The Meaning and Significance of Asherah

Vetus TestamentumXL, 3 (1990)

THE MEANING

AND

SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH1

by BARUCH

MARGALIT Haifa

"... aus der Vergleichung der au1ieralttestamentlichen Belege ... mit den alttestamentlichen ist offenbar die n6tige etymologische und lexikographische Konsequenz noch nicht gezogen" (0. Eissfeldt, "Etymologische und archaologische Erklarung alttestamentlicher Worter", Oriens Antiquus 5 [1966], p. 170 = Kleine Schriften 4 [Tiibingen, 1968], p. 290).

I. Introduction The "Asherah problem" is one of the old chestnuts of biblical (O.T.) scholarship, with a venerable history. Already at the turn of the century it formed the subject of a monograph by P. Torge, entitled Aschera und Astarte. Still useful as a compendium of prevalent scholarly opinions in the latter decades of the 19th century, Torge's book capped an era of intensive biblical scholarship characterized by the application of critical acumen and scholarly ingenuity to the limited corpus of a secularized Scripture, with only the occasional resort to the growing but still scanty data from roughly contemporary ancient Near Eastern sources. Pre-eminent among such scholars and exemplary of this approach was the renowned Semitist W. Robertson Smith, who treated of the Asherah problem in Lecture V of his classic work, The Religion of the Semites, under the title "Sanctuaries, Natural and Waters, Trees, Caves, and Stones", with the Artificial-Holy discussion of the asherah subsumed under the instructive heading of "tree-worship". First published in 1889, the work is better known today from the revised and posthumously published second edition of (London) 1894. 1 Works listed in the bibliography at the end of the article will usually be mentioned in the text and footnotes only by their authors' names and page references. A condensed version of the article was read in Hebrew to the Philological Symposium in memory of Moshe Held in Beersheba on 25 May 1988, and in English to the SBL International Meeting in Sheffield on 2 August 1988.

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

265

One of Robertson Smith's principal, if not quite original, conclusions2 enjoyed a wide following in the pre-Ugaritic era of biblical studies; and, mutatis mutandis, is not entirely absent even from some of the most recent discussion of the problem. This view would reduce the biblical asherah to the level of a natural organic phenomenon or a human artifact in its image, thereby denying it the status of a divine persona and the object of cultic worship independent of (primitive) Yahwism: ...the opinion that there was a Canaanite goddess called Ashera, and that the trees or poles of the same name were her particular symbols, is not tenable; every altar had its ashera, even such altars as ... were

dedicated to Jehovah. This is not consistent with the idea that the sacred pole was a symbol of a distinct divinity ... (pp. 188-9).3 Robertson Smith also cites approvingly the view of G. Hoffmann published a few years earlier, a view which anticipates Albright's pre-Ugaritic position and which has newly won some adherents of late: Aus der Bibel steht fest, dass )srh in seiner rohesten Gestalt ein willkiihrlich eingeschlagener Pfahl war zur Kennzeichnung der Stelle, an welcher das Numen Jahwes] wirkte. Das Wort bedeutete auch wohl nur "Ortszeichen".4 This view reflects the early tendency to approach the Asherahproblem etymologically, while the patently forced bridging of "place" and "pole" casts into sharp relief the problematic tension between "etymology" and "context" characteristic of much, if not all, subsequent research, in both its biblical and its extra-biblical manifestations. It may be fairly said that all solutions proffered hitherto have foundered on the inability to bridge the demands of literary usage with the primafacie requirements of either grammar or etymology. In its biblical aspect, the dilemma is posed by the complete absence of any usage of the term asherah in the sense of 2 Cf. already B. Stade, ZAW 1 (1881), p. 345: "Die 'G6ttin' Aschera ... ist ohne Zweifel aus dem semitischen Pantheon zu entlassen ... die Aschera [ist] ein heiliger Baum oder Pfahl." 3 Cf. similarly Deut, xvi 21-2, where the separation of the asherah-altar-masseba complex into three distinct clauses results in each item receiving its appropriate verbal predicate: ntc for asherah, Cshfor mizbeah, and q(w)m for massebd. 4 Ueber einige phonikische Inschriften, Abhandlungen der k6niglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G6ttingen. Historisch-philologische Klasse 36/1 (G6ttingen, 1890), p. 26.

266

BARUCH MARGALIT

"place", whether holy or profane. In its Ugaritic dress, the dilemma shows itself in the lack of concordance between the relatively passive role of the goddess Athirat as divine consort and a presumed etymology implying a type of activity totally at variance therewith. The most striking case in point is provided by the Kuntillet CAjrudinscription to be discussed below. Suffice it here to note that whereas the morphology of the word * srh points inexorably to a "common noun", the literary-idiomatic context (not to mention the proximate drawings) points to a (divine) person bearing the proper name Asherah. That Robertson Smith's conclusion mentioned above did not sit well with at least some members of his audience can be seen in the lengthy footnote appended to the text in the second edition. It is of interest here because the author envisages a theoretical possibility which, though rejected for lack of evidence, must today be considered a virtual certainty in the wake of newly published Hebrew epigraphic materials necessitating a major revision in our perception of the historical development of ancient Israelite religion in the pre-exilic era. If a god and a goddess were worshipped together at the same sanctuary, as was the case, for example, at Aphaca and Hierapolis, and if the two sacred symbols at the sanctuary were a pole and a pillar of stone, it might naturally enough come about that the pole was identified with the goddess and the pillar with the god ... There is no evidence of the worship of a divine pair among the older Hebrews ... (p. 189). Yet the concluding paragraph of this footnote, which comes perilously close to begging the question, suggests that the wall of the author's defense has been irreparably breached. The evidence offered by Assyriologists that [Akkadian] Ashrat = Ashera was a goddess (see Schrader in Zeitschr.f Assyriologie,iii, 363 sq.) cannot overrule the plain sense [sic] of the Hebrew texts. If Robertson Smith reflects prevalent opinion in OT studies at the turn of the last century, W. F. Albright, AJSL 41, pp. 73-101, speaks for the new consensus which had crystallized among Semitic philologists some three and a half decades later, on the eve of the epochal, and revolutionizing, discoveries at Ras Shamra:

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

267

The goddess Asirat (Asratu, etc.) was one of the principal figures of the West-Semitic pantheon in Amorite days ... as the consort of Amurru ... Among the Canaanites in the second half of the second

millennium, Asirat still preserved her popularity ... in the biblical age, we find Aserah (for *Aszrat)as an obnoxious [sic]Canaanite goddess and sacred post ... (p. 99).

The radical break with Robertson Smith implicit in the determination of Asherah as a major figure in the West-Semitic pantheon of the second millennium B.C.E. does not extend to the elucidation of the etymological basis of the divine name: in this matter, and with characteristic self-assurance, Albright adds his magisterial endorsement to the view of Hoffmann mentioned above: The etymology of the name is quite certain ... the original meaning of the divine name is "place," whence "sanctuary" ... Were there any doubt, it would be removed by a careful examination of the ... Bible, where Aserahis rather the name of the sacred post, symbol or shrine of CAstart than a strictly independent deity (pp. 99-100). But Albright, to his everlasting credit, was not one to be shackled however forcefully and by his own prior pronouncements, In Lectures of 1941 which formed the stated. the Ayer categorically basis of his classic monograph,

Archaeology and the Religion of Israel

(Baltimore, 1942; 4th edn, 1956), Albright advanced an entirely new hypothesis founded, as he believed, on the most basic meaning of the Ugaritic root 'tr and its Hebrew reflex 'sr, an hypothesis which has held sway in both Old Testament and,Ugaritic studies up to and including the present: ... since the [Ugaritic] stem '-th-r(Heb. '-sh-r)means "to walk" ... and since the first element has the vocalization of an intransitive participle [in Hebrew], we must obviously render [Ugaritic rbt. atrtym] "She who Walks on the Sea" or perhaps "She who Walks in the Sea" ... The abbreviated form, Athir(a)tu, was early substituted for the full appellation ... We find the shorter form ... as Ashratum in a Sumerian inscription ... in honor of Hammurabi ... Since the Canaanites associated El ... with the underground ... fresh water ...

it is scarcely surprising that his consort was preeminently a seagoddess (pp. 77-8). That this interpretation of the divine name Athirat/Asherah has endured for nearly half a century is a measure of its appeal as well as the unparalleled authority of its author. However, some voices

268

BARUCH MARGALIT

of dissent have been raised of late. Thus J. Day, in an essay entirely devoted to a review of the Asherah problem, has elaborated on some reservations expressed earlier by the Ugaritologist J. C. de Moor (cols 477-4; E. tr., p. 438) observing that ... in spite of the wide support that this view has attained in some circles ... [it] presupposes that this [rbt. atrt.ym] was the original full

name of the goddess and that ... Athirat was a later abbreviation [when in fact Old Babylonian] Asratum ... suggests that the shorter form was original ... Second, this view seems to presuppose that ...

Athirat took part in a conflict with the sea, but we have no evidence of this in the Ugaritic texts.5 It does, in fact, strain credulity to assume that the land-locked Amorite nomads who worshipped the goddess Asratu(m) should affix the word ym to her official title. But of still graver consequences for Albright's theory is the empirical argument, curiously omitted by Day but noted earlier by de Moor, viz., that Ugaritic 'tr does not in fact mean "march", or "tread", or "traverse", but rather (as a preposition) "following (in the footsteps of)". This meaning reduces to nonsense any literal rendering of the expression rbt. atrt. ym as analysed by Albright and his supporters. Yet in the absence of a credible alternative, none of the foregoing criticisms is likely to dislodge Albright's interpretation from its position of supremacy; and neither Day nor de Moor provides such an alternative. Indeed, by opting as they do for the older opinion once held by Albright himself (cf. above), they reduce the entire question of etymology to practical irrelevancy, at least in what pertains to the Ugaritic material. This is the implication also of Day's statement, correct in itself, that the phrase rbt. atrt. ym "means simply 'Lady Athirat of the sea'...", i.e., the name Athirat functions in this context strictly and exclusively as a proper name, like Anat, Aqhat, and Astarte, and no etymological inferences can be drawn from it.

