The author clearly knows more about the Christian practice than the Hebrew (Jewish) one.
> while Hebraic tradition went bigger, declaring six whole cities as places where criminals could take refuge
This is not true. The only sanctuary offered in those cities was if someone accidentally or via negligence killed someone. The relatives were not able to extract blood vengeance in those cities.
That's it. It was not for criminals. It was a way of discouraging blood vengeance, while also punishing the perpetrator.
The perpetrator would also be required to be tried in court after claiming refuge.
> These early asylums were established under the belief that the gods (or god) were inviolable, and thus their temples and holy sites shared this untouchable aspect.
Absolutely not true. If someone committed murder he could be dragged away from the holy of holies if necessary.
You're right. There was no sanctuary for cold-blooded killers and traitors.
Example: In 1 Kings, Chapter 2, Joab flees to the tent of God and grabs the horn of the altar. He had participated in Adonijah's failed coup d'etat and killed two commanders of the Israeli army.
King Solomon doesn't even bother to drag him away from the altar before killing him.
> while Hebraic tradition went bigger, declaring six whole cities as places where criminals could take refuge
This is not true. The only sanctuary offered in those cities was if someone accidentally or via negligence killed someone. The relatives were not able to extract blood vengeance in those cities.
That's it. It was not for criminals. It was a way of discouraging blood vengeance, while also punishing the perpetrator.
The perpetrator would also be required to be tried in court after claiming refuge.
> These early asylums were established under the belief that the gods (or god) were inviolable, and thus their temples and holy sites shared this untouchable aspect.
Absolutely not true. If someone committed murder he could be dragged away from the holy of holies if necessary.