archaeologists--the players

Random older topics of discussion

Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters

Locked
Guest

archaeologists--the players

Post by Guest »

we talk a lot about archaeology and archaeologists but there are some main players who get all the spotlight. one such one is William Dever and as promised to minimalist here is a review of one of his books. since no one told me how to do attachments this may take several posts.

i call it : dever gets spanked!!
Did God Have a Wife?” is a sexy title
to sell a book, but it is also a pivotal
question in the author’s treatment of
folk religion in ancient Israel. By the
end of the book, I was not convinced
that YHWH, the God of Israel (often
written Yahweh*), had a wife. On the
other hand, I am not sure that he did
not have a wife at a certain earlier phase
in his history. The archaeological as
well as textual evidence is ambiguous,
although I believe the scales tip toward
a negative answer.
The author is a well-known American
archaeologist, with a fluent pen, who
writes a readable book, with bits of gossip
here and there, sometimes winking knowingly
at his audience. He begins his book
as a teacher, with an air of ex cathedra
self-appraisal. He grades colleagues, some
of them his former students, for their
studies in religion, archaeology, anthropology
and feminist studies.
In his introduction he declares that
“This is a book about ordinary people
in ancient Israel and their everyday religious
lives, not about the extraordinary
few who wrote and edited the Hebrew
Bible ... My concern in this book is
popular religion, or, better, ‘folk religion’
in all its variety and vitality.” He defines
the difference between establishment
religion and folk religion (or religions,
as he prefers) in such a way as to sever
from the study of religion any speculations
on the divine, that is, theology. He
restricts himself to the study of the religious
practice of ordinary people. But
this severance is almost impossible; even
ordinary people, unsophisticated though
they may be, have their own speculations,
however crude they might be,
about God(s). Otherwise these ordinary
people would not bother to practice
their religion.
Guest

Post by Guest »

dever gets spanked #2:
There is a chronological gap of at
least 400 years between the Ugaritic
texts and the Bible, however. One cannot
jump directly from Late Bronze urban
Ugarit to Iron Age rural Israel.
The Bible, on the other hand, is almost
the sole source for studying Asherah in
ancient Israel, notwithstanding the few
archaeological texts of c. 800 B.C.E. (to
be discussed later).
A most important point, wholly
missing from Dever’s book, is any consideration
of the fact that Asherah is totally
absent from the Phoenician inscriptions
of the first millennium B.C.E.* There is
not a single mention of Asherah in this
corpus, not even as a theophoric component
in Phoenician personal names.
It seems as if Asherah evaporated, vanished—
or never existed—in the Iron Age
(the first millennium B.C.E.), the age
of Biblical Israel, at least as far as the
Phoenician corpus is concerned.
‘Asherah appears 40 times in the
Hebrew Bible. However, as is widely
known and as Dever recognizes, “Much
of the time the term ‘a˘she¯ra¯h [in the
Bible] apparently refers [not to a goddess
but] to a wooden pole, or even a living
tree. According to the several verbs used,
this object [‘asherah] should be cut down,
chopped into pieces, and destroyed,
probably by being burned. Thus, it
is clear that the ‘a˘she¯rîm (masculine
plural for ‘asherah) were prohibited cult
symbols associated with ‘Canaanite’ religious
practices.” To the extent that this
is true, the Biblical ‘asherah was not a
goddess at all, but a cult symbol much
like a standing stone.
Only in five cases in the Bible where
‘asherah is mentioned can there be any
question. In all other Biblical references
it is clear that ‘asherah is simply
a wooden pole or a tree.
Because Asherah, the goddess, and
‘asherah, the wooden cult symbol, are
written identically in Hebrew, which
meaning is intended depends on the
context. Let’s look at these five cases
where the context is not absolutely clear.
In 1 Kings 15:13 the text speaks of the
king’s mother who “made a miphles.
et for
the asherah.” The meaning of miphles.
et
is ambiguous, but it is not “an abominable
image made for Asherah,” as the
translation used by Dever has it. Rather
miphles.
et indicates that the asherah is
something that makes one shudder or
tremble ( palas.
ut, a shudder).1 This awful
‘asherah was made of wood, however,
and King Asa cut it and burned it in the
Kidron Valley near Jerusalem. It is by
no means clear that the reference is to
a statue of a goddess.
In 2 Kings 21:3,7 we are told that King
Manasseh “made an ‘asherah, like Ahab
king of Israel,” and “ he put the statue
of the ‘asherah that he made” in the
Temple. However, his grandson, King
Josiah, “removed all the vessels made
for the Baal and the Asherah and the
Host of Heaven and burn[ed] them” in
the Kidron Valley (2 Kings 23:4). So this
asherah, too, was wooden—a goddess or
a cult symbol?
The most problematic Biblical verse is
2 Kings 23:7: “And he [Josiah] tore down
the houses [i.e., rooms] of the kedeshim
[most probably cult servants; there is
no justification for describing these servants
as male-prostitutes, as the New
Jewish Publication Society translation
does] that were in the House of YHWH,
where the women were weaving batim
for the Asherah.” The meaning of batim
here is unclear. It would normally mean
houses. Did the women weave tents for
the Asherah? Dever suggests emending
batim (houses), to read badim (garments,
cloth, textiles). This emendation not only
contradicts the principle of text interpretation
known as lectio difficilior (the difficult
reading is the preferred one), but
the plural badim (singular bad) is used
only in Late Biblical Hebrew. So Dever’s
suggested emendation must be rejected.
What about the “450 prophets of the
Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah who
eat at Jezebel’s table” in 1 Kings 18:19?
The story of Elijah and the prophets of
Ba’al continues in the Hebrew text, but
the prophets of Asherah are not mentioned
again. True, they are mentioned in
the text in the Septuagint, the early Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible. On the
other hand, they are not mentioned in
1 Kings 18:40, where only the prophets
Guest

