THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ee ES
cubits. To be sure, from the expression ‘“ cubit of a man” (ut sup.; Deut. iii. 11) one is not to expect a
distinction such as between a “ holy ” 3. Ezekiel’s and a “ secular ” cubit, for there is no Two Cubits. foundation in Scripture for acceptance
of the fact of a ‘‘ holy ” cubit, the expression “ cubit of a man” having no other meaning than “ common cubit ”’ (cf. for a parallel expression, Isa. viii. 1, ‘man’s pen’’). Yet it is seen with great definiteness from Ezekiel that in his time there was in use a cubit other than that employed in an earlier period. He speaks in xl. 5, xliii. 13 of the cubit employed in measuring his temple as being a handbreadth greater than that which was in common use and was known to his readers. Apparently the exact length of his cubit is defined either because it had wholly fallen out of use or was less commonly known. The whole passage leads to the conclusion that Ezekiel’s use of the longer cubit implies that this was the measure after which Solomon’s Temple was constructed. Similarly the Chronicler (II Chron. iii. 3) knew that the Temple was built “ by cubits after the first (i.e., old) measure.” Therefore there had been an earlier and greater cubit which was superseded by the later and lesser. Unfortunately nothing is known of when and how this supersession took place, when the lesser came into recognition alongside of the larger and when it came into universal use. It has been held that the small cubit was already very early in existence, reference being made to the Siloam inscription. According to this the Siloam tunnel is 1,200 cubits long, and Conder gives the measurement as 537.60 meters; this would give for the cubit a length of .448 meter [=17.6 inches], and this is a close approximation to the Egyptian cubit of .450 meter. However, 1,200 is a round number, and whoever knows the Siloam tunnel will regard neither the one nor the other measurement as giving so exact a result that a conclusion may be reached upon the question whether the cubit meant was the greater or the lesser. A full reserve is therefore becoming with reference to the absolute length of the older unit. And it does not follow that the lesser cubit of Ezekiel could not have been employed in the earlier period. The one indication apparently in possession is that the cubit of Ezekiel’s time was divided into six handbreadths, the old cubit being one handbreadth larger, giving the proportion of 6:7; really, however, this is not absolutely certain, for the statement of Ezekiel may be taken to mean that the later cubit was a handbreadth smaller than the earlier, giving the relation of 5:6. And indeed the rabbis speak of a cubit applied to furnishings of the Temple which was five handbreadths in length and of one applied to the structure which was six in length.
These questions have interest because of the fact that for the definition of the absolute length of the Hebrew cubit recourse has to be had entirely -to comparison with the Egyptian or the Babylonian cubit. No aid comes from the Old Testament. Just as from the Siloam tunnel no exact result is obtained, so fails the attempt by taking into account the brazen laver (which held 2,000 baths) to deduce the length of the cubit. No better results follow from the rabbinic assertion that the legal
cubit had according to tradition the length of 144 barleycorns laid side by side. On the other hand, the size of the Babylonian and the
4. The Egyptian cubit is known. The first is Cubit, settled by the discovery at Telloh in Hebrew, South Babylonia (see BaBytonta, IV.,
Egyptian, § 6) of a statue of King Gudea (see Babylonian. BasytontA, VI., 3, § 3) which carries upon its knees a measure which occurs
sixteen times upon the statue. This measure appears as a little unit of the length of 16.5-16.6 millimeters [the equivalent of .65845 of an inch], and this unit is doubtless the fingerbreadth which is so often mentioned in antiquity. Since in the Babylonian system the duodecimal method rules, there would be a measure sixty times the length of the unit just given, which would be 990-996 millimeters (for 38.9 inches]; it will be noticed that there is a margin of variation or error of six millimeters). The measurement thus given is in agreement with other data; the Babylonian brick had a measurement of 330 millimeters on one side of its square surface. In all systems of the orient that are known the foot is two-thirds of the cubit; hence from the brick there could be inferred a cubit of about 495 millimeters [19.45 inches], and this is exactly half of the 990 millimeters given above (or 38.9 inches). But the Babylonians had two systems, one of which was twice the other in proportions (as appears also in the table from Senkereh, where two sets of measures are given in which this relationship exists). While the Babylonian system is sexagesimal, it is important to note, in connection with the question of the relationship of the Hebrew system to the Babylonian, that there are indications of this kind of subdivision in the Hebrew measures; the reed, Babylonian and Hebrew, is of six cubits, as opposed to the Egyptian. Taking the foot of two-thirds of a cubit into consideration, if Herodotus is right in his statement of a “royal” and a “ common ”’ cubit, the division of the cubit into twenty-four fingerbreadths follows, each of 20.6 millimeters in length. According to Herodotus, the “royal” cubit was longer by three fingerbreadths than the ‘‘ common ”’ cubit, and the foot held to this cubit the relation of 3:5, and this is the measure constantly met in Babylonian structures, and its length is at least 550 millimeters (21.6 inches). A cubit from Ushak in Phrygia measures 555 millimeters, and this does not greatly differ from the result of deduction from the figures of Herodotus which would make the royal cubit 556.4-557 millimeters. The Egyptian cubit does not differ much from the Babylonian royal cubit, and in Egypt also there appears a double system—a large “ royal ”’ cubit and the ‘* common ” one—the latter of six handbreadths or twenty-four fingerbreadths (+450 millimeters [17.685 inches]), the former of seven handbreadths or twenty-eight fingerbreadths (525 millimeters [or 20.6325 inches]). At first glance one might be disposed to identify the Egyptian and the Hebrew cubit; in both the relation of the large to the small cubit is the same, as are the subdivisions. But, on the other hand, the Babylonian and the Hebrew reed correspond, while the Egyptians have a ‘ fathom ”’ which contains only four cubits; also, the traces of the duo-