Yahweh's Divine Council in Second Isaiah

[Sargon]

One of the godfathers of semitic studies, Frank Moore Cross Jr., wrote a piece in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies in 1953: â??The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,â? Journal of Near Eastern Studies, (12) 1953, 274-277.

Here I reproduce a part of this article. Isaiah 40:1-8 is generally recognized today by biblical scholars as being a divine council scene. With this in mind, traditional ultra-monotheistic interpretations of various Second Isaiah passages must be revised.

The symbolism of the council of Yahweh forms the background also of several oracles of Second Isaiah (and related material). These belong to an oracle type (Gattung) which may be described as divine directives to angelic heralds, or the closely related category, the divine proclamation delivered by a herald.

Isa. 40:1-8 is a parade example of this literary form in Second Isaiah. The passage opens with an unusual series of active imperatives, plural: nahamu, dabberu, qiru, â??comfort ye,â? â??speak ye,â? â??proclaim ye.â? The problem of the identity of the subject of these imperatives has baffled commentators. Traditionally it has been held that Yahweh here directs â??prophets in general,â? Israelâ??s priests, or the remnant of the faithful to proclaim the message of consolation. That such interpretation are forced has been recognized by most modernsâ?¦..Rather, the setting is the heavenly council in which Yahweh addresses his heralds, nahamu, nahamu, ammi, â??comfort ye, comfort ye my people.â? That such is the dramatic background of the passage is immediately confirmed by the following verses in which herald voices (introduced qol qore or qol omer) are heard proclaiming the divine message quite as directed in verses 1 and 2. Their proclamation announces the imminence of Yahwehâ??s appearance in acts of redemption and, more specifically, directs preparations for a â??superhighwayâ? on which Yahweh will march through a transformed desert at the head of his people. This herald proclamation in verses 3 and 4, to level hills and raise valleys, is directed to supernatural beings, to the council of Yahweh. This is indicated in the cosmic scale of the preparations for the divine theophany and is substantiated by Malachiâ??s comment (3:1): â??Behold I send my messenger and he shall prepare the way for me.â?

In verses 6-8 an anonymous herald addresses the prophet, announcing to him his inaugural oracle, â??All flesh is grassâ?¦but the word of our God shall stand forever.â? Verse 6a is to read with the versions and the new Dead Sea Isaiah (A), â??A (herald) voice said, â??Proclaimâ??; and I said, â??What shall I proclaim?â??â? The parallel to Isa. 6:1-8 is remarkable.

It is strange that the full force of the symbolism of Yahwehâ??s council in the opening verses of chapter 40 has not been recognized.

Cross also briefly examines Isa 48:20-21; 57:14; 35:3-4; and he mentions Isa 52:1-10; 62:10-12; cf. 44:26; and 40:26. Cross addresses each of these passage as being â??of like literary type.â?

The very section of Isaiah which mainstream Christians most point to for evidence of their metaphysical monotheism begins with a divine council scene, a scene which presupposes the existence of multiple divine beings. Some Christians may argue that these council members are angels, or some kind of being that is ontologically different from Yahweh. Unfortunately, such an ad hoc twist is completely unwarranted by the scriptures. That these divine beings in Yahwehâ??s council are of the same basic species as Yahweh is taken for granted by the biblical authors, and is supported by data from Ugarit.

[captain-jack]

One of the godfathers of semitic studies, Frank Moore Cross Jr., wrote a piece in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies in 1953: â??The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,â? Journal of Near Eastern Studies, (12) 1953, 274-277.

Here I reproduce a part of this article. Isaiah 40:1-8 is generally recognized today by biblical scholars as being a divine council scene. With this in mind, traditional ultra-monotheistic interpretations of various Second Isaiah passages must be revised.

Cross also briefly examines Isa 48:20-21; 57:14; 35:3-4; and he mentions Isa 52:1-10; 62:10-12; cf. 44:26; and 40:26. Cross addresses each of these passage as being â??of like literary type.â?

The very section of Isaiah which mainstream Christians most point to for evidence of their metaphysical monotheism begins with a divine council scene, a scene which presupposes the existence of multiple divine beings. Some Christians may argue that these council members are angels, or some kind of being that is ontologically different from Yahweh. Unfortunately, such an ad hoc twist is completely unwarranted by the scriptures. That these divine beings in Yahwehâ??s council are of the same basic species as Yahweh is taken for granted by the biblical authors, and is supported by data from Ugarit.

