A Goddess in the Book of Mormon

[Matthew J. Tandy]

He has argued that, but a better synthesis sees Asherah worship as moving from the consort/fertility goddess perspective toward the feminine/motherhood perspective.

Agreed.

I think the transference to Israelite culture of Asherah adapted her into the symbol of a living tree, focused on fertility and feminine attributes. Over time, it evolved into figures that could be carried or placed in a home, such as small figurines. With Josiah's reforms, I think we see the near conclusion of the transference of Asherah to a concept, perhaps a feminine attribute to YHWH. It would be difficult to say Asherah was just one thought or concept or depiction across all of Israelite history, let alone the middle east as a whole.

[maklelan]

Agreed.

I think the transference to Israelite culture of Asherah adapted her into the symbol of a living tree, focused on fertility and feminine attributes. Over time, it evolved into figures that could be carried or placed in a home, such as small figurines. With Josiah's reforms, I think we see the near conclusion of the transference of Asherah to a concept, perhaps a feminine attribute to YHWH. It would be difficult to say Asherah was just one thought or concept or depiction across all of Israelite history, let alone the middle east as a whole.

In the portion of my paper I quoted above I discuss Yhwh's assimilation of the aspects of motherhood and femininity in the late pre-exile. This would make it difficult for Asherah to be preserved as a separate being. Her symbol, however, remained.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Her symbol, however, remained.

The question then, which may never be answered, is for how long? I think that by the time of the Hasmonean empire, her symbolism in any meaningful sense, was defunct. I have never studied the terminal issue though, so this is jsut a quick thought upon pondering it. I would think its ultimate decline as a symbol would have accelerated with Ptolemaic period. Just a musing.

[maklelan]

The question then, which may never be answered, is for how long? I think that by the time of the Hasmonean empire, her symbolism in any meaningful sense, was defunct. I have never studied the terminal issue though, so this is jsut a quick thought upon pondering it. I would think its ultimate decline as a symbol would have accelerated with Ptolemaic period. Just a musing.

I imagine that during the exile that element was all but purged from Israelite society (at least that portion that returned and reestablished Jerusalem). The railing against it in Deuteronomy and Isaiah certainly shows it was a serious issue in the exile, but there is little reference to those problems in later literature. We know from Elephantine that some Jews continued some of those archaic cultic practices, but to what degree that represented Judaism as a whole is unknown.

[Brennin]

By all means, support this assertion.

Setting aside the fact that I find Dr. Peterson's suggestion entirely outlandish, he appears to conflate Asherah with Anat. The latter was known as a virgin goddess. Where is the evidence that Asherah was known as a virgin?

[Jeff K.]

Virgin Goddess. My wife in the celestial room on the day we married.

[Brennin]

A debate within the Asherah debate has been how she/it was represented in the official cultic setting and how she/it was represented in popular culture. I have some exciting new data to bring to bare on that debate, arguing that Asherah was always represented in the official cultic practice by a living tree. I will be working on a paper on it come January, so I won't go into details (don't want anyone stealing my data;-) ). However, I think it is highly conclusive that her symbol is a living tree, and not a pole, staff, statue, etc. I hadn't thought of it before, but it does further strengthen the Asherah connection in Nephi's vision. I'll have to look into that connection further to see if their might be a side paper possible for the LDS group.

"However, so far as I am aware, Lemaire is the only scholar today

who maintains that the Asherim were always living trees.54 He assumes that

the Asherim are to be equated with sacred trees like the tamarisk planted

by Abraham at Beer-Sheba (Gen 21:33) and the oak in the sanctuary at

Shechem (osh 24:26). Against this, of course, stands the fact that the OT

often refers to the making ('asd) of Asherim (1 Kgs 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kgs 17:16;

21:3, 7; 2 Chr 33:3) and also of the building (bdna, 1 Kgs 14:23) and erection

(nasab, 2 Kgs 17:10) of Asherim, which does not seem appropriate for trees.

