Question IV. Whether at Shiloh, first of all in the land of Canaan, Moses's tabernacle was fixed?

The Rabbis, in those first times, sew together [posit] a twofold tabernacle: one, the true [one], which Moses described (Exod. ch. 25) and Beseleel, with his partner Ooliab, made (Exod. 31); the other, which “was made to the imitation and likeness of this [one].” They say, therefore, [that] that true, prior tabernacle of theirs was not erected at Gilgal, but only a later [one], like to that prior [one]; but [that] now, at Shiloh, [it was] erected first of all. But others, in the “Seder,” maintain [that] not even at Shiloh was that [true one] erected, but a little shrine, built up with stone walls, which was covered with sails [curtains] and the feet [bases] of tents. But [that] the true tabernacle was raised both at Gilgal and at Shiloh — not some replica of it — [is] to be pronounced firmly, against those Jews. First: because, in the wilderness stations, that true Mosaic [one] was set up, as the book of Numbers (from ch. 9) always teaches, and the Rabbis themselves confess [it]: why, then, not at Gilgal and Shiloh? Secondly: of a second and imitative tabernacle, in the Mosaic and Joshuan times, [there] is nowhere any mention — no indication, [not] even the least. Thirdly: where, when, and by whom would that [replica] have been made? Fourthly: the Rabbis’ conjectures are two, but very slight. The former: [in] Deuteronomy ch. 12, vv. 8, 9, 10, the tabernacle is said [to be] erected [only] when, in Canaan-land, [there] should be rest and peace from the enemies. So it is — but this is understood of that erection which should be firm and constant, namely, when [there] should be no longer any need to set out, and to impose the tabernacle on the Levitical shoulders. Otherwise, if [it] were to be placed in no place or time unless — the enemies being subdued — rest and security had been obtained for the Israelite people, [then] it ought never to have been placed even in the desert. Yet [it] was placed [even there], as I said above — so much so that it was therefore called by some “ζευγηφορεύμενος ναός [zeugēphoreumenos naos]” [“a yoke-borne temple”], and by Josephus (bk. 3 of the Antiquities, ch. 5), in the title, [it] is said to “μεταφερομένου ναοῦ οὐδὲν διαφέρειν [metapheromenou naou ouden diapherein],” that is, “to differ in nothing from a movable and portable temple.” And as to what pertains to Shiloh: here, at once in the beginning of the chapter, “the land [is] subdued, and the enemies crushed” [are] handed down; and the same [was] signified several times before, when the tabernacle clung at Gilgal (ch. 14:15; ch. 11:23). Secondly: the Shiloh tabernacle is called sometimes “the House of God” (1 Sam. 1:23), but sometimes “a tent” (Ps. 77:60), and indeed “linen [Linteatum]” (2 Sam. 7:2). It consisted, therefore, of a stone structure and linens [curtains]. As if, forsooth, [it] could not be a dwelling, whether it consist of stones, or of wood or clay — nay, even of curtains and skins! What? Does not the name “House [Domus]” extend very widely among the Hebrews? Are not gloves, boots, and very many other [things] of that kind called “House” by them? Although, therefore, the tabernacle were built of linens and soft-leathers alone, [it] was rightly called “the House of God.” But I said [that], in those first times of Moses and Joshua, [there] is to be thought [to have been] none [other] which was not the true and Mosaic tabernacle — because afterward the temple itself [was] built by Solomon to the likeness of that [tabernacle], and [was] often marked with the name of “tabernacle” (Ezra 7:15; Jer. 10:10; Ezek. 37:17, & ch. 41; Amos 9:11). And the discourse is of the common and public tabernacle of the nation — [a point] which I note on account of the private tabernacle of Moses outside the camp (Exod. 33).