Skip to content

ubs

מְנוֹרָה menõrāh – lampstand

Semantic Fields: Light   Cult   
Author(s): Cornelis Houtman
First published: 2013-09-29
Last update: 2025-10-10
Citation: Cornelis Houtman, מְנוֹרָה menõrāh – lampstand,
               Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database (sahd-online.com), 2013 (update: 2025) (WORK IN PROGRESS)

Introduction

Grammatical type: noun fem.

Occurrences: 42x HB (27/5/10); 1x Sir; 3x Qum; 0x Inscr. (Total: 46)

  • Torah: Exod 25:31 (2x), 32 (2x), 33, 34, 35; 26:35; 30:27; 31:8; 35:14; 37:17 (2x), 18 (2x), 19, 20; 39:37; 40:4, 24; Lev 24:4; Num 3:31; 4:9; 8:2, 3, 4 (2x);
  • Nebiim: 1 Kgs 7:49; 2 Kgs 4:10; Jer 52:19; Zech 4:2, 11;
  • Ketubim: 1 Chron 28:15 (7x); 2 Chron 4:7, 20; 13:11;
  • Sira: 26:17;
  • Qumran: 4Q364 fr17:4; 4Q365 fr8a-b:2; 11Q19 3:13.

1. Root and Comparative Material

A.1 Semitic. The √nwr/nyr for light and fire is general Semitic.1 Comparable nominal formations are attested in many other Semitic languages.2

A.2 Rabbinical Literature. The cultic lampstand is dealt with in Judaic sources, but their data do not contribute to the elucidation of its form and meaning in the Hebrew Bible. The Tabernacle lampstand is described by Josephus.3 In agreement with the stipulation of Exod 25, the lampstand belonged to the sacred objects of the post-exilic temple.4 Jesus Sirach alludes to it and Pseudo-Hecataeus mentions it explicitly.5 According to Eupolemus6, the ten lampstands of the temple of Solomon were made after the model which Moses had placed in the Tabernacle, with each having seven lamps. According to rabbinic exegesis, also the menorah of the tent shrine was placed in that temple7 and it was among the sacred objects which, at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, was hid by God himself, destined for a place in the new sanctuary to be built by God.8 The menorah, captured by Titus, is described by Josephus.9 Various symbolic interpretations have been presented.10 In 11QTemplea the term המנרה occurs (col. III.13); in the damaged description of the lampstand in col. IX the word itself is lacking but apparently it was assumed to carry several lamps (נרותיה כול יאירו ‘they shall light all its lamps’).

2. Formal Characteristics

A.1 [Discussion will be added later.]

3. Syntagmatics

A.1 [Discussion will be added later.]

4. Ancient Versions

a. Septuagint (LXX) and other Greek versions (αʹ, σʹ, θʹ):

  • λυχνία, ‘lampstand’:11 33x (excluding Sir 26:17; 1 Macc 1:21; 4:49f.; 9x Exod 25 [MT 7x]; 1x Exod 37 [MT 7x] = LXX 38:13; 1x 1 Chron 28:15 [MT 7x]).

b. Peshitta (Pesh):

  • Follows Tg in transcribing mnrtʾ.

c. Targum (Tg):

  • In the Jewish targums מְנֹרָה is not translated, but aramaicised: מנרתא.15
  • Samaritan targum: מנהרה, ‘lampstand’.14

d. Vulgate (Vg):

  • candelabrum. This translation is the source of the translation ‘candlestick’ in later versions (e.g., the King James Version), an inadequate rendering, because the Latin word can also designate ‘a chandelier, candelabrum, or also a lamp-stand, light-stand’.16

5. Lexical/Semantic Fields

A.1 [Discussion will be added later.]

