96
Most commentators are agreed that it was the "red sandal" wood. It is curious to notice that this was
apparently an article of ordinary commerce. The "Ophir" (or Red Sea) fleet of King Solomon, on the other
hand, is only said to have brought "gold" (1 Kings 9:28; 2 Chronicles 8:17, 18). Remembering that this wood
had to come from Tyre, there is not the slightest inaccuracy in 2 Chronicles 2:8, as Zockler and even Keil
seem to imagine.
97
Doubt has been thrown on the accuracy of this date, which indeed is altered by the LXX; but this, as it
seems to us, on wholly insufficient grounds.
98
There is no real discrepancy between the n umber of the "officers," as given respectively in Chronicles and
in Kings. The sum total (3,850) is in both cases the same - the arrangement in Chronicles being apparently
according to nationality, and in the Book of Kings according to office (1 Kings, 3,300,550; 2 Chronicles, 3600
+ 2501)
99
The name is the same as that of the king himself.
100
Our Authorized Version of 2 Chronicles 2:13 is entirely misleading. The sacred text mentions "Huram" as
"Abi" "my father," - not the father of King Hiram, but a title of distinction given to this able man (comp. the
use of the word "Ab" in regard to Joseph, Genesis 45:8), and equivalent to "master."
101
The literature of this subject is very large, and details are often most difficult.
102
A height of 120 cubits would be out of all proportion, and, indeed, considering the width and length,
almost impossible.
103
Of the textual alterations proposed, the first ( ham , 100, into hwma "cubits") seems the easiest, although
it involves the elimination of the w with which t he next word in the Hebrew begins. On the other hand,
"thirty cubits" seems a more suitable height, especially as the absence of its measurement in 1 Kings seems
to convey that the "porch" had the same height as the main building. But this implies two alterations in the
text, it being difficult to understand how, if the numeral 30 was originally written by a letter ( l , of which, it is
supposed, the blotting out of the upper half made it appear like k =20), the copyist finding twma written in
full could have mistaken it for ham , 100, which also ought to have been written with a letter ( q ). It is,
however, possible that instead of the full word, twma , the MS. may have borne yma , and the copyist have
been thus misled.
104
Thus the Most Holy Place would have had exactly double the proportions of that in the Tabernacle, while
the height of the Holy Place was ten cubits (fifteen feet) higher.
105
It is with great reluctance and becoming modesty - though without misgiving - that I differ from so justly
famous an authority as Mr. Ferguson (Smith's Bibl. Dict. vol. 3., Art. "Temple "). Mr. Ferguson, and after him
most English writers, have maintained that the roof, both of the Tabernacle and of the Temple, was sloping,
and not flat. This view is, to say the least, wholly unsupported by the text of Holy Scripture. Canon
Rawlinson, indeed, speaks of Mr. Ferguson's view as "demonstrated," but, surely, without weighing the
meaning of the word which he has italicized.
106
Not as in our Authorized Version, "windows of narrow lights."
107
A fuller description of the Temple, and a detailed discussion of the various points in controversy among
writers on the subject, would lead beyond the limit which we must here assign ourselves.
108
Some have imagined that the Most Holy Place was, like the chancel in most churches, lower than the
Holy Place (ten feet). Lundius has drawn the porch to the height of a gigantic steeple. Many (mostly