"Yahweh and His Asherah": The Goddess or Her Symbol?

Author(s): J. A. Emerton
Source: Vetus Testamentum , Jul., 1999, Vol. 49, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 315-337
Published by: Brill

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1585374

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vetus Testamentum

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH":
THE GODDESS OR HER SYMBOL?

by

J.A. EMERTON
Cambridge

Many articles and books have been written about the words lyhwh...
wl'srth in inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud (Davies: 8.016.1, 8.017.1,
8.021.2); and also about l'srth and its relation to yhwh in the previous
line in an inscription from Khirbet el-Qom (Davies: 25.003.3; cp.
25.003.5 and 6). There has been general agreement that 'srth is a form
of the word that appears in the Hebrew Bible as 'dserd, to which has
been attached a third-person masculine singular pronominal suffix: "his
'dersa". This has replaced the earlier theory of Meshel that the noun
means "cella or symbol" (a meaning that 'srt can probably have in
Phoenician: Hoftijzer and Jongeling, p. 129, suggest "sanctuary").
I know of only two alternative theories. The first is Angerstorfer's
suggestion that 'srth represents Ashirtah, the name of a goddess that
appears in the personal name Abdi-Ashirta, a ruler of part of Syria,
in the Tell el-Amarna letters. It seems preferable, however, to relate
the word to 'asera, because the relevant inscriptions in which 'srth
appears were written by people from Israel and Judah who may be
expected to have used the form found in the Hebrew Bible.1

'Hess, p. 14, notes that "the spellings of Abdi-Ashirta are not consistent in the
Amama correspondence. In 18 out of 95 occurrences the deity's name is vocalized
as 'ashratu/i/a'. This suggests the presence of an 'a' vowel between the final two
consonants"; and he notes that a Late Bronze Age text from Taanach has the read-
ing da-si-rat. The vowel u, i, or a at the end of the word "may be due to the syllabic
nature of the cuneiform spelling. However, the fact that these vowels are usually not
case vowels suggests that some proper names may already have acquired fixed forms
with vocalic endings" (pp. 14-15). He thinks that Asherata may be a "frozen" spelling
of the divine name and that it may have survived "over the centuries" and appeared
at Kuntillet 'Ajrud (pp. 15, 16). It seems to me to be preferable to interpret the Hebrew
inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud in the light of Hebrew as attested in the Hebrew
Bible rather than on the basis of a conceivable, but speculative, hypothesis about a
"frozen" form.

? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Vetus Testamentum XLIX,3

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
316 J.A. EMERTON

The second alternative theory is the explanation offered by Zevit,

who suggests that 'srth is a "double feminization of the noun 'srt" (pp.
45-6); that is to say, both the t and the h signify the feminine gender.
This word then appears to be "Asherata", the name of the goddess,
who appears in the Old Testament as Asherah. Zevit compares 'srth
with place-names such as yotbatd (Num. xxxiii 33), timnatd (Josh. xix
43) and 'eprdtd (Mic. v 1), and with some nouns in poetic texts such
as 'nmdtd (Exod. xv 16) which, he says, are "with indisputable double
feminization" (p. 46).
The objection to this theory is that it has not been established that
such forms in the Bible are to be explained an examples of "double
feminization". The ending -a in the MT does not have the tone,
and that shows that it was distinguished from the feminine ending (GK
? 90 g; cp. Tigay 1987, p. 175). It has usually been regarded as
an extended use of the he locale (cp. Hadley, p. 59).2 Nowadays, it is
normally related to the Ugaritic directive ending -h, though Segert
has suggested (1988, p. 100) that this indication of direction merged
with "the form of the noun preserving the ending (-a) of the adver-
bial/accusative case", and his view has been accepted by Muller
(pp. 31-2).
In what follows I shall assume that 'srth is 'dserd with the third-

person masculine singular pronominal suffix. The phrase yhwh... wlsrth

2 GK notes that something of the directive sense is sometimes apparent, as in qumd

'ezratd llinu in Ps. xliv 27, "but elsewhere it has become meaningless". An example of
the latter is found in Ps. cxvi 15: hammdawtd (which, incidentally, is masculine). Hess,
who thinks that 'srth may represent "Asherata" (see n. 1 above), defends the possibil-
ity of double feminization and holds that objections to it "merely attest to [sic] a lack
of evidence. In fact, the spelling of asherah/Asherah which occurs at Kuntillet 'Ajrud,
appears nowhere in the Hebrew Bible. Further, the spelling of Asherah/asherah in the
Hebrew Bible occurs nowhere in extra-Biblical Hebrew inscriptions of the Monarchy
or earlier" (p. 13). However, although 'srth does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is
the form in which 'dserd, as a feminine noun, would regularly appear with with a
pronominal suffix. P. 14 comments: "After all, this is not a feminine personal name
but rather a feminine divine name, something which is extremely rare in Hebrew
texts." Hess does not appear to be claiming that the rules governing the use of the
names of female deities differ from those governing the use of the names of female
human beings. Rather, be interprets 'srth as a "frozen form" derived from an earlier
"ashratu/i/a" with an "e" before the "r" (see p. 14). Strangely, however, he says on
p. 16: "Double feminization is an inherent feature within the structure of the name
itself"; and on p. 19: "Perhaps Zevit's suggestion of Asherah as a deity with the name
of Asherata is the best option." But if the final -a in the earlier form is a sign of the
feminine, how does Hess explain the endings -u and -i? His attempt to identify two
different hypotheses is unconvincing.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 317

means "by Yahweh... and by his 'dserd". The word 'as

two related senses in the Old Testament (see my article
15-18; and the fuller discussions by Day in 1986 and 1992
it appears as the name of the goddess Asherah, and som
wooden representation of her. The former sense may con
represented by "Asherah", and the latter by "asherah".
that has been much debated is whether the phrase in the
means "Yahweh and his Asherah" or "Yahweh and his asherah". It

is to that question that the present article is devoted.

The first argument for understanding the relevant phrase to mean

"Yahweh and his Asherah" is that the words brkt 'tkm lyhwh nsm wlsrth,
"I bless [or: have blessed] you by Yahweh of Samaria and by his 'srh",
on pithos A from Kuntillet 'Ajrud (Davies: 8.017.1; Renz and Rollig,
Pithos 1, pp. 59-61), are related to a drawing immediately below.
Indeed, the inscription and the drawing overlap (for the drawing, see,
for example, Hadley, p. 212, and Uehlinger, p. 147). The picture shows
two standing figures resembling the minor Egyptian god Bes and a
seated figure (thought by some to be female, but by Hadley, pp. 196-
201, to be probably male) playing a lyre. Gilula suggested that the pic-
ture illustrates the inscription and that two of the figures are Yahweh
and the goddess Asherah. Gilula has been followed by other scholars
in relating the drawing to the inscription, though opinions have differed
about the identifications. Some believe that the two standing figures
represent Yahweh and Asherah: so Coogan (pp. 119, 123), McCarter
(pp. 146-7), who thinks that, although 'srth was "a wooden cult object",
the drawing represents "the personification of a cult object as a god-
dess", and Schmidt (pp. 96-103). On the other hand, Dever (especially
pp. 22-5) has argued that the lyre-player is Asherah.
If the drawing is related to the inscription, it is reasonable to argue
that it represents Yahweh and Asherah (though there is the difficulty
that it includes three figures, not two). However, even if it does not,
it might be argued that the drawing includes a male and a female
deity, and that they may represent Yahweh and Asherah. The subject
has been much discussed in detail, and particularly well by Hadley
(pp. 188-207, with reference to the work of Beck and other scholars)
and Uehlinger (pp. 142-6; cp. Frevel, pp. 869-76). There is no need
to repeat here the various arguments that have been advanced, and

