unto one ring: thus shall it be for them both; they shall be for the two

corners.

25 And they shall be eight boards, and their sockets of silver, sixteen sockets; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board. 26¶ And thou shalt make bars of shittim wood; five for the boards of the one side of the tabernacle,

27 And five bars for the boards of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the boards of the side of the tabernacle, for the two sides westward.

28 And the middle bar in the midst of the boards shall reach from end to end.

a cubit to the width of the structure, making up with the six boards of full width (v. 22) ten cubits in the clear (see on v. 18). There is no occasion to imagine, as some have done, that each of them consisted of two strips mitered together longitudinally so as to form a corner by itself. They may have been simple boards with the width of half a cubit added to the thickness of the boards of the sides. The boards at the corners were to be coupled together at the top "unto one ring," and at the bottom "unto one ring," and each ring was to be so formed as to receive two bars meeting at a right angle.

26, 27. See on v. 28, and Note at the end of the chapter, § I.

27. for the two sides westward] for the back towards the west. Cf. v. 22.

28. in the midst of the boards] The middle bar was distinguished from the other bars by its reaching from end to end. The Hebrew might mean either that the midst throughout which it ran was the middle between the top and the bottom of the boards, or that it was a passage for it bored through the substance of the wood out of sight. The latter would seem to have been the notion of our translators. See xxxvi. 33. But if we suppose the boards to have been of ordinary thickness [see on v. 16], by far the more likely supposition is that the bar was visible and passed through an entire row of rings. In either case, it served to hold the whole wall together. On the probable relation of this middle bar to the others, see Note and woodcut, p. 377.

29. overlay... with gold] See on xxv. II. their rings] See on v. 28. 30. Cf. xxv. 9, 40.

29 And thou shalt overlay the boards with gold, and make their rings of gold for places for the bars: and thou shalt overlay the bars with gold.

9, 40.

30 And thou shalt rear up the tabernacle according to the fashion a chap. 25. thereof which was shewed thee in the Acts 7. 44mount.

31 ¶ And thou shalt make a vail of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen of cunning work: with cherubims shall it be made:

32 And thou shalt hang it upon four pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold: their hooks shall be of gold, upon the four sockets of silver.

33 And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest

Heb. 8. 5.

The Vail and the Holy Places. 31-35. (Cf. xxxvi. 35, 36.) 31. vail] The Hebrew word literally means separation [see on xxxv. 12].

blue, and purple, and scarlet] See on xxv. 4. tained linen] See on v. I.

of cunning work, &c.] of work of the skilled weaver [see on v. 1, and on XXXV. 35] shall it be made, with Cherubim.

cherubims] The vail of the first Temple Iwas in like manner adorned with Cherubim (2 Chron. iii. 14). It is remarkable that Josephus describes the vail of the Tabernacle as woven with flowers and all sorts of ornamental forms, except the figures of living creatures ('Ant.' III. 6. §4). He himself calls the Cherubim living creatures (Ant.' III. 6. § 5), and he must have known that Ezekiel does so (x. 20). He is thus plainly at variance with the statement in Exodus. But can it be that he describes the vail according to the one which existed in the Temple in his time? If so, we obtain a striking instance of the operation of the superstition with which the Jews in later times, including Josephus himself, interpreted the second commandment (see Ant.' VIII. 7. § 5, and note on Ex. xx. 4). It may suggest a thought, if we may conceive that the vail of the Temple which was rent at the Crucifixion had been deprived of its characteristic symbol by the dark prejudices of the chosen people.

32. pillars of shittim wood, &c.] Rather, pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold, their hooks also of gold, upon four bases of silver. Cf. xxxvi. 36.

33. under the taches] These taches are not, as some suppose, the same as the books of the preceding verse. The Hebrew words

bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.

34 And thou shalt put the mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony in the most holy place.

35 And thou shalt set the table without the vail, and the candlestick over against the table on the side of the tabernacle toward the south: and

are quite different. These are the taches of the tabernacle-cloth (see v. 6). On the difficulty of the statement, see Note at the end of the chapter, § I.

34. mercy seat upon the ark of the testimony] See on xxv. 10-16. The Samaritan text here inserts the passage regarding the Altar of Incense from ch. xxx. 1-10. The omission of all mention of this altar in this place is strange, but the reading of the Samaritan bears marks of an intended emendation, and cannot represent the original text. 35. candlestick] See on xxv. 31. table] See on xxv. 23.

