''Yahweh and His Asherah'': The Goddess or Her Symbol?

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH": THE GODDESS OR HER SYMBOL? by J.A. EMERTON Cambridge

Many articles and books have been written about the words lyhwh... wl'srthin inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud (Davies: 8.016.1, 8.017.1, 8.021.2); and also about l'srthand its relation to yhwh in the previous line in an inscription from Khirbet el-Qom (Davies: 25.003.3; cp. 25.003.5 and 6). There has been general agreement that 'srthis a form of the word that appears in the Hebrew Bible as 'dserd,to which has been attached a third-person masculine singular pronominal suffix: "his 'dersa".This has replaced the earlier theory of Meshel that the noun means "cella or symbol" (a meaning that 'srt can probably have in Phoenician: Hoftijzer and Jongeling, p. 129, suggest "sanctuary"). I know of only two alternative theories. The first is Angerstorfer's suggestion that 'srthrepresents Ashirtah, the name of a goddess that appears in the personal name Abdi-Ashirta, a ruler of part of Syria, in the Tell el-Amarna letters. It seems preferable, however, to relate the word to 'asera, because the relevant inscriptions in which 'srth appears were written by people from Israel and Judah who may be expected to have used the form found in the Hebrew Bible.1

'Hess, p. 14, notes that "the spellings of Abdi-Ashirta are not consistent in the Amama correspondence. In 18 out of 95 occurrences the deity's name is vocalized as 'ashratu/i/a'. This suggests the presence of an 'a' vowel between the final two consonants"; and he notes that a Late Bronze Age text from Taanach has the reading da-si-rat.The vowel u, i, or a at the end of the word "may be due to the syllabic nature of the cuneiform spelling. However, the fact that these vowels are usually not case vowels suggests that some proper names may already have acquired fixed forms with vocalic endings" (pp. 14-15). He thinks that Asherata may be a "frozen" spelling of the divine name and that it may have survived "over the centuries" and appeared at Kuntillet 'Ajrud (pp. 15, 16). It seems to me to be preferable to interpret the Hebrew inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud in the light of Hebrew as attested in the Hebrew Bible rather than on the basis of a conceivable, but speculative, hypothesis about a "frozen" form. ? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999

VetusTestamentum XLIX,3

316

J.A. EMERTON

The second alternative theory is the explanation offered by Zevit, who suggests that 'srthis a "double feminization of the noun 'srt" (pp. 45-6); that is to say, both the t and the h signify the feminine gender. This word then appears to be "Asherata", the name of the goddess, who appears in the Old Testament as Asherah. Zevit compares 'srth with place-names such as yotbatd (Num. xxxiii 33), timnatd(Josh. xix 43) and 'eprdtd(Mic. v 1), and with some nouns in poetic texts such as 'nmdtd(Exod. xv 16) which, he says, are "with indisputable double feminization" (p. 46). The objection to this theory is that it has not been established that such forms in the Bible are to be explained an examples of "double feminization". The ending -a in the MT does not have the tone, and that shows that it was distinguished from the feminine ending (GK ? 90 g; cp. Tigay 1987, p. 175). It has usually been regarded as an extended use of the he locale(cp. Hadley, p. 59).2 Nowadays, it is normally related to the Ugaritic directive ending -h, though Segert has suggested (1988, p. 100) that this indication of direction merged with "the form of the noun preserving the ending (-a) of the adverbial/accusative case", and his view has been accepted by Muller (pp. 31-2). In what follows I shall assume that 'srth is 'dserdwith the thirdperson masculine singular pronominal suffix. The phrase yhwh... wlsrth

2 GK notes that something of the directive sense is sometimes apparent, as in qumd 'ezratdllinu in Ps. xliv 27, "but elsewhere it has become meaningless". An example of the latter is found in Ps. cxvi 15: hammdawtd (which, incidentally, is masculine). Hess, who thinks that 'srth may represent "Asherata" (see n. 1 above), defends the possibility of double feminization and holds that objections to it "merely attest to [sic] a lack of evidence. In fact, the spelling of asherah/Asherah which occurs at Kuntillet 'Ajrud, appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. Further, the spelling of Asherah/asherah in the Hebrew Bible occurs nowhere in extra-Biblical Hebrew inscriptions of the Monarchy or earlier" (p. 13). However, although 'srthdoes not appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is the form in which 'dserd,as a feminine noun, would regularly appear with with a pronominal suffix. P. 14 comments: "After all, this is not a feminine personal name but rather a feminine divine name, something which is extremely rare in Hebrew texts." Hess does not appear to be claiming that the rules governing the use of the names of female deities differ from those governing the use of the names of female human beings. Rather, be interprets 'srthas a "frozen form" derived from an earlier "ashratu/i/a" with an "e" before the "r" (see p. 14). Strangely, however, he says on p. 16: "Double feminization is an inherent feature within the structure of the name itself"; and on p. 19: "Perhaps Zevit's suggestion of Asherah as a deity with the name of Asherata is the best option." But if the final -a in the earlier form is a sign of the feminine, how does Hess explain the endings -u and -i? His attempt to identify two different hypotheses is unconvincing.

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

317

means "by Yahweh... and by his 'dserd".The word 'aser is used in two related senses in the Old Testament (see my article of 1982, pp. 15-18; and the fuller discussions by Day in 1986 and 1992). Sometimes it appears as the name of the goddess Asherah, and sometimes as a wooden representation of her. The former sense may conveniently be represented by "Asherah", and the latter by "asherah". A question that has been much debated is whether the phrase in the inscriptions means "Yahweh and his Asherah" or "Yahweh and his asherah". It is to that question that the present article is devoted. I The first argument for understanding the relevant phrase to mean "Yahweh and his Asherah" is that the words brkt'tkmlyhwhnsm wlsrth, "I bless [or: have blessed] you by Yahweh of Samaria and by his 'srh", on pithos A from Kuntillet 'Ajrud (Davies: 8.017.1; Renz and Rollig, Pithos 1, pp. 59-61), are related to a drawing immediately below. Indeed, the inscription and the drawing overlap (for the drawing, see, for example, Hadley, p. 212, and Uehlinger, p. 147). The picture shows two standing figures resembling the minor Egyptian god Bes and a seated figure (thought by some to be female, but by Hadley, pp. 196201, to be probably male) playing a lyre. Gilula suggested that the picture illustrates the inscription and that two of the figures are Yahweh and the goddess Asherah. Gilula has been followed by other scholars in relating the drawing to the inscription, though opinions have differed about the identifications. Some believe that the two standing figures represent Yahweh and Asherah: so Coogan (pp. 119, 123), McCarter (pp. 146-7), who thinks that, although 'srthwas "a wooden cult object", the drawing represents "the personification of a cult object as a goddess", and Schmidt (pp. 96-103). On the other hand, Dever (especially pp. 22-5) has argued that the lyre-player is Asherah. If the drawing is related to the inscription, it is reasonable to argue that it represents Yahweh and Asherah (though there is the difficulty that it includes three figures, not two). However, even if it does not, it might be argued that the drawing includes a male and a female deity, and that they may represent Yahweh and Asherah. The subject has been much discussed in detail, and particularly well by Hadley (pp. 188-207, with reference to the work of Beck and other scholars) and Uehlinger (pp. 142-6; cp. Frevel, pp. 869-76). There is no need to repeat here the various arguments that have been advanced, and

