(avg. read time: 9–19 mins.)
As another way of setting the scene before we interact with more Second Temple Jewish texts this year, I would like to post material based on teaching outlines I worked on for my Second Temple Judaism class. Like many eras, what is designated as the Second Temple era, as well as the sub-eras contained therein, have disputable starting points and ending points. Overall, we are concerned with the time from ~539 BCE to ~135 CE. This era has typically divided into four periods: Persian, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, and Roman. Of course, we should remember that discrete periods used for designation and discussion are not as discrete as we describe them; there was overlap, transition (especially between the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods), and extended developments spanning periods. Timelines will also not be comprehensive for major events of these periods, as our focus is on what is most directly relevant for Second Temple Judaism.
In what follows, we will first supply timelines for the different periods. We will then list primary sources for each period relevant to Second Temple Judaism. Key figures who are presented in bold font in the timeline will then be reviewed in a distinct section. We will then expand our scope to look at some historical context. I do not pretend to be writing a full-blown history of this era or any period therein; I am only looking at highlights that are important for understanding various developments in the Second Temple era. For anyone interested in deeper historical work on the Second Temple era, I would especially recommend John Barclay’s Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora. One set of developments I will pay special attention to in a subsequent section is theological developments. Finally, I present areas that call for further research. This is not to say no one has researched the matters I note, but they are areas I need to research further and that I think others should also continue to contribute research for.
Persian Period
Timeline (539 BCE–331 BCE)
As I said before, the starting points and ending points for periods are certainly debatable, and this is no exception. The dates correspond, more or less, to when the Persian Achaemenid Empire conquered the Babylonian Empire and when Alexander the Great defeated Darius III at Gaugamela.
(Adapted from Miller and Hayes, 501–2)
Biblical Texts of This Period
1 and 2 Chronicles
Ezra-Nehemiah
Esther
Daniel (according to some)
Joel (possibly)
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Other Sources for This Period
Ahiqar? (Tob 1:21–22; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10)
Josephus, Ant. 10.232–11.312
Herodotus
Thucydides
Ctesias
Xenophon
Nabonidus Chronicles
Cyrus Cylinder
Elephantine papyri
Samaria papyri
Gadatas Inscription
Xanthus Inscription
(For a more comprehensive list, see Lester L. Grabbe, Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah, vol. 1 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period [London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004])
Major Figures
Cyrus II the Great, fourth king of the Achaemenid Dynasty and founder of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia
Under his leadership, Persia conquered the three world powers of the ancient Near East: the Median Empire, the kingdom of Lydia, and the Neo-Babylonian Empire.
As a result, he built the largest empire the world had ever seen to that point.
Because of his status as the new overlord of these various kingdoms, he took the title King of Kings, which had been in use beforehand at least since the time of Assyrian rule, but it was never so consistently used until the precedent Cyrus set in the Persian Empire.
Cyrus intentionally fostered the idea that he was a liberator of captives: “In this endeavor he was building upon and exploiting an age-old royal tradition. The portrait of the good ruler as ‘the gatherer of the dispersed’ and ‘the restorer of the gods and their sanctuaries’ was a common feature of Near Eastern royal ideology” (Miller and Hayes, 505).
This propagated/propagandized self-portrayal is linked with another major factor in what made him a successful ruler: his policy of religious tolerance and even pluralism.
Cyrus seems to have been intentionally ambiguous about his religious beliefs, which has led to scholars continuing to debate his religious adherence to this day.
Part of the reason for this ambiguity may be that Cyrus saw benefit in establishing/accepting his legitimation by means of various religions.
For example, the Cyrus Cylinder attributes his success to Marduk’s election of him as king, while Isa 45 describes him as YHWH’s anointed.
The occasion of his death is historically disputed as different sources say he was defeated in battle by Tomyris of the Massagetae (Herodotus and, less directly, Berossus), he may have died sometime shortly after the battle (Ctesias), or he may have died a peaceful death (Xenophon).
Cambyses II
Successor of Cyrus and introduced as such by Cyrus himself.
Most notably, he added Egypt to the empire, expanding the sphere of Persian influence even further into the major societies of the Near East and even what would be known as “the West.”
In a manner of speaking, the Diaspora Jews and the Judeans were now largely encompassed by the same kingdom at a time when the hope of return to Eretz Israel was popular, but it was not the kingdom they hoped for.