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
318 J.A. EMERTON

it will suffice to say that good reasons have been given to question
whether either of the Bes-like figures (the left one of which may, in
any case, be a later addition) represents Yahweh or Asherah, or whether
the lyre-player represents Asherah, or whether the drawing was intended
to illustrate the inscription which it overlaps at one point (see Uehlinger,
pp. 146-7).
I shall comment on only one aspect of Schmidt's presentation of
the case for the view that the drawing is related to the inscription and
represents Yahweh and Asherah. (I have previously referred to this
aspect in VT 47 [1997], pp. 396-7.) Schmidt says on pp, 97-8:

I draw upon redaction criticism as an appropriate analogy when I sug-

gest that for the "final redactor" of the scene on pithos A, the confluence
of figures and inscription may have in fact conveyed a significant, unified
field of meaning! Assuming that the parts comprising the final scene are
to be related as a single unit (see below for further support), it is difficult
to avoid the conclusion that by recording the inscription, someone con-
sciously sought to interpret the drawings as a depiction of Yahweh and
his Asherah.

By the "final redactor" Schmidt appears to mean the person respon-

sible for "recording the inscription"; and ex hypothesi the drawing was
present on the pithos before the inscription was added. Since the author
of the inscription was "the final redactor of the scene", the word
"scene" includes both "figures and inscription". It is not clear who is
intended to be the person who is "assuming" that "the parts com-
prising the final scene" are "a single unit". If it is the "final redactor"
who makes the assumption, then Schmidt's words are a statement of
the obvious, since of course the redactor assumed a unity which, ex
hypothesi, he had himself created. If, on the other hand, it is Schmidt
who is the subject of "assuming", then his assumption that the "parts"
of the "final scene" (i.e. the drawings and the inscription) are a "sin-
gle unit" contains within itself the view that the "final redactor" intended
to represent Yahweh and Asherah. It is then strange to write of even
the possibility of avoiding a "conclusion", when the "conclusion" is
part of the initial assumption.
The "further support" to which Schmidt refers is evidence for the
overlapping of an inscription and an "icon" or statue, the portrayal
of one Bes-like figure as smaller and standing behind the other, the
case for holding that one figure is male and the other female, and the
fluidity in representations of the figure of Bes. However, evidence else-

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 319

where for overlapping can show, at most, only that it i

to theories of a unity between an inscription and a draw
of the "further support" is open to question, but I need
the subject because of the discussion by other scholar
refer above.

There seems insufficient reason to suppose that there is a connex-

ion between the inscription and the drawings. That does not exclude
the possibility that the latter are representations of Yahweh and Asherah,
but the identification would need to be justified on iconographical
grounds. I have maintained above, however, that the grounds sug-
gested so far fall far short of a good case. We must now turn to other
arguments for believing that the inscriptions refer to Yahweh and
his Asherah.

II

The second argument advanced by those who hold that lsrth refers
to Asherah is not a positive argument in favour of such an under-
standing, but rather an attempt to meet an objection that has been
raised. The objection is that "Asherah" is a proper noun, and that
such nouns are "determinate in themselves" (GK ? 125 d), and there-
fore cannot take pronominal suffixes. This point was made by Lemaire
in 1977 (p. 607) in his discussion of 'srth in the Khirbet el-Qom inscrip-
tion, and I made the same point in my article of 1982 (pp. 5, 14-15).
I noted the contrary view of Driver (pp. 125-6), who gives examples
from Accadian, Ugaritic, Arabic and Ethiopic to support his claim that
"proper names may take pronominal suffixes". However, I questioned
(pp. 5-8) his claim that a few examples are to be found in the Old
Testament. I granted that "we should perhaps hesitate to be too dog-
matic in stating what was not possible in Hebrew, and we must be
prepared to modify our opinions in the light of new evidence" (p. 14).
But I went on to say that "the use of a suffix with a personal name
is not in accordance with Hebrew idiom as far as we know it, and it
is unwise to interpret the newly-found inscriptions in such a way unless
there is no satisfactory alternative" (pp. 14-15). If, however, we under-
stand Psrth to refer to "his asherah", no conflict arises with attested
Hebrew idiom.

Further, if the writer of the inscription had intended to refer to

"Yahweh and his Asherah", in the sense of Yahweh and his consort
Asherah, it would have been possible to do so in a way that corresponds

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
320 J.A. EMERTON

with Hebrew idiom as attested in the Old Testament. The writer could

have attached the pronominal suffix to a noun denoting the relation-

ship, as I pointed out (p. 15). He could have written lyhwh wl'rh 'sth.
Thus, Gen. xii 5 has wayyiqah 'abram 'et-saray 'isto (cp. Gen xii 11, xx
14; 1 Sam. i 19, xix 11, etc.). It is possible also to cite other exam-
ples of a phrase containing a name (or a pronoun) followed by the
name of someone connected with the person first named (e.g. as wife,
son, brother or servant) and then a noun denoting the relationship, to
which a pronominal suffix is attached. For example, Gen. xxv 10 has
samma qubbar 'abrdhdm wdrda 'isto Exod. xiv 31 has wayya'imzfnu byhwh
ubemoseh 'abdo; 1 Sam. xiii 16 s'zul wyonadtan beno (cp. verse 22); and
2 Sam. iii 30 has wyd'b wa'dbisay 'ahiw. Tigay (1986, p. 27) com-
ments that, if Biblical Hebrew had "expressed the idea 'his Asherah'
(divine name) at all, it would probably have done so by saying 'srh 'sr
Iw" (cp. 2 Kings xiv 11, and 1 Sam. xvii 1; 1 Kings xv 27, xix 3).
This is an attested Hebrew usage, though it seems to me more prob-
able from the Hebrew Bible that the inscription would have had
wlfsrh 'sth.

Tigay (1987, p. 190) also notes that we find at Kuntillet 'Ajrud brtk.
lyhwh tmn wlsrth. ybrk. wysnrk wyhy 'm.'d[n]y, "I bless thee by Yahweh
of Teman and by his asherah. May he bless and keep thee and be
with my l[o]rd" (Davies: 8.021). The verbs ybrk and wyhy are singular;
otherwise, we should expectybrkw and wyhyw, though the inscriptions
from Kuntillet 'Ajrud are not always consistent in their use of matres
lectionis. The inscription thus "appears to regard only YHWH as bless-
ing and protecting the addressee". The goddess Asherah thus does
not seem to be an active agent, and it is more likely that 'srth denotes
her symbol. Muller, however, argues that Asherah shares in blessing,
but only one deity can be the subject of wysmrk and wyhy: "beides
laBt sich, weil von personaler Funktionalitat, nicht wie der dynami-
stische Fruchtbarkeitssegen, den die vorher erorterten Wendungen
offenbar meinen, auf zwei gottliche Aktanten verteilen" (p. 32). But
if 'srth is a goddess, why should she not also share in ybrk and these
actions?

