Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/348

 the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for His worship. It is, however, a singular fact, that in J there is no record of actual sacrifice by the patriarchs on such altars: see p. l.

The original motive of this and similar legends is to explain the sacredness of the principal centres of cultus by definite manifestations of God to the patriarchs, or definite acts of worship on their part. The rule is that the legitimacy of a sanctuary for Israel is established by a theophany (Ex. 20$24$ [E]). The historic truth is that the sanctuaries were far older than the Hebrew immigration, and inherited their sanctity from lower forms of religion. That fact appears in v.$6$ in the use of the word, which has there the technical sense of 'sacred place,' as in 22$4$ 28$11$ 35$1$ (G), Ex. 3$5$, 1 Sa. 7$16$ (G ), Jer. 7$12$ (cf. Ar. maḳām).—Shechem is the first and most northerly of four sanctuaries—the others being Bethel, Hebron (J$h$), and Beersheba (E, J$b$)—connected with the name of Abraham. The name (Skmm, with pl. termination) occurs in an Eg. inscr. as early as the 12th dynasty. It was an important place in the Tel-Amarna period (see Steuernagel, Einwanderung, 120 f.; Knudtzon, BA, iv. 127), and figures prominently in OT legend and history. On its situation (the modern Nābulūs) between Mts. Ebal and Gerizim, see EB, iv. 4437 f.—The (= 'oracle-giving terebinth') was evidently an ancient sacred tree from which oracles were obtained, and therefore a survival of primitive tree-worship. Besides Dt. 11$18$ (a difficult pass.,

originally the 'sacred tree' without distinction of species. The of Gn. 35$4. 5$ is called a palm in Ju. 4$1$, and (pl. of ?) (Ex. 15$2$ etc.) derived its name from 70 palm-trees. But though the Mass. tradition may not be uniformly reliable, and  appear to be distinguished in Hos. 4$5$, Is. 6$24$ (Di.); and the existence of a form is confirmed by allânu, which is said to be an Ass. tree-name (G-B.$1$ 36 b). It is probable from Zec. 11$30$, Ezk. 27$6$ etc., that is the oak. With regard to the other names no convincing theory can be formed, but a connexion with ([)i]lu) is at best precarious.—6b is probably a gloss: cf. 13$8$.—7. ] [E]GVS add .—] so 35$5$ (E).