Divided Kingdom Chronology

There are a lot of things I no longer agree with the Chronology of Bishop James Ussher on. But I still prefer his timeline for the Divided Kingdom over the more modern reconstructions that move the death of Solomon from 975 to 930 BC. 

One article defending Ussher I am familiar with but can’t entirely endorse their methods is Evidentialism–The Bible and Assyrian Chronology by Larry Pierce for Answers in Genesis from April 2001.  One out of date argument in that article (not really relevant main topic hand but still bugs me) is thinking Nabonidus and Belshazzar were different names for the same person, we definitely now know Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus and I don’t think that was unknown in 2001. 

I also recommend a YouTube video by Caleb Howelis about determining the date of the founding of Carthage using the Kings list of Tyre. His agenda is how Fall of Troy chronology I'm not endorsing but it is relevant to assumptions about when Hiram and thus Solomon lived. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuLW2G7O3Cc

As far as the the chronological confusion that has led many to date the siege of Jerusalem in the 14th year of Hezekiah  by Sennecherib in 2 Kings 18-19 and 2 Chronicles 32 and Isaiah 36-37 to 701 BC which Ussher’s chronology places in 710 BC when our current understanding of the Assyrian Kings list says Sargon II was still King.

We know from comparing the Tartan verses, 2 Kings 18:17 and Isaiah 20:1, that a Sargon was also King at this time. Wikipedia currently estimates Sennecherib was born in 745 BC meaning he was about 35 in 710 BC. I think this was Sennecherib leading the campaign as Regent under his father just like how Nebuchadnezzar first pops up in Biblical History campaigning under his father at Carchemish, going of The Bible alone you would have no clue his father was still reigning at that time.

The last verses of 2 Kings 10 and Isaiah 37 skip way ahead out of chronological sequence to tell us how Sennecheirb eventually died, they are not saying that happened immediately.

Sennecherib may have carried out a campaign in Judah during his own reign not recorded in The Bible, but Kings and Chronicles keep reminding us they aren’t recording everything.  A fact very relevant to the reason for much of this discrepancy. 

In Ussher’s timeline the three year siege of Samaria began in 724 BC and ended in 721 BC. The timeline for the Biblical dates combined with the modern timeline for the Assyrian kings helps resolve an alleged contradiction between The Bible and Assyrian sources; the siege began under Shalmanezer V but ended under Sargon II. The Bible only mentions the name Shalmanezer at the start of the Siege.

The Bible doesn’t start talking about Assyria (academically called Neo-Assyria) interacting with Israel till the time of Menachem ben Gadi in 2nd Kings 15. But Assyria clearly started taking note of Israel back in the days of the House of Omri as they kept calling this kingdom the House of Omri and it's ruler Son of Omri even when they destroyed it a few dynasties later. And from the records we currently have that seems to have started with Shalmanezer III, but it could have started earlier. 

Ussher's timeline for Menachem ben Gadi would have to make the Assyrian King called Pul the same as Ashur-Dan III. We currently have no Assyrian accounts of him carrying out campaigns in the western Levant, but the mainstream timeline has the same issue with him being Asshur-Nirari V.  The argument that Pul is the same King as Tiglath-Pileser III can't hold, The Bible consistently distinguishes them. 

Shalanezer III’s reign is currently dated to 859-824 BC or 858-823 BC. 

Assyrian records have some references that have led to a belief he was contemporary with both the later reign of Ahab and early reign of Jehu (and by implication Jehoshaphat and Jehoram in Judah). But the proper Biblical timeline as counted by Ussher has Jehu end his reign by dying in 856 BC in the 23rd year of Joash son of Ahaziah king of Judah and succeeded as king of Israel by his son Jehoahaz according to 2 Kings 10 and 13-14.. 

The two relevant synchronisms are conventionally dated to 853 and 841 BC. The first being the Battle of Qargar. 

