Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

26 sqq., which overthrows this assertion, but because this sacrificial festival had no essential significance in relation to Solomon's reign.

Vers. 16-28. Solomon's Judicial Wisdom. — As a proof that the Lord had bestowed upon Solomon unusual judicial wisdom, there is appended a decision of his in a very difficult case, in which Solomon had shown extraordinary intelligence. Two harlots living together in one house had each given birth to a child, and one of them had " overlaid" her child in the night while asleep (TO n?p^ ~*®$, because she had lain upon it), and had then placed her dead child in the other one's bosom and taken her living child away. When the other woman looked the next morning at the child lying in her bosom, she saw that it was not her own but the other woman's child, whereas the latter maintained the opposite. As they eventually referred the matter in dispute to the king, and each one declared that the living child was her own, the king ordered a sword to be brought, and the living child to be cut in two, and a half given to each. Then the mother of the living child, " because her bowels yearned upon her son," i.e. her maternal love was excited, cried out, " Give her (the other) the living child, but do not slay it;" whereas the latter said, " It shall be neither mine nor thine, cut it in pieces." — Ver. 27. Solomon saw from this which was the mother of the living child, and handed it over to her.1 — Ver. 28. This judicial decision convinced all the people that Solomon was endowed with divine wisdom for the administration of justice.

Ch. iv. contains a list of the chief ministers of state (vers. 2-6), and of the twelve officers placed over the land (vers. 7-20), which is inserted here to give an idea of the might and glory of

1 Grotius observes on this: " The dy^i'votec of Solomon was shown by this to be very great. There is a certain similarity in the account of Ariopharnis, king of the Thracians, who, when three persons claimed to be the sons of the king of the Cimmerii, decided that he was the son who would not obey the command to cast javelins at his father's corpse. The account is given by Diodorus Siculus."

the kingdom of Israel under Solomon's reign. So far as the contents are concerned, this list belongs to the middle portion of the reign of Solomon, as we may see from the fact that two of the officers named had daughters of Solomon for their wives (vers. 11, 15), whom they could not possibly have married till the later years of Solomon's life.

Vers. 1-6. The Chief Ministers of State. — The list is introduced in ver. 1 by the general remark, that " king Solomon was king over all Israel." — Ver. 2. The first of the 0*1^, princes, i.e. chief ministers of state or dignitaries, mentioned here is not the commander-in-chief, as under the warlike reign of David (2 Sam. viii. 16, xx. 23), but, in accordance with the peaceful rule of Solomon, the administrator of the kingdom (or prime minister): " Azariah the son of Zadok was V&*}" i.e. not the priest, but the administrator of the kingdom, the representative of the king before the people; like |f}3 in ver. 5, where this word is interpreted by ^tan n}H, with this difference, however, arising from the article before jjjb, that Azariah was the Kohcn par excellence, that is to say, held the first place among the confidential counsellors of the king, so that his dignity was such as befitted the office of an administrator of the kingdom. Compare the explanation of 1^3 at 2 Sam. viii. 18. The view of the Vulgate, Luther, and others, which has been revived by Thenius, namely, that 13*3 is to be connected as a genitive with pfa^a in opposition to the accents, "Azariah the son of Zadok the priest," is incorrect, and does not even yield any sense, since the connection of these words with the following Elichoreph, etc., is precluded by the absence of the copula Vav, which would be indispensable if Azariah had held the same office as the two brothers Elichoreph and Achijah.1 Moreover, Azariah the son of Zadok cannot be a grandson of Zadok the high priest, i.e. a son of Ahimaaz the son of Zadok, as many infer from 1 Chron. v. 34, 35 (vi. 8, 9); for, apart from the fact that Zadok's grandson can hardly have been old enough at the time for Solomon to invest him with

1 The objection by which Thenius tries to set aside this argument, which has been already advanced by Houbigant, viz. that "if the first (Azariah) was not also a state scribe, the copula would be inserted, as it is everywhere else from ver. 4 onwards when a new office is mentioned," proves nothing at all, because the copula is also omitted in ver. 3, where the new office of V3TD is introduced.

the chief dignity in the kingdom, which would surely be conferred upon none but men of mature years, we can see no reason why the Azariah mentioned here should not be called the son of Ahimaaz. If the Zadok referred to here was the high priest of that name, Azariah can only have been a brother of Ahimaaz. And there is no real difficulty in the way, since the name Azariah occurs three times in the line of high priests (1 Chron. v. 36, 39), and therefore was by no means rare. — Ver. 3. Elichoreph and Achijah, sons of Shisha, who had held the same office under David, were secretaries of state (D^sb: see at 2 Sam. viii. 17 and xx. 25, where the different names NtW = fcW and iT"jb> are also discussed). — Jehoshaphat the son of Ahilud was the chancellor, as he had already been in the time of David (2 Sam. viii. 17 and xx. 24). The rendering of Thenius, "whilst Jehoshaphat was chancellor," is grammatically impossible. — Ver. 4. On Benaiah, compare ch. ii. 35 and the Commentary on 2 Sam. xxiii. 20. On Zadok and Abiathar, see at 2 Sam. viii. 17. It appears strange that Abiathar should be named as priest, i.e. as high priest, along with Zadok, since Solomon had deposed him from the priestly office (ch. ii. 27, 35), and we cannot imagine any subsequent pardon. The only possible explanation is that proposed by Theodoret, namely, that Solomon had only deprived him of the apxv> i-e- of the priest's office, but not of the iepwcrvvq or priestly dignity, because this was hereditary.1 — Ver. 5. Azariah the son of Nathan was over the &?P., i.e. the twelve officers named in vers. 7 sqq. Zabad the son of Nathan was?r?3 (not the son of " Nathan the priest," as Luther and many others render it). I(P is explained by the epithet appended, ^fen W"): privy councillor, i.e. confidential adviser of the king. Nathan is not the prophet of that name, as Thenius supposes, but the son of David mentioned in 2 Sam. v. 14. Azariah and Zabud were therefore nephews of Solomon. — Ver. 6. Ahishar was rjan;V, over the palace, i.e. governor of the palace, or minister of the king's household (compare ch. xvi. 9, 2 Kings xviii. 18, and Isa. xxii. 15), an office met with for the first time under Solomon. Adoniram, probably the same person as Adoram in 2 Sam. xx. 24, was chief overseer of the tributary service. He was so in the time of David also.

Vers. 7-19. Solomon's Official Persons and their Districts.— Ver. 7. Solomon had (appointed) twelve Ds?p over all Israel, who provided 0^?p3) for the king and his house, i.e. supplied provisions for the necessities of the court. These prefects are not to be regarded as " chamberlains," or administrators of the royal domains (Michaelis and Ewald), for these are mentioned in 1 Chron. xxvii. 25 sqq. under a different title. They are "general receivers of taxes," or " chief tax-collectors," as Eosenmuiler expresses it, who levied the king's duties or taxes, which consisted in the East, as they still do to the present time, for the most part of natural productions, or the produce of the land, and not of money payments as in the West, and delivered them at the royal kitchen (Rosenmuller, A. und N. Morgenland, iii. p. 166). It cannot be inferred from the explanation given by Josephus, t)ye^6ve^ koX aTpaT7]yoi, that they exercised a kind of government, as Thenius supposes, since this explanation is nothing but a subjective conjecture. * One month in the year was it every one's duty pnx by n\T) to provide." The districts assigned to the twelve prefects coincide only partially with the territories of the tribes, because the land was probably divided among them according to its greater or smaller productiveness. Moreover, the order in which the districts are enumerated is not a geographical one, but probably follows the order in which the different prefects had to send the natural productions month by month for the maintenance of the king's court. The description begins with Ephraim in ver. 8, then passes over in ver. 9 to the territory of Dan to the west of it, in ver. 1 0 to the territory of Judah and Simeon on the south, in vers. 1 1 and 1 2 to the territory of Manasseh on this side from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, then in vers. 13 and 14 to the territory of Manasseh on the other side of the Jordan, thence back again in vers. 1 5 and 1 6 to the northern parts of the land on this side, viz. the territories of Naphtali and Asher, and thence farther south to Issachar in ver. 17, and Benjamin in ver. 18, closing at last in ver. 19 with Gilead. — Vers. 8 sqq. In the names of the prefects we are struck with the fact, that in the case of five of them the names given are not their own but their fathers' names. It is very improbable that the proper names should have dropped out five times (as Clericus, Michaelis, and others suppose); and consequently there is simply the assumption left, that the persons in question bore their fathers' names with Ben prefixed as tlieir own proper names: Benlmr, Bendeker, etc., after the analogy of Bcnclianan in 1 Chron. iv. 20 and others, although such a proper name as Bcn-Abinaddb (ver. 11) appears very strange. Benhur was stationed on the mountains of Ephraim. These mountains, here only the mountainous district of the tribe of Ephraim, were among the most fruitful portions of Palestine (see at Josh. xvii. 14, 15). — Ver. 9. Bendeker was in Makaz, a city only mentioned here, the situation of which is unknown, but which is at any rate to be sought for in the tribe of Dan, to which the other cities of this district belong. Shaalbim has probably been preserved in the present Sclbit, to the north-west of Ydlo (see at Josh. xix. 42). Bcthshcmcsh, the present Ain-Shems (see at Josh. xv. 10). Blon (P^N), which is distinguished from Ajalon (Josh. xix. 42 and 43) by the epithet Bethchanan, and belonged to the tribe of Dan, has not yet been discovered (see at Josh. xix. 43). The LXX. have arbitrarily interpolated ea>? before Bethchanan, and Thenius naturally takes this under his protection, and consequently traces Bethchanan in the village of Beit Hunun (Bob. Pal. ii p. 371), but without considering that la)? yields no reasonable sense unless preceded by IP, etc (from; cf. ver. 12). — Ver. 10. Benhesed was in Arubboth, which does not occur again, so that its situation, even if it should be identical with Arab in Josh. xv. 52, as Bottcher conjectures, can only be approximatively inferred from the localities which follow. To him (ii>), i.e. to his district, belonged Sochoh and all the land of Hepher. From Sochoh we may see that Benhesed's district was in the tribe of Judah. Of the two Sochohs in Judah, that still exist under the name of Shuweikeh, it is impossible to determine with certainty which is intended here, whether the one upon the mountains (Josh. xv. 48) or the one in the plain (Josh. xv. 35). The fact that it is associated with the land of Hejoher rather favours the latter. The land of Hejoher, which must not be confounded with the city of Gath-ITepher in the tribe of Zebulun (Josh. xix. 1 3; 2 Kings xiv. 25), but was the territory of one of the Canaanitish kings who were defeated by Joshua, was probably situated in the plain (see at Josh. xii. 17). — Ver. 11. Ben-Abinadab had the whole of the high range of Dor (i^n naj, Josh. xii. 23), i.e. the strip of coast on the Mediterranean Sea below the promontory of Carmel, where the city of Dor, which has been preserved in the village of Tantura or Tortura, nine miles to the north of Csesarea, was situated (see at Josh. xi. 2). Whether this district embraced the fruitful plain of Sharon is not so clearly made out as Thenius supposes. 31J*3K-|3 stands at the head absolutely, without any grammatical connection with r»p:*73; " Abinadab: the whole of the high range of Dor," etc. The person named was probably a son of David's eldest brother but one (1 Sam. xvi. 8, xvii. 13), and therefore Solomon's cousin; and he had married Solomon's daughter. — Ver. 12. Baana the son of Ahilud was most likely a brother of Jehoshaphat the chancellor (ver. 3). This district embraced the cities on the southern edge of the plain of Jezreel, and extended to the Jordan. Taanach and Megiddo, which have been preserved in the villages of Taanuk and Lejun, were situated on the south-western border of this plain, and belonged to the Manassites (see at Josh. xii. 21, xvii. 11). "And all Bethshean," in other words, the whole of the district of Bethshean, i.e. Beisan, at the eastern end of the valley of Jezreel, where it opens into the Jordan valley (Bob. Pal. ii. p. 740 sqq.), " which (district was situated) by the side of Zarthan below Jezreel, from (the town of) Bethshean (see at Josh. xvii. 11) to Abel-Mecholah, on the other side of Jokmeam." Zarthan, also called Zcrcda (compare ch. vii. 46 with 2 Chron. iv. 17), has probably been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in Karn Sartdbeh, in the neighbourhood of which the old city probably stood, about five miles to the south of Beisan, at a point where the Jordan valley contracts (see at Josh. iii. 1G). The expression " below Jezreel " refers to " all Bethshean," and may be explained from the elevated situation of Jezreel, the present:i (see at Josh. xix. 18). According to Rob. iii. p. 163, this is " comparatively high, and commands a wide and noble view, extending down the broad low valley on the east of Beisan and to the mountains of Ajlun beyond the Jordan." The following words, " from Bethshean to Abel-Mecholah," give a more precise definition of the boundary. The LXX. have erroneously inserted /cal before jKBTTPao, and Thenius and Bottcher defend it on the strength of their erroneous interpretations of the preceding statements. Abel-Mecholah was in the Jordan valley, according to the Onomast., ten Roman miles to the south of Beisan (see at Judg. vii. 22). The last clause is not quite intelligible to us, as the situation of the Levitical city Jokmeam (1 Chron. vi. 53, or Kibzaim, a different place from the Jokneam on Carmel, Josh, xii 22, xxi. 34) has not yet been discovered

