Not true. Below is an excellent example. Your source makes a claim:
There is little doubt? Here's the story. And I did provide this earlier. You didn't read it, it seems. Your source is obviously wrong. This is NOT an inspiration for the biblical Daniel. The stories are completely 100% different.
There is absolutely no evidence that what is found is the ealiest occurance. It's the latest possible origin, but it could have been earlier, that's what TAQ means. And that's why it's attaced to all attempts to date biblical scripture.
Yes, it is documented and the reference you posted agrees. Asherah is a female Goddess in the Hills of Judah as the numerous small idols found in the remains of Hebrew sites.
We have already mentioned that a number of scholars have found one or both of these lines of evidence sufficient grounds for concluding that YHWH’s asherah is no less than the goddess Asherah. And indeed, if we assumed that Anat in the compound name Anat-YHW were the proper name of a goddess, then the links between Elephantine and Israelite-Judahite religion described above would appear to make that conclusion even more attractive. From the perspective of linguistic function, the constructions “Anat of YHW” and “YHWH and his asherah” are syntactically analogous. They are simply different modes in the genitive for expressing the same possessive relationship: YHWH’s asherah is the asherah of YHWH. Hence, Anat in Anat-YHW could be used to claim that YHWH’s asherah refers to the goddess Asherah.
While we currently lack information to clarify the precise meaning of asherah in the inscriptions, the identification of the term as a common noun has important religio-historical implications and may point us toward a possible answer. We have already seen above that because asherah in the inscriptions is declined with a pronominal suffix, it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. This asherah is by definition distinguished from all other asherahs, including perhaps especially the goddess whose proper name was Asherah.
There has been considerable scholarly debate concerning inscription #3 from Khirbet el-Qom, located 12 kilometers (8.5 miles) west of Hebron and 11 kilometers (6.5 miles) ESE of Lachish (grid ref. 1465-1045). The text was illegally chiseled out from a pillar in a burial cave near the site of Khirbet el-Qom (cf. Dever 1970, p. 146), which Dorsey identifies with biblical Makkedah (1980, p. 192). Palaeographically, the inscription dates to ca. 750 BCE (Lemaire 1977, p. 603; G. I. Davies 1991, p. 106 #25.003; Smelik 1991, p. 152; and Dever 1970, p. 165); however Dever states in n. 53 that Cross prefers a date closer to 700 BCE, as also perhaps Ahituv (1992, p. 111), who identifies this inscription as #1, as against all others for whom it is #3. For photographs of the inscription see Dever 1970, pls. VI B and VII; Malamat 1979, pl. 38; Zevit 1984, fig. 6; and Ahituv 1992, p. 113.
...
The inscription is difficult to read, for several reasons. First, besides being naturally cracked and faulted, the stone surface appears to have been poorly smoothed and prepared. The tools used to smooth the writing surface left further ridges and striations in the rock. The long scratches on the surface of the stone were made before the inscription was written, perhaps while it was being smoothed to prepare it for the inscription. The letters of the inscription have been cut over the long scratches, as is evidenced by the tiny ridges of chalk displaced by the act of gouging out the letters. The long scratches cannot therefore be considered an attempt to “erase” the inscription. Secondly, when the inscription was incised, the engraver formed some letters with a high degree of pressure, thereby making a strong impression in the rock, but other letters were poorly formed and hardly incised at all. This creates difficulties for anyone trying to read the text, for the strokes of the letters are barely distinguishable from the natural cracks and striations in the rock. Indeed, Dever believes that the text is more a graffito than a true inscription. He thinks that the stylus was probably only a sharp stick (1970, p. 162).
...
My transcription reads as follows:
1. ⊃ryhw.h⊂šr.ktbh
2. brk.⊃ryhw.lyhwh
3. wmsryh l⊃šrth hwš⊂lh
4. l⊃nyhw
5. l⊃šrth
6. wl⊃??rth
....
It appears that someone has retraced many of the letters, thereby leaving “ghost images.” Whether this was done by the writer or some later visitor to the cave is uncertain. The duplicated letters are on the whole very faintly inscribed, and may have served as some sort of emphasis. This duplication of the letters makes the line difficult to read and open to many interpretations.
...
Lines 5 and 6: Line 5 has a clear reference to asherah, the only word clearly recognizable. Line 6 may also refer to her/it, but as is, is not legible.
