Comments on: Polytheism and Ancient Israel's Canaanite Heritage. Part V

By: The Yellow Dart

The Yellow Dart — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:38:46 +0000

Thanks Kevin, I will take a look at it!

Christione,

What do you do with the texts I discussed that place Asherah and/or her symbol in the temple of YHWH? Or mention her has worshiped along side YHWH, Baal, and the Hosts of Heaven? Also, I looked in a dictionary at the word consort. I think you better do so as well.

Best,

TYD

By: Christione

Christione — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 03:47:45 +0000

YD – You’ve moved from the very clearly false assertion that Asherah is El’s wife (a consort is not a wife) to the claim that Asherah was worshiped alongside El and Yahweh. It seems quite open to dispute that Israelites worshiped Asherah. I believe that it is very disputable that she was an object of veneration — and there is no evidence of sacrifices to Asherah. It seems that you are very confident that you can tell us what the pre-redaction documents looked like. The mere fact that the folk had a practice (e.g., as evidenced in archaeological artifacts or mere figures and some epigraphic evidence) you leap to notions of “official cultus” and make no distinction between what is likely a limited folk tradition and the priestly religion.

However, I agree that the evidence for a violent conquest is lacking.

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 02:28:15 +0000

OK, I dug through my stack and found it. Avraham Faust, “How Did Israel Become a People? The Genesis of Israelite Identity,” BAR 35/6 (November/December 2009): 62-69, 92-94, which is based on the author’s book, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement.

By: The Yellow Dart

The Yellow Dart — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:02:37 +0000

Kevin,

I haven’t seen it. What piece are you referring to?

Best,

TYD

By: Kevin Barney

Kevin Barney — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:50:47 +0000

What you describe is my working assumption. But I believe a fairly recent issue of BAR featured an article making the conquest argument. Did you by any chance see that piece? Any comments on it?

By: Clark

Clark — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:10:11 +0000

Great post. I’d note Joshua is, in many ways, problematic for Mormons. Most accept the account of the account of the violence but reconciling it theologically is a bit twisting at best.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:48:32 +0000

Love the series, Dart. Keep it coming.

By: DavidH

DavidH — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:41:03 +0000

I hope that is true–that the book of Joshua is mostly fiction (except for the teachings about keeping God’s law).

By: larryco_

larryco_ — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:30:42 +0000

“This suggests to many that the main claim in Joshua—a complete and total conquest by Israel—is false”

You mean to tell me that the most bloody and genocidal book of the OT – the book where god commanded teenage boys and men to slaughter women and babies, the book that has provided justification for every senseless act of judeo-christian, religious-based violence from the crusades to the Lafferty brothers – might not be completely accurate? How can you say such a thing!