Asherah (T. Binger) PDF

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
232
Editors
David J.A. Clines
Philip R. Davies
Executive Editor
John Jarick
COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

2
General Editors
Thomas L. Thompson
Niels Peter Lemche
Associate Editors
Frederick H. Cryer
Mogens Miiller
Hakan Ulfgard
Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank
Asherah
Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel
and the Old Testament
Tilde Binger
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Supplement Series 232
Copenhagen International Seminar 2

Copyright © 1997 Sheffield Academic Press
Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

Mansion House
19 Kingfield Road
Sheffield SI 19AS
England
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain

by Bookcraft Ltd
Midsomer Norton, Bath
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available

from the British Library
ISBN 1-85075-637-6
CONTENTS
Preface 7
Acknowledgments 9
Abbreviations 11
Chapter 1
METHOD 13
Chapter 2
DEFINITIONS 19
2.1. Ugaritic 20
2.2. Israelite 21
2.3. Canaanite 22
Chapter 3
THE SOURCE MATERIAL 25
3.1. Archaeological Findings 25
3.2. The Old Testament 39
Chapter 4
ASHERAH IN UGARIT 42
4.1. The Mythological and Epic Texts 42
Excursus: Asherah in the Babylonian and Assyrian Material 48
Excursus: The Egyptian Qudsu 56
4.2. Asherah's Role in the Cult 87
4.3. Asherah in the Pantheon of Ugarit, including her Place
in the Cult and Religion 90
Chapter 5
ASHERAH IN ISRAEL 94
5.1. The Inscription from Khirbet el-Qom 94
5.2. The Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions 101
6 Ashe rah
5.3. Who or What Was 'Srtl 105

5.4. Asherah in Israel, from the Epigraphical Findings 108
Chapter 6
ASHERAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 11 o
6.1. The Goddess 110
Excursus: Bhp/fienp: Priest or Prostitute? 118
6.2. Asherah and Yahweh 122
6.3. mtfKn = Asherah 126
6.4. From Goddess to Object 129
Excursus: The Relationship between Asherah and Astarte 131
Excursus: Isaiah 6.13b 136
Chapter 7
ASHERAH IN UGARIT, ISRAEL AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 142
7.1. Etymology 142
7.2. Name or Title? 145
7.3. What's in a Name? 147
Appendix 1
LISTS OF SACRIFICES FROM UGARIT 149
Appendix 2
INSCRIPTIONS FROM'ISRAEL' 164
Bibliography 176
Index of References 185
Index of Authors 189
PREFACE
The original version of this book was written in 1991. Since the dis-
sertation originally left my hands many things have happened, some
that have helped this book along to its final form, and others that have
not. The main problem in preparing and at times re-writing the book
has been that in 1992 two books appeared that changed the historical
dimensions of Old Testament scholarship radically. I am naturally re-
ferring to Philip Davies's In Search of 'Ancient Israel' and Thomas L.
Thompson's Early History of the Israelite People. It will be evident
that the bulk of the present book was written before these books came
into print, since most of the 'historical' arguments found here are now
obsolete.
Nor have I been able to incorporate fully the more recent books
on the same subject as my own, that is, Asherah. Thus the work of
M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, Jahwe und seine Aschera (1992), of S.A.
Wiggins, A Reassessment of 'Asherah' (1993) and of O. Keel and
C. Uehlinger Gottinnen, Cotter und Gottessymbole (1992) have not
been incorporated to any major extent.
With regards to iconography, I must confess that I have taken the
easy way out. I have practically not discussed it, since my knowledge
on the subject is close to non-existent (the only mention is in the short
excursus on Qudsu, where the subject could not be ignored). Another
reason for not incorporating the subject of iconography was that Urs
Winter's monumental Frau und Gottin, both then and now, must be
considered the scholarly work of reference. Since I can in no way do
better than him, and since I had no wish to attempt a short and sweet
version of his book, I preferred not to discuss the subject at all. All
translations from Ugaritic, Hebrew and Greek are—when nothing else
is noted—made by me.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Publishing one's first book must always be a great occasion for any
young scholar. That I am not all that young any longer, does not make
the occasion less great. In many respects this is not only my work, but
also the work of the many people that helped it along by enabling me
to stay at the computer rather than do the dishes. I want to take the
opportunity to thank some of the many people involved in the making
of this book.
The first is Niels-Peter Lemche, the man that got me hooked on the
Old Testament, and who has encouraged me all the way, not only on
this project, but in all other scholarly projects I have undertaken,
since I first started with him as a humble student. His exasperated 'If
you think it is important to know, find out!', has nudged me along
many times, during this and other projects.
The next is Thomas L. Thompson, the editor of this series, who is
not only an eminent scholar, but also a valued and respected colleague.
His insights and ideas have fired many (for me) illuminative discus-
sions, just as his suggestions concerning this book have been grounds
for, at times, substantial redaction of the original version. Any errors
in this work however, should not be laid at his or Niels-Peter's door. I
have been allowed to make my own mistakes.
I would also like to thank the Faculty of Theology in Copenhagen
for not only awarding me the gold medal in 1992, but also for donat-
ing the funding that made it possible for this book to appear in Eng-
lish. Had the Dean—Jens Glebe-M011er—not found the means, this
book would never have been published. Likewise I would like to thank
Sheffield Academic Press for undertaking to publish the present work.
The remainder of the people I would like to thank comprises an im-

mense list of friends, family and colleagues, whose interest in this
project, and willingness to discuss both major and minor points along
the way, has enabled me to present the work in its present form. To
10 Asherah
name all is practically impossible, but three deserve their own special
thanks. The first and foremost is my husband. Without my doubting—
and knowing—Thomas to carry me through the hard times, pick up
the children in kindergarten, nurse them (and me) when they were
sick (as small children invariably are), cook my meals and dance for
joy with me, when things went well, I could never have finished this
project. The second is Janne-Elisabeth McOwan, MA in the history of
religion, my friend of many years standing, the lady whose efforts
have put my manuscript into legible English. That she has been
willing to put her own work aside for the time it has taken to revise
this manuscript, and discuss not only the linguistic aspects, but also the
scholarly ones, puts me greatly in her debt. Finally, my mother, Birte
Binger Kristiansen, whose own high standing in Danish academia has
provided me with a wonderful role-model, just as she has encouraged
me all along to believe in my own (academic) abilities. Her own life
has proved, that it is possible for a woman to do scholarly and scien-
tific work without having to give up other things, such as having a
family.
ABBREVIATIONS
ABD D.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary

AH\v W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handworterbuch
A1ON Istituto orientale di Napoli, Annali
ANEP J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Pictures relating to
the Old Testament
ANET J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts relating to the
Old Testament
AnOr Analecta Orientalia
AOAT Alter Orient und Alter Testament
APFC A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century EC
ARTU J.C. de Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BARev Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BGUL S. Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language
BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia
BZAW Beihefte zur ZAW
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago
CARTU J.C. de Moor, and C. Spronk, A Cuneiform Anthology of
Religious Texts from Ugarit
CML J.C.L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends
CTA Andree Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes
alphabetiques descouvertes a Ras Shamra—Ugarit de 1929 a
1939, 2 vols.
DTT Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift
GDB Gads Danske Bibelleksikon
GKB Gesenius-Kautsch-Bergstrasser, Hebraische Grammatik
HAHAT W. Gesenius, Hebrdisches und Aramdisches Handworterbuch
iiber das Alte Testament
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HTR Harvard Theological Review
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JA Journal asiatique
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
KAI H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaandische und Aramdische
Inschriften
12 Asherah
KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (eds.), Lexicon in Veteris

Testamenti libros
KJV King James Version
KML P.O. Hvidberg-Hansen, Kanaanceiske Myter og Legender
KTU M. Dietrich, O. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Die Keilalphabet-
ischen Texte am Ugarit
Lisowsky G. Lisowsky, Konkordanz zum Hebrdischen Alien Testament
LSI Liddell-Scott-Jones, Greek—English Lexicon
MIO Mitteilungen des Institutsfur Orientforschung der Deutschen
Akademie der Wissenschaften z,u Berlin
MLC G. del Olmo Lete, Mitos y Leyendas de Canaan segun la
Tradicion de Ugarit
OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalis
OLP Orientalia lovaniensia periodica
PDK E.F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien. Die
Staatsvertrdge akkadischer Sprache aus dem Archiv von
Boghazkoi
Pedersen J. Pedersen, Hebrceisk Grammatik
PRUll C. Virolleaud, Palais Royal d'Ugarit. II. Mission de Ras
Shamra, VII
RB Revue biblique
RCatT Revista Catalana de Teologia
RHA Revue Hittite et Asianique
RLA Reallexicon der Assyrologie
RSV Revised Standard Version
SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series
SEL Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico essedue
edizioni
SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament
TAB Times Atlas of the Bible
TO Textes Ougaritiques. I. Mythes et Legendes; II. Textes
religieux et rituels et correspondance
TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alien Testament
ThWAT Theologisches Worterbuch zum Alien Testament
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
UG Ugaritica
UT C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSup Vetus Testamentum, Supplements
Whitaker R.E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature
WUS J. Aistleitner, Worterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache
ZA Zeitschrift der Assyrologie
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Paldstina-Vereins
Chapter 1
METHOD
A scholarly field like theology, whose object is an examination and

systematization of metaphysics, exists methodologically speaking in a
strange vacuum, or if one prefers it put another way, does a weird
balancing act between a multitude of various and not necessarily com-
patible methods, primarily taken from different fields of humanities.
Theology has practically no independent theoretical apparatus. Dog-
matics and ethics use philosophical methods, history of the church uses
the methods of political history, and exegesis uses more or less the lot.
No theological method exists that takes into account the fact that a the-
ologian must deal with, discuss and dissect that material that is—more
often than not—the basis of his or her own faith, or, in the case of the
scholar defining him or herself as an agnostic, perhaps the most im-
portant constituent factor in the culture he or she works and lives in.
The situation is no different for a scholar of the Old Testament than
it is for theology as such. If we set apart the 'pure' exegetical methods
that have the religious reading and understanding of the material as
their starting point, and an understanding on the personal level of the
metaphysical content, there is no 'Old Testament method' that can,
with any kind of certainty, give us any knowledge about the culture
and society that these books came from, or tell us anything of that
society's concepts of religion.1 This lack of method is behind the
present chapter's attempt to set forth some of the methodological and
theoretical reflections that form the foundation of this work.
Many methods have been used in the work dealing with the Israel-
ite, Ugaritic and Old Testament material, but, as mentioned above,
none of these takes into account that part of this material is a deter-
1. I am in a way referring to the ongoing discussion of when the Old Testament

was written, by whom and why. While no consensus has been reached, this question
is too difficult to deal with, and this is not the proper place to make the attempt.
14 Asherah
mining factor in the culture and identity of most of the scholars work-
ing with it. One way to deal with the problem is to attempt to use pos-
itivistic or Comteist methods, even though these were created to deal
with quite different problems, in a different set of scientific fields
altogether, namely the natural sciences (cf. Kj0rup 1985: 11). This
could be a valid way to deal with the problems, but a positivistic
method has its own set of limits, most of which pop up, if and when
one tries to apply them to problems they were not made to deal with,
such as theology. Another problem is, that if one wants valid results
from an excursion into the methodology of a different scientific field,
one must—as a minimum—understand the chosen method, and use it
according to the basic rules and maxims of that method.2
The basic methods behind the present work, are mostly those of the
scholarly field of history, source criticism and historical criticism.3
This is due to a conviction that sources are sources, be they political
or religious documents. Any given source functions as an exponent of
the time in which and for which it was written, just as it functions as
an exponent of the themes and the material it deals with. This is the
case when one deals with political sources and this is likewise the case
when one wants to deal with religious sources and is also applicable
when working with the putative connections between the mythological
and theological material of different cultures. A decisive factor in my
choice of method is that historical method is also a materialistic ap-
proach, dealing with the actually existing material, not with what we
could have had—if only...
Historical method has rarely been used in connection with the mate-
rial discussed in this book. Most examinations drawing on texts from
Israel, Ugarit and the Old Testament seek—by means of philology and
comparative literary analysis—to connect the different cultures4 or,
2. As an example of the faulty use of statistics, see section 3.1.1.3.

3. This should in no way be confused with the traditional theological methods of
historisch-kritischer method and that of Redaktionsgeschichte or the like. The method
I attempt to apply is not any of these theological approaches, but, as I wrote, the field
of history (not story). My starting point is the classical Danish work on historical
method, Kristian Erslev's book Historisk teknik (Historical Technique), originally
from 1911, but still in print. The version referred to here is the reprint of 1987. In
this work Erslev seeks to outline basic ways to approach any given source, in order
to establish the applicability and validity of the source at hand in respect to the subject
one wants to deal with.
4. Cf. 'Ras Shamra Parallels' (ed. Loren Fischer) or Cross 1973.
1. Method 15
from an apologetic and exegetic angle, to deny that any connection

could exist (cf. Bernhard 1967 or Lipinski 1980). It is my hope that
an initial critical evaluation of the different groups of sources and
their internal relations can give us a different basis from which to
operate. It is however important to keep in mind that any theory—be
it historical or exegetical—concerning a past reality, or any method
dealing with this past reality, can—at best—only give us a re-con-
struction of this same past, and that any reconstruction can only be
seen as fully valid, in as much as it explains all existing remnants of
the concrete situation or culture.5
As mentioned above, the literature dealing not only with compara-
tive studies like the present, but Old Testament studies as such, seems
to be practically devoid of reflections on the theoretical and method-
ological problems facing the scholar. This is a state of affairs that
seems deplorable, particularly since there seems to be no awareness of
the scholarly or scientific paradigms from which one operates.6 If one
looks at the literature discussing different groups of texts (like the
present study) there seems to be no awareness of the manifold pitfalls
that must exist when one discusses materials as relatively far removed
from each other—chronologically, geographically and culturally—as
is the case here. Everything seems to be treated as if it was on the
same level, historically, culturally, geographically and politically. The
only difference that seemingly is made is that Israelite and Old Testa-
ment texts are usually treated as being monotheistic or monolatrous,
and this mono-theism or monolatry is then set up as the norm, where-
as all other texts and groups of texts are treated as deviations from
this norm.
That the object under examination is far removed from one's own
cultural, intellectual and chronological basis, must invite problems.
When this is the case, and we have the added complication, that one of
the cultures under discussion is to some extent both normative in our
5. Cf. Clausen 1970: 433. I do not attempt to make this fully valid recon-
struction, since this is not a book of history.
6. The word 'paradigm' is here used in a loose approximation of Kuhn's use of
the word. As Christiansen 1990 formulates it: 'A paradigm in the world of scientists
and scholars is, loosely put (and it is.. .necessary to put it loosely), a prevalent sense
of what is good and respectable science or scholarship. The ruling paradigm defines
what is generally accepted as the norm. Since this prevalent sense of what is right is
often unspoken, it is very difficult to change' (my translation of the Danish).
16 Asherah
own society, and constitutes a religious basis for another nation's

understanding of itself, then the critical distance and desired objectiv-
ity, so very necessary for sound scholarly work, becomes practically
unobtainable. I am of course referring to the problems one must run
into if one is not at all times completely aware of the necessary
distinction between the Israel(s) of the Old Testament, the ancient his-
torical reality of Israel (or Bit Humrid) and the modern state of
Israel.7 It is so very easy to treat any 'Israelite' material, according to
one's own—modern—sympathies and antipathies of religious and
political character.
This 'local' problem apart, the distance—geographically, culturally
or chronologically—between one's own situation and the material one
deals with, is a major potential source of errors in the interpretative
task, particularly if what one seeks to find is The Truth'. When all
three factors are far removed from one's own situation—as is the case
here—then any examination and discussion of the material invariably
tells the reader as much about the author's own time, as it does of the
material dealt with.
Any scholarly work is bound to the time in which it was created. It
is influenced by the political, social and cultural currents that per-
tained at the time of its making and it is restricted by unexpressed and
undiscussed paradigms in contemporary scholarship as such. In my
opinion, it is no coincidence that the fascination with hieros gamos and
sacred prostitution soared during the late Victorian era, with its fasci-
nation with and terror of human sexuality. It was in that era, when sex
not only was a dirty word, but was more or less tabooed as a subject,
that Sir James G. Frazer wrote The Golden Bough and Siegmund Freud
proposed his theories concerning infantile sexuality and the influence
of suppressed sexuality on the persona.
This link to the time and age of the scholar presenting his or her
work is still in operation. It is no coincidence that it is in the 1970s,
with a growing feminist movement and a budding understanding of
the female half of humanity as being more than gender, sexuality and
reproduction, that the goddesses of the various religions become of
interest to scholars. Since feminism is no less interesting in the 1990s
than it was in the 1970s, the present work is no coincidence, but as
7. On the Old Testament and historical Israel(s), see below, section 2.2, the
definition of 'Israelite'.
1. Method 17
much as anything else, a representation of my bonds to my own time,

since it deals, almost exclusively, with goddesses.
The binding to one's own time, for better and for worse, is not only
apparent in the choice of subject, but also in the treatment of it. It is
more than difficult to extricate oneself from the cultural norms that
rule one's own culture and time, and thus Albright is undoubtedly
right when he claims that it is impossible to understand the pre-Aris-
totelian way of thought using post-Aristotelian logic. Unfortunately,
he does not address the basic problem in this connection: is it possible
to avoid using one's inbred Aristotelian logic?8 It seems questionable
whether one should be better equipped to understand any pre-Aris-
totelian culture if one tries to deny one's inbred Aristotelian logic; one
cannot deny the basic thought-patterns, that are integrated into one's
mind, and if one tries, the result might very well be that one's fantasy
is let loose, with no holds, on the material at hand. When the
Aristotelian problem is used as an excuse to attempt to negate one's
own way of thought, the result is, more often than not, entertaining
adventures and fairy tales, but rarely sound scholarship. A scholar
cannot expect to be able to negate his or her own intellectual and
cultural background and schooling, and even if he or she could, there
is no guarantee that the thought patterns and paradigms that thus
would emerge inside the scholar's head, would be the same as were in
operation in the society or culture one wants to discuss. Thus we
might as well face our own limitations and give up any attempt to find
out with certainty what the material 'really' meant then, since we will
never know whether the reality described by us, has any likeness to
the reality lived then.9
8. Albright 1968: 106: 'We must always remember that it is not possible to
make either the myths or the figures of Canaanite mythology fit into a logical frame-
work.' See also 110: The error of those who deny this [that the god is born and dies
again, in the same way the vegetation he represents does] in their attempt to apply our
post-Aristotelian logic to pre-Aristotelian thought patterns— [is that it is] an attempt
which obscures, rather than clarifies these patterns'. Albright is not the only scholar
expressing this. For a more modern example see Maier 1986: 195: 'When dealing
with the myths, a tendency to over-rationalize must be avoided'.
9. The only place I know of where we can get a glimpse of a possible pre-
Aristotelian way of thought, is in a remarkable study by the Soviet psychologist A.R.
Luria. His Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations (Luria 1976)
is in many ways a unique study. The fieldwork to this study was conducted in 1931-
32 in remote areas of the relatively new Soviet Union, and the object was to study
18 Asherah
The only practical solution to the problem is to apply one's own

way of thinking to the material; in this case, to use one's culturally
and scholarly training on the pre-Aristotelian material; not hap-
hazardly, but with as much deliberation as possible. Deliberation is
important, since the result should preferably not be an unconscious
application of one's own cultural norms to the material. If we go
about our work in this way, we do not obtain an objectively 'true'
picture of the past reality; what we might obtain is a modern under-
standing of the ancient material, and the knowledge that our conclu-
sions derive from the material at hand.
cognitive development. The subjects examined are for a good part illiterate people,
from remote villages who had never had access to any kind of mass media, or even
'modern culture'. For the understanding of pre-Aristotelian ways of thinking, catego-
rizing, classifying and problem-solving, this book should be an indispensable part of
the agenda of anyone working with 'dead cultures' in the pre-Aristotelian period,
even if one cannot of a necessity agree with the analyses made on the basis of Soviet
ideology.
Chapter 2
DEFINITIONS
Since the present book deals with the central concepts of 'Ugaritic',
'Israelite' and 'Canaanite', it seems appropriate to try to define what is
understood by the use of them, even though any valid or thorough
definition of either of the last named is naturally impossible to reach
in a book whose scope and interest lies in quite another direction.
The three concepts have a number of common features. They are all
adjectives, describing a geographical area. They are often used to de-
note states or nations, and are—at least with regard to Canaanite and
Israelite—also used of ethnic groups. This understanding of the latter
words is closely connected to the use the Old Testament makes of
them. Another common factor is that they all suffer from being under-
stood in a 'modern' way.
The concept of a 'nation' or of a 'national-state' is in itself a modern
concept. It did not arise until after the Congress of Vienna towards the
end of the Napoleonic wars. Thus it seems foolhardy to apply this con-
cept to radically different structures of society, in times far removed
from nineteenth-century Europe. The ancient near Eastern 'state' was
closely connected to the palace and the city. A 'state' was the king, the
city of the king, and the area from which he could collect taxes and
forced labour. Every subject of the king, from the highest and richest
court-official to the lowest slave, was—ideologically speaking—the
slave of the king. The individual probably saw himself or herself as
first and foremost a member of a family or village, and only in a very
secondary way, as being the king's subject. The mental—abstract—
step, from understanding oneself as a subject of the king of Ugarit (or
Jerusalem), to understanding oneself as a Ugarite (or Israelite) was
probably not made, and it is thus highly improbable that 'Ugaritic' or
'Israelite' can be used in the sense that we use 'British' or 'Danish'.1
1. Cf. Clements 1989: 4: '...the model of a "national" history has never been
20 Asherah
The borders of a state were not fixed in the way borders are today,
they depended solely on which king or prince was able to place sol-
diers in the area, thus enabling him to tax the population of the dis-
puted areas. This is shown in the knowledge we have from the Amarna
letters of many minor conflicts in the Syro-Palestinian area. The most
well-known example is probably Rib-Adda, and his constant com-
plaints to Pharaoh, on the subject of Abdi-Asirtah, king of the neigh-
boring area.2
2.1. Ugaritic3
Of the three concepts discussed in this chapter, this is by far the easiest
to define, since it originates in the name of a city(-state), whose exis-
tence is fairly easy to determine, both geographically and chrono-
logically. When the city-state of Ugarit was at its largest, it seems to
have covered something like 5500 km2. Its natural borders were the
Mediterranean to the west and swamps or mountains on the remaining
sides (cf. map in Astour 1981).
Chronologically Tell Ras Shamra was more or less continuously oc-
cupied from the seventh millennium until the town of Ugarit ceased to
exist around 1200 BCE, probably as a result of an earthquake.4 The
period of interest to this book is the period from the middle of the
fourteenth century BCE until Ugarit's destruction, since it is from this
period we have the tablets with a mythological content, that is, the
source-material for Ugaritic religion. For practical reasons, the
chronological framework used in this book is fourteenth to the twelfth
century BCE. Properly speaking, 'Ugaritic' covers material deriving
from or belonging to the city-state of Ugarit, as long as this exists,
whether this material has been found in the city-state itself or outside it.
very satisfactory so far as the treatment of ancient Israel is concerned'. See also
Liverani 1974b and 1975, and Lemche 1994.
2. See for example Liverani 1971 and 1974a, or the Amarna letters themselves.
3. The following is mainly based on Astour 1981; Kinet 1981: 9-46; ABD;
GDB (forthcoming edition).
4. Thompson 1992: 219 cites an unpublished dissertation by F.R. Dupont, The
Late History of Ugarit' (Hebrew Union College, 1987), which argues that the final
destruction of Ugarit was due to a number of factors: drought, invasion, famine and
earthquake. It was the combination of these factors that led to a decline of the
Ugaritic political system, and made the inhabitants unable to rebuild the city after the
final disaster—the earthquake—had occurred.
2. Definitions 21
2.2. Israelite5
In discussing this concept not one, but any number of problems rise,
and to touch upon it seems to be to place oneself not on top of, but in
the middle of a veritable hornets' nest. Not only are we dealing with
the problem of the existence of an Israelite state or people before the
Common Era, and the chronological as well as geographical issues
surrounding this, we are also dealing with the entire complex of
problems surrounding the Old Testament, its value as source material
being only one of them, and with the problems surrounding so-called
'biblical archaeology'. A thorough discussion of any of these subjects
could fill not only a book, but a library, and thus the following will
not be a discussion, or even a short resume of the present standpoint
of scholarship, but only a statement of my own position in this. The
object is to try to define a workable concept for use in this book.
The traditional—almost fundamentalist—concept of 'ancient Israel',
that more or less accepts the Old Testament presentation of the history
of Israel, seems no longer tenable. Since Philip R. Davies wrote his In
Search of Ancient Israel the understanding of this concept has changed
radically, if for no other reason than that 'Israel' in the Old Testament
is not one thing, but covers—in the very least—ten different concepts
(Davies 1992: 50). That 'ancient Israel' is a chimera, born in the minds
of scholars, seems obvious after this.
The present work is based on a prize-essay with the fixed subject of
comparing Ugaritic and Israelite religion. The wording of the title
bound me to the concept of 'Israelite'. I therefore have been obliged
to find a workable definition for the purpose of this book, and as such
I am stuck—more or less—with the scholarly fiction of 'Ancient
Israel'.6 Now, if the concept of 'Israelite' is to be based on probable
historical fact, or at the very least, is to be related to a period from
which we have some archaeological material that might connect the
area of Cis-Jordan to the Old Testament concept of an Israelite or
Judahite state, then we can go no further back than the ninth century.
5. This section is primarily based on Liverani 1980; Lemche 1985; Garbini

1988; Clements 1989; Rogerson 1989; Davies 1992; Thompson 1992.
6. Likewise, as noted in the introduction, both my discussion of the question,
and the dissertation were finished before the appearance of Davies 1992 and
Thompson 1992.
22 Asherah
At no time before this is there any kind of epigraphic material that

gives us any solid historical or religious information, that could—
though need not—be connected to the Old Testament stories.7
This does not mean that there is no earlier epigraphic material from
Cis-Jordan, only that there is no way of connecting this material to the
Old Testament stories, or even to any polity mentioned therein, just as
there is no way of connecting the so-called 'Solomonic' buildings with
any king by the name of Solomon. They may have been built in the
period in which the Old Testament places a king by the name of
Solomon, but to my knowledge there has been found no kind of
inscription to connect these buildings to any king by the name of
Solomon (or any other king for that matter). 'Israelite' can therefore
be placed no earlier than the ninth century BCE, where there is extra-
biblical evidence of the existence of some kind of polity in the Cis-
Jordan. For reasons of convenience, I will close my study at approxi-
mately 586 BCE. This is the date where the transition from 'Israelite'
to 'Jewish' begins, and as such, it seems the appropriate place to end.
The geographical framework for 'Israelite' is another problem,
since geography in Antiquity was not the exact science it is today. I
have therefore—as may be inferred from the above—chosen to define
the 'Israelite' area, as the Cis-Jordan.8
2.3. Canaanite9
To discuss the terms 'Canaan' and 'Canaanite' in this connection seems
irrelevant, since neither of these concepts are discussed in the re-
mainder of the book. However, I include this discussion anyway, since
most scholars seem to equate 'Ugaritic' and 'Canaanite'.10 This is often
7. I am of course mainly thinking of the Mesha-inscription, that mentions both

Omri, Yahweh and Israel; the Black Obelisk of Shalmanassar III, that refers to
'Omri's son, Jehu', and the monolith-inscription concerning the battle at Qarqar,
fought in 853 BCE, an event of which the Old Testament knows nothing. Other ninth-
and eighth- century inscriptions from Assyria, mentions the state Bit Humria and
Samaria, that must in all probability be seen as equivalents to the state called 'Israel'
in the Old Testament.
8. I want to make it absolutely clear that this definition is not one I consider
valid any more; it is maintained purely for convenience.
9. The following is a very short version of the discussion concerning this con-
cept. For a thorough evaluation and discussion, see Lemche 1991.
10. Among the multitude, it will suffice to mention one, Cross 1973 (Canaanite
2. Definitions 23
the case when scholars whose original field of interest was the Old
Testament enter the field of Ugarit and Ugaritic. Thus, a discussion of
what can—with due cause—be called Canaanite, and what cannot,
seems to be necessary.
As was the case with the word 'Israelite', it is important to keep in
mind that the modern, scholarly as well as popular, use of the concept,
derives mainly from the use of the word in the Old Testament. When
one looks into the use of the concept outside the Old Testament, a
different picture emerges.
It seems that the extra-biblical material uses the concept far more
loosely and unspecifically than does the Old Testament. The most com-
mon use of the word is to designate lands, areas and people, situated in
the eastern part of the Mediterranean, the main locality being the
Syro-Palestinian area.11 If this were to be translated into a more mod-
ern concept, then 'The Levant' or even 'The Middle-East' could be
helpful. These concepts have in common that they are rather elastic
and could cover anything from the territories bordered by the Medi-
terranean in the west to the Arabian Sea in the east, sometimes includ-
ing not only Egypt, but Libya and Turkey as well. It is within this
area, that 'Canaan' lies. If one then looks closer, 'Canaanite' seems to
be used only of 'the others', and never of the person writing. They
seem to be people who do not belong to the writer's own 'nation', but
who are, on the other hand, not barbarians.12
The Old Testament understanding seems much more specific and
polemical. According to Lemche (Lemche 1991: 151-73) 'the land of
Canaan' is identical to 'our land' in the minds of the authors and
redactors of the so-called historical books of the Old Testament.
'Canaanite' seems to be the highly polemical name that the post-exilic
Jews gave to the non-Jewish, or just 'not Jewish enough' inhabitants of
the land they returned to.13 Alternatively, one could read the terms as
Myth and Hebrew Epic), which is mainly a discussion of the Ugaritic mythological
texts in relation to the Old Testament.
11. Cf. Helck 1962: 279-80: 'In den Amarna Briefen ist Kinahhi, Kinahni,
Kinahna deutlich eine allgemeine Bezeichnung fur alle syrisch-palastinenischen
Gebiete.'
12. Cf. Lemche 1991: 52: 'To the scribe of ancient Western Asia "Canaanite"
always designated a person who did not belong to the scribe's own society or state,
while Canaan was considered to be a country different from his own.'
13. Lemche 1991: 167. In order to make this thesis stick, one has to accept
24 Asherah
polemical designations for those parts of the population—be they

'Israelites' or Jews or not—who do not accept the rigid demands of
the deuteronomists, concerning one central, Jerusalemite cult and the
adherence to only one God.
Lemche's dating of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomists, to the fifth or fourth
century at the earliest.
Chapter 3
THE SOURCE MATERIAL
This chapter will deal with a general evaluation of the sources that are
the backbone of the present work. Since I am dealing almost exclu-
sively with the textual sources, these will be the ones evaluated.
The purpose of a historical criticism of the sources is to determine
the applicability of the sources to the problem at hand.1 The way to do
it is to make a survey of their contents, their history of transmission
(when relevant) and their physical condition. With regard to contents,
it is impossible to give an evaluation before one has been through the
material at least once. I will nevertheless attempt a preliminary evalu-
ation of the texts discussed here: the Old Testament, the Ugaritic cor-
pus of texts and the other archaeologically found epigraphic material
that does not belong in either of these two main categories. If the
initial evaluation of these sources should prove to be wrong, it will be
revised during the more elaborate discussion of their content in the
following chapters.2
3.1. Archaeological Findings

The first group of texts are the ones that have been found during
excavations. They are thus subject to the laws of chance, in as much as
both what survives during the the centuries, and what is dug up and
thus brought to light is accidental. Among the archaeologically found
material, the corpus of texts from Ugarit is my primary interest, but
epigraphic material from 'Israel' will also be evaluated in the follow-
1. So Clausen 1970: 436: 'at afg0re kildens anvendelighed til at begrunde svar
pa del problem.. .[man] arbejder med'; that is, 'to determine the efficacy of the source
with regards to substantiating an answer to the problem... [one] is working on'.
2. The terminology used in this chapter is mainly borrowed from Clausen 1970
andErslev 1987.
26 Asherah
ing, just as the issue of the Old Testament as source material in this
connection will be looked into: that is, the question of its relevance to
'Israelite' religion in the period c. 900 to 586 BCE.
3.1.1. Frequent Sources of Error in the Archaeological Material

The extra-biblical material has a number of common potential errors
and problems that may seem too self-evident to state or discuss. This
will nevertheless be done in the following, as these sources of error
are often behind major points of dissension in the scholarly debate.
3.1.1.1. Misspelling. Whereas the biblical material has undergone a

number of redactions that have—in part at least—sought to find some
kind of uniform orthography, one cannot expect the same to be the
case with the extra-biblical material.
There was no kind of authority, no official 'Scrabble Dictionary', in
the Ugaritic or 'Israelite' societies BCE. This might seem too banal to
mention, but it is not without importance, particularly since the inter-
pretation of a text often hangs on the interpretation of one word or
even on the reading of one letter. It is important to decide whether
one considers the scribe who originally wrote a tablet to have been
dyslexic, sloppy or perfect.3
One must presume that the individual scribe used his own—more or
less standard—orthography throughout; one has to presume that, for
instance, ilmlk of Ugarit was consistent in his spelling of individual
words. One cannot, however, assume that other scribes spelled the
individual words the same way ilmlk did.
This could be highlighted by a look at Akkadian. As the lingua
franca of the ancient Near East in the Bronze Age and the beginning
of the Iron Age, Akkadian seems to have been subject to large ortho-
graphical differences. Since this language uses syllabic writing, most
words can be spelled in a number of different ways, and one gets the
suspicion that orthography depended on many things, two of them
being how large the tablet was, and how learned the scribe wanted to
appear. Another decisive factor with regard to orthography seems to
3. A number of word-lists have been found in Ugarit, but they have the char-
acter of glossaries rather than dictionaries. Their purpose seemingly, was to provide
translations of various Ugaritic words into other languages, rather than to establish
either the meaning or the correct spelling of any given word in Ugaritic. For this
reason, they are without any major importance in this connection.
3. The Source Material 27
have been the individual scribe's own language, and even dialect. This
can be seen in the Amarna letters, where the dialect and mother-tongue
of the scribe seems to have had a major influence on the Akkadian he
wrote (see for example, Liverani 1983).
If just one of these factors—the one of dialect—was similar through-
out the ancient Near East, then we are not necessarily dealing with
sloppy writing when we encounter orthographic variances; we might
be dealing with dialect within the language.
Naturally, one should not rule out cases of misspelling entirely.
Even a highly skilled scribe could forget a wedge, write the wrong
letter or forget a line when copying. An obvious example of a scribal
error is found in PRU II.3 = KTU 1.83. Line 8 of this text starts with
the word tan. Seen in context, it becomes obvious that the proper word
to read is tnn. The difference between the two is one single wedge: a
is written with two consecutive wedges, n with three, and it is not un-
usual to see an n written with four wedges. This implies that it was
fairly easy to mistake certain letters. Another example could be KTU
1.16.III.4, which has miyt, but the word gives no meaning. When one
deletes a single wedge in the second letter, the word becomes mhyt,
which fits the context perfectly; both CTA and KTU emend thus.
Misspelling as a source of errors in a given text is thus a genuine
possibility, but one should only assume it to be the case with great
hesitancy, thus avoiding what could be called the scourge of Ugarit
scholarship: emendations of texts and reconstructions of lacuna. It is
not unusual to encounter scholars whose arguments are based on what
is hidden in a lacuna—and reconstructed by the scholar—or who build
their arguments on elaborate emendations, claiming misspellings and
faulty grammar on the part of the ancient scribe.4
3.1.1.2. State of Preservation. Another common source of error in the

interpretation of ancient, archaeologically found, texts, is their state of
preservation. If one looks at clay tablets, not only from Ugarit, but
from the entire Near East, one sees great variances in their present
condition. Most of the tablets are fragmentary, their surface has cor-
roded, breaks and holes are seen on the tablets and the edges are,
more often than not, damaged. Just one of these factors can seriously
4. A possible example of this can be found in Margalit 1989. He simply omits

half a line in the inscription from Khirbet el-Qom and inserts another (wholly recon-
structed) one, which he considers more fitting for the context. See also section 5.1.
28 Asherah
disturb our understanding of the text at hand, and in combination they

can make correct interpretation impossible. The next serious problem
occurs when one attempts to put pieces together. Finding out which
fragment belongs where can keep scholars occupied for decades.5
The original state of the material used for an inscription can like-
wise give rise to problems. A textbook example is the inscription
from Khirbet el-Qom, which has for at least a decade given rise to
what at times has been heated scholarly debate.6 And if we are dealing
with wall-plaster that has fallen off the walls and lies, in pieces or as
dust, the problems grow even further, as can be witnessed with one of
the texts from Kuntillet Ajrud,7 or with the texts from Deir Alia.
3.1.1.3. Onomastica. Since extra-biblical texts pertaining to issues in

the Old Testament are scarce, the discussion of onomastica has for a
long time been in the foreground when one wanted to learn something
of the religious feelings and affiliations of the 'common person'8 in
any given culture, but the issue is not as clear-cut as it seems. If one
wants to deal with onomastica as a (historical) source or even as reli-
gious source material, one has to tackle a number of fundamental
methodological issues—something that is rarely done. I do not pretend
to cover all major issues in this section, but I do attempt to touch upon
a number of them, all necessary for our evaluation of this possible
source.
The first major point is the illusion that only theophoric names are
relevant. This is not the case. If one wants to deal with the implica-
tions hidden in the name-material of a given culture, one has to assess
the entire material, and not just the part of the material that gives
clear-cut and easily recognizable divine names, or—even worse—the
part of the material that tells one what one wants to hear. Divine
epithets can be used as theophoric elements in personal names, as well
as being used instead of the more regular divine names. If part of the
onomastic material is without any kind of divine name or epithet, then
this too can tell us about the value of theophoric personal names.9
5. As has been the case with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

6. See section 5.1.
7. See section 5.2 and Appendix 2.
8. Tigay 1986: ix, 'personal names are a reflex of religious loyalties'.
9. See below, the evaluation of Tigay 1986.
Only the complete material available can give us any kind of useable
information.
Likewise, one has to keep in mind that a theophoric name might be
meaningful when it is first given, but its meaning may be lost during
the course of time.10 It is impossible to determine with any certainty
when (or if) a name is meaningful to the person giving the name, and
when it is simply given out of tradition, or because the giver likes the
name. The only certain information that can be learned from theo-
phoric personal names is that they in all probability derive from a
culture whose ideas of religion were basically polytheistic, since the
'original' giver of a name has felt it necessary to provide the named
person with some divine affiliation. They tell us nothing at all of which
we can be certain pertaining to the culture in which they are used.
Another factor is the problem of what the theophoric element of a
name means. A divinity can have a name in common with another
divinity in a neighboring culture, but not have the same functions, just
as gods can have the same functions but not share a name. This is not
only the case in different cultures, but can be the case in the same cul-
ture at different times. The names of gods can change over the years
but they may nevertheless maintain the same divine functions, or the
names of gods can be retained while the divine functions change. One
of the examples of 'different names, but same god' is the possible
equation between Baal-Hammon of Carthage, and El, two well-known
divine names that appear to cover the 'same' god in two different—
but comparable—cultures (so Cross, ThWAT, I, pp. 265-70).
Yet another factor of uncertainty is the fact that seals, bullae and
inscriptions are not made for the 'common person'. Only the wealth-
ier classes could afford the kind of signature a seal or inscription
gives, so that only graffiti can have any chance of giving us a more
democratic picture; but this still excludes that (major) part of the pop-
ulation that is unable to read or write.
Finally one has to work within well-defined frameworks, chrono-
logically as well as geographically speaking. It is not sufficient to say
'Ugaritic', if what one means is 'the city-state of Ugarit, as it was in
10. Thus, it is not uncommon in Denmark to baptize a child Freja, which is the
name of the Asa-goddess of fertility. Another popular Danish name, Torben (which
derives from Thor-bj0rn, 'the bear of Thor'), has been a popular Danish name for
more than a millennium. That a priest (or minister) is called Torben does not neces-
sarily make the man a pagan, either in the tenth century, or in the twentieth century.
30 Asherah
the period from 1400-1200 BCE'. One also has to define how one
proposes to determine which names are 'properly' Ugaritic and which
are 'imported'.
In an attempt to look more closely into the methodology and results
that the study of onomastica can give us, the following will be a close
look at one of the more recent onomastic studies, Jeffrey H. Tigay's
You Shall Have no Other Gods.11 Tigay has been chosen for several
reasons: one is that he claims to work with the entire 'Israelite' ono-
mastic material; another is that he seems to be a good representative
of the many scholars who try to use more 'hard science' methods in
the field of Old Testament studies.12
The onomastic material compiled and treated by Tigay seems
impressive, but also shows the dangers involved in reducing material
that does not consist of numbers to numbers or to 'statistics': a danger
not only present when one tries to apply statistics to Old Testament
material, but is a constant factor in all statistics.13
In the introduction, Tigay claims that 'It is to the onomastic and
inscriptional data and their bearing on the Biblical evidence that the
present study is devoted' (Tigay 1986: 3) and the subtitle of the book
is Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. Thus it seems
clear that it is not the complete archaeologically found material that he
discusses, but only part of it. Unfortunately, Tigay forgets to tell the
reader which part of the material he discards, and why. The title
implies that he is dealing with Hebrew inscriptions only, but he sets no
geographical or chronological framework, he does not propose any
method for telling the Hebrew and non-Hebrew names apart, just as he
at no time discusses the problem of ethnicity.
Among the names he discards are 'bdlb 't and bn 'nt, both found on
arrow-heads outside Bethlehem; they are 'too early' and 'Canaanite'
(Tigay 1986: 13 n. 41 and Cross 1981), but the reader has not been
11. Tigay 1986.1 have chosen to work only with the sections pertaining to the
onomastic material in this book. The conclusions drawn from the 'ordinary' epi-
graphical material will not be discussed here.
12. The discussion of Tigay's book could equally have been placed in section 1,
that discusses method. It has been placed here because it has been an important factor
in the formation of my views on onomastica as a (historical) source.
13. It is Tigay who claims that he treats the material 'statistically'. He does not.
What he does is to make a percentual distribution of names, based on principles only
dimly illuminated. However, it takes more than percentages to make statistics.
given any chronological frame! He mentions that the majority of the

material is from the eighth century and later, and he states that it is
the pre-exilic names that have his interest, but no lower boundary is
set, and the upper one (586 BCE) is only inferred. Likewise, he gives
no indication as to how one decides whether an inscription is 'Israel-
ite' (Hebrew) or 'Canaanite'. The distinction is (cf. Chapter 2 of this
book) not obvious, even if Tigay wants it to appear so. There is no rea-
son whatsoever to suppose that only the bits and pieces that agree with
the Old Testament picture of the correct 'Israelite' cult is 'Israelite',
whereas the uncomfortable and polytheistic evidence is 'Canaanite'.14
Names discarded out of chronological or ethnic considerations, that
are not stated, are thus an unknown number. Tigay does not give any
number, and he does not list the names in his appendices.
Another part of the onomastic material that Tigay discards is that
which uses El as the theophoric element, since he—correctly—finds
that it is impossible to determine which god is hiding behind the name.
It could be Yahweh, or it could be some other god. Discarding names
on the basis that one cannot determine which god is hiding behind a
name is not—statistically, scientifically or scholarly speaking—a sound
practice. In order to make sound statistics, he should include the 77
El-names, either as an 'El-category' or an 'unknown-category' in the
final analysis. That way, the names would not disappear, and a more
correct picture would be gained.
Eighty-seven names, listed in Tigay's appendix C, are not seen as
'Israelite pagan names'. We are given no reasons for these names not
being 'Israelite', and are only told, that hypocristic names of this type
are so rare that it is improbable that all 87 should be what they appear
to be. When one turns to the appendix, to see which names are not
'Israelite pagan names', it seems puzzling—to say the least—that he
reads the name $lm[h] as Shalim, rather than Solomon, and that this
name (of all) is not judged to be 'Israelite'. Unfortunately Tigay does
14. I am perfectly aware that a large number of scholars equate 'Canaanite' with
Bronze Age and 'Israelite' with Iron Age, but the boundaries are not self-evident,
just as the dating of the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age is something
that is widely discussed. Another example of this unclear distinction, presented as
very clear, is found in Tadmor 1982. She 'dates' female cult-figurines as 'Canaan-
ite', in distinction to 'Israelite', which does not know of cult-figurines of this sort.
Her argumentation is—in its principles—circular.
32 Asherah
not divulge why he evaluates the way he does.

The remaining—numbered—names are 35 'plausibly pagan' names
and 557 Yahwistic names. Thus the material discussed reaches a total
of 756 names (77 El-names + 87 'non-Israelite' names + 35 'pagan'
names + 557 Yahweh-names). Tigay's evaluation of the remainder of
the material, apart from the 557 Yahwistic names and the 77 El-
names, is that most of the rest mention no deity at all.15 Two questions
fairly leap at me: 'Not even epithets?'16 and 'How many "other names"
are we dealing with?' Unfortunately, I am unable to give any kind of
answer. Tigay does not list the remaining names, nor does he give
us the sum of them, the only information found in the book is that:
'the names of more than 1200 pre-exilic Israelites are known from
Hebrew inscriptions and foreign inscriptions referring to Israel'
(Tigay 1986: 9). Presumably, then, the 'other names' include more
than 444 persons.
This, then, is the material Tigay uses to show that 94.1 per cent of
the 'Israelite' names are Yahwistic, while only 5.9 per cent are non-
yahwistic (Tigay 1986: 15). Now, if one disregards Tigay's misuse of
statistics—both the word and the method—and tries to compile a
percentual distribution, based on the information gleaned from Tigay's
study, the result might look something like this:
%
y/zw-names 502 41.8
j/i-names 40 3.3
Dubious Yahweh-names 15 1.3
El-names 77 6.4
Other theophoric names 122 10.2
Unknown 444 37.0
Total 1200 100.0
The Yahweh-names are split into three categories: (1) the Yhw-
compounds; (2) Yh- compounds; and (3) damaged names and the am-
biguous Yw- compounds which might refer to some other deity.17
15. Tigay 1986: 12: 'Of all the remaining names, most mention no deity at all.
Only 35 seem clearly or very plausibly to refer to deities other than YHWH.'
16. For an evaluation and discussion of names compounded with divine epithets
rather than divine names, see, for example, Thompson 1974: 22-51.
17. They could be referring to the Ugaritic god vw (cf. CTA 1.IV.14 : 'the name
of my son is vw'), or to some other god, bearing the same name.
Tigay's two groups of 'certain' and 'improbable' theophoric names,

bearing the name of a 'pagan' god, are grouped together for conve-
nience, but the 'El-names' get their own category, since they could or
could not be referring to Yahweh. The final category, 'unknown'
seems huge, but is simply a low estimate of the unlisted and unnum-
bered names necessary to reach the total of 1200. As will be remem-
bered, Tigay claims that we know the names of 'more than 1,200'
'Israelites' from before 586 BCE.18
Tigay's conclusions derive from the faulty use of his chosen
method. He claims that 94.1 per cent of the material is Yahwistic. It is
not. It is not even 94.1 per cent of the listed theophoric material that
is Yahwistic. If we take our point of departure in the above percentual
spread, rather than in Tigay's, 46.4 per cent, at the most, of the ma-
terial can be viewed as Yahwist.19 If Tigay had stated his object more
clearly, and had insisted throughout that only the theophoric material
was relevant, then the Yahwist-names would have reached a total of
73.7 per cent.20 This is a stunning figure in itself. However, it leads us
back to the central issue of method: to use non-theological methods in
an attempt to gain new insights is laudable; to try to give one's work
an aura of empiricism by misuse of hard science methods of a posi-
tivist derivation, is not.
A related issue to this is the fact that I disagree with Tigay in the
basic concept that only theophoric names can tell us something of the
religious loyalties in a society or culture. A lot can be learned from
the fact that some names carry no theophoric element—be it a divine
name or a divine epithet. If a major part of the extant onomasticon has
no divine connotation at all, this tells us that a major part of that level
of the population which could read and write or which had a seal of
some kind, did not consider a theophoric name a necessity. This again
leads back to the basic assumption, that names are a valid source for
the history (of religion) of a given area. If as many as 37 per cent of
the names are non-theophoric, this could indicate that names were not
18. The present book is not an onomastic study, and since Tigay does not list
these names, or even tell us specifically where to find them, it is impossible to eval-
uate whether any of these 'more than' 444 names contain some divine epithet or not.
19. If one evaluates the Yahweh-names less kindly, their share goes down to
41.8 percent.
20. I am here including both the El-names and the dubious 'pagan' names listed
in Tigay's study.
34 Asherah
of a necessity given for religious reasons, but could—just as well—be

given because they were 'nice' or 'traditional'.
To round up this evaluation, it is worth noting, as a final irony, that
Tigay's own figures give the lie to the so-called historical books of the
Old Testament. If 94.1 per cent of the 'Hebrew' population in the
period up to 586 BCE were pious Yahwists, the 'foreign cult' over
which 2 Kings agonizes becomes a minimal problem and not—as it is
presented in the biblical text—something 'all Israel' was doing more
or less continuously.21
If we then turn from the specific to the general, from Tigay's study to
the problems of onomastica as such, we can look briefly at the prob-
lem of the divine element yw/yh/yhw. If a name with this divine ele-
ment is found in the area of 'ancient Israel', it will automatically be
evaluated as being Yahwist, but what of names from 'non-Israelite'
periods, such as the Bronze Age, or from a different cultural context
than the 'Israelite': are they Yahwist as well?
The first example is from an Akkadian text found in Ugarit, RS
8.208.22 The interesting thing in this connection is the name of the
woman, whose manumission is described here. She is called feli-ia-
wa.23 Had this name been found in an 'Israelite' context, the self-
evident translation would be 'my god is Yahweh'. Another example of
something that could be a Yahwist name, in a 'wrong' context, is
found in a treaty between Hattusilis III, king of Hatti, and Bentesina,
king of Amurru (PDK, text no. 9 1.19-20 [pp. 128-29]) which runs, 'I
have given the daughter of the king, Gasullijaue (fga-dS-Su-li-ja-u-i-e),
to the land of Amurru, to the house of king Bentesina, in marriage'.
Since neither of these texts come from 'Israel', we can choose to
believe—at least with regards to the Ugaritic name—that the theo-
phoric element is not Yahweh, but rather the god Yaw mentioned
above,24 or we could follow Grondahl, and read an Egyptian divine
21. I owe this observation to a conversation with N.P. Lemche.