Interesting, very interesting. But now you've peaked my interests and the next time I'm stranded on an island with nothing better to do than drink rum I'm going to have to read more on this.

[phaedrus ut]

FYI, Deutero Isaiah 52: 8-10 is repeated in Mosiah 12:22-24, Mosiah 15:29-31 and 3 Nephi 18-20 verbatim to the KJV.

Phaedrus

[Nevo]

Isaiah 40:1-8 is generally recognized today by biblical scholars as being a divine council scene. With this in mind, traditional ultra-monotheistic interpretations of various Second Isaiah passages must be revised.

Joseph Blenkinsopp argues against Cross's interpretation -- quite convincingly I think -- in his recent Anchor Bible commentary (pp. 179-80). According to Blenkinsopp, it is prophets that are being addressed in Isa. 40:1-8, not divine beings.

[cksalmon]

Unfortunately, such an ad hoc twist is completely unwarranted by the scriptures. That these divine beings in Yahweh's council are of the same basic species as Yahweh is taken for granted by the biblical authors, and is supported by data from Ugarit.

Hi Sargon--

Where would you go in OT to support this contention?

That these divine beings in Yahweh's council are of the same basic species as Yahweh is taken for granted by the biblical authors.

Out of curiosity, have you read anything by Michael Heiser on this subject? In his 2004 dissertation on the Divine Council, he argues, from the scriptures, precisely against your assertion. You can read a summary of his thought in a fairly recent volume of FARMS, but I don't have the reference near to hand at the moment.

Best.

cks

[Sargon]

Nevo,

Thank you for the recommendation. I'll be sure to find that article.

CK,

I have read Heiser's remarks on the subject in his exchange with Bokovoy in the FARMS review. I thought it was interesting, but I just sense lots of acrobatics in order for him to make his point. It seemed to me to be what Peterson called "theological squeamishness."

Unfortunately, I'm not nearly well-enough trained to be able to critique Heiser's remarks. So, my biased opinion is nothing more than a biased opinion.

As for the OT's description of the members of Yahweh's council, it simply is a matter of these individuals being called "gods" over and over and over again in the record. The Hebrew writers just weren't interested in ontological uniqueness. They were interested in their warrior god YHWH being the biggest, strongest, toughest god out there, and being able to kicking the tar out of all other gods.

[JLFuller]

One of the godfathers of semitic studies, Frank Moore Cross Jr., wrote a piece in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies in 1953: â??The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah,â? Journal of Near Eastern Studies, (12) 1953, 274-277.

Here I reproduce a part of this article. Isaiah 40:1-8 is generally recognized today by biblical scholars as being a divine council scene. With this in mind, traditional ultra-monotheistic interpretations of various Second Isaiah passages must be revised.

Cross also briefly examines Isa 48:20-21; 57:14; 35:3-4; and he mentions Isa 52:1-10; 62:10-12; cf. 44:26; and 40:26. Cross addresses each of these passage as being â??of like literary type.â?

The very section of Isaiah which mainstream Christians most point to for evidence of their metaphysical monotheism begins with a divine council scene, a scene which presupposes the existence of multiple divine beings. Some Christians may argue that these council members are angels, or some kind of being that is ontologically different from Yahweh. Unfortunately, such an ad hoc twist is completely unwarranted by the scriptures. That these divine beings in Yahwehâ??s council are of the same basic species as Yahweh is taken for granted by the biblical authors, and is supported by data from Ugarit.

The evidence that LDS theology is as we claim continues to increase while Traditional Christian thought about such matters continues to fade.

[cksalmon]

Nevo,

Thank you for the recommendation. I'll be sure to find that article.

CK,

I have read Heiser's remarks on the subject in his exchange with Bokovoy in the FARMS review. I thought it was interesting, but I just sense lots of acrobatics in order for him to make his point. It seemed to me to be what Peterson called "theological squeamishness."

Frankly, I don't understand Peterson's comment at all. Without context, the charge of "theological squeamishness" reads to my mind as "does not agree with LDS theology." Any "acrobatics" you might have sensed I would suggest may well stem from the fact that Heiser was radically summarizing the views for which he argued extensively in his 250-plus-page dissertation. I don't see any acrobatics therein, personally--just a methodical presentation of text after text, context after context, and probable conclusions based upon those texts and contexts.

