an old journal article about asherah

8/11/2019 An old journal article about Asherah

1/19

New

Light

on

Israelite Religion:

The

Implicat ions

of the

Inscriptions from Kuntillet 'A j rud

l

B y J. A.Em erton

(S tJohn's College,

Cambridge,

CB2

1TB)

Did Yahweh have a

consort?

That quest ion was the provocative

title

of an

article

by Z .

Meshel

in

1979,

and it

arose from

a new

Interpreta-

tion of

some

inscriptions that he had

publ ished

for the

first

t ime

in the

previous

ye a r . They were found

on

jars

a t Kunt i l le t

'Ajrud , about

50 km

south

of Kadesh-barnea,

where several routes m et

and

there

was a

bui ld-

ing

that M eshel regards s a religious cen tre. H e dates the f inds between

the middle of the nin th and the m iddle of the eighth cen turie s B .C. He

originally

favoured

the

reign

of

Atha l i ah (p resumably

for

historical, rather

than archaeological, reasons), but he now puts them a little later, in the

reign of Joash of Israel, on the precarious ground that a word which he

restores

s

^ [ s j w ] is ava r i a n tform of

Joash's

na m e (see Weinfe ld ,p.284).

These inscriptions are important for several reasons. W ith the possible

exception of an un pu blish ed seal from the eighth Century

(Cross,

p. 61),

they

appear

to be the first

texts

written by Israelites (unlikethe Moabite

Stone)

on

whichjhwh,

the

longer form

of the

divine name, occurs.

The

other reasons will be considered below.

Oneof the

inscriptions includes

the words:

brkt.

H km

.

Ijhwh

.

smrn

.

wl*srth,

Ihave blessed you by Yahwehsmrn and his Asherah. The ve rb

brkt is regarded s the first person singular perfect (berkti) without a

mater

lectionis at the

end,

and the

same formula

of

blessing

is

found

at

Arad (162-3;212-3;

40s).

S imi lar ly ,

a

Phoenician inscription from Saqqara

in

th e

sixth

Century has

brktk lb

f

l spn,

I

have blessed thee

by

B aa l

Zaphon

(K AI502-3; cp. Lem aire, p . 602). It im plies a

wish

s well

s

being a Statement, and so Meshel translates the verb and its object s

M a y

you be blessed.

1

A list of the principal works cited will be found at the end of the article. I am grateful to

several friends fo r thei r help. D r G. I .D avies read th e article in

d raf t

and

made some

helpful

suggestions

( inc luding references

to

several works).

Dr

J. Day

made avai lab le

to

m e

a

copyof Z. MeshePs article of 1979, to which I

should

not

otherwise

have had

access.

Dr

A. Mazar drew

m y

attention

to M.

Weinfeld 's article,

and

Professor

M .

Haran enabled

m e

to see it before th e

book

in wh ich it appears became avai lab le in Cambridge. Professor

E.Wrthwein reminded me of the relevance of H.Donner's article. The help I h a v e

received makes

m e

more

conscious

than ever

of the

value

of

internat ional

co-operation

amongscholars.

0044-2526/82/0941-0001 2.00

Copyright

by

W alter

deGruy ter& Co.

rought to you by | New York University Elmer Holmes Bobst Lib

Authenticated | 10 248 254 158

Download Date | 9/10/14 7:19 AM


2/19

J. A.

Em erton,

New

Light

on

Israelite Religion

3

The word

smrn

was

first

understood by Meshel

s

the active partici-

ple

qal

of the verb

samr

with a first person plural

suffix:

som

e

renu, w h o

guards u s ; and the

verb

appears in

another inscription

from

Kunti l let

'Ajrud in

which someone

na me d ^mrjw

says:

brktk

. Ijhwh /.../

wl^rth

.

jbrk . wjsmrk

wjhj

f

m

.

*dnj,

I

have

blessed thee by

Yahweh

[...] and his

Asherah .

May h e

bless

and keep thee, and be with

m y lord .

One

might

have

expected

it to be writtensmrnw,

wi th

a f inal mater lectionis, but the

writers

were

not

consistent

in

their

use of

such

vowel

letters,

and we

have

seen

tha t

brktwaswritten, not brktj.

A different

Suggestion

was

made

in the

fo l lowing y ear

(1979)

by

M .

Gilu la ,

w ho

preferred

the

reading

som

e

row, S a m a r i a . Whether

because of

Gilu la ' s

article, or s a result of his own fur ther thought,

MeshePs article

of the same

year also allows

the possibility of

this reading,

though it notes a

syntactical problem (which

we

shall

consider below)

in

unders tanding the

phrase

to

m ean Yah w eh

of

S a m a r i a . S u c h

an

Inter-

pretation of the expression

has,

however, now been confirm ed by the

reading

of several other inscriptions, w hich hav e another

place name:jhwh

tmn

w*srth

Y ah we h of Teman and his As he rah ; and M eshel accepts

thisway of understanding the

inscriptions.

2

It

is

thus probable that

the

inscriptions

from

shortly before

or after

800 B . C . refer to

Y a h w e h

of

S amaria

and his

Asherah

and

Yah w eh

of

Teman and h is Ash erah . The

purpose

of the present article is to consider

some of the impl icat ionsof these texts for the studyof Israelite religion.

I.

Wh en I

visited

the

Israel Museum

in

Jerusalem

in May

1981

and saw

the way in which these inscriptions are now read, it struck

m e

at once that

they

had a

bearing

on a

syntactical problem that

has

been much discussed

by

Old

Testament scholars. One of the questions raised by the phrase

jhwh

fba^t is whether it is legitimate to regard it

s

mean ing Ya hweh of

fba^t,

or

whether

the

second

word

mus t

be in

apposition

to the

first.

The

fo rm er

way of

unders tanding

the

phrase appears

to treat the

tetra-

g rammaton s if it were in theconstruct

state,

but such a usage has seemed

anomalous

to

some.

Yet at

Kunt i l le t

'Ajrud th e

d iv ine na m e

is

used

in a

comparable syntactical relat ionship. It would, however, be a superficial

t reatment of the subject merely to appeal to the new evidence without

considering the

na tu re

of

th e

problem. Moreover,

a

discussion

of the

syn-

tactical problem

has a

bearing

on

some further questions which

will be

exam ined in

later

parts of the present article.

2

S ee p. 284 of Weinfeld's article, which gives Meshel's most recent opinions on the subject.

The inscr ipt ions

are

now explained thus in the Israel Museum.

Brought to you by | New York University Elmer Holmes Bobst Li




3/19

4 J. A.Em erton,N ew L ight on

Israelite

Religion

It has

been ma inta ined tha t proper na m es

of

persons

are not

used

in

the construct state in Hebrew.

Thus

a S tandard work on

Hebrew g ra m m a r

holds

tha t Rea l proper

nouns, s

being

the

n a m e s

of

things

(or

persons)

only

once

m et with , are sufficiently determinate in

themselves

and, there-

fore, do

not admi t of the article, nor can they be in the construct state

( G . K . 125

d

y

cp. tf) .As im i la rop in ion isexpressedby

Joon,

131o, 137 b.

It is

generally recognized that

a

n u m b e r

of

na me s

of

places appear,

prima fade at

least,

to be

used

in the

construct state

in par t icular

c i r cum -

stances: e.g.

^r

ksdim,

*rm nh^rjim, bet

laeb&m

fhd.

G.K. 125

h

suggests that such phrases involve

the

ellipse

of a

word

for

c i t y

or

region

in the construct s ta tee.g.

U r

( thecity ) of the Chaldees but

it

is admitted that some

examples

... come very nea r to the actual con-

struct s ta te.

