ties he was the same as Ibzan of Jg 12'""* (se« Moore, Judges, p. 310). The difiiculties of the chronology of the genealogy from Perez to David have not yet been satisfactorily cleared up. The narrator of B.'s marriage does not hint at any irregularity in it such as we should expect if Ezr 9'- ' and Neh 13* or even Dt 23*' * were known to him.
H. A. Redpath.
BOAZ (lyS, LXX BaXdf in B, and Bo4s in A of 1 K 72' ; in 2 Ch 3" the LXX has 'lincOs ' strength'). — The name of one of the two pillars erected in the porch of .Solomon's temple, the other being Jacliin, I K 7=',2 Ch 3", Jer 52-i- ^. 'Boaz' stood on the left looking eastward, i.e. it was on the north side of the entrance of the temple. Its height was 18 cubits, its circumference 12, its diameter being conse- quently 35«r cubits. Surmounting it was a chapiter 5 cubits high, ornamented with network and with pomegranates (Jer 52*'- '^). There is, however, a good deal of confusion as to the ornamentation of the chapiters, though all agree that they were lUy-shapea at the top. The apparent discrepancy as to its height is owing to the fact that the ornament uniting the shaft to the chapiter is sometimes included in the reckoning, and some- times not. ' Jachin ' and ' Boaz ' were exactly of the same form and size ; both were hollow and made of brass, the thickness of the brass being four fingers, i.e. 4 inches (Jer 52-').
Ewald, Thenius, Merx, and Nowack are of opinion that these pillars served for supports to the roof of the house. Nowack {Bib. Arch. ii. 33) refers to Ezk 40-49 as showing that the pillars of Ezekiel's temple were supports ; but the passage does not prove that they were more than orna- ments. On the other hand, Hirt, Stieglitz, Cugler, Schnaase (all architects), Biihr, Riehm, Keil, and Luniby argue that the pillars stood in the porch, unconnected at the top, and that the only function they served was that of ornamentation. (See Keil, Bib. Arch. i. 169 f. ). In favour of this opinion are the following points : (1) The ornamentation on the top already mentioned. (2) Their height was 23 (18-1-5) cubits. Now the porch was, according to 2 Ch 3' and Jos. {Ant. vill. iii. 2), 120 cubits; according to Bertheau 30 ; but in the opinion of most critics it was 20 cubits high, answering to the length (see PoRCH). None of those measure- ments would suit if the pillars stood under and supported the roof of the porch. (3) The pillars were hollow. (4) Hiram's work was to decorate, and not to build any essential part of the temple.
But, though no more tli.an ornaments to the Israelites, the origin of these pillars must be sought among the Syrians and Phoenicians, wlio commonly erected such pillars in front of their temples. In front of his temple at Tyre, the Syri.an god, Melkart, is represented by two pillars (flerod. 2. 44). Before the temples of Paphoa and Hierapolis there were likewise two pillars. In these cases, the [lillars stood for deity, and they formed a part of that Phallic worship of which we are finding more and more traces in the ancient world (see Dudley, Naoluqy, p. 130 f.; W. R. Cobb, Origini's .ludniiie, pp. 207-238 ; and Trumbull, Threshold Covenant, p.230n.). Nowack (ii. 34)and W. R. Smith (RS p. 191, note 1) incline to believe that even to the Israelites these pillars were symbols of J", so that, if they are right, the true God was set forth by these Phallic emblems, as in the northern kingdom He was worshipped in the form of a young Tiull (Say 'rgel). But it is un- likely, to say the least, that if tJiese pillars stood for J" we should have no iniimtttion of it in the wTitings of the OT. Benzinger (Bib. Arch. p. 385) points out that pillars of this kind are found in the front of the temple of Amon in Egypt (cf. p. 250 of the same worlc).
BOCCAS
BOLDNESS
309
But why tteo pillars, if but one deity is thns rejiresenteil ? Among the Semites and other primitive peoples, gods went in pairs, male and female, as Baal and Aahtoreth, Osiris and Isis, etc. Possibly the two pillars stood for male and female, the active and passive principle in nature. This is not necessarily opposed to the Phallic origin of the symbol, since at this stage their origin might have been wholly unknown, the mere fact of their representing deity being possibly the only thought in the mind of the peojJle.
The words 'Jachin' and 'Boaz' are certainly proper names. The LXX so regards them in 1 K 7 , out in 2 Ch 3" the words are translated KoTApffaxrd (a setting right) and "lo^r/s (strength).
Gesenius explains tlie words as names of the donors or builders. This is only a guess. No other part of the temple is de.signated in this way except Solomon's porch, which belongs to the time of Herod. Ewald (Gcsch. iii. 4) holds that they are names of honoured men, perhaps sons of Solomon. This is not more likely than Geaeuius's opinion. Keil foUows Kimchi in making the names (' He will establish,' ' In Him is strength ') symbols of the solidity and strength of the king- iotn of God among Israel, as having its central