8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
1/39
THE FUNDAMENTALS
VOLUME IV
CH APTER I
THE TABERNACLE IN THE WILDERNESS: DID
IT EXIST?
A QUESTION INVOLVING THE TRUTH CR FALSITY OF
THE ENTIRE HIGHER-CRITIC THEORY
BY DAVID HEAGLE, PH. D., D. D.,
PRO FESSOR OF THEOLOGY AND ETHICS, EWING COLLEGE; TRANS
LATOR BREMEN LECTURES ; AUTHOR OF KORAL
EDUCATIONt THAT BLESSEJ;:> HOPE, ETC.
INTRODUCTORY
The question as to whether or not the old Mosaic Taber
nacle ever existed is one of far greater consequence than most
people imagine. It is so, particularly because of the very. inti
mate connection existing between it and the truth or falsity of
the higher-critic theory in general. If that theory is all that
the critics claim for it, then of course the Tabernade had no
existence ; and this is the view held by at least most of the
critics. But if, on the other hand, the old Mosaic Tabernacle
did really exist, and the story .of it as given in the Bible is
not, as the critics assert, merely a fiction, then _he higher
critic scheme cannot be true.
The question, therefore, to be discussed in the following
pages, viz., whether the Mosaic Tabernacle really did or did
not exist, is certainly one of great and wide-reaching signi
ficance ; which significance will become more and more appar
ent as the discussion goes forward. With this brief intro-
7
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
2/39
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
duction ,ve talce up the s.ubject; 1nerely prernis ,ing furthe1·, that
tl1is
article
was
originally
prepared
as
a booklet,
in
which
shape
it co11tain ed a considerab]e a1nount of matte1- not appearing
•
he1-e.
THE DISCUSSION
One peculiarity of the high
1
er criticisn1 is what may be
called its unbounded audacity in attacking and attempting to
clestroy 1nany of the most solidly established faCts of th e
Bible . No matter with
wl1at a1nount
of evid ,ence any partic-
. t1lar cripture fact n1ay ·be capable of demon st1at ion , if it
happens to oppose any of the more fund ,amental notions of
the critica1 hypothesis, away it mt1st go as unworthy ,of acc,ept
ance h,y so-calJed · science, 01 at all eve11ts, the entir ,e atm·ay
of critica] doubts and imagi11ings is b·ro
1
ught to beat .. in lorde ·r
to cast susp
1
icion upon it, or to get rid of it in some ,vay.
I. THE
BI,BLE SID
1
E
OF THE QUESTION
A stril
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
3/39
•
•
•
•
. g
•
•
which is per haps the mos t convincing tes tim ony of all v1e
have
~iven
tis
in the
N
e·\lv
T
1
esta111e11t,ne whole
book,
t.he
Epis
1
tle to
tl1,e
Hebre, tVs,
·\,rl1icl1
co11cern s,
especiall)r
exp lai11-
ing from a Chri stian l)oint of ,,ie¥.' , tl1e t)
1
pology a11dreligio11
significan ce of
tl1at
olcl
buildi 11g
•
.II. TH E HIGHE R-CRITIC VIEW
With so mucl1 evidence, therefore, to be adduced, even
f ro1n the Script11res, in support of the Taber11acle'i histor icit; r,
one wou ld thi~k that it requires at least some literary br ave ry,
11ot to say
presumptuous audacity,
for
any individual
or class
of 1nen,to assail, with the expecta tio11of
overthrowing,
a fact
so
solill ly
established as
vould
seem to be that of the
Taber
n,acle' s
real ex iste11ce. Nevertheless, difficult
as
sttcl1
task 1nay
appear, the critics have not hesitate d most · vigorous ly to
undertake
it.
According to
t l1eir
notion the whole story of
t11e Taber nacl e, as record ed in the Bibl~, is
simJJly
a fiction,
or , mor e
properly
speaking, a literary forgery a co11cocion
gotten up pe rhaps by sonie of those priestly scribes ,;vl10
retu rned with Ezra from the Babylonian -exile; thei1· spe cial
purpose
in
devising
sucl1
a
story
being
to h elp,
in the introduc·
tio n of a new temple ritt,al at
J
ert1salem , or perhaps it was
also to glorify the distant past in the
l1istory
of the Israelites .*
III. TI-IE QUESTION :htIOREFULLY S'TATED
Thus we have presented to
11 two
widely differe nt and
opposing views re spect ing the Tabernacle's
existence. One
of them, which is the view of .at least most higher critics, is
that this old structt tre never existed at all; whil ,e, on tl1e other
. hand, the orthodox
and
Biblica l conception is
that
not only
in the days of Mo ses bltt long afterwards this fabric had a
most interesting
and
important history. Whic h, then, of these
t\vo so
widely
different doctrines are we
plea sed
to accept?
•
*~,\sexp
1
lained
by N
1
odell{e, anothe r purp
1
ose of this forgery was ••to
give p1
1
e, 'x,istenc:e
to. th e
te111ple
an.d to the t1nity
of
,vor·shiptl''
Bt1t t.his
is
v:ir:tt1allt in
1
c1uded
in
tl,e t,v·o
p,11rpose:s above
11amed.
•
•
•
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
4/39
•
..
•
•
10
•
The Funda nentals
•
IV. IMPORT 'ANCE OF THIS
DISCUSS 1ON
•
•
· 1. Whichever on
1
e
is
accepted
by
us,
certain
it is
that
an
earnest discuss ,ion, su
1
ch as we hope to effe
1
ct, of the question
above
stated,
is a
n1att,er
1
of
no
little
consequ ,ence. Such
a
discussion is important, first o,f all, because of the light which
it will throw
upon
all
the history 0
1
f God' 's
first
chosen
people
the
Israelites. , It ,vil1 at lea.st tell
us
s,o·n1ething
about
the
kind
of civilization this
1
ancient people 1nust have h.ad; and more
particula1 .. y will
it
tell us whether that civilizatio
1
n was, as the
higher cri ·tics r
1
epresent,
1
on
1
e 10,v· d
1
own on th
1
e scale, or whether
' these
Is1·aelites
had
already
made
a
good degree of
progress
. \in all
the
arts, dis,ciplines, and branches of knowledge
which
u.sually
belong
to
a mod
1
erately
l1igh
st·ate of civili .zation. ·
•
•
S1urely, then, there is at least some benefit to be d·erived from
the study before us.
2. But
anothe1·
advantage whicl1 will ,c,ome
from this
same
study is that
it
will help , us to a solution of a somewhat
curious, but yet important, historical problem; viz., whether
as,
a
matter of
history
tl1e Ten1ple preceded
the
Tabernacl .e., as
the highe1· critics claim, and, ther ·e·fore,
that
·the
Tabe ,rnacle
n1us.t
be
regarded
as
O nly
''a
diminutive copy'' of the Temple;
or vice versa,
whether,
as is taught
by
the Bible,
th ie Taber
nacle we.nt first, .and hence that
tl1e
Temple was in. it .s Construc
tion patterned ,after the Tabernacle. To be sure, at firs t
sight
this does
n,ot appear to
be
a
ve1~ importan t
ques tion ;
yet
when
the his·torica .l,
literary
and
ot .her
connections
i11volved in it aire
•
cons ,idered, it doe,s after all
b,ecome
a question of no
litt le
sig-
•
nificance. .
•
3. But · the most ,determinative and the ref ore the m.o st s,i,g-
nificant i·nterest we
'hav·e
in a
discussio ·n
·of
the q·ues,tion as
proposed,
is the
bearing which it
has
upon the truth
or
falsity
of the higher cri ·ticism. As is known to p
1
ersons conversant
·with,
that peculiar method of
Bible
study,
one of its main ·
contentions
is that
the whol ,e
Levitical
or ceremonial law-
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
5/39
•
•
•
•
11
•
•
that is,
tl1e law
of
wor ship as recorded especially in
Ex ?d us,
Leviticus and Nttmbe rs did not
ori,ginate ,
or at all events did
not make its appearance, unti l some,, rhere ne ar the close of
tJ 1e Baby·lon ian
ex.ile,
or
about
th e
time
wh
1
en
Ezra
first
appear s in
J ewish
hi sto ry. By
thus
ren1oving
all
that
part
of
th e ·P entateu cl1 down
the
ce,ntur i
1
es, f
ra m
the time
,of
M oses to
•
the t ime of Ezr a, the criti cs, are ab le not only· to deny tl1e ·
Mos aic
author ship
of
this Pentateuch al lit era tu re,
but
also
to
• •
construct a scheme of their o,vn
by
which all tl1e separ ate
documents , into wl1ich they are accu sto,med to divi de the
Pentateuch can be put together in a kind of whole; each par
ticular document being
singled
out and designated according
to its date,
author ship,
and other
peculiarities,
such as the
_critics suppose
belong
to
it. Moreover,
in thi s way th e P
1
enta
teuch is al.I toirn to piec ,es, and in stea ,d of its b,eing really a
•
co11lected, organic whole, such as the ortho ,dox world . has
always conceived
it
to be,
it
is
b y
thi s p,ecu.liar higher-critic
metl10,d
tran .sfo ·rmed int o
a
1nere patch-wor ·l
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
6/39
•
•
•
•
12
T lie
u1ida11ie11 tal.s
•
•
•
•
by the Jews as their gr
1
eat central place
1
0£ ·wor,sl1ip, would have
been not only an arcl1itectu1·al
curiosity, but
an anachronism
such as e.ven
the critical
imaginati on
cottld
sca1 .
ely
be
,accuse ,d ·
eit]1er of devisring 01·
accepti11g.
rfhe only way, tl1eref ore, open for the critic s, if they are
still to hold fast their theory, is for them to , do precisely what
they b,ave undertaken; namely, t.o
blot
out or d.estroy the
Tabernacle as a real existence,
and
then to 1·econstruct the
e11ire·
story
of
it,
as
given in
tl1e
Bible,
in
tl1e form
of a
fiction.
