Taanath-shiloh
A biblical place-name mentioned in the boundary description of Ephraim’s territory in Joshua 16:6.
A biblical place-name mentioned in the boundary description of Ephraim’s territory in Joshua 16:6.
A location named in Joshua’s description of Ephraim’s border.
Taanath-shiloh is a place-name mentioned in Joshua 16:6 as part of the boundary description for the tribe of Ephraim. Its biblical significance is primarily geographical and historical: it helps define the tribal allotment recorded in Joshua, but Scripture does not attach a further theological or narrative development to the site. The location is uncertain, and interpreters should be cautious about going beyond the biblical evidence. For dictionary purposes, this term belongs among biblical place-names rather than theological concepts.
Joshua lists Taanath-shiloh in the description of Ephraim’s inheritance. As with several other boundary markers in Joshua, the site serves to locate tribal territory in the land promised to Israel.
The term reflects the ancient practice of defining tribal boundaries by named landmarks. Because the site is only briefly mentioned, historical reconstruction remains tentative.
Ancient readers would have understood the name as part of Israel’s territorial geography. Later Jewish discussion does not appear to assign it a major theological role.
The Hebrew place-name is transliterated as Taanath-shiloh. The meaning and precise identification of the site are uncertain.
Taanath-shiloh has little direct theological teaching of its own. Its main significance is that it helps mark the inheritance of Ephraim, showing the ordered distribution of the land under Joshua.
As a boundary marker, the name illustrates how Scripture grounds Israel’s life in real places, real inheritance, and covenant history rather than abstract ideas alone.
Do not press the name into speculative symbolism or detailed site identification beyond what the text supports. Its exact location is uncertain, and the passage is primarily geographical.
Most interpreters treat Taanath-shiloh as an otherwise unidentified boundary landmark in Ephraim’s territory, with no agreed certainty about its modern location.
This entry should be understood as biblical geography, not as a doctrine-bearing term. No theological conclusion should be drawn from the name beyond its role in Joshua’s territorial list.
Taanath-shiloh reminds readers that God’s promises were worked out in concrete history and geography. The land allotments in Joshua underscore order, inheritance, and faithfulness to God’s covenant purposes.