...
... In that case, yes, we may suggestI didn't suggest a pilgrim site. What I had in mind was a trading centre where trade routes met, and where a non-
that Kuntillet Ajrud was a pilgrim site for non-Israelites. ...
typical group of international travellers may have set up shrines nominally to their home deities but also have mixed in elements from the different religions they had come across during their travels. In other words, classic
syncretism.
What evidence do you have that it was a trading center? What evidence is there of international trade routes crossing
this point? ...
... Why would only relics consistent with Yahweh worship be preserved? ...
Given that we are agreed on the goals, then, I proceed
as follows (taking no position on what Asherah means):
I ask, "Is there evidence that Yahweh worship included
Asherah in the late 9th century?" The answer is yes,
and Kuntillet Ajrud is the example.
Now I ask, "Is there evidence that Yahweh worship did
not include Asherah in the late 9th century?" The
answer is no. ...
Now I ask, "Is there evidence that this was done as
opposed to the establishment view?" Well, I know
the establishment view in the Deuteronomist time.
That could be dated anywhere from Hezekiah to
Josiah to later. But in any of these cases it tells
me nothing of the establishment view during the late 9th century BCE. ...
I ask, "Is there evidence that Yahweh worship as
represented in Kuntillet Ajrud was done in line with
the establishment view?" This is where the
comparison to J becomes useful. J is an
independently identified document for which various
arguments have been given that convinced scholars
for many years it was written during the early
Monarchic period in the South. ...
... There is also some
reason to believe that the Deuteronomist viewed J
as authoritative, because he probably quotes him. This would mean that the establishment of Deuteronomist time was a heir to the establishment view of J's time. ...
... So the comparison to J provides
some reason to believe that Kuntillet Ajrud was not
simply an apostate border site. Even if Kuntillet
Ajrud is not the home of J, the fact that J may not
disapprove of things that were done at Kuntillet
Ajrud suggests that perhaps they come from the
same theological mindset regarding Yahweh.
Arguing that Kuntillet Ajrud was not representative
of "real" Yahweh worship is just as much a claim as
arguing that Kuntillet Ajrud was representative of
"real" Yahweh worship. ...
... This is where I ask,
"Is there any reason at all to believe that Kuntillet
Ajrud is 'apostate'?" Just pointing to lack of
evidence is not enough, since there is some
evidence to the contrary. And simply accepting
the Deuteronomistic claims (that "real" Yahweh worship was Asherah-less from King David onwards) is not very realistic.
...
Yes. Writing at this period was mostly on perishable materials.
It's not so simple. How come we also have so few bullae and
seals from this period, then? If we argue that writing was not
as widespread, hence a lesser need of authentication, we
still conclude that writing was not as widespread in the 10th-
9th centuries than in the 8th-7th.
...
What does such a parallel show? In my opinion, if a site
selected at random appears to match the beliefs of the
independently conceived "J", it should give you a hard
time explaining why the independently conceived "J"
has no basis in reality. "Just a coincidence" is not very
convincing, since logical arguments were used to
separate J from amongst the verses of the Torah.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.