Darius I (the Great)
Descended from Hystaspes, a member of the Achaemenid line, rather than Cyrus, but won the throne through a process of intrigue after Cambyses left no successor.
Ruled over the empire at the height of its power.
Established the system of satrapies dividing the Persian Empire and designated satraps to govern these provinces.
Established a uniform monetary system by which these satrapies paid tribute.
Made Imperial/Royal Aramaic the lingua franca of the empire.
Mentioned in Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah.
Xerxes I
Probably Ahasuerus in Esther.
In larger Western history, he is best known for his failed invasion of Greece and the subsequent stagnation of the empire beginning in his rule.
Artaxerxes I
Faced an Egyptian revolt from 460BCE–454 BCE.
The importance of the province of Yehud (see below) became especially apparent in this era, since it was at an important crossroads, both as a trade route and as a buffer with the boundaries of the empire, which it would continue to function as in the coming empires.
Biblically speaking, he is most notable for his relationship to Ezra and Nehemiah, as well as being the other possible candidate for Ahasuerus in Esther.
Josephus skips from Artaxerxes to Darius III in his Jewish history, except for one event that is probably from the reign of Artaxerxes III, but there is at least one other figure to mention:
Darius II (424/423 BCE–405/404 BCE)
A letter from Elephantine written in 407 BCE (Miller and Hayes, 526–27) requests for Darius to rebuild the local temple.
Another letter (the Passover Papyrus) notes that Darius has ordered for the Jews of Elephantine to be allowed to celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which secured majority Jewish loyalty to the emperor against the Egyptian rebels.
Darius III
Known for overseeing the crumbling of the Achaemenid Empire amidst rebellious satraps and the ascendance of Alexander’s Greek kingdom on the world stage.
Zerubbabel and Joshua
Although Sheshbazzar was the first governor of the Judeans in the Persian Empire, Zerubbabel and Joshua were the leaders among those returning from Babylon and led the restoration of the temple, with Zerubbabel as governor and Joshua as restorer of the high priesthood in the land (Haggai; Zechariah).
Ezra
Regarded in Jewish tradition as a revivalist rather than a reformer per se.
In his time, we see the issues of Jewish identity come to the fore, where they would stay, particularly because of Jewish intermarriage with the “peoples of the land” (Ezra 9–10).
Under Ezra’s influence, the identity symbols of the Torah and the temple cult were firmly centralized in Jewish religion.
Nehemiah
Rebuilder of Jerusalem’s walls and enforcer of Ezra’s directives (Neh 13).
Sanballat I
Often referenced as the primary leader of the Samaritan resistance to the returning exiles.
Related to the high priestly family by marriage (Neh 13:28).
Highlights of Historical Context
The primary domain of Jewish history in this period is in the Persian province of Yehud, a province smaller than the former Kingdom of Judah with a population figure still under debate in scholarly circles, consisting of anywhere from 10%–30% of Jews returning from Babylon (Williamson, 31–32).
Aramaic had been present in the land of Eretz Israel since the Neo-Assyrian Empire, but it became standardized in the form of Imperial/Royal Aramaic that was the lingua franca of the Persian Empire.
Archaeological evidence corroborates the impressions given by the biblical texts that the Persians appointed native rulers and typically allowed for self-governance within parameters set by Persian affairs (Miller and Hayes, 523).
The history of the region between Artaxerxes I and the arrival of Alexander is a relative dark age in terms of literary history, as John Bright states succinctly: “As regards the community in Judah, one can say little more than that it was there” (409).
Archaeology testifies to the effects of battles between the Persians and the Egyptians in ~400–340 BCE, after the latter had broken away from the Persian Empire by the end of the fifth century BCE and both kingdoms vied for control of the region (Eph‘al, 145–46).
The high priesthood became re-established in prominence to such a degree that a high priest could put his name on coins (Dan Barag, “Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest,” BA 48 (1985): 166–68).
This coin evidence plausibly coincides with Josephus’s report about intrigue in the high priesthood, likely during the reign of Artaxerxes III, during which a priest named John killed his brother, Jesus, for the office of high priest (Ant. 11.297–301).
Theological Developments
There was a greater systematization in religion in this period (as Ezra exemplifies) and observations from earlier scholarship lead many to believe that the Persian period was the time of either the production or compilation of most of the OT. This is not the place for evaluating the claims, but it is something worth noting.
The overarching reality of this era is the ongoing state of exile, subjugation, and dispersion combined with the desire for restoration, as I have explored in a series here, here, and here.
