HISTORICITY OF THE MOSAIC TABERNACLE. 125 



Hist. Egypt (i, 140) we read with regard to aiyre-Ahrahamic artist, " God 

 has made him excel . . . the work of the chief artist in every kind 

 of precious stone, gold, silver, ivory, ebony." See also p. 177 on the 

 pectoral inlaid with precious stones found in a casket, also his notes 

 on early statuary and painting, and on the simplicity, vastness, 

 perfection and beauty of Egyptian art in patriarchal times, and on 

 traces of Semitic workmanship in Egypt, in the XVIIIth Dynasty 

 (vol. ii, p. 36). In view of these and other utterances, the very 

 natural difficulty about "high artistic skill," etc., vanishes. 



P. 104. Dr. Orr's position is confirmed by the fact that the 

 explanations with regard to structure are far more detailed and 

 exact in regard to the Tabernacle than in the case of the Temple. 



P. 105. Technical words introduced in Exodus xxv, etc., have to be 

 carefully studied, as is sometimes, but not always, done by the 

 revisers, in order to detect the substitution of other words in Kings 

 and Chronicles. Note, e.g.^ the substitution of i^ow-bread for Slmc- 

 bread (not marked in Revised Version) and the introduction of 

 oracle," chariot," " gourd " (for knop), " felloe " (for fillet). 



P. 106. There is a remarkable pair of expressions bearing on the 

 points of the compass, viz., " Southside southward " in Exodus xxvi, 

 18, and elsewhere, and " Eastside eastward" in Exodus xxvii, 13. 

 What does it mean ? In each case the old words used in patriarchal 

 times {negeh and kedemah) come first, whilst other words used here 

 for the first time in this sense are added by way of explanation (teman 

 and mizrach). This would never have been needed in later times, 

 and the duplicate expression is never used again except by Ezekiel, 

 who is steeped in the use of Tabernacle expression. The sons of 

 Jacob had not forgotten their ancestral language, and we have here 

 a testimony to the fact. 



From Chancellor Lias : — 



I quite agree with the statement on p. 105, that the theory 

 of the Levitical Code, which enjoys the favour of critics just 

 now, is " arbitrary and wholly preposterous." These words I feel 

 to be not one whit too strong. A theory which is established by 

 striking out every passage in the historical scriptures which is 

 irreconcilable with it, and assigning that passage to a later date, is 

 one which, to use the words of the late Bishop Stubbs, a historical 

 expert by no means to be despised, would be "laughed out of 