(see at Josh. xxi. 22). According to this, Baanah's district in the Jordan valley did not extend so far as Kurn Sartabeh, but simply to the neighbourhood of Zarthan, and embraced the whole of the tribe-territory of Manasseh on this side of the Jordan. — Yer. 13. Bensjeber was in Ramoth of Gilead in the tribe of Gad (Josh. xx. 8), probably on the site of the modern Szalt (see at Deut. iv. 43). " To him belonged the Havvoth Jair (Jair's-lives) in Gilead, to him the region of Argdb in Bashan, sixty great cities with walls and brazen bolts." If we look at this passage alone, the region of Argob in Bashan appears to be distinct from the Hawoth Jair in Gilead. But if we compare it with Num. xxxii. 40, 41, Deut. iii. 4, 5, and 13, 14, and Josh. xiii. 30, it is evident from these passages that the Jair'slives are identical with the sixty large and fortified cities of the region of Argob. For, according to Deut. iii. 4, these sixty fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars, were all fortified cities of the kingdom of Og of Bashan, which the Israelites conquered under Moses, and to which, according to Num. xxxii. 41, Jair the Manassite, who had conquered them, gave the name of Havvoth Jair. Hence it is stated in Josh. xiii. 30, that the sixty Jair-towns were situated in Bashan. Consequently the 'iK fan S? in our verse is to be taken as a more precise definition of 'tfl WJ rnn ft, or a clearer description of the district superintended by Bengcber, so that Gilead is used, as is frequently the case, in the broader sense of Perosa. Compare with this the Commentary on Deut. iii. 4 and 13, 14, where the names 3i"}K and rrin are explained, and the imaginary discrepancy between the sixty Jair's-towns in the passages cited, and the twentythree and thirty cities of Jair in 1 Chron. ii. 22 and Judg. x. 4, is discussed and solved. And when Thenius objects to this explanation on the ground that the villages of Jair cannot be identical with the sixty fortified cities, because villages of nomads and strongly fortified cities could not be one and the same, this objection falls to the ground with the untenable interpretation of rrin as applying to nomad villages. — Ver. 14. Ahinadab the son of Iddo received as his district Mahanaim, a fortified and probably also a very important city to the north of the Jabbok, on the border of the tribe of Gad, which may perhaps have been preserved in the ruin of Mahneh (see at Josh. xiii. 2 6 and Gen. xxxii. 3). n?^™?, to Mahanaim (cf. Ewald, § 216, a, note), with n local, probably referring to the fact that Ahinadab was sent away to Mahanaim. — Yer. 15. Ahimaaz, possibly Zadok's son (2 Sam. xv. 27, xvii. 17 sqq.), in Naphtali. This does not denote generally " the most northern portion of the land, say from the northern end of the lake of Gennesaret into Coele-Syria," as Thenius supposes; for the tribe-territory of Asher, which had a prefect of its own, was not situated to the south-west of Naphtali, but ran along the west of Naphtali to the northern boundary of Canaan (see at Josh. xix. 24—31). He also (like Ben-Abinadab, ver. 11) had a daughter of Solomon, Basmath, as his wife. — Ver. 16. Baanah the son of Hushai, probably the faithful friend and wise counsellor of David (2 Sam. xv. 32 sqq., xvii. 5 sqq.), was in Asher and T\S?V2} a name quite unknown. If 1 forms part of the word (Baaloth, according to the LXX., Vulg., Syr., and Arab.), we must take it as a district, since the preposition 2 would necessarily have been repeated if a district (Asher) had been connected with a town (Baaloth). In any case, it is not the city of Baaloth in the Negeb of Judali (Josh. xv. 24) that is intended. — Ver. 17. Jchoshaphat the son of Paruach, in Issachar; i.e. over the whole of the territory of that tribe in the plain of Jezreel, with the exception of the cities of Taanach, Megiddo, and Bethshean, which were in the southern portion of it, and were allotted to the Manassites, and, according to ver. 12, were put under the care of Baanah; and not merely in the northern part of Issachar, " with the exception of the plain of Jezreel," as Thenius erroneously maintains. Zebulun may possibly have also formed part of his district, if not entirely, yet in its southern portion, provided that the northern portion was assigned to Ahimaaz in Naphtali, since Zebulun had no prefect of its own. — Ver. 18. Shimei the son of Elah, possibly the one mentioned in ch. i. 8, in Benjamin. — Ver. 19. Geber the son of Uri, in the land of Gilead, i.e., as the apposition " the land of Sihon... and of Og..." clearly shows, the whole of the Israelitish land on the east of the Jordan, as in Deut. xxxiv. 1, Judg. xx. 1, etc., with the simple exception of the districts placed under Bengeber and Ahinadab (vers. 13 and 14). 3^3 ins, * one president was it who (was) in the land (of Gilead)." yp. cannot signify a military post or a garrison here, as in 1 Sam. x. 5, xiii. 3, etc., but is equivalent to 2%*, the president (ver. 7). The meaning is, that notwithstanding the great extent of this district, it had only one prefect.

In ver. 20 the account of Solomon's officers is closed by a general remark as to the prosperous condition of the whole nation; though we miss the copula Vav at the commencement. The words, " Judah and Israel were numerous as the sand by the sea," indicate that the promise given to the patriarchs (Gen. xxii. 17, cf. xxxii. 13) had been fulfilled. To this there is appended in ch. v. 1 the remark concerning the extent of Solomon's sway, which prepares the way for what follows, and shows how the other portion of the promise, " thy seed will possess the gates of its enemies," had been fulfilled. — The first fourteen verses of ch. v. are therefore connected by the LXX., Vulg., Luther, and others with ch. iv. It is not till ch. v. 15 that a new section begins.

Chap. iv. 21-28 (v. 1-8). Solomon's Eegal Splendour. — Ver. 21. "Solomon was ruler over all the kingdoms from the river (Euphrates) onwards, over the land of the Philistines to the border of Egypt, who brought presents and were subject to Solomon his whole life long." Most of the commentators supply ^V] before DW?a pK (even to the land of the Philistines) after the parallel passage 2 Chron. ix. 26, so that the following?tta IV) would give a more precise definition of the terminus ad quern. But it is by no means probable that W, which appears to be indispensable, should have dropped out through the oversight of a copyist, and it is not absolutely necessary to supply it, inasmuch as 3 may be repeated in thought before 'S pK from the preceding clause. The participle D^ap is construed ad sensum with nte?D|>. Bringing presents is equivalent to paying tribute, as in 2 Sam. viii. 2, etc. — Vers. 22 sqq. The splendour of the court, the consumption in the royal kitchen (vers. 22-25), and the well-filled stables (vers. 26-28), were such as befitted the ruler of so large a kingdom. — Vers. 22, 23. The daily consumption of Drip (food or provisions) amounted to thirty cors of fine meal (rkp = O^n n?D} fine sifted meal, Ex. xxix. 2; for Too see also Lev. ii. 1) and sixty cors of npp, ordinary meal, ten fattened oxen, twenty pasture oxen, which were brought directly from the pasture and slaughtered, and a hundred sheep, beside different kinds of game, lb, tcop6<z, the later name for iDfy the largest dry and also liquid (ch. v. 11) measure of capacity, contained ten ephahs or baths, i.e., according to the calculation made by Thenius, 15,300 cubic inches (Dresden) = about

1|- scheffel;* so that ninety cors would amount to 171 schcffel, from which 28,000 lbs. of bread could be baked (Theol. Stud. %ind Krit. 1846, pp. 132, 133). And "if we reckon 2 lbs. of bread to each person, there would be 14,000 persons in Solomon's court." The consumption of flesh would be quite in proportion to that of bread; for ten fattened oxen, twenty oxen from the pasture, and a hundred sheep, yield more than 21,000 lbs. of meat, that is to say, a pound and a half for each person, " assuming, according to the statements of those who are acquainted with the matter, that the edible meat of a fat ox amounts to 600 lbs., that of an ox from the pasture to 400 lbs., and that of a sheep to 70 lbs." (Thenius ut sup). This daily consumption of Solomon's court will not appear too great, if, on the one hand, we compare it with the quantity consumed at other oriental courts both of ancient and modern times,2 and if, on the other hand, we bear in mind that not only the numerous attendants upon the king and his harem, but also the royal adjutants and the large number of officers employed about the court, were supplied from the king's table, and that their families had also to be fed, inasmuch as the wages in oriental courts are all paid in kind. In addition to this, game was also supplied to the king's table: viz.!w stags, *3* gazelles, "WD£ fallow-deer, and D*W»j B*W3 " fattened fowl." The meaning of D^SH? is doubtful. The earlier translators render it birds or fowl. Kimchi adopts the rendering "capons;" Tanch. Hieros. "geese," so called from their pure (113) white feathers; and both Gesenius and Dietrich {Lex) decide in favour of the latter. The word must denote some special kind of fowl, since edible birds in general were called Dnsy (Neh. v. 18). — Vers. 24, 25. Solomon was able to appropriate all this to his court, because (s3) he had dominion, etc.;... and (ver. 25) Israel and Judah enjoyed the blessings of peace during the whole of his reign, von "QJT733, " over all the other side of the river (Euphrates)," i.e. not the land on the east, but that on the west of the river. This usage of speech is to be explained from the fact that the author of our books, who was living in exile on the other side of the Euphrates, describes the