22. The initial 12 lines of the tablet are given in transcribed Akkadian in PRU
III.l pp. 110-11. The entire text is found in translation in ANET, p. 546.
23. Grondahl 1967: 324 reads fe-li-ia-ya, and considers that the name contains
the double-suffix of yy, and that the divinity that the name refers to is the alphabetical
ilyy, an Egyptian divinity.
24. Cf. section 3.1.1.1. Even though 'w' and 'm' look relatively alike in the
Latin alphabet, it seems improbable that a Ugaritic scribe should mistake these letters,
name in the compound. We could also, with equal justification, see not
only the Ugaritic, but also the Hittite name, as a reference to a divin-
ity, bearing the name of Yahweh or Yaw in the north of the Syrian-
Palestinian area, in the Bronze Age.25 This, then, together with the
Hamath-material from the eighth century discussed in Dalley's article,
opens up an entire new set of possibilities. If Yahweh is not—as is
usually presumed—an exclusive 'Israelite' name, bound to the Iron
Age 'Israelite' population of Cis-Jordan, then the Yahweh-epithet in
any given PN loses its value as a significant factor with regard to eth-
nic affiliation, just as it loses its significance as a pointer to any kind of
biblical monotheism or even monolatrous Yahweh-cult. Yahweh, in
both the Bronze Age and early Iron Age, becomes just another god of
the Syrian-Palestinian area.26
In conclusion to this discussion of onomastica, many factors argue
in favor of regarding onomastica as a very dubious source, particu-
larly when dealing with the religious affiliations of a given society.
Not only because there is a tendency to read our own—often frag-
mented—knowledge of a given pantheon into the names, but also be-
cause ostraca, bullae and tomb-inscriptions are the prerogatives of a
very minor part of any ancient society. For these reasons, onomastica
will be disregarded as a valid source in this book.
3.1.2. The Epigraphic Material from Ugarit

The epigraphic material from Ugarit has its own set of specific prob-
lems that will be dealt with below. The first is the problem of sequence
and coherence in—at least—one of the major text-series, or cycles
from Ugarit, namely the so-called Baal-cycle. The second specific
problem of the Ugaritic texts is their function, and why were they
written and preserved.
3.1.2.1. The Problems of Fundorte.27 It is a constant practice in all

discussions of ancient texts and archaeological findings to complain
and thus write yw, when the divinity he intended to refer to was ym.
25. For the possible use of the divine name Yahweh outside 'Israel', see also
Dalley 1990.
26. As a final reference to Tigay's study, it is worth noting that if this is the case,
then not even the divine name yw/yh/yhw in a given personal name need refer to the
god of the Old Testament.
27. The following is a very short summary of a small portion of my present
36 Asherah
about the lack of official excavation reports. When one looks at the
Ugaritic material, the lack of aggregate reports—in the absence of a
final set of reports—is highlighted by the fact that the majority of
the tablets found, have been published more or less continuously.
Nowhere does the lack of an official report seem more obvious than
when we are dealing with the tablets that contain the so-called Baal-
cycle. This is the case, because one of the major discussions in the
study of Ugaritic myths, is the proper sequence of the six tablets
(CTA 1-6) that make up the so-called Baal-cycle. The entire discus-
sion should be reconsidered, as a direct result of Allan Rosengren
Petersen's study of where Schaeffer actually found the tablets (Petersen
1994). This is a piece of work that should have been done by the
official excavators long ago, but has not been done.
Petersen's examination shows that the tablets of the so-called Baal-
cycle should properly be separated, since two of them—CTA 1 and
2—were found not only during a different season of excavation from
the rest, but in a different room. This seems to indicate that the tablets
were not—as hitherto assumed—part of the same cycle, but rather,
separate poems.28
It has been notoriously difficult to fit the stories of Baal's fight(s)
against Yam, and his controversies with Mot, into the same frame-
work without distorting the texts. If CTA 1-2 contains a different
story from CTA 3-6, we do not need to fit them into a common
framework, but can see the entire set of stories—that is, the fight(s)
between Baal and Yam, the story of his controversies with Mot, and
the story of the building of his palace—as separate entities. Since both
the facts concerning the finding of the tablets, and the contents of the
separate text-groups support regarding the poems as separate entities,
it might be more appropriate to talk of a number of poems, all dealing
with the god Baal, and—perhaps—presenting different explanations
for his ascent to power. I will therefore in the following refer to the
'Baal-texts', rather than the 'Baal-cycle'.
Another interesting observation that can be gleaned from Petersen's
study is the fact that some of the Baal-texts, CTA 3-6, were in the
same room as the so-called epic texts, that is, the Poem of Aqhat, or
research. I did, however, find it essential to include the argument in curtailed form
since its ramifications are fundamental.
28. This conclusion is one I draw from Petersen's article.
Danel, and the Poem of Kirta. They were not, however, stored in the
same room as the ritual-texts found in the same building. It thus seems
justifiable to assume that the Baal-texts should be considered in the
same light as the other epic texts, rather than be seen as a set of texts
used in the cult.29
3.1.2.2. Why Were the Texts Written? If, as proposed above, the
Baal-texts should be seen as literature, rather than ritual texts or even
as a script for the 'Akitu' festival of Ugarit, we have not really come
any closer to defining why they were written at all. We use them as
source material for discussions of the religion and pantheon of Ugarit,
but since we do not know anything of the context they have been
written for or in, we are—unfortunately—no closer to a determi-
nation of what they are.
When we look at lists of sacrifices, we have a more than shrewd
idea that they were indeed used in the practical cult of Ugarit, but the
reasons for the existence of the epic texts still elude us. We know the
name of the author, or scribe; he is 'ilmlk, and is seemingly an official
at the court of king Niqmaddu. With the help of the colophons he has
written on the tablets, these texts can be dated to the period between
1325 and 1250 BCE (cf. Loretz 1990: 6), but that is about as far as we
can get. Nothing in the texts themselves gives away their purpose,
apart from the one fact, that we can—with relative certainty—assume
that they should be read—or sung—aloud.30 The epic texts could be
'ordinary' literature, examples of a single man's itch to write, or they
could be confiscated or appropriated material, reflecting a 'heretic'
version of the Ugaritic religion. The texts could also represent 'edify-
ing' texts, used by the upper class of Ugarit, or 'edifying' texts, used
as bait for the common people, in order to teach them something of
the proper religious feelings, just as they could be texts used by cer-
tain religious 'clubs' or cultic associations. We do not know, and the
list of possible explanations seem endless.
If the epic texts are correlated with the obviously cultic texts, we
can get a picture of whether the epic texts had any connection to the
daily cult, something that does not seem very probable;31 but even if
29. Again, the conclusion is mine, based on Petersen's study.

30. We know this from the occurrences of double lines, between which instruc-
tions like 'repeat from...', are found; thus CTA 4.V.I04-105.
31. The agreement with regards to the names used in the different categories of
38 Asherah
this is the case, we have no idea why the epic texts were written at all.
3.1.3. Epigraphic Material from the 'Israelite' Area

When one wants to deal with archaeological material from the Israel-
ite area, in particular the epigraphic part of it, one stumbles upon a
number of problems that are only partly related to the material itself.
A major part of the problems with epigraphic findings is the treatment
they get in publication...if, that is, the material is published within
something resembling a sensible time-frame.
Unfortunately, much of the secondary literature concerning archae-
ology in the 'Israelite' area, is characterized by what appears to be a
need to prove the 'truth' of the Old Testament via archaeology.32 This
may be understandable when the author is a pious person, with a more
or less fundamentalist approach to anything found in 'the Holy Land'.
It is not, however, very sound scholarship. If one feels obliged to press
any find into an Old Testament frame, then the object—which in itself
is not 'contaminated' by being anything but itself—becomes an ideo-
logical tool, wielded in the fight between 'biblicists' and 'agnostics'.
As long as complete reports of any excavation, and of its finds are
not published as quickly as at all possible, then the preliminary publi-
cation of single items can become suspect, as they are not published
within their proper framework. The items published and described
might have been chosen for publication for the simple reason that they
support the excavators personal beliefs, rather than because they are
central and important finds.
texts, seems to be reasonably large. It is relatively few gods that are only known to
us from one group of texts. The disagreement between the text-groups does, how-
ever, seem to be relatively great when we are dealing with the importance of the
individual gods. A goddess like Anat, who is of major importance, both in the Baal-
texts and in the poem of Aqhat, seems only to have been of minor cultic importance,
since her name only rarely occurs in lists of sacrifices. (I am naturally drawing my
conclusions on the basis of the extant material, not on what might exist or might have
existed 'if only...')
32. A shining example of this could be the newly found stela-fragments from Tel
Dan. The excavators have—laudably—published these fragments very quickly, but
the treatment of the material seems to be biblicistic to an extent that borders on funda-
mentalism; so, the interpretation of a word ending in -ihw as being the name of an
'Israelite' king (cf. Naveh and Biran 1993). A multitude of names—'Israelite' and
non-'Israelite'—can end in -ihw: it is not a theophoric element exclusive to kings
mentioned in the Old Testament; cf. Dalley 1990.
Thus it is a dubious practice to concentrate on which person from

the Old Testament could have used this or that installation or item, for
which purpose,33 rather than concentrating on placing the item or
installation in the extant archaeological framework, and only—as a
much later step—looking into whether this new information could
have any bearing on the Old Testament. Unless the context of a given
object irrevocably and indisputably refers it to something we know of
from the Old Testament, it seems highly suspect to start one's search
for context in the Old Testament, rather than in the other material
finds.
The same is true of epigraphic material. Unless it is clear from the
text itself that it refers to one or more persons or events known to us
from the Old Testament it is not—as I understand the concept—sound
scholarship to reconstruct or insist on a connection that is not in the
text itself.
Finally, it is worth noting that the epigraphic material from the
'Israelite' area is scant in comparison to that from the neighbouring
areas and cultures. Apart from the inscription in the Siloam tunnel,
there are no royal or official inscriptions from the Israelite area,34
there are no votive-inscriptions, no founder-inscriptions, no annalistic
reports: in short, no inscriptions of official character.35
3.2. The Old Testament

One of the greatest problems connected with the use of the Old
Testament as a historical source is that it is a collection of literature
that is not historiography, but rather a work whose scope and focus is
33. The outstanding example of this is the magazine Biblical Archaeological

Review, which spends most of its editorial space on speculation about 'Joshua's altar
on mount Ebal' or King David's shoelaces or the like.
34. I do not regard the Mesha inscription and the newly-found inscription
fragments from Tell Dan as official 'Israelite' royal inscriptions.
35. Garbini (1988: 17-19) notes an interesting hypothesis in this connection. He
refers to one of the earliest rabbinical texts, the Megillat Ta'anit, where a Jewish
festival on the 3rd of Tishri is mentioned. On this day the time when 'the memory of
the documents were eliminated' was commemorated. This short notice, in combina-
tion with the lack of inscriptions, leads Garbini to speculate on whether official Ju-
daism destroyed every inscription that was not in accordance with the official, sacred
history—that is, did not support the Old Testament.
40 Asherah
ideology and religion.36 The 'historiography' of the Old Testament is

built on a religious understanding of the world and the individual that
is static: Yah wen is, and has always been, the one true god; other gods
are false, and any cult, for any other god than Yahweh, any other place
than the one he has determined, is fornication, heresy and apostasy.
This religious understanding of the world and of the individual is
projected into practically every 'historical' book or pericope of the
collection, just as it is projected into the prehistory. The prehistory—
created on the basis of the present37 religious ideology—is then made
into the ideal 'golden' age, legitimizing the present demands and ide-
ologies.
To see prehistory as being on the same ethical and religious level as
the present, leads to a very static view of history. No real develop-
ment can take place if everything has always been so and only minor
fluctuations within the framework of the fixed ideology and religion
can be allowed.
Thus, the historiography of the Old Testament should in no way be
seen as an attempt to give correct answers—to 'tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth'—but should rather be seen as
religiously determined attempts at fitting the past into a pattern—or
even creating a past—that suits the present ideology. The Old
Testament is an excellent source for the period in which it was written
and compiled, the only problem being the question of when it was?38
It is not a very good source, actually it is at most times a very bad
source for events and thoughts of the periods it pretends to deal with.
Even when we have parallel sources to persons, events or traditions
treated in the Old Testament, these do not necessarily tell us anything
of the Old Testament text, its age or its origin. The Deir 'Alia finds
are an excellent illustration of this. From these we can see that a
tradition of some prophet, by the name of bl'm son of b'wr, was
36. I do not pretend even to touch upon any major discussions of the histori-
ography of the Old Testament. For a comprehensive survey and brilliant discussion
of the issue, see Flemming Nielsen's forthcoming study, Tragedy in History, which
is to be published in Sheffield's Copenhagen International Seminar.
37. 'Present' in this context means the present time of the biblical writers and
redactors, not our present.
38. I will not deal with this issue in this book, as it is far, far beyond the scope of
the present study. Suffice to say, I belong to the 'school' that dates most—if not
all—of the Old Testament after 586 BCE.
known in Transjordan in the seventh century. We know a prophet of

the same name from Numbers 22-24, and could thus be dealing with
an authentic seventh century tradition. But the Balaam tradition—if
we are dealing with the same tradition—could have come into the Old
Testament at any time after the seventh century: all that the findings
can tell us is that a tradition about Balaam son of Beor was known in
the seventh century, no more, no less.39
We cannot expect the Old Testament to be a genuine and infor-
mative source to the history of religion in pre-exilic 'Israel'. If we
insist on using it anyway, we must simultaneously insist that it is only
in cases where extra-biblical material has given us a feasible idea of
the situation that the Old Testament can be brought in as a supplement.
By this I do not wish to imply that one should try to make archaeo-
logically found material fit into the Old Testament framework, but the
contrary. Even if it is almost inhuman to expect a biblical scholar to
disregard the biblical implications, it is of major importance—if one
wants to work from a historical angle—to start with the extra-biblical
material, and only, as the very last step in an investigation, to try and
trace the results in the text of the Old Testament.
39. For a different evaluation of these findings in relation to the Old Testament
version, see J.C. de Moor 1990.
Chapter 4
ASHERAH IN UGARIT
4.1. The Mythological and Epic Texts1

In the present chapter I will discuss the different titles and epithets
given to Asherah in the mythological and epic texts from Ugarit.
Asherah's role(s) and function(s) in the texts or text-groups, including
her status as it can be deduced from the lists of sacrifices, will be
examined in an attempt to determine a more precise estimate of her
position and importance in the Ugaritic religion and pantheon.
4.1.1. The Names and Titles of Asherah2

When one tries to grasp who Asherah was both in the Ugaritic texts
and in the minds of the people using these texts, the discussion often
starts with one or more of the titles and epithets given to her. I too
will take as my starting point the different names, titles and epithets
given to her in the texts, or claimed to be hers by other scholars, in
order to examine whether any knowledge of her role(s) and func-
tion(s) can be deduced from these.
4.1.1.1. rbt atrt ym. This title occurs a total of nineteen times in the
Ugaritic texts.3 Six of these parallel with qnyt ilm and it appears four
1. The texts dealt with are all the extant texts using the word atrt that I have
been able to find—in practice this means the texts listed by Whitaker. All texts are
transcribed from the autograph in CTU and have been translated by the present
author. Deviations from the standard text-versions—CTA, KTU and UT—are
recorded in the notes on each text.
2. This chapter does not discuss the meaning of the word atrt, that discussion
having been placed in chapter 7.1. The opinions of other scholars on this subject are
only referred to in this chapter, inasmuch as they have any relevance to the inter-
pretation of any given epithet, or to Asherah's place in the Ugaritic pantheon.
3. CTA 3.1V.2 - 3.V.48 - 4.1.14 + 22 - 4.II.28 + 31 - 4.III.25 +29 + 34 -
4.IV.2 + 4 + 31 + 40 + 53 + 64 - 6.1.45 + 47 + 53 - 8.1.
4. Asherah in Ugarit 43
times in a context where it is the dwelling of rbt atrt ym that is

parallel to the dwelling of El. The remaining nine occurrences are
without parallels. This is the single title that occurs most frequently,
and therefore one might assume that it was the one most commonly
used. This, however, is not necessarily correct, since this title only ap-
pears in the Ugaritic texts belonging to the group of Baal-texts.4 None
of the other texts or text-groups, including the lists of sacrifices, use
the combination rbt atrt ym.5
As will be seen in the following, I have chosen a translation of ym
that is different from the traditional ones, namely 'day', rather than
'sea' or 'Yam'. The chosen translation is orthographically and gram-
matically, as probable as the traditional ones, and—as will be seen—
slightly less improbable judging by internal factors in the texts.
I have never succeeded in finding any scholar arguing in favor of
translating ym as 'sea'; the closest are the statements that Ugarit, like
Tyre and Sidon, was a coastal city with extensive sea-trading, and that
one of Asherah's sons seems to be the sea-god, Yam. These statements,
combined with the fact that one of Asherah's servants, qdS wamrr, is
also called 'Asherah's fisherman', are the only existing reasons for
connecting her closely with the sea.6
The fact that one has to look at either a divine servant or a child, in
order to find out what field of interest the relevant god has, makes one
suspicious. If we try to relate this to Greek mythology, we could
define Zeus as a wine-god—or for that matter the god of pederasts—
since Greece is a wine-producing country, and Zeus has a very young
and very beautiful male cupbearer, Ganymede. If one looks at the
Ugaritic texts themselves it seems strange that a parallel between
Asherah's maid, dmgy, and tl$, servant of the moon-god, yrh, goes
unmentioned.7
It was W.F. Albright who put forward what must be called the
4. The fragment CTA 8 is here viewed as belonging to this group of texts. For
an extremely short discussion of whether the so-called Baal-cycle is indeed a cycle,
see section 3.1.2.1.
5. The closest one comes outside the Baal texts is RIH 78/20, where rbt atrt is
mentioned.
6. It is interesting to note in this connection that A.L. Perlman, in her disserta-
tion from 1978, regards dgy as a possible epitheton to qdS wamrr, and understands
the name qdS wamrr as an Ugaritic version of the god Amurru. I quote this thesis
from Wiggins 1993: 41, as I have not had access to Perlman's dissertation.
7. Cf. CTA 12.1.14b-17a, see below.
44 Asherah
classical theory on this title. He proposed that the name Asherah de-
rives from V'/r, which corresponds to the Hebrew V~)2?K, meaning 'to
go forth, to walk or to tread'. He therefore translates rbt atrt ym as
'she who treads on the sea(dragon)' or 'she who walks on the sea'. He
claims that an original tnn, has disappeared from the name (Albright
1968: 105). Albright likewise claims that this name refers to the 'orig-
inal myth' (whatever that may be) in which Asherah vanquished the
sea-dragon, thereby making it possible for El to create the world. This
theory is widely accepted, primarily by American scholars (namely
Cross 1973: 31 and Olyan 1988: 70). Interesting as this theory is—and
please note, it is only a theory, even if it is usually put forward as a
statement of fact—it has major weaknesses. While atrt ym may be
translated as 'she who treads on the sea', there is, as noted by
Emerton, no reason to suppose that atrt $rm (another of the titles held
by Asherah in Ugarit) should be translated as 'she who treads on
Tyre/the Tyrians'.8 J.C. de Moor raises another, equally valid, objec-
tion to Albright's hypothesis: it presupposes that ym is a part of the
name itself, and not, as is the case, an independent word.9
Some very few—and indeed very weak—indications that atrt ym
could be translated as 'she who treads on the sea(dragon)' have been
pointed out by various scholars. Olyan connects the missing tnn in the
name with an identification between Asherah and the Punic tnt,
Tannit, and connects this in turn with 2 Kgs 18.4, where Nehustan—
the snake of copper—is removed from the Temple in Jerusalem along
with 'the asherah'.10 This theory is interesting, but builds on a number
of presuppositions, such as the dubious identification between Asherah
and Tannit.11
The fact that she is never associated with the sea in any of the texts
speaks against understanding Asherah either as the lady of the sea or
as treading on the sea-dragon. The closest connection between Ashe-
rah and the sea is found in CTA 6.V.1-4, where 'the sons of Asherah'
might stand in parallel with the sea-god Yam and the god of death
8. Emerton 1982: 8. atrt Srm, CTA 14.4.(198) and 201. The name is in par-
allel to ilt Sdnym. A discussion of this passage is to be found in section 4.1.1.4. For
a discussion of the etymology and meaning of 'trt, see section 7.1.
9. Cf. TWAr 1,473-81.
10. Olyan 1988: 70f. Regarding 2 Kings 18: 4, see section 6.2.2.
11. Cf. Hvidberg-Hansen 1979, who identifies Tannit with Anat. See also my
article (Binger 1992) on the subject of dragon-fighting in Ugarit.
Mot, and in the already mentioned fact that she has a fisherman for
her servant.12 This seems a bit meager to me.
Another approach is to look at the Asherah known from Akkadian
texts. In these Asherah is partly connected with the plains in the title
belit Seri and partly with the mountains and the steppes, but at no time
is Asherah connected with the sea or the rivers in the Akkadian
texts.13 When this is taken into consideration, the maritime connota-
tions seem to recede even further into the shade. If the only possible
translation of ym was either 'the sea' or 'Yam', one would have to
explain it in the more or less far-fetched ways that are the only
explanations used; but there is another possible translation, namely,
'day', the one chosen here. The indications for this being the correct
meaning of the word in this connection are at least as good as the
existing explanations for Albright's interpretation.14
As mentioned above, interpreting rbt atrt ym as 'Lady Asherah of
the day' is syntactically and orthographically as possible as the tradi-
tional interpretations; the only major problem in the way of this inter-
pretation is that the sun-goddess in Ugarit (a natural owner of a title
including the word 'day') is not Asherah, but $p$. For this reason
Asherah cannot be a 'regular' sun-goddess, but she could still be seen
as a goddess with solar connotations and character. However, this
problem is neither greater nor smaller than the one facing the tradi-
tional interpretation of ym, inasmuch as there is a sea-god in Ugarit
bearing just that name.
If we initially consider the problem of $p$ and 'Lady Day', and try
to look into the texts where both $p$ and Asherah appear, only one
text turns up, the difficult and much discussed CTA 23, 'The Birth of
the Gracious Gods', whose mythological content appears to be the
birth of the gods 'Dawn' and 'Dusk'. In lines 23-27, both Asherah and
$p$ are mentioned.15
12. For a discussion of CTA 6.V.1-4, see section 4.1.1.5.

13. Akkadian texts are accepted as a supplement to the Ugaritic texts, since a
major part of the extant texts belong to the same period, just as there are clear indica-
tions of communication between Ugarit and the Mesopotamian region. See the
excursus on the Akkadian Asherah below.
14. After finishing this section, I was made aware of a small article by Watson
(1993). He argues for translating ym as 'day' (as I do), but draws on Akkadian
material to make his point.
15. There does not seem to be any direct connection between the first 29 lines of
46 Asherah
CTA 23.23-2716
23. iqran.i<l>m.n 'mm I call upon the gracious gods
< .bn> ym17 < ><sons> of the day18
24. ynqm. bap zd. atrt who suck the tip of Asherah's breast
< >19 <whosuck???>
25. SpS.mspr^.dlthmo SpS ...21
26. wgnbm. and their grapes (??).
Sim. 'rbm.tn<nm>22 peace (with) the cult-functionaries (and) the
soldi<ers>
27. hlkm.bdbh n'mt those bringing good sacrifice.
A closer look at this text reveals that the lacuna in line 24 could
have held somewhere between six and eight signs. The lacuna might
be expected to have contained a parallel to Asherah, or a parallel to
ynqm.bap zd. If the latter is the case, there seems to be no room left
for the name of another goddess or another name or title of Asherah,
in which case, $p$, appearing in the beginning of line 25, must be the
parallel name to Asherah. This possible direct parallel between Ashe-
rah and SpS could signify that these two goddesses are related in some
way. The parallel is, however, highly dubious, since it is partly built
the text and the rest. From line 30 the text becomes a fairly coherent story, which can
hardly be said of the first 29 lines.
16. CTA 23 = KTU 1.23 = UT 52. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 67 + 68. In the
notes, not only to this text, but to all other Ugaritic texts used here, I quote exten-
sively from the variant readings and proposed emendations listed in CTA. For any
references in these notes, not found in the literature of this book, I refer the reader to
CTA.
17. CTA, KTU and UT: ilm.n'mm<.agzrym.bn>ym. Autograph:: iqran. i< >m.
n'mU< >Dm.
18. bn ym could be translated as 'sons of the sea'. I have chosen to disregard
the reconstruction appearing in CTA, KTU and UT: agzrym. This is not just because
it is a reconstruction, but also because there seems to be widespread disagreement on
what exactly the root gzr means.
19. Bauer (sec. CTA): <nrt ilm>.
20. CTA: SpS . msprt. KTU: SpS . ms(?)/s(?)prt. UT: SpS myprt. Virolleaud,
(sec. CTA): my prt. Autograph: mDprt. It is, according to CTA, possible to read the
second letter of the second word as either y, s or s.
21. The rest of the line has not been translated, since the disagreement between
the various dictionaries and word-lists is so huge, that it is impossible to ascertain
what the words mean in themselves, much less what their combined interpretations
should be.
22. CTA and UT: tn<nm>. KTU: tnnm.
on a lacuna, and partly goes against another text— CTA 15.11.26-27 —

where Asherah and the virgin Anat are in parallel to each other, both
functioning as nurses for ysb, son of krt.23 Here one could claim that
the goddess in the lacuna of CTA 15.11.27 is probably not Anat, but
$p$, a highly speculative possibility, since the only goddess known to
bear the title of btlt, 'virgin', in the Ugaritic texts is Anat.24 The text
under discussion here can therefore only be used as a putative, but
admittedly very weak, piece of circumstantial evidence for the claim
that $p$ and Asherah could have had related interests.
The other indication in the Ugaritic texts that suggests that rbt atrt
ym could be translated 'Lady Asherah of the Day' (or just Lady Day)
is the following text, which I have mentioned earlier:
CTA 12.1.14b-17a25
14. (zi.at).ltlS (..Oforrtf
15. amt.yrh Yarikh's handmaid
16. \3dmgy26. amt for dmgy, handmaid
17. atrt.(qh) (to) Asherah ....
Looking at this text the parallel between tl$ and dmgy seems
obvious. They could be parallel because they are both handmaids, but
there is a remote possibility that they are posed in an antithetical par-
allel, which places the moon-god Yarikh opposite Asherah, a goddess
with solar connotation. This possibility is at the very least as conjec-
tural as the indications found in CTA 23, its only merit being that it
does not build on a lacuna.
The third possible justification for regarding $p$ and Asherah as
having mutual interests is found in the word rbt, part of the title
under discussion. According to Whitaker, the word rbt appears only a
handful of times on its own. It is more usually part of the phrase rbt
atrt ym. It is, however, used in CTA 4.V.65, of El's wisdom; in CTA
5.III.2-3 of someone's home (tbt). In the poem about krt it is used in
connection with the town of udm and of k r f s kingdom hbr, and
23. For a discussion of this text, see section 4.1.2.3.

24. I am not the only one to speculate on this. Wyatt 1983: 273 notes the same
idea. He does so, however, from a different angle, and considers that Asherah and
$p$ should be seen as geminated forms of the sun and as morning and evening
mother of 'ttr in the fragmentary text of CTA 12.
25. CTA 12.1.14b-17a = KTU 1.12.I.14b-17a = UT 75 14b-17a. Autograph:
CTA II, fig. 34.
26. CTA, KTU and UT: I dmgy.
48 Asherah
finally it is used in CTA 16.1.36 and in CTA 23.54 of SpS.21 These two
texts show that Asherah is not the only goddess in the Ugaritic pan-
theon bearing the title rbt.
Before looking into the other possible indications in favor of under-
standing rbt atrt ym as 'Asherah, Lady Day', it is necessary to look
closer at the Akkadian goddess Asratum, who, with a name similar to
the Ugaritic goddess, might also be the same goddess.
Excursus: Asherah in the Babylonian and Assyrian Material28

In the literature from the Mesopotamian area, a goddess by the name Asratum (Sume-
rian, Gubarra) appears as the consort of the god Amurru (Sumerian, Mar.tu/-
Kur.gal).29
If we start the wrong way around and look at Amurru, we learn that he is a
mountain-god, called 'Lord of the mountains', and that his Sumerian appellative
'Kur-gal' means 'The great mountain' according to RLA. He is the son of the god of
heaven, Anu, and is associated—or even identified with—Adad Sa abube, Adad of
the flood; with the moon-god Sin, and with the god of the scribes. His symbol is—
according to RLA—the bull (!). His consort(s) are ASratum, Gdl-(Ig)-an-na-gdl-la,
'who opens the door of heaven'; Ninanna-IStar, and the sister of Tammuz, GeStin-
an-na, who—like Asratum—is called belit seri, 'lady of the steppes'. According to
Meissner (1925), GeStin-anna is the scribe of the underworld, and is the queen of
the city of Mari. She is associated with Amurru because he is a 'western' god, and
the realm of the dead was placed in the west.
ASratum's consort then, seems to be a gentleman of all-round interests, and the
picture does not get any clearer when we look at the lady herself. She is—as men-
tioned above—belit seri, 'lady of the steppes', and is also (cf. RLA) 'the bride of the
god of heaven', just as she is called 'the mistress of fullness and abundance who is
rightly honored in the mountains, mistress of mercy'.30 She is known from the time
of the third dynasty of Ur until the Seleucids.
Depending on which of the above-mentioned works one reads, Asratum is iden-
tified with one or more of the consorts of Amurru, and it is possible that these many
27. CTA 16.1: (36) rbt (37) spS.wtgh.nyr (38) <r>bt. (rbtSpSII nyr rbt, 'the
great light'). In CTA 23.54 rbt is rather indistinct but legible.
28. This excursus is mainly built on RLA, Meissner 1925 and Jastrow 1912,
and—as the only recent author—Wiggins 1993: 132-50.
29. According to KML, 1.31, Amurru-Martu is 'an Amorite god with traits in
common with the West-Semitic Baal, and possibly also a moon-god'.
30. According to D. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (Toronto, 1990), quoted
in Wiggins 1993: 136, she is the 'daughter-in-law of the god An', rather than the
bride of An. She is also '...lady of voluptuousness and happiness, tenderly cared for
in the mountain, lady with patient mercy, who prays reverently for her spouse...'
goddesses could be 'the same one'. Thus it is not impossible that a goddess with the
name Asratum (which can be a poetic name for 'Heaven')31 could be the same as the
goddess who opens the doors of Heaven, Gdl-(Ig)-an-na-gdl-la. Nor is it impossi-
ble to imagine that two goddesses bearing the same epithet are identical, like GeStin-
anna and ASratum, who both are married to Amurru, and both have the title belit seri.
If we then look into the extant parallels between the ASratum of Mesopotamia, and
the atrt of Ugarit, it is interesting to note that both have a consort whose symbol is
the bull.32 It is equally interesting to see that Amurru is called a moon-god, partic-
ularly when one considers that it is not unusual for mythology to marry a solar deity
to a lunar.33
We can now conclude that the Mesopotamian goddess Asratum has no

connection whatsoever with the sea or the rivers: quite the opposite,
she has close connections with the dry land, the steppes, the heavens,
and the mountains. The obvious explanation for this apparent discrep-
ancy between the traditional interpretation of the Ugaritic Asherah
and that the Babylonian Asratum could be that they have nothing in
common apart from their name. The other possible explanation is that
rbt atrt ym has been translated wrongly.
A goddess who is the 'creatress of the gods' (see section 4.1.1.2.)
could be associated with the sea or the waters, in much the same way
as the Babylonian Tiamat. Tiamat, however, is not recognized as the
'ultimate' mother of all the gods in Enuma Elish; conversely she is
given the blame for everything that goes wrong. The Ugaritic Ashe-
rah is given full recognition as the progenitress or creatress of the
gods; she can if not rule, then at least influence El; and she is very
powerful, both in her own right and through her sons, the gods (see
section 4.1.1.5). She is not a passive or dethroned creator-goddess like
those known to us from both Greek and Babylonian mythology.34
In the Ugaritic texts one could finally look at Asherah's connection
with El, who is ab $nm, a title traditionally translated as 'the father of
31. See section 7.1. on the etymology of 'Asherah'.

32. Asherah's consort in Ugarit is 'the bull El'.
33. See section 4.2.1, the Ugaritic text KTU 1.118 and the Akkadian text RS
20.24.
34. As mentioned above, the goddess Tiamat features in Enuma Elish. In Greek
mythology, the identity of the creatress is dependent on which mythological 'school'
one belongs to. She could be Eurynome, splitting the waters or Thetys—a sea-
goddess—who created the gods together with Oceanus; she is also called 'night',
, jklkor 'Mother Earth' (cf. Graves 1985 §§1-3).
50 Asherah
years'. It has, however, been argued by P.O. Hvidberg-Hansen that

'father of years' should properly be written ab $nt, with a feminine
ending (KML, II, 32 n. 7). He proposes regarding $nm as a derivative
of Arabic sand or saniya (snw/y), with the translation, 'shining, light',
or 'lightning', and may thus translate ab Mm with 'father of light', a
most appropriate title for the spouse of 'Lady Day'.
If we move from Babylon to Arabia, there seems to be a goddess in
both the south and the north, called 'trt or 'Sr', who could be a solar
goddess, consort of the lunar god. There is no clear cut evidence for
this, only weak indications, even though Lipinski treats her solar char-
acter as a fact.35 In addition, it is noteworthy that the information,
both in Lipinski and in Worterbuch der Mythologie, comes from
Catabania, which is as far south on the Arabian peninsula as one can
possibly get.
In conclusion, the internal evidence for understanding rbt atrt ym as
'Lady Asherah of the Day' is limited and circumstantial, but does
exist. In both the Ugaritic and non-Ugaritic material discussed above,
nothing indicates the existence of a Sea-goddess Asherah, but solar
connotations can be found in the texts. For these reasons I propose
that rbt atrt ym should throughout be translated as 'Asherah, Lady
Day'.
4.1.1.2. qnyt ilm. This title occurs a total of five times, always parallel
to rbt atrt ym, and only in the so-called Baal-cycle.36 It translates as
'the creatress of the gods' or 'the progenitress of the gods'.
We are given no explanation of what exact meaning this title con-
veyed to the people of Ugarit. An Ugaritic epic of creation has never
been found, which again means that any assertions and references re-
garding this title build on conjectures, assumptions (a constant factor
in all research on the mythological texts from Ugarit) and on analo-
gies from other Semitic stories.
A problem that has hitherto remained undiscussed is the question of
35. Lipinski 1980: 101-103, who quotes from Worterbuch der Mytologie. In
this work, one finds the following explanation under the heading 'Sudarabien', the
article ' 'Atirat ('TRT)': 'und da sie ('Atirat) mehrfach in Verbindung mit dem Mond-
gott erscheint, sah man in 'A. eine Gestalt der Sonnengottin; dies ist jedoch damit
keineswegs erwiesen'.
36. CTA 4.III.26 + 30 + 35 - 4.IV.32 - 8.2.
whether Asherah, as qnyt Urn, really has created all the gods, inclu-
ding El. The general scholarship on Ugaritic mythology presupposes a
more or less normal marriage between El and Asherah, including a
traditional Western and Christian pattern of gender roles. He creates
the world while she stays at home, keeping the pots boiling and his
slippers warm.37
If we look at the problem 'mythologically', Greek mythology has a
creatress making the world; she has her first children without any
consort, she then rules the gods and her consort, who is her son. This
is likewise more or less the case in Enuma Elish, where Tiamat bears
the first gods on her own, and initially rules with her eldest son at her
side. Looking at these two myths in combination with Asherah's title
of qnyt Urn, it can be supposed that it was she, not El, who created the
gods and thus made possible the creation of the world in the as yet un-
found Ugaritic myth of creation.
A similar picture can be gleaned from looking at the 'creator'
epithets of El: he is bny bnwt, the builder or maker of what is made
or built, as well as the ab adm, the father of man. The main implica-
tion in the verbal root Vrnn is, in biblical Hebrew, Akkadian and
Ugaritic, 'building', whereas the root Vi~f]p is usually connected with
creation.38 This, taken in connection with the epithet ab adm seems to
indicate that El might have been a creator-god, but, in a manner of
speaking, only at what could be termed 'second hand'. The creation of
the gods was not in his hands, even if that of creatures, be it humans
or others, seems to have been. In conclusion, it can be conjectured
from this epithet that Asherah was the creatress in the mythological
world of the epic texts at least, but since no myth of creation has come
to light so far, this is conjecture, not fact.
4.1.1.3. atrt = ill? In a number of texts, atrt is seen in parallel with ilt,
and it is often asserted that ilt and Asherah are identical, and that ilt
functions as a divine name or epithet, 'Elat', and not as a generic
37. Albright 1968:105 modifies this a bit, since he—cf. rbt am ym—finds that
El only created the world/universe, after Asherah had vanquished the sea-dragon.
Please note though, that—in spite of everything—it is the male, and not the female
god, who is seen as the literally creative one.
38. The root Vn]3 is also used of creation, but in the majority of occurences it
means 'building' (with already existing materials).
52 Asherah
term, 'goddess'. The most frequently used formula paralleling Asherah

and ilt occurs in CTA 6.1.40-41, where it is complete.39
CTA 6.1.40-41
tSmh ht (40) atrt.wbnh. Now Asherah and her sons rejoice
ilt.wsb (41) rt.aryh. the goddess and all her kin40
The parallel is between atrt.wbnh and ilt.wsbrt.aryh, and there can

hardly be any serious doubt about the parallel between atrt and ilt,
since 'her sons', bnh, and 'all her kin', sbrt aryn, are coupled with the
divine designation by a w in both text-units. The only difficulty is that
in this text Urn, the gods as such, cannot possibly be identified with the
sons of Asherah. The texts imply that the sons of Asherah, or the kin
of the goddess, are alive and kicking, and since at least one of the Urn,
namely Baal, is dead, and the words above are put into the mouth of
Anat, who mourns him, two gods, at the very least, are not included
in the phrase atrt wbnh.41
In this limited context it is not particularly relevant to discuss at
length how one should translate the phrase sbrt aryh properly, never-
theless two other possible translations should be mentioned. Apart
from the translation chosen above, one could see an allusion to lions
in the word ary, deriving the etymology from biblical Hebrew, "HK.
Thus, Maier's translation of the phrase, 'her pride of lions', goes beau-
tifully with the connection Asherah might have with lions.42 The sec-
ond possibility is to see ary as derived from the same root as biblical
Hebrew ~)K, 'light', and thus translate the phrase 'her company of
39. CTA 6.1.40-41 = KTU 1.6.1.40-41 = UT 49.1.13-14. Autograph: CTA II,

fig. 21, line 13-14.
40. Maier 1986: 8 and elsewhere translates sbrt ary with 'pride of lions'. See
discussion below.
41. This points in the direction that the bn atrt is a category of gods in line with
thep/zr il/mphrt bn il/dr bn il and the phr b'l, thus contradicting Wiggins 1993,
who throughout assumes that all the Ugaritic gods are the children of Asherah. He
does not seem, however, to include El in this group.
42. See the excursus on QudSu and the following section. Maier 1986: 9
mentions that it is common in the Ugaritic texts, to use animal names as designations
for, for example, the inhabitants in krt's kingdom. L0kkegaard 1953 claims that all
Ugaritic gods 'have' or 'are' an animal (cf. the title of the article, 'El the Bull'). One
could also mention Cross 1981, who interprets the inscription 'bdlbt 'the servant of
the lioness', as a reference to Asherah. The inscription is found on an arrow-head
found at el-Khadr near Bethlehem.
light', or something in that vein, an allusion to her being 'Lady Day'.

Another text often referred to when discussing the relationship be-
tween atrt and ilt, CTA 14.IV. 197-202, will be examined in the next
section.
Even though atrt and ilt are often treated as synonymous, it is not
possible to presuppose that this is always the case, as shown by the
following text, where ilt is used as a parallel to Anat:
CTA 3.II.1843
17. whin. 'nt.lbth.tmgyU44 and look! Anat comes to her house,
18. tStql.ilt.lhklh the goddess arrives at her palace.
It is thus important to stress that ilt is most probably a generic term,
meaning 'goddess', and neither a name, 'Elat', nor one of Asherah's
epithets. Thus, any ilt appearing in a mythological text or in the lists
of sacrifices discussed below is not automatically to be equated with
Asherah. We could be dealing with Asherah or with any other goddess
in the Ugaritic pantheon.
This is also the reason why the passage in CTA I.IV, where ilt is
apparently called upon to proclaim the name of yw o r y m , is not
discussed. In order to read this passage at all, one has to reconstruct at
least half of every line, and in order to find any reference to Asherah,
one has to equate her with ilt, a somewhat dubious practice. She does,
however, have a close connection with the divinity whose name seems
to be proclaimed here, ym, not because of her title rbt atrt ym, as
claimed by Wiggins (1993: 29 and elsewhere) but rather because she
is, presumably, the mother of ym (see section 4.1.1.5).
Another avenue of thought is opened up by the fact that the word
atrt, which hitherto has been treated as a name, apparently can be
parallel to a title without this creating any problems. This makes
one wonder whether Asherah is in fact a personal name, as hitherto
assumed, or rather a title, like ilt. It is not impossible to find a title
being used in the Ugaritic texts as a personal name. Baal means
'Lord', but he apparently has a more 'regular' personal name in
'Hadad', and the word il, 'El', meaning 'God' seems to function both
as a particular god's name and as a generic term. If atrt is a title
rather than a name (or indeed a generic term), then CTA 6.1.40-41,
43. CTA 3.II = KTU 1.3.II = UT 'NT II. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 8.
44. CTA and KTU: tmgyn.
54 Asherah
could be translated, 'now (the) atrt and her sons rejoice, (the) ilt and
all her kin'. This line of argument is not weakened by CTA 3.II. 17-18
(above), since we do not have to argue that Anat is likewise a title
rather than a name. In the relevant text we could be dealing with a
generic use of ilt, whereas in the former text we dealt with the name
or title ilt.
4.1.1.4. atrt = qd$? As will be seen in section 4.1.1.5, both bn atrt,

'the sons of Asherah' and bn qd$, 'the sons of the holy one/Qudsu', are
used as parallels to the word ilm, 'the gods'.45 This, seen in connection
with CTA 16.1.11 +21-22 and CTA 16.11.111, has created the im-
pression that qd$ was one of the regular epithets of Asherah.
CTA 161.20-2246
20. ikm.yrgm.bn il(2l)krt How can it be said that krt is the son of El,
Sph41.ltpn(22)wqd$. the offspring of Itpn and qdS
u ilm tmtn or can (shall) gods die ?
One could, in this and the parallel passages, see qd$ as Asherah, and
thus make krt a god, a status that agrees with the question in line 22,
'can gods die?'. Alternatively, one could follow Pope and dismiss the
possibility of any Ugaritic texts equating Asherah with qd$.4% Pope
claims that qd$ in these passages refers to El, and therefore translates
Ipn wqdS 'Beneficent and Holy'. If Pope is right, it seems strange that
line 22 refers to ilm, regular gods, rather than to heroes or half-
gods.49
Another passage from the poem of krt points in the same direction
as the above texts, inferring that Asherah and qd$ could be the same.
45. bn is read here as a plural in the construct state, in order for it to be parallel
to the plural ilm. See, however, below, section 4.1.2.1, for a different interpretation.
46. CTA 16 1.20-22 is used here since it is the most complete. CTA 16.1.1-22 =
KTU 1.16.1.1-22 = UT 125.1-22. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 44. CTA 16.11.105-111
= KTU 1.16.11.43-49 = UT 125.105-111. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 47.
47. CTA: krt<.>Sph. KTU: krt. Sph. UT: krtSph.
48. Pope 1955: 43-44 Regarding Pope's stand on bn qdS, see section 4.1.1.5.
49. One could argue that Ugaritic had no word for a half-god, but the argument
seems a bit thin, and is under any circumstances an argument ex silencio.
CTA 14.IV.197-206a50
197. ym<gy.>51 IqdS He came to qdS,
198. a<trt. >52 srm. <atrt> of the Tyrians,53
199. wlilt sd<yn>m.54 and to ilt of the Sidonians.55
200. tm yd< r. k> rf^.t' There krt makes an oath:
201. i itt.atrt. srm (As truly as) atrt of the Tyrians exists
202. wilt, sdynm and ilt of the Sidonians (exists):
203. hm. hry.bty (204) iqh. If I take hry into my house,
aS'rb. glmt (205) hzry. make the girl enter my court
tnh.wspm51 (206) atn. I will give twice her (value or weight) in silver
w.tltth^.hrsm and thrice her (value or weight) in gold.
The first three lines of this passage are the most interesting in this
connection. If we look at the way they are formed, we see that we are
dealing with two sentences, each containing a prepositional phrase
using the preposition /, the first one stating the verb (and the subject
contained within the verb), the second implying the verb. Provided
that there is a consistent shaping of this poem (something we cannot
know for a fact), it is reasonable to suppose that the prepositional
phrases are parallel, since they both use the /, and both refer to a god-
dess and a place.
The problem is that the first / is followed by three words, whereas
the parallel passage only has two words after the preposition. Since
both contain a reference to a geographic location it seems safe to
assume that these two words are parallel. We are then left with the
words qdS atrt in the first prepositional phrase, and the word ilt in the
second. We could suppose qd$ atrt to be a unity—it might after all be
an exact rendition of the title given to Asherah in Tyre. We would
50. CTA 14.IV. 197-206 = KTU 1.14.IV.34-44 = UT: KRT 197-206 =

RS.3.44. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 37.
51. CTA and KTU: ym<gy.>. UT: ym<gyn>. Autograph: yD< >.
52. CTAandUT:a<trt.>.KTU:at<r>t<.>. Autograph: D< >.
53. Or, 'he arrives at the sanctuary of the Asherah of the Tyrians'; or, 'he
arrives at qdS, the Asherah of the Tyrians'; or even, 'he arrives at qdS, atrt of the
Tyrians'.
54. CTA: sd<yn>m. KTU and UT: sd<y>nm. Autograph: sd< >Dw.
55. Or, 'and to ilt (who is the Asherah) of the Sidonians'.
56. CTA: yd<r.k>rt. KTU: ydr<.>krt. UT: ydr.krt. Virolleaud (sec. CTA):
yd<b.k>rt. Autograph: yd\3< >rt.
57. CTA and UT: k.'spm. KTU: wspm (kspm).
5 8. CTA: atn.wtlth. KTU: atn.w.tlth.
56 Asherah
then be dealing with a parallel that structurally resembles the above

discussed atrt wbnh // ilt.ws brt.aryh. If this is not the case, then only
one of the words can be in a direct parallel with the ilt in the second
phrase. The solution to this problem can be found in lines 201-202,
where atrt srm is parallel to ilt "dnm. This makes it possible either to
translate qdS in this text as 'sanctuary', or to regard both atrt and ilt as
synonymous generic terms, both elaborating on exactly how one
should understand qdS.59
The listing of all these possible interpretations makes it clear that it
is not possible to deduce from this text whether the word is a synonym
for Asherah, a substantive meaning 'sanctuary', an adjective meaning
'holy', the name of a goddess in her own right, a generic term, a title
or indeed, any of the above. That we might be dealing with a goddess
in her own right could be deduced from the existence of an Egyptian
goddess, called Qudsu. Since this goddess is often seen as being iden-
tical with Asherah, the following excursus will deal with her.
Excursus: The Egyptian QudSu60

From the nineteenth dynasty onwards, Egyptian mythology knows of a goddess
bearing the name Qud§u. Not much is known about her, but she is apparently a
goddess with roots in the Semitic world. On the stelas depicting her, she is usually
seen standing between the gods Min and Re§eph, the latter being another Semitic
god. She is depicted naked, en face, and usually holds snakes or lotus-flowers in her
hands, sometimes both. She wears a Hathor-wig and usually has some kind of head-
dress as well. This, however, varies. She often stands on a lion, like the Babylonian
Etar.61
On the stelas with an inscription identifying her, she is called 'the mistress of the
heaven(s)', 'the mistress of the gods', 'the eye of Ra' or 'the beloved of Ra', 'she
who loves Ptah' and 'the eye of Arum', according to Helck. Only two of the stelas
mentioned by Helck, and four of the ones listed by Edwards, also give the name
Qudsu. One gives her the 'incomprehensible' name knt,62 another calls her Qudsu-
Astarte-Anat, while the last two only call her QudSu.63
59. See section 7.1; Margalit 1989, 1990. Dietrich and Loretz 1984.
60. The following is mainly based on Edwards 1955 and Helck 1971.
61. Some stelas are shown in ANEP, figs. 470-74 and 830. ANEP, fig. 469
seems to have the same iconography as the stelas, even though this picture is of fig-
urines from Palestine.
62. Quoted from Helck 1971: 464 n. 153. Edwards calls it 'strange'.
63. The remaining stelas have (cf. Edwards) no legible name for the goddess
depicted.
The stela carrying the inscription 'Qud§u-Astarte-Anat' has given rise to wide-
spread acceptance of Qud§u as an alternative name for Asherah64 since Asherah in
the Ugaritic texts seems to be called qdS. Not everybody, however, accepts this iden-
tification. Helck considers the combination of names to be secondary, and think they
might be put together for no more sophisticated reason than that these were the names
of Semitic goddesses known by the Egyptian that made the stela.65
It is tempting to connect the Egyptian Qudsu with Asherah, or even to

identify the two with each other. Unfortunately no solid information
exists to justify such an identification. It is possible that we are indeed
dealing with 'the same goddess', but using the material at hand, it is
impossible either to prove or disprove this. The facts arguing against
the proposition that the Asherah known to us from the Ugaritic texts
is the same as the Egyptian Qudsu are that nothing in the texts them-
selves argue in favor of Asherah being a fertility goddess, whereas the
iconography of Qudsu points out that she in all probability was one.66
The data in favor of an identification between Asherah and Qudsu
are that they are both connected to the principal god of the area—Ra
in Egypt, El in Ugarit—and they are both given a superior position in
the heaven(s) in relation to the other gods.
The geographical distance between Ugarit and Egypt is of minor
consideration in this case, since we have ample proof of connections
between the two states, just as the fact that Qudsu is apparently a for-
eign goddess derived from Syria-Palestine speaks in favor of compar-
ing the two ladies with each other.
The small plaques and the statuettes from Bronze Age Palestine,
representing a goddess who iconographically is practically identical to
the representations of Qudsu on Egyptian stelas,67 are probably a link
64. So, e.g., Albright 1968: 106, 127.

