Household and Family Religion in Persian-Period Judah: An Archaeological Approach by José E. Balcells Gallarreta

Abstract

Reviewed by: Household and Family Religion in Persian-Period Judah: An Archaeological Approach by José E. Balcells Gallarreta Michael S. Moore josé e. balcells gallarreta, Household and Family Religion in Persian-Period Judah: An Archaeological Approach (Ancient Near East Monographs 18; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017). Pp. xiv + 193. $48.95. This book is a measured response to two perceived problems: (a) Previous attempts to reconstruct the religious history of Persian-period Judah tend to focus only on official/state interests; plus (b) these attempts focus on textual to the practical exclusion of artifactual evidence. Inspired by Jeffrey Zorn's dissertational attempt to hammer out an updated site report for the long-established dig at Tell en-Naṣbeh ("Tell en-Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation of the Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Early Bronze Age, Iron Age and Later Periods" [Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1993]), G. here examines several pieces of evidence from this site (ancient Mizpah, 1 Sam 7:5) alongside biblical texts from the Persian period in order to argue that information from both sources is essential for developing a holistic understanding of "the religious ideas and practices of households in Persian period Judah" (p. 3). Aware of the fractious anthropological debate over what exactly constitutes a "ritual," G. reads the biblical evidence through lenses generated by the typological categories of Catherine Bell (Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009] 94-129), breaking "ritual" down into (a) rites of passage, (b) calendrical rites, (c) rites of exchange and communion, (d) rites of affliction, (e) feasting, fasting, and festivals, and (f) political rites (pp. 16-18). Keenly aware of the difficulties involved in conceptualizing "archaeology-of-ritual-and-religion" as a separate, self-contained discipline (pp. 11-15), G. justifiably wonders how many students will dare to engage this interdisciplinary world. Having laid out this theoretical framework, G. reads Ezra from a perspective piloted by Bell's ritual typologies, viewing Ezra 1:2-4 (Cyrus's decree) as an example of a "political rite"; 1:4-6 and 2:68-70—נדבות ("freewill offerings") and 3:2-6—עולות ("whole burnt offerings") as "rites of exchange and communion"; 3:4—חג סכות ("feast of booths") as a ritual of "feast, fasting and festivals"; 3:5—חדשים ("new moon feasts") as "calendrical festivals"; 3:10-11— ("great shouting" at the dedication of the temple) as both a "political rite" and a ritual of "feast, fasting and festivals"; 6:17—חנכת בית אלהים ("dedication of God's house") as a "political rite"; 6:17 and 8:35—חטאה, "purification offering") as a "rite of affliction"; 8:21—צום ("fast") at the River Ahava as a ritual of "feast, fasting, and festivals." Boundaries begin to blur, however, when these typologies are stretched too far, designating, for example, the reading of a letter as a "political rite" (4:23; 7:11) or the spontaneous tearing of clothes as a "rite of affliction" (9:3). Particularly problematic is the reading of the returnees' one-time "separation from the peoples of the land and its foreign women" (10:11) as a ritual of "feast, fasting and festivals." The rest of the book examines the site report of C. McCown et al. (Tell en-Naṣbeh Excavated under the Direction of the Late William Frederic Badè [Berkeley: Palestine Institute of Pacific School of Religion and the American Schools of Oriental Research, 1947]), Zorn's interpretation of it ("Tell en-Naṣbeh: A Re-evaluation"), and selected artifacts from the Badè Museum of Biblical Archaeology in Berkeley (see the black-and-white photos on pp. 170-76). For textual/biblical scholars this is where interest flags because (a) the criteria for associating Tell en-Naṣbeh Stratum 2 with the Persian period are admittedly ambiguous; (b) that which constitutes "household" activity is admittedly unclear; [End Page 304] (c) archaeologists cannot agree on what constitutes a "religious" artifact; nor (d) can they agree on what constitutes a "religious" context. G. himself struggles with these hurdles because right after citing Rosemary Joyce's appeal to "stylization of action" as a way to determine religious vs. nonreligious activity ("What Should an Archaeology of Religion Look Like to a Blind Archaeologist?," in International Encyclopedia of the...