“And he made pomegranates, and indeed two rows round about the one twist, to cover the capitals which were upon the head of the pillars; and so he did with the other capital.” In the Masoretic text the words העמּוּדים and הרמּנים are confused together, and we must read, as some of the Codd. do, in the first clause את־הרמּנים for את־העמּוּדים, and in the middle clause העמּוּדים על־ראשׁ for הרמּנים על־ראשׁ. This is not only required by the sense, but sustained by a comparison with 1Ki 7:19. The relation between the two rows of pomegranates and the plaited work is indeed not precisely defined; but it is generally and correctly assumed, that one row ran round the pillars below the plaited work and the other above, so that the plaited work, which was formed of seven cords plaited together in the form of festoons, was enclosed above and below by the rows of pomegranates. If we compare with this the further statements in 1Ki 7:41, 1Ki 7:42, 2Ch 3:16 and 2Ch 4:12-13, and Jer 52:23, הכּתרת is there more precisely designated הכּתרת גּלות, “bowls of the capitals,” from which it is evident that the lower portion of the capitals, to which the braided work was fastened, was rounded in the form of a pitcher or caldron. the number of the pomegranates on the two festoons is given at 400, so that there were 200 on each capital, and consequently each row contained 100 (2Ch 3:16); and according to Jer. (l.c.) there were 96 רוּחה, “windwards,” and in all 100 on the braided work round about. רוּחה, “windwards,” can hardly be taken in any other sense than this: in the direction of the wine, i.e., facing the four quarters of the heavens. This meaning is indisputably sustained by the use of the word רוּח, to denote the quarters of the heavens, in statements of the aspect of buildings (Eze 42:16-18), whereas there is no foundation whatever for such meanings as “airwards = uncovered” (Böttcher, Thenius), or hanging freely (Ewald).[1]
- ↑ It is hardly necessary to observe, that the expression רוּח שׁאף, to gasp for air, in Jer 2:24; Jer 14:6, does not warrant our giving to רוּחה the meaning open or uncovered, as Böttcher supposes. But when Thenius follows Böttcher (Proben, p. 335) in adducing in support of this the fact “that the tangent, which is drawn to any circle divided into a hundred parts, covers exactly four of these parts,” the fact rests upon a simple error, inasmuch as any drawing will show that a tangent only touches one point of a circle divided into a hundred parts. And the remark of Böttcher, “If you describe on the outside of a circle of twelve cubits in circumference a hundred small circles of twelve-hundredths of a cubit in diameter, a tangent drawn thereupon will cover to the eye exactly four small circles, although mathematically it touches only one of them in one point,” is not correct according to any measurement. For if the tangent touches one of these smaller circles with mathematical exactness, to the eye there will be covered either three or five half circles, or even seven, but never four.