The Kurkh Stele does not say Hadadezer was a king of Damascus, he alone seems to have where he ruled exactly left blank.  Biblically there is no Hadadadezer in the time of Omri, Ahab or Jehu, Aram-Damascus was ruled this era by first a Ben-hadad and then Hazael who will be relevant later. Biblically the name Hadadezer is never linked to Aram-Damascus but to Aram-Zobah in 2 Samuel 8 and 1 Kings 11:23. in the time of David.  Zobah is modern Homs very near Hamath, and it’s a leader of Hamath listed on the Kurkh stele between Hadadezer and Ahab.

I lean towards “Israel” actually reading “Jezreel” here, that is irrelevant to if this Ahab is king Ahab son of Omri as he did rule from Jezreel for much of his reign. What is relevant is that the Kurkh Stele uses Sar and not Melek.I’ve seen it argued that Sar and Melek are referred in their rank implication how the Assyrian used them, but regardless this is describing foreigners from the western Levant. 

Ahab isn’t even the only name on this list; that's also the name of a King of Israel who Ussher has reigned before the time of Salmanever III. We also have Basha son of Ruhibi of the land of Ammon.  I think he was a tribal leader of Trans-Jordan Israelites whose territory was part of land God originally gave to Ammon according to Deuteronomy 2-3. So not even the same tribe as the much earlier Basha king of Israel who was an Isscharite. 

So I also believe that this Ahab is just a prince of Israelites in the Jezreel valley leading an army as part of this coalition. 

I don't know why some Wikipedia pages say a Hadadezer is named in the Tel -Dan Stele, the only Hadad on that Stele is the god named just Hadad.

Hazael was still ruling as King of Aram-Damascus in 839 BC in Ussher’s chronology, so him being active in 841 BC is not an issue, it’s only the use of the name Jehu in that year. 

The King of Israel in 841 BC in Ussher’s Chronology is still Jehoahaz. Not only is Jehoahaz the son of Jehu, but the entire Hebrew spelling of Jehu is the first four letters of Jehoahaz. Jehoahaz being called Jehu isn’t just possible, I’d dare call it inevitable. 

Jehu (and by extension his sons) being called “Son of Omri” is only treated as in conflict with what The Bible says by the most extreme of obsessed secularists, but usually just for the reason that clearly the Assyrian records did not know or care if that usage was literally genealogically accurate, and I don’t disagree.  But I do want to add that Jehu being an actual grandson or great-grandson of Omri isn’t as Biblically implausible as people assume.

We are never told all Omri’s descendants are wiped out, only that Ahab has no male-line descendants left by the time Jehu finishes killing his sons as Jezreel. Ahab had a daughter who became an ancestor to future Kings of Judah including Jesus. But more importantly a sibling of Ahab could have been a parent or grand parent or Jehu. 

So why weren’t Hazael and Jehoahaz at Qarqar?  IDK the then King of Judah isn’t mentioned either no one wants to explain that in the mainstream view?  Maybe they simply had to send proxies this time for whatever reason.  But some armies listed don’t have a leader named, including ones where also the conventional theory on where they refer to I find iffy. But I’m not writing this post to fully settle that.

One pillar of Ussher’s argument for 390 years from the death of Solomon to the Fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC was his interpretation of Ezekiel 4:9-5.  

But I also did the math myself on all the reign lengths of Judah’s Kings and it came to a totally of 393 years and 6 months (plus 10 days in Chronicles), and there is wiggle room for those extra three and half years regarding these reigns not being years to the day no doubt, as well as that some date the Fall of Jerusalem to 586 BC.

