The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel Sung Jin Park (Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, OH, USA; sja7park@gmail.com) 1. Introduction Over a quarter of a century after the finds from Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet ^Ajrud, in spite of much discussion by numerous scholars, the identity of the goddess Asherah both in the biblical and extra-biblical sources is still under debate. On the one hand, based on biblical references, scholars have identified Asherah as a goddess, the goddess, or the cult object.1 This goddess took the form of a tree or was made of wood because it could be cut down (Ex 34,13; Deut 7,5; Jud 6,25–30; II Reg 18,4; 23,14; II Chr 14,2; 31,1) or even burnt (Deut 12,3; Jud 6,26; II Reg 23,15). Two references in the Bible (Deut 16,21; Jud 6,26) clearly indicate that Asherah was made of wood, but it still remains unclear whether she was wholly or only partly made of wood.2 Moreover, her cultic function in connection with the cult of Yahweh is ambiguous. On the other hand, based on extra-biblical references, lots of scholars have proposed extremely diverse forms for Asherah, including a tree (either a living tree or a tree of life), a lion (related to Qudshu), a snake, the mistress of the beasts, and even a menorah.3 No one, how1 2 3 I make a distinction between »a goddess« and »the goddess« since some scholars like B. Halpern have treated »a goddess« as a common noun or title but »the goddess« as a proper noun. This distinction helps further clarification for Asherah’s cultic function, so I will make use of it in this paper. See B. Halpern, The Baal (and the Asherah) in SeventhCentury Judah: Yhwh’s Retainers Retired, in: R. Bartelmus / T. Krüger / H. Utzschneider (eds.), Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte (Festschrift Baltzer), OBO 126, 1993, 120–121. According to S. Wiggins, the extra-biblical texts, including Ugaritic literature, do not indicate any special connection between Asherah and trees. He thinks that many scholars connect Asherah in the extra-biblical texts or icons with trees primarily because of evidence from the Bible, which is minimal. S. Wiggins, Of Asherahs and Trees: Some Methodological Questions, JANER 1 (2001), 186. On Asherah as a tree, refer to M. S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and The Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2002, 112; J. M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess, UCOP 57, 2000, 206–209; O. Keel, ZAW 123. Bd., S. 553–564 © Walter de Gruyter 2011 DOI 10.1515/ZAW.2011.036 554 Sung Jin Park ever, has suggested clear evidence to prove that any of these manifestations actually refers to Asherah.4 The study on the manifestations of Asherah is beyond the scope of this paper because of the scantiness of evidence and ambiguity in interpretation for Asherah. In this paper, three essential inquiries regarding Asherah’s cultic identity in the Hebrew Bible will be examined: 1) Was she a living tree or a wooden object? 2) Was she conceived of as the goddess or the cultic object in the context of ancient Israel? 3) Is there any significant difference among the three different linguistic forms: ’ašerah, ’ašerôt and ’ašerîm? 2. Asherah in the Hebrew Bible There is no doubt that Asherah in the Hebrew Bible is some kind of tree or wooden cult object, but although scholars disagree about whether she was a living tree or just a wooden object.5 There are forty occurrences of the term Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, of which eighteen are the feminine singular, nineteen are the masculine plural (including six of which have 4 5 The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms, 1997, Fig. 253–254. As a living tree, see B. Margalit, The Meaning and Significance of Asherah, VT 40 (1990), 264–297. As a lion, W. G. Dever, Material Remains and the Cult in Ancient Israel: An Essay in Archaeological Systematics, in: C. L. Myers / M. O’Connor (eds.), The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, 1983, 573. As a snake, L. S. Wilson, The Serpent Symbol in the Ancient Near East: Nahash and Asherah: Death, Life and Healing, 2001, 89–146; S. M. Olyan, Asherah in the Cult of Yahweh in Israel, SBLMS 34, 1988, 70–71. As a mistress of the beasts, J. B. Burns, Female Pillar Figurines of the Iron Age: A Study in Text and Artifact, AUSS 36 (1998), 42. As a tree of life, H. N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative, HSM 32, 1985, 111–114; R. Hestrin, The Lachish