2 According to Athen. Deipnos. iv. 10, the kings of Persia required a thousand oxen a day; and according to Ta vernier, in Rosen muller's A.u.N. Morgenlayid, iii. pp. 166, 167, five hundred sheep and lambs were slaughtered daily for the Sultan's court.

extent of Solomon's kingdom taking that as his starting-point. Solomon's power only extended to the Euphrates, from Tiphsach in the north-east to Gaza in the south-west. npQn (crossing, from nDQ) is Thapsacus, a large and wealthy city on the western bank of the Euphrates, at which the armies of the younger Cyrus and Alexander crossed the river (Xen. Anab. i. 4; Arrian, Uxped. Alex. iii. 7). Gaza, the southernmost city of the Philistines, the present Guzzeh; see at Josh. xiii. 3. The ^V s?pD "inan are the kings of Syria who were subjugated by David (2 Sam. viii. 6 and x. 19), and of the Philistines (2 Sam. viii. 1). u And he had peace on all sides round about." This statement does not "most decidedly contradict ch. xi. 23 sqq.," as Thenius maintains; for it cannot be proved that according to this passage the revolt of Damascus had taken place before Solomon's reign (Ewald and others; see at ch. xL 23 sqq.). — Ver. 25. " Judah and Israel sat in safety, every one under his vine and his fig-tree." This expresses the undisturbed enjoyment of the costly productions of the land (2 Kings xviii. 31), and is therefore used by the prophets as a figure denoting the happiness of the Messianic age (Mic. iv. 4; Zech. iii. 10). "From Dan to Beersheba," as in Judg. xx. 1, etc. — Ver. 26. This verse is not to be regarded " as a parenthesis according to the intention of the editor," but gives a further proof of the peace and prosperity which the kingdom and people enjoyed under Solomon. Solomon had a strong force of war chariots and cavalry, that he might be able to suppress every attempt on the part of the tributary kings of Syria and Philistia to revolt and disturb the peace. "Solomon had 4000 racks of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 riding horses," which were kept partly in Jerusalem and partly in cities specially built for the purpose (ch. ix. 19, x. 26; 2 Chron. i. 14, ix. 25). DWK (40) is an old copyist's error for nJJ-fnK (4), which we find in the parallel passage 2 Chron. ix. 25, and as we may also infer from ch. x. 26 and 2 Chron. i. 14, since according to these passages Solomon had 1400 33*1 or war chariots. For 4000 horses are a very suitable number for 1400 chariots, though not 40,000, since two draught horses were required for every war chariot, and one horse may have been kept as a reserve, nyix does not mean a team (Ges.), but a rack or box in a stable, from R"W, carpere. According to Vegetius, i. 56, in Bochart (Hicroz. i. p. 112, ed. Eos.), even in ancient times every horse had its own crib in the stable just as it has now. Bottcher (n. ex. Krit. Aehrcnl ii. p. 2 7) is wrong in supposing that there were several horses, say at least ten, to one rack. 33TO3 is used collectively for "chariots." — Ver. 27. "And" = a still further proof of the blessings of peace — "those prefects (vers. 7 sqq.) provided for king Solomon, and all who came to the king's table, i.e. who were fed from the royal table, every one his month (see at ver. 7), so that nothing was wanting (ver. 28), and conveyed the barley (the ordinary food of cattle in Palestine and the southern lands, where oats are not cultivated) and the straw for the horses and coursers to the place where it ought to be. To "W'K ny nvp the LXX., Vulg., and others supply SRBn as the subject: wherever the king might stay. This is certainly more in harmony with the imperfect HW than it would be to supply Bfcnn, as Bochart and others propose; still it is hardly correct. For in that case Bb^J] D^iDp could only be understood as referring to the chariot horses and riding horses, which Solomon kept for the necessities of his court, and not to the whole of the cavalry; since we cannot possibly assume that even if Solomon changed his residence according to the season and to suit his pleasure, or on political grounds, as Thenius supposes, though this cannot by any means be inferred from ch. ix. 18 and 19, he took 16,000 horses about with him. But this limitation of the clause is evidently at variance with the context, since D^D^> KOiTi too plainly refer back to ver. 6. Moreover, " if the king were intended, he would certainly have been mentioned by name, as so many other subjects and objects have come between." For these reasons we agree with Bottcher in taking n\T indefinitely: "where it (barley and straw) was wanted, according to the distribution of the horses." Bb"J probably denotes a very superior kind of horse, like the German Renner (a courser or race-horse). iDSE>»3 B^K, every one according to his right, i.e. whatever was appointed for him as right.

Vers. 29-34. Solomon's Wisdom. — Ver. 29. According to His promise in ch. iii. 12, God gave Solomon wisdom and very much insight and X>. ^T1, * breadth of heart," i.e. a comprehensive understanding, as sand by the sea-shore, — a proverbial expression for an innumerable multitude, or great abundance (cf. ch. iv. 20, Gen. xli. 49, Josh. xi. 4, etc.). nean signifies rather practical wisdom, ability to decide what is the judicious and useful course to pursue; rwajjl, rather keenness of understanding to arrive at the correct solution of difficult and complicated problems; 37 Zirn, mental capacity to embrace the most diverse departments of knowledge. — Ver. 30. His wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the sons of the East, and all the wisdom of the Egyptians. D*Jp> *33 (sons of the East) are generally the Arabian tribes dwelling in the east of Canaan, who spread as far as to the Euphrates (cf. Judg. vi. 3, 33, vii. 12, viii. 10, Job i. 3, Isa. xi. 14, etc.). Hence we find EHiJ H.N used in Gen. xxv. 6 to denote Arabia in the widest sense, on the east and south-east of Palestine; whereas in Gen. xxix. 1 ^I.P. *3? H? signi£Les the land beyond the Euphrates, viz. Mesopotamia, and in Num. xxiii. 7, fflg ^TVi, the mountains of Mesopotamia. Consequently by " the sons of the East " we are to understand here primarily the Arabians, who were celebrated for their gnomic wisdom, more especially the Sabaeans (see at ch. x.), including the Idumseans, particularly the Temanites (Jer. xlix. 7; Obacl. 8); but also, as bb requires, the Chaldseans, who were celebrated both for their astronomy and astrology. "All the wisdom of the Egyptians," because the wisdom of the Egyptians, which was so greatly renowned as almost to have become proverbial (cf. Isa. xix. 11, xxxi. 2, and Acts vii. 22; Joseph. Ant. viii. 2, 5; Herod, ii. 160), extended over the most diverse branches of knowledge, such as geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and astrology (Diod. Sic. i. 73 and 81), and as their skill in the preparation of ointments from vegetable and animal sources, and their extensive acquaintance with medicine, clearly prove, embraced natural science as well, in which Solomon, according to ver. 33, was very learned. — Ver. 31. "He was wiser than all men (of his time), than Ethan the Ezrachite and Heman, Chalcol and Darda, the sons of Machol." These four persons are most probably the same as the " sons of Zerach" (Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara) mentioned in 1 Chron. ii. 6, since the names perfectly agree, with the exception of I>Tj for VYV\, where the difference is no doubt attributable to a copyist's error; although, as the name does not occur again, it cannot be decided whether Dara or Darda is the correct form. Heman and Ethan are also called Ezrachites CCH!??) in ^s- lxxxviii. 1 and lxxxix. 1; and *rn?K is another form of *ITj{, the name of the family of Zerach the son of Judah (Num. xxvi. 13, 20), lengthened by k prosthet. But they were both Levites — Heman a Korahite of the line of

Kohath and a grandson of Samuel (1 Chron. vi. 18, 19), and Ethan a Merarite (1 Chron. vi. 29-32, xv. 17) and the president of the Levitical vocal choirs in the time of David (1 Chron. xv. 19); and Hcman was also " the king's seer in the words of God" (1 Chron. xxv. 5). Their Levitical descent is not at variance with the epithet Ezrachite. For as the Levite in Judg. xvii. 7 is spoken of as belonging to the family of Judah, because he dwelt in Bethlehem of Judah, and as Samuel's father, Elkanah the Levite, is called an Ephraimite in 1 Sam. i. 1, because in his civil capacity he was incorporated into the tribe of Ephraim, so Heman and Ethan are called Ezrachites because they were incorporated into the Judsean family of Zerach. It by no means follows from 1 Chron. ii. 6 that they were lineal descendants of Zerach. The whole character of the genealogical fragment contained in 1 Chron. ii. 6 sqq. shows very clearly that it does not give the lineal posterity of Zerach with genealogical exactness, but that certain persons and households of that family who had gained historical renown are grouped together without any more precise account of their lineal descent. Calcol and Bar da (or Dara) are never met with again. It is no doubt to these two that the expression ->inD \)3 refers, though it cannot be determined whether Tine is a proper name or an appellative noun. In support of the appellative meaning, " sons of the dance," in the sense of sacras choreas ducendi periti, Hiller (in the Onomast. p. 872) appeals to Eccles. xii. 4, "daughters of song." — " And his name was," i.e. he was celebrated, " among all the nations round about" (cf. ch. x. 1, 23, 24). — Ver. 32. " He spoke three thousand proverbs, and there were a thousand and five of his songs." Of these proverbs we possess a comparatively small portion in the book of Proverbs, probably a selection of the best of his proverbs; but of the songs, besides the Song of Songs, we have only two psalms, viz. Ps. lxxii. and exxvii., which have his name, and justly bear it. — Ver. 33. "And he spoke of trees, from the cedar on Lebanon to the hyssop which grows upon the wall." The cedar and hyssop are placed in antithesis, the former as the largest and most glorious of trees, the latter as the smallest and most insignificant of plants, to embrace the whole of the vegetable kingdom. Thenius maintains that by 2ifK we are not to understand the true hyssop, nor the Wohlgemuth or Dosten (ppi<yavov), according to the ordinary view (see at Ex. xii 22), because they are neither of them such small plants as we should expect in antithesis to the cedar, but " one of the wall-mosses growing in tufts, more especially the orthotrichum saxatile (Oken), which forms a miniature hyssop with its lancet-shaped leaves, and from its extreme minuteness furnishes a perfect antithesis to the cedar." There is much to favour this view, since we can easily imagine that the Hebrews may have reckoned a moss, which resembled the hyssop in its leaves, as being itself a species of hyssop. — " And of beasts and birds, of creeping things and fishes; " the four principal classes into which the Hebrews divided the animal kingdom. Speaking of plants and animals presupposes observations and researches in natural science, or botanical and zoological studies. — Ver. 34. The widespread fame of his wisdom brought many strangers to Jerusalem, and all the more because of its rarity at that time, especially among princes. The coming of the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem (ch. x.) furnishes a historical proof of this.1