There

isnot, of course, the same

difficulty

whe n the name of

th e place is an appellative suchsgib

f

, whencegib

f

t

sa*l,

theGibeah

na m e d

after Saul to

dis t inguish

it from

others

( G .K .

125 t f ,

h).

Even,

however, when the n a m eo f a town or region cannot bedescribed thus, its

use in the

construct state

is

intended

to

distinguish

it from

other places

with

the

same name: e .g .

the

Be th lehem

in

J uda h ,

not the

Be th lehem

in

Zebulun (Jos 19is). Since such names of places are accordingly no longer

names

found only in one special

sense,

the conclusion is drawn that they

are

no

longer proper names

in the

strictest sense (

125h ).

P r e su m a b l y ,

sijjn

q*d s jisra^el ( J e s 6 0 i 4 ) does

not

come into this category

but is

explained

san exampleof the ellipseof

f

ir or the

like.

jhwh

s

c

ba*t , however, is a personal name, not the n a m e of a place.

Even M .

Lam ber t,

w ho

believes that place nam es

can be in the

construct

state,

notes that On ne trouve pas de nom propre de personne a Petat

construit

(228, n. 2).

Whether

or not it is legitimate to speak of a gram-

matical rule

that personal names cannot be in the construct

state,

the fact

that

they do not appearto be so used elsewherein the Hebrew Bible has

led

some to believe th at the second w ord in the phras e

jhwh

s

e

ba*t is in

apposition to the first, and that the

first

is not in the construct state. On

the

other hand,

G.K. 125h

suggests

that

there

is an

ellipse

of ^lohe

between the two

words,

and

that

the

meaning

is

Yahweh ( the God)

of

hosts, just

s

5

r ksdim means

U r

( the city) of the Chaldees. The

existence

of the

longer expression

jhwh **lohe fba*t (or hsfba*t]

probably bears witness tha t the relatio nsh ip of

fba*t

to what precedes it

was

similarly

understood in theshorter form

jhwh

s

e

ba*t , and so that the

latter was thought to mean Y a h w e h o f s

e

ba*t or something barely

distinguishable

from

it. Such a view is tenable, even though the

fact

that

the shorter phrase is

overwhelmingly

more c ommon

makes

us hesitate to

postulate that

the

longer

form was in use

before

it; it is

possible that

an

ellipse wa s

intended

from the

beginning.

There

is

another

way of

expla ining

the

phrase s meaning

Yahweh

of s

e

ba*t. This explanation is related to the fact that, when a place





4/19

J. A.Em erton,NewLightonIsraeliteR eligion 5

n am e isused in the construct state, there is normal lya need todistinguish

it from

some other

place

w ith the

same

na me .That might suggest that the

na me

Y a h w e h was

shared

by

more than

one

deity. Such

a

view

has not

commended

itself

to m a n y scholars, but there is more support for the

opinion that there were what may be called

different

m anifestations of

h im. Alternatively , it has been suggested that Ya hw e h has virtually

ceased to be regarded s a proper name and has come to mean more

generally

G o d .

3

I t may be

doubted, however, wheth er this und erstan ding

of the te t ragrammaton can be substantiated

from

th e Old Testament. It

certainly

does not fit the phrase jhwh **lohe

fba*t,

whose meaningis

unlikely

to

h av e been different

from

tha t

of the

shorter form.

Evidence

in the

cognate languages

has

been compared with

the

Hebrew phrase jhwh fba*t. In his discussion (pp.259-75) of the Car-

thaginian expression *>smn

f

strt, W .W . B audissin considers the Hebrew

material on pp.262 3, and explains it in the same way s G.K .125

h .

Thus,

c

sfrot

( for which he wishes to read th e singular) qrnjim is

thought by h im to mean Astarte (die Besitzerin)der beiden Hrner or

(die

Gttin) des Ortes Karna j im , and

jhwh

s

e

ba't

Jahwe

(der Herr)

der

Heerschaaren; s imilar ly ,

th e

Phoenician

rsp mkl is

understood

s

Rsp

(der Gott) des Ortes M k l .

f

strt

f

pp, however, is explained

s die

Astarte

von

Paphos,

and

there

is

thought

to be a

genitive relationship

between

th e

two

parts of

*smn

f

strt,

Esmun

der A starte (p . 275).

G.R.

Driver goes farther and seeks to refute the opinion that proper

names s

such

ca nn ot stan d in the construct sta te ( p. 125) in Opposition to an

article

by J .Ob erm ann. D river gives exam ples of Semitic texts in which

personal ( includingdivine) and place names appear in the construct state

or in which proper names... take pronominal Suffixes, which imply the

construct state (p. 125). H e even claims to find two in dubi tab le in-

stances of personal names in the construct state in the Old Testament,

na m e l y ,

in

PS 3 8 2 3

and Ez382, and

suggests that

the

text

of Gen 152 and

Jer39a should be emended in such a way s to produce fur ther examples.

Driver's article seems to have been overlooked by L.D elekat

(pp.667)

and M.

Rose (pp .

28 9), who compare th e

usage

in

cognate

languages

and claim to find a

Moabite example

of a

suffix with

a

proper

n am e .

They suggest thatjhwh

in

line

18 of the

M oabite S tone (K AI 181)

is

not the longer form of the d iv ine nam e Yahweh, but the shorter form jh w

with a

third person singular

suff ix in

-h ,

4

which Delekat reads

s Yhuw-

. They compare w*qh

.

msm

.

3

/r

3

///

.

jhwh

.

w*shb

. hm .

Ipnj

.

kms

3

This view is mainta ined by B .N.

Wambacq,

L 'epithete divineJahve

S

e

ba">ot,

1947, 100.

4

Rose's discussion of matres lectionis in the Moabite stone (pp.

25-7)

presents a view that

is difficult to accept. He says on p. 25: Ob die Mesa-Inschrift matres lectionis in

Auslaut

voraussetzt, m u unsicher

bleiben.

Yet he appears to recognize on p. 26 that a final -h

can represent an o

vowel.

H e explainsbnh, he buil t, in line 18 s *ban , and





5/19

6 J. A.Emerton,N ewLighton Israelite

Religion

(lines 17-18) with w*sb

.msm .

3

f .

V

3

/

.

dwdh .

w'[s]hbh

. Ipnj .kms

( lines 12-13), and argue that, since d w d h has a

suffix, jhwh

is likely to

have one

s

well.

It

does not necessarily follow, however,

that

thecon-

structions of the two sentences must be identicalin

every

detail, any mor e

than two of the corresponding verbs

are

(w*qh

and

w*sb).

If it was not

the practice to use a suffix with a proper name, then the writer would not

have

done

so

even

in a

sentence comparable with

ano ther

sentence

in

which a

c ommon noun

had a

suffix. De leka t

and

Rose are

influenced in

their

reading

of the Moabi te

text

by

their theory tha t

jhw was the

or ig ina l

form of the divine name, and tha t

jhwh

was not introduced unt i l

later.

Delekat

dates

the

longer

form of the

name between

722 and 621B.C.

(pp.

68-9),

and Rose

s

late s the reign of Josiah (pp.35-6). Yet if

MeshePs dat ing of the

Kunt i l le t

'Aj rud

inscriptions is correct, then the

form jhwh ( in addition to the shorter form

jhw

on a stone vessel s ee

Meshel,

1978)is attested

earlier than

is

compatible with

th e

theory

of

Delekat and Rose. The latter, indeed,

offers

an explana t ion , not of the

Kuntil let

'Ajrud inscriptions, but of a text

from

Kh i r be t

^el-Qom,

which

is

emended

by

L em aire (see section

IIIbelow) to

read

brk . *rjhw .Ijhwh .

wl^srth, and for

which Rose offers

the

translation gesegnet

sei

Ur i j ahu

von

seinem

JHW und von

seinerAschera

(p. 29, n.