1 his th
1
ey have
really · atte1np,ted .
•
B ttt by so doing tl1e
c·1~itics n1ust,
aftet·
all,
confe ss th at fl1e
foundation
upon
which tl1ey
build
is
very
insecu1·e,
because
it
is
sf111ly
an ,ass11mption .
If,
therefore, in
opposition
to st1ch
as:;un1ption,
this a1-ticle s11ll be able
t
1
0
demon strate that tl1e
old Mo .sai c Tabernacle actua lly e,xisted, th en the underp
1
inning
of the critical
h)rpothesis
is
at
011ce
removed, and the entire
e,(lifice·
with ,all
of
its
1n1ny sto1;oie 111l1st c 0
1
llap1e.
And if all
tl1is is , true, then it is not too much to
S
1
ay, as is affirmed
ir1
tl1e sub-title of tl1is
article,
tl1at the wl1ole t1·uth or fal sity
of tl1e critical sche1ne depe11ds upon what may he pt·oven
· t1~1e tespe ,cting tl1e Tabernacle s 11on-ex ist ence or existen .ce.
And thi.ts, moreover, . is made to appea1· the exceeding·
ih1portance of the discuss .ion ,ve have undertaken.
•
V. QUOTATIONS FROi\tl THE HIG ·HER
1
CRITICS
. But
wl1at
do the
higher
critics
tl1em,selves
say with regard
tio
t l1,s
111atter
of tl1e· Tabernacle s real existence? To quote
f
ro1n only a few of them, Well hau s
1
en, e.g., who is the great
corJrphreus of the
higl1er-critic
doctrine, vvrites as
follows: ,
TI 1e
Tetnple ·, whicl1
in
reality
wa,s no
1
t
bttilt until Solomon
ti111e, is
by
this ,docum ,ent :[ the
so-called Priest ,]y
C,ode] r
1
e
garded as so indispensable, even for the troubled days of the
•
,~ilderrtess before the s
1
ettlement, that
it
is made portable,
•
and in ·
tI1e
form of
a
taber11acle set up jn the
very begi,nning
•
•
of
tl1ings.
For the truth is that tl1e Tabernac]e is, a
copy,
not-
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
7/39
•
•
•
•
Tab ernacle· iti the Wilderness
13
•
the prototype, of the temple at
J
ntsalem'' ( P roleg .1 Eng.
trans ., p. 37) . . So also Graf, wl10 preceded Wellhausen . in
l1igher-critic
work,
affirms
that
t l1e
' f
abernacle
is only
'a
dimintttive copy of the Ten11Jle,'' and that "al l that is said
,a.b,out this1 s·tru ctur e in the mid .dle bool{s of the Pe11tatet1cl1
is merely post-exi lic accretion.'' 011ce more, to l1ear from a
1nore recent autl1ority, Dr. A. R. S. I
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
8/39
•
•
,.
•
•
•
•
t
..
•
14
I
,
•
•
•
not, s~ lo11g as we l1ave
any
real apprecia ·tion oi
the
lo:fy
system of
moral truth
which
is
taught
in
this wonder£ ul book --
a book which, more than any
other
ever produced,
has
taugl1t
the entir
1
e worl .d com1non hones ,ty, whether in literary work
or
other acts. Therefo
1
re we say, regarding this whole matter
of the Bible's speaking falsely, Judaeus Apella credal) non ego
Let the hi.gher
c·ritics
h
1
elieve tha .t if they wi11, but s,urely
not we
1
· . .
~obert Burns has a
poen1,
iri'
hich he says of lying in
genera]: .
•
•
•
•
''Some books are lies. frae end to
1
end,
And some great lies were never penned;
E'
e·n minist ,ers,
they hae
been kenned,
In holy
1~apture, .
A rousing whid at times
to
vend,
An' nail
it wi'
.Scrip,ture ·.
I
•
•
•
•
S·urely ,
the. h~gher
critics
would not
·u,ndert .ake
to
.reduce
our
Christian Scriptures
to
the
level
of a book that
has
1
·in it
no
•
trµth from beginning t ·o end;
and
yet
it must
be confessed
'
that .on.e, serious te,ndency of their th
1
eory is greatly to les,sen
the .general credibility of this sacred volume.
. .
2. But
another presumption
lying
against the
truth£ ulnes ,s
of this hi.ghe~ c:ritici s,m is, th.at it
m.ake .s
all the
civilize
1
d.
agels
from Ezra down to the present time t ,o
be
so utterly lacking
both in
hist
1
oric
knowledge and literary sagacity, that,
except
ing .. f ~w higher crit ,ics, no o·ne eve1· sup,pos
1
ed the _whole wor]d
was l being
de,ceived
by
this
untrue story of
the Tabernacle's
1Jieal xistence ;
when, if the
facts were told, all these n1uner
ous age ,s have not only been thems ,elves deceived, but have
been a1so, i.nst ·rt1mental,
one a ·f
ter a.~oth.er~ in pr ,opaga ,ting
•
that same old falsel1ood down
the
centur ,ies Again we say:
Judaeus
Ape[lu, credat, non
·ego
The µ-igh,er-cr.itic preten
sions
to
1
·having a
greater
wisidom
and knowledge thlan is
pos
sessed by a11the
rest
of the world,
are very
w
1
ell kn ,own ; but
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
9/39
..
•
Tabef ~ -iacte n tlie Wi .der11 eJs
15
•
this
ill·ustration
of tha .t peculiarity
.see1ns to
us 1·ather
to
1
cap
· the climax.
3.. An ·d here,
if'
we choo
1
se
to go ·fa1 .
ber,
it
might
be
sh
1
own that, ·i.£ this pe
1
culia1· doctrine is true, then .tl1e S
1
avior
a11d all of his Apostles were mistaken. For cer·tainly Christ
( see Matt .. 12 :3, 4.) and perhaps all the Apostles without
exception, did believe in the Tabernacle as. a real existence;
and one of the Apostles, or at least an aposto lic writer, went
so far
1
in the Book of Hebre,vs, as to ,compose what may be
termed an extensive and inspi1·ed commenta .ry on that sacred
structure s on its apartments, fut·niture, priesthood and serv-
ices; bringi11g out particularly, from a Christian point of view,
the rich typical significance of all th
1
ose matters. Now that
all tl1ese inspired 1nen
.a11d
the Savior I' 'limself should either
ha, re be.en themselves deceived or should try to deceive ot hers
with regard
to
an
important
matter of Old Te stam ,ent histot ·y
is surely incredible .. ·
• •
. VII. , EXTERN AL EVID
1
EN CE
1. Just beret however, we desire to introdt1ce soine con
s,i,derations of a
different 1iature.
There exists,
eve:n
1
ou·t.side
of the Bible, a sma ll amount of evidence in support of ·the
•
Tabernacle's
existence, arid although
we have
already alluded
to a part of ·this testimony, . under the head of favorin .g pre
stunptions , yet it will bear repetition or rather a fuller consid- .
eration. Now, as w
1
e co,nceive of this evidence, it cons ists,
in the first pla ,ce, of various notices or even of
ft111
descrip
tions o,f the Tabernac l,e as a real existence, which are found
in very ancient writings, some of these writings being quite
differe ·nt
from
Tur
Christian Scriptt1res.
To
be
sure,
a
]arge
•
part of this lit
1
rature is c
1
pied in one
way
an
1
another from
the Bible, and none of it dat
1
S1anything lil
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
10/39
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
The
undamentals
...,.- --- • ' rt
p zFot. • ....... .
1.:-t .
The first
testi111ony, tl1en,
of
this sort
to
whicl1
we
all\lde,
is a full descrip ,tion of tl1e
Tabernacle
in all its
parts,
services ,
.priesthood and
history,
very
nearly the same as
t11at wl1i
l1
is give,n in our n1odern B,ibles, vv
1i,ci1
clan be fottnd i11 tl1e
,earliest
translation eve·1· made
of the ·old Tes ,tan1e·nt that
is
the Sept uagin t.
