Torah Scroll from the 1800’s at the Ark Encounter Theme Park in Williamstown, Kentucky. 123rf
The Place(s) that YHWH will Choose: Ebal, Shiloh, and Jerusalem
Jews have long understood “the place that YHWH will choose” to mean Mount Zion in Jerusalem, while Samaritans have interpreted it as Mount Gerizim near Shechem. Archaeology and redaction criticism converge on a compromise solution: it refers to a series of places, one place at a time.
Published: August 26, 2019
|
Last Updated: September 7, 2026
Translation from, Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: JPS, 1933–1935), 1:4.
To a traditional scholar, this answer was impossible, and thus Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto, 1800–1865) attacks De Wette regarding Deut 12:5:
ואמר זה לפי שהמשכן היה מיטלטל ממקום למקום, והיה צריך לשאול היכן הוא עכשיו, ופסוק זה לא היה אפשר לכתבו אחר שנבנה בית המקדש. והאיש De Wette לא הבין כלום, וכתב כי זו ראיה שנכתב ס’ דברים אחר בנין בית המקדש,
The verse uses this phrase because the Tabernacle was moved from place to place, and one would need to ask where it was at any given time. This verse could not have been written after the Temple was built [in Jerusalem]. And the man De Wette didn’t understand anything, since he wrote that it is a proof that Deuteronomy was written after the Temple was built.
Notably Shadal assumes that the verse is not a reference only to Jerusalem, but to every place that the Tabernacle stood before the Temple was built. In this sense, Shadal, based on a different logic than my own, may have intuited what I argue below.
For an explication of this view, see David Glatt-Gilad, “How the Jerusalem Temple Was Chosen as the Only Place of Worship,” TheTorah.com (2017).
והיה כי יביאך י־הוה אלהיך אל ארץ הכנעני אשר אתה בא שמה לרשתה והקמת לך אבנים גדלות ושדת אתם בשיד וכתבת על האבנים את כל דברי התורה הזאת. והיה בעברכם את הירדן תקימו את האבנים האלה אשר אנכי מצוה אתכם היום בהר גריזים ובנית שם מזבח לי־הוה אלהיך מזבח אבנים. לא תניף עליהם ברזל, אבנים שלמות תבנה את מזבח י־הוה אלהיך. והעלית עליו עלות לי־הוה אלהיך וזבחת שלמים ואכלת שם ושמחת לפני י־הוה אלהיך….
When YHWH your God will bring you to the land of the Canaanite, which you are going to inherit it, you shall set yourself up great stones, and plaster them with lime, and you shall write on them all the words of this law. It shall be, when you are passed over the Jordan River, you shall set up these stones, which I command you today, on Mount Gerizim. There shall you build an altar to YHWH your God, an altar of stones: you shall lift up no iron tool on them. You shall build the altar of YHWH your God of uncut stones; and you shall offer burnt offerings thereon to YHWH your God: and you shall sacrifice offerings, and shall eat there; and you shall rejoice before YHWH your God….
In other words, this addition is not part of a Pre-Samaritan text that differs from MT, and served as the basis for the SP. Such a text is attested at (Jewish) Qumran. For the difference between the SP and the Pre-SP, see discussion in Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies, Resources for Biblical Study 72 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 69, 89–103.
In SP, this is written as one word, הרגריזים, as is the standard way of spelling their holy mountain in that tradition.
Stefan Schorch has recently argued for its priority. See Stefan Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics, ed. József Zsengellér (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 23–38. See also discussion in Jonathan Ben-Dov, “An Altar on Mt. Ebal or Mt. Gerizim: The Torah in Sectarian Debate,” TheTorah.com (2017).
Alexander Rofé argues that this verse is the opening of the Deuteronomic Collection. See, Alexander Rofé, “The Strata of the Law about the Centralization of Worship n Deuteronomy and the History of the Deuteronomic Movement,” in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation, Old Testament Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 97–101 [ 98 ].
Earlier than this, in Joshua 18, Joshua is said to have set up the Tabernacle in Shiloh, implying it was contemporaneous with the altar in Ebal. Nevertheless, Joshua 18 is part of the Priestly strand of Joshua, and reflects a different tradition than that of the Deuteronomistic school.
