Talk:Asherah/Archive 1

Archive 1

Asherah Pole and Qudshu

The "Asherah Pole" is named after the goddess, although the jury is still out on what it actually was. It would be appropriate to merge "Asherah Pole" with this article since without the discovery of "Asherah" at Ugarit we would still likely have "groves" as a translation for the Hebrew word.

Qudshu, I agree, is not the same as Asherah. A strong case has been made that this conflation is a modern creation and does not fit the evidence. Sawiggins 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Steve A. Wiggins

I support adding Ashera Pole, go ahead whoever wants to do it - and remove the banner ;) Qudshu is from the same root as holy, qodesh in modern Hebrew. As for the earlier talk of the muslim "Ashura" and Ashera - the two are noy connected. "Asura" (as well as the Hebrew and Arabic words for "ten") begind with an 'ayin. Ashera is with an aleph. Uri

As per Dever (2005) and other sources, there is a close association between the goddess Asherah and the 'pole' or whatever it was. It makes sense to merge these articles. Bondegezou 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A few minor edits

I made a few minor edits, aimed at combining sections that seem to belong togther, and then combining/moving paragraphs within those sections so that themes are clarified and repetition avoided where possible. Nothing major. But I did make the language a little more assertive than perhaps it was - there's really no dispute at all in scholarly circles about the worship of Ahserah in ancient Israel and the late development of monotheism. Also added a ref to Dever's book. Cheers. PiCo 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead

I think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.199.222.142 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cats?

The two-sentence bit at the end about the Ashera cats needs to be either elaborated or deleted. As it is, it's written almost like an advertisement. I just don't understand its relevance other than a similar name. Does it even belong here? TheMadChild (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Name of Sacred Sea

The sacred sea (lake) upon which Asherah trod was known as Yam Kinneret and is now called Lake Galilee.

Could someone provide a source for this? Thanks! --TimeDog 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very skeptical of the connection to lake Galilee. I can find no other corroboration of this. This is significant since it seems to link Ashera very directly to the miracle in the Christian new testament. If this were the case, wouldn't there be more written on this? Smells fishy, perhaps related to current neo-pagan worship of the goddess, but not archaeological evidence. Unless someone can provide a source for this, this should probably be deleted, or at least clarified. --Solarinus 22:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above two: If this is true, it has some very provocative and fascinating implications with regards to the story of Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee in the Gospel of Matthew. As it is, Wikipedia seems to be the primary source of this information. "Citation needed" has been there for over a year, and no one has come up with a reference or anything suggesting that this is anything other than a rumor. Because of the potential for controversy this probably should have been removed immediately rather than getting a fact-tag (see WP:BURDEN); as it is, there has been more than enough time to find an actual source for this information. --Rimbo (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Several other points:

• I have suggested that Asherah Pole. is merged with this page. Most of what is covered there is covered here but in more detail, and from a slightly more neutral POV.
• This article seems to gloss over current theories regarding a Deuteronomist censure/suppresion of Asherah, in particular as it regards to the creation story of Genesis and the symbol of the serpent. While this does not have to be represented as fact, or even mainstream thought, it is highly relevant to this subject.
• For Asherah often a wooden-made rudely carved statue planted on the ground of the house was her symbol, and sometimes a clay statue without legs and stood in the same way. Her idols were found also in forests, carved on living trees, or in the form of poles beside altars that were placed at the side of some roads. This appears to reflect a far more detailed understanding of Judaic Asherah worship than I believed the current evidence supports. This also needs a source or needs to be revised.

Anyway, seems this article has been ignored for a while. I hope I can generate some discussion here. --Solarinus 05:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sources (esp with regard to consort of Yahweh)

[1][2][3] [4] Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

connection between Asherah and 'Ashurah

There is no connection between Asherah (starts with Aleph or Alif) and 'Ashurah (starts with 'Ayin, a completely different letter). If that wasn't enough the second letter of the roots of the two words, the "sh," have completely different origins. The Shin of Asherah comes from the Proto-Semitic "Th" which evolved into "Sh" in the Northwest Semitic languages but remained in Arabic, becoming Thaa. If the day of 'Ashurah was related to Asherah, it would more likely be called Athurah, with no 'Ayin. Instead, 'Ashurah most likely comes from the word for 10 in Arabic, 'Asharah. As it says on the Asherah page, the Day of 'Ashurah "falls on the 10th day of Muharram." On the Day of 'Ashurah page, it doesn't even mention Asherah at all, even in the etymology section of the page.

I suggest a deletion of the entire "Day of 'Ashurah" section.--Vgp0012 (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Astar

Was Asherah equivalent to Astar (god) of the Axum Empire? (That article needs work...) Wnt (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A quick online search tells me that Astar was a male god and the head of the pantheon, and lived (if that's the word) in the first half of the first millennium AD - so a connection seems unlikely IMO. But you're welcome to do some research. PiCo (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material based upon reliable sources

The edits of User:HesedHashem are supported by The Bible Unearthed, book which says that this is the new consensus in archeology and history. As quoted from a reliable source on the documentary hypothesis, "A majority of scholars, if by no means all, continue to follow some version of the classic formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis". While there can be a question of how many Deuteronomists were there, it is clear that there is a Deuteronomistic history, this is consensual among historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've restored it. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Always be sure to "attack the editor", eh Dougweller? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove that. I don't see it as much different, though, than your edit summary comment "not a shrine to your POV." which looks like an attack on someone. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw that Til Eulenspiegel finds offensive and a breach of POV policy calling the Bible "a myth". However, theology is theology and science is quite another matter. History, religious studies, Higher Criticism and Lower Criticism are science. Holding the Bible as 100% literally accurate is not science, it is theology, and even a kind of awkward theology, seen what Bart D. Ehrman affirms on http://www.scribd.com/doc/19959475/Bart-Ehrman-Jesus-Interrupted (pages 3-5, from "baby Bible" exam to "baby Bible" exam again). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a brief quote: Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging student's cherished beliefs about the Bible -- even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship have been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

'Controversy' section

I find this title unhelpful. My attempt to change it has been reverted, so I've taken it up at WP:Trying to get an NPOV section heading at Asherah hoping for a section heading that is both NPOV and informative so that readers looking at the toc will know what the section is about. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope the change in title helps. Also, the quote of one review of Dever's book rather sounded like name calling; I changed that based on a read-through of the review article in question. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 33:2

Last night the BBC showed the second part of a documentary series called The Bible's Buried Secrets (not to be confused with an American PBS series from a few years back), fronted by Francesca Stavrakopoulou, an academic lecturer in theology and religion from the University of Exeter.

