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.
