Asherah Alienated: A Gender-Discursive Analysis of
the Goddess and her Cult(s) in Ancient Israel
by
Benjamin R. Siegel
A Thesis Submitted inPartial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree ofMaster of Arts
in Religion, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
atThe Claremont School of Theology
1
ABBREVIATIONS
AfO Archiv für Orientsforschung
AOS American Oriental Series
ArOr Archiv Orientalni
BAR Biblical Archaeology Review
BZAW Beihefte zur Zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
DOT Dictionary of the Old Testament: Penteteuch
EB Encyclopædia Biblica
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs (Missoula, Mont. AndAtlanta)
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IMC Israel Museum Catalogue (Jerusalem)
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JPS Jewish Publication Society
JSB Jewish Study Bible
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
2
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplements
KAR Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiosen Inhalts
KTU M. Bietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, DieKeitalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit, 1: Transkription, AOAT 24/1(Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vlyun, 1976)
OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis
PR Peace Review
RB Revue Biblique (Paris)
SBL Studies in Biblical Literature
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SPSM Studia Pohl Series Major
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament
UT C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, AnOr 38 (Rome, 1965)
VT Vetus Testamentum
ZAW Zeitschrift für Althebraistik (Berlin)
3
Prior to the documentary hypothesis,1 the dominant paradigm
in Biblical scholarship maintained that the Torah was dictated by
God to Moses on Mt. Sinai.2 The question of faith dictated that
of authorship. However, recent development in scholarship has
posited the model of an oral literary tradition written in
various stages by several scribal communities which received
final redaction sometime during the Second Temple period.3 The
Biblical authors and editors thereby projected their own
religious standards onto legendary history. Thanks to textual
scholarship and archaeological discoveries, Biblical scholars
have opened the door to a new interpretation based less on faith
than the pursuit of literary and historical truth. Through this
1 Advanced by Julius Wellhausen, the documentary hypothesis holds that biblical text was originally composed of separate yet parallel narratives which were aggregated and redacted by a number of editors or groups of editorsin varying period of Israel’s history. For Wellhausen’s argument, see Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Trans. by Black and Menzies. Cleveland, OH: WorldPublishing, 1957. For further reading, see Alt, A. Der Gott der Väter: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der israelitischen Religion. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929; Noth, M. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOT 15, 1991; Friedman, R.E. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: Harper, 2003 --- Who Wrote the Bible?, 1987; Rendtdorff, R. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, JSOTSup 89, 1990; Blum, E. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, 1990; Seters, J.V. Abraham in History and Tradition, 1975. Although I have certain misgivings about fully embracing the documentary hypothesis, I nonetheless recognize a certain Deuteronomistic discourse characterized by violent repulsion of competing syncretic or heterodox religious expressions.2 Deut. 31:9–12, 24.3 Cohen, Shaye J.D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 2006, 11-12.
4
interpretive lens, the Israelite religion emerges within the
context of the prevailing Canaanite cultural stratum.
The chance discovery of the Late Bronze Age Ugaritic
cultural wealth in the early 20th Century shed invaluable light
on the socio-cultural milieu in which Israelite religion evolved.
Many of the deities mentioned in the Ugaritic texts are those who
find disfavor in the eyes of the Hebrew Bible prophets, authors
and redactors. However, the prominence of Asherah,4 “Creatrix, or
Progenetrix, of the Gods,”5 questions the central monotheistic
ideal of ancient Judaism before and after the emergence and
legitimization of Deuteronomistic discourse.
By examining the evidence for the goddess Asherah in the
Hebrew Bible,6 relevant ancient Near Eastern texts, as well as
the archaeological record, I will present the case that Asherah
was a goddess whose cult existed in the land of Israel until her
veneration was eliminated from the orthodox religion as late as
4 In Ugaritic,’aṯrt ym, ’Aṯirat yammi, or 'Athirat of the Sea.' The name Athirat means “she who treads the sea.”5 Coogan, M. D. Stories From Ancient Canaan, 1978, 97.6 For the sake of brevity, this examination will be reduced to only the most significant evidence. More exhaustive examinations can be found in Binger, Tilde. Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, JSOTSup 232, 1997; Day, John. Asherah In The Hebrew Bible And Northwest Semitic Literature. JBL 105:3, 1986; Hadley, J. M. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, 2000; Olyan, S.M. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBLMS 34, 1988.
5
the 6th Century B.C.E. Although Judaism is commonly understood as
the first great monotheistic and aniconic religious expression,
the existence of a consort of El suggests that this
identification belongs to a later stage of evolution and
revolution in the history of Israelite religion. Judaism did not
develop in a vacuum, but rather in dialogue with rival religions.
Though marginalized by the dominant rhetoric of the text, the
Hebrew Bible nonetheless preserves the voices of those it seeks
to invalidate and malign.
Starting with Asherah as the focus, though not the center,
of my analysis of the textual tradition, I will examine the
dimensions of heterodox religion gendered by the Yahweh-alone
party. This will be accomplished by looking at the discourse
concerning apostasy/adultery in the Hebrew Bible, particularly as
it relates to the goddess Asherah, in correlation with the
gendered image of Israel as adulterous wife who has broken a
marriage covenant with YHWH. Using an intertextual approach, I
will demonstrate how the dominant theological tradition
consistently conflates the two rhetorical devices, thereby
producing a pornographic stereotype of cultic activities that
6
fall outside of the legitimate theological view of the text. The
purpose of this parallel is the privileging of exclusive devotion
to Yahweh by feminizing, demonizing, and thoroughly dismissing
polytheistic religious practices and professional functionaries
who are identified as Judaism’s polar opposite: false, foreign
and feminine.
There are forty individual occurrences7 of the noun asherah
(or its plural form, asherim) in the Tanakh,8 referring either to
a deity or some kind of ritual object.9 The passages refer either
to a goddess, a living tree or a pole/pillar.10 The Mishnah
7 The majority of these references are examples of Deuteronomistic discursive expression. See Reed, 1949, 59-68; Yamashita, 1963, 125; Lamaire, 1977, 605-6;Olyan, 1988, 3-4.8Ex 34:13; Dt 7:5, 12:3, 16:21; Jg 3:7, 6:25, 6:26, 6:28, 6:30; I Ki. 14:15, 14:23, 15:13, 16:33, 18:19, II Ki. 13:5, 17:10, 17:16, 18:4, 21:3, 21:7, 23:4,23:6, 23:7, 23:14, 23:15; II Chron. 14:2, 15:16, 17:6, 19:3, 24:18, 31:1, 33:3, 33:19, 34:3, 34:4, 34:7; Isa. 17:8, 27:9; Jer. 17:2, and Mi. 5:13 (Pettey, 41).9 de Moor, J.C. הההה
.ʼashērāh in TDOT 1, 441-444 הההה10 The verbs describing actions upon the Asherah are krt, “to cut”: Ex. 3:413; Judg. Vi 25, 26, 28 and 30; II Ki. 18:4; and 22:14; gd’, “to cut down”: Deut. Vii 5; II Chron. Xiv 2; and xxxi 1; śrp, “to burn”: Deut. 12:3; (implied in Judg. Vi 26; II Ki. 23:6, 15; nṭ̔̔‘, “to plant” or “to establish: Deut. 16:21; śh,“to make”: I Ki. 14:15; 16:33; II Ki. 17:6; 21:3, 7; II Chron. 33:3; bnh, “to build”: I Ki. 14:23; ‘md, “to stand”: I Ki. 13:6, or “to set up” (Hiphil): II Chron. 33:19; nṣb, “to set up” (Hiphil): II Ki. 17:10; yṣ’, “to bring out” (Hiphil): II Ki. 23:6; dqq, “to make into dust” (Hiphil): II Ki. 23:6; and II Chron. 34:4; swr, “to take away” (Hiphil): II Chron. 17:6; b̔̔‘r, “to consume, burn remove” (Piel): II Chron. 19:3; ṭhr, “to purge” (Piel): II Chron. 34:4; šbr, “to break into pieces” (Piel): II Chron. 34:4; ntṣ, “ to pull or break down”: II Chron. 34:7; and ntš, “to pluck up”; Mi. v 13 (Hadley, 54-5).
7
defines the term as a living tree worshipped as an idol.11
Asherah also appears in several biblical toponyms. Among these
are Ashtaroth12 and Ashteroth-Karnaim.13
Judges 3:7 refers to Israelites who “…ignored the Lord their
God and worshipped the Baals and the Asherahs.” The theme of
apostasy, Israel’s turning away from the covenant of Yahweh to
worship other deities14, is the most horrendous offense to the
Deuteronomistic historian. The Mosaic third Commandment in Ex.
20:4 prohibits the worship of any iconic representation “in the
heavens or on the earth or in the sea.” When reiterated in Ex.
34:13, the Israelites are instructed to abandon acceptance and
embrace fanaticism; to tear down the altars and asherim of “the
Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites.”15 Deut. 12:29-31 forbids the worship
of all “other gods” while Deuteronomy 32:17 claims that the
foreign deities are in fact “no-gods.” This gloss exhibits a
11 See ‘Orlah 1:7, 8; Sukkah 3:1-3; ‘Abodah Zarah 3:7, 9, 10; Me’ilah 3:8. However, Larocca-Pitts cautions against assuming that all asherim were live trees (Larrocca-Pitts, 161-185).12 Ruled by the Amorite king Og. See Deut. 1:4.13 Gen. 14:5, Josh. 12:4.14 The most well known instance in the biblical tradition being that of the Golden Calf from Ex. 32. 15 Ex. 34:11.
8
later version of Israelite theology, moving beyond monolatry into
true monotheism and with it, the intolerance of all other means
of religious expression in favor of exclusive Yahwism.