318

J.A. EMERTON

it will suffice to say that good reasons have been given to question whether either of the Bes-like figures (the left one of which may, in any case, be a later addition) representsYahweh or Asherah, or whether the lyre-playerrepresentsAsherah, or whether the drawing was intended to illustratethe inscription which it overlaps at one point (see Uehlinger, pp. 146-7). I shall comment on only one aspect of Schmidt's presentation of the case for the view that the drawing is related to the inscription and represents Yahweh and Asherah. (I have previously referred to this aspect in VT 47 [1997], pp. 396-7.) Schmidt says on pp, 97-8: I draw upon redactioncriticismas an appropriateanalogywhen I suggest that for the "finalredactor"of the scene on pithosA, the confluence of figuresand inscriptionmay have in fact conveyeda significant,unified field of meaning!Assumingthat the parts comprisingthe final scene are to be relatedas a single unit (see below for furthersupport),it is difficult to avoid the conclusionthat by recordingthe inscription,someone consciouslysought to interpretthe drawingsas a depictionof Yahweh and his Asherah. By the "final redactor" Schmidt appears to mean the person responsible for "recording the inscription"; and ex hypothesithe drawing was present on the pithos before the inscription was added. Since the author of the inscription was "the final redactor of the scene", the word "scene" includes both "figures and inscription". It is not clear who is intended to be the person who is "assuming" that "the parts comprising the final scene" are "a single unit". If it is the "final redactor" who makes the assumption, then Schmidt's words are a statement of the obvious, since of course the redactor assumed a unity which, ex hypothesi,he had himself created. If, on the other hand, it is Schmidt who is the subject of "assuming", then his assumption that the "parts" of the "final scene" (i.e. the drawings and the inscription) are a "single unit" contains within itself the view that the "final redactor"intended to represent Yahweh and Asherah. It is then strange to write of even the possibility of avoiding a "conclusion", when the "conclusion" is part of the initial assumption. The "further support" to which Schmidt refers is evidence for the overlapping of an inscription and an "icon" or statue, the portrayal of one Bes-like figure as smaller and standing behind the other, the case for holding that one figure is male and the other female, and the fluidity in representations of the figure of Bes. However, evidence else-

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

319

where for overlapping can show, at most, only that it is not fatal to theories of a unity between an inscription and a drawing. The rest of the "further support" is open to question, but I need not go into the subject because of the discussion by other scholars to whom I refer above. There seems insufficient reason to suppose that there is a connexion between the inscription and the drawings. That does not exclude the possibility that the latter are representationsof Yahweh and Asherah, but the identification would need to be justified on iconographical grounds. I have maintained above, however, that the grounds suggested so far fall far short of a good case. We must now turn to other arguments for believing that the inscriptions refer to Yahweh and his Asherah. II The second argument advanced by those who hold that lsrth refers to Asherah is not a positive argument in favour of such an understanding, but rather an attempt to meet an objection that has been raised. The objection is that "Asherah" is a proper noun, and that such nouns are "determinate in themselves" (GK ? 125 d), and therefore cannot take pronominal suffixes. This point was made by Lemaire in 1977 (p. 607) in his discussion of 'srthin the Khirbet el-Qom inscription, and I made the same point in my article of 1982 (pp. 5, 14-15). I noted the contrary view of Driver (pp. 125-6), who gives examples from Accadian, Ugaritic, Arabic and Ethiopic to support his claim that "proper names may take pronominal suffixes". However, I questioned (pp. 5-8) his claim that a few examples are to be found in the Old Testament. I granted that "we should perhaps hesitate to be too dogmatic in stating what was not possible in Hebrew, and we must be prepared to modify our opinions in the light of new evidence" (p. 14). But I went on to say that "the use of a suffix with a personal name is not in accordance with Hebrew idiom as far as we know it, and it is unwise to interpret the newly-found inscriptions in such a way unless there is no satisfactory alternative" (pp. 14-15). If, however, we understand Psrthto refer to "his asherah", no conflict arises with attested Hebrew idiom. Further, if the writer of the inscription had intended to refer to "Yahweh and his Asherah", in the sense of Yahweh and his consort Asherah, it would have been possible to do so in a way that corresponds

320

J.A. EMERTON

with Hebrew idiom as attested in the Old Testament. The writer could have attached the pronominal suffix to a noun denoting the relationship, as I pointed out (p. 15). He could have written lyhwhwl'rh 'sth. Thus, Gen. xii 5 has wayyiqah'abram'et-saray'isto (cp. Gen xii 11, xx 14; 1 Sam. i 19, xix 11, etc.). It is possible also to cite other examples of a phrase containing a name (or a pronoun) followed by the name of someone connected with the person first named (e.g. as wife, son, brother or servant) and then a noun denoting the relationship, to which a pronominal suffix is attached. For example, Gen. xxv 10 has sammaqubbar'abrdhdmwdrda 'isto Exod. xiv 31 has wayya'imzfnu byhwh ubemoseh'abdo;1 Sam. xiii 16 s'zul wyonadtanbeno(cp. verse 22); and 2 Sam. iii 30 has wyd'b wa'dbisay'ahiw. Tigay (1986, p. 27) comments that, if Biblical Hebrew had "expressed the idea 'his Asherah' (divine name) at all, it would probably have done so by saying 'srh'sr Iw" (cp. 2 Kings xiv 11, and 1 Sam. xvii 1; 1 Kings xv 27, xix 3). This is an attested Hebrew usage, though it seems to me more probable from the Hebrew Bible that the inscription would have had wlfsrh'sth. Tigay (1987, p. 190) also notes that we find at Kuntillet 'Ajrud brtk. lyhwhtmn wlsrth.ybrk. wysnrk wyhy 'm.'d[n]y,"I bless thee by Yahweh of Teman and by his asherah. May he bless and keep thee and be with my l[o]rd" (Davies: 8.021). The verbs ybrk and wyhyare singular; otherwise, we should expectybrkw and wyhyw,though the inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud are not always consistent in their use of matres lectionis.The inscription thus "appears to regard only YHWH as blessing and protecting the addressee". The goddess Asherah thus does not seem to be an active agent, and it is more likely that 'srthdenotes her symbol. Muller, however, argues that Asherah shares in blessing, but only one deity can be the subject of wysmrkand wyhy: "beides laBt sich, weil von personaler Funktionalitat, nicht wie der dynamistische Fruchtbarkeitssegen, den die vorher erorterten Wendungen offenbar meinen, auf zwei gottliche Aktanten verteilen" (p. 32). But if 'srthis a goddess, why should she not also share in ybrk and these actions? Frevel, p. 21, like Muller, opposes the same argument. He refers to three Punic dedication inscriptions, KAI 79, 102 and 105, which mention Baal Hammon and the goddess Tinnit, "jeweils aber, der Dedikation entsprechend, die Inschrift nur singularisch weitergefuhrt wird (anders z.B. KAI 88 mit pluralischer Fortsetzung)" (in fact, brk'in KAI 88.4 can be construed as either singular or plural; see Friedrich and

