Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

The doors in front of the Most Holy Place did not render the curtain mentioned in 2 Chron. iii. 14 unnecessary, as many suppose. This curtain may very well have been suspended within the doors; so that even when the doors were opened outwards on the entrance of the high priest, the curtain formed a second covering, which prevented the priests who were ministering in the Holy Place and court from looking in.1 — Vers. 33, 34. "And thus he made upon the door of the Holy Place posts of olive wood from a fourth (of the wall)," i.e. a framework which occupied a fourth of the breadth of the wall, or was five cubits broad (see at ver. 31), "and two doors of cypress wood, two leaves each door turning," i.e. each of the folding doors consisting of two leaves, each of which was made to turn by itself, so that it could be opened and shut alone (without the other; Wy?P is probably only a copyist's error for D*ykf). Cypress wood was chosen for the folding doors of the Holy Place, and not olive wood, as in the case of the Most Holy Place, probably because it is lighter in weight, and therefore less likely to sink It is questionable here what idea we are to form of the division of each folding door into two leaves, each of which turned by itself: whether we are to think of each wing as divided lengthwise into two narrow leaves, or as divided half way up, so that the lower half could be opened without the upper. I agree with Merz in thinking the latter the more probable assumption; for the objection made by Thenius, on the ground that doors of this kind are only seen in the houses of the peasantry, is an idle assertion which cannot be proved. In a doorway of live cubits in breadth, after reckoning the doorposts the width of the two wings could not be more than two cubits each. And if such a door had been divided into two halves, each half would have been only one cubit wide, so that when open it would not have furnished the requisite room for one man conveniently to pass through. On the other hand, we may assume that a folding door of four cubits in breadth, if made in just proportions, would be eight cubits high. And a door of such a height might easily be

1 H. Merz (Herzog's Cycl.) now admits this, whereas he formerly agreed with Ewald and others in denying the existence of the curtain in Solomon's temple, and regarded the curtain (veil) in Matt, xxvii. 51, 52 as an arbitrary addition made by Herod out of his princely caprice, thus overlooking the deep symbolical meaning which the veil or curtain possessed.

divided into two halves, so that only the lower half (of two cubits in breadth and about four in height) was opened for the daily entrance of the priests into the Holy Place. These doors probably opened outwards, like those in front of the Most Holy Place. — Ver. 35. Carving and gilding: as upon the doors before the hinder room. The gold was levelled or smoothed over that which had been engraved, i.e. it was beaten out thin and laid upon the carving in such a manner that the gold plate fitted closely to the figures. Gilding was generally effected in ancient times by the laying on of gold plate, which was fastened with tacks (compare 2 Chron. iii. 9).

Ver. 36. The courts. — " He built the inner court three rows of hewn stones and one row of hewn cedar beams." The epithet inner court applied to the " court of the priests" (2 Chron. iv. 9) presupposes an outer one, which is also mentioned in 2 Chron. iv. 9, and called " the great court." The inner one is called the upper (higher) court in Jer. xxxvi. 10, from which it follows that it was situated on a higher level than the outer one, which surrounded it on all sides. It was enclosed by a low wall, consisting of three rows of hewn stones, or square stones, laid one upon another, and a row of hewn cedar beams, which were either laid horizontally upon the stones, after the analogy of the panelling of the temple walls on the inside, or placed upright so as to form a palisading, in order that the people might be able to see through into the court of the priests. According to 2 Chron. iv. 9, the outer court had gates lined with brass, so that it was also surrounded with a high wall. Around it there were chambers and cells (2 Kings xxiii. 1 1; Jer. xxxv. 4, xxxvi. 10) for the priests and Levites, the plans for which had already been made by David (1 Chron. xxviii. 12). The principal gate was the east gate (Ezek. xi. 1). Other gates are mentioned in 2 Kings xi. 6, 2 Chron. xxiii. 5, Jer. xx. 2, 2 Kings xii. 10, 2 Chron. xxiv. 8. The size of these courts is not given. At the same time, following the analogy of the tabernacle, and with the reduplication of the rooms of the tabernacle which is adopted in other cases in the temple, we may set down the length of the court of the priests from east to west at 200 cubits, and the breadth from south to north at 1 0 0 cubits; so that in front of the temple -building on the east there was a space of 100 cubits in length and breadth, or 10,000 square cubits, left free for the altar of burnt-offering and the other vessels, in other words, for the sacrificial worship. The outer or great court will therefore, no doubt, have been at least twice as large, namely, 400 cubits long and 200 cubits broad, i.e., in all, 80,000 square cubits; so that the front space before the court of the priests (on the eastern side) was 150 cubits long from east to west, and 200 cubits broad from south to north, and 50 cubits in breadth or depth still remained for the other three sides.

Vers. 37, 38. The time consumed in "building. — The foundation was laid in the fourth year in the month Ziv (see ver. 1), and it was finished in the eleventh year in the month Bid, i.e. the eighth month, so that it was built in seven years, or, more precisely, seven years and a half, " according to all its matters and all its due." fe for *& signifies proventus; 7*3 rrv is therefore the fruit month, the month of tree fruits. The name probably originated with the Phoenicians, with whom the fruit ripened later; and it is said to be found upon the great Sidonian inscription (compare Dietrich on Ges. Lex. s.v.). For other explanations see Ges. Thes. p. 560. In comparison with other large buildings of antiquity,1 and also of modern times, the work was executed in a very short time. But we must bear in mind that the building was not a very large one, notwithstanding all its splendour; that an unusually large number of workmen were employed upon it; and that the preparation of the materials, more especially the hewing of the stones, took place at Lebanon, and for the most part preceded the laying of the foundation of the temple, so that this is not to be included in the seven years and a half. Moreover, the period mentioned probably refers to the building of the temple-house and court of the priests only, and to the general arrangement of the outer court, and does not include the completion of the underground works which were necessary to prepare the space required for them, and of which only a portion may have been carried out by Solomon.2

1 According to Pliny (H. N. 36, c. 14), all Asia was building at the celebrated temple of Diana at Ephesus for 220 years.

2 The account given by Josephus of these substructures does not show very clearly how much originated with Solomon, and how much belongs to the following centuries. At the close of his description of Solomon's temple (Ant. viii. 3, 9), he states that, in order to obtain the same level for the 't^codsu ispou, i.e. the outer court of the temple, as that of the voto;, he had large valleys filled up, into which it was difficult to look down on account of their depth, by raising the ground to the height of 400 cubits, so as to make them

The importance of the temple is clearly expressed in ch. viii. 13, 27, ix. 3, 2 Chron. vi. 2, and other passages. It was to be a house built as the dwelling-place for Jehovah, a place for His seat for ever; not indeed in any such sense as that the house could contain God within its space, when the heavens of heavens cannot contain Him (ch. viii. 27), but a house where the name of Jehovah is or dwells (ch. viii. 1 6 sqq.; 2 Chron. vi. 5; cf. 2 Sam. vii. 13, etc.), i.e. where God manifests His presence in level with the top of the mountain; and in the de Bell. Jud. v. 5, 1, after describing the temple-mountain as a mighty hill, the summit of which hardly sufficed for the temple-house and altar when the building was commenced, because it sloped off on all sides, he adds: " Solomon therefore caused a wall to be raised on the eastern side, and had a porch built upon the ground that was heaped up, and on the other sides the temple (veto;) was naked (yvfA»&i)J" But in the description of the temple of Herod {Ant. xv.

11, 3) he says: "The temple was surrounded by enormous porticos (oroai), which rested upon a large wall, and were the largest work of which men have ever heard. It was a steep rocky hill, rising gradually towards the eastern part of the city up to the highest point. This hill Solomon surrounded with a wall by very great works up to the very apex, and walled it round, commencing at the root, which is surrounded by a deep ravine, with stones which wrere fastened together with lead,... and continuing to the top, so that the size and height of the building, which was completed as a square, were

immense," etc. The flat obtained in this manner is then described by Josephus as a 'xtpifio'Kos of four stadia in circumference, namely, one stadium on each side. Now, although it was the outer court of the temple of Herod (the court of the Gentiles) which first had this circumference (see my bibl. Archdol. i. pp. 143, 144), and Josephus, de Bell. Jud. v. 5, 1, relates that subsequently (roig e%ij$ uiZaiv) the levelling of the hill was carried out to even a greater extent, as the people still continued to heap up earth, it is quite conceivable that Solomon may have planned the area of the temple with this circumference. And this conjecture acquires great probability from the fact that, according to the researches of Robinson (Pal. i. pp. 420 sqq.; Recent Investigations concerning the Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 68 sqq.; and Later Biblical Researches, pp. 173 sqq.), there are layers of enormous square stones in the lowest part of the south-western and south-eastern corners of the present Haram wall, the dimensions of which, apart from the fact that they are hewn with grooved edges, point to an early Israelitish origin, so that they might very well be relics of the Solomonian substructures of the templehill. There is also the remnant of the arch of a bridge of the same construction on the southern portion of the western wall of the Haram, which points to a bridge that led across from Mori ah to Zion, and " appears to remove all the objections to the identity of this part of the enclosure of the mosque with that of the ancient temple" (Rob. Pal. i. p. 426). " Here then," adds Robinson (Pal. i. pp. 427, 428), " we have indisputable remains of Jewish antiquity, consisting of an important portion of the western wall of a real manner to His people, and shows Himself to them as the covenant God, so that Israel may there worship Him and receive an answer to its prayers. The temple had therefore the same purpose as the tabernacle, whose place it took, and which it resembled in its fundamental form, its proportions, divisions, and furniture. As the glory of the Lord entered into the tabernacle in the cloud, so did it into the temple also at its dedication, to sanctify it as the place of the gracious presence of God (ch. viii the ancient temple area. They are probably to be referred to a period long antecedent to the days of Herod; for the labours of this splendour-loving tyrant appear to have been confined to the body of the temple and the porticos around the court. The magnitude of the stones also, and the workmanship, as compared with other remaining monuments of Herod, seem to point to an earlier origin. In the accounts we have of the destruction of the temple by the Chaldseans, and its rebuilding by Zerubbabel under Darius, no mention is made of these exterior walls. The former temple was destroyed by fire, which would not affect these foundations; nor is it probable that a feeble colony of returning exiles could have accomplished works like these. There seems, therefore, little room for hesitation in referring them back to the days of Solomon, or rather of his successors, who, according to Josephus, built up here immense walls, « immoveable for all time.' ' rer probable this assumption maybe, the successors of Solomon cannot come into consideration at all, since Josephus says nothing of the kind, and the biblical accounts are not favourable to this conjecture. With the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon the might of the kings of Judah was broken; and the accounts of the new court which Jehoshaphat built, i.e. of the restoration of the inner court (2 Chron. xx. 5), and of the repairs of the temple by Joash (2 Kings xii. 5 sqq.; 2 Chron. xxiv. 4 sqq.) and Josiah (2 Kings xxii. 5 sqq. J 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8 sqq.), do not produce the impression that walls so costly or so large could have been built at that time. The statement of Josephus (i.e. de Bell. Jud. v. 5, 1) concerning the gradual extension of the levelled hill, has reference to the enlargement of the temple area towards the north, inasmuch as he adds to the words already quoted: " and cutting through the north wall, they took in as much as was afterwards occupied by°the circumference of the whole temple." — If, therefore, the remains of the ancient wall which have been mentioned, with their stones of grooved edges, are of early Israelitish origin, we must trace them to Solomon; and this is favoured still further by the fact, that when Solomon had a magnificent palace built for himself opposite to the temple (see ch. vii. 1-12), he would assuredly connect the temple-mountain with Zion by a bridge.— Even J. Berggren (Bibel u. Josephus uber Jems. u. d. heil Grab.) thinks it probable that ''"the so-called remains of an arch in the western Haram wall may be, as Robinson at first indicated, a relic of that ancient and marvellous xystus bridge, with which the Davidic steps on the two steep sides of the valley of the Tyropceum, constructed for the purpose of going from Moriah to Zion or from Zion to Moriah, were connected."

