A Goddess in the Book of Mormon

[Nevo]

If we recognize that scholarship is drawing conclusions from very little information, I don't think we can be too dogmatic about drawing a line on one side of which Asherah had no currency. We paint with incredibly broad strokes based on small data pools when we say that the ideology and the iconography evolved from one sense to a different sense. How much overlap and interplay there are between those senses is really unknown.

I am in full agreement with you on this. My post, though directed to you, was partly a reaction to Matthew Tandy's assertion earlier in the thread that "every single person with some (or a ton) or proficiency in the texts, language, symbolism, etc of that period of time see the connection clearly and read 1 Nephi 11 as such." That is simply not the case.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I am in full agreement with you on this. My post, though directed to you, was partly a reaction to Matthew Tandy's assertion earlier in the thread that "every single person with some (or a ton) or proficiency in the texts, language, symbolism, etc of that period of time see the connection clearly and read 1 Nephi 11 as such." That is simply not the case.

Which would be great Nevo if a post or two before that I had not also said we could not be dogmatic. My point in this particular post, shaded by previous posts, was that the conenction CAN be clearly seen. Without going back and finding who it was, someone else was asserting it simply was not possible due to the nature fo the text.

[Nevo]

Which would be great Nevo if a post or two before that I had not also said we could not be dogmatic. My point in this particular post, shaded by previous posts, was that the conenction CAN be clearly seen. Without going back and finding who it was, someone else was asserting it simply was not possible due to the nature fo the text.

I am glad that we can agree that dogmatic assertions are unwarranted when the evidence is fragmentary and inconclusive. Some of your other statements on the thread had caused me to wonder if you believed this (e.g., "[Lehi] did not accept Josiah's reforms"; "Lehi did NOT subscribe to the official religion post-Josiah"; "by Nephi's time, Asherah is more of a concept of love, similar to how we might say 'mother earth'").

[Programmer]

Yes that was very interesting.

What I'd like to know is if our resident anti-mo's what prexilic means.

[hagoth7]

...parallels a specific theological development in pre-exilic Israel that was unknown during Smith's day. It's an interesting parallel in that the angel is revealing the tree and Mary and Jesus, but I don't see how it serves any argument other than the argument Smith borrowed his idea from this text.

Hmm. Nephite themes in pre-Restoration Europe...yet again.

For one like myself who believes Nephites flourished in Europe, such a parallel simply demonstrates (with scores of similar parallels) that Nephite themes were pervasive in Western Civilization...long before Joseph Smith.

Perhaps my faith isn't as strong as some, but the idea of an ancient Nephite diaspora being the source of such parallels seems more plausible than the assertion that such parallels are mere coincidence (or the claim from detractors that the parallels somehow mean that the struggling Smith family's barn was a packed-to-the-rafters archive).

[Ron Beron]

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?

Perhaps the term, virgin, reflects a mistaken notion on our part. It did not mean one who has not engaged in sex, but one who is eligible for marriage. Big difference.

(Sorry Mak..I hadn't read your previous response.)

[Ron Beron]

Several things make this clear, although you may be conflating my argument that ashera was often worshipped via a live tree with Day's argument that the Hebrew term asherim should be understood to refer to a cultic pole. These are two different discussions. Now, 1 Kgs 14:23 and 2 Kgs 17:10 state that high places, images, and groves were built on every hill and under every green tree. There's only one manner of worship associated with a tree. Temples were built usually built on hills because the temple was representative of the primeval hillock. Where mountains weren't available, they recognized that the temple itself served to represent the mountain (Micah 4:2 puts "mountain of Yhwh" and "house of the God of Jacob" in parallel, for instance). Green trees were used because Asherah was represented in iconography with a live tree (oak, terebinth, tamarisk, or date palm), not just a wooden pole. See, for instance, the Tanaach cult stand, which shows two iconographic representations of Asherah. One is the female deity herself holding two lions (bottom register), and the other is the date palm (third from bottom), being eaten by two ibexes (also flanked by lions):

Obviously this is not a cultic pole.