104). S u c h

a construc-

tion will not,however,

fit the

Kuntil let

^Ajrud

inscriptions with

the

ve rb

in

the

first

person and with the second

person

s ingu lar or plura l

s

object:

brktk and brkt

.

*tkm (seep. 2above) . The existence of the newly-dis-

covered inscriptions from

adate not far

removed

from

tha t

of the

Moabite

S tone scarcely fav ou rs their explana tion ofjhwh in line 18 of tha ttext.

D river's argum ents are cri t icized by M . Tsevat. The use of pro no m inal

Suffixes with proper names

is,

claim s Tsevat,

different from the use of

such

names

in the

construct

state ( though he

does

not

note that Driver 's argu-

ments

are

re levant

to his

refutation

of

Obe r ma nn ,

who

denies

on p. 305

th e possibility of such a usage except in Arabic). Further, Driver 's under-

standing

of PS

3823

is

dependent

on the

L X X ,

not on the M.T.

which

is

perfectly satisfactory;

and

E z 3 8 2

is

very

probably a case of a wrong

word division ( p.54).More fundamenta l ly , he regards s un satis facto ry

D river 's fo rm ula tion of the opinion that h e

attacks,

n am ely , th a t p roper

names

s

such cannot stand in the construct state. According to Tsevat,

This

may be an

acceptable formula t ion

for first

orientation

but it is too

inaccurate

for

scholarly

s tudy .

Instead,

he

prefers Hebrew

and

other

ancient

Semitic languages avoid

certain

kinds

of

overdetermination

of

substantives (p .

52).

It is certainly

true

that Driver's discussion takes no

account

of the careful

distinctions

mad e in G.K. and

states

th e

issue

in

terms

that are too general, although it

seems

a

fair

refuta t ion of what

Obermann says

on p.

305.

D river 's exam ples

fall

into two classes (apart

from

proper names with

pronominal

suffixes).

First, there are place names, but he

fails

to discuss





6/19

J. A.

Em erton,

N ew

Light

o n

Israeli te Religion

7

the

points

m a d e

by G.K., and

there

is no

need

to

repeat them here.

Secondly,there are personal names, whether ofhu m an beings or of deines.

As far

s hum an names

are

concerned,

the

Arabic

Kh t im of

(the tribe

of)

T a y y m ay be

compared with what

w as

said above about

place

names.

There were doubtless a number of people called Khtim, and it was neces-

sary to dist inguish a part icular bearer of the n a m e from all the others. In

the

case

of

divine names, there

is no difficulty

about

th e

e lement

B a a l ,

because

the word

b

f

l

has not

lost

its

sense

of lord

(cp. Delekat,

p.

66).

Thus,

b

f

l

smd

(KAI24, 15), to wh ich D rive r refers, m ay

mean

L ord of

th e c lub . The

usage

is

analogous

to

that

of gib't sa*l.

Tsevat

goes

farther and

points

out

tha t

m a n y

m em bers

of

Oriental pantheons were

in

frequent danger of losing their identi ty (p .

52) .

The word istar, for exam-

ple, in Mesopotamia can

mean either

th e

goddess Ishtar

or goddess in

general.

S imilar ly ,

the words for B a a land Astarte are used in the p lu ra lin

the Old Testament, and the place na m e Ana thoth appears to be a plu ral of

the name of the goddess Anath. These words oscillate between proper

and common

nouns

(p. 53). It m ight at first sight seem

more doubtful

whether

thesamewas

true

of

Resheph,

for

whom

Driver cites

the

phrases

[rs]p njjt (KAI413-4), and rsp mkl (KAI

382;

39a ; 40s); and rsp sprm

(KAI 26 A II, 10-11.12), rsp

hs ( K A I

32s.4) ,

and,

in

Ugaritic,

rsp gn (RS 16.

179 = KTU4.219 = UT1088, line3) mightbe added to the list.

Tsevat,

however, refers to

S.A.Cook,

The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the

Light

of

Archaeology,

1930, 112,

who

mentions

an

Egy ptiantext

in

which

officers of

Ramses

III

are said

to be

mighty

-

> l i k e

the Reshephs


7/19

8 J. A.Emerton, NewLighton Israelite Religion

other band, I do not know of any evidence that the names of

f

nt, agod-

dess with

a

distinctpersonality ,

and

*atrt

y

th e

wife

of El,

were used

in

such

a way in

Ugar i t ic

texts, and yet

they appear

to be

used

in the

construct

state. W e

read of < n t

spn

in CTA 36. 17 and RS 24.

253. 13-14

=

K TU

1.

109. 13-14;

and *nt

d > i

in

R S 2 4 .

252.

8 = KTU 1.

108.

8 is

another

possible example, although it is admittedly obscure. The phrase *atrtymis

often thought

to mean

Ath i ra t

of the Se a ; but,if

Albright's Suggestion

(1953,

pp .77-8) tha t the

first

word is a participle and that the phrase

means She

who

Wa lks

on the

Sea

or in the

Sea

is

correct, then *atrt

is

not used

s

a proper name in the fllest sense. Y et Albright 's theory is far

from certain and,in any case, * > a t r t

srm

in CTA 14. 4. 201 probably

means Ath i ra t of the Tyr ians (cp. *iltsdynm, th e goddess of the Sido-

nians ,

in

line

202), and certainly not

S h e

who W a l k s on the T y r ia n s .I t

m ay

be added that, even wh ere divine nam es are not used in a generic

sense, their appearance in the construct state may indicate a particular

manifestation of a deity in

distinction from other manifesta t ions

of the

same deity; e.g. the mani fes ta t ionof Ath i ra t at Tyre in distinction from

that at

Ugar i t . (And

we shall see in

section

II

tha t

not all the different

phrases containingb

f

l necessarily denote

different

gods.) In contrast to the

use in the

construct state

of the

na me s

of

pagan deities, Tsevat maintains

that there is no onom atological need wh atsoever to determ ine the na m e

Yahweh in the manner and for the reasons that the above names are deter-

mined

(p.

54).

The discussion before the discoveries at K un tille t 'Ajru d cann ot b e

said to have reached a decisive conclusion. On the one hand, i t may be

argued that,

if place

names

can be

used

in the

construct

state in

certain

circumstances

in

Hebrew,

and if

personal names

in

Phoenician, Ugaritic,

and Aramaic

are

apparently sometimes used

in the

construct state,

the

question arises whether it isjustifiable to confinethe Hebrew usage to the

circumstances

recognized by

G.

K. and

Tsevat.

On the

other,

i t may be

replied that

we are

concerned with Hebrew usage,

not

wi th wha t

is

done

even

in closely related languages. What is needed is a convincing Hebrew

parallel to support the

view

that the

disputed phrase

can

mean

Yahweh

of s*ba*t. Indeed, even

th e

theory that there

is an

ellipse

of

^lohe,

and

that

the phrase means Yahweh ( the God) ofs

e

ba

y

t,would bestrongerif

there were

a

Hebrew parallel .

The needed Hebrew evidenceis now supplied by the inscriptions

from

Kuntillet 'Ajrud but,s fa r

s I am aware, nobody has drawn out the

implications for the phrase

jhwh

s

e

ba*t .

It

was,

indeed, not

unti l

I had

prepared

the

first draft

of the

present articlethat

I

cameacross

M .

Gilula's

discussion of the inscriptions, in which he

contrasts

Y ahweh of fba*t

with Y ahw eh of

Samar ia

from a religiouspoint of view, or had access

to Z. MesheFs article of

1979,

in which he notes th e possible syntactical

difficulty in

understanding

jhwhsmrn

s Y a h w e h

of

Samar ia

and

says





8/19

J. A.Em erton,NewLightonIsraelite Religion 9

Yhwh > Y a h w e h < isnever followed by a proper name (withthe exception

of th e titletsebaot, usually translated >God of

Hosts t h e god of

eternity. E 1

to be in a

construct relationship

to the

noun

f

lam. The new

evidence

suggests that

th e

possibility

can no

longer

be

excluded

on the ground of

syntax.

