Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums · 1928-01-01 · Heft 3 · p. Seite 324

324 Oa 1 Sam xiv 32—35 König׳ writes the gloss ״doch natürlicherweise damit das Blut an ihm dem Ewigen geweiht würde“. That this is wrong will be obvious to anybody who will carefully peruse pp 355 f of my article. It is an instance of a very usual phenomenon, viz., that a biblical Interpreter first reads into his text something which is not there, and then cites his interpretation to prove a pet theory. König’s discussion of Dt xii entirely overlooks the fact that the words ״as I commanded thee“ point to the continuation of preexisting commands, and not to the introduction of something new. On this see further below § 3 No. 2 §2.. Here König is now so very near my position that there is little for me to do except clear away some minor misunderstandings and emphasise our agreement on the main matter. I must recalt the fact that my article was written as a reply to Budde on the principal Wellhausen position with which König is now not in entire sympathy. Budde ridiculed the ״Versuche der Klassifizierung der Kultstatte“. ״That was necessary for the pure Wellhausenians because their contention was that there was a period in the history and the law in which many Kultstätte were allowed, followed by one in which all were illegitimate except the Jerusalem Temple. My answer is that there were altars of two kinds — cairn and horned — lawfully coexisting, each within its own sphere of Service. That involves a ״Klassifizierung6‘. I had pointed out that Ex xx 24—26 requires the material of cairn altars to be earth or unhewn st one, neither of which could give a horned altar. Yet we find horned altars side by side with cairn altars in the history. This contention had been cited but not met by König in the works to which I referred. Apparently he has now adopted my distinct.ion. For him as for me, the early law and history regard as lawful one central House of God with a horned altar, and a multitude of local and occasional cairn altars. He thus agrees with me against the pure Wellhausenians. What then is between us now? Only the fact that unlike me he has not attempted to explain what the relation between the two kinds of altars was. I must therefore ask him and the Wellhausenians to elucidate this matter. What was the sphere of utility of each kind of altar? Till he has fully explained his views on this matter he will not be able to Claim that he has fairly faced the facts and their necessary implications. On his minor criticisms of the points on p 359 few words are needed. On point 5 it would perhaps be well to add that the practice at horned altars compared with Ex xx 26 is an instance of the principle cessante ratione cessatetipsalex. It should be read in connection with point 81. . 1 In other words I think that if it were possible to summon the lawgiver before us and ask him what his meaning was, his answer would in modern parlance run somewhat as follows: ״My object was to prevent indecency in public worship. I have expressed it clearly. Note that I say ״thou shalt"not go up by steps on Mine altar that thy nakedness be not exposed“, not ״Thou shalt not go up on Mine altar that there may be no steps“. It was neither feasible nor desirable to change the dress of the whole people, and accordingly I had to provide that when an ordinary Israelite used an altar his rnovements should be such as not to offend againt the principle of decency. Owing to the characteristics of Hebrew idiom it was insufficient for me to say ״thou shalt not go up on Mine altar“. That could have been interpreted to me an that if a house was situated a few yards from an altar on a slightly lower level its owner could never visit the latter. Hence it was necessary to qualify the verb in a way that would render misapprehension impossible. To this end the phrase ״by steps“ was added, since that was the usual way of approaching a raised altar in my day. But my objection was not to steps as such; it was simply and solely to indecent exposure. I should not have cared a rap if an Israelite who wore breeclies had gone up to an altar by steps. In the case of great public offerings another consideration came into play. If a concourse of spectators Standing on a level were tö be able to witness them, elevation was inevitable. I therefore permitted the use of steps for the horned altar, but attained my object by making tlie priests wear breeches.