Rehoboam reigned 17 years based on 1 Kings 14:21 and 2 Chronicles 12:13

Abijam/Abijah reigned 3 years based on 1 Kings 15:2 2 Chronicles 13:2

Asa reigned 41 years based on 1 Kings 15:10 

Jehoshaphat reigned 25 years based on 1 Kings 22:42 and 2 Chronicles 20:31

Jehoram/Joram reigned 8 years based on 2 Kings 8:17 and 2 Chronicles 21:5-20

Ahaziah reigned 1 year? based on 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2

Athaliah reigned 6 years according to 1 Kings 11:3 and 2 Chronicles 22:12

Jehoash/Joash reigned 40 years based on 2 Kings 12:1 and 2 Chronicles 24:1 

Amaziah reigned 29 years based on 2 Kings 14:2 and 2 Chronicles 25:1

Uzziah/Azariah reigned 52 years based on 2 Kings 15:2 and 2 Chronicles 26:3

Jotham reigned 16 years based on 2 Kings 15:32-33 and 2 Chronicles 27:1

Ahaz reigned 16 years based on 2 Kings 16:2 and 2 Chronicles 28:1 

Hezekiah reigned 29 years based on 2 Kings 18:2 and 2 Chronicles 29:1

Manasseh reigned 55 years based on 2 Kings 21:1 and 2 Chronicles 33:1

Amon reigned 2 years based on 2 Kings 21:19 and 2 Chronicles 33:21

Josiah reigned 31 years based on 2 Kings 22:1 and 2 Chronicles 34:1

Jehoahaz reigned three months based on 2 Kings 23:31 and 2 Chronicles 36:2

Jehoiakim reigned 11 years based on 2 Kings 23:36 and 2 Chronicles 36:5

Jehoiachin reigned three months based on 2 Kings 24:8 and three months and ten days in 2 Chronicles 36:9

Zedekiah reigned 11 years based on 2 Kings 24:18 and 2 Chronicles 36:11

Going back to what interested Caleb Howelis. One popular date for the founding of Carthage is 826 BC which in Ussher's chronology is coincidentally the same year Joash/Jehoash King of Israel invaded Judah under King Amaziah temporarily took him prisoner and pillaged The Temple. Maybe that had some butterfly effect influence on things going on in Lebanon. I’m increasingly 

813 BC was during the reign of Jeroboam II of Israel and Amaziah still reigning in Judah. 

Yesterday I made my argument for one area where I disagree with Ussher by arguing Solomon reigned longer than traditionally thought. 

Solomon Reigned more then 40 years.

I have argued before that Solomon was the youngest son of Bathsheba. But even if he was conceived right after the child who died like traditionally assumed, it still seems unlikely he was a whole 20 when he became King based on how much stuff in David's reign happened before all of this. 

But there are reason besides his age I doubt Solomon had married or had kids before he became King, certainly not one of his Ammonite wives as his taking wives from those peoples is firmly tied to his errors made after reigning for awhile, the daughter of Pharoah was the first of them and she definitely didn't predate him becoming King. 

1 Kings 14:21-31 and 2 Chronicles 12:13 tell us Rehoboam was the son of an Ammonite wife named Naamah.  As well as that he was 41 years old when he began to reign. 

So the popular view that Solomon reigned only 40 years is an issue.

1 Kings 11:42/2 Chronicles 9:30 say Solomon reigned in Jerusalem 40 years. And while you can justifiably interpret that as applying to his entire reign even considering what I'm about to point out, it's not the only interpretation. 

Because 1 Kings 9:10/2 Chronicles 8:1 tell us The Temple and his Royal Palace were under construction for 20 years. And 1 Kings 6:1-37/2 Chronicles 3:2 say it was 3 years into his reign he began building The Temple.

1 Kings 3:1 says when Solomon married the Daughter of Pharoah he first brought her into The City of David. 1 Kings 9:24 and 2 Chronicles 8:11 had him bring her out of the City of David and into Jerusalem at the end of that 20 year period. 

As I have firmly proven in a prior post, The City of David was never Jerusalem Biblically.

So it sounds like Solomon ruled from the City of David till all the construction was complete.

So that's a total of 63 years.

But most important to wider chronology, it adds 20 years BC to when the foundations of The Temple were laid.  

If you accept the mainstream view of the Divided Kingdom period then the starting of The Temple is moved from 966 BC to 986 BC and thus a face value reading of 480 years before that for the Exodus is 1466 BC. 

