oijkoumevnh" ejshvmainen o{ti tou' qeou' pavnta kai; tw'/ qew'/
) use
qumiathvrion
for
the altar of incense
in their accounts of the furniture of the Temple. And so also Clement of Alexandria (
Strom.
5.6, § 33, p. 665 P.
ajna; mevson de; tou' kaluvmmato"
(the outer veil)
kai; tou' parapetavsmato"
(the inner
veil)...
qumiathvrion e[keito
...); and Origen, probably on the authority of this passage, places the Altar of incense in the Holy of Holies:
Hom. in Ex.
9.3 ibi collocatur...propitiatorium sed et altare aureum incensi.
But it is urged on the other hand that in the LXX. the altar of incense is never called by this name, but ( to; ) qusiasthvrion ( tou' ) qumiavmato" (Ex. 30:1, 27; Lev. 4:7; 1 Chron. 6:49; comp. Luke 1:11) and to; qus. tw'n qumiamavtwn (1 Chron. 28:18; 2 Chron. 26:16, 19), while qumiathvrion is twice used in the
LXX. for a censer ( tr<f&,q]mi , H5233): 2 Chron. 26:19; Ezek. 8:11; and in Jer.
52:19 by Aquila and Symmachus for hT;j]m' (fire-pan).
It must however be remarked that the translation of the LXX. was
practically inevitable. The use of j'Bezmi in the original required to be
represented by qusiasthvrion . The only other rendering bwmov" was
inapplicable. And further in Ex. 30:1 where the full phrase tr<foq] rf'qmi
j'Bezmi is found, Symmachus and Theodotion read qusiasthvrion qumiathvrion
qumiavmato" , a reading which Origen introduced with an asterisk into his Greek text. Nor does the use of qumiathvrion for censer fix this single meaning to the word, for Josephus, who calls the altar of incense qumiathvrion , uses the same word for censer in his narrative of the rebellion
of Korah ( Antt. 4.2, 6) where the LXX. has purei'on ( hT;j]m' , H4746).
It cannot therefore be urged that the usage of the LXX. offers a valid argument against adopting here the sense which is unquestionably justified by the contemporary evidence of Philo and Josephus. External evidence then, it may be fairly said, is in favour of the rendering Altar of incense.
If now we turn to internal evidence it appears to be most unlikely that the golden altar (Ex. 30:1 ff.; 37:25 ff.; 40:5, 26), one of the most conspicuous and significant of the contents of the Tabernacle, on which other writers dwell with particular emphasis, should be omitted from the enumeration here; and no less unlikely that a golden censer should be mentioned in its place, while no such vessel is mentioned in the O. T. as part of the furniture of the Holy of Holies, or even in special connexion with the service of the Day of Atonement. The mention in the Mishna ( Joma , 4.4) of the use of a golden censer on the Day of Atonement, instead of the silver censer used on other days, does not furnish sufficient explanation for the place which it would hold here in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle. Nor indeed is there any evidence that the censer so used was in any sense part of the furniture of the Holy of Holies: on the contrary it was removed after the service ( Joma , 7.4).
At first sight however it is difficult to understand how the Altar of incense could be described as part of the furniture of the Holy of Holies; or, to speak more exactly, as properly belonging to it ( e[cousa qumiathvrion ). But this phrase probably suggests the true explanation. The Altar of incense bore the same relation to the Holy of Holies as the Altar of burnt offering to the Holy place. It furnished in some sense the means of approach to it. Indeed the substitution of e[cousa for ejn h|/ (Heb. 9:2) itself points clearly to something