Post by Guest »

dever gets spanked #3:
of Baal, but not the prophets of Asherah,
are slaughtered by the people. Long ago
the well-known Biblical scholar Julius
Wellhausen proposed that “and the 400
prophets of the Asherah” in 1 Kings 18:19
was a later interpolation into the text.
Last, it has sometimes been suggested
that Jezebel, the Tyrian wife of
Ahab, brought with her into Israelite
society the cult of Asherah. But, curiously
enough, as I noted earlier, Asherah
is never mentioned in the many Phoenician
surviving inscriptions of the first
millennium B.C.E.
In any event, the overwhelming references
to the ‘asherah/Asherah in the
Bible, are not to a deity, but to an artifact,
most probably a wooden pole or a tree.
If ‘asherah were a goddess, we would
expect her to have a temple, or at least
an altar. But the Biblical texts never
mention a temple or an altar for the
‘asherah. It never has its own temple
or its own altar; it is always part of the
paraphernalia of an altar. Thus, in the
story of Gideon, the Lord orders Gideon
to “pull down the altar of the Baal
which belongs to your father, and cut
down the ‘asherah which is beside it”
(Judges 6:25). Elsewhere the Israelites
are similarly commanded to obliterate
the Canaanite altars and their paraphernalia:
standing stones (mas.
s.
evot; singular,
mas.
s.
evah) and sacred trees/pillars
(‘asherot; plural of ‘asherah) (see Exodus
34:13; Deuteronomy 7:5; 12:3, etc.).
Erecting mas.
s.
evot and ‘asherot beside
altars to YHWH was often the custom
in ancient Israel, as we learn from its
Deuteronomistic prohibition: “You shall
not plant/set up an ‘asherah, any kind
of tree, beside the altar of YHWH your
God that you make. And you shall not
erect a mas.
s.
evah, such as YHWH your
God detests” (Deuteronomy 16:21–22).
Now let us turn to the archaeologically
recovered ancient inscriptions on
which Dever relies, found at Khirbet el-
Qom (Biblical Makkedah) in the Judean
Shephelah (low hill country) and at
Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the northern Sinai.
At these sites, the name Asherah/
‘asherah is mentioned in blessing formulae.
At Makkedah the inscription
reads: “Blessed is Uriyahu to YHWH
and his Asherah/‘asherah.” At Kuntillet
‘Ajrud two inscriptions read: “I bless
you (plural) to YHWH of Samaria and
his Asherah/‘asherah” and “I bless you
(singular) to YHWH of Teman and his
Asherah/‘asherah.”
These inscriptions never mention
Asherah/‘asherah alone. Asherah/‘asherah
is mentioned only in connection with
YHWH. True, it can be argued, as Dever
does, that Asherah here is the consort
of YHWH, but one cannot dismiss the
argument that it was his sacred tree/pole.
The epigraphic evidence is ambiguous.
Dever also relies on some crude
drawings of figures that appear on the
pithoi (large storage jars), on which the
inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud are
written. He speculates that one of these
figures is the feminine consort of YHWH
referred to as Asherah in the inscription.
But Dever should have known that
the late Pirhia Beck (whom he quotes)
has demonstrated that these crude
drawings—which include Bes, a distorted
Guest

