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
"literary
friends in
R o m e " , h e c a m e to regard t h e m as slaves, retained b y J o s e p h u s for their literary s k i l l .
17
C . In Ant., T h a c k e r a y finds e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s weariness at the e n d o f b o o k 14, for the a c c o u n t in War is repeated almost v e r b a t i m . W i t h b o o k 15, h o w e v e r , a n e w style a n d r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f material vis-a-vis War take o v e r . M o r e o v e r , Ant.
15-16 a n d 17-19, seen as t w o b l o c k s ,
possess distinctive stylistic features classes o f G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e .
1 3
that b e a r affinities to
particular
18
Feldman, Modern Scholarship, 554. Such problems are common to all writers, especially those of long works—even when remarkable technological resources are available for assistance! Thackeray, Josephus, 100-124. Ibid., lOlf. Ibid., 105. Ibid., 107-115. 1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
49
EXCURSUS
I n Ant.
1 5 - 1 9 , therefore, T h a c k e r a y discerns the w o r k o f t w o literary
assistants,
the
one
"Sophoclean"
(books
15-16)
and
the
other
a
" T h u c y d i d e a n h a c k " (books 17-19). How
m u c h l e e w a y d i d J o s e p h u s grant these assistants? T h a c k e r a y is
n o t absolutely clear, b u t he d o e s indicate that after Ant. has b e e n entrusted to other h a n d s " ,
1 9
14, " t h e w o r k
a n d that the T h u c y d i d e a n w a s
" r e s p o n s i b l e for w r i t i n g practically the w h o l e o f B o o k s x v i i - x i x . . . " , as well as v a r i o u s " p u r p l e p a t c h e s " in the earlier n a r r a t i v e .
21
2 0
I n general,
the w o r k o f J o s e p h u s ' s assistants r a n g e d f r o m " p o l i s h i n g his p e r i o d s " to " t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f large p o r t i o n s o f the n a r r a t i v e " .
2 2
F o r the Pharisee passages, T h a c k e r a y ' s analysis w o u l d s e e m to require that Ant. 1 5 : 1 - 4 , 3 6 5 - 3 7 9 w e r e written b y the S o p h o c l e a n , Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 a n d 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 b y the T h u c y d i d e a n . ( R e c a l l that the s o u r c e critics, b y contrast,
attribute Ant.
17:41-45 and
1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 to different
sources,
b e c a u s e o f their difference in t o n e t o w a r d the Pharisees.) H i s interpreta tion o f the auvepyot as full-fledged writers has n o t , h o w e v e r , p r o v e n durable. In a 1939 article G . C . R i c h a r d s s h o w e d , o n the o n e h a n d , that cer tain characteristics o f J o s e p h a n style a p p e a r in the b o o k s that T h a c k e r a y h a d attributed w h o l l y to assistants a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , that the i m itation o f T h u c y d i d e s in Ant. 17-19 is t o o a w k w a r d to b e the w o r k o f a skilled a s s i s t a n t .
23
I n a 1961 study, R . J.
H . Shutt subjected T h a c k e r a y ' s p r o p o s a l to
careful scrutiny a n d also rejected i t .
24
Shutt a r g u e d as f o l l o w s .
25
A . T h e b r e a k b e t w e e n Ant. 14 a n d 15 is a natural b r e a k in the story o f H e r o d : b o o k 14 closes with his entry into J e r u s a l e m , w h e r e a s in b o o k 15 he b e g i n s to c o n s o l i d a t e his p o s i t i o n in the city. Further, there are i m p o r t a n t narrative links b e t w e e n b o o k s 14 a n d 1 5 . B . Ant.
2 6
15-16 c o n t a i n s r e m i n i s c e n c e s o f S o p h o c l e s b u t , since J o s e p h u s
c l a i m e d to h a v e studied G r e e k in R o m e (Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 3 ) , that is n o t surpris ing.
1 9
S u c h r e m i n i s c e n c e s also o c c u r in
27
War.
Ibid., 107. Ibid., 113. Ibid., 106. Ibid., 100. G. C . Richards, "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities", CQ33 (1939), 36-40. R . J. H . Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK, 1961), 59-75. Several of Shutt's arguments were anticipated by H . Peterson, in an incisive foot note to his article, "Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus", American Journal of Philology 79 (1958), 260f. n. 5. Schutt, Studies, 63. Ibid., 64-65. 2 0
21
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
50
EXCURSUS
C . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s ' s c o m p o s i t i o n a l (as distinct f r o m c o n v e r s a t i o n a l ) G r e e k m a y h a v e r e q u i r e d assistance w h e n he arrived in R o m e a n d w r o t e War, an assistance that h e a c k n o w l e d g e s (Ag.Ap. that w h e n h e c a m e to write Ant.,
1:50), it seems unlikely
h a v i n g lived in R o m e a n d
studied
G r e e k for m a n y years, he n e e d e d the s a m e assistance; he d o e s n o t acknowledge a n y .
2 8
D . In a detailed e x a m i n a t i o n o f the T h u c y d i d e a n e x p r e s s i o n s in Ant. 1719, Shutt d e m o n s t r a t e d that they are also present in Ant. 20 a n d Life, w h i c h T h a c k e r a y h a d attributed to the ipsissima verba o f J o s e p h u s .
2 9
Shutt, therefore, f o u n d T h a c k e r a y ' s h y p o t h e s i s " b a s i c a l l y u n s o u n d " a n d " u n n e c e s s a r y " . In its p l a c e h e p r o p o s e d that J o s e p h u s t o o k u p a striking phrase, " w o r k e d u p o n it, e x t e n d e d it, in a c o m p a r a t i v e l y short s p a c e , a n d then d i s c a r d e d i t " , after the m a n n e r o f L i v y .
3 0
T . R a j a k ' s recent study o f J o s e p h u s ( 1 9 8 3 ) has c o n f i r m e d a n d e x t e n d e d Shutt's critique o f T h a c k e r a y .
3 1
R a j a k identifies J o s e p h u s as a m e m b e r
o f the " u p p e r e c h e l o n s o f the Palestinian p r i e s t h o o d , an o u t w a r d l o o k ing,
flexible
g r o u p " , a status i n d i c a t e d b y his selection as an emissary
to R o m e a n d as a c o m m a n d e r in the r e v o l t .
32
In this c a p a c i t y , R a j a k
argues, J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e possessed a basic facility in G r e e k , w h i c h c o u l d o n l y h a v e b e e n e n h a n c e d d u r i n g his eight years o r so o f R o m a n 33
captivity b e f o r e he w r o t e War.
T h u s , the k i n d o f linguistic deficiencies
for w h i c h he r e q u i r e d h e l p in the w r i t i n g o f War w e r e n o t basic b u t in volved precision o f idiom and style.
34
R a j a k thus inclines t o w a r d the
v i e w d i s c a r d e d b y T h a c k e r a y , that the auvepyot o f Ag.Ap.
1:50 w e r e
s i m p l y friends w h o w e r e w i l l i n g to edit War for style, as A g r i p p a II a p parently h a d d o n e for c o n t e n t (Life 3 6 4 f f . ) . She r e m a r k s : It would be rash, therefore, to suppose that he [Josephus] would not be fit, when eventually he came to the Greek War, at the very least to collaborate fruitfully with his assistants, and to take the ultimate responsibility for substance and style a l i k e . 35
2 8
Ibid., 66-68. Ibid., 68-74. Ibid., 74-75. Rajak, Josephus, 47-63, 233-236. Ibid., 8, 21, 42. Ibid., 47, 62. Cf. Hengel's comment on life in Palestine even before the Christian era (Judentum, 108), that Greek "war die Sprache der Diplomaten wie der Literaten, und wer gesellschaftliches Ansehen oder gar den Ruf ein gebildeter Mann zu sein, suchte, musste sie fehlerfrei beherrschen." Cf. also Laqueur, Historiker, 127, and Schreckenberg, Untersuchungen, 173. Ibid., 50. Ibid., 62-63. 2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
51
EXCURSUS
R a j a k is especially reluctant to allow the auvepyot a n y significant role in Ant.,
since, as Shutt h a d n o t e d , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a c k n o w l e d g e a n y
assistance for that w o r k .
3 6
M o r e o v e r , she p o i n t s o u t , the S o p h o c l e a n a n d
T h u c y d i d e a n styles c a n n o t b e attributed to different writers b e c a u s e ( a ) T h u c y d i d e a n i s m s o c c u r t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s writings a n d ( b ) the t w o styles are s o m e t i m e s i n t e r w o v e n in a single passage ( e . g . Ant. 4 : 8 9 - 9 5 ) . Rajak's
own
explanation
o f these
classical
reminiscences
is
that
J o s e p h u s , as h e h i m s e l f says (Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 3 ) , h a d studied the classics; she notes that the masters w e r e studied precisely for the p u r p o s e o f imita tion.
3 7
O t h e r inconsistencies in his writings she attributes to ( a ) the influ
ences o f sources a n d ( b ) the o c c a s i o n a n d p u r p o s e o f the writing. In s u m : R i c h a r d s , Shutt, a n d R a j a k all s u p p o r t T h a c k e r a y ' s o b s e r v a tion that J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s exhibit an u n e v e n n e s s o f style: they d o n o t , h o w e v e r , e n d o r s e the other premises r e q u i r e d for his inference that literary assistants actually c o m p o s e d large sections o f the
narrative.
S i n c e n o d e f e n c e o f T h a c k e r a y ' s hypothesis has a p p e a r e d , it w o u l d s e e m legitimate t o take the p o s i t i o n o f the later scholars as the verdict o f c o n t e m p o r a r y scholarship o n the ouvepyoi: It is quite safe to take Josephus's works, starting with the first, the War, as his own, and to treat him exactly in the same way as we do other ancient writers. It is as well to dispel all fantastic notions of ghost writers at this early s t a g e . 38
In this matter, as with the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n , the interpreter o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages c a n n o t b e g i n b y separating s o m e o f t h e m as the w o r k o f another a u t h o r .
I I I . Christian Influence on the Text A third possible reason for suspecting that J o s e p h u s w a s not responsible for all o f the Pharisee passages in his w o r k s is that those w o r k s w e r e pre served f r o m antiquity b y the Christian C h u r c h , w h o s e anti-Pharisaic stance was already revealed in the G o s p e l s a n d c o n t i n u e d u n a b a t e d . It is w i d e l y b e l i e v e d that the testimoniumflavianumo f J o s e p h u s has at least b e e n glossed b y a C h r i s t i a n h a n d .
3 9
Is it n o t c o n c e i v a b l e , then, that the
C h u r c h altered J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees, since this g r o u p w a s the object o f its displeasure?
3 6
Ibid., 233-236. Ibid. Ibid. 63. The literature on the testimonium is enormous. For a brief overview see the L C L edn. of Josephus, I X , 48ff. (by L. H . Feldman). 3 7
3 8
3 9
52
EXCURSUS
A l t h o u g h a l o g i c a l possibility, the idea o f C h r i s t i a n t a m p e r i n g with Josephus's Elbogen
Pharisee
was
passages has h a r d l y
o n e o f its
ever b e e n put
few a d v o c a t e s . A r g u i n g that
forward. the
I.
rabbinic
literature offers the o n l y suitable entree to Pharisaic t h o u g h t , E l b o g e n suggested that the
Christian
copyists w h o handed
down
Josephus's
writings suppressed (unterdruckteri) e v e r y t h i n g in t h e m that w a s i n c o n v e nient for C h r i s t i a n favourable Josephus's
belief; the c e n s o r e d material
presentations
of
the
repeated c l a i m in Ant.
Pharisees.
40
allegedly c o n t a i n e d
Elbogen
pointed
to
( 1 3 : 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 ; 1 8 : 1 1 ) that he
had
already g i v e n a full d i s c u s s i o n o f the J e w i s h schools in War; b u t Ant. e x p a n d s c o n s i d e r a b l y o n the material that w e n o w possess in War. E l b o g e n p r o p o s e d that Christian c o p y i s t s deleted f r o m War those d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees that c o n t r a d i c t e d their i m p r e s s i o n s f r o m the G o s p e l s : D a die Pharisaer als die eigentlichen prinzipiellen G e g n e r des Christentums angesehen wurden, so glaubten m a n in der Charakteristik des Pharisaertums durch Josephus nicht mehr die Wahrheit zu finden und liesst nur stehen, was neben ihrem von den Evangelien entworfenen Bilde sich sehen lassen k o n n t e . 41
E l b o g e n d i d n o t actually suggest, then, that c o p y i s t s altered the Pharisee passages that n o w stand, o n l y that they deleted a m o r e p o s i t i v e portrayal f r o m War. ( T h i s t h e o r y , significantly, reveals E l b o g e n ' s j u d g e m e n t that the r e m a i n i n g Pharisee passages are u n f a v o u r a b l e t o w a r d the g r o u p . ) Unfortunately,
E l b o g e n ' s idea r e m a i n e d unsubstantiated
by more
precise i n d i c a t i o n s o f w h a t the deleted material h a d c o n t a i n e d , w h e r e it had s t o o d , a n d w h e n it w a s e x c i s e d . W i t h o u t these crucial supports, the hypothesis c o u l d n o t s u r v i v e . T h e o t h e r theoretical possibility, o f Christian responsibility for the Pharisee passages that r e m a i n , runs a g r o u n d o n the c i r c u m s t a n c e that the
passages
historical
most
narrative,
hostile
toward
the
c o n c e r n i n g events
Pharisees under
the
come
in
pieces o f
Hasmoneans
and
H e r o d , w h i c h the C h u r c h c a n h a r d l y h a v e s u p p l i e d . Christian influence w o u l d thus b e limited to s o m e sort o f " c o l o u r i n g " ; the p r o b l e m w o u l d then b e to separate this c o l o u r i n g f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n . No
hypothesis
o f Christian
tampering
with J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisee
passages is b e i n g p r o p o s e d in this study a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y n o o b l i g a t i o n is a s s u m e d to d i s c o v e r the h a n d o f the c o p y i s t . F o r o u r p u r p o s e , it is suf ficient to n o t e that the C h u r c h ' s transmission o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings has n e v e r b e e n s h o w n to h a v e i n c l u d e d a n y t a m p e r i n g with his descriptions o f the Pharisees.
4 0
Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, 4.
4 1
Ibid.
EXCURSUS
53
Summary T h r e e factors m i g h t s e e m to c o m p l i c a t e a n y attempt to read J o s e p h u s ' s writings as his o w n c o m p o s i t i o n s . T h e y are: ( a ) his use o f s o u r c e s ; ( b ) his use o f literary assistants; a n d ( c ) the C h u r c h ' s transmission o f his w o r k s . It is i m p o s s i b l e to rule o u t a n y o f these factors a priori as possible influences o n the a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees that a p p e a r in J o s e p h u s . Nevertheless, the results o f recent scholarship establish a strong prima facie case for the p r e s u m p t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s authorial responsibility. W e h a v e n o basis in the results o f c o n t e m p o r a r y research to c l a i m that a n y single passage o n the Pharisees must b e separated at the outset, as the w o r k o f s o m e o n e other than J o s e p h u s himself. If striking inconsistencies should a p p e a r a m o n g J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages, they will call for an e x p l a n a t i o n . In that case, o n e possibility w o u l d b e difference o f authorship, a t h e m e that has three variations. O u r first task, h o w e v e r , is to try to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s statements a b o u t the Pharisees within the c o n t e x t o f his o w n thought a n d writing, as his o w n testimony.
PART T W O
THE
P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH
B e t w e e n A D 75 a n d war"
in G r e e k .
1
79 J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e d
WAR
his history o f the
"Jewish
B y that t i m e he h a d b e e n g r a n t e d R o m a n c i t i z e n s h i p
a n d w a s l o d g e d securely in the e m p e r o r ' s f o r m e r r e s i d e n c e . So
far
as
P h a r i s e e s are
is k n o w n , J o s e p h u s ' s t h o s e c o n t a i n e d in
first 2
War.
published descriptions o f
the
T o understand what Josephus
w i s h e d t o c o n v e y a b o u t the Pharisees to the r e a d e r s o f his first w o r k is the p u r p o s e o f Part I I . W e shall l o o k first at the p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f War a n d t h e n at the relevant p a s s a g e s .
1
The terminus a quo is the dedication of the Temple of Peace in A D 75 (Dio Cassius 66:15), which is mentioned by Josephus in War 7:158. The terminus ad quern is the death of Vespasian in A D 79, for Josephus would later claim (Life 359, 361) that he had presented a copy of War to Vespasian. It is possible, as S. J. D . Cohen (Josephus, 84-87) suggests, that the version presented to Vespasian was incomplete and that the later books were only completed after 79. For our purposes, a decision on this point is unnecessary; the Pharisee material of War falls exclusively in the first two books. This would be true even if Laqueur's theory were accepted. He argues that at the heart of Josephus's Life (issued after A D 100, he thinks) lies a much earlier document, a self-justifying presentation of his command in the Galilee, which he submitted to the Jerusalem authorities in A D 66/67 (Laqueur, Historiker, 121). O f the two Pharisee passages in Life, however, Laqueur attributes the first (Life 10-12) to the polemic of the final version (pp. 54f., 246) and therefore to a period after 100. The second passage (Life 189-198), it is true, occurs in a block that Laqueur attributes to the earlier Rechenschaftshericht (p. 114). Since, however, the Pharisees are introduced there as if they were unknown to the reader, the passage could hardly have been written for the Jerusalem authorities, who were the intended recipients of the Rechenschaftsbericht (p. 121). I shall treat both passages in Life, therefore, as later discussions of the Pharisees than those found in War, without otherwise debating the merits of Laqueur's theory at this point. 2
CHAPTER THREE
P U R P O S E A N D O U T L O O K O F T H E JEWISH
WAR
F o r t u n a t e l y for the interpreter o f War, J o s e p h u s takes s o m e t r o u b l e to e n u n c i a t e his goals a n d p o i n t o f v i e w , b o t h in the p r o e m to War itself a n d in later reflective c o m m e n t s o n that w o r k .
3
A m o n g all o f these
e l a b o r a t e statements o f intention, h o w e v e r , o n e item has riveted the at tention o f m u c h twentieth-century
scholarship. It is J o s e p h u s ' s n o t i c e
that in the G r e e k War he w a s p r o v i d i n g for a G r e e k - s p e a k i n g a u d i e n c e w h a t he h a d already c o m p o s e d in his native l a n g u a g e (TTJ 7c<XTpi ) for the Parthians, B a b y l o n i a n s , a n d others (War 1:3, 6 ) . T h i s reference to an 4
earlier, p r e s u m a b l y A r a m a i c , e d i t i o n o f War has for m a n y scholars p r o v i d e d the k e y to the p u r p o s e o f the extant G r e e k v e r s i o n .
I. Historical Approaches R . L a q u e u r p o s e d the inevitable q u e s t i o n : was es besagen soil, wenn in der ersten Halfte der siebzigen Jahre der v o m Kaiser bezahlte und mit einer Villa beschenkte jiidische Schriftsteller in R o m in aramaischer Sprache ein W e r k verfasste, welches fur den fernen Orient bestimmt w a r . 5
H i s n o w classic a n s w e r w a s that J o s e p h u s w r o t e War o n b e h a l f o f the e m p e r o r V e s p a s i a n , to b e a v e h i c l e o f i m p e r i a l p o l i c y in the O r i e n t . It w a s an official p r o p a g a n d a p i e c e , calculated to deflate a n y a m b i t i o n s the "oberen Barbaren"
m a y h a v e b e e n n u r s i n g for a c a m p a i g n
R o m e . L a q u e u r ' s e v i d e n c e w a s e l a b o r a t e d b y H . St. J o h n a n d the results m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s .
against
Thackeray
6
A . T h a t the Parthians a n d their n e i g h b o u r s constituted a threat to R o m e L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y infer f r o m v a r i o u s s o u r c e s . In the m i d 4 0 ' s , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 0 : 6 9 - 7 4 ) , the Parthian k i n g V a r d a n e s c o n t e m p l a t e d a w a r with R o m e . In the preface to War ( 1 : 4 ) J o s e p h u s notes that the J e w i s h
rebels h o p e d for assistance
from
their
fellows
b e y o n d the E u p h r a t e s a n d that, with the revolt, the Eastern E m p i r e w a s
3
Cf., in particular, Ant. 1:1-4; Life 361-367; Ag.Ap. 1:47-56. So the common opinion, but cf. J . M . Grintz, "Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple", JBL 79 (1960), 32-47. Laqueur, Historiker, 126. Laqueur, Historiker, 126-127; Thackeray, Josephus, 27-28. 4
5
6
CHAPTER THREE
58
p l a c e d in j e o p a r d y . A g r i p p a is m a d e to ask the rebels,
rhetorically,
w h e t h e r they are e x p e c t i n g h e l p f r o m the J e w s o f A d i a b e n e ( War 2 : 3 8 8 ) ; indeed,
s o m e proselytes f r o m that c o u n t r y d i d j o i n the revolt
(War
5 : 4 7 4 ) . P l i n y (Panegyric on Trajan 14) reports that the Parthians c a m e v e r y close to w a r with R o m e in A D 7 5 . A n d finally, w e k n o w that the J e w i s h D i a s p o r a in M e s o p o t a m i a d i d revolt u n d e r T r a j a n B.
The
invincibility a n d 1
throughout
War.
fortune
o f R o m e are
in 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 .
recurring
themes
I n his appeal to the rebels to quit their insurrection,
A g r i p p a repeatedly cites R o m e ' s ouvocuas a n d i\>yr\ ( 2 : 3 6 0 , 3 7 3 , 3 8 7 ) . J o s e p h u s d r a w s a c o m p e l l i n g portrait o f R o m a n military
procedures
( 3 : 7 0 - 1 0 7 ) , b y w h i c h he intends to offer " c o n s o l a t i o n to those w h o h a v e b e e n c o n q u e r e d a n d dissuasion to those contemplating revolt" ( 3 : 1 0 8 ) . C.
T h a t War possessed s o m e sort o f official status is suggested b y the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h it w a s written. T h e A r a m a i c v e r s i o n , w h i c h seems to h a v e b e e n J o s e p h u s ' s first literary p r o j e c t in R o m e u n d e r Fla vian s p o n s o r s h i p , was d i s p a t c h e d with n o t a b l e s p e e d . U p o n c o m p l e t i n g the G r e e k e d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s presented c o p i e s i m m e d i a t e l y to V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s (Ag.Ap. Josephus's Palestine
1:51; Life 3 6 1 ) ; the latter, w e are t o l d , i n t e n d e d that
War should b e c o m e the standard a c c o u n t o f the conflict in a n d to that e n d o r d e r e d its p u b l i c a t i o n (Life 3 6 3 ) . Finally,
J o s e p h u s ' s glorification o f the future e m p e r o r s , especially T i t u s , is so p r o n o u n c e d that W . W e b e r c o u l d posit as the p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e for War a Flavian w o r k that r e c o u n t e d the rise o f this dynasty to p o w e r . T a k e n together,
8
these three g r o u p s o f e v i d e n c e s e e m to l e n d c o n
siderable s u p p o r t to the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y interpretation o f the m o t i v e b e h i n d War: Josephus was commissioned by the conquerors to write the official history of the war for propagandistic purposes. It was a manifesto, intended as a warning to the East of the futility of further opposition and to allay the after-war thirst for revenge which ultimately found vent in the fierce out breaks under Trajan and H a d r i a n . 9
T h i s v i e w o f the A r a m a i c War's p u r p o s e has b e c o m e s t a n d a r d .
10
Most
o f its s p o n s o r s a p p e a r to b e l i e v e that in u n c o v e r i n g the p u r p o s e o f the 7
Cf. now Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 42ff., 89ff. W . Weber, Josephus und Vespasian (Berlin-Stuttgart-Leipzig: W . Kohlhammer, 1921). Thackeray, Josephus, 27. Cf., e.g., Shutt, Studies, 26; M . Hengel, Die Zeloten (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), 7, 1 Of., 11 n. 1; J. Goldin, 'Josephus", IDB, II, 987; A. Momigliano, "Josephus as a Source", 884; S. Safrai and M . Stern, edd., The Jewish People in the First Century ("Com pendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum", 1; Assen: Van Gorcum & C o . , 1974), 24; Z . Yavetz, "Reflections on Titus and Josephus", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975), 421; O . Michel and O . Bauernfeind, edd., De Bello Judaico: Der judische 8
9
10
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
59
WAR
lost A r a m a i c w o r k they h a v e also d i s c o v e r e d the intention o f the extant War; the latter is seen as b u t a G r e e k v e r s i o n o f the f o r m e r .
1 1
A n u m b e r o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , w o u l d s e e m to call for a r e a p praisal o f J o s e p h u s ' s intention in the Jewish War. A.
I n the first p l a c e , it is n o t clear that Parthia p o s e d a serious threat 12
to R o m e in the early 7 0 ' s , w h e n J o s e p h u s w r o t e War. two powers had concluded a major peace treaty;
13
I n A D 6 3 , the
after that, the prevail
i n g a t m o s p h e r e seems to h a v e b e e n o n e o f p e a c e a n d c o o p e r a t i o n , if o n l y out o f mutual
self-interest.
14
T h e single k n o w n r u p t u r e d u r i n g this
p e r i o d , n o t e d b y L a q u e u r , w a s an e x c e p t i o n to the rule a n d , in a n y case, was resolved diplomatically.
15
J o s e p h u s alludes to the c a l m
relations
w h e n h e has A g r i p p a say that the rebels o u g h t n o t to e x p e c t h e l p f r o m the J e w s o f A d i a b e n e , for e v e n if the latter w a n t e d to i n t e r v e n e , their P a r t h i a n o v e r l o r d w o u l d p r e v e n t it b e c a u s e o f his truce w i t h R o m e ( War 2:389). B . E v e n if the Parthians h a d b e e n o f a m i n d to c h a l l e n g e R o m e , as R a j a k p o i n t s o u t , it is d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r they ( a ) c o u l d h a v e distilled a 16
clear p r o p a g a n d i s t i c m e s s a g e f r o m the l e n g t h y narrative o f War
or (b)
w o u l d h a v e b e e n m o v e d to r e c o n s i d e r their designs b e c a u s e o f the fate o f tiny J u d e a .
1 7
C . A l t h o u g h it is clear f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s o w n statements that War re c e i v e d s o m e sort o f official r e c o g n i t i o n s u b s e q u e n t to its p u b l i c a t i o n (Life 3 6 1 f f . ) , this d o e s n o t i m p l y that the w o r k h a d its genesis in a " c o m m i s s i o n " f r o m the e m p e r o r to write a p r o p a g a n d i s t i c a c c o u n t o f the r e v o l t . E v e n T h a c k e r a y , w h o s p o n s o r e d the p r o p a g a n d a t h e o r y , c o n c e d e d that J o s e p h u s " w a s n o m e r e hireling; his o w n deepest c o n v i c t i o n s told h i m that the o n l y r o a d t o a m e l i o r a t i o n o f his n a t i o n ' s u n h a p p y lot lay in s u b m i s s i o n to the e m p i r e " .
1 8
A perusal o f the speeches in War ( w h i c h are
Krieg (4 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959), I, X X I f . ; and the discussion in G. Hata, "Is the Greek Version of Josephus' Jewish War a Translation or a Rewriting of the First Version?" JQR 66 (1975), 106f. Of the scholars mentioned in the previous note, only the last two, so far as I can discern, make a clear conceptual distinction between the purpose of the Greek War and that of its Semitic predecessor. Cf. Rajak, Josephus, 182f. Cf. J. G. C . Anderson, "The Eastern Frontier from Tiberius to Nero", Cambridge Ancient History, X , 77Of. Cf. the examples of Parthian cooperation with Rome given by R . Syme, "Flavian Wars and Frontiers", Cambridge Ancient History, X I , 139-144. Ibid., 143. Yavetz ("Reflections", 431), points out the limited value of historical narrative as "a major means of propaganda" in the Roman world. Rajak, Josephus, 180. Thackeray, Josephus, 29. Cf. B. Niese, "Josephus", ERE, V I I , 571. 1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
60
C H A P T E R THREE
J o s e p h a n c r e a t i o n s ) c o n f i r m s this a s s e s s m e n t . speeches a religiously b a s e d a r g u m e n t , fortune
(TU^T)) has
Josephus's
passed
to the
political sentiments
19
L i n d n e r d i s c o v e r s in the
n o t superficially o v e r l a i d , that
Romans.
2 0
Rajak
is able to trace
to his u p b r i n g i n g a n d social p o s i t i o n ;
they are n o t the c o n t r i v e d slogans o f p r o p a g a n d a .
2 1
Y a v e t z p r o p o s e s that
e v e n J o s e p h u s ' s flattery o f T i t u s s t e m m e d f r o m g e n u i n e a d m i r a t i o n a n d gratitude.
22
In a n y case, the s a m e attitude o f s u b m i s s i o n to R o m e that
w e find in War a p p e a r s also in Life (cf. 17ff.), w h i c h J o s e p h u s
wrote
m o r e than t w o d e c a d e s after the revolt. S o the q u e s t i o n urges itself: I f J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the R o m a n s ' m i g h t a n d d i v i n e l y o r d a i n e d rule springs f r o m his o w n c o n v i c t i o n s , a n d if this respectful
portrayal
explains the Flavian
endorsement
o f War
subsequent to its p u b l i c a t i o n ( o f w h i c h he speaks), w h e r e is the e v i d e n c e that War w a s c o n c e i v e d as a p r o p a g a n d a p i e c e ? D.
M o s t p r o b l e m a t i c o f all, the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y t h e o r y d e p e n d s
for its viability o n a close similarity b e t w e e n the extant G r e e k War a n d the lost A r a m a i c v e r s i o n . T h i s is clear in t w o c o n n e c t i o n s . First, the c o n tents o f the A r a m a i c v e r s i o n are inferred f r o m the G r e e k : scholars cite 7
the p r o l o g u e , the speeches, a n d e v e n the references to R o m a n TUX )
A
S
e v i d e n c e for the p u r p o s e o f the original A r a m a i c e d i t i o n . T h e n they c o o p t the intention o f the A r a m a i c War, d i s c o v e r e d in this m a n n e r , for the Greek version. A l m o s t n o o n e , h o w e v e r — l e a s t o f all L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y , really believes the G r e e k War to b e a translation o r e v e n a close paraphrase o f the A r a m a i c . E v e n t h o u g h the [xsT<x(3aXXco o f War 1:3 is c u s t o m a r i l y rendered
"translate/ubersetzen",
the
modern
editors
w h o use
such
equivalents are q u i c k to a d d that the G r e e k c a n b e a translation o n l y in the
very
loosest
substratum.
23
sense.
Indeed,
It
"The
shows
no
clear
evidence
of a
Semitic
style o f the w h o l e w o r k is an excellent
s p e c i m e n o f the Atticistic G r e e k fashionable in the first c e n t u r y " , c o r d i n g to T h a c k e r a y .
2 4
ac
T h i s suggests to h i m that the G r e e k War has
b e e n " p r a c t i c a l l y r e w r i t t e n " vis-a-vis the A r a m a i c .
2 5
T h e indications that o u r G r e e k War is an original G r e e k p r o d u c t i o n
1 9
Cf. Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 2Iff. and 41 f. (in reaction to Thackeray's prop aganda theory). Ibid., 92. Rajak, Josephus, 185. Yavetz, "Reflections", 424-426. Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, 403 n. 3. Thackeray, Josephus, 34; cf. L C L edn., II, ix. Ibid. 2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
are n u m e r o u s a n d o b v i o u s .
2 6
61
WAR
In a d d i t i o n to the a b s e n c e o f translation-
G r e e k , n o t e d a b o v e , the reader o f War is c o n f r o n t e d b y several f o r m s that are native to G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e . mulated
prologue,
2 8
the
philosophical v o c a b u l a r y ,
2 9
27
T h e y i n c l u d e the carefully
rhetorically
honed
speeches
with
for their
the entertaining digressions, a n d the m a n y
dramatic-novelistic e p i s o d e s .
3 0
T h e s e f o r m a l traits c o m b i n e to l o c a t e the
extant War squarely within the Hellenistic historical tradition. Further, a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s the A r a m a i c v e r s i o n in his p r o l o g u e to War, his later discussions o f War refer o n l y to the final G r e e k version.
31
A s G . H a t a points o u t , the w o r d s u s e d b y J o s e p h u s to d e s c r i b e
the w r i t i n g o f War ( y p ^ c o , atrpfpo^G), Ant. translation.
1:5; 2 0 : 2 5 8 ) d o n o t suggest
32
Finally, H a t a also argues that the v e r b [XSTOCPOCXXCO, w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses to d e s c r i b e the relationship b e t w e e n the G r e e k War a n d its A r a m a i c p r e d e c e s s o r (War
1:3), rarely m e a n s
"translate" outside o f Josephus
a n d , elsewhere in War, always m e a n s " t o c h a n g e s o m e t h i n g f u n d a m e n t a l l y " . T h e r e f o r e , he a r g u e s , it o u g h t to b e u n d e r s t o o d in War 1:3 in the sense " t o
rewrite".
3 3
A l t h o u g h it c a n n o t b e d e n i e d , then, that J o s e p h u s ' s G r e e k War w a s p r e c e d e d b y an A r a m a i c a c c o u n t o f the revolt, the relationship b e t w e e n the t w o w o r k s is a m a t t e r o f c o n j e c t u r e . B . N i e s e l o n g a g o c o m m e n t e d :
2 6
Laqueur's reason for believing this was that the Greek War had made use of the Greek Rechenschaftsbericht, whereas the Aramaic had not (Historiker, 126, 128). Since, however, the very existence of the Rechenschaftsbericht is not at all secure (cf. Cohen, Josephus, 18), this argument cannot now be used with force. Cf. G. Hata, ' 'Greek Version", 106f. Cf. H . Lieberich, Studien zu Prodmien in der griechischen und byzantischen Geschichtschreibung, I: Die griechischen Geschichtschreiber (Munich: J. G. Weiss, 1899), 34; D . Earl, "Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography", Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt (Berlin-New York: W . de Gruyter, 1972), I. 2, 842-856. Clearly, whatever pro logue the Aramaic version had must have differed somewhat from the Greek, since the latter reflects on the earlier version. Cf. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa (5th. edn.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1958 [1898]), I, 89; H . J. Cadbury et al., "The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History", in The Beginnings of Christianity, edd. F. J. Foakes Jackson, K. Lake, and H . J. Cadbury (London: Macmillan, 1922), II, esp. 12f.; G. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung (Meisenheim-Glan: A . Hain, 1956), 149-157; Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 2Iff., 85ff. Cf. H . R. Moehring, "Novelistic Elements". On all of the enumerated points see Hata, "Greek Version", 96-106, and Rajak, Josephus, 176. Cf. Ant. 1:1-4; Life 361-367; Ag.Ap. 1:47-52. The passage in the Life appears to leave little room for an Aramaic Vorlage. Hata, 94f., seems to have overlooked the appearance of epfXTjveuo in the epilogue to War (7:455), which certainly can have the meaning "translate". In the context there, however, the word seems to refer to the stylistic formulation of the narrative in War (cf. War 1:16, 30), as Thackeray's translation indicates. Hata, "Greek Version", 90-95. 2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
CHAPTER THREE
62
N o part of this A r a m a i c record has come down to us, and we are, therefore, not in a position to fix its relation to the extant Greek narrative. T h e latter was probably a complete recast, constructed on a more comprehensive plan. 34
O u r present
War is an i n d e p e n d e n t , self-contained G r e e k p r o d u c t i o n .
Fascinating as it m a y b e to speculate a b o u t the lost A r a m a i c treatise, it w o u l d b e v a i n either to infer the contents o f that d o c u m e n t o u t o f the G r e e k v e r s i o n o r , c o n v e r s e l y , to transfer its alleged p u r p o s e to the G r e e k v e r s i o n . I f o n e ' s g o a l is to interpret the extant w o r k , then o n e o u g h t to b e g i n with that w o r k itself a n d with its o w n statements o f p u r p o s e . The
w i d e s p r e a d scholarly n e g l e c t o f J o s e p h u s ' s d e c l a r e d literary a i m s
is particularly
baffling in light o f the rationale
for the p r o l o g u e in
Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . F o r the p r o l o g u e w a s i n t e n d e d , first, to in f o r m the potential reader o f the c o n t e n t a n d p e r s p e c t i v e o f the w o r k a n d , s e c o n d , to stimulate the r e a d e r ' s interest b y i n d i c a t i n g the significance o r usefulness o f the s u b j e c t .
35
T h e potential r e a d e r s h o u l d h a v e b e e n
able, m e r e l y b y u n r o l l i n g the first few lines o f the p a p y r u s scroll in h a n d , to d e t e r m i n e its subject, s c o p e , a n d t o n e .
3 6
I f h e o p t e d to read it, the p r o
l o g u e w o u l d serve as a g u i d e , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the w h o l e c o u l d b e in terpreted.
37
S i n c e the p r o e m to
War seems i n t e n d e d to satisfy
these
ancient r e q u i r e m e n t s , it w o u l d s e e m a p p r o p r i a t e for the m o d e r n inter preter o f War to b e g i n with that o p e n i n g statement, w h e r e J o s e p h u s in t e n d e d his readers to b e g i n .
I I . Exegesis of the Prologue to War The
preface to War is at o n c e t h o r o u g h l y c o n v e n t i o n a l a n d
strikingly
o r i g i n a l . It is c o n v e n t i o n a l i n a s m u c h as it furnishes e x a m p l e s o f m o s t o f the TOTCOI that h a d c o m e to b e associated with historical prefaces since the time o f T h u c y d i d e s .
3 8
In k e e p i n g with the dual p u r p o s e o f the p r e f a c e —
to i n f o r m a n d to a r o u s e i n t e r e s t — c o m m o n p l a c e r e m a r k s o n such t h e m e s as the f o l l o w i n g h a d b e c o m e s t a n d a r d :
3 4
39
the subject a n d its i m p o r t a n c e
B. Niese, 'Josephus", ERE, V I I , 571. Cf. Lucian, How to Write History 51-53; Lieberich, Prodmien, 5, 12; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 115f. Earl, "Prologue-form", 856. Lieberich, Proomien, 47. A handy collection of Greek and Hellenistic historical prefaces is provided, in translation, by A . Toynbee, Greek Historical Thought (New York: New American Library, 1952 [1924]), 29-97. Cf. especially the prologues of Thucydides, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Herodian; also Earl, "Prologue-form", 842-845. Lieberich, Prod3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
63
WAR
(cf. War 1:1, 4 - 5 ) ; the a u t h o r ' s credentials ( 1 : 3 ) ; reasons for a n d cir cumstances o f writing ( 1 : 2 , 6 ) ; o f the subject ( 1 : 2 , 7 - 8 ) ;
4 1
4 0
the i n a d e q u a c y o f p r e v i o u s treatments
the causes o f the events in q u e s t i o n ( 1 : 1 0 ) ; the
a u t h o r ' s strenuous efforts at a c c u r a c y ( 1 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) : a n d c o n c e r n for truth ( 1 : 2 , 6, 9, 16, 3 0 ) ; (1:13-16?);
4 4
4 3
4 2
his utter impartiality
his historiographical o u t l o o k
a n d an outline o f the w o r k ' s c o n t e n t s ( 1 : 1 7 - 3 0 ) . T h e s e c o n
v e n t i o n a l n o t i c e s a c c o u n t for practically the w h o l e o f the preface to War. A d h e r e n c e to c o n v e n t i o n , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t automatically p r e c l u d e significance. D . Earl aptly c o m m e n t s : Beginnings are a problem. T h e first paragraph is difficult; the first sentence frequently impossible. Tradition and style m a y help. T o the Greeks, who tended to stylize everything, this appeared the solution. 45
J u s t as the T07ioi o f the m o d e r n scholarly preface ( e . g . , c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f w r i t i n g , a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s ) d o n o t suggest a p e r f u n c t o r y attitude o n the a u t h o r ' s part, the standardization o f the G r e e k historical p r o l o g u e served n o t to stifle creativity b u t to facilitate the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the subject. T h e c h a l l e n g e facing the historian w a s to p r e s e r v e the c o n v e n t i o n s , w h i c h had
been
theory,
4 6
canonized
by
the
masters
and
l o g u e , d e t e r m i n e d b y the subject at h a n d .
War
elaborated
by
rhetorical
while at the s a m e t i m e fashioning a u n i q u e a n d c o m p e l l i n g p r o 4 7
1:1-8
J u d g e d b y this standard, the p r o l o g u e to War is a success: J o s e p h u s has crafted an e n g a g i n g invitation to his subject. W i t h i n the first
sentence
he delivers the c o r e o f his a r g u m e n t , the c o n c l u s i o n o f w h i c h is that he o u g h t to write
an
a c c o u n t in G r e e k o f the J e w i s h
w a r against
the
R o m a n s ( 1 : 3 ) . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is s u p p o r t e d b y three p r e m i s e s a n d e a c h o f these is, in turn, the c o n c l u s i o n o f a s u b o r d i n a t e a r g u m e n t . T h e three p r e m i s e s are as follows. mien, passim, discusses the development of the prologue-form through the Greco-Roman period. Cf. Dio Cassius 5.72.23. Cf. Dionysius 1:3-6; Herodian 1.1.1. Cf. Diodorus 1:4 and Dionysius, Rom.Ant. 1:8. Cf. Thucydides 1:21; Lucian, History 38-39. Cf. Polybius 9:2; Diodorus 1:4; Dionysius, Rom.Ant. 1:7-8; Arrian 1.1-3. I shall argue, however, that War 1:13-16 does not really reflect Josephus's historiography. Earl, "Prologue-form", 842. For the pervasiveness of rhetorical influence on Hellenistic historical writing, cf. Norden, Kunstprosa, I, 81; Lieberich, Prodmien, 5, 17, 20; F. Halbfas, Theorie und Praxis in der Geschichtsschreibung bei Dionysius von Halicarnassus (Miinster: Westfalische Vereinsdriickerei, 1910), 7-10; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 167. Lieberich, Prodmien, 13. 4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
64
CHAPTER THREE
1. T h e J e w i s h - R o m a n w a r is a n i m p o r t a n t subject for G r e e k - s p e a k i n g readers ( 1 : 1 , 4 - 6 , 8 ) . It is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e : ( a ) it p l a c e d the eastern e m p i r e in j e o p a r d y ( 1 : 4 - 5 ) ; ( b ) it r e q u i r e d large n u m b e r s o f forces o n b o t h sides, a l o n g w i t h e x t r e m e effort a n d c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e ( 1 : 8 ) ; a n d (c) it is u n s e e m l y that the r e m o t e s t n o n - H e l l e n e s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a c curately (&xpi(}ca<;) i n f o r m e d a b o u t the w a r , thanks t o a n earlier w o r k b y J o s e p h u s , w h i l e the G r e e k s r e m a i n in i g n o r a n c e ( 1 : 6 ) . 2.
P r e v i o u s a c c o u n t s o f the w a r are totally l a c k i n g in historical a c
c u r a c y (TO dxpifie? xfjs ujxopias, 1 : 2 ) . who
l a c k e d first-hand
4 8
( a ) S o m e w e r e written b y authors
k n o w l e d g e a n d h a d , therefore, to rely o n p o o r
sources a n d o n their o w n rhetorical skills ( 1 : 1 ) . ( b ) O t h e r authors w e r e i n d e e d e y e w i t n e s s e s , b u t they falsified (xaT<xc|>eu8ovTai) their a c c o u n t s , o u t o f either flattery o f the R o m a n s o r hatred o f the J e w s ( 1 : 2 ) , w h i c h m e a n s that the J e w s a l w a y s a p p e a r e d in a b a d light ( 1 : 7 - 8 ) . J o s e p h u s reprises this t h e m e at the e n d o f 1:6, w h e r e h e allows that the G r e e k s a n d Romans
s h o u l d n o t b e left with
flattering
(XOXOCXSIOCK;) o r fictitious
(7i:Xaau.aai) a c c o u n t s o f such an i m p o r t a n t e v e n t . 3. J o s e p h u s is in a u n i q u e p o s i t i o n t o m a k e g o o d the d e f i c i e n c y , that is, to p r o v i d e a c o m p l e t e a n d accurate (fxex' dxpipetocs, 1:9) a c c o u n t o f the w a r ( 1 : 6 , 9 ) . H i s credentials are: ( a ) that h e is a J e r u s a l e m i t e priest, a living s p e c i m e n o f the e x o t i c n a t i o n in q u e s t i o n ; ( b ) that h e p e r s o n a l l y fought against the R o m a n s ; a n d ( c ) that, b y force o f c i r c u m s t a n c e , h e has b e e n in a p o s i t i o n t o o b s e r v e the R o m a n side as well ( 1 : 3 ) . F r o m the first sentence o f War ( = 1:1-6), then, the r e a d e r learns that the
subject
is
important,
that
previous
treatments
in
Greek
are
m i s l e a d i n g , a n d that J o s e p h u s will e x p l o i t his u n i q u e l y i n f o r m e d posi tion to p r o v i d e the requisite a c c u r a c y . I n d e e d , these a r g u m e n t s all a p pear
within
the first
d i v i s i o n o f the sentence ( 1 : 1 - 3 ) .
§ § 4-5 is a
parenthetical e l a b o r a t i o n o f the w a r ' s i m p o r t a n c e a n d § 6 s u m m a r i z e s the w h o l e .
§ § 7-8 e l a b o r a t e o n the ineptitude o f the w a r ' s p r e v i o u s
chroniclers.
War
1:9-12
W i t h § 9 J o s e p h u s n a r r o w s the focus f r o m a general c o n s p e c t u s o f his subject a n d its i m p o r t a n c e t o the specific p u r p o s e s a n d t h e m e s o f his w o r k . T h u s the p a r a g r a p h § § 9-12 constitutes s o m e t h i n g like a " t h e s i s 4 8
Even allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, Josephus's statements presuppose at least two previous accounts of the war. Like his Aramaic account, they must have ap peared shortly after the war's end. This circumstance takes the force out of Thackeray's proposal that the speed with which the Aramaic version was dispatched reflected its urgent official purpose.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
65
WAR
s t a t e m e n t " for War. I n a s m o o t h transition f r o m § § 7-8, h e b e g i n s b y d i s a v o w i n g a n y intention to imitate the R o m a n chauvinist historians b y e x a g g e r a t i n g the feats o f his c o u n t r y m e n . R a t h e r , his sole a i m will b e to p o r t r a y b o t h sides with a c c u r a c y (jxe-u' dxpi(kia$, 1:9). A t this p o i n t , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s runs into s o m e difficulty. H e has set for h i m s e l f a high standard o f dXr}0eia a n d dxpifieta, o v e r against the treatments o f his R o m a n c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . Y e t h e declares that h e plans to a d d his o w n c o m m e n t a r y to the events (em idiq 7tpdyfjiaai TOU? Xoyous dvaTiOT)u.i) a n d to allow his o w n feelings rein to l a m e n t his c o u n t r y ' s misfortune (loiq ifxeauxou 7td8eai 8i8ou$ e7toXo9upea0ai iccTq vr\q 7WtTpi8o$ aujx<popaT$). H i s basis for l a m e n t — a n d this is the Leitmotif of War—is that it w a s d o m e s t i c t r o u b l e m a k e r s (oi 'IouSoctcov Tupocvvoi) a n d n o foreign a r m y that b r o u g h t the downfall o f J e r u s a l e m ( 1 : 1 0 - 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s is aware that the e l a b o r a t i o n o f strong personal feelings m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d inap p r o p r i a t e to the dxpi(kioc o f history: he predicts that s o m e o n e (iiq) m i g h t take h i m to task (aoxo9<xvTo£7|) a n d he e v e n admits that such selfe x p r e s s i o n c o n t r a v e n e s the " l a w o f h i s t o r y " (xov vty; t
4 9
H e allows that the leges o f p o e t r y a n d history
are different, since the latter is j u d g e d o n l y b y the standard o f truth (ad veritatem) .
5 0
S o m e d e c a d e s after J o s e p h u s , L u c i a n e c h o e d these h i g h stan
d a r d s : the historian m u s t write as if he w e r e a stranger to all c o u n t r i e s , without
pity
(8ua
(eXe&v), This
shame principle
(ataxuv6(xevo^), of
or
special
impassiveness,
says
T h u c y d i d e s l o n g a g o enshrined as a l a w (evou-oOeTTjaev).
51
pleading Lucian, Evidently,
then, the law o f history w a s often c o n s i d e r e d to e x c l u d e a n y personal feelings. A s A v e n a r i u s r e m a r k s , " Z u einer objektiven W a h r h e i t s f i n d u n g gehort . . . die A u s s c h a l t u n g p e r s o n l i c h e r G e f u h l e . "
4 9
5 2
Cicero, On the Orator 1:62. Cicero, Laws 1:5. Lucian, History 41. The value of this treatise for understanding Hellenistic historiography has been significantly increased by Avenarius's study of the work. He shows (Lukians Schrift, 165-178) that practically every one of its assertions reflects a com monplace of that historical tradition. W e may, therefore, view the work not as an idiosyncratic production of the mid-second century but as a repository of Hellenistic in sight into historical method, which had its roots in Thucydides and Polybius. Since Lu cian's work is the only thing resembling a manual of historical method that has come down from antiquity, the service that Avenarius has performed is immense. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 41. 5 0
5 1
5 2
66
CHAPTER THREE
Josephus reveals his familiarity with this ideal of objectivity both in the prologue passage under discussion and again in 5:19-20. Having des cribed there the desperate plight of Jerusalem under various rebel fac tions, and having addressed an impassioned lament to the city in the second person (5:19), he immediately recants: By the law of history, however, one has to restrain even one's emotions (xocOexxeov yap xat xa 7WC8T) T
This apology is hardly convincing, since he has already declared (in the preface) his intention to give his TiaOrj free rein; he will later indulge in lament without regret. T h e confession does, however, confirm that he was aware of a principle of objectivity that excluded personal feeling. Josephus's difficulty, then, appears to be as follows. O n the one hand, he has justified his own work by asserting that all previous histories have missed the standard of dXrjOetoc; they are strong on denunciation and en comium but nowhere exhibit TO axpifiiq TTJ$ uruopiocs (1:2). W h e n , how ever, he comes to state that his own goal will be &xpi(kioc pure and simple (1:9), he must concede that he will not on that account exclude his own opinions, especially his lament for his country's misfortunes (1:10). H e also makes clear at this early stage that he harbours no ill will toward Titus and the Romans for the fall of his city; for them he has only esteem (1:10). For these intrusions ofrcdcOos,which violate the law of history, he asks pardon (auyyvcofxrj, 1:11). W h a t are we to make of this pleading tone? C a n it be that Josephus is here, in his opening lines, confessing his failure to live up to the ideals of history and breathing a hopeful prayer that, in spite of his failings, someone might be willing to read further? Hardly. A s we have seen, the purpose of the preface was to excite interest and to stimulate the reader to read further. From that perspective, one may note at least four ways in which Josephus's professed violation of historical convention actually serves his ends well and lends power to his preface. 1. First, as Lieberich points out, Josephus's intended Greco-Roman readership ( 1 : 6 , 16) might have been reluctant to pick up a book written by
a Jew, purporting to tell how his country was destroyed by the
Romans.
54
T h e potential reader might have balked at the prospect of a
new history that promised not to flatter the Romans ( 1 : 2 , 7-8) but to tell the truth about how they quelled the revolt (1:9). If Josephus desires a wide readership, therefore, he must make it plain in his prologue that
5 3
5 4
Josephus may be making a similar point in 7:274. Lieberich, Prodmien, 33f.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
67
WAR
h e d o e s n o t i n t e n d t o h e a p guilt o n the R o m a n s . T h i s goal h e a c h i e v e s b y l o c a t i n g all responsibility for the revolt in the d o m e s t i c strife (ardtats otxeia) e n g i n e e r e d b y a handful o f J e w i s h p o w e r - m o n g e r s (01 TouBoctoav Tupavvoi, 1:10). T h e r e a d e r is put at ease w h e n J o s e p h u s c o n f i r m s that the c a u s e o f the catastrophe w a s n o t a n y foreign
nation (1:12).
If
J o s e p h u s is n o t o u t to e n c o u r a g e a n t i - S e m i t i s m ( 1 : 2 ) , h e nevertheless m a k e s n o a priori d e m a n d that the r e a d e r d i s a v o w e n t r e n c h e d p r e j u d i c e s a n d a d o p t a critical stance t o w a r d R o m e . T h i s b o o k will b e
4 4
safe"
r e a d i n g . T h u s r e l i e v e d , the r e a d e r c a n easily forgive J o s e p h u s ' s trans gression o f strict historical c o n v e n t i o n . 2 . T h i s attempt t o set the r e a d e r at ease is n o t a m e r e i n v e n t i o n for the p r o l o g u e , h o w e v e r , b u t arises o u t o f J o s e p h u s ' s deepest sentiments as these c o m e into v i e w t h r o u g h o u t the b o o k . In the p r o l o g u e , h e e x presses his l a m e n t o v e r J e r u s a l e m with the w o r d s 67toXo9upou.ai ( 1 : 9 ) , 6Xo9upai$, a n d 68up[i.6$ ( 1 : 1 2 ) . T h i s t h e m e o f l a m e n t h e will p i c k u p q u i t e early in the narrative ( 2 : 4 5 5 ; 4 : 1 2 8 ) a n d h e will r e - e m p h a s i z e it as the catastrophe d r a w s n e a r e r .
55
L i n d n e r has p o i n t e d o u t striking parallels b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s l a m e n t o v e r the city a n d the l a m e n t a t i o n s o f J e r e m i a h . Jeremiah,
5 6
J o s e p h u s differs f r o m
h o w e v e r , in his assigning o f b l a m e to a few tyrants o n l y
(rather than to all o f Z i o n ) a n d in his friendly portrayal o f the o c c u p y i n g power
(whereas Jeremiah
enemy).
5 7
had
presented
the
Babylonians
as
the
A n d these t w o p e c u l i a r p o i n t s c o i n c i d e with the 7T<x6rj that
J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s in § § 9 - 1 2 , n a m e l y , his disgust for the rebels a n d his e s t e e m for T i t u s a n d the R o m a n s . E a c h o f these t h e m e s will b e recalled
frequently, justified b y further
information,
and
otherwise
d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h o u t the b o d y o f War. T h e reader is offered a taste o f things to c o m e in J o s e p h u s ' s o u t l i n e o f the b o o k ' s contents ( 1 : 1 9 - 2 9 ) , w h e r e h e p r o m i s e s to d e s c r i b e the i r o n i c savagery o f the J e w i s h rebels toward
their
o w n (6fA09uXou<;)
and
the
consideration shown b y
the
R o m a n s t o w a r d <xXXo9uXou$ ( 1 : 2 7 ) . T h u s the p a r a g r a p h
§ § 9-12 is the vehicle b y w h i c h J o s e p h u s in
t r o d u c e s the l e a d i n g t h e m e s o f his w o r k . S i n c e those t h e m e s c o n t r a v e n e historical c o n v e n t i o n , b e c a u s e they express the historian's p e r s o n a l e m o tions, it is o n l y b y t a m p e r i n g with the c o n v e n t i o n that J o s e p h u s c a n find a p l a c e for t h e m . 3.
A third benefit that a c c r u e s t o J o s e p h u s b y his a p p e a r i n g to b r e a k
with c o n v e n t i o n is the resulting sense o f i m m e d i a c y . J o s e p h u s shatters
5 5
5 6
5 7
Cf. War 5:19-20; 6:7, 96-111, 267, 271-274. Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 133-140. Ibid., 139f.
CHAPTER THREE
68
a n y s u s p i c i o n that he m i g h t b e a p e r f u n c t o r y historian, dutifully
and
dispassionately r e c o u n t i n g the events o f a far-off w a r . O n the c o n t r a r y , he c l a i m s that the sheer w e i g h t o f the catastrophe in his h o m e l a n d c o m pels h i m to transgress the pettiness o f c o n v e n t i o n : For of all the cities under R o m a n rule it was the lot of ours to attain the highest felicity and to fall to the lowest depths of calamity. Indeed, in m y opinion, the misfortunes of all nations since the world began fall short of those of the Jews. (1:11-12; Thackeray) B y a p p e a l i n g to the e n o r m o u s n e s s o f the events as justification for break ing
a
rule
o f historical
writing,
Josephus
meets
the
challenge o f
creativity. T h e reader is d r a w n b y events so tragic that the a u t h o r c a n n o t recount
them
Josephus's
with
the
impatience
usual with
detached
any
critic
style. who
He
comes
might
be
to
share
too
harsh
(axXripo-cepos) for c o m p a s s i o n (OIXTOS, 1:12). 4.
Finally, J o s e p h u s ' s a p p a r e n t disregard for h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l n o r m s
actually e n h a n c e s his credibility as a historian. H e has o n l y b e e n d r i v e n to inject his e m o t i o n s , he repeatedly says, b e c a u s e the c o u n t r y w h o s e misfortunes are the subject o f his w o r k is his h o m e l a n d (rj n;aTpi<;, 1:9, 10; xrjv Y)u.STepocv, 1:11). J o s e p h u s will not a l l o w the reader to forget that this is the J e r u s a l e m i t e priest w r i t i n g , o n e w h o personally fought against the R o m a n s a n d w h o possesses first-hand k n o w l e d g e o f the entire w a r f r o m b o t h sides (cf. 1:3). T h i s OCUTOC|U<X—the m o s t p r i z e d possession o f a 58
h i s t o r i a n — i s J o s e p h u s ' s single greatest asset a n d he c a n n o t let it slip b y the reader. H e admits to strong e m o t i o n s a b o u t his subject b u t he e m phasizes that they arise precisely f r o m his close i n v o l v e m e n t with the events, w h i c h is itself a v i r t u e .
59
I n d e e d , it is p r o b a b l y to d r i v e h o m e this
a d v a n t a g e that J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g l e n g t h y attack o n certain G r e e k savants ( 1 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) , to w h i c h w e shall turn presently. Before p r o c e e d i n g to that passage, h o w e v e r , w e m i g h t ask h o w serious a
violation
of
convention
Josephus's
introduction
of
evaluative
j u d g e m e n t s really w a s . It is true that the attack o n e n c o m i u m a n d i n v e c tive in historical writing, w h i c h J o s e p h u s also w a g e s ( 1 : 2 ) , w a s w i d e spread in his t i m e .
5 8
6 0
C u r i o u s l y , h o w e v e r , the m o s t v o c i f e r o u s s p o k e s m a n
Cf. Thucydides 1:21; Polybius 4.2.1-4; Lucian, History 47f.; A. Momigliano, "Tradition and the Classical Historian", in his Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977), 161f. H . W . Benario (An Introduction to Tacitus [Athens GA: University of Georgia Press, 1975], 148) remarks on Tacitus's notoriously exaggerated claim to write sine ira et studio (Annals 1:; History 1:1), "only men who believe deeply about their subject, whether with favor or disfavor, can write great history". Cf. Diodorus 21.17.4; Polybius 8.8.3-7; 8.11.12; Lucian, History 7-13; Herodian 1.1.2; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 13ff. 5 9
6 0
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
69
WAR
o f the p e r i o d for the e x c l u s i o n o f e m o t i o n s f r o m the " l a w o f h i s t o r y ' ' is J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f ( 1 : 1 1 ; 5 : 1 9 ; 7 : 2 7 4 ) , w h o also turns o u t to b e the m o s t self-conscious
offender!
This
raises
the
question
whether
he
really
b e l i e v e d that his e x p r e s s i o n o f feeling w o u l d b e a h i n d r a n c e to the r e c e p tion o f his b o o k o r , c o n v e r s e l y , w h e t h e r he raised an e x t r e m e standard in o r d e r deliberately to transgress it a n d thereby to a c h i e v e the results that w e h a v e n o t e d . It s e e m s that the latter w a s the case. F o r Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w a s o p e n to c e n s u r e a n d praise o f historical actors, as l o n g as these w e r e judiciously applied.
61
T h a t is b e c a u s e , as T h u c y d i d e s h a d already in
sisted ( 1 . 2 2 . 4 ) , the p u r p o s e o f studying history was to learn f r o m
the
mistakes a n d t r i u m p h s o f the past. A l t h o u g h this g u i d a n c e f r o m the past was
at
first
thought
o f as
primarily
strategic
and
political,
rhetorical influence it s o o n w i d e n e d to i n c l u d e a general sense.
62
under
moralizing
E v e n P o l y b i u s , the great e x e m p l a r o f critical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y ,
stressed the m o r a l function o f history. H e b e l i e v e d that the distinctive feature o f history w a s its praise (ETCOCIVOS) for v i r t u o u s c o n d u c t a n d its d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f the bases for n e g a t i v e m o r a l j u d g e m e n t s
(2.61.5-6;
1 2 . 1 5 . 9 ) . F r o m P o l y b i u s o n w a r d , m o r a l j u d g e m e n t o n characters o f the past (e7tatvot xal c|>6yoi) w a s an
h o n o u r a b l e c o m p o n e n t o f historical
w r i t i n g , p r o v i d e d that it w a s cautious a n d d e m o n s t r a b l e .
63
But J o s e p h u s attempts f r o m the start to justify, with m u c h e v i d e n c e , b o t h his l a m e n t o v e r J e r u s a l e m a n d his strictures o n the rebels. It s e e m s , therefore, that his u n s o l i c i t e d confessions o f guilt are actually rhetorical d e v i c e s , c o n t r i v e d to s h o w that the events o f his narrative are o f such i m p o r t , a n d that he has b e e n so closely i n v o l v e d in t h e m , that he is p u s h i n g the limits o f historical c u s t o m s i m p l y to r e c o u n t t h e m .
War
1:13-16
The
p a r a g r a p h o n the H e l l e n i c savants ( 1 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) has v e x e d interpreters,
who
generally b e l i e v e that the r e c o v e r y o f its m e a n i n g d e p e n d s o n an
identification o f the Xoyioi ( 1 : 1 3 ) ; these are usually c o n s i d e r e d to b e a party o f J o s e p h u s ' s o p p o n e n t s . S u g g e s t i o n s for the identification h a v e r a n g e d f r o m the R o m a n a u t h o r o f a c o m p e t i n g history o f the w a r ( s o Schlatter) to N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s — J o s e p h u s ' s early
part
(Thackeray). 6 1
6 2
6 3
6 4
of
War
(Holscher)—to Josephus's
c h i e f s o u r c e for the literary
6 4
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 25, 157-159. Ibid., 22f. Cf. Diodorus 15.1.1; Lucian, History 59. Schlatter, Bericht, 44, 67; Holscher, 1948, Thackeray, Josephus, 195.
assistants
CHAPTER THREE
70
T h e p u r e l y speculative c h a r a c t e r o f these p r o p o s a l s has b e e n s h o w n b y H.
Lindner.
6 5
H i s o w n s u g g e s t i o n , m o r e closely g r o u n d e d in the text,
d r a w s attention to the legal t e r m i n o l o g y e m p l o y e d b y J o s e p h u s :
the
l e a r n e d G r e e k s " s i t in j u d g e m e n t " (X<X07)VTOCI xptxoct) o n c u r r e n t events ( 1 : 1 3 ) a n d w h e r e fees (Xrju.u.<XTa) o r lawsuits (otxoci) are c o n c e r n e d , their oratorial
p r o w e s s is q u i c k l y d e m o n s t r a t e d
then, that the a p p e a r a n c e
(1:16).
Lindner
proposes,
o f War c a u s e d certain G r e e k historians in
R o m e to b r i n g lawsuits against J o s e p h u s , w h o then raised the m a t t e r in his p r e f a c e .
6 6
A c c o r d i n g to L i n d n e r , J o s e p h u s p o l e m i c i z e s against his
o p p o n e n t s a n d their p a i d l a w y e r s as follows: if they are c o n c e r n e d a b o u t historical truthfulness, then they o u g h t to present their o w n narratives o f events; the c o u r t r o o m , in w h i c h they c a n display their oratorial train ing, is an i m p r o p e r f o r u m for such matters a n d relieves t h e m o f the l a b o u r s that J o s e p h u s has h a d to e n d u r e .
6 7
J o s e p h u s ' s legal difficulties
irritate h i m so m u c h , L i n d n e r suggests, that he e m b a r k s o n a c a m p a i g n against G r e e k historians generally ( 1 : 1 6 ) , w h i c h he will c o n t i n u e Ag.Ap.
(1:6-29).
in
6 8
B y focussing o n the legal activity o f the G r e e k Xoyiot, h o w e v e r , L i n d ner fails to e x p l a i n the b u l k o f the p a r a g r a p h ( 1 3 - 1 5 ) , w h i c h criticizes their p r e o c c u p a t i o n with a n c i e n t history to the e x c l u s i o n o f c u r r e n t af fairs. O n his r e a d i n g , enigmatic,
laced
with
further, the p a r a g r a p h b e c o m e s veiled
references
fundamentally
to J o s e p h u s ' s
present
cir
c u m s t a n c e s a n d i n c l u d i n g a gratuitous attack o n G r e e k historians in general. W e h a v e seen, h o w e v e r , that the p u r p o s e s o f the
Hellenistic
historical preface w e r e to attract, stimulate, a n d instruct the r e a d e r . A s Lieberich points out: Das Proomium ist in erster Linie dem Bedurfnis entsprungen, dem Leser im voraus eine kurze Aufklarung uber das W e r k zu bieten, ihm, wie Aristoteles treffend sagt, 'eine H a n d h a b e zu geben', dass er sich daran halten und der Rede folgen k a n n . 69
Until n o w ( 1 : 1 - 1 2 ) , J o s e p h u s has d i s p l a y e d an acute sensitivity to these tasks a n d has h a n d l e d t h e m deftly. In 1:17-30 he c o n t i n u e s to d e m o n strate his m a s t e r y o f the p r o l o g u e f o r m . Is it r e a s o n a b l e , then, to s u p p o s e that J o s e p h u s has c h o s e n the m i d - p o i n t o f an o t h e r w i s e c o m p e l l i n g pref ace
6 5
to v e n t his e m o t i o n s a b o u t s o m e u n d i s c l o s e d p e r s o n a l
difficulties,
"Eine offene Frage zur Auslegung des Bellum-Proomiums", in Josephus-Studien, edd. O . Betz, K. Haacker, and M . Hengel (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 255-258. Ibid., 257T. Lindner, "Frage", 257f. Ibid. Lieberich, Prodmien, 47f. 6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
71
WAR
t h e r e b y creating an o b s c u r e p a r a g r a p h ? O n e e x p e c t s h i m , o n the c o n trary, to p r o v i d e e n o u g h i n f o r m a t i o n for the reader to f o l l o w at least the m a i n lines o f his a r g u m e n t ,
for o n l y b y such a c o u r s e c a n he h o p e to
fulfill the goal o f the preface a n d to w i n a substantial
readership.
N e a r e r t o the m a r k is the recent analysis o f H . W . A t t r i d g e . A t t r i d g e ' s p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e is the w e l l - k n o w n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k s in 1 : 1 3 - 1 6 a n d the historiographical principles o f P o l y b i u s . Namely:
Josephus
claims
that
certain
learned
men
among
" H e l l e n e s " ( a p p a r e n t l y s h o r t h a n d for G r e e k s a n d R o m a n s , cf.
7 0
the 1:16),
a l t h o u g h l i v i n g in a time o f stirring events, d i s p a r a g e c u r r e n t affairs as an o b j e c t o f historical research ( 1 : 1 3 ) a n d c h o o s e rather to write a b o u t ancient times, especially the A s s y r i a n a n d M e d i a n e m p i r e s . J o s e p h u s ' s critique o f such a practice c o m e s f r o m m a n y sides: ( i ) the ancient writers already c o v e r e d this g r o u n d well ( § 1 3 ) ; ( i i ) their m o d e r n
counterparts
are inferior to t h e m in b o t h literary c a p a c i t y (8uvapteo)(; ev T6> ypd^eiv) a n d judgement rangements
(yvcofXTj^,
§
14)
7 1
and
are
thus
reduced
to
futile
rear
o f the o l d e r a c c o u n t s ( § 1 5 ) ; (iii) w r i t i n g a b o u t c o n t e m
p o r a r y events has the d o u b l e a d v a n t a g e
o f p r o v i d i n g the clarity that
c o m e s f r o m an e y e - w i t n e s s ' s p e r c e p t i o n a n d o f b e i n g subject to c h a l l e n g e f r o m o t h e r l i v i n g witnesses ( § 1 4 ) ; ( i v ) w r i t i n g a b o u t o n e ' s o w n times is in fact the e x a m p l e set b y the ancient masters; a n d ( v ) w r i t i n g o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events is the m o r e v i r t u o u s enterprise b e c a u s e it requires a really industrious
writer (quXorcovos) w h o c a n p r o d u c e an original
historical
contribution (§ 1 5 ) . All o f these historical p r i n c i p l e s , J o s e p h u s c h a r g e s , h a v e e l u d e d the natural heirs (yvrjatot) o f the H e l l e n i c tradition, w h o p u t o u t their best efforts o n l y in the c o u r t r o o m s ( § 1 6 ) . It has fallen to h i m , therefore, a f o r e i g n e r (aXXoqwXos), to m a i n t a i n the o l d virtues o f p a i n s t a k i n g effort in ascertaining
facts
and
of
truthful
speaking
in
historical
writing.
H i s t o r i c a l truthfulness is b e i n g slighted b y the H e l l e n e s b u t a m o n g the J e w s (TCOCP' TJUIV) it is still held in h o n o u r ( § 1 6 ) . J o s e p h u s , a p r i m e e x a m ple
o f Jewish
historiographical
p r o w e s s , has
spared
h i m s e l f neither
m o n e y (dvaXoafxaxa) n o r l a b o u r (novoq) in p r o d u c i n g the present w o r k . In several p l a c e s , P o l y b i u s defends his o w n c h o i c e o f a m o d e r n start i n g p o i n t a n d his mistrust o f ancient history (cf. especially 4 . 2 . 1 - 4 ) .
He
p o i n t s o u t , for e x a m p l e , that another h i s t o r i a n ' s w o r k c o v e r s the p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g the o n e he has c h o s e n ( 4 . 2 . 1 ) . 7 0
Elsewhere
he
Attridge, Interpretation, 44f.; cf. already Lieberich, Prodmien, 34, and Avenarius,
Lukians Schrift, 81. 7 1
Significantly, Lucian posits as the two supreme qualifications of the historian "political understanding" (auveat? TIOXITIXTJ) and "power of expression" (8uva{xi? epfXTjveuTtxri).
72
CHAPTER THREE
claims that the w h o l e
field
o f ancient history has b e e n so often
and
v a r i o u s l y w o r k e d o v e r that a n y m o d e r n a u t h o r o n the subject faces the e q u a l l y r e p u g n a n t alternatives o f plagiarism a n d futile
rearrangement
( 9 . 2 . 1 - 2 ) . S e c o n d , he e x p l a i n s that his c h o s e n focal p o i n t c o i n c i d e s w i t h his o w n a n d the p r e c e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n s , w h i c h m e a n s that h e c a n always consult l i v i n g witnesses o n his subject ( 4 . 2 . 2 ) a n d t h e r e b y c o n t r o l his m a terial. T o reach a n y further into the past, he says, w o u l d force h i m to write o n the basis o f hearsay (cb<; dxorjv e£ dxofjs ypd
7 2
Finally, it is o n l y
with the events he has c h o s e n to narrate that o n e c a n see the h a n d o f Tux*) r e b u i l d i n g the w o r l d ( 4 . 2 . 4 ) . T h i s t h e m e w a s already s o u n d e d in his preface ( 1 . 4 ) . A l t h o u g h , h o w e v e r , P o l y b i u s claims that it is F o r t u n e ' s activity that m a k e s c o n t e m p o r a r y history m o s t c o m p e l l i n g ( 4 . 2 . 4 ) , in his p o l e m i c against the rhetorical historian T i m a e u s he d r a w s m a i n l y o n the m o r e c o n c r e t e p r i n c i p l e s : ( i ) that w h a t has b e e n c o v e r e d a d e q u a t e l y b y others n e e d s n o reiteration
a n d (ii) that o n l y w h a t c a n b e c h e c k e d
t h r o u g h l i v i n g witnesses is s e c u r e . T o these factors he a d d s the contrast b e t w e e n the c o m f o r t a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h o n e m a y write ancient history ( b y s i m p l y
finding
a g o o d library!) a n d the severe
(xocxo7ud0etai) o r e v e n d a n g e r
(xivSuvos) that await
vestigator o f e v e n t s — h a r d s h i p s b o t h physical a n d On
the
financial
hardships
personal
in
(12.27.4-6).
these p o i n t s ( e x c l u d i n g the a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g F o r t u n e ) , it is
easy to see shades o f P o l y b i u s in J o s e p h u s ' s a r g u m e n t in War 1:13-16. The
difficulty is to k n o w w h a t to m a k e o f the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n
the principles o f P o l y b i u s a n d War 1:13-16. A t t r i d g e takes this passage to b e J o s e p h u s ' s statement o f historiographical p r i n c i p l e for War, a state m e n t that r e c o g n i z e s o n l y recent events as the p r o p e r o b j e c t o f history. W h e n Josephus
c o m e s to write Ant.,
Attridge argues,
he will h a v e
c h a n g e d his p r i n c i p l e s ; o n l y his n e w d e v o t i o n to the " r h e t o r i c a l " s c h o o l o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y allows h i m there to write a b o u t ancient J e w i s h history. A full discussion o f the h i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f War a n d Ant. w o u l d b e o u t o f p l a c e h e r e . In " A p p e n d i x A " , at the e n d o f the study, I shall offer s o m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l o n g those lines, in r e s p o n s e to A t t r i d g e ' s p r o posal. T h e s e m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d , t o g e t h e r with o u r o b s e r v a t i o n s thus far, as follows, ( a ) War 1:13-16 c o n t a i n s a critique o f those w h o deal e x clusively with ancient history, ( b ) T h e a r g u m e n t s a s s e m b l e d to m a k e this p o i n t are T07i:ot o f P o l y b i a n ilk. ( c ) B y the time o f J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r ,
7 2
Cf. the preface to Luke, where the author claims that he can prove TT)V aacpocXetocv of the events which he describes (1:4) because: (a) they were accomplished ev rjfxtv— therefore, within living memory (1:1); (b) they were passed on by OCUTOTCTOCI (1:2); and (c) they have been followed with accuracy (<xxptP
PURPOSE AND O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
73
WAR
these principles h a d lost m u c h o f their c o m p e l l i n g justification; m a n y , if not
m o s t historians, w e r e electing to write a b o u t antiquity,
(d) The
p o l e m i c against ancient history is w h o l l y unrelated to J o s e p h u s ' s actual v i e w s a b o u t writing ancient Jewish history. T h e p a r a g r a p h d o e s n o t , therefore, represent his statement o f historiographical p r i n c i p l e . It is unlikely that J o s e p h u s had a n y d e e p c o n v i c t i o n s a b o u t w h e t h e r
the
H e l l e n e s should h a v e b e e n w r i t i n g ancient o r m o d e r n history. H i s o w n task w a s J e w i s h history, w h i c h he evidently c o n s i d e r e d sui generis (Ag.Ap. 1:29-43). Why,
then, the h a r a n g u e a b o u t the shoddiness a n d laziness o f those
G r e e k s w h o write ancient history? W e h a v e seen that the mea culpa in 912 achieves m a n y things for J o s e p h u s ; in particular it serves to r e m i n d the reader yet again o f the a u t h o r ' s p r i v i l e g e d status as an eyewitness. T h i s t h e m e he introduces early a n d e m p h a s i z e s repeatedly in the preface ( 1 : 1 , 2 , 3, 6, 9 - 1 2 ) . H e has b e e n d r i v e n to c o n t r a v e n e the n o r m o f o b j e c tivity in historical r e p o r t i n g , he n o w c l a i m s , b e c a u s e the
catastrophe
h a p p e n e d in his land a n d he witnessed the patience o f the R o m a n s a n d the o b s t i n a c y o f the tyrants. A l t h o u g h his confession serves h i m well, h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s must p a y a p r i c e for i n c l u d i n g it. T h a t p r i c e is reflected in his final a d m i s s i o n ( 1 : 1 2 ) that s o m e critics ( t h o u g h pettifog gers, to b e sure!) m i g h t still find fault with h i m . A l t h o u g h he has attemp ted to w i n the r e a d e r ' s s u p p o r t for his u n o r t h o d o x a p p r o a c h , he c a n n o t yet rest his case. H e requires a m o r e persuasive n o t e o n w h i c h to e n d . In
order,
then,
to extricate himself fully f r o m
any
suspicion o f
m a l p r a c t i c e , J o s e p h u s d e c i d e s to shift attention a w a y f r o m his o w n possi ble deficiencies to the c o m p a r a t i v e l y h e i n o u s sin o f others. H e n c e the o p e n i n g w o r d s o f the p a r a g r a p h ( 1 : 1 3 ) : xoctxoi ye e7UTifxr|aocifA' a v aikds Sixauos TOTS 'EXXrjvcov Xoyioi^, r e n d e r e d well b y T h a c k e r a y : " Y e t I, o n m y side, m i g h t justly censure those erudite G r e e k s " . If J o s e p h u s m i g h t b e c e n s u r e d ( § 1 1 ) for expressing 7cd0T] that result f r o m his p r o x i m i t y to the events, he will hasten to p o i n t out a m u c h m o r e serious failure o n the part o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s : m a n y o f t h e m d o n o t e v e n possess that treasured quality o f first-hand k n o w l e d g e . U n d e r the Pax Romana it was rare that e d u c a t e d writers f o u n d themselves in the midst o f m o m e n t o u s u p h e a v a l s , o f the sort that T h u c y d i d e s h a d w i t n e s s e d .
73
F o r this a n d
other reasons historians h a d c o m e , b y the first c e n t u r y , to deal primarily with events o f b y g o n e ages (see A p p e n d i x A ) . But the great historians who
h a d b e e n able to write o f current events retained their g l o r y , as
M o m i g l i a n o remarks:
7 3
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 83f.
CHAPTER THREE
74
In Late Antiquity antiquarians were in a m o o d of self-congratulation. Y e t they never get the upper hand. T h e prestige of the interpreter of recent events—of Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius . . . remained u n s h a k e n . 74
It is this prestige that J o s e p h u s wants to share. H e fully realizes his in c r e d i b l e g o o d l u c k , f r o m a h i s t o r i a n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , in h a v i n g witnessed first-hand
the events o f a m a j o r w a r f r o m b o t h sides. H i s eyewitness
status is therefore the t h e m e o f the w h o l e preface to War ( 1 : 1 - 3 ) . T o rein force his p o i n t n o w , J o s e p h u s reaches into the r e s e r v o i r o f Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y a n d d r a w s o u t an a p p r o p r i a t e a n d v e n e r a b l e w e a p o n , the P o l y b i a n attack o n ancient history. The If,
P o l y b i a n b r o a d s i d e , h o w e v e r , is o n l y a tool in J o s e p h u s ' s
as s e e m s p r o b a b l e , he h a d
n o stake w h a t s o e v e r in the
hands.
question
w h e t h e r G r e e k s s h o u l d c h o o s e a n c i e n t o r m o d e r n t h e m e s for their study, then the tirade m a y b e r e a d less as a heartfelt d e n u n c i a t i o n o f his c o n temporaries
than
as
an
indirect
means
o f praising
his
own work.
J o s e p h u s ( § 13) accuses the Xoyioi o f d i s p a r a g i n g " g r e a t events o f their o w n l i f e t i m e " (TTJXIXOOTCOV XOCT' OCUTOU<; TCpayu-aToov yeyevnuivoov) a l t h o u g h
these " b y c o m p a r i s o n r e d u c e to insignificance the w a r s o f a n t i q u i t y " ( a XOCTOC auyxpiaiv eXaxtcrxou^ aTioSeixvuat TOU$ 7uaXat 7coXs[iou$).
T h i s c h a r g e recalls J o s e p h u s ' s o p e n i n g w o r d s ( 1 : 1 ) in w h i c h he o p i n e s that the J e w i s h w a r against the R o m a n s w a s the greatest (uiytcnrov) o f practically all the w a r s o f r e c o r d e d history (cf. also 1:4). T h e
cor
r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n that early c l a i m a n d the c h a r g e in § 13 suggests that the great events w h i c h the H e l l e n i c savants i g n o r e to their peril are n o t c u r r e n t affairs
in general b u t precisely the events o f the J u d e a n
revolt. T h e s u g g e s t i o n is c o n f i r m e d b y the recapitulation ( 1 6 ) : w h a t the G r e e k s neglect are
called " t h e
d e e d s o f the
rulers (T6C$ 7updc£ei<; TCOV
Tjye[x6vcov)": p r e s u m a b l y , the d e e d s o f V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s .
7 5
But the
theatre in w h i c h these t w o c o o p e r a t e d so f a m o u s l y w a s the J u d e a n revolt. J o s e p h u s is n o t , therefore, s i m p l y a d m o n i s h i n g his G r e e k
counterparts
to a b a n d o n their v a i n e n q u i r i e s a n d j o i n the v i r t u o u s l e a g u e o f those w h o report c u r r e n t e v e n t s . H e is c r i t i c i z i n g t h e m b e c a u s e , in their dual p r e o c c u p a t i o n with ancient history a n d w i t h the c o u r t r o o m ,
7 6
they h a v e let the
7 4
Momigliano, Essays, 164. War (or part of it) was published in the lifetime of Vespasian (Life 359-361) and authorized by Titus (Life 363). 76 Writing history in the Hellenistic world was usually an avocation, not a profession, for the rhetorically trained. Dionysius suggests that Theopompus's full-time work on history was unusual (Letter to Pomp. 64.6; cf. Lieberich, Prodmien, 20). By profession, many historians were lawyers (cf. Cicero, Orator 1:44, 234-250). This fact explains Josephus's references to the oratorical abilities of the Hellenic historians 'in the cour troom" (1:16) more simply than does Lindner's proposal that some of the Greek hstorians were bringing a lawsuit against Josephus. 75
1
PURPOSE A N D OUTLOOK OF T H E JEWISH
WAR
75
truth a b o u t the J u d e a n revolt suffer at the h a n d s o f inferior a n d u n i n formed writers.
77
D o e s J o s e p h u s really b e l i e v e that these H e l l e n i c savants o u g h t to h a v e written a b o u t the J u d e a n c a m p a i g n , o r i n d e e d that they c o u l d h a v e d o n e so r e s p o n s i b l y ? P r o b a b l y n o t . T h a t is the p o i n t . H i s ostensible attack o n G r e e k historians for writing ancient history is really n o t h i n g o t h e r than an o b l i q u e recitation o f his o w n credentials. T h e s e l f - c o m m e n d a t i o n loses its o b l i q u e n e s s finally as J o s e p h u s spells o u t w h a t he wants the reader to u n d e r s t a n d f r o m all o f this, n a m e l y he h i m s e l f is the 9IX6TCOVO<; m e n t i o n e d earlier, w h o s e w o r k deserves praise a n d a c c l a i m ( § 1 5 ) , b e c a u s e h e has spent t r e m e n d o u s sums a n d personal effort (dvocXcojAocai xatTCOVOLSfieyiaTOis) to b r i n g an accurate a c c o u n t o f this great a n d recent w a r . It is J o s e p h u s , the foreigner, the J e w , w h o has fulfilled the require m e n t s o f writing history—truthful speaking a n d painstaking collection o f the facts—while the H e l l e n e s h a v e m i s s e d the m a r k . T h u s the p a r a g r a p h
7 8
1:13-16, like the o n e b e f o r e it, a c c o m p l i s h e s
several things for J o s e p h u s . First, it shifts attention far a w a y f r o m his confessed v i o l a t i o n o f the " l a w o f h i s t o r y " . S e c o n d , the p u r p o s e o f the attack o n those w h o write ancient history, d r a w i n g as it d o e s o n P o l y b i a n c o m m o n p l a c e s , is to e m p h a s i z e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n virtues as the historian o f the J e w i s h w a r . H e has first-hand i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h h e a c q u i r e d t h r o u g h great effort a n d e x p e n s e . Finally, J o s e p h u s anticipates his final w o r k , Ag.Ap.
( 1 : 6 - 2 7 ) , b y casting the w h o l e p o l e m i c in D a v i d / G o l i a t h ,
J e w / H e l l e n e , o r aXXoqwXos/yvrjaios terms: J o s e p h u s the J e w is o u t t o p r o tect TTJS laToptas aX*r|0e<;, for w h i c h the H e l l e n e s h a v e lost all c o n c e r n . F o l l o w i n g this p o l e m i c , J o s e p h u s offers his justification for b e g i n n i n g w h e r e h e d o e s ( 1 7 - 1 8 ) , discussed a b o v e , then an outline o f the seven b o o k s o f War ( 1 9 - 2 9 ) , a n d a c o n c l u d i n g w o r d ( 3 0 ) .
I I I . Josephus and the 'Axpifieia of History P r o b a b l y the clearest single i m p r e s s i o n left o n the reader b y the preface to War is J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m that h e , as an eyewitness o f a great w a r , will present
an accurate a c c o u n t . W e h a v e n o t e d that references to his
privileged status as an eyewitness o n b o t h sides o f the conflict r e c u r t h r o u g h o u t the preface ( 1 : 1 , 2 , 3 , 6, 9 - 1 2 , 13-16, 18, 2 2 ) . T h e o n l y t h e m e m o r e c o m m o n is his resulting claims to &xpt(kioc a n d aXrj0eia (axpiPeia: 1:2, 6, 9, 17, 2 2 , 2 6 ; dXrj9eia: 1:6, 16, 17, 3 0 ) . L i k e w i s e , all 7 7
Presumably, these are the writers already castigated in 1:1-2, 6-8. P. Collomp, Technik, 278ff., finds in Josephus's polemic against the Hellenic historians the claim that truthfulness in history lies with those called "barbarians" by the Greeks. 7 8
CHAPTER THREE
76
o f J o s e p h u s ' s later reflections o n War d e m o n s t r a t e that the goal o f a c c u r a c y w a s for h i m the m o s t p r o m i n e n t feature o f the w o r k ' s p u r p o s e . F o r e x a m p l e , the e p i l o g u e o f War is essentially a reprise o f this t h e m e : Here we close the history, which we promised to relate with perfect ac curacy ((xexd 7rdaT)s dxptjktocs) . . . . O f its style m y readers must be left to judge; but, as concerning truth (rcspi xffc dXrjGsiocs), I would not hesitate boldly to assert that, throughout the entire narrative, this has been my single aim. (7:454-5) In Ant. a n d Life also the r e a d e r is referred b a c k to War for a m o r e accurate (dxpi(3£aT£pov) a c c o u n t o f v a r i o u s t o p i c s (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 ; 2 0 : 2 5 8 ; Life 4 1 2 ) . Finally, Ag.Ap.
1:47-56 dwells o n the dXrjGetoc a n d dxpt[kta o f War ( i n
r e s p o n s e to the charges o f J o s e p h u s ' s later o p p o n e n t s ) a n d again bases the c l a i m squarely o n J o s e p h u s ' s p r i v i l e g e d eyewitness status. The
difficulty b e f o r e
dxpt(kta
was
a
us is that the v e h e m e n t c l a i m to
commonplace
historical
o f Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y .
It
was
T h u c y d i d e s w h o defined the p r i n c i p l e o f truthfulness (dXrjOeioc) in history by
i n v o k i n g the
(dxptfkioc). dXrjeeioc.
kindred
For him,
concept
o f scrupulous,
dxpt(}£ioc gives n u a n c e
to the
detailed
accuracy
bald principle o f
79
P o l y b i u s ' s attack o n T i m a e u s reveals his a g r e e m e n t w i t h T h u c y d i d e s that
dxpt(kioc is the
judged.
8 0
standard
b y w h i c h historical
writing
must
be
In T i m a e u s he finds the c l a i m to dxpt(3£ta b u t n o e v i d e n c e to
s u p p o r t the c l a i m . P o l y b i u s m i g h t h a v e h a d similar c o m m e n t s o n D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r nassus, w h o also speaks frequently o f the standards o f truth (dXrjGeta) a n d j u s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n (8txocio
portrayal
has
yet
appeared
in G r e e k ( 1 . 5 . 4 ) .
The
reader
b e c o m e s s u s p i c i o u s , h o w e v e r , w h e n D i o n y s i u s p r o p o s e s that, in k e e p i n g with his goals o f truth a n d j u s t i c e , he intends to express his g o o d w i l l t o w a r d R o m e a n d to r e p a y h e r in s o m e m e a s u r e for the benefits that he has r e c e i v e d at h e r h a n d ( 1 . 6 . 5 ) . B y the t i m e o f D i o n y s i u s (mid-firstc e n t u r y B C ) , the standard o f dXrjOeioc in history h a d o b v i o u s l y b e c o m e a standard rhetorical t h e m e . H e calls history " t h e priestess o f t r u t h " (On Thuc. 8 ) . In p r a c t i c e , h o w e v e r , he is n o t o r i o u s l y uncritical a n d , as his theoretical essays s h o w , he is c o n c e r n e d solely with the f o r m a l a n d m o r a l aspects o f historical w r i t i n g .
7 9
8 0
8 1
81
Cf. Thucydides, 1.20.3, 22.2, 97.2, 134.1; "5.20.2, 26.5, 68.2; 6.54.1, 55.1; 7.87.4. Cf. Polybius 12.4d.l-2, 10.4-5, 26d.3, 27.1; 29.5.1. Cf. Halbfas, Theorie, 19ff.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
77
WAR
B y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , then, claims to dXrjOeta a n d axpifktoc w e r e c o m m o n p l a c e s o f the historical p r e f a c e . F. H a l b f a s o b s e r v e s : Seit Thukydides gab es wohl keinen Geschichtsschreiber, der diese Eigenschaft nicht als die erste Bedingung fur ein erspriessliches W i r k e n in seiner Wissenschaft bezeichnet hatte, ohne dass diese Ansicht in alien Fallen auf die praktische Gestaltung der Darstellung ernstlich eingewirkt hatte. 82
G i v e n the w i d e s p r e a d indifference to the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f <xxpt[kta a m o n g Hellenistic authors, w e m u s t ask to what d e g r e e J o s e p h u s w a s c o n s c i o u s o f those i m p l i c a t i o n s . L i e b e r i c h c h a r g e s : uberall fiihrt er die Wahrheit im M u n d ; leider entsprechen aber seine W e r k e nicht i m m e r seinen W o r t e n und das Hervorkehren der Wahrheit erscheint somit mehr als ein Mittel der R h e t o r i k . 83
We
must
ask then: T o w h a t
extent
is the
c o n c e p t i o n o f historical
axpifktoc, w h i c h J o s e p h u s has m a d e into a m a j o r m o t i f o f War, a m e a n ingful c o n c e p t for h i m ? At
least
three
factors
indicate
that
Josephus
cultivates
the
aXrjOeta/axpifkta t h e m e c o n s c i o u s l y a n d deliberately. A.
First, unlike D i o n y s i u s a n d D i o d o r u s , a m o n g others,
Josephus
bases his c l a i m to axptfkta o n his indisputable first-hand k n o w l e d g e o f the revolt (War 1:3, 16; Ant.
1:3; Ag.Ap.
l:47f., 55f.). Although many
o f J o s e p h u s ' s claims are d e b a t e d , n o o n e seriously d o u b t s that he w a s a Jerusalemite
priest w h o f o u g h t in s o m e c a p a c i t y against the R o m a n s ,
w h o b e c a m e k n o w n to V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s , a n d w h o e n d e d u p in a privileged
position
in
Rome.
These
credentials,
unlike
Diodorus's
w o r l d w i d e travels, are n o t i n v e n t e d . W h e n , therefore, J o s e p h u s bases his c l a i m to accurate i n f o r m a t i o n u p o n t h e m , he is m a k i n g a r e a s o n a b l e argument.
H e is aware that the r e m a r k a b l e historical accidents o f his
c a r e e r h a v e p l a c e d h i m in a u n i q u e p o s i t i o n to write accurately a b o u t the J e w i s h w a r ; that is w h y h e p a r a d e s this asset t h r o u g h o u t the preface a n d e l s e w h e r e . W h e t h e r he did write accurately is a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n .
The
p o i n t here is that his c l a i m to a c c u r a c y is n o t an e m p t y repetition o f cliche b u t a c o n s c i o u s p r o p o s i t i o n , m a d e in o r d e r to e x p l o i t fully his uni q u e situation. H e is aware o f the c o n d i t i o n s o f accurate r e p o r t i n g a n d c l a i m s to h a v e fulfilled t h e m . B . Further e v i d e n c e o f this is the c o n s i s t e n c y o f the aXrjGeia/axptjkia m o t i f for War. It is n o t m e n t i o n e d in a n y p e r f u n c t o r y w a y b u t
appears
t h r o u g h o u t the preface in strategic places ( 1 : 2 , 3, 6, 9, 1 2 , 18, 3 0 ) . T h e
8 2
Cf. Halbfas, Theorie, 35f.
8 3
Lieberich, Prodmien, 35.
78
CHAPTER THREE
t h e m e is recalled in the e p i l o g u e to War ( 7 : 4 5 4 - 5 ) a n d again several times in the later w o r k s , as w e h a v e seen a b o v e . C . Finally,
dxpt(kia
and
characteristic v o c a b u l a r y .
8 4
its
cognates
form
part
of
Josephus's
H e e m p l o y s this w o r d g r o u p 134 times. In
his paraphrase o f Aristeas, he inserts the w o r d six times a n d takes it o v e r o n c e f r o m the s o u r c e . In the c o n t e x t o f historical r e p o r t i n g , he e m p l o y s the w o r d g r o u p f r e q u e n t l y — a b o u t 52 times. E q u a l l y as significant for o u r p u r p o s e s , he uses it a b o u t 28 times in the c o n t e x t o f religion. I n d e e d , the c o n c e p t o f dxpifkioc lies at the heart o f his religious
understanding,
as w e shall d i s c o v e r in the next chapter. S i n c e , further, the b o u n d a r i e s b e t w e e n " r e l i g i o n " a n d " h i s t o r y " are e x t r e m e l y fluid for J o s e p h u s , is difficult to b e l i e v e that h e e m p l o y e d the dxpifkioc t h e m e
8 5
it
historio-
graphically with little t h o u g h t o f its i m p l i c a t i o n s . It m u s t b e e m p h a s i z e d that the question b e i n g p u r s u e d has to d o o n l y with J o s e p h u s ' s intention: D i d h e u n d e r s t a n d the c o n c e p t o f dxpifkia a n d e m p l o y it seriously, o r d i d h e , like m a n y o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , take it o v e r frivolously f r o m the current w o r l d o f ideas? T h e e v i d e n c e cited in dicates that J o s e p h u s c o n s c i o u s l y c h o s e to assert the factuality o f War o n the basis o f his eyewitness status, fully aware o f the o b l i g a t i o n to ac c u r a c y that the c l a i m entailed. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n presents
an entree to the historical question:
Did
J o s e p h u s write accurately a b o u t the J e w i s h revolt? It is o f great i m p o r tance for that question that w e h a v e in J o s e p h u s a bona fide witness, with privileged access to b o t h sides o f the conflict, s o m e o n e w h o seems able to c o n t r o l his material a n d w h o intends factuality.
Nevertheless,
the
historical q u e s t i o n c a n n o t b e a n s w e r e d b y such a priori c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . J o s e p h u s c o u l d n o t h a v e o b s e r v e d all the simultaneous events o f the c o n flict; he d e p e n d e d heavily o n the reports o f others. T h o s e events that he d i d o b s e r v e he c a n o n l y h a v e p e r c e i v e d a n d r e m e m b e r e d imperfectly, as is true o f a n y witness. Finally, that w h o l e b o d y o f resulting i n f o r m a t i o n is o n l y m e d i a t e d to us via his o w n interests a n d via his intellectual a n d stylistic t e n d e n c i e s . W e h a v e , then, a potential for reasonable a c c u r a c y in War b u t o n l y if J o s e p h u s d i d as he c l a i m e d a n d e x p l o i t e d his u n i q u e l y k n o w l e d g e a b l e situation to c h e c k his e v i d e n c e r i g o r o u s l y a n d present what he g e n u i n e l y b e l i e v e d to h a v e b e e n the c o u r s e o f events. W h e t h e r h e lived u p to his claims c a n o n l y b e d e t e r m i n e d b y extensive historical
reconstruction
based o n a c o m p a r i s o n o f ( a ) his other writings, ( b ) other, c o n t e m -
8 4
With this point, I anticipate the investigation of the documentation will be given there. Cf. especially Ag.Ap. 2:144; also 1:32, 36. 8 5
following chapter; full
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH
p o r a r y literary s o u r c e s a n d ( c ) non-literary,
79
WAR
especially a r c h a e o l o g i c a l ,
evidence. T h a t historical q u e s t i o n is still sub judice. O n e m i g h t s u m m a r i z e its present state b y saying that p o i n t ( a ) a b o v e — e s p e c i a l l y the c o m p a r i s o n o f War a n d Life—continues Josephus himself
86
t o challenge those parts o f War that deal w i t h
b u t that points ( b ) a n d ( c ) increasingly v i n d i c a t e his
a c c o u n t w i t h respect to places a n d e v e n t s .
87
A l l w e c a n say o n the basis
o f a literary analysis is that J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d a c c u r a c y , that h e s e e m s to h a v e b e e n c o n s c i o u s o f the o b l i g a t i o n s t h e r e b y a s s u m e d , a n d that h e w a s e v i d e n t l y in a p o s i t i o n to satisfy t h e m .
Summary Before
p r o c e e d i n g to c o n s i d e r the Pharisee
passages
in
War it is
necessary t o s u m m a r i z e the a r g u m e n t a n d l e a d i n g t h e m e s o f the p r e f a c e , since the preface is e v i d e n t l y i n t e n d e d as a k e y to the w o r k as a w h o l e . I n 1:1-8, w e find the simple a r g u m e n t : ( a ) the J e w i s h w a r is o f great i m p o r t a n c e ; ( b ) p r e v i o u s a c c o u n t s o f it are hopelessly i n a d e q u a t e ; a n d ( c ) J o s e p h u s is in an excellent p o s i t i o n t o r e n d e r an accurate a c c o u n t . I n § § 9 - 1 2 , J o s e p h u s allays a n y potential r e a d e r ' s fears that h e is g o i n g to offer an expose o f R o m a n w r o n g d o i n g . H e a c c o m p l i s h e s this b y in t r o d u c i n g the l e a d i n g t h e m e s
o f the w o r k , n a m e l y : l a m e n t
f o r the
" t y r a n t s " w h o b r o u g h t a b o u t the T e m p l e ' s destruction, a n d praise for the R o m a n s , especially T i t u s , w h o tried to save it. S i n c e the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f these t h e m e s m a y b e t h o u g h t t o c o n t r a v e n e the " l a w o f h i s t o r y " , J o s e p h u s appeals o n c e m o r e to the e n o r m o u s n e s s o f the events a n d his p r o x i m i t y to t h e m as his justification for such strong e m o t i o n s . H e d o e s n o t b e l i e v e that the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f his o w n v a l u e j u d g e m e n t s vitiates his c l a i m to a c c u r a c y . I f a n y t h i n g his strong e m o t i o n s testify to the closeness o f his p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t with events o f great i m p o r t . I n o r d e r to r e m o v e the slightest hint o f m a l p r a c t i c e o n his part, J o s e p h u s turns in § § 13-16 t o a c c u s e those w h o i g n o r e current events ( h e is thinking o f the J e w i s h w a r ) as objects o f historical study. T h e i r s is the greater failure, he c l a i m s . F r a m i n g the c h a r g e in general t e r m s , h e is 8 6
Cf. Laqueur, Historiker and now Cohen, Josephus. Cf., e.g., Luther, Josephus und Justus, 81f., and the editors' preface to the O . Michel Festschrift, Josephus-Studien. One indication of the archaeologists' confidence in Josephus is the present search for Herod's tomb at Herodion, solely on the basis of Josephus's notice (War 1:673). His information has proved invaluable for the excavations of Jerusalem, Masada, Caesarea, Herodion, and other sites. Cf. the judgements of N . Avigad, B. Mazar, and G. Cornfeld in Josephus: The Jewish War, edd. G. Cornfeld, B. Mazar, and P. L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 6f. Rajak, Josephus, 106f. et passim, makes a sustained case for Josephus's accuracy. 8 7
80
CHAPTER THREE
able to i n v o k e the v e n e r a b l e aid o f P o l y b i u s . W e s o o n see, h o w e v e r , that his real p u r p o s e is n o t an abstract critique o f ancient history b u t a reiteration o f his o w n historical p r o w e s s as c h r o n i c l e r o f the J e w i s h W a r . H e has l a b o u r e d v e r y hard t o p r o v i d e this a c c o u n t o f the history o f his o w n times ( § 1 6 ) . T h i s c l a i m recalls o n c e again the eyewitness t h e m e w h i c h has already b e e n well cultivated. A m o n g the v a r i o u s t h e m e s i n t r o d u c e d b y J o s e p h u s in the preface t o War w e m a y distinguish b e t w e e n those that h e explicitly cites as his peculiar literary c o n c e r n s , arising f r o m the subject itself ( l a m e n t for J e r u s a l e m , disgust for the tyrants, praise for the R o m a n s ) , a n d the m o r e general historiographical t h e m e s o r topoi that find a p l a c e also in his w o r k . B o t h will n e e d t o b e taken into a c c o u n t w h e r e relevant, in the in terpretation o f the Pharisee passages in War. It is a c o m m o n p l a c e in J o s e p h a n
scholarship that
War w a s the
historian's apostate w o r k a n d Ant. his a p o l o g e t i c effort. I n the f o r m e r , J o s e p h u s speaks as a Romling o f the " J e w i s h c a m p a i g n " — a title that signifies his distance f r o m his o w n p e o p l e a n d his R o m a n v i e w p o i n t . H e speaks as the m o u t h p i e c e o f R o m e t o his coreligionists. Ant. is h e l d , t o a greater o r lesser d e g r e e , to b e a w o r k o f r e p e n t a n c e . J o s e p h u s has n o w m a t u r e d a n d r e d i s c o v e r e d the value o f his r o o t s ; with Ant. a n d Ag.Ap. he c h o o s e s to p u b l i c i z e these i n s i g h t s .
