The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Hadley_Asherah.shtml

The Bible and Interpretation
Evidence for Asherah*

Asherah has appeared paired with Yahweh in positive ways. Furthermore, the early eighth century BCE prophets do not condemn Asherah worship. The worship of Asherah was evidently acceptable before the Deuteronomistic reform movement gained momentum in the seventh century BCE, but since the text of the Bible was significantly composed or edited by the Deuteronomistic school or even later, this fact is not immediately apparent.


By Judith M. Hadley
Department of Theology & Religious Studies
Villanova University
December 2008



Asherah Makes a Comeback

Words based on the lexeme asherah–asherah, asherim, asheroth (these will be used in the text for ⊃ăšērāh: Deuteronomy 16:21; Judges 6:25, 26, 28, and 30; 1 Kings 15:13; 16:33; 18:19; 2 Kings 13:6; 18:4; 21:3, 7; 23:4, 6, 7 and 15; 2 Chronicles 15:16; ⊃ăšêrāh: 2 Kings 17:16; ⊃ăšērîm: 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; 23:14; 2 Chronicles 14:2 [Eng. 3]; 17:6; 24:18; 31:1; 33:19; 34:3, 4 and 7; Isaiah 17:8; 27:9; ⊃ăšêrēhem: Exodus 34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3; 1 Kings 14:15; Jeremiah 17:2; ⊃ăšêrêkā: Micah 5:13 [Eng. 14]; ⊃ăšērôt: Judges 3:7; 2 Chronicles 19:3; 33:3) occur 40 times in the Hebrew Bible. For at least 2,000 years, any connection with a goddess was forgotten – or perhaps originally, denied. If there was an original direct or indirect reference to a goddess in the Hebrew Bible, already in the LXX, any concept of a goddess by that name is gone: the Hebrew ⊃ăšērāh and ⊃ăšērîm are translated ’alsos, which can mean a temenos or sacred place – even without trees. And the Vulgate lucus is merely a translation of the Greek.

In two verses (Isaiah 17:8 [a gloss] and 27:9), the LXX has “trees,” and twice (2 Chron. 15:16 and 24:18), the LXX indicates the goddess Astarte. Perhaps when it seemed that a goddess was clearly indicated (especially in 2 Chronicles 15:16), the translator assumed it was Astarte. The Vulgate also gave the meaning “grove” (lucus) in all verses except four in Judges. In Judges 3:7 we have “Ashtaroth” (=Astarte) instead of asheroth, and in the other three verses (Judges 6:25, 26, and 30), the Vulgate has nemus, “wood” or “grove.” So here also we have the idea of trees. So, not surprisingly, the KJV translates the passages with “grove.”

But by the late 19th century CE, belief in this goddess begins to reappear.

The Assyrian evidence of a goddess Ašratu convinced many that there was probably “a Canaanitish goddess of fortune and happiness” (BDB, p. 81). But BDB notes that Stade, Robertson Smith, and Wellhausen thought that only a sacred pole was referred to in the Bible.

In 1885, the Revised Version used the translation “Asherah” for the singular ⊃ăšērāh. In Exodus 34:13, the text has “Asherim,” and the footnote reads, “probably the wooden symbols of a goddess Asherah.” The RV continues to translate as Asherim (with capital) thereafter and Asheroth in Judges 3:7; 2 Chronicles 19:3; 33:3. T. Witton Davies (1920 Peake’s) sees the asherim as “representations in wood of the old Semitic goddess Ashera, mentioned (Ashirta) in the Tell el-Amarna tablets... That pillars and Asherim are so often mentioned together supports the theory that the first were such altars as were used in sacrificing to the second” (p. 235 on Deuteronomy 7:5).

It was the tablets found at Ras es-Shamra (old Ugarit) that brought the goddess into prominence. This was evidence that a goddess of that name was worshiped in the general region

in the second half of the 2nd millennium BCE.

There is, and has been, a consensus that most of the biblical references are to some sort of wooden object (“sacred pole”) used at cultic sites (“high places”) in conjunction with standing stones (massebas) and, not always mentioned (assumed?), altars. But the objects associated with the asherim differ in the different books of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the association with high places and stone pillars is characteristic of the Deuteronomistic History (assuming meanwhile the reality of this description). And even if this is a fair inference from the Dtr text, it is still an open question whether this corresponds to beliefs of the people at the time written about, or it is a polemic redefinition by the Deuteronomist(s).

For example, the stereotyped formula for Judah in the Deuteronomistic History: “For they [Judah] also built high places, pillars and sacred poles on every high hill and under every green tree,” 1 Kings 14:23 – as according to 2 Kings 17:10, Israel also did. King Asa in 1 Kings 15:12 does not remove the sacred poles by name! Besides the qedeshim (“sacred prostitutes”) he removes “the idols his fathers had made,” and in v. 13 he removes his mother from being Queen Mother because she made “an abominable image” for Asherah. Hezekiah indeed removes pillars and the sacred pole (note the singular) in 2 Kings 18:4.

This action has been seen as the fulfillment of Exodus 34:13: “You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles.” Yet in Exodus these objects are seen as part of the worship of another god (v. 14), which they are not in Kings, rather they are the wrong worship of the right god.

In 2 Kings 21:3, 7 “an Asherah” (v. 3) is later referred to as the image (pesel) of “the” Asherah (v. 7). It is not clear whether the verb in this passage refers to the asherah or the pesel; and a translation of the phrase ⊃ăšer ⊂āśāh does not appear in the original text of the LXX (cf. BHS). The parallel account in 2 Chronicles 33:7 claims that Manasseh set up pesel hassemel, where 2 Kings 21:7 has pesel hā⊃ăšērāh. Thus in the time of the Chronicler, asherah was likely seen as the statue of some (foreign) deity, probably not called “Asherah.”

Most commonly it is accepted that the asherim are wooden objects, originally connected with a goddess – but whether they were objects used in her worship, symbols of her (artificial trees?), or actual images, is not clear. Nor do we know whether or not Asherah was still worshiped as a goddess in the first millennium BCE, or whether merely the symbols have survived. Nor is it clear whether the apparent references to a goddess are genuine recollections of an earlier worship, or a later polemic when cult objects for Yahweh were no longer a problem, but the attraction of foreign goddesses was.

Yet some of the biblical references seem to refer to an actual goddess, though exactly which ones is not agreed on, and it is not unanimous that any do. The dating of the composition of the texts is, as usual, debatable. Hence for the Hebrew ⊃ăšērāh; the NRSV English translation uses the form Asherah in: Deuteronomy 16:21 (ftn.); Judges 6:25, 26, 28, 30 (all ftn.); 1 Kings 16:33 (ftn.); 18:19 (text); 2 Kings 13:6 (ftn.); 17:16 (ftn.); 18:4 (ftn.); 21:3 (ftn.); 21:7 (text); 23:4, 6, 7 (all text); 23:15 (ftn.) and 2 Chronicles 15:16 (text). The text to the footnotes reads “sacred pole.”

Despite this quasi-consensus, the LXX idea that asherah is a temenos or shrine is supported by several recent writers. In Lipiński’s opinion, the only texts which mention a goddess or her emblems are Judges 3:7 and 1 Kings 18:19, both of which he considers textually dubious (1972, p. 114). Even those who believe that the word is the name of a goddess think that in origin it may be derived from the word for “place” or shrine, as in Akkadian, Phoenician and Aramaic.

Further discussion of the biblical evidence will be given in the section on the Bible. We shall here position the actual situation in monarchic Israel/Judah – as revealed in the contemporary inscriptions – between the goddess worship of the second millennium and the (largely) wooden object of the Hebrew Bible and shrine/trees of the LXX in the late first millennium BCE, and try to see the evolution of the concept of asherah over time.

The differences in opinion among scholars about the meaning of the word in the inscriptions are to a large extent determined by the weight given to the data BEFORE the inscriptions as opposed to the data AFTER the inscriptions.

In the second millenium BCE material, asherah is emphatically a goddess. However, this material is not in Hebrew and belongs to a culture of a different time and different place. We know that even if a god name is found in different cultures, this does not mean that the entity is thought of in the same way by the Hebrews – and indeed there are several aspects of the Ugaritic goddess which are not found at later times. On the other hand, while the biblical data is in Hebrew and comes from the same general region and culture, it is later and polemic. The de-deification of gods by the Deuteronomists is well established. We have no evidence that the idea of a cult object called an asherah is not the invention of the Deuteronomist. Thus to explain the asherah in the inscriptions by means of the biblical data may be anachronistic. We can only try to see how the idea may have progressed over time.

Three sets of data are available for our understanding of the early first millennium: the Ugaritic literature – the myths, legends, and lists on the clay tablets found at Ras es-Shamra, Syria, dating to the late second millenium BCE; contemporary inscriptions – inscriptions found in the Palestine area, dating to the first millennium BCE; and iconography – the study and interpretation of images, drawn or modeled, figurative or symbolic.


Early Evidence

In Babylon, a goddess Ašratum, partner to the god Amurru, was worshiped in the period between ca. 1830-1531 BCE. She is known there as “the Lady of the Steppe” (bēlet sēri); “bride of the king of heaven” kallat šar šamī, and “mistress of sexual vigor and rejoicing” (bēlet kuzbi u ulsi). These titles appear to connect Ašratum with “Amorites,” who came from the north-west of Babylon.

In the texts from Mari, 1830-1760 BCE, most of the population seems to be “Amorite,” and a “land of the Amurru” is mentioned.

Lipiński (1972, pp. 101-3) discusses several South-Arabian inscriptions, a North-Arabian stele, and a few Thamudic personal names, which bear witness to the goddess Athirat in Arabia in the middle of the first millenium BCE.


Ugarit

From the Ugaritic literature, the myths and legends of 14th century Ugarit, known from the tablets found at Ras es-Shamra, we know that Athirat (as Asherah was then pronounced) was the chief goddess of the city state. She was the wife of the high god, El. She is called “creatress” (or, perhaps, “mistress”; CTA 4.i.23; iii.26, 30, 35; iv.32, qnyt ⊃ilm), “of the gods” and probably “mother of the god(s)” (PRU II.2.43, ⊃um ⊃il[m]), although the name of the deity here is not mentioned.

Athirat also has some connection with the sea. Her full title appears to be “Lady Athirat of the Sea” (rbt ⊃atrt ym).

Athirat and probably Anat are called “the wet nurses [of the gods]” (CTA 15.ii.26-8, mšnq[t ⊃ilm]). The text is broken where the second name occurs, but as btlt is preserved, one may assume that Anat is indicated. Athirat has this nurturing function in another text as well: that of “Shachar and Shalim and the Gracious Gods” (cf. also Wiggins 1993, pp. 74-9 and the references there, e.g. CTA 23 ([KTU 1.23]). This text mentions in lines 23-4 that the gracious gods “suck the teats of the breasts of Athirat” (ynqm b⊃ap zd ⊃atrt [wrhmy]); (and Rahmay; perhaps to be identified with Anat in light of CTA 15.ii.26-8, although it must be noted that nowhere else is Anat called Rahmay). Athirat thus has some connection with birth and fertility. Whether or not this makes her a “fertility goddess” will be discussed in the section on plaque and pillar figurines.

Unless the figurines have relevance, these features of the Ugaritic goddess are not found in the biblical text, which is not surprising since there is room for doubt whether a goddess is mentioned at all.


INSCRIPTIONS FROM TIMES WHEN THE WORSHIP WAS LIVING

Subsections

* Inscription #3 from Khirbet el-Qom

* Pictures and Graffiti from Kuntillet ⊂Ajrud

* The Ekron Inscription


Inscription #3 from Khirbet el-Qom


There has been considerable scholarly debate concerning inscription #3 from Khirbet el-Qom, located 12 kilometers (8.5 miles) west of Hebron and 11 kilometers (6.5 miles) ESE of Lachish (grid ref. 1465-1045). The text was illegally chiseled out from a pillar in a burial cave near the site of Khirbet el-Qom (cf. Dever 1970, p. 146), which Dorsey identifies with biblical Makkedah (1980, p. 192). Palaeographically, the inscription dates to ca. 750 BCE (Lemaire 1977, p. 603; G. I. Davies 1991, p. 106 #25.003; Smelik 1991, p. 152; and Dever 1970, p. 165); however Dever states in n. 53 that Cross prefers a date closer to 700 BCE, as also perhaps Ahituv (1992, p. 111), who identifies this inscription as #1, as against all others for whom it is #3. For photographs of the inscription see Dever 1970, pls. VI B and VII; Malamat 1979, pl. 38; Zevit 1984, fig. 6; and Ahituv 1992, p. 113.

The inscription is difficult to read, for several reasons. First, besides being naturally cracked and faulted, the stone surface appears to have been poorly smoothed and prepared. The tools used to smooth the writing surface left further ridges and striations in the rock. The long scratches on the surface of the stone were made before the inscription was written, perhaps while it was being smoothed to prepare it for the inscription. The letters of the inscription have been cut over the long scratches, as is evidenced by the tiny ridges of chalk displaced by the act of gouging out the letters. The long scratches cannot therefore be considered an attempt to “erase” the inscription. Secondly, when the inscription was incised, the engraver formed some letters with a high degree of pressure, thereby making a strong impression in the rock, but other letters were poorly formed and hardly incised at all. This creates difficulties for anyone trying to read the text, for the strokes of the letters are barely distinguishable from the natural cracks and striations in the rock. Indeed, Dever believes that the text is more a graffito than a true inscription. He thinks that the stylus was probably only a sharp stick (1970, p. 162).

This has not made interpretation easy and makes dogmatism impossible. (On the other hand, it gives us a little more confidence in the text; forgers, as we have seen, tend to produce rather good and clear texts.)


My transcription reads as follows:

1. ⊃ryhw.h⊂šr.ktbh

2. brk.⊃ryhw.lyhwh

3. wmsryh l⊃šrth hwš⊂lh

4. l⊃nyhw

5. l⊃šrth

6. wl⊃??rth


1. Uriyahu the rich wrote it.

2. Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh

3. for from his enemies by his (YHWH’s) asherah he (YHWH) has saved him. **

4. by Oniyahu

and at bottom:

5. by his asherah

6. and by his a[she]rah


**Alternatively, if we consider lyhwh and l⊃šrth a compound linguistic stereotype hendiadys (cf. Melamed, 1961, pp. 131-3), this line would read “(and) by his asherah, for from his enemies he has saved him.”


There is debate over the use of word dividers; there are indeed word dividers in lines 1 and 2, although the one after brk (blessed) is not certain.


Line 1: This line most probably reads ⊃ryhw.h⊂šr.ktbh (cf. G. I. Davies 1991, p. 106 #25.003.1). A close inspection of the second letter of the second word reveals that the long scratch is not a part of the letter, which is indeed an ayin, albeit poorly incised. This is probably due to the difficulty in writing the letter over this long scratch, which apparently was already there. Jaroš notes that the fact that the ayin is a triangular shape is not troublesome, since circular and triangular ayins are known to appear next to each other (1982, p. 32). The transcription should therefore be read h⊂šr, as suggested by Lemaire (1977, p. 599), Miller (1981, p. 317), and Zevit (1984, p. 40), and contra Mittmann (1981, p. 141), who doubts that a “rich” man would advertise that fact in a funerary inscription. Not only does this transcription do justice to the inscribed text, it also conforms to the context. We may think of Isaiah 53:9, unless this is a corruption.

The last word in this line, ktbh, raises an interesting problem. The use of ktb as a noun in the sense of a written document (ketāb ) is not attested in pre-exilic times; pre-exilic Hebrew used miktāb. O’Connor asks if ktb could be a term for some kind of verse (1987, p. 229 n. 7) and takes this first line as a heading: “Uriah the prosperous: his message” (1987, p. 224). Zevit (1984, p. 44) notes further that the syntax of the line is also strange for pre-exilic Hebrew. If ktb were used as a noun, one would expect ktb (l)⊃ryhw h⊂šr instead. Lemaire (1977, pp. 599-600) seeks to solve the problem by regarding ktbh as a suffixed Piel verb, thereby translating “l’a fait écrire.” However, the Piel form occurs only in Isaiah 10:1, where it is not used in a causative sense, as it would be in the inscription, but rather is used in a frequentative sense, which would not fit in this case. The Piel is not used in post-biblical Hebrew either, as the causative is expressed by the Hiphil. In the light of this, it is probably best to regard ktbh as a suffixed Qal (cf. Mittmann 1981, p. 142; Jaroš 1982, p. 33; also Müller 1992, p. 41 n. 109). However, it does not necessarily follow that Uriyahu himself had to carve out the inscription (although that could also be possible; cf. Müller 1992, p. 41). He could have had someone else inscribe that which he had dictated, and yet still state that he “wrote it” (cf. 2 Kings 10:1 where one is not meant to assume that Jehu himself wrote all the letters that were dispatched). In this case, Uriyahu “wrote” the inscription that was carved out of the rock, perhaps by Oniyahu.

