MR. FERGUSSON’S SLOPING ROOF TABERNACLE

MR. FERGUSSON’S SLOPING ROOF TABERNACLE

(See his article under “Temple” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.) The sloping roof tabernacle of Mr. Fergusson may make a finer picture than a flat-roofed one; this, however, is not the point to be decided. We maintain that there is not a single word in the text giving the slightest hint about a ridge-pole and its supports which are involved in a sloping roof, and besides, as Mr. Fergusson himself shows, the boards and the pillars require to be double the number of those mentioned in the text in order to suit a sloping roof. Yet, notwithstanding all this, several learned men (see appendix, chapter 29) have adopted Mr. Fergusson’s roof without testing its merits, or caring whether it was scriptural or not; hence we deem it not unnecessary to devote a chapter to this subject.

Before, however, examining his arguments in favor of a sloping roof, let us look for a little at those by which he attempts to demolish a flat one.

First, he says: “The tent had a ridge, as all tents from the days of Moses down to the present time have had.” This is a mere assertion, not having a single passage of Scripture in support of it. It may be true of tents in general, but it does not follow that this portable temple must in this and every other respect have resembled them. The text gives the most minute particulars of the curtains, skins, boards, and pillars, and even of the loops, taches, hooks, and pins; but not a single word or hint is given in it about a ridgepole and its supports, both of which are involved in a sloping roof.

Second, Mr. Fergusson asserts that the arrangement of the curtains (for a flat roof) is in direct contradiction to the Scriptures. We are told there, he says (Exodus 26:9), “that half of one of the goat-hair curtains shall be doubled back in front of the tabernacle, and only the half of another (verse 12) hung down behind, and (verse 13) that one cubit shall hang down on each side, whereas this arrangement makes ten cubits hang down all round except in front.” In reply to this, observe—(1) Exodus 26:9 does not say that a half, but a whole curtain was doubled in the forefront of the tabernacle; (2) ten cubits of cherub curtains hanging down the sides is not inconsistent with the text, the object being to explain what was done with the two additional cubits in the length of the goat-hair curtains, and which says that one cubit of these, at both sides, shall hang over the sides of the tabernacle (cherubim curtains), and so covering the blank space between the foot of these cherubim curtains and the ground. If the cubit on each side hung, according to his theory, as a fringe, it would cover no defined space, and hence not agree with the text, which distinctly states it was used for a covering.

Third, Mr. Fergusson tells us, that “every drop of rain falling on the tabernacle would fall through.” It had a fourfold roof—(1) the linen curtains; (2) the goat-hair ones, which were impervious to the rain; (3) the rams’ skins, of which, however, Mr. Fergusson says: “with the wool on, and when wet, would depress the center;” but he has no scriptural authority for this statement, and the probability is that the wool was off (see p. 32); and (4) the badgers’ skins. How could every drop of rain fall through such a roof as this? “However tightly,” Mr. Fergusson says, “the curtains might be stretched, the water would never run over the edge.” The breadth to be spanned was only fifteen feet, and there was nothing to prevent the skin coverings from being so stretched as to render the roof quite fiat, and to admit of rain running over the edges. We have stretched a piece of waterproof cloth across a model tabernacle, fastening it down to the tops of the boards, and have both rained and poured water upon it, and not a single drop fell through. The most of the water ran over the edges; a little was left on it owing to its level surface, which probably would be the case with respect to the tabernacle in the wilderness when it rained (if it ever rained), were there no simple contrivance to run it off; but before what might be left on the roof could penetrate through the fourfold covering, would it not be absorbed by the atmosphere of a “thirsty land”?

Fourth, Mr. Fergusson, not content with having every drop of rain falling through a fiat roof, adds: “While snow falling on such a roof would certainly tear it to pieces.” Admitting that snow sometimes falls on the mountains of Sinai, it seldom, if ever, falls in the wadies and plains; and if slight showers do occur, they are like angels’ visits, few and far between. Few of the authors we have followed across the desert seem to have observed snow falling. The Israelites, who were in the habit of complaining of privations, never once complained of snow-storms. In the midst of snow falling it must have been difficult to distinguish or gather the manna that fell every morning. But, granting that snow did fall occasionally, would the 8000 able-bodied Levites, who camped around the tabernacle, and whose duty it was to care for the sacred structure, not be able to remove what might alight on the roof, by unfastening the covering, and shaking the snow off, or even by some more easy method? But with respect to both rain and snowstorms, supposing there were any during the journey —which is doubtful—would not the outspread cloudy covering which screened the Israelites from the burning rays of the sun (Psalms 105:39; Psalms 121:6), also shield them from weather that might otherwise have been hurtful to them?

Fifth, All tents having had ridges from the days of Moses, every drop of rain falling through the flat roof and snow tearing it to pieces, one would think were sufficient to completely demolish it; but no: Mr. Fergusson has another weapon in reserve—viz., the middle bar (Exodus 26:28), with which he deals it its deathblow; that blow, however, will be considered presently.

Having now witnessed the wished-for wreck of the flat roof, we direct particular attention to the sloping one which Mr. Fergusson raises on its ruins. He asserts that the tabernacle had a sloping roof; that the middle bar (Exodus 26:28; Exodus 36:33) was its ridgepole; that the linen and goat-hair curtains did not hang down the walls, either on the inside or the outside, but with the skins, formed the roof only, which extended 5 cubits beyond the walls, not only in front and rear, but on both sides.

The length of this extended roof is 40 cubits, and the depth of each of its slopes 14 cubits (together 28 cubits), being the exact measurement of the cherubim curtains, so that its two slopes and the dimensions of the curtains agree. There were eleven of the goat-hair curtains, one more than there were of the fine linen ones. Mr. Fergusson says the half (although the text says the whole) of this additional curtain was doubled up in the forefront of the tabernacle, the other half, about a yard, hanging down as a fringe behind. These curtains were also two cubits longer than the linen ones, and were placed

lengthways down the sloping roof, a cubit on the one side, and a cubit on the other side, hanging over the cherub curtains (see diagram). The ridge- pole was supported at the east end on the middle pillars at the entrance to the habitation, and at the west end on the middle board, which, he tells us, was raised five cubits above its fellows, for this purpose (and which, he says, there is nothing to contradict), and also on a pillar situated five cubits beyond the west wall, where, he informs us, there “was at least one pillar; there may have been five.” Only half of the curtains, Mr. Fergusson informs us, were used within; the other half, on the outside, formed the ceiling of verandahs on every side of the erection. The front verandah, not being enclosed, constituted the porch; and the side and back ones, probably being enclosed, were used as cloisters for the priests.

Such, then, is a brief outline of Mr. Fergusson’s proposed restoration of the tabernacle; and we shall now apply to it the test of Scripture, and especially so, as he maintains that it is in strict conformity with every word and every indication of the sacred text.

OBJECTIONS TO MR. FERGUSSON’S RESTORATION OF THE TABERNACLE

First, The text does not furnish the ridge-pole. It is easy for Mr. Fergusson to say (in order that he may find a pole) “five rows of bars are quite unnecessary, besides being in opposition to the words of the text.”

Nothing, however, he advances proves this assertion. Both texts in which the bars are mentioned (Exodus 26:28; Exodus 26:33) plainly teach that there were five bars arranged in so many rows. The middle bar is evidently one of these five, for it is not named till after they are noticed, and then it is not said, “Thou shalt make a middle bar,” but, “the middle bar in the midst of the boards shall reach from end to end.” As to five rows being unnecessary, we have only to say that if one row tended to compact the boards, five rows would do so more effectually.

Mr. Fergusson tries to get Josephus to help him to turn this middle bar into a ridge-pole. He quotes for this purpose the following paragraph: “Every one of the pillars or boards had a ring of gold affixed to its front outward, into which were inserted bars gilt with gold, each of them five cubits long, and these bound together the boards, the head of one running into another, after the manner of one tenon inserted into another. But for the wall behind, there was only one bar that went through all the boards into which one of the ends of the bars on both sides were inserted” (Antiquities 3.6,3). “So far,” says Mr. Fergusson, “everything seems certain and easily understood.” The very reverse, however, is the case.

Anyone reading this extract would understand Josephus to say that each board had only one ring attached to it, and that there was only one row, consisting of five short bars, running along each of the two side walls, and but one bar running along the back wall. Josephus, however, does not say any one of these three things, as anyone may see by turning up the passage. Mr. Fergusson plainly misquotes the Jewish historian in his labored effort to give birth to a pole. But, even assuming the extract correct, it will not serve his purpose, although, after quoting it, he remarks, “So far, therefore, everything seems certain and easily understood.” If at each long side there was only one row consisting of five short bars, of course there was no necessity for the narrow back wall having a row consisting of five short bars; and hence, Mr. Fergusson makes Josephus say, quite consistently, “Bur for the wall behind there was only one bar.” But then, are we to believe the Scriptures, which say there were five bars for the back wall, or Josephus (as quoted by Mr. Fergusson), who says there was but one? The placing of these five bars at the narrow back wall completely overturns Mr. Fergusson’s theory, and proves that there were five bars, arranged in five rows along each of the three walls. But he goes a little further, for, instead of giving the one bar, or middle bar, to the back end, as he makes Josephus do, he transports it into the air, and in its upward flight metamorphoses it into a huge ridge-pole! The difficulty of transporting bars forty-five feet long across the wilderness, Mr. Fergusson thinks, is against the supposition of their being that length. But these bars may have consisted each of two or more parts, and yet have been but single bars. A fishing rod may consist of several and yet be but one rod. Even supposing this had not been the case, would a huge ridge-pole, fifteen feet longer, have been less unwieldy and more easily transported? But we must not forget that he is the parent of the pole, and hence the partiality with which it is treated, as, witness the following passage in which, while hinting at some of the difficulties connected with it, he diminishes these by reducing the length of his own pole: “No pole could be made stiff enough to bear its own weight and that of the curtains over an extent of forty-five feet without internal supports.” Now, the extent of his extended roof is much greater than this, as he tells us elsewhere, and as the woodcut of the south-east view of the tabernacle restored shows (p. 196). There we see ten curtains, each four cubits broad, spread over it, and the ridge-pole extending the whole length of forty cubits, or sixty feet. We cannot account for Mr. Fergusson contradicting himself as well as the text, on any other hypothesis than this, that when he views the supposed difficulties connected with the theories of others he looks through a powerful magnifier, and when he views those connected with his own creations, he looks through as powerful a dimini-sher. Second, the additions to, and alterations made on, the framework by Mr. Fergusson, in order to get it to bear up the said ridge-pole, have not a single text, or even hint, in Scripture in their support.

He supports the pole by resting it on the middle backboard (to the stature of which he adds five cubits that it may answer this purpose), and on a pillar of his own inventing, which he places five cubits behind the back wall, “there may,” he says, “have been five pillars there.” What text warrants him to add to the height of any board, or to add one or five pillars to the number of those mentioned in the text? There must have been pillars beyond the back wall, Mr. Fergusson tells us, because the Scriptures, in speaking of the back, always speak in the plural, “the two sides westward.”

If you examine the text, however, you will find that it is not a row of pillars and the six west-end boards that constituted the sides westward, but only the six west-end boards themselves, whatever the meaning may be. The plural seems to be used in a metaphorical sense.

Half of the back wall having traversed the south side of the house and the other half the north side, seems to be the reason why these six boards are called sides. This view is borne out by the consideration that in the Hebrew the word translated “sides,” as applied to the back wall, is different from that rendered “side” for the north and south walls. In Hebrew, that for the back wall is “thighs.” If you draw an imaginary line right up the center of the ground-plan of the tabernacle, you will see this illustrated.

The length of Mr. Fergusson’s extended roof is forty cubits. Where, then, was the center door pillar situated? Was it separated from its neighbors, and placed five cubits farther east from the threshold of the sanctuary, that the end of the pole might rest on it, as the woodcut of his tabernacle restored shows? If so, then it was employed for a different purpose than that which the text states it was made for. Or, were the whole five removed five cubits east? If so, then the hanging that was suspended from them would be a door, not to the sanctuary, but to the assumed porch. Or, if the five pillars were situated where the Bible places them, then the middle one could not afford a rest to the end of the ridge-pole. We apprehend Mr. Fergusson is shut up to the necessity of placing an additional pillar—perhaps five—at the east end as well as at the west end. The middle board being raised five cubits, besides being unscriptural, has a burden imposed upon it out of all proportion to that which its fellows had to bear, yet its socket was of the same weight as theirs. But Mr. Fergusson may reply, “Perhaps a few talents of silver were added to it.” It would be as scriptural to add five talents to a socket, as five cubits to the height of a board.

Third, It is extremely unlikely that only half of the cherubim curtains were displayed within the sanctuary. Mr. Fergusson places only the half of the beautiful cherubim curtains within the sanctuary; the other half he disposes on the outside, and which, he says, formed verandahs on every side. The front, not being enclosed, is the porch; the back and side ones he would fain believe were enclosed, and accordingly he encloses them with boards (see woodcut, p. 196), thus more than doubling the number of boards mentioned in the text. “That at least the back verandah was enclosed,” he says, “must have been the case, as this back place is called Mishcan, or the ‘dwelling,’ as distinguished from ohel, or the tent, which applies to the whole structure.” This certainly is a great mistake. No back verandah, or back place, at the outside of the sanctuary is either mentioned or called Mishcan in the text. It is the cherubim curtains as a whole that are so called (Exodus 26:1; Exodus 26:7; Exodus 26:12-13; Exodus 35:11; Exodus 36:13; Numbers 3:25-36). And why are these beautiful cherub curtains called the tabernacle or dwelling? Because they went to form cloisters for the priests to dwell in? Surely not; they were evidently so named because they were everywhere visible within—on the roof above and on all the walls—and thus pre-eminently constituted the dwelling-place of Israel’s Divine King.

