I might add that Asherah, often referred to in the Bible as the "Queen of Heaven," was El's consort and hence Yahweh's (and Ba'al's) mother! Later when Yahweh absorbed El, Asherah became Yahweh's consort (talk about an Oedipus complex). The reason Asherah had so much staying power is that she protected women and children in childbirth among other powers. I have read that the most common archeological artifact found in the "Holy Land" is small clay statuettes of Asherah, presumably for in home altars (thousands have survived to the present day). The elites in Jerusalem tried to wipe out her presence but the people in the hinterlands weren't buying that. It seems that her worship lasted well into the first millennium.
And the biggest tell in the Bible is that Yahweh is male (He/Him). Why would a solitary, monotheistic god need sexual reproductive organs if there are no other gods to mate with?
And of course we have this carried into traditional (Orthodox and Catholic) Christianity via the apotheosis of Mary. “Queen of Heaven” is one of her many titles in these traditions. She is daughter, spouse and mother of the triune deity. And of course, she is called upon to aid in childbirth and the care of children. Through her, Asherah is alive and well.
Interesting read. I look forward to the full series. Asherah was erased. I guess the same misogynistic forces that reduced Mary Magdalene to a repentant whore who was little more than a side note started early. It gives the whole "Let us make man in our image" a new meaning.
Glad you're along for the series. You're right that the pattern starts early, and the Asherah case is one of the clearest examples of it, a goddess who was worshipped alongside Yahweh for centuries, then written out as the theology consolidated. The Mary Magdalene parallel is apt, since that "repentant whore" reading was a later invention too, not anything the texts actually say about her. And your point about "let us make man in our image" has more behind it than you might expect. The Hebrew there is adam, humankind, and the verse itself says "male and female he created them," so the image-bearer was originally both.
The archaeology is interesting, but your conclusions consistently outrun the evidence. Few serious scholars dispute that Israel emerged within a West Semitic cultural world or that biblical authors used familiar language and imagery. The question is what that means. Similarity is not the same as derivation. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions certainly show that some Israelites associated Yahweh with Asherah. But the Old Testament repeatedly condemns exactly that behavior. If archaeology confirms widespread syncretism, it is just as easily confirming the biblical narrative that Israel frequently abandoned covenant faithfulness not proving that Yahweh was invented by combining El, Baal, and Asherah. Likewise, parallels between Genesis and Mesopotamian literature don’t necessarily indicate borrowing. They can also reflect deliberate theological polemic. Genesis strips the pagan myths of their divine conflicts and presents one sovereign Creator who brings order without violence. The data are real. The interpretation is where the debate begins. Presenting one reconstruction as though archaeology has settled the question does readers a disservice, because the evidence is compatible with more than one historical explanation.
You're right that similarity isn't derivation, and I'll happily trade "archaeology has settled it" for "the evidence strongly favors it." That's fair, and I should say it that way. Though I'd add that from within a tradition where nothing is off the table, "strongly favors" is about as far as any historical claim can ever push when it runs against received doctrine. Which raises a fair test: would this reading look like overreach if it were about a dead religion, or about Islam? I suspect the objection would feel a lot weaker if the tradition on the table weren't a living one.
The "condemnation confirms the biblical narrative" point cuts toward me more than you might think. When a text forbids something that insistently, it's telling us the practice was common and homegrown, not some foreign import a few people dabbled in. You don't legislate over and over against a thing nobody's doing. So the polemic is real, I just read it as the reformers pushing against an older popular baseline rather than a faithful norm getting corrupted.
And Kuntillet Ajrud is hard to file under "Israel kept backsliding." It's a formulaic blessing at a site tied to official activity, invoking Yahweh and his Asherah like a perfectly normal pairing.
Genesis is your strongest card, and I'll concede it. The demythologizing reading holds up, but notice it still has the author reworking inherited mythic material into something new, which is a relationship to the source, not independence from it.
