Nephi And His Asherah

[Olavarria]

1 Ne. 11: 8-15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiL64K5OIBM&feature=related

[Xander]

Nephi has nothing to do with Asherah.

The Biblical Asherah wasn't the Virgin Mary.

[altersteve]

Nephi has nothing to do with Asherah.

The Biblical Asherah wasn't the Virgin Mary.

I'm pretty sure that video never claims otherwise.

[Xander]

My point exactly. So what's with the title of this thread?

[Brant Gardner]

The Biblical Asherah wasn't the Virgin Mary.

Of course not. However, that isn't the point. The point is that the Asherah is related to a female consort of God. In the vision that had to be explained to Nephi, a symbol that he would have understood (in Nephi's time he would have been familiar with Asherah, it has only recently been banned and the ban was most effective in urban centers, not the outlying areas). The vision specifically recontextualizes the "old" idea into a prophetic pronouncement of God. It would seem pretty simple to make the connection between Jehovah's consort and the woman bearing his child (Nephite theology here, not modern LDS use of Jehovah).

Nephi has nothing to do with Asherah.

I disagree with your opinion. The literary structures and themes in 1 Nephi give every reason to believe that Nephi was a sophisticated writer capable of manipulating his religio-cultural themes for his purposes. The association of Asherah and the tree provides the connection that is otherwise a jarring transition in his text.

[Xander]

Of course not. However, that isn't the point. The point is that the Asherah is related to a female consort of God.

Of course she is. This has nothing to do with Nephi.

In the vision that had to be explained to Nephi, a symbol that he would have understood (in Nephi's time he would have been familiar with Asherah, it has only recently been banned and the ban was most effective in urban centers, not the outlying areas).

The tree of life is also a symbol that would have been understood by anyone remotely familiar with the book of Revelation. And the evidence strongly suggests this was the backdrop Joseph Smith used when producing this chapter.

The vision specifically recontextualizes the "old" idea into a prophetic pronouncement of God. It would seem pretty simple to make the connection between Jehovah's consort and the woman bearing his child (Nephite theology here, not modern LDS use of Jehovah).

This makes no sense at all unless you want to assume a legitimate prophecy by God be based on faulty information. Either Jesus was born of Mary or he was born of Asherah.

I disagree with your opinion. The literary structures and themes in 1 Nephi give every reason to believe that Nephi was a sophisticated writer capable of manipulating his religio-cultural themes for his purposes. The association of Asherah and the tree provides the connection that is otherwise a jarring transition in his text.

On the contrary, there is every reason to believe Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from the New Testament in this instance, relying on phrases and concepts that would have been ompletely anachronistic to a Jew living in his time. That he would include the tree of life in this context is hardly surprising.

[altersteve]

This makes no sense at all unless you want to assume a legitimate prophecy by God be based on faulty information. Either Jesus was born of Mary or he was born of Asherah.

Jesus was born of His Heavenly Mother and of His earthly mother, just like we are.

[Xander]

Jesus was born of His Heavenly Mother and of His earthly mother, just like we are.

But there is no reason to believe Nephi would have believed that as a Jew in his time, or that he would be trying to conflate two different doctrines into one.

I addressed this Nephi-Asherah argument years ago, and there is plenty more within the context of that citation that doesn't support this thesis. I'll post more on that later, but right now I have to spend the day Christmas shopping.

I'm such a procrastinator.

[altersteve]

But there is no reason to believe Nephi would have believed that as a Jew in his time, or that he would be trying to conflate two different doctrines into one.

There's no reason for you to believe it, you mean. But there is for me.

Edited December 17, 2011 by altersteve

[Xander]

Read the context of Nephi and you'll see that the tree is in reference to the condescension of God, or Jesus Christ

There's no reason for you to believe it, you mean. But there is for me.

I'm sure there is. But your reason is not based on textual evidence. Please read the context of the chapter to fully understand, and pay close attention to how Nephi's question was answered. The text does not claim the tree is Asherah nor does it claim to be the virgin Mary. It is identified as Jesus Christ, who is the "love of God" or the "condescension of God."

