HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 



Ill 



Mount Zion (ii Samuel vi, 17). But i Kings also declares 

 (viii, 4) that, at the dedication of the temple, the Tent of 

 Meeting and its holy vessels were brought up to be placed in 

 the new sanctuary. This reference, though found in the LXX 

 as well as in the Hebrew text, is expunged by the critics as 

 an interpolation ; or it is alleged that the name " Tent of 

 Meeting " is given to David's provisional tent, a usage without 

 warrant. AVithout, however, dwelling on this, there are other 

 indications which are not open to such objection. It is quite 

 incidentally that, in the previous hiscory in I Samuel, we come, 

 in the notice of the tabernacle at Shiloh, under its old name, 

 'dhel md'edh, on mention of " the lamp of God " burning, as 

 directed, all night (i Samuel iii, 3 ; cf. Exodus xxvii, 20, 21) ; 

 and at Nob, of the shewbread " (i Samuel, xxi) — a charac- 

 teristic institution of the Levitical Code. It is only, as it were, 

 by accident, that the mention of " lamp " and " shewbread " 

 occurs, otherwise their existence also would probably be denied. 

 The argument from silence, as these instances show, is a pre- 

 carious one. Even Wellhausen admits that at Shiloh there 

 must have been — as at Nob later — a considerable priestly 

 establishment {History of Israel, pp. 19, 128), though only Eii 

 and his two sons are mentioned. The reply given to this is 

 that the sanctuary at Shiloh cannot have been the tabernacle, 

 for it is called twice a temple " (i Samuel i, 9 ; iii, 3), and had 

 " doors " and " doorposts," implying a permanent structure. On 

 this last point it is to be observed that Old Testament tradition 

 was quite clear that prior to the temple, J ehovah's dwelling was 

 " a tent and a tabernacle " (^dhel and r)iishkdn, ii Samuel vii, 6 ; 

 I Chronicles xvii, 5) — the ark of God dwelt " within curtains." 

 It is no contradiction of this that during its century-long stay 

 at Shiloh, the " Tent of Meeting" may have gathered round it 

 other structures, supports and conveniences — gateposts, sleeping 

 chambers for priests and attendants, etc. But this suggests to 

 me another remark which I think is of great importance. Are 

 we bound to suppose that the tabernacle continued during the 

 whole of the long period between the Exodus and the building 

 of the temple — according to i Kings vi, 1, 480 years ; on the 

 shortest reckoning about 300 — without change, renewal, re- 

 placement of parts occasioned by age and decay ? The taber- 

 nacle as set up in the wilderness was, after all, not a structure 

 that could for a very long space of time endure stress of wind 

 and weather, not to speak of simple decay of material. Boards 

 will not hold out for ever, even apart from frequent removals 

 and journeyings, curtains will wear out, and become faded and 



