We can take another brief look at the Axial Age, referring the reader to the longer discussions in World History And The Eonic Effect.  The formulation of Karl Jaspers remains ambiguous on the question of the rise of the modern. In fact, the rise of the modern period, once we clearly separate the interval of transition from what follows, shows an unmistakable macrohistorical connection to the earlier Axial period. It is in a real sense the ‘next Axial Age’. The double birth of democracy in successive transitions is one clue. We should begin, therefore, to drop the term ‘Axial’ and replace it with something more general (although its usage remains useful.  The period from 1500 to 1800 is the key to understanding this question. We must adopt a comprehensive description of this ‘early modern’ period, from the Reformation and Scientific Revolution to the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution, since we are completely dependent on the philosophies generated in this period for the very task demanded. One of the problems created by some interpreters lies in the way that the Axial Age is taken as the source of the great religions, to the neglect of the full phenomenon. But the Axial Age is a comprehensive spectrum including most especially the Greek transition with its different character, almost foreshadowing the rise of the modern.

These issues create a conflict over the meaning of the term ‘secularism’ in the attempts, mostly unsuccessful to define this in terms of the contrast of science and religion. But we will need a more general set of terms to mediate this conflict in the modern period. Proponents of traditional religion tend to be very suspicious of modern secularism. But this distracts us from seeing the solution to a simple puzzle. The question of the Axial Age is puzzling until we see its greater context, and the rise of the modern world in many ways contains the key to its understanding.  

We notice the Axial pattern in terms of creative individuals. These philosophers and sages are the tip of the iceberg, and behind them we see whole cultural regions, out of the blue, proceed rapidly to a new stage of culture. Note however that it is essential to induce change through individuals seeding cultures with new ideas. This does not explain the overall coordination over time of complex emergent events, i.e. the birth of democracy. Actually changing the mechanics of culture in those periods is less easy, and may prove abortive. The clearest and best-documented case is that of Archaic/Classical Greece. Roughly we have the following remarkable surge: 

Early tribal history of the Greeks
-1200-900 Mycenaean period, Greek Dark Ages
-900-600   Dark Ages/Archaic period
-600-400   The great take-off period, the Greek 'Miracle'
-400 onward: We enter the Hellenistic, it's over 

Compare this now to Israel:
Early Canaanite history
-1200-900 ? The onset of the 'Israel/Judah' kingdoms
-900-600   The history of 'Israel/Judah', emergence of Prophets
-600-400   The Exile period
-400 onward: A new religion has come into existence 

Note the isomorphic character of these two histories. We must realize the high level at which this dynamic is operating. And remarkably in both cases a great literature comes into existence, the Greek and Old Testament epics.  

Against the backdrop of world history as a whole this brief period from around -900 to -400 induces an immensity of innovative advances, with an intensity that has never been matched to this day, although the rise of the modern is a fair competitor. Note that we cannot ascribe simple causal/local influences as the cause of this phenomenon, since we are observing a part of a total Eurasian phenomenon. Each of five regions, Rome, Greece, Israel/Judah, India, and China, has an analogous interval in this fashion (the Roman being a bit late), although the Chinese and Indian are less well-known. The case of (early) Rome is really an aspect or variant of the Greek case, and can be considered, at this level of generality, in the same category. We can see that Rome arrives a bit later, for the obvious reason that it waits on diffusion from the Greek system. 

We have the clue to the Old Testament: it contains a core account of precisely this interval, with a great deal of other material tacked on as lead up history. The Axial interval is more about the emergence of the Bible than of Israelite history. Much of the content of the Bible distracts us from the crucial Axial interval. The tales of Abraham, Moses, the Exodus, are clearly the mythical lore of a Canaanite people who, especially during the Axial interval, accumulate a literature that, at the end of this interval, becomes what we know of as the Bible. Note the resemblance of this to the way the Greek Iliad and Odyssey come into existence. Achilles and Odysseus are not Axial figures, but the crystallization of the Greek epics is! The Homeric period in the eighth century is followed by an immense flowering of literature, which becomes incandescent in the period of Greek Tragedy. The latter lasts barely a century, and is gone. Stand back from this analogous biblical phenomenon, which casts its spell to this day. Is it not a very odd and historically embedded text? We see that its correlation with the Axial interval reveals at once its real significance. Our approach almost does better justice to this history. It makes almost no sense stripped of its religious mythology until we see its Axial context.  

Note the way the historical facticity behind the Biblical myths changes its character after around -900 in the wake of the David/Solomon era/myths and we have the histories of Israel/Judah or general Canaan up to the Exile. As foundational religious history, this is quite peculiar stuff, but in light of the Axial context it becomes precious historical lore indeed, the first documentation in writing of the genesis of a religious formation, a world historical moment. Note how various traditions of prophets suddenly without warning turn into the remarkable string of the classic Prophetic cluster in concert with the Greek timing. The sameness in difference from the Greek example is beguiling. We note how just around the Exile the Biblical corpus comes into something resembling its final form, and that from -400 onward the phenomenon is essentially finished, as the record is codified. The seeds of a 'world religion' or the materials for several have appeared and crystallized. Remarkably, as it happens, 'Israel/Judah' suddenly disappears at the period of the Exile, and we don't see the analogous sudden flowering that we find in Greece after -600. It makes no difference, however, to the overall effect.