88
O u r e x a m i n a t i o n o f War, h o w e v e r , points in a different d i r e c t i o n . J o s e p h u s writes in o r d e r to capitalize o n his o w n k n o w l e d g e o f the c o n flict.
H e writes, h o w e v e r , as a n u n a b a s h e d J e w .
8 9
F r o m the v e r y first
sentence h e declares his J e w i s h heritage, his priestly identity, his l o v e for the T e m p l e a n d his c o u n t r y ( 1 : 3 ) .
H e presents
the J e w s as better
historians than the G r e e k s ( 1 : 1 6 ) . A n d whereas all p r e v i o u s a c c o u n t s o f the revolt h a d vilified the J e w s , h e intends to set the r e c o r d straight, t h o u g h w i t h o u t c o m p e n s a t o r y e x a g g e r a t i o n ( 1 : 7 - 9 ) . W h a t h e wants to present to his readers is a J e w i s h story ( 1 : 1 7 , 18) a n d i n d e e d , in the nar rative itself h e glides o v e r the years o f R o m a n prefecture in J u d e a until the revolt ( t h o u g h h e d o e s p a u s e to elaborate o n b r i e f reign o f A g r i p p a ,
8 8
Cf. Thackeray, Rasp, Weber, Laqueur, Smith/Neusner, and Cohen, who are dis cussed in chapter 7, below. Niese, HZ 201, sees Josephus's inclusion of the whole pre-history of the revolt, from the Maccabean period on, as an attempt to acquaint the reader with Jewish history and to remove prejudice. He presents Josephus (p. 206) as a Jew who genuinely mourns the loss of Jerusalem and its Temple. Finally, Niese understands Josephus in all of his works as a Jewish apologist (p. 237): Sein Zweck ist, die Griechen und Romer mit den Juden zu versohnen und sie mit der wahren Gestalt der judischen Geschichte und Religion bekannt zu machen. Alle seine Schriften sind daher direkt oder indirekt apologetisch, und uberall wird das Jiidische in hellenische Form gekleidet. 8 9
y
PURPOSE A N D OUTLOOK OF T H E JEWISH
the J e w i s h k i n g ) .
9 0
WAR
81
H e believes that the J e w i s h 8fju.o<; itself w a s guiltless
in the conflict with R o m e ( 1 : 1 0 , 2 7 ) . T h e J e w i s h c o n t e x t o f the w o r k is such that J o s e p h u s c a n refer to it d e c a d e s later b y the titles 7| $i$\o<; vr\<; Touoatxfte (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 3 ) a n d simply r\ T
9 0
War 2:167-187, 220-276. This may be due (so Holscher, ' Josephus", 1944) to the sparseness of Josephus's sources for the period; on the other hand, however, it would also fit well with the overall Jewish theme of the work, established in the preface.
CHAPTER FOUR WAR THE
1:107-114:
PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I
J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees to his G r e c o - R o m a n readership in War 1:110, in the c o u r s e o f his n a r r a t i o n o f events u n d e r the H a s m o n e a n s . C o m i n g t o speak o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e ' s r e i g n , h e offers a b r i e f a c c o u n t o f the distinctive characteristics o f the Pharisees, as follows: TC<xpa9uovT<xt 8e atkfjs dq TTJV lijouaiav Oapiaatot auvrayfxa xt 'IouSatcav Soxouv (a) euaePeorepov etvai TCOV aXXcov x a l ( b ) TOU$ v6[xou<; axpi(JeaTepov a ^ y e t a O a i T h i s is the first p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the Pharisees that J o s e p h u s saw
fit to g i v e his readers. It m u s t , therefore, b e significant for o u r p u r
p o s e s . M o r e o v e r , a m o n g all o f the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees in the J o s e p h a n c o r p u s , s o m e t h i n g v e r y close to the a b o v e o c c u r s in t w o o t h e r places: War 2 : 1 6 2 : 01 fxex' &xpi(kta$ 8OXOUVT£<; e^yeTaOai TOC vofxifxa x a l TTJV rcpcoTTjv dTCayovTes ocipeaiv Life 191: Nor
o'i rcepl TOC iraxpia vojxtfxa Soxouaiv TCOV aXXoav &xpi(kia 8taq>epeiv
c a n o n e i g n o r e the prima facie similarity
1
b e t w e e n these
statements
a n d Ant 1 7 : 4 1 : fxopiov TI 'IouSaix&v avOpcorcoav in' eijaxpiPcoaei u i y a 9povouv TOORCOCTPIOUx a l a
vojxcov 0 % x V Since
these
e i
T
0
e
^ ^
passages
o v
^POA7IOIOU(xevov. . . .
together
constitute
a
large
segment
J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the Pharisees, f r o m his first to his last
of
what
remarks
a b o u t the g r o u p , a n d since the k e y terms that they share (superlative axpi(kta, vojAOi/vofiifxa/rcaTpia, Soxeoo/TCpoarcoioufxat) g o b a c k to War 1:110, it is all the m o r e i m p o r t a n t to strive for a t h o r o u g h u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f this first attempt at definition. The
"first i m p r e s s i o n " o f the Pharisees that J o s e p h u s offers his r e a d e r
will b e interpreted here a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e : ( 1 ) c o n sideration o f the c o n t e x t ; ( 2 ) analysis o f the k e y t e r m s ; ( 3 ) n a r r o w i n g the
1
This passage is often treated as the product of one of Josephus's sources, which has been taken over by him uncritically, cf. Baumgarten, Name", 14f. n. 15, and the literature cited there; also Revolution, 321-324. The source problem will be discussed at the end of the present chapter. 44
83
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
r a n g e o f plausible m e a n i n g s to the single m o s t p r o b a b l e interpretation. W e shall also n e e d to c o n s i d e r ( 4 ) the i m p l i c a t i o n o f such an analysis for the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n .
/. Context J o s e p h u s ' s first r e c o r d e d reference to the Pharisees falls within his narra tion o f H a s m o n e a n history. H i s v i e w o f the H a s m o n e a n s is basically positive: Mattathias a n d his sons rose u p against the i m p i o u s a n d brutal A n t i o c h u s I V a n d fought with c o u r a g e ( 1 : 3 4 - 4 0 ) . S i m o n ' s administra tion w a s excellent (yevvaico^—1:50) as was that o f J o h n H y r c a n u s , w h o ruled thirty-one years ( 1 : 6 8 ) . After H y r c a n u s , h o w e v e r , things t u r n e d sour. T h a t ruler was permitted b y the D e i t y to foresee that with his t w o o l d e r sons the g o v e r n m e n t w o u l d falter ( 1 : 6 9 ) . J o s e p h u s p r o c e e d s to des c r i b e the y e a r - l o n g x a x a a x p o ^ ( 1 : 6 9 ) o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s
reign,
which
e n d e d with the deaths o f b o t h A r i s t o b u l u s a n d A n t i g o n u s . W i t h the ac cession o f H y r c a n u s ' s third s o n , A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s ( 1 : 8 5 ) , the r e a d e r ' s q u e s t i o n is: W i l l the d o w n w a r d trend c o n t i n u e o r will J a n n e u s b e able to reverse it a n d recapture the lost g o o d fortune o f his father ( 1 : 6 9 , xrjs TCOCTpcpocs eu8ocifxovta<;)? A l a s , J o s e p h u s portrays A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s as a w a r m o n g e r w h o w a s consistently hated b y the J e w i s h p e o p l e . J o s e p h u s is always partial to m o d e r a t e s (fiixpioi)
2
but he characterizes A l e x a n d e r as o n e w h o o n l y
s e e m e d at first to b e m o d e r a t e (fxexpiOTTjTi rcpouxetv SOXOUVTOC—§ 8 5 ) . O n c o m i n g to p o w e r , h o w e v e r , this ruler killed his b r o t h e r ( § 8 5 ) a n d p l u n g e d the nation into continual wars ( § § 86f., 8 9 , 9 0 , 93ff., 99f., 103f),
often unsuccessfully
(§§ 90, 95,
100, 1 0 3 ) . H i s o w n p e o p l e
w e a r i e d o f h i m q u i c k l y a n d o p e n l y expressed their hostility ( § § 8 8 , 91f., 94, 9 6 , 9 8 ) . O n l y with the help o f his mercenaries w a s A l e x a n d e r able to quell the revolts ( § § 8 8 , 9 3 ) , d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f w h i c h he killed tens o f thousands o f J e w s ( § § 8 9 , 9 1 , 9 6 , 9 7 ) . Josephus
describes the accession o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e , J a n n e u s ' s
w i d o w , as a p r o m i s i n g m o m e n t for the nation. A l e x a n d r a not o n l y lacked her h u s b a n d ' s brutality (xfjs cifxoTrjTOs OCUTOU fxocxpocv a7co8eouaa); she o p p o s e d (avOiaTTjfxai) his c r i m e s and w a s therefore people (§ 107). O n
loved by
the
a c c o u n t o f her reputation for piety (8toc 86£ocv
suaejkioci;) she was able to take firm c o n t r o l o f the g o v e r n m e n t . U n l i k e her h u s b a n d ' s case, h o w e v e r — t h e p u b l i c 86£a a b o u t his m o d e r a t i o n had quickly p r o v e d false ( § § 8 5 f f . ) — A l e x a n d r a ' s reputation for piety was
2
War 2:275, 281, 306, 455, 649; "moderate" position in the revolt.
4:283; 5:391;
7:263. Josephus sides with the
84
CHAPTER FOUR
w e l l - f o u n d e d : she really w a s s c r u p u l o u s a b o u t the national
traditions
(rjxptPou y a p 8rj fxaXtcrca TOO e'Ovoos TOC 7cdcTptoc) a n d she u s e d to dismiss of fenders f r o m positions o f a u t h o r i t y ( § 1 0 8 ) . A p p r o p r i a t e l y , she g a v e the h i g h - p r i e s t h o o d to h e r o l d e r s o n H y r c a n u s , w h o w a s indifferent to p u b l i c affairs, a n d thereby restricted the y o u n g e r A r i s t o b u l u s , a " h o t - h e a d " , to private life. I n t o this p r o m i s i n g situation J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees, w h o are yet a third party with a r e p u t a t i o n ( 1 1 0 ) : " a b o d y o f J e w s with the r e p u t a t i o n o f e x c e l l i n g the rest o f their nation in the o b s e r v a n c e s o f religion, a n d as exact e x p o n e n t s o f the l a w s " ( T h a c k e r a y ) . A l e x a n d e r ' s reputation (Soxouv) f o r m i l d n e s s h a d b e e n q u i c k l y d e b u n k e d ; his w i f e ' s r e n o w n (86£oc) for piety, o n the o t h e r h a n d , w a s well f o u n d e d . T h e reader is n o w r e a d y t o ask: D i d the actions o f the Pharisees support o r undermine
their r e p u t a t i o n (Soxouv) f o r piety a n d o b s e r v a n c e o f the
laws?
I I . Key Terms A.
IIocpacpuofAOCi, t o " g r o w b e s i d e " , o c c u r s o n l y here in J o s e p h u s . It m a y
suggest the m e t a p h o r o f " s u c k e r s a r o u n d a t r e e "
3
a n d is in a n y case cer
tainly p e j o r a t i v e : the Pharisees g r e w increasingly to a s s u m e the eifouatoc that rightfully b e l o n g e d t o A l e x a n d r a . B.
Euvrorffxa,
"something
drawn
u p in o r d e r " .
A s w e shall see,
J o s e p h u s uses v a r i o u s labels f o r the J e w i s h religious g r o u p s , such as: atpeais, cptXoaocpta, Tayfxa,
a n d yevos;
4
auvTOcyfxoc h e uses
o n l y o f the
Pharisees a n d o n l y here. A l t o g e t h e r , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the w o r d s o m e 16 times, 12 o f these in War. H e o n c e r e p r o d u c e s S t r a b o ' s use o f the w o r d as m e a n i n g s i m p l y a g r o u p o r " t r o o p " (Ant. 1 4 : 1 1 6 ) . I n 13 o u t o f 14 c a s e s ,
5
however,
J o s e p h u s uses auvxayfxa in a distinctly pejorative sense: in the r e a l m o f ideas, it refers to s o m e t h i n g deceitfully a r r a n g e d , a plot o r fabrication (War 1:495; 2 : 1 0 7 , 1 7 2 , 2 9 0 ) . W h e n used o f a g r o u p o f p e o p l e , the t o n e is always o n e o f dislike o r disgust. F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s speaks o f a yovoctxcov <JUVTOCYU.OC that c o l l a b o r a t e d with the w i c k e d A n t i p a t e r to cause t r o u b l e f o r H e r o d the G r e a t (War 1:568). M o s t frequent is J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the w o r d to d e s c r i b e g r o u p s o f rebels o r " b r i g a n d s " , u n d e r o n e of
the dpxiXTjarai, thus: TO auvTayjxa T
558;
3
4
5
4:135, 509, 513,
Ant. 2 0 : 1 6 1 ; Life 1 0 6 ) . O u t s i d e o f o u r passage, then, w h e n e v e r
Thackeray, n. b. to War 1:110, L C L edn. Cf. the convenient table in J. LeMoyne, Les Sadduceens (Paris: Lecoffre, 1972), 32. That is, excluding our passage and the Strabo citation.
85
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f uses the w o r d ouvxayfia to d e s c r i b e a g r o u p o f p e o p l e , it always m e a n s
"band"
or " g a n g " ;
it is n e v e r h o n o r i f i c o r e v e n
neutral. In o u r passage, as w e shall see, the sequel a p p e a r s to suggest the s a m e negative sense. G . C o r n f e l d ' s r e n d e r i n g , " a n i m p o r t a n t sector 6
[ o f the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y ] " , is hardly C.
appropriate.
EuaePeaxepov, " m o r e p i o u s " . W i t h the t w o c o m p a r a t i v e adjectives
w e reach the heart o f J o s e p h u s ' s first definition o f the
Pharisees:
auvxayfxdc TI 'IouSauov Soxouv: (a) euaePeaTepov etvat xcav aXXoov xal ( b ) TOUS v6[ioos axpiPeaxepov d^rpfsiaGai B o t h o f these terms reflect J o s e p h u s ' s characteristic v o c a b u l a r y in the field o f r e l i g i o n . Euaejkta
and
its
cognate verb
and
adjective
occur
144 times
in
7
J o s e p h u s . A l t h o u g h he o c c a s i o n a l l y speaks o f " f i l i a l " p i e t y , he uses the euaePeta w o r d - g r o u p almost always to d e n o t e piety t o w a r d G o d . E v e r y 8
n a t i o n has its o w n traditional f o r m o f euae(kia , but J o s e p h u s wants to s h o w (especially in Ant. a n d Ag.Ap.)
that J e w i s h euae(kia is particularly
worthy: C o u l d G o d be more worthily honoured than by such a scheme, under which religion is the end and aim of the training of the entire community (fxev TOU 7rXr|0ou<; xocraaxeuaafAevoo rcpos TTJV euaefkiav), the priests are en trusted with the special charge of it, and the whole administration of the state resembles some sacred ceremony? (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 8 , Thackeray)
T h e J e w i s h vofios, d e l i v e r e d b y G o d t h r o u g h M o s e s , p r o m o t e s a g e n u i n e piety (Ant. 1:6; 1 0 : 5 0 ; 14:65; Ag.Ap.
2 : 1 4 6 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 ) . T h e c u s t o m s (eGrj)
o f the J e w s , J o s e p h u s says, are all c o n c e r n e d with piety (euae(kta) and justice (Sixaioauvri, Ant.
16:42).
A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ,
this euaefkta
finds
its centre in the T e m p l e
cult. It requires the offering o f p r e s c r i b e d sacrifices a n d the celebration o f feasts (Ant. 8 : 1 2 2 - 1 2 4 ) . M e n a s s e h b e g a n to s h o w piety (euaejkiv), ac c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w h e n he sanctified the T e m p l e a n d purified the city o f J e r u s a l e m (Ant. 1 0 : 4 5 ) . T h e tenacity o f J e w i s h euae(kia is indicated b y the
firm
resolve o f the priests to c o n t i n u e with the p r e s c r i b e d
sacrifice e v e n w h e n u n d e r attack f r o m P o m p e y (Ant.
14:65).
daily
Indeed,
J o s e p h u s v i e w s the high priest as the o n e w h o oversees the sacrifices and
6
Cornfeld, Jewish War, 32. E.g., War 1:630, 633; Ant. 16:95, 112. These may be attributable to the influence of Nicolaus of Damascus. Of Pythagoras (Ag.Ap. 1:162); of Egypt (Ag.Ap. 1:224); of Claudius (Ant. 20:13); of the Romans (Ant. 14:315); of Ptolemy (Ant. 13:69); of Antipater the Idumean (Ant. 14:283); of the Athenians (Ag.Ap. 2:130); of others generally (Ag.Ap. 2:131). Note especially Life 113: everyone should worship God (TOV Geov euaejkiv) as he sees fit. 7
8
CHAPTER FOUR
86
thus presides (7cpoeoravai) o v e r the euaefkta o f the nation (Ant. 4 : 3 1 ) ; for this r e a s o n , he c a n c l a i m that w h e n the I d u m e a n s slaughtered the c h i e f priests they effectively e n d e d the possibility o f euaePeia (War
7:267).
If the T e m p l e a n d p r i e s t h o o d constitute the focal p o i n t o f euaePeia, however,
they b y n o m e a n s
exhaust
its significance. J o s e p h u s
has
S a m u e l declare that o b e d i e n c e t o w a r d G o d (u7COT<xaaea0ai) is the c o n d i tion o f a c c e p t a b l e sacrifice a n d the sign o f true piety (Ant. 6 : 1 4 8 ) . T h i s o b e d i e n c e e x t e n d s to the laws in their entire s c o p e , w h i c h is the w h o l e o f h u m a n life: A b o v e all we pride ourselves on the education of our children and regard as the most essential task in life the observance of our laws and of the pious practices, based thereupon, which we have inherited (TO 9uXatTeiv TOU$
vofxous x a l xrjv xaxa TOUTOU$ 7capa8e8o(xevr|v eoaePetav). (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 ) A n d again: For us, with our conviction that the original institution of the L a w was in accordance with the will of G o d , it would be rank impiety ( o u 8 ' euaePe$) not to observe it. (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 )
T h u s euaePeia requires careful o b s e r v a n c e o f f o o d a n d purity laws (Life 14, 7 5 ) . J o h n o f G i s c h a l a is castigated for lacking euaePeia in b o t h areas (War 7 : 2 6 4 ) . A s the story o f K i n g Izates tells us, euaePeia a m o u n t s to d o i n g what is c o m m a n d e d in the L a w , in this case c i r c u m c i s i o n , without c o n c e r n for the c o n s e q u e n c e s (Ant. 2 0 : 4 4 - 4 8 ) . Further e x a m p l e s o f the same principle are S a b b a t h o b s e r v a n c e (Ag.Ap.
1:212) a n d the c o n t i n u a
tion o f sacrifice (Ant. 1 4 : 6 5 ) in the midst o f w a r , b o t h o f w h i c h J o s e p h u s considers impressive e x a m p l e s o f euaePeia. F o r J o s e p h u s , then, euaePeia is a o n e - w o r d s u m m a r y o f the w h o l e J e w i s h system o f religion, instigated b y G o d , articulated b y M o s e s , ad ministered b y the priests, a n d shared b y the w h o l e n a t i o n . M o s e s ' suc cess, he allows, lay in his m a k i n g all o f the virtues elements o f euaepeta rather than m a k i n g euaePeia c o u n t for o n l y o n e virtue a m o n g m a n y (Ag.Ap.
2 : 1 7 0 ) . "EuaePeia", he says, " g o v e r n s all o u r actions (7cpa£ei$)
a n d o c c u p a t i o n s (SiaxpiPai) and speech ( X o y o i ) " (Ag.Ap.
2:171).
It is n o surprise, then, that J o s e p h u s sets u p euaePeta as the crucial test for the c o m p e t e n c e o f J e w i s h ( a n d other) p u b l i c figures. H e s u m m a r i z e s the activities o f A b r a h a m , A m r a m , J o s h u a , B o a z , D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n , for e x a m p l e , b y c o m m e n t i n g o n their euaePeia (Ant. 2 : 1 9 6 , 2 1 2 , 3 : 4 9 ; 5:327; 8:13, 196). W h e n speaking o f p u b l i c figures J o s e p h u s often j u x t a p o s e s the t w o characteristics o f euaePeia a n d Stxaioouvr). Especially telling in this regard is his paraphrase o f the Letter of Aristeas § 4 6 , w h e r e he inserts this favourite pair o f qualifications for a ruler. Aristeas has: xaXco? ouv rcoirjaeis,
87
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
PaatXeu Stxate . . . . J o s e p h u s r e n d e r s (Ant. 1 2 : 5 6 ) : eaxat 8e xfjs afj$ euaepeta? xat Stxaioauvrjs. The
significance o f this d o u b l e d e s i g n a t i o n c o m e s to light first
in
D a v i d ' s instructions to S o l o m o n . F o u r times D a v i d a d m o n i s h e s S o l o m o n to rule in a p i o u s (euaepfj) a n d j u s t (Stxaiov) m a n n e r (Ant. 7 : 3 3 8 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 6 , 374).
O n the fifth o c c a s i o n , as D a v i d is d y i n g , he finally elaborates:
S o l o m o n ' s task is, " t o b e j u s t t o w a r d y o u r subjects a n d p i o u s t o w a r d God"
(Stxai (lev etvat 7cp6$ TOU<; dpxofxevoix;, euaejkt 8e 7cp6$ xov . . . Oeov,
7 : 3 8 4 ) . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n o f euaePeia as d e s c r i b i n g the relationship t o w a r d G o d a n d Stxaioauvrj, the " h o r i z o n t a l " relationship to m e n , is c o n f i r m e d several t i m e s . T h e righteous K i n g J o t h a m , "euaePfjs (xev TOC 7cpd<; TOV Oeov, 8ixaio<; 8e TOC npbq av0pa>7uou<; U7cfjpxev" (Ant. 9 : 2 3 6 ) . J o h n the Baptist, says J o s e p h u s , e x h o r t e d the J e w s to act 7cp6$ aXXrjXou$ Stxaioauvrj xat 7cp6<; TOV Geov euaePeia (Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 7 ) . Finally, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s the first t w o o f the d o z e n oaths taken b y the Essenes (War
2 : 1 3 9 ) w e r e : 7cp&T0V [xev
euaePrjaeiv TO OeTov, e7ceixa TO npbq avOpamous Stxata 9uXa?eiv. E v e n w h e n the m a n - w a r d qualification o f Stxaioauvrj is l a c k i n g , w e frequently find the 9
qualifier 7cp6$ xov Oeov a p p e n d e d to euaepeta. T h e r e c a n r e m a i n little d o u b t that the almost f o r m u l a i c euaePeia xat Stxaioauvrj that J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s in c h a r a c t e r i z i n g p u b l i c figures is to b e u n d e r s t o o d in terms o f this ver tical/horizontal d i s t i n c t i o n .
10
I n its earliest G r e e k u s a g e , euaepeta w a s usually qualified with respect to
its o b j e c t ; o n e c o u l d speak o f " r e v e r e n c e " t o w a r d o n e ' s parents,
t o w a r d the d e a d , t o w a r d ' s o n e ' s h o m e l a n d , a n d so forth, u s i n g the f o r m s 11
euaePeia et$/ npoq/iztpi.
B y the Hellenistic p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h all o f these for
m u l a t i o n s r e m a i n e d c u r r e n t , euaePeia h a d also c o m e to b e u s e d w i t h o u t qualification for " r e v e r e n c e t o w a r d a n d w o r s h i p o f the D i v i n e " . W . Foerster suggests that the d e v e l o p m e n t w a s a natural p r o g r e s s i o n f r o m h o n o u r i n g the
v a r i o u s constituent
e l e m e n t s within
the
world
order
( p a r e n t s , h o m e l a n d , e t c . ) to h o n o u r i n g that o r d e r itself a n d the d i v i n e p o w e r s that g u a r d e d a n d p r o t e c t e d i t .
12
was a virtue in Hellenistic t h i n k i n g .
13
9
In all o f its ramifications, euaepeta
War 2:128; Ant. 9:2, 222, 236, 276, 10:45, 51, 51, 68; 12:43, 290; 13:242; 14:257; 16:172; 18:117; Life 113; Ag.Ap. 1:162; 2:171. A s G . Schrenk(''8tx<xto<;", TDNT, II, 182) shows, this coupling of Stxato? (re: obliga tions to men) with oato<;, euaepeta or the like (re: obligations to God) was fairly common among Greek writers, e.g., Plato, Gorgias 507b; Polybius 22.10.8; Xenophon, Memorabilia 4.8.7. The word is analyzed by W . Foerster in both his TDNT article, "euaePeta", V I I , 168196, and in his article "EuaePeta in den Pastoralbriefen", NTS 5 (1959), 213-218. Foerster, TDNT, V I I , 175ff.; "Pastoralbriefen", 214f. Foerster, TDNT, V I I , 177f. 1 0
11
1 2
1 3
CHAPTER FOUR
88
EuaePeta, then, is f u n d a m e n t a l l y a G r e e k c o n c e p t . S o Foerster: Euaepeta ist eine griechische Wortbildung, zu der das Hebraische kein sprachliches Aquivalent hat und die eine religios-sittliche Tugend, deren U b u n g offentliches L o b , deren Unterlassung moralische Abwertung erfahrt. 14
The
w o r d d o e s o c c u r a handful o f times in the S e p t u a g i n t , to r e n d e r
mJT n**"P, and p ^ .
1
15
6
a n d the adjective euaePfjs o c c a s i o n a l l y renders T D n , D*H3, But the w o r d - g r o u p d o e s n o t r e n d e r a n y particular H e b r e w
c o n c e p t i o n v e r y well. C . H . D o d d s u m m a r i z e s : Thus these terms [the euaep-group] belong chiefly to the vocabulary o f those books o f the Bible which were composed as well as translated in the Hellenistic period, and whose Greek translation is comparatively late. It is clear that the words, and the idea they represent, are characteristically Greek, and in Hellenistic Judaism replace Hebrew terms o f a different colour. 17
Since it w a s o n l y G r e e k - s p e a k i n g J u d a i s m that i n c o r p o r a t e d the c o n c e p t o f euaePeta as a constituent feature o f its s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g , be
futile
in
this case to press
further
the
question
18
of a
it w o u l d "Semitic
b a c k g r o u n d " for J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t . J o s e p h u s ' s c o n c e p t o f euaePeta as a c o m m u n a l J e w i s h e n d e a v o u r , as consisting in o b e d i e n c e to the d i v i n e L a w , a n d as the special task a n d virtue o f the priests, is m o s t closely paralleled in 4 M a c c a b e e s . W i t h i n the short c o m p a s s o f the w o r k , euaePeta f o r m s a p p e a r 6 4 times a n d h a v e precisely the J o s e p h a n sense o f " p l e a s i n g G o d b y a d h e r i n g faithfully to his L a w " . W h a t m a k e s this m o s t interesting is that 4 M a c c a b e e s w a s traditionally
thought,
o n the basis o f t e s t i m o n y f r o m
Eusebius
and
J e r o m e , to h a v e b e e n written b y J o s e p h u s u n d e r the title Ilept AUTOxpdcxopos Aoytafxou.
19
T o s u m m a r i z e : the t e r m euaepeta is part o f J o s e p h u s ' s
characteristic
v o c a b u l a r y ; it o c c u r s m o s t frequently t h r o u g h o u t Ant. a n d Ag.Ap.,
which
b o t h seek to e x p l a i n a n d d e f e n d J u d a i s m . It is less c o m m o n , b u t still ap pears in characteristic f o r m , in War a n d Life, w h i c h d e s c r i b e events c o n n e c t e d with the revolt. J o s e p h u s often uses the w o r d to s u m m a r i z e the w h o l e e n d a n d m e a n s o f J e w i s h life, c e n t r e d in the T e m p l e cult a n d
1 4
Foerster, "Pastoralbriefen", 213. Only Prov. 1:7; 13:11; Isa. 11:2; 33:6. Judg. 8:31; Job 32:3; Prov. 12:12; 13:19; Eccl. 3:10; Isa. 24:16; 26:7; 32:8. C . H . Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 174. The term occurs some 200 times in Philo, 64 times in 4 Maccabees, and, as noted, 144 times in Josephus. Eusebius Eccl. Hist., 3.10.6; cf. W . H . Brownlee, "Maccabees, Books o f , IDB, III, 212; Niese, HZ, 236f. 1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
89
T H E PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I
supervised b y the p r i e s t h o o d . H e c a n also restrict euaePeta t o action that is directed t o w a r d G o d , in w h i c h sense it is c o m p l e m e n t e d b y Stxatoouvrj, w h i c h refers t o h u m a n
relationships.
M o s t significant for o u r p u r p o s e is the simple o b s e r v a t i o n that the c o n c e p t euaePeta d o e s play a large role in J o s e p h u s ' s thinking.
When,
therefore, h e describes the Pharisees as a g r o u p o f J e w s Soxouv euaePearepov etvat TCOV aXXcov h e
is u s i n g t e r m i n o l o g y that is
theologically
c h a r g e d for h i m : they h a v e the reputation o f b e i n g ( o r s u p p o s e t h e m selves t o b e )
2 0
the m o s t J e w i s h o f the J e w s , those w h o m o s t perfectly
fulfill the c o m m u n a l ideal. D . 'AxptPeaxepov: " m o r e precise, e x a c t " . F o r J o s e p h u s , the r o a d to attaining euaePeta is a d h e r e n c e to the laws, c u s t o m s , o r traditions o f J u d a i s m . It w a s the great l a w g i v e r (vofJLoOeTTjs) w h o instructed the p e o p l e in euaePeta (Ant. 1:6). S i n c e G o d has g i v e n the L a w to m a n k i n d , piety consists in a d h e r e n c e t o it (Ag.Ap.
2 : 1 8 4 ) . EuaePeta, in the J e w i s h c o n
text, is closely b o u n d to o b s e r v a n c e o f the divine c o m m a n d m e n t s (cf. Ant. 7 : 3 3 8 , 3 7 4 , 9 : 2 , 2 2 2 ; 1 4 : 6 5 ; 1 5 : 2 6 7 ; Ag.Ap. laws teach euaePetav xat aX7)0eaTaT7)v (Ag.Ap.
2 : 1 4 6 , 1 5 9 ) . F o r the
2 : 2 9 1 ) . K i n g J o s i a h suc
c e e d e d so well in euaePeta precisely b y f o l l o w i n g the laws (Ant. 1 0 : 5 0 ) . If the r o a d to piety is o b s e r v a n c e o f the laws g i v e n b y G o d , then it follows that the m o s t p i o u s J e w s will b e those w h o follow the laws m o s t scrupulously
a n d accurately.
T h e connection between
euaePeta a n d
axptPeta is especially clear in the context o f o u r passage, w h e r e it is said of Queen
Alexandra
that she w a s e n a b l e d
to take c o n t r o l o f the
government: Sta 86£<xv ev<je(ie(oc<;. r\xpi$o\j yap 8rj fxaXta-ca TOU eOvou^ TOC rcaxpta xal TOU<; 7uXrj[X[xeXoGvTa<; efc -code; lepouc; V6(JLOU<; eij dcpxfjs TcpoeP&XXeTO (War 1:108.) T h e substance o f A l e x a n d r a ' s euaePeta w a s h e r s c r u p u l o u s a d h e r e n c e to the laws. W h e n , therefore, J o s e p h u s describes the Pharisees as the g r o u p Soxouv euaePeaxepov etvat. . . x a l TOUS vofxouc; axptPeaxepov acprjyetaGat, h e is
n o t really saying t w o different things a b o u t the Pharisees b u t is rather defining their reputation b y m e a n s o f s y n o n y m o u s parallelism: to b e euaePeaxepov for h i m is to b e axptPeaxepov w i t h r e s p e c t to the vojxot. A s h e
r e m a r k s in another c o n t e x t : T h e Jews certify the wisdom only of those who know the laws exactly (i6i<; TOC VOFXTFXA AAQJ&s ETUTAXAUIVOTS) and who are competent to interpret the mean ing of the holy scriptures (TTJV TOOV TEPCOV ypafXfxdcTcav ouvauivotc). (Ant.
2 0
20:264)
W e shall consider the exact sense of 8ox£o> below.
Suvajxtv ep[A7)VEUAAT
90
CHAPTER
Paret
rightly
Akribie".
comments:
FOUR
" D i e Frommigkeit
ist
ihm
wesentlich
2 1
'Axpi(kioc a n d its c o g n a t e v e r b a n d adjective o c c u r
134 times in
J o s e p h u s . W e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d the i m p o r t a n c e o f the c o n c e p t f o r his h i s t o r i o g r a p h y : <xxpi(kioc is the goal o f all his w r i t i n g a n d h e alludes t o it frequently i n his p r o g r a m m a t i c statements.
I n War, as w e h a v e seen,
J o s e p h u s bases his c l a i m t o a c c u r a c y o n his close i n v o l v e m e n t with events. W i t h J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , as w i t h ancient J u d a i s m generally, o n e c a n not force a d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n history a n d r e l i g i o n .
22
F o r the p u r p o s e o f
s t u d y i n g the past is t o learn G o d ' s will. S o J o s e p h u s writes o f his Ant.: But, speaking generally,
the m a i n lesson to be learnt from this history
(TOCUTTIS xfjs loroptocs). . . is that m e n who conform to the will of G o d , and do not venture to transgress laws that have been excellently laid down, prosper in all things beyond belief. . . ; whereas,
in proportion as they
depart from the strict observance of these laws (xa9' oaov 8' av arcoaTcaai xfjs TOUTCOV axpijious E7U[AeXetas), . . . whatever imaginary good thing they strive to do ends in irretrievable disaster. (Ant. 1:14, Thackeray)
A passage in the first b o o k o f Ag.Ap.
likewise blurs the distinction b e
t w e e n history a n d r e l i g i o n , b y p o s i t i n g that the r e c o r d s o f J e w i s h history h a v e b e e n kept with dxpt(kioc b y the priests a n d p r o p h e t s ( 1 : 2 9 - 3 6 ) . I n d e e d , the r e c o r d s o f the past are " s a c r e d " r e c o r d s ( 1 : 5 4 ) . A n d J o s e p h u s appeals t o his o w n priestly l i n e a g e as s u p p o r t f o r his c l a i m s to h a v e a c curate i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t J e w i s h history (Ag.Ap.
1:54). M o s t significant
is his j u d g e m e n t o n the anti-Semite A p i o n . T h r o u g h o u t his p o l e m i c a l w o r k against this a u t h o r , h e r e p e a t e d l y charges h i m with p r o p a g a t i n g ig n o r a n c e a n d lies a b o u t J e w i s h history a n d c u s t o m s . H i s final j u d g e m e n t on
the p r o p a g a n d i s t i c historian,
(Ag.Ap.
h o w e v e r , is f u n d a m e n t a l l y
religious
2:144):
T h e duty of wise m e n is to adhere scrupulously to their native laws con cerning piety (xou<; u i v otxeioti; vou,oi$rceplTTJV euaejktocv axpi(Ja)<; efXfxeveiv) and not to abuse those of others. A p i o n was delinquent with respect to his coun try's laws and told lies about ours.
A p i o n ' s historical i n a c c u r a c y is p o r t r a y e d b y J o s e p h u s as a religious d e f i c i e n c y . J o s e p h u s c a n n o t separate the spheres o f history a n d r e l i g i o n . For h i m , the c o n c e p t o f dxptpstoc m o v e s freely b e t w e e n the t w o areas.
2 1
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 826. Indeed, the ancient world as a whole viewed history as a study to be undertaken primarily for its present value; cf. Thucydides 1:22; Polybius 12:25b. 3; 1.35. 1-3, 7-10; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 22f., 166f. So history was not an autonomous discipline in the modern sense. 2 2
THE
One
91
PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I
w a y to o b s e r v e J o s e p h u s ' s taste for the axpifktoc w o r d g r o u p is to
e x a m i n e his paraphrase o f the p s e u d e p i g r a p h o u s Letter of Aristeas. T h a t d o c u m e n t , in the parts o f it that J o s e p h u s uses, has the adjective dxpififjs o n c e ( § 3 2 ) . J o s e p h u s takes it o v e r {Ant. 1 2 : 3 9 ) a l o n g with the phrase in w h i c h it o c c u r s . In six other p l a c e s , h o w e v e r , h e paraphrases Aristeas in such a w a y as to i n c l u d e an dxpt[feta-cognate w h e r e it w a s absent f r o m his s o u r c e . S i n c e all o f this h a p p e n s within the space o f Ant. 1 2 : 3 5 - 1 0 4 , the i n c i d e n c e is n o t e w o r t h y . T h e passages are as follows: (1)
Aristeas 2 8 b : Storcep xal TO xfjs etaSoaeco? xal TO TCOV ITUOTOXCOV
dvTiypa9a xaraxexcoptxa xal TO TCOV drcearaXuivcov rcXfjGos xal TTJV exaarou xaraaxeurjv, 8id TO [xeyaXafxotpta xal Te/vrj 8ia9epeiv exaarov aurcov. Ant.
1 2 : 3 5 : 8to xal TO VC\$ etaSoaeco? dvrtypa90v xal TO TCOV emaroXcov
xaTarerdxrat xal TOTCXTJGOSTCOV d7cearaXuivcov dvaGrjfAarcov xal TO £ 9 ' exaarov xaraaxeuaaGev, co$ dxptPeaTdr7)v etvat TTJV TOU rexvirou rot? opcoat [xeyaXoupytav
xal
8td
TTJV TCOV xaraaxeuaau-drcov
e^oxrjv
TOV exaarou
Srju-ioupyov euGeco? 7toiTJaai yvcopiu.cov. (2)
Aristeas 3 9 : xaXcot; ouv 7tot7Ja7)s xal
TTJ<J rju-erepds
cncouSfj?
afjico?
e7uXef|d[xevo<; avSpa? xaXco? (kPtcoxora? rcpeaPurepous, eujcetpiav e'xovras TOU VO(AOU, xal Suvarou? ep[Z7)veuaai, dq)' exdarr)*; 96X7)$ eij, orccos ex TCOV rcXetovcov TO auu^covov evepyr}, 8id TO rcepl u.ei£6vcov etvai TTJV axecjnv. Ant. 1 2 : 4 9 : xaXco? ouv 7coir)aei<; e7tiXeijdu.evos av8pa$ dyaGou? e£ a 9 ' exdarrj? 9uXfj? f]8rj rcpeaPurepous, oi xal 8td TOV xpovov eu-rceipcos e'xouai TCOV VOJXCOV xal Suvrjaovrai TTJV epjxrjvetav aurcov dxpipfj TroirjaaaGat. (3)
Aristeas 5 6 : oaa 8' av rj a y p a 9 a , 7tpo<; xaXXovyjv exeXeuae rcotetv oaa 8e
8id yparcrcov, u.erpd aurois xaraxoXouGfjaai. Ant.
1 2 : 6 3 : xal oaa rjv a y p a 9 a
exeXeuae raura xaraaxeud£eaGai
xat
rd
dvayeypau.uiva npbq TTJV dxpi($etav aurcov a7ro($Xe7rovTa$ 6|xotco$ eTrireXeiv. (4)
Aristeas 183: T i p o a e x e a r a r o s yap cov avGpcorcos 6 AcopoGeo? etxe TTJV TCOV
TOIOUTCOV 7cpoaTaatav. auvearpcoae 8e rcdvra Ta 8i' aurou x&tpi£6u.eva, npbq T a ? TotauTa? UTioSoxd? 8iau.eu.epiau.eva. 8tu.epfj Te eTroirjae Ta TCOV xXiaicov. Ant.
1 2 : 9 5 : o 8e xal rcepl TOUTOU? eyevero, AcopoOeou 8td TTJV rcepl TOV (Jtov
dxptPeiav inl rourots xaGearcoTO?. auvearpcoae 8e rcdvra 8i' aurou rd npbq rd$ roiaura? urco8oxd$, xal St^epfj TTJV xXiaiav ercotTiaev. (5)
Ant. 1 2 : 9 9 is a s u m m a r y statement o f the tedious a c c o u n t in Aristeas
2 0 0 - 2 9 4 , w h i c h tells o f a s e v e n - d a y b a n q u e t in w h i c h K i n g P t o l e m y asks
92
CHAPTER FOUR
each o f the s e v e n t y - t w o J e w i s h elders a q u e s t i o n a n d receives a wise reply. J o s e p h u s ' s s u m m a r y r e m a r k is that the elders, ''after c o n s i d e r i n g the questions, g a v e precise (dxpt(Jco<;) explanations, a c o m m e n t l a c k i n g in his source. Aristeas 3 0 2 : ot 8e erceTeXouv e x a o r a aufxcpcova 7toiouvTe<; 7tp6<; eauTOUs xaq
(6)
dvTi[}oX<xT$ . . . xal [xexpt [xev aSpa? evaTTjs auve8peia<; eyiveTO fxerd 8e rauxa Tiepl TTJV TOU acofxaTOS 0epa7reiav a7teXuovTO ytveaOat. Ant.
1 2 : 1 0 4 : oi 8' co? evt [xaXiara 9tXoTifxco£ xal 9iXo7r6va><; dxpififj TTJV
epfxrjvetav 7rotou[xevot [xexpi [xev aSpa? evaTTjs
7tpds TOUTCO 8I£T£XOUV OVTSS,
McetT'
inl TTJV TOU acofxaTO? d7t7jXXdTT0VT0 0epa7tetav.
Particularly Aristeas 39/Ant.
striking here are the parallels Aristeas 28b/Ant. 12:49; and Aristeas 183/Ant.
12:35;
12:95f., b e c a u s e o f the exact
verbal replication in the i m m e d i a t e vicinity o f the dxptpeia f o r m s . T h e in escapable c o n c l u s i o n is that dxpifkia represented a significant c a t e g o r y in Josephus's
thought.
J o s e p h u s presents the entire J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y as a g r o u p striving t o o b s e r v e the laws with dxptjkia. M o s e s , h e c l a i m s , called together the w h o l e nation a n d extracted f r o m t h e m a n oath, ' ' t o o b s e r v e the laws, b e c o m i n g strict stewards o f the m i n d o f G o d " (TTJ$ TOU Geou Stavota? dxpt(kts XoyiaTa? yivojxevous, Ant. 4 : 3 0 9 ) . I n d e e d , M o s e s w e n t so far as to require that e v e r y w e e k the m e n should leave their o c c u p a t i o n s to hear the L a w , in o r d e r " t o o b t a i n a t h o r o u g h a n d accurate k n o w l e d g e o f i t " (TOU vofxou auXXeyeaOai xal TOUTOV dxpt(3cos exfxavOdveiv, Ag.Ap.
2 : 1 7 5 ) . J o s e p h u s c a n , therefore,
p r o p o s e that Plato follows M o s e s w h e n h e prescribes that all citizens h a v e a basic duty to learn their laws dxptfico? (Ag.Ap.
2 : 2 5 7 ) . F o r it is the J e w s
w h o practice their laws punctiliously (rcpaTTOfxeva [xerd 7tdarj$ dxpt(fetas 6 9 ' rjfxcov, Ag.Ap.
2:149).
A l t h o u g h dxptfkia with respect t o the laws is a c o m m u n a l g o a l , certain g r o u p s a n d individuals are c o m m o n l y thought to excel in this regard, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s . T h a t is the case with the scholars J u d a s a n d M a t tathias, w h o advised their students pull d o w n the g o l d e n eagle f r o m H e r o d ' s t e m p l e (War 1:648), with a certain Eleazar, w h o insisted that K i n g Izates o f A d i a b e n e u n d e r g o c i r c u m c i s i o n in his c o n v e r s i o n t o J u d a i s m (Ant. 2 0 : 4 3 ) , a n d with certain inhabitants o f J e r u s a l e m w h o o b j e c t e d t o the stoning o f J a m e s , the b r o t h e r o f J e s u s (Ant. 2 0 : 2 0 1 ) . I n three places, i n c l u d i n g War 1:110, J o s e p h u s claims that the Pharisees h a v e such a reputation (also War 2 : 1 6 2 ; Life 1 9 1 ) . A l l o f these parties s e e m to b e , o r are reputed to b e (Soxouaiv), 2 3
23
accurate in their interpretation o f the L a w .
W e shall examine the sense of 8oxec*> 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
T h i s p r o p o s a l is n o t fulfilled in Ant. itself b u t is p r o b a b l y i n t e n d e d to in t r o d u c e J o s e p h u s ' s a u t o b i o g r a p h y , the Life ( 'Icoar)7rou B t o ? ) .
2 4
It is in that
w o r k that w e s h o u l d e x p e c t to find m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to <xxpt(kta. The
o p e n i n g w o r d s o f the Life fit neatly with the e p i l o g u e to Ant.
q u o t e d a b o v e a n d m a k e clear the r e a s o n for J o s e p h u s ' s p r i d e : h e is a priest. My
ancestry is not undistinguished; indeed it has its origin a m o n g the
priests. If each of the races has some sort of criterion for nobility, with us it is participation in the priesthood that is a sure sign of illustrious descent. (Life 1)
J o s e p h u s g o e s o n to p o i n t o u t that he is n o t o n l y a priest b u t a " p r i e s t ' s p r i e s t " , for his ancestors b e l o n g e d to the first o f the t w e n t y - f o u r c o u r s e s 0:2).
It is, then, to his priestly l i n e a g e that J o s e p h u s p r o u d l y p o i n t s as the basis for his c l a i m to dxpt(kta. H e relates that as a child he m a d e great p r o g r e s s in his e d u c a t i o n , b e c o m i n g k n o w n for his excellent m e m o r y a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g ( § 8 ) . B y the t i m e he w a s fourteen years o l d : . . . the chief priests and leaders of the city were always coming by because with m y help they could grasp more accurately some aspect of the laws (Tuap' efxou mpl TOV vofxifxcov AXPTPEATEPOV TI yvcovai). (Life 9 )
2 4
Life appears in all of the M S S as an appendix to Ant. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.10.8-9, cites it as if it were part of Ant. Laqueur's theory, adopted by Thackeray with qualifica tions, is that Ant. 20:259-266 was added to the second edition of Ant. (c. A D 100), to introduce the newly written Life (Laqueur, Historiker, 1-6; Thackeray, introduction to L C L edn., I, xiiif.).
94
C H A P T E R FOUR
It is i m p o r t a n t to u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h u s ' c l a i m here w i t h o u t regard to its historical plausibility: it is solely o n the basis o f a priestly lineage a n d u p b r i n g i n g that he claims to h a v e a c h i e v e d axptfJeta with respect to the laws. W e h a v e n o t e d several o t h e r passages in w h i c h the p r i e s t h o o d is c o n n e c t e d with axptfkta;
25
the
clearest o f these is Ag.Ap.
1:54,
where
J o s e p h u s bases the aXrjOeia a n d dxpt(ktoc o f Ant. o n his priestly descent a n d training. W e m a y n o w a d d u c e further Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 - 1 8 7 . H e is there praising the theocratic constitution (7CoXiTeuu.a) o f the J e w s , w h i c h : sets G o d at the head of the universe, assigns the administration of its highest affairs (TOC {xeyia-ca) to the whole body of priests (TOI? tepeuai. . . xoivfj), and entrusts to the supreme high-priest the direction o f the other priests. (§ 185, Thackeray) H e claims that M o s e s entrusted to the priests TTJV 7repl TOV Geov Oeparcetav (§ 1 8 6 ) . But this c h a r g e to direct the n a t i o n ' s w o r s h i p i m p l i e d also strict attention to the L a w a n d to the other pursuits o f life (TOUTO 8' fjv xal TOU vofxou xal TG>V aXXcav e7itT7)8eu[jiaTcov axpt($7)s e7Ct{xeXeta, § 1 8 7 ) . Similarly Ag.Ap.
2 : 1 9 4 : the h i g h priest, a l o n g with his c o l l e a g u e s , safeguards the
laws (
that J o s e p h u s
frequently
p o i n t s to his o w n
priestly credentials as he reiterates his constant goal o f <xxpt(kta (Ag.Ap. 1:54; Ant. 20:264ff.; Life 1-9). N o r is this a late d e v e l o p m e n t in his think ing, for w e find the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n his priestly credentials a n d his k n o w l e d g e o f the Scriptures already in War 3 : 3 5 2 : He [Josephus] was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant o f the prophecies in the sacred books (T&V y e [A7)v Upcov (3i(iXcov oux Tjyvoet T<X$ 7cpo<pr)Teia<; ax; av auTO£ T& COV Upevt; xal Upicov syyovo<;). (Thackeray) I n d e e d , the possibility o f a d r a m a t i c d e v e l o p m e n t in J o s e p h u s ' s thinking o n the priestly p r e r o g a t i v e in scriptural exegesis is e x c l u d e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f this, his first w r i t i n g , with his last w o r k (Ag.Ap.
1:54):
I have rendered the sacred writings, being a priest by birth and trained in the philosophy of their writings (ex T&V Upcov ypa[X[x<XTcov (xe8rjp[xrjveuxa yeyovcot; lepeve; ix y£VOV£ xal (JLETEOXRJXAX; TTJ$
25
E.g., Ag.Ap. 1:29, 32, 36, 54.
TOT<;
95
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
I n b o t h passages, the p o i n t b e i n g m a d e a n d the tepeu^/tepo^ w o r d - p l a y are a l m o s t identical. W e m a y also recall that J o s e p h u s o p e n s War b y c l a i m i n g historical dxpiPeia a n d c i t i n g his priestly credentials side b y side ( 1 : 2 3,
6 ) . Finally, in
War 2:41 l f - 4 1 7 ,
h e c l a i m s that the leaders o f the
p e o p l e , the c h i e f priests, a n d the l e a d i n g Pharisees called o n " p r i e s t l y e x perts o n the t r a d i t i o n s " (TOUS eu.7ceipous TCOV rcocTpicov tepet^) t o p r o v e that the J e w s h a d a l w a y s a c c e p t e d sacrifices f r o m f o r e i g n e r s . hardly
doubt
that J o s e p h u s
always
associated
dxpifkioc in the interpretation o f the l a w s .
the
26
T h u s , one can
priesthood
with
2 7
J o s e p h u s ' s p o s i t i o n a c c o r d s c o n s p i c u o u s l y well with w h a t L a u t e r b a c h sees as the pre-Pharisaic, priestly v i e w o f the L a w . T h a t scholar r e m a r k s : T h e position held by priest and laity alike, before that group of layteachers, the Pharisees to be, started on their progressive march towards advanced Pharisaism, was that the authority of the T o r a h was supreme and binding upon the people, and that every one of its laws had to be carried out strictly and scrupulously. 28
The
m o t i v a t i o n b e h i n d this strict o b s e r v a n c e , L a u t e r b a c h a r g u e s , w a s
the " p r i m i t i v e " m e c h a n i s m o f the o a t h , as d e s c r i b e d in D e u t . 2 9 : 9 30:20 and Neh. 10:1, 2 9 - 3 0 . freely
o m i t s material f r o m
readers,
30
2 9
W e m a y n o t e that J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h h e
the B i b l e that m i g h t b e offensive
t o his
d o e s n o t hesitate to d e s c r i b e the oath that M o s e s m a d e the
p e o p l e swear, c o m p l e t e with the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f blessings a n d cursings (Ant. 4 : 3 0 5 - 3 1 0 ) . J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s , therefore, to e m b r a c e a classic " p r e P h a r i s a i c " (therefore n o n - P h a r i s a i c ) v i e w o f the f u n c t i o n o f the L a w . T o s u m m a r i z e : s c r u p u l o u s a d h e r e n c e t o o n e ' s traditional laws is, for J o s e p h u s , a universal responsibility, b i n d i n g o n all n a t i o n s . T h e J e w s , h e m a i n t a i n s , take this task especially seriously. S i n c e the o r i g i n a l p r o m u l g a t i o n o f their L a w b y M o s e s , they h a v e s w o r n to study it a n d t o o b e y its p r e c e p t s w i t h d i l i g e n c e . A l t h o u g h dxptfktoc w i t h respect t o the laws is the c o m m o n g o a l o f J e w i s h life, certain i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g r o u p s are r e p u t e d to excel in this area ( e . g . , the Pharisees, Eleazar, a n d certain
2 6
As will become clear below, TOC 7cdxpta is a favourite Josephan term, and designates the whole of Jewish law and custom. The importance of Josephus's priesthood for his world-view has often been noted by scholars; cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 34, 131; S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Vienna: A . Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930), passim; B. Heller, "Grundzuge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus", MGWJ, 80 (1936), 237-246, esp. 238f.; Lind ner, Geschichtsauffassung, 75f., 146 n.2; and Rajak, Josephus, 18-20. It is seldom if ever realized, however, that Josephus's priestly view of the Law effectively precludes a Pharisaic outlook. Lauterbach, HUCA, 94. Ibid., 95. Heller, "Grundziige", 241f. 2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
CHAPTER FOUR
96
J e r u s a l e m i t e s ) . I n J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w , h o w e v e r , it is the priests w h o are the real adepts in a c c u r a t e scriptural exegesis. H e forthrightly a n d repeatedly m a k e s his o w n c l a i m to axpi(kia o n the basis o f his priestly descent and E.
training.
N6[xoi, " c u s t o m s , c o n v e n t i o n s , l a w s " . It has b e e n e n o u g h so far
to speak o f " t h e L a w " o r " l a w s " as the o b j e c t o f Pharisaic e x a c t i t u d e in J o s e p h u s ' s d e f i n i t i o n : ouvxayixd TI 'IooSauov Soxoov . . . TOU? v6[xou? axpifiecruepov o ^ y e T a O a i . T h e m e a n i n g o f v6[xoi for J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , re quires s o m e w h a t closer attention. Now
it is clear that J o s e p h u s v i e w s the v6[xoi as the c e n t r e o f J e w i s h
life. H e c l a i m s that J e w s h o l d o b s e r v a n c e o f the v6[xoi t o b e d e a r e r than life;
31
that the e d u c a t i o n o f J e w i s h c h i l d r e n b e g i n s with the vofxoi;
32
and
that a m o n g J e w s , accurate k n o w l e d g e o f the vopioi is the sole criterion o f wisdom or piety.
3 3
H e reports that the Pharisees a n d o t h e r g r o u p s w e r e
especially r e n o w n e d for ( o r p r e t e n d e d t o ) such e x p e r t k n o w l e d g e . S i n c e the vofioi p l a y a central role in J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t , it is crucial for us t o specify as closely as p o s s i b l e w h a t h e m e a n s b y this t e r m . We
c a n d o this b y e x a m i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s definitions a n d s u m m a r i e s
o f the v6[xoi, as well as c o n t e x t u a l indicators such as qualifiers
and
s y n o n y m s for v6|io$.
The
Nofioi o f the G e n t i l e s
M o r e than o n e fifth o f the 507 o c c u r r e n c e s o f v6|io$ in J o s e p h u s h a v e t o d o with s o m e t h i n g o t h e r than J e w i s h v o f i o i . the VOJAOI o f w a r ,
3 5
of history, 38
36
34
H e speaks, for e x a m p l e , o f
and o f Nature.
3 7
E a c h o f the G e n t i l e na
tions has its o w n V6(JIOI. T h e s e passages e v i n c e a c o n s i d e r a b l e
fluidity
in J o s e p h u s ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f vou.o$. T h e y s h o w , first, that he d o e s n o t reserve v6u.o$, as a technical t e r m , for s o m e t h i n g p e c u l i a r to J u d a i s m ; the vofioi o f the J e w s are (at least f o r m a l l y ) c o m p a r a b l e to the vofxot o f the n a t i o n s . C o n s i d e r J o s e p h u s ' s caustic j u d g e m e n t o f the anti-Semitic p r o pagandist A p i o n :
3 1
E.g., Ant. 3:317; 18:274; Ag.Ap. 1:42, 190, 2:219. Ant. 4:211; Ag.Ap. 1:60; 2:204. Ant. 20:265. By my count, about 376 of the 507 occurrences of v6[io<; (or the plural) denote the Jewish Law. War 2:90: 3:103, 363; 5:332; 6:346; Ant. 1:315; 6:69; 9:58; 14:304; 15:157. War 1:11; 5:20. War 3:370; 4:382; 5:367; Ant. 4:322; 17:95. Ant. 4:139; 10:257; ll:191ff.; 14:153; 16:277; 19:168ff.; Ag.Ap. 1:167; 2:143, 225, 257ff. 3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
T H E PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
97
It is the duty of wise m e n scrupulously to adhere to their native laws con cerning piety (TOIS oixetot? vofxot? 7cept xfy eua£(Jetav &xpi($a>s ifif/iveiv) and not to abuse those of others. Apion was delinquent in respect of his own coun try's laws and told lies about ours. (Ag.Ap. 2:144) I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s ' s entire a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e is to d e m o n s t r a t e that, o f all o f the systems o f vofioi in the w o r l d , that o f the J e w s is the m o s t perfect. N o t i c e , s e c o n d , that the vofioi o f the G e n t i l e s are n o t m e r e l y legislated d e c r e e s . T h e y c a n also b e c u s t o m s o r c o n v e n t i o n s . A l t h o u g h , for e x a m p l e , the vopioi o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y o r o f w a r m a y h a v e b e e n taught in the Hellenistic w o r l d as b i n d i n g , they w e r e a p p r o v e d practices rather than statutory l a w s . J o s e p h u s speaks o f the inattention to C a l i g u l a ' s c o r p s e immediately
after
his
assassination
as
something
inconsistent
with
R o m a n v6[xoi, b y w h i c h h e e v i d e n t l y m e a n s " c u s t o m " (Ant. 1 9 : 1 9 5 ) . O n the o t h e r h a n d , h o w e v e r , h e c a n use the w o r d v6[xoi to indicate statutory laws e n a c t e d b y g o v e r n i n g authorities such as the B a b y l o n i a n (Ant.
1 0 : 2 5 8 ) , the Spartan L y c u r g u s (Ag.Ap.
2 : 2 2 5 ) , H e r o d the
Darius Great
(Ant. 1 6 : 1 ) , a n d G a i u s C a l i g u l a (War 2 : 1 9 5 ) . O u t s i d e o f the J e w i s h c o n text, then, J o s e p h u s e v o k e s the full r a n g e o f G r e e k c o n c e p t i o n s b e h i n d the w o r d vojxos, f r o m c u s t o m o r c o n v e n t i o n to " l a w " in the m o s t p r o p e r sense.
39
W e turn n o w to J o s e p h u s ' s use o f v6{A0£ in the c o n t e x t o f J u d a i s m .
T h e N6[xoi o f the J e w s J o s e p h u s leaves n o d o u b t , in the first p l a c e , that he regards the VOJAOI o f the J e w s as the laws r e c e i v e d a n d d e l i v e r e d b y M o s e s at Sinai. M o s e s w a s the l a w g i v e r (vojxoOeTT)?); stitution (7uoXiT£i<x).
41
40
his laws p r o v i d e d the J e w s w i t h a c o n
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s is always willing to r e c o g n i z e
the d i v i n e inspiration o f the l a w s ,
4 2
he is m o r e often c o n c e r n e d to d e m
onstrate to his p a g a n readers the w i s d o m a n d f o r e t h o u g h t o f the l a w g i v e r Moses.
4 3
O n c e J o s e p h u s has i n t r o d u c e d the l a w s , he often calls t h e m oi
Moaoaeo? v6(xoi.
3 9
44
Cf. C . H . Dodd, Greeks, 25-41; and H . Kleinknecht and W . Gutbrod, "N6(xo<;", TDNT, I V , 1023ff., 1044ff. Ant. 1:118, 95, 240; Ag.Ap. 2:165, 173, 279. Josephus sometimes pairs vofxoi xal 7UoXixeia, e.g., Ant. 3:332; 4:198; 310. Ant. 3:93, 213, 322; 5:107; 7:338; Ag.Ap. 2:184. Ant. 1:18-26; 3:317ff.; Ag.Ap. 2:157-163. Ant. 4:243, 302, 331; 7:338; 8:191, 395; 9:187; 10:59, 63, 72; 11:17, 76, 108, 121, 154: 13:74, 79, 297; 17:159; 18:81; 20:44, 115; Life 134. 4 0
4 1
42
4 3
44
98
CHAPTER FOUR
S o far, then, it s e e m s clear e n o u g h that the phrase ot vopun refers to the M o s a i c legislation e m b o d i e d in S c r i p t u r e . A n a l y z i n g the t w e n t y - t w o " a p p r o v e d b o o k s " a m o n g the J e w s , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s that: O f these, five are the books of M o s e s , which comprise the laws ( a TOU? vofxou? 7cepiexet) and the tradition [for the period] from the original m a n until his [ M o s e s ' ] death. {Ag.Ap. l : 3 8 f . )
I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s frequently uses v6u.o?/v6[xot to m e a n the first a n d c e n tral b o o k s o f the S c r i p t u r e s .
45
It is in this sense that h e tells o f a R o m a n
s o l d i e r ' s taking TOV lepov vojxov a n d tearing it in p i e c e s (War 2 : 2 2 9 ) a n d o f the C a e s a r e a n J e w s w h o , h a v i n g " s n a t c h e d u p " TOU? VOJXOU?, r e m o v e d t h e m f r o m that city (War 2 : 2 9 1 ) . L i k e w i s e in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the Septuagint translation effort, 6 vofio? appears consistently as a d o c u m e n t that c a n b e h a n d l e d a n d
translated.
46
If s o m e o f the c o n t e x t u a l i n d i c a t o r s p o i n t to such a specific m e a n i n g , however,
other
distinguish the
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s indicate
that J o s e p h u s
o r i g i n a l M o s a i c vou.o? f r o m
its later
is u n a b l e
to
e l a b o r a t i o n s in
J u d a i s m . I n several p l a c e s , for e x a m p l e , h e s u m m a r i z e s the c o n t e n t o f the J e w i s h vofxot for his p a g a n readers. T h e s e s u m m a r i e s , f o u n d in the third a n d fourth b o o k s o f the Ant. a n d in the s e c o n d b o o k o f Ag.Ap.
47
,
c o n t a i n m a n y departures f r o m the letter o f the M o s a i c L a w as w e k n o w it.
48
In Ant. 3 : 2 2 4 - 3 8 6 , w h i c h details the sacrificial s y s t e m , J o s e p h u s fre q u e n t l y qualifies o r elaborates the biblical p r e s c r i p t i o n s in s o m e w a y . For
the season c o i n c i d i n g w i t h the Sukkot festival, h e c l a i m s , M o s e s in
structed the p e o p l e to set u p tents, indefinitely, as p r o t e c t i o n against in clement weather.
49
H i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the y e a r o f j u b i l e e also differs
n o t a b l y f r o m the scriptural p r e s e n t a t i o n .
50
Y e t h e closes this section with
the r e m a r k :
4 5
Cf. Ant. 1:12; Ptolemy II was not able to receive, for the L X X translation, rcaaocv xrjv dcvafpoc9Tjv but only TOV V6[AOV; cf. Ag.Ap. 1:43; (ot vofxot) xat at fiexa TOUTCOV d v a y p a 9 a t . Ant. 12:11, 20, 21, 39, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 87, 89, 90, 104, 106-111. The summaries are given at Ant. 3:213, 224-286; 4:196-301; Ag.Ap. 2:150, 163, 190-219. Cf. Thackeray's notes to these passages in the L C L edition; he draws heavily from the commentary by M . Weill in T . Reinach's French edition of Josephus. Cf. also H . W . Attridge, Interpretation, passim; and N. G. Cohen, 'Josephus and Scripture . . . " , JQR 54 (1963-64), 311-332. Ant. 3:244. According to Lev. 23:42f., the practice of erecting tents was to com memorate the Hebrews' wilderness wanderings. Ant. 3:282-285. Among other things, he has debts being resolved in that year and views slavery as a punishment for transgressing some aspect of the Law; neither of these is biblical. 4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
99
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
Such was the code o f laws (TTJV Staxafiv TCOV V6[X
cor
r e s p o n d s exactly to the c o n t e n t o r intention o f the M o s a i c legislation. L i k e w i s e , in Ant. 4 : 1 9 6 - 3 0 1 , J o s e p h u s insists: " A l l is here written as he left it: n o t h i n g h a v e w e a d d e d for the sake o f e m b e l l i s h m e n t , n o t h i n g w h i c h has n o t b e e n b e q u e a t h e d b y M o s e s " (Ant. 4 : 1 9 6 ) . Y e t h e has M o s e s calling for a t w i c e - d a i l y p r a y e r m e n in e a c h c i t y ,
5 2
51
a n d for a j u d i c i a l b o d y o f seven
neither o f w h i c h is e n j o i n e d in S c r i p t u r e . F u r t h e r
e m b e l l i s h m e n t s are: the disqualification o f e v i d e n c e f r o m w o m e n a n d slaves
in
court,
murderers,
54
5 3
the
offering
o f rewards
for
information
about
the c u s t o m o f taking fourth-year p r o d u c e to J e r u s a l e m ,
the p u n i s h m e n t o f thirty-nine (rather than forty) l a s h e s , b u r n i n g alive an i m p u r e d a u g h t e r o f a p r i e s t ,
57
56
the p r a c t i c e o f
a n d so o n .
Finally, in the s u m m a r y o f the v6(xot f o u n d in Ag.Ap.,
55
5 8
J o s e p h u s again
elaborates the M o s a i c L a w in significant w a y s . A few e x a m p l e s are the c l a i m s : that sexual intercourse is e n v i s a g e d for o n l y p r o c r e a t i o n ; a b o r t i o n is f o r b i d d e n , as the destruction o f a s o u l ; funeral
procession must j o i n
frankness;
62
it;
61
that
6 0
friendship
59
that
that all w h o pass a requires
absolute
a n d that those w h o faithfully o b s e r v e the laws will r e c e i v e
" a r e n e w e d existence (yeveaOoct rcaXiv) a n d in the r e v o l u t i o n ( o f the ages) the gift o f a better life ((Jiov ajxetvco)".
63
In all o f these e l a b o r a t i o n s o f M o s a i c L a w , it is difficult to find a single e x p l a n a t o r y l o g i c . Several items are attested in t a l m u d i c
5 1
tradition;
64
Ant. 4:212. Ant. 4:214. Ant. 4:219. Ant. 4:220. Ant. 4:227. Ant. 4:238; but Deut. 25:3. Ant. 4:248. Several other examples are given by Thackeray; cf. especially Ant. 4:212-214, on the rules for war. Ag.Ap. 2:199. Ag.Ap. 2:202. Ag.Ap. 2:205. Ag.Ap. 2:207. Ag.Ap. 2:218. For a discussion of Josephus's intriguing references to the afterlife in Jewish belief, cf. chapter 6, below. E.g., Ant. 3:237, 242, 250 (which reflects Pharisaic views about the date of Pente cost; but these already appear in the L X X translations and in Philo), 251; 4:205, 219, 227, 238 (Makkot 3:10ff.); 248 (b. Ket 45b), 252, 278 (b. BKamma 83b); Ag.Ap. 2:205. 5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
57
5 8
5 9
6 0
61
6 2
6 3
6 4
CHAPTER FOUR
100 others d o n o t a p p e a r t h e r e tices.
66
65
a n d s o m e e v e n disagree with t a l m u d i c p r a c
Several items are paralleled in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f Essene
teachings
67
a n d s o m e a c c o r d with A l e x a n d r i a n e x e g e s i s .
68
F o r o u r p u r p o s e , the crucial p o i n t is this: a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s identifies the vou-oi o f the J e w s with the M o s a i c L a w , he e v i d e n t l y sees that L a w o n l y t h r o u g h the filter o f p o s t - b i b l i c a l tradition a n d current practices familiar to h i m , w h i c h h e finds already implicit in the L a w . It seems likely that, as a full participant in his o w n historical setting, J o s e p h u s w a s u n a b l e to d r a w a clear d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n the letter o f the L a w a n d its traditional a p p l i c a t i o n . It is the undifferentiated a m a l g a m o f statute a n d c u s t o m that J o s e p h u s attributes to M o s e s w h e n h e says
(Ag.Ap.
2:173): O u r legislator, on the other hand, took great care to combine both systems [sc. instruction by precept and by practical exercise]. . . . Starting from the very beginning with the food of which we partake from infancy and the private life of the h o m e , he left nothing, however insignificant, to the discretion and caprice of the individual. 69
H e r e as e l s e w h e r e J o s e p h u s presents M o s e s as the a u t h o r o f a c o m p l e t e a n d practical p r o g r a m m e for l i v i n g . T o b e sure, such passages are in t e n d e d to serve his idealizing a p o l o g e t i c . N e v e r t h e l e s s , in light o f his s u m m a r i e s o f the J e w i s h c o d e , discussed a b o v e , w e m u s t c o n c l u d e that J o s e p h u s really b e l i e v e d that his o w n k n o w l e d g e o f legal p r a c t i c e w a s already implicit in the M o s a i c c o d e . T h a t J o s e p h u s c a n n o t distinguish b e t w e e n the o r i g i n a l statutes a n d their current a p p l i c a t i o n in his e x p e r i e n c e is c o r r o b o r a t e d further b y the variety o f terms that he c a n use i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y , h e n c e m o r e o r less s y n o n y m o u s l y , with vou.o$. A s the f o l l o w i n g selective list s h o w s , h e seems to use 6 v6[ios, ot vofxot, TOC e6rj, ot eOtqxot, TOC vojxtfxa, TOC
7tocTptoc,
a n d vari
o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f these phrases as practical e q u i v a l e n t s .
6 5
Ant. 3:244 (purpose of tents at Sukkot), 262. Ant. 3:242f. (sprinkling the blood of a kid; cf. Yoma 5:4, 5); Ant. 4:209 (high priest as reader of laws; cf. Sotah 7:8); 4:212 (twice-daily prayer; tradition has it thrice daily); 4:263 (OUTS Guyaxepa is an embellishment of Scripture); 4:287 (tribunal of seven men). Cf. B. Revel, "Some Anti-Traditional Laws of Josephus n. s. 14 (1923-24), 293-301. Attridge (Interpretation, 179 n. 1) remarks, "Examination of the legal passages in Antiquities is somewhat disappointing . . . [He then lists much of the pertinent secondary literature.] These studies show no consistent relation between Josephus and later halachic tradition." Ag.Ap. 2:199 (sex for procreation only; cf. War 2:161), 203 (the suffering of souls in bodies; cf. War 2:154f.) and 207 (the frankness of friends; cf. War 2:141). Ant. 4:207; Ag.Ap. 2:237 (not reviling gods of other countries; cf. Ex. 22:28 [27, L X X ] and Philo, Life of Moses 2:26, 205; Special Laws 1:7, 53); Ant. 4:285 (rcapaxaTa9r)XTiv . . . iepov . . . yjpf[[L<x ; cf Philo, Moses 2:341.) Cf. Ant. 3:213. 6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
THE
PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
101
(a) W e h a v e n o t e d J o s e p h u s ' s report that the Pharisees w e r e f a m o u s for their e r u d i t i o n a n d accurate exegesis. But the o b j e c t o f the Pharisees' exegesis is d e s c r i b e d variously as ot vouxn (War 1:110), TOC vou.tu.oc (War 2 : 1 6 2 ) , TOC 7rdcTpta vou.tu.oc (Life 1 9 1 ) , and TO rcdcTptov xat (ot) vofiot (Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 ) . P r e s u m a b l y , J o s e p h u s holds these terms to b e e q u i v a l e n t . ( b ) I n War l : 6 4 8 f f . , w e h a v e the f a m o u s story o f the t w o scholars w h o incited their students to pull d o w n the g o l d e n eagle f r o m H e r o d s ' t e m ple. T h e scholars are d e s c r i b e d as BOXOUVTS? dcxpt(iouv roc naxpicx a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y as e n j o y i n g a great reputation a m o n g the p e o p l e . In the next sentence, h o w e v e r , w e learn that these scholars attracted large c r o w d s to their e^rpfouuivot? TOIX; vdfiove; ( 6 4 9 ) . Further, the scholars advise their students to r e m o v e the eagle b e c a u s e it violates TOU? rcocTptou? vou.ou? ( 6 4 9 ) — a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the t w o phrases; they e n c o u r a g e their hearers e v e n to die for TOU 7rocTptou vojxou ( 6 5 0 ) .
7 0
F r o m this e p i s o d e , w e see that J o s e p h u s c a n use 6 vofxo? ( 1 : 6 5 4 ) , ot vou.ot ( 6 4 9 ) , 6 7rocTpto? v6[io? ( 6 5 0 , 6 5 3 ) , ot rcdcTptot vojxot ( 6 4 9 , 2 : 6 ) , a n d s i m p l y TOC 7rocTptoc, substantively ( 1 : 6 4 8 ) , as equivalents. (c) In War 2 : 1 6 9 f . , it is reported that Pilate's i n t r o d u c t i o n o f standards with effigies o f C a e s a r into J e r u s a l e m offended the J e w s , w h o felt that ot vojxot h a d b e e n v i o l a t e d ; in 1 7 1 , they b e s e e c h Pilate to r e m o v e the standards a n d t h e r e b y to maintain TOC 7rocTptoc. ( d ) I n War 4 : 9 9 , J o h n o f G i s c h a l a requests that T i t u s give h i m the S a b b a t h to rest, in d e f e r e n c e to TCO TouSoctcov vouxo. In d o i n g s o , says J o h n ( 1 0 2 ) , T i t u s w o u l d spare the J e w s transgressing TCOV 7tocTptcov £6cov and w o u l d b e therefore p r e s e r v i n g TOU? v6[iou?. (e) In Life 198, J o s e p h u s describes the c h a r g e that w a s g i v e n to the delegation sent to relieve h i m o f c o m m a n d in the Galilee: if the Galileans r e m a i n e d loyal to h i m b e c a u s e o f his expertise in the laws (8toc TTJV^ efircetptocv TCOV vojxcov), then the J e r u s a l e m d e l e g a t i o n should r e s p o n d that they themselves w e r e b y n o m e a n s i g n o r a n t o f the ancestral c u s t o m s ([17)8' OCUTOU? ayvoetv £07) TOC 7rdcTptoc). (f) D a v i d c o u n s e l s his
son
S o l o m o n to k e e p G o d ' s TOC? IVTOXOC? xat TOU?
vofxou?, ou? OCUTO? 8ta Mcouaeo? xocTe7r£[i(|>ev r|[xTv (Ant. 7 : 3 8 4 ) b e c a u s e (yocp), if he should transgress Tt TCOV vofitu.cov, he will lose d i v i n e f a v o u r . L i k e wise in 9 : 2 , w e are told that J o s a p h a t (Jehoshaphat) StSocaxetv TOC vou.tu.oc TOC Stoc Mcouaeo? . . . BoOevTOc. But in 8 : 3 9 5 , what J o s a p h a t teaches are TOU? Mcouaeo? vofiou?.
7 0
Cf. also War 1:653 (6 7cdxpto? v6{zos), 654 (6 vofxo?), and 2:6 (oi Trdtptoi v6{xoi), which all refer back to the same episode.
102
CHAPTER FOUR
( g ) S o l o m o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Ant. 8 : 1 9 0 , e n d e d his life a b a n d o n i n g TTJV TCOV rcaxptcov £6ta[zcov 9uXaxrjv, o n a c c o u n t o f his n u m e r o u s marriages to foreigners; b u t this failure is d e s c r i b e d in the next sentence as the trans gressing o f TOO? Mcouaeo? vofxou? ( 1 9 1 ) . (h) N o t i c e (=Jehoram's)
in Ant.
9 : 9 5 that the v e r b u s e d t o d e s c r i b e J o r a m ' s
a n d his p r e d e c e s s o r s ' offences
against
TOC rcdcTptoc eGrj
(ancestral c u s t o m s ) is Tcocpocvouico. I n 1 2 : 2 8 6 , w e h a v e the s a m e v e r b u s e d with
TOC 7tdcTptoc as
object:
Judah
Maccabee
did
away
with
TOO?
7i;apavo|zrjaavToc? et? TOC 7caxpta.
(i) Mattathias the H a s m o n e a n a d m o n i s h e s his sons that it is better to die
U7tep TCOV rcaxptcov v6|xcov than to live i n g l o r i o u s l y (Ant. 1 2 : 2 6 7 ) . H e
then actualizes this p r i n c i p l e ( 2 7 1 ) with the c h a r g e : ' ' W h o e v e r is z e a l o u s for the ancestral c u s t o m s (et xt? CnXcoTT}? l a w TCOVrcocTptcoviOcov [ M a r c u s translates ' ' l a w s " ! ] ) ,
. . .
let h i m c o m e with m e ! " T h e practical
e q u i v a l e n c e o f " l a w s " a n d " c u s t o m s " here is u n m i s t a k a b l e . (j) Finally, s o m e things c o m m a n d e d in the L a w are said b y J o s e p h u s to b e " t r a d i t i o n a l " , such as the p r o h i b i t i o n o f w o r k o n the S a b b a t h (Ant. 1 8 : 3 1 2 ; cf. E x . 3 0 : 1 3 )
7 1
a n d the half-shekel tax (Ant.
1 8 : 3 1 2 ; cf. E x .
3 0 : 1 3 ) . O n the o t h e r h a n d , the traditional practices o f r e p e n t a n c e in sackcloth a n d o f prostrating o n e s e l f for p r a y e r he calls practices TCO irocTpt'cp vou-cp (Ant. 1 1 : 2 3 1 ; Ant.
19:349).
D o z e n s o f o t h e r instances o f J o s e p h u s ' s substituting s y n o n y m s for 6 v6[io? c a n b e c i t e d . not
72
T h e s e , h o w e v e r , will suffice to s h o w that he d o e s
regard vofxo? as an irreplaceable technical t e r m . H e c a n a n d d o e s
alternate freely b e t w e e n 6 v6[io?, ot vofiot, TOC e'Or), ot e6tau.oi, TOC vofxtfxa, TOCrcocTptoc,a n d v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f these (usually rcdcTpto? u s e d at tributively with o n e o f the o t h e r substantives). O t h e r interchangeable 73
74
75
terms for ot vojxot are f\ (rcdcTpto?) euaePeta / Oprjaxeta / auvrjGeta / a n d 76
rcoXiTeia.
It w o u l d b e overstating the case to say that the a b o v e terms are iden tical for J o s e p h u s , that he is insensitive to a n y differences o f n u a n c e b e -
71
Indeed, in Ant. 12:276, Sabbath observance is called a vofitfiov. oi vofioi + xaTcdxpta, cf. War 1:34, 108; 2:393; Ant. 18:266// 276, 281; 20:24// 226. oivonoi + xd Tcdtxpioc e0r), cf. Ant. 5:101// 108; 11:338//339; 14:263//264; 15:328; 16:1// 3; 1 9 : 2 9 0 ; ^ . ^ . 1:317. otvofxoi + xd v o ^ a , cf. Ant. 3:282; 4:181; 8:96, 195, 208, 256, 280, 290, 297; 9:157,168, 222; 12:14, 276; 3:243, 297; 18:38, etc. xd Tcdxpta + xd 107), cf. Ant. 15:281; 16:35; xd rcdxpia vofxtfxa + ot !7cixcoptoi iOiqxoi + xd 7cdxpta, cf. Ant. 9:95/96/99. Ant. 13:243. Ant. 8:229; 12:364, 384; 19:283. Ant. 10:72; 13:4, 121. Ant. 3:213; 4:45, 193, 194, 198, 292, 310; 5:132; 10:275; 11:140; Ag.Ap. 2:287. 7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
T H E PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I tween t h e m .
7 7
103
W h a t is clear, h o w e v e r , is that he often j u x t a p o s e s these
terms in w h a t a p p e a r s to b e an attempt to a v o i d repetitiveness. I n such cases the j u x t a p o s e d terms m u s t b e tolerably e q u i v a l e n t for h i m . A n d that
e q u i v a l e n c e betrays
the
c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s o f ot vou.cn in
his
thought. I f w e h a v e c o r r e c t l y interpreted the (rcdcTptot) vofxot o f J o s e p h u s as the a l l - e m b r a c i n g M o s a i c c o d e ( f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s p e r s p e c t i v e ) , w h i c h is really an undifferentiated mass o f original l a w a n d s u b s e q u e n t tradition ( f r o m o u r p e r s p e c t i v e ) , t h e n his u s a g e finds significant parallels in the politics o f a n c i e n t G r e e c e . J. S c h r e i n e r , C . H i g n e t t , A . Fuks, a n d M . I. F i n l e y , a m o n g others, h a v e s h o w n that the A t h e n i a n s c o u l d usercdcTptotvofxoi o r TCOCTpto?TCoXtxetaw i t h similar e l a s t i c i t y .
78
T o r e p r o d u c e the e v i d e n c e here
w o u l d b e superfluous, b u t o n e o f F i n l e y ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s is particularly g e r m a n e to o u r d i s c u s s i o n . T h e first k n o w n official d o c u m e n t p r o d u c e d after the A t h e n i a n return to d e m o c r a c y w a s the D e c r e e o f T h e i s a m e n o s (403
BC).
Solon
7 9
and
T h i s d o c u m e n t called for a reinstatement o f the " l a w s o f Draco",
the
seventh-century
Athenian
lawgivers. Finley
observes: By the 'laws of Solon and Draco' the decree meant the law of Athens as it stood in 4 0 3 , some of it indeed going back to the ancient lawgivers but much of it either revised or wholly new legislation promulgated in the two centuries since Solon. . . . After the year 4 0 3 / 2 no earlier law was valid unless it had been incorporated into the code; yet advocates went on cheer fully citing in the courts what they called 'a law of Solon', even when it was blatantly impossible for the enactment to have been very ancient. 80
The
u n r e f i n e d historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s that has b e e n d i s c o v e r e d a m o n g
the A t h e n i a n s is exactly w h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s : he m a k e s n o clear distinction b e t w e e n statute a n d p r e c e d e n t . One
o f the
questions
to b e
b r o a c h e d b y this study
is
whether
J o s e p h u s ' s vojxo?-conception i m p l i e s a n y t h i n g a b o u t his party allegiance. A l t h o u g h a p r o p e r a n s w e r m u s t await the e x a m i n a t i o n o f Ant. 298
b e l o w , a p r e l i m i n a r y statement is d e m a n d e d b y the assertion o f
some
commentators
presentation
7 7
13:297-
that J o s e p h u s ' s
of " L a w "
indicates
a
inclusion o f " c u s t o m " Pharisaic
in
viewpoint. T h e
his tacit
E.g., at Ant. 14:258 (tBr\), War 2:417 (xd irdxpioc), and War 4:136 (rcdxpia eOrj), the meanings seem more restricted. J. Schreiner, Decorpore iuris Atheniensium, (1913), 49ff., cited in C . Hignett, A History of the Athenian Constitution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 18f.; A . Fuks, The Ancestral Constitution (London: Chatto & Windus, 1953) 39f., who refers also to one Linforth, Solon the Athenian (1919), appendix 4 (inaccessible to me); and M . I. Finley, The Use and Abuse of History (London: Chatto & Windus, 1975), 35-40. So Fuks, Constitution, 37. The decree is given by Andokides, l:83f. Finley, Use and Abuse, 39. 7 8
7 9
8 0
CHAPTER FOUR
104
p r e m i s e here is J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 ) that the Pharisees w e r e distinguished b y their r e c o g n i t i o n o f a b o d y o f n o r m a t i v e tradition, a d d i t i o n to the pentateuchal l a w . W . G u t b r o d ' s TDNT
in
article o n vojxo^,
for e x a m p l e , o b s e r v e s : " C u s t o m s are part o f the L a w . . . . T h i s s h o w s his [ J o s e p h u s ' s ] orientation to Such
an
inference
Pharisaism."
8 1
is e x c l u d e d , h o w e v e r , b y the
facts that
have
e m e r g e d so far. First, several o f J o s e p h u s ' s e m b e l l i s h m e n t s either
are
unattested in r a b b i n i c halakhah o r actually c o n t r a d i c t the tradition.
H.
W . A t t r i d g e , after r e v i e w i n g scholarly analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s vopioi, c o n c l u d e s , " T h e s e studies s h o w n o consistent relation b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d later h a l a c h i c t r a d i t i o n . "
8 2
W i t h o u t p r o n o u n c i n g o n the
larger
p r o b l e m o f the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n Pharisaic tradition a n d r a b b i n i c halakhah, w e c a n say that there is n o p o s i t i v e basis in the c o n t e n t o f J o s e p h u s ' s vopioi for c o n s i d e r i n g h i m a Pharisee. S e c o n d , it is a well-attested p h e n o m e n o n that g r o u p s w h o r e c o g n i z e authoritative
texts tend to b e l i e v e that their o w n d e v e l o p e d ideas are
already implicit ( o r e x p l i c i t ) in those texts. W h a t w a s true in A t h e n s w a s true in J u d a i s m : w e n o w h a v e the T e m p l e Scroll as p r o o f that at least one
n o n - P h a r i s a i c g r o u p earnestly b e l i e v e d its o w n teachings to h a v e
c o m e from M o s e s .
8 3
It s h o u l d o c c a s i o n n o surprise if e v e r y J e w , n o mat
ter what his p a r t y allegiance, identified his a c c u s t o m e d interpretation o f the M o s a i c c o d e with the c o d e itself.
84
M o s t i m p o r t a n t , finally, J o s e p h u s disallows a n y f o r m a l distinction b e t w e e n the written c o d e o f M o s e s a n d the c u s t o m s o r traditions o f the J e w s . It n e e d s to b e e m p h a s i z e d that the M o s a i c 7toXiTeia in w h i c h J o s e p h u s exults is a written c o d e . M o s e s w r o t e (ypd^co) his constitution in b o o k s
8 5
a n d J o s e p h u s n o w e n d e a v o u r s to translate the a c c o u n t as he
finds it ev z<xiq iepocT$ pifJXoi^ dvayeypa(X(x£va.
86
It is the written c o d e o f
M o s e s that " t h e H e b r e w n a t i o n " c o n t i n u e s to o b s e r v e in J o s e p h u s ' s
81
H . Kleinknecht and W . Gutbrod, "vofjux;", TDNT, I V , 1051. Cf. already H . Paret ("Pharisaismus", 825f.) for this claim. Attridge, Interpretation, 179 n.l. Cf. for example, B. Z . Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983), xii. Analogous phenomena in the religious sphere would seem to include the Protestant oversight by which the Reformation slogan sola scriptura sanctions even those doctrines that were formulated in the fourth and fifth centuries, and after bitter controversy. Like wise J. Ross (The Jewish Conception of Immortality and the Life Hereafter. An Anthology [Belfast: Belfast News-Letter, 1948], 1-3) infers the doctrines of resurrection and immortality from the Pentateuch. Finley (Use and Abuse, 40-44) cites parallels to this sort of "ellipsis" from modern political argumentation. Cf. Ant. 1:20; 3:213; 4:193f, 302; Ag.Ap. 1:39; 2:45. Cf. Ant. 1:26; 2:34; 4:196ff.; 9:208, 214. 8 2
8 3
8 4
85
8 6
105
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
own
day.
8 7
T h e p o i n t is m a d e with special force in Ag.Ap.
2:155-156.
A r g u i n g the superiority o f the M o s a i c c o d e to the laws o f the G r e e k s , J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t there that the G r e e k laws w e r e , for a l o n g t i m e , m e r e l y u n w r i t t e n c u s t o m s (e'Orj a y p o ^ a ) , subject to c h a n g e . H e explicitly contrasts the J e w i s h laws (6 8' Tjjxeiepos vo[xo6ex7i<;) o n the g r o u n d that M o s e s d e l i v e r e d a single, c o m p r e h e n s i v e (OXTJV TOU (3iou) c o d e , w h i c h has n e v e r b e e n altered since the d a y o f its i n a u g u r a t i o n .
88
It is this written
rcoXixeia that tells J e w s h o w they s h o u l d act in all c i r c u m s t a n c e s (Ant. 3 : 9 2 f . ) a n d that leaves n o t h i n g , n o t e v e n the slightest detail (oo8e xcov (Jpaxuxaxcov), to i n d i v i d u a l discretion (Ag.Ap.
2:173).
8 9
Not only does
J o s e p h u s fail t o m e n t i o n a n y distinction b e t w e e n written l a w a n d c u s t o m (or
b e t w e e n written
a n d oral l a w ) ; his positive portrayal
of Moses'
rcoXixeia e x c l u d e s this distinction. T h e r e is n o t h i n g , then, in J o s e p h u s ' s h u n d r e d s o f references to the VOJAOI to indicate that he w a s a Pharisee.
S u m m a r y o f oi N6u.oi in J o s e p h u s To
s u m m a r i z e thus far: for J o s e p h u s , vojxos is a g e n e r i c o r universal
c a t e g o r y ; e v e r y nation has its o w n v6(xoi. M o r e o v e r , in discussing b o t h J e w i s h a n d G e n t i l e l a w s , J o s e p h u s c a n use s y n o n y m s for oi vojxoi, such 90
as oi rcdcxpioi vojxoi, xoc rcaxpioc, a n d e'Grj. T h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e w a r n s against a n y attempt to read vopux; I n J o s e p h u s as a technical t e r m for s o m e e x clusively J e w i s h c o n c e p t . O u r findings reflect J o s e p h u s ' s starting p o i n t . A l l o f his w o r k s are ad dressed to p a g a n a u d i e n c e s . W h e n he speaks o f vojxoi, therefore, the t e r m d o e s n o t in the first instance reflect a n y specifically J e w i s h c o n t e n t . A s 91
an a p o l o g i s t , J o s e p h u s argues f r o m general c o n c e p t i o n s that his readers will u n d e r s t a n d to specific c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t J u d a i s m . T h a t explains the g e n e r i c use o f V6(JLOI. J o s e p h u s wants his readers to a c c e p t the p r e m i s e that, n o m a t t e r w h i c h n a t i o n is c o n c e r n e d , a d h e r e n c e to o n e ' s TCaxpioi
8 7
Cf. Ant. 4:308; Ag.Ap. 1:42; 2:153, 156, 169. Cf. Ant. 3:282; 8:395; 20:264; Life 9, 74; Ag.Ap. 1:165; 2:272. It is worth noting that when Josephus uses compounds like v6{iot xat £0T), as he occa sionally does (War 2:160, 195; 5:237; Ant. 10:72 [ouv^Geia]; 12:203; 14:216; 15:254, 328; 16:43, 172; Ag.Ap. 2:164), the relationship between the two terms is either one of hendiadys (as also with at evxoXat xat oi v6{Aot, Ant. 7:338, 384) or it is epexegetical (as also with ot vofxot xat rj rcoXiTeia [Ant. 1:10; 12:240]). The eGrj are seen as embodied in the writ ten code; they are not a distinct category. Thus, TOC TCaxpta of Adiabene (Ant. 20:75, 81), of Commagene (Ant. 18:53), and of the Greeks (Ant. 18:41); eGr] of the Greeks (Ag.Ap. 2:155); and v6(xt(xa of Egypt (Ant. 1:166) and of Parthia (Ant. 18:344) Cf. Ant. 1:5-24; 14:186f.; 16:174; Ag.Ap. 1:1-2. 8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
106
CHAPTER FOUR
vojxoi is s u p r e m e l y v i r t u o u s .
92
O n c e that p r e m i s e is secure he c a n set o u t
to s h o w , in n u m e r o u s w a y s , that the J e w i s h vojxot are especially ad m i r a b l e a n d that the J e w s as a p e o p l e a d h e r e s c r u p u l o u s l y to t h e m e v e n in the face o f death. T h i s a p o l o g y for the J e w i s h vofxoi, if o n l y fully e x plicated in Ag.Ap.,
93
is u n m i s t a k a b l y present in Ant.
a n d in
94
War.
W h e n J o s e p h u s speaks o f the vofxoi o f the J e w s , therefore, the t e r m has the s a m e c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s as w h e n it is u s e d o f o t h e r nations. T h e TCoXiTeioc instituted b y M o s e s g o v e r n s e v e r y detail o f J e w i s h c o n d u c t a n d requires n o t h i n g m o r e than simple ( a n d s c r u p u l o u s ) o b e d i e n c e . J o s e p h u s presents as a seamless w h o l e w h a t w e s h o u l d distinguish as legislation a n d c o n v e n t i o n , o r l a w a n d c u s t o m . H e a p p a r e n t l y k n o w s the M o s a i c vofxoi o n l y t h r o u g h the filter o f tradition. M o s t significant: outside o f Ant. 13:297f., to b e c o n s i d e r e d later, J o s e p h u s n e v e r hints at a n y intramural distinctions o n this p o i n t :
9 5
the J e w i s h vofxoi are shared b y all J e w s .
F. T h e v e r b d ^ y e o f x a i o c c u r s 25 times in J o s e p h u s , the n o u n aqnfppqais 9 t i m e s . J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the v e r b in t w o distinct senses, n a m e l y : ( i ) to c o n d u c t , l e a d , o r e x e c u t e plain.
97
9 6
a n d ( i i ) to narrate, r e p o r t , set forth, o r e x
A l t h o u g h a m e a n i n g s o m e t h i n g like " a d m i n i s t e r the l a w s " is
c o n c e i v a b l e in this passage, parallel c o n s t r u c t i o n s ( w i t h respect to b o t h the Pharisees a n d o t h e r s )
98
strongly suggest the e x p o s i t i o n a l sense: the
Pharisees are r e p u t e d to e x p o u n d the traditional laws m o r e accurately than others d o . G . Aoxeco is the v e r b o n w h i c h the w h o l e definition o f the Pharisees in War 1:110 h i n g e s . A s is well k n o w n , Soxeco bears t w o m a i n senses, d e p e n d i n g o n its sub ject.
9 9
W i t h a p e r s o n a l subject, the v e r b usually has the m e a n i n g : " t o
think, s u p p o s e , i m a g i n e , p u r p o s e , o r r e s o l v e " . W i t h an i m p e r s o n a l s u b -
9 2
Cf. especially Ag.Ap. 2:226, 257, where Josephus cites Plato to this effect. In Ant. Josephus consistently enthuses over Moses, the vofxoi, and Jewish zeal for the vofxoi (1:6, 14: 7:338; 9:2; 14:65; 15:267, et passim). Exaltation of the vofiot receives less space in War but is undeniably present through out. Cf. the descriptions of Alexandra and the Pharisees (1:108, 110); the story of the golden eagle (1:648-653; 2:6f.)—an unabashed apology for the vojxot; the triumph of toc TudcTptoc over Pilate (2:170ff.); Jewish zeal for the Law (2:228ff., 289ff.), to name only a few episodes. The sole exception, so far as I can tell, is in the references to the special, extrabiblical vofxifxa of the Pharisees (Ant. 13:297, 408), which will be discussed below. War 1:50, 52, 367; 2:168, 219, 443, 578: 3:56; Life 288. War 1:3, 69; 2:417, 469, 580; 4:476; 7:54; Ant. 13:300; 16:404; 18:24, 307, 373; 30:105; Life 310; Ag.Ap. 1:131. It is striking that Josephus can use the same phrase— o^pTjYTjats 7CpayjxdcTcov—in both senses, viz: "narrative of events" (War 5:20; Ant. 1:26) and "conduct of affairs" (War 1:226); the latter is probably taken over from his source. O f the Pharisees, War 2:162 (efrjYeiaGat); of a Jewish scoundrel in Rome, Ant. 18:81 (6?T)*feTa0oct). Cf. LSJ and the Thackeray/Marcus Lexicon to Josephus. 9 3
9 4
9 5
9 6
97
9 8
9 9
t h e pharisees and a l e x a n d r a salome, i
107
j e c t it m e a n s : " t o s e e m , a p p e a r , o r s e e m g o o d " . In the o n e case the v e r b indicates an a c t i o n of the m i n d , in the o t h e r an a c t i o n ' s i m p i n g i n g upon the
mind.
Sometimes,
however,
the
two
senses
become
blurred,
especially w h e n a p e r s o n a l subject takes Soxeco as an auxiliary v e r b , fol l o w e d b y a m a i n v e r b (often etvat) attributing s o m e quality to the sub j e c t . I n that c a s e , Soxeto m a y h a v e the sense " t o b e r e g a r d e d (as) o r r e p u t e d ( t o ) " . F o r simplicity, I h a v e so far r e n d e r e d Soxeto in War 1:110 in k e e p i n g with this last sense b e c a u s e that is h o w the passage is all b u t universally r e n d e r e d b y c o m m e n t a t o r s : the Pharisees have the reputation of being m o r e p i o u s than the others a n d o f e x p o u n d i n g the laws m o r e ac curately (Soxouv euaefieaxepov etvat. . . xat axptPeaxepov
a^yetaGat).
100
A m o n g the few dissenters f r o m this r e a d i n g are G . F. M o o r e a n d R . H . Pfeiffer, w h o r e n d e r the definition: " a b o d y o f J e w s who profess to b e more
religious than the
precisely/accurately".
101
rest/others,
and
to e x p l a i n
the
laws
more
T h e s e translations take u p the first o p t i o n m e n
t i o n e d a b o v e : the Pharisees s u p p o s e o r i m a g i n e that they h a v e s u p e r i o r axptfkta. N e i t h e r M o o r e n o r Pfeiffer is c o n c e r n e d to a r g u e the case for such a translation, h o w e v e r , a n d so the e v i d e n c e pro a n d contra m u s t n o w b e c o n s i d e r e d . G r a n t e d that b o t h interpretations are p o s s i b l e in G r e e k a n d that b o t h fit the syntax o f this passage, the d e c i d i n g factors m u s t b e J o s e p h a n usage a n d the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t . A n initial difficulty is that J o s e p h u s uses Soxeto o f a p e r s o n a l subject a n d with an infinitive m a i n v e r b in b o t h senses. O n the o n e h a n d , w e are
told that A r i s t o b u l u s
saw fit to transform
g o v e r n m e n t into a k i n g d o m {Ant.
((xexaOetvat Soijac;)
the
1 3 : 3 0 1 ) , that H e r o d t h o u g h t he h a d
(e'Soije e^etv) sufficient g r o u n d to a c c u s e his sons (Ant. 1 6 : 2 5 1 ) , a n d that the b r i g a n d s d i d n o t think it i m p i o u s (ouSe Soxouvxes aaePetv) to slaughter their e n e m i e s in the T e m p l e (Ant. 2 0 : 1 6 5 ) .
1 0 2
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 speaks o f o n e w h o " i s r e g a r d e d as evil a n d u n t r u s t w o r t h y " (7rovT)p6c; etvat Soxet xat amaxoc;, War 3 : 3 2 7 ) a n d o f h i m s e l f as a c h i l d , "gaining
a r e p u t a t i o n for an excellent m e m o r y a n d
((xvrjfXT) xe xat auveaet Soxtov Staq>epetv, Life 8 ) " .
1 0 3
understanding"
T h e construction alone,
therefore, d o e s n o t d e m a n d either interpretation o f Soxeto. E v e n if o n e n a r r o w s the field to the ten o c c u r r e n c e s o f Soxeco with a p e r s o n a l subject a n d an dxptfJeta f o r m , in search o f a f o r m u l a i c pattern,
1 0 0
So the major translations: Whiston, "seem/appear"; Thackeray, "with the reputation o f ; Cornfeld, "were considered"; Reinach, "passe pour etre"; MichelBauernfeind (and Schlatter, Theologie, 205), "im Ruf stehen"; cf. Rivkin (Revolution, 54f.), "are deemed". Moore, Judaism, I, 64, 66; Pfeiffer, New Testament Times, 54. Cf. also War 1:497; 3:144, 319; 5:437; 6:320; Ant. 15:101, 16:123, 211, 244, 386. Cf. also War 2:119; 4:207; Ant. 16:319; Ag.Ap. 1:232. 1 0 1
1 0 2
1 0 3
CHAPTER FOUR
108
the a m b i g u i t y r e m a i n s . O n o n e side, J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s that the Spartans "saw
fit
strictly
to
observe
their laws
(dcxpi($
B i a ^ X d r c e t v ) " o n l y so l o n g as they retained their i n d e p e n d e n c e
(Ag.Ap.