Cultic objects of worship were almost always representations of the plant or animal kingdom. In Hosea 14:9 we see Yhwh calling himself "a luxuriant cypress; from me comes your fruit." Here Yhwh's appropriation of the cultic symbol, and explicitly not a fake tree, is easily seen. Cultic iconography from the Bible and the wider Near East is rich with representations of trees, animals, and other plants. They didn't use artificial representations because thy felt like it. They used them when they didn't have access to the real thing, and most of the time, they didn't (especially in an area where they could build a wall around it and a ceiling over it). Originally, pretty much all temple worship took place in nature. Many of the oldest temples in Syria-Palestine are found in or near oases, where living (running) water and trees were available. Where live trees were available, as Kings makes clear, they were used (and according to Kings they were widely used, even if not as widely as the hyperbole suggests). Pretty much every time it mentions "groves" in the Hebrew Bible it's talking about worship of the fertility goddess. When Abraham stopped at the Groves of Mamre (Gen 13:18; 14:13; 18:1) he wasn't stopping at an elaborate artificial representation of a grove, he was stopping at a real grove. Those groves (or sometimes a single tree) are the locations of significant theophanies and prophetic oracles in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 12:6-7; 21:33; Josh 24:26 (N.B.: the Hebrew is correctly translated "in the sanctuary of Yhwh," not "by the sanctuary of Yhwh"); Judg 4:5; 6:11). This is not merely a coincidence.

For more academic treatments of Asherah as frequently represented by living trees, see Tilde Binger, Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel, and the Old Testament, 141; Judith Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess (she frequently references the fact that Asherah could refer to living trees or sacred poles, but her rhetorical priority is showing Asherah can and often does refer to the goddess herself); Baruch Margalit, "Some Observations on the Inscription and Drawing from Khirbet el-Q

[SeattleGhostWriter]

a

You are confusing almah with betulah.

Therefore the Lord ¹³⁶ himself shall give ⁵⁴¹⁴ you a sign ²²⁶; Behold, a virgin ⁵⁹⁵⁹ shall conceive ²⁰³⁰, and bear ³²⁰⁵ a son ¹¹²¹, and shall call ⁷¹²¹ his name ⁸⁰³⁴ Immanuel ^{410 6005}.

Lexicon ResultsStrong's H5959 - `almah???????Transliteration

`almah

Pronunciation

al

[Mike Reed]

You are confusing almah with betulah.

I doubt it.

http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2009/12/hieros-gamos.html

[Brennin]

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.

This is mere assertion. Moreover, even if you are correct here, it still does not get you to "virgin" Asherah. Finally, if Asherah were a "virgin" like Anat then that creates more problems for you and Dr. Peterson than it solves in that Nephi would be associating the Virgin Mary with a promiscuous, incestuous goddess. If you have succeeded in anything, it is in ranking Nephi (and Lehi) with the worst detractors of Jesus Christ in the Talmud. (Perhaps I should thank you for helping us critics out.)

Secondly, the meaning of b-t-l-t usually translated,

"virgin," takes on a new connotation. Again,

in the Ugaritic texts only Anat is called a virgin.

But she is also the sister of Baal and has sexual relations

with him. In 77:5, 7 quoted by Gordon1 we

have an entirely different situation than in the Christian

interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. The birth of a

son to Anat is not due to any "supernatural" phenomenon

as is the case in the Christian dogma. The

copulations of Baal and Anat are numerous and in

each case Anat is called a "b-t-l-t"; see, for instance,

the most realistic descriptions in 6:30-31; 132:1-8.

--Ernest R. Lacheman, Apropos of Isaiah 7:14, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), p. 43

[Brennin]

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.

...

