roof of the Temple was not quite flat, but slightly sloping, yet probably not higher in any part than the

parapet around.

The Temple was completed in the eighth month; its dedication took place in the seventh of the next year.

Ewald suggests that it was dedicated before it was quite finished, But this idea can scarcely be maintained.

At the same time, I confess that I am by no means convinced that such was the case. The language of 1

Kings 9:1 should not be too closely pressed, and may be intended as a sort of general transition from the

subject previously treated to that in hand. The brief notices in 2 Chronicles 7 seem rather to favor this idea.

This rendering of the term "Ethanim," seems preferable to that of "gifts," viz., fruits (Thenius), or of

"stand still," viz., equinox (Bottche).

It is impossible here to do more than indicate this train of thought. The reader will be able to make out a

perfect catena of confirmatory passages, extending over almost all the books of Holy Scripture, or from age

to age.

The expression, 1 Kings 8:9, seems to be incompatible with the notice in Hebrews 9:4. But not only

according to the Talmud (Joma 52. b), but according to uniform Jewish tradition (see apud Delitzsch Comm.

z. Br. an die Hebr. p. 361), what is mentioned in Hebrews 9:4 had been really placed in the Ark, although the

emphatic notice in 1 Kings 8:9 indicates that it was no longer there in the time of Solomon. It may have been

removed previous to, or after the capture of the Ark by the Philistines.

The Book of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 5:12-14) characteristically notes that the Priests and Levites were

raising holy chant and music.

Bahr here quotes this ancient comment: Nebula Deus se et representabat et velabat and Buxtorf (Hist.

Arcae Foed. ed. Bas. 1659, p. 115) adduces a very apt passage from Abarbanel.

It is thus, and not as implying any actual benediction, either uttered or silent, that I understand the words

1 Kings 8:14.

Compare the fuller account in 2 Chronicles 6:5, 6.

It is one of its many extraordinary instances of "begging the question," that modern criticism boldly

declares this whole prayer spurious, or rather relegates its composition to a much later date, even so far as

the Babylonish exile! The only objective ground by which this dictum is supported, is the circumstance that

the prayer is full of references to the Book of Deuteronomy - which modern criticism has ruled to be non-

Mosaic, and of much later date - ergo, this prayer must share its fate! This kind of reasoning is, in fact, to

derive from one unproved hypothesis another even more unlikely! For we have here, first, the accordant

accounts (with but slig ht variations) in 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles; while, secondly (as Bleek has remarked),

the wording of the prayer implies a time and conditions when the Temple, Jerusalem, and the Davidic throne

were still extant. To this we may add, that the whole tone and conception is not at all in accordance with, or

what we would have expected at, the time of the exile.

In the Authorized Version, inaccurately, "prayer," '"supplication," "cry;" in the Hebrew, Tephillah (from

the Hithpael of Palal), Teshinnah (from the Hithp. of Chanan), and Rinnah (from Ranan).

It would seem almost too great a demand upon our credence, even by "advanced criticism," that, because

these expressions were taken up by the exiles in Babylon, they originated at that time.