This t1-anslatio11appea1·ed some
two
or
tl1ree ce11turies before the time of Cl1ri. t, and tl1erefo1~e it
I
ou,gl1t to be pretty go,0
1
d evidence of .at least .wl1at its cot1 ..
temporarie s, or tl1ose
far-off tin1es,
l1eld
to be trLte
,vith
regard t,o
tl1e
1natter t111der
co11sderation.
Th
1
en
a11otl1er
testimony of lilce cl1aracter comes
f
ro1n tl1e
Greel
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
11/39
•
•
•
•
•
17
,v1·itten, we 'ha.v
1
e
in these various so
1
trces,1
considered
as a ·
,v11oe, if n
1
ot
an
in1dependent
or direct
·te,stimo,ny
to, tl1e
Tab,e1. acle's .
existenc e,
certainl) r ..on1etl1ing
tl1at
points
clearly
in that (lirectio
1
n. Or, in other
wo1·ds, inasmuc}1
as the se
0
1
ld
\\rr~itng s, co,n·taining the va1·ous
11otices
and descriptions ,vl1ich
we have m·ention ed, existed
away
back so near to Old Tes
tan1ent times, these 1nust l1ave been acquainted with
tl1e
best
t1,.aditions of
their day
1egarding
wl1at
is
taug ·ht in that part
of our
Bib·le;
and,
tl1erefore, they n1ust hav ,e known 1nore
about the truth of
thi11g~s
s
connect ,ed
,vith the Tabernacle
and its real exi stence than any authorities existing in these
late ti1nes of our s possibly could. Or, at all events, tl1ey
knew mo,re about th ose 1natte1·s than any of the me .re gtte ss
\\ro·rk
spec,ulations of
111odern
hig he 1~
c:ritic s p·ossibly
can, or
a i·e
i11
a
cond.ition
to k110\v.* ·
2.. Bttt
tl1e1·e s
anothe1..ki11d
of
evidenc
1
e, of this ,external
na·t·u1·e,
whic'h
is
1no1·e di1·ect ,a:11d
ind
1
epende11t,1land
t 'he1~ef
ore
n1or
1
e significa11t witl1. 1·egard to
the T .ab
1
e1·nacle's
exis ,tence l
Tl1at evid,ence is
what 111ay be called th
1
e ,a1·cl1reological
con~
tri bution to our argu1ne nt. Part of it will be
give11
ater ;t bttt
here ,ve
will simply call
attention,
first,
to
the fact
that
in
all
tl1e
region of Mt~
S,i·11ai
h ere
are t
1
0
be
s.een at
least
some
evidences , of
t11e
possible presence ther e, even as
is 1·eco
rded
•
*The value of this ·evidence is of course only tl1at which belo
1
ngs
to tradition;
still
it
should be re ·membered that this
tradition is a
\vrit ...
ten one,
dating
away back
to near
the times of th.e Old Testament.
Moreover, it could be shown th .at this same kind of written tradition
reaches back through the lat er books of the Old Testament. at least in a
negative
way,
even
to
the
time
of
Ezra;
who surely ought to
kr10,v
-:w:hether, a.s the crit ·ics say, th
1
e sto ry of the T 'abernacle as a fact of
history
was inv ente ,d in
his own day
and gen
1
ration ,. But inasmuch a1
Ez ra does not tell
us
anythi ·ng about that matter, it
stan ,ds
·to reason, that
as .
11as
~ince been reported by thi s long line of tradition, most
of
it
being O'f a ,po.sitive nature, no such invention ever took place, but that
this s,tory is simply a n,arrative of a,ctual fac·t. At all events, a,s sai ,d in
~ ~ text, it. is far more likely that th1s ,ol,d
a;nd
1ong-cont ,inued t.radition
1s c_orr
1
ect 1n w.hat
it
assert s, than · is an,y of the denials
1
0'f t,he higher
cr1t1cs ' .
· i' See
pp.
41-43. ·
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
12/39
•
•
•
•
•
18
The -Fundanie ;itals
•
in
t
1
h
1
e
Bible~ of
tl1e
Isra.
1
eli,tes,
at the time whe11t11ey
bui]t
the Tabernacle.*
1
'.Ioreover, the1·e
l1ave rece11tly
been
1na
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
13/39
•
•
•
r \
J ;
Tabe nacl 1 in tlie Wild.e·r·ness
19
f
•
Now whether th~ general judgment of men either at pres
ent o,r in the
f
utur 1 will
c.oincide with Colonel ·
Wilson as to
the matter in hand
We
do
not
kno ,w; bt1t we will
simp
1
ly
1·epeat
Colonel Wilson s w~rds, and say that
it
is
not improbable
that this site, as indicated, is a real discovery as to tl1e place
where the old Tabernacle once
stood.
We
ne·ed
not dwell
longer here on the matter, but ,vill only ob,serve that if the
,v
1
ery ruins of the old Tabernacle, S·O far as its site is con
cerned, can still be seen, that surely ought to be
pretty
good
eviden ,ce
tha:t
this building
once existed.
•
VIII. POSITIVE BIBLICAL EVIDENCES
But to co,me n
1
ow to the more positive and co·nclusive
evidences regarding ~he matter under conside ,ration, we may
. observe that these ,
consis .t
particularly of
various
his,to
1
·rical
niotices scatter
1
ed
throt1gho
1
ut the Old Tes ,tament;
a11d
1o
n·umerous and cl
1
ear
in
th .e:ir
t.estimo
1
ny ar ,e these
·no·tices
that ·
they wou]d seem t
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
14/39
•
,
•
•
20
by
the
different
kings of J11dal1and Israel, tl1ose original
doct1ments,
or
at
least some of
the1n,
take us
away back to
tl1e
very times
of
Solotnon and David,
or
to the period ·when,
as ,~e shall soon see, the J\tlosaic Tabe1·11acle vas still
stan
1
ding
at Gibeon.
Tl1is.
was
also,
it
may b,e obse1·vecl, the
general
p eriod during whicl1 tl1e Tab
1
e1. acle, having been taken do,vn,
was r ,emoved from Gibeon a11d stored a,v ,ay in · .S0lon1o11's
temple
at
Jerusalem; and
it
is
to tl1e
accottnt of
this trans
f eren .ce that our
at ·tention
is no,v, first of all,.
directed.
I n
1 King s, ,chap. ·8, v. 4, we 1·ead : ''An ,d they brought up tl1,e
ark of ' Jehovah, a11d tl1e tent of 1neeting, and .all tl1e . l10Iy
,ress,els tl1a.t were in the tent; even these did th
1
e prie ·sts and
J-Jevites bring u.p. A mere ct1rsory reading of the se words
• •
gives
one
the
impre ssion
that
the
('tent
of meeting,
1
which
''as brottght up from
so1newhere
by
the
pr iests
and Levites,
1
vas nothi11g else than the
old
Mosaic
Tabernacle; and
as to
the place from
·wl1ich it
was
b1 ot1ght,
hat i.s
not
told
u.s
in
the [Scriptures; but a
compari s
1
011
of texts (
see
2 .
Cl11·on.
1 :3 ;
l
l(ings, 3
:1, 4) woi1ld seem
to
indicate that the Tabernacle
,v·as .first
transported £1·01n
Gibeon
to
Mt.
Zion,
wl1ere
the
ark of the
co·vena .nt was at tl1is time, and tl1en afterwards it
,vas,
with
other
sacred
matte1·s,
carried
t.1p
to Mt.
Morial1,
,vl1ere it was put
away
in
tl1e temple~ ,
Al l
tl1is seems to
be sufficiently clear; only now the q·ues- ·
tion arises . w·hether, afte1~ al.l, tl1is was real ly the old Mosaic
stru .iture or some other tent, as, e.
,g.,
the ·on,e b
1
uilt
by
David
in J rt.lsalem, and
which
seems, at this time; to have been
stil1 in existence.* Most of the critics, including even Well
l1a11sen1 are agreed t'l1at the wo1·ds, ''tent of meeting''
orhel
moed), as used in tl1is and various other text s o,f Scripture,
do really signify the old Mosa·ic str u
1
cture; a11d one 1·eason
for ·their so holding is tl1at tho .se words for~ a lcind of t
1
ecl1-.
nical
exp ·ression
by
w11ic1
that old structure was c.onunon.ly,
*'Se1
2 Sam. 6
:.17
a11d
7
:2;
1
Cl1ron.
15 :1
and
1
6
:1. Cf~
1
Ki.ngs
1 :29. -
•
I
I
I
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
15/39
i
•
•
21
or at
least often,
de11oted in the
Biblei
*
Only
one other
te 1·m
is used
as f reqt1ently
as this is
to
indicate tha t str ucture; ·
this
other
ter111
being,
in
Hebre, -, 11iislil?a1i
l1ich is usua lly
translate d,
i11 our
English
versions,
''tabern ac1e,
a11d
mea n
dweJ ling -place .