Heiser is anything but squeamish from the perspective of much of traditionally Christian exegesis of the relevant passages. He's actually radical. LDS might suggest that he doesn't go far enough; many traditional Christians would vehemently argue, I suspect, that he has gone much too far. I believe he actuallly is quite on target in his analysis (which interacts quite significantly with the Ugaritic texts).

...

As for the OT's description of the members of Yahweh's council, it simply is a matter of these individuals being called "gods" over and over and over again in the record. The Hebrew writers just weren't interested in ontological uniqueness. They were interested in their warrior god YHWH being the biggest, strongest, toughest god out there, and being able to kicking the tar out of all other gods.

There is no question, to my mind, that there are other elohim. But this is not the same as asserting that the Israelite writers knew nothing of YHWH's unique identity among them.

If I have some time, perhaps I'll try to distill some of his textual arguments here in the next few days.

Best.

cks

[Ron Beron]

Interesting, very interesting. But now you've peaked my interests and the next time I'm stranded on an island with nothing better to do than drink rum I'm going to have to read more on this.

To satiate your reading try M. Heiser's article... http://michaelsheiser.com/TwoPowersInHeave...council/page/2/

[e=mc2]

Heh, it was the footnotes in Cross's article that I persued once while I spent a day in the BYU library researching. That article is a CLASSIC! VERY powerful, and I have used it in several of my You Tube videos.

[Sargon]

There is no question, to my mind, that there are other elohim. But this is not the same as asserting that the Israelite writers knew nothing of YHWH's unique identity among them.

If I have some time, perhaps I'll try to distill some of his textual arguments here in the next few days.

Best.

cks

Unless others are interested in them, you don't need to do all that work. I've read Heiser's arguments in his FARMS exchange, and I've held his dissertation in my hands. Unfortunately, schoolwork got in the way of reading it. I have access to his dissertation, I just need time to read it!

Thanks.

Sargon

[cksalmon]

Unless others are interested in them, you don't need to do all that work. I've read Heiser's arguments in his FARMS exchange, and I've held his dissertation in my hands. Unfortunately, schoolwork got in the way of reading it. I have access to his dissertation, I just need time to read it!

Thanks.

Sargon

Cool. (I still have no idea how to make Hebrew script appear readable across browsers! )

I hope you're enjoying your studies.

Chris

[Sargon]

Couldn't we agree that at least Asherah, Yahweh's consort, was considered by her devotees to be the same fundamental species as Yahweh?

Furthermore, we can conclude that those in Yahweh's court shared his "image and likeness" (Gen 1:26-27, however one interprets that).

[cksalmon]

Hi Sargon--

Couldn't we agree that at least Asherah, Yahweh's consort, was considered by her devotees to be the same fundamental species as Yahweh?

The question of YHWH's consort is a bit beyond me, frankly. I'm not conversant with the literature, having read only a handful of articles on the subject (including Peterson's from several years back). In short, I can't agree because I'm not sure what exactly I'd be agreeing with.

Furthermore, we can conclude that those in Yahweh's court shared his "image and likeness" (Gen 1:26-27, however one interprets that).

I don't find much to disagree with here.

Best.

cks

[Ron Beron]

Couldn't we agree that at least Asherah, Yahweh's consort, was considered by her devotees to be the same fundamental species as Yahweh?

Furthermore, we can conclude that those in Yahweh's court shared his "image and likeness" (Gen 1:26-27, however one interprets that).

Agreement?! There is no agreement here! You picked an interesting noun to describe her corporeality. I am not sure she can be considered a species let alone a counterpart to YHWH. There are some indications within the OT that she is actually the sister of YHWH aka Jesus because she is a creation of Elohim. The Ugaritic texts show her as the consort of Ba'al and later the consort of YHWH. Being a consort in the mythological concept does not necessarily make her so in the theological.

[Sargon]

Agreement?! There is no agreement here! You picked an interesting noun to describe her corporeality.

I don't recall saying anything about Asherah's corporeality. Although, I think a case could be made.

