these considerations we cannot, with justice, suppose the chronicler to be guilty of arbitrary exaggeration, but we must rather suspect the text of corruption, which is all the more probable, since the verse in question bears even elsewhere marks of corruption." According to v. Meyer's probable conjecture, instead of N, we should read: DynDN, i. e., 20 cubits (in Ezek. xlii. 16 also, whether the reading be П or 'ND is uncertain). The latter is adopted by the Syr., the Arab., and the Sept. (Cod. Alexand.). Thenius and Bertheau maintain, on the other hand, that as the house was 30 cubits high, the sign =30 was originally in the text, but that through the obliteration of the upper portion of the letter it became =20. And certainly, in behalf of the supposition that it was 30 cubits high, we may urge, in part, the absence of any statement of the height in our text, which is the more easily explicable if the height of the "porch" and of the temple were the same, and, in part, the circumstance that the side-building was 20 cubits high on the outside, consequently the "porch" would not have been especially distinctive or prominent had it been of the same height (Keil). That the "porch" had thick stone enclosure-walls with a wide entrance (Thenius), cannot be concluded from the obscure passage of Ezek. xli. 26; still less is the view established that each side-wall had a window. To me it seems that the "porch" had only side-walls-at least four cubits, for its thickness above the and a ceiling, but to have been entirely open in front, so that windows were unnecessary. The extremely inadequate description of the "porch," contrasted with the very careful description of the house and of both its compartments, can only be founded in the fact that it did not belong especially, or as an integral part, to the sanctuary, but was

| else than that they were "divided by partitions into distinct compartments" (Merz). It comes to the same thing when Keil, who rejects "ribs" as the meaning, translates nevertheless "side-chambers." According to Ezek. xli. 6, where, however, the reading is not entirely certain, the number of these chambers was 33: according to Josephus, with whom the moderns agree, there were 30viz., 12 upon each side-wall of the house, and 6 upon the rear-wall.-Ver. 6 states how the entire side-structure ("chambers round about") were built into the chief-structure, the house itself. The wall of the latter had, upon the outside, rests (ni, literally contractions, lessenings ["for he placed stays with retractions against the house." Bp. Horsley.-E. H.]). It was thickest at the ground, and kept this thickness to the height of five cubits; then succeeded a rest (like a settle), which was one cubit broad. Then again, after an elevation of five cubits, there was another rest, one cubit broad; there was also another rest of like height and breadth. Upon these rests the ends of the beams, which served for the ceiling of each story, were laid, and had in them their support. The outer wall of the side-structure had no rests, but was built perpendicularly; hence, as our verse states, the uppermost story was one cubit broader (deeper) than the middle, and the middle again was one cubit broader than the lowermost. The wall also of the house must have been very thick below

only a subordinate addition thereto.

side-structure, bearing in mind the rests, amounted certainly to one cubit. Thenius and Keil place the thickness at six cubits, but this seems unnecessary. The reason given for this mode of construction is, "that the beams should not be fastened into the walls of the house," i. e., that the large, costly stones should remain whole and uninjured (b), that no holes should be cut into them for the purpose of inserting the ends of the ceiling-beams. Ver. that "all the stone-work had been so prepared in 7, which is a parenthesis, refers to this, and means advance, that in the actual putting up of the building, stone-cutting was no longer necessary" (Thenius). According to ver. 8, the entire side-strucsouth side: whether in the middle (Thenius) or at ture had but one door, which was placed on the the foremost apartment near the porch (Ewald,

Merz) is uncertain; probably the latter. That a door within the house opened into the side-structure, has been erroneously concluded from Ezek. xli. 5. The walls of the house were nowhere broken through, and certainly the historical account knows nothing of such a door. The wind

Ver. 5. And against the wall of the house he built, &c. The word yay comes from y sternere, to spread or strew something for a bed, and means literally stratum, a bed (Ps. Ixiii. 6 Job xvii. 13). Symmachus renders it by KаTÁOrpuna. So this building was very properly called, because it spread itself out against the lower half of the house 30 cubits high, and, as it were, lay upon it. yy is gen. com. and stands as collective masculine in vers. 5 and 10, of the whole of the side-structure ("chambers"), but it is feminine in ver. 6, when the single, or three stories of the same, one over the other, are mentioned (see Gesen. on the word). The before nip is scarcely the sign of the accus., "reaching to the walls" (Keil), but a preposition, and defines more particularly the preceding by, as indeed both prepositions elsewhere are synonymous (comp. Ps. iv. 79, 11, is like ya in vers. 5 and 10, in the singular, with lxvii. 2). If it can mean simply "in connec- and stands collectively for the whole of the sidetion with the walls " (Thenius), then the statement is that (Umbau) "the chambers round about"| were affixed to the walls. It went round the entire house, so that the two side-walls of the porch above stood free, and caused the latter to appear all the more distinctive. The three stories one above the other of this side-structure (ver. 5), had each niy, i. e., literally "ribs" [joists, so Bp. Horsley or the place.-E. H.], which can mean nothing