10; 2 Chron. v. 14). The temple thereby became not only a visible pledge of the lasting duration of the covenant, by virtue of which God would dwell among His people, but also a copy of the kingdom of God, which received at its erection an embodiment answering to its existing condition at the time. As the tabernacle, with its resemblance to a nomad's tent, answered to the time when Israel had not yet found rest in the promised land of the Lord; so was the temple, regarded as an immoveal >le house, a pledge that Israel had now acquired its lasting inheritance in Canaan, and that the kingdom of God on earth had obtained a firm foundation in the midst of it. — This relation between the temple and the tabernacle will serve to explain all the points of difference which present themselves between these two sanctuaries, notwithstanding their agreement in fundamental forms and in all essential particulars. As a house or palace of Jehovah, the temple was not only built of solid and costly materials, with massive walls of square stones, and with floors, ceilings, walls, and doors of cedar, cypress, and olive woods — these almost imperishable kinds of wood — but was also provided with a hall like the palaces of earthly kings, and with side buildings in three stories in which to keep the utensils requisite for a magnificent ceremonial, though care was taken that these adjoining and side buildings were not attached directly to the main building so as to violate the indestructibility and perfectness of the house of God, but merely helped to exalt it and elevate its dignity. And the increased size of the inner rooms, whilst the significant forms and measures of the tabernacle were preserved, was also essentially connected with this. Whereas the length and breadth of the dwelling were doubled, and the height of the whole house tripled, the form of a cube was still retained for the Most Holy Place as the stamp of the perfected kingdom of God (see Comm. on Pent. vol. ii. p. 184), and the space was fixed at twenty cubits in length, breadth, and height. On the other hand, in the case of the Holy Place the sameness of height and breadth were sacrificed to the harmonious proportions of the house or palace, as points of inferior importance; and the measurements were thirty cubits in height, twenty cubits in breadth, and forty cubits in length; so that ten as the number of perfectness was preserved as the standard even here. And in order to exhibit still further the perfectness and glory of the house of God, the walls were not constructed of ordinary quarry- stone, but of large square stones prepared at the quarry, and the walls were panelled within with costly wood after the manner of the palaces of Hither Asia, the panelling being filled with carved work and overlaid with gold plate. And whereas the overlaying of the whole of the interior with gold shadowed forth the glory of the house as the residence of the heavenly King, the idea of this house of God was still more distinctly expressed in the carved work of the walls. In the tabernacle the walls were decorated with tapestries in costly colours and interwoven figures of cherubim; but in the temple they were ornamented with carved work of figures of cherubim, palms, and opening flowers. To the figures of cherubim, as representations of the heavenly spirits which surround the Lord of glory and set forth the psychical life at its highest stage, there are thus added flowers, and still more particularly palms, those " princes of the vegetable kingdom," which, with their fine majestic growth, and their large, fresh, evergreen leaves, unite within themselves the whole of the fulness and glory of the vegetable life; to set forth the sanctuary (probably with special reference to Canaan as the land of palms, and with an allusion to the glory of the King of peace, inasmuch as the palm is not only the sign of Palestine, but also the symbol of peace) " as a place that was ever verdant, abiding in all the freshness of strength, and enfolding within itself the fulness of life," and thereby to make it a scene of health and life, of peace and joy, a " paradise of God," where the righteous who are planted there flourish, and blossom, and bear fruit to old age (Ps. xcii. 13). And this idea of the house, as an immoveable dwellingplace of God, is in perfect harmony with the setting up of two colossal cherubim in the Most Holy Place, which filled the whole space with their outspread wings, and overshadowed the ark of the covenant, to show that the ark of the covenant with its small golden cherubim upon the Capporeth, which had journeyed with the people through the desert to Canaan, was henceforth to have there a permanent and unchangeable abode.

Vers. 1—12. Erection of the royal palace. — Ver. 1 is closely connected in form with ch. vi. 38, and contains a summary account of the building, which is more minutely described in vers. 2-12. " And Solomon built his house (his palace) in thirteen years, and finished (in that time) all his house." The thirteen years are to be reckoned after the completion of the temple in seven years, so that the two buildings were executed in twenty years (ch. ix. 10). The expression wn"73 is used, because the palace consisted of several buildings connected together; namely, (1) the house of the forest of Lebanon (vers. 2-5); (2) the pillar-hall with the porch (ver. 6); (3) the throneroom and judgment-hall (ver. 7); (4) the king's dwelling-house and the house of Pharaoh's daughter (ver. 8). That all these buildings were only different portions of the one royal palace, and the house of the forest of Lebanon was not a summer residence of Solomon erected on Lebanon itself, as many of the earlier commentators supposed, is indisputably evident, not only from the first verse when correctly interpreted, but also and still more clearly from the fact that when the buildings of Solomon are spoken of afterwards (see ch. ix. 1, 10, 15, and x. 12), we only read of the house of Jehovah and the house of the king, that is to say, of the temple and one palace. The description of the several portions of this palace is so very brief, that it is impossible to form a distinct idea of its character. The different divisions are given in vers. 1-8 in their natural order, commencing at the back and terminating with the front (ver. 8), and there then follows in vers. 9-12 the description of the stones that were used. — Vers. 2-5. The house of the forest of Lebanon. — This building — so named because it was built, so to speak, of a forest of cedar pillars — is called in the Arabic the " house of his arms," because, according to ch. x. 17, it also served as a keeping-place for arms: " it is hardly to be regarded, however, as simply an arsenal, but was probably intended for other purposes also. He built it "a hundred cubits its length, fifty cubits its breadth, and thirty cubits its height, on four rows of cedar pillars, and hewn cedar beams (were) over the pillars." As the building was not merely a hall of pillars, but, according to ver. 3, had siderooms (n'ypv, cf. ch. vi. 5) above the pillars, the construction of it can hardly be represented in any other way than this, that the rooms were built upon four rows of pillars, which ran round all four sides of the building, which was 100 cubits long and fifty cubits broad in the inside, and thus surrounded the inner courtyard on all sides. Of course the building could not rest merely upon pillars, but was surrounded on the outside with a strong wall of hewn square stones (ver. 9), so that the hewn beams which were laid upon the pillars had their outer ends built into the wall, and were supported by it, so as to give to the whole building the requisite strength.1 — Ver. 3. " And roofing in (of) cedar was above over the side-rooms upon the pillars, five and forty; fifteen the row." J3D is to be understood of the roofing, as in ch. vi 15. (compare |Qp, ch. vi. 15). The numbers "forty-five and fifteen the row " cannot refer to &*?§££, but must refer, as Thenius assumes, to T\)f&r\ as the main idea, which is more precisely defined by B*Tragfl?y. if we took it as referring to the pillars, as I myself have formerly done, we should have to assume that there were only galleries or pillar-halls above the lower rows of pillars, which is at variance with Jfy^rn There were forty-five side-rooms, therefore, built upon the lower rows of pillars, in ranges of fifteen each. This could only be done by the ranges of rooms being built, not side by side, but one over the other, in other words, by the forty-five side-rooms forming three stories, as in the side buildings of the temple, so that each

1 Thenius therefore supposes that " the lower part of the armoury formed a peristyle, a fourfold row of pillars running round inside its walls and enclosing a courtyard, so that the Vulgate alone gives the true sense, quatuor deambulacra inter columnas cedrinas; " and he points to the court of the palace of Luxor, which has a double row of pillars round it. The number of pillars is not given in the text, but Thenius in his drawing of this building sets it down at 400, which would certainly present a forest-like aspect to any one entering the building. Nevertheless we cannot regard this assumption as correct, because the pillars, which we cannot suppose to have been less than a cubit in thickness, would have been so close to one another that the four rows of pillars could not have formed four deambulacra. As the whole building was only fifty cubits broad, and this breadth included the inner courtyard, we cannot suppose that the sides of the building were more than ten cubits deep, which would leave a breadth of thirty cubits for the court. If then four pillars, each of a cubit in thickness, stood side by side or one behind the other in a space of ten cubits in depth, the distance between the pillars would be only a cubit and a half, that is to say, would be only just enough for one man and no more to walk conveniently through. And what could have been the object of crowding pillars together in this way, so as to render the entire space almost useless? It is on this ground, probably, that Hermann Weiss assumes that each side of the oblong building, which was half as broad as it was long, was supported by one row, and therefore all the sides together by four rowrs of cedar pillars, and the beams of the same material which rested upon them. But this view is hardly a correct one; for it not only does not do justice to the words of the text, " four rows of pillars," but it is insufficient in itself, for the simple reason that one row of pillars on each side would not have afforded the requisite strength and stability to the three stories built upon them, even story had a "row" of fifteen side-rooms round it. This view receives support from ver. 4: " and beam-layers (p^pf, beams, as in ch. vi. 4) were three rows, and outlook against outlook three times; " i.e. the rows of side-rooms were built one over the other by means of layers of beams, so that the rooms had windows opposite to one another three times; that is to say, the windows looking out upon the court were so arranged in the three stories that those on the one side were vis a vis to those on the opposite side of the building. The expression in ver. 5, njriD"7K ntno bmt " window over against window," compels us to take Wttrtic in the sense of " opposite to the window" (/K, versus), and not, as Thenius proposes, " outlook against outlook," according to which;X is supposed to indicate that the windows were only separated from one another by slender piers. nJH?, which only occurs here, is different from fbn, the ordinary window, and probably denotes a large opening affording a wide outlook. — Ver. 5. "And all the doorways and mouldings were square of beams" (*]P&> is an accusative of free subordination, denoting the material or the mode of execution; cf. Ewald, § 284, a, /3). "Square with a if we should not suppose the rooms in these stories to be very broad, since the further three rows of pillars, which Weiss assumes in addition, according to ver. 3, as the actual supporters of the upper building, have no foundation in the text. The words "four rows of cedar pillars " do not absolutely require the assumption that there were four rows side by side or one behind the other on every side of the building; for the assertion that'll does not denote a row in the sense of a straight line, but generally signifies a row surrounding and enclosing a space, is refuted by Ex. xxviii. 17, where we read of the four D'HIB of precious stones upon the breastplate of the high priest. — Is it not likely that the truth lies midway between these two views, and that the following is the view most in accordance with the actual fact, namely, that there were four rows of pillars running along the full length of the building, but that they were distributed on the two sides, so that there were only two rows on each side? In this case a person entering from the front would see four rows of pillars running the whole length of the building. In any case the rows of pillars would of necessity be broken in front by the entrance itself.

