The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 109

eeoulo.r purposes (cubicles, perhaps), made in Dent. xxvii. 6 (cf. Exod. xx. 25) of un- an actual po.rt of the sacred edifice. Any- hewn or virgin stone ; and Gesenius would how, it is cleo.r that the beams rested on so understand the expression here. But ledges made in the walls ; but whether in the the context seems rather to convey the ideQ. temple wall only, or in the outer wall of that the stones were not shaped on the the side structure also, is uncertain. The spot. It was ll.pparently the belief of the preceding sketch will not only illustrate ancients that stones of proper shape and the difference, but will help the reader to size were provided in their bed by God (so understand the description preceding. In Theodoret and Procopius.) It is incon- drawing (1) 1·ebatements are showed only in ceivable, however, that no dressing or pre- 1.he temple or inner wall. In (2) they are paration of any kind would be required; an showed in both walls. In (1) the edifice is idea, moreover, which is contra.dieted by eh. represented with a flat ; in (2) with a span v. 18. When Gardiner (in Bahr, American roof. edition) quotes Keil (in his earlier work) ae Keil deoides in favour of the first arrange- understanding " all unviolated stones of the ment (1), and Bii.hr says somewhat posi- quarry," he hardly does justice to that tively, "The outer wall of the structure had author, who straightway adds, "thll.t is, not no rests." In fact, he suggests that the altogether unhewn stones . . . but stones whole of this side building may have been of that were so hewn and wrought in the quarry wood. It must be admitted that we do know that neither hammer," &c. (see below). that there were rebatements in the wall A, Similarly Thenius and Bii.hr] before it was whereas nothing is said as to the outer wall broughttll.lther [so the Authorized Version D. It may o.lso be reasonably alleged that renders V~~ but mistakenly. It means, the the consiclero.tions of fitness and sacredness quarnJ (Gesenius, Keil. For the construc- which forbo.de the insertion of the beams tion, see Ewald, 28!1a, and Gesenius, Gram. into the sanctuary wall would not apply to ed. Rodigcr, p. 170.) The verb V~~ is the outer wall, which was a part of the side structure only. Ago.inst this view, how- used of quarrying in eh. v. 31 (Heh.) Where ever, may be urged the extreme thickness of was this quarry? The general idea is th:i.t wall which this method of building would it was in the Lebo.non. And it is not to be necessitate. For unless we suppose that denied that some of the massive substruc- the floor of the ground story rested on the tions and corner-stones of the temple mo.y rock, and so was quite detached from the ho.ve been brought from the mountain, a.long building, we must suppose four rebatements, with the wood; but the bulk of the stone, so that if the wo.ll at the top were two cubits there can be no doubt, was found much wide, it would be no less than six cubits (or nearer home. Some of it, according to the nine feet) at the bottom. It is tme that the Mishna (Middoth, iii. 4), came from Bethle- walls of ancient buildings were of extra- hem; but we can hardly be mistaken in ordinary thickness, but it must also be re- believing that for the most part it was membered that the temple was not fifty feet quarried in Jerusalem itself, under the very high. However, Ezek. xii. 9 suggests that temple rock, and out of the vast caverns the outsidewa.11 (B) may have been five cubits recovered some years ~o by Dr. Barclay in thickness, and, if so, the inner wall would (see his "City of the Great King "), the hardly be less. Fergusson, therefore, has "Royal Caverns" of Josephus. Sec " Quart. some justification for putting each wall Journal," Pal. Explor. Fund (No. vii.), pp. down as five cubits wide; but on the whole, 373, 374, and cf. p. 34. There nre un- perhaps, the plan represented in (1) appears mistakable evidences of these extensive the more probable. caverns having served as a quarry. Not only are the walls cut stro.ight, but rude The historian here digresses for a moment masses o.re left here and there to support the to speak of the remarkable and, indeed, roof, o.nd, what is still more comincing, unprecedented way in which the temple there are stones more or less cut out of the rock, and incisions are made where stones was built. The stories were shaped and are to be quarried. There wu.s no reason prepared beforehand in the quarry, so that why the workmen should go far afield for there was nothing to do on their arrival stone when they had it, and of very excellent in the temple area but to fit them into qoo.lity, at their own doors]: so that there their plaoe in the building.] was neither hammer [Heb. and hammers. Keil understands " finished stones of tbo Ver. 7.-And the house, when it wa.s 1n quarry, and ho.mmer, and o.xe." But tbo building, w-.i.e built of stone ma.de ready word "was built" (i1p,), coming o.s it [Heb. perfect. This does not mean unhewn, does between "quarry'• and "hammers," Uiough n,07.~ Cl•~ 1~ is undoubtedly used a.lmost forbids this connexion] nor ue  104 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, [011. vt. 1-88~