[b-hebrew] asherah (purim???)
JimStinehart at aol.com
JimStinehart at aol.com
Tue Mar 20 10:03:25 EDT 2012
1. You wrote: “So are you of the opinion that any linguistic connection
between Asher and Ashera is entirely coincidental?”
(a) There is no linguistic connection whatsoever between Asher at Genesis
30: 13 and Ashera.
(b) If Nir Cohen wants to talk about the Hebrew common word “asher” that
means “which”, he’s free to do so, but that does not establish any
linguistic connection between Asher at Genesis 30: 13 and Ashera.
2. You wrote: “That there's no way that Asher is the masculine form of
Asher at Genesis 30: 13, as the name of one of Jacob’s sons who is
portrayed as being born way out east in Naharim in eastern Syria, has no connection
whatsoever to the pagan goddess Ashera, and is definitely not “the masculine
form of Ashera”.
3. You wrote: “Yet if it's so strange for Israelites to sport Canaanite
What kind of a bizarre assertion is that? Terah, Haran, Nahor and Abram
are all Canaanite names. The Hebrews are indigenous to Canaan, and are
accurately portrayed in the Patriarchal narratives as being indigenous to Canaan.
So naturally the early Hebrews have Canaanite names. The early Hebrews don’
t have Akkadian names, because the Hebrews are not indigenous to southern
Mesopotamia, nor are they portrayed as such in the Patriarchal narratives.
4. You wrote: “…what should we make of Yeruba'al, Ish'ba'al and
Mefiba'al who lived centuries later, in a Canaan far less Canaanite than it was
during Asher's time?”
Ba’al was a very popular pagan god in 1st millennium BCE Israel, and was
also known, though to a lesser extent, in Judah. For better or worse, Israel
(as opposed to Judah) was a pluralistic society. In that context, it’s not
surprising that the names of many people in Israel, and of some people in
Judah, honored the pagan god Ba’al.
What’s any of that have to do with the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives?
5. You wrote: “Not to mention of course all those that had Egyptian names
-- Pinkhas comes to mind.”
I believe that Panhesy may be virtually the only Egyptian name that became
the name of a Hebrew. [By the way, Panhesy at Amarna may be the historical
model for the “Baker” in chapter 40 of Genesis.] The name “Moses” may
also be Egyptian. Hebrews having Egyptian names is an extremely isolated
phenomenon. That may suggest that the Book of Exodus is allegorical, rather than
reporting an historical 400 years of bondage of the Hebrews in Egypt. Note
that Biblical Hebrew is a virgin pure west Semitic language, showing little
influence of either Egyptian or Akkadian. That supports the view that,
consistent with the Patriarchal narratives, the Hebrews were indigenous to
None of that is inconsistent with my view of the Patriarchal narratives,
nor does it undercut my insistence that there is no linguistic connection
whatsoever between Asher at Genesis 30: 13 and Ashera.
More information about the b-hebrew