TABERNACLE. 



635 



T. 



TABERNACLE : TJie Central Sanctuary of Israel, 

 and itj Religious Feasts. The author 

 Bee Vol. XXIIL o f t ij e ar ti c l e TABERNACLE, in the EN- 

 Ji >P ) ' CYCLOPEDIA, BBITANNICA, says in re- j 



gard to the detailed accounts of the 

 Israelitish Tabernacle and its worship, as these are 

 given in the Priest-code, that " the whole description 

 is ideal," that it "throws back into the time of 

 Moses the whole scheme of worship and ritual of 

 which the second temple was the centre." This 

 position is an essential part of the view of the Old 

 T -stament held by the succession of writers on 

 Biblical subjects in the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA ; 

 if it be admitted that the tabernacle and its ser- 

 vices, as described in the Pentateuch, are matters 

 of historical fact, then their whole scheme falls to 

 the ground. 



The Biblical accounts testify that the tabernacle 

 was constructed in the vicinity of Mount Sinai. 

 This gives the author of the article on SINAI, in the 

 BKITANXICA, an opportunity to open and close his 

 treatment by an attack on " tha historicity of the 

 Hebrew records involved." He says : " The ab- 

 B3nce of exact topographical detail on the part of 

 tha Biblical narrators, who always speak of Sinai as 

 if it were a single summit, and give no hint about 

 several summits of which it is one, shows that in 

 their time there was no real tradition on the matter, 

 and that all attempts at identification are necessarily 

 vain." But this writer cannot be unfamiliar with the 

 f.ust that the usual Hebrew word for mountain de- 

 noiei a given mountainous region as properly as a 

 single summit. Which of the two it denotes in any 

 particular passage, can only bo known from the con- 

 text, or from known facts concerning the topography. 

 Ho has no right, therefore, to say that these nar- 

 rators always speak of Sinai as if it were a single 

 summit ; neither he nor anyone else knows that to \><> 

 a fact ; the presumption is that they speak inter- 

 changeably, sometimes of the region and sometimes 

 of a particular peak, and there is no evidence to 

 overthrow this presumption. The fact that their 

 lack of definition in this particular, and their lack 

 of detail*, render it difficult to settle some points as 

 to the topography, is not at all discrediting to the 

 historicity of the writings. It is a matter of fact 

 that in the Sinaitic peninsula, as well as in Erypt 

 and in Palestine, a growing knowledge of the topo- 

 graphy, while it often overthrows our theories as to 

 the meaning of the Biblical statements, yet shows 

 th ! correctness of the statements themselves. Even 

 a man who holds that the Pentateuchal accounts of 

 the tabernacle were written after the exile, ought to 

 \M able to see that they were written by some one 

 who was familiar with the Sinaitic peninsula. 



The Pentateuchal accounts inform us that Israel 

 had a public sanctuary-tent, earlier than the one 

 that Moses made at Sinai, Ex. xxxiii. 7-11. See 

 also, in this work, ISRAEL, Period I., Institutions. 

 It is not a fair reading of the history to regard this 

 as an older and contradictory mention of the taber- 

 nacle that Moses is said to have made at Sinai. On 

 the contrary, it is spoken of as a part of a group of 



Ere-Sinaitic institutions, that were either superseded 

 y the legislation at Sinai, or incorporated into it. 

 The Priest-code writings circumstantially describe 

 the tabernacle itself and its furniture, its system 

 of offerings and sacrifices, its priesthood, its sacred 

 yciir of daily burnt offerings, sabbaths, and ap- 

 pointed festivals, and in virtue of all these, its char- 

 acter as the one lexal sanctuary of Israel. In regard 

 to each of these points, the books of the Old Testa- 



ment, with more or less continuity, give the subse- 

 quent history of the institutions founded by Moses, 

 and in regard to each of them, the several writers iu 

 the ENCYCLOPAEDIA BBITANNICA deny the historicity 

 of the account thus given. 



