Israelites[edit]

Why does the article make it sound like it was the norm and accepted thing to serve more that one G-d? It wasn’t the norm, it was looked down upon. And they didn’t start believing in one G-d only after the Babylonian exile. Whoever wrote this must check the sources again. As a Jewish historian I say this is completely false. Jake pres (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What kind of historian ignores that Jewish monotheism is a relatively late phenomenon? Dimadick (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G-d is the correct Jewish spelling of God. 2607:FB91:C6A:DC33:F537:8A0E:387A:CAA5 (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minimalists vs. maximalists[edit]

Genuine minimalists are select few. Genuine maximalists are WP:FRINGE (usually fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals). Most mainstream scholars are neither minimalists nor maximalists.

Where minimalism failed: it could not remove the Bible from Levantine archaeology. For the rest (i.e. 90% of their claims) they scored victory, defining thus the views of mainstream scholarship.

WP:RS/AC evidence to that extent: Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes.

Note that Grabbe was applauded for remaining neutral in the quarrel between minimalists and maximalists, see https://www.jstor.org/stable/23970868 . tgeorgescu (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Itinerantlife: The morals is that promoting extreme fringe views, such as maximalism, is not well-received here, at Wikipedia. We don't deny the overwhelming consensus of mainstream historians, mainstream archaeologists and mainstream Bible scholars for the sake of a vocal group consisting of religious fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.

We don't care about how Liberty University teaches it, we mostly care about how the Ivy League teaches it. We are biased for highly reputable, mainstream scholarship, see WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am surprised to learn that Yosef Garfinkel, Benjamin Mazar, and Eilat Mazar are fringe scholars.
For what its worth, I disagree with probably more than 80% of what Liberty University teaches about the contents of the Bible. Itinerantlife (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Itinerantlife: Neither of the three scholars came out as maximalist. They stated that the United Monarchy did exist, in one form or another, but that's not the same as maximalism. See e.g. https://watchjerusalem.co.il/1342-an-interview-with-yosef-garfinkel tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then maybe I am mistaken as to the meaning of the term "maximalism." I had thought that maximalism focused on seeking to establish the historicity of the events which the Tanakh alleges occurred but which does not attempt to corroborate the claims of divine intervention. Itinerantlife (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Itinerantlife: No archaeologist claims divine intervention, unless they belong to the lunatic fringe. Another take on this: https://www.bibleplaces.com/blog/2011/05/maximalists-vs-minimalists-good-survey/ (do mind that Bolen has a PhD from Dallas Theological Seminary, which affirms the inerrancy of the Bible as a binding for all its students, teachers and professors, so Bolen isn't a disinterested party to this dispute). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I am really confused.
You told me that the Mazars and Garfinkel are not maximalists but it sounds as if Bolen is claiming that they are maximalists.
Could you explain to me what agnostic maximalists believe which the Mazars and Garfinkel don't believe? Itinerantlife (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Itinerantlife: There are good, older quotes about that at talk:omri#More prominent Omride theory.
To sum up, the view that David and Solomon did have some kingdom is not an extreme view. The view that they did not have a kingdom is not an extreme view, either.
There are great architectonic works which prove Omri's power. There are no comparable buildings for either David or Solomon.
There is still evidence of Omri's buildings even if a subsequent dynasty tried to wipe out the memory and traces of the Omrides. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You better add Manfred Bietak of the University of Vienna to the list of people who you blacklist and censor because he argues that at least part of the Exodus narrative is supported by archæological evidence. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/ Itinerantlife (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Itinerantlife: There is a kernel of historical truth in the story of the Exodus, but it is deeply hidden under layers of cruft and embellishment. Besides, as Joel Baden argued, the Bible has at least 4 (four) contradictory stories of the Exodus, so it depends which story of the Exodus from the Bible you mean. Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus - Dr. Joel Baden on YouTube. Check the transcript, search for "pentagonal" (i.e. Pentateuchal). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author admits that Jerusalem in those days was too small to be a regional force. The author also admits that the total population of all of Judah and Benjamin in the Iron IIA period would have been at most about 20,000 people, and that this horde "provides a sufficient demographic basis for an Israelite state in the 10th century BCE." At least half of those people would have been women, and at least half would have been children, so even if every able bodied man and boy able to wave a stick were drafted, the army would have been maximum 5000 strong. Hardly the regional super-power of the Bible stories.
— User:Wdford