ing stairway obviously was within the side-structure. The word yy in ver. 8, and in Ezek. xli. 5,

chambers.-The text says nothing of the perpendicular outside wall of the side-structure. Thenius appeals to Ezek. xli. 9 for the supposition that this was a stone-wall five cubits thick. In that case it would have been as thick as the side-chambers of the lower story were broad (ver. 6): and why should the wall of these have been so thick? Then, too, the ceiling-beams of these chambers would, of necessity, have been inserted into these walls, which is inconsistent with ver. 7. Hence

it seems to me much more probable that this exterior wall, as indeed the entire side-structure, which was only subordinate in any event, was built of cedar.-The text does not state the purpose or design of these "chambers round about." They served for the preservation of temple utensils and temple stores (Keil), perhaps also of consecrated gifts (Ewald); but they were scarcely "expensively furnished bedrooms" (Thenius).

Vers. 9-10. And so he built the house, &c. In roofing, the building of the house was ended. But we must not, as many formerly, and even Hirt himself now, fancy a gable-roof. The silence of the text respecting its form allows us to presuppose that it was, as with all oriental buildings, a flat roof furnished with a parapet (comp. Deut. xxii. 8). is not, with Merz, to be understood of the wainscoting, but, with Keil, of the roofing, for the account of the former begins first at ver. 15. ' are not planks, as the word for the most part is translated, but beams, as such were certainly indispensable for roofing.

10

sign and pledge of the covenant established with Israel, would dwell in the house about to be built, and that the covenant-relation also should con. tinue, if the king upon his part should keep the covenant, and walk in the ordinances of Jehovah. Such a promise necessarily encouraged and strengthened Solomon in his great and difficult undertaking, as it reminded and urged him to the performance of his sacred obligations.

Vers. 14-19. So Solomon built the house, &c. Ver. 14 resumes the description of the building, which had been interrupted by vers. 11-13, and which from ver. 15 is applied to its interior. The overlaying of walls with wood, which again was covered with metal, and gold in particular, is an old Oriental custom, extending from Phoenicia to Judea (comp. Müller, Archaeology, translated by John Leitch, p. 214 sq.; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Künste, i. s. 160; Weiss, Kostümkunde, i. s. 365). The covering with gold was not mere gilding, but consisted of thin gold plates (Symb. des Mos. Kultus, i. s. 60). According to 2 Chron. iii. 6, the walls also were adorned with precious stones, which is credible enough since these were expressly named amongst from Ophir (chap. x. 11), and it was the custom in the objects which Solomon obtained in abundance the Orient to make use of them in buildings and utensils (comp. the same, s. 280, 294, 297).-Ver. 16 says explicitly and distinctly that the main space was separated from the Debir by a cedar wall; hence surely it is an error upon the part of Thenius when, by an appeal to Ezek. xli. 3, he Supposes, in place of this wall, a stone-wall two cubits thick covered with wood and gold. in the tabernacle of the covenant it was not a plank-wall (Ex. xxvi. 15), but a curtain merely (ver. 33) which separated its two divisions from each other. Even the massively-constructed Herodian temple had no such wall, of which be sides, the Rabbins, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. i., 5, 5, 5), knew nothing (Lightfoot, Descrip. temp. Hieros., chap. xv. 1). The cedar wall, for the rest, since it reached from the ground to the beams of the ceiling, must have been thirty cubits high.

