Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Monotheism, Yahweh and his Asherah
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 16 of 54 (413685)
07-31-2007 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Hyroglyphx
07-31-2007 7:21 PM


Re: The point
So that still doesn't answer the question.
i guess the answer is, maybe someone wants to look outside of the bible for answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2007 7:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 17 of 54 (413723)
08-01-2007 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
07-31-2007 7:32 PM


quote:
I don't understand what you mean by taken down? I'm also detecting a subtle implication here-- that they only had done so because she was a female. Obviously, the qualifier is that she was a pagan god, since Molech and Ba'al were demigods but also denounced.
I think that the question is more how Asherah came to be classified as a pagan God. The archaeological evidence indicates that the Israelites grew out of the local Canaanite population and Yahweh likely began as their particular patron God. But why is it that a goddess who is sometimes identified as Yahweh's consort was removed rather than sharing her consort's rise to power ?
The Bible cannot tell us that because the Bible is written from a Yahwist point of view and to a large extent it imposes the views of the writers on the history (although some remnants of early polytheism may still be found). The idea that the Israelites were monotheists who kept adopting polytheism (only to suffer disaster from it) appears to be ahistorical. The evidence indicates that they were more likely polytheists who moved through henotheism to monotheism (and the relationship of disaster to religious faith seems mere propaganda).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2007 7:32 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 3:06 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 21 by Reding, posted 08-01-2007 8:14 AM PaulK has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 54 (413727)
08-01-2007 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
08-01-2007 2:49 AM


But why is it that a goddess who is sometimes identified as Yahweh's consort was removed rather than sharing her consort's rise to power ?
because monotheism means "one god." don't over-think it -- religion isn't motivated by illectual concerns. monotheism, specifically the jewish brand, requires the removal of ALL over gods, including the ones associated with the one you adopt as your only god.
asherah appears to be specifically railed against because worship of her was so common. and ba'al because he was mixed up with el a lot.
The idea that the Israelites were monotheists who kept adopting polytheism (only to suffer disaster from it) appears to be ahistorical.
indeed. especially since the victories of the levantine alliances of phoenicia, israel, and a few other countries, over assyria, thanks the marriage of jezeba'al and ahab, remains unmentioned in the bible. and the defeat of his god-fearing decendant jehu, who removed ba'al, likewise goes unmentioned. talk about intellectual dishonesty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2007 2:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Reding, posted 08-01-2007 8:29 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2007 8:45 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 51 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 5:25 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Reding
Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 29
From: Belgium
Joined: 07-17-2007


Message 19 of 54 (413747)
08-01-2007 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
07-31-2007 5:23 PM


Re: patriarchy
well, that's simply guess work. we don't know that mariam of migdal even existed, let alone had a relationship with christ, who we also don't know anything about. but from archaeology, we know what some ancient hebrews and most of the surrounding cultures thought about asherah.
She didn’t necessarily had to excist at all if we want to merely understand why she would be considered an unchaste and sinful woman while she appears to have an important role among the disciples. Nevertheless the Magdalene figure got rejected.
Mary Magdalene - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2007 5:23 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by anastasia, posted 08-01-2007 11:41 AM Reding has replied
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 1:50 PM Reding has not replied

  
Reding
Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 29
From: Belgium
Joined: 07-17-2007


Message 20 of 54 (413748)
08-01-2007 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
07-31-2007 7:32 PM


If your over over-arching question is why she is viewed negatively in the Scriptures, its because Moses and the other founders of Judaism refer to her as a false god-- which is, no god at all. And again, she wasn't the only one. She was one of many.
Asherah is the most frequently apearring female deity in the OT, I believe 40+ times.
In 1963 Yamashita already observed that those insults toawrd Asherah came from only one source and is called the Deuteronomic principle. It’s a principle that extends throughout Deuteronomy and 2 Kings. I thought that by connecting Asherah to Ba’al and Astarte it would be easyer for the scribes to reduce her importance so that Jehovah would fit in a monoteistic view. I still wonder why the hebrews needed to be patriarchal.
It was only after the discoveries of the famous tablets of Ugarit that we knew Asherah was a goddess, that she meant more than what the canonic scribes wanted us to believe. She was a national devotion ,right?
On the tablets we can read that she had her own prophets and that she spoke through their mouths to the people of Canaan. The ceremonies took place on hills near a pole or tree. In the north she was called Asherah of Tyrus, Asherah of Sidon or Elat. In the south she was also called Elat (the gulf of Aqaba).
Despite her rejection in the OT there’s significant evidence of a prominent place within the hebrew culture. Despite those excavations, among them remarkable texts clearly saying “Jehovah and his Asherah”, the scribes seemed to have other ideals.
In other locations, south Kadesh-Barnea and south Hebron they found the same inscriptions, a few of those inscriptions said “blessed is Jehovah and his Asherah”. It would fit nicely with a agraric culture, nomads needed a symbol of fertility and as we all know it was common practice.
Together with the historical and political aspects, enough doubts emerged regarding the credibility of the information about faith and the cults. The question of when did the Kingdom of Israel and Judah accepted monotheism emerged when texts in ancient hebrew were discovered saying “Jehovah and his Asherah”. The texts of the 8th century BC open the possibility that monotheism as a state religion actually is a renewal of the period of the Kingdom of Judah after the destruction of Israel . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-31-2007 7:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-02-2007 9:31 PM Reding has replied

