Nephi And His Asherah

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I definitely do not have time to adequately get into this fascinating topic, but I will point out that Joseph Smith said point-blank:

"From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points [...] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled."

"I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."

"When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see the truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom."

"To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions."

With these non-binding quotes to consider, I think it's safe to say that we Mormons should have no qualms whatsoever about discarding the absurd notion of an inerrant text and the prooftexting that may be derived from its supposedly infallible authority. Atheists make many good points, and one of the fundamental tenets of Mormonism is to accept truth wherever it may come from. When it is claimed that God commanded genocide and the murder of innocent women and children, I think I am on very safe ground in thinking that this was a retroactive scribal invention, a false tradition we must put away. (If it wasn't, then I refuse to worship such an evil being as a "God", and will happily link arms with the atheists who agree with me.)

Similarly, the historical record seems to demonstrate very clearly a plurality of physically-reproducing deities in early Hebrew religion, with the fanatical insistence on philosophical monotheism being a much later (and again, retroactive) invention of later authors. Raphael Patai's vital book The Hebrew Goddess makes this pretty clear. The interdependence of Egyptian and Levantine (etc.) myth is just as clear; see Nibley's illuminating 'The Expanding Gospel', which shows how the divine plurality of multi-gendered deities in the Council was downplayed in later redactions. His Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri also details a very fascinating account of the Lady Ma'at:

"[Lefebvre] cautiously suggests that "the editors of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Wisdom" could have learned from the Egyptians at Hermopolis." (83)

"Thausing suggests that the Two Maats represent "esoteric and exoteric truth," or the inner and outer truth of things ... the Two Maats have been held to represent Upper and Lower Egypt in the manner of the Two Ladies Edjo and Nkhbet, later identified with Isis and Nephthys. ... Maat, in the role of Isis, Hathor, Nephthys, etc., can also represent the female element in things "analogous to the male universal God," with whom she is associated and even identified. Her peculiar power to identify with others while remaining uniquely herself is in itself a special claim to duality. ... In Israel [according to the Zohar], "the voice of Jacob ... is attached to two females, ... the Wisdom which is ... Thought" and the Wisdom which is uttered. (187 - 188)

She represents things as they should be, the "perfect status quo," which, unfortunately, does not prevail in this world. She is Wisdom (hokhmah, sophia), who plays a dominant role as the most vivid personification in early Jewish and Christian literature. She is the female component of everything, without which nothing can exist and without which nothing is complete: "kings and judges were nothing more than her representatives on earth," for "Maat ... is ... the female principle, analogous to the male ruler of the universe; ... for the contemplative consciousness it is all one and indivisible." Hence if Akhenaton brought the cult of Maat to a new high in Egypt, he also wanted everyone to know that he shared all equally with his darling wife.

If, then, the subject of our Book of Breathings seems to have a love affair with Maat, we may be assured that everything is in proper order. In the waking of the sleeping sem, the role of the woman remains puzzling because "the texts give neither the rites nor the ceremonies in their completeness," Mayassis finds; in some versions it is the Lady herself who awakens the sleeper. In the Coptic Hypostasis of the Archons, the "spiritual woman" comes to the sleeping Adam and says, "Arise, Adam! and when he sees her he says: 'It is thou who hast given me life! Thou shalt be called the Mother of the Living!' She is indeed my mother, even the physician" - that is, she both gives life and restores it. In the Babylonian rites, it is "the queen of the dark room, ... Mother of the Temple," Innini, who enters "the chamber of Ea" and awakens the sleeper, crying: "Arise, thou sleeper! The gates of heaven are open!"

The woman can be designated by any of the names of the great mother-goddess; as Isis, she is myrionymos, "the Lady of Countless Names." But in the present context, she is usually Nut: "Thou art a king, because thou art not to be distinguished from Osiris, Re of Heaven," says the priest to the candidate in the text of the Anchnesneferibre Stela. "Thou art the great son of Nut, born to Re, ... nourished with her milk." But we have seen that the beginning of all things, as far as this earth is concerned, was Maat, "the foundation of all order and existence."

So it is not surprising that when the Egyptians thought in literal historical terms, they recalled that it was the lady Maat who, in the beginning, came down as a real woman [ie, not a "personification" of an abstract philosophical concept - which Margaret Barker agrees with] and associated (snsn) freely with mankind in the garden, at that time when there was no enmity between any creatures. The primordial reign of Maat "includes absolute peace reigning on earth ... resulting ... from the state of innocence" before the fall. The woman is the beginning of all things because she alone possesses the secret powers of creation, hk3; every man passes through this mortal sphere "following after the Mother of All." (252)

The Lady is often identified with a tree, and in the vignettes to the Book of the Dead, she appears in different degrees of incorporation with the tree, the concept varying to suit the fancy of the individual tomb owner. As Ludwig Keimer explains it, "the dead in his voyage in the other world was received by a good goddess who gave him food and drink. She usually bears the names of Nut, Hathor, and Isis but is often simply called 'Lady of the Sycamore,'" the sycamore being a type of fig tree.