Gideon, the Judge of chapters six through eight, receives a
vision during his preparation of a ritual meal of kid and milk16
under a tree at Ophrah. After fulfilling the commandment of the
Lord to “pull down the altar of Baal which belongs to your
father, and cut down the asherah which is beside it,”17 Gideon is
threatened with execution by an angry mob. In his son’s defense,
Joash the Abiezrite pleads that the people should ignore his
son’s blasphemy by questioning its rationality. “If he is a god,
let him fight his own battles, since it is his altar that has
been torn down.”18 When Baal fails to smite Gideon, the mob
agrees. In time, Gideon became so popular that the Israelites
asked him to become their first monarch. Although he resists,
16 The injunction against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk is stated three separate times; in Ex. 23:19; 34:26 and Deut. 14:21. Maimonides was correct instating that this was an idolatrous ritual action (Moreh, 3:48).17 Judg. 6:25.18 Ibid., 6:31.
9
Gideon fashions a golden ephod,19 a ritual object of uncertain
character which, ironically, became a new object of worship.
According to 1 Ki. 16:33, King Ahab deserves an exceptional
amount of contempt because, in addition to erecting an altar in
the Samarian temple of Baal, he “made an Asherah pole. Ahab did
more to vex the Lord, the God of Israel, than all the kings of
Israel who preceded him.” 1 Ki. 18:1 details a theological battle
on Mt. Carmel between Elijah and “the four hundred and fifty
prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who
eat at Jezebel’s table” (i.e. receive financial support from
Queen Jezebel, the wife of King Ahab). Yahweh’s prophet Elijah
wins the challenge of whose god can immolate a sacrifice on a wet
altar, and the prophets of Baal are put to death. When Hezekiah
forbade the practice of polytheistic worship,20 his son Manasseh
reinstated the tradition and “took the carved Asherah pole he had
made and put it in the temple.”21 2 Ki. 23:4 concerns the removal
19 Though the origin of the term is unclear, in this context the word probablyrefers to an idol (1 Sam. 21:9, 23:6), not the ritual garment (1 Sam. 2:18; 6:14; 22:18). See Cheyne, T.K. and J. S. Black. “Ephod” in EB vol. 2, 1306-9). Gideon’s request of the people’s gold to make the ephod recalls Aaron’s equally idolatrous construction of the Golden Calf, Ex. 32:4.20 See 2 Ki. 18:4. For a discussion on the Nehushtan, the “brazen serpent” of Moses from Num. 21:6, as a potential symbol of or associated with Asherah, seeAckerman, 1993, 385–401.21 2 Ki. 21:7.
10
from Solomon’s temple of “all the objects made for Baal and
Asherah and all the host of heaven” by the order of the high
priest Hilkiah during the reign of King Josiah.
The practice of worshiping iconic representations of the
gods was a primary means of experiencing the presence of a
particular divinity in the ancient Near East.22 The prophets of
the Babylonian Exile blamed the destruction of the southern
kingdom on this illicit “foreign” custom. Ezekiel states the
cause of the Exile as the result of “harlotries with the nations,
for defiling yourself with their fetishes.”23 Prostitution and
marital infidelity are two of the most frequently employed
metaphorical images within prophetic literature in order to
demonstrate the accusation of Israel’s apostasy and idolatry.
Deutero-Isaiah fumes against the “sons of a sorceress, seed from
an adulterer and a harlot”24 whose lust burns “under every green
tree.”25 However, the prophetic book with perhaps the most
hostile – or at least the most thoroughly fleshed-out - opinion
of idol worship is Jeremiah. 22 Assmann, Jan. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, 2001, 40-47; Bottero, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, 2001, 65.23 Ezek. 23:3024 Isa. 57:325 Ibid. 57:5
11
Jer. 10:2-8 offers one of the most fully-formed anti-idol
and anti-foreign polemics in the prophetic books, stating that
“the statutes of the nations are vanity.”26 Their gods are mere
objects crafted from wood by human hands, but Yahweh is Lord of
the Universe eternally present and transcendent. This
delegitimizing strategy is advanced by the appearance of a female
divinity within Jeremiah’s anti-pagan discourse. Jer. 7:17-18 is
part of a prophetic oracle condemning Israel’s disobedience in
worshiping the Queen of Heaven and Jer. 44 centers around a
dialogue between the prophet and the exilic community in Egypt.
While the former is clearly meant to represent the dominant
textual view, the latter is presented as a confession of the same
pro-goddess theology and praxis previously condemned. The entire
community, men and women, respond to Jeremiah’s rhetoric in
apparent dismay:
“But we will certainly perform every word that is gone forthout of our mouth, to offer unto the queen of heaven, and topour out drink-offerings unto her, as we have done, we andour fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities ofJudah, and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then had weplenty of food, and were well, and saw no evil.”27
26 Jer. 10:3.27 Jer. 44:17, JPS.
12
Although this theodicy maintains the traditional view of
punishment for turning from the deity, it nonetheless differs
dramatically in its divine object, citing a failure to observe
worship of the goddess as the root cause of national ills of
sword and famine.28 The fact that these Israelites attribute the
origin of their tradition to Judah and Jerusalem is compelling
evidence that their worship of this particular goddess29 was,
indeed, native and endemic to the land of the Israelites.
Regardless of the people’s sense of theological agency, Yahweh
and Jeremiah have the final word, effectively silencing the
Egyptian community by declaring that “hope for the future is
vested by implication and by process of elimination in the exiled
community in Babylon.”30 Jeremiah’s condemnation of the exiles in
28 Ibid., 44:18.29 Though unidentified in the text, John Day asserts that “there is nothing infirst-millennium BCE texts that singles out Asherah as 'Queen of Heaven' or associates her particularly with the heavens at all” (Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan, 146). Susan Ackerman contends that the deity in question is,in fact, a form of the Assyrian Astarte (Ackerman, Susan. “’And the Women Knead Dough’: The Worship of the Queen of Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah” in Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel, 2006, 109-124). However, Mark Smith has arguedthat “Astarte may have been the bearer of some features earlier associated with Asherah” (The Early History of God, 129), particularly the title “Queen of Heaven.” 30 Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise and Thomas G. Smother. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 27: Jeremiah 26-52. Ed. David A. Hubbard et al. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000, 269.
13
Egypt,31 and all religious ideologies and practices that fall
outside of his orthodox vision, presumes upon the legitimacy of
his claim to authority derived from Yahweh.32 This rhetorical and
textual authority depends upon a masculinized divine
representation and identification of a male worship community,
the intended effect of which is to discursively nullify the
claims of those who advocated these unacceptable aspects of
Israelite religion.
When the Phoenician city of Ugarit was discovered in
Northern Syria in 1928, the world learned of a late Bronze Age
port city that had been lost to the annals of history. Found in
the city’s immense archives were several stone tablets that
contained mythic texts dating from 1600 to 1200 B.C.E.33 These
writings would have been (and still are by many Biblical
scholars) considered notoriously Canaanite and certainly not
canonical. But unlike the God with whom Western civilization is
31 Jer. 44:1-14, 20-30.32 See Jer. 1:4-9. Jon L. Berquist contends that Jeremiah “may stress a connection or close relationship with Yahweh, thus claiming that the propheticword is actually Yahweh’s word. In this way, responsibility for the prophecy is placed on Yahweh… other prophets may be condemned for being aligned againstYahweh” (Berquist, 139).33 Cotrell, L. Ed. The Concise Encyclopedia of Archaeology. New York: Hawthorne, 1960, 405-6.
14
so familiar, this version of El in the Ugaritic literature is not
the sole divine power in creation.
In the mythic Baal cycle, Baal engages in combat against the
sea dragon Yam. When Yam is defeated, Asherah asks that Baal not
deliver the killing blow against her son, saying “Shame, thou
Rider on the Clouds! For Sir [Sea] is now our (common) captive,
the Ruler of the Stream(s) is our (common) captive, and [it was
against us all that] he went forth!”34 Later in the narrative,
the god travels with his sister/lover, the goddess Anath, to
request that Asherah beseech her husband El on Baal’s behalf.
Baal, one of Asherah’s seventy sons, is without a temple or any
other sort of permanent residence. When she enters El’s tent, he
asks “Why has Lady Asherah-of-the-Sea arrived? Why has the Mother
of the Gods come?” The supreme god, El/Yahweh, bears some of the
exact same names and titles as those of the God in the Hebrew
Bible. Throughout the text, El is described as the “King”35 of
the universe, and a lusty one. He asks Asherah “does the King’s
passion excite you? Does the love of the Bull arouse you?”
34 Gaster, 170.35 El’s identification with the bull reflects a certain degree of syncretism with Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Hittite iconography; El (הה in Hebrew) means “bull.”
15
Asherah’s title of “Mother of the Gods” would seem to put her in
the position of El’s wife and parent of his children.
The poem of the “Gracious Gods” is a ceremonial text from
Ugarit concerning a sacred marriage between El, Anat and a third
goddess whose identity remains uncertain. The text describes the
fields as “like the field wherein the gods do dwell, where walk
the Mother and the Maid, the Blessed Damozel,” which Gaster
translates literally as “the field of Asherat and the Virgin,
i.e. Anat.” 36 The ritual then calls for a kid to be seethed in
milk, recalling Gideon’s sacrifice from Judges 6. Religious
ceremony gives way to ribald mythological drama as El woos and
impregnates two goddesses who birth the gracious gods, Dawn and
Sunset.
We now turn to some of the archaeological evidence for the
goddess Asherah and her symbolic repertoire. The site of Khirbet
el-Qom has yielded several inscriptions that may refer to the
goddess Asherah. One of the inscriptions found at that site,
labeled no. 3, dates to c. 750 BCE37 and translates
“Uriyahu the rich wrote it.
