Short Notes on the Etymology of Asherah Sung Jin Park, Cincinnati The purpose of the short article is to present three interpretations regarding the etymology of Asherah 1 , to examine critically them, and to propose a new suggestion. These three views have been offered by two scholars, W. F. Albright and B. Margalit. Albright had suggested the first interpretation, which has been accepted by much of scholarship so far, that the term Asherah means ‘holy place, sanctuary,’2 being originated from the Semitic root that appears in Akkadian as aši/ertu, ešertu, iši/ertu, and ašru,3 and in Phoenician as ¬srt, and in Aramaic as ¬trâ, and in Ugaritc as ýṯrt (Athirat).4 Alice L. Perlman affirms that this view is one of the most viable options in light of the comparative Semitic consonantal system.5 She further suggests that any connection between the name Asherah and its derivation has been lost in prehistory and that it is best to read ýṯrt as the goddess’s personal name.6 Perlman’s suggestion is interesting, but she does not offer any further evidence for her assumption. –––––––––––––––––––––– 1 Though some scholars write ‘Asherah’ to indicate the goddess and ‘asherah’ to indicate the cult object, I do not use this convention in this paper. 2 W. F. Albright, ‘The Evolution of the West-Semitic Divinity ¬An-¬Anat-¬Attâ,’ AJSL 41 (1925), p. 96. For the proponent of this view, see J. Day, ‘Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature,’ JBL 105/3 (1986), pp. 387–389 ; Alice L. Perlman, ‘Asherah and Astarte in the Old Testament and Ugaritic Literatures,’ (Ph. D. Dissertation, GTU and UC, Berkeley, 1978). 3 See The Assyrian Dictionary of The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 1 (A / II), pp. 436–439, 456–457. According to CAD, the word refers not only to ‘sanctuary’ as a general term, but also to ‘a special small room for cultic purposes’ or ‘socle for images and symbols.’ 4 G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartin, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, Part I. (2nd rev. ed., Leiden : Brill, 2004), pp. 126–128. 5 S. Moscati / A. Spitaler / E. Ullendorff / W. von Soden, An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages : Phonology and Morphology (PLO 6 ; Wiesbaden : Otto Harrassowitz, 1964), p.43. Alice L. Perlman, ‘Asherah and Astarte,’ pp. 74– 78. 6 Perlman, ‘Asherah and Astarte,’ pp. 74–78. 528 S. J. Park [UF 42 As compared with Perlman, J. Day suggests a more plausible idea that ýṯrt means ‘holy place, sanctuary’ by identifying ýṯrt with the goddess qdš who appears in Ugaritic literature7 and the Winchester College stele,8 and whose name means ‘Holy or Sacred One.’ J. Day along with some other scholars propose that, since the last two out of three names (Qudshu – Astarte – Anath) on the Winchester College stele were major Syrian goddesses, the first name, Qudshu, should also be a major Syrian goddess. For this reason, they conclude that, because Athirat, Astarte, and Anath were three major goddesses, Qudshu in this stele must be another name for Athirat.9 This proposal sounds great, but, as Wiggins rightly points out, it has some errors. How do we know which goddess is a ‘major’ one or not? Is it based on the number of occurrences the goddesses are cited? If so, why is Shapshu, the sun goddess, not considered to have been one of the major goddesses even though this goddess is cited more than Astarte and Athirat in extant Ugaritic mythology?10 It was F. M. Cross who offered KTU 1.14 IV 32–39 as further evidence that qdš was an epithet of Asherah.11 32 ýḫr 33šp[š]m . bṯlṯ ym[ġy .] lqdš 35 ý[ṯ]rt . ṣrm . wlþlt 36sdynm . ṯm 37ydr [.] krt . ṯ® 38 þ þṯt . ýṯrt . ṣrm . 