A Goddess in the Book of Mormon

[Brennin]

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.

Your analogy does not work at all. The charges against the Christians came from non-Christians. The Hebrew Scriptures come from Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish religionists. (A analogy that might work would be internecine disputes between "orthodox" and "heterodox" Christians.) Where is your evidence that Lehi and Nephi were folk religionists as opposed to committed Yahwists? Why would folk religionists gratuitously cite Isaiah?

[maklelan]

Your analogy does not work at all. The charges against the Christians came from non-Christians. The Hebrew Scriptures come from Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish religionists.

Those Israelite religionists you speak of were from one socio-political class and were trying to vilify another socio-political class. You're still assuming that there was a normative Israelite religion back then. There was not.

(A analogy

"An analogy."

that might work would be internecine disputes between "orthodox" and "heterodox" Christians.) Where is your evidence that Lehi and Nephi were folk religionists as opposed to committed Yahwists? Why would folk religionists gratuitously cite Isaiah?

Again, you presuppose this false dichotomy. The point of my post was to show that that dichotomy does not exist.

[Uncertain]

Dan can speak for himself, but in my opinion, the association fits quite well.

Personally I don't care who responds to my posts. I am well aware Dan requires no babysitting.

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.

Fair enough, I am not claiming the love of God is not a good fit. But it does not appear to be the only good fit. For example you say here Asherah was predominantly associated with motherly love and provision. So Nephi sees the tree associates it with Asherah and eureka the tree represents motherly love which fits with the whole mother of God part of the vision. Again my question is would an ancient Israelite immediately jump to the "love of God" as the predominant association when viewing a symbol of Asherah and can this assertion be adequately defended? Not adequately defended against people like me but those who study this stuff for a living. Out of the many attributes possessed by Asherah why is this the one Nephi immediately jumps to? If Nephi seeing a symbol of Asherah is supposed to explain his conceptual "leap" an important component of such an argument is defending how Nephi's only reasonable or most reasonable association with Asherah would be the "love of God" instead of the many other attributes Asherah has including as you outline above motherly love. Sure perhaps the "love of God" is a reasonable association with Asherah but it does not appear to be the only reasonable association or even the best association (motherly love appears to be better based on what you say here). And given this is the case it considerably weakens the argument that Nephi made his correct intuitive jump because he viewed a symbol of Asherah. Which as I understand it is one of the primary arguments being made in favor of the Asherah reading.

Best,

Uncertain

[Kevin Christensen]

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.

Another take on this passage is here:

http://www.thinlyveiled.com/barker/wisdom.htm

The priests whom earlier kings had appointed to burn incense in other cities were deposed, but they would not come to serve in Jerusalem; they stayed in their own areas. The account emphasized the destruction of the Asherah, which was taken from the temple and burned by the Kidron, and the destruction of the houses of the qdsm, a word usually translated male prostitutes, but which should perhaps be read as

[maklelan]

Personally I don't care who responds to my posts. I am well aware Dan requires no babysitting.

Fair enough, I am not claiming the love of God is not a good fit. But it does not appear to be the only good fit.

No, it's not the only good fit, but for an Israelite who was as concerned with family as Nephi obviously was, it is not unlikely that that would be his primary perspective on the nature of Asherah.

For example you say here Asherah was predominantly associated with motherly love and provision. So Nephi sees the tree associates it with Asherah and eureka the tree represents motherly love which fits with the whole mother of God part of the vision. Again my question is would an ancient Israelite immediately jump to the "love of God" as the predominant association when viewing a symbol of Asherah and can this assertion be adequately defended? Not adequately defended against people like me but those who study this stuff for a living. Out of the many attributes possessed by Asherah why is this the one Nephi immediately jumps to? If Nephi seeing a symbol of Asherah is supposed to explain his conceptual "leap" an important component of such an argument is defending how Nephi's only reasonable or most reasonable association with Asherah would be the "love of God" instead of the many other attributes Asherah has including as you outline above motherly love. Sure perhaps the "love of God" is a reasonable association with Asherah but it does not appear to be the only reasonable association or even the best association (motherly love appears to be better based on what you say here). And given this is the case it considerably weakens the argument that Nephi made his correct intuitive jump because he viewed a symbol of Asherah. Which as I understand it is one of the primary arguments being made in favor of the Asherah reading.