Now
if
thi s
re11deri11g of
those
,vorcls
is
correct, ,ve ,vot 1ld see1n to
l1ave
al1·ead )' reac 11ed
the g·oal
o f
our e11deavor . ' fl1at is to say' ,
v\te l1av e
actually found tl1e
T.abernac le in e,~istence. It e:,i sted, as an t111deniable
reality
i 11 the
tin1es
of David
a11d
S0l,on1o11,or at least
in
th oce of
Solo1non ; arid a posit ive proof of tl at
1natter are
these
v.rc.1cls
we l1ave j t1st quoted fr om 1 Kings 8 :4. ·
B,ttt
tl1e
'higher
criti
1
cs.,
or
especially \N ·ltl1au,sen,
a re
110
1
t
so
easily
to b,, ca,t1gl1t ,:vith an
ad111issio11 as
to an interpr eta
tio n of
word s ;
fo r
eve11
t hot1gh
VVellhause11
does
concede
•
th,at
·tl1e ,:vo1ds
''te11t
of
1neet ia.g''
signi fy
as we
l1ave
stated;
.
nevertl1eless l1e u11dert akes to get
rid
of
tl1eir real
force by
asserting
that in
thi s pass age
they
are
a11 interpolation, or
•
tl1at they do not
belong
to the origina l Hebrew text.
How-
ever , neitl1er
l1e
nor a11yothe1- l1igl1er
critic
has
ever yet
be~n
able to give any textual auth ori ty
for
such an
assertio11
tllley
only
try
to arg ue
tl1e 1natter from internal evidenc e.
But inter ·11alevidence alone, and es,pecially such s1im evidence
of that
ki11d
as
the c·ritics
have
been
able to adduce in this
connection,
is
in sufficient
to establish tl1e end desired. B -
sides, those \1\,01·ds, ''tent of
1neeting,
are
certainly fot111cl
in
our
present
I-lebrew text, as also in
tl1e Septuagint version;
both of whicl1 items being ·so,
it is,·
not at all lil{ely
tl1~t
\ \ clll1at1sen's
ipse dixit
will
have the effect
of
changing
the111.
~tt cl1 be ing tl1e
case,
we
n1ay conclude that
tl1e strt1ct.. 1·c
*The words
ohel 111,oed
e,em
to
have been used fir.st
to designate
the
smaller tent
(see p .. 37
with
footnot e) ,which
Moses
used
as
:1
place of communion
betwe en Jehoval1
and l1is
people; hence
it v.:':1
called the
'·'tent
1
0£ meeti11g.''
But
afterwar
1
ds,
'lien
tl1e regular
taber
nacle
became
such a place, th,e
,11ord ·s w
1
ere applied
,also
to
tI1at
structure.
..
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
16/39
•
..
•
•
•
22
,
The
Fundametital1S
•
•
which was caT riedby the priests a11d Levites up to Mt. Moriah
. and stored away in the temple, was really the old Mo ,saic
.Tabernacle. . .
•
We quote only one Other passage from this
First
Book
0£ Kings. It is a part of tl1,e accoun ·t ef Solomon,s going to
Gibeon, and of his offering saerific ·e tl1ere.
T11e
words are
found in v. 4, Chap~
3,
and read as follows: '' And the king
we11t to Gi'be,on,
to
1
sac1
ifice the1·e for
tl1at
·wa .s the great
High
place.''
Then
in the second ·werse
o,f
this
same
chapter
the king's conduct ·
in
thus
goi11g
to
·Gibeon
is farther ex
plained by tl1e statement
that
th
1
e p
1
e,ople sacrificed in
the
high
places, i>ecause ''there was no house ifiUilt for the name 0£
Jehovah
until
those days.'' The
''days ·' . here indicated are,
•
as is explained by the preceding verse, ·those in whicli ''S0lo -
mo11 made an end of building his ow~ , house a.nd th
1
e house
I
of Jehovah;''
and ythe
entire
p
1
assag
1
e tl=i~·n wou .l.d
.signify
that
at least one
r .eason why Solomon off
1
ere ,d
sacrifice in
Gibeon
• •
was
because this was
the
customary way
.among .
the peop
1
le .
~hey offered sacrifice ·s in the high places before the , temple
at
Jerusalei:n was built, but ·
not ordinarily,
or,· legitimately,
•
aJterw.ards. Then t11e1"e is another r·easo,n indicated why
•
·Solomon w·ent
particu]arly
to
Gibeon
because this
was
th
1
e
_great
high place.'' Why it was so called, mtlst have
~een
because of some
special fact
or
circumstance connected with
· t ;
and
among
tlie
explanation ,s
giveg
.none appears
so
natural
·or to accord so well with
othe1--tea.chings,A,
f ·Scripture
as
the .
suggestion
that this
distinction
was
applied to Gibeon ·
tiecause the old Mosaic Tabernacle,
witl1.
the .br.azen alta ,r, was
still there ~
Tka ·t
w
ould certainly
be .a
suffi·eient
r
1
eason
for
accrediti11g peculiar ·eminence to . this one, of all the many
•
high places
wl1ich
at that time
seem
to h~ve existed
in
the
Ho1yBand.
Accordi11gly,Solomon went
o-ver to
Gibeon, and
off er,ed
sa·crifice,
there ; and
then
we read that, in the night
following this devotional act, the
king had ·
a· dream in which:
J
l10,rah appeared unto him and made to
him
very
extraor-
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
17/39
•
f
•
•
•
3
•
. dinary promises. Now this , epip hany of · Jehovah at Gibeon
is reall y another reason for one's believi11g that the Tabernacle
was
located
at
this place.
For it is 11t to
be
sttpposed that
any
J
ewisl1
author, " rriting
afte1-
the
temple
was built (
when
tl1is acco11nt
of Solomon's
dream
·,vas .
ritte n),
would
allow
it
to be said
that the great and idolatry-hating
God of the
I r,aelites had macle a gracious and
extraordinary
revel ,ation
•
of l1imself at any
of
the common high places in the
I-Ioly
Land, half-heathenish and largely devoted to the service of
idols, as these places
gene1·ally
were.
But if
it
must b,e acltnitted that the Tabernacle
,:vas r,eally
l,oc,ate
1
d at Gibe ,on, then all
becom,es
clear, both why Solomon
,vent there to offer sa,crifice, and
why
Jehovah made at this
p'lace a
gra ,ciot1s
revflation
of
himself; also why
tl1,is,
of all
the
l1igh
pl,aces in
tl1e
Holy Land ,
was
cal,led ·
,empl1atic,ally
''g1 eat~''
Then, moreo ,ver,
it
might be said, that we have
sttrel,y
demonstrated
tl1e
existence
of
the
Tabernacle, not
only
as taught by this passage
fro1n
Fir st Kings, bt1t a1so by 'the
,other on,e which we l1ave 11oticed. · ,
•
.
•
2. TESTIMONY OF CHRONI
1
CLES
,
•
. ...
But now turning ove1· to
tl1e
two
books of
Cl1ronicles,.
we
finld
here
quite a
number
of
passag ,es wl1ich teach
in
the
., clearest and most positive manne r that the Tabernacle existed
at Gibeon
not only
in
the
time of Solon1on,
but
also
be ore.
Tl1ese ·two
book ,s of · Ch1·onicles, it sl1ould be
remembered,
are really a
lcind
of commentary, or an
extensio11
made, up?n
Samuel and Kings.
Such
is the opinion of
many
competent
cholar$; and
one reason
for tl1eir
o holding, is that
very
,eviden,Jy the books of
Sa111uel
and Kings were
atnong the
p~incipaJ sources from which the
author of
Chronicles ,drew
his
info1·mation;
although it
must
be
acknowledged also that
he
used
still other
sources besides
those
named. Writing
•
then
at
a somewhat distant
date,
say
on
1
e ,or
two
hundred
years from the time of the final composition, or redaction, of
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
18/39
•
.
•
•
•
•
•
24
Tlie Futidame,itals
•
Kings and Samuel,:,: and doub t1ess
l1aving
at his
con1mand
a
co
1
nside rab le an1ount of tradition, bes
1
ide,s his written sourc es,
tl1e Cl1ro11icler
n1us·t
l1ave
bee11
n
very good condition
'to write
,vl1at 111ay be co,11idered a 1,ind of interpre 'tiv
1
e con1mentary .
upon
not only ·
l1e
books
of Sa1nuel,
bttt also
upon
the
Fi1·st
Bo
1
ok of Kin ,gs, two pass ,ages f rom whicl1 we have j11st ·
no,tice.d., If tl1at was so, and the two. bool.cs of Chronicles are
'to
b
1
e
unde rsto
1
od. tl1e11 ,as giving u,s some
additional i.r1f
rma ...
tion as to ,,~I1at
is found in Kings,
th ,en
the
historical
notices
i11 First Kin ,gs which ,ve have exami11ed become as
it
were
i11un1ina ted
and m,ade stro nger a11d mo1·e positive in
tl1eir
nature tl1an wl1en co·nsidered alone. Fo r instance, in Fir st
4
l'{ings we we1·e told
tl1at
Solon10,11 vent to Gibeon and
Offered
sacr ifice there, because
1
'' tl1at was the great high ·p
1
lace ;'' bt1t
110w in
·1 Chron. 1 :3
,ve l1a
ve it all
exp·tained, ,
both ho,w 'G·ibeon
ca1ne ·to
be so· called,
a11d ,vl1at w,as
Solomon's special
reason
£0
1
1· going tl1e1·e
o offet·
sacrifice . It
VJ.as, a.s i.s
taught very
plain ly here i11
Cl1
ornicles, becau s,e ' '
t,he tei
1
it o.f
nieeting
of
G,01d
whi,ch Z.fose,s ,tl·ie .se1 v1a·n·t of Jeli,ovali had made in tlie
wilde1-11:ess w,a1 at
that
time in
Gibeon.