Frevel, p. 21, like Muller, opposes the same argument. He refers to

three Punic dedication inscriptions, KAI 79, 102 and 105, which men-
tion Baal Hammon and the goddess Tinnit, "jeweils aber, der Dedi-
kation entsprechend, die Inschrift nur singularisch weitergefuhrt wird
(anders z.B. KAI 88 mit pluralischer Fortsetzung)" (in fact, brk' in KAI
88.4 can be construed as either singular or plural; see Friedrich and

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 321

Rollig-referred to as "F. and R." below-p. 89). He pr

stands brk' in KAI 102.5 as the third-person masculine
imperative p'el with a third-person masculine singular pron
this is possible, but the plural is identical in form (F.
Segert 1976, ? 64.422, in contrast, regards brk' here a
perfect in the third-person masculine singular with a su
the form is the same in the plural (F. and R., p. 89
brky' is explained by F. and R., p. 89, as the masculine s
ative pi'el with a third-person masculine singular suffix, b
only example of auch a form ending iny', and elsewher
page they note ybrky' and ybrky as examples of the thi
culine plural imperfect pi'el with a third-person masculine
and it may be asked whether it is certain that brky' is
Whatever is made of the forms considered above, the
that tbrk' in KAI 79.6 is third-person feminine singula
line 10 by wspt, which is also feminine singular here). I
tion, Tinnit is mentioned before Baal Hammon and seems to be
regarded as the primary deity to whom the text is dedicated. There
is an important difference between this inscription (and KAI 102 and
105) and the inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud. In the latter, for exam-
ple, brktk lyhwh tmn wl'srth involves Yahweh and 'srth in the author's act
of blessing, but there is nothing corresponding in the Punic inscrip-
tions, and no difficulty arises in them of an action involving two deities
being continued by only one of them. An inscription may be dedi-
cated to more than one deity, and yet only one of them may be asked
to bless the donor.

A different view of the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions from that of

Tigay is taken by Coogan: "Despite the grammatical difficulty, under-
standing the last word as 'his [i.e. Yahweh's] Asherah [i.e. the goddess
Asherah who was his consort]' is the most attractive of the possibili-
ties." He thinks that the "absence of biblical parallels to the precise
phrasing... underscores the highly selective character of the biblical
traditions" (p. 119). It is indeed possible that a pronominal suffix could
be used with a proper noun but that it does not happen to be attested
in the Hebrew Bible. It seems best, however, to be guided by what is
actually found, especially since 'srth can be understood as "his asherah"
within those limits.

Schmidt (p. 97) appeals to Driver's article to support his view that
it is legitimate to postulate the use of a pronominal suffix with a proper
noun. We have seen, however, that Schmidt's interpretation of the

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
322 J.A. EMERTON

inscription is based on the questionable assumption that the words are

intended to refer to the drawing.
Another scholar who knows of Driver's article is Xella, who offers
further evidence from Semitic languages other than Hebrew for the
possibility of attaching a pronominal suffix to a proper noun. After
mentioning additional examples in Accadian, he gives some detailed
illustrations of the idiom in texts from Ebla that mention a god and
a goddess, with a pronominal suffix attached to the latter: Rasap "and
his Adamma", and Kura "and his Barama". He then turns to Ugaritic,
which is undoubtedly a North-West Semitic language like Hebrew, and
in which Driver had mentioned krtn, "our Keret", in CTA 16 (KTU
1.16). I 39.
Xella adds to Driver's Ugaritic reference an example of the name
of a goddess followed by the third-person masculine singular suffix h.
This is interesting when compared with Tigay's comment (1987,
p. 189) that "third person suffixes are cited by Driver only from Arabic
and Ethiopic", and that Athiratu is never called "his [i.e. El's] Asherah"
in Ugaritic (p. 190). The example given by Xella (pp. 607-8) is in
Ugaritic and is found in CTA 33 (KTU 1.43). 13: 'nth, which he trans-
lates "pour son 'nt". Xella himself puts an asterisk by both the t and
the h to indicate that the reading is uncertain. Herdner (Texte, p. 116
n. 8) notes that the letter transliterated 'looks like a very short s, but
she thinks that it is a badly written ' ("ait" is presumably a misprint
for "fait"). In the volume of Figures et planches, the copy of the cuneiform
text makes the difficulties plain; unfortunately, plate XXXVIII does
not help, apart from showing something of the problem. The reading
(or restoration) 'nth may well be correct, but too much should not be
built on the foundation of this reading. This text will be considered
again below.
In view of the evidence adduced by Xella for pronominal suffixes
attached to proper nouns in Semitic languages other than Hebrew, he
writes critically of scholars who, "en ayant recours a de veritables acro-
baties philologico-exegetiques", refuse to admit "qu'un theonome f6minin
puisse etre mis en rapport avec Yhwh. Afin d'eviter la conclusion que
le dieu d'Israel avait comme paredre l'ancienne deesse cananeenne...
on est meme arrive a invoquer les regles (6tablies par les moderes!)
de la grammaire hebraique", and have regarded 'srth as a common
noun (p. 603). It seems to him "desormais franchement impossible, a
la lumiere des donnees exposees ici, qui remontent jusqu'a Ebla, pre-
tendre aller a la recherche de solutions nouvelles pour sauvegarder la

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 323

puret6 du monotheisme hebraique des origines" (p. 609). It

thinks, be interesting to see what attitude will be taken in
by those who think that 'irth refers to an object rather tha
dess. Will they deny "la continuite des traditions syro-pales
or "pour rester coherents, admettre qu'au IXe siecle Yhw
etre adore comme paredre d'Ash6rah"? In his opinion, "ter
datur" (p. 610).
Several comments may be offered on Xella's statements. F
strange to write disparagingly of rules of Hebrew grammar
lished by modem scholars. We do not have a grammar o
written in biblical times, and modem grammars of Hebrew
ten on the basis of the extensive material in the Hebrew Bible.3
Xella appears to ascribe to those who think that 'irth is a
noun because it has a pronominal suffix the motive of wishi
guard the purity of Hebrew monotheism, and an unwillingness
that Asherah could be regarded as the consort of Yahweh.
ally inappropriate for scholars to attribute motives to those wit
they disagree. Further, it is not true that all those who argue t
means "his asherah" are inspired by the motives that he as
them. For example, my article of 1982 recognized that Ash
worshipped in Israel as a goddess (as the Old Testament itself
and I saw "no difficulty in supposing that Asherah may hav
wife of Yahweh" in either popular or official religion (pp.

