Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 22:1 (NA 1971)
Article: Deuteronomy And The Central Sanctuary
Author: G. J. Wenham

---

TynBul 22:1 (1971) p. 103

Deuteronomy And The Central Sanctuary*

G. J. Wenham

* This paper is a revised form of one chapter of the writer’s thesis The Structure and Date of Deuteronomy accepted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London, 1970.

For nearly a century it has been almost axiomatic to hold that Deuteronomy demands centralization of all worship at a single sanctuary, and therefore that its composition must be associated with Josiah’s attempt to limit all worship to Jerusalem. From time to time this view has been challenged. A. C. Welch, for instance, showed that ‘the place which the LORD will choose’ need not refer to a single sanctuary, but could, if other grounds warranted it, refer to a group of approved Yahweh shrines.1 Welch also pointed out that the command to offer sacrifice on Mount Ebal (explicit in Dt. 27 and implicit in chapter 11) is very odd if Deuteronomy is a programme to limit all worship to Jerusalem.

Recently J. N. M. Wijngaards has argued that Deuteronomy does not envisage centralization of worship at Jerusalem but a series of sanctuaries serving in turn as the amphictyonic shrine.2 Deuteronomy 5-28 is essentially a liturgy for a ceremonial procession from Succoth to Shechem re-enacting the crossing of the Jordan and the conquest of Canaan. The grounds for this novel interpretation are threefold. First, Deuteronomy constantly mentions that Israel is about to cross over the Jordan and take possession of the land.3 Second, the end point of the conquest is Mount Ebal, where a great covenant ceremony is held (Dt. 27). Third, Hosea 6:7-10 is said to reflect this cultic procession across the Jordan in amphictyonic times.4

TynBul 22:1 (1971) p. 104

Wijngaards believes that this ritual crossing of the Jordan was later transferred to Gilgal. Hence Deuteronomy 5-28 should be dated to a period before this change of scene, sometime between 1250 and 1050 BC.5

Wijngaards’ view rests on a number of important observations which traditional criticism takes too little account of, but it does raise new questions of its own. First, why should chapters 5-28 be supposed to give the key to Deuteronomy’s origins? C...

visitor : : uid: ()