Immediately after the consolidation of his kingdom, Solomon commenced the preparations for the building of a temple, first of all by entering into negotiations with king Hiram of Tyre, to procure from him not only the building materials requisite, viz. cedars, cypresses, and hewn stones, but also a skilled workman for the artistic work of the temple (vers. 1—12); and, secondly, by causing the number of workmen required for this great work to be raised out of his own kingdom, and sending > them to Lebanon to prepare the materials for the building in connection with the Tyrian builders (vers. 13-18). — We have

1 Greatly as the fame of Solomon's wisdom is extolled in these verses, it was far outdone in subsequent times. Even Josephus has considerably adorned the biblical accounts in his Antiqq. viii. 2, 5. He makes Solomon the author not only of 1005 fiifiTu'ot Kepi uhuv xccl pihuv, and 300 (Sl(Z'Xov; Trupx/ioXuv kva tUoi/uu, but also of magical books with marvellous contents. Compare the extracts from Eupolemus in Eusebii prsep. Ev. ix. 31 sqq., the remnants of Solomon's apocryphal writings in Fabricii Cod. apocr. V. T. i. pp. 914 sqq. and 1014 sq., the collection of the Talmudical Sagas in Othonis Lex. rabb. philol. pp. 668 sq., and G. Weil, bibl. Lcgenden der Mussulmauner, pp. 225-279. According to the Koran (Sure xxvii. vers. 17 sqq.), Solomon understood the languages not only of men and demons, but also of birds and ants. The Turkish literature contains a u Book of Solomon," Suleimanname, consisting of seventy volumes, from which v. Hammer (Rosenbl, i. p. 147 sqq.) has given extracts.

a parallel passage to this in 2 Chron. ii., which agrees with the account before us in all the leading points, but differs in many of the details, omitting several things which were not essential to the main fact, and communicating others which are passed over in our account, e.g. Solomon's request that a Tyrian workman might be sent. This shows that the two accounts are extracts from a common and more elaborate source, the historical materials being worked up in a free and independent manner according to the particular plan adopted by each of the two authors. (For further remarks on the mutual relation of the two narratives, see my apologctischcr Vcrsuch fiber die Backer dcr Chronik, pp. 216 sqq.)

Vers. 1-12. Solomon s ncgotiationsioith Ilir am of Tjjre. — Ver. 1. When king Hiram of Tyre heard that Solomon had been anointed king in the place of David, he sent his servants, i.e. an embassage, to Solomon, to congratulate him (as the Syriac correctly explains) on his ascent of the throne, because he had been a friend of David the whole time (D^DjrrpS, ic. as long as both of them (David and Hiram) were kings). On Hiram and the length of his reign, see the remarks on 2 Sam. v. 11. This is passed over in the Chronicles as having no essential bearing upon the building of the temple. — Vers. 2-6. Solomon thereupon communicated to Hiram, by means of an embassy, his intention to carry out the building of the temple which his father projected, and asked him for building wood from Lebanon for the purpose. From the words, " Thou knowest that my father David could not build," etc., it is evident that David had not only been busily occupied for a long time with the plan for building a temple, but that he had already commenced negotiations with Hiram on the matter; and with this 1 Chron. xxii. 4 agrees. " To the name of Jehovah: " this expression is based upon Deut. xii. 5 and 11:" the place which the Lord shall choose to put His name there, or that His name may dwell there." The name of Jehovah is the manifestation of the divine nature in a visible sign as a real pledge of His presence (see at xii. 5), and not merely numen Jovaz quatenus ah hominibus cognoscitur, colititr, celeoratur (Winer, Thenius). Hence in 2 Sam. vii, to which Solomon refers, nj3 y nja (vers. 5 and 7) alternates with ^^pn^nnja (ver. 13). On the obstacle which prevented it, " because of the war, with which they (the enemies) had surrounded me," see at 2 Sam. vii. 9 sqq. On the construction,

33D with a double accusative, compare the very similar passage, Ps. cix. 3, which fully establishes the rendering we have given, so that there is no necessity to assume that nvrbv} war, stands for enemies (Ewald, § 317, b). — Ver. 4. " And now Jehovah my God has given me rest round about," such as David never enjoyed for a permanency (cf. 2 Sam. vii. 1). " No adversary is there." This is not at variance with ch. xi. 14, for Hadad's enterprise belonged to a later period (see the comm. on that passage). " And no evil occurrence:" such as the rebellions of Absalom and Sheba, the pestilence at the numbering of the people, and other events which took place in David's reign. — Ver. 5. " Behold, I intend to build." "ids followed by an infinitive, as in Ex. ii. 14, 2 Sam. xxi. 16. "As Jehovah spake to David;" viz. 2 Sam. vii. 12 and 13. — Ver. 6. "And now command that they fell me cedars from Lebanon." We may see from ver. 8 that Solomon had also asked for cypresses; and according to the parallel passage 2 Chron. ii. 6 sqq., he had asked for a skilful artist, which is passed over here, so that it is only in ch. vii. 13, 14 that we find a supplementary notice that Hiram had sent one. It is evident from this request, that that portion of Lebanon on which the cedars suitable for building wood grew, belonged to the kingdom of Hiram. The cedar forest, which has been celebrated from very ancient times, was situated at least two days' journey to the north of Beirut, near the northernmost and loftiest summits of the range, by the village of Bjerrch, to the north of the road which leads to Baalbek and not far to the east of the convent of Canobin, the seat of the patriarch of the Maronites, although Seetzen, the American missionaries, and Professor Ehrenberg found cedars and cedar groves in other places on northern Lebanon (see Rob. Pal. iii. 440, 441, and Bibl. Pes. pp. 588 sqq.). The northern frontier of Canaan did not reach as far as Bjerreh (see at Num. xxxiv. 8, 9). " My servants shall be with thy servants," i. e. shall help them in the felling of the wood (see at vers. 28, 29). "And the wages of thy servants will I give to thee altogether as thou sayest " (see at vers. 25, 26). " For thou knowest that no one among us is skilful in felling trees like the Sidonians." This refers to the knowledge of the most suitable trees, of the right time for felling, and of the proper treatment of the wood. The expression Sidonians stands for Phoenicians generally, since Sidon was formerly more powerful than Tyre, and that portion of Lebanon which produced the cedars belonged to the district of Sidon. The inhabitants of Sidon were celebrated from time immemorial as skilful builders, and well versed in mechanical arts (compare Bob. Pal. iii. 421 sqq., and Movers, Phcenizicr, ii. 1, pp. 86 sqq.).

Hiram rejoiced exceedingly at this proposal on the part of Solomon, and praised Jehovah for having given David so wise a son as his successor (ver. 21). It must have been a matter of great importance to the king of Tyre to remain on good terms with Israel, because the land of Israel was a granary for the Phoenicians, and friendship with such a neighbour would necessarily tend greatly to promote the interests of the Phoenician commerce. The praise of Jehovah on the part of Hiram does not presuppose a full recognition of Jehovah as the only true God, but simply that Hiram regarded the God of Israel as being as real a God as his own deities. Hiram expresses a fuller acknowledgment of Jehovah in 2 Chron. ii. 11, where he calls Jehovah the Creator of heaven and earth; which may be explained, however, from Hiram's entering into the religious notions of the Israelites, and does not necessarily involve his own personal belief in the true deity of Jehovah. — Vers. 8, 9. Hiram then sent to Solomon, and promised in wrriting (^33, 2 Chron. ii. 1 0) to comply with his wishes. *i«?nfe ■»* riK " that which thou hast sent to me," i.e. hast asked of me by messenger. DHPha are not firs, but cypresses. " My servants shall bring down (the trees) from Lebanon to the sea, and I will make them into rafts (i.e. bind them into rafts and have them floated) upon the sea to the place which thou shalt send (word) to me, and will take them (the rafts) to pieces there, and thou wilt take (i.e. fetch them thence)." The Chronicles give Yafo, i.e. Joppa, Jaffa, the nearest harbour to Jerusalem on the Mediterranean Sea, as the landing-place (see at Josh. xix. 46). " And thou wilt do all my desire to give bread for my house," i.e. provisions to supply the wants of the king's court. " The "i^ mentioned in ver. 6 was also to be paid " (Thenius). This is quite correct; but Thenius is wrong when he proceeds still further to assert, that the chronicler erroneously supposed this to refer to the servants of Hiram who were employed in working the wood. There is not a word of this kind in the Chronicles; but simply Solomon's promise to Hiram (ver. 9): " with regard to the hewers (the fellers of the trees), I give thy servants wheat 20,000 cors, and barley 20,000 cors, and wine

20,000 baths, and oil 20,000 baths." This is omitted in our account, in which the wages promised in ver. 6 to the Sidonian fellers of wood are not more minutely defined. On the other hand, the payment for the wood delivered by Solomon to Hiram, which is not mentioned in the Chronicles, is stated here in ver. 11. " Solomon gave Hiram 20,000 cors of wheat as food (n?^©, a contraction of TOJKD, from ^J< • cf. Ewald, § 79, b) for his house (the maintenance of his royal court), and 20 cors of beaten oil; this gave Solomon to Hiram year by year," probably as long as the delivery of the wood or the erection of Solomon's buildings lasted. These two accounts are so clear, that Jac. Capp., Gramb., Mov., Thenius, and Bertheau, who have been led by critical prejudices to confound them with one another, and therefore to attempt to emend the one from the other, are left quite alone. For the circumstance that the quantity of wheat, which Solomon supplied to Hiram for his court, was just the same as that which he gave to the Sidonian workmen, does not warrant our identifying the two accounts. The fellers of the trees also received barley, wine, and oil in considerable quantities; whereas the only other thing which Hiram received for his court w^as oil, and that not common oil, but the finest olive oil, namely 20 cors of WIS) \owf i.e. beaten oil, the finest kind of oil, which was obtained from the olives when not quite ripe by pounding them in mortars, and which had not only a whiter colour, but also a purer flavour than the common oil obtained by pressing from the ripe olives (cf. Celsii Hierobot. ii. pp. 349 sq., and Bahr, Symbolilc, i. p. 419). Twenty cors were 200 baths, i.e., according to the calculations of Thenius, about ten casks (1 cask = 6 pails; 1 pail = 72 cans). If we bear in mind that this was the finest kind of oil, we cannot speak of disproportion to the quantity of wheat delivered. Thenius reckons that 20,000 cors of wheat were about 38,250 Dresden scheffeln (? sacks). — Ver. 12. The remark that " the Lord gave Solomon wisdom" refers not merely to the treaty which Solomon made with Hiram, through which he obtained materials and skilled workmen for the erection of the house of God (Thenius), but also to the wise use which he made of the capacities of his own subjects for this work. For this verse not only brings to a close the section relating to Solomon's negotiations with Hiram, but it also forms an introduction to the following verses, in which the intimation given by Solomon in ver. 6, concerning the labourers who were to fell