Miller and Hayes describe this state as involving “assumptions that the exile marked a radical break in authentic existence, that proper restoration was the work of those who had actually experienced being in exile, and that the renewed community must in some sense be new and uncontaminated and yet stand in continuity with conditions that had existed prior to the exile” (512). However, I suggest that this account is insufficient.
We see in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, and Micah prophecies of hope for return to the land, reunion of the tribes, restoration/rebuilding of what had been destroyed, and reign of God and God’s king over Israel. However, this was followed by experience of incomplete return and thus a non-reunion with most of any of the tribes, lackluster restoration as the temple paled in comparison to the old one, and no reign in the eschatological kingdom of God or of God’s king because Persia was in power over Yehud.
The need to explain this experience combined with the foundational conviction that God’s promises cannot fail led to the proliferation of eschatological schemata, apocalypticism, and divergent ideas of best practices of Judaism to ensure that one received the promises.
One especially prominent hope seen in the prophetic literature of this era that is in general continuity with exilic and pre-exilic texts is the hope of YHWH returning to Zion as the conquering king to triumph over all that would resist his promises. In essence, the full, proper return could not happen until YHWH’s full, proper return.
As I have argued elsewhere, following N. T. Wright (JVG, 612–53; PFG, 653–90), these expectations formed a basis for early Christology.
In the biblical literature of this era, we also see the roots of what would become a crucial literary medium for re-presenting these biblical hopes, as well as deeper knowledge of the world in general: apocalypses.
An apocalypse belongs to, “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another supernatural world” (John Collins, 9).
Its fundamental purpose was, “to interpret present earthly circumstances in the light of the supernatural world and of the future, and to influence both the understanding and the behavior of the audience by means of divine authority” (Adela Collins, 7).
A common feature of apocalyptic and eschatologically oriented texts, as we will see especially among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is that the recipients of the visions—and by extension, the audience who reads of their visions—have particular knowledge, wisdom, or insight revealed to them by virtue of their faithfulness to the God who reveals.
Moshe Idel: “Unlike other forms of eschatology, apocalypticism believes in, expects, and sometimes even calls for a manifest revolution. Nevertheless, what is characteristic of the apocalyptic expectations, as I understand them, is the emphasis upon supernatural revolution, rather than natural evolution which exploits potentialities inherent in the ordinarily [sic.] processes” (41).
Scholars often note this era as the beginning of some of the more extensive theological developments of Second Temple Judaism, such as conceptions of divine agency, angelology, demonology, cosmology, eschatological expectations, resurrection theology, and apocalypticism. There is debate over whether these developments are primarily motivated by the internal dynamics of Judaism or by external influence from the Persian religion of Zoroastrianism.
As controversial as the history of Judaism is in terms of when and how certain developments took place, the history of Zoroastrianism is arguably even less clear, and it is far from certain how much interaction Jews had with Zoroastrianism or in what form they might have experienced it.
Zoroastrianism designated Ahura Mazda, a god traditionally worshipped in Indo-Iranian religion, as the supreme god.
This complicates the question of which, if any, of the Persian emperors were Zoroastrian, as devotion to Ahura Mazda does not distinguish Zoroastrians from traditional Indo-Iranian religion.
As James Barr has observed, “It is one thing to make a list of things that seem similar in Judaism and Zoroastrianism—dualism, hell, resurrection, and so on—and quite another to say that the structures and internal dynamics of the two religions are similar. The structural question does not merely ask if both religions have a resurrection, or a hell, or angels, or whatever it may be. Rather, it seeks the reasons within each religion why a resurrection, or a hell, or angels, or dualism, is significant” (220).
On resurrection, C. D. Elledge has provided a recent and helpful overview of various versions of both theories (44–65).
Regardless of how one settles the question of the relationship of Judaism and Zoroastrianism, the explicit emphasis in terms of symbols and praxis in Yehud—and in many other areas of the Persian Empire—was on Jewish distinctiveness through adherence to tradition.
Stern has noted extensive archaeological evidence that regions of Palestine and Phoenicia maintained devotion to deities of traditional polytheism, along with some importation of Greek cults, but Samaria and Yehud are decidedly lacking any evidence of pagan cult remains, seemingly indicating that they were serious about maintaining separation from this idolatrous environment (488–513).
Central symbols of Torah, temple, land, and genealogy were reaffirmed to establish a distinct cultural identity in the midst of a multicultural empire.