Albright's theory is certainly wrong; but his intuition was correct. The etymology of the name Athirat is so far from irrelevancy as to provide the key to a proper understanding of the goddess's role and function in Ugaritic literature. The reason is really quite 5

p. 388. Contrast W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (London, 1968), pp. 105-6; and F. M. Cross, CanaaniteMyth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge, Mass., 1973), pp. 32-3.

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

269

simple: the name Athirat, like that of El, Baal, Yam, Mot, and Yarih, represents a common noun elevated to the status of proper name. This is not mere surmise or speculation: as we shall see shortly, Ugaritic literature preserves at least one clear, though generally unrecognized, case of atrt used as a common noun, the elucidation of which provides, we submit, the definitive solution of the Asherah problem in all its ramifications, Hebrew as well as Ugaritic. Students of Ugaritic literature have often remarked on the fact that, though obviously portrayed as the wife of El, the Ugaritic Athirat is never so designated expressis verbis. Similarly, though independently, students of Hebrew epigraphy have generally felt constrained by context to render the phrase ... yhwh ... w'srth as "Yahweh ... and his consort", notwithstanding the grammatical difficulty seemingly posed by this interpretation. The thesis of this article is that a single solution suggests itself in both cases, reflecting as they do different aspects of what we have called "the Asherah problem", viz., the Ugaritic word atrt (= [aOirat-]) and its Hebrew cognate 'asera were originally, and basically, common nouns meaning "wife, consort", lit., "she-whofollows-in-the-footsteps (of her husband)". This hypothesis, if demonstrable, would explain the lack of explicit reference to Athirat's consortship as a redundancy eschewed by the Ugaritic poets, and at the same time extricate the Hebrew epigraphist from the horns of a dilemma at both Kh. el-Q6m and Kuntillet CAjrud. This assumption admittedly raises a phonological problem for the development of Massoretic 'asera. The expected form is *'oserd. However, this problem exists equally for the regnant view is a Mischformof associated with Albright. Perhaps Massoretic daserd * 'atrat and * 'dtirat. Limitations of space require that we be at once selective in our choice of data and succinct, if not laconic, in our exposition and argumentation. In what follows we shall discuss: (1) the Amorite Asratu(m) known from Akkadian sources of the Old Babylonian period; (2) the evidence for a Ugaritic common noun meaning "wife, spouse, consort", synonymous with (one of the meanings of) att; (3) the phrase ... yhwh ... w'srth from Kuntillet CAjrud (only);6 6 For a discussion of the Asherah problem as manifested at Kh. el-Q6m, see my article in VT 39 (1989), pp. 371-8.

270

BARUCH

MARGALIT

(4) some biblical passages which allude to "Israel" as YHWH's wife, and their semantic as well as theological implications. II. "Amorite" dAs-ra-tu(m), var. dA-si-ra-tu(m) The Amorite Asratu(m), best known from a Sumerian inscription dedicated to Hammurabi, already reveals the major traits of her Canaanite counterpart in the Late Bronze Age. She is "wife (as'sat) of Amurru", and by that token, "daughter-in-law (kallat) of Anu", the warrior- and storm-god Amurru deemed son of Anu. She bears the title belet seri "Lady-of-the-steppes" (cf. Ugaritic rbt atrt), indicative of her indigenous connection to the Syrian steppeland west of the Euphrates in the vicinity ofJebel Bishri, the traditional homeland of the Amurru/MAR.DU nomads. Another epithet is beletkuzbi u ulsi "Lady of (sexual) passion and pleasure", reflecting her role and function as a fertility goddess, the epitome of female sexuality and reproduction. The Amorite Asratu(m) presages future developments in two other respects. The name "Asratum" figures but rarely in proper names of the Old Babylonian period, a circumstance paralleled in the first millennium B.C.E. where the name "Asherah" is entirely absent from the surviving North-West Semitic onomastica. Her name, furthermore, is variously spelled dAs-ra-tu(m) and dA-s`i-ratu(m), a practice which recurs in the diplomatic correspondence from Late Bronze Age Canaan unearthed at TaCanach and ElAmarna. Though these facts are well known, they have yet to receive a satisfactory explanation. Anticipating our findings, we suggest that both the variant spellings and the rarity of onomastic witness reflect the indeterminate and ambiguous status of the name as both proper (divine) name and common noun. A seemingly minor detail also warrants notice in anticipation of our discussion below. Whenever Amurru and Asratu are cited together, the order of citation invariably follows the rule of "malefirst". This practice reflects a literary convention (the equivalent of our modern-day Mr and Mrs) in the citation of divine married couples attested in both Mesopotamia and Canaan: e.g., Ada-andSala; Nergal-and-Mamitum; Sin-and-Ningal (= Ugaritic yrh-wnk[); Samas-and-Aya; in Ugaritic god-lists, il-w-atrt (KTU 1.65 [CTA 30]:5) and (l)bCl-w-atrt(sic - KTU 1.46[CTA 36]:8); and in the Hebrew Bible bacal wecastoretas well as bacal waas'era'.Inhabiting as

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

271

we do a vestigially male-dominated world, in which male superiority is either taken for granted or eschewed as old-fashioned prejudice, we are perhaps either less sensitive or less objective than we ought to be in fathoming the notional implications of this literary convention. Again to anticipate our results, this convention should be seen as an instructive case of language imitating social reality, wherein (married) women follow their husbands, literally and figuratively. III. Ugaritic atrt The Late Bronze Age texts from Ras Shamra-Ugarit, especially the epic poetry, are our most important source for dealing with the Asherah problem, establishing as they do, unequivocally and the existence of a Canaanite goddess-the umabiguously, Canaanite goddess, in fact-named Athirat, and providing invaluable, if not exhaustive, information about her character and role in ancient Canaanite mythology. The "historical" connection of the Ugaritic Athirat and the Amorite Asratu(m) is assured by the polyglott RS 20.24 which equates Ugaritic [at]rt with Akkadian das-ra-tum. But the correspondence need not be phonetic; indeed, it is generally assumed that the Ugaritic Athirat is phonetically related to TaCanach/ElAmarna asir(a)tu and Hebrew 'asera, i.e., a participial qdtilat formation of the G-stem of Itr. Most of the allusions to Athirat occur in the literary texts, especially the so-called "Baal-cycle". She plays a minor role in the Krt epic, and is totally absent from Aqht. In the Baal-texts Athirat appears in her "classic" role as supreme goddess [ilt], the epitome of holiness (whence her divine-name-like epithet qds), and the consort of the pensioner El, nominal head of the Ugaritic pantheon, to whom she bore [qnyt] seventy sons [sbCm.bn. atrt]. Though something of a "grass-widow", a careful reading of the texts, in conjunction with the Hittite recension known as Elkunirsa, confirms the epithet of her Amorite forebear belet kuzbi. As noted above, and like most of the major deities in Ugaritic literature, Athirat carries a fixed epithet, viz., rbt.ym. The Ugaritic tradition is the only one which connects the goddess with the sea. This is obviously a secondary development reflecting the shift of the Amorite Asratum to a new locale along the Phoenician coast-cf.

272

BARUCH

MARGALIT

atrt. srm // ... sdnym in the Krt poem-as well as her "marriage" to El, the god identified in Ugaritic-Canaanite tradition with the subterranean sweet waters, specifically those of the Upper and Central Jordan Valley.7 With El thus cast in the role of Ea8 and successor of the primeval Apsu, it is easy to understand how Athirat becomes a Canaanite Tiamat, consort of Apsu, whose children are the maritime legions of Yam and Mot inimical to the storm-god Baal. A telling indication of the secondary nature of Athirat's maritime role is a passage in Baal-Mot (1.4 [CTA 4]: II:3ff.) where a landlubberly Athirat is seen washing her apparel in the sea before taking off on a (land) journey to her husband El. Thus, even if Albright's interpretation of the phrase atrtym were linguistically defensible, nothing in the epics could be adduced to support the idea of Athirat as "mistress of the sea". This role is the exclusive prerogative of Prince Yam, tpt. nhr. All but one of the occurrences of the word atrt in Ugaritic literary texts allude to the goddess, either with or without an accompanying epithet. There is however one generally overlooked exception in KTU 1.3 (CTA 3): I: 10-15 (= V AB = UT cnt), where the word atrt, without an epithet, stands in B-word parallelism to att "woman; wife". In these lines, a dining Baal is handed a magnificent goblet by his butler, Prdmn. Of this goblet it is said (lines 13ff.) ks. qds(.) Itphnh.att // krpn(.) ItCn.atrt "a sacred cup not (ever) seen by a (house)wife"--i.e., by the (rich) lady-of-the-house who serves dinner--"a goblet not (ever) beheld by an atrt". normally Several scholars (notably J. Obermann and G. R. Driver) have recognized the difficulty of taking this atrt as the name of the goddess; some see it as a generic word for "goddess" as such. But there is no basis for this surmise in Ugaritic literature: the generic word for goddess in Ugaritic is ilt, a term used mostly of Athirat herself.9 7 From Aqht we learn unequivocally that El resides in the depths of the Kinnereth which the poet designates "House of El" (bt. il); and the Huleh lake/swamp is similarly referred to as gl. il. 8 Cf. the Karatepe bilingual equating the two deities. 9 Aside from the fact that no such usage of Ugaritic atrt is known elsewhere in the literature, the (synonymous) parallelism "woman/goddess" which it presupposes is hardly persuasive. Elsewhere, particularly in the Krt epic, we find att in synonymous parallelism with mddt "beloved" (KTU 1.14:II:48-50/IV:4850=CTA 14:101-3/IV:190-1) and glmt "maiden" (KTU 1.15[CTA 15]:II.21-2, generally restored also in KTU 1.2[CTA 2]:III:22-3). The first context deals with

