Page:History of Art in Sardinia, Judæa, Syria and Asia Minor Vol 1.djvu/295

 Furniture and Ornament about the Temple. 265 the omission of so important an object, except on the supposition that the verses following the description of the twin pillars were left out by the scribe. 1 This might be ascribed to a slip of the copyist, were it not likewise suppressed in the recapitulation at the end of the chapter. The inference, therefore, becomes irresistible that the mutilation was intentional. 2 However we may try to explain the suppression, there is little reason to doubt that the altar of Solomon replaced that which David had erected on the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite; and that this was the altar seen by the prophet in his dream (Ezek. xliii. 1 3-1 7). But the whole passage having reference to it is very obscure, partly owing to bad translation, partly from its having been tampered with. All we know is that it consisted of a wide base supporting a platform, in the centre of which was the hearth, an oblong structure, whereon the victim was consumed. 3 A broad flight of steps facing the east led to the top. Under the altar were ducts to drain off the used water into a cavity visible at the present day in the dome of the rock ; whilst a hole at the bottom of the ditch or cavity allowed the water to flow out into the sewers, which ran straight into the Kedron valley. 4 Olive, cypress, cedar and other precious woods, gold and silver, entered largely into the decoration of the house of Lebanon ; to the exclusion, it would seem, of ivory, which is nowhere specified. This is all the more strange that we know how universal was its adoption, as a mode of enrichment, by all Eastern people from the earliest date. Colour, whether painted on capitals, walls, or mouldings, or as hangings and carpets as partial covering to the floor, was doubtless resorted to in order to impart greater brilliancy to the whole edifice. The latter are and have always been so general a feature in all Oriental interiors, that they called for no special mention on the part of the chronographer. He makes an 1 The description should follow verse 22. 2 According to Stade the alteration in the text arose from the wish of the compiler to spread the belief that the altar of the tabernacle (1 Kings viii. 4) had been brought to the temple by Solomon. Such a thesis is not reconcilable with Chronicles, where, owing to the bias of the author, we should find it stated had there been any foundation in fact. 3 The text seems to imply that the altar, properly so called, consisted of two unequal parts, placed one upon the other ; a complicated, clumsy contrivance, which we have discarded, whilst preserving the characteristic simplicity borne out by the text. 4 So at least the Mishna of Middoth, iii. 2, 3 ; and the Mishna of Ionia, v. 6.