Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums · 1928-01-01 · Heft 3 · p. Seite 325

325 It should also be remarked that covenants between God and Israel were exceptional matters governed by covenant procedure and do not afford clear guidance as to what happened in ordinary sacrifice at cairn altars. On point 9 see my ״Altars of the OT“ 4 f. The words of Dt xii are really quite plain. The blood would necessariJy fall like water on the earth in such a slaughter as Schumacher describes (p 355). Thus there is no justification for reading into 1 Sam xiv 32—35 a statement that blood was tossed against the stone. We do not know what prec-isely was intended in Dt xxvii 6 ff but that was a case of priestly sacrifice. Quite possibly they sprinkled the blood. If so, the wording of point .9 should be alte red to except covenants between God and Israel. But in all ordinary cases Dt xii 24 applied. In what follows König seems to overlook the fact that there was a time when he opposed attempts to classify the altars. If he has now changed his attitude, so much the better. But if he ״and countless others“ knew all about the two kinds of altars, how comes it that with his prodigious knowledge of the writings of the Wellhausen school, he can point to no single passage in their whole literature in which the distinction is recognised? And why did Weilhausen and all his followers base their entire reconstruction of the history of Israel on the assumption that all altars were on the same level of legality or illegality for all purposes, and that the only question was whether several altars or only one were permissible? § 3• 1. König quotes Dt xii 2—4 and interprets the words ״ye shall not do so to the Eternal your God“ as meaning ״nichtsolltihrdie Art der Kanaaniter, an vielen Orten und mit Verwendung von Gottesbildern Kultus zu treiben, n a ch ah m e n“. I agree with the words he has spaced, but the others do not seem to me necessarily to represent the true meaning. Nor does he accept my view that the lawgiver is thinking of the pilgrim. The following considerations are material. (a) The reference certainlv is to Contemporary Ganaanite practice. What was its nature? So far as we can restore it from the sources and the survivals in the Semitic religion of today, it was dual. Some sacrifice was local, the rest at particular spots (see pp 359—361 and ״Altars“ pp 18—22). Once we know that, what is the natural implication of verses 2—4? Is the lawgiver not thinking of organised shrines with heathen accessories rather than of sacrifices which a man would bring on e. g-, laying* a foundation stone or finishing a new house? In 5—7 there can be no doubt that he is speaking only of pilgrimage worship. And that passage is enacted in Opposition to the practices condemned in 2—4. The natural interpretation is that he is opposing like to like, the Israelite pilgrimage to the Canaanite, not like to unlike, the Hebrew pilgrimage to the Canaanite local worship. (b) The word מקום appears to be used in this chapter in its technieal sense of shrine, hallowed place of worship, rather than in that of place generally, which is here represented by ״thy gates“. The lawgiver has made his own terminology, and it is for us to try and understand it in the sense he intended. Consequently in e. g., 13 f the meaning is ״You are to bring the specified sacrifices to the shrine of the religious Capital, not to any other shrine“. That does not touch local sacrifice, which was not to be brought to any shrine at all, but offered at a local altar. (c) Local worship is spoken of as ״in (all) thy gates“ in contrast to the two other phrases ״the place which the Eternal shall choose“ and the ״places“ of the nations. When, therefore, we find (ver 13) ״any place which thou shalt see“, we cannot regard it as the equivalent of ״thy gates“. Had the local worship been meant, the latter expression should have been used. But ״place“ at once suggests shrine of pilgrimage, and the addition ״which thou shalt see“ reinforces this view. It is natural of a traveller passing through the 1 and That is why Aaron could be said tocomedown from the altar (Lev ix 22), and why Ezekiel, who, of couse, understood me perfectly, gave his altar steps.“ I should add that I do not agree with König’s dictum ״denn der Altar ist ein Vertreter des Ewigen“.