Tl1us
the
ratl1er
unce1·tain me11tion of matter s
at
1
Gibeon which
is
given in
Fi rst
Kings i,s n1ade cleat.. and positi ve by what is said
i 11
Chro11icles. s.o also in 1 Chron. 21 :29, which is a part of
the account given of David's
offe1·ing
sacrifice o~ the thres 'h-
j
ing-floor of Ornan, we hav ·e
agai11 t1-011ger
language used
than is found in Kings, telli11gus of tl1e )existence of the old
Mo,saie Tabernacle. For i11 e,cplaini·11gDavid' ',s c9,ndu
1
ct the
Chronic:le,r says as follows : '''F 0
1
1· the tabe,rnacl e of l elio
1
vaih
•
*It is claimed
by the crit ics that
a11 l1e l1istorical 1Jooks
0£
the
1
0ld
·Testam ient
u11derw
1
ent a
r1vision
du .ring
·tl1e
exile; and :acco ,rding
to
the b,est authorities, Chro
1
nicles was composed shor tly after the
Persia11
rule,
or
.about 330 B. ,c.
S,electing,
then, abo ,ut the mi ,ddle.
C?f the
exi1ic
period (586
to , .444 B~
C.)
1
as
the
d,at
1
e
for
th ,e final
rev1s1on
of
Kings and
Samuel, this w,ould. IJlake
the con1position oi Chronicles .·fall
near
200
years after tl1at . rev1s1on. But of co
1
u1·se Samuel and
Kings
we·re originall~ composed, o·r compiled ., at a
1nuch
e3:rlier date ;~ the
former
appearing
probably
abot1t
9CXJ,
nd the latte ·r about 600 B. C.
•
I
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
19/39
•
•
l
Tabertiacle i1i
tJie i,Vildcr1tess
25
•
which .iv ses ttzade i1i tJie wilderness a,1d the altar of b~t1~nt
offering
we1"e
at that
tinie
i ·1i
t/1e
liigli place at Gibeon.
1
rv'hat
ever of u11certainty, therefore, o r lack o,f posit ive indication,
may exist as connected ,vith the passages we have · quoted
f ro·m l{ings,
there
is no sttch uncertainty
or
lack of positive-
•
ne ss .]·1ere in Cl1ronicles. ,on tl1e Contra1
4
y, tl1es
1
e t,¥0 books,
which give u.s quite an amou11t of informatio11 respectinP-tl1e
1 abernacle, are
al,1Vay,.
or at least g·enera lly, very clear
a11d
· pos iti, re ; and on
tl1is accot11t,
·it
111il1t
be
added,
tl1e
sta te
me11ts made in Chronicles ·h:ave some ·times bee11 taken as a
•
kind of
guide
to the study of tl1e Tabernacle l1istory in general . .
But l1ere agai11
tl1e
critics maloint
of learning and
reliab ,ility
is aclcnowledged to be among the very
f
o.ren1ost · of a]l the
critics,
says with regard to
tl1is
very matter
i11 l1and: · 'It
is
now reco,gnized,I' affirms that e.minent critic, '' 'that the Chron
icler has . worked according to soiurces; .and th ,ere can be no
talk,
witl1
regard
to
him, of fabrications
or
misrepresenta tions
of tl1e
history .'' So
also
Dr. Orr observes that
there
is no
r,eason £01· doubti11g ''the perfect good fait l1'' of the auth or of
..
•
•
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
20/39
•
f
,
•
•
•
•
•
26
•
·TJie F und amentals
•
-
.
Chronicles;
rand
Pr
1
of. J me,.
R
1
obertson, of
Glasgow Univer-
sity, farther
adds
that all
such
matters
.as
the
critics
have
urged ·
ag,a·i . .st th,e Chr
1
oni
1
c.l
1
er 's veracity or misusie and even inven ,
tion of sources, are ''superficial and unjust;'' and
that ''tl1e1e
•
is no reason to doubt the
ho,nesty
of the author .in the use of
such materia ls as lie has command of, nor is there any to
, question the e~istence of the writings to which 11e refers.''
t We take it, therefore, that
tl-iese
two books of Chro
1
nicles
embody
not
only
the best historical
know ledge,
but also the
best traditions still in existence at
tl1eir
date; and
.such
being
•
the: case, it is clearly in
1
c
1
ontrov ,ertibl
1
e that, . as is so unmis-
takably taught in these books, the old Mosaic Tabernacle
must have existe
1
d.. And so
lo,ng
as the critics . are unable to
· impeach the testim ,ony of these
books,
which would seem to .
•
·be
impossibl
1
e,
that te stim.ony
must
stand~* .
•
•
3.
TE 1STIMONY OF SAMUEL
ti •
••
· Now,
ho,wever,
let us give
attention
to
tl1e
books
of
Sam-
uel.. Here is c
1
ertainly a~other piece of lit.e~·ature against
the
general credibility of
which
tl1e
critics can l1ave but ljttle ,
to say. And what do th
1
es
1
e bool
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
21/39
•
•
•
•
•
•
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
nacle 's history? Very n1uch, indeed; far more than we shall
have space here fully to
exa111ine.
In
the
first place,
these
books tell
us that
during
at least
part
0£ the .
times which
they
in g·ener ·al describe, tl1e Mosaic Tabe1·na,cle was loca·ted at
•
Sl1iloh, up in the Ep
1
hraimite district. Then next we leatLI
tl1at .at l
1
east one of the
gr·e·at
fes itivals connect ·ed with
the
Tab ,ernacle
s.ervice,s
tl1e ''y
1
ea·r·ty
sacrifice' '
it
is called w·as
still b·eing o,bserved. Also
1
w
1
e learn
that
this
is
t.he place
,vl1ere
Sam.uel' ,s
pare11ts,
Elk.anah
an
1
d
Hannah, . went
up
1
eTery
,yea1·, in or·der
t
1
0 take p,art in th .at sacrifi
1
ce. Moreover,
it
was
i11
th,e
sanctttary
at Sh.i .ol1, o,r in
son1e
Qn·e
of its apart .
ments, that Samuel slept at th ,e .time when lie had those ·
extraordinary revelations of Jehovah talking with him, a:Od
where also he cam,e into
st1ch.
inti111ate and important relations
with the aged Eli and
his,
house. . . .
. And among still otl1er items report .ed
ir1
those book,s the ,re
is one
that
invites
our
special attention.
In 1
Sam., Chap. 2,
v. 22,
111ention
s n1ade of certain ''women that did servic ,e at
the door of the tent 1neeting. ' ' And it was with
these
women,
•
.
as we farth ,er learn, that Eli's two sons, H ,ophni and PlUilehas,
comniitted at least a part of their ,vick ,edness, for
Y1hich
they
wer re so severely conde1nne,,d, a11d af ter ·ward punished
by
Jel1ovah.
Now whatever else this
p,assag ,e
may
signify,
it
ce1--tainly t1tends to teach, by it s use of the words ''tent of
tneeti .ng,'' that in the time of .Samuel
tl1e
1
old Mosaic
Taber
na .cle was in ,exi stence at Shi]o ,h.
For, as ,ve
h,a,re already
•
seen, th~s
1
e wor
1
ds, · 'tent
of 1ne,eting," forn1ed a characteri .stic
expres ,sion
by wl1icl1 in Q,d
Testament
times
the
Tabe
1
rria
1
cle
was, quite often at
1,east;
designated and
k11own,
·This
much,
as we have a .lready noticed, even
Wellh .ause .e.
is willing
to
admit. · · ·
However, the critic .s 1·aise
he1·e
two
ob
1
jections. On~
of
them is that
the
sanctt1ary at S,hiloh
w,as
not realJy a tent
or tabe.rnacle,
b,ut
rather
a
solid
structure, built
petl1aps
out
of stone, wood, or som·e other material; and the special reason
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
22/39
•
•
•
•
l
•
••
I
28
•
•
The Fundamentals
•
•
given
by
the critics
for this
view is
tl1at, in Samuel's
accottnt
of tl1e
.st1·uctur·e
at. Shilo·h, there
,are
''posts," '''doo1·s,''
a·nd
some other matters usually indicativ
1
e of .a solid struct11re
mentio11ed. But - tl1is, difficulty can be very easily explained
from a statement
1nade in
the Je"visl1 Mishna,* which is, ·tl1at
the lower part o·f tl1e sanctua ·ry at Sl1ilol1 ,,·was o,f stone,''
bt1t
that above
tl1is there
was
a tent. Or
a
1nore decisive
a11swer to
thi s
objection is
that
in various
Sc1·iptures (such
as
2
Sam. :6; Psa. 78
:60;
1 Kings
8
:4;
Josh .. 18 :1, and
still oth
1
ers .)
the
structure
under
consideration is positive]y
called ''a tent''
a11d
'a tabe1·nacl
1
e,''
Then the
otl1
er
1
b
1
j ection 1·aised
by t11ecritics is that these
words, ''te11t of 1neeting," as found i11 1 S.a1n. 2 :22, a1·e a11
interpol :atio11, or
that
the
whol
1
e passage
cont .aining
tho se
words . is spurious, The reason which they give fo
1
r such an
assertion
is
that this passag ,e·
is not
f
011nd i11
th
1
e Se·ptuagint ..