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

321

Rollig-referred to as "F. and R." below-p. 89). He probably understands brk' in KAI 102.5 as the third-person masculine singular of the imperative p'el with a third-personmasculine singular pronominal suffix; this is possible, but the plural is identical in form (F. and R., p. 89). Segert 1976, ? 64.422, in contrast, regards brk' here as a precative perfect in the third-person masculine singular with a suffix, but again the form is the same in the plural (F. and R., p. 89). In KAI 105.4 brky'is explained by F. and R., p. 89, as the masculine singular imperative pi'el with a third-person masculine singular suffix, but this is the only example of auch a form ending iny', and elsewhere on the same page they note ybrky' and ybrky as examples of the third-person masculine plural imperfect pi'elwith a third-person masculine singular suffix, and it may be asked whether it is certain that brky'is singular. Whatever is made of the forms considered above, there is no doubt that tbrk'in KAI 79.6 is third-person feminine singular (continued in line 10 by wspt, which is also feminine singular here). In this inscription, Tinnit is mentioned before Baal Hammon and seems to be regarded as the primary deity to whom the text is dedicated. There is an important difference between this inscription (and KAI 102 and 105) and the inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud. In the latter, for example, brktklyhwhtmnwl'srthinvolves Yahweh and 'srthin the author's act of blessing, but there is nothing corresponding in the Punic inscriptions, and no difficulty arises in them of an action involving two deities being continued by only one of them. An inscription may be dedicated to more than one deity, and yet only one of them may be asked to bless the donor. A different view of the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions from that of Tigay is taken by Coogan: "Despite the grammatical difficulty, understanding the last word as 'his [i.e. Yahweh's] Asherah [i.e. the goddess Asherah who was his consort]' is the most attractive of the possibilities." He thinks that the "absence of biblical parallels to the precise phrasing... underscores the highly selective character of the biblical traditions" (p. 119). It is indeed possible that a pronominal suffix could be used with a proper noun but that it does not happen to be attested in the Hebrew Bible. It seems best, however, to be guided by what is actually found, especially since 'srthcan be understood as "his asherah" within those limits. Schmidt (p. 97) appeals to Driver's article to support his view that it is legitimate to postulate the use of a pronominal suffix with a proper noun. We have seen, however, that Schmidt's interpretation of the

322

J.A. EMERTON

inscription is based on the questionable assumption that the words are intended to refer to the drawing. Another scholar who knows of Driver's article is Xella, who offers further evidence from Semitic languages other than Hebrew for the possibility of attaching a pronominal suffix to a proper noun. After mentioning additional examples in Accadian, he gives some detailed illustrations of the idiom in texts from Ebla that mention a god and a goddess, with a pronominal suffix attached to the latter: Rasap "and his Adamma", and Kura "and his Barama". He then turns to Ugaritic, which is undoubtedly a North-West Semitic language like Hebrew, and in which Driver had mentioned krtn, "our Keret", in CTA 16 (KTU 1.16). I 39. Xella adds to Driver's Ugaritic reference an example of the name of a goddess followed by the third-person masculine singular suffix h. This is interesting when compared with Tigay's comment (1987, p. 189) that "third person suffixes are cited by Driver only from Arabic and Ethiopic", and that Athiratu is never called "his [i.e. El's] Asherah" in Ugaritic (p. 190). The example given by Xella (pp. 607-8) is in Ugaritic and is found in CTA 33 (KTU 1.43). 13: 'nth,which he translates "pour son 'nt". Xella himself puts an asterisk by both the t and the h to indicate that the reading is uncertain. Herdner (Texte,p. 116 n. 8) notes that the letter transliterated 'looks like a very short s, but she thinks that it is a badly written ' ("ait" is presumably a misprint for "fait").In the volume of Figuresetplanches,the copy of the cuneiform text makes the difficulties plain; unfortunately, plate XXXVIII does not help, apart from showing something of the problem. The reading (or restoration) 'nthmay well be correct, but too much should not be built on the foundation of this reading. This text will be considered again below. In view of the evidence adduced by Xella for pronominal suffixes attached to proper nouns in Semitic languages other than Hebrew, he writes critically of scholars who, "en ayant recours a de veritables acrobaties philologico-exegetiques",refuse to admit "qu'un theonome f6minin puisse etre mis en rapport avec Yhwh. Afin d'eviter la conclusion que le dieu d'Israel avait comme paredre l'ancienne deesse cananeenne... on est meme arrive a invoquer les regles (6tablies par les moderes!) de la grammaire hebraique", and have regarded 'srthas a common noun (p. 603). It seems to him "desormais franchement impossible, a la lumiere des donnees exposees ici, qui remontent jusqu'a Ebla, pretendre aller a la recherche de solutions nouvelles pour sauvegarder la

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

323

puret6 du monotheisme hebraique des origines" (p. 609). It will, he thinks, be interesting to see what attitude will be taken in the future by those who think that 'irthrefers to an object rather than to a goddess. Will they deny "la continuite des traditions syro-palestiniennes" or "pour rester coherents, admettre qu'au IXe siecle Yhwh pouvait etre adore comme paredre d'Ash6rah"? In his opinion, "tertiumnon datur"(p. 610). Several comments may be offered on Xella's statements. First, it is strange to write disparagingly of rules of Hebrew grammar as established by modem scholars. We do not have a grammar of Hebrew written in biblical times, and modem grammars of Hebrew are written on the basis of the extensive material in the Hebrew Bible.3 Second, Xella appears to ascribe to those who think that 'irth is a common noun because it has a pronominal suffix the motive of wishing to safeguard the purity of Hebrew monotheism, and an unwillingness to admit that Asherah could be regarded as the consort of Yahweh. It is usually inappropriate for scholars to attribute motives to those with whom they disagree. Further, it is not true that all those who argue that 'srth means "his asherah" are inspired by the motives that he ascribes to them. For example, my article of 1982 recognized that Asherah was worshipped in Israel as a goddess (as the Old Testament itself testifies), and I saw "no difficulty in supposing that Asherah may have been the wife of Yahweh" in either popular or official religion (pp. 13-14).4 3 An argument like Xella's is advanced by Binger, p. 106: "if we come upon any linguistic phenomena that are unknown to us from the existing grammar, it seems somewhat shoddy to claim that we, several thousands of years later, are better able to write the language than people who actually spoke it". She appears to assume that the meaning of 'fsth is "his Asherah", but that is precisely the point at issue; it is something to be demonstrated, not to be taken for granted. There is no need to change our understanding of Hebrew grammar if an inscription can be interpreted in terms of usage attested in the Hebrew Bible-as it can, if the word means "his asherah". 4 The relevance of the inscription 'irt on two 7th-century B.C. jars from Tel Miqne (Ekron) to the worship of Asherah (and, indeed, its interpretation) is uncertain (see Gitin, pp. 250-2, 257). As Gitin says (p. 252). "the language... could be early Hebrew, Phoenician, or even Philistine". If it is Philistine, we suffer from the difficulty that little is known of the Philistines' language. If it is Phoenician, it may refer to either a sanctuary (Hoftijzer and Jongeling, p. 129) or the goddess Asherat (in Phoenician, the feminine ending -at has not yet changed to a) or perhaps her symbol (and, since vowel letters are not written in Phoenician at this time, the name Ashirta is also possible). If it is Hebrew, the word here may have the Phoenician form of the feminine ending. Hess understands PSrtat Tel Miqne to mean "'to/for Asherata'. Although the final he is missing from this form, the appearance of a taw at the end of the word further supports our interpretation of all these spellings as a divine name without a suffix"

