Abstract
Abstract The position of the prescriptive unit regarding the construction of the incense altar (Exod 30:1–10) has been identified in previous scholarship as problematic. In support of Julius Wellhausen’s diachronic solution to this problem, several additional irregularities in this unit can be adduced, as well as indications in the larger Priestly texts in the Pentateuch that an independent altar for incense was not in use. An explanation for the entire array of irregularities is based on the suggestion that the incense altar was meant to replace another vessel, the menorah. The current command regarding the function of the menorah (Exod 25:37b) raises doubts regarding its originality. Based on other features in the menorah unit (Exod 25:31–38) an alternative, original command designating the menorah for burning incense can be reconstructed. When the incense altar replaced the menorah in that role, the author of its prescriptive unit had to argue in favor of its legitimacy through direct polemics with the menorah’s function, and through the incorporation of it in the highly esteemed annual ritual of atonement.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
