According to the Bible, the Tabernacle was a portable sanctuary used by the Israelites to worship their God, Yahweh, and where members of the Israelite priesthood would offer sacrifices to Yahweh.

The Book of Joshua claims that, after the Israelites entered Canaan (around 1200 BC), they set up the Tabernacle at Shiloh.

Then all the assembly of the Israelites congregated at Shiloh, and they set up the tent of meeting [Tabernacle] there, as the land was now subdued before them. (Joshua 18:1, NWT)

The Tabernacle was further at Shiloh for hundreds of years, in the period of the Judges, and it served as the center of Israelite worship, with Shiloh as a significant city in the land (Judges 21:19-21; 1 Samuel 1:3-5, 24-28). The end of the Tabernacle’s residence in Shiloh was when the Philistines defeated Israel in the Battle of Aphek, at the time of Samuel, in the eleventh century BC (1 Samuel 4:16-18).

Now, since the Bible claims that Shiloh was a major cultic center where worship to Yahweh took place, and was essentially the de facto capital of Israel in the time of the Judges (Jerusalem had not yet been made capital), this begs multiple questions. Is there any actual evidence of a cultic site at Shiloh, which would be expected if the Tabernacle really existed and was there? What was Shiloh like at the time the Tabernacle is alleged to have been there?

The Archaeological Evidence

The ancient city of Shiloh is unanimously identified with Khirbet Seilun. It was first identified with this site by biblical scholar Edward Robinson, based on the biblical description that the city was “north of Bethel and east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem and south of Lebonah” (Judges 21:19). Additionally, the arabic name of the site, Khirbet Seilun, preserves the ancient Hebrew name of Shiloh.

The first expeditions at the site were by A. Schmidt in 1915, who conducted trial soundings and dug test pits at Shiloh. In 1926-1932, a Danish expedition under H. Kjaer, with the participation of Schmidt, aswell as architects C. Christensen and S. Beck, excavated the site and discovered several Bronze and Iron Age remains. In 1981-1984, the site was excavated by Israel Finkelstein, along with S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman. Currently, the site is being excavated by Scott Stripling of the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR).

The excavations at Shiloh revealed remains from the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1550 BC), before the Israelites emerged in Canaan. Stratum VII represents the Middle Bronze Age layer, and is dated to c. 1650/1600-1550 BC[1]. Of note is the fact that cultic remains were found at stratum VII, including two cultic stands and a fragment of one, and a zoomorphic vessel in the shape of a bull (shown below), all found in Area F[1]. Finkelstein also points out that metal objects found at “Room 1527” are of a cultic nature[2].

In the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1200 BC), evidence of human activity was discovered in the excavations, but there is no evidence of human settlement at Shiloh. It is thus most likely that Shiloh was simply a cult site at this time, without actual residence; a site where people living in Canaan would go for worship[4].

So, the evidence reveals that Shiloh had a long tradition of being a cultic site, where religious activity took place. In light of these facts, it is understandable as to why the Israelites would set their holy sanctuary up at Shiloh; it had a long tradition of being a cultic city. At the same time, it might be considered shocking as to why monotheistic Israelites would choose a site that had been for so long a site of Canaanite worship that they viewed as morally outrageous.

Next, remains from the Iron Age I were discovered. This is the time period the Israelites are alleged to have had the Tabernacle at the site. Whether all areas of the site where Iron I remains were discovered were occupied at the same time or represent different building phases was undiscernable from Finkelstein’s excavations, but Iron I remains were discovered at areas C, D, E, H, J, K, and M[5]. Remains discovered at the site include silos, buildings, dumps, a large assemblage of pottery, (more than thirty complete vessels and large fragments of other vessels), collared-rim jars, and other materials[6].