So we probably agree more than it looks: the data underdetermine the story, and my careful claim was never "Yahweh was invented by combining three gods." It's just that Israelite religion grew out of its West Semitic world and moved toward monotheism over time. Appreciate you taking the time to give feedback.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, and I think we’ve narrowed the disagreement considerably. I have no issue saying Israelite religion existed within a broader West Semitic context or that archaeological evidence demonstrates widespread syncretism. Scripture itself repeatedly says as much. Where I remain unconvinced is the next step. The prevalence of Asherah worship demonstrates Israel’s unfaithfulness, but it does not demonstrate that Yahweh originally had a consort. The biblical authors consistently interpret those practices as covenant violation rather than authentic Yahwism. Likewise, similarities in imagery or language demonstrate shared cultural context, not necessarily theological derivation. Polemic often reuses an opponent’s vocabulary precisely to redefine it. So I think we agree that Israel’s understanding developed over time. Where we differ is whether that development reflects God’s self-revelation unfolding within history or humanity progressively inventing God. That isn’t something archaeology alone can adjudicate; at that point we’re doing philosophy and theology as much as history.
I think you've put your finger on exactly where the road forks. You're right that archaeology can show the practices and the shared vocabulary, but it can't tell you whether the trajectory is revelation unfolding or invention accreting. That's a philosophical read laid over the same evidence, and both of us are bringing one.
I don't sell certainties, which are inherently the product of personal conviction plus a blind spot about the limits of one's own knowledge. If I sounded in the piece like I was handing you an absolute conclusion as a fact, that's a failure on my end.
On another note, I've written a piece inspired by our exchange. It'll be published shortly.
I appreciate this response more than you probably realize. I think we’ve identified the real point of disagreement, and that’s a far better place to be than arguing past one another. I agree that archaeology can illuminate practices, contexts, and historical development, but it cannot finally answer whether we’re witnessing God progressively revealing Himself or humanity progressively constructing its idea of God. At that point, we’re all bringing philosophical and theological commitments to the evidence, and it’s healthy to acknowledge that rather than pretend otherwise. I also appreciate your willingness to qualify your claims. Intellectual humility is refreshing, especially in an age when everyone seems certain of everything. None of us, not you; not me, is immune from blind spots, confirmation bias, or the temptation to overstate our conclusions. That’s simply part of being human. Our conclusions remain very different, but I genuinely value the fact that you’ve engaged thoughtfully and been willing to refine your position where you felt it was warranted. That’s how good conversations should work. I’m looking forward to reading the article our exchange inspired. Whether I ultimately agree with it or not, I appreciate that you’re willing to continue the conversation rather than simply defend a position. Iron sharpens iron, and these discussions have certainly sharpened my own thinking.
I understand that much of the Bible was written initially by the Levites (a priestly group, forerunner to the Pharisees), and later by the Pharisees themselves. Religion was the main method of social control with fear being the main weapon.
I get where you're coming from. A lot of what became "religion" was shaped by people in power, and fear was an easy tool to reach for.
That said, the needs religion fills are too complex to pin on a single motive. If I had to pick one of the most important angles, I'd go with identity, the glue that held tribes together. Even now, whole towns in America orbit around a shared faith. That cohesion is powerful, but it's also what makes a community vulnerable to social control through religion.
The tricky part, historically, is that a community's shared religion often wasn't its own choice. The power holders picked, and everyone else followed. That's how whole nations switched faiths.
Good catch on Elephantine, that's a great addition. For anyone reading along who hasn't run into it: the Elephantine papyri come from a Jewish military colony in Egypt around the fifth century BCE, and they show Yahweh being worshipped alongside other deities, including a goddess figure, which is exactly the kind of on-the-ground evidence that complicates the monotheism-from-the-start story. It's on my list for the series.
On Elohim, you're right about the morphology, it's grammatically the plural of El (or eloah), so "gods" is the literal sense.
1) the oldest biblical literature (predating your archaeological evidence) treats Yahweh and El as synonymous and interchangeable figures.
2) The use of polemics such as the one you reference in psalm 68 actually work in favor of Israel’s monotheism as a way to emphasize the distinction between the Gods
3) Finding archeological evidence of Yahweh and his Asherah also confirms exactly what the prophets were arguing against in their writings.
