Any good regional histories on the period between the last Old Testament Prophet, Malachi, and the 'New Testament' beginnings? basically from around 400 B.C. to 5 A.D. or so, maybe earlier as well, 540 B.C. or so, will do as well. David Limbaugh's were recommended, and they're pretty good, but he admits to writing more polemics than objective history, and I'm curious as to whether or not somebody has written any history expressed for those years of the region, outlining the various political factions over time, from the Babylonians, losing out ot he Persians, Alexander's establishing Koine Greek in the region to the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt versus the Seleucids after Alexander's death, the latter's attempts at Hellenisation, followed by the Roman invasions around 60 B.C. and how the Jewish politics inter-played with all that. If there aren't any, maybe somebody should write one, if they're looking for a Master's or Doctoral thesis topic to do.
Wycliffe's Commentary has a section on that period of Biblical history... ... should be available at your local library.
Yes. They're good for some things, but not complete and represent some faction or other. I'm looking for a sort of 'scorecard' for the era of the different factions involved; there were bound to be more than the three 'standard' factions traditionally named in histories. I've heard some estimates of there being 12 or more at some points, but few name them or offer much detail about them. I personally wouldn't doubt there were 12 or more, given the nature of Jewish politics and intellectual culture, especially in an era with so many 'diaspora' groups moving back and into Judah and the surrounding areas, all with their own sectarian views and scholars and leaders. The attempts at reconciling the various genealogies, especially the Babylonian versus Jerusalem versions along with their separate Talmuds must have made some interesting fireworks politically among the castes, particularly the upper castes.
Google is your friend. Read the stories. Make note of the characters, and then Google them for additional sources. One thing leads to another and before you know it you might get the answers to your questions.
I'm quit familiar with the Apocrypha, thanks; I'm looking for a comprehensive history re that particular region as opposed to reading bits and pieces from separate histories of other goings on around it. It probably doesn't exist, but I thought I would ask in case someone knew of some, or even one decent one. Limbaugh doesn't devote much to it, just an overview, in his new book, and his last one just covers the Old Testament era, for instance. I can find a fair amount written on earlier eras, and later eras, but little outside of small references here and there in books like Lionell Caisson's brief coverage in his Ancient Mariners or histories of Alexander's conquests and the like, which doesn't go into any details specific to politics of the region.
For the fear of God, the Jewish politics is separated from religion. That's why the end result is that the Jews have 6000 Pharisees as the guardians of the Oral Law. The formal canon has 22 books, as mentioned by Josephus. The rabbinical version may have 24 books however with the same exact contents, it's a matter of book arrangement which is different. The first 17 books of the 22 are said be sealed with a Hezekiah mark. That is to say, the serious canonization begins with King Hezekiah. Those books are last edited by Ezra after the Babylon exile. This is so possibly because during the 70 more years of exile, the Jews are so divided that they don't have a central authority to publish the Bible legitimately. It is thus a need for Ezra to edit out an authenticated copy of the Canon. After that the guardian naturally goes to the Great Sanhedrin. The end result is that only Scriptures 'published' by scribes appointed by the Sanhedrin are considered legitimate copies. The same applies to the canonization of the last several books of OT (the last 3 are said to be written in Aramaic because Aramaic becomes a more common spoken language in Jesus time. Both the Sadducees and Pharisees have dominated power inside the Sanhedrin. However, the Sadducees don't care too much about other books than the first 5 books. Sadducees actually only reckon the first 5 books of Law as legitimate. So the true guardian of the OT canon is the Pharisees having a seat or influence in Sanhedrin. The Sadducees on the other hand will make sure that books such as the book of Enoch won't be part of the Canon, because the contents violate too much of the Sadducee belief. Even though the last several books are added to the Canon as late as around Jesus' time, it by no means says that they are newly written. They can be books with very old and ancient contents but newly reckoned by the Sanhedrin as part of the OT Canon. Movements such as Hellenization has little effect to the process of canonization. That's actually why the Hellenists will have to use the Septuagint as their Bible because there is no any other copy of Scripture made from the Jews. Septuagint is rather a unmaintained book. Its publishing is not under strict control. It's up to the individual publisher (who scribes contents to scrolls made from animal skins) to determine whether the contents are well verified (and they are not). Thus even from what is said by Saint Steven, we can tell that there could be a significant difference between the contents from the Jewish canon and the Septuagint.
Liked the post, but I don't get this line; they were a theocracy as a tribe and as a nation, so how would one separate their politics from their religious offices and functions?