Best,

Uncertain

Not all Israelites bought all the different conceptualizations of the deities. The archaeological evidence shows individuals seemed to have a favored view of their deity, whether the other possibilities were secondary or unknown.

[Brennin]

Those Israelite religionists you speak of were from one socio-political class and were trying to vilify another socio-political class. You're still assuming that there was a normative Israelite religion back then. There was not.

You're assuming that I take what you've been taught and have read seriously; I do not (necessarily). Sensational/avant-garde hypotheses are a dime a dozen in Biblical scholarship and the humanities. Rarely does someone make a name for himself hewing to a traditional understanding.

Again, you presuppose this false dichotomy. The point of my post was to show that that dichotomy does not exist.

Your analogical reasoning was false in any case.

[maklelan]

You're assuming that I necessarily take what you've been taught and have read seriously; I do not.

I'm aware that it's primarily presuppositions that guide your hermeneutic, but you're in an academic debate now, so "I don't care" doesn't really cut it. Can you defend your critique according to academic standards, or only by naked assertion?

Your analogical reasoning was false in any case.

No, it wasn't, and I explained why. Simply responding "Nu-uh" doesn't really engage my concerns.

[marcus]

Which they can only do if you accept that random parallels effectively debunk anything.

Good point. Random parallels won't debunk nor provide credible evidence to move the needle in either direction. Whether noted/developed 150 yrs ago or 150 minutes ago, we will have to come up with something of far greater substance to generate non-Lds interest and/or respect in the BOM as a historical record or account. And time is probably not a great ally for this to happen anymore!

[Uncertain]

No, it's not the only good fit, but for an Israelite who was as concerned with family as Nephi obviously was, it is not unlikely that that would be his primary perspective on the nature of Asherah.

Well given human nature I dare say lots of Israelites even perhaps the majority of Israelite were deeply concerned about the welfare of their families . I would also say motherly love is not the same thing as the love of God.

Not all Israelites bought all the different conceptualizations of the deities. The archaeological evidence shows individuals seemed to have a favored view of their deity, whether the other possibilities were secondary or unknown.

Well I am certainly not going to argue with you about what Israelites may or may not have believed. I will simply repeat my point above: "If Nephi seeing a symbol of Asherah is supposed to explain his conceptual "leap" an important component of such an argument is defending how Nephi's only reasonable or most reasonable association with Asherah would be the "love of God" instead of the many other attributes Asherah has including as you outline above motherly love.". In which case some sort of argument would have to be advanced that out of the many different conceptualizations of deities by Israelites, Nephi's particular conceptualization of Asherah contrary to the norm of motherly love was instead the love of God.

In any case I view this largely as an academic point. As I already mentioned I personally find Christ as the tree to be a competitive reading of 1 Nephi 11. Reading Asherah into this passage is an interesting exercise but I am not sure it is needed.

Best,

Uncertain

[Brennin]

I'm aware that it's primarily presuppositions that guide your hermeneutic, but you're in an academic debate now, so "I don't care" doesn't really cut it. Can you defend your critique according to academic standards, or only by naked assertion?

As I wrote in my edit, sensational/ avant-garde claims in Biblical studies are a dime a dozen. In this case, I see no reason to give credence to the idea that 2 Kings 23:7 is a late redaction or that Asherah worship would have been acceptable to someone like Nephi or Lehi. Now, the dea that there were pockets of syncretists in the late 7th century B.C. does not tax my credulity. However, they would have existed in the margins of society, not Jerusalem. (And they wouldn't have gratuitously quoted Isaiah.)

No, it wasn't, and I explained why. Simply responding "Nu-uh" doesn't really engage my concerns.

And you were wrong. Even if I were to take your claims re: Israelite religion circa 7th century B.C. seriously, there is no legitimate analogy between a non-Christian criticizing a Christian and one Israelite religionist criticizing another Israelite religionist.

[maklelan]

Well given human nature I dare say lots of Israelite even perhaps the majority of Israelite were deeply concerned about the welfare of their families . I would also say motherly love is not the same thing as the love of God.