Adding only this correction to Ussher's numbers moves the Exodus from 1492 BC to 1512 BC. I still think Ussher is right on the Divided Kingdom period, each Assyrian connection used to move the timeline down is flawed. 

But I unlike Ussher hold an Acts 13 view of The Judges period. Before I came to this conclusion about Solomon's reign that had me favoring a 1606 BC Exodus but that's now corrected to a 1626 BC Exodus with the entry into Canaan happening in 1586 BC.

So the (with some margin of error) roughly 1573 BC Carbon date estimate for the Destruction of Jericho is not the a problem for Biblical Chronology, nor does it require any Revised Chronology. 

The reconciliation with the 480 year reference is that that number excluded the time spend under oppression and the 2 year reign of Abimelech.

There is no good argument for The Amarna Letters being before The Conquest.

A lot of people don't understand how complex the Biblical picture of the Judges period is which is why so many people have trouble buying that the Amarna Letters are any period after Joshua.  

All the Authors of those letters are Pagan Canaanites and that's what I'd expect from The Biblical depiction.  The major players are all among cities Judges 1 and other passages (Like Joshua  16:10 and 17:11-12) tell us were still Canaanite at least till the time of David (unless they are arguably outside the range of what was allotted to Israel entirely) Gezer, Megiddo, Jebus/Jerusalem, Sidon and her daughter Tyre.  And it could be more cities were Canaanite then just the ones The Bible specified, Pella in the Trans-Jordan does not seem to be directly mentioned in Scripture at all, but most of the Roman era Decapolis cities were ones that had stayed Canaanite. Gibeon is a uniquely complicated situation.

Jericho was a very important Canaanite city until it was destroyed in Joshua, and their most ancient. It's complete absence from the Amarna Letters is a huge problem for any model that places the Conquest of Canaan later. The only destruction of Jericho in the archeological record big enough to match what Joshua describes is the one from the 16th Century BC. 

The Israelites entered Canaan as primarily a pastoral nomadic people, for all of the Judges Period a good percentage of them, maybe even the majority, probably didn't even live in cities but preferred the rural life.  Judges 1 clarifies how The Israelites initially mainly took over in the most mountainous regions while the Canaanites held out in the plain. 

But the main cities we know were Israelite cities during this period do not have Kings or Mayors who wrote letters to Pharaoh at Amarna.  Hebron, Lachish, Bethlehem, Kirathjearim and Bethgader in Judah, Gibea in Benjamin, Bethel. Shiloh, Shechem and Tirzah in the House of Joseph's allotment. Japhia and the other Bethlehem in Zebulun, Kedesh-Naphtali and so on.  Some of these cities are mentioned in the letters, some Canaanite Kings claimed sovereignty over them, but Kings do love to claim to be King of more then what they actually controlled in practice.

Labaya is the enigma, he's not really linked to a specific city the way the others are, he's been called the King of Shechem by modern scholars but that's actually a city he claims is in his domain and is not depicted as his capital at all.  David Rohl argues for him being Saul and other revised chronologies have tried almsot every major Northern Kingdom monarch.  But again Gezer shows that the post Solomon period can be ruled out for Amarna.  And I really don't see Saul writing these kinds of letters to Pharaoh, even during his darker final years.

Labaya could just be a King of one of the Judges 1 Canaanite cities who's Amarna era King isn't specifically known, probably one of the Jezreel Valley ones disputed between Issachar and Manasseh in Joshua 17:11 and Judges 1:27.  Taanach is seemingly missing from the Amarna records, and it's far enough south to be in the West Bank on a modern Map of Israel, since Labaya's fall was at the hands of nearby Gina/Jenin it fits well.  The name of Labaya however is believed to come from a word for Lion, and a famous Stele at Bethshean depicts a Lion and Lioness.  Another Semitic word for Lion is Gur often translated "whelp" as in a baby lion, and Gur is also a place name connected to Ibleam in 1 Kings 9:27.  Dor is also missing from the Amarna records, Labaya could have ruled an alliance of everyone in those verses but Megiddo.