Attention must again be given to the question of the origins of

Anat-Yahu. As argued before, it is unlikely that she is an Israelite

creation. Since all the other gods of the Aramaeans and Jews in

Egypt were conceived outside Egypt, however, it is difficult to

belief that Anat-Yahu would be the sole exception. A third

possibility must therefore be reckoned with, viz. that she was

created by the same North Syrian Aramaeans who brought Bethel

and Anat-Bethel to Egypt.

...

The reference to Bethel as the confidence of Israel (Jer 48,13),

on the one hand, and Psalm 20, on the other, are two examples of

North Syrian influence on Israelite religion. The period of such

influence cannot be firmly established on the basis of these two

biblical texts. On the hypothesis that this period falls before the

establishment of the Aramaean colonies in Egypt (ca. 600 B.C.E)

and after the defeat of North Syria by the Assyrian kings (ca. 730-

700 B.C.E.), it must be situated, grosso modo, in the 7th century

B.C.E. The principal argument in support of this solution is provided

by the Bible. According to 2 Kgs 17,24, the Assyrian

authorities settled people from Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim in

the cities of Samaria. This report on the population of Northern

Israel in the 7th century deserves to be examined in some detail.

...

Continuing this train of thought, it is conceivable that Anat-Yahu was created by

the Aramaean deportees in Israel on the model of Anat-Bethel. In

fact, it is easier to suppose that worship of Anat-Yahu originated

among Aramaeans who recently adopted Yahu into their cult, rather than to assume that the goddess was created by Elephantine

Jews.

...

The fact that the religious practices in the Elephantine colony

have a Northern Israelite background means that the Jewish segment

of the population is chronologically secondary. The Jewish

character of the Elephantine colony is probably based on an important

influx of Judahites who joined the Israelite settlers. It must be

kept in mind, moreover, that the emigrants from Northern Israel

would have entered Egypt by way of Judah. It may be surmised

that many of them had not intended to prolong their wandering all

the way into Egypt. At any event, some of them stayed in Judah

for a significant length of time. One reason to suppose that this is so is the presence in Judah, around 600 B.C.E., of the cult of the

Queen of Heaven (Jer 7,18; 44,15-30). The Queen of Heaven is

none other than Anat, who is called the Lady-of-Heaven (b 'It smm)

in Ugaritic texts.67 At Syene, the names Anat-Bethel and Queen-of-

Heaven are used as variant designations of the same deity. Since

Anat was not traditionally worshipped in Judah, her cult must have

come from elsewhere. Isaiah does not know her yet. The most probable

suggestion would be that Israelites-or Israelite Aramaeans

originally from North Syria-introduced the cult of the goddess

when they had found refuge in Judah sometime after 700 B.C.E.

...

The concept of Anat-Yahu is an illustration of the cultural symbiosis

which has marked the Israelites and the Aramaeans living in

Egypt. The goddess must be regarded as an Aramaean creation,

elicited by the identification of Yahu with Bethel. The latter identification

was one of the results of the Aramaean migration to

Samaria, either enforced or voluntary, at the end of the 8th century.

Though it is therefore correct, after all, to call Anat-Yahu an

Israelite goddess, it must be remembered that her origins do not go

beyond ca. 700 B.C.E.: and that her theological paternity is

ultimately Aramaean.

--Karel van der Toorn, Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen, Vol. 39, Fasc. 1 (Jun., 1992), pp. 80-101

[Brennin]

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

I am not sure about that but I am sure that there is a scholarly consensus re: Deutero-Isaiah, which, if correct, makes the attempt to locate Asherah in the Book of Mormon utterly futile. You might want to consider that the next time you try to to use "scholarly consensus" as an apotropaic.

[katherine the great]

Also I think to much is made of Nephi's intuitive jump how did Nephi know Mary was a virgin based simply on visual imagery?

I'm not sure what the custom was at the time of Nephi, but King David's daughters wore a very different type of clothing before they were married that visually identified them as virgins. Tamar had to change out of them after she was raped by Amnon.