II

What are the religious

implications

of the

phrases Yahweh

of

Sa m a r i a

and

Yahweh

of

T e m a n ?

The

former obviously includes

the

idea

that

Yahwehw as worshipped at Samaria , whatever fur ther.m eaning

it

ma y ha ve

possessed,

and the

words

were

very

likely

w ritten

by a travel-

le r

from S am aria, in the latter , how ever, T eman is unlikely to be the nam e

of a

town.

The word can denote the south in general, but it is also used in

connexion w ith Edom. I t prob ably denotes a region of Edom rather than a

town,

and it is

perhaps also used

s

almost

a

s y n o n y m

of the

land

of

Ed om.

7

A

reference

is

m a d e

to

this region

in Hab33,

which teils

how

God

c a me

from

T e m a n ,

and the

parallel

is

a n d

the Holy One from

6

Fulco (p. 42) understands the phrase to mean

Resep

of the army/host . M.

Liverani,

Le

preistoria delPepiteto Yahweh seb^t,

AION, N.S. 17

(1967), 331-4, however,

believes that it means Reshef

il

soldato. He suggests that th e word s b > i in theUgaritic

text may be in the gen itive case

because

it is required by the whole context, not because

rsp is in the

construct

state.

7

S ee R. de V aux, Teman,villeou region d'tdom?, RB76 (1969),379 -85.





9/19

10 J. A.

Emerton,

New

Light

on

Israelite Religion

Mount P a ra n . Since

the

region

is in

Edomite

territory, it is

unlikely that

the

phrase

at Kunti l let 'Ajrud refers to a cult of

Yah w eh

in

Teman, unless

we are to suppose that, s in the Kenite hypothesis , Yahweh was wor-

shipped by nomadic groups in the south, and that the cult continued s

late

sc. 800 B .C . and was to be

found

in Edom. The m e a n i n gi s

likely

to

be similar to

that

to Hab33: it is

from

the southern region

that

Yahweh

has come, and it belongs in a special way to him . It is possible to com pare

Dtn332

and

Jdc54,

and also ze sinj in

Jdc5s

and PS689 if the phrase

means theOne of S ina i or the Lord of S ina i . Kunti l le t 'Ajrud was a

halting-place

for travellers,

m a ny

of

whom would

be going

south.

We do

not know precisely how far west

Edom's

inf luence extended at this period

but,

be

that s

it

m a y ,

the

idea

of

Y ahweh 's connexion with Teman wou ld

be relevant to a blessing on someone who hoped for

divine

protection on

the journey .

M .Gilula advances a theory tha t there were two Ya hwis t ic t radi t ions

in

Israel:

the

tradit ion

of

jhwh

s

e

f c t f

3

o , which

was

associated with

the ark

in Shi lohand later in Jerusalem, and the tradit ion of the northern t r ibes ,

which he identifies wi th that of

Ya hw e h

of S a m a r ia ,and each t radi t ion

had a different cult ic symbol. In this connexion, he

offers

an Interpretation

of a drawing of three figures on the same jar on which the inscription

mentioning Yahweho f Samar ia isfound . At the right is a female being

p lay ing the lyre, of

which

he

says little.

In the

middle

is a

figure

which

Meshel

identifies with

the Egyptian god

Bes,

but

which Gilula believes

to

be female. It has

breasts,

and he

th inks that w hat

he

regards

s a

penis

( or

is it a

tail?)

is a later addition to the drawing. The third figure, on the left,

which

Meshel takes to be another representation of Bes, is thought by

Gilula

to be in bovine shape. Since the drawing of the three figures comes

immediately below

the

inscription indeed,

it

overlaps

the

bottom

of the

inscription

- he

believes that

the

words Y ahweh

of

Sam ar i a

and his

Asherah

refer

to the middle and

left-hand

figures (but not apparently the

one on the right). The supposedly

female figure

in the m iddle is Ash erah ,

and the

figure

on the left is Yahweh in the form of a young bul l < e g < z l ) .

Gilula

associates the y oun g bull with the

story

in Ex 32 and the accou nt of

the

images

of

y o u n g bulls

that

Jeroboam

set up at Dan and

Bethel

(IReg 1 2 2 8 f f . etc.). The theory is interesting, but

venturesome.

There is ,s

he

admits,

nocertainty

that

the

inscription

w as

intended

to

describe

the

draw ing ( an d it ma y be added that it would be strnge for a description of

a

drawing

of

three figures

to

mention only

two of

them), and,

in any

case,

he builds a

great

deal on a narrow foundation. Further, he

wrote

before

the publication of the phrase Y ahw eh of Tem an , which complicates

matters

for his theory, because it is no longer possible to think simply of a

contrast betweenjhwhfba*t (a phrase that does not appear on any of

the inscriptions from Kuntillet

f

Ajrud that have been published so fa r)

and

Y a h w e h

of

S am ar ia .





10/19

J.

A.

Em erton,

New

Light

on

Israeli te Religion

The use of the te t ragrammaton fol lowedby a

place

name remindsu s of

th e place names like Ur of the Chaldees that were considered in section I

above,

and of the divine

n am es

in

which

one

n a m e

is

further defined

by

another .

That raisesthe question whether that usage can shed light on the

phrases

Ya hw e h

of Samar ia and Yahweh of

T em an

at

Kunti l le t

'Aj-

rud.

In the case of place names, we have seen that the second element was

usually added in order to make it plain which of the different places bear-

ing

the

first

e lement

s

the i r name was intended in a part icular context .

S om ething similar seems to have been true of at

least some divine

names

with two elements. Here we encounter an old problem in t r y ing to inter-

pret

the

n a tu re

of the

Canaanite rel igion described

in the Old

Testament,

part icularly th e

references

to Ba a l or

Baals .

The

subject

is

well discussed

by

M . J.M ulder in

Ba^al

in het Oude Testament, hisdissertation at the

Free

Universi ty

of Amsterdam (1962). The Old Testament sometimes

speaks

of b

Cf

alim and

f

start

in the

plural ,

and

that might lead

us to

suppose that there were

m a n y

different deities bearing the names

B aal

and

Astarte. The rele va nt passages are, however, polem ical in charac ter, and it

is

possible

to ask

whether

the

Canaanites would themselves have described

their religion in the same way. Did they believe that there were m a n y

Baals, or that they were all different

forms

of the same Baa l? The word

manifes ta t ions is sometimes used in the discussion, and it is perhaps the

best

term

to use of the

second explanation, even though

it is not at

once

clear precisely what is me a n t by it. It is not easy for us in the twentieth

Century to be certain which Interpretat ion iscorrect. Sometimes, indeed, it

seemsthat more than one god is meant. We have seen in section I that a

Ugarit ic text refers to more than one Resheph. It is also clear that the

word b

f

l can be used of more than one deity, which is not surprising in

view

of its meaning

lo rd .Thus,

in the Ki lamuwa

inscription from

Zen-

jirli of about 825 B .C . ( K A I 2 4 ) th e gods

b

f

l

smd and b

f

l hmn (lines

15-16)

are

distinct,

and the god

named

rkbH

is

given

the

epithel

b

f

l

bt,

lord of the house

( l ine

16). Similarly ,the Azitawadda inscription from

Karatepe

about

a Century later

(KAI

26) distinguishes between

b

f

l

krntrjs

(A II 19, etc.) and b

f

l smm (A III 18), and it seems to be the former to

whom reference

is

m a d e

in the

short

form b

f

l

in

some places (lines

l ff.,

etc.). Yet the fact

tha t Baa l could

be

used

of

more than

one god

does

not prove that it could not be used predominantlyof one

pre-eminent

god

in certain contexts.

