Did Yahweh Share His Throne

[Bernard Gui]

Very interesting article in current BAR by William Dever:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR....mp;ArticleID=11

The small house shrine published here for the first time provides significant support for the contention that the Israelite God, Yahweh, did indeed have a consort. At least this was true in the minds of many ordinary ancient Israelites, in contrast to the priestly elite.1 In what I call folk religion, or â??popular religion,â? Yahwehâ??s consort is best identified as â??Asherah,â? the old Canaanite mother goddess.

Comments?

Bernard

[Uncle Dale]

Very interesting article in current BAR by William Dever:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR....mp;ArticleID=11

Comments?

Bernard

I doubt very much that there was one, single YHWH, until the late Davidic monarchy, at the earliest.

Rather, there were a number of shrines -- at Kadosh, Beersheba, Gilgal, Shechm, Bethel, Dan, etc., in

which permutations of El, Baal and Yah were worshiped. As "Israel" came together as a "mixed multitude"

of peoples, the ritual, liturgy, symbols, etc. from these various shrines came into closer and closer

alignment with the royal cultus at Salem/Jerusalem. The culmination came in King Josiah's reforms.

Were there shrines/temples, in which YHWH had a consort? No doubt there were.

Was that a uniform religion, across all of Palestine/Canaan? I doubt it very much.

UD

[Bernard Gui]

I doubt very much that there was one, single YHWH, until the late Davidic monarchy, at the earliest.

Were there shrines/temples, in which YHWH had a consort? No doubt there were.

Was that a uniform religion, across all of Palestine/Canaan? I doubt it very much.

From the article:

Asherah was, of course, finally driven underground by the reformist parties that edited the Hebrew Bible. In its final form she is written out of the text. Hence, she disappeared and all her cult imagery with her when Jewish monotheism at last triumphed in the period after the Israelites returned from the Babylonian exile.f But Asherah was once alive and well; modern archaeology has in fact resurrected her. Her â??houses,â? now vacant, were once occupied. Here she was â??at homeâ? for many of the masses in ancient Israel.

Bernard

[Daniel Peterson]

May I mention an article entitled "Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8â??23," published in Davis Bitton, ed., Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson (Provo: FARMS, 1998)?

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bookscha...3&chapid=94

This volume is still available on Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Mormons-Scripture-An...5425&sr=1-1

[Uncle Dale]

From the article:

..."she disappeared and all her cult imagery"...

Bernard

You may wish to mull this over:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/timna2.htm

and this:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/miriam2.htm

and this:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/mines.htm

and this:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/byblos.htm

and perhaps even this:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/golden.htm

UD

[Bernard Gui]

May I mention an article entitled "Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8â??23," published in Davis Bitton, ed., Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson (Provo: FARMS, 1998)?

Do you have any comments on Dever's recent article and the twin throne artifacts?Bernard

You may wish to mull this over:http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/timna2.htmand this:http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/miriam2.htmand this:http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/mines.htmand this:http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/byblos.htmand perhaps even this:http://sidneyrigdon.com/DRB/BEGIN/golden.htm

Thanks UD. What do you think of Dever's article?Bernard

[Uncle Dale]

Do you have any comments on Dever's recent article and the twin throne artifacts?BernardThanks UD. What do you think of Dever's article?Bernard

I only browsed it -- I can give a better report after I've had a decent night's sleep.

From my perspective (radical monotheistic), the "retirement" of the consort of YHWH was not a discarding

of veneration of an actual "Mother in Heaven" personage; but, rather, the inevitable result of Unity in godhood.

We can also look at the example of Krishna and Radha in Indian religion. At the popular level, Divinity is

experienced/worshiped in a male/female pair -- but the incarnating God (Vishnu in this case) is "male" in

only a superficial, iconic sense of the term. Vishnu (the source of Krishna and Radha) transcends sexuality.

I see the same evolution in the case of YHWH in early Israelite/Midianite/Kenite religion. It is not a matter of

YHWH losing a companion female goddess, so much as it is a matter of YHWH absorbing the feminine element,

and being experienced as God-beyond-duality (including the duality of gender).

Yes, YHWH is spoken of as "He" and "Father," rather than "It" and "Parent;" but that is a language convention,

whereby the personhood of God Almighty is preseved (including a masculine veneer-persona).

