JEWISH, PH@INICIAN, AND EARLY GREEK ART, ETC. 47 
is the connexion with and influence of the Phoenicians upon the Jewish 
people. I agree in much that Dr. Porter has said upon this subject, but there 
is a good deal as to which I differ from him. The Temple of Solomon was 
certainly of Phoenician architecture. There can be no doubt as to that. It 
was probably copied from existing Phcenician temples, but those temples 
were themselves merely copies of the temples of Chaldea. I may also state 
that the worship of Astoreth was likewise the worship of the Goddess 
Istar of Chaldea. In the construction of the Temple of Solomon we have 
an exactly similar arrangement to that of the oldest temples of Chaldea ; 
and not only is the arrangement the same, but, as I pointed out a few weeks 
ago, the very names of the different parts of the temple are the same. The 
inner portion, or Holy of Holies, was called “ Paraku,” a word which finds 
an equivalent in the Hebrew N28, or the veiled portion.* So that, when 
we attribute the temple to Phcenician origin, we must remember that the 
Pheenicians and Assyrians themselves borrowed the design and arrangement 
from Chaldea. With regard to what is said about the gold work I will not 
go into that, because it would take up too much time, but I would refer to a 
point which Dr. Porter seems to have overlooked and that has reference to 
the two great pillars, Jachin and Boaz. I know that they have been subjects 
of considerable discussion, but I think their origin is clearly traceable in the 
stones or pillars we see standing in front of the Phoenician temples. I may 
here specially refer to the coins of Bylbus, where you see two pillars standing 
in front of the temple, and there is an inscription which Dr. Porter does not 
quote but which was discovered by M. Renan and published in his work 
on Phoenicia, and also, with careful corrections, in a later work on the 
inscriptions, wherein reference is made to the erection of columns in front 
of the temple and the making of a brazen altar. This is an inscription of 
much antiquity. I am not quite sure of the date, but I know it is older than 
the Eshmtinazar inscription, and is a most interesting commentary on the 
construction of the Temple of Solomon. Again, I cannot agree with Dr. 
Porter’s explanation of the name of Baal-bek. We have no authority for 
saying that the word “Bek” means a city, and with regard to the word 
“ Astarte,” referred to by Mr. Saunders, I cannot quite accept his etymology. 
The word seems to have been clearly established by M. Ganneau, who has 
shown that in the old Semitic and Assyrian languages there was the root 
“satar,” “to shine,” from Istar, and Astarte, the Goddess of the night or 
the morning star, as they derived their names. With regard to the Pheeni- 
cians in Greece, that is a subject of great interest and one that has been 
greatly elucidated by the monuments discovered in Cyprus, and also by those 
of Mycenz and Troy discovered by Dr. Schliemann. The monuments dis- 
covered at Troy are of great interest because of the negative evidence they 
may be said to give. I would refer you on this point to the discussion in 
the Times and other papers with regard to Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries at 
* M355, or veil.—J. L. P. 
