New Evidence for Asherata/Asherah

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article offers a well-constructed and persuasive reevaluation of the deity Asherah, supported by recent epigraphic and linguistic evidence from the Bronze and Iron Ages. The author’s inclusion of newly published Amorite-Akkadian bilingual texts from January 2023, alongside West Semitic Bronze Age attestations of the divine name a-si-rat, significantly advances our understanding of the historical and linguistic development of this deity. The study meticulously traces the evolution of Asherata, arguing for a coherent continuity across a thousand years of West Semitic textual tradition.

Of particular importance is the analysis of Iron Age inscriptions at Kuntillet ʿAjrud and Khirbet el-Qom, where the author challenges the long-held assumption that ʾšrth reflects a pronominal suffix (“his Asherah”). Instead, the study argues that the -h represents a feminine suffix consistent with Bronze Age examples of Asherata. Additionally, the discussion of Egyptian transcriptions of at least ten Iron Age Hebrew words further supports this argument, highlighting the persistence of -ta as an archaic feminine marker.

However, the article’s bibliographic foundation would benefit from more recent scholarship in the field. Some citations reflect outdated sources, and integrating newer studies would provide a more robust and contemporary framework. For instance, Sung Jin Park’s The Cultic Identity of Asherah in Deuteronomistic Ideology of Israel (ZAW 123/4, 2011) should be engaged to address the nuanced debate on whether personal names, including divine names, can take a definite article. While the author argues that Hebrew grammar discourages the use of a pronominal suffix with proper nouns, Sung Jin Park and other scholars offer compelling counterarguments regarding both the pronominal suffix and the definite article’s possible use with personal and divine names. This ongoing scholarly debate merits further integration into the article’s core argument.

Despite these critiques, the breadth and depth of the evidence presented—spanning Bronze Age Amorite texts, Ugaritic sources, and Iron Age inscriptions—offer a valuable contribution to the study of ancient Near Eastern religion. The article’s interdisciplinary approach, combining historical linguistics, epigraphy, and biblical studies, strengthens its overall impact. It provides a critical framework for reevaluating Asherah’s role within West Semitic religious traditions and for understanding how ancient linguistic patterns influence modern interpretations of the biblical text.

This article remains a significant resource for scholars of biblical studies, Semitic philology, and ancient Near Eastern religions. Its conclusions not only enrich current debates but also open new avenues for future research on the intersections of language, religion, and cultural identity.

Author Response

The comment seems to direct the question of pronominal suffixes on divine names in the biblical text.  I can include the Park reference in footnote 41.  While this article is an interesting review of the use of Asherah and plural forms in the Hebrew Bible, such is not the purpose of my paper.  Rather, it seeks to trace the spelling of the divine name in West Semitic attestations found outside the Bible and before its writing in epigraphic Hebrew.  If I were to move in the direction of the Park paper and its biblical attestations, it would open up a huge topic which I did not intend to address in this paper. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper argues in favor of the case, already presented by Zevit and by Hess, that the string l'šrth  in the Iron Age Israelite/Judahite inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom refers to a goddess named "Asherata", rather than to a goddess or cult object named "asherah" (as in the Hebrew Bible's 'šrh) with a 3ms possessive suffix. New data that warrant the revisitation of the case include the famous recently published Amorite text with the goddess name ašeratum and the recent proper publication of the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions.

The paper's argumentation is reasonable. The technical quality of its writing is high, and its referencing is excellent. As a Hebrew Bible scholar who has written on the asherah phenomenon (broadly defined), I did not find any factual or logical mistakes, but I am unable to vouch for the Semitics side of the paper.

I think that the paper is worthy of being published as is. I suggest, but would not be in favor of requiring, that the abstract, the first few paragraphs, and the last few paragraphs be edited for clarity. For example, the first paragraph has the clause "as argued for its appearance at Kuntillet 'Ajrud" without the appearance at Kuntillet 'Ajrud having been introduced.

Author Response

I appreciate the concern for clarity.  The example given concerns the reference to Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the first paragraph.  I have edited the final clause of the fourth sentence to “as argued for its appearance in inscriptional materials such as those found at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.”  I hope this helps.  If not, please advise as to how to increase clarity.