Why did this occur? I believe it was because the northern prophets (in particular) were experiencing encounter

with God as "Unity" and not in the earlier Canaanite mode. That revelatory experience eventually translated

into radical monotheism in the subsequent Jewish faith -- as well as a projection backwards, upon the ancient

religious traditions. The "I AM" of the burning bush is a later linguistic reformulation of the primitive "Yah." --

But it was a "pregnant reformulation," and not just a simple replacement for "wicked" henotheism.

God-transcending-sexuality is not a precept easily communicated to old-fashioned, patriarchal herdsmen --

(or even to 21st century Latter Day Saints); and even the modern Jews tend to think of God as being masculine.

I see things otherwise, of course.

UD

[Ron Beron]

Very interesting article in current BAR by William Dever:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/indexBAR....mp;ArticleID=11

Comments?

Bernard

I had read the article awhile back and it very interesting. My impressions on the scope and duration of the acceptance of Heavenly Consort hinges on several issues.

1. Contentions for. In I Kings 18:17-40 the priests of Baal and the prophets of the grove, i.e. followers of Asherah, " 19 Now therefore send, and gather to me all Israel unto mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, which eat at Jezebelâ??s table."

After the priests were shown to have little power Elijah had them killed, "40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there." There is no mention, however, of the prophets of asherah being killed. Why? Dever believes it is because they had garnered some respectability among the people while Baalism was being supplanted by YHWHism.

Secondly, the worship of asherah prior to the Israelite occupation in the Levant is a certainty. The Hebrews easily assimilated it within their religion in both the minor and great traditions.

Third, the de facto worship of Asherah continues today in Israel indicating that the acceptance of divine matriarch is difficult to erase.

2. Contentions against. Apparently the worship of Asherah was so great that King Hezekiah tried to rid the temple of her "trees" or asherah to little avail.

3. While house shrines as mentioned in the article would ostensibly be anathema to Israelite worship they nonetheless appear in many homes giving credence to the theory that Asherah worship was fairly common. It is somewhat important to remember that the peoples of the Levant had such houses in their homes prior to the introduction of Israelite monotheism dating back to the copper age. Again, the ancient Israelites assimilated such in their worship practices.

My feelings are that while ancient Israelites worshipped on God, YHWH, they also acknowledged holdovers from the more ancient practices such as Baalism and Asherah. They did so in an unofficial manner as a lesser practice of folk belief while accepting the greater religious tradition of temple monotheism.

[Uncle Dale]

...

the ancient Israelites assimilated such in their worship practices.

My feelings are that while ancient Israelites worshipped on God, YHWH, they also acknowledged

holdovers from the more ancient practices such as Baalism and Asherah. They did so in an

unofficial manner as a lesser practice of folk belief while accepting the greater religious tradition

of temple monotheism.

I tend to agree, though not in quite such a programed view of things. My thoughts are, that there were a

variety of "Israelite" worship sites (and worship practices among semi-nomads who moved from site to site).

Probably one of the achievements of the early "Israelites," was their ability to syncretically "identify" the

local baal or el with their own, non-territorial God. In time, those "Israelites" indeed "assimilated" the

"holdovers" from earlier religious practices and beliefs.

It was something of a struggle, however -- and we read of biblical prophets railing against the local folk for

their having turned their backs upon the One True God, etc. etc. Probably, in most of those cases, the local

folk had no idea what the monotheistic prophets were complaining about.

But, the point I really wish to emphasize, is that it is a mistake for us moderns to view the religion of ancient

Palestine and Canaan as a single, uniform set of beliefs and practices. Baalism was Yahwism, in some places

at some times. Asherah veneration was Yahwism, in other places at other times. And, I think, an influence

of Hat-hor worship in the Sinai can be found in the earliest Mosaic traditions and sacred poetry.

Just like the Greek, who visited Italy, accepted Jupiter as another nation's worship of his own Zeus, I think

that the first "Israelites" accepted local religious practices, as manifestations of their own religion. It was on

that basis that the first "Israelite" confederation was able to come together, and hold together.

The problem was --- those darned prophets, who kept insisting they knew best what YHWH really was.

UD

[maklelan]

Keep in mind we have a remarkably well preserved Israelite temple in Arad complete with two incense stands in front of the Holy of Holies (one a little smaller than the other) and two small stelae inside the Holy of Holies. Some think they represent Yahweh and his consort. The temple was in operation from the late 10th century BCE to the 7th century BCE.