Though she is first depicted as being actually incorporated in the tree in the Eighteenth Dynasty, her identification with it goes back to prehistoric times. The life-giving sycamore recalled the biblical tree of life to Eugene Lefebure, who identified it with the mfk3.t (turquoise)-tree, the tree of the Lady of the Land of Mafek that grew in the Field of Reeds. The tree that receives the travel-weary Osiris into its arms performs the function of the Lady, who is so often identified with that tree. W. M. Flinders Petrie noted that in Palestine holy trees are still called "Our Lady." It has often been suggested that the sycamore was the original form of Hathor herself, whose proper function as Lady of the Tree, whatever name she may go by, is to receive the newcomer to a strange land with refreshment after an arduous and dangerous journey. (287)

The tree-goddess gives birth or rebirth, the archaic Hathor of the southern sycamore being herself the "birth house of the king." Let us recall that our Breathings texts were found in "fourteen coffins, on each of which was placed a bunch of sycamore branches." (288)

Of course, everyone knows that Hathor, Lady of the West, is one of the Queens of Heaven, just as Asherah was. Notice, then, how Nephi makes it a point to note the Egyptian influence in his writing.

Also:

Proverbs 3:17: [Lady Wisdom's] ways are pleasant ways,

And all her paths, peaceful.

She is a tree of life to those who grasp her

The point being: there is absolutely nothing wrong with female deities, nor with "fertility" gods and goddesses as such. We are said to be the "Children" of God; is that a condemnation of fertility? What is Yahweh in the Old Testament but a "fertility God", granting the fondest desires of Abraham and Sarah for a family? We of all people should be willing to embrace the "primitive" familial religion of hearth and home.

By the way, if one agrees with Harriet Lutzky (as I do) that 'Shaddai' was originally a reference to a female deity, then Genesis makes a whole heck of a lot more sense (especially considering that Adam and Eve, a male and female, were both created in the "image" of the Gods):

49:25 The God of your father who helps you,

And Shaddai who blesses you

With blessings of heaven above,

Blessings of the deep that couches below,

Blessings of the breast and womb.

"When you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness, and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth." - Joseph Smith

I say we fulfill some prophecies from Revelation and bring the Tree of Life, the Divine Mother, back to our Temples.

We've certainly got it in Jacob:

5:54 And, behold, the roots of the natural branches of the tree which I planted whithersoever I would are yet alive; wherefore, that I may preserve them also for mine own purpose, I will take of the branches of this tree, and I will graft them in unto them. Yea, I will graft in unto them the branches of their mother tree, that I may preserve the roots also unto mine own self, that when they shall be sufficiently strong perhaps they may bring forth good fruit unto me, and I may yet have glory in the fruit of my vineyard.

56 And they also took of the natural trees which had become wild, and grafted into their mother tree.

60 And because that I have preserved the natural branches and the roots thereof, and that I have grafted in the natural branches again into their mother tree, and have preserved the roots of their mother tree, that, perhaps, the trees of my vineyard may bring forth again good fruit; and that I may have joy again in the fruit of my vineyard, and, perhaps, that I may rejoice exceedingly that I have preserved the roots and the branches of the first fruit.

Edited December 20, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I just saw someone quote this. A few words of correction: While Deutero-Isaiah is accepted by virtually all scholars (and me) as a late exilic text, it is not a redaction, and it has nothing to do with JEDP or the Documentary Hypothesis (which is just one interpretation of the notion of "JEDP"). The latter has to do with the Pentateuch, although it also bears on the historical writings down to the exile. Deutero-Isaiah is a text from the prophetic genre that never uses the name "Isaiah" and was simply tacked on to the book of Isaiah at some later time. That is all.

Christopher Seitz says, “Much recent work on Isaiah has a primary redactional interest (Kaiser 1983; Vermeylen 1977-78; Clements Isaiah 1-39 NCBC; Sweeney 1988b).” -- from Anchor Bible Dictionary, III:476. There are even scholars who argue that all of Isaiah is post-exilic, at least as a redactional matter.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Ron Beron]

Nowhere has Yahweh approved the worship of Asherah, the pole or symbol, or any other abstraction, of any sort; nor has Yahweh ever acknowledged Asherah as his consort.

Nor have I suggested otherwise. in contrast I have argued that the pagan deity was not legitimately worshiped and was condoned by the priests of YHWH, but yet the evidence continues to exist that Asherah as Wisdom or Hokhmah as continued. Joan E. Taylor in a fascinating article entitled, "The Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree" (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament June 1995 20: 29-54, ) suggests that Asherah or the tree of life has continued to be worshiped or signified by the inclusion of the Menorah in Jewish religious life.

A lighter article, and more available is "Asherah, the Tree of Life and the Menorah : Continuity of a Goddess symbol in Judaism?" by Asphodel Long ( http://www.asphodel-...ml/asherah.html ).