3 An argument like Xella's is advanced by Binger, p. 106: "if we com

linguistic phenomena that are unknown to us from the existing gramma
somewhat shoddy to claim that we, several thousands of years later, are b
write the language than people who actually spoke it". She appears to assu
meaning of 'fsth is "his Asherah", but that is precisely the point at issu
thing to be demonstrated, not to be taken for granted. There is no ne
our understanding of Hebrew grammar if an inscription can be interpre
of usage attested in the Hebrew Bible-as it can, if the word means "hi
4 The relevance of the inscription 'irt on two 7th-century B.C. jars fro
(Ekron) to the worship of Asherah (and, indeed, its interpretation) is un
Gitin, pp. 250-2, 257). As Gitin says (p. 252). "the language... could be ear
Phoenician, or even Philistine". If it is Philistine, we suffer from the difficu
tle is known of the Philistines' language. If it is Phoenician, it may refe
sanctuary (Hoftijzer and Jongeling, p. 129) or the goddess Asherat (in Pho
feminine ending -at has not yet changed to a) or perhaps her symbol (and
letters are not written in Phoenician at this time, the name Ashirta is als
it is Hebrew, the word here may have the Phoenician form of the femin
Hess understands PSrt at Tel Miqne to mean "'to/for Asherata'. Although
is missing from this form, the appearance of a taw at the end of the word f
ports our interpretation of all these spellings as a divine name witho

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
324 J.A. EMERTON

Third, the Old Testament also attests the existence of the asherah, a
wooden symbol of the goddess. It is difficult to see why Xella thinks
that evidence from Semitic languages other than Hebrew makes it
improbable that 'srth refers to the goddess's symbol, rather than directly
to the goddess. Even if Xella had proved that a proper noun in Hebrew,
as distinct from a cognate but different language, could take a pronom-
inal suffix, he would not have disproved that 'rth may refer to Asherah's
symbol. Fourth, the texts that Xella has cited, like those cited by Driver,
are in languages related to Hebrew, but not Hebrew itself, and some
weight must be allowed to the usage and idiom found in the Hebrew
Bible. The interpretation of 'srth does not involve a choice only between
translating it "his Asherah" and denying that the goddess Asherah was
worshipped in Israel (and regarded as Yahweh's consort). It is also
possible to hold that Asherah was worshipped, but that the inscrip-
tions under discussion refer to her wooden symbol. Tertium datur.

III

A different, and stronger, argument in favour of the view that a

proper noun can take a pronominal suffix in Hebrew is advanced by
Uehlinger (pp. 140-2). He argues that the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria"
and "Yahweh of Teman" at Kuntillet 'Ajrud imply that a proper noun
(yhwh) can be used in the construct state and so "is itself an example
of double determination" (pp. 140-1): it is determinate in itself as a
proper noun and also determinate by being in the construct state before
the name of a place. "It follows that double determination was appar-
ently possible in ancient Israelite and Judahite language, at least in
particular circumstances." Therefore, he presumably holds, 'srth too
may be understood as doubly determined: it may be determinate in
itself as the name of the goddess Asherah, and also determinate because
it has a pronominal suffix. Uehlinger looks at this evidence in the light
of the material adduced by Xella.

(p. 19). He does not even consider the possibility that 'srt represents "Asherat" (or
"asherat"), which would be the form in Phoenician corresponding to Hebrew 'aserd.
Frevel, p. 21, comments that the Ekron inscriptions are, "Zwar nur als flankierende
Evidenz, aber dennoch die personale Interpretation fiir Kuntilet 'Aigrd nahelegend..."
Even this qualified claim goes too far. The inscriptions at Ekron probably testify to
belief in a goddess called Asherah (or Asherat, or even Ashirta, etc.), but that was
already known. They have no bearing on the question whether the inscriptions at
Kuntillet 'Ajrud refer to the goddess or to her symbol.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 325

I discussed the phrases "Yahweh of Samaria" and "

Teman" in 1982 (pp. 3-9) and compared them with the p
s'bd'ot. I also compared such phrases as 'ur kasdfm, 'dram nah
bet lehem yhidd. GK ? 125 h suggests that there is an el
betweenyhwh and sebad't, and of a word for "city" or "r
geographical phrases: "Yahweh (the God of) Hosts", "Ur
the Chaldees", etc. However, in the phrase "Aram-nahara
word is vocalized 'dram in the construct state, not 'drdm
admits that some "examples... come very near to the
struct state".

The reference to "Bethlehem of Judah" (Judg. xvii 7,

guishes it from another place named Bethlehem in Zebul
15). It is possible to regard the place-name bet lehem as
pound common noun meaning "house of bread" (cp. the
of gibat sad'ul in 1 Sam. xi 4, etc.) and so as being capab
in the construct state. GK ? 125 h, however, suggests
Bethlehem, Aram, & c., are.... no longer names found
special sense", they "are no longer proper names in the st
Another possibility is to regard yehhfdd in the phrase bet leh
what Joiion calls the "accusatif de determination locale"
"accusatif attributif" (?? 126 h, 127 a): "Bethlehem (in) J
In 1982 (pp. 9, 19) I left open the question whether
grammaton in the phrases yhwh smm, yhwh tmn and yhwh h
8.017, 8.021, 8.016) is in the construct state or whether
ellipse of 'elohi. I did not consider the possibility that the
be explained in accordance with Jotion ?? 126 h, 127
sebda't could not be explained in that way). In view of th
'dram in the construct state in the phrase "Aram-nahara
to me likely thatyhwh is also in the construct state in su
If yhwh is in the construct state in the inscriptions, or
least be claimed that such a view is not unlikely, what i
of Uehlinger's argument that this implies that 'srth may
bly determinate, i.e. may mean "Yahweh's Asherah"? In
I commented that "we should perhaps hesitate to be too
stating what was not possible in Hebrew, and we must b
to modify our opinions in the light of new evidence". I
however, that, if the writer had wished to refer to Yah
consort Asherah, he could have written lyhwh... wl'srh "s
ance with a well-attested Hebrew idiom. Further, even i
Kuntillet 'Ajrud show that yhwh could be in the constr

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
326 J.A. EMERTON

thus be doubly determinate, the possibility that '?rth means "his asherah"
remains. Further, the use of a name in the construct state is not the
same as the use of a name with a pronominal suffix, even if the exist-
ence of the former shows that it is possible for a name to be doubly
determinate; and we still have no other example of the latter. A difficulty
may have been eased, but the suggested construction remains unat-
tested elsewhere in Hebrew.

Uehlinger grants that the "view identifying 'his asherah' as a cult

symbol, usually a wooden pole, cannot be totally excluded" (p. 142),
but he favours the theory that it means "his Asherah", for whose pos-
sibility he has argued. The reason for his preference is as follows:

One should remember... that this view [i.e. that the reference is to a
cult symbol] has usually been argued on the basis of a whole cluster of
assumptions (on Hebrew syntax, on early Israelite henotheism, the lack
of a paredros besides Yahweh, and our own [earlier] theory about the
recession of anthropomorphism in Iron Age iconography and Yahweh's
integrative take-over of the attributes of other deities, including goddesses)
some of which cannot withstand critical examination. Entia non sunt mul-
tiplicanda praeter necessitatem-the straightforward explanation favoured here
is the most economical one, in terms of scholarly argument" (p. 142).