324

J.A. EMERTON

Third, the Old Testament also attests the existence of the asherah, a wooden symbol of the goddess. It is difficult to see why Xella thinks that evidence from Semitic languages other than Hebrew makes it improbable that 'srthrefers to the goddess's symbol, rather than directly to the goddess. Even if Xella had proved that a proper noun in Hebrew, as distinct from a cognate but different language, could take a pronominal suffix, he would not have disproved that 'rth may refer to Asherah's symbol. Fourth, the texts that Xella has cited, like those cited by Driver, are in languages related to Hebrew, but not Hebrew itself, and some weight must be allowed to the usage and idiom found in the Hebrew Bible. The interpretation of 'srthdoes not involve a choice only between translating it "his Asherah" and denying that the goddess Asherah was worshipped in Israel (and regarded as Yahweh's consort). It is also possible to hold that Asherah was worshipped, but that the inscriptions under discussion refer to her wooden symbol. Tertiumdatur. III A different, and stronger, argument in favour of the view that a proper noun can take a pronominal suffix in Hebrew is advanced by Uehlinger (pp. 140-2). He argues that the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria" and "Yahweh of Teman" at Kuntillet 'Ajrud imply that a proper noun (yhwh) can be used in the construct state and so "is itself an example of double determination" (pp. 140-1): it is determinate in itself as a proper noun and also determinate by being in the construct state before the name of a place. "It follows that double determination was apparently possible in ancient Israelite and Judahite language, at least in particular circumstances." Therefore, he presumably holds, 'srth too may be understood as doubly determined: it may be determinate in itself as the name of the goddess Asherah, and also determinate because it has a pronominal suffix. Uehlinger looks at this evidence in the light of the material adduced by Xella.

(p. 19). He does not even consider the possibility that 'srt represents "Asherat" (or "asherat"), which would be the form in Phoenician corresponding to Hebrew 'aserd. Frevel, p. 21, comments that the Ekron inscriptions are, "Zwar nur als flankierende Evidenz, aber dennoch die personale Interpretation fiir Kuntilet'Aigrd nahelegend..." Even this qualified claim goes too far. The inscriptions at Ekron probably testify to belief in a goddess called Asherah (or Asherat, or even Ashirta, etc.), but that was already known. They have no bearing on the question whether the inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud refer to the goddess or to her symbol.

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

325

I discussed the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria" and "Yahweh of Teman" in 1982 (pp. 3-9) and compared them with the phraseyhwh s'bd'ot. I also compared such phrases as 'ur kasdfm,'dramnahdrayimand bet lehemyhidd. GK ? 125 h suggests that there is an ellipse of 'Jelhe betweenyhwh and sebad't,and of a word for "city" or "region" in the geographical phrases: "Yahweh (the God of) Hosts", "Ur (the city of) the Chaldees", etc. However, in the phrase "Aram-naharaim"the first word is vocalized 'dramin the construct state, not 'drdm.Further, GK admits that some "examples... come very near to the actual construct state". The reference to "Bethlehem of Judah" (Judg. xvii 7, etc.) distinguishes it from another place named Bethlehem in Zebulun (Josh. xix 15). It is possible to regard the place-name bet lehemas also a compound common noun meaning "house of bread" (cp. the first word of gibat sad'ulin 1 Sam. xi 4, etc.) and so as being capable of being in the construct state. GK ? 125 h, however, suggests that, "since Bethlehem, Aram, & c., are.... no longer names found only in one special sense", they "are no longer proper names in the strictest sense". Another possibility is to regardyehhfddin the phrase bet lehemyehuddas what Joiion calls the "accusatif de determination locale", here as an "accusatif attributif" (?? 126 h, 127 a): "Bethlehem (in) Judah". In 1982 (pp. 9, 19) I left open the question whether the tetragrammaton in the phrases yhwh smm,yhwh tmn and yhwh htmn(Davies: 8.017, 8.021, 8.016) is in the construct state or whether there is an ellipse of 'elohi. I did not consider the possibility that the phrase is to be explained in accordance with Jotion ?? 126 h, 127 a (and yhwh sebda'tcould not be explained in that way). In view of the pointing of 'dramin the construct state in the phrase "Aram-naharaim", it seems to me likely thatyhwh is also in the construct state in such phrases. If yhwh is in the construct state in the inscriptions, or if it may at least be claimed that such a view is not unlikely, what is to be made of Uehlinger's argument that this implies that 'srthmay also be doubly determinate, i.e. may mean "Yahweh's Asherah"? In 1982 (p. 14) I commented that "we should perhaps hesitate to be too dogmatic in stating what was not possible in Hebrew, and we must be prepared to modify our opinions in the light of new evidence". I also noted, however, that, if the writer had wished to refer to Yahweh and his consort Asherah, he could have written lyhwh... wl'srh"sthin accordance with a well-attested Hebrew idiom. Further, even if phrases at Kuntillet 'Ajrud show that yhwh could be in the construct state and

