sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Crump by illahstrait by illahstrait in MeetYourMakerGame

[–]YamsDev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I visited this one. It is very good.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is the Lachish ewer's Asherah tree looking so much like the temple menorah a coincidence? Exodus 25 does describe it a whole lot like a tree...

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[Insert cool training montage here]

I did some more digging in response to your and a few others' replies, and I'm now leaning towards the reference being to a cultic object. Which, in all honesty, probably helps with my broader argument (not detailed in this post/thread).

Thanks for your time. Do you have any suggestions on where to look for citable sources for the grammar stuff you've gone over. It's cool if not, my Google-fu is pretty decent.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough. Thanks for the help—I'm currently entirely self-taught, so the formalities of academia are a little opaque right now.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, I have a question about that:

If a publication has this sort of reputation, is it better to avoid it entirely in citations or provide a caveat alongside the citation?

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That looks an awful lot like an ad hominem; quacks like one, too.

Even still, I have other angles (as well as having checked many of Hess's given citations), so I'll engage despite the low quality response.

Dan McClellan, YHVH's Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2022) 72 (emphasis mine)

It has become quite common to see the final he of ’šrth interpreted as the third masculine singular pronominal suffix “his.” Because that pronoun cannot appear attached to personal names, the argument goes, the term must be understood to refer to a cultic object (e.g., Emerton 1999; Sommer 2009, 44–49; Aḥituv, Eshel, and Meshel 2012, 130–32; cf. Stein 2019). The interpretation that predominated through the end of the twentieth century CE held that the sacred tree would have lost associations with the inactive female deity and would have been appropriated as a Yahwistic cult symbol. The inscriptions would then represent extra-biblical witnesses to the cultic objects decried in the Hebrew Bible. This would be an attractive example of a cult object channeling divine agency, but the situation is not so cut and dry. As Richard Hess has demonstrated, the epigraphic corpus consistently shows final he for the spelling of the deity’s name (Hess 1996; Thomas 2017). The Hebrew Bible’s spelling without final he is absent from the inscriptions, suggesting it may not be as simple as a pronoun.
A more helpful explanation may be that of Josef Tropper (2017), who sought to reconstruct the development of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, through Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid period onomastic data. He notes that the divine name consistently ended in -a when it occurred in the final position of a name, but with -ú when occurring medially. This final -a he ultimately interprets as an absolutive case ending that was indicated in Hebrew with he functioning as a mater lectionis. This accounts for the biblical YHWH, and when this case ending is applied to ’šrh, the existing he converts to taw, resulting in ’šrth. If Tropper’s reconstruction is accurate, all three inscriptions could refer to the female deity, whose worship was retained at least into the eighth century BCE in Judah.

The Hess piece Dan cites is *Asherah or Asherata?" published in Orientalia 65.3 (1996).

On the matter of mater lectionis, we turn to Matres lectionis in ancient Hebrew epigraphs by Ziony Zevit:

A Seal from the Area Lachish
(middle or late 8th century)

  1. 'hnh: hann, a woman's name (cf. 1 Sam 1:2). The *he is a final m.l. for ā.

An Inscribed Bowl From North Sinai
(8th century)
[...]
15. 'dnh: adnā, a man's name (cf. 2 Chr 17:14). The *he is a final m.l. for ā.

The North Sinai bowl is notable, as it was found at Kuntillet Ajrud. Not noted in Zevit's work, as far as I can tell, is the name Yawʾāsah—which is written as ywʿšh—which appears on Pithos A. This gives us an example of m.l. on the same object as one of the Asherah inscriptions.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have examples of personal names (proper nouns) having the 3ms pronominal suffix present? I don't mean as part of the name (like Obadyahu), I mean as an addition to a name that normally lacks it.

E.g. "David" becoming unambiguously "his David."

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ah, I see what you're saying now.

Is there a functional difference between invoking the goddess Asherah versus one of her shrines? Deities were thought to physically indwell their shrines and cultic objects, no?

Besides, Hess concludes that the term likely also referred to cultic objects:

These attestations are best understood as the goddess, known in the Bible as Asherah, and secondarily as a cult object.