[maklelan]

--Karel van der Toorn, Anat-Yahu, Some Other Deities, and the Jews of Elephantine, Numen, Vol. 39, Fasc. 1 (Jun., 1992), pp. 80-101

This doesn't really bear on my comments. I'm well aware she was not a native Israelite deity.

[maklelan]

I am not sure about that but I am sure that there is a scholarly consensus re: Deutero-Isaiah, which, if correct, makes the attempt to locate Asherah in the Book of Mormon utterly futile. You might want to consider that the next time you try to to use "scholarly consensus" as an apotropaic.

How does it make Asherah in the Book of Mormon futile? Do you mean to insist that the lateness of Deutero-Isaiah unilaterally undermines any antiquity in the Book of Mormon? Please explain how this holds given the richly anaphoric nature of the translation? This seems to me just to be an attempt to deflect the discussion away from areas you have trouble with toward areas you feel more comfortable with.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This seems to me just to be an attempt to deflect the discussion away from areas you have trouble with toward areas you feel more comfortable with.

Brennin do that, noooooooooo!

[Brennin]

How does it make Asherah in the Book of Mormon futile? Do you mean to insist that the lateness of Deutero-Isaiah unilaterally undermines any antiquity in the Book of Mormon? Please explain how this holds given the richly anaphoric nature of the translation? This seems to me just to be an attempt to deflect the discussion away from areas you have trouble with toward areas you feel more comfortable with.

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense? If the "scholarly consensus" re: Deutero-Isaiah is correct, then those parts of Isaiah attributed to him are too late to have wound up on the plates Nephi brought with him to the New World.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think that you have got your interpretation of 1 Nephi 11 wrong. I recall we had this discussion once before, so I am not sure if it would serve a useful purpose to go through it again; but I am willing to try if you really want.

I don't claim to have any expertise in Near Eastern studies. My expertise, if I have any, is in the Book of Mormon; and I think you have got that one wrong. And if you have got that one wrong, chances are you have had everything else wrong as well, because it will have a domino effect in knocking down the rest of your arguments. Your entire thesis hinges on the correct interpretation of 1 Nephi 11. If that is wrong, then everything else will be wrong too.

The first time I read DCP's Asherah stuff was when I was a brand spanking new 19-year-old missionary. I got pretty confused by the time I was half way through the article and set the JBMS aside, thinking "I'll pick this up some other day. This Peterson fellow sounds like an apostate or something." Good times.

[maklelan]

This is mere assertion. Moreover, even if you are correct here, it still does not get you to "virgin" Asherah. Finally, if Asherah were a "virgin" like Anat then that creates more problems for you and Dr. Peterson than it solves in that Nephi would be associating the Virgin Mary with a promiscuous, incestuous goddess. If you have succeeded in anything, it is in ranking Nephi (and Lehi) with the worst detractors of Jesus Christ in the Talmud. (Perhaps I should thank you for helping us critics out.)

Secondly, the meaning of b-t-l-t usually translated,

"virgin," takes on a new connotation. Again,

in the Ugaritic texts only Anat is called a virgin.

But she is also the sister of Baal and has sexual relations

with him. In 77:5, 7 quoted by Gordon1 we

have an entirely different situation than in the Christian

interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. The birth of a

son to Anat is not due to any "supernatural" phenomenon

as is the case in the Christian dogma. The

copulations of Baal and Anat are numerous and in

each case Anat is called a "b-t-l-t"; see, for instance,

the most realistic descriptions in 6:30-31; 132:1-8.