  
Reding
Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 29
From: Belgium
Joined: 07-17-2007


Message 21 of 54 (413749)
08-01-2007 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
08-01-2007 2:49 AM


I think that the question is more how Asherah came to be classified as a pagan God. The archaeological evidence indicates that the Israelites grew out of the local Canaanite population and Yahweh likely began as their particular patron God. But why is it that a goddess who is sometimes identified as Yahweh's consort was removed rather than sharing her consort's rise to power ?
The Bible cannot tell us that because the Bible is written from a Yahwist point of view and to a large extent it imposes the views of the writers on the history (although some remnants of early polytheism may still be found). The idea that the Israelites were monotheists who kept adopting polytheism (only to suffer disaster from it) appears to be ahistorical. The evidence indicates that they were more likely polytheists who moved through henotheism to monotheism (and the relationship of disaster to religious faith seems mere propaganda).
Yes, thank you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2007 2:49 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Reding
Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 29
From: Belgium
Joined: 07-17-2007


Message 22 of 54 (413752)
08-01-2007 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 3:06 AM


because monotheism means "one god." don't over-think it -- religion isn't motivated by illectual concerns. monotheism, specifically the jewish brand, requires the removal of ALL over gods, including the ones associated with the one you adopt as your only god.
I'm more concerned with the socio-cultural aspect of the acceptance of one god, and why everyone else had to succumb, occasionally with violence. Are we merely talking about extremism here and why? ...and were there other cultures who had a similar philosophy/religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 3:06 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 2:00 PM Reding has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 54 (413754)
08-01-2007 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
08-01-2007 3:06 AM


quote:
because monotheism means "one god." don't over-think it -- religion isn't motivated by illectual concerns. monotheism, specifically the jewish brand, requires the removal of ALL over gods, including the ones associated with the one you adopt as your only god
No, that's not really answering the question. It assumes that the Israelites were were purposefully heading to monotheism. But why pure monotheism ? And if monotheism why not keep Asherah as a lesser but still revered being ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 3:06 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by anastasia, posted 08-01-2007 11:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 54 (413760)
08-01-2007 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by arachnophilia
07-31-2007 9:19 PM


Re: ba'al and asherot
which passage would that be?
Judges 3:7
i'm not sure of a good way to render "ba'alim and asherot." they're plural, and thus quite clearly general -- had they been singular, they'd be individual gods by name. but they're not. there seems to be more than one "asherah" and more than one "ba'al"
Even if there is, it could be distinguishing between gods and goddesses. That's my understanding of it.
This is what I'm sensing. I'm sensing that Reding is saying that Ashterah was moved from a positive view to a negative one because of patriachy. I'm saying it has everything to do with the fact that she is a pagan goddess.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2007 9:19 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Reding, posted 08-01-2007 9:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2007 9:57 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 34 by arachnophilia, posted 08-01-2007 2:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Reding
Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 29
From: Belgium
Joined: 07-17-2007


Message 25 of 54 (413764)
08-01-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
08-01-2007 9:38 AM


Re: ba'al and asherot
i'm not sure of a good way to render "ba'alim and asherot." they're plural, and thus quite clearly general -- had they been singular, they'd be individual gods by name. but they're not. there seems to be more than one "asherah" and more than one "ba'al"
perhaps it's a reference to the objects/figurines...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2007 9:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 26 of 54 (413765)
08-01-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
08-01-2007 9:38 AM


Re: ba'al and asherot
What exactly does "pagan" mean in this in this context ? Presumably to exclude Yahweh, but why ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-01-2007 9:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 27 of 54 (413780)
08-01-2007 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
08-01-2007 8:45 AM


PaulK writes:
No, that's not really answering the question. It assumes that the Israelites were were purposefully heading to monotheism. But why pure monotheism ? And if monotheism why not keep Asherah as a lesser but still revered being ?
Maybe the Israelites weren't heading purposefully anywhere. It is possible that you had several similar beliefs rubbing up against each other, and that there was one which won out.
You can't account for belief. It is not something which people sit and plan. If you are mono, you do not stop to say 'hey, why not squeeze one more god into the mix, because people seem to like her?'.
I think the best question would be something like:
Why did Yahweh win out? or
Why did a male role become assosciated with the one god?
They are questions which are pretty easily answered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2007 8:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2007 11:48 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 28 of 54 (413783)
08-01-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Reding
08-01-2007 8:06 AM


Re: patriarchy
Reding writes:
She didn’t necessarily had to excist at all if we want to merely understand why she would be considered an unchaste and sinful woman while she appears to have an important role among the disciples. Nevertheless the Magdalene figure got rejected.
The Magdalene figure as the wife of Jesus got rejected because there is simply no direct evidence for it.
Mary Magdalene, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, were not rejected whatsoever from veneration or high status in the church. Of all the saints, it is a woman who is most widely esteemed. I think that kind of nullifies your argument that Mary of Magdala was rejected on grounds of being female.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Reding, posted 08-01-2007 8:06 AM Reding has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Reding, posted 08-01-2007 12:14 PM anastasia has not replied
 Message 31 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-01-2007 1:47 PM anastasia has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 54 (413785)
08-01-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by anastasia
08-01-2007 11:29 AM