326

J.A. EMERTON

thus be doubly determinate, the possibility that '?rthmeans "his asherah" remains. Further, the use of a name in the construct state is not the same as the use of a name with a pronominal suffix, even if the existence of the former shows that it is possible for a name to be doubly determinate;and we still have no other example of the latter. A difficulty may have been eased, but the suggested construction remains unattested elsewhere in Hebrew. Uehlinger grants that the "view identifying 'his asherah' as a cult symbol, usually a wooden pole, cannot be totally excluded" (p. 142), but he favours the theory that it means "his Asherah", for whose possibility he has argued. The reason for his preference is as follows: One should remember... that this view [i.e. that the referenceis to a cult symbol] has usuallybeen argued on the basis of a whole clusterof assumptions(on Hebrew syntax, on early Israelitehenotheism,the lack of a paredrosbesides Yahweh, and our own [earlier]theory about the in Iron Age iconographyand Yahweh's recessionof anthropomorphism integrativetake-overof the attributesof other deities,includinggoddesses) some of which cannot withstandcriticalexamination.Entianonsuntmulnecessitatem-the straightforward explanationfavouredhere tiplicanda praeter is the most economicalone, in terms of scholarlyargument"(p. 142). This is a strange use of Occam's razor in the context of a discussion whether 'srth should be translated "his Asherah" according to an idiom that is nowhere else attested in Hebrew, or as "his asherah" according to a well-attested idiom. If Occam's razor is to be used at all, it might be thought to favour "his asherah", not the postulation of an otherwise unattested idiom. We read in the Old Testament both of the goddess Asherah and of her wooden symbol, and Uehlinger does not deny the possibility of the latter. How then can his theory be justifiably described as "the straightforward explanation" and more "economical" in its argument? What does he regard as the entiathat are not to be multiplied beyond what is necessary? It is not the meanings "Asherah" and "asherah", both of which he recognizes that 'dserd can have. Are the entia perhaps the "cluster of assumptions", "some of which cannot withstand critical examination", on the basis of which the opposing view "has usually been argued"? But to understand 'srth to mean "his asherah" does not necessarily depend on all the arguments that he lists (as the word "usually" concedes). My own argument in 1982 depended on only one assumption: namely, that it is better to understand 'srth on the basis of a well-attested idiom, rather

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

327

than to postulate the use of one found nowhere else. The argument seems no less straightforward or economical than Uehlinger's, to say the very least. IV D.N. Freedman accepts the view that l'fth means "by his Asherah" and argues for the possibility of the double determination of Asherah. He points out that both the singular 'dseraand the plural 'senm are found in the Old Testament, and he concludes that "presumably there was more than one such figure". He continues "Since Asherah was worshipped in more than one place, separate shrines and images would bear her name, and to distinguish one from the others, double determination would be both necessary and appropriate" (p. 246). Even if Freedman's argument for the possibility of double determination of Asherah is accepted, it does not necessarily follow that 'srth means "his Asherah" rather than "his asherah". He notes the view that 'dserdcan denote "a wooden pole" (p. 247), and he offers no argument against it. It would, indeed, be difficult to reconcile its denial with the evidence of the Old Testament. At best, Freedman's argument would leave open the question of the meaning of 'srthin the inscriptions. There are two parts to Freedman's argument for the possibility that Asherah was doubly determined. The first, as we have seen, is that the existence of the plural 'aserm implies that "there was more than one such figure". That appears to signify that there was more than one goddess Asherah. Since, however, the word 'dsera was used both of the goddess and of her wooden symbol, it seems possible that the plural was used of the latter, rather than of the former. An examination of the places where 'drseimappears in the Old Testament supports the view that it is, in fact, used of the symbol of the goddess. They are said to be built like bdmotand massebot(1 Kings xiv 23) and set up like massebot(2 Kings xvii 10). They are cut down (2 Kings xxiii 14; 2 Chron. xiv 2, xxxi 1, cp. xxxiv 4), and removed like the bdmot (2 Chron. xvii 6, cp. xxxiv 3); and like the hammanfmthey will cease to stand (Isa. xxvii 9). A similar conclusion may be drawn from the use of the other plural form 'dserotin 2 Chron. xix 3, xxxiii 3). At first sight, Judg. iii 7, which says that the Israelites "served the Baals 'et-habbedlfm and the Asheroth" (wayya'abedu we'et-ha'aserot) might appear to support the view that the reference is to the goddess (in the plural).

328

J.A. EMERTON

However, 2 Chron. xxiv 18 says that the people ofJudah "served the asherim and the idols (wayya'abldu 'et-had'serfm and if weet-ha'asabbim)"; people could serve idols, it is possible that they could be said to serve symbols of a goddess. It is thus clear that the plural 'dsetnmcould be used of the symbols of Asherah, and that is the normal usage in the Old Testament. The plural does not necessarily imply that there was believed to be more than one Asherah. The second part of Freedman's argument is that it would have been necessary to distinguish Asherah as she was worshipped in one place from Asherah as she was worshipped in other places, and he compares Ishtar of Nineveh and Ishtar of Arbela (p. 247). More particularly, there would have been a need to distinguish Asherah as the consort of a particular god from Asherah as the consort of another god. In the Ugaritic texts, she is the consort of El, and Freedman thinks that the reference to the "prophets of Baal" and the "prophets of Asherah" in 1 Kings xviii 19 (where he accepts the MT and does not follow those who regard the reference to the second group of prophets as secondary) shows Asherah "linked with Baal, apparently as his consort. So it would be legitimate and important to specify the god to whom she was attached in this fashion: 'his Asherah' and not some other god's" (p. 247). The goddess Athiratu usually appears in the Ugaritic texts as atrt ym, or simply as atrt, but in CTA 14. IV 201-2 (= KTU 1.14: IV 389) she appears as atrt. srm wilt sdynm(cp. lines 198-9 in CTA = 35-6 in KTU), "Athiratu of Tyre [or: the Tyrians], and [or: even] the goddess of the Sidonians". It is therefore possible that in Hebrew her name was sometimes associated with a particular place, just as Yahweh is associated with Samaria or Teman at Kuntillet 'Ajrud. It is not, however, obvious that it would have been necessary to specify in the inscriptions the deity with whom she is associated. If the reference is to Asherah, rather than to asherah, then the mention of Yahweh just before makes it plain that he is the deity with whom she is associated, and the suffix h is not needed. It would not be unsuitable, just as it is not unsuitable if the reference is to his asherah; but it would not be necessary or "important". Another suggestion is made by Tilde Binger, who discusses whether Asherah is a name or a title-and, of course, the difficulty about attaching a pronominal suffix to a name is eased if the word is, in fact, a title. She considers the possibility that it was originally a title that became a name or a name that became a title, or that it was

"YAHWVEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

329

both a name and a title. She concludes that "we are dealing with a word functioningas a divine name", which has "a 'secular' meaning that functions as a title or as an ordinary noun". She suggests that "this is indeed an official 'name-title' of the primary goddess of the pantheon" (p. 146). It is, indeed, likely that 'dserdhas an etymology and an "original" meaning. But Binger offers no solid evidence for its origin or use as a title as well as a name. She claims: first, that her theory of a "nametitle" helps to account for the use of the suffix at the end of 'rth; second, that it "gives a sensible solution to the tricky passage CTA 3.I.14-16"; third, that it "explains how the deuteronomists could get away with using the word both as a DN and as an ordinary noun"; and fourth, that it also explains "why a goddess can be called the same thing in cultures as chronologically and geographically separated from each other as is the case" (pp. 146-7). To begin with the first and third points: if, as appears in the Old Testament, 'dserdcould be used both as the name of a goddess and as a word for her material symbol, there is no need for the hypothesis of a "name-title"; and if it is used of an asherah, then the suffix raises no grammatical difficulty. The second argument concerns CTA 3 (= KTU 1.3). I 14-16, which Binger discusses on pp. 84-7. Line 15 mentions atrt in parallel with att in line 14. Binger notes on p. 87 Margalit's theory that atrt means "'a wife', a woman following in the footsteps of her husband". Margalit's speculative theory can scarcely count as evidence for another theory, and Binger herself recognizes the possibility that atrt is here a name, and that att is used in the generic sense of "woman" without the implication that the latter word serves to define the etymology of the former. Similarly, pp. 51-6 consider CTA 14. IV 198, 201-2 (= KTU 1.14: IV 35, 38-9), where, as was seen above, atrt is parallel to ilt (cp. CTA 6 [= KTU 1.6]. I 40), and also CTA 3 (= KTU 1.3). II 17-18, where 'nt is parallel to ilt. Athiratu and 'Anatu were both goddesses, but the parallel does not demonstrate that either name means "goddess".5As far as the fourth point is concerned, the fact that the same (or a similar) name could be used of a goddess (or goddesses) does not require the hypothesis of a "name-title". Why should not a goddess with the same or a similar name have been worshipped in different places even if the name was 5

The evidence on which the view of Dietrich and Loretz 1984, p. 60, is based, that atrt sometimes means "Gottin", is therefore open to a different interpretation.

330

J.A. EMERTON

not also a title? Binger has not substantiated her theory that Asherah was a "name-title". V Reference to the probable reading 'nth(CTA 33 [KTU 1.43]. 13) was made above in section II of the present article in the discussion of Xella's article. Dietrich and Loretz (1992, pp. 98-103) discuss 'srth at Kuntillet 'Ajrud in the light of this text. They interpret (pp. 39-76) KTU 1.43 as a ritual describing a ceremony in which a statue of 'Anatu plays a part, and they think that 'nth in line 13 refers to her statue, and 'ntmin lines 18 and 20 is a dual and refers to two statues of her (pp. 74, 99-100). They comment that "von der Formel 'Jahwe und seine Aschera' her gesehen, die Verehrung der Aschera in Form einer Statue oder eines Emblems bzw. Symbols nicht ausgeschlossen, sonder nahe gelegt wird" (p. 100). What bearing does this attractivetheory have on the question whether the reference at Kuntillet 'Ajrud is to Asherah or an asherah? If it is to an emblem or a symbol, or indeed to a statue, then the argument advanced by Dietrich and Loretz appears to point to the meaning "asherah", and this interpretation does not depart from the grammatical usage attested in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Dietrich and Loretz say on p. 181 that "in den Inschriften von Khirbet el-Qom und Kuntillet 'Ajrud von Jahwe und seiner Aschera, also seiner Frau, die Rede ist". But their earlier argument seems to be that the specific reference in 'srthis to an emblem, symbol or statue of Asherah. They believe that the presence of a statue of Asherah implies a cult of the goddess thus represented, and that she was the consort of Yahweh. They also accept the theory of J. Wellhausen that the MT of Hos. xiv 9 should be emended to read 'ny 'ntw w'srtw,"ich bin seine Anath und seine Aschera" (p. 173). But to draw such inferences from the inscriptions does not alter the fact that they believe them to refer directly to a representation of Asherah. What form did the asherah take? Dietrich and Loretz hold that it is not self-evident or necessary to limit representations of Asherah to "Symbole wie Lebensbaum usw." (p. 101), and they note (p. 102; cp. p. 84) that 1 Kings xv 13 speaks of miplesetla'aserd,and 2 Kings xxi 7 of 'et-peselha'aserd.I cited the latter verse on p. 15 of my article of 1982, and I noted that it "suggests that it was an image of a goddess", and more generally that an asherah was "some kind of wooden

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

331

symbol of the goddess Asherah" (cp. p. 18). Whether it was a statue in the sense of a realistic image of the whole body, or whether it was a carved wooden object of a more stylized form, is a question impossible to answer with certainty, and the possibility must also be allowed that an asherah sometimes took one form and sometimes another. These seems no fundamental difference between the interpretation of '^serd by Dietrich and Loretz and by me. VI So far, I have presented a case for the view that 'srthis to be translated "his asherah", rather than "his Asherah". Such a view can, however, be maintained only if it fits the context in which it appears. The text from Kuntillet 'Ajrud in Davies: 8.021 will serve as a basis for discussion: brktklyhwhtmnw'srth. The first three words are to be translated: "I bless thee by Yahweh of Teman". The preposition 1 introduces the name of the deity in whose name someone is blessed, as in Davies: 8.011 and 8.017 from Kuntillet 'Ajrud; in 2.016, and probably in 2.021, from Tell Arad; and in 25.003 from Khirbet el-Qom. Is it reasonable to suppose that someone blesses someone else, not only by Yahweh, but also by his asherah, i.e. by a cult object rather than by a goddess? Miiller argues against this interpretation (pp. 289). His reason is not just that lyhwhand 'srthare syntactically parallel, which encourages him to think that the latter, no less than the former, is a divine name. It is also that, when the Hebrew Bible uses I to introduce the source of a blessing, it always refers to a person, not a thing (and Margalit, p. 276, draws attention to the use of brk with I in the same way outside the Old Testament in Aramaic and other North-West Semitic texts). In contrast, Miiller claims that impersonal sources of blessing either follow a noun in the construct state or are introduced by the preposition min. He gives as examples of the former Gen. xlix 25 (beginning with the sixth word), and of the latter Deut. xxxiii 13. In addition, Miiller comments that the two means used to introduce an impersonal source of blessing can also be used of a personal source. He cites three examples of the use of a noun in the construct state. There is no need to discuss these examples, beyond commenting that they occur in different types of phrase or clause: "O (one) blessed by Yahweh" in words addressed to Abraham's servant in Gen. xxiv 31; "the blessing of Yahweh be upon you" in Ps. cxxix 8; and

