It is not to be wondered at if in the post-exilian temple there existed both a golden altar and a golden table.  We learn from 1Maccabees i. 21 seq., iv. 49, that both were carried off by Antiochus Epiphanes, and renewed at the Feast of the Dedication.  But it causes no small surprise to find that at the destruction of Jerusalem the Romans found and carried off table and candlestick only.  What can have become, in the meantime, of the golden altar of incense?  And it is further worth remarking that in the LXX the passage Exodus xxxvii.25-29 is absent; that is to say, the altar of incense is indeed commanded, but there is no word of its execution.  In these circumstances, finally, the vacillating statement as to its position in Exodus xxx. 6, and the supposed mistake of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, are important and intelligible.  Compare also 2Maccabees ii.5, where only the table, but not the altar, is hidden by Jeremiah.

So much for the offering of incense and its altar.  We may in like manner venture to regard it as a kind of refinement, though rather a refinement of idea, that the flesh of the sacrifice in the Priestly Code is no longer boiled, but consigned to the altar flames in its raw condition.  Such was not the ancient custom, as is seen, not only from the case of Gideon already cited (Judges vi.), but also from the procedure at Shiloh, described in 1Samuel ii., where the sons of Eli will not wait until the flesh of the sacrifice has been boiled, and the altar pieces burnt, but demand their share raw for roasting.  The meal which the Deity shares with men is prepared in the same way as for men.  This naive conception gave way before advancing culture, and that at a comparatively early date.  It is possible that another cause may also have co-operated towards this result.  The old method of preparing flesh in general use among the people, at a later period also, was by boiling.  The word B#L (to seethe in water) occurs with extreme frequency; CLH (to roast), on the other hand, only in Exodus xii. 8, and Isaiah xliv. 16, 19.  All sacrificial flesh (B#LH) was boiled, and there was no other kind. 1

*********************************************** 1.  Accordingly one must understand (#H also of boiling (Judges vi. 19).  Compare the boiling-houses of the temple still found in Ezekiel xlvi. 20-24.  In I Sam. i. 9 pronounce beshela instead of beshilo, and delete W)XRY #TH. **********************************************

But among persons of the upper class roasting must also have come into use at an early period.  “Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not take sodden flesh of thee, but raw,” says the servant of the sons of Eli in 1Samuel ii. 15.  The fact that in the interval the custom of boiling had gone generally somewhat out of fashion may accordingly have also contributed to bring about the abandonment of the old usage of offering the sacrificial portions boiled.  In any case this is the explanation of the circumstance that the paschal lamb, which originally was boiled like all other offerings, could, according to the express appointment of the Priestly Code, be eaten roasted only. 2