This is a strange use of Occam's razor in the context of a discussion

whether 'srth should be translated "his Asherah" according to an idiom
that is nowhere else attested in Hebrew, or as "his asherah" accord-
ing to a well-attested idiom. If Occam's razor is to be used at all, it
might be thought to favour "his asherah", not the postulation of an
otherwise unattested idiom. We read in the Old Testament both of
the goddess Asherah and of her wooden symbol, and Uehlinger does
not deny the possibility of the latter. How then can his theory be
justifiably described as "the straightforward explanation" and more
"economical" in its argument? What does he regard as the entia that
are not to be multiplied beyond what is necessary? It is not the mean-
ings "Asherah" and "asherah", both of which he recognizes that 'dserd
can have. Are the entia perhaps the "cluster of assumptions", "some
of which cannot withstand critical examination", on the basis of which
the opposing view "has usually been argued"? But to understand 'srth
to mean "his asherah" does not necessarily depend on all the argu-
ments that he lists (as the word "usually" concedes). My own argu-
ment in 1982 depended on only one assumption: namely, that it is
better to understand 'srth on the basis of a well-attested idiom, rather

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 327

than to postulate the use of one found nowhere else. The argument
seems no less straightforward or economical than Uehlinger's, to say
the very least.

IV

D.N. Freedman accepts the view that l'fth means "by his Asherah"
and argues for the possibility of the double determination of Asherah.
He points out that both the singular 'dsera and the plural 'senm are
found in the Old Testament, and he concludes that "presumably there
was more than one such figure". He continues "Since Asherah was
worshipped in more than one place, separate shrines and images would
bear her name, and to distinguish one from the others, double deter-
mination would be both necessary and appropriate" (p. 246).
Even if Freedman's argument for the possibility of double determi-
nation of Asherah is accepted, it does not necessarily follow that 'srth
means "his Asherah" rather than "his asherah". He notes the view

that 'dserd can denote "a wooden pole" (p. 247), and he offers no arg
ment against it. It would, indeed, be difficult to reconcile its deni
with the evidence of the Old Testament. At best, Freedman's argu
ment would leave open the question of the meaning of 'srth in th
inscriptions.
There are two parts to Freedman's argument for the possibility that
Asherah was doubly determined. The first, as we have seen, is that
the existence of the plural 'aserm implies that "there was more than
one such figure". That appears to signify that there was more than
one goddess Asherah. Since, however, the word 'dsera was used both
of the goddess and of her wooden symbol, it seems possible that the
plural was used of the latter, rather than of the former. An examina-
tion of the places where 'drseim appears in the Old Testament sup-
ports the view that it is, in fact, used of the symbol of the goddess.
They are said to be built like bdmot and massebot (1 Kings xiv 23) and
set up like massebot (2 Kings xvii 10). They are cut down (2 Kings xxiii
14; 2 Chron. xiv 2, xxxi 1, cp. xxxiv 4), and removed like the bdmot
(2 Chron. xvii 6, cp. xxxiv 3); and like the hammanfm they will cease
to stand (Isa. xxvii 9). A similar conclusion may be drawn from the
use of the other plural form 'dserot in 2 Chron. xix 3, xxxiii 3). At
first sight, Judg. iii 7, which says that the Israelites "served the Baals
and the Asheroth" (wayya'abedu 'et-habbedlfm we'et-ha'aserot) might appear
to support the view that the reference is to the goddess (in the plural).

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
328 J.A. EMERTON

However, 2 Chron. xxiv 18 says that the people ofJudah "served the
asherim and the idols (wayya'abldu 'et-had'serfm weet-ha'asabbim)"; and if
people could serve idols, it is possible that they could be said to serve
symbols of a goddess. It is thus clear that the plural 'dsetnm could be
used of the symbols of Asherah, and that is the normal usage in the
Old Testament. The plural does not necessarily imply that there was
believed to be more than one Asherah.

The second part of Freedman's argument is that it would have been

necessary to distinguish Asherah as she was worshipped in one place
from Asherah as she was worshipped in other places, and he compares
Ishtar of Nineveh and Ishtar of Arbela (p. 247). More particularly,
there would have been a need to distinguish Asherah as the consort
of a particular god from Asherah as the consort of another god. In
the Ugaritic texts, she is the consort of El, and Freedman thinks that
the reference to the "prophets of Baal" and the "prophets of Asherah"
in 1 Kings xviii 19 (where he accepts the MT and does not follow
those who regard the reference to the second group of prophets as
secondary) shows Asherah "linked with Baal, apparently as his con-
sort. So it would be legitimate and important to specify the god to
whom she was attached in this fashion: 'his Asherah' and not some

other god's" (p. 247).

The goddess Athiratu usually appears in the Ugaritic texts as atrt
ym, or simply as atrt, but in CTA 14. IV 201-2 (= KTU 1.14: IV 38-
9) she appears as atrt. srm wilt sdynm (cp. lines 198-9 in CTA = 35-6
in KTU), "Athiratu of Tyre [or: the Tyrians], and [or: even] the god-
dess of the Sidonians". It is therefore possible that in Hebrew her
name was sometimes associated with a particular place, just as Yahweh
is associated with Samaria or Teman at Kuntillet 'Ajrud. It is not
however, obvious that it would have been necessary to specify in the
inscriptions the deity with whom she is associated. If the reference is
to Asherah, rather than to asherah, then the mention of Yahweh jus
before makes it plain that he is the deity with whom she is associated
and the suffix h is not needed. It would not be unsuitable, just as it
is not unsuitable if the reference is to his asherah; but it would not
be necessary or "important".
Another suggestion is made by Tilde Binger, who discusses whether
Asherah is a name or a title-and, of course, the difficulty abou
attaching a pronominal suffix to a name is eased if the word is, in
fact, a title. She considers the possibility that it was originally a titl
that became a name or a name that became a title, or that it was

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWVEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 329

both a name and a title. She concludes that "we are deal
word functioning as a divine name", which has "a 'secular' mean
functions as a title or as an ordinary noun". She suggests th
indeed an official 'name-title' of the primary goddess of the
(p. 146).
It is, indeed, likely that 'dserd has an etymology and an "original"
meaning. But Binger offers no solid evidence for its origin or use as
a title as well as a name. She claims: first, that her theory of a "name-
title" helps to account for the use of the suffix at the end of 'rth;
second, that it "gives a sensible solution to the tricky passage CTA
3.I.14-16"; third, that it "explains how the deuteronomists could get
away with using the word both as a DN and as an ordinary noun";
and fourth, that it also explains "why a goddess can be called the
same thing in cultures as chronologically and geographically separated
from each other as is the case" (pp. 146-7).
To begin with the first and third points: if, as appears in the Old
Testament, 'dserd could be used both as the name of a goddess and
as a word for her material symbol, there is no need for the hypoth-
esis of a "name-title"; and if it is used of an asherah, then the suffix
raises no grammatical difficulty. The second argument concerns CTA
3 (= KTU 1.3). I 14-16, which Binger discusses on pp. 84-7. Line 15
mentions atrt in parallel with att in line 14. Binger notes on p. 87
Margalit's theory that atrt means "'a wife', a woman following in the
footsteps of her husband". Margalit's speculative theory can scarcely
count as evidence for another theory, and Binger herself recognizes
the possibility that atrt is here a name, and that att is used in the
generic sense of "woman" without the implication that the latter word
serves to define the etymology of the former. Similarly, pp. 51-6 con-
sider CTA 14. IV 198, 201-2 (= KTU 1.14: IV 35, 38-9), where, as
was seen above, atrt is parallel to ilt (cp. CTA 6 [= KTU 1.6]. I 40),
and also CTA 3 (= KTU 1.3). II 17-18, where 'nt is parallel to ilt.
Athiratu and 'Anatu were both goddesses, but the parallel does not
demonstrate that either name means "goddess".5 As far as the fourth
point is concerned, the fact that the same (or a similar) name could
be used of a goddess (or goddesses) does not require the hypothesis of
a "name-title". Why should not a goddess with the same or a similar
name have been worshipped in different places even if the name was

5 The evidence on which the view of Dietrich and Loretz 1984, p. 60, is based,
that atrt sometimes means "Gottin", is therefore open to a different interpretation.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
330 J.A. EMERTON

not also a title? Binger has not substantiated her theory that Asherah
was a "name-title".

Reference to the probable reading 'nth (CTA 33 [KTU 1.43]. 13)

was made above in section II of the present article in the discussion
of Xella's article. Dietrich and Loretz (1992, pp. 98-103) discuss 'srth
at Kuntillet 'Ajrud in the light of this text. They interpret (pp. 39-76)
KTU 1.43 as a ritual describing a ceremony in which a statue of 'Anatu
plays a part, and they think that 'nth in line 13 refers to her statue,
and 'ntm in lines 18 and 20 is a dual and refers to two statues of her
(pp. 74, 99-100). They comment that "von der Formel 'Jahwe und
seine Aschera' her gesehen, die Verehrung der Aschera in Form einer
Statue oder eines Emblems bzw. Symbols nicht ausgeschlossen, son-
der nahe gelegt wird" (p. 100).
What bearing does this attractive theory have on the question whether
the reference at Kuntillet 'Ajrud is to Asherah or an asherah? If it is
to an emblem or a symbol, or indeed to a statue, then the argument
advanced by Dietrich and Loretz appears to point to the meaning
"asherah", and this interpretation does not depart from the gram-
matical usage attested in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, Dietrich and Loretz
say on p. 181 that "in den Inschriften von Khirbet el-Qom und
Kuntillet 'Ajrud von Jahwe und seiner Aschera, also seiner Frau, die
Rede ist". But their earlier argument seems to be that the specific ref-
erence in 'srth is to an emblem, symbol or statue of Asherah. They
believe that the presence of a statue of Asherah implies a cult of the
goddess thus represented, and that she was the consort of Yahweh.
They also accept the theory of J. Wellhausen that the MT of Hos.
xiv 9 should be emended to read 'ny 'ntw w'srtw, "ich bin seine Anath
und seine Aschera" (p. 173). But to draw such inferences from the
inscriptions does not alter the fact that they believe them to refer
directly to a representation of Asherah.
What form did the asherah take? Dietrich and Loretz hold that it
is not self-evident or necessary to limit representations of Asherah to
"Symbole wie Lebensbaum usw." (p. 101), and they note (p. 102; cp.
p. 84) that 1 Kings xv 13 speaks of mipleset la'aserd, and 2 Kings xxi
7 of 'et-pesel ha'aserd. I cited the latter verse on p. 15 of my article of
1982, and I noted that it "suggests that it was an image of a god-
dess", and more generally that an asherah was "some kind of wooden

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 331

symbol of the goddess Asherah" (cp. p. 18). Whether it

in the sense of a realistic image of the whole body, or w
a carved wooden object of a more stylized form, is a ques
sible to answer with certainty, and the possibility must a
that an asherah sometimes took one form and sometimes another.

These seems no fundamental difference between the interpretation

'^serd by Dietrich and Loretz and by me.

VI

So far, I have presented a case for the view that 'srth is to be tran
lated "his asherah", rather than "his Asherah". Such a view can, how
ever, be maintained only if it fits the context in which it appears. T
text from Kuntillet 'Ajrud in Davies: 8.021 will serve as a basis for
discussion: brktk lyhwh tmn w'srth. The first three words are to be tran
lated: "I bless thee by Yahweh of Teman". The preposition 1 intro-
duces the name of the deity in whose name someone is blessed, as
Davies: 8.011 and 8.017 from Kuntillet 'Ajrud; in 2.016, and proba-
bly in 2.021, from Tell Arad; and in 25.003 from Khirbet el-Qom.
Is it reasonable to suppose that someone blesses someone else, no
only by Yahweh, but also by his asherah, i.e. by a cult object rath
than by a goddess? Miiller argues against this interpretation (pp. 2
9). His reason is not just that lyhwh and 'srth are syntactically para
lel, which encourages him to think that the latter, no less than th
former, is a divine name. It is also that, when the Hebrew Bible use
I to introduce the source of a blessing, it always refers to a perso
not a thing (and Margalit, p. 276, draws attention to the use of br
with I in the same way outside the Old Testament in Aramaic a
other North-West Semitic texts). In contrast, Miiller claims that imper-
sonal sources of blessing either follow a noun in the construct state
are introduced by the preposition min. He gives as examples of th
former Gen. xlix 25 (beginning with the sixth word), and of the la
ter Deut. xxxiii 13.
In addition, Miiller comments that the two means used to intro-
duce an impersonal source of blessing can also be used of a personal
source. He cites three examples of the use of a noun in the construct
state. There is no need to discuss these examples, beyond comment-
ing that they occur in different types of phrase or clause: "O (one)
blessed by Yahweh" in words addressed to Abraham's servant in Gen.
xxiv 31; "the blessing of Yahweh be upon you" in Ps. cxxix 8; and

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
332 J.A. EMERTON

"his land is blessed by Yahweh" in Deut. xxxiii 13. His three exam-
ples of the use of min are in 1 Kings ii 33; Gen. xlix 25a (the first
six words of the verse), and 24 (if the pointing of missam is changed
to read missfem); none of these examples, however, is construed with
the root brk.