Vers. 13—18. The tributary labourers out of Israel. — Vers. 13, 14. Solomon raised a tribute (DO, tribute-labourers, as in ch. iv. G) out of all Israel, i.e. out of the whole nation (not " out of the whole territory of Israel," as Ewald supposes), 30,000 men, and sent them up to Lebanon, 10,000 a month in rotation; one month they were on Lebanon (doing tribute work), two months at home (looking after the cultivation of their own ground).?V% from TyVJl, does not mean in tabulas refcrre, in support of which appeal is made to 1 Chron. xxvii. 24, though on insufficient ground, but ascendcre fecit, corresponding to the German anshcben (to raise). He raised them out of the nation, to send them up Lebanon (cf. ch. ix. 25). These 30,000 Israelitish labourers must be distinguished from the remnants of the Canaanites who were made into tribute-slaves (ver. 15 and eh. ix. 20). The latter are called *!?$) DD, tribute-slaves, in ch. ix. 21 as in Josh. xvi. 10. That the Israelites were not to render the service of bondsmen is evident from the fact, that they only rendered tribute for four months of the year, and were at home for eight months; and the use of the epithet DD is not at variance with this. For even if this word is applied elsewhere to the Canaanitish bondsmen (e.g. Josh. xvii. 13, Judg. i. 28, 30, and 2 Chron. viii. 8), a distinction is decidedly made in our account of Solomon between DD and 13j) Dp, inasmuch as in ch. ix. 2 2, after the Canaanitish bondsmen have been mentioned, it is expressly stated that " of Israel Solomon made no one a slave" 0??)- r-^lc 30,000 Israelitish tributeservants are " to be thought of as free Israelites, who simply performed the less severe work of felling trees in fellowship with and under the direction of the subjects of Hiram (see at ver. 6), according to the command of the king, and probably not even that without remuneration" (Thenius). For Adoniram see at ch. iv. 6. — Ver. 15. And Solomon had 70,000 bearers of burdens and 80,000 hewers of stone on the mountains (of Lebanon). 3Vh is understood by the older translators as referring simply to hewers of stone. This is favoured both by the context, since ver. 18 speaks of stone-mason's work, and also by the usage of the language, inasmuch as syn is mostly applied to the quarrying and cutting of stones (Deut. vi. 11; Isa. v. 2; Prov. ix. 1; 2 Kings xii. 13), and only occurs in Isa. x. 15 in connection with the cutting of wood. The hewing and preparing of the wood were amply provided for by 30,000 Israelite's. That the 150,000 bearers of burdens and hewers of stone were not taken from the Israelites, is evident from the fact that they are distinguished from the latter, or at all events are not described as Israelites. We obtain certainty on this point from the parallel passages, ch. ix. 20, 21, 2 Chron. ii. 16, 17, and 2 Chron. viii. 1—9, according to which Solomon pressed the Canaanites who were left in the land to this bond-service. — Ver. 16. " Beside p??), i.e. without reckoning, the princes, Solomon's officers, who were over the work (i.e. the chiefs appointed by Solomon as overlookers of the work), 3300, who ruled over the people who laboured at the work." B*?J!5 T^, as Thenius correctly observes, cannot be the chief of the overlookers, i.e. the head inspectors, as there is no allusion made to subordinate inspectors, and the number given is much too large for head inspectors. D*?^, which is governed by *}&> in the construct state, is to be taken as defining the substantive: principes qui prcefecti erant (Vatabl.; cf. Ewald, § 287, a). Moreover, at the close of the account of the whole of Solomon's buildings (ch. ix. 23), 550 more E^Jtin *nb> are mentioned as presiding over the people who did the work. The accounts in the Chronicles differ from these in a very peculiar manner, the number of overseers being given in 2 Chron. ii. 17 as 3600, and in 2 Chron. viii. 10 as 250. Now, however natural it may be, with the multiplicity of errors occurring in numerical statements, to assume that these differences have arisen from copyists' errors through the confounding together of numerical letters resembling one another, this explanation is overthrown as an improbable one, by the fact that the sum-total of the overseers is the same in both accounts (3300 + 550 = 3850 in the books of Kings, and 3600 + 250 = 3850 in the Chronicles); and we must therefore follow J. H. Michaelis, and explain the differences as resulting from a different method of classification, namely, from the fact that in the Chronicles the Canaanitish overseers are distinguished from the Israelitish (viz. 3600 Canaanites and 250 Israelites), whereas in the books of Kings the inferiores et superiores prcefecti are distinguished. Consequently Solomon had 3300 inferior overseers and 550 superior (or superintendents), of whom 250 were selected from the Israelites and 300 from the Canaanites. In 2 Chron. ii. 16,17, it is expressly stated that the 3600 were taken from the tF")!, i.e. the Canaanites who were left in the land of Israel. And it is equally certain that the number given in ch. ix. 23 and 2 Chron. viii. 10 (550 and 250) simply comprises the superintendents over the whole body of builders, notwithstanding the fact that in both passages (ch. v. 16 and ch. ix. 23) the same epithet D^aran *Tfc> is used. If, then, the number of overseers is given in ch. ix. 23 as 550, i.e. 300 more than in the parallel passage of the Chronicles, there can hardly be any doubt that the number 550 includes the 300, in which the number given in our chapter falls short of that in the Chronicles, and that in the 3300 of our chapter the superintendents of Canaanitish descent are not included.1 — Ver. 17. And the kinij had large, costly stones broken, " to lay the foundation of the house with hewn stones." Hfaj* does not mean heavy (Thenius), for this would be a perfectly superfluous remark, inasmuch as large stones are always heavy, but costly, valuable stones, qui multa pccunia constdbant (Cler.); compare ch. x. 2, where the word stands for precious stones. 105, i.e. to lay the foundation for the temple, by which we are to understand not merely the foundation for the temple-house, but the magnificent substructions for the whole of the temple area, even though the strong walls which surrounded the temple mountain, and which Josephus describes in his Antiquities, viii. 3, 9, and xv. 11, 3, and in his de Bell. Jud. v. 5, 1, may not have been all completed by Solomon, but may have been a work of centuries. For further remarks on this subject, see at ch. vi. 38. 1VM *J3K are squared stones, according to ch. vii. 10, of ten and eight cubits.

With ver. 18 the account of the preparations for the building of the temple, which were the object of Solomon's negotiations with Hiram, is brought to a close. " Solomon's builders and Hiram's builders, even the Giblites, hewed and prepared the wood and the stones for the building of the house." The object to wDBJ is not the square stones mentioned before, but the trees

1 Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 292) assumes that " by the 550 (1 Kings ix. 23) we are to understand the actual superintendents, -whereas the 3300 (1 Kings v. 30) include inferior inspectors as well; and of the 550 superintendents, 300 were taken from the Cananaeans, so that only 250 (2 Chron. viii. 10) were native Hebrews;" though he pronounces the number 3600 (2 Chron. ii. 17) erroneous. Bertheau, on the other hand, in his notes on 2 Chron. viii. 10, has rather complicated than elucidated the relation in which the two accounts stand to one another.

(beams) and stones mentioned after WW, D ^3?™ is to be taken as explanatory, " even the Giblites," giving a more precise definition of rt Hiram's builders." The Giblites are the inhabitants of the town of Gebal, called Byblos by the Greeks, to the north of Beirut (see at Josh. xiii. 5), which was the nearest to the celebrated cedar forest of the larger Phoenician towns. According t6 Ezek. xxvii. 9, the Giblites (Byblians) were experienced in the art of shipbuilding, and therefore were probably skilful builders generally, and as such the most suitable of Hiram's subjects to superintend the working of the wood and stone for Solomon's buildings. For it was in the very nature of the case that the number of the Phoenician builders was only a small one, and that they were merely the foremen; and this may also be inferred from the large number of his own subjects whom Solomon appointed to the work.1

The account of the building of the temple commences with a statement of the date of the building (ver. 1); and this is followed by a description of the plan and size of the temple-house (vers. 2-1 0), to which there is also appended the divine promise made to Solomon during the erection of the building (vers. 1 1-1 3). After this we have a further account of the internal fittings and

1 Without any satisfactory ground Thenius has taken offence at the word Dv33iTl, and on the strength of the critically unattested xcci 'ipa^ou ccvrovg of the LXX. and the paraphrastic up/xoaavroe.; x.u\ ovuoyjguvtcc; of Josephus, which is only introduced to fill in the picture, has altered it into D^3P1, 11 they bordered them (the stones)." This he explains as relating to the 81 bevelling" of the stones, upon the erroneous assumption that the grooving of the stones in the old walls encircling the temple area, which Robinson (Pal. i. 423) was the first tc notice and describe, " occurs nowhere else in precisely the same form; " whereas Robinson found them in the ancient remains of the foundations of walls in different places throughout the land, not only in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, viz. at Bethany, but also at Carmel on the mountains of Judah, at Hebron, Semua (Esthemoa), Beit Nusib (Nezib), on Tabor, and especially in the north, in the old remains of the walls of the fortifications es Shukif, Hunin, Banias, Tyrus, Jebail (Byblus), Baalbek, on the island of Ruwad (the ancient Aradus), and in different temples on Lebanon (see Rob. Pal. ii. 101, 198, 434, 627; iii. 12, 213, 214; and Bibl. Researches, p. 229). Bottcher (n. ex. Krit. Aehrenl. ii. p. 32) has therefore properly rejected this conjecture as " ill-founded," though only to put in its place another which is altogether unfounded, namely, that before D^^HHI the word decorations of the sanctuary (vers. 14-36), and in ch. vii. 1-12 a description of the royal palace which was built after the temple; and, finally, a description of the pillars of the court which were executed in metal by the Tyrian artist, and of the different vessels of the temple (ch. vii. 13-51).1 We have a parallel to this in 2 Chron. iii. and iv., though here the description is differently arranged. In the Chronicles the external building of the templehouse is not separated from the internal decoration and furnishing; but after the period of erection and the size of the temple-house have been given in ch. iii. 1-3, there follows a description, a. of the court (ver. 4); b. of the Holy Place with its internal decorations (vers. 5-7); c. of the Most Holy Place, with special reference to its size and decorations, also of the colossal cherubim placed therein and the curtain in front of it, which is not mentioned in our account (vers. 8-14); d. of the brazen pillars in front of the court (vers. 1 5-17); c. of the altar of burnt-offering (ch. iv. 1), which is passed over in the account before us; /. of the brazen sea (vers. 2-5); g. of the brazen lavers, the golden candlesticks, the tables of shewbread, and the golden basons (vers. 6-8); and h. of the courts (ver. 9). The account is then closed with a summary enumeration of the different vessels of the temple (vers. 10-22), which agrees almost word for word with 1 Kings vii. 40-50.

Vers. 1-10. The Outside of the Building. — Ver. 1. The building of the temple, a fixed and splendid house of Jehovah as

DH'^n (u the Tyrians ") has dropped out. For this has nothing further in its favour than the most improbable assumption, that king Hiram gathered together the subjects of his whole kingdom to take part in Solomon's buildings.— The addition of rptx em, which is added by the LXX. at the end of the verse, does not warrant the assumption of Thenius and Bottcher, that D^jty C'bty nas dropped out of the text. For it is obvious that the LXX. have merely made their addition e conjectura, and indeed have concluded that, as the foundation for the temple was laid in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, the preliminary work must have occupied the first three years of his reign.