36 Gaster, 422.37 Lamaire, 1977, 603.
16
Blessed be Uriyahu by YahwehFor from his enemies by his (YHWH’s) Asherah he (YHWH) hassaved him.
by Oniyahuby his AsherahAnd by his a[she]rah.”38
While Yahweh is clearly the deity who has blessed Uriyah, most
likely with the aforementioned prosperity, this action appears to
have been enacted via his (YHWH’s) Asherah. Tigay has explained
that in both the Mishnah and the Tosefta, the altar appears in
concert with Yahweh and is an object of honor unto itself.39 We
might interpret the Khirbet el-Qom inscription as evidence for
Yahweh’s assimilation of Asherah imagery into his own
representational inventory.
Similarly, the finds from Kuntillet ‘Arjud, roughly 50 km
south of Kadesh-barnea in northern Sinai, offer inscriptional and
pictorial clues to understanding the pairing of Yahweh and
Asherah. The site appears to have been a rest stop for travelers,
as evidenced by the diversity of peoples present at the site.40
Written in a Phoenician script, Inscription no. 1 from Pithos A
38 Hadley, 86.39 Tigay 1990, 218.40 For further reading, see Meshel,Z. Kuntillet ‘Arjud: A Religious Centre from the Time of theJudean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai, IMC 175, 1978.
17
reads, “X says: say to Yehal[lel’el] and to Yo’asah and [to Z]: I
bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and by his asherah.”41 Pithos A
also bears an illustration of a stylized tree flanked by two
goats or antelopes above a lion. The goddess Qudshu, imported to
Egypt from the Levant, was commonly depicted standing atop a lion
and flanked by two gods.
Written on Pithos B, inscription no. 2 reads, “Amaryau says:
say to my lord: Is it well with you? Bless you by Yahweh of Teman
and by his Asherah. May he bless you and keep you and be with my
lord…”42Another inscription, this one on damaged plaster reads,
“They will celebrate unto/give to… asherah/Asherata.”43 While the
fragmentary nature of this inscription should cause us to examine
this inscription cautiously, other uses of the word
asherah/Asherata provide a consensus that this message refers
either to the goddess or the item associated with her veneration.
Small statues of nude female figures cupping their breasts
are widely distributed throughout the Levant44 as far back as the
41 Hadley, 121.42 Ibid., 125.43 Ibid., 130.44 These figures have been found at Tell Beit Mirsim, Gezer, Beth-shan and Megiddo. See Pritchard, J.B. Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known through Literature. AOS 24, 1943.
18
Chalcolithic period. Figurines dating from Middle Bronze to Iron
II portray a female figure, almost always nude, but always
topless and showed in a full frontal view, supporting her breasts
in her hands. They are crudely made and have mainly been found at
domestic sites, which Dever has suggested is evidence that these
figurines may be votive offerings and examples of a practice of
folk religion as opposed to the royal or administrative aspects
of a more orthodox religious system.45 They may represent a
Canaanite goddess with nurturing and fertility aspects, an
example of teraphim; small portable statues depicting a god or
goddess eventually forbidden by Josiah.46 They may merely be
statues of stylized, essentialized women and not a goddess.
Evidence for large scale statues of nude goddesses in the Ancient
Near East is scant.47
From Nahariya, a Middle Bronze Age site in the southern
Levant, we find a statue mold depicting a nude Canaanite goddess
with a pointed hat and two horns. Although the mold predates the
Ugaritic texts by anywhere between three and six hundred years,45 Dever, 46-50. Stavrakopoulou contends that the occurrence of a goddess in every echelon of Israelite society should cause us to question the distinctionbetween popular/official religion (Stavrakopoulou, 50).46 2 Kings 23:24.47 Excepting the life-sized nude of Ishtar from Ninevah . See Ornan, 31.
19
it suggests a strong propensity toward iconographic goddess
worship. An ivory pyxis lid dating from the thirteenth century
B.C.E. and demonstrating Grecian influence was found at Minet el-
Beida, the port of Ugarit. It depicts a topless female figure,
her face shown in profile, seated upon what appears to be a
throne decorated in a polka dot pattern. She wears a Mycenaean-
style paneled skirt and a spiraled band on her head beneath
curled hair. In her hands, she holds up stalks of what may be
wheat or corn. She is flanked on both sides by goats recalling
the image on Pithos A from Kuntillet ‘Arjud as well as the
contemporaneous48 ewer found in a pit near the Fosse Temple at
Lachish, which depicts a tree flanked by two horned animals,
possibly goats or ibexes. The pitcher bears the inscription “A
gift: a lamb to my Lady 'Elat.” The sacrifice of a lamb evokes
those described in the Gideon narrative and the Ugaritic ritual.
The iconographic constellation of an enthroned (either on an
actual depiction of a throne or its zoomorphic equivalent, a
lion) nude goddess bearing plants in hand, flanked on both
sides, while Western Asiatic in origin, was co-opted by Egypt in
48 Sass, Benjamin, The Genesis of the Alphabet and its Development in the Second Millennium B.C.,Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988, 151.
20
representations of the goddess Qudshu. The goddess is presented
as fully naked in full frontal view, wearing a Hathor wig,
holding a plant in each hand,49 flanked by the gods Min and
Resheph and standing atop a lion. The Winchester Stela,
considered to date from the nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty, is
unfortunately lost. However, the stela bore an inscription that
reads “Made for the necropolis official Neferhotep, true of
voice. Qudshu-Astarte-Anat.”50 Her name, Qdsh, not only means
“holiness” or “Holy One,” it is one of Asherah’s titles from the
Ugaritic texts, most likely derived from the Semitic root, ששש,
“holy, sacred, set apart, taboo.”
Representing a deity iconographically was one of the primary
means of religious experience in the Ancient Near Eastern world.
As a via negative, the commandment against idolatry attests to the
prevalence of this devotional practice. According to Hadley,
“Since all (or nearly all) the references to Asherah in the
49 Though sometimes, a staff or serpent is substituted for the plant which Pritchard has identified as a lotus. See The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954, note no. 470.50 Edwards, I.E.S., "A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College Collection,” JNES 13 (1955) 49-51.
21
Hebrew Bible appear to date to dtr51 or later, some scholars have
suggested that the Asherah was an invention of dtr to explain the
fall of the northern kingdom and to warn Judah against
apostasy.”52 The asherah is the symbol par excellence of apostasy and
idol worship in almost every occurrence of the term. However,
given our understanding from the Ugaritic texts of Asherah as an
indigenous Canaanite goddess, these condemnations seem to be
polemical against perceived foreign influence rather than actual
religious syncretism. As Mark S. Smith writes in The Early History of
God, worship of the goddess Asherah was not an uncommon or even
forbidden practice in ancient Israel, at least during the period
when the Ugaritic texts were written up to the reforms of Josiah.
Citing Saul M. Olyan, Smith suggests
“criticism of the goddess Asherah… was restricted to asingle quarter of Israelite society, namely, theDeuteronomistic tradition. From this limited base ofopposition, it might be inferred that many other quarters ofIsraelite society either accepted the asherah (afreestanding pole or tree regarded and venerated as thesymbol of the goddess) or at least did not oppose it.”53
51 I.e. the Deuteronomistic tradition. 52 Hadley, 57.53Ibid., 109.
22
Martin Noth argued that much of the language and content of the
books of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2
Kings were written no earlier than the mid-late 6th century B.C.
during the reign of certain theologically revolutionary
monarchs.54 Concerning the event on Mt. Carmel, only the four
hundred prophets of Baal are executed whereas the fate of the
prophets of Asherah has either been omitted or neglected
entirely, leading some scholars to suggest that 1 Ki. 18:19 is a
later gloss.55
According to II Ki. 22:8, these texts are not new additions
to the tradition but had simply been misplaced: during the time
of Josiah, “the high priest Hilkiah found a scroll of the
teaching in the House of the Lord.” Many of the textual
injunctions prohibited worship of divinities considered foreign,
especially Asherah. Whether this “found” scroll was unearthed
within the Temple of Jerusalem or a pseudepigraphic work,
claiming authority by declaring ancient authorship, is a matter
of debate. Nonetheless,
54 Refer to Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 1943.55 Knoppers, G.N. “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship.” ZAW 108:3, 329–46.
23
“the monarchs of Israel were the most guilty in toleratingand sometimes even importing deities and religious practicesallegedly alien to Yahwism….The monarchy was responsible forsome of the developments leading to the eventual emergenceof monotheism. The monarchy generally maintained a specialrelationship with Yahweh; Yahweh was the national god andpatron of the monarchy.”56
Worship of the goddess Asherah and her cultic symbol may
have been acceptable religious tradition and practice up to the
period of the United Monarchy and the succeeding religious
reforms of Kings Hezekiah and Josiah. Israel Finkelstein and Neil
Asher Silberman write in The Bible Unearthed that in the destruction
of Samaria, a city notorious in the Hebrew Bible for Ahab’s
polytheism, the Deuteronomistic authors saw the hand of God
acting in judgment.
“From the point of view of the Deuteronomistic historian theclimax of the story of the northern kingdom is… in thesummary that tells the story of Israel’s sins and God’sretribution. This theological climax is inserted in themiddle of the great drama, between the two calamities –immediately following the description of the capture ofSamaria and the deportation of the Israelites.”57
It appears the biblical writers, proponents of an exclusively
monotheistic theology, attributed the fall of Samaria and the
56 Smith, M.S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2002, 11.57 Finkelstein, I. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. 2001, 223-4.
24
dispossession of Israel to the practice of apostasy as
exemplified by the worship of gods other than Yahweh.
