for eaeli frame, joined to each other by cross-railt — 10 cubits the height and a cubit and a half the breadth of the single frame.' We now see how it is that a writer so fond of measurements as P haa omitted to give the third dimension: a frame baa, strictly speaking, no thickness ! *
The frames, according to our present text, are t<» be overlaid with gold ; but the position of this instruction (v.^) after the other instructions for the frames have been completed (contrast 25"- " 30'), the variant tradition of the Gr. of 3S""'- {-repirip-
' 7i'pu(ref, 'overlaid with silver'), the late origin of the kindred sections in 1 K 6 f. (see TE.MrLE), and other considerations, all make it very probable that
I we have here an addition to the original text, both
' as regards the frame and bars, and the pillars. Like the pillars of the court, the uprights of the
I framework are to be sunk in bases of solid silver, — the reason for two bases to each frame being now for the first time apparent, — regaiding the shape and sizet of which we are equally dependent on conjecture. For reasons that will appear in the next section, we may think of them as square plinths, J cubit in the side and a cubit in height, forming a continuous foundation wall round the dwelling, with the uprights sunk well down so that the height of the framework was not materi- ally added to.
To provide the necessary rigidity for the frames the simple device is adopted of running fivewoodcD bars along the three sides, passing through ring? attached to the woodwork of the frames. Much needless discussion has been raised over the ex pression 'the middle bar in tlie midst of the boards (v.^), which has been taken by various writers tt mean that the middle bar of the five is intended to pass from end to end through a hole pierced in the heart of the massive ' boards ' of the traditional theory (see diagiams of Riggenbach, Brown, etc. ). But tlie phrase is merely an epithet, after P's well- known manner, explanatory of the bar in question, t he distinguishing feature of which is that it runs along the whole length of its side, north, west, south, as the case may be, in contradistinction to tlie remaining four, which we may presume run only half-way along — one pair at the top, the other jiair at the "bottom of the frames. This arrange- ment of the bars suggests that the frames were provided with three cross-rails— one at the top, rounded like the ends of the uprights to avoid injury to the curtains, anotlier in the middle, and a third immediately above the bases. We thus obtain a double row of panels right round the dwelling (see the accompanying illustration with drawings to .scale from a specially prepared model). The difliculties of this section, however, are not yet exhausted. We have still to grapple with the jiroblem of the arrangement of the frames, and in jiarticular with the much debated vv.^"-, before we r.an proceed to discuss the manner in which the curtains were utilized. The discussion of the I'l inner problem may best start from the data of '2()", from which we le.arn that tlie veil dividing the dwelling into two parts (see next section) is to be hung "20 cubits, the width of 5 curtains, ifrom the front of the dwelling. Now, the admitted symme- try of the whole sanctuary requires us to infer that the area of the outer sanctuary is intended to measure 20 x 10 cubits, and that of the inner sanc-
• We may thus claim to have solved what our latest coimneD- tator has termed P's 'secret' with regard to v.i7 (Baent«ch, in toe. ; cf. IIolzinRer, who pives up the verse iu despairX Riehm had previously tried to solve the problem by takiu;^ the text to mean that each board consisted of two pieces mortised together by means of the padith (i/H'B^, art. ' Stiftshutte,' 1579 f.X Jerome's interpretation is evidently borrowed from the Rabbis, some of whom thought that the pddiith joined one board to another (Flesch, Baraijlha, 61 1.).
t The oldest, but erroneous, conjecture on this point (Ex 8SW| has been already dealt with (} iv. footnote pi 6.16).
TABEKXACLE
TAilEKXACLE
661
tiiary 10 x 10 cnbits, the measurements in both ca^es being exactly half those ol the correspondinj; jiarts of the temples of Solomon and Ezeliiel (see Temple). With this agrees the direction of the text, that twenty frames, each IJ cubits wide, are required for the two long sides, and six for the shorter west side (vv.'"- *•*'). Now, an easy cal- culation shows that since the total area of the dwelling from rnrtain to curtain is 30 x 10 cubits, and inside width of the short side is only 9 cubits (H X 6), we must allow half a cubit (9 in.) for the thickness of the woodwork of eitlier of the long sides. This would allow 6 in. (two handbreadths) for the thickness of the uprights of the framework and 3 in. (one bandbreadtn) for that of the bars.
The assumption of the majority of previous writers, from the Saraitha to Baentsch, that Ihe measurement, SO x 10 cubits, gives the clear itiside area of the tabernacle as formed by the wooden * boards,' implying' on the cubic of thickness theory (see above) an outside measurement of 31 x 12 cubits, falls to the ground if the view here advocated of the true nature of the ' boards' is accepted. But, even with the tr:itlitional interjire- tation, the theory of inside mea>;urenients is absolutely inad. missibte. (1) The true walls of H's dwelling are, as w"e have already emphusized, the tapestry curUtiii^, precisely as the linen hanging's iirt- the walls of th»^ court (} v.). The trame* work here takes the place of the pillani round the court, and,