The tabernacle itself and its furniture. Besides what 

 we might infer from what is said concerning the 

 sacrifices, the priests, the festivals, etc., we have the 

 following direct statements : The tabernucle (mish- 

 ktm) was recognized as in existence, in western 

 Israel, after the conquest by Joshua, Josh. xxii. 19, 

 '29. The tent of meeting hud been set up at Shiloh 

 by the congregation of Israel, Josh, xviii. 1. The 

 inheritances of the tribes were distributed before 

 Jehovah, at the doorway of the tent of meeting in 

 Shiloh, . Josh. xix. 51. "in Eli's time, the tent of 

 meeting was still in Shiloh, perhaps within the 

 temple inclosuro there, 1 Sam. ii. 22. When David 

 brought up the ark to Jerusalem, he pitched a tent 

 for it, 2 Sam. vi. 17 ; 1 Chron. xvi. 1, while the 

 Chronicler adds that the mislikan of Jehovah was 

 then at Gibeon, close by, and the force of Levitiral 

 ministers was divided between the two points, xvi. 39. 

 This statement is repeated in 1 Chion. xii. 28 eg., 

 2 Chron. i. 3, and on the face of it seems to be con- 

 firmed by what is said as to Solomon's sacrificing in 

 Gibeon, and his vision there, 1 Ki. iii. 4-5 ; ix. 2. 

 During all this period, Jehovah represents himself 

 as dwelling in tent and mishknn, 2 Sam. vii. 6. 

 The mislikan of Jehovah's glory it) recognized in Ps. 

 xxvi. 8. The tent of Jehovah, with its altar (the 

 tent at Gibeon, rather than the one at Jerusalem), 

 figinvs prominently in connection with the accession 

 of Solomon, 1 Ki. "ii. 28, 29, 30 ; i. 39. And finally, 

 we are told that, at the dedication of Solomon's 

 temple, the priests nnd Levites brought up not only 

 the ark, but " the tent of meeting and all the holy 

 utensils that were in the tent," 1 Ki. viii. 4 ; 2 

 Chron. v. 5. In Eli's time we are told that the ark 

 was in the temple at Shiloh, 1 Sam. iii. 3, pre- 

 sumptively in its proper sanctuary in the tabernacle, 

 which we have seen was also there ; and that it was 

 removed from Shiloh at the time when it fell into 

 the hands of the Philistines, iv. 3, 4. Thus sepa- 

 rated from the tabernacle, we have a pretty full 

 account of its various fortunes, till the two were 

 placed in Solomon's temple. The shew bread of 

 Ex. xxv. 30 ; xxxv. 13, appears in 1 Sam. xxi. 6, and 

 again among the arrangements of Solomon's temple, 

 and those in preparation for the temple, 1 Ki. vii. 

 48 ; 2 Chron. iv. 19 ; 1 Chron. xxiii. 29, ete. In 2 

 Chron. i. 5, </., 1 Chron. xxi. 29, it is said that tho 

 brazen altar made by Bezaleel was still iu use in 

 Solomon's time. 



Certainly this line of statements, especially when 

 corroborated by the many parallel allusions to the 

 sacrifices, the festivals, the priesthood, and other 

 institutions that had their centre in the tabernacle, 

 appears, on the face of it, to be entirely credible 

 as history. If we are not to accept the statements, 

 we ought to have satisfactory reasons for rejecting 

 them. Of what sort are the reasons for this, as they 

 are actually adduced ? 



The author of the article on the Tabernacle, in the 

 BRITANNICA, says: " The Chronicler indeed, who had 

 before him the Pentateuch in its present shape, as- 

 sumes that after the Israelites entered Canaan the 

 tabernacle continued to be the one legitimate place 

 of sacrifice, until it was superseded by Solomon's 

 temple, and represents it as standing at Gibeon iu 

 the days of David and his son (1 Chron. xxi. 29 ; *<?. 

 2 Chron. i. 3). But the book of Kings knows Gibe- 