Line 2: Dever (1970), Lemaire (1977), Naveh (1979), Miller (1981), Mittmann (1981), Jaroš (1982), Spronk (1986), G. I. Davies (1991, p. 106 #25.003.2) and Ahituv (1992, p. 111) are all agreed that this line reads brk.⊃ryhw.lyhwh. Zevit (1984), on the other hand, finds a faintly inscribed taw after the kap in brk, thereby reading brkt “I blessed,” and thus making Abiyahu (his reading of line 4) bless Uriyahu and pray on his behalf. This would follow the formula discovered at Kuntillet ⊂Ajrud (see below, especially inscription #1), but the absence of the direct object marker in this instance (unlike the formula) could be an argument in favor of rejecting the reading brkt.

Line 3: This line creates the most difficulty, mainly because it has the most “shadow writing.” It appears that someone has retraced many of the letters, thereby leaving “ghost images.” Whether this was done by the writer or some later visitor to the cave is uncertain. The duplicated letters are on the whole very faintly inscribed, and may have served as some sort of emphasis. This duplication of the letters makes the line difficult to read and open to many interpretations. Jaroš (1982, pp. 33-5) and Zevit (1984, pp. 41-2) both tackle the extraneous letters and perform an admirable task of deciphering the numerous scratches and making some semblance of order out of the chaos. Dever (1970, p. 161) originally read the third line as wm⊃rr.ydl⊃šr thhwš ⊂lh, which he translated “and cursed shall be the hand of whoever (defaces it).” Garbini reads m⊃rr yd kl ⊃šrt hhwš⊂ lh and argues that the word ⊃šrt means “to bless” and is used euphemistically for its opposite “curse,” on the basis of the inscribed hand. Since the hand is turned downwards, Garbini thinks that it is a curse, rather than a blessing. He translates “and cursed be the hand of everyone (female?) who would curse his salvation” (Garbini 1978, pp. 192-3). There are several problems with this reading, which Dever admits (1970, pp. 160-2). Indeed, in his 1984 article (p. 22; and cf. 1990, p. 148), Dever appears to have abandoned this earlier reading and seems to follow Naveh and Lemaire. Therefore, a discussion of the inherent problems with this earlier reading is unnecessary.

Another interesting treatment of this line is that of Mittmann, who reads wmmsr ydh l⊃l šrth hwš⊂ lh, and translates “und aus Bedrängnis heraus preist er den Gott seines Dienstes, der ihm hilft” (“and from affliction he praised the God of his service [the God whom he serves as priest], who helps him,” 1981, p. 144). Whereas this transliteration is possible in theory from the letters that appear to be inscribed on the stone, it does not seem to be likely. To get this reading, Mittmann has to read the head of the first doubled resh as a dalet, written before the yod. He then considers that the double engraving on the head of the he is the dalet in its correct place, followed by a shadow he, which he takes to be the he of ydh (1981, p. 143). Furthermore, Dever (1984, p. 32 n. 6) believes that the necessary vocalization of Mittmann’s consonantal rendering makes for awkward syntax. However, the problem is not so much syntactical, but that to get Mittmann’s reading, one would expect the Hiphil of ydh here, which would be hwdh, but the yod in the text is well defined, and likely to be correct. Furthermore, the use of “the God of his service” (l⊃l šrth; or “the God to whom he ministers as a priest”) is strange. Additionally, the second lamed which Mittmann needs to obtain this reading is probably one of the “ghost” letters, as it is faint and tentative, unlike the first lamed. It is better to consider this second lamed as a “shadow” of the first one. A better translation is that of Lemaire (1977, p. 599), Miller (1981, p. 317), Jaroš (1982, p. 34), and Zevit (1984, p. 43), reading wmsryh l⊃šrth hwš⊂lh.

Zevit considers the he in l⊃šrth to be a mater lectionis for a final a vowel, rendering the double feminization of the name as Asherata (⊃ašērātā; and see Angerstorfer 1982, pp. 11-14, who vocalizes ⊃šrth as aširta, and considers her a separate goddess, related to the Ugaritic Athirat). This use of the he as a mater lectionis is well attested from the eighth century BCE onwards (Zevit 1984, p. 45, and cf. Zevit 1980, p. 14). Zevit continues by comparing Asherata to other proper names, such as Yotbata (Numbers 33:33), Timnata (Joshua 19:43), and Ephrata (Micah 5:1 [Eng. 2]), as well as to some nouns in poetic texts. Whereas his examples are all perfectly justified in themselves, there is no evidence for this double feminine on a personal name, as distinct from a place name. Rather, these should probably be taken as instances of an old ending of direction or intention, now used merely for the sake of poetical emphasis (GK §90g, also n. 1, and cf. Ugaritic; and cf. Müller 1992, pp. 31-2 for the interpretation of the ending in these place names as feminine accusative/genitive).

Line 4: The word l⊃nyhw has also been read as l⊃ryhw; but this is unlikely – the resh and nun are not similar enough to be confused. It might also be l⊃byhw, but there is no other nun to compare it with. Oniyahu may be a later member of the same family, buried in the same tomb. The writing may be slightly different but does not necessarily imply a different writer. The relationship to the preceding three lines is uncertain. This fourth line may indicate the writer of the inscription or, since pre-exilic texts are usually not signed, the name may indicate the addition of a later burial in the tomb.

Lines 5 and 6: Line 5 has a clear reference to asherah, the only word clearly recognizable. Line 6 may also refer to her/it, but as is, is not legible.


Pictures and Graffiti from Kuntillet ⊂Ajrud

The Nature of the Site

Kuntillet ⊂Ajrud, “the solitary hill of the water-wells” (Meshel 1978b, p. 50), is located approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) south of Kadesh-barnea in northern Sinai, on a hill overlooking Wadi Quraiya (grid ref. 0940-9560; cf. North 1989, p. 119 for possible origins of the toponyms). The site is strategically located near an intersection of several ancient routes traversing the desert: the Darb el-Ghazza from Gaza and the southern Mediterranean coast southwards to Eilat; the east-west route following Wadi Quraiya; and a branch route south to Themed and southern Sinai. In three seasons of excavations over the years 1975-6, a team from the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, under the direction of Ze’ev Meshel, uncovered remains of what Meshel believes to be an Iron II religious center from the end of the ninth, beginning of the eighth century BCE (Meshel 1979, p. 27). This date is largely confirmed by an analysis of the pottery at the site (Ayalon 1995), as well as Carbon-14 dating (Segal 1995).

I suggest that this site was a hostelry, perhaps an example of the biblical mālôn (Genesis 42:27; 43:21; Exodus 4:24; and Jeremiah 9:1 [Eng. 2]). The architecture does not suggest a shrine, nor the pottery. It is only the inscriptions which suggest a religious use of the site, and these seem to indicate travelers not pilgrims, as the inscriptions refer to gods of other sites (e.g., Samaria), and the travelers are of different cultures.

Several pieces of frescoes and inscribed wall fragments were discovered in the bench room, a few of the adjoining rooms, and in the eastern building. The inscriptions are in Phoenician script (although Ackroyd 1983, p. 250 questions whether or not one can differentiate between “Phoenician” and “Early Hebrew” script; but for differences between scripts, especially Philistine but also Hebrew and Phoenician, see Naveh 1985), and mention several deities, including yhwh, b⊂l, ⊃l, and ⊃šrh (in the form ⊃šrth). Although fragmentary, they seem to be of a prayerful or dedicatory nature. Meshel believes that originally these fragments would have been on the walls and door jambs, where traces of inscriptions are still to be found (1978a, “The Inscriptions”; no page numbers in text). One of these plaster inscriptions will be discussed below (for more on this inscription as well as the other inscriptions on plaster see G. I. Davies 1991, pp. 80, 82; Smelik 1991, pp. 157-8; Ahituv 1992, pp. 158-62; Meshel 1993, p. 1459 and 1994, p. 100).

The inscriptions on the pithoi have been the most studied.

Pithos A: Inscription 1, over the heads of the Bes figures (see section on iconography below) reads:


⊃mr. ⊃...h...k. ⊃mr. lyhl[l⊃l] wlyw⊂śh. w... brkt. ⊃tkm. lyhwh. šmrn. wl⊃šrth.


“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.”


Several suggestions may be made for the first name. Meshel has suggested ⊃Ashyahu (=Joash), t[he kin[g]] (Weinfeld 1980, p. 284; Meshel 1986; 1993, p. 1462; 1994, p. 99; cf. G. I. Davies 1991, p. 81 #8.017). The date is possible, but a little extreme, and the suffixed divine name is both not biblical form and not consistent with the only readable name here which has a pre-fixed theonymn.

lyhwh. šmrn was originally translated as “Yahweh our guardian” or “Yahweh who protects us” (Jaroš 1982, p. 59). A better translation is “Yahweh of Samaria” (Emerton 1982, p. 3 following a suggestion of Gilula 1978-9). This fits with the “Yahweh of Teman” in the second inscription.

The inscription also invokes the blessing of “his asherah.” (There is the possibility that this should be “its [Samaria’s] asherah,” cf. 1 Kings 16:33; 2 Kings 13:6; cf. Tigay 1987, pp. 173-4. However, this interpretation is not usually accepted, especially in light of the inscription on Pithos B.) Who/what is this asherah? That it is not the personal name of a goddess is suggested by the use of a pronominal suffix, which though known in Ugaritic, is not exampled anywhere in biblical Hebrew. Margalit, taking the word as generic, translates it as “his consort” (1990, p. 284). If asherah means shrine, then this would be “his sanctuary” [temple?]. This meaning has not been found in Hebrew (but compare the LXX translation, which despite Deuteronomy 16:21, should probably be translated “shrine” not “grove”). Therefore, in this inscription, “his asherah” most probably refers to the wooden cultic object representing the goddess Asherah, which is often found in Yahweh’s temple. Olyan believes that the asherah mentioned in the books of Kings is the same that is acting as an agent of blessing in the inscription. He states that “when the biblical and epigraphic data are correlated, the chronology certainly fits” (1988, p. 33). Koch believes that the Israelites considered asherah to be a kind of “power for felicity,” or else linked with some special association with blessing (1988, p. 100).

Pithos B: Inscription 2 reads:


⊃mr ⊃mryw ⊃mr l.⊃dny hšlm. ⊃t brktk. lyhwh tmn wl⊃šrth. ybrk. wyšmrk wyhy ⊂m. ⊃d[n]y...k


“Amaryau says: say to my lord: Is it well with you? I bless you by Yahweh of Teman and by his asherah. May he bless you and keep you and be with my lord...”


This inscription reads like a letter heading. We may compare an ostracon from an Edomite shrine at Horvat ⊂Uza: ⊃mr.lmlk.⊃mr.lblbl./hšlm.⊃t.whbrktk/lqws. “(Thus) said Lumalak [or limelek]: Say to Blbl./ Are you well? I bless you/ by Qaus” (Beit-Arieh and Cresson 1985, p. 97; and cf. G. I. Davies 1991). Teman is probably a region of Edom (Emerton 1982, p. 10. We must allow for the possibility that it is a general word for southern land, or a town in Judah, cf. Temeni in 1 Chronicles 4:6. See also Zechariah 9:14.) If so, this suggests that Edom too had a sanctuary for Yahweh AND his asherah, or Asherah also had a sanctuary (“its asherah”), unless of course asherah means sanctuary.

This is significant in the light of the Edomite inscription above, which confirms Qaus as the god of Edom – and we know of no other gods for Edom. Amaryau is a northern Israelite form of theophorous names.

Inscription 3 reads:


kl ⊃šr yš⊃l m⊃š hnn... wntn lh yhw klbbh


“Whatever he asks from a man, may it be favored...and let Yahw(eh) give unto him as he wishes (according to his heart).”


Inscription #8.022 of G. I. Davies 1991 has yhw (sic. no final h) but does not mention asherah. When I studied this pithos in the Israel Museum, I noticed that above this inscription is one of the other texts mentioning Yahweh of Teman (Meshel counts five of them). It reads lyhwh. htmn. wl⊃šrth “by [or, for] Yahweh of Teman and by [or, for] his [or its] asherah” (cf. G. I. Davies 1991, p. 80 #8.016; and Ahituv 1992, p. 156 and Keel and Uehlinger 1992, p. 257). Ahituv and Keel and Uehlinger include this inscription with number 3. The lack of an h with Teman in the other inscriptions and the uncertainty of the final m mean that this inscription needs further study.

Inscriptions on plaster mentioning asherah read:


ytnw.l . . . ⊃šrt


“They will celebrate unto/ give to . . . asherah/Asherata”


These two fragments may be separate. The word for asherah reads ⊃šrt without a final h, usually interpreted as “his.” If this is not merely broken off, it would support the reading in the Ekron inscription (see below), and perhaps Zevit and Hess’s proposal to read the name as Asherata.


The Ekron Inscription

During the summer of 1990, 15 inscriptions on pottery shards were discovered by a team of archaeologists led by Trude Dothan of the Hebrew University and Seymour Gitin, director of the W. F. Albright Institute for Archaeological Research, at Tel Miqne (Khirbet el-Muqanna⊂; grid ref. 1356-1315), thought to be biblical Ekron (Dothan and Gitin 1993, p. l052; and cf. Dothan and Gitin 1992); and now a new inscription discovered at the site seems to make that identification certain (Gitin 2005, p. 51; Dothan and Gitin 2008, p. 1957). The site is located 35 kilometers (22 miles) south-west of Jerusalem, along the edge of the inner coastal plain, near the Shephelah which served as a “buffer zone” separating Philistia and Judah.

The relevant inscription written on a storage jar – probably for olive oil – of the seventh century BCE reads: qdš l⊃šrt “for (the goddess) Asherat” (Dothan and Gitin 1993, p. 1058), or “sanctified to Asherat” (Anonymous 1990, p. 232; and cf. Gitin 1990, p. 59 n. 18; Wolff 1991, p. 514; Gitin 1993, p. 250; for photographs of the inscription see Wolff 1991, p. 514 fig. 25; Gitin 1993, p. 251 fig. 2a and 2b; Dothan and Gitin 1993, p. 1058). It should be noted that this inscription appears to be written on the same storage jar, but with the two words on opposite sides of the vessel. Because the inscriptions consist only of either isolated letters or one or two words, and because inscriptions from the coastal cities at this time are so few, we do not know what language is represented here. Gitin thinks it may be Phoenician, but as no inscription has the biblical spelling ⊃šrh, we cannot know whether or not the Hebrew of the time also spelled it, as here, ⊃šrt with a final t. The reflection of semblance between ⊃šrt and the ⊃šrth discussed above might suggest that it was a goddess’s name, pronounced as in Ugarit; or on the other hand it might give weight to the idea that the goddess in question was known as Ashirta (Angerstorfer 1982) or Asherata (see especially Hess 1991, 1995 and 1996). If this were the case, then the suggestions of Hess (1991), Zevit (1984) and Angerstorfer (1982) should perhaps be re-examined.

This is also a warning not to readily back-project a biblical meaning to these earlier texts. Since the Phoenician word asherat does have the meaning “shrine,” it is possible that it has that meaning here. The finding of another word lmqm does not invalidate this, as maqom refers to the whole temenos area (cf. Lemaire 1994, p. 146).


ICONOGRAPHY

Subsections

* Khirbet el-Qom

* Drawings from Kuntillet ⊂Ajrud

* Finds from Lachish

* Pella Cult Stands

* Ta⊂anach Cult Stands

* Conclusions


Khirbet el-Qom

Though the hand, probably apotropaic, is interesting, it apparently has nothing to do with asherah. It may be a left hand – but this seems very unlikely. It is a right hand, palm out. Margalit (1989, p. 371) interprets the additional scratches depicted on my drawing of the inscription (Hadley 2000, p. 85 fig. 1, and cf. Hadley 1987) as a depiction of a rudimentary tree, symbolic of the asherah mentioned in the inscription. In my drawing of the inscription, I included only those scratches which intersected with parts of the inscription. Apart from these, there are numerous other scratches, some deeply incised, and some less deeply. Therefore, those scratches which Margalit interprets as a rudimentary tree are only some of the many scratches on the surface of the rock, including some in the incised hand and between the fingers. (For a photograph of the full inscription with these scratches see Dever 1970, pls. VI B and VII and Zevit 1984, fig. 6.) Finally, many of these scratches are oriented from the left downwards to the right, thus running in a contrary position to Margalit’s tree (cf. Hadley 2000, p. 85 fig. 1 for only one of several of these scratches). Therefore, it is best to interpret the “tree-like” nature of these scratches as an interesting coincidence, unrelated to the inscription.


Drawings from Kuntillet ⊂Ajrud

The drawings on the pithoi are mainly animal motifs – horses, ibexes, a boar, lions, a tree flanked by two ibexes, and a cow and a calf. There are, however, human figures, including worshipers, two grotesque figures and a lyre player. The search for an iconography of the goddess has focused on the two last sets. Are the drawings illustrative of the inscriptions? The brush lines of the two are dissimilar, and inscriptions overlap drawings – and the drawings seem to be earlier than the inscriptions. In short, there does not seem to be any intentional relation between the two.