[Uncle Dale]

Keep in mind we have a remarkably well preserved Israelite temple in Arad complete with two incense stands in front of the Holy of Holies (one a little smaller than the other) and two small stelae inside the Holy of Holies. Some think they represent Yahweh and his consort. The temple was in operation from the late 10th century BCE to the 7th century BCE.

Yes, and if we look at the links I posted here earlier, we also see evidence of a "Midianite tabernacle" constructed

atop the foundation of a Hat-hor shrine near Timna. What were the worship practices within that tabernacle?

Were they more like the religion of Jeremiah, or more like the tent-shrine of the Midianite Cozbi (see Numbers)?

And, what differentiates a "shrine" from a "temple"? Was the sacred edifice at Beth-el a temple? Was Arad?

And, what differentiates an Israelite temple from a Canaanite temple? Did some Israelite "temples" have sacred

trees, idols, worship services for multiple deities, sacred prostitutes?

I think we make a mistake, in viewing the "Israelites" as a separate people, with a separate religion, who entered

the "Promised Land" and subdued paganism there, over the centuries.

Mire likely, the earliest "Israelite" religion was practically indistinguishable from the local religion, as praticed in

a whole variety of shrines and villages, from Dan to Beersheba.

UD

.

[maklelan]

Several aspects of the Arad temple actually define it as Israelite instead of Canaanite. First, a variety of ostraca were found inside the temple with Biblical Hebrew on them. The Canaanites didn't write with Hebrew. The "House of YWHW" is also mentioned, and the Canaanites didn't worship YHWH, they worshipped El (and others). Ba'al isn't found once in all the seals found at the site. Two priestly families named in the Bible are mentioned in the seals found at the temple site. The temple is oriented east to west, like the tabernacle and Solomon's temple, but unlike Canaanite temples. The altar is made of unhewn stone, exactly as the Bible commands (and unlike any Canaanite temples), and the dimensions are identical to those in Jerusalem. Offering bowls were found next to the altar with abbreviations for "holy" and "priest." Outside the Holy of Holies there is an offering table that be the able of the shewbread. Remains of incense were found on the incense altars, and a drainage system for blood was found on the altar of sacrifice, with some charred organic material. A far as I know, no scholars have made the argument that Arad is not exclusively an Israelite temple.

[Uncle Dale]

Several aspects of the Arad temple actually define it as Israelite instead of Canaanite. First, a variety of ostraca were found inside the temple with Biblical Hebrew on them. The Canaanites didn't write with Hebrew. The "House of YWHW" is also mentioned, and the Canaanites didn't worship YHWH, they worshipped El (and others). Ba'al isn't found once in all the seals found at the site. Two priestly families named in the Bible are mentioned in the seals found at the temple site. The temple is oriented east to west, like the tabernacle and Solomon's temple, but unlike Canaanite temples. The altar is made of unhewn stone, exactly as the Bible commands (and unlike any Canaanite temples), and the dimensions are identical to those in Jerusalem. Offering bowls were found next to the altar with abbreviations for "holy" and "priest." Outside the Holy of Holies there is an offering table that be the able of the shewbread. Remains of incense were found on the incense altars, and a drainage system for blood was found on the altar of sacrifice, with some charred organic material. A far as I know, no scholars have made the argument that Arad is not exclusively an Israelite temple.

All good arguments for placing the site within a certain cultural milieu -- within a certain time-span. But such a

structure (along with all that went on at the site) did not arise out of nowhere. It had antecedents and it had

contemporary parallels in other ANE religious manifestations.

How do these things connect? How did they cross-pollinate one another? At a later stage in religious history,

we hear of early Christianity penetrating the very heart of Imperial Rome, and eventually influencing religion

even in the ruling families. At the other end of the scale, we see Roman religion incorporating and co-opting

a vast number of local sects, all across the landscape.

How do we place the Arad temple, within the religious world of its near neighbors? Was the next nearest

Israelite shrine, (at Kadosh or Beersheba, or elsewhere in the neighborhood), a duplicate, or a rival?