שמואל א ג:כא וַיֹּסֶף יְ־הוָה לְהֵרָאֹה בְשִׁלֹה כִּי נִגְלָה יְ־הוָה אֶל שְׁמוּאֵל בְּשִׁלוֹ בִּדְבַר יְ־הוָה.
1 Sam 3:21 And YHWH continued to appear at Shiloh: YHWH revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh with the word of YHWH.
This is not stated explicitly in Samuel, but Shiloh is not mentioned again as an active site in Samuel, and Jeremiah explicitly mentions the destruction of Shiloh (Jer 7:12, 26:6). As we will see later, archaeology supports the assumption that the site was destroyed in the eleventh/tenth century.
NJPS translates or: “on the hill,” but this seems unlikely considering the word is treated as a place name in 2 Sam 6:2. Gibeon seems particularly likely since Gibeon and Kiryath-jearim are not far from each other, and the book of Joshua refers to the people of Kiryath-jearim as Gibeonites (Josh 9:17). See discussion in Joseph Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel, Society for Old Testament Study Monographs 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 79–83. A temple in this area (modern Abu Ghosh) is being excavated by Tel Aviv University.
1 Samuel 21 also presents Nob as a city of priests, suggesting that it was a cite of worship at some period (1 Samuel 22). Recently, Jacob Wright and Zev Farber have argued that Nob may very well be a scribal error for Gob, meaning Gibeon, and that the story connects to the account of Saul murdering Gibeonites in 2 Samuel 21:2. See Zev Farber and Jacob Wright, “Joshua the Savior of Gibeon: Reconstructing the Earliest Layer of the Joshua Account” in Book Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges I, ed. Christoph Berner, Harald Samuel, and Stephen Germany (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), 295–310 [299].
Nevertheless, before Solomon builds the Temple, we hear of him worshiping in Gibeon:
מלכים א ג:ד וַיֵּלֶךְ הַמֶּלֶךְ גִּבְעֹנָה לִזְבֹּחַ שָׁם כִּי הִיא הַבָּמָה הַגְּדוֹלָה….
1 Kgs 3:4 The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the largest of the high places….
In this case, the text offers an editorial gloss—that Solomon was not careful about the law of centralized worship—but this is very likely a later explanation for a more ancient story that did not see Solomon’s act as sinful. Moreover, this is probably a reference to the same site as Gibeah in Kiryath-jearim.
The authors of Kings consider Northern worships in Dan and Beth-el, and everything associated with northern worship, to be illegitimate (1 Kgs 12:26–33).
Translation from Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 731.
The Rabbinic interpretation, and the book of Kings itself (in its final form) are left with the problem of how Elijah builds an altar on Mount Carmel after Jerusalem has been built. For a discussion of this problem, see David Glatt-Gilad, “Was Elijah Permitted to Make an Offering on Mount Carmel?” TheTorah.com (2019).
For more on this polemic, see Eyal Baruch, “Mount Gerizim and the Polemic Against the Samaritans,” TheTorah.com (2016).
This book of Joshua is a 14th century C.E. book written in Arabic. Nevertheless, it likely contains very old tradition from centuries before, reflecting how the Samaritans thought of their history and responded to the Jewish version in Joshua through Kings.
The destruction of the First Temple and the restoration, the Bar Kochba revolt, and the story of Baba Rabba (late 3rd/early 4th cent. C.E.).
Translation from, Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, Tradition Kept: The Literature of the Samaritans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 101.
In the previous paragraph of this chapter, it is claimed that “insidious” is the literal meaning of Eli’s name.
Anderson and Giles, Tradition Kept, 127.
The survey, considered the most extensive archaeological survey ever conducted, has identified close to 3,000 sites in the Manasseh territory. Since Zertal’s passing in October, 2015, the survey is being continued by Dr. Shay Bar, who worked with Zertal for the last 15 years of his life.
That Ephraim remained the greater power can be seen by how the founding father of the later Kingdom of Israel, Jeroboam, was an Ephraimite (1 Kgs 11:26). For more on the shifting of power from Manasseh to Ephraim, and how this fits with Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons, see Zvi Koenigsberg, “Joshua’s Altar on Mount Ebal: Israel’s Holy Site before Shiloh,” TheTorah.com (2018).