2 : 2 2 7 ) . A n d this use o f Soxeco as an a c t i o n o f the m i n d has i n t r i g u i n g parallels in the use o f 7rpoa7roio5[xat in Ant. 17 :41 a n d 1 8 : 8 1 . L i d d e l l a n d Scott cite several cases in w h i c h the subjective sense o f Boxeco a p p r o x imates the m e a n i n g " t o p r e t e n d o r s e e m . . . " ;
1 0 4
the eighth e d i t i o n o f
that w o r k e v e n suggests 7rpoo7i:oiou(xai a n d the L a t i n simulo as s y n o n y m s for
Soxeto in
this sense.
But
in Ant.
17:41 J o s e p h u s
describes
the
Pharisees as: (xopiov TI, 'IooScuxtov &v6pto7Utov £ V eijaxpiPooaei uiya 9povouv TOO 7uotTptou xal vofxtov ot£ x ^ P ° Oetov npoanoiovyLevov. a
In Ant.
£t
T
18:81f., in m u c h the s a m e v e i n , he describes a certain J e w in
R o m e , w h o w a s evil in e v e r y w a y (7tovr)pd<; tiq TOC rcavTa), with these w o r d s : 7rpoae7rotetTO u.ev e^riyetaOat aoq>iav vojxtov Ttov Mtouaeo£. B o t h o f these passages h a v e o b v i o u s similarities to War 1:110; the Pharisees, vofxot,
and
"exegesis"
together with Ag.Ap.
are
c o m m o n terms.
This
similarity,
the
taken
2 : 2 2 7 , supports the subjective, volitional r e a d i n g o f
Soxeto in War 1:110: the Pharisees profess ( o r , p r e t e n d ) to interpret the laws with a c c u r a c y . O n the o t h e r side o f the l e d g e r , h o w e v e r , are the o t h e r six o c c u r r e n c e s o f Soxeto with a personal subject a n d an axptfkta f o r m .
1 0 5
include
reference
not
only
Soxeto a n d
axptjkta
but
also
a
F o u r o f the six to
the
v6[xot/v6(Atfxa/7i:dTpia. T h e y are as follows: War 1 : 6 4 8 for
106
speaks o f t w o coyiGTOLi in J e r u s a l e m " w i t h a r e p u t a t i o n
their s u p e r i o r p r e c i s i o n with the national laws ((xaXtaxa Soxouvrec;
dxpfiovv
TOC TCOCTpta) w h o
consequently
enjoyed
the
highest
esteem
(fxeyiaTTjs S6^rj<;) o f the w h o l e n a t i o n . T h e m e a n i n g o f Soxeto here is fixed b y the o c c u r r e n c e o f 86£a in the f o l l o w i n g clause: their reputation is the point under discussion. Ant.
1 9 : 3 3 2 : W h i l e discussing the virtues o f K i n g A g r i p p a , J o s e p h u s
m e n t i o n s a certain S i m o n f r o m J e r u s a l e m w h o , e£axptPd£etv Soxtov TOC vofxtfia, c l a i m e d that the K i n g was u n c l e a n . A l t h o u g h b o t h senses o f Soxeto w o u l d fit h e r e ,
1 0 4
the
fact that this m a n
gained
a
considerable
Cf. Herodotus 1:110; Aristotle, Politics 5.11.19, and Euripides, Hippolytus 462, for this usage. That is, not counting the three that concern the Pharisees OT Ag.Ap. 2:227 (already considered). The parallel (Ant. 17:149) lacks Soxeco: the teachers were, Josephus says there, £?7)*f7)Tat TWV 7tocTpt
1 0 6
109
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
a u d i e n c e for his c h a r g e s
1 0 7
p r o b a b l y suggests that his reputation is in
tended. Ant.
2 0 : 4 3 tells o f o n e Eleazar f r o m G a l i l e e , rapt TOCracTpiocBoxeov
axpt(3r)s etvat.
108
In contrast t o the o p i n i o n o f an earlier authority, Eleazar
a d v i s e d the proselyte K i n g Izates t o b e c i r c u m c i s e d in a c c o r d a n c e with the L a w . T h e m e a n i n g o f Boxeoo here c o u l d g o either w a y . Ant. 2 0 : 2 0 1 : R e c o u n t i n g the savage stoning o f J e s u s ' b r o t h e r J a m e s , J o s e p h u s allows that oaot Be iSoxovv imeixecnaroi . . . eivoct xat rapt
TOU<;
vofxouc axpfietc; w e r e o f f e n d e d . S i n c e the p e o p l e i n v o l v e d are s h o w n b y the sequel to b e religious leaders in J e r u s a l e m ,
109
Boxeco evidently in
dicates their reputation m o r e than their intention. T h e t w o passages that c o m b i n e Boxeoo a n d axptfieta b u t d o n o t refer to the vojxot are nonetheless helpful for c o m p a r i s o n . In o n e , J o s e p h u s is p o i n t i n g o u t the frequent c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a m o n g G r e e k historians a n d he remarks that e v e n T h u c y d i d e s ,
xatTOt
Soxcov axpifiicnaTa
tcrcoptav auyypa^etv, has b e e n a c c u s e d o f e r r o r (Ag.Ap.
TTJV
x a x ' auTOv
1:18). I n the other
passage, c o n t i n u i n g the s a m e t h e m e , he charges that e v e n those r e p u t e d to b e the m o s t exact historians (ot Boxouvxes axptPeoraTOt auyypa^et?) h a v e m a d e e g r e g i o u s g e o g r a p h i c a l errors (Ag.Ap.
1:67). Since the w h o l e p o i n t
o f J o s e p h u s ' s discussion is to challenge the w i d e l y held belief that G r e e k historians are the m o s t accurate, Boxeco in these passages m u s t refer to their
reputation.
110
If there is a n y t h i n g like a f o r m u l a i c m e a n i n g o f Boxeoo with axpt(3eta, it w o u l d a p p e a r to b e " r e p u t e d to . . . with a c c u r a c y " ; Ag.Ap.
2:227,
h o w e v e r , destroys this c o n s i s t e n c y . T h e r e m a y b e s o m e t h i n g like a for mula,
however,
in
those
passages
that
include
reference
to
the
v6fxot/v6fxt(Aa/racTpta. T h e m e a n i n g o f Boxeco in those cases u n i f o r m l y has to d o with
"reputation".
D e c i s i v e for the sense o f Soxeto in War 1:110 must b e its i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t . W i t h i n the p r e c e d i n g narrative w e h a v e already n o t e d t w o significant o c c u r r e n c e s o f Boxeco o r 86£a. A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s c a m e to the t h r o n e with a ( m i s t a k e n ) reputation for m o d e r a t i o n ((xeTptOTTjTt rcpouxetv Boxouvxa, War 1:85). H i s wife A l e x a n d r a c o m e to p o w e r easily b e c a u s e
1 0 7
He assembled the people (7cXfj0o<; ei£ exxXTjatoev aXiaoes), we are told, in order to make his assertions. The fact that one M S ( M ) reads suasprjs here is interesting in light of our earlier discussion of the relationship between the two concepts. They are familiar with the Roman legal principles behind the high-priestly ad ministration, they correspond with royalty, they even send a delegation to the new pro curator (20:201-203). An interesting parallel is found in Polybius (12.26d.3), who asserts that Timaeus, when he makes everyone think (SoxeTv) that he has tested the dxpiPeta of everything, is making a pretense. 1 0 8
1 0 9
1 1 0
110
CHAPTER FOUR
o f a ( w e l l - f o u n d e d ) reputation for piety (Stoc 86£av eoaejktas, 1:108). T h e s e clear references in the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t to the reputations o f leaders create a strong p r e d i s p o s i t i o n to interpret the Soxeto o f War 1:110 in the s a m e w a y . It w a s the Pharisees' reputation for piety that w o n t h e m the s u p p o r t o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e . M o r e o v e r , to anticipate c o m i n g analyses, J o s e p h u s repeatedly alludes to the p r o m i n e n t role o f the Pharisees in p u b l i c life (War 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 2 9 8 , 4 0 1 ; 1 8 : 1 5 ) a n d this p o p u l a r i t y w o u l d a c c o r d well with a reputation for s u p e r i o r a c c u r a c y in the interpretation o f the l a w s . It appears, then, that the usual r e a d i n g o f Soxeto in War 1:110 as a reference to the Pharisees' reputation is justified. T h e r e a d i n g o f M o o r e a n d Pfeiffer, tantalizing as it is with the s u p p o r t o f 7upo<jrcoiouu.ai in Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 , has s o m e w h a t less plausibility in the c o n t e x t . It m a y b e that J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d a d o u b l e m e a n i n g : the Pharisees professed to b e , a n d w e r e i n d e e d b e l i e v e d to b e , precise interpreters o f the l a w s .
I I I . Interpretation of War
1:110-114
W i t h the analysis o f the k e y terms n o w c o m p l e t e , w e are in a p o s i t i o n to offer an interpretation o f J o s e p h u s ' s first definition o f the Pharisees. I n r e c o u n t i n g the history o f the H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y , J o s e p h u s has c l a i m e d that its d a y s o f g l o r y e n d e d with J o h n H y r c a n u s , w h o s e eldest son A r i s t o b u l u s p r e s i d e d o v e r a y e a r - l o n g x a T a o r p o ^ ( 1 : 6 9 ) . A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s c a m e to p o w e r with a reputation for m o d e r a t i o n ( 1 : 8 5 ) b u t he turned o u t to b e an i m p i o u s tyrant. H i s wife A l e x a n d r a , o n the c o n t r a r y , t o o k the t h r o n e with a w e l l - d e s e r v e d (Srj, § 1 0 8 ) reputation for piety. B y the e n d o f War 1:109, the situation o n c e again l o o k s p r o m i s i n g for the Hasmonean house. Enter the Pharisees. I f A l e x a n d r a ' s reputation for euaepeta w a s b a s e d o n the fact that she rjxpt(3ou (xaXtora TOCrcocTpta,the Pharisees w e r e a cer tain g r o u p o f J e w s Soxouv euaePetruepov elvoci Ttov aXXtov xal
TOU$ VOJAOUS
axptPearepov a ^ y e i a O a t ( § 1 1 0 ) . T h i s w a s a g r o u p , therefore, that a p p e a r e d to share the religious o u t l o o k a n d goals o f the Q u e e n . T h e q u e s tion n o w is: D i d the Pharisees' reputation turn o u t to b e well f o u n d e d , like that o f A l e x a n d r a , o r baseless, like that o f h e r late h u s b a n d ? Elsewhere,
when Josephus
speaks
o f s o m e o n e ' s reputation
for
axptfieia, he always g o e s o n , in the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t , either to substan tiate it (as with the t w o a o f i o r a i , Eleazar o f G a l i l e e , a n d the religious leaders o f J e r u s a l e m ) o r to d e b u n k it (as with the G r e e k historians a n d S i m o n o f J e r u s a l e m ) . T h e c o n c e p t o f axpifkia, b o t h in historical writing a n d in r e l i g i o n , is central to J o s e p h u s ' s v i s i o n o f things. W i t h his belief that the priests h o l d s o m e t h i n g o f a m o n o p o l y o n these virtues, h e c o n -
111
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
siders h i m s e l f a u t h o r i z e d to p o i n t o u t w h i c h o t h e r g r o u p s a m o n g his c o religionists c o m e close to the J e w i s h ideals a n d w h i c h are m e r e p r e t e n d e r s . I n the case o f the Pharisees, the r e a d e r is n o t left in d o u b t for v e r y l o n g . J o s e p h u s ' s j u d g e m e n t is that the alliance b e t w e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d
the
Pharisees w a s singularly u n f o r t u n a t e . S h e w a s a sincere w o m a n b u t they w e r e w o l v e s in s h e e p ' s c l o t h i n g : b e i n g herself g e n u i n e l y p i o u s (aeaoPrjuivrj rcept
TO
Oetov), A l e x a n d r a p a i d far t o o m u c h h e e d to the Pharisees
(TOUTOI$
rceptaadv orj TI rcpoaetxev, § 1 1 1 ) . O n their part, the Pharisees i n c r e a s i n g l y e x p l o i t e d (umevat) this i n g e n u o u s w o m a n (aTtXoTTjs); they e n c r o a c h e d u p o n her authority (cf. iwcpa9uou.at, § 110) to the p o i n t that they b e c a m e the de facto m a n a g e r s o f p u b l i c life
(SIOIXTJTOCI TCOV
oXcov eytvovro) e v e n e x
p l o i t i n g the j u d i c i a l system t o p u n i s h their e n e m i e s ! A l t h o u g h A l e x a n d r a h e l d h e r o w n in f o r e i g n p o l i c y ( § § 1 1 2 , 1 1 5 f . ) , o n d o m e s t i c issues she d e ferred entirely to the Pharisees, to the p o i n t that they c o n t r o l l e d (expaTet) h e r ( § 1 1 2 ) . I n their c a p r i c e , they killed o n e o f the distinguished citizens (TCOV
emayjuxov) a n d then others ( § 1 1 3 ) , o n the c h a r g e that these h a d en
c o u r a g e d J a n n e u s in his atrocities. I n all o f this, claims J o s e p h u s , A l e x a n dra's
superstition
(8etcn8atfxovta) r e n d e r e d
her
a helpless p a w n ;
her
" p i o u s " c o - r e g e n t s p r o c e e d e d to kill w h o m e v e r they w i s h e d o n false charges. I f w e h a v e c o r r e c d y u n d e r s t o o d J o s e p h u s as contrasting the real (8rj) scrupulosity o f Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a w i t h the Pharisees' g r o u n d l e s s reputa t i o n (Soxouatv) for axpt(3eta, then h e is h e r e e v o k i n g a standard t h e m e o f Hellenistic m o r a l p h i l o s o p h y , n a m e l y , the contrast b e t w e e n " s e e m i n g " (8oxetv) a n d " b e i n g " (elvat). A m o n g the diatribes o f the C y n i c T e l e s ( c . 242 B C ) , for e x a m p l e , is a p i e c e entitled " O n S e e m i n g a n d B e i n g " (Ilept TOU Soxetv xat TOU e t v a t ) .
111
B y n o t i n g the unpleasant c o n s e q u e n c e s that
m i g h t result f r o m m e r e l y s e e m i n g t o h a v e s o m e ability ( w h e t h e r m u s i c a l , a c t i n g , o r m i l i t a r y ) , T e l e s tries to p e r s u a d e his i n t e r l o c u t o r that o n e m u s t seek really to b e j u s t (Sixatos), n o t m e r e l y to s e e m s o , as the politicians (prJTopes) d o ! H a v i n g a reputation for Stxatoouvri, argues T e l e s , is w o r t h n o t h i n g unless that reputation is d e s e r v e d . J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e m a k i n g the s a m e p o i n t a b o u t the Pharisees, o n l y n o w the issue is euae(Jeta a n d axptfkta. Several o t h e r writers o f the p e r i o d i n v o k e the contrast b e t w e e n " s e e m i n g " a n d " b e i n g " in such a w a y as to suggest that it w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e o f p o p u l a r m o r a l i t y . Sextus ( 2 d . c e n t . A D ) , w h o c o m p i l e d a list o f ethical Torcot in his d a y , 1 1 1
1 1 2
offered the m a x i m :
Cf. E. O'Neil, Teles (the Cynic Teacher), "SBL Texts and Translations", 11; "Graeco-Roman Religion Series", 3 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 2-5. These sententiae have close parallels in neoplatonic, neopythagorean, and Christian texts, which means that they were ethical commonplaces. Cf. H . Chadwick, The Sentences 1 1 2
CHAPTER FOUR
112
daxet (XT) TO Soxetv dXXd TO etvat Stxato? TO Soxetv yap exaarov TOU etvat d^patpetrat (§ 64). In his Dialogues of the Dead, L u c i a n o f S a m o s a t a ( 2 d . c e n t . A D ) t u r n e d the Soxetv/etvat contrast Great.
against
the pretentiousness
o f A l e x a n d e r the
L u c i a n has Philip o f M a c e d o n chastising his s o n for h a v i n g
passed h i m s e l f o f f as d i v i n e . Philip m u s e s : For you were supposed to be a god (Oeos ydp etvat Soxtov) and any time you were wounded and seen being carried out o f the fighting on a litter, stream ing with blood and groaning from a wound, the onlookers were amused to see how A m m o n was shown up as an impostor (yor\<;. . . T|X£yx )- • • • For now that you are dead, don't you think that there are many who wax witty about that pretence (7cpoa7tot7)ats) o f yours? eT0
N o t i c e here the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n Soxeto a n d 7rpoa7cot7i<Jt£, w h i c h w e h a v e already n o t e d in the case o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees, a n d w h i c h c o n firms o u r s u s p i c i o n that Soxeto c a n m e a n both " s u p p o s e / p r e t e n d " ( s u b j e c t i v e ) and " s e e m " ( o b j e c t i v e ) in the s a m e c o n t e x t . T h e Christian Paul w a s d o u b t l e s s d r a w i n g u p o n the s a m e stock t h e m e w h e n he called the J e r u s a l e m apostles ot SoxoCVres a n d w r o t e : From those who were reputed to be something—whatever they were makes no difference to me; G o d does not consider a person's image—the famous men contributed nothing to me . . . . ('Arco 8e zcov Soxovvrcov eivaizi,—07roTot 7C0Te rjaav ouSev fxot Stacpepet 7up6<jco7rov Geo? dv0pto7cou ou XajxPavei—ejxot yap ot SoxoGVces ouSev 7cpoaave0evTO.) T h e s e e x a m p l e s illustrate the w i d e c u r r e n c y o f the Soxetv/ etvat contrast in Hellenistic t h o u g h t . It is this contrast that J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s against the historical dxptjieta o f the G r e e k s a n d the religious dxpt(3eta o f the Pharisees. A l t h o u g h , , then, the Pharisees d o n o t p l a y a m a j o r role in War as a w h o l e , their function in the history o f the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e is signifi cant.
The
d o w n w a r d spiral
that b e g a n
after J o h n
Hyrcanus,
with
A r i s t o b u l u s a n d A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s , w a s to reach its n a d i r in the in ternecine
strife
between Alexandra's
t h o u g h a potential
sons.
1 1 3
Alexandra's own
rule,
t u r n i n g p o i n t b e c a u s e o f her g e n u i n e piety, w a s
fatally d a m a g e d b y her association with the Pharisees. T h i s g r o u p , says
of Sextus: a contribution to the history of early Christian ethics (Cambridge: University Press, 1959), 139f., 144-146. Josephus reveals the importance of this moment in Jewish history at War 5:396: Whence did our servitude arise? Was it not from party strife among our forefathers, when the madness (fxavia) of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus and their mutual dissension brought Pompey against the city, and God subjected to the Romans those who were un worthy of liberty? (Thackeray) 1 1 3
113
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h they e n j o y e d a r e p u t a t i o n for piety a n d faithfulness
to the
scrupulous
l a w s , t u r n e d o u t to b e a m a n i p u l a t i v e
band
counterfeits. T h e i r outrages d r o v e m a n y l e a d i n g citizens to enlist
of the
p r o t e c t i o n o f A r i s t o b u l u s ( § 1 1 4 ) , w h o w a s thus e n a b l e d to seize p o w e r b e f o r e his m o t h e r ' s death ( § 1 1 7 ) , t h e r e b y initiating the fateful w i t h his o l d e r b r o t h e r
struggle
Hyrcanus.
J o s e p h u s ' s first definition o f the Pharisees is n o t a friendly o n e . I n a society that exalted precise k n o w l e d g e o f the laws, they h a d a c q u i r e d a r e p u t a t i o n for piety. T h e i r actions in the time o f A l e x a n d r a , h o w e v e r , g a v e the lie to their r e p u t a t i o n .
I V . The Source of War
1:110
G . H o l s c h e r , the greatest o f the J o s e p h a n s o u r c e critics, assigned
War
1:1 lOf. to the p e n o f N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . H i s a r g u m e n t w a s : ( a ) that for v a r i o u s r e a s o n s ,
1 1 4
the w h o l e o f War 1 : 3 1 - 2 : 1 1 6 a p p e a r s to c o m e f r o m
N i c o l a u s ; ( b ) that War 1:11 Of. in particular gives " h o c h s t Urteile . . . uber die P h a r i s a e r " , means "recht unfreundlich";
1 1 6
1 1 5
where "hochst unjiidisch"
unjudische apparently
a n d ( c ) that, therefore, this passage also
c o m e s directly f r o m N i c o l a u s . T h e v i e w that War 1:110 is a q u o t a t i o n f r o m N i c o l a u s has w o n significant, if b y n o m e a n s universal,
support.
1 1 7
A g a i n s t that v i e w , w e h a v e already n o t e d certain a priori c o n s i d e r a tions, especially: ( a ) that J o s e p h u s k n e w the Pharisees first-hand a n d ( b ) that h e w a s perfectly c a p a b l e , in o t h e r respects, o f s t a m p i n g his o w n ideas u p o n his w o r k .
1 1 8
T o these o b s e r v a t i o n s w e m a y n o w a d d
f o l l o w i n g a posteriori j u d g e m e n t s ,
( c ) War 1:110 bears a close
the
verbal
r e s e m b l a n c e to descriptions o f the Pharisees in War 2 : 1 6 2 a n d Life 1 9 1 , neither o f w h i c h is usually attributed to N i c o l a u s ( a n d the latter c a n n o t b e ) , ( d ) War 1:110 is o n e o f ten passages in J o s e p h u s ' s writings that c o m b i n e Soxeoo a n d a f o r m o f axptjieta to d e s c r i b e a g r o u p o r i n d i v i d u a l . O f these ten, seven also i n c l u d e s o m e reference to the v6[xot o r v6[xt[xa. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f these w o r d s s e e m to b e J o s e p h a n
constructions, (e)
Finally, all o f the k e y terms in the definition o f the Pharisees in 1:110—<xxpt(kta,
euaePeta,
v6(iot-— are
elements
of
War
Josephus's
characteristic v o c a b u l a r y ; clearly, they are t h e o l o g i c a l l y c h a r g e d a n d he uses t h e m with c o n s c i o u s intent.
1 1 4
Cf. chapter 2, above. Holscher, PWRE, 1945. Ibid., 1936 and n. + + thereto. Cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 62 n. 4 and 65 n. 3; Pfeiffer, New Testament Times, 22, 54; Michel-Bauernfeind, I, X X V f . Cf. chapter 2, above. 1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
114
CHAPTER FOUR
A l t h o u g h , then, J o s e p h u s m a y well h a v e taken the b a s i c c o n t e n t o f the H a s m o n e a n history f r o m N i c o l a u s , p e r h a p s i n c l u d i n g s o m e reference t o the P h a r i s e e s ' actions u n d e r A l e x a n d r a , it is J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w h o has f o r m u l a t e d the portrayal o f the Pharisees in War 1:110. N o r is that the extent o f his activity, for w e h a v e seen that the d e s c r i p t i o n at 1:110 is an integral part o f the story line a n d that it d e p e n d s for its m e a n i n g o n the p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n s o f J a n n e u s ( § 8 5 ) a n d especially o f A l e x a n d r a ( § 1 0 8 ) . T h a t J o s e p h u s has s h a p e d this w h o l e section o f narrative s e e m s a necessary c o n c l u s i o n .
Conclusion T h e f o r e g o i n g analysis o f War 1:110 illustrates the severe limitations o f the usual a p p r o a c h t o J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees. T h a t a p p r o a c h , e n dorsed
by
Schurer
and
maintained
to
the
present
day,
regards
J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees as m o r e o r less " r a w m a t e r i a l " , as R i v k i n puts it, that c a n b e substantially u n d e r s t o o d in their o w n right. T h a t such a v i e w is theoretically flawed has b e e n a r g u e d a b o v e ;
1 1 9
in ad
d i t i o n , w e n o w h a v e t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e that the c o n t e x t o f the Pharisee passages is d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f their
meaning.
" C o n t e x t " here
refers
equally to ( a ) the i m m e d i a t e l y s u r r o u n d i n g narrative, ( b ) the c o n c e r n s a n d t h e m e s o f the w o r k as a w h o l e , a n d ( c ) the a u t h o r ' s t h o u g h t in general. T o illustrate: A . G u t t m a n n m a k e s the assertion, " W h e n J o s e p h u s states that the Pharisees ' are c o n s i d e r e d the m o s t a c c u r a t e interpreters o f the l a w s ' h e speaks as a Pharisaic J e w . " Weiss
1 2 1
1 2 0
A . Schlatter a n d H . - F .
likewise b e l i e v e that such a d e s c r i p t i o n is h o n o r i f i c .
O n e c a n o n l y h o l d that c o n c l u s i o n , h o w e v e r , if o n e takes the state m e n t o u t o f its c o n t e x t a n d therefore o u t o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n m o u t h . F o r the
foregoing
analysis has
shown
that J o s e p h u s ' s
i n t e n t i o n w a s to
d e b u n k the P h a r i s e e s ' r e p u t a t i o n for e m b o d y i n g s u p e r i o r piety a n d for e x p o u n d i n g the laws with particular a c c u r a c y . T e r m s like axpi(5eta a n d euae(ktoc represent w o r l d s o f religious m e a n i n g for h i m . H e v i e w s these areas as priestly responsibilities o r c o n c e r n s . A l t h o u g h h e allows that cer tain
others
have
w e l l - d e s e r v e d reputations
for
excellence
in
these
respects, the Pharisees are n o t a m o n g t h e m .
1 1 9
Cf. chapter 1, above. Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 127. Schlatter, Theologie, 204f; H . F. Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus: zur Darstellung des Judentums im Geschichtswerk des judischen Historikers Flavius Josephus", Orientalistische Literarzeitung 74 (1979), 425. 1 2 0
1 2 1
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I
115
N o r d o e s it s e e m plausible, to g i v e a further e x a m p l e , that J o s e p h u s c h o s e the w o r d &xpi(Seioc to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees b e c a u s e o f its c u r r e n c y as an interpretation o f the n a m e D ' W I D .
1 2 2
Sufficient
explanation o f
J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e o f the w o r d is his characteristic v o c a b u l a r y , in w h i c h axptjkta o c c u p i e s a c o n s p i c u o u s p l a c e . T h a t axpt(ktoc d i d circulate as an interpretation o f D^tPTlD is o f c o u r s e possible b u t m u s t b e s h o w n b y o t h e r evidence.
1 2 3
I n short: J o s e p h u s ' s statements o n the Pharisees o n l y h a v e full m e a n i n g w h e n they are read as his statements a n d as p r o d u c t s o f his analysis and thought.
122
Contra A . I. Baumgarten, "Name", 413ff. The hypothesis would face very serious objections if it could be argued that LukeActs, Baumgarten's other key witness, uses dxptPeta of the Pharisees under the influence of Josephus; cf. especially M . Krenkel, Josephus und Lukas: der schiftstellerische Einfluss des judischen Geschichtschreibers auf den christlichen nachgewiesen (Leipzig: H . Haessel, 1894). 1 2 3
C H A P T E R FIVE
WAR
1:571: 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 ,
After J o s e p h u s
has
introduced
the Pharisees
in
War
I
1:110-114,
the
reader next m e e t s t h e m in a p a s s i n g reference at 1:571. H e r e , J o s e p h u s is r e c o u n t i n g the intrigues o f H e r o d ' s family against the k i n g . H e r o d , he says, a c c u s e d his sister-in-law o f plotting against h i m in several w a y s , o n e o f w h i c h w a s her r e w a r d i n g o f Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to h i m ( c m TS Oocpiaociois uiv x o p ^ T H nowhere elaborated
a e i e v
in
HiaOous *ax' OCUTOU). T h i s b a r e n o t i c e , w h i c h is War,
has
little i m p o r t a n c e
in
the
narrative;
J o s e p h u s clearly d o e s n o t i n t e n d here to say m u c h a b o u t the Pharisees. Nevertheless, since the i n c i d e n t will also b e r e c o u n t e d in Ant.
(17:42f.),
s o m e b r i e f a c c o u n t o f its treatment in War is necessary.
I. The Context of War
1:571
F u n d a m e n t a l is the o b s e r v a t i o n that War in general presents H e r o d the Great
very favourably.
1
He
a p p e a r s as g e n e r o u s
and
large-spirited
( 1 : 3 9 7 ) , p i o u s ( 1 : 4 0 0 ) , h u m a n e ( l : 4 2 f f . ) , a loyal friend ( 1 : 3 9 1 ) , b r a v e ( 1 : 4 2 9 ) , a n d affectionate t o w a r d his family ( 1 : 4 1 7 f f . ) . A l l o f his d o m e s t i c p r o b l e m s w e r e b r o u g h t o n b y the w o m e n in his c o u r t , w e are told, b e g i n n i n g with his s e c o n d wife M a r i a m n e a n d her sons ( 1 : 4 3 I f f . ) .
Indeed,
H e r o d ' s h o m e life d e v e l o p s a l o n g the lines o f a t r a g e d y , in w h i c h he is the largely i n n o c e n t v i c t i m o f plots a n d
intrigues.
O n e such d i s t u r b a n c e w a s instigated b y the wife o f P h e r o r a s ,
who
capitalized o n the rising fortunes o f H e r o d ' s son A n t i p a t e r to establish her o w n p o w e r a n d d o m i n a t e the H e r o d i a n c o u r t . H e r o d is i n f o r m e d o f her surreptitious activities ( l : 5 6 9 f . ) a n d it is in his s u b s e q u e n t d e n u n c i a tion o f this w o m a n ( § 5 7 1 ) that w e h e a r o f her p a y m e n t s to the Pharisees.
I I . Key Terms T h e t w o key terms o f the b r i e f clause, xoprftio)
a
n
d
fxiaOos, are b o t h
elements o f J o s e p h u s ' s usual v o c a b u l a r y . A . Xoprjyeco: ' ' t o supply, furnish, p r o c u r e , g r a n t " . J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s
1
This was a major factor in Holscher's attribution of War 1:31-2:116 to Nicolaus, Herod's court historian, PWRE, 1947; cf. also Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, X X V f . , and Cohen, Josephus, 111.
117
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, I
0
7
the v e r b a n d its c o g n a t e s (xopTrytoc, X ? ^^) 2
War a n d Ant.
s o m e 6 4 times t h r o u g h o u t
T h e v e r b has a stronger m e a n i n g than, say, StScoptt; it is
generally u s e d in c o n t e x t s o f liberality o r a b u n d a n c e ,
3
s o m e t i m e s with
the s u p p l e m e n t a^Oovioc—the subject supplies s o m e t h i n g l a v i s h l y . may,
4
This
5
b u t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y , suggest that the w o m a n ' s s u p p o r t o f the
Pharisees w a s a m p l e . B . MICJOOS:
4 4
p a y m e n t , r e w a r d , m o n e y , c o m p e n s a t i o n " . T h i s n o u n is 6
e v e n l y distributed t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s four w o r k s , o c c u r r i n g a total o f 42 t i m e s .
I I I . Interpretation of War 1:571 The
salient features o f this b r i e f n o t i c e m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d in three
observations. First, the r e m a r k o b v i o u s l y puts the Pharisees in a n e g a t i v e light. It is n o t clear f r o m the w o r d i n g w h e t h e r P h e r o r a s ' s wife actually initiated Pharisaic
o p p o s i t i o n to H e r o d b y offering m o n e y to the
group or
w h e t h e r she s i m p l y e n c o u r a g e d a n already present o p p o s i t i o n b y 7
finan
8
cial r e w a r d . A l o n a n d C o r n f e l d , w o r k i n g at the historical level, a d d u c e r a b b i n i c e v i d e n c e o f p r i n c i p l e d Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to H e r o d , w h i c h w o u l d suggest the latter o p t i o n . L i k e w i s e Ant.
1 7 : 4 1 , if it is a true
9
p a r a l l e l , c l a i m s that P h e r o r a s ' s wife m e r e l y p a i d the fine i m p o s e d o n the Pharisees b y H e r o d for their refusal to swear an oath o f allegiance to himself and Caesar. In
War 1:571 itself, h o w e v e r , it is the w o m a n ' s
m e r c e n a r y tactics a n d n o t so m u c h the Pharisees' actions that are in q u e s t i o n . In either c a s e , the Pharisees turn u p o n the w r o n g ( = antiH e r o d i a n ) side o f the d i s p u t e . I f H e r o d appears in War as a v i c t i m , then the Pharisees m u s t b e c o u n t e d a m o n g his v i c t i m i z e r s . 2
Xoprjyeo> appears 10 times in War, 30 times in Ant.; xoprjyia appears 5 times in War, 14 times in Ant.; XWYOS appears 4 times in War, once in Ant. E.g., at War 1:424; 3:519; 4:56, 471; 6:23; Ant. 2:272; 6:350; 7:231, 279; 8:113, 396; 10:156, 193. Ant. 1:181; 4:116, 237; 12:58, 105; 13:224; cf. also 10:193; 12:84, 138 for xopT)yia with &90ovta. In at least two cases, xop^Y" has a restrictive sense—people are ' 'supplied" only ({xovos) with bread and water (Ant. 8:330, 410)—but this is probably sarcastic. It occurs 7 times in War, 28 times in Ant., 4 times in Life, and 3 times in Ag.Ap. Alon, Jews, 35f. Cornfeld, Jewish War, HOf. Reinach (Oeuvres, V , 116, n. 2), Michel-Bauernfeind (De Bello Judaico, I, 151, 424 n. 264), and Thackeray ( L C L edn., I, 270f. n. b.) all make the connection; so also D . Schwartz, Josephus and Nicolaus", 160f. Feldman (LCL edn., VIII, 391 n. b.) thinks that the author of Ant. 17:41 f. (Nicolaus, in his view) has confused Essenes with Pharisees; this would seem to break any parallel with War 1:571 (which is also, however, from Nicolaus!). 3
4
5
0
6
7
8
9
4
118
CHAPTER FIVE
S e c o n d , association o f the Pharisees with m o n e t a r y gain also d a m a g e s their i m a g e b e f o r e the reader. Suggestions o f such i m p r o p r i e t y o c c u r t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s . A l r e a d y in War 1:111 w e h a v e r e a d that, while the Pharisees w e r e e n j o y i n g all the benefits a n d prerogatives (dbcoXauaeis) o f royalty, the e x p e n s e s (dtvaXcafxaxa) w e r e falling to Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a . Further, to anticipate future analyses: in Ant.
17:42f. the
Pharisees are said to h a v e m a n u f a c t u r e d false p r e d i c t i o n s in return for m o n e y ; in Life 195f. a p r o m i n e n t Pharisee b r i b e s the h i g h priest to act unfairly.
Thus,
the
association o f the
Pharisees
with financial
im
p r o p r i e t y is fairly c o m m o n in J o s e p h u s . L i n k i n g o n e ' s o p p o n e n t s with the l o v e o f m o n e y was a slander in a n t i q u i t y .
10
common
N o t i c e , h o w e v e r , that J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t resort to
stock, generalizing phrases like 9iXapyupot, w h i c h is u s e d o f the Pharisees b y the author o f L u k e - A c t s ( L k . 1 6 : 1 4 ) . charge
o f financial
impropriety
1 1
against
Josephus only makes the
Pharisees
in
the
specific,
historically plausible cases. W i t h o u t actually calling t h e m " l o v e r s o f m o n e y " he m a n a g e s to insinuate the s a m e p o i n t in a narrative c o n t e x t . T h i r d , J o s e p h u s c o n t i n u e s to represent the Pharisees as an influential group.
T h i s is clear f r o m the
fact that the w o m a n ' s
financing
of
Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n is r a n k e d in its e n o r m i t y with h e r alienation o f H e r o d ' s o w n b r o t h e r a n d her insulting o f H e r o d ' s o w n (cf. eocuxou) daughters. T h a t J o s e p h u s c h o o s e s to m e n t i o n these three offences as o n l y the m o s t h e i n o u s e x a m p l e s a m o n g many m i s d e e d s seems to indicate that H e r o d felt the a n t a g o n i s m o f the Pharisees v e r y k e e n l y . T h e i m p a c t o f this a n t a g o n i s m o n H e r o d , J o s e p h u s implies, w a s r o u g h l y o n a par with that generated b y the abuse o f his daughters o r b y the o p p o s i t i o n o f his brother. T o b e sure, the Pharisees n o l o n g e r h a v e the m e c h a n i s m o f g o v e r n m e n t in their h a n d s , as they d i d u n d e r A l e x a n d r a , b u t J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k at War 1:571 p r e s u p p o s e s their c o n t i n u e d influence: their o p position to H e r o d appears as a matter o f great c o n c e r n to h i m .
I V . The Source of War
1:571
W e h a v e seen that the t w o k e y terms are elements o f J o s e p h u s ' s natural v o c a b u l a r y . In Ant.
1 3 : 1 2 9 , furthermore,
they also a p p e a r together as
v e r b a n d direct o b j e c t . A n y d o u b t that the f o r m u l a t i o n is J o s e p h u s ' s o w n , therefore, seems u n w a r r a n t e d . 1 0
4
Cf., e.g., R. J. Karris, 'The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles", JBL 92 (1973), 549-564, esp. 552. He gives numerous references, from Plato to Tatian, to document the widespread use of this charge. Cf. the charge of cptXapyupia levelled against opponents in the Pastoral letters of the N T : I Tim. 6:10; 2 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:11. 1 1
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, I
119
W i t h respect to c o n t e n t , o n the other h a n d , it is entirely likely that J o s e p h u s r e c e i v e d his i n f o r m a t i o n — a b o u t P h e r o r a s ' s w i f e ' s s p o n s o r s h i p o f Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to H e r o d — f r o m N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , w h o w o u l d h a v e b e e n in a p o s i t i o n to k n o w the i n n e r w o r k i n g s o f H e r o d ' s court.
Summary A l t h o u g h War 1:571 is an incidental reference to the Pharisees—and o n e o u g h t n o t , therefore, to e x p e c t f r o m it a wealth o f i n s i g h t — t w o points e m e r g e clearly. First, the a u t h o r presents the Pharisees as an influential g r o u p . S e c o n d , h o w e v e r , h e reveals his lack o f s y m p a t h y for t h e m . T h e y h a v e a part in the u n d o i n g o f the tragic v i c t i m H e r o d a n d they are v u l n e r a b l e to the lure o f m o n e y . B o t h o f these points—the Pharisees' in fluence
and
Josephus's
antipathy
already i n t r o d u c e d in War 1:110-114.
toward
them—continue
themes
CHAPTER SIX
WAR
2:162-166: T H E P H A R I S E E S A M O N G THE
From
the standpoint
JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
o f Josephus's
intention,
War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 is his
crucial d e s c r i p t i o n o f the J e w i s h g r o u p s , i n c l u d i n g the Pharisees. F o r w h e n h e writes in Ant. o f the distinctive g r o u p s within J u d a i s m , h e refers the reader b a c k t o his " a c c u r a t e l y d e t a i l e d " (axptfkos SeSrjXoaToci) presen 1
tation in War 2 . C l e a r l y , J o s e p h u s v i e w s this l e n g t h y passage as his standard t r e a t m e n t , t o w h i c h the later discussions are s u p p l e m e n t a r y .
2
F u r t h e r m o r e , War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 is u n i q u e in that J o s e p h u s is free h e r e t o say w h a t e v e r h e wishes a b o u t the Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , a n d Essenes, w i t h o u t b e i n g subject t o narrative pressures. H i s m a i n s o u r c e f o r War 1:31-2:116,
Nicolaus o f Damascus,
has p r o b a b l y e x p i r e d with the 3
d e p o s i t i o n o f H e r o d ' s s o n A r c h e l a u s . After that, J o s e p h u s gives o n l y a c u r s o r y o u t l i n e o f events t o the t i m e o f A g r i p p a ( 2 : 1 6 7 - 1 8 7 ) , a p e r i o d as l o n g as H e r o d ' s reign! A g a i n the narrative m o v e s q u i c k l y t h r o u g h the f o l l o w i n g t w e n t y years ( 2 : 2 2 0 - 2 7 6 ) t o the events p r e c e d i n g the revolt. W h e r e a s all o f J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r references to the Pharisees, therefore, c o m e in the m i d s t o f a flowing narrative, w h e r e J o s e p h u s c a n o n l y say e n o u g h a b o u t the g r o u p s t o m a k e his narrative i n t e l l i g i b l e ,
4
in War
2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 h e has n o story-line t o p u r s u e . O n the c o n t r a r y , his discussion o f the three J e w i s h g r o u p s p r o v i d e s h i m an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o m p e n s a t e for
the sparseness o f his history o f J u d e a
u n d e r the p r e f e c t s .
5
This
f r e e d o m f r o m narrative constraints m a y well h a v e a c c o u n t e d for his d e c i sion to g i v e his definitive d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the J e w i s h ocipeaets h e r e .
1
The War passage is recalled in the following ways: ev TTJ SeuTepoc pifBXcp xfjs 'IouSocixfjs
rcpocY[xocTetoc<; (Ant. 13:173); dv TTJ SeuTepoc (xou TCOV 'IouSoctxcov (Ant. 13:298); and ev TCO ptPXcp
TOU 'IouBouxoG 7coXe(xou (Ant. 18:11). The question as to whether his later treatments of the Pharisees are intended as revi sions or corrections of War material will be discussed in Part III, below. Cf. Holscher, 'Josephus", 1944-49; Safrai and Stern, Jewish People, 23f.; MichelBauernfeind, De Bello Judaico I, X X V f . ; Thackeray, L C L edn., II, xxiif. Even the parallel to our passage in Ant. (18:11-25) is subject to narrative pressures. There Josephus only introduces the three ^iXoaoqjtoct as background for his discussion of the fourth philosophy. This is not the case in War 2, where the discussion of the schools is open-ended. Whether this sparseness was deliberate or forced upon him by a lack of source mate rial is both impossible to decide and irrelevant here. Cf. n. 95 to chapter 3 (on the pur pose of War). 2
3
4
5
121
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
I. Context J o s e p h u s s e e m s uninterested in d i s c u s s i n g — o r , p e r h a p s , lacks material to discuss—the early years o f the history o f J u d e a as a R o m a n p r o v i n c e . H e b a r e l y m e n t i o n s that the e t h n a r c h y o f A r c h e l a u s , o n the d e p o s i t i o n o f that tyrant in A D 6, passed u n d e r direct R o m a n rule, with C o p o n i u s as g o v e r n o r (War
2:117).
6
L i k e w i s e , after his t r e a t m e n t o f the three
g r o u p s h e refers o n l y briefly to the status o f the o t h e r p o r t i o n s o f H e r o d ' s old k i n g d o m (2:167) and
then m o v e s i m m e d i a t e l y
to the
death o f
A u g u s t u s in A D 14. T h i s d e p a r t u r e f r o m his usual e m p h a s i s o n the details o f political history allows J o s e p h u s to d e v e l o p a m a j o r t h e m e o f his w o r k . I n the p r e f a c e , it will b e recalled, he a n n o u n c e d his thesis that his h o m e l a n d o w e d its d e s t r u c t i o n to a faction o f tyrants a m o n g the p e o p l e a n d n o t to the Srjfxos itself ( 1 : 1 0 ) . S o , it s e e m s , he i n t r o d u c e s the material o f 2 : 1 1 9 166 as an early attempt to establish that t h e m e , well b e f o r e the narrative o f the revolt itself b e g i n s . T h u s w e learn that the passing o f J u d e a R o m a n h a n d s c a u s e d a certain J u d a s to c o m e f o r w a r d , w h o
7
into
"urged
revolt (dbtoaTaatv) o n his c o u n t r y m e n , calling t h e m c o w a r d s if they c o n sented to p a y tribute to the R o m a n s a n d e n d u r e d m o r t a l masters after h a v i n g served G o d " . H a v i n g so d e s c r i b e d the r e b e l ' s p o s i t i o n — a p o s i t i o n that w o u l d find n o sympathy a m o n g R o m a n readers—Josephus
g o e s o n i m m e d i a t e l y to
d i s a v o w it, n o t o n l y for h i m s e l f b u t also for J e w s in general: This man represented a peculiar school o f thought (t8ta^ octpeaecos), which was not even remotely similar to the others (ouSev TOT? aXXot? rcpoaeoixtos, § 118). For among the Jews, philosophy takes three [customary] forms (xpioc yap rcapa TouSatot? etSrj 9tXoao9etxai, § 119). 8
Q u i t e early in his narrative, therefore, J o s e p h u s takes the
opportunity
to s h o w his readers that the w h o l e mentality o f a7r6aT<xai$ is f o r e i g n to " m a i n s t r e a m " J e w i s h w a y s o f thinking. T h e p o i n t is significant b e c a u s e J u d a s will turn o u t to b e s o m e t h i n g o f a patriarch to the rebel family that i n c l u d e d M e n a h e m (War 2 : 4 3 3 ) a n d Eleazar b e n Y a i r , o f M a s a d a f a m e (War 2 : 4 4 7 ; 7 : 2 5 3 ) .
6
Josephus uses hzixpoTzo^ (procurator) to describe Coponius' office. A . N. SherwinWhite, however (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 6), points out that equestrian governors before Claudius had the title of praefectus and not procurator. Idumea and Samaria were also included in the ethnarchy of Archelaus (2:96), as were the cities of Caesarea, Sebaste, and Joppa (2:97). The emphasis is on xpioc. Thackeray captures this by rendering: "Jewish philosophy, in fact, takes three forms." 7
8
CHAPTER SIX
122 We
c a n see, then, a clear rationale for J o s e p h u s ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n o f
2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , w h i c h deals extensively with the three eiBy) o f J e w i s h thinking: he w a n t s t o dissociate m a i n s t r e a m J u d a i s m f r o m the rebel p s y c h o l o g y . T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n d o e s n o t i m p l y that e v e r y i t e m in the narrative m u s t s o m e h o w d e m o n s t r a t e the d o c i l i t y o r peacefulness o f the J e w s . O n the subject o f the Essenes, for e x a m p l e , m u c h o f the material w o u l d h a v e h a d an intrinsic interest
for his H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n r e a d e r s .
9
Never
theless, w e s h o u l d e x p e c t to find clear i n d i c a t i o n s in 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 that r e c o g n i z e d J u d a i s m , in its three f o r m s , d o e s n o t e q u a t e the service o f G o d with dt7c6cTTaat^ f r o m all earthly
masters.
A l t h o u g h the Pharisees are i n t r o d u c e d at the outset ( § 119) as o n e o f the three f o r m s o f J e w i s h t h o u g h t , they d o n o t r e c e i v e full attention until the e n d o f the passage ( 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) . It is the f a m o u s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the E s s e n e s — w h i c h has b e c o m e an i m p o r t a n t aid for interpreting the D e a d 10
Sea S c r o l l s — that d o m i n a t e s o u r p a s s a g e . S o m e b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f the Essene narrative is n e c e s s a r y , b o t h to p r o v i d e insight into the function of
2:119-166 and
as a basis for interpreting
the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
Pharisees ( § 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) . T h e first thing that J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the Essenes sets the t o n e for his entire d e s c r i p t i o n : they are r e n o w n e d for their cultivation o f s o l e m nity (Soxet aefxvoTTjxa aaxetv, § 1 1 9 ) ; they h o l d self-control (TTJV eyxpdtxeiav), o r the refusal to s u r r e n d e r to the passions (TO U.7) xotc; 7cdc0eatv UTC07ct7ruetv), to b e a virtue ( § 1 2 0 ) . A l t h o u g h the 7ia9r) are d e s c r i b e d p r i m a r i l y in sex ual t e r m s , a b r o a d e r r a n g e o f m e a n i n g is e v o k e d : in contrast to the octpsai£ o f J u d a s , w h i c h d r a w s its e n e r g y f r o m self-assertion, the Essenes are selfc o n t r o l l e d a n d d i s c i p l i n e d . W e r e a d further: posure
they
are
like
children
" I n their dress a n d c o m
b e i n g trained
in
fear"
((xe-uoc 9o(3ou
7cat8ay
9
1 1
This image o f ex-
O n the appeal of esoteric Eastern groups to cultured Romans, cf. F. Cumont, Orien tal Religions in Roman Paganism (New York: Dover, 1956 [1911]), esp. 28ff.; also M . Hadas, Hellenistic Culture (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), chapter 9; and M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 75. Although Josephus's description of the Essenes does not always harmonize with the Scrolls, the use of Josephus to interpret the Qumran find is well-nigh universal. Cf. the authors and works cited in chapter 2, n.45. For a commentary on War's portrayal of the Essenes in the light of Qumran, cf. Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, 431-440 (nn. 35-92). M y translation here draws heavily on Thackeray's. 1 0
1 1
123
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
t r e m e discipline contrasts starkly with the i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d rebellious ness o f J u d a s . M o s t striking is J o s e p h u s ' s description o f the m a n y oaths that the c a n didates must take b e f o r e a d m i s s i o n to full m e m b e r s h i p ( § § 1 3 9 - 1 4 2 ) . A m o n g t h e m is the p r o m i s e " t o k e e p faith (TO
TCIOTOV
7rocpsijetv) always
with all m e n , especially with those who are ruling ({xdcXtora 8e
TOT<;
xpaTOuaiv)
since no one acquires the position of ruler without God" (ou yap St^a Oeou 7ieptyevea8ai Ttvl TO apx&tv, § 1 4 0 ) . H e r e J o s e p h u s p r o v i d e s clear e v i d e n c e for his assertion that the m a i n s t r e a m J e w i s h g r o u p s differ radically f r o m Judas's
philosophy o f freedom:
faithfulness to the ruling
the
authorities.
Essenes,
for
one,
believe
in
12
B e y o n d that, the Essenes a p p e a r as an esoteric g r o u p , p r e o c c u p i e d with their o w n rites a n d teachings. T h e y are c o n c e r n e d with prayers ( § 1 2 8 ) , strenuous l a b o u r ( § 1 2 9 ) , ancient writings, m e d i c i n a l substances a n d stones ( § 1 3 6 ) , a n d their o w n sectarian b o o k s , secrets, a n d n a m e s o f the angels ( § 1 4 2 ) . T h e s e esoteric pursuits c o n t r i b u t e to the i m a g e o f the Essenes as a harmless e l e m e n t in J e w i s h society. J o s e p h u s presents t h e m in such a w a y as to foster a d m i r a t i o n for their discipline, selfc o n t r o l , a n d quiet m a n n e r o r life. S o the Essenes are n o t in the slightest d e g r e e (ouSev Judas.
rcpoaeoixox;)
c o m p a r a b l e to the
g r o u p represented
by
1 3
T h u s in c o m i n g to the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in § § 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 , w e already possess t w o m a j o r interpretive clues, b o t h furnished b y the c o n text. First, b y i n c l u d i n g this g r o u p a m o n g the three eiSrj o f J e w i s h t h o u g h t , in contrast to that o f J u d a s , J o s e p h u s a c k n o w l e d g e s the historic l e g i t i m a c y o f the Pharisees: they, a l o n g with the Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s , are true representatives o f J u d a i s m , at least to the extent that they d o n o t d e m a n d c o m p l e t e political i n d e p e n d e n c e . S e c o n d , h o w e v e r , b y p r o p o r t i o n i n g his narrative as h e d o e s , J o s e p h u s m a k e s it plain that he is m u c h m o r e interested in d e s c r i b i n g the Essenes than the other t w o g r o u p s . I n contrast to his e x p a n s i v e portrayal o f the Essenes,
he
dispenses with
the
Pharisees
and
S a d d u c e e s in
three
sentences, w h i c h c o m p r i s e t w o uiv . . . hi c o n s t r u c t i o n s , c o m p a r i n g these t w o schools o f t h o u g h t o n l y o n matters o f belief a n d p r a c t i c e .
1 2
Josephus does not explain how some Essenes found themselves in conflict with Rome (War 2:152f.) or why one of the regional commanders of the revolt was an Essene (2:567; 3:11). Michel-Bauernfeind (De Bello Judaico, I, 436, n.65) see also in War 2:142 a reference to the Essenes' refusal to engage in armed revolt. There, the Essene candidate vows to abstain from XTjoreta. Since he has already sworn not to steal (cf. xXorcrj, 2:141), the com mentators propose a more political sense for Xfloreta, in accord with Josephus's usage of this word-group elsewhere. 1 3
124
CHAPTER SIX
I I . Five Statements About the Pharisees W i t h i n J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees, w e m a y distinguish
five
statements: Auo 8e
TCOV
rcpoTeptov ( s c . Tayu-ocTtov, § 161) Oaptaatot u i v ot
(2:161) (2:163)
a.
jxex' dxptPeta$ 8oxouvTe$ e^rjyetaOat TOC vojxtfxa
b.
xat
c.
TTJV
7cpcoTT)v dcTCOcyovTes atpeatv
etu.apu.evrj TE xat Oeto TCpoadwcTOuat 7tdvTa xat TO uiv 7cpaTT£tv TOC Stxata
av9pa>7cot<;
xat u.rj x a r a
xetaOat,
(3oTj8etv 8e
TO
tlq
rcXetarov em
TOT$
exaarov
TTJV
xat
etu.apu.evrjv. d.
C[>UXTJV Te 7caaav u.ev a90apTOv, [xeTafJatvetv 8e et$ erepov atou.a TTJV TCOV T<X$
(2:166a)
e.
8e
TCOV
dyaOtov
[XOVTJV,
9auXcov dtSttp Tt(xtopta xoXd£ea0at
xat Oaptaatot [xev qHXdXXrjXot Te xat
TTJV
tiq TO xotvdv 6(x6votav daxouvTe$. W e shall take e a c h statement in turn a n d a n a l y z e its k e y t e r m s . A . ot (xer' dxptfktac 8oxouvTe$ efjrjyetaOat TOC v6(xt(xa T h i s o p e n i n g statement c o r r e s p o n d s closely to the s e c o n d half o f the definition in 1:110: Soxouv .
. . TOUS
vofxou? dxpt(3e<JTepov d^yetaOat. T h e
c h a n g e s are as f o l l o w s . ( 1 ) TOC v6(xt{xa for ot v6(xot. I n discussing War 1:110, w e o b s e r v e d that ot vofiot
has
n o technical m e a n i n g
for J o s e p h u s ;
he
uses
it
inter
c h a n g e a b l y w i t h TOC v6(xt{xa. L a t e r he will speak o f special Pharisaic v6(xt(xa (Ant.
1 3 : 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 ) , b u t h e will clearly designate those as n o n -
M o s a i c o r d i n a n c e s , o r i g i n a t i n g with the fathers (ex 7caTepcov . . . oux dvayeypa^Tat ev Tots Mcouaeo? vou.ot£, 1 3 : 2 9 7 ; xard
TTJVrcaTptoav7tapd8oatv,
1 3 : 4 0 8 ) . I n all o f the o t h e r 53 cases in w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses TOC vou.tu.a ( o r the singular) substantively, the t e r m is practically s y n o n y m o u s with ot vofiot
14
o r w i t h TOC eGrj.
15
T h u s , since TOC v6(xt[xa in o u r passage stands with
o u t qualification, w e h a v e n o r e a s o n to s u p p o s e that it m e a n s a n y t h i n g other
than
the
vou-tjia TOC yeypau.fxeva (Ant.
13:297)
and
that
it
is
e q u i v a l e n t to the vojxot o f War 1:110. W h a t e v e r distinctive vojxtjxa the Pharisees m a y h a v e , then, in War J o s e p h u s c l a i m s o n l y that they are e x perts in the vojxtjia c o m m o n to all J e w s .
1 4
E.g., Ant. 8:395, where 9uX<xa(jetv TOU$ vofjtou? = TTjpetv TOC vofitfia. Cf. also Ant. 7:384f.; 8:208, 256; 12:276; 14:173f.; 18:274. The interchangeability may also be in dicated by the textual variants at Ant. 13:257 and 18:55. Cf. Ant. 9:95-99; 15:328-30; 14:213-216. 1 5
125
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
( 2 ) eijrjyetaGat for dqjrjyetaGat. T h e t w o v e r b s are virtually s y n o n y m o u s , as the similarity b e t w e e n the prefixes ex a n d dbco suggests. T w o b a s i c m e a n i n g s a p p l y to b o t h : the p r i m a r y sense, " t o lead ( o u t ) , direct, ad minister",
and
the
more
abstract,
"to
J o s e p h u s uses b o t h v e r b s in b o t h s e n s e s .
interpret, 16
relate,
expound"
H e r e , as in 1:110, the i d e a
o f e x p o s i t i o n o r " e x e g e s i s " is i n t e n d e d . B . (ot) xat
TTJV
7rpcoT7jv drcdyovTes atpeatv
T h e s e c o n d statement in War 2:161 is a crux interpretum, created b y u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t the significance o f 7tpcoTrj, andyta, a n d atpeat$. W e shall l o o k first at atpeats. ( 1 ) T h e r e n d e r i n g o f atpeat$ b y " s e c t " w a s enshrined b y W . W h i s t o n a n d has s u r v i v e d into the twentieth c e n t u r y in all o f the m a j o r transla tions, those o f R e i n a c h ("secte"), 17
B a u e r n f e i n d ("Sekte").
Thackeray
( " s e c t " ) , and Michel-
I n the influential L o e b e d i t i o n , T h a c k e r a y e v e n
supplies the m a r g i n a l h e a d i n g for o u r passage: " t h e three J e w i s h s e c t s " . T h i s translation is c o n g e n i a l to t h o s e , like S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r , w h o p o r tray the Pharisees as a small, c l o s e d s o c i e t y . like its F r e n c h clusivity,
1 9
rigid
18
T h e English w o r d sect,
a n d G e r m a n equivalents, m a y h a v e c o n n o t a t i o n s o f e x organization,
novelty,
comparative
smallness,
p e r h a p s e v e n d e v i a n c e f r o m a larger b o d y (cf. " h e r e s y " ) .
2 0
and
Although
n o t necessarily i m p l i e d b y all m o d e r n translators o f J o s e p h u s ,
2 1
such
c o n n o t a t i o n s h a v e naturally d r a w n criticism f r o m those scholars w h o u n d e r s t a n d Pharisaism as a m a s s m o v e m e n t within J u d a i s m .
2 2
Rivkin,
for e x a m p l e , p r o p o s e s the a b a n d o n m e n t o f " s e c t " as a translation o f al'peats, preferring
rather " s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t " ,
as i n t r o d u c e d b y
M a r c u s in his p o r t i o n o f the L o e b translation (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 , 2 8 8 ) .
2 3
R. The
p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s call for special care in the translation o f atpeat?. J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d 31 times, in three distinct senses. Eight times it m e a n s the taking o r c a p t u r e o f s o m e t h i n g , often a t o w n . it signifies an o p t i o n o r c h o i c e .
1 6
2 5
2 4
Eight times
T h e s e m e a n i n g s d e r i v e , respectively,
Rengstorf gives 16 occurrences of a^TiyeofJUXi with the sense '' report or narrate" and 9 with the sense ''lead (out), direct". For ££r)y£o[iai, the figures are 9 and 11, re spectively. Cf., e.g., all of these translations at War 2:162. See chapter 1, n. 9. Cf. LeMoyne, Les Sadduceens, 33. Cf., e.g., The Houghton-Mifflin Canadian Dictionary, ad loc. The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's suggest also more neutral connotations. E.g., G. Alon, A . Guttmann, and E. Rivkin; cf. chapter 1, above. Rivkin, Revolution, 317f. Ant. 7:160; 10:79, 133, 247; 12:363; 13:122, 231, 233; cf. Herodotus 4:1. War 1:99; 6:352; 7:326; Ant. 1:69; 6:71, 91; 7:321, 322. 1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
24
25
126
CHAPTER SIX
f r o m the active ( " t o t a k e " ) a n d m i d d l e ( " t o c h o o s e " ) v o i c e s o f octpe
26
In 15 o f its 31 o c c u r r e n c e s , h o w e v e r , ocl'peats signifies the object o f o n e ' s choice, namely, a philosophy, school, party, o r f a c t i o n .
27
I n 13 o f these
15 cases the w o r d designates o n e o r m o r e o f the v a r i o u s g r o u p s within Judaism—viz.,
Pharisees,
S a d d u c e e s , Essenes,
o r that o f J u d a s
the
Galilean. W h a t precisely d o e s J o s e p h u s m e a n b y calling these g r o u p s octpeaets? A t first g l a n c e h e s e e m s to use the w o r d to designate v e r y different sorts o f g r o u p s . O n the o n e h a n d , J u d a s represents a octpeats that J o s e p h u s ostracizes f r o m m a i n s t r e a m J u d a i s m (War 2 : 1 1 8 ) ; o n the o t h e r h a n d , the m a i n s t r e a m g r o u p s themselves are also atpeaet? (loc. cit.; cf. 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 I f f . ; Life 1 0 ) , so the w o r d itself c a n n o t b e taken t o i m p l y a n y d e viance or " s e c t a r i a n i s m " .
2 8
T h e Essenes, w h o h o l d to stringent rules for
the initiation a n d c o n d u c t o f their m e m b e r s (War 2 : 1 2 8 - 1 5 3 ) , are called a ocipeats ( 2 : 1 2 2 , 1 3 7 , 1 4 2 ) ; b u t so is a g r o u p o f m e n u n i t e d b y n o t h i n g m o r e than their o p p o s i t i o n t o a particular c a n d i d a t e for the t h r o n e
(Ant.
7 : 3 4 7 ) . T h e o n l y c o m m o n d e n o m i n a t o r in all o f these octpeaets a p p e a r s to b e the constituents' a g r e e m e n t o n a g i v e n issue. N o inference a b o u t their size o r d e g r e e o f o r g a n i z a t i o n c a n b e d r a w n f r o m the w o r d itself.
29
Nevertheless, it m u s t b e significant that J o s e p h u s reserves ocl'peats al m o s t e x c l u s i v e l y for the Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , Essenes, a n d the faction o f J u d a s . O f its 15 o c c u r r e n c e s , 13 are f o u n d in the relatively few references to these g r o u p s w i t h i n the J o s e p h a n c o r p u s . I f atpeat? c o u l d b e u s e d o f any discernible g r o u p , o n e w o u l d e x p e c t to see it h u n d r e d s o f times in the m a j o r stretches o f narrative d e a l i n g w i t h o t h e r matters. Other
w o r d s for " g r o u p "
Josephus
such
as T<xyu.<x, fiotpoc,
also uses o f the atpeaei^, o c c u r h u n d r e d s
and
yevo^,
o f times in
which other
passages. B u t alpeat? a p p e a r s o n l y twice in those c o n t e x t s . T h i s special use o f octpeais spans J o s e p h u s ' s entire literary c a r e e r a n d a p p e a r s in three w o r k s o f v e r y different character (War 2 : 1 1 8 , 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 ; 2 0 : 1 9 9 ; Life 10, 1 9 1 , 1 9 7 ) , so it c a n n o t b e attributed to a s o u r c e . S i n c e ocipeats, w h e n it d e n o t e s a g r o u p o f p e o p l e , almost always refers t o the Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , Essenes, a n d partisans o f J u d a s , o n e m u s t ask what groups
have
in
common
that
might
have
attracted
this
these
particular
designation.
2 6
See the discussions in Thackeray, Lexicon, and LSJ, s.v.; and H . Schlier, "ocipeaic",
TDNT, I. 2 7
War 2:118, 122, 137, 142, 162; Ant. 13:171, 288, 293; 20:199; Ant. 7:347; 15:6;
Life 10, 12, 191, 197. 2 8
As LeMoyne, Les Sadduceens, 33, points out. Thus far, Rivkin's judgment is correct: hairesis is neutral with respect to number, deviation, and denomination" (Revolution, 318). 2 9
il
127
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
T w o points stand o u t . First, the g r o u p s are consistently presented as e n g a g e d in " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " pursuits. A t the b e g i n n i n g o f o u r passage, J o s e p h u s explains that xptoc 7capoc TouBatot^ eiSrj ftXoao^etroct ( 2 : 1 1 9 ) . In the p r e v i o u s sentence, J u d a s has b e e n called a aoyiavf\$. A n d J o s e p h u s closes his entire discussion o f the three atpeaets with the w o r d s : " S u c h is w h a t I h a v e to say 7cepl TCOV ev TouSoctots
to o u r passage, J o s e p h u s
will e v e n substitute
9tXoao9toc for al'peats ( 1 8 : 1 1 , 2 3 , 2 5 ) . N o r d o e s this surprise the reader, since J o s e p h u s regularly presents the focal p o i n t o f d e b a t e b e t w e e n the octpeaets as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l issue, n a m e l y : the relationship b e t w e e n fate (ei(iapuiv7)) a n d free will (War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ; ^ . 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ; 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 ) . S o J o s e p h u s ' s ocipeaets are m o t i v a t e d b y p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e r n s . S e c o n d , the ocipeaets are g r o u p s with m o r e o r less f o r m a l m e m b e r s h i p s . F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s ' s a p p r o x i m a t e figures for the size o f b o t h the Essene a n d Pharisaic
followings—4,000
30
and 6 , 0 0 0
3 1
respectively—
suggest d e f i n e d constituencies. Further, h e e m p l o y s m a n y substitutes
32
for ocipeats that s e e m to highlight the physical constitution o f the g r o u p s , such as: fioptov, TOtyfxa, yevos, auvxayfia, a n d fiotpoc.
33
In o u r passage, the
Essenes are d e s c r i b e d b o t h as a oclpeats ( 2 : 1 2 2 , 137, 142) a n d as a T<xy(Jia o r " o r d e r " ( 2 : 1 2 2 , 1 2 5 , 1 4 3 , 160, 1 6 1 ) , with the t w o terms b e i n g fully i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e (cf. 1 2 2 , 1 4 2 f . ) . A t the e n d o f o u r passage, the Pharisees are designated rj rcparurj atpeat? ( § 162) a n d the S a d d u c e e s TO Seuxepov xdyfjia
( § 1 6 4 ) . T h e fact that J o s e p h u s
c a n e m p l o y these terms
as
substitutes for <x!'peat$ indicates that h e e n v i s i o n e d identifiable g r o u p s with r e c o g n i z a b l e m e m b e r s h i p s . T o s u m m a r i z e : J o s e p h u s ' s reservation o f ocipeais for the
Pharisees,
S a d d u c e e s , Essenes, a n d J u d a s ' s faction implies that the w o r d d e n o t e s n o t m e r e l y a " g r o u p " b u t a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l with an identifiable membership. peculiar
Although Josephus
o r deviant
nowhere
implies that a ocipeats is
( s o R i v k i n ) , he d o e s suggest
that the
aipeaet?
o r g a n i z e d themselves to s o m e extent a n d possessed a visible c o n s t i t u e n c y (contra R i v k i n ) . E a c h h a d its raison d'etre in a certain " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " position.
3 0
Ant. 18:20. Ant. 17:42. Rivkin, Revolution, 318, errs when he claims that qnXoaoqHOC is the only synonym. Cf. the table in LeMoyne, Sadduceens, 32. These terms are used of religious groups as follows: fxopiov, Ant. 17:41 (Pharisees); TO^OC, War 2:122, 125, 143, 160, 161 (Essenes), 164 (Sadducees); awcorffioc, War 1:110 (Pharisees); yevo$, Ant. 13:297 (Sad ducees); War 1:78; 2:113; Ant. 13:172, 311; 15:371; 17:346 (Essenes); and [ioTpoc, Ant. 13:296 (Sadducees). 3 1
3 2
3 3
CHAPTER SIX
128
J o s e p h u s ' s use o f <xl'peai$ a c c o r d s well with c o m m o n
u s a g e in
the
Hellenistic w o r l d . P o l y b i u s 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 , for e x a m ple,
refer to the G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools (the A c a d e m y , P e r i p a t o s ,
S t o a , a n d later s c h o o l s ) as atp£aei£. Greek
schools
35
and
the
Jewish
34
P h i l o u s e d the w o r d o f b o t h the
Therapeutics.
36
When,
therefore,
J o s e p h u s calls the Palestinian r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s octpeaeis, h e n o t o n l y m a r k s them
o u t as p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s b u t h e i m p l i e s at least a
formal
similarity to the G r e e k s c h o o l s . I n d e e d , h e will later c l a i m that
the
Essenes
the
follow
Pythagorean
teachings
(Ant.
15:371)
and
that
Pharisees are like the S t o i c s (Life 1 2 ) . The
a u t h o r o f A c t s also reflects J o s e p h u s ' s v o c a b u l a r y closely at this
p o i n t . H e calls b o t h the Pharisees a n d the S a d d u c e e s <xipeaet£ ( 1 5 : 5 ; 5 : 1 7 ) a n d e v e n has Paul say that h e l i v e d as a Pharisee XOCTOC TTJV <xxpt(kaTaTT|v aipeaiv TTJ$ rifxexepa^ Oprjaxeias ( 2 6 : 5 ) .
3 7
Likewise, Eusebius introduces a
citation f r o m H e g e s i p p u s , in w h i c h the latter refers t o the
Palestinian
g r o u p s as " v a r i o u s o p i n i o n s (yvo>[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 &7r
44
42
or o f cattle,
43
o r to the
T h e p r o b l e m is what it c o u l d
with reference to the Pharisees:
they are those w h o
TTJVTCPCOTTJVoctpeatv.
O n e m a y visualize the p r o b l e m s created b y 7cpo>T7) 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 T
H e takes thercpoxepcov,7rpa)TT|, a n d Seuxepov ( § 164) to refer to the age o f the s c h o o l s . B o t h Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s are o l d e r than the Essenes (plus anciennes) a n d o f these t w o , the Pharisees are o l d e r : they created the first
school.
R e i n a c h ' s translation has the virtue o f p r o v i d i n g plausible m e a n i n g s for b o t h o f the t r o u b l e s o m e w o r d s . I f c h r o n o l o g y is the issue, then sparer] explains itself s i m p l y . O n e c a n also u n d e r s t a n d arcdyco b y e n v i s i o n i n g , at s o m e p o i n t in the past, an undifferentiated
body o f Jews, some o f
w h o m the Pharisees " d r a w a w a y " in o r d e r to create o r constitute
the
first s c h o o l . T h i s interpretation seems to b e s u p p o r t e d b y the o l d Latin: et p r i m a e apud Iudaios sectae auctoris erant. I f R e i n a c h ' s translation is valid, then J o s e p h u s in War 2 : 1 6 2 p r o v i d e s a u n i q u e a n d historically valuable c l a i m a b o u t the origins o f the J e w i s h g r o u p s in Palestine. That
uniqueness,
however,
also
poses
difficulties
for
Reinach's
translation. F o r elsewhere, w h e n J o s e p h u s refers to the antiquity o f the s c h o o l s , h e implies a r o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s p o i n t o f o r i g i n for all three. In Ant. 13:171 he dates t h e m all to the m i d - s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C , 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 . In Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 , h e c l a i m s : " T h e J e w s , f r o m the m o s t ancient times (ex TOU 7cdvu dpxoctou), h a d
4 0
three
If <X7ca£etv were the correct reading at Ant. 15:374, as in the (10th. century?) Epitome, its meaning would also be problematic. But this variant is unlikely. Cf. G. C . Richards and R . J. H . Shutt, "Critical Notes on Josephus' AntiquitiesCQ31 (1937), 174. E.g., War 1:46, 297; Ant. 2:307, 311; 20:152. Ant. 10:83, 98; 11:61. War 3:452; 5:65; Ant. 5:167; 8:294; 9:191. Ant. 7:290, 393; 8:365. 4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
130
CHAPTER SIX
philosophies pertaining to their t r a d i t i o n s . " T h e s e statements suggest that J o s e p h u s r e g a r d e d all three g r o u p s as o f similar
antiquity.
Further, the present participle a7iccf0VTes o u g h t to d e n o t e a c o n t i n u i n g action o f the present rather than an action o f the past. I n d e e d , the w h o l e discussion o f Essenes, Pharisees, a n d S a d d u c e e s should b e c o n s i d e r e d in the present tense. S o it w o u l d s e e m m o r e reasonable to g i v e rcpcoTT) a m e a n i n g c o n s o n a n t with the o v e r w h e l m i n g present sense o f the c o n t e x t rather than to force e v e r y t h i n g else (especially the parallel Soxouvxe?) into a " h i s t o r i c a l p r e s e n t " o n the basis o f a p r e s u m e d c h r o n o l o g i c a l sense for sparer). W h a t e v e r <x7rdyco m e a n s , it seems to b e an a c t i o n in w h i c h the Pharisees are presently e n g a g e d . Finally, with respect to c o n t e x t , R e i n a c h seems to i g n o r e the fact that War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , t h o u g h lacking s o m e w h a t in s y m m e t r y ,
is a single
literary unit. I n r e a d i n g 7cpoxepcov, 7i:pa>T7), a n d Seuxepov as c h r o n o l o g i c a l references, he fails to establish a n y c o n n e c t i o n with the t o p i c sentence o f the entire p e r i c o p e , w h i c h b e g i n s : Tpta
yap 7uap' 'Iou8atot£ et8rj 9tXoao9£tTat, xat TOU uiv a t p e T t a x a t Oaptaatot, TOU hi . . . 'Eaarjvot.
8e £a88ouxatot, TptTOv
M i c h e l a n d B a u e r n f e i n d , o n the other h a n d , seize u p o n these c o n t e x tual indicators a n d so r e n d e r the passage, " V o n d e n b e i d e n fruher g e n nanten Sekten . . . stellen [die Pharisaer]
die erste Sekte d a r . "
An
e n d - n o t e m a k e s the interpretation clear: " J o s e p h u s schliesst hier an § 119
an".
4 5
M i c h e l a n d B a u e r n f e i n d thus take 7cpoTep
SeuTepov ( § 164) as simple references b a c k to the original list o f § 1 1 9 — a r e m i n d e r that w o u l d b e helpful to the reader after the l o n g description o f the Essenes ( § § 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ) . On
this r e a d i n g , h o w e v e r , CLK&yovztq lacks a clear sense. M i c h e l -
B a u e r n f e i n d suggest darstellen: " t h e Pharisees represent the first s c h o o l [on
the a b o v e l i s t ] " . Y e t h o w this renders drcdyovTes is not clear. I f
J o s e p h u s wants m e r e l y to recall his initial list o f schools in § 119, he has c h o s e n an a w k w a r d w a y to d o s o . T h e o p e n i n g w o r d s o f § 162 suffice to e v o k e the earlier t o p i c sentence: Auo 8e TG>V 7upoTep
dxpifkias 8OXOUVT£$ e£rpfetaOoct TOC vofxtjxa xat (b) TTJV TCpcoTTjv a7WCYOvT£s atpeatv
(a) fxeT'
If the G e r m a n critics are right, the s e c o n d strand in this pair refers yet again to the list at § 119. It seems clear, h o w e v e r , that dcTcdyovTec; stands
4 5
Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, 439 n. 86.
131
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
in some sort of parallel relationship to Soxouvxe?. Both have the same form and share a common article. This implies a correspondence of meaning. Therefore the way in which the Pharisees "constitute the first school" ought to be related somehow to their reputation for (or profes sion of) axpifkia. Thackeray's
translation
takes
into
account
both
the
contextual
necessity thatrcpoxepcovrefer back to § 119 and the fact that the first two statements of § 162 are related in sense. H e proposes: Of the two first-named schools, the Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws, and hold the position of the leading sect
That the Pharisees' reputation for axpt(5eta enabled them to become the leading (rcpcoTT)) school accords well with Josephus's vision of Judaism, as we have seen. For he declares elsewhere that among the Jews, ac curate interpretation of the laws is the communal goal and, conse quently, the sole criterion by which one acquires fame (Ag.Ap.
2:149,
175; Ant. 20:264; Life 8f.). A s the reader of War has already been told, Queen Alexandra was able to take firm control of the government because of her reputation for axptpeta (1:108). Likewise, two teachers of the
7i:aTpia
acquired a reputation for axptfkia and "consequently (Slot
TOUTO) enjoyed the highest esteem of the whole nation" (1:649). So it fits perfectly with Josephan usage that he should claim that the Pharisees, "who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws, . . . hold the position of the leading school". Thackeray, however, concedes that the verb otTzayco is puzzling. difficulty lies in the prefix
<X7co,
46
The
which suggests a movement away from
something (the centre, or main body?) and therefore does not seem to fit with the idea that the Pharisees are the dominant (sparer)) school. T o justify his translation, Thackeray opts for the emendation of anayco to eTCCCfco, without manuscript support;
47
this allows for a greater range of
positive associations. One
must ask whether the scholars' difficulties with arca-fto do not
arise merely from the common presupposition, shared by Thackeray,
48
that Josephus was himself a Pharisee. O n e would not expect a committed Pharisee to speak of his group as "leading astray the foremost school", as the most obvious sense of a7rayco might suggest. A full discussion of Josephus's alleged Pharisaism must await Part I V of this study. W e may observe, however, that Josephus has said nothing so far to give the
4 6
4 7
4 8
Lexicon, "a7C
CHAPTER SIX
132
slightest hint o f a n y Pharisaic allegiance o n his part. O n the c o n t r a r y , in
War
1:110 h e d e m o l i s h e d the Pharisees'
reputation
for
superior
axpt(kta a n d euaePeta, p r e s e n t i n g t h e m rather as frauds a n d d e c e i v e r s . S e c o n d , a l t h o u g h the Pharisees in the present passage are listed first ( § 119) a n d are called " t h e f o r e m o s t s c h o o l " ( § 1 6 2 ) , they r e c e i v e o n l y p e r functory a t t e n t i o n — t w o N i e s e sections, in contrast to the
fifty-two
sec
tions allotted t o the Essenes. It is the Essenes w h o l o v e o n e a n o t h e r m o r e than
d o the
other
groups ( § § 120,
1 2 5 ) , w h o are j u s t
and
most
s c r u p u l o u s (axptfJearaTOt) in their j u d g e m e n t s ( § 1 4 5 ) , w h o shun wealth a n d p r i v i l e g e ( § § 122ff., 1 4 0 ) , w h o l o v e the truth ( § 1 4 1 ) , a n d w h o " i r resistibly attract all w h o h a v e o n c e tasted their p h i l o s o p h y " ( § 1 5 8 ) . B u t if J o s e p h u s r e g a r d s the Essenes as the fullest s p e c i m e n s o f J u d a i s m , w h o s e virtues excel those o f o t h e r J e w s , w h a t m u s t h e think o f the fact that the Pharisees are the d o m i n a n t s c h o o l ? T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t o g e t h e r with his earlier d e n u n c i a t i o n o f the Pharisees, s e e m s to w a r r a n t
the
retention o f an&yco in its o r d i n a r y sense, thus: the Pharisees are " l e a d i n g a w a y / a s t r a y " the f o r e m o s t s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t a m o n g the J e w s . S u c h an interpretation shares all the a d v a n t a g e s o f T h a c k e r a y ' s p r o p o s a l , w i t h o u t the d i s a d v a n t a g e o f r e l y i n g o n a conjectural e m e n d a t i o n o f d7udcyco. C . J o s e p h u s ' s third statement a b o u t the Pharisees c o n c e r n s fate a n d free will: (1)
eifxapfxevr) xe xal Geco 7cpoadc7CTOuat rcdvTa
(2)
xat TO [xev 7cpdcTTetv TOC Stxata xat \ir\ xaTa TO 7cXeTaT0v em TOT<; av6pco7cots xetaOat,
(3)
(io7)0etv 8e et$ exacrcov xat TTJV etfxapuivTjv.
H e r e w e finally e n c o u n t e r the m a i n v e r b o f the p a s s a g e . F o r the parti ciples 8oxouvTe<; a n d drcdyovTes h a v e m e r e l y s u m m a r i z e d w h a t was already said a b o u t the Pharisees at 1:110, 5 7 1 . T h e y are strictly p r e l i m i n a r y t o the m a i n issue in 2:162ff., w h i c h n o w c o m e s clearly into v i e w , n a m e l y : the Pharisees' p o s i t i o n o n etfxapuivr) a n d v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n . B y isolating the m a i n v e r b (7cpoaarcTOuat), w e h a v e also f o u n d the central issue in the c o m p a r i s o n (uiv . . . 8e) b e t w e e n Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s in § § 1 6 2 - 1 6 5 . T h e t w o schools differ a b o u t w h e t h e r " f a t e " is a factor in h u m a n life. T h a t the central issue o f the passage is that o f fate a n d free will is c o n firmed
by Josephus's
first
s u m m a r y d e s c r i p t i o n o f the three J e w i s h
atpeaetc; in Ant. ( 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ) . T h e r e h e reports that these g r o u p s " h e l d different o p i n i o n s rcept
TCOV
dv0pto7Ctvtov 7cpay[xocTcov", that is, as to w h a t
resides in the p o w e r o f fate a n d w h a t resides in h u m a n p o w e r . I n Ant. 1 8 : 1 3 , 18, a g a i n , J o s e p h u s will raise the issue in c o n n e c t i o n with the Pharisees a n d Essenes.
THE
The
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
133
o b v i o u s p r o m i n e n c e o f the fate/free will issue in J o s e p h u s ' s des 49
c r i p t i o n o f the cupeaetc; p r o m p t s b o t h literary a n d historical q u e s t i o n s , viz.:
( a ) W h a t d i d J o s e p h u s m e a n to say a b o u t fate a n d free will in
J e w i s h t h o u g h t ? a n d ( b ) w h a t historical reality w a s h e d e s c r i b i n g ? W e c a n n o t e x a m i n e here the extensive b o d y o f s e c o n d a r y literature that has g r o w n u p a r o u n d these questions b e c a u s e the literature tends to c o n s i d e r t o g e t h e r : ( i ) all o f the passages o n fate a n d free will a m o n g the schools (usually f o c u s i n g o n Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ) ; ( i i ) the q u e s t i o n o f parallels ( i . e . , "Was
J o s e p h u s m o r e J e w i s h o r m o r e G r e e k ? " ) ; a n d (iii) the q u e s t i o n
of Josephus's
sources. T h e
format
o f the
present
study,
however,
d e m a n d s that passages b e treated i n d i v i d u a l l y . Further, o u r interest is c o n f i n e d to the q u e s t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s intention: " W h a t d i d h e m e a n to s a y ? " F o r a r e v i e w o f the scholarly d i s c u s s i o n in situ the r e a d e r is re ferred to A p p e n d i x B ; v i e w s presented there will o n l y b e m e n t i o n e d here in the n o t e s .
1. Key Terms (a) J o s e p h u s uses eifxapjxevrj 20 t i m e s : a n d o n c e in Ag.Ap.
5 0
12 times in War, 7 times in Ant.,
S e v e n o f these o c c u r r e n c e s , h o w e v e r , fall within the
s c h o o l passages n o w u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . S u b t r a c t i n g these, the w o r d o c curs in other c o n t e x t s 9 times in War, 3 t i m e s in Ant., a n d o n c e in Ag.Ap. One
m a y distinguish at the outset t w o senses o f eifxapuivrj, the o n e sub
j e c t i v e ( i . e . , Fate as a p o w e r ) a n d the o t h e r o b j e c t i v e ( i . e . , w h a t is "fated", "allotted", or " d e c r e e d " ) . 4 9
5 1
This prominence should not be overstated. Schlatter calls the Pharisaic position on fate and free will "das Wesentliche" in Josephus's portrayal of the group (Theologie, 209; so also Maier, Mensch undfreier Wille, 3). It is true that whenever the Pharisees are com pared to the Sadducees and Essenes (War 2:162ff.; Ant. 13:17ff.; 18:1 Iff.), this issue is usually central (but cf. Ant. 13:297f., which compares Pharisaic and Sadducean views of the laws). Nevertheless, when the Pharisees are described on their own, it is their reputation for exegetical ability that consistently comes to the fore (War 1:110; 2:162; Ant. 13:288f.; 17:41; Life 191). The verb eifxotpxo occus at War 1:79 and 4:257. For this general distinction and for the history of the term, see: LSJ, "eifAocpfievr]"; W . Gundel, "Heimarmene", PWRE, X I I I , 2622-2645; St. G. Stock, "Fate (Greek and Roman)", ERE V , 786-790; I. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy (Turku: Turun Yliopiston Kustantama, 1957), esp. 11-23; W . D . Greene, Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press, 1944); and D . Amand, Fatalisme et Liherte dans VAntiquite Grecque (Louvain: Bibliotheque de l'Universite, 1945), esp. 1-28. It is now widely agreed that ei[iapfiev7] is a perfect passive feminine participle of [xeipofioci, "to divide", in contrast to ancient etymologies. Cf. Stock, "Fate", 789; B. C . Dietrich, Death, Fate, and the Gods (London: Athlone, 1965), 11; D . J. Furley, "Aristotle and Epicurus on Voluntary Action", in his Two Studies in Greek Atomism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 174; W . Theiler, "Tacitus und die antike Schicksalslehre," in Phyllobolia: fur P. von der Muhll (Basel: Benno Schwabe & C o . , 1946), 43 and n. 1. 5 0
5 1
CHAPTER SIX
134
I n its o b j e c t i v e sense, eifxocpuivr) almost always refers to the idea o f an appointed and unavoidable time, place, o r m a n n e r o f death.
5 2
Thus
H e r o d c o m p l a i n s o f his aBixov eiu.apuivr)v, w h e n h e p e r c e i v e s that his family w a n t s his d e a t h ( 1 : 6 2 8 ) ; later, h e tries to anticipate
TTJV
ei(iocpuiv7)v
b y suicide ( 1 : 6 6 2 ) . W h e n M a t t h i a s ( = M a t t a t h i a s ) the H a s m o n e a n dies, he allows that he is g o i n g " t h e destined w a y " (XTJV etu.ocpuivT)v 7copetocv— adjectival u s a g e , Ant.
1 2 : 2 7 9 ) . N o t i c e also War 1:79, w h e r e J u d a s the
Essene speaks o f the p l a c e a p p o i n t e d o r " p r e d e s t i n e d " (x<*>ptov . . . el'fiapxo) for the d e a t h o f A n t i g o n u s the
Hasmonean.
In the m a j o r i t y o f cases, h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s etu.ocpu.ev7) as a subject, as h e d o e s in the s c h o o l passages. A n d it is these instances that c a n b e e x p e c t e d to shed the m o s t light o n o u r p r o b l e m . ( i ) In War 6 : 8 4 , eiu.ocpuiv7) as subject c o m e s v e r y close to the usual o b j e c t i v e m e a n i n g o f " o n e ' s allotted time a n d place o f d e a t h " . T h e R o m a n h e r o J u l i a n u s , w e are t o l d , a l t h o u g h he h a d fought valiantly, w a s p u r sued b y Fate (eBtcoxexo .
. . UTCO
xfj? eiu.ocp[AevT)?), " w h i c h e v e r y m o r t a l is
p o w e r l e s s to e s c a p e " (rjv au/rjxocvov SiacpuyeTv Gvr)x6v ovxa), a n d m e t an u n fortunate d e a t h . (ii) G e n e r a l l y , h o w e v e r , eiu.ocpu.evT) as a subject in J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s in close p r o x i m i t y to Geo?. T h i s is true, for e x a m p l e , o f the six o c c u r r e n c e s o f the w o r d in War in the c o n t e x t o f the destruction
o f the T e m p l e .
R e p o r t i n g o n the v a r i o u s factions in J e r u s a l e m , J o s e p h u s notes that b o t h the bellicose I d u m e a n s a n d the m o d e r a t e s u n d e r A n a n u s t h o u g h t that G o d (6 Geo?) w a s o n their o w n side (War 4 : 2 8 8 ) . O n e reads o n , h o w e v e r , to find that they h a d mistakenly read the future ( § 2 8 9 ) a n d that the " d e c r e e o f F a t e " (cjTpotTTjyoucjT)? xrj? ei[xocpuiv7)?) b r o u g h t a b o u t the deaths o f A n a n u s a n d his sentries ( 2 9 7 ) . Et[xap(xevr) here e x e c u t e s the will o f God. (iii) In a speech o u t s i d e the T e m p l e p r e c i n c t s , J o s e p h u s calls o n the intransigent J o h n o f G i s c h a l a to quit the revolt b e f o r e the T e m p l e is d e s t r o y e d (War 6 : 9 6 f f . ) . A t the e n d o f his s p e e c h , J o s e p h u s confesses his own
foolishness
"for
offering
a d v i c e in fate's
despite"
(o? avxtxpu?
et[xap(xevT)? xiTCocpocivoa)a n d " f o r struggling to save those w h o m God has c o n d e m n e d " (xou? urcd xou Geou xocxocxpixou?, § 108; T h a c k e r a y ) . T h e syn o n y m o u s parallelism b e t w e e n fate a n d G o d is clear. It is c o n f i r m e d b y the sequel: " G o d it is then, G o d h i m s e l f (Geo? ocuxd?), w h o with
the
R o m a n s is b r i n g i n g the f i r e " ( § 1 1 0 ; T h a c k e r a y ) . ( i v ) C o n c e r n i n g the d a y o f the T e m p l e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n , J o s e p h u s writes:
5 2
Cf. V . Cioffari, "Fortune, Fate, and Chance", in Dictionary of the History of Ideas, ed. P. P. Wiener (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), II, 226: "The notion of Fate may very well have arisen from the observation of the inexorability of death."
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
135
T h a t b u i l d i n g , h o w e v e r , G o d (6 8e6?), i n d e e d l o n g s i n c e , h a d sentenced to the flames; b u t n o w . . . h a d a r r i v e d the fated d a y (TJ eifiapuivr) rjfxepa) . . . the d a y o n w h i c h o f old it h a d b e e n b u r n t b y the k i n g o f B a b y l o n . ( § 2 5 0 ; Thackeray). To
b e " f a t e d " , t h e r e f o r e , is t o b e d e c r e e d b y G o d . A f e w s e n t e n c e s later
Josephus comments: D e e p l y as one m u s t m o u r n for the most m a r v e l o u s edifice w h i c h we h a v e ever seen o r h e a r d of, . . . yet we m a y d r a w v e r y great c o n s o l a t i o n f r o m the thought that there i s n o escape f r o m F a t e (TTJV etfxocpuivTjv, occpoxxov ouaocv, § 267; Thackeray). J o s e p h u s m a r v e l s at the axptfktoc o f Fate, b y w h i c h she c h o s e the v e r y d a t e o f the T e m p l e ' s f o r m e r d e s t r u c t i o n for its present 268).
catastrophe
(§
T h e w h o l e n a r r a t i v e is o f o n e p i e c e , so the et[xocpfiev7) f r o m w h i c h 5 3
J o s e p h u s d r a w s c o n s o l a t i o n ( o r e x p l a n a t i o n ) is n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n the will o f G o d b e i n g a c t e d o u t .
5 4
( v ) L i k e w i s e , w h e n J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that et(xap[xevirj h a d shut u p a l a r g e r t h a n usual n u m b e r o f p e o p l e in J e r u s a l e m at the o u t b r e a k o f the r e v o l t , d u r i n g P a s s o v e r ( 6 : 4 2 8 ) , the r e a d e r has n o t h a d t i m e t o forget
Titus's
w o r d s : " G o d i n d e e d has b e e n w i t h us in the w a r " ( 6 : 4 1 1 ; T h a c k e r a y ) . And
the r e a d e r will s o o n b e assured that God m e t e d o u t r e t r i b u t i o n
to
the tyrants w h o c a u s e d all o f the suffering a n d d e s t r u c t i o n ( § 4 3 3 ) . (vi)
T h e thesis o f War is that G o d is o n the R o m a n s i d e ,
5 5
which ex
plains J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k a b o u t V e s p a s i a n : Now
56
that fortune (TJ TUXTJ) was e v e r y w h e r e f u r t h e r i n g his wishes a n d that
c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a d for the most part c o n s p i r e d i n his f a v o u r , V e s p a s i a n was led to t h i n k that d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e (8at[xovtoc 7Up6vota) h a d assisted h i m to grasp the e m p i r e a n d that some j u s t d e s t i n y (Stxatoc xt? et{JLap(x£vTj) h a d p l a c e d the sovereignty o f the w o r l d i n h i s h a n d s ( 4 : 6 2 2 ; T h a c k e r a y ) . The
indefinite p r o n o u n Tt?, b e i n g indefinite, reflects V e s p a s i a n ' s d a w n
i n g a w a r e n e s s that h e is r e c e i v i n g d i v i n e aid ( a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f k n o w s v e r y well who is b r i n g i n g the R o m a n v i c t o r y ) a n d , b e i n g p e r s o n a l ,
5 3
For "explanation" or "solution" as a meaning of 7capa9u(xta, see LSJ (,9th. edn.). How Wachter ("unterschiedliche Haltung", 101 f.) can interpret ei(xap(xevr) in these passages to mean an autonomous power is not clear. Cf. esp. 2:390; 5:2, 367, where TUX^J and God are said to be on the Roman side. Cf. Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 22f., 29, 40ff. Josephus uses tux ) some 137 times (71 of these in War). Though rich in its associa tions, the word never appears in a discussion of the Pharisees and is, therefore, beyond the scope of our study. Lindner (Geschichtsauffassung, 42-48 and 85-94) finds that Josephus's own tendency is to present TUX*1 as one aspect of the biblical-Jewish God (p. 92), but that Greek and Roman views of TUX ! also survive in his work. Cf. also Kajanto, God and Fate, 11-23. 5 4
5 5
5 6
7
7
CHAPTER SIX
136
solidifies the parallel with Soctfxovia rcpovota a n d the o t h e r references to G o d ' s assistance to the R o m a n s ( e . g . , 2 : 3 9 0 ; 5 : 3 6 7 ; 6 : 4 1 1 ) . (vii) T h e w o r d s p u t into the m o u t h o f K i n g A g r i p p a , w h o is a b o u t to die in retribution for his a c c e p t a n c e o f w o r s h i p as a g o d , are also n o t e worthy: Fate (eifxapuivr)) brings immediate refutation of the lying words lately ad dressed to m e . . . . But I must accept m y lot (TTJV 7ce7ipco(xevTjv) as G o d (Oeos) wills it. (Ant. 19:347; Feldman)
H e r e rjrcsTCpoouivT]is what G o d has d e c r e e d ; eifxocpuivr), a g a i n , is the e x e c u t i o n o f that d e c r e e . (viii) T h e o n l y o t h e r passage in w h i c h J o s e p h u s discusses eifxapuivrj in c o n n e c t i o n with 9eo$ is Ag.Ap.
2 : 2 4 5 . T h e r e he ridicules the w a y in w h i c h
the G r e e k Oeoi are p r e s e n t e d b y H o m e r , for Z e u s is " s o c o m p l e t e l y at the m e r c y o f D e s t i n y (xpaxoufxevos urco TTJS eifxapuivrj) that he c a n n o t either rescue his o w n offspring o r restrain his tears at their
death"
5 7
( T h a c k e r a y ) . S u c h an idea, J o s e p h u s c l a i m s , reflects a m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n o f the true n a t u r e o f G o d (Ag.Ap.
2:250).
5 8
In all o f these passages J o s e p h u s presents a clear a n d consistent v i e w o f the relationship b e t w e e n eifxapuivrj a n d 6e6$. Eifxapuivrj is n e v e r a supreme or even autonomous entity.
59
O f t e n u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y with
9e6<;, it is s i m p l y the e x e c u t i v e aspect o f the d i v i n e will. The
frequent
juxtaposition
o f eifxapuivrj
and
0e6$ in
Josephus's
writings has o b v i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s for the q u e s t i o n o f h o w a n d w h e r e he used
s o u r c e s . Several c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e t h o u g h t
that the
tandem
etfxapfxevrj xal 0ea> in War 2 : 1 6 3 requires e x p l a n a t i o n , either as J o s e p h u s ' s attempt to e x p l a i n the J e w i s h sense o f 0e6$ to Hellenistic readers ( b y ad d i n g eifxapfxevrj)
60
or
as J o s e p h u s ' s
superficial
attempt
to j u d a i z e
a
Hellenistic d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s c h o o l s , w h i c h c o n t a i n e d o n l y eifxapfxevrj. But o n c e it is o b s e r v e d that J o s e p h u s
regularly
61
c o m b i n e s 9eo$ a n d
eifxapfxevrj in his o w n w r i t i n g ( a n d t h o u g h t ! ) , such stratagems b e c o m e 5 7
The charge is based on passages like Homer's Iliad, 16:433-461; 19:95-133 (where Zeus is trapped by an oath); and 22:168-185. Notice that Lucian (Zeus Catechized, 4-11) launches a similar attack on the notion that Zeus, if he is a god, should be limited by Fate. Greene, Moira, 16, argues that it was only the poets, not the philosophers, who fol lowed Homer in subordinating Zeus to Fate. Cf. A . Leach, "Fate and Free Will in Greek Literature", in The Greek Genius and its Influence, ed. L. Cooper (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917), 134-155, who denies in general that the Greek gods were seen as bound by Fate; also Kajanto, God and Fate, 20. Contra Wachter, "Die unterschiedliche Haltung", lOlf. and Martin, 'Josephus's Use of Heimarmene", 133f. Cf. Notscher, Aufsatze, 7, for an accurate assessment. So L. Wachter, "unterschiedliche Haltung", 107. So G. Maier, freier Wille, llf., who thinks that Josephus's source was a description of the Pharisees by Nicolaus of Damascus. 5 8
5 9
6 0
6 1
THE
137
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
superfluous. It is w h o l l y in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h a n u s a g e , further, that in
2 : 1 6 4 , the
S a d d u c e e s ' a b o l i t i o n o f eifxapfxevrj is parallel
" r e m o v a l o f G o d (8e6^) f r o m the sphere o f h u m a n a c t i o n " .
6 2
to
their
T h e fact
that h e h i m s e l f c a n substitute 6e6$ for eifxapfxevrj in v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Essenes (Ant. 1 8 : 1 8 ; cf. 1 3 : 1 7 2 ) o u g h t to h a v e b e e n sufficient to p r e c l u d e extravagant s o u r c e h y p o t h e s e s . Does
Josephus's
use
of
eifxapuivrj
accord
with
any
particular
p h i l o s o p h i c a l currents in the Hellenistic w o r l d ? A l t h o u g h the i d e a o f a predetermined
order
was
present
in
Greece from
earliest
times,
6 3
64
eifxapfxevrj itself o n l y c a m e into its o w n with the G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s . A c c o r d i n g to D i o g e n e s Laertius ( 9 : 7 ) , it w a s H e r a c l i t u s ( 5 0 3 B C ) w h o in troduced
the
aphorism
rcavTa
term
into
Greek
xe yiveaOai
philosophical
xaO'
eifxapjxevrjv.
discussion, 65
Notice
with
the
similarities to this d i c t u m in w h a t J o s e p h u s ascribes to the
the
striking Pharisees
6 6
(eifxapuivrj 7Cpoaa7iTouai 7cdvxa, War 2 : 1 6 3 ) , to the Essenes (jxrjSev o fxrj xax'
exeivrjs [sc. eifxapfxevrj?] c|>fj90v avGpa>7ioi<; arcavxa, Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 ) , a n d to
h i m s e l f (xaXoufxev auxrjv eifxapfxevrjv, 6>q ou8ev6$ 6Vro<; o fxrj 5V auxrjv yivexai, Ant. 1 6 : 3 9 7 ; cf. War 6 : 8 4 ) . Y e t s o m e 6 0 0 years separate J o s e p h u s f r o m H e r a c l i t u s , a n d the i d e a o f eifxapfxevrj w a s to b e c o m e m o r e p o p u l a r a n d n u a n c e d d u r i n g that t i m e . In Plato's thought, eifxapfxevrj.
67
W . G u n d e l sees a radical shift in the use o f
I n his earlier w o r k s Plato ridicules as effeminate the i d e a
that eifxapuivrj c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d ;
6 8
his later w o r k s , h o w e v e r , reveal an
i n c r e a s i n g a c c e p t a n c e o f — e v e n an e m p h a s i s o n — t h e i d e a o f f a t e .
69
Thus
in the tenth b o o k o f his Republic Plato tries to effect a s y m b i o s i s b e t w e e n fate a n d free will, w h i c h he d o e s b y resorting to the M y t h o f E r .
6 2
7 0
Josephus's Sadducees do distinguish between God and fate. They utterly reject the latter, but (only) severely limit the former (War 2:164). This disavowal of fate, however, means that they deny the "executive" aspect of God's nature, his involvement in the world. Josephus, for his part (Ant. 10:280), censures those who divorce divine activity (rcpovotoc, which is linked with etfiapfxevr) at War 4:622) from God's existence. Terms associated with this idea were octaoc, avayxri, fxotpa, fxopatfxov,rc£7Cp6ycat,xrjp, and BoctfAcov, all of which occur in Homer. By Hesiod's time (Theogony 218f.) we have the three Motpoct (Fates), who dispense good and evil at birth. Cf. Stock, "Fate", 786f.; Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2623; and Greene, Moira, 8f. Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2622f.; Stock, "Fate", 789. Stobaeus, I, 178. Cf. Ant. 18:13:rcpaaaeaGoctetfxapfxevTj toc xcavxa. Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2626f. Gorgias 512E: "It is believed by the women that no one can escape Fate". Cf. Phaedo 115A and Stock, "Fate", 789. Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2627, finds two different nuances of the term in the mature Plato, viz.: (a) an individual's fate and (b) fate as cosmic law (Weltgesetz). Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, 4f., distinguishes four senses of the word in Plato. See the discussion below. 6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
CHAPTER SIX
138
It w a s S t o i c i s m , h o w e v e r , that r e c l a i m e d the heritage o f H e r a c l i t u s a n d elevated etu.apu.ev71 to a central r o l e .
7 1
Being a monistic philosophy,
S t o i c i s m c o u l d n o t h y p o s t a t i z e etu.apu.evri o r distinguish it o n t o l o g i c a l l y from
the
o n e W o r l d - S o u l , the
Logos.