More later.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Xander

[altersteve]

Read the context of Nephi and you'll see that the tree is in reference to the condescension of God, or Jesus Christ

The tree is in reference to the love of God, which Nephi explicitly states in verse 22.

I'm sure there is. But your reason is not based on textual evidence.

Really? How do you know? Is that some kind of Jedi mind-reading trick?

Please read the context of the chapter to fully understand, and pay close attention to how Nephi's question was answered. The text does not claim the tree is Asherah nor does it claim to be the virgin Mary. It is identified as Jesus Christ, who is the "love of God" or the "condescension of God."

More later.

I'm fully aware of the context of the chapter; I'm fully aware of how Nephi's question was answered; I'm fully aware that the text does not claim that three is Asherah or the Virgin Mary; and I'm fully aware of what the tree is said to represent. You are the one who needs to read it more carefully. First, Nephi asks the angel to show him the meaning of the tree that was shown in vision to Lehi, and the angel responds by showing Nephi a vision of an "exceedingly fair and white" virgin, who is "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins." Then the angel asks Nephi if he knows what the "condescension of God" is, and Nephi replies that he does not. Without explaining what the condescension of God is in words, however, the angel tells Nephi that the virgin is "the mother of the Son of God," and Nephi immediately understands what the tree represents: "the love of God."

Why would Nephi be able to immediately understand the meaning of the tree of life by seeing a vision of the Virgin Mary?

[Bob Crockett]

I wonder why it is necessary to legitimize a Canaanite fertility cult worship simply because the Israelites seemed to follow it as well?

I mean, what's next? Analogizing to atonement to Molech? The Israelites worshipped him as well.

[Kevin Christensen]

According to 2 Nephi 25:1-5, an essential part of the context in which we read should be the cultural context in which the words were written. According to Friedrich Blass "in his classic work on hermeneutics and criticism" (quoting Nibley), "we must begin our examination by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it."

And what emerges from reading the Book of Mormon against that Jerusalem 600 BCE context is very clear, thanks in large measure to texts and findings (like the offering stand) made since Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon.

Isaiah, who prophesied in the years before 700 BCE, spoke of a female figure and her son and also of a great tree that had been cut down, but with sacred seed surviving in the stomach. His contemporary, the prophet Micah, spoke of a woman in travail, who had gone out of the city, but would give birth to the great Shepherd of Israel. Who was this mother and what was the great tree?

Piecing together other contemporary evidence, we could conclude that she was Wisdom, the one whom Josiah eventually purged from the temple, but whose symbol, the Tree of Life, had been removed many years earlier, in the time of Isaiah, and then replaced.

In the time of Josiah, her tree, the Asherah, the Menorah, was finally removed from the temple, and not only removed, but it was then burnt, beat into dust and cast on the common graves—it was utterly desecrated.

Why such hatred? Hostility to Wisdom was a hallmark of the Deuteronomists and due to their influence the Mother and her tree have been almost forgotten. Her son was the Lord. We can deduce this from the Dead Sea Scrolls’ version of Isaiah’s Immanuel prophecy (Isaiah chapter 7). “Ask a sign,” said the prophet, “from the mother of the Lord your God. Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and call his name Immanuel.” And she was attended by angels, the hosts of heaven, whom the Deuteronomists tried to obscure.

Each time the Lady was driven from the temple, so too were the angels, the “Holy Ones,” a word very similar in Hebrew to the word for prostitutes, which is how it is often translated. The divine son, the priest of the order of Melchizedek was born in the glory of these Holy Ones, or so it seems. Psalm 110 is an enigmatic text, but it seems to describe the birth of an angel priest in the Holy of Holies of the temple, which represented heaven.