In my current mindset I'm trying really hard NOT to resort to Revised Chronology, to come up with an Exodus model compatible with convention mainstream Egyptology (but probably not a typical reading of Biblical Chronology).

But I certainly can't support what is within that framework called a Late Date for the Exodus, which I honestly think is just motivated by a desire for The Ten Commandments film to still be correct. In fact even most are calling an Early Date for the Exodus I consider too late. That's stuff I'll get into elsewhere. 

I agree however with popular late dater Dr. David A. Falk that Habiru does have a connection to the Biblical term Hebrew but isn't always a 1 to 1 equivocation. However where I disagree is concluding no one would have called the Israelite Hapiru anymore once the Conquest of Joshua was "complete", to the Canaanite living in those cities and plains the Israelites were still outcasts living among them.  The Hebrew Bible is just an account of that history from the POV of those outcasts. 

The notion that the Conquest ever was "complete" in Joshua lifetime is a misunderstanding caused by some of The Bible's hyperbole.  It was a process that took centuries.

So the Hapiru of the Amarna Letters I believe includes the Israelites, but the Israelites may not be the only people being called that. Another designating I believe the Israelites were apart of but not a 1 to 1 exuviation is the Shasu. 

What was going on when Peleg was born?

 Peleg was born 101 years after The Flood according to the Masoretic Text’s version of Genesis 11, but 401 years after The Flood according to Samaritan Pentateuch version and 531 years after The Flood according to the Septuagint/LXX version.

I consider the Septuagint version the least likely to be the original for a number of reasons. I've talked about my opposition to the Septuagint primacy cultists before. In the case of Genesis 11 the addition of Cainan is obviously Christian copyists forcing him in to reconcile with Luke 3, the numbers given to him being just a copy/past of Salah/Selah’s make that obvious.  Cainan’s inclusion isn’t the only difference between the LXX and the Samaritan versions of Genesis 11 but it is the only one relevant to the question of when Peleg was born. 

Many make Peleg’s birth year also their year for the division of languages after the Tower of Babel project was stopped because of what Genesis 10:25 says about why Peleg was named Peleg. 

“And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.”

But the Hebrew word for “divided” used here is palag Strong Number H6385 which is distinct from parad H6504 used in Genesis 10:5 and 32 in reference to the division of languages. 

The other use of palag is Job 38:25 which talked about a watercourse being divided. In fact other Hebrew words clearly cognate with palag and Peleg are words translated river or stream like H3688 and H3690. These Hebrew words are likely cognate with the Assyrian Palgu which refers to the dividing up of lands by canals and irrigation systems. An Akkadian city called Phalgu was located at the conjunction of the Eurphates and Chebar rivers. 

Classical Greek was influenced by Semitic languages via its iron age contact with Phoenician sea traders, so it may be worth adding that Pelagos is an ancient Greek word for “sea”.  Its contrast with Thelassa or Pontos seems to be in part about being enclosed by islands rather than having only one straight connecting it to other seas. But it also looks to me like seas called a Pelagos are generally shallower and not as deep, like they could be places that were once dry land when sea levels were lower.

I think it’s possible there was a slow rising of sea levels during the early Post Flood centuries caused by waters frozen at the icecaps during The Flood slowly melting.

Genesis 10:25 says the Earth was divided while the verses using parad and Genesis 11 are the people being divided. And in Biblical Hebrew eretz didn’t mean a planet but dry land in contrast to the seas and oceans as we see in Genesis 1:10.

There is another interpretation of what kind of division palag refers to here which is that it’s just about borders between being cemented. That and the water level thing could go together. 

This makes it highly likely that what happened around when Peleg was born was later than the Tower of Babel incident rather than before. Which is a circumstantial argument for the Samaritan version being more correct then the Masoretic since I think it likely took over a century for there to be enough people to do the Tower of Babel in the first place. 

The Cleansing of The Temple didn’t actually happen in The Temple (depending what you mean by The Temple)

There is more than one Greek Word for Temple (same with Hebrew), most New Testament references use one of two main ones.