[Bob Crockett]

Similarly, the historical record seems to demonstrate very clearly a plurality of physically-reproducing deities in early Hebrew religion, with the fanatical insistence on philosophical monotheism being a much later (and again, retroactive) invention of later authors.

Michael Heiser, in "Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82," Hiphil 3 (Oct. 2006) seems to make my point that it seems to be taken for granted what you say; that is, that Canaanite scholarship turns on the a priori assumption that the Hebrew religion was first polytheistic and then had monotheism crammed down upon it. He observes that modern Biblical exegesis turns upon what I call and he suggests is a very false assumption.

Although he argues that Yahweh and El should not be assumed to be separate deities, he makes the following point:

This paper argues that this consensus view lacks coherence on several points. This position is

in part based on the idea that these passages presume Yahweh and El are separate, in concert

with an “older” polytheistic or henotheistic Israelite religion, and that this older theology

collapsed in the wake of a monotheistic innovation. The reasoning is that, since it is presumed

that such a religious evolution took place, these texts evince some sort of transition to

monotheism. The alleged transition is then used in defense of the exegesis. As such, the

security of the evolutionary presupposition is where this analysis begins.

My argument continues to be that avant-garde LDS philosophers fall into the arms of the atheistic Hebraists, who themselves have turned handsprings to argue that there is no true religion.

[maklelan]

Christopher Seitz says, “Much recent work on Isaiah has a primary redactional interest (Kaiser 1983; Vermeylen 1977-78; Clements Isaiah 1-39 NCBC; Sweeney 1988b).” -- from Anchor Bible Dictionary, III:476. There are even scholars who argue that all of Isaiah is post-exilic, at least as a redactional matter.

Yes, the book of Isaiah as a whole has obviously been redacted. The section known as Deutero-Isaiah itself is not a redaction of anything, but an original composition that was subsequently redacted into the earlier Isaiah. The author was not an "Isaiah redactor," which is the comment to which I referred. I'm aware of the theory that a late exilic redactor added later linguistic phenomena to an original Isaianic composition to produce Deutero-Isaiah, but I don't think there's any real evidence for that.

[Robert F. Smith]

The Hebrew Bible roundly and thoroughly condemns Asherah, whether as a cult symbol or any other kind of symbol. Possible inroads into that are (1) Leah's naming one of her sons Asher, (2) Abraham's planting of a grove [Gen. 21:33] although the word there is apparently tamarisk and not asherah, and (3) apparently, the dubious assertion that God spared the prophets of Asherah in 1 Kings 18. But, I could go on pages and pages with Jehovah's condemnation of Asherah. There are too many to point out; Asherah is condemned more frequently that sexual sins, it seems, and often committing sexual sins is equivalent to worshiping Asherah.

A number of largely secular (meaning, they don't believe the Bible is the Word of God) have developed a distinction between the "official" religion and "folk" or "popular" religion, arguing that post-exillic clerics and scribes have edited out favorable references to Asherah because they had the power to do so. [There is zero evidence of this, by the way; it is just an assertion.] Thus, the argument goes, because Asherah is found in the temple for 2/3rds of its existence, and Asherah is found in many homes and places of Hebrew worship, than Asherah as a consort of Yahweh was possible, or was indeed, a legitimate form of the worship of Yahweh.

Bro. Crockett:

That there are real distinctions between the official and popular religion in ancient Israel is anything but "just an assertion." If you were serious about making such an empty claim, you'd address the evidence directly -- instead you deny that there is any evidence. In no sense does that mean that we can assume that Asherah-worship was ever legitimate in the view of God. Only that the common folk thought so. This does, however, raise a similar question about Nehushtan:

Mordechai Cogan, speaking of King Hezekiah of Judah, says that “he closed down all rural cult sites (‘high places’) throughout Judah, thereby centralizing sacrifice at the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kings 18:22). He also banned many fetishes that had become common practice: the use of sacred pillars and trees (asherah) and the reverencing of the ‘bronze serpent’ (Heb. nehushtan) associated with Moses and the miraculous healing of the people attacked by scorpions in the desert (Num. 21:4-10).” In Harper’s Bible Dictionary (1985), 389.

The effort by scholars to explain why the elimination of Nehushtan (2 Kings 18:4) is not mentioned in Chronicles, is not a matter of atheism on their part, but a sincere effort to understand why. Snake images are, by the way, found at Shechem, Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, etc. (J. Rosenbaum in Anchor Bible Dictionary, III:191), just as images of Asherah are also frequently found in an Israelite locus.

Some Latter-day Saints have adopted this nihilistic view of the Bible to argue that Yahweh does indeed have a consort, legitimately, and the Asherah cult worship can be found in Nephi's vision of the tree. But, to get there, they, perhaps unwittingly, pummel the legitimacy of the Bible as the Word of God, to the point that it becomes worthless in addressing all sorts of topics, like the resurrection, sexual behavior, sabbath worship and the unadulterated worship of God. These Saints sign onto polytheism of the type, once again, the Word of God condemns without hesitation. They link arms with the atheist Hebrew scholars who would find, essentially, the presence of Satan in God's court in the preexistence [Job] as evidence that Satan, too, might be God. Or, more perniciously, that there is no Satan. These Saints cite heavily to these atheist scholars, like Dever, and give him a nice pat on the back for a job well done.