The topic of the programme was polytheism in ancient Israel, with a fair amount about Asherah.

One of the things she raised was the word "aishdat" in Deuteronomy 33:2. The meaning of this word is flagged by translators as uncertain. It's often split into two, aish=fire and dat=law, so "a fiery law" (KJV, JPS 1911; NASB: "flashing lightning"); but that doesn't make a lot of sense in the context; and also, at least according to Gesenius, dat appears to be a comparatively late Persian loan-word, only otherwise found biblically in the Book of Esther. [5]. The NIV instead offers: "from his mountain slopes" with the note "meaning of the Hebrew uncertain".

What the programme suggested was that "aishdat" is in fact a scribal mis-copying, or even deliberate substitution, for asherah; noting the similarities of the letter-shapes in hebrew: אשרה --> אשדת

In the context, Asherah does fit rather well:

The LORD came from Sinai and dawned over them from Seir; he shone forth from Mount Paran.
He came to them with his myriad holy ones; Asherah was at his right hand.

Question: is this claim a widespread assertion; and does it deserve a place in the article, for example at the end of the "Biblical sources" section, albeit couched in a suitably tentative way ? Jheald (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Some more data:

• The proposal was apparently suggested by H.S. Nyberg. ZDMG 92 320--344 (1938), p. 335 (in German) citation 1 citation 2
• It was revived in 1996 by Moshe Weinfeld, Vetus Testamentum 46 527--528;jstor citation; Weinberg had previously also warmly noted the idea at page 4 in this 1984 paper.
• It was also argued by Meindert Dijkstra (not the footballer) in 1995, Yahweh, El and their Asherah, pp. 68-9 citation; and in 2001, El, the God of Israel – Israel the people of YHWH: On the Origins of Ancient Israelite Yahwism in Only One God?: Monotheism in Ancient Israel and the Veneration of the Goddess Asherah (Biblical Seminar) Sheffield Academic Press 2001, p. 115, more detailed discussion at 117. citation
• Also Karel van der Toorn, Family religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: continuity and changes in the forms of religious life. Brill, 1996. p. 324
• David Steinberg offers a very slightly different reconstruction (preserving the tav) [6].
• Joseph Blenkinsopp also avers that the emendation "may be permissible". [7], JSOT 33(2) 131-153 p. 138 (2008)

An alternate reading, not involving Asherah, was offered by Richard Steiner, JBL 115 695-696 (1996) citation.

Such proposals are reviewed by Carmel MacCarthy in Lemaire ed. (2001), pp 125 to 132; and DDD p. 918 (not on Google Books) Jheald (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have named enough scholars who have argued this to merit a mention of their views, although surely others would take issue with this kind of speculative methodology in Bible criticism ('let's just replace a word with a different word, then it will say what we want it to say' might be called a kind of strawman logic). Your wording just above seems neutral enough; maybe the best tweak would be something like: "The proposal was suggested by Nyberg in [get year], and has also been argued by Dijkstra, Weinfeld, and Stavrakopoulou." Obviously a hypothesis like that isn't going to fly with all schools of thought; have you looked for any more critical reviews of that idea? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Monarchal period

This article mentions the "monarchal period." Does that mean the period in the article Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)? ChangMei (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unnamed section

It seems like reference 4 - the quote about mainstream thought in biblical archaology - is taken completely out of context. In the article linked to, it has absolutely nothing to do with Asherah. Perhaps this should be changed to something less misleading.

146.186.152.51 20:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Lauren K.

---

In this paragraph User:Rickyrab inserted the last italicized line:

In the lunar Islamic calendar, the Day of Ashurah, transliterated as Aashurah, Ashura or Aashoorah, falls on the 10th day of Muharram. On that day, in the year of the Hejira 61 (AD 680), Husayn bin Ali, the grandson of Muhammad was killed by Umayyad forces at the Battle of Karbala (now in Iraq). Still the Day of Aashurah, it is observed as a day of mourning by Shi'ites. Whether or not Ashurah festival has anything to do with Asherah, is unknown.

The point that it was the Day of Asherah, and still is, wasn't made strongly enough, I guess. How about this, then:

In the ancient lunar calendar that has become the Islamic calendar, the Day of Ashurah, transliterated as Aashurah, Ashura or Aashoorah, falls on the 10th day of Muharram. On that day, in the year of the Hejira 61 (AD 680), Husayn bin Ali, the grandson of Muhammad was killed by Umayyad forces at the Battle of Karbala (now in Iraq). Still called the Day of Aashurah, it has been observed ever since as a day of mourning by Shi'ites.

If I tell someone that Friday is "Freya's Day" and that the Crucifixion occured on a Friday, and they say "What does the Crucifixion have to do with Freya?" I'm a little stumped. Wetman 21:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and how is the Muslim holiday (Ashora) connected to the goddess (Asherah)? Excuse me, but I thought Islam was always a monotheistic religion. Rickyrab 23:47, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's like asking why someone would mention Cupid (an ancient Roman God) in relation to Saint Valentine's Day (a Christian Holiday). Christianity also claims to be monotheist, yet pre-christian holdovers remain, as it is with Islam.68.148.123.76 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Islam has in its roots paganism. this is not a bias statement it is a fact from history. unlike the judeo-christian tradition whereby the grass roots are monotheistic, polytheism is Islams base roots and foundation. As a result many pagan rituals are present.