65. Helck 1971: 464 n. 145: 'Auch darf aus der Gleichsetzung von Qadshu-
Astarte und Anat auf dem Relief JNES 14, 9ff [= Edwards 1955] nicht folgern, dass
hier syrische Uberlieferung vorlage, sondern diese Gleichsetzung ist sicher eine
sekundare durch einen Agypter, der die ihm bekannten Hauptgottinnen Asiens in eine
Gestalt zusammenfasste.'
66. Nevertheless Maier 1986 considers Asherah to be a fertility-goddess in
Ugarit. His argument for this being the case reduces to the assertion that he 'feels' it
is so, plus the fact that he does identify the Ugaritic qdS with Asherah and thus
makes the identification with the Egyptian QudSu. Regarding the text CTA 4.II.1-11,
which is often called a fertility-rite, see section 4.1.2.1.
67. Cf. Pritchard 1943: 6ff. Pritchard calls the type 'Qadsh', and his dating of
them is the late Bronze Age, more or less contemporary with the Ugaritic texts.
58 Asherah
between the Egyptian Qudsu and the Ugaritic qd$, who is not neces-
sarily to be identified with Asherah. This link, however, remains
mainly conjectural since no positive identification of the goddess is to
be found on either the plaques or the statuettes.68
It is possible for gods and goddesses to have identical or very
similar iconography in different cultures, but nevertheless maintain
different functions. It is, however, not very probable when we are
dealing with cultures as closely connected by trade and conquest as
those of Egypt and Syria-Palestine in the Bronze Age; it is therefore
possible to maintain that there could be a connection between the
goddess known as Qudsu in Egypt and the small plaques and statuettes
from Palestine.
All this leads to the conclusion that a Semitic goddess called Qudsu
existed in Egypt; that Asherah in the Ugaritic texts regularly stands in
parallel to the word qd$, and that there might be a connection between
the two. The connection is impossible to prove or disprove on the
basis of the material discussed so far, but the discussion will be con-
tinued in the following section.
4.1.1.5. The Sons of atrt and the Sons ofqdS.69 'Asherah and her sons'
or 'the sons of Asherah' occur a total of thirteen times,70 whereas 'the
sons of qd$' occurs a total of seven times.71 If we look more closely at
the parallels including these two phrases, the following result may be
seen. All occurrences of both bn atrt and atrt wbnh are found in the
so-called Baal-cycle, and only one of the occurrences of bn atrt has an
atypical parallel.72 Only in CTA 4.VI.46-54 is the standard parallel of
Urn // bn atrt extended to both the gods and the goddesses Urn and ilht,
just as this is the text giving us the number of the sons of Asherah:
Sb'm bn atrt, 'the 70 sons of Asherah'.73 The remaining occurrences
68. For further reading on the subject of iconography of goddesses in the

ancient Near East, see Winter 1983. Winter's study is perhaps the most compre-
hensive and erudite on the subject.
69. For a discussion of the singular-plural problem in these parallels, please see
the discussion of CTA 8 in section 4.1.2.1.
70. CTA 3.IV.1; 3.V.12; 3.V.45; 3.V.47; 4.1.7; 4.1.12; 4.IV.49; 4.IV.51;
4.V.63; 4.VI.46; 6.1.40; 6.V.I; 8.4.
71. CTA 2.1.21; 2.1.38; 17.1.4, 9, 12, 14, 23.
72. CTA 6.V.1-6, see below.
73. One should not put too much emphasis on the exactness of given figures in
texts like those discussed here. Figures are not 'absolute' in the sense that we operate
have the standard parallels of bn atrt // Urn and atrt wbnh // ilt wsbrt
aryh.14
If we now turn to bn qdS, we can see that it is only used with the
parallel ilm, 'the gods', and that the phrase occurs five times in the
poem of aqht, and twice in the Baal texts.
The question now is whether it is possible from these passages and
their shared parallels to determine that Asherah is identical with qd$.
As mentioned above there are two major points of view: one that
claims that Asherah and qd$ are indeed identical,75 and one claiming,
with equal certainty, that the two have nothing whatsoever to do with
each other.76 The only certain point of orientation is that the sons of
both Asherah and qd$ are identical with ilm, 'the gods', but since there
is no further definition of exactly which gods we are dealing with in
any of the groups of sons, it is impossible to determine whether we
are dealing with the same gods, fully or partly.77
At no time are the phrases bn atrt and bn qd$ in parallel to each
other. This is to be seen in combination with the fact that it was not
possible from the occurrences of qd$ used alone to determine that atrt
and qd$ are identical. We will have to say that Asherah in Ugarit
might have had the epithet of qd$, but that qd$ can equally well be
taken as a noun or an adjective. The texts do not give any conclusive
evidence in favor of either possibility, and the choice thus depends on
the scholar's individual preferences rather than on hard data.
In both the mythological and ritual texts, different groups of gods
occur: phr il, 'the assembly of El', mphrt bn il, 'the assembly of El's
sons' and phr b'l 'the assembly of Baal'. It would seem that the bn atrt
could be a collective designation on a par with these three, but as no
ritual-text nor list of sacrifices contains a reference to bn atrt and only
with absolute figures, rather they signal 'many' (like the figures 7 and 8 in these
Ugaritic poems) or 'an incredible lot of gods', like the '70 sons of Asherah'.
74. .bn am//ilm CTA 3.IV.1-3.V.11-12 and 46-47-4.1.12; 4.IV.51; 4.V.63;
8.3-5. bn atrt// ilm+ilht CTA 4.VI.46-54 atrt wbnh //ilt wsbrt aryh CTA 3.V.45;
4.1.7-9; 4.IV.49; 6.1.40-41.
75. So de Moor, for example, ARTU, 32 n. 140 ('Qudshu'): 'Name of Athiratu,
mother of the gods. Both Athiratu and Qudshu mean "holy place, sanctuary"'.
76. For example, Pope 1955: 43-44: 'Holiness pertains to the gods in general
who are called bn qd$, "sons of holiness, holy ones"'.
77. The only god who is called a son of Asherah is Astar, in CTA 6.1.45-55. On
this text, see section 4.1.2.1.
60 Asherah
by reconstruction a reference to bn qd$,™ we will have to allow that

this hypothesis remains unsubstantiated.
If we now try to determine which gods hide behind the designation
bn atrt and attempt to name them, the texts at hand are surprisingly
unhelpful since no list enumerating the sons, nor any list of sacrifices
naming any divinity or divinities as the son(s) of Asherah has been
found. In one text only—CTA 6.1.39-55—do we find one of Ashe-
rah's sons named directly: that is, Astar. The only other possibility of
identifying any other gods as the sons (or daughters for that matter)
of Asherah, is found in CTA 6.V.I-4, where some of them might be
mentioned, therefore this text will be discussed at length. There are a
number of different possible translations of this text, but I have cho-
sen only to present two here, as it is my opinion that they cover the
main 'types' of possibilities. The text in itself reads:79
1. yihd.b'l.bn.atrt
2. rbm.ymhsbktp^
3. Ukym&l.ymhs.bsmd
4. sOrmOymsi .lars
5. < >DD/3. Iksi.mlkh
6. D< >lkht. drkUh^
Translation 1
1. yihd.b'l.bn.atrt Baal seizes the sons of Asherah
2. rbm.ymhs He kills the mighty ones
bktp (3) dk ym.ymhs. He kills Yam85 with a ktp*6
bsmd (4) shr mt ymsi. With a club he 22ymsiTL shr-Mot*7
78. RS 19.59 V0(1), line 3 : b>n . qdS.

79. CTA 6.V.1-6 = KTU 1.6.V.1-6 = UT49.V.I-6. Autograph: CTA II fig. 25.
80. CTA and KTU: ymhs.bktp.
81. CTA, KTU and UT: dkym. It is however equally possible to read ukym.
82. CTA: shr mt.ymsh.. KTU and MLC: sgrm.ymsh_. UT: shr mt.ymsi.
According to the note in CTA, the last letter is an i, a fact also noted by Virolleaud
(sec. CTA). The reading of the beginning of this text is very uncertain.
83. CTA: <ytb.>b< '>/. KTU: p(?)y< 'l>b'l. UT: < >s. According to the note
in CTA, it is also possible to reconstruct <y'/> b'l.
84. CTA: <lnht>.lkht_.drkth. or <bn dgn>. KTU: < >. I kht.drkth. UT: < >
lkht.drk<t>h.
85. ARTU: Those who are like Yammu.
86. Probably a weapon. UT and WUS: 'shoulder, weapon'. CARTU: 'an axe-
head'. KML: 'a swordblade'.
87. KML: shr: 'to parch, redden, glow, singe off. MLC: shrr: obrasar ('to
lars (5) <ytb b'>l. <Ba>al <is sitting> on the earth (ground)
Iksi.mlkh (6) < > on the throne of his kingdom
Ikt.drkth on the chair of his reign
Translation 2
1. yihd.b'l.bn.atrt Baal seizes the sons of Asherah,
2. rbm.ymhs bktp he kills the mighty ones with a ktp,
3. dkym.ymhs.bsmd those who are like Yam, he kills with a club,
4. shrmt ymsi.lars He TlymsiTL the small ones to the earth.
5. <ytbb'>l.Iksi.mlkh <Ba>al <is sitting> on the throne of his
kingdom
6. < > Ikht.drkth < > on the seat of his reign.
If we are to determine which parallels are the most probable, and

thus which of the two scansions is the most satisfactory, we will need
to look into the syntax of the lines, in order to ascertain where the
majority of grammatical parallels occurs.88
Translation 1 89
1. Subject + Verb + Object
2. Object + Verb
3. Preposition (b) + Object + Verb
4. Preposition (b) + Object + Verb
5. Preposition (1) + <Verb> + Subject
6. Preposition (1) + suffix (= Subject) + <Subject or Verb>
7. Preposition (1) + suffix (= Subject)
Translation 2
1. Subject + Verb + Object
2. Object + Verb + Preposition (b)
3. Object + Verb + Preposition (b)
4. Object + Verb + Preposition (1)
5. <Verb> + Subject + Preposition (1)
6. <Verb or Subject> + Preposition (1)
singe, burn off) asar ('to roast') abrasarse ('to glow') secarse ('to dry up, fade,
wither'). CML: shr. 'yellow, tawny'; shrr. 'glowed, turned brown', glowing, blaz-
ing'. It is also possible to translate the phrase as one word, shrmt: 'the small ones',
cf. ARTU.
88. This attempt is based on the presupposition that each grammatical unit has,
or should have, a direct parallel.
89. The lines given for this translation are not identical with the lines in the
Ugaritic autograph, but correspond to the scansions made above.
62 Asherah
The second translation seems to be the most satisfactory with

regards to lines 2-4, since it presents us with a uniform structure. The
only problem is that while the object-verb-preposition parallel is
complete, it seems to be more difficult to find the parallel between the
actual words hiding in the category of objects: rbm, dk ym and shrmt.
If, however, we bring the object from line 1, bn atrt, into the dis-
cussion, it is possible to see the four objects as being in either direct
or antithetical parallel to each other. Thus lines 2-4 could elaborate on
line 1, and if this is the case, then the 'mighty ones', rbm, 'those who
are like Yam', dk ym, and 'the small ones' (or shr-Mot), shrmt, must
be seen as parallels to or elaborations on 'the sons of Asherah', bn
atrt. The less convincing aspect of this construction is that the anti-
thetical parallel (rbm II shrmt) is not placed in successive lines.
If on the other hand, we consider bn atrt II rbm and shrmt II dk ym,
it seems strange that the author does not use the parallelism that has
been built up in the prepositional phrases of lines 2-3. One could,
however, imagine a structure where lines 2 and 3 are parallel,
whereas lines 1 and 4 function as a framework for these two. If this is
the case, we are dealing with the parallels bn atrt II shrmt and rbm II
dk ym. This solution is still unsatisfactory, since it either identifies the
sons of Asherah (in the plural) with 'the small ones', or it reduces
them to a single god, namely, shr-Mot. One would rather expect that
the sons of Asherah would be in parallel to either rbm, 'the great
ones', or would be called Urn, 'gods'. One could naturally assume that
the 'small ones' referred to should be understood in the singular, with
an enclitic mem, and thus should refer to the god lttr, whose small
powers are referred to at the end of tablet 6.
Furthermore, the use of the prepositions seems slightly irregular.
Part of the attraction of translation 2 was the direct structural parallel
of the prepositional phrases. Unfortunately lines 2-3 use / in the in-
strumental sense, whereas line 4 uses b in a locative sense. One could
of course claim that ars was a weapon, but then one has to discuss both
the irregular use of a well-known word, as well as the use of a
different preposition.
In translation 1, the scansion is less easy, but the parallels become
more evident. Lines 1-2 become parallel, and tell us that bn atrt paral-
lels rbm, as expected. Lines 3-4 create another parallel, and becomes
identical in their syntactical structure. The parallels in these lines also
become much more satisfactory, since we get bktp II bsmd - dk ym II
$hr mt and ymh$ II ymsi. Not only is there a first-class parallel

between the prepositional phrases and the verbs, but the two gods men-
tioned—Yam and Mot—are well-known gods, just as they are well-
known antagonists both of Baal and of his sister Anat, and it seems
logical to put them in parallel to each other. This parallel is further
strengthened by the text CTA 4.11. 24b-26a, where Asherah says:
CTA 4.II.24b-26a90
24. — < m>hs91 (25) bny they (Baal and Anat), are the killers of my son(s),
hm <mkly. s>brf9i2 (26) aryy they are the destroyers of my kin.
Finally, lines 5-7 (Translation n° 1, CTA 6.V.1-6) all have an initial

prepositional phrase with /, and all three lines tell us where Baal can
rest after having vanquished his opponents, namely on the seat of his
reign, his throne.
This translation then offers us much information of great interest.
We might deduce that Yam and Mot, the principal antagonists of Baal
and Anat, are both sons of Asherah, and we might likewise deduce
that the earth itself is seen as a suitable parallel for the throne of
Baal.93
4.1.2. Asherah in the Epic and Mythological Texts

If we look more closely at the functions and roles of Asherah in the
epic and mythological material from Ugarit, we realize that she is a
very prominent goddess, but she is at the same time rather anony-
mous. Her prominence is caused by the many mentions of her, the
anonymity from the fact that she rarely gets more than a mention.
Nevertheless, in the following I will try to trace her role(s) in the
90. CTA 4.IL = KTU 1.4.II. = UT 51.11. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 14.
91. Line 24, CTA: 'nt. mhst hm <. m>hs. KTU: 'nt mhsy hm<. m>hs. UT: hm
<m>hs. Cf. CTA, where the last words of the line are much discussed. The
autograph in CTA reads : 'nt. mhsy i/h D < > hs. Virolleaud (also CTA): im<t>hs;
Barton (also CTA): mhsyh <bm> hs; Obermann (also CTA): mhs y<m(t?)>hs bny
h<lm y(t?)lm s>brt aryy.
92. The autograph reads: bnyhH< >brt. CTA and KTU: bny. hm<. mkly.s>brt.
UT: bny h< s>brt. CTA reconstructs kly as parallel to mhs, cf. CTA 5.1.1-2 and 27-
28, and 19.196-97 and 201-202.
93. A number of interesting discussions on Baal could come out of this inter-
pretation. This is not, however, the purpose of the present book, so therefore they
will have to wait.
64 Asherah
so-called Baal-cycle and in the poem of Keret, where she plays a

short, but seemingly important, role.
4.1.2.1. The Baal-texts. Four passages in the Baal-texts have Asherah

in one of the major roles, namely CTA 4.II.1-48; CTA 4.III.23-53;
CTA 4.IV.1-62; and CTA 4.V.63-65, which sums up the greater part
of the tablet known as CTA 4. Apart from these passages, she is only
mentioned twice more in these texts, in CTA 6.1.39-55 and in CTA
8.1-5a.
The prelude to her entry on the scene is found in CTA 4.1.1-23.
Baal has no palace, but wants one, and in order to obtain it he has to
have El's approval. To gain this end, Baal and Anat decide to ap-
proach Asherah, and since neither of them are very popular with the
lady, they decide to adopt certain measures:
CTA 4.I.21b-2394
21. — .Sskn m' Let there please, be made
2 2. mgn. rbt. atrt ym a present for Lady Asherah of the Day
23. mgZ.qnyt.ilm a gift for the creatress of the gods.
It is Baal, who is speaking here to the god(s) of craftsmen, ktr whss,

and the present he orders, the wg£, is a 'mediator'. In Western culture
we would probably call it a bribe, but it seems likely that giving a mgZ
was the correct thing to do—at least when one was dealing with
gods—in Ugarit.
After a section where ktr whss's work is described, comes the next
mention of Asherah, and this time she is on the stage herself. The
passage, CTA 4.II. 1-11, has resulted in a number of very different
interpretations, and therefore it will be discussed at length.
CTA 4.II.1-1195
1. <--> b/d <96 ??
2. Uabn <97 ??98
94. CTA 4.1.21-23 = KTU 1.4.1.20-22 = UT 51.1.17-19. Autograph: CTA II,

fig. 14.
95. CTA 4.II. = KTU 1.4.II. = UT 51.11. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 14.
96. UT: >b< .
97. CTA and KTU: labn. UT: >abn<.
98. If the legible signs make up one word, and not just part of a larger whole,
they could be translated as 'a stone', or as 'our father'. ARTU has 'on the stone',
and thus translates the Z, that bothCTA and KTU read in this place.
3. ahdt. plkh <.b ydh>" She takes a plkm <in her hand>
4. plk. t'ltm. b<ymnh>102 she raises a plk <in her right hand>103
5. npynh. mks. b$rh her npynl °4 covers bSrhl °5
6. tmt'.mdh.bym. she mf' 106 her md107 in the sea108
_m(7) npynh109. bnhrm Again her npyn in the river110
8. Sn.hptr.liSt She puts a hptr111 on the fire
119
9. hbrt.hr.phmm ahbrt on live coals
10 t'pp <.> tr.il.dpid She 'pp113 the bull El, who is pid.
11. tgzy.bny.bnwt she entreats the creator of creatures.
99. CTA and KTU: <.b ydh>.

100. plk: UT, CARTU, UT, MLC, TO: 'a distaff or spindle'. WUS: 'a wide
overdress'. This word, as well as the following ones, that have been transcribed but
not translated, are discussed below. The reason for my not translating them here is
that the discussion on their actual meaning—in spite of the seeming agreement in the
dictionaries—is extensive.
101. CTA and UT: (t'/q)lt.
102. The autograph reads: K3D < >. CTA and KTU: bymnh. UT: b sm< >.
Virolleaud (also CTA): ymnh. Van Selms (also CTA): bsm<r>.
103. Or: 'a plk. She rises from the sea...'
104. A npyn is probably some kind of clothing, according to ARTU, MLC and
WUS, even if there is no agreement on a more exact designation. TO suggests
'feces', a possibility MLC also lists. WUS gives Înpi, verstossen, 'to cast off.
105. bSr + (h): '(her) body'; BGUL: 'to get or bring (good) news', b + Sr + h:
preposition + noun + suffix. The noun Sr could mean: 'prince', 'song', 'navel',
'torch', 'rope', 'line', or 'evil'. Cf. MLC: Sr can likewise be used as a parallel to
Sph, 'something soft or woven'.
106. ARTU: 'to carry'. UT: 'to tear, strip off. WUS: forttragen, 'to carry away'.
MLC: quitarse, 'to take off, despojarse, 'to undress, give up'. TO: repandre, 'to
pour or, spread out'. Cf. MLC and WUS: it could be derived from a root similar to
Arabic mata'a, 'to float or stream'.
107. We are probably once again dealing with some piece of clothing. There is
some disagreement concerning the following tn, as to whether it relates directly to
this piece of clothing, which is then laid double (for example, KML) or two pieces of
clothing (for example, ARTU), or whether it tells us that the action (whatever that
action is) is repeated.
108. Or, 'to Yam'.
109. CTA, KTU and UT: npynh. The first letter is not discernible on the auto-
graph.
110. Or, 'toNahar'.
111. Probably some kind of cooking utensil or vessel. WUS, however, translates
it Duftmittel, 'perfume'.
112. See the above note.
113. CML: 'fluttered eyelids at'. TO: implorer. WUS: gefiigig machen.
66 Asherah
The first debatable point in this text is the question of where it takes
place. Most scholars assume that the action takes place by the sea—
Asherah is after all throwing something, ostensibly her laundry, into
the sea or river. Why she should also be spinning, cooking and eyeing
El from the beach or riverbank is a problem one rarely sees discussed
or solved. Even if the word mt' should indeed be translated as to
'carry', and she thus carries her laundry (or whatever) to the sea or
river,114 there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the entire scene
takes place there. Apart from this, a myriad of possible interpretations
present themselves when one looks closely at the passage.
J.C. de Moor considers this to be Asherah doing her laundry.115 Del
Olmo Lete, for his part, considers this passage to be an Escena de
conjuro, that is, a scene of conjuration where Asherah, using sympa-
thetic magic, mollifies El.116 Maier leans in the same direction: he,
however, detects sexual overtones (a fertility rite) in the passage, and
finds that Asherah is praying to El, in order to make him 'hasten to
where she [is] and have conjugal relations with her' (Maier 1986: 33
and 49 n. 48) Finally, Caster considers Anat, not Asherah, to be the
subject of this passage, and finds that Anat in 11. 1-7 disposes of the
'sea-monster Yam', and then starts to prepare gifts for El in the fol-
lowing passage (Caster 1975: 175ff.). Caster's interpretation is very
interesting; it does however, probably not have a great deal to do with
the Ugaritic text. This can be said with few scruples on the basis that
no new subject is introduced in 1. 12:
bnSi. 'nh.wtphn She lifts up her eyes and sees...
In 1. 13 we are told that it is Asherah who lifts her eyes, a piece of

information one would expect to find in 1. 12 if the grammatical sub-
ject changed there. If one insisted on reading a subject different from
Asherah in 11. 1-11, one could claim that the subject—be it Anat or
someone else—looked up and saw Asherah see the arrival of Baal and
Anat. This possible interpretation does, however, demand a very pecu-
liar scansion of the text, and creates a number of problems in the
translation and interpretation of the text that follows. It seems most
natural to assume that Asherah is the subject of the first eleven lines.
The next problem is to try to ascertain exactly what she is doing. As
114. The word tmt' is translated in this vein by MLC, CML and WUS.
115. ARTU, 47.
116. MLC, 122 and 195.
noted above, a number of possible interpretations present themselves,

but unfortunately, most of these interpretations are not directly com-
parable, since they are founded on different etymologies and interpre-
tations of the key-words of the passage, that is, the words that have
not been translated in the above.
The weakest of the interpretations and translations is Caster's
(Gaster 1975). He does not give the Ugaritic text he translates, there is
no glossary in his book, and thus no possible means of reconstructing
how he reached the results he did. At times it even seems as if he has
forgotten to translate one or more word(s), as in 11. 6-7, which in
Caster's version translates, 'and goes chasing him farther into the sea,
into the streams'; he apparently disregards the word npynh here,
although he seemingly translates it as 'her robe' in 1. 5.117
ARTU has the same deficiency as Gaster. No Ugaritic text is given
and there is no glossary in the book, but these are found in CARTU,
which makes it relatively simple to reconstruct how de Moor came to
the conclusions he did.
Gaster builds his thesis around a general theme of ritual drama, and
classifies the Baal-poem as a seasonal myth of the comprehensive type.
De Moor's interpretation is close to this. He too considers the Baal-
texts as a kind of ritual drama, but considers the present text to be a
mythological representation of what actually takes place in the spring:
that is, that the women can wash their double-skirts clean in the calm
rivers at the end of the rainy season.118 He relates this passage to CTA
17.1, the poem of aqht, where aqht (according to de Moor), as one of
his filial duties, washes his father's clothes when the weather is bad.
This is not the appropriate place to discuss de Moor's seasonal thesis
at length (de Moor 1971), but it seems improbable that Baal—a
thunder-god with fertility associations—should first receive his palace
after the rainy season has ended. One would suppose that his rule was
at its height during the winter with rain and thunder, and that he
therefore received his palace before the start of the rains, not at the
end of them. This being said, it does not seem wholly unlikely that de
Moor is right in his supposition that Asherah is washing and/or cook-
ing, even if the larger framework is improbable.
117. I am conjecturing here, but it seems as if one has to bend the text quite a bit
to achieve the translation Gaster uses.
118. It is difficult to know what de Moor means by a 'double-skirt', perhaps one
made of a double layer of cloth?
68 Asherah
Maier (1986) considers the passage to be a fertility rite. Unfortu-

nately, he does not tell his readers on what he bases this assumption.
That he interprets 11. 10-11 as a prayer is a defendable and under-
standable stand. I, however, can by no stretch of the imagination find
a fertility rite in the text, and therefore must conclude that unless one
works from the basic presumption that any ancient text whose content
is not immediately understandable to us is a fertility rite with sexual
overtones, there is no fertility rite in these lines.
When we finally turn to del Olmo Lete, we find that he considers
the passage as describing a magical rite, that is, that Asherah with the
use of magic placates El. Del Olmo Lete relates the passage to CTA
23.20ff.,119 which he claims shows use of magic between gods, and to
CTA 14.1.37ff., which shows how gods react to magic. He is appar-
ently unable to pinpoint the magic more exactly, but claims that it is
sympathetic. It seems as if del Olmo Lete wants Asherah at all costs to
be associated with magic and witchcraft, since there is nothing in the
present text that makes this assumption obvious.
To conclude this review of the four above-mentioned theories con-
cerning this text, it has to be said that none of them are very satis-
fying. They all presume actions and scenarios that are not in the text
itself, and they all leave a number of loose ends. All that can be safely
assumed from the text is that some female deity, in all probability
Asherah, is doing something, and that she—in order to do whatever it
is she does—uses a plk, an instrument that is probably a distaff. A
distaff is used for one thing, spinning thread. It is not—as claimed by
Gaster—a 'woman's standard weapon', and the text at hand does not
show that it is brandished as a weapon,120 neither is the spindle an un-
ambiguous female phallic sexual symbol, whose mere mention sug-
gests promiscuity.121 On the contrary, the spindle—or distaff—is more
often seen as a symbol of a woman's domestic virtues, among which is
chastity; in ancient mythologies, Pallas Athena has a spindle as one of
119. Sic, del Olmo Lete seems to have got the line wrong. According to his own
translation and interpretation of CTA 23, it is in 1. 30 that a fertility myth ritual (Mito-
ritual de fertilidad) starts, and in 1. 37 that a fertility rite (Rito de fertilidad) starts.
120. Gaster 1975: 176. The only other example he gives (the text at hand being
one example) is from 1417 CE, more than 2500 years later than the Ugaritic texts.
One could point to the Elkunirsa fragment from Boghazkoy, where Asherah might
use a distaff as a weapon. On this fragment, see section 4.3.
121. So Margalit 1980: 36. The general idea is maintained in Wiggins 1993: 54.
her numerous symbols, and I am not aware that anyone has taken this
to be a hidden reference to her promiscuous behavior. On the con-
trary, Pallas Athena is considered to be a most virtuous woman, who
also does not need to resort to her domestic utensils to fight.122
Now, if it is assumed that the subject of the verbs in this passage is
using a distaff to spin—a natural assumption—we have to turn the rest
of the passage round, in order to see if it is possible to interpret any
of the words or sentences in the light of this one piece of informa-
tion.123
When searching for a word that has a root similar to the Ugaritic
npyn in a Semitic language, the biblical Hebrew =]!] comes to mind. ^13
has a basic meaning 'to swing round, or to and fro, to swivel', and this
is the movement a spindle makes: it turns round, thus spinning the
thread, and at the same time it swings gently to and fro. If this etymo-
logy is accepted (or a common etymology for *]!] and npyn), it can be
assumed that npyn stands in parallel to plk, either as a synonym for
plk, or as a designation for what one produces with a plk, namely
thread.
A further point of interest here is the alternative reading of t 'It in
1.4, namely qlt. If this is the correct reading of the word—and both
UT and CTA mention the possibility—then Wiggins's translation 'her
spindle whorl' may very well be correct. (Wiggins 1993: 44-48).
The next problematical word is mks; this word might be connected
to the Akkadian kassum, which means 'to bind' or 'tie up'. Now any
number of different types of cloth can be achieved by 'binding' threads
together. Knitting is one of the modern versions, but in Bronze Age
Europe, a technique for binding and plaiting threads in order to make
durable and pretty pieces of clothing, carrying-nets and the like was
well known.124
122. For the reference to Pallas Athena, I am grateful to the translator of this
book, J-E. McOwan, who reminded me of her.
123. In the following I will try to find roots, words and interpretations that fit
into a picture containing the basic assumption: a woman spinning or working with
textiles in one way or another. The proposed interpretation is thus in no way 'objec-
tive', but is highly tendentious, and is based on a very selective evaluation of
etymologies and grammar.
124. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find out what this technique is called in
English. In Danish the correct term is sprang, and the technique was widely used
during the Bronze and Iron Ages.
70 Asherah
If we accept that mks is here used as a designation for making a

piece of clothing, be it by plaiting, sprang, a knitting-like technique,
or by weaving, we now end up with the combination b+$r+h, prepo-
sition, noun and suffix. The word $r could, according to MLC, be
used as a parallel word to $hp, in the sense of 'something soft or
woven'.
If all these alternative interpretations are put together and viewed in
the greater context, the initial lines of CTA 4.11. may be translated as
follows:
3. She takes her spindle <-—>
4. She takes a distaff in ?? <—>125
5. Her thread is woven [or, plaited] into [a piece of] cloth [by/for] her.
The rest of the passage can be translated relatively conventionally,

since it is usual to finish the production of a piece of cloth by washing
it, and if one wants a piece of windproof and waterproof wool, one
fulls it by boiling it and cooling it several times. It does, however,
become a bit difficult to fit 11. 10-11 into this context.
If one discards this interpretation as being too far-fetched—and it
is, as mentioned above, a very selective reading—one has to find some
other explanation for the appearance of a spindle in these lines. If it is
not used for spinning, then very few options are left. Caster's sug-
gestion of its being a weapon is of course still there, but it does not
seem satisfactory, just as the interpretation of the spindle as a female
phallic symbol seems very forced. Other possible interpretations are
that a plk is neither a distaff nor a spindle, an opinion that admittedly
contradicts the majority of dictionaries and glossaries, or, alterna-
tively, that the plk does not belong to these lines, but to 11. 1-2, which
are no longer legible.
We could also try to find a interpretative framework that allows for
the very abrupt character of this passage. This may be done by under-
standing an implicit verb, namely, 'can'. If this is the case, then we
could be dealing with a list of the many virtues of Asherah, virtues
that are named, since these (female) virtues and abilities are the reason
why Baal and Anat seek her out.126 Asherah is full of female virtues:
125. Or cf. Wiggins 1993: 44, 'Her spindle whorl...'

126. When I speak of 'female virtues' and of someone being 'a good woman',
'ideal wife', and so on, my context is that of Bronze Age Ugarit, not twentieth-cen-
tury Europe.
she can spin, wash, cook or make pottery, and—most important in this
connection—she knows how to deal with El, and make him agree to
what she wants. If we are indeed dealing with a catalogue of 'the good
woman', 11. 10-11 fits perfectly in the context, and the elaboratively
argued reinterpretation above becomes unnecessary. The text seems
abrupt because it is a list, the only copulative factor being the person
performing the different tasks. Furthermore, a list of virtues is not
unknown in Ugarit, since the poem of aqht, has a catalogue on the
virtues of the good son (CTA 17.1.25-34). All this having been said, it
is necessary to stress that nothing in the text itself gives good reasons
for preferring one interpretation over the other; it is impossible to
decide with any certainty exactly what this passage is all about.
The next sequence, CTA 4.II. 12-27, tells of Asherah's reaction
when she sees Baal and Anat approaching her. She becomes
frightened. Her knees buckle, sweat breaks out all over her, she starts
shaking violently. Rightly so perhaps: as the mother of gods, she has
no reason to be overjoyed by a visit from 'the killers of her sons' (cf.
section 4.1.1.5). She shouts to them, asking what they want, and her
panic recedes when she gets a glimpse of the 'mediators' Baal and
Anat have brought:
CTA 4.II.26-30121
<zl> ksp oM128 (27) kt'n Then Asherah sees a <glimpse> of silver
zlU9.ksp.wnnnm (28) hrs A glimpse of silver and ??? gold
Smh rbt.a<trt> 131 (29) ym Lady Asherah of the Day rejoices.
gm.lglmh.k<tsh> She calls to her servant:
(30) 'n.mktr.apt< Look! from tor ???<132
The rest of the column is so fragmentary that it is not possible to

make a sound reconstruction of what happens next; most scholars,
127. CTA 4.11 = KTU 1.4.II = UT 51.11. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 14.
128. CTA and KTU: aryy<zl>.ksp.<a>trt. UT: aryy< >.ksp. <at>rt.
Autograph: aryy < >kspn\3rt.
129. Or p '1. CTA, KTU and UT as noted above.
130. CTA: \vnt. KTU: wn< >xx. UT: wn< >. Provided the text actually
reads zl, the following corrections have been proposed: CTA, wn<r>; Gaster (also
CTA): wn<zm>, wn<qdt> or wn<qb>; Obermann (also CTA): n<ght> derived from
Vng/i, 'to read'.
131. CTA and UT: a<trt>. KTU: at<rt>. Autograph: a/n < >.
132. For a description of what ktr whss has made, see CTA 4.1.25-43, or the
translation: ARTU, pp. 45-46 or MLC, pp. 193-94.
72 Asherah
however, do not balk at the prospect. De Moor thinks that Asherah

orders her fisherman, qdS wamrr, to start fishing, something that—
according to de Moor's seasonal hypothesis—took place in March,
after the winter's pause. After this, she sits down with Baal and Anat,
and tries to persuade Baal to release one of his imprisoned enemies,
perhaps Yam (ARTU, pp. 48-50).
Caster's reconstruction is slightly different. He thinks that Asherah
asks qdS wamrr to catch the sea-dragon (Yam), so that he will no
longer bother Baal and Anat. He likewise sees the beginning of the
next column as a warning to Baal and Anat; they should be careful not
to release Yam again (Gaster 1975: 177-78).
Del Olmo Lete, for his part, thinks that Asherah, after her joy upon
seeing the gifts, becomes frightened again, and sends qd$ wamrr off to
fetch Yam, who will defend her against Baal and Anat (MLC 123 and
196). Each of the above mentioned reconstructions is based on the
scholars' own interpretation of the Baal-texts, and it is impossible to
either prove or disprove any of them since the legible part of the
column does not give much evidence on which to build a case.
The next passages of interest to us with regard to Asherah are CTA
4.III.23-53, all of CTA 4.1V and CTA 4.V.1-3. The beginning of
CTA 4.111 describes how Baal laments the fact that he has no palace.
Without any kind of link between the scenes, Baal and Anat arrive133
to enlist Asherah's help in their plan to get Baal a palace:
CTA 4.III.27-36134
27. wt'n.rbt. atrt ym And Lady Asherah of the Day answers:
28. ik.tmgnn. Why do you two beseech
rbt (29) atrt.ym. Lady Asherah of the Day,
tgzyn (30) qnyt.ilm. entreat the creatress of gods?
mgntm (31) tr.il.dpid. You (should) beseech the Bull, El who is pid,
hm.gztm(32)bny.bnwt or entreat the creator of creatures.
wt'n (33) btlt135. 'nt. And virgin Anat answers:
nmgn (34) <->ra.136 We beseech ??
rbt.atrt.ym Lady Asherah of the Day
133. CTA 4.III.23-24: mgy.aliyn.b'l Imgyt.btlt. 'nt: aliyn Baal arrives, the virgin
Anat arrives.
134. CTA 4.III. = KTU 1.4.III = UT 51.111. Autograph: CTA II, fig.15.
135. CTA, KTU and UT. btlt. Autograph: Dtlt.
136. CTA, UTand autograph: <->m. KTU: xm. CML: m.
4. As he rah in Ugarit 73
35. <ng>z,137 .qnyt.ilm entreat the creatress of gods

36. < >l3*.nmgm.hwt < > we entreat (him)
If the above thesis is maintained—that Asherah is presented as the
ideal wife and mother, her answer is the perfect one. A good woman
knows her place, and does not propose to tell any man in the family,
be he brother, father, husband, uncle or grown son, what to do.
Naturally a mere woman should not meddle in the important affairs of
men. Anat's answer has been obliterated by a lacuna, so it must there-
fore remain unresolved whether they had already approached El with-
out success, or whether they started by discussing the matter with
Asherah, because they wished her to approach El on Baal's behalf.
The column ends with a fragmentary, but recognizable description of
a meal (or sacrifice), consisting of meat and wine, and ends with some
completely disintegrated lines.
The next column, CTA 4.IV, deals with Asherah's journey to El,
her reception and her dealings with El regarding Baal's palace.
CTA 4.IV.4b-19m
4. (atrt y<m)mdl 'r>14° Saddle an ass,
5. smd.phl.<$t prepare <the Lady's> donkey
gpnm dtm (6)ksp. (with) the bridle142 of silver
dt.yr<q nqbnm>143 (with) the gol<den saddle>
7. 'db.gpn.atn<y144 make ready the harness of my she-ass.
8. ySm'.qd[S].wamr[r]145 QdS-and-Amrr hears,
9. mdl. 'r. he saddles the ass,
smd.phl (10) St. he prepares the Lady's donkey
gpnm.dt.ksp (with) the bridle of silver
11. dt.yrq.nqbnm (with) the golden saddle,
137. CTA: <ng>z. KTU and UT: <n>gz. Autograph: < >D.
138. CTA and UT: < >. KTU: < >x . CML: <ahr>. Autograph: < >D.
139. CTA 4.1V. = KTU 1.4.IV. = UT 51.IV. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 15 + 16.
The first three lines are too fragmentary to read.
140. CTA and KTU: atrt.ym<.mdl. 'r>. UT has the same text, but thinks that
more letters are missing between ym and mdl.
141. CTA: <St.gpnm.dt>. KTU and UT: $<t.gpnm.dt>. Autograph: .D< >.
142. Both 'bridle' and 'saddle' are modern terms, used as synonyms for 'neces-
sary equipment when one wants to ride on a donkey, without sitting on its bare back'.
There is no certainty that the words do indeed denote the objects here mentioned.
143. CTA: yr<q.nqbnm>. KTU and UT: yrq<.nqbnm>. Autograph: vrd <.
144. CTA and KTU: atnt<y>. UT: atnt<k/y>. Autograph: atnD<.
145. CTA, KTU and UT: qd<$>.wamr<r>. Autograph: y$m(.qd. wamr< .
74 Asherah
12. 'db.gpn.atnth146 he makes ready the harness of her she-ass.

13. yhbq.qdS.wamrr QdS-and-Amrr helps,
14. yStn.atrt.lbmt. 'r he sets Asherah on the back of the ass,
15. lysmsmt.bmt.phl on the beautifully decorated back of the donkey.
16. qd$.yuhdm. Sb V QdS holds, he leads the way147
17. amrr.kkbkb.lpnm Amrr shines like a star in front,
18. atr.btlt. 'nt behind is virgin Anat,
19. wb'l.tb'.mrym.spn and Baal returns to the high land of Zaphon.
Asherah seems to be the only god(dess) in the Ugaritic pantheon,

who has need of any outside help in order to move from one point to
another. Other gods turn their faces towards wherever they want to
go, and arrive, but Asherah goes on a donkey, demurely led by a
servant, and followed—in this instance—by minor, or lower-ranking
deities. This passage could tell us something of Asherah's high rank.
She does not move on her own, not because she is unable to, but
rather because it is not fitting for a Lady of her standing.
CTA 4.IV.23-26
23. tgly.id il.wtbu she goes to the territory of El and she arrives
24. qrS.mlk.ab. Snm at the abode of the king, the father of years.148
25. Ip'n149.il.thbr.wtql She bends and lies at El's feet,
26. tSthwy.wtkbdh she prostrates herself and honors him.
As soon as she arrives, she throws herself at the feet of El and
honors him, 'gives him heaviness' (kbd). She behaves in a proper way
for a subject approaching a great king, and is sufficiently humble, the
way a good woman should be when confronting male supremacy.
CTA 4.IV.27-39
27. hlm.il.kyphnh As soon as El sees her,
28. yprq.lsb.wyshq he opens his mouth and laughs.
29. p'nh .Ihdm.ytpd. He sets his foot on the footstool
wyfcr&r151 (30) usb'th. and turns his fingers round.
y$u.gh.wy<sh>152 He lifts his voice and sho<uts>:
146. CTA, KTU and UT: atnth. Autograph: atnt

147. Or, 'he lights'.
148. Or, cf. section 4.1.1.1. 'father of lights'.
149. Orlzn.
150. Orznh.
151. CTA, KTU and UT: wykrkr. Autograph: w krkr.
152. CTA and UT: wy<sh>. KTU: w ys<h>.
31. ik.mgyt.rbt.atr<t.y>m153 Why has Asherah, Lady Day come?

32. ik.atwt.qnyt.i<lm>154 Why has the creatress of the gods arrived?
3 3. rgb. rgbt. wtgt< > *55 If you are very hungry and want <to eat>
34. hm.gmu.gmit.w 's< >156 If you are very thirsty and want <to drink>
3 5. Ihm. hm. Stym. Eat or drink!
lh<m>151 (36) btlhnt.lhm Eat of the food on the tables!
&<y>158 (37) bkrpnm.yn. Drink of the wine in the cups!
bk<s>.hrs159 (38) dm.'sm. blood of the trees from a golden beaker.
hm.yd. il mlk (39) yhssk. Or is it the hand of the king, of El, that excites
ahbt tr.I60t 'rrk you161 the love of the Bull that arouses you?
This passage has given rise to a number of different interpretations.

Pope finds reason to believe that El and Asherah have a strained rela-
tionship,162 an idea that de Moor takes up,163 whereas Caster finds that
El wants to protect Asherah with his love, and sees the passage as an
example of the tender feelings between them.164
If we maintain the above mentioned interpretative framework, that
is, Asherah as 'the ideal wife/woman', there is no reason to believe
that she and El are estranged. We do not learn anything about any
sexual relations between them, here or in any other text, but we could
be forgiven for thinking that this is what El is leading up to. Nothing
in this, or the following passages, gives grounds for reading anything
153. CTA, KTU and UT: atr<t.y>m. Autograph: at_r< >m.

154. CTA, KTU and UT: i<lm>. Autograph: /<.
155. CTA: wtgt<??>. KTU and UT: wtgt< >. Autograph: wDDCI.
156. CML and Gaster (also CTA): w's<t>. Barton (also CTA): w's<'>. Auto-
graph: w's<.
157. CTA, KTU and UT: lh<m>. Autograph: O< >.
158. CTA: possibly St<y>. UT: $t<y>. Autograph: St< >.
159. CTA, KTU and UT: yn bk<s>.hrs. The autograph reads bk.hUg. We are
probably dealing with a scribal error, supposing the correct letter to be an s. We
could also be dealing with a lacuna after the first wedge of the third letter, which per-
mits us to conjecture a g, s or /.
160. KTU and UT: ahbt.tr. Autograph: ahbttr.
161. Or, 'that you are reminded of. hss has the basic meaning of 'to think,
remind', remember'.
162. Pope 1955: 37: 'It is apparent that El and Asherah, although on ostensibly
friendly terms, are maritally estranged'.
163. ARTU, 53 n. 235: 'Note the irony in the choice of words. Ilu is depicted
here as an old charmer whose overtures are brusquely ignored.'
164. Gaster 1975: 118: 'with typical Oriental hospitality, he proffers food and
drink and assures her of his benevolent protection'.
76 Asherah
but an 'ordinary' marriage into it. It certainly does seem as if Asherah

knows what she is doing, since she in the following lines achieves her
(or rather, Baal's) object, and gets El's permission to build a Palace
for Baal. The passage starts with Asherah flattering El—or approach-
ing El with due respect:
CTA 4.IV.40-43
40. wt'n.rbt.atrt ym And Lady Asherah of the Day answers,
41. thmk.il. hkm. Your word [decree], El, is wise,
hkmt (42) 'm 7m. [it is] wise in eternity.
hyt. hzt165 (43) thmk. [May] your word [be/give/have] a happy life.
I cannot detect any irony in these lines. This is the proper way for
an ideal wife to approach her husband, and even more appropriate for
a subject entering the presence of her sovereign. It is, however, im-
possible to either prove or disprove the use of irony in texts like this.
Now Asherah puts the case to El. Baal is king, but does not have a
proper dwelling for himself or his daughters. The presentation con-
sists mostly of standard phrases, but does contain an interesting contra-
diction:
CTA 4.1V .47-57
47. <an> Iyshl66.tr il.abh He [Baal] calls on the bull El, his father,
48. <il> mlk167 dyknnh. The god-king who made him.
ysh (49) atrtl6*.wbnh. He calls on Asherah and her son[s],
ilt.wsbrt (50) <ar>yh 169 the goddess and all her kin,
wn.in.bt.lb'l for [there is] no house for Baal
51. km ilm110 such as gods [have]171
whzrll2kbn.atrt and no court such as the son[s] of Asherah [has]173
52. mtb il mzll.bnh The dwelling of El is the shelter of his son[s]
165. Orhp't.
166. CTA and KTU: <an>y<.>lysh. UT: any, given as uncertain. Autograph:
ysh
167. CTA, KTU and UT: l.mlk. Autograph: < >mlk.
168. CTA, KTU and UT: atrt. Autograph:rf.
169. CTA, KTU and UT: aryh. Autograph:yh.
170. CTA, KTU and UT: km ilm. Autograph:ilm.
171. Or, 'such as El (has)'.
172. Orwhp'r.
173. It is usual to translate bn atrt with a plural, 'the sons of Asherah', but in the
light of the discussion below, it might be more to the point to translate it in the sin-
gular.
53. < mt>b rbt174. atrt.ym <The dwel>ling of Lady Asherah of the Day
54. <mtb>175 .klt.knyt <is the dwelling> of the beautiful women
5 5. mtb. pdry.bt ar [it is] the dwelling of Pdry, daughter of Ar,
56. mzll tly bt rb116 the shelter of Tly, daughter of Rb,
57. mtb ars<y> bty'bdr111 the dwelling of Ars<y> daughter of Y'bdr.
The contradiction or point of interest lies in the apparent conflict

between 11. 47-51 and 11. 52-57. In 11. 47-51 Baal laments because he
has no house as do the son(s) of Asherah, the gods (Urn), whereas 11
52-57 tells us that the son(s) of El, il, live(s) with him, sons we would
presume to be identical to 'the gods', or at least some of the gods, and
not on their own. The only logical solution must be that the sons of El
are not to be identified with the gods, and if this is the case, ilm in
1. 51 has to be translated differently. We could assume that the final
mem of ilm is an enclitic, and not a plural ending, which obliges the
translation 'such as El' and not 'such as the gods'. This then opens up
the interesting possibility that El is the son of Asherah, since the
parallel is il-m // bn atrt. That Baal was not regarded as one of El's
sons, in any sense, is seen from his epithet bn dgn, son of Dagan, a
god not otherwise mentioned in any of the major epic texts from
Ugarit.
If then El, the king, is one of Asherah's sons, and has a palace,
where his sons can live, then Baal's wish for a palace or court of his
own becomes a reflection of the position he has achieved:
CTA 4.IV.43-44
43. .. .mlkn.aliy<n> aliyn [is] our king,
b 7178 (44) tptn Baal [is] our judge.
Baal, like El, is now a king, and wants a visible manifestation of his
royal status, like the sons of Asherah, and he approaches both the
ruling king—El—and El's consort/mother (?) Asherah. The passage
does not become less interesting when one looks at the fragment CTA
8, which can be regarded as one of the Baal-texts. In this text, it is not
El who can grant or withhold the building permission, but rather
Asherah herself:
174. CTA, KTU and UT: mtb rbt. Autograph:brbt.