Are any of these human figures female? The two grotesque figures are questionable: is the appendage between their legs a penis or the tail of a lion skin? Do the indicated breasts of the right hand grotesque figure – and of the lyre player – represent female breasts? While some have suggested that the pair of grotesque figures represent Yahweh and his consort, Asherah (cf. Gilula 1978-9, pp. 134-5), the most likely interpretation of the figures is that of Bes (despite the lack of distinctive physical characteristics typical of iconographic representation of dwarfism). The scene would then be apotropaic, with Bes, a minor Egyptian god, warding off evil (for a thorough discussion see Beck 1982, pp. 27-31; supplemented by Keel and Uehlinger 1992, pp. 246-52 and my discussion in Hadley 2000, pp. 137-44). The right hand figure is not female in general depiction, and the representation of Bes with breast and nipples is not unknown. But the differences do suggest a different painter, and that any interpretation of the two as a unified composition is unwarranted.

If neither of these grotesque figures is Asherah, what of the lyre player? The musician is depicted sitting on a “throne,” above and to the right of the two standing Bes figures. The player is facing away from the Bes figures. Dever (1984), though accepting that the two figures are Bes figures, argues that the lyre player is Asherah. Again we ask, is this figure even female?

a) Clothing.

Dever (1984, p. 23) believes that the dots on the seated figure represent an ankle-length skirt and a shawl around the shoulders. Iron Age parallels show that the depiction might be of a short kilt plus a long robe. Once again, the depiction of breasts is not conclusive. After all, both men and women have breasts and nipples.

b) Hair style.

The style of coiffure of the ⊂Ajrud lyre player is a common Egyptian style male wig.

c) The “lyre.”

One of Dever’s examples which he believes is especially instructive is an LB bronze stand from Episkopi, showing on one panel a seated lyre player with a similar hairstyle to that of the ⊂Ajrud figure, and interpreted as a male (Dever 1984, p. 24; and cf. Barnett 1935, pl. 28, and Catling 1964, pl. 34). Catling is unsure whether the figure is human or divine (1964, p. 206). As this figure has been identified as a male, and as Catling’s figure with a similar garment as well as a similar coiffure also appears to be male (1964, p. 209), it seems that this “especially instructive” parallel helps to confirm my opinion that the ⊂Ajrud lyre player is male (and cf. Loud 1948, pl. 76, fig. 1, which depicts a Philistine jug from Megiddo, showing a male lyre player).

d) The “throne.”

Dever identifies three characteristics of the stereotyped features of the sphinx or cherub throne known from Late Bronze-Iron Age Canaan. These are (1) lion’s-paw feet, (2) the paneled sides, which he believes represent the stylized feathered wings of the cherub, and (3) “the distinctive short back with a tendency toward a back-turned flair at the very top, recalling perhaps the tips of the cherub’s wings” (1984, p. 24).

We may compare the chair of Princess Sitamun from the 18th Dynasty (Baker 1966, color plate 4b) to this “throne.” Although this belonged to a princess, note that it is considered a “chair,” not a throne. Yet it has lion’s-paw feet, paneled sides (although in this instance paneled with Bes figures, and not with a scale pattern. For a chair of Princess Sitamun with a scale pattern see Metzger 1985, Tafel 32, Abb. 229), and a sloping back. Many of the New Kingdom and later Egyptian chairs had sloping backs, with upright supports as well, which are missing on the ⊂Ajrud chair. Therefore, the closest stylistic parallels for the ⊂Ajrud “throne” are those of a chair of a princess, and not a goddess or even a king. Even if the lyre player is female, and of some high rank, there is nothing to suggest a goddess. Certainly no goddess would play accompaniment for a minor deity like Bes. But as there is no obvious connection between the lyre player and the grotesque figures, this is not a necessary argument.

Other suggestions.

Schroer (1987, p. 30) interprets the “cow and calf” motif to be representative of Asherah. She believes that the semel of the Old Testament may have been a representation of the goddess as a cow. However, the association of Asherah with a cow is not exampled.

Who the worshipers are worshiping is not clear, though Taylor (1993, pp. 217-18) argues from the way the heads and eyes are depicted that they are worshiping the sun.

I suggest that Asherah may be represented on the pithos by her symbol. The association of Asherah with a tree is indeed arguable. The association of the “tree of life” with a deity is clear, and the “sacred pole” of the Bible is quite possibly a symbolic tree (and see Deuteronomy 16:21). Thus the sacred tree flanked by ibexes may well represent Asherah. The lion beneath may represent Asherah’s supporting animal (though Wiggins 1991, pp. 387-9 does not agree that Asherah is associated with lions).


Finds from Lachish

1. The Late Bronze Age ewer.

This ewer, found during the Starkey expedition to Lachish in 1934, probably dates to the late 13th century BCE, i.e. near the beginning of the Iron Age. It has a series of very roughly drawn animals and trees, with an inscription above. The inscription was read by Cross (1954 and 1967) as mtn.šy [l][rb]ty ⊃lt “Mattan. An offering to my Lady ⊃Elat.” Puech (1986, p. 18) tentatively suggested reading the name Reshef after Elat. The word Elat is positioned over a representation of a tree. This is unlikely to be a coincidence, and may suggest the identification of Elat with Asherah. As Asherah was known as the consort of El, the name Elat may refer to Asherah, unless it is a generalized name for a goddess, which is unlikely in a dedication. If the first animal in the series is a lion, so identified by Hestrin (1987b, p. 213; 1991, p. 54) despite the feathery tail, this may be a further identification of Asherah.


2. The gold plaque.

The plaque depicts a naked goddess, standing on a trotting horse, and holding two lotus blossoms in each hand. The figure resembles “Qudshu” figurines, and Qudshu most probably is another name for Asherah. However, the horse support is a problem. Asherah appears to be associated with a lion; so this goddess is more likely Astarte, who is often associated with horses (cf. Clamer 1980, pp. 160-1).



Pella Cult Stands

These two stands, probably from the 10th century BCE, resemble the “horned altars” known from excavations at Israelite sites. The best preserved one has an intriguing incised tree motif. The other, poorly preserved, is highly decorated. The front of this second stand has a “façade” with two naked female figures. The figure on the right has a Hathor-type coiffure. The object under this figure is not preserved, but the figure on the left is standing on an animal, either bovine or a lion. Most scholars seem to think it is the latter. If so, then the representation may well be that of Asherah, as the Hathor wig would suggest.

It is a pity that these two stands were not discovered in situ, but rather mixed up in a rubbish dump (cf. Potts 1990, pp. 97-100).


Ta⊂anach Cult Stands

1. “Lapp’s” stand.

The stand is built up of four superimposed hollow clay squares topped by a ridged basin, and is well preserved (Lapp 1969a, p. 42; cf. Glock 1978, p. 1147; and 1993, p. 1432). On the façade (and continuing to the sides) of the stand are human and animal representations. Four different levels are present. On the lowest register, a naked female is standing en face, flanked by two lions. She is grasping the lions by the ears. In the next register, two sphinxes with Hathor headdresses are represented. No symbol of divinity has been preserved between them. It appears that the edges of the clay around this hole have been smoothed, and so it may be that a hole was intended to be in this position, with no other symbol. The next highest level again portrays two flanking lions. However, in this case, a tree between two ibexes is depicted, instead of the naked female figure. The ibexes are standing on their hind legs, and eating (blossoms?) at the top of the tree. The top scene portrays a pair of voluted columns flanking a quadruped which is supporting a sun disk. At the bases of the two columns are two smaller objects, which may depict cultic stands. The identity of the quadruped is a matter of some debate; Lapp (1969a, p. 44); Dayagi-Mendels (1986, p. 163); Hestrin (1987a, p. 67; 1991, p. 57); and M. S. Smith (1990, pp. 20, 51), among others, believe that it is a bull calf. Glock (1978, p. 1147; 1993, p. 1432) and Taylor (1987a; 1987b; 1988), on the other hand, believe that it is an equid (but see Glock 1992, p. 290 where he appears to follow Hestrin’s suggestion of a bovine). The most likely interpretation is that it is a horse, because the tail is represented as hairy, the pointing of the ears, the long muzzle, the prominent hooves, and the absence of horns (Taylor 1993, pp. 30-2 and 31 n. 2; 1994, p. 57; and cf. Keel and Uehlinger 1992, p. 180).

We may argue that the top scene represents Yahweh (or El, perhaps already identified with Yahweh). There is general agreement that the naked female figure and the tree flanked by ibexes on the second and fourth levels are depictions of Asherah (Taylor 1988, p. 560; cf. Dever 1983, p. 573; Dayagi-Mendels 1986, p. 163; Hestrin 1987a, p. 77; 1987b, p. 220; 1991, p. 58; Taylor 1987a; 1987b; 1993, pp. 28-9), but not total consensus. The goddess is thus represented both by a symbol and by an anthropomorphic depiction. Taylor argues that the “hole” in the third tier is the equivalent of the anthropomorphic representation of Asherah, and indicates the lack of iconography of Yahweh (1988, p. 561; and cf. 1993, p. 29). Although there is no sign of burning within the stand, it is also possible that the hole allowed fire internally to represent the deity.


2. “Sellin’s” stand.

This stand is more poorly made than the other one, but it is of the same general style (cf. Sellin 1904, p. 75 fig. 102 and pls. 12-13; Lapp 1969b, p. 16; Glock 1978, p. 1144). It appears that this stand depicts alternating registers of sphinxes and lions on the sides, with the tree and ibexes in the bottom center. In this case, however, a pair of sphinxes flanks the tree and ibexes scene. Finally, on the top of the stand is a protuberance which looks like part of a proto-aeolic capital. There are thus some resemblances to the other Ta⊂anach stand, although Beck interprets them differently (1994, p. 381). But they may both represent the same two deities, Yahweh and Asherah.


Conclusions

This iconographic evidence suggests that in the 13th century BCE Asherah was worshiped in Lachish also, and that her symbol was a stylized tree attended by ibexes. In the tenth century she appears to be worshiped alongside of Yahweh, as evidenced by the Ta⊂anach stands.


FIGURINES

The female figurines found so commonly throughout the region have often been known as “Astarte figurines.” Now, with the popularity of Asherah, some of these are beginning to be associated with her instead.


Subsections

* Plaques

* Pillar Figurines


Plaques

Tadmor separated these figurines into two groups, the recumbent figurines (“concubine”) without signs of deity, and the standing figurines with symbols of deity. She argues that the first group represents human figures, and so will not be discussed here (cf. Tadmor 1982).

The “goddess” figurines.

These figurines have been found both in Egypt and in the Levant. They represent a naked female facing front. The legs may be separated, with the feet turned sideways. The goddess may be wearing a “Hathor” style headdress and be holding lotus plants or snakes. They may be standing on horses or lions. As the lion is often associated with Asherah, the ones mounted on the backs of lions may be meant as representations of Asherah.

The Winchester College relief (Edwards 1955) has a naked female figure, standing on a lion, wearing the “Hathor” wig and holding snakes. Written in hieroglyphs is the inscription “Qudshu-Astarte-Anat.” “Qudshu” is inscribed above the figure, and the other names on each side. Some therefore interpret qdš as “holiness” of the two goddesses named (cf. Stadelmann 1967, pp. 112-13; Patai 1976, p. 203). It is impossible to be confident in identifying the goddess portrayed here, especially as it would seem that there is fluidity in identifying these three (or two) goddesses.


Pillar Figurines

These rounded figurines become the norm in the Iron Age (IA II, post 1000 BCE) especially in Judah. They have been discussed extensively by Holland (1975) and Engle (1979).

The heads were finely made in an open mold, while the bodies are crudely hand-made. The breasts are exaggerated, and supported by hands or arms. Below the waist, the figurines are unmolded, forming “pillars” and devoid of any sexual indicators.

That these figurines are pottery and not wood makes it difficult to believe that they were the asherim of the Bible. It is possible that they are copies of larger statues to be found in sanctuaries. It is, of course, possible that the figurines are not strictly cultic but have some other, unknown, function.


ASHERAH IN THE BIBLE

Subsections

* Words Used with the Word Asherah/Asherim

* Asherah/Asherim and Deuteronomy

* Josiah’s Reform

* “The” Asherah?

* Passages Where Asherah May Be the Goddess

* Passages Which May Originally Have Referred to the Goddess

* Conclusion


Words Used with the Word Asherah/Asherim

That the objects were made of wood is abundantly clear. The verbs used with asherah are:


krt; “to cut”: Exodus 34:13; Judges 6:25, 26, 28 and 30; 2 Kings 18:4; and 23:14.

gd⊂ (Piel); “to cut down”: Deuteronomy 7:5; 2 Chronicles 14:2 [Eng. 3]; and 31:1.

śrp; “to burn”: Deuteronomy 12:3; (implied in Judges 6:26); 2 Kings 23:6; and 23:15.

nt⊂; “to plant” or “to establish” (cf. BDB, p. 642c): Deuteronomy 16:21.

⊂śh; “to make”: 1 Kings 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3, 7 (although in v. 7 it is unclear whether the asherah or the pesel of the asherah is meant); and 2 Chronicles 33:3.

bnh; “to build”: 1 Kings 14:23.

⊂md; “to stand”: 2 Kings 13:6; (Hiphil) “to set up”: 2 Chronicles 33:19.

nsb (Hiphil); “to set up”: 2 Kings 17:10.

ys⊃ (Hiphil); “to bring out”: 2 Kings 23:6.

dqq (Hiphil); “to make into dust”: 2 Kings 23:6; and 2 Chronicles 34:4.

swr (Hiphil); “to take away”: 2 Chronicles 17:6.

b⊂r (Piel); “to consume, burn, remove”: 2 Chronicles 19:3.

thr (Piel); “to purge”: 2 Chronicles 34:3.

šbr (Piel); “to break into pieces”: 2 Chronicles 34:4.

nts; “to pull down” or “to break down”: 2 Chronicles 34:7.

ntš; “to pluck up”: Micah 5:13 [Eng. 14].

The verbs in Isaiah 17:8 (r⊃h “to look upon”); Isaiah 27:9 (qwm “to arise” [after being cast down]); and Jeremiah 17:2 (zkr “to remember”) are more general. However, here the asherim are paired with altars or images, and thus the implication is that the asherim are objects.

In addition to these passages, there are some verses in which asherah does not seem to be an object (especially 1 Kings 15:13; 18:19; 2 Kings 21:7; 23:4 and perhaps 7; 2 Chronicles 15:16; and possibly Judges 3:7, which is textually doubtful). This has led most scholars to conclude that the goddess Asherah is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible in addition to the wooden cultic image.



Asherah/Asherim and Deuteronomy

Almost all the references come from the Deuteronomistic literature or later. The date of composition of the book of Kings is much debated, and the existence or nature of sources within it even more so. But it is unlikely that anything like the present book was written before the time of Hezekiah, and the references to A/asherah appear to belong to the historian, and not to any postulated sources.


Josiah’s Reform

Some scholars have suggested that the asherah was an invention of the Deuteronomistic writers to explain the fall of the northern kingdom and to warn Judah of a similar fate if she did not repent. Their arguments fail if the account of Josiah’s reform is accurate.

One of the reforms of Josiah is said to be the removal of cultic objects dedicated to Baal and Asherah from the temple (2 Kings 23:4) and the bringing of “the [not “a”] Asherah” out of the temple (2 Kings 23:6), and burned it, crushed the charcoal and scattered it on graves (to pollute even the ashes). (2 Kings 23:15 omits the definite article, but in curious language. The burning of the high place is described in the same terms as the burning and crushing of the asherah in v. 6 – the burning of the asherah looks like an addition by a scribe who missed reference to it here.)

The Asherah is in this chapter both a goddess (vv. 4, 7) and a wooden object (v. 6: image? symbol? JB has “sacred pole” in v. 4. NRSV “the image of” Asherah). The women weaving for Asherah (v. 7: the qedeshim?) are in the temple of Yahweh, which again suggests that Asherah was the spouse of Yahweh. The reference to Baal in v. 4 is obviously polemical, as Baal and Yahweh are too obviously rivals for them to co-exist in the same temple, although in some places Baal is another title for Yahweh (Hosea 2:16). There is the possibility, of course, that it means objects dedicated to Baal appropriated to Yahweh, but of which the author disapproved, though this is unlikely.

Most scholars hold that the account of Josiah’s reform is basically historical, and used reliable sources, but some see it as merely a narrative based largely on Deuteronomy 12. There is little that strikes one as obviously independent, but the relationship between the text and that in Deuteronomy is hard to determine. The date of composition of the Deuteronomistic History (framework of Deuteronomy to end of Kings) is strongly disputed. The regnant US view is that a first draft was composed in the reign of Josiah (a king otherwise unknown to history) and a supplemented version was composed after the fall of Jerusalem. But a later date of composition, though with its own problems, cannot be totally ruled out.

