At the end of the exile, the boundaries of sacred geography were open for YHWH could once again dwell in Jerusalem in a rebuilt temple, and temple centrality could be renewed. Yet how were such abstract theological and geographical commitments enacted? To what extent was the influence of the city felt and practiced in Yehud or far-away Egypt and Babylon? To answer such questions, this volume examines "centrality" through the practices of animal sacrifice, pilgrimage, tithing, and the use of incense and figurines. Unique in its appraisal of centrality via religious practice and in its integration of the biblical text and archaeological record, Knowles offers a compelling portrait of the variegated centralities of the Jerusalem temple in the Persian period.
There's a ton of great information . . . yet it's derived from other secondary sources, meaning the author uses other books to get information from the ancient materials. I suppose a model could look like this:
Ancient materials-----> Other secondary sources-----> Centrality Practiced
Now, the presentation of other material is very well done; and yet, the theories feel unconvincing. Yes, everything flowed towards Jerusalem. But there is a ton evidence elsewhere that other ancient sites (e.g., Ramat Rahel, about 2 miles south of Jerusalem) were also extremely important centers. Now, she's concerned with the religious centrality of Jerusalem, so other political centers simply aren't Jerusalem; and yet, were the political and the religious ever really that separate? I think not.
Great info, but derivative and dependent, and leaves the reader unsure what difference some of the theories really make.