right of Judeans, even communities living outside of Judah, to live accord-
ing to their ancestral laws was widely recognized by Hellenistic rulers, who
were probably continuing Persian policy. But there are good grounds for
regarding “Judaism” as a phenomenon of the Second Temple period. Ac-
cordingly, the period under review in this volume belongs to the early his-
tory of Judaism, even if the beginnings should be sought somewhat earlier.
While some biblical books (Daniel and probably Qoheleth) date from
the Hellenistic age, the primary evidence for Judaism in this period lies in
literature and other evidence dated“between the Bible and the Mishnah”
(Nickelsburg 2005). Accordingly, this has sometimes been called the
“intertestamental” period. While this term does not have the derogatory
character ofSpätjudentum,it does reflect a Christian perspective. More-
over, it obscures the fact that the New Testament itself provides evidence
for Judaism in this period, and that some of the important Jewish writings
(e.g., Josephus,4 Ezra, 2 Baruch) are contemporary with or later than some
of the Christian Scriptures. In recent years, it has become customary to use
the label “Second Temple Judaism” for this period (Stone 1984). Again, sev-
eral relevant Jewish authors (most notably Josephus) worked after the de-
struction of the Second Temple, but the inaccuracy can be excused on the
grounds that many of the later writings are still greatly preoccupied with
the Temple and its destruction, and that the restructuring and reconcep-
tualizing of the religion that we find in rabbinic literature did not occur
immediately when Jerusalem fell. The Second Temple period, however,
must begin with the Persians, and includes the editing, if not the composi-
tion, of much of the Hebrew Bible.
In this volume, we are mainly concerned with the evidence for Juda-
ism between the Bible and the Mishnah. There is still overlap with the later
biblical books, and the rabbinic corpus, compiled centuries later, also con-
tains material relevant to the earlier period. No characterization, and no
exact delimitation, is without problems, but “Early Judaism” seems the
least problematic label available. (The designation “Middle Judaism,” sug-
gested by Gabriele Boccaccini [1991], might be applied more appropriately
to the Middle Ages. It is hardly appropriate for prerabbinic Judaism.) The
conquests of Alexander are taken as theterminus a quo,on the grounds
that they marked a major cultural transition. Several extant postbiblical
Jewish writings date from the third or early second centuryb.c.e.,priorto
the Maccabean Revolt, which has often served as a marker for a new era
(e.g., in Schürer’sHistory). The reign of Hadrian (117-138c.e.) and the Bar
Kokhba Revolt (132-135c.e.) are taken to mark the end of an era, but not2john j. collinsEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:47 PM