Page:02.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.A.vol.2.EarlyProphets.djvu/1122

This page needs to be proofread.

(beams) and stones mentioned after ויּכנוּ. והגּבלים is to be taken as explanatory, “even the Giblites,” giving a more precise definition of “Hiram's builders.” The Giblites are the inhabitants of the town of Gebal, called Byblos by the Greeks, to the north of Beirut (see at Jos 13:5), which was the nearest to the celebrated cedar forest of the larger Phoenician towns. According to Eze 27:9, the Giblites (Byblians) were experienced in the art of shipbuilding, and therefore were probably skilful builders generally, and as such the most suitable of Hiram's subjects to superintend the working of the wood and stone for Solomon's buildings. For it was in the very nature of the case that the number of the Phoenician builders was only a small one, and that they were merely the foremen; and this may also be inferred from the large number of his own subjects whom Solomon appointed to the work.^[1] Building of the Temple - 1 Kings 6
The account of the building of the temple commences with a statement of the date of the building (1Ki 6:1); and this is followed by a description of the plan and size of the temple-house (1Ki 6:2-10), to which there is also appended the divine promise made to Solomon during the erection of the building (1Ki 6:11-13). After this we have a further account of the internal fittings and

↑ Without any satisfactory ground Thenius has taken offence at the word והגּבלים, and on the strength of the critically unattested καὶ ἔβαλον αὐτούς of the lxx and the paraphrastic ἁρμόσαντας καὶ συνδήσαντας of Josephus, which is only introduced to fill in the picture, has altered it into ויּגבּילוּם, “they bordered them (the stones).” This he explains as relating to the “bevelling” of the stones, upon the erroneous assumption that the grooving of the stones in the old walls encircling the temple area, which Robinson (Pal. i. 423) was the first to notice and describe, “occurs nowhere else in precisely the same form;” whereas Robinson found them in the ancient remains of the foundations of walls in different places throughout the land, not only in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, viz., at Bethany, but also at Carmel on the mountains of Judah, at Hebron, Semua (Esthemoa), Beit Nusib (Nezib), on Tabor, and especially in the north, in the old remains of the walls of the fortification es Shukif, Hunîn, Banias, Tyrus, Jebail (Byblus), Baalbek, on the island of Ruwad (the ancient Aradus), and in different temples on Lebanon (see Rob. Pal. ii. 101,198, 434,627; iii. 12,213, 214; and Bibl. Researches, p. 229). Böttcher (n. ex. Krit. Aehrenl. ii. p. 32) has therefore properly rejected this conjecture as “ill-founded,” though only to put in its place another which is altogether unfounded, namely, that before והגּבלים the word הצּרים (“the Tyrians”) has dropped out. For this has nothing further in its favour than the most improbable assumption, that king Hiram gathered together the subjects of his whole kingdom to take part in Solomon's buildings. - The addition of τρία ἔτη, which is added by the lxx at the end of the verse, does not warrant the assumption of Thenius and Böttcher, that שׁנים שׁלשׁ has dropped out of the text. For it is obvious that the lxx have merely made their addition e conjectura, and indeed have concluded that, as the foundation for the temple was laid in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, the preliminary work must have occupied the first three years of his reign.

[1] Without any satisfactory ground Thenius has taken offence at the word והגּבלים, and on the strength of the critically unattested καὶ ἔβαλον αὐτούς of the lxx and the paraphrastic ἁρμόσαντας καὶ συνδήσαντας of Josephus, which is only introduced to fill in the picture, has altered it into ויּגבּילוּם, “they bordered them (the stones).” This he explains as relating to the “bevelling” of the stones, upon the erroneous assumption that the grooving of the stones in the old walls encircling the temple area, which Robinson (Pal. i. 423) was the first to notice and describe, “occurs nowhere else in precisely the same form;” whereas Robinson found them in the ancient remains of the foundations of walls in different places throughout the land, not only in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, viz., at Bethany, but also at Carmel on the mountains of Judah, at Hebron, Semua (Esthemoa), Beit Nusib (Nezib), on Tabor, and especially in the north, in the old remains of the walls of the fortification es Shukif, Hunîn, Banias, Tyrus, Jebail (Byblus), Baalbek, on the island of Ruwad (the ancient Aradus), and in different temples on Lebanon (see Rob. Pal. ii. 101,198, 434,627; iii. 12,213, 214; and Bibl. Researches, p. 229). Böttcher (n. ex. Krit. Aehrenl. ii. p. 32) has therefore properly rejected this conjecture as “ill-founded,” though only to put in its place another which is altogether unfounded, namely, that before והגּבלים the word הצּרים (“the Tyrians”) has dropped out. For this has nothing further in its favour than the most improbable assumption, that king Hiram gathered together the subjects of his whole kingdom to take part in Solomon's buildings. - The addition of τρία ἔτη, which is added by the lxx at the end of the verse, does not warrant the assumption of Thenius and Böttcher, that שׁנים שׁלשׁ has dropped out of the text. For it is obvious that the lxx have merely made their addition e conjectura, and indeed have concluded that, as the foundation for the temple was laid in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, the preliminary work must have occupied the first three years of his reign.

[1]