Oren Cohen, Iron I Puncture Design on Pottery in Samaria (MA thesis, University of Haifa, 2005). The puncture design can be found outside cultic contexts, in residential sites, but only in one specific form, and even then, it is not widespread. The combinations of the entire gamut of different puncture designs was found only at Shiloh and much more so at Ebal. Unfortunately, residue analysis has not been feasible at this point, so we can only speculate about what they were used for.
Alexander Rofé puts it thus,
We can infer that concepts like the central sanctuary for all Israel and dedication by divine word originated in Sichem; the author of Deut 12.8–12 was either a Sichemite refugee who found asylum at the court of Jerusalem after the Assyrian conquest of Ephraim, or one of this native disciples.
Rofé, “The Strata of the Law,” 100. For a brief discussion of the question of Deuteronomy’s northern provenance, see Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 10–11.
For the various biblical conceptions of greater Israel, see Yigal Levin, “The Three Biblical Maps of Israel: Small, Medium, and Large,” TheTorah.com (2015); Nili Wazana, All the Boundaries of the Land: The Promised Land in Biblical Thought in Light of the Ancient Near East , trans. Liat Qeren (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013); trans. of כל גבולות ארץ: גבולות הארץ המובטחת במחשבת המקרא על רקע המזרח הקדום , The Biblical Encyclopaedia Library [ספריית האנציקלופדיה המקראית] 24 (Jerusalem: Bialik, 2007).
Yair Zakovitch, “לשכן שמו שם לשום שמו שם” [‘To Cause His Name to Dwell There’ ‘To Put His Name There’] Tarbiz 41 (1972): 338–340.
Another scholar who came to this same conclusion is Baruch Halpern, though his understanding of the meaning of each strand and their relationship to each other differs from that of Zakovitch. See Baruch Halpern, “The Centralization Formula in Deuteronomy,” Vetus Testamentum 31.1 (1981): 20–38.
Sandra Richter, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy,” Vetus Testamentum 57 (2007): 342–366.
The first instance of this phrase is particularly problematic as it seems to combine both:
דברים יב:ה כִּי אִם אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מִכָּל שִׁבְטֵיכֶם לָשׂוּם אֶת שְׁמוֹ שָׁם לְשִׁכְנוֹ תִדְרְשׁוּ וּבָאתָ שָׁמָּה.
Deut 12:5 But only at the site that YHWH your God will choose amidst all your tribes to place (לשום) His name there to make it dwell (לשכנו) should seek him. There you are to go.
The phrase לשכנו is difficult to parse and mountains of commentary have been written attempting to explain it. It seems likely that the phrase has been tampered with. Zakovitch argues that the phrase originally read “to make his name dwell,” but being the first usage, was updated by a later scribe with the newer term. After that, a later scribe, familiar with the older version, attempted to reconcile the two, creating this unusual hybrid phrase.
The redaction of Deuteronomy 12 is much more complicated than two layers, but it is beyond the scope of this paper to hazard an attempt. For one approach, differing from Zakovitch’s however, see Simeon Chavel, “Debates Over Centralizing Sacrificial Worship and Eating Non-Sacrificial Meat,” TheTorah.com (2016).
This analysis is only attempting to isolate one specific development in Deuteronomy, but the text certainly grew in multiple stages. See Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1973), 274–289. In fact, a number of scholars have argued persuasively that Deuteronomy underwent a series of at least four revisions. See Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical, and Literary Introduction (London: T&T Clark, 2007); Shimon Gesundheit, Three Times a Year, Forschungen sum Alten Testament 82 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 96–149. The latter deals with the holidays of Israel, and shows how Deuteronomy 16, which describes the Passover celebration, shows three stages of revision to the original text, yielding four distinct layers.
Editor’s note: For more on the biblical laws of tithing and their development, see Zev Farber, “Making Maaser Work for the Times,” TheTorah.com (2015); Isaac Sassoon, “Supporting the Priests Versus Sustaining the Poor,” TheTorah.com (2015).
A third such exception, which does not relate to the concept of centralizes worship, but does reflect an updating based on the vision of greater Israel, appears in Deuteronomy 19:8–10, which commands adding three more refuge cities once Israel becomes bigger.