"Allah was the supreme, though not sole, diety in Arabia before the arrival of Islam. He lived, together with other dieties, in the heavens and was said to have created the earth and bestowed water on it. In pre-Islamis times animism was prevalent thoughout Arabia: trees and springs were worshipped and certain stones were believed to contain sacred power. However, the prophet Mohammed (c. AD 570 - 632) adopted Allah as the one true god, to whom total submission was due, and proclaimed it blasphemous to worship any other diety. According to the Qur'an, polytheism is the greatest sin...Because Allah is believed to be completely different from everything he has created, it is forbidden for anyone to attempt to portray him." --Cotterell, Arthur & Storm, Rachel. Anness Publishing Ltd., 2003,p. 236

"The Ka'aba or 'Square House' is an oblong stone building, draped with black silk, which contains the sacred Black Stone of Islam. Situated within the mosque at Mecca. Islam's holiest city, the Ka'aba symbolizes the meeting of heaven and earth, and was an important shrine long before the time of the Prophet Muhammed (c. AD 570 - 632). It contained many images of gods and goddesses from the Arabian pantheon. According to the Qur'an, the Ka'aba was rebuilt by Abraham for the worship of the one true god, Allah - but the Meccans had enshrined a number of idols, "The Daughters of Allah", within it...In pre-Islamic times, a four-month truce was called each year between the warring tribes of Arabia, and people from different tribes and towns would visit the shrine and circle around the structure." --Cotterell, Arthur & Storm, Rachel. Anness Publishing Ltd., 2003,p. 291. it is important to note that as one of the five pillars of faith a muslim must complete the hajj, the pilgrimage to this spot in mecca. the rites include seven circumambulations around the ka'aba and kissing the sacred stone. it is interesting to note that in pagan idol worship practices common in religions such as those present in Ancient Babylon, kissing of erected stones or idols was common practice. and if you are thinking of a correlation with the Roman Catholic practice of kissing representations of mary and saints you're on the right track.

"The Kaabah was a temple were the two statues of Asaf and Naelah, the famous Kuhhan of Jinn, were located. The Hajj began there and progressed to the statues of Wind-Jinn. Copies of the statues of Asaf and Naelah were placed over the hills of Safa and Marwa. One can not fail to observe the role of the temple of Mecca as a place of worship for the Jinn religion, as well as being a place for the worship of the Arabian Star Family. Another element which helps us to understand the role of the Temple of Mecca is that it united the two main religions of Arabia: the Jinn religion, and the Star Family religion. In the Star Family religion, Allah was the biggest star. His wife was the sun, and his daughters were Manat and al-'Uzza, each representing a planet. The Kuhhan who represented the Jinn religion to Arabians who practiced other pagan religions, such as the worship of the Arabian Star Family, were accepted by the people who considered the Kuhhan to be gods. The tribe of Quraish considered Iblis - another name for the devil - and Allah to be brothers.[i][1] They said that between Allah and the Jinn, there is great kinship.[ii][2] They believed that the angels where daughters of Allah, and that the mothers of the angels were the daughters of the “Jinn’s lord.”[iii][3] The Jinn were viewed as superior to the angels. Pagan Arabians gave this exalted position to the Jinn because they believed the Jinn were in close relationship and kinship with Allah. Because the Jinn replaced the angels, they left their fingerprints on the Qur’an." by Dr. Rafat Amari

http://religionresearchinstitute.org/mecca/roleoftemple.htm .

Muhammed was born into a culture where moon god worship was prevalent. more importantly he was born into the Quraish tribe, which were followers of the Arabian Star Family, whose chief deity was Allah. Khobeb (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Khobeb

---

User:Jallan informs us that the word for "ten" in Arabic is Aashurah and removes the following text:

"In the lunar Islamic calendar, the Day of Ashurah, transliterated as Aashurah, Ashura or Aashoorah, falls on the 10th day of Muharram. On that day, in the year of the Hejira 61 (AD 680), Husayn bin Ali, the grandson of Muhammad was killed by Umayyad forces at the Battle of Karbala (now in Iraq). Still called the Day of Aashurah, it is observed as a day of mourning by Shi'ites. As for the meaning of Asherah, non-Muslims will be interested to read that Muslims are taught the following:

"The conventional meaning of Ashura in the Shariah refers to the 10th of Muharram-ul-Haraam. In his distinguished book, Ghuniyatut Taalibeen, Sayyiduna Ghaus-ul-Azam, Sheikh Abdul Qaadir Jilani (radi Allahu anhu) writes that the Ulema have a difference of opinion, as to why this day is known as Ashura. Since the reason has been explained in various ways, the consensus of the majority of the Ulema is that it is known as Ashurah because it is the 10th day of Muharram, while certain Ulema say that from the sacred days that Almighty Allah blessed the Ummat-e-Muhammadi with, this day is the 10th most important day, and it is for this reason that it is known as Ashurah. (Ghuniyatut Taalibeen, pg. 428)"

The day sacred to Asherah falls on the tenth of Muharram. Asherah can be disguised as "Aashurah," but only suppression of all references to the fact that these are identical will satisfy Islamist concerns. Asherah is Aashurah, as Makkah is Mecca. Though the connection may be suppressed, we are not fooled. Wetman 14:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I have temporarily removed the following text here to Discussion:It is generally believed that her name is a shortening of the expression Athirat Yamm 'She who walks on the sea'. Names of gods are never shortenings. Quite to the contrary, secondary epithets always make the deity more local or more concrete. Besides, if this etymology were genuine, what would one make of Asherah's connection to Yahweh in the inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud, mentioned in the entry? Since Yam is the god of the wild sea, surely Asherah is the Queen or Consort of these other deities. Wetman 16:05, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Whatever meaning is associated with the name, the name Ashirat Yammi does appear in the Ugaritic texts and the full translation of "Ashirat of the Sea" in books and articles if they mention any interpretation of the name is the one I gave, at least so far as I know. A quick check confirmed it as given on page 4 of John Gibson's Canaanite Myths and Legends and on page 21 of Frank Moore Gross's Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. The translation can probably be found in almost any book about the northwest Semitic gods or the Ugaritic pantheon. No-one so far as I know has questioned it, simply presenting without any special comment as though self-evident to anyone who can read Ugaritic.