But in reply to
1
such o,bjecti
1
on
it may
be said,
first,
that this
is not t'he on1y pas.sa.ge
in
the
Bib le
in which mention is made
of thes .e women ''at tl1e.
door
of the tent of
meeting.''
In
\
Ex . .38 :8, li.ke 1nention is made; and, as Dr. Orr has obse-rv·ed,
it
is inconce ·~vable even on the supposition, which he d
1
oes
not
accept, of a po
1
.st-exilic .
origin of
the
last
indi ,cated
passage,
tl1at just t
1
his one mention of tl1e mat ·ter allu
1
de·d to sho·u]d
occur, unless ther ·e was behind
this matter
som.e
1
old and we11-
established tra ,d.ition; or, in
other words, the
genuineness
of
the
tex ·t
in Exodus argues
for the genuineness of
th
1
e text
i11
Samuel. B
1
esides,
as.
Dr .. Orr h,as again
Sltggested, tl1ere 1nay
have
bee11
son1e
special
1·eason
of
delicacy
or ·of rega ·1. for
the
good moral · repu ·tation
of the
Israelites, on the ac.count ,of
which the makers of the Septuagint versio11 threw out this
item respectin ,g the
Wickedness
of Hophni and Phinehas , as
co,nn·ected
with
these women.
Then, 1noreover,
as
an
offset
to tl1e Septt1agint's
authorit ,y wl1icl1,
owing to
t11e k·nown
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
23/39
•
•
•
29
•
f
aultin
1
ess
of its pr
1
esent
text and
its gene1·al inexactness as
a tt anslation, is su,rely no
1
t great it can be urged that the
,entire clause
containing the
words ''tent of n1eeting''
i,s
fot.1nd
,alike in tl1e old Syriac or Peshito version, in the Vulgate,
and in the only ,extant Ta1·gt1m (that of Jonath an Be,n Uzziel)
•
on this pa ,rticular pas~age ; all of which very ,ancient
,autho1,.-, .
ities* 1e11der
it
as certain as, an ,ything of a
textual
natl1re
•
co,uld well be made, that the old original text in 1
S arn.
2 :22
\Vas
exact 'ly
as
it
is
now in ottr present-d .ay·
I-Ie,brew
Bible.
Ai1d,
finally,
as
pet:haps
tl1e
c1·o,vning f eat'tt,re
of
th is
a1·ray
of evi
1
dence
for the
ge11t1i11eness f
th ,e text
tinder
conside1-a
tio11, it can be affirm,ed that, for En.glisl1 r
1
eaders at least,
·t11ere exists on,e
authority, easy to be· consulted, w11ich_wo11ld
· seen1 to put beyond all reaso ,nab le doubt
tl1e genuiner1ess
of
this text~ That authority isl ottr R
1
vised Englisl1 Version of
the Scriptures a
literary
work that in poi11t
of
scholarship
. and general r~liability stands perl1aps second to none prodttced ·
i11 1~ecent
years. And now, if anybody wi'l'l take the ti.. ub'le
to
const1lt· tl1is Revisecl Versio
1
n, he wil'l see that this enti
1 .e
disput
1
ed pas,sa,ge is ret ,ainecl,, or
that , the many
,em,inent scho,1-
ars, both Englis h and An1er ican , who
wrought
on this
t1·ans
lation are agreed tl1at tl1e vords,
' 'te11t
of
n1e
etllJg,'' or
oli l
IJ'n Oed, as in Hebrew, are g
1
e1111i11e,nd p1·operly belong to
thi,s pa,ssage..
Sucl1 being
tl1e
case, the critics are pttt in bad
plig-11t;
and anyway it does not argtte much to the credit 0
1
f ·
heir
hypothes ,is when, in ordet· ' to car ,1~y it th1·ough, it becomes
ne,ce~s,a,ry so often to, 1nake the clain1
0
1
£ interpo
1
latio11. Of
co,urse,
a11yone
can make what l1e please
of any
pas,sage of
Scripture,
provi
1
ded he
0
1
nly
has the privilege o,f' doctoring it
•
_ *The Targum on Samuel, whi,ch is att ·ributed to Jonathan Ben
Dzziel, is commonly ·believed to hav 'e 'be
1
en pr ,odu,ced some t ime during
tl1e first century;
the Peshit ·o version
of
the Scriptures
i,s
thought
to
l1ave been made somewhat Jater, pr·o
1
bably in tl1e second century; while
tl1e Lati11,
Vulgate,
by Jerome, was complete ·d between
the
years
390
a11d
405
A D ·
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
24/39
•
I
...
•
•
30 The Fundametitals
•
•
sufficiently beforehand. And with regard to this particular
•
passage it
may
be, said ' that neithe .r
Wellhausen
nor
an ,y
other
higher critic ,can
do
anything
to
alter
it;
becaus
1
e
s9
Jo,i1g as
t11ose
wor ,ds
1
o,he,J
moed
or ''tent
o,f
meeting,
1·emain n1he
various textual
authorities wh ,ich we have
quoted~
so long
it will be impossible to expunge them from our present Hebrew
Bible ·; and 110 matte 1· wl1at authorities
the
critics may be ,able
to
quote
as omitting these
1
wo1 .
s, the preponde ·ran
1
ce of author
ity, as matters now s.tand, will always
be
in favor of their
retention.
We
,claim
then a
re,al.
victory here, in being able
t·O
substant ·ia,te so
conclttsively,
as
we
tl1ink we hav
1
e done, tl1e
genuine11ess of this text in Samuel. ·
But ,vhat now is the gener ,al
1·esult
0
1
£ ottr examinations
with regard to the testimony which
1S,amuel gives us?
If
our c,onclusio11 with regard to the, pas,sage just
examined
is
correct, and we are
fully persuaded that
it i,s,
then we
sure 'ly
have demonstrated in the clearest
wa,y
that not
only
in the
days
of S,amuel, . but
·p,robably
long befor ,e, the Tab 1rnac]e
did exis ·t, and was lo
1
cated at Shiloh.
4.
TE.S,TIM0
1
NY OF JEREMIAH AND PSALM
78
-
.
•
An,d
h
1
er
1
e,
if
we ,care to
go,
.still further in
this
investigation
of pass,ag,es,, we might find some very int1re
1
sting testimony
to the Tabernacle's historicity in Psa 'lm 78 and in tl1e prophecy
of Jeremiah. But since we ·wish to be as brief as possible,
•
while not neglec.ting the r
1
eal str
1
ength of
our
argument, we
will simply
indicate, or
quote,
the
Scriptur ,es re,· e1~red 'O, and
leave the discussion or jntelpr ,etation of' them
to
the
reader
himself. One of these
passages
is
found,
as said, in Psajl 78,
vs. 59 60, ,and reads ,as f,o,llow,s : ''When God heard this , he
was wr
1
oth, and gr·e,at1y· ,abhorred Israel; so that he forsook
the
tabernacle of Shiloh the tent
which he placed among
men~'' Ano.ther pa,ssage, from Je ,r., 7 ,:12-14, read,s thus: ''But
go )
e now unto
my
place
whi cli
Was i1tt
Shiloh
where l cau s.e d
my
1
name t
1
0
dwell
at the firsf. and see
what
I d,id to ·it
f~,r
,•
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
25/39
•
•
•
31
•
the wickedness of
my
people Israel. T.herefore will I do
unto
t·be house
wl1ich
is
called b.Y
my
nam
1
e,
where ·in
y·e
trust
1
[·tl1e
temple at Jerusalem], and unto tl1e place which I gave to you
and
t,o
your fathers, .
as
I have done to Shiloh~'' Still another
passage may be found in J r~ 26 :6
,
a11d reads : ''Then will
I make this house like Shiloh, and ,vill 1nake .this city [Jeru
salem] a c·urse ·to a.II natio ,ns
0£
the
earth~''*
All these p
1
assages, it should be observed, compare
th·e_
Temple at Jerusalem with the Tabe ·rnacle at Shiloh; and they
express
the thr ·eat,
that, unless the Israelites
r·epented, ·
God
W
1
oul~ destroy the Temple at
J
e·rusalem, as he had long before
1
destroyed, or remov
1
ed, the Tabernacle at
rSh.iloh.