Yes -- at some particular point in time, we may look at shard writing and geomancy, and say to ourselves,

"at this time there were no Philistines at Beth-Shemesh," or, "at this time Salem ceased to be Jebusite," or

"at this time Arad had no connection with the Canaanites." But, the information drawn from such points in time

may prove misleading, when we attempt to determine the "big picture" view of things.

I have this growing feeling that somebody, somewhere, is going to start promoting the notion that Israelite

orthodoxy involved heavenly families of gods, and that Jewish monotheism is an apostasy, obscuring the

"real" revealed religion of God. My view is that there was no Israelite orthodoxy until late in the Davidic

monarchy -- and that we set ourselves up for faulty conclusions, in trying to read too much into any single

point in sacred time and space.

Uncle Dale

ps - I'm still working away on that 1814 text you've helped me with

.

[maklelan]

All good arguments for placing the site within a certain cultural milieu -- within a certain time-span. But such a

structure (along with all that went on at the site) did not arise out of nowhere. It had antecedents and it had

contemporary parallels in other ANE religious manifestations.

Certain elements did exist isolated in other cultic manifestations, but many of them are unique, and there is no other temple in the ANE (besides as described in the Pentateuch) that contains these elements combined as they are. There's nothing it can be other than an Israelite temple, and it was built shortly after Solomon's temple was built. It operated without interference for centuries, until Josiah instituted his propagandist reforms.

How do these things connect? How did they cross-pollinate one another? At a later stage in religious history,

we hear of early Christianity penetrating the very heart of Imperial Rome, and eventually influencing religion

even in the ruling families. At the other end of the scale, we see Roman religion incorporating and co-opting

a vast number of local sects, all across the landscape.

How do we place the Arad temple, within the religious world of its near neighbors? Was the next nearest

Israelite shrine, (at Kadosh or Beersheba, or elsewhere in the neighborhood), a duplicate, or a rival?

Yes -- at some particular point in time, we may look at shard writing and geomancy, and say to ourselves,

"at this time there were no Philistines at Beth-Shemesh," or, "at this time Salem ceased to be Jebusite," or

"at this time Arad had no connection with the Canaanites." But, the information drawn from such points in time

may prove misleading, when we attempt to determine the "big picture" view of things.

There were Canaanites at Arad, and their culture is clearly delineated from the culture of the temple and its immediate environs. There is no precedent for many of these cultic markers except for the temple of Solomon and the instructions in the Pentateuch. The picture us not nearly as diluted as some think.

I have this growing feeling that somebody, somewhere, is going to start promoting the notion that Israelite

orthodoxy involved heavenly families of gods, and that Jewish monotheism is an apostasy, obscuring the

"real" revealed religion of God. My view is that there was no Israelite orthodoxy until late in the Davidic

monarchy -- and that we set ourselves up for faulty conclusions, in trying to read too much into any single

point in sacred time and space.

That's a very popular minimalistic opinion, but there's actually little evidence for it unless you accept the assumption that the Pentateuch was composed during or after the building of the temples, which is not a conclusion that rests on very firm evidence.

Uncle Dale

ps - I'm still working away on that 1814 text you've helped me with

.

I haven't been on campus much this last week, but I'll be back there tomorrow and I'll try to get the rest of those pages to you.

[Uncle Dale]

...

There were Canaanites at Arad, and their culture is clearly delineated from the culture of the temple

and its immediate environs. There is no precedent for many of these cultic markers except for the temple

of Solomon and the instructions in the Pentateuch. The picture us not nearly as diluted as some think.

I have Prof. Israel Finkelstein's 1995 Living on the Fringe in front of me, and am reading

from his interesting chapter 7: "The Early Bronze Age: The Rise of the First Desert Polity." He presents

quite a lot of text and graphics, outlining the settlement of Tell Arad in the early Bronze Age -- which

he (and others he cites) places within the "Beersheva culture," an extension southward of the urban

culture of central Canaan. On pages 77-81 he presents an outline of various scholarly theories for the

presence of "Israelite" people/religion within that extension of Canaanite culture. I'll let you determine

which (if any) of those explanations has the "best fit" with biblical and extra-biblical knowledge.

What seems to be lacking, are other neighboring sites, which might be explored and investigated for

additional information. In rare instances we discover a relatively undisturbed tell, wherein century after

century of occupational artifacts can be uncovered and studied methodically. It would be most helpful

if we had some other, comparable sites to explore in the Negev and Southern Palestine. Until such a

broader picture becomes known, it is no doubt premature to speak of "no precedents."