That doesn't mean it is correct. It wouldn't be the first time almost all scholars in a field have been wrong. But unless someone can provide a more recent theory as an alternative, "She who treads on the Sea" belongs in the article as the standard translation accepted by scholars.

As to `Ashurah, stating that it is fact that `Ashurah does not really mean 'ten' and is actually related to Asherah does not make it a fact. I have nothing philosphically against the equation. But to me the suggestion appears to be crank linguistics of a very normal sort: the words look alike therefore there must be a relationship.

I don't know Arabic, other than individual words in literary and linguistic contexts and very small amount of grammar. But I do know some Hebrew, Akkadian and Ugaritic and somewhat about proto-Semitic and the relationships between the Semitic languages. The equation looks wrong.

I could be wrong, of course.

But if anyone thinks the equation is not crank linguistics, then that person should provide evidence that it is not. jallan 03:55, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I'd like to propose moving the redirect from Qudshu. Qudshu really should redirect to Qetesh, as Qudshu is not the same as Asherah but may just be related. Then the Qetesh article can mention Asherah as a see also. If no objections in a week or so I'll go ahead.Bookgrrl 00:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Upon removal from temple mount Asherah and Qadesh were associated. A tossed note at a junkheap in the desert does not confirm any association.

Alan Millard

Til, if you think this is a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN (and say you have on this talk page). So far you are just reverting without an acceptable reason, even admitting so far as I can see that the section you are reinstating is too lengthy. You need to both find a reliable source and show that this view is significant - the burden to do so is on you. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If a reliable source cannot be found taking this position, then it does not need to be in the article. The source used is unacceptable, and therefore the section falls within WP:PROVEIT; the burden of referencing the material falls upon the restorer. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading information regarding section "In Israel and Judah"

The section, "In Israel and Judah" provides misleading information regarding the relationship of the god of Israel, Yahweh, and Asherah. The information provided may not be inaccurate, but is entirely incomplete and requires clarification regarding the historic relationship between the deities. A section regarding the role of Asherah in terms of Israel cannot reasonably avoid the somewhat extensive historical documentation found in the Hebrew scriptures. Mr. Ian Thomson removed my entire entry with the claim that it was inappropriate original research and was not from a neutral point of view; however, it would appear that the bias is on the part of Mr. Thomson. Below is my edited version of the post that was removed. The original content, and its appropriate intent, remains in the final paragraph. The posting appears to me to be properly documented and factually based on recognized sources. If there is clarification or correction needed, Mr. Thomson or others are asked to kindly provide direction in order to provide a complete picture of the topic.

Asherah (Strong's reference H842), a female proper noun, is mentioned 40 times in Hebrew scriptures and is translated in the KJV as "groves" (for idol worship). Most modern Bible translations use a more appropriate transliteration of the Hebrew name as "Asherah", or "Ashera Pole" as the object of worship. The term is used in Biblical literature as "a Babylonian (Astarte)-Canaanite goddess (of fortune and happiness), the supposed consort of Baal, her images, and may refer to a) the goddess, goddesses, b) her images, or c) sacred trees or poles set up near an altar."

Biblical records consistently portray Yahweh warning Israel in no uncertain terms against bowing to foreign gods, and specifically Asherah worship . Most occurrences of the name are in the context of recording Israel's "unfaithfulness" in violating the command , or examples of the destruction of Asherah worship by the faithful. .

While there is no Biblical evidence of a positive relationship between Yahweh, the God of Israel, and Asherah, it is clear that Asherah worship was popular in the region and was at times combined with worship of the God of Israel. As such, there is archeological evidence that he was at times portrayed with a consort. The evidence includes, for example, an 8th century combination of iconography and inscriptions discovered at Kuntillet Ajrud in the northern Sinai desert where a storage jar shows three anthropomorphic figures and an inscription that refers to "Yahweh … and his asherah". Further evidence includes the many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel, supporting the view that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh and was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven. These occurrences are consistent with historical Biblical records as examples of the distorted worship of Yahweh incited during the times of the unfaithful kings of Israel .

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwiiki99 (talk • contribs)

Like all our articles, this article should rely upon what reliable sources as defined at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS say about the subject, not our own analysis. As an aside, we do not treat biblical (small b as per MOS:CAPS) as 'historical' in the sense I think the editor above is using. We can't use the Bible to make a historical point, we can only use what reliable sources say about what the Bible says (and would usually attribute). Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said over at Talk:Yahweh regarding accusations of motive:

The "motive" is just presenting what trained historians have found, instead of dogmatic indoctrination.

Here's how it works: trained historians found evidence that many of the historical Israelites worshiped Asherah alongside Yahweh. Whether that was right or wrong, it happened. That's all this article says. Wikipedia is not saying that the Bible commands Asherah-worship, so do not act like that's what the article says. If your interpretation of the Bible clashes with what archaeology and history shows us, then the problem is in your interpretation.

