on which likewise hung the side-curtains, shows both that these latter were tluis completed by a drapery on the remaining side of each room ( it will be remem- bered that the front knobs likewise corresi)ond in po- sition to that of the doorway screen), and likewise proves the character and situation of the taches them- selves (not hooks in the roof, which at the eaves was at least five cubits above the top of the "vail"). As the "vail," like the two outer screens, was stretched tight across the space it occupied, it was of' course made ex- actly long enough for that purpose; thus, too, the em- broidered figures (which, if of life-size, were of just the height to extend upright across the stutf^about four cubits) would show to the finest effect, not being in folds like the interior side-curtains.
It is not a little singidar that the exact position of the "vail" is not otherwise prescribed than by the above requirement; nor is the length of either of the apartments which it separated given, alihough together they amounted to thirty cubits. On the supposition (sustained by the analogy in the Temple) that the Most Holy was an exact square, i. e. (according to our deter- mination above) twelve cubits each way, the knob or tache opposite which it would hang must have been that which stood in the forward edge of the eighth plank from the rear of the building. \Miether it was in front of or behind the pillars is not certain ; but the for- mer is probable, as it would thus seem a more eft'ectual barrier from without. The end pillars apparently stood in immediate contact with the side walls, both in order to sustain the ends of the vail, and to leave a wider space between them for ingress and egress. The vail was sus- pended directly upon golden pins (A. V. " hooks") in- serted in the face of the pillars near their summit; and thus dift'ered (as did likewise the screen of the door of the tabernacle) from the hangings of the outer court, which hung upon silver rods (A. V. "fillets") (doubtless by loops running on the rods) resting on similar pins or " hooks." The reason of this difference seems to have been that the greater space between the court pillars (so as to admit animals as well as men) would have caused too much sag in the hanging without interme- diate support, which could only be furnished by the rods and attachments along the upper edge.
4. Supplementary Note. — Since the above was in type we have reconsidered a few points concerning the struct- ure of this edifice which admit of further elucidation.
(1.) The " Corner-hoards." — The fact that the dimen- sions of the courts and the building itself were in deci- mal proportions, and that in the temple subsequently erected for the same purpose, which maintained multi- ples of these dimensions, the holy and most holy were exactly twenty cubits wide (1 Kings vi, 2), leads so strongly to the presumjition that in the tabernacle these rooms were ten cubits wide, that we are disposed to recall the arrangement adopted in the foregoing discussion, which gives these apartments a width of twelve cubits, leaving for the holy place the irregu- lar dimensions of eighteen by twelve cubits. Adopting the suggestion of Keil (^Commentary, ad loc.) that the corner-boards were constructed of two parts, forming a right angle with each other, we have only to take a plank one and a half cubits wide, like all the others, divide it lengthwise into two portions, one four sixths and the other five sixths of a cubit wide, and fasten these together in that manner, in order to obtain the needed half cubit necessary at each end of the rear, and allow one wing of the corner-board to lap around the end of the last side-board, and cover the joint neatly and sym- metrically, as in the following figure. This last is the adjustment adopted by Brown (The Tabernacle, etc. [Loud. 1^72], p. 23), who reviews and justly rejects the conjectures of Josephus (Ant. iii, (i, 3), Kalisch {Com- mentary, sni loc), and Von Gerlach (ibid.). His compli- cated arrangement of the sockets, however, is unneces- sary, as may be seen from the following diagram.
The statement respecting these corner- planks in
TABERNACLE
137
TABERNACLE
r
—
—
__]
Q
o
0 1 :. 1 1 o 1
C'onier-bourd and Sockets.
Exnd. xxvi, 24, "And they shall be twinned (n"^"2Xn) from below, and together they shall be complete (S'^JSri) upon its top to the first (or same) ring," we may then understand to mean that they were to be in that man- ner jointed thronghout their length, and were to use the tirst or end ring of the side-plank in common for the topmost bar. thus holiling the corner firm in both directions, as seen in the accompanying figure. The topmost rear bar may have been dowelled into the end of the side-bar for further security.
"Coruer-board," showing its "One Ring," in common with that of the Side-plauk.
(2.) Position of the Curtains. — The use of these pieces of drapery will not be materially affected by this change in the width of the structure. We need only raise the peak into an acute instead of a right angle in order to dispose of the roof- canvas. The curtain across the rear gable may be wrapped a little farther along the side at each end, and it will at the same time cover the tops of tiie rear planks, and close the joint where the ends of the roof-curtains fall sliort of doing so.