The utter uncertainty as to the number and position of the four rows of pillars is sufficient in itself to render it quite impossible to draw any plan of the building that could in the slightest degree answer to the reality. Moreover, there is no allusion at all in the description given in the text to either entrance or exit, orto staircases and other things, and the other buildings are still more scantily described, so that nothing certain can be determined with regard to their relative position or their probable connection with one another. For this reason, after studying the matter again and again, I have been obliged to relinquish the intention to illustrate the description in the text by drawings.

straight upper beam" (Thenius) cannot be the correct rendering of &|£t? &yx\. Thenius proposes to read nJQ?™ for nhTTpn^ after the reading at %wpat of the Seventy, who have also rendered Hint? in ver. 4 by %w/9a, a broad space. It may be pleaded in support of this, that P*JG"i is less applicable to the doorposts or mouldings than to the doorways and outlooks (windows), inasmuch as, if the doorways were square, the square form of the moulding or framework would follow as a matter of course. DWlBn are both the doors, through which the different rooms were connected with one another, and also those through which the building and its stories were reached, of course by stairs, probably winding staircases, as in the side stories of the temple. The stairs were placed, no doubt, at the front of the building. The height given is thirty cubits, corresponding to that of the whole building (ver. 2). If we reckon the height of the lower pillars at eight cubits, there were twenty-two cubits left for the stories; and assuming that the roofing of each was one cubit in thickness, there remained eighteen cubits in all for the rooms of the three stories; and this, if equally distributed, would give an internal height of six cubits for each story, or if arranged on a graduated scale, which would probably be more appropriate, a height of seven, six, and five cubits respectively.

Vers. 6-8. The other buildings. — Ver. 6. "And he made the pillar-hall, fifty cubits its length, and thirty cubits its breadth, and a hall in front of them, and pillars and a threshold in front of them." With regard to the situation of this hall in relation to the other parts of the building, which is not precisely defined, we may infer, from the fact that it is mentioned between the house of the forest of Lebanon and the throne and judgment halls, that it stood between these two. The length of this building (fifty cubits) corresponds to the breadth of the house of the forest of Lebanon; so that, according to the analogy of the templehall (ch. vi. 3), we might picture to ourselves the length given here as running parallel to the breadth of the house of the forest of Lebanon, and might therefore assume that the pillar-hall was fifty cubits broad and thirty cubits deep. But the statement that there was a hall in front of the pillar-hall is irreconcilable with this assumption. We must therefore understand the length in the natural way, as signifying the measurement from back to front, and regard the pillar-hall as a portico fifty cubits long and thirty cubits broad, in front of which there was also a porch as an entrance. DrMffvp, in front of them, i.e. in front of the pillars which formed this portico. The last words, " and pillars and threshold in front of them," refer to the porch. This had also pillars, probably on both sides of the doorway, which carried the roof; and in front of them was ^V, i.e., according to the Chaldee NA?PD, the moulding or framework of the threshold, a threshold-like entrance, with steps. — Ver. 7. "And the throne-hall, where he judged, the judgment-hall, he made and (indeed) covered writh cedar, from floor to floor." The throne-hall and the judgment-hall are therefore one and the same hall, which was both a court of judgment and an audience-chamber, and in which, no doubt, there stood the splendid throne described in ch. x. 18-20. But it is distinguished from the pillar-hall by the repetition of nfc^, It probably followed immediately upon this, but was clearly distinguished from it by the fact that it was covered with cedar VplPC *W PiTlffi?!?. These wTords are very obscure. The rendering given by Thenius, "panelled from the floor to the beams of the roof," is open to these objections: (1) that |BD generally does not mean to panel, but simply to cover, and that }2D r)N2 in particular cannot possibly be taken in a different sense here from that which it bears in ver. 3, where it denotes the roofing of the rooms built above the portico of pillars; and (2) that the alteration of the second ypipn into nnipn has no critical warrant in the rendering of the Syriac, a fundamento ad cazluru ejus usque, or in that of the Vulgate, a pavimento usque ad summitatem, whereas the LXX. and Chald. both read VP">^ "W. But even if we were to read nnipn, this would not of itself signify the roof beams, inasmuch as in ch. vi. 16 rnTjpn 0r nnipn receives its more precise definition from the expression |Qpn nvvj? (nnip) in ver. 15. The words in question cannot have any other meaning than this: " from the one floor to the other," i.e. either from the floor of the throne-hall to the floor of the pillar-hall (described in ver. 6), or more probably from the lower floor to the upper, inasmuch as there wrere rooms built over the throne-room, just as in the case of the house of the forest of Lebanon; for VP~]P may denote not only the lower floor, but also the floor of upper rooms, which served at the same time as the ceiling of the lower rooms. So much, at any rate, may be gathered from these words, with all their obscurity, that the throne-hall was not an open pillar-hall, but wras only open in front, and was shut in by solid walls on the other three sides. —

Ver. 8. After (behind) the throne and judgment hall then followed the king's own palace, the principal entrance to which was probably through the throne-hall, so that the king really delivered judgment and granted audiences in the gate of his palace. " His house, where he dwelt, in the other court inwards from the (throne) hall was like this work," i.e. was built like the throne-hall; " and a (dwelling) house he made for the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon had taken, like this hall." The construction of the dwelling-places of the king and queen cannot be ascertained from these words, because the hall with which its style is compared is not more minutely described. All that can be clearly inferred from the words, "in the other court inside the hall," is, that the abode of the king and his Egyptian wife had a court of its own, and when looked at from the entrance, formed the hinder court of the whole palace. The house of Pharaoh's daughter was probably distinct from the dwelling-place of the king, so that the palace of the women formed a building by itself, most likely behind the dwelling-house of the king, since the women in the East generally occupy the inner portion of the house. The statement that the dwelling-place of the king and queen formed a court by itself within the complex of the palace, warrants the further inference, that the rest of the buildings (the house of the forest of Lebanon, the pillar-hall, and the throne-hall) were united together in one first or front court. Vers. 9-1 2. " All these (viz. the whole of the buildings described in vers. 2-8) were costly stones, after the measure of that which is hewn, sawn with the saw within and without (i.e. on the inner and outer side of the halls and buildings), and from the foundation to the corbels, and from without to the great court." ninatpn, the corbels, upon which the beams of the roof rest. The Sept. renders it eco? twv yecacjp. Thenius understands by this the battlements which protected the flat roofs, and therefore interprets niriQD as signifying the stone border of the roof of the palace. But yetaos, or yeicraos, <yelaaov, merely signifies the projection of the roof, and, generally speaking, every projection in a building resembling a roof, but not the battlement-like protection or border of the flat roof, which is called npj;» in Deut. xxii. 8. pn, the outside in distinction from the great court, can only be the outer court; and as nbSltn nvnn is no doubt identical with WJpKn Wl (ver. 8), and therefore refers to the court surrounding the king's dwelling-house, fin is to be understood as relating to the courtyard or fore-court surrounding the front halls. — Vers. 10, 11. " And the foundation was laid with costly, large stones of ten and eight cubits (sc. in length, and of corresponding breadth and thickness). And above (the foundation, and therefore the visible walls, were) costly stones, after the measure of that which is hewn, and cedars." — Ver. 12. And (as for) the great court, there were round it three rows (i.e. it was formed of three rows) of hewn stones and a row of hewn cedar beams, as in the inner court of the house of Jehovah (see at ch. vi. 36) and the hall of the house. ^$5 signifies " and so with the court," Vav serving as a comparison, as in Prov. xxv. 3, 20, and frequently in Proverbs (see Dietrich in Ges. Lex. s.v. 1, and Ewald, § 340, b), so that there is no necessity for the un-Hebraic conjecture of Thenius, W&D. n\27\ D^t6 in all probability refers not to the temple-hall, but to the pillar-hall of the palace, the surrounding wall of which was of the same nature as the wall of the great, i.e. the other or hinder, court.1

1 The situation of this palace in Jerusalem is not defined. Ewald supposes (Gesch. iii. p. 317) that it was probably built on the southern continuation of the temple-mountain, commonly called Ophel, i.e. Hill. But " nothing more is needed to convince us that it cannot have stood upon Ophel, than a single glance at any geographical outline of Ophel on one of the best of the modern maps, and a recollection of the fact that, according to Neh. iii. 26, 31, it was upon Ophel, where the king's palace is said to have stood, that the templesocagers and shopkeepers had their places of abode after the captivity" (Thenius). The view held by earlier travellers and pilgrims to Zion, and defended by Berggren (p. 109 sqq.), namely, that the ancient Solomonian and Asmonsean palaces stood upon Moriah on the western side of the temple, is equally untenable. For the xystus, above which, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 3, the Asmonsean palace stood, was connected with the temple by a bridge, and therefore did not stand upon Moriah, but upon Zion or the civo) Kohis, since this bridge, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. vi. 6, 2, connected the temple with the upper city. Moreover, it clearly follows from the passages of Josephus already noticed (p. 84 sq.), in which he refers to the substructures of the temple area, that the temple occupied the whole of Moriah towards the west, and extended as far as the valley of the Tyropoeon, and consquently there was no room for a palace on that side. When Josephus affirms, therefore {Ant. viii. 5, 2), that Solomon's palace stood opposite to the temple (durtKpvg e^au vuou), it can only have been built on the northeast side of Zion, as most of the modern writers assume (see W. Krafft, make these vessels king Hiram had sent to Solomon, at his request (2 Chron. ii. 6), a workman named Hiram of Tyre. Ver. 13 contains a supplementary remark, in which n?B^} must be rendered in the pluperfect (compare the remarks on Gen. ii. 19). King Solomon had sent and fetched Hiram from Tyre. This artisan bore the same name as the king, Dvn or DiVn (ver. 40), in 2 Chron. ii. 13 QWI (Huram), with the epithet *3£, i.e. my father, 3K being a title of honour equivalent to master or counsellor, as in Gen. xlv. 8. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was +C& Bfyc, i.e. a Tyrian by birth. According to 2 Chron. ii. 1 3, his mother was u of the daughters of Dan," i.e. of the tribe of Dan. Both statements may easily be united thus: she was a Danite by birth, and married into the tribe of Naphtali. When her husband died, she was married again as the widow of a Naphtalite, and became the wife of a Tyrian, to whom she bore a son, Hiram. This explanation is also adopted by Bertheau (on the Chronicles); and the conjecture of Lundius, Thenius, and others, that the mother was an Israelitish widow of the city of Dan in the tribe of Naphtali, which was quite close to Tyre, is less in harmony with the expression " of the daughters of Dan." HETU V~}hf « a brass- worker," refers to wn (he), i.e. Hiram, and not to his father (Thenius). The skill of Hiram is described in almost the same terms as that of Bezaleel in Ex. xxxi. 3 sqq., with this exception, that Bezaleel's skill is attributed to his being filled with the Spirit of God, i.e. is described rather as a supernatural gift, whereas in the case of Hiram the more indefinite expression, " he was filled with wisdom, etc.," is used, representing it rather as a natural endowment. In the account given here, Hiram is merely described as a worker in brass, because he is only mentioned at the commencement of the section which treats of the preparation of the brazen vessels of the temple. According to 2 Chron. ii. 14, he was able to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, wood, purple, etc. There is nothing improbable in this extension of his skill to wood and to