In the

U gari tic my thologicaltexts,

b

f

l

appears sv i r tu-

ally the proper name of the god who is also known

s

hd

(probably *had-

du,

i.e.

H a d a d ) .

In view of the many points of

contact

between the Baal

religion at Ugar i t and the Old Testament there is a

good

case for suppos-

ing that m an y of the references to B aal in the lat ter are to the same deity ,

even though h is name may be fur ther defined by the addition of another

word. For example, b

f

l b

e

rit ( Jdc833 , 94) may well have been regarded

s essential ly th e s am e s the god or gods presupposed by such place





11/19

12 J. A.Emerton,New Lighton Israelite Religion

names s b

f

l gd (Joslli?), b

e

l

hcermn

(JdcSs, I C h r 5 2 3 ) , and

perhaps even th e

Moabite

b

f

a l

p

f

r

( N u m 2 5 3 .

s,

Dtn43, PS 1062g; and

the

expression

is

apparently used

s a place

n a m e

in Hos 9 io ) .

b

f

l z

e

bb

is

described

s

>

x

lohe

f

& q r n

in

IIReg

12. 3. 6.

10,

but

that

does not

necessarily prove that he was distinct

from

other gods

nam ed B aal, for i t is

possible to regard h im s thegreatgodB a al sm anifestedand

worshipped

in Ekron.

Although

th e p lura lof the noun

b

f

l

is

sometimes

employed in

polemical

contexts,

it also frequently appears in the singular with the

definite article shbb'l, referring to one particular Baal. We have seen

that

the

Karatepe inscription

can use

b

f

l s

ashort way of

referr ing

to b

f

l

krntrjs

but

there

is

nothing

to

suggest that

theOld

Testament

has in

m in d

different

par t icular Baals

on the

different occasions when

it

ment ions

hbb

f

l.

It is more

natura l

to

suppose

that

it

refers

to the same

major

god, s in the Ugaritic texts. It is, therefore, likely tha t

m a n y

of thed iv ine

names conta iningb

f

l s

one

element

refer to the

same deity .

He was

wor-

shipped in different places, and there were doubtless

local

var ia t ionsin the

cult, but ,

in

general,

the different

Baa ls

w r

probably viewed s essential-

ly

th e

same god.

It has been suggested that something similar w as

true

of populr

Israelite

religion,

in which the nam e of Yahweh wasassociated with sever-

al different

sanctuaries.

For example, K. B udde, D ie B cher S am uel, 1902,

4,

offers

the fol lowing comm ent on Fhisth*wot

w

c

lizboh

Ijhwh

fba*t

b

e

sil

i n ISam 13: Wir werden in eineZeit versetzt, wo man den [glei-

chen]Gottderverschiedenen Anbetungssttten unterscheidet undverschie-

den wertet, and he compares Ijhwh b

e

h brnin II S am15?.The case fo r

insisting on such an

understanding

of the former name s Y a h w e h in

Shiloh

is weak, but the Interpretation is possible; the case for Yahweh

in Hebron in the latter isstronger,

although

it is not certain. H. Donner

develops the argument farther and compares, not only I I S am15?, but also

I

Reg

1228

where th e plural verb is used with th e golden calves in Bethel

and Dan s subject in the words hinne **loh&ka jisra^el

*saer

h

fX

-

lka me^cerces misrajim. He recognizes that officially there was only one

Yahweh, Aberwas lag nher, als daJahwe in der Frmmigkeit des Vol-

kes an der lokalen Vielgestaltigkeit teilnahm, die f r die kanaanische

Baalsreligion charakteristisch gewesen war? Da es nun einen Jahwe von

Bethel, einen von Dan, und womglich von Sichern, Jerusalem, Beerseba

usw. gab, und da es keineswegs gleichgltig war, an welchen dieser Jah-

wes man sich wandte? ( p.49).

While

the evidence from

Kuntillet

'Ajrud

scarcely

suffices

to prove a

theory

of P o ly ja hwismus ,

s

it iscalled by

Donner, it can be interpreted in such a way , and it can reasonably be

claimedthat itoffers somesupport for it.

We mus t

not read too m u ch into the inscriptions, but theiruse of the

phrases Ya hwe hof

Samar ia

and Ya hwe h of Teman needs to be ex-

plained.

The

former phrase

was

probably written

by

someone

from





12/19

J. A.

Emerton,

New

Light

on

Israelite Religion

13

Samar ia

who, while he did not believein a multiplicity of deities named

Yahweh, thought

it

best

to

pray

to

Yahweh

s he was

worshipped

in

Samar ia .

The latter probably associates Yahweh with Teman and the

southern region in general, not only because the connexion had a tradi-

t ional background

( H a b

33),

but because it was re levant to a

journey

in

the region to the south of J uda h . H e presu m ably worshipped Yahw eh in

some place other than Teman, and the phrase Yahwehof Te ma n did

not denote adeitydifferent from Y ah weh of S a m a r ia ,or perhaps

Y a h -

weh of Jersualem or whatever it was, but the needs of the Situation led

h im

to recall the one

Yahweh ' s

traditional connexion with Teman when

he

invoked

a

blessing

on a friend.

III.

W e

m us t

now consider the

f inal

e lement in the phrases Yahwehof

Samar ia

and his Asherah and Y a h w e h of Teman and his A she r a h .

With them m ay be compared an eighth

Century

inscription from Khirbet

^el-Qom, 14km west of Hebron and 10km east-south-east of Lachish,

which

has

words

that are read by A. Lem aire (pp.597 603) s brk . *rjhw

.

Ijhwh

.

wmsrjh

.

l^srth

.

hws

f

lh (lines 1-3). Lem aire suggests

that

a

scribe has made a mistake and that the last few

words

should be read

s

Ijhwh

.

wl*srth

.

msrjh

.

hws

f

lh.

s

The

meaning would then

be

Ben i

soit

U r y a h u

par

Y h w h

et par son

asherah;

de ses

ennemis,ill'a sauve.

W h a t

is meant by his Asherah? The

word

was

understood

by

Meshel in 1978 to mean cellaor sy m bol , but G ilula 's

article

arguesthat

the word never has that m eanin g in the Bible, andthat it denotes thegod-

dess Asherah or her symbol. Further, he infers from the inscription

that

she was regarded

s

Yahweh's

consort.

His Interpretation of the inscrip-

tion

is

associated with

his theory

tha t

the

figure

on the

left

of the

drawing

on the jar is

Yahweh,

and

tha t

the

middle

figure is

Asherah,

but it is not

dependent on it. Meshel's article of 1979 modifies his earlier Statement

and recognizes that the goddess Asherah may be regarded

s

Yahweh ' s

consort- hencethequestionin thearticle's title- but hedoesnotbelieve

such

an understanding to be the only possibility (p. 31).

It would not be surpr is ingif Yahweh were thought to have a wife in

some kinds

of

populr religion

- or,

indeed,

in

some fo rms

of

official

religion.

The Old Testament contains polemic against Astarte and

Asherah, and the latter ism entioned in connexion, not only with an altar

of

Baa l

(Jdc

625-30),

but

also with Yahweh's altar (Dtn

1621),

and is

even

installed in the Jerusa lem temple and has to be removed in a reformation

(IReg 1513, II Reg 184,

21?,

234 . 6.

?).

There is no difficulty in supposing

8

According

to Weinfeld ( p.

280,

n. 2), J.

Naveh suggests

th e

readingnsrj, m y protector

whereL em ai re

reads

wmsrjh.