The reform of Josiah has been attributed to political motives, specifically the desire to throw off Assyrian hegemony. This was forcibly argued by Oestreicher in 1923 (p. 39). Since then a dispute has raged as to the extent to which Assyrian religion was imposed (or adopted “voluntarily”) by Judah. Gressmann in 1924 (pp. 313-37) agreed with Oestreicher, counting asherim as Assyrian. So too Nicholson (1967, pp. 9-17), who considered the account in Chronicles, which dissociates the reform from Deuteronomy, to be the less tendentious. McKay (1973) and Cogan (1974), among others, argued that Assyria did not export its cult. Spieckermann challenged this view, arguing indeed that Asherah was essentially the Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar (1982, p. 221). But the debate is not resolved.


"The" Asherah?

The Hebrew word asherah is usually defined in the biblical text, either by the definite article or a pronominal suffix. Nine times out of the forty occurrences it is undefined (absolute singular: Deuteronomy 16:21; 2 Kings 17:16; 21:3; and 23:15; masculine plural: 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10; and Isaiah 27:9; and feminine plural: 2 Chronicles 33:3. In 2 Chronicles 15:16, the vowel pointed after the preposition l indicates indefiniteness, while in the parallel passage in 1 Kings 15:13 it is usually pointed as definite, though some editors prefer the indefinite.

The NRSV translates Deuteronomy 16:21 as: “You shall not plant any tree as a sacred pole [Asherah; ftn. and RSV] beside the altar that you make for the Lord your God”; the JPS translation is: “you shall not set up a sacred post – any kind of pole.” The older translation of “an Asherah of any kind of tree” (RV) is not defensible because ⊃šrh is not a construct. If we do not have an explanatory gloss here, the JPS Tanakh translation seems the most acceptable. The verb used here, nt⊂, is usually translated “to plant” and has therefore led some scholars to believe that asherah must be a living tree. However, nt⊂ can also be used in the sense of “establishing” a people (several references in BDB, p. 642c); the heavens (Isaiah 51:16); a tent (Daniel 11:45); nails (Ecclesiastes 12:11); and the ear (Psalm 94:9). It is therefore not necessary to insist that asherah must be something which can grow, merely because of the verb used. One would not expect asherah to be definite in this verse because the prohibition is about anything which could serve as an asherah. This passage further illustrates that an asherah can be made of different types of wood. It may well have come in different sizes, and may also preserve a hitherto relatively unknown practice of dedicating an asherah (as a wooden pole) to any deity.

The remaining verses which do not have the definite article with asherah are polemics against “foreign” cults or cultic objects in general (1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 17:10, 16; 21:3; 23:15; 2 Chronicles 33:3; and Isaiah 27:9). Presumably the Deuteronomist did not care about any specific asherah; they were all idolatrous, and so they all had to go. In three of these passages, asherah is singular. 2 Kings 17:16 falls within a larger polemic about the evils of the children of (north) Israel, rationalizing their subsequent deportation to Assyria. In this verse, “asherah” probably refers to the asherah which stood in Samaria, and so is a single item anyway. Six verses earlier, we have “asherim” on every high hill and under every luxuriant tree, and so that verse would presumably refer to the other asherim situated at the high places throughout north Israel.

Similarly, 2 Kings 23:15 describes Josiah’s reform extending to the sanctuary at Bethel, and so refers to the asherah in the sanctuary there. The preceding verse chronicles the destruction of the masseboth and asherim (in this case definite), and would therefore cover the remaining asherim throughout the country. It is interesting that v. 15 is the only place within this account of Josiah’s reform where asherah appears indefinite. Perhaps “the asherah” is reserved for that which stood in Jerusalem, and therefore the one which would be known to the writer’s audience (although Ahab’s asherah is also definite in 1 Kings 16:33). Koch (1988, p. 101) thinks “the different syntactical use raises the question whether or not the capital’s Asherah has been portrayed somewhat differently than as a sacred pole, which in other places is what is most likely meant.” Furthermore, th

Yes, she was! And can't wait to have the time to really peruse this posting. Thanks!

Hey, Mel, can you summarize the above? :-)

First off, I think we're talking Jesus here, right?

Most Hebrew men of that time got married. It would have been weird to not do so.

But Jesus was a radical, so maybe he did it differently.

What is clear is that many of Jesus' followers, fans, entourage were women, and the parables show his kindness to them, not the least of which is Mary Magdalene.

We are taking Jesus, yes

For the sake of plagerism please post a link source to the above info.

The address to the website is at the top of the post, showing where he copy paste this article. Also has the article info just below it as far as who wrote it, collage, and date.

If they hadn't been it would of been closed.

This is not a forum on Jesus. This about the theory of whether the ancient Israelites as other people were multi-theistic. So this is way before the question of Jesus in any respect.

There is evidence to suggest that the wife of God was purposely edited out to make the statement that God is all male in nature.

"There is evidence to suggest that the wife of God was purposely edited out to make the statement that God is all male in nature."


This statement makes no sense to me.

If a man takes a wife, is he not still male in nature? If so and God is male in nature, it doesn't matter if He had or has a wife. He would still be male in nature.

In all honesty, if God had a wife, wouldn't that make Him more obviously male?

Well, unless He is a She...then She would be lesbian and that's a whole other ball of wax. LOL

Wow....to begin, this is a long thread, almost impossible to read the content without loosing touch of the subject. God Wife..Mm..I don't recalled in my mind Jesus (If that is the God that you are referring) having a wife. I am talking about the Bible by King James. If you follow the chronological even of the Jesus life, by now you should know that He die around the age of 33. Most of his life he was traveling from place to place, bringing his doctrine about heaven and his father plans for the humans race. Wife...nope...there was no wife.

Its not referring to Jesus its referring to the god that Jesus was the son of. As the Christians would say God the Father.

Sorry, Mel. Thought about this afterward and that you're talking Old Testament, which I haven't read.

What I have read is that the culture responsible for the Old Testament was heavily anti-female, much like some of the repressive societies in the Middle East now.

i found the post to be very interesting and intelligently written. ive read a bit about "gods wife", but not being of that particular belief system its just interesting trivia to me. i still think that the monotheist thing got going with the amarna period in ancient khemet.
still, very interesting.
~W~

I am partially confused (rarely happens) regarding the original posting. Which definition are we ascribing too? The "God" before the Anglo Judeo-Christian concept?

Are we refering to one of the books of the Evengelion that was taken out of the Bible so the Catholic Church could save face because the Bible had so many contradictions to their dogma and belief system that they had to make a Male potentate for the world to bow down to, without said female counterpart for the face of the male identity? Is that what we are refering to? Instead of regular phalic worship that the Catholics want to so blatantly deny in their own way, Paganistic Male/Female God and Goddess concept?

Throw this thread a bone here...

The thread is concerning the Ancient God of the Israelites, and not during the time of Jesus. There even biblical evidence as well in genesis. "And God (Elohim) said let is make man in our images. So God (Elohim) created man in their image. Now, the word for God-Elohim is directly translated as "Gods" in the plural sense.

Also in the Temple up to 70 AD when the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, there was found a separate worship patio with an Asherah Pole. This patio was for the worship to "God's Wife."

Asherah poles were a part of the ancient temples for centuries. They were ordered cut down in the more ancient times, however there were Israelites that kept the poles.

The Covenant of the Ark has a feminine figure with wings, which is actually a replica of the Goddess Isis.

While some might say that religion started sexism, one can easily also imagine that sexism transcends religious belief. Simply put, religious texts were written by men and as civilization moved toward strict division of the sexes and thought less of women, our stories changed or were edited to reflect those views.

Mel...

I think most Christians would believe that the "our" in "...our image" would directly refer to the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

About the angels on the ark of the covenant...it is logical to conclude that there would be angels that appear female as there are male and female humans.

Just my opinion.

https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/an-ancient-view-of-god/the-masculine-and-feminine-nature-of-elohim

The Masculine and Feminine nature of Elohim
In our modern culture we tend to view God in masculine terms and imagery. While the word Elohim is a masculine noun, it does not have to imply that the Elohim is masculine. To illustrate this, notice that the word Elohim is used for a female goddess in the following verse.

For Solomon went after Ash'toreth the goddess [Elohim] of the Sido'nians. (1Ki 11:5, RSV)

In the first chapter of Genesis we receive our first glimpse of the nature of Elohim’s gender.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27, KJV)

Notice that in this verse it states that Elohim made humans in his image, but then it defines this image as male and female. From this we can conclude that the attributes of God are both masculine and feminine. We can then surmise that he placed his masculine attributes within the man and his feminine attributes within the woman and when a man and woman come together and become one[1], they together become the image of Elohim.

Another reference to the masculine and feminine nature of God can be found in the following passages.

Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, he is the King of glory. (Psalms 24:10, KJV)

Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. (Psalms 41:13, KJV)

In the first verse is the phrase “LORD of hosts,” which in Hebrew is Yahweh Tseva’ot. The word tseva’ot is the plural of the word tsava, a feminine noun meaning “force.” When two nouns are placed together they are in the construct state, therefore this phrase would be translated as “Yahweh of the forces.”

In the second verse is the phrase “LORD God,” which in Hebrew is Yahweh Elohim.” The word Elohim , as we have already identified, means “one[s] of power and authority,” or simply “powers.” Again, this phrase consists of two nouns put together to form a construct and should be translated as “Yahweh of the powers.”[2]

Notice that these two phrases are synonyms, one using a feminine plural word meaning “forces,” the other a masculine plural word meaning “powers.”

Also note that Yahweh is not the tseva’ot but a part of it, Yahweh is a part of the “forces.” In the same manner, Yahweh is not the Elohim, but a part of it, a part of the powers. I will go into more detail about Yahweh later.

The idea of a single male deity is unique to our modern era. In all the ancient cultures, the Elohim was a male and female. In Egypt it was Osiris (masculine) and Isis (feminine). In Canaan it was El and Elat (also known as Asherah). To the Greeks it was Zeus and Hera. To the Romans it was Jupiter and Juno. To the Germans it was Odin and Frigg. I am not necessarily trying to make the claim that the Elohim of the bible are a god and goddess, just that the attributes of Elohim are both masculine and feminine.


[1] Genesis 2:24
[2] For the translators to translate this phrase as “LORD God,” not only ignores the word “Yahweh,” which does not mean “lord,” but also the construct nature of the phrase.

Mel: Excellent points! You have found some amazingly key historical facts regarding the nature of "God" as originally existed prior to patriarchy and misogyny taking over.

It makes one curious why they would leave out "God's" wife and not leave out the hints of "Jesus's" mistress.

I do not believe in the bible. Hell, we could start writing a bible ourselves filled with mystic stories of magical pregnancies and men seelping in whales bellies for days. And I guarantee that in 50 years, if someone found it, It would be some huge discovery. They would be saying " the Bible has more than one book. There may be several more out there. And of course the bible beaters would do whatever our book said and believe whatever it said. I think it's ridiculous. Of course that part was left out along with the adultery that I am sure went on and in my bible, Im gonna demand that Christs followers must not fear what they dont know but to embrace it and learn from it. Maybe then we can live in harmony?

Sorry about the rant!

http://www.matrifocus.com/LAM04/spotlight.htm


Though all three ancient Levantine great goddesses appear in the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, Asherah occurs most often: forty times in nine books. The biblical texts are hostile witnesses, for they either vilify the goddess or, more often, obliterate her grammatically, for instance, by referring to her in the masculine plural as "the asherahs." Until the Ugaritic tablets were deciphered beginning in the 1930s, most scholars did not even speculate that "the asherahs" might be obscuring a goddess(Hadley 2000:4). They interpreted "the asherahs" as either wooden poles, cult objects from Baal worship, or groves of trees. Only a brave few claimed that "the asherahs" referred to a goddess citing such passages as I Kings 18, in which "prophets of Asherah"(1) served Queen Jezebel(Binger 1997:111; Yamashita 1963:126). The first detailed study of Asherah in the Hebrew Bible after the Ugaritic discoveries concluded that "the asherah" represented both a wooden cult object and a goddess (Reed 1949:37, 53), a position some scholars still hold today.

Unquestionably, "the asherahs" were usually wooden; they stood upright, often beside altars, along with stone pillars. However, in at least eight instances, they are described as carved(Pettey 1990:45). Thus, far from being merely wooden "cult poles," they were probably quite large carved images. As was the case with cult statues in other areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, "the asherahs" almost certainly would have been "animated" ritually (Walker and Dick 1999:57). Thus they did not just represent the goddess, but actually were worshipped as Asherah herself. Further, according to the Bible, a statue of Asherah stood in the Solomonic temple in Jerusalem for about two-thirds of its existence (Patai 1990:50). Asherah "must, then, have been a legitimate part of the cult of Yahweh" (Olyan 1988:13).

The Hebrew Scriptures regularly pair Asherah's name, especially "the asherahs," with Baal's, so that some scholars have wondered whether Asherah had ousted Astarte as Baal's consort. In 1963 Yamashita noted that most of the references to Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, including those pairing Asherah with Baal, were associated with only one source (1963:123-137). Later, Olyan argued very convincingly that the biblical attacks on Asherah were "restricted to the Deuteronomistic History"(2) and to texts exhibiting Deuteronomistic influence. For instance, the numerous pairings of Baal with Asherah's "cult symbol," called "the asherah," are part of a reformist, monotheistic "anti-asherah polemic" aimed at discrediting "the asherah" by associating it with Baal and Astarte (Olyan 1988: 1, 3, 13-14). This polemic was necessary because Asherah "had some role in the cult of Yahweh … not only in popular Yahwism, but in the official cult as well" (Olyan 1988:74).

In addition to the testimony of the Hebrew Bible, there is also considerable archaeological evidence that may throw light on the role of Asherah in the religion of the early Israelites. First, a considerable number of small, clay, female statuettes, which archaeologists usually call "pillar figurines," have been unearthed all over Israel. Dating to the eighth and early seventh centuries, that is, to the height of the Israelite monarchy, they occur in almost every excavation of the period (Kletter 1996: 4, 40-41).(3) So many pillar figurines have been excavated in the heartland of Judah that they are often regarded as "a characteristic expression of Judahite piety" (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:327; Kletter 1996:45).


Clay pillar figurine. Israel.
9th Century BCE.
S. Beaulieu, after Patai 1990: Plate 6.
This statuette depicts a female naked to the waist with prominent, usually heavy breasts, which she supports or cups with her hands. The backs of most are rough, perhaps indicating that they were to be viewed from the front, maybe in a household shrine (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:332). The figurines get their name from the fact that the lower part, which looks like a long, flared skirt, is usually described as a pillar or a pedestal, even as "pole-like" (Kletter 1996:28; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:332).

In the past twenty-five years, a number of scholars have suggested that the pillar figurines may depict the goddess Asherah (Toorn 1998:95; Kletter 1996:81; Hestrin 1991:57). Some base their arguments on seeing the lower part of the statuette as like a pole, a description which suggests that they interpret the biblical "asherahs" as poles and therefore understand the figurines as "small clay counterparts of the larger wooden Asherah poles which were set up by implanting them in the ground" (Patai 1990:39). However, such a suggestion seems unlikely, since the flared bases of the figurines are not "pole-like." On the other hand, the clay figurines could have been "popular, domestic copies of some larger Asherah image" from an important shrine (Hadley 2000:202).

Whatever explanation we give for both the textual "asherahs" and the pillar figurines, it seems likely that, during the Israelite Monarchy, both were associated not with Canaanite worship, but with Israelite official and popular religion. That leads me to ask the obvious question: What was Asherah's role in Israelite religion? Could she have been the consort of the Israelite god?

Relatively recently, startling archaeological discoveries in modern Israel have strengthened the arguments that Asherah was the Israelite god's consort (Hadley 2000: 86-102). One dig was in the heartland of Judah, the other in the northern Sinai. Several blessing inscriptions from the sites contain a controversial phrase possibly to be translated as "Yahweh and his Asherah." Even more exciting are drawings that accompany the inscriptions, especially those from the Sinai site (Toorn 1998:88-89).

The Sinai sketches appear on several pieces of pottery from two large jars found in a strange structure in the northern Sinai (Hadley 2000: 111, 119). One of the accompanying inscriptions reads: "I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and his [/its] Asherah," while the two others use the formula: "I bless you by Yahweh of Teman (the South) and his [/its] Asherah" (Toorn 1998:89). Interpretation of the phrase "by his [/its] Asherah" has led to much scholarly disagreement.(4) Some translators argue that the pronoun "its/his" should be translated "its" and read as referring, respectively, to Samaria and Teman. Thus, the blessings would be appealing both to the Israelite god and to famous "cultic installations," the "asherahs" of Samaria and Teman (Binger 1997:108). Others translators translate the pronoun as "his," understanding it to be referring to the Israelite god, and so render the phrase as either "Yahweh and his asherah [cult object]" (Hadley 2000:124; Olyan 1988:33) or "Yahweh and his Asherah [goddess]" (Toorn 1998:90; Binger 1997:108; Patai 1990:53).