Unless, for those Israelites, Asherah had become a symbol of God's nurturing characteristics, which is the evolution that I've been describing.

Well I am certainly not going to argue with you about what Israelites may or may not have believed. I will simply repeat my point above: "If Nephi seeing a symbol of Asherah is supposed to explain his conceptual "leap" an important component of such an argument is defending how Nephi's only reasonable or most reasonable association with Asherah would be the "love of God" instead of the many other attributes Asherah has including as you outline above motherly love.". In which case some sort of argument would have to be advanced that out of the many different conceptualizations of deities by Israelites, Nephi's particular conceptualization of Asherah contrary to the norm of motherly love was instead the love of God.

It's not a conceptual leap, though, if he was one of the Israelites who viewed Asherah as the manifestation of Yhwh's mothering characteristics. See Isa 49:15-16; 66:11-13 for a couple examples of this.

In any case I view this largely as an academic point. As I already mentioned I personally find Christ as the tree to be a competitive reading of 1 Nephi 11. Reading Asherah into this passage is an interesting exercise but I am not sure it is needed.

Best,

Uncertain

And you're certainly free to feel that way. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise.

[maklelan]

As I wrote in my edit, sensational/ avant-garde claims in Biblical studies are a dime a dozen. In this case, I see no reason to give credence to the idea that 2 Kings 23:7 is a late redaction or that Asherah worship would have been acceptable to someone like Nephi or Lehi.

These are not sensationalist claims. This is the scholarly consensus.

Now, the dea that there were pockets of syncretists in the late 7th century B.C. does not tax my credulity. However, they would have existed in the margins of society, not Jerusalem. (And they wouldn't have gratuitously quoted Isaiah.)

And this is exactly the kind of presuppositionalism that Barton and Stavrakopoulou's book targets.

And you were wrong. Even if I were to take your claims re: Israelite religion circa 7th century B.C. seriously, there is no legitimate analogy between a non-Christian criticizing a Christian and one Israelite religionist criticizing another Israelite religionist.

There absolutely is an analogy. One demographic is misrepresenting another in an explicit attempt to rhetorically vilify and marginalize. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my analogy.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Where is your evidence that Lehi and Nephi were folk religionists as opposed to committed Yahwists? Why would folk religionists gratuitously cite Isaiah?

Lehi and his family offered sacrifice outside of the temple post-Josiah. This would indicate he did not accept Josiah's reforms. Further, since Lehi was most likely not a Levite, he would not have been adhering to the orthodox priesthood concepts of earlier reforms.

As I wrote in my edit, sensational/ avant-garde claims in Biblical studies are a dime a dozen. In this case, I see no reason to give credence to the idea that 2 Kings 23:7 is a late redaction or that Asherah worship would have been acceptable to someone like Nephi or Lehi. Now, the dea that there were pockets of syncretists in the late 7th century B.C. does not tax my credulity. However, they would have existed in the margins of society, not Jerusalem. (And they wouldn't have gratuitously quoted Isaiah.)

That you re-asserted it only shows your ignorance on the topic. This is not calling you stupid. It is just pointing out you definitely have very little knowledge of the cultural make-up of the time.

there is no legitimate analogy between a non-Christian criticizing a Christian and one Israelite religionist criticizing another Israelite religionist.

His analogy does work. Not all the bad things said about Christians were by Hellenistic Greeks. Some were by Christian Greeks, Christian Romans, Christian Jews, etc criticizing each other and trying to convince the ruling government to annihilate those Christians who believed differently, sometimes just their ideas, other times their persons. Which is roughly what happened with Judaism. Our Christian scriptures are the product of religious reform, political and religious bullying, ostracizeation, and even murder... from within the Christian community.

For Uncerstain:

Well I am certainly not going to argue with you about what Israelites may or may not have believed. I will simply repeat my point above: "If Nephi seeing a symbol of Asherah is supposed to explain his conceptual "leap" an important component of such an argument is defending how Nephi's only reasonable or most reasonable association with Asherah would be the "love of God" instead of the many other attributes Asherah has including as you outline above motherly love.". In which case some sort of argument would have to be advanced that out of the many different conceptualizations of deities by Israelites, Nephi's particular conceptualization of Asherah contrary to the norm of motherly love was instead the love of God.