Naos is a word that arguably strictly speaking would for The Jerusalem Temple refer only to the Building that contains The Holy Place and Holy of Holies, but maybe could extend to include the Inner Court where the Brazen Altar is. Which is the entirety of what most modern Christians are usually thinking of when they say simply "The Temple".

Heiron however is a much broader term, it could refer to a very large religious complex, and in The context of The Jerusalem Temple I strongly suspect was applied to the entire Temple Mount, Haram Al Sharif.

Every reference to the location of The Cleansing of The Temple uses Hieron, Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 2:14, each use Hieron. The only use of Naos in any of these Chapters is when John 2 later refers to the Body of Jesus. 

This is important because when you know the details of how this whole area worked in The First Century, the context of what Jesus is doing makes clear he is nowhere near The Inner Court. 

The place where these kinds of financial transactions went on, exchanging currencies to then buy Animals to be Sacrificed, was at the Royal Stoa (Not to be confused with Solomon’s Porch) which was part of Herod's southern expansion of The Temple Mount.  

Where this was on the modern Map of Jerusalem is the Silver Domed Al Aqsa Mosque. Muslim Usage did and sometimes still does use Al Aqsa for the entire Temple Mount and specifically The Dome of The Rock, but function wise the Golden Domed building is a Shrine while the proper Mosque is the Silver Domed structure on the Southern End of the Mount.

Now I have come to agree that the Dome of The Rock is where The Temple was at least in terms of Latitude. So it’s notable here that the Royal Stoa wasn’t just south of that but very far south, one alternate Temple location theory suggests you could rebuild The Temple between the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of The Rock without touching either and with plenty of extra space in between. 

Because the whole point of needing those Money Changes was that the regular Roman Currency with Caesar's Image on it wasn't allowed anywhere near the actual Temple.

This distinction is lost on the way many weaponize this narrative for modern purposes.  I’m a Leftist who fully supported the Minnesota Protestors, but no, interrupting an actual Church Service is not equivalent to what Jesus did when he cleansed The Temple. The Cleansing of The Temple is more equivalent to disturbing a business venture a Church is doing on land it owns on a different block. 

But I’m not really offended by Leftists trying to make that point. The use of it to justify Antizionists disrupting Synagogues is much more dangerous. 

What’s also troublesome is when a Conspiracy Theorist tries to use the fact that Jesus wasn’t arrested immediately to prove He must have been working for The Romans or something. 

Even if what Jesus did was a direct disruption of the main operations of The Temple, the simple fact that He was popular with the people, had large crowds of supporters, was enough reason for the authorities to be hesitant to take action right away, especially since this was during a Pilgrimage festival.  There is text in The Gospels (chiefly Matthew 26) telling us they even later in the week they still wanted to wait till after the Festival was over, but Jesus forced their hand when He revealed to Judas that He knew what they were planning.

But on top of that based on what I just showed this was definitely still a very big deal, even viewed as sacrilegious by many, but it likely didn’t actually disrupt the overall business that much, once Jesus was done they set the tables back up and got right back to business. 

So it wasn’t worth making the commotion worse by arresting one of the most popular people in the Province while the city is at its most crowded.

Biblical Hebrew also has more then one word for Love.

I've talked before about my issues with the fixation so many have on drawing a hard distinction between the different Greek words for Love.  My lost post on that topic focusing on making Comparison to Japanese since I am somewhat of a Weeb. 

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2024/03/agape-and-eros.html

But I've also noticed a trend among people who want to argue Jesus and the Apostles and Paul actually taught in Greek, that the New Testament's usage of more then one word for Love is further evidence of it's innate Greekness.

The New Testament doesn't even use all these Greek words for Love people obsess over, it only really uses three, Aqape, Philia and Xenia. But rather then seeing that as evidence that the New Testament is only using the Greek language to express fundamentally Semitic ideas, they insist Eros was excluded deliberately, which lies at the heart of why I dislike this obsession.  