Turn to the third chapter of Second Chronicles, and in imagination enter the temple, which was made after the model of the tabernacle, and what do you behold? Look up; the ceiling is adorned with cherubim. Look at the walls on both sides; cherubim there too. Behold the veil before you, all over with the same symbolic figures. Enter the tabernacle and view it as we have disposed of the curtains, and you will see that ceiling, walls, and veil, as far as these mystic figures are concerned, correspond with those of the temple, of which the tabernacle was the prototype.

Mr. Fergusson says: “The only tangible reason for supposing that the sides were enclosed is, that the temple of Solomon was surrounded on all sides except the front by a range of small cells five cubits wide, in which the priests resided, who were specially attached to the service of the temple.”

It can easily be shown that this is a very intangible reason, and that all the indications of the Scripture are against the supposition. The tents of the tabernacle priests were situated close by, even before the door of the courts, and the space between their tents and the tabernacle was considered holy ground, so that their dwellings were, in a sense, within the sacred enclosures; hence there was no necessity for cloisters being made for them against the sides of the tabernacle. But further, some of the purposes the temple cloisters served,—such as being places for the priests robing and unrob-ing, and for eating the portions of the sacrifices that fell to their lot (Ezekiel 42:13-14)—were also served by the holy place in the tabernacle (Leviticus 16:23), proving beyond a doubt that there were no enclosed places at the sides of the sacred tent.

Mr. Fergusson is shut up to the necessity of inventing cloisters for the tabernacle, as his extended sloping roof cannot do without enclosing boards. It was impossible for a cubit of goat-hair curtains on the one side, and a cubit on the other side (Exodus 26:13) to hang over the soft linen curtains (according to his disposition of them) which had no bars or hard substance at their termination, and hence he doubles the number of boards mentioned in the text in order to suit his extended roof, and that “the cubit of goat-hair curtains on each side” might have something to hang over against.

Fourth, The difficulty arising out of the apparent discrepancy between the dimensions of the framework and those of the curtains is not solved by the sloping roof.

Mr. Fergusson makes very short work of the opinions of those who differ from him, when he supposes the text will not bear them out, by remarking that this or that arrangement “is in direct opposition to the words of Scripture.” Is it not strange, then, that with such professed reverence for the sacred text, he should take such liberty with it himself—as adding five cubits to the height of a board, transforming a bar into a huge ridge-pole, placing a pillar (perhaps five) beyond the back wall, giving to the tabernacle a porch and verandahs, and enclosing the latter with boards? All this is not strange at all, if we put faith in him, for he tells us that he takes all these liberties “in strict conformity with every word and every indication of the sacred text.” If he treats the sacred text in this manner, may not any other restorer do the same, and add on, five, or ten cubits to one, two, three, or more boards, or add five, ten, or twenty to the number of pillars, or transform a bar into a pillar or something else, or lay a burden on a part which it was never designed to bear, and then say that he takes all these liberties in strict conformity “with every word and every indication of the sacred text”? But Mr. Fergusson will not allow this; he will suffer no one to vary even a single letter from the text or make any alteration whatever that deviates a hair’s breadth from its indications. These are privileges he reserves for himself alone.

The greatest wonder of all is that, notwithstanding all his alterations, additions, and transformations, and contradictions of the text, he has not succeeded in getting the dimensions of the curtains to agree with those of even his own sloping-roofed tabernacle.

According to his own showing, the curtains are entirely used up by the two slopes of his roof, not a rag is left to cover the open space at the back, forming a triangle which has a base measuring twenty cubits and a depth from the apex to the center of the base of ten cubits. The reach, also, from the top t)f the back boards to the top of the ceiling, is five cubits. Would the rain and snow with which Mr. Fergusson batters down the flat roof not drift through these great open apertures into the interior, even into the holy of holies? Nor was there a rag left to cover the open spaces of a similar triangle at the east end.

Whatever, then, may be the difficulties connected with a flat-roofed tabernacle, they are infinitesimal in comparison with those of the sloping- roofed tabernacle of Mr. Fergusson.