I'm a Christian. I don't worship Asherah, and I do not advocate worshiping Asherah. When I see that historians are sure many early Israelites worshiped Asherah, do you know what my reaction is? "Huh, some of them made a mistake, but that's what they historically believed. Seeing illiteracy was common, it would make sense that the Bible would be written by a minority and reflect their educated views instead of the common religion of semi-nomadic bronze age folks in the middle of nowhere." I then get on with my life instead of trying to reshape the article to match any sort of fantasies I have about people who have been dead for millenia.

Do not accuse other editors of a destructive bias unless you have good evidence and have considered your own culpability. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I and many others see the point being made here. The whole thing seems like a giant glaring strawman argument that was made up by some people who just aren't familiar with what the Bible actually says. Here's why. What the Bible actually says, in some books on practically every single page, is that the Israelites worshipped Asherah along with Yahweh. Then we get some archaeologist who says "Here is evidence that the Israelites worshipped Asherah along with Yahweh". So far, so good, but here's the part that doesn't make sense. The argument then continues "You see? That proves that the Bible is totally wrong!" Now the reason I say this doesn't make sense, is because what they should be saying is that the archaeology CONFIRMED the exact same thing the Bible says, viz. that the Israelites worshipped Asherah along with Yahweh. But they either haven't read the Bible, or are hoping nobody else has, because there seems to be an unstated and erroneous premise here somewhere, that the Bible might contradict the archaeological findings, such as by denying that the Israelites worshipped Asherah along with Yahweh. Since the Bible does not in fact deny this, but rather affirms it, the whole argument seems like a disingenuous strawman, made by certain biased authors who wish to detract from the Bible by blatantly misrepresenting it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 1 under "Athirat" is a reliable source describing the argument against Asherah as a consort of Yahweh. This should be consulted in the section on Israel and Asherah. When I tried to update this section, Ian Thompson removed the information on the grounds that it constituted original research. Not so. This was a summary description of what scholars of religion have provided in the Encyclopedia of Religion, and certainly reliable and accurate of current scholarly consensus and debate.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

References

Majority view: God had a wife

This is the majority view according to Francesca Stavrakopoulou, stated in the source already quoted in the article (the BBC documentary Bible's Buried Secrets). There is also a PBS documentary called Bible's Buried Secrets, wherein William Dever states as fact that God had an wife, and Amihai Mazar supports his conclusion. This documentary is available on YouTube, both in a short (1 hour) version as in a long (4 hours) version. If you have time to spend, watch both versions, since they do not show precisely the same interviews. In the PBS documentary mainstream historians get interviewed about the origin of the Jews, the writing of the Bible, the Exodus, the existence of Abraham and Moses, etc. According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/apsell.html :

Q: So NOVA is not out to disprove the Bible? Apsell: Not at all. NOVA is certainly not out to disprove the Bible or to denigrate anyone's religious convictions. Our approach is simply to present the results of mainstream, peer-reviewed biblical archeology and let viewers draw their own conclusions.

So, I have restored the statement that the majority view is that God had an wife, according to the Israelite folk religion which is manifest in archaeological evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The key thing of course is that this was only at one time period. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Watch your language

Can somebody transliterate אשרה? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 17:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm having issues getting the Ugaritic characters to display. I've tracked down freeware fonts for nearly all other non-Latin scripts used in Wikipedia, but the three Ugaritic freeware fonts I've found aren't displaying the characters here, nor are my Unicode fonts. It would be nice if Wikipedia required the font used for non-Latin alphabets to be explicitly identified in the page contents, because "View Source" is of no help for this, at least in my experience. Thanks! Jakk42 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Contentless sentence

This sentence:

Further evidence includes the many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel, supporting the view that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh, and was worshiped as the Queen of Heaven.

Says almost nothing. What sort of figures? And especially when were they produced and exactly where in "ancient Israel"? I think this sentence is a fragment of an edit war from 2012 but unfortunately it doesn't say anything useful. Sadly the cite doesn't mention a page number or even a chapter. Does anyone have any insight before it gets chopped? Ashmoo (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've restored part of an earlier version.[8] Is that better? Doug Weller talk 15:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asherah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708043601/http://www.bibleinterp.com:80/articles/berlinerblau5.htm to http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/berlinerblau5.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040612011854/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu:80/jwst/second.htm to http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jwst/second.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

archeology

User:Pure Statistics the content you added here and here is already discussed elsewhere in the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

What makes you the ultimate authority of this page? If I were to delete sourced material on any page I would get a warning, so why is it okay for you to do it? If I add sourced material I get a revert warning, but you can delete my edits and get no warning? I can't even add factual content without getting it deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure Statistics (talk • contribs) 03:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no magical authority - I am just familiar with the contents of the article. I invite you to read what is actually here as well. The content you added has been permanently deleted (even from the history) because it violated someone else's copyright. Please don't do that again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Asherah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4910_6305.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023103756/http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4910_5127.pdf to http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4910_5127.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/berlinerblau5.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jwst/second.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528023003/http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm to http://www.adath-shalom.ca/israelite_religion.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional references to Asherah in the Greek Bible

Hi,

There has been some new research published regarding Asherah which changes what might be called the biblical view of her. In the Greek Septuagint translations (made 2nd century BC-ish) there are additional references to the word ‘grove’ (the traditional translation of the name Asherah) than there are in the ‘Hebrew’ Bible.

In the ‘Hebrew’ Bible, the book of Jeremiah says that the one who trusts in the Lord ‘is like a tree planted by water, that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green’ (Jer. 17.8). But the Greek replaces ‘its leaves remain green’ by ‘the trunks on it will be grove-like’ [i.e. ‘Asherah-like’] (NETS translation , using the adjectival form alsowde of alsos, ‘grove’). This is indeed a positive reference to Asherah, although the current Hebrew has no word similar to Asherah in the text

Another place where ‘grove’ appears is the following: “And when you hear the sound of marching in the tops of the balsam trees, then bestir yourself; for then the LORD has gone out before you to smite the army of the Philistines.’ (2 Samuel/Reigns 5.22-24). The words ‘marching in the tops of the balsam trees’ appear in the Greek as follows, ‘the confinement of the grove of the Wailing’. Significantly, the Hebrew word for ‘tops’ is similar to the Hebrew word for Asherah, with the letters rearranged. ‘Wailing’ (instead of the translation of ‘balsam trees’) is linked to where the Angel of the Lord appeared (Judg. 2.4-5), plausibly implying that this is where an Asherah pole was.

