FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS ON THE
PHARISEES
STUDIA POST-BIBLICA I N S T I T U T A A P.A.H. DE BOER
ADIUVANTIBUS L.R.A. V A N R O M P A Y
E T J.
SMIT
SIBINGA
EDIDIT J.C.H
LEBRAM
VOLUMEN TRICESIMUM NONUM
FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS ON THE PHARISEES A Composition-Critical Study
BY
STEVE
E.J. LEIDEN
MASON
BRILL
• NEW YORK • K0BENHAVN • KOLN 1991
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Com mittee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: a composition-critical study / by Steve Mason. p. cm.—(Studia post-Biblica, ISSN 0169-9717; v. 39) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-09181-5 1. Josephus, Flavius—Views on Pharisees. 2. Pharisees— Historiography. I. Title. II. Series. DS115.9.J6M37 1990 296.8'12—dc20 90-19845 CIP
ISSN ISBN ©
0169-9717 90 04 09181 5
Copyright 1991 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche or any other means without written permission from the publisher Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, SALEM MA 01970, USA. Fees are subject to change. P R I N T E D IN T H E N E T H E R L A N D S
For my parents, Terry and Grace Mason
CONTENTS Preface a n d A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
xm
Abbreviations
xvi PART I INTRODUCTION
C H A P T E R 1. M e t h o d in the S t u d y o f Pharisaic H i s t o r y
1
I.
T h e G o a l o f R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees
4
II.
T h e S o u r c e s for R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees
7
I I I . T h e P r o c e d u r e o f R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees
10
S u m m a r y and Conclusion
16
CHAPTER 2.
Scholarly Interpretations o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees ..
H.
Paret a n d E . G e r l a c h
G.
Holscher
:
18 19 21
B. Briine, R . L a q u e u r , H . R a s p
25
A.
30
M.
Schlatter Smith a n d J. N e u s n e r
32
E.
Rivkin
36
D.
Schwartz
37
C o n c l u s i o n to Part I T h e N e e d for a N e w Study o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees
40
A i m s o f the S t u d y
41
P r o c e d u r e o f the Study
42
E x c u r s u s : A P r e l i m i n a r y A s s e s s m e n t o f J o s e p h u s as an A u t h o r
45
I.
T h e Source Problem
45
II.
J o s e p h u s ' s Literary Assistants
48
I I I . Christian Influence o n the T e x t
51
P A R T II THE
P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH
C H A P T E R 3. P u r p o s e a n d O u t l o o k o f the Jewish War
WAR 57
I.
Historical A p p r o a c h e s
57
II.
Exegesis o f the P r o l o g u e to War
62
I I I . J o s e p h u s and the 'Axpt(ki<x o f H i s t o r y
75
CONTENTS
VIII
C H A P T E R 4 . War 1:107-114: T h e Pharisees a n d A l e x a n d r a Salome, I
82
I.
Context
83
II.
Key Terms
84
I I I . Interpretation
HO
IV.
H3
Source Analysis
C H A P T E R 5. War 1:571: T h e Pharisees at H e r o d ' s C o u r t , I
116
I.
Context
116
II.
Key Terms
116
I I I . Interpretation IV.
117
S o u r c e Analysis
118
Summary C H A P T E R 6.
119 War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 : T h e Pharisees
a m o n g the
Jewish
Schools, I
120
I.
Context
121
II.
Five Statements A b o u t the Pharisees
124
A.
124
R e p u t a t i o n for Exegetical P r o w e s s
B.
" T h e First S c h o o l "
125
C.
Fate a n d Free W i l l
132
D.
1. K e y T e r m s
133
2.
152
Interpretation
T h e Soul
156
1. T e r m s a n d C o n c e p t s
156
2.
Interpretation
161
E. Promotion of H a r m o n y
170
1. K e y T e r m s
170
2.
173
Interpretation
I I I . Interpretation o f War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6
173
IV.
176
S o u r c e Analysis P A R T III THE
P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH
ANTIQUITIES
C H A P T E R 7. T h e P u r p o s e a n d O u t l o o k o f Antiquities
181
I.
Preface a n d D o m i n a n t T h e m e s
182
II.
R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n War a n d Antiquities
186
I I I . T h e Pharisees in Antiquities
193
S u m m a r y and Conclusion
195
CONTENTS
C H A P T E R 8. Ant.
IX
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 : T h e Pharisees a m o n g the J e w i s h
S c h o o l s , II
196
I.
Context
197
II.
Key Terms
202
I I I . Interpretation
202
IV.
207
Source Analysis
Summary and Conclusion C H A P T E R 9. Ant.
211
1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 : T h e Pharisees a n d J o h n H y r c a n u s
I.
Context
II.
Literary P r o b l e m s a n d Solutions
I I I . Interpretation o f Ant. IV. A. B.
216
13:288-296
227
T h e Pharisaic Nofxifioc Key Terms Interpretation o f Ant.
230 231 240
13:297-298
S u m m a r y and Conclusion CHAPTER
213 214
10. Ant.
13:400-432: T h e
245 Pharisees
and
Alexandra
S a l o m e , II
246
I.
Context
246
II.
Interpretation
248
Summary and Conclusion C H A P T E R 1 1 . Ant. I.
Context
II.
Key Terms
258
1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 : T h e Pharisees at H e r o d ' s C o u r t , II
260 260 263
I I I . T h e M e a n i n g o f P r o p h e c y for J o s e p h u s
267
IV.
Interpretation
272
V.
Source Analysis
274
CHAPTER
12. Ant.
1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 : T h e Pharisees
a m o n g the
Jewish
S c h o o l s , III
281
I.
Context
282
Five Statements A b o u t the Pharisees
287
II.
A.
B.
Avoidance of Luxury
287
1. K e y T e r m s
287
2.
288
Interpretation
T h e Pharisaic T r a d i t i o n
288
1. K e y T e r m s
289
2.
292
Interpretation
CONTENTS
X
C.
Fate a n d Free W i l l
293
1. K e y T e r m s 2. D.
E.
294
Interpretation
.
297
I m m o r t a l i t y o f Souls
297
1. K e y T e r m s
298
2.
299
Interpretation
T h e Influence o f the Pharisees
300
1. K e y T e r m s
305
2.
306
Interpretation
III. Source Analysis
306
Summary and Conclusion
307 P A R T IV
THE
PHARISEES IN T H E
LIFE
C H A P T E R 13. P u r p o s e a n d O u t l o o k o f the Life
311
I.
Date
311
II.
Occasion, Purpose, Outlook
316
Summary and Critique
321
C H A P T E R 14. T h e Pharisaic A l l e g i a n c e o f J o s e p h u s in M o d e r n Scholarship Importance
325
I.
The
o f Josephus's
II.
A r g u m e n t s O f f e r e d in S u p p o r t
Pharisaic
A l l e g i a n c e in
M o d e r n Scholarship
326 o f Josephus's
Pharisaic
Allegiance S u m m a r y a n d C o n c l u s i o n : T h e I m p o r t a n c e o f Life 1 2 b C H A P T E R 15. Life 10-12: J o s e p h u s ' s R e l i g i o u s Q u e s t
330 339 342
I.
Context
342
II.
Key Terms
347
I I I . Interpretation
353
Summary and Conclusion
355
C H A P T E R 16. Life 189-198: J o s e p h u s , S i m o n , a n d the D e l e g a t i o n
357
I.
Context
357
II.
Interpretation
360
Summary
370
CONTENTS
C o n c l u s i o n to the Study
XI
372
A p p e n d i x A . T h e H i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f War a n d Antiquities: A D i a l o g u e with H . W . A t t r i d g e
376
A p p e n d i x B . Scholarly Interpretations o f J o s e p h u s o n Fate a n d Free W i l l Bibliography
384 399
Index of M o d e r n Authors
415
Index of Greek W o r d s
420
I n d e x o f A n c i e n t G r o u p s a n d Personalities
423
PREFACE A N D ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS N o o n e c a n write a n d publish a scholarly m o n o g r a p h w i t h o u t m a s s i v e assistance
from various
quarters.
This
is especially true w h e n
the
m a n u s c r i p t in q u e s t i o n b e g i n s its life, as this o n e d i d , " i n fulfillment o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s for the d e g r e e , D o c t o r o f P h i l o s o p h y " . A l l sorts o f p e o p l e a n d institutions
h e l p e d pilot this p r o j e c t t h r o u g h the perilous
waters o f the d o c t o r a l p r o g r a m m e ; m a n y others h a v e h e l p e d m e to r e c o m m i s s i o n it as a b o o k . I a m delighted here to r e c o r d m y gratitude. I n the first p l a c e , m y entire career as a d o c t o r a l student w o u l d h a v e b e e n i m p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t the financial s u p p o r t that I r e c e i v e d f r o m the Social S c i e n c e s a n d H u m a n i t i e s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f C a n a d a , w h i c h granted m e a f o u r - y e a r d o c t o r a l fellowship. It w a s this f u n d i n g that m a d e possible m y t w o years o f research a b r o a d , in J e r u s a l e m a n d T u b i n g e n . T h e S S H R C C has m a d e C a n a d a a m o s t c o n g e n i a l e n v i r o n m e n t for h u m a n i s t i c scholarship; m a y it always b e s o . A n e q u a l l y indispensable c o n d i t i o n o f this project w a s the intellectual stimulation
a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t that I r e c e i v e d f r o m m y teachers
M c M a s t e r U n i v e r s i t y : Professors B . F . M e y e r , A . I . B a u m g a r t e n ,
at and
E . P . Sanders. T h e s e scholars s h o w e d m e , a m o n g other things, that firstcentury Judaism
w a s a rich a n d e x c i t i n g w o r l d , a n d n o t m e r e l y the
" b a c k g r o u n d " to nascent
Christianity.
W h e n I w a s at the H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y o f J e r u s a l e m , for the first phase o f the p r o j e c t ( 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 ) , Prof. D a n i e l R . S c h w a r t z always lent a willing ear to m y d e v e l o p i n g thesis a n d offered m u c h helpful a d v i c e , in spite o f his v e r y b u s y s c h e d u l e . I also benefited f r o m c o n v e r s a t i o n s with P r o fessors D . Flusser, I. G a f h i , a n d L . I . L e v i n e . A n d m y research w a s greatly assisted b y the g e n e r o u s privileges offered to m e b y the E c o l e B i b l i q u e et A r c h a e o l o g i q u e in J e r u s a l e m , personal w o r k area in their o u t s t a n d i n g W h e n I w a s at E b e r h a r d - K a r l s
w h i c h privileges i n c l u d e d a
library.
Universitat in T u b i n g e n ( 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 ) ,
Prof. D r . O t t o Betz a n d Prof. D r . M a r t i n H e n g e l b o t h listened patiently to m y s u n d r y h y p o t h e s e s a n d offered sage c o u n s e l f r o m their treasuries o f k n o w l e d g e a n d insight. O n a practical n o t e , the Institut z u r f o r s c h u n g des U r c h r i s t e n t u m s
Er-
( o n W i l h e l m s t r a s s e ) , then d i r e c t e d b y
Drs. Burton and Bonnie Thurston, graciously m a d e m e a " f e l l o w " and afforded m e a secure w o r k s p a c e . B a c k in C a n a d a , Prof. R i c h a r d N . L o n g e n e c k e r willingly sacrificed h i m s e l f to the thankless task, as m y a d v i s o r , o f r e a d i n g an u n w i e l d y ( 7 0 0 - p a g e ! ) m a n u s c r i p t a n d m a k i n g editorial suggestions. E v e r y o n e w h o
XIV
PREFACE A N D A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
has w o r k e d with Prof. L o n g e n e c k e r will testify to his w a r m t h
and
fatherly c a r e ; w e h a v e all benefited f r o m his r e m a r k a b l e foresight a n d his ability to shepherd the a n x i o u s d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e o v e r ( s o m e t i m e s a r o u n d ) the institutional hurdles that beset o u r paths. A g l a n c e a h e a d at the text o f this w o r k will give the reader s o m e ap preciation o f the p a i n that m y wife G l e n n a w a s willing to e n d u r e o n m y a c c o u n t , for she t y p e d o u t the entire m a n u s c r i p t , i n c l u d i n g the u b i q u i t o u s G r e e k ( w h i c h she d o e s n o t r e a d ) , a n d that in the age o f the typewriter. F o r the final (dissertation) draft, she w a s j o i n e d b y m y sister K a t h y , w h o m a d e a special trip f r o m E n g l a n d for the p u r p o s e . A n d since I h a d n o access to a c o m p u t e r in those d a y s , the entire m a n u s c r i p t h a d to b e k e y e d in again ( o n disk) b e f o r e I c o u l d revise it for p u b l i c a t i o n . T h i s final task w a s u n d e r t a k e n b y the G e n e r a l Services support staff at the M e m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f o u n d l a n d , w h e r e I taught f r o m 1987 to 1 9 8 9 . It r e m a i n s to thank the staff o f E J . Brill for their professional handl i n g o f a difficult m a n u s c r i p t . D r . F . T h . D i j k e m a first a g r e e d to take o n the p r o j e c t a n d has b e e n unfailingly helpful since. Prof. D r . Peter v a n d e r H o r s t , o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f U t r e c h t , read the entire script for Brill a n d saved m e f r o m s o m e e m b a r r a s s i n g errors. H a n s v a n d e r M e i j a n d G e r a r d H u y i n g h a v e d o n e a s u p e r b j o b as editors o f this b o o k . N o n e o f the a c a d e m i c s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , as far as I k n o w , w o u l d w a n t to h a v e his n a m e tied to the h y p o t h e s e s that I a d v o c a t e in the present w o r k . N o r c a n a n y o f t h e m b e b l a m e d for defects o f either style o r substance that m a y a p p e a r .
But all o f t h e m ,
a l o n g with the
non-
a c a d e m i c s m e n t i o n e d , h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d e n o r m o u s l y to the e m e r g e n c e o f this b o o k . I f it has b e e n a w o r t h w h i l e p r o j e c t , they all deserve credit. T h e substance o f chapter "Josephus
on
the
10 first a p p e a r e d in an article
Pharisees
Reconsidered: A
Critique
of
entitled Smith/
N e u s n e r " , in Studies in Religion!Sciences Religieuses 17:4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 4 5 5 - 4 6 9 . It is r e p r o d u c e d here b y p e r m i s s i o n o f the j o u r n a l editor, D r .
T.
Sinclair-Faulkner. The
substance o f chapter
15 first a p p e a r e d as the article
"Was
J o s e p h u s a Pharisee? A R e - e x a m i n a t i o n o f Life 1 0 - 1 2 " , in the Journal of Jewish Studies 40:1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , 3 2 - 4 5 , a n d is r e p r o d u c e d b y p e r m i s s i o n o f the j o u r n a l editor, D r . G . V e r m e s . I n the f o l l o w i n g e x p l o r a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages, I offer t h o r o u g h analyses a n d n e w translations o f k e y phrases a n d sentences. F o r b u l k narrative q u o t a t i o n s a n d incidental references, h o w e v e r , I follow the L o e b Classical L i b r a r y translation unless m o d i f i c a t i o n s s e e m necessary. W h e r e the L o e b text is cited, the translator's n a m e is in c l u d e d either in parentheses after the citation o r in a f o o t n o t e . T h e L o e b
PREFACE A N D A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S
XV
text is reprinted b y p e r m i s s i o n o f the publishers a n d the L o e b Classical L i b r a r y f r o m Josephus, in ten v o l u m e s , translated b y H . S t . J . T h a c k e r a y , R . M a r c u s , A . Wikgren, and L . H . Feldman, C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : Har v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 1 . Steve M a s o n T o r o n t o , 1990
ABBREVIATIONS
Ag.Ap. Ant. ARW ATR BJRL CCARJ Cd EJ ERE HR HTR HUCA HZ IDE IDBS JBL JE JES JJS JQR JR JSJ JSNT JTS LCL LSJ MGWJ NovT NTS PWRE RevQ Stobaeus SVF TDNT TLZ TSK TWNT War ZAW ZNW ZRGG ZTK
Against Apion, by Flavius Josephus The Jewish Antiquities, by Flavius Josephus Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft Anglican Theological Review Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library in Manchester Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal Classical Quarterly Encyclopaedia Judaica Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings. Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark. History of Religion Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Historische Zeitschrift The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible IDB, Supplementary Volume (1976) Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Encyclopaedia Journal of Ecumenical Studies Journal of Jewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Religion Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal of Theological Studies "Loeb Classical Library" A Greek-English Lexicon, edd. H . G. Liddell, R . Scott, H . S. Jones Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Paulys Realencylopadie der classischen AItertumswissenschaft, revised by G . Wissowa Revue de Qumran J. Stobaeus, Anthologium, 5 vols., edd. C . Wachsmuth and O . Hense (1957) Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols., ed. A . von Arnim (1903). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edd. G . Kittel and G. Friedrich, trans. G . W . Bromiley. Theologische Literarzeitung Theologische Studien und Kritiken Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament The Jewish War, by Flavius Josephus Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche
PART ONE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE
METHOD
IN T H E
STUDY OF PHARISAIC
HISTORY
U n t i l r e c e n t t i m e s , s c h o l a r s h i p o n the Pharisees has b e e n in
complete
disarray. A m a j o r p r o b l e m
accepted
has
b e e n the
lack o f c o m m o n l y
criteria for d e c i d i n g q u e s t i o n s o f P h a r i s a i c h i s t o r y : scholars c o m i n g f r o m different r e l i g i o u s b a c k g r o u n d s a n d with different p u r p o s e s , u s i n g dif ferent s o u r c e s in different w a y s , h a v e necessarily c o m e t o different, incompatible, history?
2
results.
1
How
and
when
did
the
Pharisees 3
often
appear
F r o m w h a t sectors o f society d i d they o r i g i n a t e ? W h a t w a s 4
in the
significance o f their n a m e ? W h a t w e r e their central, c o n s t i t u t i v e t e n e t s ?
1
5
Programmatic in many ways was the debate between Abraham Geiger (Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte [2. edn.; Breslau: Schletter, 1865], 102-151) and Julius Wellhausen (Die Pharisaer und die Sadducder [2. edn.; Hannover: H . Lafaire, 1924], 8-25, 76-123). These scholars agreed, however, on the details of Pharisaic origins; they were preoccupied with the evaluative question, as to whether Pharisaism represented a development or decline in post-exilic Judaism. Cf., e.g., I. Levy, La Legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine (Paris: Honore Cham pion, 1927), 235-250; O . Holtzmann, "Der Prophet Malachi und der Ursprung des Pharisaerbundes", ARW 19 (1931), 1-21; W . Foerster, "Der Ursprung des Pharisaismus", Z A W 2 4 (1935), 35-51; W . Beilner, "Der Ursprung des Pharisaismus", BZ n.F. 3 (1959); S. Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall of the Judean State (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962-1978), I, 176; L. Finkelstein, "The Origin of the Pharisees", Conservative Judaism 23 (1969), 25-36; H . Burgmann, " ' T h e Wicked Woman': der Makkabaer Simon?", RevQS (1972), 323-259; idem., "Der Grunder der Pharisaergenossenschaft: der Makkabaer Simon", JSJ 9 (1978), 153-191. The Pharisees' predecessors are variously described as: priests ( R . Meyer, "Oocptaoctos", TDNTIX, 15f.); lay scribes (E. Rivkin, "Pharisees", IDBS, 659f.); the prophets (J. Z . Lauterbach, "The Pharisees and their Teachings", HUCA 6 [1929], 7791); Jerusalem's "plebeians" (L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of their Faith [2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938], I, 74); and the hasidim, whether these last are understood to have been religious quietists (Wellhausen) or zealous nationalists (Geiger). Cf., e.g., M . D . Hussey, "The Origin of the Name Pharisee", JBL 39 (1920), 6669; T . W . Manson, "Sadducee and Pharisee: the Origin and Significance of their Names", BJRL 21 (1938), 144-159; J. Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 4; and A . I. Baumgarten, "The Name of the Pharisees", JBL 102 (1983), 411-428. Was their core motivation: zeal for their oral tradition (so G. F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim [3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930], I, 66, and E. Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution [Nashville: Abingdon, 1978], 71); the promulgation of liberal democracy (so Lauter bach, "Pharisees", HUCA, 69, 119, 133); the practice of tithing and levitical purity (so R. T . Herford, The Pharisees [New York: Macmillan, 1924], 29-35); an insistence on separation from the heathen (so I. Elbogen, Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisaer [Berlin: H . Itzkowski, 1904); a messianic hope (so K . Kohler, "Pharisees", JE I X , 664); belief 2
3
4
5
2
CHAPTER ONE
W e r e they i n c l i n e d t o w a r d a p o c a l y p t i c v i e w s ? political l i f e ?
7
6
W e r e they involved
I f s o , w h a t political p r i n c i p l e s d i d they e s p o u s e ?
8
great w a s their i n f l u e n c e in Palestinian J u d a i s m b e f o r e A D 7 0 ?
in
How 9
How
in resurrection and angels (so Manson, "Sadducee and Pharisee", 154); or the repudia tion of apocalyptic (so K . Schubert, "Jewish Religious Parties and Sects", in The Crucible of Christianity, ed. A . Toynbee [London: Thames and Hudson, 1969], 89)? For a negative answer, see: Geiger, Geschichte, 93f.; B. Jacob, Im Namen Gottes (Berlin: S. Calvary, 1903), 65f.; Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, 8; Moore, Judaism, I, 127f.; Herford, Pharisees, 185; Lauterbach, "Pharisees", HUCA, 136; J. Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956), 393; and Schubert, "Parties and Sects", 89. For an affirmative answer, see: Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 22-24; W . Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im spathellenistischen Zeitalter H N T 21 (4. edn., ed. H . Gressmann; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1966 [1926]), 204f.; R . H . Charles, Religious Development Between the Old and New Testaments (London: Oxford, 1914), 33f.; idem., Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity (New York: Schocken, 1963 [1899]), 171-195; C . C . Torrey, "Apocalypse", JE, I, 673b; W . D . Davies, "Apocalyptic and Pharisaism", in his Christian Origins and Judaism (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1962), 19-30; and P. D . Hanson, "Apocalypticism", IDBS, 33. Affirmatively: Geiger, Urschrift, 150; Elbogen, "Einige neuere Theorien liber den Ursprung der Pharisaer und Sadduzaer", in Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), 145-147; G. Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), esp. 1-47; and W . Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 189f. Negatively: Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 22, 100-102; E. Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3./4. edn., 3 vols.; Leipzig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1901), II, 463; Herford, Pharisees, 45-52; E. Meyer, Ursprung undAnfange des Christentums (3 vols.; Stuttgart-Berlin: J. G. Cotta, 1921-1923), II, 286; Moore, Judaism, II, 113; C . Steuernagel, "Pharisaer", PWRE X X X V I I I , 1828; Lauterbach, "Pharisees", HUCA, 70; and D . Polish, "Pharisaism and Political Sovereignty", Judaism 19 (1970), 415-418. Between these two extremes, various mediating positions have emerged, the most popular of which holds that the Pharisees' interests shifted at some point from politics to religious matters; cf. V . Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), 253f.; M . Black, "Pharisees", IDB, III, 777-780; and J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, i973). Wellhausen (Pharisaer, 90) held that the Pharisees broke with Judah Maccabee and were thereafter in perpetual conflict with the Hasmoneans. Others think that the Pharisees accepted Hasmonean rule until the break with John Hyrcanus (Lauterbach, "Pharisees", HUCA, 77-80; Herford, Pharisees, 29-31). Others, rejecting the historicity of a split with Hyrcanus, find the Pharisees supporting the Hasmoneans until their strug gle with Alexander Janneus (I. Friedlander, "The Rupture Between Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees",/*^ n.s. 4 [1913-1914], 443-448; Alon, Jews, 7-17; M.J. Geller, "Alexander Janneus and the Pharisees' Rift", JJS 30 [1979], 203-210). Still others deny that the Pharisees ever opposed Janneus ( C . Rabin, "Alexander Janneus and the Pharisees", JJS 7 [1956], 5-10). O n the vexed question of the Pharisees' relations with the Hasmoneans, see also P. Kieval, "The Talmudic View of the Hasmonean and Herodian Periods in Jewish History" (dissertation, Brandeis, 1970), whose conclusions have an indirect bearing on the problem. O n the basis of such evidence as is cited by J. Jeremias (Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958], 134-138), most scholars have believed that the Pharisees exercised the dominant religious influence in pre-70 Palestine, even if they 6
7
8
9
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY
d i d t h e y relate to the rest o f their s o c i e t y ?
1 0
3
A l l o f these issues,
which
w o u l d s e e m e l e m e n t a r y for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the P h a r i s e e s , are n o t u n r e s o l v e d ; they are
still v i g o r o u s l y
debated.
only
1 1
T h e diversity o f c o m p e t e n t o p i n i o n o n these matters is so
profound
that it s e e m s h a z a r d o u s to say a n y t h i n g significant a b o u t the P h a r i s e e s , e x c e p t for the v a g u e p r o p o s i t i o n s that ( a ) they especially v a l u e d a b o d y o f e x t r a b i b l i c a l tradition a n d
( b ) they c o n t r i b u t e d significantly t o
formation o f rabbinic J u d a i s m .
the
1 2
I n r e s p o n s e to the p e r c e i v e d b a n k r u p t c y o f p r e v i o u s research o n Pharisees, decades.
a
new
scholarly
effort
has
R e p r e s e n t e d p r i n c i p a l l y b y J.
emerged
within
Neusner and
E.
the
the
last
two
Rivkin,
this
e n d e a v o u r is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y the w i l l i n g n e s s to p o s e a n e w the b a s i c a n d ( i n that sense) radical q u e s t i o n : H o w c a n w e k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t
the
Pharisees? N e u s n e r o p e n s his s t u d y as f o l l o w s : W h i l e every history of ancient Judaism and Christianity gives a detailed picture of the Pharisees, none systematically and critically analyzes the traits and tendencies of the sources combined to form such an account. Consequently we have m a n y theories, but few facts, sophisticated theologies but uncritical, naive histories of Pharisaism which yield heated arguments unillumined by disciplined, reasoned understanding. Progress in the study of the growth of Pharisaic Judaism before 70 A . D . will depend upon accumulation of detailed knowledge and a determined effort to cease theorizing about the age. W e must honestly attempt to understand not only what was going on in the first century, but also—and most crucially— how and whether we know anything at all about what was going o n . 1 3
have differed over the size of the group. It is now fashionable, however, to emphasize the plurality of pre-bellum Judaism and to characterize the Pharisees as but one of many small sects, with correspondingly limited influence; cf. R . Meyer, "OocpiaocTos", TDNT I X , 31; M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century", in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. M . Davis (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), 67-81; and J. Neusner, Politics, 8-11. In the literature cited in the notes above, the Pharisees appear variously as a large nationalistic movement and a tiny sect of pietists, enlightened progressives and narrowminded legalists, an esteemed scholar class and an irrelevant sect. Useful synopses of some aspects of the scholarly debate are given by R . Marcus, "The Pharisees in the Light of Modern Scholarship",,//? 32 (1952), 153-163, and H . D . Mantel, "The Sadducees and the Pharisees", in The World History of the Jewish People, first series, VIII: Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period, edd. M . Avi-Yonah and Z. Baros (Jerusalem: Massada, 1977), 99-123. Even Neusner, who may be considered one of the more cautious historians of Pharisaism, allows these two points. O n (a), see his The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), III, 304. On (b), see his "PharisaicRabbinic Judaism: A Clarification", HR 12 (1973), 68. Politics, xix. 1 0
1 1
1 2
13
CHAPTER ONE
4
R i v k i n likewise p r o p o s e s a t h o r o u g h r e - e x a m i n a t i o n o f the s o u r c e s for Pharisaic h i s t o r y .
14
A l t h o u g h these t w o critics arrive at v e r y different in
terpretations o f the g r o u p , they a g r e e in calling for a return to first p r i n ciples. E . P . S a n d e r s c o m m e n t s : T h e question of who the Pharisees were and of how they saw themselves vis-a-vis the rest of Judaism appears quite wide open. O n e must welcome the attempts of Rivkin and Neusner to pursue the question de novo and to try to establish rigorous academic standards for answering i t . 15
T h e present study is i n t e n d e d as a c o n t r i b u t i o n to this de novo q u e s t i o n ing a b o u t the Pharisees. It will e x a m i n e in detail the e v i d e n c e o f a k e y witness, Flavius J o s e p h u s , c o n c e r n i n g Pharisaic history. W h a t principles o u g h t to g u i d e such an analysis? H o w will this study o f o n e s o u r c e serve the larger effort to u n d e r s t a n d the Pharisees? R i v k i n a n d N e u s n e r p r o v i d e s o m e initial g u i d a n c e , b o t h in their explicit reflections a n d , i m plicitly,
in
their
methodological
own
procedures;
proposals only
nevertheless,
for the
they
give
rabbinic literature.
16
detailed In
this
c h a p t e r I shall attempt to fill o u t their p r e l i m i n a r y i n s i g h t s — i . e . , those that are a p p l i c a b l e to all s o u r c e s — b y c o n s i d e r i n g also ( a ) the p r o b l e m s that h a v e h a m p e r e d p r e v i o u s research o n the Pharisees a n d ( b ) s o m e results o f c o n t e m p o r a r y h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . Once
the
methodological requirements
for a study
o f Josephus's
Pharisees h a v e b e c o m e clear, I shall survey p r e v i o u s treatments o f the t o p i c , in o r d e r to s h o w that those r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e n o t yet b e e n m e t o r e v e n , in m o s t cases, i n t e n d e d . T h a t d e f i c i e n c y will p r o v i d e the ra tionale for the study that f o l l o w s . W e turn, then, to e x a m i n e the g o a l , the s o u r c e s , a n d the p r o c e d u r e for research o n the Pharisees, as a m e a n s o f d e t e r m i n i n g the desired characteristics o f a study o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees.
I. The Goal of Research on the Pharisees One
r e a s o n for the " h e a t e d a r g u m e n t s " referred to b y N e u s n e r is that
scholars h a v e c o m e to study the Pharisees with different a i m s a n d in terests. N o w it w o u l d b e n a i v e to disallow a n y m o t i v e s o t h e r than the " p u r e l y h i s t o r i c a l " as reasons for s t u d y i n g the Pharisees; to i n d u l g e
14
Revolution, 3If. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 62. Cf. E. Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees: the Tannaitic Sources", HUCA 40 (1969), 205-249; J. Neusner, Form-Analysis and Exegesis: A Fresh Approach to the Redaction of the Mishnah (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980); idem., Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism (Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 36-50; idem., Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah (Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 48-72. 15
1 6
METHOD IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY
5
such p e r s o n a l interests, h o w e v e r , w o u l d b e to d e n y the wissenschaftlich character o f history. O n e m u s t distinguish, then, b e t w e e n the private factors that m o t i v a t e o n e to study Pharisaism a n d the shared,
profes
sional goal o f the enterprise. O n e o f the o b v i o u s m o t i v e s b e h i n d the study o f the Pharisees is to shed light o n the f o r m a t i v e years o f o n e ' s o w n tradition, J e w i s h o r Christian. O n the o n e h a n d , J u d a i s m tends to see itself as the d e s c e n d a n t o f ancient Pharisaism.
K . K o h l e r writes,
"Pharisaism
shaped the character o f
J u d a i s m a n d the life a n d t h o u g h t o f the J e w for all the f u t u r e . "
1 7
S o also
R . L . Rubenstein: " A l l contemporary branches o f J u d a i s m — R e f o r m , C o n s e r v a t i v e a n d O r t h o d o x — a r e the spiritual heirs o f the tradition o f the P h a r i s e e s . "
1 8
S o the J e w m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d a b l y h a v e a historical in
terest in the Pharisees. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the classical Christian texts a p p e a r to define the aims o f J e s u s a n d Paul o v e r against those o f the P h a r i s e e s .
19
This circum
stance attracts the attention o f Christian t h e o l o g i a n s a n d b i b l i c a l scholars to the p r o b l e m o f the Pharisees. In the past, as is well k n o w n , s u c h inves tigators w e r e p r e d i s p o s e d to r e g a r d Pharisaism as a foil for e m e r g i n g Christianity. T h i s t e n d e n c y w a s n o t limited to those with a " h i g h christology"
2 0
b u t s h o w e d u p e v e n in the classic liberalism o f A . H a r n a c k .
2 1
R e l i g i o u s tradition a n d other factors m u s t b e a c k n o w l e d g e d as the s o u r c e o f m u c h interest
in the Pharisees.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , if historical
research m e a n s s o m e t h i n g m o r e than the r e i n f o r c e m e n t o f tradition a n d private intuition, the critic's o w n m o t i v e s a n d interests m u s t themselves
to
norms
and
c o n t r o l s that
are
submit
r e c o g n i z e d across
the
discipline o f history. W e m u s t posit a goal for research o n the Pharisees that d e r i v e s f r o m general principles o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y a n d c a n therefore b e p u r s u e d b y the c o m m u n i t y o f scholars. U l t i m a t e j u d g e m e n t s o f v a l u e r e m a i n the p r e r o g a t i v e o f the i n d i v i d u a l historian as a m o r a l b e i n g ; since, h o w e v e r , the criteria for these j u d g e m e n t s arise f r o m s o u r c e s other than the discipline o f history itself a n d are n o t subject to its c o n t r o l s , they can f o r m n o part o f the c o m m o n a g e n d a . 17
Kohler, "Pharisees", JE, 666. Cf. also Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, 3. R . L. Rubenstein, "Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites: A Study in Rabbinic Psychology", Judaism 12 (1963), 456. For Jesus, cf. M k 7:1-23; M t 23 and passim. For Paul, cf. Phil 3:5-9. The implications of a high christology for one's assessment of the Pharisees were forthrightly stated by one L. Williams, Talmudic Judaism and Christianity (1933), 63, cited by H . Loewe, "Pharisaism", in Judaism and Christianity, edd. W . O . E. Oesterley, H . Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal (3 vols.; New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937-38]), I, 158: If Jesus, who was the Incarnation of God, and therefore the personification of per fect knowledge and truth, thus depicts the Pharisees, thus they must have been and not otherwise; no more is to be said. Das Wesen des Christentums (Stuttgart: Ehrenfried Klotz, 1950 [1900]), 43, 62f. 1 8
1 9
2 0
21
CHAPTER ONE
6
M o d e r n h i s t o r i o g r a p h y is p r e - e m i n e n t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the a i m s , in tentions, o r thoughts o f those w h o acted in the past t o effect the events k n o w n collectively as history. R . G . C o l l i n g w o o d calls this t h o u g h t d e t e r m i n e d aspect the " i n s i d e " o f an e v e n t .
2 2
T h e o u t s i d e o f an e v e n t ,
he says, is " e v e r y t h i n g b e l o n g i n g t o it w h i c h c a n b e d e s c r i b e d in terms o f b o d i e s a n d their m o v e m e n t s " , for e x a m p l e , that C a e s a r c r o s s e d the R u b i c o n o n a particular date. C o l l i n g w o o d unites the o u t s i d e a n d inside o f an e v e n t as the dual o b j e c t to b e k n o w n : T h e historian is never concerned with either of these to the exclusion of the other. H e is investigating not mere events. . . but actions, and an action is the unity of the outside and inside of an event. . . . H e must always remember that the event was an action, and that his main task is to think himself into this action, to discern the thought of its a g e n t . 23
T h i s e m p h a s i s o n a p p r e h e n d i n g the intentions o f historical actors p r o vides the goal for m o d e r n research o n the Pharisees. O u r p u r p o s e is to g o b e y o n d the events in w h i c h the Pharisees w e r e i n v o l v e d to try to grasp their m o t i v e s , their intentions, a n d their t h o u g h t s . It m a y n o t always b e p o s s i b l e , g i v e n the state o f the s o u r c e s , to get b e h i n d the events to the P h a r i s e e s ' intentions. A l t h o u g h , then, the a p p r e h e n s i o n o f Pharisaic t h o u g h t m u s t b e the final goal o f research, w e shall h a v e to c o n s i d e r m a n y e v e n t s f r o m the " o u t s i d e " o n the w a y to that g o a l . B e c a u s e o f the s u b s e q u e n t i m p a c t o f Pharisaism o n W e s t e r n Civilization,
24
those events are already i m p o r t a n t in their o w n r i g h t
25
a n d the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e m c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d an e n d in itself. A s E . M e y e r l o n g a g o p o i n t e d o u t , " D i e erste u n d f u n d a m e n t a l e A u f g a b e des Historikers ist also die Ermittelung von Tatsachen, die e i n m a l real g e w e s e n sind."
2 6
But o f the s u m total o f r e c o n s t r u c t e d events, it is to b e h o p e d ,
s o m e insight will b e g a i n e d into the Pharisees' a i m s a n d intentions.
2 2
R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948), 213. Ibid. The Wirkungsgeschichte of Pharisaism is no less impressive for its having occasionally been exaggerated or misunderstood, as in Finkelstein's remark that "Fully half the world adheres to Pharisaic faiths" (Pharisees, I, ix). This position is in contrast to Collingwood's extreme view that the historian "is only concerned with those events which are the outward expression of thoughts, and is only concerned with these in so far as they express thoughts" (Idea, 217). Such a view would seem to exclude Jesus' crucifixion, the fall of the Temple, and the Balfour Declaration as proper objects of historical study; they are important events because of their impact and not because the various actors' intentions are recoverable. On Wirkungs geschichte as a criterion for the selection of historical topics, see E. Meyer, "Zur Theorie und Methodik der Geschichte", in his Kleine Schriften (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1910), 42-48. Kleine Schriften, 42. 2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
METHOD IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY
7
I I . The Sources for Research on the Pharisees W h e r e is the critic to b e g i n in his o r her quest to u n d e r s t a n d
the
Pharisees b y r e c o n s t r u c t i n g their past? A basic task is the delimitation o f admissible e v i d e n c e . Differences o n this score will necessarily p r o m o t e diverse c o n c l u s i o n s . A large g r o u p o f scholars, for e x a m p l e , has c o n s i d e r e d the a p o c a l y p t i c literature indicative o f Pharisaic ideas; yet m a n y others d e n y the associa tion.
2 7
S o m e interpreters use the D S S for ( i n d i r e c t ) i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
the P h a r i s e e s :
28
it is in a Q u m r a n d o c u m e n t that H . B u r g m a n n g r o u n d s
his t h e o r y that S i m o n the H a s m o n e a n f o u n d e d the P h a r i s e e s
29
and W .
G r u n d m a n n d r a w s his portrait o f the Pharisees largely o n the basis o f the S c r o l l s .
30
O t h e r s find the Pharisees alluded to already in the H e b r e w
Bible—in Ezra, N e h e m i a h ,
3 1
or Malachi.
3 2
Finally, 1 a n d 2 M a c c a b e e s ,
with their references t o the hasidim, h a v e frequently b e e n pressed into service o n the q u e s t i o n o f Pharisaic o r i g i n s .
3 3
N o n e o f these s o u r c e s , h o w e v e r , m e n t i o n s the Pharisees b y n a m e . H o w , then, c a n their p u r p o r t e d allusions to the Pharisees b e identified? C l e a r l y , the criteria for this j u d g e m e n t m u s t issue f r o m s o m e p r e v i o u s l y a c q u i r e d k n o w l e d g e o f the Pharisees. It is precisely o n this p o i n t o f p r i o r k n o w l e d g e that v a g u e n e s s e n v e l o p s the research: few scholars take the t r o u b l e to d e m o n s t r a t e the h i g h quality o f p r i o r k n o w l e d g e that is an in d i s p e n s a b l e c o n d i t i o n o f s u c h attributions. A s N e u s n e r insists: " S e c u r e attribution o f a w o r k c a n o n l y b e m a d e w h e n an absolutely p e c u l i a r characteristic o f the p o s s i b l e a u t h o r
[in o u r c a s e , a P h a r i s e e ] c a n b e
s h o w n to b e an essential e l e m e n t in the structure o f the w h o l e w o r k . "
3 4
W h e n the g r o u n d s for the attribution o f s o m e w o r k s to the Pharisees are d i s c l o s e d , they are often d u b i o u s . F o r e x a m p l e , G . B . G r a y (in the C h a r l e s v o l u m e s ) identifies Psalms of Solomon as Pharisaic o n the basis of: (a) its o p p o n e n t s , w h o m he j u d g e s to b e the H a s m o n e a n s ; ( b ) the beliefs reflected in it, such as a m e s s i a n i c h o p e , political q u i e t i s m , a n d the c o m -
2 7
See n. 6 above. Cf. D . Flusser, "Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener im Pescher Nahum", in Qumran, edd. K. E. Krozinger et al. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), 121-166, and A. I. Baumgarten, "Name", 421 and n. 42. See n. 2 above. J. Leipoldt and W . Grundmann, Umwelt des Urchristentums (2 vols.; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965-66), I, 269-278. Geiger, Geschichte, 87ff.; Urschrift, 103. Holtzmann, "Malachi". Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 79ff.; Foerster, "Ursprung", 35ff.; and Beilner, "Ursprung", 245f. Neusner, Politics, 4. 2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
CHAPTER ONE
8
b i n a t i o n o f fate a n d free will; a n d ( c ) its date (mid-first c e n t u r y B C ) . T h e Psalms h a v e often b e e n c o n s i d e r e d Pharisaic, basis
o f such
evidence.
3 6
Y e t the
assumptions
3 5
p r e s u m a b l y o n the i n v o l v e d are
clearly
d e b a t a b l e : ( a ) p r e s u p p o s e s that the Pharisees ( i ) w e r e i n d e e d o p p o s e d to the H a s m o n e a n s a n d (ii) w e r e the o n l y o n e s so o p p o s e d ; ( b ) assumes that the messianic h o p e was p e c u l i a r to the Pharisees, that they w e r e political quietists, a n d that J o s e p h u s w a s c o r r e c t in his c l a i m that the c o m b i n a t i o n o f fate a n d free will was a Pharisaic distinctive. E v e r y o n e o f these tacit a s s u m p t i o n s is n o w v i g o r o u s l y c o n t e s t e d in the scholarly l i t e r a t u r e ,
37
yet
such a s s u m p t i o n s h a v e b e e n c o m m o n . W e l l h a u s e n o p e n l y c o n f e s s e d his belief that the o n l y significant Gegensatz in that
between
Pharisees
and
Sadducees;
first-century hence,
B C Palestine was
opposition
J e r u s a l e m authorities a u t o m a t i c a l l y identifies Pss. Sol. as
to
Pharisaic.
the 38
In v i e w o f the v a p o r o u s criteria u s e d to establish Pharisaic a u t h o r s h i p for Pss. Sol., it c a n b e startling to realize the a m o u n t o f w e i g h t that is p l a c e d o n this identification. M . B l a c k writes: Fortunately there is no doubt about the Pharisaic authorship of the Psalms of Solomon (ca. 6 0 B . C . ) , doctrinally one of the most important of the Pharisaic and anti-Sadducean documents of this century, since it supplies our main evidence for the Pharisaic messianic h o p e . 39
Unfortunately,
there is d o u b t . K . S c h u b e r t , with a v e r y different pre-
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Pharisaism,
c l a i m s that Pss. Sol. is a n t i - P h a r i s a i c .
40
T h i s sort o f dispute is l e g i o n with r e g a r d to literature that d o e s not m e n tion the Pharisees b y n a m e . S o , S c h u r e r thinks Assumption of Moses to b e Pharisaic;
3 5
41
G r u n d m a n n calls it a n t i - P h a r i s a i c .
42
S c h u r e r believes, ohne
Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 628ff. Cf. Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 111; E. Kautzch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 vols.; Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1900), II, 128; Moore, Judaism, I, 182; Black, "Pharisees", IDB, 111, 781; D . S. Russell, The Jews from Alexander to Herod (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 164; Grundmann, Umwelt, I, 278; A . Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964), 7f. See nn. 6-8 above. It is a further question whether the exegesis of Pss. Sol. has not itself been tailored to fit a presumed Pharisaic provenance. One wonders about this with respect to Gray's reading of a fate/free will combination in Pss. Sol. 5:4; 9:6. Would anyone have found such a combination in Pss. Sol. if Josephus had not claimed that the Pharisees combined fate and free will (Ant. 13:172; 18:13)? Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 111. Black, "Pharisees", IDB, 111, emphasis added. Schubert, "Parties and Sects", 89. Schurer, Geschichte, III, 375. Grundmann, Umwelt, I , 286. 3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
9
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY
Zweifel,
that Jubilees is P h a r i s a i c ;
Pharisaic
44
a n d A . Jellinek,
43
H.
D . M a n t e l c o n s i d e r s it n o n -
anti-Pharisaic.
45
A s o b e r i n g e x a m p l e o f the p r e c a r i o u s n e s s o f attributing a s o u r c e to the Pharisees w i t h o u t r i g o r o u s criteria presents itself in the D a m a s c u s D o c u m e n t ( C D ) . J. J e r e m i a s felt able to write in 1923 that: es darf heute als erwiesen gelten, dass die Lehrer der Damaskussekte auf der alteren pharisaischen Halakha und Glaubenslehre beruht und dass wir in Gestalt der Damaskusgemeinde eine Jerusalemer pharisaische G e meinschaft des ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts kennen l e r n e n . 46
B y the s e c o n d e d i t i o n o f his b o o k ( 1 9 5 5 ) , J e r e m i a s w a s able to cite H . G r e s s m a n , L . G i n z b e r g , G . F. M o o r e , A . Schlatter, a n d G . Kittel in s u p p o r t o f his c l a i m that C D w a s a Pharisaic p r o d u c t i o n .
4 7
Since, how
e v e r , fragments o f the w o r k w e r e f o u n d in C a v e 4 at Q u m r a n , a n d since the d o c u m e n t seems to c o r r e s p o n d well to the M a n u a l o f D i s c i p l i n e (1QS), one
4 8
the t h e o r y o f Pharisaic a u t h o r s h i p is n o l o n g e r t e n a b l e , unless
is willing to b e l i e v e that the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e w a s
P h a r i s a i c — a p r o p o s a l that has n o t r e c e i v e d w i d e s u p p o r t .
49
T h e im
pressive array o f scholars w h o w e r e p r o v e n i n c o r r e c t in their c l a i m o f Pharisaic authorship for C D stands as a r e m i n d e r o f the multiplicity o f religious g r o u p s in ancient Palestine a n d o f the c o n s e q u e n t d a n g e r o f p r e m a t u r e l y assigning a g i v e n d o c u m e n t to a particular g r o u p . I n the w o r k o f N e u s n e r a n d R i v k i n , o n l y those s o u r c e s that ( a ) u n m i s t a k a b l y m e n t i o n the Pharisees b y n a m e a n d ( b ) s e e m to h a v e in d e p e n d e n t access to p r e - 7 0 realities are a d m i t t e d as e v i d e n c e . R i v k i n insists: Josephus, the N e w Testament, and the Tannaitic Literature are the only sources that can be legitimately drawn upon for the construction of an ob jective definition of the Pharisees. T h e y are the only sources using the term Pharisees that derive from a time when the Pharisees flourished. No other sources qualify. 50
N e u s n e r is m o r e c a u t i o u s : " B u t for n o w , the o n l y reliable i n f o r m a t i o n d e r i v e s f r o m J o s e p h u s , the G o s p e l s , a n d r a b b i n i c a l literature, b e g i n n i n g 4 3
Schurer, Geschichte, III, 375. Mantel, "Sadducees and Pharisees", 99. Cited in Schurer, Geschichte, III, 375. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 131. Ibid. Cf. T . H . Gaster, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1957), 43. M . Mansoor (The Dead Sea Scrolls [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964], 145, 149) cites this as the view of "a few scholars" but confirms the virtual consensus that identifies the Qumraners with the Essenes. Rivkin, Revolution, 31. 4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
10
CHAPTER ONE
with the M i s h n a h . "
5 1
T h e qualification " f o r n o w " is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e
a p e r m a n e n t e x c l u s i o n o f all o t h e r sources w o u l d b e p r e m a t u r e . B e c a u s e sectarian,
p s e u d o n y m o u s , a n d especially a p o c a l y p t i c literature
rarely
m e n t i o n s the actual n a m e s o f its characters, preferring c o d e s o r ciphers, the a b s e n c e o f the P h a r i s e e s ' n a m e f r o m these texts m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d e v e n if they w e r e b e i n g referred t o . Nevertheless, a d e c i s i o n o n this p o i n t will p r e s u p p o s e a p r i o r b o d y o f " c o n t r o l " i n f o r m a t i o n o n the Pharisees, w h i c h c a n o n l y b e safely a c q u i r e d b y historical analysis o f the three firsto r d e r witnesses: J o s e p h u s , the tannaitic literature, a n d certain w o r k s in the N T c o r p u s . I f a c o n t r o l b o d y o f i n f o r m a t i o n c a n b e securely estab lished o n the basis o f these witnesses, then a n d o n l y t h e n shall w e possess sure criteria for d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h , if a n y , o t h e r s o u r c e s c o n t a i n allu sions to the Pharisees. F o r n o w , h o w e v e r , these three s o u r c e c o l l e c t i o n s c a n b e the o n l y admissible o n e s .
I l l . The Procedure of Research on the Pharisees N a r r o w i n g the field o f a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e g o e s s o m e w a y t o w a r d p r o v i d i n g a c o m m o n base for d i s c u s s i o n , but n o t all the w a y ; for the three sources a g r e e d u p o n are still vastly different f r o m o n e a n o t h e r in m o t i v a tion,
religious
outlook, genre,
and
even
language
of composition.
J o s e p h u s , the J e w i s h historian u n d e r R o m a n a u s p i c e s , w h o m a y h a v e b e e n c o n n e c t e d with the Pharisees at s o m e p o i n t , stands o v e r against the r a b b i n i c heirs o f the Pharisees
o n the o n e h a n d
a n d their C h r i s t i a n
adversaries o n the other. W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s ' s narrative speaks m a i n l y a b o u t the Pharisees' p u b l i c activities a n d " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " beliefs, o n e m i g h t infer f r o m the tannaitic writings that their sole c o n c e r n s w e r e religious-halakhic. It is n o t e v e n clear that the r a b b i n i c D^tfTID c a n b e s i m p l y identified with the OocpiaocTot o f J o s e p h u s a n d the N T .
5 2
Neusner's
j u d g e m e n t m e e t s the p o i n t : Almost nothing in Josephus's picture of the Pharisees seems closely related to m u c h , if anything, in the rabbis' portrait of the Pharisees, except the rather general allegation that the Pharisees had ' traditions from the fathers', a point made also by the Synoptic story-tellers. 53
5 1
Neusner, Politics, 4. Cf. R. Meyer, "Oapiaatos", TDNT, 12f. A similar difficulty in reconciling the Greek and Hebrew sources presents itself in the study of the Sanhedrin; cf. H . D . Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965), 54ff., and S. B. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1953), xiiif. Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, III, 304. 5 2
5 3
METHOD IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY The
obvious and
trenchant i n c o n g r u i t i e s b e t w e e n the
11 sources h a v e
e v o k e d at least three r e s p o n s e s . T h e traditional r e s p o n s e w a s to select o n e s o u r c e as preferable to the others, w h e t h e r o n a criterion o f religious authority
or o f supposed
historical o b j e c t i v i t y , a n d to give that s o u r c e p r i d e o f p l a c e as the " b a s e t e x t " . A l l three o f o u r witnesses h a v e e n j o y e d the prestige o f such a posi t i o n . T h u s R . T . H e r f o r d called r a b b i n i c literature " t h e real a n d o n l y true s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n as to the P h a r i s e e s " .
5 4
And L.
Finkelstein
o p t e d for " t h e o b j e c t i v e , a l m o s t scientific, a p p r o a c h o f the T a l m u d , a n d its k i n d r e d w r i t i n g s " for his a n a l y s i s .
55
W . Bousset c o n s i d e r e d the N T
to b e the best s o u r c e o n the Pharisees a n d d i s p a r a g e d the m e a g r e ( i n his j u d g e m e n t ) e v i d e n c e o f the r a b b i s .
5 6
J o s e p h u s has usually b e e n a d o p t e d
as a m o r e " n e u t r a l " s u p p l e m e n t to either the N T he also finds his o w n p a r t i s a n s .
5 7
o r the r a b b i s ,
5 8
but
59
A s e c o n d w a y o f h a n d l i n g the disparity b e t w e e n the s o u r c e s is m o r e sophisticated i n a s m u c h as it r e c o g n i z e s that n o d o c u m e n t is free o f b i a s . It sets o u t , therefore, to c o n s i d e r the three s o u r c e c o l l e c t i o n s s y n o p tically,
in o r d e r to isolate their c o m m o n
testimony
c o n c e r n i n g the
Pharisees. A . I. B a u m g a r t e n , for e x a m p l e , finds the i d e a o f " p r e c i s i o n " o r " s p e c i f i c a t i o n " b e h i n d b o t h the axpt(kioc-forms u s e d o f the Pharisees in J o s e p h u s a n d the N T a n d in the r a b b i n i c E h D .
6 0
A . Guttmann
and
J. B o w k e r attempt to fit all the sources t o g e t h e r with their theories o f the history o f the Pharisees' n a m e . that it represents
6 1
T h e virtue o f this s y n o p t i c a p p r o a c h is
the o v e r t h r o w o f p a r o c h i a l i s m in d e a l i n g w i t h
the
p r o b l e m o f the Pharisees. It still falls short, h o w e v e r , in o n e crucial respect, n a m e l y : it c o n t i n u e s to reflect an o l d b u t false a s s u m p t i o n that the statements o f the sources are so m a n y r a w data that c a n b e selected a n d c o m b i n e d at will, w i t h o u t full r e g a r d to their m e a n i n g s in their o r i g i n a l f r a m e w o r k s . T h u s a large 5 4
Herford, Pharisees, 14. Finkelstein, Pharisees, I, xxiii; cf. Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, pp. I V , 2-4, and Kohler, "Pharisees", JE, 661. Bousset, Religion, 187; cf. Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 21, 33f. For the documented ac cusation that Christian scholars have often relied too heavily on the N T for their under standing of Pharisaism or Judaism in general, cf. Herford, Pharisees, 1 If.; Moore, Judaism, I, 13f.; J.F. Parkes, The Foundations ofJudaism and Christianity (London: Vallentine - Mitchell, 1960), 134f.; and Sanders, Paul, 33f. Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 33f. R . Marcus, ''Pharisees", 156; A . Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism in the Making (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), 124f. 59 YV. W . Buehler, The Pre-Herodian Civil War and Social Debate (Basel: Friedrich Reinhart, 1974), 5 et passim; O . Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1895), 158-162. Baumgarten, "Name", 413-420. Bowker, Jesus, 36; Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 162ff. 5 5
3 6
5 7
5 8
6 0
6 1
CHAPTER ONE
12
part o f B o w k e r ' s b o o k is an a n t h o l o g y o f Pharisee passages f r o m the v a rious s o u r c e s ; the s u p p o s i t i o n appears to b e that these are the c o l o u r s , as it w e r e , with w h i c h o n e m a y paint o n e ' s portrait o f P h a r i s a i s m .
62
This
a p p r o a c h w a s taken already b y S c h u r e r , w h o b e g a n his c h a p t e r o n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s b y citing relevant p o r t i o n s o f J o s e p h u s a n d the M i s h n a h . T h e w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n , n o w often labelled the " s c i s s o r s a n d p a s t e " m e t h o d , s t e m m e d f r o m a positivistic c o n c e r n for o b j e c t i v e facts, w h i c h w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to b e e m b o d i e d in d o c u m e n t a r y s o u r c e s . T h e third r e s p o n s e to the disparities a m o n g the three s o u r c e s is that taken b y N e u s n e r a n d R i v k i n . N e u s n e r prefaces his w o r k with the j u d g e m e n t that " a l l p r e v i o u s studies o f the Pharisees are i n a d e q u a t e b e c a u s e , in general,
the historical q u e s t i o n has b e e n asked t o o q u i c k l y a n d
answered u n c r i t i c a l l y " .
6 3
What
d o e s he m e a n
b y s a y i n g that
"the
historical q u e s t i o n has b e e n asked t o o q u i c k l y " ? W e c a n o n l y surmise f r o m his o w n a p p r o a c h . B e f o r e p o s i n g a n y q u e s t i o n s a b o u t w h o the Pharisees really w e r e (wie es eigentlich gewesen ist), N e u s n e r p r o c e e d s to d e v o t e w h o l e chapters to the e x a m i n a t i o n o f h o w e a c h s o u r c e presents the Pharisees. H i s b r i e f c h a p t e r ,
" T h e Pharisees in H i s t o r y " , c o m e s
o n l y at the e n d o f this s i n g l e - s o u r c e analysis. T h u s w e find in N e u s n e r a two-stage historical i n q u i r y w h i c h i n v o l v e s , s o u r c e ' s presentation
a n d o n l y afterward
first,
listening to e a c h
asking historical q u e s t i o n s .
Similarly, R i v k i n sets o u t his p r o c e d u r a l intentions: Each of these sources will be cited, for the most part, in full and thoroughly analyzed, source by source, in successive chapters. . . . O n l y after we have constructed three definitions, independently drawn from Josephus, the N e w Testament, and the Tannaitic Literature, will we then compare each of the definitions with the o t h e r s . 64
W e are c o n f r o n t e d , then, w i t h a p u r e l y exegetical p h a s e o f historical research. T h i s phase is called for b y the realization that e v e r y written s o u r c e is l i m i t e d b y its a u t h o r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e ; it is n o t , therefore, a c o l l e c tion o f b a r e facts b u t is already an interpretation
and formulation o f
events that n e e d s to b e u n d e r s t o o d in its o w n right. A s A . M o m i g l i a n o observes,
"Between
evidence".
6 5
6 2
us
(as
historians)
and
the
facts
stands
the
T h e s o u r c e c o n v e y s o n l y 86£<x, o p i n i o n . It is c o n d i t i o n e d
Bowker concedes, vii, that "the passages necessarily occur out of context, and may require the context for their full understanding". This does not yet meet the criticism, however, for the question is whether any particular statement of a source can be under stood at all, or be directly usable, without reference to its context in the author's thought and purpose. Neusner, Politics, 6. Rivkin, Revolution, 3If. A . Momigliano, "Historicism Revisited", in his Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977), 368f. 6 3
6 4
6 5
13
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY
negatively
by
the
author's
imperfect
perception
of events
66
and,
positively, b y his c o n s c i o u s p u r p o s e s in w r i t i n g a n d b y his o w n style. H o w a c c u r a t e l y an a u t h o r p e r c e i v e d events is n o t a q u e s t i o n that e x egesis c a n a n s w e r . T h e a u t h o r ' s style a n d intentions c a n , h o w e v e r , b e u n c o v e r e d , for literary analysis seeks to a n s w e r the q u e s t i o n : W h a t d o e s the a u t h o r m e a n to c o n v e y ?
6 7
I n exegesis, the a u t h o r ' s m o t i v e s a n d pur
p o s e s , the g e n r e a n d structure o f his w o r k , his e m p h a s e s , k e y t e r m s , a n d characteristic v o c a b u l a r y all c o m e u n d e r scrutiny. T h e interpreter c o n siders, as a stimulus to g r a s p i n g the a u t h o r ' s intention, h o w the original readership w o u l d plausibly h a v e u n d e r s t o o d the d o c u m e n t . A l l o f this is familiar to the b i b l i c a l e x e g e t e . But it is a necessary first step in the p r o b ing o f a n y historical p r o b l e m ; to b y p a s s the literary analysis, as N e u s n e r says, is to ask the historical q u e s t i o n t o o q u i c k l y . A p p l i e d to the p r o b l e m o f the Pharisees, these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s will re q u i r e that the passages b e a r i n g o n the Pharisees in e a c h o f the relevant s o u r c e s c a n n o t b e s e c o n d e d as data for a n y historical r e c o n s t r u c t i o n until they
have
first
been
understood
within
their
original
frameworks.
D o c u m e n t a r y references to the Pharisees m a y serve as ingredients o f larger narratives, as with J o s e p h u s a n d the G o s p e l s , o r t h e y m a y a p p e a r w i t h i n an o r d e r e d c o l l e c t i o n o f traditional sayings, as w i t h the r a b b i n i c literature. Either w a y , they o w e their existence to the d e s i g n o f an a u t h o r o r e d i t o r a n d possess little i m m e d i a t e m e a n i n g outside o f that d e s i g n . T h e r e f o r e , the historian is o n l y entitled to m a k e use o f d o c u m e n t a r y statements a b o u t the Pharisees w h e n he has first u n d e r s t o o d the literary m e a n i n g a n d function o f those
statements.
W e are n o w in a p o s i t i o n to specify the desiderata o f an analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages. Before d o i n g s o , h o w e v e r , w e m u s t c o m plete the p i c t u r e b e g u n a b o v e b y g i v i n g a p r o l e p t i c a n s w e r to the q u e s t i o n : H o w d o e s the historian c o n v e r t the several 86£<xi o f his s o u r c e s into emaTrifxr), k n o w l e d g e ?
6 8
H a v i n g listened to the c l a i m s o f e a c h s o u r c e ,
h o w c a n the critic d i s c e r n w h a t really h a p p e n e d ? R i v k i n ' s o w n p r o c e d u r e b e c o m e s i n a d e q u a t e at this p o i n t . I n the e n d , he e x p e c t s s i m p l y to c o m p a r e the resulting presentations o f the Pharisees in the h o p e o f f i n d i n g a g r e e m e n t a m o n g t h e m :
6 6
Cf. M . Bloch, Apologie der Geschichte oder der Berufdes Historikers (2d. edn.; E. Klett - J . G . Cotta, 1974), 65, who points out the limitations of eyewitness evidence, even under the most favourable circumstances. See now G. L. Wells and E. F. Loftus (edd.), Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives (Cambridge: University Press, 1984). Cf. B. F. Meyer, Aims of Jesus (London: S C M , 1979), 89f. Cf. Collingwood (Idea, 20-30) on ancient attempts to grapple with both the philosophical and historical aspects of this problem. 6 7
6 8
14
CHAPTER ONE
Should it turn out that these definitions are congruent with one another, then shall we not have cogent grounds for postulating that such a definition is truly viable and as objective as the nature of our sources will a l l o w ? 69
Despite
his
clear
perception
o f the
two-tiered
nature
of
historical
research, therefore, R i v k i n ultimately falls b a c k into positivistic a s s u m p tions a b o u t h o w the s e c o n d phase o f the p r o g r a m m e is to b e carried o u t , n a m e l y , b y a simple c o m p a r i s o n o f the different portraits. H e c a n o n l y e x p e c t such a result b e c a u s e his p r o p o s e d " t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s " o f e a c h source
7 0
turns o u t
statements o f the Pharisees".
71
to
b e less than
s o u r c e s as
"raw
thorough.
He
still
regards
material for a definition
the
o f the
In p r i n c i p l e , h o w e v e r , it is futile to h o p e that the sources
will yield " c o n g r u e n t " presentations, since e a c h s o u r c e has its o w n a i m s a n d interests, as different f r o m those o f the o t h e r sources as they f r o m those o f the h i s t o r i a n . be
welcome.
One
must,
72
are
A n y points o f intersection will, o f c o u r s e , however,
anticipate
divergences
and
be
p r e p a r e d s o m e h o w to e x p l o i t those also in o n e ' s search for the truth. N o r is it e n o u g h to h o p e that, o n c e e a c h a u t h o r ' s a i m s a n d proclivities h a v e b e e n identified, they m i g h t s i m p l y b e e v a p o r a t e d o f f to l e a v e a residue o f b a r e fact. T o h o p e for such a result w o u l d b e , first,
to
u n d e r e s t i m a t e the c o m p l e x i t y a n d pervasiveness o f an a u t h o r ' s Tendenz. F o r that bias is n o t restricted to s o m e o b v i o u s t h e m e s o v e r l a i d o n the material; it c o m p r i s e s rather the w h o l e n e t w o r k o f processes b y w h i c h the a u t h o r has ( a ) imperfectly p e r c e i v e d events, ( b ) f o u n d the m o t i v a t i o n to r e c o r d t h e m , ( c ) e x e r c i s e d his will in selecting, o m i t t i n g , a n d s h a p i n g the material to serve his e n d s , a n d ( d ) i m p a r t e d his style, b o t h c o n s c i o u s a n d u n c o n s c i o u s , to the w h o l e p r o d u c t i o n . T h e a u t h o r ' s v i e w p o i n t c a n n o t b e e x c i s e d f r o m the facts b e c a u s e the facts are o n l y available t h r o u g h that viewpoint.
7 3
S e c o n d , the attempt to strip o f f the a u t h o r ' s c o n c e r n s in o r d e r to e x p o s e the facts a s s u m e s , gratuitously, that those c o n c e r n s necessarily c o n tradict the reality o f the past a n d w e r e n o t themselves shaped b y the facts as the a u t h o r p e r c e i v e d t h e m . T h i s fallacy is well k n o w n in historicalJesus research.
74
I n the study o f J o s e p h u s , critics f r o m R . L a q u e u r to
S . J . D . C o h e n h a v e d i s p l a y e d a m a r k e d t e n d e n c y to dispute o n e o r an o t h e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m s o n the simple g r o u n d that J o s e p h u s
6 9
wanted
Rivkin, Revolution, 32. Ibid., 31. Rivkin, Revolution, 54. Cf. B.F. Meyer, Aims, 89f.; M . Bloch, Apologie, 125f. Cf. M . Bloch, Apologie, 65, 76f. I refer to the logic of the "criterion of discontinuity", a trenchant critique of which is offered by B. F. Meyer, Aims, 84ff. 7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY
his r e a d e r s t o b e l i e v e i t .
7 5
15
It is e n o u g h for these historians to c o n n e c t
a
p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m w i t h o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s d i s c e r n i b l e m o t i f s in o r d e r t o cast d o u b t o n its v a l i d i t y . T h e d o u b t f u l a s s u m p t i o n h e r e is that an a u t h o r ' s i n t e n t i o n s a l w a y s , o r r e g u l a r l y , arise f r o m o w n e x p e r i e n c e o f the For
these t w o
"facts".
reasons,
somewhere other than
his
7 6
it w o u l d
be
n a i v e to h o p e that w e
might
d i s c o v e r facts a b o u t the Pharisees b y t a k i n g e a c h s o u r c e , filtering o u t its " t e n d e n t i o u s " elements, and How,
t h e n , to c o n v e r t the
a c c e p t i n g the
residue.
"potential d a t a "
7 7
offered b y the
sources
i n t o historically p r o b a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the Pharisees? A n a d e q u a t e a p p r o a c h m u s t c e r t a i n l y take i n t o a c c o u n t the t e n d e n c i e s o f the s o u r c e s ( L a q u e u r , C o h e n ) a n d a n y c o i n c i d e n c e o f detail that m i g h t e m e r g e b e t w e e n t h e m ( R i v k i n ) , b u t it c a n n o t e n l a r g e either o f these factors i n t o a c o m p l e t e s y s t e m for r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the past. S u c h a s y s t e m r e q u i r e s a m e t h o d a n d this c a n o n l y b e i m p a r t e d b y the h i s t o r i a n as a t h i n k i n g s u b ject.
7 8
W h a t is r e q u i r e d is that the critic, h a v i n g n o w listened to e a c h o f
the s o u r c e s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f the P h a r i s e e s , step f o r w a r d to p o s e his o w n
7 5
R . Laqueur (Der judische Historiker Flavius Josephus [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970 (1920)], 246) claims that Josephus's autobiographical statements in Life 1-12, because they serve an apologetic purpose, are of dubious worth (allerunsicherste und unzuverlassigste): "wo Josephus eine Tendenz hat, da pflegt er es mit der Wahrheit nicht genau zu nehmen". Similarly, S. J. D . Cohen (Josephus in Galilee and Rome [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979], 107, 144) views Josephus's claim to Pharisaic allegiance as spurious because (allegedly) apologetic. M . Smith ("Palestinian Judaism", 77) is more cautious. Arguing that Josephus's statements in Ant. about Pharisaic influence are apologetically motivated, he remarks: "Such motivation does not, of course, prove that Josephus' statements are false, but it would explain their falsity if that were otherwise demonstrated." Cohen himself unwittingly proves the fallaciousness of this assumption in two cases, by ultimately accepting data that he first disputes because of their apologetic character, (a) He argues (p. 197) that Josephus's account of the selection of generals for the revolt (War 2:562-568) is "suspect" because "motivated by apologetic considerations": it assumes that all of the generals were chosen at one time. O n the same page, however, one reads: "Nevertheless, even if Josephus has exaggerated and simplified, we have some reason to follow his account. It is inherently plausible." And finally (p. 198): "In the following discussion I assume that all the generals were chosen at one time although I admit that it is uncertain." (b) A more fundamental contradiction lurks in Cohen's accusation that Josephus is guilty of reductionism in portraying the Jerusalemites as divided into a "war party" and a "peace party". Says Cohen: "There must have been a wide variety between the two extremes, the desire to surrender to the Romans as soon as possible and the readiness to die in a blaze of glory" (p. 183). But Cohen employs the very same reductionism as a major criterion of his study, for he refuses to countenance Josephus's claim that he and other aristocrats wanted peace, on the ground that Josephus was a general in the rebel army and therefore could not have wanted peace (pp. 152ff.). Cohen himself thus excludes any possibility of ambivalent loyalties. 7 6
7 7
7 8
The phrase is from B. F. Meyer, Aims, 90. Cf. M . Bloch, Apologie, 79f.
16
C H A P T E R ONE
q u e s t i o n s a n d d e v e l o p his o w n r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f e v e n t s .
7 9
T h u s B . F.
M e y e r p r o p o s e s , " T h e t e c h n i q u e o f history is the h y p o t h e s i s . "
8 0
The
critic seeks to formulate a h y p o t h e s i s as to what really h a p p e n e d that will account
for
all
o f the
relevant
presentations
in
the
sources.
As
M o m i g l i a n o puts it, the historian " h a s to assess the v a l u e o f his e v i d e n c e n o t in terms o f simple reliability, b u t o f r e l e v a n c e to the p r o b l e m s he wants to s o l v e " .
8 1
T h i s f o r m u l a t i o n a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f h y p o t h e s e s r e q u i r e s o f the in terpreter a fundamental shift in p e r s p e c t i v e f r o m the exegetical phase o f the investigation. T h e n , h e w a s c o n c e r n e d with g r a s p i n g the a u t h o r ' s m e a n i n g ; n o w , he will present his o w n a c c o u n t . T h e n , he w a s l o o k i n g for the witness's intentional statements; n o w , he seeks the
unintentional
e v i d e n c e that will e x p o s e the witness's biases a n d l i m i t a t i o n s . historical
analysis
examination.
8 3
has
often
been
82
Thus,
c o m p a r e d to a c o u r t r o o m c r o s s -
O n c e the witnesses h a v e all b e e n h e a r d o n their o w n
terms a n d h a v e g i v e n their o w n interpretations (the exegetical p h a s e ) , the
investigator
steps
forward
to
pose
his
questions,
in
order
to
r e d i s c o v e r the events that s t o o d b e h i n d all o f the a c c o u n t s .
Summary and Conclusion A n e w blueprint for research o n the Pharisees, i n f o r m e d b y the mistakes o f earlier scholarship, b y the e x p e r i m e n t s o f N e u s n e r a n d R i v k i n , a n d by
general
insights
from
contemporary historiography,
will seek
to
r e c o v e r b o t h the external o r physical history o f this g r o u p a n d , so far as possible,
their intentions
and
their t h o u g h t .
T h i s g o a l c a n best
be
r e a c h e d b y an initial limitation o f the admissible e v i d e n c e to J o s e p h u s , the pertinent N T d o c u m e n t s , a n d the r a b b i n i c c o r p u s . T h e p r o c e d u r e will fall into t w o b r o a d phases: first, the analysis o f e a c h s o u r c e ' s presen tation
o f the
Pharisees,
by
means
o f exegesis,
h y p o t h e t i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f events a n d
and,
second,
the
intentions.
A l t h o u g h the p r o p o s e d p r o g r a m m e e m b o d i e s certain c o n t r o l s , it b y n o m e a n s e x c l u d e s subjectivity. O n the c o n t r a r y , it a c k n o w l e d g e s b o t h the private interests that m a y m o t i v a t e scholars to study Pharisaism a n d also the i n d i v i d u a l ' s right o f ultimate ( a n d private) m o r a l j u d g e m e n t o n his
7 9
Cf. Collingwood, Idea, 218f. B. F. Meyer, Aims, 88. Momigliano, Essays, 368f. On the value of unintentional evidence, see M . Bloch, Apologie, 76-84. So already Polybius 4.2.4; cf. Collingwood, Idea, 26, 281ff.; A. W . Mosley, "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World", NTS 12 (1965), 11-15; and Momigliano, 8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
Essays, 162f.
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY
17
subject. Further, it calls for the interpreter's complete involvement and imagination, both in exegesis and in historical reconstruction. Thus our two chief examples of the de novo quest, Neusner and Rivkin, have pro duced flatly contradictory results. Nevertheless, their work raises the possibility of a new consensus on method, on the "standards" of which Sanders speaks. That achievement is far more important than any par ticular set of conclusions. If scholarship on the Pharisees takes up this new agenda, which offers some semblance of a language for common discourse, then proposed hypotheses should encounter clearer discussion and critique than had been possible before the new beginning of Rivkin and Neusner. T o the degree that arbitrariness can be contained and public accountability enhanced by commonly accepted criteria, the discussion will become more "objective". If the foregoing proposal for research on the Pharisees has any merit, one can envision the role that a study of Josephus's testimony about the Pharisees ought to play in the larger endeavour. O f our three primary sources, Josephus is the most self-consciously historical: as we shall see, he sets out to write history pure and simple. Moreover, unlike the authors of the other sources, he unquestionably had direct, intimate con tact with Pharisaism before 7 0 .
8 4
His portrayals of the Pharisees, there
fore, are of paramount importance. Josephus refers to the Pharisees in three of his four extant works, viz., The Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities, and the Life. Analysis of his accounts falls within the first, exegetical, phase of the endeavour described above. One must, therefore, determine his purposes in writing and then ask how his discussions of the Pharisees serve those purposes. W h a t is the role of the Pharisees in any given narrative? T o what extent do they il lustrate any of Josephus's overriding themes? W h y does he discuss them at all? Does he describe them with significant, "charged" vocabulary? In short: H o w do the Pharisees function within his vision of things? It is necessary now to survey the previous interpretations of Josephus on the Pharisees in order to test the adequacy of those interpretations, by the criteria formulated above. I shall argue that we do not yet possess the kind of comprehensive analysis that could serve as a suitable basis for
historical reconstruction.
Nevertheless,
the previous scholarship
raises many issues that will serve to clarify our own aims and pro cedures. 8 4
On these points, cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 32f.
CHAPTER T W O SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS OF JOSEPHUS'S PHARISEES A discussion o f p r e v i o u s interpretations o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees will d e m o n s t r a t e the n e e d for a n e w attempt, for n o n e o f t h e m yet satisfies, a n d m o s t d o n o t c l a i m to satisfy, the r e q u i r e m e n t s set forth in C h a p t e r 1. Nevertheless, the p r e v i o u s research is e x t r e m e l y v a l u a b l e . First, it p o i n t s u p s o m e o f the factors that c o m p l i c a t e a n y literary study o f J o s e p h u s . S e c o n d , it highlights the particular p r o b l e m s that m u s t b e ad dressed in a c o m p r e h e n s i v e study o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees. T h e resolu tion o f these particular p r o b l e m s will b e c o m e part o f the larger task o f the f o l l o w i n g study. S i n c e a l m o s t e v e r y writer o n the Pharisees i n c l u d e s s o m e discussion o f J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y , a n d since m o s t authors o n J o s e p h u s h a v e cause to m e n t i o n his c o n n e c t i o n s with a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the Pharisees, the
number
o f scholarly references
Pharisees is v e r y large i n d e e d .
1
to J o s e p h u s ' s
portrayal
of
the
It is neither practical n o r desirable to
r e v i e w e a c h instance h e r e . T h e f o l l o w i n g s u r v e y d e s c r i b e s rather the m o s t c o m p l e t e a n d m o s t p r o g r a m m a t i c discussions o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees that h a v e a p p e a r e d since the m i d - n i n e t e e n t h One
century.
w o r d o f e x p l a n a t i o n : the t w o matters o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions
o f the Pharisees a n d o f his o w n relationship to the g r o u p are often dis cussed together in the scholarly literature, a n d b o t h will b e i m p o r t a n t in the present study. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s tionship to the Pharisees i n v o l v e s m a n y factors o t h e r than his
rela actual
descriptions o f the g r o u p — s u c h as his v i e w s o f the L a w , o f fate a n d free will, a n d o f i m m o r t a l i t y . T o raise those issues in this survey w o u l d re quire m a n y deviations from
the m a i n p o i n t , w h i c h is to assess
the
p r e v i o u s analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s portrayals o f the Pharisees. T h e q u e s t i o n o f his o w n relationship to the Pharisees will suggest itself naturally in Part I V , with reference to a particular passage in his a u t o b i o g r a p h y (Life 1012). I p r o p o s e , therefore, to l e a v e until then a d i s c u s s i o n o f the v a r i o u s ancillary factors that b e a r o n the q u e s t i o n . F o r the present, o u r c o n c e r n is with scholarly treatments o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions o f the Pharisees. 1
One can gain some impression of the number of potential references to Josephus's Pharisees by perusing H . Schreckenberg, Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), the Supplementband thereto (1979), and L. H . Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), ed. W . Haase (Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1983).
19
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
Two Early Views: H. Paret and E. Gerlach It was in an 1856 article that the twin issues o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions of, a n d relationship t o , the Pharisees w e r e first b r o a c h e d seriously. H . Paret w r o t e his " U b e r d e n Pharisaismus des J o s e p h u s " in o r d e r to s h o w that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee; this identification, h e h o p e d , w o u l d e n h a n c e the v a l u e o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s for the historical b a c k g r o u n d o f Christianity.
2
Paret a d v a n c e d m a n y a r g u m e n t s , b u t w e are c o n c e r n e d
here with his treatment o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions o f the Pharisees ( a n d the other sects), w h i c h he takes u p
3
first.
R e m a r k a b l y , Paret d i d n o t think that J o s e p h u s ' s explicit c o m m e n t s o n the Pharisees,
taken
b y themselves, i m p l i e d the a u t h o r ' s
Pharisaic
allegiance: " D i e s e , rein fur sich g e n o m m e n , lasst freilich nicht verm u t h e n , dass ihr S c h r e i b e r ein Pharisaer, s o n d e r n weit eher, dass er ein Essener g e w e s e n s e i . "
4
H e c o n c e d e d that J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n passage o n
the sects (War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ) , to w h i c h J o s e p h u s later refers as his definitive statement (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 ; 1 8 : 1 1 ) , portrays the Essenes with o b v i o u s Vorliebe. Paret also a l l o w e d that J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f the Pharisees, b y contrast,
was
17:41-45).
at
times
unfavourable
and
even
censorious
(Ant.
5
In spite o f these difficulties, Paret m a i n t a i n e d that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee, b y a r g u i n g ( a ) that a Pharisee c o u l d h a v e expressed such ad m i r a t i o n for the Essenes b e c a u s e the t w o g r o u p s w e r e so similar a n d ( b ) that
the
negative
portrayal
o f the
Pharisees
in Ant.
1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is
o u t w e i g h e d b y the g o o d things said a b o u t t h e m e l s e w h e r e — s u c h as their c o n c e r n for the exact interpretation o f the L a w (cf. War 2 : 1 6 6 ) a n d their 6
close c o m m u n i o n with G o d (Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 2 ) . Paret further p r o p o s e d that J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n c o m p e l l e d to sacrifice s o m e o f his fellow-Pharisees in Ant. b e c a u s e o f criticisms that h a d arisen o v e r his attempt in War to pres ent his party as a harmlose Philosophenschule. But these c o n c e s s i o n s are n o t to b e taken Pharisees.
as indications o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n antipathy
toward
the
7
J o s e p h u s m o s t clearly revealed his Pharisaic v i e w p o i n t , a c c o r d i n g to Paret, in his consistently n e g a t i v e attitude t o w a r d the S a d d u c e e s . 2
8
A
H . Paret, "Uber den Pharisaismus des Josephus", TSK 29 (1856), 809-844, esp. 809-811. Ibid., 816-823. The other arguments, as indicated above, will be considered in Part IV of this study. Ibid., 816. Ibid., 816-818. Ibid., 819-820. Ibid., 818. Ibid., 820-823. 3
4
5
6
7
8
20
CHAPTER T W O
Pharisee c o u l d a d m i r e the Essenes, Paret suggested, b u t the S a d d u c e e s must
have appeared
to h i m
as infidels. S o J o s e p h u s
presents
( p r o b a b l y falsely) as d e n y i n g P r o v i d e n c e altogether (Ant. always u n k i n d t o w a r d o n e a n o t h e r (War 2 : 1 6 6 ; Ant. h u m a n e in p u n i s h m e n t (Ant. his
own
theological
them
13:173),
as
1 8 : 6 ) , a n d as in
1 3 : 2 9 4 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the Bible a n d
emphases,
Paret
claimed,
were
calculated
to
challenge S a d d u c e a n v i e w s . S o o n after P a r e t ' s article c a m e E . G e r l a c h ' s a t t e m p t ( 1 8 6 3 ) to d e m 9
onstrate the inauthenticity time,
the literary a n d
o f the testimonium flavianum. B y G e r l a c h ' s
textual a r g u m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g the testimonium
w e r e already well k n o w n .
1 0
G e r l a c h w a n t e d to press a n o t h e r line o f
a r g u m e n t , n a m e l y , that w i t h such v i e w s o f p r o p h e c y a n d the m e s s i a n i c 11
h o p e as h e h e l d , J o s e p h u s c o u l d n o t h a v e p e n n e d the testimonium.
As
a preface t o this study, G e r l a c h c o n s i d e r e d J o s e p h u s ' s religious ties a n d c o n c l u d e d that he w a s n o t a Pharisee
but
an E s s e n e — a
judgement
b a s e d chiefly o n J o s e p h u s ' s portrayals o f the J e w i s h religious p a r t i e s .
12
G e r l a c h b e g a n b y calling into q u e s t i o n the usual interpretation o f Life 1 2 , to the effect that J o s e p h u s e n d e d his religious quest b y o p t i n g for m e m b e r s h i p with the Pharisees. G e r l a c h c o n t e n d e d that this inter pretation is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s c o n s p i c u o u s fondness for the Essenes a n d ( b ) the fact that J o s e p h u s ' s that o f the
o w n o u t l o o k c o r r e s p o n d s to
Essenes.
L i k e Paret, G e r l a c h n o t e d the p r o - E s s e n e slant o f War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , w h i c h i n c l u d e s the c o m m e n t that the Essenes "irresistibly w h o h a v e o n c e tasted their p h i l o s o p h y " .
1 3
attract all
H e a l l o w e d that a Pharisee
m i g h t h a v e expressed s o m e a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f Essene piety, b u t he d e n i e d (against Paret) that a Pharisee c o u l d h a v e presented such a d e tailed a n d a d m i r i n g portrayal g i v i n g the
Pharisees
short
o f the Essenes while at the same
shrift.
He
doubted,
time
for e x a m p l e , that
a
Pharisee w o u l d h a v e implicitly s h a m e d his o w n party b e f o r e R o m a n readers b y m e n t i o n i n g the Essene oath to o b e y all earthly r u l e r s .
14
In
d e e d , J o s e p h u s ' s o w n religious beliefs s e e m e d to G e r l a c h to c o r r e s p o n d
9
E. Gerlach, Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Hertz, 1863). The testimonium is the paragraph Ant. 18:63-64, which speaks of Jesus as "the Messiah". Ibid., 5. Ibid., 6, 85. Gerlach argues that Josephus's treatment of Daniel in Ant. reveals his expectation of an earthly, political Messiah, not of a quasi-divine figure. Ibid., 6-19. Ibid., 8. Cf. War 2:140. 1 0
11
12
13
1 4
21
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
closely to those that h e attributes to the Essenes—for e x a m p l e , that the soul is alien to the b o d y On
1 5
a n d that fate is s u p r e m e .
1 6
the o t h e r side, G e r l a c h w a s at a loss to find a single passage in
Josephus
in w h i c h the Pharisees
reservation.
17
were described favourably,
without
A g a i n s t Paret, h e d e n i e d that J o s e p h u s ' s references to the
Pharisees' kindness to o n e a n o t h e r , l o v e for the L a w , a n d gifts o f p r o p h e c y w e r e indications o f the h i s t o r i a n ' s f a v o u r , for in all o f these quali ties the Pharisees a p p e a r to b e m a t c h e d , if not surpassed, b y the Essenes. T h e b r i e f n o t i c e a b o u t the Pharisees' 2:166),
said
Gerlach,
is
contradicted
c o n c e r n for o n e a n o t h e r by
the
many
(War
unfavourable
references to the g r o u p . War 1:110-114, h e b e l i e v e d , presents their c o r ruptibility, v i n d i c t i v e n e s s , a n d h u n g e r for p o w e r . I n Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , 3 9 8 - 4 0 7 , h e f o u n d their c o n t e m p t for rulers a n d their p r o v o c a t i o n o f the p e o p l e to r e b e l l i o n . A b o v e all, G e r l a c h s u g g e s t e d , Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 o p e n l y attacks the Pharisees' p r e t e n s i o n s to s u p e r i o r p i e t y .
1 8
W h a t , then, is to b e m a d e o f J o s e p h u s ' s self-described religious quest, w h i c h e n d s with the n o t i c e : rjp^afxrjv 7coXtTeuea0at xfj Oaptaatcov aipeaei xocTOtxoXouOcav? T h i s signifies n o t h i n g m o r e , G e r l a c h s u g g e s t e d , than that J o s e p h u s f o l l o w e d the Pharisees in the political sphere; for such an ac c o m m o d a t i o n is set d o w n b y J o s e p h u s as a c o n d i t i o n o f success in p u b l i c life (cf. Ant.
18:15, 1 7 ) .
1 9
F o r G e r l a c h , therefore, J o s e p h u s w a s n o t a
Pharisee a n d n e v e r c l a i m e d to b e o n e . H e w a s an Essene.
Source Criticism of Josephus: G. Holscher A m a j o r a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l y i n g the w o r k o f b o t h Paret a n d G e r l a c h w a s the literary u n i t y o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings: J o s e p h u s w a s a s s u m e d to h a v e o n e m o r e o r less consistent v i e w o f the Pharisees. T h i s a s s u m p t i o n , h o w e v e r , r e c e i v e d a devastating b l o w in the researches o f H . B l o c h ( 1 8 7 9 ) , J. v o n D e s t i n o n ( 1 8 8 1 ) , F. S c h e m a n n ( 1 8 8 7 ) , W . O t t o ( 1 9 1 3 ) , a n d G . Holscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) .
2 0
A l t h o u g h m o s t o f these authors e x p r e s s e d n o par
ticular interest in the Pharisee passages o f J o s e p h u s , their s o u r c e analy-
15
Cf. War 2:154; 7:344; Ag.Ap. 2:203. Gerlach, Weissagungen, 13-16. Ibid., 11 and n. Ibid., 10. Ibid., 18f. H . Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archaologie (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1879); J. von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus I: die Quellen der Ar chaologie Buch XII-XVIII + Jud. Krieg Buch I (Keil: Lipsius & Tischer, 1882); F. Schemann, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jud. Arch. XVIII-XX + Polemos II, 7-14 (Marburg, 1887); W . Otto, "Herodes", PWRESup, II, 1-15; G. Holscher, Josephus", PWRE, X V I I I , 1934-2000. 1 6
17
1 8
1 9
2 0
4
CHAPTER T W O
22
ses h a r b o u r e d serious i m p l i c a t i o n s for that material. O n l y H o l s c h e r , w h o s e article for the Realencyclopadie m a r k e d the p e a k o f the m o v e m e n t , spelled o u t those i m p l i c a t i o n s ; w e m a y thus f o c u s o u r attention o n his study. O f H o l s c h e r ' s sixty-three c o l u m n article o n J o s e p h u s , a b o u t fifty-four c o l u m n s are g i v e n o v e r to a s o u r c e analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s .
21
T h i s p r o p o r t i o n reflects the d e g r e e to w h i c h , b y H o l s c h e r ' s t i m e , an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J o s e p h u s h a d c o m e t o b e identified with an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f his s o u r c e s . D e s t i n o n h a d l o n g since c o n c l u d e d that Ant. 1217 w a s little m o r e than a c o m p i l a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s m a j o r , intermediate sources—the
Anonymous
and
Nicolaus
of
Damascus—and
that
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n input here w a s m i n i m a l : Seine Quelle also hat Jos. das Material gegeben, hat ihm die Disposition desselben ubermittelt und schliesslich sogar ihn so zu bestricken gewusst, dass er sein selbstandiges Urteil d r a n g a b . 22
F o l l o w i n g D e s t i n o n ' s l e a d , H o l s c h e r d e n i e d to J o s e p h u s a n y substantial role in p r o v i d i n g the c o n t e n t o r e v e n c o l l e c t i n g the s o u r c e s for the t w e n t y v o l u m e s o f his Ant.. H o l s c h e r ' s first o b s e r v a t i o n o n the Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s is p r o g r a m m a t i c for his analysis: Sein pharisaischer (und damit antisadduzaischer) Standpunkt verrat sich mehrfach in seinen Schriften, obwohl seine Urteile uber die drei judischen Schulen, j e nach den von ihm ausgeschriebenen Quellen, vielfach verschieden auffallen. 23
On
Holscher's view, although Josephus was a Pharisee,
24
he s i m p l y
failed to alter the j u d g e m e n t s o f his s o u r c e s , e v e n w h e n those j u d g e m e n t s c o n t r a d i c t e d his o w n Pharisaic sentiments. O f the Pharisee passages, h e b e l i e v e d , War 1:110-114 is " r e c h t u n f r e u n d l i c h " t o w a r d the g r o u p . Ant. as a w h o l e is " t e i l s u n f r e u n d l i c h " a n d " t e i l s z i e m l i c h n e u t r a l " ; o n l y 18:1 If. is " a n e r k e n n e n d " . not
find
any
strong
2 5
L i k e Paret a n d G e r l a c h , then, H o l s c h e r d i d
Pharisaic
p e r s p e c t i v e in J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisee
passages. H i s a r g u m e n t , h o w e v e r , w a s that these passages, like m o s t o f Ant. a n d a g o o d p i e c e o f War, tell m o r e a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e s than they d o a b o u t J o s e p h u s himself. 2 1
The article comprises cols. 1934-2000, the last four of which are devoted to bibliography. The source analysis extends from cols. 1943 to 1996. Destinon, Quellen, 101. Similarly, Bloch (Quellen, 157-159) found Josephus guilty of sklavische Abhdngigkeit. Holscher, 'Josephus", 1936. Ibid., 1945. Ibid., 1936 and n. + + . Holscher also suggests that Josephus's own Pharisaic stand point comes through in Ant. 13:297f. 2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
23
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
H o l s c h e r d i s c e r n e d t w o m a i n sources for War, the first reflected in 1:31-2:116, the s e c o n d in 2 : 1 1 7 - 2 8 3 . After that, in discussing the actual events o f the w a r against R o m e , J o s e p h u s w a s p r e s u m a b l y relying o n his own
memory,
his
notes,
t e s t i m o n y , a n d other a i d s .
Vespasian's
26
official
report,
eyewitness
H o l s c h e r ' s criteria for identifying the t w o
sources in b o o k s 1 a n d 2 i n c l u d e d the p r e s e n c e o f d o u b l e t s , differences in style, a n d distinct preferences for certain t e r m s .
27
He
attributed
2 : 1 1 7 - 1 6 1 , with its detailed description o f the Essenes, t o a J e w i s h writ ten s o u r c e
2 8
a n d the b r i e f remarks
o n the Pharisees
and
Sadducees
( 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) to J o s e p h u s himself. T h a t 1:31-2:116 c o m e s f r o m N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , H e r o d ' s c o u r t historian, H o l s c h e r a r g u e d chiefly o n the basis o f a c o m p a r i s o n o f the style in that section with extant fragments o f N i c o l a u s in F. J a c o b y ' s c o l l e c t i o n .
29
Other considerations were: (a)
that the material is p r o - H e r o d i a n ; ( b ) that it seems to b e a c o n d e n s a t i o n o f a m u c h m o r e detailed s o u r c e ; a n d ( c ) that it is the w o r k o f a n o n Jew.
3 0
In support o f this last p r o p o s i t i o n , significantly, H o l s c h e r p o i n t e d
to the negative presentation o f the Pharisees in War 1:110-114. For
Ant.
the
picture
is
more
complex.
Whereas,
according
to
H o l s c h e r , J o s e p h u s h a d p r o v i d e d m u c h o f the c o n t e n t o f War ( b o o k s 3-7) himself, in Ant. h e c o n f i n e d himself almost exclusively to passing o n literary t r a d i t i o n s .
31
I n Ant.
1 : 2 7 - 1 3 : 2 1 2 , for e x a m p l e , H o l s c h e r iden
tified large b l o c k s o f material f r o m the teaching notes (Lehrvortrag) o f the Alexandrian Jewish schools.
32
It w a s in these schools that the H e b r e w Bi
b l e , the L X X , p a g a n traditions, a n d J e w i s h a p o c r y p h a a n d l e g e n d s w e r e synthesized; J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f p r o b a b l y n e v e r saw a n y o f this material first h a n d . H i s c o n t r i b u t i o n at m o s t consisted o f c o p y i n g , e x c e r p t i n g , a n d c o m b i n i n g large b l o c k s o f material—all o f w h i c h i m p l i e s , ' 'dass m a n sich die e i g e n e selbstandige A r b e i t des J. zustellen h a t " . On
the
so g e r i n g w i e m o g l i c h v o r -
3 3
content
o f Ant.
13:212-17:355, Holscher observed
that,
although it parallels the a c c o u n t f r o m N i c o l a u s in War 1, it s o m e t i m e s corrects N i c o l a u s , is often a n t i - H e r o d i a n ,
2 6
a n d distinctly favours
the
Ibid., 1939, 1942, 1949. Ibid., 1944. Ibid., 1949 and n. + . Ibid., 1946f. Ibid., 1944-1948. Ibid., 1951. Ibid., 1956-1966. Holscher argues that, since Josephus's biblical paraphrase some times departs from both the L X X and the Hebrew Bible, he must have used these sources only at second hand, already in processed form. Ibid., 1962. 2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
24
CHAPTER T W O
Hasmoneans.
3 4
These
observations
led
Holscher
to
propose
that
J o s e p h u s is here u s i n g a tendentious r e w o r k i n g o f N i c o l a u s b y a p r o Hasmonean
J e w i s h p o l e m i c i s t . T h i s polemicist was able to
critique
N i c o l a u s b y c o n s u l t i n g also a b i o g r a p h y o f H e r o d , w h i c h b e c a m e the m a i n source for Ant.
15-17.
3 5
In addition to these t w o m a i n sources,
N i c o l a u s ' s Verfdlscher used local J e w i s h l e g e n d s , a high priest list, collec tions o f official d o c u m e n t s , a n d v a r i o u s p a g a n w r i t i n g s .
36
T h e polemicist
was e v e n responsible, H o l s c h e r t h o u g h t , for the asides a n d that a p p e a r in Ant.
reflections
13-17.
H o l s c h e r also attributed Ant. 18-20 largely to the J e w i s h p o l e m i c i s t . H e r e , h o w e v e r , the polemicist has o u t r u n his t w o
37
Hauptquellen—Nicolaus
a n d H e r o d ' s b i o g r a p h y — a n d so the narrative b e c o m e s m o r e disjointed. In essence, then, H o l s c h e r t h o u g h t that s o m e u n n a m e d polemicist was responsible for the w h o l e o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 1 2 - 2 0 : 4 5 5 a n d , therefore, for all o f 38
the Pharisee passages in Ant.
But since he c o n c e i v e d o f the polemicist
as o n l y an intermediate s o u r c e , H o l s c h e r c o u l d also trace the Pharisee passages b a c k to earlier o r i g i n s : s o m e he r e g a r d e d as elements o f J e w i s h tradition o r l e g e n d ,
3 9
a n o t h e r as the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f N i c o l a u s ,
other as a story f r o m the b i o g r a p h y o f H e r o d .
4 1
4 0
and an
All were reworked by
the polemicist b e f o r e c o m i n g into J o s e p h u s ' s h a n d s . T o J o s e p h u s ' s o w n p e n H o l s c h e r attributed o n l y ( a ) the b r i e f description o f the PhariseeS a d d u c e e dispute that follows the story o f J o h n H y r c a n u s (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 298) and
( b ) an
a n t i - H e r o d i a n notice c o n n e c t e d with
P o l l i o n (Ant. 1 5 : 4 ) . schools in Ant.
4 2
the
Pharisee
Finally, H o l s c h e r attributed the description o f the
18:11-25 m a i n l y to the p o l e m i c i s t , o n the g r o u n d that
J o s e p h u s the Pharisee c o u l d h a r d l y have n a m e d a Pharisee as a c o f o u n d e r o f the zealot f a c t i o n .
3 4
43
Ibid., 1970-1973. Ibid., 1977f. Ibid., 1973f. Ibid., 1992. Among the alleged proofs that Josephus did not write this section himself (1986-1992) are: (a) its unfulfilled cross-references; (b) Josephus's purported in ability to read the Latin sources that appear therein; and (c) the polemic of Ant. 20:154157, which reminded Holscher of Ant. 16:187, which he had already attributed to the polemicist. Ant. 13:171-173 falls outside this block; nevertheless, Holscher (1973) attributed it also to the polemicist. Ibid., 1973f. He included Ant. 13:171-173; 15:3, 370-372 in this category. Ibid., 1973, 1975 (and n.), on Ant. 13:400-432. Ibid., 1979, on Ant. 17:41-45. Ibid., 1973f. Ibid., 1991; cf. Ant. 18:4. 3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
25
H o w are w e to i m a g i n e the J e w i s h p o l e m i c i s t w h o w r o t e m o s t o f Ant. 13-20? H e w a s , a c c o r d i n g to H o l s c h e r , a c o m p i l e r a n d n o t a historian, w h o a l l o w e d tensions a n d d o u b l e t s to stand u n r e s o l v e d in his presenta tion.
4 4
H e w a s a c o n s e r v a t i v e , priestly, p r o - H a s m o n e a n aristocrat, w h o
h a d n o s y m p a t h y for the rebels a n d little respect for either the masses o r the p o p u l a r
Pharisees.
45
I m p o r t a n t for H o l s c h e r w a s the belief, b a s e d o n Life Josephus
w a s a d e v o t e d Pharisee.
10-12,
that
T h i s b e l i e f i m p l i e d that J o s e p h u s
c o u l d n o t h a v e written d e r o g a t o r y a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees, so s o m e o n e else m u s t h a v e written t h e m — w h e t h e r aristocrat.
46
a n o n - J e w o r an anti-Pharisaic
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n Pharisaic allegiance r e m a i n s ,
as w e shall
see, an i m p o r t a n t criterion for the source-critical analysis o f his Pharisee passages.
Reactions to Source Criticism: B. Brune, R. Laqueur,
H.Rasp
D u r i n g the forty years f r o m B l o c h to H o l s c h e r , s o u r c e criticism w a s the c o m m o n w a y , b u t n o t the o n l y w a y , o f e x p l a i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s writings. A n i m p o r t a n t dissenter w a s B . B r u n e ( 1 9 1 3 ) , w h o , w h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g J o s e p h u s ' s use o f s o u r c e s , c o n t i n u e d to l o o k o n h i m as b o t h a g e n u i n e historian
a n d a full-fledged writer, w h o s e p u r p o s e s a n d interests c o l
o u r e d the w h o l e o f his w o r k .
4 7
O f Ant.,
Brune wrote:
D e n Zweck seiner Archaologie hat Jos a [Ant. ] I, 14 klar ausgesprochen, und auf denselben sind alle eingestreuten Erzahlungen, auch die nichtbiblischen, offensichtlich zugeschnitten. 48
T h i s classic redaction-critical p r o p o s a l is characteristic o f B r u n e ' s entire study, m o s t o f w h i c h is d e v o t e d to an e x a m i n a t i o n o f k e y t h e m e s a n d v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n s that r e c u r t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s f o u r writings. Brune
found
n o warrant
for the
kind
o f assumptions
made
by
H o l s c h e r . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e r e a s H o l s c h e r h a d s u p p o s e d that a Pharisaic education
would preclude Josephus's
serious familiarity
with
Greek
l a n g u a g e a n d literature, B r u n e thought it self-evident that J o s e p h u s b e l o n g e d to circles in w h i c h the k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k culture w o u l d h a v e b e e n c o m p u l s o r y , if o n l y as a m e a n s o f d e f e n d i n g the tradition against
4 4
Ibid., 1981f. Ibid., 1974f., 1982, 1983. Ibid., 1936. Holscher also appealed to Josephus's Pharisaic education as proof that he could not have known well the Greek authors cited throughout Ant., so that someone else must have provided those references (1956). B. Brune, Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhdltnis zum Judentume, zur griechisch-rbmischen Welt und zum Christentum (Gutersloh: G. Mohn, 1969 [1913]). Ibid., 20. 4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
26
CHAPTER T W O
that c u l t u r e .
49
Brune
finds
m a n y changes o f expression throughout
J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s , b u t h e attributes t h e m to the a u t h o r ' s
desire for
e l e g a n c e a n d the a v o i d a n c e o f m o n o t o n y , rather than to n e w s o u r c e s . The
crucial p o i n t
for B r u n e
is that
one can
discover
throughout
J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s clear a n d consistent t h e m e s ; a n d it is those t h e m e s that e v i d e n c e J o s e p h u s ' s overall c o n t r o l o f his m a t e r i a l .
50
A m o r e self-conscious r e a c t i o n t o the s o u r c e critics c a m e with R . L a q u e u r ' s Der judische Historiker Flavius Josephus, w h i c h a p p e a r e d in 1 9 2 0 , s o o n after H o l s c h e r ' s article. L a q u e u r q u e s t i o n e d the credibility o f a source
criticism
Abschreiber".
5 1
that
had
turned
Josephus
into
a
"stumpfen
T h e m i s c h i e v o u s c l a i m that J o s e p h u s h a d m e c h a n i c a l l y
c o p i e d his s o u r c e s , L a q u e u r b e l i e v e d , w a s b u t o n e manifestation o f a c o n c e p t u a l e r r o r that w a s l e a d i n g astray the w h o l e studies in his d a y . legitimate
and
5 2
field
o f classical
T h a t e r r o r w a s the refusal to r e c o g n i z e the o n e
indispensable
presupposition
o f historical
research,
n a m e l y , " d a s s d e r V e r f a s s e r eines T e x t e s ein v e r n u n f t b e g a b t e s W e s e n gleich u n s selbst i s t " .
5 3
T o illustrate the deficiencies o f the p r e v a i l i n g source-critical a p p r o a c h , L a q u e u r e x a m i n e d Ant. 16:183ff., w h e r e N i c o l a u s ' s partisanship is at tacked a n d the a u t h o r cites his priestly credentials a n d
Hasmonean
heritage as g u a r a n t o r s o f his o w n historical a c c u r a c y . W h e r e a s H o l s c h e r h a d attributed this critique o f N i c o l a u s to a priestly, p r o - H a s m o n e a n p o l e m i c i s t , a h y p o t h e t i c a l i n t e r m e d i a t e s o u r c e , L a q u e u r asked w h e t h e r it w o u l d n o t b e m o r e r e a s o n a b l e to identify the a u t h o r with J o s e p h u s himself, w h o elsewhere c l a i m s b o t h priestly a n d H a s m o n e a n r o o t s . queur,
then,
wanted
to
allow Josephus
responsibility for his
5 4
La own
writings.
4 9
Brune (13-16) pointed to the rhetorical skill evident in Josephus's speeches as evidence of his facility in Greek style. B rune's assumption that educated Palestinian Jews of the first century would have been familiar with Greek has been more than vindicated since his time; cf., among others, S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942); idem., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950); M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism"; M . Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1969), 108ff.; and T . Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth, 1983), 47-51. Brune does not deal specifically with the Pharisee passages. His section, "Der Pharisaismus bei Josephus", 150-157, attempts to show (as Paret had done) that Pharisaic themes, such as reward and punishment, are common in Josephus. This argu ment will be considered in Part I V . Laqueur, Historiker, Vllf.; cf. 128-132 and 230-245 ("Eine methodische Grundfrage"). Ibid., 129. Ibid., 231. Ibid., 130-131; cf. Life 2. 5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
27
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
I f that v i e w
is c o r r e c t , h o w c a n o n e e x p l a i n the
differences
in
J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s , for e x a m p l e b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. in their attitudes t o w a r d H e r o d ? H o l s c h e r h a d p o s i t e d t w o s o u r c e s , o n e friendly t o w a r d H e r o d ( N i c o l a u s , in War) a n d the o t h e r o p p o s e d t o h i m (the J e w i s h p o l e m i c i s t , in Ant.).
L a q u e u r , h o w e v e r , e x t r a p o l a t e d an a n s w e r to this
q u e s t i o n f r o m his e x p l a n a t i o n o f the differences b e t w e e n War a n d Life in their parallel material, c o n c e r n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s activities d u r i n g the revolt against R o m e .
5 5
O n that issue there w a s n o possibility o f i n v o k i n g s o u r c e
h y p o t h e s e s to e x p l a i n the d i v e r g e n c e s , since J o s e p h u s w a s recalling his o w n c a r e e r . L a q u e u r p o s i t e d , therefore, an actual c h a n g e in J o s e p h u s ' s thinking: w h e r e a s War h a d b e e n tailored to please A g r i p p a I I , the Life has lost this interest c o m p l e t e l y , b e c a u s e the k i n g has d i e d .
5 6
Similarly,
L a q u e u r a r g u e d , J o s e p h u s u n d e r w e n t s o m e d e v e l o p m e n t in his estima tion o f H e r o d b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. W h e r e a s War h a d b e e n a R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a p i e c e , Ant. reflects J o s e p h u s ' s m o r e natural s y m p a t h i e s . Although Laqueur
m a d e n o attempt to deal specifically w i t h
the
Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s , his w o r k is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e o f its m a j o r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n . S o u r c e criticism h a d b e e n c a r r i e d to the p o i n t w h e r e its results i m p l i e d " d a s s J o s e p h u s u b e r h a u p t nicht existiert hat, s o n d e r n n u r seine Q u e l l e " , as L a q u e u r sarcastically p u t i t .
57
Over
against such a v i e w , L a q u e u r insisted that J o s e p h u s truly w a s an a u t h o r , " d a s s J o s e p h u s m i t seiner P e r s o n die R i c h t u n g seines W e r k e s d e c k t " . O u t o f this f u n d a m e n t a l
5 8
p r o p o s i t i o n g r e w L a q u e u r ' s distinctive c o n
t r i b u t i o n . H e a r g u e d that J o s e p h u s w a s subject to c h a n g e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t in his o u t l o o k a n d that this c a p a c i t y for c h a n g e a c c o u n t s m o s t a d e q u a t e l y for the i n c o n g r u i t i e s in his w r i t i n g s .
59
L a q u e u r ' s analysis o f J o s e p h u s w a s to h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p a c t o n b o t h G e r m a n a n d E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g s c h o l a r s h i p , the latter t h r o u g h the m e d i a t i o n o f H . St. J o h n T h a c k e r a y ( 1 9 2 9 ) . tions
of Josephan
source
criticism
6 0
A f t e r L a q u e u r , the a m b i
adjusted
themselves
radically
d o w n w a r d . M o s t significant for o u r t o p i c , L a q u e u r ' s e m p h a s i s o n the vicissitudes o f J o s e p h u s ' s life as the k e y to u n d e r s t a n d i n g his writings p a v e d the w a y for t w o i m p o r t a n t studies o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees.
5 5
This question occupied the first half of Laqueur's study, pp. 6-128. Ibid., 132. Ibid., 131. Ibid., 132. Ibid., 131ff., 246. H . St. John Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish In stitute of Religion, 1929). Thackeray modified but accepted Laqueur's theory of the origin of the Life (18f.) and built on Laqueur's theory of the purpose of War (27, 30). He also agreed in general with Laqueur's discovery of a stronger religious apologetic in Ant (52). 5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0
CHAPTER T W O
28
T h e first o f these w a s H . R a s p ' s article, " F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s u n d die judischen Religionsparteien" ( 1 9 2 4 ) .
6 1
R a s p b e g a n with the p r o p o s i t i o n
that the different s e q u e n c e s in w h i c h J o s e p h u s o r d e r s the J e w i s h schools in his v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e m indicate his c h a n g i n g relationships toward each g r o u p .
6 2
In particular, R a s p saw Ant.
t e n d e d c o r r e c t i o n o f War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6
6 3
1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 as an in
a n d he tried to interpret that c o r
rection b y e x a m i n i n g the i n d i v i d u a l c h a n g e s . T h e p r i n c i p a l c h a n g e s d i s c o v e r e d b y R a s p w e r e : ( a ) a drastic r e d u c tion in the a m o u n t o f s p a c e a n d d e g r e e o f enthusiasm d e v o t e d to the Essenes; ( b ) a n o t a b l e increase in p r e c i s i o n with respect t o Pharisaic beliefs; a n d ( c ) n e w material o n the relations b e t w e e n S a d d u c e e s a n d Pharisees.
64
R a s p a p p r o a c h e d these c h a n g e s with an u n m i s t a k a b l y L a -
queurian j u d g e m e n t : D e r Gegensatz zwischen den Schilderungen im Bell, und in der Arch, ist und bleibt auffallend. W i l l m a n nicht die eine verschlimmbessern nach der anderen oder gar als Falschung streichen, dann muss m a n eben annehmen, dass der Schreiber Josephus in der Zwischenzeit sich gewandelt h a t . 65
W h a t w e r e the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f J o s e p h u s ' s life that c a u s e d h i m to write so differently? R a s p b e g a n w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n that J o s e p h u s ' s priestly lineage (Life 2 ) m u s t h a v e entailed S a d d u c e a n allegiance a n d , as a c o n s e q u e n c e , hatred o f R o m e .
6 6
T h u s w h e n J o s e p h u s e m b a r k e d o n his m i s
sion to R o m e to free s o m e priests i m p r i s o n e d there (Life 13ff.), he w e n t full o f c o n t e m p t . O n c e in R o m e , h o w e v e r , he h a d a c h a n g e o f heart: first, b e c a u s e h e saw the a w e s o m e p o w e r o f R o m e ; s e c o n d , b e c a u s e o f the friendliness o f N e r o ' s c o n s o r t P o p p e a , w h o s e gifts " b r a c h e n w o h l d e n letzten i n n e r e n W i d e r s t a n d " . S o J o s e p h u s r e t u r n e d h o m e with a n e w political o u t l o o k , o f w h i c h the k e y i n g r e d i e n t w a s s u b m i s s i o n to R o m e . H e d e c i d e d that the best w a y to p r o m o t e his n e w faith w o u l d b e to a c q u i r e a p o s i t i o n o f influence, w h i c h m e a n t j o i n i n g the P h a r i s e e s .
67
F o r the Pharisees h a d b y n o w lost
t o u c h with the y e a r n i n g s o f the p e o p l e a n d w e r e c o u n s e l l i n g s u b m i s s i o n
61
ZNW 23 (1924), 27-47. Ibid., 29. In War 2:119-166, the Essenes are discussed first and at length; in Ant. 13:171-173 the order is Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes; in Ant. 18:11-25 the Pharisees are discussed first and the Essenes last. Ibid., 31. He reasoned that, since Josephus in Ant. 18:11 refers the reader back to the account in War 2, but nevertheless proceeds to give a new and somewhat different account, he must be intending to modify the earlier portrait. Ibid., 32f. Ibid., 33f. Ibid., 32-35. Rasp rejects as "nur Spiegelfechterei" Josephus's claim (Life 10-12) that he sampled all three Jewish schools and ended up following the Pharisees. Ibid., Rasp, 36f. 6 2
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
29
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
to R o m e . Installed as a R o m e - f r i e n d l y Pharisee, J o s e p h u s w a s entrusted with the administration
o f the G a l i l e e , with a m a n d a t e t o quell the
rebellious activities there. B u t h e w a s n o t u p to this Charakterprobe. O n c e in Galilee h e capitulated to his pre-Pharisaic i m p u l s e s . T h e delighted rebels m a d e h i m their general. A n d J o s e p h u s c o n t i n u e d to relish the role o f rebel s t r o n g m a n until the R o m a n s t o o k h i m c a p t i v e . W h e n c a p t u r e d b y the R o m a n s , h o w e v e r , h e revised his allegiances yet again a n d became a R o m a n favourite.
68
It w a s u n d e r R o m a n p a t r o n a g e that J o s e p h u s u n d e r t o o k t o write War, with its m a j o r passage o n the J e w i s h schools ( 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ) . S i n c e J o s e p h u s c o u l d n o t present h i m s e l f to R o m a n readers as a rebel leader, h e c h o s e to dissociate h i m s e l f f r o m a n y political stance. T o that e n d h e passed himself o f f as an Essene. H e n c e his l o n g a n d a d m i r i n g portrait o f this g r o u p , w h i c h includes the n o t i c e that they swear an oath to h o n o u r all authority as f r o m G o d ( 2 : 1 3 9 f . ) . T h e Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s , h o w e v e r , r e c e i v e little attention. I n J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k a b o u t the S a d d u c e e s ' 6
rudeness ' e v e n to o n e a n o t h e r " R a s p f o u n d the veiled r e m i n i s c e n c e o f a f o r m e r m e m b e r w h o h a d since felt the sting o f their wrath. T h e things that G r e e k s despised in the J e w s , R a s p suggested, J o s e p h u s a s c r i b e d to the S a d d u c e e s ; what the G r e e k s a d m i r e d , h e attributed t o the E s s e n e s .
69
R a s p p r o p o s e d that b y the time J o s e p h u s c a m e to write Ant. h e h a d rethought his priorities a n d w a n t e d to repair his reputation with his people.
7 0
J o s e p h u s ' s literary p e a c e offering w a s his attempt to rewrite the
history o f the Pharisees. T h i s party h a d since w o n R o m a n s u p p o r t for its religious authority in Palestine a n d so J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d ' ' d i e an d e r Herrschaft mitbeteiligten Pharisaer r e i n z u w a s c h e n v o n j e d e r S c h u l d " . This
a c c o u n t s , a c c o r d i n g t o R a s p , for the revised portrait
7 1
o f the
Pharisees in Ant. 18. J o s e p h u s n o w rated their political influence v e r y h i g h ( 1 8 : 1 5 , 17) a n d accurately r e p o r t e d their beliefs, h o p i n g t h e r e b y to m a k e a m e n d s for the d i s a p p o i n t i n g treatment that he h a d g i v e n t h e m in War 2 . R a s p c o m m e n t s : Ja,
er scheint
Zeugnis
alles
iiberzeugt wieder
zu sein,
gutmachen
dass er mit diesem werde,
denn
anerkennenden
gleichzeitig
hat
er
die
Dreistigkeit sich vor aller W e l t als allezeit treuer Pharisaer hinzustellen (Vita 1 2 ) .
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid., Ibid.,
7 2
36-43. 44-46. Cf. Ag.Ap. 46-47. 46. 47
1:182 / / War 2:120, 133, and Ag.Ap.
1:191 / / War 2:152.
CHAPTER T W O
30
T h e influence o f L a q u e u r o n R a s p ' s analysis is c l e a r .
7 3
T h a t the alleged
differences in J o s e p h u s ' s portrayals o f the Pharisees c a n b e e x p l a i n e d largely o n the basis o f c h a n g e s in his c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d attitudes is an idea that c o n t i n u e s to attract scholars. Before d i s c u s s i n g its m o r e recent representatives, h o w e v e r , w e m u s t give s o m e attention t o the w o r k o f A . Schlatter o n J o s e p h u s .
A. In
Schlatter: The Pharisees as Rabbis/Sages in Politics
1856 Paret h a d
a r g u e d that the identification o f J o s e p h u s as a
Pharisee w o u l d e n h a n c e the usefulness o f his writings for Religionsgeschichte. S o m e seventy-five years later, A . Schlatter e x p l o i t e d that i d e n tification. F o r h i m , J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee a n d , as s u c h : zeigt uns in griechisches Denken und griechische Rede gefassten Pharisaismus und fuhrt uns damit zu derjenigen Bewegung im Judentum, die die Herrschaft uber ganze Judenschaft. . . erlangt h a t . 74
By
a n d l a r g e , Schlatter's
Theologie des Judentums ( 1 9 3 2 ) p r e s u p p o s e d
J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic a l l e g i a n c e ;
75
that allegiance w a s w h a t
bestowed
special i m p o r t a n c e o n J o s e p h u s for Schlatter. I n d i s c u s s i n g J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees, Schlatter w a n t e d ,
first,
t o s h o w h o w the
Pharisee J o s e p h u s c o u l d h a v e written the material as it stands
and,
s e c o n d , to d i s c o v e r w h a t that material teaches a b o u t the Pharisees. On
the f o r m e r p o i n t , Schlatter p r o p o s e d that J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees
w e r e early representatives o f r a b b i n i c r e l i g i o n .
76
T h a t w a s clear t o h i m
b e c a u s e v a r i o u s p e r s o n s identified as Pharisees b y J o s e p h u s — s u c h as those w h o c a m e to p o w e r u n d e r Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a , the teachers P o l l i o n and
Samaias,
and
Simeon
ben
77
Gamaliel —are
known
T a l m u d . Y e t , Schlatter n o t e d , J o s e p h u s displays a s t r o n g
from
the
antipathy
( " e i n e kraftige A b n e i g u n g " ) t o w a r d m o s t o f these figures. H o w c a n this b e e x p l a i n e d , g i v e n that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee? Schlatter a n s w e r e d o n three levels. First, J o s e p h u s ' s c o o l n e s s t o w a r d the Pharisees is d u e in part to his objectivity as a historian. T h i s ac c o u n t s , Schlatter b e l i e v e d , f o r his d e t a c h e d portrayal o f the Pharisees as
7 3
Rasp acknowledged it (34, 36). A . Schlatter, Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Jose/us (Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1932), V . Cf. also his Der Bericht uber das Ende Jerusalems: ein Dialog mit Wilhelm Weber (Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1923), 38. Schlatter occasionally points out ideas of Josephus that seem to him Pharisaic (cf. pp. 62, 21 Of.) but he offers no systematic treatment of the question; nor does he explain how he knows such ideas to be distinctively Pharisaic. Ibid., 198-199. Cf. War 1:110f.; Ant 15:3; Life 191. 7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
31
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
b u t o n e atpeat? a m o n g m a n y . Josephus's
Pharisee
material
7 8
S e c o n d , Schlatter held that m u c h o f came
from
the
pagan
Nicolaus o f
D a m a s c u s , w h o m J o s e p h u s allowed t o d e t e r m i n e n o t o n l y the c o n t e n t (Begrenzung) b u t also the n u a n c e (Farbung) o f his p r e s e n t a t i o n .
79
Never
theless, a c c o r d i n g to Schlatter, J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f snubs the Rabbinat b y ( a ) failing t o n a m e his o w n teacher, in v i o l a t i o n o f r a b b i n i c p r o t o c o l , ( b ) failing to m e n t i o n the " r a b b i n i c " leaders in the G a l i l e e d u r i n g
the
p e r i o d o f his administration there, a l t h o u g h they must h a v e p l a y e d an i m p o r t a n t r o l e , a n d ( c ) u n d e r t a k i n g a full d e f e n c e o f J u d a i s m , in
Ag.Ap.,
w i t h o u t o n c e m e n t i o n i n g the r a b b i n i c leaders w h o c o n t r o l l e d J u d a i s m at the e n d o f the first c e n t u r y .
80
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n anti-rabbinic
attitude,
therefore, calls for an e x p l a n a t i o n . Schlatter suggested that J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the n a m e " P h a r i s e e s " for the r a b b i s , rather than "sages/ao^taTOtt", i n d i c a t e d that his dispute with t h e m w a s political a n d n o t r e l i g i o u s .
81
T h a t is, J o s e p h u s r e v e r e d the
r a b b i s as s u c h , in their religious a n d t e a c h i n g functions, a n d m e n d e d their exegesis o f the l a w s .
8 2
com
T h e i r (alleged) hostility t o w a r d
R o m e , h o w e v e r , w a s a frustration to J o s e p h u s ' s o w n efforts at rapproche ment: " S e i n e i g e n e s politisches Ziel m a c h t e ihn z u m G e g n e r d e r R a b b i n e n ; d e n n diese lehnten d i e v o n J . g e w u n s c h t e V e r s o h n u n g m i t R o m ab."
8 3
T h u s J o s e p h u s w a s c o m m i t t e d to Pharisaic-rabbinic r e l i g i o n ; h e
p o r t r a y e d his fellow-Pharisees in a n e g a t i v e light o n l y b e c a u s e o f their t r o u b l e s o m e political stance. Having
explained Josephus's
unfavourable
presentation
of
the
Pharisees b y these m e a n s , Schlatter asked what c o u l d b e learned o b j e c tively a b o u t the Pharisees f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s narative, w h i c h is after all the a c c o u n t o f an insider. H e d i s c o v e r e d :
8 4
( a ) that the Pharisees'
goal
always appears as &xpi(kta, exactitude o r p r e c i s i o n in the laws; ( b ) that this striving after the laws i n c l u d e d a d h e r e n c e to the " t r a d i t i o n s o f the f a t h e r s " ; ( c ) that, in o r d e r to k e e p the tradition alive, the Pharisees sponsored a vigorous programme o f education;
85
( d ) that their teachers
o c c u r r e d in pairs, w h i c h reflects their self-understanding as tradents
7 8
Schlatter, Theologie, 196. Ibid., 201f. Ibid., 202. Ibid., 203-204. Cf. War 1:110, 649; Ant. 17:149, 216. Ibid., 203. Ibid., 205-208. Cf. the references to "disciples" or "students" at War 1:649; Ant. 13:289; 15:3; 17:149. 7 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
8 4
8 5
32
CHAPTER T W O
rather than as individual i n n o v a t o r s ;
86
( e ) that the Pharisees relied o n
p r o s e l y t i s m , as well as natural r e p r o d u c t i o n , for their c o n s t i t u e n c y ; that the Pharisees c o m b i n e d d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e a n d h u m a n
87
(f)
respon
sibility; a n d ( g ) that the p o p u l a r influence o f the Pharisees g r e w in the early part o f the first c e n t u r y . L i k e those w h o w e n t b e f o r e h i m ,
Schlatter
b o t h r e c o g n i z e d the
negative t o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees a n d sought to e x plain h o w J o s e p h u s , as a Pharisee himself, c o u l d h a v e written it. O n e c a n discern in his treatment the c o m b i n e d influence o f s o u r c e criticism and
Laqueur's
emphasis
o n Josephus's
circumstances
as
decisive.
Nevertheless, Schlatter's w o r k is a strange c o m b i n a t i o n o f literary a n d historical analysis. H e w e n t far b e y o n d J o s e p h u s ' s intentional, explicit remarks
a b o u t the Pharisees,
s u p p o s i n g that virtually a n y religious
teacher w h o h a d an interest in the L a w w a s a Pharisee/Sage a n d u s i n g that identification to shed light o n the Pharisees. But this p r o c e d u r e bypasses the q u e s t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s literary p u r p o s e . Further, Schlatter i n v o k e d external criteria, such as his belief that the Pharisees/Sages w e r e u n w i l l i n g to c o - o p e r a t e with R o m e , to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t . T h e s e factors m a k e it difficult to c o m p a r e Schlatter's w o r k directly with simple analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages.
M. Smith and J. Neusner: Anglophone Heirs of Laqueur After a hiatus o f s o m e three d e c a d e s , R a s p ' s a p p r o a c h to J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages, b a s e d o n L a q u e u r ' s insights, w a s i n t r o d u c e d to the English-speaking
world by M .
Smith.
Smith's
essay,
"Palestinian
J u d a i s m in the First C e n t u r y " , set o u t to d e m o n s t r a t e b o t h the p e r v a s i v e H e l l e n i z a t i o n a n d the plurality o f p r e - 7 0 J u d a i s m .
It d r e w together
e v i d e n c e f r o m the N T , J o s e p h u s , the T a l m u d , a n d elsewhere to s h o w that m a n y different religious g r o u p s o p e r a t e d in p r e - w a r P a l e s t i n e .
88
In
v i e w o f this well-attested variety o f religious o u t l o o k , S m i t h asked h o w the n o t i o n c o u l d h a v e arisen that first-century J e w s e m b r a c e d a " n o r m a t i v e " , essentially Pharisaic, J u d a i s m . M u c h o f the b l a m e for this distortion he laid at the feet o f J o s e p h u s , b e c a u s e o f the latter's frequent statements in Ant. a b o u t the Pharisees' great influence o v e r the p e o p l e (cf. 1 3 : 2 9 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 0 2 ; 1 8 : 1 5 ) .
8 6
8 9
I f these
Cf. Pollion and Samaias and the two scholars who urged the removal of the eagle from Herod's Temple, Judas and Mattathias (War 1:648). Cf. Josephus's own "conversion" to Pharisaism, Life 10-12. Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 71-73. He cites, for example, various baptist groups, the Essenes, and the many practitioners of magic. Ibid., 74-79. 8 7
8 8
8 9
33
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
statements
are n o t simple reflections o f fact, h o w are they to b e e x
p l a i n e d ? S m i t h f o u n d the k e y in Ant. 13:400ff., the story o f A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s ' s d e a t h b e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n to his wife A l e x a n d r a that, o n h e r accession to the t h r o n e , she yield s o m e administrative
p o w e r to the
Pharisees. F o r J a n n e u s p o i n t s o u t to his wife that the Pharisees h a v e e n o u g h influence with the p e o p l e b o t h t o injure their e n e m i e s a n d to assist their friends ( 1 3 : 4 0 1 ) ; he allows that his o w n rule has b e e n e m battled b e c a u s e o f his harsh treatment o f the Pharisees ( 1 3 : 4 0 2 ) . S i n c e these o b s e r v a t i o n s o n Pharisaic influence are absent f r o m the parallel ac count
in
War ( l : 1 0 6 f . ) ,
written
d i s c o v e r e d a n e w t h e m e in Ant.,
s o m e twenty
years
earlier,
Smith
to the effect that Palestine c a n n o t b e
ruled w i t h o u t Pharisaic s u p p o r t . I n the L a q u e u r / R a s p tradition, S m i t h s o u g h t to e x p l a i n this n e w p r o m o t i o n o f the Pharisees o n the basis o f J o s e p h u s ' s c i r c u m s t a n c e s in the last d e c a d e o f the first c e n t u r y , w h e n Ant. w a s written. S m i t h ' s p r o p o s a l : It is almost impossible not to see in such a rewriting of history a bid to the Roman
government. T h a t
government must have been faced with
the
problem: W h i c h group of Jews shall we support? . . . T o this question Josephus is volunteering an answer: the Pharisees, he says again and again, have by far the greatest influence with the people. A n y government which secures their support is accepted; any government which alienates them has trouble.
90
A c c o r d i n g to S m i t h , then, J o s e p h u s w a n t e d to t h r o w in his lot with the rising fortunes o f the Pharisees after 70 b y c o m m e n d i n g t h e m to the R o m a n s as the g r o u p w h i c h they s h o u l d s u p p o r t in Palestine. T o a c c o m plish this g o a l — a service to b o t h R o m a n s a n d
91
Pharisees —Josephus
r e w r o t e history in Ant. so as to give the Pharisees e n o r m o u s p o p u l a r in fluence. I n S m i t h ' s v i e w , the truth a b o u t the Pharisees is m o r e accurately reflected in the school passages o f War a n d Ant.: a m o n g m a n y p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools that 70.
9 2
F o r h i m , the presentation
flourished
they w e r e o n l y o n e in Palestine
o f the Pharisees in Ant.
arose
before from
J o s e p h u s ' s political interests a n d is therefore unreliable as history. I n m a n y respects, S m i t h ' s t h e o r y e c h o e s R a s p ' s earlier p r o p o s a l : J o s e p h u s ' s p e r s p e c t i v e o n the Pharisees c h a n g e d b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. a n d this c h a n g e d p e r s p e c t i v e a c c o u n t s for Ant. 's ( a l l e g e d ) p r o m o t i o n o f the Pharisee.
9 0
S m i t h ' s p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , differs f r o m
R a s p ' s in t w o
Ibid., 72. Smith believed (p. 77) that the Pharisees were negotiating for Roman support when Josephus wrote Ant.. Ibid., 79f. Smith also adduces parallels between the Pharisees and the Greek philosophical schools. 9 1
9 2
34
CHAPTER T W O
significant respects. First, w h e r e a s R a s p h a d v i e w e d Ant. as a p e a c e offering to the Pharisees, S m i t h c l a i m e d that J o s e p h u s w r o t e to h e l p the R o m a n s , w h o w e r e still in a q u a n d a r y a b o u t w h o m they should s u p p o r t in Palestine. S e c o n d , w h e r e a s R a s p h a d v i e w e d Ant. as m o r e accurate than War—in
War J o s e p h u s deliberately o b s c u r e d the political facts,
Smith t o o k the o p p o s i t e v i e w . S m i t h ' s t h e o r y w e n t virtually u n n o t i c e d for s o m e fifteen years—that is, until his student J . N e u s n e r p u b l i c i z e d it in a 1972 e s s a y .
93
Referring
to the five relevant p a g e s o f S m i t h ' s essay as a " l a n d m a r k study o f J o s e p h u s ' s pictures o f the P h a r i s e e s " , N e u s n e r l a m e n t e d the lack o f in teraction it h a d thus far elicited. H i s o w n article, therefore, w a s i n t e n d e d to p u b l i c i z e a n d further substantiate S m i t h ' s v i e w : Here I wish writings and both receive therefore, to
To
to review the several references to Pharisees in Josephus's to spell out the sources in such a way that Smith's study will the attention it deserves and be shown to be wholly correct, necessitate the revision of our picture of pre-70 Pharisaism. 94
a c h i e v e this g o a l , N e u s n e r b e g i n s with the references to
the
Pharisees in Life, in w h i c h he finds J o s e p h u s e a g e r to c l a i m Pharisaic credentials ( 1 0 - 1 2 ) but silent a b o u t the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this affiliation. I n Life 189-198 N e u s n e r finds the Pharisees presented as i m p o r t a n t politi cians d u r i n g the r e v o l t . In
War N e u s n e r
95
finds
t w o distinct e m p h a s e s with respect to the
Pharisees. First, in 1:107-114 they a p p e a r as a p o w e r f u l political g r o u p u n d e r A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e . In 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 , h o w e v e r , they a p p e a r s i m p l y as the
o p p o n e n t s o f the
Sadducees, both
groups being portrayed
as
philosophical schools w h o differed o n l y o n theoretical issues. N e u s n e r notes that the Pharisees o f War are n o t p r o m i n e n t in the
narrative.
96
F o l l o w i n g S m i t h , N e u s n e r argues that the k e y to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the Pharisees in Ant. is J o s e p h u s ' s n e w a d v o c a c y o f the g r o u p : J o s e p h u s has n o w taken the side o f the Pharisees a n d is l o b b y i n g for R o m a n r e c o g n i tion o f t h e m as the n e w leaders in Palestine. N e u s n e r s u m m a r i z e s : T h e Essenes of War are cut down to size; the Pharisees of Antiquities predominate. A n d what Josephus now says about them is that the country cannot be governed without their cooperation, and he himself is one of them. 97
9 3
9 4
9 5
9 6
9 7
J. Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", Ex Orbe Religionum, 224-253. Ibid., 225. Ibid., 226-227. Ibid., 227-230. Ibid., 238.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
35
L i k e S m i t h , N e u s n e r c o n s i d e r s the story o f A l e x a n d r a ' s a d m i s s i o n o f the Pharisees to p o w e r (Ant.
1 3 : 4 0 0 f f . ) , in c o m p a r i s o n to the War parallel
( l : 1 0 6 f f . ) , to h a v e b e e n " s t r i k i n g l y revised in f a v o r o f the P h a r i s e e s " . The
9 8
n e w story o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s b r e a k with the Pharisees e n d s with
a c o m m e n t o n the p e o p l e ' s s u p p o r t for the Pharisees ( 1 3 : 2 9 7 f . ) . T h e s e a n d o t h e r a d d i t i o n s lead N e u s n e r to fall in with S m i t h ' s c o n c l u s i o n , w h i c h h e cites at length, that War m o r e accurately reflects the true state o f affairs; Ant., facts.
he c l a i m s , represents a tendentious r e w o r k i n g o f the
99
N e u s n e r d i d , h o w e v e r , a d d s o m e t h i n g to S m i t h ' s c o n c l u s i o n . was
That
the o b s e r v a t i o n that in War, the Pharisees a p p e a r not o n l y as a
religious-philosophical g r o u p in the early part o f the first Christian c e n tury ( s o War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) , b u t also as a p o w e r f u l political o r g a n i z a t i o n in the first c e n t u r y B C , u n d e r A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e (War
1:110-114). This
qualification a l l o w e d N e u s n e r to a b s o r b S m i t h ' s t h e o r y into his o w n r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p r e - 7 0 J u d a i s m , w h i c h he o u t l i n e d in From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism ( 1 9 7 3 ) . N e u s n e r argues there that the Pharisees m o v e d f r o m active political i n v o l v e m e n t , in H a s m o n e a n t i m e s , to solely r e l i g i o u s c o n c e r n s , u n d e r H i l l e l ' s l e a d e r s h i p , then b a c k to political i n v o l v e m e n t after 7 0 .
1 0 0
H i s c h a p t e r o n J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees
is essentially his earlier essay in d e f e n c e o f S m i t h . S m i t h ' s t h e o r y g a v e N e u s n e r justification for rejecting Ant. 's portrait o f the Pharisees in f a v o u r o f the a c c o u n t in War, w h i c h a c c o u n t well suited his politics-to-piety s c e n a r i o . In return, S m i t h ' s t h e o r y w o n a m a jor
s u p p o r t i n g role in a f a m o u s study o f Pharisaism. U n d e r N e u s n e r ' s
s p o n s o r s h i p , it is w i n n i n g b r o a d s u p p o r t .
9 8
1 0 1
Ibid. Ibid., 238-243. Neusner, Politics, 146. Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus", JJS 25 (1974), 256 n.80; D . Goodblatt, "The Origins of Roman Recognition of the Palestinian Patriar chate", Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel 4 (1978), 99 [Hebrew]; I. L. Levine, "On the Political Involvement of the Pharisees under Herod and the Pro curators", Cathedra 8 (1978), 12-28 [Hebrew]; S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 237f.; H . W . Attridge, in M . E. Stone, ed., Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period ("Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum", 2:3; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 186; R. A. Wild, "The Encounter Between Pharisaic and Christian Judaism: Some Early Gospel Evidence", NovT 27 (1985), llOf. The editors of the new Schurer indicate their agreement with Smith (G. Vermes, F. Millar, M . Black, edd., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, by E. Schurer [3 vols.; Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1979], II, 389 n.20), but they cite him in support of the position that he explicitly rejects, viz., that the Pharisees "represented not a sectarian viewpoint but the main outlook of Judaism" (389). 9 9
1 0 0
101
36
CHAPTER T W O
E. Rivkin: Return to a Univocal Interpretation A challenge to S m i t h / N e u s n e r c a m e with E . R i v k i n ' s . 4 Hidden Revolution ( 1 9 7 8 ) . R i v k i n ' s total isolation f r o m the L a q u e u r i a n
stream o f inter
pretation c a n b e seen in his initial p r o p o s i t i o n that "parallel passages in War a n d in Antiquities will b e treated side b y s i d e " , in o r d e r to analyze Pharisaic history " c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y ' ' .
1 0 2
T h u s h e b e g i n s with Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 -
173, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e s the sects at the t i m e o f J o n a t h a n the H a s m o n e a n , a n d then passes q u i c k l y to Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , the story o f the rupture b e tween J o h n H y r c a n u s a n d the P h a r i s e e s .
103
T h e latter passage is i m p o r
tant for R i v k i n b e c a u s e it lays o u t the basic features o f his " d e f i n i t i o n " o f the Pharisees: they w e r e a " s c h o l a r c l a s s " that h a d d e v e l o p e d an en tire legal system for the p e o p l e . T h i s system was b a s e d o n the U n w r i t t e n L a w , R i v k i n h o l d s , w h i c h h a d its roots in the " f a t h e r s " .
1 0 4
Rivkin
thinks that t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s writings the Pharisees a p p e a r as ag gressive
("goal-oriented"!)
power-seekers
and
not
as
irenic
con-
templatives: T h e Pharisees in the time of John Hyrcanus, Alexander Janneus, and Salome Alexandra were a law-making scholar class capable of stirring up and abetting rebellion against king and H i g h Priest, sanctioning the use of violence to attain power and a u t h o r i t y . 105
In contrast to S m i t h / N e u s n e r , then, R i v k i n insists o n the d o m i n a n c e o f the Pharisees a n d Pharisaic law in pre-70 Palestine. E v e n H e r o d , he argues, had to " b e n d b e f o r e " Pharisaic p o w e r : the Pharisees w e r e able to refuse an oath o f allegiance to H e r o d a n d n o t b e p u n i s h e d 15:3).
1 0 6
(Ant.
T h e S a d d u c e e s w e r e c o m p e l l e d b y p o p u l a r o p i n i o n to follow
Pharisaic laws (Ant. 1 8 : 1 5 , 1 7 ) . In J o s e p h u s ' s o w n a c c o u n t o f his deci sion to g o v e r n his life (7UoXiTeuea9oci) in a c c o r d with the Pharisaic s c h o o l (Life 1 2 ) , R i v k i n finds further e v i d e n c e that " i n f o l l o w i n g the Pharisees o n e d o e s not j o i n s o m e t h i n g , but o n e g o v e r n s o n e s e l f b y a system o f laws".
1 0 7
T h u s the Pharisees w e r e not at all a " s e c t " b u t a class o f
scholars that, with their special laws, g a v e leadership to the p e o p l e .
1 0 8
R i v k i n offers the f o l l o w i n g definition o f the Pharisees as they appear in
1 0 2
Rivkin, Revolution, 33. Ibid., 34-37. Ibid., 38-41. Ibid., 49; cf. 63. Ibid., 53. Ibid., 66f. Ibid., 70. Cf. 316 n. 1, where Rivkin insists that Josephus's term ocipeats be disabused of the modern connotations to the word "sect". W e shall discuss the question of Josephus's meaning in chapter 6, below. 1 0 3
1 0 4
1 0 5
1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
37
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
J o s e p h u s : " T h e Pharisees w e r e the active protagonists o f the U n w r i t t e n L a w w h o e n j o y e d , e x c e p t f o r a b r i e f interval, the w h o l e h e a r t e d c o n fidence a n d s u p p o r t o f the m a s s e s . " interpretation
1 0 9
A s R i v k i n h i m s e l f o b s e r v e s , his
o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees is utterly i n c o m p a t i b l e with the
Smith/Neusner t h e o r y .
1 1 0
D. R. Schwartz: A Return to Source Criticism A recent challenge to S m i t h / N e u s n e r has c o m e in a n article b y D . R . S c h w a r t z , entitled " J o s e p h u s a n d N i c o l a u s o n the P h a r i s e e s " ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
1 1 1
A s the title suggests, S c h w a r t z wants to contest the increasingly p o p u l a r Smith/Neusner
theory
b y r e v i v i n g a source-critical e x p l a n a t i o n o f
J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages: M o r e o v e r , the question [of sources] takes on special importance insofar as it has been ignored by several recent studies which have sought to explain some of Josephus's
statements on the Pharisees,
namely those
which
ascribe to them great influence and popularity, solely on the basis of his own needs and p o l i t i c s .
112
T h u s S c h w a r t z sets o u t to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h Pharisee passages c a n b e at tributed to J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f a n d w h i c h o n e s w e r e simply taken o v e r b y Josephus from Nicolaus. O f special interest are S c h w a r t z ' s criteria for d e c i d i n g the s o u r c e ques tion. F o r e a c h o f the four passages that h e attributes to N i c o l a u s ,
1 1 3
he
c a n cite v a r i o u s linguistic details, w h i c h w e shall c o n s i d e r b e l o w in o u r analysis o f the respective p e r i c o p a e . W h e n S c h w a r t z c o m e s , h o w e v e r , to s u m m a r i z e his reasons for attributing passages to N i c o l a u s , his m a i n criterion
is that
Specifically,
they
"express
the Pharisees
against r u l e r s " .
1 1 5
appear
hostility
toward
the
Pharisees".
1 1 4
as " t h o s e w h o incite the masses
T w o other passages, b y contrast, " p r e s e n t t h o r o u g h l y
positive a c c o u n t s o f the P h a r i s e e s " , a n d " t h e s e i m p r o v e m e n t s in the i m age o f the Pharisees s h o w that it is J o s e p h u s w h o is s p e a k i n g " .
1 1 6
For
S c h w a r t z , then, as for H o l s c h e r l o n g a g o , the a u t h o r ' s attitude t o w a r d the
Pharisees
is the crucial f a c t o r — t h o u g h
b y no means
the o n l y
factor—in d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s o r s o m e o n e else w a s the author.
1 0 9
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 2
1 1 3
1 1 4
1 1 5
1 1 6
Ibid., 70. Ibid., 330. JSJ 14 (1983), 157-171. Ibid., 157. These are Ant. 13:171-173, 288, 401f.; 17:41-45. Ibid., 162. Ibid. Ibid., 163. The passages are War 2:162-163 and Ant. 18:12-15.
38
CHAPTER T W O
Josephus
the
Pharisee
cannot
be
e x p e c t e d to h a v e
portrayed
the
Pharisees in a negative light. H o w d o e s S c h w a r t z ' s analysis c o n f r o n t the S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y ? I n the first p l a c e , o f all the passages a d d u c e d b y N e u s n e r to d e m o n s t r a t e J o s e p h u s ' s p r o m o t i o n o f the Pharisees in Ant. ( 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 401f.; 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ; 1 8 : 1 5 - 1 7 ) , S c h w a r t z argues that o n l y the last c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s himself; the others m e n t i o n Pharisaic p o w e r b u t " i n a w a y w h i c h w o u l d hardly c o m m e n d t h e m to the R o m a n s , e m p h a s i z i n g their subversive capabilities".
117
T h i s s h o w s that J o s e p h u s d i d n o t invent his statements
a b o u t Pharisaic p o w e r in o r d e r t o appeal to the R o m a n s ; rather, m o s t c o m e f r o m N i c o l a u s . S e c o n d , Schwartz denies a m a j o r p r e m i s e o f S m i t h ' s , n a m e l y , that the Pharisees at Y a v n e h w e r e b i d d i n g for R o m a n endorsement.
1 1 8
In p l a c e o f the S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y , therefore, he of
fers a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n m o r e a l o n g the lines o f R a s p ' s . In S c h w a r t z ' s v i e w ,
War reflects the m o s t t h o r o u g h a n d
sustained
p o l e m i c o f all J o s e p h u s ' s writings, for that w o r k m a n a g e s to o b s c u r e the Pharisees' political a c t i v i t i e s .
119
F o r e x a m p l e , although War m e n t i o n s Si
m e o n b e n G a m a l i e l as a leader in the r e v o l u t i o n a r y g o v e r n m e n t ( 2 : 6 2 8 ; 4 : 1 5 9 ) , it d o e s n o t identify h i m as a Pharisee; o n l y Life 191 d o e s . In War 1:67, S c h w a r t z argues, J o s e p h u s suppressed the fact, w h i c h h e o n l y divulges in Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , that the Pharisees h a d h e a d e d the revolt against J o h n H y r c a n u s . A n d War d o e s n o t m e n t i o n that the o a t h o f allegiance refused b y the Pharisees
n a m e d A u g u s t u s himself ( b u t Ant.
17:42).
Finally, War 2 : 1 1 8 claims that the rebel sect o f J u d a s h a d n o t h i n g in c o m m o n with the others; b u t Ant.
1 8 : 1 0 , 23 links it closely with the
Pharisees. O n all o f these p o i n t s , Schwartz c o n t e n d s , it is War that o m i t s the " d a m a g i n g pieces o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h c o n n e c t the Pharisees with rebels".
1 2 0
In Ant. a n d Life, o n the other h a n d , although these w o r k s are
still c o n d i t i o n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s biases, " J o s e p h u s was less cautious a n d therefore m u c h s o u r c e material, w h i c h indicated Pharisaic i n v o l v e m e n t in politics a n d e v e n in r e b e l l i o n , f o u n d its w a y into these b o o k s .
1 2 1
T h u s S c h w a r t z c o n c l u d e s against N e u s n e r that it w a s J o s e p h u s ' s in tention to c o n f i n e the Pharisees to a harmless, p u r e l y religious d o m a i n a n d that War, b e c a u s e it reflects this t e n d e n c y m o s t c l o s e l y ,
1 2 2
is not a
reliable g u i d e as to what the Pharisees w e r e really a b o u t . In Ant. 1 1 7
and
Ibid., 165f. Ibid., 167f. Ibid., 169. Ibid. Ibid. War 1:110-114, in which the Pharisees do appear in a political role, Schwartz describes as the only passage in War that "got through" from Josephus's source, con trary to his own intention (170). 1 1 8
1 1 9
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
39
Life, o n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s was less c a u t i o u s b e c a u s e the issue h a d lost s o m e o f its u r g e n c y . S o h e a l l o w e d his s o u r c e ( N i c o l a u s ) to assert its c l a i m that the Pharisees w e r e inciters o f the masses against the rulers. A n d these a d m i s s i o n s o f Pharisaic political p o w e r , b e c a u s e they c o n tradict J o s e p h u s ' s o w n intentions, must b e seen to carry c o n s i d e r a b l e historical w e i g h t . W i t h S c h w a r t z ' s article w e b r i n g to a close this survey o f scholarly in terpretations o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees. N o t o n l y is his c o n t r i b u t i o n recent, b u t it also d r a w s together m a n y threads o f the p r e v i o u s discus sions. L i k e the earlier s o u r c e critics, S c h w a r t z allows that J o s e p h u s c o u l d m e c h a n i c a l l y c o p y passages o n the Pharisees that w e r e inimical to his o w n interests as a Pharisee. Josephus's
Like Laqueur
a n d R a s p , h e l o o k s to
c i r c u m s t a n c e s to explain s o m e o f the Pharisee
material
(especially in War). A n d all o f this is directed against a n o t h e r effort a l o n g that line, n a m e l y , the S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y .
C O N C L U S I O N T O P A R T I: T A S K O F T H E
STUDY
It remains in this i n t r o d u c t o r y section to specify the c o n t r i b u t i o n that a n e w study o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees m i g h t h o p e to m a k e . O n the basis o f the insights g a i n e d thus far, I shall p r o p o s e a justification, a set o f goals, a n d a p r o c e d u r e for this n e w investigation.
I. The Need for a New Study of Josephus's Pharisees It is not necessary here to g i v e an e x t e n d e d critique o f the p r e v i o u s analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees that w e r e s u r v e y e d in chapter 2 . T h e weaknesses o f a n y g i v e n a p p r o a c h h a v e often b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b y suc cessive critics. W e shall also interact with specific h y p o t h e s e s in the c o u r s e o f the f o l l o w i n g analysis. T h e o n l y p o i n t that n e e d s to b e estab lished here is that n o n e o f the studies c o n s i d e r e d a b o v e represents a c o m plete literary analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t the Pharisees. Y e t such c o m p l e t e n e s s is a prerequisite to a n y historical investigation o f the Pharisees. M o s t o f the studies c o n s i d e r e d d o not c l a i m to b e c o m p r e h e n s i v e . G e r l a c h was interested o n l y in the issue o f w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s was a Pharisee. H o l s c h e r d i d n o t e v e n try to interpret the Pharisee passages as J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o m p o s i t i o n s . R a s p focused o n the differences b e t w e e n War 2 a n d Ant. 18 a n d largely i g n o r e d the other p e r i c o p a e . N e u s n e r , b y his o w n a d m i s s i o n , was c o n c e r n e d to substantiate S m i t h ' s theory,
a
p r e o c c u p a t i o n w h i c h p r e c l u d e d a n y serious attempt at interpretation.
1
Finally, S c h w a r t z ' s p u r p o s e w a s o n l y to d e c i d e w h o a u t h o r e d the v a r i o u s Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s . N o n e o f these scholars has a i m e d at a c o m p l e t e analysis o f the Pharisee passages in the c o n t e x t o f o u r a u t h o r ' s thought a n d literary p u r p o s e s .
1
2
For example, Neusner's half-dozen sentences of comment on War 2:162-166 ('Josephus's Pharisees", 230f.), which is arguably the most important Pharisee passage in Josephus, are almost solely concerned with what the passage does not say about the Pharisees, vis-a-vis Ant.. Rivkin, it is true, does claim that "each of the sources will be thoroughly analyzed" (Revolution, 31). Yet, in spite of this promising proposal, he quickly lapses into the positivistic assumption that Josephus presents "raw material for a definition of the Pharisees" (54), an assumption that leads him to treat all of the sources as if they were of one piece. In practice, therefore, if not in theory, Rivkin ignores a fundamental prin ciple of interpretation: he fails to recognize that what Josephus says about the Pharisees is not "raw material" but a formulation. 2
41
CONCLUSION T O PART ONE
In
chapter
1 w e saw that historical
investigation
presupposes
an
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the t e s t i m o n y o f e a c h witness. O n e c a n n o t , therefore, use J o s e p h u s ' s e v i d e n c e a b o u t the Pharisees until o n e k n o w s w h a t it m e a n s . W h y d o e s J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n the Pharisees? W h a t p l a c e d o they o c c u p y in his v i s i o n o f things? W h a t d o e s he w a n t to say a b o u t t h e m ? T h e s e q u e s t i o n s all h i n g e o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g J o s e p h u s as a writer, a task that has b e e n all but i g n o r e d in the scholarly literature. Not
many
years
ago, W . C . van Unnik
g a v e a lecture
entitled
"Josephus,
the N e g l e c t e d O n e " . H e s u r v e y e d the state o f J o s e p h a n
studies a n d
remarked:
Josephus ist und wird immer wieder benutzt und zitiert. . . . U n d doch lasst sich fragen, o b der vielzitierte Historiker auch wirklich gekannt wird. Ist er nicht viel mehr Lieferant von Daten als verantwortungsvoller Autor? Hat man seine Schriften wirklich gelesen, exegesiert und in richtiger Weise ausgeschopft? 3
T h e deficiencies n o t e d b y v a n U n n i k are n o w h e r e m o r e e v i d e n t than in the scholarly use o f J o s e p h u s for the study o f the Pharisees. T h a t is the justification for the present
study.
A necessary tool for the exegesis o f a n y prolific a u t h o r is an accurate and
exhaustive
concordance. The
absence
o f such
a
resource
for
J o s e p h u s in the past m a y partially explain the lack o f scholarly interest in
his
thought.
What
makes
a new
study
o f Josephus's
Pharisees
especially timely n o w is the recent c o m p l e t i o n ( 1 9 8 3 ) o f the Complete Con 4
cordance to Flavius Josephus, e d i t e d b y K . H . R e n g s t o r f et al. will d o u b t l e s s r e v o l u t i o n i z e J o s e p h a n
studies.
That work
5
I I . Aims of the Study Our
goal,
Pharisees.
then, will b e to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s Interpretation
is
necessary
because
d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the his
statements
(like
a n y o n e ' s ) are n o t a u t o n o m o u s , self-evident units o f truth, but rather p r o d u c t i o n s o f his o w n t h o u g h t . J o s e p h u s c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y h a v e o m i t ted a n y reference to the Pharisees. T h e interpreter must ask w h y he elected to m e n t i o n t h e m , what these a c c o u n t s c o n t r i b u t e to his nar ratives, a n d w h y he c h o s e certain w o r d s a n d not others to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees. I f J o s e p h u s c l a i m s , for e x a m p l e , that the Pharisees Soxouvxe^ 3
In W . C . van Unnik, Flavius Josephus als historischer Schrifisteller (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1978), 18. The lectures printed here were delivered in 1972. 4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973-1983. Supplement I: Namenwdrterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, ed. A. Schalit (1968). As van Unnik himself pointed out, in anticipation of the work's completion (Schriftsteller, 16, 21). 4
5
42
CONCLUSION T O PART ONE
euaefJearepov xat axpiPeaTepov etvai
TCOV
dXXcov (War 1:110), o n e m u s t ask
w h e t h e r this particular c h o i c e o f v o c a b u l a r y a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n has a n y significance. I f J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s the Pharisees' activities u n d e r J o h n H y r c a n u s o r A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e , o n e m u s t ask w h y he i n t r o d u c e s t h e m there, w h a t h e thinks o f the H a s m o n e a n s , a n d w h a t r o l e h e gives the Pharisees in J e w i s h history. A l t h o u g h these basic kinds o f q u e s t i o n s h a v e usually b e e n i g n o r e d , they are indispensable for historical research: o n e c a n n o t get b e h i n d J o s e p h u s ' s intention as a witness unless o n e k n o w s what that intention is. I f this holistic a p p r o a c h is successful, it should also yield defensible c o n c l u s i o n s o n three specific issues that r e c u r in the s e c o n d a r y literature. These
are:
( a ) the
problem o f Josephus's
o w n relationship
to
the
Pharisees; ( b ) the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r he deliberately c h a n g e d his presenta tion o f the g r o u p b e t w e e n War a n d Ant./Life; a n d ( c ) the p r o b l e m o f his use o f sources for his d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees. T h e resolution o f these particular issues will b e a function
o f the overall
interpretive
process.
I I I . Procedure of the Study Finally,
it
is
necessary
to
explain
the
subtitle
o f this
work,
"a
c o m p o s i t i o n - c r i t i c a l s t u d y " , a n d to indicate its significance for o u r p r o cedure. T h e literary analysis o f ancient texts, the search for the a u t h o r ' s v i s i o n of
things,
corresponds
largely
c r i t i c i s m " in biblical studies.
to
That
the
programme
of
"redaction
m o v e m e n t is c h a r a c t e r i z e d ,
over
against " f o r m " a n d " s o u r c e " criticism, b y its c o n c e r n to identify author's
thought
and
literary
tendencies.
Nevertheless,
an
redaction
criticism has c o m e to m e a n different things to different critics. S o m e b e l i e v e that o n l y a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n an a u t h o r ' s o w n p r o d u c t i o n a n d his sources c a n p r o p e r l y b e called " r e d a c t i o n a l " ; others think it possible to u n d e r s t a n d the r e d a c t o r e v e n w i t h o u t sure k n o w l e d g e o f his s o u r c e s , s i m p l y b y an interpretation o f the final w o r k as it s t a n d s .
6
N o w the f o l l o w i n g study will c o n t e n d that J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions o f the Pharisees
in the present tense (thus:
" t h e Pharisees
are a g r o u p
t h a t . . . " ) are his o w n a n d that w h e r e he describes their past a c t i o n s , u n d e r H a s m o n e a n o r H e r o d i a n rule, the exact shape o f his sources is usually 6
irrecoverable.
This
study
could
only be
called
"redaction-
Cf. W . G. Thompson, Review of J. Rohde, Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode, Biblica 50 (1969), 136-139; D . Juel, Messiah and Temple (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 1-39, esp. 30; and F. G. Downing, "Redaction Criticism: Josephus' Antiquities and the Synop tic Gospels", JSNT 8 (1980), 46-65; 9 (1980), 29-48.
43
CONCLUSION T O PART ONE
c r i t i c a l " , therefore, if the t e r m w e r e u n d e r s t o o d to signify " v e r t i c a l " r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m , w h i c h is the latter t y p e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . T o a v o i d b o t h c o n f u s i o n a n d the a p p e a r a n c e o f m a k i n g false p r o m i s e s , I h a v e chosen
the
adjective
" c o m p o s i t i o n - c r i t i c a l " to d e s c r i b e the
present
study. C o i n e d b y the N T scholar E . H a e n c h e n , it has c o m e to b e u s e d o f the effort to interpret an a u t h o r ' s writings in a n d o f t h e m s e l v e s , as 7
self-contained c o m p o s i t i o n s . T h e narrative is a s s u m e d t o c o n t a i n w i t h i n itself the keys to its o w n m e a n i n g . I n k e e p i n g with this p r i n c i p l e , o u r p r o c e d u r e will always b e to l o o k first within J o s e p h u s ' s writings for clues a b o u t the significance o f his c h o s e n w o r d s a n d phrases. H i s general u s a g e a n d the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t will, so far as p o s s i b l e , b e the arbiters o f m e a n i n g . O n l y w h e n these r e s o u r c e s h a v e b e e n e x p l o i t e d shall w e l o o k to external parallels for fur ther e n l i g h t e n m e n t . The
c o m p o s i t i o n a l thrust o f the
study
also has i m p o r t a n t
conse
q u e n c e s for its e m p h a s i s . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s the Pharisees in fourteen different passages. O f these, n i n e are deliberate, reflective discussions o f 8
the g r o u p . I n the o t h e r five cases, w e h a v e incidental references, w h i c h s i m p l y n o t e that certain Pharisees w e r e present s o m e w h e r e o r that s o m e one was a Pharisee.
9
F o r a historical investigation, w h i c h seeks to cir
c u m v e n t the witness's i n t e n t i o n , incidental notices are the m o s t v a l u a b l e b e c a u s e they are m o r e likely to y i e l d unintentional e v i d e n c e . S i n c e o u r p u r p o s e , h o w e v e r , is to grasp J o s e p h u s ' s intention, w e m u s t try to b e sen sitive to his o w n e m p h a s e s ; this will r e q u i r e that p r i m a r y attention b e g i v e n to his deliberate discussions o f the Pharisees. It is in those discus sions, if a n y w h e r e , that h e spells o u t w h a t he wants the r e a d e r to k n o w a b o u t the g r o u p . Finally, o u r p r o c e d u r e will b e g o v e r n e d b y the n e e d to deal with the familiar circles o f interpretation,
especially that o f the w h o l e a n d
the
parts. F o r o n e c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d the w h o l e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g
the
parts; yet o n e c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d the parts w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g
the
w h o l e . J o s e p h u s discusses the Pharisees in three o f his f o u r extant w o r k s , in War, Ant.,
a n d the Life. T h e s e b o o k s will b e c o n s i d e r e d in Parts I I ,
I I I , a n d I V o f the study, respectively. T o b r e a k into the circle o f the w h o l e a n d the parts, w e shall b e g i n e a c h part with an o v e r v i e w o f the p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f the w o r k in q u e s t i o n . T o a n a l y z e an i n d i v i d u a l p e r i c o p e , w e shall e x a m i n e first its i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t (the " w h o l e " ) a n d then its k e y t e r m s (the " p a r t s " ) , b e f o r e w e attempt an interpretation 7
Cf. Juel, Messiah, 30. War 1:110-114; 2:162-166; Ant. 13:171-173, 288-298, 400-431; 17:41-45; 18:12-15; Life 10-12, 191-198. War 1:571; 2:411; Ant. 15:3-4, 370; Life 21. 8
9
44
CONCLUSION T O PART ONE
(the " w h o l e " ) . E a c h chapter will i n c l u d e source-critical o b s e r v a t i o n s o n the passage u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . T o s u m m a r i z e : the investigation o f J o s e p h u s ' s presentation o f the Pharisees is n o t n e w . N o r is the study o f ancient authors in terms o f their c o m p o s i t i o n a l a i m s a n d interests. W h a t is n e w in the f o l l o w i n g analysis is the a p p l i c a t i o n o f this particular m e t h o d to this particular p r o b l e m . I f successful, this i n q u i r y will clarify several p r e l i m i n a r y issues in the study o f the Pharisees a n d will also yield s o m e insight into the t h o u g h t o f Josephus.
EXCURSUS T O PART ONE
A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF JOSEPHUS AS AN
AUTHOR
In the Introduction I have advocated a ' 'composition-critical'' ap proach to Josephus's descriptions of the Pharisees. Those descriptions are to be interpreted in the light of the author's motives and outlook. Such an approach, however, presupposes to some extent that Josephus can justly be regarded as the author of the passages under discussion. Is that assumption justified, at least as a working hypothesis? Three factors might seem to militate against it and must be considered here.
I. The Source Problem That Josephus used sources for his presentations of the Pharisees is undeniable. W e must ask, however, whether it would be legitimate, on the basis of some assured results of scholarship, to begin this study by designating certain passages as the work of Josephus's sources alone and therefore as non-Josephan. T h e question arises with particular poignancy in relation to Ant. 17:41-45, which we shall consider in Part III.
O u r concern here is with
general principles
that obtain for
Josephus's writings as a whole. T h e source-critical movement, it will be recalled, proposed various evidences that Josephus was a rather dull copyist who failed to impart any independent judgement or outlook to his material. These evidences can be grouped under three rubrics: A.
Material
inconsistencies,
such
as
unfulfilled
cross-references,
doublets, dissonant chronological systems, and conflicting high-priest lists. B. Stylistic variations, such as Holscher observed between War 1:312:116 and 2:117ff. C . Circumstances that suggest Josephus's use of large, secondary or in termediate sources. Holscher, for example, doubted that Josephus used either the L X X or the Hebrew Bible directly, in Ant. 1-11, since he departs from both.
1
1
Holscher also supposed that Josephus's Pharisaic
Holscher, "Josephus", 1952-1955.
46
EXCURSUS
education would have prevented p a g a n authors that he c i t e s .
h i m k n o w i n g first-hand
the
many
2
W i t h respect to the Pharisee passages in particular: a m a j o r criterion o f the s o u r c e critics w a s that J o s e p h u s , b e i n g a Pharisee, c o u l d n o t h a v e consistently d i s p a r a g e d his o w n p a r t y . W e h a v e seen the i m p o r t a n c e o f this criterion for H o l s c h e r a n d S c h w a r t z . O n e o f the m o r e e n d u r i n g p r o posals o f s o u r c e criticism, it turns u p in G . F. M o o r e , W . Bousset, M . W a x m a n , and even M . Smith.
3
A l t h o u g h the s o u r c e critics differed c o n
siderably o n the actual s o u r c e s b e h i n d the Pharisee passages, they a g r e e d that m a n y o f t h e m c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n written b y J o s e p h u s ; he m u s t have absent-mindedly copied them. C o n t e m p o r a r y scholarship, h o w e v e r , has p r o g r e s s e d far b e y o n d the h e y d a y o f s o u r c e criticism. W e m a y n o t e the f o l l o w i n g insights
that
w o u l d s e e m to justify the a priori a s s u m p t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p o f the Pharisee
passages.
A . L a q u e u r d e m o n s t r a t e d that J o s e p h u s c o u l d present his o w n activities in v a r i o u s , n o t entirely h a r m o n i o u s , w a y s . S i n c e there is n o q u e s t i o n o f sources
accounting
for
these
differences,
one
has
to
reckon
with
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n initiative a n d p u r p o s e s . B . M a n y a s s u m p t i o n s o f the o l d e r s o u r c e criticism are n o l o n g e r c o n sidered v a l i d . S u c h an a s s u m p t i o n w a s H o l s c h e r ' s b e l i e f that J o s e p h u s ' s Palestinian e d u c a t i o n w o u l d h a v e p r e c l u d e d a serious k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k l a n g u a g e a n d literature o n his p a r t . posed
allegiance to Pharisaism
has
4
Further, J o s e p h u s ' s
been reduced by some
sup
scholars
( S m i t h , N e u s n e r , C o h e n ) to a spurious c l a i m . C . H o l s c h e r ' s t h e o r y that J o s e p h u s used intermediate worn well.
5
But
if intermediate
sources are
sources has n o t
d o n e a w a y with,
J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w a s the o n e w h o artfully c o m b i n e d , a n d criticized,
2
6
then
sometimes
his s o u r c e s .
Ibid., 1957. Moore, Judaism, I, 62 n. 4, 65 n. 3 (on War l:110ff.), 66 n. 1 (on War 1:114 and Ant. 13:411-417); Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 187 (on Ant. 17:41ff.); M . Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature from the Close of the Bible to our own Days (1932), cited in Feldman, Modern Scholarship, 554; Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 75 (on War 1:110-114). Cf. n. 49 of chapter 2 above. Cf. Thackeray, Josephus, 63, and Momigliano, 'Josephus as a Source for the History of Judea", Cambridge Ancient History, X : The Augustan Empire 44 BC - AD 70, edd. S. A . Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M . P. Charlesworth (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), 885f. E.g., Ant. 16:183-187. 3
4
5
6
EXCURSUS
47
D . M a n y recent studies h a v e d i s c o v e r e d consistent m o t i f s a n d r e d a c tional c o n c e r n s in J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s . H . L i n d n e r ' s study o f War, for e x a m p l e , reveals a clear v i e w o f history a n d o f Israel in that w o r k . Analyses o f Josephus's
b i b l i c a l p a r a p h r a s e (Ant.
strated m a r k e d editorial t h e m e s .
8
7
1-11) h a v e d e m o n
T h u s H . W . Attridge discovers ' 'an
i m p o r t a n t t h e o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n in the w o r k o f J o s e p h u s . . . in its inter pretative presentation
o f scriptural n a r r a t i v e s " .
9
I n J o s e p h u s ' s use o f
Aristeas, A . Pelletier likewise p o i n t s o u t several discernable t e n d e n c i e s .
10
H . R . M o e h r i n g ' s c o n c l u s i o n , with respect to the " n o v e l i s t i c e l e m e n t s " in J o s e p h u s ' s narrative, anticipated the results o f these recent studies: " J o s e p h u s c a n justly b e called the a u t h o r , in the true sense o f this t e r m , o f the w o r k s attributed to h i m : e v e n w h e n he b o r r o w s . . . he impresses his o w n personality u p o n his w o r k . "
1 1
E . H . S c h r e c k e n b e r g ' s analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s style, for text-critical p u r p o s e s , has also shed light o n the fundamental
integrity o f J o s e p h u s ' s
w o r k s . A s S c h r e c k e n b e r g n o t e s : " N i c h t das unwichtigste E r g e b n i s d e r hier
v o r g e l e g t e n textkritischen
sprachlich-stilistische
Einheit
A r b e i t ist eine n e u e der
v e r s c h i e d e n t l i c h bezweifelt w u r d e . "
Werke
des
Einsicht
in
Josephus,
die die
1 2
T h e r e a c t i o n , then, to a s o u r c e criticism that d e n i e d J o s e p h u s the true function o f an a u t h o r has b e e n b r o a d l y b a s e d a n d For Josephus's
Pharisee
forceful.
passages, the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n
suggests
itself: if J o s e p h u s w a s so o b v i o u s l y c a p a b l e o f shaping his w o r k to reflect his o w n a g e n d a , interests, a n d style, is it r e a s o n a b l e to s u p p o s e that, w h e n he c a m e to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees—a g r o u p o f w h i c h he h a d per sonal k n o w l e d g e (Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) , h e s i m p l y p a r r o t e d s o m e r e m a r k s his p a g a n
sources, without
regard
for his o w n sentiments?
L.
from H.
F e l d m a n m a k e s the p o i n t well. N o t i n g that J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e s for the Pharisee passages are, in a n y c a s e , u n k n o w n , he c o n t i n u e s :
7
H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972), 40-45, 141-14. Cf. M . Braun, Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurt: V . Klostermann, 1934); B. Heller, "Grundzuge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus", MGWJ 80 (1936), 237-246; T . W . Franxman, Genesis and the 'Jewish Antiquities" of Flavius Josephus (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 288f. H . W . Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 17. A . Pelletier, Flavius Josephe: adapteur de la lettre d'Aristee (Paris: Klincksieck, 1962), 252ff. H . R . Moehring, "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus" (dissertation, University of Chicago, 1957), 145. H . Schreckenberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 173. 8
9
1 0
11
1 2
48
EXCURSUS
But when we definitely know Josephus' source, as in his restatement of the 'Letter of Aristeas', we see that he can rework his source with considerable thoroughness. It is hard to believe that in an issue as important as the Pharisees, where he had personal knowledge and experience, he chose slavishly to reproduce his sources. 13
T o s u m m a r i z e : it is clear that J o s e p h u s u s e d s o u r c e s , especially for events b e y o n d his o w n e x p e r i e n c e . T h a t he used t h e m as an anthologist a n d n o t as an author, h o w e v e r , is a p r o p o s i t i o n m a d e u n t e n a b l e b y several m a j o r studies. O n e c a n n o t d e n y that a few clear material inconsistencies r e m a i n in J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s , but these tensions c a n n o t o v e r t u r n the o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t r o l o v e r his literary p r o d u c t i o n s .
1 4
I I . Josephus's Literary Assistants It w a s H . St. J o h n T h a c k e r a y , in a 1926 lecture, w h o p r o p o s e d that J o s e p h u s h a d e m p l o y e d literary assistants for the w r i t i n g o f b o t h War a n d Ant. 1 5 - 1 9 .
15
T h a c k e r a y d r e w o n the f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e .
A . J o s e p h u s ' s Palestinian b a c k g r o u n d w o u l d h a v e p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m mastering G r e e k ; h e m u s t h a v e learned his G r e e k o n l y in R o m e . Y e t the style o f War " i s an excellent s p e c i m e n o f the Atticistic G r e e k o f the first c e n t u r y " , a n d therefore u n i m a g i n a b l e f r o m a writer w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y written o n l y in A r a m a i c . B . In Ag.Ap.
1 6
1:50, J o s e p h u s reports that in writing War he h a d benefited
f r o m " c e r t a i n c o l l a b o r a t o r s for the sake o f the G r e e k " (TICK npoq TT)V 'EXXTJVISOC 9 below.
THE
93
PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
J o s e p h u s himself, h o w e v e r , is s o m e w h a t m o r e sparing in his j u d g e m e n t . After asserting his o w n axpt[kta, in rather s t r o n g t e r m s , for the material that h e presents in Ant. ( 2 0 : 2 6 0 , 2 6 2 ) , h e allows: The
Jews certify the wisdom only of those who know the laws exactly
(aoccpcos) and who are competent to interpret the meaning of the holy scrip tures.
Thus,
although
many
have
laboured
at this training (TUOXXCOV
7iov7)advTG)v 7cept TTJV daxTjaiv TOCUTTJV), scarcely two or three have succeeded (JJIOXK; ouo -cive? fj -cpets xocicopOcoaav). (Ant.
20:265)
T h a t J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f to b e a m o n g the few w h o h a v e suc ceeded
is c o n f i r m e d
b y the c o n t r i v e d m o d e s t y o f the
sentence i m
mediately following: Perhaps it will not arouse jealousy or strike ordinary folk as gauche if I also review briefly m y own ancestry and the events of m y life (xat 7tept yevoo? TOU(JLOG xat 7cept TCOV xaxd TOV (3tov 7upa?e[xat 8ta9opoi) a m o n g the c i r c u m c i s i o n " , as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the octpeaei^.
38
T h e historical q u e s t i o n , as t o w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s w a s justified in calling the Pharisees a " p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l " , is still d e b a t e d .
3 9
W e shall c o n
sider s o m e t h i n g o f that d e b a t e w h e n w e e x a m i n e the fate/free will q u e s t i o n . Suffice it here to n o t e that J o s e p h u s , an e y e w i t n e s s w h o intends factuality, d o e s d e s c r i b e t h e m b y such a t e r m . ( 2 ) a n d ( 3 ) . T h e o r d i n a l rcpooTr) o b v i o u s l y m e a n s " f i r s t " . It is u n c l e a r , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s m e a n s that the Pharisees w e r e the
"first
ocl'peai^" with respect to their a g e , their p r o m i n e n c e in s o c i e t y , o r s i m p l y their p l a c e in the earlier listing o f the schools ( 2 : 1 1 9 ) .
3 4
Cf. Polybius 5.93.8; Dionysius, Composition 2; Diogenes Laertius 1:19; 7:191; Sextus Empiricus (c. A D 200), Pyrrhonic Elements 1:16, 185, 237. Philo, On Noah's Work as a Planter, 151. Contemplative Life, 129. The possibility of a literary relationship has long been debated; cf. M . Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas, passim; Foakes Jackson, Josephus and the Jews, 259-274; A . Ehrhardt, "The Construction and Purpose of Acts", Studio, Theologica 12 (1958), 64; and E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. R . M c L . Wilson (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982), 257; also G. Ludemann, Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, trans. F. S. Jones (Philadelphia: For tress, 1984), 8-11. Eccl.Hist. 4.22.7. Older scholarship, assuming a rigid division between Greek and Jewish thought patterns, suspected Josephus of rank distortion; cf. Moore, "Fate", 283f.; Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 28; Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 187. But see now, inter alia, M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", and E. Bickerman, "La chaine de la tradition pharisienne", Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part II (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980), 256-269. 3 5
36
3 7
38
3 9
THE
'ArcdcyovTes
129
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
is
likewise
deceptively
simple:
ocyco + dcrco = " l e a d
a w a y / o f f \ J o s e p h u s uses the v e r b s o m e 45 times, a n d elsewhere it always bears a simple m e a n i n g : d u c t , w i t h d r a w " , o r the l i k e .
41
4 0
to " l e a d a w a y , divert, carry off, a b
It often a p p e a r s in descriptions o f b a t d e s ,
w h e r e it refers to the capturing o f p r i s o n e r s , withdrawal
o f troops from a siege.
possibly mean &7rT7) a n d dwcayctf b y c o m paring
three
standard
critical
translations o f
War
2 : 1 6 2 : those o f
R e i n a c h , Thackeray, and Michel-Bauernfeind. R e i n a c h gives: Des deux sectes plus anciennes les Pharisiens (Auo 8e Tv 8' ev 9
(in
OCUTG> TJ
apx*)), it is in o n e ' s p o w e r to d o it o r n o t "
aura) xat TO rcpaTTetv xat fxrj, 3 . 1 . 6 ; R a c k h a m ) .
F u r t h e r a l o n g in his
discussion, Aristotle b e g i n s r e g u l a r l y to use the phrase £9' rjulv for " w h a t is in o u r p o w e r ' . Especially suggestive o f parallels for J o s e p h u s is 3 . 5 . 2 : iV
avOpcomvcov Trpa^fxaTcov ( §
171). There,
£9'
rjfxtv w o u l d
naturally b e u n d e r s t o o d as " i n human p o w e r " . I n a n y c a s e , the phrase c h o s e n b y J o s e p h u s in War 2 : 1 6 3 w o u l d , it s e e m s , h a v e b e e n u n d e r s t o o d b y Hellenistic readers as referring to the discussion o f h u m a n
volun
tariness a n d culpability that h a d b e c o m e p r o m i n e n t w i t h Aristotle. ( d ) T h e m e a n i n g o f (JorjGetv also seems clear in its c o n t e x t : a l t h o u g h the d o i n g o f right a n d w r o n g rests m a i n l y w i t h m e n , eifxapuivrj assists in e a c h case. T h e v e r b (JorjOeco is at h o m e in J o s e p h a n v o c a b u l a r y . It o c c u r s a total o f 6 0 times: 19 in War, 38 in Ant., abstract
noun
(JorjGeta
1 in Life, a n d 2 in Ag.Ap.
is likewise e v e n l y
w r i t i n g s , for a total o f 67 o c c u r r e n c e s .
distributed
thoughout
The his
1 3 1
W h a t is striking a b o u t (JorjOeco in this c o n t e x t is that it recalls o n e par ticular p o s i t i o n in the p h i l o s o p h i c a l d e b a t e o n h u m a n voluntariness culpability, n a m e l y , that o f C h r y s i p p u s the S t o i c .
1 3 2
and
C h r y s i p p u s tried to
identify the area left for h u m a n will b y S t o i c d o c t r i n e , w h i c h s e e m e d ( t o its o p p o n e n t s ) to e x c l u d e true v o l i t i o n w i t h its c l a i m that e v e r y t h i n g (TOC TiavTa) h a p p e n s b y fate ( = p r o v i d e n c e ) .
1 3 3
Part o f his s o l u t i o n , a c c o r d i n g
to C i c e r o , w a s to distinguish t w o sorts o f causes in a n y a c t i o n : an antece d e n t o r m a i n cause {causaeperfectae et principales) a n d a " h e l p i n g " o r p r o x imate cause (causae adiuvantes et proximae). H i s a r g u m e n t w a s that o n l y the latter sort o f cause is attributable to eifxapuivrj, w h e r e a s the m a i n cause o f an a c t i o n lies within the nature o f the p e r s o n o r t h i n g that a c t s .
1 3 4
T h u s w h e n s o m e o n e sets a d r u m rolling d o w n a hill, the p r i n c i p a l cause o f its rolling is its o w n n a t u r e , its " r o l l a b i l i t y " .
1 3 0
1 3 5
T h e initial i m p e t u s
E.g., War 1:6, 16; 5:137; 7:454; Ant. 1:4, 5, 9, 11, 18, 33, 129, etc.; 14:63, 65, 77, 186ff., 265ff., 304, 323; 15:7, 50, 259, 267, 371, 391, 398, 419, 425; 16:404; 17:14. Life 1, 2, 7, 10, etc.; Ag.Ap. 1:1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 27, 29, 32, etc.; 2:1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 31, 32, etc. Holscher claimed ("Josephus", 1982) that this use of rj{xeT? in Ant. 13-20 indicated the Jewish character of Josephus's "intermediate source". But the use is typically Josephan. 18 times in War, 46 in Ant., 3 in Life, 1 in Ag.Ap. As reported by Cicero in On Fate, 39ff. The parallel was noted already by G. F. Moore, "Fate", 238f., and was one of the factors in his attribution of our passage to Nicolaus. 133 Yor the Stoic belief that everything happens by fate, cf. Diogenes Laertius 7:149. Cf. the discusions of Chrysippus in Long, Hellenistic Philosophy, 166f.; Rist, Stoic Philosophy, 12If.; Hicks, Stoic and Epicurean, 345d.; Sandbach, Stoics, 101f.; Windelband, 9ff.; Greene, Moira, 348; and Moore, "Fate", 376ff. Cicero, On Fate, 42. 1 3 1
1 3 2
1 3 4
1 3 5
CHAPTER SIX
152
f r o m outside that m a k e s possible the rolling m o v e m e n t is o n l y an a u x iliary o r " a d j u v a n t " affairs.
136
c a u s e — w h i c h is the role p l a y e d b y fate in h u m a n
S o C h r y s i p p u s ' distinction o f causes a l l o w e d h i m to m a i n t a i n 137
the Stoic d o c t r i n e omnia fato fiunt basis for h u m a n v o l i t i o n .
while at the same time offering a
1 3 8
O u r p u r p o s e is o n l y to o b s e r v e the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e at this p o i n t b e tween
the
Pharisaic
Chrysippean
doctrine
and Josephus's
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
p o s i t i o n : in b o t h , eifxapuivrj is a cause auxiliary (adiuvo =
PorjOeco) to h u m a n v o l i t i o n . T h a t the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e is exact as far as it goes d o e s not m e a n , h o w e v e r , that it is c o m p r e h e n s i v e . F o r just
as
J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m a k e G o d a w o r l d - s o u l , so he d o e s n o t elaborate ideas o f principal a n d auxiliary causes.
2. Interpretation H a v i n g e x a m i n e d the key terms in the passage, w e m u s t n o w interpret J o s e p h u s ' s remarks o n the Pharisees, fate, a n d free will. T o d o s o , it is necessary to b r i n g into v i e w the larger fxev . . . 8e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f § § 162165, in w h i c h the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s are c o m p a r e d . After
his l o n g a n d
l o v i n g description
o f the
Essenes,
Josephus
dispenses with the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s b y c o m p a r i n g their v i e w s o n several points. T h e first c o n c e r n s their respective v i e w s o f eifxapfxevrj. H e r e J o s e p h u s presents the t w o positions as p o l a r o p p o s i t e s , character ized b y c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r o p o s i t i o n s , n a m e l y : Pharisees ( 1 6 3 ) eifxapfxevrj xouat Tiavxa
T £
xal Geco 7rpoaa7i-
Sadducees ( 1 6 4 ) xrjv . . . eifxapjxevrjv 7tavTa7caaiv avaipooatv xal TOV Geov e£a> . . . TiGevxai
T h i s contrast m a k e s clear theat the e m p h a s i s in 1 6 2 b - 1 6 3 a is o n the Pharisaic belief in eifxapuivrj a n d n o t o n the r e c o g n i t i o n o f h u m a n voli tion. T h e latter is clearly c o n c e s s i v e : " A l t h o u g h (in their v i e w ) d o i n g what is right o r not rests m a i n l y with m e n , in e a c h case (ei$ exaaxov) fate assists." T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n that fate always assists reasserts the original p r o p o s i tion that e v e r y t h i n g goes b a c k to fate,
1 3 6
although J o s e p h u s has n o w
Ibid., 41. Ibid., 40f. 138 Whether this stratagem gives adequate credit to human volition is another ques tion. Cicero (On Fate, 39) did not think so. Nor do some modern commentators, e.g., Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, 14; Greene, Moira, 348; Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2630. 1 3 7
153
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
g r a n t e d s o m e r o o m within this s c h e m e for h u m a n v o l i t i o n .
1 3 9
O n the
o t h e r h a n d , since the S a d d u c e e s d o a w a y w i t h fate altogether, their p o s i tion gives m a n unfettered c h o i c e (exXoyrj) o n the basis o f his o w n will (xaxa yvco[xr)v exaarov) t o d o g o o d o r evil (TO xaXdv xal TO xaxov. . . rcpoatevat, § 1 6 5 ) . T h u s the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s represent o p p o s i t e p o l e s o f t h o u g h t o n eifxapfxevrj: the Pharisees find it e v e r y w h e r e ; the Sad d u c e e s reject it entirely. O n a literary level o u r passage presents n o special difficulties. A l l o f the k e y terms reflect typical J o s e p h a n u s a g e . T h e syntax seems clear, as d o e s the m a i n p o i n t . It is n o t m a d e plain in w h a t w a y the Pharisees believe
that
fate
"assists"
each
action,
so that
one
may
ascribe
e v e r y t h i n g to fate w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e r e c o g n i z i n g h u m a n v o l i t i o n . B u t it is clear that in e a c h a c t i o n fate d o e s n o t assist a n d that, therefore, e v e r y t h i n g for the Pharisees is at least partially attributable to fate, w h e r e a s for the S a d d u c e e s fate d o e s n o t enter into the d i s c u s s i o n at all. O n the historical level, scholars h a v e f o u n d o u r passage to b e quite p r o b l e m a t i c b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s ' s ascription t o the Pharisees o f a strong b e l i e f in eifxapuivrj d o e s n o t s o u n d v e r y J e w i s h .
1 4 0
T h e present study d o e s
n o t i n t e n d t o solve the p r o b l e m o f the historical reality o f the Pharisees, b u t o n l y t o interpret J o s e p h u s ' s statements as his first readers m i g h t h a v e u n d e r s t o o d t h e m . In that respect, the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s are pertinent. F r o m at least the t i m e o f S o c r a t e s , G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s w e r e a b s o r b e d with the ethical q u e s t i o n o f h o w o n e c o m e s to act rightly o r w r o n g l y .
1 4 1
F o r S o c r a t e s , the a n s w e r lay in k n o w l e d g e : o n e w h o k n o w s w h a t is g o o d will naturally d o w h a t is g o o d .
1 4 2
T h i s m e a n s , h o w e v e r , that the i g n o r a n t
m a n acts i n v o l u n t a r i l y ( o r , n o t freely) b e c a u s e h e d o e s n o t k n o w a n y bet ter.
1 4 3
Plato c o n t i n u e d this e m p h a s i s o n e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors that t e n d
to c o m m i t o n e a priori to a particular life pattern ( s o m e t i m e s calling these
1 3 9
Maier (freier Wille, 13) acknowledges this as a possible reading of our passage, but argues that the free-will clause may be intended to designate one exception to the other wise complete rule of fate, namely, the area of ethics/Soteriologie, in which man remains wholly free. This reading, however, fails to account for the final fate clause (Por)0e!v et{JUXT<x OvTjxd), composed o f perishable matter (99<xpTfjs u'Xrjs), but the soul lives forever, immortal (c|>uxn 8e dOdvocTOS det): it is a portion o f the Deity (Oeou [xotpoc) housed in our bodies . . . . K n o w you not that they who depart this life in accordance with the law o f nature . . . win eternal renown . . . that their souls, remaining spotless and obedient, are allotted the most holy place in heaven (xP oupdvtov), whence, in the revolution of the ages (Ix 7ceptTpo7if]s atcovcov), they return to find in chaste bodies a new habitation (dyvotsrcdXtvdvTevotxtCovTOct acofxaatv)? But as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the darker regions o f the nether world receive their souls (aSrjs Bexexat xd? c|>uxd$ axoxeivoxepos) . . . . (3:372-375; Thackeray) v
T h i r d , J o s e p h u s justifies his i n c l u s i o n o f a story a b o u t a p o s t - m o r t e m a p p e a r a n c e b y c l a i m i n g that it p r o v i d e s an instance (7capd8ety{Jia) in sup p o r t o f the truth o f the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul (Ant. I n the final passage, Ag.Ap.
17:349-354).
2 : 2 1 7 f . , J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that the ideas o f
an afterlife a n d final j u d g e m e n t are clearly taught in the M o s a i c L a w : For those who live in accordance with our laws (TOI? vofxtficos (JtoOat) the prize is not silver or gold. . . . N o , each individual, relying on the witness of his own conscience and the lawgiver's prophecy, confirmed by the sure testimony o f G o d , is firmly persuaded that to those who observe the laws (TOTux^ ?)
188
form
of
and
as
p e r i o d i c r e i n c a r n a t i o n , f o l l o w i n g interludes in the u n d e r w o r l d (7caXtyysvsata) To
189
T h e Stoic v i e w o f i m m o r t a l i t y is u n c l e a r .
1 9 0
s u m m a r i z e : it was Plato w h o e x e r c i s e d the d e c i s i v e influence
on
the idea o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n in G r e c o - R o m a n a n t i q u i t y . H e m a d e it a c o n stituent e l e m e n t o f his p h i l o s o p h y a n d g a v e it a rational b a s i s .
1 9 1
Yet
e v e n Plato was not consistent in his p o r t r a y a l o f the issue. In the ancient w o r l d there was n o c o n s e n s u s a b o u t such matters as: w h e t h e r reincarna tion is a perpetual process o r a f o r m o f a t o n e m e n t ; w h e t h e r o r n o t
the
soul spends intervals b e t w e e n v a r i o u s i n c a r n a t i o n s in the u n d e r w o r l d ; h o w m a n y incarnations are to b e e x p e c t e d ;
h o w l o n g the p e r i o d s o f
d i s e m b o d i m e n t , a n d so forth. N o single s c h e m a p r e v a i l e d . C l e a r l y , J o s e p h u s ' s c h o s e n terms to d e s c r i b e the afterlife—terms like [xeTafiaivetv
exepov aco[xa, yevsaGat 7taXtv and
<xv<x(3touv—would
have
e v o k e d a m o n g his G r e c o - R o m a n readers s o m e sort o f p h i l o s o p h y o f rein c a r n a t i o n . T h a c k e r a y says simply that in these passages w e d o c t r i n e o f the r e i n c a r n a t i o n o f the s o u l " .
1 9 2
find
"the
Y e t g i v e n the variety o f
beliefs at the t i m e , it is necessary to define the J o s e p h a n a n d Pharisaic v i e w s s o m e w h a t m o r e closely. W e b e g i n with W . Stettner's distinction b e t w e e n a m o r a l o r inevitable metempsychosis,
186
o n the o n e h a n d , and r e i n c a r n a t i o n as a p r o c e s s deter-
Metamorphoses 15:158-168, trans. F. J. Miller ( L C L edn.); cf. Stettner, Seelen wanderung, 44f. Epistles 108:19. Stettner (Seelenwanderung, 50) cites the treatise icept c|>t>xoc) p r o m i s e d t o the v i r t u o u s b y J o s e p h u s a n d his Pharisees is a l w a y s s i n g u l a r .
196
M o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s ' s references t o the n e w b o d y s e e m to suggest that it is m o r e than s i m p l y a n o t h e r h u m a n o r a n i m a l f o r m . U n l i k e practically e v e r y o t h e r ancient writer o n r e i n c a r n a t i o n , h e is strangely silent a b o u t the specific nature o f the n e w v xaxaaxaOevTa vou.tu.a TTJ 8r)u.
$ xal ev TOT^ ITWCVO) BeS-nXcixapLev). T h e " a b o v e " d e s c r i p t i o n is e v i d e n t l y Ant.
13:171-173,
5 7
w h i c h c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s himself. S e c o n d , the a u t h o r o f the p a r a g r a p h reveals b y his praise o f H y r c a n u s that he is p r o - H a s m o n e a n .
5 8
o f the H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y .
59
Y e t w e k n o w J o s e p h u s to b e a p r o u d s c i o n Indeed, J o h n Hyrcanus was something o f
a h e r o to J o s e p h u s , a n d o u r a u t h o r likes t o p o i n t o u t his o w n p r o p h e t i c a n d priestly qualifications as well as his r o y a l l i n e a g e . tal that J o s e p h u s n a m e d his first s o n H y r c a n u s ?
6 1
6 0
W a s it c o i n c i d e n
I n b o t h War a n d
Ant.,
as w e h a v e seen, this ruler m a r k s the a p o g e e o f H a s m o n e a n g l o r y ; the d e c l i n e o f the d y n a s t y b e g i n s with the sons o f H y r c a n u s .
6 2
Josephus,
t h e n , e m i n e n t l y satisfies the r e q u i r e m e n t that the a u t h o r o f § 2 8 8 b e p r o H a s m o n e a n a n d an a d m i r e r o f J o h n
Hyrcanus.
D e c i s i v e for o u r q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , is the v o c a b u l a r y u s e d in § 2 8 8 , especially the p a i r i n g o f " s u c c e s s " (&U7upayta) a n d " e n v y " (906vo$). W i t h these t e r m s , w h i c h o c c u r also in the War parallel ( 1 : 6 7 ) , w e hit u p o n a characteristic J o s e p h a n
theme.
I n k e e p i n g with the w e l l - k n o w n t e n d e n c y o f Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y to a n a l y z e the p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n s o f historical f i g u r e s , 5 7
63
Josephus
So Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , 373 n. c. Cf. Holscher, "Josephus", 1974f. Ant. 16:187; 20:266; Life Iff. O n prophecy and priesthood, cf. War 3:35Iff. and J. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus", JJS 25 (1974), 239-262. On Josephus's royal lineage, /cf. Ant. 16:187; Life 2. Life 5. War l:68VAnt. 13:300. Cf. Collingwood, Idea, 39f. (on Tacitus) and 41 f.; M . Hadas, Hellenistic Culture: Fu sion and Diffusion (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1959), chapter 10: "Historiography"; M . Braun, Griechischer Roman und Hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Frankfurt: N. Klostermann, 1934); H . R . Moehring, "Novelistic Elements in the 5 8
59
6 0
61
62
6 3
226
CHAPTER NINE
often m a k e s the o b s e r v a t i o n that the success o f s o m e p u b l i c p e r s o n " c a u s e d e n v y " in s o m e o n e else. T h e first t i m e w e m e e t this c l a i m is in War 1:67, w i t h respect t o J o h n H y r c a n u s , b u t after that it b e c o m e s a significant t h e m e in all o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s . One
6 4
m i g h t initially s u p p o s e that the editorial r e m a r k s o n the t h e m e
o f e n v y in War 1 a n d 2 w e r e c o p i e d f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e , N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . S u c h r e m a r k s o c c u r at 1:77 (cf. Ant. 1 3 : 3 1 0 ) : " o f o u r bet ter feelings (TtdOrj), n o n e is s t r o n g e n o u g h t o h o l d o u t against e n v y ( 9 O 0 V O S ) " .
65
interminably
Especially close to o u r passage is 1:208, " B u t
it is i m p o s s i b l e in p r o s p e r i t y (eu7cpayta) t o e s c a p e e n v y (9O0VOC)". T h e s e editorial reflections are, h o w e v e r , perfectly consistent with J o s e p h u s ' s o w n narrative t e n d e n c i e s . W i t h respect to his o w n c a r e e r in the G a l i l e e , for
example,
popularity Gischala.
66
Josephus
aroused
claims
the e n v y
frequently
that
his
o f his o p p o n e n t s ,
brilliance
and
especially J o h n
of
H e reflects (Life 8 0 ) :
I was n o w about thirty years old, at a time of life when, even if one restrains his lawless passions, it is hard, especially in a position of high authority, to escape the calumnies of envy (960VOS).
C o m p a r e also Life 1 2 2 . J o s e p h u s tells us that J o h n o f G i s c h a l a heard a b o u t his euvota a m o n g his supporters a n d , " b e l i e v i n g that m y success (TTJV ejxrjv Eurcpaytav) i n v o l v e d his o w n r u i n , g a v e w a y t o i m m o d e r a t e e n v y (et$ 9G0VOV ouxt (xexptov)". A s in o u r passage, eu7upayia calls forth 906voxafJtev)". Cf. Holscher, 1974. The reference seems to be back to the comment in our passage (so Feldman, L C L edn, X , 107 n.g.), which confirms that this earlier statement comes from Josephus. Josephus's acknowledgement of the (relative) mildness of the Pharisees ought not, then, to be construed as outright praise. Rivkin, Revolution, 40 n.*, suggests that the basis for the Sadducean position was a conflation of Ex. 22:38 (prohibition of cursing God or a ruler) and Lev. 24:15f. (death penalty for cursing God). 7 7
229
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
T h a t e n d e a v o u r w a s n o t entirely successful, h o w e v e r , as o u r original o b s e r v a t i o n s o n the tensions within Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 indicate. T h e ten sions that r e m a i n suggest the f o l l o w i n g redactional s c e n a r i o . J o s e p h u s w a s a p r o u d d e s c e n d a n t o f the H a s m o n e a n s a n d a particular a d m i r e r o f J o h n H y r c a n u s . I n his efforts to fill o u t the b r i e f a c c o u n t o f H y r c a n u s ' s tenure that h e h a d g i v e n in War, h e c a m e across a traditional story a b o u t a rift b e t w e e n the high priest a n d the Pharisees. T h e story itself w a s s y m pathetic to b o t h H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees; it attributed the rupture to Eleazar's i m p e r t i n e n c e a n d to the m a c h i n a t i o n s o f a certain S a d ducee.
7 8
Nevertheless, Eleazar a p p e a r e d in the c o m p a n y o f the Pharisees
a n d the story e n d e d in a b r e a k b e t w e e n H y r c a n u s a n d his erstwhile religious advisors. F o r J o s e p h u s , with his anti-Pharisaic a n i m u s , there was n o q u e s t i o n a b o u t w h i c h party w a s to b l a m e . H e c o u l d n o t , h o w e v e r , clearly d e m o n s t r a t e the Pharisees' guilt f r o m the story itself, so he fell b a c k o n the familiar topos that h e h a d used in War 1:67: the Pharisees a n d their p o p u l a r supporters w e r e m o v e d to e n v y (906vocj), h e declares, b y the success (eu7cpayia) o f H y r c a n u s a n d his s o n s .
7 9
T o this favourite
( b u t here i n a p p r o p r i a t e ! ) t h e m e h e adds a reference t o the Pharisees' hostility (ot Oocptaoctot xaxco$ npoq OCOTOV efxov) a n d he laments their m a l i g n influence, with w h i c h they are able to arouse the masses e v e n against o n e w h o is b o t h h i g h priest a n d " k i n g " . T h u s , J o s e p h u s ' s p r o - H a s m o n e a n and anti-Pharisaic instincts h a v e led h i m to misrepresent, in his t o p i c p a r a g r a p h ( § 2 8 8 ) , the traditional story that follows ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s redactional failure is perhaps m o s t o b v i o u s in the case o f Eleazar; the reader is left in d o u b t as to w h e t h e r this provocateur is o r is not a Pharisee. H o l s c h e r confidently states, " I n d e r Gesellschaft d e r Pharisaer ist d e r Z a n k e r E l e a z a r " .
8 0
But the o n l y hint o f a n y link b e
tween Eleazar a n d the Pharisees c o m e s in the S a d d u c e e J o n a t h a n ' s allegation that the m a n h a d spoken in a g r e e m e n t with the c o m m o n c o n sent o f all the Pharisees (xfj xoivfjTCOCVTCOVOocptaoctcov yvcojxr), § 2 9 3 ) . A l l o f the other e v i d e n c e dissociates Eleazar f r o m the Pharisees. F o r e x a m ple, the genitive absolute in § § 290f. distinguishes the Pharisees' c o m mendation o f Hyrcanus from
Eleazar's
d e s c r i b e d n o t as ziq TCOV Oocptaoctcov but
7 8
calumny. Then,
Eleazar is
s i m p l y as Tt$ TCOV xocTOCxetuivcov;
The traditional story may already represent the attempt of a pro-Hasmonean and pro-Pharisaic tradition to explain how the rift between Hyrcanus and the Pharisees came about—neither was at fault! If so, we have strong evidence that the rupture did in fact take place (against the views of those scholars mentioned in nn. 1-3, above). That Josephus already employed the cpGovo? motif in such an unconvincing way in War 1:67—why should a nation be envious of its leader's successes (on its behalf)?—might indicate that the story of the rift was in his mind when he composed the War account. Holscher, "Josephus", 1975 n.*. 7 9
8 0
230
CHAPTER NINE
a n d w e k n o w that at least o n e n o n - P h a r i s e e ( J o n a t h a n ) w a s i n c l u d e d a m o n g the guests. Further, w h e n Eleazar d o e s utter his c h a r g e , all o f the Pharisees (rcavxec; ot Oaptaatot) are said t o h a v e b e c o m e i n d i g n a n t .
No
o n e , therefore, suspects that Eleazar s p o k e w i t h Pharisaic a p p r o v a l until J o n a t h a n m a k e s the allegation. R i v k i n c o r r e c d y o b s e r v e s : T h e story . . . puts the blame for the slander on a single individual, Eleazar, who is described as having an evil nature. T h e Pharisees as such are not held responsible for the c h a r g e . 81
I n d e e d , r e a d w i t h o u t the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h ,
the story s e e m s to say that
J o n a t h a n ' s a c c u s a t i o n o f the Pharisees w a s a s h r e w d p i e c e o f " d i s i n f o r m a t i o n " , n o t an accurate statement o f the facts. J o s e p h u s ' s i n t r o d u c t o r y r e m a r k s ( § 2 8 8 ) o n l y m a k e sense, h o w e v e r , o n the identification o f E l e a z a r as a Pharisee, for w e are told that " t h e P h a r i s e e s " speak against a h i g h priest. T h u s w e see that J o s e p h u s ' s antiPharisaic i n t r o d u c t i o n ( § 2 8 8 ) c o n t r a d i c t s the sense o f the
traditional
story ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) . H i s zeal to p r o m o t e H y r c a n u s a n d to denigrate the Pharisees has led to a r e d a c t i o n that is s o m e w h a t c l u m s y .
8 2
I V . The Pharisaic N6[xtfia T h e o u t c o m e o f E l e a z a r ' s affront a n d J o n a t h a n ' s craftiness, the story tells us, w a s that J o h n H y r c a n u s b e c a m e a S a d d u c e e ; h e a b a n d o n e d the Pharisees a n d repealed " t h e o r d i n a n c e s that they h a d established a m o n g the p e o p l e (TOC Te U7c' OCUTCOV xocTOcarocOevTOc vou.tu.oc TCO orjfAcp)". A t the c o n clusion o f the story ( § § 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 ) , J o s e p h u s pauses to e x p l a i n to his G r e c o - R o m a n readership w h a t these Pharisaic vou.tu.oc w e r e . T h i s b r i e f discussion
has
taken o n c o n s i d e r a b l e significance in
the
secondary
literature b e c a u s e ( a ) it is a l m o s t universally a c c e p t e d as J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n , unlike m o s t o f the o t h e r Pharisee passages, a n d ( b ) it is s o m e t i m e s t h o u g h t to p r o v i d e early a n d i n d e p e n d e n t attestation o f the later r a b b i n i c t e a c h i n g o f the " O r a l L a w " .
8 3
T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the
passage d e m a n d s a careful attempt to capture J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e n d e d sense. T h e first half o f the statement c o n t a i n s the d e c i s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d the k e y t e r m s : TOC vou.tu.oc, avocypo^co, ot rcocTepec;, rcapa8t8cou.t/7iapa8oatc;, a n d 8ta8oxTJ. A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f these terms will h e l p p r o v i d e s o m e fixed points for o u r interpretation o f the passage. 8 1
Rivkin, Revolution, 40. The imperfect redaction of Ant. has long been recognized; cf. Bloch, Quellen, 112f.; 28ff.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1971 n.*. So, e.g., Rivkin, Revolution, 41ff., J . M . Baumgarten, "The Unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period", 7 $ / 3 (1972), esp. 12-14, and the literature cited in his notes (much of which is in Hebrew). 8 2
8 3
THE
A.
PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
231
Key Terms
1. TOC vou.iu.oc. Josephus's use o f TOC VOU.LU.OC we have discussed above, in chapter 4 . Outside of the present passage and its sequel
(13:408),
Josephus uses TOC TcdcTpta v6u.iu.oc as a simple substitute for ot Mtouaeoc;/ rcdcTptot vofiot. Written in longhand, that is to say, "the ordinances" are TOC vou.tu.oc TOC Stoc Mtouaeoc; urco TOU Oeou SoGevTa (Ant. 9 : 2 ) . Although the modern critic can discern many traditional elements in the v6p,ot/v6[xt[xa, Josephus insists that they all go back to the all-embracing legal system devised by M o s e s , which prescribes clear rules of conduct from the cradle to the grave. It is precisely because Josephus has never before mentioned any vou.tu.oc . . .fircepoux ocvayeypaTtTat ev TOTC; Mcoua£oat) still o t h e r laws that h e h a d written forty years before." (e)
Ant. 4 : 3 0 4 : " T h e s e b o o k s [ = the l a w s ] he [ M o s e s ] then g a v e o v e r
(7capa8i8a>at) to the (f)
Ag.Ap.
priests."
2 : 2 7 9 : " S i n c e the passage o f t i m e is in all matters r e c o g n i z e d
as the surest criterion, I s h o u l d a p p o i n t t i m e as a witness to the virtue o f o u r l a w g i v e r a n d o f the revelation c o n c e r n i n g G o d h a n d e d d o w n (TCapaSoGetorjs) b y h i m . " These
passages
97
make
it
clear
that
when
Josephus
employs
TCOcpocSiScopt in the c o n t e x t o f J e w i s h l a w s , w h i c h is h a r d l y e v e r , he m e a n s b y it M o s e s ' act o f passing o n the L a w , w h i c h M o s e s , in turn, h a d re ceived from G o d .
9 6
Marcus's rendering "translations" is misleading, for the reason given.
9 7
Cf. also Ag.Ap. 1:60, where 7capa8i8c>)(xi is used of the euaePeia implicit in the Mosaic
235
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
J o s e p h u s ' s n o r m a l u s a g e o frcocpdcooatca n d 7wcpoc8t8cop.i is w i d e - r a n g i n g a n d , for the m o s t part, m u n d a n e . O u t s i d e o f o u r p a s s a g e , h e neither a p peals to n o r e v e n m e n t i o n s a n y extra-biblical legal tradition
handed
d o w n f r o m " t h e f a t h e r s " . T h i s c o n f i r m s o u r s u s p i c i o n that his consistent d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisaic vopipoc in Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 are n o t his o w n f o r m u l a t i o n s b u t d e r i v e f r o m fixed e x p r e s s i o n s o f his d a y . F u r t h e r sup p o r t for this j u d g e m e n t c o m e s in the several references o u t s i d e J o s e p h u s 98
to a Pharisaic rcocpocSoaic;
and
in the parallels
7capaXau.p<xv(o a n d the " t r a n s m i s s i o n "
b e t w e e n TCOcpoc8t8cou.t/
terminology o f A v o t .
9 9
5. T) StocSoxrj. I n the first o f his three definitions o f the Pharisaic voptpoc, J o s e p h u s allows that the Pharisees d e r i v e d their o r d i n a n c e s " f r o m ( o r o u t o f ) a ' s u c c e s s i o n o f fathers'
(ex rcocTepcov StocSoxffc)"*
100
T h i s is the
o n l y p l a c e w h e r e J o s e p h u s c o m b i n e s the i d e a o f " s u c c e s s i o n " w i t h the c a t e g o r y " f a t h e r s " , w h i c h m a y suggest a g a i n that the c o m b i n a t i o n is n o t his o w n c r e a t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , his o w n u s a g e o f StaSoxTj is w o r t h n o t i n g , as it illuminates certain aspects o f his t h o u g h t . J o s e p h u s i n t e n d s , especially in Ant. a n d Ag.Ap.
to present J u d a i s m as
a " p h i l o s o p h y " a n d M o s e s as its f o u n d i n g p h i l o s o p h e r . N o w , C .
H.
T u r n e r a n d E . J . B i c k e r m a n h a v e d r a w n attention to the i m p o r t a n t role that " s u c c e s s i o n " (SIOCSOXT)) c a m e to p l a y in all o f the Hellenistic s c h o o l s of philosophy.
1 0 1
P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e , E p i c u r u s , a n d Z e n o all passed
the
d i r e c t i o n o f their s c h o o l s o n to " s u c c e s s o r s " , w h o v i e w e d their task as the p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d e x p o s i t i o n o f the m a s t e r ' s o r i g i n a l p h i l o s o p h y . The
1 0 2
test o f a n y single t e a c h e r ' s c o m p e t e n c e w a s his d e g r e e o f faithfulness
to the s c h o o l ' s f o u n d a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s .
103
Lists o f StdSoxot b e c a m e the
bases for histories o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y in the Hellenistic w o r l d .
1 0 4
A g a i n s t this b a c k g r o u n d , J o s e p h u s ' s use o f StaSoxTj, 8tdc8oxo£, a n d 8tocSexopat takes o n special interest. H e often e m p l o y s these w o r d s to speak
9 8
E.g., Gal. 1:14; M k . 7:3, 5; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., I V . 22.8. For b^p and "IDD as technical terms in Avot 1, cf. W . Bacher, Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Paldstinas und Babyloniens (Leipzig: Gustav Pock, 1914), esp. Iff. I owe the insight that 7ta7cd8oai;/7tapa8tBa)jJLi corresponds to IDD/mDD to Prof. A . I. Baumgarten of McMaster and Bar Ilan Universities. Ant. 13:297. C . H . Turner, ''Note on Succession' Language in non-Christian Sources", in H . B. Swete, Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry (London: Macmillan & Co., 1918), 197-199; Bickerman, "La chaine", 262f; cf. the literature he cites in n. 3. Says Bickerman, ("La chaine", 269): "Les diadochoi d'une ecole etaient . . . les continuateurs de la sagesse du fondateur de cette philosophic Leur role etait de transmettre et d'interpreter cette sagesse et pas innover." Bickerman cites, e.g., Diogenes Laertius 4:4; 9:115f.; Cicero, Acad. 1:34. Bickerman cites as examples Sotion, whom he dates to 200 BC; Suidas on Epicurus; Diogenes Laertius 10:9; and various secondary works ("La chaine", 262 n. 31). 9 9
100
101
1 0 2
1 0 3
1 0 4
4
236
CHAPTER NINE
o f the strife that s u r r o u n d e d the succession to H e r o d ' s t h r o n e .
1 0 5
Several
m o r e are g e n e r a l , insignificant references to r o y a l o r o t h e r s u c c e s s i o n .
1 0 6
In the f r a m e w o r k o f J e w i s h history a n d r e l i g i o n , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the i d e a o f " s u c c e s s i o n " in three n o t a b l e c o n t e x t s . T h e first is that o f the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d . J o s e p h u s ' s material o n the 8ta8oxT) TCOV apxtepecov has l o n g interested scholars. M o s t o f the scholarly interest,
h o w e v e r , has
been
with
the
p r o b l e m s that his s u c c e s s i o n lists c r e a t e .
historical 1 0 7
and
source-critical
O u r c o n c e r n , o n the o t h e r
h a n d , is with the q u e s t i o n w h y the high-priestly s u c c e s s i o n w a s so i m p o r 108
tant to J o s e p h u s . H e takes p a i n s , b o t h in the b o d y o f Ant. in a final s u m m a r y ,
1 0 9
a n d again
to trace the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d f r o m its i n c e p t i o n
d o w n to his t i m e . T h a t the e n d e a v o u r w a s significant to h i m h e reveals in Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 1 , w h e r e , in a v e r y b r i e f s u m m a r y o f the c o n t e n t s o f Ant. ( 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 ) , he specifically n o t e s , " I h a v e tried also to p r e s e r v e the r e c o r d o f those h i g h priests w h o h a v e served t h r o u g h o u t t w o t h o u s a n d y e a r s . " J o s e p h u s ' s o v e r r i d i n g c o n c e r n with the high-priestly succession e x plains itself w h e n w e recall that, in his v i s i o n o f things, the priests are the g u a r d i a n s a n d interpreters o f the M o s a i c L a w .
1 1 0
W h e n Moses com
pleted the L a w , w e are t o l d , h e entrusted it (rcocpeScoxs) to the priests (Ant. 4:304).
1 1 1
S i n c e then, the priests h a v e e x e r c i s e d s c r u p u l o u s care in their
p r e s e r v a t i o n o f the L a w e x a c t l y as M o s e s d e l i v e r e d it (Ag.Ap.
2:187).
T h e o n e w h o supervises the priests in their task is the h i g h priest 2:185).
If,
therefore, J u d a i s m
is a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s y s t e m ,
1 1 2
(Ag.Ap.
established
( u n d e r G o d ) b y M o s e s a n d e n s h r i n e d in his l a w s , then the h i g h priests w h o carefully p r e s e r v e a n d
e x p o u n d those laws f r o m
generation
to
g e n e r a t i o n are the 8tdc8oxoi o f the M o s a i c p h i l o s o p h y . In o r d e r to p r o v e his thesis that J u d a i s m is a s u p e r i o r p h i l o s o p h y , J o s e p h u s m u s t d e m o n strate n o t o n l y that M o s e s taught an excellent w a y o f life, b u t also that the original t e a c h i n g has b e e n p r e s e r v e d accurately u p to the present
1 0 5
8ta8oxo£, Bta&ox'n occur some 121 times in total. O f these, approximately 35 refer to Herod's throne, occurring especially in War 1-2 and Ant. 16-17. The verb occurs 70 times; only 3 of these refer to the struggle for Herod's throne. E.g., War 2:121; 3:212; 4:463; 5:482; Ant. 1:215; 5:276; 8:113; 18:112, 35, 186, 224, 261; 19;174, 209, 20:1, 27, 93f., 182, 215, 252. Cf. H . Bloch, Quellen, 147ff.; J. von Destinon, Quellen, 29-39; G. Holscher, "Josephus", 1989f.; and the relevant notes in the L C L edn. E.g., Ant. 5:362; 10:152, 153; 11:158, 297, 302; 12:43, 225; 13:78; 18:35; 20:16, 103, 197, 213, 229, 231, 237, 240. Ant. 20:224-251. It is well known that this final list often disagrees with the details of the earlier presentation, especially up to 13:212. Cf. Ag.Ap. 1:29, 32, 36, 54; 2:184-187, 194. Notice that both the L X X and M T say (Deut. 31:9) that Moses gave the book of the law to the priests and to the "elders of Israel", a detail that Josephus omits. Cf. Ag.Ap. 1:29, 42. 1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 0 9
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 2
THE
day.
237
PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
T h e latter task h e a c c o m p l i s h e s , in part, b y t r a c i n g an u n b r o k e n
line o f h i g h priestly StaSoxoi. It s e e m s likely that J o s e p h u s ' s remarks o n the StaSox^ o f the H e b r e w kings are also i n t e n d e d to establish c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n the o r i g i n s o f J u d a i s m ( w i t h M o s e s ) a n d his o w n d a y . T h e w o r d 8IOC8OXT) is entirely a b sent f r o m the Septuagint; StaSoxo? appears o n l y three times a n d with the sense o f " d e p u t y " rather than " s u c c e s s o r " .
1 1 3
then
Josephus, how
e v e r , often paraphrases the Septuagint so as to d e s c r i b e a n e w k i n g as a 8ta8oxo£, w h e r e his s o u r c e has the phrase e(3aaiXeuae . . . dvx' OCUTOU. He
114
i n t r o d u c e s the unscriptural detail o f H e z e k i a h ' s a n x i e t y a b o u t the
possible failure o f a legitimate s u c c e s s i o n (yvrjata? 8ta8ox*te) to the t h r o n e of J u d a h .
1 1 5
Finally, in the s a m e b r i e f s u m m a r y o f Ant. that w e n o t e d
a b o v e ( 2 0 : 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 ) , J o s e p h u s takes the t r o u b l e to spell o u t that h e has r e c o r d e d accurately TTJV 7uepl TOUS j3aaiXel? 8toc8oxr)v, a l o n g with the p e r i o d o f rule b y the J u d g e s . It is striking that J o s e p h u s s h o u l d tie these t w o s u c c e s s i o n l i s t s — o f k i n g s a n d h i g h priests—together in his c l o s i n g remarks in Ant. T h e o p e n ing p a r a g r a p h s o f Life s h o w that this c o n c e r n with s u c c e s s i o n has a per sonal
application:
he
claims
that
his
own
StocSoxr)
(Thackeray:
" p e d i g r e e " ) m a k e s h i m an heir to b o t h kings a n d h i g h priests; he is a d e s c e n d a n t o f the H a s m o n e a n rulers, w h o " w e r e for the l o n g e s t t i m e (lizi prjxiaxov xpovov) h i g h priests a n d kings o f o u r n a t i o n " . J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e s the familiar triad in Ag.Ap. also to a s u c c e s s i o n o f p r o p h e t s .
1 1 7
w e r e eligible to write the J e w i s h
1 1 6
1:41, w h e n h e refers
H e argues there that o n l y p r o p h e t s sacred b o o k s ( 1 : 3 7 ) .
Accordingly,
M o s e s w r o t e the first five ( 1 : 3 9 ) a n d the p r o p h e t s after h i m w r o t e the later b o o k s ( 1 : 4 0 ) . told,
1 1 8
T h e w o r k s that h a v e b e e n written since, w e are
d e a l i n g with p o s t - e x i l i c history,
d o n o t h a v e the
same
status
" b e c a u s e the exact s u c c e s s i o n o f the p r o p h e t s failed (Stcx TO pr) yeveaOat 1 1 3
I Chron. 18:17; 2 Ghron. 26:11, 28:7. E.g., Ant. 8:197, 250, 9:45, 160, 233, 257. The verb, also absent in the L X X parallels, occurs at Ant. 7:244, 334, 337, 371; 8:50, 212, 264, 274, 286, 287, 313, 315, 420; 9:172, 204, 215; 10:37, 81, 98. Ant. 10:25; cf. Marcus's n. e., p. 171 ( L C L edn., V I ) . Life 2f., 6; cf. Ant. 16:187. As Bickerman, "La chaine", 263f. and n. 38, points out, the idea of a prophetic succession, though unbiblical, is not original with Josephus. It may have been conceived by Eupolemus (ca. 150 BCE), he suggests, who is the earliest witness to it (cf. Eusebius, Prep. Evang. 9.30.447a). Josephus follows the Bible in presenting Moses as a prophet (Ant. 4:165, 303, 313, 320, 329; cf. Deut. 18:15, 18). But Deuteronomy emphasizes that, even though Moses passed on his general responsibilities to Joshua (34:9), there never was a prophet like Moses again (oux dveorrj ext 7cpoq>r)Trjxe)
to
the
Jews
in
writing
the
all-encompassing b o d y
o f laws
(vopot/voptpa) that G o d h a d r e v e a l e d t o h i m . T h e s e l a w s , i n v i o l a b l e f o r all t i m e , M o s e s entrusted t o the stewardship o f the priests, ( b ) S i n c e the t e r m s ot rcorcepes a n drcocpdcBoatsh a v e n o special significance f o r J o s e p h u s ; since h e uses t h e m , h o w e v e r , in all three o f his d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisaic voptpa; a n d since, finally, the c o m b i n a t i o n o f these t e r m s o c curs in o t h e r ( n o n - J o s e p h a n ) discussions o f Pharisaic t e a c h i n g , w e m a y r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o s e that h e t o o k o v e r these e l e m e n t s o f his p o r t r a y a l from
contemporary usage,
( c ) A l t h o u g h the
concept "succession"
(StocSoxrj) d o e s p l a y a significant role in J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t , it is the suc cession o f h i g h priests, k i n g s , a n d p r o p h e t s that interests h i m , in a c c o r d w i t h the w o r l d - v i e w d e s c r i b e d in ( a ) a n d w i t h his a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s . T h e phrase " s u c c e s s i o n o f f a t h e r s " , w h i c h o c c u r s o n l y in Ant.
13:297,
p r o b a b l y c o m e s f r o m current u s a g e a m o n g the Pharisees t h e m s e l v e s , ( d ) H i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisaic v6u.tu.oc as " n o t written d o w n in the laws
1 2 5
Bickerman, "La chaine", 260f., 264. The diverse arguments that have been used to support an early dating of the pairs list may be summarized under two broad rubrics, viz., (a) multiple attestation (cf. m. Hagigah 2:2; m. Peah 2:6; tos. Hagigah 2:8; Avot de Rabbi Nathan, I and II) and its tradition-historical implications and (b) literary- or form-critical considerations within Avot 1-2 itself. O n the latter, cf. J. Neusner, The Rab binic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), I, 11-23, esp. 15-21. O n the former, cf. Neusner, Ibid.; L. Finkelstein, "Introductory Study to Pirke Abot", JBL 57 (1938), 13-50, esp. 14, 17-20; and the literature cited by Finkelstein, 14 n. 2. Bickerman, "La chaine", 261. I have adapted Bickerman's theory, as the reader will have noticed, to interpret Josephus's concern with the high-priesdy StaBox^. See n. 99 above. As Bickerman, "La chaine", 268 suggests. If Bickerman's interpretation of Avot 1 is correct, incidentally, then we have positive evidence that Josephus's presentation of the Pharisees as a alpeat? (cf. also Acts 15:5; 26:5; 5:17) derived from their own selfunderstanding. 1 2 6
1 2 7
1 2 8
240
CHAPTER NINE
of M o s e s " reflects his strenuous effort to distinguish these voptpa from those that he ordinarily talks about.
B. Interpretation of Ant.
13:297-298
W i t h the above discussion of the key terms in Ant. 13:297f., we have gone some way toward an interpretation. Turning now to the passage itself, we see that the main point is delivered in 297a. It is elaborated in 297b and then two subsidiary points are made in 298. 297a. vuv 8e SrjXcoaat (JouXopat cm voptpa Ttva rcapeSoaav TCO Brjpcp ot Oaptaatot ix TCOcxepcov StaSoxfjs, arcep oux avayeypaTCTat ev TOT$ Mcouaeo? vopot^, xat TOUTO TOCUTOC TO TCOV 2a88ouxatcov yevos ixjiaXXei.
8ta
This statement is already complete in itself. T h e story of John Hyr canus reported that, in becoming a Sadducee, he repealed the voptpa that had been established among the people by the Pharisees. W e now learn the reason. T h e Pharisaic voptpa are special (hence: xtva); they derive from a "succession of fathers" and are not among the written laws of Moses. For this reason (8ta TOUTO) the Sadducees dismiss them out of hand. So far as it goes, this explanation poses no difficulty. T h e only voptpa that Josephus has ever talked about (or that he will ever talk about again) are those <xvayeypa7CTat ev TOT ol'vocj) with the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e ! H i s sympathies are patent. N o t i c e the c u r i o u s identification here o f the p e o p l e with the Pharisees. W e h a v e b e e n told all a l o n g that it w a s the Pharisees w h o persecuted the friends o f A l e x a n d e r a n d A r i s t o b u l u s ; n o w it is " t h e p e o p l e " w h o are afraid o f retribution.
But this e q u a t i o n is n o t n e w . It is m e r e l y the
reverse case o f what h a p p e n e d in the narrative o f A l e x a n d e r ' s reign. T h e a c c o u n t o f his atrocities against " t h e p e o p l e " n e v e r o n c e m e n t i o n e d the Pharisees. W h e n he is d y i n g , h o w e v e r , h e confesses that he has b a d l y mistreated this g r o u p satisfaction
for
2 6
a n d w e are told that the Pharisees
Alexander's
crucifixion
of
the
eight
demanded hundred.
2 7
E v i d e n t l y , J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r s the Pharisees a n d the p e o p l e to b e so closely related that he expects the reader to u n d e r s t a n d that " P h a r i s a i c " actions h a v e the support o f the p e o p l e . O n l y thus c a n h e implicate TO eOvos in the Pharisees' w r o n g d o i n g u n d e r A l e x a n d r a . A s in War, Ant. 's a c c o u n t o f A l e x a n d r a ' s reign e n d s w i t h o u t m e n t i o n i n g a n y decisive response to A r i s t o b u l u s ' s m o v e . T h e " e l d e r s o f the J e w s " , representing the p o p u l a r / P h a r i s a i c v i e w p o i n t , j o i n H y r c a n u s in protesting A r i s t o b u l u s ' s m o v e to the Q u e e n . But she is t o o w e a k to res p o n d a n d , h a v i n g g i v e n t h e m p e r m i s s i o n to d o as they see fit, she dies (§§ 420f.).
2 6
Ant.
13:402.
2 7
Ant.
13:410.
257
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
F. Josephus's Final Remarks on Alexandra
(13:430-432)
J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t leave the reader in a n y final d o u b t a b o u t his assess m e n t o f A l e x a n d r a ' s reign b u t c o n c l u d e s with a reflective p a r a g r a p h in w h i c h h e spells o u t his v i e w s . It is significant that this p a r a g r a p h closes b o o k 13 o f Ant.,
w h i c h has r e c o u n t e d the fortunes o f the H a s m o n e a n s
f r o m the death o f J u d a s o n w a r d . J o s e p h u s will tell u s n o w that it w a s A l e x a n d r a ' s m i s g u i d e d p o l i c y o f k e e p i n g p o w e r f r o m her sons (especially A r i s t o b u l u s ) a n d g i v i n g it instead
t o the Pharisees
that c a u s e d the
downfall o f the H a s m o n e a n Suvaaxeta. Since these c l o s i n g remarks a r e crucial f o r the interpretation o f o u r passage, I q u o t e t h e m in full: She was a woman who showed none o f the weakness of her sex; for being one o f those inordinately desirous of the power to rule (Setvrj yap et£ TO 9tXapxov), she showed by her deeds the ability to carry out her plans, and at the same time she exposed the folly of those men who continually fail to maintain sovereign power. For she valued the present more than the future, and making everything else secondary to absolute rule (TCOCVTOC SeuTepoc TtGepevrj TOU eyxpaTtos apxetv), she had, on account o f this, no con sideration for either decency or justice (ouTe xocXou ouTe Stxoctou). At least matters turned out so unfortunately for her house that the sovereign power (Suvacrceta) which it had acquired in the face of the greatest dangers and dif ficulties was not long afterwards taken from it (d^octpeGfjvat) because o f her desire for things unbecoming a woman, and because she expressed the same opinions as did those [sc. the Pharisees] who were hostile to her family (TOIS pev Suapevcos e'xouatv izpb$ TO yevo$ OCUTCOV TTJV OCUTTJV yvcoprjv 7tpo9etaa),
and also because she left the kingdom without anyone who had their in terests at heart. A n d even after her death she caused the palace to be filled with misfortunes and disturbances (oupcpopcov xat Tapaxfjs) which arose from the public measures taken during her lifetime. Nevertheless, in spite o f reigning in this manner, she had kept the nation at peace. W i t h these w o r d s , J o s e p h u s gives his final verdict o n the e x p e r i m e n t that A l e x a n d e r h a d c o n c e i v e d in o r d e r to deflect his w i f e ' s a n g e r at b e i n g left with a hostile k i n g d o m . She was obsessed with p o w e r , J o s e p h u s tells us, a n d this w a s inappropriate t o a w o m a n . H e r o b s e s s i o n p r e v e n t e d her f r o m h a n d i n g o v e r the dynasty t o A r i s t o b u l u s , w h o was in his p r i m e a n d h a d the interests o f the family at heart (cf. § 4 1 7 ) . Instead, she o p t e d t o preserve h e r o w n place o f h o n o u r b y sharing p o w e r with the e n e m i e s o f her h u s b a n d , the Pharisees. A l t h o u g h this strategy e n a b l e d her t o retain the title o f s o v e r e i g n while she lived, its implications for the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e w e r e catastrophic. T h e o l d w o m a n ' s folly caused the Suvocaxetoc t o be
removed from
domestic policy,
the o n c e
g l o r i o u s family.
w h i c h w a s based
Pharisees, was a n unqualified
I n short,
Alexandra's
o n wholesale s u b m i s s i o n t o the
disaster.
It is w o r t h e m p h a s i z i n g , perhaps, that w e are n o w d e a l i n g o n l y with
258
CHAPTER TEN
J o s e p h u s ' s interpretation o f events. J u d g e m e n t s o f success a n d failure d e p e n d entirely o n the criteria o f the o n e w h o j u d g e s . It is o b v i o u s f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t that A l e x a n d r a ' s rule h a d the strong s u p p o r t o f the eOvoc; a n d w e k n o w that Q u e e n " S h a l o m - Z i o n " is h o n o u r e d in J e w i s h tradition. J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , is an aristocrat a n d n o t a d e m o c r a t . H e m o u r n s the loss o f the H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y , in w h i c h h e finds his o w n roots (Life 1-2; Ant. 1 6 : 1 8 7 ) . A n d h e attributes the loss, in large m e a s u r e , to A l e x a n d r a ' s c o l l u s i o n w i t h the Pharisees.
Summary and Conclusion In b o t h War a n d Ant., the story o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e ' s reign is an ac c o u n t o f the interaction b e t w e e n three parties: the Q u e e n , h e r sons, a n d the Pharisees. T h e S m i t h / N e u s n e r hypothesis deals o n l y with the last o f these; it h o l d s that Ant. revises War so as to c o m m e n d the Pharisees to the R o m a n s , b y d r a w i n g attention to their massive p o p u l a r s u p p o r t . A n analysis o f the roles p l a y e d b y all three parties, h o w e v e r , e x c l u d e s such a reading. I n Ant., A l e x a n d r a is n o l o n g e r a frail, religiously d e v o u t w o m a n . She has b e c o m e an aggressive s c h e m e r , willing to sacrifice posterity to her i m m e d i a t e a m b i t i o n s . It is o n l y this n e w portrayal o f A l e x a n d r a that c h a n g e s her relationship to the Pharisees. She c a n n o l o n g e r a p p e a r as their hapless v i c t i m b e c a u s e she has c o n s p i r e d with h e r h u s b a n d manipulate
to
t h e m b y taking a d v a n t a g e o f their lust for p o w e r . It is
b e c a u s e Ant. says n o t h i n g a b o u t A l e x a n d r a ' s piety, m o r e o v e r , that it o m i t s War's n o t i c e a b o u t the Pharisees'
reputation
for euaePeta
and
axpt($eta ( 1 : 1 1 0 ) ; this i n f o r m a t i o n has n o p o i n t in the n e w c o n t e x t , since A l e x a n d r a is n o l o n g e r d e c e i v e d b y the Pharisees'
reputation.
T h e Pharisees themselves h a v e n o t i m p r o v e d o n e bit. I f a n y t h i n g , the n e w material in Ant. heightens the e n o r m i t y o f their a c t i o n s . It also leads the r e a d e r to s y m p a t h i z e with their aristocratic v i c t i m s , w h o w e r e loyal to the Q u e e n ' s h u s b a n d . J o s e p h u s certainly a c k n o w l e d g e s the Pharisees' fame a n d p u b l i c s u p p o r t , as he h a d in War 1:110, b u t he (still) a b h o r s this state o f affairs.
28
J o s e p h u s has revised his o p i n i o n o f A l e x a n d r a ' s s o n s . W h e r e a s War had presented A r i s t o b u l u s as an upstart a n d h a d a p p l a u d e d the Q u e e n ' s a p p o i n t m e n t o f the lethargic H y r c a n u s to the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d , Ant. 2 8
Indeed, the rueful recognition of Pharisaic power is a consistent feature of all of Josephus's writings. Cf. also War 1:571; 2:162f., 411-418; Ant. 13:288-298; 17:41ff.; Life 189ff. But if Josephus raises the issue of Pharisaic predominance only in order to express his regrets about it, he can hardly have invented the idea that they were in fact predominant.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
259
stands squarely b e h i n d A r i s t o b u l u s : h e is the o n l y o n e w h o is c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the integrity o f his family. H y r c a n u s has m o v e d f r o m d o c i l i t y t o utter i m p o t e n c e . O u r c o n c l u s i o n is that J o s e p h u s , in Ant., has radically r e d r a w n his portrait o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e ' s r e i g n , as S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r
rightly
p e r c e i v e . T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t , h o w e v e r , affects e v e r y t h i n g b u t the i m a g e o f the Pharisees. O n e c a n o n l y m a r v e l at J o s e p h u s ' s ability t o take o v e r the substance o f the War a c c o u n t a n d yet g i v e it a c o m p l e t e l y n e w sense. O n e is i m p r e s s e d b y his d e t e r m i n a t i o n , e v e n while c h a n g i n g the roles o f all o f the o t h e r players, t o k e e p the role o f the Pharisees as villains c o n s tant. It is i m p o s s i b l e t o see in Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 a c o m m e n d a t i o n o f the Pharisees. I f w e n o w step b a c k t o c o m p a r e the m a i n lines o f H a s m o n e a n history in War a n d Ant., w e d i s c o v e r the f o l l o w i n g similarities a n d differences. B o t h narratives locate the h i g h p o i n t o f the d y n a s t y in the l o n g reign o f John
Hyrcanus.
B o t h a c c o u n t s declare that his successors lost his
euSatpovtoc o r euTUXtoc. T h e sequel, h o w e v e r , is differently r e p o r t e d . I n War, w e h a v e a steady d e g e n e r a t i o n f r o m A r i s t o b u l u s I t o A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s . A l e x a n d r a o p e n s a n e w chapter a n d , b e c a u s e o f h e r piety, of fers a r a y o f h o p e ; b u t the e n t r a n c e o f the Pharisees sets the d o w n w a r d spiral in m o t i o n a g a i n . Ant., b y contrast, is s o m e w h a t k i n d e r t o b o t h A r i s t o b u l u s a n d A l e x a n d e r . T h e y still represent a d e g e n e r a t i o n b u t the fault is n o t e x c l u s i v e l y their o w n . W e n o w h e a r a b o u t A r i s t o b u l u s ' s b a s i c g o o d n e s s a n d a b o u t the hardships faced b y A l e x a n d e r . Q u e e n A l e x a n dra, o n the o t h e r h a n d , is n o w c o m p l e t e l y o u t o f o r d e r a n d it is she w h o p l u n g e s the d y n a s t y into irreversible straits. T h e r e a s o n is that she b e t r a y e d h e r h o u s e to its Pharisaic o p p o n e n t s . I n b o t h s c e n a r i o s , then, the Pharisees play a m a j o r a n d destructive role in the collapse o f the H a s m o n e a n rule. F o r that r e a s o n , if f o r n o o t h e r , they h a v e e a r n e d the c o n t e m p t o f the p r o - H a s m o n e a n J o s e p h u s .
CHAPTER ELEVEN
ANT
17:41-45: T H E P H A R I S E E S A T H E R O D ' S C O U R T ,
II
In the last chapter w e saw that, a l t h o u g h Ant. r e w o r k s War's e x p l a n a t i o n o f the downfall o f the H a s m o n e a n s , the role o f the Pharisees in b o t h ac c o u n t s is similar. Ant. reappraises b o t h A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e a n d h e r t w o sons b u t it c o n t i n u e s to present the Pharisees as a destructive f o r c e . I n the present chapter, w e shall d i s c o v e r that J o s e p h u s ' s reevaluation o f H e r o d in Ant. likewise d o e s n o t lead to a n y i m p r o v e m e n t in the i m a g e o f the Pharisees. J o s e p h u s will again attack their c l a i m s to superior axpt(kia a n d h e will a d d the n e w c h a r g e that they h a v e issued fraudulent predictions. T h a t Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is hostile t o w a r d the Pharisees is universally r e c o g n i z e d , b e c a u s e it is o b v i o u s . M o s t scholars, h o w e v e r , insist that the passage is a direct r e p r o d u c t i o n o f s o m e source (often thought to b e N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s ) a n d that it d o e s n o t reflect J o s e p h u s ' s o w n sen timents. T h e f o l l o w i n g analysis will challenge this w i d e s p r e a d a s s u m p tion. Before e n g a g i n g in s o u r c e criticism, h o w e v e r , w e shall n e e d to ensure that o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the passage in its present c o n t e x t is adequate.
I. Context B y the o p e n i n g o f Ant. 17, the H a s m o n e a n s h a v e l o n g since lost their 1
Buvaaxeta. A R o m a n a p p o i n t e e , H e r o d the I d u m e a n , has n o w ruled the J e w s for o v e r three d e c a d e s . H e has e n j o y e d o u t s t a n d i n g political success but has fallen progressively d e e p e r into d o m e s t i c strife. A c o m p l e x net w o r k o f a m b i t i o n s , j e a l o u s i e s , a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s , b o t h his o w n a n d o t h e r s ' , h a v e led h i m to e x e c u t e o n e o f his w i v e s a n d t w o o f his s o n s .
2
But that d i d n o t e n d his troubles. A p o w e r f u l c l i q u e , h e a d e d b y H e r o d ' s sister-in-law ( P h e r o r a s ' s w i f e ) , a n d his oldest son ( A n t i p a t e r ) , is n o w plotting against the k i n g .
3
It is in the c o u r s e o f his discussion o f these
conspirators that J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees (Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) . T h e passage has a b r i e f parallel in War 1:571, w h i c h w e c o n s i d e r e d a b o v e (chapter 5 ) .
1
2
3
Cf. Ant. 14:490f. Ant. 15:232-236, 16:320ff., 392ff. Ant. 17:32-40.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II
261
A few r e m a r k s o n the general portrayal o f H e r o d in Ant. will h e l p to p r o v i d e a c o n t e x t for o u r interpretation. It is n o w well k n o w n that, o n 4
the w h o l e , H e r o d receives k i n d e r treatment in War than h e d o e s in Ant.
A t several p o i n t s the later w o r k i n t r o d u c e s direct criticism o f the I d u 5
m e a n k i n g for his v a n i t y a n d for his v i o l a t i o n o f the J e w i s h 6
criticism w h i c h w a s largely absent f r o m War.
rcaTpioc,
E q u a l l y effective in their
c u m u l a t i v e force are the m a n y small c h a n g e s that Ant. m a k e s in War's narrative that vitiate War's
flattering
( A n t i p a t e r ) , a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s .
portraits o f the k i n g , his father
7
It n e e d s to b e e m p h a s i z e d here that the shift in attitude is n o t s i m p l y f r o m a " p r o - H e r o d i a n " stance in War to an " a n t i - H e r o d i a n " stance in Ant. T h e later presentation, rather, is h i g h l y n u a n c e d . J o s e p h u s n o w of fers a p s y c h o l o g i c a l profile o f H e r o d , in o r d e r to e x p l a i n the r o o t s o f b o t h his v i c i o u s n e s s a n d his a m a z i n g g e n e r o s i t y . acknowledges H e r o d ' s valour,
9
beneficence,
a n d e v e n his p i e t y , in certain c o n t e x t s .
12
8
1 0
O u r a u t h o r still
frankly
d e v o t i o n to his f a m i l y ,
11
M o s t i m p o r t a n t , Ant. is still full
o f c o n d e m n a t i o n for the m e a n n e s s a n d i m p i e t y o f those within H e r o d ' s family a n d c o u r t w h o c o n s p i r e d against h i m .
1 3
It d o e s n o t f o l l o w , then,
b e c a u s e War h a d praised H e r o d a n d d e n o u n c e d his o p p o n e n t s , that Ant., w h i c h is m o r e critical o f the k i n g , m u s t a u t o m a t i c a l l y treat his e n e m i e s m o r e k i n d l y . J o s e p h u s n o w s e e m s p r e p a r e d to p o i n t o u t the
injustices
b o t h o f H e r o d a n d o f his o p p o n e n t s . Ant. consistently presents the Pharisees as H e r o d ' s o p p o n e n t s . W h i l e he w a s still g o v e r n o r o f the G a l i l e e ,
1 4
w e are t o l d , H e r o d i n c u r r e d
the
w r a t h o f the J e w i s h leaders b y , a m o n g o t h e r things, e x e c u t i n g m a n y o f the l o c a l b a n d i t s w i t h o u t the d u e p r o c e s s that w a s e n s h r i n e d in J e w i s h
4
Cf. Laqueur, Josephus, 17Iff.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1947; Thackeray, Josephus 65ff.; Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, X X V f.; Cohen, Josephus, iii; and chapter 7, above. E.g., Ant. 14:173; 15:182, 267, 280ff., 291, 299, 328f.; 16:lf., 159. Herod's violation of the laws is, however, implicit in the story of Judas and Mat tathias, esp. War 1:648-650, 653; 2:6-7. It is an interesting coincidence, if nothing more, that Herod's serious illness follows immediately on his execution of the pious offenders (cf. 1:656, evGev, and the parallel Ant. 17:168). Cf. chapter 7, above. Ant. 16:150-159. Ant. 14:430, 439-444, 462-464. Ant. 14:377; 15:305-316, 380-425. Ant. 14:348ff., 451ff. Ant. 14:482f.; 15:380-425, esp. 381-387, 421-423. Cf. e.g., Ant. 15:81, 213, 232-235 (Alexandra), 255f. (Costobarus); 16:8f., 66-77, 206 (Salome); 16:78-86, 87-90, 244-250, 302, 305-307; 319; 17:1-7, 32-35 (Antipater). Cf. Ant. 14:158f.; on the proper titles of Herod and his father Antipater, see 14:143f. and L C L edn., V I I , 514 n. d. 5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
1 4
CHAPTER ELEVEN
262 law.
1 5
A t the e n s u i n g trial, h o w e v e r , the m e m b e r s o f the S a n h e d r i n w e r e
o v e r a w e d b y H e r o d ' s p r e s e n c e a n d w e r e afraid to speak against h i m . T h e o n l y e x c e p t i o n w a s a certain S a m a i a s , " a n u p r i g h t m a n (8txocto$ avrjp) a n d for that r e a s o n s u p e r i o r to f e a r " ( 1 4 : 1 7 2 ) . T h i s m a n b e r a t e d the S a n h e d r i n a n d the k i n g ( H y r c a n u s )
1 6
for a l l o w i n g the
impertinent
I d u m e a n to m o c k J e w i s h l a w . H e p r e d i c t e d that H e r o d , t h o u g h a c q u i t ted, w o u l d o n e d a y p u n i s h b o t h H y r c a n u s a n d the S a n h e d r i n ( 1 4 : 1 7 4 ) . J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s that this p r o p h e c y w a s to b e fulfilled: w h e n H e r o d b e c a m e k i n g , h e killed H y r c a n u s a n d all o f the sanhedrists except for S a m a i a s . H e r o d spared this o n e , J o s e p h u s c l a i m s , for t w o r e a s o n s . First, he respected S a m a i a s ' s uprightness (otxoctoouvT)). S e c o n d , w h e n H e r o d arrived to a s s u m e his r o y a l p o s i t i o n , S a m a i a s : exhorted the people to admit Herod, having stated that because o f (their) sins, they would not be able to escape him (8ta TOCS apapxtocs ou SuvaaOat 8ta90-fetv auxov). (Ant.
14:176).
S a m a i a s , t h e n , is a p p a l l e d b y H e r o d ' s lawlessness a n d v i e w s his r o y a l a p p o i n t m e n t as a d i v i n e p u n i s h m e n t o f the J e w s . respects
his
adversary's
integrity
and
is
1 7
H e r o d , for his part,
grateful
for
his
support,
w h a t e v e r its m o t i v a t i o n . T h e next t i m e w e hear o f S a m a i a s , w e d i s c o v e r that h e w a s a Pharisee. In Ant. 1 5 : 3 - 4 , J o s e p h u s is e x p l a i n i n g that H e r o d , o n c e h e b e c a m e k i n g o f J u d e a , r e w a r d e d those w h o h a d taken his side w h i l e h e w a s still a c o m m o n e r . A m o n g those so r e w a r d e d w e r e " t h e Pharisee P o l l i o n a n d his disciple S a m a i a s ,
1 8
for d u r i n g the siege o f J e r u s a l e m these m e n [ h a d ]
c o u n s e l e d the citizens to a d m i t H e r o d " . T h u s , P o l l i o n is n o w i n c l u d e d as o n e w h o also r e c o m m e n d e d s u b m i s s i o n w h e n H e r o d arrived to take Jerusalem. 14:176) (15:4).
1 9
T o P o l l i o n also is attributed the p r e d i c t i o n ( o f Samaias!
that
Herod would
one day
persecute
his
erstwhile j u d g e s
W e n o w learn, therefore, that at least t w o Pharisees w e r e o p
p o s e d to H e r o d f r o m the start; i r o n i c a l l y , H e r o d h o n o u r e d t h e m b e c a u s e their call for s u b m i s s i o n , t h o u g h m o t i v a t e d b y the v i e w that H e r o d ' s reign w a s an i n e s c a p a b l e p u n i s h m e n t , served his e n d s well.
15
Ant. 14:163-167. On Hyrcanus IPs title at this point, cf. Ant. 14:151 and L C L edn., V I I , 523 n. f. Samaias's acquiesence in this punishment recalls Josephus's own rationale for sub mitting to Rome, as he elaborates it in War e.g., 4:323; 5:17-19, 401-404, 442-445, 6:110; 7:330-332); cf. Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 41ff. On the various proposals for identifying Pollion and Samaias, see the discussion and literature cited in Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 257 n. 81. Neusner, however, con siders such attempts "primitive and pointless" (Rabbinic Traditions, I, 5). The Epitome and the Latin have "Samaias" at 15:4, which fits with 14:176. But the major M S S support "Pollion", which also seems to be the lectio difficilior. 1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II
263
In 15:370, we hear yet again of Herod's favour toward Pollion and Samaias in spite of their opposition to him. Concerned about the faithfulness of his subjects, Josephus narrates, Herod took steps to en sure their loyalty: he banned public meetings, sent out spies, and demanded from everyone an oath of fidelity (15:366-368). Those who resisted the oath were done away with by every means possible (rcavxt Tporcco ex7tooa>v Ircotetro). Although Herod was pushing for the Pharisees Pollion and Samaias and their colleagues to take the oath: they did not consent to do so; yet they were not punished in the same ways as those [others] who refused (ou8' 6{JLOUO$ zoiq dpvTjaauivots IxoXdaOirjaav) for they were given respect on account of Pollion. (Ant. 15:370) W h a t this means, evidently, is that Herod's regard for Pollion prevented him
from punishing the Pharisees with death
" b y every possible
means", which is what the other protestors received; it would not seem to exclude lesser punishments. W e see here again that the Pharisees op pose Herod but that he favours them. T o summarize: incidental references to the Pharisees in Ant. 14 and 15 establish several themes and topics that will occur again in 17:41-45. First, individual Pharisees have been engaged in prediction or prophecy. Second, they have acquired a position of influence with Herod. Third, they are opposed to Herod because of his violation of Jewish law. Fourth, they have refused to take an oath of allegiance to the king. All of these points will be reprised in Ant. 17:41-45.
II. Key Terms In keeping with his common procedure, Josephus constructs our passage from a topic paragraph (17:41), which contains a summary characteriza tion of the Pharisees, followed by a brief narrative of events in which they were involved (17:42-45), which narrative elaborates on his sum mary remarks. T h e opening statement of our passage reads: There was also a certain segment of Jews that prided itself greatly on its extremely precise observance of the ancestral heritage and pretended [to observe] laws with which the Deity is pleased; by them the female faction was directed. Called Pharisees, these men were entirely capable of issuing predictions for the king's benefit, and yet, evidently, they rose up to com bat and injure [him]. xal rjv yap fxoptov xt 'IouSaix&v dvGpcoiwov e V e5axpt(Jcoaet (Jteya 9povouv TOO Twcxpiou xal vofxcov o% xatps^ *b Oetov 7Cpo<jrcoioufxevov, ot$ U7tfjxTO TJ Yovatxa>vC«us, Oaptaalot xaXouvxat, (JaatXeT Suvafi&vot {xdXtara rcpaaaeiv TcpofXTjSet^, xal TOO 7cpoo7crou et$ TO 7ioXeu,eTv xe xal pXowcxetv ercrjpuivoi. Several terms call for comment.
264
CHAPTER ELEVEN
A . poptov. T h e w o r d o c c u r s in J o s e p h u s o n l y here a n d at Ant. 3 : 1 8 2 , w h e r e h e c o u n t s seventy e l e m e n t s o r sections (poptoc) in the c a n d e l a b r u m o f the T a b e r n a c l e . Significantly, h o w e v e r , T h u c y d i d e s has poptov 8 times in his narrative. H e uses it to m e a n " s e g m e n t , p o r t i o n , part, o r divi sion";
2 0
four times h e has the phrase (Jpocxet popup, " a small p o r t i o n " .
2 1
T h i s parallel is significant b e c a u s e it is w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d that b o o k s 1719 o f Ant.
imitate T h u c y d i d e a n v o c a b u l a r y a n d s t y l e .
22
I f 17:41 also
recalls T h u c y d i d e s , then w e h a v e s o m e reason to c o n n e c t this passage with the b o o k s in w h i c h it a p p e a r s , a n d this c o n n e c t i o n m u s t h a v e s o m e b e a r i n g o n the q u e s t i o n o f a u t h o r s h i p . B . in' efjocxpiPcoaet peya 9p6vouv. T h e n o u n e£axpt(3a>ais o c c u r s o n l y here in J o s e p h u s . Nevertheless, it is built o n the stem dxptfJ—which is u b i q u i t o u s in o u r a u t h o r .
2 3
A s n o t e d a b o v e , this stem o c c u r s in several o f
J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the P h a r i s e e s :
24
they are a m o n g those w h o are
r e p u t e d to ( o r profess t o ) e x e r c i s e s u p e r i o r dxptfktoc w i t h respect to the vopot.
Further,
in Ant.
19:332,
w e read
o f a certain
Simon
from
25
J e r u s a l e m w h o e£axpt($dCetv Soxcov xd voptpa, w h i c h gives us the v e r b a l c o g n a t e o f o u r n o u n in c o n j u n c t i o n with " t h e l a w s " . N o t i c e again the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n o u r passage a n d this entire section o f Ant. A l t h o u g h the n o u n is u n i q u e , the phrase peya 9povouv, " p r i d i n g o n e self g r e a t l y " , o c c u r s a d o z e n times in J o s e p h u s ; in a l m o s t e v e r y c a s e , w e are certainly d e a l i n g with his o w n s t y l e .
26
I n 8 o f these instances, m o r e
o v e r , J o s e p h u s has the w h o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n , inl xtvt peya 9povouv.
27
I n War
7 : 3 8 3 , for e x a m p l e , Eleazar b . Y a i r , faced with the u n w i l l i n g n e s s o f his followers to kill t h e m s e l v e s , e x h o r t s , " B u t w e , p r i d i n g ourselves greatly o n o u r c o u r a g e (src' dvSpeta peya 9povouvTe$), r e v o l t e d f r o m
Rome".
J o s e p h u s uses the s a m e p h r a s e w h e n he speaks o f the Philistines w h o , t h o u g h they p r i d e d themselves greatly o n their c o u r a g e ( p e y a in' dvSpeta 9povouvxcov), w e r e killed b y D a v i d ' s a r m y (Ant. 7 : 3 0 1 ) . O t h e r s are said " t o p r i d e themselves g r e a t l y " o n their s u c c e s s e s , simply o n " t h e m s e l v e s " .
28
o n the l a w s ,
2 9
or
3 0
2 0
Cf. Thucydides 1.85.1, 45.7, 2.39, 65.12; 6.86.5, 92.5; 7.58.2; 8.46.2. Thucydides 1.85.1, 45.7; 6.92.5; 8.46.2. Thackeray, Josephus, HOff. Cf. the discussion in chapter 12, below. Cf. chapter 4, above. Cf. War 1:110, 2:162; Life 191; also A . I. Baumgarten, " N a m e " , 414ff. The Epitome has eljocxpiPouv. War 7:383; Ant. 3:83; 4:100; 6:298; 7:301; 15:10, 372, (pei'Cov 6vcov); Life 43, 52; Ag.Ap. 1:99; 2:136, 286. War 7:383, Ant. 4:100; 6:298; 7:301; 15:372 Ag.Ap. 1:99; 2:136. 286. Ag.Ap. 1:99. This comes in a citation of Manetho, but Josephus may have retouched his source. Ag.Ap. 1:286. Ag.Ap. 4:100. 2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
9P
27
2 8
2 9
3 0
265
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II It is, therefore,
entirely in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h a n
u s a g e that
the
Pharisees s h o u l d b e said to h a v e " p r i d e d themselves greatly o n their e x t r e m e p r e c i s i o n " . W e n o t e that T h u c y d i d e s has the phrase ev)"
53
a n d as o n e w h o
T h e m a i n r e a s o n for D a n i e l ' s greatness, w e
are t o l d , is that h e left b e h i n d a written timetable o f future events, w h i c h allows us t o test the a c c u r a c y o f his p r o p h e c i e s (oOev rjptv TO TTJS 7cpo97)TeiocvaxptfSfj StaSoxrjv) s o o n after the E x i l e .
5 8
B l e n k i n s o p p interprets the p a s s a g e , in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h u s ' s restricted use o f the rcpo97)T-word g r o u p , t o m e a n that p r o p h e c y c e a s e d altogether at that t i m e .
5 9
Paret a n d v a n U n n i k , o n the o t h e r h a n d , e m p h a s i z e the
adjective; they a r g u e that it w a s o n l y the e x a c t s u c c e s s i o n that failed a n d that p r o p h e t s c o n t i n u e d t o a p p e a r s p o r a d i c a l l y in J o s e p h u s ' s
time.
6 0
S i n c e , h o w e v e r , e v e r y o n e agrees that the activity o f p r e d i c t i n g the future w a s , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w i d e s p r e a d in his d a y , the d e b a t e is i n c o n s e quential Essenes,
for o u r p u r p o s e s . J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that h e h i m s e l f , 62
and some Pharisees
63
a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t the
61
many
future.
J o s e p h u s asserts his ability t o tell the future in the c o n t e x t o f his i m p e n d i n g c a p t u r e at J o t a p a t a (War 3:350ff). U n s u r e w h e t h e r to d i e v o l u n tarily with his c o m r a d e s o r t o s u r r e n d e r t o the R o m a n s ( s o h e says), h e s u d d e n l y recalled " t h o s e nightly d r e a m s " in w h i c h G o d h a d f o r e t o l d to h i m the fate o f the J e w s a n d the destinies o f V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s . F o r , h e a l l o w s , h e c o u l d interpret
d r e a m s a n d w a s able to d e t e r m i n e
the
m e a n i n g o f a m b i g u o u s d i v i n e utterances, b e i n g a priest. N o w b o u n d b y a sense o f s o l e m n o b l i g a t i o n , as G o d ' s servant (Staxovo^), t o c o n v e y his p r e d i c t i o n s to V e s p a s i a n , J o s e p h u s is c o m p e l l e d to d e c l i n e the offer o f death a n d h e surrenders t o the R o m a n s . Rajak,
understandably,
d o u b t s that this a c c o u n t is a n y t h i n g m o r e
than a desperate stratagem t o e x p l a i n J o s e p h u s ' s e m b a r r a s s i n g flight t o the e n e m y .
6 4
V a n U n n i k , h o w e v e r , rejects this possibility b e c a u s e : ( 1 )
J o s e p h u s ' s p r o p h e c y b e f o r e V e s p a s i a n is i n d e p e n d e n t l y attested in o t h e r comtemporary sources
65
a n d ( 2 ) J o s e p h u s ' s writings c o n t a i n m a n y in
d i c a t i o n s that he t h o u g h t o f h i m s e l f as a p r o p h e t . 5 7
6 6
I n the sequel to the
Cf. Ant. 10:79., 142 (on Jeremiah); 10:276 (on Daniel); also Blenkinsopp, "Pro phecy', 244f. Ag.Ap. 1:41. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 240. This view also corresponds to several rabbinic statements, loc. cit. n. 4. Paret, "Pharisaismus", 834f; van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 48. War 3:352-354. Ant. 13:31 If. (cf. War 1:78); 15:371-379; 17:346 (cf. War 2:113). Ant. 14:174; 15:4. Rajak, Josephus, 18f. Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 42; cf. Suetonius, Vespasian 4, and Tacitus, Histories 5:13; also Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 7Iff. Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 42ff. 5 8
5 9
6 0
61
62
63
6 4
6 5
6 6
270
CHAPTER ELEVEN
J o t a p a t a story, for e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s
claims that h e h a d
accurately
p r e d i c t e d o t h e r events (as well as V e s p a s i a n ' s rise), i n c l u d i n g the fall o f J o t a p a t a a n d his o w n c a p t i v i t y . phetic self-understanding
67
Further indications o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r o
are: ( 3 ) his o c c a s i o n a l r e f o r m u l a t i o n
biblical narrative so as to e n h a n c e the role o f p r o p h e t s ;
68
that h e insinuates b e t w e e n his o w n c a r e e r a n d that o f J e r e m i a h ; reflections o n the present v a l u e o f p r o p h e c y ; tion
o f prophecy
with
the
priesthood;
7 0
71
o f the
( 4 ) the parallels 6 9
( 5 ) his
( 6 ) his consistent correla
( 7 ) his
omission,
in
his
p a r a p h r a s e o f 1 M a c c a b e e s , o f that w o r k ' s l a m e n t o v e r the a b s e n c e o f authorized p r o p h e t s ;
72
a n d ( 8 ) his stated intention to b e g i n w r i t i n g War
at the p o i n t w h e r e " t h e p r o p h e t s " e n d e d their a c c o u n t s . little d o u b t , Josephus
in v i e w o f v a n
"wiinschte
Unnik's
sich, als P r o p h e t
and
7 3
There can be
B l e n k i n s o p p ' s w o r k , that
angesehen
zu w i s s e n " .
7 4
He
c o u n t s h i m s e l f ( d o u b t l e s s n o t the least) a m o n g the m o d e r n - d a y seers. A final pertinent o b s e r v a t i o n arising f r o m the w o r k o f v a n U n n i k a n d B l e n k i n s o p p is that J o s e p h u s a n d his fellow-seers c l a i m a dual basis for their p r e d i c t i o n s , n a m e l y , scriptural exegesis a n d i m m e d i a t e d i v i n e in spiration.
75
B e c a u s e the a u t h o r i z e d p r o p h e t s h a d r e c o r d e d all the events
o f the future, the seer o f J o s e p h u s ' s d a y h a d to b e g i n with a t h o r o u g h knowledge
o f the
ancient
prophetic
texts.
This
principle
explains
Josephus's
r e m a r k that he is an interpreter o f d r e a m s a n d skilled in
d i v i n a t i o n , b e i n g a priest (tov tepeu?) a n d thus b e i n g familiar with the p r o p h e c i e s in the s a c r e d scriptures (TOC? 7upo97)Tetocais is t h o r o u g h l y J o s e p h a n (cf. War 1:110; Life 1 9 1 ) , as are also: the c o n s t r u c t i o n lizl Ttvt peyoc 9povouv, the reference to TO rcaTpiov xat ot vopot ( o r 6 rcaTpto^ vopo$), a n d the v e r b 7ipoa7cotoupai in this c o n t e x t (cf. Ant. 18:81 a n d Soxeco). 2 . T h e format o f the p e r i c o p e — a n o p e n i n g c l a i m refuted b y the story that f o l l o w s — m a t c h e s o t h e r Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s v e r y well (cf. War 1:110-114; Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) . 3. A s S c h w a r t z has n o t e d , the use o f 7toXepetv a n d pXaTCTetv in o u r
1 1 3
The most obvious tension, it seems to me, between the earlier descriptions of the Pharisees under Herod and Ant. 17:41 ff. has apparently not impressed many others. Namely, 14:172 describes Samaias as an upright man (8txoctO£ dvrjp) and superior to fear, whereas our passage presents the Pharisees as scoundrels. Notice, however, that when Josephus is talking about Samaias's virtues, he does not mention that the man was a Pharisee; that datum does not appear until somewhat later (15:3f.), by which time the reader might have forgotten the earlier praise. In 14:172, Josephus wants to contrast the lawless Herod and the cowardly Sanhedrin with an upright man who was not afraid to voice the truth. If his source told him that the man was Samaias, he could not very well suppress that fact; what he could do and did do was to omit the datum that Samaias was a Pharisee.
279
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II
passage to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees' actions t o w a r d rulers fits w i t h o t h e r passages in J o s e p h u s (War 1:67; Ant.
13: 4 0 1 ) .
4 . T h e entire t h e m e o f o u r p a s s a g e , that o f foretelling the future, is i m p o r t a n t to J o s e p h u s . H i s c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the P h a r i s e e s ' p r o p h e t i c abilities a n d their c l a i m to &xpi(kux a c c o r d s with his u s a g e e l s e w h e r e .
1 1 4
T h a t the Pharisees s h o u l d a c q u i r e their f o r e k n o w l e d g e t h r o u g h d i v i n e manifestations ( 1 7 : 4 3 ) also fits w i t h his overall p r e s e n t a t i o n .
115
Finally,
the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f rcpoyvcoats a n d 7cpoXeya> ( 1 7 : 4 3 ) is paralleled else w h e r e in J o s e p h u s . 5. W e n o t e d a b o v e the p e c u l i a r phrase ot£ 6 OocpiaocTos eXeyev ( 1 7 : 4 4 ) . W h a t is p e c u l i a r is that the Pharisees s h o u l d b e referred to b y a collective singular. O n e w o n d e r s w h e t h e r this figure o f s p e e c h , as the English t e r m " t h e T a x m a n " , c o n v e y s a certain resentment at the i n e x o r a b i l i t y a n d p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f the institution
in q u e s t i o n . H o w e v e r that m a y b e ,
precisely the s a m e phrase appears in Ant.
1 8 : 1 7 . J o s e p h u s will r e p o r t
there that a m o n g the S a d d u c e e s are " m e n o f the highest s t a n d i n g " b u t that they are c o m p e l l e d b y p o p u l a r sentiment
to f o l l o w
"what
the
Pharisee says (ot£ 6 Oaptaocto^ X e y e i ) " . But n o t i c e that S c h w a r t z h i m s e l f attributes Ant. 18:17 to J o s e p h u s J o s e p h a n influence t h e r e .
1 1 7
1 1 6
a n d that H o l s c h e r allows a d e g r e e o f
Further, the c o n t e x t in 18:17 s e e m s to c o n
firm the interpretation o f the phrase suggested a b o v e : the a u t h o r l a m e n t s the p o w e r o f the Pharisees. A n d that is precisely the attitude w e h a v e d i s c o v e r e d in J o s e p h u s .
1 1 8
It is difficult to e s c a p e the c o n c l u s i o n that the
rueful phrase ot£ 6 OocptaocToc sX&Y&v in Ant. 1 7 : 4 4 c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s himself. 6. A final i n d i c a t i o n o f J o s e p h a n authorship is the a u t h o r ' s e v i d e n t familiarity
with
eschatological themes,
which
the
Bagoas
incident
reveals. W e k n o w , h o w e v e r , that J o s e p h u s w a s intensely interested in the p r o p h e t s a n d especially in those, like J e r e m i a h p r e d i c t e d the u p h e a v a l s a n d events o f his o w n d a y .
and Daniel, w h o 1 1 9
T o c o n c l u d e : e x c e p t w h e r e h e w a s p r e p a r e d to i n v e n t stories ex nihilo, J o s e p h u s h a d to rely o n s o u r c e s o f s o m e k i n d for all o f the events that o c c u r r e d b e f o r e his o w n t i m e . N o o n e will d e n y that he relied h e a v i l y o n s o u r c e s for his narrative. N e v e r t h e l e s s , w e h a v e n o basis o n w h i c h to a s s u m e that, w h e r e h e follows a s o u r c e , h e d o e s so m e c h a n i c a l l y a n d
1 1 4
Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 247; War 3:352; 2:159. Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 254f., 258; van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 43; War 3:352; Ant. 17:345ff. "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f. Holscher, "Josephus", 1991. Cf. War 1:110 ff.; 2:162 (aTudyovxes); Ant. 13:288, 401; cf. Life 191ff. Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 244ff.; van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 52f. 1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
1 1 9
280
CHAPTER ELEVEN
w i t h o u t i m p a r t i n g his o w n p e r s p e c t i v e . T h i s m u s t b e p r o v e n in a n y g i v e n case a n d , in the light o f recent studies, it is an increasingly difficult p o s i t i o n to sustain. W e h a v e seen, for e x a m p l e , that J o s e p h u s
con
sistently r e w o r k s his L X X s o u r c e so as to c o n v e y his o w n t h e m e s a n d interests. H e likewise m a k e s the H a s m o n e a n history his o w n , a l t h o u g h s o m e e l e m e n t s are less perfectly r e d a c t e d than others. T h e f o r e g o i n g analysis has s o u g h t to s h o w that the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is w h o l l y intelligible as J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o n s i d e r e d f o r m u l a t i o n . W i t h all o f its o b v i o u s hostility t o w a r d the Pharisees, the passage c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s himself.
CHAPTER TWELVE
ANT
18:12-15: T H E P H A R I S E E S A M O N G T H E J E W I S H S C H O O L S , III
J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t a m b i t i o u s portrait o f the Pharisees c o m e s in his
final
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the three J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 . It is in this passage that R a s p finds the m o s t c o m p e l l i n g e v i d e n c e o f Ant. 's p o s i t i v e re-evaluation
o f the P h a r i s e e s .
1
T h e p u r p o s e o f the
c h a p t e r is to interpret the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in Ant.
present 18:12-15
a n d t h e r e b y to d e t e r m i n e its relationship to the o t h e r Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s . A n initial difficulty is that o u r passage falls within the section o f Ant. ( b o o k s 17-19) that c o n t a i n s s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' s
m o s t difficult G r e e k .
T h a c k e r a y attributed those b o o k s t o an inept literary assistant, w h o m he d e s i g n a t e d the " T h u c y d i d e a n h a c k " .
2
O f him Thackeray
remarked:
This journalistic hack is verbose and prefers two or more words to one. . . . T h e commonplace word is studiously shunned and replaced by the unusual and bizarre *
Although Thackeray's
particular e x p l a n a t i o n
o f the
shortcomings o f
these b o o k s as the w o r k o f a literary assistant has n o t p r o v e n d u r a b l e ,
4
his p e r c e p t i o n o f the difficulties stands as a c a u t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t e r .
5
T h e passage o n the s c h o o l s in Ant.
18 shares the p r o b l e m a t i c l a n g u a g e
6
a n d syntax o f b o o k s 1 7 - 1 9 ; the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the Pharisees' v i e w o f fate a n d free will, for e x a m p l e , p o s e s f a m o u s p r o b l e m s .
7
I n v i e w o f these difficulties, o n e ' s interpretive a i m s c a n o n l y h a v e a respectable c h a n c e o f fulfillment if they are m o d e s t . It will suffice if w e are able to ascertain: ( a ) the function o f the Pharisee passage in its c o n text; ( b ) the m a i n p o i n t s that J o s e p h u s is m a k i n g in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f
1
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 29f., 32ff. Thackeray Josephus, 11 Of. Ibid., 11 If. Cf. Richards, "Composition", 39; Peterson, "Literary Projects", 261 n. 5; Shutt, Studies, Rajak, Josephus, 233ff; Moehring, "Novelistic Elements", 145f.; and the ex cursus to Part I, above. Cf. Richards, "Composition", 37f. Cf. Rivkin's discussion, Revolution, 318f. W e are grateful to him for soliciting in dependent translations of Ant. 18:11-15 by S. Topping and by A . Damico and M . Yaffe, 320f. Cf. Schlatter, Theologie, 209f. n. 1 and Thackeray, " O n Josephus' Statement of the Pharisees' Doctrine of Fate (Antiq. xviii, 1, 3 ) " , HTR 25 (1932), 93. 2
3
4
5
6
7
282
CHAPTER TWELVE
the g r o u p ; ( c ) w h e t h e r e a c h o f these points is n e w o r repetitive o f earlier discussions, with respect to b o t h c o n t e n t a n d attitude; a n d ( d ) w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f is the a u t h o r .
I. Context \nAnt.
1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 , J o s e p h u s offers a d e s c r i p t i o n o f three J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i
cal schools (9iXoao9toci): Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , a n d Essenes. T h i s passage has almost exactly the s a m e p o s i t i o n a n d function in the narrative as War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 h a d in the earlier w o r k . J u d e a has just b e c o m e a R o m a n p r o v i n c e , u n d e r the prefecture o f C o p o n i u s (War 2:117/Ant.
18:If.). This
d e v e l o p m e n t p r o v o k e s a certain J u d a s a n d his followers to d7c6araat? ( War 2:118/Ant.
1 8 : 4 ) , for they refuse t o b e c o m e subservient to R o m e .
N e w details in Ant. are: ( a ) that the particular a g g r a v a t i o n w a s an a p praisal o f J e w i s h p r o p e r t y c o n d u c t e d b y the n e w g o v e r n o r o f Syria ( Q u i r i n i u s ) ; ( b ) that the J e w s in general w e r e offended b y this m o v e ( 1 8 : 3 ) ; ( c ) that m o s t o f the p e o p l e , h o w e v e r , w e r e pacified b y the c o u n s e l o f the h i g h priest J o a z a r ( 1 8 : 3 ) ; a n d ( d ) that J u d a s , a d e t e r m i n e d h o l d - o u t , w o n the s u p p o r t o f S a d d o k , a Pharisee. T o g e t h e r , these a d d i t i o n s h a v e the effect o f m a k i n g the s c h o o l o f J u d a s m o r e intelligible t o the reader; w e h a v e already o b s e r v e d in Ant. SL t e n d e n c y to explain the m o t i v e s o f all par 8
ties i n v o l v e d in a g i v e n e v e n t . Nevertheless, in b o t h War 2 a n d Ant. 18 J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the three " r e c o g n i z e d " J e w i s h schools as a m e a n s o f e x p o s i n g the n o v e l t y a n d strangeness o f J u d a s ' s p h i l o s o p h y o f u n c o n d i tional f r e e d o m .
A . The Pharisees and the Philosophy ofJudas T h e parallel a c c o u n t s in War a n d Ant. o f the relationship ( o r lack thereof) b e t w e e n J u d a s ' s followers a n d the a c c r e d i t e d p h i l o s o p h i e s o f J u d a i s m h a v e g i v e n rise to a p r o b l e m that bears significantly o n o u r t o p i c . I n War 2 : 1 1 8 , n a m e l y , J o s e p h u s c l a i m e d that the aipeat? o f J u d a s h a d n o t h i n g at all in c o m m o n with the others (ouSev xoiq aXXots rcpoaeotxcos). I n Ant. 18, after discussing the other three schools, he returns to J u d a s ' s f o l l o w i n g a n d remarks: This school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master. (Ant. 18:23; Feldman)
8
Cf. Ant. 13:318f. (on Aristobulus), 381f. (on Alexander Janneus), 423f. Aristobulus); 16:150ff. (on Herod). All of these passages are absent from War.
(on
283
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
pev Xowca rcavTa yvcopyj TCOV Oapiaaicov opoXoyouat SUOVIXYJTOJ; 8e TOU IXeuOepou epcos eartv auTOt? povov jfrepdva * 8ea7u6TT)v TOV 9e6v u7cetX7)9oatv.
TOC
x a
It is a scholarly c o m m o n p l a c e that these t w o passages are plainly c o n tradictory.
9
T h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w is that War 2 : 1 1 8 w a s m o t i v a t e d b y
J o s e p h u s ' s desire to c o v e r u p the i n v o l v e m e n t o f his o w n p a r t y ( i . e . , the Pharisees) in the revolt; b y the t i m e he writes Ant.,
h o w e v e r , he c a n
af
ford to d i v u l g e the truth o f the m a t t e r , w h i c h is that the followers o f J u d a s w e r e s i m p l y a " r a d i c a l w i n g " o f the P h a r i s e e s .
10
R a s p gives this
v i e w a p e c u l i a r twist. H e a r g u e s that in War J o s e p h u s d e n i g r a t e d p a r t y o f J u d a s in o r d e r to disguise his o w n past as a r e b e l ; b u t in
the Ant.,
his w o r k o f r e p e n t a n c e , J o s e p h u s raises the stature o f the rebels b y link i n g t h e m with the Pharisees, w h o m he n o w p r a i s e s :
11
W o r t e der Anerkennung und Verehrung widmet er aber den Anhangern des Judas. Sie stimmen auch, wie er nun hervorhebt, mit den Pharisaern in den meisten Stucken u b e r e i n . 12
S o in R a s p ' s v i e w , Ant.
18 h o n o u r s the Pharisees, a n d the followers o f
J u d a s benefit b y their association, n e w l y c o n c e d e d , w i t h the
favoured
group. In
the
present study w e
cannot
attempt to resolve the
p r o b l e m s o f the o r i g i n a n d identity o f J u d a s ' s f o l l o w e r s . cerned, however,
w i t h the
13
historical
W e are c o n
c o r r e c t interpretation o f J o s e p h u s o n
the
Pharisees. T o that e n d , I s u b m i t the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s . 1. In War 2 : 1 1 8 , the oti'peaig o f J u d a s w a s p r e s e n t e d as a single-issue p a r t y a n d it w a s in the c o n t e x t o f that o n e i s s u e — u n c o n d i t i o n a l f r e e d o m f r o m earthly rulers—that, J o s e p h u s c l a i m e d , they h a d n o t h i n g in c o m m o n w i t h the o t h e r s c h o o l s .
1 4
In Ant. 18, J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g to m o d i f y
his earlier c l a i m . 2 . T h e parallel to War 2 : 1 1 8 in Ant.
18 is n o t § 23 b u t rather § § 4 - 1 0 .
But in those sentences J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s a n d e v e n intensifies his earlier c l a i m that the p h i l o s o p h y o f J u d a s w a s entirely foreign to the m a i n s t r e a m of Jewish thought. 9
1 5
C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g representative e x c e r p t s :
So, e.g., Paret, "Pharisaismus", 818; Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 39, 44, 47; Farmer, Maccabees, 33f. n. 23; Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 425; Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 260; Black, "Judas", 50; Hengel, Zeloten, 83f., 89f. So Paret, "Pharisaismus", 818; Black, "Judas of Galilee and Josephus's 'Fourth Philosophy'", Josephus-Studien, edd. O . Betz, K . Haacker, P. Schafer, 50; Hengel, Zeloten, 89f.; Alon, Jews, 44ff.; R . Meyer, Tradition and Neuschopfung, 52 n. 4, 54ff. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 39, 44, 47. Ibid., 47. But see the studies by Farmer, Hengel, and Black. See chapter 6, above. O f all of the commentators, Hengel is the most sensitive to the importance of the context; he concludes that the contradiction is only apparent (scheinbar), Zeloten, 91. 1 0
11
12
1 3
1 4
1 5
284
CHAPTER TWELVE these men sowed the seed of every kind of misery, which so afflicted the nation that words are inadequate . . . . Here is a lesson that an innovation and reform in ancestral traditions (rj TCOV 7uaTptcov xatviats xat peTapoXrj) weighs heavily in the scale in leading to the destruction of the congregation of the people. In this case certainly, Judas and Saddok started among us an intrusive fourth school o f philosophy (TeTapTTjv 9tXoao9tav ercetaaxTOV TjpTv eyeipavTes). . . . They filled the body politic immediately with tumult, also planting the seeds of those troubles which subsequently overtook it, all because of the novelty o f this hitherto unknown philosophy (TCO aauvrjOet TcpOTepov 9tXoao9tas). . . . (Feldman)
It is difficult to i m a g i n e h o w J o s e p h u s c o u l d assert a n y m o r e clearly the n o v e l t y a n d strangeness o f J u d a s ' s p h i l o s o p h y ! S i n c e this passage is c o n siderably l o n g e r a n d m o r e forceful than the War parallel, it c a n hardly b e interpreted as " w o r d s o f r e c o g n i t i o n a n d e s t e e m " for the party o f Judas. 3. W h e n J o s e p h u s d o e s c o m e to say that, " f o r the r e s t " (TOC Xot7udc), the fourth p h i l o s o p h y agrees with the Pharisees, h e is patently talking a b o u t their non-distinctive teachings ( 1 8 : 2 3 ) .
1 6
But this statement m e a n s
little, since the q u e s t i o n o f h o w o n e r e s p o n d s to R o m a n rule w a s the crucial q u e s t i o n o f the d a y a n d the raison d'etre o f J u d a s ' s party. M o r e over, Josephus popular beliefs.
consistently presents 17
That
the
Pharisees
as e x p o n e n t s o f
the fourth p h i l o s o p h y , in its non-distinctive
teachings, s h o u l d agree with these c o m m o n beliefs ( e . g . , the i m m o r t a l i t y o f souls) a n d n o t with those o f either the h i g h - b o r n S a d d u c e e s o r the sec tarian Essenes is neither surprising n o r v e r y illuminating. I n d e e d , o n e is t e m p t e d to stand R a s p ' s t h e o r y o n its h e a d . G i v e n J o s e p h u s ' s a b i d i n g distaste for the rebel party, o n e m u s t ask w h e t h e r his n e w insinuation o f links b e t w e e n t h e m and the Pharisees, o n m i n o r points o f p h i l o s o p h y , d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a gratuitous vilification o f the Pharisees.
18
T h e same q u e s t i o n arises with respect to J o s e p h u s ' s n e w
c l a i m that a Pharisee n a m e d S a d d o k was a c o - f o u n d e r o f the w r e t c h e d f r e e d o m - l o v i n g school ( 1 8 : 4 ) . S i n c e he m a k e s clear his distaste for the rebels, what else d o e s he a c h i e v e b y c o n n e c t i n g t h e m with the Pharisees? If these notices d o i m p l y a d e n i g r a t i o n o f the Pharisees, they a c c o r d with the sentiments that J o s e p h u s has expressed a b o u t the g r o u p thus far in 19
Ant
T o s u m m a r i z e : the c o n t e x t o f Ant.
1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 , o n the three J e w i s h
schools, is v e r y similar to that o f the parallel in War 2 . J o s e p h u s repeats and intensifies his portrayal o f J u d a s ' s p r o g r a m m e as the result o f an 1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
Cf. Cf. As As
Hengel, Zeloten, 90f. War 2:162; Ant. 13:296-298; and now 18:15. Holscher, "Josephus", 1991, seems also to think. in 13:388, 400-432; 17:41-45.
285
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
aberrant details
20
philosophy.
That
h e is willing to exploit i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l
to insinuate links b e t w e e n the rebels a n d the Pharisees p r o b a b l y
indicates his antipathy t o w a r d the latter. W h y J o s e p h u s d i d n o t i n c l u d e these
anti-Pharisaic
speculation.
notices
(18:4,23)
in
War
is
a
matter
for
21
B . The Pharisees Among the Three Schools J o s e p h u s o p e n s his discussion o f the three r e c o g n i z e d schools w i t h the o b s e r v a t i o n that: A m o n g the Jews from earliest times (ex TOU rcavu apxatou) there were three philosophies o f the ancestral traditions (TCOV 7cocTptcov): that o f the Essenes, that o f the Sadducees, and third, those who are called Pharisees also engaged in philosophy. (18:11) I n its c o n t e x t the phrase ex TOUTCOCVUapxatou is less an attempt to date the o r i g i n o f the s c h o o l s than it is a contrast to r\ TCOV rcaTpuov xatviat?
( 1 8 : 9 ) , w h i c h phrase describes the s c h o o l o f J u d a s .
2 2
T h i s contrast
focuses the w h o l e p o i n t o f the discussion. T h e three r e c o g n i z e d s c h o o l s , unlike
that
o f Judas,
are
ancient a n d
therefore a u t h o r i z e d " s u b -
p h i l o s o p h i e s " o f the national p h i l o s o p h y . N o t i c e that the o r d e r o f the schools in the o p e n i n g list ( 1 8 : 1 1 ) is reversed vis-a-vis War 2 : 1 1 9 and Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 , so that the Essenes n o w a p p e a r first a n d the Pharisees last. O n the o t h e r h a n d , in the o r d e r o f discussion the Pharisees a p p e a r first a n d the Essenes last. I n War 2 , the Essenes w e r e discussed first a n d in Ant. 13:17Iff. they w e r e discussed s e c o n d . R a s p finds particular significance in the gradual slippage o f the Essenes in the o r d e r o f discussion; he thinks that it reflects J o s e p h u s ' s 2 0
Inconsequential, because he has to admit that the philosophy of unconditional freedom is entirely alien to all of the major schools, including the Pharisees. If we have correctly assessed the allusions to Pharisaic links with the fourth philoso phy as rather wild insinuations, their absence from War may result from that work's greater discipline of style and content, on which see Niese, HZ, 207f., and Thackeray, L C L edn., II, xiiif. The noun xatvtat?, ' 'innovation", occurs only here in Josephus but several cognates, such as xatvo7uoteto, xatvo?, xatvoTopito, xatvoupyeco, and xatvoupyta do appear throughout his writings, often with pejorative connotations. He is able to exploit the dou ble meaning of the root xoctv—as ''revolution" (cf. War 6:343; 7:410; Ant. 7:362) and as "innovation" in the laws (War 5:402; 7:259; Ant. 8:245; 9:96, 250; 20:216-218; Ap. 2:250-252)—to emphasize that, for the Jews, revolution is an innovation. In War 2:414, he makes the converse point that innovation (the cessation of sacrifice for the Romans) is tantamount to revolution. Josephus's exploitation of the shift between "innovation" and "revolution" is even more striking in his use of vetoTeptCto/vetoTepta^ and cognates; cf. Rengstorf, Concordance, s.v., esp. Ant. 18:10. For Josephus, with his conviction that Jewish law and custom were prescribed by Moses and fixed for all time, "new" is a term of abuse. 2 1
2 2
286
CHAPTER TWELVE
c h a n g i n g attitudes t o w a r d the g r o u p .
2 3
S i n c e J o s e p h u s refers the r e a d e r
( 1 8 : 1 1 ) b a c k t o War 2 , R a s p infers that h e intends a subtle c o r r e c t i o n o f his earlier p o r t r a y a l .
24
Similarly, b o t h R a s p a n d N e u s n e r b e l i e v e that the
Pharisees o f Ant. 18 r e c e i v e m u c h better e x p o s u r e than they h a d in War 2, at the e x p e n s e o f the Essenes; the latter are " c u t d o w n t o s i z e " .
2 5
N e u s n e r attributes this r e - e v a l u a t i o n t o J o s e p h u s ' s ( a l l e g e d ) n e w , p r o Pharisaic o u t l o o k i n Ant. -Life. T h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n t o d o u b t , h o w e v e r , that the o r d e r in w h i c h the schools are d i s c u s s e d , the a m o u n t o f space d e v o t e d t o e a c h , o r the t o n e of Josephus's
remarks
indicate
a n y re-evaluation
i n f a v o u r o f the
Pharisees. First, a l t h o u g h the Essenes d o r e c e i v e m u c h less space than they h a d in the r e m a r k a b l e p a n e g y r i c o f War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 , they still m e r i t fuller c o v e r a g e than either the Pharisees o r the S a d d u c e e s .
2 6
More im
portant is the t o n e o f the d e s c r i p t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e s such r e m a r k s as the following: T h e y [the Essenes] deserve admiration in contrast to all others w h o claim their share of virtue (aiftov 8' OCUTCOV Oaupaaat rcapa rcavTas TOU$ apeTfjs peTOCTCOtoupevous)
27
because such qualities as theirs were never found before
a m o n g any Greek or b a r b a r i a n
28
people, nay, not even briefly, but have
been a m o n g them in constant practice and never interrupted since they adopted them from of old.
W e h a v e h e r e u n q u a l i f i e d , unrestrained praise o n the part o f J o s e p h u s . It is w h o l l y consistent with the t e n o r o f his portrayal o f the Essenes in War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 a n d Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 3 , 3 7 9 . E q u a l l y consistent with his earlier presentations are his r e m a r k s o n the Pharisees ( 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 ) . N o w h e r e d o e s J o s e p h u s express direct a p p r o v a l o r c o m m e n d a t i o n o f this g r o u p ; h e always says that they s e e m t o b e , are r e p u t e d to b e , o r p r e t e n d t o b e (ooxeco, rcpooTtotoupoct) the m o s t faithful adherents t o the l a w s . A c c o r d i n g l y , in o u r passage h e a c k n o w l e d g e s o n l y their m a s s i v e p o p u l a r i t y with the p e o p l e (ot Srjpot) a n d the cities (at 7c6Xei$).
29
It is e x t r e m e l y d o u b t f u l ,
h o w e v e r , that this aristocrat shares the p o p u l a r e n t h u s i a s m (see b e l o w ) .
2 3
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 29ff. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 31: "Die Verschiedenartigkeit der neuen Schilderung in Verbindung mit dem Hinweis [to War 2] lasst sich nur erklaren aus dem Wunsch des Autors, die altere Darstellung zu korrigieren." Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 232; cf. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 33f. The Essenes receive 5 Niese sections ( = 25 lines of Greek); the Pharisees get 4 sec tions ( = 22 lines of Greek); and the Sadducees get 2 sections ( = 1 1 lines of Greek). Similar phrases occur at Ant. 3:58 and 18:278. They echo Thucydides 2.51.5. Notice that Josephus distinctly includes the Jews among the "Barbarians" (War 1:3, 16; Ag.Ap. 1:6-14, esp. 8); cf. Collomp, "Platz", 292f. Ant. 18:15. 2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
287
T h e fact that J o s e p h u s discusses the Essenes last a n d the Pharisees first p r o b a b l y indicates n o t h i n g m o r e than his t e n d e n c y t o v a r y his style a n d presentation in Ant. o v e r against War; this t e n d e n c y is w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d b y N i e s e , w h o cites o u r passage as an e x a m p l e .
3 0
I n a n y case, the o r d e r
o f discussion in Ant. 18 c o r r e s p o n d s exactly to the o r d e r o f the schools in the lists at War 2 : 1 1 9 a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 . O n e is hard pressed to find any development here. A l l o f these contextual issues will b e significant for the
interpretation
o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 o n the Pharisees. W e m a y n o w p r o c e e d directly to the passage itself.
I I . Five Statements About the Pharisees A s in War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 , the description o f the Pharisees in o u r passage c o m p r i s e s several statements o n discrete t o p i c s . It will facilitate o u r in terpretation if w e c o n s i d e r e a c h o f the five items in turn. F o u r o f the five statements repeat
points m a d e earlier.
It w o u l d b e superfluous
to
rehearse the b a c k g r o u n d a n d parallel material in these cases b u t w e shall n e e d to b e sensitive to a n y c h a n g e s o f v o c a b u l a r y o r c o n s t r u c t i o n .
A . Avoidance of Luxury
(18:12a)
12a. ot TS yap <X>aptaatot TTJV StatTOtv eijeoTeXtCouatv ouSev iq TO paXaxcoTepov ev8t8ovTev7| is, a g a i n , characteristic o f Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 . O f its 11 o c c u r r e n c e s in J o s e p h u s 6 are in these b o o k s . I n o u r passage the w o r d is u s e d in contrast to the eternal i m p r i s o n m e n t (etpypov) that awaits the wicked; w e m a y render " f r e e d o m (from restriction)". ( d ) Finally, dvoc(3i6a> o c c u r s o n l y here in J o s e p h u s . R a s p v e n t u r e s the h y p o t h e s i s that b y u s i n g this w o r d , J o s e p h u s intends to correct his earlier presentation o f the Pharisaic b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y : it is n o t m e t e m p sychosis that the Pharisees e s p o u s e , as he h a d e r r o n e o u s l y r e p o r t e d in War, b u t r e s u r r e c t i o n .
75
W e h a v e seen, h o w e v e r , that phrases like 7udcXtv
ytyveaOat a n d TO ava(3ta>aaa0oct are e q u i v a l e n t in Plato: they b o t h m e a n " t o live a g a i n " . It is d o u b t f u l that J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d his readers to p e r c e i v e a n y difference b e t w e e n these t e r m s , peT<x(3octveiv et$ eTepov a&poc (War
2:163).
or between them
and
7 6
I n all o f these cases, it a p p e a r s that J o s e p h u s has m e r e l y altered the v o c a b u l a r y a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f his earlier statement, as is his usual p r a c tice in Ant. o v e r against War; the sense, h o w e v e r , r e m a i n s the s a m e . I n a d d i t i o n , this passage is affected b y the e x p e r i m e n t with
grandiose
v o c a b u l a r y a n d syntax that J o s e p h u s c o n d u c t s t h r o u g h Ant.
17-19.
2.
Interpretation
T h e general thrust o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 4 is clear e n o u g h , e v e n t h o u g h the syntax is difficult in the a b s e n c e o f a m a i n finite v e r b : 14a.
T h a t souls h a v e an i m m o r t a l p o w e r is a
14b.
a n d subterranean
conviction a m o n g them punishments and rewards
c o m e to those w h o s e c o n d u c t in life has b e e n either o f virtue o r v i c e ; 14c.
for s o m e , eternal i m p r i s o n m e n t is p r e p a r e d
14d.
b u t for others, f r e e d o m to live a g a i n .
7 4
7 5
7 6
Cf. Thucydides 7.86.5 and also Ant. 19:49. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 32. Cf. chapter 6, above, and Moore, "Fate", 385 n. 57.
300
CHAPTER
TWELVE
As in War 2:165, the Sadducees are now said to reject the Pharisaic belief. A new detail is that their teaching "dissipates (auvaqjavi^ei) the soul along with the b o d y " .
E. The Influence of the Pharisees 15a.
xal 5V atka TOT$ Se Srjpots 7ti0ava>TaTOi
15b.
xal 07t6aa OeTa eux Lat. virtus), its original sense was
Ant. 2:69, 75, 77, 93. War 1:30. Ant. 1:12. Ant. 11:192. Thus Yaffe/Damico (in Rivkin, Revolution, 320f.). Cf. LSJ, s.v., the specialized lexica to the classics, and O . Bauernfeind, "apexrj", TDNT, I, 457-461. 85
8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
303
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
n o t m o r a l b u t referred to " m a n l y strength, martial v a l o u r , p r o w e s s , potency,
skill,
capacity",
and
thence
"accomplishment,
eminence,
f a m e , s u c c e s s " . T h e s e are the o n l y senses in w h i c h H o m e r u s e d dcpexrj; interestingly
e n o u g h , h e s o m e t i m e s u s e d the w o r d as a s y n o n y m for
86^a, t o m e a n " s u c c e s s " o r " p r o s p e r i t y " .
9 1
I n d e e d , the n o n - m o r a l c o n
n o t a t i o n s o f ipenf} w e r e p a r a m o u n t in A t t i c usage g e n e r a l l y . LXX
90
92
E v e n the
consistently uses aperr}, in H o m e r i c fashion, as a s y n o n y m for
o o ? a , to r e n d e r the H e b r e w Tin ( " g l o r y " ) a n d rfain ( " p r a i s e " ) .
9 3
Thus,
l o n g after the p h i l o s o p h e r s h a d t r a n s f o r m e d apexrj into an ethical Leit motif, writers c o n t i n u e d to use it n o n - m o r a l senses as w e l l — n o t least the philosophers themselves.
94
T h i s is w h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s : o n the o n e
h a n d , as w e h a v e seen, h e m a k e s apexr} xal xaxta into a m a j o r m o r a l i z i n g t h e m e o f Ant.; yet o n the o t h e r h a n d , he c a n still use aperr} in the o l d n o n m o r a l sense o f " p r o w e s s " o r " p o w e r " .
9 5
S o it is an o p e n q u e s t i o n w h a t
h e m e a n s b y apexrj w h e n h e uses it o f the
Pharisees.
S i n c e Ant. 17-19 slavishly imitates T h u c y d i d e a n style, it is w o r t h ask i n g h o w T h u c y d i d e s uses apexrj, a n d the a n s w e r to that q u e s t i o n is m o s t i l l u m i n a t i n g . A l t h o u g h the e x a c t m e a n i n g o f apexrj in particular passages o f T h u c y d i d e s is a m a t t e r o f d e b a t e , recent c o m m e n t a t o r s a g r e e that he uses the w o r d in a w i d e r a n g e o f senses, e v o k i n g b o t h m o r a l a n d n o n moral nuances.
9 6
Especially pertinent, h o w e v e r , is his d e s c r i p t i o n o f A n -
t i p h o n , w h o a p p e a r s in his narrative as " b o t h a subverter o f the constitu tion a n d a t r a i t o r " .
9 7
F o r T h u c y d i d e s d e s c r i b e s this m o r a l l y d u b i o u s
figure as: a m a n inferior to none of the Athenians of his day in aperr} and one who had proved himself most able both to formulate a plan and to set forth his conclusions in speech. ( 8 . 6 8 . 1 )
9 0
Cf. //wrf 3:411; 8:535; 13:257; 15:642; 20:242; 23:276; Odyssey 4:725; 8:239; 13:45; 14:212, 402; 18:133, 251. Odyssey 13:45; 14:402; 18:133. Pindar, Odes 7:163; Xenophon, Memorabilia 2:1, 21; Sophocles, Ph. 1420; Thucydides 1:33; Lysias 193:12; cf. LSJ, s.v. and Bauernfeind, "apexr)", 458. Isa. 42:8, 12; Hab. 3:3; Zech. 6:13. Although Plato is the one who established the ethical sense of dpetrj (Republic 500d; Laws 963c), he also continues to use it in non-moral contexts (Republic 335b, 601d, 618d; Symposium 208d; Protagoras 322d). Cf. War 3:380; Ant. 17:130. Bauernfeind, "apexr)", 458 n.6, finds the non-moral sense "commonly" in Josephus, but I think that is an overstatement. Cf. J. T . Hooker, "Xdpu; and apexrj in Thucydides", 165-169, esp. 168; J. L. Creed, "Moral Values in the Age of Thucydides", CQ, 23 (1973), 213-231; A . W . Gomme, A . Andrewes, and K . J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (5 vols; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), V , 171 f.; W . R . Connor, Thucydides (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 224f. n. 30 Andrewes, Thucydides, 171. 9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
9 6
9 7
304
CHAPTER T W E L V E
C . F. S m i t h translates apexr} h e r e ( L C L e d n . ) as " f o r c e o f c h a r a c t e r " ; a n d n o w A . A n d r e w e s agrees that it m e a n s practically 9uaeo>? i
in his discussion o f the Pharisees' influence; ( b ) in his o p e n c o m m e n d a tion o f the S a d d u c e e s a n d , especially, the Essenes; a n d ( c ) in his n o t i c e that the S a d d u c e e s , t h o u g h c a p a b l e a n d c o m p e t e n t , m u s t a b i d e b y 0% 6 Oaptaato^ Xeyet, w h i c h phrase c o n n o t e s a feeling o f resignation rather than enthusiasm.
I I I . Source Analysis Ant.
1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 is o n e o f o n l y t w o Pharisee passages that S c h w a r t z at
tributes to J o s e p h u s himself; the other is the War parallel ( 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) . S c h w a r t z ' s r e a s o n i n g is that, " b o t h passages present t h o r o u g h l y positive a c c o u n t s o f the P h a r i s e e s " .
1 0 5
H o l s c h e r is n o t so sure. H e a c k n o w l e d g e s
that J o s e p h u s has already p o i n t e d ahead to this passage in Ant.
15:371,
w h i c h implies s o m e d e g r e e o f f o r e t h o u g h t a n d i n v o l v e m e n t as an author. Ultimately, h o w e v e r , H o l s c h e r c a n n o t a c c e p t that the a u t h o r o f o u r passage was a P h a r i s e e .
106
orjpot$ mOava>TOCTOi x u y x ^
First, h e d r a w s attention to the phrase xot w h i c h , he o b s e r v e s , h a r d l y depicts the
Pharisees' influence as p r a i s e w o r t h y . S e c o n d , H o l s c h e r d o u b t s that a Pharisee c o u l d h a v e n a m e d a Pharisee as c o - f o u n d e r o f the s c h o o l o f J u d a s , in v i e w o f what is said a b o u t the rebel s c h o o l in o u r passage. B o t h o f H o l s c h e r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s o n the anti-Pharisaic n u a n c e s are a c curate a n d i m p o r t a n t . T h e o n l y w e a k link in his a r g u m e n t is the p r e m i s e that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee a n d c o u l d n o t , therefore, h a v e written the passage. W e shall discuss this w i d e l y e n d o r s e d a s s u m p t i o n in Part I V , below. O n the other h a n d , the f o r e g o i n g study has m a d e three d i s c o v e r i e s that
s e e m to require J o s e p h a n
basically
a
restatement
o f four
authorship. points
First, Ant.
that J o s e p h u s
1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 is himself
has
repeatedly m a d e a b o u t the Pharisees in earlier discussions. S o the c o n tent is J o s e p h a n . S e c o n d , s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' s usual v o c a b u l a r y — s u c h as vco
Tuyx^ > cpuXaxrj, 6e6$ as an e q u i v a l e n t o f etpappevrj, a n d the pair aperr) ?j xaxta—turns u p in o u r passage. M o s t significant, h o w e v e r , is o u r
1 0 5
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f.
1 0 6
Holscher, "Josephus", 1991.
307
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
d i s c o v e r y that the a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 is the s a m e p e r s o n w h o w r o t e Ant.
17-19 as a w h o l e . O u r passage is l a c e d w i t h the t e r m i n o l o g y a n d
stylistic features that characterize these b o o k s , s u c h as: oroSaa, 7u0av6$, TCOtTjats, e7ciTTJ8euats, 7ceptpax*)™v ^y£opat,
pacrwovrj, dtpexTJ, &vrtX£lfo,
and
the n e u t e r participle g o v e r n i n g a g e n i t i v e . O u r p a s s a g e , like the rest o f Ant.
1 7 - 1 9 , is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y the a t t e m p t to imitate the a r c h a i c A t t i c
prose o f T h u c y d i d e s .
1 0 7
It is p o s s i b l e to d e n y J o s e p h a n a u t h o r s h i p of Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 , therefore, o n l y if o n e also d e n i e s his authorship o f Ant. closest
that
any
scholar has
come
to
17-19 in its entirety.
such
an
unlikely
view
The was
T h a c k e r a y ' s p r o p o s a l that J o s e p h u s c o m m i s s i o n e d a literary assistant to write these b o o k s . B u t that p r o p o s a l has b e e n t h o r o u g h l y with m a n y cogent a r g u m e n t s .
1 0 8
repudiated,
O n e o f these a r g u m e n t s , as w e h a v e
seen, is that the s o l e c i s m s f o u n d in Ant. 17-19 are m o r e easily attributed to
the Palestinian J o s e p h u s
literary
abilities
in
Greek!
than to s o m e o n e w h o w a s h i r e d for his Further, J o s e p h u s ' s
own
characteristic
v o c a b u l a r y is i n t e r m i n g l e d w i t h the m o r e pretentious s t y l e .
1 0 9
W h y J o s e p h u s c h o s e to alter his style so dramatically in Ant. 17-19 is n o t , I c o n c e d e , clear. It m a y b e that h e w a s s t u d y i n g T h u c y d i d e s at the t i m e a n d t h r e w h i m s e l f into a p r o g r a m m e o f d e v o t e d i m i t a t i o n .
110
It m a y
b e that these b o o k s a l o n e benefited ( o r suffered) f r o m a r e v i s i o n o f Ant. that J o s e p h u s w a s n o t able to c a r r y t h r o u g h the w h o l e w o r k .
1 1 1
Whatever
his reasons for the literary e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , h o w e v e r , w e m a y b e sure that h e e x e r c i s e d final c o n t r o l o v e r the c o n t e n t o f Ant.
18:12-15.
Summary and Conclusion I n his final statement o n the Pharisees in Ant. J o s e p h u s sets o u t to c o n trast t h e m , a l o n g w i t h the S a d d u c e e s a n d Essenes, to the s c h o o l o f J u d a s . H e w a n t s , therefore, to p u t all three s c h o o l s in the best p o s s i b l e light a n d to d o w n p l a y a n y n e g a t i v e feelings that h e m i g h t h a v e t o w a r d a n y o f them.
1 0 7
Palmer, Greek Language, 159, describes the distinctive features of the old Attic style: "poetical colouring, forced and strange expressions, bold new coinages and substan tivized neuters of participles and adjectives". See the excursus to Part I above. Cf. Richards, "Composition", 39. Nor does Holscher's own theory of in termediate sources explain the linguistic data, since he posits the same intermediate source for books 18-20 as for books 13-17, thus overriding the distinctive features of 17-19. So Niese, HZ, 225; Peterson, "Literary Projects", 260f. n. 5; Shutt, Studies, 62ff.; Rajak, Josephus, 233f. So Richards, "Composition", 40. 1 0 8
1 0 9
1 1 0
1 1 1
308
CHAPTER TWELVE
H i s description o f the Pharisees b e g i n s , a c c o r d i n g l y , w i t h an a p p r o v i n g n o t i c e a b o u t their distaste for l u x u r y . H e follows this with a threep o i n t s u m m a r y o f tenets that h e has m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y . A t the h e a d o f these h e n o w puts their allegiance to a special extra-biblical tradition (cf. Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 6 - 2 9 8 ) . T h e n c o m e the p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues o f fate/free will a n d i m m o r t a l i t y (cf. War 2 : 1 6 2 f . ) . Finally, h e talks a b o u t the Pharisees' m a j o r role in p u b l i c a n d religious life. The
theory
of Rasp,
Smith,
Neusner,
and
others
that Ant.
18
dramatically i m p r o v e s the Pharisees' i m a g e o v e r against War, o r that J o s e p h u s deliberately c o r r e c t s War ( R a s p ) , seems to lack a n y basis what soever. It is true that m u c h o f the v o c a b u l a r y is n e w , b u t this a c c o r d s perfectly with ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s consistent t e n d e n c y in Ant. to v a r y presentation a n d ( b ) the w e l l - k n o w n peculiarities o f Ant.
War's
17-19.
M o s t i m p o r t a n t , o n e c a n still detect a t o n e o f resentment o n the part of Josephus
toward
the
Pharisees,
as
H o l s c h e r already p e r c e i v e d .
J o s e p h u s c o n n e c t s the Pharisees t w i c e with the school o f J u d a s , w h i c h h e dislikes intensely; h e allows o n l y that the Pharisees " h a p p e n to b e " o r " c h a n c e to b e " m o s t p o p u l a r with the p e o p l e ; a n d h e seems to regret that the finest S a d d u c e e s , w h e n they assume leadership p o s i t i o n s , are c o m p e l l e d to follow " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " .
PART FOUR
T H E PHARISEES IN T H E
LIFE
A m o n g all o f his discussions o f the Pharisees, it is o n l y in the Life that J o s e p h u s implies a n y personal affiliation with the g r o u p ( § 1 2 ) . T h e at t e m p t will b e m a d e in Part F o u r to ascertain the nature o f that affiliation a n d to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s other r e m a r k s o n the Pharisees in this short " a u t o b i o g r a p h y " . After c o n s i d e r i n g the p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f Life, w e shall focus o u r attention o n Life 1 0 - 1 2 , w h i c h describes J o s e p h u s ' s e x p e r i e n c e with all three schools a n d his final a l i g n m e n t ( o f s o m e sort) with the Pharisees, a n d o n Life 19Iff., w h e r e he describes the i n v o l v e m e n t o f certain Pharisees in an e p i s o d e o f his career as G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d e r .
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF THE
LIFE
S o m e b r i e f r e m a r k s o n the f a m o u s p r o b l e m o f d a t i n g the Life will serve to i n t r o d u c e the analysis o f its p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k .
I. Date T h e p r o b l e m o f d a t i n g the Life, in brief, is as follows. O n the o n e h a n d , 1
Life w a s clearly written as an a p p e n d i x to Ant.
It e v e n lacks a n y intro
d u c t i o n o f its o w n , b e g i n n i n g rather with the c o n j u n c t i o n hi. It w a s in troduced,
however,
at
the
end
o f Ant.,
where Josephus
remarked
(20:266): Perhaps it will not arouse jealousy or strike ordinary folk as gauche if I review briefly m y own ancestry and the events of m y life while there are still those living who can refute or support [ m e ] . 2
3
A n d Life closes with a w o r d to the p a t r o n o f Ant.:
H a v i n g now, most excellent Epaphroditus, rendered a complete account of our antiquities (TTJV 7u<xaocv xfjs apxatoXoytas), I shall here . . . conclude m y narrative. (Thackeray)
S o the Life is a p p a r e n t l y i n t e n d e d as the final section o f Ant. A l l o f the 4
m a n u s c r i p t s b u t o n e unite the t w o w o r k s a n d E u s e b i u s q u o t e s f r o m Life 5
as if it w e r e part o f Ant. seems
T h a t Life w a s written as an a p p e n d i x t o Ant.
undeniable.
O n the other h a n d , the t w o w o r k s a p p e a r to date themselves ferently. A c c o r d i n g to Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 7 , that treatise w a s c o m p l e t e d " i n thirteenth y e a r o f the reign o f D o m i t i a n C a e s a r a n d the fifty-sixth
dif the year
o f m y l i f e " ( F e l d m a n ) , b o t h o f w h i c h data p o i n t to the y e a r A D 9 3 / 9 4 .
1
6
For fuller discussions of the issue cf. Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87; Niese, HZ, 226; T . Frankfort, "La date de Vautobiographic de Flavius Josephe et des oeuvres de Justus de Tiberiade, Revue Beige de Philologie 39 (1961), 52-58; Rajak, "Justus", 354 n. 1; and S. J. D . Cohen, Josephus, 175. Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87, denies that Ant. 20 introduces Life; but he seems to have overlooked this passage (cf. n. 10 below). Cf. Ant. 1:8. Cf. Schreckenberg, Tradition, 11. Eccl. Hist. 3.10.8f. Josephus, Life 5, states that he was born in the year of Gaius Caligula's accession ( = A D 37/38). 2
3
4
5
6
312
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Life, h o w e v e r , p r e s u p p o s e s the death o f A g r i p p a II ( § § 3 5 9 f . ) , w h i c h the 7
tenth-century patriarch P h o t i u s puts at A D 1 0 0 . T h e c h a l l e n g e in d a t i n g the Life, therefore, is t o e x p l a i n h o w it c a n b e a part o f Ant. a n d yet h a v e b e e n written after the death o f A g r i p p a I I . F o u r m a i n solutions h a v e b e e n a d v a n c e d in the literature. P e r h a p s the 8
simplest w a s that o f S c h u r e r ( 1 8 6 7 ) , w h o p r o p o s e d that Life, in spite o f 9
its association w i t h i n / . , w a s n o t written until several years l a t e r . S c h u r e r a r g u e d , o n the basis of Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 7 ,
1 0
that J o s e p h u s w a s i n t e n d i n g t o write
a s u p p l e m e n t a r y a c c o u n t o f the w a r , b u t n o t an a u t o b i o g r a p h y , w h e n h e 11
finished Ant.
H i s d e c i s i o n t o write the Life instead w a s c a u s e d b y the a p
p e a r a n c e o f a rival a c c o u n t o f the w a r b y J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s . T h i s rival a c c o u n t e m b a r r a s s e d J o s e p h u s in R o m e b y m a k i n g h i m o u t t o h a v e b e e n the c h a m p i o n o f the revolt in G a l i l e e , rather than the v o i c e o f m o d e r a t i o n that h e h a d c l a i m e d to b e . J o s e p h u s h a d t o r e s p o n d with the Life, w h i c h deals m a i n l y w i t h a s i x - m o n t h p e r i o d in his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d .
1 2
I n s u p p o r t o f the date for A g r i p p a ' s death g i v e n b y P h o t i u s , S c h u r e r p o i n t s to n u m i s m a t i c e v i d e n c e that the k i n g l i v e d at least until 95 ( a n d 13
therefore s o m e w h a t later than the c o m p l e t i o n date o f Ant.);
h e dates
c o i n s referring t o the ' *35th y e a r o f A g r i p p a " f r o m an era b e g i n n i n g in A D 61. B y the t i m e o f S c h u r e r ' s so-called " t h i r d - f o u r t h e d i t i o n " ( 1 9 0 1 ) , h o w e v e r , m o s t scholars h a d c o m e t o think that the best s o l u t i o n to the p r o b l e m was to g i v e u p P h o t i u s ' s d a t i n g a n d to p u t b o t h Ant. a n d Life at 9 3 / 9 4 .
1 4
T h i s v i e w w o n the s u p p o r t o f B . N i e s e , H . L u t h e r , a n d G . H o l s c h e r ,
1 5
a n d has r e - e m e r g e d in r e c e n t times as o n e o f the few p o i n t s o f a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n T . R a j a k a n d S. J . D . C o h e n . 7
1 6
That is, the third year of Trajan; in his Bibliotheca, 33, given by Jacoby, Fragmente, 734 T . 2. Cf. the E T by Cohen, Josephus, 142. I do not have access to the first edition of Schurer, Geschichte (1867), but only the "third-fourth" (190Iff.); he claims there, however (I, p. Ill), that, though he has enlarged his earlier work, he has not otherwise altered it much. Schurer, Geschichte, I, 77, 87f. Ant. 20:267: u7copv7jaT0i (Life 28) who had commissioned Josephus.
339
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
c l a i m that his " r e l i g i o n o f r e w a r d " a n d his weakness o f character w e r e o b v i o u s p r o d u c t s o f P h a r i s a i s m . Paret m a d e a great deal o f the c l a i m that J o s e p h u s presents J u d a i s m as a r e l i g i o n o f fearful (dngstlich), exter nal l e g a l i s m , in w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l m u s t struggle to o b s e r v e a m a s s o f required l a w s .
8 7
T h e historian, it is said further, characteristically fails
to distinguish the i m p o r t a n t laws f r o m the p e t t y the p r o p h e t s . "proof
89
88
and misunderstands
A l m o s t h a l f o f P a r e t ' s study is g i v e n to this sort o f
that J o s e p h u s w a s a true P h a r i s e e .
90
B r u n e d e v o t e s his entire
discussion o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaism to the deficiencies o f J o s e p h u s ' s religion a n d c h a r a c t e r . punishment observant; vanity.
92
91
T h i s religion h y p o c r i t i c a l l y rejoices in G o d ' s
o f evildoers but that
explains,
nurtures self-righteousness a m o n g the
says B r u n e , J o s e p h u s ' s
own
remarkable
Finally, Schlatter cites J o s e p h u s ' s inability t o a c c e p t guilt, his
e v a l u a t i o n o f w e l l - b e i n g as the goal o f r e l i g i o n , a n d his substitution o f legalism for religious c o n v i c t i o n as p r o o f that J o s e p h u s w a s a P h a r i s e e .
93
A t least until the m i d d l e o f this c e n t u r y , then, it w a s possible t o i n v o k e the traditional Christian v i e w o f Pharisaism, as an institution d e d i c a t e d to the p r o m o t i o n o f h y p o c r i s y , in o r d e r to p r o v e J o s e p h u s ' s religious af filiation. T h e n u m e r o u s absurdities o n w h i c h this a r g u m e n t is b a s e d — l o g i c a l , psychological,
s o c i o l o g i c a l , a n d historical—are b y n o w well k n o w n ;
there is n o t h i n g t o b e g a i n e d b y further e l a b o r a t i o n h e r e .
Summary and Conclusion: The Importance of Life 12b T h i s c h a p t e r has s o u g h t to d o c u m e n t t w o p r o p o s i t i o n s . First: almost e v e r y interpreter o f J o s e p h u s since 1850 has b e l i e v e d that the historian either w a s o r w a n t e d to b e seen as a Pharisee. M o s t h a v e b e l i e v e d that h e w a s a Pharisee, so that his c l a i m to b e o n e w a s a natural c o n s e q u e n c e o f his actual affiliation. S o m e h a v e a r g u e d , h o w e v e r , that the c l a i m reflects a m a j o r a p o l o g e t i c t h e m e in his later w o r k s b u t n o t historical reality. I n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r , J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to b e a Pharisee has c o m e to serve as a crucial d a t u m in m o s t analyses o f his writings a n d thought.
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 823-838. Ibid., 83If. Ibid., 834f. Ibid., 842-844. Brune, Flavius Josephus, 150-157. Ibid., 154f. Schlatter, Theologie, 211.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
340
Second: the widespread scholarly belief that Josephus intended to present himself as a Pharisee depends entirely on one sentence of his "autobiography", Life 12b. Other arguments offered by scholars to demonstrate that Josephus was a Pharisee are not really proofs; they derive from evidence that could be explained at least as well if he was not a Pharisee. Thus, the burden of proof that rests on Life 12b is enormous. Not only do the arguments above fail to establish Josephus's Pharisaic allegiance, but two other considerations militate strongly against it. First, he con sistently portrays the Pharisees, throughout War and Ant.,
in an un
favourable light. W h e r e he reveals any feeling at all toward the group, it is one of disdain. Second, in his major works he is utterly silent about any association with the Pharisees. W h a t makes this silence conspicuous is that Josephus repeatedly describes the Pharisees as those with a reputation for axptpetoc. If he believed this reputation to be well founded, then he would view his own (putative) Pharisaic allegiance as an asset to be exploited. In all of his many discussions of his own credentials, however, including those that deal with his dxptPetoc, he never once gives the slightest hint of any Pharisaic background or allegiance. A n d this silence
is
particularly
obvious
in
his
later
works,
in
which
the
Rasp/Smith/Neusner/Cohen view finds a bold attempt on Josephus's part to pass himself off as a Pharisee. His notable silence about any Pharisaic affiliation and his consistent disparagement of that group lead the reader of War, Ant.,
and Ag.Ap.
to conclude that he disliked the
Pharisees; apart from § 12b, the Life itself implies the same. So if the near universal assumption that Josephus wanted to present himself as a Pharisee is to be accepted, we shall require from Life 12b a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect. Those who believe that Josephus was a devoted Pharisee must reckon with the two difficulties just noted. Those who think that he merely wished to look like a Pharisee are not affected in the same degree, but must still explain why the Pharisees appear so poorly in Ant. 13 and 17 and in Life 191-198 (see chapter 16). These difficulties cannot be addressed, however (because they do not exist), until it is first shown that in Life 12b Josephus intends to present himself as a Pharisee. 9 4
94
The two most common explanations of the anti-Pharisaic thrust are: (a) the sourcecritical approach, which attributes the material to someone other than Josephus and (b) the proposal of Schlatter {Theologie, 203f.), that Josephus did praise the Pharisees, by mentioning their expertise in the laws, but that he chastised his party for its involvement in politics. This view is shared by A . Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 124f. W e may note, however: (a) Josephus consistently says that the Pharisees are reputed to be/profess to be (8oxeco/7tpo<J7uoiou(i<xt), not that they are, experts in the Law. The distinction is significant because: (i) Josephus is capable of saying that someone is a precise interpreter of the Law
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
341
(War 1:108—Alexandra; Ant. 17:149—the two doctors; Ag.Ap. l:53f.—himself; cf. War 2:145 on the Essenes); and (ii) often, his SoxeT. . . AxpiPffc construction is followed im mediately by a negation of the party's reputation (e.g. Ag.Ap. 1:18—Thucydides; Ag.Ap. 1:67—Ephorus; War l:110ff.; Life 191ff. [cf. Ant. 17:41-45]—the Pharisees). It is far from clear, therefore, that Josephus did praise the Pharisees at all. (b) The rigid distinc tion between religion and politics, though prominent in modern American society, is of dubious validity for ancient Judaism. In any case, Josephus was himself fully involved in "politics". At age 26, he began to 7coXiTeuecr6at (see chapter 15): he took a diplomatic mission to Rome and then became military commander of the Galilee.
C H A P T E R FIFTEEN LIFE
10-12: J O S E P H U S ' S R E L I G I O U S Q U E S T
C l e a r l y , the w h o l e basis for the scholarly c o n s e n s u s that J o s e p h u s w a n t e d to b e u n d e r s t o o d as a Pharisee is a single sentence in his a u t o b i o g r a p h y , Life 1 2 b . J o s e p h u s relates there that, h a v i n g trained in the three J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools (<xtpeaet$) a n d h a v i n g then spent s o m e t i m e w i t h an ascetic teacher, he returned to J e r u s a l e m a n d : lvveocxat8£xocTOv 8* exo$ exs o\at^r\[ioLQi xaTaxoXouOrjae
A variation has the verb as the penultimate element: Moouaeo$ xocTaxoXouOrjaavT' ivxokcuq
(e)
i4n*. 6:133:
(0
Ant. 9:99: xotq TG)V 'IaparjXtTcov (SaatXecov xaTr)xoXouOr)aev aat$r\(juxcn
(g)
iln*. 9:233: tfj TOO Tcaxpo? xocTaxoXouOrjaas (bfJLorrjTi
One
can detect at least four nuances of the verb xocxocxoXouOeoo in
Josephus. Only once does it have the sense of physical "following"; that is when Samuel pursues the Philistines (Ant. 6 : 2 8 ) . Once also it means "to agree with". Josephus complains that Greek historians have never agreed with one another (ouSe aXXrjXot$ xaTTjxoXouOrjxaat, Ag.Ap.
1:17).
M o r e commonly, the verb suggests obedience or conformity to the laws, the commandments, or to God's will. Josephus has written his Ant.,
he says, to show that those who conform to God's will (Oeou yvojprj
xocToexoXouOouat) prosper in everything ( 1 : 1 4 ) . Samuel tells Saul that all the Amalekites must be massacred, in obedience to the commands of M o s e s (TOCT$ Moauaeos xaTaxoXouGrjaavT' CVTOXOCTS, Ant. 6 : 1 3 3 ) . T h e Deity,
Samuel exhorts, is only pleased with those who obey his will and his commands
(6:147).
It
was by
following
the
laws
(TOT$
vopoi$
xocToexoXouOcav) that Josiah succeeded so well in his administration. In these cases, xocToexoXouOeo) takes an impersonal object: one obeys, or com plies with, some sort of instructions or l a w s . The
34
other way in which Josephus uses xotTaxoXouOeo) lacks this strong
sense of obligation or duty: the idea is rather "to follow an example or model, to emulate or imitate". In this case the object is not a law but 3 4
Cf. Ant. 5:73; 8:339; 12:255.
353
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST
a paradigm, a person, or a person's actions. Thus Josephus relates that the people began to imitate the impious ways of K i n g Jeroboam (Ant. 8:271) and that the Judean king Jehoram emulated the impious ways of his Israelite counterparts (9:99). In Ant. 12:269, the officers o f Antiochus I V tell the Hasmonean Mattathias that if he sacrifices on their pagan altar, the other Jews will follow his example
(xocTaxoXouftrjaeiv a t k a ) ) .
In
this sense, then, xa?axoXoo6£a> means to follow a personal example, precedent, or m o d e l .
35
It is impossible to say a priori, therefore, precisely what xaxocxoXouOdco means in Life 12b. T h e way in which Josephus "followed" the school of the Pharisees must be determined from the context. Crucial is the func tion of the verb in the sentence: ^p^aprjv 7roXiTeuea0at T7j Oaptaatcov atp£aet xaxaxoXouOcov The main clause tells us that Josephus began to involve himself in public affairs. W e are obliged to assume that the dependent clause, in which xoruocxoXooOeco stands, is dependent on the main clause for its meaning. Thus, Josephus's following of the Pharisaic school is somehow related to his career as a public figure.
III. Interpretation of Life 12b In what way did Josephus's entry into public life involve him in "follow ing' ' the Pharisaic school? W e are not totally without clues. H e has con sistently asserted, in War and Ant.,
that the Pharisees constitute the
dominant school among the Jews (War 2:162; Ant. 13:288-298, 4 0 1 ; 18:15). Their influence affects not only what we should distinguish as the "religious" sphere (cf. Ant. 18:15—prayers and rites) but also the whole operation of the state.
Thus when John
Hyrcanus abrogated the
Pharisaic ordinances, according to Josephus, the masses reacted with in tense hostility (Ant. 13:297-298). Pharisaic influence among the people is so profound, Josephus insists, that even the Sadducees are compelled to follow Pharisaic dictates. H e says of the Sadducees that: 9
whenever they come into a position of leadership (in apx&S 7cocp£X8otev), they defer, albeit unwillingly and by necessity (axouataptaato$ xal atkos); S i m o n , the y o u n g e s t o f t h e m , w a s d e s c e n d e d f r o m the h i g h priests (e£ apxtepecov). (198)
T h e s e w e r e instructed to g o to the Galilean p o p u l a c e a n d t o find
out f r o m t h e m the cause o f their d e v o t i o n to m e . I f the p e o p l e attributed it to m y b e i n g f r o m J e r u s a l e m , the delegates should a r g u e that so w e r e all four o f t h e m ; if it w a s b e c a u s e o f m y training in the laws (TTJV ep7retptav
2 4
In support of this hypothetical reconstruction one might adduce (a) the vagueness of the bribery charge (the Scopea and their reception are not described) and (b) Josephus's conspicuous insistence that the public remained totally unaware of Ananus's initial sup port for Josephus (§ 195a) and of the bribery episode (§ 196c: prjSevds ocXXou TCOV XOCTOC TTJVrcoXtvTOUTO ftvoxjxovTOs). Claiming public ignorance, of course, frees him from the fear of contradiction.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION
369
TCOV vopcov), they should affirm that they themselves w e r e n o t i g n o r a n t of the national customs (prjS' OCUTOUS ayvoetv e9rj TOCrcocTpta^dcaxeiv); if, finally, they c l a i m e d to l o v e m e o n a c c o u n t o f the p r i e s t h o o d ,
the
delegates s h o u l d r e s p o n d that t w o o f t h e m w e r e also priests. The
r e a s o n , it n o w appears, that the conspirators c h o s e f o u r m e n
XOCTOC yevos p&v Sioc^povrocs, TTJ 7uai8ei(jc 8' 6potoo{ w a s so that the d e l e g a t i o n ' s c o m b i n e d assets c o u l d easily m a t c h w h a t e v e r qualities J o s e p h u s h a d e x p l o i t e d in o r d e r to w i n the d e v o t i o n o f the Galileans, w h e t h e r o f 7wci8e£oc o r o f yevo$ ( § 1 9 8 ) . Specifically: ( a ) the delegates w e r e all Jerusalemites,
as he w a s ; ( b ) his training in the laws w a s m a t c h e d b y
their k n o w l e d g e ; a n d ( c ) t w o o f t h e m e v e n shared his priestly The
yivoq.
strategy will h a v e its desired effect in at least o n e case. Later in
the narrative, J e s u s , the c h i e f magistrate o f T i b e r i a s , will appeal to his p e o p l e (Life 2 7 8 ) : It is better (ocpetvov), O citizens, for us to submit to four men rather than one, men who are also of illustrious birth (xat xara y£vo£ XaprcpoTs) and intellectual distinction (xat xara auveatv oux a86ijoi$). Significantly absent, h o w e v e r , f r o m the list o f assets c o m m o n to b o t h J o s e p h u s a n d the delegates is that o f Pharisaic allegiance. W e k n o w that three o f the four delegates w e r e Pharisees a n d that Pharisees w e r e k n o w n for their expertise in the l a w s . If, then, J o s e p h u s w a s also a Pharisee, the reader w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d h i m to m a k e this a p o i n t o f c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d the delegates. If, that is, it t u r n e d o u t that the Galileans l o v e d J o s e p h u s b e c a u s e o f his Pharisaic
learning,
then the delegates c o u l d r e s p o n d that three o f t h e m w e r e also Pharisees. But J o s e p h u s n e v e r raises this as a possible p o i n t o f c o m p a r i s o n , e v e n t h o u g h h e plainly states that three o f the delegates w e r e Pharisees a n d that their o b j e c t i v e w a s to w i n o v e r Galilean support b y o u t - m a t c h i n g his assets. T h e simplest e x p l a n a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s failure to m e n t i o n his Pharisaic allegiance w h e n h e h a d an o b v i o u s o p p o r t u n i t y to d o so is that h e w a s n o t a Pharisee a n d c o u l d n o t , therefore, h a v e c o m p a r e d h i m s e l f with the Pharisaic delegates o n this p o i n t . Finally, it m u s t b e asked h o w J o s e p h u s v i e w e d the m e m b e r s o f the d e l e g a t i o n , m o s t o f w h o m w e r e Pharisees. T h a t v i e w is n o t h a r d to d i s c e r n , for the e n v o y s w e r e his e n e m i e s , sent to retrieve h i m d e a d o r alive f r o m the Galilee ( § 2 0 2 ) . H e portrays t h e m as c u n n i n g a n d deceit ful ( § § 216ff., 237f., 274f., 281f., 2 9 0 f f . ) , slanderous ( § § 2 4 5 , 2 6 1 ) , a n d violent ( § § 2 3 3 , 3 0 1 f f . ) . O n e o f the Pharisaic e n v o y s , A n a n i a s , is called "depraved
and
mischievous"
(Thackeray,
for TCOVTjpds dvrjp
xal
xaxoupyos, § 2 9 0 ) . T h e m o s t l y Pharisaic d e l e g a t i o n appears throughout
370
C H A P T E R SIXTEEN
in a negative light. C o h e n aptly s u m m a r i z e s , " t h e y s w o r e false oaths, used sacred o c c a s i o n s for nefarious p u r p o s e s , a n d v i o l a t e d the sanctity o f the s y n a g o g u e . "
2 5
A l o n e a m o n g c o m m e n t a t o r s , C o h e n attempts to e x p l a i n h o w this hostile d e s c r i p t i o n o f the delegates m i g h t b e r e c o n c i l e d with J o s e p h u s ' s alleged profession o f Pharisaism (in Life 1 2 b ) . H i s effort: " T h e Pharisees w h o w e r e sent to G a l i l e e w e r e n o t Pharisees o f the best sort, says 26
Josephus."
But that is precisely what J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t say. C o h e n is
to b e c o m m e n d e d for p e r c e i v i n g the tension b e t w e e n the unfriendly p o r trayal o f the delegates in Life 198-307 and the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w that Life 12b presents J o s e p h u s as a Pharisee. H i s e x p l a n a t i o n , h o w e v e r — t h a t J o s e p h u s regards these particular Pharisees as aberrant s p e c i m e n s — i s totally w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n . J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e says a n y t h i n g o f the k i n d : he m a k e s n o attempt to mitigate the scandal o f the d e l e g a t e s ' b e h a v i o u r . H e says o n l y ( a n d e m p h a t i c a l l y ) that three o f t h e m were Pharisees. I n d e e d , the actions o f these Pharisees a c c o r d perfectly well with J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r descriptions o f Pharisaic b e h a v i o u r : o n e n e e d o n l y recall the Pharisees w h o u s u r p e d A l e x a n d r a ' s p o w e r {War 1:110-114, Ant.
1 3 : 4 0 1 - 4 3 2 ) , those w h o o p p o s e d the great J o h n H y r c a n u s (Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 8 ) , those w h o m a n i p u l a t e d H e r o d ' s c o u r t (Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) , a n d , still fresh in the r e a d e r ' s m i n d , the u n s c r u p u l o u s S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l (Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 6 ) . C o h e n d o e s n o t disclose the basis o f his v i e w that J o s e p h u s wished to p o r t r a y the delegates as p o o r e x a m p l e s o f Pharisaism.
Our
study points to the o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n : i n a s m u c h as they seek to e x t e n d their o w n influence a n d a c h i e v e their partisan goals w i t h o u t regard for a n y sort o f p r i n c i p l e , the Pharisaic delegates in Life 198-307 are typical o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees.
Summary O u r exegesis o f Life 10-12 f o u n d n o support for the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w that J o s e p h u s desired to present h i m s e l f as a Pharisee. O n e m e a n s o f c h e c k i n g this c o n c l u s i o n , I p r o p o s e d , w a s to e x a m i n e J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r references to Pharisees in Life, to see w h e t h e r they reflected a n e w , p r o Pharisaic attitude o n J o s e p h u s ' s part. T h e a n s w e r is that they d o n o t . The
eminent
Pharisaic
scholar S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l c o m e s in
for
scathing treatment, e v e n t h o u g h J o s e p h u s first c o n c e d e s the m a n ' s f a m e , intelligence, a n d g o o d standing as a Pharisee. O u r a u t h o r likewise m a k e s clear the u n s c r u p u l o u s character o f the delegates sent to replace h i m ,
2 5
Cohen, Josephus, 238.
2 6
Ibid., emphasis added.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION
371
m o s t o f w h o m w e r e Pharisees. A n d w h e n h e e n u m e r a t e s the qualities that w e r e c o m m o n t o h i m s e l f a n d the delegates ( § 1 9 8 ) , he m e n t i o n s p r i e s t h o o d a n d e d u c a t i o n b u t n o t Pharisaic allegiance. I n short, if o n e h a d o n l y Life 189-335 t o g o o n , o n e w o u l d h a v e n o g r o u n d s to suspect that J o s e p h u s w a s t r y i n g to pass h i m s e l f o f f as a Pharisee. T h i s cir c u m s t a n c e offers still further s u p p o r t for the interpretation o f Life 10-12 a d v a n c e d a b o v e , to the effect that J o s e p h u s n e v e r c l a i m e d t o b e a Pharisee. It p o s e s grave p r o b l e m s , h o w e v e r , for a n y v i e w o f Life 10-12 as a definitive statement o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaism.
CONCLUSION T O THE
STUDY
T h e p u r p o s e o f the f o r e g o i n g study has b e e n to d e v e l o p a f r a m e w o r k against w h i c h to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t the
Pharisees.
T h i s w a s necessary b e c a u s e o f the i n a d e q u a c y o f p r e v i o u s l y p r o p o s e d f r a m e w o r k s , w h i c h d i d n o t attempt to g r o u n d themselves in the b e d r o c k o f o u r a u t h o r ' s thought. T h e present attempt, b y contrast, has e m p l o y e d "composition
criticism",
which
has
meant
here
the
analysis
of
J o s e p h u s ' s remarks o n the Pharisees in terms o f his narrative aims a n d o f his o u t l o o k in general. F o l l o w i n g is a statement o f o u r larger c o n clusions. 1. J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f is r e s p o n s i b l e for all o f the deliberate descriptions o f the Pharisees that a p p e a r in his w o r k s , ( a ) E v e n in those passages that describe Pharisaic activities b e f o r e his o w n lifetime J o s e p h u s usually in cludes general o b s e r v a t i o n s , in the present tense, o n such matters as their c o n c e r n for dxpipeta, their p h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs, o r their p o p u l a r i t y . It is antecedently p r o b a b l e that such a c c o u n t s w e r e at least shaped b y J o s e p h u s , since he k n e w the Pharisees
first-hand,
( b ) T h e v o c a b u l a r y in
these d e s c r i p t i o n s , such as dxpCPeia, vopoi/voptpoc, euaePeia, etpocppevrj, opovoia, 906vo£, aperr}, a n d xcpoyvcoai?, is characteristic o f J o s e p h u s and is used in characteristic w a y s , ( c ) T h e parallels with his o r d i n a r y v o c a b u lary e x t e n d to phrases a n d w o r d associations like Soxeto/axpipfjs/vopoi/ vopipa, eipappevr) xal Geo?, 9G6vo?/piao?/euTcpayia/xiveco, a n d excl TIVI peya 9povouv. ( d ) T h e Pharisee passages thus support S c h r e c k e n b e r g ' s general c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t the grundsatzliche Einheit o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s : dass Sprach- und Denkmuster, Formeln und Strukturelemente aller Art, die zur unverwechselbaren Identitat des Josephus gehoren, verhaltnismassig gleichmassig uber das Gesamtwerk dieses Autors verteilt sind. 1
Since the Pharisee passages share these marks o f J o s e p h u s ' s
identity,
they c a n n o t b e d e t a c h e d f r o m the rest o f his narrative. 2 . J o s e p h u s consistently represents the Pharisees as the
dominant
religious g r o u p a m o n g the J e w s , w h o h a d the s u p p o r t o f the masses. T h e i r key role is evident at e v e r y p o i n t o f J e w i s h history that J o s e p h u s deals with: u n d e r the H a s m o n e a n s (Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 ; War 1:110-1 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) ; u n d e r H e r o d (War l:571/Ant.
1
Schreckenberg, Untersuchungen, 174.
WAnt.
1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) ; at the i n c o r p o r a -
373
CONCLUSION TO THE STUDY
tion o f J u d e a as a R o m a n p r o v i n c e (War 2:162/Ant. the o u t b r e a k o f the revolt ( War 2:41 \ILife2\,
1 8 : 1 1 - 1 7 ) ; a n d at
1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) . It is unlikely that
J o s e p h u s ' s a s s u m p t i o n o f Pharisaic p r e d o m i n a n c e is his ( p o s t - 7 0 ) i n v e n tion b e c a u s e : ( a ) it is an assumption, w h i c h appears e v e n in his incidental references to the Pharisees (War 1:571, 2 : 4 1 1 ; Life 2 1 ) ; ( b ) it is p r e s u p p o s e d b y stories a b o u t the Pharisees that m u s t h a v e h a d a traditional ( n o n - J o s e p h a n ) o r i g i n ( e . g . , Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) ; ( c ) J o s e p h u s w a s o n l y directly a c q u a i n t e d with the p r e - 7 0 state o f affairs in Palestine; a n d ( d ) m o s t i m p o r t a n t , J o s e p h u s ' s t e n d e n c y is to lament the p o p u l a r i t y a n d influence o f the Pharisees.
But this o n g o i n g l a m e n t
over
Pharisaic
p r e d o m i n a n c e w o u l d b e u n n e c e s s a r y — i n d e e d it w o u l d m a k e n o sense— if the Pharisees d i d not h o l d a d o m i n a n t p o s i t i o n in p r e - 7 0 Palestine. J o s e p h u s h a d n o discernible reason to i n v e n t their p o p u l a r i t y , since he r e g a r d e d it as an unpleasant fact o f life. 3. A s the s o u r c e critics well realized, J o s e p h u s displays a m a r k e d a n d consistent antipathy
t o w a r d the Pharisees.
reference to the g r o u p (War (13:288-298, 400-432;
T h i s appears in his
first
1:110-114) a n d c o n t i n u e s t h r o u g h
Ant.
17:41-45;
18:15,
17) a n d the Life
(191-307).
A l t h o u g h h e c h a n g e s his attitude t o w a r d m a n y parties in the c o u r s e o f his literary
career
(e.g. Herod, Alexandra Salome, Hyrcanus
and
A r i s t o b u l u s ) , h e consistently denigrates the Pharisees. 4 . T h e focal p o i n t o f J o s e p h u s ' s dislike o f the Pharisees is their reputa tion for a n d profession o f dxpt(kioc in the l a w s . H e thinks that this reputa tion is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y the Pharisees' actions (War 1:110-114; 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ; Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ; Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) , so he laments their c o n s e q u e n t p o p u l a r i t y (War 2:162f.; Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; 1 8 : 1 5 , 1 7 ) . J o s e p h u s consistently
presents the Essenes as the m o s t p i o u s a n d virtuous o f the schools (War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ; Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 1 - 3 7 9 ; 1 8 : 2 0 ) a n d therefore as d e s e r v i n g o f praise. H e e v e n regrets that the S a d d u c e e s , w h o m he otherwise dislikes, m u s t yield to " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " (Ant. 1 8 : 1 7 ) . A s a priest, an a c c r e d i t e d g u a r d i a n o f axpipeia a n d euaepeta, he c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f a u t h o r i z e d to assess the claims o f others. T h e Pharisees' actions, he i m p l i e s , refute a n y c l a i m t o , o r reputation for, piety. 5. T w o o f the reasons for J o s e p h u s ' s antipathy s e e m to b e ( a ) that several Pharisees, i n c l u d i n g S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l , w e r e i n v o l v e d in the attempt to r e m o v e h i m f r o m his post in the Galilee (Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) a n d ( b ) that, in his v i e w , the Pharisees p l a y e d a m a j o r a n d destructive role in the history o f the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e (War 1:110-114; Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) , to w h i c h he traces his o w n priestly, r o y a l , a n d p r o p h e t i c heritage (Life 1-6). T h e s e u n p r i n c i p l e d p o w e r - m o n g e r s tried to d e s t r o y his o w n career e v e n as they h a d l o n g b e f o r e used their influence to attack his h e r o , J o h n H y r c a n u s .
374
CONCLUSION TO THE STUDY
6. J o s e p h u s w a s n o t , a n d n e v e r c l a i m e d to b e , a Pharisee. H e w a s an aristocratic priest, d e s c e n d e d f r o m the H a s m o n e a n s , a n d h e w a s also fascinated b y h e m e r o b a p t i s t religion (cf. B a n n u s a n d the Essenes). H e always resented the Pharisees' h o l d o n the masses b u t , like the Sad d u c e e s , he a c c e p t e d this influence as a fact o f life. T h u s h e a c k n o w l e d g e s that w h e n he e n d e d his blissful years o f wilderness retreat with B a n n u s a n d returned to the city, he b e g a n to i n v o l v e himself in p u b l i c life, w h i c h m e a n t " f o l l o w i n g the school o f the 7. J o s e p h u s
Pharisees".
is mildest in his d e p r e c a t i o n o f the Pharisees
" s c h o o l p a s s a g e s " (War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ; Ant.
in
the
13:171-173; 18:11-23), where
he i n t r o d u c e s all three o f the J e w i s h atpeaet? to his Hellenistic readership. E v e n here o n e c a n detect anti-Pharisaic u n d e r t o n e s in J o s e p h u s ' s c h o i c e o f w o r d s (cf. Soxeto, TUYX^VCO)
a
n
d
m
his insistence o n the
outstanding
virtues o f the Essenes; but in Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , at least, h e achieves c o m plete neutrality. W e m a y , h o w e v e r , n o t e several features o f the school passages. ( a ) T h e y are c o n c e r n e d o n l y with the p h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs o f schools, n o t with their actions. But J o s e p h u s agrees with the Pharisaic
(and
Essene) beliefs in fate a n d i m m o r t a l i t y . I n d e e d , he seems closer to the Pharisaic v i e w o n b o t h issues. But the Pharisees o n l y represented
the
p o p u l a r m i d d l e g r o u n d o n these q u e s t i o n s , w h i c h J o s e p h u s evidently shared. ( b ) In the s c h o o l passages all three schools are p o r t r a y e d positively. J o s e p h u s ' s p u r p o s e is to m a p o u t the r a n g e o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l speculation a m o n g the accredited schools o f J u d a i s m ; in t w o o f the s c h o o l passages, he also wants to contrast the legitimate representatives o f J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y with the n o v e l ( a n d false) idea o f u n c o n d i t i o n a l f r e e d o m e s p o u s e d b y J u d a s o f G a l i l e e . T h i s is clearly n o t the place for h i m to vent his per sonal animosities t o w a r d a n y o f the g r o u p s , a n d o n e m u s t l o o k for subtleties in this r e g a r d . W h e n e v e r o n e o f the three s c h o o l s c o m e s out m o r e f a v o u r a b l y than the others, h o w e v e r , it is always that o f the Essenes (War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ; Ant.
18:18-23).
( c ) M o s t i m p o r t a n t , the s c h o o l passages are part o f J o s e p h u s ' s " i d e a l " portrait o f J u d a i s m . H i s a p o l o g e t i c includes the c l a i m that the J e w s re c e i v e d a c o m p r e h e n s i v e c o d e o f n o b l e laws f r o m M o s e s a n d that they h a v e p r e s e r v e d and o b s e r v e d this c o d e exactly e v e r since. H e presents Judaism
as a superior p h i l o s o p h y . A l o n g s i d e this r e c u r r i n g t h e m e in
Ant., h o w e v e r , h e m u s t also e x p l a i n to Gentile readers h o w J u d a i s m fell f r o m its t r e m e n d o u s origins t o b e c o m e the defeated n a t i o n that it was at the e n d o f the first c e n t u r y . In this story, he c l a i m s , the Pharisees h a v e p l a y e d a m a j o r role. T h e difference o f e m p h a s i s b e t w e e n the Pharisee passages, in w h i c h
CONCLUSION TO THE STUDY
375
the g r o u p is o p e n l y vilified, a n d the school passages, in w h i c h J o s e p h u s discusses all three schools w i t h o u t o b v i o u s d e n i g r a t i o n , is traceable to this f u n d a m e n t a l difference o f p u r p o s e . O n the o n e h a n d , the Pharisees c a n b e cited as o n e o f the J e w i s h g r o u p s w h o " p h i l o s o p h i z e " a b o u t such issues as i m m o r t a l i t y a n d fate. O n the o t h e r h a n d , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s casts t h e m as a constantly destructive force in the saga o f J e w i s h history. O u t o f e n v y , they consistently o p p o s e d their rulers; they c o n t r i b u t e d m u c h to the d o w n f a l l o f the H a s m o n e a n s ; they plotted against H e r o d ; a n d , n o t least, they sought to oust J o s e p h u s f r o m his c o m m a n d . B o t h sorts o f passages reflect J o s e p h u s ' s characteristic v o c a b u l a r y a n d t h e m e s a n d they o v e r l a p in c o n t e n t ; so there is n o q u e s t i o n o f different sources a c c o u n t i n g for the difference o f e m p h a s i s . It is s i m p l y a matter of context. 8. It s h o u l d p e r h a p s b e stressed, in v i e w o f the history o f scholarship o n early J u d a i s m , that J o s e p h u s ' s antipathy t o w a r d the Pharisees h a d o n l y p e r s o n a l causes, as far as w e k n o w . H e n e v e r attacks Pharisaic piety per se, as a system, a n d i n d e e d he shares the Pharisees' goal o f axpifktoc in the h a n d l i n g o f the M o s a i c L a w . It w o u l d b e quite illegitimate, there fore, to use the results o f this study as s u p p l e m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e ( a l o n g w i t h , say, the G o s p e l s a n d P a u l ) for the " d e f e c t s " o f Pharisaic r e l i g i o n . T h e crucial p o i n t here is that J o s e p h u s ' s perspective w a s that o f a tiny m i n o r i t y in first-century Palestine: h e was an a v o w e d elitist. But w e h a v e seen a m p l e e v i d e n c e in his writings that the Pharisees e n j o y e d the steady a n d e a g e r s u p p o r t o f the o r d i n a r y p e o p l e . O u r a u t h o r d i s d a i n e d b o t h the Pharisees a n d the masses. If these c o n c l u s i o n s are v a l i d , the present study has p r o v i d e d a basis for interpreting J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t the Pharisees. A n d since J o s e p h u s is p r o b a b l y o u r m o s t valuable witness to the history o f the Pharisees, an interpretation o f his e v i d e n c e a n d his biases is already a m a j o r p r e l i m i n a r y step t o w a r d the r e c o v e r y o f that history.
APPENDIX A THE
H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y O F WAR A N D
ANTIQUITIES:
A DIALOGUE W I T H H. W. ATTRIDGE In o u r e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p r e f a c e to War, w e e n c o u n t e r e d H . W . A t t r i d g e ' s t h e o r y o f a shift in h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e b e t w e e n that w o r k a n d Ant. A t t r i d g e b u i l d s o n the w e l l - k n o w n parallels b e t w e e n War's pref ace a n d the p r i n c i p l e s o f P o l y b i u s , o n the o n e h a n d , a n d b e t w e e n Ant. a n d D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , o n the other, to p r o p o s e : ( a ) that War 1:13-16 a n d Ant. 1:5-6 constitute different " p r o g r a m m a t i c
statements"
o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e for the w o r k s in w h i c h they a p p e a r ; ( b ) that, therefore, J o s e p h u s c h a n g e d his historiographical p r i n c i p l e s b e t w e e n w r i t i n g War a n d w r i t i n g Ant.; a n d ( c ) that this shift in theoretical p e r s p e c t i v e , f r o m " c r i t i c a l " to " r h e t o r i c a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , m a y well a c c o u n t for the c h o i c e o f subject m a t t e r in Ant. O n c e e x p o s e d to rheto rical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , the a r g u m e n t g o e s , J o s e p h u s saw its potential for an a p o l o g e t i c history o f J u d a i s m a n d this led h i m to a b a n d o n his earlier principles, e n u n c i a t e d in War, w h i c h h a d e x c l u d e d a n c i e n t history as an object o f study.
1
It is a q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s really i n t e n d e d War 1:1316 as a statement o f the " c r i t i c a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s to w h i c h he w a s c o m m i t t e d , w h i c h p r i n c i p l e s e x c l u d e d ancient J e w i s h history as a p r o p e r field for investigation. T w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m a k e that possibility unlikely. 1. First, b y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , virtually all h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w a s "rhetorical"
historiography.
2
F o r the
conflict
that w e see b e t w e e n
P o l y b i u s a n d the rhetorical historians in the m i d - s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C w a s w o n b y the r h e t o r i c i a n s — p r o b a b l y e v e n b e f o r e P o l y b i u s w r o t e , since his 3
o w n w o r k is n o t i n n o c e n t o f rhetorical i n f l u e n c e . It s o o n d e v e l o p e d that e v e r y rhetorician felt free to e n g a g e in historical w r i t i n g a n d e v e r y o n e
1
Attridge, Interpretation, 43f., 5Iff., 56. Cf. Norden, Kunstprosa, I, 8Iff.; Lieberich, Prodmien, 5, 17, 20; Halbfas, Theorie, 710 et passim; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 81-84, 167; G. Giovannini, "Connection", 308314; M . I. Finley, Use and Abuse, 12. Cf. Lieberich, Prodmien, 20; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 20-25; and Siegfried, Polybius, 28f. Finley, Use and Abuse, 33, remarks, "It is significant. . . how quickly historians abandoned the austerity of Thucydides for the emotional appeals of the poets, how history became 'tragic history', even in Polybius who denied it so vehemently". Cf. F.W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley CA: University of California, 1972), 34-40. 2
3
APPENDIX A
377 4
who aspired to write history studied rhetoric. But this victory meant less a
conscious
abandonment of the
critical
principles
enunciated
by
Thucydides and Polybius than a development of them along rhetorical lines. T h e result of this evolution was a historiographical "melting-pot" in which one could draw freely on both the Thucydidean emphases of ac curacy and eyewitness evidence and the rhetorical concerns for style and vividness.
5
That
some historians were more critical than others is
undeniable, but the distinction was one of degree within the pervasive sphere
of
rhetorical
historiography
and
not
between
different
historiographical ''schools''. O n e can see the melting-pot effect in many sources. Polybius, the ex emplary critical historian, does not shrink from using a rhetorical ques tion ( 1 . 1 . 5 ) or a detailed comparison in rhetorical style ( 1 . 4 . 7 - 9 ) .
6
Even
more striking are his emphasis on the moral-pedagogical value of history ( 1 . 3 5 . 1 - 3 , 7-10; 2 . 6 1 . 2 - 6 , 11-12; 1 0 . 2 1 . 3 - 4 ) and his admission of T e p c ^ (delight) as a secondary goal of history, alongside truthfulness ( 1 5 . 3 6 . 3 ; 38.1.2);
both of these
Isocrates.
7
emphases reflect
the rhetorical influence
of
O n the other side, Dionysius, though entirely devoted to
rhetorical interests, frequently speaks of the (Thucydidean-Polybian) aXrjOeioc standard for history.
8
A n d Lucian's essay on writing history,
which represents the common rhetorical historiography of the second 9
century A D , advocates both the principles of the master historians and those of the rhetoricians, innocently juxtaposed with no hint of tension.
10
N o r is it possible, for the first century, to attribute the writing of con temporary political history to the critical historians and that of ancient history to the rhetoricians, as if the two fields were understood to be the provinces of different kinds of historians. It is true that Thucydides and Polybius had insisted on eyewitness evidence and had thus limited their fields of inquiry to recent events. It is also true that rhetorical theory could
justify
writing
ancient
history
because
it
could
recognize
originality in structure and presentation as well as in content. But the
4
Norden, Kunstprosa, I, 81ff. and Halbfas, Theorie, 7f. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 167. Pointed out by Lieberich, Prodmien, 20. Cf. Siegfried, Polybius, 29, and Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 20ff. Cf., e.g., Rom. Ant. 1.1.2, 5.1-4, 6.2, 3, 5; also Halbfas, Theorie, 32f. Cf. P. Collomp, "Technik", 278-293, and Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 165ff. Especially striking is the tension between his invocation of Thucydides as a model historian (19, 39, 42), along with his call for first-hand knowledge and painstaking in vestigation (47), and his overriding emphasis on literary virtues, which implies that the historian's chief responsibility is to shape and stylize his received material (16, 50: ou Tt vhz(tX3\ ^y\vr\i£ov auxot? aXX' 07ca)^ eXnctxnv). This tension is pointed out already by Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 168ff. 5
6
7
8
9
1 0
378
APPENDIX A
study o f ancient times w a s an inevitable d e v e l o p m e n t e v e n a m o n g the m o s t s o b e r historians. First, if T h u c y d i d e s a n d P o l y b i u s h a d e m p h a s i z e d the usefulness o f history as " t h e s o v e r e i g n c o r r e c t i v e o f h u m a n n a t u r e " ( P o l y b i u s 1 . 1 . 1 ) , as a g u i d e for present life, t h e n it w a s n o t difficult for D i o d o r u s to a r g u e that the b r o a d e r the s c o p e o f the history a n d the greater the variety o f situations i n c l u d e d , the more useful the narrative ( D i o d o r u s 1 . 3 . 1 - 2 ) . S i n c e history w a s always written in the Hellenistic w o r l d in o r d e r to benefit its r e a d e r s ,
11
this a r g u m e n t w o u l d h a v e h a d a c o m p e l l i n g l o g i c .
S e c o n d , as A v e n a r i u s o b s e r v e s , the T h u c y d i d e a n / P o l y b i a n standard o f eyewitness e v i d e n c e c o u l d n o t b e sustained in the R o m a n e m p i r e .
1 2
W h e r e a s the earlier historians h a d l i v e d in times o f great u p h e a v a l a n d h a d r e a d y subjects for c o n t e m p o r a r y history, u n d e r the Pax Romana the c h a n c e s o f a rhetorically-trained R o m a n finding h i m s e l f in the m i d d l e o f a significant w a r w e r e rather slight. H e n c e the natural f o c u s o n ancient times. T h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e e x p l a i n s the zeal with w h i c h J o s e p h u s attacks those w h o write ancient history: h e is k e e n l y aware o f his o w n p r i v i l e g e d status as eyewitness to a m a j o r c o n f l i c t .
13
N o r c a n it b e said that the shift to ancient history represented an utter disregard for the t r u t h / a c c u r a c y
standard. T h u c y d i d e s already
recog
n i z e d the impossibility o f b e i n g personally present at e v e r y significant e v e n t , e v e n within a single w a r , a n d so confessed his reliance o n o t h e r eyewitnesses ( 1 . 2 2 . 2 - 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , P o l y b i u s a l l o w e d that the challenge w a s to find trustworthy witnesses
o n w h o m to d e p e n d
(12.4c.4-5).
A l t h o u g h T h u c y d i d e s a n d P o l y b i u s i n t e n d e d that the historian crosse x a m i n e l i v i n g witnesses, it w a s n o t m u c h o f a leap f r o m their principles to the p r o p o s i t i o n that the written r e c o r d s o f others m i g h t also b e u s e d b y a discerning
historian.
S u c h a shift w a s i n d e e d m a d e . L u c i a n ( § 16) p r o p o s e s that a certain U7c6pvT)pa c o n c e r n i n g the recent named
Callimorphus,
historian.
14
Parthian war,
written b y a
witness
c o u l d b e u s e d to g o o d effect b y a c o m p e t e n t
J o s e p h u s tells us that b o t h his a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h w a r a n d
those o f his R o m a n c o m p e t i t o r s utilized the u7topvrjpocTa o f V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s (Life 3 4 2 ; Ag.Ap.
1:56). T h u s , b y the m i d d l e o f the first c e n
tury, e v e n historians o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events w e r e w i l l i n g to d r a w o n the
11
Cf. Finley, Use and Abuse, 31 (on Thucydides), and Momigliano, Essays, 168f. (on Thucydides and Polybius). The idea that history teaches practical lessons was fundamen tal to ancient historiography was and not limited to a "rhetorical" school, as Attridge, Interpretation, 51-53, seems to suggest. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 83f. Cf. Momigliano, Essays, 164. Momigliano, Essays, 93ff. 1 2
1 3
1 4
379
APPENDIX A
d o c u m e n t s o f eyewitnesses t o e n h a n c e their o w n a c c o u n t s , a l t h o u g h they w e r e themselves eyewitnesses to the situation as a w h o l e . T h i s p r a c t i c e , i n a s m u c h as it h e l p e d to s u p p l e m e n t the historian's o w n limited p e r c e p tions, aid his m e m o r y , a n d c h e c k his biases, d i d n o t conflict with the c l a i m to dxptjktoc b u t s u p p o r t e d it. But if historians o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events c o u l d use trustworthy ac c o u n t s written b y others to e n r i c h their o w n narratives, then the writers o f ancient history c o u l d n o t legitimately b e faulted for u s i n g the a c c o u n t s o f others, as l o n g as those sources t o o w e r e trustworthy. Historians o f antiquity w e r e n o t insensitive to this p r o v i s o . D i o n y s i u s , for e x a m p l e , outlines his sources in the preface to his Roman Antiquities: he has re c e i v e d oral instruction, h e says, f r o m the m o s t learned m e n (XoyiOTaxcov dvSpcov) a n d has e m p l o y e d the a c c o u n t s o f the m o s t respected authors (ot ercatvoupevot, 1.7.3, cf. 7 . 7 1 . 1 ) . L i v y ( w h o s e critical faculty is likewise suspect)
15
m a k e s at least t o k e n attempts to w e i g h sources a c c o r d i n g to
their merits o n v a r i o u s questions o f antiquity. H e declares that he is f o l l o w i n g a particular s o u r c e b e c a u s e o f its a u t h o r ' s closeness to the events o r l i k e l i h o o d o f k n o w i n g the truth ( 6 . 1 2 . 2 ; 8 . 4 0 . 3 - 5 ; 2 1 . 3 8 . 2 - 5 ; 2 2 . 7 . 3 - 4 ) . L i k e w i s e D i o d o r u s claims that in writing his universal history h e has a c q u i r e d an accurate (dxptfktoc) k n o w l e d g e o f events b y m e a n s o f the urcopvrjpocTOc that h a v e b e e n carefully p r e s e r v e d in R o m e ( 1 . 4 . 4 ) . H e has e v e n travelled a r o u n d m u c h o f the w o r l d , h e c l a i m s , i n c u r r i n g m u c h h a r d s h i p a n d d a n g e r (xaxo7ta9eta^ xat xtv8uv