7 2
Thus
the
Stoics
identified
Etu.apu.evri w i t h 0 e 6 $ , Ouats, Aoyoq, Ilpovota, a n d all o f the other terms that they u s e d for the W o r l d - S o u l , as the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s s h o w : (i) D i o g e n e s Laertius 7 : 1 3 5 , o n the Stoics:
4 4
G o d is o n e a n d the s a m e
with R e a s o n , Fate, a n d Z e u s ; h e is also called b y m a n y other n a m e s " ("Ev T ' etvat Geov xat vouv xat etfiapuivTjv xat Ata; TioXXas T ' exepa<; ovojxaata? 7rpoaovo[Aaf|ea6ai). (ii) Z e n o is r e p o r t e d to h a v e w h o l l y identified et(xap(xevrj with rcp6vota a n d (fiaiq:
(TTJV
et(xap[xevrjv) 8uvau.tv xtvrjTtxriv vf\q O'Xrj^ . . . [xrj Sta^epetv
7cp6votav xat
I, 178 = SVF I, 1 7 6 ) .
(iii) C h r y s i p p u s , the third h e a d o f the S t o i c s c h o o l , a p p a r e n t l y w r o t e in several places ( i n c l u d i n g his lost w o r k Ilept vf\$ Etfxapuivrjs): etu/xpuivrj eaxtv 6 TOU x6au.ou Xoyoq ( S t o b a e u s , Eel.,
I, 1 8 0 ) .
(iv) T h e S t o i c S e n e c a likewise identifies J u p i t e r w i t h fatum, providentia, a n d natura {Benefits 4 . 7 . 2 ; Natural Questions 2 . 4 5 . 2 ) . ( v ) Plutarch, the first-century adversary o f the S t o i c s , writes: " t h a t the universal n a t u r e (rj xotvrj qjuaic) a n d the universal r e a s o n o f nature (6 xotvo$ Tfjs qjuaecos Xoyoq) are destiny (et(xap(xevrj) a n d p r o v i d e n c e (7tpovota) a n d Z e u s , o f this n o t e v e n the A n t i p o d e s are u n a w a r e , for the Stoics k e e p h a r p i n g o n this e v e r y w h e r e . " (Stoic Self-Contradictions 1050 B ; C h e r n i s s , LCL
edn.)
(vi) Finally, A u g u s t i n e (City of God 5 : 8 ) notes that the Stoics call J o v e Fate.
73
A s the Stoics u s e d etu.apuivri to d e s c r i b e the u n a v o i d a b l e c h a i n o f cause a n d effect e m p o w e r e d b y the L o g o s / G o d , so J o s e p h u s uses the t e r m as a s y n o n y m f o r , o r c o m p l e m e n t t o , Geo^ w h e n s p e a k i n g o f G o d ' s activity in
the
world.
B y presenting
the
Pharisees
as
those
who
attribute
74
e v e r y t h i n g to et[xap(xevr) xat Geco, J o s e p h u s m a y b e anticipating o n e o f
71
Cf. Stock, "Fate", 789; Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2628; W . Windelband, A History of Philosophy, trans. J. H . Tufts (New York: Macmillan, 1910), 192f.; Amand, Fatalisme et Liberte, 6f.; Greene, Moira, 338f.; Cioffari, "Fortune", 228; and Kajanto, God and Fate, 13. Cioffari, "Fortune", 226; Theiler, "Tacitus", 45f.; and Kajanto, God and Fate, 13. Further examples may be found in SVF, II, 1024, 1076, and in Theiler, "Tacitus", 46 n. 2. It is strange that Maier (freier Wille, 12) thinks this combination ungewdhnlich for Stoicism. In proposing xat Geco to be a Josephan addition, intended to connect Nicolaus's eifAapfxevTj with Jewish monotheism, he overlooks both normal Stoic and normal Josephan usage. 7 2
7 3
7 4
139
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
the bases o n w h i c h h e will later c o m p a r e the Pharisees to the Stoics (Life 7 5
12).
N o t o n l y the p a i r i n g o f ei[xap(x£vrj a n d Oeo^ b u t also the a s c r i p t i o n o f e v e r y t h i n g (rcdcvTa) t o SLfxapuivr) recalls a S t o i c p o s i t i o n . C i c e r o d e s c r i b e s
as S t o i c the v i e w that omnia fato fiunt (On Fate, 4 0 f . ) . D i o g e n e s Laertius likewise d e s c r i b e s the v i e w s o f l e a d i n g Stoics: That all things happen by fate or destiny (xocO' etjxapfxevTjv hi 9<xat xa 7cdcvca yiyvea9at) is maintained by Chrysippus in his treatise De fato, by Posidonius in his Defato, book ii, by Z e n o and by Boethus in his Defato, book i (7:149). S u c h a v i e w w a s u n a v o i d a b l e b e c a u s e o f the S t o i c e q u a t i o n o f stu.ocpuiv7) with
X6yo$.
Here,
then,
is
a
further
parallel
between Josephus's
Pharisees a n d the Stoics. Y e t a l t h o u g h S t o i c i s m b e c a m e the d o m i n a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l system o f the hellenistic w o r l d b y the
first
century A D ,
7 6
its o w n c o n c e p t o f
ei[xap(xevrj w a s n o t the o n e that ultimately c a p t u r e d the p o p u l a r i m a g i n a t i o n . T h a t h o n o u r w e n t t o the astrological c o n c e p t i o n o f etu.apuivTj as the o p e r a t i o n o f planets a n d stars o n the c o u r s e o f earthly l i f e .
77
I n the free
flow o f ideas that c h a r a c t e r i z e d the Hellenistic p e r i o d , this " C h a l d e a n " p h i l o s o p h y d r e w strength a n d rational s u p p o r t f r o m the S t o i c d o c t r i n e o f oujJwuaOetoc in the u n i v e r s e .
78
U n d e r the dual s p o n s o r s h i p o f S t o i c i s m
a n d a s t r o l o g y , therefore, siu.ocpu.ev7) a c q u i r e d a central p l a c e in H e l l e n i s t i c speculations, b o t h learned and popular. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the S t o i c - p h i l o s o p h i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f fate w a s still
7 5
A . Posnanski (Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus [Breslau: T . Schatzby, 1887], 11), notes that we have here only a terminological parallel. Josephus does not advance any particular Stoic doctrines for the Pharisees, such as that of the X6yo$ 07cep(xaTtx6^. It is worth noting, however, that Josephus himself comes close to this Stoic teaching when, in his speech against suicide at Jotapata, he speaks of the soul as a "portion of God" (Geou jxotpa, War 3:372). Sandbach, The Stoics, 16; Long, Hellenistic Philosophy, 107. Tacitus, Annals 6:22, records the struggle between the philosophical and popular (astrological) conceptions of Fate in his own time; cf. Theiler, "Tacitus", 42f.; Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2632-34; Amand, Fatalismeet Liberie, 1 If.; Nock, Conversion, 99f. By the time of Augustine, the struggle was long over. Says he: "Ordinarily, when people hear the word fate they think of nothing but the position of the stars at the moment of one's birth or conception" (City of God 5:1, Walsh/Zema). Gundel, "Heimarmene", 263ff.; Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, llf. It is sometimes argued that Stoicism, like astrology, had a Semitic origin and that this common origin encouraged cross-fertilization (so Amand, 12f., drawing on Cumont). The case of Posidonius of Apamea (first century BC), who was both a Stoic teacher and an astrologer (so Augustine, City of God 5:15) is famous. Cf. also J. Bergman, "I Overcome Fate, Fate Hearkens to M e " , in Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion, Folklore, and Literature, ed. H . Ringgren (Stockholm: Almqvist & Ringgren, 1967), 42. 7 6
7 7
7 8
140
CHAPTER SIX
v e r y m u c h alive a m o n g the e d u c a t e d class in the first c e n t u r y
AD.
7 9
After C h r y s i p p u s ' Ilept xfj<; Eifxocpuivris c a m e m a n y w o r k s o n the s a m e subject, m o s t o f w h i c h are n o w l o s t .
8 0
A n d it is in the S t o i c u n d e r
standing o f fate that w e find the b a c k g r o u n d to J o s e p h u s ' s o w n use o f the t e r m in his portrayal o f the Pharisees, for he n e v e r hints at a n y astrological n o t i o n s in this c o n n e c t i o n . T o speak o f a J e w i s h b a c k g r o u n d for J o s e p h u s ' s use o f eifxapuivY) is dif ficult b e c a u s e the w o r d d o e s n o t a p p e a r at all in the L X X . N o r is it to b e f o u n d in the N T , w h i c h springs f r o m a largely J e w i s h m i l i e u . E v e n P h i l o uses the w o r d o n l y 8 t i m e s .
8 1
But P o s n a n s k i w a s p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t
w h e n he said that J o s e p h u s : unter eifxapfxevrj nichts anderes als den Ratschluss Gottes versteht, der als H e r r der W e l t uber alles frei verfugt und ohne den nichts geschehen kann. 82
S o w e c o n c l u d e that J o s e p h u s ' s use o f stfxapuivr) m o s t closely parallels that o f S t o i c i s m , n o t astral f a t a l i s m ,
83
a n d that it c o u l d well b e u n d e r
s t o o d b y a Hellenistic r e a d e r s h i p . J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , attribute to a n y o f the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , o r to himself, a belief in a n y o f the o t h e r particular S t o i c d o c t r i n e s .
84
M o s t interesting for the interpretation o f War 2 : 1 6 3 are f o u r passages in w h i c h J o s e p h u s seems to b e d i v u l g i n g his o w n v i e w s a b o u t the rela tionship
b e t w e e n fate
(eifxapfxevrj)
and
human
a c t i o n (TOC <xv6p
Trpocyfxaxa). (i) Ant. 3 : 3 1 4 : " F r o m these events [ G o d ' s d e s t r u c t i o n o f the i m p i o u s kings o f Israel] o n e m a y learn h o w close a w a t c h the D e i t y keeps o v e r h u m a n affairs (oarjv
TO
Oetov e m a T p o ^ v tyii
TCOV
avOp<07Ctvcov TrpayfxdTcov)
a n d h o w H e l o v e s g o o d m e n b u t hates the w i c k e d , w h o m H e destroys root and b r a n c h . " ( T h a c k e r a y / M a r c u s )
7 9
Theiler, "Tacitus", 42f. (although he calls the "philosophical" definition of fate "Platonistic", 67-81). Tacitus, Annals 6:22, presents the philosophical view of fate as a common one in his day. Augustine still recognizes and respects it, albeit as a minority view: "There are some, however, who define fate, not as the arrangement of stars at conception, . . . but as the total series of causes which brings about all that happens" (City of God 5:8, cf. 5:1). So Posidonius's influence on Stoicism was not decisive (Greene, Moira, 354); he did not cause that school to reinterpret eifjuxpfxevrj in astrological terms. Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2625, lists many of these works, which are known either through extant fragments or through secondary testimony. Only a few of the later ones (e.g., those by John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa) survive intact. Cohn-Wendland cite eight occurrences. Posnanski, Anschauungen, 12. So Posnanski, Anschauungen, 11; contra L. H . Martin, "Josephus's Use of Heimarmene , 127-137. Cf. Posnanski, Anschauungen, 11 et passim. 8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
11
8 4
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
141
(ii) Ant. 10:277-280. Having discussed the remarkable fulfillment of Daniel's prophecies, Josephus asserts that anyone reading them must: learn from these facts how mistaken are the Epicureans, who exclude Pro vidence from life and refuse to believe that God governs its affairs (ot TTJV xercpovotocv£x(3aXXouat TOU (3IOU xat 8e6v oux aijiouaiv £7ctTpo7ceuetv TCOV 7cpaYfxocT
TCOV
avSpcomvcov) with G o d " (§ 2 8 0 ) .
2:180, where Josephus criticizes those who do away with
the foreknowledge (rcpovoia) of G o d . T h e L a w , says Josephus, teaches that all things are under the eye of G o d (TCOCVTOC . . . exetvov e9opav, § 181). Contrast these tenets of Josephus with the views that he attributes to the Sadducees in War 2:164, who "do away with fate entirely" (TTJV uiv si[X<xpuiv7)v 7TavT<X7i;aaiv avaipouaiv) "and place G o d beyond the threshold of doing or even observing anything" (xat TOV Oeov e^co TOU Spav TL rj e<popav Ti9evT0ct). L . Wachter is doubtless correct in finding here a harsh assessment of the Sadducees.
85
(iv) Ant. 16:395-404, where Josephus discusses in some detail the rela tion between fate/providence and human responsibility. Prior to this passage he has recounted the long period of mistrust and intrigue be tween Herod and two of his sons, which ended in the deaths of the sons. Now
Josephus reflects upon the causes of this tragedy and considers
three possibilities: (a) the intransigence of the sons (§ 3 9 5 ) ; (b) the vanity of Herod (§ 2 9 6 ) ; and (c) Fortune (rj TUXTJ). O f the last he writes: who has a power greater than all prudent reflection. For which reason we are persuaded that human actions (T<X<; avSpcorcivai; repasts) are dedicated by her beforehand to the necessity of taking place inevitably, and we call her Fate (etfxapfxevTjv) on the ground that there is nothing that is not brought about by her (ou8evd<; OVTO<; 0 fxrj 8t' ocuTrjv ytveTOct). (§ 397; Marcus/Wikgren) Yet he does not leave the matter there—thereby making TuxVei[xapfJiev7) the culprit—but continues: It will be enough, so I think, to weigh this tenet against that which at tributes something also to us ourselves and renders us not unaccountable for the differences in our behaviour, and which has been philosophically ex pounded before our time in the Law. (§ 398) fxev ouv TOV Xoyov, cb$ vo(At£co, 7up6<; exetvov apxeaei xptvetv rjfxtv Te OCUTOU; &7uo8t86vT<x<; TI xat TOC? 8ta9opa<; TCOV e7UT7)8eufxaTcov oux dva7ceu8uvou<; rcotouvTas, a rcpo rj(xcov TJSTJ 7ce(ptXo<j697]Tat xat TCO vofxco.
TOUTOV
8 5
L. Wachter, "Unterschiedliche Haltung", 99f.
CHAPTER SIX
142 The
m e a n i n g o f this statement is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y clear, b u t appears to
h i n g e o n the sense o f xptvetv. It c a n n o t m e a n " d e c i d e in f a v o u r o f [the fatalist p o s i t i o n ] ' ' b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s will presently return to the h u m a n causes ( § § 3 9 9 - 4 0 4 ) o f H e r o d ' s p r o b l e m s a n d will ultimately lay m o s t o f the b l a m e o n H e r o d . fatalist
position]"
8 6
N o r c a n it m e a n " d e c i d e against, c o n d e m n [the
because:
(a)
this
would
make
nonsense
of
the
p r e c e d i n g w o r d s , w h i c h e x t o l the o m n i p o t e n c e o f fate; ( b ) e l s e w h e r e , as w e h a v e seen, there is a m p l e e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s b e l i e f in the i n e x orability o f fate; a n d ( c ) neither the v e r b apxeaet ( " i t will b e e n o u g h " ) n o r the present tense o f xptvetv implies a n y finality; b o t h rather suggest an o n g o i n g tension b e t w e e n the t w o Xoyot o f fate a n d h u m a n sibility. H e n c e m y translation " w e i g h a g a i n s t " .
8 7
respon
J o s e p h u s wants s i m p l y
to b a l a n c e his b e l i e f in " f a t e " with a statement o f h u m a n responsibility. To
summarize: Josephus
b e l i e v e s that G o d o b s e r v e s (e90pav)
directs h u m a n affairs; h e calls G o d ' s d i r e c t i o n etu.apu.evri o r God's
superintendence,
however, does not
and 88
rcpovota.
exclude human
respon
sibility. J o s e p h u s declines the o p p o r t u n i t y to r e c o n c i l e h u m a n
respon
sibility a n d d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e , deferring instead to the " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " treatment in the L a w . ( b ) TO TCpaTTeiv TOC Stxata xal u.rj. W e m a y set s o m e p a r a m e t e r s for o u r discussion o f Stxatos in J o s e p h u s b y citing D o d d ' s s u m m a r y o f the rela tionship b e t w e e n the H e b r e w a n d G r e e k c o n c e p t i o n s associated with this word: Where within this field Stxatoouvr) differs from p"re, it is not a matter o f dif ference in the meaning o f the terms, but o f different conceptions o f the con tent o f 'righteousness'. Thus the fact that p"re is always related to G o d and His law, rather than to social customs and institutions as such, . . . gives a different colour to its use. . . . Where the Hebrew conception o f righteousness differs from the popular Greek conception, we may put it thus, that whereas for the Greek Stxaioauvrj is always being pulled over from
8 6
It is difficult to see how Wachter ("unterschiedliche Haltung", 10If.) and Stahlin ("Schicksal", 337) can say that Josephus here makes fate all-powerful and autonomous from God, since Herod catches most of the blame for what happened with his sons. M y reading (that fate is here an aspect of God's nature) agrees with Posnanski's (Anschauungen, 13 n. 17); he evidently had a similar difficulty understanding his predecessor Langen. This interpretation would still hold, and would perhaps be strengthened, if the reading xiveiv instead of xpivetv were accepted, as Niese has it. Marcus/Wikgren follow the reading of T . Terry. npovoioc is a favourite term of Josephus's. He uses it some 159 times and the verb 7upove
8 8
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
143
the broad sense o f ' righteousness' to the narrower sense o f 'justice', the pull in Hebrew is in the opposite direction. 89
I n assessing J o s e p h u s ' s use o f Stxoctos, w e shall n e e d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r it is m o r e " G r e e k " o r m o r e " J e w i s h " , a c c o r d i n g t o D o d d ' s criteria. J o s e p h u s is partial t o the Six-word g r o u p a n d uses Sixocios as an adjec tive, substantive, o r a d v e r b (Sixaico^) a total o f 3 5 4 t i m e s : 4 8 times in 90
War, 2 8 4 in Ant., 7 in Life, a n d 15 in Ag.Ap.
W e have already observed
that in the frequent p a i r euaePifc xai Sixaio^, the f o r m e r t e r m is o r i e n t e d 91
npd$ TOV 8e6v a n d the latter rcpos <xv0pco7cou^. T h a t o b s e r v a t i o n m a y n o w b e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y o t h e r data that indicate the h u m a n a n d social o r i e n tation o f Sixoti0£ in J o s e p h u s . S i n c e the phrase u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n is built a r o u n d TOC Stxoctoc, o u r m a i n c o n c e r n is w i t h the articular substantives G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , the singular "justice".
9 2
TO SIXOCIOV
TO SIXOCIOV
and
TOC
d e n o t e s the
Stxoctoc. abstraction
F o r e x a m p l e , in Ant. 4 : 2 1 4 - 2 1 8 J o s e p h u s s u m m a r i z e s the
p r o v i s i o n s o f the M o s a i c L a w c o n c e r n i n g magistrates. F o u r times w i t h i n this p a r a g r a p h
TO SIXOCIOV
a p p e a r s as the goal o f the magistrates in their
trial o f cases; it is m o s t clearly related t o their a v o i d a n c e o f partiality ( § 2 1 7 ) . H e r o d , w e are t o l d , m a n i p u l a t e d his o w n trial so as to o u t r a g e TO SIXOCIOV
(Ant. 1 4 : 1 7 3 ) . A n d J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that w h e n h e f u n c t i o n e d as
a magistrate in G a l i l e e , h e tried to a v o i d rash d e c i s i o n s a n d all f o r m s o f b r i b e r y so as t o p r e s e r v e
TO SIXOCIOV
(Life 7 9 ) . T h e w o r d d o e s n o t always
r e q u i r e such a f o r m a l legal sense, to b e sure, a n d often m e a n s s i m p l y "justice,
fairness,
or propriety"
in
mundane
affairs
(Ant.
15:218;
16:264; 17:118, 191, 298; 20:181). W h e n the standard o f fairness o r p r o p r i e t y is articulated b y l a w , a n d w h e n the l a w in q u e s t i o n is c o n c e i v e d o f as the gift o f G o d t o m a n k i n d , as in J u d a i s m , then j u s t b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d o n e ' s fellows will ipso facto please G o d a l s o .
9 3
J o s e p h u s says as m u c h in t w o p l a c e s . First: 9 4
jxe8' cov yap TO Stxatov e a T i fxeT' exetWv 6 6eo?. (Ant. 15:138)
8 9
C . H . Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 44f. So also J. A . Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: University Press, 1972), 47. Aixocioauv7) appears 39 times, but Sixocioco only 9 times (all in Ant.). Atxr) appears 158 times. See chapter 4, above. On Josephus's use of this word-group, cf. "Stxatos" in the Thackeray/Marcus Lex icon, and Ziesler, Righteousness, 110. So Schlatter, Theologie, 159. That TO Sixociov here means "justice" or "fair dealings" is clear from the context: Herod's envoys visit the Arabs to discuss a "just settlement" (Ant. 15:137, Marcus/Wikgren, for TO Sixaiov) but are killed by them. 9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
144
CHAPTER SIX
For with whom justice is, W i t h them G o d is.
T h e n in Ant.
16:177 he e m p h a s i z e s that j u s t i c e t o w a r d m a n k i n d is the
r e q u i r e m e n t o f the J e w i s h l a w : A n d it is most profitable for all m e n , Greeks and Barbarians alike, to prac tise justice (TO SIXOCIOV), about which our laws are most concerned and, if we sincerely abide by them, they make us well disposed and friendly (euvoos xat 9tXou<;; M a r c u s / W i k g r e n )
Since the d i v i n e l y a p p o i n t e d l a w enjoins j u s t i c e , the exercise o f j u s t i c e brings d i v i n e f a v o u r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , in b o t h o f these cases TO Stxatov is primarily right b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d s others. In
two other
cases, J o s e p h u s
" r i g h t e o u s n e s s " for
TO SIXOCIOV.
comes
very
close
to
the
sense o f
First, he uses the phrase to d e s c r i b e the
goal o f the Essenes, in Ant. 1 8 : 1 8 , w h e r e the c o n t e x t deals o n l y with mat ters o f the c u l t .
9 5
A n d w h e n he says that b e c a u s e the J e w s a d m i r e TO
Sixaiov rather than g l o r y (S6£a), they refused
to
flatter
Herod
(Ant.
1 6 : 1 5 8 ) , he m a y b e suggesting the n u a n c e " r i g h t e o u s n e s s " , b u t this is not clear. T h e c o n t e x t w o u l d s e e m to a l l o w also " p r o p r i e t y / j u s t i c e " .
9 6
Y e t aside f r o m these t w o a m b i g u o u s cases, TO Stxatov in J o s e p h u s bears the simple m e a n i n g o f " j u s t i c e " o r " p r o p r i e t y " in h u m a n
affairs.
D e c i s i v e for the interpretation o f o u r phrase m u s t b e the plural TOC Sixaia, w h i c h o c c u r s substantively 25 times outside o f War 2 : 1 6 3 .
In
practically all o f these instances, the t e r m bears n o particular t h e o l o g i c a l significance b u t
rather d e n o t e s h u m a n
fairness
or justice. W e
may
distinguish three specific n u a n c e s : (1) T w i c e , TOC Sixaia are ties o f family o r race (War
1:508; 2 : 2 1 1 ) .
(2) In n i n e instances TOC Sixaia m a y b e literally translated " r i g h t s " , as, for e x a m p l e , in the " m e r i t s o r r i g h t s . o f a (legal) c a s e " (War 1:136) o r " t h e rights o f c i t i z e n s h i p " (TOC Sixaia TOC TTJ<;rcoXiTSias,Ant. 1 2 : 1 2 1 ) . M o s t o f the o c c u r r e n c e s with this sense are in passages w h e r e J o s e p h u s cites pro-Jewish d e c r e e s a n d edicts f r o m v a r i o u s G r e c o - R o m a n rulers c o n c e r n i n g the legal rights (TOC Sixaia) o f J e w s in v a r i o u s parts o f the w o r l d .
9 7
(3) In the r e m a i n i n g cases ( a b o u t f o u r t e e n ) , TOC Sixaia m a y s i m p l y b e r e n d e r e d " w h a t is right, j u s t , fair, o r p r o p e r (in h u m a n a f f a i r s ) " . T h u s the Essenes swear an oath TOC npbq av0pa>7toi>s Sixaia cpuXa^etv (War 2 : 1 3 9 ) . 9 5
It is worth noting that in the parallel account in War (2:145), the Essenes are said to be "scrupulously careful and just in their trial of cases" (7uepi . . . xaq xpiaeu; axpt-, PeaToexot xal Sixaioi). Here Stxaio? clearly refers to human affairs. Marcus/Wikgren choose "righteousness", but the alternative seems just as ap propriate. Ant. 14:208, 211, 265 (Josephus's words); 16:29 (Josephus's words); 19:282, 285, 288. 9 6
97
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
145
J o s e p h u s a c c u s e s J o h n o f G i s c h a l a o f h a v i n g d o n e a w a y w i t h all t h o s e in J e r u s a l e m w h o p r o p o s e d " j u s t a n d salutary m e a s u r e s " ( T h a c k e r a y , for TOC Stxoctoc x a l a u u ^ p o v r a , War 7 : 2 6 3 ) . Ant. 3 : 7 2 s p e a k s o f TOC Sixaia i n the trial o f cases; 5 : 2 3 2 r e p o r t s that G i d e o n t h e j u d g e a d m i n i s t e r e d TOC Stxata; i n 8 : 2 3 S o l o m o n p r a y s that h e m i g h t j u d g e (xp(vot[xt) t h e p e o p l e o n t h e b a s i s o f TOC Stxata; a n d 8 : 2 9 6 foresees a t i m e w h e n t h e r e will b e n o priest t o a d m i n i s t e r (xpT)|xaTt£oav) TOC Stxata. I n t h e s a m e v e i n ,
Ant.
1 3 : 1 2 6 r e c o r d s D e m e t r i u s I P s p l e a s u r e that t h e J e w s h a v e fulfilled their " j u s t o b l i g a t i o n s " (TOC Stxata) t o w a r d t h e S e l e u c i d s a n d 1 5 : 1 0 8 n o t e s that t h e N a b a t e a n k i n g failed t o p e r f o r m t h e s a m e (TOC Stxata) t o w a r d H e r o d . A s w i t h t h e s i n g u l a r , a f e w i n s t a n c e s o f TOC SCxaia i n J o s e p h u s s u g g e s t m o r e directly the idea o f " r i g h t e o u s n e s s " o r pleasing G o d . O n e e x a m p l e is
Ant.
9:167-169,
where
K i n g Joash
is
said
to have
transgressed
(7cXr|(X(xeXetv) a g a i n s t w h a t w a s right (et$ TOC Stxata) a n d t h e p r o p h e t is sent b y G o d ( § 1 6 9 ) t o a d m o n i s h h i m t o d o t h e right (TOC Stxata 7cpdcTTetv). I n Ant.
1 1 : 5 6 Z e r u b b a b e l praises t r u t h (rj aXrjOeta) as that w h i c h p r o v i d e s
" w h a t is j u s t a n d l a w f u l " (TOC Stxata xat TOC v6(xt(xa) away what
is u n j u s t (TOC a S t x a ) . A l t h o u g h these
98
a n d thereby keeps
examples
show
that
u l t i m a t e l y it is G o d ' s L a w that sets t h e s t a n d a r d f o r j u s t i c e , t h e y d o n o t c h a n g e t h e fact that TOC Stxata i n J o s e p h u s s u g g e s t s p r i m a r i l y " d o i n g t h e right t h i n g b y o n e ' s f e l l o w s " r a t h e r t h a n " o b e y i n g t h e d i v i n e L a w " per se."
The
meaning
'' righteousness " .
is
generally
closer
to
"justice"
than
to
1 0 0
T h a t J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d TOC Stxata xat (xrj as a s i m p l e ethical c h o i c e — " t o d o g o o d o r n o t " — i s m a d e a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r b y t h e latter h a l f o f t h e (xev . . . Se c o n s t r u c t i o n i n o u r p a s s a g e . F o r w h e r e a s t h e P h a r i s e e s s a y that TOTCpdcTTetvTOC Stxata xat u.rj rests x a T a TO 7rXeTarov ini TOT$ &v0pa>7uot$, b u t that fate assists i n e a c h c a s e , t h e S a d d u c e e s ( § 1 6 4 ) d o a w a y w i t h fate 9
e n t i r e l y a n d m a i n t a i n ( § 1 6 5 ) that in
av0pco7ccov ixXoyfj TO Te xaXov xat
TO xaxov; t h e latter p h r a s e m u s t b e m o r e o r less e q u i v a l e n t t o TO rcpdcTTeiv TOC Stxata xat u.rj. J o s e p h u s ' s m e a n i n g , t h e n , s e e m s clear e n o u g h .
When
h e s p e a k s o f TO 7cpdcTTetv TOC Stxata xat ptrj h e is e v o k i n g t h e ethical alter n a t i v e s o f " d o i n g w h a t is right o r n o t " .
9 8
1 0 1
Cf. Ant. 7:151. In Ant. 12:121 and 14:315, TOC SCxocioc is paired with TOC GeaePet? and TOC euaejkis, re spectively. In these combinations it probably refers to the man-ward side of just behaviour, just as Sixato? in the complementary pair euae(Br)s xoci Stxato^. The Thackeray/Marcus Lexicon counts 59 instances in which the neuter adjective (singular and plural) occurs substantively with the meaning "justice". Note also the parellel in Ant. 18:14, where the Pharisees are said to believe in rewards or punishments for those who have led lives of virtue or vice (dcpeT^j f\ xocxta). These terms likewise denote ethical action in the human sphere. 9 9
1 0 0
1 0 1
CHAPTER SIX
146 The
c o n c e p t o f j u s t i c e / r i g h t e o u s n e s s (Stxatoauvn, np"I2, a n d related
terms) has a rich history in J e w i s h , G r e e k , a n d early C h r i s t i a n w o r l d s of thought.
1 0 2
T h e n u m b e r o f potential parallels that m i g h t illuminate TOC
Stxata in War 2 : 1 6 3 is e n o r m o u s . It is i m p o s s i b l e t o a t t e m p t h e r e e v e n the barest s u m m a r y o f the relevant p r i m a r y ( n o t t o m e n t i o n s e c o n d a r y ) literature. Y e t s o m e a c c o u n t m u s t b e taken o f h o w J o s e p h u s ' s u s e o f TOC Stxata relates t o J e w i s h a n d Hellenistic c o n c e p t i o n s in his o w n d a y . A useful starting p o i n t is the recent p r o p o s a l o f G . M a i e r that the phrase TO rcpdtTTetv T a Stxata xat \ir\ (War 2 : 1 6 3 ) is part o f J o s e p h u s ' s at tempt t o j u d a i z e a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees g i v e n t o h i m b y his s o u r c e ( N i c o l a u s ) . A s s e r t i n g the ultimately J e w i s h character o f War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 , M a i e r remarks:
Das gilt vor allem fur die v o n vornherein religios und ethisch gefiihrte Fragestellung nach dem ' T u n des Rechten', welche die 'Gerechtigkeit' nicht als eine der vier kardinaltugenden, sondern als Inbegriff des Geforderten, als das dem Menschen gesetzte Leitbild voraussetzt; hinter dem griechischen npazxtiv ra Sixaia entdeckt man ohne weiteres das hebrdische HplS nt£W des A T und der Qumranschriften, das in den Ps Sol und im N T mit 7toteTv 8ixatoauv7)v wiedergegeben w i r d . (emphasis added) 103
For
M a i e r , t h e n , J o s e p h u s ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f TO rcpaTTetv TOC Stxata xat (xrj
p r e s u p p o s e s a biblical-Jewish v i e w o f TOC Stxata as the fulfillment o f the divine c o m m a n d m e n t s . C u r i o u s l y , M a i e r d o e s n o t investigate the m e a n ing o f Stxato^/Toc Stxata elsewhere in J o s e p h u s ; h e is e x c l u s i v e l y c o n c e r n e d with external parallels f r o m the O l d a n d N e w T e s t a m e n t s a n d the C o m m u n i t y R u l e ( 1 Q S ) o f Q u m r a n , w h i l e apparently d i s c o u n t i n g a n y G r e e k parallels a priori. In r e s p o n s e t o M a i e r , it is necessary t o say the f o l l o w i n g . (i) T h e interpretation o f a n y t e r m in J o s e p h u s m u s t b e g i n w i t h , o r at least i n c l u d e , an analysis o f his o w n u s a g e . W e h a v e seen that J o s e p h u s 1 0 2
For general treatments of the concept in both Greek and Hebrew thought, cf. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 42-59; W . Schrenk, "Sixocux;", TDNT, II, 181ff. For the O T , cf. A . R . Gordon, "Righteousness ( O T ) " , ERE and the literature cited on p. 784; Ziesler, Righteousness, 17-45; B. Johnson, "Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen sadaq und sedaqa", Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1978-79), 31-39; B. Przybylski, Righteousness in Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1980), 8-12. For the intertestamental and rabbinic literature, cf. J. Abelson, "Righteousness (Jewish)", ERE; Ziesler, Righteousness, 52-126; E. P. Sanders, Paul, 198-205; Przybylski, Righteousness, 1376. For the Greek and hellenistic literature, cf. P. Shorey, "Righteousness (Greek and Roman)", ERE; R . Hirzel, Themis, Dike, und Verwandtes (Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1907); M . Salomon, Der Begriffder Gerechtigkeit bei Aristoteles (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1937); W . Siegfried, Der Rechtsgedanke bei Aristoteles (Zurich: Schulthess, 1947); P. Trude, Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit in der aristotelischen Rechts- und Staatsphilosphie (Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1955); and E. A . Havelock, The Greek Concept ofJustice: From its Shadow in Homer to its Substance in Plato (Cambridge, Mass.-London: Harvard University Press, 1978). Maier, freier Wille, 12. 1 0 3
147
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
uses TOC Stxata ( a n d the singular) elsewhere in his writings t o refer t o sim ple j u s t i c e in h u m a n
affairs,
whether
in the trial o f cases o r
with
reference to the rights o f the J e w s . H e n o w h e r e denies that this k i n d o f j u s t i c e pleases G o d a n d he s o m e t i m e s c o n n e c t s it with faithfulness to the l a w . But religious ideas are usually s e c o n d a r y to the m a i n i d e a o f social p r o p r i e t y . S o the usefulness o f a n y o u t s i d e " p a r a l l e l s " will b e directly p r o p o r t i o n a l to their c o r r e s p o n d e n c e to this J o s e p h a n
sense.
(ii) It c a n n o t b e d e n i e d that the r o o t p"E* plays an i m p o r t a n t r o l e in the O T a n d in later J u d a i s m .
1 0 4
Insofar as the biblical c o n c e p t i o n has to
d o w i t h w h a t m i g h t b e called s i m p l e e t h i c s — " f a i r weights a n d b a l a n c e s , standard w a g e s a n d p r i c e s "
1 0 5
— o r lawful b e h a v i o u r , M a i e r is justified
in linking it w i t h J o s e p h a n u s a g e . It n o w s e e m s clear, h o w e v e r , that for the O T a n d J u d a i s m generally, np"TC refers to h u m a n a c t i o n within the s c o p e o f the c o v e n a n t : o n e is p"H!i w h e n o n e fulfills o n e ' s c o v e n a n t obligations toward G o d . Josephus's
1 0 6
T h i s e m p h a s i s , h o w e v e r , is n o t significant in
use o f TOC Stxata. I n d e e d , as H . W . A t t r i d g e has s h o w n ,
J o s e p h u s has a m a r k e d t e n d e n c y t o o m i t the i d e a o f c o v e n a n t f r o m his biblical p a r a p h r a s e .
107
(iii) N o t i c e that the L X X translators s e e m to h a v e p e r c e i v e d a signifi cant difference b e t w e e n HplS a n d Stxatoouvn. F o r in the L X X , Stxato?forms
occur
themes—the
much
more
frequently
in
the
books
with
universal
w i s d o m literature—than in the m o r e c o v e n a n t a l
books.
T h e w o r d - g r o u p a p p e a r s o n l y 25 times in all o f the P e n t a t e u c h , b u t 9 4 times in P r o v e r b s a l o n e , w h e r e g n o m i c w i s d o m is discussed. It o c c u r s 142 times in J o b , P r o v e r b s , a n d Ecclesiastes together. A l l five cases o f the n e u t e r substantive
in P r o v e r b s h a v e the sense o f c o m m o n j u s t i c e
( 1 6 : 7 , 3 3 ; 1 8 : 5 ; 2 1 : 7 ; 2 9 : 6 ) . T h i s suggests that the L X X translators perceived
important
differences
Stxaioauvrj ( s o c i a l / r e l a t i o n a l ) . 1 0 4
between
Hpl^
(as
covenantal)
and
108
Ziesler, Righteousness, 18 counts this word group some 504 times in Kind's O T text. Cf. Przybylski, Righteousness, 8ff., and Sanders, Paul, 198ff. Quoting A. R . Gordon, ERE, 781, who is summarizing Amos's usage. Cf. Dodd, Greeks, 44. Ziesler (Righteousness, 42) says for the O T : "When we turn to man's righteousness, it is clearly a possibility only within the covenant. . . . Being within the covenant involves doing God's will . . . and it is loyalty to the covenant and therefore righteousness. So also right judging, right governing, right worshipping, and gracious activity, are all covenantal and righteous, despite their diversity." Sanders (Paul, 204) concludes, with respect to the tannaitic literature: "on the one hand, that the righteous are those who are saved . . . . On the other hand, the righteous are those who obey the Torah and atone for transgression. . . . One who accepts the covenant and re mains within it is 'righteous' . . . . " S o also Przybylski, Righteousness, 76. Attridge, Interpretation, 79f. Cf. also R . B. Y . Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, "Anchor Bible", vol. 18 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), xvif. 1 0 5
1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
CHAPTER SIX
148
Further, the L X X phrases that c o m e closest to J o s e p h u s ' s TO rcpocTTetv TOC Sixaia are TO rcotetv TOC Stxata ( P r o v . 1 6 : 7 ) , w h i c h has n o H e b r e w original,
a n d rcpdcaaetv TOC Sixata ( P r o v . 2 1 : 7 ) ,
w h i c h stands for
the
H e b r e wfcDDttfDnfety a n d has n o t h i n g to d o with p"TC. T h i s w o u l d s e e m t o cast c o n s i d e r a b l e d o u b t o n M a i e r ' s a s s u m p t i o n that TO rcpdcTTetv TOC Sixaia " o h n e w e i t e r e s " reflects a H e b r e w - J e w i s h c o n c e p t i o n . ( i v ) O n the o t h e r h a n d , o n e c a n h a r d l y dismiss the G r e e k parallels to J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e . T h a t the G r e e k s p e r s o n i f i e d Atxrj a n d ©efit? as deities in the t i m e o f H o m e r ( a n d b e f o r e ) indicates their early r e v e r e n c e for norms of behaviour. o f the f o u r v i r t u e s ;
110
1 0 9
B y the t i m e o f P l a t o , Sixatoouvrj is n o t o n l y o n e
it is the c h i e f virtue that s u b s u m e s all the o t h e r s .
1 1 1
T h e entire Republic o f Plato has b e e n d e s c r i b e d as " a literary m o n u m e n t to the c e l e b r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e " .
1 1 2
A r i s t o t l e , similarly, d e v o t e s the
b o o k o f his Nicomachean Ethics to an analysis o f Stxaioauvrj.
113
fifth
Further
m o r e , the S t o i c C h r y s i p p u s is said to h a v e written a w i d e l y read treatise "On
Justice".
1 1 4
T h u s the c o n c e p t o f j u s t i c e / r i g h t e o u s n e s s p l a y e d a
large r o l e in G r e e k t h o u g h t . It is n o t p o s s i b l e h e r e to g i v e a n y sort o f e x p o s i t i o n o f the n u a n c e s o f Stxaioauvrj for i n d i v i d u a l G r e e k w r i t e r s .
115
the G r e e k c o n c e p t w a s f u n d a m e n t a l l y
social a n d n o t religious in c o n
tent.
1 1 6
W e m a y n o t e , h o w e v e r , that
S o D o d d : " W e m a y take it that the G r e e k - s p e a k i n g p u b l i c , o n
the w h o l e , m e a n t b y Stxaioauvrj d o i n g the right thing b y y o u r n e i g h b o u r , h o w e v e r the right thing m i g h t b e c o n c e i v e d . " common
1 1 7
Aristotle offers as a
definition (rcdcvTas . . . Xeyetv) o f TO Siaxatov: " T h e j u s t (TO
Stxatov), then, m e a n s the lawful (TO v6(Xt(Jtov) a n d the equitable (TO i'aov)" (N.E.
5 . 1 . 8 . ) . O r again:
T h e term 'just' is applied to anything that produces and preserves the hap piness (euSatfxovta), or the component parts of the happiness, of the political community (TTJrcoXiTixfjxotvcovtoc). ( 5 . 1 . 1 3 . ) 1 1 8
1 0 9
Hirzel, Themis, 18f., 138f. Republic 432b. Schrenk (TDNT, II, 182 n. 2) finds righteousness among the virtues already in Aeschylus. So already Theognis 147: "In Justice (Sixatoouvrj) is all virtue found in sum" (quoted by Aristotle, N.E. 5.1.15, trans. Rackham). Havelock, Greek Concept, 308f. The richness of the Aristotelian conception of Sixaioouvrj has inspired the monographs of Salomon, Siegfried, and Trude (n. 102 above). So Plutarch, On Common Conceptions, 1070D; cf. P. Shorey, "Righteousness", 804. See n. 102 above. That is not to say that the Greeks did not also use Sixaioouvrj in the context of one's obligations to the gods (cf. Ziesler, Righteousness, 50f.). It is rather a matter of emphasis. Dodd, Greeks, 43. Cf. also Schrenk, TDNT, II, 182, who cites many examples, and Ziesler, Righteousness, 44f. Cf. also N.E. 5.1.3 and 15, where Aristotle likewise cites the common under standing of Stxaioauvrj (introduced by Xe-fexai. . . or 7uoXXaxi£ elvai SoxeT. . .). 1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 2
1 1 3
1 1 4
1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
149
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
O b s e r v e h o w R a c k h a m s u m m a r i z e s TOC Stxata in Aristotle: T a Stxata means sometimes 'just acts' in the English sense, sometimes any acts in conformity with the law, sometimes 'rights' or 'claims', i.e., any consideration which by law, equity, or custom, certain persons have a right to expect from others. T h e senses identified here f o r TOC Stxata in Aristotle c o r r e s p o n d exactly to those d i s c o v e r e d in J o s e p h u s
above.
G i v e n the h i g h d e g r e e o f s e m a n t i c o v e r l a p b e t w e e n Stxato^ a n d p m , noted b y D o d d
at the outset,
it seems u n w i s e t o c l a i m that
when
J o s e p h u s u s e d the phrase TO 7rpocTTSiv TOC Stxata xat (ITJ h e w a s thinking o f an e x c l u s i v e l y H e b r e w c o n c e p t i o n o r an e x c l u s i v e l y G r e e k o n e . W h a t is clear is: ( a ) that J o s e p h u s ' s Stxatoauvr) generally lacks a n y c o n n e c t i o n with the idea o f c o v e n a n t ; ( b ) that the phrase in War 2 : 1 6 3 refers to a straightforward
ethical p r o b l e m — " t o d o right
o r n o t " ; ( c ) that the
ethical discussion o f TOC Stxata h a d h a d a l o n g a n d v e n e r a b l e history in Greek
thought
before Josephus's
time;
a n d ( d ) that his Hellenistic
readers c o u l d h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d t o u n d e r s t a n d his m e a n i n g . p r o p o s a l o v e r l o o k s entirely the p r i m a c y o f ethics in G r e e k
1 1 9
Maier's
thought.
1 2 0
J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisees as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l c o n c e r n e d a b o u t relations b e t w e e n God/etfxapfxevr) a n d TO inl TOU; av0pa>7iot<; in the " d o i n g o f w h a t is right o r n o t " . Stxatov
parallels
his
v6[xot/v6fxt(xa/7rocTpia,
use
axptjkia,
of
1 2 1
T h i s m e a n s that J o s e p h u s ' s use o f such
al'peatg,
other
terms
as
euaepeta,
a n d et(xap(xevr). N o n e reflects
a
u n i q u e l y J e w i s h c a t e g o r y ; all are d r a w n f r o m the o r d i n a r y v o c a b u l a r y of Hellenism. ( c ) inl T0t<; av0p
1 2 2
T h u s J o s e p h u s c l a i m s here that the Pharisees h o l d that " t h e
d o i n g o f right o r n o t " lies m a i n l y with m e n .
1 1 9
Schrenk (TDNT, II, 183) comments on Josephus's frequent use of Stxatoi; in con junction with &Y<X06<;, ^P )**™^ > these lists of virtues "display not the slightest difference from current hellenistic usage". (For these pairs, cf. Ant. 3:71; 4:134; 6:21, 93, 147; 7:151, 386; 8:248; 9:100, 132, 216; 10:246, etc.). Cf. Diogenes Laertius' claim that Socrates introduced ethics (2:16); also Greene, Moira, 221 ff. (on the importance of ethics for the earlier philosopher), 331, 338 (for Stoics and Epicureans); Armstrong, "Greek Philosophy", 210 (on the later Stoics); and Sandbach, Stoics, llf. (on ancient philosophy in general). Even the equation of 8txocto<; with v6(xt(xo<;, which Josephus implies several times (e.g., Ant. 6:165; 7:151; 8:208; 11:56; 13:291; Ap. 2:293), though it certainly accords with biblical-Jewish conceptions, is also native to Greek thought, as we have seen in the definitions from Aristotle. War 3:389, 396; 5:59; Ant. 1:178; 5:110; 13:355; 18:215; 19:167. 7
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
e t c
t n a t
CHAPTER SIX
150
J o s e p h u s uses em T0t£ avOpoorcots h e r e to speak o f b o t h the Pharisaic ( § 1
163) a n d the S a d d u c e a n ( § 165) positions; the S a d d u c e e s 9<xatv 8'
in
avOpcorccov exXoyfj TO xaXov xal TO xaxov TipoxetaOat. In the parallel at Ant. 13:171-173,
however,
the
p h r a s e is £9' rjfxtv:
a7cavT<x 8e £9' rjulv aikots xetaOat ( § 1 7 3 ) .
the
Sadducees
believe
1 2 3
T w o o b s e r v a t i o n s are p e r t i n e n t h e r e . First, the phrase TO £9' rjulv h a d taken o n , l o n g b e f o r e J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e , a quasi-technical sense in G r e e k ethical discussions h a v i n g to d o w i t h the causes o f h u m a n a c t i o n . In the third b o o k o f his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle is c o n c e r n e d to distinguish v o l u n t a r y (exouato^) f r o m i n v o l u n t a r y (axouatos) a c t i o n s .
1 2 4
N e a r the b e
g i n n i n g o f this discussion h e o b s e r v e s that, " w h e n the o r i g i n o f an a c t i o n is in o n e s e l f (o*>v 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 : i
H e r e w e h a v e , as in J o s e p h u s : a discussion o f the cause o f h u m a n ac tions; the use o f TO rcpocTTeiv . . . xat firj and
the
126
as a t e r m for ethical a c t i o n ;
use o f £71' auTco/£9' rjfxtv to designate " w h a t lies in
power".
1 2 7
O n c e Aristotle h a d c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d
human
the phrase £9' rjulv, it
t o o k a p e r m a n e n t place in ethical discussion c o n c e r n i n g v o l u n t a r i n e s s in human action. Second,
1 2 8
that J o s e p h u s uses inl
rather than £9' rjulv (as in Ant. caprice.
1 2 3
1 2 9
(TOIS)
dv0pa>7cots in
13:171-173) may
War
be due
2:163-166 simply
to
It is w o r t h n o t i n g , h o w e v e r , that the p r o n o u n rjfxets, w h e n
In describing the Pharisaic position (13:172), the M S S L A M W E support £9' r|[xtv
OCUTOTs. 124
N.E. 3.1.1. Cf. also N.E. 3.5.3, 6, 7, 16, 21, 22, passim. Atxocios and a8ixo<; also appear in the discussion, N.E., 3.5.12, 14. Notice the pairing of apexri and xaxta here and at 3.5.19. Compare Josephus on the Pharisees, Ant. 18:13, 14. Cf., e.g., Epiphanius, Against Heresies 3.2.9, on Zeno (in H . Diels, Doxographi Graeci, p. 592, no. 36); Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 4:3, on Chrysippus (in SVFIl, 939); and examples given by Greene, Moira, 350. Epicurus, for example, uses TO 7cocp' rjjxas for the same conception, Letter to Menoeceus 133, cited in Furley, Two Studies, 184. 1 2 5
1 2 6
1 2 7
1 2 8
1 2 9
151
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I used b y Josephus
h i m s e l f in editorial o r reflective c o n t e x t s , 130
m e a n s " w e Jews".
usually
S i n c e in War 2 : 1 6 3 - 1 6 6 h e is d e s c r i b i n g 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 (Trap' 'IouSatots, § 1 1 9 ) it m i g h t h a v e c a u s e d s o m e v a g u e n e s s if he h a d u s e d the usual £ 9 ' rjulv h e r e . I n Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 ff., h o w e v e r , the situation is different, b e c a u s e he b e g i n s b y d e f i n i n g the d e b a t e as 7cept
TG>V
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<; exaa-cov TTJV etjxapfxevrjv), which restates the original proposition, with no exceptions. Maier also neglects the (xev. . . hi comparison with the Sadducees, which seems to require that precisely on the issue of ethics the two parties disagree about the cause of human action, with the Sadducees making human volition the cause. Moore, "Fate", 375, 397f.; Maier, freier Wille, 3. Cf. Appendix B at the end of this study. Diogenes Laertius 2:16 ("Socrates introduced ethics"); Greene, Moira, 223; Windelband, History of Philosophy, 191. Windelband, History of Philosophy, 191. Ibid. 1 4 0
1 4 1
1 4 2
1 4 3
CHAPTER SIX
154
144
factors avdcyxTj a n d eifxapfxevrj).
H e e m p h a s i z e d at the s a m e t i m e , h o w
e v e r , the responsibility o f m a n for his c h o i c e s a n d the ability o f m a n overcome environmental prejudices.
1 4 5
to
Particularly in his M y t h o f Er,
Plato attempts a r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f the t w o i d e a s .
1 4 6
Souls s t a n d i n g b e f o r e
the three Fates are p r e s e n t e d with life patterns to c h o o s e f r o m , a n d P l a t o r e m a r k s t h r o u g h the p r o p h e t : " T h e responsibility b e l o n g s to h i m c h o o s e s ; G o d is n o t r e s p o n s i b l e " (Rep.
617e).
1 4 7
who
O n c e the c h o i c e o f life
pattern is m a d e , h o w e v e r , a Satfxcov is assigned to the soul a n d the s o u l ' s destiny is ratified b y the Fates: he is n o w b o u n d b y necessity (dvayxr]) to live o u t the c h o s e n life (Rep.
6 2 0 d - 6 2 1 b ) . T h e goal o f this life, then,
is for m a n to learn h o w to distinguish the g o o d f r o m the b a d so that he can take this k n o w l e d g e with h i m after d e a t h , w h e n he m u s t c h o o s e an o t h e r life-pattern (Rep.
618b-619a).
1 4 8
Aristotle takes u p the p r o b l e m o f TOrcpaTTetv(TOC Sixaia) xat fxrj in his Nicomachean Ethics. H a v i n g c o n c e d e d that m u c h is d u e to nature (^uats), necessity (avayxr)), a n d c h a n c e (TUXT|), a n d is therefore b e y o n d o u r c o n trol (N.E.
3 . 3 . 3 - 1 0 ) , he nevertheless locates the cause o f virtue a n d v i c e
(apeTT) xal xaxia) squarely in ourselves ( £ 9 ' rjfxtv; NE.
3.5.2).
1 4 9
Already
with these pillars o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y the e x p l o r a t i o n o f the relationship b e t w e e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors ( o r fate) a n d
v o l i t i o n in the matter o f
ethics h a d m a d e a solid b e g i n n i n g . It was with the Stoics, h o w e v e r , that the p r o b l e m b e c a m e a c u t e , d u e principally to their u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f fate as the w o r l d - s o u l 150
Aoyoq.
Windelband
itself,
the
comments:
Since this theory of fate made m a n , like all other creatures, determined in all his external and internal formation and in all that he does and suffers, by the all-animating World-power, personality ceased to be the true
144
Phaedo 80d-81d; cf. Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, 4; Windelband, History of Philosophy,
191. 1 4 5
Greene, Moira, 313f. In Laws 904, Plato insists that the gods leave the decision for virtue or vice to men's own souls. Republic 614b-621b. For commentary on this passage, see Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, 5; Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2627; Greene, Moira, 313ff.; and Cioffari, "For tune", 227. Cf. Timaeus 41d, 42d, 91de, in which it is said that one determines the quality of one's reinarnation by one's actions. Greene, Moira, 315, comments on the Myth of Er: "The allotment of human destinies is described in terms that emphasize both the lement of encompassing necessity or determinism and, within it, that of human freedom of choice." Cf. the discussions of Aristotle on this point in Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, 6; Windelband, History of Philosophy, 192f.; Greene, Moira, 338, 348ff. Cf. Greene, Moira, 338, 348ff.; Windelband, History of Philosphy, 192f.; Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, 6f. 146
1 4 7
1 4 8
1 4 9
1 5 0
THE
155
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
ground (apxTj) o f his actions and these appeared to be . . . but the predeter mined and unavoidably necessary operations of the G o d - N a t u r e . 151
We
h a v e seen o n e o f the w a y s in w h i c h the S t o i c C h r y s i p p u s tried to
mitigate this p r o b l e m . F o r the E p i c u r e a n s , A c a d e m i c s , a n d Peripatetics the p r o b l e m w a s n o t as severe b e c a u s e they d i d n o t a c c e p t the m o n i s t i c p r e m i s e o f universal c a u s a l i t y .
152
Still, the p r o b l e m o f fate a n d free will
has persisted w h e r e v e r b e l i e f in an all-powerful G o d has b e e n m a i n tained.
1 5 3
W h a t all o f this s h o w s is that J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees w o u l d h a v e b e e n readily intelligible to an e d u c a t e d Hellenistic reader. The
Pharisees, he says, are the l e a d i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l a m o n g the
J e w s , a n d , like the l e a d i n g Hellenistic s c h o o l (the S t o i c s ) , they attribute e v e r y t h i n g to fate o r G o d . A l s o like the S t o i c s , the Pharisees b o t h c o n c e d e that v i r t u o u s a c t i o n lies in m a n ' s p o w e r a n d insist that etfxocp(xevr) c o o p e r a t e s ($or\H<x>/adiuvo) in e a c h a c t i o n . It is b e y o n d the s c o p e o f this study to d e c i d e w h e t h e r o r n o t J o s e p h u s was right.
154
Suffice it here to n o t e : ( a ) that J o s e p h u s k n e w a g o o d deal
m o r e a b o u t the Pharisees, modern scholarship; be
155
a n d p r o b a b l y a b o u t the S t o i c s , than d o e s
( b ) that he c o n s i d e r e d the Pharisees a n d Stoics to
alike in s o m e respects (cf. 7capa7cXrjato<;, Life 1 2 ) ; ( c ) that o u t s i d e
o b s e r v e r s o f ancient J u d a i s m s o m e t i m e s d e s c r i b e d it in S t o i c t e r m s ;
1 5 1
1 5 6
Windelband, History of Philosophy, 192f. Cf. Diogenes Laertius 10:133 on the Epicureans; Windelband, History of Philosphy, 194f.; Greene, Moira, 334ff. Christian theology has made famous attempts to tackle the problem. Milton writes of the fallen angels who: reasoned high Of Providence, foreknowledge, will and fate, Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute; And formed no end, in wandering mazes lost. Paradise Lost 2:557f., cited in Greene, Moira, 397. Several attempts have been made to decide the question historically; cf. Appendix B. Maier and Wachter both conclude that Josephus's portrayal of the schools is at least tolerably accurate. The Pharisees left no literary remains except the brief Megillat Ta'anit. The situa tion is better for later Stoicism, but authentic statements in context for the earlier teachers (Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus) are also scarce. Cf. Sandbach, Stoics, 18. Cf. T . Reinach, Textes d'Autres Grecs et Romains relatifs au Judaism (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1963 [1895]), pp. 11, 16, 99, 242. In one passage, Hecataeus of Abdera credits Moses with a belief that TOV oupavdv [xovov etvat Geov xat TCOV OXCOV xuptov (p. 16). Likewise Strabo has Moses insisting that images cannot be made of the deity because the deity is everywhere (TO rceptexov rj{xa<; owcavTa^ xat f f j v xat OaXarcav, o xaXoufiev oupavdv xat xoqxov xat T7)v . . . 9uatv). Suffrin, "Fate", 793, remarks: "It is possible that the Stoic philosophy lent a colouring to Jewish speculations on Divine Providence. W e know that the ethics of Stoicism agree in many points with those of the Haggada [cf., e.g., M . Avot], betraying some acquaintance, on the part of the Rabbis, with that school." 1 5 2
1 5 3
1 5 4
1 5 5
1 5 6
156
CHAPTER SIX
a n d ( d ) that m o n i s m a n d m o n o t h e i s m , insofar as they b o t h posit a single ultimate b e i n g , m u s t share certain c o m m o n
features.
D . J o s e p h u s ' s fourth statement a b o u t the Pharisees c o n c e r n s their v i e w s o n the soul: (i) c^ux^v TS 7taaocv uiv o^Oapxov, (ii) [xexaPatveiv 8e etc exepov acojxa (iii) xa<; 8s
TCOV
TTJV TCOV
dyaOtov
(AOVTJV,
9<xuXtov dtSttp Ttuxopta xoXdCea9at.
W i t h the q u e s t i o n o f the s o u l ' s i m m o r t a l i t y w e r e a c h the s e c o n d part o f the [xev. . . 8e c o n s t r u c t i o n that g o v e r n s o u r p a s s a g e . A s w i t h the fate/free will issue, J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n first w i t h a s u m m a r y 1
p r o p o s i t i o n a n d then follows with t w o e l a b o r a t i v e clauses: ' e v e r y soul is i m m o r t a l ; o n l y that o f the g o o d , h o w e v e r , passes into a n o t h e r b o d y , w h e r e a s the w i c k e d suffer endless p u n i s h m e n t " . T h e S a d d u c e e s , h o w e v e r , dispense w i t h (dvoctpouatv) all three o f these p o i n t s . J o s e p h u s ' s use o f dvoctpeco to d e s c r i b e their p o s i t i o n s o n b o t h fate ( § 1 6 4 ) a n d i m m o r tality ( § 1 6 5 ) m a k e s clear that h e is trying to s c h e m a t i z e the v i e w s o f the t w o g r o u p s as p o l a r o p p o s i t e s : the Pharisees affirm; the S a d d u c e e s d e n y .
1. Analysis of Terms and Concepts T o d e t e r m i n e h o w this d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees fits into the c o n t e x t o f J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t , it w o u l d b e o f limited usefulness to e x a m i n e the discrete o c c u r r e n c e s o f such c o m m o n w o r d s as fxeTOcpocivco, atofxa, i}uyi\, dyaOos, o r Tijxcopta elsewhere in his w r i t i n g s .
1 5 7
O u r interest h e r e is o n l y
in h o w these terms illuminate J o s e p h u s ' s m e a n i n g w i t h respect to the Pharisaic b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y . T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n limits the f o l l o w i n g analysis to those passages in J o s e p h u s that deal with the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul. T h e y fall into three g r o u p s : ( a ) those that c o n c e r n the teachings of
the
Pharisees
and
the
Essenes;
( b ) those
that
c l a i m to
reflect
J. Bergmann ("Die stoische Philosophic und die jiidische Frommigkeit", in Judaica: Fest schrift zu H. Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage, edd. I. Elbogen, B. Kellerman, E. Mittwoch [New York: Arno, 1980 (Berlin: B. Cassirer, 1912)], 145-166) is able to list some twentysix significant parallels between Stoic and ancient Jewish teaching, three of which he at tributes to direct influence (popular teaching form, comparison between God and the soul, the point at which the soul occupies the body). Writing before the recent discoveries of wide-ranging Hellenistic influence on Palestine, Bergmann proposes that Stoic influ ence was mediated through such means as the Greek cities in Palestine, the pilgrimage visits of both diaspora Jewry and proselytes, and Greeks' visiting Herod's games in Jerusalem (147f.). 157 p source-critical purposes, however, it will be necessary to ask whether these words are characteristically Josephan. o r
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
157
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w s ; a n d ( c ) those that attribute beliefs to o t h e r in dividuals o r g r o u p s .
a) T h e T e a c h i n g s o f the Pharisees a n d the Essenes Shortly b e f o r e o u r passage (War 2 : 1 6 3 f . ) J o s e p h u s writes o f the Essenes (2:154-158): For a m o n g them the view is vigorously maintained that bodies are corrup tible and their constituent matter impermanent (98apxoc (xev etvat TOC ato[xocT<x xat TTJV uXrjv ou fxovtfxov aiktov) but that souls are immortal and imperishable (TOC<; 8e c|>uxds &9<XV<XTOU<; del Stocjiivetv). Emanating from the finest ether, these souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of the body (etpXTats T O t £ acofxaatv) to which they are dragged down b y a sort of natural spell; but when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh (adpxoc Seajxcov), then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne aloft. Sharing the belief of the sons of Greece, they maintain that for vir tuous (dya8at<;) souls there is reserved an abode beyond the ocean, a place which is not oppressed b y rain or snow or heat, but is refreshed by the ever gentle breath of the west wind coming in from the ocean; while they relegate base (9<xuXoct<;) souls to a murky and tempestuous dungeon big with never-ending punishments (Ttfxcoptcov dStaXetTCTcov). . . . Such are the theological views of the Essenes concerning the soul, whereby they ir resistibly attract all who have once tasted their philosophy. (Thackeray, ex cept first sentence.)
O f the three p o i n t s in the Pharisaic c r e d o ( 2 : 1 6 3 ) , then, the Essenes a c c e p t ( i ) the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul a n d (iii) the everlasting p u n i s h m e n t (Tifxcopta) o f the w i c k e d (9<xuXoi). O n the destiny o f the dyaGot, h o w e v e r , t w o different pictures e m e r g e : the Pharisees h a v e the g o o d passing into o t h e r b o d i e s ; the Essenes, v i e w i n g the b o d y as a p r i s o n , b e l i e v e in a special h o m e " b e y o n d the o c e a n " for freed souls. I n the o n l y direct parallel to these d e s c r i p t i o n s (Ant. 18) J o s e p h u s says o f the Essenes s i m p l y , " T h e y r e g a r d souls as i m m o r t a l " (dOocvocTtCouatv Ta<; (Jjuxds, 1 8 : 1 8 ) . F o r the Pharisees, he recalls his three-point s c h e m e in War 2 : ( i ) souls are i m m o r t a l (dOdvocTOV for ckpOocpTOv); ( i i ) eternal i m p r i s o n m e n t awaits those w h o h a v e lived lives o f v i c e (etpyfxov dtStov for di8to$ Ttfjtcopta); a n d (iii) v i r t u o u s souls find ease to live a g a i n (potaTcovrjv TOU dvocptouv instead o f (xeTa(5atvetv et$ eTepov acojxa). It w o u l d
appear,
then, that J o s e p h u s u n d e r s t a n d s the Pharisaic a n d Essene v i e w s o f i m mortality to b e quite similar. T h e o n l y n o t i c e a b l e difference is o n the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r the soul after death g o e s to an idyllic h e a v e n l y l o c a t i o n o r enters a n e w b o d y ; a n d w e shall see that e v e n these t w o v i e w s d o n o t necessarily e x c l u d e e a c h o t h e r .
158
CHAPTER SIX
b ) J o s e p h u s ' s O w n V i e w o f the Afterlife F o u r passages p u r p o r t to g i v e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w s a b o u t i m m o r t a l i t y . First, in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Essene belief (discussed a b o v e ) , h e reflects: For the good (dyocOot) are made better in their lifetime by the hope o f a reward (Tt(Z7Js) after death, and the passions o f the wicked (xocxcov) are restrained by the fear that, even though they escape detection while alive, they will undergo never-ending punishment (dOdvocrov Ttfxcoptocv) after their decease. (War 2:157; Thackeray) T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n o f the social utility o f a b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y c o m b i n e s with J o s e p h u s ' s statement o n the irresistible a p p e a l o f Essene teachings ( 2 : 1 5 8 ) to suggest that h e h i m s e l f e n d o r s e d their p o s i t i o n . T h e s e c o n d passage c o m e s d u r i n g J o s e p h u s ' s s p e e c h against suicide at J o t a p a t a , w h e r e his z e a l o u s c o m r a d e s - i n - a r m s , a b o u t to b e o v e r r u n b y the R o m a n s , w a n t to take their o w n ( a n d his) lives (War 3 : 3 3 5 f . ) . H i s a r g u m e n t , in effect, is that a l t h o u g h it is p r o p e r to d i e in c o m b a t , it is i m p r o p e r to take o n e ' s o w n life; o n e m u s t leave to G o d , the g i v e r o f life, the d e c i s i o n to take it a w a y ( 3 : 3 6 2 - 3 7 1 ) . H e c o n t i n u e s : All of us, it is true, have mortal bodies (aa>{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 (x<*>P<> 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 (TOT<; -COOS vofxoix; 8toc9oXdl-ai) and, if they must needs die for them, willingly meet death (rcpoOufxcos drcoOocvouat), G o d has granted a renewed existence (SeScoxev 6 8e6$ yeveaOoct 7cdXtv) and in the revolution [of the ages] (ex 7ceptTp07cfj^) the gift o f a better life ((iiov dfxetvco X<x(3etv). (Thackeray)
THE
159
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
Compare now Josephus's own views about the afterlife, given here, with those that he sets out for both the Pharisees and the Essenes:
(0
(")
(iii)
(0
(«) (iii)
(iv)
Pharisees cl)ux*|v OKpOapxov (War 2:163) dGdvaxov Jaxov xats <|)UxaK 18:14) Souls of the dyfot [xexa(}aCveiv exepov aa>[xa (War 2:163) Souls of the virtuous find paaxa>v7)v TOO avaPiouv (Ant 18:14)
The souls of the 90CUX01 suffer &i8uo xi^pCa after death (War 2:163)
Essenes 98dpxoc elvat xa aa>[iaxa xal -rfjv uXrjv ou pt6vt{xov (War 2:154) xa$ 8i c[>uxa? dOavdxous det (War 2:154) Souls emanate from the ether (ix TOO Xercxoxdxou aJ8£po?) and become trapped in the prison of the body ( e t p X T a t s TOTS acofxaatv) (War 2:154) For virtuous (ayaOot) souls, after death there is a SCatxa beyond the ocean, a x & P optPpoi? ouxe VI9&TOI^ ouxe xaupaai (3apuv6(jt£vov (War 2:155) The souls of the 9auXot after death go to a dungeon (jxux^c) filled with xtjxcaptcov d8iaXei7uxcov (War 2:155) 0 V
(v)
Josephus cl>ux*l d9dvaxo<; deC (War 3:372)
Those who observe and die for the laws are granted yeveoOat icdXtv xal (5(ov djieCva) Xd(leiv ix Tceptxporcffc 2:218) Those who die naturally divots rcdXtv dvxevotxCCovxai acojiaatv (War 3:374) The souls of the xdxoi meet with dOdvaxov xificopCav after death (War 2:157) Josephus xd a
ux*) 81 dGdvaxo* dei (War 3:372) A soul is a portion of God housed in a body (Oeou (xotpa xoT^ acopuxatv IvotxtCexat) (War 3:372) Those who die naturally are allot ted
the
x^P
0 V
oupdvtov
xdv
dyuoxocxov (War 3:374)
The souls of the xdxoi meet with dOdvaxov xtfjicoptav (War 2:157)
As to whether Josephus's own views on immortality are closer to those of the Pharisees or those of the Essenes, the following observations are pertinent: (i)
T h e similarities between Josephus's own statements and his des
cription of Essene teachings are more extensive and verbally closer (cf. esp.
War 2:154//3:372) than are his agreements with Pharisaic positions.
Further, the fact that he introduces his own reflections on the subject at War 2:157, in the course of his warm description of Essene views, reveals his sympathy with that group. H e makes his feelings clear by concluding the passage: "Such are the theological views of the Essenes concerning the soul, whereby they irresistibly attract (&9UXTOV. . . xaOtevTe^) all who have once tasted their philosophy" (War 2:158; Thackeray).
160
C H A P T E R SIX
(ii)
S i n c e h e will also attribute Pharisaic p o p u l a r i t y in s o m e m e a s u r e
to their b e l i e f in the afterlife (Ant. 1 8 : 1 5 ) , h e s e e m s to b e l i e v e that the idea o f p o s t - m o r t e m r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s
is an attractive
one,
w h e t h e r h e l d b y Pharisees o r Essenes. (iii)
O n the p o i n t that distinguishes Pharisees f r o m E s s e n e s — v i z . , the
nature o f the r e w a r d for the g o o d — J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to agree with the Pharisaic b e l i e f in " r e i n c a r n a t i o n " ,
1 5 8
which does not appear a m o n g
Essene beliefs. O n e m u s t e x e r c i s e c a u t i o n , h o w e v e r , for b o d i l y i m m o r tality a n d (at least t e m p o r a r y ) d i s e m b o d i e d bliss are n o t m u t u a l l y e x clusive ideas. J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f c o m b i n e s t h e m w h e n he asserts that " [ g o o d ] souls . . . are allotted the m o s t h o l y p l a c e in h e a v e n , w h e n c e (ev0ev), in the r e v o l u t i o n o f the a g e s , they return to find in chaste b o d i e s a n e w h a b i t a t i o n " (War 3 : 3 7 4 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n a s m u c h as the Essenes e n v i s i o n a p e r m a n e n t d i s e m b o d i e d state, J o s e p h u s ' s o w n belief is closer to that o f the Pharisees. It a p p e a r s , then, that J o s e p h u s agrees with b o t h the Pharisees a n d the Essenes o n the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul. L i k e the Pharisees, he e n v i s i o n s a n e w b o d y for the future state, but he also i n c l u d e s an i n t e r i m state o f d i s e m b o d i m e n t . In War 2 , h o w e v e r , it is the Essene v i e w that r e c e i v e s his enthusiastic s u p p o r t ( 2 : 1 5 4 - 1 5 9 ) , w h e r e a s the Pharisaic v i e w ( 2 : 1 6 3 ) is s o m e w h a t a n t i - c l i m a c t i c .
c) O t h e r R e f e r e n c e s in J o s e p h u s to I m m o r t a l i t y For
the sake o f c o m p l e t e n e s s , w e m a y n o t e briefly o t h e r references to i m
mortality in J o s e p h u s . T w o o f his characters assert that an h o n o u r a b l e death (OOCVOCTOS) is better than i m m o r t a l i t y (dBocvocatoc).
159
T w o others allow
that h e r o i c death merits a s u p e r i o r f o r m o f i m m o r t a l i t y .
1 6 0
Mattathias
the H a s m o n e a n , h o w e v e r , calls for a willingness to die h e r o i c a l l y o n the g r o u n d that o n e c a n a c h i e v e i m m o r t a l r a n k in the m e m o r y o f o n e ' s deeds
(TTJ
8e
TCOV
epycov fivrju-T]
paratively w e a k c o n c e p t i o n !
1 6 1
TOC£IV
dOocvocat'ocs Xa(xPdvo[xev)—a
com
Finally, in E l e a z a r ' s s p e e c h at M a s a d a ,
the rebel l e a d e r tries to c o n v i n c e his c o m r a d e s that life in the b o d y is in a p p r o p r i a t e to the soul a n d s h o u l d b e e n d e d f o r t h w i t h .
162
T h e principle
of conflict b e t w e e n b o d y a n d soul bears s o m e affinities to the Essene
1 5 8
I use the term, for now, in its broader sense—the entry of a soul into another body. A more nuanced analysis follows below. War 1:58; 2:151. War 1:650 (re: Judas and Mattathias); War 6:46-48 (re: Titus). Ant. 12:282. War 7:341-357. 1 5 9
1 6 0
161
1 6 2
161
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
view, and
1 6 3
a l t h o u g h the c o r o l l a r y o f suicide is f o r e i g n t o b o t h the Essenes
Josephus.
1 6 4
S i n c e , h o w e v e r , n o n e o f the v i e w s expressed in these passages safely b e attributed to the Pharisees, the Essenes, o r J o s e p h u s
can
himself,
they c a n serve o n l y to illustrate o t h e r possible v i e w s o f the afterlife.
It
is the v i e w s that h e attributes to the Pharisees a n d the Essenes, t o g e t h e r w i t h those he sets o u t as his o w n , that are m o s t pertinent to o u r study.
2 . Interpretation A l l three e l e m e n t s in J o s e p h u s ' s
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees at
War
2 : 1 6 3 s e e m clear e n o u g h . A l l o f t h e m a c c o r d with his o w n t h o u g h t s o n the soul, n a m e l y : e v e r y soul is i m m o r t a l ; eternal p u n i s h m e n t awaits the H w i c k e d ; a n d a n e w b o d y awaits the g o o d . Interpretation is frustrated somewhat,
however, by Josephus's
failure
to e l a b o r a t e
o n the
final
clause. H i s l a n g u a g e is e v e r y w h e r e v a g u e : souls pass i n t o exepov acou.oc, o r will s i m p l y dvajJtouv, say the Pharisees; in his o w n w o r d s , souls will yeveaOat rcaXtv, (3tov djxeivco Xa(ktv, o r they ayvots rcaXtv avxevotxtCovTat acojxaatv. R e m a i n i n g u n a n s w e r e d are the q u e s t i o n s : W h e r e d o e s the n e w b o d y c o m e f r o m ? W h a t is it like? H o w l o n g will it last? W h e r e d o e s it live? H o w l o n g is the interval b e t w e e n death a n d
"reincarnation"?
J o s e p h u s d o e s offer s o m e clues a b o u t these matters, b u t they c a n o n l y be
adequately
interpreted against the b a c k g r o u n d o f c o m m o n l y h e l d
beliefs in the Hellenistic w o r l d . T h e i d e a o f the s o u l ' s passing at death into a n o t h e r b o d y w a s n o t at all strange to ancient t h o u g h t .
1 6 3
1 6 5
A l t h o u g h s o m e sort o f b e l i e f in
the
Especially with the idea that the body is a prison, an inappropriate vehicle for the soul, War 7:344, cf. 2:154f. Josephus, War 3:362-382, speaks against suicide. Lindner (Geschichtsauffassung, 39) accurately points out that Eleazar functions in the narrative of War as an implacable op ponent of Josephus's view. His call for suicide is meant to illustrate the hopeless outcome of the rebels, who have defied God's will and therefore deserve to die. The speech does not reflect Josephus's own views about suicide. Cf. F. Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922); W . Stettner, Die Seelenwanderung bei Griechen und Romern (Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer, 1933); C . H . Moore, Pagan Ideas of Immortality During the Roman Period (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1918); idem, Ancient Beliefs in the Immortality of the Soul (New York: Cooper Square, 1963 [c. 1930]); T . F. Glasson, Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology (London: S.P.C.K., 1961); W . F. Jackson Knight, Elysion (London: Reider & C o . , 1970); H . S. Long, "Plato's Doctrine of Metempsychosis and its Source", Classical Quarterly 41 (1948) 149-155; Biichsel, "TtaXtyyeveata", TDNT, I, 686-689; Blumenthal, "Palingenesia", PWRE, X V I I I , 139-148; and J. Head and S. L. Cranston, Reincarnation in World Thought (New York: Julian Press, 1967). This last work gives, albeit in translation and without clear identification, many of the pertinent texts from our period. 1 6 4
1 6 5
CHAPTER SIX
162 soul's immortality
g o e s b a c k to H o m e r a n d b e y o n d ,
1 6 6
the c o n v i c t i o n
that the soul b o t h leaves the b o d y at death a n d passes into a n o t h e r b o d y can
o n l y b e securely
attributed to P y t h a g o r a s (6th c e n t u r y
BC).
1 6 7
H e r o d o t u s ( m i d - 5 t h c e n t u r y ) describes a v i e w c u r r e n t a m o n g G r e e k s in his time that a m a n ' s soul at d e a t h b e g i n s a c y c l e in w h i c h it passes t h r o u g h all the creatures o f the l a n d , sea, a n d air until it o n c e a g a i n enters a h u m a n b o d y — a c y c l e o f 3 , 0 0 0 years ( 2 : 1 2 3 ) . It m a y h a v e b e e n this t h e o r y o f inevitable m e t e m p s y c h o s i s , a sort o f l a w o f n a t u r e , w h i c h was held b y
Pythagoras.
1 6 8
A t s o m e early p o i n t , h o w e v e r , this b e l i e f w a s m o d i f i e d b y the injection o f a strong m o r a l e l e m e n t : m e t e m p s y c h o s i s w a s n o l o n g e r a p e r m a n e n t , natural p r o c e s s , b u t a p u n i s h m e n t . T h e soul w a s t r a p p e d in the b o d y as in a p r i s o n o r g r a v e , a n d its g o a l w a s to e s c a p e b a c k to its true h o m e .
1 6 9
S u c h a v i e w w a s present already in P i n d a r (early 5th c e n t u r y
1 7 0
BC),
w h o suggested that if a soul r e m a i n e d p u r e t h r o u g h o u t three lifetimes it w o u l d find blissful rest f r o m b o d i l y l i f e .
1 7 1
It w a s P l a t o , h o w e v e r , w h o
g a v e definitive shape to the idea o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n as a p u n i s h m e n t . Plato deals with r e i n c a r n a t i o n in several places a n d always sets it in a moral c o n t e x t .
1 7 2
H i s v a r i o u s presentations d o n o t always
harmonize
in detail. T h e picture in the m i d d l e w o r k s , however—Phaedo, and
Phaedrus—is fairly
consistent:
pre-existent
souls fall
Republic,
from
their
h e a v e n l y a b o d e b e c a u s e o f their failure to m a i n t a i n p u r e t h o u g h t . T h e y b e c o m e i n c a r n a t e d as h u m a n s . A t death, the soul g o e s to the u n d e r w o r l d
1 6 6
C . H . Moore, Pagan Ideas, 8f. The eleventh book of the Odyssey contains the oldest known "descent into Hades" story. Moore (Pagan Ideas, lOff.) attributes it to the Orphics, as do Head and Cranston (Reincarnation, 190). Stettner (Seelenwanderung, 7f.), however, follows Williamowitz in at tributing this development to Pythagoras. H . S. Long ("Plato's Doctrine", 154ff.) agrees, pointing out that all of the evidence connecting metempsychosis with Orpheus is quite late. Herodotus declines to name its exponents, for he thinks that they plagiarized the idea from the Egyptians. Stettner (Seelenwanderung, 8f.) thinks it Pythagorean because it does not match any known Greek view. Seneca (Epistles 108:19) attributes such a natural view of reincarnation to Pythagoras. Stettner (Seelenwanderung, 19ff.). Cf. Plato (Cratylus 400c and Phaedo 81d f.), for whom reincarnation is not for the ayocOot, but is a punishment (Stxrj) for the c|>ocuXot. Olympian Odes 2:64-80. That is, they will abide "where the ocean breezes blow around the isle of the blest". Cf. Josephus on the Essene view, War 2:155f. The key passages are Meno 81b-82e; Cratylus 400b-c; Phaedo 70c f., 80a ff.; Republic 10:613e ff.; Phaedrus 245c ff.; Timaeus 41d ff., 76 d f., 90e ff. Plato's arguments for im mortality/reincarnation (the two are inseparable for him) have often been summarized and analyzed. Cf. Cicero, On Old Age, 77-81, and now R. L. Patterson, Plato On Immor tality (University Park, PA: Penn. State Univ. Press, 1965). H . S. Long's article ("Plato's Doctrine") gives a lucid summary of Plato on reincarnation. I follow closely Stettner's interpretation of Plato (Seelenwanderung, 32-40) on this topic. 1 6 7
1 6 8
1 6 9
170
1 7 1
1 7 2
163
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
to face j u d g e m e n t for its past life. R e c o m p e n s e is m e t e d o u t either solely in the u n d e r w o r l d
1 7 3
o r also b y a n e w i n c a r n a t i o n .
174
Y e t e v e n within
these w o r k s there is s o m e tension ( o r d e v e l o p m e n t ) ; f o r w h e r e a s Phaedo 108c has the n e w b o d y d e t e r m i n e d solely b y the quality o f the p r e v i o u s life (as p u n i s h m e n t o r r e w a r d ) , the M y t h o f E r (Republic 1 0 : 6 1 3 e f f . ) 1 7 5
The
iraXtyyeveata a n d
not
leaves the c h o i c e o f a n e w b o d y a n d life pattern u p to the s o u l . process
d e s c r i b e d in
these
w o r k s is actually
fxex£[xc|>ux
but
spends
"becomes again". In
the
intervening
p e r i o d s in
the
underworld before
it
1 7 6
Timaeus, Plato
paints
a
s o m e w h a t different
picture.
The
c r e a t o r - G o d fashions o n e soul for e v e r y star a n d assigns e a c h to its star. E n t r a n c e into a h u m a n b o d y is a test that is r e q u i r e d o f e a c h soul. T h e soul that s u c c e e d s in m a s t e r i n g the b o d y will return at death to its blissful life; the o n e that fails will b e g i n a c y c l e o f further i n c a r n a t i o n s in d e s c e n d i n g classes o f b e i n g s — w o m e n , a n i m a l s , b i r d s , etc. In b o t h o f these s c h e m e s , h o w e v e r , life in the b o d y is inimical to the soul a n d s o m e t h i n g f r o m w h i c h it desires to b e released. It is instructive to n o t e P l a t o ' s v o c a b u l a r y o n the t o p i c o f i m m o r t a l i t y . He
d o e s n o t h i m s e l f use the n o u n ^ a X i y y e v e a t a ,
177
b u t he d o e s e m p l o y
the c o m b i n a t i o nrcdcXtvytyveaOoct to speak o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n . I n Meno 8 1 b he has S o c r a t e s report a v i e w held b y priests a n d poets that: The
h u m a n s o u l is i m m o r t a l (TTIV C|>UXTJV . . . dcGdvorcov) a n d a l t h o u g h
it
c o m e s t o a n e n d , w h i c h is c a l l e d d e a t h , it t h e n l i v e s a g a i n (TOTS hi rcdXtv ytyveaGat) a n d is n e v e r d e s t r o y e d .
Similarly in Phaedo 7 0 c , Socrates e x p o u n d s the " o l d v i e w " that: S o u l s g o f r o m h e r e to there [sc.
aSrjs]
a n d returning here are b o r n again
(rcdXtv . . . y t y v o v x a t ) f r o m t h e d e a d . N o w if t h i s is s o , t h a t t h e l i v i n g ^ a r e b o r n a g a i n o u t o f t h e d e a d (TCaXtv ytyveaOat ex TG>V (XTCOGOCVOVTCOV xou<; £6avTa$), are
not our souls, then,
there?
1 7 3
Meno 81b-c. Phaedo 80e ff.; 81e/114c; 107c/113d. Stettner's observation (Seelenwanderung, 37). For the distinction, cf. Cumont, After Life, 182, and Stettner, Seelenwanderung, 3ff. The latter lists the occurrences of fxeTe(A(|>ux S> {X£Tevaco(xdxa)at<;, and TtaXfyyeveata in writers of the period. In the Phaedrus, 249a, Plato is describing 7caXt-fyeveata (by this defi nition) when he allows that a soul requires ten incarnations, with an interval of 1,000 years between each. (Note, however, that Philo, On the Cherubim, 114, seems to use 7taXt*pfeveatoc of the soul's absorption into the divine after death.) Blumenthal ("Palingenesia", 140) attributes the first known usage of the term to Pindar. 1 7 4
1 7 5
1 7 6
w<Jl
1 7 7
CHAPTER SIX
164
A little further o n P l a t o i n t r o d u c e s a n o t h e r t e r m into the
discussion,
n a m e l y , TO dva(Jto)aea9ai, " l i v i n g a g a i n " . H e uses this t e r m three times in the a r g u m e n t o f Phaedo 71e a n d then in 72a substitutes a g a i n 7tdcXtv ytyveaOoct. Now
it is generally r e c o g n i z e d that TCaXtyyeveata a n d dvoc($ta>at$ are
equivalent e x p r e s s i o n s . by commentators
178
Y e t this e q u i v a l e n c e is n o t always r e c o g n i z e d
o n J o s e p h u s w h e n he uses dvaPtouv to d e s c r i b e
the
Pharisaic v i e w o f the afterlife (Ant. 1 8 : 1 4 ) a n d yeveaOat rcaXtv to d e s c r i b e his o w n v i e w (Ag.Ap.
2 : 2 1 8 ) , a p o i n t to w h i c h w e shall return presently.
S p e c u l a t i o n a b o u t the afterlife
seems to h a v e s u b s i d e d after
A r i s t o t l e ' s skepticism a b o u t personal i m m o r t a l i t y e m e r g i n g rationalism o f the Hellenistic a g e . soul's
immortality
generally s k e p t i c a l .
out 182
of hand,
1 8 1
while
1 8 0
179
Plato.
c o r r e s p o n d e d to the
E p i c u r e a n i s m rejected the
the
older
schools
became
E v e n for the Stoics i m m o r t a l i t y w a s p r o b l e m a t i c
b e c a u s e o f their t h o r o u g h - g o i n g m a t e r i a l i s m : " s o u l " for t h e m c o u l d o n l y b e the active p r i n c i p l e in m a t t e r , the A o y o ^ .
1 8 3
It w a s , significantly,
P o s i d o n i u s , the S t o i c t e a c h e r w h o w a s m o s t o p e n to P l a t o n i s m ( a n d so s o m e w h a t a t y p i c a l ) , w h o m o s t clearly e s p o u s e d
immortality.
184
W h e n interest in r e i n c a r n a t i o n r e v i v e d in the late first c e n t u r y B C ,
1 8 5
all o f the earlier ideas f r o m H e r o d o t u s , P i n d a r , E m p e d o c l e s , a n d P l a t o r e a p p e a r e d . O v i d ' s Metamorphoses ( A D 7 ) , for e x a m p l e , p o r t r a y s
the
anima as perpetually passing f r o m o n e b o d y to a n o t h e r as a sort o f natural p h e n o m e n o n , with n o hint o f m o r a l j u d g e m e n t as the c a u s e : O u r souls are deathless, and ever, when they have left their former seat, do they live in new abodes and dwell in the bodies that have received them. . . . T h e spirit wanders, comes now here, now there, and occupies
1 7 8
Blumenthal, "Palingenesia", 139; Buchsel, 687. The equivalence holds even when the terms are used in the Stoic context of cosmic rebirth. It was Stoic teaching that gave currency to both terms. Head and Cranston, Reincarnation, 20Iff. Aristotle gives his objections in Metaphysics 1:9; 6:8; 12:10; 13:3. As Jackson Knight shows, however (94f.), Aristotle was both a follower and a critic of Plato, and this leaves some tension in his writings. W . Jaeger (Aristotle: Fundamentals of History of his Development [Oxford: Univ. Press, 1948], 50ff.), finds a development in the philosopher's thought on immortality. In his On the Soul, 3.4.430a, 22f., for example, Aristotle allows that mind (vou^) alone is immortal. iso p Wendland, Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur (Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr, 1912), 140ff.; Cumont, After Life, 6ff., Stettner, Seelenwanderung, 42f. Cf. especially Epicurus' *'Letter to Menoecus" in Diogenes Laertius 10:124b ff., and the poem The Nature of Things, bk. Ill, by the Epicurean Lucretius (mid-first century BC). Cumont, After Life, 6. C . H . Moore, Ancient Ideas, 39: "The soul then for them was a mode or function of matter." Ibid., 41f. Cf. Hippolytus, Philosophoumena 1.21.3. Cumont, After Life, 17f.; Stettner, Seelenwanderung, 42f. 1 7 9
1 8 1
1 8 2
1 8 3
1 8 4
1 8 5
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
165
whatever form it pleases. From beasts it passes ito human bodies, and from our bodies into beasts, but never perishes. 186
Seneca
attributes a similar v i e w to P y t h a g o r a s .
1 8 7
A l o n g s i d e this ap
parently a m o r a l v i e w , h o w e v e r , the P l a t o n i c n o t i o n o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n as a m o r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d process uninterrupted movement
also r e a p p e a r e d , b o t h in the ai
f r o m b o d y to b o d y (pteTe[X(|>ux^ ?)
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<; xoajxco, attributed to Timaios Lokros, as evidence of this view, which recalls the Timaeus. Stettner (Seelenwanderung, 50f.) adduces here the sixth book of Vergil's Aeneid, with its descent to Hades, and Plutarch's The Face on the Moon, 28-30 ( = 943-944D in the L C L edn.). Cf. especially SVF, II, 804-22, on the views of various Stoics. Blumenthal ("Palingenesia", 149f.) points out that for the Stoics 7caXtyyeveata referred not to the soul's rebirth but to that of the cosmos, after the conflagration. Cf. Cumont (After Life, 12ff.) on the problems with Stoic immortality. Stettner (Seelenwanderung, 66) argues that the old Stoa did not accept reincarnation but that Stoic physics (being monistic/pantheistic) lent a basis to Ovid's view of reincarnation. According to Cicero (Tusculan Disputations 1:79) the Stoic Panaetius vehemently denied the immortality of the soul. Cf. C . H . Moore, Pagan Ideas, 20ff., and Jackson Knight, Elysion, 120. So C . H . Moore, Pagan Ideas, 14ff.; Blumenthal, "Palingenesia", 141; Stettner, Seelenwanderung, 33, 49ff. L C L edn., II, 386 n. a. 187
1 8 8
1 8 9
1 9 0
191
1 9 2
CHAPTER SIX
166 mined
by moral
factors,
on
the
other.
Clearly, Josephus
and
his
Pharisees e s p o u s e the latter v i e w . H e consistently c l a i m s that it is o n l y the soul o f the g o o d p e r s o n that r e c e i v e s a better l i f e .
1 9 3
Nowhere does
he suggest that souls o f m e n o r animals pass naturally at death into o t h e r bodies. Rather,
he speaks always o f " r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s "
for
"virtue and v i c e " . Y e t J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the afterlife is distinctive. F o r fundamental to e v e r y o t h e r m o r a l t h e o r y o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n are the beliefs that: ( 1 ) the b o d y is antithetical to the s o u l ; ( 2 ) life in the b o d y results f r o m a fall; (3) g o o d souls effect an early release f r o m the xoxXo£ xfj^ yeveaeo)^ a n d return to their h e a v e n l y h o m e ; a n d
( 4 ) o n l y the
impure
and
con
taminated souls m u s t s p e n d l o n g e r p e r i o d s in the b o d y . J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w s a n d those h e attributes to the Pharisees, h o w e v e r , reflect n o n e o f these
features.
J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n is perfectly clear: [xeTa(Jatvetv 8e et£ exepov acofxa TTJV ([JUXTJV atSCco Tt{xa)pta xoXdCeaOat. (War 2:163) I n the parallel passage (Ant.
T
dyaOcov
[X6VTJV, TOCS
Se 9<xuX
1 8 : 1 4 ) h e also e m p h a s i z e s that to " l i v e
a g a i n " (dvocPtouv) is a r e w a r d (Tifirj).
194
In the Pharisaic s c e n a r i o , as
J o s e p h u s presents it, the w i c k e d n e v e r enter a b o d y again b u t u n d e r g o eternal (dtStov) p u n i s h m e n t / i m p r i s o n m e n t ; with a n e w b o d y . Josephus's
O n e reads
o n l y the g o o d are r e w a r d e d
a b o u t h e a v e n l y realms o n l y o n c e ,
o w n d e s c r i p t i o n o f the afterlife (War
h e a v e n is n o t a final g o a l b u t an intermediate
(3:374). A n d
in
there,
stage for g o o d souls,
" w h e n c e , ev0ev, they return to find in chaste b o d i e s (<xyvot£ aa>(xaatv) a new
h a b i t a t i o n " . A l l o f this r u n s c o u n t e r to the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f G r e e k
r e i n c a r n a t i o n t h e o r y that life in the b o d y is a necessary evil, to b e o v e r c o m e as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . Three
further
peculiarities
in J o s e p h u s ' s
o w n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the
afterlife s h o u l d b e n o t e d . First, w e h a v e o b s e r v e d that his yeveaGat rcdXtv a n d dvocPtouv recall the P l a t o n i c rcdXtv ytyveaOat a n d TO dvoc($uoaea9oct. I n the f o r m e r case, h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s uses an aorist infinitive instead o f
193 war 2:163: rjtyvxht
167
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
P l a t o ' s present i n f i n i t i v e .
195
D o e s the aorist suggest a single reincarna
tion rather than an o n g o i n g c y c l e o f life? P o s s i b l y , a l t h o u g h the present infinitive dva(Jtouv d o e s n o t h e l p the case. It is w o r t h n o t i n g , h o w e v e r , that the n e w b o d y ((Jtov dp,etva>) 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
1 9 7
E a c h t i m e it clearly m e a n s " h o l y ,
s a c r e d , o r c o n s e c r a t e d " . T h a c k e r a y ' s r e n d e r i n g " c h a s t e " at War 3 : 3 7 4 , then, seems p e c u l i a r . J o s e p h u s is talking a b o u t a h o l y o r sacred b o d y that will b r i n g a better l i f e .
1 9 8
Finally, w e s h o u l d n o t e that in b o t h o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the afterlife h e uses the i n t r i g u i n g phrase ix 7ieptTpo7tfjs (atcovcov) to d e n o t e the time at w h i c h the soul enters it sacred b o d y . T h a c k e r a y renders the phrase in b o t h p l a c e s , " i n the r e v o l u t i o n o f the a g e s "
1 9 9
— s o suggesting
an o n g o i n g p r o c e s s , like the t u r n i n g o f a w h e e l . O n e m i g h t recall the r e v o l u t i o n o f the h e a v e n l y spheres in P l a t o ' s Phaedrus 2 4 5 c , f r o m w h i c h souls are c o n t i n u a l l y falling into i n c a r n a t i o n s b e c a u s e o f their failure t o b e h o l d the truth. Y e t for J o s e p h u s this i m a g e is h a r d l y
appropriate,
b e c a u s e : ( a ) for h i m , e n t r a n c e into a h o l y b o d y is a final r e w a r d for g o o d souls, n o t a p u n i s h m e n t ; ( b ) h e speaks o f the r e v o l u t i o n o f octcovcov, n o t o f h e a v e n l y spheres; a n d ( c ) the c o n t e x t suggests a singular, c l i m a c t i c m o v e m e n t into a n e w b o d y . I n d e e d , o u t s i d e o f the J o s e p h a n c o r p u s rcepiTporcrj c a n m e a n t i n u o u s r e v o l u t i o n " , as in the t u r n i n g o f a w h e e l . to a s u d d e n i n v e r s i o n o r u p h e a v a l ;
2 0 1
2 0 0
"con
But it c a n also refer
the v e r b 7teptTpercco often m e a n s " t o
1 9 5
Plato's extra y merely reflects the Attic reduplication (LSJ, s.v.). Ag.Ap. 2:218. Ant. 4:80; 12:38; 15:418; 18:85. Some sort of special body would indeed be necessary if the future life is to be dfiieivco for the soul. Josephus allows that, normally, the soul suffers (xocxoTCOcGet) when entering and leaving the body (Ag.Ap. 2:203). L C L edn. of War 3:374 and Ag.Ap. 2:218. Thackeray agrees here with Whiston. Cornfield's "when the wheel of time has turned full circle" is more promising (see below). In Theaetetus 209e and Republic 546e, Plato uses TtepixpoTCTi describe the revolution of the xuxXo$ of life; see also Philo, Embassy to Gaius 206. Cf. Philo, On the Change of Names 150, referring to social revolutions, and Life of Moses 1:42, referring to a sudden change in one's physical condition. 1 9 6
1 9 7
1 9 8
1 9 9
2 0 0
2 0 1
to
CHAPTER SIX
168 turn o v e r o r c a p s i z e " .
2 0 2
A l l three instances o f the v e r b in J o s e p h u s
m e a n " t o invert o r o v e r t u r n " .
2 0 3
I n its o n l y o c c u r r e n c e in J o s e p h u s
outside o f o u r passages, the n o u n 7cepiTpo7crj m e a n s " r e c a p i t u l a t i o n r e c u r r e n c e " , with a single e v e n t e n v i s i o n e d (Ant.
or
14:487). These ex
a m p l e s , few t h o u g h they are, suffice to warrant the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r Josephus
d o e s n o t e n v i s i o n a single m o m e n t at w h i c h the soul will
receive a n e w , holy b o d y . Outside
o f Josephus,
the
phrases
ex 7ceptTpo7cfjs a n d
ev 7cepiTpo7cfj
generally s e e m to m e a n " i n s u c c e s s i o n ' o r " i n t u r n " . F o r e x a m p l e : the responsibility for an a n n u a l e v e n t falls o n v a r i o u s g r o u p s o f p e o p l e " i n turn", or each m e m b e r o f a harem turn".
2 0 4
spends time with her l o r d
"in
T h e phrases h a v e to d o , then, n o t with perpetual m o t i o n b u t
with o n e c h a n g e in a series o r s u c c e s s i o n . S o the use o f rceptTpo7crj, 7reptTpe7coo, a n d ex 7reptTpo7cfjs in J o s e p h u s a n d other G r e e k literature allows b o t h the idea o f " c o n t i n u o u s r e v o l u t i o n " a n d that o f " s u d d e n u p h e a v a l , i n v e r s i o n , o r s u c c e s s i o n " .
2 0 5
But J o s e p h u s ' s ex rceptTpo7cfjs i n v o l v e s the aicove*;. A l t h o u g h auov c a n refer to p e r i o d s o f v a r y i n g l e n g t h , f r o m a lifetime to an e p o c h , it p r a c tically always has the sense o f a c o n c e i v a b l e , d e l i m i t e d p e r i o d o f t i m e .
2 0 6
A n d this o b s e r v a t i o n a p p e a r s to s u p p o r t the idea o f succession o r c h a n g e for ex 7cepn;porcfjs, rather than a " c o n t i n u o u s r e v o l u t i o n " : it is n o t that all the a e o n s are s o m e h o w r e v o l v i n g simultaneously, b u t rather that w h e n o n e a g e c o m e s to an e n d the next b e g i n s . I p r o p o s e , therefore, the translation: " i n / a t the s u c c e s s i o n ( o r c h a n g e ) o f the a g e s " . T a k i n g into a c c o u n t all o f the a b o v e o b s e r v a t i o n s , w e m a y s u m m a r i z e J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisaic belief in i m m o r t a l i t y as follows. In War 2 : 1 6 3 J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisees, in contrast to the S a d d u c e e s , as b e l i e v i n g in the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul, with eternal
punishment
awaiting the w i c k e d a n d entry into a n o t h e r b o d y a w a i t i n g the g o o d . T h e first t w o o f these p r o p o s i t i o n s ( i m m o r t a l i t y a n d p u n i s h m e n t ) agree with v i e w s that he ascribes also to the Essenes; all three o f t h e m ( i n c l u d i n g 202 c f philo, Allegorical Interpretation 3:23 and On the Unchangeableness of God 129. Ant. 9:72 (a sudden change of emotion); 10:297 (the overturning of a chariot); 14:356 (the overturning of a wagon). Cf. Herodotus 2:168; 3:69; Dio Cassius 53.1.5; 54.19.8; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 5:2. Since my goal is to establish a plausible translation in the case of Josephus, the in vestigation of 7C6piTp07urj in other ancient writers has not been exhaustive. So LSJ, "ocicov". In Josephus, the word occurs some 26 times, in five main senses: (a) the whole time from creation to the present, or from the present onward, War 1:12; 5:442; Ant. 7:385; 18:287; 19:79, 170; (b) a single generation or lifetime, War 5:185, 187; 6:105 (?); Ant. 19:170; (c) an epoch, Ant. 1:16, 272, 275; (d) simply "period of time", Ant. 3:56, 223; and (e) in the expression ei<; ocuovoc for "forever", Ant. 7:211, 356. In all of these cases, auov refers to a period of time. 2 0 3
2 0 4
2 0 5
2 0 6
169
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
a n e w b o d y for the v i r t u o u s ) a c c o r d with his o w n v i e w s . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the c o m m o n l a n g u a g e o f reincarnation to d e s c r i b e b o t h his a n d the Pharisees' v i e w s , those v i e w s still s e e m p e c u l i a r in the G r e c o - R o m a n c o n t e x t , insofar as they h o l d the n e w b o d y to b e a reward, o n l y for the souls o f the g o o d . S e e k i n g to u n d e r s t a n d this a n o m a l y better b y n o t i n g subtleties in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n , w e h a v e seen: ( a ) that the n e w b o d y is a special, h o l y b o d y a n d will b r i n g a b o u t a better life; ( b ) that o n l y o n e such b o d y seems to b e e n v i s i o n e d , n o t a " c y c l e o f b e c o m i n g " ; ( c ) that the soul will wait in h e a v e n until its reincarnation; a n d ( d ) that this reincarnation will take place " a t a succession o f the a e o n s / ages". T h e f o r m o f reincarnation attributed to the Pharisees b y J o s e p h u s , then, bears m a n y similarities to what w e should call r e s u r r e c t i o n — a Pharisaic d o c t r i n e well attested in the r a b b i n i c literature a n d in the N e w Testament.