Ewer and the ’Asherah, IEJ 37 (1987), 215. As a menorah, L. Yarden, The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah, the Seven-Branched Lampstand, 1971, 40; J. E. Taylor, The Asherah, The Menorah and The Sacred Tree, JSOT 66 (1995), 29–54. For criticism of the alleged connection of some iconographic symbols with Asherah, see C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs: Beiträge zu literarischen, religionsgeschichtlichen und ikonographischen Aspekten der Ascheradiskussion, BBB Band 94/2, 1995, 767–912. J. Day, Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature, JBL 105 (1986), 392–398; Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, 1–3; J. A. Emerton, New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions from Kuntillet ’Ajrud, ZAW 94 (1982), 15–19. As mentioned earlier, Wiggins challenges with the popular view that Asherah was made of wood: »At the current state of our knowledge, the only firm evidence for this association is the biblical material, especially Deut 16,21 and Jud 6,25–30, which indicates that an asherah was made of wood«. See Wiggins, Of Asherahs and Trees, 186. The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel 555 suffixes), and three are the feminine plural.6 For the discussions on cultic nature of Asherah in ancient Israel, the three questions mentioned above will be explored. 2.1. Was Asherah a Living Tree or Wooden Object? The majority of scholars agree that Asherah was a wooden object mainly because of the characteristics of the verbs used in connection with Asherah.7 These verbs, ^śh (»to make«), bnh (»to build«), ^md (»to stand up«), and nsb (»to set up«), seem appropriate for a wooden object. No proponent of this view, however, has ever discussed the most problematic verb, nt^ (»to plant«) in Deut 16,21 (NASB, »You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God, which you shall make for yourself«.) because this word can be used only with reference to a living tree. On the contrary, A. Lemaire and J. E. Taylor hold that Asherah was a living tree.8 Particularly Taylor further proposes that Asherah was »not only a living tree but also a trimmed, stylized tree« like one in the drawing on Pithos A at Kuntillet ^Ajrud. The semantic range of the verb nt^ may also support Taylor’s argument, but she does not think that this verb constitutes critical evidence since she considers the usage of the verb in Deut 16,21 figuratively. Taylor states her argument: »The use of the verb would reflect an association that was in keeping with the imagery in the simile … It seems doubtful that this single reference should be used as proof that asherim could be considered poles ›planted‹ in the ground. The word nata^ lended itself to figurative use, and is employed metaphorically of people who could be planted as seeds in a tract of land in II Sam 7,10, Jer 12,2 and (represented by tents) Dan 11,45«.9 6 7 8 9 The references are Ex 34,13; Deut 7,5; 12,3; 16,21; Jud 3,7; 6,25.26.28.30; I Reg 14,15.23; 15,13; 16,33; 18,19; II Reg 13,6; 17,10.16; 18,4; 21,3.7; 23,4.6.14.15; II Chr 14,2; 15,16; 17,6; 19,3; 24,18; 31,1; 33,3.19; 14,3.4.7; Jes 17,8; 27,9; Jer 17,2; Mic 5,13. J. Hadley divides these references according to their verbs. See, Hadley, The Cult of Asherah, 55. krt »to cut« (Ex 34,13; Jud 6,25.26.28.30; II Reg 18,4; 23,14); gd^ »to cut down« (Deut 7,5; II Chr 14,2; 31,1); śrp »to burn« (Deut 7,3; Jud 6,26 [implied]; II Reg 23,6.15); nt^ »to plant« (Deut 16,21); ^śh »to make« (I Reg 14,15; 16,33; II Reg 17,16; 21,3.7; II Chr 33,3); bnh »to build« (I Reg 14,23); ^md »to stand« (II Reg 8,6) »to set up« as hiphil (II Chr 33,19); nsb »to set up« (II Reg 17,10); ys^ »to bring out« (II Reg 23,6); dqq »to pulverize« (II Reg 23,6; II Chr 34,4); swr »to take away« (II Chr 17,6); b^r »to consume, burn, remove« (II Chr 19,3); t[hr »to purge« (II Chr 34,3); šbr »to break into pieces« (II Chr 34,4); nts[ »to pull or break down« (II Chr 34,7); ntš »to pluck up« (Mic 5,13). Day, Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, 402–403; Emerton, New Light, 15–19. A. Lemaire, Les Inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qôm et l’Ashérah de YHWH, RB 84 (1977), 603–608; Taylor, The Asherah, the Menorah, 35. Taylor, The Asherah, the Menorah, 38. 