175. CTA, KTU and UT: mtb. Autograph: <m->.
176. CTA, KTU and UT: mzll.tly<.>bt rb. Autograph: m< >/ tlh I btrb.
111. CTA, KTU and UT: mtb.ars<y>. Autograph: m£< >ars.
178. CTA, KTU and UT: aliy<n> b'l. Autograph: aliy< >'/.
78 Asherah
CTA 8.1-5a119
1. ik mgnm.rbt atrt(2)<ym>m Then he gives [gifts] to Lady Asherah of the
Day,
mgz.qnyt. ilm He entreats the creatress of gods.
3. wtn btm.lb(l.km (4) </>/w 183 And she gives184 Baal a house like El/gods
[has/have],
whzr.kbn(5)<a>trt185 a court like the son[s] of Asherah.
It is possible, not only in this passage, but in all parallel passages, to

translate ilm // bn atrt as El // the son of Asherah, and if this is done,
it will probably become necessary to revise the standard interpre-
tations of rank and order among the Ugaritic gods. On the basis of
this, one could imagine a system analogous to Greek mythology, with
Asherah being a goddess similar to the Greek Rhea. Both Greek and
Ugaritic mythology know of three 'kings' (before Baal arrives),
who are all sons of Rhea/Asherah: Zeus/El, the god of the heavens,
Poseidon/Yam, the god of the sea and Hades/Mot, the god of the
underworld.186 This trio of male gods each have their own palace, as a
visible representation of their power. Each of them is a ruler and is
not subordinate to any other god. This also gives the reason for El's,
Yam's and Mot's reluctance to let Baal become king. Each of them has
to part with some of his power in order to contribute to the trio be-
coming a quartet.
The present text ends with Asherah getting her way. If the mother
of the trio (= Asherah) does not object to Baal 'taking over' (par-
tially), then El is not one to stand in the way of it. He is not overly
pleased by the prospect, but, if Asherah wants it, so be it:
179. CTA 8 = KTU l& = UT5l fragment. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 30.
180. CTA: k.mgn. KTU: ik.mgn. UT: ikmgn. Autograph: Okmgn.
181. CTA and UT: <ym>. KTU: <y>m. Autograph: < >.
182. CTA and KTU: wtn bt. UT: w?tn. Autograph: Utnbt.
183. CTA and UT: lm. KTU: ilm. Autograph: < >lm.
184. Or possibly, 'that she may give (him)'.
185. CTA and UT: <a>trt. KTU: atrt. Autograph: < >trt.
186. I am perfectly aware that analogies like these are pure speculation.
CTA 4.IV(+V).58-651*7
188
58. wy'n Itpn il dpi<d>18 And Itpn, El who is pid answers:
59. p 'bd.an. 'nn.atrt Then I am a slave,189 a servant of Asherah,
60. p 'bd.ank.ahd ult190 then I am a slave [who should] take a «//?191
61. hm.amt.atrt.tlbn If Asherah's maid192 [will] make the bricks,
62. Ibnt ybn.bt. Ib 7193 then a house will be built for Baal
63. Jbn Urn. such as the gods/El [have]
whzr.kbn.atrt and a court like the sons of Asherah.
64. \vt 'n. rbt. atrt ym And Lady Asherah of the Day answers:
65. rbt.ilm.lhkmt Great is your wisdom El.
El's mood in this text seems difficult to gauge. Is he being ironic,

teasing, sullen or matter of fact? We do not know. What seems to be
implied is that El might be the one who has to start the proceedings of
building Baal's palace, but it is not he who actually decides whether it
is to be built or not. His yea is not unimportant, but he seems to be
more like a rubber-stamp on Asherah's decision, than the person mak-
ing the independent decision. This is an impression that is strength-
ened in the next passage from the Baal-texts to be discussed here,
namely,
CTA 6.I.39-55194
39. tSu.gh.wtsh. She195 lifts up her voice, and she calls out:
tSmh ht (40) atrt.wbnh. Now Asherah and her sons rejoice,
ilt.wsb (41) rt.aryh. the goddess and all her kin,
kmt.aliyn (42) b'l. For dead is aliyn Baal,
khlq.zbl. destroyed is the prince,
187. CTA 4.V. is a direct continuation of CTA 4.IV. Column V therefore starts
with 1. 63.
188. CTA, KTU and UT: wy'n Itpn il dpid.
189. 'bd covers, in most Semitic languages, all degrees of subordinate position.
Thus, any subject of a king, from the wealthiest nobleman to the scurviest slave was
the king's 'bd.
190. CTA and KTU: ahd.ult.
191. Some kind of tool used in house-building. UT: 'trowel or hod'; an imple-
ment or tool. CARTU: 'a form for making bricks'. KML: 'to roll in mud, to knead'.
192. Or, ' if Asherah becomes a maid...'
193. CTA, KTU and UT: Ibnt.ybn.bt.lb'l. Autograph: IbntyUn.bUUlb'l.
194. CTA 6.1.39-53 = KTU 1.6.1.39-53 = UT 49.1.12-25. Autograph. CTA II,
fig. 21,11. 11-25.
195. The speaker, 'she', is Anat, until 1.43.
80 Asherah
b 'I (43) ars the lord of the earth196

gm191 .ysh il El cries out,
44. Irbt.atrt ym. to Lady Asherah of the Day:
Sm' (45) lrbt.a<trt> ym.198 Hear [me], O Lady Asherah of the day.
tn (46) ahd.b.b<nk> amlkn199 Give [me] one of <your> so<ns>, [and] I
will make him king.
47. wt 'n. rbt. atrt ym And Lady Asherah of the day answers:
48. bl.nmlk.yd'.ylhn200 Shall we not make into king, someone
knowing and Ihn201
202
49. wy'n.ltpn.il <dp>i (50) d. And Itpn, El who ispid, answers:
dq.anm.lyrz203 (51) 'm.b'l. [one having] small vigour, will not rule as
Baal,
ly 'db.mrh (52) 'm.bn.dgn.ktmsm [someone who can] not lift the spear [like]
the son of Dagan, will be crushed.
53. w 'n204. rbt. atrt ym And Lady Asherah of the Day answered:
54. blt.nmlk. 'ttr. 'rz Should we not make 'ttr, the terrible, a king
55. ymlk.'ttr.'rz let 'ttr, the terrible, be king.
Some new information is brought to light in this section. The first
piece of information is that the god 'ttr is named as one of Asherah's
sons. She does not directly say 'my son Astar', but since she proposes
him when asked to name one of her sons as king, it can safely be
stated that 'ttr is indeed one of Asherah's sons. The next piece of infor-
mation has a bearing on the status and function of Asherah in Ugarit.
After the initial, formula-like lament of Anat, the focus changes to El,
who asks Asherah to name one of her sons as the (new) king. This she
does, but not to the full satisfaction of El. It is, however, her choice
196. Or 'the Baal of the earth'. Cf. perhaps the passage CTA 6.V. 1-6.
197. Thus the autograph. CTA and KTU: arS.gm.
198. CTA and KTU: atr<t> ym. UT: a<trt> ym. Autograph: a< > Dm.
199. CTA: b.bnk<.>amlkn. KTU: b.bnk.am.lkn. UT: b.bnk (?) wamlkn.
Virolleaud (also CTA): b b<nm>k amlkn. Bauer (also CTA): b b<ny>k. Ginsberg
(also CTA): b b<nk> kamlkn. Autograph: b<—> amlkn.
200. CTA, KTU and UT: ylhn. Autograph: ylHn. The penultimate sign could be
at.
201. The root V//w is translated as follows: CARTU: 'to moisten'; CML, MLC
and UT: 'to be intelligent'; WUS: dienstfertig ('obliging').
202. CTA and KTU: il dpi. UT: il di. Autograph: il <->D. There is not suf-
ficient room on the tablet to write both d and/? in what seems to be a lacuna.
203. KTU: lyrq/?. Autograph: lyrz. The text could also read lyrp'.
204. CTA, KTU and UT: w'n. Autograph: D'n.
rather than his protests that win the day.205 That Astar seems to retire
quickly is irrelevant in this connection.
There are two possible ways to interpret these happenings. One is to
stress the fact that it seems to be Asherah, not El, who has the right to
choose which of the gods is to be king, the second is to emphasize the
unsuitability of her choice, thus seeing her as a silly mother, putting
forward her incompetent pet. The latter option does not negate the
former. Without any evaluation of the suitability of her choice, she is
the decisive factor.
If we focus on the first option—that it is Asherah who wields the
right to name the king—this throws a new light on why Baal and Anat
approach her, not El, in CTA 4.11. In CTA 3.V Anat approaches El,
with dire threats, in order to obtain a palace for Baal, without success.
The palace is not commissioned until Asherah has given her per-
mission and has approached El on the subject. Since the building of a
palace and the status of kingship seem to be closely connected in
Ugarit, it appears likely that the reason for their (Baal's and Anat's)
approach might not be—as most of us have hitherto suspected—that
Asherah should gain El's permission for them, but that it was her per-
mission that was the crucial point.
If this is the case, then Asherah is not primarily 'the perfect woman'
or 'ideal wife', but a far more powerful lady. Perhaps her very power
lies in the fact that she is the creatress of gods, not only the 'minor'
ones, but El as well, and as such the de facto ruler.206 All this taken
together gives credence to Wiggins's interpretation of her title rbt. He
considers her to be rabitu, mother of the king or dowager queen, the
real power behind the throne, whose primary function was that of
naming and legitimizing the king and/or heir to the throne.207
Analogously, it seems possible that the ilt, called upon in CTA I.IV
is Asherah. My basic objection to including this text in a discussion
on Asherah, however, still stands. The automatic equation between
205. We are also told implicitly that being yd', 'knowing', and Ihn, seems to have
been traits that characterized 'ttr, perhaps even were seen as regular epithets, to an
extent where El can start an argument about the suitability of him as a successor to
Baal.
206. Thus she is also understood as the creator of second or third generation-
gods, even if she is not actually their mother, due to her primal creation of the gods
as such.
207. Wiggins 1993: 65-67 and elsewhere.
82 Asherah
Asherah and ilt is simply not tenable, not even when the similarities
between CTA l.IV and the present text are considered. Since nothing
in the legible parts of CTA l.IV itself gives us the slightest clue as to
the identity of the ilt called upon, or even certain information with re-
gard to her part in the proceedings, I still see no reason to include it.
This then leaves us with a puzzle. If Asherah—as argued above—is
the real power in the Ugaritic pantheon, why is she then (also) depic-
ted as 'the perfect woman' or 'ideal wife'? I do not pretend to be able
to present any decisive argumentation: my suggestions are only tenta-
tive. One possibility is that my original proposal of her being posi-
tioned as 'the perfect woman' is wrong, another that the combination
gave rise to no comment in ancient Ugarit. A woman was a woman
was a woman. Regardless of her status, a woman still bowed before
the male of the species, and a goddess was—irrespective of the actual
power she wielded—seen as subordinate to the ruling male god. The
actual distribution of power was one thing, proper behavior another.
As such she had to observe the rules pertaining to women in general.
Even the queen or the queen-dowager bows to the king.
4.1.2.2. Summary: Asherah in the Baal-texts. As far as I can see, the

only possible conclusion to reach is that there is surprisingly little
stated in the texts themselves. Most of the relevant information is in-
direct: Asherah is not just a wonderful ally when one wants to obtain a
favor from El, she herself seems to be the person to make decisions
regarding kingship. She is a smart tactician (or just 'the perfect wom-
an'). She is not on the best of terms with Baal and Anat, but her
unfriendly attitude can be changed by the use of bribes and flattery.
She has (at least) two servants (or rather one servant who happens to
be two), qdS wamrr, apparently her general factotum, who might or
might not be a Ugaritic version of the god Amurru, and she likewise
seems to employ a fisherman (or men), dgy atrt. What we are not told
anywhere at all is that El and Asherah are married. On the other
hand, the texts imply—without stating it directly—that Asherah is the
mother, not only of Yam and Mot, but of El as well, and that these
then are (some of) the gods that are bn atrt.
The hypothesis of Asherah as the 'ideal woman' or 'the perfect
wife' discussed above is, like most hypotheses about what exactly is
implied in the epic texts from Ugarit, impossible to either prove or
disprove. It is nevertheless interesting that Wiggins reaches a conclu-
sion similar to mine, but from a different angle. He sees Asherah as a

rabitu, a queen mother, whose primary function lies in her being the
consort of the ruling sovereign, that is, El, and as (honorary) mother
of all gods.208 Since the tablets themselves are often seriously damaged
and in bad shape, it is possible to conjecture wildly in most cases (a
common phenomenon), but even if we had the perfect tablets, it seems
doubtful that they would give much more information on the subject.
It seems obvious that ilmlk presumed that his audience knew these
gods and goddesses and were familiar with their functions, he then
told good stories about them, but this basic knowledge—so very fa-
miliar to the Ugaritic audience—is lost to us.
4.1.2.3. The Poem of Kirta.209 Three passages in the poem of Kirta

refer to Asherah: one of these, CTA 14.IV. 197-206, has already been
discussed above in section 4.1.1.4. The other passages are as follows:
CTA 15.II.21-28210
25. lk.tld.ysb glm < >211 To you (Kirta), she (hry) will bear the boy ysb.
26. ynq.hlb.a<t>rt< > 212 He will drink the milk of Asherah < >
27. mss.td btlt < 'nt>213 he will suck the nipple of the virgin <Anat>214
28. m$nq<t.ilm>215 the wetnurse<s of the gods>.
Asherah is here presented in a new role—as one of two wetnurses

of the gods. Apparently these two women, that is Asherah and Anat,
208. Wiggins 1993: 63 and elsewhere. Further indications that this is indeed one
of her main functions in the epic and mythological texts from Ugarit (and thus not
necessarily in everyday religious life), might be found in CTA 3.1.10-15, see below,
section 4.1.2.4. See also section 7.1. on the etymology of 'Asherah'.
209. For a more thorough discussion of the general story-line of this poem and
its genre, see Wiggins 1993: 21-27.
210. CTA 15.11. = KTU 1.15.11 = UT 128.11. = RS nr. 3.45. Autograph: CTA
II, fig. 39.
211. CTA and KTU: ySb<.>glm. UT. ySb. glm. Autograph: y$3glm< >.
212. CTA, KTU and UT. hlb.a<t>rt. Autograph: hHb.a< >rt < >.
213. CTA, KTU and UT. td.btlt. < 'nt>. Autograph: tdUtlt< >.
214. It is usual to reconstruct the name of Anat in this place, a custom I too have
followed. One could also reconstruct SpS in this lacuna, in which case this text might
be seen as reinforcing my above argument (section 4.1.1.1, on the text CTA 23), that
is, that both Asherah and $p$ are goddesses with solar characteristics, and that they
were seen as having parallel functions.
215. (/rand Van Selms (also CTA): m$nq<t ilmn'mm>. Virolleaud (also CTA):
m$nq<t >. Ginsberg (also CTA): mSnq<t' Urn >. Autograph: mSnq< >.
84 Asherah
not only bring up gods but also take care of special human children.
Nothing else is to be learned from this passage regarding Asherah.
CTA IS.III.lSb-SO216
.wthss.atri211 (26) ndrh. And Asherah remembered his promise
wilt.D<218 and the goddess ??<
27. wtSu.gh.w<tsh>219 And she lifts her voice and <shouts
28. ph m'.ap.teri220 See now, how k<rt...
29. utn.ndr<221 two promises222 <
3 0. apr. h/i<223 I will break <
The text is too fragmentary to allow any certain information. We
only learn that Kin a seems to have given Asherah not one, but two
promises. The usual—qualified—guess is that Kirta has forgotten the
promises, and that the disasters befalling him in the remainder of the
poem are due to this fact. This is, however, only a guess.
4.1.2.4. Other Mythological Texts. The last mythological text to be

discussed in this chapter is CTA 3.1.10-15. The passage is very
difficult both to scan and translate, therefore the following suggestions
should by no means be seen as authoritative or definite, but only as
tentative proposals.
CTA 3. I.I0-15224
10. ytn.ks.bdh He gives (him) a cup in his hand,
11. krpnm225 .bklat.ydh a goblet into both his hands;
216. CTA 15.Ill = KTU 1.15.Ill = UT 128.Ill = RS 3.45. Autograph: CTA II,
fig. 40.
217. CTA, KTU and UT: atrt. Autograph: aDDt.
218. CTA and UT: p< >.Ginsberg (also CTA): p<lih>. Autograph: D< >.
219. CTA, KTU and UT: w<tsh>. Autograph: w< >.
220. CTA, KTU and UT: kr<t >. Virolleaud (also CTA): ap k<rtt'(?) >.
Ginsberg (also CTA): ap kr<typr> (29) u tn nd<rm mlk>. Autograph: AO<.
221. CTA, KTU and UT: ndr< >. Autograph: ndU< >.
222. M is here seen as an emphatic particle.
223. KTU: i(??)xx< >.UT:h< >.
224. CTA 3.1. = KTU 1.3.1 = UT 'NT. Autograph: CTA II, fig.7.
225. CTA writes that the text apart from the readable n has preserved two vertical
wedges that seems to be written on top of the n. KTU reads krpnm, and thinks that
there is a scribal error, kprmm, which was then corrected by writing an n on top of
the already existing m. UT: krpnm. Autograph: krp\3m.
12. bk rb. 'zm.226 the huge beaker of the strong one,

ridn (13) mt.Smm the ridn of the man of heaven.
ks.qdS (14) Itphnh221 .att. A holy cup that no woman may see,
krpn (15) It'n.atrt a goblet that Asherah may not see.
The greatest irony of this text is that it contains a practically intact
passage. Only two cuneiform characters are slightly damaged, the rest
are in perfect shape with easily read letters. It should be simple to
translate them, but several of the word-units can be split in different
ways, and even more words can be translated in a number of ways,
and still give us an understandable text. In short, this is a text where
translation almost exclusively depends on the subjective choices and
interpretations made by the translator, since the text itself has no
internal indications of which translation is the best.
If we start by looking at the words that can be split in different
ways, the first one to greet us is bkrb at the beginning of 1. 12. It can
be read as above: bk rb, 'a great beaker'. One could also read b+krb,
and translate ^krb as proposed by UT: 'to conscrate, bring an offer-
ing', in which case one might have the explanation as to why 'he gives
(him)' a cup, namely to consecrate it. One could even read bkr and
understand the last b as the result of an unfortunately placed word-
divider, and read the entire line: bkr. b'zm, 'the strong one's firstborn
(son)'.
The next word, 'zm, can be understood either as an adjective or a
substantive and may be translated as 'mighty, huge, someone strong',
or even, as proposed by BGUL, 'a bone'. If we include the next word,
ridn, in the discussion, then this word can be split up too. Both CML
and MLC read ri dn and understand ri as 'to see' and dn as 'a large
cask'. If this is the case, then dn must belong to the following line, and
ri can then be translated in a number of ways. If the first word is split
and read bk rb, we could translate 'a great beaker, mighty (or huge)
to see'. If on the other hand we read b krb in conjunction with the
next line, we could translate, 'mighty to see is the beaker of the man
of heaven'.
Unfortunately, $mm too can be read in a number of ways. If we
regard the last m as an emphatic suffix, like the Akkadian -ma, the
word Sm can mean 'place' or 'name', or even, according to CARTU,
226. CTA: The line could also read as suggested by Cassuto, Gaster and
Ginsberg (cf. CTA): bk rb 'zm ridn. KTU: bk rb.
227. CTA, KTU and UT: Itphnh. Autograph: ItpUnh.
86 Asherah
'a consort'. Thus we could read 'a man's consort' or even—if we want
to include as many divine names as possible, 'the consort of Mot'. One
could likewise read ridn as a PN, and translate 'the firstborn of the
mighty ones, ridn, the man of heaven'.
Things get worse, translationwise. qd$ can be a substantive, or an
adjective, a verb or a PN or DN: 'a holy one, holy, to sanctify or con-
secrate, Qudsu, Qades". Then there is the particle /. If the above
chosen translation where the particle / is a negation is rejected, any
number of possibilities open up. It could be a preposition with a
temporal or locative significance, an affirmative or an interjection,228
so while we are at it, this single particle will add significantly to the
number of possible translations and interpretations.
Even if we let the / stand as a negation, the word Itphnh at the
beginning of 1.14 gives plenty of opportunities: one could read a verb
ph, in the third person feminine singular with a suffix for the third
person feminine singular: 'she sees her'; or 'you (second person
feminine singular) see'; or 'the two of you (second person plural) see';
'both the women (third person feminine plural) see'; 'you (second
person feminine plural) see' or 'they (third person common plural)
see'. One could also divide the word into l+tp+hnh' and with BGUL
translate tp with 'beauty' and hnh on par with biblical Hebrew rnn,
'see!'.
The word It'n can be viewed as a G-pattern V'n, 'to see', or finally
as an N-pattern, 'to look like or seem'. If we choose some of these
many possibilities, a probable translation could read:
10. ytn.ks.bdh He takes a cup in his hand,
11. krpnm.bklat.ydh a goblet in both his hands,
12. bkrb. to consecrate it.
'zm.ri dn Huge to see is the cask,
13. mt.Smm [like] the consort of Mot.
ks.qdS (14) / tp The cup of qdS is surely beautiful.
hnh.att.krpn See! Like a woman is the goblet,
15. It'n . atrt... truly, she [the goblet] looks like Asherah.
One could have chosen any other possible translation of each single
word, and thus have arrived at a different meaning. The above chosen
translation is based on the parallels that I find interesting, particularly
in 11. 13-15.
The most interesting part is that we are obviously dealing with the
228. Cf. BGUL § 65.21, 65.24, 66 and 68.

parallel atrt // att, a DN in parallel to an 'ordinary' noun. This parallel

can be explained as Margalit suggests: Asherah means 'a wife', a
woman following in the footsteps of her husband.229 If we, however,
recall the hypothesis mentioned above in section 4.1.2.1, namely that
Asherah, in the Baal-texts, is depicted as the perfect wife, then the
parallel fits, even without seeking recourse to etymological explana-
tions.230 Another possible explanation of the fact that a DN and a noun
stand in parallel could be found in the hypothesis already touched
upon in section 4.1.1.3, that atrt could be a name or a title, and thus
could function as a parallel to the generic form ilt or, in this case, att.
One could also include 11. 13-14a in this version with the consort of
Mot // qd$, a very interesting parallel, since it opens up the possibility
that qd$, in the Baal-texts, is used not only of Asherah, consort of El,
but also of the consorts of Mot and—by inference—Yam, the other
gods of the male triad. If one translates $m as 'consort', but retains mt
as 'man' from the first translation of this text, then mt. $mm could be
parallel to att, in which case Asherah becomes // with qdS, a well-
known parallel in the Baal-texts.
All of the above is pure speculation, with nothing certain in the text
itself, or in the context of the section to give any indication which of
the many possibilities mentioned was the one ilmlk intended, if indeed,
he intended any of them.
4.2. Asherah's Role in the Cult

From the texts discussed so far, it seems that Asherah is an important
goddess, even though she is not in the foreground of the mythological
stories known to us. The next step therefore is to turn to the lists of
sacrifices, in order to examine—if this is at all possible—whether
these reflect her status and her relationship to the rest of the pantheon
in the manner we would expect.
4.2.1. Lists of Sacrifices™

If one makes a quick survey of the extant lists of sacrifices from
Ugarit and relates these to the mythological and epic texts, a rather
229. Margalit 1990. See also section 7.1. on the etymology of atrt.
230. This does not necessarily preclude Margalit's interpretation: atrt could mean
'wife' or 'consort'. See section 7.1.
231. All lists of sacrifices referred to in the following, are found in Appendix 1.
They are not translated, only transliterated.
88 Asherah
large degree of discrepancy seems to occur. A god like Dagan, whose

role in the longer texts must be said to be marginal, is one of the gods
mentioned often in the lists, while a goddess like Anat, whose role in
the texts must be called rather central, hardly ever occurs. My own
focal point, Asherah, is not found as often as one would expect in the
lists: after all she seems to be the first lady of the gods, and when she
does finally appear the context is not always the one we would expect
from the texts.
CTA 30.5 names Asherah as part of the couple il w atrt, a fore-
seeable connection since she is usually regarded as El's consort. They
are not found at the top of the list, however, but only on the line after
the gods tkmn and $nm, gods who make no appearance whatever in
the mythological texts.
In CTA 34.6, Asherah is listed immediately before these two gods,
and is not linked to any other god(s) by a w, but her name is listed
immediately after that of Baal. In this list we are probably dealing
with the same order as in CTA 35.15-16, even if the context here is
rather damaged. The only legible part of CTA 35.40 is atrt. 'sr<m>,
probably an offering of small birds, but the context is damaged to an
extent where it is impossible to determine the order of the divinities
listed.
In CTA 36, Asherah is listed in line 6, placed between Baal and
Yam, without being connected to either of them by a conjunction; but
in line 8 there is Ib'l.watrt. In CTA 37.3, only half of her name can be
read, the beginning having been reconstructed, and the context is too
damaged to give any information.
KTU 1.118 is not a list of sacrifices, but rather a list of gods, and
here Asherah is listed in line 19, before 'nt and $p$, but after pdry,
who in the texts has a far more peripheral role than Asherah; she
(pdry) is only known there as the daughter of Baal.
In KTU 1.148 Asherah is again found on her own in line 7 recto,
and again before 'nt and $p$, but one cannot ascertain who comes
before her. In the same text, line 9 verso, her name should probably
be reconstructed at the beginning of the line.232
The above is the sum total of appearances of the word atrt in the
lists of sacrifices and lists of gods that I have had access to so far; this
number can hardly be said to be enormous. If it is assumed that
232. The order of appearance in this list follows that of KTU 1.118 sufficiently
closely to make it reasonable to reconstruct her name here.
Asherah is indeed the same goddess as ilt and qd$, the number of
appearances increases, but not by much.
In CTA 34.11 an ilt.mgdl and an ilt asrm occur. There is no
indication in any text or in the context of CTA 34 who these ladies
might be; we can only note that they were sufficiently important to
merit the sacrifice of a sheep. One or both of them could be a goddess
whom we know under a different name, and one of them could be
Asherah, but it is impossible to determine this. In the same text, CTA
34.18, there might be a reference to 'the great goddesses', <gd>lt.iltm
(or iltt),233 and finally in line 19, a sacrifice is made to a b'lt.
In CTA 38.4 ilt is mentioned; CTA 45.3 lists qdS\ KTU 1.81 has ilt
in lines 5, 8 and 21, whilst qdSt is read in line 17. KTU 1.123 might
read ilt in line 1 recto, and does list qd$ mlk in line 3 verso. RS 19.59
= PRU V # 125, which according to Whitaker should equal KTU
1.94, has—in the version printed in PRU—a reference to qdS in lines
2 and 3, but KTU notes a lacuna here.
Finally, there is KTU 1.118, a list of gods. The order of appearance
used in this list is the same as that used in KTU 1.148 and in the
Akkadian list RS 20.24.234 These lists might give us an idea of the
rank and order of the gods of Ugarit as they were manifested in the
cult, but it does not reflect the rank and order one can deduce from
the mythological texts. In this list Asherah does 'lead' the great god-
desses known from the texts, but she is preceded both by the goddesses
of birth, kt<r>t, and by Baal's daughter, pdry. In the Akkadian list,
Asherah is noted as aS-ra-tum, with the same orthography as the
Akkadian Asherah has in the Akkadian texts, so this might be held to
support equating the Ugaritic and the Akkadian Asherah.
It has to be concluded that Asherah is not a goddess to whom one
made extensive sacrifices, even if—on a highly dubious basis—all ref-
erences to ilt and qdS are included. Asherah is connected to and listed
with so many different gods in the lists, that it is impossible to deduce
anything certain regarding her cultic connections; the only straw to
grasp in this connection is the similar lists of KTU 1.118 and 1.148.
That these lists—primarily CTA 36.8 and CTA 34.6—should give
us evidence that Asherah stopped being El's consort and transferred
her allegiance to Baal, is to build too much on too little, even when
233. It is possible to read <gd>lt as a heifer, this being a sacrifice to the god
listed in the lacuna in the line above.
234. The comparison between these two lists is found in TUAT, pp. 302-305.
90 Asherah
one includes the Boghazkoy Elkunirsa fragment.235 With reference to

this problem, see the next and final section of this chapter.
4.3. Asherah in the Pantheon of Ugarit, including her Place

in the Cult and Religion
If the texts discussed so far are summed up, it must be concluded that
they do not give much information to build on. The positive knowl-
edge gained on her is easily summed up: she is Lady Asherah of the
Day (or of the Sea), the creatress of gods, and she is one of the wet-
nurses (of the gods), and that is the sum total of our certain knowl-
edge of the lady. We can—with good reason—suppose that she is also
called ilt, goddess or Elat, and qd$, Qudsu, but she is not the only
goddess of the Ugaritic pantheon bearing these titles. The rest are
conjectures and hypotheses, some very well supported by circumstan-
tial evidence, while others are constructions of air, lacking any but the
most flimsy relationship to the texts.
There seems to be good reason to suppose that she is the consort of
El (or that El is the consort of Asherah), even if none of the texts
mentions this directly. She could be the mother of El, apart from or
instead of being his consort; she is after all the creatress of the gods
and thus in all probability the creatress of El as well.
In the mythological texts Asherah does not have particularly
friendly relations with Baal and Anat. They have killed her sons, and
she has no reason to expect any good from either of them. Neverthe-
less, it is she who arranges that El permits the building of Baal's
palace, and in the lists of sacrifices she is listed in connection with
either Baal or Anat, and once even as b'l watrt. Finally, it can be
conjectured that she is posited as 'the ideal woman' or 'the ideal wife'
in the Baal-cycle, CTA 4.
Unfortunately it is far easier to work 'negatively' with the material
than it is to work positively, when one has the 'minimalist' approach
evinced in this book. By 'working negatively' I understand the discus-
sion and dissection of any number of 'modern myths' on the goddess
Asherah, the result of which is often that the hypotheses tumble down.
As an example of the negative approach, we could take the relation-
ships between Asherah and El, and between Asherah and Baal. As
235. Cf. Kapelrud 1952: 77; Pope 1955: 35-42; Otten 1953a, 1953b and Hoffner
1965. A translation of the Elkunirsa fragment is found in ANET, 519.
mentioned above, a number of scholars seek to find evidence in the

Ugaritic texts for the view that Asherah is in the process of trans-
ferring her allegiance from El to Baal. This hypothesis is mostly
based on the above-mentioned lists of sacrifices, where one finds Baal
in the immediate vicinity of Asherah more often than one finds El.
These lists are then related to CTA 4.IV.27-39, to the Bible and to the
mythological Elkunirsa fragment from Boghazkoy. In the latter text,
the storm-god gets permission from the high-god Elkunirsa (el q\vn
'rS), to lie with Asherah, or, as it is spelled in the Hittite, a-$e-er-du-
u$. In the Bible (so the story goes) Asherah and Baal are coupled,
rather than Asherah and El. Since this is related to the fact that Anat
seems to disappear in the mists of time, the case seems to be almost
foolproof. If one looks slightly closer though, the hypothesis is shown
to be very fragile indeed, since several objections can be put forward
on almost every point.
The first objection is to the scholarly convention that one can collect
together textual and other data which is both from an enormous
geographical area, and thinly spread over an equally huge number of
years, centuries or even millennia. This convention has been discussed
in section 3.3. Apart from this fundamental objection, the texts them-
selves give rise to objections.
No sources preclude that El and Asherah form a couple, just as no
source indicates that the two of them are 'estranged' (Pope 1955: 35-
42). On the contrary, in the mythological texts from Ugarit, Asherah
functions as a princess or a queen. She is rbt, 'the great one', or 'the
Lady'. It is she whom Baal and Anat approach in order to obtain per-
mission to build Baal a palace, and they do this in spite of the
apparently hostile relationship they have to her. Asherah is the one El
asks to name a successor to Baal, upon his (Baal's) death. That this
successor cannot fill the position is a different matter.
There seems to be no indifference in the relationship between El
and Asherah when she approaches him on the subject of Baal's Palace.
He welcomes her, offers her drink and food, and even suggests that
they could retire to the adjacent chamber should she be thus disposed.
That she declines his kind offer, or that we hear nothing of any bed-
sport between the two of them, is not necessarily an indication that
they have stopped having or have never had any sexual relations.
Likewise, no indication is given that El is older than Asherah,
rather the opposite. If she is indeed his mother she must be older than
92 Asherah
he is. It must be a bow to Western convention, that is, that a husband

'should' be older than his wife, that makes Pope and van Selms assume
that El is an ageing god with a younger wife, and even if one accepts
their hypothesis, that El is impotent, this fact alone hardly tells any-
thing of a man's or a god's age.236 That Asherah is the great lady of
the Ugaritic pantheon in the mythological texts is, among other indica-
tions, shown by the fact that she is conveyed from one place to the
other, rather than moving under her own steam. She rides on an ass,
whose harness is decorated with gold and silver. She obviously has her
own residence, and it is sufficiently spacious to house not only herself
and her staff, but Baal's daughters as well. At least one of her ser-
vants, qdS wamrr, is a divinity in his (their) own right, and suffi-
ciently important to merit sacrifice.237
The biblical texts will be discussed at length in Chapter 6, suffice it
to say here that the claim that Asherah is 'often' coupled with Baal in
the Old Testament seems to be rather optimistic, as Asherah is men-
tioned on forty occasions, but it is only on six of these occasions that
Baal is mentioned as well. Four of these six references to Asherah and
Baal also contain a mention of 'the heavenly host', without any
scholars feeling an obligation to make them into close relations or
spouses of either Baal or Asherah.238
If we then turn to the Boghazkoy fragment to find some confir-
mation of the hypothesis that Asherah transfers her allegiance from El
to Baal, an interesting set of data meets us. The proof that the storm-
god 'takes over' Asherah is built on this fragment where (1) we only
have Baal's word for the fact that Asherah tries to seduce him, her
reaction being lost in a lacuna; (2) the storm-god humiliates Asherah
by telling her he has killed her sons; and (3) the entire story ends with
El and Asherah 'back together', at least in the version we have.
So, in reality, this fragment could just as well tell the story of a
social climber (Baal), who tries to get between the ruling couple, and
thus take over the ruling power. He does so partly by getting rid of
the competition—by killing the 77 (or 88) sons of Asherah—and
partly by trying to get between the partners.239
236. Pope 1955: 42; van Selms according to Pope.

237. QdS wamrr is mentioned in KTU 1.123,1. 9 verso.
238. Sic. Kapelrud 1963: 63ff. For further references on this thesis, see Olyan
1988: 6 n. 16.
239. I am only outlining this very loosely as one (of an unknown number of)
As a parting shot in what is hopefully the burial of this hypothesis,

one could note that it does not take the Akkadian Asherah into consi-
deration, something that should be done if one works with a chrono-
logical and geographical frame as wide as this hypothesis does. If one
looks at the Akkadian Asherah, the change of partners dissolves into
thin air, since her consort is Amurru, who is also called Adad, $a
abube, 'he of the storm (flood)'. One only has to recall that Baal in
Ugarit is also called Hadad for the change of partners to disappear
into thin air: even Asherah can hardly have her husband and change
him too. We have to rest content, that Asherah is connected closely to
El in the Ugaritic texts and to Amurru/Adad in the contemporaneous
Akkadian material.
As can be seen, even hypotheses that seem reasonable can be
dissected and thus turn out to be far-fetched when one relates them to
the original texts and sources, and to their own context. That so many
improbable hypotheses can be put forward and gain a following must
be based on the (at times) very fragmentary condition of the original
tablets, plus the fact that any number of tablets and fragments are lost
to us or simply not yet discovered.
possibilities; someone able to read Hittite—which I am not—could probably give a

far better interpretation of the fragment.
Chapter 5
ASHERAH IN ISRAEL*
In recent years, several epigraphic findings have surfaced in modern

Israel, some with reference to Asherah. These findings are mainly the
inscriptions on two large pithoi found in Kuntillet Ajrud, and a tomb-
inscription from Khirbet el-Qom. In the following these inscriptions
will be discussed.
5.1. The Inscription from Khirbet el-Qom1

In the autumn of 1967, William Dever conducted a rescue-excavation
just outside Khirbet el-Qom, a small village situated between Lachisch,
Tell Beit Mirsim and Hebron (Dever 1969-70: 146-49). This excava-
tion was necessitated by the discovery of several items in an antique
shop in Jerusalem that were clearly all from the same location. They
turned out to be from a small burial ground that came to the light
during Dever's excavation. Two grave-complexes were found, with
various minor items, and three inscriptions.
The inscription that is of interest in this work is the one Dever calls
Inscription 3, and it was found on a pillar between chambers 1 and 2
in grave 2. Apart from the inscription and some graffiti, all that was
found were some few potsherds, all dated by Dever to the eighth to
the seventh century BCE.2
The inscription in itself is in rather bad shape. It consists of four
lines on the top of the stone, and two very fragmentary ones on the
* For a shorter version of this chapter, see Binger 1995, which presents most
of the discussions and results put forward here.
1. This section is based on the following articles: Dever 1969-70; Lemaire
1977, 1984b; Naveh 1979; Miller 1980; Mittmann 1981; Zevit 1984; Hadley 1987a;
Raurell 1987; Margalit 1989; Shea 1990.
2. See the map Dever 1969-70: 141. All further information on the excavation is
from Dever 1969-70.
5. Asherah in Israel 95
bottom; the lower two lines will not be discussed in the following.3
One gets the feeling that the person cutting the inscription could
hardly have been a skilled stonemason. The stone itself seems to be
second rate, with lots of inherent cracks, and several of the letters
themselves look as someone has attempted to overwrite them in an
effort to make the text more legible, apparently without success.4
The greatest problems are found in line 3, which looks most of all
like doodles made by an illiterate trying to imitate letters.5 It is,
however, possible to extract several letters from the doodles, and the
immediately readable characters are:
1. 'ryhwh?$rktbh
2. ?rk ?ryhw ?y ?wh
3. w???ryhl?Srt???S'lh
4. l??yhw6
As this is hardly sufficient material on which to base a translation

and interpretation, I have chosen—and 'choose' seems to be the oper-
ative word in this connection—the following reading and translation:
1. 'ryhw1 h'Sr* ktbh
2. brk9 'ryhw lyhwh10
3. wh'wryh11 I'Srt12 (w)hwS 'lhn
3. This is due to the fact that these lines are in even worse shape than the first
four; it is also because I have not had access to the stone itself. When the scholars
whose interpretation of the stone is discussed here include the last two lines in her or
his discussions, her or his translation and reading of them will be found in Appen-
dix 2.
4. As mentioned above, I have not had access to the stone myself, therefore my
evaluation of it depends on the discussions by scholars who have done so (see note 1
of this chapter), as well as on the pictures and autographs accompanying the various
articles.
5. One could say that this line functions as a Rorschach-test on the individual
scholar's stand with regard to Israelite religion.
6. Read from the autograph by Zevit 1984: 43. See also Appendix 2.
7. I'ryhw. Dever 1969-70; Raurell 1987. </> 'ryhw. Miller 1980.
8. hqSb: Dever 1969-70; Raurell 1987. Mr. Naveh 1979. h'S: Miller 1980. Mr.
Mittmann 1981. h'Sr. Shea 1990.
9. brkt: Zevit 1984.
10. Between lines 2 and 3, Margalit (1989) adds the following : ky hsl(h)w m(kp)
'ybyh.
11. wm'rr: Dever 1969-70. wmsryh: Lemaire 1977; Miller 1980; Zevit 1984;
96 Asherah
4. Irpyh w14
1. Uryahu qualification of Uryahu> his writing (or: inscription)
2. Blessed be Uryahu by Yahweh,15
3. his light16 by Asherah, she who holds her hand over him
4. by his rpy,11 who...
Line 1. The single letter that is most discussed in line 1 is the seventh
and its reading is indeed problematical. The letter can be read as r, q,
'or d. The ayin is the most popular choice, but hardly the right one, as
the text has a beautifully shaped ayin in line 3, totally lacking the
sharp edges that this letter shows. Since it has not been possible for me
to see the stone itself, I am unable to discuss whether the sharp edges
are due to irregularities in the stone, and for the same reason, I will
refrain from any definite opinion on the correct reading of this letter.
This difficulty aside, it is clear that the many scholars who have
worked with this text seem to agree more or less on the first two lines.
All read a name, 'ry/iw, and most scholars interpret the next word as
a qualification of Uryahu (his profession or position), and then ktbh.
The differences of opinion—what profession or position Uryahu
actually held—are mainly due to the reading of the second word. Only
three scholars have quite a different interpretation, namely Dever
(1969-70), who reads a warning, 'Be careful of his inscription';
Raurell (1987), who, building on Dever, reads: 'Ves amb compte amb
Hadley 1987a; Raurell 1987; Margalit 1989; Shea 1990. nsry: Naveh 1979. \vmmsr.
Mittmann 1981.
12. yd I'Sr: Dever 1969-70. VSrth: Lemaire 1977; Miller 1980; Zevit 1984;
Hadley 1987a; Raurell 1987; Shea 1990. wl'Srth: Naveh 1979.ydh I'ISrth: Mittmann
1981. (...): Margalit 1989.
13. thhwX 'lh: Dever 1969-70. hwS 'lh: Lemaire 1977; Raurell 1987. kwt' lh:
Naveh 1979; Miller 1980; Mittmann 1981; Zevit 1984; Margalit 1989. hwS'lh:
Hadley 1987a. wS'lh: Shea 1990.
14. I'nykw: Dever 1969-70; Lemaire 1977; Miller 1980; Mittmann 1981; Hadley
1984a; Raurell 1987; Margalit 1989; Shea 1990.Vryhw: Naveh 1979. l>'byhw: Zevit
1984.
15. One could also read 'Uryahu, the blessed...', or, as an imperative, 'bless
Uryahu...'
16. Or, 'who gives light/shines for him'. The initial is understood as the initial
word in a relative clause, functioning in apposition to yhwh; cf. Pedersen 1985:
§§128andl29r.
17. The last two lines could also be read: 'And his Asherah shone for him, and
his rpy held him in (his) hand'.
la seva inscricio'; ('Be careful of his inscription) and Shea (1990),

who reads, 'Uriyahu was the one who wrote it'.
Most of the remaining scholars read the second word as h '$r, in the
sense 'the rich or wealthy man'.18 Naveh and Mittmann read sin rather
than shin and translate accordingly: 'the governor' (Naveh 1979) and
'the singer' (Mittman 1981). Finally one could understand the second
word as a different kind of qualification, namely as a geographical
denomination: 'Uryahu, the man from...' 19 1 have no suggestions as to
where Uryahu's original home could have been, but only note the
possibility of this being what we are dealing with.
Line 2. There seems to be a general consensus on reading Uryahu's

name, and that he is or is to be blessed, brk, by or from yhwh. The
differences in opinion concerning the interpretation of this line per-
tain to which conjugation of the root brk we are dealing with: whether
Uryahu is blessed or whether the text contains a pious wish that he
should be blessed.
As something resembling a curiosity, Margalit here throws in an
interpretation that demands the insertion of an extra line between lines
2 and 3. This line is reconstructed partly from the book of Psalms in
the Old Testament, partly from what he sees as superfluous letters in
line 3. As this reconstruction resembles fantasy rather than scholar-
ship, I refer to the article itself (Margalit 1989).
Line 3. The most interesting line is the third. It is also the most
difficult to read and is the line that has occasioned the most heated
disputes. As mentioned above, the letters are badly written, or over-
written several times, and the beginning of the line looks like
doodles.20 Disregarding the reasons for this state of affairs, the possi-
bilities regarding the reading and interpretation of the line are, at the
very least, as many as the number of scholars working on the text.
The readings discussed in the following are:21
18. So Lemaire 1977; Miller 1980; Lemaire 1984b; Zevit 1984; Hadley 1987a
and Margalit 1989.
19. The parallel that leaps at one is—of course—TTn miN (2 Sam. 11.3-24).
20. According to the autograph in Zevit 1984.
21. (1) Dever 1969-70; (2) Lemaire 1977; (3) Naveh 1979; (4) Miller 1980; (5)
Mittmann 1981; (6) Zevit 1984; (7) Lemaire 1984b; (8) Hadley 1987a; (9) Raurell
1987; (10) Margalit 1989; (11) Shea 1990.
98 Asherah
(1) And cursed shall be the hand of whoever [defaces it]!