I point you to Alyson Skabelund Von Feldt's work in FARMS Review at http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=639, which reviews Dever's recent book. It kind of summarizes things, and she does note that there are things which she might take exception to (excuse the split infinitive), but I don't think the review goes far enough to locate Dever in the pantheon (and I use that word intentionally) of Hebrew scholars.

But Dever is a false foundation. He admits that he is a feminist. He admits the Hebrew Bible is misogynistic. He takes exception to the role of women in the Hebrew priesthood and exception to the fact that God is male. He has an agenda, and that is to make God female. I realize I am using a little hyperbole here to discuss Dever, but indeed his view of Hebrew worship is colored by his relativism. But, some non-Hebrew readers think he's the greatest and worship at his altar.

You are very free with the vicious asides, but also free of any evidentiary support. I know Bill Dever personally and have never heard him described as an "atheist scholar." The only legitimate response to any position Bill takes is to cite and discuss the evidence. Even if he is an atheist (in addition to his being Jewish), you sully your own argument by stooping to that level of discourse. For shame.

If you're going to argue that Nephi has his Asherah, in a revelatory religion, you're going to want to do some foundation work. Does the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures say that a legitimate form of worship is to worship Asherah, or even the mother? [My personal view is the reason that we don't say anything much at all about "mother" is that there is likely not a single mother.] What does the Book of Mormon say on the subject? Does Joseph Smith say that we worship Asherah, or a mother? Do any of the modern prophets say the same? [My reading of the Gospel Library sources which refer to Asherah show universal condemnation by those who mention it/her; Sperry, Ludlow, etc.]

I don't know of anyone who recommends the worship of Asherah (you are the only one to report such a thing, in your stake in Southern California), or that it was legitimate for ancient Israel to do so. It is a red herring and a non-sequitur for you to even make that assertion.

I point out in passing, although I realize this will weaken my argument for many of you, the remarkable similarity with this unusual view of Asherah to the Sorenson map and the belief in two Cumorahs, where the words of living prophets expressly on the subject are subjugated to a Mormon modernist view. But, I digress.

My view on this subject is known to a few who have heard me weigh forth on it. This is not a personal attack, by any means. I take exception to a few things generated by FARMS and the Journal but otherwise worship at their altar.

For those of who take exception to my views, keep in mind: (1) I believe in a mother in heaven, (2) I believe that the Bible has errors, (3) I think the Book of Mormon should used to judge the Bible. I realize this post sort of swims against the current amongst the hobbyist apologist (of which I am one) but I have been thinking about it for 10 years. I'm not all that interested in posts that deride my chosen profession or my perceived lack of faith, if you don't mind.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Bob Crockett]

You are very free with the vicious asides, but also free of any evidentiary support.  I know Bill Dever personally and have never heard him described as an "atheist scholar."  The only legitimate response to any position Bill takes is to cite and discuss the evidence.  Even if he is an atheist (in addition to his being Jewish), you sully your own argument by stooping to that level of discourse.  For shame.

Yee-ouch!  That stings!

So, where in my Bible can I look at to start worshiping Asherah?  Or, maybe, one of the Brethren approves it.  I'm ready!  Where's my pole?  Where are the women?

Goodness knows, the Church doesn't approve it.

Grove. In Hebrew, called Asherah (of which the plural is Asherim or Asheroth), either a living tree or a tree-like pole, set up as an object of worship, being symbolical of the female or productive principle in nature. Every Phoenician altar had an asherah near it. The word is often translated “green trees” or “grove.” This “nature worship” became associated with gross immorality, and so the practice of setting up such “groves” or idols was forbidden by Hebrew prophets (Deut. 16:21; cf. Num. 25:3; Judg. 2:11–13; 1 Sam. 7:3–4; 1 Kgs. 11:5; Isa. 17:8; Micah 5:12 ff.).  at http://lds.org/scrip...g&query=asherah as well as the Church-approved Bible Dictionary.

Goodness knows, Tvedtnes doesn't approve your theories.  Tvedtnes,  "Eliljah:  Champion of Israel's God," at http://lds.org/ensig...g&query=asherah.

Edited December 20, 2011 by rcrocket

[Ron Beron]

Yee-ouch! That stings!

So, where in my Bible can I look at to start worshiping Asherah? Or, maybe, one of the Brethren approves it. I'm ready! Where's my pole? Where are the women?

Goodness knows, the Church doesn't approve it.

