Altars, Forms of
Altars, Forms of
In the preceding article the reader is furnished with all the positive information which we possess respecting the altars mentioned in Scripture; but as, with regard to material objects so frequently named as altars, we feel a desire to have distinct images in the mind, some further remarks respecting the forms which they probably bore, may not be unacceptable.
The direction to the Israelites, at the time of their leaving Egypt, to construct their altars of unhewn stones or of earth, is doubtless to be understood as an injunction to follow the usage of their patriarchal ancestors; and not to adopt the customs, full of idolatrous associations, which they had seen in Egypt, or might see in the land of Canaan. As they were also strictly enjoined to destroy the altars of the Canaanites, it is more than probable that the direction was leveled against such usages as those into which that people had fallen. The conclusion deducible from this, that the patriarchal altars were of unhewn stones or of earth, is confirmed by the circumstances under which they were erected, and by the fact that they are always described as being ‘built.’ The provision that they might be made of earth, applies doubtless to situations in which stones could not be easily obtained, as in the open plains and wildernesses. Familiar analogies lead to the inference that the largest stones that could be found in the neighborhood would be employed to form the altar; but where no large stones could be had, that heaps of smaller ones might be made to serve.
As these altars were erected in the open air, and were very carefully preserved, there is at least a strong probability that some of those ancient monuments of unhewn stone, usually called Druidical remains, which are found in all parts of the world, were derived from the altars of primitive times. These are diversified in their forms; and their peculiar uses have been very much disputed, it is admitted, however, that some of them must have been altars; but the difficulty is, to determine whether these altars are to be sought in the Cromlechs or the Kistvaens. It seems to us that the arguments preponderate in favor of the opinion that the Cromlechs are the representatives of the primitive altars, and that the Kistvaens (stones disposed in a chest-like form) are analogous to the arks of the Jewish ritual and of some of the pagan religions [ARK].
Fig. 28Cromlech
Cromlechs, as is well known, are somewhat in the form of a table, one large stone being supported, in a horizontal or slightly inclined position, upon three or more, but usually three stones, set upright. That they were used as altars is almost instinctively suggested to everyone that views them; and this conclusion is strengthened when, as is often the case, we observe a small circular hole through which probably the rope was run by which the victims, when slaughtered, were bound to the altar, as they were to the angular projections or ‘horns’ of the Jewish altar (Psa 118:27). It was natural that where a sufficiency of large stones could not be found, heaps of smaller ones should be employed; and that, when practicable, a large flat stone would be placed on the top, to give a proper level for the fire and the sacrifice. Such are the cairn-altars, of which many still remain; but as they are sometimes found in places where stones of large size might have been obtained, it seems that in later times such altars had a special appropriation; and that the sacred fires were burned on them, and sacrifices offered to Bel, Baal, or the Sun.
Fig. 29An altar made of smaller stones
The injunction that there should be no ascent by steps to the altar appears to have been imperfectly understood. There are no accounts or figures of altars so elevated in their fabric as to require such steps for the officiating priests; but when altars are found on rocks or hills, the ascent to them is sometimes facilitated by steps cut in the rock. This, therefore, may have been an indirect way of preventing that erection of altars in high places which the Scriptures so often reprobate.
Fig. 30Probable Jewish altar of burnt-offerings
It is usually supposed, however, that the effect of this prohibition was, that the tabernacle altar, like most ancient altars, was so low as to need no ascent; or else that some other kind of ascent was provided. The former is probably right, for the altar was but three cubits high, and was designed to be portable. There is one error in these and other figures of the Jewish altars composed from the descriptions; namely, with regard to the ‘horns,’ which were placed at the corners, called ‘the horns of the altar’ (Exo 27:2; Exo 29:12; 1Ki 2:28), and to which the victims were tied at the time of sacrifice. The word horn was applied by the Jews as an epithet descriptive of any point projecting in any direction after the manner of a horn (not necessarily like a horn in shape); and there is no reason to doubt that the horns of the successive altars of burnt-offerings resembled those corners projecting upwards which are seen in many ancient altars. These are shown in the view depicting the probable form of the Jewish altar of burnt-offerings.
Fig. 31Steps leading to altar
By the time of Solomon it appears to have been understood that the interdiction of steps of ascent did not imply that the altar was to be low, but rather that it was to be high, and that only a particular mode of ascend was forbidden. The altar of the temple was not less than ten cubits high, and some means of ascent must have been provided. The usual representations of Solomon’s altar are formed chiefly from the descriptions of that in Herod’s temple given by Josephus and the Rabbins; and although this last was almost one-third higher and larger than the other, it was doubtless upon the same model. The altar of the first temple had been seen, and could be described, by many of those who were present when that of the second temple was erected; and the latter was known to those by whom Herod’s altar was built. Very different figures, however, have been formed from these descriptions, and that which we here introduce is perhaps the best and most probable of them.
Altar of Incense
Fig. 32Altar of incense
The altar of incense, being very simple in its parts and uses, has been represented with so little difference, except in some ornamental details, that one of the figures designed from the descriptions may suffice.
Fig. 331, 2, 3. Greek. 4. Egyptian. 5. Babylonian. 6. Roman. 7, 8. Persian
It is not our object to describe the altars of other nations; but, to supply materials for comparison and illustration, a group of the altars of the principal nations of Oriental and classical antiquity is here introduced. One obvious remark occurs, namely, that all the Oriental altars are square or oblong, whereas those of Greece and Rome are more usually round; and that, upon the whole, the Hebrew altars were in accordance with the general Oriental type. In all of them we observe bases with corresponding projections at the top; and in some we find the true model of the ‘horns,’ or prominent and pointed angles.
Altar at Athens
St. Paul, in his admired address before the judges of the Areopagus at Athens, declares that he perceived that the Athenians were in all things too superstitious, for that, as he was passing by and beholding their devotions, he found an altar, inscribed, ‘To the Unknown God;’ and adds, with unexpected force, ‘Him whom ye worship without knowing, I set forth unto you’ (Act 17:22-23). The questions suggested by the mention of an altar at Athens, thus inscribed ‘to the unknown God,’ have engaged much attention. Different opinions have been entertained on the subject, and various conjectures made regarding it. No certain information, however, can now be obtained respecting the precise reference of the apostle, and we are content to rest in the conclusion of Professor Robinson: ‘So much at least is certain, that altars to an unknown god or gods existed at Athens. But the attempt to ascertain definitively whom the Athenians worshipped under this appellation must ever remain fruitless for want of sufficient data. The inscription afforded to Paul a happy occasion of proclaiming ‘the Gospel; and those who embraced it found indeed that the being whom they had thus ignorantly worshipped, was the one only living and true God.’