Even

are scarcely "hewn cedar-timbers" (Thenius), but boards which were laid upon the beams. The DN refer to both the preceding. Without doubt this cedar covering was overlaid with firm flooring, perhaps even with stone slabs. Thenius very unnecessarily wishes to be read for D, and then suggests "a flat roof vaulting" but in the ancient Orient there were never any arched roofs. In ver. is again collective, for, according to it, not the whole side-structure, but each of its three stories, was five cubits high inside. The mention of the side-structure here is in reference to the roofing. While ver. 9 speaks of the roofing of the house, ver. 10 states how it is related to that of the side-structure. Therefore the height is again mentioned, with the observation, "and he fastened the house with timber of cedar." If Solomon be the subject with the preceding (Thenius), or y (Keil), the sense is: the roofing of the three stories (five cubits high each) of the side-structure was done with cedar timbers, which, with their ends, lay upon the rests of the walls of does not mean oraculum or locutorium, for the temple, and likewise united the side-structure had it this signification, its object would have with the house, thus making it a complete whole. been denoted by the word itself, and no explanaEntirely false is the translation: he covered the tory addition would have been necessary.—Achouse with cedar-wood (Gesenius), as if the stone-cording to vers. 16-20 the two divisions of the walls were overlaid, upon the inside, with cedar, of which there is nowhere the slightest trace. That the roof of the side-structure, moreover, was horizontal, level, like that of the house itself, scarcely requires mention.

shows לִדְבִיר to לְקְדֶשׁ הַפָּ" The addition

the design of the latter, and proves that the

house were of the following dimensions: the room at the farthest end took off from the entire length of the building (which was 60 cubits), twenty, and from its height (30 cubits), twenty. It was also, as is expressly stated in ver. 20, Vers. 11-19. And the word of the Lord twenty cubits long, broad, and high, and consecame to Solomon, &c. The interruption of the quently was a complete cube in shape. The front description of the temple, by these verses, shows compartment was forty cubits long, twenty broad, plainly that what is therein stated took place dur- and thirty high. For since its breadth and height ing the progress of the building. From chap. ix. are not given here (ver. 17), it must have had the 2, comp. with iii. 5, it is clear that we have to think breadth and height of the house mentioned above not of a revelation of Jehovah, but of a divine (ver. 2), otherwise, as in the case of the rear com promise communicated through a prophet (per-partment, it would have been expressly noticed. haps Nathan), such as happened to David (2 Sam. That the front compartment was not only longer, vii. 12 sq. and 1 Chron. xxii. 10), to which refer- but higher also, larger generally than the rear, its ence is made in ver. 12. Solomon thereby obtained

the promise that Jehovah, as He had formerly name even proves (see above on ver. 2). It dwelt among the people in a "tabernacle," for the is hence decidedly incorrect when Kurtz and Merz

and ,הָעֲלִיות

16, according to which the cedar wall before the holy of holies went from the floor to the beams of the ceiling. Besides, ver. 20 does not say that the cedar wall was only twenty cubits high, but only brings into prominence the fact that on all its sides the holy of holies measured twenty cubits. As the room in question was inaccessible, Ewald rightly observes that it "had been left apparently entirely empty." It had no especial design, and was what it was simply that the holy of holies might be a perfect cube. Upon this point more will be remarked farther on, in respect of the significance of the temple. For particular words on vers. 17-20, see above, Textual and Gram.

suppose that the front compartment was only twenty cubits high, that over the entire house there was an upper room ten cubits high fitted up for the conservation of the reliques of the tabernacle of the covenant, and that this room is designated by what 2 Chron. iii. 9 names which the Sept. renders by тò vπεр. The following considerations make against this view: (1) How could one have reached this supposed upper chamber? Not from the side-structure, for the ceiling of its uppermost story did not reach to the floor of the supposed upper room:" the thick walls of the house, moreover, had no door above the level of the side-structure. Just as little Vers. 20-22. And covered the altar, &c. could one have reached it from the interior of the And he overlaid the altar with cedar. Thus only house, for in neither compartment was there a should we translate the concluding words of the stairway which led thither: there was no opening 20th verse, and not, with Le Clerc, J. D. Michaelis, in the ceiling. (2) The windows of the house and others--he overlaid the altar of cedar, namely, (ver. 4) were above the side-structure, which (the with gold like the rest. Apart from the fact that ceilings of the three stories being taken into the map is without the article, and not in the conaccount) was certainly eighteen cubits high: there struct, the "gold" is first mentioned in the conremained, therefore, the house being thirty cubits cluding words of the 22d verse. There the altar is high, but twelve cubits for the windows. If now from these twelve cubits, ten are allowed for the more specifically referred to by 7, upper room, what space remains for the windows, which cannot mean "which belonged to the Dewhich certainly were not very small, and which were necessary to admit light and air into the bir," in the sense that it stood within it; for the house? (3) From the extremely abrupt words of of the ark of the covenant (ver. 19), and never had holy of holies was designed only as the receptacle the Chronicles, "And the alioth he covered with an altar. The altar of incense in the holy place is gold," it follows only that alioth (upper chambers) meant. Its position was "in front of the curtain" were somewhere, but not where they were; and since the Chronicles in its abbreviated description (25) (Exod. xl. 26), i. e., “before the ark of the says nothing of the entire side-structure with its testimony" (Exod. xl. 5), and therewith also "bestories and chambers, we have at least as much fore Jehovah" (Lev. xvi. 12, 18), enthroned above right, with Grüneisen, to suppose the alioth to be the ark. It stood also in special relation to the chambers of the side-structure, as an upper the Debir. If now this altar were "overlaid " room extending the length of the whole building, with cedar, we are shut up to the supposition that "the body of it was of stone" (Keil). But this of burnt-offering, which was required to be com was the peculiar, distinguishing feature of the altar posed of earth or of stones (Exod. xx. 24, 25), and the fram of which, consequently, was filled with the same material (comp. Symbol. des Mos. Kult., i. 481, 488). The much smaller altar of incense was a simple frame with a covering, which was wanting in the altar of burnt-offering (Exod. xxx. 1-3). In distinction with the latter, it is named in Ezek. xli. 22, "the altar of wood." The body of it could not have been of stone. These difficulties disappear only through the translation of the Sept.: καὶ ἐποίησε θυσιαστήριον κέδρου