2 0 7
A slight difficulty arises, p e r h a p s , with J o s e p h u s ' s use o f
the adjective exepov for aa>[xoc, w h i c h seems to conflict with the c u s t o m a r y J e w i s h idea that in resurrection the b o d i e s of the dead rise again. O n e s h o u l d n o t , h o w e v e r , read t o o m u c h into this, since J o s e p h u s m a k e s plain that the n e w b o d y will b e different f r o m the o l d w i t h respect to its " h o l i n e s s " (cf. ayvoq)—a v i e w shared to s o m e extent b y the ex-Pharisee Paul (1 C o r . 1 5 : 3 5 f f . ) . I n a n y case, there is n o q u e s t i o n in J o s e p h u s o f a repeated e x c h a n g e o f o n e h u m a n ( o r a n i m a l ) b o d y for a n o t h e r . It w o u l d a p p e a r , then, that at a t i m e w h e n m a n y different v i e w s o f the afterlife w e r e circulating in the G r e c o - R o m a n w o r l d , J o s e p h u s a d d e d to the list a J e w i s h t h e o r y o f resurrection b y a p p r o p r i a t i n g for it the l a n g u a g e o f reincarnation. H e w a s n o t a l o n e in this. T h e a u t h o r o f 2 M a c c a b e e s also applies dvaPtcoai^ to resurrection ( 7 : 9 ) .
2 0 8
Similarly, the
a u t h o r o f M a t t h e w a d o p t s the t e r m TraXiyyeveata—which c o m m o n l y re ferred to either the rebirth o f souls o r (for the Stoics) the rebirth o f the c o s m o s — t o indicate the a p p r o a c h i n g k i n g d o m o f G o d ( 1 9 : 2 8 ) .
2 0 9
It is a historical q u e s t i o n , b e y o n d the s c o p e o f this study, w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s m i s r e p r e s e n t e d the J e w i s h d o c t r i n e o f resurrection b y ap p r o p r i a t i n g G r e e k t e r m i n o l o g y for it. A s an entree to that q u e s t i o n , h o w -
2 0 7
Cf. J. Ross, Immortality, esp. 58-68. In the N T , cf. Acts 23:8. I thus agree with Feldman ( L C L edn. of Josephus, I X , 13 n. c.) that Josephus attributes to the Pharisees a doctrine of resurrection. I differ from Feldman, however, in two ways: (a) I have not worked from the premise that Josephus, as a Pharisee, must have known that the group believed in resurrection; and (b) I do not think that resurrection and "reincarnation" (in its many Hellenistic modes) are mutually exclusive. Rather, Josephus apparently considered the former to be one mode—the Jewish mode—of the latter. Noted by Feldman ( L C L edn., I X , 13 n. c), though not in this context. Cf. Buchsel, "rcaXrfyeveata", 688. The Lucan parallel to Mt.'s ev xfj icaXt-fYeveata is ev TTJ paatXeia [xou. 2 0 8
2 0 9
170
CHAPTER SIX
e v e r , w e m a y e m p h a s i z e : ( a ) that there w a s n o single,
authoritative
G r e e k v i e w o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n at the t i m e , v a r i o u s scenarios b e i n g p r o p o s e d ; ( b ) that a n y d o c t r i n e o f resurrection that has the soul l e a v i n g the b o d y at death a n d then e n t e r i n g either that s a m e b o d y o r a n o t h e r
at
s o m e later date is ipso facto a f o r m o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n o r TcaXtyyeveata in the b r o a d sense; ( c ) that G r e e k ideas o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n m a y h a v e p l a y e d a role in the e m e r g e n c e o f the J e w i s h d o c t r i n e o f r e s u r r e c t i o n ;
210
a n d ( d ) that
a m o n g the J e w s there w e r e also different interpretations o f resurrection and
immortality.
211
E. T h e final statement o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees in War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 is as f o l l o w s : <J><xpiaaToi fiev 9tXdXXrjXot Te xat TTJV tit; TO xotvdv opiovotav aaxouvres. H a v i n g c o m p l e t e d his fxev . . . 8£ c o m p a r i s o n o f the Pharisees a n d Sad d u c e e s o n the t w o m a j o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues, J o s e p h u s n o w turns to their b e h a v i o u r : " W h e r e a s the Pharisees are f o n d o f o n e a n o t h e r
and
cultivate h a r m o n y within the g r o u p , the S a d d u c e e s are b o o r i s h e v e n t o w a r d e a c h o t h e r ; their d e a l i n g s with their fellows are as i n c o n s i d e r a t e as those with f o r e i g n e r s . "
1. Key Terms a. T h e w o r d qjtXdXXrjXoc o c c u r s o n l y twice in J o s e p h u s , b o t h times in War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 . In 2:165f. he contrasts the Pharisees f a v o u r a b l y with the Sad d u c e e s ; at 2 : 1 1 9 , h o w e v e r , a n d this will b e crucial for interpreting o u r passage, he presents the Essenes as s u p e r i o r to all others in their c o n c e r n for o n e a n o t h e r : 9tXdXXr)Xot 8e xat TG>V aXXcov rcXeov. T h e m u t u a l affection o f the Pharisees, then, is r e m a r k a b l e o n l y in c o m p a r i s o n to the rudeness o f the S a d d u c e e s . It is well k n o w n that J o s e p h u s has little s y m p a t h y for the S a d d u c e e s .
2 1 2
In Ant. 1 8 : 1 6 he m e n t i o n s again their disputatiousness
a n d in 2 0 : 1 9 9 he calls t h e m " s a v a g e " (o>[xot). It is, then, the S a d d u c e e s '
2 1 0
So T . F. Glasson, Greek Influence, If., 5f., 30, who argues that Jewish eschatology has been too quickly traced to Iran, when the political circumstances of Palestine from the fourth century BC onward would suggest the likelihood of Greek influence. Cf. R . H . Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1913); G. W . Nickelsburg, Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in IntertestamentalJudaism (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Univ. Press, 1972), e.g., p. 180; and H . C . C . Cavallin, Life After Death: Paul's Argument . . . Part I: An Inquiry into the Jewish Background (Lund: Gleerup, 1974), 199, 212. Noted already by Paret, "Pharisaismus", 820f. 2 1 1
2 1 2
171
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
r u d e n e s s , as m u c h as the P h a r i s e e s ' affection, w h i c h s e e m s to b e the p o i n t o f the p a s s a g e .
2 1 3
b . T h e w o r d Ofxovota
214
taps the r o o t o f a t h e m e that r u n s t h r o u g h o u t
all o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s , b u t is especially p o i g n a n t in War. T h e thesis o f War, as set o u t in the preface ( 1 : 1 0 ) , is that the destruction o f J e r u s a l e m was
d u e to d o m e s t i c strife (ardat<; otxeta). B u t a r d a t ^ is the o p p o s i t e o f
6(jLOvota. I n failing to ojxovoetv, the rebels failed to live u p t o their prin ciples as J e w s . T h a t a lack o f ofiovotoc leads to destruction is first illustrated in the case o f H e r o d ' s f a m i l y . H e r o d is p o r t r a y e d as t h a n k i n g C a e s a r for g i v i n g his sons ofiovota, " s o m e t h i n g greater than a k i n g d o m " ( 1 : 4 5 7 ) , a n d h e a p p o i n t s a d v i s o r s for e a c h s o n to e n s u r e that ojiovotoc is m a i n t a i n e d ( 1 : 4 6 0 ) . He
p r a y s that G o d will ratify the instalment o f his sons as r o y a l t y — a s
l o n g as they 6{xovoetv ( 1 : 4 6 4 ) . A n d he tells his p e o p l e that it is in e v e r y o n e ' s interest that h e rule in h a r m o n y (xpocretv . . . ojxovoetv, 1:465). A l a s , h o w e v e r , the t r a g e d y o f H e r o d ' s r e i g n w a s p r e c i s e l y its d o m e s t i c strife a n d Ten
intrigue.
215
o f the r e m a i n i n g sixteen instances o f 6u.6votoc/6fiovoetv in War h a v e
to d o with the thesis o f the w o r k : the factiousness o f the r e b e l s .
2 1 6
Titus
c o m e s t o T a r i c h a e a e a n d , finding the J e w s s q u a b b l i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r , calls for an i m m e d i a t e attack, b e f o r e they c a n restore Ofxovota ( 3 : 4 9 6 ) . Conversely,
w h e n V e s p a s i a n o b s e r v e s the
internal b i c k e r i n g within
J e r u s a l e m , he rejects the a d v i c e to attack b e f o r e they ou-ovofjaetv ( 4 : 3 6 7 ) , a r g u i n g rather that such an attack w o u l d d r i v e t h e m to Ofxovota; h e w o u l d rather wait a n d let t h e m w e a r themselves d o w n ( 4 : 3 6 9 ) . O n t w o o c c a sions J o s e p h u s reports that the rebels c a m e to their senses a n d saw that their lack o f 6p.6votoc w a s actually a i d i n g the e n e m y ( 5 : 7 2 , 2 7 8 ) . T w i c e he r e m a r k s sardonically that the rebels e x p r e s s e d ofxovota o n l y in their h e i n o u s c r i m e s t o w a r d fellow J e w s ( 5 : 3 0 , 4 4 1 ) . H e l a m e n t s the
party
strife (TO 9tX6vetxov) that existed in J e r u s a l e m , w h i c h b e g a n in h o m e s a n d affected those w h o h a d l o n g w o r k e d t o g e t h e r
(TG>V 6U.OVOOUVTG>V
7cdXoct,
4 : 1 3 2 ) . T h e final w o r d is g i v e n to T i t u s , w h o , u p o n h e a r i n g o f the s h o c k ing
c r i m e s w i t h i n the city, declares that he has g i v e n the J e w s o p p o r
tunity for f r e e d o m a n d p e a c e b u t that " t h e y prefer ordain to Ofxovota" (6:216).
2 1 3
Although the Pharisees are commended, (a) they do not receive the enthusiastic praise accorded the Essenes in 2:119-161 and (b) the commendation is governed by the [iev . . . hi comparison with the boorish Sadducees. The noun occurs 20 times in Josephus, in every work but Ag.Ap.; the verb Ofxoveo) appears 17 times. Cf. War l:567ff., 576f., 592ff., 641ff., passim. The other six occurrences are at War 1:569, 570; 2:209, 345, 467, 609. 2 1 4
2 1 5
2 1 6
CHAPTER SIX
172
T h a t this c o n t e m p t for 6(x6votoc w a s untrue to J u d a i s m is an i m p o r t a n t 217
t h e m e o f War.
T h e p o i n t is m a d e in a passage that explains w h y
J e w i s h attempts to destroy the R o m a n earthworks failed: For, to begin with, there seemed to be no unanimity in their design (ou8' ofxovoetv r\ axityu; auTtov etoxet): they darted out in small parties, at intervals, hesitatingly and in alarm, in short not like Jews (xa66Xou . . . oux 'Iou8atxtos): the characteristics (tStoc) of the nation . . . were all lacking. (6:17; Thackeray) In War, then, the rebels are presented as traitors to the principles o f J u d a i s m . I n d e e d , they c o u l d n o t act as authentic J e w s b e c a u s e o f the il l e g i t i m a c y o f their c a u s e , w h i c h alienated t h e m f r o m G o d . 'Ofxovota as a J e w i s h ideal also turns u p at strategic points in Ant. S t a n d i n g at the b o r d e r o f C a n a a n , M o s e s exhorts the p e o p l e b e f o r e they enter: " A b o v e all, let us b e o n e o f m i n d " (npo hi rcavToov ojxovocojxev, 3 : 3 0 2 ) . I n the c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r the p r i e s t h o o d , M o s e s p r a y s that the u n just m a y b e p u n i s h e d so that 6(x6votoc a n d etprjvT) m i g h t return to the p e o p l e ( 4 : 5 0 ) . Later in the narrative, O n i a s asks P t o l e m y for a t e m p l e at L e o n t o p o l i s , w h e r e the J e w s m i g h t w o r s h i p in ofxovota ( 1 3 : 6 7 ) . A n d Mattathias the H a s m o n e a n , as h e lies d y i n g , charges his sons: " A b o v e all,
I u r g e y o u to b e o f o n e m i n d " ((xaXtaxa 8' ujxtv 6(xovoetv rcapatvco,
13:283).
Finally, J o s e p h u s
notes
that
when
P o m p e y marched
on
J e r u s a l e m , the p e o p l e in the city h a d differences o f o p i n i o n a n d w e r e oux ofxovoouvToav ( 1 4 : 5 8 ) . O n c e a g a i n , therefore, w e see ojxovota as a J e w i s h ideal, the a b s e n c e o f w h i c h leads to c o l l a p s e .
218
T h i s idea c o m e s t h r o u g h m o s t clearly in Ag.Ap.,
w h e r e J o s e p h u s has
n o reserve a b o u t c l a i m i n g ojxovota as a J e w i s h virtue. C o n t r a s t i n g the o r d i n a r y J e w ' s t h o r o u g h k n o w l e d g e o f the L a w with the general i g n o r a n c e o f laws a m o n g other nations, he writes: T o this cause above all we owe our admirable harmony (TTJV Gaufxaaxrjv 6(x6votav rjfxtv). Unity and identity of religious belief, perfect uniformity in habits and customs (TCO pup 8e xat TOT$ eGeat), produce a very beautiful con cord (au[X9covtav) in human character. A m o n g us alone (7cap' rjfxtv jxovots) will be heard no contradictory statements about G o d , as are c o m m o n among other nations. (2:179f.; Thackeray) J o s e p h u s then lists a n u m b e r o f areas in w h i c h the J e w i s h vojxot h a v e b e e n imitated b y the rest o f the w o r l d ; a m o n g o t h e r things, he says, " t h e y try to imitate o u r c o o p e r a t i v e s p i r i t " (TTJV npoq aXXrjXous rjjx&v
2 1 7
Cf., e.g., War 1:10, 27; 2:345-347. Ant. 13:305 reports that evil men (TtovTjpoi) wanted to destroy the ofxovota between the Hasmonean brothers Artistobulus and Antigonus, from whom Josephus traces the decline of the dynasty (War 1:69). 2 1 8
T H E PHARISEES A M O N G T H E JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
173
6(x6votav, 2 : 2 8 3 ) . Finally, in his c l o s i n g remarks J o s e p h u s offers a list o f ideals that h e believes the J e w s h a v e i n t r o d u c e d (etadyco) into the w o r l d . T h i r d o n the list c o m e s npoq aXXrjXous 6(xovoetv, " t o b e a p r e y neither to d i s u n i o n in adversity, n o r t o a r r o g a n c e a n d faction in p r o s p e r i t y " (2:294; Thackeray). I n J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s ofxovota s e l d o m appears in the pedestrian sense o f "agreement or unanimity".
2 1 9
It is m u c h m o r e a t h e o l o g i c a l t e r m for
h i m , indicating the unity o f t h o u g h t a n d b e h a v i o u r that characterizes g e n u i n e J e w s . T h e c o n s i s t e n c y o f this t h e m e highlights the l o w o p i n i o n that J o s e p h u s has o f the rebels, w h o a b a n d o n e d c o n c e r n for Ofxovota.
2 . Interpretation R e t u r n i n g n o w to War 2 : 1 6 6 , o n e c a n see the significance o f J o s e p h u s ' s attribution o f Ofxovota to the Pharisees. O n the o n e h a n d , the Essenes are p r e - e m i n e n t in the exercise o f this basic J e w i s h virtue; as in other respects, the m o n k s are in a class b y themselves. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the S a d d u c e e s are totally l a c k i n g in the h a r m o n y characteristic o f J e w s , e v e n as they d e b u n k the h i g h e r d o c t r i n e s o f i m m o r t a l i t y a n d p r o v i d e n c e . I n contrast to the S a d d u c e e s , the Pharisees cultivate 6[x6voia, at least a m n o n g themselves (euj TO xotvov).
I I I . Interpretation of War 2:162-166
on the Pharisees
War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 is J o s e p h u s ' s fundamental d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees. I n it he sets d o w n e v e r y t h i n g that he wants his readers to k n o w a b o u t the Pharisees, a n d he refers b a c k to it several times as his standard presentation. It is n o w possible to s u m m a r i z e o u r findings o n J o s e p h u s ' s five statements a b o u t the Pharisees a n d to interpret t h e m together as a w h o l e . O u r a i m , o n c e a g a i n , is b o t h c o g n i t i v e a n d c o n a t i v e : to deter m i n e b o t h the c o n t e n t o f the d e s c r i p t i o n a n d J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d the g r o u p . J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisees as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l (octpeauj), w h i c h o p p o s e s the S a d d u c e a n s c h o o l o n t w o issues: the Pharisees r e c o g nize the h a n d o f f a t e / G o d a n d they a c c e p t the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul, w h e r e a s the S a d d u c e e s d e n y b o t h . T h e Pharisees' c o m b i n a t i o n o f fate a n d free will recalls particularly the v i e w o f the Stoic C h r y s i p p u s (as related b y C i c e r o ) ; b u t it is generally c o m p a t i b l e with the s y n e r g i s m
219 p \\r r, cf. n. 216 above. For Ant., the mundane occurrences are at 2:21; 7:213; 18:376; and 19:341. o r
a
174
CHAPTER SIX
b e t w e e n these t w o causes that w a s w i d e l y h e l d in ancient thought g o i n g b a c k t o Plato a n d b e y o n d . O n the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the s o u l , the Pharisaic v i e w ( v i a J o s e p h u s ) recalls P l a t o ' s l a n g u a g e o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n . O n closer e x a m i n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , it reveals several peculiarities vis-a-vis G r e e k thought a n d suggests s o m e t h i n g like the resurrection i d e a k n o w n f r o m J e w i s h a n d Christian s o u r c e s . O n b o t h issues, the S a d d u c e e s h o l d a skeptical p o s t i o n akin t o that o f the E p i c u r e a n s . O n all three p o i n t s o f contrast b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d
Saddu
cees—the t w o p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues a n d the q u e s t i o n o f b e h a v i o u r — t h e Pharisees n o t o n l y stand n e a r e r to J o s e p h u s ' s o w n t h o u g h t , they s e e m to replicate it m o r e o r less e x a c d y . L i k e t h e m , J o s e p h u s
attributes
e v e r y t h i n g to fate, j u x t a p o s e s G o d a n d fate, a n d e m p h a s i z e s free will. L i k e t h e m , h e believes in the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul, p u n i s h m e n t s for the w i c k e d , a n d a n e w b o d y for the g o o d . L i k e t h e m , h e h o l d s to an ideal o f ofxovota. Y e t it m u s t b e asked what this p h i l o s o p h i c a l a g r e e m e n t m e a n s . W h a t d o e s it say a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d , o r relation t o , the Pharisees? O n e s h o u l d n o t e , first o f all, that J o s e p h u s n e v e r e s p o u s e s a p o s i t i o n o n the g r o u n d that it is Pharisaic. O n the c o n t r a r y , h e exalts the L a w a n d its accurate interpretation b e c a u s e h e is a priest. T h e Pharisees h a p p e n to m a k e the s a m e c l a i m s . L i k e w i s e , o n e a c h o f the three p o i n t s o f c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s , J o s e p h u s accepts the "dogmatic"
or
affirmative
p o s i t i o n rather
than
the
skeptical
one
b e c a u s e , h e c l a i m s , it is taught in the L a w , w h i c h m e a n s for h i m the M o s a i c c o d e . T h u s h e c l a i m s that the role o f fate a n d free will is spelled o u t in the L a w (Ant. 1 6 : 3 8 9 f . ) ; that i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul a n d resurrec t i o n / r e i n c a r n a t i o n is to b e f o u n d in " w h a t the l a w g i v e r has p r o p h e s i e d " (Ag.Ap.
2 : 2 1 8 ) ; a n d that ofxovota is s o m e t h i n g e n j o i n e d b y the L a w (Ap.
2 : 2 8 0 f f . ) . O n all o f these issues, J o s e p h u s finds the skeptical p o s i t i o n o f the S a d d u c e e s to b e un-Jewish a n d so h e accepts the affirmative posi tions. But he n e v e r e n d o r s e s the Pharisaic p o s t i o n per se; w e c a n o n l y d i s c o v e r his a g r e e m e n t with t h e m b y patient analysis. S e c o n d , it is n o t o n l y the Pharisees w h o h o l d the p o s t i o n s e s p o u s e d b y J o s e p h u s , so that his belief in fate o r i m m o r t a l i t y w o u l d i m p l y Pharisaic allegiance. W e k n o w , for e x a m p l e , that h e t h o u g h t the Essenes to excel e v e r y o n e else in Ofxovota, that h e heartily e n d o r s e d their v i e w o f the afterlife, a n d that they t o o b e l i e v e d in etfxapuivr). I n d e e d , the Pharisees' views are those o f the m a i n s t r e a m . J o s e p h u s says as m u c h w h e n h e claims that their v i e w s e n d e a r t h e m to the p e o p l e (Ant. 1 8 : 1 4 ) . N o t i c e the o r d e r : it is n o t that the masses b e l i e v e in fate a n d
immortality
b e c a u s e the Pharisees teach such things; rather, the Pharisees h a v e the p u b l i c trust b e c a u s e , unlike the S a d d u c e a n elite, they teach ideas that
175
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
are a l r e a d y p o p u l a r . S o the fact that J o s e p h u s also shares such m a i n stream beliefs d o e s n o t m a k e h i m a Pharisee. T h i r d , J o s e p h u s b e g i n s War 2 : 1 6 2 b y recalling his earlier,
negative
p o r t r a y a l in 1:110-114: the Pharisees are the o n e s w h o seem t o interpret the laws accurately, w h o d e c e i v e d the p i o u s Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a , a n d w h o h a v e " s h a n g h a i e d " ( d r c d y c o ) the p o s i t i o n o f the l e a d i n g s c h o o l . I n the earlier passage J o s e p h u s d i d n o t assail a n y Pharisaic beliefs, b u t rather p o i n t e d o u t the tension b e t w e e n their reputation for euaefJeioc, o n the o n e h a n d , a n d their u n s c r u p u l o u s b e h a v i o u r o n the other. B u t if J o s e p h u s ' s critique o f the Pharisees is a i m e d at their b e h a v i o u r in particular
in
stances, then n o a m o u n t o f general i d e o l o g i c a l a g r e e m e n t c a n p r o v e h i m to b e a P h a r i s e e .
220
F o u r t h , o n e c a n n o t e s c a p e the o v e r w h e l m i n g c o n t e x t u a l i n d i c a t o r s . It is true that, o v e r against the S a d d u c e e s , the Pharisees turn o u t p o s i t i v e l y o n e v e r y p o i n t . But J o s e p h u s dislikes the S a d d u c e e s . T h e k e y p o i n t is that b o t h o f these g r o u p s are d i s p e n s e d w i t h in short o r d e r after the l o n g a n d a d m i r i n g portrayal o f the Essenes. T h e Pharisees are c r e d i t e d w i t h at least seeking h a r m o n y , for e x a m p l e , w h e r e a s the S a d d u c e e s d o n o t e v e n treat their friends well. But J o s e p h u s ' s heart is w i t h the Essenes. T h e y are m o r e d e v o t e d 9tXdXXr)Xoi than a n y o t h e r g r o u p ( 2 : 1 1 9 ) . T h e i r a d m i r e r gives t w o p a r a g r a p h s ( 2 : 1 2 2 - 1 2 7 ) to a d i s c u s s i o n o f their re m a r k a b l e ojxovota. W e h a v e also n o t e d his w a r m a n d s y m p a t h e t i c discus sion o f the E s s e n e s ' b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y ( 2 : 1 5 3 - 1 5 8 ) . A n d it is e q u a l l y o b v i o u s that J o s e p h u s agrees with their politics o f s u b m i s s i o n ( 2 : 1 3 9 f . ) . Furthermore,
if the Pharisees are reputed to h a v e special dxpt(ktoc, the
Essenes are <xxpt(3ecruaTot in their j u d g m e n t s ( 2 : 1 4 5 ) a n d m o r e careful than all o t h e r J e w s in o b s e r v i n g the S a b b a t h ( 2 : 1 4 7 ) . In short, if the Pharisees are s u p e r i o r to the almost irreligious S a d d u c e e s , the Essenes are in a class b y t h e m s e l v e s . A l l o f the e v i d e n c e c o n s i d e r e d a b o v e p o i n t s to the c o n c l u s i o n that, although Josephus
a g r e e d with the Pharisees o n m a j o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l
issues, b e c a u s e they represented " a f f i r m a t i v e " m a i n s t r e a m p o s i t i o n s , h e is
very
far
from
unrestrained
enthusiasm
for
the
group.
He
a c k n o w l e d g e s their role as the f o r e m o s t J e w i s h sect, b u t he h a r d l y exults o v e r it. O u r investigation, h o w e v e r , has n o t t u r n e d u p a n y further e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t J o s e p h u s ' s initial assertion ( 2 : 1 1 8 f . ) that the three legitimate octpeaeis h a v e n o t h i n g in c o m m o n with that o f the J u d a s . T h a t
2 2 0
assertion
It is perhaps worth remembering that even the Matthean Jesus agreed with Pharisaic teaching (Mt. 23:2); yet that does not make him a Pharisee (although such an identification has been made from time to time).
176
CHAPTER SIX
is s u p p o r t e d o n l y for the Essenes, w h o are featured players; o n e has o n l y J o s e p h u s ' s w o r d that it h o l d s also for the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s .
I V . Source Criticism of War
2:162-166
It remains to a p p l y the results o f the f o r e g o i n g analysis to the q u e s t i o n : C a n the passage b e traced to an a u t h o r other than J o s e p h u s ? O f the o l d e r s o u r c e s critics, m o s t d i d n o t c o m m e n t o n War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 . H o l s c h e r d i d , b u t assigned it t o J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f b e c a u s e it presents the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s " i n d e r u b l i c h e n W e i s e des J . [ o s e p h u s ] " .
2 2 1
T h e recent attempt b y S c h w a r t z t o r e v i v e s o u r c e criticism with respect to the
Pharisee
passages
also e n d s u p
attributing o u r
passage
to
J o s e p h u s , this t i m e o n the g r o u n d s that it gives a " t h o r o u g h l y p o s i t i v e " a c c o u n t o f the P h a r i s e e s
222
—though
that rationale is d u b i o u s , b o t h
because the a c c o u n t is n o t t h o r o u g h l y positive a n d b e c a u s e the a s s u m p tion that J o s e p h u s w o u l d o n l y write postitively a b o u t the g r o u p is u n w a r ranted. O n the o t h e r side, practically a l o n e , stands G . F. M o o r e , w h o argues that the discussion o f the Pharisees Josephan,
2 2 3
un-Jewish,
224
o n fate a n d
a n d rather S t o i c .
2 2 5
free will is n o n -
M o o r e infers f r o m all o f
this that J o s e p h u s is d e p e n d e n t for this s e g m e n t o n an a c c o u n t o f the Pharisees b y N i c o l a u s .
2 2 6
Y e t e v e n M o o r e credits the rest o f the passage
( i . e . , e v e r y t h i n g b u t the fate/free will n o t i c e ) to J o s e p h u s . G . M a i e r modifies M o o r e ' s p o s i t i o n b y isolating the specific w o r d s that h e believes were c o n t r i b u t e d b y J o s e p h u s ( e . g . , xat Oea>, TOrcpaTTetvTOC Stxata xat u.rj), in support o f his thesis that J o s e p h u s has j u d a i z e d N i c o l a u s ' s hellenizing description o f the P h a r i s e e s .
227
W e m a y r e s p o n d : while it is true that the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 uses l a n g u a g e that e v o k e s the Stoic C h r y s i p p u s (as re c o u n t e d b y C i c e r o ) , J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f elsewhere likens the Pharisees to Stoics in s o m e points (cf. Life 1 2 ) . O u t s i d e r s s o m e t i m e s d i d l i k e w i s e .
228
M o s t i m p o r t a n t : J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f e m p l o y s b o t h the v i e w p o i n t a n d the l a n g u a g e that h e attributes to the Pharisees several times in his o w n narrative. O u r study has r e v e a l e d that the passage as w e h a v e it is J o s e p h a n 2 2 1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1949 n.*. He takes War 2:119-161, however (on the Essenes), to be the work of a Greek-educated Jew, other than Josephus. That view is criticized and rightfully rejected by Maier, freier Wille, 6f. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f. Moore, "Fate", 375f. Ibid., 379-382. Ibid., 376-379. Ibid., 383f. See Appendix B, below. Maier, freier Wille, 11-13. Cf. n. 156, above. 2 2 2
2 2 3
2 2 4
2 2 5
2 2 6
2 2 7
2 2 8
177
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I
in all o f its details. It e x h i b i t s J o s e p h u s ' s v o c a b u l a r y f r o m first t o last a n d it
uses
this
vocabulary
<xxpt(ktoc; TOC vofitptoc; octpeats; xetaGoct;
etptapfxevT); 229
the
in
axptfkta
typically J o s e p h a n with
juxtaposition
style.
Examples
Boxeco, ef-rryetaOoct,
of
etfiocpuivT]
attribution o f decisions to
and
human
and
are:
TOC v6p.tu.oc;
6e6$;
TOC Btxoctoc;
volition;
cj>ux^l rcotaoc
aq>OocpTOv; r e i n c a r n a t i o n as a r e w a r d for the g o o d a l o n e ; dctStoc Ttficoptoc for the w i c k e d ; a n d ofiovotoc. T h e r e c a n , t h e r e f o r e , b e n o r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t that J o s e p h u s a u t h o r e d this p a s s a g e f r o m b e g i n n i n g t o
end.
2 3 0
A l t h o u g h o n e m i g h t w i s h to attribute the n e g a t i v e j u d g e m e n t s o n
the
P h a r i s e e s t o N i c o l a u s rather than to J o s e p h u s ( a m i s t a k e , I h a v e a r g u e d ) , o n e c a n n o t easily use this o p t i o n , as M o o r e d o e s , to e x p l a i n a p p a r e n t er r o r s o f fact. F o r N i c o l a u s l i v e d in the H e r o d i a n c o u r t , w h i c h w a s b a s e d in J e r u s a l e m , for at least ten y e a r s — p e r h a p s t w e n t y y e a r s o r m o r e — o f his adult l i f e .
2 3 1
H e m u s t h a v e k n o w n the P h a r i s e e s at least as well
J o s e p h u s d i d , since o u r a u t h o r w a s c a p t u r e d at a g e thirty a n d l i v e d rest o f his life in
2 2 9
as the
Rome.
With ev, e7ut, or a simple dative, meaning "to be in one's power, to depend on someone/something". War 5:59; Ant. 1:78; 5:110; 13:355; 18:215; 19:167. Incidentally, we have also noted data that suggest Josephus's final authorship of the Essene passage (War 2:119-161), e.g., the references to their political harmlessness, the terms qjtXaXXTjXoi (2:119), euae(kioc toward God, axpt(kioc toward men (2:139), and the immortality of the soul passage (2:154f.; cf. Josephus's own views in 3:372-374). Cf. also Maier's arguments (freier Wille, 7ff.) and Appendix B, below. Nicolaus was already a confidante (91X0$) of Herod's in 14 BC (Ant. 16:16ff.). He remained with the family until 4 B C , when he supported Archelaus's bid for succession in Rome (Ant. 17:240ff.). Cf. R . Laqueur, "Nicolaus (Damask.)", PWRE, X V I I : 1, 362-424, esp. 365-372. Laqueur theorizes (Historiker, 366f.) that Nicolaus had joined Herod already in 40 B C . B. Z . Wacholder (Nicolaus of Damascus [Berkely-Los Angeles: U . of California Press, 1962], 22ff.) argues more cogently that Nicolaus was in Herod's service by 20 BC and may have joined it in the early or mid-twenties. That still gives Nicolaus twenty years or more in Judea. 2 3 0
2 3 1
PART THREE
T H E P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH
ANTIQUITIES
C H A P T E R SEVEN
THE
PURPOSE
A N D O U T L O O K OF
ANTIQUITIES
Fifteen to t w e n t y y e a r s after the p u b l i c a t i o n o f War, J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e d 1
his Jewish Antiquities.
C o m p r i s i n g twenty b o o k s ,
this w o r k
was
his
magnum opus; a c c o r d i n g l y , it has p r o v i d e d the basis for m a n y analyses o f 2
his t h o u g h t a n d literary t e c h n i q u e . A general i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Ant.
would
b e o u t o f p l a c e in this study b e c a u s e ( a ) s u c h i n t r o d u c t i o n s are a l r e a d y plentiful a n d easily a c c e s s i b l e
3
a n d ( b ) m u c h o f the m a t e r i a l w o u l d h a v e
m a r g i n a l r e l e v a n c e t o o u r t o p i c , since the Pharisees a p p e a r o n l y in last third ( b o o k s 1 3 - 1 8 ) o f the w o r k . m a r i z e w h a t has
4
the
It is p o s s i b l e h e r e o n l y t o s u m
b e e n a s c e r t a i n e d a b o u t the
p u r p o s e o f Ant.
and
to
specify t h o s e t h e m e s that m i g h t b e a r o n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Pharisee passages. W e shall b e g i n w i t h the p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f Ant. as a self-contained w o r k . S i n c e , h o w e v e r , the final third o f Ant.
substantially parallels the
first t w o b o o k s o f War, a n d since the P h a r i s e e passages o f b o t h w o r k s fall 5
w i t h i n this parallel m a t e r i a l , w e m u s t also ask a b o u t the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tween
1
War
and
Ant.
in
general terms.
Finally,
we
shall s u r v e y
the
The common English title comes from the Latin Antiquitates Judaicae. Josephus called the work 'IouBatxTj 'ApxaioXoyta (cf. Ant. 1:5; Ag.Ap. 1:54), probably, as Thackeray sug gests (Josephus, 56f.), in imitation of the PcofxaiXTj 'ApxatoXoyta in twenty books by Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Josephus dates Ant. in 20:267, where he defines the "present day" as (a) the thirteenth year of Domitian's reign and (b) the fifty-sixth year of his own life. Since Jagephus was born in the year of Caligula's accession, A D 37/38 (cf. Life 5), both of these data put the completion of Ant. in A D 93/94. The chief difficulties with this dating arise in con nection with the appendix, Life, and will be considered in Part I V , below. Part of the great appeal of Ant. for source and redaction critics derives from the fact that we possess many of its sources, e.g., the L X X , Aristeas, 1 Maccabees, and War. A comparison of Josephus with his sources has generated much material for studies such as those of Bloch, Destinon, Holscher, Pelletier, Franxman, and Attridge. Further, Ant. is so long that it affords copious material for a study of Josephus's literary technique (cf. Thackeray, Josephus, 1 OOff.; Shutt, Studies) and of his exegetical principles (cf. Olitzki, Rappaport, and Heller). Cf., e.g., Schurer, Geschichte, I, 79-85; Niese, HZ, 211-219; idem, ERE, V I I , 572575; Thackeray, Josephus, 51-74, also 75-124; idem, L C L edn., I V , vii-xix; Foakes Jackson, Josephus, 246-258; Franxman, Genesis, 5-8; Attridge, Interpretation, 29-70. The Pharisees appear as a group in Ant. 13:171-173, 288-298, 400-431; 17:41-45; and 18:11-25. Individual Pharisees are mentioned in 15:3-4, 371; cf. 14:172-176. Nevertheless, most of the material in the Pharisee passages in Ant. is not paralleled in War (i.e., 13:171-173, 288-289, 400-406; 15:3-4, 371; 17:41-45, except for the brief notice at War 1:571). 2
3
4
5
182
CHAPTER SEVEN
attempts that h a v e b e e n m a d e to interpret the Pharisee passages o f Ant. in terms o f that w o r k ' s goals a n d m a j o r themes. I. Preface and Dominant Themes A . Josephus an Apologist for Judaism Scholarship has generally taken the p r o e m to Ant. m u c h m o r e seriously than its c o u n t e r p a r t in War. S i n c e War is usually v i e w e d as a w o r k o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a , its p r o g r a m m a t i c statements a b o u t
truthfulness
a n d a b o u t the a u t h o r ' s s o r r o w o v e r the fate o f J e r u s a l e m are often ig n o r e d o r d e p r e c i a t e d in f a v o u r o f a hypothetical r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the 6
w o r k ' s real ( = ulterior) m o t i v e . W i t h Ant. the situation is different. J o s e p h u s declares at the outset, a n d repeatedly thereafter, that h e has an a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e : h e wants to c o n v i n c e his G r e c o - R o m a n readers o f the n o b l e n e s s o f J e w i s h o r i g i n s , beliefs, and practices. Scholars h a v e usually b e l i e v e d h i m . After s o m e o p e n i n g reflections o n his m o t i v e s for h a v i n g written War (Ant. 1:1-4), J o s e p h u s turns to the w o r k at h a n d ( 1 : 5 ) : So also I have now taken up the present work, believing that it will impress the Greek world as worthy o f serious consideration (vo(xtC
7
is clear at
a n d is spelled o u t again in the c o n c l u s i o n
( 2 0 : 2 6 2 ) : " n o o n e else w o u l d h a v e b e e n able to p r o d u c e such an accurate w o r k as this for the G r e e k s (tlq
e/
EXXr)va^)".
8
W h a t d o e s J o s e p h u s w a n t to tell the G r e e k s a b o u t the J e w s ? H e goes o n to sketch the c o n t e n t o f the w o r k ( 1 : 5 ) : It will embrace our entire ancient history (nap' rj(xtv dpxottoXoytav) and political constitution (StotTocijtv TOU 7uoXtTeu(xaxo^), translated from the Hebrew records (ex TCOV efjpatxcov |Ae67jp[A7jveufiev7)v). (Thackeray) But this material is not m e r e l y o f a c a d e m i c interest. J o s e p h u s presents as the hypothesis o f Ant. the virtue (apexr)) o f the M o s a i c c o d e a n d its superiority to p a g a n m y t h o l o g y . H e invites the reader critically to assess (BoxtptdCetv) the worthiness (et <x£ta>s) o f M o s e s ' teachings a b o u t G o d ( 1 : 1 5 ) , w h i c h teachings lie at the heart o f J e w i s h life a n d
history.
J o s e p h u s is c o n v i n c e d that what the J e w s h a v e is g o o d a n d o u g h t n o t to
6
7
8
Cf. my discussion of War in chapter 3, above. E.g., Ant. 1:29; 2:247; 16:174. Cf. Niese, HZ 213f.
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF be
hidden from
the G r e e k s ( 1 : 1 1 ) . Ant.
183
ANTIQUITIES
is m o t i v a t e d ,
then, b y
an
apologetic purpose. I n the preface a n d t h r o u g h o u t the entire w o r k , o u r a u t h o r declares his intention t o c o m b a t b o t h i g n o r a n c e a n d e r r o r a b o u t J e w i s h history. I n 14:186ff., for e x a m p l e , h e reveals s o m e t h i n g o f the hostility w i t h w h i c h o t h e r historians h a d d e p i c t e d the J e w s : And here it seems to me necessary to make public all the honours given our nation. . . . Since many persons, however, out o f enmity to us refuse to believe what has been written about us by Persians and Macedonians, . . . while against the decrees o f the R o m a n s nothing can be said, . . . from these same documents I will furnish proof o f m y statements. (Marcus) He
c o m m e n t s later, again in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the p r o - J e w i s h d e c r e e s
(16:174f.): Now it was necessary for me to cite these decrees since this account o f our history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in former times we were treated with all respect. . . . A n d if I frequently men tion these decrees, it is to reconcile the other nations to us and to remove the causes for hatred ([Liaouq atxta?) which have taken root in thoughtless persons among us as well as among them. (Marcus/Wikgren; emphasis added) T h a t J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d the Ant. as an obroXoyioc for J u d a i s m is clear, finally, f r o m his last extant w o r k , Against Apion. I n that treatise he u n d e r takes a systematic refutation o f p a g a n errors a b o u t the J e w s a n d their history. T h i s is necessary, he insists, b e c a u s e : a considerable number o f persons influenced by the malicious calumnies o f certain individuals, discredit the statements in my history concerning our antiquity. (Ag.Ap. 1:1-2; Thackeray) B e c a u s e Ant.
was
not
entirely
successful in
eradicating
false
ideas
J o s e p h u s w r o t e Ag.Ap. T h u s his p r o g r a m m a t i c statements a b o u t Ant. are consistent f r o m first to last in p r e s e n t i n g the w o r k as a d e f e n c e o f J e w i s h history, beliefs, a n d v a l u e s . T h a t s u c h a p o l o g i e s w e r e n e e d e d in the late first c e n t u r y A D has l o n g been recognized by commentators.
9
C o n t e m p o r a r y literary e v i d e n c e
a b u n d a n t l y attests the w i d e s p r e a d m i s i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the J e w s that Ant.
presupposes.
10
W e have
good
reason
to b e l i e v e that
ordinary
hostility t o w a r d the J e w s , c a u s e d b y i g n o r a n c e a n d x e n o p h o b i a , w a s
9
E.g., H . Bloch, Quellen, 4f.; Niese, HZ, 212ff., 213 n. 1; idem, ERE, V I I , 572. Cf. T . Reinach, Textes (1963 [1985]); M . Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, I: From Herodotus to Plutarch (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974); and now M . Whittaker, Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views (Cambridge: University Press, 1984). 10
CHAPTER SEVEN
184
c o m p o u n d e d b y the revolt in J u d e a
1 1
a n d then a g a i n b y the
policies o f the E m p e r o r D o m i t i a n , in w h o s e r e i g n J o s e p h u s w r o t e
severe 12
Ant.
I n light o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y situation, the c o n s i s t e n c y o f Ant. 's p r o g r a m m a t i c statements, a n d the character o f the w o r k as a w h o l e , scholars h a v e c o m e to a c c e p t the p r e f a c e to Ant. as a forthright d e c l a r a t i o n o f p u r pose.
1 3
T o b e sure, they h a v e often dismissed as b e n i g n e x a g g e r a t i o n
J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to h a v e translated the scriptures w i t h o u t e m b e l l i s h m e n t or omission ( 1 : 1 7 ) .
1 4
N e v e r t h e l e s s , his a v o w e d intention to write as a
J e w a b o u t J e w i s h o r i g i n s a n d history, to serve therefore as an a p o l o g i s t to the G r e e k w o r l d , has i m p r e s s e d critics as a fair statement o f the w o r k ' s goals. T h a c k e r a y ' s assessment o f Ant., for e x a m p l e , c o r r e s p o n d s closely to the e m p h a s i s o f the p r e f a c e : " I t s d e s i g n w a s to m a g n i f y the J e w i s h race in the eyes o f the G r e c o - R o m a n w o r l d b y a r e c o r d o f its ancient a n d glorious h i s t o r y . "
1 5
B . Specific Themes; Judaism as a Philosophy W e m u s t n o w specify, as nearly as p o s s i b l e , the particular t h e m e s that J o s e p h u s w a n t e d to impress o n his readers in the effort to c o n v i n c e t h e m o f the w o r t h i n e s s o f J u d a i s m . H . W . A t t r i d g e has d e m o n s t r a t e d that t w o t h e m e s i n t r o d u c e d in the preface serve J o s e p h u s as interpretive keys in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i 16
ble, w h i c h o c c u p i e s a b o u t the first ten b o o k s o f Ant.
T h e first t h e m e
is that o f G o d ' s watchful care (rcpovotoc) for the w o r l d . In
1:14, 2 0 ,
J o s e p h u s declares that the m a i n lesson (TO auvoXov, TO 7i:at8suu.a) o f Ant. is that G o d r e w a r d s o b e d i e n c e to his L a w with happiness (euBaifxovia) b u t punishes d i s o b e d i e n c e . A t t r i d g e s h o w s that G o d ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n in h u m a n affairs to r e w a r d a n d p u n i s h individuals is i n d e e d a consistent e m p h a s i s o f J o s e p h u s ' s biblical p a r a p h r a s e .
11
17
Farmer, Maccabees, 11: Whittaker, Jews and Christians, 12; cf. Dio Cassius, History of Rome 45.7.2.; Philostratus, Apollonius of Tyana 5:33; Fronto, Parthian War 2; Minucius Felix, Octavius 10:4 (on the later revolts, under Trajan and Hadrian). Suetonius, Domitian 12. In addition to the scholars cited in n. 3 above, cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 136, 228ff. Cf. H . Bloch, Quellen, 6: Attridge, Interpretation, 58; Cohen, Josephus, 28f. But W . C. van Unnik has offered a new interpretation of this promise in his lecture, "Die Formel 'nichts wegnehmen, nichts hinzufugen' bei Josephus", in his Schriftsteller, 26-40; (cf. 28-32 on previous scholarship). He argues that Josephus does not promise a verbatim reproduction of scripture but rather a true presentation of its sense; in particular, he will not alter that sense out of hatred or flattery. Thackeray, L C L edn, I V , vii; cf. his Josephus, 52. Attridge, Interpretation, 67-70. Ibid., 71-107. 1 2
1 3
1 4
15
1 6
17
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF
185
ANTIQUITIES
T h e s e c o n d interpretive k e y d i s c o v e r e d b y A t t r i d g e is a " m o r a l i z i n g " tendency.
1 8
J o s e p h u s c l a i m s in the preface ( 1 : 2 3 ) that M o s e s p r e s e n t e d
G o d as the perfect e x p r e s s i o n o f virtue (aperrj) a n d taught that m e n should
strive
to participate
(u.£T0cXau.(3avetv) in
this m o r a l
attribute.
J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s this m o t i f in his biblical p a r a p h r a s e b y r e w o r k i n g his source
so as
to
highlight
the
virtues
(euaepeta,
Stxaioauvrj,
avopeta,
(H09poauvTi, e t c . ) o f those figures in J e w i s h history w h o p l e a s e d G o d a n d the v i c e s o f those w h o d i d n o t . H e illustrates e v e r y w h e r e the
ruinous
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f u n c h e c k e d e m o t i o n (especially g r e e d a n d lust) a n d of fers, b y contrast, the e x a m p l e o f M o s e s as a m o d e l o f v i r t u e .
19
A t t r i d g e ' s study is a w e l c o m e e x p l o r a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t
in
Ant. O n e aspect o f his analysis, h o w e v e r , requires further e l a b o r a t i o n , n a m e l y , the identification o f h a p p i n e s s (euSatpovtoc) as a significant t e r m . In both
1:14 a n d
1:20, J o s e p h u s
declares his thesis to b e that G o d
r e w a r d s o b e d i e n c e to the L a w w i t h su8at[Aovta ( o r euSatfxova (Stov). O n e i n d i c a t i o n o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f this t h e m e is that, a l t h o u g h the w o r d su8at(AOvtoc is entirely absent f r o m the L X X , J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s it n o less than 47 times into his b i b l i c a l p a r a p h r a s e (Ant.
1-11).
20
N o w H . - F . W e i s s has p o i n t e d o u t that su8aiu.ovtoc w a s precisely the goal o f Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y . e n d (xeXos) o f m a n .
2 2
2 1
Aristotle d e c l a r e d that it w a s the c h i e f
T h e quest for eu8octu.ovta m o t i v a t e d b o t h S t o i c a n d
Epicurean philosophy.
2 3
T h e r e f o r e , b y setting o u t to p r o v e that G o d
grants h a p p i n e s s to those w h o o b s e r v e his L a w , J o s e p h u s effectively enters J u d a i s m discussion.
as a serious o p t i o n in the
Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h i c a l
24
I n d e e d , t h r o u g h o u t Ant. J o s e p h u s presents J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y . In the preface he challenges the r e a d e r ( 1 : 2 5 ) : Should any further desire to consider the reasons (toes aitta^) for every arti cle in our creed, he would find the inquiry highly philosophical (Xtocv 9tX6ao<po<;). (Thackeray) E v e r y t h i n g that he is g o i n g to relate, J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s , d e p e n d s o n the aocptoc o f M o s e s ( 1 : 1 8 ) . N o t o n l y M o s e s b u t also A b r a h a m a n d S o l o m o n a p p e a r as great p h i l o s o p h e r s . 1 8
25
W e h a v e already seen that in his discus-
Ibid., 68f. Ibid., 121-140. Cf. esp. Ant. 2:7-8; 4:186, 195; 6:93; 7:380. Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f. NE 10.6.1ff.; cf. Greene, Moira, 324f. Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f.; cf. Sextus Empiricus, adv. math. 12:69 (on Epicurus); Epictetus, Dissertations 1.4.32 (on the Stoics). Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f. Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f.; cf. Ant. l:154ff., 161, 167f. (on Abraham); 8:42-44 (on Solomon). 1 9
2 0
21
22
2 3
2 4
2 5
186
CHAPTER SEVEN
sions
o f the J e w i s h 26
philosophize.
octpeaet^, h e says
explicitly that
the J e w s
T h e p o i n t b e c o m e s especially clear in Ag.Ap.,
27
sequel t o Ant.
do
w h i c h is a
W e are b o u n d , therefore, t o c o n c l u d e with W e i s s :
Das Judentum ist nach Josephus also insgesamt und seinem Wesen nach Thilopsphie', und zwar die auf dem Gesetz beruhende, durch das Gesetz gelehrte Philosophic Das Gesetz ist die Grundlage der Philosophic des Judentums. 28
It is n o t p o s s i b l e in the f r a m e w o r k o f this i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter to e x a m i n e all that J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e m e a n t b y d e s c r i b i n g J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y . Several scholars h a v e r e m i n d e d u s , h o w e v e r , that the c o n notations o f " p h i l o s o p h y " in the ancient w o r l d w e r e at o n c e b r o a d e r a n d m o r e c o n c r e t e than the m o d e r n use o f the w o r d s u g g e s t s .
29
Philosophy
after Socrates w a s n o t a technical a c a d e m i c discipline b u t rather a c o m prehensive " w a y o f l i f e " ;
3 0
a m e t a p h y s i c a l basis w a s i m p o r t a n t , t o b e
sure, b u t the e m p h a s i s w a s o n ethics a n d b e h a v i o u r .
3 1
I n this c o n t e x t ,
J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y is n o t surprising. To
summarize:
Josephus's
a longstanding
presentation
scholarly c o n s e n s u s has a c c e p t e d
o f his m o t i v e s for w r i t i n g Ant.
H e is a n
apologist, writing t o c o m b a t w i d e s p r e a d i g n o r a n c e a n d misunderstan d i n g a b o u t J e w i s h o r i g i n s , history, beliefs, a n d p r a c t i c e s . J o s e p h u s presents J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y that offers a definite r e s p o n s e t o the h u m a n quest for euSoctfiovtoc. H a p p i n e s s is granted b y G o d to those w h o o b s e r v e his laws.
I I . The Relationship Between War and Antiquities B e c a u s e the Pharisee passages o f Ant. fall within the p o r t i o n o f that w o r k that is paralleled in War, it is necessary here to ask h o w J o s e p h u s u n d e r stood the relationship b e t w e e n the t w o narratives. S i n c e R . L a q u e u r ' s study o f J o s e p h u s ( 1 9 2 0 ) it has b e e n a c o m m o n v i e w that War, as a vehi cle o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a , h a d a p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k v e r y different 32
f r o m those o f Ant.
A recent m a n u a l o f J e w i s h history in the N e w T e s t a
m e n t p e r i o d e c h o e s the general o p i n i o n that:
2 6
E.g., at War 2:119, 166; cf. Ant. 13:289; 18:9, 11, 23, 25. Cf. esp. 1:54, 165; 2:47. Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 428. E. Bickerman, "La chaine", 262f.; M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 79f.; and Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 428. Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 428. Cf. chapter 6, n. 120, above. So Laqueur, Rasp, Thackeray, M . Smith, Neusner, and Cohen, who will be dis cussed below; in addition, see the works cited in chapter 3, n. 16. 2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF
187
ANTIQUITIES
whereas in his first work Josephus was a spokesman for the R o m a n Empire and the Flavian dynasty, in the Antiquities he is first and foremost the apologist for J u d a i s m . 33
In
w h a t f o l l o w s I shall a r g u e that L a q u e u r ' s t h e o r y ,
a l t h o u g h it a c
c u r a t e l y identifies s o m e m a j o r differences o f o u d o o k b e t w e e n War a n d Ant.,
t e n d s t o o b s c u r e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n literary i n t e n t i o n , w h i c h is t o l i n k
t o g e t h e r the goals o f the t w o w o r k s .
A.
Differences of Outlook Between War and Antiquities
C r i t i c s h a v e l o n g r e a l i z e d that c o m p a r i s o n o f Ant. 13-20 w i t h t h e parallel m a t e r i a l i n War 1-2 reveals m a n y differences o f p e r s p e c t i v e .
3 4
Most con
s p i c u o u s is t h e r e v i s i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d H e r o d t h e G r e a t : w h e r e a s War h a d g i v e n a v e r y s y m p a t h e t i c p o r t r a y a l , tacks his c h a r a c t e r a n d a c c u s e s h i m o f i m p i e t y . s u c h as S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , priest A n a n u s ,
3 3
3 9
3 7
3 6
3 5
Ant. often
King Agrippa and Agrippa I I ,
a n d the R o m a n p r o c u r a t o r s
4 0
at
O t h e r p u b l i c figures 3 8
the h i g h
h a v e likewise b e e n r e -
S. Safrai and M . Stern (edd.), The Jewish People, I, 24. The problem of the literary relationship between Ant. 13-20 and War 1-2 is a thorny one. For the history of scholarship on this question, see Lindner, Geschichtsauf fassung, 3-8. For a deft analysis of the issues see Cohen, Josephus, 48-66. H e proposes a novel solution to the effect that Ant. 13-14 closely follow War, books 15-16 revert to War's source; book 17 uses both War and the source; and books 18-20 are erratic. Cohen aptly remarks {Josephus, 111) that War's portrait of Herod "is almost an en comium (or a biography) rather than a history"; cf. Holscher, "Josephus", 1947; Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, X X V f.; Thackeray, Josephus, 6 5 . Notice, e.g., the following passages: (a) War l:208f. has Herod accused of im propriety by certain malicious (P&jxocvot) persons; but Ant. 14:167 asserts that Herod "violated our Law"; (b) Ant. 15:8f., on the popular hatred of Herod; (c) Ant. 15:174182, which accuses Herod of lying, deceitfulness, and injustice in the death of Hyr canus; (d) Ant. 15:267, on Herod's departure from T<X 7C
3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
188
CHAPTER SEVEN
evaluated.
S o m e critics h a v e a r g u e d ,
finally,
War's n e g a t i v e portrayal o f the P h a r i s e e s .
41
that Ant.
has reversed
It is the last q u e s t i o n that in
terests us m o s t directly b u t w e c a n n o t treat that issue in isolation f r o m the larger p r o b l e m o f e x p l a i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s n e w o u t l o o k .
1. T h e S o u r c e C r i t i c s a n d N i e s e T h e o l d source-critical m o v e m e n t s o u g h t to e x p l a i n all o f J o s e p h u s ' s at titudes as the attitudes o f his s o u r c e s .
4 2
T h u s S c h u r e r , for e x a m p l e , in
n o t i n g that the J o s e p h u s o f Ant. s o m e t i m e s disagrees w i t h N i c o l a u s a n d j u d g e s H e r o d an evil m a n , t h e o r i z e d that J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e u s e d a new,
i
' dem
Herodes
ungunstige",
source
for
the
later
work.
4 3
D e s t i n o n ' s s o l u t i o n w a s t o attribute the a n t i - H e r o d i a n r e m a r k s in Ant. to N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s .
4 4
H e a r g u e d that N i c o l a u s , b u t n o t J o s e p h u s ,
w a s c a p a b l e o f such a critical a t t i t u d e .
45
This theory limited Josephus's
role to the a b s u r d castigation o f N i c o l a u s for his excessive flattery o f H e r o d (Ant.
16:183ff.),
a charge o f which Nicolaus was i n n o c e n t .
4 6
H o l s c h e r e x p l a i n e d b o t h Ant. 's j u d g e m e n t o f H e r o d a n d its conflict with N i c o l a u s b y p o s i t i n g an i n t e r m e d i a t e s o u r c e for 1 3 : 2 1 2 - 1 7 : 3 5 5 , a J e w i s h p r o - H a s m o n e a n reworking o f Nicolaus, which Josephus simply c o p i e d .
4 7
T h e s o u r c e critics, then, t e n d e d to attribute J o s e p h u s ' s c h a n g e d attitude to his s o u r c e s . W e m a y n o t e , incidentally, that n o n e o f these critics p e r c e i v e d a n y m a j o r shift in the p o r t r a y a l o f the Pharisees b e t w e e n War as a w h o l e a n d Ant.
as a w h o l e .
4 8
Rather,
they attributed
the
individual
Pharisee-
p e r i c o p a e w i t h i n e a c h o f the b o o k s t o discrete s o u r c e s .
increased emphasis (also in Life) on the willingness of the Jews to fight the Romans (cf. Ant. 20:257 and Cohen, Josephus, 155f). E.g., Rasp, Smith/Neusner, and Cohen. See the discussion below and also chapter 2, above. See chapter 2, above. Schurer, Geschichte, I, 84. W e may note that Bloch, though a source critic, was not given to this sort of wholesale dissolution of Josephus's personality but left some room for the historian's own activity, at least as an intelligent compiler. Thus (Quellen, 112f., 140ff.), he insisted that Josephus himself had consulted the Memoirs of Herod and per sonally disagreed with them, albeit on the basis of other sources. Destinon, Quellen, 91-20. Ibid., 96f. Ibid., 120. Holscher, "Josephus", 1971f., 1977f. The only source critics who have expressd a consistent interest in the Pharisee passages are Holscher and, now, Schwartz. Holscher found within Ant. a variety of at titudes toward the Pharisees ("Josephus", 1936 and n. + + ). Schwartz explicitly refutes the theory that Ant. intends an improved portrait of the Pharisees over against War ("Josephus and Nicolaus", 165f.). 4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF
189
ANTIQUITIES
M o r e than m a n y o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , B . N i e s e w a s sensitive t o J o s e p h u s ' s o w n literary interests as a significant c a u s e o f the differences b e t w e e n War a n d Ant.. T h i s sensitivity is reflected in N i e s e ' s willingness to b e l i e v e that J o s e p h u s m a d e direct use o f War in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f Ant. 1 3 - 2 0 .
4 9
S u c h a t h e o r y , w h i c h w a s rejected b y m o s t s o u r c e critics,
requires that J o s e p h u s w a s i n t e l l i g e n d y i n v o l v e d in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f the later w o r k . It w a s h e w h o s u p p l e m e n t e d War with an array o f n e w materials, i n c l u d i n g citations o f p a g a n authors, J e w i s h traditions, a n d the p r o - J e w i s h d e c r e e s o f v a r i o u s r u l e r s .
50
It w a s h e , also, w h o w o r k e d
d i l i g e n d y t o v a r y the style o f War, w h i l e generally p r e s e r v i n g its c o n t e n t intact.
51
Finally, if Ant.
used
War then J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f m u s t
have
d e v e l o p e d n e w attitudes t o w a r d certain parties in the i n t e r i m b e t w e e n the w o r k s . N i e s e cites the case o f A n a n u s , n o t e d a b o v e , b u t not that o f the P h a r i s e e s .
52
N o r d o e s h e e l a b o r a t e o n the p o s s i b l e reasons for such
changes.
2. L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y It w a s this shift in J o s e p h u s ' s attitudes, w h i c h N i e s e h a d m e n t i o n e d o n l y in passing,
that c o n s u m e d R .
Josephus ( 1 9 2 0 ) .
5 3
Laqueur
in his w a t e r s h e d
study o f
R e p u d i a t i n g a s o u r c e criticism that h a d practically
annihilated J o s e p h u s ' s character, L a q u e u r set o u t t o e x p l a i n m a n y o f the differences b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g a d e v e l o p m e n t in the h i s t o r i a n ' s o u t l o o k .
5 4
L a q u e u r b e l i e v e d that Ant., " n i c h t s a n d e r e s ist
als e i n e t e n d e n z i o s e Z u r e c h t m a c h u n g d e r i m b e l l u m uberlieferten T a t sachen".
5 5
L a q u e u r thinks that Ant.'s
r e v i s i o n o f War, especially o n
H e r o d a n d his f a m i l y , represents J o s e p h u s ' s attempt t o r e d e e m his J e w i s h heritage after his years in the service o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a . 4 9
5 6
HZ, 218f.; ERE, V I I , 574. The common view was based on the belief that War, with its thematic treatment of Herod's life, for example, was secondary to the more de tailed chronological, account in Ant. Cf. Laqueur Historiker, 133. Niese, however, held that War was 'too much of a unity, too coherent to be a mere epitome or reworking of a source'. He thought it impossible to get behind War to posit an earlier source. HZ, 220-222; ERE, V I I I , 574f. HZ, 223; ERE, V I I , 575. The change in style is on the whole toward simplicity, Niese observes, but is also influenced by a desire to imitate Thucydides, especially in books 16 to 19. ERE, V I I , 575. See my discussion of Laqueur in chapter 2, above. Laqueur notes (Historiker, 234), that his interpretation of Josephus corroborates his earlier analysis of Polybius's method. Laqueur, Historiker, 133f. Ibid., 136, 228ff., 239ff., and especially 258ff. These last pages fall within chapter 8, "Der Werdegang des Josephus," which is now reprinted in Schalit, Zur JosephusForschung. 5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
190
CHAPTER SEVEN
T h a t Ant. contains several a n t i - H e r o d i a n passages n o t f o u n d in War w a s already w e l l - k n o w n b y L a q u e u r ' s t i m e , as w e h a v e seen. H i s par ticular c o n t r i b u t i o n s w e r e t w o . First, h e e x a m i n e d the nature o f the d i v e r g e n c e b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. o n H e r o d , in o r d e r to s h o w that it c o u l d n o t b e e x p l a i n e d b y s o u r c e h y p o t h e s e s a l o n e . C o m p a r i n g War 1 a n d Ant. 14, h e d e m o n s t r a t e d that the re-evaluation o f H e r o d ' s family is subtly w o v e n into the narrative o f Ant.,
e v e n in passages w h e r e the 57
later w o r k r e p r o d u c e s the v o c a b u l a r y o f War. question o f n e w material. valiant
Antipater
58
(Herod's 59
t r o u b l e m a k e r in Ant.
It is n o t , therefore, a
R o l e s are reversed so that, for e x a m p l e , the father)
of
War
becomes
a
malicious
Conversely, Antipater's H a s m o n e a n opponent 60
A r i s t o b u l u s receives m u c h better treatment in Ant. than h e h a d in
War.
A g a i n , a l t h o u g h the conflict b e t w e e n H y r c a n u s a n d H e r o d appears in b o t h War a n d Ant., a n d a l t h o u g h a similar c o u r s e o f events is d e s c r i b e d , the roles o f the protagonists are reversed to a c c o r d with J o s e p h u s ' s n e w denigration o f H e r o d .
6 1
L a q u e u r p o i n t s out that in these cases it is n o t
the c o n t e n t b u t the c o l o u r i n g ( F a r b u n g ) that is n e w in Ant.: Darstellung
der
Arch.
(sc.
Ant.)
ist
also
nur
erklarlich
systematischen politischen U m a r b e i t u n g des b e l l u m h e r a u s . "
"Die
aus 6 2
der
S o the
a n t i - H e r o d i a n p o l e m i c c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s himself. W h y should J o s e p h u s h a v e reversed h i m s e l f so dramatically b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. ? W h a t inspired his revision o f the H e r o d i a n history? L a q u e u r ' s s e c o n d c o n t r i b u t i o n to o u r p r o b l e m w a s his p r o p o s a l that b e tween War a n d Ant. J o s e p h u s ' s attitude c h a n g e d as a result o f his altered circumstances.
Namely: Josephus
h a d written
War as a vehicle o f
R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a . C a l l e d u p o n b y his Falvian p r o t e c t o r s , this Romling w r o t e an a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h revolt that w a s calculated to p e r s u a d e the 63
rest o f the w o r l d to s u b m i t to the Pax Romana.
B e c a u s e this history u s e d
R o m a n s o u r c e material a n d p r o p o u n d e d a R o m a n o u t l o o k , it presented
5 7
Ibid., 128-230. Laqueur was fully cognizant of the fact that Ant. employs new sources over against War (Historiker, 141, 171, 241). He even allowed (138, 148-155) that Josephus culd use a new source (e.g., the Memoirs of Herod) to substantiate Ant. 's new view of Herod's family. What Laqueur denied was that Josephus merely copied from the new sources, as others had claimed. Laqueur wanted to prove that Josephus carefully altered his earlier narrative to incorporate his anti-Herodian views and that the new views are, therefore, Josephus's own. Laqueur, Historiker, 138ff., esp. 140. Cf. also 166f. Ibid., 143., 146f., 158f. Ibid., 171ff. Ibid., 168. Ibid., 255ff. Cf. chapter 3, above, on Laqueur's intepretation of War as an instru ment of Roman policy. 5 8
5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
6 3
THE
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF
191
ANTIQUITIES
R o m a n leaders ( V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s ) a n d R o m a n a p p o i n t e e s ( H e r o d ' s f a m i l y ) in a g l o w i n g l i g h t .
64
N a t u r a l l y e n o u g h , a r g u e d L a q u e u r , War w a s seen b y w o r l d J e w r y o f the d a y as J o s e p h u s ' s ultimate betrayal o f his p e o p l e ; the f o r m e r rebel l e a d e r h a d sold his soul to his n e w p a t r o n s .
65
T h e m a n y attempts o f J e w s
to d i s l o d g e the traitor f r o m his life o f p r i v i l e g e h a v e left clear tracks in Josephus's
writings.
66
But w h i l e V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s l i v e d , i m p e r i a l
favour guaranteed Josephus's
security.
67
W i t h the a c c e s s i o n o f D o m i t i a n , h o w e v e r , J e w i s h m e a s u r e s
against
J o s e p h u s w e r e r e n e w e d , this t i m e with a d e g r e e o f success b e c a u s e o f that e m p e r o r ' s
distaste for the p o l i c i e s o f his father a n d
brother.
6 8
J o s e p h u s lost his f a v o u r e d c o u r t p o s i t i o n a n d this p l a c e d h i m " z w i s c h e n z w e i S t u h l e " : h e h a d b e e n stripped o f his right to speak for R o m e b u t he h a d
also forfeited
the
support
o f his c o m p a t r i o t s .
In
these
cir
c u m s t a n c e s , h e t u r n e d to o n e E p a p h r o d i t u s (the p a t r o n o f Ant. a n d Life) a n d f o u n d in h i m a politically neutral s p o n s o r .
6 9
N o w r e l i e v e d o f his
o b l i g a t i o n s to the authorities, J o s e p h u s w a s free to g i v e e x p r e s s i o n to his natural J e w i s h i n s t i n c t s . 71
family in Ant.
70
H e n c e the n e g a t i v e portrayal o f H e r o d a n d his
War h a d b e l o n g e d to J o s e p h u s ' s " R o m a n p e r i o d " ; Ant.
w a s the c r e a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s as J e w i s h a p o l o g i s t , n o w free to express his nationalistic
sentiments.
A l t h o u g h L a q u e u r w a s c o n t e n t t o interpret the J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c o f Ant. as m e r e self-expression o n J o s e p h u s ' s part, he also raised the q u e s tion w h e t h e r this a p o l o g e t i c w a s calculated to effect a certain Rehabilita tion b e t w e e n the erstwhile traitor a n d his c o m p a t r i o t s .
72
T h i s possibility
L a q u e u r o n l y m e n t i o n e d a n d d i d n o t e x p l o r e further. T h a c k e r a y , w h o w a s e v e r y w h e r e i n f l u e n c e d b y L a q u e u r , rejected the latter's s u g g e s t i o n that in Ant. J o s e p h u s " w a s p r o m p t e d b y self-interested m o t i v e s , h o p i n g to rehabilitate h i m s e l f with his o f f e n d e d c o u n t r y m e n " .
7 3
But this p r o p o s a l w a s m e r e l y an afterthought o n L a q u e u r ' s part a n d n o t crucial to his t h e o r y . T h a t T h a c k e r a y in fact t o o k o v e r the substance o f L a q u e u r ' s v i e w o f Ant. is clear f r o m his r e m a r k that J o s e p h u s :
6 4
Laqueur, Historiker, 258. Ibid., 258. Ibid. Laqueur points to War 7:442, 447f., which indicate that Josephus was (falsely) accused of inspiring the revolt in Cyrene ( A D 73). Ibid. Ibid., 258f. Ibid., 259f. Ibid., 260f. Laqueur, Historiker, 260f. Ibid. Thackeray, Josephus, 52. 6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
CHAPTER SEVEN
192
deprived of his former patrons, . . . seems finally to have severed his con nexion with R o m a n political propaganda, and henceforth figures solely as Jewish historian and apologist. 74
T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n distinctly e c h o e s L a q u e u r ' s v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s d e v e l o p m e n t b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. T h a c k e r a y o n c e again b e c a m e a m e d i u m o f L a q u e u r ' s insights. T h e c o m b i n e d influence o f these t w o scholars o n s u b s e q u e n t J o s e p h a n scholarship is i m p r e s s i v e . B e f o r e w e c o n s i d e r the w a y s in w h i c h the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y t h e o r y has b e e n a d a p t e d to interpret the Pharisee passages o f Ant.,
some brief
critical o b s e r v a t i o n s o n that t h e o r y are in o r d e r .
B . T h e A p o l o g e t i c P u r p o s e C o m m o n to W a r a n d A n t i q u i t i e s Scholars h a v e n o t a l w a y s b e l i e v e d that War a n d Ant. s p r a n g f r o m t w o o p posite m o t i v e s , R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a a n d J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c . F o r e x a m p l e , B e n e d i c t u s N i e s e , the great H a l l e classicist, f o r m e d his j u d g e m e n t b e f o r e and independently o f L a q u e u r . Niese remarks: A s in the BJ [War], so in the AJ [Ant.], the object of Josephus is to furnish the Hellenes with an accurate dilineation of Israelitic and Jewish history in place of the misrepresentation of unfriendly or malevolent chroniclers. 75
In o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f War ( c h a p t e r 3, a b o v e ) , w e saw that J o s e p h u s c l a i m s there to b e p r e s e n t i n g an a c c u r a t e eyewitness a c c o u n t o f the revolt in o r d e r to refute the current anti-Jewish reports o f the conflict. W e m a y n o w o b s e r v e that w h e n e v e r he speaks o f Ant. a n d War t o g e t h e r , he takes s o m e t r o u b l e to spell o u t that the t w o w o r k s h a v e a similar m o t i v a t i o n . 1. J o s e p h u s b e g i n s Ant. ( 1 : 1 - 3 ) b y d e s c r i b i n g f o u r m o t i v e s that c a u s e historians to w r i t e , n a m e l y : ( a ) e g o t i s m ; ( b ) flattery o f i m p o r t a n t per sons; ( c ) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in great events; a n d ( d ) the desire to replace ig n o r a n c e with accurate k n o w l e d g e . O f these f o u r , he c l a i m s , o n l y the last two i n f l u e n c e d his w r i t i n g o f War ( 1 : 4 ) . But he is n o t s p e a k i n g o n l y o f War. b y m e a n s o f a [xev . . . 8e c o n s t r u c t i o n in 1:4-5, he states explicitly that the s a m e m o t i v e s that l e d h i m to write War—the r e c o u n t i n g o f great events a n d the refutation o f those w h o " d i s f i g u r e the t r u t h " — n o w m o v e him 2.
to write Ant. H e g o e s o n to c l a i m that h e h a d c o n t e m p l a t e d i n c l u d i n g the ancient 76
history w h e n he w r o t e War
7 4
b u t h a d d e c i d e d against it b e c a u s e there
Ibid. Niese, ERE, V I I , 542; cf. HZ, 212f.; and Franxman, Genesis, 5. So Thackeray, Josephus, 52f.; but this is denied by Niese, HZ, 212f., and Attridge, Interpretation, 44ff., 46. 7 5
7 6
THE
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF
193
ANTIQUITIES
was t o o m u c h material. H e c h o s e rather to d e v o t e a separate w o r k to the J e w i s h apxatoXoytoc. A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , then, the o n l y difference b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. is in their subject matter. B o t h are d e s i g n e d to refute anti-Jewish presentations o f history: War deals with the revolt, Ant. with the m o r e distant past. 3. B o t h w o r k s e m p l o y the aXrjOetoc/axptfkta t h e m e often a n d in the s a m e w a y : J o s e p h u s is w r i t i n g the truth o v e r against the misrepresenta tions o f o t h e r s . status.
77
B o t h w o r k s link this t h e m e with J o s e p h u s ' s priestly
78
4. Finally, in Ag.Ap.
1:53-56 J o s e p h u s reflects o n War a n d Ant. a n d
again attributes to b o t h o f t h e m the goal o f dcXrjOetoc: " I b e l i e v e that I have
fully
a c c o m p l i s h e d this in
b o t h w o r k s (rcepl du^oxepas .
.
.
TCpayfxaTetas)." T o s u m m a r i z e : J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t see, o r he d o e s n o t wish the reader to see, a n y significant difference o f p u r p o s e b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. B o t h w o r k s , he c l a i m s , h a v e a p o l o g e t i c goals. T h e y set o u t t o c o m b a t error, i g n o r a n c e , a n d slander a m o n g G r e c o - R o m a n readers, w h e t h e r in rela tion to the J e w i s h revolt (War) o r to earlier J e w i s h history
(Ant.).
A l t h o u g h , then, o n e c a n n o t d e n y L a q u e u r ' s c o n c l u s i o n that J o s e p h u s c h a n g e s s o m e o f his attitudes b e t w e e n War a n d Ant., o n e m u s t d o u b t his e x p l a n a t i o n o f those c h a n g e s as the result o f a radical shift in the purpose o f the t w o w o r k s , f r o m R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a to J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c .
I I I . The Pharisees in Antiquities I n his characterization o f the c h a n g e in J o s e p h u s ' s o u t l o o k b e t w e e n War a n d Ant.,
L a q u e u r o m i t t e d a n y m e n t i o n o f the Pharisee passages in
either w o r k . T h i s m a y b e b e c a u s e his analysis focused o n Ant. 14, w h i c h lacks a n y reference to the Pharisees, o r it m a y b e b e c a u s e he d i d n o t see a n y clear d e v e l o p m e n t b e t w e e n the t w o w o r k s o n this subject. O t h e r critics, h o w e v e r , w o u l d s o o n a r g u e that Ant. revises War's portrayal o f the Pharisees to a c c o r d with the later w o r k ' s a p o l o g e t i c thrust. W e h a v e already e x a m i n e d the p r o p o s a l s o f these scholars in s o m e detail ( c h a p t e r 2, a b o v e )
7 9
a n d m a y n o w simply recall their v i e w s with b r i e f s u m m a r i e s .
If T h a c k e r a y d i s c o u n t e d L a q u e u r ' s suggestion that J o s e p h u s ' s n e w n a t i o n a l i s m in Ant. was a self-serving attempt to re-establish his c r e d e n tials with his c o u n t r y m e n , H . R a s p ( 1 9 2 4 ) seized o n the idea as a m e a n s
7 7
7 8
7 9
On War, cf. chapter 3, above. See the discussion in chapter 3, above. See chapter 2, above.
194
CHAPTER SEVEN
o f intepreting the Pharisee passages in that w o r k . R a s p w a s particularly i m p r e s s e d b y what h e c o n s i d e r e d to b e a d e v e l o p m e n t b e t w e e n War 2:119ff. a n d Ant.
18:1 Iff. H e thought that the latter passage, with its
d i m i n i s h e d praise o f the Essenes and its e m p h a s i s o n the
Pharisees'
political c l o u t , represented J o s e p h u s ' s attempt to m a k e a m e n d s with the Pharisees, w h o h a d n o w a c h i e v e d p o w e r in p o s t - w a r Palestine. T h e everadaptable historian e v e n tried n o w to present h i m s e l f as a m e m b e r o f this g r o u p (Life 1 2 ) . S m i t h ( 1 9 5 6 ) a n d N e u s n e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) h a v e f o u n d in Ant. a similar revision o f Pharisaic history b u t interpret it s o m e w h a t differently. T h e y locate the heart o f the d e v e l o p m e n t in Ant.
13:401 ff., in 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 plea to his wife that, if h e r adminstration is to b e a success, she m u s t yield p o w e r to the Pharisees. Smith a n d N e u s n e r a r g u e that the w o r d s put in J a n n e u s ' s m o u t h , a l o n g with Ant. 's o t h e r references to Pharisaic p o p u l a r i t y ( 1 3 : 2 9 8 , 1 8 : 1 5 ) , w e r e i n t e n d e d b y J o s e p h u s as a signal to the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t that it should e n d o r s e the Pharisees as the n e w aristocracy in p o s t - w a r Palestine. T h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w o u l d naturally facilitate J o s e p h u s ' s reconciliation with the Pharisees, in k e e p ing with R a s p ' s v i e w , but S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r u n d e r s t a n d Ant. 's respect for Pharisaic p o w e r to b e directed first o f all t o w a r d the R o m a n s . L i k e Rasp,
these
A m e r i c a n scholars c o n s i d e r J o s e p h u s ' s
c l a i m to b e
a
Pharisee (Life 12) as clear p r o o f o f Ant. 's pro-Pharisaic a p o l o g e t i c . T h e i r interpretation support.
o f Ant. 's portrayal o f the Pharisees has w o n significant
80
C o h e n ( 1 9 8 7 ) follows b o t h R a s p a n d S m i t h / N e u s n e r .
O n the o n e
h a n d , h e thinks that the ( a l l e g e d l y ) pro-Pharisaic t o n e o f Ant. ILife is part o f an overall religious a p o l o g e t i c in these w o r k s , w h i c h w a s i n t e n d e d to rehabilitate J o s e p h u s in the e y e s o f J e w i s h r e a d e r s .
81
O n the other h a n d ,
C o h e n finds in Ant. an appeal to the R o m a n s , " t h a t the Pharisees h a d always b e e n p r o m i n e n t a n d therefore deserve R o m a n s u p p o r t " .
8 2
In all o f these scholars o n e c a n easily detect the L a q u e u r i a n a p p r o a c h to J o s e p h u s .
8 3
Whereas, however, Laqueur
had
o b s e r v e d the
new
nationalistic-religious spirit p r i m a r i l y in Ant. 's revision o f H e r o d i a n history, these scholars think that the Pharisee passages o f Ant. are also i m p o r t a n t instances o f the n e w o u t l o o k . T h e y c l a i m that, for o n e reason o r a n o t h e r — w h e t h e r to m a k e a m e n d s with the Y a v n e a n leaders o r to
8 0
See chapter 2, n. 101. Cohen, Josephus, 144ff. Ibid., 237f. It is not clear, however, that Smith and Neusner have any direct knowledge of La queur or Rasp. 8 1
8 2
8 3
THE
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF
ANTIQUITIES
195
assist the R o m a n administration—Josephus has i m p r o v e d the i m a g e o f the Pharisees vis-a-vis War.
Summary and Conclusion: the Task of Part Three J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d to present Ant. a n d War as t w o parts o f a w h o l e . B o t h w e r e written, he says, t o c o u n t e r i g n o r a n c e and m i s i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the J e w s ; the axpifktoc m o t i f is constant t h r o u g h o u t b o t h w o r k s . A s J o s e p h u s presents it, the m a j o r difference b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. is their subject matter. T h e latter is an dpxotioXoyia whereas the f o r m e r deals p r i m a r i l y with the revolt against R o m e . J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t suggest that his o u t l o o k has c h a n g e d b e t w e e n the t w o w o r k s . Nevertheless, it is n o w w i d e l y a c c e p t e d that J o s e p h u s d i d alter his p o i n t o f v i e w b e t w e e n War a n d Ant., especially o n the subject o f H e r o d a n d his family. T h e p r o b l e m that r e m a i n s to b e solved is the relationship b e t w e e n the Pharisee passages o f Ant. a n d those o f War. A few influential scholars h a v e a r g u e d that the Pharisee material o f Ant. is a clear a n d i m portant e x a m p l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s n e w o u t l o o k in that w o r k . U n l i k e the r e v o l u t i o n in his attitude t o w a r d the H e r o d i a n s , h o w e v e r , w h i c h w a s already n o t e d a n d e x p l a i n e d b y the s o u r c e critics, his volte-face o n the Pharisees has b e e n p e r c e i v e d b y few c o m m e n t a t o r s . It d i d n o t o c c u r to the s o u r c e critics ( B l o c h , D e s t i n o n , H o l s c h e r , o r S c h w a r t z ) to posit a shift
between
War a n d Ant.
o n the Pharisees.
Even Laqueur
and
T h a c k e r a y , w h o r e c o g n i z e d a shift o n other issues, d i d n o t c o n n e c t the Pharisee p e r i c o p a e with it. A s N e u s n e r remarks ( i n praise o f S m i t h ' s originality), the idea w a s practically u n h e a r d o f b e f o r e his o w n 1972 arti cle.
8 4
Ant.,
It is, therefore, an o p e n question w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d , in to reverse o r significantly alter War's portrait o f the Pharisees.
In a d d i t i o n to the usual interpretive c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , w e shall n e e d to classify e a c h o f the Pharisee passages o f Ant. in o n e o f the following categories: ( a ) the s a m e basic c o n t e n t as War, with the s a m e attitude e x pressed; ( b ) the s a m e c o n t e n t , but reformulated so as to express a n e w attitude; ( c ) n e w material a d d e d , b u t in a w a y that c o n f i r m s War's v i e w p o i n t ; o r ( d ) n e w material that b r i n g s with it a n e w attitude t o w a r d the Pharisees.
8 4
He wrote in 1972 (''Josephus's Pharisees", 225): "Apart from Feldman [who pub lished an annotated bibliography, Scholarship on Philo and Josephus, in 1963]. . . I know of no significant attempt to confront, let alone make use of, Smith's discoveries."
CHAPTER EIGHT
ANT. THE
13:171-173:
PHARISEES A M O N G
T H E JEWISH SCHOOLS,
II
J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees t o the r e a d e r o f Ant. in the c o u r s e o f his
description
o f events
under Jonathan,
the
second
Hasmonean
1
axpaTTjYos a n d h i g h p r i e s t . T h i s early reference to the Pharisees has n o parallel in War, w h i c h first m e n t i o n s the g r o u p ' s activities u n d e r A l e x andra
Salome,
some
seventy-five
years l a t e r .
2
I n o u r passage,
the
Pharisees a p p e a r as o n e o f the three J e w i s h octpeaets: 171. Now at this time (XOCTOC hi TOV XP^VOV TOUTOV) were three schools among the Jews, which thought differently about human actions (at rcept xcav dv6pco7ttVG>v 7cpa-f[iaTcav 8ta90p<0£ u7teXa[i(3avov); the first of these were called Pharisees, the second Sadducees, and the third Essenes. 172. The Pharisees, for their part, say that certain events, but not all, are the work of fate; with others it depends on ourselves whether they shall take place or not (ot (xev ouv Oaptaatot xtva xat ourcavxaxfjs eifxapfxevrj^ epyov etvat Xeyouat, xtva 8' e
1
According to Josephus, Judas had become the first Hasmonean high priest after the death of the apostate Alcimus (Ant. 12:413; cf. 12:419). The accuracy of these notices is widely disputed, for they contradict Ant. 20:237, and Life 4, according to which there was no high priest between Alcimus (=Jacimus) and Jonathan. Cf. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162 n.16, and the literature cited there. Jonathan was appointed axpaxTiyoi; when he took up the mission of his slain brother (Ant. 13:6), and high priest somewhat later (13:42, 124), as the result of an internal Seleucid power struggle. Jonathan became high priest in 152 BC; Alexandra succeeded her husband to the throne in 75 B C . I have given the L C L translation (by Marcus) except for minor changes in 171. 2
3
197
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
I. Context A t Ant.
1 2 : 2 4 0 , J o s e p h u s b e g i n s to m a k e extensive use o f 1 M a c c a b e e s
as a s o u r c e o f the H a s m o n e a n revolt a n d for the early years o f H a s m o nean
rule.
Book
13 o f Ant.
recounts
the
military
and
diplomatic
a c h i e v e m e n t s o f J o n a t h a n . T a k i n g a d v a n t a g e o f the u n c e r t a i n leadership o f the S e l e u c i d r e g i m e , w e are t o l d , J o n a t h a n w a s able to w i n a m e a s u r e o f a u t o n o m y for the n a t i o n . T o e n h a n c e this a u t o n o m y , h e sent e n v o y s to R o m e , to r e n e w the alliance that his b r o t h e r J u d a s h a d m a d e w i t h the 4
great p o w e r o f the W e s t ; h e also s o u g h t to strengthen ties with Sparta. T h i s narrative takes us to Ant.
13:170, which corresponds to 1 M a c e .
1 2 : 2 3 . B e t w e e n his p a r a p h r a s e o f 1 M a c e 12:23 a n d 2 4 , J o s e p h u s splices into his narrative o u r passage o n the J e w i s h s c h o o l s . Ant. following
1 Mace.
1 2 : 2 4 , carries
on
with
the
13:174ff.,
political history
of
Jonathan's time. C o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e l o n g p u z z l e d o v e r J o s e p h u s ' s d e c i s i o n to i n c l u d e o u r p a s s a g e , o n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , in the c o u r s e o f a narrative to w h i c h it s e e m s u n r e l a t e d . S c h w a r t z bluntly states, f u n c t i o n o f this passage is i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e " . have
emerged
to
account
for
the
5
1
' A s it stands, the
A t least five p r o p o s a l s
perceived
irrelevance
of
Ant.
13:171-173. W h e t h e r H o l s c h e r w a s a w a r e o f the p r o b l e m is difficult to k n o w . In a n y c a s e , his sourse analysis a b s o l v e d J o s e p h u s o f all responsibility: it w a s the intermediate
s o u r c e , the p r o - H a s m o n e a n p o l e m i c i s t , w h o h a d
already c o m b i n e d the s c h o o l passage with the narrative f r o m 1 M a c cabees.
6
H o l s c h e r ' s t h e o r y o f intermediate
been out o f favour.
s o u r c e s , h o w e v e r , has l o n g
7
R a s p suggested that the p e r i c o p e has a p r e p a r a t o r y function for the n e x t d i s c u s s i o n o f the Pharisees (Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 f . ) .
8
In s u p p o r t o f this^sug-
gestion w e m a y n o t e that 1 3 : 2 8 8 will refer to the Pharisees as, " o n e o f the J e w i s h
s c h o o l s , as w e h a v e related
a b o v e (a>$ xat ev xot£ e7rav
9
8e8r|Xa>xa{xev)". T h i s seems like a direct reference b a c k to o u r p a s s a g e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , M o o r e has p o i n t e d o u t that in the later a c c o u n t , w h i c h c o n c e r n s J o h n H y r a c a n u s a n d the Pharisees, J o s e p h u s takes t i m e a g a i n to discuss the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s . A n d he says there that the p o i n t 4
O n the Hasmonean alliances with Rome, see E. M . Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 4-11. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161. Cf. Moore, "Fate", 371f. and Rivkin, Revolution, 34f. Holscher, "Josephus", 1973. See the Excursus to Part I above. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 31. Marcus's translation (LCL). 5
6
7
8
9
198
CHAPTER EIGHT
o f c o n t e n t i o n b e t w e e n these g r o u p s is n o t fate a n d free will b u t rather 10
the p r o b l e m o f authoritative vouapwc. T h i s difference o f portrayal leads M o o r e to e x c l u d e a p r e p a r a t o r y function for Ant. 13:171-173; h e tries to solve the p r o b l e m o f the tension b e t w e e n § § 171-173 a n d § § 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 b y assigning the f o r m e r to a n o t h e r
author.
11
S i n c e , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s will explicitly refer b a c k to an
"above"
passage at 1 3 : 2 8 8 , o n e o u g h t to hesitate b e f o r e d e n y i n g a p r e p a r a t o r y function to 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 . A l t h o u g h the tension that M o o r e points o u t b e t w e e n the t w o passages c a n n o t b e i g n o r e d , t w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h e l p to put it in p e r s p e c t i v e . First, w e h a v e already seen in War that J o s e p h u s himself c a n d e s c r i b e the Pharisees in v e r y different w a y s . I n 1:110, h e m e n t i o n s o n l y their reputation for dxptPetoc w i t h respect to the v6(xot, w h i c h m i g h t s o u n d like a v e r y J e w i s h portrayal; b u t at 2:162f., h e b o t h recapitulates this earlier definition a n d c o n t i n u e s o n in the s a m e sentence to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees' v i e w o f fate, a d e s c r i p t i o n that has b e e n c o n sidered v e r y " G r e e k " .
1 2
W e k n o w that b o t h kinds o f descriptions are
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n , b e c a u s e o f their J o s e p h a n t h e m e s a n d v o c a b u l a r y . This demonstrable
flexibility
in J o s e p h u s ' s presentation
prevents
1 3
us
f r o m a s s u m i n g that h e c o u l d n o t h a v e intentionally inserted Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 173 as a p r e p a r a t i o n for 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 . S e c o n d , w e shall see that the des cription o f the P h a r i s e e - S a d d u c e e dispute in 13:297f. has s o m e t h i n g like footnote status; it is an afterthought that arises o u t o f the narrative ( § § 2 8 8 - 2 9 6 ) a n d d o e s n o t , therefore, c o m p e t e with 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 as an inten tional statement b y J o s e p h u s a b o u t the schools. T h u s w e are c o m p e l l e d to a c c e p t J o s e p h u s ' s o w n statement that Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 assumes the
r e a d e r ' s a c q u a i n t a n c e with an earlier passage in Ant. a n d to infer that o u r passage is the o n e in q u e s t i o n . Moore
proposes
that
our
passage
is
intended
as
"a
purely
1 4
c h r o n o l o g i c a l n o t i c e " . J o s e p h u s inserted this material (taken f r o m an other s o u r c e ) m e r e l y in o r d e r to date the schools to a b o u t 150 B C . R i v k i n , likewise, d r a w s attention to the c o n n e c t i v e XOCTOC 8e TOV xpovov TOUTOV ( §
171)
and
remarks:
By introducing the three haireseis here as fully functioning in the times of Jonathan, Josephus is alerting us to the fact that he must have had
[sic]
some other source than I or II Maccabees recording the existence of the
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
Moore, "Fate", 372. See the section on "source analysis" of this passage below. So, e.g., Moore and Maier; cf. Appendix B. See above, chapters 4 and 6. Moore, "Fate", 372.
199
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
Pharisees. Since he had found this chronological connection in some other source, Josephus felt constrained to insert this datum into his history. 15
A l t h o u g h it is a d u b i o u s a s s u m p t i o n that J o s e p h u s t o o k his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the J e w i s h schools f r o m a s o u r c e , the v i e w that h e is trying here to date the o r i g i n s o f the schools d o e s s e e m to b e a natural
interpretation
o f the i n t r o d u c t o r y phrase. S c h w a r t z , h o w e v e r , has recently c o n t e n d e d that J o s e p h u s uses phrases like XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV yjpovov in an
irresponsible
way:
True, he justifies the insertion [of Ant. 13:171-173] by introducing it by ' A t this time', but this need be no more than a convenient way o f linking other wise irrelevant sources. 16
S c h w a r t z g o e s o n to elaborate a highly speculative hypothesis as to J o s e p h u s ' s real m o t i v a t i o n for i n c l u d i n g o u r passage in its present c o n text, d e n y i n g that the c o n n e c t i v e phrase XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P
0 V 0 V
n
a
s
a
n
y
real significance for assessing J o s e p h u s ' s intention. T h a t d e n i a l , if it is b e i n g m a d e , is r e m a r k a b l e a n d d e m a n d s further
investigation.
S c h w a r t z refers the r e a d e r b a c k to an earlier article o f his, in w h i c h he h a d tried to s h o w that the a n t i - A g r i p p a passages o f Ant.
20 w e r e
1 7
T h e first
c o p i e d b y J o s e p h u s f r o m an auxiliary s o u r c e o n A g r i p p a I I .
step in his a r g u m e n t there h a d b e e n to s h o w that J o s e p h u s regularly uses chronological
c o n n e c t i v e phrases,
especially XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P °
V 0 V
( w h i c h often i n t r o d u c e s the a n t i - A g r i p p a passages), to splice material f r o m an auxiliary s o u r c e into a narrative that is b a s e d o n a m a i n s o u r c e . S c h w a r t z establishes this p o i n t b y listing eighteen p e r i c o p a e in J o s e p h u s that ( a ) b e g i n with such a c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e phrase a n d ( b ) are 18
b e l i e v e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s t o c o m e f r o m a Nebenquelle. one
Ant. 13:17ff. is
o f those eighteen passages; the " o t h e r g r o u n d s " that S c h w a r t z ap
peals to in this case are M o o r e ' s a r g u m e n t s for N i c o l a u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p , w h i c h w e shall c o n s i d e r b e l o w . It
is, h o w e v e r , difficult to
19
2 0
see h o w S c h w a r t z ' s
observations o n
J o s e p h u s ' s use o f c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e s to insert material f r o m aux iliary
sources
(in
the
earlier
article)
justify
his
dismissal
of
a
c h r o n o l o g i c a l intention o n J o s e p h u s ' s part (in the later article). Surely the c h o i c e o f a c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e , rather than s o m e other sort,
1 5
Rivkin, Revolution, 34. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161. D . Schwartz, " K A T A T O Y T O N T O N K A I P O N : Josephus' Source on Agrippa IY\JQR 62 (1982), 241-268. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 246-254. Ibid., 249 and n. 27 thereto. Under "Source Analysis". 1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
200
CHAPTER EIGHT
indicates p r e c i s e l y J o s e p h u s ' s intention to link events c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y . One
m u s t then ask, in e a c h c a s e , w h a t right J o s e p h u s h a d to m a k e the
c o n n e c t i o n . O n e c a n n o t dismiss the validity o f all the c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n nectives for the simple r e a s o n that J o s e p h u s uses t h e m frequently. More
important
still: S c h w a r t z ' s assessment
o f Josephus's
use o f
chronological c o n n e c t i v e s is far t o o n a r r o w . F o r J o s e p h u s uses phrases like XOCTOC TOUTOV (exetvov/ocuTOv) TOV xocipov (xpovov) a l m o s t 100 times in his writings, a n d in m a n y different situations. F o r e x a m p l e : ( a ) w h i l e f o l l o w ing
a single s o u r c e , the S e p t u a g i n t , J o s e p h u s regularly substitutes
his
chronological c o n n e c t i v e s for the biblical phrases xal eyeveTO, eyevrjOrj ev TOCTS rjuipocts, eyeveTO hi, o r the s i m p l e xoci.
21
( b ) H e finds these phrases
especially useful w h e n he has slightly r e a r r a n g e d
events vis-a-vis the
biblical narrative a n d m u s t therefore return to an e v e n t that o c c u r r e d ' ' a b o u t that t i m e " .
2 2
( c ) M o s t interesting for o u r p u r p o s e , J o s e p h u s fre
q u e n t l y uses the phrases in q u e s t i o n to c o n n e c t events that h e recalls f r o m his o w n e x p e r i e n c e , w h i c h d o n o t c o m e f r o m a n y written s o u r c e . We
2 3
n o t i c e this particularly in the Life, w h e r e he links t o g e t h e r events
f r o m his c a r e e r as G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d e r with the phrase XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV 24
xocipov.
Thus Josephus's
use
of
XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P
0 V 0 V
t
o
introduce
Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 s h o u l d n o t p r e d i s p o s e us to think that he is splicing material f r o m a n auxiliary written
s o u r c e into his narrative,
for his usage o f
c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e s is n o t so restricted. W h e n e v e r he k n o w s o f t w o events that are c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y related ( n o matter h o w he k n o w s o f t h e m ) , he is apt to use a b r i d g e like XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P
0 V 0 V
t
o
connect
t h e m . T h r o u g h o u t , his goal is o b v i o u s l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l — h e wants to date s o m e events in relation to o t h e r s . S c h w a r t z ' s o w n t h e o r y as to w h y J o s e p h u s l o c a t e d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 w h e r e he d i d starts with the ( d e b a t a b l e ) p r e m i s e that the Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s w e r e o p p o s e d to the early H a s m o n e a n h i g h - p r i e s t h o o d .
25
F r o m this p e r s p e c t i v e , S c h w a r t z asks w h y a b r i e f passage a b o u t Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s ( a n d Pharisees) s h o u l d h a v e b e e n p l a c e d , for n o o b v i o u s r e a s o n , in the m i d d l e o f a narrative a b o u t the first H a s m o n e a n h i g h
2 1
Cf., e.g., Ant. 1:71; 5:352; 6:30, 213, 271, 292, 325; 7:21, 117, 298, 383; 8:328, 9:7, 97, 178; 10:15, 96. Cf. Ant. 1:194; 8:176; 9:28, 258; 13:18; 16:36. War 2:595; 7:41, 54, 216; Ant. 1:174; cf. 11:32 and n.d. in the L C L edn., V I , 329. Life 112, 216, 271, 373, 398. In "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161 n. 15, Schwartz cites various scholars in support of this claim. He also appeals to the "legitimist" name of the Sadducees ( > Z a d o k ) as an indicator of their early opposition to non-Zadokite high priests. For the opposite view, that the Pharisees opposed the Hasmoneans from the start, see Wellhausen, Pharisaer und Sadducaer, 90-120. 363;
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
201
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
priest. H e c o n j e c t u r e s that the passage o r i g i n a l l y s t o o d in a larger nar rative, c o m p o s e d b y N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , w h i c h m a d e reference to the anti-Hasmonean
stance o f the Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s . T h a t
original
c o n t e n t o f the passage l e d J o s e p h u s to i n c l u d e it in his narrative a b o u t J o n a t h a n ; rather ineptly, h o w e v e r , he deleted the material a b o u t the conflict b e c a u s e o f his o w n p r o - H a s m o n e a n b i a s , t h e r e b y r e n d e r i n g the passage
1 1
utterly i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e " in its present c o n t e x t .
2 6
P r o b l e m s w i t h this h y p o t h e s i s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g , ( a ) R e g a r d l e s s o f " w h a t actually h a p p e n e d " , J o s e p h u s ' s o w n narrative has m a d e it clear ( t o this p o i n t ) that J u d a s , n o t J o n a t h a n , w a s the first H a s m o n e a n h i g h priest.
27
I f S c h w a r t z ' s assessment o f his m o t i v e s w e r e c o r r e c t , therefore,
J o s e p h u s s h o u l d h a v e inserted the passage earlier,
in the c o n t e x t o f
J u d a s ' s a c h i e v e m e n t s , ( b ) T h e f o r m a n d c o n t e n t oi Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , as w e presently h a v e it, d o n o t suggest that it w a s e x c e r p t e d f r o m a larger narrative o n the political inclinations o f the Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s . W h a t w e h a v e is a c o n c i s e , b a l a n c e d p e r i c o p e that d e s c r i b e s the v i e w s o f the (three!) s c h o o l s o n a single p h i l o s o p h i c a l issue. T h e passage gives the a p p e a r a n c e o f c o m p l e t e n e s s within itself. S c h w a r t z ' s t h e o r y , then, is both untenable and unnecessary. O n l y L . H . M a r t i n , it s e e m s , has f o u n d a w a y to c o n n e c t Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 173 thematically with its c o n t e x t . develop
an
2 8
"apologetic contrast"
H e c o n t e n d s that J o s e p h u s wants to between
the
Hellenistic
e n s l a v e m e n t to eifxapfxevrj (astrologically interpreted,
world's
13:171-173!) and
J e w i s h s u b m i s s i o n to the rcpovota o f G o d ( 1 3 : 1 6 3 f . ) , w h i c h s u b m i s s i o n liberates m a n k i n d f r o m fate. A s M a r t i n n o t e s , this v i e w m a k e s J o s e p h u s a J e w i s h c o u n t e r p a r t to the apostle P a u l .
2 9
I h a v e tried to s h o w else
w h e r e , h o w e v e r , that M a r t i n ' s t h e o r y h i n g e s o n
misinterpretations—
b o t h o f eifxapfxevrj in J o s e p h u s a n d o f o u r passage in
particular.
A l t h o u g h is it n o t yet p o s s i b l e to spell o u t the function o f Ant.
30
13:171-
173 in its c o n t e x t , w e h a v e m a d e s o m e h e a d w a y already. W e h a v e seen, n a m e l y , that J o s e p h u s u s e d the c o n n e c t i v e phrase " a t a b o u t this t i m e " to i n t r o d u c e o u r passage b e c a u s e h e b e l i e v e d , o r w i s h e d his readers to b e l i e v e , that the J e w i s h s c h o o l s w e r e in existence at the t i m e o f the H a s m o n e a n J o n a t h a n . W h e n c e h e a c q u i r e d this k n o w l e d g e w e d o n o t k n o w . P e r h a p s it c a m e f r o m N i c o l a u s , p e r h a p s f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s early e d u c a t i o n ; p e r h a p s it w a s m e r e l y a c o m m o n b e l i e f in his d a y s .