1 Of the special works on the subject of the temple, see my pamphlet, Der Tempel Salomons, eine archaologische Untersuchung (Dorp. 1839); and Carl Chr. W. F. B'ahr, Der Salomonisclie Tempel mit Beriicksichtigung seines Verlialtnisses zur heil. Architectur uberliaupt (Karlsr. 1848). In both of these there are critical notices of the earlier investigations and monographs on this subject, which have now simply a historical interest. See also the short description of the temple in my Bill. Archaologie, i. § 23 sqq., with sketches of the temple building and the principal vessels on Plates 2 and 3, and the most recent notice by H. Merz in Herzog's Cyclopsedia (Art. Temple).

the dwelling-place of His name in the midst of His people, formed an important epoch so far as the Old Testament kingdom of God was concerned, inasmuch as, according to the declaration of God made through the prophet Nathan, an end would thereby be put to the provisional condition of the people of Israel in the land of Canaan, since the temple was to become a substantial pledge of the permanent possession of the inheritance promised by the Lord. The importance of this epoch is indicated by the fact, that the time when the temple was built is defined not merely in relation to the year of Solomon's reign, but also in relation to the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt. " In the 480th year after the exodus of the sons of Israel out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, in the second month of the year, Solomon built the house of the Lord." The correctness of the number 480, as contrasted with the 440th year of the LXX. and the different statements made by Josephus, is now pretty generally admitted; and we have already proved at Judg. iii. 7 that it agrees with the duration of the period of the Judges when rightly estimated.1 The name of the month Ziv, brilliancy, splendour, probably so called from the splendour of the flowers, is explained by the clause, " that is, the second month," because the months had no fixed names before the captivity, and received different names after the captivity. The second month was called Jyar after the captivity. — The place where the temple was built is not given in our account, as having been sufficiently well known; though it is given in the parallel

1 In opposition to the hypothesis of Bottcher, which has been repeated by Bertheau, viz. that the number 480 merely rests upon the computation of 12 x 40 years, or twelve generations of forty years each, Thenius himself has observed with perfect justice, that " where both the year and the month of the reign of the king in question are given, the principal number will certainly rest upon something more than mere computation; and if this had not been the case, the person making such a computation, if only for the purpose of obtaining the appearance of an exact statement, would have made a particular calculation of the year3 of Solomon's reign, and would have added them to the round number obtained, and written ' in the year 484.' Moreover, the introduction to our chapter has something annalistic in its tone; and at this early period it would be undoubtedly well known, and in a case like the present a careful calculation would be made, how long a time had elapsed since the most memorable period of the Israelitish nation had passed by." Compare with this Ed. Preuss {Die Zeitreclinung der LXX., p. 74 sqq.), who has endeavoured with much greater probability to show that the alteration made by the LXX. into 440 rests upon nothing more than a genealogical combination.

text, 2 Chron. iii. 1, namely, " Mount Moriah, where the Lord had appeared to David" at the time of the pestilence, and where David had built an altar of burnt-offering by divine command (see at 2 Sam. xxiv. 25).

Vers. 2-4. Plan and dimensions of the temple-house. — The measures of the temple-house and its several subdivisions are all given in the clear, i.e. as the spaces were seen. The house, i.e. the main building of the temple (lit. as for the house, or shell of the building), its length was sixty cubits, its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, and that, according to 2 Chron. iii. 3, " after the earlier measure," i.e. after the old Mosaic or sacred cubit, which was a hand-breadth longer, according to Ezek. xl. 5 and xliii. 13, than the civil cubit of the time of the captivity. The Mosaic cubit, according to the investigations of Thenius, was 214,512 Parisian lines long, i.e. 20t|- Dresden inches, or 181- Rhenish inches (see at Gen. vi 10). — Ver. 3. The porch (lit. hall) in the face of (*?*"/?, i.e. before) the Holy Place of the house was twenty cubits long, before (??"*?) the breadth of the house, i.e. it was just the same breadth as the house. The longer line, which ran parallel to the breadth of the house, is called here?T}k, the length, though from our point of view we should call it the width. And ten cubits was its breadth, i.e. its depth in front of the house. The height of the court is not given in our text; but in 2 Chron. iii. 4 it is said to have been 120 cubits. This is certainly an error, although Ewald (Gesch. iii. p. 300) still joins with Stieglitz (Baukunst, p. 126, and Bcitrr. zur Gesch. dcr Bauk. i. p. 70) in defending its correctness. For an erection of such a height as this could not possibly have been designated as DJiK (a hall or porch), but would have been called TOD, a tower. But even a tower of 120 cubits in height in front of a temple which was only thirty cubits high, would have shown a greater disproportion than our loftiest church towers; * and such a funnel-like erection with a base of only ten

1 In the Strasburg cathedral and that at Freiburg in Breisgau the proportion between the height of the tower and that of the church, together with the roof, is about 3^ to 1; it is only in the cathedral at Rouen that the proportion would have been almost 4 to 1 if it had been carried out to the very top. At the same time, in making this comparison it must be borne in mind that these Gothic towers taper off into slender points, whereas in the case of Solomon's temple we must assume that if the porch was carried up to the height supposed, it finished in a flat truncated tower; and it is this which would chiefly occasion the disproportion.

cubits in breadth or depth would hardly have possessed.sufficient stability. We cannot certainly think of an intentional exaggeration of the height in the Chronicles, since the other measures agree with the account before us; but the assumption that there has been a corruption of the text is rendered natural enough by many other errors in the numerical statements. This still leaves it undecided whether the true height was twenty or thirty cubits; for whereas the Syriac, Arabic, and LXX. (Cod. Al.) have twenty cubits, the height of thirty cubits is favoured partly by the omission of any statement of the height from our text, which is much easier to explain if the porch was of the same height as the temple-house than if the heights were different, and partly by the circumstance that the side building had an external height of twenty cubits, and therefore the porch would not have stood out with any especial prominence if its elevation had been just the same. — Ver. 4. After the account of the proportionate spaces in the temple-house, the windows through which it received light and air are mentioned. Q,?P^ DNpp£> wn does not mean fenestra*, intus latce, forts angustce (Chald., Ar., Eabb., Luther, and others), but windows with closed beams, i.e. windows the lattice-work of which could not be opened and closed at pleasure, as in ordinary dwelling-houses (2 Kings xiii. 1 7; Dan. vi. 11). For &p\>p signifies beams overlaid in ch. vii. 4, and rii^ beams in ch. vii. 5. The opening of the windows was probably narrower without than within, as in the older Egyptian buildings, as the walls were very strong; and in that case such windows would more thoroughly answer their purpose, viz. to admit light and air, and let out the smoke, so that the interpretation given by the Chaldee is most likely founded upon an ancient tradition, and is in accordance with the fact, though not with the words. It is a disputed point among the commentators where the windows were placed: whether merely in the front over the porch, provided, that is to say, that this was ten cubits lower than the temple-house, or on the side walls above the side stories, which were at the most about twenty cubits high, in which case the Most Holy Place, which was only twenty cubits high, remained quite dark, according to ch. viii. 12. We regard the latter view as the correct one, inasmuch as the objections to it rest upon assumptions which can be proved to be false.

Vers. 5—8. The side building. — Ver. 5. " He built against the wall of the house an outwork round about (i.e. against the two longer sides and against the hinder wall, and not against the front also, where the porch was built), against the walls of the house round about, against the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, and he made side chambers round about." V^) (written constantly V^ in the Keri) signifies literally stratum, here the lower building or outwork erected against the rooms mentioned. The word is gen. comm., but so construed that the masculine is used in a collective sense to denote the whole of the outworks, consisting as they did of three stories, whereas the feminine is used for one single story of the building (ver. 6). On this use of the masculine and feminine genders to distinguish the whole mass and the individual parts, which is very common in Arabic, though it is rare in Hebrew, in which the distinction is generally expressed by a peculiar feminine form, as for example ^N a fleet, and nj3K a single ship, compare Ewald, Lehrbuch der hebr. Spr. ^ 175, d, and 17G, a, and gramm. crit. ling. ardb. i. § 295. rtVpTM does not mean cum parietibus (Seb. Schmidt and J. H. Michaelis), but riK is a sign of the accusative, " as for the walls," and introduces the more precise definition. r\)y?)£ signifies, both here and in Ezuk. xli. 6 sqq., side chambers or side stories, from y?¥, to incline to one side, hence to limp, i.e. to lean constantly to one side. From this there were derived for J*y>' the meanings side, side piece or side wall, e.g. of the ark, Ex. xxv. 12, 14, etc., of the dwelling, Ex. xxvi. 20, 2G, etc., of the altar, Ex. xxvii. 7, 30, etc., the side wall or slope of a mountain, 2 Sam. xvi. 13, the side portion of the human body, i.e. the rib, Gen. ii. 21, 22, the sides or leaves of a door in ver. 34 of the present chapter, and when used of buildings, the side pieces or portions built out which lean against the main building; and lastly, the idea of a piece which shows a large side, i.e. a broad plank (ch. vi. 15, 16). The meaning planks or beams, as it were ribs or rib- work, is unfounded. — Ver. 6. The (internal) breadth of the lower side story was five cubits, that of the middle one six, and that of the third seven cubits; " for he (they) had made shortenings (i.e. rebates) against the house round about on the outside, that (there might be) no insertion into the walls of the (temple-) house." The meaning is that rebates were attached against the temple wall, at the point where the lower beams of the different side stories were to be placed, so that the heads of these beams rested upon the rebates and were not inserted in the actual wall of the temple- house. These rebates are called very descriptively frtjn?*?, deductions or contractions of the thickness of the wall. We may assume that there were four such rebates: three for the three floors of the side stories, and one for the roof. It still remains doubtful, however, whether these rebates were merely laid along the temple wall, or along the outer wall of the side building as well, so as to ensure symmetry and make each of the two walls half a cubit thinner or weaker at every rebate. The former is the more probable. And accordingly the temple wall was one cubit weaker at each rebate, that is to say, in four places. If, therefore, it still remained two cubits thick at the top, it must have been six cubits thick below. This extraordinary thickness, however, would be quite in keeping with the remains of buildings of great antiquity, the walls of which have generally a colossal thickness, and also with the size of the square stones of which the wall was constructed, as described in ch. vii. 10. — Ver. 7 contains a circumstantial clause, inserted as an explanation of ver. 6: " The house, (namely) when building, was built of perfectly finished stones of the quarry, and hammer and axe; no kind of instrument whatever was heard at the house when it was building." V&n *V?W I?*? (on the construction see Ges. § 114, 1, Erl., and Ewald, § 339,5) does not mean stones quite unhewn, which God had so caused to grow that they did not require to be hewn (Theodoret); for although D"1^- nittte is used in Deut. xxvii. 6 (compare with Ex. xx. 25) to signify uninjured, i.e. unhewn stones, yet this meaning is precluded here by the context (cf. v. 32). u?w signifies finished here, that is to say, stones which were so perfectly tooled and prepared when first broken in the quarry, that when the temple walls were built no iron instruments were required to prepare them any further, (pa, an axe, here a stone-mason's cutting tool corresponding to the axe. — In ver. 8 the description of the side building is continued. " A door C1^?, an opening for the entrance) to the middle side chamber (of the lower story) was on the right side (the southern side) of the house, and a winding staircase led up into the middle (room of the middle story) and out of the middle into the third rooms," i.e. the rooms of the third story. This is the rendering according to the Masoretic text; and the only thing that appears strange is the use of njbw first of all for the middle room of the lower story and then for the middle story; and the conjecture is a very natural one, that the first n:b*nn may have been an error of the pen for njknnn, in which case V>$n does not signify the side room, but is used in a collective sense for the row of side rooms in one story, as in Ezek. xli. 5, 9, 11. That this door was made from the outside, i.e. in the outer wall of the side building, and did not lead into the side rooms " from the interior of the Holy Place," would hardly need a remark, if Bottcher (Probcn alttestl. SchrifterJd, p. 339) and Schnaase (Gcsch. dcr bildenden Kiinste, Bd. 1) had not really supported this view, which is so thoroughly irreconcilable with the dignity of the sanctuary.1 The only question is, whether it was made in the middle of the right side or in the front by the side of the porch. If the Masoretic text is correct, there is no doubt about the former. But if we read i^nnr^ the text leaves the question undecided. The winding staircase was not constructed in the outer wall itself, because this was not thick enough for the purpose, and the text states pretty clearly that it led from the lower story into the middle one, and thence still higher, so that it was in the centre of the building.

