Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 29/08/2004 00:40, Patrina wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:03:57 +0100, "Peter Kirk" <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
> said:
> But 
>  
>
> > then the chief butler's misunderstanding is not surprising since his 
> > culture presumably had no concept of a god who should be worshipped only 
> > at one single sanctuary. But this is what YHWH had asked for, at least 
> > according to the Torah, and was the attested practice from the time of 
> > the Exodus at least until Solomon's day, although the location of the 
> > central sanctuary varied from time to time.
> >
> >    
>
> > From the Exodus on?  I may be wrong, but I don't think your summation is
> correct.  Was the central sanctuary ever authorised at Gilgal where
> Samuel inaugurated the Kingship (1 Sam 10-1 Sam 11)?  Or at Bethel? 
> Maybe you can tell me whether the ark was sometimes at Gilgal or Bethel?
>
> Amos didn't seem to think that these places were kosher.  
>  

In Samuel's time, after the fall of Shiloh, presumably Gligal, safely 
distant from the Philistines, was used as a temporary central sanctuary 
- although without the ark as the Philistines had captured it and for 
some reason (perhaps because of its fatal reputation) was not returned 
to a central sanctuary as soon as it was found. It was certainly one 
central place where all the Israelites gathered, before a permanent 
central sanctuary was built at Jerusalem. I didn't say anything about 
authorisation.

Bethel was inaugurated as a shrine by Jeroboam I after the time of 
Solomon, and was clearly considered unauthorised by the Jerusalem 
priesthood as well as by the Judahite Amos - and of course the ark was 
never there. Presumably at some time Gilgal was reinstated as a 
sanctuary by the northern Israelites, and also considered unauthorised 
by the Judahites. But the divided kingdom period is outside the 
timescale I mentioned.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/