Jar A drawing. Kuntillet 'Ajrud, Israel.
Early 8th century BCE
click image for larger view/details
S. Beaulieu, after Keel and Uelinger 1998: 213, figure 220.
Associated with the inscriptions are some amazing drawings full of rich symbolism (Hadley 2000:116-119, #4, #5, #6, #7). Fascinating and evocative, they provide considerable support for understanding "asherah" as a goddess. Although there are drawings on two sides of one jar and on one side of the other, they do not appear to constitute "a coherent composition" (Beck 1982:4). Rather they present "a series of motifs," many of which would have been very familiar to most inhabitants of the ancient Eastern Mediterranean. One of the pictures depicts a cow suckling a calf, two standing figures, and one seated figure playing a lyre (Hadley 2000:115, #3; Beck 1982:9, #5). The blessing "by Yahweh of Samaria and his/its asherah" overlaps the headdress of the larger of the standing figures.

Some scholars, including the excavator of the site, consider the inscription to be connected to the drawing (Meshel 1986:239). A few then interpret the standing figures as possibly the Israelite god and Baal and the seated lyre player as possibly Asherah (Coogan 1987:119; McCarter 1987:146-147). However, another interpretation of this drawing seems more likely: Beck's carefully developed and widely accepted conclusion that the standing figures represent male and female Egyptian deities and the lyre player a temple musician (Hadley 2000:137-144; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:218; Beck 1982:4, 27-36).

Whatever the interpretation of the seated figure, there is certainly a goddess elsewhere in this picture: the cow suckling a calf (Hadley 2000:115, #3). The cow-and-calf image, which had wide distribution in the ancient Eastern Mediterranean, was "one of the most popular motifs of the first millennium in Western Asia." It appears on many seals and on an "enormous quantity of ivory plaques," beautifully carved by Phoenician artists of the eighth and seventh centuries BCE (Beck 1982:120). The cow-and-calf motif is usually connected with the symbol system of goddesses (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:215).


Jar A shoulder drawing. Kuntillet 'Ajrud, Israel.
Early 8th century BCE
S. Beaulieu, after Bonanno 1985:336, #21.
On the fragment coming from just around the shoulder of the jar, there is another drawing that has very strong goddess implications: a sacred tree with animals eating from it (Hadley 2000:117, #5; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:211, #219; Beck 1982:7, #4). In its details, this tree has obvious "parallels in the iconography of the sacred trees in the ancient Near East" (Beck 1982:13, 14-15). Although some interpreters argue that there is no significance to the relation between tree and lion in this image (Beck 1982:18), others think not only that the relationship is significant, but that it probably signifies a goddess (Hadley 2000:154; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:241). Whoever drew the sacred tree almost certainly intended it to represent a goddess, for the artist emphasized the goddess content by placing the tree on a lion's back, a stance assumed by numerous goddesses in numerous images. The lion also had a clear and time-honoured association with goddesses (Keel and Uehlinger 1998:86).

Whoever did the drawings on the first jar understood the symbolic tradition of goddesses very well and, probably intentionally, brought goddesses into the pictures by using three of the most prominent and potent goddess allusions: cow and calf, lion, and sacred tree. However, the drawings may or may not depict Asherah, either in person as the lyre player or in the symbols. Beck, among others, thinks that it is "doubtful if [the] scenes [on the first jar discussed] were connected to any particular deity" (Beck 1982:16). On the other hand, those who argue that the drawings show or allude to Asherah also use that possibility as support for interpreting the inscriptions as referring to her (Hadley 2000:152,153; Keel and Uehlinger 1998:236). For them, then, the drawings clarify the inscriptions and point to Asherah, both in Israel and in Judah, as the consort of the early Israelite god.

As for me, I tend to agree that Asherah was probably consort of the Israelite god. It seems likely that, in Canaan, the early Israelites, originally pastoral semi-nomads, were slowly becoming settled agrarians. As such they would have needed to worship deities who promoted their farming activities: a heterosexual couple one of whose concerns was the land's fertility. In that worship they would be like the cultures surrounding them. What would be more natural, then, than their adopting and adapting deities from the agrarian peoples among whom they were settling? So they identified their main god with Canaanite El(5) and, as consort for their own god, took over El's female counterpart Asherah.

Footnotes
(1) All quotations from the Hebrew Bible come from Tanakh 1988.
(2) The Deueronomistic History is "the theory of history in the biblical books Deuteronomy-2Kings and based on the hypothesis that these books were edited as a whole according to a consistent principle" (Bowker 1997: 271).
(3) The dates of the monarchy are 900-539 BCE. It was in the latter part of the seventh century BCE that Josiah, King of Judah, began his drastic religious reforms. Josiah was "one of the great heroes of the
Deuteronomists" (Binger 1997: 117).
(4) A few scholars have put forward what is clearly a minority view: the word"asherah" means "sacred place"; so they translate the critical phrase as"Yahweh of Samaria [or Teman] and his sanctuary" (Olyan 1988: 26, n.
16, n.19).
(5) There is considerable evidence that they did. See John Day's Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 2000) Chap. 1.

Works Cited
+ Beck, Pirhiya 1982. "The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet 'Ajrud)," Tel Aviv 9:3-68.
+ Binger, Tilde 1997. "Asherah: Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament", Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 232.
+ Bonanno, Anthony, ed. Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Eastern Mediterranean. Amsterdam: Gruener, 1985.
+ Bowker, John, ed. 1997. The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions. Oxford: Oxford University.
+ Coogan, Michael D. 1987. "Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel," 112-124, in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. P.D. Miller, Jr., P.D. Hanson, and S.D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress.
+ Hadley, Judith M. 2000. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
+ Hestrin, Ruth 1991. "Understanding Asherath[sic]: Exploring Semitic Iconography," Biblical Archaeology Review 17:50-59.
+ Keel, Othmar and Christoph Uehlinger 1998. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
+ Kletter, Raz 1996. The Judean Pillar-Figurines and the Archaeology of Asherah. London: Tempus Reparatum. British Archaeological Reports International Series 636.
+ Meshel, Ze'ev 1986. "The Israelite Centre of Kuntillet 'Ajrud, Sinai," 237-240, in Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. Anthony Bonanno. Amsterdam: Grüner.
+ McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1987. "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data," 137-155, in Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. P.D. Miller, Jr., P.D. Hanson, and S.D. McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress.
+ Olyan, Saul 1988. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
+ Patai, Raphael 1990 (1978). The Hebrew Goddess: Third Enlarged Edition. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
+ Pettey, Richard J. 1990. Asherah: Goddess of Israel. New York: Lang.
+ Reed, W.L. 1949. The Asherah in the Old Testament. Fort Worth, TX: Originally Yale University dissertation.
+ Tanakh - The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text 1988. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
+ Toorn, Karel van der 1998. "Goddesses in Early Israelite Religion," 83-97, in Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence, ed. L. Goodison and C. Morris. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
+ Walker, Christopher and Michael B. Dick 1999. "The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mis pî Ritual," 55-121, in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. Michael B. Dick. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
+ Yamashita, Tadanori 1963. The Goddess Asherah. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Ph.D. dissertation.

Graphic Credits
+ All images © Stéphane Beaulieu. All rights reserved.

women were written out f the Bible per se.
after all, it was written by men, to perpetuate the hiarachacal society.

funny really, there is much evidence Jesus lived, married mary magdalene and died in India at 65


but that 's ignored an all.

the bible is a piece of propaganda. For example, there is several contradictions within the thing itself.

one: " 58. Man was created after the other animals
Gen 1:25,26,27
Man was created before the other animals
Gen 2:18,19"

The rest can be found here http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm.

Since the bible was only a piece of propaganda, which encourages people to join, it had to remove women because during that time period women were seen as inferior. No man is going to follow a religion that prizes women except for one exception as being the one to birth the "savior".

Well, I never heard of any of it, but I do agree with the Bible contradictions. Some stuff most likely was lost in translation. Also, many authors would present a problem. To me its just another book with statements and opinions.

http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/asherahasherim-bible

ASHERAH/ASHERIM: BIBLE
BibliographyDiscuss
by Susan Ackerman

Asherah, along with Astarte and Anath, was one of the three great goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. In Canaanite religion her primary role was that of mother goddess. In mythological texts from the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 b.c.e.) city-state of Ugarit, she is called “the creatress of the gods”; her consort at Ugarit, the god El, is called “creator.” El is also referred to as father and patriarch at Ugarit, as Asherah, likewise, is called mother. Their children form the pantheon of the gods, who are said to number seventy; a Hittite myth similarly mentions the seventy-seven and eighty-eight children of Asherah. On occasion in Ugaritic myth, Asherah performs the maternal role of wet nurse. Ugaritic and other Canaanite materials further associate Asherah with lions (indicating power), serpents (representing immortality or healing), and sacred trees (signifying fertility). Thus Asherah’s children at Ugarit can be called her “pride of lions”; the goddess is called “lady of the serpent” in second-millennium b.c.e. inscriptions from the Sinai; the late-thirteenth-century b.c.e. Lachish ewer dedicated to Asherah is decorated with images of sacred trees.

The Canaanite association of Asherah with sacred trees is also found in Israelite tradition. For example, one of the Canaanite epithets of Asherah, elat, “goddess,” is etymologically identical to the Hebrew word for the terebinth tree (ela). Another word for “terebinth” (alla) and two words for “oak” (elon and allon) are also closely related. Gen 2:4b–3:24 may further suggest the association of Asherah with sacred trees, since the way that Eve, “the mother of all living” (3:20), is described in the Eden story mimics in certain respects the role of the Canaanite mother goddess Asherah. If a correspondence holds, then the trees of life and of knowledge in the Eden narrative may also reflect Asherah imagery.

Most significant, though, in demonstrating Israel’s association of Asherah with sacred trees are biblical materials that describe the asherah (singular) or asherim (plural), the cult object(s) that are associated with the goddess Asherah more than thirty times in the Hebrew Bible. These cult objects are generally described as being in the shape of a pole or stylized tree. Like a pole or tree, they can be said to be planted, stood up, or erected. Conversely, when destroyed, these cult symbols can be described as being cut down, hewn down, or uprooted; they can also be said to be burned, overturned, or broken. Both the Greek and Latin translations of the Bible, moreover, render the words asherah and asherim as “grove” or “wood.”

According to the biblical record, these sacred poles or stylized trees associated with Asherah were erected by the Israelites throughout most of their history, especially during the premonarchic (tribal) period (Judg 6:25–26, 28, 30)) and during the period of the divided monarchy, both in the northern kingdom of Israel (1Kgs 14:15; 16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6; 17:10, 16; 23:15; and parallel references in 2 Chronicles) and in Judah, in the south (1 Kgs 14:23, 15:13; 2 Kgs 18:4; 21:3, 7; 23:6, 14; and parallel references in 2 Chronicles). These sacred poles were situated in various locations. In Judges 6, a sacred pole of Asherah is said to have stood beside the altar of the Canaanite storm god, Baal. The Bible also connects sacred poles with the “high places” (open-air cult sites?) and frequently mentions that they stood “on every high hill and under every green tree” (1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 17:10; 18:4; 21:3; 23:13–14; 2 Chr 14:3; 17:6; 31:1; 33:3, 19; 34:3; Jer 17:2). Both of these phrases are stereotypically used by the biblical writers to describe sites of idolatrous worship, implying, as does Judges 6, that the worship of Asherah was an apostate behavior in Israel and improper for followers of YHWH.

Yet despite these and other references associating Asherah with apostasy (for example, Exod 34:13; Deut 7:5; 12:3; Judg 3:7; 1 Kgs 18:19), and despite the fact that the Israelites are explicitly forbidden in Deut 16:21 to erect one of Asherah’s sacred poles beside an altar of YHWH, there are multiple indications in biblical tradition that many in ancient Israel did regard Asherah’s cult icon as an appropriate sacred symbol within the religion of YHWH. For example, one of Asherah’s sacred poles stood next to YHWH’s altar at Bethel, one of the two great cult sites of the northern kingdom of Israel (2 Kgs 23:15). Another of Asherah’s sacred poles stood in that kingdom’s capital city, Samaria. The sacred pole of Samaria, moreover, which was erected during the reign of King Ahab (reigned 873–852 b.c.e.), was allowed to remain standing by the reformer King Jehu (1 Kgs 16:33; 2 Kgs 13:6), even though Jehu was generally at pains to remove all non-Yahwistic cults and cult imagery from the land. This fact suggests that Jehu perceived the sacred pole as appropriate in the worship of YHWH.

Archaeological discoveries from the late 1970s and early 1980s have further indicated that, at least in the opinion of some ancient Israelites, YHWH and Asherah were appropriately worshipped as a pair. From the site of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud, in the eastern Sinai, come three ninth- or eighth-century b.c.e. inscriptions that mention YHWH and “his Asherah” (meaning YHWH’s companion [consort?], the goddess Asherah) or “his asherah” (meaning YHWH’s sacred pole that represents the goddess Asherah and that sits in his temple or beside his altar). An eighth-century b.c.e. inscription from Khirbet el-Qom, about twenty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem, contains similar language in 1 Kgs 15:13 and 2 Kgs 18:4, 21:7, and 23:6 (with parallels in 2 Chronicles) indicate that at least during certain points in the ninth, eighth, and seventh centuries b.c.e., Asherah’s sacred pole was perceived as an appropriate icon to erect in Jerusalem, even in YHWH’s temple. Also, vessels in the temple were used to make sacrifices to Asherah (2 Kgs 23:4), and in a compound within the temple’s walls, women cult functionaries wove garments used to clothe Asherah’s cult statue (2 Kgs 23:7). Thus it appears that, although generally the biblical writers—especially certain prophets (Isa 17:8; 27:9; Jer 17:2; Mic 5:14) and the authors responsible for Deuteronomy, Judges, 1 and 2 Kings, and 2 Chronicles—regarded Asherah worship as inappropriate, at least some and possibly many in ancient Israel incorporated the goddess’s cult imagery and ritual into the cult of YHWH.

Unfortunately, our sources do not provide enough information to identify definitively which Israelites were particularly attracted to the worship of Asherah or the reasons for this attraction. One possibility is that in royal circles, especially in the southern capital city of Jerusalem, the cult of Asherah was particularly attractive to the king’s mother. Not only was the queen mother’s position in the palace generally paralleled by Asherah’s position as mother goddess in the heavens, but also the queen mother’s status as the wife of the king’s father suggests an affinity to Asherah’s cult. This is because southern royal ideology typically described the king’s metaphorical father as YHWH. For those ancient Israelites who saw Asherah as YHWH’s consort, this should suggest a correspondence between the queen mother, the wife of the king’s biological father on earth, and Asherah, the wife of YHWH, who was the king’s metaphorical father in the heavens.

Whether women, more generally, were more likely to be devotees of Asherah’s cult is unknown. There is some biblical evidence that does see women as particularly attracted to goddess cults (for example, women’s role in the cult of the queen of heaven, according to Jer 7:18 and 44:17–19, 25), and the various female figurines found in domestic contexts at multiple Israelite sites might also suggest this, assuming, as many scholars do, that women played an especially important role in family-centered religious activities. Nevertheless, the presence of Asherah’s cult in the Jerusalem temple and in the cult city of Bethel indicates that worship of the goddess was also appealing to men, given that it was an all-male clergy that officiated at these (and at every) Israelite religious site.

The presence of Asherah’s cult in Israel also raises questions about the nature of the monotheistic confession that is often assumed to be a core principle in Israelite faith. Generally speaking, biblical scholars assume that full-blown, radical, or philosophical monotheism came to Israel fairly late in its history, during the time of the exile in the sixth century b.c.e. Prior to this, we have abundant evidence that other gods and goddesses were worshipped in Israel in addition to (or sometimes instead of) YHWH. Yet even in these earlier materials, we sometimes see evidence of a phenomenon that comes to dominate in the exilic period: the impulse to assimilate the attributes of the many gods and goddesses of older polytheistic systems to the one god, YHWH. Language that speaks of God as mother, for example (as in Deut 32:18; Num 11:12–13; Isa 45:9–10, 49:15; 66:13), probably represents the assimilation of Asherah’s maternal characteristics to YHWH.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Susan. “The Queen Mother and the Cult in Ancient Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 385–401.

Ibid. Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah. Atlanta: 1992.

Day, John. “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105 (1986): 385–408.

Meyers, Carol, General Editor. Women in Scripture. New York: 2000.

Olyan, Saul M. Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel. Atlanta: 1988.

Wiggins, Steve A. A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’: A Study According to Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B.C.E. Kevelaer, Germany: 1993.

DISCUSS

Jesus isn't god. Christ sakes lol. Stop with the xianity. This mentions Babylonians which predate Israelites, which in turn spawn a false diety, or Idol. I'm not even religious and can smell all of this man made garbage a mile away. I'm extremely agnostic.

This is NOT about christianity This refers to ancient Israelite worship practises, and that their focus was multi-focal, not mono-focal.