Even if those gods and goddesses forbidden by the
Deuteronomists were excluded from orthodox worship, the evidence
suggests that their prohibitions were a later development of
Israelite theology and not contemporaneous with the historical
and legendary figures about whom they wrote. As the Queen of
Heaven incident from Jeremiah suggests, Yahweh and his Asherah
were a matched set for a significant amount of time. In
discussing the reign of King Manesseh several decades before the
religious reforms of the Deuteronomists, Donald B. Redford
explains,
“in concert with the vast majority of kings before him, layin treating the temple in Jerusalem… as a royal chapelwherein, although Yahweh held primacy of place, guest cultsof other deities could be housed. There was nothing at allunusual about this by contemporary standards; but it illsuited the mind-set of the puritanical innovators of twogenerations later.”58
If Solomon’s temple functioned as a wedding chapel for the
hierogamy between Yahweh and Asherah, the Deuteronomists demanded
58 Redford, 437.
25
nothing short of a divorce. Dever posits in Did God Have a Wife? that
Hezekiah and Josiah
“attempted to purge Israelite religion of ‘Canaanite’practices, partly under the influence of the prophetic‘Yahweh-alone’ movement. Among their specific targets werethe high places and the ‘asherahs,’ the incense altars andthe other associated cult paraphernalia in the Temple.”59
Furthermore, according to Smith, “In the post-exilic period, the
old motifs associated with… Asherah in Canaanite tradition ceased
to refer to the cults of deities other than Yahweh.”60
By the time the Hebrew Bible emerged in its final form, it
reflected the ideal of a temple-centralized Israelite religion
and projected these standards of religious purity onto its past.
The biblical authors condemned many of the gods that were
worshipped alongside El/Yahweh, blaming these practices for
Israel’s conquest by other nations. Henotheistic Yahweh worship,
under external and internal pressures, became exceptionally
patriotic, spurning all forms of religious devotion and objects
of worship deemed foreign.
59 Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. 2005, 94. 60 Smith, 146. For a discussion on Yahweh’s appropriation of the characteristics of the goddess and feminine gendered imagery, see The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. 2002, 137-44.
26
Despite inconclusive evidence that remains open to
interpretation, there is an ever-growing scholarly consensus that
the asherim were not only cultic paraphernalia,61 but a symbolic
representation of the goddess. The case for Asherah presents us
with a revolutionary line of inquiry in modern biblical
scholarship. As socio-political circumstances drove the Israelite
towards monotheism, this potentially native divinity became
vilified and, like the “other gods” worshipped in Solomon’s
Temple, cast out as corrupting foreign influences.
There can be little doubt that theopolitical polemics in the
literature of ancient Israel have – at least in part - their
genesis in geopolitical conflicts. Both the Assyrian and
Babylonian exiles left a lasting impression on the religious
thinking of ancient Israel. Attempting to understand why their
deity would allow these tragedies to occur, the view arose that
Israel and Judah were punished for violating an exclusive
covenant with Yahweh. Perhaps the most pervasive discursive
representation of the apostasy accusation is the image of the
nation as an adulterous wife to represent the national sin of
61 “Whatever an asherah is, Yahweh had one!” (Lemaire, 1984, 42) See also Larocca-Pitts, 2001, 161-204.
27
apostasy. The text portrays cultic behaviors and individuals as
those who have whored after foreign deities. Interpretations of
the Hebrew Bible assign a predominantly sexual character to
religious activities occurring beyond the geographical and
ideological precincts of Yahweh’s Holy Mount Zion, the city of
Jerusalem.
However, these assumptions are probably more proscriptive
than descriptive and the MT as well as archaeological and
critical biblical scholarship suggests that the diversity of
religious practices in ancient Israel force us to reconsider the
text’s own claims to socio-religious authority. The notion that
acceptance of more complex and pluralistic religious attitudes
than the dominant voice of the text propagates was itself the
norm in ancient Israel has gained serious ground in recent
decades.62 Because “’false” worship is frequently structured
along a strict gender binary that also intersects with a strict
insider/outsider dichotomy, the understanding that Asherah was a
deity with devotees within Israel and Judah forces interpreters
62 For an excellent treatment on this subject, see Zevit, Z. The Religions of AncientIsrael: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. 2001, 537-538.
28
to evaluate the polemics against apostasy from the position of
Feminist biblical criticism.
Interpreters of the Hebrew Bible tend to approach the
religions of ancient Israel with a pre-existing value judgment,
favoring the sort of exclusive universal monotheism advocated in
the text itself as the pinnacle of moral progress while seeing
Canaanite polytheism as primitive, vile and immoral nature
worship characterized by ritualistic sexual activities. John
Bright holds that
“Canaanite religion… was, in fact, an extraordinarily debasingform of paganism, specifically of the fertility cult… As inall such religions, numerous debasing practices, including sacredprostitution, homosexuality, and various orgiastic rites, wereprevalent. It was the sort of religion with which Israel,however much she might borrow of the culture of Canaan,could never with good conscience make peace.”63
Such homogenizing, unsubstantiated claims about the broad,
indistinct category of “Canaanite religion” potentially
misrepresent these religions by accepting the literary portrayal
the Bible presents as genuine historical anthropology instead of
delegitimizing anti-Canaanite discourse. By refusing to
interrogate the issue of cultural representation, scholars
63 Bright, 118-119, emphasis mine.
29
uncritically accept the textual portrayal of these practices,
legitimizing the dominant theological perspective and justifying
the rhetorical and physical violence advocated therein.
Commentators’ view of women in these “deviant” rites reveals
their own heterosexist assumptions about women in religious
communities, presuming that any activity in which women engage in
within a cultic context categorically demands female sexual
performance. This conjecture may be identified as a fallacy of
biological determinism in regards to women’s participation in the
religious sphere. The bias of malestream64 scholarship must be
challenged in order to hear not only what the text says, but why
it may choose to frame its message in such a way. By viewing the
Hebrew Bible’s treatment of what it positions as “other,” as well
as biblical interpreters who side with the bias of the text, we
may attempt to see past the violently chauvinistic viewpoint of
the Hebrew Bible and listen to the voices of those the normative
tradition has attempted to silence. The cultic zonah, qodeshim and64 This term comes from Keefe, Alice A. Women’s Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1-2. JSOTSup 338, 36-65. Keefe, in discussing the marriage metaphor of Hosea 1-2, criticizes the both pornographic gaze of masculinist scholarship that assumes sexual acts to be the core of women’s religious activities in Canannitish contexts, as well as the value reversal made by feminist scholars who accept the sexualized vision of Israelite polytheism. It is in this sense that I consider the dominant interpretation to be “malestream.”
30
qadeshot, the women who weave batim for Asherah, and her
abominable asherim – while certainly suggesting the presence of a
female deity in the lives of ancient Israelites – hint at a
matrix of religious activity that transcends the simple binary
gendering the text wishes to foster.
Certain terms are pertinent to understanding the picture of
apostasy as is expressed by the dominant voice of the biblical
text. The triliteral root ההה features prominently in the MT ofthe Hebrew Bible. The verbal form means “to commit fornication,
be a harlot/prostitute” in biblical Hebrew as well as the Aramaic
dialects, including Jewish Aramaic, Samaritan, Syriac and
Mandean.65 When the noun zanah is used literally, it describes
sexual acts that either transgress or operate outside of
covenantal marriage arrangements. Deut. 22:21 advocates execution
by stoning for any and all female parties who are found guilty of
adultery against their husband. The noun form zonah, frequently
translated as “prostitute,” “whore,” or “harlot,” is applied to
65 Erlandsson, Seth. ההה zānāh TDOT vol. 4, 1977, 99.
31
several female characters within the textual tradition.66
However, the figurative meaning of the term must be understood as
the rhetorical and theological focus of its usage. The dominant
voice of the text effectively others those who act a zonah,
positioning their religiosity far beyond the outer limits of
acceptable social behavior and personal belief.
Because Israel’s relationship with Yahweh is often
conceptualized in covenant terminology similar and/or parallel to
that of marriage, “apostasy” is as much a legitimate translation
of the verbal form as adultery. Exod. 34:15-16 warns its
presumably male Israelite audience making covenants with non-
Israelites so that if the Israelites take from them wives for
their sons, the daughters won’t veheeznu et-baneicha acharei eloheyhen.67
While it can sometimes be difficult to discern whether the text
is referring to the act of illicit sexual or religious relations,
the conception fusion serves not only to reinforce the husband’s
exclusive ownership of his wives but also the text’s opinion of
Yahweh as the only deity whom Israelites may worship.
66 In particular, Tamar (Gen. 38), Rahab (Josh. 2:1; 6:17, 22, 25) and Jephthah’s mother (Judg. 11:1) all receive the title of zonah.67 “…cause your sons to prostitute themselves after their gods” (Exodus 34:16c).
32
Despite the rhetorical significance of the term zonah, many
translators and interpreters of the Hebrew Bible tend to gloss
over the religious dimension in their understanding of any woman
identified as such unequivocally selling the sexual use of her
body for profit. For instance, Tamar has customarily been
understood to disguise herself as a prostitute in order to
conceive a child by her step-father Judah.68 Not only is this
story peculiar because it interrupts the progression of the
Joseph narrative for an entire chapter, but because Tamar’s
actions do not step in line with what scholarship knows about
prostitutes in the ancient Near East. Although Tamar disguises
herself and dons a veil in Gen. 38:14, an Assyrian legal text
from the thirteenth century B.C.E. forbids prostitutes from
wearing the veil but requires it for women of an elevated
economic or social status.69
The range of meaning for verbs in Genesis 38 suggests a
certain degree of wordplay. If the author wished to be clear that
Judah approached the costumed Tamar for sex, we might expect him
68 Gen. 38:14-30.69 Keddie, Nikki R. and Beth Baron. Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender. 1991, 3.
33
to request that he could or “sleep/lay” with her,70 or even הההה
utilize a more common colloquialism for sexual intimacy, or ההה “know.”71 However, avoh elayich72 can mean “come into you” as well as
“come to you.” While the implication is clearly sexual in the
context of the narrative, can ההה also be used to suggest
entering into religious service73 or sacred space.74 That Tamar
asks “what will you give me”75 might be interpreted in religious
terms as is also used to mean “offer (as a (”to give“) ההה
sacrifice).”76 Perhaps the most unusual verb associated with
Tamar’s performance as zonah Judah’s command that she be
“burned,” This does not correspond with the punishment by .הההה
stoning laid out in Deut. 22:21. However, Lev. 21:9 allows for
the daughter of a priest who has polluted herself by acting as a
zonah is to be ba’esh teesasref - burned with fire. This may explain
the fate from which Tamar was saved, as immolating persons,
70 For example, David’s rape of Bathesheba in 2 Sam. 11:14.71 Adam “knows” Eve and from this union Cain is born; Gen. 4:1.72 Gen. 38:16b.73 Deut. 22:3.74 Ex. 28:29.75 Gen. 3816e.76 Ex. 30:14; Num. 3:9.