If you read the Bible slowly (and without bias) surely you will see that it is your own misguided scholarship that is faulty…
I would like to add the lingering presence of Asherah as the “Sabbath Queen” whose spirit enters into the candle lighting ritual of the mother of the home at sundown.
Let’s not forget the Egyptian neighbors of the Israelites, who introduced the idea of One God, the Sun God, of Akenaten. “May His Countenance shine down upon you”…
There’s some great videos/articles actually proving all of this to be wrong and misinterpreted to fit the narrative of people and their obsession with trying to disprove the Biblical stories. They explicitly talk about Asherah and her poles SO many times in the Bible and if you read the entire thing thoroughly, you’d see it. I thank you for your page Tanner, your articles have actually made me dig deeper for answers and ultimately/inevitably grow in my faith towards Yahweh the most high and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To clarify, the piece isn't intended as anti-Christian propaganda. The facts and evidence highlighted here are widely accepted even by most Christian scholars in Catholic, Anglican, and Mainline Protestant traditions, and some of these foundational archaeological projects were even funded by major church institutions themselves.
For these historians, tracing how early Yahwism emerged out of the West Semitic world isn't about 'disproving' anything; it's just following the empirical evidence where it leads.
Rejections of these archaeological findings usually come from strict confessional or evangelical circles, where historical methodology is constrained by rigid theological boundaries.
That said, academic history and personal faith operate on two very different wavelengths. I'm glad the article pushed you to dig deeper into the sources, and I appreciate you joining the discussion!
Asherah is not forgotten, this is how we have Easter. Asherah is still recognised (even by devout Christians) as the original Ēostre or Ostara (Easter), and the source of all our Easter Eggs.
I might add that Asherah, often referred to in the Bible as the "Queen of Heaven," was El's consort and hence Yahweh's (and Ba'al's) mother! Later when Yahweh absorbed El, Asherah became Yahweh's consort (talk about an Oedipus complex). The reason Asherah had so much staying power is that she protected women and children in childbirth among other powers. I have read that the most common archeological artifact found in the "Holy Land" is small clay statuettes of Asherah, presumably for in home altars (thousands have survived to the present day). The elites in Jerusalem tried to wipe out her presence but the people in the hinterlands weren't buying that. It seems that her worship lasted well into the first millennium.
And the biggest tell in the Bible is that Yahweh is male (He/Him). Why would a solitary, monotheistic god need sexual reproductive organs if there are no other gods to mate with?
Great additions, and the Oedipus quip made me laugh.
And of course we have this carried into traditional (Orthodox and Catholic) Christianity via the apotheosis of Mary. “Queen of Heaven” is one of her many titles in these traditions. She is daughter, spouse and mother of the triune deity. And of course, she is called upon to aid in childbirth and the care of children. Through her, Asherah is alive and well.
Interesting read. I look forward to the full series. Asherah was erased. I guess the same misogynistic forces that reduced Mary Magdalene to a repentant whore who was little more than a side note started early. It gives the whole "Let us make man in our image" a new meaning.
Glad you're along for the series. You're right that the pattern starts early, and the Asherah case is one of the clearest examples of it, a goddess who was worshipped alongside Yahweh for centuries, then written out as the theology consolidated. The Mary Magdalene parallel is apt, since that "repentant whore" reading was a later invention too, not anything the texts actually say about her. And your point about "let us make man in our image" has more behind it than you might expect. The Hebrew there is adam, humankind, and the verse itself says "male and female he created them," so the image-bearer was originally both.
The archaeology is interesting, but your conclusions consistently outrun the evidence. Few serious scholars dispute that Israel emerged within a West Semitic cultural world or that biblical authors used familiar language and imagery. The question is what that means. Similarity is not the same as derivation. The Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions certainly show that some Israelites associated Yahweh with Asherah. But the Old Testament repeatedly condemns exactly that behavior. If archaeology confirms widespread syncretism, it is just as easily confirming the biblical narrative that Israel frequently abandoned covenant faithfulness not proving that Yahweh was invented by combining El, Baal, and Asherah. Likewise, parallels between Genesis and Mesopotamian literature don’t necessarily indicate borrowing. They can also reflect deliberate theological polemic. Genesis strips the pagan myths of their divine conflicts and presents one sovereign Creator who brings order without violence. The data are real. The interpretation is where the debate begins. Presenting one reconstruction as though archaeology has settled the question does readers a disservice, because the evidence is compatible with more than one historical explanation.