Grove. In Hebrew, called Asherah (of which the plural is Asherim or Asheroth), either a living tree or a tree-like pole, set up as an object of worship, being symbolical of the female or productive principle in nature. Every Phoenician altar had an asherah near it. The word is often translated “green trees” or “grove.” This “nature worship” became associated with gross immorality, and so the practice of setting up such “groves” or idols was forbidden by Hebrew prophets (Deut. 16:21; cf. Num. 25:3; Judg. 2:11–13; 1 Sam. 7:3–4; 1 Kgs. 11:5; Isa. 17:8; Micah 5:12 ff.). at http://lds.org/scrip...g&query=asherah as well as the Church-approved Bible Dictionary.

Goodness knows, Tvedtnes doesn't approve your theories. Tvedtnes, "Eliljah: Champion of Israel's God," at http://lds.org/ensig...g&query=asherah.

Robert et al have not asked for any worship of Asherah. We have said this over and over again. In spite of the fact that I kinda worship women I don't have any particular deities in mind.

[Bob Crockett]

Robert et al have not asked for any worship of Asherah. We have said this over and over again. In spite of the fact that I kinda worship women I don't have any particular deities in mind.

Fair enough. Let's retreat to a point where I think I disagree with you and the rest of the crowd here.

Do you assert that the worship of Asherah was a legitimate feature of the orthodox religion, meaning, that religion approved by Yahweh at the time?

[Robert F. Smith]

By the way, if one agrees with Harriet Lutzky (as I do) that 'Shaddai' was originally a reference to a female deity, then Genesis makes a whole heck of a lot more sense (especially considering that Adam and Eve, a male and female, were both created in the "image of the Gods):"

49:25 The God of your father who helps you,

And Shaddai who blesses you

With blessings of heaven above,

Blessings of the deep that couches below,

Blessings of the breast and womb.

This is very interesting (first I've heard it), in light of claims that Shaddai of Gen 49:25 means “Twin-Breasts”¹ (= Sumerian TUTTUL), and would parallel the zodiacal sign Gemini, termed MAŠ.TAB.BA.GAL “Great Twins” in Sumerian, and corresponding to Joseph’s heirs, Ephraim & Manasseh, in Deuteronomy 33:17. Such geographical terminology is reminscent of the the Grand Tetons, which has the same meaning.

¹ Hebrew šad means "breast," and Šadday is the ancient Amorite dual form. The LXX Greek translation of Pantokrator “God Almighty,” is in error. G. E. Mendenhall, Ancient Israel’s Faith and History, 117-118; cf. W. F. Albright, “The Names of Shaddai and Abram,” JBL, 54 (1935):192-193; See Genesis 17:1, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14, 48:3, Exodus 6:2-3, Numbers 24:16, Jeremiah 3:19, Ezekiel 10:5.

Edited December 20, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Yee-ouch! That stings!

So, where in my Bible can I look at to start worshiping Asherah? Or, maybe, one of the Brethren approves it. I'm ready! Where's my pole? Where are the women?

Goodness knows, the Church doesn't approve it.

Grove. In Hebrew, called Asherah (of which the plural is Asherim or Asheroth), either a living tree or a tree-like pole, set up as an object of worship, being symbolical of the female or productive principle in nature. Every Phoenician altar had an asherah near it. The word is often translated “green trees” or “grove.” This “nature worship” became associated with gross immorality, and so the practice of setting up such “groves” or idols was forbidden by Hebrew prophets (Deut. 16:21; cf. Num. 25:3; Judg. 2:11–13; 1 Sam. 7:3–4; 1 Kgs. 11:5; Isa. 17:8; Micah 5:12 ff.). at http://lds.org/scrip...g&query=asherah as well as the Church-approved Bible Dictionary.

Goodness knows, Tvedtnes doesn't approve your theories. Tvedtnes, "Eliljah: Champion of Israel's God," at http://lds.org/ensig...g&query=asherah.

Bro. Crockett:

That there are real distinctions between the official and popular religion in ancient Israel is anything but "just an assertion." If you were serious about making such an empty claim, you'd address the evidence directly -- instead you deny that there is any evidence. In no sense does that mean that we can assume that Asherah-worship was ever legitimate in the view of God. Only that the common folk thought so. This does, however, raise a similar question about Nehushtan:

Mordechai Cogan, speaking of King Hezekiah of Judah, says that “he closed down all rural cult sites (‘high places’) throughout Judah, thereby centralizing sacrifice at the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kings 18:22). He also banned many fetishes that had become common practice: the use of sacred pillars and trees (asherah) and the reverencing of the ‘bronze serpent’ (Heb. nehushtan) associated with Moses and the miraculous healing of the people attacked by scorpions in the desert (Num. 21:4-10).” In Harper’s Bible Dictionary (1985), 389.

The effort by scholars to explain why the elimination of Nehushtan (2 Kings 18:4) is not mentioned in Chronicles, is not a matter of atheism on their part, but a sincere effort to understand why. Snake images are, by the way, found at Shechem, Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, etc. (J. Rosenbaum in Anchor Bible Dictionary, III:191), just as images of Asherah are also frequently found in an Israelite locus.

I don't know of anyone who recommends the worship of Asherah (you are the only one to report such a thing, in your stake in Southern California), or that it was legitimate for ancient Israel to do so. It is a red herring and a non-sequitur for you to even make that assertion.