34
places and objects associated with non-exclusively Yahwistic
religion is an act lauded by the dominant voice of the Bible.77
Although she “plays the zonah,” Tamar does so to fulfill the law
of Levirate marriage, seemingly to justify her unorthodox actions
for their support of Judah’s patrilineal kinship group. While
some scholars see Tamar’s actions as those of a temple prostitute
based on comparisons with Mesopotamian data,78 this
interpretation relies on an a priori assumption that such is the
entire meaning of zonah.
Another term intimately related to and used interchangeably
with the concept of is ההה the verbal root ששהה . Verbal,
adjectival, substantive and proper noun derivatives of this root
are demonstrated in all Semitic languages, though the original
meaning appears “irretrievable.”79 In biblical Hebrew, ששהה hasthe meaning of “holy, sacred, set apart, taboo.” To appreciate
the far-reaching applicability of this term, we must take into
77 Especially the case of Josiah in 2 Ki. 23:4-20. 78 Most notably Astour, Michael C. Tamar the Hierodule: An Essay in the Method of Vestigial Motifs. JBL, 1966, 185-196. However, as we will see, this theory cannot stand up to scrutiny.79 Kornfeld, Walter. הההה qdš in TDOT vol. 12. 1977, 526.
35
account some of the more frequent ways in which it is used
semantically. The term functions as a toponym,80 a designation
of sacred space,81 the Aaronid priesthood,82 Mount Zion,83 the
Jerusalem temple including the qodesh qodashim (Holy of Holies),84
Israelites who keep the covenant with Yahweh,85 and ultimately
Yahweh himself.86 Further, sanctity is transferable category,
contagious to other objects and persons,87 and thus necessitates
taking the proper precautions in order to prevent death by
holiness.88
In its noun form, qodesh/qedeshim (masc. sing./plur.) and
qadesshah/qadeshot (fem. sing./plur.) is striking for its
ideological remoteness from accepted religious orthodoxy. Though
poorly attested, male and female qdshm function in some Ugaritic
texts. The majority of Ugaritic lexicons translate the term as “a
class of priests.”89 Sometimes it describes a cultic singer who
80 Gen. 14:7; 16:14; 20:1.81 Ex. 3:5; Lev. 10:17; 14:13;82 Ex. 28:3, 41; 29:1, 33, 44; 30:30; Lev. 8:12, 30; 21:8.83 1 Ch. 6:34; Ps. 2:6; 3:5; 15:1; 43:3;48:2; 87:1; 99:9; Joel 2:1; 3:17.84 1 Ki. 7:50; 8:6, 8, 10; Ps. 79:185 Deut. 7:6; 26:19; Isa. 62:1286 Josh. 24:19; Isa. 40:25; Mal. 2:11.87 Ex. 29:36-37; 40:9; Lev. 8:10; Num. 7:1.88 Num. 4:19-20.89 Gordon, Cyrus H. UT Gloss. no. 2210; Aistleitner, J. Worterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache. 1963, no. 2393.
36
performs during sacrificial rituals.90 Administrative texts from
Ras Shamra tally the offerings of qdshm along with those of
another class of priests, khnm.91 Qedeshim were also allowed by
law to marry, have children, and bequeath their title and status
to their heirs,92 demonstrated by a feminine qdst in a clan name
appearing in the alphabetical texts as bn.qdst.93
There is attestation of a so-called qadistu/qassatu/qasdatu
woman with certain sacerdotal functions in Akkadian texts
starting during the Old Assyrian period.94 However, we must note
that there is no masculine noun equivalent derived from the
Akkadian root qds, probably because the religious structures of
ancient Mesopotamia had “gender-differentiated ecclesiastical
role specialization.”95 During the Isin-Larsa period, King Sin-
iddinam essentially called his enemies uncivilized for failing to
inaugurate qadistu-women in the sanctuaries of the deities.96
90 KTU 1.112 = Ugaritica VII pp. 21-25, RS 24.256.91 UT 63:3 (= CTA 77).92 MRS 6 140ff. RS 16.132.7.93 UT 400 = CTA 113 v. 11; UT 2163. See also Grondahl, Frauke. Die Personnamen der Texte aus Ugarit. SPSM 1, 1967, 371; 348; 407.94 Hirsch, Hans. Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion. AfO.Beih. 13/14, 1972, 58; Menzel, Brigitte. Assyrische Tempel. SPSM 10, 1981, 262.95 Westenholz, Joan G. “Tamar, Qědēša, Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia” in HTR 82:3, 1989, 254.96 Hallo, William W. “The Royal Correspondence of Larsa. II. The Appeal to UTU,” in Zikir Sumim, Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 1982, 107-124.
37
Though infrequent in later Babylonian writings, a Middle
Babylonian text mentions a qadistu who is also a mother.97 Standard
Babylonian texts paint a portrait of the qadistu-woman who
performed a purifying ritual during birth,98 but who was also
grouped together with practitioners of witchcraft99 and who
participated in the ritual consumption of sacrificial meals.100
Joan G. Westenholz lays particular blame on the Greek
historian Herodotus for overly sexualizing the female religious
functionaries of Mesopotamia, charging the classical author with
intellectual colonialism by asserting Mesopotamian authors failed
to understand their own religious culture, traditions, and
history.101 She argues that it is “the Greeks and their
denigration of the female sex and of barbarians that caused them
to lump together the negative attributes of both groups in their
description of Babylonian cultic rites.”102 Considering that
substantial doubts have been issued against Herodotus and his
97 Clay, Albert T. Documents from the Temple Archive of Nippur Dated in the Reigns of the Cassite Rulers. 1912, 122.22.98 KAR 321.7.99 Rollin, Sue. “Women and Witchcraft in Ancient Assyria,” 1983, 34-45.100 See Menzel, Assyrische Tempel, SPSM 102, T2-T4.101 Westenholz, 263.102 Ibid., 265.
38
methodology,103 we have no choice but to reassess the impact his
prejudices have had upon ancient Near Eastern scholarship.
Furthermore, recognition that neither the Ugaritic qadeshah nor
the Mesopotamian Qadistu-woman had any erotic occupation as a
temple prostitute may no longer allow for similar arguments
concerning the qadeshot identified in the Hebrew Bible. The
translation of qadeshah as “sacred prostitute” must be
reconsidered given the lack of “convincing evidence for the
existence of cultic prostitution either in the ancient Near East
or in Israel.”104 As Tilde Binger argues, the textual occurrence
of qodeshim and qadeshot most likely represent
“…priests in the ‘Canaanite’ cult, that is, the non-Yahwistor not-exclusively-Yahwist cult that the Deuteronomists wereopposing. Since all not-exclusively-Yahwist cult was‘Canaanite’ and equaled whoring with ‘foreign’ gods… ‘holyprostitution’ need not refer to a sexual act, but couldrefer to association with other gods than Yahweh.”105
Like zonah, many translators presume an essentially sexual
quality to the cultic role of the qodeshim and qadeshot. The MT
103See Baumgartner, William. “Herodots babylonische und assyrische Nachrichten,” in ArOr 18, 1950, 69-106; Ravn, Otto E. Herotodus’ Description of Babylon, 1942.104 Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit & Israel: Their Social and Religion Position in the Context of the Ancient Near East. 2003, 548.105 Binger, Tilde. Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. JSOTSup 232, 1997, 120.
39
employs the use of the terms qodesh/qedeshah and qedeshim/qadeshot
sparingly. Hirah the Adullamite uses qashesha instead of zonah
while searching Ennaim for Tamar in order to fulfill the vow made
with Judah.106 Because Hebrew syntax requires that groups of mixed
gender be identified in the masculine plural, it is possible to
understand qedeshim in this light. Therefore, unless
categorically indicated, we could presume that the plural
masculine noun form may designate female practitioners along with
their male counterparts. Clearly, the text has a strong aversion
to both qedeshim and qadeshot. Deut. 23:18 forbids the daughters of
Israel from becoming a qedeshah, as well as any sons from
becoming a qadesh. JPS translates qedeshah as “harlot” and qadesh as
“sodomite,” while NIB offers “shrine-prostitute” for both gender-
specific terms. After describing the presence of bamot107 and
asherim on every hill and under every green tree,108 1 Ki. 14:15 is
part and parcel of the constellation of religious expressions detested
by the text, the sins that led Yahweh to condemn Jeroboam and his
106 Gen. 38:21.107 For a discussion of the cultic high places, see Fried, Lisbeth S. “The HighPlaces (Bamot) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation” in JAOS 122:3, 2002, 437-465.108 1 Ki. 14:15.
40
northern kingdom.109 However, Judah also did that which was evil in
Yahweh’s eyes: 1 Ki. 14:24 describes qadesh under the reign of
Rehoboam. Although the noun appears here in the masculine
singular construction, it is nonetheless “possible to understand
the Hebrew noun collectively… and also as including both men and
women.”110 John Grey presumes that ritual sexuality occurs in the
Asherah cult and in the job description of the qadesh, which he
defines as “ministers of rites of imitative magic designed to
promote fertility in nature,”111 reflecting the normative
malestream reading.