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

273

The all-but-insuperable barrier to taking atrthere as referring to the goddess is the parallelism: (1) If atrt were the divine name, we would expect *att. il // atrt rather than simply attllatrt. (2) Even then, the divine name atrt ought to have been in the Aline, with *att. il as so-called "ballast variant". Nowhere in Ugaritic poetry does the divine name atrt stand as a B-word parallel to an epithet: cp. atrt // ilt; atrt // qnyt. ilm. The former occurs four times in the Baal texts, twice in Krt, always in that order. The latter occurs five times in the Baal texts, always in that order. Both parallelism and, as we shall see in a moment, etymology, leave no room for doubting that the word atrt functions here as a common noun denoting "wife, consort". A second occurrence of a Ugaritic common noun atrt with this meaning is possible, even likely, in the epistolary, unfortunately fragmentary KTU 2.31:41 [= PRU 2,2] ... latrty "...to my wife". We now turn to the question of etymology, the clarification of which is indispensable to a solution of the Asherah problem. Ugaritic, like Arabic, uses the noun 'tr "footstep, trace" as a preposition meaning "following; in-the-traces-of", hence "after" (in a spatial rather than a temporal sense [= 'hr]). For example: (1) Baal-Mot (1.5 [CTA 5]: VI: 24-5; 1.6 [CTA 6]: I: 7-8): atr. bCl. ard (var. nrd). bars, "In the footsteps of Baal shall I (we) go down to the Netherworld". (2) Krt (1.14: IV: 19-20 = CTA 14: IV: 182-3) atr. tn. tn. hlk / atr. tit. klhm "(Lit.,) After two, two walk // After three, the rest of them", i.e., the infantry (asiruma) march in columns of twos and threes, each "twosome/threesome" following on the heels of the one preceding.10 Elsewhere, in the poem of Aqht, one finds a nominal usage of atr denoting a "tomb" or "burial plot", as well as an abstract form atryt similarly with funereal connotations. The unifying common denominator of these usages is the idea of "remainder" or "trace": "newly-weds", the latter with a prospective wife. For att to stand in synonymous parallelism to "goddess", it would have to be self-evidently clear that att is a goddess. Since this is not confirmed by the context in KTU 1.3 (CTA 3):I, the expected A-word in synonymous parallelism with atrt "goddess" is ilt, not att. 10 Cf. e.g., J. Aistleitner, Worterbuchder ugaritischenSprache(Berlin, 1963), s.v. 476 (? III). Contrast G. R. Driver, SVT 16 (1967), p. 51, where a misconstrued stichometry leads to the mistaken conclusion that Ugaritic atr can mean "with".

274

BARUCH MARGALIT

the tomb houses and protects one's mortal remains (N.B.) attesting a terrestrial sojourn; figuratively, they are one's "footprints" in the sands of time." This holds true also for the "plastered skulls" to which the lad Aqht alludes in his philosophical soliloquy on the subject of human mortality (KTU 1.17 [CTA 17]: VI: 33ff.):'2 these skulls are all that remains-as "traces" -of individual human existence. They (alone) are man's atryt. 3 It thus stands to reason that a common-noun atrt, contextually determined as meaning "wife, consort", should contain the notion of "following-in-the footsteps of ..." The Ugaritic evidence is not sufficiently explicit on this question to clarify the implications of this determination. For this we must consult the Hebrew materials, both inscriptional and Scriptural. IV. Kuntillet CAjrud The epigraphic finds at Kh. el-Q6m and, especially, Kuntillet CAjrud, a way-station on the route from Gaza to the Re(e)d Sea (Darb el-Gaza), have projected the Asherah-problem to the forefront of scholarly interest in recent years. In particular, the phrase ... yhwh ... w'srth, with its tantalizing implications of a Yahwistic polytheism, has occasioned a spate of publications in scholarly journals. As was to be expected, the passage of time has served to separate the wheat from the chaff. In retrospect, and in the light of an emerging consensus on some of the more controversial issues, it is increasingly clear that the most insightful contribution is also one of the earliest, viz., M. Gilula's Hebrew article. I have in mind not merely the by now universally acknowledged reading "YHWH-ofSamaria" (yhwh. smrn), but the overall religio-historical interpretation, which sought, to our mind successfully, to integrate the written with the graphic evidence, viz., the inscription on Pithos A with 1 Note the comparable usage of Arabic 'tr to denote "(ruins of) a monument"; see J. G. Hava, Arabic-English Dictionary (Beirut, 1899), p. 3a. 12 Cf. my discussion Paleorient 9/2 (1983), pp. 93-8. 13 Additional examples: (1) KTU 1.4:(CTA 2):IV:17-19 (Baal-Mot): ... amrr. kkbkb. Ipnm/atr. btlt. Cnt. wbCl "Amrr is like a star in front (of Asherah)/in the footsteps of Maiden-Anat and Baal". (2) KTU 1.43 (CTA 33):24-5 (ritual text): atr. ilm. ylk. pcnm. mlk "The king will proceed on foot behind the (statues of the) gods". Cf. further examples (especially KTU 1.6 [CTA 6]:II:9130; KTU 1.100:77) in M. Dietrich and 0. Loretz, UF 16 (1984), pp. 57-62.

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

275

the attached drawing. He then brought this evidence to bear on the history of Israelite religion in the pre-exilic era, particularly in its north-Israelite Bethel/Dan manifestations. Basic to the Egyptologist Gilula's thesis is the position that the figures drawn beneath the inscription, despite some superficial resemblance, cannot be interpreted as Bes, an Egyptian dwarf-god well-known in the ancient Near East from the Middle Kingdom down into Hellenistic times.'4 The principal reason is that these figures are bovine, whereas the Egyptian Bes is invariably leonine.'5 Given this basic discrepancy, insufficiently considered in the subsequent detailed iconography study by P. Beck and by others (most of whom have followed Beck's lead), and the obvious contiguity of the inscription with the drawing, Gilula correctly drew the astonishing, and in some circles no doubt disconcerting, conclusion that the phrase ... yhwh. smrn. w'srth was intended to describe the two figures, male and female, standing arms-akimbo just beneath, and partly intersecting, the inscription. We do not intend to argue here the merits of these conclusions which serve as our point of departure.'6 In the discussion which follows we intend rather to show that, on the one hand, the literary context of the phrase ... yhwh ... w'srth positively precludes any interpretation of * 'srh other than as a divine personacapable of conferring blessing; on the other hand, that the artist(s) responsible for the drawing of the two figures wished to represent a male bovine deity and his smaller bovine consort in a traditional "man-andwife" posture reflecting the basic meaning of the term asherah. The relevant part of the inscription on Pithos A reads as follows: ... brkt. 'tkm. lyhwh. smrn. wl'srth = "... I have blessed you to [= 'in the name of'] YHWH-of-Samaria and to his 'SRH". A slightly different version occurs on Pithos B: ...brktk. lyhwh. tmn. wl'srth. ybrk. wysmrk. wyhy. Cm. dd[nly= "I have blessed thee to YHWH-ofTeman and to his 'SRH. May he bless and keep thee and may he be with my lo[r]d." 14 Cf. the basic, and oft-cited study by V. Wilson, "The Iconography of Bes...", Levant 7 (1975), pp. 77-103 ( + pls 15-18); and also H. Altenmuller, Lexikon der Agyptologie I (Wiesbaden, 1975), col. 722. 15 Cf. also (and independently) V. Fritz, BN9 (1979), p. 49; Pope (1980), pp. 210ff. But contrast Stolz, p. 170. 16 Cf. however the Appendix below, ? II, for the arguments in favour of the man-and-wife hypothesis.

276

BARUCH MARGALIT

The most significant, indeed decisive, feature of the blessing formula in its bearing on the Asherah problem is that it is stereotyped. The formula brk1- never admits of anything but a divine personaor agency following the preposition.17 This conclusion is virtually selfevident when seen in the light of comparative usage in North-West Semitic inscriptions of the first millennium B.C.E., as well as in the Bible: Saqqarah (KAI 50): ...brktk. Ib'l. spn. wlkl. 'l. thpnhs. Elephantine (Revue de I'Histoire des Religions 130 [1945], p. 20): ...brktk. lyhh. wlhn[blm] Hermopolis: ...brktk(yln). Ipth... Repertoired'epigraphiesemitique961: ...brk [PN] Ihr... Arad (nos 16,21,40): ...brktk(.) lyhwh... Horvat Uza (Edom): ...whbrktk(.) Iqws... Amman(?) (Syria 50 [1973], p. 183): ...[PN] brk. Imlkm Kh. el-Q6m: ...brk. 'ryhw. lyhwh...[lyhwh.] wl'srth Gen. xlv 19: ...brwk. 'brm. PI. 'lywn... At the same time it is clear, as scholars critical of the personal name interpretation have admonished, that the pronominal suffix attached to ... w 'srthprecludes taking it as a personal name or even as a proper noun.'8 This, in a nutshell, is the dilemma posed by the inscription, viz., the constraints of context which seemingly require that ...(w)'srth be interpreted as a divine person,19 and the no less stringent demands of North-West Semitic grammar which seemingly preclude this interpretation a priori.20 The solution comes, of course, with the realization that the word *'srh functions here as a common noun meaning "wife, consort", with reference to the divine personawhose personal name way, but

17 For discussion of the semantics of this formula, cf. Weippert,

pp. 202-12; Couroyer, pp. 575-85. The formulaic character of the CAjrud inscriptions is not restricted to the blessing proper; cf. Chase, pp. 63-7; K. Kassine andJ. Teixidor, BASOR 264 (1986), pp. 45-50. 18 Cf. Emerton, p. 14; E. Lipiinski, IEJ 36 (1986), p. 91, n. 14. 19 Cf. Dever, p. 30: "Is it logical to suppose that an inanimate object could be mentioned ... as an agent of blessing as the context demands both at Ajrud and at el-Qom?" 20 Cf. McCarter, p. 147: "At Kuntillet CAjrud ... we have Yahweh depicted in the company of his escort, and we have him invoked along with his asherah. It seems to follow that Yahweh's asherah is his consort. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that the word could mean 'consort,' and ... it is unlikely to be a [proper-]name ('Asherah') in this context."