--Ernest R. Lacheman, Apropos of Isaiah 7:14, Journal of Bible and Religion, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1954), p. 43

You're diluting the discussion far too much in your attempt to hide from the scholarship. Now you're trying to infer that "virgin" means something akin to "whore." I was not trying to identify Asherah with Anat, as anyone can see. I was trying to show that the term in question does not necessarily, in its ancient Syro-Palestinian contexts, refer to the modern concept of virginity. It is probably best translated in the Ugaritic material as "maiden," or something like that. In any respect, the fact that Anat is promiscuous and is referred to as "virgin" does not in any way mean that in other texts where Asherah is referred to in parallel terms, it means she is promiscuous like Anat. It's also helpful to remember that ancient cultures like Ugarit and Israel were primary oral cultures, where associations like these have mnemonic purposes. Here is what Walter Ong has to say about it this characteristic of primary orality:

Aggregative rather than analytic

This characteristic is closely tied to reliance on formulas to implement memory. The elements of orally based thought and expression tend to be not so much simple integers as clusters of integers, such as parallel terms or phrases or clauses, antithetical terms or phrases or clauses, epithets. Oral folk prefer, especially in formal discourse, not the soldier, but the brave soldiet; not hte princess, but the beautiful princess; not the oak, but the sturdy oak. Oral expression thus carries a load of epithets and other formulary baggage which high literacy rejects as cumbersome and tiresomely redundant because of its aggregative weight. . . . the epithetic formula here is obligatory stablization, as were Homeric epithetic formulas 'wise Nestor' or 'clever Odysseus.'

There can be little doubt that "virgin Anat" functions this way, even after the narratives develop away from the associations that garnered her that epithet. You're attempt to vilify the association of Asherah with virginal qualities is uninformed and juvenile.

[maklelan]

That's just nonsense. Are you trying to make some sense? If the "scholarly consensus" re: Deutero-Isaiah is correct, then those parts of Isaiah attributed to him are too late to have wound up on the plates Nephi brought with him to the New World.

I'm well aware of that, which is why I pointed out that the Book of Mormon is highly anaphoric.

[Brennin]

I'm well aware of that, which is why I pointed out that the Book of Mormon is highly anaphoric.

Yes, and that statement is vacuous as offered.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've seen you advance this objection before ("How exhaustive do critics image the Smith family library was?") but it does not hold water. There is nothing arcane or conceptually difficult about associating Mary with a living tree/the tree of life. (It's not like some feature of the Book of Mormon requires Smith to have known Euler's formula.) What Mike Reed has demonstrated is that the idea was then current and that is all he needs to show because, as I wrote, it is an easy idea to pick up. (Although, I don't think he needed to dig those sources up since there is a tree of life in the Bible.)

This reminds me of that old apocryphal story about Columbus and the egg.

[maklelan]

Yes, and that statement is vacuous as offered.

Please explain why, in detail, and before you go google "anaphoric."

[Brennin]

Please explain why, in detail, and before you go google "anaphoric."

Too late! It seems like a fine word but your use of it does not impress me and it does not make your point clear. I suspect you have in mind some outlandish "layered-translation" hypothesis but maybe you will surprise me with an even more contorted idea that is also orthogonal to the original claims of your religion.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Please. And we all know what you meant by that. You say this kind of thing often. At the recent FAIR conference you said, "[Theosis/Deification] turns out it is an ancient Christian doctrine. And how do you account for the fact that Joseph Smith came up with that out of nowhere, with no great access to patristic literature or anything like that?" http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/59708/Be-Ready-to-Defend-Faith.html You see? You point out that some ancient parallel exists, and then you insinuate that similar parallels do not exist in his immediate environment. And you do this, by your own admission, without bothering to explore natural explanations.

Ah yes. Joseph getting these ideas from a ROCK is a much better explanation. I imagine this is the sort of time that the unNamed scholar walked away from his conversation with you--or rather, started "plugging his ears." I imagine you will say the same as I walk away now. So be it.

This reminded me of a book review I wrote a bit ago:

The largest problem I see [with this book] is that the book does not discuss the nature of parallels or describe any method of evaluating (or even discovering) them. Instead, he emphasizes the "how could Joseph have known" angle. Such parallels can easily become enmeshed in ideological battle over whether the Book of Mormon is an actual ancient record (now translated into Joseph Smith's idiom), or a 19th-century inspired forgery, or a fraud of some kind (or something else!). Parallels from the 19th century would trump those Ash advances for some readers, and such parallels are often presented in a similar style