Asa removed112 these qedeshim in 1 Ki. 15:12. His next step
was to “remove”113 – from the verb turn“)ששש aside”), a
biblical euphemism for apostasy or improper worship - his mother,
Maaccah from the position of gebira because she made a statue of
109 Ibid., 14:7-15.110 Omanson, Roger L. and John E. Ellington. 1-2 Kings: Volume One. 2008, 467.111 Grey, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. 1970, 343.ה 112
ההcause to go through, pass“ – ההה Hiph. Converted Imperfect 3ms. of - הההההההה
by, disappear.”ה113ההה ,take away“ – ההה Hiph. Converted Imperfect 3ms. w/ 3fs. suffix of - הההההההה
remove.” This usage is important because the verbal root ההה is often used to refer to turning away from Yahweh in apostasy. See Deut. 9:12; 11:6; 2 Ki 18:6.
41
Asherah. Susan Ackerman has made a convincing argument that “we
should see the cultic functions undertaken by the Judean queen
mothers on behalf of the goddess Asherah as standing in close
relationship to the political responsibilities assigned to the
gebirot within their sons’ courts.”114 If the qedishim are indeed
related to the cult of Asherah, and the qedeshim/zonot form
covenants and establish ceremonial kinship bonds though
sacrifice,115 there is a possibility that the qebira served as
kingmaker, legitimating the royal line of succession.116 In
Throughout Your Generations Forever, Nancy Jay explains that sacrifice
is an effective symbolic act that “joins people together in
community, and conversely, it separates them from defilement,
disease, and other dangers”117 including individuals or groups
excluded from the imagined community generated by the covenant-
establishing act of ritual murder. Disinvesting his mother from114 Ackerman, Susan. “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel” in JBL 112:3, 1993, 400.115 See Ex. 34:15-16; Lev. 17:7; Num. 25:1; Hos. 4:14.116 “For if the Judean royal ideology holds that Yahweh is the adopted father of the king, then is it not possible that the adopted mother of the king is understood to be Asherah, given… that Asherah was seen by many – in both the state and popular cult – as the consort of Yahweh? The language of divine adoption… may imply not only Yahweh, the male god, as surrogate father, but also Asherah, the female consort, as surrogate mother” (Ackerman, “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel,” 1993, 400).117 Jay, Nancy. Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity, 1992,17.
42
this powerful position on theological grounds may be seen as an
attempt on Asa’s part to purge the nation not only of those
cultural elements positioned by the text as false, foreign and
feminine, but also to remove any threats to his regal lineage.
Although no explicit references to qedeshim/qadeshot are found
during the reign of Hezekiah, his removal of the bamot - the
locus of non-exclusively Yahwistic religious practices – demands
a theological reading. Again, the word for “remove” stems from
the verb This cues the reader in to .(”to turn aside“) ששש Hezekiah’s unwavering devotion to Yahweh, turning away from sites
of unorthodox or syncretistic worship. However, no king in
Israel’s history appears as anti-pagan as Josiah. The text likens
him to David in piety and, unlike many Israelite monarchs, he did
not His 118.ששש father Amon’s assassination is his sole
contribution to the narrative. This suggests that he is merely
meant to serve as a link in the genealogical chain between Josiah
and his grandfather, Manasseh, whom the text views as a
“structural antagonist”119 to Josiah in his support of what the DH118 2 Kings 22:2.119 Long, B.O. 2 Kings, 1991, 249.
43
constructs as foreign and idolatrous religions.120 Manasseh is
envisioned as following the sins of Jeroboam,121 the establishment
and fortification of religious centers other than the Jerusalem
temple, the northern shrine of Bethel.122 More than any other
ruler, Manasseh is held culpable by the biblical authors for
idolatrous actions resulting in the Babylonian Exile.123
2 Ki. 23 recounts the actions undertaken by Josiah during
the eighteenth year of his reign to remove forms of worship that
differed from the book of the Law discovered during renovations
to the Jerusalem temple.124 The prophetess Huldah legitimated the
authenticity of the scroll and prophesized national destruction
for abandoning Yahweh and worshipping other gods.125 The
subsequent chapter opens with a covenant ceremony binding Josiah
and all the male leaders of Judah together in a pledge to uphold
the laws presented in the newfound scroll. Therefore, it is
important to understand Josiah’s cultic reforms within this
120 2 Kings 21:2-15.121 1 Kings 14:16122 Ibid., 12:25-33123 For a discussion of this issue, see Halpern, Baruch. “Why Manasseh Is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition” in VT 48:4, 1998, 473-514.124 2 Ki. 22:8.125 2 Ki. 22:16-17.
44
context of Judah’s independence from Assyrian rule, as well as
the centralization of cult in Jerusalem and the covenantal union
of the male Judahite leaders.
As we have seen previously, sacrifice is an important ritual
act that establishes covenantal and kinship bonds. Ancient Near
Eastern suzerainty treaties and biblical covenant texts usually
include a domesticated animal sacrifice with varying degrees of
immolation;126 the covenant ceremony in 2 Ki. 23:1-3 depicts no
such sacrifices. Despite the absence of this customary act of
ritual violence, 2 Ki. 23:4-20 depicts a much more sinister
variation of this bloody rite. As the narrative extends beyond
the walls of the Jerusalem temple, violence escalates
exponentially culminating in the ritualistic murder of the
priests of Bethel.
We have already considered the possibility that the qedeshim
and qedeshot may have performed some sacrificial function, perhaps
in connection with the gebirot in legitimating descent patterns
and securing a financial or political inheritance. Expelling them
from the Temple precincts, Josiah removed any priestly individual
126 See Janzen, David. The Social Meanings of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible: A Study of FourWritings, BZAW 344, 2004.
45
who could, through sacrifice, establish a covenant of kinship on
behalf of a deity, effectively eliminating all local competition.
Unlike the covenant at Sinai wherein all the people of Israel
pledge allegiance to Yahweh,127 Josiah’s covenant consists solely
of male participants. In establishing a new, exclusively
Yahwistic covenant with the Judean and Jerusalemite male elite,128
Josiah enacts a revolutionarily homosocial vision of Israelite
religion that not only removes the goddess and her devotees from
the Temple, but excludes women from the covenantal community
altogether.
Although the qedeshim in v. 7 appear to escape the same
fiery punishment earned by the other objects of heterodox
worship, their houses or temples129 are nonetheless “pulled down,
demolished.”130 The presence of verbs associated with burning play
a crucial role in this section. As hinted at during our
discussion of Tamar, the verb has שששש enormous religious127 Ex. 19:8.128 2 Ki. 23:1-3.129 Both renderings are substantiated translations of ההההההההה 130.הההההה - Qal Converted Imperfect 3ms. of ההה – “to pull/tear down, demolish.” Association of this action with the destruction of the symbols pagan worship, particularly those of the goddess Asherah is common; see Ex. 34:13; Deut. 7:5; Mic. 5:13.
46
significance in regards to heterodox religious practices and
practitioners. Verbs derived from the Hebrew root 131,שששש
meaning “to burn,” appear as actions taken against the Asherah132
in the Jerusalem temple (verses 4, 6), Judahite ritual objects
(verse 11), Samarian bamot and ritual items (verse 15), or human
bones in exhumed Samaria (verses 16, 20). All occurrences of
are in the qal active form describing firsthand actions by שששש
Josiah himself. Since the root ששש may be translated either as“to slaughter (for sacrifice)” or “to sacrifice,” we may note its
appearance qal (verse 20) as a sacrificial action performed by
Josiah against the priests.
If the covenantal ceremony from verses 1-4 is meant to
incorporate the Judahite male leaders as the authoritative social
and religious body under the aegis of Josiah, then the subsequent
defilement of cultic sites and objects in addition to violence
perpetrated against the priests of Bethel indexes the privileged131 As a plural noun, the term can refer to fiery serpents (Num. 21:6; Deut. 8:15) or divine beings in the Jerusalem temple (Isa. 6:2; 14:29; 30:6).132 Like Asa (1 Ki. 15:13; 2 Chron, 15:16), Josiah deposits the Asherah’s ashesat the Wadi Kidron.
47
status of the Judahite theocratic apparatus over their neighbors
to the north. The text portrays Josiah as an ideal Davidic ruler
in his attempt to reunite a divided kingdom; because the DH
historian demonizes all unorthodox practices, particularly those
occurring at the Bethel shrine, viewing aggression towards the
site and its officiates as a logical and divinely sanctioned
result of their own apostasy.
The pericope recalls the man of god from Samaria, and his
prophecy (v. 16-18) reveals characteristics of Josiah’s violent
purge beyond those of identity formation, privilege and power.
Josiah inquires about the grave of the man of God who prophesied
to Jeroboam that the future king of Judah would burn the priests
of Bethel with human bones on their altar.133 This oracle may be a
relatively late gloss,134 but its rhetorical usage lends credence
to Josiah’s violent actions, envisioning “a day when ‘pure
Yahwism’ (a creation… never a reality in history in Israel) could
be restored.”135 Furthermore, the prophecy functions as a
133 “O altar, altar! Thus said the Lord: A son shall be born to the House ofDavid, Josiah by name; and he shall slaughter upon you the priests of theshrines who bring offerings upon you. And human bones shall be burned uponyou.” (1 Ki. 13:2, JPS).134 Nelson, R.D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 16, 1983, 17.135 Niditch, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence, 1993, 76.
48
theodicy,136 explaining and justifying the present violence
committed as a punishment for acts of apostasy that, according to
DH, also brought about the northern kingdom’s destruction at the
hands of the Neo-Assyrian empire. Jeroboam’s temple of Bethel is
seen as a turning away from Yahweh throughout both books of
Kings, bringing division to the United Monarchy and the wrath of
God upon Israel.137 We can understand Josiah’s violence against
the northern shrine of Bethel as an effect of the mechanism of
sacrificial scapegoating that allows for the collective ritual
activity of a specific elite male community “which purifies itself
of its own disorder through unanimous immolation of a victim… at the
paroxysm of ritual crisis.”138
The northern kingdom’s apostasy, constructed and denounced
by DH, is such a misunderstanding. The brazen calf of the Bethel
shrine appears to be a regional iconographic representation of
Yahweh, not Baal.139 However, the longstanding mimetic rivalry
136 See Crain, J.C. Reading the Bible as Literature: An Introduction. Cambridge: PolityPress, 2010, 120.137 As a theological interpretation, this view represents an historical misconception; king Hoshea of Israel broke his treaty with Assyria for an alliance with Egypt, leading to the destruction of his kingdom. (2 Ki. 17:1-5).138 Girard, René, The Girard Reader, 1996, 11.139 See van Dam, C. “Golden Calf” in DOT, 2003, 369.
49
between the two kingdoms finds its cathartic outlet in “the
collective murder itself insofar as it effectively resolves and
terminates” the perceived theological and political crisis.
Josiah’s fiery offering is conceived of as sacrificial communion
and expiation as defined,140 unifying the newly centralized nation
while purging the sins of apostasy and partition brought about by
the northern kingdom.
Josiah engages in a form of the ḥerem or ban, “the war
demanded by God always including the annihilation of men, women,
and children, other times including the killing of domestic
animals, the wanton destruction of whole cities, and the
reduction of all cultural artifacts to rubble” much like Joshua’s
conquest of the land and Canaanite dispossession.141 The sacred
sites and cultic items, because they are dedicated to other gods,
cannot be taken for Yahweh. Destroying them and sprinkling their
140 “Communion sacrifice unites worshipers in one moral community and at thesame time differentiates that community from the rest of the world. Expiatorysacrifice integrates by getting rid of countless different moral and organicundesirable conditions: sin, disease, drought, divine wrath, famine, barrenness,spirit possession, armed invaders, blood guilt, incest, impurity of descent,pollution, pollution of childbirth or of corpses… What is integrated is one.What is differentiated is logically without limit and can be expressed in asingle term only negatively, as not the integrated whole, as opposed to it asdisorder is to order, as unclean is to clean” (Jay, 19, emphasis mine).141 Josh. 6:24.
50
dust on graves effectively contaminates and desacralizes142 the
objects, as well as the murdered priests, bringing an end to
their ritual purity and their lives. Though his act of sacrifice
and burning of the bones of the deceased on the priests’ corpses
qualifies the offering, profaning the altar of Bethel and thereby
maintaining the exclusive holiness of the Jerusalem temple and
cult, there can be no question that the violence is seen as the
sacred duty of a holy war. Susan Niditch argues that although the
biblical tradition differentiates the ban as sacrifice143 - an
older form of ritual annihilation - from the Deuteronomic ban as
justice,144 the sacrificial element nonetheless points to an act
of murder on God’s behalf, seemingly embodying characteristics of
both forms of ḥerem. Although DH and biblical critics cannot
abide the ban as human sacrifice,145 the religious implications of142 Num. 19:11-13. However, Jer. 31:40 states that Kidron will become holy (הההה.to Yahweh after the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-37) (הה
143 “In giving humans to God, the Israelites are not saving the best booty forthemselves. To the contrary, the best sacrifice, the biggest sacrifice, is thehuman life” (Niditch, 35).144 “…not a means of gaining God’s favor through offering human booty, but…through expurgation of the abomination, external to the people Israel orinternal” (Ibid., 57).145 “For these writers, the ban becomes something else that has to do withmatters of justice and injustice, right and wrong, idolatry versus worship of the trueGod. One of the most central Deuteronomic themes is that of blessing versuscurse: the good win God’s blessing, the evil, God’s curse… Ḥerem, the ban,becomes the form of enacting the punishment of curse for Israelites and non-Israelites alike. Idolaters are perceived as deserving the ban” (Ibid., 49, emphasis
51
these deaths cannot be ignored. Josiah ritually slaughters the
Bethel priests, transforming them and the bones of the dead into
an expiatory sacrifice in the form of a whole burnt offering to
Yahweh, unifying the community of the faithful by purging all
threats to the exclusive religious vision of the Deuteronomist.
Therefore, Josiah enacted a ban of both human sacrifice to Yahweh
and justice on behalf of the deity.
The rhetorically indistinct actions of adultery and apostasy
forms the core of Jeremiah’s theological condemnation of Israel
and serves as the theodical justification for the destruction of
Israel and Judah by gendering apostasy as a feminine act. By
examining the intertextualities between the polemic category of
behavior practiced al-eretz ra’anan and its frequent relation to the
noun Asherah/asherim within the context of the dominant discourse
against worship of deities other than Yahweh, we may understand
the way in which this rhetorical imagery is used to gender the
cultic behavior of non-exclusively Yahwistic Jerusalem-
centralized worship practices.
mine).
52
The occurrence of the phrase va’asherechem al-etz ra’anan al geva’ot
hagvohot in Jer. 17:2 functions as an intertextual allusion with
a major pedigree in the theological discourse of the Hebrew
Bible. The importance of this idiomatic expression lies in its
condemnation of a specific vision of non-exclusively Yahwistic
religiosity associated with the goddess Asherah that allowed for
iconographic representation of the divine personae in question.146
These sorts of worship practices are discursively situated far
beyond the geographical and theological boundaries of Mount Zion
with the centralized theology of Jerusalem-based, Yahweh-alone
devotion by a lineage of male priestly functionaries.
V. 17:2 is part of a poetic oracle of disaster aimed at the
Israelite inhabitants of the land. The phrase va’asherechem al-etz
ra’anan appears only once in the entire MT, in Jer. 17:2b. It has
clear similarities with the more common idiom, vetachat kol-etz
146 “Even if there is no explicit mention of a sculpted or painted image of Yahweh, the Hebrew Bible provides a wealth of information about how the peopleconceived Yahweh anthropomorphically, theriomorphically, in metaphors and in symbols of the widest possible variety. This process of seeing… and imagining occurred in a context that was filled with literacy and iconographic images. The world of images that fills this context was subject to constant change, sometimes dominated by internal factors and sometimes by external ones…. To besure… the external evidence confirms neither the view that there was a fully developed Mosaic monotheism nor the popular view that late and even very late dates for the literature are justified” (Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger.Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God In Ancient Israel, 1998, 407).
53
ra’anan,147 commonly used to locate religious practices beyond the
geographical and ideological space of the Jerusalem temple with
its Yahwah-alone theology. The singular occurrence of this
phrasing is also interesting because the book of Jeremiah does
not shy away from using the more common rendering. Vetachat kol-etz
ra’anan occurs three times in Jeremiah, all of which are part of
prophetic oracles from Yahweh urging for Israel to repent of
apostasy.148 Charles L. Feinberg supports the understanding of
archaic Israelite polytheism in that v. 17:2a describes the
idolatrous actions הה – הההההההה “as/like a memory,” one as deeply
ingrained in the cultural consciousness in the same way Judah’s
sin is engraved upon their collective heart.149 He claims that the
people are “…so steeped in idolatry by their parents that the
desire for it will emerge at the slightest provocation… in accord
with the broad context… in Canaanite worship… Thus continuance in
idolatry is implied.”150 As worship of non-Yahwistic deities,
147 This phrase consistently refers to non-exclusively Yahwistic worship, typically interpreted as devotion to Asherah and/or other pagan deities; Deut.12:2; 1 Ki. 14:23; 2 Ki. 16:4; 17:10; 2 Chron. 28:4; Isa. 57:5; Ez. 6:13..148 Jer. 2:20; 3:6, 13.149 Jer. 17:1c.150 Feinberg, Charles L. Jeremiah: A Commentary, 1982, 127.
54
including the goddess Asherah, is well-attested in the Hebrew
Bible’s historiography and the archaeological history of ancient
Israel, the author of Jeremiah employs this customary,
exclusivist anti-pagan discourse to argue not only against any
religious practices he deems unacceptable, but also to identify
such worship practices as the direct cause of national disaster.
Angela Bauer argues that because feminine imagery and
feminizing rhetoric work throughout the book of Jeremiah, “from
call to repentance in the face of impending death and
destruction, through remembrance in mourning to an eschatological
vision of redemption in exile,”151 we may understand gender
discourse as one of the text’s main framing devices for its
theological message. One of the most cogent examples of gender
discourse’s prevalence in Jeremiah is the prophetic marriage
metaphor in v. 3.1-4:4. Furthermore, Mary E. Shields states in no
uncertain terms that
“Intertextuality, metaphor and gender are the primarythreads from which the prophet weaves a rich and complexrhetorical tapestry deigned to convince the people that
151 Bauer, Angela. Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading, SBL 5, 1999, 2-3.
55
their political and religious actions have been wrong andthat they must change their ways before it is too late.”152
Shields makes a persuasive case for the author of Jeremiah’s
dependence on other biblical texts as well as conventional gender
norms. Reinterpreting Deut. 24:1-4 - the law forbidding a man
from remarrying the wife he divorced if she had since become the
wife of another man – as an allegory for Israel’s apostasy and
potential for return under a new covenant with Yahweh. The
evident Deuteronomic intertext of Jeremiah’s oracles against
apostasy is complemented by the reference to worship tachat kol-etz
ra’anan in a prophetic message contemporaneous with Josiah.153 The
Judean monarch’s purge of all traces of heterodox religion154 was
lauded for removing the qedeshim and Asherah’s weavers from the
Jerusalem temple. The fact that Jeremiah is the son of Hilkiah,
the same high priest who discovered the lost book of Law during
Josiah’s reign, allows us to appreciate how steeped the prophet
is within a matrix of vehemently Yahwistic and anti-goddess
discourse.
152 Shields, Mary E. Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetoric of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender in Jeremiah 3:1-4:4, JSOTSup 387, 2004, 1.153 Jer. 3:6.154 2 Ki. 23:4-20.