Topographie Jerus. p. 114 sqq., and Berggr. p. 110). This is sustained not only by the probability that the Asmonreans would hardly build their palace anywhere else than on the spot where the palace of the kings of Judah built by Solomon stood, but also by the account of the elevation of Joash to the throne in 2 Kings xi. and 2 Chron. xxiii., from which it is perfectly obvious that the royal palace stood upon Zion opposite to the temple.

the art of weaving. Bezaleel also combined in himself all these talents. Of course Hiram was merely a foreman or leader of these different branches of art; and he certainly did not come alone, but brought several assistants with him, who carried out the different works under his superintendence. — The enumeration of them commences with the pillars of the temple-hall.

Vers. 15—22. The brazen pillars of the porch (compare 2 Chrom iii. 15-17). — He formed the two brazen pillars, which were erected, according to 2 Chron. iii. 15, "before the (temple) house, i.e. in front of the hall of the temple. One was eighteen cubits high, and a thread of twelve cubits surrounded (spanned) the other pillar." The statement of the height of the one pillar and that of the circumference of the other is to be understood as an abbreviated expression, signifying that the height and thickness mentioned applied to the one as well as to the other, or that they were alike in height and circumference. According to the Chronicles, they were thirty-five cubits long; which many expositors understand as signifying that the length of the two together was thirty-five cubits, so that each one was only 17^- cubits long, for which the full number 18 is substituted in our text. But this mode of reconciling the discrepancy is very improbable, and is hardly in harmony with the words of the Chronicles. The number 35 evidently arose from confounding the numeral letters it = 1 8 with n5> = 35. The correctness of the number 18 is confirmed by 2 Kings xxv. 17 and Jer. Iii. 21. The pillars were hollow, the brass being four finger-breadths in thickness (Jer. Iii. 21); and they were cast in the Jordan valley (ver. 46). — Ver. 16. "And he made two capitals (nnnb), to set them on the heads of the pillars, cast in brass, five cubits the height of the one and of the other capital." If, on the other hand, in 2 Kings xxv. 17 the height of the capital is said to have been three cubits, this discrepancy cannot be explained on the supposition that the capitals had been reduced two cubits in the course of time; but the statement rests, like the parallel passage in Jer. Iii. 22, upon an error of the text, i.e. upon the substitution of:i (3) for n (5). — Ver. 17. * Plait {i.e. ornaments of plait), plait-work and cords (twist, resembling) chain-work, were on the capitals, which were upon the heads of the pillars, seven on the one capital and seven on the other capital." Consequently this decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which were hung round the capitals of the pillars. — Ver. 18. " And he made pomegranates, and indeed two rows round about the one twist, to cover the capitals which were upon the head of the pillars; and so he did with the other capital." In the Masoretic text the words D'H/iB^n and D^'cnn are confused together, and we must read, as some of the Codd. do, in the first clause IMtennrjiK for DH^yrrriK, and in the middle clause DHttsyn B*M$ for tfifenn B*Cr^. ' This is not only required by the sense, but sustained by a comparison wTith ver. 19. The relation between the two rows of pomegranates and the plaited work is indeed not precisely denned; but it is generally and correctly assumed, that one row ran round the pillars below the plaited work and the other above, so that the plaited work, which was formed of seven cords plaited together in the form of festoons, was enclosed above and below by the rows of pomegranates. If wre compare with this the further statements in vers. 41 and 42, 2 Chron. iii. 16 and iv. 12, 13, and Jer. lii. 23, ninbn is there more precisely designated rhnbn rfpj, " bowls of the capitals," from which it is evident that the lower portion of the capitals, to which the braided work was fastened, was rounded in the form of a pitcher or caldron. The number of the pomegranates on the two festoons is given at 400, so that there were 200 on each capital, and consequently each row contained 100 (2 Chron. iii. 16); and according to Jer. (Lc.) there were 96 HrtHJ " windwards," and in all 100 on the braided work round about, nrnri, u windwards," can hardly be taken in any other sense than this: in the direction of the wind, i.e. facing the four quarters of the heavens. This meaning is indisputably sustained by the use of the wTord W1, to denote the quarters of the heavens, in statements of the aspect of buildings (Ezek. xlii. 16-18), whereas there is no foundation whatever for such meanings as " airwards = uncovered" (Bottcher, Thenius), or hanging freely (Ewald).1 — In vers. 1 9 and 20a second decoration of the capitals of the pillars

1 It is hardly necessary to observe, that the expression nn P)NK>, to gasp for air, in Jer. ii. 24, xiv. 6, does not warrant our giving to nrPH the meaning open or uncovered, as Bottcher supposes. But when Thenius follows Bottcher (Proben, p. 335) in adducing in support of this the fact " that the tangent, which is drawn to any circle divided into a hundred parts, covers exactly four of these parts," the fact rests upon a simple error, inasmuch as any drawing will show that a tangent only touches one point of a circle divided into a hundred parts. And the remark of Bottcher, " If you describe on the outside of a circle of twelve cubits in circumference a hundred small circles of twelve-hundredths of a cubit in diameter, a tangent drawn thereupon will is mentioned, from which we may see that the rounding with the chain-like plaited work and the pomegranates enclosing it did not cover the capital to the very top, but only the lower portion of it. The decoration of the upper part is described in ver. 1 9: 11 And capitals, which were upon the top of the pillars, were (or, Hiram made) lily-work after the manner of the hall, four cubits." The lily- work occupied, according to ver. 20, the upper portion of the capitals, which is here called nirib, as a crown set upon the lower portion. It was lily-work, i.e. sculpture in the form of flowering lilies. The words ritox V2"}X Dtikzi are obscure. According to Bottcher and Thenius, B^isa is intended to indicate the position of the pillars within the hall, so that their capitals sustained the lintel of the doorway. But even if D^Nn were rendered, within the hall, as it is by Bottcher, it is impossible to see how this meaning could be obtained from the words " capitals upon the head of the pillars lily- work within the hall." In that case we must at least have " the pillars within the hall;" and Dpwa would be connected with D^TCByn, instead of being separated from it by |&W n^vp. Even if we were to introduce a stop after |K*iB* and take D7IN3 by itself, the expression " in (or at) the hall" would not in itself indicate the position of the pillars in the doorway, to say nothing of the fact that it is only in ver. 2 1 that anything is said concerning the position of the pillars. Again, the measurement "four cubits" cannot be understood, as it is by Thenius, as denoting the diameter of the capitals of the pillars; it must rather indicate the measure of the lily-work, that is to say, it affirms that there were four cubits of lily-work on the capitals, which were five cubits high, — in other words, the lily-work covered the four upper cubits of the capitals; from which it still further follows, that the plaited work which formed the decoration of the lower portion of the capitals was only one cubit broad or high. Consequently D^iNa cannot be understood in any other sense than " in the manner of or according to the hall," and can only express the thought, that there was lily-work on the capitals of the pillars as there was on the hall. For the vindication of this use of 2 cover to the eye exactly four small circles, although mathematically it touches only one of them in one point," is not correct according to any measurement. For if the tangent touches one of these smaller circles with mathematical exactness, to the eye there will be covered either three or five half circles, or even seven, but never four.

see Ges. Lex, by Dietrich, s.v. 21 There is no valid objection to the inference to which this leads, namely, that on the frontispiece of the temple-hall there was a decoration of lily-work. For since the construction of the hall is not more minutely described, we cannot expect a description of its decorations. — In ver. 20 a more precise account is given of the position in which the crowns consisting of lily- work were placed on the capitals of the columns, so that this verse is to be regarded as an explanation of ver. 1 9: namely, capitals upon the pillars (did he make) also above near the belly, which was on the other side of the plait- work." JOan^ the belly, i.e. the belly-shaped rounding, can only be the rounding of the lower portion of the capitals, which is called nfe in vers. 41, 42. Hence rtMfrn iiyh (Kcri), "on the other side of the plaited work," can only mean behind or under the plait, since we cannot suppose that there was a belly-shaped rounding above the caldron-shaped rounding which was covered with plaited work, and between this and the lily-work. The belly-shaped rounding, above or upon which the plaited work lay round about, might, when looked at from without, be described as being on the other side of it, i.e. behind it. In the second half of the verse: " and the pomegranates two hundred in rows round about on the second capital," the number of the pomegranates placed upon the capitals, which was omitted in ver. 18, is introduced in a supplementary form.2 — Ver. 21. "And

1 This is the way in which the earlier translators appear to have understood it: e.g., LXX. tpyov xpivov x.ctroc to ctl'hot,^. rtaadcpuv Trny^uv ("lily- work according to the hall four cubits"); Vulg. Capitella... quasi opere lilii

Syr. opus liliaceum idem fecit (]n f\cc>\*^ ^vn) in porticu quatuor cubitis. These readings appear to be based upon the view supported by Rashi (D^fcO for D^J<3): lily-work as it was in the hall.

