Assumptions, Bigfoot, and Asherah
Recently I was looking at some of Mike’s study materials from seminary. One of his profs’ specialty is on the Asherah Poles and so had provided materials on such. I was intrigued at how similar the ancient depictions of these poles were to the basic form of the menorah (especially as depicted on the Lachish ewer as shown). I was curious what theories there were connecting the two – are menorah’s the appropriated and “baptized” form of ancient asherah poles? Fascinating question (at least to me), but I didn’t find much information available. What I did discover was (yet again) a perfect demonstration for how one’s a priori assumptions about history, theology, and gender determine interpretation and reconstruction of the past.
Such assumptions are everywhere. I love those cryptozoology shows on the History channel that attempt to build a case for the existence of everything from bigfoot and Nessie to black panthers and giant squid. On every show there is the ubiquitous skeptic throwing out a shallow and circular argument against the theory of the day. The logic usually runs something like – “we know bigfoot (squid, panther…) doesn’t exist, so therefore these photographs/eyewitness accounts are wrong.” While amusing in the realm of cryptozoology, such a priori bias gets a bit more annoying when it gets applied to history or religion. I am constantly annoyed by assertions like “miracles can’t happen, so these things claiming to be miracles obviously didn’t happen” or “if the Exodus happened it had to happen during the X time period, there is no evidence of it in X time period so therefore it didn’t happen.” I know we are all guilty of it, but sometimes placing our biases and assumptions above and before the evidence is a tad frustrating. We end up sacrificing more than we discover as we force the world to fit our prefabricated boxes.
Take Asherah as an example (insert disclaimer here – I am not a bible scholar or archaeologist. I don’t know much about any of this – I’m just curious). Growing up I understood Asherah Poles to be idols used in goddess worship. The details were fuzzy, but the basic idea was that worship of anything other than God was in fact worship of Satan and therefore very very bad. The historicity or substance of Asherah didn’t matter so much as the fact that it was bad. As I started to read more feminist histories Asherah took on a more central importance as evidence of a feminine deity pre-dating the very masculine Semitic God. Among this small subset of feminist thought, the need to assert the primacy of the female reveals a visceral desire for not just equality but supremacy of the feminine. True history or not, it seems that even Paul had to contend with this version of history as he instructed women not to teach that women are the source of man since Adam was created first then Eve (1 Tim. 2). Whatever the case, feminist readings turned Asherah from just a hollow idol into a key figure in the history of women.
Those that were intrigued by the feminist readings but unsure of their bias against male religion tried to fit Asherah into the biblical narrative. Passages from archaeological findings speak of God and His Asherah. If Asherah is a goddess would this then not imply a consort of the Most High God – a female companion receiving sacrifices and due worship on par with Yahweh? It’s a best of both worlds sort of scenario that would explain the presence of Asherah poles turned menorahs in the trappings of Temple worship. But others, reacting in many ways to the feminist elevation of Asherah, are saying that Asherah isn’t female or a goddess at all. While Ancient Near Eastern sources reveal the presence of goddesses such as Isis and Ishtar, there is no direct evidence that Asherah should be translated as an entity (or deity). They suggest that the Asherah is merely the idol or altar, generally in the shape of a tree, dedicated to a deity such as Baal or El. So of course the Hebrew God would have “his asherah” borrowed from the cultures and traditions of the surrounding peoples.
So with at least four different interpretations and stories available concerning this term, it becomes obvious why a priori assumptions play such a vital role. If one is just looking for demons around every corner, that’s what one finds. If one is seeking chronological affirmation for the importance of the feminine, exploring Asherah as goddess proceeds. If one desires to debunk feminist assumptions choosing alternate translations of Hebrew and Ugaritic texts becomes the game plan. There are of course those that fall into these various camps for reasons other than deeply held bias, but I found it amusing to see how easily identifiable such assumptions were in my cursory google of the topic. What annoyed me though was that the exploration of the evidence seemed to occur only as a means of shoring up one’s assumptions. Granted, I understand that the format of academic papers is to make a hypothesis and then prove it, but when that shuts you off from considering alternate perspectives you are limiting your knowledge. And making it really difficult for anyone to do research without having to pick a side.
Tags:
julieclawson(at)gmail(dot)com 
Your account brings a priori assumptions alive for me in a way that my Philosophy teacher never did. Although, possibly because his were slightly in the realm of the unbelievable. Fascinating, I had never thought about any of that in that way. It was a stretch for me to consider the regard held for feminine deities far and wide before the story of Yahweh was spread.
Great post!
I work in a field of climate change that is specifically concerned with the consideration of a priori knowledge when we interpret measurements, and as I was reading your post I was visualizing everything you said mathematically. A priori assumptions (at least in my field) are usually necessary to get any interpretation at all from the observations. But the key, really is to start from different a priori assumptions / hypothesis, as well as a corresponding assumption about the *error* in each hypothesis, and then to compare all of your hypothises to the evidence individually.
Julie, There’s a book on my shelf, The Early History of God, by Mark S. Smith, in which the author touches on the subject you’ve mentioned. As I’m not qualified to even have opinion on the matter, I’ll quote a bit from chapter 4, “Yahweh and Asherah”:
“Just as there is little evidence for El as a separate Israelite god in the era of the Judges, so Asherah is poorly attested as a separate Israelite goddess in this period. Arguments for Asherah as a goddess in this period rest on Judges 6 and elsewhere where she in mentioned with Baal…”
“Only the asherah, the symbol that bears the name of the goddess, is criticized. Furthermore, unlike el and ba’al, aserah does not appear as the theophoric element in Hebrew proper names…
“This conclusion does not address, however, the issue of whether Asherah was distinguished as a separate goddess and consort of Yahweh in the period of the Judges. Indeed, it may be argued that her symbol was part of the cult of Yahweh in this period, but it did not symbolize a goddess. Just as El and Baal and their imagery were adapted to the cult of Yahweh, the asherah was a symbol in Yahwistic cult in this period.”
That probably doesn’t help you much, but if you’re looking for further reading, here’s another author and title you could look for. I found the book fascinating, though not exactly light reading.
and yes, i realize your main point was about our assumptions and resulting approach to knowledge, i was just taken in by your initial thought processes and had to follow through!