13/19

14 J. A.

Emerton,

New

Light

on

Israelite Religion

that Asherah m ay have been

the

wife

of

Yahweh

in

such

a

syncretist ic

cult, jus t

s

Athirat was the wife of El in the Ugariticpantheon. Further,

there

is the

analogy

of

evidence

at

Elephantine

in the

fifth

Century

B . C .

that a Jew

could

swear, not only by jhw

3

//?

3

(if the text is rightly res-

tored)

and the

temple

(or

perh aps stele

- msgd*),

9

but also by 'ntjhw

(AP 44, 3).

W.F .Alb r ig h t

a t tempted in

1925 (pp . 92-7)

to

explain < nt

in

this word

and in

f

ntbjt*l (AP

22,

125)

s nomore

than

th e providence [or

predestination] of God , and thus merely a hypostat ization of a d iv ine

quali ty , and a sim ilar view was m ainta ined by him in 1953 (p. 174),

though

here in the form of Sign (of the Active Presence) of God or

Wil l

of

God (cp. 1957,

p.

373).

It is,

however,

difficult to

separate

f

nt here

from

the well-known goddess Anath, and

R . B o r g e r

has argued that an

Accadian treaty of c. 676 B .C. between E sarhaddon of Assy ria and

Baa l ,

the king of Ty re, contains a refere nce to Anath-Bethel s a deity, and the

first

e lementin the n am esatE lephant ine cannot c onvincinglybeexp la ined

in the way

suggested

by

Albright .

In his book of

1968

(p.

197) Albright

refers to Borger's article and says that his own earlier views

require

mod-

ification t o d a y ; it is not

clear

wh ether he has abandoned his earlier theo-

ry ,

but

that

is

perhaps impl ied

by his

S ta tement that

these

Aramaic gods

appear at Elephantine

s > B e t h e l Anath-bethel


14/19

J. A.Em erton,New Lighto n Israelite Religion 15

there is no satisfactory al ternative.

I f

the writers had intended to refer to

Yahweh

and his

consort Asherah ,

we

should have expected them

to

write

Ijhwh wl'srh > s t h

or the

like

(cp. Gen12s. 11,

2014,

I S a m

119, 19n,

etc.).

It

is for that reason that Meshel (1979, p. 31) does not regard 'srth s a

proper

n ame

with a

suffix.

He suggests three other possibilities.

First, Meshel notes that, i f Asherah had the generic meaning of a

female deity who was Yahweh 's consort, then the possessive form

could

have been used.

It is

p resumably

in

this sense that

he

notes

s a

possible

t ranslat ion

h is (Y ahw eh's) consort (cp.

Tsevat's

argument, which was

considered

in

section

I

above). However, while

th e

possibility

of

such

a

generic sense cannot be excluded, there

seems

to be no evidence for it. In

the Old Testament, the word has the meaningdescribed in the following

paragraph.

Second,

he

suggests that his Asherah

m ay be an

example

of the

meaning an object, usual ly a

tree,

which sym bol izes a dei ty . The word

^ser in the Old

Testament

is,

indeed, often regarded

by

scholars

s a

wooden object represen ting the goddess Ashera h (see, for exa mp le,

W .L .

Reed,

The

Asherah

in the Old

Testa m ent, 1949).

It is

said

to be

ma de

ofwood and can be cut down (Jdc 625. 28.30, IIReg2314) and bu rn t

( Jdc626 , I I R e g 2 3 i s ) ,

and the

verb

nat

f

,

to

p l an t ,

is

used

of it

(D tn 1621). S everal passages in the M ish na regard the Ash erah

s

a tree

(Aboda

Zara

III

7-10;

cp. Orla I

7-8, S uk ka

III

1-3,

5), and the LX X

usually

renders

it , grove, and has , trees, in Jes17s,

279. J.C.

de

Moor, however, rightly points

out

that some

of the

evidence

does not suit a

living

tree: the Asherah is fou nd un der trees (I Reg 1423,

II

Reg

1710), and it ismade

(

f

sh , IRegl4is,

1633, IIReg1710,

213.

7); and

it may be added that it was set up

(wjjssib^

IIReg

1710). Moreover,

IIReg21

?

refers

to p&s&l ha^ser,

which suggests

that it was an image

of

a

goddess

- though, s Lemaire points out (p.606, n.55), the

phrase

pour ra i t

aussi designer

une

representation

figuree

(sculptee

ou

fondue)

d'un

arbre

sacre .

It is, therefore, likely to have been some kind of woo-

den symbol of the goddess Asherah. This understanding of the

word fits

the inscriptions from Kunti l let

f

Ajrud . People are blessed by Yahweh and

the wooden symbol of the goddess Asherah. If it was possible at Elephan-

t ine

to swear by the

msgd*

(whatever precisely i t may have been)

s

well

s byjhw and

f

ntjhw,

there is no

difficulty

in supposing that blessings at

Kuntil let

f

Ajrud m ay have been by the symbol of Asherah

s

well s by

Yahweh .

W e

have seen that

her

symbol

was

sometimes associated with

the

al tar or

temple

of

Y a h w e h ,

and so it

could

be

called

his

Asherah . Yah-

weh, however, rem ain s m ore impo rtant th an the sym bol of the goddess

associated with h im, and tha t m ay be the reason why he alone is the sub-

ject of the following verbsin the *mrjw inscription (seep. 3 above).

Third,

Meshel suggests s a possible meaning of Asherah a

cella

or

holy of

holies

(or sh r ine ) .

This

is the

same

s the only

explanation

that he





15/19

16 J. A.

Em erton,

New

Light

on

Israelite Religion

offered in 1978. A sim ilartheory

about

the biblical evidence was advan ced

by

E.

Lipinski

in

1972,

andthat

theory will

now be

examined.

Lipinski surveys

the

ancient Near Eastern evidence

for the

goddess

Athirat

in

several countries

and

languages.

H e

denies, however, that

the

Hebrew

word **ser is

ever used

of her

(pp.

111-16).

10

The two places

where

the

word seems

to

designate

a

goddess

or her

e m bl e m

are

both

textual ly doubtfu l

( p .

114).

In

Jdc3?

the

readingha*sert

is to be

reject-

ed in

favour

of the variant

ha

f

start

y

which is wha t Jdc2i3, 10o, and

I S a m 7 4 ,

1210

lead us to expect. In

IReg1819

the words the

four

h u n -

dred

prophets

of the

Asherah

are an

Interpolation: these prophets

play

nopariin the

rest

of the

story,

and the

phrase

is

ma rked w ith

an

asterisk

in

the Hexapla to indicate that it was not an original part of the LXX. The

genuine references to

*ser

in the Hebrew

Bib le

are to be explained

differently, andLipinski m aintainsthatt heword has two related meanings.

According to Lipinski , the fundamental meaning of Asherah is

place,and so it can be

used

in the

Old

Testament

to

denote

a

chapel

or

shr ine . This theory about

the

etymology

is not

new,

for Albright 's ar t icle

of

1925

(p.

100) suggests

it, and it is

accepted

by de Moor.

Lipinski ,

however, maintains, not merelythat this is the etymology of Asherah , but

that the

word

has

this meaning

in

several places

in the

Bible.

H e

compares

similar Accadian

words

which

all

designate

shrines, chapels,

sanc-

tuaries,

and

also Phoenician ^srt

and

5

sr,

Old

Aramaic

3

srt,

and

later

Aramaic

3

M

3

(in the

emphatic state)

and

V r.

The Old Testament

speaks

of making and

setting

up (see above), building

(wjjibn^

I Reg

1423),

and

restoring (ufh ^mid,

I I C h r 3 3 i 9

- but

does

theverb mean restored?)

an

Asherah.

