march, only to return to it again as soon as the new halting-place is reached.  But according to 1Samuel iv. seq., on the other hand, it is only the ark that goes to the campaign; it alone falls into the hands of the Philistines.  Even in chap. v., where the symbol of Jehovah is placed in the temple of Dagon at Ashdod, not a word is said of the tabernacle or of the altar which is necessarily connected with it; and chap. vi. is equally silent, although here the enemy plainly gives back the whole of his sacred spoil.  It is assumed that the housing of the ark was left behind at Shiloh.  Very likely; but that was not the Mosaic tabernacle, the inseparable companion of the ark.  In fact, the narrator speaks of a permanent house at Shiloh with doors and doorposts; that possibly may be an anachronism 1 (yet why ?) ;

***************************************** 1.  Compare similar passages in Josh. vi.19, 24, ix.27, where the very anachronism shows that the idea of the tabernacle was unknown to the narrator.  That, moreover. a permanent house did actually exist then at Shiloh follows from the circumstance that Jeremiah (vii. 12) speaks of its ruins.  For he could not regard any other than a pre-Solomonic sanctuary as preceding that of Jerusalem; and besides, there is not the faintest trace of a more important temple having arisen at Shiloh within the period of the kings. *****************************************

but so much at least may be inferred from it that he had not any idea of the tabernacle, which, however, would have had to go with the ark to the field.  If on this one occasion only an illegal exception to the Law was made, why in that case was not the ark, at least after its surrender, again restored to the lodging from which, strictly speaking, it ought never to have been separated at all?  Instead of this it is brought to Bethshemesh, where it causes disaster, because the people show curiosity about it.  Thence it comes to Kirjathjearim, where it stays for many years in the house of a private person.  From here David causes it to be brought to Jerusalem,—­ one naturally supposes, if one thinks in the lines of the view given in the Pentateuch and in Chronicles, in order that it may be at last restored to the tabernacle, to be simultaneously brought to Jerusalem.  But no thought of this, however obvious it may seem, occurs to the king.  In the first instance, his intention is to have the ark beside himself in the citadel; but he is terrified out of this, and, at a loss where else to put it, he at last places it in the house of one of his principal people, Obed-Edom of Gath.  Had he known anything about the tabernacle, had he had any suspicion that it was standing empty at Gibeon, in the immediate neighbourhood, he would have been relieved of all difficulty.  But inasmuch as the ark brings blessing to the house of Obed-Edom,—­the ark, be it remembered, in the house of a soldier and a Philistine, yet bringing down, not wrath, but blessing,—­1