A. V. " shaft''), doubtless flaring or enlarged at the bot- tom, for a secure foot. From each side of this went olf (apparently opposite each other, and at equal intervals), three arms (D"^3p, kanim, reeds, "branches"), having each along their course three almond-shaped calyces (D'^"^25, ^eft/iOT, c;/ps, " bowls"), one crown (HplSS, knphtor, circlet, " knop"), and one blossom ('TIS, peruch, '• flower") : the middle stem had four such calyces, and at least three crowns, placed each immediately beneath the several junctions of the arms with the main stem; also more than one blossom. Finally, there were seven burners (3''"i3, nerim, U(jhls, "lamps"), evidently one for the extremity of each arm. and one for the top of the central stem. Every part of the candelabrum (in- cluding the burners, only so far as applicable to them) was a continuous rounded (hammered or turned) piece of refined gold ("iir;:: ~m rnx iTirp'2, " one beaten work of pure gold"). It has usually been assumed that the arms were all in the same plane with the main stem, and their summits all of equal height, and equi- distant from each other, as is the case with the repre- sentation on the Arch of Titus.
(2.) The following are the principal points that re- main uncertain: The relative position of the calyces, crowns, and blossoms on the arms; for although they are alwaj's enumerated in this order, there is nothing to show absolutely whether the enumeration begins at the intersection with the shaft or with the extremities. The former view, which is countenanced by the rest of the description (since this proceeds upward from the base), is adopted by Dr. Conant (in the Amer. ed. of Smith's Diet, of the Bible, s.v. "Candlestick"); the lat- ter, which is favored by the difficulty (or rather impos- sibility) of assigning more than one blossom to the sum- mit of the central stem (as the text would then seem to re(|uire), is adopted by Prof. Paine {Solomon^s Temple, etc., p. 10). The signification of the terms is not de- cisive; for the hiphtor, or "knop," may quite as well signify a little ornamental boll or globular enlargement in the necks of the arms and in the stem at their points of departure, as a rcipitdl or surmounting decoration (the three ranged along the main stem certainly were not such in strictness). The perach, or " tiower," is regard- ed by both the above writers (who thus agree in mak- ing these, after all, the extreme points of the chande- lier) as the "receptacles" of the lamps themselves; these last being regarded by Paine as denoted by the ffebiim, or "bowls," having a trinal form in the case of the side arms, and a (luaternal in that of the main stem
— a view which leads to great complexity in their con- struction and in the form of their sockets, and which, nioreover, is incongruent wiih the number (seven only) assigned to the lights. Furthermorcj in the compar- ison of tlie ornament in question with the shape of (ilinonds, it is not clear whether the J/ou-er or J'ruif of that tree is referred to; we prefer the latter as being more properh- designated by the simple word, and be- cause the former is denotecl by a difterent term in the same coinicction, the blossom - shaped ornament. It must also be noted that the arms had each throe of the first-named ornament, and but one of the other two; whereas the main stem had four of the first, and at least three of the second and two of the third : the three kinds, therefore, did not invariabh' go together, although they may have done so in the case of the central stem. Perhaps the whole may be best adjusted by assigning such a group or combination of the three kinds to each summit and to each intersection of the arms with the main stem, and merely two others of one kind (the gebia, or " bowl") to the side arms, prob- ably at equidistant points; the group itself consisting simply of an ovate cup-like enlargement of the rod con- stitLiting the shaft, with a raised band just above the bull), and the rim opening into petal-like lips, forming a cavity or socket for the lamp. See Lamp.
IV. Relation of the Tubernacle to the Reliijiovs Life of Israel. — 1. Whatever connection may be traced between other parts of the Mosaic ritual and that of the nations with which Israel had been brought into contact, the thought of the tabernacle meets us as entirely new. Spencer {De Leg. Ikbrceor. iii, 3) labors hard, but not successfully, to prove that the tabernacles of Moloch of Amos V, 26 were the prototypes of the tent of meeting. It has to be remembered, however, (1) that the word used in Amos (sikkuth) is never used of the tabernacle, and means something very different; and (2) that the Moloch-worship represented a defection of the people subsequent to the erection of the tabernacle. The " house of God" [see Bethel] of the patriarchs had been the large "jiillar of stone" (Gen. xxviii, 18, 19), bearing record of some high spiritual experience, and tending to lead men upward to it (Biihr, Si/»ibol. i, 93), or the grove which, with its dim, doubtful light, at- tuned the souls of men to a divine awe (Gen. xxi, 33). The tenqjles of Egypt were magnificent and colossal, hewn in the solid rock, or built of huge blocks of stone as unlike as possible to the sacred tent of Israel. The command was one in which we can trace a special fit- ness. The stately temples belonged to the house of bondage which they were leaving. The sacred places of their fathers were in the land towards which they were journeying. In the meanwhile, they were to be wanderers in the wilderness. To have set up a bethel after the old pattern would have been to make that a resting-place, the object then or afterwards of devout pilgrimage; and the multi|ilication of such places at the different stages of their march would have led inevita- bly to polytheism. It would have failed utterly to lead them to the thought which they needed most — of a Di- vine Presence never absent from them, protecting, rul- ing, judging. A sacred tent, a moving bethel, was the fit sanctuary for a people still nomadic. It was capable of being united afterwards, as it actually came to be, with "the grove" of the older cullus (Josh, xxiv, 26). Analogies of like wants, met in a like way, with no as- certainable historical connection, are to be found among the Gretulians and other tribes of Northern Africa (Sil. Ital. iii, 289),and in the sacred tent of the Carthaginian encampments (Diod. Sic. xx,65).