The Front of the Tent.

36, 37. (Cf. xxxvi. 37, 38.) 36. hanging] Rather, curtain [see on xxvii. 16].

the door of the tent] the entrance to the Tent. The word is pethach, that is the opening which it is the office of the door (deleth), or as in this place, of the curtain (māsāk), to close. The distinction between

thou shalt put the table on the north side.

36 And thou shalt make an hanging for the door of the tent, of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, wrought with needlework.

37 And thou shalt make for the hanging five pillars of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold, and their hooks shall be of gold: and thou shalt cast five sockets of brass for them.

door and entrance is generally overlooked in our version. See on Lev. viii. 3.

wrought with needlework] the work of the embroiderer. The breadths of the cloth and the vail of the Tabernacle were to be of the work of the skilled weaver; the entrance curtain of the Tent and that of the Court (xxvii. 16) were to be of the same materials, but embroidered with the needle, not wrought in figures in the loom. [See on v. I, and on xxxv. 35.]

37. banging] curtain as in v. 36.

five pillars] These, it should be observed, belonged to the entrance of the Tent, not, in their architectural relation, to the entrance of the Tabernacle [see Note, § III.].

overlay them with gold] See on xxv. 11.

their books] See on v. 33. These pillars had chapiters (capitals), and fillets (connecting rods, see on xxvii. 10), overlaid with gold (xxxvi. 38). Their bases (see on v. 19) were of bronze (like the taches of the tentcloth), not of silver, to mark the inferiority of the Tent to the Tabernacle.

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABERNACLE. I. The Mishkān, its Tent and its Covering II. Common view of the arrangement of the parts. III. Mr Fergusson's theory. IV. The place of the tabernacle cloth. V. Symmetry of the proposed arrangement. VI. The Court.

The chief portions of the structure are described with remarkable clearness in Exodus xxvi. and a second time in ch. xxxvi. It would however seem that those parts only are distinctly mentioned which formed visible features in the completed fabric. Mere details of construction were most probably carried out according to the mechanical usage of the

time.

If we take this for granted, the sacred text appears to furnish sufficient information to enable us to realize with confidence the form

and the general arrangements of the Tabernacle as well as of its Court. But the subject has with certain traditional notions which are opbeen encumbered ever since the time of Philo1 posed not only to the words of Exodus, but to the plainest principles of constructive art.

I.

It has been already stated that three principal parts of the Sanctuary are clearly distinguished in the Hebrew, though they are conThese parts are— founded in most versions. I. THE DWELLING PLACE, or THE TABERNACLE, strictly so called; in Hebrew, hammishkan (n) [note on xxvi. 1]. 2. The TENT, in Heb. obel (p). 3. The COVERING, in Heb. mikseb (opp)

1 Vit. Mos.' III. 4 sq.
2 Introd. Note to chap. xxvi.

1. The materials for THE MISHKAN were a great cloth of woven work figured with Cherubim measuring forty cubits by twentyeight cubits, and a quadrangular enclosure of wood, open at one end, ten cubits in height, ten cubits in width and thirty cubits in length. The size of the Tabernacle cloth is indicated beyond the reach of doubt by the number and dimensions of the ten breadths (or "curtains") of which it consisted1. The size of the wooden enclosure is made out almost as certainly from the number and measurements of the boards2.

The boards were set upright, each of them being furnished at its lower extremity with two tenons which fitted into mortices in two heavy bases of silver. The whole of these bases placed side by side probably formed a continuous wall-plinth3. The boards were furnished with rings or loops of gold so fixed as to form rows, when the boards were set up, and through these rings bars were thrust. There were five bars for each side of the structure and five for the back. The middle bar of each wall "was to reach from end to end," and this plainly distinguished it from the other four bars. It is inferred with great probability that this middle bar was twice as long as the others, that there were three rows of rings, and that the half of each wall was fastened together by two of the shorter bars, one near the top, the other near the bottom, while the two halves were united into a whole by the middle bar reaching from end to end". Thus each wall must have been furnished with four short bars and one long one. Each of the rings near the top and the bottom of the two corner boards was shaped in some way so as to receive the ends of two bars, one belonging to the back, the other to the side, meeting at a right angle. In this way the walls were "coupled together" at the corners".