56
Jeremiah utilizes the image of Israel as
adulterous/idolatrous wife to Yahweh the husband to feminize the
presumably male audience of the text,155 effectively shaming them
by not only stripping away their assumed upon power and privilege
but also by suggesting male Israel has acted the harlot (i.e.
inappropriately) in its relationship with Yahweh by worshiping
other deities. This threatens the honor of Israelite men; “by
behaving improperly, they have shamed themselves.”156 Demonizing
the male audience by casting them as adulterous wives is further
complicated by the feminization of religious practices against
which the text polemicizes. This delegitimization of heterodox
religiosity becomes reinforced by the notion that the people
swear belo elohim157 - by “no-gods.” Such a strong dismissal of non-
exclusively Yahwistic worship rhetorically negates the myriad
forms of religious expression that constituted the diverse matrix
of Israelite culture. Swearing by these deities is portrayed as
pointless and sinful, leading the people to the house/temple of a
zonah.158
155 Shields, 110.156 Ibid., 132.157 Jer. 5:7c.158 Ibid.. 5:7d.
57
Regina Schwartz explains that throughout the Hebrew Bible,
the paradigm of ideologically-based identity exclusivism and
scarce access to resources engenders a monotheistic worldview
along with a history of colonialism. Such a worldview not only
excludes deities other than Yahweh, but also their devotees from
the imagined community of legitimate worship. The same
exclusionary dynamics apply to those whose religious affiliations
or practices differ from those of the normative in-group, often
leading to violent power struggles. Moreover, Schwartz explicitly
“locates the origins of violence in identity formation,arguing that imagining identity as an act of distinguishingand separating from others, of boundary making and linedrawing, is the most frequent and fundamental act ofviolence we commit. Violence is not only what we do to theOther. It is prior to that. Violence is the veryconstruction of the Other.”1593
Feminization appears to be the primary means of Othering in the
texts examined: delegitimizing all deviant practices, theological
attitudes and divinities, either by attacking (a) female deity
and her devotees or by sexualizing the office and duties of those
who inhabit the text’s own theological category of “harlotry.”
Therefore, apostasy functions as a gendered sense of disorder,
159 Schwartz, Regina. The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism, 1997, 5.
58
disrupting and threatening the dominant cultural paradigm that
has rendered anything other than exclusive Yahwism
unintelligible, sinful and wicked. Though not always taking a
physical form, polemics against women’s and men’s devotion to a
goddess have proven effective at delegitimizing these individuals
and their beliefs, marginalizing their voices in the literature
of the Hebrew Bible. We would do well to reflect upon Ellen
Gorsevski’s claim that “linguistic violence is in fact a form of
physical violence.”160
160 Gorsevski, Ellen W. "The Physical Side of Linguistic Violence" in PR 10:4, 1998, 513-516.
59
Bibliography
Ackerman, Susan. “’And the Women Knead Dough’: The Worship of theQueen of Heaven in Sixth-Century Judah” in Gender and Differencein Ancient Israel. Ed. Peggy L. Day. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,2006.
- “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel” in JBL 112 1993, 385-401.
Aistleitner, J. Worterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963.
Alt, Albrecht. Der Gott der Väter: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der israelitischen Religion. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929.
Assmann, Jan. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001.
Astour, Michael C. Tamar the Hierodule: An Essay in the Method of Vestigial Motifs. JBL 85:2, 1966, 185-196.
Bauer, Angela. Gender in the Book of Jeremiah: A Feminist-Literary Reading. SBL5. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.
Baumgartner, William. “Herodots babylonische und assyrische Nachrichten,” in ArOr 18, 1950, 69-106.
Berquist, Jon L. “Prophetic Legitimation in Jeremiah” in VT 39:2,Apr. 1989, 129-139.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2000.
Binger, Tilde. Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. JSOTSupplement Series 232. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Berlin: de Gruyter,1990.
60
Bottero, Jean. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Cheyne, T.K. and J. S. Black. “Ephod” in EB 2. New York: Macmillan, 1901, 1306-9.
Clay, Albert T. Documents from the Temple Archive of Nippur Dated in the Reignsof the Cassite Rulers. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, the Museum Publications of the Babylonian Section, 1912.
Cohen, Shaye J.D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
The Concise Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Ed. Leonard Cottrell New York: Hawthorne, 1960.
Coogan, M. D. Stories From Ancient Canaan. Louisville: Westminster Press, 1978.
Crain, J.C. Reading the Bible as Literature: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2010.
van Dam, Cornelis. “Golden Calf” in DOT. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Day, John. Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife?: Archaeology and Folk Religion in AncientIsrael. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Edwards, I.E.S. “A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College Collection” in JNES 13, 1955, 49-51.
Erlandsson, Seth. ההה zānāh in TDOT 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, 99-104.
Feinberg, Charles L. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
61
Finkelstein, Israel. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2001.
Fried, Lisbeth S. “The High Places (Bamot) and the Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah: An Archaeological Investigation” in JAOS 122:3, 2002, 437-465.
Friedman, Richard Elliot. The Bible with Sources Revealed. San Francisco: Harper, 2003.
- Who Wrote the Bible? San Francisco: Harper, 1987
Gaster, Theodor H. Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East. Garden City: Anchor Books, 1961.
Girard, René. The Girard Reader. New York: Crossroads, 1996.
Gorsevski, Ellen W. “The Physical Side of Linguistic Violence” inPeace Review 10:4, 513-516, 1998.
Grey, John. I & II Kings: A Commentary. London: SCM Press LTD, 1970.
Grondahl, Frauke. Die Personnamen der Texte aus Ugarit. Studia Pohl 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967.
Hadley, Judith M. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Hallo, William W. “The Royal Correspondence of Larsa. II. The Appeal to UTU,” in Zikir Sumim, Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Leiden: Brill, 1982, 107-124.
Halpern, Baruch. “Why Manasseh Is Blamed for the Babylonian Exile: The Evolution of a Biblical Tradition” in VT 48:4, 1998, 473-514.
62
Hirsch, Hans. Untersuchungen zur altassyrischen Religion. AfO Beih. 13/14. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlage, 1972.
JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh: the traditional Hebrew text and the new JPS translation. 2nd Ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999.
JSB
Janzen, David. The Social Meanings of Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible: A Study of Four Writings. BZAW 344. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004.
Jay, Nancy. Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion, and Paternity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Keefe, Alice A. Women’s Body and the Social Body in Hosea 1-2. Culture, Gender and Theory Series, JSOT Supplement Series 338. Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Keddie, Nikki R. and Beth Baron. Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991.
Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God In Ancient Israel. Trans. Thomas H.Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise and Thomas G. Smother. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 27: Jeremiah 26-52. Ed. David A. Hubbard et al. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000.
Knoppers, Gary N. “The Deuteronomist and the Deuteronomic Law of the King: A Reexamination of a Relationship.” ZAW 108:3, deGruyter, 1996.
Kornfeld, Walter. ששהה qdš in TDOT 12. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, 521-526.
63
Larocca-Pitts, Elizabeth C. “Of Wood and Stone”: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters. HSM 61, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2001.
Lemaire, A. “Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qol et l’Ashérah de YHWH” in RB 84, 1977, 595-608.
- “Who or What was Yahweh’s Asherah?” in BAR 10:6, 1984, 42-51.
Long, B.O. 2 Kings. Grand Rapids: Eerdsman, 1991.
Marsman, Hennie J. Women in Ugarit & Israel: Their Social and Religion Position inthe Context of the Ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Menzel, Brigitte. Assyrische Tempel. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 10, Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1981.
Meshel,Z. Kuntillet ‘Arjud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judean Monarchy on the Border of Sinai, IMC 175, 1978.
de Moor, J.C. הההה ,ʼashērāh in TDOT 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans הההה
1977, 438-444.
NIB
Nelson, R.D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. JSOT Supplement Series 16. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983.
Niditch, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. JSOT Supplement Series 15. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
Olyan, Saul M. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. SBL(MS) 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.
Omanson, Roger L. and John E. Ellington. 1-2 Kings: Volume One. New York: United Bible Societies, 2008.
64
Ornan, Tallay. The Triumph of the Symbol: Pictorial Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban. OBO 213, Friburg and Göttingen, 2005.
Pettey, Richard J. Asherah: Goddess of Israel. New York: Lang, 1990.
Pritchard, James B. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954.
- Palestinian Figurines in Relation to Certain Goddesses Known through Literature. AOS Series 24, New Haven: AOS, 1943.
Ravn, Otto E. Herotodus’ Description of Babylon. Copenhagen: Arnold Busck, 1942.
Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Reed, William L. The Asherah in the Old Testament. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1949.
Rendtdorff, Rolf. The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 89. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990.
Rollin, Sue. “Women and Witchcraft in Ancient Assyria” in Images of Women in Antiquity. Ed. Averil Cameron and Amelie, Kuhrt. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1983, 34-45.
Sass, Benjamin, The Genesis of the Alphabet and its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1988.
Schwartz, Regina. The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975.
65
Shields, Mary E. Circumscribing the Prostitute: The Rhetoric of Intertextuality, Metaphor and Gender in Jeremiah 3:1-4:4. JSOTSup 387. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.
Smith, Mark S. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Stavrakopoulou, Francesca.”’Popular’ Religion and ‘Official’ Religion: Practice, Perception, Portrayal” in Religious Diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah. Ed. Stavrakopoulou, Francesca and JohnBarton. London: T&T Clark International, 2010, 37-58.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. “A Second Temple Parallel to the Blessing from kuntillet ‘Arjud” in IEJ 40:218, 1990.
Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Israel. Trans. J.S. Black and A. Menzies. Cleveland: World Publishing, 1957.
Westenholz, Joan G. “Tamar, Qědēša, Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia” in The HTR 82:3, 1989, 245-265.
Yamashita, Tadanori. The Goddess Asherah. Ph.D. dissertation. New Haven: Yale University, 1963.
Zevit, Ziony. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. New York: Continuum, 2001.
66
Top Related