(2) et <par son asherah,> de ses ennemis [par son asherah], ill'a sauve.
(3) my guardian and by his Asherah. Save him,
(4) Yea, from his adversaries by his asherah he has saved him.
(5) und aus Bedrangnis heraus preist er den Gott seines Dienstes, der ihm hilft.
(6) And from his enemies, O Asherata, save him.
(7) and by his asherah; from his enemies he saved him!
(8) For from his enemies by his [YHWH's] asherah he [YHWH] has saved him.
(9) i [per la seva asherah] dels seus enemies /per la seva asherah/ 1'ha salvat
(10) And from his foes [...] he saved him.
(11) And his Egyptian [servant] by his asherah, and here is his handprint:
Disregarding Dever 1969-70 and Shea 1990, the consensus is that
Yahweh has saved, or is being beseeched to save Uryahu, and most
scholars find that it is his enemies he has been, or should be, saved
from. The greatest discussion, however, is on how to interpret 'Srth: is
it 'asherah' or 'Asherah', and is the word placed correctly on the line?
If one takes Zevit's autograph as one's starting-point in order to
obtain a uniform valuation of the readings (and for the following dis-
cussion, uniformity in point of departure is necessary), some of the
interpretations turn out to be highly improbable, since they necessitate
reading several letters as if they have been written on top of each
other. Alternatively, disregarding the problematical condition of the
stone, one is required to assume that letters that elsewhere are evenly
distributed over the other lines suddenly become very unevenly dis-
tributed in this particular line. The three least probable readings are:
Dever 1969-70, with a very uneven distribution of the letters, inclu-
ding large holes; Mittmann 1981, who reads several letters as written
within each other—the result is that several words are supposed to
have been written on top of each other; Margalit 1989, who simply
omits the middle part of the line, but creates a new one between lines
2 and 3.
The majority of the remaining scholars, who read 'Srth h\v..., have
to read the two he's and the waw as if they were standing on top of
each other.
My transcription has two advantages over those of most of the
above-mentioned scholars. I do not assume that any of the letters cover
each other, partly or wholly,22 and I do assume that the letters are
distributed fairly evenly on the lines, with a slight 'squeezing' together
of the letters at the end of lines, a well-known phenomenon when one
22. With a possible exception of the (w) before hwSlh.

writes by hand, without wanting to split words. That the stonemason

was relatively unskilled is evident from the overall look of the stone,
which also makes it probable that he was unable to estimate correctly
how much space the individual letters took up.
As will be apparent, I have chosen a reading of this line, and of line
4, that differs from the consensus on a number of points. My reasons
for the choices made are elaborated below.
wh'wryh: this rhymes both visually and orally with Uryahu and
Yahweh. The word is understood as a qal participle of 'wr, 'to shine,
give light', with the article and a suffix for the third person masculine
singular. It is, however, also possible to read the word as a hiphil, 'X
who causes there to be light for him', or as a reference to 'Srth. If the
latter is the case, the final he should be read as a defective writing of
the feminine ending plus a suffix.23
I'Srt: see below section 5.3, the discussion on who or what 'Srt is in
the texts from Israel. Here it should only be mentioned that unless one
wants to read several letters on top of each other, thus mingling this
word with the next, it is highly improbable that the word has a final
he.
(w)hwS'lh: The initial waw is found on the stone, but it halfway
covers the following he. I have included it in parentheses, since read-
ing it and the two other copula creates a beautiful frame for the three
divine operators in this text.24 If one includes this waw, all three are
connected to an apposition that defines their relation to Uryahu by a
waw (cf. Pedersen 1985: §§128 and 129r). If one does read the second
letter as a waw, this word could be derived from the root £7, and thus
be a hophal or pual perfect third person feminine singular, with a suf-
fix for third person masculine singular and waw as mater lectionis for
either a holem or a qibbus in scriptio plena.
If, however, one should choose to disregard the waw, a necessity if
one wants to read a final he in the preceding word or even an initial
he in this word,25 we could be dealing with a qal or piel perfect third
person feminine singular, a qal or piel imperative or a qal participle.
23. Defective writing of two identical consonants is known from two amulets
from the seventh or sixth century from Jerusalem. The text is very similar to the
priestly blessing, but has ybrk, and not ybrkk as in BHS. Cf. Yardeni 1991.
24. If one insists on reading 'Srth as the preceding word, the w is impossible to
place, as it is written before the two hes on the stone.
25. The waw is partly written on top of the preceding he.
100 Asherah
No matter which of the above possibilities one chooses, the final he

may be read as either a feminine ending or as a suffix for the third
person masculine singular Finally one could, as was the case with
h 'wryh, understand both possibilities as the result of defective writing.
The root S'l has the basic meaning 'a handful', or the open hand
including what can be held in it. If this is a regular verb in qal, piel,
pual or hophal, the following interpretations are possible:
Qal: to hold someone or something in one's hand, that is, to protect.
Piel: should be understood as intensive or iterative of qal; to repeatedly
or continuously hold something or someone in one's hand; to repeatedly
or continuously protect someone or something.
Pual: to be held in someone's hand repeatedly or continuously, to be
protected more or less constantly by someone.
Hophal: to be in someone's hand, to be caused to be protected by
someone or to be caused to protect someone.
If this is the passive voice of a denominative verb, the meaning of

this verb must be more or less as described above.
No matter which of the above possibilities one chooses, this must be
a qualification of 'Srt. She is the person who protects Uryahu. This
reading could then explain the open hand that is depicted on the stone.
It has previously been understood as a symbol for Asherah, or as an
apotropaic symbol.26 It seems easy to combine the two, and surmise
that the hand is a symbol of Asherah in her role as a protective god-
dess.
Line 4. In line 4, most scholars read 'nyhw, with or without the

preposition /, as the first grapheme of this line. The exceptions are
Zevit (1984), who reads <l>'byh\v and Naveh (1979), who reads
I'ryhw. There is, in any case, consensus on its being a name, probably
that of the man who inscribed the stone or of the man who commis-
sioned it.
According to Zevit's autograph, the lamedh at the beginning of the
line is very clear, and there is no reason to mark it as dubious. The
next letter is less clear: it could be an aleph as the consensus reads it,
but it could equally well be read as a resh. The third letter can be read
as a nun or a beth, as is done by most scholars, but it could also be a
pe. The fourth letter is a relatively clear yodh, and at the end a he can
26. Cf. Schroer 1983. On the basis of iconographic material she concludes that
the hand has an apotropaic function, protecting the grave against robbers.
be read. These letters together could form the combination Irpyh.

Now, rpyh is known as a name in the Old Testament,27 but since this
is a tomb inscription, this might not be a living person but rather one
of the rephaim, rph/rp', a well-known designation for the spirits of the
dead that was used not only in the Old Testament and in Ugarit, but in
the entire Syro-Palestinian area.28 To read a reference to the rephaim
would therefore be in accordance with the purpose of the stone, and
place it within a tradition of tomb inscriptions found in the entire
Syro-Palestinian area.
After this last legible word on the upper part of the stone, there
might be one or more letters left. On the autograph it looks as if the
stone has several lines at this place, and there may once have been
some qualification of the rephaim, beginning with the same waw as
can be read in front of the qualifications following Yahweh and
Asherah.29 If there is a reference to rpy in this fourth line, it is very
tempting indeed to read the second word of the first line in the same
way that Dever does in the editio princeps (Dever 1969-70), or even
to retain his entire reading, only correcting line 4, so that lines 3-4
would read: 'And cursed by his rpy, shall be the hand of whoever
<defaces it>'. This would constitute a more or less standard reading on
a tomb inscription, but, as already mentioned above, Dever's reading
of the stone is in general one of the less probable.
5.2. The Kuntillet Ajrud Inscriptions^

The Kuntillet Ajrud finds, first published by Meshel and Myers in 1976
and Meshel 1978, are, with respect to Asherah, at least as interesting
27. 1 Chron. 3.21; 4.42; 7.2; 8.37; 9.43 and Neh. 3.9 (cf. Lisowsky).
28. For instance, the Tabnit-inscription from Sidon, KAI 13, where potential
grave-robbers are threatened that they will find no place of rest among the rp 'm if
they molest the grave in question.
29. The lines to the left of and across the legible text can hardly be interpreted as a
symbolic tree, an ashera, as was suggested by Margalit 1989.
30. The following is based on Meshel and Meyers 1976, 1978, 1979, 1987 (also
Otzen and Hadley); Naveh 1979; Stolz 1980; Garbini 1981; Angerstorfer 1982;
Catastini 1982; Chase 1982; Dever 1982, 1984; Emerton 1982; Lemaire 1984a,
1984b; Weinfeld 1984; Hadley 1987b; Raurell 1987; North 1989; Otzen 1989;
Margalit 1990. For a complete discussion of the texts and inscriptions from the site,
not discussed here, see Otzen 1989. All texts deriving from Kuntillet Ajrud that are
known to me are presented in Appendix 2.
102 Asherah
as the Khirbet el-Qom stone. The site is situated approximately 50 km

south of Kadesh Barnea close to the trade-routes going from the bay
of Aqabah to Gaza. The first survey was conducted in 1969-70 as part
of a larger survey, whose purpose was to determine where the border
between Judah and Egypt lay in pre-exilic times.31 In 1975-76 a
building was excavated. Meshel, and several others with him, calls the
place a sanctuary.
The most interesting finds in this context are the inscriptions found
on two pithoi. As no official editio princeps exists, the following is
based on the opinions voiced and readings proposed by the scholars
mentioned in the first note of this section, and, in contradistinction to
my study of the Khirbet el-Qom stone and the Ugaritic texts, there
will be no discussion of the reading of the text. The important inscrip-
tions from the two pithoi are here called inscriptions I and II to
facilitate the ensuing discussion. This is not the official numbering,
since no official presentation exists. Apart from these two, one more
text from the same find may contain a reference to Asherah, which is
here called inscription III.
5.2.1. Inscriptions I and II

Inscription I
'mr.'...h..k32.'mr.lyhl..33.-
wlyw 'sh. w...34brkt. 'tkm^.lyhwh.Smrn. wl 'Srth36
'...h... says: say to yhl and to yw'Sh and <to NN>:
I bless you by the Yahweh of Samaria and by his Asherah.
31. The choice of terminology derives from Meshel and Meyers 1976, and is not
the vocabulary the present author would have chosen.
32. Meshel 1987 (also Hadley 1987b and Otzen 1989) reads 'Syw hmlk, 'Asyaw,
the king', and interprets the name as an alternative name for 'Joash'. This recon-
struction of name and title is then used to date the inscription to the period 836-797
BCE, when king Joas ruled in Judah.
33. Hadley 1987b. reconstructs lyhl<l'l>, '[say] to YehaMel'el'.
34. Meshel 1987 reads wl...; Naveh 1979; Dever 1982, 1984 and Raurell 1987
read w</...>, 'and <to NN>.
3 5. North 1989 reads < brkt. 'tkm >.
36. Margalit 1990 reads wl'Srt.
Inscription II
'mr.37 'mryw.'mr.l'dny3* /z.... 39 brktk.lyhwh40
tmn. wl'Srth.ybrk.wySmrk.wyhy.'m, 'dny.42
'mryw says: say to my lord.. , 43 1 bless you by the Yahweh of Teman, and
by his Asherah, may he bless you and keep you and be with [you], my lord.
Apart from reconstructions of names and single letters there seems to

be general agreement on what the contents of these inscriptions are.
The only major departure in the reading of inscription I is repre-
sented by Margalit (1990), who reads 'srt without a suffix. The discus-
sion is centered on the interpretation of yhwh Smrn and 'his' Asherah,
a discussion I shall return to in section 5.3.
The disagreements as to the reading of inscription II have been
registered by Chase (1982), Hadley (1987b) and Otzen (1989), who
read Mlm 't where everyone else has a lacuna, and Raurell (1987),
who reads lyhw and not lyhwh, which is the general consensus. Fi-
nally, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether one should
read tmn or reconstruct Smrn.
Apart from these differences in what one reads, the discussions are
centered on whether one is to understand wSmrn as 'Samaria' or as
'our guardian', and whether one ought to read 'asherah' or 'Asherah'.
With regard to yhwh Smrn, there seems to be fairly good circum-
stantial evidence that this refers to Samaria, since inscriptions II and
III probably have references to 'the Yahweh from Teman' or 'Teman's
Yahweh'. 44 That two other inscriptions mention Yahweh in close
connection with a geographical location, makes it likely that the same
is the case in inscription I.
37. 'mr is read by Naveh 1979; Dever 1984; Weinfeld 1984; Hadley 1987b;
Raurell 1987; and Otzen 1989; it is reconstructed by Chase 1982.
38. Chase 1982 reads 'dn<y>.
39. Chase 1982; Hadley 1987b. and Otzen 1989 read Mini 't.
40. Chase 1982 reads l<y>hwh; Raurell 1987 reads lywh.
41. Lemaire 1984b; Weinfeld 1984; Hadley 1987b; Otzen 1989; and Margalit
1990, read tmn; Naveh 1979; Dever 1984 and Raurell 1987 read <Smrn>.
42. Chase 1982 and Margalit 1990 read 'd<n>y...; Hadley 1987b reads
'd<n>y...k.
43. Or, if one does not read the first 'mr but does read <Mlm 't>: ' 'mryw says: to
my Lord, <peace be with you>'.
44. Regarding the final he in 'Srth, see below, section 5.3.1, where the problems
concerning suffixed personal names and names in construct relations are discussed.
104 Asherah
5.2.2. Inscription HI45

This inscription is far more problematical than the two discussed
above. It is written on wall-plaster and thus was found in small pieces
like parts of a giant jigsaw puzzle with an unknown number of pieces.
This fact may serve to explain the total lack of agreement among
scholars concerning what the text says. The only consensus is on the
reading of the first line:
1. .. .brk.ymm.wys 'bw... '.. .blessed be their day ...'46
The next line, that is, the line that Meshel, Garbini and Angerstorfer
call line 2, but which Otzen calls line 5, reads:47
...hytb.yhwh '...Yahweh has done well...' 48
These two lines are the only ones Meshel (1978, 1979) notes, but
Garbini (1981) and Otzen (1989) have respectively two and three addi-
tional lines. Garbini has the following line as number 3, but Otzen
calls it line 2. They read:
Garbini ...ytnw.l... '...he has given to...'
Otzen ..<n>tnw.l<y>hwh tymn 'they have <gi>ven to YHW (sic)
fromTeman'.
It is in the remaining lines—Otzen's lines 3 and 5 and Garbini's line

4—that the reference to Asherah is found:
Otzen 3.wl...'$rt<h>... 'and to...h<is> Asherah...'
S.w'Srth... 'and his Asherah...'
Garbini 4...'Srt... '...Asherah...'
As can be seen from the above, this text is, to put it mildly, rather
difficult to work with, in particular when one does not have access to
any kind of official transcription or editio princeps. There is a reason-
able probability that the text does refer to Asherah, but it is, on the
45. The discussion in this section is built on Meshel 1978, 1979; Garbini 1981;
Angerstorfer 1982 and Otzen 1989.
46. However Garbini (1981) reads y<brk. The line can be translated 'blessed be
the days where (and) they were sated' or 'where (and) they shall swear'.
47. Meshel 1987 seems to build on a far longer version of the text than the one
published in 1978 and 1979.
48. This is one of two lines where Otzen 1989 reads a reference to Teman as he
reads yhwh hty<mn>, he does, however, note that ht is dubious.
basis of the above, impossible to find out whether the text reads '$rt or
'Srth, or, indeed, exactly what it is that 'Srt(h) is doing.
5.3. Who or What Was 'Srt?

In the light of the above, it seems safe to conclude without any shadow
of doubt, that Yahweh in eighth and seventh century Israel had a
direct relation to '$rt; the only remaining problem then is, who—or
what—was 'Srtl
The main positions in the discussion are that we are dealing with a
goddess by name Asherah, or that we are dealing with a cult object
that was used in the Yahweh cult, and that the Old Testament terms
impure. In the following, the linguistic difficulties concerning the
interpretation of '$rt as a goddess will be discussed, and some of the
problems concerning the interpretation of '$rt as an object will be
touched upon; the latter discussion will be resumed in the next chap-
ter, so the discussion will only be sketched here.
5.3.1. The Final -h, Suffix or. ..

The recurrent objection to seeing Asherah in the Israelite inscriptions
as a goddess is the observation that in classical Hebrew personal names
do not take a possessive suffix. Since 'Srth undoubtedly contains a
suffix, the discussion centers on the question of what 'Srt is, not who,
the main trend being that we are dealing with 'Yahweh and his (cult)
symbol'. The problem of suffixed personal names is real enough, but
in the following a number of possible solutions will be proposed.
The easiest way out, if one wants to understand 'Srth as a goddess, is
to claim that the final he is part of the name and not a suffix at all.
This presupposes that we are dealing with a final vowel a written in
scriptio plena, and that the name is accordingly to be read 'Asirta(h)'
rather than 'Aserah' (cf. Angerstorfer 1982). This possibility is sup-
ported by the Amarna letters, where a king, 'Abdi-Asirta' or 'Abdi-
Asrati', is mentioned. It is, of course, possible that the name should be
read Asirta(h), but the evidence in favor of this is chronologically so
far removed from the relevant Israelite inscriptions that this hardly
seems feasible. The other 'easy' solution would be to claim that the
final he is an additional feminine ending that has been added to the
name to ensure that no one mistakes Asherah's gender, or the fact that
this is a goddess (cf. Zevit 1984).
106 Asherah
A third possibility is to claim that Asherah can take a suffix since it

is not originally a name, but rather a title.49 The proof that it was a
title could then be that it takes a suffix. The argument is circular, but
it is there, particularly if one builds on more material than that dis-
cussed in this section.
Another possibility is to claim that, even though one cannot attach
suffixes to personal names, we are here dealing with an example of
this phenomenon anyway.50 It is well worth remembering in this con-
nection, that any grammar of any living language is a rationalization
after the fact. No languages (apart from artificial, created languages
like Esperanto) start their lives with a grammar. Languages develop
continuously, and one will invariably be able to find at any given time
features of a living language that the existing grammar is unable to
explain. The grammar always adapts to the living language, not the
other way round.
The Hebrew spoken and written in the eighth and seventh century
BCE was a living language, and if we come upon any linguistic phe-
nomena that are unknown to us from the existing grammar, it seems
somewhat shoddy to claim that we, several thousands of years later,
are better able to write the language than the people who actually
spoke it. It might be more correct to modify our grammatical insights
in order to make them agree with the new insights into the language
gained through access to 'new' texts.
In this concrete case, the suffixed personal or divine name, there are
several pieces of circumstantial evidence that might be useful. Classi-
cal Hebrew grammar excludes the possibility of suffixing or determin-
ing a proper name, just as it excludes the possibility of having a prop-
er name in a construct relation. Nevertheless, names are found as parts
of construct relations.51 Furthermore, if one accepts the Ugaritic texts
as relevant evidence in connection with Israelite or Old Testament
texts, one notes that the name of the goddess Anat occurs with a pos-
sessive suffix for the third person masculine singular.52 Likewise, one
might recall Wellhausen's reconstruction of Hos. 14.9, in which con-
nection he, disregarding the grammatical objections, reads: 'ny 'ntw
49. Cf. for instance sections 4.1.1.3 and 4.1.2.4 above. See also section 7.2.
50. Cf. for instance Freedman 1987.
51. Cf. Pedersen 1985: §118g. See also Emerton 1982, who uses the Kuntillet
Ajrud inscriptions as basis for a discussion of this.
52. KTU 1.43.13,1'nth, 'to his Anat'.
w'Srtw, 'I am his Anat and his Asherah' (cf. Weinfeld 1984: 122).
Thus there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in favor of not being
too rigidly adherent to classical Hebrew grammar. Even the most
rigid rules have exceptions, and it can thus be assumed that since we
are dealing with several inscriptions, all referring to 'Srth, we are
indeed dealing with a suffixed name in the inscriptions discussed here.
The explanation could be that this is something that might have been
colloquial language, but which has turned into a religious formula,
thus no longer forming a part of the colloquial language. The solution
could be that in religious language it is permissible in certain circum-
stances to add suffixes to proper names, even if one cannot or does
not, as a rule, do so in ordinary conditions. As a final indication that
this is what we are dealing with, one might mention that several
scholars have claimed that, the final he in the tetragrammaton was
probably a suffix and did not become part of Yahweh's name until a
fairly late date.53 If this is the case, the Kuntillet Ajrud findings them-
selves give interesting additional information.
In my opinion, it is highly significant that we are dealing with the
form yhwh in the three inscriptions that connect Yahweh to a geo-
graphical location, whereas the remaining inscriptions from Kuntillet
Ajrud that mention Yahweh without the geographical connection use
the form yhw. The only exception is inscription III, which does use
the form yhwh without any geographical name; the text is, however,
sufficiently fragmentary to allow one to speculate on the existence of
a—now lost—geographical denomination;54 or one could choose to
follow Otzen who reads a reference to Teman in the relevant line.55 If
Otzen is right in his reading of inscription III then the trend in the
texts is consistent, and there is a very strong indication that the final
he in the tetragrammaton originates with various 'local' Yahwehs, and
thus functions as a suffix, thus 'proving' that divine names (if not
personal names as well) could be and were suffixed.56
53. So Mettinger 1982: 127. As a example he mentions the Mesha stela, 11. 17-
18. See also Emerton 1982, for a resume of the discussion.
54. This argument ex silentio is naturally worthless in itself, and is only men-
tioned out of sheer perversity.
55. Otzen 1989, who reads l<y>hwh tymn in what he calls 1. 2, and yhwh
hty<mn> in what he calls 1. 5.
56. I am fully aware that this argumentation looks like a circular argument, and so
it is.
108 Asherah
If the last letter of both names, yhwh and '$rth, is a possessive suf-
fix, the reference could be to 'his Yahv', with the 'his' referring to the
man for whom the inscription was written, and in 'his Asherah', the
'his' referring either to the same man or to Yahweh. But this is not
the only possibility. In Hebrew it is impossible to determine whether
one is referring to 'his', thereby denoting a person, or 'its', thereby
denoting a place. If the final he in the names refer to a place and not a
person, we could be dealing with Teman's or Samaria's Yahweh and/
or Asherah in the inscriptions that have final he's in the names and
contain the name of a place. As a result of this we can assume that we
are probably dealing with a he-locale or a locative-accusative ending,
a fact which would have been self-evident to the writer and his origi-
nal readers: 'the Yahweh and Asherah of this particular place'. If this
is indeed a locative he, this gives an indication that the word Smrn in
inscription I should be translated 'Samaria' and not 'our guardian'.
Whether we are thus dealing with a he-locale, or with a possessive
suffix referring to a place name, these inscriptions seem to confirm
that there were several Yahweh sanctuaries in Israel before the des-
truction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar This fact does not, however,
explain the possible final he in 'Srth, nor the definite he in yhwh on the
Khirbet el-Qom inscription.
5.4. Asherah in Israel, from the Epigraphical Findings

As argued above, nothing apart from 'old' grammatical insights into
the grammar of classical Hebrew and possibly the personal piety of
the individual scholar prevents one from reading the final he in 'Srth
as anything but a suffix, something that indubitably connects 'Srt to
Yahweh. This explanation seems to be the one that covers most of the
occurrences of the final he, and is valid even when one understands
'Srt as a goddess, and not an object. The only remaining question then
is: who was Asherah?
That she was a goddess seems certain, and that she had her legal and
official place in the Yahweh religion seems more than probable, even
if the inscriptions discussed here seem to be very few indeed. Any
goddess connected to a god—Baal for instance—in the way that we
have seen Asherah connected to Yahweh in the above, would, without
any major discussion, be seen as the relevant god's consort or wife.
That we are dealing with the god who becomes the one God of the
Jewish as well as Christian religion, seems to make quite a lot of schol-

ars unable to imagine that '$rt could be a goddess; personal piety has,
however, no place in sound scholarly debate. Therefore it must be sup-
posed that Asherah was indeed a goddess, and the consort of Yahweh.
Most of the attempts to explain why Asherah in these texts could not
possibly be a goddess are based on the Old Testament material, and
these will be discussed in section 6.4. On this basis it is claimed that
Asherah is a thing, a cult-pole, a Yahweh-symbol, a sanctuary, a tree
or a hypostasis (the turning of a Yahweh-symbol into a god[dess] in its
own right).
It is a well-known fact that many religions use one or more symbols
to denote their gods and goddesses, but I have never heard of anyone
worshipping the symbol, and not the god that it symbolized. It is not
the trees or rivers or stones that 'primitive' people worship; it is the
spirits or gods that live in these things that are the recipients of the
offerings and prayers. One does not worship St Paul's Cathedral in
London, or a baptismal font; nor would one bless in the name of
either cathedral or font. Therefore it seems strained, to say the least,
to argue, as North does, that the Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom
texts refer to a thing, on the supposition that 'an ordinary worshipper,
not uncouth or crassly ignorant, but just averagely theologically unso-
phisticated, might well have been impelled upon sighting an obelisk-
like cult-stela or tree trunk [the Asherah], to formulate a pious invoca-
tion "for Yahweh (of Samaria) and his symbol'" (North 1989: 137).
In this connection it is also worth noting that the texts discussed above
have a surprisingly uniform wording, and to ascribe all these formula-
like phrases to 'ordinary worshippers' seems to me to be stretching
probability too far.
On the basis of the texts discussed in this section, we can now con-
clude that the cult of Asherah in 'ancient Israel' was closely connected
to the cult of Yahweh, that Asherah was a goddess, and that she func-
tioned as his consort. Further, she was part of the 'official' religion of
the time.57 She had functions of her own, apparently securing the wel-
fare of her adherents. She was invoked in apotropaic texts, just as she
was appealed to in prayer texts.
57. Insofar as one can talk of any kind of orthodoxy or official religion in the
'Israel' of the eighth and seventh century BCE
Chapter 6
ASHERAH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
As the point of departure for discussions of Old Testament material, I

repeat the statement I made in section 3.2 that it is only relevant to
include the Old Testament among the sources to Israelite religion inas-
much as the information found in the Old Testament is substantiated
by extra-biblical texts and/or archaeological material. As Asherah (or
even aSerah) is mentioned in extra-biblical sources, it is relevant to
look at the mention she gets in the collection of texts known to us as
the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament.
6.1. The Goddess

The Old Testament uses the word m$N forty times in nine of the
books of the Old Testament.1 Of these occurrences, we may presume
that most references derive from the so-called Deuteronomists.2 Since
this group of authors and redactors are to be found relatively late, in
post-exilic times,3 and since it is known that they were advocates of an
1. Exod. 34.13; Deut. 7.5; 12.3; 16.21; Judg. 3.7; 6.25, 26, 28, 30; 1 Kgs
14.15, 23; 15.13; 16.33; 18.19; 2 Kgs 13.6; 17.10, 16; 18.4; 21.3, 7; 23.4, 6, 7,
14, 15; Isa. 17.8; 27.9; Jer. 17.2; Mic. 5.13; 2 Chron. 14.3; 15.16, 17.6; 19.3;
24.18; 31.1; 33.3, 19; 34.3,4, 7.
2. Cf. Olyan 1988. In order to facilitate reading, I will not in the following be
discussing the 'so-called Deuteronomists' but only the Deuteronomists. The present
stand of scholarship is such that practically none of the certainties of 25 years ago are
certain any longer, thus the connotations carried by the word 'Deuteronomists' are
such that this term as well becomes suspect. It is —like many other words in this
book—used as a convenient term, and is chosen for this reason, not for its accuracy
or lack of it.
3. Cf. for instance Lemche 1991, Garbini 1988. As stated in the introduction,
this book was originally written in 1992. Since it has been impossible to rewrite it
completely, I will in the following use a number of terms that are increasingly subject
6. Asherah in the Old Testament 111
exclusively monotheistic Yahwism, it may be assumed that they were

not unbiased in their descriptions of a polytheistic Yahwism, just as it
may be assumed that their knowledge of the religious practices of
times past, that is, before the exile, was limited.
Not all occurrences of Asherah in the Old Testament will be dis-
cussed thoroughly. The primary focus will be passages that mention a
goddess or that connect Asherah with Yahweh: that is, material that
corresponds to the texts from Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom.4
Most times mc?K functions as a noun denoting an object, and is not
used as a name or a title. Of these occurrences, Reed describes six as
referring to a goddess (Reed 1949: 96) and these are the passages that
will be discussed in what follows.
6.1.1. 1 Kings 15.13 and 2 Chronicles 15.16

The two verses discussed in the following are, if not identical, then
sufficiently parallel (at least in the Hebrew version) to allow us to
assume that either one is more or less copied from the other or that
they both derive from a common source.
The text of 1 Kgs 15.13 reads (following BHS)5
And also Maakah, his mother, he removed from the gebirah, as she had
made6 a picture of Asherah. And Asa cut down her picture and burned [it]
in the brook of Kidron.
The Septuagint version is in many ways radically different from the

Hebrew. It seems as if the Greek version is translated (or written)
from a completely different Vorlage. The verse as found in the Septu-
agint translates:
to discussion, such as 'the exile' and 'ancient Israel'. This is not done uncritically, or
without serious doubt about their validity, but the discussions necessary to avoid
these terms, and the necessity of then finding new terms that cover the present stand
of scholarship do not belong in this book. The terms are therefore used as a con-
venience. With regard to 'ancient Israel', see the discussion in section 2.2.
4. A complete discussion of all occurrences of the word n~l2JK in the Old Testa-
ment appears in Reed 1949. See also Olyan (1988), whose discussion also includes
all occurrences, but who is not as thorough as Reed.
5. All translations are—if nothing else is noted—made by me.
6. Or, 'she worshipped a picture of Asherah'. On the interpretation of Vn&JJ as
worshipping or celebrating a feast or a holiday, see section 6.3.2.
112 Asherah
And he removed Ana, his mother, from power7 just as he did with the
assemblies in her groves. And Asa cut down her 'images'8 and burned
[them] with fire in the brook of Kidron.
If the Hebrew and Greek versions are compared, it appears that it is

some version of the Hebrewvroot VfUft that is translated into Kata-
6i)CTei(; (here understood as a version of KaiaSvco, 'to go down, to
descend'), whereas V~pQ has the basic meaning of being pressed or
squeezed (into the ground). If the word rDi?Q in the Hebrew text is
understood, not as a name, but rather as an ordinary feminine par-
ticiple, then the first part of the verse can be translated as 'and also his
mother was pressed away, for he removed her...' The different names
for the dowager queen in the two versions could imply a different
Vorlage, but also that some form of the root V~pQ existed in the text
that the Septuagint is based on.
In the 'parallel' passage of 2 Chron. 15.16, there appears a new
variant of what is presumably the same event. The verse (following
BHS) reads:
And also Maakah, the mother of king Asa, he removed her from the
gebirah, as she had made9 a picture of Asherah. And Asa cut down her
picture, and he crushed and burned [it] by the brook of Kidron.
The Septuagint version, on the other hand, reads:

And Maaka, his mother, he removed, so that she should not hold public
office for Astarte, and he cut the idol to pieces and burned it by the brook
of Kidron.
The differences between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles in BHS are slight:

Asherah has a definite article in 1 Kings, but not in 2 Chronicles; the
opening of the two verses is different; the word-order differs in the
single parts; and the relevant representation of Asherah is not only
burned in Chronicles, but also crushed. This 'extra' verb in the He-
brew version of Chronicles is, however, missing in both the Septuagint
7. A more literal translation of this part of the sentence would be, 'so that she
should not be a leader (president, official)'.
8. 'Images'. The Greek word translated is KaTcc8/60ei<;, regarding which LSJ
give this passage as a hapax legomenon, 'a thing to shudder at'. All other possible
translations in LSJ derive from the verb KctTccSiJoo, meaning 'dipping, descent, going
down; hiding-place, hole, depth'.
9. Or cf. note 8 and section 6.3.2: 'she worshipped' or 'she celebrated' for the
picture of Asherah.
and in the Syriac and Arabic versions. Another interesting feature is

that this passage is the only one in Chronicles that uses the singular of
the word mc?K. All other occurrences are plural: eight are masculine
plural and only two are feminine plural.
We can safely assume that the Hebrew versions are versions of the
same story, or Vorlage. According to traditional Old Testament schol-
arship it is Chronicles that is more or less copied from Kings, but in
the Septuagint there are two very different versions, differing not
only from each other but also differing radically from their presumed
Hebrew original.
As noted above, the Septuagint version of Kings has a different
name for the dowager queen, whereas in Chronicles the name Maaka
is retained. What is different, however, is the name of the goddess.
The verse does not deal with 'an asherah' or 'Asherah', or 'the
groves', but with Astarte, and in the first part of the verse, we are not
dealing with a picture of the goddess, but rather with the dowager
functioning as Xeixovpyta, that is, holding public office for Astarte.
This could be the real offence of the dowager queen: that she did not
stick with the official spouse of Yahweh, Asherah, but had a cult and/
or idol of Astarte.10
On their own these verses do not seem to tell the story of a cultic
reform, but rather of a palace revolution or coup d'etat, where the
dowager queen is removed from her public functions by her son. This
impression is reinforced when one reads on, for in 1 Kgs 15.14 it is
stated that the high places stay in function. Asa does drive the qedeSim
out of the country, but—if we stay with the framework of the sto-
ries—they are still there some 300 years later.11
Disregarding the implications of palace revolution and the role and
function of gebirah, it seems obvious that the Hebrew versions tell of
a—more or less—private statue of a goddess; therefore there is no
reason to translate the word mtfN as anything but a proper name, that
is, Asherah. In this verse, then, the cult for Asherah is presented as
being conducted by a princess of the Davidic dynasty,12 and it is thus
10. For further discussion of this, see below section 6.4.1: excursus on the
relationship between Asherah and Astarte.
11. On the qedeSim, see below, excursus in section 6.1.4.
12. Maaka is—cf. 1 Kgs 15.10—a daughter of Absalom. She seems to be the
mother of Abija as well, cf. v.2., but perhaps she is only Asa'a mother in the sense
114 Asherah
not seen as something only 'the people' did.
6.1.2. 1 Kings 18.19

And now, send out, and bring all Israel to me at the mountain of Carmel;
and the 450 prophets of Baal, and the 400 prophets of Asherah, who dine
at the table of Jezebel.
The '400 prophets of Asherah', can hardly be anything but prophets

of a divinity, in this case a goddess. According to the apparatus of
BHS this passage is a late addition to the text. If this is the case, the
passage does not thereby lose its significance, rather the opposite.
Kings is part of the deuteronomistic history, and if the '400 prophets
of Asherah' are placed there by a late redaction, then this shows that
at the time this passage was inserted a goddess by the name of Asherah
was (still) known. It seems as if the writer (or redactor), wants to dis-
credit her, and this is done by coupling her name to Baal and to
Jezebel, the ultimate 'bad girl' of the Old Testament. If the Asherah
passage is later than the rest, it shows that the attempted cultic reform
program of the Deuteronomists had not been successful with regard to
the goddess.
A further interesting trait is the Septuagint translation of the name
Baal. Usually, the Septuagint only transcribes the name, but in this
verse it is translated into 'shame', a 'tradition' known from the
Hebrew text as well.
6.1.3. 2 Kings 21.3, 7

3. And he turned, and he made the high places that his father Hezekiah
had destroyed, and he made altars for Baal, and he made13 an Asherah
like Akhab the king of Israel had made, and he worshipped all the heav-
enly host and he served them.
7. And he placed the picture of Asherah that he had made,14 in the house
of which Yahweh said to David and to his son Solomon: 'In this house,
and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all the people of Israel, I will
place my name in eternity'.
that she is the lady holding the post of gebirah, 'dowager queen' or 'mother of the
king'.
13. Or, cf. above notes and section 6.3.2, for an alternative meaning of Vn&U:
'he worshipped' or celebrated Asherah.
14. Or, cf. section 6.3.2, 'that he worshipped/celebrated'.
The passage of 2 Kgs 21.3-7 deal with what could be called 'the
reform of Manasseh'. As was the case above, there seems little doubt
that a picture of the goddess Asherah is referred to in v. 7, and that
this picture is placed in the temple of Jerusalem. In v. 3, however, it is
a thing that is made. This can be deduced from the context but might
also be implied in the Hebrew text, since v. 3 has m&K without the
definite article, whereas v. 7 has the definite article attached to the
word.15
If we try to gain an overall view of the situation in this passage, we
can see that v. 3 opens with the word 3EH, an imperative construct
from the root VuiQJ. This root means 'to turn' and—more often than
not—it is used of (re)turning to the correct Yahwistic cult.16 Those
who have read v. 2 and 6b know that Manasseh is not doing the right
thing, but without these two passages the pericope could easily be
understood as a positive evaluation of Manasseh's deeds. This could
point to the fact that the Deuteronomists—at least with regard to this
pericope—were working from a Vorlage in which Manasseh was
regarded as a good king who was doing the right thing.
An interesting problem in the enumeration of the many cult
practices that Manasseh is (re)introducing, is 'why are we told all
this'? Most other 'bad' kings are referred to only as kings who do
'evil in the sight of the LORD' (KJV), but it seems as if it is important
for us to know that it is Manasseh, and no other king, who (întro-
duces the various cult practices described here, such as (întroduc-
ing Asherah into the Yahweh temple of Jerusalem.17
A possible explanation could be that the Deuteronomists needed a
bad guy who was close to Josiah in time. The wrong cult must be in
function when Josiah ascends to the throne; if it is not, he cannot per-
form the scourging of the temple and countryside that he does. On the
other hand, since exclusive Yahwism, with the cult centralized in
Jerusalem, is one of the main issues of the Deuteronomists, they need
15. On the possible implications of the definite article (or the lack of it) with
Asherah, see below, section 6.3.
16. So any number of prophets, e.g. Isa. 1.27, 10.21 etc.
17. The usual interpretation is that Asherah as well as NehuStan are removed
from the temple of Jerusalem by Manasseh's father, Hezekiah, but the passage
purportedly describing this—2 Kgs 18.4—does not mention the temple: one assumes
that both the aserah and Nehu§tan were placed in the temple, but the reference is not
explicit. See also below, section 6.2.2.
116 Asherah
to show that the non-Yahwist paraphernalia in the temple was not an-
cient, but the result of a relatively new cult practice. Thus the deuter-
onomists in one fell swoop acknowledge that Asherah has had her
place in the temple of Yahweh, and reduce her existence there to a
period of some 40 years.18
If we assume from the above argument that the Deuteronomists
have used a Manasseh-friendly source, we see a king rectifying the
wrongs done by his father. He reinstates the correct cult practices,
with multiple altars and 'pictures', and puts the entire pantheon—
which is the interpretation I tentatively put on 'the heavenly host' in
these passages including Asherah—firmly back in the temple where
they belong.19 The deuteronomist interpretation is different from
mine, but without deciding whose version is 'the right one', it can be
deduced from this passage that the Deuteronomists know a goddess by
the name of Asherah, and that they know her cultic representation to
have been (or perhaps even, to be) present in the temple of Jerusalem.
6.1.4. 2 Kings 23.4, 7

4. And the king ordered the high priest Hilkijahu and the priests of the
second order and the keepers of the door to bring out from Yahweh's
temple all the vessels that had been made for Baal and for Asherah and for
all the host of heaven, and he burned them outside Jerusalem at the valley
of Kidron, and he carried their dust to Beth-El.
7. And he tore down the houses of the qedeSim that were in the house of
Yahweh, where the women were weaving, where the houses of Asherah
were.20
The verses translated above are part of the description of the reform
of Josiah, and with these we have come to one of the great heroes of
the Deuteronomists, King Josiah. The chapter describes a cult reform,
18. The 40 years are the period from Manasseh's ascension to the throne until the
dating of the Josianic reform in 2 Kgs 22. It is tempting to draw a parallel here to the
40 years in the wilderness during the Exodus, and to the 40 years of cultic wilder-
ness in this period. Unfortunately this is neither the right time nor the right place to
discuss the possible symbolism involved in this.
19. That Asherah belongs in the temple is on a par with what the women of Jer.
44.16-18 say: 'the goddess has always been a part of our cult, and to try to make her
obsolete is not only wicked and wrong, it results in famine and war'.
20. Discussion of this translation is found below. On the qedeSim, see excursus
below.
whose aim is exclusive Yahwism conducted only in Jerusalem.

In this passage there is no positive evaluation of anything except
Yahweh-only worship, conducted only in Jerusalem, every other kind
of cult is condemned and terminated, including that of the priests that
had hitherto thought they were conducting the correct multi-god cult.
The word m$K is used in v. 6 as well but—as was the case with
2 Kgs 21.3—it is an object rather than a goddess (it is milled to dust,
and burned) and has no definite article. The definite article is attached
to both the above translated occurrences.
'Asherah' or 'asherah' is placed firmly in Jerusalem, and in the
temple of Yahweh, but in v. 4 the implication seems to be the exis-
tence of a close relationship between Baal and Asherah. We are told
that the king orders the priests to carry all vessels made for Baal,
Asherah and the heavenly host out of the temple, but the Hebrew text
explicitly writes 'the vessels made for Baal, and for Asherah and for
all the heavenly host'. It plays with the connection between all kinds of
idolatry, but separates idolatry into three different members.
A combination of the three is found a total of four times in the Old
Testament: 2 Kgs 17.16, 23.3, 23.4 and 2 Chron. 33.3,21 and in three
other passages, Baal, Asherah and the heavenly host are presented as
examples of the kind of idolatrous cult the Israelites and their kings
conducted. Only in this passage is there something else connecting
them: namely, they all have vessels placed in the temple of Jerusalem.
This connection seems too tenuous to uphold the claim that Baal and
Asherah were a couple 'in Old Testament times', just as it is not valid
grounds for claiming that Asherah or Baal were closely related (as by
family) to 'all the heavenly host'. The vessels are specifically those of
the individual god Baal, the individual goddess Asherah and the un-
specified mass of the heavenly host.
In v. 7 as well, we must be dealing with a goddess. As can be seen, I
have translated this verse radically differently from the KJV, which
reads,
And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house
of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.
The traditional translation is based on the Masoretic pausal signs, and

on a (traditional) textual note, also found in BHS, whereby the
'houses' of Asherah become things woven for Asherah. To make this
21. This verse is the Chronicles version of 2 Kgs 21.3.

118 Asherah
correction however, one creates a hapax legomenon, something I for

one would like to avoid, unless all other possibilities have been ex-
hausted; and there is indeed a simpler solution. By removing the
pausal rebia from D^ffiOn to m2~IK, the sentence is restructured, and
becomes a main clause followed by three relative clauses, all giving us
further information on the houses of the qedeSim: they were located in
(not by) the house of Yahweh; this was where the women wove; and
this was where the 'houses' of Asherah were kept. Naturally, this
translation does not bring us one bit closer to what the houses of
Asherah were, but we do get rid of the 'woven houses' of the Ma-
soretic text.
If I were to forward a possible explanation on what the 'houses of
Asherah' could be, my immediate association of ideas is the house-
shaped incense altars found within the area defined as 'Israelite' in this
book. Many of those have decorations, including various animals and
humanoid figures, probably goddesses. The only problem with this
association is that most of these are from the Bronze Age or early
Iron Age, whereas this text can under no circumstances be earlier than
sixth century, and in all probability is much later than that. Keel,
however, mentions 150 incense-altars or incense-stands found in
Lachish that have the same box-shape as the earlier examples.22
A different problem in this verse, is that of the qedeSim. This verse
is often used as 'proof of a sexually oriented fertility-cult taking place
in or at the temple in Jerusalem, and likewise taken as proof that these
cult practices were part of the worship of Asherah. It thus becomes
necessary to investigate whether the qedeSim (male or female) were
indeed hierodules or whether the term could cover something else.
Excursus: tZTIp/nETIp: Priest or Prostitute23
Nothing in the Old Testament texts themselves suggest the translation of CHp/ntznp
as 'prostitute', just as nothing suggests that there was any kind of sacred prostitution
going on in the temple of Jerusalem. One of the two places in the Hebrew text where
the word ntZTTp is used as a synonym (or a euphemism) for a prostitute is the story of
Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38), where the word is used as an alternative designation for
22. ANEP, figs. 582-86 and 590-91 shows several of these incense-altars from
Megiddo, Ai and Beth-shan. Keel's mention of the Persian period altars is found in
Keel 1972: 130.
23. The following is based on Brooks 1941, Gruber 1986, Toorn 1989 and
Westenholz 1989.
Vn3T. The other is Hos. 4.14, which uses the words in parallel.
I shall start with the Judah and Tamar story, as most scholars do, when they want
to equate the qedeSim with prostitutes. The word H3T is most often used of a whore or
a prostitute, but the original meaning of the word is that 'the husband does not live in
his wife's tribe' (cf. KB), that is, that the woman designated a H3T is a foreigner, seen
in relation to the man and his tribe. That Tamar is a H3T in the 'original' sense seems
obvious. Judah has left his own people and has married a 'Canaanite woman', and
since we hear no word of Tamar's ancestry, it must be assumed that it is immaterial,
that is, it is not 'Israelite'. A foreign woman is—almost by definition—a dangerous
person, not to be trusted. She is a potential whore (cf. Lemche 1986: 78), just as a
woman who acts on her own, a woman who does not belong to any man, is. Tamar
is doubly suspicious: she is a non-Israelite, and—even if she is living in her father's
house—she does not really belong to any man. She is 'between husbands' and the
one man responsible for her does not take his responsibility seriously. The use of the
word H3T in this passage could then very well be a play on both the 'original' meaning
of the word, and on the more common use of the word. She is a foreigner, and she
acts like a harlot. In the passage where the interaction between Judah and Tamar is
related, the word used is H3T. It is only in vss 21-22 that the word H2np occurs, and
here it is neither Judah nor Tamar but the friend of Judah using it. Tamar's actions
are not those of a well brought up young lady, but then she is in dire straits and her
actions are those of a desperate woman. The story can be seen as an exemplary story
interpreting Deut. 25.5-10, and thus as belonging either to a deuteronomist or post-
deuteronomist layer. The use of the word HETlp here in connection with H3T could very
well be polemical, on par with the use of the term in other deuteronomist-layers.
The other place paralleling ntDlp and H3T is Hosea 4:14, but here the reference is
specifically cultic, and is used of people who are participants in the 'wrong' or 'evil'
cult: that is, the non-Yahwist or not-exclusively-Yahwist cult. From this context we
are once again given reason to suspect that this is a parallel that can be used polemi-
cally, as a derogative description of the qedeSim: they are like 'foreigners' or 'for-
nicators'. The H3T then could be a woman who does not keep herself to herself, be it
religiously (she has close relations to other gods than Yahweh) or personally (she is
married to a man from another tribe). Likewise with the ntznp: what makes a woman
a whore, or—if we stay with the understanding of the Old Testament terminology
outlined in section 2.3—makes her a 'Canaanite' woman, is any kind of misbehav-
ior, sexual, social, and cultic. If this understanding is brought to bear on the Tamar
and Judah story, then the understanding of the term HEhp as polemical and deroga-
tive is reinforced.
An examination of the word HKTlp itself suggests the normal assumption with any
word deriving from the root 2Hp: that we have moved into the sphere of the holy or
untouchable, something or someone who is set aside, who is sanctified or holy. The
obvious person to carry such a designation would then be some kind of cult-func-
tionary, or priest or priestess, since the priest or priestess is holy through her or his
close connection with the divine. If we couple this with Gruber's assumption, that the
male £hp is a 'Canaanite cult-singer', and translate the term as 'cultic personnel func-
tioning in the non-Yahwist or not-exclusively-Yahwist cult', then there is no reason
120 Asherah
to suppose that females bearing the equivalent of that title were anything else. The
only possible (though not very good) reason I can think of for assuming that male
and female qedeSim are not basically the same thing must be a personal dislike for the
idea that females could function in any kind of 'Israelite' cult, be it good or evil.
An example of this distaste is found in Gruber, who assumes that the female
qedeSim were hierodules and the males cult-singers. Gruber's arguments are based
on the Tamar story, but, as shown above, the term ntznp need not be limited to a per-
son having sexual intercourse, and there still is no reason to believe that the desig-
nation in Genesis is used accurately: it is, if anything, used polemically. 4
A female priest will always be suspect in a society where the male of the species
has the exclusive rights of performing the rites of the dominant cult. A woman minis-
ter or priest is no better than a whore, since not only does she condemn herself, she
also condemns those who follow her by accepting her office, seducing them away
from salvation. This is the situation described by Hosea and very similar ones are
referred to by St Paul. Even in our day and age any number of churches, groups and
sects (including the Roman Catholic Church and a number of High Church Protestant
groups) consider this to be the case. There is no reason to believe that the deuterono-
mists thought differently.
A different interpretation of the qedeSim is found by Toorn: he considers the
qedeSim to be men and women who have taken a sacred vow. Toorn then explains
the female qedeSot as having gained their reputation because the promises given often
included pecuniary obligations, and since women did not have money of their own,
their only way of procuring it was by selling the only commodity they had: them-
selves. This interpretation is very interesting, but is—like most others—based on the
premise that the deuteronomist's use of the term is accurate, rather than polemical.
Concluding this excursus, we can say that there is no reason for believing that the
qedeSim were prostitutes. They might well have been priests in the 'Canaanite' cult,
that is, the non-Yahwist or not-exclusively-Yahwist cult that the Deuteronomists
were opposing. Since all not-exclusively-Yahwist cult was 'Canaanite' and equalled
whoring with 'foreign' gods, it is not to my mind too fanciful to imagine that 'holy
prostitution' need not refer to a sexual act, but could refer to association with other
gods than Yahweh.25 If this is the case, then the prohibition in Deut. 23.18 could
likewise be explained. 'Israelites' were not allowed to become qedeSim, since
qedeSim—almost by definition—were 'Canaanites'.26
24. Even if I cannot accept or agree with Gruber's conclusions, his argumentation is solid
enough, up to a point. Thus he writes, 'tragically scholarship suffered from scholars being unable to
imagine any cultic role for women in antiquity that did not involve sexual intercourse' (Gruber
1986: 138). The tragedy is maintained on a smaller scale in Gruber's own article, where it is only in
the 'Israelite' cult (or rather, the Old Testament version of 'Israelite') that women's only possible
function was as hierodules.
25. The problems of apostasy and of constancy in connection with Yahweh is often couched in
sexual metaphors; not only Hosea uses the picture of the harlot that he marries and divorces, but
Ezekiel treats this theme as well in the well-known chs. 16 and 23.
26. Here I use the terms 'Israelite' and 'Canaanite', not as ethnic groupings, but rather as social
and religious groupings; cf. section 6.2.
6.1.5. Summing Up
If we take an overall view of the verses discussed above, all of which
contain a reference to the goddess Asherah, then they have a common
trait; all except 2 Chron. 15.16 have a definite article attached to the
name. If this is combined with the knowledge that *7Jn with no article
means 'lord', while with the definite article it refers to the god Baal,
then we might assume that the five different verses discussed above
use the definite article in a similar, qualifying way.27
Since this is not a book about the development of the Old Testa-
ment, or on grammar, but rather on the use of the term rntZJK in three
different corpi of texts, it is impossible to discuss at any length the
possible reasons behind the lack of the article in 2 Chronicles. We
have to leave it with the observation that the chroniclers generally do
not use this word the same way the Deuteronomists do. All other uses
of the word in 2 Chronicles (which is the only one using this term)
are plural, eight masculine plural and two feminine plural. This could
point in the direction that the chroniclers had no reference for m&K
as anything but a part of the non-Yahwist cult.
What can be said, without discussing the problems involved in the
composition and dating of the Old Testament, is that the deuterono-
mists seem to have known a goddess called m&BK, and that they not
only seem to have known her and had a reference for her, but that
they placed her as part of the official Jerusalem cult, and as being
worshipped by several representatives of the Davidic dynasty.28 We
can even see that two of the above passages, explicitly places the god-
dess in the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Thus the next issue to be
discussed is—naturally—whether the relationship between Asherah
and Yahweh in the Old Testament is limited to co-habitation in the
temple of Jerusalem, or whether the Old Testament transmit any tra-
dition^) coupling the two, as we have seen them coupled in the in-
scriptions.
27. Cf. GKB § 126.2.b. Whether all references to Asherah using the definite
article can be seen as references to the goddess will be discussed below in section
6.3.
28. I am here referring to the Davidic dynasty as a deuteronomist point of ref-
erence, not as a historical fact. The problems of the Old Testament as a book of his-
tory is not the issue in this book, and will not be discussed.
122 Asherah
6.2. Asherah and Yahweh