6. Exegesis

6.1 Literal Use

A.1 With the exception of 2 Kgs 4:10 and Zech 4:2, 11 מְנֹרָה, a derivative of the common Semitic √nwr/nyr (→ נֵר), and a nominal form with the מ-preformative added to the verbal stem, is always used as a designation of the lampstand as a piece of the sanctuary’s furniture, either the Tabernacle (Exod 25:31-35 [7x]; 26:35; 30:27; 31:8; 35:14; 37:17-20 [6x]; 39:37; 40:4, 24; Lev 24:4; Num 3:31; 4:9; 8:2, 3, 4) or the Temple of Solomon (1 Kgs 7:49; Jer 52:19; 1 Chron 28:15 [7x]; 2 Chron 4:7, 20; 13:11). In 2 Kgs 4:10 the lampstand is mentioned along with the bed, the table and the seat as one of the articles of furniture belonging to the inventory of the houses of the well-to-do in Israel. As a piece of the sanctuary’s furniture it is often mentioned together with other pieces of the sanctuary’s inventory, the ark, the table and the incense altar of the Tabernacle (Exod 30:26f.; 31:7f.; 35:12-15; 39:36-38; 40:3-5, 20-27; Num 3:31; 4:5-11; cf. also Exod 26:33-35), the table(s), the incense altar(s) of the Solomonic temple (1 Kgs 7:48f.; 1 Chron 28:15-18; 2 Chron 4:7f., 19f.).

A.2 In Zech 4 the stand figures in a prophetic vision. Evidently a holy piece of furniture is meant. The lampstand is bearer of one or more oil lamps (→ נֵר; cf. Exod 25:37; 37:23; Zech 4:2). Lamps and lampstand belong together and are more often mentioned together (→ נֵר). So the stand can be designated as ‘the lampstand, the bearer of light’ (הַמָּאֹור מְנֹרַת [Exod 35:14a; Num 4:9]; → מָאֹור). In his blueprint of the new temple, Ezekiel (chs. 40-48) does mention neither the lampstand(s), nor the lamp(s). That does not change the fact that the lamp is to be regarded as an essential part of the furniture of the sanctuary.

A.3 For the care of the stand and its lamps various utensils (→ כְּלִי) were available, further particularised as ‘containers of its oil’ (שַׁמְנָהּ כְּלֵי, Num 4:9; cf. Matt 25:3f.), ‘forceps, tongs’ (→ מֶלְקַחַיִם), ‘firepans’ (→ מַחְתָּה plur.), ‘trimming knives, snuffers’ (→ מְזַמֶּרֶת plur.).

A.4 The Tabernacle had one lampstand. According to 2 Kgs 7:49 the first Temple had two rows of five lampstands (cf. 2 Chron 4:7; for the plural without number see Jer 52:19; 1 Chron 28:15; 2 Chron 4:20). In 2 Chron 13:11, in agreement with the situation described in Exod 25; 37 and that prevailing in the second Temple, there is only one lampstand. In the OT there is no information about the material of the lampstand as a piece of the furniture of a citizen’s house (2 Kgs 4:10). The Tabernacle and Temple lampstand(s) was/were made of gold (זָהָב, Jer 52:19; 1 Chron 28:15 [here also lampstands of silver (כָּסֶף) are mentioned]; 2 Chron 4:7; 13:11; cf. also Zech 4:2), further particularised as ‘of pure gold’ (טָהֹור זָהָב, Exod 25:31, 36; 37:12, 22), ‘of ‘‘closed’’ gold’ (סָגוּר זָהָב, 1 Kgs 7:49; 2 Chron 4:22; ‘closed’ means ‘soldered with silver’17), or ‘of hammered gold’ (זָהָב מִקְשָׁה, Num 8:4; cf. the use of מִקְשָׁה in Exod 25:31, 36; 37:17, 22). Consequently the lampstand of the Tabernacle can be described as ‘the bright/glittering lampstand’ (הַטְּהֹרָה הַמְּנֹרָה, Exod 31:8; 9:37; Lev 24:4). It is a disputed question whether the complete lampstand was made of gold. On the basis of an analysis of the term מִקְשָׁה, it is concluded that the Tabernacle lampstand was constructed by covering a wooden model with a layer of gold.18 The traditional view is that the entire object was made of gold. Already Josephus describes it as a hollow object of cast gold.19 Probably the stand was to be put together in parts, placing the ornaments at the spots where the parts were joined.20

A.5 No measurements of the lampstand are given. In any case its height will have been in agreement with its function. It made for better light inside (cf. Matt 5:15 par.). Placing of more than one lamp on the stand increased the intensity of the light and its spread even more (cf. Zech 4:2, 49, burning wicks!). How the lights were placed affected how far and where their light would shine (cf. Exod 25:37; Num 8:2f.). The lampstand of the Tabernacle was to be placed in such a way that the light fell on the table (so explicitly the Vulgate on Num 8:2). Consequently it must have stood at a height higher than the table which had a height of a cubit and a half (Exod 25:33; 37:10).