There is nothing said from which we can decide whether the rings and bars were on the outside or the inside of the wooden structure. From the rich materials of which they were made, it seems not unlikely that they constituted an ornamental feature on the inside. It may be added, that on the inside they would tend to make the structure firm more than on the outside.

So far it is not difficult to see nearly what THE MISHKAN must have been. But it is not so easy to determine the way in which the great figured cloth that belonged to it was arranged. The question must be considered in connection with the description of the parts

of the TENT.

1 Ex. xxvi. 1-6; xxxvi. 8—13.

2 See on Ex. xxvi. 18.

3 See on xxvi. 19.

4 Ex. xxvi. 26-28; xxxvi. 31-33.

5 See on Ex. xxvi. 28, and woodcut, p. 377. • Ex. xxvi. 24; xxxvi. 29.

There is another difficulty, by far less easy of solution, which may be stated here. It affects the internal arrangement. The vail which separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was suspended from golden hooks attached to four pillars overlaid with gold, standing upon silver bases. But the position of these pillars is not mentioned in Exodus. It is indeed said that the vail was hung "under the taches?." Now the taches of the tabernacle cloth must have been fifteen cubits from the back of the Mishkan, that is, half way between its back and front. But according to Philo, Josephus, and all tradition, supported by every consideration of probability, the vail was ten cubits, not fifteen, from the back, and the Holy of Holies was a cubical chamber of corresponding measurement. The statement that the vail was hung "under the taches" remains unexplained. But this difficulty is by no means such as to be set in opposition to any view that may meet all other conditions expressed or involved in the narrative.

2. The TENT is described as consisting of a great tent-cloth of goats' hair, which, according to the number and dimensions of its breadths, was forty-four cubits by thirty 8, and five pillars overlaid with gold standing on bases of bronze, and furnished with golden hooks from which was suspended the curtain

that served to close the entrance of the Tent9.

3. Of the CoVERING of rams' skins and tachash skins, nothing whatever is said except as regards the materials of which it was composed 10.

II.

It has been usual to represent the Tabernacle as consisting of the wooden structure which has been described, with the masses of drapery and skins thrown over it "as a pall is thrown over a coffin." There was first the figured

7 Ex. xxvi. 33. This is not mentioned in ch. xxxvi., where the manufacture of the parts, and not their arrangement, is spoken of. It has been imagined that the taches were the same as the hooks from which the vail was actually hung (Ex. xxvi. 32). But the words are quite distinct. The word rendered tache is keres (D), which is supposed to be derived from a root which signifies to bind; that rendered hook, is vāv (11), which is the name of the Hebrew letter shaped like a hook suited for hanging anything on (1); its origin is unknown. Keres is used only in reference to the taches of the tabernacle-cloth and of the tent-cloth of the Sanctuary (Ex. xxvi. 6, 33, &c.), and vav only in reference to the hooks of the vail and of the tent-curtain.

8 Ex. xxvi. 7-13; xxxvi. 14—18.

9 Ex. xxvi. 36, 37; xxxvi. 37, 38.

10 Ex. xxvi. 14; xxxvi. 19. See on xxv. 5.

cloth recognized as part of THE MISHKAN, then the goats' hair cloth of the TENT, and then the twofold COVERING of skins.

A modification of this arrangement was suggested by Vater and adopted by Bähr1, which has the advantage of displaying the figured cloth and of connecting it more strictly with the Mishkan, though in no very graceful or convenient manner. It was supposed that this cloth was strained over the top of the structure like a ceiling and fastened to the top of the boards in some way, so as to hang down and cover the walls on the inside as a tapestry, leaving a cubit at the bases of the boards bare, to show as a sort of skirting.

With the exception of certain expressions in Josephus, the whole current of opinion seems to have been in favour of this general arrangement of the parts of the Tabernacle. But it should be kept in view that the subject is one in which tradition cannot be of much value. We may allow that it is just possible, though by no means probable, that some points of detail besides what are actually recorded, or some special knowledge of the meaning of technical terms, may have been handed down from the time of Moses. But in a case of this kind we certainly need not hesitate to set tradition aside, whenever it is in conflict either with the letter of Scripture, or with reasonable probability.

The objections to the common theory are these:

1. The arrangement proposed makes out the fabric to have been unsightly in its form

and to have had a great part of the beauty of its materials entirely concealed.