•
5. TESTIM ,ONY 0 ,F JUDGES AND
JOSHUA
Yet once mor
1
e, in
0
1
rder to .make
1
our sto
1
ry
of the ·Taber
nacle comp
1
lete,
it
is necessary for us to go back somewhat
in history ; and SO· we n.ow qttote from th,e books of Judges
and Joshua. 111
Josh.
18 :1 we
·read: ''And the
whole
con
gregation
of
the children of Israel
as.sembled tl1emselves
•
together .at Shil
1
oh
and S
1
et up the
te11t of
meeting th ,ere.''
Then, turning over to Judg. 18 :3,1, we again read, about
the
. idolatrous
image ,s
set up in Dan,
that
the ·se continued
there
•'all the time that
th
1
e
house of God was . at ·
Shiloh.'' .
Fr ·om
these two
passages we learn not only how
the
''house
of
God''
1
c.ame to be
l.ocated
at
Shiloh
because the childr
1
en of Israel,
p
1
robably under the
·1eadership
of Joshua, set it up
th,er·...........
but
we
l
1
earn also that the two descriptive terms, ''tent of
tneeting't and
·'house:
of
God,''
signify t.he sam .e
tl1ing ;·
.£or it
*These passages in Jeremiah are very important as evidence in favor
of the Tabernacle's real existence, since even the higher critics must
.admit
that
the chapt~rs
1
containing
them
were
written
a con,s'iderable
time before
the
exile;
and
there£ore these passages
c·ou1d
not, exc .ept
upon the violent theory of redaction, have been
affected by
writings
appearing
ei·ther during or after
the exile. And
as to P.salm
78,
whic.h
is
even
more expli ,cit
a·bo
u·t
th.e s.t·ructu .re
at
S
hi1o1's
bein,g
the
c,ld .
Mosaic
Tabernacle. I it
is much easier to say, as
the critics
do.
that
this
P
1
salm
is
post-exiiic,
than it is to
prove such assertion.
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
26/39
•
•
32
The
Fundanie1itals
•
•
is hardly possible tl1at the ''tent of meeting' ' erected at S11ilo
in the
da.ys
of
Joshua had been replaced in
tl1e
time o.f
the
Judge s
by
another structure , different in kind, and now called
the ''ho use of God.,, .
•
•
6. ARGUM ENT FRO?vI HISTORY 0 1F THE S1-\CRED ARK
•
•
But now yet, before we gi, re the entire story of _he
Tabernacle, we desire to notice another kind of ai gumenti
w.l1ich is drawn from the history of th
1
e sacred ark . Ther
1
e
, does not
see1n to
be
any
notice
of
tl1e Tabe1·11ac1e as a
struc
ture by it sel f in the book of Deuteronomy; but in the tenth
chapter of this book, verses 1 to 5, there is given an accottnt
of the constr ·uction, not of tl1e Tabernacle, but of wl1a·t must
be considered as its most i1nportant piece of furniture, that
is, the Ark of
tl1e
Covenant,
as it is
usua lly
called, or
as the
critics prefer to term it, the Ark o Jal1wel1 (Jehoval1). Now,
although the critics take a ve:ry different view regarding the
date
and
authority
of
Deuteronomy
from
that
wl1icl1
has
always been accepted by orthodox scholars, yet especially
upon the
ground
of
tl1e
passage ref erred
to,
they are
wiiling
t
1
0
admit that .at least so.me kind of a sacred ark wa .s con
st1·ucted ev
1
en
in tl1.e
,days of Moses ,.
Mo·1·eove,·,
if
cons,.ste11t
with tl1e facts as recorded in the Bible, the critics can11ot
deny ihat this same sacred ark, whatever was its form
or
pt1rpose, was not . only carried by the Isr ,aelitesl o,n aJ,l tl1eir
journeys through the wilderness, but was also finally located
by
them at Shi1o11;
whe11ce,after undergoing various f
ortu11e
j
it was deposited in the holy of holies of Solomon's T etnJ) c.
This the critics in genera l admit ; and they
are
compelled to
do so by their own accepted documents of ''], ''E,' ' etc.
· Now,
t11at
being the case, it iollows that if the history
of the sacred arl
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
27/39
•
•
•
•
•
33
•
from what the critics call tl1e Priestly Document, ·was built,
among other purposes, for the housing · of this sacred ark;
and the same documentary evidence which establishes that
fact establishes also t11e farther fact that for a long period
such was really the case. · That
is to say,
the
sacred ark
and
tbe old Mosaic Tabernacle went together,
according
to Biblical .
history, down to tl1e times of Shiloh; and tl)ey were, after
some period of
separation,
even brought
together again at
th.e
dedicatory
services of Solomon's
Temple,
To, be
sure,,
not
all
of
this is
admitted
by the
critics;
but
they
cannot deny that
the same old ark, which,
according
to
Deut.
10 :1-5,
was built
by Moses, was finally deposited in Solomon's Temple.* W itl1
this n1uch conceded, all the rest that we have ·cla,imed m11st
necessarily follow; or, in other words, the admitted history
of the Ark
of
Jehovah establishes
also,
the historicity
of
tl1e
Mosaic T}1bernacle, or at least helps to do so.
IX. EN T IRE ST0RY
OF
THE TABERNACLE
•
Now then we are prep ,ared to give
the
entire stocy
o,f
that
0
1d structure which was built at Mt. Sinai; only one item
,
11
eing still lacking. This we can learn from I Sam., Chaps. 21
and 22;
and it is, that
for
a
brief
period
the Tabernacle
see111
t.o have been
lo,cated at Nob, some distance south of Shilo
11.
.
0
uched for by the different historic notices we haVebeen con
sidering, it is as fallows : .
Built by the Israelites near Mt. Sinai, it was afterward
carried by
that
people all through the wilderness. The11,
th -w~11hausen positively
states
that a~cording. to the Law,
that .
is,
a
e ark,u ~nd th.at "The two things neces.sa~1lybel_ong o each other. "
the also
admits,
o~
the
ground of other Bib.he.al evidence, that toward
~ ~ e.11d f
the
period oi Ju~ges there are d1st1nct
traces
o,f the ark
as
l)oi~tting?mor eover, that this same "ark of Jehovah'' was finally de-
81
ed
1n
Solomon' s
Temple.
(S ee
Pro eg., En g.
Trans .,
pp.
41, 42.) .
•
•
•
•
..
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
28/39
•
•
•
34
•
•
place. Next, fer a brief period, it would appear to have bee11
.located at Nob, down in
tl1e
Ben.ja1ninite country; and
f
ro111
this
poi11t
being carried a
Jittle
to
tl1e
north and west, it ,
,as
set
ttp
at
Gr.be,on,
where it seems to l1ave remained ' fo1-ma11} '
•
ye·ars. And ·finally
11pon th ,e er ,ection of the ·te·n1ple in Je:1' t1
salem,
it
was
t1·ansferred
to that
place,
and
sto1·ed
away
there
f
0
1
r safe-keeping; and tl1.is is the last notic ,e wl1ic.h the Bible
gives of
it .
as a
matter
of
histo ,ry. It
had served its
purpose,
and the time cam,e now for it to be
laid
aside as a mem ,orial,
c,r to give p.lace for -a11othe1. an,d a mo,re imposin .g s,tru ,cture .
•
•
;',~. J.NT IMATE CONNECTION OF THIS STORY \VITH OTHER
BIBLICAL I~ISTO 'RY ,
S,peaking
son1e\vl1e1--e
f the
ext1·aordi11a1·y
11flL1ence
x ,e1·ted
lly Cl1ris,tianity
i11 ou1·
world,
Re11an
says tliat any
atte111pt to
separate tl1is religion from th e hi story of huma1 1ity would
be like •·•teari11gup tl1e tre ,e of ci,rilizatio11
by
its roots.
\ er,y
•
much like that,
it
seems to , us, is the inti1nacy of relation . exist -
i11gbetween the hi story of tl1e f abt:rnacle and all tl1e rest of
• ••
tl1e . his,toiry recorded i11
tl1e
Old Testan1ent. Any atten1pt,
the re£ore. s,uch as that ,vhich is m.ade by
tl1e
critics, to remove
•
tl1e
Taberna ,cle
a:s
a
1natter
of
fa ct ;from Old
Testa1nent
his-
tory, or to turn it into a mere fiction,
wot1ld
necessarily res,t1lt
i11 failure. It would do so becat t.se tl1e c·ffect of it would
lJc re.ally to de,stroy a·11 l1e s11rr o1111d i11g and co
1
nn
1
ected his,to·ry
giv·en in tl1e Old 1 'estan1ent; \i\Thich s, of course, impos sible~
'fhe very extravagance, therefore, of this · higl1er-critic tl1eory
01·
th ,e vastness of its undertal{ing, is a sure proof of its
i11herent .falsity. Dr. \ l alpy French, considering
1
only tl1e
peculiar construction
o·f
tl1is Tabernacle story,
110w
wide~
reacl1ing it is, an ,d 110wit is tnade to conform so accttratelY
,
with many det ,ails of archaeology and topograp l1y, pr ,onounces
it, i·f ·viewed as a mere fiction, ''a literary impossibility;'' ' and
l1e suggests tl1at a sin1pler 1nethod to be · employed by
the
c, .,tics,
,n
g·etting ri
1
d
of
tr1s
t1--ottb·leso,n.1e
story, woul
1
d
be
f',or
•
•
•
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
29/39
•
•
35
them ''to credit
tl1e
last ·redactor ,vith the authorship of the
'\Vl101eOld Testament Scriptures. So also Professor Sayce
affirms that, regarded as an invention, the Tabernacle story is
''too elaborate, too detailed to be conceivable.'' .