556 Sung Jin Park It is correct that the figurative use of this verb is frequently attested especially when it is used of the establishment of a people (Ex 15,17; II Sam 7,10; Jer 24,6; Ez 36,36; Am 9,15; Ps 44,3), of the heavens (Jes 51,16), of tents (Dan 11,45), and of nails (Koh 12,11). However, it is unclear how this verb in Deut 16,21 is used figuratively within the context of Deut 16,21, which grants solemn commandments to the Israelites. Moreover, Taylor does not provide any conclusive evidence that Asherah was a stylized tree, in spite of her effort to connect Asherah to the menorah in the tabernacle in light of the Bethel tradition.10 It is most unlikely that Asherah was a living tree with a particular shape. There is no evidence in the Bible that Asherah was chopped or trimmed into a particular sacred form, with the possible exception of II Reg 21,7. In this verse, the phrase pæsæl ha’ašerah (»the graven image of Asherah« in RSV; »the carved image of Asherah« in NRS and NKJ; »the sculptured image of Asherah« in TNK) seems to support Taylor’s position. Interestingly, II Chr 33,7, a parallel passage to II Reg 21,7, employs a different phrase pæsæl hassæmæl (»the carved image of the idol« in NRS and NAS; »the image of the idol« in RSV; »the carved image« in NIV; »the sculptured image« in TNK). It is unclear what the word sæmæl means. This word occurs several times in the Phoenician and Punic inscriptions (e.g., KAI 26, 33, and 41).11 It is probably from the Akkadian samullu which refers to a kind of tree.12 According to the description of Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, this samullu tree was not an item to get easily, since it is totally absent from all tribute lists and inventories of temples and of private persons.13 Therefore, it is unlikely that the Israelites would have used such a rare tree for making a wooden symbol of Asherah. In the biblical sources (Deut 4,16; Ez 8,3.5), the term sæmæl usually refers to a figure or image rather than to a living tree. Unlike II Reg 21,7, the passage of II Chr 33,7 may reflect the Chronicler’s antiAsherah ideology to deny the presence of Asherah in the Jerusalem temple, treating her as a fetish figure. Moreover, it is interesting to observe that, in every passage in the Bible except for II Reg 21,7, Asherah stands alongside pæsæl (»graven image«) as a separate entity (Deut 7,5; 12,3; II Chr 33,19; 34,3.4.7; Mic 5,12–13).14 In the view of the fact that both pæsæl and sæmæl generally refer to objects (rather than to living objects) and that both terms are used in connection with Asherah, 10 11 12 13 14 Taylor, The Asherah, the Menorah, 48–51. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah, 68. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD) 15, 112. According to CAD, samullu might be an Eastern tree with shining wood, perhaps white sandalwood, originating in India. CAD 15, 113. R. J. Pettey, Asherah: Goddess of Israel, AUS 74, 1990, 54–65; Day, Asherah in the Hebrew Bible, 403. Also see Burns, Female Figurines, 28. The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel 557 it is safe to conclude that Asherah is a wooden object rather than a living tree. Furthermore, against Taylor’s claim, some scholars argue that it would be impossible for a living tree to be planted inside a temple. This objection, however, is far-fetched by assuming that a living tree needs to be planted inside a temple in order to be cultic object at the temple. It is surely possible that Asherah could be planted in the open-air court of the temple, instead inside the temple, especially since Asherah is mentioned together with other cultic objects in the temple court, such as altars.15 Although this argument does make any contribution to decide whether Asherah was a living tree or merely a wooden objects, we may at least know that either a living tree or a wooden object could have been planted at the high places, which were open spaces with other cultic objects such as massebôt and incense altars as well as other sacred trees which seem bigger than Asherah (I Reg 14,23; II Reg 17,10). 2.2. Was Asherah a Goddess or a Cultic object? Numerous scholars consent that most passages in the Bible mentioning Asherah refer to a cult object. It is true that all the verses where Asherah does not take the definite article refer to the cult object (Ex 34,13; Deut 7,5; 12,3; 16,21; I Reg 14,15.23; II Reg 17,10.16; 21,3; 23,15; II Chr 33,3; Jer 17,2; Mic 5,13). As a norm, if Asherah is a proper name, the definite article must not be used, whereas if Asherah is a cult object, the definite article may be used.16 B. Halpern argues that the term Asherah in the Bible should not be treated as a proper noun but as a common noun or title, denoting a female divinity like »a goddess«. He