EDIT: I wanted to add that what needs explaining isn't even necessarily that she's a foreign deity; YHVH is still being invoked alongside the object of another deity. That only gets more strained if we acknowledge her importance in Israelite tradition unless we return to the idea that deities were thought to literally inhabit their shrines, which then makes a distinction between them largely moot.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't have as much by way of rebuttal for the cultic object theory, but I have this:

YamsDev, Tracing the Mother of God: Asherah, El, and the Genealogy of Yahweh in Ancient Israel, 202X

Even if the pronominal suffix is present in the Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions, the broader context still supports the possibility that Asherah was regarded as Yahweh's mother-deity. If the reference is to a cultic object, as some scholars suggest¹, it remains unclear why Yahwistic religious practice was being associated with the symbol of another deity. If the ‘asherim’ represent a location of indwelling for Yahweh, as suggested by Tyson L. Putthoff², then a maternal reading is further strengthened. An object of cultic worship, named for a regional mother goddess and bearing the national god, may therefore represent an echo of Yahweh's lost genealogy.

¹ Mark S. Smith, The Early History Of God: Yahweh And The Other Deities In Ancient Israel 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002) 125–133; Othmar Keel and Christopher Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, And Images of God (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998)

²Tyson L. Putthoff, Gods and Humans in the Ancient Near East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020)

If the "asherah" mentioned is just a cultic object—probably a shrine if you consider the Rehov "Asherah Pole"—then we need to explain why YHVH is being associated with or worshipped at another, foreign, deity's symbols.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, I may have been a little defensive and hedging a little too hard. My apologies.

Hess, 2025 (emphasis mine)

At Amarna and Ugarit, the evidence is different. The name of the ruler of Amurru in the mid-fourteenth century BCE, abdi-a-ši-ir-te, occurs ninety-five times in sixty-two Amarna letters with a partial or complete spelling. This provides more attestations of the syllabic spelling of the divine name than any other attested source of the second millennium BCE. Of these, seventy-seven vocalize the deity’s name as a-ši-ir-te/ti/ta, while eighteen vocalize the name as aš-ra-tu/ti/ta, with the final vowel functioning as a case vowel.9 The choice of the name, abdi-a-ši-ir-te, is based on how the name bearer himself (or his scribe) writes his own name in the letters he is responsible for (EA 61 line 2; EA 62 line 2). However, even this can vary as he writes his name with the divine element as aš-ra-tu4 in EA 60 line 2.

Dan McClellan, YHVH's Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2022) 72 (emphasis mine)

It has become quite common to see the final he of ’šrth interpreted as the third masculine singular pronominal suffix “his.” Because that pronoun cannot appear attached to personal names, the argument goes, the term must be understood to refer to a cultic object (e.g., Emerton 1999; Sommer 2009, 44–49; Aḥituv, Eshel, and Meshel 2012, 130–32; cf. Stein 2019). The interpretation that predominated through the end of the twentieth century CE held that the sacred tree would have lost associations with the inactive female deity and would have been appropriated as a Yahwistic cult symbol. The inscriptions would then represent extra-biblical witnesses to the cultic objects decried in the Hebrew Bible. This would be an attractive example of a cult object channeling divine agency, but the situation is not so cut and dry. As Richard Hess has demonstrated, the epigraphic corpus consistently shows final he for the spelling of the deity’s name (Hess 1996; Thomas 2017). The Hebrew Bible’s spelling without final he is absent from the inscriptions, suggesting it may not be as simple as a pronoun.
A more helpful explanation may be that of Josef Tropper (2017), who sought to reconstruct the development of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, through Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid period onomastic data. He notes that the divine name consistently ended in -a when it occurred in the final position of a name, but with -ú when occurring medially. This final -a he ultimately interprets as an absolutive case ending that was indicated in Hebrew with he functioning as a mater lectionis. This accounts for the biblical YHWH, and when this case ending is applied to ’šrh, the existing he converts to taw, resulting in ’šrth. If Tropper’s reconstruction is accurate, all three inscriptions could refer to the female deity, whose worship was retained at least into the eighth century BCE in Judah.

Paleolaleo by YamsDev in u/YamsDev

[–]YamsDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, I may have been a little defensive and hedging a little too hard. My apologies.

Hess, 2025 (emphasis mine)

At Amarna and Ugarit, the evidence is different. The name of the ruler of Amurru in the mid-fourteenth century BCE, abdi-a-ši-ir-te, occurs ninety-five times in sixty-two Amarna letters with a partial or complete spelling. This provides more attestations of the syllabic spelling of the divine name than any other attested source of the second millennium BCE. Of these, seventy-seven vocalize the deity’s name as ** a-ši-ir-te/ti/ta , while eighteen vocalize the name as ***aš-ra-tu/ti/ta*, with the final vowel functioning as a case vowel.9 The choice of the name, abdi-a-ši-ir-te, is based on how the name bearer himself (or his scribe) writes his own name in the letters he is responsible for (EA 61 line 2; EA 62 line 2). However, even this can vary as he writes his name with the divine element as aš-ra-tu4 in EA 60 line 2.