332

J.A. EMERTON

"his land is blessed by Yahweh" in Deut. xxxiii 13. His three examples of the use of min are in 1 Kings ii 33; Gen. xlix 25a (the first six words of the verse), and 24 (if the pointing of missamis changed to read missfem); none of these examples, however, is construed with the root brk. How strong is Miiller's argument that I'srthcannot mean "by his asherah" because I was used only with persons, not impersonal objects, in blessings? It is true that all the examples of I in sentences with the verb brkin the Hebrew Bible are used with reference to persons. But the question arises whether that is because I would have been inappropriate before something impersonal, or whether it is a matter of chance and there is no example because there happened to be no occasion when it was needed. Further, the use of the preposition I in the inscriptions under discussion illustrates something not attested in the Hebrew Bible. As BDB, p. 514, points out, "construed with passive verbs, the I of reference notifies the agent". But the inscriptions use I with an active verb. The fact occasions no difficulty, but it serves to remind us that not all the idioms used in ancient Israel are attested in the Old Testament. Further, although in the Hebrew Bible the preposition is used with passive verbs to indicate the agent of the action, the position is not so simple in the construction under consideration in the inscriptions. In the clause brktklyhwhtmnwl'srth,it is not simply Yahweh who confers a blessing (although he seems to be the subject ofybrk, etc. later in the sentence): it is the author of the inscription who utters the blessing (brktk),and he does so by Yahweh and by 'srth.The clause thus differs from constructions in the Hebrew Bible, not only in using an active verb, but also by using an active verb with a human being as the subject of the verb "to bless" followed by I introducingyhwh and 'srth.For Miiller to establish his case that I would not have been used with anything impersonal, it would be desirable to point out a context in the Hebrew Bible (or an inscription) in which the verb brkappears and it seems likely that an attempt has been made to avoid the use of I with something impersonal. Neither of his two examples meets this need; and, indeed, he does not claim that they do, but only that they are ways in which the source of blessing can be expressed with impersonal objects. Yahweh is the subject of the active verb in the former verse, and the agent of the passive particiin the latter. In the former, birkotsddayimwdrdhamrefers ple meboreket to the parts of the body where blessing is experienced, not to its source, and the two previous phrases refer to the blessings that consist in water

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

333

from the skies or from under the earth (and these regions are not sources of blessing in the same sense that Yahweh is the source). In the latter verse, meged,which is introduced by the preposition min, is used "always of gifts of nature", and here of "(natural)gifts of heaven", etc. (BDB, p. 550). The inscription is different: here the author of the inscription utters the blessing, and it is somehow mediated through Yahweh and 'sth. Moreover, there appears to be no obvious reason why the use of I should necessarily be restricted to persons in constructions like those at Kuntillet 'Ajrud. It may therefore be doubted whether Miiller has succeeded in establishing a firm foundation for his claim that the preposition 1 could be used only with a person in a sentence of blessing using the verb brk. It must next be asked whether it is plausible to suppose that a cultic symbol of Asherah was associated with Yahweh in conferring a blessing. Miiller thinks not, although he notes analogies in Mesopotamian and Islamic texts (p. 29). Other scholars have thought differently, and we must consider the evidence that they adduce. Lemaire compares (p. 608) Matt. xxiii 16-22 in the New Testament, which speaks of swearing by the temple and by the gold in it, and also by the altar and by the offering on it. There is also rabbinic evidence for swearing by the temple and by the altar (M. Ket. II 9; M. Ned. I 3; M. Ker. I 7; B. Kidd. 71A; cp. Porten, p. 156). Further, Lemaire compares-and in this I followed him in my article of 1982 (pp. 14-16)-a 5th-century B.C. Aramaic papyrus from Elephantine (Cowley, no. 44) in which a Jew swears in line 3 by the temple and by Anathyahu: bmsgd'wb'nyhw. The noun msgd' means (1) "place of prostration/worship, temple", as well as (2) "object serving as a permanent sign of adoration of the god to whom it is dedicated", and (3) "a monument dedicated to a god to acknowledge a favour or to obtain one" (Hoftijzer and Jongeling, p. 663, who favour the first rendering in the relevant papyrus). I should perhaps have expressed myself more cautiously in 1982, for it is also possible to translate bmsgd'"in the temple" (see Porten pp. 154-5), although the fact that the next word is b'nyhw suggests that the b of bmsgd'is to be translated "by". While these passages speak of oaths, not of blessing, they appear to be relevant. Tigay (1986, p. 27-9; 1987, p. 174) offers several analogies. First, in "Neo-Assyrian letters the salutation 'May the gods bless you' is sometimes replaced by the formula 'May (the city) Uruk and (the temple) Eanna bless my lord"'. Second, in KAI 12.3-4, from Byblos, perhaps

334

J.A. EMERTON

in the 1st century A.D., something is dedicated ldnn wlsml b'l, "To our Lord and the image of Baal", and it goes on ybrk wyhww "May they bless and keep him (the donor) alive". Third, in KA 251 and 256, from the palace sanctuary in Hatra (lst-2nd century A.D.), there are the Aramaic texts: dkyrnsgyhb... tb wlnpyr qdmmm wmrtnwbr mryn'It wsmyt' klhyn, "May Nsryhb, be remembered... good and for pleasure before our Lord and our Lady and the sons of our Lords, Allat and all the images"; and dkyrnsty ltb w1lnpyrqdmmm wgdh wsnms... wsmyt',"May Nsry be remembered for good for plessure before our Lord, and Gdh and Sms... and the images." Tigay's first two examples refer explicitly to blessing, and the third and fourth to the related idea of being remembered for good. In the Assyrian example a city and a temple bless someone; in the Phoenician example both a god and an image are to give a blessing; and in the Aramaic texts someone is remembered for good before deities and also before images. In the light of such analogies, it is difficult to deny the possibility that Yahweh is associated with a cultic representation of a goddess in giving a blessing in the inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom. VII The argument of the present article will now be summarized. First, it is unlikely that the text on pithos A from Kuntillet 'Ajrud should be interpreted in the light of the drawing, which is probably from a different hand. The drawing shows two figures, who are best understood to be representations of the minor Egyptian god Bes, not of Yahweh and the goddess Asherah, and the drawing of the lyreplayer is unlikely to be Asherah. Second, in interpreting inscriptionsin a form of Hebrew that appears to be essentially the same language as that of the Old Testament, it is best to be guided by grammatical usage in the Hebrew Bible. That is not to say that it is impossible for an inscription to contain an idiom unattested in the Hebrew Bible; but preference should be given to an interpretation compatible with Biblical Hebrew. Third, there is force in Uehlinger's argument that the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria" and "Yahweh of Teman" bear witness to the possibility that proper nouns could, in certain circumstances at least, be used in the construct state (as I had argued in 1982), and that it was thus possible for them to be doubly determined. It is therefore