.
XI. OBJECTIO NS
1
0F THE HIGI-IER CRITICS
•
It re,mains for us yet, in ord
1
er to rencle1·our di,scussion
teally complete, to notice a few of tl1e many objections
wl1icl1
the
higher critics have brought forward against the Taber~
nacle's l1istoricity. These objections, however, are, for the
•
tnost part, so
very frivolous
in character,
or
so
utterly
lack-
•
1
ng
in support either from fact or reason, tl1at they d() not
really
deserve an an .swer. N1vertheless
1
,
to furnish the reader
With
some notion of their real character, we will undertake
to give them a cursory examination .
Th .ey may ll be divided into f ou1·classes. Tl1e first class
e111hraces
ll those objectio ,ns which are based upon the idea
that the account given in t l1e Bible of the Tabernac]eJs co,n
struction and services, is very unrealistic or impractical in its
l;la:tt1re.
•
\ s
1
econd class pr ,oceeds on the notion that the Mosaic
Tabernacle is altogether too costly, highly artistic, arid pon
clerous
an affair, to have been p,roduced by the Israelites ·at
Mt.
Sinai, and afterward carried by tl1 m all through the
Wilderness. .
. Another o·f the se classes-· ·whic]1 is really only one
objec
tion.
-represents that in tl1e very oldest sources out of which
the Pentateuc h was, according to the critic notion, constructed,
tl1ere is mention made of another tent, much
smaller than
Was the Mosaic Tabernacle, and different from that struc
tu.re
also in other respects ;
and
that
1
the
ref ore,
this
second
~hernacle, as it may be called, being better substantiated by
tonsistent wit}i an acceptance of all the facts in the case to
allow.
hat
th:e, larger o,r
-Mosla,ic
lt·ent
really exis ,te,d~ · .
•
•
'
•
•
'
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
30/39
6
And finally, there is still one class, or a single objection,
which makes bold to affirn1 that in all the earlier historic
books of the Old Te
tame11t,
even
f
ro1n
Judges to 2
Ki11g
there is no sure mention ma.de of the Tabernacle as a
real
•
existence. ·
Now, if we were to try to answer all these objections, it
might be · said of the last one, that it is already ans,verecl.
We have a11swered that objection by showing not only that
there is mention
made
in
those ea1·lier
historic books of
the
Old Testament of tl1e Tabernacle as a real existence, but al o
that this mention is both sure and abundant. The many
historical notices which we fuwe exami11ed, all telling about
the Tabernacle's constrttction and l1istory, is positive proof
to that eff cct.
•
Tl1en. furtl1ern1ore, with regard to tl1e alleged fact that i11
the earliest sources, . out of which according to the critic
theory the Pentatettch was constructed, there is mentio11
made of another or second te11t, different from the Mosaic
strt1cture, we have to say ,vit11. espect
to
this
objection, first
of all, that it is far from being proven that there are in
tl1e
Pentateuch arty such oldest sourcee as the critics allege.
That item is only a part of the still
unproven
theory of
tl1e
higher critics, in their interpretation of tl1e Old Testament.*
And tl1en, secondly, we might say, respecting this objectio11
. that it is a difficulty which orthodo scholars have often
noticed and which they have explained in various wa
1
~ .
Perhaps the best explanatiori is
to allow the reality of the
difficulty and to attribute it to so1ne obscurity or even seem
ing contradiction existing in the Pentateuchal notices. Bt1t
*The fact of the higher-critic theory being as yet in an unprove11
state might be urged as one important co11sideratio11 in favor of tl c
Tabernacle s real existence; and especially could such an
argume11t
be legitimately made, inasmuch as the proof of the ·correctness of that
theory does not all come from an assured non-existence of the 1'1osaic
tructure. But since an argument of that kind would be, to ome
extent at least, ''reasoning in a circle,'' we do 11ot make use of
it .
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
31/39
•
•
•
•
Taber titJcle in .th,e Wilderness
•
,vi1atever the real difficulty may be,,
it
certainly is not insuper
al>e ; and
a very
good
expla11ation
of
it
is
that
there were
1
leallyW O tents, . but
one
of
them, ,
that is, the smaller tent, was
only a
kin,d of provisional structure, perhaps the dwelling
place of Moses, whi
1
cl1 w·as us
1
ed also
for r·eligious ,
purposes, .
While the .la.rger or ·
Sinaitic
Tabernacle w.a.s bei.ng
prepared.*
~'ith some al1owa11cefor on,e or two stat
1
ements made in the
Pentateuch which seem not fully
to
accord with this view,
it
will answer all the real exigencies of the case.
Or,
at all
events,
neari 'y any
explanation which preserves th
1
e integrity
of the Pent ,ateucl1al lite·ratu1·e, an
1
d tries to reconcile its seem- · ,
•
tng diff e,rences of state1nent,
on
the
ground
that
th·i.s literature
deals with f
ac.ts, and ·
is not in large
sha ·re
pure
fiction,
is
Vastly .Pref erab ,le to
any
of the the
1
ories which the critics
have
thus far advanced with regard to
this
matter.
There
remain
then
0
1
nly
two classes
of
ob.j e~ions
which
need still
to be answered. And
with
regard
to
one
of these
classes, that
is,
the first
in
our list,
it
may be stated that
although
the
objections p,ut forward under
this head
are
quite num
1
erous,
yet ·
a single illustr ·ation of t'hem will show
how
utterly
lacking
in
substantial
character
or reaso,nableness
N
*Noti~es
.of
~uch
sma11er
tent se.em
to
.be made in Ex.
33
:7~11;
urn. 11.16, 12 .4, 5, and Deut. 31.14, 15, and from these various
Passage,s t'he critics claim
·th.at th
1
ey
can
dis ,cover
at least
three
points
e·v1t1cal one. These
d1ff
rences are as
follows : (
1)
The smaller
tent 'wasalways pitch ,e:d
1
outside
th,e c·amp ,;
but
acco,rding to the
priestly
Levitical history the larger tent was located ,,within t~e
camp1 . (~)
:.1.he smaller tent wa
1
s only ,a place of
]
ehovah's revelat1011
1
or of hts
~o~muning with his people ; bu.t the ]a~f{er or priestly struct~r~ was,
es1des.,
a
place
of most
elaborate worship. (3) In the
Lev1t1cal
or
larger tent
the priests and Levites re,gularly served,
but i.n the
smaller
strttcturc it was only Joshua, the ''servant'' of Moses, who had
charge
of t he
b1uilding. · ·
. All these diff
er,ences,.
how
1
ever, are easily expl,ain,ed by th
1
e theor ,y,
t
1
ven above, of there having heen really two tents. Besides, it
sl1ould
.trtptures of this smaller structure; which fact would seem to be a
ittong
Pl
8/20/2019 The Fundamentals: Volume 4, Chapter 1: The Tabernacle in the Wilderness: DId It Exist? A Question Involving the …
32/39
•
•
•
•
,
•
38 · ·
•
•
•
Tlie Funda nentals
•
ea,cl1
~11d all
,of
them real ly
are.
The illustration of whicl1
we will make use is
ta .k,en
f1·om Bi .shop Co,lens ,o s
fan10,11
at ·tack upo ,n· the
t ruthfulne ss
of the Pentateuch an~ the B,ool.;
of Joshu ,a. In tha t at·tacl< l1e puts £01 ..ward th·e s,ingu lar
objection that tl1e Tab ,ernacle was, in its dimensions ,· fa .r too
sma ll to accommoidate all the· vast ·host 0
1
f the Israe li·tes sta11d
ing before its door, as tl1e Scriptt1res seem to indicat~ was tl1e
•
case with the1n ori a f·ew occasions.* Th at vast l1ost 1nus t
•
.
have numbered, accordin g to th ,e data giv.en in the Pentateuch ,
a s many at least
as
so,me two
111il1ions
of people ; a11d n,ow
Cole11so
makes the ob,j
ection
that thi s
great
host, st an.ding
in ranlcs, as he would m,ake it, of nine, one rank behind
•
anoth .ir, in f ront of the Tabe1~11-a,cle d,oor, would have form e
1
d
a
proce ss·ion some sixty niles
long ;
whi
1
ch, sur ,ely, woul
1
d h,ave
been
11ot
only a practical
imp oss ibility
so far as their g?:th
e1-ing at the doo
1
r of the T ,aberna ,cle was c,oncerned, · b