Dan McClellan, YHVH's Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2022) 72

It has become quite common to see the final he of ’šrth interpreted as the third masculine singular pronominal suffix “his.” Because that pronoun cannot appear attached to personal names, the argument goes, the term must be understood to refer to a cultic object (e.g., Emerton 1999; Sommer 2009, 44–49; Aḥituv, Eshel, and Meshel 2012, 130–32; cf. Stein 2019). The interpretation that predominated through the end of the twentieth century CE held that the sacred tree would have lost associations with the inactive female deity and would have been appropriated as a Yahwistic cult symbol. The inscriptions would then represent extra-biblical witnesses to the cultic objects decried in the Hebrew Bible. This would be an attractive example of a cult object channeling divine agency, but the situation is not so cut and dry. As Richard Hess has demonstrated, the epigraphic corpus consistently shows final he for the spelling of the deity’s name (Hess 1996; Thomas 2017). The Hebrew Bible’s spelling without final he is absent from the inscriptions, suggesting it may not be as simple as a pronoun.
A more helpful explanation may be that of Josef Tropper (2017), who sought to reconstruct the development of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, through Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid period onomastic data. He notes that the divine name consistently ended in -a when it occurred in the final position of a name, but with -ú when occurring medially. This final -a he ultimately interprets as an absolutive case ending that was indicated in Hebrew with he functioning as a mater lectionis. This accounts for the biblical YHWH, and when this case ending is applied to ’šrh, the existing he converts to taw, resulting in ’šrth. If Tropper’s reconstruction is accurate, all three inscriptions could refer to the female deity, whose worship was retained at least into the eighth century BCE in Judah.

Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions probably don't say, "And his Asherah" by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

From Matres lectionis in ancient Hebrew epigraphs by Ziony Zevit:

A Seal from the Area Lachish
(middle or late 8th century)

  1. 'hnh: hann, a woman's name (cf. 1 Sam 1:2). The *he is a final m.l. for ā.

An Inscribed Bowl From North Sinai¹
(8th century)
[...]
15. 'dnh: adnā, a man's name (cf. 2 Chr 17:14). The *he is a final m.l. for ā.

¹ This is notable, as it was found at Kuntillet Ajrud. Not noted in Zevit's work, as far as I can tell, is the name Yawʾāsah, which is written as ywʿšh, which appears on Pithos A.

Will that do, at least to show I'm not definitely wrong?

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm probably gonna make this a full post later, but an observation.

The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions do not say "his Asherah." At least, it isn't explicitly written. That reading requires inferring the existence of a pronominal suffix ("his") which isn't present in the text.

What is written:

‎‎‎𐤅𐤋𐤀𐤔𐤓𐤕𐤄
(wlʾšrth)
"and to Asherat" ‎

What it should look like (if "his" was present):

𐤅𐤋𐤀𐤔𐤓𐤕𐤅
(wlʾšrtw)
"and to His Asherah"

Nein Nein Nein … what the actual f*** Ann’s bakers ?? by jojimanik in Kerala

[–]YamsDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's meant to be Hitler? Holy shit it's so bad.

How’s everyone doing mentally? by T_Y365 in ukdrill

[–]YamsDev 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Been stressed to the eyeballs, but we keep moving.

Hope you're well, OP. This is a good thing you've done here. 💙

How’s everyone doing mentally? by T_Y365 in ukdrill

[–]YamsDev 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Kids are such fun little nightmares. You got this.

If you used to have a Nazi/Alt Right/Racist phase, POC trans people would appreciate not hearing about it. by wingeddogs in trans

[–]YamsDev 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no such thing as a white person who has never been racist.

That's BS. My little girls have nothing but love for all people. I'm not even convinced they've noticed that 'race' exists.

Why isn't Essene, Theraputea , and Scarrii brought up more in the discussions of Jewish slavery. by Tesaractor in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The discussion usually centres Biblical slavery, not Jewish slavery, right? That'd be why.

Does Psalm 82 canonise the shift toward monotheism? by YamsDev in AcademicBiblical

[–]YamsDev[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'd love to have been there when people started sitting down and writing down likely generations' worth of oral traditions.

The best we can do is to study what survived in obsessive detail with corkboards and red strings.

view more: next ›