[Bob Crockett]

I don't know of anyone who recommends the worship of Asherah (you are the only one to report such a thing, in your stake in Southern California), or that it was legitimate for ancient Israel to do so. It is a red herring and a non-sequitur for you to even make that assertion.

Do you assert that the worship of Asherah was a legitimate feature of the orthodox religion, meaning, that religion approved by Yahweh at the time?

[Kevin Christensen]

Relevant to the thread, John Tvedtnes' article on "Mary and the Tree of Life."

http://bookofmormonresearch.org/book_of_mormon_articles/mary-and-the-tree-of-life

Following on Daniel Peterson's essay, he adds additional sources, notably the apocalypse of Paul. He concludes, "From ties such as the ones discussed here, it seems that the connection of Mary to the tree of life in early Christian tradition is stronger than we first realized."

He's also quite fond of Raphael Patai and Margaret Barker.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you assert that the worship of Asherah was a legitimate feature of the orthodox religion, meaning, that religion approved by Yahweh at the time?

For the third time --

Bro. Crockett:

That there are real distinctions between the official and popular religion in ancient Israel is anything but "just an assertion." If you were serious about making such an empty claim, you'd address the evidence directly -- instead you deny that there is any evidence. In no sense does that mean that we can assume that Asherah-worship was ever legitimate in the view of God. Only that the common folk thought so. This does, however, raise a similar question about Nehushtan:

Mordechai Cogan, speaking of King Hezekiah of Judah, says that “he closed down all rural cult sites (‘high places’) throughout Judah, thereby centralizing sacrifice at the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kings 18:22). He also banned many fetishes that had become common practice: the use of sacred pillars and trees (asherah) and the reverencing of the ‘bronze serpent’ (Heb. nehushtan) associated with Moses and the miraculous healing of the people attacked by scorpions in the desert (Num. 21:4-10).” In Harper’s Bible Dictionary (1985), 389.

The effort by scholars to explain why the elimination of Nehushtan (2 Kings 18:4) is not mentioned in Chronicles, is not a matter of atheism on their part, but a sincere effort to understand why. Snake images are, by the way, found at Shechem, Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, etc. (J. Rosenbaum in Anchor Bible Dictionary, III:191), just as images of Asherah are also frequently found in an Israelite locus.

[Mike Reed]

He concludes, "From ties such as the ones discussed here, it seems that the connection of Mary to the tree of life in early Christian tradition is stronger than we first realized."

This would have been realized long ago if FARMS folk were focusing on 18th and 19th century, instead of antiquity.

I do think this part of the paper is interesting:

Gregory of Narek, a tenth-century Armenian saint, described Mary as “the living Eden” and “the healer of the pangs of Eve.” During the celebration of the feast of the Assumption of Mary, the Armenian priest blesses grapes and prays that those present may be “worthy of partaking from the Tree of Life.”[ii]

!!

!!

More recently, a Roman Catholic nun, Sister Marie Stephen O.P. of Rosary College prepared a list of titles given to Mary in Fr. Thomas Linius,

The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries

(Burns and Oates, 1893),

Tvedtnes' sources leaves a huge window between the 10th century and 1893. Why do you think that is?

Edited December 20, 2011 by Mike Reed

[Bob Crockett]

For the third time --

Bro. Crockett:

That there are real distinctions between the official and popular religion in ancient Israel is anything but "just an assertion." If you were serious about making such an empty claim, you'd address the evidence directly -- instead you deny that there is any evidence. In no sense does that mean that we can assume that Asherah-worship was ever legitimate in the view of God. Only that the common folk thought so. This does, however, raise a similar question about Nehushtan:

Mordechai Cogan, speaking of King Hezekiah of Judah, says that “he closed down all rural cult sites (‘high places’) throughout Judah, thereby centralizing sacrifice at the altar of the Temple in Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kings 18:22). He also banned many fetishes that had become common practice: the use of sacred pillars and trees (asherah) and the reverencing of the ‘bronze serpent’ (Heb. nehushtan) associated with Moses and the miraculous healing of the people attacked by scorpions in the desert (Num. 21:4-10).” In Harper’s Bible Dictionary (1985), 389.

The effort by scholars to explain why the elimination of Nehushtan (2 Kings 18:4) is not mentioned in Chronicles, is not a matter of atheism on their part, but a sincere effort to understand why. Snake images are, by the way, found at Shechem, Gezer, Megiddo, Hazor, etc. (J. Rosenbaum in Anchor Bible Dictionary, III:191), just as images of Asherah are also frequently found in an Israelite locus.

You're just mincing words. On to somebody else.

[Pahoran]

There is something fundamentally wrong with a rejection of a common ground, the scriptures, in favor of a highly speculative theory based upon a destable fertility cult.

Rob, are you perhaps under the impression that "detestable" denotes some kind of objective category?

Or do you, like the EV anti-Mormons that cross our path so frequently, assume that whatever you hate, God must also hate?