ויעש It read also

instead of, which Thenius holds to be genuIn that case the absence of the article in

and which is nowhere else mentioned. The rel-
iques of the tabernacle could easily have been
preserved in the several chambers of the side
structure. [For the other view, see Art. Temple,
above cited. But our author seems to me to have
fully disposed of this doubtful matter. It would
seem impossible from our author's reasoning that
there should have been a large upper chambers.
over the "holy place."-E. H.] If now we must,
according to all the accounts, regard the front
compartment as thirty cubits high, the question
still remains respecting its relation to the rear,
which was but twenty cubits high. Stieglitz and
Grüneisen are of the opinion that the rear com-
partment, viewed externally, was ten cubits lower
than the front, which was the case also with
Egyptian temples [and like the chancel in the so-ine.
called Gothic church.-E. H.]. But ver. 2 con-
flicts with this: it gives the height of the entire
house at thirty cubits, and does not limit it to the
front compartment. Apart from all other consid-
erations, we cannot appeal to the adytum of the
Egyptian temples, because it was not connected
with the fore-temple, but was separated from it
by chambers and passages, and was an indepen-
dent structure (Müller, Archaeology, P. 190 sq.;
Leitch (German edit.) s. 258; Selinaase, Gesch.
der bild. Künste, i. s. 392). We must certainly as-
sume that there was a room over the rear com-
partment ten cubits high. Böttcher thinks this
was open in front and only having chains hanging
as its partition (ver. 21); in itself, "very improba-
ble" this (Winer), and besides it is against ver.

is explained, as well also as the concluding observation in ver. 22: And the whole altar [of cedar] before the Debir, he overlaid with gold.

The words in ver. 21 are obscure and difficult:

(and he made a partition) by the chains of gold before the oracle (Debir). Thenius is of opinion that the subject here, viz., nang is omitted, and then translates, "he hung the curtain before the Debir with gold chains." This curtain was before the door of the latter, and was hung in such a manner that it could be moved this way and that, "by means of golden chainlets each provided with an end-ring, upon a round stick

and a man's face towards the palm-tree on the other side," so that there was always a cherub between two palm-trees. These had not four faces, but assuredly the wings of the eagle and the feet of the bull were not wanting. We are not leaves (Luther), but of palm-trees, such as we see to think of palm-branches (Ewald), nor of palmupon ancient coins, and such as Titus caused to be struck off, out of the booty from Jerusalem, with the inscription Judaea capta (Lamy, de Tabernaculo, P. 783; Winer, R.- W.-B., i. s. 252). We may, with lilies, for these certainly belonged to the emblems the Arabic version, understand by "open flowers," of the sanctuary (chap. vii. 19, 22, 26). Ver. 18 names, besides the flowers, Dy also, which is regarded generally as synonymous with ny, 2 Kings iv. 39, and is translated "coloquinths" (i. e., wild or spring gerkins which burst at the touch). We should then understand by it: "egg-shaped decorations like that of our architectonics." (Thenius, Keil). But the intimate connection with graven figures in the highest degree significant, such as cherubim, palm-trees, and lilies, makes against a wholly meaningless, empty decoration, a thing not known to oriental sacred architecture. Add to this that in another passage the nip described as deadly, a fruit so dangerous and unwholesome would have suggested just the opposite of that which was represented by the other symbolical figures. If it were employed simply on account of its egg-shape, why these "coloquinths," since they were not alone round, why not eggs simply? The stem yp does not mean simply to burst, but also circumire, in hiphil conglomerare, circuma