2 6
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161f. Cf. n. 1 above. L. H . Martin, "Josephus' use of Heimarene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 171-3", Numen 28 (1981), 127-135. Ibid., 134. See Appendix B, below. 2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
202
CHAPTER EIGHT
P l a c i n g the p e r i c o p e w h e r e h e d o e s , J o s e p h u s prepares the w a y for his next reference to the Pharisees, w h i c h c o m e s at 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 . Further w a y s in w h i c h the passage assists his larger narrative will b e c o m e a p parent in the c o u r s e o f the f o l l o w i n g
interpretation.
I I . Key Terms All o f the k e y terms in the definition o f the Pharisees at Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 a h a v e already b e e n a n a l y z e d in c h a p t e r 6 a b o v e . Alpeat? in J o s e p h u s m e a n s " p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l " ; et[xap[xevT] refers to G o d ' s providential o r e x e c u t i v e aspect; a n d TO £9' TJUIV (eocuTOts)
31
w a s the usual t e r m in ethical
discussion o f the p e r i o d for that w h i c h originates in, o r d e p e n d s o n , the individual.
I I I . Interpretation A s with all o f the Pharisee passages o f Ant., o u r interpretation o f 1 3 : 1 7 2 a m u s t c o n s i d e r b o t h the passage in itself a n d its relation to the Pharisee passages o f War. Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 is a self-contained unit that, taken b y itself, presents a clear statement. T h e t o p i c , a n n o u n c e d in § 1 7 1 , is the v a r i o u s v i e w s o f the J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools o n " h u m a n
a c t i o n s " (dcvOpcomva
7upay(xaTa). T h e issue, w e d i s c o v e r , is that o f the causes o f g o o d a n d evil actions, o r the relative roles o f fate a n d h u m a n v o l i t i o n . It w a s a discus sion
that
lay
at
the
heart
o f Greek-Hellenistic
ethical
thought.
32
J o s e p h u s ' s treatment is a n y t h i n g b u t p r o f o u n d . H e d r a w s a l u c i d spec t r u m a n d locates the three s c h o o l s , respectively, at the m i d d l e a n d either e n d . T h e Essenes attribute e v e r y t h i n g (TCOCVTCOV) to fate; the S a d d u c e e s at tribute e v e r y t h i n g to h u m a n v o l i t i o n (STWCVTOC. . . !q>' rj(xtv OCUTOT$); the Pharisees attribute s o m e things (TIVOC) to the o n e factor a n d s o m e (TIVOC) to the other. T h e v a g u e n e s s o f the l a n g u a g e defies serious c o n c e p t u a l i z a tion; w e c a n o n l y c o n c l u d e that J o s e p h u s ' s p u r p o s e is l i m i t e d to that o f sharp, s i m p l e s c h e m a t i z a t i o n . T h i s k i n d o f schematization has a fairly close parallel in C i c e r o ' s presentation,
to his R o m a n readership,
o f the
Greek philosophical
schools o n the v e r y s a m e issue o f fate and free will:
3 1
The M S S L A M W E support the inclusion of rjfxtv. Marcus, in omitting the pro noun, presumably follows the PFV reading. It matters little, since the sequel (§ 173)— owcocvroc 8e I9' i\\iTv OCUTOU; xetdtai—gives the force of the phrase. See Chapter 6, above. 3 2
THE
203
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
There were among the old philosophers two schools o f thought: the one held the view that everything is determined by fate—that this fate entails a necessary force . . . . T h e others were o f the conviction that the soul's promptings are determined by the will, without any influence from fate. Between these contending options, Chrysippus [the Stoic] wanted to ar bitrate b y finding a middle way. (On Fate 3 9 ) 33
I n a similar w a y T a c i t u s (Annals 6 : 2 2 ) reflects o n the p r o b l e m o f fate a n d free will b y s u m m a r i z i n g the v i e w s of: ( a ) those w h o dismiss
fate
altogether f r o m the sphere o f h u m a n activity; ( b ) those w h o a c c e p t fate b u t also g i v e m a n f r e e d o m to c h o o s e ;
3 4
a n d ( c ) those (the m a j o r i t y ) w h o
attribute e v e r y t h i n g to fate, in its astrological s e n s e .
35
T o instruct
the
R o m a n w o r l d a b o u t J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the s a m e sim ple o u t l i n e that C i c e r o a n d T a c i t u s h a d c h o s e n : o n l y the representatives o f the three p o s i t i o n s are different. Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 serves well the a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e o f Ant.,
and Weiss have s h o w n .
3 6
as R a s p
W e h a v e seen that in this w o r k J o s e p h u s tries
to establish J u d a i s m as a serious participant in the Hellenistic d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t h o w o n e a c h i e v e s eu8at(iovtoc ( c h a p t e r 7, a b o v e ) . It c a n o n l y h e l p this general a r g u m e n t that J o s e p h u s is able to s h o w in 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 that the J e w s possess p h i l o s o p h i c a l octpeaet$ o f l o n g standing (cf. XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV xpovov) a n d that these s c h o o l s c o n c e r n themselves w i t h the s a m e fun d a m e n t a l issues as the Hellenistic s c h o o l s . A l t h o u g h the function a n d the sense o f o u r passage s e e m clear e n o u g h , the r e a d e r is struck b y t w o differences b e t w e e n its p o r t r a y a l
o f the
s c h o o l s a n d that g i v e n in War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 . T h e first difference is struc tural. O f p a r a m o u n t interest in the War passage are the Essenes ( 2 : 1 1 9 161).
J o s e p h u s dispenses w i t h the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s b y c o n
trasting their v i e w s o n fate a n d i m m o r t a l i t y ( § § 1 6 2 - 1 6 5 ) . S i n c e the Essenes d o n o t figure in that final c o m p a r i s o n , he c a n present
the
Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s as p o l a r o p p o s i t e s : the Pharisees affirm fate a n d i m m o r t a l i t y ; the S a d d u c e e s d e n y b o t h . I n o u r p a s s a g e , the situation is different. J o s e p h u s has c h o s e n the single issue o f fate a n d free will to il lustrate the beliefs o f the s c h o o l s . H e has also d e c i d e d to i n c l u d e the 3 3
M y translation draws heavily on the German rendering by K . Bayer, Uber das Fatum, by M . Tullius Cicero (2d. edn.; Munich: Heimeran, 1976 [1959]), ad loc. Groups (a) and (b), it seems generally agreed, are the Epicureans and Stoics, re spectively. Cf. J. Jackson, L C L edn., p. 190 nn.1-2; also C . W . Mendell, Tacitus: the Man and his Work (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), 57f. Theiler ("Tacitus", 37) accepts the usual identification for (a) but argues (56-58, 80f.) that (b) is a Platonist view. Tacitus is apparently the first (extant) witness to have distinguished between the astrological and philosophical interpretations of fate; so Theiler, "Tacitus", 43. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 31; H.-F. Weiss, "Pharisaisumus und Hellenismus", 421-433, esp. 427f. 3 4
3 5
3 6
204
CHAPTER EIGHT
Essenes in the c o m p a r i s o n . T o a c c o m p l i s h this, h e r e m o v e s the Pharisees f r o m their p o l a r p o s i t i o n a n d replaces t h e m with the Essenes, w h o n o w b e c o m e the " p a n - h e i m a r m e n i s t s ' ' . o n the e x t r e m e l e f t
37
T h e S a d d u c e e s retain their p o s i t i o n
a n d the Pharisees are n o w g i v e n a p l a c e in the m i d
dle o f the s p e c t r u m . Intertwined with the structural c h a n g e is a substantive o n e . J o s e p h u s n o l o n g e r has the Pharisees ascribing e v e r y t h i n g to fate, as in War 2 , for that is n o w the Essene p o s i t i o n (TCOCVTCOV TTJV £tu.apuivr)v xuptav dbi^atveTOtt). T h e Pharisees n o w say that s o m e things b u t n o t all (xtva xal ou rcavTa)
fall within the sphere o f fate a n d that s o m e d e p e n d o n h u m a n
v o l i t i o n (TIVOC 8' e
r e d u n d a n t b y the s e c o n d clause, seems almost like a p o i n t e d c o r r e c t i o n o f War 2 : 2 6 3 . In the earlier passage, J o s e p h u s h a d the Pharisees e s p o u s i n g a C h r y s i p p e a n m o d e l : a l t h o u g h they a c k n o w l e d g e d the k e y role o f h u m a n v o l i t i o n in m o r a l a c t i o n s , they nevertheless attributed every action (rcdcvTa, exaaxov) to fate.
In o u r p e r i c o p e , the Pharisees
are said to
distinguish t w o spheres o f actions: o n l y s o m e are c a u s e d b y fate; others d e p e n d o n h u m a n will. How
to
explain
the
development?
Most
commentators
on
the
Pharisees o r o n fate a n d free will in J o s e p h u s s e e m to h a v e o v e r l o o k e d the difference b e t w e e n War 2 : 1 6 3 a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 .
3 8
G . M a i e r notes the
p r o b l e m b u t explains it as follows. H e thinks that War 2 : 1 6 3 c a n b e in terpreted either in the C h r y s i p p e a n sense or in such a w a y that the clause TO 7cp<XTT£tv TOC Stxata xal [XT] xocra TO nXeTarov im Toiq avOpcbnou; xeTaOoci i m
poses a restriction o n the p r e c e d i n g etfxapuivr) 7rpoadc7CTOuai
39
reavTa.
He
suggests that J o s e p h u s deliberately left the description a m b i g u o u s so that it c o u l d b e interpreted b o t h in the C h r y s i p p e a n sense, for the benefit o f G r e c o - R o m a n readers, a n d in a p r o p e r l y J e w i s h sense, to the effect that s o m e things are in fate's p o w e r , b u t others d e p e n d o n h u m a n c h o i c e . In Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 2 , a c c o r d i n g to M a i e r , J o s e p h u s
has taken o v e r
another
C h r y s i p p e a n portrayal o f the Pharisees f r o m his s o u r c e ( N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s ) a n d has attempted to j u d a i z e it b y inserting the phrase xal OU TCOCVTa.
40
I h a v e already a r g u e d against M a i e r ' s p r o p o s a l that War 2:163 c a n plausibly b e interpreted in the " J e w i s h " s e n s e — i . e . , as distinguishing
37 Q "right", depending on one's perspective. I find no reference to the problem in, for example: Moore, "Fate"; Rasp, "Religionsparteien"; Wachter, "Die unterschiedliche Haltung"; Rivkin, Revolution; Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees"; Pines, " A Platonistic Model"; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus"; or Martin, "Heimarmene". Maier, freier Wille, 13. Ibid., 14f. r
3 8
3 9
4 0
205
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
b e t w e e n the spheres in w h i c h fate a n d h u m a n will are d o m i n a n t ;
4 1
on
the c o n t r a r y , the Pharisees there ascribe e v e r y t h i n g t o fate, w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e a c k n o w l e d g i n g h u m a n v o l i t i o n . I w o u l d n o w suggest further that xal ou rcavTa in Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 is n o t likely an interpolation b e c a u s e its r e m o v a l w o u l d n o t alter the sense o f the passage. E v e n w i t h o u t this phrase, w e s h o u l d h a v e a clear statement that the Pharisees attribute s o m e things (TIVOC) t o fate a n d others (TIVOC) to h u m a n will. S o M a i e r ' s at t e m p t t o distinguish J o s e p h u s ' s r e d a c t i o n f r o m his s o u r c e material d o e s not
resolve the tension b e t w e e n War 2:162f. a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 . O n e has
still t o e x p l a i n the difference b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s C h r y s i p p e a n f o r m u l a tion o f Pharisaic belief in War 2:163 a n d his distinction o f spheres in Ant. 13:172. It is i m p o r t a n t
to realize
first
that the difference, a l t h o u g h
un
mistakable, is n o t m a j o r . B o t h passages h a v e the Pharisees c o m b i n i n g fate a n d free will in some w a y , unlike the S a d d u c e e s a n d Essenes. T h e difference lies o n l y in the m a n n e r in w h i c h the Pharisees are said to c o m b i n e the t w o factors, w h e t h e r
b y means
o f the C h r y s i p p e a n " c o
o p e r a t i o n " m o d e l o r b y distinguishing the sphere o f fate f r o m that o f h u m a n v o l i t i o n . M o r e o v e r : (a) Ant. 18:13 will return the Pharisees to the c o - o p e r a t i o n o r fusion (xpaat?) m o d e l o f War 2 a n d ( b ) at the e n d o f o u r passage, J o s e p h u s refers the reader b a c k to War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 as a m o r e a d e q u a t e (axpt(kaTSpav) a c c o u n t . E v i d e n t l y , then, J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t think that his self-contradiction is significant. T a k i n g into a c c o u n t b o t h these o b s e r v a t i o n s a n d o u r earlier c o n c l u sions (in chapter 6 ) , I s u b m i t the f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s a l as a m e a n s o f e x p l a i n i n g the different portrayals o f Pharisaic belief in War 2:162f. a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 . J o s e p h u s always b e c o m e s v a g u e w h e n he speaks o f the rela tionship b e t w e e n fate a n d free will, w h e t h e r h e is d e s c r i b i n g his o w n p o s i t i o n o r that o f the Pharisees. F o r himself, as w e h a v e seen, h e insists that " i t will b e e n o u g h " to j u x t a p o s e the t w o factors, w i t h o u t discussion.
42
further
I n War 2 : 1 6 3 h e gives n o t the slightest i n d i c a t i o n o f the w a y
in w h i c h fate "assists (POT]6STV) in e a c h c a s e " . Ant. 18:13 l o o k s like an at t e m p t to say s o m e t h i n g m o r e substantive o n the issue, b u t the result is 43
a n o t o r i o u s crux interpretum. It fits with his general t e n d e n c y that in o u r passage J o s e p h u s should c o n t e n t h i m s e l f with the m a r v e l o u s simplicity of
the
Nor
d o u b l e TIVOC.
s h o u l d this resort to v a g u e n e s s o c c a s i o n surprise o r cause the
critic to belittle J o s e p h u s ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l talents. F o r the p r o b l e m o f the 4 1
See Appendix B, below, and chapter 6. Ant. 16:398: TOUTOV [xev ouv TOV Xoyov (sc. the doctrine of the universal causality of fate), co£ vo(xtC
4 3
CHAPTER EIGHT
206
relation b e t w e e n fate a n d free will has e x e r c i s e d the greatest m i n d s o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y a n d o f C h r i s t i a n , J e w i s h , a n d M u s l i m t h e o l o g y ; the issue survives in o u r o w n t i m e in b o t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l f o r m u l a t i o n s . C o m m o n t h r o u g h o u t the history o f W e s t e r n t h o u g h t has b e e n the a t t e m p t to w o r k o u t a m o d e l that allows for b o t h d e t e r m i n i s m and h u m a n chooses piety".
responsibility. A s A u g u s t i n e insists,
both, 4 4
confesses b o t h ,
and
maintains
"the
both
religious m i n d by
the
faith
of
J o s e p h u s carves o u t a n i c h e for the J e w i s h s c h o o l s o n this issue
a n d asserts that it is the Pharisees w h o take u p the m e d i a t i n g p o s i t i o n ; h e is a p p r o p r i a t e l y m o d e s t a b o u t e x p l a i n i n g the details o f the p o s i t i o n . I f J o s e p h u s wants o n l y to m a k e the l i m i t e d p o i n t that the Pharisees, unlike the S a d d u c e e s a n d Essenes, d o effect a c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n fate a n d free will, then it is p r o b a b l y the difference o f structure b e t w e e n War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 and^4n* 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 that causes h i m to r e p o r t that c o m p r o m i s e differently. I n War 2 , w h e r e h e has o n l y the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s to deal w i t h , it l e n d s simplicity a n d m n e m o n i c v a l u e t o his
presentation
that h e c a n p o r t r a y the o n e as d o g m a t i c a n d the o t h e r as skeptical o n the issues o f fate a n d i m m o r t a l i t y . T h e C h r y s i p p e a n l a n g u a g e allows h i m to present the Pharisees there as p a n - h e i m a r m e n i c — i n contrast to the Sad d u c e e s , w h o reject fate o u t o f h a n d (avoctpouatv)—while at the s a m e t i m e n o t i n g their p r o v i s i o n for h u m a n will. In Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , h o w e v e r , the Chrysippean
language
is n o l o n g e r useful
b e c a u s e it w o u l d
J o s e p h u s to present b o t h Essenes a n d Pharisees as
w h i c h w o u l d detract f r o m the terse clarity o f the p a s s a g e . Josephus
b e l i e v e d that
the
Essenes
were
more
require
pan-heimarmenists, suited
Evidently,
to
the
pan-
h e i m a r m e n i c p o s i t i o n than w e r e the Pharisees; so in o r d e r to p r e s e r v e the c o m p r o m i s e p o s i t i o n o f the Pharisees, he n o w shunts t h e m into the m i d d l e o f the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p e c t r u m . T h i s requires the r e m o v a l o f all rcdcvTOC-language f r o m the d e s c r i p t i o n o f their v i e w , so J o s e p h u s replaces the
Chrysippean
m o d e l with
another,
in w h i c h certain
b e l o n g to fate a n d others b e l o n g to h u m a n v o l i t i o n .
4 5
areas (TIVOC)
H e c a n d o this, a p
parently, b e c a u s e the fact that the Pharisees effect a c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n
4 4
City of God 5:9 (trans. M . Dods). Augustine speaks of God's foreknowledge rather than fate, because of the common astrological sense of the latter; he does accept the fatum terminology, however, in its philosophical sense (5:8). Cf. also the comment of Stock ("Fate", 787) on the Odyssey 1:32-36, where Homer effects a compromise between fate and free will: "Some evils, we are led to suppose, come from the gods, whereas there are others which men bring upon themselves by their own infatuation . . . . This is a sound judgment to which common sense responds". Cf. also Theiler, "Tacitus", 56f. and, on Homer in general, Greene, Moira, 20f. In Ant. 18:13ff., Josephus will abandon his efforts at a point-by-point comparison of the schools. This will allow him to return to the fusion model for the Pharisaic teaching on fate. 4 5
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
207
fate a n d free will is m o r e i m p o r t a n t for his s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s than the n a t u r e o f that c o m p r o m i s e . It is often n o t e d that the alleged Pharisaic distinction b e t w e e n t w o spheres, o n e for fate a n d o t h e r for h u m a n will, c o r r e s p o n d s to certain later r a b b i n i c dicta, especially the f a m o u s m a x i m : " E v e r y t h i n g is in the h a n d s o f G o d e x c e p t the fear o f G o d " .
4 6
M a i e r g o e s so far as t o c l a i m
that this is the truly J e w i s h v i e w o f fate a n d free will; a n d h e uses that identification to d e t e r m i n e the extent o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ( w h i c h , h e thinks, c o m e s essentially f r o m N i c o l a u s ) .
4 7
A l t h o u g h the late r a b b i n i c parallels are in o r d e r , h o w e v e r , o n e o u g h t t o n o t e that J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e is v a g u e e n o u g h to m a t c h a host o f G r e e k - H e l l e n i s t i c parallels as w e l l . W e n e e d o n l y m e n t i o n P l a t o ' s M y t h o f E r , in w h i c h o n e role is assigned to h u m a n c h o i c e (the selection o f a life-pattern) a n d a n o t h e r to fate (the c o n f i r m a t i o n a n d e x e c u t i o n o f the life-pattern). Platonists,
49
48
M a n y o t h e r writers, f r o m H o m e r to A r i s t o d e t o v a r i o u s
c o u l d b e said t o ascribe " s o m e things to fate a n d others to
h u m a n w i l l " . P e r h a p s the closest parallel t o the Pharisaic v i e w d e s c r i b e d b y J o s e p h u s is E p i p h a n i u s ' s interpretation o f the p o s i t i o n h e l d b y Z e n o , the f o u n d e r o f S t o i c i s m . T h e latter, w e are t o l d , c o n s i d e r e d T&S 8e ahiaiq 50
TCOV TcpayfidcTcov rcfj uiv £9' TJUIV, 7cfj hi oux £9' TJUIV. T h e v e r b a l parallels w i t h o u r passage—7updcyfxaTa ( § 1 7 1 ) , £9' TJUIV, atTta ( § 1 7 3 ) — a n d
the
general similarity o f sense are o b v i o u s . O n c e again w e see, then, that J o s e p h u s is n o t d e s c r i b i n g the Pharisees in special, i n t r a m u r a l J e w i s h l a n g u a g e . H e p o r t r a y s t h e m in terms that his Hellenistic readers will easily u n d e r s t a n d .
IV.
Source Analysis
It has often b e e n c l a i m e d that Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 comes from someone
o t h e r than J o s e p h u s . H o l s c h e r t h o u g h t that it o r i g i n a t e d in J e w i s h tradi t i o n a n d that it w a s taken o v e r b y the p r o - H a s m o n e a n p o l e m i c i s t w h o a u t h o r e d a l m o s t the entire s e c o n d half o f Ant., 4 6
w h o m Josephus merely
b.Niddah 16b; b.Ber. 33a. Maier, freier Wille, 13f., 15. Republic 619c.; cf. chapter 6, above, and Greene, Moira, 313f. For Homer, see n. 44 above. I mention Aristotle because, although he is famous for his emphasis on human responsibility (NE 3.315; cf. Windelband, History of Philoso phy, 192; Greene, Moira, 32Iff.) and although he eschews the term eifxapfxevrj (Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2627), he does recognize certain areas of life that come about by necessity (dvdyxTj) and are unalterable by human volition (NE 3.3.3-6; 3.5.14f.). Cf. chapter 6, above. O n the Platonists, see Theiler, "Tacitus", 67ff. Against Heresies 2.3.9 ( = Diels, Doxagraphi Graeci, 592, 24-26) cited in Greene, Moira, 350. One might also consider Aetius's comparison of the Stoics with Plato; they both, he says, give place to et[A<xp[xevT) and i\ reap' ^(xa; atxta (SVF II, 976); cf. Greene, 350. 4 7
4 8
4 9
50
CHAPTER EIGHT
208 copied.
5 1
A m o r e c o m m o n v i e w attributes the passage to N i c o l a u s o f
Damascus.
5 2
I n this final s e c t i o n w e shall assess the g r o u n d s for at
tributing o u r passage t o s o m e o n e other than J o s e p h u s . T h e case for N i c o l a u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p of Ant.
13:171-173 was m a d e b y
G . F. M o o r e , w h o offered f o u r lines o f e v i d e n c e . H i s c h i e f p o i n t , w h i c h he a d d u c e d f o r all o f the s c h o o l passages, w a s that the a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 uses etuxxpuivr) in a w a y that is " u n - J e w i s h " rather S t o i c .
5 3
and
sounds
W e m a y r e s p o n d to this p o i n t : ( a ) that the b r o a d q u e s t i o n
o f the influence o f H e l l e n i s t i c t h o u g h t o n Palestinian J u d a i s m is still sub 54
judice;
( b ) that the use o f eiu.apu.evr) in the s c h o o l passages m a t c h e s
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n u s a g e ( J o s e p h u s the J e w d o e s n o t hesitate to e m p l o y the t e r m a n d e v e n hints at his o w n s y m p a t h y with S t o i c v i e w s ) ;
5 5
J o s e p h u s ' s use o f Hellenistic categories to d e s c r i b e J u d a i s m ,
a n d ( c ) that regardless
o f its historical justification, fits squarely with his a p o l o g e t i c - d i d a c t i c p u r p o s e ; h e consistently uses terms in w a y s that will b e intelligible to his readers,
as
we
have
seen
with
v6u.o$,
Stxatoauvn, a n d TO I 9 ' rjulv, a m o n g o t h e r s .
56
eua£(ktoc, axpt(kta,
al'peat$,
H i s use o f et[Jtapuiv7] fits this
pattern perfectly. M o o r e ' s o t h e r three reasons for assigning Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 to N i c o l a u s m a y b e q u o t e d en bloc, as h e s u m m a r i z e s t h e m : I have pointed out that it is irrelevant in its present context; that it men tions no other peculiarities o f the sects than their different doctrines about Fate; and that it makes the Essenes thoroughgoing fatalists, o f which there is in Josephus elsewhere no suggestion. All these things would be explicable enough in a general historian in Herod's time [ ? ] , who was trying to give his readers a brief account o f Jewish sects in terms o f current Greek philosophical controversies. 57
M o o r e ' s first c o m m e n t i g n o r e s his o w n a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t , n o t e d a b o v e , that the passage is r e s c u e d f r o m irrevelance to " i t s present c o n t e x t " b y 5 1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1973. He gives no reason for the specific attribution of this passage to Jewish tradition. Cf. Moore, "Fate", 383; Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , 311 n./.; LeMoyne, Les Saddu ceens, 38; Maier, freier Wille, 14; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161f. Moore, "Fate", 375ff.; cf. my fuller discussion of Moore on the schools in Appen dix B, below. Cf. esp. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine', idem, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine; M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century"; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism; H . A. Fischel, "Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism", in American Oriental Society— Middle West Branch: Semi Centennial Volume, ed. D. Sinor (Bloomington-London: Indiana University Press, 1969), 59-88; and Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f. Cf. Ant 16:397f. and chapter 6, above; also Life 12c and Ag.Ap. 2:168 on his inclina tion toward Stoicism. See chapter 6, above; also Attridge, Interpretation, 145-176. Moore, "Fate", 384. 5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
209
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
the c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e phrase: the a u t h o r includes it in o r d e r t o date the e m e r g e n c e o f the schools. A n d in a n y case, Ant. 13:171 o c c u r s in the m i d d l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s paraphrase o f 1 M a c c a b e e s 1 2 . H o w e v e r irrevalent
it m a y a p p e a r ,
therefore,
w e c a n o n l y b l a m e ( o r credit)
J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f for its present l o c a t i o n .
5 8
O n e c a n h a r d l y e x p l o i t that
apparent irrelevance, w h i c h w a s c a u s e d b y J o s e p h u s , as an a r g u m e n t against J o s e p h u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p . T h e significance o f M o o r e ' s s e c o n d o b s e r v a t i o n , that the schools are c o m p a r e d here o n o n l y o n e issue, is hard t o see. I n 1 3 : 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 J o s e p h u s will c o m p a r e the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s o n the single issue o f the vojjttfia. D o e s this d a t u m also speak for N i c o l a u s ' s authorship? N i c o l a u s , as w e h a v e s e e n ,
5 9
lived at least t w e n t y years o f his adult life in J e r u s a l e m
a n d p r o b a b l y k n e w a g o o d deal a b o u t the Pharisees. A s M o o r e h i m s e l f remarks in a f o o t n o t e , " N i c o l a u s w a s n o t u n a c q u a i n t e d with o t h e r char acteristics o f the Pharisees as a p a r t y " .
6 0
A n d w e k n o w that the par
ticular issue in q u e s t i o n here—the role o f fate in h u m a n affairs—was o n e to w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a d d e v o t e d s o m e t h o u g h t .
61
H o w , then, d o e s the fact
that the schools are c o m p a r e d o n the single issue o f fate a n d free will sug gest that N i c o l a u s rather than J o s e p h u s w a s the a u t h o r o f Ant.
13:171-
173? If J o s e p h u s w a s the author, the c h o i c e o f a single issue is easily e x p l a i n e d b y narrative constraints. H e w a n t e d to date the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , in p r e p a r a t i o n for 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , b u t h e h a d to k e e p this interruption o f his political history as b r i e f as p o s s i b l e . H e therefore c h o s e o n l y o n e t o p i c , w h o s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l significance w o u l d b e evident to the reader,
on
w h i c h to c o m p a r e the s c h o o l s . M o o r e ' s final c l a i m , that o n l y Ant. 13:172 describes the Essenes as p a n - h e i m a r m e n i c , is o n c e a g a i n i n a c c u r a t e . Ant. 18:18 will tell us that " T h e d o c t r i n e o f the Essenes is w o n t to leave e v e r y t h i n g in the h a n d s 62
o f G o d (Geo) xaTOcXeucetv. . . TOC 7tavT0c). G i v e n that it is characteristic o f J o s e p h u s to use Oeo? a n d et[iapuivT| i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y ,
63
this passage p r o
vides a close parallel to o u r o w n . E v e n if Ant. 13:172 w e r e u n i q u e , it w o u l d n o t follow that this i n f o r m a t i o n o u g h t to b e a s c r i b e d to s o m e o n e o t h e r than J o s e p h u s . I n short: it is u n c l e a r h o w a n y o f the p o i n t s e n u m e r a t e d b y M o o r e speaks either against J o s e p h a n authorship o f Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 o r for that
5 8
That is, discounting Holscher's theory of an intermediate source; cf. the excursus to Part I. Chapter 6, n. 234. Moore, "Fate", 384 n. 56. Cf., e.g., Ant. 8:419f.; 16:395ff. and chapter 6, above. Feldman's translation, L C L edn. Cf. chapter 6, above. 5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
6 3
210
CHAPTER EIGHT
o f a " g e n e r a l historian in H e r o d ' s t i m e " . M o o r e is d o u b d e s s c o r r e c t in his j u d g e m e n t that the a u t h o r o f this p e r i c o p e " w a s trying to give his readers
a brief account o f Jewish
sects in terms o f current
Greek
philosophical c o n t r o v e r s i e s " . But that author w a s J o s e p h u s . I n v i e w o f their shared t h e m e s a n d v o c a b u l a r y , it w o u l d s e e m m o s t reasonable t o assign all three " s c h o o l p a s s a g e s " in J o s e p h u s (War 2 : 1 6 2 166; Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ; 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 ) to the same author. A l l three present the Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , a n d Essenes as p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools c o n c e r n e d with p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues o f the d a y , especially with the causes o f g o o d and evil in h u m a n a c t i o n s . T h e s e general similarities are e n h a n c e d b y m a n y parallels o f v o c a b u l a r y . C o m m o n to all three are the essential terms o f the d e b a t e : etfiocpuivr), TOC 7udvTa, a n d s o m e f o r m o f TO I 9 ' ^[xtv. C o m p a r e , especially, War 2 a n d Ant. 13 o n the S a d d u c e e s : War 2:164f. Ant 13:173 EaSSovxaToi 8£, . . .TT)V ptev elpiappiivTjv EaSSovxatot Si TTJV //ev tl\i(xp[i£\fr\v 7wcvT<X7Wcatv dvaipoOaiv . . . . 9<xatv S in dvatpovatv, ouSev etvat TauTTjv aijtouvres, oOSe xaT' auTTjv TOC dcv6pco7utva t£\o$ dvOpconcov ixXoyfj Xa[x(idvetv, owcavTa Si £ noLpa T?JV ftpoaievat T)(jL£x£pav d(3ouXtav Xa(ji|3dvovTa^ 9
9
It is i n c r e d i b l e that s o u r c e critics c o u l d assign these t w o descriptions to different a u t h o r s .
64
T h e t h o u g h t - w o r l d is the s a m e in b o t h , a l t h o u g h e x
act verbal a g r e e m e n t is l i m i t e d . T h e fact that w e h a v e t w o presentations o f the s a m e c o n t e n t , in similar l a n g u a g e b u t differently c o n s t r u c t e d , speaks for J o s e p h a n authorship; it fits with his usual practice in Ant. 1365
14 o f r e f o r m u l a t i n g the narrative o f War.
T h e unity o f the s c h o o l
passages w o u l d s e e m to e x c l u d e the theories o f b o t h H o l s c h e r a n d S c h w a r t z , w h o assign
War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 to J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f a n d
Ant.
13:171-173 to s o m e o n e else. H a v i n g established the unity o f the school p a s s a g e s , to o n e further
p o i n t . O n e o f those passages (War
66
we may proceed
2:162-166) incor
porates, a l o n g with its discussion o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues, a a b o u t the Pharisees' reputation
statement
for dxpt(kta with respect to the laws
( 2 : 1 6 2 ) . S i n c e this statement, o n the o n e h a n d , is part a n d parcel o f the school 6 4
passage
and
since, o n
the
other
hand,
it
closely
parallels
Holscher ("Josephus", 1973) assigns our passage to Jewish tradition, taken over by the polemicist, but War 2:162-166 to Josephus himself ("Josephus", 1999 n.*). Schwartz ("Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f.) likewise assigns War 2:162-166 to Josephus, but he thinks that our passage comes from Nicolaus. Cf. Niese, HZ, 223f; Cohen, Josephus, 50f. Cf. also the evidence of Maier, freier Wille, 7-10. 6 5
6 6
211
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n statements in War 1:110 a n d Life 191 ( a n d , i n d e e d , J o s e p h u s ' s dxpt(3eta-theme in g e n e r a l ) , o n e is b o u n d to c o n c l u d e that J o s e p h u s also w r o t e the s c h o o l passages.
Summary and Conclusion J o s e p h u s w r o t e a n d situated Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 in s u c h a w a y that it w o u l d serve the a p o l o g e t i c - d i d a c t i c interests o f Ant. H e w a n t e d his readers to k n o w that the J e w s h a d p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools, that these s c h o o l s h a d e x isted for a l o n g t i m e , a n d that they o c c u p i e d themselves largely with that area in w h i c h m e t a p h y s i c s interfaces with ethics, v i z . : the respective roles o f fate a n d h u m a n v o l i t i o n as causes o f h u m a n a c t i o n s . O f the three s c h o o l s , h e says, the Pharisees represent the m i d d l e p o s i t i o n o n the spec t r u m : they attribute certain actions to fate a n d others t o h u m a n will. I n Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y , the m i d d l e p o s i t i o n w a s taken b y Platonists a n d Stoics. T h a t the Pharisees g i v e p l a c e to b o t h fate a n d h u m a n v o l i t i o n , unlike the S a d d u c e e s , is a p o i n t m a d e in b o t h War 2:163 a n d o u r passage. T h e nature o f the c o m p r o m i s e is e x p l a i n e d differently in the t w o p l a c e s , b u t that disparity seems to b e a function o f different structures: Ant.
13:171-
173 m u s t m a k e r o o m for the Essenes. T h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t intend o u r passage as a c o r r e c t i o n o f War 2 is m a d e clear b y : ( a ) his referral o f the reader b a c k t o the dxpi(k(rcipav SrjXcoatv ev TTJ Seuxepa PtpXco TTJ$ 'IouSatxfjc; 7tp
the
Pharisees d o c o m b i n e fate a n d free will; the w a y in w h i c h they c o m b i n e these factors h e c a n e x p l a i n differently, d e p e n d i n g o n the c o n t e x t . If w e ask, finally, what Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 a reveals a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d the Pharisees, w e shall h a v e to answer: v e r y little. W r i t i n g for a
Gentile
audience,
he
wants
only
to
show
that
the
Jews
have
p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools. T h e t o n e o f his portrayal o f all three s c h o o l s , therefore,
is positive. I f J o s e p h u s ' s
favour c a n b e inferred
s c h o o l ' s r e c o g n i t i o n o f fate's i m p o r t a n c e (cf. Ant.
from
a
1 0 : 2 7 7 f f . ) , then the
Essenes are his favourites, for they m a k e fate the xuptoc o f all things. I f J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s the m o s t space to his favourite s c h o o l , o r has t h e m d u l y emphasize
the
Law's
teaching
on
human
responsibility
(cf.
Ant.
1 6 : 3 9 8 f f . ) , then the S a d d u c e e s are his favourites. If, finally, he gives his favourite s c h o o l first place in the d i s c u s s i o n , o r attributes to t h e m the vir tue o f m o d e r a t i o n , then the Pharisees h a v e his s u p p o r t . A n d w e h a v e seen ( c h a p t e r 6 ) that the Pharisaic j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f fate a n d free will in
212
C H A P T E R EIGHT
fact c o m e s closest to J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w o f the m a t t e r . But the p e r i c o p e u n d e r discussion, in k e e p i n g with its c o n t e x t a n d f u n c t i o n , presents all three schools ( e v e n the S a d d u c e e s ! ) in a f a v o u r a b l e o r at least neutral light.
CHAPTER NINE
ANT
13:288-298: T H E P H A R I S E E S A N D J O H N
HYRCANUS
O f all 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 Pharisees, his story o f the r u p t u r e b e t w e e n t h e m a n d J o h n H y r c a n u s is p e r h a p s the m o s t c o n t r o v e r s i a l . P r e d i c t a b l y , m o s t o f the l e a r n e d c o n t r o v e r s y relates to the historical q u e s t i o n : D i d it really h a p p e n ? J o s e p h u s ' s detractors r a n g e all the w a y f r o m W e l l h a u s e n , w h o c l a i m e d that the Pharisees w e r e o p p o s e d to the Hasmoneans
from
the
outset,
1
to C .
Rabin,
w h o argues
that
the
2
Pharisees a n d H a s m o n e a n s n e v e r h a d serious d i f f e r e n c e s . Several c o m m e n t a t o r s , f o l l o w i n g a r a b b i n i c a c c o u n t , c o n n e c t the e p i s o d e with A l e x 3
a n d e r J a n n e u s rather than J o h n H y r c a n u s . A n d e v e n those w h o a c c e p t J o s e p h u s ' s allegation that there w a s a rift b e t w e e n the Pharisees John
H y r c a n u s often dismiss his e x p l a n a t i o n o f i t .
4
and
But that is the
historical q u e s t i o n . Josephus's
narrative a i m s in Ant.
13:288-298 have received c o m
paratively scant attention. Critics h a v e usually c o n f i n e d their interest to t w o aspects o f the literary q u e s t i o n , n a m e l y , ( a ) the p r o b l e m o f s o u r c e s and
( b ) the
interpretation
o f 1 3 : 2 9 7 f . , o n the
distinctive
Pharisaic
vofAifxa. B o t h issues will b e i m p o r t a n t for this study, b u t w e shall also n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d the story within the c o n t e x t o f Ant. a n d o f J o s e p h u s ' s larger v i s i o n o f things. I n v i e w o f the u n u s u a l significance o f s o u r c e criticism for the inter pretation
o f Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , it will b e necessary in this c h a p t e r
to
r e w o r k o u r usual f o r m a t . T h e distinction o f s o u r c e s m u s t here b e c o m e an integral part o f the interpretive effort. After a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the c o n t e x t , w e shall p r o c e e d to discuss the literary p r o b l e m s o f o u r passage a n d their usual solutions. I intend to s h o w that a r e a s o n a b l y secure v e r dict o n the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n is w i t h i n o u r r e a c h a n d that this v e r d i c t has clear i m p l i c a t i o n s for J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees. A final section will deal w i t h the f a m o u s " f o o t n o t e " o n the Pharisaic v6fj.i|ia ( § § 2 9 7 f . ) .
1
Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 90ff. Rabin, "Alexander Janneus and the Pharisees", JJS 7 (1956), 5ff. J. Friedlander, "The Rupture Between Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees", JQR n.s. 4 (1913-1914), 443ff.; Won, Jews, 7ff.; M . J . Geller, "Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees' Rift", JJS 30 (1979), 203ff. These scholars prefer the account in b. Kaddushin 66a. E.g., Herford, Pharisees, 29ff.; Dubnow, Weltgeschichte, II, 148. 2
3
4
214
CHAPTER NINE
I. Context 5
At Ant. 13:214 ( = 1 M a c e . 1 3 : 4 2 ) , Josephus gives up his use of 1 M a c cabees as a source for the history of the Hasmonean period. From then on,
5
he reverts to War itself and/or to the sources that he had used for 7
War 1-2 (especially Nicolaus); this material he supplements with various 8
kinds of new information. For the tenure of John Hyrcanus, Josephus reproduces War 1:56-66 but stretches it into a narrative that is about six times as long (Ant. 13:230-287), as the table below demonstrates. W h e r e Ant. parallels War, the reproduction is more or less exact with respect to content but the formulation is n e w . WAR
AND ANTIQUITIES
9
ON THE REIGN OF JOHN HYRCANUS
Ant. 13:230-287
War 1:56-66 (a) 1:56-6 la
(b) 1:61b
Hyrcanus' s attempt to free his mother and brothers at Dagon; attack by Antiochus Sidetes.
13:230-237a
Dealings with Antiochus Sidetes (This expan sion drastically alters the sense of War 1:6If.)
13:237b-248, 250-253
Hyrcanus opens David's tomb, to bribe An tiochus (War) or to raise a mercenary army (Ant).
13:249
Hyrcanus's Samaria.
13:254-257a
10
(c) 1:62-63
5
campaigns
in
Idumea
and
Hyrcanus judaizes Idumea.
13:257b-258
He renews friendship with Rome.
13:267-274
Summary of relations between Hyrcanus and various Seleucid rulers.
13:267-274
He has not, however, exhausted 1 Maccabees as we know it and this raises the ques tion whether the version that he knew was defective or whether he had some other motive for leaving his source prematurely. Cf. Holscher, "Josephus", 1951 n. + ; Thackeray, Josephus, 86; and Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , 334f. n. d. So the later Niese, "Historiker", 223f.; cf. S. J. D . Cohen, Josephus, 50f. So Destinon, Quellen, llf. Cf., e.g. H . Bloch, Quellen, 90ff.; Destinon, Quellen, 19f.; Niese, HZ, 220f.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1973ff. W e observed the same phenomenon in the case of Ant. 13:173 (on the Sadducees), vis-a-vis War 2:162. As also at Ant. 7:393. 6
7
8
9
1 0
THE
(d) l:64-65a
(e) 1:65b
(d) l:64-65a
(e) 1:65b
215
PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
Hyrcanus besieges the city of Samaria.
13:275-277
Expansion of the Samaritan episode.
13:275-277
Hyrcanus captures and razes Samaria.
13:281
Legend about Hyrcanus.
13:282-283
Note on the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyprus (from Strabo).
13:284-287
Hyrcanus besieges the city of Samaria.
13:275-277
Expansion of the Samaritan episode.
13:275-277
Hyrcanus captures and razes Samaria.
13:281
Legend about Hyrcanus.
13:282-283
Note on the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyprus (from Strabo).
13:284-287
Although the new material in Ant. 13:230-277 contradicts the sense of War in one notable case,
11
Josephus manages on the whole to maintain
the sense of the earlier account. Just as War 1:56-66 serves to document the "prosperous fortunes'' (T<X$ euTcpaytas) of Hyrcanus (1:67-69), whose rule preceded the decline of the Hasmonean dynasty (1:69), so also Ant. 13:230ff. climaxes with a discussion of this high priest's e u 7 i p a y i a , which his sons will never recapture (13:288, 299f.). But this brings us to our passage, Ant. 13:288-298. The story of the rift between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees has no parallel in War. It is one of the new elements that Josephus introduces in Ant. to fill out War's account of Hyrcanus's tenure. In keeping with his usual practice in Ant. 13 (see table above) Josephus splices the whole story of the rift into what is, at War 1:67-69, his concluding paragraph on Hyrcanus. T h e following comparison between that paragraph and the material surrounding our pericope illuminates Josephus's procedure: War 1:67-69 Ant. 13:288-300 67. 7up6<; Si tote; eonpayiac; av-cou zt 288. T p x o c v c p Si cpQovov e x t v r j a e Ttocpoc 'Icodvvov xal tcov naiScov yOovoc; e y e t p e t tcov 'IovSatcov r) r e avTOV xal tcov ulcov araaiv T&V i7utx
1 1
a
t
That is, in Ant. 13:237b ff., on Antiochus Sidetes; cf. War 1:61.
216
CHAPTER NINE
So J o s e p h u s has inserted the story o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s b r e a k with the Pharisees into a narrative that is indistinguishable f r o m War 1:67-69. T h i s is c o n f i r m e d b y Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 9 , w h i c h has H y r c a n u s q u e l l i n g a (redan; that is n o t m e n t i o n e d in Ant. b u t o n l y in the War parallel ( 1 : 6 7 ) .
1 2
O u r passage falls, then, in a c o n t e x t in w h i c h J o s e p h u s wants to il lustrate the successes o f J o h n H y r c a n u s . T h e euxcpayta m o t i f is taken o v e r f r o m War a n d all o f the o t h e r s u p p l e m e n t a r y material in this part o f Ant. 13 seems to c o n t r i b u t e to it. W e n o w p r o c e e d to e x a m i n e the story o f H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees, to d e t e r m i n e its m e a n i n g a n d its function in the narrative. I I . Literary Problems and Solutions A.
Topic Paragraph
288. A s for H y r c a n u s , his o w n success (euTCpayia) a n d that o f his sons a r o u s e d j e a l o u s y (cpGovov extvrjae) a m o n g the J e w s ; the
Pharisees,
w h o are o n e o f the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , as w e h a v e e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , w e r e especially hostile t o w a r d h i m ((xdcXtcrca Se ot OaptaaToi xax&s 7up6<; auxov etxov). T h e i r p o w e r w i t h the p o p u l a c e is such that, e v e n w h e n they speak against a k i n g a n d against a h i g h priest, they are i m m e d i a t e l y credited! (ToaauTTjv Se e'xouat TTJV tax^v ^capct TCO TiXrjOet chq xat xaia (JaatXeco? xt Xeyovxes xal xax' dpxiepeco? euOus 7ciaTeuea0ai.)
B. (i)
Body of the Passage
2 8 9 - 2 9 0 a . N o w H y r c a n u s w a s also o n e o f their disciples (fxaOrjTrjs) a n d he w a s greatly l o v e d (<J9oSpa rjya7uaTo) b y t h e m . A c c o r d i n g l y , he in vited t h e m to a feast a n d entertained t h e m h o s p i t a b l y . W h e n he saw how
delighted (acpoSpa 7)So(xevou<;) they w e r e , he b e g a n to speak with
t h e m a l o n g the f o l l o w i n g lines. T h e y k n e w , he said, o f his desire to be righteous (etvat Stxatov) a n d to d o all things so as to please G o d a n d t h e m ( f o r the Pharisees a d v o c a t e a certain w a y o f life [ot yap Oaptaatot cptXoaoqjouatv]); nevertheless, he requested that, if they should n o t i c e h i m d o i n g a n y t h i n g w r o n g a n d v e e r i n g f r o m the path o f righteousness (TTJS 6Sou Ti}s Stxata? exxpe7c6fxevov),
they w e r e to lead h i m b a c k
(eTuavdyetv) a n d restore h i m (e7uavop0ouv) to it. (ii)
2 9 0 - 2 9 2 . N o w the Pharisees attested to his c o n s u m m a t e virtue a n d he was pleased b y their c o m p l i m e n t s , but o n e o f the guests (iiq TCOV xaxaxet(xevcav), b y the n a m e o f Eleazar, w h o w a s m a l i c i o u s b y nature a n d revelled in d i s c o r d , said, " S i n c e y o u asked to k n o w the truth, if y o u
1 2
Cf. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158f.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
217
w a n t ' t o b e r i g h t e o u s ' (etvat Stxatov), then relinquish the h i g h priest h o o d a n d b e satisfied with ruling the p e o p l e " (TO apxeiv TOU Xaou). W h e n H y r c a n u s asked h i m the reason w h y he s h o u l d relinquish the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d he replied, " b e c a u s e w e hear f r o m the elders that y o u r m o t h e r w a s a c a p t i v e in the reign o f A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s ' ' . But the story w a s false. H y r c a n u s b e c a m e furious w i t h the m a n a n d the Pharisees w e r e all v e r y a n g r y (xat 7udvTe? S' ot OaptaaTot a^oSp&s riyavaxxTiaav).
(iii) 2 9 3 - 2 9 6 . T h e n s o m e o n e f r o m the s c h o o l (atpeai?) o f the S a d d u c e e s , w h o e s p o u s e a v i e w o p p o s e d to that o f the Pharisees (ot TTJV evavxtav Tots Oaptaatots rcpoatpeatv e'xouatv), a certain J o n a t h a n , w h o w a s a m o n g the close friends o f H y r c a n u s , b e g a n to say that Eleazar h a d uttered his slanders in a g r e e m e n t with the collective o p i n i o n o f all the Pharisees (TTJ xoivfj 7udvTuaet npb<; TOC? xoXaaet? e7ttetx&<; e'xouatv ot OaptaaToi). A t this r e s p o n s e , H y r c a n u s b e c a m e v e r y a n g r y a n d a s s u m e d (ev6[xtaev) that the m a n h a d slandered h i m w i t h their a p p r o v a l . J o n a t h a n e x a c e r b a t e d his a n g e r greatly a n d a c h i e v e d the f o l l o w i n g result: he i n d u c e d Hyrcanus
to j o i n
the
party
o f the
S a d d u c e e s , to a b a n d o n
the
Pharisees, to repeal the 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 xe UTC' auTG>v xaxaaxaOevTa vou.tu.a TTJ 8r)u.
C . Footnote: the Pharisaic NoyuyLOi 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 . I w a n t to e x p l a i n here that the Pharisees passed o n to the p e o p l e certain o r d i n a n c e s f r o m a s u c c e s s i o n o f fathers, w h i c h are n o t written d o w n in the laws o f M o s e s . F o r this r e a s o n the party o f the S a d d u c e e s dismisses these o r d i n a n c e s , a v e r r i n g that o n e n e e d o n l y r e c o g n i z e the written o r d i n a n c e s , w h e r e a s those f r o m the tradition o f the fathers n e e d n o t b e o b s e r v e d . C o n f l i c t s a n d m a j o r differences d e v e l o p e d b e t w e e n the t w o g r o u p s o v e r these matters. T h e S a d d u c e e s
218
CHAPTER NINE p e r s u a d e o n l y the w e a l t h y , h o w e v e r , a n d h a v e n o p o p u l a r f o l l o w i n g , w h e r e a s the Pharisees h a v e the s u p p o r t o f the p o p u l a c e . But these t w o g r o u p s a n d also the Essenes h a v e b e e n d e s c r i b e d with detailed a c c u r a c y in the s e c o n d b o o k o f m y Judaica. (vuv
Se 87)Xcoaat (3ouXou.at o-u v6u.iu.oc TIVOC 7uap£8oaav TCO Srjfico ot
Oaptaatot exrcocTepcovStaSoxfjS, arcep oux avayeypaTCTat iv TOT? Mcouaeos vopots, xat Stoc TOUTO Tauxa TO TCOV EaSSouxatcov yevo$ ex(3dXXet, Xeyov exetvoc Setv fjyetaOat vou.tu.a TOC yeypajiuiva, TOC 8' Ix rcapaSoaecos TCOV 7taTepcov u.7) TTjpeTv. xat 7uepl TOUTCOV £7)TTJaet$ auTots xat 8ta9opoc<; ytveaOat auvejiatve (jteyaXa*;, TCOV Se SaSSouxatcov TOU<; eu7c6pou<; u.6vov rcetOovTcov TO Se SrjptoTtxov oux e7uou.evov auToT$ exovrcov, TCOV 8e Oaptaatcov TO nkrfioq au(X[xaxov ex^vrcov.) A s it stands in its present c o n t e x t this story creates several w e l l - k n o w n p r o b l e m s for the interpreter. A . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s casually refers the r e a d e r to b o t h Ant.
13:171-
173 ( § 2 8 8 ) a n d the " p r e c i s e " a c c o u n t in War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ( § 2 9 8 ) , h e discusses h e r e a m a j o r difference b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s that the earlier passages d i d n o t m e n t i o n at a l l .
13
B . T h e t o p i c p a r a g r a p h ( § 2 8 8 ) d e s c r i b e s an initial hostility b e t w e e n H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees that the sequel ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) fails to d e m o n strate. O n the c o n t r a r y , the Pharisees a p p e a r t h r o u g h o u t as friends o f the h i g h priest. O n the basis o f § 2 8 8 , the r e a d e r e x p e c t s to see e v i d e n c e o f Pharisaic e n v y a n d h a t r e d b u t instead it turns o u t that they l o v e H y r c a n u s greatly ( § 2 8 9 ) , t h e y praise his virtue ( § 2 9 0 ) , a n d they all b e c o m e i n d i g n a n t w h e n s o m e o n e speaks against h i m ( § 2 9 2 ) .
1 4
T h e Eleazar w h o
utters the slanders is n o t identified as a Pharisee b u t m e r e l y as " o n e o f the g u e s t s " .
1 5
A n d H y r c a n u s o n l y a b a n d o n s the Pharisees in the e n d as
a result o f the m a c h i n a t i o n s o f his S a d d u c e a n f r i e n d .
16
C . T h e story p r o v i d e s n o e v i d e n c e , as the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h leads us t o e x p e c t , o f the P h a r i s e e s ' s p e a k i n g against a p u b l i c figure a n d f i n d i n g automatic
support
a m o n g the
people.
T h e i r public following
lustrated b y the p o p u l a r o u t c r y that follows the a n n u l m e n t
is il
o f their
vofjttpta ( § 2 9 6 ) b u t w e see n o t h i n g o f their alleged i m p e r t i n e n c e . It is H y r c a n u s w h o takes the initiative against the P h a r i s e e s .
13
17
Cf. G. F. Moore, "Fate", 372. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158f. So Rivkin, Revolution, 40. The phrase that describes Eleazar is TI^ TCOV xocTOcxeifxevtov, "one of those at table" (13:290). Holscher, however, views him as a Pharisee ("Josephus", 1975 n.*). Cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 40, and Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158. Cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 40. 14
15
16
17
219
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
D.
Finally, § 2 8 8 agrees w i t h War 1:67 in attributing the p o p u l a r
hatred o f H y r c a n u s to the J e w s ' envy (9G6vo<;) o f his s u c c e s s . T h e story c o n c l u d e s , h o w e v e r ( § 2 9 6 ) , b y flatly c o n t r a d i c t i n g that n o t i c e . T h e p o p u l a c e c o m e s to hate H y r c a n u s b e c a u s e h e a b o l i s h e d the m u c h - l o v e d Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s . S i n c e the story m a k e s it clear that this o c c u r r e d o n l y b e c a u s e o f a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the p r o - P h a r i s a i c masses a p p e a r as the v i c t i m s o f an injustice a n d n o t as " e n v i o u s " o f their l e a d e r ' s suc cesses. T o s u m m a r i z e : in a d d i t i o n to the o b v i o u s difference in c o n t e n t b e t w e e n Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 a n d the o t h e r P h a r i s e e - S a d d u c e e c o m p a r i s o n s in J o s e p h u s , the r e a d e r is struck b y several tensions w i t h i n o u r passage itself. T h e s e all h i n g e o n the d i s s o n a n c e b e t w e e n the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h ( § 2 8 8 ) a n d the story that it i n t r o d u c e s ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) . T h e t o p i c p a r a g r a p h is f a v o u r a b l e t o w a r d H y r c a n u s b u t is m a r k e d l y a n t i - P h a r i s a i c ,
18
whereas
the actual story is f a v o u r a b l e t o w a r d the Pharisees, the p e o p l e , a n d H y r canus;
o n l y the
villains.
malicious Eleazar
and
the
Sadducee Jonathan
are
19
It has b e e n rightly u n d e r s t o o d b y scholars w h o h a v e b r o a c h e d these p r o b l e m s that their s o l u t i o n is to b e s o u g h t in J o s e p h u s ' s ( o r an in t e r m e d i a t e a u t h o r ' s ) i m p e r f e c t r e d a c t i o n s o f disparate s o u r c e s . A virtual consensus
obtains
that
the
main
body
o f the
story
(§§
189-296)
o r i g i n a t e d in J e w i s h tradition, w h e t h e r that tradition b e u n d e r s t o o d as a chronicle o f Hyrcanus's r e i g n , orally transmitted l e g e n d .
2 2
2 0
an extensive written n a r r a t i v e ,
21
o r an
T h e J e w i s h character o f the tradition
is
usually s u r m i s e d f r o m ( a ) its f a v o u r a b l e presentation o f b o t h H y r c a n u s a n d the P h a r i s e e s
23
a n d ( b ) a parallel story in the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d ,
w h i c h tells in similar terms o f a b r e a k b e t w e e n A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s a n d the P h a r i s e e s .
24
W e are n o w able to c o n f i r m the traditional J e w i s h p r o v e n a n c e oi Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 with t w o further o b s e r v a t i o n s . ( c ) First, w i t h i n the short space o f 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 1 , the adjective 8txoct0£ o c curs three t i m e s . W e h a v e o b s e r v e d a b o v e this w o r d h u n d r e d s
o f times but
2 5
that J o s e p h u s uses f o r m s o f
that it generally lacks a n y o f the
specially J e w i s h , c o v e n a n t a l n u a n c e s o f p"l!J. O n the c o n t r a r y , J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d g r o u p in its o r d i n a r y Hellenistic sense, to m e a n " j u s t i c e " ; 1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158. Rivkin, Revolution, 40. H . Bloch, Quellen, 90-92. Destinon, Quellen, 41-44. Holscher, "Josephus", 1974f. Cf. also Niese, "Historiker", 221. E.g., H . Bloch, Quellen, 90, and Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158. The rabbinic story is in b. Kaddushin 66a. Chapter 6, above.
CHAPTER NINE
220
a n d this usage is reinforced b y his o m i s s i o n o f c o v e n a n t t h e m e s f r o m his biblical p a r a p h r a s e .
26
In the passage b e f o r e us, h o w e v e r , Stxato? has
precisely the c o v e n a n t a l sense o f pleasing G o d b y fulfilling his L a w . T h u s H y r c a n u s claims that h e wants etvat Stxatov xat navxa notovvra ££ cov dpeaetev &v TCO Oeco ( § 2 8 9 ) . Eleazar throws his c l a i m b a c k at h i m ( § 291) with the r e m a r k that in o r d e r " t o b e r i g h t e o u s ' ' H y r c a n u s w o u l d n e e d to give u p the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d ; for his m o t h e r ' s alleged captivity disqualifies h i m ( a c c o r d i n g to the L a w )
2 7
f r o m serving as h i g h priest.
T h e sense o f Stxato? here is n o t that o f s i m p l y " d o i n g the right thing b y o n e ' s n e i g h b o u r " , as with J o s e p h u s elsewhere; it has rather the biblicalJ e w i s h force o f " p l e a s i n g G o d b y k e e p i n g his c o m m a n d m e n t s " . ( d ) T h e o c c u r r e n c e o f Stxato? in o u r passage is especially n o t e w o r t h y b e c a u s e the adjective qualifies 686?. H y r c a n u s expresses his wish n o t to stray f r o m " t h e righteous p a t h " (TTJ? 68ou XT}? Stxata?). But it is well k n o w n that the use o f " w a y " ( T H ) as a m e t a p h o r for the c o u r s e o f o n e ' s life is b i b l i c a l .
28
F o r e x a m p l e , M o s e s is instructed b y J e t h r o ( E x . 1 8 : 2 0 ) : And you shall teach them the statutes (D^pjnrmN) and the decisions and make them know the way in which they must walk (S"D 1D?"» "p"rnN) and what they must d o . t
2 9
In P s a l m 119, a p a n e g y r i c o n the L a w , the psalmist often prays that his "way"
will please G o d , i n a s m u c h as he fulfills the L a w . T h e t h e m e is
a n n o u n c e d in 1 1 9 : 1 : Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the L o r d ! m m r m r a n^bnn
30
A l t h o u g h there are m a n y possible w a y s , it is the w a y o f o b e d i e n c e , o r the " r i g h t e o u s p a t h " , that o n e o u g h t to s e e k .
31
In the L X X , the phrase
rj 686$ TTJ? Stxaioauvrj?, w h i c h is v e r y close to o u r rj 686? rj Stxata, o c c u r s several t i m e s .
32
W e may note,
finally,
that the idea o f o b e d i e n c e to
G o d ' s l a w as a " w a y " stands b e h i n d the r a b b i n i c t e r m PD^n. T h u s the
2 6
2 7
Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 79ff. Lev. 21:14f.; the assumption was that a captive woman had been raped; cf. Ag.Ap.
1:35. 2 8
2 9
Cf. Michaelis, "686<;", TDNT, V , esp. 48ff. R S V trans. Cf. also Ex. 32:8; Deut. 5:23; 1 Sam. 12:23; 22:22; Prov. 16:7; Jer.
7:28. 3 0
R S V trans. Cf. also Ps. 119:5, 9, 10, 15, 29, 32, 35, 59, 101, 105, 128, 133. Cf. Ps. 37:5; Prov. 12:28. Prov. 12:28; 21:16, 21; Job 24:13; M t . 21:32. The familiar Ps. 23:3 ( L X X Ps. 22:3) has hid xptpoix; StxatoouvTj;. 3 1
3 2
221
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
" r i g h t e o u s w a y " to w h i c h H y r c a n u s aspires is a biblical-Jewish c o n ception. N o t i c e in particular the shepherd i m a g e r y that H y r c a n u s e v o k e s w h e n he requests that the Pharisees restore h i m if h e should stray (exxpe7co(xat) f r o m the righteous path. O n e thinks easily o f the sheep m e t a p h o r in ( d e u t e r o - ) Isaiah, " A l l w e like sheep h a v e gone astray; w e h a v e t u r n e d e v e r y o n e to his o w n way" ( 5 3 : 6 ) , 119.
3 4
3 3
o r p e r h a p s again o f Psalms 23 a n d
T h e i m a g e r y is biblical a n d P a l e s t i n i a n .
35
O u t s i d e o f o u r passage,
J o s e p h u s uses 686? s o m e 182 times, b u t practically always in a literal, mundane sense.
36
It will suffice to q u o t e M i c h a e l i s ' s contrast b e t w e e n
biblical u s a g e , o n the o n e h a n d , a n d J o s e p h a n usage o n the other. O f the f o r m e r he remarks, " T h e fig[urative] use o f 686? is v e r y c o m m o n in all parts o f the L X X , i n c l u d i n g the a p o c r y p h a " .
3 7
O f the latter h e n o t e s ,
" I n J o s e p h [ u s ] , as is to b e e x p e c t e d in a historian, 686? is always u s e d in the lit[eral] s e n s e . "
3 8
S i n c e the c o n n o t a t i o n s o f Stxocto? a n d 686? in Ant. foreign
to J o s e p h u s ' s
usual
style,
but
thoroughly
1 3 : 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 are compatible
with
biblical-Jewish t h e m e s , w e m a y safely c o n f i r m the usual attribution o f the story to an einheimischer judischen Quelle. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , p r e v e n t us f r o m l o o k i n g for traces o f J o s e p h u s ' s redactional in fluence,
as w e shall see presently.
S o m e critics d o n o t distinguish the discussion o f the Pharisaic vou.tu.oc in Ant. 13:297f. f r o m the b o d y o f the s t o r y . it as J o s e p h u s ' s o w n e l a b o r a t i o n . this n o t i c e .
4 1
40
39
T h o s e w h o d o tend to see
E v e n H o l s c h e r credits J o s e p h u s with
H i s r e a s o n i n g seems to b e that, unlike m o s t o f J o s e p h u s ' s
other Pharisee passages, w h i c h either p o r t r a y the g r o u p u n f a v o u r a b l y
42
o r s e e m to misrepresent all the J e w i s h parties as p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s ,
43
this n o t i c e a b o u t the vofxifxa reflects the insights a n d positive evaluation o f the Pharisees that o n e w o u l d e x p e c t f r o m a Pharisaic J e w such as
3 3
R S V trans. Cf. Ps. 119:10, 176. Cf. Jesus' parable of the "lost sheep", Lk. 15:4-10. A figurative sense does occur in War 5:402, 415 (in a speech by Josephus) and in Ant. 6:34, but this last is taken over from the L X X , "1 Kings" ( = 1 Sam.) 8:3, 5. Michaelis, "686?", 49. Ibid., 64. As Michaelis later concedes (p. 65), the "always" is slightly hyperbolic. E.g., Bloch, Quellen, 90ff.; Destinon, Quellen, 41, 44; Niese, HZ, 221f. Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n . + + ; G. F. Moore, "Fate", 372; Rivkin, Revolu tion, 41. Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n . + + . E.g., War 1:110; Ant. 17:41-45. E.g., War 2:162-166; Ant. 13:171-173. 3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
222
CHAPTER NINE
Josephus.
4 4
W e m a y c o n f i r m the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w in this m a t t e r b y
p o i n t i n g o u t (rather) that: ( a ) since the e x p l a n a t o r y n o t e is i n t e n d e d to enlighten G r e c o - R o m a n readers a b o u t the conflicts b e t w e e n Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s , it m u s t h a v e b e e n a d d e d b y the p e r s o n w h o edited the story for G r e c o - R o m a n readers (therefore, b y J o s e p h u s ) ; ( b ) the a u t h o r refers the r e a d e r b a c k ( § 1 9 8 ) t o the discussion o f Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , a n d Essenes in War 2 ; a n d ( c ) the l a n g u a g e in the f o o t n o t e , as w e shall see b e l o w , is typically J o s e p h a n . W e sustain, therefore, the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w o f the p r o v e n a n c e o f b o t h the story itself ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) a n d the e x planatory footnote ( § § 297-298). S i n c e , h o w e v e r , the m a j o r difficulties in Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 arise f r o m
tensions b e t w e e n the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h ( § 2 8 8 ) a n d the b o d y o f the story ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) , it is crucial for us to identify, if p o s s i b l e , the a u t h o r o f the o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h . A n d o n this q u e s t i o n w e m u s t part c o m p a n y with the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w . A m o n g those i n c l i n e d t o w a r d t h o r o u g h g o i n g s o u r c e c r i t i c i s m , it is w i d e l y a g r e e d that N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s w a s r e s p o n s i b l e for the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h o f o u r passage ( § 2 8 8 ) .
4 5
T h r e e lines o f r e a s o n i n g p r o d u c e this
c o n c l u s i o n , ( a ) First, it has l o n g b e e n r e c o g n i z e d that N i c o l a u s w a s J o s e p h u s ' s m a j o r ( o r e x c l u s i v e ) s o u r c e for War 1:30-2:116 a n d that h e also c o n t r i b u t e d m u c h o f Ant.
13-17.
4 6
M o r e o v e r , w h e r e War a n d Ant.
give parallel a c c o u n t s , Ant. is usually t h o u g h t to reflect N i c o l a u s m o r e closely. T w o o f the reasons for this j u d g e m e n t are: ( i ) that a l t h o u g h Ant. frequently gives the fuller d e s c r i p t i o n , it d o e s n o t l o o k like an e x p a n s i o n 47
o f War,
a n d (ii) War 1:30-2:116 gives m a n y i n d i c a t i o n s o f b e i n g an e x
cerpt (Abzug) rather than an original a c c o u n t . above,
Ant.
Schwartz
13:288a
theorizes
closely
resembles
that J o s e p h u s
took
4 8
N o w , as w e h a v e seen
War
1:67a
Ant.
13:288
in
vocabulary.
directly
from
N i c o l a u s ' s a c c o u n t , w h e r e a s in War 1 h e h a d c r o p p e d N i c o l a u s ' s a c c o u n t so as to o m i t a n y m e n t i o n o f the P h a r i s e e s .
49
T h u s , Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 reflects
Nicolaus's u n s y m p a t h e t i c v i e w o f the Pharisees.
4 4
Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n. + + : "Sein [Josephus's] eigener pharisaischer Standpunkt kommt etwa ant. X I I I 297f.; vita 191 zur Geltung". E.g., Reinach, Oeuvres, III, 177 n. 3; Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , 373 n. d.; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158f. Cf. Holscher, "Josephus", 1944-1948; Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, xxvf.; and S. Safrai and M . Stern, The Jewish People in the First Century, I, 23f. Destinon, Quellen, 11-13. An example is the story of Antiochus Sidetes and Hyr canus (see the table above). The Ant. account is not only much fuller; it also accords bet ter with the accounts of other historians (cf. Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , 340 n. c, 353 n. f); Josephus himself quotes Nicolaus in favour of the Ant. version (Ant. 13:250f.). Holscher, "Josephus", 1944f. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 159. 4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
223
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
We
m a y r e s p o n d that, since the o v e r t h r o w o f H o l s c h e r ' s t h e o r y o f
m o n o l i t h i c intermediate
50
s o u r c e s for Ant.,
the d e g r e e o f J o s e p h u s ' s
authorial f r e e d o m in that w o r k has b e c o m e a n o p e n q u e s t i o n that c a n o n l y b e r e s o l v e d o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e basis.
One
cannot
argue
from
general theories o f h o w J o s e p h u s u s e d his s o u r c e s t o c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t specific passages. W e shall see that § 2 8 8 betrays J o s e p h u s ' s o w n h a n d . ( b ) A s e c o n d a r g u m e n t for N i c o l a u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 deals w i t h the s e c o n d sentence o f the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h : the P h a r i s e e s '
influ
e n c e is so great that " e v e n w h e n they say s o m e t h i n g against a k i n g a n d against a h i g h priest (a>? xat XOCTOC (JaatXeco? . . . xat x a x ' apxtepew?) they are i m m e d i a t e l y c r e d i t e d " . A c c o r d i n g to R e i n a c h , w h o is f o l l o w e d b y M a r c u s and Schwartz,
51
the " d i s t i n c t i o n " m a d e here b e t w e e n the of
fices o f k i n g a n d h i g h priest w a s n o t o n e that suited J o s e p h u s ' s
own
t i m e o f w r i t i n g (after 7 0 ) , n o r d i d it m a t c h the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d ; it c a n o n l y reflect, they c l a i m , the t i m e o f H e r o d ( a n d N i c o l a u s ) , in w h i c h the k i n g a n d the h i g h priest w e r e t w o different
individuals.
It is n o t at all clear, h o w e v e r , w h y the phrase m u s t b e taken t o refer to t w o distinct individuals rather than t w o offices h e l d b y the s a m e per son.
H y r c a n u s is n o t yet called (JaatXeus, t o b e sure, b u t the w h o l e story
h i n g e s o n the fact that h e has b o t h the dpxtepoxjuvTjv a n d the cxpxetv TOO Xocov. T h a t is the p o i n t o f E l e a z a r ' s c h a r g e ( § 2 9 1 ) , t o the effect that H y r c a n u s s h o u l d g i v e u p the f o r m e r a n d b e c o n t e n t w i t h the latter. A f t e r the story, further, J o s e p h u s reflects that H y r c a n u s w a s c o u n t e d u n i q u e l y w o r t h y b y G o d t o e n j o y TTJV a p x f j v TOU e6vou$, TTJV a p x t e p a T t x r j v
Ttu/rjv, a n d
rcpoqnrjTeta
(§ 2 9 9 ) , thereby
p r o p h e t , priest, a n d k i n g .
5 0
5 2
e v o k i n g the
familiar
triad o f
I f H y r c a n u s h i m s e l f d i d n o t take the official
See the excursus to Part I, above. See n. 45, above. These were, as is well known, the three outstanding public offices of biblical Israel, which later provided much fuel for messianic speculation. Cf. e.g., the "Mes sianic Anthology" from Qumran, in G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962), 247ff.; also 1QS 9:11; l Q S a 2:12ff.; Test. Levi 8:11-15; Test. Simeon 7:1-2. O f a vast secondary literature on these texts, and on the Qumran expectation of both a royal and a priestly Messiah as well as the "prophet", see G. R. Beasley-Murray, "The Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs", JTS 48 (1947), 1-12; Millar Burrows, "Messiahs of Aaron and Israel", ATR 34 (1952), 202-206; R . W . Klein, "Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism", Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972), 507-517; R . B. Laurin, "The Problem of Two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls", Revue de Qumran 4 (1963), 39-52; J. Liver, "The Doctrine of Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth", HTR 52 (1959), 149-185; M . Smith, "What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?" JBL 88 (1959), 66-72. For the application of all three offices to Jesus, cf. Eusebius, Eccl.Hist. 1.3.7-9. 5 1
5 2
224
C H A P T E R NINE
title o f (3aaiXeuc, his oldest s o n A r i s t o b u l u s d i d ,
5 3
i m m e d i a t e l y after H y r
c a n u s ' s death, w h i c h suggests that H y r c a n u s h a d already b e e n a de facto k i n g . W h a t is m o r e , J o s e p h u s implies elsewhere that all o f his H a s m o nean
ancestors w e r e k i n g s : " t h e
sons o f A s a m o n e u s served for the
longest t i m e as b o t h h i g h priests a n d k i n g s " .
5 4
L o o s e l a n g u a g e this m a y
b e ; b u t it takes all the force f r o m R e i n a c h ' s c l a i m that the a u t h o r o f § 288 m u s t h a v e lived w h e n the k i n g a n d h i g h priest w e r e different in d i v i d u a l s , in the t i m e o f H e r o d the G r e a t . Nor
is it difficult to speculate as to w h y the a u t h o r o f § 288 s h o u l d
h a v e e x a g g e r a t e d H y r c a n u s ' s Cf.pyf\ t o o Xocou into full-fledged k i n g s h i p . T h e a u t h o r is clearly partial to H y r c a n u s and is also a n t i - P h a r i s a i c .
55
It
lends a sense o f e n o r m i t y to his o p e n i n g d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees that he c a n d e c l a r e : " e v e n w h e n they speak against a king [rather than a m e r e ' l e a d e r ' o r the like] a n d a h i g h priest they are c r e d i t e d ! " T h e present participle Xeyovxes indicates that the Pharisees' s p e a k i n g against h i g h priests a n d kings ( = H a s m o n e a n s ) w a s n o t an isolated o c c u r r e n c e ; in the sequel (Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 I f . ) w e find that the Pharisees c o n t i n u e to w i e l d their p o p u l a r s u p p o r t against the priestly d y n a s t y . S o the s e c o n d sentence o f the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h has clearly b e e n a d d e d b y the narrative e d i t o r to in t r o d u c e the story o f H y r c a n u s ' s rift with the Pharisees ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) ; there is n o n e e d to attribute it to N i c o l a u s . ( c ) Finally, S c h w a r t z r e c o g n i z e s that the a u t h o r o f § 2 8 8 , unlike the author o f § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 , is o p e n l y hostile t o w a r d the P h a r i s e e s .
56
T h i s dis
qualifies J o s e p h u s , a c c o r d i n g to S c h w a r t z , b e c a u s e in Life 12 J o s e p h u s declares h i m s e l f to b e a Pharisee. I shall try to d e m o n s t r a t e in Part I V , h o w e v e r , h o w unlikely it is that J o s e p h u s e v e r w i s h e d to b e t h o u g h t o f as a Pharisee. In response to the a r g u m e n t s a d d u c e d in f a v o u r o f N i c o l a u s ' s author ship o f Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 8 , I h a v e a r g u e d that the s e c o n d sentence o f the
p a r a g r a p h w a s i n t r o d u c e d in o r d e r to create a f r a m e w o r k for the tradi tional story that follows ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) . A l t h o u g h its anti-Pharisaic
tone
contradicts the story, it d o e s i n t r o d u c e the h i g h priest/ruler s c h e m e that 5 3
According to Josephus, at least. Once again, the fact that Josephus may have erred historically (cf. Marcus, L C L edn., 379 n. c.) does not affect our understanding of his narrative as narrative. Cf. Ant. 16:187: rjfiets . . . xo>v 'Aaocficovoct'ou BocatXecov; Life 2: ot yap 'Aaajxcovoctou 7tat8e? . . . im firjxiaxov xpovov rjpxtepocxeuaocv xal sPaatXeuaocv. In Ant. 13:406 we are told that Alexander Janneus, the second Hasmonean "king" by Josephus's reckoning (13:301), received a more splendid funeral than any of the kings before him (xtva xcov 7tpo ocuxou PocaiXecov). And in 15:403, we are told that the fortress called Baris was built by the "kings and high priests of the Hasmonean family (xou 'Aaocfioovocicov yevou? paaiXet? xat apxiepet?)". But the Baris antedated John Hyrcanus (War 1:75)! Holscher, "Josephus", 197f.; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158. 5 4
5 5
5 6
225
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS lies at the heart o f the story a n d appears again in J o s e p h u s ' s
summary
remarks o n H y r c a n u s . W e m a y n o w a d d that the rueful r e c o g n i t i o n o f Pharisaic p o p u l a r i t y that appears in § 2 8 8 is a t r a d e m a r k o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n portrayal o f the g r o u p . W e saw it in War 1:110-114, w h e r e it w a s i m p l i e d that Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d the masses w e r e d e c e i v e d b y the Pharisees' reputation for axptfktoc, a n d in War 2 : 1 6 2 , w h e r e the Pharisees are said to lead astray (<X7caya)) the f o r e m o s t s c h o o l . W e shall e n c o u n t e r the s a m e attitude again inAnt.
1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ; 1 8 : 1 7 ; a n d Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 . J o s e p h u s , like the
a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , a c k n o w l e d g e s b u t regrets the great f a m e a n d in fluence
o f the Pharisees.
T h r e e o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s e e m to c o n f i r m that the a u t h o r o f § 2 8 8 is J o s e p h u s himself. First is the o b v i o u s p o i n t that h e refers the r e a d e r b a c k to his earlier presentation o n the J e w i s h octpeaet^ (a>$ 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 906vo<;. B y w h a t criteria c o u l d o n e distinguish these r e m a r k s o f J o s e p h u s f r o m those in the early part o f War o r in Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 ? I n his biblical p a r a p h r a s e , m o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s consistently i n t r o d u c e s the t h e m e o f e n v y w h e r e it is absent f r o m his L X X s o u r c e . T h u s w e learn that J o s e p h w a s e n v i e d b y his brothers b e c a u s e o f J a c o b ' s special affection for h i m ;
6 7
that K o r a h " e n v i e d " M o s e s ;
6 8
that Saul d e l a y e d tell
i n g his family a b o u t his selection as k i n g in o r d e r to p r e v e n t e n v y ; that
Saul
fame.
7 0
6 9
and
himself b e c a m e envious o f D a v i d ' s accomplishments and
In all o f these cases J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the t h e m e o f y%vo<; to
Writings of Flavius Josephus", (Dissertation, Chicago, 1957), e.g. 99, 143ff.; E. Milokenski, Der Neid in der griechischen Philosophic (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1964). E.g., War 1:72, 84, 463, 633f.; 2:82, 181; 4:393; 5:97; 7:027; Ant. 2:27; 4:14; 6:59, 193; 10:212, 250, 256; 13:402; 15:130, 349; 16:248; 18:240f.; 20:21; Life 85, 122, 204, 423; Ag.Ap. 1:213. The following quotations, illustrative of the 906vo$ theme, are taken from the L C L translation. War 2:614, 620, 627; Life 80, 85, 122, 204, cf. 423. Cf. Pt. I V , below. Ant. 2:10//Gen. 37:3; 2:13//37:9; 2:27//37:22. Ant. 4:14//Num. 16:lff. Ant. 6:59//l Sam. 10:13. Ant. 6:193//1 Sam. 18:8. 6 4
6 5
6 6
67
6 8
6 9
7 0
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
227
his L X X s o u r c e . N o t i c e , finally, J o s e p h u s ' s reflection o n D a n i e l , w h o (he
says) w a s e n v i e d b o t h b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r a n d b y the B a b y l o n i a n
nobility:
71
A n d so Daniel, being held in such great honour and dazzling favour b y Darius, . . . became a prey to envy (7capaXa[xPav6[xevo^ ^OOVTJOTJ), for m e n are jealous (jJaoxatvouat) when they see others held b y kings in greater honour than themselves. (Marcus/Wikgren) 72
S i n c e J o s e p h u s has r e f o r m u l a t e d the biblical narrative so as t o thematize e n v y a n d since h e reflects o n that t h e m e frequently in all o f his writings, we
are c o m p e l l e d to attribute the s a m e t h e m e in Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 ( = War
1:67) t o J o s e p h u s himself. N o t i c e , finally, that ( a ) the c o m b i n a t i o n o f 960VOS a n d ulaos, as in o u r passage ( § 2 8 8 / § 2 9 6 ) , is fairly c o m m o n in J o s e p h u s phrase
9O0VOV exivrjae at
writings. To
§ 2 8 8 is also paralleled
7 3
a n d ( b ) the e x a c t elsewhere
in his
74
s u m m a r i z e : since the a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 is p r o - H a s m o n e a n ,
praises J o h n H y r c a n u s , regrets the f a m e a n d influence o f the Pharisees, refers the r e a d e r b a c k t o Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ( a J o s e p h a n p e r i c o p e ) , a n d uses l a n g u a g e that is characteristic o f J o s e p h u s , that a u t h o r c a n o n l y b e i d e n tified as J o s e p h u s . j u d g e m e n t that
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n incidentally c o n f i r m s o u r earlier
War 1:110-114 a n d the narrative p r e c e d i n g it w e r e
decisively s h a p e d b y J o s e p h u s so as to express his o w n v i e w o f H a s m o n e a n history a n d his o w n t h e m e s ( e . g . , Soxeco/ axpt(ktoc). W i t h o u t d e n y i n g that N i c o l a u s p r o v i d e d a historical substructure, therefore, o n e m u s t c o n c e d e that the final f o r m u l a t i o n c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s , in the cases that we
have
tested.
This
conclusion,
in
turn,
d e m o n s t r a b l e p r o c e d u r e in the case o f the L X X .
I I I . Interpretation of Ant. The
fits
with
Josephus's
7 5
13:288-296
a b o v e s o u r c e analysis has revealed that J o s e p h u s t o o k o v e r a tradi
tional J e w i s h story a b o u t a rift b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d J o h n
Hyr
c a n u s {Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) a n d i n c l u d e d it in his narrative o f events u n d e r that h i g h priest. I n o r d e r to p r o v i d e a f r a m e w o r k for it, h e t o o k o v e r War 1:67a (his earlier f o r m u l a t i o n ) a n d e x p a n d e d it. S i n c e the o u t c o m e o f the story w a s the a b o l i t i o n o f certain v6[xt[xa that h a d b e e n established b y the
71
72
73
74
75
Ant. 10:212, 256. Ant. 10:250, absent from Dan. 6:Iff. E.g., War 2:82; 4:566; Ant. 2:10; 6:193; 20:29; cf. 13:401-402. Ant. 2:10; 15:50. Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, passim.
228
CHAPTER NINE
Pharisees ( § 2 9 6 ) , w h i c h o r d i n a n c e s J o s e p h u s h a d n e v e r b e f o r e m e n t i o n e d t o his G r e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e , h e a p p e n d e d a b r i e f e l a b o r a t i o n o n this m a t t e r in § § 297f. T h e s e are n o t the o n l y adjustments that J o s e p h u s has m a d e to his nar rative in o r d e r to a c c o m m o d a t e the traditional
story. First,
having
s h o w n that H y r c a n u s r e p e a l e d the Pharisaic vopiifxa, h e m u s t later n o t e that these o r d i n a n c e s w e r e reinstated u n d e r A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e ( 1 3 : 4 0 8 ) , a
p o i n t that
is l a c k i n g ( b e c a u s e u n n e c e s s a r y ) in
the
War
parallel
(1:110-114). S e c o n d , it is likely that J o s e p h u s has r e t o u c h e d the story itself, e v e n t h o u g h h e d i d n o t alter the Stxoctos a n d 686$ l a n g u a g e . Especially sug gestive o f his h a n d are the parenthetical r e m a r k s o n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s , w h i c h , like the " f o o t n o t e " in § § 297f., e l a b o r a t e o n s o m e particular p o i n t . I n o r d e r t o e x p l a i n H y r c a n u s ' s aspiration to please the Pharisees b y his c o n d u c t , J o s e p h u s r e m i n d s his readers that oi Oocptaoctot 9iXoao9o5aiv Josephus
7 6
(§
289). This
statement
is perfectly in
character
for
a n d recalls his earlier portrayals o f the Pharisees. Similarly,
his n o t i c e that the octpearis o f the S a d d u c e e s e s p o u s e s a v i e w o p p o s i t e t o that o f the Pharisees recalls p r e v i o u s discussions ( § 2 9 3 ) . A n d finally, after r e a d i n g that the Pharisees t h o u g h t the death p e n a l t y t o o severe a p u n i s h m e n t for careless s p e e c h , w h i c h n o t i c e is a sufficient e x p l a n a t i o n o f the narrative, w e m e e t the further g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , " I n a n y case, the Pharisees
are
punishments."
naturally 7 7
merciful (imtixclx; e'xouatv) in the m a t t e r o f
S i n c e all o f these r e m a r k s : ( a ) are e x p l a n a t i o n s for a
G r e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e ; ( b ) are parenthetical o b s e r v a t i o n s , in the present tense; a n d ( c ) a c c o r d with J o s e p h u s ' s o w n t e n d e n c i e s , w e s h o u l d p r o b a bly
attribute t h e m to his r e d a c t i o n a l efforts. A
m o r e t h o r o u g h analysis w o u l d
doubtless u n c o v e r
other m i n o r
J o s e p h a n traits in § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 . T h e a b o v e suffice to establish that o u r a u t h o r has g o n e s o m e w a y t o w a r d m a k i n g the traditional story his o w n .
7 6
W e have seen that Josephus characteristically describes the Jewish religious groups as (philosophical) aipeaei^. O n 9iXoao9eco/9iXoao9ia, used of the Jewish schools (including the Pharisees), cf. War 2:119, 166; Ant. 18:11, 23, 25 (cf. Ant. 18:9). The mildness of the Pharisees is, it should be noted, relative to the harsh position of the Sadducees. Josephus will tell us later (20:199) that the Sadducees are more savage (cbjxoi) in their punishments than any other Jews, "as we have already explained (xocGox; fjSrj 8e8r)Xa>xafJtev)". 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£o<; vofiotc; that he must now explain this special case to the reader. 2. dcvaypd^co. Josephus uses the verb avaypdccpto in its usual restricted sense, "to record or write down officially". H e can use the word, there fore, with respect to decrees, public records and historical writings, in cluding his o w n .
8 4
About a dozen times, we find the perfect passive verb
or participle (as in our passage), denoting what "stands written" in the scriptures. Often this meaning is spelled out by the phrase, iv Tate; tepatc; (JtPXotc; avayeypa7CTat;
85
in our passage we have the qualifier ev TOTC;
Mcouaeoc; v6u.ot£. Nevertheless, Josephus can also use the perfect passive without qualification, to mean what is "written (in the scriptures)", where the context is sufficiently clear. (Ant.
86
In his paraphrase of Aristeas 5 6
1 2 : 6 3 ) , for example, he designates the biblical prescriptions with
the simple phrase TOC avayeypau.uiva, in place of his source's oaa 8ta YparcTCov. This usage may shed some light on the phrase (exetva) voptfia TOC yeypa(X{xeva in our passage ( 2 9 7 ) . 3.
otrcaTepec;.Josephus explains in Ant.
13:297 that the Pharisees
handed on (rcapeSoaav) to the people certain vou.tu.a ixrcaTepcovStaSoxfjs; he then characterizes these v6[xt|xa as TOC ex 7uapaooaeco<; TCOVrcaTepcov.In 1 3 : 4 0 8 , he will also refer back to the vou.tu.a that the Pharisees introduced (etorjveyxav) as xaT<x TYJVrcaTpcoavrcapdeooatv.W e must n o w ask whether the terms ot TWtTepe*; and 7iapoc8oatc;/7capa8t8copt have any fixed or special meaning fo r Josephus. The
short answer is that they do not. Although Josephus uses 6 rcaTrjp
hundreds of times in his writings, the plural occurs only about 4 2 times; and
half of those instances have the mundane sense of "fathers" or
"fatherhood" in a familial context. Only in 21 cases does Josephus use 8 4
War 1:1, 30; Ant. 1:93, 203; 8:324; 11:99; 13:12; 14:144; Life 6, 40, 339, 413; Ag.Ap. 1:49, 92, 106, 109, 128, 143. Ant. 1:26, 82; 3:81, 105; 9:28, 208. Cf. Ant. 8:129; 9:214. 8 5
8 6
232
C H A P T E R NINE
the phrases ot nan:£ptq ( w i t h o u t qualification) a n d ot izanipiq rjfxcov.
He
refers to " t h e f a t h e r s " o r " o u r fathers" in three particular c o n t e x t s ; the c a t e g o r y d o e s n o t h a v e a n y clear o r significant function in his t h o u g h t . First,
in
War
5, J o s e p h u s
makes
a
speech b e f o r e the
walls o f
J e r u s a l e m , in w h i c h he attempts to p r o v e that the J e w s h a v e always re c e i v e d d i v i n e s u p p o r t , w i t h o u t resort to a r m s , w h e n their cause has b e e n j u s t . T o p r o v e this thesis, he cites several e x a m p l e s o f ot ncniiptq (rjpcov). The
identity o f these forefathers ranges all the w a y f r o m
Abraham
( 5 : 3 7 7 f f . ) to the J e w s o f the first c e n t u r y B C (at least), w h o willingly p a i d tribute to R o m e ( 5 : 4 0 5 ) . In b e t w e e n are m e n t i o n e d the " f a t h e r s " w h o entered E g y p t ( 5 : 3 8 2 ) , those w h o left E g y p t ( 3 8 8 ) , those w h o r e c o v e r e d the ark f r o m the Philistines ( 3 8 6 ) , a n d those w h o returned
from
the
B a b y l o n i a n exile ( 3 9 0 ) . I n this s p e e c h , the " f a t h e r s " are all the J e w s a n d Israelites o f past generations. A s e c o n d b l o c k o f references to the naiiptq c o m e s in the t w o b r i e f b o o k s Against Apion. A l l six o c c u r r e n c e s there take the f o r m ot Ttaxepe? rjfxcov.
Since Josephus's
apologetic and
p o l e m i c in these b o o k s
are
d e v o t e d largely to the q u e s t i o n o f J e w i s h o r i g i n s , he usually refers to "our
f o r e f a t h e r s " as those w h o left E g y p t in the E x o d u s .
8 7
Otherwise,
the t e r m refers simply to the H e b r e w s o f the earliest times, w h o w e r e ig nored b y Herodotus and T h u c y d i d e s .
8 8
Finally, w e h a v e six references to the " f a t h e r s " scattered t h r o u g h the later b o o k s o f Ant. O n c e the t e r m d e n o t e s pre-exilic Israel in general ( 1 1 : 1 4 3 ) , o n c e it refers to the patriarchs ( 1 1 : 1 6 9 ) , a n d o n c e to the par ticipants in the E x o d u s ( 2 0 : 2 3 0 ) . In b o o k 15, the t e r m o c c u r s twice in a speech b y H e r o d , w h e r e it refers to those w h o rebuilt the T e m p l e after the exile ( 1 5 : 3 8 5 , 3 8 6 ) , a n d o n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s retelling o f a l e g e n d h a n d e d d o w n from Herod's time b y ot rcocTepes rj|icov ( 1 5 : 4 2 5 ) . For J o s e p h u s , then, ot
noLxipzq
rjfxcov d o e s not d e n o t e a n y specific g r o u p
o f m e n but rather all the Israelites a n d J e w s o f the past, f r o m the v e r y earliest times until recent generations. H i s " f a t h e r s "
are all in the
J e w i s h m a i n s t r e a m a n d m o s t o f t h e m are biblical figures. T h e c a t e g o r y " f a t h e r s " is n o t p r o m i n e n t in his thought. J o s e p h u s ' s infrequent a n d flexible use o f ot
noL^iptq
(rjpcov)
contrasts
m a r k e d l y with his descriptions o f the Pharisaic vopt(xa. In the short space o f Ant.
13:297 a n d its sequel 1 3 : 4 0 8 , these v6(xt(xa are d e s c r i b e d three
times. T h e y are always qualified with (TCOV) rcocTepcov o r with TtocTpcooi;. H e n e v e r describes the Pharisaic v6u.tu.oc without reference to " t h e
87
Ag.Ap. 1:232, 280; 2:8, 122.
8 8
Ag.Ap. 1:62; 2:117.
fathers".
233
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
T h e possibilities w o u l d s e e m to b e : ( a ) that J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f c o n s i d e r e d Ttoruepcov a particularly illuminating qualifier a n d therefore s u p p l i e d it, o r ( b ) that h e has taken o v e r a f o r m u l a i c d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s that w a s current
in his d a y .
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n usage o f ot Tzaiiptq
8 9
A g a i n s t ( a ) is the fact that
is t o o flexible to b e i l l u m i n a t i n g . I n
f a v o u r o f ( b ) are the w e l l - k n o w n external parallels, especially: ( i ) the apostle P a u l ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f his f o r m e r Pharisaic zeal for TCOV 7uaTptxtov 90
poo TwepocBoaecov a n d ( i i ) the M i s h n a h tractate A v o t , w h i c h c o n t a i n s the sayings o f Pharisaic " f a t h e r s " t h r o u g h several g e n e r a t i o n s .
91
If J o s e p h u s
did take o v e r the qualifier TCOV 7WCTepcov f r o m a standard c o n t e m p o r a r y d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisaic voptpa, then the " f a t h e r s " in q u e s t i o n w o u l d b e w h o m e v e r the Pharisees d e s i g n a t e d as s u c h . 4. TJ 7capa8oati;/7rapa8t8co(xt. O u r s u s p i c i o n that J o s e p h u s t o o k o v e r his d e s i g n a t i o n o f the Pharisaic voptpa f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y u s a g e is c o n f i r m e d b y an analysis o f the w o r d 7rapdc8oat$. E a c h o f the three d e s c r i p tions o f the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s ( 1 3 : 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 ) c o n t a i n s either 7iocpa8oats o r TtapaStScopt. H e will use the v e r b again in Ant.
1 8 : 1 2 to d e s c r i b e
Pharisaic beliefs: cov Te 6 X6yo<; xptva^ jwcpeBcoxev ayaOcov ercovTat. I n o r d i n a r y J o s e p h a n u s a g e , h o w e v e r , 7 r a p a 8 o a t $ is n o t a t h e o l o g i c a l l y c h a r g e d t e r m . O f its 27 o c c u r r e n c e s , 13 are in War; in 12 o f these the w o r d m e a n s the " s u r r e n d e r " , o f a city o r f o r t .
92
In the o t h e r case (War
2 : 5 7 9 ) , it m e a n s the " t r a n s m i s s i o n " o f field signals in the a r m y . T h e 8 o c c u r r e n c e s in the Life a n d Ag.Ap. tions.
9 3
refer to J o s e p h u s ' s historical p r o d u c
T h e n o u n o c c u r s o n l y 4 times in Ant. ( o u t s i d e o f o u r passages):
once meaning " s u r r e n d e r " (10:10), once meaning "historical
report"
( 2 0 : 2 5 9 ) , a n d o n c e m e a n i n g the " g i v i n g " o f a p a s s w o r d ( 1 9 : 1 8 7 ) . In the r e m a i n i n g case, Ant. 1 0 : 5 1 , w e are told that the t w e l v e - y e a r - o l d k i n g J o s i a h w a s g u i d e d b y TTJ TCOV 7upea(3uTepcov aupPouXta xat
rcapaSoaet.
T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n m i g h t s e e m at first to c o r r e s p o n d to the G o s p e l s ' des 94
c r i p t i o n o f Pharisaic t e a c h i n g as rj rcapaSoats TCOV rcpeaPuTepcov. T h e c o n text in J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , disallows the i d e a o f Pharisaic tradition. I f the phrase TCOV TtpeaPuTepcov o u g h t to b e there at a l l ,
8 9
95
it d e r i v e s its
Cf. J. M . Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law", 13ff. Gal. 1:14. On Avot, see especially E J . Bickerman, "La chaine de la tradition pharisienne", Studies in Jewish and Christian History, " A G A J U " 9 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980), II, 256-269. War 1:174, 414; 4:86, 146, 414, 519; 5:336; 6:378; 7:195, 201, 205, 414. Life 361, 364; Ag.Ap. 1:8, 28, 39, 50, 53; 2:287. M k . 7:3, 5//Mt. 15:2. The M S S R O L V , an important group (Thackeray, L C L edn. I V , xvii; cf. Richards and Shutt, "Critical Notes I " , 170), omit the phrase in which TCpeapuxepov stands. Marcus follows SP at this point and includes the phrase. 9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
234
C H A P T E R NINE
significance f r o m the youthfulness o f J o s i a h : he c o m b i n e d his innate wisdom and understanding
w i t h the c o u n s e l (aup.(3ouXtoc) a n d
advice
(rcapciSoatc;) o f his elders. T h e parallel with <juu.(3ouXtoc m a k e s it clear that thercocpdcSocnc;o f the elders is h e r e a present influence a n d n o t a " t r a d i tion".
9 6
In
elders/fathers
any
case,
by
several
the
biblical
centuries,
king
predates
so there
is n o
the
Pharisaic
question
o f his
a d h e r e n c e to a Pharisaic voptpoc. T h u s J o s e p h u s n e v e r uses 7capa8oatc;, o u t s i d e o f Ant.
1 3 : 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 , in
the religious-legal sense that these passages i m p l y . T h e v e r b 7tocpoc8t8cou.i presents a slightly different c a s e . It o c c u r s s o m e 2 3 8 times in J o s e p h u s . A l t h o u g h the v e r b a l m o s t always has a sense c o g n a t e to that o f rcocpaSoats in J o s e p h u s , such as " t o s u r r e n d e r , g i v e u p , yield, b e t r a y " , o r " r e c o r d as h i s t o r y " , w e h a v e p e r h a p s 15 o c c u r r e n c e s with the m e a n i n g " t o pass o n as a t r a d i t i o n " . But o n l y 8 o r 9 o f these h a v e t o d o w i t h the J e w i s h vopoi. W h a t w e find in these cases, in terestingly e n o u g h , is that J o s e p h u s uses 7wcpoc8t8top.t o f M o s e s ' g i v i n g the written L a w to the H e b r e w s . F o r e x a m p l e : (a)
Ant.
3:280: " T h e s e
[laws],
then, w h i c h w e r e already
in p l a c e
d u r i n g his lifetime, M o s e s passed o n (rcocpeScoxe)." (b)
Ant. 3 : 2 8 6 : " T h i s c o d e o f laws M o s e s . . . . l e a r n e d f r o m the m o u t h
o f G o d (e£epa6e) a n d passed o n in w r i t i n g (yeypappevriv 7capa8t8coaiv) to the H e b r e w s . (c)
Ant. 4 : 2 9 5 ( M o s e s speaks): " M a y y o u p e r s e v e r e in y o u r o b s e r v a n c e
o f the laws that G o d has d e e m e d g o o d a n d n o w delivers (rcapocStScoat) to you." (d)
Ant.
4 : 3 0 2 : " S u c h , t h e n , is the constitution that M o s e s left; he
passed o n (7cap<x8t8a>at) 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)Trj<; ev 'IaparjX d><; Mcouaffc, 34:10). Josephus, on the other hand, specifies that Joshua was a StdcSoxo? to Moses im -caiq 7upoq>7}Te(<xie (Ant. 4:165). 1 1 4
1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
CHAPTER NINE
238
TTJV TCOV 7upo97)Tcov <xxpt($7) &ta8oxr|v)". T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is that the p r o p h e t i c StocSoxn g u a r a n t e e d the a c c u r a c y o f J e w i s h l a w a n d history as it a p p e a r s in the S c r i p t u r e .
1 1 9
It w o u l d s e e m t o o m u c h t o infer that J o s e p h u s ,
even though he
u n r e s e r v e d l y c l a i m s axptffetoc f o r his o w n treatment o f J e w i s h history, is h e r e p l a c i n g his o w n w o r k s o n the s a m e level as S c r i p t u r e .
1 2 0
Never
theless, it is clear f r o m War 3:352ff., 399ff.; 4 : 6 2 9 , that h e d i d c o n s i d e r h i m s e l f a p r o p h e t , at least in certain r e s p e c t s .
121
I n these passages, m o r e
o v e r , J o s e p h u s explicitly links his p r o p h e t i c abilities w i t h his priestly status.
122
I n s u m m a r y : J o s e p h u s ' s c o n c e r n with the s u c c e s s i o n o f h i g h priests, k i n g s , a n d p r o p h e t s a p p e a r s t o serve b o t h his a p o l o g e t i c f o r J u d a i s m a n d his self-representation. T h a t all three biblical offices w e r e h a n d e d d o w n f r o m g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n , especially that o f the h i g h priest, supports J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m that the o r i g i n a l M o s a i c t e a c h i n g has b e e n p r e s e r v e d with a c c u r a c y .
1 2 3
A l t h o u g h h e presents his favourite, J o h n H y r c a n u s , as
the o n l y o n e w h o e v e r c o m b i n e d TTJV apxTjv, TTJV dpxtepeoaauvriv, a n d TTJV 7upo97)T£tocv i n o n e p e r s o n , J o s e p h u s is e a g e r t o p o i n t o u t his o w n c o m b i n a t i o n o f r o y a l a n d h i g h priestly l i n e a g e a n d , in War, h e also c l a i m s to b e a n a c c o m p l i s h e d p r o p h e t . R e t u r n i n g n o w t o o u r p a s s a g e : it is clear that the " s u c c e s s i o n o f fathers"
f r o m w h i c h the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s d e r i v e has n o p l a c e i n
Josephus's
v i s i o n o f things.
Since Josephus
never
explains
such
a
StocSoxn, o n e m u s t ask, a g a i n , w h e t h e r the phrase is his o w n . W e h a v e seen that the t e r m s ot 7uaTspe$ a n d 7uapd8oat^, w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses o f the Pharisaic t e a c h i n g s , h a v e solid parallels in P a u l , the G o s p e l s , a n d the M i s h n a h tractate A v o t . It m a y n o w b e significant that A v o t b e g i n s b y recalling a list o f successive Pharisaic teachers ( = " f a t h e r s " ) , w h o l i v e d b e t w e e n the t i m e o f the G r e a t A s s e m b l y a n d that o f R a b b i Judah.