Wdford writing about a paper by Amihai Mazar. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the sidebar there is a bit of information listing this as a 'Major Cult Middle East'. Considering the modern connotations of 'cult' is calling what seems to have been a religion, or a branch of a religion, a cult a loaded term without the characteristics associated with 'cults' today? Nacoran (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See main article cult (religious practice). It refers to cultic practices, such as the creation of temples, shrines, cult images, and votive offerings. Dimadick (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original research[edit]

No "original research" at all. The Hebrew language is clear in its meaning, if you don’t like what it says it’s not my fault. We don't care about what you say, we care about WP:V: not printed anywhere, so it is you who drew such conclusion, textbook case of WP:OR.

Besides, "sacred prostitution" nowhere and "never took place". Source: Coogan, Michael (October 2010). God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. OCLC 505927356. Retrieved May 5, 2011. Meaning: it was always just a rumor, and always spread by foreigners.

Page at Google Books: [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The names and traditions of prominent Canaanite deities are consistently misrepresented in Hebrew scripture to denigrate the traditional rivals to Yahweh. This is a common phenomenon. Another example is Baalzebul, which means something like "Lord of the high place", but which in Hebrew scripture is bastardized into 'Beelzebub' or "Lord of the Flies". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coogan does not deny that there were prostitutes seeking clients around temples, he denies that the prostitutes were working for the temples. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elijah[edit]

Shouldn't Elijah be mentioned in the "Worship and suppression" section of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES. Anyway, I don't believe that it was a one man show. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably not, but the anonymous is referring to the biblical narrative of Elijah supposedly defeating "450 prophets of Baal, and 400 prophets of Asherah" at Mount Carmel. It is typical biblical propaganda, but it is a surviving depiction of the cult of Asherah. Dimadick (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fringe[edit]

Mount Ebal curse tablet is the WP:FRINGE of the WP:FRINGE. E.g. Christopher Rollston wrote: “This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” (copy/pasted from Mount Ebal curse tablet).

See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube.

There are WP:FRINGE claims that are apparently cogent, and WP:FRINGE claims which are WP:CB. Mount Ebal curse tablet is WP:CB. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That the claims are fringe is probably true, but what does this have to do with the Jewish goddess? Dimadick (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See this edit. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get it. Even if the claims about the Mount Ebal curse tablet were true that would only mean that the Tetragrammaton is older than previously known. What does that have to do with the question of when Judaism became monotheistic? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asherah is found 40 times in the Hebrew Bible[edit]

I added... "The term 'Asherah' appears 40 times in the Old Testament, with 33 of these occurrences referring to the sacred Asherah poles used in pagan and heretical Israelite worship. Only seven instances of 'Asherah' are references to the goddess herself."<ref] https://www.learnreligions.com/asherah-in-the-bible-6824125 </ref] 2607:FB91:C6A:DC33:F537:8A0E:387A:CAA5 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos of the pots[edit]

Of top importance to Asherah and Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions pages are good clear illustrations and photos of all sides of the pithoi, plaster, and context. All the art. From the good sources available, which are few. Anybody'd like to help? Temerarius (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tag / request resolution[edit]

I added the requested citation in the top for the Amorite spelling. Temerarius (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What a bizarre article[edit]

It's written like a narrative. No "according to", no "he/she found", but a narrative as if this is gender theory, which it isn't.

"Episodes in the Tanakh show a gender imbalance in the Hebrew religion: the texts state their patriarchal nature. Asherah was patronized by female royals such as the Queen Mother Maacah (1 Kings 15:13). But Asherah was tremendously popular and was worshiped within the household and her offerings were performed by family matriarchs."

this is simply a lot of uncredited presuppositions which have no relevance to the article of Asherah.

Gender imbalance in the religion? Okay, says who? More importantly, what does it have to do with Asherah? There were dozens of female goddesses, if that's the raison d'etre for this paragraph at all.

"as yām (Hebrew: יָם) is a common western Semitic root that literally means "sea"."

this could have been "literally" summed up as "Yam, "sea" in Hebrew".

then there's even a picture of gold items, reading -

"Gold items are good to seek examples of continuity between middle and late bronze ages. A lesser example of the "plaque" goddess and fine examples of the Ω yoni, a general-purpose fertility charm. Pic"

you can't make this up. Absolute zero continuity between paragraphs.