What would really be quite wonderful, would be the discovery of even fragments of the Torah, actually

written down for extended use, prior to the Deuteronomic Reform. Perhaps one day such a discovery

will be made, and we can speak with better accuracy about "instructions in the Pentateuch."

That's a very popular minimalistic opinion, but there's actually little evidence for it unless you accept the

assumption that the Pentateuch was composed during or after the building of the temples, which is not a

conclusion that rests on very firm evidence.

My thoughts are, that the Torah first came together late in the Davidic monarchy -- but that sections of

the first four books existed independently, prior to that time -- probably preserved mainly in the major

shrines, by a literate priesthood. I view the Exodus "tabernacle" descriptions as dating to the Exile --

while the "tent of meeting" mentions come from earlier traditions.

UD

[Bill Hamblin]

I have Prof. Israel Finkelstein's 1995 Living on the Fringe in front of me, and am reading

from his interesting chapter 7: "The Early Bronze Age: The Rise of the First Desert Polity." He presents

quite a lot of text and graphics, outlining the settlement of Tell Arad in the early Bronze Age -- which

he (and others he cites) places within the "Beersheva culture," an extension southward of the urban

culture of central Canaan. On pages 77-81 he presents an outline of various scholarly theories for the

presence of "Israelite" people/religion within that extension of Canaanite culture. I'll let you determine

which (if any) of those explanations has the "best fit" with biblical and extra-biblical knowledge.

What seems to be lacking, are other neighboring sites, which might be explored and investigated for

additional information. In rare instances we discover a relatively undisturbed tell, wherein century after

century of occupational artifacts can be uncovered and studied methodically. It would be most helpful

if we had some other, comparable sites to explore in the Negev and Southern Palestine. Until such a

broader picture becomes known, it is no doubt premature to speak of "no precedents."

What would really be quite wonderful, would be the discovery of even fragments of the Torah, actually

written down for extended use, prior to the Deuteronomic Reform. Perhaps one day such a discovery

will be made, and we can speak with better accuracy about "instructions in the Pentateuch."

My thoughts are, that the Torah first came together late in the Davidic monarchy -- but that sections of

the first four books existed independently, prior to that time -- probably preserved mainly in the major

shrines, by a literate priesthood. I view the Exodus "tabernacle" descriptions as dating to the Exile --

while the "tent of meeting" mentions come from earlier traditions.

UD

Canaanite Arad is Bronze age. Israelite Arad is Iron Age. Two different cultures and periods.

I've put my views on the new model shrine on my blog:

http://web.mac.com/hamblinwj/Research/Thin...el_Temples.html

[Que]

What would really be quite wonderful, would be the discovery of even fragments of the Torah, actually

written down for extended use, prior to the Deuteronomic Reform. Perhaps one day such a discovery

will be made...

For those of us who take the BofM story at face value, aren't the brass plates of Laban potentially that? So quotes from them in the BofM should be pre-Reform... I've always felt that at some point those plates themselves will be made available, just as John the Revelator has the ability to provide copies of pre-redacted versions of his Gospel and Revelation. I'm sure that is not what you meant, but it is my thought...

Q

[Uncle Dale]

Canaanite Arad is Bronze age. Israelite Arad is Iron Age. Two different cultures and periods.

I've put my views on the new model shrine on my blog:

http://web.mac.com/hamblinwj/Research/Thin...el_Temples.html

If you can sum up your conclusions in a sentence or two, what was the most outstanding

social/religious difference between the cultures that occupied those two different levels?

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

For those of us who take the BofM story at face value, aren't the brass plates of Laban potentially that? So quotes from them in the BofM should be pre-Reform... I've always felt that at some point those plates themselves will be made available, just as John the Revelator has the ability to provide copies of pre-redacted versions of his Gospel and Revelation. I'm sure that is not what you meant, but it is my thought...

Q

I don't know that you would first have to locate and examine any such plates.

If Mormons feel that this line of inquiry has special merit, then they might encourage

their scholars and academics to submit papers for publication to the larger, non-LDS

audience, as to how excerpts provided by the Book of Mormon appear to demonstrate

a pre-exilic version of certain Hebrew texts.

Given the fact that many LDS now assume that the BoM excerpts passed through the

"filter" of JS's early 19th century vernacular (in conjunction with the KJV text), perhaps

the whole effort would be a lost cause (unless such plates are produced), however.

UD

[maklelan]

I have Prof. Israel Finkelstein's 1995 Living on the Fringe in front of me, and am reading

from his interesting chapter 7: "The Early Bronze Age: The Rise of the First Desert Polity." He presents

quite a lot of text and graphics, outlining the settlement of Tell Arad in the early Bronze Age -- which

he (and others he cites) places within the "Beersheva culture," an extension southward of the urban

culture of central Canaan. On pages 77-81 he presents an outline of various scholarly theories for the

presence of "Israelite" people/religion within that extension of Canaanite culture. I'll let you determine

which (if any) of those explanations has the "best fit" with biblical and extra-biblical knowledge.

Finkelstein is about as minimalist as you get, but I have no problem with the fact that Arad was originally Canaanite. Israelite occupation isn't even postulated until the 10th century. Finkelstein doesn't believe Israel was a nation until the 7th century BCE, though, so naturally he's going to be critical.

What seems to be lacking, are other neighboring sites, which might be explored and investigated for

additional information. In rare instances we discover a relatively undisturbed tell, wherein century after

century of occupational artifacts can be uncovered and studied methodically. It would be most helpful

if we had some other, comparable sites to explore in the Negev and Southern Palestine. Until such a

broader picture becomes known, it is no doubt premature to speak of "no precedents."

What would really be quite wonderful, would be the discovery of even fragments of the Torah, actually

written down for extended use, prior to the Deuteronomic Reform. Perhaps one day such a discovery

will be made, and we can speak with better accuracy about "instructions in the Pentateuch."

My thoughts are, that the Torah first came together late in the Davidic monarchy -- but that sections of

the first four books existed independently, prior to that time -- probably preserved mainly in the major

shrines, by a literate priesthood. I view the Exodus "tabernacle" descriptions as dating to the Exile --

while the "tent of meeting" mentions come from earlier traditions.

UD

A common theory, but it colors your interpretation of that evidence as it emerges. The nature of the temple structure at Arad shows the temple instructions from the Pentateuch are contemporary to the time period of Solomon's reign. There are no other extant examples of such guidelines in temples in Syria, Palestine, or the Negev. The possibility that they might pop up in the future cannot overrule what evidence we have today.

[Ron Beron]

'Uncle Dale' writes,

I tend to agree, though not in quite such a programed view of things. My thoughts are, that there were a

variety of "Israelite" worship sites (and worship practices among semi-nomads who moved from site to site).

Absolutely, that is why we find a greater usage of YHWH'ism in southern Israel and Baalism in northern with various variations throughout and even without that were adopted into the later kingdoms.

But, the point I really wish to emphasize, is that it is a mistake for us moderns to view the religion of ancient

Palestine and Canaan as a single, uniform set of beliefs and practices. Baalism was Yahwism, in some places

at some times. Asherah veneration was Yahwism, in other places at other times. And, I think, an influence

of Hat-hor worship in the Sinai can be found in the earliest Mosaic traditions and sacred poetry.

Just like the Greek, who visited Italy, accepted Jupiter as another nation's worship of his own Zeus, I think

that the first "Israelites" accepted local religious practices, as manifestations of their own religion. It was on

that basis that the first "Israelite" confederation was able to come together, and hold together.

The problem was --- those darned prophets, who kept insisting they knew best what YHWH really was.

UD

This continues today. When I was in Japan I found that many Japanese were reluctant to discuss their religious values with westerners because we are more inclined to worship within a single narrow definition of religion while the Asian mind, esp., Japanese are more inclined to a bit of electicism. They find no difficulty with having a wedding that is part Buddhist, Shinto, Christian, and secular. There are many Christian in Japan who will attend mass on Sunday and come home and pray before the butsudon or Buddhist shrine. I would rather think that the ancient Israelite was the same way.

[Uncle Dale]

Finkelstein is about as minimalist as you get, but I have no problem with the fact that Arad was originally Canaanite. Israelite occupation isn't even postulated until the 10th century. Finkelstein doesn't believe Israel was a nation until the 7th century BCE, though, so naturally he's going to be critical.

I suppose it depends upon what we choose to call "a nation." If we rely only upon physical anthropology, I'm

not convinced that modern Israelis and Palestinians are of two different "nations" (and my wife has Ashkenazi

relatives in Israel who consider themselves to be exactly Abraham's modern progeny).

But, if "nation" means a separate political entity, not a mere tribute-paying minority under Philistine or

Canaanite rulers, then I cannot see that coming together until the monarchy. Was there an Israelite

confederation, during the period of the biblical "judges," and before? If so, I would hesitate to call such

a group a nation -- any more than modern bedouin constitute a nation within the Kingdom of Jordan.

But both you and Dr. Hamblin bring up the sequence of cultures -- so I'll ask you also, what makes the Arad

temple exotic, and not a possible development from earlier sacred space? What makes its postulated

builders a different race (Shemite?) from the earlier occupants (Hamite?)

A common theory, but it colors your interpretation of that evidence as it emerges. The nature of the temple structure at Arad shows the temple instructions from the Pentateuch are contemporary to the time period of Solomon's reign. There are no other extant examples of such guidelines in temples in Syria, Palestine, or the Negev. The possibility that they might pop up in the future cannot overrule what evidence we have today.

I'd either need to be convinced of the authenticity of what we attribute to "Solomon's reign," or else see

some pre-monarchy documents containing "temple instructions from the Pentateuch."

Until we have that, my interpretation will obviously remain "colored."

But all of this discussion is somewhat to the side of the core question -- of whether Israelite orthodoxy existed;

and whether a female consort to YHWH is revealed religion.

My stance is that there was no such orthodoxy, even at the transition from the Bronze Age -- and that

dual sex henotheism (we can't call it monolatry) was one of several precursors to what became both orthodoxy

and revealed religion.

At least I take a middle position, from which I attempt to fathom the contemporary LDS speculation --

many Jews and Christians would have no interest whatsoever in this sort of discussion.

UD

[Ron Beron]

'Uncle Dale'

I have this growing feeling that somebody, somewhere, is going to start promoting the notion that Israelite

orthodoxy involved heavenly families of gods, and that Jewish monotheism is an apostasy, obscuring the

"real" revealed religion of God. My view is that there was no Israelite orthodoxy until late in the Davidic

monarchy -- and that we set ourselves up for faulty conclusions, in trying to read too much into any single

point in sacred time and space.

I think that fairly early on it did just that, i.e., incorporate a pantheon of gods or at least deities of some kind. But, to think of this as a constant is not tenable. I would rather vote for two belief systems, one, where the official or greater tradition of religious belief was subscribed to while two, the lesser or folk belief, a remnant of the older religious traditions, is still being adhered to. The same can be said of 19th century America or other agrarian societies where the population accepts the greater traditions of the religious literacy and ritual but still practice the folk traditions of magic and other folk beliefs.

[Ron Beron]

'maklelan' writes,

There are no other extant examples of such guidelines in temples in Syria, Palestine, or the Negev. The possibility that they might pop up in the future cannot overrule what evidence we have today.

There is an interesting temple in Syria that bears striking similarities to its contemporary during Solomonic Jerusalem. In a temple structure in northern Syria at 'Ain Dara there are many similarities to it Hebrew counterpart. Each temple is entered through a portico and each had two columns facing the entrance.

Ain Dara

Solomon's Temple

Compare also to the temple at Hazor

Hazor

There is also another temple at Tell Ta'yinat, also in northern Syria

The similarities between all of thse are extemely strong while local sensitivities dictated the individual decoration of each.

[Uncle Dale]

...

The similarities between all of thse are extemely strong while local sensitivities dictated the individual

decoration of each.

...

I'm no sacred space expert, so I even find similarities with the Sinai Egyptian temples --

But, back to the original question. If neighboring temples resembled (at least in some ways)

the "Israelite" tabernacle and temple(s) -- what does that say about "Yahweh sharing His throne?"

As late as "wicked" King Manasseh, I can envision this. What I cannot envision is Jesus, talking

about the days when David fed his troops with temple shewbread, reflecting upon his "Mother in Heaven,"

(and How the monotheistic Ezra, Maccabeans, and Herod had removed Her footstool from the Temple.

There's a major disconnect here, somewhere.

UD