comments, »Where the cult object is concerned, no definite article is required. However, wherever a goddess may be called an asherah, the definite article consistently appears«.17 Halpern’s statement that »where the cult object is concerned, no definite article is required« had easily been misunderstood because of the ambiguous word »required«. For example, Hadley takes erroneously Halpern’s statement when she argues that »the use of 15 16 17 One may argue that a living tree would have been planted in a temple in light of Ps 52,8 (»I am like a green olive tree in the house of God«) and Ps 92,12–13 (»The righteous will flourish like a palm tree, they will grow like a cedar of Lebanon; Those who are planted in the house of the Lord shall flourish in the courts of our God.«). The trees of these two passages, however, are used in a metaphorical sense, so thus we cannot tell anything regarding whether a living tree was planted in the temple. J. Emerton, »Yahweh and His Asherah«: The Goddess or Her Symbol?, VT 49 (1999), 316–337. Even though Emerton discusses the case of Kuntillet ^Ajrud, his excellent argument is also applicable to this matter. Halpern, The Baal (and the Asherah), 120–121. 558 Sung Jin Park the definite article is much more complex than this (Halpern’s view), and it occurs both when the goddess and when the cult object is indicated«.18 However, Halpern does not deny that the cult object can appear with the definite article; he merely affirms that the cult object does not require a definite article. Moreover, according to I Reg 18,19, Halpern’s assertion may face another difficulty. Since the context of I Reg 18,19 deals with the identity of the true God, Baal (with the definite article) should be neither treated as a cultic object nor as a common noun which denotes a male deity.19 Rather, Baal must be treated as a proper noun which denotes »the god«. This fact can be also applied to the case of Asherah. When Asherah is indicated as »the goddess«, the definite article occurs. Then, why do Asherah or Baal take the definite article if they are referred as a proper noun like »the god« or »the goddess«? Since the term ba^al takes a wide range of semantic domains, and Baal as the god was a dominant deity in Israel, the use of the definite article would be a literary device to prevent confusion, like »that Baal«. The same principle can apply to Asherah when she was used as the associate of Baal. Accordingly, we can conclude that the passages without the definite article must refer to the cult object, but those with the definite article may refer to either the goddess or the cult object. Therefore, if a passage takes the definite article, it is necessary to decide whether the goddess or the cult object is in view according to the context of the passage. Among the total twenty-six passages which use Asherah with the definite article, I Reg 18,19 and II Reg 23,4 clearly refer to Asherah as the goddess, whereas the rest of the twenty four passages refer to Asherah as the cult object. Now let us pay attention more to these two texts in detail. Since the context of I Reg 18,19 is talking about the polemic confrontation between Yahweh and Baal, Asherah must be treated as the goddess. Some scholars have observed awkwardness of this passage since Baal appears many times, but Asherah only once. For this reason, Olyan treats I Reg 18,19 as a textual gloss and affirms that there were no prophets of Asherah in the original text. Furthermore, Olyan proposes that an editor of the book of Kings added the presence of Asherah’s prophets to the original text because of his Deuteronomistic anti-Asherah ideology.20 His suggestion is not that convincing, however. Had the Deuteronomistic schools supported the anti-Asherah ideology, why did the editor(s) not make the intentional change from Astarte to Asherah in light of the anti-Asherah polemic in other Deuteronomistic passages 18 19 20 Hadley, The Cult of Asherah, 62. Actually Halpern’s discussion is quite similar to that of T. Binger, Asherah: Goddess in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, JSOT.S 232, 1997, 146. Olyan, Asherah and The Cult of Yahweh, 8–12. The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel 559 (Jud 2,13; 10,6; I Sam 7,3–4; 12,10; I Reg 11,5.33; II Reg 23,13) which mention the association of Astarte with Baal? Furthermore, if the editor(s) wished to promote anti-Asherah polemic, why did he (or they) not mention Asherah more than that one time in I Reg 18,19? By contrast, M. Smith