263, 271, 283, 292, 293, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 314, 316, 317, 320, 326, 329, 330, 337, 338, 339, 351, 358 character, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 19, 25, 33, 42, 48, 54, 56, 57, 64, 68, 70, 74, 82, 85, 87, 90, 96, 98, 105, 107, 114, 117, 124, 138, 149, 151, 153, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 171, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 201, 206, 208, 218, 219, 220, 222, 225, 229, 233, 236, 237, 259, 264, 268 chiasmus, 48, 52, 66, 71 chronicler, 125, 126, 133, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 consort, 15, 21, 33, 42, 48, 49, 57, 78, 84, 93, 95, 101, 107, 110, 117, 118, 119, 157, 158, 169, 171, 172, 176, 181, 186, 187, 190, 193, 196, 200, 201, 218, 220, 221, 224, 232, 234, 235, 236, 262, 276

cultic object, 2, 3, 13, 17, 18, 19, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 118, 122, 125, 126, 128, 135, 137, 138, 140, 143, 144, 148, 149, 178, 198, 202, 206, 207, 208, 216, 218, 225, 228, 247, 262, 264 Dagon, 76, 102, 120, 174, 307, 309, 335 definite article, 16, 125, 127, 128, 133, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 143, 145, 276 demon, 162 deuteronomic, 13, 111, 117 deuteronomistic, 3, 16, 106, 107, 110, 111, 113, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124, 127, 130, 133, 135, 137, 138, 143, 145, 146, 149, 218, 239, 253, 254, 257, 267 divorce, 77 Dmgy, 92, 93 donkey, 7, 49, 66, 67, 68, 172, 234 double feminization, 195, 196, 202, 203 dragon, 11, 79, 131, 132, 221, 228, 235, 273 Edom, 205 Egypt, 15, 84, 168, 194, 226, 229, 230, 232, 237, 299, 353 Egyptian, xxii, 45, 76, 169, 194, 195, 229, 230, 231, 232, 313 Ekron, 190, 208, 209, 304, 306, 315 ekurrītum, 168, 171, 186 El, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 78, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 107, 109, 157, 160, 161, 168, 169, 173, 174, 175, 192, 196, 201, 210, 212, 215, 218, 220, 225, 232, 233, 235, 236, 260, 262, 273, 274, 276, 297,

INDEX 302, 308, 310, 326, 329, 330, 334, 335, 337, 339, 343, 347, 357, 358 El-Amarna, 157, 160, 161, 168, 169, 170, 196, 230, 275, 292, 326, 334, 337, 357 Elat, 38, 42, 231, 266, 280, 347 Elimelek, 3, 5, 23, 25, 33, 54, 58, 83, 84, 85, 90, 91, 94, 100, 103, 174, 175, 218 Elkunirsa, 4, 17, 47, 55, 64, 78, 151, 172, 173, 174, 175, 187, 219, 274, 320 Etruscan, 213 etymology, 16, 27, 35, 41, 66, 68, 132, 173, 200, 201, 220, 221, 222, 235, 277 exorcism, 98 fertility, 13, 14, 18, 29, 83, 87, 88, 90, 91, 131, 137, 138, 149, 281 fire, 53, 54, 87, 88, 114, 115, 130, 134, 243, 254 gebirah, 218 genre, 5, 12, 25, 27, 85, 94 god list, 103, 159, 160, 161, 168 Gubarra, 166, 167 Gupn-and-Ugar, 48 Hadramawt, 176 Hammurabi, 155, 168, 171, 219 handmaid, 92, 93, 94 Hebrew, xi, xv, xvii, xxi, xxii, 21, 30, 35, 36, 37, 40, 45, 50, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 79, 80, 87, 89, 97, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 129, 131, 132, 136, 149, 152, 178, 189, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 203, 204, 205, 207, 209, 211, 213, 216, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230, 233, 234, 235, 240, 247, 255, 275, 277, 278, 281, 282, 283, 292, 293, 299, 304, 305, 306, 312, 314, 315, 317, 318, 320, 321, 324, 325, 327, 337, 341, 348, 349, 352, 354, 355

363 heir, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 77, 84, 123, 150, 218 hieros gamos, 15, 179 high place, 135, 137 Hittite, xxiii, 3, 4, 64, 78, 151, 172, 173, 174, 187, 219, 261, 262, 317, 320, 348 Horon, 210 hosts of heaven, 109, 130, 132, 133, 134, 142 iconography, xii, 6, 22, 199, 211, 236, 240, 263, 264, 265, 268 ilt, 26, 27, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46, 75, 273 image, xv, 13, 23, 52, 112, 116, 126, 130, 133, 137, 138, 143, 144, 149, 245, 254, 255, 258, 260, 268 Ishtar, 156, 161, 164, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175 Keret, 5, 13, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 58, 59, 83, 85, 123, 218, 231, 232, 293, 294, 311, 314, 334, 341, 358 Khirbet el-Qôm, 4, 9, 15, 17, 20, 21, 189, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 202, 203, 216, 220, 225, 232, 263, 295, 328, 332, 339, 360 Kothar-and-Khasis, 11, 12, 47, 48, 50, 51, 58, 62, 92, 102 Kuntillet Ajrud, 241, 262, 263, 265, 266, 274, 276, 277 Kuntillet ʿAjrûd, 4, 7, 9, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 109, 189, 191, 196, 197, 198, 199, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, 216, 220, 224, 225, 242, 306 lion, 131, 223, 224, 226, 235, 280 LXX, xxiii, 114, 115, 127, 129, 132, 146, 260, 269 Maʿin, 176, 178, 179 marzeah, 94 mdd, 37, 60, 61, 62 merismus, 35, 81 Mesopotamia, 1, 19, 49, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 159, 171, 220,

