the fundamentals: volume 4, chapter 1: the tabernacle in the wilderness: did it exist? a question...

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


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


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.

•

•

•

•

•

•


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-

•

•

•


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


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-

•

•

•


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


8/39

•

•

,.

•

•

•

•

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

•

•


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


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


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. ·

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


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


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


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


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.

..

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


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-

•

•

•

•

•

.

•


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

•

•


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


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

..

•

•

•

•

•


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


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

•

•


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

•

•


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 ·

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


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

,•

•

•

•


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.

•

•


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


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.) .

•

•

•

•

..

•


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

•

•

•


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~ · .

•

•

'

•

•

'


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 .


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


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

the fundamentals: volume 4, chapter 1: the tabernacle in the wilderness: did it exist? a question...

Documents