He

explains wjjascem ^aet-p&s&l

ha^ser

*scer

f

as

bb-

bjit ( IIR eg21

?), where many have seen a reference to an image of

Asherah,

s

follows. Lipinski translates

thewords

an d

he put in the tem-

ple

the

idol

of the

*serthat

he had

m ad e ,

and

suggests

that

the

refer-

ence is to a shrine

(^ser)

containing an idol or emblem

(p&s&l),

which the king ventured to t ransfer with its shrine to the temple ofYah -

weh (p .113). Lipinski wrote before the inscriptions

from

Kunt i l le t

r

Aj-

rud

were discovered,

but his

theory,

no less

than

the

theory that

the

*sera

was the

wooden symbol

of a

goddess, suits

them

and is

compa-

tible with acomparison between a blessing by Yahweh and h is Ashera h

and the oath in AP 44, 3,which wasmentioned

above.

Lipinski's other

mean ing

for

Asherah, which

he finds in

the oldest

biblical

texts,

Jdc

625-30

and Dtn 1621,

s

well

s

in several

other

places,

10

Lemaire

(p.

603,

n. 37)

asks why,

if

Asherah

was the

name

of a

goddess

in the Bible, it

does not appear in Hebrew or Phoenician and Punic names. I t may beobserved, however,

that, a l though F.Grndahl , D iePersonennamen derTexte aus Ugarit, 1967,

316,

records

th e

n a m e abdi-a-sar-ti

in

syl labiccuneiform

at

Ugarit,

no

examples

of *atrt in

personal

names in alphabetic cuneiform are recorded. Yet the religious texts show that she was an

important goddess.





16/19

J. A.

Em erton,

New

Light

on

Israeli te Religion

17

is

a

woody spot,

a

Canaanite sacred grove

(p. 112 - so too

Albright ,

1968,

p .

166),

and we

hav e seen that this und erstan ding

has the

support

o f

the LXX (cp. the Mishna ic

belief

that it was a sacred tree).The explana-

tion suits the ve rbs used of an A shera h in severa l passages ( pla ntin g, cut-

ting,

burning) ,

and

Lipinski

advances

an

a rg u m en t ( w h ich

will

be

consid-

ered below) that

Jdc

6 2 5 - 3 0

refers

to a grove, and not a single wooden

sy m bol of a goddess. He c onnects this m ea nin g of^ser with the other by

writ ing

of a

shrine, which

can be a

sacred grove

or a

chapel

(p.

114).

Lipinski 's article is v a lu ab le for the ancient Near Eastern mater ia l

tha t

he

collects,

and for his

character is t ical ly learned

and

interesting dis-

cussion

of it.

Nevertheless,

his

eva lua t ion

of the O ld

Testament m ater ia l

is

open to

question.

In the

first

place, i t may be

asked whether

his

Interpreta-

tion of

II

Reg21? is the most probable. I f th e writer wished to say tha t

Manasseh t rans fer red

an

idol

or

emblem

...

with

its

shrine

to the

tem-

ple, why did he not write

^cet-happcesael

w

e

*&t-ha^

a

ser, instead of

*&t-

pazscel

ha^ser? I I C h r 3 3 ?

substituted

hss&mcel

for

ha *

a

ser,

and ap-

pare ntly did not un derstand the lat ter word in the way favoured by Lipins-

ki. It seems natural to translate

paesael ha^ser

the image of the

As h e rah ,

and p&scel isused in the construct state beforea word orwords

denoting what is represented by it in D t n 4 i 6 . 2 3 . 2 5 , s well s in

IIChr33?;

otherwise ( apar t from textually dubious occurrences in Dtn5s,

Jdc

18is)

it is

used with

mik

in Jdc

18

31

to

indicate

that

Micah

was the

owner of the image (cp. the use with the

suffix

in

Jes

4417,4520 ,

48s),

but

that is not the same s the meaning suggested by Lipinski for IIReg21?.

Further ,

the

related noun p

e

si/

is

used

in the

construct plural before

the

word

gods,

i.e. before the beings represented by the images, in Dtn 725,

123,

Jes 219

(s well

s

before

a

word denoting

the

substance

of

which

the

images are mad e in

Jes

3022; and the noun can also be used with a suffix

denoting ownership) . Whi le Lipinski's unders tanding of

II

Reg

21?

is not

impossible, it does not seem th e most l ikely. Secondly, it is possible to

offer a

different Interpretat ion

of the

evidence

of Jdc625-30, where

Lipin-

ski believes that the *ser

consisted

at least of several trees. Not only

the

text

speaks explicitlyof

>the

trees ( ) of the

> a s e r < ,

but these trees had

to fu rn i sh

fuel

for the sacrifice of a bullock ( v. 26) and Gideon needed ten

of his servants to cut them down (v .27 ) (p . 112). In the phr ase

e

*se

ha^ser

(Jdc620), however,

the

p lu ra l

of

f

es

m ay

denote simply pieces

of wood, s in some other places in the Hebrew

Bible,

and not t rees.

N or

need

the

fact tha t

the

Asherah

w as

used s fuel

for the

fire under

the

sacrifice

imply

that it supplied all the

fuel

and that no other

wood

w as

used. Further, Gideon's servants were not emp loyed solely in cutt ing down

the Asherah: they also

had to

demolish

the altar of

B aal,build

a newaltar,

and look af ter the bull - quite apart from the possible need for a body-

guard

if

anyone discovered what

was

happening. Third ly ,

the

verbs used

with an Asherah s the object are compatible with the

theory

that it was a





17/19

18 J. A.Em erton,New Lighton Israelite Religion

wooden

s y m bo lof agoddess.

Even

the verb

wjjibn

in I Reg 1423 is not a

difficulty. It

m ay have been chosen primarily because it is

appropriate

to

the first two objectsbamtmssebt (cp. Lemaire,p .606), and it isused

in th e q a l in

Gen

222 of fashioning a rib into a

woman,

and in the

niph

f

a l

of

people being established

or

buil t

up in Gen

162,

3(h,

Jer12ie,Mal 3

is ,

Hi2223, and could

scarcely

be

said

to be impossible with a

wooden Sym-

bol of a

goddess

s its

object. Fourthly,

i t may be

doubted whether Lipins-

ki

is right to distinguish th e Asherah in II

Reg

184,

2314.

is from th e

Asherah in I Reg 1423,II Reg 1710, and to maintain that th e form er verses

refer

to a

grove

and the

latter

to a

shrine

( p.

112).

All the

verses contain

a

polemic against bamot,

massebt,

and^ser or^serim, and it is na tu ra l

to

suppose that

the

Asherah

has the

same meaning

in

each verse.

The

former

group of verses refers to the Asherah beingcut down and

Lipinski

agrees that a shrine is not meant, and the lat ter says that the Asherah was

found under a tree and teils against the v iew that it was a grove. I f both

groups of verses are taken together, they suggest that the Asherah was

neither a shrine nor agrove.

Fif thly , Lipinski

does not consider II Reg234,

which speaks

of

kl-hkkelim ha^sjim lbbfcl w*la**ser Fkol fba*

hssamajim. Here the Asherah is m entioned between the god B aa l and the

astral deities,

and it is

more natural

to

understand

the

Asherah

to be

per-

sonal and a goddess ( or at least the sy m bo l of a goddess) th a n a

shrine.

It is thus doubtfu l whether ^ser is used in the Hebrew ible to

denote asacred place,whether agroveor a shrine, although similar words

in Accadian, Phoenician and Aramaic have such a meaning. It is more

likely

that

it

denotes

a

wooden object representing

the

goddess Asherah,

the same goddess who plays ap rom inentpart in Ugaritic religious texts. It

is possible, of course, that the word in the inscriptions from Kunti l le t

'Ajrud

and Khirbet ^el-Qom is used in a different sense and that it there

denotes a shrine. It is even possible that it is used s a

loan-word,

and

Phoenician inscriptions hav e been

found

at the former site

(Meshel,

1978).

