Sherif. The whole structure, base and altar proper, was entirely filled up with rocks and earth. A slope, which Talmudic traditions suppose to have been broken three times by several steps, led to the top of the base which was a few feet wider than the altar proper, in order that the priest might easily go around the latter. This altar, built up by Solomon (III Kings viii, 64), was the object of a new consecration during Asa's reign (II Par., xv, 8), which makes us think that some restoration had taken place. Achaz removed it towards the north, and in its place erected another, similar to that which he had seen in Damascus (IV Kings xvi, 10–15). A restoration of the former order of things very likely occurred under Ezechias, although the sacred text does not mention it explicitly. Again polluted by Ezechias' son Manasses, it vas later on repaired and dedicated again to Yahweh by the same prince (IV Kings xxi, 4–5; II Par., xxxiii, 4, 5, 16). The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian army (587) was of course fatal to both the Temple and the altar, and to both may be applied the sign of the author of the Lamentations: "The stones of the sanctuary are scattered in the tops of every street".
(c) Altar of Holocaust of the Second and Third Temples.—The Exile cured the Jews' propensity to idolatry, those who came back from Babylon with Zorobabel took it to heart to rebuild the altar as soon as possible, in order that they might start over again the public worship of Yahweh. We read the account of the reconstruction in I Esd., iii, 2–6. This new altar was of the same form and dimensions as the former, and was probably likewise built with unhewn stones. Some twenty years later, the new Temple, completed amidst difficulties and opposition, stood behind the altar. But the Divine service was poor, as we can infer from the scanty documents of that epoch. Those indeed were hard times for Israel. Nehemias—if, to unravel the intricate chronology of the Books of Esdras, we admit that Nehemias preceded Esdras to Jerusalem—spared no efforts to re-establish the Temple worship; but the resources of the sanctuary were scarce, and after his return to Persia, the priests fled, every man to his own country to find a living; the sacrifices, not provided for, were abandoned, and the altar alone remained, a solitary witness to the misery of the times (II Esd., xiii, 10). Better days shone again with the coming of Esdras (I Esd., viii, 35), but the Persians were costly protectors. The Jews had a sorrowful experience of this, especially when the Persian general Bagoses imposed for seven years a heavy tax upon every sacrifice (Josephus, Ant., XI, vii, 1). The reign of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) signalized itself by new profanations: "On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year [of the Grecian era], king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God" (I Mach., i, 57; iv, 38). How the tyranny of this prince roused the zeal and courage of the Machabees and their followers, and how, through a long and hard struggle, they succeeded in shaking the yoke of the Seleucides cannot be narrated here. Suffice it to say that Judas Machabeus, after having routed Antiochus' army, considered about the altar of holocausts that had been profaned, what he should do with it. And a good counsel came into their minds to pull it down: lest it should be a reproach to them, because the Gentiles had defiled it; so they threw it down. And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place… Then they took whole stones according to the law, and built a new altar according to the former … and on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month … in the hundred and forty-eighth year, … they offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of holocausts which they had made" (I Mach., iv, 44–53). The anniversary of this new dedication was thenceforward celebrated by a feast, added to the liturgical calendar. The altar in question remained until the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple by the Romans. Josephus and the Talmud disagree as to the dimensions of the base. Instead of being overlaid with plates of brass, like the brazen altar of Solomon's Temple, it was covered on the outside with a solid plastering which might be easily replaced. By the horn of the southwest corner there was an outlet for the blood of the victims, and a hollow to receive libations. Such was the altar at the time of Jesus Christ (Matt., v, 23, 24; xxiii, 18); involved in the curse that hung over the Temple since the Saviour's last days, it was wrecked with the Temple (a.d. 70) by Titus's army, never to be built up again.
(d) Altar of Incense.—In the above description not a word has been said of the incense offerings that were part of the Yahweh worship. There is indeed on the subject of these offerings and the Temple furniture connected with them, a noteworthy divergence between the hitherto common opinion and that of the modern biblical critics. The latter consider the introduction of incense into the Yahweh worship as an innovation of relatively recent date (Jer., vi, 20); they remark that, with the exception of a few passages, the origin of which it is easy to determine the biblical writers speak only of one altar, and that incense in the Law is supposed to be offered in censers, of which each priest possesses one (Lev., xvi, 12, 18–20; x; Num., xvi, 17; iii 4–10). They argue, besides, from the adventitious character, the late date, and the priestly origin, of the so-called Mosaic texts referring to the altar of incense, as well as from the vacillating statements concerning it in the latest sources of Jewish history; and they conclude that neither in the tabernacle nor in the first Temple did there exist an altar of incense. We shall presently give the indications which the opinion heretofore considered as common makes use of in the description of this piece of tabernacle and Temple furniture. The first altar of incense constructed in the wilderness was foursquare, measuring a cubit in length as much in breadth, and two cubits in height. Made of setim wood, overlaid with the purest gold (hence the name "golden altar"), it was encircled by a crown of the same material; it had likewise a golden brim, and, like unto the altar of holocaust, four horns and four rings of gold; through the latter two bars of setim wood, overlaid with gold, served to carry the altar (Ex., xxx, 4). When it had to be moved, it was covered with a purple veil and a ram-skin. Consecrated, like the altar of holocaust, by an unction of holy oil, this altar served every morning and evening for the incense offering (Ex., xxx, 7–8) and in certain ceremonies for the sin-offerings. Every year during the great Feast of Atonement it was solemnly purified (Lev., xvi, 14–19). In the Temple of Solomon, the altar of incense was made in shape and dimensions, similar to that of the tabernacle. The material alone differed; instead of setim wood, cedar wood was used in its construction. According to a document attributed to Jeremias, and quoted in II Mach., ii, 5, the prophet, forewarned from on high of the wreck of the Temple, would have hidden this altar in a hollow cave on Mount Nebo. Possibly, too, it was taken away in the spoils gathered by the Babylonian army that ransacked Jerusalem (IV Kings 25:13–17). The fact is, the second Temple was furnished like the former, with an altar of incense, destroyed about 168 b.c. by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), who broke it to take off the gold plating that covered it. Judas Machabeus had a new one made and dedicated at the same time as the altar of holocaust. It is by this altar that the scene described in Luke i, 8–21, took place.