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

277

need not, be Asherah (although the choice of term-instead of an alternative *(w))sth-suggests that the divine name Asherah is and The ultimate decisive proof of this hypothesis comes implicit). from the drawing which accompanies the inscription. As remarked above, Gilula harboured no doubts as to the male and female sexes of the two figures respectively. The evidence he marshalls is in fact incontrovertible: the smaller size; the circles on the upper chest identical with those on the obviously female lyreplayer; and the absence of horns (sic) as in the head-dress of the larger figure.2' But Gilula overlooked a detail which has only very without recently been noted-by Coogan and McCarter-though the realization of its full significance, viz., that the interlocking hands, which Beck took as indicating multiple artists, are the result of the attempt to draw the two figures in perspective, so that the smaller figure should appear to be standing behind the larger figure. Note how the horizontal "ground-line" beneath the feet of the female is drawn considerably higher than the corresponding line beneath the feet of the male.22 When this detail is considered in the light of the discussion thus far, one cannot but conclude that not only does the drawing of the two figures portray the divine couple referred to in the inscription and his consort (Asherah)"; it also proas "...YHWH-of-Samaria vides a graphic commentary on the word * 'rh signifying "she-whofollows (her husband)".23

21 We note parenthetically that the crown head-dress on the female figure is probably the Hebrew C'tdra which the "suitor" YHWH bestows on his wife-to-be, Israel, in Ezek. xvi 12. 22 We believe that one may safely venture a step futher: the loop suspended from the ground-line beneath the female figure looks very much like a footprint into which she is about to place her left foot. If this surmise were to be confirmed by examination of the original plaster, we believe that even the most die-hard skeptics would have to concede that the female figure is (an) asherah. We note in passing the possibility of seeing in the Hellenistic Derketo an epithet of Asherah derived by stylistic substitution of the root drk for the root 's/tr "walk (behind)". 23 Our conclusions thus coincide with those of Coogan who writes (p. 119): "The simplest explanation is to take the two standing figures as representatives of the two deities mentioned in the inscription, which thus serves as a caption: the larger male figure is Yahweh, and the appropriately smaller figure slightly behind him is his consort Asherah. Both figures have ... appropriate theriomorphic aspects of the 'bull of Jacob' and his lady." This conclusion is drawn, be it noted, "Despite the grammatical difficulty" (p. 118); how much more imposing is it once this difficulty is removed!

278 J*.

BARUCH MARGALIT

.4

44

I,

I

From Z. Meshel, Kuntillet CAjrud:A Religious Centre... on the Borderof Sinai, Catalogue 175, The Israel Museum (Jerusalem, Spring 1978), fig. 12.

V. Hebrew Bible It is not our intention here to discuss the several and varied aspects of the Asherah problem in the Hebrew Bible.24 Nor is such an undertaking necessary for our purpose, which is to demonstrate the Bible's familiarity with the notion of a (married) woman as one who "follows (in the footsteps of) her husband". To this end we intend to argue: (1) That despite the absence of a nominal form >srh denoting "wife, consort" attested (ex hypothesi)at CAjrud, Biblical Hebrew knows a common noun 'sr denoting-as in Ugaritic-"footstep", as well as a denominative verb 'sr meaning "follow (behind)". (2) That the Bible knows a metaphoric use of "follow in someone's footsteps" connoting "loyalty; fidelity" in general, and the marital fidelity of a wife to her husband in particular. 24 For a schematic outline of the principal uses of the term asherah in the O.T., cf. the Appendix below. A good up-to-date summary of critical opinion on the subject can be found in Day's essay.

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

279

(3) That the use of marital imagery by the 8th-century North Israelite Hosea to describe the theological bonding between YHWH and Israel may well represent an implied polemic against a syncretizing Israelite cult symbolized by the catch-phrase yhwh w'srth, which the prophet transforms by substituting "Israel" for "Asherah". This transformation is taken up by Jeremiah and Ezekiel as well as by the Deuteronomic historian, and becomes a major motif of biblical theology. (1) The existence in Biblical Hebrew of a common noun 'sr "footstep, footprint; sole of the foot" is attested in, for example: Ps. xvii 5 "My soles (avsurray) have held fast to thy (circuitous-)paths// My feet have not wobbled." "The teaching of his god is in his heart // Ps. xxxvii 31 (so) his footsteps ('asurdw) do not falter." Ps. xl 3b "...He set my feet (firmly) on rock// He secured my stance (lit., soles: )dfuray)." Whereas Ugaritic transmutes nominal atr into a preposition meaning "following (behind)", Biblical Hebrew uses the cognate noun 'sr as a relative pronoun aser ( = Ug. dld, Aram. de, etc.) meaning "that-which", reflecting the basic notion of a "(foot)print" as a near-perfect copy of an object without itself being that object. Biblical Hebrew also attests a denominative [picdl] usage of 'sr "follow (in the traces of)": Prov. iv 14 "Do not come by the route (used by) the wicked// Do not follow (te)asser)in the path of the evil." (2) The foregoing examples establish the Bible's familiarity with the basic meaning and usages North-West Semitic 'tlsr, thus increasing the probability of its familiarity with a common noun svrt cognate with Ugaritic atrt and denoting "wife". The evidence for this conclusion comes from the metaphoric usage of "follow" to denote "fidelity" in general and "marital fidelity"-on the part of the wife-in particular. (a) In Job xxiii 11, the plaintiff hero expresses his unwavering loyalty to his god and his commandments when he declares:

280

BARUCH MARGALIT

"I have followed in his tracks (lit., "my foot clung to his footprint(s) [ba'asuro])I I kept (to) his way without digressing." for God-describes in (b) In Jer. ii 2, the prophet-speaking Hoseanic metaphor the idyllic "honeymoon" relationship between the bridegroom YHWH and his newly-betrothed (kll) bride Israel during the desert sojourn of old: "I (YHWH) remember for thee the credit of thy youth, Thy love (for me) when thou wast betrothed; How thou didst follow (lit., "walk behind" [lektek'aharay])me in the wilderness, In land unsown." The metaphoric language implies a castigation of a perverse spouse, faithful to her husband under conditions of scarcity and adversity, yet wantonly unfaithful under conditions of peace and plenty in the land of Canaan. But it seems to have escaped the notice of commentators, ancient and modern, that the "walking behind" is very much a part of the marital metaphor: Israel showed her matrimonial faith in, and loyalty to, her husband YHWH by "walking behind" him as his asherah. Conversely, she ceased (Jer. iii 6ff.), i.e., being the faithful wife when she became a meziuba when she turned (s(w)b) her back and walked away "from behind" her lawful husband leading the way in front, and became (me%ahare) a wife of Baal,25 following in his footsteps (Jer. iii 20; cf. also ii 1920, 23a).26 In other words, a faithful wife is an asherah who follows her husband as he walks, her gaze directed at his back. Conversely, an is'sa so.ta(Num. v) is an unfaithful wife, the infidelity epitomized by her "deviating" (sth) from the path trod by her foregoing husband. The ds.ta,if she takes up with-i.e., follows-another man (without having been formally divorced), becomes an adulterous woman (n3p); and if she follows more than one man, she becomes a harlot 25 More precisely, the becalim, i.e., the local Baal-cults scattered around the country, which even gave their name to various sites, e.g., BaCal-Gad; BaCalHazor; BaCal-Hermon; BaCal-Perazim. 26 ii 20a is of special interest here: it is a "figure within a figure". Wife-Israel and Husband-YHWH are compared to a team of oxen in which one of the oxen throws off the yoke and says: "I refuse to work" (Cbd [with Kethib], a doubleentendreplaying on Cbd= "worship"). Was the "oxen-metaphor" suggested to the poet by the (former) bull-cult of Samaria?

THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ASHERAH

281

(znh, var. znn); whence the figurative idiom of apostasy ... znh 'hry, lit., "whore behind/after...", with the preposition 'hr preserving the metaphoric residue of "walking behind".27 The theological metaphor of "adultery", originating with Hosea (cf. immediately), is of course bolstered by the fact that YHWH's main competitor for Israel's affections in Canaan is the everpopular storm-god Hadad, better known as "Baal"--a term meaning "husband" as well as "master, lord". Thus the act of "following Baal" is a double-entendre,evoking the image of a (married) woman walking behind her husband while alluding to the nuptial aspect of the Baal-Astarte fertility cult. Kuntillet CAjrudand Kh. elQ6m provide eloquent testimony to the pervasive influence of the Baal-Astarte fertility cult, and its paradigmatic man-and-wife symbolism. (3) The 8th-century, purportedly North Israelite Hosea the son of Be)eri was apparently the first of the classical prophets to define the theological covenant between YHWH and Israel in terms of a wedding contract. In this theology, subsequently elaborated by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, YHWH found Israel, a slave-girl in Egypt, and redeemed and took her to his desert home, where he bathed, dressed, and then wed her. As a wedding present he gave her the land of Canaan.28 But permanent residence in Canaan, and a daily exposure to the "sophisticated" fertility cult of the indigenous peoples, led wifeIsrael to adulterous behaviour. Instead of "walking behind" her lawful husband, Israel followed a series of ostensibly provident lovers (Hos. ii 7): 27 Note that, unlike Ugaritic, Biblical Hebrew uses the preposition )hr both in a spatial and in a temporal sense, the prepositional use of 'sr having either been lost after 1200 B.C.E. or fallen into disuse thereafter. In Hos. iv 12 the poet substitutes mittahat for me'ahire in order to preserve the metaphoric symmetry with the reality of Israel's "sacrificing under (Asherah)-trees". Note the emphasis on 'Fel in v. 13, probably playing on Asherah = Elah (Ug. ilt) "whose 'shade' (/'pubic triangle' [cf. Hestrin (n. 37), p. 215] is good". With this substitution, the basic walking-metaphor is transformed into the supine act of copulation. 28 Cf. Jer. iii 19, where wife-Israel is compared by husband-YHWH to his "sons" (with rights of inheritance): "And I said: 'How (well) I treated thee, like a son / (How) I gave thee a coveted (hmd) land / A coveted (sbh) inheritance ...' / And I thought (lit., 'said (to myself)'): 'Thou wilt call me 'Daddy' (and not 'Master' [ = bacal]; cf. Hos. ii 18) / And never wilt thou stray (lit., 'turn') from my path (lit., 'behind me' [as I walk])." Here the metaphor ends; but the continuation is instructive nonetheless: "Indeed < as > a (married) woman cheats her companion / so did you cheat me, O House of Israel."

282

BARUCH MARGALIT

"For she said: 'I'll follow (?elekadahare) my lovers,

They who provide my bread and water.'" The "following-wife" motif continues in Hos. ii 8-9: speaking for the cuckolded YHWH, the prophet vows to "fence in" the wanton spouse: "Therefore, behold I will put up a hedge of thorn bushes on (her) path, And I will erect a (stone) fence so that she will not find her way (to her lovers)." Thus confined, wife-Israel will, it is hoped, return to her original husband and true provider: "And she will say: I will go back to my first husband, For then I fared better than now. And she was unaware that it was I who gave her (all along), The corn, the wine, and the oil." But in the event that these measures of confinement prove insufficient, the husband YHWH29 envisages a more radical solution: he back to the desert (ii 16ff.), will lure-lit., "seduce"-wife-Israel from the and temptations away corrupting influence of a Baalinfested Canaan, in the (desperate) hope that she will "respond" (sexually),30 as in former times, to his love(-making): "Therefore behold I shall lure her and lead her to the desert..., And she will 'respond' there as in the days of her youth...; And on that day...thou wilt address me as 'my man' and no...longer as 'master/husband'...; And I will espouse thee forever..." 29 Note how tenaciously YHWH fights to hold on to his wife Israel, evidencing his intense love for her. This contrasts, of course, with the covenant theology in which such emotions have no place, and where the suzerain is purportedly doing the vassal a great favour by consenting to be his overlord. 30 Cnh:cf. below, ? IV. PaceA. Deem, JSS 23 (1970), pp. 25-8, I believe that Cnhas used here and in Exodus is a euphemism rather than a literal denotation of sexual intercourse, comparable to b(w)' ('l) andydc (t), and thus cannot be considered the etymon of the divine name Anath (mis)conceived as a goddess of sex and fecundity. It is nevertheless conceivable, and possible, that a common semantic denominator connects the notions of verbal and sexual reponse respectively, such as "open up, part"; cf. Ugaritic prq+ Isb= "part the mouth/lips" (to speak, laugh, etc.) and the modern (?) labiapudendi.

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

283

Note well (a) the use of hlk (here in the Hiphil causative) rather than (e.g.) Iqh: YHWH leads the way for his wife as she follows behind; cf. similarly Jer. ii 17; (b) the clear implication of syncretism: even the ostensibly devout Yahwists, such as Uriyahu of Kh. el-Q6m, worship YHWH as if he were "Baal", i.e., as a male fertility god in need presumably of a female partner. It is not so much a case of Baal replacing YHWH in Israel's worship as of his transforming YHWH into his own image. The question which arises today, following the discoveries at K. CAjrud and Kh. el-Q6m, is whether we are justified in assuming a direct connection and possible influence between Hosea's nuptial metaphors and the corresponding language and imagery epitomized by the phrase ... yhwh w'srth. Consider: (a) it is likely that the Hebrew inscriptions from K. CAjrud and Kh. el-Q6m date to the same (half-)century as the prophet Hosea.31 (b) Hosea is full of invective against the bull-cult of Samaria (cf. viii 5) which he obviously knew well. This is the same bull-cult which, as Gilula and others have argued, is reflected at K. 'Ajrud. (c) IfJ. Wellhausen's emendation in Hos. xiv 9 is accepted even in part-reading w>srtw for the MT's ... w>swrn(n)w32-we have virtual proof of the prophet's familiarity with the underlying concept, if not the actual phrase, yhwh w srth. On the basis of these considerations, one may venture the surmise that the prophet Hosea, confronted by the enormous popularity of the syncretistic Yahwism in evidence at K. CAjrudand Kh. el-Q6m by the mid-8th century, took over the idea and the imagery implied by yhwh w srth and made it the cornerstone of a a new Israelite theology.33 YHWH has indeed an asherah-i.e., 31 Cf. Lemaire (1984), p. 135; idem (1977), pp. 602-3. The criteria of dating are both archaeological and palaeographic, with emphasis on the latter. 32 Cf. now Weinfeld (1984), p. 122; Ackroyd, p. 252, and earlier O. Eissfeldt, BiOr 27 (1970), p. 293. For our own views on this question, see the Appendix below. 33 The germ of a similar idea may be found in the following statement by Ackroyd, p. 253, which has since come to my attention: "[T]he material [in Hos. ii] may be making deliberate allusion to the goddess [Asherah] and to some process of rethinking the relationship between deity and people which incorporates the ideas which belong to the concept of god[-]and[-]escort." Contrast the (preof H. W. Hosea (Philadelphia, Wolff, CAjrud) position 174), p. xxvi = Dodekpropheton1. Hosea (Neukirchen, 1961), pp. xviii-xix, who, while cognizant of the mythological basis of "the marriage parable", maintains that the the mythico-cultic fertility con"legal categories of covenantal thought replace " cepts that are rooted in the hierosgamos ... We must also respectfully differ from

284

BARUCH MARGALIT

wife-named "Israel", a former slave-girl whom he wed in his native Sinai where the couple spent a wonderful honeymoon. But no sooner did YHWH put a solid roof over her head in Canaan than she became unfaithful, straying from her husband's path and following (an)other god(s) as her husband(s).34 VI. Conclusions (1) The Hebrew word ase-ra,like its Ugaritic and AmoriteAkkadian cognates, represents a long-forgotten North-West Semitic noun derived from (denominative) _tr "follow behind (in someone's footsteps)" and denoting "wife, consort", synonymous with att but more particularized. The variant forms of AmoriteAkkadian, asir(a)tu(m) and asratu(m) reflect different nominal formations: (a) *atirat= a participial (G) *qdtilat, describing the act of "walking behind"; (b) atrat- is a basic qatlat formation modelled on attat < *antat- "woman" (> *)nt "be weak" [Akk. enesu, Heb. adnus]). The Ugaritic goddess Athirat, like her Amorite predecessor and counterpart, derives her name from her religious function and literary-mythological role as consort of El. Just as El is the prototypal "god" (a word whose etymology implies "strength"), and Baal is the prototypal "lord/husband" (implying (male) fertility), so Athirat is the prototypal "wife", embodying and epitomizing female sexuality and procreativity. (2) At K. CAjrud, and probably at contemporary Kh. el-Qom, the phrase yhwh ... w srth means

simply,

and literally,

"YHWH

and his consort", with the term 'srth possibly implying identification with the Ugaritic Athirat (and with YHWH thus identified as El and/or Baal). The artist responsible for the companion drawing M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (Garden City, 1983), pp. 297-8, when he states: "The figure of Israel as YHWH's wife derives from the cardinal commandment that Israel worship YHWH alone. To that demand of exclusive fidelity, the obligation of a wife to a husband offered a parallel." 34 Cf. already G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology2 (Edinburgh and London, 1965), p. 141 = Theologiedes Alten Testaments2 (Munich, 1960), p. 152, who correctly insists that Hosea drew his inspiration for Yahweh's "covenant of love" with Israel from "the rites of the Canaanite nature religion" rather than from his own personal life. By clarifying the religious milieu of Hosea, the material from CAjrud and el-Q6m enables us both to understand how such crass mythological ideas were mediated, and thus legitimated, by means of a syncretizing Yahwism, and to appreciate the fact that, for all its audacity and radicality, Hosea's marital theology was a move in the direction of "orthodoxy" rather than apostasy.

THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ASHERAH

285

on Pithos A interpreted the phrase by portraying the smaller female figure as walking behind the larger male figure, her husband, and, very likely, about to plant her (left) foot in his footprint. The bovine features of the couple, contrasting with the leonine features of the traditional Egyptian Bes, tally with what we know of both Baal and El in Ugaritic literature: the one occasionally transformed into a bull, the other bearing the formulaic epithet "Bull-El". These features are also fully consistent with the existence of Yahwistic bull-cults at the North Israelite shrines of Bethel and Dan, both apparently of venerable Canaanite ancestry. mean(3) Although there is no unambiguous attestation of asvera allude references Bible-the O.T. in Hebrew "wife" the many ing her or arboreal her iconic to the image goddess, invariably passages seem to presuppose the knowledge of symbol-several such a term, including its etymological signification (or at least the social reality which underlies and generates the term). These passages deal with the theme of YHWH's relationship to Israel which they metaphorize in matrimonial terms. (4) The idea of Israel as YHWH's wife, first encountered in the writings of Hosea in the 8th century, may have originated as a polemical response to the pervasive catch-phraseyhwh w srthof contemporary Hebrew inscriptions, reflecting a religious syncretism which threatened to transform Yahwism into a bonafide Canaanite fertility cult centering on the storm-god Baal and his consort Astarte. Prophets of subsequent generations will develop the polemically-born idea of Israel as YHWH's betrothed into a major tenet of Israelite religion, vying for theological primacy with the older legalistic notions and imagery of "covenant theology". With Ezekiel, Israel's relation to God comes to be defined as much in terms of Eros as in terms of Nomos.35 If Israel is YHWH's wife, 35 Even so perceptive an exegete as W. Zimmerli has failed to recognize Ezek. xvi for what it really is, viz., the fullest and most eloquent articulation of Hosea's marital theology. Ezekiel's allegory deals not with the city of Jerusalem conventionally conceived of (because of its feminine gender) as a "daughter" (Hebrew bat) but with the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Hebrew *yo6ebeyerusalayim)conceived of metonymously as the people of Israel. The feminine gender of "city" facilitates the metaphoric transition to the normally masculine "Israel" as bride and wife (neither of which is implicit in the Hebrew bat). The entire pericope in vss 1-43 (the formal limits of the literary unit) is thus a continuous and remarkably consistent allegory. Pace Zimmerli, the gap between the metaphor and the implied reality never disappears even when the allegory is at its most transparent (e.g., vF- 26-8). But this realization presupposes that one has correctly identified the underlying metaphor.

286

BARUCH MARGALIT

she owes him obedience and respect, but also love and fidelity. YHWH, for his part, is obligated to care for and shelter Israel, and to love her. Obedience to God remains a constant of marital no less than of covenantal theology; but the underlying motive shifts subtly but significantly from one of strict duty to a sense of obligation inspired by love and devotion.36 It is thus not "legality" alone which binds YHWH to Israel; and it is not only in the name of a broken treaty and a metaphoric lawsuit that the prophets reprove Israel. When Jeremiah speaks of mehsubd yisra'el he is using the language of (unrequited) love rather than law. For him, as for Ezekiel (chs xvi and xxiii), Israel's sin is that of an unfaithful wife unappreciative of the loving care lavished on her by a doting husband. APPENDIX I. The use of the term "asherah" in the Hebrew Bible 1. The "asherah" as something "organic" planted beside an altar: (a) Deut. xvi 21 "You shall not plant (ntc) for yourself an asherah [gloss: any tree] beside an altar of YHWH ... You shall not erect for yourself a masseba ..." (b) Judg. vi 25-6: "... destroy the altar of Baal ... and cut down (krt) the asherah which is over it (Cdlaw)... and make a burnt offering, using the wood of the asherah which you have chopped down". 36

Compare and contrast the treatment of this material by, for example, W. Eichrodt, Theologyof the Old Testament1 (London, 1961), p. 141 = Theologiedes Alten Testaments 1 (7th edn, Stuttgart and G6ttingen, 1962), pp. 250-1, where the theological shift from a "covenant of Law" to a "covenant of Love" is thought to involve a dehistoricizing of YHWH's relationship with Israel, and its removal from the sphere of the public and national to that of the private and individual. He thus fails to see that the "covenant of love" is couched in the metaphoric language of marital union between the husband YHWH and his chosen wife, the people of Israel, a relationship in which the love and fidelity of the wife are measured in terms of outward manifestations of devotion and obedience epitomized in the act of "walking behind". Conversely, the wife-Israel sins when she deviates publicly from her husband's path and follows the ways of the Canaanite fertility cults. The kind of inward religion and divine-human encounter described by Eichrodt in the name of Hosea and Jeremiah is more a mirrorreflection of his own theological viewpoint and commitment than it is of these Israelite prophets.

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

287

Cf. also LXX (aXaoo, 8ivSpov); Vulg. (lucus; nemus); Talmud: e.g., B. Erubin 79B-80A: "What is an ordinary asherah (-tree)? Rav said: 'That (tree) which pagan priests watch over and don't eat of its fruit.' Samuel said: 'For instance, (a tree) of which it is said: 'These dates are intended for (making) beer in the temple of nsrpy' where [the pagans] drink it on their feast-day.' "37 2. "Asherah" as the name of a divine persona: (a) 1 Kgs xv 13: "... because she had made a mipleset for (the goddess) Asherah. Asa chopped up the mipleset and burnt it ..." (b) 1 Kgs xviii 19: "... the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah". Unless Asherah is a mistake for Ashtoreth, we should at least consider the possibility that the term "Asherah" means here "(divine) Consort" rather than the proper name Asherah. This surmise is valid, indeed more so in view of the Massoretic punctuation, for the use of the phrase "(the) Baal and (the) Asherah" in 2 Kgs xxiii 4 (immediately below). (c) 2 Kgs xxiii 4ff.: "Then the king ordered ... to remove from the Temple-hall (hekdl)all the vessels which had been made for (the worship of) Baal and Asherah (lit., for the Baal and the Asherah) and all the heavenly host, and he burned them ... He removed the (idol of) Asherah from the House of YHWH ... and burned it ... He smashed the alcoves of the qdsym located in the House of YHWH where the women were weaving btymfor (the goddess/idol of) Asherah." 3. "Asherah" as "shorthand" for "idol (pesel) of (divine name) Asherah": (a) 1 Kgs xvi 33: "... Ahab made (Ch) the (idol of) Asherah ..." 37 Cf. most recently R. Hestrin, "The Lachish Ewer and the 'Asherah", IEJ 37 (1987), pp. 212-23, who argues persuasively, if not conclusively, that the

arboreal representations on the (putatively) 13th century jug are the symbol of the goddess Asherah to whom the accompanying inscription refers (according to F. M. Cross) as 'It (Ug. ilt). Note the importance that Hestrin attaches to the fact that the word 'It "is written above one of the trees drawn on the ewer". We have used a similar argument for interpreting the divine couple at CAjrud, as well as the word (w)'srth at el-Qom (cf. our discussion in VT 39 [1989], pp. 371-8). Both Hestrin and Hadley (pp. 180-211) see in the picture of the stylized tree flanked by two ibexes (Pithos A) a symbolic representation of Asherah, a suggestion which seems eminently plausible if not conclusively demonstrable. Cf. also R. A. Oden, Studies in Lucian's De Dea Syria (Missoula, 1977), pp. 109-55; S. Schroer, In Israel gab es Bilder (Fribourg and G6ttingen, 1987), pp. 22-45.

288

BARUCH

MARGALIT

(b) 2 Kgs xxi 3ff.: "... and he made the (idol of) Asherah as had Ahab ... (vs. 7) and he placed the idol (pesel) of Asherah which he had made in the Temple ..." II. Kuntillet CAjrud A. Arguments in favour of identifying the two foreground figures on Pithos A as "man-and-wife", with special reference to Beck: (1) The figure on the right is smaller and has circles on the upper chest suggesting female breasts. This latter feature is also found on the seated lyre-player whose feminity is assured by her head-dress and long skirt. (2) The "loop" suspended between the legs of both figures is almost certainly an animal tail rather than a phallus, reflecting the "lion-skin" motif of Bes figures generally, but here functioning as part of the bovine characterization of the figures. (3) While it can be argued (though with considerable difficulty) that the thick vertical lines running from the chin to the torso of the larger figure is a stylized beard-similar lines on the lyre-player suggest otherwise-this is hardly true of the smaller figure, where the much thinner vertical lines extend from the nose, rather than the chin. (4) If the two figures are male, one is hard put to explain the differences in head-dress. That male and female Bes figures do not Beckappear side by side before the Ptolemaic period-thus cannot be adduced as counter-evidence, since it is quite obvious, and generally conceded, that the figures are "unlike anything known so far in the Levant" (Beck, p. 30), thus precluding deductive arguments from alleged normativity. Pace Beck, the following iconographic conclusions may be drawn: (i) The two figures are intended to depict male and female personae. The feminity of the female figure is indicated by her smaller size, circular breasts, and her position slightly behind the larger figure. (ii) The figures are Bes-like, but not properly Bes. The Bes-like features are the dwarfish size-including the disproportion between head and torso-the arms akimbo, the bandy legs, and tail; perhaps also the feathered (?) head-dress of the male (with atypical superimposed horns). Non-Bes features include the bovine characteriza-

THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ASHERAH

289

tion, the "duet" format, the crown head-dress of the female, and the absence of a beard (certainly for the female, probably for the male). B. Is there a valid reason for doubting that the drawings adjacent to the inscription illustrate it? Beck has written (p. 46): ... when we come to examine whether there was a direct relationship between the drawings and the inscription in the sense that one might be an illustration of the other, we are confronted by difficulties ... The brush used by the scribe who wrote above [the two] figures was ... very thin and his handwriting beautifully cursive, in contrast to the thick brush employed for the awkwardly drawn Bes figures ... Since the inscription was added after both figures were drawn ... it is doubtful whether there is any meaningful relationship between it and the figures. Against this conclusion may be urged the following: (1) The assumption that there exists a "meaningful relationship" between the inscription and the two figures does not require the prior assumption either of single or of simultaneous composition. Two men (or women) might have worked at different times on the pithos, the time differential to be measured either in minutes or in days. (2) A conclusion so far-reaching as Beck's cannot be considered proven without reference to the contents of the inscription. Yet this lies outside Beck's stated purpose, which is "to describe each motif [of the drawings] and analyze it in the broader context of Near Eastern iconography" (p. 4). Methodologically, there exists an a priori presupposition in favour of connecting an inscription with a contiguous drawing. The burden of proof rests on those who would argue the converse. The only seemingly serious problem which arises in this connection is the role of the lyre-player of which the inscription makes no mention.38 Far from precluding, however, the reading of the inscription in the light of the drawing, the lyre-player may well provide the additional information needed to establish the drawing's Sitz im Leben. 38 Cf. Emerton,p. 10: "... it wouldbe strangefor a descriptionof a drawing of three figuresto mentiononly two of them ..." But this statementseems to overlookthe fact that the inscriptionis writtenabovethe two figuresonly, with the lyre-playerin the far backgroundof this quasi-perspective drawing.