A.6 Only in Exod 25; 37; Zech 4 the shape of the lampstand is described. Although the description of the Tabernacle lampstand in Exod 25:31-36; 37:17-22 is fairly detailed, the difficulty in establishing the precise meaning of the vocabulary, derived from the plant kingdom (יָרֵךְ, ‘trunk’; → קָנֶה, ‘stalk’; → גָּבִיעַ, ‘cup’; כַּפְתֹֹּור, ‘calyx’; פֶּּרַח, ‘petal’; מְשֻׁקָּּדִים, ‘in the shape of almond blossoms’), makes it impossible to obtain a complete picture.21

A.7 On the basis of archeological data (the armless stand carries the lights on the saucer-like top [see 6.4 Archeology]), and the assumption of a tradition which maintains that there was only one lamp in the tent shrine (see Exod 27:20; Lev 24:2 [נֵר sing.]), the view is defended that the central stalk (קָנֶה [Exod 25:31; 37:17]) of the lampstand was the lightbearer, the place where the lampstand’s seven lights were situated, while the stalks (קָנִים) on the sides (Exod 25:32f., 35f.; 37:18f., 21f.) were without lights.22 Also in Zech 4:2 such a stand would be meant. Such an interpretation of the Tabernacle lampstand does not agree with the extant Hebrew text which supports a more traditional picture. According to another view, however, this picture is the outcome of a redactional adaptation of the basic text of Exod 25:31-40 (PG), which would have contained the concept of the lampstand of Zech 4, an armless stand carrying its lights on an saucer-like top.23 While accepting the view that the original stand was without arms, Görg draws a different picture based on the lotus-shaped candelabrum in the grave of Tutanchamun (see 6.4 Archeology).24 Hachlili assumes that the early cultic menorah consisted solely of a lampstand. In her view the Tabernacle Menorah of Exodus is a retrojection of the Second Temple type menorah, the seven-armed menorah which originated in th time spane between the return of the Jews to Zion and the Hasmonean period.25

A.8 In Exod 25:32; 37:18 the קָנִים are described as מְנֹרָה קְנֵי (lamp bearing stalks). The construct is probably intended to bring out that the branches support the main shaft as being the lampstand proper (Exod 25:31b; 37:17b) and also themselves carry lights. As is clear, ‘lampstand’ is used in Exod 25:31b, 33-35; 37:17b, 19-21 in a narrow sense as term for the ‘trunk’ and the ‘stalk’ arising from it. Elsewhere ‘lampstand’ is used in a broader sense for the entire object, with stalks and all (cf. Exod 25:31a; 37:17a; 26:35; 30:27; 31:8 etc.). Apparently the entire object is also in view in Exod 25:37-39; 37:23, 24.

A.9 Generally the lampstand of Zech 4:2, 11 is regarded as an armless stand carrying its seven lights (נֵרֹות) with their seven spouts (מוּצָקֹות) on a saucer-like top, a bowl (→ גֻּלָּה).26 Sometimes the olive trees (זֵיתִים) of Zech 4:3, 11f. are interpreted as decorations on the bowl. No information is given on the shape of the lampstands of the temple of Solomon. Only one discutable element is mentioned: הַפֶּּרַח (1 Kgs 7:49; 2 Chron 4:20). It is interpreted as ornamental floral work or equated with the גֻּלָּה of Zech 4:2.27 Often the view is maintained that the lampstands in Solomon’s temple were stands without arms, shaped like the menorah in Zechariah’s vision.28 The following history of the cultic lampstand is assumed: the lampstands of Solomon’s temple were shaped like the stand of Zech 4; the second Temple had a stand with seven branches (cf. Exod 25; 37); it was replaced in 165 bc (cf. 1 Macc 1:21; 4:49f.) by the lampstand shown on the Arch of Titus.29 In any case, it is certain that the description of the lampstand in Exod 25; 37 has more in common with the מְנֹרָה on later depictions than with the reconstructed picture based on Zech 4:2.

