[b-hebrew] re: their altars
peterkirk at qaya.org
Sun Mar 6 14:27:21 EST 2005
On 06/03/2005 02:48, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
>My argument was that perhaps the Yahwist's home was Kuntillet Ajrud. Not
>that we need to revise any evidence. It was just argued that the view at
>Kuntillet Ajrud was odd and aberrant or not in line with the establishment's
>view. Now, as for your claim that the concept of an Asherah is
>is found only once in the Torah outside Deut ...
Yes, but this is not the only literature describing the period in
question. There are for example the accounts in Kings. Their dating and
relaibility is perhaps uncertain, but then so is that of J and the rest
of the Torah. Nevertheless, this is evidence which must not be ignored.
>Just to make it clear, the argument goes: circumstantial evidence is
>used to back
>up the claim that perhaps the Yahwist's home was Kuntillet Ajrud. Now, the
>evidence is circumstantial, but there is no evidence to any contrary
>have no evidence for Yahweh worship in this time in Jerusalem, for example. ...
Yes we do. Well, at least we have detailed accounts of Yahweh worship in
Jerusalem in the 10th century, and some less detailed accounts from the
9th century, e.g. the time of Asa and Jehoshaphat, including a specific
mention that an Asherah (an image of Asherah?) was rejected and
destroyed, 1 Kings 15:13.
>And all I argue
>from this hypothesis is that one cannot claim that "but this was
>clearly not the
>view of the establishment." There is no "clearly" about it.
It was clearly not the view of the establishment as presented in the
books of Kings, I agree that we cannot be sure that this was the actual
view of the establishment a couple of centuries earlier, but note that
the author of Kings notes carefully distinctions between the
establishment views of Asa and Jehoshaphat and his own views, in 1 Kings
15:14, 22:43. This looks to me like the mark of real historical
>They worshipped Yahweh of Samaria, and the Yahwistic component in their
>names is a short one like in Israel, as opposed to Judah. So I think that is
>sufficient reason for that claim.
If Samaria was their own home, why did they need to specify "of
Samaria"? This sounds to me more like a conscious invocation of someone
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 04/03/2005
More information about the b-hebrew