Stroge's absence from the New Testament can't be explained so ideologically however, familial love is definitely a theme in The New Testament.  The only reason for none of these texts to use a word that specifically means that, is if they are regardless of what language they were first physically written down it at their core translating ideas first formed in a language without an equivalent single word. It appears as an element of some names, but so does Eros the word these puritanical Christians want to reject. 

Xenia is used in The New Testament seemingly only ever as a word for a place of Lodging rather then a word for the abstract concept of Hospitality. Hospitality is definitely a New Testament value as we see in Hebrews 13. and when Jesus agrees with Ezekiel 16 that Inhospitality was the Sin of Sodom. Hebrews 13 uses the compound word Xenophilia which is equivalent to the Hebrew term Hachnasat Orchim.

Biblical Hebrew meanwhile has more words for Love then Greek actually, meaning the New Testament's usage of only three of it's options shows the limits of Greek in expressing Hebrew ideas. 

Ahabah and Ahab and Ohab are in the LXX interchangeably translated as both Agape and Eros, and I note again how the Song of Songs uses Agape not Eros, meaning it absolutely was applicable to Romantic/Sexual love in the minds of Ancient Greek speaking Jews. 

Meanwhile there are also the words Hesed and Rachamim and Dodim.  Rachamim is derived from the Hebrew word for Womb implying it was first thought of as an inherently Maternal kind of Love, making it's use for God's Love of Humanity quite interesting.

And one Hebrew word that doesn't come up right away when you google this topic is Agab/Egeb. In fact when you try to Google Agab or Egeb specifically now the darn AI continually assumes I'm just mis spelling something else, though the less common variant Agabah shows up just fine  These words only seem to be used in negative contexts, as if they represent the more problematic meaning of Eros. But it is used positively in Ezekiel 33:31-32.  I would also argue Ezekiel 23:11 by specifying corrupt love is clearly implying Agabah is not inherently corrupt. 

If I wanted to propose a theory that Agape was actually a Semitic loan word into Greek via Phoenician influence, Agabah is the Semitic word I would pick.  There is other precedent for a B becoming a P during such processes.  But since the variations of this word only appear in Jeremiah and Ezekiel perhaps you could argue they are foreign loan words from Greek into Hebrew. 

Asherah in The Hebrew Bible

The Canaanite Pagan goddess known by that name really isn't directly mentioned in Scripture, Asherim is a term for a type of Pagan Cultic Object translated "grove" in the KJV that is probably tied to her worship, but as far as being specific about Canaanite Goddess worship the Scriptures are far mor interested in singling out Astarte, The Queen of Heaven.

But there is a lot of talk online about a few archeological inscriptions taken as implying the Israelites worshiped Asherah as the Wife of YHWH.  There is of course plenty of dispute about that reading of these inscription, but I have an interesting theory to add.

Etymologically speaking Asherah is a feminine from of a Semitic word that means Happy or Blessed, the same root the name of Asher comes from.  In fact that first time this word appears in Scripture at all is when explaining Asher's name in Genesis 30:13.

"And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name Asher."

I looked at every other account of a son of Jacob being named in Genesis 29-30, and only in this one does the mother naming him say something to imply the Feminine from of his name could be an additional name or title for herself.

Another use of this word, when the context implies it's being used in it's feminine form, is Malachi 3:12.

"And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts."

The word for Delightsome here is the core root that Hephzibah comes from, a poetic name for the Land of Israel in Isaiah 60.

This ties into the theme of Israel being in a sense collectively the Wife of YHWH, Asharah is among her poetic alternate names in that context. 

But there is also some New Testament significance I could add, from Luke 2.

Verse 28 the Angel first appears to Mary and says;

"Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

Then there's the Visitation, 41-48.

"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.  For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed."

If they were originally speaking Hebrew, it's plausible Asharah is the word for Blessed they were using.

This does NOT vindicate Catholic Marian Veneration. It only further shows that Mary being an important woman from the Bible doesn't change that Veneration of Images of her are Idolatry.