From the time when the Hebrews served them- selves heirs to the sanctuaries of Canaan, the worship of J" was there celebrated for several centuries with the full approval of Israel's religions guides (see 1 S 7", 1 K S-" IS** and oft.). Such local worship is alone contemplated in the oldest Hebrew legislation (' in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee,' Ex 20**). But by this multiplicity of sanctuaries the religion of J" was exposed to two great dangers, against which the prophets of the 8th century repeatedly utter the most solemn warnings. In the first place, there was an ever-increasing admixture of lieathen Canaanite elements with the purer and more spiritual elements of the true Hebrew cultus, until Hosea could truthfully declare that the worship of J" had practically degenerated into idolatry (13-) and its ministrants into idol-priests (see Chemarim). In the second place, the native religion, with its multiplicity of local Baalim, exerted a baneful influence on the Mosaic doctrine of the unity of J". The Northern Kingdom came to an end before a reformation could be eli'ected. In the South, thanks to the unique position of its royal sanctuary and the comparative purity of the cultus as there practised, this twofold danger was not felt to quite the same extent. Yet the de- struction of Samaria, the strongest possible proof of the Divine commission of her prophets, could not fail to make a profound impression on the best religions spirits of the South, while, at the same time, the greatly enhanced importance of the temple at Jerusalem would gradually tend to diminish the popularity and prestige of the local sanctuaries. Whether Hezekiah really made the attempt at centralization with which he is credited (2 K IS'') must be left an open question. The reform, at the best, was shortlived. Not till the far-reaching reformation of Josiah, under the im- mediate inspiration of Deuteronomy (B.C. 622-621), were eflective measures taken for the destruction of the local sanctuaries and the deportation of their priests to Jerusalem (2 K 23). The losses as well as the gains of so drastic a measure of reform have been set forth under the article HIGH Place (with which compare Deuteronomy, Josiaii). In the Priestly document (P) the battle has long been won, and scarcely an echo remains. The law and practice of one central sanctuary are transferred to the period of the desert wanderings (see Taber- nacle), an unhistorical presentation of the religious history of the Hebrews which dominates the whole subsequent literature, and has prevailed to our own day.
In what has been said up to this point, the
Eurely religious a.spect of the ancient sanctuaries as been properly kept in the foreground. But, in early times at least, these sanctuaries were also the seats of justice [Siiut), of which their priests
SAND
SANHEDRIN
397
were tlip ailmiiiistraturs. In general, where the consueuuliiiary hiw ol the clan ur irlbe proved inailcquate, a fresh tonili or Divine and authorita- tive decision was sought from J'".; representatives at the nearest sanctuary of repute. Tlie extant law-codes, further, make provision for the inter- position ill specilied cases of tile priests of the local sanctuaries in their judicial capacity — whence their peculiar title Elohim (see = n'?.-! in Or/. Heb. Zcr.), though .some of the passages in iiuestion (Ex. 21« 22»f- [lleb. "■] ; cf. W^« , 1 S 2-0 are of doubtful interpretation. More explicit are the reconiniendations of Deut. regulating the procedure of the supreme court at the central sanctuary (l)t 17"''). Passing from the law-codes to the history, we finil. as has been pointed out above, repealed eviileiice of the leailers of the people dispensing ju-stiee at the various sanctuaries, e.g. Mcses at Kn-niishpat or Kadesh (see Law in ()T, vol. iii. p. 07'), Deborah, Samuel, — who.se circuit included IJelhel, Gilgal. and Mizjiah, all notable sanctuaries (1 S 7"'), — and Saul (relT. above).
Every i)rimitive sanctuary, further, in virtue of its inviolability as the abode of deity, was an asylum or place of refuge. This riglit of a.sylum is expressly recognized in the oldest legislation, only cases of premeditated murder being excluded (Ex 21'» »; see GOKI,, vol. ii. p. 223f. ; ALT.vu. vol. i. p. "7»). The later institution of cities of refuge (see Refugk) was the necessary corollary of the destruction of the local sanctuaries.
For the so-called 'shekel of the sanctuary,' see MiiXEY (vol. iii. p. 422). A. R. S. KliNNEUY.
SAND (""n iniwt) consists of an aggregate of iiicolnrent grains of silex, generally mixed with others of different mineral substances, such as mira. felspar, and gems. It was a familiar object witii writers of the Bible, and is therefore used emblematically, the expression '.as the sand which is bv the seashore' being found in several pa.s.sages (in 22's Jos US 1 S l:;'-, 1 K4»'etc). The refer- ence is to the line of sandhills along the coast of the Mediterranean (see SEA (GREAT)) and Lower Egypt (Ex 2'-).
In the following pa.s.sages the word is tised to represent — (1) Xiimbcrli'mint^ss, vastHPss : the de- scendants of Abraham (Gn 22'", .Jer :',:i--, Ko 0^, lie 11'-); the store of corn gathered by .loseph in Egj-pt ((Jn 41*') ; the nations of Canaan (.Jos IP) ; the I'hilistines (1 S i;5'') ; the Lsraelites (2 S 1711, 1 K 4^'. Is 102-* 48'») ; the captives of the Chakhcans (Ilab P) ; Solomon's largeness of heart, i.f. wisdom (1 Iv429 [Ileb. 5']) ; (2) heaviness (Job 0', I'r 27') ; (3) an insecure foundation (Mt 7-'°).