Lemaire's attempt to counter these arguments is distinctly weak, for he

claims on the one hand that the usage of the verb 'acsa is very broad. He

appeals to 1 Kgs 12:32, where 'asa is employed of a feast, the golden calves,

and the high places. On the other hand he claims that the use of the verbs

bdna and ndsab was motivated by the other objects mentioned alongside

the Asherim in these passages, namely, the high places (bdm6t) and the

pillars (massebot). However, it is difficult to see how 1 Kgs 12:32 offers any

support for Lemaire's case, since the golden calves and the high places

clearly were manufactured objects and there is nothing surprising about

the use of 'dsa in connection with a feast. None of these is comparable to

a tree. Furthermore, if bana and ndsab were only really appropriate for use

in connection with the high places and pillars and not the Asherim, one

would expect a different verb to have been employed in connection with the

latter. The only natural conclusion is that the Asherim were genuinely

manmade objects, and this is widely accepted. A further point that may be

made is that we read in Jer 17:2 of "their Asherim, beside every luxuriant

tree," which would be odd if the Asherim were themselves trees. What then

of Deut 16:21? Does this refer to the Asherah as a tree? Since all the other

allusions in the OT that I have just noted imply that the Asherah was a

manmade object, this would be surprising, especially since they come from

the same body of literature-the Deuteronomic corpus. It is therefore more

natural to translate 'es in Deut 16:21 as "wood, wooden thing" rather than

"tree," a meaning that is amply attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see

Exod 15:25; 31:5; Deut 4:28; 1 Kgs 6:15; 2 Kgs 19:18, etc.). We may accordingly

translate, 'You shall not plant any wooden thing as an Asherah beside

the altar of the Lord your God which you shall make'" (Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,

John Day, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 105, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 385-408)

[Brennin]

Virgin Goddess. My wife in the celestial room on the day we married.

Saccharine.

[maklelan]

Setting aside the fact that I find Dr. Peterson's suggestion entirely outlandish,

Of course you should set it aside. It's not support of anything.

he appears to conflate Asherah with Anat. The latter was known as a virgin goddess. Where is the evidence that Asherah was known as a virgin?

Anat was a virgin goddess? I've always viewed her as a war-goddess, and, although she is sometimes referred to as btlt 'nt, she is also represented as one of Baal's lovers. She even conceives a steer with Baal in KTU 10. In an Egyptian text, Astarte and Anat are referred to as the goddesses who "conceive but do not bear." btlt in this culture did not have the exact semantic range that "virgin" does today. It was usually used to refer to one who is ready for, or desirable for, marriage. Most fertility goddesses in the ancient Near East were also considered virgins, although not necessarily in the same sense we understand the word today.

[Brant Gardner]

Where is the evidence that Asherah was known as a virgin?

In my opinion, this misses the point entirely. First, it would have been unusual for Nephi to not understand the complex of symbols surrounding a tree of life. In addition, the connection between Asherah and the tree/tree substitute should have been part of his cultural inheritance (I recently recognized what I believe to be evidence that Nephi was trained as a scribe, which would further underscore his cultural understanding of these symbols). Because of what he knew, and what he could see that was different in the vision, he needed an explanation--precisely because it was slightly different from his expectation.

When he comes to the meaning, without any other explanation, he comes to Mary as the Mother of God. Why was that the reason? He certainly would have understood the Asherah connection, and the information about the mortal birth of Yahweh was the shift in meaning that added to his expectations.

Therefore, there is no reason for Asherah to be a virgin, because the connection to Asherah was the springboard to more specific information, not the information itself.

[maklelan]

"However, so far as I am aware, Lemaire is the only scholar today

who maintains that the Asherim were always living trees.54 He assumes that

the Asherim are to be equated with sacred trees like the tamarisk planted

by Abraham at Beer-Sheba (Gen 21:33) and the oak in the sanctuary at

Shechem (osh 24:26). Against this, of course, stands the fact that the OT

often refers to the making ('asd) of Asherim (1 Kgs 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kgs 17:16;

21:3, 7; 2 Chr 33:3) and also of the building (bdna, 1 Kgs 14:23) and erection

(nasab, 2 Kgs 17:10) of Asherim, which does not seem appropriate for trees.

Lemaire's attempt to counter these arguments is distinctly weak, for he

claims on the one hand that the usage of the verb 'acsa is very broad. He

appeals to 1 Kgs 12:32, where 'asa is employed of a feast, the golden calves,

and the high places. On the other hand he claims that the use of the verbs

bdna and ndsab was motivated by the other objects mentioned alongside

the Asherim in these passages, namely, the high places (bdm6t) and the

pillars (massebot). However, it is difficult to see how 1 Kgs 12:32 offers any

support for Lemaire's case, since the golden calves and the high places

clearly were manufactured objects and there is nothing surprising about

the use of 'dsa in connection with a feast. None of these is comparable to

a tree. Furthermore, if bana and ndsab were only really appropriate for use

in connection with the high places and pillars and not the Asherim, one

would expect a different verb to have been employed in connection with the

latter. The only natural conclusion is that the Asherim were genuinely

manmade objects, and this is widely accepted. A further point that may be

made is that we read in Jer 17:2 of "their Asherim, beside every luxuriant

tree," which would be odd if the Asherim were themselves trees. What then

of Deut 16:21? Does this refer to the Asherah as a tree? Since all the other

allusions in the OT that I have just noted imply that the Asherah was a

manmade object, this would be surprising, especially since they come from

the same body of literature-the Deuteronomic corpus. It is therefore more

natural to translate 'es in Deut 16:21 as "wood, wooden thing" rather than

"tree," a meaning that is amply attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see

Exod 15:25; 31:5; Deut 4:28; 1 Kgs 6:15; 2 Kgs 19:18, etc.). We may accordingly

translate, 'You shall not plant any wooden thing as an Asherah beside

the altar of the Lord your God which you shall make'" (Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,

John Day, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 105, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 385-408)

I don't think they were always living trees, but it's clear they made use of living trees where it was possible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I must say, that so far for today, this thread kicks all the other threads butts.

[Calm]

"However, so far as I am aware, Lemaire is the only scholar today

who maintains that the Asherim were always living trees......

Unless you've typed this up yourself, you should provide a link for others to read the original material.

[WalkerW]

This is a fine example of shooting an arrow and then painting concentric circles around it. The Book of Mormon is referring to Mary, not Asherah, and the image of Mary therein is a reflection of Protestant piety that is ultimately derived from fifth century Marian doctrines.

Perhaps. Try reading Margaret Barker, "The Images of Mary in the Litany of Loreto," Usus Antiquior 1:2 (July 2010).

[Matthew J. Tandy]

It is therefore more

natural to translate 'es in Deut 16:21 as "wood, wooden thing" rather than

"tree," a meaning that is amply attested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (see

Exod 15:25; 31:5; Deut 4:28; 1 Kgs 6:15; 2 Kgs 19:18, etc.). We may accordingly

translate, 'You shall not plant any wooden thing as an Asherah beside

the altar of the Lord your God which you shall make'" (Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,

John Day, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 105, No. 3 (Sep., 1986), pp. 385-408)

Read the article over a year ago. It was disputed even in its time, as mine will be disputed. However, I am going off the assumption you are not proficient in archaic or biblical Hebrew linguistics, not that you have read the hundreds of articles and dozen books on the topic that I have, so most of what I would counter would not have much meaning to you. The topic of my paper will be purely academic and left to the academic community and will not touch on LDS theology. In fact, I highly doubt many in the LDS community would embrace any of the conclusions. The short reply is that the author of that paper conflated several terms (asherah, asherot, asherim, ashterah, etc) and treats a thousand+ years of worship as a non-evolving entity, which I briefly mentioned as a fallacy in an earlier post on this thread.

Finally, my little contribution will focus heavily on the linguistic evolution and evidence for secondary grammatical terms surrounding Asherah, an area not very well studied. Linguistic evolution and meaning in Hebrew biblical issues is a major focus of much of my writings. Thus, my paper on God as a liar incorporated many new word studies. ANother paper the LDS culture does not generally embrace. My concern is for what the Israelites believed then, not what we believe now about God.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I don't think they were always living trees, but it's clear they made use of living trees where it was possible.

Exactly.

[William Schryver]

Saccharine.

Sure tasted like real sugar to me.

It could be because, like my beautiful virgin bride, I had nothing else to compare it to--and still don't. (One of the under-appreciated benefits of chastity and fidelity.)

At any rate, I'm all for goddess worship. I've been worshiping my goddess for almost thirty years. And believe me, say what you want about SI Swimsuit models and Victoria's Secret fantasy girls, in my experience, there ain't nothin' that can compare to the joy and satisfaction that comes from merging oneself with a woman so much that, eventually, you become a single entity; the twain has become one.

[/thread-jack]

[maklelan]

Read the article over a year ago. It was disputed even in its time, as mine will be disputed. However, I am going off the assumption you are not proficient in archaic or biblical Hebrew linguistics, not that you have read the hundreds of articles and dozen books on the topic that I have, so most of what I would counter would not have much meaning to you. The topic of my paper will be purely academic and left to the academic community and will not touch on LDS theology. In fact, I highly doubt many in the LDS community would embrace any of the conclusions. The short reply is that the author of that paper conflated several terms (asherah, asherot, asherim, ashterah, etc) and treats a thousand+ years of worship as a non-evolving entity, which I briefly mentioned as a fallacy in an earlier post on this thread.

Finally, my little contribution will focus heavily on the linguistic evolution and evidence for secondary grammatical terms surrounding Asherah, an area not very well studied. Linguistic evolution and meaning in Hebrew biblical issues is a major focus of much of my writings. Thus, my paper on God as a liar incorporated many new word studies. ANother paper the LDS culture does not generally embrace. My concern is for what the Israelites believed then, not what we believe now about God.

Not that it means anything really important vis-a-vis his article quoted above, but I happen to know John Day. He's a remarkably nice guy in person (imagine a stuffy and eccentric Oxford theologian with a tiny mustache and a combover and you have John Day), but I feel he tends to latch pretty vehemently to his theories when sometimes a little more flexibility is warranted.

[WalkerW]

I forgot to add Barker, "Joseph Smith and the Preexilic Religion," BYU Studies 44:4 (2005). There are better scholars on Asherah, but I thought Barker's two articles were worth mentioning since they deal with 1) the link between Mary and the Queen of Heaven and 2) the Book of Mormon.

[Brennin]

Unless you've typed this up yourself, you should provide a link for others to read the original material.

I copied and pasted it from a pdf; there is no link, unless you want a link to jstor.

[William Schryver]

He's a remarkably nice guy in person (imagine a stuffy and eccentric Oxford theologian with a tiny mustache and a combover and you have ...

Dan McClellan in thirty years?

(Just ribbin' ya, dude. Hope things are going well up in the great northwest.)

I was going to actually contribute some substance to this thread (cited from Richard Pettey's Asherah: Goddess of Israel, which I read not long ago when I was into this whole Asherah business) but it looks like everyone else has matters well in hand.

[maklelan]

Unless you've typed this up yourself, you should provide a link for others to read the original material.

I think he's copied and pasted the article from a PDF or an HTML doc copied from a PDF. The diacritics didn't transfer over, which is why 'as

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Not that it means anything really important vis-a-vis his article quoted above, but I happen to know John Day. He's a remarkably nice guy in person (imagine a stuffy and eccentric Oxford theologian with a tiny mustache and a combover and you have John Day), but I feel he tends to latch pretty vehemently to his theories when sometimes a little more flexibility is warranted.

Hahah, this is true of most of us who study in the ancient near east fields isn't it? The latching on to our personal areas of interest. Most are fairly nice. Although I do hear Ehrman (more Greek of course) is quite the scary professor if you take a class from him. Maybe it's a New vs Old Testament thing? Those young Greek people....

[Brennin]

...I am going off the assumption you are not proficient in archaic or biblical Hebrew linguistics...

Your assumption is correct. I previously took classes in Attic and Koine but not in Hebrew.

[maklelan]

Dan McClellan in thirty years?

(Just ribbin' ya, dude. Hope things are going well up in the great northwest.)

They're keeping me busy. I'm writing my thesis on the development of monotheism in the Hellenistic period, writing papers for three more classes, trying to finish up my two SBL papers, and am working for Peter Flint on the Psalm Scroll and Martin Abegg on the War Scroll. Right now I'm supposed to be doing genre criticism on a bunch of OT texts, but it's starting to feel like a cheese grater across my forehead. This is helping to keep me somewhat sane.