Proceedings of the Society of Biblical ArchæologyProceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. Volume XI., XIXth Session. Eighth Meeting, June 4th, 1889. Society of Biblical Archaeology

" 'Astoreth and the 'Ashera,"' by Rev. G. W. Collins. The writer reviews the opinions of Movers, Studer, Bertheau, Kuenen, and Sayce, but cannot accept any of them. IHis chief points are 1) that, while the 'Ashtoreth is not sufficiently near to the Assyro-Babylonian Itar to make it necessary that the attributes of the latter should also belong to the former, still, allowance being made for differences in surroundings, the Phoenician 'Ashtoreth has much in common with Istar; 2) the worship of the goddess was licentious and sensual, as can easily be seen from the inscription at Larnaca and the so-called "prostitution-caves" near Gebal and Tyre; 3) the position of the goddess became considerably lowered in passing through the Babylonians, Assyrians and Phoenicians until among the Israelites she was the mere double of Baal. As to 'Ashera, according to the writer, it was neither a goddess nor a representation of a goddess. He would derive the name from Assyr. igaru with the meaning phallus, and would explain its constant connection with Baal, by the fact that it represented the phallic aspect of the Baal cultus. The 'Ashera is either a sacred tree or pole and has no connection with 'Ashtoreth or any other female divinity. Rev. C. J. Ball transliterates and translates two passages from Nebuchadnezzar, cylinder 85-4-30, 1. These passages bring us nothing new, containing, as they do, some variant readings about Nebuchadnezzar's buildings. Mr. Ball's etymologies both here and throughout his commentaries on the different Nebuchadnezzar inscriptions are bold, many of them being quite doubtful. He does not seem to be acquainted with the published literature. In the latter part of the " proceedings," Mr. Ball and Dr. Bezold indulge in polemics over the " Nin-mag' " inscription. On pages 326-413, Prof. Sayce gives a translation of "The Cuneiform Tablets of Telel-Amarna, now preserved in the Boulak museum." It is to be regretted that Prof. Sayce could not give us the texts also, as in many instances, his readings do not agree with those of Dr. Winckler. Thirty-three tablets are transliterated and translated with notes. In addition to the Boulak tablets, Prof. Sayce has copied others in the possession of Rostovitch-Bey, M. Goldnisheff and the Rev. Chauncey Murch. These texts are most difficult and Prof. Sayce's work is that of the pioneer. Hence a great many readings and explanations are only provisional. Many of them will, doubtless, be given up, when the el-Amarna literature has been more thoroughly studied. The language of these tablets is very peculiar, as everyone knows, and Prof. Sayce is inclined to think that on some tablets, we have the Hittite.