2 Hermann Weiss (Kosliimkunde, i. p. 367) agrees in the main with the idea worked out in the text; but he assumes, on the ground of monumental views, that the decoration was of a much simpler kind, and one by no means out of harmony with the well-known monumental remains of the East. In his opinion, the pillars consisted of "a shaft nineteen cubits in height, surrounded at the top, exactly after the fashion of the ornamentation of the Egyptian pillars, with seven bands decorated like plaited work, which unitedly covered a cubit, in addition to which there was the lily-work of five cubits in height, i.e. a slender capital rising up in the form of the calyx of a lily, ornamented with pomegranates." Our reasons for dissenting from this opinion are given in the exposition of the different verses.

he set up the pillars at the hall of the Holy Place, and set up the right pillar, and called its name Jachin, and... the left... Boaz." Instead of ^Sm D^«6 we have in 2 Chron. iii. 15 *»£ ITOn, and in ver. 17 Wwi \:s^y, "before the house," "before the Holy Place." This unquestionably implies that the two brazen pillars stood unconnected in front of the hall, on the right and left sides of it, and not within the hall as supporters of the roof. Nevertheless many have decided in favour of the latter view. But of the four arguments used by Thenius in proof that this was the position of the pillars, there is no force whatever in the first, which is founded upon Amos ix. 1, unless we assume, as Merz and others do, that the words of the prophet, " Smite the capital, that the thresholds may shake, and break them (the capitals of the pillars), that they may fall upon the head of all," refer to the temple at Jerusalem, and not. as Thenius and others suppose, to the temple erected at Bethel for the calf-worship. For even if the temple at Bethel had really had a portal supported by pillars, it would by no means follow that the pillars Jachin and Boaz in Solomon's temple supported the roof of the hall, as it is nowhere stated that the temple of Jeroboam at Bethel was an exact copy of that of Solomon. And even with the only correct interpretation, in which the words of Amos are made to refer to the temple at Jerusalem, the argument founded upon them in support of the position of the pillars as bearers of the hall rests upon the false idea, that the t^Bp, which are shaken by the smiting of the capital, are the beams lying upon the top of the pillars, or the superliminaria of the hall. It is impossible to prove that *]D has any such meaning. The beam over the entrance, or upon the doorposts, is called *tfp?to in Ex. xii. 7, 22, 23, whereas *|? denotes the threshold, i.e. the lower part of the framework of the door, as is evident from Judg. xix. 27. The words of the prophet are not to be interpreted architecturally, but to be taken in a rhetorical sense; " so that by the blow, which strikes the capital, and causes the thresholds to tremble, such a blow is intended as shakes the temple in all its joints" (Baur on Amos ix. 1). " -rinMr^ a kind of ornament at the top of the pillars, and D^SDn, the thresholds, are opposed to one another, to express the thought that the building is to be shaken and destroyed a summo usque ad imum, a capite ad calcem" (Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 366 transl.). The other arguments derived from

Ezek xl. 48 and 49, and from Josephus, Ant. viii. 3, 4, prove nothing at all. From the words of Josephus, rovrav tcov tciovwv top p,ev erepov Kara rrjv he^tav earrjae rov irpoirvXalov irapaaraha rbv Se erepov, tc.r.X., it would only follow " that the pillars (according to the view of Josephus) must have stood in the doorway," if it were the case that irapaard^ had no other meaning than doorpost, and irpo-nvXaiov could be understood as referring to the temple-hall generally. But this is conclusively disproved by the fact that Josephus always calls the templehall irpovaov (I.e., and viii. 3, 2 and 3), so that irpoirvXaiov can only denote the fore-court, and irapatnas; a pillar standing by itself. Consequently Josephus regarded the pillars Jachin and Boaz as propylcca erected in front of the hall. We must therefore adhere to the view expressed by Bahr (d. Tcmpcl, p. 35 sqq.), that these pillars did not support the roof of the temple-hall, but were set up in front of the hall on either side of the entrance. In addition to the words of the text, this conclusion is sustained (1) by the circumstance that the two pillars are not mentioned in connection with the building of the temple and the hall, but are referred to for the first time here in the enumeration of the sacred vessels of the court that were made of brass. " If the pillars had formed an essential part of the construction and had been supporters of the hall, they would certainly have been mentioned in the description of the building, and not have been placed among the articles of furniture " (Schnaase); and moreover they would not have been made of metal like the rest of the vessels, but would have been constructed of the same building materials as the hall and the house, namely, of stone or wood (Bahr). And to this we may add (2) the monumental character of the pillars, which is evident from the names given to them. No architectural portion of the building received a special name.1 Jachin (P?;): " he establishes/' stabiliet tcmplv.m (Simonis Onom. p. 430); and Boaz (Ty'3), ex W i3 in illo, sc. Domino, robur (Sim. p. 460). Kimchi has correctly interpreted the first name thus: " Let this temple

1 Stieglitz (Gesch. der Baukunst, p. 127) aptly observes in relation to this: " The architect cannot subscribe to Meyer's view (that the pillars were supporters of the hall), since it was only through their independent position that the pillars received the solemn character intended to be given to them, and by their dignity subserved the end designed, of exaltiug the whole building and calling attention to the real purpose of the whole."

Stand for ever;" and the second, " Solomon desired that God would give it strength and endurance." The pillars were symbols of the stability and strength, whicli not only the temple as an outward building, but the kingdom of God in Israel as embodied in the temple, received from the Lord, who had chosen the temple to be His dwelling-place in the midst of His people.1 — In ver. 22 it is stated again that there was lily-work upon the head of the pillars, — a repetition which may be explained from the significance of this emblem of the capitals of the pillars; and then the words, " So was the work of the capitals finished," bring the account of this ornament of the temple to a close.

Vers. 23-26. TJie brazen sea (cf. 2 Chron. iv. 2-5). — " He made the molten sea — a water-basin called D* {mare) on account of its size — ten cubits from one upper rim to the other," i.e. in diameter measured from the upper rim to the one opposite to it, " rounded all round, and five cubits its (external) height, and a line of thirty cubits encircled it round about," i.e. it was thirty cubits in circumference. The Chethib nip is to be read »Tij5 here and in Zech. i. 16 and Jer. xxxi. 39, for which the Keri has ijj in all these passages, njjj or lij means a line for measuring, which is expressed in ver. 15 by Din. The relation of the diameter to the circumference is expressed in whole numbers which come very near to the mathematical proportions. The more exact proportions would be as 7 to 22, or 113 to 355. — Tor. 24. And colocynths (gourds) ran round it under its brim, ten to the cubit, surrounding the sea in two rows; the colocynths " cast in its casting," i.e. cast at the same time as the vessel itself. Instead of D^ViJQ, gourds (see at ch. vi. 18), we find rfiD'n QV)i??, figures of oxen, in the corresponding text of the Chronicles, and in the last clause merely "ijjsin, an evident error of the pen, onpn being substituted by mistake for D^ypa, and afterwards interpreted D*npl Did. The assumption by which the early expositors removed the discrepancy, namely, that they were casts of bullocks' heads, is not to be thought of, for the simple reason that D"Hp2 signifies oxen and not the heads of oxen. How far apart the two rows of gourd-like ornaments were, it is impossible

1 There is no necessity to refute the fanciful notion of Ewald, that these, pillars, " when they were erected and consecrated, were certainly named after men who were held in estimation at that time, probably after the younger sons of Solomon," and that of Thenius, that 7573. py, " He (the Lord) establishes with strength," was engraved upon them as an inscription.

to decide. Their size may be estimated, from the fact that there were ten within the space of a cubit, at a little over two inches in diameter. — Ver. 25. This vessel stood (rested) upon twelve brazen oxen, three turning to the north, three to the west, three to the south, and three to the east, u and the sea above upon them, and all their backs (turned) inwards;" i.e. they were so placed that three of their heads were directed towards each quarter of the heavens. The size of the oxen is not given; but we must assume that it was in proportion to the size and height of the sea, and therefore about five cubits in height up to the back. These figures stood, no doubt, upon a metal plate, which gave them a fixed and immoveable position (see the engraving in my bill. Archdol. Taf. iii. fig. 1). — Ver. 26. "And its thickness (i.e. the thickness of the metal) was a handbreadth" = four finger-breadths, as in the case of the brazen pillars (see at ver. 15), " and its upper rim like work of a goblet (or of a gobletrim, i.e. bent outwards), lily-blossom," i.e. ornamented with lilyflowers. It held 2000 baths; according to the Chronicles, 3000 baths. The latter statement has arisen from the confusion of 2 (3) with 2 (2); since, according to the calculation of Thenius, the capacity of the vessel, from the dimensions given, could not exceed 2000 baths. This vessel, which took the place of the laver in the tabernacle, was provided for the priests to wash themselves (2 Chron. iv. 6), that is to say, that a supply of water might be kept in readiness to enable the priests to wash their hands and feet when they approached the altar to officiate, or were about to enter the Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 18 sqq.). There were no doubt taps by which the water required for this purpose was drawn off from the sea.1 — The artistic form of the vessel corresponded to its sacred purpose. The rim of the basin, which rose upwards in the form of a lily, was intended to point to the holiness and loveliness of that life which issued from the sanctuary. The twelve oxen, on which it rested, pointed to the twelve tribes of Israel as a priestly nation, which cleansed itself

1 For the different conjectures on this subject, see Lundius, jud. Heiligthiimer, p. 356. Thenius supposes that there was also a provision for filling the vessel, since the height of it would have rendered it a work of great labour and time to fill it by hand, and that there was probably a pipe hidden behind the figures of the oxen, since, according to Aristeas, histor. LXX. lnterp., Oxon. 1692, p. 32 (also Eusebii prazp. evang. ix. 38), there were openings concealed at the foot of the altar, out of which water was allowed to run at certain seasons for the requisite cleansing of the pavement of the court from here in the persons of its priests, to appear clean and holy before the Lord. Just as the number twelve unquestionably suggests the allusion to the twelve tribes of the covenant nation, so, in the choice of oxen or bullocks as supporters of the basin, it is impossible to overlook the significance of this selection of the first and highest of the sacrificial animals to represent the priestly service, especially if we compare the position of the lions on Solomon's throne (ch. x. 20).

Vers. 27-39. The Brazen Stands and their Basins.1 — He made ten stands of brass, each four cubits long, four cubits broad, and three cubits high, rrobp^ stands or stools (Luther), is the name given to these vessels from their purpose, viz. to serve as supports to the basins which were used for washing the flesh of the sacrifices. They were square chests cast in brass, of the dimensions given. — Vers. 28, 29. Their work (their construction) was the following: they had nfajpD, lit. surroundings, i.e. panels or flat sides, and that between B'1??^, commissural, i.e. frames or borders, which enclosed the sides, and were connected together at the angles; and upon the panels within the borders (there were figures of) lions, oxen, and cherubim. The statement in Josephus, that each centre was divided into three compartments, has nothing to support it in the biblical text, nor is it at all probable in itself, inasmuch as a division of this kind would have rendered the figures placed upon them insignificantly small. " And upon the borders was a base above." I? is a noun, and has been rendered correctly by the Chaldee **£??, basis. The meaning is, above, over the borders, there was a pedestal for the basin upon the chest, which is more fully described in ver. 31. To take J2 as an adverb does not give a suitable sense. For if we adopt the rendering, and upon the corner borders (or ledges) likewise above (De Wette and Ewald), — i.e. there were also figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim upon the corner borders, the blood of the sacrifices; and there is still a fountain just in the neighbourhood of the spot on which, according to ver. 39, the brazen sea must have stood (see Schultz's plan); and in the time of the Crusaders there was a large basin, covered by a dome supported by columns (see Robinson, Pal. i. 446). But even if the later temple was supplied with the water required by means of artificial water-pipes, the Solomonian origin of these arrangements or designs is by no means raised even to the rank of probability.