1 2 4
T h e c o m m o n v i e w a m o n g r a b b i n i c scholars s e e m s t o b e that
A v o t ' s list o f fathers is b a s e d o n a v e r y early ( p r e - 7 0 ) list that i n c l u d e d at least the five " p a i r s " (HOT), f r o m the t w o Y o s e ' s t o Hillel a n d S h a m -
1 1 9
Cf. W . C . Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 98. Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus", JJS 25 (1974), 246f. Cf. H . Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 52ff., 137ff., esp. 141; W . C . van Unnik, "Die Prophetie bei Josephus", in his Schriftsteller, 41-45; and Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 239-262. Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 250ff.; cf. also War 3:352; Ant. 7:72 and n . / . to LCL edn., V , 397; 8:296, 10:79f. T o his credit, perhaps, Josephus-acknowledges ruptures and abuses along the way. E.g., Ant. 20:15f., 237, 247, 249 (cf. 226), on the high priests and Ag.Ap. 1:41, on the prophets. Avot 1:2-2:1. 1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4
239
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
m a i ( A v o t 1:4-12, 1 5 ) .
1 2 5
B i c k e r m a n a r g u e s that the P h a r i s e e s ' p u r p o s e
in f o r m u l a t i n g a list o f their " f a t h e r s " w a s t o establish t h e m s e l v e s as a philosophical fashion.
1 2 6
school
by
setting
forth
their
StaSoxot in
Hellenistic
E a c h o f the pairs is said, in the M i s h n a h , t o h a v e r e c e i v e d
(ta^p) the L a w f r o m its p r e d e c e s s o r s a n d t o h a v e passed it o n ( ^ D D ) t o the n e x t p a i r .
1 2 7
I f the list o f pairs w a s a l r e a d y c u r r e n t b e f o r e 7 0 , as
s e e m s likely, then J o s e p h u s , w h o certainly k n e w m a n y Pharisees, w a s p r o b a b l y familiar w i t h it. I n that case, his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s as ex ncxziptov Sioc&oxffe w a s a w e l l - c h o s e n allusion t o their fun damental justification.
128
T o s u m m a r i z e thus far: ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s n o r m a l u s a g e o f the five t e r m s investigated h e r e a d d s s o m e n u a n c e t o o u r portrait o f his w o r l d - v i e w . A t the f o u n d a t i o n o f this w o r l d - v i e w stands M o s e s , w h o p a s s e d o n (rcocpiBo>xe)
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<; Mcouaeo^ vopot$, those that comprise the all-sufficient
Mosaic code. W h e n he explains that the
Pharisaic voptpa were not of this sort and were therefore rejected by the Sadducees, the reader ought to understand. Unless Josephus has entirely misrepresented his own view, he too would have rejected these nonMosaic voptpa. In order to illuminate the Sadducean position, Josephus adds 297b. The
Sadducean group rejects the Pharisaic voptpa:
297b. Xeyov exetva 8etv rjyetaOat voptpa TOC yeypappeva, TOC 8' ex 7capa86aecos TCOV rcaTepcov prj TTjpetv. These two clauses have generated some debate among scholars. Some rabbinists, like E . Rivkin and J. M . Baumgarten, find here an early at testation, among the Pharisees, of the rabbinic doctrine of the Oral or Unwritten L a w .
1 2 9
A s is well known, the corpus of rabbinic halakhah
came to be called the Oral Law (HD
m T l ) , for it was believed by
the rabbis to have been delivered at Sinai, along with the Written Law praDtf m m ) .
1 2 9
Rivkin, Revolution, 41f.; J. M . Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law", 12-14.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
241
T h e O r a l L a w , h o w e v e r , w a s the u n i q u e possession o f Israel, inaccessi ble to the G e n t i l e s .
1 3 0
C e r t a i n beraitot in the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d already 131
p r o c l a i m an interdict o n the w r i t i n g o f halakhot.
T h e q u e s t i o n is h o w
early this interdict w a s in f o r c e , that is, w h e t h e r the Pharisees b e f o r e 70 already transmitted their t e a c h i n g s in oral f o r m .
1 3 2
T h e scholars m e n t i o n e d a b o v e interpret exetva voptpa TOC yeypappeva in an absolute sense, so that the S a d d u c e e s rejected the Pharisaic voptpa b e c a u s e they w e r e n o t written d o w n ; in r e c o g n i z i n g o n l y " l a w s that h a d b e e n written d o w n " , they rejected the principle o f an O r a l L a w . T h u s Rivkin: Josephus is as explicit as he can be: the Pharisees and Sadducees were hostile to each other because they violently disagreed as to the authority of the so-called Unwritten Law. The Unwritten Law was championed by the Pharisees. The Laws were not to be found in the laws of Moses. They were laws that had been transmitted in unwritten form. 133
B a u m g a r t e n also thinks that this sense is quite o b v i o u s . H e a r g u e s : If he [Josephus] had known of the existence of authoritative halakhic texts, his stress on the contrast inform between them (oux avayeypaitTat) and the writ ten ordinances (TOC yeypappeva) would be pointless. The issue would rather be whether the Torah was the only source of law or whether these texts, too, were to be acknowledged as authoritative. 134
T h e s e scholars b e l i e v e , then, that J o s e p h u s intends to d r a w a contrast b e t w e e n the written laws o f M o s e s a n d the oral/unwritten laws o f the Pharisees. A g a i n s t this v i e w , J. N . Epstein interprets J o s e p h u s ' s statement to m e a n o n l y that the Pharisaic voptpa " w e r e n o t written in the L a w s o f M o s e s ; it d o e s n o t say a n y t h i n g a b o u t their external f o r m . . . a n d it is possible that they w e r e w r i t t e n . "
1 3 5
M a r c u s indicates his a g r e e m e n t with
this v i e w b y s u p p l y i n g the parenthetical phrase " i n S c r i p t u r e " after " w r i t t e n d o w n " ( § 2 9 7 b ) in the L o e b translation. M o s t recently, J. N e u s n e r has a d d e d his v o i c e , asserting, " I f w e h a d n o p r e c o n c e p t i o n a b o u t oral tradition, this passage w o u l d n o t have led us to such an
1 3 0
Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, II, 68; S. Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978), 55f., 180f., 183f.; J. M . Baumgarten, ''Unwrit ten Law", 7ff. E.g., b. Gittin 60b and b. Terumah 14b; cf. j . Megillot 4:74b. Because much of the scholarly discussion is in modern Hebrew, a fact that precludes my serious interaction, I mention only the most accessible representatives of the two interpretations of our passage. Revolution, 41; emphasis added. J. M . Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law", 13; emphasis added. Epstein, Mavo le-Nusah ha Mishnah, 697; cited in Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law", 13. 1 3 1
1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
242
C H A P T E R NINE
idea."
136
I do not know of any attempt, however,
specifically
challenge the Rivkin/Baumgarten interpretation of Ant.
13:297.
to To
make good the deficiency, I offer the following considerations. Josephus does not make, much less stress, the direct contrast "in form" between oux d c v a y e y p a T C T a t and TOC y e y p a p p e v a that Baumgarten in fers. T h e former phrase occurs in 297a, where the contrast is between ex 7WCTep
e v TOTS
Mcouaeo^ vopotc as two possible sources
of voptpa. T h e Sadducees reject the Pharisaic ordinances because they are not written in the laws of Moses. T h e conflict is over provenance, not form. T h e latter phrase cited by Baumgarten, TOC yeypappeva, occurs in a second contrast, introduced in 297b. Josephus has just told us what the Pharisees accept and the Sadducees reject; now he will elaborate on the Sadducean position, by explaining what they accept and reject. T h e two contrasts may be viewed synoptically as follows: "A" Pharisees Accept: 297a. v6(xtjxa T i v d ix Tcaxepwv SiaSoxffc "C" Sadducees Accept: 297b. exetva vojxtjjta
"B" Sadducees Reject: Sweep oux dvayeTpaTcxai ev T o t ? Mcouaeos VOJJLOK "D" Sadducees Reject: -rd (vofxtfxa) ex 7capa86ae6><; TG>V 7ua*repcov
Clearly, the second contrast ( C - D ) is Josephus's attempt to elaborate on the Sadducean position given in the first ( A - B ) ; the participle Xeyov makes the connection obvious. H e is not introducing some new area of conflict but is only restating what he has said in § 297a. Given that C - D elaborates upon A - B , the problem is to ascertain the meaning of the new term " C " . T h e Rivkin/Baumgarten view requires that C mean "written laws in general", for only this meaning would justify the Sadducees' exclusion of a Pharisaic tradition because it was oral. Such a meaning for C is, however, implausible. First, the definite article and demonstrative pronoun indicate that Josephus is talking about specific written laws; it is not that the Sadducees recognize any and all written laws (as a simple voptpa yeypappeva might have sug gested). Second, the context requires that A = B = D and that C be un derstood as the opposite of A , B, and D . This means that TOC yeypappeva in C refers to what is written down in Scripture, since A , B, and D all
1 3 6
Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, II, 163; cf. 177.
243
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
stress the bound,
n o n - M o s a i c p r o v e n a n c e o f Pharisaic
therefore,
to c o n c l u d e in
favour
tradition.
o f Epstein,
137
We
Marcus,
are and
Neusner. It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that this interpretation o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 says n o t h i n g w h a t s o e v e r a b o u t the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r the Pharisees actually transmit ted their teachings orally o r in w r i t i n g . O u r c o n c l u s i o n is o n l y that J o s e p h u s has n o t h i n g to say a b o u t the matter. H i s p o i n t is that the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s w e r e n o t part o f the written L a w o f M o s e s a n d that for this reason they w e r e rejected b y the S a d d u c e e s . I s u b m i t that this e x p l a n a t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n easily u n d e r s t o o d b y the G e n t i l e r e a d e r o f Ant. J o s e p h u s has repeatedly e m p h a s i z e d in that w o r k the authoritative status a n d inviolability o f the all-sufficient M o s a i c c o d e . H e n e e d s o n l y to e x p l a i n that the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s w e r e s o m e t h i n g different
and
n o t part o f the r e c o r d e d M o s a i c laws for the reader to u n d e r s t a n d w h y the S a d d u c e e s d i d n o t o b s e r v e t h e m . Ant.
1 3 : 2 9 8 g o e s o n to p o i n t o u t the significance o f this dispute b e
t w e e n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s . It m a k e s the t w o p o i n t s : ( a ) that their d i s a g r e e m e n t led to " c o n f l i c t s a n d m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s " a n d ( b ) that the S a d d u c e e s appeal o n l y t o the w e a l t h y , w h e r e a s the Pharisees h a v e a massive
public
following.
1 3 8
This
notice
explains
why
Hyrcanus's
a b r o g a t i o n o f the Pharisaic voptpa called forth the hatred (ptao?) o f the masses, as the story has said ( § 2 9 6 ) . T h a t the Pharisees h a v e a mass f o l l o w i n g is indicated t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s
writings.
J o s e p h u s ' s n o t i c e a b o u t the Pharisees' p o p u l a r i t y raises o n c e again the q u e s t i o n o f his attitude t o w a r d the g r o u p . A m o d e r n reader is apt to see in the a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f their " d e m o t i c " appeal J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o m m e n d a t i o n . T h a t w o u l d , h o w e v e r , b e a hasty inference. It is true that J o s e p h u s c a n sing the praises o f " t h e p e o p l e . " W e see this especially in War,
w h i c h sets o u t to distinguish the self-controlled Sfjpos f r o m the few
outrageous Tupavvot.
139
N e v e r t h e l e s s , w e are d e a l i n g here with a m e m b e r
o f the priestly aristocracy, w h o s e sympathies are n o t necessarily always with TO
nkfficx;.
In the a b s e n c e o f a t h o r o u g h study o f J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w
o f " t h e p e o p l e " o r " t h e m a s s e s " , w e m a y at least n o t e : ( a ) that, as w e h a v e seen a n d shall see a g a i n , he consistently laments the f a m e p o p u l a r i t y o f the P h a r i s e e s
140
passage ( § 2 8 8 ) distinctly pits h i m against b o t h the Pharisees a n d people, 1 3 7
w h o are
both
and
a n d ( b ) that the o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h o f o u r
m o v e d b y e n v y (966vo$).
the
Holscher correctly
Note again the parallel phrase toc avafefpafXfxeva in Ant. 12:63, which is used of scriptural prescriptions. Cf. War 1:110; 2:162; Ant. 13:400ff.; 18:12ff.; Life 191. So War 1:10. War l:110ff.; 2:162; Ant. 13:400ff.; 18:17; Life 191ff. 1 3 8
1 3 9
1 4 0
244
CHAPTER NINE
o b s e r v e s , c o n c e r n i n g the a u t h o r o f § 2 8 8 , " M i t d e n b e i d e n M a s s e n in G u n s t stehenden Pharisaern identifiziert er sich o f f e n b a r n i c h t . "
1 4 1
It is
far f r o m clear, therefore, that J o s e p h u s ' s a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f Pharisaic p o p u l a r i t y in § 2 9 8 is a c o m m e n d a t i o n . W e d o k n o w that, o n the q u e s tion o f w h i c h voptpa are authoritative, his sympathies w o u l d lie entirely with the S a d d u c e e s . It r e m a i n s , finally, to c o m m e n t o n o n e o f the p r o b l e m s that w e n o t e d at the outset o f this chapter. J o s e p h u s claims in Ant.
13:297f. that the
dispute o v e r the voptpa c a u s e d m a j o r differences b e t w e e n the
Pharisees
a n d S a d d u c e e s . I n War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , h o w e v e r , h e has i m p l i e d that their differences o n " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " issues, especially o n fate a n d free will, w e r e d e c i s i v e . H o w to e x p l a i n the disparity? W e h a v e seen that it is often r e s o l v e d b y source-critical m e a n s , with the s c h o o l passages b e i n g assigned to s o m e o t h e r a u t h o r .
1 4 2
W e h a v e also seen that
this solution is u n a c c e p t a b l e ; the s c h o o l passages are J o s e p h u s ' s o w n . A m o r e plausible solution is suggested b y c o n t e x t u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . T h e s c h o o l passages, especially War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , are free J o s e p h a n
for
m u l a t i o n s . A s h e h i m s e l f c o n c l u d e s o n e o f t h e m , " T h i s is w h a t I h a d to say (TOtauxa. . . efyov etrcetv) a b o u t those a m o n g the J e w s w h o discuss phi l o s o p h y " (War 2 : 1 6 6 ) . Similarly in Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 w e h a v e d i s c o v e r e d a definite a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e . W h e n J o s e p h u s has the f r e e d o m to d o s o , then, he represents the religious g r o u p s as the J e w i s h counterparts
to
Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h i c s c h o o l s . Ant.
1 3 : 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 , h o w e v e r , is n o t a free J o s e p h a n f o r m u l a t i o n .
The
traditional story o f the rift b e t w e e n H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees ( § § 2 8 9 2 9 6 ) , w h i c h he has d e c i d e d to r e c o u n t in o r d e r to fill o u t his r e c o r d o f H y r c a n u s ' s t e n u r e , c l i m a x e d with the h i g h priest's a b r o g a t i o n o f the Pharisaic
voptpa.
Since Josephus
has
never
before mentioned
any
Pharisaic voptpa, he is n o w c o m p e l l e d to e x p l a i n to the r e a d e r what these w e r e a n d w h y their a n n u l m e n t s h o u l d h a v e c a u s e d such an u p h e a v a l . A s R i v k i n says o f 13:297f.: It takes the form of a descriptive aside, for the narrative is temporarily halted so as to clarify for the reader the significance of John Hyrcanus' break with the Pharisees and his adherence to the
Sadducees.
143
In m o d e r n English style, J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e u s e d a f o o t n o t e to g i v e his b r i e f e x p l a n a t i o n o f the conflict. T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n is f o r c e d u p o n h i m b y the traditional story a n d is n o t part o f what he v o l u n t e e r s a b o u t the
4 1
4 2
4 3
Holscher, ' 'Josephus", 1947f. Cf. chapters 6 and 8 above, and Appendix B, below. Revolution, 41.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS
245
religious g r o u p s ; that i n f o r m a t i o n w a s c o n v e y e d in the <xxpi(3co$ SeorjXcoxat a c c o u n t in War 2 , to w h i c h h e ultimately refers the reader (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 8 ) .
Summary and Conclusion T h e p e r i c o p e Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 h a d its genesis in a traditional story c o n c e r n i n g a r u p t u r e b e t w e e n J o h n H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees ( § § 2 8 9 2 9 6 ) . In the story, w h i c h w a s originally f a v o u r a b l e to b o t h H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees, the rift w a s b l a m e d o n a t r o u b l e m a k e r n a m e d Eleazar a n d a S a d d u c e e n a m e d J o n a t h a n . W h e n J o s e p h u s t o o k o v e r the story, h o w e v e r , his anti-Pharisaic p r e d i s p o s i t i o n apparently c a u s e d h i m to o v e r l o o k the pro-Pharisaic t o n e o f the story. T h i s a d m i r e r o f H y r c a n u s apparently n o t i c e d o n l y that the Pharisees w e r e with Eleazar at the b a n q u e t w h e r e the o u t r a g e t o o k place a n d that the o u t c o m e w a s a rift b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d H y r c a n u s . F o r w h e n he p l a c e d the story in his narrative, he furnished
it with a bitter i n t r o d u c t i o n ( § 2 8 8 ) that a c c u s e d the
Pharisees a n d their p o p u l a r supporters o f e n v y a n d m a l i c e t o w a r d H y r c a n u s . A l t h o u g h w e h a v e several indications o f his efforts to edit the story for a G r e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e , w e see that he n e v e r m a n a g e d to c o r r e c t this fundamental
oversight.
J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t o b v i o u s effort at editing the passage for n o n - J e w i s h readers is the digression o n the Pharisaic voptpa ( § § 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 ) . H i s chief p o i n t there is that these o r d i n a n c e s w e r e peculiar; they w e r e n o t the s a m e as the voptpa ev tots Mcauaeo^ vopots, w h i c h are the o n l y o n e s that h e has told the reader a b o u t elsewhere. T h e Pharisaic voptpa d e r i v e rather f r o m a " s u c c e s s i o n o f f a t h e r s " , a phrase that J o s e p h u s p r o b a b l y t o o k o v e r f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y descriptions o f the Pharisees ( o r f r o m their o w n self-descriptions). T h e S a d d u c e e s , he explains, d o n o t r e c o g n i z e a n y such n o n - M o s a i c o r d i n a n c e s . T h e d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r the voptpa was v e r y serious, J o s e p h u s tells the reader, a n d the Pharisees w e r e able to w i n massive p o p u l a r s u p p o r t for their o r d i n a n c e s . T h a t is w h y H y r c a n u s ' s m o v e b r o u g h t o n h i m the hatred (ptao$) o f the p e o p l e ( § 1 9 6 ) .
CHAPTER TEN
ANT
13:400-432: T H E P H A R I S E E S A N D A L E X A N D R A S A L O M E , II
In
both
War a n d Ant.
Josephus
describes the
i n v o l v e m e n t o f the
Pharisees in the reign o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e . T h a t story has e n o r m o u s significance for o u r study b e c a u s e it offers the o n l y e x a m p l e o f a Pharisee passage in Ant. ( 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) that has an e x t e n d e d parallel in War ( 1 : 1 0 7 1 1 9 ) . O n e o f the questions b e h i n d the present investigation is that o f a possible shift b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. in J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d the Pharisees; his dual a c c o u n t o f A l e x a n d r a ' s rule o u g h t to p r o v i d e a g o o d test case for this q u e s t i o n . T h e significance o f Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 is n o t lost o n S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r , w h o b o t h b e l i e v e that it e v i n c e s J o s e p h u s ' s 1
d r a m a t i c re-evaluation o f the Pharisees vis-a-vis War.
T h e purpose o f
this chapter will b e to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees in Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 , b o t h in itself a n d in c o m p a r i s o n with War 1:107-119. I n a c c o r d with this p u r p o s e , w e shall d e t e r m i n e first the d e g r e e to w h i c h the c o n t e n t a n d function o f o u r passage c o r r e s p o n d to those o f War 1:107-119. W e shall then undertake a p o i n t - b y - p o i n t c o m p a r i s o n in o r d e r to j u d g e w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s has c h a n g e d his portrait in particular areas, b y w a y o f o m i s s i o n , b y the r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f the earlier material in a n e w sense, o r b y the a d d i t i o n o f n e w material. Source-critical q u e s tions will b e dealt with as they arise.
I. Context In chapter 4 , a b o v e , w e s u m m a r i z e d War's presentation o f the H a s m o n e a n dynasty s o m e w h a t as f o l l o w s .
2
T h e Suvacrueta o f the H a s m o n e a n s
h a d a n o b l e a n d h e r o i c o r i g i n as the l e a d i n g resistance m o v e m e n t d u r i n g the p e r s e c u t i o n b y A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s (War 1:34-37). T h e g l o r y o f the h o u s e passed f r o m J u d a s to J o n a t h a n to S i m o n a n d r e a c h e d its a p o g e e with J o h n H y r c a n u s , w h o ruled excellently (xaXXtoroc) for " t h i r t y - o n e w h o l e y e a r s " ( 1 : 6 8 ) . B y a gift o f p r o p h e c y , h o w e v e r , this great h i g h priest w a s a l l o w e d to see that his successors w o u l d forfeit the g o v e r n m e n t . J o s e p h u s p r o c e e d s to outline the w a y s in w h i c h this h a p p e n e d ,
1
Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 75f.; Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 238ff.
2
Chapter 4, above.
247
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II namely: neus;
5
3
the tragedy o f A r i s t o b u l u s I ;
4
the brutality o f A l e x a n d e r J a n
the n a i v e piety o f Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a , w h o s e reign w a s spoiled b y
her d e f e r e n c e to the P h a r i s e e s ; II a n d A r i s t o b u l u s I I .
6
a n d the " m a d s q u a b b l i n g " o f H y r c a n u s
7
I n the p r e c e d i n g chapter w e saw that, although h e fills o u t
con
siderably his a c c o u n t o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s t e n u r e , J o s e p h u s m a n a g e s to retain the fundamental
s c h e m e o f War. J o h n H y r c a n u s still m a r k s the
a p e x o f the H a s m o n e a n dynasty; his sons, w e are again told, w o u l d lose his g o o d fortune ( 1 3 : 3 0 0 ) . T h e tragic story o f A r i s t o b u l u s (Ant. 1 3 : 3 0 1 - 3 1 8 a ) is a p a r a p h r a s e o f the War a c c o u n t , although J o s e p h u s a p p e n d s a s e e m i n g l y inappropriate e u l o g y o n this k i n g ' s beneficent rule (euepyeTrjaa^), w h i c h he supports b y a quotation
from Strabo.
8
T h i s n e w discussion o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s ac
c o m p l i s h m e n t s o n b e h a l f o f the J e w s , w h i c h i n c l u d e d the c o n q u e s t a n d 9
c i r c u m c i s i o n o f the I t u r e a n s , has the effect o f revising War's a c c o u n t b y p o i n t i n g o u t the k i n g ' s g o o d side. T h i s , in turn, serves t o heighten the sense o f tragedy: a. good king w a s the v i c t i m o f forces b e y o n d his c o n t r o l . A r i s t o b u l u s ' s l o v e for his b r o t h e r w a s s a b o t a g e d b y c o n s p i r a t o r s , a m o n g w h o m w a s his w i f e .
1 0
Nevertheless, the r e a d e r still realizes that this son
o f H y r c a n u s d i d i n d e e d lose his father's euxuxtoc. T h e a c c o u n t o f A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s ' s reign in Ant. likewise offers a small b u t significant qualification o f War. T o b e sure, it includes the earlier w o r k ' s notices that A l e x a n d e r slew 6 , 0 0 0 J e w s at o n e t i m e , 5 0 , 0 0 0 at a n o t h e r , a n d , m o s t h e i n o u s o f all, that h e crucified 8 0 0 o f his d o m e s t i c o p p o n e n t s while slaughtering their families b e f o r e their e y e s .
1 1
A n d the n e w material o n A l e x a n d e r ' s dealings with the Seleucids a n d P t o l e m i e s d o e s n o t h i n g to soften his i m a g e as a v i n d i c t i v e t y r a n t ;
12
only
the c o u r a g e o f his e n e m i e s a n d v i c t i m s is praised. N o t i c e , h o w e v e r , that Ant. adds the f o l l o w i n g reflection t o its a c c o u n t o f the c r u c i f i x i o n in cident: T h i s was the revenge he [Alexander] took for the injuries he had suffered; but the penalty he exacted was inhuman for all that, even though he had,
3
War 1:69. War l:70ff. War l:85ff. War l:107ff. War l:120ff., cf. 5:396. Ant. 13:318f. (but cf. 13:302). That the circumcision is described as xaxa TOU$ 'Iou&aiou? vofious also accords with Ant. 's oft-noted religious-nationalistic tendencies; see chapter 7, above. Ant. 13:305, 308; cf. War 1:74. Ant. 13:373, 376, 380. Ant. 13:334, 360ff. 4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
248
CHAPTER TEN
as was natural, gone through very great hardships in the wars he had fought against them [sc. the J e w s ] , and had finally found himself in danger of losing both his life and his throne, for they were not satisfied to carry on the struggle by themselves but brought foreigners as well. . . . But still he seems to have done this thing unnecessarily, and as a result of his ex cessive cruelty he was nicknamed Thrakidas (the 'Cossack') by the Jews. (Ant. 1 3 : 3 8 1 f . ) 13
W e h a v e here an e q u i v o c a t i o n . A s in the case o f A r i s t o b u l u s , the a u t h o r 14
has i n t r o d u c e d a n e w t o n e o f pathos vis-a-vis War,
e v e n t h o u g h he d o e s
not r e m o v e a n y o f the earlier w o r k ' s grisly details. It is still clear that A l e x a n d e r fell f r o m the euxuxioc o f his father, b u t n o w he is n o t ex clusively to b l a m e . W h a t he d i d was w r o n g b u t , to s o m e d e g r e e , u n d e r standable in the
circumstances.
I I . Interpretation W h e n w e c o m e n o w to the reign o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e w e shall n e e d to ask in what w a y s , if at all, J o s e p h u s has altered her i m a g e . She was already p o r t r a y e d positively in War, as a p i o u s w o m a n ; it was o n l y her gullibility, w h i c h a l l o w e d the Pharisees to exploit her, that b r o u g h t her reign to a sad c o n c l u s i o n . H a s J o s e p h u s m o d i f i e d this portrayal in Ant.? W e shall p r o c e e d with o u r interpretation b y d i v i d i n g the lengthy nar rative into six parts a n d c o n s i d e r i n g each in turn.
A . Alexandra and Alexander (Ant.
13:399-406)
A m a j o r difference f r o m War is the w a y in w h i c h A l e x a n d r a is intro duced.
In
War,
the
reader
knew
o n l y the
discrete
facts
(a)
that
A r i s t o b u l u s ' s (unidentified) wife h a d released A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s f r o m prison ( 1 : 8 5 ) a n d ( b ) that A l e x a n d e r ' s wife, A l e x a n d r a , h a d s u c c e e d e d her h u s b a n d as ruler. B e i n g p i o u s a n d gentle, a n d o p p o s e d to her hus band's
brutality ( 1 : 1 0 7 ) ,
chapter
the w o m a n h a d
in the H a s m o n e a n
opened a promising
succession. In Ant.,
new
h o w e v e r , all o f this
changes. First, J o s e p h u s tells us that A r i s t o b u l u s ' s w i d o w , w h o released J a n neus f r o m p r i s o n a n d g a v e h i m the t h r o n e , was n a m e d Salina ( o r Salo-
1 3
Throughout this chapter I am following the L C L translation of Ant. 13, by R. Marcus, except where noted. The parenthetical "the Cossack" is Marcus's attempt to give the sense of Thrakidas ( L C L edn., p. 418 n. d). Since the new tone comes through particularly in reflective asides and since it is pro-Hasmonean in tendency (cf. Ant. 16:187; Life 1-2), the natural assumption is that it comes from Josephus himself. 1 4
THE
PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
me) Alexandra ( 1 3 : 3 2 0 ) .
1 5
249
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t explicitly say s o ,
m o s t interpreters infer f r o m his a c c o u n t that this A l e x a n d r a w a s the o n e who
b e c a m e A l e x a n d e r ' s wife—the o n e with w h o m w e are c o n c e r n e d .
1 6
If that is the case, h o w e v e r , w e already h a v e s o m e disturbing n e w infor m a t i o n a b o u t o u r Q u e e n : it w a s she w h o , while m a r r i e d t o A r i s t o b u l u s , h a d c o n s p i r e d with the TCOvnpoi t o set that k i n g against his b r o t h e r A n t i g o n u s ( 1 3 : 3 0 8 ) . S u c h actions hardly a c c o r d with War's description o f her as gentle, frail, a n d p i o u s . I n d e e d , Ant. o m i t s altogether War's lavish praise o f the Q u e e n ' s vir tues. G o n e is the n o t i c e that " s h e w a s i n d e e d m o s t p r e c i s e " (rjxptfiou 8rj paXiaxa) i n her treatment o f the laws a n d that she used t o expel offenders f r o m office (War 1:111). G o n e also is the clear distinction b e t w e e n h e r h u s b a n d a n d herself. W h e r e a s War 1:107 h a d s p o k e n o f her " u t t e r lack o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s b r u t a l i t y " (TYJ$ copoTTjxos OCUTOU pocxpav dwtoSeouaa) a n d
o f h e r " o p p o s i t i o n t o his c r i m e s " (TOCT$ 7uapavoptocis avOiaTapevrj), Ant. c o n c e d e s o n l y that A l e x a n d r a " w a s t h o u g h t t o d i s a p p r o v e " (TO Soxetv . . . Suaxepoctetv) o f h e r h u s b a n d ' s m i s d e e d s ( 1 3 : 4 0 7 ) . War's insistence o n a clean separation b e t w e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d A l e x a n d e r is shattered, finally, b y the o p e n i n g p a r a g r a p h s o f o u r story ( § § 3 9 9 - 4 0 6 ) . W h e r e a s War h a d c l a i m e d that the w o m a n ' s i n n o c e n t religious disposition m a d e h e r easy p r e y for the Pharisees (cf. <X7UX6T7)S, 1:111), w e now
see h e r carefully plotting, o n the a d v i c e o f her d y i n g h u s b a n d , h o w
to placate the n a t i o n ' s hatred; the solution, they d e c i d e , is t o c o u r t the Pharisees. A l e x a n d r a thus appears as a calculating politician. T h e p l a n n i n g for the Q u e e n ' s succession b e g i n s w h e n A l e x a n d e r , e x hausted with disease a n d r e c u r r i n g fever, lies d y i n g while b e s i e g i n g a fortress east o f the J o r d a n ( § 3 9 8 ) . A furious A l e x a n d r a visits the site in o r d e r t o castigate h i m for his lack o f responsibility: h e will s o o n b e g o n e b u t she a n d h e r sons will b e left t o face a hostile nation! T o mollify his wife, the K i n g c u d g e l s his fading wits a n d offers a solution ( § 3 9 9 ) . First, she should k e e p silent a b o u t his death a n d p r o c e e d herself to capture the fortress: And then, he said, on her return to Jerusalem as from a splendid victory, she should yield a certain amount o f power to the Pharisees (TOIS OocptaocTois eijouatav TIVOC 7tapaax£tv), for if they praised her in return for this sign of regard, they would dispose the nation favourably toward her. These men, he assured her, had so much influence with their fellow-Jews that they could injure those whom they hated (TOUTOUS ptaoOvca?) and help those to
1 5
The M S S L A M W E Lat, a weighty combination, read ' 'Salome". Marcus follows the PFN group, reading "Salina". Cf. G . Holscher, "Josephus", 1973; H . St. John Thackeray, L C L edn., I, p. 42, n. a\ and Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , pp. 388f., n. a. 1 6
250
CHAPTER TEN w h o m they were friendly; for they had the complete confidence of
the
masses when they spoke harshly of any person, even when they did so out
of envy (paXtaroc yap 7ciareuea6ai 7uapa TCOrcXrjGetrceptcov xav 9Govo0vxe^ TI XaXe7u6v Xeycoatv); and he himself, he added, had come into conflict with the nation because these m e n had been badly treated by him.
Schwartz
17
(13:400-402)
has p o i n t e d o u t s o m e o f the strong verbal parallels b e t w e e n
this speech, put into J a n n e u s ' s m o u t h , a n d the editorial remarks in Ant. 13:288 ( c o n s i d e r e d in the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r ) . T h e parallels 90ovouvTes/996vos, 7capoc TCO 7tXrj0et,
rciareueaOai,
a
TL x ^
e 7 t o v
include: Xeycoatv/xi
Xeyovxes xaxdc, paXtara. B o t h passages m u s t c o m e f r o m the same a u t h o r . F o r reasons o u t l i n e d in chapter 9, S c h w a r t z believes that author to h a v e b e e n N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . W e should rather suggest that, since the anti-Pharisaic a n d p r o - H a s m o n e a n t o n e (cf. War 1:110-114;
Ant.17'Al-
4 5 ; Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 ; a n d Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 ; 1 6 : 1 8 7 ; Life 1-2, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , a l o n g with the pTaosApOovos t h e m e (cf. War 2 : 8 2 ; 4 : 5 6 6 ; Ant.
2:10; 6:193;
1 3 : 2 8 8 / 2 9 6 ; 2 0 : 2 9 ) , are characteristically J o s e p h a n , J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e formulated ( o r freely i n v e n t e d ) A l e x a n d e r ' s d e a t h b e d s p e e c h . It is in this p a r a g r a p h that S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r find the m o s t c o m p e l ling e v i d e n c e for their t h e o r y
that Ant.
attempts to c o m m e n d
the
Pharisees to the R o m a n s . N e u s n e r o b s e r v e s that the relationship b e t w e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d the Pharisees is p o r t r a y e d v e r y differently f r o m the War parallel, a n d he attributes the c h a n g e to a n e w , positive presentation o f the Pharisees: N o longer do the Pharisees take advantage of the w o m a n ' s ingenuousness. N o w they are essential to her exercise of power. . . . In place of a credulous queen, we have a supine one.
In place of conniving Pharisees, we have
powerful leaders of the whole n a t i o n .
18
J o s e p h u s offers the n e w a c c o u n t b e c a u s e he n o w wants the R o m a n s to install the Pharisees as the n e w aristocracy in Palestine. A l t h o u g h N e u s n e r has c o r r e c t l y d i s c e r n e d a c h a n g e in the relationship b e t w e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d the Pharisees, h o w e v e r , he misses entirely the anti-Pharisaic thrust o f the passage in Ant. A s w e shall see, all o f War's details a b o u t their d e s p o t i c actions are taken o v e r a n d e x p a n d e d in Ant. T h e i r relationship to A l e x a n d r a has c h a n g e d b e c a u s e she has c h a n g e d ; they are n o better. R a t h e r than c o m m e n d i n g the Pharisees, Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 432 m a k e s it v e r y clear that their participation in p o w e r was a disaster and sealed the d o o m o f the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e . A l e x a n d r a should h a v e p r e v e n t e d it.
1 7
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 159.
1 8
"Josephus's Pharisees", 238.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
251
W e return to the passage. S i n c e the s o u r c e o f A l e x a n d e r ' s troubles has b e e n his mistreatment
o f the Pharisees, h e advises his wife to share
p o w e r with this g r o u p . T h e n she will h a v e the support o f the p e o p l e . T h e r e a d e r ' s q u e s t i o n is: D o e s the plan w o r k ? T h e rest o f the narrative answers this q u e s t i o n with a r e s o u n d i n g " N o ! " N o t i c e the c y n i c i s m in A l e x a n d e r ' s assessment o f the Pharisees. Until n o w h e has b e e n their d e t e r m i n e d o p p o n e n t . W h a t they really w a n t , he c l a i m s , is p o w e r . I f A l e x a n d r a will o n l y g i v e the Pharisees s o m e ££ou<Jtoc they will b e h a p p y . N o principles are at stake h e r e . T h u s the K i n g ad vises his wife to present his c o r p s e to the Pharisees, for t h e m to abuse as they wish ( § 4 0 3 ) . H e calculates that this p r e - e m p t i v e s h o w o f generosity will placate their a n g e r a n d e v e n inspire t h e m to g i v e h i m a m a g n i f i c e n t funeral. Further, she is to p r o m i s e t h e m that she will m a k e n o decisions without
their a p p r o v a l (prjSev 8tx« xffc exetvcov yvcoprjs
8ioc7upa!|ea6ai). S o these o p e n i n g sentences explain the l o g i c a n d basis o f Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a ' s reign in Ant. O n her h u s b a n d ' s a d v i c e , she will attempt to rescue the d y n a s t y b y t h r o w i n g in her lot with the Pharisees. It will b e an e x p e r i m e n t in p r a g m a t i c politics. In the e v e n t , A l e x a n d e r ' s cynical v i e w o f the Pharisees is p r o v e n c o r rect. After his death A l e x a n d r a places e v e r y t h i n g (TWCVTOC) in their h a n d s . T h e delighted Pharisees act as p r e d i c t e d . T h e y instantly b e c o m e " w e l l wishers a n d f r i e n d s " o f A l e x a n d r a . T h e y g o a r o u n d the c o u n t r y declar i n g what a just (Sixocioc;) k i n g they h a d lost a n d m o v e the p e o p l e to d e e p m o u r n i n g ! A s h o p e d , they p r o v i d e a funeral for A l e x a n d e r that is un p r e c e d e n t e d in s p l e n d o u r ( § § 4 0 5 f . ) . T h e author o f the passage agrees, then, with A l e x a n d e r ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees:
they are u n p r i n c i p l e d
power-mongers. T h e Pharisees'
e u p h o r i a at c o m i n g into s u d d e n p o w e r a n d
their
m a n i p u l a t i o n o f p o p u l a r feeling in support o f A l e x a n d r a are, h o w e v e r , o n l y the b e g i n n i n g o f the story.
B . Alexandra's Sons (13:407-408,
417)
B e c a u s e the Q u e e n has g i v e n absolute p o w e r to the Pharisees, she has little left for the t w o sons that w e n o w hear a b o u t ,
Hyrcanus
and
A r i s t o b u l u s . T h e r e is still, h o w e v e r , the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d a n d this she b e s t o w s o n H y r c a n u s , the o l d e r s o n . N o t i c e h o w differently this action is presented in War a n d Ant. I n War, A l e x a n d r a w a s c o m m e n d e d for her j u d i c i o u s treatment o f her sons. She g a v e the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d to H y r c a n u s b e c a u s e he was o l d e r a n d m o r e s u b d u e d (vcoOeaxepov). A r i s t o b u l u s , b y contrast, w a s a " h o t - h e a d " (Oep-
CHAPTER TEN
252
[XOTTjTOc, 1:109, 117) a n d w o u l d h a v e b e e n unsuitable for office. I n the Q u e e n ' s d e c i s i o n is differently
Ant.,
evaluated:
Now although Alexander had left two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, he had bequeathed the royal power to Alexandra. O f these sons the one, Hyr canus, was incompetent (Tpxocvds pev ocaOevTjs rjv 7cporfpocTOc Stotxetv) to govern and in addition much preferred a quiet life, while the younger, Aristobulus, was a man o f action (Spocarriptos) and high spirit (OocpaocXeos). Alexandra then appointed Hyrcanus as high priest because of his greater age but more especially because o f his lack of energy (Stoc TO owcpocypov). (§§ 407-408a) T w o m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f War are: ( a ) the n o t e o f surprise that although he left sons, A l e x a n d e r g a v e the rule to his wife, a n d ( b ) the n e w c l a i m that it w a s H y r c a n u s , n o t A r i s t o b u l u s , w h o was unfit for o f f i c e .
19
Hyrcanus
was " w e a k " . A r i s t o b u l u s is n o l o n g e r seen as a h o t - h e a d ; he was a " d o e r " , a c o u r a g e o u s m a n . T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is that A r i s t o b u l u s o u g h t to h a v e b e e n g i v e n the e x e c u t i v e p o w e r . J o s e p h u s will later m a k e this p o i n t in plain terms. D e s c r i b i n g the in justices suffered b y v i c t i m s o f the Pharisees, h e will reflect: But still they themselves were to blame for their misfortunes, in allowing a woman to reign who madly desired it in her unreasonable love of power (xocxd cptXocpxtocv exXeXuaorjxmoc yuvatxt 7uocpoc TO etxos (JocatXeoetv), and when her sons were in the prime of life (ev dcxpfj ouarj^). (13:417) T h i s reflection s u m s u p J o s e p h u s ' s n e w attitude t o w a r d b o t h A l e x a n d r a and her sons. I n the interest o f m a i n t a i n i n g woman
2 0
her o w n p o w e r , the o l d
sacrificed p r o p r i e t y a n d left her sons (especially A r i s t o b u l u s )
out o f her r e i g n . J o s e p h u s will reiterate this j u d g e m e n t in his c l o s i n g remarks o n A l e x a n d r a ( 1 3 : 4 3 0 - 4 3 2 ) . S o far, then, w e h a v e seen that J o s e p h u s reversed his attitudes t o w a r d b o t h A l e x a n d r a and h e r sons b e t w e e n War and Ant. In War, she g a v e the Pharisees p o w e r b e c a u s e h e r religious d e v o t i o n b l i n d e d her to their real nature; in Ant., she invites t h e m to s p o n s o r her r e g i m e as part o f a clever s c h e m e for m a i n t a i n i n g her o w n p o w e r . In War, her d e c i s i o n to c o n f i n e the upstart A r i s t o b u l u s to private life was a wise o n e ; in Ant.,
she is
castigated for h a v i n g silenced such a v i g o r o u s a n d c o u r a g e o u s y o u n g man.
T h e question
n o w is w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisees has also c h a n g e d b e t w e e n War a n d
1 9
attitude t o w a r d
the
Ant..
Ant. 's denigration of Hyrcanus becomes obvious later in the narrative. Confronted by Herod, we shall be told, "he was incompetent to do anything, because of his cowar dice and folly" (14:179). War 1:213, by contrast, had allowed only that Hyrcanus did not know what to do because he was outmatched by Herod. According to Ant. 13:430, Alexandra was about 64 years of age at her accession. 2 0
253
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
3
C.
The Pharisees Actions and the Reaction
(13:408-417)
In War, w e w e r e told that the effects o f the Pharisees' c o m i n g into p o w e r w e r e felt m a i n l y in the j u d i c i a l sphere. T h e y t o o k o v e r the penal system: they b a n i s h e d a n d recalled f r o m
exile w h o m e v e r they w i s h e d (ou<;
eOeXotev); they w e r e free to incarcerate o r release f r o m p r i s o n ; a n d they e v e n h a d a de facto p o w e r o f capital p u n i s h m e n t . B y influencing A l e x a n dra,
they w e r e able to d o a w a y w i t h w h o m e v e r they w i s h e d ( a g a i n , ou<;
eOeXotev, 1:111-113). N e u s n e r , in his attempt t o s h o w that Ant. c o m m e n d s the Pharisees to the R o m a n s , claims that o u r passage tones d o w n the Pharisaic reign o f terror u n d e r A l e x a n d r a : " T h e mass slaughter o f War, in w h i c h the Pharisees killed a n y o n e they w a n t e d , is shaded into a m i l d p e r s e c u t i o n o f the P h a r i s e e s ' o p p o s i t i o n . "
2 1
It is, h o w e v e r , i m p o s s i b l e to a c c e p t
N e u s n e r ' s interpretation at this p o i n t . War's a c c o u n t o f the P h a r i s e e s ' actions a n d the reaction that they e v o k e d t o o k u p four N i e s e sections ( 1 : 1 1 1 - 1 1 4 ) . Ant. e x p a n d s the s a m e t o p i c to ten sections ( 1 3 : 4 0 8 - 4 1 7 ) ; a n d n o n e o f the n e w material i m p r o v e s the i m a g e o f the Pharisees. T h e y personally e n g a g e , w e are n o w told, in a systematic slaughter o f their e n e m i e s ; what is m o r e , the a u t h o r takes c o n s i d e r a b l e space to dilate o n the justice o f their v i c t i m s ' c a u s e . C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g excerpts: Alexandra permitted the Pharisees to do as they liked in all matters (TCOCVTOC -cots Oaptaatots wciTpe7cei 7cotetv), and also commanded the people to obey them. . . . And so, while she had the title of sovereign (TO ovopoc TTJS PocatXetocs), the Pharisees had the power (TTJV Suvocptv). For example, they recalled exiles and freed prisoners, and, in a word, in no way differed from absolute rulers (ouSev SearcoTcov Ste^pepov). [Then follows a notice on the Queen's competence in foreign affairs.] And throughout the country there was quiet except for the Pharisees; for they worked upon the feelings of the queen and tried to persuade her to kill those who had urged Alexander to put the eight hundred to death. Later they themselves slaughtered one of them (etT<x ocuTOt TOUTOOV evoc a9<XTT0uat), named Diogenes, and his death was followed by that of one after another (xat p e T ' OCUTOV aXXous in aXXats), until the leading citizens (ot SUVOCTOC) came to the palace. . . and they reminded her of all that they achieved in the face of danger, whereby they had shown their unwavering loyalty to their master [sc. Alexander Janneus]. . . . And they begged her not to crush their hopes completely, for, they said, after escaping the dangers of war, they were now being slaughtered at home like cattle (StXTjv (JoaxrjpaToov xo7CT£a0at) by their foes [sc. the Pharisees], and there was no one to avenge them. (408b-412) 22
9
2 1
"Josephus's Pharisees", 240.
2 2
Marcus, ad loc, has "cut down"; but cf. his n. d.
254
CHAPTER TEN
N o t h i n g in this passage suggests a " s h a d i n g " o f the P h a r i s e e s ' p o g r o m into a " m i l d p e r s e c u t i o n " . I f a n y t h i n g , the i m a g e r y u s e d to d e s c r i b e their actions (<J9<XTT0uat, (3oax7)p<XT
thrust o f the s p e e c h m a d e b y the Suva-rot is that A l e x a n d r a has
b e t r a y e d t h e m . T h e y h a d a l w a y s b e e n l o y a l to h e r h u s b a n d ' s policies a n d so they at least d e s e r v e d h e r p r o t e c t i o n . T h e i r o n l y goal has b e e n faithfulness to the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e a n d they are also l o y a l to her; b u t now
they are b e i n g slaughtered b y h e r h u s b a n d ' s e n e m i e s , e v i d e n t l y
with h e r s u p p o r t ( § § 4 1 1 - 4 1 3 ) ! T h e SuvocTOt close their s p e e c h b y calling o n the 8atpovoc$ o f A l e x a n d e r to take pity o n their plight, at w h i c h the bystanders burst into tears. T h e c o u r a g e o u s y o u n g A r i s t o b u l u s , w h o d e p l o r e s his m o t h e r ' s betrayal o f these m e n ,
2 3
" d e n o u n c e s her bitterly"
(rcoXXa xaxt&ov). It is perfectly clear that J o s e p h u s l e a d i n g citizens against
sides with A r i s t o b u l u s a n d
Alexandra and
her
Pharisaic
the
sponsors. A s
H o l s c h e r l o n g a g o o b s e r v e d , the passage " s t e n t m i t ihrer
Sympathie
sichtlich a u f d e r Seite d e r V o r n e h m e n u n d betrachtet das Pharisaerregim e n t u n t e r A l e x a n d r a o f f e n b a r nicht als i d e a l " .
2 4
Before Smith
and
N e u s n e r , o n e n e v e r i m a g i n e d that the a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 w a s try ing
to r e c o m m e n d that the R o m a n s entrust a n y sort o f p o w e r to the
Pharisees.
D . Alexandra's Foreign Policy We
(13:418-421)
c o m e n o w to a brief account o f Alexandra's foreign policy, which
elaborates a little o n War 1 : 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 . T h e thrust is that, a l t h o u g h she m a d e n o significant gains, the Q u e e n m a n a g e d at least to m a i n t a i n the
2 3
Cf. also 13:411. Holscher, "Josephus", 1975, n.*. Since he considered Josephus to have been a Pharisee, on the basis of Life 12 (cf. p. 1936, n. + + ) , Holscher had to attribute these sentiments to a hypothetical intermediate source, which he thought to be pro-priestly and pro-Hasmonean. I shall argue in Part I V , however, that Josephus does not claim Pharisaic allegiance in Life 12. I see no reason, therefore, to deny that the anti-Pharisaic sentiments of our passage reflect Josephus's own viewpoint, which we know to be priestly and pro-Hasmonean (Ant. 16:187; 20:266; Life 1-9). 2 4
255
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
status quo. T h i s w a s itself an a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , h o w e v e r , in the face o f e x ternal threats such as that p o s e d b y T i g r a n e s , K i n g o f A r m e n i a . M o s t significant for us, A l e x a n d r a ' s foreign p o l i c y is the o n l y aspect o f her reign that J o s e p h u s finds praiseworthy; a n d it is the o n l y area in w h i c h the Pharisees apparently h a d n o influence. After detailing the a b solute d o m e s t i c p o w e r s g i v e n to the Pharisees, J o s e p h u s m a k e s the p o i n t : Nevertheless the queen took precautions (iTCOtetro. . . Tffc (JocatXeiocs 7tp6votav) for the kingdom and recruited a large force o f mercenaries and also made her own force twice as large, with the result that she struck terror into the local rulers around her and received hostages from them. A n d throughout the entire country there was quiet except for the Pharisees; for they worked upon the feelings o f the queen (rjpepet 8e rj X ^ P K&<*<* rcapsiTCOV Oaptaaicov. OUTOI yap £7tSTapocTTOv TTJV (JocatXtaaav). ( 1 3 : 4 0 9 ) 25
a
N o t i c e the contrast. W h e r e she w a s left to herself, A l e x a n d r a at least m a i n t a i n e d quiet; w h e r e the Pharisees held s w a y , there w a s t r o u b l e . T h e b u l k o f o u r passage is d e v o t e d to the u n h a p p y results o f their m a l i g n in fluence.
E . Aristobulus's Revolt
(13:422-429)
Ant. 's d e s c r i p t i o n o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s reaction to his m o t h e r ' s policies again reflects J o s e p h u s ' s shift in perspective since War. In the earlier w o r k the w h o l e m a t t e r h a d b e e n s u m m e d u p as follows: w h e n A l e x a n d r a b e c a m e sick, h e r i m p e t u o u s y o u n g e r son seized the fortresses a n d p r o c l a i m e d himself k i n g . H i s followers w e r e attracted to h i m solely b e c a u s e o f his c o l o u r f u l p e r s o n a l i t y (TCOCVTOCS euvou? 8ta
TTJV Oeppo-ajTa, 1 : 1 1 7 ) . W e
were
told that A l e x a n d r a m o v e d to prevent this coup b y taking A r i s t o b u l u s ' s family hostage b u t that she d i e d b e f o r e the o u t c o m e was k n o w n ( 1 : 1 1 8 ) . Ant. e x p a n d s the a c c o u n t c o n s i d e r a b l y . In the p r o c e s s it o m i t s ( a g a i n ) a n y reference to A l e x a n d e r ' s recklessness. Instead, it highlights his d e v o tion to his family. W h e n his m o t h e r b e c a m e sick, w e are n o w told, he visited the fortresses to w h i c h she h a d sent his father's persecuted friends (to protect t h e m
f r o m the Pharisees).
A n d these m e n n o w
support
A r i s t o b u l u s not 8ioc TTJV OeppoTTjTOt, as War w o u l d h a v e it, but b e c a u s e he has
consistently
championed
their
cause.
Aristobulus's
reason
for
m a k i n g his m o v e is n o w g i v e n as follows:
2 5
Marcus renders "took thought for the welfare of the kingdom". Since, however, the overriding point is that Alexandra's reckless policies caused the kingdom to be lost (§§ 430-432), we should probably read Tcpovotoc in a minimalist sense, as referring to the single area in which the author concedes that the Queen did act properly, viz., in her defence policy.
256
CHAPTER TEN
For while he had long resented the things his mother was doing, he was just then especially fearful that on her death their whole family might come under the rule o f the Pharisees (eSetae pf) arcoGavoucrns inl Tots Oaptaatot? TO 7tav f£vo£ auTOts U7tdcpijeiev), for he saw the incapacity (TO <X8UVOCTOV) o f his brother [sc. Hyrcanus], who was destined to succeed the throne. (13:423) T h e disclosure o f this m o t i v e entirely c h a n g e s War's p i c t u r e . A r i s t o b u l u s is n o t o u t for personal gain; h e wants to preserve the royal family a n d to protect it f r o m b e i n g s w a l l o w e d u p b y the Pharisees. T h a t the a u t h o r sides with A r i s t o b u l u s is clear f r o m the a b o v e n o t i c e a n d f r o m w h a t follows. W h e n the Q u e e n learns o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s revolt, b o t h she a n d the " p e o p l e " (TO e'Ovocj) b e c o m e e x t r e m e l y a n x i o u s (ev peytorat^ Tocpaxats urcfjpxev): For they knew that Aristobulus was not far from being able to seize the throne for himself, and they were very much afraid that he might exact satisfaction for the excesses which they had practised on his house (cov 7capcpvrjaav OCUTCO TOV otxov). (13:426)
The
author has the p e o p l e confessing that they h a v e " p l a y e d d r u n k e n
g a m e s " (7uocpotveco > 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 e
(6.16.4).
C . TOU rcaxptou xat voptov. A l s o in k e e p i n g w i t h J o s e p h a n u s a g e else w h e r e , the o b j e c t o f the Pharisees' alleged axptfktoc is TOrcotTptova n d ot vopot. I n War 1:110, it w a s ot vopot, in War 2 : 1 6 2 , TOC voptpa, a n d in Life 1 9 1 , TOC 7uaTpta voptpa. A s w e h a v e seen, the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o frcotTptaa n d vopot in reference to the J e w i s h laws is characteristic o f o u r a u t h o r . D.
rcpooTcotoupat.
In
keeping
with
established
practice,
31
Josephus
regularly uses the m i d d l e v o i c e o f Trpoorcoteto in the sense, " t o p r e t e n d , feign, o r a c t " .
3 2
O r d i n a r i l y , he supplies an infinitive to indicate
n a t u r e o f the p r e t e n c e . ficulties
33
the
O n e o f the syntactical ( a n d p e r h a p s textual) dif
with o u r passage is the a b s e n c e o f such an i n f i n i t i v e .
34
Marcus
a n d W i k g r e n m u s t b e c o r r e c t in s u p p l y i n g a v e r b like " o b s e r v e " , w h i c h I h a v e also a d o p t e d for the a b o v e translation. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the idea o f p r e t e n d i n g to <xxpt(3eta in the laws, w h i c h is w h a t the Pharisees are here said to d o , is quite at h o m e in J o s e p h u s . A certain J e w in R o m e , h e tells us, w a s c o m p l e t e l y evil (rcovrjpos tiq TOC rcavTa) b u t "pretended to interpret the w i s d o m o f the laws o f M o s e s " (rcpoaercotetTO
pev e^rjyetaOat
ao^tav vopcov TCOV Mtouaeo?; Ant.
18:81).
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s m o r e c o m m o n l y correlates Soxeto with axptjieta, there is a significant s e m a n t i c o v e r l a p b e t w e e n Soxeto ( w i t h a p e r s o n a l subject) a n d 7upoa7uotoupat.
35
W h e n h e c l a i m s , therefore, that the Pharisees p r e
tend (7upoa7uotoupevot) to o b s e r v e the laws w i t h axpt(3eta, h e is n o t s a y i n g s o m e t h i n g n e w b u t is rather e m p h a s i z i n g the subjective o r v o l i t i o n a l aspect that w a s already latent in Soxeto, w h e n h e said that the Pharisees Soxouatv e^riyetaOat Ta voptpa peT' axptPeta^.
36
E . rj yuvatxtoviTt?. T h e " f e m a l e f a c t i o n " that is c o n t r o l l e d (UTTTJXTO) b y the Pharisees w a s i n t r o d u c e d at 17:33ff. I n his efforts to b u i l d his p o w e r b a s e , w e are t o l d , H e r o d ' s s o n A n t i p a t e r w a n t e d to b r i n g his u n c l e
3 1
Cf. chapter 4, above. At Ant. 17:41, a variant reading is TOU 7uocTptou vopou ( W E Lat.), which is followed by Reinach. This would conform even more closely to Josephan usage. See LSJ and B A G , s.v. on "established practice" and A . I. Baumgarten, "Name", 414f., on Josephan usage. Cf., e.g., Ant. 13:102; Life 319; Ag.Ap. 1:5. Holwerda conjectures that the infinitive yepatpeiv, "to honour", originally stood after xatpei but (presumably) dropped out in the course of transmission, by parablepsis (cf. L C L edn. V I I , 390 n. 8). Thus, the Pharisees "pretended to honour laws with which the Deity was pleased". Cf. chapter 4. So War 1:110; 2:162; Life 191. 3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
266
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Pheroras o n side. I n o r d e r t o a c c o m p l i s h this, h e cultivated the loyalty o f P h e r o r a s ' s wife, m o t h e r - i n - l a w , a n d sister-in-law. T h e s e three, a l o n g with A n t i p a t e r ' s
o w n mother,
YUvatxcovTris, w h i c h A n t i p a t e r
acted had
in
concert and
entirely
under
constituted
a
his c o n t r o l (coaxe
rcavTOttos 6 'AvrtTCaxpos U7tfjxT0 auras, 1 7 : 3 5 ) . A g a i n s t the c o - o r d i n a t e d ac tions o f the w o m e n , J o s e p h u s allows, Pheroras w a s p o w e r l e s s to act in dependently (17:34). It w a s these female o p p o n e n t s o f H e r o d w h o m the Pharisees w e r e able to m a n i p u l a t e , as the sequel also s h o w s .
3 7
P h e r o r a s ' s wife ( o n e o f the
b a n d ) p a y s their fine for refusing to swear allegiance to H e r o d a n d they, in turn, m a n u f a c t u r e p r e d i c t i o n s that please her. E .TCpop7)6et$.B o t h the m e a n i n g a n d the syntactical function o f rcpop7]Get$ are p r o b l e m a t i c . M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n ( L C L ) take the w o r d t o m e a n " f o r e s i g h t " b u t offer as an alternative " p r e d i c t i o n " . I n f a v o u r o f their a d o p t e d r e a d i n g is the fact that 8 o f the o t h e r 9 o c c u r r e n c e s o f rcpopTjGrjs in J o s e p h u s h a v e the sense o f " c a u t i o n , p r e c a u t i o n , p r u d e n c e , o r foresight".
38
O n l y o n c e d o e s the w o r d m e a n " d i v i n a t i o n " o f the future.
T i b e r i u s regrets that h e has resorted to a u g u r y (TOU 7cpoprj6ou<;) b e c a u s e n o w h e m u s t d i e k n o w i n g w h a t will befall his g r a n d s o n (Ant.
18:218).
Y e t the c o n t e x t in 17:41 w o u l d s e e m to require that 7Cpopr)0etc m e a n " p r e d i c t i o n s " — t h e alternate sense g i v e n b y M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n . O n e o f the few things said a b o u t the Pharisees u n d e r H e r o d to this p o i n t has b e e n that their leaders ( S a m a i a s a n d / o r P o l l i o n ) p r e d i c t e d what the I d u m e a n w o u l d d o with the S a n h e d r i n w h e n he c a m e to p o w e r ( 1 4 : 1 7 6 ; 1 5 : 4 ) . E v e n m o r e i m p o r t a n t , Ant. 17:41 i n t r o d u c e s a passage in w h i c h the
major
theme
is
the
Pharisees'
reputation
for f o r e k n o w l e d g e
(7cp6yv
so that the Pharisees,
b e i n g p r u d e n t , o r " h a v i n g f o r e s i g h t " , w e r e able to h e l p the k i n g g r e a d y . I n the translation offered a b o v e , o n the other h a n d , I h a v e s u p p o s e d that 3 7
Josephus does not intend to say that the Pharisees were distinguished by "their in fluence with women" (contra Rivkin, Revolution, 323). War 1:367, 499, 539, 611; 3:70, Ant. 17:23, 18:176, 19:91. Five of these cases are attributive in function; three are substantive. 3 8
THE
267
PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II
rcpaaaetv is transitive a n d that rcpoprjOets, as an accusative, is its direct o b j e c t . T h u s , " t h e Pharisees w e r e entirely c a p a b l e o f issuing p r e d i c t i o n s for the k i n g ' s benefit ((JaatXet Suvapevot paXtara rcpaaaetv 7i;popr|0eTs)" b u t c h o s e instead t o c o m b a t a n d injure h i m b y these m e a n s . I n this r e a d i n g , (JaatXet is a dative o f " a d v a n t a g e a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e " . I n v i e w o f the uncertain state o f the text t h r o u g h o u t 1 7 : 4 1 , h o w e v e r , it w o u l d b e u n wise to p l a c e t o o m u c h w e i g h t o n a n y particular syntactical c o n s t r u c t i o n . W i t h the terms rcpopTjOris, TCpoXeyco, a n d rcpoyvaxju;, w e e n c o u n t e r an i m p o r t a n t t h e m e in J o s e p h u s . S i n c e he has a c o n s i d e r a b l e interest in the idea o f p r o p h e c y o r p r e d i c t i o n , w e o u g h t briefly to c o n s i d e r his v i e w o f this matter b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g with o u r interpretation o f Ant.
17:41-45.
I I I . The Meaning of Prophecy for Josephus O n l y in recent years h a v e scholars b e g u n seriously t o deal with the t h e m e o f p r o p h e c y in J o s e p h u s .
3 9
Particularly significant are t w o articles
b y J. B l e n k i n s o p p a n d W . C . v a n U n n i k .
4 0
I n the f o l l o w i n g sketch o f
the m e a n i n g a n d significance o f p r o p h e c y for J o s e p h u s , I c a n d o little m o r e than s u m m a r i z e the pertinent aspects o f these studies. A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d s npoyr\vr\(;,TCpoqnrjTeta,a n d 7cpo97)T£uoo m o r e than 3 0 0 times in total, he reserves t h e m almost e x c l u s i v e l y for the biblical p r o p h e t s .
41
T h e t w o e x c e p t i o n s are: ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s favorite, J o h n
H y r c a n u s , w h o is said t o h a v e b e e n c a p a b l e o f Tzpo^r\xtioL to
have
house,
4 2
p r o p h e s i e d (7cpo97)xeuaev) the
downfall o f the
and, indeed, Hasmonean
a n d ( b ) the v a r i o u s false p r o p h e t s w h o arose b e f o r e a n d d u r i n g
the r e v o l t .
43
T h e s e m e n c l a i m e d to b e p r o p h e t s (izpo<pr\T;r\<; eXeyev etvat,
Ant. 2 0 : 9 7 ) b u t w e r e n o t . We our
m a y a d d that the v e r b 7tpoXeyco, w h i c h is used o f the Pharisees in
passage, has a similar restriction. It o c c u r s 37 times in J o s e p h u s . I n
34 o f those instances the sense is " t o p r e d i c t " ,
4 4
a n d 31 o f these o c c u r
r e n c e s , in Ant. 1-11, refer t o the activity o f the biblical p r o p h e t s . It is God
himself
45
or a prophet
3 9
4 6
w h o predicts (7ipoXeyet). T h e three e x c e p -
The theme was broached already by Paret in 1856, pp. 834-838, but then only very sporadically until the 1970's; cf. W . C . van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 41 n. 1 and 46 n. 16, and J. Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy", 239 n. 2, on the history of scholarship. See previous note. Cf. also D . E. Aune, ''Critical Notes: the Use of IIPOOHTHE in J o s e p h u s " , 1 0 1 (1982), 419-421. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 240, 246. War 1:68-69; Ant. 13:299. War 2:261; 6:286; Ant. 20:97, 169. That is, not counting War 7:353; Ant. 12:342; 19:31, which all lack the sense of "prediction". Ant. 8:232, 319, 9:189; 10:53, 178; 11:96. Cf. esp. Ant. 8:420; 9:169, 265, 281; 10:13, 60, 89, 268. 4
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
268
CHAPTER ELEVEN
tions are ( a ) J o h n H y r c a n u s ( a g a i n ! Ant. 1 3 : 3 0 0 ) ; ( b ) the Essenes (Ant. 1 3 : 3 1 1 ) , w h o m J o s e p h u s clearly a d m i r e s
47
a n d ( c ) the Pharisees, in o u r
passage (Ant. 1 7 : 4 3 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s treatment o f the biblical p r o p h e t s is n o t e w o r t h y in several respects. First, as Paret l a m e n t e d , m o r e o r less t o that o f p r e d i c t i o n tatory r o l e s .
5 0
49
4 8
h e r e d u c e s their p r o p h e t i c activity
a n d m i n i m i z e s their d i d a c t i c a n d h o r
I n k e e p i n g w i t h this t e n d e n c y , h e expresses the greatest
interest in those p r o p h e t s w h o h a v e left written r e c o r d s o f events t o come;
5 1
o f these, J e r e m i a h a n d D a n i e l (as well as the " p r o p h e t " M o s e s )
figure p r o m i n e n t l y .
5 2
R e m a r k a b l y , J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s D a n i e l as " o n e o f
the greatest p r o p h e t s (etc ^ " c o n v e r s e d with G o d " .
5 4
peytcrccov 7cp097)T6>v)"
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)Teioc<; OCUTOG axpt(3es . . . e7coi7)ae SfjXov).
55
T h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n o f D a n i e l illustrates
J o s e p h u s ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f " p r o p h e c y " as essentially p r e d i c t i v e . J o s e p h u s r e p e a t e d l y c l a i m s that all o f the events o f his o w n d a y w e r e foretold b y the p r o p h e t s . Isaiah, for e x a m p l e : wrote down in books all that he had prophesied and left them to be recognized as true from the event by m e n of future ages. A n d not only this prophet, but also others, twelve in number, did the same, and whatever happens to us whether for
good or ill comes about in accordance with their prophecies (xorcoc TTJV exetvcov 7up097)T£tocv).
4 7
56
Cf. Ant. 15:371-379. Paret, "Pharisaismus", 836f. Cf. Ant. 10:33-35; 13:65 (on Isaiah); 4:303 (on Moses); also Blenkinsopp, "Pro phecy", 242f. Paret, "Pharisaismus" 837f., believed that this "misunderstanding" of the pro phets indicated Josephus's (narrow) Pharisaic perspective! Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 51, 52f. Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 52ff.; Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 244f. Remarkably, because the Hebrew canon does not even list Daniel among the pro phets but rather with the "writings". The rabbis, as Ginzberg (Legends, V I , 413) shows, disagreed as to whether or not Daniel should even be considered a prophet. Ant. 10:266f. Ant. 10, 267, 269, 276; cf. Paret, "Pharisaismus", 837. Josephus also remarks that, unlike the other prophets, Daniel proclaimed good news; Ant. 10:268; cf. van Unnik, Seriftsteller, 49f. Ant. 10:35, trans. Marcus ( L C L edn.) emphasis added; cf. Ant. 4:303, 313; 8:418420; 10:142, 280. 4 8
4 9
5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
55
56
THE PHARISEES A T HEROD's COURT, II
269
S i n c e the p r o p h e c i e s o f J e r e m i a h a n d D a n i e l w e r e particularly relevant to the events o f J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e , his special interest in t h e m is u n d e r standable. In
a
57
f a m o u s passage,
d i s c u s s e d briefly in
the
previous
chapter,
J o s e p h u s speaks a b o u t " t h e failure o f the e x a c t s u c c e s s i o n o f p r o p h e t s " (pyj yeveaOoct TTJV T&Vrcpo97)TG>vaxptfSfj 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)Tetoc<; TCOV teptov (3t(3Xcov).
76
It
is his k n o w l e d g e o f biblical p r o p h e c y that enables h i m to interpret
67
War 3:405-408. Notice also the imperfect fjv at War 3:352: Josephus presents his predictive activities as ongoing. Cf. van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 49f. Cf. van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 52f.; Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 244: "Jeremiah in particular seems to have served as a model for Josephus—at least retrospectively. . . . As a true prophet he foretold the destruction but was rejected by the religious leaders who were misled by the pseudoprophets." See Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 133-140, who compares the lament theme in War with (Jeremiah's) Lamentations; also R . Mayer and C . Moller, "Josephus—Politiker und Prophet", in O . Betz, M . Hengel, K. Haacker, Josephus-Studien (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974), 284. Cf. Ant. 8:418-420; 10:142. See Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", esp. 250ff. and e.g., Ant. 3:192 (Aaron's prophetic gift qualifies him to be a high priest); 7:72 (David orders the high priest to prophesy, a detail not found in scripture); 8:296 (an unscriptural prediction of the future exile, in which no prophet or priest would be found among the people); 10:79f. (notice that both Ezekiel and Jeremiah were priests by birth); Ag.Ap. 1:29; 37-41 (cf. 30-36). That is, 1 Mace. 4:46; 9:27 (cf. 14:41). Notice especially the way in which Ant. 13:5 reworks I Mace. 9:27, which is pointed out by van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 48 n. 23. War 1:18, cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 241. Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 42. Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 246f. and van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 43. War 3:352. 6 8
6 9
7 0
71
7 2
73
7 4
7 5
7 6
271
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II
d r e a m s a n d o t h e r signs. Similarly, h e tells us that s o m e o f the Essenes u n d e r t a k e t o tell the future, ' ' b e i n g lifelong students o f sacred scripture . . . . a n d o f the sayings o f p r o p h e t s " ((Jt(JXot? tepat?. . . xat 7cpo97)TCOv 77
<XTCO90eYpaatv £p7cat8oTpt(Joupevot). T h i s k i n d o f scriptural study m a y also b e a l l u d e d to in the c u r i o u s n o t i c e that o n e d a y J u d a s the Essene w a s offer i n g " i n s t r u c t i o n o n p r e d i c t i n g the f u t u r e " (8t8<x<jxocXia$. . . TOU rcpoXeyetv 78
TOC peXXovTOt). Finally, in Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 the Pharisees' ability to p r e d i c t the future s e e m s to b e tied to their c l a i m to s u p e r i o r dcxpi(kia w i t h respect to s c r i p t u r e . In
79
addition
to
scriptural exegesis, the
e n g a g e d , like his biblical p r e d e c e s s o r s , mediate
d i v i n e manifestations,
Essenes
both
interpret the
80
post-biblical seer
especially d r e a m s . J o s e p h u s
future
is
often
in the interpretation o f i m
b y interpreting d r e a m s .
8 1
and
the
In
our
p a s s a g e , likewise, the Pharisees " h a d b e e n credited with k n o w i n g the future through manifestations of God (rcpoyvcoatv hi e7re7rtareuvT0 imyoivfyszi TOU Geou)".
82
J o s e p h u s m a k e s it clear, h o w e v e r , that d i v i n e a p p e a r a n c e s c o m e o n l y to those w h o are w o r t h y . H e says, as p r o o f o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s u n i q u e vir tue, " F o r the D e i t y c o n v e r s e d with h i m so closely that he w a s n e v e r u n a w a r e o f the f u t u r e " .
8 3
J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that the Essene M e n a h e m ' s
rcpoyvtoats TCOV peXXovTcov w a s p r o o f o f his virtue Tupoupevo?)
84
(xaXoxayaOtoc pap-
a n d that the Essenes in general w e r e granted k n o w l e d g e o f
" d i v i n e t h i n g s " b e c a u s e o f their virtue (urco xocXoxorfocOtoc^).
85
T h i s b r i e f o v e r v i e w o f p r o p h e c y in J o s e p h u s is e n o u g h to s h o w that o u r a u t h o r has a sustained interest in the t o p i c . T h a t interest arises in part f r o m his self-understanding
as a m o d e r n heir o f the p r o p h e t s . A s his
d e n u n c i a t i o n s o f c o n t e m p o r a r y false p r o p h e t s s h o w , he c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f a qualified critic in the field. L e t v a n U n n i k s u m m a r i z e the i m p o r t a n c e o f these o b s e r v a t i o n s for the interpretation o f Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 : Es sollte nun klar sein, dass wir, wenn wir uber Prophetie bei Josephus sprechen, uber eine Sache reden, die Josephus nicht nur objektiv, historich, sondern auch subjektiv und ganz personlich aufs starkste interessiert h a t . 86
77
War 2:159. Ant. 13:311. So Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 258. The parallel is drawn by Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 247. Cf. e.g., Ant. 2:11-16, 64-73, 84-86 (Joseph); 10:250 (Daniel); Blenkinsopp, "Pro phecy", 245. War 3:352 (Josephus); Ant. 17:345-348 (Simon the Essene). Ant. 17:43. War 1:69; cf. Ant. 13:300 (and 282). Ant. 15:373. Ant. 15:379. Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 47. 7 8
7 9
8 0
81
8 2
8 3
8 4
8 5
8 6
272
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Josephus's
discussion o f the
Pharisees'
p r o p h e t i c activities
under
H e r o d the G r e a t , like his earlier discussions o f their reputation for scrip tural expertise, c o m e s f r o m a qualified a n d interested critic.
I V . Interpretation It is n o w possible to b r i n g together all o f the a b o v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , with respect to c o n t e x t , k e y terms, a n d the p r o p h e c y motif, in an effort to in terpret Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 . W e h a v e n o t e d that the passage is built f r o m a t o p i c sentence ( § 4 1 ) a n d an elaborative story ( § § 4 2 - 4 5 ) . T h e thrust o f the t o p i c sentence is that the Pharisees, w h o p r i d e d themselves greatly o n their exegetical p r o wess, w e r e perfectly able to issue p r e d i c t i o n s (rcpdcaaetv 7rpoprj6eT$) that w o u l d benefit the k i n g b u t they c h o s e , rather, to e m p l o y their talents to the k i n g ' s detriment. N o t i c e that the phrase " i s s u i n g predictions for the k i n g ' s b e n e f i t " n e e d n o t i m p l y the m a n u f a c t u r i n g o f false o r flattering p r o p h e c i e s . O n the c o n t r a r y , J o s e p h u s has earlier d e s c r i b e d the benefit o f p r o p h e c y a n d f o r e k n o w l e d g e as the awareness o f " w h a t to g u a r d a g a i n s t " (Ant. 8 : 4 1 8 ) . H e has also presented H e r o d as o n e w h o w a s e a g e r to k n o w the future; the Essene M e n a h e m h e l p e d h i m in this quest (Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 7 f f . ) . A c c o r d ing to o u r passage, the Pharisees also h a d the ability to assist H e r o d in this w a y b u t they o p t e d instead to use their abilities against h i m , b y en c o u r a g i n g his o p p o n e n t s with false p r e d i c t i o n s . T h e y w e r e , it n o w ap pears,
a major
force b e h i n d
the
" g a n g o f w o m e n " assembled
by
A n t i p a t e r to o p p o s e his father. T h e postpositive youv in 17:42 suggests that the story to follow will substantiate the c l a i m that the Pharisees used 7tpop7]0eTc against the king, w h i c h is i n d e e d what w e find: the following narrative ( § § 4 2 - 4 5 ) r e c o u n t s t w o instances o f the Pharisees' u n s c r u p u l o u s use o f p r o p h e c y . T h e first sentence o f the story p r o v i d e s the b a c k g r o u n d : w h e n the " w h o l e J e w i s h people"
s w o r e an
oath
o f loyalty to
Caesar
and
to
the
policies
(TCpaypocatv) o f H e r o d , the Pharisees refused. T h e i r intransigence e a r n e d t h e m a fine b u t this w a s p a i d for t h e m b y P h e r o r a s ' s wife, w h o w a s o n e m e m b e r o f the yuvatxcoviTi? that they c o n t r o l l e d .
87
T h i s event p r o v i d e s the c o n t e x t for the first e x a m p l e o f the Pharisees' using 7Cpoprj0ets against the k i n g ( 1 7 : 4 3 ) : A s a reward for her kindness they predicted—for [the Pharisees] had been credited with knowing the future through divine manifestations (xcpoyvcoatv
8 7
On the suggestion that the mention of this fine contradicts Ant. 15:370, see the source-critical discussion below.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II
273
8e !7ce7u<jreuvTO l7i:i9otT7J<jei TOU Oeou)—that a cessation o f H e r o d ' s rule, his and his family's after him, had been decreed by G o d and that the kingdom would devolve on her and Pheroras and on any children they might have.
N o w d e c l i n i n g an o a t h o f allegiance to H e r o d ' s p o l i c i e s w a s o n e thing. If the r e a d e r k n o w s a n y t h i n g a b o u t H e r o d f r o m War 1 a n d f r o m Ant. 1517, h o w e v e r , it is that h e w a s o b s e s s e d w i t h his o w n p o w e r a n d w o u l d n o t tolerate a n y o p p o s i t i o n , w h e t h e r real o r i m a g i n e d .
8 8
H e was even
p r e p a r e d to e x e c u t e his o w n sons o n the s u s p i c i o n that they w e r e c o n s p i r i n g against h i m .
8 9
Particularly in the last years o f his life, in w h i c h o u r
passage falls, the k i n g w a s beset b y all sorts o f m o r b i d f e a r s .
90
His
r e s p o n s e to the P h a r i s e e s ' p r e d i c t i o n , therefore, is perfectly in character. W h e n h e learns o f their actions f r o m his sister S a l o m e , w h o also tells h i m that the Pharisees h a v e c o r r u p t e d o r p e r v e r t e d (Btoc^Oetpto) s o m e p e o p l e in his c o u r t , " t h e k i n g p u t to death (avoctpet) the c h i e f culprits a m o n g the P h a r i s e e s " (TCOV Oocptaocttov TOU? atTitoTOCTOUc Ttvoc?) ( 1 7 : 4 4 ) . A m o n g those
" c o r r u p t e d " m e m b e r s o f the c o u r t w h o w e r e killed a l o n g with the guilty Pharisees
were:
a
eunuch
named
Bagoas,
a
certain
Karos,
9 1
and
e v e r y o n e in the k i n g ' s h o u s e h o l d (TOU otxetou) w h o s u p p o r t e d " w h a t the Pharisee s a i d " ( o t ? 6 Oocptaato? eXeyev)—a c u r i o u s p h r a s e to w h i c h w e shall r e t u r n . Josephus
92
n o w explains w h a t
happened
in the case o f B a g o a s
the
e u n u c h a n d this p r o v i d e s his s e c o n d e x a m p l e o f a Pharisaic 7tpoprj07J<; that injured the k i n g : N o w Bagoas had been taken in by them (rjpTO 8e 6 Paycoa? UTC' OCUTCOV), being led to believe that he would be n a m e d father and benefactor of the one who should be on high with the title of king (TOU £7cixaT<X(JTa07)aopevou 7cpopprjaet paatXeco?); for everything would be in the hands of that one (XOCTOC x t p Y<*P exetvto TOCrcavT'etvat), and he would grant Bagoas potency for marriage and for the production of his own children. (Ant. 17:45) £
The
a
future passive participle (emxocTaaTa07]<j6pevos), i n d i c a t i n g that an
o m n i p o t e n t k i n g w o u l d " b e a p p o i n t e d a b o v e " ( b y G o d ? ) , suggests a m e s s i a n i c figure. M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n p o i n t o u t that Isaiah 5 6 : 3 - 5 s e e m s to offer an e s c h a t o l o g i c a l h o p e for e u n u c h s .
9 3
Regardless o f h o w
o n e interprets the r o y a l figure, h o w e v e r , the p o i n t o f the passage is that
8 8
E.g., Ant. 15:173-178, 247-252, 262-266, 280-289, 365-369; 16:235ff. Ant. 16:320, 392ff. Cf. Ant. 16:241, 244. This Karos appears to have been an object of the King's pederasty (cf. 7coct8ixoc 6Vca auxoO, 17:44). See the source-critical discussion below. L C L edn. VIII, 393 n.b. 8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
274
CHAPTER ELEVEN
this Pharisaic p r e d i c t i o n i m p l i e d a d i s r u p t i o n o f H e r o d ' s rule within the lifetime o f B a g o a s . T h e infuriated k i n g d i d a w a y with B a g o a s , w h o h a d set his h o p e s o n such a n o u t c o m e . J o s e p h u s m a k e s it clear that the Pharisees' p r e d i c t i o n s i n this case were mere
flattery
a n d n o n s e n s e . B a g o a s dies i m m e d i a t e l y , childless,
a n d P h e r o r a s follows s o o n after ( 1 7 : 5 8 f . , 6 1 ) . C o n t r a r y t o the Pharisees' p r o p h e c i e s , H e r o d rules until his death, at w h i c h p o i n t the k i n g d o m passes t o his sons ( 1 7 : 1 8 9 - 1 9 2 ) . J o s e p h u s , w h o c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f adept in the art o f p r e d i c t i o n , h a s r e m a r k e d earlier i n Ant.: Nor should we think the things which are said to flatter us (TOC 7cp6s rjSovrjv) or please us more worthy of belief than the truth, but should realize that nothing is more beneficial than prophecy and the foreknowledge which it gives (OTI rcpo9rjTeia? xat TTJ? Stoc TCOV TOIOUTCOV rcpoyvcoaeco? ouSev iart aup-
^opcoTepov), for in this way God enables us to know what to guard against. (Ant. 8:418; Thackeray/Marcus) In Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 , h e is p r e s e n t i n g the Pharisees as false p r o p h e t s , as those w h o sent o u t t o m a k e
flattering
p r e d i c t i o n s in p l a c e o f the truth.
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s c a n b e critical o f H e r o d i n Ant., h e is also q u i c k t o p o i n t o u t the m a n y injustices that the k i n g faced. I n o u r passage h e p o r trays the Pharisaic seers as m a j o r players i n the perpetration o f those in justices. A l l i e d with the k i n g ' s e n e m i e s , they a b u s e d p r o p h e c y in a scandalous w a y , t o flatter their friends ( i n r e w a r d for financial s u p p o r t ) a n d t o injure the k i n g . I n War 1:110-114 w e saw that J o s e p h u s takes issue with the Pharisees' reputation for ( o r profession o f ) dxptfJeta a n d euaefkia. A s a priest, a n of ficial g u a r d i a n o f the n a t i o n ' s euaepeta a n d axptfieta, h e has a personal in terest i n these c o n c e p t s . H i s p r o c e d u r e in that passage w a s t o state the Pharisees' reputation a n d then t o attack it with e x a m p l e s o f their i m p i o u s b e h a v i o u r . Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 has a similar effect, t h o u g h n o w i n the c o n t e x t o f p r o p h e c y . J o s e p h u s v i e w s h i m s e l f n o t o n l y as a priest b u t also as a n heir o f the p r o p h e t s . H e reflects m u c h o n the t h e m e o f p r o p h e c y a n d considers h i m s e l f b o t h a n able seer a n d a qualified critic o f other seers. I n c o n n e c t i o n with their p r e t e n c e t o e£ocxpt(3coatc;, h e n o w tells u s , the Pharisees w e r e also b e l i e v e d t o h a v e f o r e k n o w l e d g e . I n o u r passage, h o w e v e r , h e gives e x a m p l e s o f the Pharisees' p r e d i c t i o n s in o r d e r t o s h o w that their
reputation
f o r 7cpoyvcoatc;,
like their
reputation f o r
axptfkia, is i l l - f o u n d e d .
V . Source Analysis N o other Pharisee passage in J o s e p h u s ' s writings has b e e n as confidently a n d universally attributed t o s o m e other author as Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 . R i v k i n
275
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II
is so sure o f its n o n - J o s e p h a n o r i g i n that h e o m i t s it altogether f r o m his otherwise
complete
survey
o f Josephus's
Pharisee
passages.
scholarly c o n s e n s u s is so s t r o n g that A . I. B a u m g a r t e n
94
The
c a n cite Ant.
17:41 as independent e v i d e n c e (that is, in a d d i t i o n t o J o s e p h u s ' s testimony!)
that
the
Pharisees
considered
themselves
the
own
party
of
95
<xxpt(kt<x. O u r final task in this chapter is to e x a m i n e the basis o n w h i c h the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w rests. B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g , w e m a y n o t e that the identity o f the " r e a l " a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is n o t a g r e e d u p o n b y those w h o d e n y J o s e p h a n a u t h o r ship. N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s is the f a v o u r e d c a n d i d a t e chiefly b e c a u s e h e w a s H e r o d ' s c o u r t historian Herod's court. from
a
9 7
a n d the r e p o r t e d incidents t o o k p l a c e in
H o l s c h e r , h o w e v e r , p r o p o s e d that the passage c a m e
biography
Ashkelon. o f Ant.
9 6
of
Herod,
perhaps
written
by
Ptolemaeus
of
R i v k i n s e e m s to b e l i e v e that a H e b r e w a c c o u n t w a s the basis
1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 a n d that a misrepresentation
resulted in o u r ( a l l e g e d ) present d i f f i c u l t i e s .
98
o f D^tfTID as Oocptaoctot
O n the q u e s t i o n o f the real
a u t h o r , w e are o b v i o u s l y in the r e a l m o f s p e c u l a t i o n . W h a t all o f these scholars agree o n is that, w h o e v e r w r o t e Ant.
1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 , it w a s
not
J o s e p h u s . It is the criteria for this j u d g e m e n t that m u s t c o n c e r n u s .
A . Arguments Against Josephan Authorship of Ant. A t least ten reasons for d e n y i n g J o s e p h a n
17:41-45
authorship have been pro
p o s e d in the scholarly literature. 1. T h e a u t h o r w a s o b v i o u s l y hostile t o w a r d the Pharisees a n d c o u l d n o t , therefore,
have been Josephus.
c o u r s e , that J o s e p h u s
9 9
This objection presupposes, o f
h i m s e l f w a s partial t o w a r d the Pharisees.
But
J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees is the q u e s t i o n in o u r study; so far, w e h a v e seen n o reason to b e l i e v e that h e f a v o u r e d the g r o u p . 2 . S o m e critics p e r c e i v e a tension b e t w e e n Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 0 , in w h i c h the Pharisees are ( a l l e g e d l y ) e x c u s e d f r o m an o a t h o f allegiance, a n d 1 7 : 4 2 in w h i c h they are fined for their d i s o b e d i e n c e .
9 4
1 0 0
W e r e s p o n d : ( a ) that
Rivkin explains this omission in an end-note, Revolution, 321-324; we shall consider his reasons presently. A . I . Baumgarten, "Name", 415f. H . Bloch, Quellen, 169; Destinon, Quelllen, 120; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 160; A . I. Baumgarten, "Name", 414f. Holscher, "Josephus", 1977, 1979, 1981. Revolution, 324. Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 187; Holscher, "Josephus", 1974 n.** (the author is "sicher ein Nichtjude"). Holscher, "Josephus", 1974 n.**; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 160; Rivkin, Revolution, 323. 9 5
9 6
9 7
9 8
9 9
1 0 0
CHAPTER ELEVEN
276
the narrative i m p l i e s that these w e r e t w o different o a t h s , separated b y fifteen years o r s o
1 0 1
a n d ( b ) that e v e n if the s a m e o a t h w e r e b e i n g des
c r i b e d , Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 0 says o n l y that the Pharisees w e r e n o t p u n i s h e d in the s a m e w a y as the others w h o refused (opottoc; TOI$ apvrjaocpevott;), that is, with death. T h i s d o e s n o t e x c l u d e the possibility o f a fine. 3. T h a t the a u t h o r o f o u r passage d e s c r i b e s the Pharisees as if for the first t i m e — x a l fjv yap poptov Tt 'Iou&aixtov dv0pa>7ccov . . .—has led s o m e to a r g u e that the passage is lifted directly f r o m a s o u r c e that first m e n tions the Pharisees h e r e .
1 0 2
B u t it is n o t u n c o m m o n for J o s e p h u s t o intro
d u c e p r e v i o u s l y discussed t o p i c s , s u c h as the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , as if h e h a d n e v e r m e n t i o n e d t h e m . War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 offered a c o m p l e t e l y n e w p o r trayal o f the Pharisees, with n o i n d i c a t i o n that they h a d b e e n m e n t i o n e d b e f o r e ( b u t cf. War 1 : 1 1 0 - 1 1 4 ) ; so d o e s Life 1 9 1 , a l t h o u g h it c o m e s in an a p p e n d i x to Ant., w h i c h often discusses the Pharisees. E v e n Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 173, 297f. a n d 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 , a l t h o u g h they a c k n o w l e d g e earlier treatments, p r o c e e d as if these d i d n o t exist. 4.
The
use
o f the
third
p e r s o n — p o p t o v xt 'IouSatxcov avOptorctov
( 1 7 : 4 1 ) — a c c o r d i n g t o S c h w a r t z , " s o u n d s strange for J o s e p h u s " . thinks
the
e x p r e s s i o n m o r e suited t o a G e n t i l e a u t h o r
1 0 3
He
(Nicolaus).
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s c a n use the first p e r s o n (rjpets) w h e n s p e a k i n g o f the J e w s , h o w e v e r , h e often uses the third p e r s o n , as in " t h e J e w s " " t h e J e w i s h l a w s " , in w h a t is u n q u e s t i o n a b l y his o w n w r i t i n g . e v e n speaks o f h i m s e l f in the third p e r s o n !
1 0 6
1 0 4
1 0 5
or He
S o the force o f this o b j e c
tion is n o t at all clear.
1 0 1
The first oath took place in about 20 BC (Herod's seventeenth year), according to 15:354 and 365 (xoxe). The later oath took place after the execution of Herod's two sons (7 BC). The whole story of the Pharisees' fine and its payment by Pheroras's wife is firmly connected to the emergence of the female cabal (rj yuvocixcoviTis, 17:41) under Antipater, which only occurred in the final years of Herod's life (17:32ff) when he had lost control of affairs. The parallel in War (l:567ff.) makes this absolutely clear. Schwartz's claim that Ant. 17:42 is "simply recalling the earlier event" ("Josephus and Nicolaus", 160 n. 12) seems to me to ignore all of the narrative indications. M y position evidently agrees with those of A . Schalit and I. L. Levine (published in Hebrew); cf. Schwartz, loc cit. Holscher, "Josephus", 1974 n.**; Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 182, I. Levy, Pythagore, 236f., 244f. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 159. A glance at Schalit, Supplementband to the Rengstorf Concordance, s. v., shows that the third person "Jew" occurs thousands of times in Josephus. It is spread evenly through out every book except Ant. 1-11, which comprises the biblical paraphrase. In those books, the third person 'Eppatxo? is correspondingly frequent. Cf., e.g., War 1:1, 7, 17, 60; 2:119, 166; 5:51, 99; Ant. 1:6; Life 416, 424; Ag.Ap 1:42. Cf. Schalit, Supplementband, s.v. \ e.g., Ant. 13:243, 397; 16:158, 18:55, 81; 20:34, 41. E.g., War 2:568, 569, 575, 585, 590, et passim. 1 0 2
1 0 3
1 0 4
1 0 5
1 0 6
277
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II
5. T h e Pharisees' o p p o s i t i o n to H e r o d is d e s c r i b e d in t e r m s (rcoXepetv, PXdbruetv, 1 7 : 4 1 ) that recall earlier a c c o u n t s o f their o p p o s i t i o n to J o h n H y r c a n u s (rcoXepo?, War 1:67) a n d to other rulers (PXac|>oci, Ant.
13:401).
S i n c e S c h w a r t z attributes the earlier narratives to N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , h e d o e s the s a m e with Ant.
17:41-45.
1 0 7
O u r analysis o f the earlier
passages c o n c l u d e d , h o w e v e r , that they c a m e f r o m J o s e p h u s
himself:
therefore the verbal parallels speak in f a v o u r of, rather than against, J o s e p h a n a u t h o r s h i p o f Ant.
17:41.
1 0 8
A n o t h e r five criteria are p r o p o s e d b y R i v k i n a l o n e .
1 0 9
6. H e asks w h y J o s e p h u s w o u l d use the t e r m poptov instead o f his usual ocipeaic to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees. W e n o t e : although octpeats appears m o s t often, J o s e p h u s c a n also call the Pharisees a ouvxorfpoc, a x a y p a , o r a 9iXoao9ioc.
110
W h y n o t poptov?
7. R i v k i n r e m a r k s that the Pharisees o f o u r passage: are described as laying claim to being exact observers of the country's laws, and not expounders [sic] or interpreters o f the laws. This is in contrast with Josephus's reiterations that the Pharisees were the most accurate ex pounders o f the laws. R i v k i n seems to b e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the a b s e n c e o f a v e r b like l ^ y e o p a t o r &9rrYeopai (cf. War 1:110; 2 : 1 6 2 ) . W e n o t e , h o w e v e r , that the descrip tion o f the Pharisees in Life 1 9 1 , w h i c h is clearly J o s e p h u s ' s o w n , also lacks
such
a verb.
Pharisees were the
1 1 1
Further, J o s e p h u s
most
accurate
nowhere
expounders",
claims that
but
o n l y that
"the they
s e e m e d , professed, o r w e r e r e p u t e d to b e (Boxouatv) such. T h e difference is m o n u m e n t a l . O u r passage fits squarely with his o r d i n a r y u s a g e . 8. R i v k i n avers that: among the characteristics of these pharisaoi [sic] are their influence with women and their foreknowledge o f things to come. The Pharisees elsewhere in Josephus do not share these characteristics. 112
W e r e s p o n d , first, that the passage says n o t h i n g a b o u t the
Pharisees'
" i n f l u e n c e with w o m e n " as a general trait; it claims o n l y that they c o n trolled the f o u r - w o m a n cabal (r\ yuvocixcovtris) that was plotting against H e r o d . M o r e o v e r , in Ant. 14:174f. a n d 15:3f., J o s e p h u s does c l a i m that certain Pharisees p r e d i c t e d the future.
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 0 9
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 2
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 160. See chapters 9 and 10. Revolution, 323. auvTorfpa, War 1:110; Taypoc, War 2:164; ^tXoao^ta, Ant. 18:11. Thus: oi icepi tot Tcaxpta voptpa Soxouatv x
278
CHAPTER ELEVEN
9. A c c o r d i n g to R i v k i n , the Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n t o H e r o d in Ant. 17:41-45 " c o n t r a s t s sharply with P o l l i o n [sic.] a n d S a m a i a s ' positive relationship with H e r o d " . W e r e s p o n d : if these t w o Pharisees h a d a " p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p " with H e r o d , it w a s entirely the k i n g ' s d o i n g , as J o s e p h u s presents the matter. F o r P o l l i o n a n d S a m a i a s o p p o s e d H e r o d f r o m the start; they r e g a r d e d h i m as a serious offender against J e w i s h law (Ant. 1 4 : 1 7 2 - 1 7 4 ) . S a m a i a s accepts H e r o d ' s rule o n l y as a.punishment f r o m G o d ( 1 4 : 1 7 6 ) . It w a s H e r o d , w e are told, w h o respected P o l l i o n a n d S a m a i a s , n o t they w h o respected H e r o d ( 1 5 : 3 ) . 10. Finally, R i v k i n thinks it significant that the Pharisees o f Ant. 17:41-45 " a r e n o t j u x t a p o s e d to the S a d d u c e e s o r E s s e n e s " . W e s i m p l y n o t e that the s a m e is true o f the discussions o f the Pharisees at War 1:110-114; Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; a n d Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 .
1 1 3
B . Considerations that Favour Josephan Authorship T h e f o r e g o i n g study has a t t e m p t e d to interpret Ant. 17:41 in the c o n t e x t o f b o t h the s u r r o u n d i n g narrative a n d J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t in general. T h a t it was possible to d o this ( i f the effort w a s successful) indicates that J o s e p h u s has m a d e the passage his o w n . It will b e helpful here t o spell out those results o f the study that h a v e direct significance for the sourcecritical q u e s t i o n . 1. T h e o p e n i n g characterization o f the Pharisees as a g r o u p p r i d i n g itself o n ei|ocxptPa>ais 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 ev8t8ovTe
1. K e y T e r m s ( a ) T h e m a i n v e r b , eijeuTeXt&o, o c c u r s o n l y here a n d at Ant. 6 : 8 , in a reflective c o m m e n t b y J o s e p h u s . A l t h o u g h the w o r d is n o t characteristic of
his v o c a b u l a r y , therefore,
"restrict",
he
is able to use
it.
The
Pharisees
" r e s t r a i n " , o r " s i m p l i f y " ( F e l d m a n ) their style o f living.
( b ) AtoctTOc appears s o m e 72 times in o u r a u t h o r ' s writings, with a range o f meanings from " p l a c e o f a b o d e " , "necessaries o f l i f e " ,
or
" d a i l y r o u t i n e " , to s i m p l y " m a n n e r o f l i f e " . H e has u s e d the w o r d several times p r e v i o u s l y o f the Essene lifestyle.
31
W h e n u s e d o f these
g r o u p s a n d o f the J e w s as a n a t i o n , vis-a-vis the p a g a n w o r l d ,
3 2
8ioctT<x has
the sense o f a special, peculiar, o r perhaps " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " w a y o f life.
3 0
3 1
3 2
Niese, HZ, 223f. J4^r 2:137, 138, 151, 155, 160; Ant. 15:371. E.g., Ant. 13:245, 258; Ag.Ap. 1:185.
288
CHAPTER TWELVE
(c) MocXocxos occurs 18 times throughout War and Ant., though never as the neuter substantive TO pocXocxcoTepov, "softness", "luxury", or "the more luxurious", as in our passage. G . C . Richards observes, " T h e neuter article with adj. or participle is an overdone idiom in (Ant.) X V I I XIX."
3 3
H e argues that this could not be the work of a native speaker
of Greek (or of Thackeray's Greek assistant) and that it doubtless comes from Josephus. (d) 'EvSiScopi occurs about 62 times in Josephus, most frequently in the final books of War, with the meaning "surrender". In our passage, the sense is either that the Pharisees are not "inclined toward" luxury or that they do not "yield" to its lure.
2. Interpretation The meaning of Josephus's opening statement on the Pharisees is more or less clear: "their lifestyle is one of restraint (or "they disparage the accoutrements of life"); they do not yield at all to the softer side." T h e second clause merely restates and emphasizes the first. This is the only element of Ant. 18:12-15, as we shall see, that is entirely new; Josephus has never before mentioned the austerity of the Pharisees. His assertion is paralleled, however, in a rabbinic tradition that contrasts the Sad ducees' enjoyment of silver and gold vessels with the Pharisees' rejection of such in anticipation of the world to c o m e .
34
B. The Pharisaic Tradition 12b.
tov T e 6 Xoyos xptva?rcapeStoxevayaOtov tnovrai TTJ rjyepovta 7cepipaxnTov ^youfievot TTJV qwXaxrjv tov
urcayopeuetv TjOeXrjaev. 12c.
Ttpffc ye T0t$ TjXtxta rcporjxooaiv
7uapaxoopou(jtv ou8' e 7 r ' avTiXeijei TCOV etarpprjOevTcov
0paaet i7taip6[xevot. The next two statements, which seem to be linked in sense, have the same form as 12a: they comprise a main clause with a main verb (pres. ind. 3p. pi.), followed by a subordinate clause with a plural present par ticiple. In each case, the subordinate clause reiterates the point of the main clause. 3 3
Richards, "Composition", 37.
3 4
Avot de Rabbi Natan 5.
289
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
1. K e y T e r m s (a) A6yo$ o c c u r s a b o u t 5 8 8 times in J o s e p h u s ' s writings, usually in the o r d i n a r y sense o f " w o r d " o r " u t t e r a n c e " . Its m e a n i n g h e r e , h o w e v e r , is fixed b y its o c c u r r e n c e also in the following descriptions o f the S a d d u c e e s ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) a n d Essenes ( 1 8 : 1 8 ) . own
3 5
E a c h o f the three schools has its
Xoyoq. T h i s is a b a s i c structural c o m p o n e n t o f the passage a n d m u s t
refer to the " t e a c h i n g " o r " d o c t r i n e " o f e a c h g r o u p . W h i s t o n ' s transla tion " r e a s o n " , w h i c h w a s c o n g e n i a l to those like L a u t e r b a c h , w h o saw the Pharisees as an e m i n e n t l y " r e a s o n a b l e " o r p r o g r e s s i v e g r o u p ,
3 6
is
e x c l u d e d b y this contextual fact. ( L a u t e r b a c h ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees is, o f c o u r s e , still possible if otherwise d e m o n s t r a b l e . ) ( b ) W i t h the v e r b 7capa8t8copt w e m e e t the first clear r e m i n i s c e n c e o f an earlier portrait o f the Pharisees. In Ant. 13:297f., n a m e l y , J o s e p h u s has told us a b o u t special Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s " h a n d e d d o w n f r o m a succession o f f a t h e r s " .
A l t h o u g h there is n o m e n t i o n here o f either
voptpa o r the StaSoxrj, the use o f rcapaStScopt with respect to the Pharisaic teachings c a n hardly b e c o i n c i d e n t a l . If rcapaStScopt h a d n o special m e a n i n g h e r e , if it d i d n o t designate a b o d y o f extra-biblical tradition as in 1 3 : 2 9 7 , then all the v e r b i a g e o f § 12b
w o u l d tell us n o t h i n g m o r e than the self-evident fact that
"the
Pharisees follow their ( o w n ) t e a c h i n g s " . T h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s use the w o r d deliberately, h o w e v e r , is s h o w n first o f all b y § 1 2 c , w h i c h will c l a i m that the Pharisees d o not c o n t r a d i c t " w h a t was i n t r o d u c e d (TCOV etarjyrjOevTcov)" a n d that they defer to those " p r e c e d i n g t h e m in age (TOT<; rjXtxta
rcporjxouatv)".
