Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/349



see Dri. ad loc., and v. Gall, Cult-St. 107 ff.), it seems to be mentioned as one of the sacra of Shechem under other names:, (a mere difference of pointing, v.i.), Gn. 35$4$, Jos. 24$26$; ('terebinth of soothsayers'), Ju. 9$37$; and  ('t. of the pillar' []) Ju. 9$6$. The tree is not said to have been planted by Abram (like the tamarisk of Beersheba, 21$33$),—an additional indication that Abram was not originally the patron or welī of the shrine. The sacred stone under the tree (the of Ju. 9$6$?) was believed to have been set up by Joshua (Jos. 24$26$). The sanctuary of Shechem was also associated with Jacob (33$18$ 35$4$), and especially with Joseph, who was buried there (Jos. 24$32$), and whose grave is still shown near the village of Balâṭa (ballûṭ = 'oak'): see v. Gall, 117.

8. Abram moved on, nomadic fashion, and spread his tent (26$25$ 33$19$ 35$21$) near Bethel, about 20 m. from Shechem; there he built a second altar, and called by the name of Yahwe; see on 4$26$. Luther's rendering: 'predigte den Namen des Herrn,' is absolutely without exegetical warrant; and the whole notion of a monotheistic propaganda, of which Abram was the Mahdi (Je. ATLO$2$, 328), is a modern invention unsupported by a particle of historical evidence. It is noticeable that no theophany is recorded here, perhaps because the definite consecration of Bethel was ascribed to Jacob (ch. 28).—Here the parting from Lot took place (ch. 13).

On Bethel (Beitīn), see on 28$10ff.$ 35$7$; cf. Jos. 7$2$. Di. distinguishes the site of Abram's altar (E of Bethel and W of 'Ai) from that of Jacob's pillar, which he takes to have been at Bethel itself. The more natural view is that the local sanctuary lay E of the city (so Gu.), perhaps at Burǧ Beitīn, the traditional scene of Abram's encampment (GASm. EB, i. 552).—On the somewhat uncertain situation of (always with art. =, Neh. 11$31$, 1 Ch. 7$28$; and , Is. 10$28$), see Buhl, GP, 177.

'''XII. 9-XIII. 1.—Abram in Egypt.'''—The first of three variants of what must have been a very popular story in ancient Israel (cf. 20. 26$6ff.$). Whether the original hero was Abraham or Isaac we cannot tell; but a comparison of the three parallels shows that certain primitive features of the legend are most faithfully preserved in the passage before us: note the entire absence of the extenuating circumstances introduced into the other accounts,—the whole subject being treated with a frank realism which

8. ] intr. Hiph. as 26$22$ (J).