I am not sure she can be considered a species

What word would you prefer we use, if not 'species'? The discussion is about whether Asherah is considered YHWH's "ontological equal" (I'm struggling for the right terminology). If YHWH was "species unique" (the only one of his species in existence) it would seem a strange thing for him to have a consort of another species. What business does a God who is "wholly other" have mingling with a consort/wife? Don't the descriptions of Canaanite El's anatomy in "The Gracious Gods" give us insight into the anatomy of his wife and children?

let alone a counterpart to YHWH.

I'm surprised to hear you say that. That Asherah and Yahweh were considered a divine couple is a pretty standard position, from my experience. No doubt we can find variations here and there, but the general theme in modern scholarship that I sense is that "Yahweh and his Asherah" were a couple(see Dever, Patai, etc.).

There are some indications within the OT that she is actually the sister of YHWH aka Jesus because she is a creation of Elohim.

Are we mingling popular LDS themes with ancient Israelite theology? Are you suggesting that since Elohim(Heavenly Father) created YHWH(Jesus) and Asherah that YHWH(Jesus) and Asherah are siblings? First of all, it sounds like you are reading a lot of Mormon theology back into the text. The OT doesn't take great pains to distinguish between Elohim/YHWH, and neither does Joseph Smith.

I don't think we have to identify YHWH with Jesus to the exclusion of H.F. in every instance (or even in most).

Secondly, I'd be interested to know where the OT text describes Asherah being created by Canaanite El. It would have to be a text that clearly distinguishes El from YHWH, something very rare in the OT. Are you talking about Wisdom theology?

I would be surprised if you showed in the OT that Canaanite El created Asherah since in the OT El and YHWH are virtually the same individual. Therefore, Asherah is the consort of El/YHWH. While there are hints that in some ancient past YHWH and El were distinct, I understand that most scholars believe that that distinction faded rather early in Israel's history.

The Ugaritic texts show her as the consort of Ba'al and later the consort of YHWH.

To my knowledge, Atirat (Asherah) in the Ugaritic texts is only considered the consort of El. El and Atirat are the divine progenitors of the "sons of God", of which Baal is ambiguously one of them. I'm sure you are aware of the ambiguity of Baal's genealogy. Some texts suggest Baal is a son of El, others say he is a son of Dagnu. I am unaware of Atirat/Asherah ever being associated with Baal as his consort in the Ugaritic texts, much less of YWHW. Perhaps in Syrian sources. But, if you've got something I'm interested to learn it! I'm just a casual student you know.

And of course, as El was absorbed into YHWH in the minds of Israel he naturally took El's wife as his consort.

Being a consort in the mythological concept does not necessarily make her so in the theological.

Asherah being the consort of YWHW in ancient Israelite mythology certainly makes her the consort of YHWH in ancient Israelite theology. Can we really distinguish between the two? The divine council is a backdrop theme for the OT prophet. We really can't avoid it.

I wonder if perhaps we've misunderstood each other.

[Ron Beron]

I wonder if perhaps we've misunderstood each other.

More than likely. I posted the above in the midst of putting out semester updates on my students and I wasn't really focused on your comments in the way they deserved. Let me look again at them this weekend.

[Ron Beron]

Hi Sargon...sorry for the delay in gettng back.

'Sargon' writes,

I don't recall saying anything about Asherah's corporeality. Although, I think a case could be made.

My quip about agreement was made in jest mocking to some degree the sometimes lack of agreement we come to here. Actually, I do agree with you, but I was being a bit cheesy about the terms you used. I couldn't think of any other way to describe Asherah because she does indeed have corporeality because the ancient Mesopotamian gods did have flesh and blood.

What word would you prefer we use, if not 'species'?

Frankly, the word took me for a bit of a jolt because I had never heard that used before. I was thinking within the box of earthly biology and not mythology. Given that same logic, though, couldn't we also assume that God is also a different species from man? Also, man(kind is a biological species unique to earth and not to any celestial being?

I'm surprised to hear you say that. That Asherah and Yahweh were considered a divine couple is a pretty standard position, from my experience. No doubt we can find variations here and there, but the general theme in modern scholarship that I sense is that "Yahweh and his Asherah" were a couple(see Dever, Patai, etc.).