I disagree on how easy Nephi would have connected the dots. By Nephi's time, Asherah is more of a concept of love, similar to how we might say "mother earth". We don't believe in a literal "Mother Earth", but the concept of giving life and food is there. For Nephi, seeing Mary with a babe in arms evokes those thoughts of the feminine aspects of YHWH, represented by a living tree. He then is shown the tree and the same language is used. The transferral would be immediate and natural. If you like, you can say that he ONLY thought of it as representing YHWH's feminine aspects, his "asherah", and not as a separate being altogether, though the argument could be made either way. The concept of (a) Asherah would certainly have been an easy one to overlay. Ie, think of Asherah as a concept of motherly love and nurture, just another word for that concept.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lehi and his family offered sacrifice outside of the temple post-Josiah. This would indicate he did not accept Josiah's reforms. Further, since Lehi was most likely not a Levite, he would not have been adhering to the orthodox priesthood concepts of earlier reforms.

I just wanted to touch upon this just a little bit. I thought (I am probably showing some ignroance here) that you had to belong to the tribe of Levi to be able to officiate in the temples. As I recall he was not from the tribe of Levi but of Manasseh.

I am more just currious why you would use the "most likely" in your paragraph. Thanks.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I am more just currious why you would use the "most likely" in your paragraph. Thanks.

Two reasons. It has been a while since I reviewed that topic and could not remember if Lehi's lineage was spoken of in the Book of Mormon or only by latter-day prophets. I am trying to keep in context of the text without going back and reviewing the tertiary topic. Secondly, I am a softy.

[Uncertain]

Unless, for those Israelites, Asherah had become a symbol of God's nurturing characteristics, which is the evolution that I've been describing.

It's not a conceptual leap, though, if he was one of the Israelites who viewed Asherah as the manifestation of Yhwh's mothering characteristics. See Isa 49:15-16; 66:11-13 for a couple examples of this.

Excellent point, I would argue however this appears contrary to the symbolism in Nephis vision. In Nephi's vision Asherah is represented as the virgin mother of Christ ie( Yhwh) not Yhwy himself. However I could be somewhat misunderstanding your argument. It is my understanding what you are referring to is Asherah eventually became completely subsumed into Yhwh that is eventually instead of two Gods there was one God Yhwh with some of the characteristics of the other God Asherah. This is what I see you as describing above as Asherah eventually became a symbol of Yhwhs nurturing characteristics. In which case I would say this does not match Nephis vision which Asherah is the mother of Yhwh the spouse of El.

And you're certainly free to feel that way. I'm certainly not arguing otherwise.

So you would then agree with me the Asherah reading is not particularly strong evidence for antiquity since there are other equally competitive readings that don't require such connections with antiquity?

Best,

Uncertain

[maklelan]

Excellent point, I would argue however this appears contrary to the symbolism in Nephis vision. In Nephi's vision Asherah is represented as the virgin mother of Christ ie( Yhwh) not Yhwy himself.

We have to recognize that Israel had largely conflated Yhwh and El by this time period, so we can't decouple the two in this literature. The imagery is thus also applicable to El, who was Yhwh's father according to LDS and early Israelite theology.

However I could be somewhat misunderstanding your argument. It is my understanding what you are referring to is Asherah eventually became completely subsumed into Yhwh that is eventually instead of two Gods there was one God Yhwh with some of the characteristics of the other God Asherah. This is what I see you as describing above as Asherah eventually became a symbol of Yhwhs nurturing characteristics. In which case I would say this does not match Nephis vision which Asherah is the mother of Yhwh the spouse of El.

See above.

So you would then agree with me the Asherah reading is not particularly strong evidence for antiquity since there are other equally competitive readings that don't require such connections with antiquity?

I don't think disconnection from antiquity makes any particular reading favorable over one that has affinities with antiquity. The book, after all, was written in antiquity.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So you would then agree with me the Asherah reading is not particularly strong evidence for antiquity since there are other equally competitive readings that don't require such connections with antiquity?

Best,

Uncertain

I would agree with you in this. But it is evidence and it is there. I find it an interesting bit. Would I ever really talk about it side of this board? More than likely not.