How strong is Miiller's argument that I'srth cannot mean "by his
asherah" because I was used only with persons, not impersonal objects,
in blessings? It is true that all the examples of I in sentences with the
verb brk in the Hebrew Bible are used with reference to persons. But
the question arises whether that is because I would have been inap-
propriate before something impersonal, or whether it is a matter of
chance and there is no example because there happened to be no
occasion when it was needed. Further, the use of the preposition I in
the inscriptions under discussion illustrates something not attested in
the Hebrew Bible. As BDB, p. 514, points out, "construed with pas-
sive verbs, the I of reference notifies the agent". But the inscriptions
use I with an active verb. The fact occasions no difficulty, but it serves
to remind us that not all the idioms used in ancient Israel are attested

in the Old Testament. Further, although in the Hebrew Bible the

preposition is used with passive verbs to indicate the agent of the
action, the position is not so simple in the construction under consid-
eration in the inscriptions. In the clause brktk lyhwh tmn wl'srth, it is not
simply Yahweh who confers a blessing (although he seems to be the
subject ofybrk, etc. later in the sentence): it is the author of the inscrip-
tion who utters the blessing (brktk), and he does so by Yahweh and by
'srth. The clause thus differs from constructions in the Hebrew Bible,
not only in using an active verb, but also by using an active verb with
a human being as the subject of the verb "to bless" followed by I
introducingyhwh and 'srth. For Miiller to establish his case that I would
not have been used with anything impersonal, it would be desirable
to point out a context in the Hebrew Bible (or an inscription) in which
the verb brk appears and it seems likely that an attempt has been made
to avoid the use of I with something impersonal. Neither of his two
examples meets this need; and, indeed, he does not claim that they
do, but only that they are ways in which the source of blessing can
be expressed with impersonal objects. Yahweh is the subject of the
active verb in the former verse, and the agent of the passive partici-
ple meboreket in the latter. In the former, birkot sddayim wdrdham refers
to the parts of the body where blessing is experienced, not to its source,
and the two previous phrases refer to the blessings that consist in water

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 333

from the skies or from under the earth (and these regi
sources of blessing in the same sense that Yahweh is th
the latter verse, meged, which is introduced by the prepo
used "always of gifts of nature", and here of "(natural) gifts
etc. (BDB, p. 550). The inscription is different: here the a
inscription utters the blessing, and it is somehow medi
Yahweh and 'sth. Moreover, there appears to be no ob
why the use of I should necessarily be restricted to per
structions like those at Kuntillet 'Ajrud.
It may therefore be doubted whether Miiller has succeed
lishing a firm foundation for his claim that the prepositi
used only with a person in a sentence of blessing using t
It must next be asked whether it is plausible to suppose
tic symbol of Asherah was associated with Yahweh in co
blessing. Miiller thinks not, although he notes analogies in M
and Islamic texts (p. 29). Other scholars have thought diff
we must consider the evidence that they adduce.
Lemaire compares (p. 608) Matt. xxiii 16-22 in the New
which speaks of swearing by the temple and by the gol
also by the altar and by the offering on it. There is
evidence for swearing by the temple and by the altar (M
M. Ned. I 3; M. Ker. I 7; B. Kidd. 71A; cp. Porten, p. 1
Lemaire compares-and in this I followed him in my art
(pp. 14-16)-a 5th-century B.C. Aramaic papyrus from
(Cowley, no. 44) in which a Jew swears in line 3 by the
by Anathyahu: bmsgd' wb'nyhw. The noun msgd' means
prostration/worship, temple", as well as (2) "object serv
manent sign of adoration of the god to whom it is dedi
(3) "a monument dedicated to a god to acknowledge a
obtain one" (Hoftijzer and Jongeling, p. 663, who favour t
dering in the relevant papyrus). I should perhaps have exp
more cautiously in 1982, for it is also possible to translat
the temple" (see Porten pp. 154-5), although the fact th
word is b'nyhw suggests that the b of bmsgd' is to be tra
While these passages speak of oaths, not of blessing, the
be relevant.

Tigay (1986, p. 27-9; 1987, p. 174) offers several analogies. First,

in "Neo-Assyrian letters the salutation 'May the gods bless you' is
sometimes replaced by the formula 'May (the city) Uruk and (the tem-
ple) Eanna bless my lord"'. Second, in KAI 12.3-4, from Byblos, perhaps

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
334 J.A. EMERTON

in the 1st century A.D., something is dedicated ldnn wlsml b'l, "To
our Lord and the image of Baal", and it goes on ybrk wyhww "May
they bless and keep him (the donor) alive". Third, in KA 251 and
256, from the palace sanctuary in Hatra (lst-2nd century A.D.), there
are the Aramaic texts: dkyr nsgyhb... <l>tb wlnpyr qdm mm wmrtn wbr
mryn 'It wsmyt' klhyn, "May Nsryhb, be remembered... <for> good
and for pleasure before our Lord and our Lady and the sons of our
Lords, Allat and all the images"; and dkyr nsty ltb w1lnpyr qdm mm wgdh
wsnms... wsmyt', "May Nsry be remembered for good for plessure before
our Lord, and Gdh and Sms... and the images." Tigay's first two
examples refer explicitly to blessing, and the third and fourth to the
related idea of being remembered for good. In the Assyrian example
a city and a temple bless someone; in the Phoenician example both
a god and an image are to give a blessing; and in the Aramaic texts
someone is remembered for good before deities and also before images.
In the light of such analogies, it is difficult to deny the possibility
that Yahweh is associated with a cultic representation of a goddess in
giving a blessing in the inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet
el-Qom.

VII

The argument of the present article will now be summarized.

First, it is unlikely that the text on pithos A from Kuntillet 'Ajrud
should be interpreted in the light of the drawing, which is probably
from a different hand. The drawing shows two figures, who are best
understood to be representations of the minor Egyptian god Bes, not
of Yahweh and the goddess Asherah, and the drawing of the lyre-
player is unlikely to be Asherah.
Second, in interpreting inscriptions in a form of Hebrew that appears
to be essentially the same language as that of the Old Testament, it
is best to be guided by grammatical usage in the Hebrew Bible. That
is not to say that it is impossible for an inscription to contain an idiom
unattested in the Hebrew Bible; but preference should be given to an
interpretation compatible with Biblical Hebrew.
Third, there is force in Uehlinger's argument that the phrases
"Yahweh of Samaria" and "Yahweh of Teman" bear witness to the

possibility that proper nouns could, in certain circumstances at lea

be used in the construct state (as I had argued in 1982), and that
was thus possible for them to be doubly determined. It is theref

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 335

wrong to appeal to the principle that nouns cannot be d

minate to exclude the possibility that a proper noun
pronominal suffix. On the other hand, no clear example
found in Hebrew (as distinct from closely related langu
port such an interpretation of 'srth. It remains preferabl
'srth in terms of what is clearly attested in Hebrew. That su
the reference is not directly to the goddess Asherah, but
bol (asherah).
Fourth, if the writer of the inscriptions at Kuntillet 'Ajrud had
intended to refer to Yahweh and his consort Asherah, the wording
that Biblical Hebrew would suggest is lyhwh... wl'rh 'sth.
Fifth, there is no difficulty in the hypothesis that someone might
utter a blessing by the name of a deity and also by a sacred object.
Sixth, preference for the view that lyhwh... wl'srth means "by
Yahweh... and by his asherah" (rather than "... and by his Asherah",
i.e. by the goddess directly) is not necessarily dependent on the view
that the goddess Asherah was not worshipped in Israel or regarded as
the consort of Yahweh. The theory that Asherah is meant is not more
straightforward or economical than the hypothesis that the reference
is to her symbol.
Thus, the interpretation of the words lyhwh... wl'srth as "by
Yahweh... and by his asherah" is in keeping with attested Hebrew
usage, whereas "by Yahweh... and by his Asherah" lacks any clear
analogy in Hebrew. It is therefore best to give preference to the for-
mer interpretation.6