Asherah Poles to Church Steeples

http://www.piney.com


"There are still in existence today remarkable specimens of original phallic symbols...steeples on the churches...and obelisks...all show the influence of our phallus-worshipping ancestors."
Perhaps it is fortunate that we do not know the origin of many things and statements we take for granted. Therefore, whether the erected column is a fence post, our god or a symbol of power may depend upon our attitude. However, seeing the spread of the use of the column as an "artistic enhancement" to churches it is tempting to ask: "Knowest thou what thou doest?"

Joseph Campbell, in Myths to Live by, shows that symbols of tribalism or religion have real power over others. Perhaps like voodoo its power depends upon what we believe.

Human sexuality has always been associated with "collecting lambs" or creating rain because the two were accidentially associated enough times. The prophet or prophetess with the best luck was freed from productive work and took on the role of what has been called "the world's oldest profession" -- prophesying or the uncovered effort Paul condemned in First Corinthians 11:5 (outside of the assembly" as he claimed (11:17f) that "your assemblies do more harm than good."

In the beginning a real person who had invented something -- often musical instruments, swords or methods of "calling down the gods" -- became "gods" after their death. By singing their songs or using their weapons one gained control over the physical and spiritual world. Nothing was more powerful in getting good crops or more lambs than a sexual form of worship.

The images or idols were created in their own human form and they usually had a hidden or mysterious meaning -- a coded message. In the following sequence one can see how the well-endowed "person" was incarnated as a pole or column.

For instance, Asherah is pictured in human form with lots of signs of fertility and sexuality:

In my opinion the "god" of the Hebrews was not bound by gender. The kings of Israel were notorious for worshiping other gods especially Solomon. Lastly women were instrumental in the old testament there were women that served as judges and i believe that there were more involved than we were allowed to read about .

Mel,

I have two theories on this after reading everything. One is that the ancient Isrealites did indeed worship God and his Wife.

The other theory is that the God they worshiped had two persona's one male and one female.

The dogma of it is that we were not there and unless God shows now, we cannot ask him/her. There are many religions that have both forms of worship that are just as old as the ancient Isrealites. If these religions have any basis in truth, I believe that the ancient irealites would have worshiped a God that had a wife, as women in those days were not as repressed as they became after the "birth of christ." It is funny how the conquers make history change.

you both make good points. BTW many of the church steeples are fashioned after sexuality oriented fertility Deity, including Asherah.

I'm not a cabalist which you would need to be in order to argue the finer points of ancient language and spelling.
But I'd like to take a guess and use some intuition to say no.
If I'm not mistaken it was Abraham who this divinity established the first BLOOD COVENANT(to cut) with through some animal he was instructed to sacrifice. To my understanding a BLOOD COVENANT is likened to marriage where the man exerts his dominance and authority to enter the virgin pussy to make it bleed(something they do naturally anyway). So it was this animal that served as a virgin pussy substitute to establish faith for Abraham when the divinity promised twice to bless him and his children.
Some groundwork needs laying for more understanding. I hope I dont offend any of you bound by oaths like Crowley did. I've been self initiated so I speak freely and think the best place to hide something is in plain sight(Sherlock Holmes).

I'm doing this draft in sections because after I spent the night posting it did not go through-them damn gremlins.
When dealing with patriarchal religeon as you dark kin are disscussing its all about the bird(teminology from a gay friend of mine). Nick Mann in "The Dark God" and "His Story" related well the use of geometrical archetypes in linear phallic forms. And not just in art, but philosophy and thought forms. Digital binary, this writing in lengthy streams, transcendental meditation, the use of lines to make words build just about every construction from the washington monument to the
borders of this screen, etc., etc.. Its cock everywhere. Its no wonder why Lilith is so pissed.

On a side note is'nt it Just to celebrate the shortest night during the summer solstice? Has not the sunlight and all this masculinity sublimated the Shadow giving rise to bloodlust and the power of the darkside? Is'nt
Her parylizing terror a blessing we all crave?

In contrast, Matriarchal religeon gave rise to cyclical patterns, labyrinths, runes and symbols, or just seeing the natural wild beauty in the Mother earth and heavenly bodies above.

Getting back to point the line that goes on forever from the splendorous pure glorious eternal god to the depraved unchaste evil Hell wherein lies the eternal abyss of judgement. The eternal errection of god is a duality good and evil or spirit and flesh.

It is this dichotomy between the flesh and spirit that answers your question in my opinion.

Spirit is attuned to the male and flesh the female. Although I think your right and were many idolic goddess forms built up via many cultures in the spiritual realm grounded in the followers. But I think this divinity was karmically linked to Abraham from some other eon. Not being built up like other spiritul forms or perhaps his spirit was sublimated by such decadence and the marriage had to be instituted by a beast substitution,
'for the puss is absolute'.
This BLOOD COVENANT was a sub and not the real thing so it was a promise for things to come. So it was later when his children came under the enslavement of Egypt that Moses was anointed to deliver them and make them his slaves to the law(ten commandments and stuff from leviticus that just sounds like a lot of BLOOD Magick to me with all those substitute pussies burning away- that is just a sweet smell to this divinity after his will of making them bleed is enforced-jealous god.
The point is that spirit came down in linear fashion to the mouth of prophets. If anything came through the flesh it was begging prayers and then the priest caste would minister to burning more pussies to appease him
you get the idea.
Another concept that needs to be understood is the microcosm within us(as above so below).

The hebrews day begins at sunset-Air-the head-male,the ambiguous nature of the female allows her head or pussy to be hear, next comes Midnight-the virtue of the femme is her mystery only cloaked in black beneath the Blood moon's light-Earth-conception, then Water-sunrise-birth-the cock(note circumcission)as well the ambiguous female head or pussy goes here, then noon-Fire-adolescense-with the hands and feet.
I made such a sacred reference to reveal the BLOOD COVENANT to note the rite of cutting the penis(more Blood magick). But ultimately the actual New Testement-the virgin birth of Jeshuah(Greek Jesus meaning son of Zeus) a lot can be lost in transliteration I think. So when the angel spoke to Mary and the holy spirit came upon her she conceived. The resultant birth was the actual BLOOD COVENANT- the promise(word made flesh) to Abraham. So Mary's virgin pussy bleeding was the second witness and later after he was anointed(christened) with the spirit became the sacrificial pussy Making it his will to make the flesh(female part) of himself allow the blood to be spilled unto death. Then his resurrection and ascendance.
Well this divinity and blood mage priests think all the bases are covered for eternal domination. ~fiendish smile~ I'm going to go with HER.

Though most of you probably think there is no logic to that, thats okay just chalk it up as the ramblings of a madman. Yet my conclusion from that is that divinity's wife is the flesh, and the bride of Jeshua is tthe church.
At least according to my understanding at this time.

OK but is there some documentation you can point to on that opinion?

No, like I said it was a guess mainly based on intuition. By the way I was'nt able to rate your profile because its disabled somehow. yet, here publically let me give you a 10 for content and people who favor you.

I understand that. There are many more videos on this on youtube you might be interested in

I believe that the Spouse of God can be no other than what many know as the Holy Spirit.

Master Mel, thank you to the highest for this fascinating post. And the academic resources that you have provided.

Victorya

Master Mel,

This post has brought to my consciousness how worthwhile it would be to learn from the veiled mysteries of the Torah, found in the Old Testament. Particularly, prior to the Flood.

It is said by many that the Torah holds outstanding information to include much earlier paradigms. Thank you so much.

You're welcome The original name for God "Elohim means male/female combines and is multiple in nature as two beings

sherah in Deuteronomy 33?

by David Steinberg

david@adath-shalom.ca

Home page http://www.houseofdavid.ca/


Dukstra wrote[1]

“The oldest (biblical) text in, which we meet the goddess Asherah is probably the ancient hymn I Deut. 33:2-3:

YHWH came from Sinai
and shone forth from his own Seir,
He showed himself from Mount Paran.
Yea, he came among the myriads of Qudhsu,
at his right hand his own Asherah,
Indeed, he who loves the clans
and all his holy ones on his left.


Accepting a minor correction to the text, it is possibly the only passage in which Asherah is mentioned as YHWH's spouse or companion under her own name, and under her title Qodesh/Qudshu.[2] In it, YHWH leads the myriads of Qodesh, which apparently may include gods and men, the heavenly and earthly family of El. This image closely resembles the mythical descriptions in the Ugaritic texts.”



I would like to suggest a slightly different treatment of this text[3]

YHW msn b’

zrH[4] mścr lm

hwpc mhr prn

‘t mrbbt qdš[5]

mymn ‘šrt lm

I would translate this as

YHWH came from Sinai
He shone forth from his own Seir,
He showed himself from Mount Paran.

Yea, he came out from among among the myriads of Qodeš (= Asherah),
at his right hand his own Asherah[6],


Nb. Each of the verse sections has 3 stressed syllables.

[1] Meinhardt Dukstra 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 ) by Bob Becking, Meindert Dijkstra, Marjo C. A. Korpel, Karel J. H. Vriezen, Sheffield Academic Press 2001

[2] Weinfeld, 'Kuntillet 'Agrud Inscriptions and their Significance', p. 124; Dijkstra, 'Yahweh, EI and their Asherah', pp. 68-69 van der Toorn, 'Yahweh', DDD', p. 918.

[3] I am accepting the Cross-Freedman view that the original contained no vowel letters. See p.97 in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry by Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and David Noel Freedman, SBL Dissertation Series 21, Scholars press 1975.

[4] see note 4 p.105 in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry by Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and David Noel Freedman, SBL Dissertation Series 21, Scholars press 1975.

[5] see note 7 p.105 in Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry by Frank Moore Cross, Jr. and David Noel Freedman, SBL Dissertation Series 21, Scholars press 1975.

[6] “The discussion of these texts revealed that scholars differ about the interpretation (of the Kuntillet el-'Ajrud inscriptions), reading either 'Asherata' or 'his Asherah' and also about the question whether only the sacred pole is implied. The initial objection to the rendering 'his Asherah' that a possessive pronoun could not be attached to a proper name, is increasingly proved to be unfounded by a great deal of comparative material (Especially P. Xella, 'Le dieu et «sa» déesse: I'utilisation des suffixes pronominaux avec des théonymes d'Ebla à Ugarit et à Kuntillet 'Ajrud', UF 27 (1995), pp. 599-610). Furthermore, this objection is no longer valid if one accepts that 'asherah', like Babylonian istaru might also mean a synonym or title for a goddess, in particular, the divine spouse.” Meinhardt Dukstra 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 ) by Bob Becking, Meindert Dijkstra, Marjo C. A. Korpel, Karel J. H. Vriezen, Sheffield Academic Press 2001, p. 117

I am reading ‘ašerato lamo assuming: (a) an original r got corrupted to d (see Cross-Freedman ibid. p. 106) . This can easily happen in either the old Hebrew or the Aramaic script. (b) a construction similar, to the admittedly much later, Song of Songs 1:6 karmi šelli.

jesus had to die on the cross as a virgin outside original sin too.the pure lamb and perfect sacrifice thing.the virgin mary is the daughter of god the father,the wife of god the holy ghost and the mother of god the son.im not supposed to call her the goddess with her own trinity of person though.

I think you may find, Mel, that the term Qodesh is more accurately rendered Qadesh, and refers originally to the sacred priestesses of the Temple of Inanna in Sumer. These were later...under Babylonian rule...forced into temple prostitution by that misogynist society (from whence Judaism and later Christianity and Islam found their own misogynist roots). However...originally, these were sacred women highly regarded as the spiritual/sexual leaders of Sumer's highly advanced culture.

Shades of who they were are hinted at here:

Beginning in the Old Babylonian period the title qadištu (Heb. kedeshah (qedeshah)) designates a class of priestesses. It should be noted, however, that the same term, both in Akkadian and in Hebrew, can mean "prostitute, harlot," in contexts where no cultic associations are overtly evident (cf. Gen. 38:16, 21–22, where kedeshah (qedeshah) alternates with zonah, "harlot"). This connotation probably relates to the institution of temple prostitution, or at least to the orgiastic rites often associated with fertility cults. In Deuteronomy 23:18 and Hosea 4:14 the term kedeshah (qedeshah) is clearly related to the cult.

The masculine plural qdšm, "priests, cu

The above quite is from: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0012_0_10947.html

As stated here, the term originally referred to female priestesses of the Sumerian Temple of Inanna who, after being so treacherously conquered by the Akkadians/Babylonians, were forced into what was called temple prostitution. However, originally these priestess in Sumer were honored as the spiritual and sexual leaders of Sumer. They were those who participated in the annual Sacred Marriage Rite with the ruling male descendants of the fabled "Sons of God" (Genesis 6:1-4). These were the multiorgasmic males called the "Fallen Angels" in Judaism and were later demonized as "Vampires" by Christianity.

Be careful, Mel, as you are getting dangerously close (as modern Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions would view it) to discovering the true nature of the Divine.


-- Upir'

Soooo...uhhh what does this have to do with vampires guys and ladies? God's Wife? do vampires here also claim a form of Christianity too? Boy this is NEW a little screwed up if you ask me though. anyways I do agree with what zombie said tho about the whole if god was a male what does having a wife have to do with that but geez this is a really long post didn't quite get to the rules of swearing not that I feel the need to use it or anything (* glance * glance * glance*) and sorry if I managed to offend anyone I'm just shocked by all of this. & wow this is a really long post think my add kicked in around line "OVER 9 THOUSAND!"

-TheWhiteRabbit

Since we're talking about the Bible here...

I don't find the term "vampire" anywhere in it.

Jesus was and is the ultimate authority on Christianity, not some deranged priest.

You won't find the term "Christian" in the Bible, either. Does that mean they didn't exist?

The term "Vampire" is Slavic in origin. The Biblical authors weren't Slavic. Thus, naturally, you won't find such a Slavic term inside a Jewish ancient text. However, you will find its Greek equivalent (the New Testament Gospels were written in Greek).

Dr. Bruce McClelland, in his book "Slayers and Their Vampires", goes to great lengths to translate the term Vampire (Upir)...and most accurately translates it as "one who feasts. With this English translation of the term "vampire", go read the Book of Jude in your New Testament. Against whom, exactly, is this warning directed? Pay attention to the references to the Fallen Angels, and to their descendants living in Sodom and Gomorrah.

A question for you : As the protest in question

(Damn Android phone!)


A question for you: As the priest in question was a highly educated translator of ancient texts working directly under and for Prince Vladimir II (son of Yaroslav the Great), why do you call him "deranged"?

The term "Christian" is in the Bible (1 Peter 4:16)

The book of Jude was a warning to believers against apostates.

I don't care the nature of the priest's education. His statement is incorrect (as a Christian).

You missed the point being made: the term "Christian" is English, not Greek. Thus the word "Christian" is not found in the original Greek translations. Just like the Slavic word "Vampire" won't be found there, either.

(On a side note: there are many modern terms common to Christianity not found in the Bible though are undeniably Christian in nature... such as "Rapture", "Second Coming" and "Millennium.")

As for Jude being against apostates, if so why weren't they identified as such, which Paul does in Acts calling apostates "wolves in sheep's clothing" entering the flock and sparing none. Yet in Jude, rather than using such a well-known depiction as already given by their leader, Paul, instead these different men are compared to and identified with the "Fallen Angels," themselves. Further, they are apparently only found participating in the highly specialized and...eroticized... "Agape" feasts.

i beleive that there are higher powers or thing we truly will never understand about the world we live in ...but i dont believe stereotypically in GOD

as for the original question

most ancient religions exhibited male and female versions of there numero god

some went masculine some feminine

if the bible is a true recollection of events of the time then being male orientated it is easy to see that the powers that be would remove evidence of the wife of god

Upir's point has more historical weight here. if you object you need to present better evidence against what he stated.

It has always been stated in the Torah that there is one G-d. This has never been questioned biblically as is the way it is taught. As soon as you move away from that interpretation then you are left with opinions even if they are experts that make them.
It seems there is a lot of truth which can come from myth but then again isn't that up to the way an individual interprets it.?

Bloodmother ~ how can you make a wild statement about a culture when by your own admission you haven’t even read the old testament? Yes you are entitled to an opinion, but based on hearsay? Something that you read!! There have been many women (biblically) that have ruled Israel and Egypt which could never have happened based on your statement.

LadyN ~ it’s impossible to say the bible is contradictory based on a few verses from Genesis as you have taken that part out of context. The Torah explains that man was created after ‘other’ animal and before some.

The original word used for God when he created men and women was Elohim, which is plural and dual gender

what does god need a wife for?the virgin mary could b said to be the wife of god,the mother of god and the daughter of god

The Gnostic Gospels, (Gospels not put in the Bible), claim that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife/companion. In those days, no one actually got "married". They were just together, or "companions" if you will.

I strenuously recommend that you research the following Gnostic Gospels...

The Gospel of Phillip
The Gospel of Thomas
and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene herself!

The Gospels of Thomas (predates all Biblical Gospels) and Philip contain the true teachings and declare the actual mission of the historical Jesus...and they best little resemblance to that preached by Saul/Paul, the Roman who single-handedly hijacked and them detailed the original Christian movement.

While a lovely gospel, yet the Gospel of May Magdalene was not written until three centuries later...and hardly by the Magdalene, herself. Be careful with that one.

As for marriage...of course there were marriages then...first arrested to as early as Genesis 6:1-4. Were there no marriages, there could be no adultery or fornication, both crimes requiring the principle of marriage for them to exist (adultery is sex with someone while married...and fornication being sex while not married)...both were punishable by death, in most cases.

Best = bear
Detail = derail

Damn swype!

http://www.gnosis.org




Gnostic Scriptures and Fragments

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

Archive | Library | Bookstore | Index | Web Lectures | Ecclesia Gnostica | Gnostic Society


An excellent new print edition of the Gospel of Mary of Magdala.

Read Dr. King's introduction to The Gospel of Mary of Magdala

Archive Notes:

The Gospel of Mary is found in the Berlin Gnostic Codex (or Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, as this ancient collection of Gnostic texts is labeled for archival reasons). This very important and well-preserved codex was apparently discovered in the late-nineteenth century somewhere near Akhmim in upper Egypt. It was purchased in 1896 by a German scholar, Dr. Carl Reinhardt, in Cairo and then taken to Berlin.

The book (or "codex", as these ancient books are called) was probably copied and bound in the late fourth or early fifth century. It contains Coptic translations of three very important early Christian Gnostic texts: the Gospel of Mary, the Apocryphon of John, and the Sophia of Jesus Christ. The texts themselves date to the second century and were originally authored in Greek. (In academic writing over the last century, this codex is variably and confusingly referenced by scholars as the "Berlin Gnostic Codex", the "Akhmim Codex", PB 8502, and BG 8502).

Despite the importance of the discovery of this ancient collection of Gnostic scriptures, several misfortunes including two world wars delayed its publication until 1955. By then the large Nag Hammadi collection of ancient Gnostic writings had also been recovered. It was found that copies of two of the texts in this codex -- the Apocryphon of John, and the Sophia of Jesus Christ -- had also been preserved in the Nag Hammadi collection. The texts from the Berlin Gnostic Codex were used to aid and augment translations of the Apocryphon of John and the Sophia of Jesus Christ as they now are published in Nag Hammadi Library.

But more importantly, the codex preserves the most complete surviving fragment of the Gospel of Mary (as the text is named in the manuscript, though it is clear this named Mary is the person we call Mary of Magdala). Two other small fragments of the Gospel of Mary from separate Greek editions were later unearthed in archaeological excavations at Oxyrhynchus in lower Egypt. (Fragments of the Gospel of Thomas were also found at this ancient site; see the Oxyrhynchus and Gospel of Thomas page for more information about Oxyrhynchus.) Finding three fragments of a text of this antiquity is extremely unusual, and it is thus evidenced that the Gospel of Mary was well distributed in early Christian times and existed in both an original Greek and a Coptic language translation.

Unfortunately the surviving manuscript of the Gospel of Mary is missing pages 1 to 6 and pages 11 to 14 -- pages that included sections of the text up to chapter 4, and portions of chapter 5 to 8. The extant text of the Gospel of Mary, as found in the Berlin Gnostic Codex, is presented below. The manuscript text begins on page 7, in the middle of a passage.

Further Introductory Material

We highly recommend Karen King's new translation with extended commentary, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle. The Gospel of Mary is also included, along with a useful introduction, in the International Edition of The Nag Hammadi Scriptures (published in 2007).

Without explanatory and background material, it will be impossible for a reader unfamiliar with ancient Gnostic Christian writings to understand the Gospel of Mary. Dr. King's introduction to her book -- which we provide here in preview -- gives an excellent overview of the text of the Gospel of Mary and a discussion about the discovery and surviving manuscript fragments. In subsequent chapters, Dr. King provides the contextual information a reader needs to understand the messages of this important text.

Read Dr. King's introductory chapter from The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle.

We also additionally recommend the first three books listed to the left: Mary Magdalene, First Apostle by Ann Brock; The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene: Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament by Jane Schaberg; and Mary Magdalen, Myth and Metaphor by Susan Haskin. There are many books now available on Mary of Magdala, some of questionable value. These four books are among the best and together offer an overview of the Magdalen in history and myth from a wide variety of perspectives.

Lectures on the The Gospel of Mary Magdalene are also available in our The Gnosis Archive Web Lectures collection.

-- Lance S. Owens



The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
[The Gospel of Mary]

Chapter 4

(Pages 1 to 6 of the manuscript, containing chapters 1 - 3, are lost. The extant text starts on page 7...)

. . . Will matter then be destroyed or not?

22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots.

23) For the nature of matter is resolved into the roots of its own nature alone.

24) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

25) Peter said to him, Since you have explained everything to us, tell us this also: What is the sin of the world?

26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin.

27) That is why the Good came into your midst, to the essence of every nature in order to restore it to its root.

28) Then He continued and said, That is why you become sick and die, for you are deprived of the one who can heal you.

29) He who has a mind to understand, let him understand.

30) Matter gave birth to a passion that has no equal, which proceeded from something contrary to nature. Then there arises a disturbance in its whole body.

31) That is why I said to you, Be of good courage, and if you are discouraged be encouraged in the presence of the different forms of nature.

32) He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

33) When the Blessed One had said this, He greeted them all,saying, Peace be with you. Receive my peace unto yourselves.

34) Beware that no one lead you astray saying Lo here or lo there! For the Son of Man is within you.

35) Follow after Him!

36) Those who seek Him will find Him.

37) Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.

38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.

39) When He said this He departed.


Chapter 5

1) But they were grieved. They wept greatly, saying, How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If they did not spare Him, how will they spare us?

2) Then Mary stood up, greeted them all, and said to her brethren, Do not weep and do not grieve nor be irresolute, for His grace will be entirely with you and will protect you.

3) But rather, let us praise His greatness, for He has prepared us and made us into Men.

4) When Mary said this, she turned their hearts to the Good, and they began to discuss the words of the Savior.

5) Peter said to Mary, Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman.

6) Tell us the words of the Savior which you remember which you know, but we do not, nor have we heard them.

7) Mary answered and said, What is hidden from you I will proclaim to you.

8) And she began to speak to them these words: I, she said, I saw the Lord in a vision and I said to Him, Lord I saw you today in a vision. He answered and said to me,

9) Blessed are you that you did not waver at the sight of Me. For where the mind is there is the treasure.

10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit?

11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is [...]

(pages 11 - 14 are missing from the manuscript)


Chapter 8:

. . . it.

10) And desire said, I did not see you descending, but now I see you ascending. Why do you lie since you belong to me?

11) The soul answered and said, I saw you. You did not see me nor recognize me. I served you as a garment and you did not know me.

12) When it said this, it (the soul) went away rejoicing greatly.

13) Again it came to the third power, which is called ignorance.

14) The power questioned the soul, saying, Where are you going? In wickedness are you bound. But you are bound; do not judge!

15) And the soul said, Why do you judge me, although I have not judged?

16) I was bound, though I have not bound.

17) I was not recognized. But I have recognized that the All is being dissolved, both the earthly things and the heavenly.

18) When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms.

19) The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.

20) They asked the soul, Whence do you come slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?

21) The soul answered and said, What binds me has been slain, and what turns me about has been overcome,

22) and my desire has been ended, and ignorance has died.

23) In a aeon I was released from a world, and in a Type from a type, and from the fetter of oblivion which is transient.

24) From this time on will I attain to the rest of the time, of the season, of the aeon, in silence.


Chapter 9

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.


The Gospel According to Mary

Wow! I love this thread, and will mark it as one of my favorites!

Anyway, I too believe that there is evidence via ancient religious texts of the Near East that once upon a time, there were two gods - one male and one female. El (God) and Asherah (Goddess).
I recall reading that during an earlier matriarchal period, the ancient Hebrews worshipped the goddess in groves, which were later cut down by later patriarchal reformers.
In the Near East, Asherah's name is universal, with slight variations due to the various languages of the time:
Sumerian: Ahsnan - 'strength of all things'; Egypt : Ashesh (Isis); Old Iranian: Asha 'universal law'...for example. Which to me, means that the Goddess was just as important as the God.
(And how can we have 'yin' without the 'yang' anyway? lol)

Just finished watching a video on this subject. Extremely well done.

Yes I believe she was. In those days a man would be married by the age of 30 and if he wasn't he would be a disgrace to the family and would not be able to be considered a "rabbi' or 'teacher.' Also if you read the new testament...Jesus kissed Mary Magdeline on the mouth in broad daylight and was the first one at the grave site and to see him when he arose. According to the Gospel of Phillip Jesus told his apostles that he loved Mary more than they. Also in order for Jesus to be truly human and experience what mankind went through he would need to be married and have children. The Catholic church refuses to accept this fact and have omitted this from the bible.

satrinastrega: it is a rare delight to hear from someone who obviously knows her Biblical history and Jewish culture.

You are correct; in Jewish culture of that time it was expected that by the time a man reached the age of 30 he was to be married. In fact, for a man to actually be accepted in Jewish society as a full-fledged adult man, he needed to be married. Thus, for Jesus to have been 30 and not married would have marked him as quite unusual and... not considered a man. And without being a full-fledged man in Jewish society, he could not have been considered a "rabbi" ("rabboni") as we know Jesus was called.

Additionally, it is key to note that in Jewish synagogues only men (i.e., married males) could publicly read from the scriptures during their services... which is exactly what Jesus did in the synagogue at Capernaum when he read from Isaiah during the service there.

Thus... it is almost beyond question that Jesus must have been married.


I was very especially heartened that you commented on the Gospel of Philip and its mention of Jesus kissing Mary and his disciples asking Jesus why he loved her more than they.

What you might NOT have known, however, is the even more astounding fact that the term used for "disciples" in that passage... is feminine! In other words, the "disciples" being referred to... the ones who asked Jesus why he loved Mary more than they... were women, not men. Knowing this, doesn't this passage of his female disciples wondering why Jesus loved Mary more than they now make a lot more sense than a bunch of men wondering the same thing after seeing Jesus kissing Mary?

It also calls a bit into question WHO Jesus' true disciples actually were. Might it be possible that the original disciples... Jesus' original apostles... were women, not men? Frankly, after my own careful study, I am decidedly of the opinion that this was indeed the case... and that after Jesus' death, the male students under Jesus and his actual "apostles," took over leadership from the women whom Jesus had groomed as his true successors.


- Upir'

Theses were two excellent posts. although I really doubt that jesus even existed in the first place, when you compare his life to at least 16 "Deity" who pre-date him. Also to mention the fact that these who predate him have exactly the same storyline as to life, execution and Resurrection.

Were it not for the vehemently anti-Christian Tacitus and his account, as both a Roman historian and senator, stating that Jesus (whom he called "Chrestos" [a Greek mispelling of the Jewish term Christos]) was executed in Judea by their Roman Procurator, Pilatus, I would trend to agree.

What must be recalled is that the historical Jesus was made to emulate known gods by the Roman, Saul/Paul, so as to more successfully sell his religion throughout the Greco-Roman world...at which Rome-appointed mission he was highly successful.

This was not at all who the historical Jesus was.

I still believe the documentary evidence I saw and read of, that illustrated a mausoleum in India, where he was buried.

It showed his name, age .. mentioned his wife and kids...

...and yes, of course Mary was wiped out by a male-orientated sect... but, she was the first disciple.

Christianity actually started in a womens house.

Whose house? And how do we know this?

Are you referring to the excavations of an apparent Christian chapel that was part of a house that has been called Peter's wife's house near the Sea of Galilee?

The Books of Acts notes that all the disciples, Mary and several others were assembled, then some miracle happened and they all spread out

I'm pretty sure you are referring to the Day of Pentecost, which took place... apparently... in an unknown "upper room" where the apostles (not women) "abode":

Acts 1:13-14 -- "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

The story picks up a few verses later:

Acts 2:1–2 -- "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting."

Nothing here seems to indicate that their location was a woman's residence.


Frankly, my own view is that if there were any residence where Jesus revealed his greatest teachings and the deeper mysteries of such, it was in the residence at Bethany where lived Mary and Martha and their brother, Lazarus. But... that's just my $0.02 worth.

well i dont believe he has a wife becasue in order for Him to have one you would be admiting that Jesus is the son of God or that He himself is God. And given that fact i beleve that as his followers we are Gods wife. Thats what my bible teaches that we are the bride of Chirst. And to prove a just one more point Jesus if and i am only saying if he had even a gf she would not put up with him going all over the place and not even coming home to see his mom. He was gone for some times years at a time . how is that even fair to say that mary was his gf she lived in the town of his mom and it is clear to all that he was hardly ever there and as we all no long distance relations dont work out. and besides he coud not have one for if you believe all are His bride when he returns. And it dose not mean it in the way that we will have that same kind of relations as a wife to her husband for we are not same as Him . for one He had a body but whos to say what our and HIs new body will be like . I am hopeing for something of non sex . or nutral . For God him self and i believe this with out a dougt is non sex. NO body , all spirit. For yes Jesus is in my heart , but the Holy spirit is in me . Our thoughts of lust can not even be around God for it says he is Holy meaning he stands alone. or stands out form all things.

I'm not getting your reasoning on that at all, littleflames.

What does God's marital status have to do with whether he has a son? Or whether that son is or is not Jesus?

And if God is indeed Jesus' actual father... why would you believe God to be asexual ('non sex" as you put it)? Can you have an "Only Begotten" son and NOT have that son be literally "begotten" by you (i.e., being the literal parent... as in... through sexual reproduction)?

And if all followers are God's "Bride," does that make all of us females, then? And wouldn't that mean God IS married, after all?

And as regards Mary as Jesus' "gf"... you apparently weren't aware that Mary Magdalene, Salome and, in fact, a literal "multitude of women" accompanied and "ministered" to him throughout his adult life. These same women were also with him even when he was on the cross... while all the male apostles were no where to be found.

John was at the crucifixion.

Was he?

The Gospel of John states only that "the disciple whom Jesus loved" was also at the crucifixion. While many assume this to have been the Gospel's namesake (John), yet we don't know this to be so.

What we do know is that the Gospel of John wasn't written until far after the other three, thus further after the events it claims to report.

And more tellingly still...all three of the other Gospels mention the women who were there (even including the multitude of women standing afar off who were there witnessing Jesus' crucifixion)...yet not one of these earlier Gospels makes mention of any male disciple, much less John, being at the crucifixion.

In the end...the only disciples faithful enough to risk persecution by publicly being there for him...were women.

Reading John 19:25-27

It specifically says:

25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!"

27 Then He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.


Now, this is directly from the Bible so, you may have other information.

The disciple whom Jesus loved is mentioned many times in the New Testament. It is presumed to be John. But for sure, this disciple; who after Jesus' death was an apostle, was male.

VRsZ... You just verified exactly what I said.

I'm just trying to understand the point you are trying to make...

The other 3 John books have no male disciple there and the book of John says there was a male disciple there.

Your point being that the 3 books must be correct because they were written earlier?


An American history book written in the 1960's might have a history of the 1880's.

A history book written in the 1980's might also cover the 1880's.

Now, the history book written in the 1980's might have some facts that weren't in the earlier history book. Does that mean they didn't happen?

I'm afraid you're not making much sense. What "3 John books" are you talking about? Are you perhaps referring to the 3 Gospels I mentioned? Or are you talking about the Gospel of John and 1 John and 2 John that are also in the New Testament?

The point I was making is that all 3 Gospels (i.e., Matthew, Mark & Luke) state exactly who was at Jesus' crucifixion, names each of them in fact. Not one of these authors mentions John (or whoever this self-proclaimed "disciple who Jesus loved" was). The Gospel of Mark is dated to only 20-30 years from those same events. The other two Gospels were written a bit later yet still within the 1st Century CE.

Then about 60 years later (about the time all actual eye-witnesses who could have objected to this new account would have been dead, btw), along comes the Gospel of John. And not only does it give a "new" account that actually contradicts the crucifixion scene reported by those far-earlier accounts, but the author chooses to portray himself repeatedly in the position of highest honor as "the disciple who Jesus loved" and the only man at the cross.

Wow... no suspicious self-serving motive here at all, right?


Yes... it is possible that a later version of an event might contain new details... if new information or evidence is found. But in almost all such cases, that evidence must be at least as contemporary with such events as the previous evidence (a new eye-witness, a new photo or video of the event, new DNA or other forensic evidence from the event, etc.). There is a well-known and time-honored fact that the passage of time diminishes rather than increases accuracy in witnesses and their accounts. The closer one is to the time of a historical event, the more accurate will one expect to find the recollections of those who witnessed it.

If you doubt this, go try your theory on reporters, detectives or, for that matter, historians. There's a reason why police shows like "48 Hours" have such time limitations in their titles... because they know that the more time that passes, the less likely it is that a crime will be solved because the trail goes cold. That's because the further away from any event one gets, the less likely memories will be accurate. (Of course, in "John's" case... if you wait long enough, you can say anything and self-aggrandize all you like 'cuz no eye-witnesses will be left to contradict you.)