suggests the opposite idea. Considering that Asherah is not attested anywhere in coastal Phoenicia during the Iron Age, he proposes that Astarte, as the main Phoenician goddess during the Iron Age, posed the major threat to Israelite religion. Smith states, »The polemic against Asherah in I Reg 18,19 may have represented a reaction against the cult of Astarte either in the northern kingdom during the ninth century or in the Jerusalem cult at the end of the Iron Age. The references to the Asherah in II Reg 21 and 23 might point to the late Judean monarchy as the time for the substitution of Asherah for Astarte in I Reg 18,19«.21 Smith insists that Astarte was originally written in I Reg 18,19 from antiAstarte polemic (contrary to Olyan), but the later editor substituted Asherah for the original Astarte. Smith’s argument is more persuasive than Olyan’s; however, it is also not without problems. First, assuming that Smith’s suggestion is right, why did the later editor(s) not substitute Asherah for Astarte in both the earlier (e.g., I Reg 11,5 and 11,33) and later texts (e.g., II Reg 23,13)? Second, the fact that there is no attestation of Asherah in coastal Phoenicia during the Iron Age does not imply the popularity of Astarte in the religion of Israel. Therefore, it is very unlikely that only with the notion of Asherah in I Reg 18,19, any conclusion regarding anti-Asherah or anti-Astarte polemic can be drawn, but the existence of Asherah in I Reg 18,19 presents at the very least some degree of association with Baal within the Deuteronomistic History. The second passage, II Reg 23,4, also refers to Asherah as the goddess by presenting a typical formula: the verb ^śh + the cult object (kelîm) + le + ’ašerah (cf. II Reg 21,3). Although I Reg 15,13 and its parallel account II Chr 15,16 show a similar structure, these two passages mention mipleset (›horrid image‹) instead of the name of a cult object. Therefore, the preposition le of II Reg 23,4 is a »benefactive or ethical dative« (»the vessels made for Asherah«) whereas the same preposition in I Reg 15,13 and II Chr 15,16 has an »object complement function« (»a horrid image as Asherah«).22 As a conclusion, most biblical passages mentioning Asherah refer to the cult object except for two passages: I Reg 18,19 and II Reg 23,4. 21 22 Smith, The Early History, 126. B. K. Waltke / M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 1990, 207–209. 560 Sung Jin Park 2.3. Differences among ’ašerah, ’ašerôt and ’ašerîm Most of the plural forms with the definite article are found in the book of Chronicles. It is not surprising that the Chronicler, as a later redactor, uses mostly the plural form of Asherah with the definite article, referring to »Asherah objects« stationed at different high places. There are only two exceptions in the book of Chronicles: II Chr 15,16 (a singular form without the definite article) and II Chr 33,3 (a feminine plural form without the definite article). Let us pay our attention to these two passages. First of all, II Chr 15,16 has two major differences from its parallel account, I Reg 15,13. The first difference is that Asherah in II Chr 15,16 does not have the definite article, but Asherah in I Reg 15,13 does. The second is that the word order between mipleset and la’ašerah is different. I Reg 15,13 follows the typical Hebrew word order, whereas II Chr 15,16 places la’ašerah in a more emphatic position. Moreover, the Chronicler adds an additional verb dqq (»to crush into pieces, pulverize«). Generally speaking, I Reg 15,13 presents a typical Hebrew style, while II Chr 15,16 the emended Hebrew style. Since Asherah refers to a / the cult object here, it is not important whether Asherah takes the definite article or not. The difference of definiteness between two verses seems to be quite minor, like the difference between »the cult object« and »a cult object«. Then, why did the Chronicler leave off the definite article that appears in II Reg 15,13? It is likely because of the context. I Reg 15,12 provides a general description about idols from the expression ,yllgh=lk=tX rcyv (NASB, »he removed all the idols«), then the next verse specifies the idols by mentioning Asherah. Therefore, it is no problem at all for Asherah in I Reg 15,13 to take the definite article as a cataphoric reference. To the contrary, in II Chr 15,16, the word Asherah indicates a new referent, so the Chronicler did not feel any need to place the definite article. Although a similar expression ,yjvq>h rbiyv (NASB, »he removed