Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship

My PhD thesis "Central Sanctuary and the Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel from the Settlement to the Building of Solomon's Temple: A Historical and Theological Study of the Biblical Evidence in Its Archaeological and Ancient Near Eastern Context" (University of Gloucestershire 2000)has been published, by Gorgias Press in 2003 (second publisher's edition 2004) as Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship in Ancient Israel: From the Settlement to the Building of Solomon's Temple (Click on the link, or on the above cover picture for book description, or see publisher's website at www.gorgiaspress.com). The book can also be bought for example from Eisenbrauns and Dove Booksellers.

Reviews on Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship

English translation of Eckart Otto, Review of Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship (Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13 [2008], 437-440; Word document)

German original of Eckart Otto, Review of Central Sanctuary and Centralization of Worship (Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 13 [2008], 437-440; Word document)

The points raised by this review are excellent and highly pertinent in my opinion. I have addressed them as part of my forthcoming commentary on Joshua (Leicester: IVP, forthcoming 2010), as far as the relevant issues can reasonably be drawn into the scope of investigation that relates to the book of Joshua. Overall, I think it is easier to respond (i.e. from the standpoint of possible early dating for Deuteronomy) to issues that relate to comparisons with extant neo-Assyrian treaties, and I have done so in the commentary (also in principle in my forthcoming article on Ex 25-40 which should be out this year). On the issues that relate to narrated time vs. time of narration etc., I certainly agree that there is material in the Pentateuch that has a vantage point of the monarchy. To what extent this is the case, and whether some, or even substantial parts could date from an early time will then be an issue for investigation. In my commentary on Joshua, I will argue that the book of Joshua could date from the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age in its substantial parts, with some updating etc. during the monarchy. The same could then be the case by implication with Deuteronomy, in particular as Joshua is heavily deuteronomic. These are tantalising issues, however, and worthy of careful consideration and discussion. Also, the issue is much about what kind of book the Pentateuch is (this also very much applies to Joshua), and this is of course implied by the reviewer above, too.

Home