The Tree of Life made one happy according to the Book of Proverbs, but for other detailed descriptions of the tree we have to rely on the non-canonical texts. Enoch described it as perfumed, with fruits like grapes. But a text discovered in Egypt in 1945 described the tree as beautiful, fiery, and with fruits like white grapes. I don’t know of any other source which describes the fruit as white grapes, so you can imagine my surprise when I read the account of Lehi’s vision of the tree whose white fruits made one happy; and the interpretation of the vision, that the virgin in Nazareth was the mother of the Son of God after the manner of the flesh.

This is the Heavenly Mother (represented by the Tree of Life), and then Mary and her son on the earth. This revelation to Joseph Smith was the exact ancient Wisdom symbolism, intact, and almost certainly as it was known in 600 BCE.

There is no doubt that teachings from the time of the first temple have been lost, or, rather, are now to be found only in texts outside the Bible. Jewish tradition says that all sacred texts were lost when Jerusalem was destroyed and that Ezra the Scribe restored them, inspired by God Most High, to dictate ninety-four books. Only twenty-four of them could be revealed; the rest were to be kept secret.

http://www.joehunt.org/joseph-smith-margaret-barker-talk.html

In discussing the 10th Century BCE offering stand depicted in the video, Alyson Von Feldt observes:

This gives another reason to interpret the offering stands as representative of the mountain throne of God, but Barker takes the etymology of the word Shadday one step further. She points out that Ezekiel sees "two figures: one enthroned above the firmament . . . and then there was another figure or cluster of figures . . . beneath the firmament. It is this cluster that is so hard to describe; perhaps a fourfold Living One, known as the Spirit of Life [hayyah], or perhaps the Spirit of Life in the midst of the fourfold group."³³She suggests that the living creature itself could have been understood as a breasted God. To see Asherah depicted twice on the Taʿanach stand, as a tree of life and as a nude woman, both depictions underneath the object's throne roof and parapet of stars, certainly seems to suggest that Ezekiel had her in mind when he described the creature and the voice of El Shadday.

More evidence comes from taking a second look at "the image of jealousy, which provoketh to jealousy" that Ezekiel describes seeing in the temple (Ezekiel 8:3). Barker points out that the addition of one Hebrew character delivers a much more sensible reading: Ezekiel saw "the image of the Creatrix who gives life." The Creatress Who Gives Life was a epithet for Athirat/Elat/Asherah known from Ugaritic literature.³⁴ That Ezekiel's living creature was understood as the goddess is further confirmed by early Russian Christian icons—produced roughly the same number of centuries after Ezekiel's vision as the Taʿanach stand was produced before—of Sophia (Wisdom) enthroned beneath the throne of the Lord and the firmament of heaven.³⁵

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=639

Of course it is entirely appropriate to compare the imagery of the tree of life in1 Nephi to the text of Revelation available to Joseph Smith, provided that one also acknowledges that Revelation is a traditional temple text, that that the specific tradition that it exemplifies goes back to the First Temple. For a multitude of support for that claim, see Barker's The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

And in reading 1 Nephi 11:13-24, the Virgin, the Mother of God, with a child in her arms has a clear association with the Tree of Life in the Temple tradition known to Lehi and Nephi. Just as one idea can be represented by different symbols (the tree and fountain both temple images representing the love of God), so can one symbol point to different things, and can relate different things into a single unified image (Mother and Child) or multivalent image (Wisdom or Child).

Also see http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/papers/?paperID=9&chapterID=74

And what Nephi comes to understand regarding the meaning of the tree, based on the images of Virgin and Child together, is "it is the love of God." (1 Nephi 11:22). Nothing about "not Asherah," or "can only mean Jesus Christ."

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Bob Crockett]

But with the universal condemnation of asherim in the OT I would suspect that a "nothing about 'not Asherah'" in Nephi's vision is like non-evidence.

We have an extended account of King Manassah's sins in 2 Kings 21. More space is given to his Asherah than to the sacrifice of his son to Molech.

