This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Asherah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why does the article make it sound like it was the norm and accepted thing to serve more that one G-d? It wasn’t the norm, it was looked down upon. And they didn’t start believing in one G-d only after the Babylonian exile. Whoever wrote this must check the sources again. As a Jewish historian I say this is completely false. Jake pres ( talk) 14:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
What kind of historian ignores that Jewish monotheism is a relatively late phenomenon? Dimadick ( talk) 16:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No "original research" at all. The Hebrew language is clear in its meaning, if you don’t like what it says it’s not my fault. We don't care about what you say, we care about WP:V: not printed anywhere, so it is you who drew such conclusion, textbook case of WP:OR.
Besides, "sacred prostitution" nowhere and "never took place". Source: Coogan, Michael (October 2010). God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. OCLC 505927356. Retrieved May 5, 2011. Meaning: it was always just a rumor, and always spread by foreigners.
Page at Google Books: [1]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't Elijah be mentioned in the "Worship and suppression" section of this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Mount Ebal curse tablet is the WP:FRINGE of the WP:FRINGE. E.g. Christopher Rollston wrote: “This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” (copy/pasted from Mount Ebal curse tablet).
See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube.
There are WP:FRINGE claims that are apparently cogent, and WP:FRINGE claims which are WP:CB. Mount Ebal curse tablet is WP:CB. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I added... "The term 'Asherah' appears 40 times in the Old Testament, with 33 of these occurrences referring to the sacred Asherah poles used in pagan and heretical Israelite worship. Only seven instances of 'Asherah' are references to the goddess herself."<ref] https://www.learnreligions.com/asherah-in-the-bible-6824125 </ref] 2607:FB91:C6A:DC33:F537:8A0E:387A:CAA5 ( talk) 15:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Of top importance to Asherah and Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions pages are good clear illustrations and photos of all sides of the pithoi, plaster, and context. All the art. From the good sources available, which are few. Anybody'd like to help? Temerarius ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I added the requested citation in the top for the Amorite spelling. Temerarius ( talk) 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
It's written like a narrative. No "according to", no "he/she found", but a narrative as if this is gender theory, which it isn't.
"Episodes in the Tanakh show a gender imbalance in the Hebrew religion: the texts state their patriarchal nature. Asherah was patronized by female royals such as the Queen Mother Maacah (1 Kings 15:13). But Asherah was tremendously popular and was worshiped within the household and her offerings were performed by family matriarchs."
this is simply a lot of uncredited presuppositions which have no relevance to the article of Asherah.
Gender imbalance in the religion? Okay, says who? More importantly, what does it have to do with Asherah? There were dozens of female goddesses, if that's the raison d'etre for this paragraph at all.
"as yām (Hebrew: יָם) is a common western Semitic root that literally means "sea"."
this could have been "literally" summed up as "Yam, "sea" in Hebrew".
then there's even a picture of gold items, reading -
"Gold items are good to seek examples of continuity between middle and late bronze ages. A lesser example of the "plaque" goddess and fine examples of the Ω yoni, a general-purpose fertility charm. Pic"
you can't make this up. Absolute zero continuity between paragraphs.
Some of its references are of a biologist named Amzalleg which was critically panned (that is to say, everyone and their sister think they can be experts on biblical theory, while in reality it's very much based on actual diggings, historical linguistics and a some interpretation, at its core it's not a social studies subject) At this stage, this seems like a stream of consciousness original work, bordering on a hoax, not an actual article. 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 ( talk) 04:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
a proposal.
My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”
— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist
I removed an UNDUEWEIGHT mention of Park in the head. Etymology is not a solved problem that should go in the intro. It seems Park's idea is popular among editors, can I ask why? Scholarship on the etymology is mostly a jumble of opinions without trajectory or progress. If there's something superceding about that paper, I don't see it. The only conclusion on etymology is uncertainty, I think. Temerarius ( talk) 16:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I've not yet checked this table for accuracy.
עשתות | אשתרות | אשרות | אשרה | אשרים | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deuteronomy | 16:21 | 12:3 | |||
Joshua | |||||
Judges | 2:11-13 | 3:7 | 6:25-26 | ||
I Samuel | 7:3-4 12:10 31:10 |
||||
I Kings | 11:5, 33 | 15:13 16:33 18:19 |
14:15,23 | ||
II Kings | 23:13 | 13:6 17:16 18:4 21:3-7 23:4-6 |
17:10 23:14 |
Temerarius (
talk)
02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
AFTER me copy-editing what I could, now we have:
Her titles often include qdš "holy", or elat, ba'alat, or rabat,{{sfn|Locatell|McKinny|Shai|2022|p=580}} all meaning Lady or goddess,<ref>Auth [Who?!] cites [[Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit|KTU]] 1.3 I 23 "etc"</ref>{{clarify |Auth?! Meanig what? Author? Who? One big mess! |date= March 2034}} and consort of El, the qnyt ỉlm, "creator of the gods."{{sfn|Ahituv|2014|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bLbkEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA33 33]}}
All this said, I'm now afraid to believe anything from this so terribly edited section and would like to remove it and place it here on the talk-page until it's been reworked and checked.
What I've been always saying: we cannot go on trust, period. Either ref is to a source that's available online, or the editor MUST make the effort and quote the exact passage they think to be referencing, so that others can check and convince themselves the source was comprehended & quoted correctly. Arminden ( talk) 01:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Asherah article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 730 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why does the article make it sound like it was the norm and accepted thing to serve more that one G-d? It wasn’t the norm, it was looked down upon. And they didn’t start believing in one G-d only after the Babylonian exile. Whoever wrote this must check the sources again. As a Jewish historian I say this is completely false. Jake pres ( talk) 14:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
What kind of historian ignores that Jewish monotheism is a relatively late phenomenon? Dimadick ( talk) 16:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
No "original research" at all. The Hebrew language is clear in its meaning, if you don’t like what it says it’s not my fault. We don't care about what you say, we care about WP:V: not printed anywhere, so it is you who drew such conclusion, textbook case of WP:OR.
