Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

[Rokcet Scientist]

You mean he is still allowed on the internet?

I can imagine his horror when he finds out that his gay, jerk-off SM deity really was just another closet homosexual leading a double life with a wife at home. LOL!

[Forum Monk]

....would not fit my image

You could change your avatar to this -

[Minimalist]

Ouch...bad memories from childhood, Monk.

[Cognito]

The nuns I had also had 5 o'clock shadows. They were a tough bunch.

[Ishtar]

The palmette capitals of the tree-like columns are not lotus-blossom capitals, as Weinberg and other classicists once supposed, much less “proto-Aeolic” capitals as William F. Albright thought. The late Israeli archaeologist Yigal Shiloh clearly demonstrated that they are stylized palm trees, especially typical of Iron Age royal and temple architecture.7 More recent research has shown that the symbolism responsible for the adaptation of the tree motif for columns in ancient Israel (and in Aramean and Phoenician monumental architecture) is probably deeply rooted in the old Canaanite identification of Asherah as a tree-goddess.

Well, that's an idea. But I doubt she was a tree goddesses as they are two a penny, and Astarte/Asherah was the Queen of Heaven.

Another possibility is that (at 10-12th centuries BC) we are still in a sort of transition period between the shamanic and the religious - Astarte is just another name for the Babylonian Ishtar, who we know descends to the underworld in true shamanic fashion. So the trees could be symbolic of the shaman's axis mundi - the majority of indigneous shamans, particularly in India and Siberia, used (and still do use) trees to journey from one dimension to another.

In mythology, it is known as the World Tree. The Indian shamans used the tree we now call the ash tree. It got its name because the Indian shamans would carve eight notches in the trunk to travel up, and eight in Sanskrit is ash.

[Minimalist]

http://alkman1.blogspot.com/2007/01/can ... theon.html

(Turn your speakers off or you'll have to listen to the "music.")

ASHERAH: The Mother of the Gods, Qodesh (just like El), Lady of the Sea, Wife of El. (see El). When the gods decided to entreat Yam to ease his reign of tyranny, it was Asherah who went to him and even offered herself. The gods agreed to let her do this, except for Baal who was enraged at the idea. (See Baal). Asherah is said to have given birth to seventy gods.

Scroll down for their take on Yahweh!

[kbs2244]

I do not see any disagreement between Dever and the Hebrew Bible, except his belief that Asherah was “written out”
She was not written out. She is mentioned quite a bit.
In fact, that she was worshiped by the common people along with Yahweh is one of the constant complaints of the prophets.
Hence all their complaints and explanations that Yahweh was a “jealous” god, demanding “excusive” devotion.
That they are finding archeological evidence of this “consort” type of worship is not anti-Bible.
It supports the Bible.

[Minimalist]

Dever takes it a bit further than that but you'd have to read "Did God Have A Wife" to get the whole picture.

He portrays it as a constant battle between the court/priests in Jerusalem and the countryside. Any king who kissed the ass of the priests was deemd to be "righteous" and any king who did not was said "to do evil in the sight of the LORD." After a few examples of this it is pretty easy to come to the conclusion that what the priests were really talking about was "who did right in the eyes of the priests."

[Forum Monk]

I do not see any disagreement between Dever and the Hebrew Bible, except his belief that Asherah was “written out”
She was not written out. She is mentioned quite a bit.
In fact, that she was worshiped by the common people along with Yahweh is one of the constant complaints of the prophets.
Hence all their complaints and explanations that Yahweh was a “jealous” god, demanding “excusive” devotion.
That they are finding archeological evidence of this “consort” type of worship is not anti-Bible.
It supports the Bible.

I agree, KB. In fact, to say the early Hebrews were monotheistic is a bit of a stretch. This is even clear from reading the hebrew scriptures. There was and I guess you can say, remains to this day, a world of difference between the requirements of the faith and the practical, daily belief systems of the "faithful".

[Forum Monk]

After a few examples of this it is pretty easy to come to the conclusion that what the priests were really talking about was "who did right in the eyes of the priests."

I think the implication here is incorrect even if the realities of the statement are true. No doubt the priests enjoyed a favored life-style replete with all the trappings of an honored aristocracy. What doesn't make sense, however, is if the priests enjoyed and desired to protect this favor (which I am sure they did), going so far as to manipulate the religious books, why does the hebrew and christian scripture thoroughly and completely condemn them and their hierarchial government?

[Minimalist]

Civil war in the fist century BC between Saducees and Pharisees on the one hand and, as far as the christians go, they arose after the Great Revolt and had every reason to want to distance themselves from the Jews.

[rich]

The Hebrews weren't monotheistic until Moses supposedly led them out of Egypt. Elohim is plural for Idols or Images. Yahweh was to be their god (or more correctly they were to be his people or his portion).

[rich]

And actually according to translation made by Philo of Biblos of works by Sanchuniathon there was a whole pantheon of gods that was handed down to him from a hebrew priest. Supposedly he wrote the truest history of the Jews according to Eusibius. 'Course I wasn't there so - eh!

[rich]

Forgot to say Elohim is the form used to denote god (or more correctly the gods) in the first section of genesis and the form Yahweh doesn't come in until later.

[Minimalist]

The Hebrews weren't monotheistic until Moses supposedly led them out of Egypt. Elohim is plural for Idols or Images. Yahweh was to be their god (or more correctly they were to be his people or his portion).

Well, that's the story. The big scholastic battle going on is whether or not that story was written before or after the Babylonian Exile.