the abominable idols«) to I Reg 15,12 appears in II Chr 15,8, there is no clear connection of this verse with II Chr 15,16. It is most unlikely that the differences between I Reg 15,13 and II Chr 15,16 are not scribal errors, as some scholars have allegedly claimed, but differences derived from their respective contexts.23 The second passage, II Chr 33,3, uses the feminine plural form without definiteness for Asherah, but its parallel passage, II Reg 21,3, uses the singular form without definiteness. The indefiniteness of both verses is not problematic because both contexts treat Asherah as a cult object alongside Baal with the verb ^śh. The use of the singular form in II Reg 21,3 is acceptable for two reasons. First, the parallel word »Baal« 23 Hadley, The Cult of Asherah, 65; H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCBC, 1982, 16. The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel 561 is mentioned in the singular. Second, the phrase, »as King Ahab of Israel had done«, which does not appear in II Chr 33,3, also invites the use of the singular because this phrase seems to recall the Baal temple in Samaria that King Ahab had built in I Reg 16,32–33, a passage in which Baal and Asherah appear in the singular. On the other hand, the term ’ašerôt used in II Chr 33,3, paired with be^alîm, may bestow the theological implication that Asherah was a consort of the male deity Baal. However, why did the Chronicler use ’ašerôt in this verse, instead of using ’ašerîm, the normal usage of the Chronicler (II Chr 14,2; 17,6; 24,18; 31,1; 33,19; 34,3.4.7)? Before answering this question, let us discuss some scholars’ observations about the differences between ’ašerah and ’ašerîm. M. Smith states, »There is the further matter of the distinction between the ’ašerah and the ’ašerîm. Besides the difference in morphology, the first word being a feminine singular noun (with a feminine plural) and the latter a masculine plural noun, biblical passages suggest a functional difference. The ’ašerah is erected next to the altar of a god (Deut 16,21; Jud 6,25–26). However, the ’ašerîm never appear next to an altar but beside or under a tree on high places (Jer 17,2; I Reg 14,23; II Reg 17,10). Further distinctions offered are little more than educated guesses«.24 Joan E. Taylor rightly reputes Smith’s assertion by pointing out that in Jer 17,2 the altars and the ’ašerîm appear together, as in Ex 34,13, Deut 7,5; 12,3; II Chr 31,1 and II Chr 34,3–4.25 It is A. L. Perlman that has dealt with this matter. She separates ’ašerîm lexically from ’ašerah and then suggests that ’ašerah refers to objects made by the apostate kings or to the goddess as in the Ahab-Jezebel texts, but ’ašerîm appears most frequently in a religious reformation setting of the Judahite kings with destruction of the objects.26 It is true that ’ašerah appears with the form of a singular noun in the Ahab-Jezebel texts in association with the Baal temple in Samaria and that ’ašerîm appears mostly in the high place texts, especially in the Second Chronicles. Perlman’s argument, however, does have many counterexamples. For example, II Reg 18,4 describes Hezekiah’s reformation and destruction of many cultic sites but uses a singular form of Asherah. Furthermore, Asherah also refers to the cult object even in the Ahab-Jezebel texts (I Reg 16,33; II Reg 13,6). It is not easy to make a clear distinction between ’ašerah and ’ašerîm, but it is clear that the passages mentioning ’ašerîm are no problem at all since this masculine plural form always refers to the cult objects at 24 25 26 Smith, The Early History, 111. Taylor, The Asherah, the Menorah, 41. A. L. Perlman, Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic Literatures, Ph.D. Dissertation, 1978, 34. 562 Sung Jin Park the high places and most often is mentioned together with other cult objects. Although both I Reg 14,15 and II Chr 24,18, where ’ašerîm is mentioned, do not have any notion of »high places«, it is implied in their contexts because these two passages talk about Israel’s idolatry in a summarized fashion. On the other hand, the passages mentioning ’ašerah are somewhat complicated. The singular form of Asherah occurs mostly within a temple setting (for the Baal temple in Samaria, I Reg 16,33; II Reg 13,6; for the Jerusalem temple, II Reg 21,7; 23,4.6.7; probably refer to the Jerusalem temple, I Reg 15,13 // II Chr 15,16 implied from the brook Kidron), sometimes either beside the altars of Baal (Jud 6,25.26.28.30) or at the high places (Deut 16,21; I Reg 18,19; II Reg 17,6; 18,4; 21,3; 23,15). Actually all these passages citing ’ašerah refer to the cult object except for only two cases which refer to the goddess (I Reg 18,19; II Reg 23,4), as already mentioned in 2.2.27 The singular form ’ašerah may be normally used everywhere. Now we may turn our attention to the feminine plural form ’ašerôt. A feminine plural form of Asherah is only found in three passages: Jud 3,7, II Chr 19,3 and 33,3. Taylor insists that the use of the feminine plural form is merely because of confusion or a scribal error.28 M. Smith also suggests a similar, but better explanation for his assumed scribal confusion. Since the names of the deities Ba^al(îm) and ^aštarôt are cited together in other Deuteronomistic passages (Jud 2,13; 10,6; I Sam 7,4 and 12,10), confusion might have occurred between ’ašerôt and ^aštarôt. For this reason, Smith makes a comment: »Astarte shows some of the traits and roles earlier reckoned to Asherah. For example, in the Ugaritic texts, rbt is a standard title of Asherah (e.g., KTU 1.3 V 40l 1.4 I 13, 21; 1.4 IV 31, 40; 1.6 I 44, 45, 47, 53; cf. 1.16 I 36, 38; 1.23.54), but in inscriptions from Sidon, Tyre, Kition, and Egypt, this epithet belongs to Astarte (KAI 14.15; 17.1; 33.3; cf. 48.2; 277.1). Similarly, Asherah is considered the mother figure in the Ugaritic texts (KTU 1.4 II 25–26, IV 51, V 1; 1.6 I 39–41, 46), but in Phoenician inscription it is Astarte who bears the title of ›mother,‹ ’m (KAI 14.14)«.29 27 28 29 It is unclear whether the term Asherah of II Reg 23,7 refers to the goddess or the cult object. According to its context, Asherah as the cult object is weightier. In this verse, it is likely that the word battîm does not refer to »temple« but »a small shrine« for Asherah as wooden object. For the matter of the temple weavers, it has been reported that temple weavers had made »wool and linen garments for the gods« in the Mesopotamia. Refer to D. B. Weisberg, Wool and Linen Material in Texts from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar, in: Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies 16, 1982, 218–226. For detailed discussion of weavers, see Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschließlichkeitsanspruch YHWHs, 2, 680–699. Talyor, The Asherah, the Menorah, 39. Smith, The Early History, 129. For confusion between Asherah and Astarte, see also R. Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, 1990, 41. The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel 563 In light of Ugaritic and Canaanite texts, Smith ascertains that some degrees of confusion between the second-millennium goddess Asherah and the first-millennium goddess Astarte have existed and that later the conflation between these two goddesses has occurred in the first-millennium Israelite literature. Although he plausibly explains confusion between Asherah and Astarte in the extra-biblical resources, it is hard to observe that his explanation is applicable to all the passages denoting ’ašerôt in the Hebrew Bible. There are nine passages which cite Astarte (Ashtoreth in the Bible, Jud 2,13; 10,6; I Sam 7,3.4; 12,10; 31,10; I Reg 11,5.33; II Reg 23,13). The first five passages explicitly connect ^aštarôt with be^alîm (only Jud 2,13 uses ba^al), not as the proper name of a goddess but as a general term for »gods and goddesses« since the contexts of these passages mention these two as representatives among other foreign gods. This expression is parallel to the Akkadian idiomatic expression ilanu u ištaratu (»gods and goddesses«).30 Israel may have borrowed this fixed form of expression from the Philistines. The last four passages use ^aštarôt or ^aštoræt as a proper noun of the goddess of the Philistines without mentioning Baal.31 Interestingly, the context of Judges 3,5–7 is very similar to those of the first five passages citing ^aštarôt because Judges 3,5–7 mentions foreign nations and ’ašerôt along with be^alim as representatives among foreign gods. Furthermore, in Judges 3,7, two minor Hebrew manuscripts as well as the Syriac and Vulgate versions read ^aštarôt instead of ’ašerôt. From the discussion, the reading of ^aštarôt is surely preferred in the passage. This reading is simply a scribal error. Should we, then, in II Chr 33,3, also read ^aštarôt instead of ’ašerôt, as in Judges 3,7? The answer is negative for two reasons. First, the parallel account, II Reg 21,3, also reads Asherah. Second, no other mention of ^aštarôt as a goddess appears in the book of the Chronicles. As