Groves.—` The Grove,' or the Groves,' as the word Asherah, 711Ch4, and its plural are ren dered in the A. V., are constantly mentioned with high places. At first sight the common LX X. rendering, followed by our version, seems to carry conviction with it, from the connection of high places with worship under the trees, and the preva lence of nature-worship in Palestine ; but a closer examination shews that something of the character of an image must be intended. In a previous article [AsicroxETH) the reasons for this conclu sion have been stated, and it has been proposed to adopt the theory which makes Asherah a name for Ashtoreth, as the goddess of good for tune, a sense of the former taken from the root he, or it, was straight, right,' and hence, fortunate.' It is especially noticed, in favour of this identification, that the grove, or groves, occur with Baal like Ashtoreth ; that the LXX. renders asherah by Astarte in 2 Chron. xv. 16, P.S does the Vulg. in Judg. 7, and conversely Ashtoreth by groves in I Sam. vii. 3. But it may be objected that it is very stmnge that two names should be applied to the same goddess in writings of the same age, and that she should be indiscrimi nately mentioned by her usual proper name and as a statue, for asherah, if a proper name, certainly would indicate a statue ; that the root equally allows us to understand by asherali something upright, set up ; and that isolated renderings of the LXX. and Vulg. may merely indicate errors of copyists. Sup posing that the radical meaning indicates something upright or set up, which seems always, be it recol lected, to have been made of wood, do we find anything in ancient idolatry to warrant the trans lation grove ?' It must be remembered that the grove is constantly connected with Baal. On the ancient Egyptian monuments, the figure of Khem, the god of productiveness, is constantly accom panied by the representation of one or more trees or plants. In the plates of Sir Gardner Wilkin son's Ancient Egyptians we observe the following variations in these objects. A shrine, from which rises a double flower like two blossoms of thelotus, behind Khem (here as AMEN-RA KA-MUT-EF, Amen-ra, who is male and female,' pl. 22) ; a shrine, from which rise a flowcr and two trees, be hind Khem (pl. 26); a great nosegay in effigy, car ried before, and another, behind an image of Khein ; behind the same image, a sacred chcst adorned with rosettes, upon which are five representations of trees ; and behind an image of Khem, a flower and two other objects (pl. 76). It is quite evident that all these trees and flowers are imitations, on account of their dimensions, and, in some cases, the manner in which they are attached to shrines or the like. From their forms and size, compared, in the latter particular, with their being portable, it is equally certain that they must have been generally, if not always, of wood. It is not necessary to
prove how completely they agree with the idola• trous objects rendered groves' in the A. V. Are we to suppose that the LX X. translators adopted the meaning in consequence of their observing objects in Egyptian idolatry which aptly corres ponded, letting alone the signification grove' as probably not derivable from the Hebrew, to the idolatrous objects connected with the woiship of Baal and Ashtoreth ; and, further, that the groves of Egypt and Palestine were identical ? The for mer question seems easily answered affirmatively, the latter suggests several curious inquiries. We have to determine how far Baal and Ashtoreth were identical with Khena, whether the worship of groves is to be traced to Egypt, and what is the etymology of the name asherah. Khern is the Egyptian personification of the productive ness of nature ; hence the connection of these vegetable objects with his worship is easily under stood. Baal is sometimes connected with produc tiveness, and Ashtoreth has certainly this relation. Perhaps they may be reasonably supposed to represent the two ideas that are expressed in the title of Khem, who is male and female.' But it is to be observed that the name of Baal is found or the Egyptian monuments as equivalent to that of Set or Sutekh, the personification of physical evil. The idea conveyed by the latter is so opposed to that of Baal that we may reasonably conjecture that the identification was founded upon something different from a comparison of the supposed cha racteristics of these idols. It seems reasonable to trace it to some such idea. as that the personifica tion of physical evil would be the protector of the warlike enemies of Egypt. Khem, if the name be correctly read, was probably introduced from the East, and perhaps from Palestine. Ashtoreth, like Baal, is mentioned on the Egyptian monuments. She is worshipped as a foreign divinity, and is con nected with Set (Chabas, Papyrus Magique Bar ris, pp. 55, seqq.) The worship of groves may have been common from a remote period to Egypt and Palestine, or it may have been derived from Egypt. This question depends for its resolution very much upon the degree of completeness which the worship of Khem may be supposed to have attained at the time of its first introduction into Egypt, if introduced into that country. With refer.
ence to the etymology of asherah, we fad no reason for considering it anything but Hebrew, nor have we any ground for supposing it to have been adopted from the resemblance of a Hebrew to an Egyptian word.—The question of the connection of the Israelite groves and the like Egyptian ob jects with primitive low nature-worship will be considered in the article IDOLATRY.—R. S. P.