Some of its references are of a biologist named Amzalleg which was critically panned (that is to say, everyone and their sister think they can be experts on biblical theory, while in reality it's very much based on actual diggings, historical linguistics and a some interpretation, at its core it's not a social studies subject) At this stage, this seems like a stream of consciousness original work, bordering on a hoax, not an actual article. 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gérard Nissim Amzallag holds a PhD in biblical studies. So, regardless of his knowledge of biology, he is an expert in Bible scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you can read in his entry, he's highly contested. For a reason - there are capitalist, gay, Christian, feminist, you name it, readings of the Bible, because it's a very influential book.
This is great, but it cannot come at the expense of the dry facts.
A lone scholar reading into the Bible that Moses was actually feminist, is very interesting work, but it cannot be the core of the entry about him, without proper references and due credits. 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True in general, false in particular. Why?
  • Our article modestly calls his thesis a proposal.
  • That specific claim is not particularly revolutionary, I could WP:CITE Baruch Halpern, who stated that monotheism wasn't "invention of tradition", but an obstinate refusal of tradition. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a similar view to Doug Rushkoff. Andre🚐 06:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Proposal" is a good start, as it isn't particularly mainstream with regards to Asherah.
But enlighten me on this paragraph -
"posits that when the proto-Jews had a national god without a nation, there was a theological mismatch and a cultural trauma."
What does that even mean?
It's like the paragraph about "gender imbalance in the Tanakh" - it's a lot of hot air words with no explanation.
Like a sparknotes summary without the actual content -
What's theological mismatch?
Cultural trauma from what?
If it's included, it ought to be
A. Explained
B. Related in some way to Asherah.
Now, again, this isn't a very philosophical article.
It should talk about an actual object in the world - Asherah figurines, Asherah trees, and the deity they embodied.
So in the first place this isn't an article about Bible feminist theory (gender imbalance) or Bible minimalism (cultural trauma?).
But if it's in, it should be presented later on and at least explained. 2A02:6680:1107:7BB6:CCA7:ACD8:A8F3:9402 (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, yeah, you're kind of right IP. It has to be Asherah-related to be on the article, we're getting a little into the weeds or clouds and it's a bit off-topic to talk about the origins of monotheism altogether. Here's my attempt to summarize where it is: 1) Jews and proto-Jews, or the denizens of ancient Israel and Judah and the surrounding environs who were Edomites or whatnot in a tribal polity or whatnot, at some point had a pantheon or at least a ritual practice involving Asherah worship, 2) the cultic aspects include the trees/poles, figurines, 3) we have a number of inscriptions and Biblical archeologists theorizing about their possible meanings and what it means for the extant texts, 4) there's reason to believe through the redactions of the Deuteronomists or others, the existence of a possible Yahweh consort or polytheistic/monolatristic existence of a female dualism or traditional fertility goddess in ancient Judaism or proto-Judaism was redacted and replaced with a patriarchal system theoretically, 5) as far as weight this all should not be considered the only part of Asherah since Asherah was an ancient pan-Babylonian deity with syncretic aspects and cognates in other Sumerian/Akkadian/etc material and possible connections to other Semitic and Mesopotamian groups. Is that all about right and did I miss anything? Andre🚐 01:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"obstinate refusal of tradition" A curious way to describe either an innovation or a heresy. Monotheists were a lot different than traditional Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the ancient history of Jewish polytheism and Asherah worship in ancient Israel is not a hoax. Andre🚐 17:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't twist my words. I said this article looks like a hoax - Asherah is very much an important Neareastern deity, and so this article is more noise than actual facts.
You seem to be having no knowledge on the subject, so picture this -
The article about historical Jesus, instead of talking Jesus, talking about gender theory of the Saducees, then changing halfway to be about Joshua instead, since their names are similar (what does Hathor have to do with Eve with Asherah? That all are feminine?) 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 (talk) 01:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I get your point, but "hoax" is a bit much. The article is unfocused and rambling, and it needs a tighter scope to be about Asherah. Most of the discussion about ancient Semitic worship of Asherah is speculative, even in the reliable sources. Andre🚐 01:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's lots of speculation, but what we do know is fairly certain -
A. It's very much present in the Bible, likely the most described deity
B. It's attested in at least one 6th-9th century Hebrew inscription, at Kuntillet Ajrud, alongside Yahweh, which itself is no small feat (Yahweh should not have a consort. Is it a tree to worship Yahweh with, or it's an actual dual worship duo - Yahweh-Asherah)
C. There's a bunch of attested parallels in other languages, not like Baal but a lot more than Dagon
D. It might have played a big part in Josiah's reforms, meaning worship of Asherah might have been acceptable before, we do know for sure it was prevalent, as "the just kings" destroyed the altars and rooted out the Asherot (trees themselves)
E. Figurines of it seem to exist
So that's a lot. Much more than most Semitic deities.
No need to start with "Yoni symbol" and Patriarchy in the Bible as represented in Asherah worship.
It might be a good addition, but thoroughly credited, only AFTER the dry facts. 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OP, you're right it's not 1.0 quality, and now (or soon for yours truly) might be a good time to get rid of some of that, hopefully along with that "undue weight" notice. A general smoothing of the tone and transitions is desired, but the... well, it's a moving target. I've been working on the article for two months, and I haven't felt yet it was mature enough to do "final editing" on. When I got here, the problem was far too little information about an important figure. Might be enough to prune now. Temerarius (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's more that it's an invented narrative, I'm not sure who introduced these parts but the problems are it's -
A. An invented narrative - nowhere in articles like Baal, Astrate, Hathor, do you see musings like "Episodes in the Tanakh show a gender imbalance in the Hebrew religion: the texts state their patriarchal nature." - this is pure speculation, and can, and should appear, but with due references, and with due "according to"s.