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

335

wrong to appeal to the principle that nouns cannot be doubly determinate to exclude the possibility that a proper noun could have a pronominal suffix. On the other hand, no clear examples have been found in Hebrew (as distinct from closely related languages) to support such an interpretation of 'srth.It remains preferable to interpret 'srthin terms of what is clearly attested in Hebrew. That suggests that the reference is not directly to the goddess Asherah, but to her symbol (asherah). Fourth, if the writer of the inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud had intended to refer to Yahweh and his consort Asherah, the wording that Biblical Hebrew would suggest is lyhwh... wl'rh 'sth. Fifth, there is no difficulty in the hypothesis that someone might utter a blessing by the name of a deity and also by a sacred object. Sixth, preference for the view that lyhwh... wl'srth means "by Yahweh... and by his asherah" (rather than "... and by his Asherah", i.e. by the goddess directly) is not necessarily dependent on the view that the goddess Asherah was not worshipped in Israel or regarded as the consort of Yahweh. The theory that Asherah is meant is not more straightforward or economical than the hypothesis that the reference is to her symbol. Thus, the interpretation of the words lyhwh... wl'srth as "by Yahweh... and by his asherah" is in keeping with attested Hebrew usage, whereas "by Yahweh... and by his Asherah" lacks any clear analogy in Hebrew. It is therefore best to give preference to the former interpretation.6 List of workscited A. Angerstorfer, "Aserah als 'Consort of Jahwe' oder Asirtah?", BiblischeNotizen 17 (1982), pp. 7-16. BDB = F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrewand EnglishLexiconof the Old Testament(Oxford, 1907). Pirhiya Beck, "The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet Ajrud)", Tel Aviv 9 (1982), pp. 3-68. Tilde Binger, Asherah.Goddessesin Ugarit,Israel and the Old Testament(Sheffield, 1997). M.D. Coogan, "Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient Israel", in Miller et al., pp. 115-24. A. Cowley, AramaicPapyriof the Fifth CenturyB.C. (Oxford, 1923). CTA = A. Herdner, Corpusdes tablettesen cuneiformes decouvertes a Ras Shamraalphabitiques Ugaritde 1929 a 1939, 2 vols: Texteand Figureset Planches(Paris, 1963). 6 I am grateful to Dr G.I. Davies for reading and commenting on a draft of this article.

336

J.A. EMERTON

G.I. Davies, AncientHebrewInscriptions(Cambridge, etc., 1991). J. Day, "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature", JBL 105 (1986), pp. 385-408. "Asherah", AnchorBible Dictionary1 (New York, etc., 1992), pp. 483-7. W.G. Dever, "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet 'Ajrfd", BASOR 255 (1984), pp, 21-37. M. Dietrich and 0. Loretz, "Ugaritic 'TR, ATR, A TRYT undA TRT", Ugarit-Forschungen 16 (1984 [1985]), pp. 57-62. Kultbildin Mesopotamien, , "Jahweund seineAschera".Anthropomorphes Ugaritund Israel. Das biblischeBilderverbot (Munster, 1992). G.R. Driver, "Reflections on Recent Articles", JBL 73 (1954), pp. 125-36. J.A. Emerton, "New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud", ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 2-20. D.N. Freedman, "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah", BiblicalArchaeologist 50 (1987), pp. 241-9. C. Frevel, Ascheraund derAusschliefilichkeitsanspruch YHWHs (Weinheim, 1995). Grammatik J. Friedrich and W. Rollig, Phonizih-pnis-punische (Rome, 1970). M. Gilula, "To Yahweh Shomron and his Asherah" (Hebrew), Shnaton3 (1978-9), pp.

129-37. S. Gitin, "Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron", in A. Biran and Today, 1990 (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 248-58. J. Aviram (ed.), BiblicalArchaeology GK = A.E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius'Hebrew Grammaras Edited and Enlargedby the Late E. Kautzsch(2nd edn [= the 28th German edn], Oxford, 1910). Judith M. Hadley, "The Khirbet el-Qom inscription", VT 37 (1987), pp. 50-62. , "Some drawings and inscriptions on two pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud", VT 37 (1987), pp. 180-213. R.S. Hess, "Yahweh and His Asherah? Epigraphic Evidence for Religious Pluralism in Old Testament Times", in A.D. Clarke and B.W. Winter (ed.), One God, OneLord in a Worldof ReligiousPluralism(Cambridge, 1991), pp. 5-33. J . Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionaryof theNorth-WestSemiticInscriptions (Leiden, New York and Koln, 1995). de l'hebreubiblique(2nd edn, Rome, 1947). P. Joiion, Grammaire KAI = H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaischeund aramdischeInschriften(Wiesbaden,

1962-4).

KTU = M. Dietrich, 0. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texteaus Ugarit (Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976); 2nd edn = The Cuneiform AlphabeticTexts from Ugarit,Ras Ibn Hani and OtherPlaces (Miinster, 1995). A. Lemaire, "Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Q6m et l'Asherah de Yhwh", RB 84 (1977), pp. 595-608. P.K. McCarter, "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and Epigraphic Data", in Miller et al., pp. 137-55. B. Margalit, "The meaning and significance of Asherah", VT 40 (1990), pp. 264-97. P.D. Miller et al. (ed.), AncientIsraeliteReligion:Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia, 1987). H.-P. Miiller, "Kolloquialsprache und Volksreligion in den Inschriften von Kuntillet 5 (1992), pp. 15-51. 'Agrudund Hirbet el-Qo6m", Zeitschrftfir Althebraistik B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968). J. Renz and W. Rollig, Handbuchder althebrdischen EpigraphikI (Darmstadt, 1995). B.B. Schmidt, "The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts", in Diana V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumphof Elohim:FromYahwismstoJudaisms(Kampen and Grand Rapids, 1995), pp. 75-105.

"YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH"

337

S. Segert, A Grammarof Phoenicianand Punic (Munich, 1976). , "Diptotic Geographic Feminine Names in the Hebrew Bible", Zeitschriftfur Althebraistik1 (1988), pp. 99-102. J.H. Tigay, You Shall Have No OtherGods:IsraeliteReligionin the Lightof HebrewInscriptions (Atlanta, 1986). - , "Israelite Religion: the Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence", in Miller et al., pp. 157-94. C. Uehlinger, "Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search for Yahweh's Cult Images", in K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults,Aniconism,and the Rise of Book Religionin Israel and the AncientNear East (Leuven, 1997), pp. 97-155. P. Xella, "Le dieu et 'sa' deesse: l'utilisation des suffixes pronominaux avec des theonymes d'Ebla a Ugarit et a Kuntillet 'Ajrud", Ugarit-Forschungen 27 (1995 [1996]), pp. 599-610. Z. Zevit, "The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription Mentioning a Goddess", BASOR255 (1984), pp. 599-610.

Abstract This article discusses whether 'srthin the phrase lyhwh... wl'rth in inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom refers to the goddess Asherah or her wooden symbol (here rendered "asherah"). First, it is argued that the drawing on pithos A from Kuntillet 'Ajrud does not illustrate the inscription, and that the figures in it probably do not represent Yahweh and Asherah. Second, although our knowledge of the Hebrew used in ancient Israel and Judah is far from complete, it is best, if possible, to interpret inscriptions in the light of usage in the Hebrew Bible. Since pronominal suffixes are not attached to personal names in the Hebrew Bible, it is better to translate 'hrth "his asherah", rather than "his Asherah". Third, there is no difficulty in supposing that someone could utter a blessing by Yahweh and by a cultic object.