| cumstance which establishes an essential difference
between the religion of Israel—even at this stage —and the other popular religions so closely allied to it in many respects. Apart from the priests, of whose anointing and consequent filling with the spirit no evidence can be adduced for the pre-exilic period, all other organs of Jahweh are fitted for the exercise of their office by the inward working of His spirit. Such a working on seers and pro- phets, throwing them into an ecstatic condition, is known to heathenism as well. But it does not know that working of the spirit of God which im- Pele the ‘man of God’ to present himself before kings unsummoned, and by sharp condemnation of their sins to obtain satisfaction for outraged justice and morality. In this way Nathan and a become forerunners of the prophets proper, and, long before the day of the latter, prove that Jahweh is always and for all members of His people an absolutely moral Being. To recognize this truth and to impress it on all is the main task of those whom the spirit of Jahweh has con- stituted His organs. Once more we have to ask:
*Cf. J. Boehmer, Gottesgedanken in Israels Kénigtum,
Giitersloh, 1902; K. Budde, Die Schiitzung des Kinigtums im AT’, Marburg, 1903.
eee
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
RELIGION: OF ISRAEL 661
Ts anything like this even remotely conceivable in the religion of a Chemosh or a Milcom?
v. CULTUS AND MANNERS.—1. In the matter of the cultus, - some changes from the state of things in the preceding period must have been introduced in consequence of the above-mentioned taking over of the ancient Canaanite sanctuaries. The places of worship (or, what is the same thing for this period, places of sacrifice) are high places nip3 baméth),* that is, primarily, the hills and rising grounds in the neighbourhood of the parti- cular localities (so, ¢.g., 1 S 9!° 105), but afterwards standing also for places of sacrifice upon mountains, such as the Mount of Olives, Mt. Carmel, Mt. Tabor, all of which are mentioned upon occasion as places of worship. Hence the Syrians speak (1 K 20”) of Jahweh as ‘a god of the mountains,’ who can be combated with success only on the low ground (cf. also Gn 224, if the correct rendering there is ‘Upon the mountain Jahweh appears’). It was evidently a pre-Canaanite custom to com- plete the apparatus of a place of worship by pro- viding, in addition to the altar, a mazzebah and an *dsherah or sacred pole (see above, p. 620). Since the mazzébah was a pledge of the presence of the Deity, a béth ’élohim or shrine containing a Divine image was not indispensable. Such ‘high place temples’ appear, it is true, more frequently in later writers in the catalogue of Israel’s sins (1 K 13%, 2 K 17-5? 231), but in olden times (as the medium for obtaining oracles) they are men- tioned evenapart fromany connexion with ‘heights.’ In 1S 9”, again, we read of a lishkah, that 13,03) room at the place of sacrifice, in which the sacri- ficial meal was eaten. A further evidence that bamah might stand also for the sanctuary erected on the height is found in the frequent mention (1 K 117 14” ete.) of building as well as (2 K 238) pulling down the daméth. ‘The last-cited passage shows, moreover, that a bamah might stand on quite a small (artificial) height, else bamdth at the entrance of the door of Joshua the governor of the city could not be spoken of. On the other hand, 2 K' 23" shows that the ama is not identical with the altar. The latter, as we see from Ex 20%*-, might be built either of earth (7.e., probably, sods) or of stones; but the latter, to avoid desecra- tion, must not be dressed with iron tools. It was likewise forbidden to ascend the altar by steps, to prevent indecent exposure of one’s person. Both these regulations are plainly intended by way of protest against innovations that had crept in, and in favour of the ancient simple ritual usages, which were as yet quite uninfluenced by art and higher culture. It may be added that Ex 20 is irre- futable evidence that the author of the Book of the Covenant knew nothing of the requirement of one central sanctuary. :
2. The central feature of the cultus continued to be sacrifice. The original significance of the latter (cf. above, p. 618), as the sacral communion of the offerers with the Deity and with one another, still finds its only expression during this period in the form of the common sacrificial meals,t of which
* Cf. Piepenbring, art. ‘Histoire des lieux de cuite et du sacerdoce en Israel’ in Revue de ?' Hist. des Religions, Juill.- Aott, 1891; v. Gall, Altisrael. Cultstdtten, Giessen, 1898 [where 106 names are discussed]. ‘ eet
+ The obvious contradiction with the Deuteronomic legislation is sought to be removed in the MT of Ex 2024 by the reading
D parboa (‘in the whole place’), as if here too one central sanc- tuary were spoken of, But the whole context requires D'p"9D2 (‘in every place’), and this was still read by the LXX @ rayz? TOTD).
t These are called sometimes simply O°N3!, 4.¢. ‘slaughter- offerings’ intended to be eaten (Ex 1812, 2 S 1512 ef al.), or ony (Ex 2024, 18 1115 et ai.), but also, using the complete expression, 2ébahim shélamim, 1.e. ‘slaughter-offerings in the