They appear to have been kept burning day and night, although in the time of Josephus but three were burnt during the day (Antiq. 3, 8:3). As Solomon placed ten tables of shew-bread in the temple which he built, so he had made for it ten golden candlesticks.1 His object in both instances seems to have been to add to the glory of the building. In the second temple there was but one candlestick.' This was removed by Antiochus Epiphanes, but restored by Judas the Maccabee. It was most likely this candlestick of Judas which Titus afterwards carried to Rome, and that is represented now on the arch erected in Titus' honor. It resembles in its general outline the one described in the Pentateuch. The eagles and sea monsters engraved upon it were doubtless the work of later pagan hands. 13. The historical reality of the Mosaic tabernacle has been severely assailed by certain modern critics. But it is supported not alone by one portion of the Pentateuch, but almost equally by every part into which these critics arbitrarily partition it. And this testimony the following history abundantly confirms. It was a singular act of David to erect a tent on Mount Zion for the ark which he had brought from Kirjath-jearim, considering especially its more recent history and the demands of his own times. It would be well-nigh inexplicable without the Mosaic precedent for it. The assumption that the Israel of the exodus had not the requisite skill to execute a work of this kind is rapidly disappearing before the remarkable archeological discoveries of modern times. The objection that this people was not provided with the requisite means for transporting through the trackless wastes of the sinaitic peninsula such a mass of material is equally wide of the mark. 6 It is nowhere stated in the Pentateuch that the six wagons and twelve yoke of oxen at the service of the Levites for carrying purposes were all the means at hand for this object. It was to the family of Merari that the transportation of the heavier parts of the tabernacle was assigned. According to the record it formed an army of thirty-two hundred able-bodied men, between the ages of thirty and fifty years. This should have been found an amply sufficient force, on any reasonable theory of the structure of the tabernacle. The objection that the Pentateuch recognizes a two-fold tabernacle has been already touched upon. It could never have been urged except on the theory that the five books of the Pentateuch are a 11 Kings 7:49. 2 Ecclus. 26: 17. 10:35; 11:16; Deut. 10:1-5; 31: 14. 31 Macc. 4:49. 4 Ex. 33:7-11; Lev. 17; Num. 5 2 Sam. 7:2. 6 Num. 7:8, 9. patchwork of different and often conflicting documents. After the tabernacle was planned the defection of Israel made its immediate erection inexpedient. In the interval, the leader's tent, pitched for a special reason outside the camp, was used as the "tent of meeting.' It was not the tabernacle proper; for the Levitical institutions had not yet been established. 14. The tabernacle, in the nature of the case, was not intended to be a permanent sanctuary. Its history subsequent to its dedication, in the second year of the exodus, runs parallel with that of Israel until the entrance into the promised land. Afterwards, for a considerable period, it seems to have remained at Gilgal, the headquarters of Joshua and the Israelitish army. Following the conquest, it was for a long time at Shiloh. Here in fact it appears to have remained during the whole period of the judges. While at Shiloh the tabernacle is called a "house," and again a "palace" or "temple," of Jehovah. It is also spoken of as having door-posts and the like.* From this language it has been assumed by some that it had altogether changed its character, and become a building instead of a tent. But such a supposition directly contradicts other passages which presuppose its tent form at this period. The probable harmony of the two classes of references lies in the supposition that the tabernacle, while at Shiloh, had a temporary enclosure built around it, to which reference is sometimes made as though it were the tabernacle itself. When the ark was taken by the Philistines the tabernacle naturally lost much of its glory and became less permanent. We hear of it at Nob during the reign of Saul, whence it was removed to Gibeon.' Here, as we learn from the books of Chronicles, it divided the honors for a time, as the sanctuary of Jehovah, with the tent which David erected for the ark on Mount Zion. Zadok, of the family of Eleazar, ministered at the former, and Abiathar, or his son Abimelech, at the latter.10 This dualism, possible only during the transition state through which Israel was now passing, ceased in Solomon's day, with the defection and deposition of Abiathar." We have no information concerning the removal of the tabernacle from Gibeon. The "tent of meeting" which was deposited in the temple may well have been that which David originally erected on Mount Zion. Without the ark, the tabernacle was but the shell from which 3 Josh. 51 Sam. 1 Ex. 33:7-11; Num. 10:33; 12:5; 14: 14. 2 Josh. 4: 19; 5: 10; 9:6; 10: 6; 14: 6. 18:1, 10; 19:51; 22: 12, 19, 29. 4 Judg. 18:31; 19: 18; 1 Sam. 1:7, 9, 24; 3: 3, 15. 2:22; Ps. 78: 60. 61 Sam. 4:11. 71 Kings 3:4. 91 Chron. 16: 39-42; 21: 29; 2 Chron. 1:3-6, 13. 92 Sam. 6:17; 1 Chron. 15:1. 10 1 Chron. 16:39; 24: 3. 111 Kings 2:26, 27. 12 2 Chron. 5:5. the fruit had disappeared. With the temple immediately in view, it is not strange that it was overlooked and forgotten. 15. TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.-The gathering of materials for the projected temple was mostly the work of David. He himself, as a man of blood, was not permitted to build it; but it was promised him that a son of his should have that honor.1 Solomon began its erection in the fourth year of his reign, which, according to the received chronology, was B.C. 1012, and four hundred and eighty years after the exodus from Egypt. He had the special assistance of Hiram king of Tyre, who had been the warm friend of his father. The temple was built on Mount Moriah, which lay eastward from Mount Zion and originally outside of the city's walls. It was completed in seven years and dedicated with great pomp. In its ground plan the structure closely resembled the tabernacle, but with double its dimensions. The main building was similarly divided into the holy place and the holy of holies, the former measuring twenty cubits each way, the latter forty cubits by twenty. In height, however, the temple was thirty cubits. Along the front side extended a porch having the width of the main building and being ten cubits deep. The height is not given in the book of Kings, but it cannot well have been greater-it may have been less-than that of the principal part. The statement in 2 Chronicles 3: 4 that it was one hundred and twenty cubits high seems to rest on a corrupt text. It is called a "porch." If it had been a hundred and twenty cubits high, its title would have been more properly "tower." And it is scarcely probable, moreover, that so striking a feature of the building, had it existed, would have been overlooked in the book of Kings. It is true that the porch of Herod's temple was wider and higher than the main building, and that Josephus makes Herod say that the temple then before him, the one built by the exiles from Babylon, lacked sixty cubits of being as high as that of Solomon. But it is likely that the dimensions of Solomon's temple were taken from this passage in second Chronicles. 16. Solomon's temple was entered from the east between two massive pillars called respectively Jachin, "he shall establish," and Boaz, "in it is strength" (?)—the former standing on the right. The dimensions of these pillars are variously stated; but the account in the book of Kings seems the most trustworthy, which gives the height as eighteen cubits and the circumference as twelve cubits. Upon 1 2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 5:1; 1 Chron. 22. 21 Kings 6; 2 Chron. 2-4; Josephus, Antiq. 8, 3 Josephus, Antiq. 15, 11: 1. 41 Kings 7:15; 2 Chron. 3: 15. 3:3. The Scene from the Arch of Titus, Rome, representing bearing in triumph the Golden Candlestick and Table of Shew-Bread. The figures are partially defaced. (After a Photograph.) each was a chapiter five cubits deep, making the entire length of the pillar about thirty-five feet. A series of chambers, three stories high, were attached to the outside wall of the main building on three of its sides. The theory that the chambers described were rather receding galleries of increasing width, in the inside of the building, finds no support in the text of the book of Kings. These chambers were each five cubits in height; but on account of the fact that the temple wall was less thick and receded as it went upward, they differed in width, the lower being five cubits, the second, six, and the third, seven. The cedar beams supporting the floor were not let into the walls of the temple, but rested on what is called in architecture a scarcement or offset, produced by their successive diminution upward. These chambers, supposing the foundation and floors required three cubits, would be altogether eighteen cubits high, reaching three cubits above the centre of the main building. The upper stories were reached by means of staircases from the lower ones. The text of the book of Kings is obscure at this point. It says: "The door for the middle side-chambers was in the right side of the house: and they went up by winding stairs into the middle chambers, and out of the middle into the third." The right side, looking toward the east, would be the south side. The first word rendered "middle" is translated "lowest" by the Septuagint and Targums. But the Hebrew text may still be correct, the sole end being to show how the middle and third stories were reached; it being understood that the first one would have a door. According to Josephus, there were thirty chambers on each of the floors. 17. The temple, and as we may suppose its surrounding chambers, had a series of windows; but in the former they were for the purpose of ventilation rather than light. Light was obtained by means of the golden candelabrum. It is said, moreover, that the apertures were closed with "fixed lattice work," that is, they were not intended to be opened. The construction of the temple, as was doubtless designed, made windows in the oracle or holy of holies impossible. The number, form and position of the windows mentioned is not given; but it is likely that those of the temple extended around the upper part of the wall on all sides except the front. The temple, like the tabernacle, had an enclosure or court around it which, in the book of Kings, is called the "inner court," and of which it is said that it was built of" three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams." It is implied that there was also an outer |