Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] asherah (purim???)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Uzi Silber <uzisilber AT gmail.com>
  • To: JimStinehart AT aol.com, b-hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] asherah (purim???)
  • Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:18:39 -0400

Jim:

1) I refer to Asher not as 'that', but as the proper name.

2) There's nothing bizarre about my assertion -- no need for an exclamation
mark. If Ba'al was widely used in Eretz Yisrael, then it wouldn't be
surprising if a name such as Asher, a masculinized form of Ashera, Baal's
consort, might be too. I don't share your your assumptions about Asher's
birthplace.

3) I know Moshe is Egyptian. Osnat is too, though she wasnt a Hebrew, just
married to one.

4) You think Terah Haran and Nahor are indigenous to Canaan? I agree they
werent from southern Mesopotamia (a later gloss), but more likely from NE
Syria, around, well, the Haran area.


Uzi Silber



On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:03 AM, <JimStinehart AT aol.com> wrote:

> **
>
> Uzi Silber:****
>
> ** **
>
> 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
> Ashera?”****
>
> ** **
>
> 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
> names….”****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 **Canaan**.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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.****
>
> ** **
>
> Jim Stinehart****
>
> ****Evanston**, **Illinois********
>
>




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page