THE HEBREW CUBIT
THE HEBREW CUBIT A great diversity of opinion exists, even among expert Biblical scholars, as to the length of the Hebrew cubit. Almost every one of the writers whose articles appear in our chief Biblical encyclopedias comes to a different conclusion. One states the length to be 16 inches (Biblical Educator, Vol. 2, p. 280); another, 21 inches (Kitto’s Cyclopcedia, Vol. 1, p. 501); another, 19.0515 (Rev. W. Latham Bevan, M.A., Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 1736-39); while other writers give other lengths, varying from 16 to 25 inches.
Biblical cubits—There are three cubits, each of a different length, mentioned in the Bible:—
First, The cubit after the cubit of a man (Deuteronomy 3:11). Second, The modern or later cubit, implied in the cubits after the first (former, old, or ancient) measure (2 Chronicles 3:3). Third, Ezekiel’s great cubit (Ezekiel 41:8). He speaks of six great cubits, and his great cubit is defined to be a “cubit and an hand breadth” (Ezekiel 40:5). Which of these three was the one m general use by the Hebrews, and according to which are the measurements of Noah’s ark, the tabernacle, and Solomon’s temple, and their furniture? The writers in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, under weights and measures, contends—(1) that the former, old or ancient measure (2 Chronicles 3:3), was the Mosaic or legal cubit; (2) he holds that the modern measure, the existence of which is implied in the above passage, was one somewhat longer; (3) he says the cubit after a man (Deuteronomy 3:2) is held to be the common measure in contradistinction to the Mosaic, and to have fallen below the latter in point of length.
We agree with this writer when he says that the former or ancient measure (2 Chronicles 3:3) was the Mosaic or legal cubit, but we disagree when he says that this was not the measure “after the cubit of a man.” There can be no doubt, both from the testimony of Scripture and Josephus, that the Mosaic or legal cubit of the Hebrews and the cubit “after the cubit of a man” were one and the same. As to the new or modern cubit, implied in 2 Chronicles 3:3, we have no data either in Scripture or elsewhere to enable us to find, or even to try to find out, its length. The cubit “after the cubit of a man” we recognize as the Mosaic or legal cubit, according to which are the measures of Noah’s Ark, of the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple and their furniture. It seems strange to us that any should doubt this, seeing that other measures taken from members of the human body are used in connection with Hebrew measurements, such as an handbreadth (Exodus 25:25; 1 Kings 7:26; 2 Chronicles 4:5), and span (Exodus 28:16; Exodus 39:9; 1 Samuel 17:4; Ezekiel 43:13).
APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF THE CUBIT AFTER THE CUBIT OF A MAN
Cubit, derived from the Latin cubitus, the forearm, the bone, anatomically from the elbow to the wrist; but as used anciently, and without reference to anatomy, from the elbow to the tip of the middle or long finger. If men were all of equal height, and the members of their bodies of equal length, there would be no difficulty in determining the length of the cubit; but, as this is not the case, we have to try to find out the most likely average by which the Hebrew cubit was fixed.
EIGHTEEN INCHES THE MOST LIKELY AVERAGE LENGTH By measuring the forearm, the handbreadth, and the span of several men, we find the average to be: the cubit, 18 inches; the handbreadth (the four fingers held close together), 3 inches; the span (the distance from the tip of the thumb to that of the little finger, and consisting of three handbreadths), 9 inches. Accordingly, 3 inches make 1 handbreadth.
9 inches or 3 handbreadths, make 1 span.
18 inches or 2 spans, make I cubit. The writer is a man of medium height. In measuring his forearm he finds it to be ! 8 inches, his span to be 9 inches, and his handbreadth to be 3 inches. All these three measures were employed in the measurements of the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple, as we have seen.
Josephus uses span for half-a-cubit. The average length of the span, as we have shown, is nine inches. Anyone who likes to try will find that the average length cannot be more than nine inches. Those learned scholars, therefore, who hold the length of the Hebrew cubit to be 21, 22, 23, or 25 inches, notwithstanding their labored studies of the indications of the length of a cubit (as applied to that of a Hebrew cubit) in the tombs and monuments of Egyptian and Babylonian antiquities, must be mistaken.