If we look at the direct and indirect couplings between Asherah and
Yahweh, it is interesting that these references are only found in the
works of the Deuteronomists. The chroniclers refer to most of the
same events that the Deuteronomists do, but where 2 Kings 21 and 23
mention a picture or statue of Asherah, placed in the temple of
Jerusalem, the chroniclers mention aSerim that are placed in 'Judah
and Jerusalem', without any direct reference to any Asherah-cult in
connection with Yahweh or the temple. In the traditional datings of
the books of the Old Testament, Chronicles is written a good deal
later than the deuteronomist layer, and if the layer of Chronicles is in-
deed a later layer of tradition than that of the Deuteronomists, the
reason for this could be that the polemics of the Deuteronomists had
worked, and that the 'evil' cult for the goddess had indeed been van-
quished.29
The only verse directly connecting Yahweh and Asherah that has
not been discussed so far is Deut. 16.21, which is where I will start.
6.2.1. Deuteronomy 16.21

Do not plant for yourself an aserah of wood,30 beside the altar of Yahweh
your god, which you will make for yourself.
This verse is used for many things, among others to claim that the cult
for (or, of the) asherah or Asherah was common practice; or as the
definitive proof that the mtfK of the Old Testament was a wooden
pole or a living tree. The latter is partly done via the verb, which is
understood literally as 'to plant', and via an understanding of fir^D as
'any kind of tree'. These two, in combination with the Septuagint
translation of m27N, have been seen as the definitive proof.31
It seems highly dubious to insist that the verb Vl?tD] can only be used
of planting a tree. As Reed notices, it is used as something one can do
29. Another possible explanation could be that the chroniclers wrote their version
in a different geographical setting, where the goddess simply was not known, at least
not the goddess Asherah.
30. Or, 'full of wood'; or, 'of any tree'; or, 'full of trees'; or, 'an aserah', or
'any (kind of) tree'.
31. Cf. e.g. Lipinski 1980. On Asherah in the LXX, see section 6.4.1.
with both tents and persons.32 Since most scholars advocating the
'living tree' translation of m&N are very enthusiastic about the Sep-
tuagint version, it seems strange, that most do not comment on the
Septuagint translation of fir^D in this verse. This could be because
this version is something of a hindrance for the understanding of n~l2JK
as a living tree since it is translated with ^\)A,ov, which is never used of
any kind of living tree but has the rather exclusive meaning of timber
and other kinds of 'dead wood'.
Now, if we assume that this verse is part of the ongoing deuterono-
mistic polemic against Asherah (e.g. Olyan 1988: 73), then the quali-
fication fir^D becomes highly interesting. That it is necessary to qual-
ify an mC9K as being jÎT^D must mean that this was not the obvious
thing to think. If the m&N was at all times a wooden thing, or if the
word never referred to anything but a thing made out of wood, then
there would be no reason to add that one was not allowed to make an
Asherah of wood. If we were to make a very sharp distinction then
the relevant question to ask in connection with this verse would be,
'And what if the Asherah is made of clay or stone? are we then
allowed to make one?'
The second very interesting aspect of this verse is that it does not
issue a general prohibition against making an Asherah, but a very spe-
cific one: one must not make an Asherah in order to set it beside the
altar of Yahweh. Again, the obvious question to ask is 'But may the
Asherah be placed in other locations?'
The reason for this very specific prohibition could be that no one
dreamt of making an Asherah out of any other material than wood, or
of placing this anywhere but beside the altar of Yahweh. One cannot,
however, use this verse as proof that it was 'common practice' to have
a wooden Asherah beside the altar of Yahweh.33 There is no reason to
forbid something that nobody does anyway, but to claim that any pro-
hibition is based on a 'common practice' is taking the thing too far.
There is no reason to believe that rape or paedophilia are 'common
customs' even though most legislations forbid them. Such things
happen and they are forbidden, but they are hardly common practice.
32. Cf. Reed 1949: 32. uQ] is used of what to do with tabernacles in Dan.
11.45, and of people in, e.g., Jer. 24.6.
33. So Olyan 1988: 9. Ahlstrom 1984: 8 writes (on Lev. 1 1.29), 'Like most pro-
hibitive laws, this one probably originated as a reaction against a common custom.'
The same argument could be used in connection with this verse (and is).
124 Asherah
This verse, then, can only be used to indicate that Asherah could be
placed beside the altar of Yahweh, and that the group trying to get rid
of this Asherah are very particular about forbidding her co-existence
with Yahweh. The verse also indicates that it would not of necessity be
obvious to the reader or listener that an Asherah was a thing made of
wood. So in spite of its content and probable intention, this verse does
indicate a close connection between Yahweh and Asherah.
6.2.2. 2 Kings 18.4

Since this verse is often cited as one of the passages in the Old Testa-
ment that proves close ties between the cult of Asherah and that of
Yahweh (e.g. Olyan 1988: 70) we have to look closer into it.
He [Hezekiah] had the high places removed, and he crushed the images
and he cut the A§erah, and he broke the copper-snake that Moses had
made, for until these days, the sons of Israel had burned incense to it and
he called him Nehus'tan.
This verse is often seen as a cleansing of the temple of Jerusalem,

more or less as the first serious cult reform there, but—as is obvi-
ous—the verse contains no reference whatsoever to the temple of
Jerusalem, just as this location is not mentioned in any of the pre-
ceding or following verses. We are the ones presupposing that both
Asherah and Nehustan have their natural place in the temple of
Jerusalem (e.g. Pedersen 1960 II: 192)
The first part of the list is well known from other passages of deut-
eronomistic polemics against 'foreign gods', but Nehustan, or a cult
involving a snake made of copper, is only mentioned in this one verse.
This could be because the author of this verse is right, in so far as he
is not referring to a tradition of snake-cult as such, but that the only
kind of 'snake-cult' known (at his time at least) was the idolization of
the Mosaic copper-snake.
The copper-snake and Asherah, though, are not connected to each
other, just as none of them are connected to the 'idols', or mazzebot,
or to the 'high-places', or bamof, each of the four are treated in their
own sentence with their own verb. This means that we are not being
presented with any close connection between Yahweh and Asherah or
with any placement of Asherah in the temple of Jerusalem, just as we
are not given reason to believe that the cult of Asherah had close con-
nections to the snake-cult, Nehustan or the two stock-abominations
mentioned.
6.2.3. 2 Kings 21.7 and 23.4-7

These two passages have been discussed above, so this section will be a
rather short summary of the argument. The only verse not discussed
above is 2 Kgs 23.6, which is why we will start there.
In this verse was again found the definite article in front of the
word mtZJK. As was touched upon in section 6.1.5, it is possible to see
this definite article as a limited definition, whether we are dealing with
a DN or with an ordinary noun—at least this was the case when
dealing with the word ÎH. In the same section, I noted that it was
possible to understand the definite article as having the same function
with the word m2?N, but if this understanding is to be maintained we
run into serious problems with this verse.
What happens to Asherah in this verse is not something that can
happen to a goddess, but only to an object: the goddess herself can
hardly be milled to dust and burned, only an object can.34 Now, in
21.7 it is stated that Manasseh places a picture or statue of Asherah in
the temple of Jerusalem, and in 23.4 vessels of Asherah are men-
tioned, so it seems probable that in this verse there is a synthesis of the
goddess and the object.
If we are indeed dealing with a goddess in the Old Testament texts,
and if we take our point of departure in Olyan's proposal, that is, that
the Deuteronomists are running a mud-slinging campaign against her
in order to dissociate the goddess from the cult of Yahweh, it is,
polemically speaking, a brilliant move to claim that the goddess is
nothing but an object that can be pulverized and burned. If the asherah
or Asherah was indeed a goddess, this could not happen to her.35
In both passages discussed here (2 Kgs 21.7 and 23.4-7) we are
probably dealing with a rather desperate attempt to dethrone a god-
dess whose natural place was beside Yahweh in the temple of Jerusa-
lem. Verse 23.5 names a cult for Baal and a number of astral deities
who are worshipped 'in the high places in the cities of Judah and in
the places round about Jerusalem' (KJV), but it is significant that
Asherah is not mentioned in this connection. She is not part of the cult
outside the temple, but she is part of the official temple cult in
34. And then again, perhaps it is something that can happen to a god or goddess,
cf. the Ugaritic texts, where Anat treats Mot in much the same way (CTA 6.II.31-
37), since she—among other things—cuts him to pieces, burns him and grinds him.
35. An elaboration of the relationship between goddess and object is found
below, in section 6.4.
126 Asherah
Jerusalem, since she is specified in the cleansing of the temple, and

since we are told of her being placed in the temple of Solomon in 21.7.
This, then, coupled with the indications found in Deut. 16.4 and the
knowledge gleaned from the epigraphic material discussed in section
5, can only lead us to the conclusion that the Deuteronomists had a
very definite referent for the word mtiK; they knew a goddess bear-
ing that name, they opposed the traditional point of view that she was
a natural part of the official Yahwist cult in the temple of Jerusalem,
and they polemized against her being worshipped by king and com-
moner.
Since we must assume that the Deuteronomists were in no way
happy to pass on a tradition of a goddess having her natural place in
the temple of Jerusalem, just as they must have felt very badly about
any gods but their own one being worshipped, the fact that they
mention it at all can only be explained as one of two things: sloppy
redaction of older materials — a not very feasible solution to my
mind—or the fact that everyone knew Asherah to be a goddess whose
natural place was alongside Yahweh in the central temple of
Jerusalem; the deuteronomists would lose their credibility if they
claimed otherwise. When the Old Testament passages are read against
the background of the epigraphic finds, the latter solution seems the
only really feasible one.
6.3. mown = Asherah

Apart from the passages already discussed, mttfNn is found in Judg.
6.25, 26, 28, 30; 1 Kgs 16.33 and 18.4. The following will be a dis-
cussion of these passages, with the purpose of throwing light on
whether the definite article used with the word niEJK can be seen as a
defining article as well.
6.3.1. Judges 6.25-30

This passage occurs in one of the two versions of the calling of
Gideon found in Judges 6. Both can be seen as legends pertaining to
the Yahweh cult and altar found in Ophra. The second of these leg-
ends uses the word m2?Rn. Here we find a Baal-altar, with an asherah
or Asherah placed beside it, and the story presupposes that this Baal-
altar is replaced by a Yahweh-altar.
The first of the two stories mentions no previous altar for Baal or
Yahweh, but is finished in v. 24 with the information that Gideon is
building an altar for Yahweh Shalom. The story then goes on, with
Yahweh calling Gideon again, this time to destroy the altar of Baal
and the Asherah (neither having been mentioned previously) and to
build an altar for Yahweh (which Gideon has just done).
The discrepancies between the two stories seem obvious, so we must
be dealing with — at least— two different traditions pertaining to the
altar and cult in Ophra, and of these two the traditional stand is that
6.25-30 is the youngest (cf. Pederson 1960 II: 157). The author of this
passage is — in spite of the definite article — certain that the Asherah is
a wooden thing, since it is supposed to deliver the wood for the burnt
offering Gideon is going to present on the new altar for Yahweh.36
We can, however, suppose that this passage is deuteronomistic, since
the verb Vn~lD in connection with Asherah is a combination found
only in this layer, and we can therefore, mutatis mutandis, assume the
passage to be polemical.
The obvious result of this passage is that the definite article cannot
be seen as defining the divinity in this passage, unless we are dealing
with a very elegant propagandistic attempt to reduce the goddess to a
thing that one can cut down and burn.
6.3.2. 1 Kings 16.33 and 2 Kings 13.6

Both of these passages deal with rnSJNil in Samaria, which is why they
are treated together.
1 Kings 16.33
And Akhab made Asherah, and Akhab continued to do that which
offended Yahweh Israel's god, more than the kings of Israel that were
before him.
2 Kings 13.6
They certainly did not depart from the sins of the house of Jeroboam, just
as he misled Israel to walk in sin; and also Asherah stayed in Samaria.
Both these verses are dealing with mcjtfn, and in both verses the defi-
nite article can be seen as defining, not necessarily suggesting that we
are dealing with a goddess but that we are dealing with the Asherah,
the one of Samaria. We can however, without any reconstructions of
the verse, understand the second reference to be a reference to the
36. The passage recalls in many ways Isa. 44.9-20, where the 'idol' for the tem-
ple and the firewood for the oven come from the same tree. See also section 6.4.3.
128 Asherah
goddess. That she remains can mean that the statue or aSerah of Sama-
ria (the 'groves' of the KJV) remained in place, but it can also be used
in a more symbolic way: that the goddess and her cult were function-
ing throughout. If this is the case, then 1 Kgs 16.33 has to be looked at
again. In the stories of 1 and 2 Kings we hear no word of there being
any kind of cult reform taking place in Samaria in the style of the Ju-
dahite kings, and we therefore have reason to suppose that the Asherah
mentioned in 2 Kings is the very same Asherah that Akhab is said to
have made.
If we then look closer at the verb Vn&U, we find that not only can it
be used in the material sense, that is, to make something in the sense
of producing or manufacturing something, but it has an abstract sense
as well. This is seen for example, in Exod. 12.48, where it is used of
keeping or celebrating Passover, and in Deut. 5.15 where it is used in
a similar sense of 'the sabbath'. In the wording of 1 Kgs 16.33, then,
we can understand Akhab as either having some kind of idol for or of
Asherah made, or we can understand the reference to be that Akhab
celebrates the feasts and holidays of the cult of the goddess Asherah.
6.3.3. 2 Kings 18.4

This verse was discussed in section 6.2.2, but since the issue of the
determining function of the definite article was not touched upon
there, it will be discussed briefly here.
The verb used of what is done to Asherah is Vn~D, and this indi-
cates, as it did in Judg. 6.25-30, that we are dealing with the deuter-
onomist level, just as it indicates that this refers to an object rather
than a goddess. This impression is reinforced by the listing of the
stock abominations, 'high places, Mazzeboth and Asherah': the same
list that is found in 1 Kgs 14.23.37 Thus the definite article in this
verse cannot define miZJN as a DN, but it could—as was the case in the
above section—define the Asherah mentioned as the Asherah, this time
of the temple in Jerusalem, the one everyone knows. But, as was the
case with the passage from Judges, nothing hinders an understanding
of the use of mEJKil as a polemical misuse. mcJKil is not a goddess but
is rather a thing that can be cut down and burned. The mention of
Nehustan then reinforces this impression, they are both objects, but
the 'sons of Israel' treat them as if they were divinities.
As can be seen from the above discussions, it is possible to see at
37. Here however, we find aSerim rather than aSerah.

least one and probably more of the above mentioned passages as

having a reference to the goddess Asherah, and not to an object called
by the same name. The remaining passages can hardly be seen as
referring to a goddess, unless we reinterpret them as polemical. In
order to clarify whether this could be the case, we will have to look
closer into whether the goddess and the thing have other things in
common than the name, or rather, we will have to examine whether
the goddess became 'a thing' in the minds of the Old Testament writ-
ers and redactors, and how this could have happened.
6.4. From Goddess to Object

Since many of the scholars that are working with Asherah in 'ancient
Israel', interpret the texts from Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom
in the light of the Old Testament,38 rather than the other way round, it
becomes necessary to deal with the complex of problems surrounding
the Old Testament understanding of Asherah as an object. Following
the discussions and conclusions reached so far in this work, it seems
that the basic question is wrongly asked. The question should not be
who or what asherah or Asherah was in 'ancient Israel' or the Old
Testament, since we, from the epigraphic finds, can assume with a
great deal of confidence that Asherah was a goddess. The problematic
issue is that the Old Testament, on most of the occasions when it
refers to this goddess, treats her as if she was an object. The more
correct question to ask then, is 'what do the aSerah and Asherah have
in common' or even 'how does (Yahweh's) Asherah become an
aserahT
The following will elaborate on a possible explanation of this, and
will likewise try to present a model for how the Deuteronomists could
present a well-known goddess as an object, without colliding with the
contemporary understanding of Asherah as a goddess.
The scholarly debate on this subject often takes as its point of
departure the fact that the word n~12?K in the Old Testament is most
often used as an ordinary noun, denoting an object, and not as a prop-
er name or a title. It also often presupposes that the information
regarding mtfN in the Old Testament is correct. Thus partakers in
the debate regularly state that we are dealing with an object that
38. So, for instance, Lemaire 1984b; Lipinski 1980; North 1989 and Meshel
1979.
130 Asherah
straying(!) Israelites saw as a goddess. This object had to be de-

stroyed, in order to restore(!) the pure, exclusive Yahwism.39 The
second error in the discussion is that it, more often than not, centers
on which object is meant when the Old Testament reads m2JN. The
most popular theses are that it is a tree, a sacred grove or a cult-stela
made from wood. These hypotheses mainly build on the Septuagint
translation of the word, the above discussed passage of Deut. 16.21
(see section 6.2.1), and—at times—etymology. The latter will be dis-
cussed in section 7.1, while the former, the treatment mtZJK receives in
the Septuagint, will be discussed below.
6.4.1. Asherah in the Septuagint*0

In order to use the Septuagint in a discussion on Asherah in 'ancient
Israel' or indeed in the Old Testament, one has to presuppose that this
version transmits correct information on the religion of 'Old Testa-
ment times', whatever they may be. In order to investigate whether
this is the case, I will not only look at the treatment Asherah gets in
the Septuagint, but also the treatment that other 'foreign gods' are
given. This is done to try to establish whether this version transmits
the pantheon we know or can conjecture about from the Old Testa-
ment, the epigraphic material and from other material data of the
area.
The word rnEJK is, on most of the occasions that it occurs in the
Septuagint, translated as otXcjoc;, a 'grove' or 'glade', the only excep-
tions being Isa. 17.8 and 27.9, where the word 5ev5pa, 'trees', is used
instead. One could not possibly misunderstand the meaning of either
6ev8pa or aôoq, which makes most scholars conclude that the matter
of Asherah in both the Septuagint and Hebrew Bible can be closed
after a successful investigation. The only exception is Reed, who looks
into all occurrences of the word otXaoc; in the Septuagint, and not only
the ones that are translations of Asherah (Reed 1949: 7). It is also used
seven more times, and on the basis of this investigation, Reed suggests
a reinterpretation of the common understanding of akaoc,. He suggests
39. So, among others, Lemaire 1984b.

40. The chronological relationship between the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint
is not irrelevant in this connection. It is, however, like many other topics touched
upon, not the subject of the present book. I have included the LXX in the discussion
since it is this translation that is behind most modern scholars' interpretation of
Asherah.
that one reads the gloss as a designation of an object used in the pagan
cult (Reed 1949: 6-9), rather than a grove. Among other things, he
builds his reinterpretation of the word on the broader, classical mean-
ing of the word, as a designation for 'a sacred area'.
Another common factor in the discussion of Asherah in the Septua-
gint is that most scholars note that 2 Chron. 15.16 and 24.18, translate
m$N as Astarte (!). This translation often leads to the conclusion that
the people of 'Old Testament times' (whenever that was) could not
discern between Asherah and Astarte,41 or to the claim that 'an aSerah'
was part of the cult of Astarte.42 This necessitates a closer look at the
texts to see if it is possible to substantiate any of these claims from the
texts, or if the people of 'Old Testament times' did know the differ-
ence.
Excursus: The Relationship between Asherah and Astarte43

As has been shown in the above sections, Asherah is found both in the deutero-
nomists and in the chroniclers, but many factors point in the direction that the
chroniclers did not know, or were unable to recognize, Asherah as a goddess. The
following will concentrate on Astarte.
Astarte occurs as a name for a goddess a total of nine times in the Old Testa-
ment. All other occurrences cover place-names. It seems that only the deuter-
onomists knew of a goddess by the name of Astarte, and a closer examination
indicates that practically all the passages concerning the goddess Astarte connect her
explicitly or implicitly to some kind of foreign cult. All the passages in the books of
Kings call her 'Ash'toreth the goddess of the Sidonians', one of the gods and
goddesses imported by Solomon to please his foreign wives.
Judges 2.13 tells us that the Israelites worshipped the 'Ba'als and Ash'taroth', and
even if they are not explicitly called foreign gods in this verse, we may assume that
they are examples of the gods worshipped by the neighboring peoples mentioned in
v.12.
Judges 10.6 mention 'the Ba'als and the Ash'taroth, the gods of Syria, the gods
of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philis-
tines'. Again, Baal and Astarte are used as examples of 'foreign gods' in this pas-
sage; they are not, however, seen as identical to the gods of the 'foreign nations'.
In 1 Sam. 7.3, 'the foreign gods and the Ash'taroth' are mentioned, while the
following verse comments that the 'sons of Israel' get rid of the Ba'als and the
41. Patai 1965: 39 among others.

42. So Garbini 1988: 59-60. He could also base this assumption on the LXX
translation of 1 Sam. 7.4; on this see below.
43. Astarte is usually translated to 'Ash'taroth' in the RSV and KJV.
44. Judg. 2.13; 10.6; 1 Sam. 7.3-4; 12.10; 31.10; 1 Kgs 11.5, 33; 2 Kgs 23.13.
132 Asherah
Astartes. Again, the connection is made between 'foreign god(dess)' and 'Astarte'.
1 Sam. 12.10 presents us with a short version of 1 Sam. 7.4, and we must assume
that it was more or less copied from this passage. Thus, it can also be assumed,
mutatis mutandis, that Astarte and Baal are seen as 'foreign gods' in 12.10 as well as
in 7.4, even if the mention is not explicit. The last reference is 1 Sam. 31.10, which
tells us of a Philistine temple of Astarte in Bet-Shean.
In none of these passages is Astarte—directly or indirectly—connected to the cult
of Yahweh, or is she seen as part of the official cult. She is unanimously portrayed
as a non-indigenous goddess, and is specifically connected to the Sidonians and the
Philistines. The polemic against her is not very specific: it only maintains that she is
part of the impure cult conducted by foreign nations.45 The male god(s) that are men-
tioned with her are Baal and—in the books of Kings—Milkom and Chemosh.
There seems to be little doubt that the Deuteronomists have portrayed Astarte as a
thoroughly foreign goddess, not only is she not Israelite, she is not even Canaanite;
she is exclusively connected to 'the Ba'als' and to the gods of other nations, and
never to Yahweh or to any other indigenous cult.
Asherah, on the other hand, is a goddess who has close connections to the cult of
Yahweh in the Old Testament. She is a 'native' goddess who, for some reason or
other, is discredited and as such removed from the official cult. Astarte, however, is
consistently portrayed as a foreigner. Only the cult instituted for her by Solomon is
explicitly conducted on 'Israelite' territory; in all other relations she is known as a
foreigner. This is the tradition that surfaces in the texts of the Old Testament, and it
points in one direction—namely that the Deuteronomists could discern between the
two goddesses. Whether their description is also an accurate one is impossible to
ascertain. All that can be said is that they would probably not have got away with
their positioning Astarte as a foreigner if she, like Asherah, was a goddess whose
cult had 'always' existed.
The picture differs slightly in the Septuagint, since Asherah is at times translated
as Astarte; on the other hand, Astarte is at times translated as TO dXaot;, which is
usually the translation that is used of Asherah.
In two passages, 2 Chron. 15.16 and 24.18, where the Hebrew text uses Ashe-
rah, the Septuagint uses Astarte. 2 Chron. 15.16 is probably copied from 1 Kgs
15.13, but see the discussion in section 6.1.1. The suspicion lingers that the Septua-
gint might have had a different Vorlage for this verse than the Hebrew text known to
us. The Septuagint text was able to present us with a version where the offence of the
dowager queen was that she was worshipping a foreign goddess, Astarte, and not
that she worshipped a goddess. 2 Chronicles 24.18 is a passage that bears a close
resemblance to Judg. 2.13. The major difference between the verses in the Hebrew
text is that BHS mentions the goddess Astarte in Judges, but the goddess Asherah in
Chronicles. The Septuagint might, then, in this case as well as in the above-
mentioned passage, have used a different Vorlage, where as the Chronicles text was
closer to the Hebrew text of Judg. 2.13 than is the case now.
45. It is worth noting that not only is she not an indigenous 'Israelite' goddess, but that she is
nowhere connected to the 'Canaanites' either.
As can be seen, it is possible to argue that both the passages that apparently trans-
late Asherah as Astarte could be based on a different Vorlage. Thus, we cannot auto-
matically conclude that the Septuagint translators were unable to tell the difference
between the two goddesses, (nor can we exclude the possibility for that matter).
With regard to the passages of the Hebrew text that mention Astarte where the
Septuagint translates as dXaoq, it becomes impossible to maintain—in these cases at
least—that the Septuagint translators could, at all times, tell the difference between
the two females. At least some of the Septuagint translators might—like the chroni-
clers—have been unaware that any difference existed, and therefore have chosen to
translate the 'mysterious' goddess into something they presumed their audience
would know about, namely c&ooc;. That this could be the case can also be seen from
the single occasion, in 1 Sam. 7.4, where we read of id ctXoe 'AcraxpcbG.
Thus one may conclude that, even if the Septuagint-translators were not at all times
able to distinguish Asherah from Astarte, there seems to be little doubt that the deute-
ronomists could and did make a distinction between the two. Astarte is consistently
portrayed as a foreign goddess, while Asherah—equally consistently—is portrayed
as indigenous.
Returning to Asherah in the Septuagint, the next step is to look

slightly further, and examine what kind of treatment comparable
words or concepts get in this version. Apart from a look at the occur-
rences of Asherah or even of otAxjoq, we could look at the divine name
Baal that is known not only from Ugarit and the Old Testament but
from epigraphic finds from Israel as well.46
Most occurrences of 'Baal' in the Septuagint are not translated, as
was the case with Astarte, but are only transcribed and read either as
BdceX or even BaaXiii. In order to take a shortcut, we can start by
looking at the verses where both Baal and Asherah occur, and here we
find one verse that shows an interesting phenomenon. In 1 Kgs 18.19,
where there are 450 prophets of Baal in the Hebrew text, there are
450 prophets of Tfjc; cda^t)vr|c;, that is, of 'the shame', listed with the
400 prophets of icov cdao>v. The Septuagint here places itself closely
to the Old Testament 'tradition' that translates 'Baal' as HEH.47 All
other verses mentioning both Baal and Asherah simply transcribe his
name, but in three instances something odd happens. In Judg. 3.7,
2 Kgs 21.3 and 2 Chron. 33.3, the divinity becomes TTJ BdaX,: the
male god acquires a definite article in the feminine!
46. See Appendix 2, the Kuntillet Ajrud inscription b.

47. I have written 'tradition' since it is by no means a consistent trait. It happens
that Baal becomes 'shame', and it happens that Baal remains Baal.
134 Asherah
That a name or title is simply transcribed in the Septuagint is very

common, and happens to most Old Testament persons and gods. What
is of interest is the apparent change of gender that the virile thunder-
god Baal is subjected to. This seems to point to the fact that the Sep-
tuagint translators had no idea whatsoever of who or what Baal was,48
particularly if we take into consideration that the plural is also simply
transcribed, and not conjugated into oi BaaXoi. If conjugated at all,
one often reads cd BaaAiji, another feminine, this time on a transcrip-
tion of a Hebrew masculine plural. Translators who can mistake a
very male god to an extent where they use a feminine article with his
(transcribed) name, can hardly be expected to be fully aware of details
concerning other divinities in the Syro-Palestinian pantheon. We might
be dealing with conscious distortion, but we might also be dealing
with increasing degrees of ignorance. A third possibility is that to the
Septuagint translators, all 'foreign gods' were by definition female.
Whereas the deuteronomist authors and redactors of the Hebrew
text could and did discern between the goddesses Asherah and Astarte,
it seems unlikely that the Septuagint translators could all the time. It
seems as if they had only a very foggy notion of who or what Baal
was, and they do not always make the clear distinction between
Asherah and Astarte that is found in the Hebrew text.
It can be assumed that they have translated these concepts into some-
thing they themselves knew and which they expected their readers to
know of as well: namely the sacred groves or glades, dA,ao<;. That this
could be the case is further highlighted by the Septuagint version of
1 Sam.7.4, where we read of id dA,ar| 'Acrcapcb6, and by 1 Sam 7.3
and 12.10, where Astarte is translated as dA,ao<;.49
Another possible explanation for the fact that the Septuagint trans-
lators evidently knew a little about the cult of Asherah and Astarte,
and next to nothing about the cult of Baal, could be that the cult for
48. The gender confusion that Baal is subject to in the LXX is widespread.
Twenty-seven out of 76 occurrences in the Old Testament are translated in the LXX
with a feminine article. This amounts to more than a third of the occurrences, not in-
cluding the number of times it is found with an article in genitive plural since this
case-form is identical in all genders. In the book of Jeremiah the feminine is used
throughout.
49. As far as I know, no scholar has tried to claim that Astarte was not a
goddess, but a tree or a sacred grove. The assumption would be obvious if one looks
at these LXX passages, but perhaps it seems easier to accept that a foreign goddess is
a goddess than it is to accept that Yahweh had a consort.
one or both goddesses —with or without connection to the Yahweh-

cult—was still active, whereas the cult of Baal was completely for-
gotten in the circles that created the Septuagint.
To sum up: the Septuagint seems at most times to have little or no
idea of the pantheon of Syria-Palestine, or at least not to have the
same ideas that the Hebrew text shows. One should therefore not treat
the Septuagint as a truthful witness when it translates Asherah as
ctA,aoc;, but only use this information with great caution, and ask the
obvious question. If the Septuagint translators themselves had little or
no idea as to the identities of Baal, Astarte and Asherah, where, then,
did they get the idea of equating a goddess not with a (dead) wooden
object, as the Hebrew text tries to indicate that iT"l2?K was, but with
living trees? The following section will try to investigate this question.
6.4.2. n^N in the Old Testament

If an attempt is made to find a word in the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament that could be the name of a goddess or contain a name, but
which is usually interpreted as a tree or a cult-object, in order to find
out if the ground-work for the Septuagint interpretation of Asherah is
laid in the Hebrew text, the obvious word to investigate is H^K. This
word is —orthographically at least— a predictable feminine of ^ and
occurs a total of seventeen times,50 but is translated with great fidelity
as 'oak' or 'terebinth'.51
That the translation is not incorrect can be seen from the fact that
all occurrences of the word can be understood as a tree, without doing
violence to the text, but in some of these verses one could—with equal
ease —read 'goddess' or understand some kind of representation of
this goddess.52 The following is a discussion of these verses.
It is practically only in the so-called historical books of the Old
Testament that we find a mention of n^K that could be translated as
'goddess'; the occurrences in the prophetic books can only be read as
'a tree', unless one wants to run amok in major text revisions and
50. Gen. 35.4; Josh. 24.26; Judg. 6.11, 19; 1 Sam. 17.2, 19; 21.10; 2 Sam.
18.9-14 (4 times); 1 Kgs 13.14; Isa. 1.30; 6.13; Ezek. 6.13; Hos. 4.13; 1 Chron.
10.12. In 1 Sam. 17.2, 19 and 21.10 (RSV v. 9) however, it is only transcribed as
'the valley of Elah'.
51. This translation, like that of 7TW& as 'a tree', is mainly due to the LXX.
52. Gen. 35.4; Josh. 24.26; Judg. 6.11, 19; 1 Sam. 17.2, 19, 21.10; 1 Kgs
13.14; and perhaps 1 Chron. 10.12 and Isa. 6.13.
136 Asherah
reinterpretations of words. Nevertheless, one should note that both

Ezek. 6.13 and Hos. 4:13 mention the n'pN as a place where the Israel-
ites sacrifice to idols and practice the ungodly cult.
Excursus: Isaiah 6.13b

The latter part of Isa 6.13 mentions an Elah as well, and since this is a highly
problematical passage, it is singled out for special treatment. The relevant part of the
text can be translated as follows (BHS):
As the Elah and as the oak-tree, ASerah53 is cast down, <with the>
mazzeboth of the high places,54 her stump55 is holy seed.
In the BHS there are no less than six different remarks in the apparatus on these
few lines alone. As can be seen I have followed a good part of them, mostly from the
Isaiah Scroll of Qumran, the only exception being the reading of Asherah, rather than
the relative pronoun, a proposal put forward by the editors of BHS.
The most important features of this verse are the fact that the Elah and the Asherah
are paralleled with the oak tree, the Alon. It is also very interesting to see that the
stump—be it of the Asherah, or of the Elah, or of the oak (or of either or all of
them)—is called holy. This last line, the one saying 'her stump is holy seed', could,
of course, refer to what was written before the clause translated here, and if so, the
referent is 'the tenth' that is destroyed in the beginning of the verse. It must,
however, also refer to the Elah, the oak-tree and the Asherah as well, for the com-
parison is that the stump remaining of the tenth shall be holy, like these three things.
We here have a very interesting, but also puzzling and conjectural, glimpse of a
cult for a goddess who was (also?) a tree, and there is a relatively direct parallel
between three factors: n^KH, the possible goddess; the p^N, the certain tree and
Asherah, the certain goddess; the latter we know to be the case from the epigraphic
finds. The tree that is a goddess is apparently holy in itself, but not only when it is
alive: even when it is felled the stump is 2Tlp, holy. But holiness is not necessarily
something good. The holiness of the ark of the covenant is terrifying: it can kill or
cause diseases, and in the 'original' meaning of the holy there is also the meaning
'set apart' or even 'untouchable'. So the stump of the Elah or of the Asherah is set
apart, is untouchable and holy, just as one could imagine the Elah or the Asherah
herself to be. It seems highly probable that this small part of a verse might be the
key, the connection between the object and the goddess, but before continuing in this
direction, the remaining occurrences of the word will be discussed.
53. Cf. the proposal in BHS; MT has 'thus is she...'

54. I here follow the emendations noted in BHS as variants found in the Qa
manuscript.
55. Or, 'her mazzebot...'
The use of the word in 2 Sam. 18.9-14, the death of Absalom, refers
without doubt to a tree. It is only possible to make this H^K into a
goddess by rather fantastic reinterpretations. I will not make the at-
tempt.
In one passage, the story of David and Goliath (1 Sam. 17.2, 19)
n'PKn is part of a geographical name, the valley of Elah, which is also
the translation used by KJV. In Danish translations we usually find 'the
valley of the terebinth', but one could, with equal reason, translate
'the valley of the goddess'.
The trait showing up in most of the remaining passages is that
whatever n'PNn is or is not, things take place under it. Jacob buries the
'strange gods' and Joshua places a stone under H^Nil in Shechem (Gen.
35.4 and Josh. 24.26). It is worth noting that in spite of the KJV trans-
lation, the Elah of Shechem is not placed by the temple of Yahweh,
but rather in the temple of Yahweh, miT tznpQD. This is not neces-
sarily a very appropriate place to have an oak tree, but is a very
appropriate placing of a goddess.
The angel of Yahweh in Judges 6 and the man of God in 1 Kings 13
are both sitting under n^Nn, just as Saul is buried under n'pKn in
1 Chron. 10. The burial of Saul takes place in Jabesh, and the angel of
Yahweh is in Ofra, but we are not given any geographical name on
the placement of H^Nil in 1 Kings 13. It can, however, be assumed that
it must be placed in the vicinity of Beth-El.
Apart from the passage of the burial of Saul, the above mentions of
n^tfn in the so-called historical books are closely connected to well-
known cult centres in the Old Testament; and n^n is seemingly always
connected to great men, be they kings, prophets, judges or angels. This
could lead someone like me to speculate wildly that we might (and it is
a mighty 'might') be dealing with a de-mythologized reference to a
goddess. That rfo&n is placed in the temple of Shechem and is placed in
or at other Yahwist cult centres could indicate that we are indeed
dealing with the goddess, the consort of Yahweh, and if this is the
case, then this consort can hardly be other than the lady known to us
as Asherah from the finds of Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom.
This impression is reinforced by the parallels found in Isa. 6.13:
Asherah and Elah are the same thing, even if the one seems to be a
living tree whereas the other seems to be a wooden thing. Again, the
Septuagint translation, dXaoc;, fits in well in this connection. So what
we have is a word which, vocalized and unvocalized, can be under-
138 Asherah
stood both as a living tree and as 'a goddess', and there is plenty of
circumstantial evidence, that this tree or goddess might be identical to
what is otherwise in the Old Testament called Asherah. What remains
now is to find a possible way for this living tree and the goddess to
have become identical to the wooden object that often seems to be
alluded to in the Old Testament when Asherah is mentioned.
6.4.3. The Polemics of the Deuteronomists

I have shown above that it is apparently only the Deuteronomists that
know of a goddess by the name of Asherah, and that they—as often as
not—connect the cult of this goddess to the cult of Yahweh. The
chroniclers apparently do not know the goddess, but only an object, an
aSerah, and they do not connect this object with the cult of Yahweh.
Since this seems to be the case, we must presume that Asherah dis-
appeared from the cult during the time that passed from the writing of
the deuteronomist layer to the time of the chronicler's layer,56 and
that she, by late Hellenistic times, was effectively erased from the
minds of literate people. Since we know that Asherah before 586 BCE
was a known goddess in the Cis-Jordan, and that the Deuteronomists,
who write later than that, know her, we must assume that their dis-
cussions of her are polemic and that they 'turn' the goddess into a
thing by deliberately reifying her. We likewise have to assume that
their descriptions of cultic procedures and divine actors could not
move too far away from the known reality of their own times,
because this would make them less credible; thus they were unable to
ignore Asherah or to remove her completely from the context she was
known to function in. Their polemics against her then have to have
some connection with the known realities of their own time. This
leads to the conclusion that the rniZJK of the Old Testament was either
a wooden artefact or a living tree—both seem to have been the case—
and that these were the object of a cult (cf. Reed 1949: 37). That we
are dealing with a manufactured wooden object could indicate that we
56. If one wants to steer clear of the problems concerning the dating of the Old
Testament, particularly the problem of the time separating the works of the deuter-
onomists and the chroniclers one might have to assume that the chronicles-layer was
written in a different cultural context than that of the deuteronomist layer. If one
accepts the more recent datings—that is, that the bulk of the Old Testament was writ-
ten in Hellenistic times (so, e.g., Lemche 1992) this becomes a necessity, since one
has to assume that the two 'histories' were composed more or less contemporane-
ously.
are indeed dealing with an idol of some kind, be it statue, picture or

aniconic representation.
Since it can safely be assumed that the deuteronomist-layer of the
Old Testament can have been written no earlier than 586 BCE, it may
also be assumed that the Deuteronomists had some insight into Baby-
lonian and/or Persian cult and cult practices.57 They might have
known of a ritual similar to the one known both from the library of
Assurbanipal and from a neo-BabyIonian tablet.58 The ritual describes
how one, by performing certain rites and sacrifices, makes a wooden,
gilded statue into a god, born of gods, that is, transforms the wooden
object into a divine being.59 If a similar ritual was in operation in Cis-
Jordan in Persian-Hellenistic times, it is very possible that the cultic,
wooden representation of the goddess, the aSerah, was seen as the god-
dess herself, as Asherah.
When this is compared with Isa. 44.9-20 we find a situation where
the woodcutter cuts a statue from and warms his fingers by the fire
made of the same log of wood; thus, ridicule and determined reduc-
tion of divine statues or representations can be seen to be relatively
widespread. By ignoring the divine presence in the wooden object, the
Deuteronomists can pretend that they are not dealing with a divinity,
but rather with a manufactured object.
It is possible that the goddess was not only represented by a statue
or some other kind of idol in the cult, but was also seen as being pre-
sent in certain specimens of a particular tree: the oak or terebinth. If
this is the case—which it might very well be, see the excursus on Isa.
6.13b—the connection is made. The Elah is the goddess, who is also
Asherah, and is the tree; the Deuteronomists had an easy job. It is
even possible, that she was not seen as being present in every Elah
tree, but only in special specimens, with the name applying—
eventually?—to the entire species.60
57. It is not even necessary to assume an exile to claim that the Deuteronomists
could know of Babylonian rites, as vassals of the Assyrian, neo-Baby Ionian and
Persian states, such as the states and cities in the area of Cis-Jordan, must have been
influenced in some way, both culturally and cultically by their overlords.
58. The following is based on Jacobsen 1987, which discusses this ritual.
59. Among other things the hands of the woodcutter(s) and other craftsmen mak-
ing the statue are symbolically cut off, so that it can be said that it was not the hands
of living men that manufactured this.
60. Another possibility is that the name of the tree and the goddess became
associated because of the similarity of their names, and not that the tree got its name
140 Asherah
The connection between the goddess Asherah and the cult imple-
ment is neither that the goddess is a personification or hypostasis of
the object, nor that the same word is used of both; it is rather that the
wooden object, the aSerah, is de facto the goddess herself and that the
Deuteronomists are making a distinction that would not have been
apparent to everyone. The separation of Asherah and the aSerah is
then made by the Deuteronomists and signifies a polemical de-sacral-
ization of a goddess who could not be fitted into a monotheist and
centralized Yahweh-cult. The insistence on Yahweh as a living god
then reflects on the treatment given not only to Asherah, but also to
other not-exclusively-Yahwist phenomena such as the mazzeboth,
'high places' and 'altars'.
The Deuteronomists make a linguistic hypostasis by identifying the
goddess, the holy image or symbol of the goddess, and the name of the
goddess with a 'thing'. They take a religious code at face value and
turn the literal content into something ridiculous. Similar phenomena
can be seen in our time and culture as well. An expression like 'the
victory of the cross' is—naturally—a religious code. If one wants to,
it is quite easy to turn this into something ridiculous. Two wooden
sticks placed one across the other at right angles can hardly win
anything at all: it is rather a lousy weapon, actually. Now, a Sherman-
tank or... In the religious code the 'victory of the cross' could—
depending on the context—be translated into something like, 'the vic-
tory won by Christians (that is, those who believe in the crucified and
resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, and who see the cross as a symbol of
him and his Lordship), because they are righteous and are faithful to
their Lord'.
Another example of reduction of divine presence could be the often
repeated prejudice, that 'primitive' societies worship trees, stones and
rivers and the like; they do not. What is worshipped is the numinous
presence in those things, not the things themselves. To the uninitiated
it might look as if it were the stone itself that is worshipped, but the
initiate knows it is not, it is the god that is living in the stone that the
initiate worships.
6.4.4. Conclusions
To sum up, the situation found in the Old Testament is not dissimilar
from the situation found in the epigraphic material. Asherah in the
from the goddess—but this is a 'chicken and egg' discussion.

Old Testament is, in all probability, a goddess or the cultic representa-

tion of this same goddess. In the minds of her adherents, this cultic
representation would be identical to the goddess herself. When the
Deuteronomists pretend that the cultic representation is not the god-
dess, they are in all probability making a deliberate misinterpretation
of the relationship between the goddess and the cultic representation
of the goddess.
Exactly what the cultic representation was seems to be under con-
stant discussion, but there seems little doubt that 'the aSerah' could be
several different things: a wooden—aniconic—stela or column of
some kind; a living tree;61 or a more regular statue. My main point,
however, remains: that the cultic representation—whatever form it
took—was identical to the goddess in the minds of her worshippers.
In the Septuagint version, Asherah is seen as a living tree. However,
in the Hebrew version the word n*?$ could be understood as a living
tree (a terebinth) or as a representation of a goddess, the Elan. This
Elah, or goddess, could be identical to Asherah, and if Elah is iden-
tical to Asherah, the 'missing link' in the discussion of who or what an
aSerahlAsherah was, particularly concerning the connection between
the Hebrew and the Greek understanding of the term is practically
self-evident.
Asherah, throughout the deuteronomistic layer, was seen as an
indigenous goddess, closely connected to the cult of Yahweh, whereas
Astarte was seen as a foreigner.
The natural conclusion to all this is that both the Deuteronomists
and the Septuagint translators had a very definite referent for the exis-
tence of a goddess beside Yahweh. Thus, it must be assumed that the
cult of the goddess known to us as Asherah was very much in opera-
tion at the time the Deuteronomists wrote, and that the historicizing of
her cult is part of their polemics against her: 'it wasn't right then, it
isn't right now'. It can also be assumed that since the Septuagint trans-
lators had a very clear understanding of what the term Asherah de-
noted, that is, a living tree, this understanding was built on a still living
tradition.
61. The kind of tree depends on the scholar. As can be inferred from the above, I
would put my money on the oak tree. Another possibility, argued by Taylor (1995)
is that it is an almond tree, which was heavily cut and pruned into a particular cultic
form. Taylor also argues that the Menorah is based on the form of 'the aSerah'.
Chapter 7
ASHERAH IN UGARIT, ISRAEL AND THE OLD TESTAMENT
7.1. Etymology
One of the main topics in the discussion of Asherah in Ugarit, Israel
and the Old Testament is the problem concering the 'real' meaning of
the name Asherah. This discussion is to some extent futile, in as much
as it is irrelevant what a name—or a title—'really means' or 'origi-
nally meant'. What is relevant is how a word, name or title is used in
any given context, and what codes are hidden in the use of the word in
the given sources. Nevertheless, the following will contain a discus-
sion of what possible roots, and thereby 'original meaning' (?) can be
hidden under the name(s) atrt/'$rt/n~}Vi$. This is done primarily in
order to clarify whether the material discussed in this book can pro-
vide any definite knowledge concerning the meaning of the goddess's
name. Secondly, it is done in order to establish alternative possibilities
to the two major hypotheses concerning Asherah.1
If one looks at the many etymologies that have appeared for the
name Asherah, they are all grouped around V"IIZJN, and depending on
the scholar, the languages drawn into the discussion are Hebrew, Ara-
maic, Ugaritic, Assyrian/Babylonian2 and 'Canaanean'.
Apart from languages with the relative pronoun, "1C7K, words con-
taining the root can, in the languages used in this book, mean the fol-
lowing:3
1. One is Albright's interpretation of the name: 'she who treads on the

sea(dragon)', and various subdivisions of this; the other is the 'sanctuary' or 'cella'
interpretation (see, for example, Lipinski 1980).
2. If one works with an Assyrian/Babylonian root, it is important to keep in
mind that this language operates with no less than 7 different aleph-sounds. Since the
Babylonian goddess, ASratum, is spelled with an aleph\, any root using another
aleph is disregarded. This is, however, only possible insofar as the relevant dictio-
naries have noted which aleph is used.
3. In this section, the following dictionaries have been used: AHw, BGUL,
7. Asherah in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament 143
Akkadian
aSarum. To survey, overlook or take care of in order to obtain or maintain
order; give guidance; teach; take care of; organize; examine; instruct; bring
luck; favourize; march; advance.
aSirtum (e$ertu/i$irtu/i$ertu). Sanctuary, chapel, temple (place of congre-
gation); the goddess of the temple (cf. Muss-Arnolt); a separate room in
private homes for cultic purposes; a temple-shaped base, used for placing
pictures and symbols (sacred); a 'place of grace'; a sacrifice or gift for the
gods;4 care; charity; guidance; an overseer; a female organizer or super-
visor of sacrifices.
a$ru (aSaru, iSru). Place; building complex; region; town; cosmic
locality. Also = Samu, 'heaven' (cf. Muss-Arnolt).
aSratu. Poetic word for 'Heaven'.5
aSartu. Hard, useless soil; desert.6
Ugaritic 7
atr, after; to; towards; place; sanctuary; walk; advance; march; follow
someone.
atryt. lot; destiny; end.
atrt. bark; the backside; goddess; Asherah.
Hebrew
"12JN. to walk forward; advance; to be happy; to be light.8
Aramean
"12JN. Place; work; inscription.
m27N. Sanctuary?
CAD, CML, Delitzsch 1888, GAG, HAHAT, KB, KAI, Labat 1975, MLC, Muss-
Arnolt 1905, UTand WUS. The information concerning which aleph is used derives
from Delitzsch and Muss-Arnolt.
4. Cf. CAD, only in old-Babylonian.
5. Cf. CAD, with a reference to Enuma Elish, 4.1.141. No note of which aleph
is the initial, but Muss-Arnolt also knows the word, and treats it as aleph].
6. Cf. CAD. No note of which aleph is used.
7. Apart from the above-mentioned dictionaries, Dietrich and Loretz 1984 has
been used in this section.
8. According to Garbini 1978: 193, also benedire, to bless.
144 Asherah
'Canaanean'9
'$r. Happiness, joy.
The list is impressive, and could probably become even longer, if

other Semitic or Semitic-like languages such as Arabic or Egyptian
were included. Looking at the abundance of meanings in the above list
however, it seems incredible that only two possible etymologies have
been discussed seriously over the years, namely, 'to walk', and 'sanc-
tuary'. 10
The majority of scholars who discuss the etymology of Asherah
build on Albright's hypothesis that the Ugaritic title, rbt atrt ym,
means 'she who treads on the sea(dragon)' or 'she who walks on the
sea'. This hypothesis has already been discussed in section 4.1.1.1 and
was shown to be highly improbable.
A similar hypothesis can be found in Margalit (1990), who claims
that this is not a name but a title. He also takes his point of departure
from the Hebrew V"I2?N, which he interprets as 'Follower' or 'to fol-
low behind (in someone's footsteps)'. Taking this root, and using CTA
3.1.14-15n as his point of departure—a section where atrt probably
stands parallel to att—he finds evidence that Asherah is a title meaning
'consort', since a consort always walks in the footsteps of her husband.
Still another possibility is to see the name as a constructed noun
with a basic meaning of 'holy', since most Semitic languages have a
noun derived from V~I$K meaning 'sanctuary'.12 If this is done, it is
possible to link Asherah directly with both the Ugaritic and the Egyp-
tian qdS; it is also possible to explain the parallels between atrt and qdS
in the Ugaritic corpus. Finally, it is possible to explain the qedeSim
from the Old Testament as Asherah's official priesthood—of both
9. The word 'Canaanean' is used by KAI, and is utilized here only as a

quotation.
10. That serious scholars are unable to use a dictionary seems ridiculous, which
leaves one possible explanation for this state of affairs: that these two interpretations
of the root are the most convenient for the majority of scholars. Whether this also
means that one of them is the correct interpretation remains to be seen.
11. Regarding this text, see section 4.1.2.3.
12. This meaning is probably not derived from 'being holy', but rather from 'a
place'. The constructed noun 'holy' is primarily derived from Mesopotamian aSirtum,
which is almost exclusively used of sacred places. See also Muss-Arnolt, who claims
that this word is also used of the goddess of the temple.
sexes—who naturally have a title reminiscent of one of her names or

titles.13
As a variant of this theme, one could see the Ugartic word-pair,
atrt//ilt as a parallel between two nouns: one with the meaning 'the
holy one' or 'goddess', the other meaning 'goddess' or 'the goddess'.14
Dietrich and Loretz are so far the only scholars I have found who
work from the hypothesis that atrt can mean 'goddess'.
From the texts one could with equal justification argue that Asherah
has a function as a protector, a not unlikely function for the patron
goddess of a town.15 If we follow this lead, the translations possible
from the Mesopotamian root give excellent meaning. Asherah is 'she
who watches over us', or 'she who maintains order', or 'she who
brings good luck, who favourizes'. These possibilities have—to my
knowledge—no spokespersons.
If Asherah is indeed a name and not a title it is possible to imagine
that a multitude of meanings have been understood, and even that
some of her attributes derive from the name rather than vice versa. It
is possible, from the extant material, to argue that she functioned as
the sacred or holy one, as consort, as protectress. All are probable
functions for a centrally placed goddess.
If, on the other hand, this is a title, both Margalit's proposal
'consort' as well as Dietrich and Loretz's 'goddess' seem probable. It
is, however, possible that the title, like the name, could allude to more
than one function, and could play with several possible etymologies, as
the Ugaritic uses of parallells to Asherah show.
In short, it is not possible, from the extant material, to conclude
definitely what Asherah 'really' means. The many roots make it
possible to understand the name in far more ways than the present
scholarly discussion shows.
7.2. Name or Title?