2. It would be quite impossible to strain drapery over a space of fifteen feet, so as to prevent it from heavily sagging; and no flat roof of such materials could by any means be rendered proof against the weather.

3. It is hard to assign any use to the pins and cords of the Tabernacle (which would be essential in the construction of a tent") if the curtains and skins were merely thrown over the woodwork and allowed to hang down on each side.

4.

The shelter of the Mishkan is always called in Hebrew by a name which, in its strict use, can denote nothing but a tent, properly so called, of cloth or skins.

5. An essential part of the Tent was the row of five pillars at its entrance: if we suppose these five pillars to have stood just in front of the Mishkan, they must have been strangely out of symmetry with the four pillars of the vail, and the middle pillar must have stood needlessly and inconveniently in the way of the entrance.

III.

We are indebted to Mr Fergusson for what may be regarded as a satisfactory reconstruction of the Sanctuary in all its main particulars. He holds that what sheltered the Mishkan was actually a Tent of ordinary form, such as common sense and practical experience would suggest as best suited for the purpose.

those which formed visible features in the fabric. On this ground we may be allowed to suppose that there was not only a ridgepole, but a series of pillars at the back of the Tent corresponding in height with those at the front. Such a ridge-pole, which must have been sixty feet in length, would have required support, and this might have been afforded by light rafters resting on the top of the boards, or, as is more in accordance with the usage of tent architecture, by a plain pole in the middle of the structure. Over this framing of wood-work the tentcloth of goats' hair was strained with its cords and tent-pins in the usual way. There must also have been a back-cloth suspended from the pillars at the back. The heads of the pillars appear to have been united by connecting rods (in our version, "fillets") overlaid with gold. [See xxxvi. 38.]

IV.

377

the Tabernacle-cloth of fine linen and coloured The next inquiry relates to the position of yarns.

It is evident that the relation in which the measurement of the tabernacle-cloth stood to that of the tent-cloth had an important bearing on the place of each of them in the structure. The tent-cloth is said to have extended a cubit on each side beyond the tabernaclecloth, and it appears to have extended two cubits at the back and front. It would appear then that the tent-cloth was laid over the tabernacle-cloth so as to allow the excess divided between the two sides and between of the dimensions of the former to be equally the back and front. We may from these particulars infer that the tabernacle-cloth served as a lining to the other, and that they were both extended over the ridge-pole. In this way, the effect would have been produced of an ornamented open roof extending the length of the Tent.

V.

Mr Fergusson has pointed out the very remarkable consistency of the measurements of the different parts, if we accept this mode of putting them together. He assumes the angle formed by the roof to have been a right angle, as a reasonable and usual angle for such a roof, and this brings the only measurements which appear at first sight to be abnormal, into harmony. Every measurement given in the text is a multiple of five cubits, except the width of the tabernacle-cloth, which is twenty-eight cubits, and the length of the tentcloth, which is forty-four cubits. With a right angle at the ridge, each side of the slope as shewn in this section would be within a

1 Mr Fergusson considers that "the middle bar in the midst of the boards" (Ex. xxvi. 28; xxxvi. 33) was the ridge-pole, and he would render the verse, "And the middle bar which is between the boards shall reach from end to end." But even if this rendering is allowable, we venture to think that the expression "from end to end" cannot, according to the context, refer to the Tent, but only to the wooden part of the Mishkan (see Plan, p. 378). Moreover, the methodical arrangement of the descriptions would be disturbed by the mention of the ridge-pole in Ex. xxvi. 28 and in xxxvi. 33. It could only be introduced in proper order in connection either with the cloth of the Tent (after xxvi. 13 and xxxvi. 18), or with its five pillars (after xxvi. 37 and xxxvi. 36). As however, according to the view here given, there Imust have been a ridge-pole of some sort, the question involves no essential particular of the construction of the fabric. See on xxvi. 28.

2 Ex. xxvi. 14; xxxvi. 19. See note on xxv. 5.

fraction of fourteen cubits (14.08), half the width of the tabernacle-cloth. The slope is here carried just five cubits beyond the wooden walls and to within just five cubits of the ground. The tent-cloth would hang down in a valance on each side, one cubit in depth 6.

3 Ex. xxvi. 13. 4 Ex. xxxvi. 9, 13. 5 Ex. xxvi. 13.