It seems best, however, to Interpret these Hebrew inscriptions in the light

of known Hebrew usage, rather than

to

appeal

tocognate

languages

and

to

postulate

a

mean ing

not

established

in the

Old Testament.

W h a t

do the inscriptions from

K u n t i l l e t

f

Ajrud

add to the knowledge

of

the Asherah that we can acquire from the Old Testament? They con-

firm

what we al ready knew, namely ,that the Asherah was associated with

some

forms

of the cult of

Yahweh.

The

fact

that th e

Asherah

is

singled

out

from

a mong

other

cultic objects to be used alongside the name of Yahweh

in

blessings at Kuntillet

'Ajrud

unde rlines its special

importance

in at least

one form of populr Yahwism, but otherwise adds nothing of substance to

our

previous knowledge.

The new

evidence

does not

prove that Asherah

was regarded in some circles

s

th e

consort

of Yahweh, though i t perhaps

strengthensthe case for such aview.





18/19

J. A.

Em erton,

New Lighton Israelite Religion

9

IV .

The conclusions of the present

article

will now be summarized:

1. The

phrasesjhwh smrn,

Y a h w e h of

Sa m a r i a ,

andjhwh

tmn,

Ya h-

weh of T e m a n ,

show

that

it is

possible

to

understand

jhwh fba*t

s

Ya hw e h of

fba*t,

w heth er it is thou gh t tha t the tetragram m aton is in

the construct state or that there is an ellipse of^lohe between the two

words.

2. The phrase

Ya hw e h

of S a m a r i a was probably used bysomeone who

normal ly

shared in the

cul t

in that ci ty, and it supports the theory that,

though

the

unity

of

Yahweh may

not

have been denied,

his

cult

took a

variety of local

forms.

It

does

not

prove, though

it

perhaps favours,

the

view that different m an ifesta tion s of Y ahw eh were associted with such

differences in the cult .

3. The phrase

Ya hw e h

of Te m a n is to be explained different ly . The

blessing

that uses

his na m e

invokes

the

protection

of the God who

comes

from the

southern region (cp.

Hab 33) on a

t ravel ler

in the

south.

4. The Asherah invoked in the phrase Yahweh and his Asherah ispro-

bably the wooden symbol of thegoddess of

that

nam e, whose association

with

th e

cult

of

Yahweh

is

attested

in the

Old Testament.

S he may

have

been regarded in some circles

s

the consort of Yahweh, but the inscrip-

t ions

do not

offer direct proof

of

such

a

relationship.

List

of

principalworks cited

W. F. Albrig ht, The evolution of the West-Semitic divinity 'An-'Anat-'Att, AJSL 41

(1924-5),

73-101.

Idem,

Archa eology and the Religion of Israel, 1953

3

.

Idem,

From

th e

S tone

Age to Christ ianity,

1957

2

.

Idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan,

1968.

AP = A. Cowley, A ram aic Pap y ri of the Fifth Century

B.C.,1923.

Arad = Y .

Aharoni , Arad

Inscriptions (H ebrew),1975.

W . W .

Baudissin, Adonisu nd E s m u n ,

1911.

R. Borger,

Anath-Bethel,

V T 7 (1957),

102-4.

F . M .

Cross,Cana ani te My th and Hebrew Epic,1973.

CTA = A.Herdner, Corpus de s tablettes en cuneiformes alphabetiques decouvertes Ras

Shamra -Ugar i t

de 1929 1939, 1963.

L.

D elekat ,

Yah-Yahwae und die

alt testamentlichen Gottesnamenkorrekturen,

in G.

Jere-

mias et

al. (ed.),

Tradit ion und Glaube. D as frhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt. Fest-

gabe

f r K.G.K h n , 1971, 23-75.

H . D o n n e r , H i e r sind deine Gtter, Israel , in H. Gese and H.P. Rger (ed.), Wort und

Geschichte. Festschrift fr K . Elliger,

1973,

45-50.

G. R. D river , Reflections on recent articles,JB L 73 (1954), 125-36.

W. J .Fulco,The C anaan i te God Resep,1976.

M .Gi lu l a , To Yahweh Shomronand hisAsherah (Hebrew), S hnaton 3(1978-9),129-37.





19/19

Rainer

Albertz,

Jer

2-6

und die

Frhzeitverkiindigung

Jeremias

G . K . =

A.E.

Cowley (ed.), Gesenius' Hebrew G r a m m a r

s

Edited and Enlarged by the

late

E.

Kautzsch, 1910

2

(= 1909

28

of the German origin al).

P.Joon,

G ramm ai re de

Fhebreu

biblique,

1947

2

.

KAI = H . Donner and W.

Roll

ig ,

Kanaanische

und aramische Insch riften,1962-4.

KTU

= M.

D ietrich,

O.

Loretz,

and J.

S anmar'n,

Die

keilalphabetischen

Texte

aus

Ugarit ,

1976.

M . Lambert ,Traite degram ma ire hebraique, 1946

2

.

A.

Lem aire, Les

inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qom et

PAsherah

de Yhwh, RB 84 (1977),

595-608.

E.Lipinski , The goddess At i ra t in

ancient

Arab ia , in Babylon , and in U gari t, Oriental ia

Lovaniensia Periodica3 (1972),101-19.

Z. Meshel, Kuntil le t 'Ajrud. A Religious Centre

from

th e Time of the Judaean Monarchy on

th eBorderofS inai,Th e Israel M useum ,Catalogue no. 175,1978.

Idem,

D id

Yahweh have

a

consort?

The new religious

inscriptions from

th e

Sinai ,

Biblical

Archaeological

Review

5

(1979),24-35.

J.C.

deMoor,Art. +ser,ThW AT I,1973, 472-81.

J . O b e r m a n n , The divine n a m e Y H WH in the light of recent discoveries, JBL 68 (1949),

301-23.

M . Rose, Jahwe. Z um S treit um den alt testam entlichen Gottesnamen, 1978.

M .

Tsevat,

Studies in the

B ook

of

Samue l

IV ,

H U C A

3 6(1965),49-58.

U T= C.H.Gordon, UgariticTextbook,1965.

M . Weinfeld, discussion of Z. MeshePs two publications of 1978and

1979

(Hebrew), S hna-

ton4 (1980),280-4.

The phrases

Ijhwh

smrn wl'srth and jhwh tmn

w^srth

in the Kuntil let

'Ajrud inscrip-

tions confirm th e opinion that jhwh

fba*t

may mean Yahweh of fba*ot. The

phrase

Yahweh of Samar ia supports th e view that th e cult of Yahweh

took

a variety of

local

forms,

but

Y a hw e h

of Teman was

probably invoked

fo r

protection

in the region southof

Judah .

The

Asherah

is

probably

th e

wooden

symbol

of the

goddess,

but the

inscriptions

do

not prove that she was regarded s the consort of Yahweh.

Jer2-6 und die

Frhzeitverkndigu ng Jeremias

V on

Rainer Albertz

( Ruprcch t -Kar l s -Un i ve r s i t tHeidelberg)

1.Da s

Problem

D ie Frhzei tverkndigungdes Propheten Jeremia

gehrt

nach wie vor

zu den nur unbefriedigend gelsten Problemen alttestamentlicherFor-

schung. W eder h insichtlich ihrer zeitlichen Ansetzung, noch ihres Inh alts

und

ihres Adressaten

ist es

bisher

zu

einer konsensfhigen K lrunggekom-

0044-2526/82/0941-0002

2.00

an old journal article about asherah

Documents