Sárospataki Füzetek 17. (2013)
2013 / 1-2. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Doedens, Jacob J. T.:Ókori izraelita politeista feliratok: Aséra mint JHVH felesége?
An c i E N T ! S RA E LIT E PO LYT H E ISTIC INS C R i FT IONS... haps also Yhwh.* 80 Schmidt’s view is perhaps the most radical one; he suggests that the drawings on both pithoi belong together and are complementary to each other. In his opinion, the Bes-like figures on pithos A are meant to illustrate Yhwh and Asherah; the depicted worshippers on pithos B are meant to be standing in prayerful pose facing the theriomorphic deities drawn on pithos A. Schmidt illustrates his suggestion with examples from Egyptian art in which 90 degrees transpositions have to be made, in order to understand the picture three-dimensionally.81 4. Evaluation It was only possible to present here a relatively small cross-section of the diverse views considering the inscriptions found in Khirbet el-QŐm and Kuntillet ‘Ajrud. For the purport of this article it is not even necessary to get an answer to all the unanswered —and possibly unanswerable— questions. For the present aim, it may suffice to offer a “maximalist” and a “minimalist” stand on the meaning of the inscriptions. According to the ‘maximalist’ approach, the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud mention Yhwh together with the gods El, Baal and Asherah. Moreover, Asherah is described as Yhwh’s consort, both at Kuntillet Ajrud and Khirbet el-QŐm. In this view, Yhwh and Asherah are not only described but also depicted. This would mean that the whole site breathes an air of polytheism. Viewed from the biblical texts, this would be no total surprise, not even if there were a bovine theriomorphic representation of Yhwh, as the narrative about the golden calf,82 the report about Jeroboam’s cult,83 and texts in Hosea84 testify. In the ‘minimalist’ interpretation of Kuntillet Ajrud, the names of El and Baal are only titles for the God of Israel.85 The inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-QŐm which mention ‘Asherah’, only refer to a cult object. The depicted figures at ‘Ajrud, possibly representing the deity Bes in twofold, are disconnected from the inscriptions. In this view, the site is more an example of syncretism than of polytheism. Yet, also in the ‘minimalist’ interpretation of the site, an ‘asherah’ as to Joan E. Taylor, “The Asherah, the Menorah and the Sacred Tree,” JSOT66 (1995): 32, the drawing of the tree with the ibexes represents Asherah. 80 Garth Gilmour, “An Iron Age II Pictorial Inscription from Jerusalem Illustrating Yahweh and Asherah,” PEQ 141 no. 2 (2009), 87-103, proposes that a sherd, excavated in 1929 in Jerusalem, published in his article for the first time, displaying two humanoid figures, depicts Yhwh and Asherah. His argument remains speculative because there is no written inscription connected to the drawing. 81 Cf. Brian B. Schmidt, “The Iron Age Pithoi Drawings from Horvat Teman or Kuntillet ‘Ajrud: Some New Proposals,” JANER no. 2 (2002): 111-122. 82 Ex 32:8 gives the impression that the calf was meant to represent Yhwh. 83 1 Kgs 12:28 has a similar wording as Ex 32:8, ‘Behold your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt.’ 84 The reference to ‘Yhwh of Samaria’ together with a bovine picture might indeed explain Hos 8:5-6, about God’s anger against the ‘calf of Samaria’, ‘which is not God’ — obviously meaning that this ‘calf’ was wrought with the aim to depict the God of Israel. 85 As is suggested by B. A. Mastin, “The Inscriptions Written on Plaster at Kuntillet Ajrud,” VT 59 no. 1 (2009): 113. 2013/1-2 Sárospataki Füzetek 53
