from the cases in which the bamoth were in valleys
(Jer. vii. 31, xix. 2, 5), in cities (I Kings xiii. 32;
II Kings xvii. 9, 29, xxiii. 5), in the temple (Jer.
vii. 31; Ezek. xvi. 34), at the entrance to the city
(II Kings xxiii. 8), or near the city (I Sam. ix. 25,
x. 5). In these cases the bamah must have been
an artificial mound, perhaps resembling on a small
scale the Babylonian ziggurat (cf. the notice of the
Phenician coin, ut sup.). It is to be noted that in
some cases these ziggurats bore the name of moun
tain or hill, thus revealing the idea which under
lay their construction. This artificial construction
is made quite clear by the cases in which the bamah
is distinguished from the hill on which it stood (I Kings xi. 7, xiv. 23; Ezek. vi. 3). The accessories of the high places were the mazzebah, a stone pillar (see MEMORIALS AND SACRED STONES);the asherah (q.v.), a wooden post or pole; the altar (q.v.); often images of some description (see IMAGES AND IMAGE WORSHIP, I., and cf. II Chron. xiv. 3); Ephod and Teraphim (qq.v.; cf. Judges viii. 27, xvii. 5; I Sam. xxi. 9); often a sacred tree (I Sam. xxii. 6); a structure like a house or shrine, cf. the " houses of high places " (I Kings xii. 31, xiii. 32; II Kings xxiii. 19). A house for the ark is indicated at Shiloh (I Sam. iii. 3), and one at Nob (I Sam. xxi. 9), while at these places were probably deposited sacred trophies, e.g., of war (cf. the last passage cited). The attendants were kohanim, " priests " (I Kings xii. 32, xiii. 2, 32), called also kemarim (II Kings xxiii. 5); kedheshim and kedheshoth, " male and female diviners," perhaps in the latter case prostitutes (Hos. iv. 14; Dent. xxiii. 18; I Kings xiv. 24, xv. 12), and prophets (I Sam. x. 5, 10). The practises indicated for these places by Hosea are festivals, joyous gatherings of the family or clan, while the individual was not prohibited from attending, with sacrifices and libations, offerings of corn, wine, oil, flax, wool, and fruits; licentious intercourse was also practised here, since female devotees were attached to the shrines; divination was common and Mutilations (q. v.) occurred (Hos. ii. 15, 17, ix. 4; cf. Dent. lxii. 5 8, 11).
The number of high places used by the Hebrews is perhaps not more than hinted at in the Old Testament. With those already named, high places were possibly, probably, or certainly located at Bochim (Judges ii. 5), Ophrah (vi. 24 26, viii. 27),
Dan (xviii. 30), Shiloh (xviii. 31), 4. Their Bethel (xx. 18; II Kings xxiii. 15),
Number Mizpeh (Judges xi. 11 12, xx. 1; cf.
and I Sam. vii. 9), Kirjath jearim (" in
Location. the hill," I Sam. vii. 1), Ramah (I Sam.
vii. 5, 16 17, ix. 12), Gibeah (x. 5, 13), Gilgal (x. 8, xi. 5, xv. 21), Bethlehem (xvi. 2 sqq., xx. 6), Nob (xxi. 1 2), Hebron (II Sam. xv. 7); Olivet (xv. 30 32), Gibeon (xxi. 6; according to the correct reading cf. H. P. Smith's commentary on the passage, New York, 1899 the Gibeonitea crucified the descendants of Saul on Mt. Gibeon " before the face of Yahweh," showing that a sanctuary was located there; cf. also I Kings iii. 3 sqq., " the great high place "), an unnamed hill near Jerusalem (I Kings xi. 7), Carmel (I Kings xviii. 19, 30; Vespasian is said to have offered sacrifice there), Tabor (Hos. v. 1), and Gerizim (Josephus, Ant., XI. viii. 2, 4). How continuously these places were used is indicated not only by the detail preceding (showing that they were employed by the patriarchs, by Moses and Joshua, by the leaders and people in the time of the Judges, of Samuel, and of Saul), but also by the cases still to be cited. High places were erected by Solomon (I Kings iii. 3 sqq.; II Kings xxiii. 12 13), were used in the especially significant reigns of Rehoboam (I Kings xiv. 23), Jeroboam (xii. 31 32, xiii. 2, 32 33), and Asa (xv. 14); Elijah bewails the destruction of the Yahweh altars (xix. 10, 14);
High PlacesTHE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 278
High Priest these sacred places were still employed under Je
hoshaphat (xxii. 43), by Jehoash, who was under
the tutelage of Jehoiada (II Kings xii. 3), Amaziah
(xiv. 4), Azariah (xv. 4), Jotham (xv. 35), Ahaz
(xvi. 4), Manasseh (xxi. 3), and presumably Amon
(xxi. 20 21). The first thoroughgoing attempt at
abolishment of these ancient seats of worship was
under Josiah, yet Ezek. vi. 3 7 shows that they
continued after the promulgation of the Deutero
The matter of the high places is important not
only for itself but for its bearing upon the date
and authorship of the Pentateuch (see HEXATEUCH).
Into this connection come not merely the sanc
tuaries which were technically high places, but the
entire circle of places of sacrifice outside the temple
after Solomonic times. Within the
g. High Pentateuchal codes themselves three
Places situations appear. (1) Ex. xx. 24
in Codes clearly recognizes the legitimacy of a
and plurality of places of worship, and this
History. is what appears in history until Josi
ah's destruction and defilement of the
sanctuaries outside the temple and is echoed in Eli
jah's lament and his practise at Carmel (I Kings
xviii. 30, " repaired the altar of the Lord which
was broken down "). (2) Deuteronomy (xii. 4
7, xiv. 22 23, xv. 19 20, xvi. 1 2, xviii. 8, xxvi. 2,
etc.) regards one sanctuary and one alone as sacred
and legitimate for purposes of worship (contrast
the use of the phrase " the place which the Lord
your God shall choose " in these passages with the
phrase " in all places where I record my name "
of Ex. xx. 24). (3) The Priest Code assumes that
there is but one sanctuary and legislates for it.
With this diverse usage history seems to accord.
The Judges erect altars, Samuel officiates at many
sites, Solomon's high places were not all the loci of
ziah, Azariah, and Jotham, as well as the evil kings,
used them. The idea underlying the use of the
many altars seems to be that " the whole land,
being Israel's possession, is Jehovah's house, peo
ple are convinced that they may worship him at
any place within it at which he may make himself
'known " (H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology, p.
209, Edinburgh, 1895; cf. Hos. viii. 3 sqq.; 11
Kings v. 17). The author and editors of the Books
of Samuel record the continued employment of the
many altars and high places without condemning
it. The Books of Kings, beginning their narrative
practically with the reign of Solomon, assume the
Deuteronomic position and denounce worship at
these places in spite of the fact that they contain
the story of Elijah and record that pious kings wor
shiped there, while the author excuses prior use
of the bamoth because the temple was not yet built
(I Kings iii. 2). Hezekiah was apparently the first
king who attempted to do away with a cult con
demned by the author of Kings (II Kings xviii.
4)*, and Manasseh's reign saw a very vigorous re
* The reform of Hezekiah is doubted by some scholars on
the ground that II Kings xviii. 4, 32, xou. 3 are late, and
that the account of the reformation of Josiah seems to imply
no earlier efforts.
nascence of the cult. These historical facts are explained in two ways. (1) Those who hold to the substantially Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch regard the cult as the result of a defiance of the Deuteronomic and priestly codes, the persistent wrongdoing of a perverse nation. But this still leaves unexplained Ex. xx. 24. (2) Those who deny Mosaic authorship to the Pentateuch and place the Deuteronomic Code in the seventh century affirm the legitimacy of the high places until that code was written, some time before 822. They regard that code as caused by the repulsion produced in the prophetic mind by the debased syncretism of the worship of Yahweh with Canaanitic practises, and explain the renewal of the cult under Manasseh as expressing not only the personal will of that king, but as a response to the demands of the populace who repelled what seemed an attack upon their religion in favor of the royal temple at Jerusalem. The unity of worship commanded in the Deuteronomic Code and assumed in the Priest Code is not that of Isaiah, who predicted an altar to Yahweh in Egypt (Isa. xix. 19); nor, from the standpoint of history, that of Jeremiah, who speaks of Shiloh as the place where Yahweh set his name " at the first " (Jer. vii. 12, 14) and employs the a fortiori argument that if Shiloh could not escape, surely Jerusalem cannot; nor of Amos, who speaks of the desolation of the high places as a part of the punishment of the people (vii. 9); nor of Hosea, whose complaint, according to modern commentators, is not that the people worshiped at the high places, but that they practised there abominable things (chap. iv.), just as the feast days, new moons, and sabbaths are not in themselves vicious but only occasions of wickedness (ii. 11 13); and so things which the Deuteronomic Code comes to prohibit, but which throughout prior periods had been used without consciousness of wrong, are to be removed or destroyed not as prohibited but as a punishment (iii. 4). The pre Deuteronomic prophetic denunciation is therefore grounded not upon the inherent illegality of the high places as loci of worship, but upon the idolatry, confusion of worship, abominations, and human sacrifices which were practised there (cf. Jer. vii. 31, xi. 13, xix. 5).
That, from the time of the establishment of the temple cult at Jerusalem, a tendency would be established toward centralization of worship there was from the nature of the case to be expected from the fact that the cult was, under direct royal patronage. That such centralization did not mature earlier shows how strong must 6. Opposing have been the sentiment of regard in
Interests the minds of kings, priests, and people
and Ideas. for the shrines hallowed by the devo
tion and example of the patriarchs and
heroes of history whose names were associated with
those places. It was to be expected that the pres
ence of the ark first at Shiloh, then at Jerusalem,
would exalt those sanctuaries above the rest. Yet
prophets and godly kings knew of no obligation to
worship only at Jersualem. What was a priori
likely to lead to the discrediting of the bamoth and
concentration of worship in the capital was the in
279 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA $fsh places
High Priest troduction of foreign cults as when Solomon built
high places for Chemosh and Molech (I Kings xi.
7) and for Ashtoreth (II Kings xxi. 3), or as when
Ahab built altars for Baal (I Kings xvi. 31 32)
with practises and suggestions alien to the pure
worship of Yahweh and tending to confuse him in
person and in conception with other gods or to sub
BIBLIOORAPBY: On i§ 1 3: H. Ewald, Die Alterthiimer des
Volkes Israel, pp. 156 174, 420 sqq., Gottingen, 1886,
Eng. transl., pp. 117 sqq., 366 sqq., Boston, 1876; K. F.
Keil, Handbuch den biblischen Archddopie, pp. 451 454,
Frankfort, 1875; W. von Baudissin, Studien cur semiti
echen Religionspeschichte, ii. 143 sqq., 231 aqq., Leipsie,
1878; B. Stade, Geschichts des Volkes Israel, i. 448 467,
Berlin, 1887; F. F. von Andrian, H4hencultus ariatiacher
and europ6ischer Volker, Vienna, 1891; R. Beer, Heilipe
HBhen den Grieehen and Romer, ib. 1891; M. Ohnefalseh
Riehter, Kupros, die Bibel and Homer, pp. 234 238, Her
En, 1893; H. Schultz, Alttestamentlirhe Theolopie, G5t
tingen, 1896, Eng. tranel., London, 1892; H. B. Greene,
in The Biblical World, ix (1897), 329 340; R. Smend,
Ld irbuch den allkgtamenaicAen Relipionspeschichte, Frei
burg, 1899; E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, London, 1903;
S. 1. Curtiss, Primitive Semitic Religion Today, pp. 133
143, Chicago, 1902; G. Dalman, Petra and seine Felaheilip
thtimer, Leipsic, 1908; Bensinger, Archdolopie, pp. 364
383, ed. of 1894; Nowack, Arddolopie, ii. 1 25.
On i § 4 10: B. Ugolino, Thesaurus antiquitatum saerarum, x. 559 sqq., 34 vols., Venice, 1744 1769 (collects the rabbinical remarks on the subject); M. L. de Wette, Einleitunp in das Alto Testament, i. 223 261, 285 299, Halle, 1806; G. L. Bauer Baschreibunp der pottesdienstlichen Verfassunp der alten Mebraer, ii. 1 143, Leipsie, 1806; C. P. W. Gramberg, Kritiache Gexhichte der Religionsideew des Alten Testaments, i. 5 94, Berlin, 1829; F. C. Movers, Kritieche Untarsuchunge» Uba die biblisehe Chronik, Bonn, 1834 J. F. L. George, Die allffen jitdisrhen Pests, pp. 38 45, Berlin, 1835; J. L. SealschOts, Dos mosaische Reckk pp. 297 306, Berlin, 1853; idem, Archdoiogie der Hebrtter, i. 233 236, ib. 1855; E. Riehm, Die Gesetzgebund Mosis in Lands Moab, pp. 24 31, 89 93, Gotha, 1854; F. Block, Einleitung in das alfe Testament, pp. 188 190, 295 299, Berlin, 1860; M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der hebrdisrh j11diwhan A rch4olopi4, ed. RBbiger, pp. 274 275, 327 329, Leipsie, 1864; K. H. Graf, Die peschichtlichen BGcher des Alton Testaments pp 51 66, 126138, ib. 1866; H. Pierson, Ds Tempel fe Silo, in ThT, i (1867), 425 457; T. Ndldeke, Kritik des Alton Testaments, pp. 127 128, Kiel, 1869; D. B. von Haneberg, Die relipitBuch der Urpesehichte Israels, pp. 153 154, Strasburg, 1874; A. Kuenen, The Religion o/ Israel, i. 80 82, ii. 25 26, 166 168, London, 1874; B. Duhm, Die Theolapie der Propheten, pp. 47 54, Bonn, 1875; J. Emend Moses aped prophetas pp. 49 63, Halle, 1875; L. 8einecke, Gesckichte des Volkes Israel, pp. 159 167, Gottingen, 1876; A. Kohler, Lehrbuch der biUischen Geachichte des Alton Testaments, ii. 1014, Erlangen, 1877; J. Wellhausen, Geschirhts leraele, i. 17 53, Berlin, 1878; idem, Prolegomena, pp. 17 51 of Eng. tranel.; C. R. Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, pp. 304 310, London, 1880; C. Clermont Ganneau, in Survey of Western Palestine, t,. 325, London, 1881; G. F. Oehler, Theolopie des Alten Testaments, vol. i., Stuttgart, 1891, Eng. transl., New York, 1883; A. Schlatter, Zur Topographie and GesehW to Paldstinae, pp. 62 85, Stuttgart, 1893; A. van Hoonacker, Le Lieu du cults dons la l6pislation rituelle des Hebreux, Ghent, 1894; H. A. Poels, Le Sanclusire de Kirjat"earim, Louvain, 1894; Smith, OTJC, pp. 236 sqq., 275, 360; idem, Rat. of Sem., pp. 470 sqq.; A. von Gall, Altisraelitische KultatBUen, Giessen, 1898: DR, ii. 381 383; EB, ii. 2064 70; JR, vi. 387 389. Besides the foregoing, the reader should consult the commentaries on the Biblical books involved in the discussion, particularly: those on the Pentateuch by Dillmann, Leipsie, 1875 sqq.; on Deuteronomy by P. Kleinert, Bielefeld, 1872, and by Driver, New York, 1895; on Judges, by Berthesu, Leipsic, 1883, by Moore, New York, 1895, and by Budde, Gottingen, 1897; , on Samuel by Klostermann, Munich, 1887, by Thenius, ed. LShr, Leipsic, 1898, and by H. P. Smith, New York, 1899; on the text of Samuel, by Welihausen, Gottingen, 1871• by Driver, London, 1890, and by Budde, in SBOT, 1894; on Kings, by Klostermann, Munich, 1887, by Bensinger, Gottingen, 1899, and by Kittel, ib. 1899; and on Chronicles, by Bertheau, Leipsie, 1873. Inasmuch as the subject of the high places furnishes a part of the material which is a point of attack and defense in the Pentateuchal discussion, the literature under HEzATEucu will furnish additional matter concerning the subject.
Official Names, Character, and Robes according to P
0 1). The Office in Other Documents (§ 2). The Office in Historical and Prophetic Writings (§ 3). The Office in Postexilic Times (§ 4).
In the Old Testament the high priest is called either hakkohen, " the priest " (e.g., Lev. iv. 6; cf. I Chron. xvi. 39; Neh. xiii. 4), or hakkohen haggadhol, "the great priest" (e.g., Lev. xxi. 10; Neh. iii. 1), or hakkohen hammashiah, " the anointed priest " (e.g., Lev. iv. 3); also hakkohen harosh, " the chief priest " (e.g., II Kings xxv. 18), and once simply harosh, " the chief " (If Chron. xxiv. 6). The data concerning his office and position are contained in the priestly document in the Penta
Hflesiua THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 280
teuch (see HExATEUCH). According to this, Aaron and his sons (really the descendants of his
two sons Eleazar and Ithamar) are i. Official alone the legitimate possessors of the
Names, priestly office; among these Aaron
Character, as high priest took the leading place,
and Robes and was the type of official whose
according function at his death was to be asto P. sumed by one of his sons (Lev. xvi.
32), probably by the first born (cf. Num. xxv. 11), but, in case the high priest had no sons, by his oldest brother, as happened in Maccabean times. The high priest held office for life, since no higher authority is designated by which he could be deposed; his position was that of a prince, as is indicated by his crown, by the color of his raiment, and by amnesty at his death for certain crimes which had occurred (Num. xxxv. 25, 28). His authority was entirely spiritual as mediator between God and the people. As representative of the people, he bore on his breast in sacred functions the names of the tribes; as representative of deity, he carried the Urim and Thummim by which the will of deity was indicated. As head of the priesthood, he had sacrificial duties which he alone might perform (Lev. iv. 3 sqq., 13 sqq., ix. 8 aqq., vi. 12 15). The period of seven days for the consecration ceremonies, with many other particulars, belonged to the induction into the ordinary priesthood as well as into the high priest's offce; and though the other priests were also anointed, especial significance seems to have attended the anointing of the high priest. Special importance is indicated also in the clothing assumed'by the high priest at investiture. The garments were: the me'il, a sleeveless gown of purple adorned with golden bells and pomegranate shaped knots of violet red or carmine; the ephod (q.v.), a shoulder cape of cloth of gold in blue purple, and scarlet with two onyx stones on which were engraved the names of the tribes; the hoshen, a breastplate containing twelve stones, each bearing the name of a tribe, in which were carried the Urim and Thummim (q.v.); and the miznepheth, a tiara, on the front of which was a gold plate carrying the inscription "holy to Yahweh" (Ex. xxxix.). It was significant of the high priesthood that it involved complete purity. Hence the high priest was forbidden to touch a corpse, even that of his nearest relation, and his wife was to be a virgin of pure Israelitic stock (Lev. xxi. 15).
In the other Pentateuchal sources no such princepriest appears. J makes Eleazar the successor of Aaron as priest (Josh. xxiv. 33; cf. Deut. x. 6), but of an organization of the clergy in general this doc
ument says nothing. Deut. xvii. 8 2. The in arranging for justice at the central