290

BARUCH

MARGALIT

The musical accompaniment represented by the female lyre player in the background suggests that the ambulating divine couple are not engaged merely in a leisurely stroll in the park. That a cultic context is involved is made probable, inter alia, by the numerous references to musical accompaniment in general, and lyre playing (kinnor) in particular, in the biblical psalms (cf. also Amos v 23). In the cultus of ancient Israel, music served as a form of worship and adulation as well as a means of dramatization. As S. Mowinckel and others have shown, the biblical psalms often reflect the ritual enactment of mythical scenarios, especially that of "divine enthronement". The hypothesis of "divine enthronement", we submit, provides a very suitable explanation of the scene in question, viz., the procession of YHWH-and consorttowards the dais of their respective thrones, where they will be forThis mally, and triumphantly, acclaimed "king-and-queen". will also the unmistakeable crown on the conassumption explain sort's head, and the likely bull-horned stylized crown which serves as YHWH's head-dress. A scene such as this (naturally without the consort) probably underlies the rhapsodic description of the poet in Ps. xlvii 6-9: God has ascended (his throne) midst trumpeting, YHWH (has ascended) to the sound of the horn; For (YHWH) is (now) king all the earth..., God is seated on his holy throne. The actual enthronement takes place amidst loudly trumpeting horns; the preceding processional, one may assume, was accompanied by the "soft" music of lyre, harp (nebel), and flute (Ctgdb). This sequence is reflected in Ps. xcviii 5-6: Sing unto YHWH with the lyre, With the lyre and the sound of song; With the trumpets and the sound of the horn, Play loudly before the king, YHWH. The trumpets and (ram-)horns are "loud" (r(w)c), unmelodious instruments suited for "climactic" action. The lyre, harp, and flute are instruments which "sing" (zmr); they are suited for the leisurely walking rhythms of the king (and queen) in festive procession. What is seemingly depicted here on the (fragmentary) CAjrud Pithos (A) is part of this musical ensemble of lyre, harp and flute

THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ASHERAH

291

which provides the musical accompaniment for the divine couple in the Feast of Enthronement. III. Is (DN) Athirat to be identified with (DN) Q(u)ds(u)? R.

Stadelmann, (Leiden, 1967), pp. "Wie

Syrisch-paliistinensische Gottheiten in Agypten 0lOff., has queried (p. 112):

kommt es ... daft wir aus Vorderasien

offenbar keinen

inschriftlichen Hinweis auf die G6ttin Qds haben?" and promptly replied (p. 113): "[Es] eriibrigt sich jeder Versuch, Qudsu mit einer vorderasiatischen Gottin zu identifizieren. Auch die Tonfigiirchen39 und die Darstellungen auf den Goldplaketten [aus Ugarit40] lassen sich als Abbilder der vorderasiatischen Fruchtbarkeitsg6ttinerkliren, ohne daf dabei an ein und dieselbe Gottin gedacht werden mufi." Stadelmann has overlooked a passage from the Ugaritic epic of Krt where qds is necessarily an allusion to the goddess Athirat (as .tpn is to El). An incredulous son asks his mortally-ill father (KTU 1.16 [CTA 16]: I: 20ff.): ik. yrgm. bn il. krt / sp4h..tpn.wqds "How can one say that Krt is a god (lit., 'son-of-El'),

The scion of LTPN and QDS?"

Nor can one exclude the possibility that the phrase bn qds in, for example, KTU 1.2 (CTA 2): III: 19-20 also denotes (if only as part of a double-entendre)"sons of Qds-Athirat" rather than merely "holy-ones" (lit., "sons-of-holiness"). Cf. KTU 1.2 (CTA 2): III: 19-20: in. bt[. IJy[. km] ilm I/ whzrf. kbn. qd]s

versus KTU 1.4 (CTA 4): IV: 50: wn. in. bt. IbCl.km. ilm IIwhzr. kbn. atrt Even the Egyptian evidence is amenable to the identification of Q(u)ds(u) with Athirat. In a relief published by I. E. S. Edwards, JNES 14 (1956), p. 49, and discussed by Stadelmann (pp. 112-13) 39

Cf. J. B. Pritchard, PalestineFigurinesin Relationto CertainGoddesses Known

throughLiterature(New Haven, Conn., 1943). 40 Cf. ANEP, no. 465, now also Hestrin (n. 37).

292

BARUCH MARGALIT

we find the inscription qds-cnt-s'trt. Since the two latter are the names of goddesses well-known from Ugaritic literature, it is not improbable that qds completes the Canaanite triad of Athirat-AnatAstarte (Ugaritic atrt-cnt-cttrt) .41 Does the proper-name Ersatz "Qudsu" support or strengthen the hypothesis that the name "Athirat" derives from a common-noun 'tr meaning "shrine, sanctuary"? The answer is assuredly in the negative. Even if we assume that the word qds in the famous Krt passage (... Iqds. atrt. srm ... KTU 1.14[CTA 14]: IV: 34-5) means "shrine, sanctuary" rather than the abstract "holiness", this meaning is clearly determined by the context rather than by the etymology. The same nominal usage of qds in Aqht (KTU 1.17[CTA 17]: I-II) means "holy place = cemetery", rather than "holy place = place of worship; shrine". The same is true of atr "place" (which occurs together with qds in the above Aqht texts): only a suitably defined context can give atr the meaning "shrine, sanctuary", a meaning which would not be self-evident in its adoption as the personal name of a goddess.42 IV. Hosea xiv 9 Several scholars, notably M. Weinfeld, have been reminded by the K. CAjrud and Kh. el-Q6m inscriptions of J. Wellhausen's ingenious, if hitherto generally unconvincing, emendation of Hos. xiv 9b.43 Instead of the MT's obviously disturbed >ny. Cnyty. 41

Cf. already Albright in Edwards, p. 51, n. 20; Cross (n. 5), p. 33 (following Albright [n. 5], p. 106). Contrast U. Winter, Frau und Gottin (Fribourg and G6trecurs in a tingen, 1983), pp. 110-14. The triad of Q(u)ds(u)-Astarte-Anat hieroglyphic inscription from the reign of Horemheb (ca. 1350 B.C.E.) published by D. B. Redford in BASOR 211 (1973), pp. 36-49. In this inscription both Q(u)ds(u) and Astarte are described as celestial deities, with Q(u)ds(u) designated "lady of the stars". Cp Hebrew (Isa. xiv 13) kokebe-?eland the Ugaritic myth of Slm-w-Shr (KTU 1.23 = CTA 23), with their implication that El (presumably with the aid of Athirat) has fathered the stars (= bn ilm). Cf. also Ps. xix 2a. 42 Cf. e.g., the Phoenician inscription from Pyrgi (J. A. Fitzmyer, JAOS 86 [1966], pp. 285-97), lines 1-2: Irbt. 1sCtrt. sir. qds.dz. ..."To the Lady, Astarte (is dedicated) this shrine (lit., 'holy place')". If Phoenician (ca. 500 B.C.E.) 'sr meant self-evidently "shrine", then the qualifying qds is clearly redundant. The same holds true for Old Aramaic (Sefire) b'srh (lit.) "in his place", and mutatis mutandis, for the aforementioned Q(u)ds(u) which (e.g.) W. Helck, OriensAntiquus 5 (1966), p. 8, renders by "heiliges Ding", not "heiliges Ort". 43 Cf. Die Kleinen Propheten(Berlin, 41963), p. 134. The suggestion was made with reservation ("m6glicher Weise").

THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ASHERAH

w swrn(n)w, Wellhausen

proposed

293

* 'ny. Cntw. w srtw "I am his Anat

and his Asherah", i.e., YHWH fulfills the role of female deity represented by the goddesses, the one a belligerent goddess of war, the other a maternal goddess of love and fertility (cf. AthenaAphrodite). The problem with this daring emendation is that one does not expect to find an allusion to the goddess Anat in an 8th-century Hebrew (or for that matter, Phoenician) text. By this period, the goddess Anat has faded from her prominence in Late Bronze Age Canaanite literature (as reflected at Ugarit) into (well-deserved) oblivion, as indicated by, for example, a dearth of appearance in theophoric names and votive inscriptions of the Iron Age. Her sucwho appears cessor is the much less violent Astarte (Hebrew Castoret) as a minor figure, and occasional doublet of Anat,44 in some of the (presumably later) mythological traditions of Ugarit.45 The solution, we believe, will be found in repointing * ntw as * c(w)ntw, deriving

Wellhausen's

from either Cnh"respond

(sexually)" (cf. Hos. ii 17) or *Cnt "time, season", whence "(animal-)heat" (cf. Ex. xxi 10; Jer. ii 24, and BHS note dad loc.). This emendation receives support from our interpretation of asherah as denoting (etymologically) "wife, consort", here perhaps more precisely rendered as "mate" or "partner", but also alluding to the cultic symbol of (the divine name) Asherah, viz., the tree (Deut. xvi 21; Judg. vi 25ff.). The thrust of the passage, as noted (and generally acknowledged), is that YHWH provides Israel with all its fertility needs, male and female. This explains the conclusion of the verse "from

me



fruit ...";

the word "fruit"

refers at once to

which YHWH is explicitly compared in the line preceding, in language recalling Cs. rcnn, itself a allusion to (the divine name) Asherah, as often to that of the womb. Indeed, it is the semantic comprovided by the term "fruit" (Heb. perz)which may the choice of the tree as fertility symbol for the god-

that of the tree-to immediately periphrastic observed-and mon ground well underlie

44 Cf. especially the (fragmentary) 1.92 (= UT 2001) in comparison with 1.96 and our study of KTU 1.92 in Aula Orientalis 7 (1989), pp. 67-80. 45 Cf. e.g., KTU 1.114 ( = RS 24.258) and our study inMaarav 2 (1979-80), pp. 65-120. That Astarte is a relative newcomer to the Canaanite pantheon can be determined from her absence in the Middle Bronze Age Egyptian Execration texts.