This couple in my stake followed Asherah to her ultimate conclusion. Ritual prostitution.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see that "ritual prostitution" is actually the "ultimate conclusion" of using Asherah as a symbol.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

Rob, are you perhaps under the impression that "detestable" denotes some kind of objective category?

Or do you, like the EV anti-Mormons that cross our path so frequently, assume that whatever you hate, God must also hate?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see that "ritual prostitution" is actually the "ultimate conclusion" of using Asherah as a symbol.

Regards,

Pahoran

"Detestable" is the word used in the NIV.

My point continues to be the same. Reliance on the cult of Asherah for any argument that God has a consort is detestable. The scholarly material upon which such argument is based relies upon the conclusion -- as I cite above -- that the worship of Yahweh is syncretism. Those who dip into that pool to argue for a mother in heaven, or a consort, are dipping into a fetid swamp.

[Ron Beron]

Fair enough. Let's retreat to a point where I think I disagree with you and the rest of the crowd here.

Do you assert that the worship of Asherah was a legitimate feature of the orthodox religion, meaning, that religion approved by Yahweh at the time?

I can only saw that it was more dominant within orthodoxy in pre-exilic Israel than after and certainly very dominant in proto-Israelite religious life. After the exile the worship of Asherah was relegated to mere metaphor. In many ways I would find the Catholic practice of Mary veneration to be a continuation of this practice. In fact, according to Dever it is still a practice of many women to make cakes with feminine features to imitate the ancient goddess. Of course, this is the lesser folk tradition and not the orthodoxy.

[Bob Crockett]

I can only saw that it was more dominant within orthodoxy in pre-exilic Israel than after and certainly very dominant in proto-Israelite religious life. After the exile the worship of Asherah was relegated to mere metaphor. In many ways I would find the Catholic practice of Mary veneration to be a continuation of this practice. In fact, according to Dever it is still a practice of many women to make cakes with feminine features to imitate the ancient goddess. Of course, this is the lesser folk tradition and not the orthodoxy.

May I inquire if you are saying that the "true religion" in pre-exilic Israel ("true," meaning, as God commanded) included the worship of Asherah?

[Pahoran]

May I inquire if you are saying that the "true religion" in pre-exilic Israel ("true," meaning, as God commanded) included the worship of Asherah?

I will let Ron answer that question, and instead address a somewhat related one.

I think that this is entirely a moot point. The more relevant question is whether a pre-exile Israelite would consider an Asherah-related symbol to be absolutely verboten when illustrating a true, revealed principle.

Because I'll tell you straight off: I've frequently dealt with those fundamentalist, self-righteous, censorious uber-nitpickers who think rotating a five-pointed star through 36 degrees transmogrifies it into a satanic symbol; and I'm having a hard time separating your effusions of "detestable" disgust from their outlook and arguments.

Maybe there is a difference, but frankly I can't see it. Even less can I see Nephi as a proto-Puritan zealot.

What do you think, Rob?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Crockett]

I can see why you think I'm trying to find offense to orthodoxy on the slender thread of appearance, but I assure you that is not the case.

I grant you the reasonable possibility that the cults of Asherah, Ishtar and Isis are related to an ancient teaching of a mother in heaven.

But that is not what is being said in the "Nephi and His Asherah" argument. Note this from Brant Gardner, in an above post:

This is a question of how one reads Israelite history. Clearly there were other deities that were worshiped, but not with a presence in the temple. Certainly post-exilic religion fits your suggestion, but the pre-exilic period is not nearly as clear (and that is where we find Asherah in the temple).

Further, two other posters remarked above that in the contest with Elijah, the prophets of Asherah were spared. (I that an erroneous reading, but I pass that for this post.)

These two arguments maintain, on the basis of these very slender reeds, that the "true religion" may have, must have, should have, could have, we can't deny the possibility of, included the worship of Asherah. That, I think is extreme heterodoxy and counter to the word of God. It is expressly counter to the Hebrew Bible. And to argue that the victor gets to write history is to dig an even greater hole for heterodoxy. I think those of us fellow believers who teach and write such stuff are wrong.

As I tell my early morning seminary students: "Wrong, you could not be more wrong."

Edited December 21, 2011 by rcrocket

[Ron Beron]

May I inquire if you are saying that the "true religion" in pre-exilic Israel ("true," meaning, as God commanded) included the worship of Asherah?

First of all one would have to assume that the earliest Hebrew peoples had the full canon of Hebrew scriptures which they didn't. In fact, I am sure they had only vague ideas on what was required of them. If you follow closely the story of Jacob you will find a great deal of folk tradition that permeated his beliefs. Does this mean they did not accept Elohim? Of course not. They accepted that Elohim was above all other gods, but other gods did exist. Ostensibly prior to Moses a commandment to accept only one God did not exist. And, in fact since the Torah was not completely compiled until many years later it would be safe to assume that people worshiped as they will. That was the great sin of Israel and the leaders of Israel. God did not command the worship of Asherah nor did he condemn it either. It is hard to say what was commanded of the people since we haven't a clear record of what were their beliefs. I can only surmise that their religious outlook involved beliefs borrowed from their ancestors, the Mesopotamian's, and their neigbors, the Hittites and Ugaritic peoples as well as the southern tribes, Sasu Bedouins and other various groups including the Midianites. Much later they evolved their thinking in an exclusiveness of monotheism that came about because of their exile and exposure to the beliefs of the Persians. It would be akin to our own beliefs within Mormonism that did develop all at once, but over many years.