1 The description which follows will be more easily understood by comparing •with it the sketch given in my hiblische Archaologie, Taf. hi. fig. 4.

— it is impossible to tell what the meaning of?Vft£ can be, to say nothing of the fact that on the corner borders there could hardly be room for such figures as these. This last argument also tells against the rendering adopted by Thenius: " and upon the corner borders, above as well as below the lions and oxen, (there were) wreaths; " in which, moreover, it is impossible to attach any supportable meaning to the |3. When, on the other hand, Thenius objects to our view that the pedestal in question is spoken of for the first time in ver. 31, and that the expression " above the corner borders (ledges) " would be extremely unsuitable, since the pedestal in question was above the whole stand; the former remark is not quite correct, for ver. 3 1 merely contains a more minute description of the character of the pedestal, and the latter is answered by the fact that the pedestal derived its strength from the corner borders or ledges. " And below the lions and oxen were wreaths, pendant work." rriv, here and at ver. 36, is to be explained from iTO in Prov. i. 9 and iv. 9, and signifies twists or wreaths. TMD H^O is not "work of sinking," i.e. sunken work (Thenius), which never can be the meaning of TtiD, but pendant work, festoons, by which., however, we cannot understand festoons hanging freely, or floating in the air. — Ver. 30. " Every stool had four brazen wheels and brazen axles, and the four feet thereof had shoulder-pieces; below the basin were the shoulder-pieces cast, beyond each one (were) wreaths." The meaning is that the square chests stood upon axles with wheels of brass, after the style of ordinary carriage wheels (ver. 33), so that they could be driven or easily moved from one place to another; and that they did not rest directly upon the axles, but stood upon four feet, which were fastened upon the axles. This raised the chest above the rim of the wheels, so that not only were the sides of the chest which were ornamented with figures left uncovered, but, according to ver. 32, the wheels stood below the panels, and not, as in ordinary carriages, at the side of the chest. With regard to the connection between the axles and the wheels, Gesenius (Thes. p. 972) and Thenius suppose that the axles were fastened to the wheels, as in the Koman plaustra and at the present day in Italy, so as to turn with them; and Thenius argues in support of this, that Br6 is to be connected not only with what immediately precedes, but also with *31D nt?ru. But this latter is unfounded; and the idea is altogether irreconcilable with the fact that the wheels had naves (BVgfy ver. 33), from which we must infer that they revolved upon the axles. The words D«v nbna vntoyQ n{J2")Kl are ambiguous. They may either he rendered, " and its four feet had shoulder-pieces," or, as Thenius supposes, " and its four feet served as shoulderpieces." nbya means stepping feet, feet bent out as if for stepping (Ex. xxv. 12). The suffix attached to vnoya refers to njiao, the masculine being often used indefinitely instead of the feminine, as in Drp in ver. 28. Thenius compares these feet to the ayLtafo7roSe? of the Greeks, and imagines that they were divided below, like fork-shaped upright contrivances, in which, as in forks, the wheels turned with the axles, so that the axle-peg, which projected outwards, had a special apparatus, instead of the usual pin, in the form of a stirrup-like and on the lower side hand-shaped holder fP), which was fastened to the lower rim of the n^DP, and descended perpendicularly so as to cover the foot, and the general arrangement of the wheels themselves received greater strength in consequence. These feet, which were divided in the shape of forks, are supposed to be called nbrj3 (shoulders), because they were not attached underneath at the edge of the stand, but being cast with the corner rims passed down in the inner angles, so that their uppermost portion was under the basin, and the lowest portion was under the stand, which we are to picture to ourselves as without a bottom, and projecting as a split foot, held the wheel, and so formed its shoulder-pieces. But we cannot regard this representation as either in accordance with the text, or as really correct. Even if orp rfsns could in any case be grammatically rendered, " they served them (the wheels and axles) as shoulders," although it would be a very questionable course to take Er6 in a different sense here from that which it bears in the perfectly similar construction in ver. 28, the feet which carried the stand could not possibly be called the shoulders of the wheels and their axles, since they did not carry the wheels, but the njtap. Moreover, this idea is irreconcilable with the following words: "below the basin were the shoulder-pieces cast." If, for example, as Thenius assumes, the mccJwnah had a cover which was arched like a dome, and had a neck in the centre into which the basin was inserted by its lower rim, the shoulder-pieces, supposing that they were cast upon the inner borders of the chest, would not be below the basin, but simply below the corners of the lid of the chest, so that they would stand in no direct relation whatever to the basin. We must therefore give the preference to the rendering, which is grammatically the most natural one, " and its feet had shoulder-pieces," and understand the words as signifying that from the feet, which descended of course from the four corner borders of the chest down to the axles, there ascended shoulder-pieces, which ran along the outside of the chest and reached to the lower part of the basin which was upon the lid of the chest, and as shoulders either supported or helped to support it. According to ver. 34, these shoulder-pieces were so cast upon the four corners of the chest, that they sprang out of it as it were, rriv C"K "OgO, opposite to each one were wreaths. Where these festoons were attached, the various senses in which ">3VD is used prevent our deciding with certainty. At any rate, we must reject the alteration proposed by Thenius, of nr"i> into WT$, for the simple reason that nns1? tr\x in the sense of a one to the other" would not be Hebraic. — In ver. 3 1 we have a description of the upper portion of the mechonah, which formed the pedestal for the basin, and therewith an explanation of is3? nnno. " And the mouth of it (the basin) was within the crown and upwards with a cubit, and the mouth of it (the crown) was rounded, stand-work, a cubit and a half (wide), and on its mouth also there was engraved work, and its panels were square, not round." To understand this verse, we must observe that, according to ver. 35, the mechonah chest was provided at the top with a dome-shaped covering, in the centre of which there was an elevation resembling the capital of a pillar (rnnbri^ the crown), supporting the basin, which was inserted into it by its lower rim. The suffix in VPB (its mouth) is supposed by Thenius to refer to the mechonah chest, and he questions the allusion to the basin, on the ground that this was so flat that a mouth-like opening could not possibly be spoken of, and the basins were never within the mechonah. But howTever correct these twro remarks may be in themselves, they by no means demonstrate the necessity of taking Vl*B as referring to the mechonah chest. For ns (the mouth) is not necessarily to be understood as denoting a mouthlike opening to the basin; but just as PK1 *a in Ex. xxviii. 32 signifies the opening of the clothes for the head, i.e. for putting the head through when putting on the clothes, so may Wa (its mouth) be the opening or mouth for the basin, i.e. the opening into which the basin fitted and was emptied, the water in the basin being let off into the mechonah chest through the headshaped neck by means of a tap or plug. The mouth was really the lower or contracted portion of the shell-shaped basin, which was about a cubit in height within the neck and upwards, that is to say, in all, inasmuch as it went partly into the neck and rose in part above it. The n*s (the mouth thereof) which follows is the (upper) opening of the crown-like neck of the lid of the mechonah. This was rounded, £~n^?, stand-work, i.e., according to De AVette's correct paraphrase, formed after the style of the foot of a pillar, a cubit and a half in diameter. " And also upon the mouth of it (the mechonah) was carved work." The DJ (also) refers to the fact that the sides of the mechonah were already ornamented with carving. Dnvraoo, the panels of the crown-like neck (n"](P) and its mouth (n*B) were square, like the panels of the sides of the mechonah chest. The fact that panels are spoken of in connection with this neck, may be explained on the assumption that with its height of one cubit and its circumference of almost five cubits (which follows from its having a diameter of a cubit and a half) it had stronger borders of brass to strengthen its bearing power, while between them it consisted of thinner plates, which are called fillings or panels. — In vers. 32, 33, the wheels are more minutely described. Every stool had four wheels under the panels, i.e. not against the sides of the chest, but under them, and rtiT, hands or holders of the wheels, i.e. special contrivances for fastening the wheels to the axles, probably larger and more artistically worked than the linch-pins of ordinary carriages. These rfT were only required when the wheels turned upon the axles, and not when they were fastened to them. The height of the wheel was a cubit and a half, i.e. not half the height, but the whole. For with a half height of a cubit and a half the wheels would have been three cubits in diameter; and as the chest was only four cubits long, the hinder wheels and front wheels would almost have touched one another. The work (construction) of the wheels resembled that of (ordinary) carriage wheels; but everything about them (holders, felloes, spokes, and naves) was cast in brass. — In ver. 34 the description passes to the upper portion of the mechonah. " And he made four shoulder-pieces at the four corners of one {i.e. of every) stand; out of the stand were its shoulder-pieces." fltona are the shoulder-pieces already mentioned in ver. 30, which were attached to the feet below, or which terminated in feet. They were fastened to the corners in such a way that they seemed to come out of them; and they rose above the corners with a slight inclination (curve) towards the middle of the neck or capital, till they came under the outer rim of the basin which rested upon the capital of the lid of the chest, so as to support the basin, which turned considerably outwards at the top. — Ver. 35. " And on the upper part of the stand (the mechondh chest) half a cubit high was rounded all round, and on the upper part were its holders, and its panels out of it. rutosn $K"i is the upper portion of the square chest. This was not flat, but rounded, i.e. arched, so that the arching rose half a cubit high above the height of the sides. This arched covering (or lid) had nhj, holders, and panels, which were therefore upon the upper part of the HjtoD. The holders we take to be strong broad borders of brass, which gave the lid the necessary firmness; and the fillings or panels are the thinner plates of brass between them. They were both nJ^p, " out of it," out of the upper part of the mechonah, i.e. cast along with it. With regard to the decoration of it, ver. 36 states that " he cut out (engraved) upon the plates of its holders, and upon its panels, cherubim, lions, and palms, according to the empty space of every one, and wreaths all round." We cannot determine anything further with regard to the distribution of these figures. — Vers. 37, 38. " Thus he made the ten stools of one kind of casting, measure, and form, and also ten brazen basins (J™"1*?), each holding forty baths, and each basin four cubits." In a round vessel this can only be understood of the diameter, not of the height or depth, as the basins were set upon (?V) the stands. ruiDisrrpy iriK ite) is dependent upon Wl: he made ten basins,... one basin upon a stand for the ten stands, i.e. one basin for each stand. If then the basins were a cubit in diameter at the top, and therefore their size corresponded almost exactly to the length and breadth of the stand, whilst the crown-like neck, into which they were inserted, was only a cubit and a half in diameter (ver. 31), their shape must have resembled that of widespreading shells. And the form thus given to them required the shoulder-pieces described in vers. 30 and 34 as supports beneath the outer rim of the basins, to prevent their upsetting when the carriage was wheeled about.1 — Ver. 39. And he put

