THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
not the historical tabernacle, it must owe its origin to the idea of a later time; the account of P tells how, at a later time, the Mosaic tabernacle was conceived. If the description of the temple of Solomon be compared with that of the tabernacle of Ex. xxv. sqq., it appears that the tabernacle is rather the temple of Solomon in a portable condition. It is the prototype of the temple of Solomon transplanted into the wilderness. People of the later time who knew the temple of Solomon could not imagine the divine service of Israel without it (or its equivalent). That the tabernacle of Ex. xxv. sqq. was imagined after the model of the temple and not vice versa appears from the fact that certain peculiarities of the tabernacle are explicable only as being transferred from the temple, where they had a proper place, to the tabernacle in a form adaptable for use in the desert and in the portable sanctuary, and were even estranged from their proper purpose. To mention only one instance, the stately altar, as required for the burnt offerings of the temple, had to be either of stone or of brass; the altar of the tabernacle of Ex. xxv. sqq., however, was a wooden structure with a covering of brass. Such an altar had the one quality which was required for the Mosaic tabernacle, portability; but it lacked every other quality of an altar in the proper sense. It was unusable for the sacrifices for which it was assumably intended, especially of whole oxen. There can be no doubt that such an altar did not exist; it is not the original of that other altar, but an imaginary idea proceeding from it. Portable altars, indeed, are well known to history; but the altar in question was intended for the great burnt offerings of the Mosaic cultus.
The conclusion is warranted that a " tabernacle " as a protection for the ark existed in early times, but that the description of it in Ex. xxv. sqq. contains little of a historical character. Since David according to II Sam. vi. 17 erected a 6. Conclu- tent for the ark, it is evident that in sion; Later his time the old tabernacle no longer History, existed. It may, therefore, be supposed that it had been lost or destroyed at the time of the capture of the ark, if in that time it still existed, i.e., in the time of Eli. But this seems to be contradicted by the fact that the place of the ark in Shiloh during Samuel's youth (I Sam. i. 7, 9, iii. 3) is called " house " (not " tent ") and even " temple " while in I Sam. iii. 15, i. 9 its " doors " and posts are mentioned. It is, therefore, to be assumed that at that time there existed a permanent structure. There remains then only the notice of Josh, xviii. 1, which relates that the Mosaic tabernacle was erected in Shiloh. What is related here of the Mosaic tabernacle is made probable by the fact that Shiloh was for a long time the place of the ark. The old tabernacle may have been preserved for a time, but in the course of time was replaced by a more solid structure. See Hexateuch, § 14. (R. Kittel.)
Bibliography: The earlier literature may be regarded as having but historical interest. Consult the commentaries on the principal passages cited in the text, many of which contain excursuses on the subject; especially important is much of thn critical and conservative literature cited under ITexatkuch, since the two schools are
at variance concerning the historicity of the Biblical account. Further material is in F. Friedrich, Symbolik der mosaischen Stiftshutte, Leipsic, 1841; Kamphausen, in TSK, 1858, pp. 97 sqq., 1859, pp. 110 sqq.; W. Neumann, Die Stiftshutte in Wort und Bild, Gotha, 1861; J. Popper, Der biblische Bericht uber die Stiftshutte, Leipsic, 1862; R. Newton, The Jewish Tabernacle and its Furniture in their Typical Teachings, New York, 1863; K. H. Graf, Die geschichtliche Bilcher des A . T., pp. 51 sqq., Leipsic, 1866; C. J. Riggenbach, Die mosaische Stiftshutte, Basel, 1867; K. C. W. F. Bahr, Symbolik des mosaischen Kultus, vol. i., Heidelberg, 1874; E. E. Atwater, Hist, and Significance of the Sacred Tabernacle of the Hebrews, New York, 1875; H. Ewald, Antiquities of Israel, pp. 317-333, Boston, 1876; A. E. Webb, The Tabernacle and the Temple, London, 1882; J. E. Hawkins, Lectures on the Tabernacle, ib. 1883; J. Ritchie, The Tabernacle in the Wilderness, ib. 1884; F. Whitfield, The Tabernacle, ib. 1884; J. J. Chase, The Jewish Tabernacle, Cincinnati, 1884; J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 6th ed., Berlin, 1905; Eng. transl. of earlier edition, pp. 38 sqq., Edinburgh, 1885; T. O. Paine, Solomon's Temple . . , and Tabernacle, Boston, 1886; D. A. Randall, Ham-Mishkan, The Wonderful Tent, Cincinnati, 1886; J. F. K. Keil, Manual of Biblical Archaeology, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1887- 1888; B. F. Westcott, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 233 sqq., London, 1889; C. Schick, Die Stiftshutte der Tempel in Jerusalem, Berlin, 1896; A. H. Klostermann, in NKZ, viii. (1897); M. Rainsford, The Tabernacle in the Wilderness, London, 1897; R. L. Ottley, Aspects of the 0. T., pp. 261 sqq., ib. 1897; W. Brown, The Tabernacle and its Priests and Services, 6th ed., London, 1899; J. Adams, The Mosaic Tabernacle, Edinburgh, 1900; W. S. Caldecott, The Tabernacle, its Hist, and Structure, ib. 1904; B. Jacob, Der Pentateuch, pp. 134-346, Leipsic, 1905; M. Dibelius, Die Lade Jahves, Gottingen, 1906; H. Gunkel, Die Lade ein Thronsitz, Heidelberg, 1906; K. Budde, in TSK, 1906, pp. 589-607; Benzinger, Archaologie, pp. 336-339; Nowack, Archaologie, vol. ii.; Driver, Introduction, pp. 128, 153; DB, iv. 653-688 (elaborate); EB, iv. 4861-75; JE, xi. 653-656.
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF: A festival of the Hebrews, known in the Old Testament also as the " feast of ingathering " (Ex. xxiii. 16) and more simply as " the feast " (I Kings viii. 2), or " the feast of Yahweh " (Lev. xxiii. 39); it is mentioned also in the New Testament and in II Mace. x. 6. For the historical development see Feasts and Festivals, I. It was one of the chief festivals of the Hebrews, and in the codes it is coordinated with the two other great feasts and connected with the harvest. In the latter connection it was the festival of thanks for the yield of the earth (Ex. xxiii. 16; Deut. xvi. 13), in early times celebrated at some sanctuary (I Sam. i. 3). The corresponding Canaanitic feast appears in Judges ix. 27, the first mention of it as Israelitic is Judges xxi. 19 sqq. as a yearly celebration at Shiloh. In the early regal period it seems to have taken place in the eighth month, though Solomon is said to have connected it with the seventh month (I Kings viii. 2, cf. vi. 3S) and with the consecration of the Temple. The earliest laws prescribe no definite time, Ex. xxiii. 16 giving simply autumn. Deuteronomy requires its celebration at the central sanctuary for a period of seven days (cf. I Kings viii. 66). The Deuteronomic regulations are expanded in Lev. xxiii. and the manner of the feast prescribed (the prescription as to date is by a later hand) . It was to continue seven days, on the first of which the participants were to take boughs of trees (to make booths) and were to dwell in the booths during the feast. The text enacts that only Israelites shall participate; but Bertholet shows that the reading is probably a