The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 210

9vp,of:, scutum. See 1 Sam. xvii. 7, 41. they lmng cttn still be traced on the walls of The LXX. here reads c,opara, i.e., spearsl of the Parthenon. There were e.lso arms hung beaten gold [The aut.horities are divided as round the walls of the second temple to the meaning of tim~. here translated (Jos., Ant. xv. 11. 3)," Stanley. It is beaten. This rendering is supported by supposed that a.long with those made by Bahr and Keil (after Kimchi), but Gesenius Solomon were hung the shields taken by understands mixed gold. Rawlinson infers David from the Syrians, as according to from the weight that the shields were only 2 Sam. viii. 7, LXX., these latter also were plated (shields were co=only made of carried off by Shishak. It h.1.s been inferred wood, covered with leather). But whether from Cant. iv. 4 that these also were 500 in they were solid or not does not decide the number, and that the entire thousand were question whether the gold was pure or suspended on a. part of the house of the alloyed. " Shields of gold " are mentioned forest of Lebanon known as the Tower of 2 Sam. viii. 7 ; l Mace. vi. 39) : six hundred David ; cf. Isa. xxii. 8 ; Psa. xlvii. 9]. shekels [Heh. omits shekel.s, as elsewhere, The historian now proceeds to describe Gen. xriv. 22; xxxvii. 28; Judg. viii. 26, &c. the great feat1ll'e of another of Solomon's There were apparently two kinds of shekel, palaces. As the house of the forest of the Mosaic and the royal (for the latter see Lebanon was distinguished by the golden 2 Sam. xiv. 26). The former was twice as much as the latter, but there is no agree shields which emblazoned and glorified its ment amongst commentators as to the walls, so was" the porch of judgment" (eh. weight or value of either. Nor can we be vii. 7) by the chryselephantine throne. certain which is indicated here. Thenius Ver. 18.-Moreover the king made a great decides for the former, and estimates the throne [Heh. seat. The use of a chair weight of the gold on each target to be 17½ where the custom of the country is to squat lbs., and the value to be 6000 tha.J.ers on the ground, or to recline on a divan, is (£900), or, according to Keil, 5000 thalers always a. mark of dignity. See 2 Kings iv. (£750). Keil, however, inclines to the 10 ; Prov. ix. 14] of ivory [Heh. tooth. belief that the royal shekel is meant, in Below in ver. 22 we have elephant's tooth. which case the weight would be 9 lbs., and H is generally thought that this " throne of the value about £400. Bahr, however, the house of David" (Psa. cxxii. 5) was of estimates the gold at no more than £78 wood, veneered with ivory, as was the (523 thalers)] of gold went to one target. practice in Assyria (Rawlinson, "Ancient Ver. 17.-Alld he made three hundred Monarchies," i. p. 463), and in the chrysele- shields [portable shields (peltas, Vulgate) phantine statues of the Greeks (Paus. ii. 4. adapted for nse in hand-to-hand encounters 1; vi. 25. 4, &c.) Bahr says there is no (2 Chron. xii. 9, 10; cL 2 Sam. i. 21). That more necessity for believing this throne to these were much smaller shields is clear have been of solid ivory than the "ivory from the text. These shields were home house " mentioned in eh. xxii. 39. Cf. Paa. by the royal body-guard on great occasions xlv. 8; A.mos iii. 16; vi. 4. But there is (eh. xiv. 27). They were taken away by surely this difference between them, that Shishak (ib. ver. 26)] of beaten gold; three the palace could not possibly be constructed pound [i1;lt;), /LVa, mina. AB 2 Chron. ix. 16 entirely of ivory, whereas the throne might be, and some of the thrones of India have has here 300 shekels, it follows that the been (Rawlinson)], and overlaid it with the maneh = 100 shekels. From Ezek. xlv. 12, best [TEl~r.>, from the root TIEI, separavit = however, it would seem that there were, manehB of different value] of gold went to aurum depuratum. The chro~icler explains one sb1eld [i.e., half as much as to the the word by 1ii11t (2 Chron. ix. 17)] gold. te.rget] ; a.nd the king put them 1n [Heh. [It is very unlikely that the gold entirely gave tl.em to] the house of the forest of covered and concealed the ivory, especially Lebanon [eh. vii. 2. They would certainly if the latter was merely a. veneer. Keil and be suspended on the walls, but whether on Bahr consider that the gold was laid on the the inside or the outside is not quite certain, wood and the ivory inserted between the and the text affords us no means of deciding. plates, but the text does not speak of over- We know that elsewhere shields were laying with ivory, but of overlaying ivory suspended outside the walls of armouries, with gold. And the presumption is that the &c. " At Tyre the beauty of the place wa~ ivory wa.s solid. In the Greek statues both thought to conaiEt in the splendour and ivory and gold were applied in laminae, the yariety of the shields of all nations hung on former representing the fiesh, the latter the its walls (Ezek. xxvii. 10, 11). In Rome drapery.] the temple of Bellone. WIIB studded with Ver.19.-The throne had Bix stepsL'' The them. In Athens, the roiin4 marks where charaoteristio feature in the royal throQe oa. x. 14---29.] '!'HE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.