This is denied by M. Haran in “Shiloh and Jerusalem”, JBL 81 (1962), 14–24, for whom the Shiloh sanctuary was a “tabernacle” which served as a model for the priestly description in Exodus. He has too much confidence in the later texts which will be discussed and he is obliged to reject the texts which we have just cited and Jeremiah 7:12–14. The affirmation of the prophet Nathan (2 Samuel 7:6–7) which he uses as an argument, is explained otherwise: The prophet is opposed to the construction of a Canaanite type of temple, but he was not unaware that there was a “house” of “Yahweh” in Shiloh, or that the ark had been in the house of Abinadab in Kiryat Jearim (1 Samuel 7:1) then in the house of Obed-edom (2 Samuel 6:10–12) cf A. Weiser, “Die Tempelbaukrise unter David”, in ZAW 77 (1965), 153–68, spec. 158–159; R. de Vaux, “Jerusalem et ses prophetes”, in RB 73 (1965), 481–509, spec. 486–487.