본문 바로가기
  • Home

The Tradition-Historical Formation of Deuteronomic Sanctuary Theology: The Movement and Convergence of the Shiloh, Bethel, and Jerusalem Traditions

  • Korean Journal of Old Testament Studies
  • Abbr : KJOTS
  • 2026, 32(2), pp.219~247
  • DOI : 10.24333/jkots.2026.32.2.219
  • Publisher : Korean Society of Old Testament Studies
  • Research Area : Humanities > Christian Theology
  • Received : April 16, 2026
  • Accepted : May 22, 2026
  • Published : June 30, 2026

Eun-Pyung Ju 1

1성결대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study investigates the tradition-historical formation of Deuteronomic sanctuary theology. Previous scholarship has predominantly understood the centralization legislation of Deuteronomy 12 as a product of Josianic cultic reform. While such an approach has contributed significantly to the historical understanding of Deuteronomy, it does not fully explain how earlier sanctuary traditions were transmitted, transformed, and theologically reinterpreted within the Deuteronomic sanctuary formula. This study employs tradition-historical criticism as its primary methodological framework. The sequence Shiloh–Bethel–Jerusalem is not intended to represent the canonical order of the final form of the biblical text, but rather an analytical order for tracing the historical movement and theological convergence of sanctuary traditions. Archaeological and literary-critical studies are used only as supplementary evidence. Three lines of argument are developed. First, Shiloh functioned as an early central sanctuary that combined the ark tradition with priestly authority. Its collapse demonstrated that no sanctuary possessed automatic or permanent legitimacy apart from YHWH’s sovereign choice. Second, Bethel preserved ancient northern sanctuary memories associated with the Jacob traditions. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom, these memories may have entered the southern theological milieu through northern tradition-bearers, but they were not accepted uncritically. Rather, they were reconfigured through prophetic critique and Deuteronomic centralization. Third, Jerusalem emerged as the symbolic site in which earlier sanctuary memories were reinterpreted and gathered into the theology of “all Israel.” This study argues that the Deuteronomic formula, “the place where YHWH will choose to put his name,” should not be reduced to a mere institutional claim for Jerusalem. Rather, it represents a theological language of divine choice, name, and presence, shaped through the movement and reinterpretation of Israel’s sanctuary traditions.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2024 are currently being built.