Even so, it is worth noting that the Jews at Elephantine had their own temple during this era.
These central symbols also featured in worship and in defining a distinctly Jewish way of life (especially in terms of keeping Torah, the Sabbath, dietary laws, and purity codes).
Another key emphasis of praxis was the celebration of festivals; Purim was added to the Jewish calendar in this era (Esth 9:18–32); the Passover letter from Elephantine attests to the importance of the Festival of Unleavened Bread for Jews outside of Eretz Israel (cf. 2 Chron 30; 35; Ezra 6:19–22); biblical texts attest to the historical and eschatological significance attached to Sukkoth (Ezra 3:1–7; Neh 8:13–18; Zech 14:16–21).
This era also witnessed the beginning of radical separation between the people of Samaria and the people of Yehud, a hostility that would continue into the time of Jesus.
Areas for Further Research
How exactly did the high priest function in this time and what were the expectations of his role? How do the indications from the biblical evidence fit with evidence from later times, such as Josephus and the aforementioned coins?
What were the lingering theological effects of this sense of an ongoing state of exile, subjugation, and dispersion combined with the desire for restoration? How did this sense develop in subsequent eras? Are there discernible differences in this sense in sources from the Diaspora as opposed to sources from Palestinian Jews? In particular, how was the hope for YHWH’s return to Zion expressed in different times and different places?
Much has been written of apocalypses, their origin, and why they emerged among the Jews in this time period because questions surrounding these concerns are still highly debatable. What cultural influences (including internal ones from Israelite religion) led to the emergence of apocalyptic literature? Why did these influences converge to begin producing apocalypses in this era? In light of the responses to these two questions, what would a thick description of Jewish apocalypses look like and how would this thick portrayal look in comparison to apocalypses in other cultures?
The nature of Zoroastrianism in this era and its relationship to Second Temple Judaism (or early Christianity after it) have also been subjects of great debate. One of the problems with how this question has been engaged in scholarship in the Anglophone world is the fact that much of the scholarly engagement from Iran is still inaccessible to most Anglophone scholars. But in any case, much of the comparative work on Zoroastrianism and Judaism has been rather superficial, as have accounts for why these religions had the theological similarities that they did. This problem applies both to scholars who give Zoroastrianism a determinative role in the formation of Judaism and to scholars who deny influence has occurred. Typically, Judaism/Christianity has been the baseline for comparison and communication of religious ideas, which has led to a circular process of scholars describing Zoroastrianism in Jewish/Christian terms, noting the “profound” similarities, and rendering an account for how/why this influence from Zoroastrianism to Judaism/Christianity occurred. What is needed for proper comparative work and a good historical account for their relationship is a thick, emic description of both religions, their theologies, and their texts.
The rest of the history covered here will indicate intensely hostile relations between Judeans and Samaritans. However, history tends to be more complicated, and so I wonder if there are any counter-indications in the evidence of friendlier relations between Judeans and Samaritans.
Bibliography
Barag, Dan. “Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest.” BA 48 (1985): 166–68.
Barr, James. “The Question of Religious Influence: The Case of Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity.” JAAR 53 (1985): 201–35.
Bright, John. History of Israel, 4th ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. “Introduction: Early Christian Apocalypticism.” Semeia 36 (1986): 1–11.
Collins, John J. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14 (1979): 1–20
Elledge, C. D. Resurrection of the Dead in Early Judaism 200 BCE–CE 200. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Eph‘al, Israel. “Syria-Palestine Under Achaemenid Rule.” Pages 139–64 in The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Edited by John Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, and M. Ostwald. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Grabbe, Lester L. Yehud: A History of the Persian Province of Judah. Vol. 1 of A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. London; New York: T & T Clark, 2004.
_____. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. Vol. 1: The Persian and Greek Periods. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Harriman, K. R. “The King Arrives, but for What Purpose? The Christological Use of Zechariah 13—14 in Mark 13.” JTI 10 (2016): 283–98.
Idel, Moshe. “On Apocalypticism in Judaism.” Pages 40–74 in Progress, Apocalypse, and Completion of History and Life after Death of the Human Person in the World Religions. Edited by Peter Koslowski. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2002.
Miller, J. Maxwell, and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006.
Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Vol. 2: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.). New York: Doubleday, 2001.
Williamson, H. G. M. Studies in Persian Period History and Historiography. FAT 38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Wright, N. T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
_____. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Vol. 4 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.
Yamauchi, Edwin M. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.