In vers. 9 and 10 the description of the exterior of the temple building is brought to a close. " So he built the house, and finished it, and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar." i'so'i is not to be understood as relating to the internal panelling of the temple-house, for this is spoken of first in the section which follows (ver. 15), but to the roofing; |SD means to conceal (Deut. xxxiii. 21) and cover in all the other passages, even in Hag. i. 4 and Jer. xxii. 14, where P2p is generally, though incorrectly, translated " panelled." As a verb signifying clothing, it is construed with the accusative. 0*33 does not mean boards, but beams, though not " an arched covering " (Thenius), because beams cut in the form of an arch would have been too weak in the middle, nor yet rafters (Bottcher), because the roofs of oriental buildings are flat. DTi&Q rh"7K> " rows, i. e. tablets (consisting) of cedars," i. e. cedar tablets, which were inserted in rows between the beams. This cedar-work was certainly provided with a strong covering to protect the roof and the building itself against rain; and at the sides it had no doubt a parapet, as in the case of dwelling-houses (Deut. xxii. 8). —

1 The perfectly groundless assumption of Thenius, that the outer building had most probably an inner door as well, which connected it with the temple, does just as much violence tc the decorum of the Holy Place.

Ver. 10. "And he built the outbuildings to the whole house (i.e. all round the temple-house, with the exception of the front: see ver. 5); five cubits was its height/' i.e. the height of each story, the suffix in inoip being made to agree with JWH through an inaccuracy which has arisen from condensation, although, as in ver. 5, it denotes the whole of the side buildings, which consisted of three stories. The height given must also be understood as referring to the height within. Consequently the side buildings had an internal height of 3 X 5 cubits, and reckoning the floorings and the roof of the whole building an external height of 1 8 or 20 cubits; so that the temple-house, which was thirty cubits high within and about thirty-two without, rose about twelve or fourteen cubits above the side building, and there was plenty of room for the windows in the side walls. '\X\ tflfcW: " and it (the side building) held to the house with cedar beams." The meaning is, that the building was fastened to the house by the joists of the cedar beams belonging to the different stories, which rested upon rebates of the temple wall, so that it was firmly attached to the temple-house, without any injurious insertions into the sanctuary itself. This is apparently the only explanation, that can be grammatically sustained, of wrords that have received such different interpretations. For the translation given by Thenius, which coincides with this, — viz. " he fastened it (each separate story of the building) to the temple-house with cedar wood, namely, with the cedar beams which formed the flooring and roofing of the three stories," — is exposed to this grammatical objection, that the suffix is wanting in ths^ and that TnN is never followed by JiK in the sense of with. All the other explanations are unsuitable, thjtf signifies neither " he covered the house " (Chald., Vulg., Luther), nor " he overlaid the house; " moreover, the roofing of the house has been already mentioned in ver. 9, and there is no trace to be found of any overlaying or covering of the outside with cedar wood.

If, therefore, we reckon the thickness of the temple wall at six cubits, and that of the outer wall of the side building and the front wall of the porch at three cubits each, the whole building would be ninety-three cubits long (externally) and forty-eight cubits broad. The height of the temple-house was about thirtytwo cubits externally, and that of the side stories from eighteen to twenty cubits, without the socle upon which the whole building rested. This is not mentioned indeed, as being a subordinate matter, but would certainly not be omitted.1 The number of rooms in the side buildings is not given, but may be set down at thirty in each story, if their length corresponded to their breadth in the lower story. These rooms had of course windows, although they are not mentioned in the account, but each one would have only a small window sufficient to give it the requisite light. And as to the number of the temple windows also, we can simply make conjectures. We can hardly assume that there were more than six on each side, and there were probably none at the back.

Vers. 11-13. Pkomise of God during the Building of the Temple. — In what way this promise was communicated to Solomon is not more precisely stated. But the expression " And the word of Jehovah came" seems to point to a prophetic medium. And this is in harmony with ch. ix. 2, according to which Jehovah only revealed Himself to Solomon twice by an actual appearance. — Yer. 12. 'U1 WW is placed at the head absolutely: "As for the house which thou art building (HJ3, a participle), if thou walkest in my statutes,... I will set up my word, which I spake to thy lather David." The reference is to the promise in 2 Sam. vii. 12 sqq. of the everlasting establishment of his throne. God would fulfil this for Solomon if he would walk in the commandments of the Lord, as his father had already urged upon him when he handed over the kingdom (ch. ii. 3). The promise in ver. 13, " I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel," does not contain a second promise added to the one given in 2 Sam. vii. 1 2 sqq., but simply a special application of it to the building of the temple which had already been commenced. The eternal establishment

1 Thenius, on the other hand, reckons the length of the whole building at a hundred cubits and its breadth at fifty-two, because, on the unfounded assumption that the temple in Ezekiel's vision was simply a copy of Solomon's temple, he sets down the thickness of the temple wall in front and along the two sides at six cubits, and that of the hinder wall at seven. Moreover, he not only reckons the internal length of the house at sixty-two cubits, in opposition to the statement in the text, that the length of the house (which was divided into the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies) was sixty cubits; but in opposition to ver. 16, according to which the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies were separated by boards of cedar, he assumes that there was a wall of two cubits in thickness between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, according to Ezek. xli. 3; and, lastly, for no other reason than the wish to get the round number 100, he takes for granted that the hinder wall of the temple was a cubit thicker than that on the other sides.

of the throne of David involved the dwelling of God among His people, or rather is founded upon it. This dwelling of God is now to receive a new and lasting realization. The temple is to be a pledge that the Lord will maintain for His people His covenant of grace and His gracious presence. In this respect the promise, " I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel, and not forsake my people Israel," is a confirmation of the word which Jehovah had spoken to David, although, so far as the actual words are concerned, it is more closely connected with Lev. xxvi. 11, when the highest blessing attendant upon the faithful observance of the commandments of God is summed up in the promise, " I will make my abode among you, and my soul will not despise you."

Vers. 14-35. The Internal Arrangements of the Templehouse. — Vers. 14—22. Internal covering of the house, and division into Holy and Most Holy. — Ver. 14 (cf. ver. 9) resumes the description of the building of the temple, which had been interrupted by the divine promise just communicated. — Ver. 15. " He built (i.e., so far as the sense is concerned, he covered) the walls of the house within with boards of cedar; from the floor of the house to the walls of the ceiling he overlaid it with wood within, and overlaid the floor with cypress boards." The expression niT'ip jBDn^ " avails of the ceiling," is very striking here, and renders it probable that niTp is only a copyist's error for nhip, " beams of the ceilings" The whole of the inside of the house was covered with wood, so that nothing was to be seen of the stone wall (ver. 18). On the other hand, the biblical text knows nothing of any covering of the outer walls also with wood, as many have assumed. — Vers. 16, 17. "And he built Dn:^jrnx n^N\ the twenty cubits (i.e. the space of twenty cubits), of the hinclermost side of the house with boards of cedar," from the floor to the beams (of the roof), nn^n-ny is to be explained from IBDn rtiTp iv in ver. 15. "And built them for it (the house — Sb pointing back to rP3?) into the hinder room, into the Most Holy." T3fl is more precisely defined by the apposition BHp BTIP.l1, and therefore denotes the Most Holy Place. But there is a doubt as to its derivation and true meaning. Aquila and Symmachus render it yjprq\xaTi(jT'r}piov, Jerome \a\r]TrjpLov, or in the Vulg. oraculum, so that they derive it from "CT, to speak; and Hengstenberg adopts this derivation in Ps. xxviii. 2: T^ lit. that which is spoken, then the place wdiere the speaking takes place. Most of the more recent commentators, on the other hand, follow the example of C. B. Michaelis and J. Simonis, and render it, after the Arabic, the hinder portion or back room, which is favoured by the antithesis kX& few, the front sanctuary (ver. 1 7). The words of the text, moreover, are not to be understood as referring to a cedar wall in front of the Most Holy Place which rose to the height of twenty cubits, but to all four walls of the Most Holy Place, so that the wall which divided the hinder room from the Holy Place is not expressly mentioned, simply because it is self-evident. The words also imply that the whole of the hinder space of the house to the length of twenty cubits was cut off for the Most Holy Tlace, and therefore the party wall must also have filled the whole height of the house, which was as much as thirty cubits, and reached, as is expressly stated, from the floor to the roof. There remained therefore forty cubits of the house (in length) for ^p? fcpn, the front palace, i.e. the Holy Place of the temple (ver. 17). \^p?, anterior, formed from *JD7 (cf. Ewald, § 1G4, a). — In ver. 18 there is inserted in a circumstantial clause the statement as to the internal decoration of both rooms; and the further description of the Most Holy Place is given in vers. 1 9 sqq. " And cedar wood was (placed) against the house inside, sculpture of gourds (colocynthides) and open buds." nyppp is in apposition to PK, containing a more minute description of the nature of the covering of cedar. J"W?P9 signifies sculpture, half-raised work {basso relievo); not, however, " that kind of bas-relief in which the figures, instead of rising above the surface on which they are wrought, are simply separated from it by the chiselling out of their outlines, and their being then rounded off according to these outlines" (Thenius). For although the expression niyi?pp »mna (ver. 29) appears to favour this, yet "merely engraved work" does not harmonize with the decorations of the brazen stands in ch. vii. 31, which are also called rri J^PD. D'VPQ are figures resembling the n'ypa or wild gourds (2 Kings iv, 39), i.e. oval ornaments, probably running in straight rows along the walls. D^ *!*&? are open flower-buds; not hangings or garlands of flowers (Thenius), for this meaning cannot be derived from ">E3 in the sense of loosening or setting free, so as to signify flowers loosened or set free (= garlands), which would be a marvellous expression! The objection that, "according to Kum. xvii. 23, flowers not yet opened, i.e. flower-buds, were not &»', but D^nft/1 rests upon a false interpretation of the passage referred to. — Ver. 19. "And (= namely) he prepared a hinder room in the house within, to place the ark of the covenant of Jehovah there." pri, as ch. xvii. 14 shows, is not a future (ut rcponeres), but the infinitive nn with a repeated syllable in (see Ewald, § 238, c). — Ver. 20. " And the interior of the hinder room was twenty cubits the length, twenty cubits the breadth, and twenty cubits its height." The word *)&> I agree with Kimchi in regarding as the construct state of the noun ttSO?. which occurs a^ain in ver. 29 in the sense of the inner part or interior, as is evident from the antithesis P^np (on the outside). "And he overlaid it with fine gold." TOD 3HT (= nfaD in Job xxviii. 15) unquestionably signifies fine or costly gold, although the derivation of this meaning is still questionable; viz. whether it is derived from "UD in the sense of to shut up, i.e. gold shut up or carefully preserved, after the analogy of DH3; or is used in the sense of taking out or selecting, i.e. gold selected or pure; or in the sense of closed, i.e. gold condensed or unadulterated (Fiirst and Delitzsch on Job xxviii. 15).