I guess it would depend on the varied regional representation of Asherah. If we confine our understanding to only that represented by the Jews then I think the conclusion would be there is a tie between YHWH and Asherah per Dever and Patai. To what extent this is universally accepted is in doubt and conjecture. I think it represents a belief of the common and less restrictive religious tradition and thought of the Israelites. Many of these ideas were syncretistic of the neighboring Canaanite or Ugaritic beliefs and were considered apostosy by the Yahwehists. I can only assume you are referring to the single evidence we have with the Khirbet el Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud sites. Seemingly, these would connect YHWH with the earlier Ugaritic connection, but many scholars have disagreed with this assumption. G.W. Ahlstrom in Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion states that Asherah is the â??the ideological replica of the mother of the godsâ?¦â?. Other than that we can only surmise her origins.

Are we mingling popular LDS themes with ancient Israelite theology?

Nope, not all.

Are you suggesting that since Elohim(Heavenly Father) created YHWH(Jesus) and Asherah that YHWH(Jesus) and Asherah are siblings?

Actually, I am reading OT text:

Prov. 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

And,

Prov. 8:27-30 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

And finally,

Proverbs 8:22,23The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

While it states that the Lord possessed, in reality the word is closer to create.

Philo of Alexandria wrote, "Wisdom is older than the creation...of the whole universe." Philo, On the Virtues 62

"And who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the firstborn mother of all things." Philo, Questions in Genesis 4:97.

You have mentioned Wisdom theology and I would agree that Wisdom or Sofia was an evolution of Asherah.

Secondly, I'd be interested to know where the OT text describes Asherah being created by Canaanite El. It would have to be a text that clearly distinguishes El from YHWH, something very rare in the OT.

As previously stated Asherah or hokhma was created by the God of Proverbs. If you conflate the Hebrew El with the Canaanite El then it would possible.

I would be surprised if you showed in the OT that Canaanite El created Asherah since in the OT El and YHWH are virtually the same individual. Therefore, Asherah is the consort of El/YHWH. While there are hints that in some ancient past YHWH and El were distinct, I understand that most scholars believe that that distinction faded rather early in Israel's history.

In order to do that I would have to show that the Hebrew El is the same as the Ugartic El. I believe that such a conflation was possible. Secondly, I think that YHWH was a creation of Midianite beliefs and was introduced into Hebrew cosmology over a period of time. I think one would hard pressed to assume that Asherah was the consort of El/YHWH in "official" or larger traditional Hebrew theology, but it would make sense that she worshipped as such in the "lesser" or unofficial Hebrew mythology of which a distinction can be made.

To my knowledge, Atirat (Asherah) in the Ugaritic texts is only considered the consort of El

It is assumed but never stated (except where mentioned below). It would be easier to claim that she was consort of Ba'al where in one obscure episode she is shown trying to seduce Baal.

She has taken her spindle [in hand],

a spindle befitting her high station in her right hand.

As her flesh has become soiled,

she puts her garments into the sea,

her twiceâ??soiled (body) into the rivers.

She places a pot on the fire,

a pan on top of the coals,

So as to prepare a (warm) drink for the Bull, the kindly god,

so as to make a present to the Creator of creatures.

(M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Yahwe und seine Aschera (UBL 9; M

[Ron Beron]

bump

[Ron Beron]

bump for Sargon

[Sargon]

Thanks for the reply Ron! I'll be sure to respond later, though I'm not sure I have much to add!

[Sargon]

Hi Sargon...sorry for the delay in gettng back.

'Sargon' writes,

What word would you prefer we use, if not 'species'?

Frankly, the word took me for a bit of a jolt because I had never heard that used before. I was thinking within the box of earthly biology and not mythology. Given that same logic, though, couldn't we also assume that God is also a different species from man? Also, man(kind is a biological species unique to earth and not to any celestial being?

I don't think so. It is consistent in my mind to consider God the Father to be the same biological species as man, just in a glorified and exalted state. Perhaps the butterfly/caterpillar analogy is apt.

I guess it would depend on the varied regional representation of Asherah. If we confine our understanding to only that represented by the Jews then I think the conclusion would be there is a tie between YHWH and Asherah per Dever and Patai. To what extent this is universally accepted is in doubt and conjecture. I think it represents a belief of the common and less restrictive religious tradition and thought of the Israelites. Many of these ideas were syncretistic of the neighboring Canaanite or Ugaritic beliefs and were considered apostosy by the Yahwehists. I can only assume you are referring to the single evidence we have with the Khirbet el Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud sites. Seemingly, these would connect YHWH with the earlier Ugaritic connection, but many scholars have disagreed with this assumption. G.W. Ahlstrom in Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion states that Asherah is the â??the ideological replica of the mother of the godsâ?¦â?. Other than that we can only surmise her origins.