You're right that similarity isn't derivation, and I'll happily trade "archaeology has settled it" for "the evidence strongly favors it." That's fair, and I should say it that way. Though I'd add that from within a tradition where nothing is off the table, "strongly favors" is about as far as any historical claim can ever push when it runs against received doctrine. Which raises a fair test: would this reading look like overreach if it were about a dead religion, or about Islam? I suspect the objection would feel a lot weaker if the tradition on the table weren't a living one.
The "condemnation confirms the biblical narrative" point cuts toward me more than you might think. When a text forbids something that insistently, it's telling us the practice was common and homegrown, not some foreign import a few people dabbled in. You don't legislate over and over against a thing nobody's doing. So the polemic is real, I just read it as the reformers pushing against an older popular baseline rather than a faithful norm getting corrupted.
And Kuntillet Ajrud is hard to file under "Israel kept backsliding." It's a formulaic blessing at a site tied to official activity, invoking Yahweh and his Asherah like a perfectly normal pairing.
Genesis is your strongest card, and I'll concede it. The demythologizing reading holds up, but notice it still has the author reworking inherited mythic material into something new, which is a relationship to the source, not independence from it.
So we probably agree more than it looks: the data underdetermine the story, and my careful claim was never "Yahweh was invented by combining three gods." It's just that Israelite religion grew out of its West Semitic world and moved toward monotheism over time. Appreciate you taking the time to give feedback.
I appreciate the thoughtful response, and I think we’ve narrowed the disagreement considerably. I have no issue saying Israelite religion existed within a broader West Semitic context or that archaeological evidence demonstrates widespread syncretism. Scripture itself repeatedly says as much. Where I remain unconvinced is the next step. The prevalence of Asherah worship demonstrates Israel’s unfaithfulness, but it does not demonstrate that Yahweh originally had a consort. The biblical authors consistently interpret those practices as covenant violation rather than authentic Yahwism. Likewise, similarities in imagery or language demonstrate shared cultural context, not necessarily theological derivation. Polemic often reuses an opponent’s vocabulary precisely to redefine it. So I think we agree that Israel’s understanding developed over time. Where we differ is whether that development reflects God’s self-revelation unfolding within history or humanity progressively inventing God. That isn’t something archaeology alone can adjudicate; at that point we’re doing philosophy and theology as much as history.
I think you've put your finger on exactly where the road forks. You're right that archaeology can show the practices and the shared vocabulary, but it can't tell you whether the trajectory is revelation unfolding or invention accreting. That's a philosophical read laid over the same evidence, and both of us are bringing one.
I don't sell certainties, which are inherently the product of personal conviction plus a blind spot about the limits of one's own knowledge. If I sounded in the piece like I was handing you an absolute conclusion as a fact, that's a failure on my end.
On another note, I've written a piece inspired by our exchange. It'll be published shortly.
I appreciate this response more than you probably realize. I think we’ve identified the real point of disagreement, and that’s a far better place to be than arguing past one another. I agree that archaeology can illuminate practices, contexts, and historical development, but it cannot finally answer whether we’re witnessing God progressively revealing Himself or humanity progressively constructing its idea of God. At that point, we’re all bringing philosophical and theological commitments to the evidence, and it’s healthy to acknowledge that rather than pretend otherwise. I also appreciate your willingness to qualify your claims. Intellectual humility is refreshing, especially in an age when everyone seems certain of everything. None of us, not you; not me, is immune from blind spots, confirmation bias, or the temptation to overstate our conclusions. That’s simply part of being human. Our conclusions remain very different, but I genuinely value the fact that you’ve engaged thoughtfully and been willing to refine your position where you felt it was warranted. That’s how good conversations should work. I’m looking forward to reading the article our exchange inspired. Whether I ultimately agree with it or not, I appreciate that you’re willing to continue the conversation rather than simply defend a position. Iron sharpens iron, and these discussions have certainly sharpened my own thinking.
