2213 should be studied in the critical ennninnf .It. ~ "n hi n epithets and the doctrine of hypostases see U.iusset. lU'lujiuii lies Judenthums, iv. chs. 2 and 6 (1903). Older monographs jn J. C. Wolfe, Curcn Philolog. et Crit. on Eev V.
B. W. Bacon. ALPH.EUS CAX^aios).— In the NT this name is Ixirne by (1) tlie father of the Levi who is cdiniiKinly 'identified with ISIatthew the Apostle (.Mk -J'-")'; (2) the father of the second James in the lists of the Apostles (xMt 10^ Mk 3'8, Lk 6>'', Ac l'-). The desire to connect as many of the Twelve as possible by ties of natural relationship has led some (e.g. Weiss) to identify the two. But in the lists Matthew and James are separated by Thomas in St. Mark and St. Luke ; and even in St. Matthew, where one follows the other, there is
46
ALTAR
ALTAE
no note that they were brothers, similar to that attached to the names of the sons of Zebedee.
The identification of (2) with the Clopas of Jn 19^ rests on two hypotheses : (a) The assumption that as a Mary is given as the mother of James, and consequently as the wife of Alphseus, she must be the same as Mary the wife of Clopas who stood by the Cross. Jerome {de Pei-pet. Virff. v. 16) adopted this argument. But Maiy is a name of far too common occurrence in the NT to make this theory of any value. ((3) The alleged deriva- tion of the names Alpha;us and Clopas from a common Aramaic original. But this has not been satisfactorily e.stablished : there is even a lack of agi"eement as to the form of the original. WH hold that its initial letter would be n, and print 'AX0a?os accordingly ; but Edersheim quotes the Babylonian Talmud to show that the letter would be N. Jerome, although predisposed by his view of the Brethren of the Lord in favour of finding the same man under both names, rejects the Hnguistie identification ; and the Syriac versions also represent them by difi'erent words. Delitzsch held Alphieus to be a Grecized form of an Aramaic word, but Clopa,s and Cleopas to be abbreviations of a Greek name Cleopatros (against this see Deissmann, Bible Studies, Eng. tr. p. 315 n.).
Nothing is known of either Alph^us beyond the name ; for such details as that (2) was the brother of Joseph, the reputed father of the Lord, stand or fall with his idcntificatioii with Clopas to whom they really beloii;;. S,-i' :irt. Ci.oi'AS, l.ol.iw.
LlTBRATUKE. — l.i ' ''' • I the
Lord' in his Cumi . . i : , ' '<i'i<iiis
on the Apost. A'l' . i^ i , 'Lj,..!, / / . / -■' ■ n> , . ',iNir.^, Introd. p. xxi;' L.lLK,huilu, Li./c; a,:d J,.,i,.i ,J ./.,■.. tin- Messiah, bk. v. eh. Ifi ; Anili-Lws, Lij'c nf ui'i- l.nnl n/ifu Earth, 114, 115 ; Weiss, Li/eqf Christ, bk. iV. cli. 7 lEii.-. ti.l. C. T. DiMONT.
ALTAR (dmiaar-fipiov, a word of Helleni.sti(^ usiiije, applied to Je^vish altars as distinguished from /Su/i6s, the ordinary word for heathen altars [cf. Ex 34«, Nu 231, Dt 7^ Ac 17-^]).— The raised structure on which sacrifices and oblations were presented. As used in the Jewish ritual, the word was applied not only to the great altar of burnt- ofiering before the temple, but also to the altar of incense within the holy place, and on ono or two occasions even to the table of shewbread (cf. Mai I'-i^ Ezk 41=-). A\'hen no further specification was added, it denoted the altar of bumt-ofl'ering, the altar /car' i^oxh"-
The Jewish altar of Christ's day was the last term of a long development, the history of which remains still in many points obscure. In the primitive Semitic worship it seems that no altar, properly speaking, was in use ; unless we choose to give that name to the sacred stone or pillar beside which the victim was slain, and on which the blood or fat of the sacrifice was smeared (cf. 1 S 14^^ 6'^- ", 1 K V). In such cases the victims were slain (or slain and burnt), not on the sacred stone, but beside it. No doubt the significant part of the ofi'ering lay in the smearing of the stone, which was more or less identified with the Deity (On 281"""), and might thus be considered as both altar and temple. Later the burning of the victim came to be an integral part of the ceremony, and the hearth of burning acquired more importance. The hearth was originally the bate ground, or a rock ( Jg 6'-" IS'"- "'), but later it was artificially formed. In the earliest law (Ex 20^-^) it was jnest^riln-.i that the altar should be of earth, or of unhcw u stone, and be made without steps, evidently a rmn sion to a simpler custom than prevailed in many ■! the Canaanite altars, or in the altars of the liil j)laces. That the stone was not to be hewn id i\ also be connected with the primitive idea that I li> deity which inluibited the .stone might l:>e oll'cnckil
or injured by the dressing. Tliese regulations were respected in a modified degree in the building of the altars of the temple at Jenisalem. The altar built by Ahaz, on an Assyrian model, was probably designed in total disregard of the early pre.scri2)tions ; but the later altars endeavoured to conform somewhat to the original ideal. Thus the altars of the second temple — both that of Zerubbabel and that built by Judas Maecabaeus — were built of unhewn stone. In all probability there were steps up to the altar of the first temple * (cf. the altar of Ezekiel's vision [43"], which had steps on the eastern side) ; but the altars of the second temple were ascended by means of a gradual acclivity.