Post by Guest »

dever gets spanked #4:
Egyptian dwarf god—has nothing to do
with the elegant calligraphic inscriptions.
The drawings were overwritten on the
inscriptions, with no regard to the texts!
Dever also relies on non-inscriptional
archaeological evidence for his contention
that YHWH had a wife—the hundreds
of figurines found in Judah from the end
of the eighth century B.C.E. to the early
sixth century B.C.E. (see photos on cover
and p. 63). Dever contends that these
figurines represent Asherah, consort of
YHWH. Archaeologists commonly call
these figurines “pillar figurines” because
the lower part of the body is pillar-like
(and hollow). The upper part is a woman
supporting her large breasts. Dever insists
they are Asherah: “These figurines
clearly represent ‘Asherah’ (not ‘Astarte’),
the principal Israelite female deity and
patroness of mothers.”
If these figurines really represent a
goddess (which I doubt), it is surely
not the extinct Asherah, but the famous
Astarte who was popular at this time in
Phoenicia; her name runs through the
Bible as the consort of Baal. Most of the
Biblical references pair Baal and Astarte,
as in the Akkadian ilani u ishtarti, “gods
and goddesses.”
But I very much doubt that these figurines
represent a goddess at all. Dever
quotes University of Judaism scholar
Ziony Zevit who refers to these figurines
as “prayers in clay.” Zevit’s description of
these figurines is right! They were used
by women who prayed for lactation;
hence the large breasts. It is not unlike
some religious pilgrims today who, for
example, leave a replica of a foot at a holy
site as a prayer to heal an ailing foot.
Dever is unfortunately unreliable concerning
any textual material. He does
not read Hebrew or any other ancient
language. Moreover, he makes a fool of
himself when he discusses the Bible. A
few examples (of many):
Dever writes: “That Isaiah was a
patrician is also indicated by his status
as an aristocratic advisor, almost a Prime
Minister, under kings like Ahaz and
Hezekiah.” Only God knows where Dever
finds a hint to the effect that Isaiah
served as a prime minister. Isaiah never
acted as an advisor or a prime minister;
he was a prophet. He was asked to pray
for Hezekiah and for the delivery of Jerusalem,
not to serve as prime minister.
Dever writes: “Hoshea, the last king of
... Israel ... [before the Assyrian destruction
in the eighth century B.C.E.] is blamed for
the catastrophe because he ‘set up pillars
and Asherahs on every high hill and under
every green tree, and there burned incense
on all the high places (ba¯môt)’ ” (2 Kings
17:10–11). It is not Hoshea who is blamed,
Professor Dever, but Israel. The text reads
“they” not “he.”
Dever quotes 1 Kings 16:32 as referring
to the Temple in Jerusalem, but the
Biblical text actually refers to the Baal
temple that Ahab built in Samaria.
Dever writes that Passover “was to be
celebrated at the full moon on the tenth
day of the first month in spring.” Impossible,
the full moon is always the 15th
day of the month!
These examples could be multiplied—
from Egyptian texts and late Jewish
texts, as well as Biblical texts. Dever
notes with approval the remark of a colleague
that “the Hebrew Bible is ‘mute’
if you do not know Hebrew.” Back to
school, professor!
sorry for the length but i tried--this is posted for minimalist's comments which i can predict already but it will be interesting to see if he can come to the plate.
marduk

Post by marduk »

so in other words you don't have any credible evidence from anyone who doesn't have a clear agenda of pushing the erroneous truth of the Bible
Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16036
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist »

Moron.


Unlike bible thumping idiots, Dever spends a lot of time discussing the objections of colleagues to his findings....oh, but you wouldn't know that because you don't read books which accuse your bible of being horseshit.

Do your bible thumper pals ever discuss the findings of modern archaeology?

I didn't think so.


Bad for business and upsets the gullible.


(And, for the 100th time, why are you not honest and admit that this review was published in Biblical Archaeology Review?)
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
marduk

Post by marduk »

next it will be www.answersingenesis.com or ooparts
:lol:
Guest

Post by Guest »

Moron.
i have let you get away with this for too long. that isn't my name nor my ability no matter how much you disagree . my name is 'archaeologist' or 'arch'. learn to use them properly.
Dever spends a lot of time discussing the objections of colleagues to his findings
Dever is unfortunately unreliable concerning
any textual material. He does
not read Hebrew or any other ancient
language. Moreover, he makes a fool of
himself when he discusses the Bible
you obviously didn't read the review carefully did you. i don't care what he discusses, he is obviously out of touch with what is really being said. I haven't read his books but i have interviews with him here and i am not impressed.

i went to a lot of trouble getting that review just for you becausei was interested in what your response would be, you didn't disappoint as you opted for your usual retort which was disappointing. but now as i think about it, this paints the other side of the picture that you refuse to do when you mention him in your replies.

this thread would serve to help present archaeologists, warts and all, so people can knowledgeable in their assessments of what archaeologists are saying. here is the next few lines after that previous quote:
Dever writes: “That Isaiah was a
patrician is also indicated by his status
as an aristocratic advisor, almost a Prime
Minister, under kings like Ahaz and
Hezekiah.” Only God knows where Dever
finds a hint to the effect that Isaiah
served as a prime minister. Isaiah never
acted as an advisor or a prime minister;
he was a prophet. He was asked to pray
for Hezekiah and for the delivery of Jerusalem,
not to serve as prime minister
one has to wonder what is going on in Dever's mind when he comes up with thoughts like that. now obviously, that is a small excerpt from his book but if that work is like the quote, then the book is worthless. frank asked or mentioned why i did not like Dever and here is a very good reason to answer him, he doesn't know what he is talking about and his errors are glaring not subtle.
why are you not honest and admit that this review was published in Biblical Archaeology Review?)
because i forgot to put it in there plus i had to get B.A.R. to send me a copy personally to my email as an addendum (which i asked for help posting but no one did and it would have been there if i was told how to do it).

for some reason i could not get access to the review through normal means. also i felt the author was more important than the magazine, people have automatic bias when certain names appear and do not read or honestly evaluate an article because of that bias.

i did notice you did not defend theman but immediately attacked me, thatgets old, why don't you stop being a leech and start producing your own thoughts instead of hiding behind standard answers?
Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16036
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist »

When you act like a moron expect to be called a moron.


Be happy I didn't use "asshole."



Try, for once in your life, to understand that Dever is an archaeologist. He is commenting on the fascinating finding of of numerous figurines of a fertility goddess at tombs and family cult sites throughout Judah.

The Yahweh lovers can jump up and down all they like but they cannot make the tangible evidence of polytheistic religious practices in their precious Judah at the time which all these holy fools claim that it was Yahweh-alone who was worshipped, go away.

On the back cover is a review from your good friend, Ronald Hendel of Jacobovici fame.

"Dever has done it again. the dean of biblical archaeology presents a wide-raning and lively treatment of folk religion in ancient Israel, including the possibility of a prominent role for the goddess Asherah. Dever's synthesis of the archaeological evidence is masterful. This is a must-read for students of the bible."

(But not 'blind-slaves' of the bible....apparently.)
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16036
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist »

Here...maybe you'll learn something...


http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/guest/An ... sherah.htm
Evidence that the goddess Asherah may have been far more integrated into ancient Israelite religion derives from archaeological finds.

The Khirbet el-Qôm Inscriptions
In 1967 two grave complexes were discovered with three inscriptions. Inscription 3 dates to 8-7th centuries BCE and possibly reads;

Uriah ... [the governor/a wealthy man/ be careful of]... his inscription
Blessed is Uriah by Yahweh - from his enemies he delivered him by his asherah.
By Oniah.

The inscription itself is not clearly legible. Note the scratches that pre-date the inscription but which interfere with a clear deciphering of the individual letters. Beware of any articles or books that give you a translation without raising the ambiguities and guesswork that is going on. Hadley acknowledges 'suitable lines could be found to support almost any interpretation, within reason' (The Cult of Asherah 2000: 85).

Naturally, what captures the attention are the words 'by his asherah'. Asherah here is not a foreign import, not a pagan image - asherah belongs to Yahweh, and by it or her, a victory was won for Uriah.

That the inscriptions are tomb inscriptions is significant, for as W.G. Dever comments, the things we write in these contexts - burials, gravestones etc, are informative for contemporary religious belief and practise.