39 wþlt . sdynm (KTU 1.14 IV 32–39) 34 After sunrise, on the third day, he (Keret) arrived at the sanctuary of Athirat of the Tyrians, of the goddess of the Sidonians. There, Keret, the noble, made a vow, as surely as Athirat of the Tyrians lives, and (as surely as) the goddess of the Sidonians. Cross reasoned that the word qdš in line 34 was appositional to the next phrase ý[ṯ]rt ṣrm (‘Athirat of the Tyrians’), and thus concluded that qdš was identical –––––––––––––––––––––– 7 J. Day, ‘Asherah in the Hebrew Bible,’ p. 389. F. M. Cross also suggested this identification even though he supported the later suggestion of his professor W. F. Albright. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic : Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1973 ; 9th printing, 1997), pp. 32–33 ; Walter A. Maier, III, ¬AŠERAH : Extrabiblical Evidence (HSM 37 ; Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1986), pp. 27–28, 81–121. 8 I. E. S. Edwards, ‘A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College Collection,’ JNES 14 (1955), pp. 49–51. 9 W. G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife ? Archaeological and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2005), pp. 176–178 ; Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 33 ; Maier, ’AŠERAH, pp. 27–28 ; T. Binger, Asherah : Goddess in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (JSOTSup. 232 ; Sheffield : Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 56–60 ; Richard J. Pettey, Asherah : Goddess of Israel (AUS 74 ; New York : Peter Lang, 1990), p. 29. 10 Steve. A. Wiggins, ‘The Myth of Asherah : Lion Lady and Serpent Goddess,’ UF 23 (1991), p. 387. 11 Cross, Canaanite Myth, p. 33. 2010] Short Notes on the Etymology of Asherah 529 with Athirat of Ugarit. Cross’s assumption, however, should be rejected for the following reasons. First, the expression ýḫr špšm + preposition b + numeric number (day) in lines 32–33 is regularly followed by a geographical location. For example, 46 ýḫr . špšm . brb® after sunrise on the fourth day, ymġy . lÿdm . rbt he arrived at Udum the great, 48 wÿdm [. ṯr]rt Udum the majestic. (KTU 1.14 IV 46–48 (|| KTU 1.14 III 4–5)) 47 Here, Udum is a city of King Pabuli. Therefore, it is most likely that the word qdš in KTU 1.14 IV 34 refers not to an epithet of Athirat but to a place, possibly, the ‘sanctuary’ dedicated to Athirat of Tyre. Second, in the phrases of KTU 1.14 IV 38–39, the goddess qdš is not repeated. It is evident that ‘Athirat of the Tyrians’ is identical with ‘the goddess of the Sidonians’ in the text.12 If the word qdš were an epithet of Athirat, this word would also appear in lines 38–39 just as it appears in lines 34–35. Some may attempt to support the identification of Athirat with Qudshu from the name of one of Athirat’s servant(s), qdš (w) ýmrr. The epithet of qdš (w) ýmrr is dgy rbt ýṯrt ym. Here, dgy is considered a dual form, ‘two fishers.’13 It is plausible that dgy is a dual form because of its form and KTU 1.4 IV 16–17, which treats Qdš and ¬Amrr as separate deities: 13 wyḥbq . qdš . wýmrr yšṯn . ýṯrt . lbmt . ®t 15 lysmsmt . bmt . pḥl 16 qdš . yÿḫdm . šb®r 17 ýmrr . kkbkb . 14 Qdš and ¬Amrr help, set Athirat on the back of a donkey, on the beautiful back of the donkey. Qdš holds a torch, ¬Amrr shines like a star. One of Athirat’s servants may carry the name Qdš, but this fact lends no support to the conclusion that Athirat is Qdš. It is likely that Athirat and Qdš are totally different deities in Ugaritic literature. Wiggins comments, “Since we have the form qdšt attested de facto in Egypt, we are not able to prop up the Ugaritic identification on the basis of the masculine epithet. It should also be noted that the stone bowl inscription published by Redford (this bowl is also now missing) which mentions Qedeshet, refers to her as the ‘lady of the stars of heaven.’ Nowhere in the texts which we possess is Asherah referred to with astral characteristics, but we do know that Ashtart was known in Egypt as the ‘mistress of heaven.”14 –––––––––––––––––––––– 12 Aicha Rahmouni, Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts (J. N. Ford trans., HdO 1.93 ; Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 69–70. 13 G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends (OTS 3 ; Edinburgh : T & T Clark, 1971), p. 95 ; Rahmouni, Divine Epithets, p. 153. 14 Wiggins, ‘The Myth of Asherah,’ p. 389. 530 S. J. Park [UF 42 Albright’s first suggestion is valid in that the term Asherah is originated from the Semitic root in light of comparative Semitics, but it is still doubtful that this term refers to ‘holy place, sanctuary’ in connection with the goddess Qdš. The second interpretation upon the etymology of Asherah was also proposed by W. F. Albright, who changed his earlier view later. Based on the G participle form of a verb ýṯr (‘to go forth, to walk, or to tread’), Albright interpreted the epithet rbt ýṯrt ym of Athirat in Ugaritic literature as ‘the Lady who treads on the sea (dragon)’ or ‘she who walks on the sea.’15 He adopted the Mesopotamian mythological conflict between Marduk and the sea-god, Tiamat and created a similar, but unknown Ugarit mythological conflict between Asherah and the seagod, Yam, based on the epithet rbt ýṯrt ym of Athirat. Albright reasoned that the original tnn had disappeared because of this epithet of Athirat.16 Saul M. Olyan, one of the proponents of this proposal, attempts to identify tnn with the Punic Tannit and then, Tannit with Asherah from the biblical resource that both Nehushtan (a bronze serpent) and Asherah were removed together by Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:4.17 This theory is interesting, but based too much upon the unproven conjecture. The bottom line of Albright’s assumption, widely acknowledged by numerous scholars, is that there was the conflict between Athirat and Yam. Regarding this conflict, however, no evidence can be found in Ugaritic literature. On the contrary, Ugaritic literature presents the close relationship between these two deities.18 The epithet rbt ýṯrt ym appears twenty-two times in Ugaritic literature, mostly in the Baal cycle in KTU 1.4.19 One of the main themes in the Baal cycle is the competition motif among Baal, Yam, and Mot. In the Baal cycle, El, the supreme god, and Athirat, his consort, favor Yam and are hostile at times to Baal. After Yam is defeated and killed by Baal, Mot is called ‘the loved of El.’ Other passages such as KTU 1.4 II 12–26 (Athirat’s hostile response against Baal after his killing Yam) and KTU 1.6 I 39–42 (Athirat’s joyous response with her sons at the news of Baal’s death at the hands of Mot) imply that Athirat and her sons favor more Yam and Mot than Baal. Later, for political reason, Athirat –––––––––––––––––––––– 15 W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1942), pp. 77–78 and also Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan : A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (London : Athlone Press, 1968), p. 105. The proponents of this view are F. M. Cross, Richard Pettey, and S. M. Olyan. See F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth, pp. 32–33 ; Pettey, Asherah : Goddess of Israel, p. 7 ; Olyan, Asherah in the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS 34 ; Atlanta : Scholars Press, 1988). 16 Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, p. 105. 17 Olyan, Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh, p. 70. O. Hvidberg-Hansen identifies Tannit with Anat instead of Asherah. See O. Hvidberg-Hansen, La déesse TNT : Une étude sur la religion canaanéo- punique (Copenhague : Gad’s Forlag, 1979). 