Shiloh was also, evidently, an important site in this time period. Surveys have shown that,

The density of the neighbouring villages is double or treble that known inother parts of southern Samaria. Of 115 sites of this period found throughout the survey area, 26 arelocated within a radius of 5-6 km. of Shiloh.[7]

Additionally, pillared buildings from the Iron I settlement at Area C of the site have been found, including parts of Houses A and B, where large amounts of pottery were discovered in the excavations[8]. Finkelstein suggests these may have been public buildings[9].

Now, was evidence of cultic activity discovered in the excavations? As it turns out, yes. In Area C, numerous cultic materials were discovered. These included fragments of a cult stand (shown below), sherds of two vessels decorated with animal heads, and “many bones”[11]. These testify to cultic activity having taken place at the site.

There may be some other cultic finds in Shiloh. Scott Stripling claims that a four-horned altar from the Iron Age was discovered in 2013 (after Finkelstein’s excavations)[12]. The problem is that this find has not yet been published (atleast as of me writing this), and so it should be treated with suspicion. A rock-hewn altar was, however, discovered in 2002 by Yoel Elitzur in a location very close to Shiloh. Dating the altar is difficult, though, and it is not confidently known whether the altar belongs to the Iron I settlement[13].

Additionally, Stripling’s excavations at Shiloh revealed a ceramic pomegranate from the Iron Age, which he did publish in a paper. Stripling believes that the ceramic pomegranate most likely dates to the Iron Age, preferrably the Iron I[14]. This may in fact have cultic significance, as ceramic pomegranates have been discovered in cultic contexts at certain Philistine sites in the Iron Age[15].

Summing up the evidence, Finkelstein states the following regarding Shiloh’s status at the time of the Judges:

The high level of planning and construction at Shiloh, the public nature of the pillared buildings unearthed in Area C and the fact that no living quarters were found at the site, all indicate that Iron I Shiloh was not an ordinary village with a cult place but rather a religious temenos. In other words, of all the hill country Iron I sites, Shiloh is the only one to exhibit definite evidence of public activity.[16]

This fits well with the biblical narrative, which, as we explored before, claims that Shiloh was a significant as a cultic center and an overall site in the Iron Age I.

Where was the Tabernacle located at Shiloh?

The archaeological evidence above illustrates that the Bible’s description of Shiloh at the time of the Judges was accurate, and that there is evidence that Shiloh was a significant cult site in this period. This, along with other evidence related to the Tabernacle that will be explored in a future post[17], strongly suggests that a cultic sanctuary like the Tabernacle did exist at Shiloh.

But this leads to another question: where at Shiloh did the Tabernacle sit? The biblical account does not state this explicitly, but archaeological evidence can illuminate the Tabernacle’s location at Shiloh, and rule out certain options.

Option 1: The first possible option for the location of the Tabernacle was proposed by Major Charles Wilson in his survey of Shiloh for the Palestinian Exploration Fund. He proposed that the Tabernacle was located on the bedrock scarp in Area B1, at the north of Shiloh.

Support for Wilson’s views come from the following facts[18]:

1. The dimensions of the platform in this location were close to those specified in Exodus 26-27, and thus, the Tabernacle fit in this location.
2. The platform had been flattened and squared, and there was no other part of Shiloh which a structure the size of the Tabernacle could fit.
3. Steep slopes are present on all sides of the platform except for the south; logically, the Israelites would have chosen a site where their holy sanctuary would be safe and defensible, and this was the right place.
4. The northern platform has an east-west alignment, and both Exodus 26:22 and Numbers 3:23 call for the Tabernacle to face the west on its rear.
5. At 1 Samuel 4:12-16, when the man from Benjamin arrives at Shiloh to tell Eli about what had happened in the Battle of Ebenezer, it appears that he had to first pass through the population, and then made his way to the Tabernacle, where Eli was. Notice how the text says, in v. 13, that when the man arrived, he first went into the city to report the news, and “the whole city began crying out”. Then, only after this, did he “[hurry] in” to report the news to Eli in v. 14. If the main entrance to Shiloh was in the south, which Stripling holds to be the most likely case[19], then it would make sense why the man from Benjamin would have to go all the way to the north of Shiloh to meet Eli; because the Tabernacle was there.