If you read it, which I doubt because you don't read anything that casts your fairy tales into doubt, you will note that once again, like Finkelstein, Dever is far from the only scholar investigating this point. He is pulling together the work of many other scholars who seem to lack his ability to write a coherent book for the layman.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Guest

Post by Guest »

use the name.
Try, for once in your life, to understand that Dever is an archaeologist. He is commenting on the fascinating finding of of numerous figurines of a fertility goddess at tombs and family cult sites throughout Judah
if you read the review you will notice he is misusing the word and misapplying it and he certainly isn't a good one:
A most important point, wholly
missing from Dever’s book, is any consideration
of the fact that Asherah is totally
absent from the Phoenician inscriptions
of the first millennium B.C.E.* There is
not a single mention of Asherah in this
corpus, not even as a theophoric component
in Phoenician personal names.
It seems as if Asherah evaporated, vanished—
or never existed—in the Iron Age
(the first millennium B.C.E.), the age
of Biblical Israel, at least as far as the
Phoenician corpus is concerned.
Dever suggests emending
batim (houses), to read badim (garments,
cloth, textiles). This emendation not only
contradicts the principle of text interpretation
known as lectio difficilior (the difficult
reading is the preferred one), but
the plural badim (singular bad) is used
only in Late Biblical Hebrew. So Dever’s
suggested emendation must be rejected
you hate it when your heros are called on their errors and shown to be wrong in their theories.
On the back cover is a review from your good friend, Ronald Hendel of Jacobovici fame.
oh come on, you are going to rely on a blurb on the back of the book (which are designed to sell the it) now that is desperation and grasping at straws.

there is no doubt that some israelites turned from their monotheistic roots, the Bible is full of such examples of their sin and wanderings from God. that doesn't mean the Dever is right nor even correct in his assumption.

that kind of conclusion is like saying, 'i found a Bible in your house thus you followed God devoutly.' such a statement is as erronious as what Dever is trying to say.
Dever contends that these
figurines represent Asherah, consort of
YHWH. Archaeologists commonly call
these figurines “pillar figurines” because
the lower part of the body is pillar-like
(and hollow). The upper part is a woman
supporting her large breasts. Dever insists
they are Asherah:
obviously he is not representing everyone's opinion nor is he representing the truth. it is a fanciful theory with no substance.
Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16036
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist »

use the name.

Asshole?


there is no doubt that some israelites turned from their monotheistic roots, the Bible is full of such examples of their sin and wanderings from God. that doesn't mean the Dever is right nor even correct in his assumption.

It was apparently far more widespread than that and adds fuel to the Copenhagen School's claims that the monotheistic Judaism which we know today really only came into being after the exile. I may have to reconsider my dismissal of their claims.....which would be ironic as Dever is one of their most virulent critics!



Asherah is totally
absent from the Phoenician inscriptions
of the first millennium B.C.E.*

So, now when it suits you, you jump on the "absence of evidence" mantra which you accuse Finkelstein of violating.

Phony!
It seems as if Asherah evaporated, vanished—
or never existed—in the Iron Age
(the first millennium B.C.E.), the age
of Biblical Israel, at least as far as the
Phoenician corpus is concerned.

Irrelevant as she turns up in Palestine telling Yahweh to take out the garbage.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Guest

Post by Guest »

Asshole?
ha.ha.
It was apparently far more widespread than that and adds fuel to the Copenhagen School's claims that the monotheistic Judaism which we know today really only came into being after the exile
i know how widespread it was, it is recorded throughout the books of Kings and Samuel. that does not mean that God had a wife; all it demonstrates is that israel was unfaithful to God.

so i will not deny that israel participated in other religions but i will oppose the idea that God was not there or just a part of a pantheon of gods used to create a 'history' for israel.
So, now when it suits you, you jump on the "absence of evidence" mantra which you accuse Finkelstein of violating
so do you use that angle and if that is the only argument you understand then i will use it. plus, if you use it for the denial of Israel's history then you must use it for Dever's assumptions. you can't have it both ways.

in a review of the book 'Can a History of Israel be Written' by Lester L. Grabbe, Richard Hess, professor of old testament at Denver Seminary pointed this out:
Thomas Thompson reviews the work of Dever and finds it lacking in specific and original source documentation
Dever may criticize the same people i do, but he is far from being on track and right as evidenced by the published review supporting viewpoints.
Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16036
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist »

Dever does more than "criticize" them....

Polemic would be a better word.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Guest

Post by Guest »

Dever does more than "criticize" them....
that may be so, a few quotes would help but fromw what i have seen and read, he is not that good. how could he survive for 30 years without knowing any original language?
Locked