discussed earlier, ’ašerôt in II Chr 33,3 refer to the cult objects which emphasize the femininity of the goddess in association with the male deity, Baal. In this sense, it is reasonable to think that the Israelites might consider Asherah as a consort of Baal due to the anti-Asherah ideology which was influenced by the Deuteronomistic History at the later period of Monarchy. The passage of II Chr 19,3 does not show any association with Baal. Rather, it mentions ha’elohîm. Here, the term ha’ælohîm is the ideological and theological counterpart to habbe^alîm as a representative of »foreign gods«. Therefore, we also find the anti-Asherah ideology here. The oc- 30 31 Refer to CAD 7, 97–98. Halpern, The Baal (and the Asherah), 119–120. 564 Sung Jin Park currence of ’ašerôt in these two passages cannot be due to confusion between Asherah and Ashtoreth since the Deuteronomistic editors were able to differentiate between Asherah and Ashtoreth (cf. II Reg 23,13–14). In summary, ’ašerah, the singular form, is normally used everywhere, in a temple setting or at the high places, whereas ’ašerîm, the masculine plural form, always refers to the cult objects at the high places. ’ašerôt, the feminine plural form, indicates the cult objects which emphasize the femininity of the goddess in association with the male deity like Baal.32 This article examines three issues concerning the cultic identity of Asherah: 1) Was she represented by a living tree or a wooden object? 2) Was she conceived as the goddess or the cultic object in the religious context of ancient Israel? 3) Is there any significant difference among the three grammatical forms: ’ašerah, ’ašerôt and ’ašerîm? The evidence in favor of Asherah as a wooden object is the weightiest in the Bible. ’ašerîm (the masculine plural form) clearly refers to the cult objects at the high places, while ’ašerah (the singular form) can occur everywhere, in a temple setting or at the high places. ’ašerôt (the feminine plural form) emphasizes the femininity of the goddess in association with the male deity, Baal. From this it can be inferred that the Israelites considered Asherah as a consort of Baal according to the Deuteronomistic anti-Asherah ideology that influenced the later period of the Monarchy. Cette étude aborde trois aspects de l’identité cultuelle de l’Ashérah: 1) Etait-ce un arbre vivant ou un objet cultuel? 2) Etait-elle, dans le contexte religieux de l’ancien Israël, comprise plutôt comme divinité ou comme objet cultuel? 3) Existe-il quelque différence significative entre les trois formes grammaticales ’ašerah, ’ašerôt et ’ašerîm? On note que les attestations bibliques présentant l’ ’ašerah comme objet en bois sont les plus puissantes. La forme plurielle masculine ’ašerîm désigne clairement des objets cultuels des hauts-lieux, tandis que le singulier ’ašerah se rencontre partout, aussi bien en relation avec un temple qu’avec des hauts-lieux. La forme plurielle féminine ’ašerôt, enfin, désigne la féminité de la déesse, en relation avec le dieu Baal. Ainsi s’explique le fait que les Hébreux conçurent, sous l’influence de l’idéologie anti-Ashérah deutéronomiste de l’époque monarchique tardive, l’Ashérah comme la parèdre de Baal. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht drei die kultische Identität der Aschera betreffende Fragestellungen: 1) Wurde sie durch einen lebendigen Baum repräsentiert oder durch ein hölzernes Kultobjekt? 2) Wurde sie im religiösen Kontext des Alten Israel eher als die Göttin oder als das Kultobjekt verstanden? 3) Gibt es signifikante Unterschiede im Gebrauch der drei grammatischen Formen ’ašerah, ’ašerôt und ’ašerîm? Die Belege für Aschera als hölzernes Objekt überwiegen insgesamt in der Bibel. Die maskuline Pluralform ’ašerîm bezieht sich dabei klar auf Kultobjekte auf den Höhenheiligtümern, während die Singularform ’ašerah überall begegnen kann, sowohl im Zusammenhang mit einem Tempel als auch mit den Höhenheiligtümern. Die feminine Pluralform ’ašerôt schließlich betont die Weiblichkeit der Göttin, in Verbindung mit der männlichen Gottheit Baal. Von daher ist zu erklären, dass die Israeliten unter dem Einfluss der deuteronomistischen Anti-Aschera-Ideologie in der späteren Königszeit Aschera als Gefährtin Baals auffassten. 32 I would like to express my gratitude to Professor David B. Weisberg and Benjamin Noonan of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion for their cordial comments and suggestions. Copyright of Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.