This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
There's no word which can be fairly directly or literally translated as "pole" in the original Hebrew of Deuteronomy 16:21, just the words "Asherah kol-`ets", which mean literally something like "(an) Asherah of any tree" or "(an) Asherah of any wood". AnonMoos 18:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Very true, but see reference to the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in The Bible entry currently in the article. ◄Zahakiel► 00:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The article starts out asserting with this piece "[...] followed the typical pattern of Levantine worship, focused on an Earth Mother and her snake consort." This seems to be the conjecture of one author which doesn't seem to have much basis in current archaeological understanding. It would in fact seem to contradict it. Unless someone can put up a better argument in support of this and in contradiction of most archaeological evidence, I would say this should be stripped from the article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This was removed twice (3 times now) and I replaced it because although I didn't know the book, it was clearly relevant. The third time it was removed again with an edit summary "please review the actual article linked to: substandard article, no references, and not even part of the Asherah pole article's textual citations". That is not a good reason to remove it -- in fact pointing to the article might lead people to improve it. The book itself is widely referenced in other scholarly works, and if it had been in the textual citations (which it is now), it would be wikified and therefore shouldn't be in see also anyway. As it is in the body of this article now I'm obviously not going to replace it in See also. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)