It can't be the core of the article, these original pieces.
It should be who Asherah was, how was she attested, how was she worshipped.
B. Absolutely zero connection between many segments. Good Wikipedia articles don't have "see gold picture later", rather incorporate them or have them in a gallery - this is how journals work, not scientific articles.
C. A lot of absolute rubbish.
There's a piece about Eve, Hawa in Aramaic, then it being linked to Hathor - because of Hwt-ur? These are different words, unrelated. You can't link just about any deity based on phonetic resemblance.
And what's this stuff about gold amulets providing good continuity between ages? Yoni symbol? This is Neareastern mythology, it's based on stones, steles, tablets, a note about gold amulets is as relevant to Asherah as saying "trees have long lifespans in Turkey".
I understand a more thorough article is preferred, but not at the expense of wrong stuff, or purely speculative stuff.
Other deity articles look nothing like it. 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm guessing that someone got all of that from somewhere. If it's original, it can be deleted. But I have seen that sources exist for some of the above stuff. Andre🚐 01:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of it, yeah. Some is just ramblings like the "gold amulet" part.
Even so, as I said there's literally any reading in the Bible you just desire - some of it far from reality, being pseudoscience.
So of course, it's a matter of scope - dry facts about Abraham first, only then you can read communist undertones into his familial structure in Egypt. 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That the Hebrew Bible is thoroughly patriarchal: this is not disputed in the mainstream academia. Perhaps there are some footnotes to it rendering dissenting views, but no more. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Andre🚐 06:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The authors of the Bible can no longer be asked why they sided with Patriarchy, so in that sense we will never know for sure. But scholars like to attribute them intentions/motivations/purposes/agendas. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for fixing this, perhaps doing the according to's and proper references would be a star, I really don't think 80% of it should be there, but so long as it's presented as speculation (which it is), that's better 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you don't get: in Ancient history/archaeology there are very few hard facts, most of what we know about Antiquity are probability judgments about "what probably happened". tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed as well. Andre🚐 06:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all.
You fail to make the very obvious distinction, that should be clear to any Bible scholar, archaeologist or historian of the ancient near east -
there are -
A. Historical writing (cuneiform, hieroglyphics...)
B. Archaeological evidence (figurines, altars)
C. Non primary sources (the Bible, Herodotus)
D. Hypotheses.
Hypotheses cannot come before the actual findings.
We have lots of those regarding Asherah, as I've mentioned here already (figurines, writings, primary inscriptions in Hebrew AND Ugaritic for God's sake).
So Ashera isn't some obscure Neareastern concept like Walastin. There's a lot to work with.
You claiming "we don't know jack so we ought to go for the gender theories" is nothing but muddying the waters.
I suggest you hop on other languages to see that you can write a lot, based on mainstream theories without resorting to half baked hypotheses about societal pressures in Amorite society. 188.64.207.4 (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Easy easy, you can both be right and both coexist happily. We need all A B C and D, not necessarily segregated in separate sections and in that order, but interleaved, that's how Wikipedia articles typically do it. Andre🚐 01:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's generally true, but you run the risk of including absolute speculation as equal to actual, hard evidenced material. Or even instead of.
You wouldn't include a big section on feminism on the WWII article, even though women did serve in the war.
It's just too specific for a broader subject, a dedicated article could work.
So for ancient Neareastern archaeology, you have both HARD SCIENCE - writings, figurines, evidence in the ground.
And you have the hypothese to complement them.
Muddying the waters is when you say "well there's not enough evidence so let's have 80% of it speculative hypotheses",
When in fact you have massive amount of hard evidence regarding Asherah in writing.
So the actual science of real objects should always come before the speculation - even the speculation itself is based on the hard evidence.
Focusing on the speculation is like learning about WWII not from primary sources, basically, but from stuff written years after the fact.
Which you wouldn't do for WWII. 2A02:6680:1100:EDA6:E5D9:845C:E367:349D (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The basics of Wikipedia: we parrot mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. If a claim is considered relevant by mainstream Bible scholars, we render it, regardless of it being type A, B, C, or D. E.g. while this article isn't an article in feminist Bible scholarship, feminist Bible scholarship does make a valid point about Asherah, and Wikipedia isn't censored. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was a good call on the "gender imbalance in the religion" blah blah blah, which I cut I think yesterday. I had originally written it to ameliorate an editorial problem that's long since solved. As I said before, I'm working on this article on an ongoing basis and will continue to make small edits before embarking on a more comprehensive draft with improved flow. The current disjointedness is a hopefully temporary product of the process and if I can spread blame, perhaps the fracturedness of the scholarship. If you'd like to help, please send me papers I may not have read yet, for example a collection of all of Meshel's work would be very handy, I have not read all of it - and suggest open license images that could be of great demonstrative value: specifically, if anyone can get us complete images of all the art and inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud that we can use in the article, I'd love that. Those are the number-one top importance artifact for this article. (Though most of them would end up on the Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions article.) I'll also be posting another note here about some consolidation of references like the Tanakh references which are useful but currently quite messy. Temerarius (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's great to hear this is a work in progress. I think most of it could work if presented in the right context, with sufficient references, after the hard facts are described.
I agree with you that Kuntillet Ajrud, but perhaps more importantly Ugaritic mentions are the most important PRIMARY sources on the matter (something you cannot underestimate when talking about ancient deities - most are very poorly attested) 2A02:6680:1100:EDA6:E5D9:845C:E367:349D (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”

— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Park 2010[edit]

I removed an UNDUEWEIGHT mention of Park in the head. Etymology is not a solved problem that should go in the intro. It seems Park's idea is popular among editors, can I ask why? Scholarship on the etymology is mostly a jumble of opinions without trajectory or progress. If there's something superceding about that paper, I don't see it. The only conclusion on etymology is uncertainty, I think. Temerarius (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Temerarius: Sorry, I didn't receive any notification on this post before. I agree that the topic of Asherah's etymology remains debated. That said, Park's paper is one of the most recent studies on the topic. And the Etymology section is not a part of the intro of this article. So, I think we could present Park's theory while noting that it is only an hypothesis and citing it following WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV rules. Potatín5 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you yes Park's hypothesis has been adequately mentioned on the page, even in inappropriate sections, like in Arabic section and again the intro. Recency is important on topics like DNA tests, but doesn't hold much weight in philology if scholarship isn't moving forward at a good speed, making progression toward consensus-es. Or even schools of thought with coherent borders and positions. I put that detail in its proper context a while ago, as a self-described extension of Margalit's theory, precisely because it breaks so little ground. When I read the paper I put it in that context and removed the UNDUEWEIGHT references. Removing your addition to the intro was the same operation. Can I ask you again why you find Park moving?
Temerarius (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I wasn't clear, I thought that the Ugarit section was the right place for Park 2010. Thank you for your points. Temerarius (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spelling table[edit]

I've not yet checked this table for accuracy.

עשתות אשתרות אשרות אשרה אשרים
Deuteronomy 16:21 12:3
Joshua
Judges 2:11-13 3:7 6:25-26
I Samuel 7:3-4
12:10
31:10
I Kings 11:5, 33 15:13
16:33
18:19 		14:15,23
II Kings 23:13 13:6
17:16
18:4
21:3-7
23:4-6 		17:10
23:14


Temerarius (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories