1454824

8/13/2019 1454824

1/26

Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

The Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent ProposalAuthor(s): Victor Avigdor HurowitzSource: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 86, No. 1/2 (Jul. - Oct., 1995), pp. 127-151Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1454824.

Accessed: 18/10/2013 10:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Pressand Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvaniaare

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 158.109.94.33 on Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:37:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1454824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1454824?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

8/13/2019 1454824

2/26

THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEW,LXXXVI, Nos. 1-2 (July-October, 1995) 127-151

THE FORM AND FATEOF THE TABERNACLE:REFLECTIONSON A RECENT PROPOSALVICTORAVIGDORHUROWITZ,Ben-GurionUniversity of the Negev, Beer Sheva

ABSTRACTRichard Elliott Friedman has argued that the Mosaic Tabernacle,

described by the pentateuchal Priestly source, stood in the Holy of Holiesin the Jerusalem Temple.In orderfor the Tabernacle,usually figured to beten cubits wide and thirtycubits long, tofit into a space twentycubitssquare,Friedman has proposed a radical rearrangement of the Tabernacle'scomponents,therebyshrinkingits measurements n comparison to standardreconstructions. Friedman's suggestions have met with a modicum ofacceptance inscholarly literature,althoughthe details of his argument havenever been evaluated. Thepresent article rejects absolutely every aspectof Friedman'sproposal. A review of Exodus 25-40 reconfirms standardTabernaclereconstructions with some minor alterations. Detailed scrutinyof Friedman'sargumentation shows that his innovative plan is based onnumerous incorrect and impossible interpretations of crucial passages inthe biblical text. The Tabernacleproposed by Friedman is, consequently,completelywithouttextualsupport.Thereis also no biblical evidence what-soever that a Tabernacleof any size or shape ever stood in the Holy of Holiesof the Temple.Postbiblical literatureoccasionally speculates on the where-abouts of the Mosaic Tabernacle,and these speculations representa topicworthy offuture scholarly discussion. But these late musings are productsof exegetical questionsraised by the extant orm of the Bible, and contributenothing to the historical question of how the Tabernacle was disposed ofwhen the Templewas built.

The Tabernacle,the components of which are described in theBook of Exodus in greatdetail, is never depicted in its final, assem-bled form. Archaeology has thus farprovided no certainparallels tosuch a structureand there are several words and phrases in theaccount of the Tabernacle's onstruction which are not entirelyclearto modernexegetes. Moreover,various details about the dimensionsand placement of the Tabernacle'scomponents are not explicitlyspelled out. As a result, certainaspects of its layout have remainedenigmatic over the ages, having withstood repeatedefforts at under-standing by commentators.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/13/2019 1454824

3/26

128 THE JEWISH QUARTERLYREVIEW

Despite the difficultiesjust mentioned, and even though there hasbeen disagreement concerning one detail or another, one finds inscholarly literature a general consensus about the major aspects ofthe Tabernacle's onstruction,namely, the overall measurementsandthe arrangement f the major architectural omponents.This consen-sus notwithstanding,more than a decade ago RichardElliott Fried-man publicized for the first time an original, idiosyncratic, andradically innovative reconstructionof the Priestly Tabernacle thatdeviates drasticallyfrom the scholarly consensus in overall conceptand numerousdetails.1Friedman repeatedhis suggestion verbatimin a subsequent bookdealing mainly with otherwise unrelatedproblems of source criti-cism.2 Certainreviews of this book, including a detailed one of myown in Israel Exploration Journal (34 [1984]: 67-69) expressedreservations aboutFriedman's amperingwith the architectureof theTabernacle,but others either passed it over in silence or expressedsome degree of agreement.3Lured by a false sense of scholarlyacquiescence and encouraged by the statements of agreementwith

1 R. E. Friedman, "The Tabernacle in the Temple," Biblical Archaeologist 43(1980): 241-248.

2 R. E. Friedman,The Exile and Biblical Narrative: TheFormationof the Deuter-onomistic and Priestly Works.HarvardSemitic Monographs 22 (Chico, 1982).

3 G. I. Davies (Journal of Theological Studies34 [1983]: 222-226, especially 224)calls Friedman'seffort a "new and unconvincing way" of arguingfor the antiquityofthe Tabernacle radition.His Tabernaclereconstruction s called "quite arbitrary" ndhis citation of Chronicles, Psalms, Josephus, andthe Talmudto supporthis historicalconclusions about the Tabernacle in the Temple merits the comment "argumentsalong these lines can hardlybe expected to help." H. Weippert (Zeitschriftdes Deut-schen Palestina-Vereins 100 [1984]: 184) refers to the overall reconstruction as"erwagenswert,"although she rejects the placement of the Tabernacle n the Templeon other grounds (see below). M. Weinfeld ("Social and Cultic Institutions in thePriestly Source against their Ancient Near Eastern Background," n Proceedings ofthe EighthWorldCongress of Jewish Studies.Panel Sessions: Bible and HebrewLan-guage [Jerusalem,1983], pp. 95-129, especially 104) cites examples of Hittite textsin which a divine tent is placed before the gate of a temple or is located within "thehouse." He comments: "The very fact that the Hittite tent is pictured within 'thehouse' may supportthe hypothesis of R. Friedman that the Tabernaclewas located inthe JerusalemiteTemple."Weinfeld makes no comments about the revised measure-ments. F M. Cross, Friedman'smentor and Doktorvater, is cited in a review of WhoWrotethe Bible? (J. E. Bishop, "Biblical Debate; If Moses Didn'tWrite the Books ofMoses, Who Did, and When?"Wall Street Journal, 9 October 1987, 1:17) as callingFriedman's reconstruction "a thoroughly defendable position even though I don'tagree with it." J. Milgrom (Leviticus 1-16. Anchor Bible 3 [New York, 1991], p. 31)


8/13/2019 1454824

4/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 129his proposal, Friedman repeated his theory with no perceptibleadjustments n his best selling "Who Wrotethe Bible,"a book meantfor a general audience and now used in introductoryBible coursesgiven at some American universities and seminaries.4 While headmitted that certain critics found his reconstruction"arbitrary," etried to dismiss their claims (see below), but made no attempt torefute any of the specific and significantly more substantialobjec-tions voiced against his theory.5

Most recently Friedman authored the entry "Tabernacle" n thenew and prestigious Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:292-300), a refer-ence work expected to command a wide audience of professional aswell as educated nonspecialist readers. In this entry Friedman ad-dresses at last some of the reservations expressed againsthis views,including my own objections. He also adds an importantnew aspectto his view of the Tabernacle. The parokhet is no longer a veilmakes the surprisingremarkwith reference to Friedman: "AtShiloh the Tabernaclemay have existed alongside the Temple or even within it."Nonetheless, on p. 135 hisdiagram of the Tabernacle ollows the traditionalunderstanding.P. P. Jenson (GradedHoliness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World [Sheffield, 1992], p. 97,n. 3) remarks:"Whetherhe is correct or not (see the criticalreview in Davies l 983b),the question of symbolic significance remains." From the way this comment isphrased, it would appear that this scholar is either unable or unwilling to decidewhether Davies' criticism is persuasive. Carol Meyers (s.v. "Temple, Jerusalem,"An-chor Bible Dictionary 6:350-369, especially 358b) adds the noncommital paren-thetical remark: "On the question of whether the Tabernacle was stored or erectedtherein, see 'Tabernacle'." ee also H. G. M. Williamson, "The Temple in the Booksof Chronicles,"in TemplumAmicitiae. Essays on the Second TemplePresented toErnestBammel,ed. W.Horbury Sheffield, 1991), pp. 15-36, esp. 25, n. 20. RegardingFriedman'scontention that the report in 1 Kings about the disposal of the Taberna-cle rests on sound historical memory, Williamson says, "even if he is right. . . "-anindication of at least partial acceptance of Friedman'sproposal. C. Houtman("Wiefiktiv ist das Zeltheiligtum von Exodus 25-40?" ZAW 106 [1994]: 107-113) men-tions Friedmanas illustratingrenewedscholarly interestin the Tabernacle's onstruc-tion, but offers no evaluation. For another recent reconstruction of the Tabernacleradically different from the accepted one, see M. Hayotin, "Mishkan 'Ohel Mo'ed:Shihzur'Aher,"Beth Mikra 38 (1993): 229-244. This highly idiosyncraticandimagi-native proposal need not be reviewed here.

4 R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York, 1987), especially pp. 174-187. The book was reprinted within two years. (An unaltered Hebrew translationwas published in 1995.) On p. 182 he remarks in reference to his BA publication:"Many scholars were receptive to these findings, but at least one scholar suggestedthat these dimensions were 'arbitrary'."

5 A particularly potent criticism of Helga Weippert,although not referred to ex-plicitly by Friedman,was "answered"with a picture (see below, section III,no. 11).


8/13/2019 1454824

5/26


dividing an outer sanctum from an inner sanctum, but a canopy orpavilion supportedby four poles standing somewhere in the Taber-nacle and sheltering the ark.It is my opinion that apart rom the parokhet proposal (see below),Friedman's econstructionof the Tabernacle s wrong in every detail,has not a shred of evidence in its support,does serious harm to anunderstandingof the structureand the texts describing it, and reflectsa total disregardfor the most fundamentalpillars of sound exegesis,and, in particular,concern for the Hebrew language. I remain con-vinced that the objections (selections only, for reasons of space) Iraised in my initial review of his book are more than sufficient ref-utation.Friedmanhas not succeeded in rebuttinghis critics, nor hashe answered their challenges in a satisfactory manner. In fact, thedefense of his theory against the criticism which has been voiced iseven morefaulty than the initialpresentation.In defendinghis errorshe has exacerbated them rather than relieved them.

As for the interpretationof the parokhet, introduced for the firsttime in the ABD, this is an interesting idea which should be subjectto scholarly consideration and can even be supportedin ways thatFriedman himself does not seem to realize. Nonetheless, this inno-vation too can still be shown to be highly questionable and unac-ceptable in the form in which it is currently presented.There are several reasons why Friedman'sproposal should now,once again, be the object of scholarly review and refutation.First,even the most diligent of scholars is not always aware of what hasbeen written in book reviews. Moreover, certain scholars-juniorand senior alike-have uncritically and unwittingly adaptedFried-man's position in supportof other theories they were tryingto advo-cate. Also, scholars who do not specialize in the Tabernacle havebeen beguiled by the novelty of Friedman'ssuggestion and havecome to relateto it as something quite acceptable.For such innocentsit is already "stateof the art,"and as such it is the regnant view thatmust be challenged. Most important,Friedmanhas triedto rebuthiscritics with fallacious arguments.It is time for these fallacies to bepointed out so that the theory in its entirety may be laid to rest.In the present article I shall first briefly describe the Tabernaclesolely on the basis of Exodus 25-40, with, in order to maintainobjectivity,minimal reference to dictionariesand translations.Exam-ination of commentariesand various studies of the Tabernacle ound


8/13/2019 1454824

6/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 131in books on cult and in biblical dictionaries will show thatmy recon-struction is largely in agreementwith the perceptionsharedby otherscholars.Althoughmy descriptionof the Tabernaclewill not referbyname to previous authorities,I make no claim to vastly original in-terpretationsand ideas. Even when relating to certain details aboutwhich there is no general agreement,my reconstructionshave usuallybeen anticipatedby others. The overall correspondencebetween myreconstructionandthose of previousstudies indicates thatsomethingvery closely approximatinga generalconsensus can be arrivedat in-dependently and without resort to the authority of an exegeticaltraditionor scholarly school. After presentingmy own view I shalldescribethe Tabernacleaccordingto Friedman.I shall thenoffer con-clusive refutationof Friedman's heory.The presentcritiqueof Fried-man'stheory will, of course,relate to thenew suggestions put forwardin the ABD article and to Friedman'sattempts to answer his critics.I shall conclude with a brief discussion andevaluation of Friedman'sproposal about the parokhet.

I. THE TABERNACLE ACCORDING TO EXODUS 25-406The Tabernaclewas a prefabricated, ayered structure.A woodenskeleton was covered on top and around three sides by a layer ofcloth curtains,a layer of goat-hair curtains, and two layers of dyedskins (Exodus 26, 36:8-38). When assembled, the Tabernaclemea-

sured thirty cubits in length, ten cubits in width, and ten cubits inheight. It was divided internally into two chambers by a veil calleda nDrn. The inner chamber was a cube measuring ten cubits oneach side, while the outer chamber was a long room ten cubits inwidth and height and twenty cubits in length.

Structurally,the wooden skeleton over which the curtains werelaid consisted of ten boards, or more likely frames (o)vip), placedalongside each other to form the long sides of the Tabernacle(Fig-ures 1 and 2), and six identical frames placed alongside one anotherto create the back wall (Figure 3). These frames were uniformly .25cubits thick (see below). At the back corners were two additionalqerashim of peculiar structure, apparentlydifferent from the other

6 Drawings of my conception of the Tabernacle, which accompany this article(pp. 147-149), were prepared by Ms. Helena Sokolovskaia, draftsperson of theDept. of Bible and Ancient Near EasternStudies, Ben-Gurion University.


8/13/2019 1454824

7/26


forty-six. The description of these two qerashim is still a bit puz-zling (Exod 26:23-24), although it is my opinion that they weretrapezoidal with the two sides of the frame converging to the widthof a frame at the top. I believe that they stood perpendicularto theback wall. They may have been isosceles trapezoids, in which casethey extended (1.5 - .25) / 2 = .625 cubits inside and outside theback wall (Figure 1). On the other hand, they may have been righttrapezoidswith the vertical side inside the back wall, in which casethey would extend 1.5 - .25 = 1.25 cubits outside the back wall (Fig-ure 2). Since they helped prop up the Tabernacle and were coveredby the folds in the cloths and skins which fell down the back of thebuilding, the right trapezoidal shape seems preferable.The frames were covered by four layers of cloth and skin. Theundermost layer was made from ten individual curtains (nvnv) ofwoven, decorated cloth. Each curtain was four cubits in width andtwenty-eight cubits in length. These ten individual curtains weresewn together along theirlong sides into two "assemblages"(nrnrnn)of five sheets. Each assemblageof five curtainswas twenty cubitsbytwenty-eight cubits. The long sides of the two mahbarotwere joinedby gold clasps insertedinto loops. This formedone cloth forty cubitslong and twenty-eight cubits wide. Above this were eleven goat-haircurtains,sewn togetherinto one assemblageof five goat-haircurtainsand anotherassemblageof six goat-haircurtains.These curtainswereeach four cubits in width and thirty cubits in length. The mahberetof five curtainsmeasured 30 x 20 cubits while that of six curtainsmeasured 30 x 24 cubits. The long sides of the two assemblages ofgoat-hair curtainswere joined by bronze clasps inserted into loops.When joined together the goat-hair curtainswere forty-four cubitslong and thirty-cubitswide. The cloth and goat-hair curtains werelaid over the frames so as to form a roof as well as to cover the sidesand backof the structure.The folds of excess cloth at the back cornerswere folded over the two cornerframeswhich protrudedas buttressesfrom the back of the Tabernacle.The rows of clasps probablyover-lapped, as did the suturesbetween the individualcurtains.The extra(sixth) curtain of goat-hairwas doubled over in half in front of theentryway, forming a collar-like awning two cubits wide.There was a veil, called on, which covered the entry to the Tab-ernacle. Another veil, theparokhet, hung twenty cubits deep in theTabernacle under the clasps which held together the mahbarot ofcloth curtains and goat-haircurtains. Both were supportedby poles.


8/13/2019 1454824

8/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 133II. THE TABERNACLEACCORDINGTO FRIEDMAN

Friedman,for his part,has challenged and changed all this. In hisopinion, the qerashim did not stand alongside one another,edge toedge but overlapped in such a way that each long side of the Tab-ernacle was only twenty cubits in length rather than thirty, whilethe back of the Tabernacle was merely six to eight cubits in widthrather than ten (Figure 4).7 The cloth curtains did not lay singlyover the Tabernaclebut were folded over at the clasps so as to forma double-ply cloth. The cloth curtains, which when folded overmeasured only twenty cubits in width, covered only the top andsides of Tabernacle,and there were no cloth curtains falling downthe back. The clasps, ratherthanbeing two-thirdsback in the depthof the Tabernacle,now surrounded he entryway.The goat-haircur-tains were similarly folded at the clasps forming a double layer ofgoat-haircurtains.However, since there were eleven goat hair cur-tains, the "double-ply" was only partial. The remaining single-plygoat-haircurtainwas folded in such a way that it covered the backof the Tabernacle(Figure 5). Friedman'sTabernacle is not a two-room structure divided by a veil but a single long room in whichhung a canopy covering the Ark.

Friedman'srevisions are not merely a barrenacademicexercise inwhat he jokingly calls "cubit counting."Rather, they have weightyconsequences in the realm of cultic history and source criticism.The reduction in size of the Tabernacleenabled Friedmanto makean even more surprising suggestion, namely, that the Tabernaclestood in the Holy of Holies of the First Temple under the extendedwings of the Cherubim, a space only twenty cubits deep and lessthan ten cubits wide. This suggestion permittedhim to propose aneven further reaching hypothesis. In his opinion, certain biblicalreferences to the Temple as if it were a tent or tabernaclearenot tobe taken as metaphorical anguage, but actuallyrefer to the real,his-torical Tabernaclewhich stood in the Holy of Holies from the daysof Solomon until Jerusalem'sdestructionby the Babylonians. Onlyin this way, accordingto Friedman,would it be possible to carryoutthe Priestly demand that sacrifice be performed at the entry of the

7Although Friedman claims that the overlapping frames are his own innovation,it had alreadybeen proposed by Y. Aharoni,"The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle,and the Arad Sanctuary"[Hebrew], Beer Sheva 1 (1973): 79-86, especially 82.


8/13/2019 1454824

9/26


Tabernacle. Since the Priestly source refers to and predicates itscultic regulations on a structurewhich existed in the time of the FirstTemple but no longer existed in the post-Exilic age, P must accord-ingly be a pre-Exilic composition.

III. REFUTATIONOF FRIEDMANS THEORYIt seems clear thatFriedman'sdesire to prove the relative antiquity

of P led him to defend the historicity and continuedexistence of theTabernacleas describedby this source. This quest led him in turn tolook for the Tabernaclewithin the confines of Solomon's Temple,and it is the spatial restraintsof this building which led him to histheory about the architectureof the Tabernacle. In other words,Friedman has worked backwards, imposing his source-critical andhistorical goals upon his interpretationof realia and proceedingfrom there to exegesis of the textual evidence. Although he allegesthatthe traditionalview of the Tabernaclestartsfromimposing uponthe Tabernacle the plan of the Temple, the truth of the matter isthat the accepted Tabernaclereconstructioncan be arrivedat solelyon the basis of the extant Masoretic text of Exodus 25-40. Oneneeds only to read the text and fill the gaps in a way that all thepieces fit together in the simplest mannerpossible. By claiming theJerusalem Holy of Holies as the parameterby which the Tabernaclemust be reconstructed Friedman has done precisely what he hasimputedto his predecessors He has simply chosen a differentpara-digm. It is Friedmanwho is out to prove his conclusion and not thescholars with whom he takes issue.Although this backwardmethodology is in itself a serious enoughfault, Friedman'sTabernacleultimately collapses because of severalgross misinterpretationsof the biblical text committed intentionallyto fit the text to the theory. I will discuss three such mistakes here.Afterwards I will point out numerous additional flaws of less vitalimport or of a more general nature.1. In my original critique of Friedman'stheory I pointed out afatal exegetical errorwhich is supportedby a majormethodologicalflaw. To wit, he has removed a serious impediment to his proposalby facilely emending a sensible, crucial, "keystone" passage intogibberish, supposedly supported by a dubious Septuagint reading.Put more crassly, evidence that precludes his theory but which can-not be ignored is changed out of existence.


8/13/2019 1454824

10/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 135To be specific, MT to Exod 26:33 requires that the parokhet beplaced underthe clasps, on nnn nrin me nnmn).f this readingis correct, the clasps must be located over the interior of the Taber-nacle somewhere between the front and back walls. In particular,the clasps must be ten cubits from the back wall of the Tabernacle

and twenty cubits from the entrance, as scholars have claimed allalong. There is no other way to interpretthis instruction since it isagreed that the parokhet, whatever it may be, stood deep inside theTabernacle.This readingof the text invalidates Friedman'sview thatthe clasps surrounded the entrance, and Friedman'sappeal to ouraesthetic sense is irrelevant. This reduces the proposed double-plyof the curtainsto fantasy. Since it is the spread of the curtains whichdetermined the arrangement of the qerashim and the size of theTabernacle,the overlapping qerashim which are Friedman'scrucialinnovation become a figment of their inventor's imagination. Inother words, his entire reconstruction, which hinges on this emen-dation is ipso facto without foundation and swept away.Friedmanwas obviously aware of the significance of this versewhen he first set about to reconstruct the Tabernacle. He overcameit by simply eliminating it. In orderthat the clasps surround he en-trance as his theory requires, Friedman accepts the LXX version(accordingto him ) "you shall place theparokhet under the boards"(ov-ip, with MT supposedly having confused the phonetically simi-lar samekh with sin). However, as I pointed out in my review, theemended prescription makes no sense architecturally.Placing theparokhet "underthe boards"means spreading it out on the ground.This is obviously absurd;the parokhet was not a rug, a carpet, or adoormat. Since the emended text makes no sense, there is no reasonto prefer it over MT which is architecturallyimpeccable.Not only this, but closer examination of the evidence shows thatFriedmanis selective in his use of the Septuagint, and in fact mis-construes the reading which he has adduced in his support. TheSeptuagint actually reads ?ti -Tcv o-c6Xuv,"on the poles," whichaccording to Biblia Hebraica's retroversion, is actually o'wip-n ,Vand not o'w-ijn nrni as Friedmanthinks. Even his evidence for theemendation is thereforehardly evidence at allIn Who Wrote the Bible? Friedman ignored my criticism butattemptedto refute it in the ABD article. He insists on selectivelyretaining the Septuagint reading, but suggests that the verse means"theparokhet must be lower than the height of the frames,"taking


8/13/2019 1454824

11/26


the common Hebrew adverb nnn to mean "lower than" rather than"under."8Friedman's ebuttaldoes not standup to criticism.It ignores normal,well attestedHebrew usage andis simply not whatthe Hebrew meanseven if one reads )viWp atherthan o,v-ip. The Hebrew expressiontahat X does not mean "lower than X" or "lower than the height ofX" as Friedmanproposes, and cannot indicate that the onmv areshorterthan the frames. When used to depict the relationshipof oneobject to anotheradjacentvertically-standingobjectit means "under-neath X" or "at the foot of X." The very expressionFriedmanrecon-structsis used in the Tabernaclepericope itself to describe the 0))-m(column bases). In Exod 26:25 we find -rnrwnipn nnn o))-m )nmeaning,"two column bases (will be) undereach frame."So in Exod25:35 the calyxes of the lampstandare below, i.e., underneath nnn),the branches(o))p). In Exod 27:5 we read concerningthe grateof thealtar:"Andyou shall put it under the compass of the altar."Werethedescriptionof theparokhetto mean whatFriedmanwants it to mean,it would have to read ovipn vwm.i nn ninnrnr nn or somethingsimilar, and even then it is doubtful whether it would mean whatFriedmanwants it to mean.

Biblical Hebrew offers numerousother examples of such usage.When Abraham'sangelic guests recline 'yn nrn, they are takingrepose atthe foot of the tree, or below its overhanging branches,andnot "lower than the tree" (Gen 18:4). When Moses builds an altarinn nnn (Exod 24:40) the verse does not intend to inform us of theobvious fact that the altar was not as high as Sinai, but that it wasat the foot of the mountain. When Moses breaksthe tablets inn nnnit is also "atthe foot of the mountain"andnot "lowerthanthe moun-tain" (Exod 32:19). These arejust a few examples.

In brief, ov-ipn nnn can mean either "under the frames"or "atthe foot of the frames"and not "lower (in height) thanthe frames."Neitherof thepossible interpretations uits Friedman's heory.Fried-man's wishful (mis)interpretationnotwithstanding,the Septuagint'spurportedreadingis clearly inferior,makes no sense architecturally,and does not even mean what Friedmanwants it to mean. It may aseasily be rejected, as the emendation which it is invoked to support.

8 Had he so desired,Friedmancould have bolstered his argumentby noting the factthat theheightof the 'ammudimwhich held uptheparokhetarenot specifiedandcouldhave been any height Moses desired, thus allowing theparokhet to be lower than theroof of the Tabernacle.


8/13/2019 1454824

12/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 1372. Perhaps sensing that his argumentrequiressome bolstering, in

his ABD entry Friedman looks for additional features of the Taber-nacle's architecture that are more amenable to the small size heproposes than the big size he rejects. One such featureis supposedlythe folded eleventh goat-haircurtain in the upper covering. Accord-ing to Exod 26:9 the sixth, extra goat-hair curtain is to be folded'mnwn)o fin rN.This instruction has proven difficult to exegetes butit must be rendered "you shall fold the sixth curtainin front of the

tent" (see below for parallel usages). Despite disagreement aboutthe exact way the curtain is to be folded and exactly how it is to bearranged,it is universally agreed that the verse describes a curtainat the foreside of the Tabernacle.This is clearly incompatible withFriedman's heory since he has already placed the clasps aroundtheentrance. Since the clasps and the additional sixth goat-haircurtainarefar away from each other on opposite sides of a single mahberetseparated by a distance of five curtains, Friedman must situate thisisolated sixth curtain somewhere at the back of the tent. To resolvethis embarrassingcontradictionto his theory he rendersthe Hebrewquite literally as "opposite the front" and then states "opposite thefront is the rear."For Friedmanthe additional curtain is at the backof the Tabernacle.

Why the Priestly author should describe this curtain in so convo-luted a mannerwhen he could easily have said that it was to be placedover pvnnn 'm-n or the like is difficult to fathom. More important,however, Friedman has made the error of adapting a dictionarydefinition of the word ratherthandeterminingwhat the word meansfunctionally in its context. The problem Friedmanperceives existsonly in English, for the Hebrew term means simply "in front of theface."Precisely the same term is used in P'sprescription or the HighPriest's headdress. According to Exod 28:37, the "floral ornament"(v)s) is to be placed nownn)n 5vo5x, clearly, "in front of the faceof the turban"and certainly not on the back of the head In Exod28:25, P prescribesthat the breastplateof the High Priest is to be tiedto the suspenders of the Ephod rn 'rn 5x, again, "in front of hisface" There are, needless to say, numerous other examples of thiscommon idiom. In no case does it indicate that an object is behindsome other object.3. A crucial passage unsatisfactorily accountedfor and misinter-preted by Friedman is Exod 26:12: )sn 'flnw nVwV 1tVn n1vipvnzn 1nx 5'vnivn nny'n r'n)n. He translates the second half ofthis very difficult verse: "The half of the extra curtain shall be spread


8/13/2019 1454824

13/26


on the rear of the mishkan"and remarks,"Again, it is the overlap-ping arrangement hat conforms to the description of the materialsin Exodus 26" (ABD, p. 298). His diagram (Figure 5) presumablydepicts what he has in mind. But it is difficult to comprehendhowhis drawingof the rear of the Tabernaclecan possibly be relatedtowhat is prescribedby this verse. To be precise, theverse refers to halfa curtain(i.e., two cubits) hanging down (niv), over the back of theTabernacle,whereasFriedman'sdiagramshows two sections of fourcubits in width folded in from the sides. This folding of the addi-tional curtain cannot possibly be described as "half a curtain."

Whathis picturedoes not indicate is the middle eight cubits of thesixth goat-haircurtain.Following Friedman'ssuggestion, this 8 x 4cubit section shouldbe tucked down between the frames and the restof the curtain.This would result in something quite ugly. We mustremember that the curtains were visible through the frames. Notonly would the beholder view an entire back wall of goat-haircur-tains rather hanthe decorated curtains which would be seen accord-ing to the traditional reconstruction, but this curtain would befolded. This lack of aesthetic sense concerning the back wall of theTabernacleclearly contradicts the supposed aesthetic advantageofputting the clasps around the entryway,which is one of Friedman'sargumentsin favor of his proposal.

What this passage really describes is the middle curtain in themahberet, which is to cover the back third (ten cubits) of the Tab-ernacle and the back wall. It means that the two-cubit half of thiscurtain, which does not lie above the Tabernacle,will hang downover the top of the back wall. This curtain s folded down the middleat a right angle so that two cubits of it spreadout horizontally andthe remainingtwo cubits hung vertically. The implication is thattheremainingtwo curtains attachedto it also hang down the back wall.This instructionis no less "keystone"thanthe instructionsfor plac-ing the parokhet under the clasps. Since two and a half yeri'ot offour cubits width separatethe clasps fromthe fold, the distance fromtheparokhet to the back wall of the Tabernacle s fixed precisely atten cubits.Incidentally,we learn from the combinationof these specificationsthatthe frames were .25 cubits thick and the gross measurementsofthe Tabernacleare external measurements(see below).

Any one of these threepoints is sufficient to invalidate Friedman'scrucial contentions that the clasps surroundedthe entryway to the


8/13/2019 1454824

14/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 139Tabernacle, that the curtainswere folded at the clasps, and that theframes overlapped.Takentogether they undermine his theory, for ifthe clasps were situated two-thirds of the way into the Tabernacle,as usually assumed, and if the curtainslay flat and single-plied, asalways assumed, the Tabernaclecan only be thirty cubits in length.These three errors, all relatingto the length of the Tabernacle,areindividually fatal andcumulatively devastating, but they are not theonly errors. There are also numerous difficulties with Friedman'streatmentof the Tabernacle'swidth.

4. Friedmanhedges in regardto the arrangementof the qerashimmaking up the back wall. He states that "the rearwall, of six frames,would be 6-8 cubits wide depending on the arrangementof the cor-ner frames and the thickness of the frames" (ABD, p. 296). The lackof precision ("6-8") in this statement is surprising and the incon-sistency is revealing. How can Friedmanassert with absolute confi-dence that the frames making up the side walls overlap uniformlyand leave room for leeway of up to 33 percent in the back wall?5. Friedman eschews the commonly made analogy with Solo-mon'sTemple. He claims thatthe supposed ratio of 10 x 10 x 30 forthe Tabernacle's dimensions cannot be supported by comparisonwith the Solomonic Temple since that structurehad a height of 30cubits, in which case its measurements would have a ratio of 30 x20 x 60. However, as I pointed out in my review of Exile and theBiblical Narrative, this discrepancy is only imagined and resultsfrom the fact that the Solomonic rn had a ceiling lower than thatof the anteroom(5:)'n).If its height of twenty cubits is inserted intothe equationwe will find, sureenough, thatTemple/Tabernacle= 20x 20 x 60/ 10 x 10 x 30 = 2:1.In Who Wrotethe Bible? Friedmancalls on supportfor his theoryfrom the Arad temple, an Iron Age Judean structureunearthedbyYohananAharonibut still notpublishedin an authoritative orm.9De-fending his proposedmeasurementsagainst charges of being "arbi-trary"he cites an oral communication from BaruchHalpernthat theAradtemple was six cubits wide by twenty cubits long "matching he

9 The temple was discovered in 1963. See inter alia Y. Aharoni, "The IsraeliteSanctuary at Arad," n New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. D. N. Freedmanand J. C. Greenfield (Garden City, NY, 1971), pp. 28-44; M. Haran, TemplesandTempleService in Ancient Israel. An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomenaand the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford, 1978), pp. 37-39; D. Ussish-kin, "The Date of the JudaeanShrine at Arad," EJ 38 (1988): 142-157.


8/13/2019 1454824

15/26


Tabernaclemeasurements."0Even if the datumproves correct,Fried-man'suse of it proves nothing as far as the dimensions are concerned.After all, six cubits are not the flexible "six to eight cubits" of whichhe speakselsewhere. Also, he rejected the Tabernacle:Templeatio asirrelevantbecause the heights do not correspond.What, one may ask,does Friedmanknow about the height of the Aradtemple?

Not only this, but there is also a contradiction n Friedman'smea-surements. On the one hand he cites the Aradtemple for supportofthe six cubit width. On the otherhand, his pictureof the folded backcurtain(discussed above) fixes the width of the Tabernacleat eightcubits. Since Friedman nsists on reconstructing he Tabernaclewith-out resort to analogies and without imposing upon the pentateuchalaccountinformationderived from externalmodels, the only possiblemeasurement or the back wall would be eight cubits By invokingtheArad temple to supportthe six cubit option he contradictshimself.6. Another problem is his treatmentof the corner frames. Onlyin his diagram does he show the corner pieces, assumedly with no

width, tucked into the corners facing the side qerashimandperpen-dicular to the back qerashim.It is most reasonable to assume that all the qerashim were .25cubits thick. The width of the Tabernaclewould be 10 cubits made

up of 6 x 1.5 = 9 cubits of the back qerashimstanding edge to edge+ 2 x .25 = .5 cubits of the cornerqerashim+ 2 x .25 = .5 cubits ofthe side qerashim. The external measurements of the assembledqerashimwould be 10 x 30 cubits, as indicatedby the measurementsof the goat-haircurtains. The internal measurementswould be 29.75x 9.5 cubits. However, the internalmeasurementsareactuallyincon-sequential. The external measurementsrepresentthe measurementsbetween the curtainswhich hadno appreciable hickness. Since thesewere decorated and since the qerashim were most likely hollowframeswhich could be seen through,it is clear thatthey arethe cru-cial element and not the frames themselves."1

The width of the Tabernacle s, of course, fixed with certainty bythe length of the goat-hair curtains. These particularcurtains arethirty cubits long. This length covered ten cubits on either side of10 Who Wrote the Bible? p. 183.1 Onthe significance of the measurementsfromvisibly hanging curtainto visibly

hanging curtainsee Z. Zevit, "Timber or the Tabernacle:Text, Tradition,andRealia,"Eretz-Israel 23 (1992): 136*-143*.


8/13/2019 1454824

16/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 141the Tabernacleand ten cubits on top. Friedman claims that the lowercurtains (28 cubits long) arethe ones thatdetermine the width of theTabernacle, otherwise, following the standardreconstruction, thebottoms of the side frames would be left bare. He ignores the fact,however, that following his reconstruction, the goat-hair curtainswould drag on the ground.In addition to these six points, there are more general objectionsto Friedman'ssuggestions, which areonly marginallyless detrimen-tal than the errorsand inconsistencies already noted.7. If the biblical instructions include the detail of the fold of asingle curtainof goat-hair, why is there no mention of the foldingof two entire sets of goat-haircurtains and cloth curtains?Moreover,how can the accountbe so deafeningly silent aboutthe overlappingof the qerashim, the major innovation of Friedman'stheory?

8. How does Friedmanknow that the qerashim overlapped pre-cisely half a cubit? His reconstructionof the qerashim is ultimatelydependent on his understandingof the arrangementof the curtains,for there is no direct evidence on this point. As such, Friedmanfaces the same methodological restrictionsas do those who supportthe traditional reconstruction of the Tabernacle. He arrives at thetwenty-cubit length and the overlappingof half a cubit only by fold-ing the curtains, but this crucial datum is nowhere mentioned. Al-though he claims that his opponents arebeing arbitrary,he is guiltyof the same fault.

9. Friedman s disturbedby the fact that an object should have thedimension of one anda half cubits rather hana full cubit or two fullcubits. He calls the 1.5 cubit size "unusual"(Who Wrotethe Bible?p. 179). Why is this more "unusual" han the dimensions of the Arkwhich are 2.5 x 1.5 x 1.5 (Exod 25:10), or the Table of Showbreadwhich are 2 x 1 x 1.5 (25:23)? In any case, overlapping the framesdoes not iron out this difficulty.The frames remain 1.5 cubits widewhether they overlap or stand side to side. Also, the overlap is .33cubits and the nonoverlapping parts of the frames would be .84cubits, hardly "usual"whole numbersThe result of Friedman'sproposal is that the Tabernacle stood inthe Holy of Holies of Solomon's Temple under the outstretchedwings of the Cherubim.Since, as we have shown above, Friedman'smeasurementsare fallacious-the result does not stand: the Taber-nacle would not have fit. The "Tabernaclein the Temple" theorymust be rejected.


8/13/2019 1454824

17/26


Even if the Tabernacle could be squeezed somehow into theJerusalem vrri, Friedman would not have demonstrated that it infact did, for there are specific errors in his defense of this proposal.I will mention only four spurious arguments.10. Helga Weippert,in her review of Exile and Biblical Narra-tive, pointed out that the Tabernaclecould not have stood under the

Cherubs'wings because-the Tabernaclewas ten cubits high, as werethe Cherubs themselves. Assuming that the Cherubs had heads andthat the wings came forth at the shoulders, there would be only theheight of a man underthem, andthey would have lopped off half ofthe Tabernacle. Undeterredby this argument,Friedman deftly pro-vided a drawingin Who Wrotethe Bible? (p. 182) showing the Cher-ubs' wings rising vertically at the shoulders, and then, halfway up,bending ninety degrees. Now, it is true that a bird'swings bend inflight, and indeed the vast numberof two and threedimensionalrep-resentations of winged animals known from ancient Near Easterniconography usually have slightly bent wings.12However, it remainsto be shown thatif such figureswere producedin the round and withthe colossal proportionssuitable for standingin Solomon's Temple,the bend in their wings would correspondwith what Friedman hasdrawn and with the needs of his plan. Most winged creatures hat areshown frontallyhave wings extended almost horizontally with onlyslight bends, not the nearly right angles shown by Friedman.

11. Much of Friedman'sevidence for the Tabernacle n the Tem-ple thesis comes from the Book of Chronicles. It is curious thatnota shredof evidence comes from the older Book of Kings. Since theChronicler clearly identifies the Temple with the Tabernacle inways too numerous to detail here, there is no reason to assume thatwhen he refers to the Templeas a mishkanhe is doing anythingelse.In general, any independent statement of the Chronicler must beassumed suspect unless proven otherwise.12. Friedmandutifully notes the talmudic report that the Taber-nacle was storedawaybeneath the cryptsof Solomon'sTemple (bSot9a). Not only does this not provide supportfor Friedman's hesis, itflatly contradicts it. After all, genizah (storing away) of a no longerused sacred object is precisely the opposite of what Friedmanpro-poses, namely,that even in the time of Solomon, the Tabernaclecon-

12 See, for example, ANEP, nos. 332, 456, 520, 534, 614, 617, 644-647, 649,651-656, 659, 705, 706, 809, 815, 829, 855, to mention but a few.


8/13/2019 1454824

18/26

THE FORM AND FATE OF THE TABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 143tinued to be, in the most real and actual sense of the word, the onlylegitimate locus of cult. Aside from this objection, one may noteanother: he Holy of Holies, where Friedman ocates the Tabernacle,would hardly be considered "crypts."Friedman'sreference to Josephus, Antiquities 8.101, is irrelevant,for Josephus adds absolutely nothing to what is stated in 1 Kings 8.In fact, although Josephus expands a bit on the matter of placingthe Ark under the Cherubs' wings, precisely at this point he saysnot a word about the Tabernacle.

13. As evidence of the Tabernacle n the Temple FriedmancitesPs 27:5, "Forhe will conceal me in his pavilion (nTv) in a day oftrouble;He will hide me in the covert of his tent (i5nx)." This verseproves, at most, just the opposite of what Friedman wants to dem-onstrate Itis obvious that the entireTemple,andprobablythe court-yards, are referred to here. Does Friedman imagine that a personwould take refuge in the Holy of Holies, which is where he claimsthe Tabernaclestood? The remaining verses adduced by Friedmanare likewise misinterpretedand no more convincing.14. Not only is there no valid evidence that the Tabernacle hadever stood in the Temple, but the very thought that the Priestlysource would make such a demand andthat it would be an historicalreality raises possibilities taxing the imagination, and is patentlyridiculous. We must ask whether only the Tabernacle structurewaspreservedor whether the furnishings too were placed in the Holy ofHolies? Does Friedman assume that the Tabernacle's lampstand,table of showbread, and incense altar also stood in the Holy ofHolies of Solomon's Temple?If so, were they used in the daily cultalong with the new implements manufacturedby Solomon, or didthey simply remainas relics, reminders of a bygone age? Friedmanmakes much of P's insistence on performing sacrifice "in front ofthe Tabernacle."He refuses to view this demandmetaphoricallyorsymbolically as alluding to the Temple, andexcludes the possibilitythat P would have been satisfied with a superior substitute for thehistorical Tabernacle.However, would P compromisehis principlesand permit a new lampstand to be used? Would he permit show-bread to be arrangedon a table not built by Moses? Would he tol-erate incense offered on a non-Mosaic incense altar? Friedman'slogic forces us into assuming the existence of a cult and a back-upcult in the JerusalemTemple, one to accommodateP andone to sat-isfy Solomon. Also, whathappenedto the curtainsof the Tabernacle


8/13/2019 1454824

19/26

8/13/2019 1454824

20/26

THEFORMAND FATEOFTHETABERNACLE-HUROWITZ 145equation still requiresrigorous proof and the implications of such anequation would need further nvestigation.

