Varieties of Judaism during the Second Temple Period

Although it is problematic to read our understanding of terms like “Jew” and “Judaism” back into the ancient texts, modern researchers continue to use these terms to describe and evaluate phenomena from the ancient world. Writers increasingly speak of the “Judaisms” of the Second Temple period. The hostile tone of many of the exchanges between the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their enemies, including the Pharisees and Sadducees, has contributed to this development of the plural “Judaisms.” Residents of Qumran apparently self-identified as the only component of “Judaism” that knew the truth and would escape God’s wrath at the end of time. This “us/them” mentality is apparent in the community’s self-designated status as the Sons of Light vs. Sons of Darkness (referring to everyone else, Jews or non-Jews). Presumably the Pharisees and Sadducees responded with equally harsh rhetoric, which was not unconventional at that time.

It is unclear whether Second Temple sectarians and other Jews had more points of commonality or more differences. If the differences outweighed the commonalities, the designation “Judaisms” would be correct for this period. However, careful analysis demonstrates that, despite differences, these groups shared many characteristics that bound them as one people. For example:

• They were unique as monotheists.

• They were deeply concerned about purity.

• They observed most of the same holidays and the weekly Sabbath.

• Their lives centered on the Jerusalem temple (the Qumran sectarians sought to eliminate what they viewed as the corrupt leadership of the temple, but not the temple itself).

• They accepted at least some of the same Scripture (the Sadducees, only the Torah; the Qumran community, even more than the later Hebrew Bible).

• They had enriching (if not always compatible) traditions of scriptural exegesis and application.

• For the most part, they had developed a belief in reward and punishment after earthly life.

Ultimately, the debate was intra-Jewish, not inter-confessional.