A.10 Usually the Tabernacle lampstand is pictured as follows: the stalks, branches curving upward, protrude from both sides of the main stem; all end at the same height, that of the trunk (stalk in the center), so that the seven lights are on the same horizontal level.30 Such a picture is based on the illustration of the מְנֹרָה on the Arch of Titus and many later illustrations (see 6.3 Pictorial Material). In view of the terminology for the מְנֹרָה, it seems, however, more likely that the envisioned shape of the stand was that of a stylised tree which makes one wonder whether a stand resembling a pine tree was intended:31 from the stem, on either side, protrude straight stalks, which two by two end at different heights; the center stalk sticks out above and forms the top. Cf. the illustration of the מְנֹרָה from the synagogue of Dura Europos and see depictions of the tree of life on seals from Mesopotamia (see 6.2 Figurative Use and 6.3 Pictorial Material). Probably יָרֵךְ (Exod 25:31; 37:17) is a designation of the lampstand’s base, as it stands for the ‘lower end’, the part of the stand that is broad and heavy (‘the stem’, ‘the trunk’) which provides stability to the whole object.32

6.2 Figurative Use

A.1 In view of the form of the Tabernacle lampstand the question arises whether, in addition to its function as a bearer of lights, it may also have had a symbolic meaning. Was the stand with the lights more than just a source of light?

A.2 Important to note is that the standard of Exod 25; 37 is described with terms derived from the plant kingdom. The picture evoked is that of a stylised tree (see 6.1 Literal Use; this interpretation is contested by Hachlili33). The stylised tree, sometimes with seven branches and of the ‘spruce type’, occurs frequently on iconographic material from the ancient Near East,34 and is regarded as a depiction of the tree of life, a symbol of fertility and life, associated with many deities.35 It is argued that as to its shape, the lampstand was based on the iconographically attested tree of life, and that as to its function it was primarily a ‘tree’ and secondarily a light holder, symbol of Yhwh’s approachability and powerful presence in the aniconic sanctuary. Based on philological, archeological and art-historical analysis of the מְנֹרָה of the Tabernacle, the conclusion is drawn that the lampstand dates from the end of the Late Bronze era or shortly after, so that it fits inside the Mosaic period.36 This interpretation is not convincing. In the Tabernacle the presence of Yhwh is closely linked with ‘the place of atonement’ (see Exod 25:22; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89). It is more likely that the lampstand, also by its shape, had to make it attractive to Yhwh to reside in the sanctuary. Its beautiful form must make him favourably inclined toward his people. The shape of the tree might have been picked because the presence of the tree of life turns the sanctuary into a kind of paradise and also conveys the idea that the resident is the owner of the tree of life (Gen 2:9; 3:24). More weight, however, might be attached to the fact that the tree was a specific place where theophanies happened (Gen 12:6f.; 18:1; Judg 6:11, 19, and see also 2 Sam 5:24). That suggests the possibility that the form of a tree was chosen as an invitation to Yhwh to manifest himself right there, in the sanctuary (cf. Gen 21:33). Besides, the symbolism associated with the tree makes it fitting that the lampstand, the primary function of which is to spread light, should be in the form of a tree. After all, the life it symbolises owes its existence to light. The oil is its sap and the lights are its flowers and fruits. Light and life (vegetation) are closely related and can appear in one figure, that of the tree of light.37 An eventual special significance of the almond blossom on the lampstand (see 6.1 Literal Use) is hard to trace. Possibly it was more than a mere ornament. Noticeably, another object in the sanctuary, the staff of Aaron, had the same ornaments (Num 17:22-26; Heb 9:4).

A.3 Whether the מְנֹרָה may be regarded as a relic of an earlier symbolic representation of Asherah in the form of a tree38 whereas the stone tablets in or before the ark would be relics of the stelae of ancestor worship remains wholly uncertain. Such stones and trees are often associated in Canaanite inscriptions and are represented together on Tyrian coins,39 but any direct connection with the מְנֹרָה is lacking thus far.