Finkelstein rejects Wilson’s hypothesis, arguing that Ze’ev Yevin’s excavations showed no Iron I remains in this part of Shiloh[20]. However, Yevin only excavated a small area of the platform, and, according to Stripling, Iron I materials have been found at the northern part of the site in excavations in 2013[21].

Option 2: The second possible option for the location of the Tabernacle is on the acropolis of Shiloh. This view is favored by Shiloh excavator Israel Finkelstein[23].

Support for it comes from the following facts:

1. The summit of a site was a common place for a cultic site in Israel, and this can be found at sites such as Gibeon, Hazor, Megiddo, Malhah, and Jerusalem[24].
2. The Iron I pillared buildings in Area C, discussed before, likely served a shrine[25]. The Israelites would have logically placed storerooms for bone deposit in a place near where the Tabernacle was, and the summit location is closest to the Iron I pillared buildings.

However, there are some objections to locating the Tabernacle on the summit.

Firstly, it is claimed that the summit is not level, and so could not have housed a Tabernacle. However, it did not need to be level when it came to a tent; the Holy of Holies in both of the Jerusalem temples were not level.

Secondly, some point to Deuteronomy 12:2-4, and argue that the Tabernacle would not have been placed on the summit:

You should completely destroy all the places where the nations you will dispossess have served their gods, whether on high mountains or under any luxuriant tree. You should pull down their altars, shatter their sacred pillars, burn their sacred poles in the fire, and cut down the graven images of their gods, obliterating their very names from that place. You must not worship Jehovah your God in that way. (Deuteronomy 12:2-4; NWT)

Thus, it is argued that the Tabernacle would not have been on a “high place” like the summit. However, this text primarily refers to the purpose of the cultic sites rather than their location; just because a site was in a high location does not necessarily mean it violated Deuteronomy. Other biblical texts, like Isaiah 2:2, speak of Yahweh worship taking place in high locations (in a figurative sense).

Finally, Asher Kaufman cites the Talmud (Megillah, chapter 1, Halakhah 12) which refers to different locations for the Tabernacle[26]. However, the text is 1,500 years after the time the Tabernacle was at Shiloh, and so could be anachronistic.

Option 3: Michael Avi-Yonah and Yosif Garfinkel opt for a third option. They place the Tabernacle to the south of Shiloh.

This is based on the following facts[27]:

1. The large, flat plataeu that the southern approach forms could easily accomodate a tent like the Tabernacle.
2. The Christian inhabitants of Shiloh in later periods built four churches in this area of Shiloh, which would make sense if they considered it to be sacred territory where the Tabernacle once stood.
3. Christian tradition identifies one of the Byzantine churches in this area[28].

Option 4: Current Shiloh excavator, Scott Stripling of the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR), has reviewed each of the above views, and has developed what he calls a “composite view”.

Stripling states that it is most likely that the Tabernacle was located in different locations at Shiloh at different times[29].

First, the Tabernacle was likely located at the apex of the mound at Shiloh. Next, Stripling claims that the Tabernacle was replaced by a permanent structure, as revealed by 1 Samuel 3:15. It is worth noting that the Tabernacle could have still been in operation even with the erection of a permanent structure; Richard Elliot Friedman proposes that the Tabernacle was placed inside of a permanent structure at Shiloh[30]. This edifice, according to Stripling, was likely placed on the northern scarp or southern plataeu.

In conclusion, there are multiple possible locations for the Tabernacle; viable options exist. None are conclusively proven by the data, though.

