A Goddess in the Book of Mormon

[Brennin]

Does this mean then that Nephi and company revered Asherah?

Professor Peterson and friends suggest that Nephi, who was supposed to have been a pious Jew (or Josephite if you prefer) with pious Jews for parents, living in Jerusalem, had in mind Asherah several generations after Hezekiah and a generation after Josiah. Does that make sense to you? As far as I am concerned, it makes an already implausible story that much more implausible.

[Joseph Antley]

Does this mean then that Nephi and company revered Asherah?

I think it simply means that Nephi and company associated the tree with Asherah, and the Lord used this cultural association to teach Nephi.

[Joseph Antley]

Professor Peterson and friends suggest that Nephi, who was supposed to have been a pious Jew (or Josephite if you prefer) with pious Jews for parents, living in Jerusalem, had in mind Asherah several generations after Hezekiah and a generation after Josiah. Does that make sense to you? As far as I am concerned, it makes an already implausible story that much more implausible.

...why? It would have likely been during Lehi's lifetime that the "groves" were cut down by Josiah, and a case can be made that Lehi was not completely happy with Josiah's reform. Why in the world would it be "implausible" that Lehi and Nephi were familiar with Asherah?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Professor Peterson and friends suggest that Nephi, who was supposed to have been a pious Jew (or Josephite if you prefer) with pious Jews for parents, living in Jerusalem, had in mind Asherah several generations after Hezekiah and a generation after Josiah. Does that make sense to you? As far as I am concerned, it makes an already implausible story that much more implausible.

ACtually what doesn't make sense is your arguament. Maybe you could clarify it?

[Uncertain]

To All,

Since we have some experts present I did have a couple of unanswered questions after reading Dr. Peterson's article. A primary argument made by Dr. Peterson if I understand correctly is the Asherah reading is a good reading because it explains a conceptual "jump". In brief how did Nephi obtain the correct interpretation of the tree from seeing a vision of a virgin mother? Now to some extent this argument relies on the premise that Nephi was a real person and the BOM is not fictional. Has anyone seen the south park parody in which the scientist is trying to determine why aliens are behaving in a certain way and the scientist makes numerous unsupported but correct logical jumps? Well the south park producers were parodying a trend seen all the time in works of fiction. Frequently in fictional movies and books characters make amazing yet correct leaps of logic based really on very little evidence. Frankly given my somewhat overly left brain way of thinking this drives me crazy. But nevertheless it is something seen all the time in works of fiction. If the BOM really was fictional Nephi making such leaps is really not all that surprising it just means Joseph Smith or whoever may have gotten a bit sloppy in his writing it happens no one is perfect.

But for the purposes of argument assume Nephi really is a ancient Israelite does his familiarity with Asherah "explain" the conceptual jump made by Nephi? As I read Dr. Peterson's article lots of different concepts are associated with Asherah including fertility, motherhood and Wisdom. So we have Nephi an ancient Israelite seeing in a vision a mother and a tree and he thinks the tree is a symbol of Asherah now what attributes does Asherah posses? Of course motherhood therefore the tree represents motherhood. Or Nephi thinks to himself Asherah primarily represents fertility and I just saw a mother with a child another example of fertility eureka the tree must represent fertility. Or Nephi thinks to himself hm I shouldn't go with the obvious motherhood/fertility answer instead lets be a little more subtle. Asherah represents Wisdom he who has wisdom is prosperous therefore the tree must represent prosperity.

The point I am trying to get at is out of the many attributes of Asherah how did Nephi immediately zero in on the "love of God" given all he apparently sees in the vision is a tree with precious fruit and a mother giving birth to the son of God? It is not clear to me how the Asherah reading necessarily solves the conceptual jump that it is supposed to solve. In fact is Asherah ever in antiquity explicitly called the "love of God"? Which Nephi immediately gets as the correct interpretation of the tree (after supposedly arriving at this interpretation by seeing a symbol of Asherah). On the other hand as I pointed out above God giving his Son to the world is explicitly referred to as the "love of God" in the new testament. Which fits neatly with the obvious and direct references to Christ in 1 Nephi ch 11. I am really not convinced we must necessarily appeal to the ANE to make sense of this passage. And even if we must appeal to the ANE to explain this passage I am not sure we must necessarily appeal to Asherah. As Maklelan points out above (post 91) Yhwh (who most LDS would view as Christ) is explicitly connected in the old testament with a tree that gives good fruit quote "In Hosea 14:9 we see Yhwh calling himself "a luxuriant cypress; from me comes your fruit." endquote. As I said it really seems to me the Asherah reading is one possible good reading out of many.

Edit: (In fact now that I think about this we need to get an apologist post haste writing up an article how the tree in Nephi's vision represents Christ which matches an ANE understanding i.e.(Hosea 14:9). I can see it now how could Joseph have known ?

Best,

Uncertain

[Brennin]

You mean like this guy? Oh wait....

Prof Peterson is an expert, but not in this field. Maklelan might be an expert someday but he is not currently.

[Joseph Antley]

Prof Peterson is an expert, but not in this field. Maklelan might be an expert someday but he is not currently.

Even if that were the case, it's still safe to admit that both of them have more expertise in the subject than you certainly do, correct?

[Brennin]

...why? It would have likely been during Lehi's lifetime that the "groves" were cut down by Josiah, and a case can be made that Lehi was not completely happy with Josiah's reform. Why in the world would it be "implausible" that Lehi and Nephi were familiar with Asherah?

The implausibility is not that they were familiar with her. The implausibility is that they would associate her with the virgin mother of the son of God in a vision when she is excoriated in the Hebrew Scriptures and is associated with ritualized prostitution.

[maklelan]

Even if you are correct about the Egyptian text, from what I've read Asherah != Astarte.

I am right about the Egyptian text, and Asherah is not Astarte. Astarte, being a war goddess, is more closely associated with Anat. See pp. 93-94 in Izak Cornelius, The Many Faces of the Goddess: The Iconography of the Syro-Palestinian Goddesses Anat, Astarte, Qedeshet, and Asherah c. 1500 - 1000 BCE. My concerns with your assertion about Asherah vs. Anat as virgins remain unaddressed.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

...is associated with ritualized prostitution.

Were is your evidence for this?

[Brennin]

Even if that were the case, it's still safe to admit that both of them have more expertise in the subject than you certainly do, correct?

Yes, especially since I don't have a great deal of interest in the OT per se. However, there is nothing particularly conceptually difficult about the articles I have been citing in opposition to their claims.

[maklelan]

Professor Peterson and friends suggest that Nephi, who was supposed to have been a pious Jew (or Josephite if you prefer) with pious Jews for parents, living in Jerusalem, had in mind Asherah several generations after Hezekiah and a generation after Josiah. Does that make sense to you? As far as I am concerned, it makes an already implausible story that much more implausible.

You're presupposing a normative brand of Judaism that was not in view until well into the post-exilic period. Pious Jews worshipped a goddess (Anat-Yahu, actually) at Elephantine as late as the early 4th century BCE with Jerusalem's approbation. The representation of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah in the Hebrew Bible were largely rhetorical and don't reflect much actual history. See my discussion of Josiah's reforms in particular here.

[Brennin]

Were is your evidence for this?

2 Kings 23:7

ESV

And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah.

JPS Tanakh

And he broke down the houses of the sodomites, that were in the house of HaShem, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah.

RSV

And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Ashe'rah.

NRSV

He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah.

[maklelan]

Yes, especially since I don't have a great deal of interest in the OT per se. However, there is nothing particularly conceptually difficult about the articles I have been citing in opposition to their claims.

No, there's not. The difficulty lie in the fact that appealing to Day's article as more authoritative than my presentation of the evidence (and the publications I've cited) is a rather blatant appeal to authority. You've also failed to pick up on the facts that (1) Day's article was published well before any of the publications I've cited, (2) Day's article does not address my specific conclusion, and (3) neither you nor Day have responded specifically to the evidence I've provided.

[ELF1024]

2 Kings 23:7

ESV

And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah.

JPS Tanakh

And he broke down the houses of the sodomites, that were in the house of HaShem, where the women wove coverings for the Asherah.

RSV

And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Ashe'rah.

NRSV

He broke down the houses of the male temple prostitutes that were in the house of the Lord, where the women did weaving for Asherah.

I'm a layman here, I have no scholarly degree in anything. I am just your run of the mill commoner. However, I have to say... One Verse? Really? One verse?

You can translate it however many times you want... but really... one verse... of a modern scripture... which several very knowledge-able people have already said was "reformed"...

Surely you can do better than that...

[Matthew J. Tandy]

The implausibility is not that they were familiar with her. The implausibility is that they would associate her with the virgin mother of the son of God in a vision when she is excoriated in the Hebrew Scriptures and is associated with ritualized prostitution.

I wish I had time to point out all the problems with that and your other assessments. It is apparent you are unfamiliar with the way academia works in the biblical field, how academic works are reviewed, the thoughts on why certain people and behaviors are "excoriated" and whether it is consistent and by whom, etc. The levels of biblical criticism are legion. Literary, feminine, political, competing religious, foreign, textual, source, form, redaction, socio-historical, tradition, narrative, oral, higher/lower, etc etc etc. I've spent years studying nothing except the Hebrew bible. Maklelan more years. There is no consensus on any topic really, but all of us can certainly find reasons for the why just fine and within the accepted framework.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

2 Kings 23:7

ESV

And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes who were in the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah.

Whole articles and chapters of books have been written on the problems of just that verse.

[maklelan]

The implausibility is not that they were familiar with her. The implausibility is that they would associate her with the virgin mother of the son of God in a vision when she is excoriated in the Hebrew Scriptures and is associated with ritualized prostitution.

And Christianity was associated with cannibalism and child sacrifice in early Greek literature. You are apparently under the impression that the Hebrew Bible is unilaterally representative of pious Judaism, while all that is rejected by the Hebrew Bible is unilaterally representative of inappropriate folk religion. This false dichotomy was recently addressed (and thoroughly undermined) by Barton and Stavrakopoulou's recent Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah. I discuss some aspects of their position here.

[Brennin]

I'm a layman here, I have no scholarly degree in anything. I am just your run of the mill commoner. However, I have to say... One Verse? Really? One verse?

You can translate it however many times you want... but really... one verse... of a modern scripture... which several very knowledge-able people have already said was "reformed"...

Surely you can do better than that...

There are many things that rest on only one verse, a fine example of which is the doctrine of baptisms for the dead. (Which, incidentally, was practiced in the U.S. by the Ephrata Cloister before the LDS Church.)

[Scott Lloyd]

There are many things that rest on only one verse, a fine example of which is the doctrine of baptisms for the dead. (Which, incidentally, was practiced in the U.S. by the Ephrata Cloister before the LDS Church.)

The LDS doctrine of baptism for the dead does not "rest on" that one Bible verse. It is based on revelation. The Bible verse alludes to it, but the Church would be perfectly fine doctrinally with or without that verse, as we don't believe the Bible is the sole repository of every single thing God said on any subject. That is a sectarian notion that we reject.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There are many things that rest on only one verse, a fine example of which is the doctrine of baptisms for the dead. (Which, incidentally, was practiced in the U.S. by the Ephrata Cloister before the LDS Church.)

So what, what does that prove? We are not talking about baptisms for the dead but of reforms that happend in the bible to cover up what some of the Isralites were really doing. They took parts out of the bible and changed other parts.

[ELF1024]

There are many things that rest on only one verse, a fine example of which is the doctrine of baptisms for the dead. (Which, incidentally, was practiced in the U.S. by the Ephrata Cloister before the LDS Church.)

Ahh yes, but that you wouldn't beleive in. Nor do I assume you believe that one verse makes a reasonable case for it. Since you esteem logic and reason and scholarly debate as so imporant; I say again, surely you can do better.

[maklelan]

But for the purposes of argument assume Nephi really is a ancient Israelite does his familiarity with Asherah "explain" the conceptual jump made by Nephi? As I read Dr. Peterson's article lots of different concepts are associated with Asherah including fertility, motherhood and Wisdom. So we have Nephi an ancient Israelite seeing in a vision a mother and a tree and he thinks the tree is a symbol of Asherah now what attributes does Asherah posses? Of course motherhood therefore the tree represents motherhood. Or Nephi thinks to himself Asherah primarily represents fertility and I just saw a mother with a child another example of fertility eureka the tree must represent fertility. Or Nephi thinks to himself hm I shouldn't go with the obvious motherhood/fertility answer instead lets be a little more subtle. Asherah represents Wisdom he who has wisdom is prosperous therefore the tree must represent prosperity.

The point I am trying to get at is out of the many attributes of Asherah how did Nephi immediately zero in on the "love of God" given all he apparently sees in the vision is a tree with precious fruit and a mother giving birth to the son of God? It is not clear to me how the Asherah reading necessarily solves the conceptual jump that it is supposed to solve. In fact is Asherah ever in antiquity explicitly called the "love of God"?

Dan can speak for himself, but in my opinion, the association fits quite well. For the average Israelite, conception and birth were tricky processes that were thought to be the sole purview of the gods. This is why numerous times in the Hebrew Bible conception is explicitly stated to be a blessing from Yhwh. Many Hebrew names are aimed at honoring God for making conception and successful birth possible. Take Elkanah, Hannah's husband, for instance. His name can mean "El has acquired," or "El has procreated." The former makes little sense, but the latter makes great sense in light of the fact that the story focuses on Hannah's conception after praying to be allowed to have a child. Now, as I've been explaining, Asherah was slowly becoming less of an independent deity and more of a feminine/motherly aspect of Yhwh. Pillar figurines in domestic residences show Israelites felt the goddess (whether considered a goddess or an aspect of Yhwh) could bless the fruitfulness of the family. The fact that these pillar figurines omitted the pubic triangle, as was so prominently represented in earlier Asherah iconography, and focused exclusively on the breasts, shows she was not so much viewed as a fertility goddess than as a nurturing goddess. She represented motherly love and provision. Seeing her as a tree and then as a mother with a child in her arms is perfectly parallel to that developing picture of Asherah. Her virgin qualities are not as well represented, but they are still found on occasion.

[maklelan]

There are many things that rest on only one verse, a fine example of which is the doctrine of baptisms for the dead. (Which, incidentally, was practiced in the U.S. by the Ephrata Cloister before the LDS Church.)

And Joseph Smith was not participating in an academic discussion when he introduced that doctrine. You are participating in an academic discussion.

[ELF1024]

My question, and I apologize for the thread hijack...

<DELETED> Created a thread for this.