iii. Pre - Deuteronomic Altars. — A very marked distinction, as is well known, exists l>e- tween the attitude to sacrilice of the |)rophetic and priestly narratives respectively in our present Pent. The latter (P) limits sacrilice to the great central a.,+ while the former (JE) relates numerous in-
• See Conder'B report on the dolmen. fields of .Moab in I'.E.F, Qti. St. Iha'l, p. 76 u. ; also in Ueth and Moab, ctis. vii. and viii.; .v^r, .Stoiu Lore, pp. 42, 43, 70. Another rich fleld has t)een ilescrihed by Schumacher, Tht Jau/an, p. mad,; Aero$t Jorilan, p. 82B. CI. I'errot and Chipict, llitl. <U tArt dant rAnliquiU, iv. p. 37rj (I.
i The dillicult seclion (Jos 221".3*) seems iK-st explained as an endi'avoiir to reduce a narrative originally written from the stanrlivnitit of JE to an apparent harmony with the tundAmentAl po«tulat« of P
76
ALTAR
ALTAK
stances of sacrifice being otfered and a* erected from the earliest times, and in many ditJerent places. Noah is represented as building an a. on quitting the ark (Gn S-*) ; Abraham erected several, viz. at Shechem (12'), Bethel (12"), Hebron (1.3'"), and on a special occasion in 'the land of Moriah' ('22'). Isaac (26^) and Jacob (35') do likewise. Even Moses, according to this source, erects an altar at Kephidim (Ex 17'°), and another, accompanied by twelve pillars (niajf?), at lioreb (24''). JE therefore clearly knows nothing in its narrative parts of the exclusive legitimacy of a central a. With this position the law-code which it contains, the so-called Book of the Covenant (see Driver, LOT 2811'.), is in complete accord. In the locus classicus (Ex 2LI*') a plurality of a" is clearly sanctioned : 'in every place (KV) where I record My name, I will come «nto thee, and I will bless thee.' And the same holds good through- out the history of the Hebrews until the time of Josiah. Again and again do we hnd a* built, up and down the country, either by the recognised religious leaders themselves, or with their express sanction. Thus, to mention but a few, Joshua builds an a. on Mt. Ebal (Jos 8**) in accordance with the injunction of Moses himself (Dt 27"), Gideon at Ophrah (Jg 6-^), and Samuel at Kamah (1 S 7"). Saul, we have already seen, extemporised an a. at Michmash, which the historian informs us was t\\e first that Saul built, implying that this monarch had the merit of erecting several. David erected an a., by express divine command, 'in the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite' (2 S 24'*- *°). Elijah, too, complains of the destruc- tion of the altars of J" as an act of sacrilege (1 K W- "), and had, but a little before, repaired, with his own hand, the a. of the Lord upon Mt. Carmel. These examples are sufficient to show that in pre-Deut. Israel a plurality of a' was regarded as a matter of course, there being not the slightest hint of disapproval on the part of the narrators, or of any idea in the minds of the actors in the history that they were guilty of the violation of any divine command.
From the oldest hist, records of the Hebrews, therefore, it is evident that local sanctuaries abounded throughout the country (see HIGH Place, and esp. 1 Sam. passim), the most essential feature of which was undoubtedly the a. on which sacri- fice was offered to the national God, J'. Of the form of these pre-Deut. altars we have no precise information. Ho doubt, as wealth and culture in- creased, the a', esp. at Bethel and the other great sanctuaries, would become more and more elabo- rate ; but in more primitive times they were simple in the extreme. A heap of earth, either by itself (2 K 6") or with a casing of turf (see DUlmann on Ex 20"), a few stones piled upon each other, are all that was required. Simplicity is the dominant note of the law in the fundamental passage. Ex 20^'-. It is there enjoined, moreover, that no tool shall be lifted to hew or dress the stone (cf. Dt 27°, Jos 8", 1 Mac 4"). In this many modern investi- gators have seen a survival of the primitive idea, already explained, of a numen inhabiting the altar- stone, who would be driven out or perhaps injured by the process of dre.ssing (Nowack, Arcfutol. ii. 17 ; Benzingei, Archdol. 379). Another injunction, that the worshipper (for the command is not ad- dressed to the priests) should not ascend by steps {loc. cit.), is also a plea for simplicity. The a. must not be of such a height as to prevent the wor- shipper standing on the ground from manipulating his offering.* The eva-sion of the injunction by a sloping ascent was an afterthought.
• Cf. the e.irly narrative 1 K 2-8fT. where Joab is represented as pnwpinK' the horns of the a. (see below, v.), and at the same time standing by tbt aide of tbe ft. Also 2 K 6^7 * two mules' burden.'
To what extent the still existing dolmens (.see above) may have been used as a' in this jeriod it is impossible to saj'. In the older narratives, how- ever, there are not a few instances of the earlier usage of a single stone (1 S 6'^— v." is a latir insertion — 14^) or of the native rock as an a. (Jf. 6^ and esp. 13"'-* where TiTi v." is identified with rj sn v.**). The site of David's a., we can scarely doubt, was the Sakhrah rock, now enclosed in the so-called mosque of Omar. The ' stone Zoheleth which is by En-Rogel ' was also an ancient altar- stone (1 K 1"). Solomon, finally, at the dedication of the temple, is said to have converted the 'middle of the court' into a huge a. (1 K 8"). For Solo- mon's brazen a., see Temple.* This a. was re- moved by Ahaz (2 K 16"'-"') to make way for the stune a. (note .X3 v.") which he caused to be built after the model of the great a. of Damascus ("Sion, cf. v." in RV). Ahaz' a., rather than the brazen a. of Solomon, was in its turn the model for the a. of Ezekiel (cf. 43'^").