[Kevin Christensen]

Here is a very recent essay (2010), relevant to the discussion, from Margaret Barker.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/USU_Barker.pdf

Tvedtnes's little essay supplements Peterson's work with a few observations. It's not meant to be the final word, but to contribute to the discussion. Peterson's earlier essay was meant to start a discussion. Von Feldt and Barker have responded and provided important additional information and sources. Dever provides perspectives we can consider. Barker's Isaiah commentaries also provide helpful context.

There's nothing wrong with doing comparisons from the 19th century, just so long as we don't loose sight of the fact that the claims of the Book of Mormon to provide a translation of eye-witness descriptions. Those eye-witness descriptions cannot be tested without consideration of the settings and situations that it claims for itself. That is the point of the method that Blass describes, derived from the practices of Renaissance scholars developed in dealing with the flood of documents they had to deal with. The reasoning remains intact whether or not Blass approved of the Book of Mormon or Nibley, or Mormons. I notice that those who wonder what dismissive personal opinions Blass might have offered to speculate about what devastatingly dismissive views on the topic that Margaret Barker might have, if we only knew them. Personal witness, in this case, trumps the need to speculate. And the ongoing consideration of eyewitness settings and times, including Jerusalem 600 BCE, the Arabian Penninsula, the Bountiful candidates, and Larry Poulson's use of Google earth compared to specific details and times from the text, all have a right to be placed in the balance.

Barker's describes her own method as learning to stand where the ancients stood in order to better understand what they saw. The sponge theory of the Book of Mormon supposes that any similarity to a source Joseph Smith might possibly have heard about demonstrates the source. Any differences from 19th century expectations provides evidence of imagination or ignorance. No further testing required. That is exactly what I see from Alexander Campbell in his early response. The Lost Ten Tribes mythos, for instance, claims that the Natives were Hebrews. So does the Book of Mormon. Close enough, and case closed, and please don't mention that the Book of Mormon says that the Lost 10 Tribes are lost, that it's people left Jerusalem from a different time, going a different direction, but a different means, and practiced a different religion. Keep things at the proper level of abstraction, ignoring the details on the one hand, or at a verbal phrase level at the other, ignoring larger contexts. One could perhaps wish that believers would trust their case to the objectivity of the prosecution, and meekly submitting to their guidance, rather than reading and exploring on our our own. But it has never been a realistic wish.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Bob Crockett]

This Barker article is more of the same nonsense I have criticizing.

None of you, including you, Kevin, is willing to come out directly and admit to your belief that the worship of Asherah was a legitimate "revealed" component of pre-exillic Yahweh worship. You, like my friend Robert F. Smith, want to mince words and use the words of scholarship, but we live and operate in a revealed religion, where unlike the secularist Hebraists you all respect, we believe that true religion is one revealed by God.

If we were to accept the argument, as does Barker, that Asherah was a legimate component of Yahweh worship, then what prevents you from simply accepting the entire panoply of Caananite gods? Do you see similarities between Molech and God's sacrifice of his Son? Was Molech a revealed form of worship?

Don't repeat that nonsense that an Asherah pole was found in the Temple and thus she has a more favored position than Molech. I'll just point you to the Bible in response.

Your argument rejects the Josiah reforms.

Plainly, the God of the Old Testament condemns the very things you and these silly papers espouse.

Such sillineness leads to the various things said in Kevin Barney's paper in 41 Dialogue 4:121, which springboards off the more scholarly Peterson piece. Barney's piece outright rejects the Joshiah reforms, although he -- like many of you here -- hedges his bets with use of the word "arguably."

But there is no question that these arguments are false and wrong.

"Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not... Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish." (Jeremiah 10:2-4, 14-15)

Even more significantly, this line of scholarship holds the Church up to mockery amongst Bible believers. http://lifeafterministry.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/ashera-and-the-heavenly-mother-of-mormonism/

Which brings me back to my legalistic challenge that none of you is willing to tackle. Let me post my new questions. Can you, Kevin, answer without equivocation?

1. Do you believe that God revealed to the Moses the correct and true worship of Him? Y/N

2 . Do you believe that before the exile, God - the real God - condemned the worship of Asherah? Y/N

3. Do you believe that the reforms of Josiah were directed by God - the real God? Y/N

4. Do you believe that those reforms included the expurgation of Asherah from the legitimate worship of God? Y/N.

Yes, these are legalistic questions. They may seem unfair to you. But they legitimately seek to pin you down to determine whether you, Kevin, believe.