explained by Gesenius {'J'/iesaur. p. 114) of the knuckles, I and not of the '-armholes," as in the A. Y. of Jer. xxxviii, j 12, where our translators have omitted all reference to ' the word yadeka, which follows it. A " cubit to the ' knuckles" would imply the space from tlie elbow to the ' knuckles, and as this cubit exceeds by a hand-breadth the ordinary cubit, we should infer that it was contra- distinguished from the cubit that reached onl}' to the : wrist. The meaning of the word is, however, contested : Hitzig gives it the sense of a connecting wall {Comm. on \ Jer.). Sturmius {Sckigr. p. 94) understands it of the edge of the walls, and others in the sense of a wing of a building (Rosenmiiller, ScJiol. in Jer.), Michaelis, on the other hand, understands it of the knuckles (Supplem. p. 119), and so does Saalschiitz (,4 rchdol. ii, 165). The expressions now discussed, taken together, certainly fa- vor the idea that the cubit of the Bible did not come up to the full length of the cubit of other countries. (See below.) A further question remains to be discussed, viz. whether more than two cubits were in vogue among the Hebrews. It is generally conceded that the "for- mer" or "older" measure of 2 Chron. iii, 3 was the Mo- saic or legal cubit, and that the modern measure, tlie existence of which is implied in that designation, was somewhat larger. Further, the cubit " after the cubit of a man" of Dent, iii, 11 is held to be a common meas- ure, in contradistinction to the Mosaic one, and to have fallen below this latter in point of length. In this case we should have three cubits — the common, the Jlosaic or old measure, and the new measure. We turn to Eze- kiel and find a distinction of another character, viz. a long and a short cubit. Now it has been urged by many writers, and we tliink with good reason, that Ezekiel would not be likely to adopt any other than the old or- thodox Mosaic standard for the measurements of his ideal temple. If so, his long cubit would be identified with the old measure, and his short cubit with the one " after the cubit of a man," and the 7iew measure of 2 Chron. iii, 3 would represent a still longer cubit than Ezekiel's long one. Other explanations of the prophet's language have, however, been offered : it has been sonu'- timcs assumed that, while living in Chakhea, he and his countrymen had adopted the long Babylonian cubit (Jahn, ArchcEol. § 113) ; but in this case his short cubit could not ha\e belonged to the same country, inasmuch as the difference between these two amounted to only three lingers (Herod, i, 178). Again, it has been ex- plained that his short cubit was tlie ordinary Chaktoan measure, and the long one the Mosaic measure (Rosen- mUller, in Ezek. xl, 5) ; but this is unlikely, on account of the respective lengths of the Babylonian and the Mosaic cubits, to which we shall hereafter refer. Inde- pendently of these objections, we think that the pas- sages previously discussed (Dent, iii, 11 ; 5 Chron. iii, 3) imply the existence of three cubits.
It remains to be inquired whether from the Bible it- self we can extract any information as to the length of the Mosaic or legal cubit. Tlie notices of the height of the altar and of the height of the lavers in the Tem- ple are of importance in this respect. In the former case three cubits is specified (Exod. xxvii, 1), with a direct prohibition against the use of steps (Exod. xx, 26) ; in the latter, tlie height of the base on which the laver was placed was tliree cubits (1 Kings vii, 27). If we adopt the ordinary length of the cubit (say 20 inches), the height of the altar and the base would be o feet. But it would be extremely inconvenient, if not impossi- ble, to minister at an altar or to use a laver placed at such a height. In order to meet this difficulty without any alteration of the length of the cubit, it must be as- sumed that an inclined jilane led up to it. as was the case with the loftier altar of the Temple (:Mishna, Mid- doth,i\\, § 1, 3). But such a contrivance is contrary to the si)irit of the text ; and, even if suited to the altar, would be wholly needless for the lavers. Hence Saal- schiitz infers that the cubit did not exceed a Prussian foot, which is less than an English foot {Archdol. ii,
167). The other instances adduced by him are not so much to the point. The molten sea was not designed for the purpose of bathing (though this impression is conveyed by 2 Chron. iv, G, as given in the A. V.), and therefore no conclusion can be drawn from the depth of the water in it. The height of Og, as inferred from the length of his bedstead (9 cubits, Deut. iii, 11), and the height of Goliath (6 cubits and a span, 1 Sara, xvii, 4), are not inconsistent with the idea of a cubit about 18 inches long, if credit can be given to other recorded in- stances of extraordinary stature (Pliny, vii, 2, 16; He- rod, i, 68 ; Josephus, A nt. xviii, 4, 5). At the same time the rendering of the Sept. in 1 Sam. xvii, 4, which is followed by Josephus {Ant.y'i, 9, 1), and which reduces the number of cubits to four, suggests either an error in the Hebrew text, or a considerable increase in the length of the cubit in later times.