Conclusion

Firstly, archaeological evidence in the form of cultic materials, along with other data, confirm that Shiloh was a cultic site at the time of the Judges and in earlier periods, where religious activity took place. Secondly, evidence from Shiloh itself, along with data from surveys of surrounding sites, show that Shiloh was an important city at the time of the Judges, leading Israel Finkelstein to describe Shiloh as, “not an ordinary village with a cult place but rather a religious temenos” (see footnote no. 16).

As for the location of the Tabernacle, it is uncertain, but multiple viable options exist, and it seems likely that the location of the Tabernacle may have changed with the erection of a more permanent house for the Tabernacle that is reflected in 1 Samuel 3:15.

All this evidence supports the biblical claims of the Tabernacle’s presence at Shiloh, and of Shiloh’s importance for Israelite society at the time of the Judges.

REFERENCES

[1]: Finkelstein, Israel, et al. Shiloh: the Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Israel, Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, 1993. p. 374

[2]: Stern, Ephraim. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Iceland, Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993. pp. 1366-1367

[3]: Finkelstein et al. 1993, p. 377

[4]: Finkelstein, Israel, et al. “Excavations at Shiloh 1981–1984: Preliminary Report.” Tel Aviv 12.2 (1985): p. 166

[5]: Finkelstein et al. 1985, p. 129; Finkelstein still decides to assign all Iron I remains to one phase of occupation; Stratum V (see Ibid).

[6]: Stern 1993, p. 1367-1368

[7]: Finkelstein et al. 1993, p. 386

[8]: Stern 1993, Ibid

[9]: Finkelstein et al. 1993, p. 385

[10]: Finkelstein et al. 1993, p. 386-387

[11]: Finkelstein et al. 1993, Ibid

[12]: Stripling, Scott. “The Israelite Tabernacle at Shiloh.” Bible and Spade 2.3 (2016): 89-94.

[13]: Elitzur, Yael, and Doran Nir-Zevi. “A rock-hewn altar near Shiloh.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly 135.1 (2003): 30-36.

[14]: Lopez, Tim, Scott Stripling, and David Ben-Shlomo. “A Ceramic Pomegranate from Shiloh.” Judea and Samaria Research Studies 28.1 (2019): 37.

[15]: Dothan, Trude, and David Ben-Shlomo. “Ceramic pomegranates and their relationship to Iron Age cult.” Up to the Gates of Ekron’: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin (2007): p. 14

[16]: Finkelstein et al. 1993, Ibid

[17]: The Tabernacle has paralells to other 2nd millennium BC structures from Egypt, Mari, and Ugarit, which makes it likely that the Tabernacle is a 2nd millennium structure that did exist. See Tsegaw, Melek. “An inquiry into the historicity of the Tabernacle in ancient Israel.” (2019). p. 18-24. This evidence, and other evidence related to the Tabernacle, will be explored in a future post.

[18]: Stripling 2016, p. 8

[19]: Stripling 2016, p. 9

[20]: Quoted in Stripling 2016, Ibid

[21]: Stripling 2016, Ibid; citing Ben-Arie, Reut, and Hananya Hizmi. “Tel Shiloh, Excavations in the Northern Area, 2012, 2013.” Judea and Samaria Studies 23 (2014): 113-130

[22]: Stripling 2016, p. 12

[23]: Finkelstein, Israel. “Shiloh yields some, but not all, of its secrets.” Biblical Archaeology Review 12.1 (1986): 22-41.

[24]: Stripling 2016, Ibid

[25]: Stripling 2016, p. 10

[26]: Ḳaufman, Asher. “Fixing the Site of the Tabernacle at Shiloh.” Biblical Archaeology Review 14.6 (1988): 46-52.

[27]: Stripling 2016, p. 11

[28]: Mizraḥi, Yonatan, and Anna Veeder. Tel Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun): Archeological Settlement in the Political Struggle Over Samaria. Emek Shaveh, 2014. p. 11

[29]: Stripling 2016, p. 12-13

[30]: Friedman, Richard. Who Wrote the Bible?. United States, Simon & Schuster, 2019. p. 186-187