Besides, "sacred prostitution" nowhere and "never took place". Source: Coogan, Michael (October 2010). God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. OCLC 505927356. Retrieved May 5, 2011. Meaning: it was always just a rumor, and always spread by foreigners.
Page at Google Books: [1]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't Elijah be mentioned in the "Worship and suppression" section of this article? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 06:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Mount Ebal curse tablet is the WP:FRINGE of the WP:FRINGE. E.g. Christopher Rollston wrote: “This article is basically a text-book case of the Rorschach Test, and the authors of this article have projected upon a piece of lead the things they want it to say.” (copy/pasted from Mount Ebal curse tablet).
See also A "Mt. Ebal Inscription" in the Western Wall? An Example of Cognitive Priming on YouTube. Or The So-Called Mt. Ebal "Inscription" Publication: One Big Nothingburger on YouTube.
There are WP:FRINGE claims that are apparently cogent, and WP:FRINGE claims which are WP:CB. Mount Ebal curse tablet is WP:CB. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I added... "The term 'Asherah' appears 40 times in the Old Testament, with 33 of these occurrences referring to the sacred Asherah poles used in pagan and heretical Israelite worship. Only seven instances of 'Asherah' are references to the goddess herself."<ref] https://www.learnreligions.com/asherah-in-the-bible-6824125 </ref] 2607:FB91:C6A:DC33:F537:8A0E:387A:CAA5 ( talk) 15:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Of top importance to Asherah and Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions pages are good clear illustrations and photos of all sides of the pithoi, plaster, and context. All the art. From the good sources available, which are few. Anybody'd like to help? Temerarius ( talk) 00:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I added the requested citation in the top for the Amorite spelling. Temerarius ( talk) 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
It's written like a narrative. No "according to", no "he/she found", but a narrative as if this is gender theory, which it isn't.
"Episodes in the Tanakh show a gender imbalance in the Hebrew religion: the texts state their patriarchal nature. Asherah was patronized by female royals such as the Queen Mother Maacah (1 Kings 15:13). But Asherah was tremendously popular and was worshiped within the household and her offerings were performed by family matriarchs."
this is simply a lot of uncredited presuppositions which have no relevance to the article of Asherah.
Gender imbalance in the religion? Okay, says who? More importantly, what does it have to do with Asherah? There were dozens of female goddesses, if that's the raison d'etre for this paragraph at all.
"as yām (Hebrew: יָם) is a common western Semitic root that literally means "sea"."
this could have been "literally" summed up as "Yam, "sea" in Hebrew".
then there's even a picture of gold items, reading -
"Gold items are good to seek examples of continuity between middle and late bronze ages. A lesser example of the "plaque" goddess and fine examples of the Ω yoni, a general-purpose fertility charm. Pic"
you can't make this up. Absolute zero continuity between paragraphs.
Some of its references are of a biologist named Amzalleg which was critically panned (that is to say, everyone and their sister think they can be experts on biblical theory, while in reality it's very much based on actual diggings, historical linguistics and a some interpretation, at its core it's not a social studies subject) At this stage, this seems like a stream of consciousness original work, bordering on a hoax, not an actual article. 2A02:6680:1108:F608:62D6:ADD:8C3F:2815 ( talk) 04:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
a proposal.
My photo could be used as evidence, for example, to determine if 1) the water was higher than last week or 2) the winter ice was gone 3) the boat race was on some other lake or 4) if aliens were waterskiing that day. But, until you advance some relevant theoretical claim a photo is just a photo—it is not “evidence.”
— Karl W. Giberson, My Debate With an ‘Intelligent Design’ Theorist
I removed an UNDUEWEIGHT mention of Park in the head. Etymology is not a solved problem that should go in the intro. It seems Park's idea is popular among editors, can I ask why? Scholarship on the etymology is mostly a jumble of opinions without trajectory or progress. If there's something superceding about that paper, I don't see it. The only conclusion on etymology is uncertainty, I think. Temerarius ( talk) 16:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I've not yet checked this table for accuracy.
עשתות | אשתרות | אשרות | אשרה | אשרים | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deuteronomy | 16:21 | 12:3 | |||
Joshua | |||||
Judges | 2:11-13 | 3:7 | 6:25-26 | ||
I Samuel | 7:3-4 12:10 31:10 |
||||
I Kings | 11:5, 33 | 15:13 16:33 18:19 |
14:15,23 | ||
II Kings | 23:13 | 13:6 17:16 18:4 21:3-7 23:4-6 |
17:10 23:14 |
Temerarius (
talk)
02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
AFTER me copy-editing what I could, now we have:
Her titles often include qdš "holy", or elat, ba'alat, or rabat,{{sfn|Locatell|McKinny|Shai|2022|p=580}} all meaning Lady or goddess,<ref>Auth [Who?!] cites [[Keilalphabetische Texte aus Ugarit|KTU]] 1.3 I 23 "etc"</ref>{{clarify |Auth?! Meanig what? Author? Who? One big mess! |date= March 2034}} and consort of El, the qnyt ỉlm, "creator of the gods."{{sfn|Ahituv|2014|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bLbkEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA33 33]}}
All this said, I'm now afraid to believe anything from this so terribly edited section and would like to remove it and place it here on the talk-page until it's been reworked and checked.
What I've been always saying: we cannot go on trust, period. Either ref is to a source that's available online, or the editor MUST make the effort and quote the exact passage they think to be referencing, so that others can check and convince themselves the source was comprehended & quoted correctly. Arminden ( talk) 01:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)