I’ll be honest and say that this is indeed my own research, but it has just been published in the Journal of Feminist Theology

A pre-published form of it can be read on my website

Please let me know your thoughts (and I'm new to Wikipedia!),

Many thanks,

BillySaffy (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Billy. Thank you for being up front about your involvement in the research you're showing us here. Because Wikipedia has in the past had a number of issues with people who come to Wikipedia, there's a whole bunch of policy around the issue of Conflict of Interest. I don't know all the ins and outs, although I do know Wikipedia generally wouldn't like a person to add their own research directly to an article. The policy can be found here: WP:COI. If you have specific questions about conflict of interest, an editor who knows a great deal about this is User:Jytdog. He might be busy, but then again he might be able to answer questions.

I notice that the paper you're referencing was published less than a month ago. And there's a certain amount in it that seems novel: the idea, for example, that there was a Yahweh of Astarte and a Yahweh of Asherah, and a two-stage process of suppressing Asherah worship, first of just one of the two Asherahs, and later of both. I could be wrong, but my first impression is that this framework for interpreting biblical history is something you invented. Feel free to correct me if there are any mainstream biblical scholars who already buy into this idea, or if there have already been positive responses by these sorts of scholars to your articles.

If the framework through which you're viewing these verses is unique to you, then the Wikipedia policy WP:FRINGE applies, which discourages giving space in Wikipedia articles to views held by only one or a few people.

Anyhow, best of luck out there. Alephb (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Responding to the ping - the relevant part of the COI guideline is WP:SELFCITE, and posting here with disclosure was the appropriate thing to do, so thanks for doing so, BillySaffy.

To the question of whether to add this, the mission of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge. As this is a brand new paper, we really should wait to see how this is accepted in the field. We need that in order to determine how much of what we call WP:WEIGHT to give this, if any. (If that all sounds odd, please see user:Jytdog/How for a brief description of the mission of WP and how the editing community realizes it, and why we do things as we do)

Thanks again for posting here. (Interesting paper!) Jytdog (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It was an interesting paper. Please don't take any of this rules business as being about your paper itself. I wish more people would look into what the Septuagint can tell us about the history of the Hebrew text, and I certainly wish I was better informed on Asherah. Alephb (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback.

I hadn’t thought about it being fringe, although it clearly is (at present at least). Would it still be acceptable to mention the fact that there are additional references to ‘alsos’ (grove/Asherah) in the Septuagint? I think this is still an interesting fact in itself, independent of what we make of the additional references.

For example, in the section ‘In Israel and Judah’, we have the line:

“The word Asherah is translated in Greek as alsos, grove, or alse, groves”

After this it could be added something like, “(which also appears in other places where Asherah is not mentioned in the existing Hebrew Bible, e.g. 2 Samuel/Reigns 5.22-24; Jeremiah 17.8)”. A reference to my article could be added, although not necessary, yet it would give a list of the additional places.

Thanks again. BillySaffy (talk) 18:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Calling this "fringe" is not relevant yet; we have no idea how the field will accept this work. It may become widely accepted. We just don't know yet, and this is the problem, here in Wikipedia. We don't do "cutting edge" here -- we do "accepted knowledge" and it is just too soon to know how the field will accept this. If you like do come back in a year or so and let us know how the field has received it (via citations to discussions of it by other scholars) Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Misinformation in quote

I have to question the veracity of this 2004 Devers quote:

"We do not know for sure what the belief in the god Yahweh meant for the average Israelite. Although the biblical text tells us that most Israelites worshipped Yahweh alone, we know that this is not true... The discoveries of the last fifteen years have given us a great deal of information about the worship of the ancient Israelites. It seems that we have to take the worship of the goddess Asherah more seriously than ever before."

This is simply distortion and false information and should probably be removed. Especially this statement: "Although the biblical text tells us that most Israelites worshipped Yahweh alone, we know that this is not true..."

On the contrary, the biblical text tells us repeatedly that most Israelites did NOT worship Yahweh alone, but that they repeatedly introduced Asherah into their ceremonies (and also that Yahweh eventually punished them for it). The archaeological discovery of relics showing that the Israelites worshipped Asherah alongside Yahweh, is thus 100% in confirmation of the biblical accounts that say the Israelites worshipped Asherah alongside Yahweh. It never ceases to amaze me to see what spin minimalists will put on the Bible, counting on people to be ignorant enough of scripture to fall for it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Dever isn't a minimalist, but still you have a point. Personally I feel that sentence is rather off-topic in any case - the article is about Asherah, not ancient Israelite religion in general, and I don't think it adds anything to the preceding material. PiCo (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's phrased differently now, but the article still has the same incorrect statement: that the biblical text doesn't state that Israelites regularly worshipped Asherah, when in fact they do say that repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is true that the Israelites worshipped other gods, but they were reprimanded for it constantly. They based their worship partly on the Pentateuch. Yes they did worship other gods, the Bible plainly states that fact, but it was viewed as apostate when they did. The God of the Bible forbade it. Read the account in the Bible regarding the contest between God and Baal. Avidbiblereader (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word". Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yahweh being construed as having a consort and the Israelites being viewed as polytheistic.