In the above discussion I touched upon the problem of whether we
were dealing with a name or a title in the word Asherah. This section
will seek to discuss and clarify whether it is possible to determine that
13. See also the excursus on the qdS in section 6.1.4.

14. Regarding atrt = goddess, see Dietrich and Loretz 1984: 60.
15. In the Ugaritic texts, Asherah is seen as the goddess of Tyre, and possibly of
Sidon as well.
146 Asherah
this is indeed either a name or a title. In the material discussed so far

Asherah is used both as a divine name and as a noun, and in some
cases it is quite impossible to come to a definite conclusion on whether
it is used as one or the other in the text at hand.16 Both advantages and
disadvantages come to the fore if one tries categorically to claim that
we are indeed dealing with a name (title) and that this name (title) can
in no way be used as a title (name). In both cases some problems are
solved, and in both cases a new set of problems arises.
If Asherah is not a divine name, but a title—disregarding the
meaning of the title—the entire discussion in section 5.3.1 on adding
suffixes to names becomes superfluous. On the other hand, a new and
complex question arises: which goddess is hiding under the title? If
Asherah on the other hand is a name, the above mentioned discussion
stands, as do a number of problematic passages in the Old Testament,
passages which become very difficult indeed to explain without taking
refuge in more or less rewriting them. The easy way out is to
determine—based on the material at hand—that we are dealing with a
word that was originally a name (or title) and that in daily use has
begun to function not only as a name (or title), but also as a title (or
name); whether one sees one or the other as 'the original' must be an
arbitrary and highly subjective choice since the accessible sources give
us no reason to prefer one to the other. Another theoretical possibility
is that we are dealing with a name that is a title, or vice versa.17
To conclude: it seems most reasonable to assume that we are dealing
with a word functioning as a divine name. This 'name' has, like El and
Baal and most other Semitic divine names, a 'secular' meaning that
functions as a title or as an ordinary noun; that the 'secular' meaning
is not obvious to us does not prove that it is not there, neither does it
stop us from putting forth different possible interpretations. My pro-
posal is that this is indeed an official 'name-title' of the primary
goddess of the pantheon. Furthermore, this 'name-title' shows the lady
to be the female counterpart of the male high-god, be he El, Baal or
Yahweh. 18 This facilitates the use of suffixes on her name, as is the
16. This is the case in texts like CTA 3.1.14 and 2 Kgs 13.6.
17. Like Caesar, whose name was, or became, a title, or Augustus, whose title
became a name.
18. It is on purpose that I do not refer to the consort of the number one (male)
god. It might after all have been he who was seen as her consort or son in any given
culture or time.
case in the Kuntillet Ajrud texts; it gives a sensible solution to the

tricky passage CTA 3.1.14-15, and explains how the deuteronomists
could get away with using the word both as a DN and as an ordinary
noun. Finally, it explains why a goddess can be called the same thing
in cultures as chronologically and geographically separated from each
other as is the case. Since it is first and foremost a title, bound not to
the goddess's function but to her status, it can easily have been used of
goddesses we would see as differing violently from each other.
7.3. What's in a Name?

The only question left now is the one that is the title of this section. Is
it indeed the same goddess we are dealing with in Ugarit, Israel and
the Old Testament? Or, framed more traditionally, 'who or what is
Asherah in the three corpi of texts that this book deals with?'
From the material discussed, I do not think it is possible to maintain
the presumption most participants in the debate concerning Asherah
take as their point of departure: namely, same name, same goddess.
From the material at hand, it is only possible to show that Asherah is
'the same goddess' in these three corpi of texts inasmuch as she seems
to be the number one goddess of the given pantheon in all three, and
inasmuch as she seems to be closely affiliated to the number one god.
The other functions of the goddesses called Asherah remain obscure in
all three text-corpi, and to this day there is no way of ascertaining any
of the actual everyday functions of these goddesses, as seen in relation
to human beings.
The only possible conclusion to this is that the divine name or
title—be it Asherah, Baal or Yahweh—can give us no kind of certain-
ty that we are dealing with the 'same god or goddess', not even within
what we see as the same culture or the same historical context. A
theophoric name—for example, 'Abdi-Asirta'—need not be referring
to the same goddess in two neighbouring cultures, and there is no
possible way of ascertaining that the same theophoric name borne by
two people living in the same city at the same time is indeed referring
to the same god or goddess. If one of the people bearing the same
name had a 'foreigner' as one of her or his parents, then these 'same
names' could be referring to gods or goddesses whose functions were
entirely different.
The goddess Asherah, in Ugarit, 'Israel' and the Old Testament is
not one goddess, but is rather the number one goddess in the relevant
148 Asherah
cultures. These goddesses can have any number of common traits—

among them the name or title borne by them all—but we cannot from
the extant material determine whether their functions both in the
divine and the human sphere were the same to any extent.
Appendix 1
LISTS OF SACRIFICES FROM UGARIT
CTA 30l
1. il\il
2. drb\il
3. mphrt bn il
4. t mwS\m4
5. il w atrt
6. hnn il
nnn
7. nSbtI/5
8. $lm\/
9. ilhSl add
10. 1. spn I
On the edge
11. ug t1
Reverse
12. bmrhil
13. bnitil
14. bsmdil
15. bdtnil
16. bSrpil
17. bkntil
18. b gdyn il
19. <----->
1. CTA 30 = KTU 1.65 = UT 107 = RS 4.474. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 76.
2. CTA:b<n>.KTU:bn.
3. CL4 and #717: fcn.
4. CTA tklmn wSnm. KTU: trmn (tkmn) w $nm.
5. D / i n lines 7-9; CIA and KTU il.
6. C7>1: fe 'd spn '(l/d). KTU: b 'd (b'I) spn 7.
7. CTA and /STt/: ugrt.
150 Asherah
CTA 34*
1. dqt'. t'. ynt. t'm . dqt. t'm.
2. mtntmnkba. alp . S . HI
3. gdlt. ilhm . tkmn . Samdat1
4. Sp11 . dqt. SrprS (. ?)gmm . d\ \tmu
5. < > \h13. alpwSilhm . gdl<->14. ilhm
16
6. < >l $. atrt. $. tkmnwSn.S
7. < >nt11. $. rSp . $. d\ ilwp< >r&718
8. < >dlt19. Sim . gdlt. wburm \b20
9. rmst. ilhm . b'lm . dtt. wksm . hmS
10. 'Srh . mlbnnpt.hs'hn.b'l.gpnS222
11. < >\ I' £23 . iltmgdl. $. ill. asrmS
12. rgll24. SpSpgr . wtrmnm . b 'mile25
2
13. ^gdlt. uShr. h21. gdlt. ymgdlt
14. l^.yrh.gdlt19
8. CTA 34 = KTU 1.39 = UT 1 = RS 1929 n° 1. Autograph: CTA II, fig.80.

9. CTA: mtnt mn kbd. KTU: mtntm w kbd. UT: mtn tm nkbd.
10. CTA, KTU and UT all emend to wSnm dqt; usually coupled tkmn.wSnm.
11. CTA, KTU and UT: rSp. The autograph, however, does not look as if there is room for
the r.
12. CTA, KTU and UT: Srp wSlmm . dqtm.
13. CTA and KTU: lh. UT: lh(7). Cf. the autograph, there is hardly room for both the i
and the /, but only for one of these letters. The sign before the clearly legible h could have been an /
or even a g, if the latter is the case, there might have been room for another letter.
14. CTA and KTU: gdl<t>. UT: gdl<t> /gdl<m>. None of the readings are evident from the
autograph, which only presupposes a low-lying wedge with the triangle pointing to the left; this
feature is shown by the following letters : u, b, d, h, w, z, k, r.
15. CTA and KTU: 'l. UT: l. The certain ' of CTA and KTU does not show on the
autograph.
16. CTA, KTU and UT: Snm.
17. CTA and KTU: 'nt. UT: <'>nt. No letter before the n is visible on the autograph.
18. CTA, KTU and UT: dr il w p<h>r b'l.
19. CTA and KTU: gdlt. UT: <g>dlt. The autograph has no visible g.
20. CTA: <l>b. KTU: Ib. UT: <->b. Only half a cuneiform character is visible on the
autograph.
21. CTA, KTU and UT all emend : tnlun. Snpt.hsth.
22. CTA: s.'pn.KTU: spn.
23. CTA: <->t. KTU: < >p/tt. UT: -?-?'. an ' is the only possible sign to be read on the
autograph.
24. CTA: will. KTU: w III. UT: rgll(l).
25. CTA and KTU: bt. UT: bt!.
26. CTA: <il>hm. KTU: il bt. UT: (M)l-m. Cf. the autograph: the first character could be a h
or an i, the second a u, d or /, the third is practically illegible, whereas the fourth probably is an m.
27. CTA and KTU: uShry. UT: u$hr(.h).
28. CTA: b'l gdlt. KTU: b'l. gdlt. UT sml <g>dlt. According to the autograph, there is only
room for six letters, all very faint: first letter could be a b or a s, second letter is an m or a ', third
letter is a clear /, while the fourth letter looks most like a p; the last letters are, as CTA, KTU and
UT note, It.
29. KTU here adds <ktr>, and there is room for either that or for some other divinity to
Appendix 1 Lists of Sacrifices from Ugarit 151
15. gdt.tran30 . gdlt. pdry . gdlt dqt

16. gdqt. Vf31. dqt.
32
17. < >. sbl< >. dbhm . $< >S33pgr
On the edge:
18. 34(< >lt. iltt< > . g)nqtm . d< >tm35
19.gdlt. wlglttS36
Reverse
20. < >mttlgm31. wyrdt. < ^bht3^
21. gducr . Ib'ltbhtm . 'srm
22.n$ilmw
CTA 3541
1. byrh . <42
2. $mtr.<43
3. btltt'<M
4. barb' <45
5. \vtnSm .<46
6. Urn . wS<47
48
7. ytb . brr <
whom the dqt in the next line is sacrificed. According to the autograph, however, there is no text
missing here.
30. CTA and KTU: gdlt trmn.There does not seem to be room for an / in the 'lacuna'.
31. CTA: dqt trt. KTU: dqt. trt (trt). UT: (gd<lt d>qt). 'rt.
32. CTA: <->(p/h) 'nt.hbly. KTU: <r$>p ' nt.hbly. UT: < >. 'nt. sbl< >.
33. CTA, KTU and UT: $$.
34. Letters noted in parenthesis are—cf. the autograph—partly erased.
35. CTA: <g>dlt iltm hnqtm . d<q>tm. KTU: <gd>ly . Htm . hnqtm . dqtm. UT: - I t . il< >.
gnqtm.
36. CTA: <->h . rty gdlt. wlglmt S. KTU: <y>rh , kty . gdlt. w I glmt<.>$. UT: -—r-gdlt.
37. CTA: <w>pamt tltm. KTU: <w>pamt tltm. UT: < >mt. tltm.
38. CTA, KTU and UT: <m>dbht.
39. CTA: gdlt. KTU: <g>dlt. UT: gdun.
40. CTA: lins Urn. KTU: I inS Urn. UT: -inS Urn.
41. CTA 35 = KTU 1.41 = UT 3 = RS 1929 n° 3. Autograph: CTA II, figs. 81-82. The
reconstructions of CTA are made from RS 18.56 1.1-53, which, cf. CTA 1.119, is the same text. A
general problem on this tablet is that the letters ' and t are very difficult to distinguish from one
another.
42. CTA and KTU: <ri$yn.bym. hdt>.
43. CTA and KTU: < utkl. HI. Slmrn >.
44. CTA and KTU: '<Srt.yrths.mlk.brr>, cf. CTA 36.10.
45. CTA: barb'<t. 'Srt.riS.arg->, cf. CTA LI 19 n. 2, the last word is probably argmn.KTU:
b arb't<. '$rt.ri$.argmn>.
46. CTA and KTU: l<b'lt.bhtm. 'srm.lin$>, cf. CTA 34.21-22.
47. CTA: d<d.ilU mlk>. KTU: d<d.HU.ilhm.mlk>.
48. CTA: <.wmh q->. KTU: <.>w< mhy>x< w qra>.
152 Asherah
8. ym<.>lmy <49
9.'g< >s. w <50
10. \< >rt.y' <51
11. wall. wbu <52
12. ytk. <> \t.ilhm.<53
13. dqt < >\$p $< >wS<54
14. il I < > Ipw <55
15. b< >. at^t56
16. 'ntS >rSp $ <51
17. gdlt. SI <58
•71 ^Q
18. rmst ilh <
19. ksm. t\ 'm. < >\60
20. dyqh < >H.dbh<61
21. smn . rq\ < >btmtn <62
22. wtnh \m bgr. ar <63
23. kdm .yn.pr\mh<64
24. \dbht .bt.i \t. t/' s <65
25. / t. S. wl <66
26. 8 < >.lnk\ <67
27. 's < >lin<68
28. il< >qt.<69
49. CTA: <'>lm.y'< >.KTU: <'>lm.y'<rbt>.

50. CTA: (k/w) (Vt) <—>s w-< >. KTU: k 'gml<.>s. w<.> k(?)p(?) < dqtm>.
51. CTA: wyn<t.q>rt.y< >, cf. CTA 36.12. KTU: w yn<t. q>rt. y'd(?) <b'l 'nt>.
52. CTA: wal<p.l>il.wbu< >. If one refers to CTA 1.120 n. 3 the end of the line could
be bu<rm...> or bd<bh...>. KTU: w al<p.$l>il.w b u<rbt>.
53. CTA and KTU: ytk.gdlt<.>ilhm.<tkmn.w $nm>.
54. CTA: dqt<.>r$p*.$rp.w$<lmm.dqtm>. *According to CTA 1.120 n. 5, the following
readings have been proposed: Bauer: kSpS np; Ginsberg: wSpS np; Gordon: r$p S np. KTU:
dqt<.>rSp.<dqt.> $rp.w$<lmm.dqtm>.
55. CTA: ilh<.a>lp.w$<.il>hm.<gdlt.ilhm>. KTU: ilh<.>alp.w $<.il>hm. gd<lt.ilhm>.
56. CTA: b'<l. $>.atrt<.$.tkm>n w<Snm. $>. KTU: b'l<.>$. attrt (sic) <.$. tk>mn<.>
w<Snm. $>.
57. CTA and KTU: 'nt J r$p $<.dr.il.wphr.b'l>.
58. CTA and KTU: gdlt. $lm<.gdlt.w burm.lb>.
59. CTA: rmst* ilhm<.b'lm >; * here one might, cf. CTA 1.120 n. 6, reconstruct wmlu,
as is found in RS 18.56.20. KTU: rmst ilhm <.b'lm.dtt.w>.
60. CTA: ksm.tltm.< -->. KTU: ksm.tltm.<mlu.w>m'r.
61. CTA: dyqh bt<-->r.dbh.<$mn.mr>. KTU: dyqh bt<.ml>k.dbh.<$mn.mr>.
62. CTA: $mn.rqh<->bt.mtnt<.wynt.qrt>. KTU: Smn.rqh <.>nbt.mtnt<.w ynt.qrt>.
63. CTA: w tn htm.w bgr.arb<'* --->; * should probably be reconstructed like KTU: w tn
htm.w bgr.arb<'. '$r>.
64. CTA: prs.qmh.<m'—>. KTU: prs.qmh.m<'lt>.
65. CTA and KTU: mdbht.bt.ilt'sr<m.l spn. S>.
66. CTA and KTU: Iglmt. S.wl< / yrh>.
67. CTA and KTU: gd<lt>.l nkl<.gdlt.l b'lt.bhtm>.
68. CTA: 's<rm . >lin$<.ilm. >. KTU: 's<rm.>l inS<.ilm. gdlt>.
69. CTA: il<hm . >dqt. $< r$>. KTU: il<hm.>dqt. $<pLgdlt.r$>.
29. < > <70
On the edge
30. < >lh . sdll <71
31. <> \t.mn. w <72
Reverse
32. < >t. datm. <73
33. < >mm dlt<74
34. < > .l.sp\.gdlt.<75
35. < > . $. I. <ib. ><76
36. \< >l.<77 i
37. <>\ b'lt.bt.78 <
38. < >bht. b . hm\<79
39. < >kbd. w . d\<80
40. < > . atrt. 'sr<81
41. < > b.mdbh.b'l<82
42. dqt. I. spn . w . dq<83
43. tn I. 'Srm . pamt. I<84<84
44. Sdd. Smn . gdlt. w<85
45. rem . yttb . b . tdt. tn . <86
46. 'II\h87. gdlt<.> rgm.yt<™
47. b . < > '. sbu . < >pS. w M\,89
48. < >mlk . < >b . ym . hdt tn . £m90
70. CTA: <p.S>rp<.>w $l<mm—?dqt>. KTU: <p.S>rp<.>w Slonm.kmm. dqtm>.

71. CTA and KTU: lh*. gdh<.ilhm.gdlt.il?>. * Bauer and Ginsberg (also CTA) <li>lh.
72. CTA and KTU: <d>qt.tkmn.w<$nm.dqt-—>.
73. CTA: <—>(b/d)t.dqtm.<bnbk >.KTU: <ilt.>bt.dqtm..
74. CTA: <--k>mm.gdlt.l.b< 'I >. KTU: <lmm.>kmm.gdlt.l b< 'I. spn>.
75. CTA: <dq>t.l. spn.gdlt.l< >. KTU: d<q>t.l. spn.gdlt.l<b'l>.
76. CTA: u<gr>t. $.l.<il>ib. g<—rt>. KTU: u<g>rt. S.l.i<l>ib. g< rt>.
77. CTA: w<'srm.>l.ri< >. KTU: w<'srm.>l.rixx<tltm.pamt>.
78. CTA: <->t.b'lt.bt< >. KTU: wt.b'lt.bt<m.rmm.w 'ly>.
79. CTA: <md>bht.b.h.mS< >. KTU: <md>bht.b.hm$<.bt.il.tql.ks>.
80. CTA: <->kbd.w.db<h.k >. KTU: <p.>kbd.w.db<h.k/p >.
81. CTA: < >.atrt. 'srm<.l inS.ilm ->. KTU: l.atrt. 'srm<.l in$.ilm>.
82. CTA: <t>tb.mdbh.b'l.gd<lt. >. KTU: < >tb.mdbh.b'l.gd<lt.l b'l>.
83. CTA: dqt.l. spn.w.dqt< >. KTU: dqt.l spn.w.dqt<.l b'l.ugrt>.
84. CTA:tn.l.'$rm.pamt.< >.KTU:tn.l.'$rm.pamt.<l >.
85. CTA: <-—brr>. KTU: <mlk.brr>.
86. CTA: <- Smn>. KTU: <dd. $mn>.
87. CTA and KTU: 'lyh.
88. CTA: yt<tb.brr>. KTU: ytt<b.mlk.brr>.
89. CTA: b.< $b>'.sbu.< $>p$.w.hly(m/t). '<r>b<J>p<$>. KTU: b. $'.sbu. SpS.w.hlym.
'<r>b.< $>p$.
90. CTA and KTU: w<M>mlk.w<.*>b.ym. hdt.tn. $m. *CTA <w.>.
154 Asherah
49. /< >t91
50. ilh92. mlk rgl93 . sqrn . b . gg

51. a< > . arb' mtbt. azmr. bh . $$95
9(>
52. al< >.S.Slmm.pamt. Sb'. klbh
97
53. y\< >ml sbu . $p$ w. h ]98m./£
54. w< > . pm.w.mh< > . t <> tbn99
55. b< > . wkm . i < > tm.ydo100
CTA 36m
103
1. < >/102 . slh . npS. t'w <-—>bdm
2. < >mm . 104tnSm . walp . I <-->
3. < >$. US. b'lS. dgnS
4. < >rl06.w.ttpllol.gdlt \padqtm
5. <—>\nmgdltm . btl <-> mrmno
6. <_..>/f111. b'ls. am. X. ymS. b'lkn,,112
7. <—>dlt113 . spn . dqt. Srp . wSlmm
8. <-->\p . Ib'l. watrt114 . 'srm . linS
9. <-->\tlbl m115. gdlt. 'rb$p$\vhl
10 <->b t. <-> t. yrthlmlk 116 . brr
91. KTU: l.< 'ttr>t, according to CTA 1.120 n. 17, this was originally proposed by Bauer.
92. CTA: i(d/b)< ?.d>bh. KTU: id<.yd>bh Ginsberg (also CTA): id(?)<k? d>bh.
93. CTA and KTU: I prgl.
94. CTA;ar<b'.>.KTU:ar'.
95. CTA: $r<?>. KTU: $r.
96. CTA: al<p.w>. KTU: al<p.>w.
97. CTA: yr<->mlk. KTU: yr<gm.>mlk. Ginsberg (also CTA): yr<h>.
98. CTA and KTU: hi.
99. CTA: w.(s/l)<-->.ypm.w.mh <—>.t<t>tbn.(?)<?>. KTU: w.l<b$>n.ypm.w.mh.t<t>tbn.
100. CTA: b.<~?>.w.km.it<.>y<~->$qm.yd<?>. KTU: b.b<t>.w km.it y<Su. L> Smm.
yd<h>.
101. CTA 36 = KTU 1.47 = UT 9b = RS 1929 n° 9. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 83.
102. KTU: < bymhd>t.
103. CTA: <-k>bdm. KTU <tn>kbdm.
104. KTU: $l>mm.
105. CTA and KTU: /<-->«.
106. KTU 't>tr.
107. Cf. CTA 1.122 n. 3, read perhaps: wmpi. KTU: w<.>lttpl.
108. CTA and KTU: <s>pn.dqt.
109. CTA and KTU: al>p 'nt.
110. CTA and KTU: btltt mrm,or, cf CTA 1.122 n. 5, btlt tmrm.
111. CTAa.T\AKTU:i>lS.
112. CTA: <b'>l knp. KTU b'l knp g.
113. CTA:< g>dlt. KTU: <dlt >gdlt.
114. CTA and KTU: a>lp.lb'l.watrt.
115. CTA: <ilm-—>.lbbmm. Bauer and Ginsberg (also CTA): Ibdmm. KTU <ilm.gdl>t.l bbtm.
116. CTA and KTU: <mlk.b ar>b't. '<S>rt.yrths*,mlk. * according to CTA 1:122 n. 12, the
11. <->at. \<—>n . al<->m . yrhstSrt111

12. <-> n. <--> \m. wqrt<~>n*
13. <--> m <—> grtS .'bd.wS1^
14. . wS <->b'l120 . spn
171
15. w$ <->mm . kmm
16. kO<-->m\npSU2
17. <--> $. 'nt /m123
On the edge124
CTA: < > w <n>p<$-—>
KTU: < >w np<S >
CTA 37125
1. < >.<126
2. < >tHi<121
3. <-—>rts<128
4. <-—>\par <,129
5. tin a\\dh<m
6. l'ttrt<
7. 7m . km<131
8. wbtlt.s<132
9. III. pr <
10. mitS ' < 133
last sign is a s even though the autograph clearly shows an /; the text is reconstructed from RS
18.56:3.
117. CTA and KTU: at.y<->tn (KTU: y<ql>tn).alpm.yrh. 'Srt). CTA 1.122 n. 15
notices a double word-divider here, since the s would give no meaning in the context. Bauer and
Ginsberg (also CTA): yrh tSrt. Gordon (also CTA): yrh (../2)t$rt.
118. CTA: <~>pn.<~>m.w<ynt> qrt. KTU: <l b'l.s>pn.d<q>tm.\v<yn>t qrt.
119. CTA: < >rt<$.> kbd.wS. KTU: <w mtntm.w $.>l rm<S.> kbd.w S.
120. CTA: <- al>p.wS.<l>b'l. KTU: <l Slm.kbd.al>p w $.<l>b'l.
121. CTA: < $rp>.w$<l>mm. KTU: <dqt.l spn. Srp>w $lmm.
122. CTA: <- -—>kdm.wnpS. Bauer (also CTA): knpS, Ginsberg (also CTA): knp S, KTU:
<w b bt.b'l.ugr>tkb<d>m.w npS.
123. So the autograph and UT. CTA: '<l. $>.'nt spn.KTU: <ilib.gdlt. il.
$.b>'<l.> L'nt. spn.
124. This part of the text is not shown in the autograph.
125. CTA 37 = KTU 1.49 = UT22 = RS 1929 n° 22. Autograph: CTA II fig. 84.
126. CTA: < >. < >. KTU: < >.tx < >.
127. CTA: <-—>t. S li<l. KTU: < >t. H i<l .
128. CTA: <-at>rt. $< . KTU: < at>rt. H< .
129. The letter immediately before the lacuna could be an /, i or a d. CTA: <—>lpdr< . KTU:
< a>lpdr< .
130. CTA and KTU : sin ahdh< .
131. CTA and KTU: kmm < .
132. CTA and KTU: s<in .
133. CTA said KTU: $'<rt >.
156 Asherah
11. H'r<134
12. <->yiA<135
CTA 38136
1. <—--> <137
2. <—>su . i138
3. <-->I'ttr<139
4. <-->ilt.Sl'l ^40
5. <-> r141 . Ipdrtt,<142
6. tSnpn . 'lm . k<143
7. w . Ill. 'srm . w <
8. kmm . w (.) in'sr <144
9. w. mil. S'rty <145
10. w . kdr. w . nptt <146
11. w . ksp . y 'db<147
C7A 45148
1. >^49
2. >rb',,,150
3. >\dS<151
4. ^su\<152
5. >8l<153
134. CTA and ATI/: pfr.k< >.

135. ATt/: < >>>H< >. After this line, KTU registers two additional lines on the reverse of
the tablet. The lines read: ml<k > and y< >.
136. CTA 38 = KTU 1.50 = UT 23 = RS 1.23. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 85.
137. C7A and KTU: > 't<trt.
138. CTA: <-?k>su . ill* < . ill is read according to CTA 47.7. KTU: <l k>su.ilt<>.
139. CTA: <tl>t. l'ttrt< >. KTU: <w.>tt.l'ttrt< >.
140. CTA: < >lilt*.$ l'tt<rt. * Should be reconstructed with Ginsberg (also CTA): <$>lilt, or
<w>lilt. KTU: <w.>l ill. $ I 't<trt>.
141. CTA and KTU: <'>sr.
142. CTA: s<in >. KTU: <sin >.
143. CTA: km<m >. KTU: k<mm>.
144. CTA: in <.>' sr< >. KTU: in. 'sr < >.
145. CTA and KTU both note a word-divider before y.
146. KTUnpt.t< >.
147. CTA:y'db.< >. KTU: y'db.x< >.
148. CTA 45 = KTU 1.57 = UT 46. Autograph: CTA II, fig. 93.
149. CIA: < gd>ltm. p< >. KTU: < >l/s tm.r< >. Bauer and Ginsberg (also CTA):
< '>srm.
150. CTA:< >arb't< >. KTU: < >x arb't< >. UT: < >arb'< >.
151. CTA, KTU and UT: < >qdS< >. Bauer (also CTA): 'd$.
152. CTA: < k>su.p< >. KTU: < k>su.p$< >. UT: < >sup< >. Ginsberg (also CTA):
i<lt >.
153. CTA and UT: < >agn< >. KTU: < >x.k s/z(?)a< >.
6. >htt<154
1. > by<155
8. >nn<156
9. > mm\<157
10. ><158
KTU 1.81159
1. <160
2. lp<
3. I.<161
4. / . mS <
5. I . ilt <
6. l.b'l162
7. l.il.bt<
8. l.ilt.<163
9. l.h\<164
10. / . r £ ? <
11. <->.rSp. ]< >l g.ta165
12. <->lt. q(b/d)<m
13. <-->r^< 1 6 7
14. <—> r,,,168
15. <->hlm
s14. <—> r,,,168

155. CTA: < >by.t<>. KTU: < >by.x< >. UT < >by< >.
156. CTA: < >n-< >. KTU: < >x.nn< >. UT: < >nn< >.
157. CTA: < >mm.g< >. KTU: < >x.mgx< >. UT: < >mm< >.
158. CTA and UT: -—.
159. KTU 1.81 = UT 1004 = RS 15.130 = PRUII. 4. Autograph: PRU II, p. 13.
160. KTU and PRU: 1. p< >. UT: l.< >.
161. UT and PRU: I . 't <trt. KTU: I . 't< >.
162. KTU and PRU: l.b'l <a(?). UT:l.b'l< >.
163. KTU:l.ilt.b<t>.
164. KTU, UT and PRU: I . htk < >.
165. PRU and UT: </.> rSp . <>g . kbd. KTU: <L> rSp. h < >ng . kbd.
166. PRU, KTU and UT: <l. e>lt. qb < >. The signs might read </. i>lt. qd<$ >.
167. KTU, UT and PRU: <l.a>rsy.
168. KTU:<L>rhx< >.UT:<1. >r< >.PRU:l.< >r< >.
169. KTU, t/rand PRU: <l .> hi.
158 Asherah
On the edge
16. <--m>gmrll°
17. <—>qdSt111
Reverse
18. / . 'ttrt. ndrg <172
19. /. '«rf.afr!73
20. /. dm<174
21. /.i7 <- >pn175
22. l.u(mt)<->ym
23. < >mrn177
On the left margin

\trl<i;>178
<--: <->179
KTU 1.1121*0
Verso 1. 9/24
/ atrt.tn. $m
KTU 1.118 and RS 20.24m

RS 20.24 KTU 1.118
1. DINGIR a-bi ilib
170. /W and t/71: </. *>/(?)> mgmr. /sTFC/: < > m^mr.
171. m/, 6T and PRU: < / . > 9£#r.
172. PRU: ndrgd.
173. KTU, UT and Ptft/: o«r.
174. /sTTT/, I/I" and PRU: / . </m/.
175. KTU: 1. ilt <.> xpn.UT: I . ilt <.>pn.PRU: I . elt.< >pn.
176. KTU, UT and PRU: I . uS<hr>y.
111. KTU:<1. >mrn.
178. KTU: < >b(?)twlh/y < >. UT: < >twl< >. PRU: Itwl.
179. KTU: < > Z (?) b/sb (?). PRU: < >t< >.
180. KTU 1.112 = f/G VII p. 21-26 = /?5 24.256.
181. RS 20.24: Autograph: in UG V, p.379. Text version UG V p. 44-45. AT£7 1.118 = RS
24.264 + 24.280. No available autograph; the text here is from KTU.
lum
2. Hum il
d
3. da-gan dgn
4. dadad be-el hurSan ha-zi b' 1 Spn
5. dadadll b'lm
6. d adad III b' Im
7. dadad IV b'lm
8. dadadV b'lm
9. dadadVl b'lm
10. dadad VII b'lm
11. dIDIMUIDIM ars w $mm

d
12. sa-su-ra-tum kt<r>t
13. dsm yrh
14. dhurSan ha-zi spn
15. de-a ktr
16. dhe-bat pdry
17. daS-ta-bi 'ttr
d
18. hurSanu u a-mu-tu<m> grm w <' mqt>
d
19. aS-ra-tum <a>trt
Reverse
20. da-na-tum 'nt
21. dSamaS SpS
22. dal-la-tum arsy
23. di$-ha-ra uShry
24. di$taristar 'ttrt
25. dilanu til-la-at adad ttt'drb'l
d
26. inergal r<$>p
d
27. dd-ad-mi-iS ddmS
28. dpu-hur ildniM phr ilm
d
29. tamtum ym
30. dDUGBUR,ZLNIG.NA utht
31. disiski-na-rum knr
32. dMA.LIK.ME§ mlkm
33. dsa-li-mu
,•
Sim
KTU 1.1231*2
Recto
1. <—> ab . wil <r183
2. <-->D/m.^m/< 1 8 4
182. KTU 1.123 = RS 24.271 = UG V: 10. Autograph: UG V, p. 583.

183. KTU: <Slm> . il. w ilm. The transcription in J/G.V does not read the t, but the sign is
easily read on the autograph.
184. KTU: <w> Sim. Sim i<l>. UGV:<> Sim . Sim i<l.
160 Asherah
3. <->/«. i/fr. 185

4. dgn . vv& 7
5. 'twkmtm
6. yrhwksa
I. yrhmkty
8. tkmnwSnm
9. ktrwhss
10. 'ttr'ttpr
I1. ShrwSlm
12. nghwsrr
13. 'dw£r
14. sdqmSr
15. hnbnildn<1*7
16. <->bd\\ <188
Verso
1. <-->pi/< 1 8 9
2. <-> Imtmrb <190
1 r\ 1
3. qdSmlk(<!9l
4. kbddilgl<192
5. mrmnmn
6. brrnaryn
7. \?hntlynm
8. atdbw'r194
9. qdSwami95
10. thrwbd
11. <->trhss Sl\196
12. Slmilbt <
13. SlmilhS97
14. rSpinS 198198
185. ATC7 and t/G. V: <*>/m . // jfr.

186. KTU:tzwkmt.
187. UGV:hbnild<n(?)>.
188. ATf/: A:W w nr <>. [7G V: > Ww <>. UG V notes that the following is a lacuna of
around 5 lines.
189. KTU has a line before this, called 1. 17: < > n (?) r <>. KTU 1.18 (= 1. 1, verso here)
reads: < >/ (?)/sp il < >.
190. KTU: <g>lmtmrd< >.
191. ATC/: $<H m/Jfc i< >.UGV: qdS mlk...
192. ATf/: JtW il gb/d < >. UG V: kbd d ilg b (?).
193. KTU: azhn tlyn.UG V: ag (?) hn tlyn.
194. KTU: atdb w tr.
195. KTU and f/G V: qdS w amir.
196. «T£/: for &w f/m. UG V: <£>_fr ^55 1/m.
197. KTU:HSt.UGV:HS<>.
198. AT£7: rfp inS i<lm>.
15. rmil <199
On the edge
16. <—->m£/m< 200
KTU 1.148m
Recto
1. dbh. sp <202
2. il. alp . w <203
3. b'lm . alp . wS <204
4. b'lm. alp. w£ <205
5. ars . wSmm . $t]S. yri<206
6. spn . S. ktr. S . pdry . S. grm\< >t.SMI
^...*208
7. atrt. s. nt. s . sps . s . arsy . s . ttrts
209
8. uShry . S . il. t'Sr . b'IMp . S . ddmS
9. phr. ilm . $ .ym . $ <>\]r.f. k'srmgdlt110
10. Slmm . ilib . S. i <—>m 'b\ .spn.al211

11. b'lm . kmm . b'lm . kmm <—>212 . kmm . b'lm . kmm
12. b'lm . kmm .b'lm . km <213
lines 13-17 in Hurrite

13 iy . tl?md. ptp . hlbg<->tl?lZ. n<->\<214
14. umn2. irti. mb .k??r , a <-->\n \h<215
199. KTU: drm ilm < >. UG V: < >rm.il<.

200. KTU: <w i>lm Sim.
201. KTU: 1.148 = RS 24.643 = UG V: 9. Autograph, UG V, pp. 579, 581.
202. UG V: sp<n . KTU: spn<.alp . w S .ilib.alp.w $>.
203. UG V: w$< . KTU: wS <.dgn . alp . w S.b'l. spn.alp.w $>.
204. KTU: <b'lm. alp . w$>.
205. KTU: w$ <. b> 'l<m.> al<p. w S. b'lm. alp. w>$.
206. KTU and UGV:S. ktt<t>$. yrh <$>. UG V does not read the final S.
207. KTU: grm . w 'm<q>t .S.UGV: grm . S.
208. KTU and UG V: 'ttrt. S.
209. KTU and UG V: t'2r. The third sign of the word is, according to the autograph,
undoubtedly an £.
210. KTU: knr. S.alpm.' srm gdlt. UG V: <. k>nr. S. ?. 'srm gdlt.
211. UG V: i<...>...gb< >Jpn.aS. KTU: il <$>.dgn.<al>p 'bl (b'l). spn.al.
212. KTU: <. b>'lm. UG V: <b'lm>.
213. KTU and UG V: km<m>.
214. KTU: iy. tlgmd. pip. hlbg. hxxtlglZ. nxxtt. < >.
215. KTU: umnZ. ini. md. ktmr. a( ?)/t( ?)xxxm( ?). pnthb< >.
162 Asherah
15. tl?K. pd. did. M. id < > t. <216

16. tgin . k?rtghnn . u$tn <217
17. tz ? • arm . ttb . tutk. hnz<218
18. kt'rb . 'ttrt. Sd. bt. mlk <

19. tn . skm . Sb'. m$lt. arb'. hpnt. <
20. hmSm . tit. rkb . rtn . tit. mat <219
21. Ig . Smn . rqh . Sr'm220 . uSp?tm . p < 221
22. kt. zrw . kt. nbt nt. H I/I <222
Verso™
1. z7. hyr. ilib . $

224
2. awswSmm . z
225
3. il.'s. ktwt. £
4. dgn . $. b'l. hsbalpwS
5. b 'Ispn . alpw . $.
6. trty. alp . w. S
1. yrh . $. spn . $
8. ktrS 'ttr. S
9. <-->r/ 226 . g. Sgrwitmz221
10. <—-> S. r$p . idrp . S22&
11. <—--> ]^229]^229
12. <- > mt230
13-18 lacuna231
19. < >Hmt<232
216. KTU: tlgli. pd. did. i n f . idxxxxmt. < >.

217. KTU: tf (?)in. kwrt. hnn . uttn. x< >.
218. KTU: tzg . arm. ttb. tutk. hnzn < >.
219. KTU: mat. S< >.
220. KTU:$r'm('$rm).
221. KTU:pl<d>.
222. KTU: int. w tqnt < >. UG V: int. wt(?)n < >.
223. KTU numbers the lines continuously, which means UG V, V°, line 1 = KTU 1.148, line
23.
224. KTU: ars w jfm/n. L
225. KTU: ktrt. S (Rasur : alp w £). The writer has in all probability intended ktrt, but it came
out ktwt.
226. KTU: am.
221. KTU: $gr. w itm S According to the autograph, the last letter is a clear f, but the letter S
fits the context better.
228. KTU notes two illegible signs before the first legible S.
229. KTU:< il.t>'ir.S.
230. KTU: < gl>mt. S.
231. KTU: 35-37 (= UG V. 13-15): lacuna. (38/16) < >knr <$ > (39/17) < >mSr. S < >.
(40/18) < >xt$.il.mx< >.
232. KTU: < >x. w thmt < >.
20. < >$.s^

21. < >lb<—>S234
22. < >bglmal235
23. 236
RS 19.59 V(I>231
1. > . ybSr . qdS < 238
2. >tbtb.qdS.il(?)<239
3. ...b>n.qdS.k(?)<240
4. > ' ^ . < > / z 2 4 1
5. >bom(?)ttk.<242
6. >k?.wtmt<243
7. > f c . w t t < 2 4 4
8. > f c . w r < 2 4 5
9. >k(?)trm.lp<246
10. > l...rlg<241
11. >fen.w(?j< 2 4 8
12. >_r.fcn< 2 4 9
13. >tm.n<250
14. >km.t'rb251
15
233. /sT77/: < m>gmr<. i>l. sk<r. $ >.

234. KTC7: <//. cf>dm. f . z7. lb<n>n $. x< >.
235. ATTC7: <al>p .wS <.> b'lm al.
236. KTU: <al>p . w<S>.
237. KTU 1.94 = RS 19.59. Verso in />/?[/ V # 125, no autograph. KTU prints the recto as
well, with the same line numbers as PRU. This means, that 1.1 in this appendix = KTU 1.94 1.23.
Lines 1-21 are very damaged according to the transliteration in KTU. KTU line 22 : wntmnx< >xt.
238. KTU: < > x.ybSr.
239. KTU: < >tbtm< >.
240. KTU: < > kb < >.
241. KTU:< >'sbxxh< >.
242. KTU:< > b. yt'k. < >.
243. KTU: < >k.w tmtn < >.
244. KTU: < >xzk.watt < >.
245. KTU: < >xk. w Snx < >.
246. KTU: < > rgrm .lpt< >.
247. KTU: < >l$t(?)r. s(?)gx < >.
248. KTU: < >wtxbx.wxx< >.
249. KTU: < >xt.kx< >.
250. KTU: < > ttm . n < >.
251. KTU reads no text on the last two lines.
Appendix 2
INSCRIPTIONS FROM 'ISRAEL'
This appendix contains all the different versions and translations of the text that are
discussed in Chapter 5. In order to gain a more uniform impression of the different
readings, the reader could take several copies of the autograph found in Zevit 1984,
and then—on these autographs—draw the different readings. This way one gets an
immediate impression of the improbabilities involved in a large number of readings.
The Khirbet el-Qom inscription

!
Dever(l 969-70)
1.1'ryhw . hq$b . ktbh (Belonging to) 'Uriyahu. Be careful of his
inscription!
2. brk. 'ryhw. lyhwh Blessed be 'Uriyahu by Yahweh.
3. wm'rr . ydl 'Sr thhwS'lh And cursed shall be the hand of whoever
(defaces it)!
4.1'nyhw (Written by 'Oniyahu).
Lemaire (1977)
1. 'ryhw. h'Sr.ktbh Uryahu le riche 1'a fait ecrire:
2. brk. 'ryhw.lyhwh Beni soit Uryahu par Yhwh
3. wmsryh.l'Srth.hwS 'lh et <par son asherah>, de ses ennemis (par son
asherah) ill'asauve.
4.1'nyhw Par Onyahu
5. wl'Srth Et par son asherah
6. rh
Garbini(1981)
</> 'ryhw hqSr ktbh Ad Uria e stata aggiunta la sua iscrizione.
brk 'ryhw lyhwh Benedette sia Uria da Yahweh,
wmrr yd k I'Srt hhw$' lh e maledetta sia la mano di tutte quelle (?) che
'malediranno' la sua salvezza.
1'nyhw —Di Onia
1. Dever 1969-70: 158-59.