The Most Holy Place had therefore the form of a perfect cube in the temple as well as in the tabernacle, only on an enlarged scale. Now, as the internal elevation of the house, i.e. of the whole of the temple-house, the hinder portion of which formed the Most Holy Place, was thirty cubits, there was a space of about ten cubits in height above the Most Holy Place and below the roof of the temple-house for the upper rooms mentioned in 2 Chron. iii. 9, on the nature and purpose of which nothing is said in the two accounts.1 " And he overlaid (clothed) the altar with cedar wood." There is something very striking in the allusion to the altar in this passage, since the verse itself treats simply of the Most Holy Place; and still more striking is the expression "WW? "^!!,???rin, "the altar belonging to the Dcbir" in ver. 22, since there was no altar in the Most Holy

1 This upper room does not presuppose, however, that the party wall, which follows as a matter of course from ver. 16, was not merely a cedar wall, but a wall two cubits thick. The supposed difficulty of setting up a cedar wall thirty cubits high is not so great as to necessitate assumptions opposed to the text. For we cannot possibly see why it could not have been made secure M without injuring the temple wall." The wood panelling must have been nailed firmly to the wall without injuring the wall itself; and therefore this could be done just as well in the case of the cedar beams or boards of the party wall.

Place. We cannot remove the strangeness of these sentences by such alterations as Thenius and Bottcher propose, because the alterations suggested are much too complicated to appear admissible. The allusion to the altar in both these verses is rather to be explained from the statements in the Pentateuch as to the position of the altar of incense; viz. Ex. xxx. 6, " Thou shalt place it before the curtain, which is above the ark of the testimony before the capporeth over the testimony; " and Ex. xl. 5, "before the ark of the testimony;" whereby this altar, although actually standing " before the inner curtain," i.e. in the Holy Place, according to Ex. xl. 26, was placed in a closer relation to the Most Holy Place than the other two things which were in the Holy Place. The clothing of the altar with cedar presupposes that it had a heart of stone; and the omission of the article before n?TD may be explained on the ground that it is mentioned here for the first time, just as in ver. 16, where ■V31 was first mentioned, it had no article. — Ver. 21. To the gilding of the Most Holy Place, and the allusion to the altar of incense, which in a certain sense belonged to it, there is now appended in ver. 2 1 the gilding of the Holy Place. " Solomon overlaid the house from within with fine gold." no^BD n;an cannot be the party wall between the Holy Place and the Most Holy, as I formerly supposed, but is the Holy Place as distinguished from the Most Holy. The following words 'W TSJN are very obscure. If we rendered them, " he caused to pass over in (with) golden chains before the hinder room," we could only think of an ornament consisting of golden chains, which ran alone: the wall in front of the hinder room and above the folding doors. But this would be very singularly expressed. We must therefore take i?y, as Gesenius, de Wette, and many of the earlier commentators do, according to the Chaldsean usage in the sense of bolting or fastening: " he bolted (fastened) with golden chains before the hinder room; " and must assume with Merz and others that the doors into the Most Holy Place (except on the day of atonement) were closed and fastened with golden chains, which were stretched across the whole breadth of the door and stood out against the wall.1 — The following expres-

1 The conjecture of Thenius, that DDTSnTIX (the curtain) has dropped out of the text and should be restored ("he carried the curtain across with golden chains "), is very properly described by Merz as " certainly untenable," since, apart from the fact that not one of the older versions contains sion, 3HJ way?," and lie overlaid it with gold/' can only refer to the altar mentioned in the previous verse, the gilding of which has not yet been noticed, however surprising the separation of these words from ver. 20 may be. — In ver. 22 what has already been stated with regard to the gilding is repeated once more in a comprehensive manner, which brings this subject to a close. The whole house (n*an"73) is the Holy Place and the Most Holy, but not the porch or hall, as this is expressely distinguished from the house,??ft?;!!,, the whole altar, not merely a portion of it.

Vers. 23—28. The large cherub-figures in the Most Holy Place. — Ver. 23. He made (caused to be made) in the hinder room two cherubs of olive wood, i.e. wood of the oleaster or wild olivetree, which is very firm and durable, and, according to 2 Chron. iii. 10, tPyfyx nfeljB, i.e., according to the Vulgate, opus statuarium, a peculiar kind of sculpture, which cannot be more precisely defined, as the meaning of JftX is uncertain. " Ten cubits was the height of it " {i.e. of the one and of the other). The figures had a human form, like the golden cherubs upon the ark of the covenant, and stood upright upon their feet (2 Chron. iii. 13), with extended wings of five cubits in length, so that one wing of the one reached to one wing of the other in the centre of the room, and the other wing of each reached to the opposite wall, and consequently the four extended wings filled the entire breadth of the Most Holy Place (a breadth of twenty cubits), and the two cherubs stood opposite to one another and ten cubits apart. The wings were evidently fastened to the back and placed close to one another upon the shoulder-blades, so that the small space between their starting-points is not taken into consideration in the calculation of their length. The figures were completely overlaid with gold. The ark of the covenant was placed between these cherubs, and under the wings which pointed towards one another. As they were made like those upon the ark, they had evidently the same meaning, and simply served to strengthen the idea which was symbolized in the cherub, and which we have expounded in the Com- the missing words, chains would have impeded the moving of the curtain. It is true that, according to 2 Chron. iii. 14, there was a curtain before the Most Holy Place; but as it is not mentioned so early as this even in the Chronicles, this would not be its proper position in the account before us, but it would be most suitably mentioned either in connection with or after the reference to the doors of the Most Holy Place in vers, ul and 32.

mentary on Ex. xxv. 20 sqq. Only their faces were not turned towards one another and bent down towards the ark, as in the case of the golden cherubim of the ark; but, according to 2 Chron. iii. 13, they were turned nja?, towards the house, i.e. the Holy Place, so as to allow of the extension of the wings along the full length of the Most Holy Place.

Vers. 29— 35. Ornaments of the walls; the floors and doors. — Ver. 29. All the walls of the house (the Holy Place and the Most Holy) round about (2DD, adverb) he made engraved work (carving) of cherubs, palms, and open flowers from within to the outside {i.e. in the Most Holy as well as in the Holy Place). h.. JO = b*.. JO; and X*vh as in ver. 20. This completes the account of the nature of the covering of wood. In addition to the oval figures and open flowers (ver. 18), there were also figures of cherubim and palm-trees carved in the wooden panels. Nothing is said as to the distribution of these figures. But a comparison wTith Ezek. xli. 18 shows at any rate so much, that the palmtrees alternated with the cherubs, so that there was always one cherub standing between two palm-trees. The gourd-shaped figures and the open flowers probably formed the upper and lower setting of the rows of palms and cherubs, the flowers hanging in the form of garlands above the palms and cherubs, and the rows of gourds arranged in bars constituting the boundary lines both above and below. It is a disputed question whether there was only one row of palms and cherubs running round the walls, or whether there were two, or possibly even three. There is more probability in the second or third of these assumptions than in the first, inasmuch as on the walls of the Egyptian temples there were often three or four rows of mythological characters in relief arranged one above another (compare my work on the Temple, pp. 70 sqq.). — Ver. 30. The floor of the house he overlaid with gold within and without, i.e. in the Most Holy Place and in the Holy Place also. — Vers. 31, 32. He made the entrance to the back room, doors {i.e. consisting of doors; cf. Ewald, § 284, a, fi) of olive wood, which moved, according to ch. vii. 50, on golden hinges. 'W TWtn, " the projection of the door-posts was a fifth " (rrittTD is construed freely as an explanatory apposition to ^N?, to which it is really subordinate; cf. Ewald, § 290, e). These obscure words, which have been interpreted in very different wrays (see Ges. Thes. pp. 43 sq.), can hardly have any other meaning than this: the projecting framework of the doors occupied the fifth part of the breadth of the wall For the explanation given by Bottcher and Thenius, " the entrance framework with posts of fifth strength," has no real support in Ezek. xli. 3. To justify the rendering given to JVtfon (fifth strength), tJNH is supplied, though not in the sense of projection, but in the thoroughly unwarranted sense of strength or thickness of the wall; and in addition to this, a wall two cubits thick is postulated between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place, in direct contradiction to ver. 16. The further evidence, which Thenius finds in ch. viii. 8, in support of this explanation, has been already rejected by Bottcher as unsustained. It w7ould indeed be extremely strange for the thickness of the doorposts which formed the setting of the entrance to be given, whereas nothing is said about the size of the doors. According to our explanation, " a fifth of the breadth of the wall," the entrance was four cubits broad including the projecting doorposts, and each of the two wings of the folding doors about a cubit and a half broad, if we reckon the projecting framework on either side at half a cubit in breadth. — Ver. 32. " And two doors (i.e. folding doors, sc. he made; 7?^ is also governed by nb>y in ver. 31) of olive wood, and carved upon them carved work," etc., as upon the walls (ver. 29), " and overlaid them with gold, spreading the gold upon the cherubs and palms " fnj, hiphil of *m)j i-c- ne spread gold-leaf upon them, so that, as Eashi observes, all the figures, the elevations and depressions of the carved work, were impressed upon the coating of gold-leaf, and were thus plainly seen. Thenius infers from this explanatory clause, that the gilding upon the walls and doors was most probably confined to the figures engraved, and did not extend over the whole of the walls and doors, because, if the doors had been entirely overlaid with gold, the gilding of the carved work upon them would have followed as a matter of course. But this inference is a very doubtful one. For if it followed as a matter of course from the gilding of the entire doors that the carved work upon them was overlaid with gold, it would by no means follow that the overlaying was such as to leave the carved work visible or prominent, which this clause affirms. Moreover, a partial gilding of the walls would not coincide writh the expression n*3n~73 Drny in ver. 22, since these words, which are used with emphasis, evidently affirm more than " that such (partial) gilding was carried out everywhere throughout the temple proper."