On the supposition of a flat roof stretched directly acniss the tops of the planks, the dimensions of both sets of curtains may readily be made to correspond with the reipiiremeuts of the building. The embroidered curtains may either be used around the walls, as pre- viously, or they may be joined together into one large sheet to cover the ceiling and walls on the inside. Their length (twenty-eight cubits) would in the latter case reach to within one cubit of the ground ; and their combined breadth (forty cubits) would in like manner cover the end wall (ten cubits -|- thirty cubits of length of building). The suture, where the two canvases are ordinarily supposed to be joined by the loops, would thus also exactly fall over the "vail," separating the holy from the most holy ]>lace.
The same would be true likewise of the goats'-hair cur- tains if similarly joined and spread over the roof and out- side of the tabernacle, reaching to within one sixth cubit of the ground on each side and rear. The onlv difficul-
ty would be as to the eleventh or extra goats'-hair cur- tain. If this were attached in the same manner as the other breadths, it wouM be wholly superfiuoiis, unless used to close the entire front, as it miglit be if doubled (according to the usual interpretation of Exod, xxvi, 9). But it seems agreed upon by all critics that it must be employed upon the rear of the building (as explicitly stated in ver. 12). Keil understands that it was di- vided between the back and the front equally ; but this answers to neither passage, makes part of the rear (rebbj covered in fact, and brings (Ijy his own confes- sion) the suture one cubit behind the "vail" (contrary to ver. 33). Brown reviews and confutes the cx]ilana- tions of other interpreters (Kalisch, Von Gerlacli, and Fergusson), but frankly admits his own inabilitj' to solve the problem (p. 43). Paine's interpretation is the only one that meets the case.
This last insuperable difficulty, together with the im- possibility of shedding the rain and snov,-, seems to us a conclusive objection against the flat-roof theory of the building. Brown innocently remarks (p. 47), " Admit- ting that snow sometimes falls on the mountains of Sinai, it seldom, if ever, falls in the wadies or plains ; and if slight showers ever do occur, they must be like angels' visits, few and far between. None of the many authors I have followed across the desert of wandering seem ever to have witnessed snow, and verj' rarely even rain." This last circumstance is probably owing to the fact that travellers almost invariably avoid the winter or rain}' season. The writer of this article was overtaken, with his party, by a snow-storm in March, 1874, which covered the ground in the plains and bot- toms of the wadies of Mount Sinai ankle-deep; and ev- ery traveller must have observed the unmistakable traces of terrific floods or freshets along the valleys of the whole region. It often rains here in perfect tor- rents (see Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, p. 33, 177). "A single thunder-storm, with a heavy shower of rain, fall- ing on the naked granite mountains, will be sufficient to convert a dry and level valley into a roaring river in a few short hours" {ibid. p. 129). It is essential to any reconstruction of the tabernacle that the roof be made water-tight, and this can only be done eftectnally by the true tent-form, with ridge-pole and peak. See Tent.
5. Furniture of the Tabernacle. — The only piece of furniture within the inner or most holy place was the ark of the covenant ; and the furniture of the outer room or holy place consisted of the altar of incense, the table of show-bread, and the "golden candlestick," the position of each of which is given in Exod. xxvi, 34, 35. They are all described in detail under their re- spective heads in this Cyclopedia, but we subjoin the following particulars as supplementary to the article on the last-named piece.
The candelabrum, as described in Exod. xxv, 31-37 (of which xxxvii, 17-23 is almost verbatim a copy), differs considerably from that in the account of Jose- phus {Ant. iii, 0, 7), and from the sculptured figure still extant upon the Arch of Titus ( Kelaud, De Spoliis Templi, ]). H; in which work other representations, all slightly varying, are given from Kabbinical sources and coins). Hence it is probable that the " candlestick" as constructed for the tabernacle by Moses was not ex- actly the same in form as in the later models of Solo- mon's and Herod's temples ; it would naturally be sim- pler and less ornamental in the earliest case, and the Herodian fabrication (if, indeed, this were other than that of the restoration from Babylon), to which all the later Jewish and profane statements apply (Solomon does not appear to have furnished his Temple with any other than the original candelabrum of the tabernacle), would of course dejjart most widely from the severity of the primitive tj'pe.
(1.) In the original object the following elements are clearly defined by the language (as above) employed : There was a main or central stem (""j^, ^"?"t'^', ihiyh,
TABERNACLE
138
TABERNACLE
The Gokleu Caiidehibi-iun of the 'ral)t'i nacle. (From a resioratiou by the Ediior.)