I think that you are getting the wrong end of the stick.
I can understand why the Yahwists would want to suppress worship of rival Gods (although El seems to have been more subsumed into Yahweh than suppressed as such). But Ahsherah (or maybe an Asherah) was seen as the consort of Yahweh. That's a special relationship and the question of how it failed is a good question. But not one that I think can easily be answered - speculations are possible, of course, but we can't know if they are correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by anastasia, posted 08-01-2007 11:29 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Reding
Junior Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 29
From: Belgium
Joined: 07-17-2007


Message 30 of 54 (413794)
08-01-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by anastasia
08-01-2007 11:41 AM


Re: patriarchy
The Magdalene figure as the wife of Jesus got rejected because there is simply no direct evidence for it.
Mary Magdalene, along with Mary the mother of Jesus, were not rejected whatsoever from veneration or high status in the church. Of all the saints, it is a woman who is most widely esteemed. I think that kind of nullifies your argument that Mary of Magdala was rejected on grounds of being female.
i based my argument on the following:
""A group of scholars have suggested that for one early group of Christians Mary Magdalene was a leader of the early Church and maybe even the unidentified Beloved Disciple, to whom the Fourth Gospel commonly called Gospel of John is ascribed. The most familiar of the scholars is Elaine Pagels.
Ramon K. Jusino, an internet writer, offers an explanation of this view, based on the textual researches of Raymond E. Brown in "Mary Magdalene, author of the Fourth Gospel?", 1998, available on-line. Ann Graham Brock (see ref.) summarized this reading of the texts in 2003. She demonstrated that an early Christian writing portrays authority as being represented in Mary Magdalene or in the church community structure.
These scholars also observe that the Mary Magdalene figure is consistently elevated in writings from which formal leadership roles are absent. In certain texts, while either the Peter or the Paul figure is more involved, Mary Magdalene's role is often diminished, while in other texts, the opposite occurs. A tug-of-war is evident between these two opposing systems of church government, revealing debates regarding the importance of the key roles of women in Biblical texts.
Scholars of the Mary who appears in the Nag Hammadi Gnostic texts have identified her with the Magdalene, even though she is merely given the (Coptic) equivalent of "Mary". However, Stephen J. Shoemaker thinks that this Mary is actually the Blessed Virgin Mary (Shoemaker 2001), that this fits in better with the notions that Mary was intimate with Jesus, was his greatest disciple, and was to be the center of Jesus' religion; Shoemaker has made a study of Marian liturgies and devotion in Early Christianity.
Further attestation of Mary of Magdala and her role among some early Christians is provided by the gnostic, apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalene which survives in two 3rd century Greek fragments and a longer 5th century translation into Coptic. In the Gospel the testimony of a woman first needed to be defended. All of these manuscripts were first discovered and published between 1938 and 1983, but as early as the 3rd century there are Patristic references to the Gospel of Mary. These writings reveal the degree to which that gospel was despised and dismissed by the early Church Fathers. In the fragmentary text, the disciples ask questions of the risen Savior (a designation that dates the original no earlier than the 2nd century) and are answered.
Then they grieve, saying, "How shall we go to the Gentiles and preach the Gospel of the Kingdom of the Son of Man? If even he was not spared, how shall we be spared?" And Mary bids them take heart: "Let us rather praise his greatness, for he prepared us and made us into men." She then delivers ” at Peter's request ” a vision of the Savior she has had, and reports her discourse with him, which shows Gnostic influences.
Her vision does not meet with universal approval:
"But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, 'Say what you think concerning what she said. For I do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are of other ideas."
"Peter also opposed her in regard to these matters and asked them about the Savior. "Did he then speak secretly with a woman, in preference to us, and not openly? Are we to turn back and all listen to her? Did he prefer her to us?"
Karen King of Harvard Divinity School has observed, "The confrontation of Mary with Peter, a scenario also found in The Gospel of Thomas, Pistis Sophia, and The Greek Gospel of the Egyptians, reflects some of the tensions in second-century Christianity. Peter and Andrew represent orthodox positions that deny the validity of esoteric revelation and reject the authority of women to teach." (introduction, The Nag Hammadi Library)""
taken from Mary Magdalene - Wikipedia
....and yes she appears to be a prominent woman, while others tried to reject her. The question remains why? This is something i also learnt from a NG documentary, unfortunately i don't remember the title. Certain early church fathers just wouldn't want her to take an important place and what better way to do it then to call her unchaste and adulterous. I never stated she got rejected because of her gender and the subject still remains open for discussion. You can't simply avoid the suspicious similarities in how women were viewed back then, starting with Asherah as a goddess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by anastasia, posted 08-01-2007 11:41 AM anastasia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024