Nope, not all.

Actually, I am reading OT text:

Prov. 30:4 Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

And,

Prov. 8:27-30 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

And finally,

Proverbs 8:22,23The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

While it states that the Lord possessed, in reality the word is closer to create.

Philo of Alexandria wrote, "Wisdom is older than the creation...of the whole universe." Philo, On the Virtues 62

"And who is to be considered the daughter of God but Wisdom, who is the firstborn mother of all things." Philo, Questions in Genesis 4:97.

You have mentioned Wisdom theology and I would agree that Wisdom or Sofia was an evolution of Asherah.

As previously stated Asherah or hokhma was created by the God of Proverbs. If you conflate the Hebrew El with the Canaanite El then it would possible.

In order to do that I would have to show that the Hebrew El is the same as the Ugartic El. I believe that such a conflation was possible. Secondly, I think that YHWH was a creation of Midianite beliefs and was introduced into Hebrew cosmology over a period of time. I think one would hard pressed to assume that Asherah was the consort of El/YHWH in "official" or larger traditional Hebrew theology, but it would make sense that she worshipped as such in the "lesser" or unofficial Hebrew mythology of which a distinction can be made.

It is assumed but never stated (except where mentioned below). It would be easier to claim that she was consort of Ba'al where in one obscure episode she is shown trying to seduce Baal.

She has taken her spindle [in hand],

a spindle befitting her high station in her right hand.

As her flesh has become soiled,

she puts her garments into the sea,

her twiceâ??soiled (body) into the rivers.

She places a pot on the fire,

a pan on top of the coals,

So as to prepare a (warm) drink for the Bull, the kindly god,

so as to make a present to the Creator of creatures.

(M. Dietrich & O. Loretz, Yahwe und seine Aschera (UBL 9; M

[e=mc2]

Unless others are interested in them, you don't need to do all that work. I've read Heiser's arguments in his FARMS exchange, and I've held his dissertation in my hands. Unfortunately, schoolwork got in the way of reading it. I have access to his dissertation, I just need time to read it!

Thanks.

Sargon

You will absolutely LOVE Heiser's dissertation! Wow, that is a piece of work...... very interesting!

[Ron Beron]

Frankly, the word took me for a bit of a jolt because I had never heard that used before. I was thinking within the box of earthly biology and not mythology. Given that same logic, though, couldn't we also assume that God is also a different species from man? Also, man(kind is a biological species unique to earth and not to any celestial being?I don't think so. It is consistent in my mind to consider God the Father to be the same biological species as man, just in a glorified and exalted state. Perhaps the butterfly/caterpillar analogy is apt.I don't have much to disagree with. I do have one nitpick to make though. You talked about the importance of not assuming that Asherah was uniformly understood by all Israelite groups throughout those ancient centuries when she was known. I agree. However, I find it inconsistent to then suggest that Asherah was considered to the sister of Jesus because of Wisdom theology. Certainly there is some connection between Asherah and Wisdom, but it is equally certain the authors were not talking esoterically about Asherah by using a code word "wisdom".Great discussion. You know more about this stuff than I do, so I appreciate your insight.

Thanks, but for the record I am just an amateur like yourself. I suppose it is a pet theory of mine that Asherah because of her unique preciousness to Israel was morphed in later Israelite theology to Hokhma or Wisdom and from Wisdom to Logos to Jesus. After reading Dever et al I can see where her presence is still found in modern Israel.

You will absolutely LOVE Heiser's dissertation! Wow, that is a piece of work...... very interesting!

He is also running three blogs that are well worth looking at.

[Sargon]

Thanks, but for the record I am just an amateur like yourself. I suppose it is a pet theory of mine that Asherah because of her unique preciousness to Israel was morphed in later Israelite theology to Hokhma or Wisdom and from Wisdom to Logos to Jesus. After reading Dever et al I can see where her presence is still found in modern Israel.He is also running three blogs that are well worth looking at.

Where are these blogs?

Thanks.