18 See Wiggins, ‘The Myth of Asherah,’ p. 386. 19 For examples, see KTU 1.4 III 23–36 ; IV 1–4, 31, 40–47 ; V 2–19. 2010] Short Notes on the Etymology of Asherah 531 recognizes Baal as king, but it does not mean that her favor is upon Baal. The two following examples show a hostile relationship between the sons of Athirat and Baal. 38 wn . þn . bt [.] lb®l . km . þlm wḥẓr k b*[n .] ý*ṯrt . mṯb . þl 40mẓll . b[nh . 39 m]ṯb . rbt . ýṯrt 41. ym*. mṯb .[pdr]y* . bt . ýr (KTU 1.3 V 38–41) 1 yþḫd b®l . bn . ýṯrt rbm . ymḫṣ* . bktp 3 d*kym . ymḫṣ . bṣmd 4 ṣġrym* . ymṣḫ* . l ýrṣ[ 5 ? p* y*[®l .] b*®*l* . l ksþ . mlkh 2 6 [ ] . l kḥṯ . drkt*h (KTU 1.6 V 1–6) Now there is no house for Baal like gods, nor a court like the sons of Athirat, the dwelling of El is the residence of [his] so[n]. The dwelling of Lady Athirat of the Sea is the residence of [Pdr]y, daughter of Light. Baal seized the sons of Athirat, he (Baal) smote the greatest with a mace, he smote the crushers of Yam with an axe, dragged the smallest of Yam to the earth. Then, Baal is enthroned on his royal throne, […] to the throne of his dominion. Although these two passages do not explicitly show nature of the relationship between Athirat’s sons and of Yam, they reveal at least that that relationship is a close one. Therefore, the epithet rbt ýṯrt ym could be translated as ‘the Lady who walks on the Sea’ not in a hostile sense, but with the understanding that ‘the sea’ is Athirat’s dwelling place, just as heaven is the dwelling place of El. Some other scholars interpret ym as ‘day,’ instead of ‘sea,’ insisting that there is no evidence to connect Athirat with the Sea. W. G. E. Watson, for example, reads the epithet of Athirat, as ‘The Lady who determines the Day’ in light of the title ‘Mistress of Fates’ (be-le-e[t] ši-ma-tim) in a ‘Hymn to Amurru.’20 This suggestion seems unlikely, however. According to KTU 1.4.II.31 and KTU 1.4 IV 3–4, as mentioned earlier, the epithet of Athirat’s servant(s), qdš (w) ýmrr, is dgy rbt ýṯrt ym (‘two fishermen of Lady Athirat of the sea’). This epithet indicates some degree of connection between Athirat and the Sea.21 Here, we should mention that, in the earliest Amorite records, Athirat was originally called aširtu bēlet ṣēri, ‘Lady of the steppe,’ a title also dedicated to Ishtar.22 An epithet linking Athirat with the steppe is not evidence of animosity –––––––––––––––––––––– 20 W. G. E. Watson, ‘Aṯrt ym : Yet Another Proposal,’ UF 25 (1993), p. 432 ; Binger, Asherah : Goddess in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament, pp. 48–50. 21 22 Rahmouni, Divine Epithets, pp. 152–153, 285. T. Yamashita, ‘The Goddess Asherah,’ (Ph. D. dissertation, Yale University, 1964), p. 20, quoted from Steve A. Wiggins, A Reassessment of ‘Asherah’ : A Study According to the Textual Sources of the First Two Millennia B. C. E. (AOAT 235 ; Verlag Butzon & Bercker, Kevelaer, 1993), p. 137. 532 S. J. Park [UF 42 between Athirat and Yam since Athirat was depicted as a hunter in the steppe even in Ugaritic literature (see KTU 1.23,16–18). 23 As Hadley well points out, the reason that Athirat was not described as the Lady of the sea in the Amorite record (different from the Ugaritic texts) may have been because of the geographical difference between Ugarit and the Amorite lands.24 From the discussion, contrary to Albright’s interpretation, we may conclude that the epithet of Athirat rbt ýṯrt ym implies close connection between her and Yam. B. Margalit has suggested the third view that ýṯr refers to ‘following (in the footsteps of ).’ He modifies de Moor’s interpretation and further proposes, “The thesis of this article is that a single solution suggests itself in both cases, reflecting as they do different aspects of what we have called ‘the Asherah problem’, viz., the Ugaritic word ýṯrt (=[āθirat-]) and its Hebrew cognate ¬āšērâ were originally, and basically, common nouns meaning ‘wife, consort’, lit., ‘she-who-follows-in-the-footsteps (of her husband).”25 According to Margalit, the epithet rbt ýṯrt ym of Athirat would mean ‘the Lady who follows in the footsteps of Yam,’ in other words, ‘the consort of Yam.’26 This view has not attained any popularity among scholars because it is somewhat far-fetched. Neither the biblical resources nor the extra-biblical documents attest any Semitic nominal form with this meaning. As evidence, Margalit suggests a synonymous parallelism in KTU 1.3 I 13–15, ks . qdš (.) ltphnh . ýṯt || krpn . lt®n . ýṯrt. He translates it “A sacred cup not seen by a (house) wife || a goblet not seen by ýṯrt”.27 He proposes that the two terms are in the synonymous parallelism, so the word ýṯrt is identical to ýṯt (‘wife’). However, the two terms need not to be in synonymous parallelism. It would be better to understand the second clause in an emphatic sense, ‘A sacred cup woman may not see || a goblet even Athirat may not see.’28 Moreover, Margalit provides no evidence for any etymological association between ýṯt and ýṯrt. The preceding discussions have shown that, while the etymology of Athirat remains unclear, certain proposals should be ruled out. Qdš is not identical with Athirat, and Athirat is not in a relationship of conflict with Yam, as some schol–––––––––––––––––––––– 23 Perlman, ‘Asherah and Astarte,’ pp. 74–8. 24 Hadley, The Cult of Asherah, p. 51. Rahmouni comments, “ ¬Atiratu was somewhat related to the sea as a geographical entity (. . .) it may relate to the well known fact that the abode of her famous consort, ¬Ilu, was surrounded by fresh water.” Divine Epithets, p. 285. 25 Baruch Margalit, ‘The Meaning and Significance of Asherah,’ VT 40 / 3 (1990), p. 269. 26 Hadley, The Cult of Asherah, p. 50. 27 Margalit, ‘Meaning,’ p. 272. 28 Even though this translation is my own, some scholars support this translation. See M. Smith, ‘The Baal Cycle,’ in Simon B. Parker ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (WAWS 9 ; Atlanta : Scholars Press, 1997), p. 106. 2010] Short Notes on the Etymology of Asherah 533 ars have suggested. In light of comparative Semitics, it is preferable to understand that the term Asherah be derived from Akkadian aši/ertu, eši/ertu, iši/ertu, and ašru, and Phoenician ¬srt, and Aramaic ¬trâ, and Ugaritic ýṯrt. It is most likely that the goddess name Athirat be derived from the G passive participle form, ¬aṯīratu,29 probably referring to ‘one followed by (the gods),’ that is, ‘progenitress or originatress.’ This new proposal corresponds well with Asherah’s image as ‘the mother of the gods’ as in ÿm þlm of KTU 2 2.32,46 and qnyt þlm of KTU 2 1.4 I 22, 1.4 III 26–30, 1.4 III 35, 1.4 IV 32, 1.8 II 2.30 –––––––––––––––––––––– 29 Josef Tropper, Ugaritische Grammar (AOAT 273 ; Ugaritic-Verlag, Münster, 2000), pp. 473–477. 30 G. del Olmo Lete and J. Sanmartin, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, pp. 127– 128. Here, KTU 2 refers to The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places, KTU : second, enlarged edition (ALASPM 8 ; Münster, 1995). akk aši/ertu 527, 533 ašru 527, 533 ešertu 527 iši/ertu 527, 533 at 2 Kings 18,4 530 gn Anath 528 Asherah PASSIM 527 Astarte 527, 528, 532 Baal 530, 531, 532 Ishtar 531 Mot 530 Qdš and ˀAmrr 529 Qudshu 528, 529 Shapshu 528 Tannit 530 Yam 530, 531, 532 phoen ˀsrt 527, 533 ug a̓ ṯr 530 a̓ ṯrt PASSIM 527 dgy rbt a̓ ṯrt ym 529, 531 qdš 528, 529, 531, 532 tnn 530 ym 531 ut KTU 1.14 III 4–5 529 KTU 1.14 IV 32–39 528 KTU 1.14 IV 46–48 529 KTU 1.3 I 13–15 532 KTU 1.3 V 38–41 531 KTU 1.4 IV 13–17 529 KTU 1.6 V 1–6 531