The source material I quoted was the Bible. Exodus 34:11-16. Since the Pentateuch is a foundation of Jewish beliefs it should not be disregarded when discussing their beliefs and their God. As far as the extant manuscripts I didn’t want to bore anyone but you may check

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament vol 1 of. 13 (Chicago)1980

American Standard Version Bible The Jerusalem Bible Codex Leningrad B 19a Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia The Hebrew Text by Ginsburg A Greek-English Lexicon by Liddell and Scott pg 1013 Dictionnaire de la Bible, by F. Vigouroux, Paris, 1926, col. 223 The forward to most any King James Version Bible printed before 1950, consult also the glossary for Tetragrammaton and Yahweh. Avidbiblereader (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word". Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I cited the my sources. I’m just interested in accuracy. Avidbiblereader (talk) 12:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

You have to be kidding, those aren't citations, but spines of books, e.g. there is no page number. Also your own original research upon WP:PRIMARY religious sources, such as the Bible, is prohibited by WP:OR. Just to review your books: most are dated and anyway fundamentalist POVs are by definition not mainstream, as in WP:CHOPSY we discard them out of hand because such views cannot be taught at Ivy Plus. We side with Ivy Plus, not with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Convince Ivy Plus and Wikipedia will follow. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm just plain Ivy, and wondering which of your sources, User:Avidbiblereader, say that Asherah was not Yahweh's consort. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I have a problem with the idea of Asherah as a consort to Yahweh

According to religion-wiki.

“ William Dever authored a book, “Did God Have a Wife?” that references archaeological evidence pointing to many female figurines unearthed in ancient Israel supporting his hypothesis that Asherah functioned as a goddess and consort of Yahweh in Israelite folk religion of the monarchal period. One reviewer says Dever's “case is full of holes and the book is full of misinformation.”

“Ajrud inscriptions, a number of other authors, including Mark S. Smith,[131] John Day,[132] and Andre Lemaire,[133] view the asherah in these inscriptions as a cult object, stylized tree, or location of worship through which Yahweh’s blessing was imparted rather than a goddess who could function as a consort.[134]”

The article does cite sources but there isn’t links to online books.

https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Yahweh CycoMa (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There are many goddess figurines from Ancient Israel and Judah. They were not monotheists:

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— Herbert Niehr, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011

Jehovah and his consort: How many gods, exactly, did Israel have? Together with the historical and political aspects, there are also doubts as to the credibility of the information about belief and worship. The question about the date at which monotheism was adopted by the kingdoms of Israel and Judea arose with the discovery of inscriptions in ancient Hebrew that mention a pair of gods: Jehovah and his Asherah. At two sites, Kuntiliet Ajrud in the southwestern part of the Negev hill region, and at Khirbet el-Kom in the Judea piedmont, Hebrew inscriptions have been found that mention "Jehovah and his Asherah," "Jehovah Shomron and his Asherah, "Jehovah Teman and his Asherah." The authors were familiar with a pair of gods, Jehovah and his consort Asherah, and send blessings in the couple's name. These inscriptions, from the 8th century BCE, raise the possibility that monotheism, as a state religion, is actually an innovation of the period of the Kingdom of Judea, following the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel.

— Ze'ev Herzog, Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz, October 29, 1999

By the way, there is no requirement that WP:RS should be available online. Books that can be found in big libraries are good enough. Same applies to scholarly articles behind paywall. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I seen a video about this that can explain some details. The video even mentions scholars view on the subject and cites sources.

However, I can’t provide a link since Wikipedia won’t let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There is usually a good reason for blacklisting websites inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I get that. But the video does mention scholars and their interpretations on the matter.

The person who made the video is a scholar himself. CycoMa (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Scholars have a variety of opinions upon any subject. Wikipedia only renders the views of a majority of scholars or of sizeable minorities. Also, it seems that the acceptance of God's wife was lower in the 1980s and the 1990s. One could explain away the figurines as toys, but what do I know? I am not a Bible scholar. I am not an archaeologist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That Asherah was consort to Yahweh is very much a mainstream view. Achar Sva (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because the idea is mainstream doesn’t mean the idea doesn’t have problems. There are tons of scholars who have criticized the idea, I just mention sources that criticized the idea. Other scholars have criticized the book “Did God Have a Wife?” — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 19:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

As Tgeorgescu already said, Scholars have a variety of opinions upon any subject. Wikipedia only renders the views of a majority of scholars or of sizeable minorities. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 03:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Iconography section: Deborah and the sacred tree.

The Iconography section of the article says: "Another significant biblical reference occurs in the legend of Deborah, a female ruler of Israel who held court under a sacred tree (Judges 4:5), which was preserved for many generations."

My objection is to the use of the phrase "sacred tree" which seems highly speculative with nothing to back it up. Could the tree have been considered sacred? Could it have been used for Asherah worship before, during and/or after Deborah's lifetime? Of course it could have been. But we don't know that and there's nothing to even hint at that. Sometimes a tree is just a tree.

I consulted numerous translations of the Old Testament including the Septuagint in Hebrew to see if any of them referred to the tree that Deborah sat under as "sacred" or of any religious significance. I did not find any. I also did my best to sort through the Talmud for any references to the tree itself being sacred. I did find references to the symbology of the palm tree, but nothing to indicate the specific tree had religious value. Here is a link to the Hebrew text (in English format).

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/judges/4.htm

75.120.79.113 (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Samaria

In the paragraph about Asherah in Israel, it says that Samaria was "capital of Kingdom of Israel." What? Demolishing one myth and reaffirming another. Yahweh is said to be the god of "Samaria and Teman." Teman is today Yemen. Samaria is also called "Northern Kingdom of Israel," the "Israel" in that sentence being PEOPLE, or NATION, not a geographic area. The temple to Yahweh at Nabulus on Mount Gerizim is older than the Temple Mount. The Shomarim, the Samaritans, are it appears the older worshippers of Yahweh, and they are Samaritans, not Jews, who carry the name of Judea. Therefore, Samaria was NOT the capital city of any kindgom of Israel, it was its own kingdom, where both the capital city and the kingdom were named Samaria. There was no united kingdom of Israel. That's all mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.232.155 (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Year Notion to Common Era

The dates within the article should be changed from BC->BCE and AD->CE to reflect neutral academic terminology of the Common Era that does not carry with it any religious or ethnocentric bias.