Josephus, as we have seen, employs the span as equal to half-a-cubit, which shows that the usual cubit of the Hebrews was that of a cubit after the cubit of a man, and also that the cubit could not have exceeded eighteen inches [Antiquities]. Where the Bible text speaks of two cubits and a-half, Josephus speaks of five spans; when the Bible text speaks of a cubit and a-half, he speaks of three spans, showing that the cubit after the cubit of a man was that adopted by the Hebrews: Exodus 25:10. The Ark.
“Two cubits and a-half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a-half the height thereof.”
Josephus 3.6, 5. THE ARK.
“There was also an ark made, sacred to God... length five spans, breadth and height three spans.” THE GREAT CUBIT OF EZEKIEL consisted of a cubit (as we understand the cubit of a man) and an hand breadth (40:5)—together 21 inches —according to which were the measurements of his ideal temple. It is thought he adopted this great cubit from the Babylonians. Be this as it may, those are wrong who suppose that it was this great cubit (of 21 inches) that was employed in the measurements of the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple, for there is nothing in Scripture or in Josephus to show that this was the case, but the reverse. The conclusion, therefore, to which we come is that the length of the Hebrew cubit in use by the Jews in the measurements of the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple was equal to eighteen of our inches, at all events approximating nearer to this measure than to any other number of inches. In proof of our contention, we quote the following statement from an article in Vol. 24, pp. 483, 484 of the Encyclopcedia Britannica, “The pre- Greek examples of this cubit in Egypt give 18.23 inches as a mean...This cubit, or one nearly equal, was the Siloam inscription.” According also to the barleycorn measurement, the length of the Hebrew cubit approximates nearer to 18 inches than to any other number of inches.
BARLEYCORN MEASUREMENT The Jews and Mohammedans had a system of measurement by barleycorns, according to which 1 digit or finger-breadth was equal to 6 grains; 4 finger-breadths or 1 hand-breadth, equal to 24 grains; 6 hand-breadths, or 1 cubit, equal to 144 grains. As grains vary in size, it is not very easy to arrive at the length of the cubit by this system of measurement. It is the breadth, and not, as some suppose, the length, of the grains that is measured, consequently grains require to be placed side by side, and not end to end, when being measured.
WRITERS ON THE SUBJECT
(1.) A writer in the Penny Cyclopaedia (Vol. 27, p. 198) was at great pains in getting grains from various quarters. Those of which he speaks in the following paragraph appear to us to be those which were fairest for the trial. The grains were placed side by side. He says: “On trying the first grains we obtained, we found, that by picking out the largest grains, thirty- three of them just gave more, and thirty-two less, than 5 inches; but that, taking the grains as they came, thirty-eight gave only 5 inches.” As this ratio of thirty-eight average grains gives 5 inches, 144 (the number in a cubit) gives 18.947 inches.
(2.) Colonel C. M. Watson, C.M.G., R.E., in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, July, 1897. The Colonel has gone very minutely and carefully into the study of this subject. He says, “Having been unable to find any work upon the subject—that the length of the cubit as based upon the width of the barleycorn, had been carefully investigated—I procured some ordinary Syrian barley from Jerusalem, and having cleared them of husks, made a scale of the grains about 30 inches in total length. The grains were placed exactly touching each other, with the axes parallel, and were glued down, so as to remain perfectly firm, and thus enable careful and repeated measurements to be taken.” The result of his most careful and painstaking measurement is that the Hebrew cubit was 17.70 inches. The computations of these two writers come surprisingly near to each other. The Length of the Hebrew Cubit According to 144 barleycorns.
Inches. As computed by writer in Penny Cyclopaeia 18.947 As computed by Colonel Watson 17.70 The mean of these two computations is 18.3231/2 inches. Thus the length of the Hebrew cubit, computed according to the barleycorn system of measurement as well as to that of the cubit “after the cubit of a man,” approximates more nearly to 18 than to any other number of inches.