364

A REASSESSMENT OF ASHERAH

221, 261, 262, 294, 304, 312, 319, 332, 340, 345 Minaean, 176, 178, 179, 182 Mot, 34, 38, 52, 56, 62, 74, 75, 80, 82, 93, 274, 332 mother, 20, 41, 42, 46, 47, 59, 70, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 84, 90, 91, 95, 103, 125, 126, 138, 149, 150, 168, 169, 176, 218, 224, 236, 237, 262, 274, 276 mountain, 116, 156, 158, 165, 166, 171, 186, 219 netherworld, 11, 160, 166, 171 offering, xiii, 12, 20, 40, 58, 85, 91, 98, 101, 102, 103, 116, 131, 154, 159, 252 pantheon, 7, 11, 34, 38, 42, 55, 84, 153, 155, 157, 159, 165, 176, 186, 187, 218, 225, 274, 277 parallelism, 11, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56, 68, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 147, 192, 207, 218, 232 Philistine, 209 Phoenician, 22, 131, 178, 189, 190, 203, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 220, 221, 233, 293, 296, 302, 304, 308, 314, 322, 326, 342, 343, 350, 352, 359 Pidray, 102 pillar, 8, 109, 112, 193, 267, 280 pithoi, 190, 197, 209, 280 plene, 115, 116, 130, 147, 214 plk, 52, 54 priest, 134, 164, 184, 214, 258 prophet, 123, 255, 258 Qataban, 2, 176, 177, 179, 181, 183 Qedeshet, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235 qlt, 52, 54, 62 Qodesh-and-Amrur, 48, 49, 50, 66, 67, 102 queen mother, 41, 74, 84, 125, 150, 218

rabītu, 41, 42, 71, 72, 77, 78, 81, 82, 84, 150, 218, 316 Rahmay, 88, 89, 90, 91 Rammanum, 163 rbt atrt ym, 34, 41, 42, 48, 57, 64, 81, 84, 91, 218, 234, 236, 272, 273 Resheph, 98, 99 ritual, 3, 7, 19, 85, 86, 88, 90, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 164, 171, 186, 218, 219, 274 Saba, 176, 177 Ṣalmu, 214, 304 sanctuary, 26, 29, 122, 124, 178, 179, 181, 197, 212, 213, 215, 221, 231 Sapon, 67 sea, 11, 15, 34, 41, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 74, 79, 80, 81, 84, 89, 90, 92, 131, 132, 138, 171, 218, 222, 227, 228, 234, 235, 236, 262, 273 Sefire, 215, 222 serpent, 130, 131, 223, 224, 227, 234, 235, 313 Shachar, 5, 7, 85, 86, 91 Shalim, 5, 7, 85, 86, 87, 91 Shapash, 31, 56, 89, 90, 91 shrine, 13, 15, 33, 108, 117, 119, 137, 206, 212, 213, 214, 215, 231 Sippar, 155, 161 snakes, 109, 132, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 261 South Arabia, 175, 176, 179, 180, 220, 225, 261 spindle, 44, 52, 54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 84 steppe, 49, 165, 166, 172, 186, 219 stichometry, 35, 76, 96 Storm God, 172, 174, 175 Sumerian, 4, 152, 154, 155, 161, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 171, 219, 228, 301, 327, 328 sun, 48, 89, 91, 94, 134, 185, 220, 230 ʾšymʾ, 214, 215, 216

INDEX symbol, 18, 20, 21, 54, 55, 56, 63, 72, 219, 233, 239, 260, 280 ʾšyrʾ, 214 Taanach, 17, 170, 171, 226, 265, 267, 280, 292 Talmud, 121, 148, 149, 222, 291, 323, 324, 333, 340, 341, 350 Tanit, 131, 223, 224, 227, 228, 233, 234, 235, 236, 322 Tel Miqne, 20, 21, 190, 196, 202, 203, 208, 209, 225, 262, 280 Teman, 198, 200, 202, 205, 216, 275 temple, 100, 110, 121, 133, 134, 135, 136, 143, 150, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 169, 171, 180, 181, 184, 186, 202, 208, 245, 246, 247, 267, 276, 282, 301 the Lady, 91, 97, 131, 228, 235 theophoric name, 194 Tkmn-and-Šnm, 95, 98 tree, xii, 9, 15, 18, 109, 112, 116, 117, 124, 126, 129, 133, 138, 146, 148, 149, 189, 223, 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 277, 280 triad, 175, 176, 180, 185, 186 underworld, 166, 219 Uruk, 164, 165 Venus, 91, 176, 339, 341 Vorlage, 138, 140, 142, 143, 144, 276 vow, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 101, 123, 231

365 Wadd, 180, 181, 184, 186, 187, 262 wetnurse, 31, 33 whorl, 52, 54, 56, 57, 62, 63 wood, 119, 244, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 264, 268, 269 Yahweh, 3, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 38, 50, 61, 78, 98, 101, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 141, 146, 147, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 216, 219, 220, 221, 223, 224, 227, 230, 235, 240, 241, 242, 256, 265, 266, 267, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 293, 297, 302, 303, 306, 310, 312, 318, 319, 325, 329, 334, 338, 339, 340, 341, 347, 349, 351, 353, 355, 356 Yam, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 47, 49, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 77, 79, 81, 84, 102, 103, 131, 218, 222, 227, 234, 236, 274, 316, 358 Yarikh, 93, 262 Yaṣṣib, 30, 31, 32, 84, 218 ydd, 62, 64 Yhwh, 108, 191, 241, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 251, 256, 259, 260, 266, 279, 280, 281, 313, 318, 328, 334, 338