[Brennin]

Lehi and his family offered sacrifice outside of the temple post-Josiah. This would indicate he did not accept Josiah's reforms. Further, since Lehi was most likely not a Levite, he would not have been adhering to the orthodox priesthood concepts of earlier reforms.

That is a far cry from being an Asherah-admiring syncretist. The Hasmoneans were non-Zadokite high priests but I don't recall them being Asherah devotees.

That you re-asserted it only shows your ignorance on the topic. This is not calling you stupid. It is just pointing out you definitely have very little knowledge of the cultural make-up of the time.

Or perhaps you are too quick to accept certain strains of scholarship.

His analogy does work. Not all the bad things said about Christians were by Hellenistic Greeks. Some were by Christian Greeks, Christian Romans, Christian Jews, etc criticizing each other and trying to convince the ruling government to annihilate those Christians who believed differently, sometimes just their ideas, other times their persons. Which is roughly what happened with Judaism. Our Christian scriptures are the product of religious reform, political and religious bullying, ostracizeation, and even murder... from within the Christian community.

No, it does not. He wrote:

And Christianity was associated with cannibalism and child sacrifice in early Greek literature.

I then suggested an analogy to him that might fare better, i.e., internecine conflicts between "orthodox" and "heterodox" Christians, which you also mention but that does not help his failed analogy as presented.

[maklelan]

The Hasmoneans were non-Zadokite high priests but I don't recall them being Asherah devotees.

Now this is an actual false analogy. Asherah veneration was extinct by this time period. The archaeological and textual data show it was quite widespread in the late pre-exile. The Hasmoneans, as well, were hardly pious Jews by biblical standards.

[Uncertain]

For Uncerstain:

I disagree on how easy Nephi would have connected the dots. By Nephi's time, Asherah is more of a concept of love, similar to how we might say "mother earth". We don't believe in a literal "Mother Earth", but the concept of giving life and food is there. For Nephi, seeing Mary with a babe in arms evokes those thoughts of the feminine aspects of YHWH, represented by a living tree. He then is shown the tree and the same language is used. The transferral would be immediate and natural. If you like, you can say that he ONLY thought of it as representing YHWH's feminine aspects, his "asherah", and not as a separate being altogether, though the argument could be made either way. The concept of (a) Asherah would certainly have been an easy one to overlay. Ie, think of Asherah as a concept of motherly love and nurture, just another word for that concept.

Fair enough, this seems to be how Makelan is arguing. I think it is a good point. I will say as I already did to Makelan if this is the case Asherah does not really fit the symbolism of Nephis vision. In Nephi's vision Asherah is a separate person wife of El mother of Yhwh which appears to be an earlier concept of Asherah. So I see you using an earlier concept of Asherah i.e.(virginal mother wife of El) to establish the connection between the different components of Nephi's vision. And then switching to a later version of Asherah to try and make the connection as to how Nephi would come up with the "love of God" as the primary association with Asherah. If Nephi held an earlier view of Asherah as the virginal wife of El and if in this version Asherah has not yet taken on the nurturing aspects of Yhwh's character then so be it.

In any case as I mentioned to makelan I find this particular aspect of the debate interesting but entirely superfluously to any argument concerning the the evidentiary weight given to the Asherah reading. As I already mentioned the fact multiple competitive interpretations exist for 1 Nephi 11 greatly weakens the evidentiary power of the Asherah interpretation. There is a strong case to be made that the author(s) of the BOM meant the tree to represent Christ and hence there is no deep connection with the ANE in 1 Nephi 11.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

We have to recognize that Israel had largely conflated Yhwh and El by this time period, so we can't decouple the two in this literature. The imagery is thus also applicable to El, who was Yhwh's father according to LDS and early Israelite theology.

See above.

Fair enough I think you and Matthew have a good case on this point. At least as best I can evaluate such arguments given my rudimentary knowledge in the field.

I don't think disconnection from antiquity makes any particular reading favorable over one that has affinities with antiquity. The book, after all, was written in antiquity.