Appendix 2 Inscriptions from 'Israel' 165
Naveh (1979)
1. 'ryhw hsr ktbh Uriyahu the governor wrote it
2. brk 'ryhw lyhwh May Uriyahu be blessed by Yahweh
3. nsry wl'Srth hwS' Ih my guardian and by his Asherah. Save him,
4.1'ryhw [save] Uriyahu.
Miller (1980)
l.(l)'ryhw.h'S.ktbh [for] Uriyahu the rich : his inscription [or, has
written it]
2. brk. 'ryhw.lyhwh Blessed is Uriyahu by Yahweh;
3. wmsryh.l'Srth/hwS'/lh Yea from his adversaries by his asherah he has
saved him.
4.1'nyhw [Written] by Oniyahu
5. wl'Srth [...?]and by his asherah
6. rh
Stolz(1980)
'rjhw. h'Sr. ktbh
brk. 'rjhw. Ijhwh.
wmsrjh. I'Srth. hwS'lh
Mittmann(1981)
1. 'ryhw Mr ktbh Uriahu, der Sanger, hat es geschrieben.
2. brk'ryhw lyhwh ein Gesegneter Jahwes ist Uriahu
3. wmmsrydh I'I Srth hwS' Ih und aus Bedrangnis heraus preist er den Gott
seines Dienstes, der ihm hilft.
4. I'nyhw
Angerstorfer(1982)
1. 'wrhw . hsr . ktbh Urijahu, der Gouverneur, liess es schreiben:
2. brk . 'rjhw . Ijhwh Gesegnet sei Urijahu von Jahwe
3. nsrj . I'Srth . hwS' Ih meinem Beschutzer, und von seiner 'Aserah.
Rette ihn,
4-6 rnjhw/wl'Srth/rh den Urijahu und durch seine Aserah/...
Zevit (1984)
1. 'ryhw h 'Sr ktbh Uryahu, the prosperous, his inscription
2. brkt 'ryhw lyhwh I blessed Uryahu to YHWH
3. wmsryh I'Srth hwS ' Ih2 And from his enemies, O Asherata, save him.
4. l> 'byhw by Abiyahu
5.< >d/r/b'g/?wll'Srth < ? >??and to Asherata
6.< >'??rth < ? >A<sh>erata
2. Zevit finds these words among the many he reads on the line. His transliteration of the
entire line is: wmmsrryyh/r hl'l!S'rttrhhw$lh.
166 Asherah
Lemaire (1984b)
1. Uryahu the wealthy man had it written
2. Blessed be Uryahu by Yahweh
3. and by his asherah; from his enemies he saved him!
4. [written] by Onyahu
5. .. .and by his asherah
6. ... [and by] his [ashe]r[ah]
Hadley (1987a)
1. 'ryhw.h'Sr.ktbh Uriyahu the rich wrote it.
2. brk. 'ryhw.lyhwh Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh
3. wmsryh I'Srth hwS'lh For from his enemies by his [YHWH's]
asherah he [YHWH] has saved him3
4. I'nyhw by Oniyahu
5. wl'Srth and by his asherah
6. '??rth his a<she>rah
Raurell (1987)
1.1'ryhw. hqSb. ktbh D'Uryahu. Ves amb compte amb la seva
inscricio.
2. brk. 'ryhw. lyhwh Que Uryahu sigui benei't per Jhwh
3. wmsryh. I'Srth. hwS. 'lh i (per la seva asherah) dels seus enemies/per la
seva asherah/ 1'ha salvat
4. I'nyhw per Onyahu
5. wl'Srth i per la seva asherah
6. rh (?)
Margalit(1989)
1. 'ryhw. h'Sr. ktbh Ur(i)yahu the rich composed it
2. brk. 'ryhw. lyhwh. <ky 'Blessed is Ur(i)yahu unto YHWH—
2.a. hsl(h)w. m(kp.) 'ybyh <For he rescued him from [the hands of] his
enemies>,
3. wmsryh (...) hwS'. lh And from his foes [...] he saved him.'
I'nyhw [Inscribed] by On[i]yahu
Lower
<lyhwh.>wl'<$>rth <[Dedicated] to YHWH> and to his consort
(supralinear correction : I'Srth) [Asherah]
Shea(1990)
1. 'ryhw . h'Sr. ktbh Uriyahu was the one who wrote it.
2. brk. 'ryhw . lyhwh Blessed be Uriyahu by Yahweh
3. Or, '[and] by his asherah, for from his enemies he has saved him'.
3. wmsryh . I'Srth . wS 'lh And his Egyptian [servant] by his asherah, and
here is his handprint:
4. [hand sunk in relief] I'nyhw for Oniyahu
5. I'Srth By his asherah
6. wl'. rth And by his a . erah.
My own reading of 1. 1-4

1. 'ryhw h 'Sr ktbh Uryahu [qualification of Uryahu] his writing
[or, inscription]
2. brk 'ryhw lyhwh Blessed be Uryahu by Yahweh,
3. h'wryhl'Srt[h] hwS'lh his light, by Asherah, she who holds her hand
over him
4. Irpyh w by his rpy, who...
Kuntillet Ajrud
Inscription I (= pithos 1)
Meshel (1978)
'mr. '... h... k . 'mr. kyhl... wlyw'sh . w...brkt. 'tkm . lyhwh . Smrn . wl'Srth.
Meshel (1979)
'mr. '... h... k. 'mr. kyhl... wlyw'sh . w...brkt. 'tkm . lyhwh . Smrn . wl'Srth.
Er sprach er sprach zu JHL...und zu Jo'asah : '...Ich will euch segnen durch
and his holy of holies / tree symbol / consort.
Naveh (1979)
'mrX 'mr l-Ywlhyw'sh w<l-Z> brkt 'tkm lyhwh Smrn wl'Srth
'X says : Say to Y and Yau'asah and <to Z>: I bless you by Yahweh our guardian,
and by his Asherah.'
Stolz (1980)
'mr. '...h...k. 'mr. Ijhl... wljw'sh. w... brkt 'tkm Ijhwh. Smrn w I'Srth
Garbini(1981)
'mr...k 'mr lyhl...wlyhw'Sh w...brkt 'tkm lyhwh Smrn wl'Srth
"X ha detto : di a Yhl...e a Yaw'asah e...: 'vi benedico da parte di Yahweh nostro
custode e della sua Ashera'".
Angerstorfer(1982)
'mr. '...h...k. 'mr. Ijhl... wljw'sh
w... brkt. 'tkm . Ijhwh . Smrn . wl'Srth
Er sprach er sprach zu JHL...und zu Jo'asah : '...Ich will euch segnen durch
Jahwe, meinen/unseren Beschiitzer und durch seine ' Aserah!
168 Asherah
Dover (1982)
'mrX 'mr l-Ywlyw'sh X says : Say to Y and to Yau'asah
w<l-Z> brkt 'thn and <to Z> : I bless you
lyhwh Smrn wl'Srth and by his Asherah (sic).
Emerton(1982)
('One of the inscriptions includes the words')
brkt. 'tkm.ljhwh.Smrn.wl'Srth.
I have blessed you by Yahweh Smm and his Asherah
Dever (1984)
'mrX 'mr l-Y wlyw'sh w<l-Z> brkt'tkm
lyhwh Smrn wl'Srth
'X says : Say to Y and Yau(asah and <to Z>: I bless you
by Yahweh our guardian, and by his Asherah.'
Lemaire (1984a)
...brkt. 'tkm. lyhwh. Smrn. wl'Srth
...YHWHdeSamarie...
Lemaire (1984b) lines 1-2

brkt 'tkm lyhwh Smrn wl 'Srth
'I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and by his asherah.'
Weinfeld(1984)
yhwh Smrn w 'Srth
Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah
Hadley (1987b)
'mr. '...h...k. 'mr. lyhl<l'l> wlyw'sh. w... brkt.'tkm. lyhwh. Smrn. wl'Srth.
X says : 'Say to Yehal<le'el> and to Yo'asah and <to Z>: "I bless you by Yahweh of
Samaria and by his asherah"'.
Meshel(1987)
'mr '<Sy>w hm<l>k'mr lyhl wlyw'sh wl...
(King A§aw says : Say to Jehal and to Jo'asah and to...)
Raurell (1987)
'mr X 'mr I-Y wlyw'sh w(l-Z) brkt'tkm
lyhwh Smrn wl'Srth
X diu : Digues a Y i a Yau'asah i (a Z): Us beneeixo
per Jahveh, el nostre guardia, i per la seva Asherah
North (1989)
'mr. '...h.k. 'mr. lyhl... wlyw'Sh.w
<brkt. 'tkm> lyhwh. Smrn. wl'Srth
Say to.. .say to Yhl and to Yw'sh'
 for Yahweh of Samaria and his Asera
Otzen(1989)
'mr. '...h...k. '...H..K siger
'mr. lyhl.. wlyw'sh. w... Sig til YHL.. og til YW' SH og...:
brkt. 'tkm. lyhwh Smrn. leg velsigner jer ved YHWH fra Samaria
wl'Srth. og ved nans Ashera.4
Margalit (1990)
('the relevant part of the inscription')
... brkt. 'tkm. lyhwh. Smrn. wl'Srt

'.. .1 have blessed you to < = in the name of> YHWH-of-Samaria and to his 'SRH'
Inscription II (= pithos 2)
Meshel(1978)
'mryhw'mrl. ^dnyh...brktk. lyhwh...wl'Srth . ybrk. wySmrk wyhy'm . 'dny
Meshel (1979)
'mryhw 'mr/. 'dny h...brktk. lyhwh...
wl'Srth . ybrk . wySmrk wyhy 'm . 'dnu...
'Amaryau said to my lord.. .may you be blessed by Yahweh
and by his Asherah. Yahweh bless you and keep you and be with you...'
Naveh (1979)
'mr 'mryw 'mr I'dny X brktk lyhwh <Smm> wl'Srth.
'Amaryau says : Say to my lord X : I bless you by Yahweh <our guardian>, and by
his Asherah.'
Garbini(1981)
'mryw 'mr I 'dny h... brktk lyhwh... wl 'Srth ybrk wySmrk wyhy 'm 'dny...
'Amaryaw ha detto al mio signore... "ti benedico da perte di Yahweh...e della sua
Ashera. Ti benedicaeti custodisca e sia con il mio signore..."'
4. '...H..K says. Say to YHL.. and to YW'SH and...: I bless you by YHWH from Samaria
and by his Ashera.
170 Asherah
Angerstorfer(1982)
'mrjw 'mr I 'dnj h...
brktk. Ijhwh . jt-n . wl'Srth
jbrk. wjSmrk wjhj 'm . 'dnj
'Amarjaw sagte zu meinem Herrn / den Herren von...
Ich segne dich bei Jahwe .. .und bei seiner 'ASerah!
Er segne dich und schutze dich und er sei mit meinem Herm
Chase (1982)
< 'mr> Utterance of
1. 'mryw ' 'Amaryaw
2. mrl.'dn<y> Say to my lord,
3. Mlm . '<t> Is it well with you ?
4. brktk l<y> I bless you by
5. hwh<... Yahweh
6. wl'Srth. yb and by his/its (?)'asherah.
May
7 rk. wySmrk he bless and keep you
8. wyhy 'm. 'd<n> and be with my lord.
9. y....>
Emerton(1982)
(Extracts of the inscription)
'mrjw says brktk.Ijhwh <...> wl'Srth.jbrk.wjSmrk wjhj 'm. 'dnj.
I have blessed thee by Yahweh <.. .> and his Asherah. May he bless and keep thee,
and be with my lord.
Dever(1984)
> mr 'mryw 'mr I 'dny <X> brktk
5
lyhwh <Smrn> wlSrth
'Amaryau says : Say to my lord <X> : I bless you
by Yahweh <our guardian> and by his Asherah.'
Lemaire (1984b)
(line 4-6)
brktk lyhwh tmn wl'Srth
'I bless you by Yahweh of Teiman and by his asherah.'
Weinfeld(1984)
/ 'mr/'mryw 'mr I'dny...brktk lyhwh tmn wl'Srth, ybrk wySmrk wyhy 'm 'dny yhwh
tmn w 'Srth
Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah (sic)
5. Dever notes that the scansion is uncertain.

ybrk wySmrk wyhy 'm 'dny

'May he bless you and keep you and be with my lord.'
Hadley (1987b)
'mr 'mryw 'mr I.'dny Mlm. 't brktk. lyhwh tmn wl'Srth. ybrk. wySmrk wyhy 'm.
'd<n>y...k
'Amaryaw says : say to my lord : Is it well with you ? I bless you by Yahweh of
Teman and by his asherah. May he bless you and keep you and be with my lord.'
Raurell(1987)
'mr'mryw 'mr I'dny (X) brktk
lywh (Smrn) wl 'Srth
Amaryau diu: Digues al meu senyou (X): et beneeixo
per Jahveh (el nostoe guardia) i per la seva Asherah
North (1989)
'mryw 'mr/. 'dny h...brktk. lyhwh. ..wl'Srth.ybrk.wysmrkwyhy 'm. 'dny
Otzen (1989)
'mr. 'mryw. 'mr I'dny 'MRYW siger: Sig til min herre:
hSlm. 't Star det vel til med dig?
brktk. lyhwh tmn velsigner dig ved YHWH fra Teman
wl 'Srth. og ved hans Ashera.
ybrk. wySmrk wyhy 'm. 'dny... Han velsigne dig og bevare dig og vaere med
min herre,..6
Margalit(1990)
...brktk. lyhwh. tmn. wl'Srth. ybrk.wySmrk. wyhy. 'm. 'd<n>y
'I have blessed thee to YHWH-of-Teman and to his 'SRH. May he bless and keep
thee and may he be with my lo<r>d.'
Inscription III
Meshel (1978)
1. ...brk.ymm.wySb'w... 'blessed be their day...'
2....hytb.yhwh... 'God favored...'
Meshel (1979)
1. ...brk.ymm.wySb'w Blessed be their day and...
2. hytb.yhwh... Yahweh favored
6. 'MRYW says: Say to my lord : Are you well? I bless you by YHWH from Teman and by
his Asherah. May he bless you and keep you and be with my lord...
172 Asherah
Garbini(1981)
1... .y>brk ymm wySb 'w benedira i loro giorni ed essi saranno saziati...
2....h ytb yhwh... Yahweh fara del bene ...
3. ...ytnw 1... hanno dato a ...
4 'Srt... Ashe Asherá
Angerstorfer(1982)
... brk. jmm . wjSb 'w
hjSb .jhwh
Gesegnet sei/er hat gesegnet ihr Tag/die Tage und sie werden schworen. Gutes
bewirkt hat Jahwe...
Otzen(1989)
brk. ymm. wy 'sb 'w... Han har velsignet deres dag, og de blev
maette...
... <n>tnw. l<y>hwh tymn .. .de har <gi>vet til YHW (sic) fra Teman
wl.. '$rt<h>... og til...ha<ns> Ashera...
hytb yhwh hty<mn> YHWH fra Te<man>
wSrth... og hans Ashera har gjort vel.7
Other Inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud

Inscription A
Meshel (1978)
Sm 'yw bn 'zr
Meshel (1979)
sm 'yw bn 'zr
'Shema'yau son of 'Ezer'
Naveh(1979)
Sm 'yw bn 'zr
'Shema'yau, son of 'Ezer'
Otzen (1989)
Sm 'yw bn 'zr
SM'YW s0n af 'ZR8
7. 'He has blessed their day, and they were filled...they have <gi>ven to YHW (sic) from
Teman and to.. .hi<s> Asherah.. .YHWH from Te<man> and his Asherah has done well.'
8. SM'YW son of 'ZR.
Inscription B
Meshel (1978)
1. ...wb'rh. 'l.b... and in the (just) ways of God
2. ...brk.b'l.bym.ml... blessed be Baal in the day of...
3. ...Sm. 'l.bym.ml... the name of God in the day of...
Meshel (1979)
1. wb'rh. 'l.b... and in the (just) ways of El
2. brk.b'l,bym.ml... blessed be Ba'al in the day of...
3. Sm. 'l.bym.ml... the name of El in the day of...
Garbini(1981)
1. ...wb'rh 'I b ... sulla via di El
2. ...brk b7 bym ml... ha benedetto Baal nel giorno
3. ...Sm 'I bym ml... il nome di El nel giorno
Angerstorfer(1982)
(Calls the inscription Phoenician)
'Srt(h) Jtnw I
wb'rh . ' I . b
...brk. b'l. bjm . ml...
Sm . 7. bjm . ml
' A§irtah und x.. .haben gegeben dem/der/den...
und auf dem Weg des 'El / Gottes
gesegnet hat (?) Ba'al am Tag
der Name (?) des 'El / Gottes am Tag...
Catastini(1982)
1. ...wb'rh/'l/b... .. .e nel cammino del dio <o El?>
2. ...brk/b'l/bym/ml... .. .benedetto Ba'al nel giorno di...
3. ...Sm/'l/bym/ml... .. .il nome del dio <o El?> nel giorno di...
Dever(1982)
Blessed by Ba'al in the day...
.. .the name of El in the day...
Weinfeld(1984)
1. wbzrh...'l wymsn hrm.. when God shines forth ( = appears), the
mountains melt...
2. brk b(l bym mlh<mt> Baal on the day of w<ar>
3. ISm 7 bym mlh<mt> for the name of God on day of w<ar>.
174 Asherah
Otzen(1989)
wbzrh...'I br... NarElkommer stralende til syne i...
wymsn firm... smelter bjerge
brk b'I bym mlh<mh ...> Velsignet vaere Ba'al pa kri<gens> dag
l$m 'I bym mlh<mh ...> ... for Els navn pa kri<gens> dag...9
Pithos 2, Inscription C
Weinfeld(1984)10
kl 'Sry$'l m'$hnn...wntn Ihyhwklbbh
Whatever he requests from a man may be favored.. .let Yahweh give him according
to his wish.
Hadley (1987b)
kl 'Sr yS'l m '$ hnn... wntn Ih yhw klbbh
Whatever he asks from a man, may it be favored...and let Yahweh give unto him as
he wishes (according to his heart).
Otzen (1989)
kl 'Sr yS'l m '$ hnn... Alt hvad nan forlanger af et menneske, vil Han tilsta
ham...
wntn Ih yhw klbbh og YHW vil give ham, som han 0nsker. *'
Inscription D
Meshel (1976)
I'bdyw bn 'dnh brk h' lyhw
'Given by 'Ovadiah son of 'Adanah, may he be blessed by God.'
Meshel (1978)
I'bdyw bn 'dnh brkh' kyhw
Meshel (1979)
I'bdyw bn 'dnh brk h'lyhw
(Belonging) to 'Obadyau son of 'Adnah, may he be blessed by Yahwe(h).
9. When El shines forth in.. .mountains melt.. .Blessed be Baal in the day of w<ar>.. .for the
name of El on the day of w<ar>.
10. Weinfeld sees this inscription as a continuation of inscription VI. He does not divide the
two, but sees them as a unity.
11. All that he demands from a man, He will give him...And YHW will give him after his
wish.
Naveh(1979)
I'bdyw bn 'dnh brk h' lyhw
[given] By 'Obadyau son of 'Adnah. May he be blessed by Yahweh.
Weinfeld(1984)
/ 'bdyw bn 'dnh brk h' lyhw
Otzen(1989)
I'bdyw bn 'dnh Tilh0rer 'BDYW, s0n af 'DNH.
brk h' lyhw Velsignet vaere han ved YHW13
12. 'dn should, according to Weinfeld, be understood as 'irrigation', like the Ugaritic 'dnmtrh,
CTA 4.V.68, and cf. Ps. 36.9.
13. Belongs to 'BDYW, son of 'DNH. Blessed be he by YHW.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aggoula, B.
1990 'Divinite pheniciennes dans le FIHRIST de Ibn al-Nadim', JA 178: 1-12.
Ahlstrom, G.W.
1963 Aspects of Syncretism in Israelite Religion (Lund: Gleerup).
1984 An Archaeological Picture of Iron Age Religions in Ancient Palestine
(Studia Orientalia, 55.3; Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society).
Aistleitner, J.
1963 Worterbuch der ugaritischen Sprache (Berlin: Akademie Verlag).
Albright, W.F.
1944 'A Prince of Tanaach in the Fifteenth Century BC', BASOR 94: 12-27.
1968 Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Con-
trasting Faiths (London: Athlone Press).
Angerstorfer, A.
1982 'Asherah als "Consort of Jahweh" oder Ashirtah?', Biblische Notizen 17:
7-16.
Astour, M.C.
1981 'Ugarit and the Great Powers', in Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of
Ugarit and Ugaritic (ed. G.D. Young; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns): 3-
29.
Avishur, Y.
1981 The Ghost-expelling Incantation from Ugarit', UF 13: 13-25.
Bernhardt, K.-H.
1967 'Aschera in Ugarit und im Alten Testament', M1O 13: 164-74.
Binger, T.
1992 'Who killed the Dragon?', SJOT1: 139-49.
1995 'Ashera in Israel', SJOT 1: 3-18.
Brooks, B.A.
1941 'Fertility Cult Functionaries in the Old Testament', JBL 60: 227-53.
Cassuto, U.
1975 Biblical and Oriental Studies, II (Jerusalem: Magnes).
Catastini, A.
1982 'Le iscrizioni di Kuntillet 'Ajrud e il profetismo', AION NS 42: 127-34.
Chase, D.A.
1982 'A Note on an Inscription from Kuntillet 'Ajrud', BASOR 246: 63-67.
Christiansen, P.V.
1990 'Nye paradigmer i naturvidenskaben', RUC-nyt 3.
Clausen, H.P.
1970 'Historievidenskab' in Historien (ed. Rudi Thomsen; Copenhagen:
Gyldendal).
Bibliography 177
Clements, R.E.
1989 'Israel in Its Historical and Cultural Setting', in The World of Ancient
Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives. Essays by
Members of the Society for Old Testament Study (ed. R.E. Clements;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 3-16.
Cowley, A.
1967 Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Osnabriick: Otto Zeller [1923]).
Cross, P.M.
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion
of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
1981 'Newly Found Inscriptions in Old Canaanite and Early Phoenician
Scripts', BASOR 238: 1-20.
Dalley, S.
1990 'Yahweh in Hamath in the Eighth Century BC: Cuneiform Material and
Historical Deductions', VT40: 21-32.
Davies, P.R.
1992 In Search of Ancient Israel (JSOTSup, 148; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
Day, J.
1986 'Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature', JBL 105:
385-408.
Delitzsch, F.
1888 Assyrisches Worterbuch (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs'schen Buchhandlung
[1887-90]).
Dever, W.G.
1969-70 'Iron Age Epigraphic Material from the Area of Khirbet el-Kom', HUCA
40-41: 139-204.
1982 'Recent Archaeological Confirmation of the Cult of Asherah in Ancient
Israel.' Hebrew Studies 23: 37-43.
1984 'Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet 'Ajrud',
fiAS0/?255:21-37.
1987 'The Contribution of Archaeology to the Study of Canaanite and Early
Israelite Religion', in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank
Moore Cross (ed. P.D. Miller, Jr, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Dietrich, M., and O. Loretz
1984 'Ugaritisch 'tr, atr, atryt und atrt', UF 16: 57-62
1992 'Jahwe und seine Aschera' Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien,
Ugarit und Israel: Das biblische Bilderverbot (Ugaritisch-Biblische
Literatur, 9; Miinster: UGARIT-Verlag).
Ebeling, E., and B. Meissner
1932 Reallexicon der Assyrologie, I (Berlin: De Gruyter).
Edwards, I.E.S.
1955 'A Relief of Qudshu-Astarte-Anath in the Winchester College Collection',
JNES 14: 49-51.
Eissfeldt, O.
1964 Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Entstehungsgeschichte des Alien Testa-
mentes (Tubingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck]).
178 Asherah
Emerton, J.A.
1982 'New Light on Israelite Religion : The Implications of the Inscriptions from
Kuntillet 'Ajrud', ZAW94: 2-20.
Erslev, K.
1987 Historisk Teknik: Den historiske Unders0gelse fremstillet i sine Grund-
linier (Copenhagen: Den Danske Historiske Forening, 2nd edn).
Fisher, L.R. (ed.)
1972-75 Ras Shamra Parallels, The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible
(AnOr, 49-50; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute).
Freedman, D.N.
1987 'Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah', BA 50: 241-49.
Garbini, G.
1981 'Nuovi documenti epigrafici dalla Palestina—1978', Henoch 3: 373-81.
1988 History and Ideology in Ancient Israel (New York: Crossroad).
Gaster, T.H.
1975 Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East (New York:
Gorian Press).
Gibson, J.C.L.
1978 Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Graves, R.
1995 The Greek Myths (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books).
Grondahl, F.
1967 Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit (Studia Pohl, dissertationes
scientificae de rebus orientis antiqui, 1; Rome: Pontificum Institutum
Biblicum).
Gruber, M.I.
1986 'Hebrew qedeshah and her Canaanite and Akkadian Cognates', UF 18:
133-48.
Hadley, J.M.
1987a 'The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription', VT37: 50-62.
1987b 'Some Drawings and Inscriptions on two Pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud', VT
37:180-213.
Helck, W.
1971 Die Beziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.
Chr. 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Hoffner, H.A.
1965 'The Elkunirsa Myth reconsidered', RHA 23: 5-16
Hvidberg-Hansen, P.O.
1979 La deesse TNT (Copenhagen).
1990 Kanaanaeiske Myter og Legender (Arhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag).
Jacobsen, T.
1987 The Graven Image', in Ancient Israelite Religion, Essays in Honor of
Frank Moore Cross (ed. P.D. Miller, Jr, P.D. Hanson and S.D. McBride;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Jastrow, M., Jr
1905-12 Die Religion Babyloniens undAssyriens, I-II (Giessen: Topelmann).
Bibliography 179
Kaiser, O.
1984 Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Eine Einfiihrung in ihre Ergebnisse und
Probleme (Giitersloh: Giitersloher Verlagshaus).
Kapelrud, A.S.
1952 Baal in the Ras Shamra Texts (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad).
1963 The Ras Shamra Discoveries and the Old Testament (Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press).
Keel, O.
1972 Die Welt der altorientalische Bildsymbolik und das Alte Testament: Am
Beispiel der Psalmen (Einsiedeln: Bensiger Verlag).
Kinet, D.
1981 Ugarit: Geschichte und Kultur einer Stadt in der Umwelt des Alten Testa-
mentes (Stuttgarter Bibelstudien, 104; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk).
Kj0rup, S.
1985 Forskning og samfund. En grundbog i videnskabsteori (Copenhagen:
Gyldendal).
Koch, K.
1988 'Aschera als Himmelskonigin in Jerusalem', UF 20: 97-120.
Labat, R.
1976 Manuel d'epigraphie akkadienne (rev. F. Malbran-Labat; Paris: Geuthner).
Lemaire, A.
1977 'Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Qom et 1'Asherah de YHWH', RB 84: 595-
608.
1984a 'Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet
'Ajrud',S£Ll: 131-43.
1984b 'Who or What Was Yahwe's Asherah?', BAR 10.6: 42-51.
Lemche, N.-P.
1985 Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite
Society Before the Monarchy (Leiden: Brill).
1986 Det gamle Israel (Arhus: Anis).
1991 The Canaanites and Their Land (JSOTSup, 110; Sheffield: JSOT Press).
1992 'Det gamle Testamente som en hellenistik bog', DTT2: 81-101.
1993 'The Old Testament—A Hellenistic Book?', SJOT1: 163-93.
1994 'Kings and Clients: On Loyalty between the Ruler and the Ruled in Ancient
"Israel"', Semeia 66: 119-32.
Lipinski, E.
1980 "The Goddess Atirat in Ancient Arabia, in Babylon, and in Ugarit: Her Re-
lation to the Moon-god and the Sun-goddess', Folia Orienta.Ha 21: 163-74.
Liverani, M.
1966 'Problemi e indirizzi degli studi storici sul Vicino Oriente antico', Cultura e
Scuola 20: 72-79
1971 'La lettere del Faraone a Rib-Adda', Oriens Antiquus 10: 253-68.
1974a 'Rib-Adda, giusto sofferente', Altorientalische Forschungen 1: 175-205.
1974b 'La royaute syrienne de 1'age du Bronze Recent', in Le palais et la royaute
(ed. P.Garelli; Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner S.A.): 329-56.
1975 'Communautes de village et palais royales dans la Syrie du Ileme
millenaire', Journal for the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18:
146-64.
180 Asherah
1980 'Le "origine" d'Israele, progetto irrelizzabile di ricerca etnogenetica',

Rivista Biblica Italiana 28: 9-31.
1983 'Political Lexicon and Political Ideologies in the Amarna Letters', Berytus
31:41-56.
1988 'II primo Piano degli Archive di Ugarit', in Cananea Selecta: Festschrift
fur Oswald Loretz. mm 60. Geburtstag; repr. SEL 5: 122-42.
L0kkegaard, F.
1953 'A Plea for El, the Bull, and other Ugaritic Miscellanies', in Studia Ori-
entalia loanni Pedersen Septuagenario (Copenhagen: Munksgaard).
Loretz, O.
1990 Ugarit und die Bibel: Kanaandische Cotter und Religion im Alten
Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).
Luria, A.R.
1976 Cognitive Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press).
Maier, W.A.
1986 'A&erah: ExtrabiblicalEvidence (HSM, 37; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).
Margalit, B.
1980 A Matter of Life and Death: A Study of the Baal-Mot Epic (AOAT, 206;
Kevelaer: Verlag Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag).
1989 'Some Observations on the Inscription and Drawing from Khirbet el-
Qom', VT39: 371-78.
1990 The Meaning and Significance of Asherah', VT40: 264-97.
Meissner, B.
1925 Babylonien und Assyrien, II (Kulturgeschichtliche Bibliotek, 1.4;
Heidelberg: Carl Winthers Universitatsbuchhandlung).
Meshel, Z.
1978 Kuntillet 'Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judean Mon-
archy on the Border of Sinai (Cat. 175; Jerusalem: Israel Museum).
1979 'Did Yahweh Have a Consort?', BAR 5.2: 24-35.
1987 'Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet 'Ajrud)', in Sinai (ed. G. Gvirzman; Tel Aviv):
665-73 (Hebrew).
Meshel, Z., and C. Meyers

1976 'The Name of God in the Wilderness of Zin', BA 39: 6-10.
Mettinger, T.N.D.
1982 'YHWH Sabaoth: The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne', in
Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (ed.
Tomoo Ishida; Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha): 109-38.
Miller, P.O., Jr
1980 'Psalms and Inscriptions', in Congress Volume, Vienna 1980 (ed. J.A.
Emerton; VTSup, 32; Leiden: Brill 1987): 311-32.
Mittmann, S.
1981 'Die Grabinschrift des Sangers Uriahu', ZDPV 97: 139-52.
Moor, J.C. de
1971 The Seasonal Pattern in the Ugaritic Myth of Ba'lu (AOAT, 16;
Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag).
Bibliography 181
1980 'An Incantation against Evil Spirits', UF 12: 429-32.

1987 An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit (Nisaba, 16; Leiden: Brill).
1990 The Rise ofYahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (Leuven: Leuven
University Press).
Naveh, J.
1979 'Graffiti and Dedications', BASOR 235: 27-30.
Naveh, J. and A. Biran
1993 'An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan', IEJ43.2-3: 81-98.
North, R.
1989 'Yahweh's Asherah', in To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in
Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (ed. M.P. Horgan and P.J. Kobelski;
New York: Crossroad): 118-37.
Olyan, S.M.
1987 'Some Observations concerning the Identity of the Queen of Heaven', UF
19:161-74.
1988 Asherah and the Cult of Yahweh in Israel (SBLMS, 34; Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press).
Otten, H.
1953a 'Bin kanaanaischer Mythus aus Bogazkoy', MIO 1: 125-50.
1953b 'Kanaanaische Mythen aus Hattusa-Bogazkdy', Mitteilungen der Deut-
schen Orient-Gesellschaft 85: 27-38.
Otzen, B.
1988 Israeliterne i Palaestina: Det gamle Israels historic, religion og litteratur
(Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad).
1989 'Indskrifterne fra Kuntillet Ajrud. Tekst-Form-Funktion' (Svensk
Exegetisk Arbog, 54; Uppsala: Uppsala Exegetisk Sallskap): 151-64.
Patai, R.
1965 'The Goddess Asherah', JNES 24: 37-52.
Pedersen, J.
1958-60 Israel, I-IV (Copenhagen: Branner & Korch).
1985 Hebraeisk Grammatik (Copenhagen: Branner & Korch.)
Petersen, A.R.
1994 'Where Did Schaeffer Find the Clay Tablets of the Ugaritic Baal-Cycle?',
57071:45-60.
Pope, M.H.
1955 El in the Ugaritic Texts (VTSup, 2; Leiden: Brill).
Pritchard, J.B.
1943 Palestinian Figurines in Relation to certain Goddesses known through
Literature (American Oriental Series, 24; Philadelphia; repr.; New York:
Kraus, 1967).
Raurell, F.
1987 'Una figura femenina al costat de Jahveh', RCatT 12: 313-36.
Reed, W.L.
1949 The Asherah in the Old Testament (Fort Worth, TA: Texas Christian
University Press).
Rogerson, J.W.
1989 'Anthropology and The Old Testament', in The World of Ancient Is-
rael: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives. Essays by
182 Asherah
Members of the Society for Old Testament Studies (ed. R.E. Clements;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 17-37.
Schroer, S.
1983 'Zur Deutung der Hand unter der Grabinschrift von Chirbet el-Q6m', UF
15: 191-200.
Segert, S.
1984 A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Los Angeles: University of
California Press).
Shea, W.H.
1990 'The Khirbet el-Qom Tomb Inscription again', VT40: 110-16.
Stolz, F.
1980 'Monotheismus in Israel', in Monotheismus im alien Israel und seiner
Umwelt(ed. Othmar Keel; Biblische Beitrage, 14): 144-89.
Sukenik, E.L.
1934 'Paralipomena Palaestinensia', JPOS 14: 178-84
Tadmor, M.
1982 'Female Cult Figurines in Late Canaan and Early Israel: Archaeological
Evidence', Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and other Essays
(ed. T. Ishida.; Tokyo: Yamakawa-Shuppansha): 139-73.
Taylor, J. Enlightenment
1995 'The Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree', JSOT66: 29-54.
Thompson, T.L.
1974 The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: A Quest for the Historical
Abraham (BZAW, 133; Berlin: de Gruyter).
1992 Early History of the Israelite People (Studies in the History of the Ancient
Near East, 4; Leiden: Brill).
Tigay, J.H.
1986 You Shall Have no Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew
Inscriptions (Harvard Semitic Studies, 31; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press).
Toorn, K., van der

1989 'Female Prostitution in Payment of Vows in Ancient Israel', JBL 108: 193-
205.
Watson, W.G.E.
1993 'Alrtym: Yet Another Proposal', UF 25: 431-34.
Weinfeld, M.
1984 'Kuntillet 'Ajrud Inscriptions and their Significance', SEL 1: 121-30.
Westenholz, J.G.
1989 'Tamar, qedeSa, qadiStu, and sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia', HTR
83: 245-65.
Wiggins, S.A.
1993 A Reassessment of 'Asherah': A Study According to the Textual Sources of
the First Two Millenia BCE (AOAT, 235; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Winter, U.
1983 Frau undGottin: Exegetische und ikonographische Studien zum weiblichen
Gottesbild im Alien Israel und dessen Umwelt (OBO, 56; Freiburg:
Freiburg Universitatsverlag).
Bibliography 183
Wyatt, N.
1983 'The Stela of the Seated God from Ugarit', UF 15: 271-77.
Yardeni, A.
1991 'Remarks on the Priestly Blessing on Two Ancient Amulets from Jerusa-
lem', VT41: 176-85.
Zevit, Z.
1984 'The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription Mentioning a Goddess', BASOR 255: 39-
47.
INDEXES
INDEX OF REFERENCES
OLD TESTAMENT
Genesis 6.25-30 126-28 16.33 110,126-

35.4 135, 137 6.25 110, 126 28
38 118 6.26 110,126 18.4 126
6.28 110, 126 18.19 110, 114
Exodus 6.30 110, 126 18.19 LXX 133
12.48 128 10.6 LXX 131
34.13 110 10. 16 LXX 131 2 Kings
13.6 110, 127,
Leviticus 1 Samuel 146
11.29 123 7.3-4 LXX 131 15.14 113
7.3 LXX 131, 134 17.10 110
Numbers 7.4 LXX 132, 133 17.16 110, 117
22-24 41 12. 10 LXX 131, 132, 18.4 44, 1 10,
134 115, 124,
Deuteronomy 17.2 135, 137 128
5.15 128 17.9 135 21 122
7.5 110 17.19 135, 137 21.2 115
12.3 110 18.9-14 135 21.3-7 115
16.4 126 21.10 135 21.3 110, 114,
16.21 110, 122, 31.10 132 115, 117
130 31.10LXX 131 21. 3 LXX 133
16.21 LXX 122 21.4 117
23.18 120 2 Samuel 21.6 115
25.5-10 119 11.3-27 97 21.7 110, 114,
18.9-14 137 115, 125,
Joshua 126
24.26 135, 137 1 Kings 22 116
11.5 LXX 131 23 122
Judges 11. 33 LXX 131 23.3 117
2. 12 LXX 131 13 137 23.4-7 125
2.13 LXX 131, 132 13.14 135 23.4 110, 116,
3.7 110 14.15 110 117, 125
3.7 LXX 133 14.23 110, 128 23.5 125
6 126, 137 15.2 113 23.6 110,125
6.11 135 15.10 113 23.7 110, 116
6.19 135 15.13 110, 111 23. 13 LXX 131
6.24 126 15. 13 LXX 132 23.14 110
186 Asherah
23.15 110 33.3 LXX 133 44.9-20 127, 139

33.7 117
1 Chronicles 33.19 110 Jeremiah
3.21 101 34.3 110 17.2 110
4.42 101 34.4 110 24.6 123
7.2 101 34.7 110 44.16-18 116
8.37 101
9.43 101 Nehemiah Ezekiel
10 137 3.9 101 6.13 135, 136
10.12 135
Psalms Daniel
2 Chronicles 36.9 175 11.45 123
14.3 110
15.16 110-12, Isaiah Hosea
121 1.27 115 4.13 135, 136
15.16LXX 131, 132 6.13 135, 137, 4.14 119
17.6 110 139 4.21-22 119
19.3 110 10.21 115 14.9 106
24.18 110 17.8 110
24.1 8 LXX 131, 132 17.8 LXX 130 Micah
31.1 110 27.9 110 5.13 110
33.3 110,117 27.9 LXX 130
OTHER ANCIENT SOURCES

Inscriptions Ugaritic 3.II.17-18 54
Khirbet el-Qom BGUL 3.II.18 53
1.32-36 102 65.21 86 3.IV.1-3.V. 11-12
n 94, 102 65.24 86 59
11.37-43 103 66 86 3.IV.1 58
III. 1-4 95,96 68 86 3.IV.2 42
III.2-3 97 3.V 81
III.3-4 101 CTA 3.V.12 58
III.3.1-11 98 1-6 36 3.V.45 58,59
III.4 100 1-2 36 3.V.47 58
III. 17- 18 107 1 36 3.V.48 42
111.46 104 1.4 69 4 64,90
111.48 104 l.IV 53, 81, 4.1.1-23 64
82 4.1.14 + 22 42
TabnitKAI 1.IV.14 32 4.1.21-23 64
13 101 2 36 4.1.25-43 71
2.1.21 58 4.1.6-7 67
Akkadian 2.1.38 58 4.1.7-9 59
PDK 3-6 36 4.1.7 58
9 1.19-20 34 3.1 84 4.1.12 58
3.1.10-15 83, 84, 4.II 63, 70,
Canaanite 86 71,81
KML 3.1.12-15 85 4.II.1-48 64
1.31 48 3.1.13-15 86 4.II.1-13 66
11.32 n. 7 50 3.1.14-15 144, 146 4.II.1-11 57, 64,
3.1.14 86, 146 65
3.II 53 4.II.1-2 70,71
Index of References 187
4.II.10-11 70,71 6.1.43-55 80 23.20 68

4.II. 12-27 71 6.1.45 + 47 + 53 23.23-27 46
4.11.24-26 63 42 23.24 46
4.II.26-30 71 6.1.45-55 59 23.25 46
4.II.28 + 31 42 6.II.31-37 125 23.30 68
4.III 72 6.V.1-16 58 23.37 68
4.III.23-53 64, 72 6.V.1-6 60, 63, 23.54 48
4.III.23-24 72 80 30 149
4.III.25 + 29 + 34 6.V.1-4 44, 45, 30.5 88
42 60 34 89, 150,
4.III.26 + 30 + 35 6.V.1-2 62 151
50 6.V.1 58 34.6 88,89
4.III.27-36 72 6.V.2-4 62 34.11 89
4.III.35-36 73 6.V.2-3 62 34.19 89
4.IV 72, 73, 6.V.3-4 62 34.21-22 151
79 8 43, 77, 34.38 89
4.IV.1-62 64 78 35 151-53
4.IV(+V).58-65 8.1-5 64,78 35.15-16 88
79 8.1 42 35.40 88
4.IV.2 + 4 + 31 + 8.2 50 36 88, 154,
40 + 53 + 64 42 8.3-5 59 155
4.IV.4-19 73 8.4 58 36.6 88
4.IV.12-19 74 12 47 36.8 88,89
4.IV.23-26 74 12.1.14-17 43,47 36.10 151
4.IV.27-39 74, 91 14.4(198) 44 36.12 152
4.IV.31-35 75 14.4(201) 44 37 155
4.IV.32 50 14.1.37 68 37.3 88
4.IV .40-43 76 14.IV.197-206 55, 83 38 156
4.IV.43-44 77 14.IV.197-202 53 38.4 89
4.IV.47-57 76 14.IV.201-202 56 45 156
4.IV .47-51 77 15.11 83 45.3 89
4.IV.49 58, 59 15.11.21-28 83 47.7 156
4.IV.51 58, 59, 15.11.26-27 47 1.119 151
77 15.11.27 47 1.120.17 154
4.IV.52-57 77 15. Ill 84 1.120.3 152
4.IV.53-57 77 15.111.25-30 84 1.120.5 152
4.V 79 16.1.1-22 54 1.120.6 152
4.V.1-3 72 16.1.11 +21-22 1.122 154
4.V.63-65 64 54 1.122.12 154
4.V.63 58, 59 16.1.20-22 54 1.122.15 155
4.V.65 47 16.1.36 48 11.67 + 68 46
4.V.68 175 16.11.105-111 54 V.1.63 79
4.V. 104-105 37 16.11.111 54
4.VI.46-54 59 17.1 67 CTA Autographs
4.VI.46 58 17.1.12 58 II.7 84
5.III.2-3 47 17.1.14 58 II.8 53
6.1.39-55 60, 64, 17.1.23 58 11.14 63, 64,
79 17.1.25-34 71 71
6.1.39-53 79 17.1.4 58 11.15 72
6.1.40-41 52, 53, 17.1.9 58 11.15 + 16 73
59 23 45-47, 11.21.11-25 79
6.1.40 58 68,83 11.21.13-14 52
188 Asherah
11.25 60 1.23 46, 163 RIH

11.30 78 1.39 150 IS/20 43
11.34 47 1.41 151
11.37 55 1.43.13 106 RS
11.39 83 1.47 154 1.23 156
11.40 84 1.49 155 3.44 55
11.44 54 1.50 156 3.45 83,84
11.47 54 1.57 156 4.474 149
11.76 149 1.65 149 8.208 34
11.80 150 1.81 89, 157 15.130 157
11.81-82 151 1.81.5 89 18.56 151
11.83 154 1.81.8 89 18.56.3 155
11.84 155 1.81.17 89 18.56.20 152
11.85 156 1.81.21 89 19.59 60, 89,
11.93 156 1.83 27 163
1.94 89, 163 19.59 V 163
KTU 1.94.2 89 20.24 49, 89,
1.3.1 84 1.94.3 89 158
1.3.II 53 1.112 158 24.256 158
1.4.1.20-22 64 1.118 49, 88, 24.264 158
1.4.II 63, 64, 89, 158 24.271 159
71 1.118.19 88 24.280 158
1.4.III 72 1.123 89, 91, 24.643 161
1.4.IV 73 159 1929 150, 151
1.6.1.39-53 79 1.123.3 89 154, 155
1.6.1.40-41 52 1.148 88, 89,
1.6.V.106 60 161, 162 UG
1.8 78 1.148.7 88 V9 161
1.9 91 1.148.9 88 V10 159
1.12.1.14-17 47 35-37 162 V 13-15 162
1.14.IV.34-44 55 V P 44-45 158
1. 15.11 83 PRU VHP 21-26 158
1.15.III 84 II.3 27
1.16.1.1-22 54 II.4 157 UG Autographs
1. 16.11.43-49 54 III.l 34 V.10 159
1.16.III.4 27 V.I 25 89, 163 V.379 158
1.17 160 V.579-581 161
1.18 160 PRU Autogr•aphs
II 157
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Ahlstrom, G.W. 123 Garbini G. 21, 39, 101, 104, 110, 131,
Albright, W.F. 17, 43-45, 51, 57, 142, 143, 164, 167, 169, 172, 173
144 Gaster, T.H. 66-68, 70, 72, 75, 85
Angerstorfer, A. 101, 104, 105, 165, Ginsberg, 84, 85, 152-56
167, 170, 172, 173 Gordon, 152, 155
Astour, M.C. 20 Graves, R. 49
Grondahl, F. 34
Bauer, 152-56 Gruber, M.I. 118-20
Bernhard, K.-H. 15
Binger, T. 44, 94, 167 Hadley, J.M. 94, 96, 97, 101-103,
Biran, A. 38 166, 168, 171, 174
Brooks, B.A. 118 Helck, W. 23, 56, 57
Hoffner, H.A. 90, 92
Cassuto, U. 85 Hvidberg-Hansen, P.O. 44, 50
Catastine, A. 101, 173
Chase, D.A. 101, 103, 170 Jacobsen, T. 139
Christiansen, P.V. 15 Jastrow, M. Jr 48
Clausen, H.P 15, 25
Clements, R.E. 19, 21 Kapelrud, A.S. 90, 92
Cross, P.M. 14, 22, 29, 30, 44, 52 Keel, O. 7, 118
Kinet, D. 20, 96
Dalley, S. 35, 38 Kjorup, S. 14
Davies, P.R. 21
Delitzsch, F. 143 Lemaire, A. 94-97, 101, 103, 129,
Dever, W. 94-98, 101-103, 164, 168, 130, 164, 166, 168, 170
170, 173 Lemche, N.-P. 9, 20-24, 34, 110, 119,
Dietrich, M. 7, 56, 143, 145 138
Dupont, F.R. 20 Lipinski, E. 15, 50, 122, 129, 142
Lisowsky, 101
Edwards, I.E.S. 56, 57 Liverani, M. 20, 21, 27
Emerton, J.A. 44, 101, 106, 107, 168, Lokkegaard, F. 52
170 Loretz, O. 7, 37, 56, 143, 145
Erslev, K. 14 Luria, A.R. 17
Fischer, L. 14 Maier, WA. 17, 52, 57, 66, 68

Frayne, D. 48 Margalit, B. 27, 56, 68, 87, 94, 95, 97,
Frazer, J.G. 16 98, 101-103, 144, 145, 166, 169,
Freedman, D.N. 106 171
Freud, S. 16 Meissner, B. 48
190 Asherah
Meshel, Z. 101, 102, 104, 129, 167- Schroer, S. 100

69, 171-74 Shea, W.H. 94-98, 166
Mettinger, T.N.D. 107 Stolz, F. 101, 165, 167
Meyers, C. 101, 102
Miller, P.O. Jr 94-97, 165 Tadmor, M. 31
Mittmann, S. 94-98, 165 Taylor, J. 141
Moller, J.G. 9 Thompson, T.L. 7, 9, 20, 21, 32
Moor, J.C. de 41, 44, 59, 66, 67, 72, Tigay, J.H. 30-35
75 Toorn, K. van der 118, 120
Muss-Arnolt, 143, 144
Uehlinger, C. 7
Naveh, J. 38, 94-97, 100-103, 165,
167, 169, 172, 175 Van Selms, 92
Nielsen, F. 40 Virolleaud, 84
North, R. 101, 102, 109, 129, 169
Watson, W.G.E. 45
Olyan, S.M. 44, 92, 110, 111, 123-25 Weinfeld, M. 101, 103, 107, 168, 170,
Otten, H. 90 173-75
Otzen, B. 101-104, 107, 169, 171, Wellhausen, J. 106
172, 174, 175 Westenholz, J.G. 118
Whitaker, 42, 47, 89
Patai, R. 131 Wiggins, S.A. 7, 43, 48, 52, 53, 68-
Pedersen, J. 96, 99, 106, 124, 127 70, 81, 83
Perlman, A.L. 43 Winter, U. 7, 58
Petersen, A.R. 36, 37 Wyatt, N. 47
Pope, M.H. 54, 59, 75, 90, 91
Pritchard, J.B. 57 Yardeni, A. 99
Raurell, F. 94-97, 101-103, 166, 168, Zevit, Z. 94-98, 100, 105, 164, 165
171
Reed, W.L. I l l , 122, 123, 130, 131,
138
Rogerson, J.W. 21

Asherah (T. Binger) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asherah (T. Binger) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asherah (T. Binger) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

COPENHAGEN INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR

Sheffield Academic Press

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Copenhagen International Seminar 2

Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd

Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available

5.3. Who or What Was 'Srtl 105

The remainder of the people I would like to thank comprises an im-

ABD D.N. Freedman (ed.), Anchor Bible Dictionary

KB L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner (eds.), Lexicon in Veteris

A scholarly field like theology, whose object is an examination and

1. I am in a way referring to the ongoing discussion of when the Old Testament

2. As an example of the faulty use of statistics, see section 3.1.1.3.

from an apologetic and exegetic angle, to deny that any connection

own society, and constitutes a religious basis for another nation's

much as anything else, a representation of my bonds to my own time,

The only practical solution to the problem is to apply one's own

5. This section is primarily based on Liverani 1980; Lemche 1985; Garbini

At no time before this is there any kind of epigraphic material that

7. I am of course mainly thinking of the Mesha-inscription, that mentions both

polemical designations for those parts of the population—be they

THE SOURCE MATERIAL

3.1. Archaeological Findings

3.1.1. Frequent Sources of Error in the Archaeological Material

3.1.1.1. Misspelling. Whereas the biblical material has undergone a

3.1.1.2. State of Preservation. Another common source of error in the

4. A possible example of this can be found in Margalit 1989. He simply omits

disturb our understanding of the text at hand, and in combination they

3.1.1.3. Onomastica. Since extra-biblical texts pertaining to issues in

5. As has been the case with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

given any chronological frame! He mentions that the majority of the

not divulge why he evaluates the way he does.

Tigay's two groups of 'certain' and 'improbable' theophoric names,

of a necessity given for religious reasons, but could—just as well—be

21. I owe this observation to a conversation with N.P. Lemche.

3.1.2. The Epigraphic Material from Ugarit

3.1.2.1. The Problems of Fundorte.27 It is a constant practice in all

29. Again, the conclusion is mine, based on Petersen's study.

3.1.3. Epigraphic Material from the 'Israelite' Area

Thus it is a dubious practice to concentrate on which person from

3.2. The Old Testament

33. The outstanding example of this is the magazine Biblical Archaeological

ideology and religion.36 The 'historiography' of the Old Testament is

known in Transjordan in the seventh century. We know a prophet of

4.1. The Mythological and Epic Texts1

4.1.1. The Names and Titles of Asherah2

times in a context where it is the dwelling of rbt atrt ym that is

12. For a discussion of CTA 6.V.1-4, see section 4.1.1.5.

on a lacuna, and partly goes against another text— CTA 15.11.26-27 —

23. For a discussion of this text, see section 4.1.2.3.

Excursus: Asherah in the Babylonian and Assyrian Material28

We can now conclude that the Mesopotamian goddess Asratum has no

31. See section 7.1. on the etymology of 'Asherah'.

years'. It has, however, been argued by P.O. Hvidberg-Hansen that

term, 'goddess'. The most frequently used formula paralleling Asherah

The parallel is between atrt.wbnh and ilt.wsbrt.aryh, and there can