I understand that much of the Bible was written initially by the Levites (a priestly group, forerunner to the Pharisees), and later by the Pharisees themselves. Religion was the main method of social control with fear being the main weapon.
I get where you're coming from. A lot of what became "religion" was shaped by people in power, and fear was an easy tool to reach for.
That said, the needs religion fills are too complex to pin on a single motive. If I had to pick one of the most important angles, I'd go with identity, the glue that held tribes together. Even now, whole towns in America orbit around a shared faith. That cohesion is powerful, but it's also what makes a community vulnerable to social control through religion.
The tricky part, historically, is that a community's shared religion often wasn't its own choice. The power holders picked, and everyone else followed. That's how whole nations switched faiths.
Another vanished figure that would be interesting to explore would be Lilith
I agree, it’s in the works, maybe after I wrap up The Making of Yahweh.
A good introduction to the evolution of Yahweh. Threre are also the Elephantine inscriptions, don't forget them.
NB As far as I am aware, the "Elohim" frequently mentioned in the Bible is the plural of "El" and should be translated "the gods" and not "God".
Good catch on Elephantine, that's a great addition. For anyone reading along who hasn't run into it: the Elephantine papyri come from a Jewish military colony in Egypt around the fifth century BCE, and they show Yahweh being worshipped alongside other deities, including a goddess figure, which is exactly the kind of on-the-ground evidence that complicates the monotheism-from-the-start story. It's on my list for the series.
On Elohim, you're right about the morphology, it's grammatically the plural of El (or eloah), so "gods" is the literal sense.
What do you have to say about the following:
1) the oldest biblical literature (predating your archaeological evidence) treats Yahweh and El as synonymous and interchangeable figures.
2) The use of polemics such as the one you reference in psalm 68 actually work in favor of Israel’s monotheism as a way to emphasize the distinction between the Gods
3) Finding archeological evidence of Yahweh and his Asherah also confirms exactly what the prophets were arguing against in their writings.
If you read the Bible slowly (and without bias) surely you will see that it is your own misguided scholarship that is faulty…
I would like to add the lingering presence of Asherah as the “Sabbath Queen” whose spirit enters into the candle lighting ritual of the mother of the home at sundown.
Let’s not forget the Egyptian neighbors of the Israelites, who introduced the idea of One God, the Sun God, of Akenaten. “May His Countenance shine down upon you”…
There’s some great videos/articles actually proving all of this to be wrong and misinterpreted to fit the narrative of people and their obsession with trying to disprove the Biblical stories. They explicitly talk about Asherah and her poles SO many times in the Bible and if you read the entire thing thoroughly, you’d see it. I thank you for your page Tanner, your articles have actually made me dig deeper for answers and ultimately/inevitably grow in my faith towards Yahweh the most high and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Thanks for reading and leaving your perspective!
To clarify, the piece isn't intended as anti-Christian propaganda. The facts and evidence highlighted here are widely accepted even by most Christian scholars in Catholic, Anglican, and Mainline Protestant traditions, and some of these foundational archaeological projects were even funded by major church institutions themselves.
For these historians, tracing how early Yahwism emerged out of the West Semitic world isn't about 'disproving' anything; it's just following the empirical evidence where it leads.
Rejections of these archaeological findings usually come from strict confessional or evangelical circles, where historical methodology is constrained by rigid theological boundaries.
That said, academic history and personal faith operate on two very different wavelengths. I'm glad the article pushed you to dig deeper into the sources, and I appreciate you joining the discussion!
This reminds me of a really good short book called THE LAST MYTH, that reconstructs the building of the apocalypse through time.
http://www.intergalacticmedicineshow.com/cgi-bin/mag.cgi?do=columns&vol=randall_hayes&article=037
Asherah is not forgotten, this is how we have Easter. Asherah is still recognised (even by devout Christians) as the original Ēostre or Ostara (Easter), and the source of all our Easter Eggs.
https://gnostic.substack.com/p/easter-eggs
I always thought the Abrahamic religions ripped off Zoroastrianism.