Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Yahwism (was: their altar)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: Yitzhak Sapir <yitzhaksapir AT gmail.com>
  • Cc: b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Yahwism (was: their altar)
  • Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:44:20 +0000

On 11/03/2005 05:25, Yitzhak Sapir wrote:

... I say, "We read that
Elijah performed some ceremony on Mt. Carmel to
prove Yahweh was the 'real' god. We may suggest that
this points to some type of mass conversion to
Yahweh at this time. Is there reason to believe that
there was such a mass conversion?" And the
answer relies on the Yahwistic names of the royalty
starting at this time and totally absent (from royalty)
previously. ...


Not quite true, even if we read Abijam (with Kings) rather than Abijah (Chronicles). For Jehoshaphat became king in the fourth year of Ahab, and was already 35 years old (according to 1 Kings 22:41,42). While the Mount Carmel incident cannot be dated precisely, it could not have been before the third year of Ahab, and was probably quite a lot later in his reign, in reaction to his introduction of Baal and Asherah worship in Samaria (1 Kings 16:31-33) and following the three years of drought. I assume of course that you are giving some credence to the Elijah narratives in Kings, as apart from them there is nothing to match in time with the royal use of Yahwistic names.


... Because Peter apparently assumed I was
referring to the Jerusalem Temple, I was not; I was
referring to the apparent temple in Nebo, although the
stele does not actually mention a temple there.


Thanks for the clarification. Of course the temple in Nebo, if it existed, did not necessarily reflect establishment views any more than the one at Kuntillet Ajrud. But there can be no evidence that Baal and/or Asherah were worshipped at a temple which may not even have existed. More speculation on top of speculation.

...

First, it seems to me some of these transactions were
handled by separate officials from the merchants. ...


Maybe, but then maybe practices around Kuntillet Ajrud were quite different from Mesopotamian ones. Or maybe there was a scribe or a small group of them at KA, recording transactions for the passing merchants, for a fee no doubt. These scribes were obviously religious people, and so wrote religious inscriptions at their shrines (or perhaps they just wrote inscriptions to order for those who did worship there), and maybe maps as well as records at their place of business but these have not survived. As for whether these scribes were connected with the royal establishment, we have zero evidence either way.

I would hold that small inconsistencies in Kings suggest that the author was faithfully (although maybe selectively) reproducing sources and putting a theological spin on them


How can he be reproducing faithfully if the reproduction is
selective and also twisted to match the author's theological
aim. ...


Well, perhaps "faithful" is not the best word, but what I mean is that words were copied selectively from sources without detailed editing, the "spin" coming from additions rather than edits. This is the process that is assumed to have happened with the Pentateuch, allowing us to reconstruct J etc. Of course if such processes could not have happened, J is irrecoverable if it ever existed, so we might as well stop speculating about its theology.

...

OK, but I would also say that the opposite, that there
is no reason that Kuntillet Ajrud should be assumed to represent the established religion of the time. There is
simply insufficient evidence either way.


No. I think there is some evidence. The fact that the
earliest inscriptions referring to Yahweh include a reference to Asherah, and the fact that apparently early sources (possibly J, possibly the sources for the book of
Kings) do seem to imply royal sanction of Asherah
worship with Yahweh, ...


No, you cannot say this. Kings condemns Asherah worship. You remove from Kings any such condemnation as anachronistic, and you may be right to do so for indeed such condemnations may have been later. But the reason that your expurgated version includes no such condemnations is because your method does not allow it to do so. But in fact the condemnations may have been older, or there may have been weaker condemnations in the source which were strengthened by the later editors. We don't know, because this aspect of the source seems to have been completely destroyed by the later editors.

... suggests there is some evidence
that Yahweh worship with Asherah was sanctioned by
the establishment in earlier times such as the 9th
century BCE. I consider this a little evidence, but
still some evidence, as opposed to no evidence for
the contrary claim.


I still see no evidence for establishment sanction, just a lack of clear evidence for establishment condemnation which is of course not the same thing.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 09/03/2005





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page