Altar (Hastings' Dictionary)

i. Altar is the invariable rendering in the UT of •:;;? (Aram, njno Ezr 7"). and in the NT of OvjiaoTJipLov. In AV it also occurs as tlie rendering of Sxnn (Ezk 43''), RV 'upper a.', and of '>»<ni< (Ezk 43"»>- '« — Kethib Wik), KV 'a. hearth.' In the NT pu/xis is found once (Ac 17^) in the sen.se of a heathen a. This distinction is very clearly brought out in 1 Mao 1'" ' they did sacrihce upon the idol altar {(tI jhv pufiiy) whith was upon the altar of God (t. SvaiaaTtiplov).'

Simi- larly the Vulg. and early Lat. Fathers avoid the use of ara, preferring allarin and altare. Another designation is met with, viz. jn^c', prop. ' table,' Ezk41=»44'«, Mai V-". It would also seem that the appellation n??, prop. ' high place,' may in some cases oe used to expre.ss 'a.,' as Jer 7" (LXX Tin ^uiihv Tou T40(f9), 2 K 23' (but here text is doubt- ful), etc. C')3^ Is 65' is wrongly rendered in AV 'a" of brick'; RV ' "Pon the bricks.' In one or two places in the OT CJ;?

of the present MT seems an alteration from an original njiv;. So dearly Gn 33*, and most probably 2 K 12"'. On the other hand, naio shoulcl perha]>s be restored in 2 K lu" (Stade in ZA TW. v. pp. 278, 289 f.) ii. Altars in Preiii.storic Timk.s.— According to the primitive conceptions of the nomad Semites, the presence of a deity was implied in every spot thiit attracted them by its water or shade, and in every imposing landm.ark that guiiled them in their wanderings.

Every well and grove, every mountain and rock, had its presiding deity. The humble olfering of the worshipper could be cast into the well, exposed upon the rock, or hung upon the sacred tree. It wa-s thus brought into imme- diate contact with the numen therein residing. A great atep in advance was taken when it was con- UL pUc« of ilftughter.'

ceived that the deity rould not only reside in such objects of nature s own creation as those above 8i)eci(ied, but could be persuaded ' to come and take for his embodiment a structure set up for him by the worshipper ' (W. R. Smith, lid. Sem. p. 1S9). The consideration of this all-important advance belongs elsewhere ; it is sullicient to note here that recent researches, esp. those of Well- liausen and W. K.

Smith, have abundantly proved that the heathen Semite regarded the stone or cairn which he had him.self erected, as a dwelling- place of a deity, a Beth-el ('jx'n'j, cf. Gu 28"; for the signilicance of this passage, see Pill.\r), a name which passed, through the Plui'nicians as intermediaries, to the Greeks (^airiiXioi-) and Romans [batulus). Such a stone was termed by the Arabs, in the days before Islam, nu.«6 (pi. ansab), a word identical in ori^n and signification with the Heb.

njiD (AV 'pillar'). Beside it the victim was slaughtered ; the blood was either poured over the stone, or with part of it the stone was smeared, while the rest wsis poured out at its base, the essential idea in this primitive rite being that in this way the blood was brought into im- mediate contact with the deity who, for the time being, had taken up his abode in the stone. Now there can be no doubt that the same primi- tive ideas were shared by the ancestors of the Heb- rews.

Among them, too, the nusb or mazzeba must have been the prototype of the sacrificial a. ' The rude Arabian usage is the primitive type out of which all the elaborate a. ceremonies of the more cultivated Semites grew ' (Rel. o/iSem. 1st ed. p. 184. See also Sacrifice). Even in hist, times we find among the Hebrews a survival of the primitive ritual above described.

In the narrative of the battle of Michmash, Saul is shocked at the unseemly haste of bis warriors in eating flesh ' with the blood,' and orders a great stone to be brought at which the beasts might be duly slain and their blood poured out at the extemporised altar. The next important step, the advance from the a. as a sacred stone to receive the blood of the victim to the a.

as a hearth on which the flesh of the victim was burned in whole or in part, belongs to the history of Sackifice (which see, and cf. Smith, liel. Sem. p. 35811".) If the above is a correct account of the evolution of the a. among the western Semites, the ditVer- entiation of pillar and a. must, as regards the iken place historic period. This seems the obvious conclusion inhabitants t pillar of Pal.

, have taken place in the pre- from the existence, even at the present daj', of immense numbers of megalithic monuments, the .so-called menhirs and dolmens. These charac- teristic remains of antiquity, so numerous in Moab and in the W. Hauran, must undoubtedly have played an important part in the religious rites of those who reared them, and whom, for the present, we may assume to liave been of a Sem. stock.

The ' cup-hullows" on the table-stone of the dolmens, connected in many ca-ses by a network of channels, must have been destined to receive the blood of the victim.* 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'^"). Of the other a made by Ahaz we know nothing, nor of those set up by later kings (2 K 23' luc. cit.) As to the a. to Baal which Ahab erected in Samaria (1 K 16'-), we may assume that it re- sembled the a' erected by his Phoen. neighbours to the same deity (cf. Perrot et Chipiez, Hist, de I' Art dans I'Antuj. iii. fig. 192 a.TiA passim). iv.

Post-Deuteronomic Altars. — The sanctu- aries and a", sanctioned, as we have seen, by the oldest law-code, ceased to be legitimate on the adoption of the code of Deut. (Dt 12 ff.) The centralisation of the caitus, which was the chief aim of the Deut. legislation, seems to have been attempted under Hezekiah (2 K 18^), but it must be admitted that the complete abandonment of the local bdmuth was never unfait accompli until after the discipline of the ExUe (1 K 22*», 2 K 15").

In theory, however, the a', whether ' upon the hills and under every green tree,' or at places which had been seats of worship since the conquest, were no longer legitimate ; for sacrifice, as now for the first time officially distinguished from slaughter (Dt 12'^), could only be offered with acceptance on the a. of the central sanctuary at Jerusalem. It is not impossible that, as Conder has suggested (see ref.

above), it is to the reforming zeal of Josiah that we owe the fact that not a single dolmen has been met with in S. Pal. (cf. Cheyne, Jeremiah, p. 60). The history of the a., therefore, from this time forward is merged in the history of the temple. It must suffice here to note that, as soon as practi- cable, the returned exiles built the a. on its former site (Ezr 3^), which a. continued in use until its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mac 1").

Having by this act of sacrilege been rendered unfit for further use, it was taken down and another built in its stead (1 Mac 4"'^-). The a. of Herod's temple was the last built on Jewish soil. Accord- ing to Jos. ( iVars, V. v. 6) it was built, in harmony with the ancient prescription, of unhewn stones. One other a. meets us in the history of the Jews ; this is the a. erected by Onias IV. in his temple at Leontopolis in Egypt (Jos. Wars, vil. x. 3 ; yf nt. XIII. iii.

31), founding on a mistaken interpretation of Is igi". The a. of bumt-ofTering and the a. of incense, which play so important a part in the ritual legis- lation of the Priests' Code (P), will be diseus.sed in detail in the article TABERNACLE. See also Temple. V. The Altar as Asylum. — An important function of the a. among the Hebrews remains to be • VV. R. Smith's \iew, that 'it is very doubtful whether tiiere wtu* in the rtrst temple any other brazen a.

than the two brazen pillars, Jacliin and Boaz,' is not supported by sufficient evidence. It is, besides, ditticult to see why only one of the two pillars should have had, on this theory, the functions of an a. assij^ned 10 it iRel. Sem. I pp. 358-358, and Not« L. tebB.X AL-TASHHETH AMALEK, AIMALEKITES noticed. The earliest Icfrislation presupposes and oonBrms tlie sanctity of tlie a. as an asylum. The right of asylum, however, is there limited to cases of accidental homicide (Ex 21'^- ").

This use of the a., which is not confined to the Sem. peoples, is also a survival of the primitive idea of the a. as the temporary abode of a deity. In clasping the a., the fugitive was placing himself under the im- mediate protection of the deity in question. In this connexion, as well as in regard to an im- portant part of the fully, developed a. ritual (ef. Lv 4**-). the horns of the a. are esteemed the most sacred part of the whole.

It is difficult, however, to see how these coulii have formed part of the more ancient a. as prescribed in the Book of the Covenant (see above) ; yet their presence is amply attested in later times (cf. Am 3", Jer 17', and the incidents recorded in I K !*"• 2^). The origin and primary significance of the horns are still obscure. Most recent writers seek to trace a connexion between them and the worship of J" in the form of a young bull (Kuenen, Bel. of Isr. i. 326 ; Stade, Benzinger, Nowack).

In any case they are not to be regarded as mere append- ages, but as an integral part of the a. (see Dill- mann on Ex 27^). The view that they were originally projections to which the victims were bound, has no better support than the corrupt passage, Ps US'" (for which see Comm.) The comparison of the ' horns ' of the Heb. with those of tne Greek a. (evKtpao^ fiiaiiU) seems misleading, since the latter rather resembled the volutes of the Ionic capital (cf. art.

ara in Daremberg et Saglio, Dktionnaire etc., figs. 410, 418, 422). The famous stele of Teima, on the otlier hand, shows the 'horns' rising from the corners of the a., and curved like those of an ox (see Perrot et Chipiez, op. cit. tome iv. p. 392, Eng. tr. [see below] vol. i. p. 304). LlTlRATURR. — Of the earlier literature the standard worit is John Spencer's De legibut Heb. rUuatibiu, etc. IGSii. Of the modeni works the most important are the works on Hebrew antiquities by De Wette.

Kwald (Eng. tr. 187(1), Nowack (Ilrh- raUche Arcbdolnqie, 1894, lland li. SacralaltfTthiinier, § 73ff.), and Benzinger (//ci. ^rcAtw>io^, 1894, g 52, Die altisrael. Heilifj- thiimer, etc.), and the more general treatises of Wellhauaen {Skizz^n mid Vararbeiten, iu.. JUste arab. Ueulentbunu, 18S7), and. In particular, W. H. Smith's Reliijion o/ Ihe Semitet, 1889 (2lKl ed. 1895). The student should also consult the standard work of Perrot and Chipiez, UisUnre de VArt dana CAntiifuUi. tome iii.

J'hHiiciet lv. Judie, etc. (Kng. tr. iiwf. of Art in rkccnicia, i vols. 1888, Bitt. <>f A. in Jvdea etc., 2 vols. 1890). A. K. S. Kknnedy. AL-TASHHETH (m:^!f^H, AV Al-Uschith), Pss 67. 58. 59. 65 (titles). See Psalms. ALTOGETHER is now only an adv., but was at first an adj., being simply a stronger 'all.' As an adj. it is found in Ps 39 ' Verily every man at his best state is a. vanity ' ; Is 10 ' Are not my ItT the princes a. (RV 'all of them') kinjjs,' and perhaps Nu 16".

Of its use as an adv. noticeable examples are Jer 30", where ' I will not leave thee a. un- punished' is given in RV ' I will in no wise leave thee unpunished ' ; Ac 26-'*, where ' Imth almost nnd a.' is in RV ' whether with little or with much ' after the Gr. ; and 1 Co 5'°, wIutc ' not a.' (Gr. oi' irdiTw!) is taken by commentators in two direclly ojiii. ■enses, either ' not wholly,' or ' not at all ' ; RV gives the first in text, the second in marg. J. Hastings.