And that was my point.

Sorry, I misread what you said about the gospels.

Your conclusion is based on your opinion. That's all I wanted to know.

Thank you.

My conclusion is based on the evidences, which I took some pains to offer and explain. Your conclusion, on the other hand, blowing off those evidences by chalking all such up to only being an opinion... is a perfect example of nothing more than just an opinion.

When The book of John specifically says that the disciple that Jesus loved was in fact male and in fact present at the crucifixion and nowhere does any other book specifically say he was not present, I have to assume that he was there.

It really is your opinion that he wasn't present.


I won't say anything else on this matter. After all, I have always enjoyed your posts and your view point (even if it differs from my own).

Thank you... I now understand your reasoning.

As you see it, if John states it and the other three Gospels don't specifically state to the contrary, then you accept John, as is. I can certainly appreciate that. And were we talking about an event found in one Gospel but not the others, of which there are a few, I would have no difficulty with this either.

For me, however, I have to wonder why...were this make disciple truly there...none of the other Gospels mention his presence? That's what I struggle with. All thee mention Mary, and Jesus' mother...but one of his own Apostles (supposedly) is there and not one of the Gospel authors noticed? Did all three get writer's cramp from writing down the names of the few women there at the cross that they couldn't include John's? Or was it that the names of women and their involvement was more important than that of such a prominent male leader (yes...that was said a bit tongue in cheek given how patriarchal the Bible is and how uncharacteristic it is for such a male leader to go unnoticed while the women are)?

Thus for me at least, the preponderance of the evidences indicates that John was not at the cross...or else surely a man of John's importance would have most certainly been included in the accounts of the original Gospels' authors...if he had been there.

But I certainly respect your view that as those earlier Gospels don't specifically say he wasn't there (although it is a stretch to expect any author or historian to list ask those who WEREN'T at an event), there still exists the possibility that he was.

well you see my reason behind what i say is fact to me and many other christians who believe is that the three are one God , Jesus, and spirit are all one and if you say God was married then you are saying that Jesus or son of man if you like better . For no spirit can be married its a government thing its a human thing . and can only applie as long as you are on earth. so if you say God was marred to a femail than you would have to believe that the son of man was also marred for they are one in the same and ths proing that you need a man to be God , and the three are same and you can prove this also becasue even tho we dont have a spirit of our own we have a soul and yes they are two differnt things spirits have no soul they are like the angels or fallen ones. they are spirits . we will never be spirits . we will have new bodies after we die but we dont know what the bodys will be like . The living water is not one you just drink of its something you take in and i dont know enough about that to talk about it . but as before when mel was talking about different bibles of hebrew the reason for this is becasue of all the sin that the isrealits and jews did . they married out side of there own and when they did they were no long alowed to study or read hebrew so that is why as christians we dont take things out of the scripts becasue they are not all truth . because they may have to much left out. i am not saying the bible it self does not leave things out but if they are its becasue like it says in new testment if you put it all in you would have endless books that maybe no one would read or even look at. and they would not make that much sence becasue they would have to be written by more then one religion and would be corupt . as for pagans being in the bible they were and God even used them to show his people what would happen when they did not listen to him and it shows what evil and no good they did. by corupting and taking families appart.

Christianity is polytheistic in nature. If the three entities were one, then there would be no father or son distinction further more Jesus was clearly his own entity while on Earth and separate from the dictator I mean the "father" as he went to pray to his "father" many times. The Famous line of Take this cup from me" clearly indicates that he is pleading with a separate entity as otherwise unless he was extremely arrogant would he have to have a dramatic conversation with himself? And lets not forget when he asked his "father" why he had forsaken him not them not us "Me" Not to mention the spirit kind of like the force is given no real characteristics minus the empowering the effect at Pentecost.

8thHS... absolutely so! Well reasoned.

And there are so many other references (e.g., Jesus baptized and the voice from Heaven declaring to all who heard it "This is my beloved son...") that make it undeniable that he and his father were separate entities. The "One"-ness described... as with so much that Jesus taught... was meant to be interpreted and understood symbolically and not literally. He and His Father were One in purpose, one in mission, one in all the ways that matter most. And it was Jesus' hope that we might... if we value true eternal values and live our lives accordingly... we might become one with them.

There is so much regarding the true nature of the Divine, both within us and without, that has been lost to us all due primarily to the lust for power and control of those claiming to be our spiritual/religious leaders. And one of the most important aspects of Divinity is our own internal potentials for such... and the duty we have of recognizing such and working toward developing our own spiritual capacities, which far transcend what any organized religion can teach.

Religions and their leaders almost always end up seeking to impose themselves as a necessary middle-man between us and the Divine. Almost without exception, they preach that the only way to get to God... is through them. In Christianity, this philosophy began by teaching Jesus as the only "mediator" or "Savior" between God and Humankind... thereby making the religionof Christianity and its religious leaders claiming to represent Jesus as the sole de-facto "saviors" and "mediators" between God and all of us... if we obey and submit to them (not God!).

Talk about the ultimate power and control over all of us!

Unfortunately for them, the true nature of God requires adherence to no religion or its dictates. The true nature of God requires adherence to far-higher values and understandings. And the foundational understanding needed is to first recognize that divinity already exists in embryo status within each and every one of us. Only when we realize and recognize this can we begin to recognize the untapped potentials within and begin to develop them through living life in adherence to true Eternal values and principles. And it is these untapped potentials that have been deliberately kept hidden from us by religion so that we will believe we must go through them to discover Divinity... when in fact, as Jesus originally and correctly stated... "The Kingdom of God is within you."

The Divine Male and the Divine Female, those principles and the actual entities, both male and female, themselves who embody such and are, in fact, the personification of "Intelligent Design" that has always existed in this Universe, are real. And we bear within the hereditary and spiritual inheritances from that Divinity... and we are here in mortality to have the opportunity of taking that inheritance and developing it, if we desire it, seek it out within and develop those internal gifts to the point of realizing our true divine potentials for... creation.

So... was God's wife taken/edited out of the Bible? Absolutely she was... as has also the prime importance of Females and the indispensibly precious Female component to the Universe, itself!

As originally lived by the descendants of the Watchers (vilified as "Fallen Angels" by Abrahamic religion) and as later taught by the historical Jesus and partially explained in the anti-Ghnostic Gospels of Thomas and Philp, it is a life of continual Sacred Marriage... the eternal spiritual/emotional/intellectual and, yes, sensual joining and union of the Divine Male and Female... that creates the WHOLE (the union, the fusion)... through which all Creation and all our potentials are possible.


- Upir'

wow did this get so far off the subject , was God marred or had he taken a wife ?

if he had would not all who hate him so much have said yes he had one ?

No they did not they said he did not die becasue the could not find a body .

So they made up stories about Him and all things about Him becasue they were afraid that if people started thinking about it they would lose face.

As for more then 12 disiples there were more but not when he was alive .
for now if you are a chistian a true believer then you believe that you are a disiple .
I think the true question is did Jesus have a single lover one who he loved the most and this is true in many words of God or different bibles all are clear on this his favorate one was peter.
I think he did have a love for woman but not just one for he loved all . and to say God got married to one or was taken a wife well thats just silly becasue how could he love just one ?

And here I thought I'd tied everything back into the topic quite nicely in the last two paragraphs. Oh well...


As for your remarks, I'm not sure I understand your point... except that you seem to be saying that for you, your beliefs as a "true believer" trump all contrary evidences, of which there are so many both Biblical and historical from other 1st-3rd Century sources. That's certainly your prerogative, of course. However for the rest of us for whom those evidences matter, such evidences are of considerable importance and worthy of discussion.

This message is directed to the one above the last. To start off you realize this thread was about the OT God and not Jesus originally. secondly with your comment about Peter being Jesus' lover are you implying he had homosexual relations with peter?

littleflames...

"The one whom Jesus loved" is recognized by most to be John not Peter (although the Bible isn't quite clear on this).

And the question here is "Was God's wife taken/edited out of the Bible?"

This question is directed at the "Father" not Jesus...and certainly not while He was here on Earth.

Great topic...

I, too, am wondering if God in this context means Jesus. There is a lot of talk about Jesus being married and the fact that his wife, or the fact he was married, was taken out of the bible. It's hard to know the truth though, with so many different translations and versions of the bible. You'd have to go back to the first bible and even then, how would you know for sure it was not tampered with in the writing process?

Whether discussing God's wife or Jesus' wife, the reason for making no mention of either is the same: Biblical and cultural misogyny.

To acknowledge either would be to strongly imply if not make very obvious that Male and Female are considered both equal and their union together as partners and companions absolutely imperative...even for deities. As such a key concept cannot be tolerated in misogynist cultures, this was removed (in the case of Elohim/Jehovah (Yahweh) and ignored from the start where Jesus and the Magdalene (and...arguably...other possible wives, such as Salome) are concerned.

I think that she was edited out of the bible. I don't think that the bible was accurate, as it has been translated so many times. It also is a biased "account" of Jesus and God.

If any of it is true only the events or the words/propaganda would be true but both. . . Impossible.

to end all this talk God and jesus are both two and one i know to us as mear human dont get that but it is very much posible. and as for if Jesus was marred or kept out of the bible . the reason its not in there is becasue its a lie to deface Him if He was and i am saying that is a big if . Then the whole bible and God him self would have to be called a lier and i do not think anyone is willing to call God a lier . like i said once before there are many translations of the bible but there are also trascribed bibles and thos you should pay no attion to becasue they are the false ones . they are the ones that lie. Man wants to make God something he is not or say things about God that are just not true so that they can bring God down to our level . So then in the long run of things we can say such things as there is truly no such thing as a true one God or true one . The bible may have been writen by man but God was the author of it . Now true things may not be as they seem and why is that you may say its becasue again we as man have free will and we as free willed humans want to make what we want to make of things that does not make it true or false what makes things true is what is true to your own heart and dont listen to what others say . how do you know your not right believe in yourself if you want to as for me i will believe in the bible and thats that .

They just found some papyrus where Jesus notes the words" my wife" Here's something on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/us/historian-says-piece-of-papyrus-refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.www


Photograph by Karen L. King
A Faded Piece of Papyrus Refers to Jesus’ Wife
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 18, 2012 1522 Comments
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A historian of early Christianity at Harvard Divinity School has identified a scrap of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a phrase never seen in any piece of Scripture: “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife ...’ ”
Enlarge This Image

Evan McGlinn for The New York Times
Professor Karen L. King, in her office at Harvard Divinity School, held a fragment of papyrus that she says was written in Coptic in the fourth century and contains a reference to Jesus' wife.

Connect With Us on Twitter
Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Readers’ Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (1522) »
The faded papyrus fragment is smaller than a business card, with eight lines on one side, in black ink legible under a magnifying glass. Just below the line about Jesus having a wife, the papyrus includes a second provocative clause that purportedly says, “she will be able to be my disciple.”

The finding was made public in Rome on Tuesday at the International Congress of Coptic Studies by Karen L. King , a historian who has published several books about new Gospel discoveries and is the first woman to hold the nation’s oldest endowed chair, the Hollis professor of divinity.

The provenance of the papyrus fragment is a mystery, and its owner has asked to remain anonymous. Until Tuesday, Dr. King had shown the fragment to only a small circle of experts in papyrology and Coptic linguistics, who concluded that it is most likely not a forgery. But she and her collaborators say they are eager for more scholars to weigh in and perhaps upend their conclusions.

Even with many questions unsettled, the discovery could reignite the debate over whether Jesus was married, whether Mary Magdalene was his wife and whether he had a female disciple. These debates date to the early centuries of Christianity, scholars say. But they are relevant today, when global Christianity is roiling over the place of women in ministry and the boundaries of marriage.

The discussion is particularly animated in the Roman Catholic Church , where despite calls for change, the Vatican has reiterated the teaching that the priesthood cannot be opened to women and married men because of the model set by Jesus.

Dr. King gave an interview and showed the papyrus fragment, encased in glass, to reporters from The New York Times, The Boston Globe and Harvard Magazine in her garret office in the tower at Harvard Divinity School last Thursday.

She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said.

But the discovery is exciting, Dr. King said, because it is the first known statement from antiquity that refers to Jesus speaking of a wife. It provides further evidence that there was an active discussion among early Christians about whether Jesus was celibate or married, and which path his followers should choose.

“This fragment suggests that some early Christians had a tradition that Jesus was married,” she said. “There was, we already know, a controversy in the second century over whether Jesus was married, caught up with a debate about whether Christians should marry and have sex.”

Dr. King first learned about what she calls “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” when she received an e-mail in 2010 from a private collector who asked her to translate it. Dr. King, 58, specializes in Coptic literature, and has written books on the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary of Magdala, Gnosticism and women in antiquity.

The owner, who has a collection of Greek, Coptic and Arabic papyri, is not willing to be identified by name, nationality or location, because, Dr. King said, “He doesn’t want to be hounded by people who want to buy this.”

When, where or how the fragment was discovered is unknown. The collector acquired it in a batch of papyri in 1997 from the previous owner, a German. It came with a handwritten note in German that names a professor of Egyptology in Berlin, now deceased, and cited him calling the fragment “the sole example” of a text in which Jesus claims a wife.

The owner took the fragment to the Divinity School in December 2011 and left it with Dr. King. In March, she carried the fragment in her red handbag to New York to show it to two papyrologists: Roger Bagnall, director of the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World, at New York University, and AnneMarie Luijendijk, an associate professor of religion at Princeton University.

They examined the scrap under sharp magnification. It was very small — only 4 by 8 centimeters. The lettering was splotchy and uneven, the hand of an amateur, but not unusual for the time period, when many Christians were poor and persecuted.

It was written in Coptic, an Egyptian language that uses Greek characters — and more precisely, in Sahidic Coptic, a dialect from southern Egypt, Dr. Luijendijk said in an interview.

What convinced them it was probably genuine was the fading of the ink on the papyrus fibers, and traces of ink adhered to the bent fibers at the torn edges. The back side is so faint that only five words are visible, one only partly: “my moth[er],” “three,” “forth which.”

“It would be impossible to forge,” said Dr. Luijendijk, who contributed to Dr. King’s paper.

Dr. Bagnall reasoned that a forger would have had to be expert in Coptic grammar, handwriting and ideas. Most forgeries he has seen were nothing more than gibberish. And if it were a forgery intended to cause a sensation or make someone rich, why would it have lain in obscurity for so many years?

“It’s hard to construct a scenario that is at all plausible in which somebody fakes something like this. The world is not really crawling with crooked papyrologists,” Dr. Bagnall said.

The piece is torn into a rough rectangle, so that the document is missing its adjoining text on the left, right, top and bottom — most likely the work of a dealer who divided up a larger piece to maximize his profit, Dr. Bagnall said.

Much of the context, therefore, is missing. But Dr. King was struck by phrases in the fragment like “My mother gave to me life,” and “Mary is worthy of it,” which resemble snippets from the Gospels of Thomas and Mary. Experts believe those were written in the late second century and translated into Coptic. She surmises that this fragment is also copied from a second-century Greek text.

The meaning of the words, “my wife,” is beyond question, Dr. King said. “These words can mean nothing else.” The text beyond “my wife” is cut off.

Dr. King did not have the ink dated using carbon testing. She said it would require scraping off too much, destroying the relic. She still plans to have the ink tested by spectroscopy, which could roughly determine its age by its chemical composition.

Dr. King submitted her paper to The Harvard Theological Review, which asked three scholars to review it. Two questioned its authenticity, but they had seen only low-resolution photographs of the fragment and were unaware that expert papyrologists had seen the actual item and judged it to be genuine, Dr. King said. One of the two questioned the grammar, translation and interpretation.

Ariel Shisha-Halevy, an eminent Coptic linguist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, was consulted, and said in an e-mail in September, “I believe — on the basis of language and grammar — the text is authentic.”

Major doubts allayed, The Review plans to publish Dr. King’s article in its January issue.

Dr. King said she would push the owner to come forward, in part to avoid stoking conspiracy theories.

The notion that Jesus had a wife was the central conceit of the best seller and movie “The Da Vinci Code.” But Dr. King said she wants nothing to do with the code or its author: “At least, don’t say this proves Dan Brown was right.”

Was wondering when/if someone was going to mention this intriguing discovery.

This fragment is being called "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife" and appears to be more anti-Gnostic than Gnostic (some scholars are labelling it incorrectly) given that the word "image" was found in the fragment thus having it align with the anti-Gnostic Gospel of Philip that also expounds on the "image" theme and, also, twice refers to the Magdalene as Jesus' "companion" and, in another passage, as his "mate."

God is a liar, lucifer as an angel has no free will hence made to be a weapon to use against humanity by god

To be a liar, God would first have had to say -- something.

So far... He/She/They haven't once said or written a word. Instead, it had been Man alone who has put words in His/Her/Their mouths.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.