Biblical Archaeology Review

On the Israelite nature of Taanach at this period, see, for example, Amihai Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (Doubleday: New York, 1990), p. 333; and see Joshua 12:21, 21:25, 1 Kings 4:12.

See Hans-Peter Stahli, Solare Elemente im Jahweglauben des Alten Testaments (Freiburg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), p. 4. On a solar understanding of “Yahweh of Hosts,” see further my Yahweh and the Sun, pp. 99–105.

Hestrin, “Understanding Asherah,” p. 58.

Hestrin, “Cult Stand from Taanach,” p. 71.

See Yigael Yadin, Hazor: The Rediscovery of a Great Citadel of the Bible (New York: Random House, 1975), p. 186–189, for illustrations and discussion of the Hazor figurine.

An indirect allusion to chariotry may be inferred from the presence not only of a horse in relation to the sun, but from the presence of a griffin as well. Both were commonly thought to draw the chariot of the sun god in the Graeco-Roman world. For notes and reference, see J.Glen Taylor, Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel, (JSOTSup 111; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), pp. 34–36.

Letter to the author from Professor Peter W. Physick-Sheard. Hestrin claims to rely on the assessment of Prof. Eitan Cernov of the Hebrew University for the identification of the animals (“Cult Stand from Taanach,” p. 56, n. 5). With the help of my friend Israel Ephal, I contacted Professor Cernov to see why his opinion differed from the judgment of the experts I consulted. Professor Cernov stated emphatically that he never had more than passing familiarity with the stand.

Hestrin, “Cult Stand from Taanach,” p. 75.

Ruth Hestrin, “The Cult Stand from Taanach and its Religious Background,” Studia Phoenicia V (1987), pp. 67–71, 74; Hestrin, “Understanding Asherah: Exploring Semitic Iconography,” BAR 17:05.