A.4 Indisputably the lampstand of Zech 4 has a symbolic meaning. Opinions, however, differ with regard to this meaning.40 Some think it is a symbol of the community, others consider it to be a symbol of (the Temple mountain with) the new Temple (cf. Zech 4:7-9). Many regard the lampstand with the lights as a symbol of Yhwh (cf. Zech 4:10b, 14).41

6.3 Pictorial Material

A.1 In attempts to reconstruct the shape of the lampstand of Exod 25; 37 and to describe its symbolic significance, the depictions of the tree of life on seals from Mesopotamia play an important role (see 6.2 Figurative Use). It is likely that early pictures of the menorah, such as the one on a coin bearing the name of Mattathias Antigonus (40-37 bce),42 on the Arch of Titus,43 and in the synagogue of Dura Europos (3th century bce44), as well as the depictions of the seven-branched candelabrum which after the destruction of the second temple, from the beginning of the second century onwards, are frequently found in synagogues, on sarcophaguses, on amulets etc.,45 all rest on interpretation of the postexilic biblical texts. The double, octagonal base of the menorah on the Arch of Titus has received a lot of attention, because it differs from the base on (later) depictions of the menorah and because the visible panels contain images of animals, eagles and (sea)monsters - loathsome images (cf. Ezek 8:10) - such as one would not expect to find in the temple. It is supposed that the picture on the triumphal arch is not a faithful reproduction.46 Also a matter of dispute is whether the menorah originally belonged to the furniture of the synagogue, and whether the synagogal menorah or the menorah of the second temple is the ‘Urbild’ of the depictions. Some contend that, despite a rabbinic prohibition to make a seven-branched lampstand47 - the lampstand of the Hanukkah feast has eight arms - originally the furniture of the synagogue, and possibly that of the homes as well, included a seven-branched menorah, and that such a menorah, not the one of the temple and depicted on the triumphal Arch of Titus, provided the inspiration for the images.48 Others disagree.49 The discovery of the Menorah Treasure at the foot of the Temple Mount has thrown new light on these contested issues.

A.2 For a seven-spouted bowl from Dothan and an artist rendition of the lampstand of Zech 4, see ZIBBC.50

6.4 Archaeology

A.1 Excavations have provided examples of what lampstands in the ancient Near East may have looked like. They were made of wood, clay, stone or metal. Not always it is clear what their function was. For holding a censer, offerings, or one or more lamps? That at least some of them were used to hold lamps is certain, however. Stands came in a great variety: there were stands on legs; stands with a wide, round shaft, thicker at the bottom than at the top; stands with a small, downward thickening shaft that turns into a base; stands with a shaft gradually widening toward the bottom.51 In all instances it concerns stands without arms, leaving it uncertain whether they can be used for purposes of comparison. Attention has been drawn to an alabaster lamp (27cm high) from the tomb of Tutankhamen. The lamp is made from one block of stone, out of which extend a head and two side branches, each bearing a cup in the shape of a lotus flower.52

7. Conclusion

A.1 The lampstand is an article of furniture which was used as a bearer of lamps both in
the houses of the well-to-do and in the sanctuary. It could be fashioned from various materials, metal, wood and ceramic. Its height is in agreement with its function: servicing for better light inside a room. So it could rise higher than a normal human’s height. As appears from Exod 25:37 a lampstand could have the shape of a stylised tree and this, supported by iconography from the ancient Near East, has given rise to a lot of hypotheses about its symbolic meaning.

Bibliography

For the abbreviations see the List of Abbreviations.

AncBD, vol. 4, 141-3

BDB, 633: ‘lampstand’

Bergema 1938
H. Bergema, De boom des levens in Schrift en historie, Hilversum 1938

BHH, 1075-6

Bloch 1961
P. Bloch, ‘Siebenarmige Leuchter in christlichen Kirchen’, Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch 23 (1961), 55-190

BRL2, 198-201

Busink, 293-299, 1156-1172

Alonso Schökel, DBHE, 412: ‘Candelabro’

Ryken et al., DBI, 485-7

DCH, vol. 5, 349: ‘lampstand’

EB, vol. 1, 644-7

EM, vol. 5, 14-22

Eltester 1960
W. Eltester, ‘Der sieben armige Leuchter und der Titusbogen’, in: W. Eltester (ed.), Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (Fs J.J. Jeremias) (BZAW, 26), Berlin 1960, 62-76

GB, 437: ‘Leuchter’

Ginzberg 1911
L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 3, Philadelphia 1911
Ginzberg 1913
L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. 4, Philadelphia 1913
Görg 1981
M. Görg, ‘Zur Dekoration des Leuchters’, BN 15 (1981), 21-9 (reprinted in M. Görg, Aegyptiaca -- Biblica: Notizen und Beiträge zu den Beziehungen zwischen Ägypten und Israel (ÄAT, 11), Wiesbaden 1991, 116-23)
Goldberg 1967
A.M. Goldberg, ‘Der siebenarmige Leuchter, zur Entstehung eines jüdischen Bekenntnissymbols’, ZDMG 117 (1967), 232-46
Goodenough 1953
E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 3, New York 1953
Goodenough 1954
E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period, vol. 4, New York 1954
Hachlili 2001
R. Hachlili, The Menorah: The Ancient Seven-armed Candelabrum: Origin, Form and Significance (JSJ.S, 68), Leiden 2001