Well whether or not the book was written in antiquity is the question in dispute. It may be if a person assumes the BOM was written in antiquity the Asherah reading is clearly superior. Although I am not even sure I would go that far. Given the quotes of in the Old Testament of Yhwh i.e.(Christ) as a tree that gives good fruit Yhwh as the tree may be the superior reading even if a person assumes antiquity for the book.

The question I was addressing however is whether the fact Asherah can be read into 1 Nephi 11 is strong evidence of antiquity. After all as I explained to Matthew. There is a good case to be made that the author(s) of the BOM meant the tree to represent Christ and hence there is no deep connection with the ANE in 1 Nephi 11. And if this reading is just as good or better than the Asherah reading the Asherah reading is necessarily weak evidence at best for antiquity. After all the Asherah reading would have something a 50/50 chance of being the "correct" way to read the text.

Best,

Uncertain

[maklelan]

Well whether or not the book was written in antiquity is the question in dispute.

If that's the case, then rejecting an ancient provenance on the grounds that modern provenances are also suggested is begging the question.

It may be if a person assumes the BOM was written in antiquity the Asherah reading is clearly superior. Although I am not even sure I would go that far. Given the quotes of Yhwh i.e.(Christ) associated with a tree that gives good fruit Yhwh as the tree may be the superior reading even if a person assumes antiquity for the book.

It may be a superior reading for that person, but that doesn't mean it's the reading that was intended. I am not particularly convinced when people with little understanding of the ancient world tell me they don't think it fits into the ancient world. The people with understanding of the ancient world here are in general agreed that this reading provides a strong parallel with ancient ideologies.

The question I was addressing however is whether the fact Asherah can be read into 1 Nephi 11 is strong evidence of antiquity. After all as I explained to Matthew. There is a strong case to be made that the author(s) of the BOM meant the tree to represent Christ and hence there is no deep connection with the ANE in 1 Nephi 11. And if this reading is just as good or better than the Asherah reading the Asherah reading is necessarily weak evidence at best for antiquity. After all the Asherah reading would have something a 50/50 chance of being the "correct" way to read the text.

If you wish to argue that then you have to make the argument. The presence of an alternative theory does not, in and of itself, undermine the strength of the Asherah reading. You have to be able to show that one is stronger than the other.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Where is your evidence that Lehi and Nephi were folk religionists as opposed to committed Yahwists?

Matthew J. Tandy, on 15 October 2010 - 01:34 PM, said:

Lehi and his family offered sacrifice outside of the temple post-Josiah. This would indicate he did not accept Josiah's reforms. Further, since Lehi was most likely not a Levite, he would not have been adhering to the orthodox priesthood concepts of earlier reforms.

That is a far cry from being an Asherah-admiring syncretist. The Hasmoneans were non-Zadokite high priests but I don't recall them being Asherah devotees.

You asked for evidence that they were folk religionists. The rest of your premise is a straw man, the part about "as opposed to committed Yahwists". You could practice or hold beliefs contrary to the central government/faith and possibly be even a greater YHWH devotee. I merely showed you that Lehi did NOT subscribe to the official religion post-Josiah. This is similar to all the sects of Christianity. I don't generally consider one group less devoted to Christ just because they aren't LDS or Catholic.

Or perhaps you are too quick to accept certain strains of scholarship.

Of course. Your extremely myopic viewpoint in comparison to my astounding depth and breadth of all sides of the arguments is certainly to be favored. You are arguing your case by brilliantly saying "nu-uh!!!" rather than address the arguments themselves. So let me reply to your statement in like manner... NU UH!

I then suggested an analogy to him that might fare better, i.e., internecine conflicts between "orthodox" and "heterodox" Christians, which you also mention but that does not help his failed analogy as presented.

I still disagree, but you are straining at a gnat. You obviously were able to think of a viable comparison that works jsut fine. I presented an expanded version of Maklelan's that works perfectly. If your point was simply to say his was not a perfect analogy, fine. I don't see it as mattering since you got the gist of it.

[Brennin]

Now this is an actual false analogy. Asherah veneration was extinct by this time period.

Choose a different syncretism then. Were they Hellenizers?

The archaeological and textual data show it was quite widespread in the late pre-exile.

I'm skeptical.

The Hasmoneans, as well, were hardly pious Jews by biblical standards.

Some were pious Jews.