294

BARUCH MARGALIT

dess. Cf. similarly zera' "seed, sperm" (cf. Hos. iv 12 and n. 27, above). This interpretation can be further supported by considering the poet's choice of "Ephraim" as a designation of North Israel, more commonly referred to as the "House of (proper name) Israel/Joseph" elsewhere in prophetic literature.46 The choice appears to be motivated by the term's phonetic association with prym "(twin-)bulls", alluding at once to the two sites of the North Israelite bull-cut (disparagingly labelled "calf") at Bethel and Dan, and to the apparently proverbial image of the "House of Joseph" as a bovine creature (Gen. xlix 22; Deut. xxxiii 17). The prophet seems to be playing on the bull-imagery and phonetic ring of "Ephraim" on the one hand, and the iconography of YHWH as :abblryisrae'l-' 'Steer-of-Israel' -evidenced by the cult of Samaria and K. CAjrud, on the other. But the prophet executes an extraordinary reversal of roles here in xiv 9. To attract the attention, and affection, of the (wild) bullEphraim, the "Steer-of-Israel" is transformed into a "cow" (archaic Hebrew prt [Gen. xlix 22] in heat (Cnt)ready to mate with the bull-Ephraim. This tour deforce stands the marital metaphor of the book's opening chapters on its head: Israel-as-husband, YHWH-as-wife (i.e. asherah).47 All of which is intended to drive home the message that the cult of YHWH has no need for a female partner, an Asherah. YHWH 46 Hosea uses the name "Ephraim" for "Israel" some 34 times; Amos not even once. Isa. i-xii has some 14 usages, mostly in late, non-Isaianic loci. Obadiah uses it once, Deutero-Zechariah twice. Jeremiah uses it five times, four of them in ch. xxxi. Note well the collocation with "seed" in vii 15, and with "calf' in xxxi 18 (echoing Hos. x 11). 47 The following reading and rendering is accordingly suggested for Hos. xiv 9: > Codlaiasabbim 'eprayimmah-ll o anzikibros raCandn mimmennlpiry < 6 > nimsad

"What need has (bovine) Ephraim of (bovine) idols? I (YHWH) am his mate-in-heat; I am like a luxuriant juniper, From me issues fruit." The usual signification of ms' "find, light upon" fits poorly here. Cf. already BDB, p. 594a, rendering "gain, secure", with a cross-referenceto Gen. xxvi 12. Cf. perhaps Ugaritic mgy "come to, arrive at" = Biblical Aramaic mt' "reach, attain". The choice of term is probably to be explained on grounds of alliterative compatibility: ...rCNNIMMNy ... NMs'. For similar phenomena in Ugaritic

literature, cf. UF 11 (1979), pp. 537-57;JNSL

8 (1980), pp. 57-80.

THE MEANING

AND SIGNIFICANCE

OF ASHERAH

295

is an androgynous fertility deity providing both halves of the sexual act needed to ensure fertility and fruition. He is a unity of "Baalin dialectical fusion, a "husband-and-wife" and-Asherah", of law and love.48 theological hendiadys

POSTSCRIPT My friend and colleague at the Hochschule ffirJiidische Studien in Heidelberg, the art-historianProfessor Dr H. Kinzl, has kindly communicated to me (8 February 1989) the following observations relating to the K. CAjruddrawing discussed above: "Die Darstellung ist ein Beispiel fur eine friihe primitive Malerei, die mit linearen Mitteln arbeitet, ohne Angabe der Dreidimensionalitat des menschlichen Korpers. Es ist der erste Ansatz zu einem riumlichen Empfinden, nicht im klassischen Sinne einer ausgebildeten Perspektive, wohl aber in einer Vorstellung von vorne und hinten; es ist eine QuasiRiumlichkeit mit sparsamen Mitteln. "Ffr die Anordnung der beiden Gestalten gibt es grundsatzlichnur zwei M6glichkeiten: (1) Sie stehen nebeneinander (2) Sie stehen hintereinander. "Nimmt man an, die beiden Personen stehen nebeneinander, dann hatten wir eine linke gr6fiere und eine rechte kleinere Person, deren Bedeutung im Vergleich zur linken geringer ist. Wollte der Kiinstler aber nur ausdriicken, dafi die rechte Person weniger bedeutend und daher kleiner gezeichnet ist, stellt sich die Frage, warum beide Gestalten nicht auf der gleichen Grundlinie stehen, und vor allem: warum die Linie der Schultern so gezeichnet ist, dafi die rechte hoher ist. Dem Kiinstler ging es offenbar nicht nur darum, diese Gestalt kleiner als die linke zu zeichnen, sondern er wollte darlegen, dafi sie hinter ihm steht. "Die Kiinstler des 9. bzw. 8. Jahrhunderts, die solche Malereien herstellten, dachten im allgemeinen noch recht linear, und der Maler dieser primitiven Malerei hatte Schwierigkeiten mit Uberschneidungen, weshalb er alle Linien durchzog. Doch die Tarsache der Uberschneidungen zeigt, daif etwas vor und etwas dahinter ist. Sonst waren Uberschneidungen nicht notwendig gewesen. Er hatte sie nebeneinander anorden k6nnen, ohne daft sie sich beruhrten. "Meines Erachtensist es daher ganz eindeutig, dafi die rechte Gestalt als hinter der linken gedacht und keineswegs neben ihr steht." 48 For a similar conclusion, but without reference to the material in Hosea disandMotherhood in IsraeliteandJudean cussed above, cf. P. A. H. de Boer, Fatherhood

Piety (Leiden,

1974), p. 461.

296

BARUCH MARGALIT SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

P. R. Ackroyd, "Goddesses, Woman andJezebel", in A. Cameron and A. Kuhrt (ed.), Images of Women in Antiquity (London, 1983), pp. 245-59. W. F. Albright, "The Evolution of the West-Semitic Divinity CAn-CAnat-'Atta", AJSL 41 (1924-5), pp. 73-101. , Archaeologyand the Religion of Israel (4th edn, 1956), pp. 77-8. P. Beck, "The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet CAjrud)", Tel Aviv 9 (1982), pp. 3-86. K. H. Bernhardt, "Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament", Mitteilungen des Institutsfiir Orientforschung13 (1967), pp. 163-74. D. A. Chase, "A Note on an Inscription from Kuntillet CAjrud", BASOR 246 (1982), pp. 63-7. M. D. Coogan, "Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel", in P. D. Miller et al. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 115-24. B. Couroyer, "BRK et les formules egyptiennes de salutation", RB 85 (1978), pp. 575-85. J. Day, "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature", JBL 105 (1986), pp. 385-408. W. G. Dever, "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet CAjrud", BASOR 255 (1984), pp. 21-37. J. A. Emerton, "New Light on Israelite Religion", ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 2-20. M. Gilula, "lyhwh smrn wl'srth", Shnaton 3 (1978), pp. 129-37. J. M. Hadley, "The Khirbet el-Qom inscription", VT 37 (1987), pp. 39-49. , "Some drawings and inscriptions on two pithoi from Kuntillet CAjrud", VT 37 (1987), pp. 180-211. A. Lemaire, "Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Q6m et l'Asherah de Yhwh", RB 84 (1977), pp. 595-608. , "Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet CAjrud", SEL 1 (1984), pp. 131-43. E. Lipiniski, "The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit", OLP 3 (1972), pp. 101-19. P. Kyle McCarter, "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data", in P. D. Miller et al. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion. Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia, 1987), pp. 137-55. W. A. Maier, MAsherah . Extra-biblical Evidence (Atlanta, 1986). P. D. Miller, "The Absence of the Goddess in Israelite Religion", Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1986), pp. 239-48. Z. Meshel, "Did Yahweh Have a Consort? The New Religious Inscriptions from Sinai", BAR 5/2 (1979), pp. 24-34. J. C. de Moor, "'asera"', in G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (ed.), Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alten Testament 1 (Stuttgart, etc., 1973), cols 47381= Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 1 (revised edn, 1974), pp. 438-44. R. Patai, "The Goddess Asherah", JNES 24 (1965), pp. 37-52. M. Pope, "Atirat", in H. W. Haussig (ed.), W6rterbuchderMythologie 1 (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 246-9. , "Sasson on the Sublime Song", Maarav 2 (1980), pp. 207-14; cf. pp. 210ff. F. Stolz, "Monotheismus in Israel", in O. Keel (ed.), Monotheismusim Alten Israel und seiner Umwelt (Fribourg, 1980), pp. 143-89. P. Torge, Aschera und Astarte. Ein Beitragk z. SemitischenReligionsgeschichte(Leipzig, 1902).

THE MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE OF ASHERAH

297

M. Weinfeld, "Kuntillet CAjrud Inscriptions and their Significance", SEL 1 (1984), pp. 121-30. M. Weippert, "Zum Priskript der hebriiischen Briefe von Arad", VT 25 (1975), pp. 202-12. V. Wilson, "The Iconography of Bes...", Levant 7 (1975), pp. 77-103 (+ pls

15-18).