Yet despite the possibility of an intriguing parallel, there arenumerous inner biblical exegetical difficulties which must beaddressed and overcome if Friedman'sdefinition of the parokhet isto be accepted.

This suggestion is based primarilyon the difficult language nnin:in rinx lm 5'v,which means "you shall cause the parokhet tocover over the Ark"(Exod 40:3), andnrnn pnx 5'vvn, "and it cov-ered over the Ark of Testimony" (Exod 40:21). The Rabbis alreadysensed that this implies a covering from above and not from thefront, and statedthat the top partof theparokhet was tilted so as tocover the Ark from above. Nonetheless, this difficulty may be moreapparentthan real, for 5y pv does not necessarily mean "to coverfrom above." In Exod 33:22, a non-Priestly passage, God tellsMoses to enter the crevice in the rock and says ir p5v )o m.viD,'niv, "I will cause my palm to cover over you until I pass by" (seealso 1 Kgs 19:13). Since Moses is in a crevice and God is passingin front of him ratherthan above him, it is clear that5'v ovdoes notinvolve a horizontal cover from the top but a vertical cover in frontof the face. The parallel is intriguingbecause both theparokhet andthe divine palm hide YHWH'sMajesty (in:)) from human sight.

Moreover, theparokhet is called on occasion (Ivon mr:, and theword 1on, which modifies the n:n, clearly means "veil" and not''canopy."In addition, althoughFriedman claims that it was firstthe Rabbiswho interpreted heparokhet as a veil, it is clear that this was alreadythe opinion of the Chronicler,for in 2 Chr 3:14 aparokhet identicalto the one in the Tabernacle was hung in the Temple between theouter and inner sancta.14

Furthermore,the Levitical legislation takes for granted that theArk, mn1., o andini- were hiddenfrom humansight. This pre-supposes that theparokhet hung vertically, blocking all these thingsfrom the eyes of the priest who would enter the outer sanctum twice

14 Ithas been suggested that an original referenceto theparokhetin 1 Kgs 6:21 wasinadvertentlydeleted butwas preservedby Chronicles. The existence of a referencetoaparokhetin Kings would be even more detrimental o the "canopy"suggestion. How-ever, this proposal has been rejected by most scholars, for example by H. G. M.Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles. The New CenturyBible Commentary GrandRapidsand London, 1982), p. 209.


8/13/2019 1454824

21/26


daily. If the parokhet is indeed a canopy-like structure, the clothwould have hung to the groundin orderto hide the Ark from view.Lastly, the description of how the Tabernaclewas actually assem-bled indicates thatthe parokhet is a curtain ratherthan a canopy. InExod 40:3 Moses is commanded first to place the Ark in the Taber-nacle and then to cover it over with theparokhet. In Exod 40:20-21Moses assembles the Ark, bringsit into the Tabernacle,andonly then"places" (own) the parokhet so that it covers over (Ivn) the Ark. Itseems to me that if the parokhet were a canopy or a baldachin, itwould be logical to erect it firstand afterwards o bringthe Ark intoit or place the Ark beneath it.

None of these problems is decisive evidence against Friedman'sproposal, so that the suggestion about the canopy nature of theparokhetis not to be rejectedout of hand and certainly deserves fur-therconsideration.Even so, it must be considerablyrevised or refor-mulated in such a way as to accommodateall the objections notedabove as well as the comparativeevidence which can be mustered.Itmust also be made to correspondwith the Solomonic debir-not animpossibility. At the very least the parokhet is not a canopy buta tent-like cubicle made up of a cloth supportedby four poles in which thecloth touches the ground.The front side of this baldachinwould stillstand under the clasps, twenty cubits from the entrance. Its backwould be flush with the back wall of the Tabernacle.

V. CONCLUSIONSThe fourteen considerationsdetailed in section IIIare sufficienttorefute all parts of Friedman'sreconstructionof the Tabernacle andits history.Friedman'sTabernacledid not exist, norwas it conceivedof by any biblical author. Neither it nor any other Tabernaclestoodin the Temple, and it has no place in our understandingof Israelite

cult. The parokhet proposalhas some merits but must be revised.'515 It would be worthwhile to study on their own terms and not as evidence of his-

torical circumstances the postbiblical ideas concerning the whereaboutsof the Tab-ernacle after the dedication of Solomon's Temple. Useful preliminary studies of thisquestion and lists of some relevant sources are H. M. I. Gevaryahu, "Hiding Awaythe Sacred Vessels" [Hebrew], Yavneh2 (1958): 80-88; B. Z. Luria, The CopperScroll From the Judaean Desert [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1964), pp. 45-46; 1. Kalimi,J. D. Purvis, "The Hiding of the Temple Vessels in Jewish and SamaritanLiterature,"CBQ56 (1994): 679-685.


8/13/2019 1454824

22/26

0C)

C)

PJ-5A-->LL

C)e

LOOT~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

147L - r - - c--' AN O

\~~~~~~~~iF

T__e = _

8/13/2019 1454824

23/26

qNd n on dqnoO

S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L q ogZ.O0LI c c _ _ _ _ _--S c s ---- S

H~~~~ N

40

@ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>z

LO

148


8/13/2019 1454824

24/26

8/13/2019 1454824

25/26

I~~~~~~~~~

Fig. 4. Friedman'sreconstruction,from R. E. Friedman, The Exile andBiblical Narrative, p. 139 (copyright President and Fellows of HarvardCollege for the Semitic Museum)150


8/13/2019 1454824

26/26

Fig. 5. Friedman's reconstruction, from R. E. Friedman, The Exile andBiblical Narrative, p. 140 (copyright President and Fellows of HarvardCollege for the Semitic Museum)

151

1454824

Documents