102 Seung Il Kang Sea, having been dismantled by King Ahaz, already went out of use in the eighth century B. C. E. (2 Kgs 16,17). The repeated occurrences of the root qxy in 1 Kgs 7 (vv. 16. 23. 24. 30. 33. 37), particularly in verse 24, may also have occasioned the association of qxwm µyh with the root qxy. 1 Kgs 7,24, which describes the Sea’s cast decorations, deserves particular mention: “Two rows of gourds were cast with its [the Sea’s] casting” (wtqxyb µyqxy µy[qph µyrwf ynç). Note that in the Hebrew phrase wtqxyb, it is the suffix, not the noun hqxy, that refers to the basin. The noun simply denotes the metal casting of the basin and has little connection with the actual name of the Sea. Thus, the phrase should not be taken as evidence for the traditional derivation of qxwm µyh from qxy. As for the function of the Sea, the paucity of reliable data renders it difficult to define the basin’s use. Strangely enough, no practical function is given in 1 Kings. We only get a glimpse of its application from the Chronicler’s sketchy comment that “the sea was for the priests to wash in” (2 Chr 4,6). Given its enormous size, elaborate ornamentation, and the lack of explanation of its function in Kings, the basin’s presence was, in all probability, primarily symbolic, and by the time of the Chronicler when the basin no longer existed, its symbolic value was also lost. It has been shown that the earlier Solomonic Temple, as an earthly replica of the divine abode, was replete with mythological elements, such as the representations of cherubim, lions, palm trees and open flowers (1 Kgs 6,29. 7,36). One is also reminded, in this connection, of the epithets of the altar and of its base in Ezekiel’s vision of the new Temple. The altar is given the name lyara or larh, the latter being understood to mean “the mountain of God” (Ezek 43,15-16). In addition, the base of the altar is called ≈rah qyj “the bosom of the earth” (Ezek 43,14). These names, without doubt, have cosmic, mythological resonances. The basin’s religious significance in the Solomonic Temple was comparable to that of the altar as suggested by the fact that the basin and the altar were the two most important cultic appurtenances occupying the court of the Temple. Accordingly, the name of the basin should be one that best illustrates the basin’s religious and cosmic import as discussed below. The creator god’s conflict with the chaotic force of the primordial waters is well attested in ancient Near Eastern literature. This motif’s Hebrew version contains particular allusions to the Sea as Yahweh’s primary antagonist in creation. The name qxwm µyh can be understood against this mythological backdrop. Whether Israelite kingship was sacral remains a moot question. But as regards its related issue of the New Year festival in ancient Israel, many scholars seemingly believe that the Israelites celebrated a festival analogous to the Babylonian Akitu festival during which Enuma Elish was recited (5). In the Babylonian festival, Marduk’s overpowering his enemies and establishing an order, as narrated in the myth, functioned to ensure the (5) P.D. MILLER, “Israelite Religion”, The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (eds. D.A. KNIGHT – G.M. TUCKER) (Philadelphia 1985) 220-222; J.J.M. ROBERTS, “Mowinckel’s Enthronement Festival: A Review”, The Book of Psalms. Composition and Reception (ed. P.W. FLINT ET AL.) (Leiden 2005) 97-115.