This is what professional scribe work at that time looked like. What's happening in those caves were graffiti. I'll put it in a spoiler to reduce space on screen. It's big so that the quality of the script can be compared to what is found in those caves.
Here's William Dever, PhD, Harvard University, telling the story of when he PURCHASED this inscription for $6 US from a random local while working at a dig site. It's around minute 54. I've queued the video to that location.
Well, now you're just being dishonest. The entire thing is word-for-word copy and paste from these people. You essentially plagerized. And this explains why you won't tell us where you got it. And also why you cannot tell us who wrote it or what their credentials are. It also explains the exaggerations on Psalm 89 wanting it to be about a "young man" when the word "help" works perfectly.
Here's where it comes from. Word-for-Word copy paste.
Quartz Hill Community Church Not Accredited. We are an unaccredited church-based academic institution. All degrees offered are for use in religious, church-based settings.
Sure it does. You just didn't read the story or do any actual research.
Danel (/ˈdeɪnəl/), father of Aqhat, was a culture hero who appears in an incomplete Ugaritic text of the fourteenth century BCE[1] at Ugarit (now Ras Shamra), Syria, where the name is rendered DN'IL, "El is judge
The Tale of Aqhat is the story of "Dan il" from Ugarit. Did you read the story?
The Tale of Aqhat or Epic of Aqhat is a Canaanite myth from Ugarit ...
First tablet
Danel is described as a "righteous ruler" (Davies) or "probably a king" (Curtis), providing justice to widows and orphans.[10][11] Danel begins the story without a son, although missing material from the beginning of the story makes it unclear whether Danel has lost children, or whether he simply has not had a son yet.[12] On six successive days, Danel makes offerings at a temple, requesting a son.[13] On the seventh, the god Baal asks the high god El to provide Danel a son, to which El agrees.[14]
Danel's prayers to the gods are answered with the birth of Aqhat.[15] The grateful Danel holds a feast to which he invited the Kotharat, female divinities associated with childbearing.[11]
A gap appears in the text.[16] After it, Danel is given a bow by the god Kothar-wa-Khasis, who is grateful to Danel for providing him hospitality.[3] According to Fontenrose, the bow is given to Danel when Aqhat is still an "infant",[17] while as Wright reads the tale after Aqhat has "grown up".[15]
One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named Dan il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel;
What are the reasons for saying "there is little doubt"? There is nothing in the Ugarit story which matches the biblical Daniel. If you disagree, you need to find a Ugarit myth of Dan il, that has a signficant correspondence to the biblica story of Daniel.
Sure it does. You just didn't read the story or do any actual research.
Danel (/ˈdeɪnəl/), father of Aqhat, was a culture hero who appears in an incomplete Ugaritic text of the fourteenth century BCE[1] at Ugarit (now Ras Shamra), Syria, where the name is rendered DN'IL, "El is judge
The Tale of Aqhat is the story of "Dan il" from Ugarit. Did you read the story?
The Tale of Aqhat or Epic of Aqhat is a Canaanite myth from Ugarit ...
First tablet
Danel is described as a "righteous ruler" (Davies) or "probably a king" (Curtis), providing justice to widows and orphans.[10][11] Danel begins the story without a son, although missing material from the beginning of the story makes it unclear whether Danel has lost children, or whether he simply has not had a son yet.[12] On six successive days, Danel makes offerings at a temple, requesting a son.[13] On the seventh, the god Baal asks the high god El to provide Danel a son, to which El agrees.[14]
Danel's prayers to the gods are answered with the birth of Aqhat.[15] The grateful Danel holds a feast to which he invited the Kotharat, female divinities associated with childbearing.[11]
A gap appears in the text.[16] After it, Danel is given a bow by the god Kothar-wa-Khasis, who is grateful to Danel for providing him hospitality.[3] According to Fontenrose, the bow is given to Danel when Aqhat is still an "infant",[17] while as Wright reads the tale after Aqhat has "grown up".[15]
What are the reasons for saying "there is little doubt"? There is nothing in the Ugarit story which matches the biblical Daniel. If you disagree, you need to find a Ugarit myth of Dan il, that has a signficant correspondence to the biblica story of Daniel.