HAHAT, 697: ‘Lampe, Lampenständer’

HALAT, 568: ‘Lampenständer, Leuchter’

HAWAT, 230: ‘Leuchter’

HCHAT, Bd. 1, 755: ‘Leuchter’

Houtman 2000
C. Houtman, Exodus (HCOT), vol. 3, Leuven 2000, 399-415, 461-465
Hurschman 2012
Rolf Hurschmann, ‘Lamp’, ‘Lighting’, Brill’s New Pauly on line

HWAT, 359: ‘Leuchter’

KBL, 538: ‘Leuchter lampstand’

Keel 1977
O. Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, Stuttgart 1977
Keel 1978
O. Keel, ‘Grundsätzliches und das Mondemblem zwischen den BäumenÓ, BN 6 (1978), 40-55
Korpel 1991
M.C.A. Korpel, ‘Soldering in Isaiah 40:19-20 and 1 Kings 6:21’, UF 23 (1991), 219-222

LHA, 449: ‘candelabrum’

Mazar 2013
E. Mazar, The Discovery of the Menorah Treasure at the Foot of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem: Shoham Academic Research and Publication, 2013
Mettinger 1995
T.N.D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in its Ancient Near Eastern Context (CB.OT, 42), Stockholm 1995
Meyers 1976
C.L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah: A Synthetic Study of a Symbol from the Biblical Cult (ASOR.DS, 2), Missoula 1976 (repr. 2003)

Kaddari, MHH, 629: תאורה כלי

Möhlenbrink 1929
K. Möhlenbrink, ‘Der Leuchter im fünften Nachtgesicht des Propheten Sacharja’, ZDPV 52 (1929), 258-86

NIDOT, vol. 2, 977-8

Propp 2006
W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 19--40 (AncB, 2A), New York 2006

Salonen, Hausgeräte, Bd. 1, 130-8

SAT, vol. 6, 122-96

Sperber 1965
D. Sperber, ‘The History of the Menorah’, JJS 16 (1965), 135-59
Taylor 1995
J.E. Taylor, ‘The Asherah, The Menorah and The Sacred Tree’, JSOT 66 (1995), 29-54
Tigchelaar 1996
E.J.C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers and Apocalyptic (OTS, 35), Leiden 1996

Gesenius & Roediger, TPC, 867: ‘candelabrum’

TWAT, Bd. 4, 981-7

Voß 1993
J. Voß, Die Menora: Gestalt und Funktion des Leuchters im Tempel zu Jerusalem, Fribourg 1993
Wade 2003
M.L. Wade, Consistency of Translation Techniques in the Tabernacle Accounts of Exodus in the Old Greek (SBL.SCSS, 49), Atlanta 2003
Weippert 1978
H. Weippert, ‘Siegel mit Mondsichelstandarten aus Palästina’, BN 5 (1978), 43-58
Widengren 1951
G. Widengren, The King and the Tree of Life in Ancient Near Eastern Religion, Uppsala 1951
Wirgin 1961
W. Wirgin, ‘On the Shape of the Foot of the Menorah’ IEJ 11 (1961), 151-2
Wirgin 1962
W. Wirgin, ‘The Menorah as Symbol of Judaism’, IEJ 12 (1962), 140-2
Wirgin 1964
W. Wirgin, ‘The Menorah as Symbol of After-Life’, IEJ 14 (1964), 102-4
Yarden 1972
L. Yarden, The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah, the Seven-Branched Lampstand, Uppsala 1972
Yarden 1975
L. Yarden, ‘Aaron, Bethel, and the Priestly Menorah’, JJS 26 (1975), 39-47
Zwarts 1935
J. Zwarts, De zevenarmige kandelaar in de Romeinse diaspora, Utrecht 1935.