As this article has nothing to do with Christianity or Christian-influenced Western culture, there is no reason for the date notion to be based around the birth of Christ (BC meaning Before Christ and AD Anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of our Lord.").

Also because this article is related to the ancient Semitic religion, I believe it is extra important for there to be religious objectivity, making Before the Common Era/Common Era the appropriate choice.

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, chronological notation can be changed when it makes sense for the article. While it gives specific examples of when to use to Julian or Gregorian calendar, early societies in the Near East are not explicitly stated. Using BCE/CE also follows the standards set by the majority of leading manuals of style including those for Encyclopædia Britannica, American National Biography, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style, AP Stylebook, and more.

My previous edit reflects this change in date format in the articles.

016bells (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Niehr being fringe

The Maccabees represent the victory of traditionalist Israelites over Hellenized Israelites. They had sort of civil war thereupon. So, that's when monotheism won the game in Ancient Israel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: So Niehr is not fringe (despite the fact that mainstream scholarship believes monotheism to have formed in the Babylonian Exile and not in the Hellenistic period), but Dever and Mazar are fringe (despite most archaeologists agreeing with them). You have a weird concept of "fringe". -Karma1998 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: We did not discuss about formed, but about became universal among Jews. And I never claimed that William G. Dever or Amihay Mazar would be fringe. I would say that Dever is conservatively mainstream, but so is according to me Bart Ehrman, and I used references to his works all over Wikipedia articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Minimalists vs. maximalists

Genuine minimalists are select few. Genuine maximalists are WP:FRINGE (usually fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals). Most mainstream scholars are neither minimalists nor maximalists.

Where minimalism failed: it could not remove the Bible from Levantine archaeology. For the rest (i.e. 90% of their claims) they scored victory, defining thus the views of mainstream scholarship.

WP:RS/AC evidence to that extent: Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes.

Note that Grabbe was applauded for remaining neutral in the quarrel between minimalists and maximalists, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/23970868 . tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itinerantlife: The morals is that promoting extreme fringe views, such as maximalism, is not well-received here, at Wikipedia. We don't deny the overwhelming consensus of mainstream historians, mainstream archaeologists and mainstream Bible scholars for the sake of a vocal group consisting of religious fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

We don't care about how Liberty University teaches it, we mostly care about how the Ivy League teaches it. We are biased for highly reputable, mainstream scholarship, see WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am surprised to learn that Yosef Garfinkel, Benjamin Mazar, and Eilat Mazar are fringe scholars.

For what its worth, I disagree with probably more than 80% of what Liberty University teaches about the contents of the Bible. Itinerantlife (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itinerantlife: Neither of the three scholars came out as maximalist. They stated that the United Monarchy did exist, in one form or another, but that's not the same as maximalism. See e.g. https://watchjerusalem.co.il/1342-an-interview-with-yosef-garfinkel tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe I am mistaken as to the meaning of the term "maximalism." I had thought that maximalism focused on seeking to establish the historicity of the events which the Tanakh alleges occurred but which does not attempt to corroborate the claims of divine intervention. Itinerantlife (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itinerantlife: No archaeologist claims divine intervention, unless they belong to the lunatic fringe. Another take on this: https://www.bibleplaces.com/blog/2011/05/maximalists-vs-minimalists-good-survey/ (do mind that Bolen has a PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary, which affirms the inerrancy of the Bible as a binding for all its students, teachers and professors, so Bolen isn't a disinterested party to this dispute). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Now I am really confused.

You told me that the Mazars and Garfinkel are not maximalists but it sounds as if Bolen is claiming that they are maximalists.

Could you explain to me what agnostic maximalists believe which the Mazars and Garfinkel don't believe? Itinerantlife (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itinerantlife: There are good, older quotes about that at talk:omri#More prominent Omride theory.

To sum up, the view that David and Solomon did have some kingdom is not an extreme view. The view that they did not have a kingdom is not an extreme view, either.

There are great architectonic works which prove Omri's power. There are no comparable buildings for either David or Solomon.

There is still evidence of Omri's buildings even if a subsequent dynasty tried to wipe out the memory and traces of the Omrides. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

You better add Manfred Bietak of the University of Vienna to the list of people who you blacklist and censor because he argues that at least part of the Exodus narrative is supported by archæological evidence. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/ Itinerantlife (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Itinerantlife: There is a kernel of historical truth in the story of the Exodus, but it is deeply hidden under layers of cruft and embellishment. Besides, as Joel Baden argued, the Bible has at least 4 (four) contradictory stories of the Exodus, so it depends which story of the Exodus from the Bible you mean. Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus - Dr. Joel Baden on YouTube. Check the transcript, search for "pentagonal" (i.e. Pentateuchal). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The author admits that Jerusalem in those days was too small to be a regional force. The author also admits that the total population of all of Judah and Benjamin in the Iron IIA period would have been at most about 20,000 people, and that this horde "provides a sufficient demographic basis for an Israelite state in the 10th century BCE." At least half of those people would have been women, and at least half would have been children, so even if every able bodied man and boy able to wave a stick were drafted, the army would have been maximum 5000 strong. Hardly the regional super-power of the Bible stories.
— User:Wdford

Wdford writing about a paper by Amihai Mazar. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

In the sidebar there is a bit of information listing this as a 'Major Cult Middle East'. Considering the modern connotations of 'cult' is calling what seems to have been a religion, or a branch of a religion, a cult a loaded term without the characteristics associated with 'cults' today? Nacoran (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

See main article cult (religious practice). It refers to cultic practices, such as the creation of temples, shrines, cult images, and votive offerings. Dimadick (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)