take, for he gives to him the feet of a bull, the wings of an eagle, and the hands of a man (Ezek. 1. 6-9); and in the passage chap. x. 14, which, indeed, in a critical respect is not free from suspicion, the word stands for bull, so that many interpreters think that the bull is the prevailing element in the composition of the cherub. Besides, in every living creature the face is the chief thing, by which in fact it is recognized; and when Ezekiel gives to the cherub four faces, he signifies thereby that those four types of being unite therein. To delineate cherubim is consequently a hazardous business, because the form is not fixed; nor as yet is there anything perfectly satisfactory. The latest, by Thenius (tab. 3, fig. 7), is borrowed, almost painfully, from Egyptian sculptures. It is remarkable that the archeologists are forever finding the original of the cherub in Egypt, while neither the sphinx nor any other Egyptian complex creature presents the four types united in the cherub. On the other hand, Asiatic, and particularly Assyrian, images, exhibit all four together (comp. Neumann, die Stiftshütte, s. 68 sq.). Nevertheless the cherub is not a copy of these, but is the pure and specific product of Hebrew contemplation. Upon this, more, farther on.-The words of ver. 24 state that the four horizontally outstretched wings took in the entire breadth of the Debir (twenty cubits); that they also touched on the right and left, the north and south wall, and each other in the centre, while it presupposes that they (i. e., the wings) stood close to each other at the shoulder-blades. Under the outspread wings the ark of the covenant was placed, as chap. viii. 6 plainly says; and it is hence an error when Ewald asserts that the cover of the ark was renewed, and in place of the old cherubim, those massive wooden and gilt were fastened upon it-a gere, and Лyp involucrum, glomus, globus, so also thing impossible, for they stood 10 cubits aparty glomus, fasciculus convolutus vel colligatus (Bux(ver. 27), while the ark was 3 cubits long (Exod. torf, Lex. Chald. et Talm., p. 1790). In its intimate connection with D, will be taken to mean flower-bundles, i. e., buds; and so the translation is, budding and blown flowers (flower-work). Possibly this flower-work had the form of wreaths, only we can scarcely, with Thenius, translate

XXV. 10).

are

Vers. 29-30.-And he carved all the walls of the house, &c. Comp. ver. 18. Keil and others understand by y "basso-relievo," Vulgate cœlaturæ eminentes, which, however, cannot be established by the word itself. For although "festoons, garlands of flowers." Whether means to set in motion, to sling (1 Sam. xvii. 40; xxv. 29; Jer. x. 18), this signification is not available here. But it becomes clear through the following from to break open, to open, then to furrow, to plough (Is. xxviii. 24); D'

in Exod. xxviii. 11; xxxix. 6, is used for the work of the graver in stone, and in Exod. xxviii. 36; xxxix. 30 of engraving in metal. The figures, moreover, were not in basso relievo, but were sunken. 1 Kings vii. 31 cannot avail, for with reference to the figures upon the flat surface of the "bases," it is said in ver. 36, and this agrees with y, which means in Arabic, loco dimovit. Most of the figurative representations upon the old Egyptian monuments were wrought after this fashion (Thenius). The forms of the cherubim upon the walls were different from the colossal figures under which the ark in the Debir rested. According to Ezek. xli. 19, "a lion-face was towards a palm-tree upon one side,

in single panels, and such panels were in two or the three kinds of graven figures were distributed three rows, one over the other, after the analogy of Egyptian temples, must be left undecided, owing to the silence of the text.-Thenius wishes the "without" of vers. 29 and 30 to be understood of

the porch; but nothing has been said of the porch from ver. 3, and it would have been necessary therefore to designate it by a word. According can be referred only to the Debir, and not to the interior of the whole house, consequently by in the large compartment must be meant.

Vers. 31-35. And for the entering of the oracle, &c. The rabbins, whom many interpreters, even to v. Meyer and Stier, follow, translate "the lin

: הָאַיִל מְזוּזוֹת חֲמִשִׁית tlie dificult words

tel (entablature) of the (or with the) posts, a pentagon." The sense would then be: the lintel of the doors supported two posts abutting one against