1) In the context of the inscriptions ʾšrth is invoked parallel with YHWH as an independent object of blessing. The parallelism is marked syntactically by the l- attached to both YHWH and ʾšrth and by the coordinating w- that separates them.[9] Regardless of the presence of a possible suffix on ʾšrt, the syntax of the blessing implies that YHWH and ʾšrth are corresponding divine entities (Dever 1984: 30; Müller 1992: 28; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Köckert 1998: 165; Miller 2000: 36; Zevit 2001: 404; Irsigler 2011: 142; Mandell 2012: 140).
2) In comparable blessings from the broader region only deities are named as objects of the formula brk l-: e.g. brktk lyhwh “I bless you to YHWH” (Arad); whbrktk lqws “I bless you to Qws” (Ḥorvat Uza); brktk lbʿl ṣpn wlkl ʾl tḥpnḥs “I bless you to Baal Zaphon and to all the gods of Tachpanchas” (Saqqara); brktky lptḥ “I bless you to Ptah” (Hermopolis); brktk lyhh wlḥnb “I bless you to YHWH and to Khnum” (Elephantine) (Margalit 1990: 276; Müller 1992: 28; Pardee 1995: 302; 2005: 282; Frevel 1995: 20-21; Tropper 2001: 101; Zevit 2001: 404; Rösel 2003: 107-121; Leuenberger 2008: 121 n. 35).
3) As a number of scholars have opined, inscription 3.1 on pithos A is linked to an illustration of what appears to be YHWH and his consort (Gilula 1979: 129-37; Margalit 1990: 274-78; Coogan 1987: 119; 2010: ; Schmidt 1995: 96-102; 2002: 107-108; Zevit 2001: 381-89; McCarter 2003a: 171; Mandell 2012: 136-137; cf. Uehlinger 1997: 142-46; 2016; Hadley 2000: 136-44; Beck 2012; Ornan 2016: 20; Schmidt 2016). Although many following Beck’s initial study of the iconography of Kuntillet ‘Ajrud have rejected any direct correlation of text and imagery, R. Thomas has recently offered a reassessment of the pithos imagery that supports identifying the Bes-like figures with YHWH and his female partner (2016).
4) The immediate archaeological context of the inscriptions at KA was evidently polytheistic. The divine name Baal is attested in at least two separate inscriptions, and El and “Name of El” are mentioned in a mythological context in a plaster wall inscription from the bench room (4.2; 4.4.1; cf. Dijkstra 2001: 24; Zevit 2001: 374, 404, 437; Mastin 2011: 81-82; Aḥituv, Eshel, and Meshel 2012: 133; Mandell 2012: 138; Levine 2014a: 39; Schmidt 2016: 90-94).
5) There is growing evidence for the worship of female deities in Iron Age Israel-Judah, including widespread use of pillar figurines, cultic dualism in the form of standing stones, and other pictorial imagery, such as an incised image of a god and goddess pair recovered from eighth-century Jerusalem (Kletter 1996; 2002; Uehlinger 1997; Köckert 1998; Keel and Uehlinger 1998; Johnston 2003; Dever 2005; 2014; Albertz 2008; Gilmour 2009; 2015; Bloch-Smith 2014; 2016; Römer 2015; L. Levine 2016; cf. Darby 2014; Stavrakopoulou 2016).
You need to read actually read and understand the entire article. What I gave you is the entire debate. You are cherry picking.
... the standard approach has been to accept a straightforward analysis of ʾšrth as the feminine noun ʾšrt with an attached pronominal suffix –h...
the interpretation of ʾšrt as a reference to the goddess Asherah can account for evidence that the inscription has in view a female deity paired with YHWH as an object of blessing but at the same time is unable to decisively explain the significance of the attached pronominal suffix, while the interpretation of ʾšrt as a cult object/shrine belonging to YHWH resolves the pronominal suffix and yet downplays evidence that the blessing is directed toward a deity.
This line of thinking takes its point of departure from the fact that the h- on ʾšrth is most easily analyzed as a pronominal suffix with YHWH as the antecedent and therefore as a declined substantive ʾšrt must represent a common noun rather than a proper name. According to the syntactic context, ʾšrt cannot refer to the goddess Asherah, but must signify something else.