1 The description which Ewald has given of these stands in his Geschichtc, iii. pp. 311, 312, and still more elaborately in an article in the Gotlingeit the stands five on the right side of the house and five on the left; and the (brazen) sea he put upon the right side eastwards, opposite to the south. The right side is the south side, and the left the north side. Consequently the stands were not placed on the right and left, i.e. on each side of the altar of burntoffering, but on each side of the house, i.e. of the temple-hall; while the brazen sea stood farther forward between the hall and the altar, only more towards the south, i.e. to the south-east of the hall and the south-west of the altar of burnt-offering. The basins upon the stands were for washing (according to 2 Chron. iv. 6), namely, " the work of the burnt-offering," that is to say, for cleansing the flesh and fat, which were to be consumed upon the altar of burnt-offering. By means of the stands on wheels, they could not only easily bring the water required near to the priests who were engaged in preparing the sacrifices, but could also let down the dirty water into the chest of the stand by means of a special contrivance introduced for the purpose, and afterwards take it away. As the introduction of carriages for the basins arose from the necessities of the altar-service, so the preparation of ten such stands, and the size of the basins, was occasioned by the greater extension of the sacrificial worship, in which it often happened that a considerable number of sacrifices had to be made ready for the altar at the same time. The artistic work of these stands and their decoration with figures were intended to show that these vessels were set apart for the service of the sanctuary. The emblems are to some extent the same as those on the walls of the sanctuary, viz. cherubim, palms, and flowers, which had therefore naturally the same meaning here as they had there; the only difference being that they were executed there in gold, whereas here they were in brass, to correspond to the character of the court. Moreover, there were also figures of lions and oxen, pointing no doubt to the royal and priestly characters, which were combined,

Gelehrten Nachr. 1859, pp. 131-146, is not only obscure, but almost entirely erroneous, since he proposes in the most arbitrary way to make several alterations in the biblical text, on the assumption that the Solomonian stands were constructed just like the small bronze four-wheeled kettle -carriages (hardly a foot in size) which have been discovered in Mecklenburg, Steyermark, and other places of Europe. See on this subject G. C. F. Lisch, " iiber die ehernen Wagenbecken der Bronzezeit," in the Jahrhh. des Vereiiis f. Mecklenb. Geschichte, ix. pp. 373, 374, where a sketch of a small carriage of this kind is given.

according to Ex. xix. 6, in the nation worshipping the Lord in this place.

Vers. 40—51. Summary enumeration of the other vessels of the temple. — In ver. 40 the brazen vessels of the court are given. In vers. 41—47 the several portions of the brazen pillars, the stands and basins, the brazen sea and the smaller vessels of brass, are mentioned once more, together with notices of the nature, casting, and quantity of the metal used for making them. And in vers. 48-50 we have the golden vessels of the Holy Place. This section agrees almost word for word with 2 Chron. iv. 11— v. 1, where, moreover, not only is the arrangement observed in the previous description of the temple-building a different one, but the making of the brazen altar of burntoffering, of the golden candlesticks, and of the table of shewbread, and the arrangement of the great court (2 Chron. iv. 7-9) are also described, to which there is no allusion whatever in the account before us; so that these notices in the Chronicles fill up an actual gap in the description of the building of the temple which is given here. — Ver. 40a. The smaller brazen vessels. — Hiram made the pots, shovels, and bowls. nn43n is a slip of the pen for rtTDn, pots, as we may see by comparing it with ver. 45 and the parallel passages 2 Chron. iv. 11 and 2 Kings xxv. 1 4. The pots were used for carrying away the ashes; D*yjn, the shovels, for clearing the ashes from the altar; nip"iTE>n were the bowls used for catching the blood, when the sacrificial animals were slaughtered: compare Ex. xxvii. 3 and Num. iv. 14, where forks and fire-basins or coal-pans are also mentioned. — Ver. 406 introduces the recapitulation of all the vessels made by Hiram, njiV rva, in the house of the Lord (cf. Ewald, § 300, I); in 2 Chron. iv. 11 more clearly, '" rV33; we find it also in ver. 45, for which we have in 2 Chron. iv. 16 njrp JV37, for the house of Jehovah. The several objects enumerated in vers. 41-45 are accusatives governed by riiryp. — Vers. 41-44, the brazen pillars with the several portions of their capitals; see at vers. 15-22. The inappropriate expression Q^V? *2*"2£ (upon the face of the pillars) in ver. 42 is probably a mistake for 'in W^y, " upon the two pillars," for it could not properly be said of the capitals that they were upon the surface of the pillars. — Ver. 43. The ten stands and their basins: see at vers. 2 7-37; ver. 44, the brazen sea: vid. vers. 23-26; lastly, ver. 45, the pots, etc., as at ver. 40. The Chethib?nxn is a mistake for?vxn (Keri).1 ^pP n^n?, of polished brass — accusative • of the material governed by n^V. — Ver. 46. "In the Jordan valley he cast them — in thickened earth between Succoth and Zarthan," where the ground, according to Burckhardt, Syr. ii. p. 593, is marly throughout. *™J} n?2???, " by thickening of the earth," the forms being made in the ground by stamping together the clayey soil. Succoth was on the other side of the Jordan, — not, however, at the ford near Bethsean (Thenius), but on the south side of the Jabbok (see at Judg. viii. 5 and Gen. xxxiii. 17). Zarthan or Zercda was in the Jordan valley on this side, probably at Kurn Sartabeh (see at Judg. vii. 22 and Josh. iii. 16). The casting-place must have been on this side of the Jordan, as the (eastern) bank on the other side has scarcely any level ground at all. The circumstance that a place on the other side is mentioned in connection with one on this side, may be explained from the fact that the two places were obliquely opposite to one another, and in the valley on this side there was no large place in the neighbourhood above Zarthan which could be appropriately introduced to define the site of the casting-place. — Ver. 47. Solomon left all these vessels of excessive number unweighed. n35l does not mean he laid them down (= set them up: Movers), but he let them lie, i.e. unweighed, as the additional clause, " the weight of the brass was not ascertained," clearly shows. This large quantity of brass, according to 1 Chron. xviii. 8, David had taken from the cities of Hadadezer, adding also the brass presented to him by Toi. — Vers. 48-50. The golden vessels of the Holy Place (cf. 2 Chron. iv. 19-22). The vessels enumerated here are divided, by the repetition of "WD 3HJ in vers. 49 and 50, into two classes, which were made of fine gold; and to this a third class is added in ver. 50& which was made of gold of inferior purity. As "Mp snj is governed in both instances by W} as an accusative of the material, the snj (gold) attached to the separate vessels must be taken as an adjective. " Solomon made all the vessels in the house of Jehovah (i.e. had them otv'Koi rsaaccpocKouroc xctl oktu rov oi'xcv tov (ixat'Aiojg xocl rov oi'xov Kvpt'ov, which is proved to be apocryphal by the marvellous combination of the king's house and the house of God, though it is nevertheless regarded by Thenius as genuine, and as an interesting notice respecting certain pillars in the enclosure of the inner court of the temple, and in the king's palace!

made): the golden altar, and the golden table on which was the shew-bread, and the candlesticks... of costly gold ("MD: see at ch. vi. 20). TJie house of Jehovah is indeed here, as in ver. 40, the temple with its courts, and not merely the Holy Place, or the temple-house in the stricter sense; but it by no means follows from this that Cparrps, " all the vessels," includes both the brazen vessels already enumerated and also the golden vessels mentioned afterwards. A decisive objection to our taking the bb (all) as referring to those already enumerated as well as those which follow, is to be found in the circumstance that the sentence commencing with tW is only concluded with 1UD 3i"iT in ver. 49. It is evident from this that Dv3rr?3 is particularized in the several vessels enumerated from nzirp ns onwards. These vessels no doubt belonged to the Holy Place or temple-house only; though this is not involved in the expression " the house of Jehovah," but is apparent from the context, or from the fact that all the vessels of the court have already been enumerated in vers. 40-46, and were made of brass, whereas the golden vessels follow here. That these were intended for the Holy Place is assumed as well known from the analogy of the tabernacle. njn> n^ new merely affirms that the vessels mentioned afterwards belonged to the house of God, and were not prepared for the palace of Solomon or any other earthly purpose. We cannot infer from the expression " Solomon made " that the golden vessels were not made by Hiram the artist, as the brazen ones were (Thenius). Solomon is simply named as the builder of the temple, and the introduction of his name was primarily occasioned by ver. 47. The "golden altar" is the altar of incense in the Holy Place, which is called golden because it was overlaid with gold-plate; for, according to ch. vi. 20, its sides were covered with cedar wood, after the analogy of the golden altar in the tabernacle (Ex. xxx. 1-5). " And the table, upon which the shew-bread, of gold." 2HT belongs to fwn, to which it stands in free subjection (vid. Ewald, §287, ^/signifying " the golden table." Instead of \$&} we have nfon?$n in 2 Chron. iv. 19 (the tables), because there it has already been stated in ver. 8 that ten tables were made, and put in the Holy Place. In our account that verse is omitted; and hence there is only a notice of the table upon which the loaves of shew-bread generally lay, just as in 2 Chron. xxix. 18, in which the chronicler does not contradict himself, as Thcnius fancies. The number ten, moreover, is required and proved to be correct in the case of the tables, by the occurrence of the same number in connection with the candlesticks. In no single passage of the Old Testament is it stated that there was only one table of shew-bread in the Holy Place of Solomon's temple.1 The tables were certainly made of wood, like the Mosaic table of shew-bread, probably of cedar wood, and only overlaid with gold (see at Ex. xxv. 23-30). " And the candlesticks, five on the right and five on the left, before the back-room." These were also made in imitation of the Mosaic candlestick (see Ex. xxv. 31 sqq.), and were probably placed not near to the party wall in a straight line to the right and left of the door leading into the Most Holy Place, but along the two longer sides of the Holy Place; and the same with the tables, except that they stood nearer to the side walls with the candlesticks in front of them, so that the whole space might be lighted more brilliantly. The altar of burntoffering, on the contrary, stood in front of and very near to the entrance into the Most Holy Place (see at ch. vi. 20). — In the following clause (vers. 49fr and 50a) the ornaments of the candlesticks are mentioned first, and then the rest of the smaller golden vessels are enumerated, nnsr^ the flower- work, with which the candlesticks were ornamented (see Ex. xxv. 33). The word is evidently used collectively here, so that the EW33 mentioned along with them in the book of Exodus (I.e.) are included. ^1$?, the lamps, which were placed upon the shaft and arms of the candlestick (Ex. xxv. 3 7). B^Pp^?, the snuffers (Ex. xxv. 38). niGp3 basins in Ex. xii. 22, here probably deep dishes (Schalen). J"i™jp, knives. flSpnttD, bowls (Schalen) or cans with spouts for the wine for the libations; according to 2 Chron. iv. 8, there were a hundred of these made. T\)B3} small flat vessels,

1 Nothing can be learned from 2 Chron. xxix. 18 concerning the number of the vessels in the Holy Place. If we were to conclude from this passage that there were no more vessels in the Holy Place than are mentioned there, we should also have to assume, if we would not fall into a most unscientific inconsistency, that there was neither a candlestick nor a golden altar of incense in the Holy Place. The correct meaning of this passage may be gathered from the words of king Abiam in 2 Chron. xiii. 11: " "We lay the shew-bread upon the pure table, and light the golden candlestick every evening;" from which it is obvious that here and there only the table and the candlestick are mentioned, because usually only one table had shew-bread upon it, and only one candlestick was lighted.

probably for carrying the incense to the altar, rtfnnn, extinguishers; see at Ex. xxv. 38. — Ver. 50&. The ninb were also of gold, possibly of inferior quality. These were either the hinges of the doors, or more probably the sockets, in which the pegs of the doors turned. They were provided for the doors of the inner temple, viz. the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. We must supply Vdv before >Jyi?.