The tree of life motif is a common one. It is even found in Mesoamerica. Perhaps the Canaanites adopted that motif into the Asherah fertility cult much like aspects of the sacrifice and atonement were co-opted by Mithras. But to tie an abonimable cult to the worship of God as a means to support the Book of Mormon is just another means of making the shoe fit.

Edited December 17, 2011 by rcrocket

[Brant Gardner]

I wonder why it is necessary to legitimize a Canaanite fertility cult worship simply because the Israelites seemed to follow it as well?

I mean, what's next? Analogizing to atonement to Molech? The Israelites worshipped him as well.

But with the universal condemnation of asherim in the OT I would suspect that a "nothing about 'not Asherah'" in Nephi's vision is like non-evidence.

This is a question of how one reads Israelite history. Clearly there were other deities that were worshiped, but not with a presence in the temple. Certainly post-exilic religion fits your suggestion, but the pre-exilic period is not nearly as clear (and that is where we find Asherah in the temple). Your second statement is absolutely accurate for a post-exilic redaction of the text. There is evidence that it is not as clearly reflective of pre-exilic thought.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Brant Gardner

[Robert F. Smith]

This has nothing to do with Nephi.

The tree of life is also a symbol that would have been understood by anyone remotely familiar with the book of Revelation. And the evidence strongly suggests this was the backdrop Joseph Smith used when producing this chapter.

This makes no sense at all unless you want to assume a legitimate prophecy by God be based on faulty information. Either Jesus was born of Mary or he was born of Asherah.

Either/or? Why not both/and?

there is every reason to believe Joseph Smith borrowed heavily from the New Testament in this instance, relying on phrases and concepts that would have been ompletely anachronistic to a Jew living in his time. That he would include the tree of life in this context is hardly surprising.

rcrocket said;

I wonder why it is necessary to legitimize a Canaanite fertility cult worship simply because the Israelites seemed to follow it as well?

I mean, what's next? Analogizing to atonement to Molech? The Israelites worshipped him as well.

In order to fully appreciate Pedro’s excerpt from a BBC presentation hosted by Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou of Exeter University, we need to read Daniel Peterson’s article “Nephi and His Asherah” in JBMS, 9/2 (2000), 16-25, online at http://maxwellinstit...=9&num=2&id=223 . The main point made there is that authentic pre-exilic views connecting Wisdom, the Tree of Life, and the Mother Goddess are contained in the Book of Mormon. For it is the widespread knowledge of this mother-goddess (Asherah-Qudshu-Isis) with motifs-in-common throughout the ancient Near East (and even as far as India) which makes us realize that the actual finding of several instances of “Yahweh . . . and his Asherah” in pre-exilic times (at Khirbet el-Qom and at Kuntillet ʿAjrud, both from the 9th-8th century B.C.) cannot simply be ignored by the indiscriminate sweep of one’s hand. Most scholars now realize that the religion(s) of ancient Israel was far more complex than the Deuteronomic tradition allows. As Prof. Stavrakopoulou points out, at Deut 33:2, the likely reference to “Asherah” was carefully “corrected” by what is known as tiqqune sopherim.

Bill Dever was frankly astonished by the Taʿanach cult-stand with Qudshu-Asherah between lions (or cherubim/griffins), which Prof. Stavrakopoulou showed us. And the following 19th dynasty Egyptian stele ought to make us sit up and take notice – Qudshu-Asherah-Isis at the center standing on a lion between an Egyptian and a Canaanite god:

http://www.mormondia...96213_thumb.jpg

Only someone familiar with the parallels between the theologies of ancient Egypt and ancient Israel would see the significance, and we can list the mother-goddess parallels here in brief:

(1) both Mary and Isis are specifically called Mother of God (Theotokos “God-bearer”), Queen of Heaven (Regina caeli), and Heifer.

(2) both are presented iconographically throughout the Mediterranean world as the Mother (Maria Lactans) suckling young Jesus/Horus,

(3) the very son of the Sun-god,

(4) whose traditional birth date, like that of Jesus, is conceptually the very birthday of Reʿ at Winter Solstice,

(5) and is associated with formal temple triads/the Holy Trinity;

(6) the newborn child is blessed, circumcised, purified, and formally presented as the new king.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

Robert, I am familiar with your argument. And I am familiar with Brant's suggestion that the condemnation of asherim is a post exillic edit. But, I maintain, the scriptural texts I have call this theory detestable.

Brant suggests that the Asherim is different from all the rest of the Caananite gods because she/it was found in the temple. So, because Satan claims to be God then he must be.

[Brant Gardner]

Robert, I am familiar with your argument. And I am familiar with Brant's suggestion that the condemnation of asherim is a post exillic edit. But, I maintain, the scriptural texts I have call this theory detestable.

Brant suggests that the Asherim is different from all the rest of the Caananite gods because she/it was found in the temple. So, because Satan claims to be God then he must be.

I am suggesting that there is a history in scripture that is arguably different from the version reported in post-exilic redactions--which is where we get our current Old Testament.

Regardless of what you think of Asherah, put yourself in the position of someone in Lehi's time. The Book of Mormon doesn't evidence any worship of Asherah--what it does is use an association that would have been well known to recontextualize the symbols. Rather like recontextualizing a cross from an instrument of death to a symbol of resurrection. Recognizing the terrible origins of the cross is not an argment that it must continue to hold those meanings.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I am familiar with your argument. And I am familiar with Brant's suggestion that the condemnation of asherim is a post exillic edit. But, I maintain, the scriptural texts I have call this theory detestable.

Not necessarily, and bear in mind that the text of the Bible has been carefully redacted in line with a narrow theology which you and I could not live with.

Brant suggests that the Asherim is different from all the rest of the Caananite gods because she/it was found in the temple. So, because Satan claims to be God then he must be.

How is that we have always had such a high regard for Eliza R. Snow and her wonderful "O My Father"? Is Satan lurking there somewhere?

As Ziony Zevit says of the Asherah figure playing a lyre in the presence of Yahweh on the storage jar at Kuntillet Ajrud:

" . . . the link between YHWH and Asherah was part of Israelite mythology. They indicate that the goddess played a role in Israelite orisons, but that she was not an independent force." Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel (Continuum, 2001), 650-651.

[Xander]

These are some excerpts from a review I wrote of Dan's article, in August 2006 on this forum:

Dan says,

In 1 Nephi 8:13 -14, Lehi's tree is associated with a river and spring of water. "The symbols of fountain and tree of life are frequent" in wisdom literature too.

As they are in the Book of Revelation, which conspicuously enough, is never quoted in Peterson's article (perhaps in the longer version?):

Rev 22: 1-2 "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life."

According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ is directly associated with the "love of God" in 1 John 4:9, Titus 3:4 and Rom 8:39, while 2 Cor 13:14 associates it with his grace. Even more stunning is Romans 5:5 which says, the "love of God has been poured out within our hearts..." This sounds almost identical to Nephi "it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts..."

These are some whopper parallel verses that are not mentioned in Dan's article. In the New Testament, only two things are said to give mankind eternal life: the Tree of life and Jesus Christ. The narrative in 1 Nephi 11 begins with the Tree and the climax ends with the Lamb of God. I don't think Mormons generally find this narrative "perplexing," at all, or at least, not as much as Dan's suggests. The explanation I provided above is, I believe, the most reasonable one based on the biblical evidence.

I should probably also mention that many of the scholars Dan mentions accept the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP) which places some of the BoM Isaiah citations, after the period from which Lehi set sail for the Americas. This is a huge obstacle for LDS scholars who now need to explain how the Book of Mormon could quote an Isaiah redactor before he was even born.

Again the narrative in 1 Nephi 11 resembles too much of the New Testament, and therefore makes perfect sense if we understand this. There is no need to seek profound meanings in a preexilic Israelite context. And BTW, Nephi's reference to the "virgin" Mary would be considered an anachronism in Israelite religion; just another reason to believe the chapter reflects more from the New Testament than anything else.

Nephi's response: "it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts..." This spectacularly similar to Romans 5:5 - "the love of God has been poured out within our hearts..."

It is significant that the "love of God" never refers to Mary in the NT, nor is it ever referenced in the OT, nor is it associated with Asherah in Wisdom literature.

It is always Jesus Christ who provides the water of everlasting life, not the tree, not the virgin, not God's wife.

John 4:14 "But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life."

Rev 21:6 "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is a thirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

Rev 22: 1-2 "And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life."

Rev 22:7 "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God."

Rev 22:16-17 "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

Thus, Jesus is the Love of God and Jesus provides mankind with the water of life.

It is wrong to suggest, as Dan does in his article, that Joseph Smith could not have "scarcely" figured out this connection using the Bible alone. Meaning, there is no need to seek profound parallels with Wisdom literature when the ingredients (i.e. whiteness, tree, water, love of God) for this metaphorical recipe was written all over the New Testament. In fact, it appears that Romans 5:5 is cited almost verbatim in the Nephi narrative.

[Xander]

In order to fully appreciate Pedro’s excerpt from a BBC presentation hosted by Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou of Exeter University, we need to read Daniel Peterson’s article “Nephi and His Asherah” in JBMS, 9/2 (2000), 16-25, online at http://maxwellinstit...=9&num=2&id=223 . The main point made there is that authentic pre-exilic views connecting Wisdom, the Tree of Life, and the Mother Goddess are contained in the Book of Mormon.

But this is all wrong because the Book of Mormon doesn't mention a "mother goddess." That is just something apologists read into it. The context of the Nephi narrative clearly says the Tree of life refers to Jesus Christ, not the virgin Mary. Pedro didn't get that far because he only cited through verse 15, before the angel answers the question, explaining the interpretation of the Tree. But the fact is Dan is looking in Wisdom literature for parallels when better parallels already exist in the New Testament. The fact that Nephi would nearly quote Romans verbatim is telling, and anachronistic to say the least.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Xander

[Bob Crockett]

Not necessarily, and bear in mind that the text of the Bible has been carefully redacted in line with a narrow theology which you and I could not live with.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a rejection of a common ground, the scriptures, in favor of a highly speculative theory based upon a destable fertility cult.

When Elisha summoned 450 priest of Baal and 400 priests of Asherah, his consort, for a contest somehow I don't think God intended to elevate Asherah's role. Quite the converse. 1 Kings 18.

This Mormon apologia fascination with a detestable cult reveals too much about the lengths we go to justify the Book of Mormon.

There is simply no support for the theory, and summoning Eliza Snow won't work. Disputing the resort to Asherah is not the same as disputing the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.

Interesting though. I sat on a disciplinary council where the couple advanced and taught in church the doctrine that Asherah represented a complimentary priesthood. Close connection with Salt Lake on the doctrine led to excommunication. So it isn't like Dr Peterson's theory came as a complete surprise when I first read it. I had seen it before, or a more pernicious variation. This couple in my stake followed Asherah to her ultimate conclusion. Ritual prostitution.

[Chris Smith]

They were practicing ritual prostitution??? Wow! In what context?

[Mortal Man]

Nephi's reference to the "virgin" Mary would be considered an anachronism

Here Nephi relies on Matthew who relied on the Septuagint's mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew uses the Septuagint’s parthenos or “virgin” (Matt. 1:23) for Isaiah's almah, meaning “young woman”. Had Isaiah specifically meant “virgin”, he would have used bethulah. -- Tim Callahan, Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment? 115-16.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

According to Friedrich Blass "in his classic work on hermeneutics and criticism" (quoting Nibley), "we must begin our examination by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it."

Provided that the author indicated is already known to have existed.

When an unprecedented new text introduces a boatload of previously unknown characters, there is no reason to begin our examination by assuming those characters wrote it.