in the final analysis the theoretical argument that a proper name such as Asherah could carry a pronominal suffix is beset by a number of problems. First, although from a materialist perspective deities in the ancient Near East typically had properties of both common and proper nouns, they were nevertheless treated in practice as quasi-distinct persons, i.e. unitary entities. For example, within the immediate context of worship at local cult centers such as Samaria, Teman, and Jerusalem YHWH was not regarded primarily as a member of a class of deities but as the YHWH relevant to the worshipping community. Consequently, we would not expect the discourse surrounding divine names to completely upend conventional norms of the spoken language for distinguishing common vs. proper nouns (cf. Wiggins 1993: 188; Tropper 2001: 100; Smith 2002: 119-20; Irsigler 2011: 142-43). As a matter of linguistic function, the lexeme asherah cannot simultaneously inhabit both determined and indeterminate categories. If ʾšrth is correctly interpreted as the substantive asherah with an attached pronominal suffix it cannot refer to the goddess Asherah. By definition the suffix distinguishes this asherah from every other asherah: this asherah is YHWH’s asherah.
the general line of interpretation of postulating a common noun sense to asherah is appealing as a solution to the problem of ʾšrth. After all, this understanding of asherah fits the semantic-syntactic context, which methodologically speaking should be the primary criteria for determining the usage and implication of a word in an unfamiliar linguistic setting. We have already seen earlier that asherah cannot have reference to the proper name Asherah because of the attached pronominal suffix, but must refer to a common noun of some kind, an asherah differentiated from all other asherahs. Not surprisingly, Hebrew epigraphists have often felt constrained to gloss inscriptional ʾšrth as “his consort” (Gogel 1998: 60; cf. DNWSI 1:129; McCarter 1987: 147; 2003a: 171, n. 3).
If there is no corresponance between the Ugarit DanIL and the Biblical Daniel, why do you say "there is little doubt"? This is an example of the sorts of problems that are coming from your source. And since you didn't go back to check, just assumed they were correct, you'll never know the difference.
It's the same with Psalm 89. Did you go and look at the verse before concluding that what they said made any sense?
One of the most famous of the lesser deities at Ugarit was a chap named Dan il. There is little doubt that this figure corresponds to the Biblical Daniel;
There is NO relationship of any kind between Dan IL and Daniel other than a common name. Did you fact check your source to see if ANY of it is true? Did you know they are not an academic institution? They are a community church.
I replied to #538 here -> post 542 -> link. All the reliable sources you asked for showing the incsription was purchased not found. There is evidence of two people inscribing not one. It's more like graffiti than professional scribe work which would represent Judaism, the religion.
I just posted a reply to #539 here -> post 545 -> link. You are cherry picking and ignoring the conclusion. At that time "asherah" was not a specific deity it was a catch-all term. There is a major grammatical problem which people gloss over, but the author of that meta-study refutes those. Probably because he spent time in Israel and speaks the language.
Another example occurs in Ps 89:20. Here the word עָזַר is usually translated "help" but the Ugaritic word gzr means "young man" and if Psalm 89:20 is translated this way it is clearly more meaningful.
Ow this is the same God who demanded winged people on the ark, the brazen serpent, the giant bulls and all the other creatures in the temple? That God?
Sure it does. The leaders who according to you can be counted on one hand were lying hypocrites desperate for power, like Josiah killing Yahwist priests because Hilkiah wanted sole control over worship in Jerusalem.
It was God who the intended to save. Noah was just the vehicle.
Which bible are you using? The Hebrew is much better for this. It's much more precise. But if you let me know which translation you're using I'll look to see if it's reflected there.
Ow this is the same God who demanded winged people on the ark, the brazen serpent, the giant bulls and all the other creatures in the temple? That God?
The details are important. The serpent was specifically not a god. That was the whole point. The people were considering the serpents in the desert as if they, the serpents, had power over their life and death. Looking at the bronze serpent reminded them it was God who was in charge. This triggered repentance and they were healed.
The winged people were also not gods. No one worshipped them.
The bulls and other items described in the text are negative examples of a negative role model.
Archeology has shown that sites devoted only to Yahweh did not have any of those things.
Are you denying that he killed Yahwist priests because they would not work in Jerusalem? It can’t be about supporting Yahwist worship or he wouldn’t have killed them for something as petty as the monopoly of power.
Are you denying that he killed Yahwist priests because they would not work in Jerusalem? It can’t be about supporting Yahwist worship or he wouldn’t have killed them for something as petty as the monopoly of power.
I don't remember the story of Josiah that way. I don't have 1 & 2 Kings memorized. If you would direct me to the place in the story where Josiah is doing the things you're claiming I would appreciate it.
en.m.wikipedia.org