  1. Leslau, CDG, 401; Klein, CEDHL, 356, 410; HAHAT, 797. ↩

  2. cf. HAHAT, 697. ↩

  3. Josephus, Ant., III, 145f., and in b.Men. 28b. ↩

  4. 1 Macc 1:21; 4:49; cf. 2 Macc 10:3 and Josephus, Ant., XII.250, 318. ↩

  5. Jesus Sirach 26:17; Josephus, Apion, I.199. ↩

  6. Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, IX.34, 7f. ↩

  7. b.Men. 98b. ↩

  8. See e.g. Ginzberg 1911, 161; Ginzberg 1913 321. ↩

  9. Josephus, Bell., VII.148f.; cf. also BJ, I.152; V.216; VI.388; for the tradition on what else happened to it see H. Strauss, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, XI, 1367. ↩

  10. See the overview in Houtman 2000, 409f. ↩

  11. LSJ, 1068; GELS, 437. ↩

  12. LSJ, 1027. ↩

  13. Wade 2003, 217-22. ↩

  14. Tal, DSA, 506. ↩

  15. Levy, CWT, Bd. 2, 49: ‘Leuchter’; Jastrow, DTT, 802: ‘lamp’. ↩

  16. LD, 277. ↩

  17. Korpel 1991. ↩

  18. Meyers 1976, 31-34. ↩

  19. Josephus, Ant., III.144. ↩

  20. See the discussion in Houtman 2000, 359, 403, 405f. ↩

  21. Cf. Propp 2006, 398-9, 509-12. ↩

  22. Meyers 1976, 20-2, 26, 72, 81-4. ↩

  23. Voß 1993, 30, 32, 36, 66-8, 78f. ↩

  24. Görg 1981. ↩

  25. Hachlili 2001, 12-36. ↩

  26. E.g. Voß 1993, 55f., 65f.; M. Haran in EM vol. 5, 20; Hachlili 2001, 18-22. ↩

  27. Möhlenbrink 1929,281f. ↩

  28. So e.g. Busink, 293-9 [cf. Plate 72]; Voß 1993, 47 and Plates 22-24]; Hachlili 2001, 16-8 and Pl. I.1-4. ↩

  29. Voß 1993, 68f., 78f.; for a different view see Meyers 1976, [section 2b]. ↩

  30. Cf. e.g. the reconstruction in Voß 1993, 79. ↩

  31. Cf. Zwarts 1935, 35, 75. ↩

  32. See further discussion in Houtman 2000, 403-7. ↩

  33. Hachlili 2001, 38-9. ↩

  34. See the illustrations in Bergema 1938, Plates 30-57; Meyers 1976, Pl. 42-54.; ANEP, Pl. 858-859. ↩

  35. Cf. Widengren 1951, 62-7. ↩

  36. Meyers 1976,133-9, 165-93. ↩

  37. See Zwarts 1935, 8f., and in particular Bergema 1938, 261, 265, 269f., 272, 280 etc. [index s.v.]. ↩

  38. Cf. Taylor 1995. ↩

  39. Mettinger 1995, 96, Plates 5.5-5.7. ↩

  40. Cf. Tigchelaar 1996, 16-46. ↩

  41. See esp. Keel 1977, 306-20 (for criticism on his argumentation see Weippert 1978, with Keel’s reply [Keel 1978]). ↩

  42. Picture in Goodenough 1953, Pl. 674; Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 11, 1357; EM, vol. 5, 19. ↩

  43. See e.g., Busink, vol. 2, Pl. XXVI; → בַּד. ↩

  44. See e.g., Goodenough 1953, Pl. 603; Busink, vol. 1, 295. ↩

  45. Many depictions in Goodenough 1953; see further especially Hachlili 2001, 5-92 and e.g., Voß 1993, 25-43; Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 11, 1355-66. ↩

  46. Eltester 1960, 74-6; cf. Goodenough 1954, 72; for other views see Hachlili 2001, 46-50; H. Strauss, in: Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 11, 1365f. ↩

  47. E.g. in b.Men. 28b. ↩

  48. Eltester 1960, 64-6; Goodenough 1954, 74-7. ↩

  49. E.g. Goldberg 1967, 237-40; Hachlili 2001, 41-169. ↩

  50. ZIBBC, vol. 5, 214. ↩

  51. For illustrations see e.g. ANEP, Pl. 519-20, 624-8, 657-8; BRL2, 189f.; Meyers 1976, 1-41. ↩

  52. Görg 1981. ↩

Semantics of Ancient Hebrew Database