All the vessels mentioned in vers. 48 and 49 belonged to the Holy Place of the temple, and were the same as those in the tabernacle; so that the remarks made in the Comm. on Ex. xxv. 30 and 39, and xxx. 1-10, as to their purpose and signification, apply to them as well. Only the number of the tables and candlesticks was ten times greater. If a multiplication of the number of these two vessels appeared appropriate on account of the increase in the size of the room, the number was fixed at ten, to express the idea of completeness by that number. No new vessel was made for the Most Holy Place, because the Mosaic ark of the covenant was placed therein (ch. viii. 4: compare the remarks on this at Ex. xxv. 10-22). — The account of the vessels of the temple is brought to a close in ver. 51: * So was ended all the work that king Solomon made in the house of the Lord; and Solomon brought all that was consecrated by his father, (namely) the silver and the gold (which were not wrought), and the vessels he placed in the treasuries of the house of Jehovah." As so much gold and brass had already been expended upon the building, it might appear strange that Solomon should not have used up all the treasures collected by his father, but should still be able to bring a large portion of it into the treasuries of the temple. But according to 1 Chron. xxii. 14, 16, and xxix. 2 sqq., David had collected together an almost incalculable amount of gold, silver, and brass, and had also added his own private treasure and the freewill offerings of the leading men of the nation (1 Chron. xxix. 7-9). Solomon was also able to devote to the building of the temple a considerable portion of his own very large revenues (cf. ch. x. 14), so that a respectable remnant might still be left of the treasure of the sanctuary, which was not first established by David, but had been commenced by Samuel and Saul, and in which David's generals, Joab and others, had deposited a portion of the gold and silver that they had taken as booty (1 Chron. xxvi 20-28). For it is evident that not a little had found its way into this treasure through the successful wars of David, from the fact that golden shields were taken from the generals of Hadadezer, and that these were consecrated to the Lord along with the silver, golden, and brazen vessels offered as gifts of homage by king Toi of Hamath, in addition to the gold and silver which David had consecrated from the defeated Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Amalekites (2 Sam. viii. 7, 11, 12; 1 Chron. xviii. 7, 10, ll).1

This solemn transaction consisted of three parts, and the chapter arranges itself in three sections accordingly: viz. (a) the conveyance of the ark and the tabernacle, together with its vessels, into the temple, with the words spoken by Solomon on the occasion (vers. 1-21); (b) Solomon's dedicatory prayer (vers. 22-53); (c) the blessing of the congregation, and the offering of sacrifice and observance of a feast (vers. 54-66). — The parallel account to this in 2 Chron. v. 2-vii. 10, in addition to certain minor alterations of words and constructions, intro-

1 The amazing extent to which this booty may possibly have reached, may be inferred from the accounts we have concerning the quantity of the precious metals in Syria in the Macedonian age. In the gaza regia of Damascus, Alexander found 2600 talents of gold and 600 talents of uncoined silver (Curt. iii. 13, 16, cf. Arrian, ii. 11, 10). In the temple of Jupiter at Antioch there was a statue of this god of solid silver fifteen cubits high (Justin, xxxix. 2, 5. 6); and in the temple at Hierapolis there was also a golden statue (Lucian, de Dea Syr. § 31). According to Appian (JParth. 28, ed. Schweigh.), this temple was so full of wealth, that Crassus spent several days in weighing the vessels of silver and gold. And from the unanimous testimony of the ancients, the treasures of the palaces and temples of Asia in the earlier times were greater still. Of the many accounts which Bahr (Symbolik, i. p. 258 sqq.) and Movers (Phonizicr, ii. 3, p. 40 sqq.) have collected together on this subject, we will mention only a few here, the credibility of which cannot be disputed. According to Varro (in Plin. xxxiii. 15), Cyrus had taken 34,000 pounds of gold as booty after the conquest of Asia, beside the gold wrought into vessels and ornaments, and 500,000 talents of silver. In Susa, Alexander took 40,000, or, according to other accounts, 50,000, talents from the royal treasury; or, as it is still more definitely stated, 40,000 talents of uncoined gold and silver, and 9000 talents of coined dariks. Alexander had these brought to Ecbatana, where he accumulated 180,000 talents. Antigonus afterwards found in Susa 15,000 talents more in vessels and wrought gold and silver. In Persepolis, Alexander took 120,000 talents, and in Pasargada 6000 talents. For the proofs, see Movers, pp. 42, 43.

duced for the most part merely for the sake of elucidation, contains here and there, and more especially towards the end, a few deviations of greater extent, partly omissions and partly additions. But in other respects it agrees almost word for word with our account.

With regard to the time of the dedication, it is merely stated in ver. 2 that the heads of the nation assembled at Jerusalem to this feast in the seventh month. The year in which this took place is not given. But as the building of the temple was finished, according to ch. vi. 38, in the eighth month of the eleventh year of Solomon's reign, the dedication which followed in the seventh month cannot have taken place in the same year as the completion of the building. Ewald's opinion, that Solomon dedicated the building a month before it was finished, is not only extremely improbable in itself, but is directly at variance with ch. vii. 51. If we add to this, that according to ch. ix. 1-10 it was not till after the lapse of twenty years, during which he had built the two houses, the temple, and his palace, that the Lord appeared to Solomon at the dedication ot the temple and promised to answer his prayer, we must decide in favour of the view held by Thenius, that the dedication of the temple did not take place till twenty years after the building of it was begun, or thirteen years after it was finished, and when Solomon had also completed the building of the palace, which occupied thirteen years, as the LXX. have indicated at the commencement of ch. viii. 1 by the interpolation of the words, koli eyevero co? auvereXeae ^aXcofiaiv rov olfcoSojArjaaL rov olttov Kuplov Kal tov olfcov avrov jieTa eUocn err)}

Vers. 1-21. The first act of the solemnities consisted (1) in the removal of the ark of the covenant into the Most Holy riace of the temple (vers. 1-11); and (2) in the words with which Solomon celebrated the entrance of the Lord into the new temple (vers. 12-21). — Vers. 1-11. Removal of the ark of the covenant into the temple. — This solemn transaction was founded entirely upon the solemnities with which the ark was conveyed in the time of David from the house of Obed-edom into the holy tent upon Zion (2 Sam vi 1 2 sqq.; 1 Chron. xv.

1 From the whole character of the Alexandrian version, there can be no doubt that these words have been transferred by the LXX. from ch. ix. 1, and have not dropped out of the Hebrew text, as Thenius supposes.

2 sqq.). Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers' houses (Wfcfl nizxn, contracted from nnsn rva Wb3) of the Israelites, as representatives of the whole congregation, to himself at Jerusalem, to bring the ark of the covenant out of the city of David, i.e. from Mount Zion (see the Comm. on 2 Sam. vi. 16, 17), into the temple which he had built upon Mori ah. (On the use of the contracted form of the imperfect /\}P] after TX, see Ewald, § 233, b.) — Ver. 2. Accordingly "all the men of Israel (i.e. the heads of the tribes and families mentioned in ver. 1) assembled together to the king in the month Ethanim, i.e. the seventh month, at the feast." Gesenius explains the name E^nsn (in 55 codd. D^rrsn) as meaning "month of the flowing brooks," after |rp£ in Pro v. xiii. 1 5; Bottcher, on the other hand, supposes it to denote the equinox. But apart from other grounds, the plural by no means favours this. Nor does the seventh month answer to the period between the middle of our September and the middle of October, as is supposed by Thenius, who founds upon this supposition the explanation already rejected by Bottcher, viz. " month of gifts;" but it corresponds to the period between the new moon of October and the new moon of November, -during which the rainy season commences in Palestine (Piob. Pal. ii. p. 96 sqq.), so that this month may very well have received its name from the constant flowing of the brooks. The explanation, " that is the seventh month," is added, however (here as in ch. vi. 1, 38), not because the arrangement of the months was a different one before the captivity (Thenius), but because different names came into use for the months during the captivity. 3na is construed with the article: " because the feast intended was one that was well known, and had already been kept for a long time (viz. the feast of tabernacles)." The article overthrows the explanation given by Thenius, who supposes that the reference is to the festivities connected with the dedication of the temple itself. — Vers. 3, 4. After the arrival of all the eiders (i.e. of the representatives of the nation, more particularly described in ver. 1), the priests carried the ark and brought it up (sc. into the temple), with the tabernacle and all the holy vessels in it. The expression &nk wi; which follows, introduces as a supplementary notice, according to the general diffuseness of the early Hebrew style of narrative, the more precise statement that the priests and Levites brought up these sacred vessels. "Bfto?nfc is not the tent erected for the ark of the covenant upon Zion, which can be proved to have been never so designated, and which is expressly distinguished from the former in 2 Chron. i. 4 as compared with ver. 3, but is the Mosaic tabernacle at Gibeon in front of which Solomon had offered sacrifice (ch. iii. 4). The tabernacle with the vessels in it, to which, however, the ark of the covenant, that had long been separated from it, did not belong, was probably preserved as a sacred relic in the rooms above the Most Holy Place. The ark of the covenant was carried by priests on all solemn occasions, according to the spirit of the law, which enjoined, in Num. iii. 31 and iv. 5 sqq., that the ark of the covenant and the rest of the sacred vessels should be carried by the Levites, after the priests had carefully wrapped them up; and the Levites were prohibited from directly touching them, on pain of death. When, therefore, the ark of the covenant was carried in solemn procession, as in the case before us, probably uncovered, this could only be done by the priests, more especially as the Levites were not allowed to enter the Most Holy Place. Consequently, by the statement in ver. 36, that the priests and Levites carried them (pT}$), viz. the objects mentioned before, we are to understand that the ark of the covenant was carried into the temple by the priests, and the tabernacle with its vessels by the Levites.1 — Ver. 5. " And king Solomon and the whole congregation, that had gathered round him, were with him before the ark sacrificing sheep and oxen in innumerable multitude." This took place while the ark of the covenant was carried up, no doubt when it was brought into the court of the temple, and was set down there for a time either within or in front of the hall. Then was this magnificent sacrifice "offered" there "in front of the ark" (fnxn «jhd&). — Ver. C. After this sacrificing was ended, the priests carried the ark to its place, into the back-room of the house, into the Most Holy under the wings of the cherubim (already described in ch.