List of works cited

A. Angerstorfer, "Aserah als 'Consort of Jahwe' oder Asirtah?", Biblische Notizen 17

(1982), pp. 7-16.
BDB = F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament (Oxford, 1907).
Pirhiya Beck, "The Drawings from Horvat Teiman (Kuntillet Ajrud)", Tel Aviv 9 (1982),
pp. 3-68.
Tilde Binger, Asherah. Goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament (Sheffield, 1997).
M.D. Coogan, "Canaanite Origins and Lineage: Reflections on the Religion of Ancient
Israel", in Miller et al., pp. 115-24.
A. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford, 1923).
CTA = A. Herdner, Corpus des tablettes en cuneiformes alphabitiques decouvertes a Ras Shamra-
Ugarit de 1929 a 1939, 2 vols: Texte and Figures et Planches (Paris, 1963).

6 I am grateful to Dr G.I. Davies for reading and commenting on a draft of this

article.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 336 J.A. EMERTON

G.I. Davies, Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Cambridge, etc., 1991).

J. Day, "Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature", JBL 105
(1986), pp. 385-408.
"Asherah", Anchor Bible Dictionary 1 (New York, etc., 1992), pp. 483-7.
W.G. Dever, "Asherah, Consort of Yahweh? New Evidence from Kuntillet 'Ajrfd",
BASOR 255 (1984), pp, 21-37.
M. Dietrich and 0. Loretz, "Ugaritic 'TR, ATR, A TRYT und A TRT", Ugarit-Forschungen
16 (1984 [1985]), pp. 57-62.
, "Jahwe und seine Aschera". Anthropomorphes Kultbild in Mesopotamien, Ugarit und Israel.
Das biblische Bilderverbot (Munster, 1992).
G.R. Driver, "Reflections on Recent Articles", JBL 73 (1954), pp. 125-36.
J.A. Emerton, "New Light on Israelite Religion: The Implications of the Inscriptions
from Kuntillet 'Ajrud", ZAW 94 (1982), pp. 2-20.
D.N. Freedman, "Yahweh of Samaria and his Asherah", Biblical Archaeologist 50 (1987),
pp. 241-9.
C. Frevel, Aschera und der Ausschliefilichkeitsanspruch YHWHs (Weinheim, 1995).
J. Friedrich and W. Rollig, Phonizih-pnis-punische Grammatik (Rome, 1970).
M. Gilula, "To Yahweh Shomron and his Asherah" (Hebrew), Shnaton 3 (1978-9), pp.
129-37.
S. Gitin, "Seventh Century B.C.E. Cultic Elements at Ekron", in A. Biran and
J. Aviram (ed.), Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990 (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 248-58.
GK = A.E. Cowley (ed.), Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late
E. Kautzsch (2nd edn [= the 28th German edn], Oxford, 1910).
Judith M. Hadley, "The Khirbet el-Qom inscription", VT 37 (1987), pp. 50-62.
, "Some drawings and inscriptions on two pithoi from Kuntillet 'Ajrud", VT 37
(1987), pp. 180-213.
R.S. Hess, "Yahweh and His Asherah? Epigraphic Evidence for Religious Pluralism in
Old Testament Times", in A.D. Clarke and B.W. Winter (ed.), One God, One Lord
in a World of Religious Pluralism (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 5-33.
J . Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions (Leiden, New
York and Koln, 1995).
P. Joiion, Grammaire de l'hebreu biblique (2nd edn, Rome, 1947).
KAI = H. Donner and W. Rollig, Kanaanaische und aramdische Inschriften (Wiesbaden,
1962-4).
KTU = M. Dietrich, 0. Loretz and J. Sanmartin, Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit
(Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976); 2nd edn = The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts
from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (Miinster, 1995).
A. Lemaire, "Les inscriptions de Khirbet el-Q6m et l'Asherah de Yhwh", RB 84 (1977),
pp. 595-608.
P.K. McCarter, "Aspects of the Religion of the Israelite Monarchy: Biblical and
Epigraphic Data", in Miller et al., pp. 137-55.
B. Margalit, "The meaning and significance of Asherah", VT 40 (1990), pp. 264-97.
P.D. Miller et al. (ed.), Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross
(Philadelphia, 1987).
H.-P. Miiller, "Kolloquialsprache und Volksreligion in den Inschriften von Kuntillet
'Agrud und Hirbet el-Qo6m", Zeitschrft fir Althebraistik 5 (1992), pp. 15-51.
B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968).
J. Renz and W. Rollig, Handbuch der althebrdischen Epigraphik I (Darmstadt, 1995).
B.B. Schmidt, "The Aniconic Tradition: On Reading Images and Viewing Texts", in
Diana V. Edelman (ed.), The Triumph of Elohim: From Yahwisms to Judaisms (Kampen
and Grand Rapids, 1995), pp. 75-105.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 "YAHWEH AND HIS ASHERAH" 337

S. Segert, A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich, 1976).

, "Diptotic Geographic Feminine Names in the Hebrew Bible", Ze
Althebraistik 1 (1988), pp. 99-102.
J.H. Tigay, You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of H
(Atlanta, 1986).
- , "Israelite Religion: the Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence", i
pp. 157-94.
C. Uehlinger, "Anthropomorphic Cult Statuary in Iron Age Palestine and the Search
for Yahweh's Cult Images", in K. van der Toorn (ed.), The Image and the Book:
Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East
(Leuven, 1997), pp. 97-155.
P. Xella, "Le dieu et 'sa' deesse: l'utilisation des suffixes pronominaux avec des theonymes
d'Ebla a Ugarit et a Kuntillet 'Ajrud", Ugarit-Forschungen 27 (1995 [1996]), pp.
599-610.
Z. Zevit, "The Khirbet el-Qom Inscription Mentioning a Goddess", BASOR 255 (1984),
pp. 599-610.

Abstract

This article discusses whether 'srth in the phrase lyhwh... wl'rth in inscriptions at
Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom refers to the goddess Asherah or her wooden
symbol (here rendered "asherah"). First, it is argued that the drawing on pithos A from
Kuntillet 'Ajrud does not illustrate the inscription, and that the figures in it probably
do not represent Yahweh and Asherah. Second, although our knowledge of the Hebrew
used in ancient Israel and Judah is far from complete, it is best, if possible, to inter-
pret inscriptions in the light of usage in the Hebrew Bible. Since pronominal suffixes
are not attached to personal names in the Hebrew Bible, it is better to translate 'hrth
"his asherah", rather than "his Asherah". Third, there is no difficulty in supposing that
someone could utter a blessing by Yahweh and by a cultic object.

This content downloaded from

81.2.149.74 on Mon, 13 Jun 2022 09:17:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms