Sacred Mountains in Ethnic Religions

1. Sacred Mountains in Ethnic Religions

In all primitive cults the jurisdiction of a deity is regarded as restricted within limits comparatively confined. Each spot may have its resident spirit who is for that spot the god or, as the Semites say, the baal, "lord." Early anthropomorphism con ceived such a baal as having a fixed residence in that place, which was therefore a sanctuary from which he seldom or never wandered. It was in this way that Yahweh was conceived to have taken up his abode in the Temple of Solomon (I Kings viii. 13; Ps. xxiv. 7-10). It was a long step in advance of this stage in religious thought when, e.g., the Assyrians could think of Asshur going forth with his hosts to foreign conquests, or the Hebrews of Yahweh as coming from "Seir" to do battle for his people (Judges v. 4-5). The earlier condition is illustrated fre quently in the Old Testament, where baal is the first (or second) element of a compound place-name. This Semitic principle is illustrated further by the fact that " Melcarth is Baal of Tyre, Astarte the Baalath of Byblus; there was a Baal of Lebanon, of Mt. Hermon, of Mt. Peor, and so forth " (Smith, Rel. of Sem., 1st ed., p. 93). Among the spots which deity inhabits are the crests of hill and moun tain. This is abundantly exemplified in both primitive and advanced cults. In early Cretan worship a notable place was the sanctuary of the Cretan mountain mother (A. Evans, in Annual of the British School at Athens, vii. 29, 1900-01, cited in J. E. Harrison, Prolegomena to . . . Greek Re ligion, p. 498, Cambridge, 1903). In the developed Greek religion the cult of Zeus shows many sanc tuaries on the mountain-tops, such as Mt. Laphys tos in Beotia, Mt. Pelion, Olympus in Thessaly (Farnell, Cults of the Greek States, i. 50-52, Oxford, 1896). The Acropolis at Athens was the site of the most famous temples of the region. The Per sians had their Alburz, the people of India their Meru. The Javanese placed their paradise, the home of spirits and gods, on the crests of their high est mountain (E. B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, p. 60, Boston, 1874). In the Semitic sphere the baalim were generally connected with fertility, and con sequently their sanctuaries were probably early located at the springs and watery bottoms whence fertility seemed to have its source. But according to Semitic notions there were two great reservoirs whence fertilizing waters issued; one below the earth, from which springs and rivers sprang; and one above the firmament or sky, whence came the rains (Gen. i. 6-7; in Gen. vii. 1 both sources are represented as contributing to the flood). Frequently the clouds gathered about a mountain-top and thence spread to deposit their moisture; hence the summits whence the rain seemed to come were regarded as homes of baals and their appropriate sanctuaries. A second cause of the selection of hilltops as places of worship was the conception of heaven-gods who were most appropriately worshiped on the hills (Smith, ut sup., pp. 470-471). The notion of mountain deities and of consequent worship on the hills is especially dominant in the Semitic realm. Arameans attributed Israelitic victory to the supposed fact that Yahweh was a god of the mountain (I Kings xx. 23, 28). Assyrian deities were wont to gather on the heights (Isa. xiv. 13). Mt. Sinai was a sacred spot before the Hebrews left Egypt, took its name from the Babylonian-Himyaric moon-god Sin (see Babylonia, VII., 2, § 5); Horeb-Sinai was during Hebrew history the sacred mountain (Deut. xxxiii. 2; Hab. iii. 1), with which Yahweh is connected in Judges (v. 4-5), whither Elijah returned for communion with him (I Kings xix.), while it was the goal of pilgrimages during the early Christian centuries. Reminiscences of earlier worship on the hills are seen in the ziggurats of Babylonia, elevated sometimes to seven or eight stories.

That the branch of Semites to which the Hebrews belonged used heights as places of worship is abundantly attested in Scripture. The Moabites had altars on Mt. Pisgah (Num. xxiii. 14), Mt. Peor (xxiii. 28-30), other unnamed places (xxii. 41xxiii. 1), and other Moabitio high 2. West- places were Bajith, Dibon, and Nebo Semitic (Isa. xv. 2; cf. Jer. xlviii. 35), and Worship possibly Bamoth-baal and Beth-baal on meon (Josh. xiii. 17), while one of their Mountains. deities was Baal-peor. A high place has been discovered at Petra (cf. Biblical World, xvii. 2, xxi. 170, xxvii. 386; Ben zinger, Archaeologie, p. 320, ed. of 1907). Further illustrations of this are the frequent notice in the Old Testament of high places used by the Canaanites (Num. xxxiii. 52; Deut. xii. 2). Zeus oreios, "Zeus of the mountain," is named on a post-Christian inscription found near Saida, and Jacob of Sarug knew of idolatrous high places in the early sixth century. Among the ancestors and leaders of the Hebrews it is recorded of Abraham that the site of the intended sacrifice of Isaac was on a mountain (Gen. xxii. 2); of Jacob that he "" offered sacrifice upon the mount" (Gen. xxxi. 54), in this case possibly an artificial mound; Moses built an altar on the hill from which he had viewed the battle between Amalek and Israel (Ex. xvii. 15); Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal (Josh. viii. 30; of. Deut. xxvii. 4-5, in which Moses commands the erection of an altar there). The case is strengthened by the fact that for events having sacred or solemn significance heights were frequently chosen. The death of Aaron took place on Mt. Hor (Num. xx. 22-29), and of Moses on Nebo (Deut. xxxiv. 1-5). Moabites (Isa. xv. 2) and Hebrews alike went to the hills to mourn (cf. the mourning for the

277
Hieronymus High Places daughter of Jephthah, Judges xi. 40). The oracle in Deut. xxxiii. 19 implies worship on the moun tains led by the tribes of Issachar and Zebulon. That the high places used by Israel during the period of the kings were taken over from the pre Hebraic inhabitants of Canaan is held as almost axiomatic. The establishment of a new holy place came about usually through some supernatural phenomenon (as Jacob's dream, which showed that the spot was the haunt of deity, Gen. xxviii. 10 sqq., or the appearance of the angel of destruction at the threshing-floor of Araunah, II Sam. xxlv. 16). For mountain-tops as places of worship under the Hebrews of. I Kings xiv. 23; II Kings xvi. 4, xvii. 10; Hos. iv. 13; Jer. ii. 20, iii. 6, vii. 2; Ezek. vi. 13, xx. 27-29. Especially illuminating is Jer. iii. 2, where "high places" is the rendering of she phayim, from shaphah, " to be bare," the idea prob ably being that bare peaks, offering an unobstructed view of heaven, were especially propitious. Ac cording to Pa. lxviii. 16, God especially desires to dwell on the hill of Zion.

The Hebrew term bamah (pl. bamoth), "high place " (cf. Aasyr. bamatu, pl. bamati, the latter used in the sense of " hill country"), probably means "a crest." That the term is not merely figurative is proved by the fact that people " go up " to the high place (I Sam. ix. 13, 19; Isa. xv. 2) and "come down" from it (I Sam. 3. Hebrew x. 5, ix. 25; of. Ezek. xx. 29). The High word has occasionally the significance Places. of "mountain stronghold" (Ezek. xxxvi. 2), and so (in the plural) is symbolical of dominion (Deut. xxxii. 13; II Sam. xxii. 34; Isa. lviii. 14). But in general the use of the word is religious; it may have lost its physical meaning and have come to denote simply "sanc tuary," though generally as an elevation. In prose it always means a place of worship, though it is synonymous at times with gibh'ah, "hill," and ramah, " lofty place " (cf. Ezek. xx. 28-29, xvi. 16, 24-25, 31, 39). It occurs in the plural as an element in names (Num. xxi.19-20, 28, R. V.; Josh. xiii. 17); and it is found on the Moabite Stone (q.v.) as the name of a Moabitic sanctuary for Chemosh (line 3) and as an element in a place-name (line 27). It is debatable whether " all the worship of Old Israel was worship at the high places " (EB, ii. 2066), since it is by no means certain that at all the shrines, e.g., under the sacred trees (see Groves and Trees, Sacred), "high places" existed (though cf. I Kings xiv. 23). Yet that the word was not always used in its physical sense appears 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; Deut. 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. Deut. 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);

278
these sacred places were still employed under Jehoshaphat (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 nomic law. 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 foreign cults, Elijah's position has been shown, while the pious kings Asa, Jehoshaphat, Johoash, Ama 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.; II 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 devotion and example of the patriarchs and heroes of history whose names were associated with those places. It was to be expected that the presence 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
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 stitute these for him. The antagonism to these grew up after the period when the two Hebrew kingdoms were on terms of amity, and the syncre tism in which the northern kingdom led had been diffused toward the south; and this antagonism was embodied in the Deuteronomic Code-which bore not a priestly, but a prophetic stamp. On the other hand, tending to protect the cult of these places was the strong religious conservatism, ever a powerful factor in religious evolution, both of the masses of the people and of the priests who served at these shrines, and these would deem them selves deprived of their privileges by prohibition to use their long hallowed sacred places. The zeal of the clear-minded prophets who realized the in creasing alienation from Yahweh and obscuration of the people's conception of him, the prestige car ried by the name of Moses under the protection of whose name the Deuteronomic Code was promul gated, the evident awe and fear produced in the mind of Josiah at the complete disharmony between the Deuteronomic requirements and daily practise -all these explain the fact that the high places so completely disappeared that the postexilic code had not to deal with them at all, but could legis late for the central sanctuary alone. Ezekiel, in deed, shows that there were still sporadic cases of worship at the old shrines, but it is clear that this was only the dernier resort of the skeptical who saw all hopes wrecked and faith in Yahweh made baseless by the fall of the holy city, who turned therefore in sheer despair to the gods of the con quering peoples, to the sun and moon and stars, even to the animal deities of a bald, recrudescent totemism (cf. Jer. xliv.). But how completely for Israel the high places had been discredited is most conclusively proved by the attitude of the Chron icler who revises the history of the Books of Samuel so as to make it accord with the course events should have taken had the postexilic ideas gov erned in the times of which he speaks.

Geo. W. Gilmore.

Bibliography: On i§ 1-3: H. Ewald, Die Alterthiimer des Volkes Israel, pp. 156-174, 420 sqq., Göttingen, 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 Religionsgeschichte, ii. 143 sqq., 231 sqq., Leipsic, 1878; B. Stade, Geschichts des Volkes Israel, i. 448--467, Berlin, 1887; F. F. von Andrian, H4hencultus ariatischer and europ6ischer Volker, Vienna, 1891; R. Beer, Heilige HBhen den Griechen and Romer, ib. 1891; M. Ohnefalseh Riehter, Kupros, die Bibel and Homer, pp. 234-238, Her - En, 1893; H. Schultz, Alttestamentlirhe Theologie, GSt tingen, 1896, Eng. transl., London, 1892; H. B. Greene, in The Biblical World, ix (1897), 329-340; R. Smend, Ld irbuch den allkgtamenaicAen Religionsgeschichte, 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 und seine Felaheilip thtimer, Leipsic, 1908; Benzinger, Archäologie, pp. 364- 383, ed. of 1894; Nowack, Archäologie, ii. 1-25.

On i § 4-10: B. Ugolino, Thesaurus antiquitatum sacrarum, x. 559 sqq., 34 vols., Venice, 1744-1769 (collects the rabbinical remarks on the subject); M. L. de Wette, Einleitung in das Alto Testament, i. 223-261, 285-299, Halle, 1806; G. L. Bauer Baschreibung der pottesdienstlichen Verfassung der alten Mebraer, ii. 1-143, Leipsic, 1806; C. P. W. Gramberg, Kritische Gexhichte der Religionsideew des Alten Testaments, i. 5-94, Berlin, 1829; F. C. Movers, Kritische Untarsuchunge» Uba die biblische Chronik, Bonn, 1834 J. F. L. George, Die allffen jüdisrhen Pests, pp. 38-45, Berlin, 1835; J. L. SealschOts, Dos mosaische Reckk pp. 297-306, Berlin, 1853; idem, Archaeologie der Hebräer, 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 hebräisrh-jüdiwhan A rch4ologi4, ed. RBbiger, pp. 274-275, 327-329, Leipsic, 1864; K. H. Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alton Testaments pp 51-66, 126-138, ib. 1866; H. Pierson, Ds Tempel fe Silo, in ThT, i (1867), 425-457; T. Nöldeke, Kritik des Alton Testaments, pp. 127-128, Kiel, 1869; D. B. von Haneberg, Die religitBuch der Urgeschichte Israels, pp. 153-154, Strasburg, 1874; A. Kuenen, The Religion of Israel, i. 80-82, ii. 25-26, 166-168, London, 1874; B. Duhm, Die Theologie der Propheten, pp. 47-54, Bonn, 1875; J. Emend Moses aped prophetas pp. 49-63, Halle, 1875; L. Seinecke, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, pp. 159-167, Göttingen, 1876; A. Kohler, Lehrbuch der biUischen Geschichte des Alton Testaments, ii. 1014, Erlangen, 1877; J. Wellhausen, Geschichts leraele, i. 17-53, Berlin, 1878; idem, Prolegomena, pp. 17-51 of Eng. transl.; 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, Theologie 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, Leipsic, 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, Göttingen, 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, Göttingen, 1871; by Driver, London, 1890, and by Budde, in SBOT, 1894; on Kings, by Klostermann, Munich, 1887, by Benzinger, Göttingen, 1899, and by Kittel, ib. 1899; and on Chronicles, by Bertheau, Leipsic, 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 Hexateuch will furnish additional matter concerning the subject.