T h e s e phrases,
t h o u g h admittedly
periphrastic,
s e e m to p o i n t to a special Pharisaic tradition, introduced in a d d i t i o n to the laws. T h i s r e a d i n g is c o n f i r m e d b y the f o l l o w i n g description o f the Sad d u c e e s ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) , w h o are " o n g u a r d that there b e n o 'additional c l a i m ' w h a t s o e v e r , outside the laws (9oXaxfj 8e ouSapcos TIVCOV peTa7coiT)at$ auToT^ rj TCOV v o p c o v ) " . T h e c o n t e x t thus c o n f i r m s that J o s e p h u s uses rcapaStScopt deliberately, as s o m e t h i n g o f a technical term, to e v o k e the special Pharisaic tradition h a n d e d d o w n f r o m the fathers (cf. Ant.
13:297f.).
( c ) T h e m a i n v e r b , e7copat, is c o m m o n in J o s e p h u s ; m o s t o f its 125 o c c u r r e n c e s h a v e the literal sense " t o f o l l o w " . Nevertheless, J o s e p h u s c a n use it figuratively, to speak o f following G o d , o r the laws, o r virtue; in an earlier passage he s p o k e o f the S a d d u c e e s ' (lack o f ) f o l l o w i n g (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 8 ) . T h e peculiar c o n s t r u c t i o n here,
3 5
So Feldman, L C L edn. I X , lOf. n. c,
3 6
Lauterbach, HUCA,
" t h e y follow the
following Thackeray.
99f.; cf. G. F. Moore, "Fate", 374.
authority
CHAPTER TWELVE
290
(eicovTOtt xfj rryepovioc)" o f w h a t
has
b e e n transmitted,
is u n i q u e
in
Josephus. (d)
T h e s u b o r d i n a t e clause is built o n the o d d phrase rceptpdtxfjTOv
yjyoupevot, w h i c h s e e m s to m e a n s o m e t h i n g like " t h e y c o n s i d e r w o r t h fighting f o r "
3 7
o r , m o r e m i l d l y , " t h e y take v e r y s e r i o u s l y " . T h i s phrase
fits with the a w k w a r d style o f Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 . I n 1 8 : 2 8 0 , P e t r o n i u s is declar ing his s u p p o r t for the J e w s ' refusal to a c c e p t a statue o f G a i u s C a l i g u l a in the T e m p l e . H e agrees that they are o n l y a c t i n g in a c c o r d w i t h the standards o f their l a w , " w h i c h , b e i n g y o u r heritage, y o u r e g a r d as w o r t h d e f e n d i n g (iceptpaxTTtov ^ryetaOe)". T h e s p e e c h is d o u b t l e s s a J o s e p h a n creation.
38
T h e s a m e phrase is u s e d o f the Essenes, w h o 7ceptp<xxT)T0v
yjyoupevoi TOO Stxoctou TOV icpoaoSov ( 1 8 : 1 8 ) . In these cases, as w i t h the Pharisees, the phrase is u s e d o f the central, n o n - n e g o t i a b l e tenet o f the group. (e) W h a t the Pharisees r e g a r d so h i g h l y is " t h e o b s e r v a n c e [ o r " p r o t e c t i o n " ] o f those things that it [their Xoyoc;] w i s h e d to p r o p a g a t e (TTJV
I f tov urcayopeuetv rjOeXrjaev is here
e q u i v a l e n t to cov 6 Xoyo? xptvocs rcocpeScoxev dyaOcov in the m a i n clause, as seems likely f r o m the structure, then the t w o clauses stand in s y n o n y m o u s parallelism. The of
n o u n q>oXocxrj is interesting b e c a u s e it t o u c h e s o n a m a j o r t h e m e
Ant.,
that those w h o observe the
euSocipovtoc.
39
d i v i n e laws are
rewarded
with
T h r o u g h o u t Ant., J o s e p h u s frequently speaks o f 7} qwXocxr)
TCOV (7C<XTpicov) vopcov
40
as a J e w i s h virtue. N o t i c e , h o w e v e r that in o u r
passage the Pharisaic Schwerpunkt is n o t the o b s e r v a n c e o f TCOV vopcov in general b u t rather " o f things that their X6yo<; d e e m e d g o o d a n d transmit ted (icocpeScoxev)", o r " w h a t their Xoyo? saw fit (rjOeXrjaev) to d i c t a t e " . In this r e g a r d , the Pharisees are explicitly contrasted to the S a d d u c e e s , w h o maintain
a guard
(^uXocxfj)
against
such c l a i m s ( o r p e r h a p s
"after-
c r e a t i o n s " , peT<xrcot7)ai<;) apart f r o m the laws (rj TCOV vopcov). A s in Ant. 13:297f.,
therefore,
it is the
S a d d u c e e s ' p o s i t i o n that a c c o r d s w i t h
J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the l a w s . T h e Pharisees p r o c l a i m a n d d e f e n d an a d d i tional, extra-biblical b o d y o f t e a c h i n g s . (f) T h e v e r b U7cayopeuco o c c u r s 13 times in J o s e p h u s a n d has the sense, " d i c t a t e " , " a d v i s e " , o r " p r e s c r i b e " . T h r e e times h e uses the phrase
3 7
The word occurs in Thucydides (7.84.5) with this literal sense. As is well known, speeches were commonly used by hellenistic historians to carry their own themes. The view expressed by Petronius, which is absent from War, accords well with Josephus's consistent emphasis on adherence to the 7cocxpiov. Cf. Ant. 1:14, 20 and chapter 7, above. *° E.g., Ant. 4:306, 309; 8:21, 191, 195, 290; 9:157; 11:152; 14:165; 17:152; 18:59, 84, 267; cf. Ag.Ap. 1:212. 3 8
3 9
THE
291
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
u7rayopeue TO 7ca0O£ to indicate that s o m e o n e acted as " e m o t i o n d i c tated".
4 1
F o u r times h e speaks o f w h a t G o d o r " t h e D e i t y " has dictated,
n a m e l y the l a w s .
4 2
I n o u r p a s s a g e , the Pharisees are said to p l a c e the
greatest e m p h a s i s u p o n w h a t their \6yo$ c h o s e t o p r e s c r i b e for t h e m . ( g ) W h o are ot TjXtxtoc icporjxovres, to w h o m the Pharisees defer o u t o f h o n o u r o r e s t e e m (Ttpffc)?
T h e phrase d o e s n o t o c c u r elsewhere
in
J o s e p h u s ; the v e r b a p p e a r s o n l y at War 3 : 1 8 4 , w h e r e it m e a n s t o " r e a c h b e f o r e - h a n d " , a n d at Ant. 3 : 2 2 6 , w h e r e it m e a n s t o " b e o l d e r " . B u t w e h a v e three m a j o r clues a b o u t the m e a n i n g o f the p h r a s e in o u r c o n t e x t . First, it a p p e a r s that these elders are s o m e h o w c o n n e c t e d w i t h TCOV etarpprjOevTcov. T h i s is suggested b y the e q u i v a l e n t v e r b a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s Tipfjs rcocpocxcopouatv ( o f the elders) a n d ou8' in* avrtX£i|et Opdaet ircatpopevot ( o f the things i n t r o d u c e d ) . M o r e o v e r , the c o n j u n c t i o n ou8£ i m p l i e s a close c o n n e c t i o n . I infer, w i t h F e l d m a n ( L C L e d n . ) , that ot ^Xtxfoc rcporjxovres are the o n e s r e s p o n s i b l e for TCOV e{o7jyr|9evTcov. S e c o n d , all three o f the earlier references to the Pharisaic tradition in Ant. i n c l u d e s o m e reference to the " f a t h e r s " (TCOV 7tocT£pcov o r
43
rcaTpcoo$).
T h e s e are the o n e s w h o h a v e g e n e r a t e d a n d transmitted the voptpa that the Pharisees p r i z e so h i g h l y . It w o u l d b e easy to a s s u m e that ot rjXixtot rcpoTJxovTes in o u r passage is a c r a b b e d reference to these Pharisaic fathers. It m a y b e w o r t h n o t i n g also that the d e s i g n a t i o n s e e m s t o i n c l u d e the Pharisees' present elders. T h i s is suggested b y ( a ) the present participle a n d ( b ) the contrast with the S a d d u c e e s , w h o " r e c k o n it a virtue to c o n tradict the teachers o f w i s d o m " ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) . W e n o t e that the " f a t h e r s " o f M i s h n a h A v o t i n c l u d e c o n t e m p o r a r y teachers; e v e n the s o n o f R a b b i J u d a h is m e n t i o n e d ( A v o t 2 : 2 ) . (h) T h e Pharisees are n o t e m b o l d e n e d to c o n t r a d i c t TOC et
legislation.
44
A t Ant. 3 : 2 6 6 , it is e q u i v a l e n t to vopo6eT£co. T h e w o r d
is also u s e d o f A h a b ' s " i n t r o d u c t i o n " o f n e w g o d s (Ant. 9 : 1 3 5 ) a n d o f a new
p r o p o s a l for a special d a y o f p u b l i c fasting (Life 2 9 0 ) .
4 5
Twice, how
e v e r , the v e r b a p p e a r s to m e a n o n l y " i n s t r u c t " o r " c o u n s e l " .
4 6
D o the
Pharisees, t h e n , o b s e r v e " t h e things c o u n s e l e d " b y the elders o r things i n t r o d u c e d " b y t h e m ? T h e n u a n c e is i m p o r t a n t .
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
War 1:277, 544; Ant. 8:325. Ant. 3:84; 4:121, 183, 193. Ant. 13:297 (twice), 401. Ant. 3:266; 14:152, 256, 259, 262. Cf. also Ant. 18:332, "to produce" or "bring forth". Ant. 4:186; Ag.Ap. 1:261.
"the
292
CHAPTER TWELVE
The
c o n t e x t places s o m e
emphasis
on
the
novelty o f
Pharisaic
t e a c h i n g . T h e y b e l i e v e w h a t their \6yo<; has d e e m e d g o o d a n d h a n d e d d o w n , o r w h a t it c h o s e to dictate. B y contrast, the S a d d u c e e s ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) o b s e r v e o n l y the laws a n d g u a r d against a n y p£T<X7C0i7jats—"pretence" o r perhaps "additional c l a i m " .
4 7
T h e c o n t e x t w o u l d a p p e a r to justify the
translation o f TOC et<JT)YT)OevT<x as " t h e things that w e r e i n t r o d u c e d " . I n further s u p p o r t o f this translation, w e m a y n o t e that in all o f the earlier d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisaic tradition, it w a s said to b e e m b o d i e d in certain special voptpa. I f o n e l o o k s for an e q u i v a l e n t in o u r p a s s a g e , one
m u s t w o n d e r w h e t h e r TOC etarjyrjGevTa a n d peTa7cotrjot? are n o t m e r e l y
periphrastic for TOC voptpa arcep oux avayeypaTCTat ev TO!? Mtouaeo? vopot?. S u c h e x t r e m e periphrasis is characteristic o f Ant.
17-19.
(i) Finally, avTtXe£t£ o c c u r s o n l y 3 times in J o s e p h u s a n d o n l y in Ant. 17-19. B o t h o f the o t h e r passages ( 1 7 : 1 2 6 ; 1 8 : 2 8 6 ) speak o f the strength (taxu$) r e q u i r e d to c o n t r a d i c t s o m e o n e ; they a p p e a r t o c o m e f r o m the s a m e a u t h o r . M o r e o v e r , 1 7 : 1 2 6 shares w i t h o u r passage the c o n s t r u c t i o n in avTtXeJjet, w h i c h a g a i n p o i n t s to a c o m m o n a u t h o r . O n c e again w e see that Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 is stylistically at h o m e in Ant.
2. For
17-19.
Interpretation
the sentences § 1 2 b a n d § 12c J o s e p h u s c o n t i n u e s the structure that
he e m p l o y e d for 12a; the m a i n clause ( w i t h a finite v e r b ) expresses the central p o i n t , w h i c h is then restated in a s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e . T h e follow ing 12b.
" a m p l i f i e d " translation
results:
[ T h e Pharisees] follow [ o r s u b m i t t o ] the authority o f those things that their teaching d e e m e d g o o d and handed d o w n ; T h e y r e g a r d as i n d i s p e n s a b l e the o b s e r v a n c e [or p r o t e c t i o n ] o f those things that it saw
12c.
fit to dictate.
O u t o f h o n o u r they yield to those w h o g o b e f o r e t h e m in a g e , Nor
are they i n c l i n e d b o l d l y to c o n t r a d i c t
the things that w e r e i n t r o d u c e d . All o f this seems to b e little m o r e than a v e r b o s e repetition o f the crisp n o t i c e in Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 : " t h e Pharisees passed o n (rcapeSoaav) to the p e o p l e
The noun [A£T<X7COi7)ai£ occurs only twice outside our passage. In Ant. 3:58 it means "aspiration" and in 18:242 it means "claim". The verb peTowioioufAai at 18:20 and 278, as in Thucydides 1.140.1; 2.51.5, also means "to claim". 4 7
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
293
certain o r d i n a n c e s (voptpa) f r o m a succession o f fathers (£x rcaxepcov) w h i c h d o n o t stand written in the laws o f M o s e s " . I n o u r passage, evidently, § 12b describes the rcapaSoat?; § 12c refers t o the fathers as " t h o s e w h o p r e c e d e in a g e " a n d t o the n o n - M o s a i c voptpa, w h i c h " w e r e i n t r o d u c e d " . J u s t as the S a d d u c e e s w e r e earlier said to reject (Ix^dcXXet) these n o n - M o s a i c o r d i n a n c e s , w e n o w learn that this s c h o o l w a s o n its g u a r d against a n y such pexaTcotrjat? in a d d i t i o n to the laws ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) . W h a t is n e w in o u r passage is J o s e p h u s ' s emphasis o n the centrality o f the special tradition a m o n g the Pharisaic beliefs. In 1 3 : 2 9 8 , it is true, w e w e r e told that the Pharisaic voptpa w e r e the o b j e c t o f c o n t r o v e r s i e s (Cnxrjaets) a n d serious differences (Staqjopa? peyaXa?) b e t w e e n t h e m a n d the S a d d u c e e s . In 1 8 : 1 2 , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s restates the Pharisees' d e v o tion to their tradition in f o u r equivalent w a y s : they follow it as an authority (rryepovta); they c o n s i d e r it indispensable ( o r " w o r t h fighting f o r " ) ; they yield in h o n o u r to the bearers o f the tradition; a n d they d o n o t contradict it. J o s e p h u s seems to b e e m p h a s i z i n g that this special extra-biblical tradition is the c o r n e r s t o n e o f Pharisaic
understanding.
T h i s n e w emphasis m a r k s a certain d e v e l o p m e n t in J o s e p h u s ' s presen tation o f the Pharisees. In the earlier descriptions (War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ; Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ) h e c h o s e o n l y t o contrast their " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " v i e w s with those o f the other s c h o o l s . P e r h a p s he c o n s i d e r e d the dispute o v e r the voptpa u n r e p o r t a b l e t o a G r e c o - R o m a n readership. In 13:297f., h o w e v e r , h e w a s c o m p e l l e d to e x p l a i n the p r e c e d i n g narrative b y p o i n t i n g o u t that the Pharisees h a d a special tradition a n d that this w a s the r o o t o f m u c h conflict b e t w e e n t h e m a n d the S a d d u c e e s . N o w , in 1 8 : 1 2 , h e stresses the i m p o r t a n c e o f that tradition to the Pharisees a n d gives it first place a m o n g their tenets.
C . Fate and Free Will 13a.
rcpaaaeaGat
T£ etpappevr) TOC rcavTa ai-touvTe?
13b.
ou8e TOU avGpcorcetou TO (iouXopevov
13c.
Soxfjaav TCO Geco x p a a t v yev£aGat
TTJS ini
auTOts oppfj? d ^ a t p o u v T a t
xat TCO £xetv7)s PouXeunrjptco xat TCOV avGpcoTtcov TO (TCO) IGeXfjaav(Tt) 7cpoaxcopetv P S T ' dpeTfj? r\ xaxta?.
I n 18:13 J o s e p h u s a b a n d o n s the repetitive format o f § 12. T h e first two p r o p o s i t i o n s in this sentence are fairly clear statements o n fate a n d free will, b u t § 13c p o s e s f a m o u s difficulties.
CHAPTER TWELVE
294
1. K e y T e r m s ( a ) Etpocppevr) w a s discussed a b o v e , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 . ( b ) T h e c o m m o n v e r b aijtoco w a s u s e d in Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 3 in c o n n e c t i o n
with the S a d d u c e a n v i e w o f fate a n d free will. It i n t r o d u c e s the v i e w s o r postulates o f a n y particular s c h o o l . ( c ) T o av0ptO7re£ov, a n e u t e r substantive,
is o n e o f the
i d i o m s that R i c h a r d s finds in this section o f Ant. Josephus. 50
in Ant.
4 8
It o c c u r s 12 times in Ant. 1 7 - 1 9
4 9
"overdone"
a n d attributes to
a n d p e r h a p s 3 times earlier
Its o c c u r r e n c e h e r e , in the c o n t e x t o f fate a n d free will, recalls
earlier references to TOC dcv6pa>7ttvoc (7cporfp<XT<x) in discussions o f fate a n d free w i l l .
5 1
( d ) A c o n s p i c u o u s b a r b a r i s m in Ant. 17-19 is the use o f a n e u t e r par ticiple to g o v e r n a genitive substantive, w h i c h is w h a t w e h a v e in TOO dcvOpcorcetou TO (JouXopevov,
"the
w i l l i n g o f the
human
sphere"
( =
" h u m a n w i l l " ? ) . R i c h a r d s r e m a r k s , " H e r e J o s e p h u s s e e m s to g o astray in his desperate effort to i m p r o v e his s t y l e . "
5 2
( e ) T h e r e a d i n g in' auTOt? is g i v e n b y the E p i t o m e a n d is f o l l o w e d b y N i e s e a n d F e l d m a n ( L C L e d n . ) as the lectio difficilior. O u r p r o b l e m is to find the a n t e c e d e n t o f the p r o n o u n .
5 3
T h a c k e r a y c o n n e c t s it w i t h TOC
7WCVTOC, so that the h u m a n will is i n v o l v e d in e v e r y a c t i o n . scripts
have
apparently
attempted
to
r e m o v e the
5 4
Some manu
awkwardness
by
r e a d i n g owe' OCUTTJ?, w h e r e b y the h u m a n will itself b e c o m e s a f u n c t i o n o f etpoeppevrj.
55
Schlatter c o n j e c t u r e s dbc' OCUTOU, w h i c h w o u l d s i m p l y clarify
that the opprj springs f r o m h u m a n w i l l .
5 6
W e m a y n o t e that J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r t w o discussions o f the s c h o o l s o n fate a n d free will b o t h c o n t a i n phrases like inl TOI? dv0pco7cot? (War 2 : 1 6 3 ) a n d £9' TjpTv eocuTOt? (Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 2 f . ) for that w h i c h resides " i n human
power". T h i s raises the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r iiC OCUTOTS in o u r passage d o e s n o t refer b a c k to TO dvOpomeiov, taken as a collective n o u n , as F e l d m a n ' s translation
( L C L e d n . ) s u p p o s e s . T h e syntax is a w k w a r d
5 7
but
the
r e a d i n g has m a n u s c r i p t s u p p o r t ; m o r e o v e r , its a w k w a r d n e s s explains the
4 8
Richards, "Composition", 87. Ant. 17:60, 118, 150, 180, 309, 354, 18:13, 30, 128, 281, 19:41, 171. Ant. 4:229, 293, 16:99, plus several variants. Ant. 13:171, 173; 16:397. Richards, "Composition", 37. The phrase TO PouXopevov occurs with the meaning "will" or "purpose" in Thucydides 1.90.2. Cf. Schlatter, Theologie, 209f. n. 1. Thackeray, HTR, 93. I follow here Schlatter's explanation of the textual tradition, Theologie, 209f. n. 1. Ibid. Schlatter, loc. cit., suggests that the phrase should be £9' auTOi$ on this reading. 4 9
50
51
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
295
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
d e v e l o p m e n t arc' auTffc a n d it a c c o r d s with J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e in the o t h e r s c h o o l passages. T h u s : the Pharisees d o n o t d e p r i v e the h u m a n will o f the initiative (opprj) that rests in their ( i . e . h u m a n ) p o w e r . (f) T h e n o u n opprj, w h i c h o c c u r s s o m e 118 times in J o s e p h u s , is a b o u t s e v e n times m o r e frequent in War than in Ant.,
since it often refers t o
an " a t t a c k " o r " a s s a u l t " , o r t o the " e m o t i o n s " o f w a r . H e r e , h o w e v e r , the
word
must
mean
"initiative"
or
"impulse".
It
is
significant
b e c a u s e , as G . F. M o o r e p o i n t s o u t , it is e q u i v a l e n t to the L a t i n adpetitus, w h i c h a p p e a r s in C i c e r o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f C h r y s i p p u s ' s v i e w o f fate a n d free w i l l .
5 8
W e shall see that in this passage J o s e p h u s returns t o a
Chrysippean
model
to
d e s c r i b e the
Pharisaic
p o s i t i o n , as
in
War
2:162-166. ( g ) T h e L o e b e d i t i o n follows the m a n u s c r i p t s M W E in
rendering
xpaats in 1 8 : 1 2 : it pleased G o d that there s h o u l d b e a " f u s i o n " b e t w e e n fate a n d free will. T h i s w o r d a p p e a r s elsewhere in J o s e p h u s o n l y at War 5 : 2 1 2 a n d 7 : 2 9 8 ; in b o t h cases it has the m u n d a n e sense o f " m i x t u r e " o r " a l l o y " . N i e s e a n d Schlatter follow the m a n u s c r i p t A in o u r passage a n d r e a d xptat$. Schlatter thinks that the reference is t o the N e w Y e a r ' s d a y ( 1 . Tishri) judgement m e n t i o n e d in r a b b i n i c h a g g a d a h , at w h i c h t i m e G o d d e t e r m i n e s a p e r s o n ' s fate for the c o m i n g y e a r .
5 9
W e m a y note,
h o w e v e r , that at 1 6 : 3 9 8 J o s e p h u s uses the v e r b xptvetv o f the relationship b e t w e e n fate a n d free will. T h e m e a n i n g there w a s n o t " t o j u d g e " b u t " t o w e i g h " ; fate a n d free will are s i m p l y b a l a n c e d against e a c h o t h e r .
6 0
I f xptat£ w e r e the r e a d i n g in 1 8 : 1 3 , this sense w o u l d fit the c o n t e x t well, since the Pharisees, like J o s e p h u s , are said to a c c e p t b o t h fate a n d free will as c a u s e s . O n this interpretation o f xptat$ it m a k e s little difference w h e t h e r the L o e b r e a d i n g xpaats is substituted.
Either w a y , the c o n t e x t d e m a n d s
s o m e sort o f b l e n d i n g o r b a l a n c i n g b e t w e e n fate a n d free will. ( h ) T h e n o u n TO (JouXeuTTjptov o c c u r s 7 times in J o s e p h u s , w i t h the sense either o f " c o u n c i l h a l l " o r " c o u n c i l m e e t i n g " . T h e difficulty is t o d e t e r m i n e whose c o u n c i l m e e t i n g / c h a m b e r is i n t e n d e d b y the d e m o n s t r a tive exetvr)$. T h a c k e r a y , F e l d m a n , Y a f f e / D a m i c o , a n d T o p p i n g all take 61
the a n t e c e d e n t t o b e etpotppevr). Schlatter thinks that this is t o o distant a n d h e therefore c o n j e c t u r e s the e m e n d a t i o n exetvou, as a r e f e r e n c e b a c k to
0eo>.
5 8
62
Since Josephus
normally
uses
0eo$ a n d
etpoeppevrj
inter-
G . F. Moore, "Fate", 378, 384. Schlatter, Theologie, 210 n. 1. See chapter 6, above. For the translations suggested by S. Topping, M . Yaffe, and A . Damico, cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 320f. Schlatter, Theologie, 219 n. 1. 5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
296
CHAPTER TWELVE
changeably, however, as also in this passage, the difference is not signifi cant for our purpose. H e is speaking figuratively of the council chamber of G o d or of fate. (i) T h e E p i t o m e gives the neuter aorist participle TO eOeXfjaocv in the nominative, which is followed by F e l d m a n ( L C L edn.). T h e manu scripts A M W give the dative, Tcp eOeXrjaocvTt, which better parallels TCO PouXeunrjpicp.
63
It is not clear, on either reading, why Josephus chooses
the neuter "that which has willed (of m a n ) " or what the precise meaning is, in combination with 7EpoaxtopeTv. S i n c e the thrust of § 1 3 a b is clear enough, however, a complete resolution of this crux is unnecessary: we know that Josephus wants to balance fate with human will. (j) T h e pair aperr; rj xocxioc touches the root of a major theme in Ant. O f the 291 occurrences of ocpeTrj in Josephus, a disproportionate 2 3 8 are in Ant. W e have already seen that the preface to this work establishes "virtue" as a major theme of the biblical paraphrase ( 1 : 2 0 ) . G o d , as the universal father and Lord who beholds all things, grants to such as follow him a life of bliss (TOT? IIZO\L£VOI$ OCUTCO SiStoatv euSatpova (3tov), but involves in dire calamities those who step outside the path of virtue (TOUS ei-to 8e (JoctvovTOcs apeTfjs). (Thackeray)
I n this construction, ocpeTrj means concretely obedience to G o d and his laws. M o s e s teaches that G o d is the perfection of ocpeTrj and that men are to participate in this attribute ( 1 : 2 3 ) .
In
accord with this theme,
Josephus employs the word ocpeTrj some 116 times in the course of his biblical paraphrase; by contrast, the entire canonical Septuagint has it a bare 8 times, and mainly in the prophetic books, which Josephus does not u s e .
64
H e speaks of the virtue of M o s e s , of the laws, and of those who
obey the l a w s . xocxioc.
65
A s in our passage, apeTrj is sometimes contrasted with
66
It is significant that, of the 2 3 8 occurrences of ocpeTrj in the twenty books of Ant., 9 6 instances (or about two fifths) are in books 1 7 - 1 9 . T h i s disproportion indicates
that the word is also part of the peculiar
vocabulary that Josephus adopts in these books. I n the passage on the schools ( 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 ) ocpeTrj is one of several terms, such as Xoyoq, 9uXocxrj, vc
7ceptpdcxriT0v rryoupevot, eOeXco, and Tuyx^ °j
m
a
t
appear two or more
times. T h e phrase dcpeTrj rj xocxioc, therefore, helps to bond the description
6 3
Schlatter, Theologie, 210 n. 1. Esther 4:17; Prov. 1:7; Hab. 3:3; Zech. 6:13; Isa. 42:8, 12; 43:21; 63:7. Ant. 4:320, 321, 326; 5:73; 18:280; 19:57, 202; cf. Ag.Ap. 2:226, 278, 279. War 2:156; 4:387; Ant. 6:93; 8:252; 17:101; 19:16; Ag.Ap. 2:145. It is not clear in our passage whether the phrase qualifies div0pa)7w*>v, TO IGeXrjaocv, or 7cpoax&>pe!v. 6 4
6 5
6 6
THE
297
PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
o f the Pharisees to the entire passage o n the s c h o o l s , to b o o k s 1 7 - 1 9 , a n d to Ant. as a w h o l e .
2. The
first
Interpretation
t w o strands o f o u r statement,
§ § 1 3 a b , are r e a s o n a b l y clear:
" t h e Pharisees r e c k o n that e v e r y t h i n g is effected b y fate b u t they d o n o t t h e r e b y d e p r i v e the h u m a n will o f the initiative that resides in their [sc. h u m a n ] p o w e r . " T h i s p a r a d o x i c a l statement is v e r y similar to the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees' v i e w in War 2 : 1 6 3 , w h i c h said that etpappevr) xat
Oeto 7upoadt7UTOuai rcdvTa, xal
TO pev rcpaTTetv . . . ln\
TOT$ av6pa>7toi€
xstaOat. J o s e p h u s has g i v e n u p the Tivoc/Ttvoc m o d e l o f Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 2 in
f a v o u r o f his original " c o o p e r a t i o n " m o d e l , w h i c h , as w e h a v e seen, b e a r s a m a r k e d similarity to the v i e w o f C h r y s i p p u s r e p o r t e d b y C i c e r o . Fate o r G o d is the universal c a u s e b u t h u m a n v o l i t i o n is still active throughout. The
real difficulties b e g i n in § 1 3 c . J o s e p h u s is n o l o n g e r c o n t e n t w i t h
the statement that fate " a s s i s t s " ((JorjGeco) in e a c h case as he h a d said in War 2 : 1 6 2 .
He
n o w attempts a
fuller
explanation
b y resorting
to
metaphor. Fate, h e says, has a c o u n c i l c h a m b e r o r h o l d s a c o u n c i l m e e t i n g (PouXeuTTjptov). S o m e h o w , at this m e e t i n g o r c h a m b e r , a settlement is ef fected b e t w e e n fate a n d h u m a n will ( § 1 3 a b ) , such that J o s e p h u s c a n speak o f a " w e i g h i n g " (xptat?) o r " b l e n d i n g " (xpaat$) o f the t w o c a u s e s . S e e m i n g l y intractable p r o b l e m s , h o w e v e r , are: ( a ) the textual certainty o f TO eOeXfjaav, ( b ) the syntax o f TCOV av0pco7ucov TO eOeXfjaav 7upoax
67
68
T h u s J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e n d e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f the Pharisaic v i e w has suc c e e d e d in baffling b o t h m e d i e v a l c o p y i s t s a n d m o d e r n scholars. F o r tunately,
for o u r p u r p o s e it is e n o u g h to establish that h e presents a
c o o p e r a t i o n o r " f u s i o n " m o d e l o f the roles o f fate a n d free will. O n e m u s t r e c k o n seriously w i t h the possibility that h e d i d n o t k n o w exactly w h a t to say a b o u t this perennial p u z z l e .
D.
The Immortality of Souls
14a.
dOdvaTov TE ta/uv zcdq c|>uxat$ 7utaTt£ auTOi? etvat
6 7
Cf. Schlatter, Theologie, 209f. n. 1. One is tempted to conjecture that the phrase entered the text by a dittography of dpeTfjs f\ xaxta?. Schlatter (Theologie, 209f. n. 1) explains the double T U Y X by a similar means. 6 8
a v 0 U ( J l v
298 14b.
CHAPTER TWELVE xat UTCO x ^
o v o
? otxata>aet£ Te xat Ttpas
olq apeT% rj xaxta^ e7UTrj8euats ev T63 (3ta> yeyovev, 14c.
xat Tat£ pev etpypdv dtStov rcpoTtOeaOat,
14d.
TaT^ Se paara>vrjv TOU dva(3touv.
T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the P h a r i s e e s ' c o n c e p t i o n o f i m m o r t a l i t y is v e r y similar t o o t h e r passages in J o s e p h u s that d e s c r i b e his o w n v i e w , the Essene v i e w , a n d also the Pharisaic v i e w . B e c a u s e o f these similarities,
it w a s necessary to c o n s i d e r the salient features
obvious of our
passage a b o v e , in o u r analysis o f War 2 : 1 6 3 . W e d i s c o v e r e d there that J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n ( a n d also his o w n ) as a b e l i e f in a p e c u l i a r f o r m o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n , in w h i c h a n e w b o d y is p r o m i s e d o n l y to the g o o d as a r e w a r d for v i r t u o u s c o n d u c t ; the n e w a n d better life will be
granted at the " s u c c e s s i o n o f a g e s " . It r e m a i n s t o s u p p l e m e n t o u r earlier d i s c u s s i o n with a few remarks o n
the distinctive v o c a b u l a r y o f Ant.
18:14.
1. K e y T e r m s V
(a)
T r c o X^OVOS. T h e w o r d X ^ > " (
here in J o s e p h u s .
6 9
Aeschylus,
f
a c e
°f
t
n
e
) earth", occurs only
I n d e e d , as a p o e t i c t e r m , it is v e r y rare in ancient
G r e e k p r o s e in g e n e r a l . Homer,
s u r
70
and
T h e phrase UTCO X^OVO^ d o e s , h o w e v e r , o c c u r in Sophocles
7 1
as a p o e t i c d e s i g n a t i o n o f the
n e t h e r - w o r l d , w h i c h is m o r e p r o s a i c a l l y called "AtBrj^.
72
I n War 2 : 1 6 3 J o s e p h u s referred t o the Pharisaic b e l i e f in the eternal p u n i s h m e n t o f the w i c k e d b u t h e d i d n o t m e n t i o n the v e n u e for this p u n i s h m e n t . H e d i d , h o w e v e r , tell us that the S a d d u c e e s d o a w a y with TOCS xaO' a8ou Ttpcoptas xat Ttpds ( 2 : 1 6 5 ) ,
7 3
a phrase that m u s t reflect their
o p p o s i t i o n to the Pharisaic v i e w . I n o u r p a s s a g e , J o s e p h u s ' s e x p e r i m e n t with h i g h style leads h i m to seize o n the m o r e p o e t i c e x p r e s s i o n b u t the m e a n i n g is the
same. Rewards and punishments,
according to
the
Pharisees, are m e t e d o u t in the n e t h e r - w o r l d .
6 9
But cf. XMVLOS at War 1:377. Cf. LSJ, s.v. Homer, Iliad 8:14; Aeschylus, Choephor 833; Sophocles, Antigone 65. E.g., Plato, Meno 81bc; Phaedo 107c. So the Loeb text, after C (11th- cent.). The rest of the M S S have "universal (xa06Xou) punishments and rewards". Even if the Loeb reading were incorrect, we should still know from War 2:155 and 3:375 that the Essenes and Josephus, respectively, assign the wicked to subterranean punishments. W e have seen that the views of Josephus and those of the Pharisees on the afterlife are also very close (chapter 6, above). 7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
299
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
( b ) 'EmTTjSeuats is a n o t h e r u n u s u a l w o r d for J o s e p h u s . O f its 7 o c c u r r e n c e s in his w r i t i n g s , 4 fall w i t h i n Ant. 17-19 a n d 2 w i t h i n his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees h e r e . T h e w o r d is T h u c y d i d e a n , as is the phrase emT7|8eoat£ aperrjs.
74
T h e w o r d d e n o t e s o n e ' s " s t r i v i n g " o r " c o n d u c t " in
life; h e r e , it refers to the striving after virtue o r v i c e . ( c ) T h e n o u n paara>v7| 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
Tuyx^vouatv tep&vrcotrjaeoose^rjyrjaei TTJ exetvoov Tuyx^vouatv rcpaaaopeva. 15c.
eis xoaovSe apeTfjs auToT^ at rcoXets epapxupriaav e7ttT7)Seuaei TOU inl rcaat xpetaaovos ev Te StatTT) TOU (Jiou xal Xoyots.
1. K e y Terms (a) T h e adjective 7u9av6s is a favourite word in Ant. 17-19. Although it occurs 47 times throughout Josephus's writings, fully one third of those occurrences (i.e., 16) are concentrated in Ant. 18-19. T h e Pharisees hap pen to be "most convincing" to the people (Yaffe/Damico: "to the vulgar"). W e note that this statement does not imply Josephus's ap proval of the Pharisees' popularity; he also tells us of certain deceivers 77
that were rciGavoi. W e have seen throughout our study that he con sistently acknowledges the Pharisees' influence but, just as consistently, deplores it. The phrase TOT$ Srjpots 7ci9avoVcaTOi is reminiscent of Thucydides, who uses this superlative three times and always with the indirect objects T
78
This fact militates against
by making the Pharisees
now
popular with TOt$ Srjpots instead of with TCO rcXrjOet (as at Ant. 13:288, 402), is attempting to improve their i m a g e . of
its
three
occurrences,
79
Notice further that in two
Thucydides predicates
T
mOavcoTaTO^ of one Cleon, son of Cleaenetus, whom the historian 77
Ant. 18:41, 69, 85f. Thucydides 3.36.3 and 4.21.3 speak of the same person, a certain Cleon, son of Cleaenetus. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 163. W e await a comprehensive study of 8fj(io<; and 7tXfj0o<; in Josephus. 7 8
7 9
301
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
d e s c r i b e s as i m m o d e r a t e a n d m o s t v i o l e n t ((3tat6TaT0$). T h u c y d i d e s ' a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f this m a n ' s influence w i t h the p u b l i c is b y n o m e a n s a commendation. (b)
T h e v e r b Tuyx^vco *
s
typically J o s e p h a n :
it o c c u r s 4 3 9
times
t h r o u g h o u t his writings a n d its 4 0 o c c u r r e n c e s in b o o k s 17-19 are p r o p o r t i o n a t e to the others. T h a t it appears t w i c e w i t h i n o u r
statement
a b o u t the Pharisees' p o p u l a r i t y is striking; Schlatter excises the latter o c c u r r e n c e as a d i t t o g r a p h y . Because
80
TUYX<*V6> is often
little
more
than
a
"spice w o r d "
for
J o s e p h u s , it is difficult to k n o w h o w , o r w h e t h e r , to translate it. F e l d m a n takes it e m p h a t i c a l l y , to m e a n , " t h e y are, as a m a t t e r o f fact, e x t r e m e l y i n f l u e n t i a l " . T o p p i n g o m i t s it altogether o r , p e r h a p s , gives it the force o f etpt: " t h e y are plausible to the p e o p l e " . Yaffe a n d D a m i c o take the v e r b in its m o s t literal sense ( f r o m TUX*)), " t h e y happen to be m o s t per suasive
to
the
vulgar",
Feldman's rendering.
81
w h i c h is rather
different
in
nuance
from
T h e w o r d is c o m m o n e n o u g h that o n e c a n easily
find s u p p o r t elsewhere in J o s e p h u s for all three s e n s e s .
82
I f o n e takes the o t h e r Pharisee passages into c o n s i d e r a t i o n , h o w e v e r , the Y a f f e / D a m i c o translation c o m m e n d s itself. J o s e p h u s is n o t pleased with the Pharisees' influence a n d therefore a c k n o w l e d g e s o n l y that they " h a p p e n to h a v e " the s u p p o r t o f the p e o p l e , n o t that they d e s e r v e it. T h i s interpretation
is also s u p p o r t e d b y the c o n t e x t o f o u r p a s s a g e .
J o s e p h u s o p e n l y praises the Essenes as s u p e r i o r to all others w h o m a k e a n y c l a i m to virtue ( 1 8 : 2 0 ) ; he also gives his o p i n i o n that the S a d d u c e e s i n c l u d e m e n o f the highest standing (TOU? 7tpo>T0US zoiq aijuopocat, 1 8 : 1 7 ) 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 a c c e p t " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " . In v i e w o f these r e m a r k s a n d in the a b s e n c e o f a n y un qualified c o m m e n d a t i o n o f the Pharisees, it m a k e s sense that J o s e p h u s should
say that
"they
happen
to b e "
the
o n e s with
the
popular
following. E v e n if this interpretation
o f Tuyx^
V(0
l s
correct, however, w e have
d e t e c t e d o n l y a n u a n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k s a n d n o t an outright attack o n Pharisaic influence such as w e h a v e m e t b e f o r e .
8 3
H i s p u r p o s e here
is n o t to attack the Pharisees b u t to s h o w that they, a l o n g w i t h the Sad d u c e e s a n d Essenes, represent
normal Judaism,
unlike the s c h o o l o f
Judas. ( c ) In the relative adjective orcoaoc w e e n c o u n t e r o n e o f the clearest hallmarks o f the style a d o p t e d in Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 . O f 112 o c c u r r e n c e s o f this 8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
Schlatter, Theologie, 211 n. 1. For the translations of Topping and Yaffe/Damico, see Rivkin, Revolution, 320f. Cf. Rengstorf, Concordance, s.v. I.e., in War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:288, 401, 432; 17:41-45.
302
CHAPTER TWELVE
word in Josephus, a remarkable 101 are found in Ant. 17-19. This high frequency results, as in our passage, from an unliterary substitution of the relative adjective for the relative pronoun. This is hardly the work of a Greek litteratus. (d) T h e adjective GeTo?, "divine", is characteristic of all of Josephus's writings; it occurs some 206 times. M o r e than three-quarters of these in stances are in the neuter substantive, TO Getov, meaning "the deity", which is Josephus's preferred circumlocution for G o d . Nevertheless, the adjective occurs attributively, as in our passage, more than 4 0 times. (e)
Y e t another favoured term in Ant.
17-19 that turns up in our
passage is rj TroiTjat?. O f its 15 occurrences in Josephus, 8 are in these three books. Significantly, in his description of the Sadducean view Josephus also includes the word peTa7U0t7)<Jt$, which occurs again at 18:242 and only once elsewhere (3:58); this accords with the general repetitiveness of the vocabulary in our passage. (f) T h e noun e^yrjai? occurs only 8 times in Josephus. Four times it 84
Once it refers to Josephus's
once to the
"translation" of the Sep
refers to the "interpretation" of d r e a m s . own "narrative" in tuagint,
86
War,
85
and once to the Persians' "exposition" of their l a w s .
87
Only
in our passage does i^r\yf]<Ji<; refer to a particular exposition or interpreta tion of the Jewish laws. Nevertheless, the cognate verb efJTjyeopoct does occur in this connection several times. M o s t interesting for us: in War 2:162 the Pharisees are said to be reputed peT' dxpt(kia$. . . . e^TiyetaGai TOC v o p t p a . (g) T h e meaning of aperr} in the final sentence is problematic because it is connected with et$ ToaovSe, which seems to be retrospective. But Josephus has not yet spoken of any moral "virtue" on the Pharisees' part. Indeed, all of his earlier accounts of the Pharisees' activities alleged that these men were singularly lacking in moral principle (War 1:110114,
571; Ant. 13:288-298, 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; 17:41-45). If, then, etc Toaovoe dpeTrj
is retrospective, the dpeTTj in question must be the "power" or "influ ence" of the Pharisees (rather than their moral virtue), for that is what Josephus has just spoken a b o u t .
88
'ApeTrj was an extremely malleable term in classical and Hellenistic usage.
8 4
89
Like the English "virtue" ( > 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
98
W . R . C o n n o r r e m a r k s , " I t is a m i s t a k e , I b e l i e v e , t o infer
that the w o r d indicates T h u c y d i d e s ' o w n m o r a l a p p r o v a l . "
9 9
S o for
T h u c y d i d e s , J o s e p h u s ' s literary m o d e l , it w a s perfectly p o s s i b l e t o use apexr} in senses d e v o i d o f m o r a l affirmation, t o speak o b j e c t i v e l y o f s o m e o n e ' s " p r o w e s s , skill, o r p o w e r " . We
give
the
last
word
to Josephus's
contemporary,
Plutarch.
A l t h o u g h the style o f Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 c a n h a r d l y b e d e s c r i b e d as p o e t i c , it is clearly a b u n g l e d attempt at elegant p r o s e . B u t Plutarch c l a i m s that the " p o e t s " like t o g i v e n e w m e a n i n g s t o apexrj, a n d that they " m a k e g o o d repute (euBoijia) a n d i n f l u e n c e (rj Buvapt?) t o b e a p e x r } " .
1 0 0
G i v e n the variety o f p o s s i b l e m e a n i n g s for apexrj in J o s e p h u s ' s d a y , a n d g i v e n the c o n t e x t in Ant.
1 8 : 1 5 , w h e r e it is the influence o f the
Pharisees that is u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n a n d n o t a n y m o r a l virtue, it w o u l d s e e m r e a s o n a b l e t o take apexr} h e r e as a s y n o n y m for (after P l u t a r c h ) euBoijta
and
8uvapt£.
This
interpretation
would
fit
squarely
with
J o s e p h u s ' s m a n y n o t i c e s a b o u t the P h a r i s e e s ' p u b l i c i n f l u e n c e , o n a c c o u n t o f their r e p u t a t i o n for p i e t y . (h)
1 0 1
Similarly, the interpreter m u s t d e c i d e w h e t h e r the c o m p a r a t i v e
xpetacrcov is i n t e n d e d t o h a v e a n y m o r a l significance in this c o n t e x t , as in " m o r e e x c e l l e n t " o r " s u p e r i o r " , o r w h e t h e r it s i m p l y a c k n o w l e d g e s that Pharisaic
teaching
is
"more
influential",
"predominant",
or
" p r e v a l e n t " . J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the w o r d s o m e 121 times a n d in b o t h senses.
102
In o u r passage, the c o n t e x t w o u l d s e e m t o r e q u i r e that xou im
7uaat xpetaaovo? refer to the P h a r i s e e s ' " p r e d o m i n a n c e o v e r a l l " a n d n o t their " e x c e l l e n c e " a b o v e all (contra F e l d m a n ) , since: ( i ) J o s e p h u s clearly m a k e s the Essenes s u p e r i o r to all w h o c l a i m (pexaTtotoupat) s o m e share o f virtue ( § 1 8 ) ; (ii) h e d e s c r i b e s the P h a r i s e e s ' i n f l u e n c e as m e r e l y a m a t t e r o f c h a n c e (cf. XOYX^VG));
a
n
d (iii)
n
e
speaks in a r e s i g n e d w a y
a b o u t h o w e m i n e n t S a d d u c e e s m u s t yield to " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " (§ 1 7 ) .
9 8
1 0 3
It is difficult to interpret this phrase as J o s e p h u s ' s a d v o c a c y o f
Andrewes, Thucydides, V , 172. Connor, Thucydides, 224 n. 30. Plutarch, How to Study Poetry 24d. One could wish that Josephus had not used apexr) in two different senses within the same passage, but one should note that Thucydides, the literary model in this case, stands accused of the same fault; cf. Hooker, "Xapi? and apexrj", 169. The amoral, non-evaluative sense of the word is well attested in Josephus, e.g., War 1:88, 91, 654; 4:640; 5:176; 7:88, 158, 330, 360; Ant. 1:244; 4:195; 5:139, 64, 66; 6:231, 328; 7:20, 127 et passim-, Life 45. 103 Notice the tendency in Ant. 17-19 to spell xpetaacov (as also Tcpaaaoi) with a double sigma, in imitation of Thucydides, rather than with the atticizing double tau, which 9 9
1 0 0
1 0 1
1 0 2
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III
305
Pharisaic m o r a l superiority. Further, the n e u t e r substantive o f xpetaacov is T h u c y d i d e a n ; in T h u c y d i d e s it also lacks a m o r a l - e v a l u a t i v e s e n s e . The
rest o f the v o c a b u l a r y , if n o t the syntax,
1 0 4
o f 1 8 : 1 5 is fairly
straightforward. M u c h o f it is repetitive, s u c h as TU-fx^
V0U<Jl
> irctTrjSeuats,
($to<;, a n d X6yo<;.
2.
Interpretation
O u r passage b e g i n s with a clear o p e n i n g statement a b o u t the P h a r i s e e s ' p o p u l a r i t y ( § 1 5 a ) , w h i c h is f o l l o w e d b y an e l a b o r a t i o n o n the particular areas o f their influence ( § 1 5 b ) . T h e final sentence ( § 1 5 c ) is difficult b u t s e e m s to b e a s u m m a r y statement
e m p h a s i z i n g the p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f
Pharisaic v i e w s . T h u s : 15a.
O n a c c o u n t o f these ( v i e w s ) they h a p p e n
15b.
o f p r a y e r s a n d sacred rites, w h a t e v e r is
to b e m o s t persuasive to the p e o p l e ; c o n s i d e r e d d i v i n e h a p p e n s to b e c o n d u c t e d a c c o r d i n g to their 15c.
interpretation.
T h i s m u c h o f their influence the cities h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d , in b o t h m a n n e r o f life a n d d i s c o u r s e , b y their
pursuit
o f [ o r " a d h e r e n c e t o " ] the w a y that prevails o v e r all. I n several earlier passages J o s e p h u s has indicated that the Pharisees h a v e the s u p p o r t o f the p e o p l e (War 1:110, 5 7 1 ; 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 2 9 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) , that they are instantly c r e d i t e d , e v e n w h e n they speak against authorities (Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 4 0 1 ) , a n d that the a n n u l m e n t o f their special
ordinances
created
an
uproar
(Ant.
13:296-298,
402). The
passage b e f o r e us recapitulates this t h e m e a n d explains it in part b y the appeal o f the Pharisees' p h i l o s o p h i c a l v i e w s , especially that o f i m m o r tality (cf. 8V auxa). T h e e x p l a n a t i o n is significant b e c a u s e w e k n o w that J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f h o l d s a v i e w o f i m m o r t a l i t y that is v e r y close to that o f the Pharisees. H e also agrees with their a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f fate a n d free will. H e seems
prevails elsewhere in Josephus. Cf. L. R . Palmer, The Greek Language (London-Boston: Faber and Faber, 1980), 167. Thucydides 1.77.4; 3.45.4. 1 0 4
306
CHAPTER TWELVE
to say here that these w e r e p o p u l a r v i e w s a n d that, b e c a u s e the Pharisees e s p o u s e d t h e m (unlike the S a d d u c e e s ) , that g r o u p attracted the g o o d will o f the p e o p l e . In the earlier Pharisee passages, w e h a v e n o t e d , J o s e p h u s
regularly
c o n v e y s his regret o v e r the extent o f Pharisaic p o w e r . I f such regret is present in o u r passage, it is n o t o b v i o u s b u t m u s t b e l o o k e d for in subtleties, for e x a m p l e : ( a ) in J o s e p h u s ' s emphasis o n the v e r b T u y x ^
v a >
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<;
V O U ( J l v
> 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: u7copv7ja
9
10
11
1 2
13
1 4
15
1 6
313
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE
A g a i n s t S c h u r e r , N i e s e ( 1 8 9 6 ) m a i n t a i n e d that J o s e p h u s ' s
obvious
l i n k a g e o f Ant. a n d Life has greater p r o b a t i v e v a l u e than the late n o t i c e of Photius.
1 7
H e insisted, o n the basis o f Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 6 ( w h i c h S c h u r e r d o e s
n o t e x p l a i n ) that J o s e p h u s h a d p l a n n e d f r o m the start t o a p p e n d an a c 1&
c o u n t o f his life t o Ant. which Josephus
F u r t h e r m o r e , N i e s e p o i n t e d t o Life 4 2 8 f . , in
expresses
his
gratitude
to
Vespasian,
Titus,
especially D o m i t i a n ( a n d his wife) for their m a n y k i n d n e s s e s .
19
and Niese
t o o k this t o b e a clear i n d i c a t i o n that J o s e p h u s w a s w r i t i n g in D o m i t i a n ' s reign, not Trajan's;
for it w a s i n c r e d i b l e , h e t h o u g h t , that J o s e p h u s
w o u l d praise a p r e v i o u s d y n a s t y w i t h o u t e v e n m e n t i o n i n g the i n c u m b e n t ruler.
20
T o these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s N i e s e ' s student L u t h e r ( 1 9 1 0 ) a d d e d three o t h e r s . First, h e a r g u e d that several unflattering
remarks about b o t h
A g r i p p a II a n d his father in Ant. are o n l y e x p l i c a b l e if the k i n g w a s a l r e a d y d e a d w h e n Ant. w a s written; b u t if Ant. a n d Life b o t h p r e s u p p o s e A g r i p p a ' s d e a t h , there is n o n e e d t o separate t h e m .
2 1
S e c o n d , h e dis
c o u n t e d S c h u r e r ' s n u m i s m a t i c e v i d e n c e o n the basis o f its m a n y ir regularities.
22
T h e d e c i s i v e a r g u m e n t , a c c o r d i n g to L u t h e r , c o n c e r n e d the identity o f the p a t r o n o f Ant.
a n d Life, E p a p h r o d i t u s .
23
T h e two prime can
didates, h e t h o u g h t , w e r e the secretary o f N e r o , w h o w a s e x e c u t e d b y D o m i t i a n in 9 5 , a n d a g r a m m a r i a n o f the s a m e n a m e f r o m C h a i r o n e a . W h e r e a s S c h u r e r h a d f a v o u r e d the latter b e c a u s e N e r o ' s secretary d i e d t o o early for S c h u r e r ' s d a t i n g o f Life, L u t h e r p o i n t e d o u t that e v e n the latter E p a p h r o d i t u s s e e m s t o h a v e d i e d in the r e i g n o f N e r v a ( 9 6 - 9 8 ) , 2
w h i c h w o u l d still b e t o o early for S c h u r e r ' s d a t i n g o f the Life. *
And
L u t h e r a r g u e d that m u c h o f the l a n g u a g e that J o s e p h u s uses o f E p a p h r o -
1 7
Niese, HZ, 226f. (On the other hand, Cohen, Josephus, 176, is properly cautious, noting that even though Life was written as an appendix to Ant., it may not have ap peared immediately.) Niese, HZ, 226 n. 1. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 59f., distinguishes between the autobiography, which Ant. 20:266 introduces as work that will follow immediately, and the three works mentioned in 20:267, which are only planned. Ibid., 227. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 63, adds that such praise would have been out of step with popular feeling, which regarded Domitian's demise as a godsend because his reign had ended in terror ( A D 93-96). Cf. also Frankfort, "La date", 57, on the references to emperors in Life. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 54-59. Cf., e.g., Ant. 18:145f., 153f., on Agrippa I, and Ant. 20:145 on Agrippa II. Cf. now also Cohen, Josephus, 177f., for a list of such passages. Ibid., 64f. He points out, for example, that among the various coins from "the 14th year of Agrippa", three different emperors are mentioned as incumbents. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 61-63. Ibid. 1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
314
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
ditus is suited better (or only) to Nero's secretary. secretary was the patron of Ant.-Life,
25
But if Nero's
then both volumes were written
before A D 9 5 . Holscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) , in making his case for the rejection of the Photius datum, took over the Niese/Luther arguments.
26
A considerable hiatus in the popularity of this view was caused, how ever, by R . Laqueur's watershed study ( 1 9 2 0 ) . way
2 7
For Laqueur found a
to retain both the Photius datum (with Schurer)
28
and the close con
nection between Life and Ant. (with Niese/Luther); he proposed that Ant. was published in two editions and that only the second of these, written after 100, included Life as an appendix. This re-edition would account, he argued, for the apparent double ending of Ant., 20:267ff.
29
at 20:259ff. and
Laqueur's now famous theory was that the latter ending
served for a first edition of Ant. in A D 9 3 / 9 4 , which was indeed the thir teenth year of Domitian, but several years before Agrippa's death (100). After Agrippa's death, Josephus wrote Life (in response to the work of Justus) and at the same time reissued Ant. with a new ending (20:259ff.) to introduce the appendix; the textual tradition, however, combined the two endings.
30
Laqueur's theory gained considerable prestige in the
English-speaking world through its endorsement by Thackeray ( 1 9 2 6 ) .
31
Still another way of salvaging the Photius datum, already suggested as improbable by Holscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) , (1924).
33
3 2
was sponsored by B.
Motzo
This was the theory that Josephus wrote two editions of the
Life: the first one, purely autobiographical, accompanied Ant. (93/94); the second appeared on its own and incorporated the defence against Justus (soon after 100). Obviously, the proposal of a second edition of either Ant. or Life is only justified if the Photius datum is indeed worth saving. In recent 2 5
Ibid. Holscher, "Josephus", 1941., n.*. Laqueur, Historiker, 1-6. Laqueur, Historiker, If., thought it unacceptable to reject the Photius datum solely on the ground of its inconvenience for dating Life. Ant. 20:259: 7uauaetat 8' ivxauGa pot TOC TTJS dtpxatoXoftocs. Ant. 20:267 has: 'Erci TOUTOIS hi xocTOCTCauao) xr\v apxatoXoYiav. Laqueur, Historiker, 5f. In his composition of Life against Justus, Laqueur proposes, Josephus used an account of his own activities that he had written many years earlier, in 66/67. L C L edn. of Josephus, I, xiiif.; M . Gelzer, "Die Vita des Josephus", Hermes 80 (1952), 67f. also follows Laqueur. Cf. D . Barish, "The Autobiography of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a Second Edition", HTR 71 (1978), 62 n. 11, for other adherents to Laqueur's theory. Holscher, "Josephus", 1941 n.*. B. Motzo, Saggi di Storia e Letteratura Guideo-Ellenistica (Florence, 1924), 217-219. I am dependent on Rajak, "Justus", 361 n. 4, for a summary of Motzo. 2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE t i m e s , h o w e v e r , T . Frankfort
315
LIFE
( 1 9 6 1 ) , T . R a j a k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , D . A . Barish
( 1 9 7 8 ) , a n d S. J. D . C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) h a v e m o u n t e d a n o t h e r f o r m i d a b l e at tack o n the a c c u r a c y o f that n o t i c e . T h e s e scholars r e v i v e m o s t o f the Niese/Luther arguments,
34
a l t h o u g h the identity o f E p a p h r o d i t u s is n o
l o n g e r t h o u g h t to b e r e c o v e r a b l e with a n y p r o b a b i l i t y . Barish
argues,
35
further, for the literary u n i t y o f the c o n c l u s i o n t o Ant., in w h i c h L a q u e u r had
distinguished
two
endings.
3 6
The
major
contribution
scholars, h o w e v e r , has b e e n to turn the n u m i s m a t i c a n d
of
these
epigraphical
e v i d e n c e for A g r i p p a ' s d e a t h decisively against the P h o t i u s
datum.
3 7
T h i s they a c c o m p l i s h b y r e d a t i n g the era o f A g r i p p a , against w h i c h his c o i n s a n d inscriptions are d a t e d , f r o m A D 61 ( w h i c h S c h u r e r a c c e p t e d ) to 5 0 ( F r a n k f o r t )
38
o r 56 (Barish a n d C o h e n ) .
3 9
T h e result is that n o c o i n
o r inscription dates A g r i p p a a n y later than 9 2 / 9 3 ;
4 0
thus the
Photius
d a t u m is c o m p l e t e l y isolated. After s u m m a r i z i n g the e v i d e n c e f o r a b a n d o n i n g P h o t i u s ' s d a t i n g o f A g r i p p a ' s d e a t h , C o h e n expresses the present scholarly m o o d : It is unjustified to reject all of this in favour of elaborate theories of second editions . . . e t c . , whose only purpose is to defend the honor of a tenth cen tury patriarch. 41
E v e r y a t t e m p t to m a i n t a i n a date o f A D 100 for the d e a t h o f A g r i p p a I I , t h e n , s e e m s to r u n a g r o u n d o n b o t h the internal e v i d e n c e o f Ant. a n d Life a n d the external e v i d e n c e f r o m c o i n s a n d inscriptions. T h i s e v i d e n c e indicates that A g r i p p a d i e d n o t m u c h later than 9 2 / 9 3 a n d that Life w a s written b e t w e e n the c o m p l e t i o n o f Ant. ( 9 3 / 9 4 ) a n d the d e a t h o f D o m i tian ( 9 6 ) .
4 2
W e h a v e m a d e o n l y a c u r s o r y e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p r o b l e m o f d a t i n g Life b e c a u s e ( a ) the m a t t e r has b e e n treated in detail e l s e w h e r e
43
and ( b )
a l t h o u g h o n e m u s t h a v e s o m e i d e a o f the p l a c e o f this w o r k in J o s e p h u s ' s literary career, o u r t o p i c d o e s n o t r e q u i r e an exact date for it. W h a t is 3 4
Cf. Frankfort, "La date", 54f., on the remarks unkind to the Agrippas in Ant., and 57, on Life's praise of the Flavian emperors (Life 428f.). Cf. also Cohen, Josephus, 174ff. Frankfort, "La date", 56f. Barish, "Autobiography", 66-71. Frankfort, "La date", 55f.; Rajak, "Justus", 361 and notes 4 and 5 thereto; Barish, "Autobiography", 71-74; Cohen, Josephus, 173f. Frankfort, "La date", 55f. Barish, "Autobiography", 73 and Cohen, Josephus, 173, follow H . Seyrig, " M o n naies Hellenistiques", Revue Numismatique, 6th ser. 6 (1964), 55-65, and appeal to the widespread acceptance of this scheme in numismatic scholarship. Frankfort, "La date", 58; Rajak, "Justus", 361; Barish, "Autobiography", 73f.; Cohen, Josephus, 173. The latest inscription is of "the 37th year of Agrippa". Cohen, Josephus, 180. Frankfort, "La date", 58; Cohen, Josephus, 180. O f the modern discussions, those of Frankfort and Cohen are especially helpful. 3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
316
i m p o r t a n t for us is that, w h e n e v e r it a p p e a r e d , Life w a s i n t e n d e d as an a p p e n d i x to Ant. T h i s c o n n e c t i o n is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e s o m e scholars find in it the k e y t o interpreting the Pharisee passages o f b o t h Ant. a n d Life.
II. The
Occasion, Purpose and Outlook**
m o s t striking feature o f the Life is its lack o f p r o p o r t i o n . J o s e p h u s
introduces
and
autobiography
4 5
concludes
the
work
as
if
it
were
a
complete
a n d , it is true, h e d o e s i n c l u d e s o m e c o m m e n t s o n his
ancestry ( § § 1-6), c h i l d h o o d ( § § 7 - 1 2 ) , a n d p o s t - w a r activities ( § § 4 1 4 430).
T h e b u l k o f the w o r k , h o w e v e r ( § § 2 8 - 4 0 6 ) , p o r t r a y s in detail a
five-month
p e r i o d in J o s e p h u s ' s life, the t i m e o f his l e a d e r s h i p in G a l i l e e
before Vespasian's arrival.
46
T h i s m a s s i v e d i s p r o p o r t i o n , a l o n g with a
c o m b a t i v e narrative t o n e ,
4 7
m a k e s the w o r k a p p e a r as a d e f e n c e o f
J o s e p h u s ' s c o n d u c t d u r i n g the p e r i o d in q u e s t i o n . T h e a u t h o r c o n f i r m s this i m p r e s s i o n b y d e v o t i n g an e x c u r s u s (7capex(iaat<;) to the refutation o f o n e J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s ( § § 3 3 6 - 3 6 7 ) , w h o has c o m p o s e d a rival a c c o u n t o f the events in G a l i l e e . In o r d e r to ascertain
4 8
m o r e exactly the p u r p o s e o f the Life,
it is
necessary to e x a m i n e : ( a ) the extent to w h i c h the conflict with J u s t u s d e t e r m i n e s the c o n t e n t o f this w o r k ; ( b ) the n a t u r e o f that conflict; a n d ( c ) o t h e r m o t i v e s that J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e h a d for w r i t i n g Life.
4 4
The Life has stimulated a great deal of secondary literature. Most of it, however, is occupied with the parallel questions of (a) the literary relationship between Life and War and (b) the historical truth about Josephus's activities in the Galilee. Cf. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 5-9; Laqueur, Historiker, 96-107; Gelzer, "Vita", 68ff.; and Cohen, Josephus, 1-18. Although of great intrinsic interest, these questions do not directly con cern us. In any case, it would be hard to improve on Cohen's survey of the literature, Josephus, 8-23. He traces the shifts in scholarly opinion from early attempts to harmonize Life and War, to a preference for War, then back (under Laqueur's influence) to a preference for Life. 4 5
4 6
Ant.
20:266: rcept T
The detailed period extends from a point after the defeat of Cestius Gallus (end of November, A D 66) to a time before Vespasian's arrival (May, 67). Cf. Gelzer, "Vita", 68. E.g., Life 1, 6 ("would-be detractors of my family"), 20, 40f. (ruin was due mainly to Justus), 67 (looting was contrary to Josephus's intention), 80ff. (insistence on Josephus's moderation and self-control), 36Iff. (his commendations from emperors and kings). Josephus claims at first to be addressing other historians as well (§ 336) but he singles out Justus and confronts him in the second person. Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 114. 4 7
4 8
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE
A.
317
The Conventional View and R. Laqueur
J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k s a b o u t J u s t u s are n o t c o n f i n e d to the e x c u r s u s . H e i n t r o d u c e s this c h a r a c t e r q u i t e early ( § 3 4 ) as a factional l e a d e r in 44
T i b e r i a s w h o h a d a strain o f m a d n e s s in his n a t u r e " ( T h a c k e r a y ) a n d to w h o s e d e p r a v i t y a n d d u p l i c i t y the J e w i s h loss w a s largely d u e ( § § 4 0 f ) . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s J u s t u s r e p e a t e d l y t h r o u g h o u t the narrative (see b e l o w ) a n d always in an a c c u s i n g t o n e . F r o m this o n g o i n g c u r r e n t o f antipathy
it has c o m m o n l y
b e e n inferred
that J o s e p h u s w r o t e Life
s i m p l y as a r e s p o n s e to the a c c o u n t b y J u s t u s . T h i s w a s the v i e w o f S c h u r e r , N i e s e , L u t h e r , H o l s c h e r , L a q u e u r , T h a c k e r a y , Schalit, a n d the " e a r l i e r R a j a k " .
4 9
R a j a k , for e x a m p l e , c l a i m s that Life " w a s cast
in the f o r m o f a reply to J u s t u s " .
5 0
It is n o t always clear w h e t h e r the critics w h o s u p p o r t this v i e w see o n l y the m a i n b o d y o f Life ( § § 2 8 - 4 1 3 ) as a r e s p o n s e to J u s t u s o r w h e t h e r they w o u l d also i n c l u d e the r e m a r k s a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s y o u t h ( a n d thus an i m p o r t a n t Pharisee p a s s a g e , § § 10-12) a n d p o s t - w a r a c tivities. M o s t
s e e m willing to free the peripheral sections f r o m
a p o l o g e t i c intent,
any
for they designate § § 1-27 a n d § § 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 s i m p l y
" i n t r o d u c t i o n and c o n c l u s i o n " or " n u r wie Einleitung u n d S c h l u s s " .
5 1
L a q u e u r , h o w e v e r , also takes Life 1 0 - 1 2 , w h i c h tells o f J o s e p h u s ' s e x p e r i e n c e with the three s c h o o l s a n d o f his a l i g n m e n t with the Pharisees, to b e distinctly p o l e m i c a l : J o s e p h u s wants to present h i m s e l f as a true representative o f J e w i s h tradition o v e r against the h e l l e n i z i n g J u s t u s , in o r d e r t o save his r e p u t a t i o n as an a u t h o r in the face o f J u s t u s ' s attacks: so ist dieses ganze Material nur gegeben, u m das eigene W e r k gegen Justus retten zu konnen dadurch, dass Josephus gegenuber d e m hellenisierenden Justus als Bewahrer der judischen Uberlieferung erwiesen wird. 52
4 9
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 59, 97; Niese, HZ, 227; Holscher, 1994; A . Schalit, "Josephus and Justus", Klio 26 (1933), 67-95. As Luther, Josephus und Justus, 7, puts it: "Als Antwort auf diese Angriffe des Justus schrieb Josephus seine Selbstbiographie". I include Laqueur among this group because we are only concerned with the final extant version of Life, which he thinks was written in response to Justus (Historiker, 78ff., 83). As is well-known, he considers the final Life to be an adaption of an earlier account of Josephus's activities. Cf. also Thackeray L C L edn. I, xivf. Rajak, "Justus", 354. Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87; Niese, HZ, 227; Holscher, "Josephus", 1994; Rajak, "Justus", 354: "Only a brief introduction and conclusion about the rest of Josephus' life were added." Laqueur, Historiker, 246. How this analysis explains Life 10-12, with its emphasis on Josephus's three years in the desert in the company of an ascetic and its comparison of Stoics and Pharisees, is not at all clear. Cf. my analysis of the passage below. 5 0
5 1
5 2
318
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
L a q u e u r c a n o n l y interpret Life 10-12 as part o f the p o l e m i c against J u s t u s b e c a u s e he has a p e c u l i a r v i e w o f the issues i n v o l v e d in J u s t u s ' s attack o n J o s e p h u s . M o s t interpreters h a v e taken their c u e f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s r e s p o n s e to Justus in the e x c u r s u s : H o w then, Justus . . . can I and the Galileans be held responsible for the insurrection o f your native city against the R o m a n s and against the king [Agrippa II] . . . ? A n d again: But, you maintain (
eyo>) for
inference is that J u s t u s has a c c u s e d J o s e p h u s o f
f o m e n t i n g revolt in T i b e r i a s a n d , Galilee.
(atTio<;
b y i m p l i c a t i o n , in the rest o f the
M o s t o f the e x c u r s u s r e s p o n d s directly to this c h a r g e
5 4
and
m u c h o f the rest o f Life s e e m s calculated to present J o s e p h u s as a p r o R o m a n m o d e r a t e a n d J u s t u s as the instigator o f revolt in T i b e r i a s .
5 5
The
c o m m o n v i e w , then, is that J u s t u s w r o t e an a c c o u n t o f the w a r in w h i c h he p o r t r a y e d J o s e p h u s as the o n e w h o h a d incited revolt in the G a l i l e e ; J o s e p h u s , l i v i n g in R o m e , w a s acutely e m b a r r a s s e d b y these charges a n d r e s p o n d e d w i t h the
Life.
L a q u e u r , b y contrast,
u n d e r s t a n d s the conflict b e t w e e n Justus a n d
J o s e p h u s to h a v e b e e n essentially h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l . J o s e p h u s ' s actions in the
Galilee, he
argues,
could
n o longer have
been
an
issue
when
J o s e p h u s w a s in R o m e , for he h a d l o n g since m a d e his p e a c e with the Romans.
5 6
N o r c o u l d he h a v e r e c o u n t e d events in s u c h detail thirty
years after the f a c t .
57
T h e d e f e n c e o f his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d that w e see
in Life m u s t h a v e c o m e f r o m a m u c h earlier a c c o u n t that J o s e p h u s h a d written in self-vindication, p r o b a b l y to the J e r u s a l e m authorities, b e f o r e the w a r h a d b r o k e n o u t in earnest (early 6 7 ) .
5 8
L a q u e u r locates the
p o l e m i c against J u s t u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , in the last section o f the e x cursus against that a u t h o r ( § § 3 5 7 - 3 6 7 ) , w h e r e J o s e p h u s claims s u p e r i o r 59
a c c u r a c y for his o w n War.
J u s t u s h a d e v i d e n t l y c l a i m e d to h a v e written
the definitive w o r k o n the w a r ( § 3 5 7 ) , d i s p a r a g i n g the w o r k s o f J o s e p h u s 5 3
So Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87; Luther, Josephus und Justus, 7, 67; Holscher, 1994; Ra jak "Justus", Cohen, Josephus, 118. Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 114. E.g., on Josephus: Life 17-23, 28f., 78, 126-131. On Justus: 36, 42, 87f., 391. Laqueur, Historiker, 7-9. Ibid. Ibid., 122. Ibid., 16ff. Laqueur compares Ag.Ap. l:46ff. and argues that this is also directed against Justus. 5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE
319
LIFE
a n d others, a n d this w a s r u i n i n g the market for J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t .
6 0
J o s e p h u s r e s p o n d e d with Life, w h i c h d e f e n d e d n o t o n l y his a c c u r a c y b u t also his character a n d credibility as a writer: h e n c e his alleged affiliation with Pharisaism (Life 1 2 ) . C o h e n successfully refutes this t h e o r y o f the nature o f J u s t u s ' s accusa tions b y several a r g u m e n t s ,
61
the m o s t telling o f w h i c h are: ( a ) that L a
q u e u r o v e r l o o k s the b u l k o f the e x c u r s u s , w h i c h explicitly attributes to J u s t u s the c h a r g e that J o s e p h u s incited r e v o l t , would
hardly
Jerusalem
have
c h o s e n to m a k e
his
62
a n d ( b ) that J o s e p h u s
earlier
detailed
report
to
a b o u t his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d the basis o f his response to
Justus if J u s t u s ' s accusations h a d c o n c e r n e d s o m e t h i n g else e n t i r e l y .
63
A n d if L a q u e u r ' s r e a d i n g o f J u s t u s ' s accusations is i n c o r r e c t , then so is his interpretation o f Life 10-12 as part o f J o s e p h u s ' s a p o l o g e t i c .
B . S. J. D. Cohen and T. Rajak C o h e n , for his part, tries to refine the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w b y delineating m o r e closely the extent to w h i c h J u s t u s ' s w o r k w a s responsible for Life. H e b e g i n s with the e x c u r s u s , b e c a u s e that is clearly addressed t o J u s t u s , a n d finds J o s e p h u s there r e s p o n d i n g to accusations a b o u t his character a n d his actions in T i b e r i a s : Justus has b l a m e d J o s e p h u s for the antiR o m a n activities o f T i b e r i a s a n d has c h a r g e d h i m with brutality t o w a r d the p o p u l a c e .
6 4
C o h e n , therefore, agrees in the m a i n with the c o m m o n
view o f Justus's accusations.
65
H a v i n g isolated these issues, C o h e n at
tributes their e m e r g e n c e elsewhere in Life also to the p r o v o c a t i o n o f J u s t u s ' s rival a c c o u n t .
6 6
But this p r o c e d u r e still leaves several passages a n d t h e m e s outside the excursus u n e x p l a i n e d . C o h e n identifies five such e x t r a n e o u s "Josephus's
Pedigree",
"Josephus
and
the
Pharisees",
fought the R o m a n s " , " J o s e p h u s was P r o - R o m a n " ,
6 0
6 7
themes:
"Josephus
and "Philip son
Ibid., 2Iff. Cohen, Josephus, 129-132. Ibid., 129. Laqueur, Historiker, 130. Ibid., 118. Cohen's difference with the conventional view of the nature of Justus's accusations is as follows. Because the excursus only refers to affairs in Tiberias, he concludes that Justus did not accuse Josephus of being a rebel per se, but only of specific rebellious ac tivities in Tiberias. Ibid., 121-137. Ibid., 153f. Note that, since Cohen does not think that Justus accused Josephus in general of being anti-Roman, he cannot view the theme of pro-Romanism as a response to Justus. 6 1
6 2
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
320
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
of J a c i m u s " .
68
Pointing out that Josephus admits to having many ac
cusers (Life 424ff., 428ff.), Cohen maintains that "we cannot assume that V ' s [sc. Life's] every apologetic element is a response to the Tiberian".
69
H e finds no unifying logic in the five specified items and
thinks that they might well have no connection with Justus.
70
Although,
then, Cohen supports the conventional view of Justus's accusations, he finds much in the Life, including the Pharisee passages, that is unrelated to the conflict with Josephus. Rajak (1983) has recently revised her position along similar, perhaps more extreme, lines. directly to Justus
72
71
She now thinks that only the excursus responds
and that the rest of Life addresses the concerns of,
"the surviving or regenerated Jewish aristocracy in the years after 70, and especially that part of it which was to be found in the D i a s p o r a " .
73
Those diaspora concerns Rajak identifies as: (a) whether the revolt could not have been prevented and (b) whether, if it had to happen, the moderates could not have maintained orderly control.
74
These are the
questions that Life answers, Rajak argues, with its detailed explanations of Josephus's failure to master the Galilee and of his rejection by the Jerusalem authorities.
75
Thus the later Rajak also finds much in Life that
is extraneous to Josephus's response to Justus. Space does not permit a detailed analysis of all of the extraneous themes proposed by Cohen and Rajak. O f special interest for this study, however, is Cohen's designation of "Josephus and the Pharisees" as an apologetic theme independent of those inspired by Justus.
76
H e links
together Life 10-12 (on Josephus's alignment with the Pharisees) with § § 191-198 (on Simon the Pharisee) and with all of the religious nuances in Life that are absent from the parallels in War, to document what he 77
thinks is a "religious apologetic" in Life.
H e connects this apologetic 78
with the heightened "nationalism" of Ant., vis-a-vis War,
and with an
alleged tendency in the later work to improve the image of the Phari-
6 8
Cohen takes up the five themes on pp. 144-170 of his Josephus. Cohen, Josephus, 144. Ibid., 169f. On p. 14, however, she has suggested that Life's introductory remarks about Josephus's upbringing are also intended to deflect Justus's charge of irresponsibility. Ibid., 154. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Cohen, Josephus, 144-151. Ibid., 144-147. An oft-noted feature of Ant.; cf. the discussion of Laqueur and Rasp in chapter 7, above. 6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7 8
321
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE
sees.
79
A l l o f this leads h i m to the c o n c l u s i o n that, in w r i t i n g
Ant.-Life,
J o s e p h u s w a s t h r o w i n g in his lot w i t h the rising fortunes o f the Pharisees a n d w a s a s s u m i n g the role o f a Pharisaic a d v o c a t e in R o m e .
8 0
According
to C o h e n , J o s e p h u s c o n t e n d s in Ant. " t h a t the Pharisees h a d always b e e n p r o m i n e n t a n d therefore d e s e r v e R o m a n s u p p o r t " . more,
" m a k e s the ultimate
8 1
Life,
further
c o m m i t m e n t to this Pharisaic bias a n d
declares the J o s e p h u s h a d always b e e n , since his y o u t h , a loyal follower o f the P h a r i s e e s . "
82
J o s e p h u s p r o b a b l y was n o t a Pharisee at a l l ,
83
Cohen
argues, b u t b o l d l y c l a i m e d to b e o n e in the service o f his " r e l i g i o u s P h a r i s a i c " ( a n d finally political) a p o l o g e t i c . W e h a v e seen that C o h e n ' s interpretation o f Ant. o n the Pharisees, w h i c h h e inherits f r o m R a s p a n d (especially) S m i t h / N e u s n e r ,
84
is en
tirely w i t h o u t s u p p o r t . I n the following chapters w e shall ask w h e t h e r his interpretation o f Life 12 as an a u d a c i o u s c l a i m to Pharisaic allegiance (also shared w i t h R a s p , S m i t h , a n d N e u s n e r ) is really defensible.
Summary and Critique of Scholarly Views E v e r y o n e agrees that the Life is a w o r k o f a p o l o g e t i c a n d p o l e m i c a n d that it is d i r e c t e d , at least in part, against Justus o f T i b e r i a s , w h o w r o t e a rival a c c o u n t o f the w a r . M a t t e r s still d e b a t e d are: ( a ) the issues at stake in the conflict with J u s t u s ; ( b ) the extent to w h i c h Life is a response to h i m ; a n d ( c ) other factors that entered into the c o m p o s i t i o n o f Life. Q u e s t i o n s ( a ) a n d ( b ) are m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t ; q u e s t i o n ( c ) d e p e n d s o n o n e ' s solution to ( a ) a n d ( b ) . T h e c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w ( S c h u r e r , N i e s e , L u t h e r , H o l s c h e r , Schalit, the earlier R a j a k ) is: ( a ) that Justus a c c u s e d J o s e p h u s o f inciting revolt in the G a l i l e e , especially in T i b e r i a s ; ( b ) that the w h o l e b o d y o f Life (§§ 2 8 - 4 1 3 ) r e s p o n d s to this c h a r g e b y r e c o u n t i n g in detail J o s e p h u s ' s ac tions d u r i n g his first five m o n t h s in the r e g i o n ; a n d ( c ) that Life 1-27 a n d 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 function s i m p l y as an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n to this p i e c e of polemic. L a q u e u r , C o h e n , a n d R a j a k h a v e all attempted to m o d i f y the c o n v e n tional v i e w : L a q u e u r , b y c h a n g i n g altogether the terms o f the conflict b e t w e e n Justus a n d J o s e p h u s ; C o h e n , b y restricting that conflict to T i b e r i a n affairs a n d then d i s c o v e r i n g other a p o l o g e t i c t h e m e s in Life
7 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
8 4
Ibid., 148-151. He follows here the Smith/Neusner proposal. Ibid., 237f. Ibid. Ibid., 238. Ibid., 107. Cohen, Josephus, 144 n. 150.
322
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
i n d e p e n d e n t o f J u s t u s ; a n d R a j a k , b y p o s i t i n g a d i a s p o r a - J e w i s h reader ship for the w o r k . L a q u e u r ' s a t t e m p t , as w e h a v e seen, w a s unsuccessful. I n d e f e n c e o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w against the m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f C o h e n a n d R a j a k , I w o u l d u r g e the f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . ( 1 ) D e s p i t e its literary d e f e c t s ,
85
Life a p p e a r s to h a v e a single o v e r
r i d i n g p u r p o s e , n a m e l y , to d e f e n d J o s e p h u s ' s actions d u r i n g the first five o r so m o n t h s o f his leadership in the G a l i l e e . T h e b o d y o f the w o r k ( § § 2 8 - 4 1 3 ) is o b v i o u s l y d e d i c a t e d t o this g o a l . ( 2 ) T h e b o d y o f the w o r k o p e n s w i t h a sharply d r a w n contrast b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J u s t u s o f T i b e r i u s ( § § 2 8 - 4 2 ) . J o s e p h u s , c o m m i t t e d to a p o l i c y o f s u b m i s s i o n to R o m e ( § § 1 7 - 2 3 ) , g o e s to G a l i l e e in o r d e r to en sure p e a c e in the r e g i o n b y d i s a r m i n g the rebels ( § § 2 8 f . ) . A
major
o b s t a c l e to his p r o g r a m m e , h o w e v e r , is the city o f T i b e r i a s , w h i c h h e finds already in a state o f revolt ( § § 3 2 f f . ) . J o s e p h u s attributes this situa tion w h o l l y to the influence o f J u s t u s , w h o m h e characterizes at s o m e length as a c r a z e d a n d reckless tyrant ( § § 3 6 - 4 2 ) . T h i s T i b e r i a n , w e learn, has written his o w n a c c o u n t o f " t h e s e e v e n t s " (TCOV repay pdtTcov TOUTCOV); b u t the reader is w a r n e d that it obfuscates the truth ( § 4 0 ) . J o s e p h u s p r o m i s e s to p r o v e his allegations a b o u t J u s t u s " a s the narrative u n f o l d s " (rcpotovros TOU Xoyou, § 4 0 ) a n d d o e s i n d e e d r e t u r n to his o p p o n e n t several times ( § § 87f., 2 7 9 , 3 3 6 - 3 6 7 , 390f., 4 1 0 ) . A t the outset o f the narrative, then, J o s e p h u s characterizes J u s t u s b o t h as a physical o p p o n e n t w h o w o r k e d against his pacific m i s s i o n a n d as a literary o p p o n e n t w h o in later times has distorted the facts a b o u t his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d . ( 3 ) J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t , to w h i c h J o s e p h u s o b j e c t s , manifestly i n c l u d e d m o r e than T i b e r i a n affairs. T h e phrase TCOV rcporfpdcTCOv in Life 4 0 w o u l d s e e m to i n c l u d e the w h o l e G a l i l e a n situation b e f o r e the revolt ( § § 3 7 - 4 0 ) . T h e similar phrase in § 3 3 6 a p p e a r s to i n c l u d e all o f the events c o v e r e d to that p o i n t b y J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e .
86
Finally, § 3 3 8 c l a i m s that J u s t u s
has written a b o u t TOC^ rcept TOUTOV rcpai-eis TOV reoXepov, " t h e events related to this w a r " . S o the rival a c c o u n t w a s n o t l i m i t e d to T i b e r i a n
affairs.
A l l o f these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w o u l d s e e m to w a r r a n t the c o n v e n t i o n a l antagonist
that
J o s e p h u s h a d in m i n d w h e n h e c o m p o s e d his self-vindicating Life.
assumption
that Justus
o f Tiberias
was
the
main
That
is n o t t o d e n y that J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e d d r a m a t i c e l e m e n t s o r items o f
8 5
These are well known. Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 110-113, for a brief overview. Josephus begins (Life 336): "Having reached this point in my narrative, I propose to address a few words to Justus, who has produced his own account of these affairs (TTJV 7cept TOUTCJV Tcpa-ffxaTetav ye-fpo^OTa)." Since he has just concluded a lengthy account of his dealings with the delegation sent to replace him (§§ 189-335), Justus's work must at least have discussed these events. 8 6
323
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE
intrinsic interest to fill o u t the n a r r a t i v e :
87
o n e n e e d n o t see e v e r y p o i n t
as a direct r e s p o n s e t o J u s t u s . Nevertheless it d o e s s e e m clear that the whole
five-month
p e r i o d c a m e into serious q u e s t i o n p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e o f
J u s t u s ' s rival a c c o u n t , w h i c h p o r t r a y e d J o s e p h u s as an instigator o f revolt. If it is the b o d y o f Life ( 2 8 - 4 1 3 ) that c o n t a i n s the c o n t r o v e r s i a l m a t e rial, then the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w is also c o r r e c t in d e s i g n a t i n g the rest o f the w o r k ( § § 1-27, 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 ) " n u r w i e E i n l e i t u n g u n d S c h l u s s " . T o b e sure, J o s e p h u s c h o s e to i n c l u d e those aspects o f his y o u t h a n d p o s t - w a r e x p e r i e n c e that w o u l d p o r t r a y h i m in the best light; h e h o p e s that the details o f his " w h o l e l i f e " will lead the r e a d e r to a f a v o u r a b l e j u d g e m e n t o f his character ( § 4 3 0 ) . B u t that is a v e r y general a i m . I n g i v i n g the details o f his " l i f e " , h e h a d n o c h o i c e b u t to m e n t i o n s o m e t h i n g o f his family b a c k g r o u n d , y o u t h , a n d p o s t - w a r s i t u a t i o n ;
88
it is n o t clear that
a n y o f these e l e m e n t s — w h e t h e r his m a r r i a g e s a n d c h i l d r e n o r his e x perimentation apologetic.
with
the
Jewish
philosophies—represents
a
specific
8 9
B o t h C o h e n a n d R a j a k a r g u e that significant aspects o f the Life w e r e written
for a J e w i s h r e a d e r s h i p .
A c c o r d i n g to C o h e n , the t h e m e o f
J o s e p h u s ' s staunch " r e l i g i o u s - P h a r i s a i c " o b s e r v a n c e w a s m e a n t to c a t c h the e y e s o f the Y a v n e a n r a b b i s ; a c c o r d i n g to R a j a k , J o s e p h u s w r o t e Life m a i n l y for the benefit o f d i a s p o r a J e w r y . T h e idea that J o s e p h u s w r o t e Life for J e w i s h readers is, h o w e v e r , p r o b l e m a t i c b e c a u s e the w o r k s e e m s to e x p e c t a G e n t i l e a u d i e n c e . explain Jewish values
91
9 0
F r o m its o p e n i n g w o r d s , J o s e p h u s has to
a n d Palestinian g e o g r a p h y .
his characteristic w a y , to m e a n " w e Jews"
8 7
9 2
H e uses 7}pet$, in
( i n contrast to G e n t i l e s ) .
9 3
One might think of, e.g., Josephus's dramatic escapes (94ff., 136ff., 145ff., 299ff.), his dream (208ff.), and his ingenious strategies (e.g. 163ff.). Recall that the pedigree and education passage (Life Iff.) was introduced in Ant. 20:266 in support of Josephus's claim to axpCPeioc. Cohen justifies his assumption of a multiple apologetic on the ground that the themes unrelated to Justus lack a unifying principle; such are: (a) Josephus's pedigree, (b) his alignment with the Pharisees, (c) his pro-Romanism, and (d) his participation against the Romans. If, however, one denies that (a) and (b) have any apologetic role in Life, since they stand in the introduction (though they are related to the argument of Ant. 20:265f.), then they do not create a problem. If, further, one is prepared to accept a certain ambiguity in Josephus's position vis-a-vis Rome, then the difficulty disappears. Remarkably, both Cohen, Josephus, 147, and Rajak, Josephus, 14, concede this. Life 1 (importance of the priesthood to Jews), 65 (images of animals forbidden), 162 (Sabbath explained), 12 (Pharisees likened to Stoics), 191 (Pharisees explained, again). Life 31 (Dora, a city of Phoenicia), 42 (location of Gadara and Hippos), 123 (Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Gabara: chief cities of Galilee), 157 (location of Tarichaeae), 232 (Sepphoris: largest city in Galilee), 269 (Jerusalem, three days' journey from Galilee), 348 (Jerusalem, the largest city). Life 1, 26, 128, 275, 279. 8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2
9 3
324
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
M o s t i m p o r t a n t , Life is part o f Ant., w h i c h w a s written for Gentiles (Ant. 1:9); b o t h are d e d i c a t e d to the G e n t i l e E p a p h r o d i t u s (Ant. l : 8 f . ; Life 4 3 0 ) . A l t h o u g h it is n o t unlikely that J e w s w o u l d also h a v e read his w o r k s , J o s e p h u s w r o t e in o r d e r to p e r s u a d e G e n t i l e s . It w o u l d s e e m h a z a r d o u s , therefore, to s u p p o s e that a n y particular p o r t i o n s o f Life, let a l o n e the b u l k o f the w o r k , w e r e written specifically for J e w i s h readers. I n short, the attempts b y L a q u e u r , C o h e n , a n d R a j a k to m o d i f y the c o n v e n t i o n a l interpretation
o f Life—that
it is a r e s p o n s e to Justus o f
T i b e r i a s , with an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n a d d e d — s e e m to lack solid s u p p o r t . O u r o n l y qualification o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w is that the intro d u c t i o n to Life,
with its d e s c r i p t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s priestly p e d i g r e e ,
e d u c a t i o n , a n d e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n with the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , g r e w o u t o f his c l a i m to <xxpi(feioc in Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 6 . It s e e m s , h o w e v e r , to b e i n d e p e n d e n t o f the dispute with J u s t u s , to w h i c h the b o d y o f the Life is d e v o t e d .
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS IN M O D E R N
SCHOLARSHIP
A l t h o u g h interpreters o f J o s e p h u s differ a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s o n practically 1
e v e r y m a j o r i s s u e , they are a l m o s t u n a n i m o u s in their b e l i e f that h e in t e n d e d to present h i m s e l f as a d e v o t e d P h a r i s e e .
2
E v e n h e r e , it is true, 3
o n e c a n distinguish t w o s c h o o l s o f t h o u g h t . T h e m a j o r i t y o f s c h o l a r s a c c e p t J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic allegiance as a f u n d a m e n t a l d a t u m for their in 4
terpretation; a skeptical m i n o r i t y ( f o r w a n t o f a better adjective) v i e w the c l a i m to Pharisaic allegiance as a political p l o y , b y w h i c h J o s e p h u s h o p e d t o identify h i m s e l f w i t h the n e w p o w e r - b r o k e r s in Palestine. B o t h s c h o o l s , h o w e v e r , m a i n t a i n that J o s e p h u s wanted to b e u n d e r s t o o d as a P h a r i s e e . I n d e e d , all o f the f o u n d a t i o n a l scholarship o n J o s e p h u s a n d all 5
o f the m a j o r m o d e r n translations o f his w o r k s h a v e b e e n d o n e b y critics w h o b e l i e v e d h i m to h a v e b e e n a Pharisee. T h i s c h a p t e r will b e g i n b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g the i m p o r t a n t role that J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic allegiance plays in m o d e r n analyses o f his w o r k s . A s u r v e y o f the a r g u m e n t s c o m m o n l y offered in s u p p o r t o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic affiliation will reveal, h o w e v e r , that an e n o r m o u s b u r d e n rests o n a particular interpretation o f a single sentence in Life ( 1 2 b ) . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n will p r e p a r e for the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r , in w h i c h w e shall e x a m i n e Life 1 2 b in s o m e detail.
1
E.g., on Josephus's historical reliability, his degree of nationalistic and religious commitment, the extent of his dependence on sources, and his linguistic and literary competence, to name a few important issues. The notable exception is E. Gerlach, Die Weissagungen des alien Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Hertz, 1863), 1-18, who thought that Josephus was an Essene. E.g., H . Paret, "Pharisaismus"; J. A . Montgomery, "The Religion of Flavius J o s e p h u s " , / ^ n.s. 11 (1921), 280ff., E. Schurer (1867), B. Niese (1896), B. Brune (1913), G . Holscher (1916), H . St. J. Thackeray (1926, 1929), A . Schlatter (1923, 1932), R . J. H . Shutt (1961), E. Rivkin (1969, 1976, 1978), H.-F. Weiss (1979), and T . Rajak (1983). Specific references are given in the notes to the following discussion. R . Laqueur (1920), H . Rasp (1924), M . Smith (1956), J. Neusner (1972f.), and S. J. D . Cohen (1979). Cf. the usual translations of Life 12, discussed in chapter 16, below. 2
3
4
5
326
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
I. The Importance of Josephus's Pharisaic Allegiance in Modern Scholarship Interpreters h a v e always c o m e to J o s e p h u s f r o m disparate perspectives a n d with w i d e l y differing a i m s a n d interests. A t least f o u r types o f inter pretation c a n b e identified, h o w e v e r , that all rely h e a v i l y o n J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic c o n n e c t i o n . T h e first
three
o f these h a v e b e e n discussed
already in the c o u r s e o f the study a n d n e e d o n l y t o b e recalled.
A . Theological Interpretations of Josephus M u c h o f the early w o r k o n J o s e p h u s w a s d o n e b y scholars w h o w e r e p r i m a r i l y l o o k i n g for insight into the b a c k g r o u n d a n d o r i g i n s o f C h r i s tianity; it will suffice to m e n t i o n Paret, S c h u r e r , B r u n e , a n d Schlatter. A l t h o u g h all o f these scholars a c k n o w l e d g e d the Pharisaic allegiance o f J o s e p h u s , Paret a n d Schlatter p l a c e d particular v a l u e o n it as the k e y to his significance. Paret ( 1 8 5 6 ) suggested that, since the infant C h u r c h w a s still v e r y close to Pharisaic teachings in the first c e n t u r y , a n y i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the latter w o u l d b e w e l c o m e .
6
H e d e v o t e d an article to p r o v i n g that
J o s e p h u s was a Pharisee, o n the p r e m i s e that such p r o o f w o u l d greatly e n h a n c e the v a l u e o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings: aber wenn nun, wie in Josephus, ein palastinensischer Jude des apostolischen Zeitalters selbst vor uns steht, der uns nicht bloss die wichtigste Nachrichten uber die jiidischen Religionsparteien gibt, sondern sich selbst ausdrucklich als Pharisaer bekennt, so ist es gewiss nicht ohne Interesse, ihn gerade als solchen ins A u g e zu fassen. 7
Schlatter,
writing
several d e c a d e s later
(1910,
1932),
no longer
thought it necessary to p r o v e b y sustained a r g u m e n t that J o s e p h u s w a s a
Pharisee.
8
Nevertheless,
like
Paret,
he
believed
that
the
chief
significance o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings for the N e w T e s t a m e n t e x e g e t e lay in 9
their a u t h o r ' s Pharisaic affiliation. U n l i k e the mystical Hellenist P h i l o , Schlatter c o n t e n d s , J o s e p h u s s h o w s us Pharisaismus, w h i c h w a s the d o m i nant m o v e m e n t in J u d a i s m .
1 0
A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaism,
he suggests, will help the N e w T e s t a m e n t scholar to u n d e r s t a n d w h y this religious o u t l o o k w a s o p p o s e d b y Jesus a n d P a u l . 6
7
8
9
1 0
11
11
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 81 Of. Ibid. He does, however, adduce particular points in the course of his analysis; see below. Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1910), 7; Theologie, p. V . Ibid. Cf. chapter 2, above. Theologie, p. V I .
327
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
J e w i s h scholars h a v e generally t e n d e d to l o o k outside J o s e p h u s ( t o the r a b b i n i c c o r p u s ) for their u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Pharisaic t h o u g h t . N e v e r theless, A . G u t t m a n n ranks J o s e p h u s a l o n g s i d e the T a l m u d as a firstrate s o u r c e for P h a r i s a i s m .
12
A n d R i v k i n cites J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisaic
allegiance as p r o o f that the ancient a u t h o r ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees is c r e d i b l e .
13
B . Source-Critical Interpretations F o r s o u r c e critics o f J o s e p h u s , his Pharisaic allegiance has always b e e n the m a j o r criterion for d e t e r m i n i n g what h e c o u l d o r c o u l d n o t h a v e said a b o u t the g r o u p . It w a s o n e o f H o l s c h e r ' s w o r k i n g assumptions that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee a n d that, therefore, m o s t o f his a c c o u n t s o f the g r o u p , w h i c h are often n e g a t i v e , m u s t n o t b e his o w n b u t " j e n a c h d e n v o n i h m ausgeschriebenen
Quellen."
1 4
We
see
the
principle
at
work
in
H o l s c h e r ' s analysis o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 . T h e a u t h o r o f this passage c a n n o t b e a Pharisee, especially together.
w e learn, b e c a u s e his treatment o f the g r o u p is n o t
ruhmenswert a n d
15
because
he
links
Pharisees
and
Zealots
H o l s c h e r e v e n cites J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic e d u c a t i o n as p r o o f
that h e c o u l d n o t h a v e k n o w n the G r e e k authors cited in
16
Ant.
G . F. M o o r e f o l l o w e d the s a m e p r o c e d u r e o f attributing passages hostile
to
the
Pharisees
to
s o m e o n e other
than J o s e p h u s .
1 7
More
recently, D . R . S c h w a r t z has m a d e a t h o r o u g h application o f this ap p r o a c h to the Pharisee passages. O n e o f his m a j o r criteria for assigning passages to N i c o l a u s rather than J o s e p h u s is their hostility t o w a r d the Pharisees. 44
they these
18
W h e n h e d o e s assign t w o passages to J o s e p h u s it is b e c a u s e
present t h o r o u g h l y positive a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees . . . . A l l o f i m p r o v e m e n t s in the
J o s e p h u s w h o is s p e a k i n g . "
i m a g e o f the Pharisees
s h o w that it is
1 9
C . Biographical Interpretations I n chapter 2 , I h a v e s u m m a r i z e d the interpretations o f the
Pharisee
passages offered b y H . R a s p , M . S m i t h , a n d J. N e u s n e r , w h o d e v e l o p 1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 124f. Rivkin, Revolution, 32, 66f. Holscher, "Josephus", 1936, cf. also n . + + . Ibid., 1991. Ibid., 1957. Moore, Judaism, I, 64 n. 4, 65 n. 3, 66 n. 1. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158. Ibid., 163.
328
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
(whether consciously or not) Laqueur's thesis that Josephus altered his 20
nationalistic and religious sensitivities between War and Ant. to these scholars and also to S. J. D . C o h e n
21
Common
is the belief that Ant.
represents an improvement over War in its descriptions of the Pharisees: this improvement they interpret as Josephus's attempt to make amends with the group that was coming to power in Palestine. Notwithstanding the evidence that these scholars imagine they find in Ant. itself, they all depend very heavily on Life 12; they view this sentence as Josephus's audacious attempt to pass himself off as a devoted Pharisee. 22
Rasp's comment to this effect I have quoted a b o v e : Josephus has the nerve to portray himself before the whole world as a true Pharisee of long standing! Similarly Neusner points to the importance of Life 12: T o understand the additions [in Ant. vis-a-vis Josephus's portrait of the Pharisees in War], we must recall that at the same time he wrote Ant., Josephus was claiming he himself was a Pharisee. 23
Cohen adds his voice to the chorus by proposing that Life 12 "makes the 24
ultimate commitment to this Pharisaic bias [in
Ant.]".
T h e importance of Life 12 for this group, then, is not (as with Schlatter or Holscher) that it says something true about Josephus. O n the con trary, it is interpreted as a crucial indicator of his Tendenz in Ant. -Life: he wants to be seen as a Pharisee for practical reasons.
D . Cultural!Sociological Interpretations T w o recent attempts to identify different cultural and social elements within Josephus's thought likewise rely heavily on the premise that Josephus was a Pharisee. A 1979 article by H . F. Weiss sets out to clarify the nature of the mar riage between "Pharisaismus and Hellenismus."
25
Granted that the two
categories may no longer be considered mutually exclusive, he argues, it is necessary to define the way in which they unite in Josephus. Weiss first demonstrates by several arguments that Josephus was indeed a Pharisee
26
and then that he was genuinely and deeply influenced by
Hellenistic concerns and concepts, especially by Stoicism.
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
27
Never-
Cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 128ff. Cohen, Josephus, 144-151, esp. 148. See my discussion of Cohen in chapter 13. See chapter 2, above. Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees," 231. Cohen, Josephus, 238, cited in full in the previous chapter. H.-F. Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 421-433. Ibid., 423-426. Ibid., 427-431.
329
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
theless, J o s e p h u s
retains a critical stance t o w a r d Hellenistic p h i l o
sophies; h e d o e s n o t e n d o r s e S t o i c i s m as a w h o l e b u t presents J u d a i s m , b a s e d o n the L a w o f M o s e s , as the true p h i l o s o p h y .
2 8
Weiss concludes
that J o s e p h u s w a s trying to w o r k o u t his Pharisaic c o m m i t m e n t in Hellenistic t e r m s , b y offering the Hellenistic w o r l d a true picture o f Judaism.
2 9
R a j a k ' s recent study, Josephus: The Historian and his Society ( 1 9 8 3 ) , is an attempt to use J o s e p h u s as a entree into " t h e cultural a n d social history o f the R o m a n e m p i r e " .
3 0
Specifically, this scholar wants to e x p l o r e the
tension b e t w e e n J e w i s h tradition a n d G r e e k culture that she finds in Josephus: T h r o u g h his early life, we can learn from the inside about the upper echelons of the Palestinian priesthood, an outward-looking, flexible group, yet strict in its religious practices and prescriptions; a group which vanished with the fall of the T e m p l e in A . D . 7 0 . 3 1
R a j a k attributes this tension to the t w o m a j o r influences o n J o s e p h u s ' s life: h e w a s an aristocratic priest b y birth b u t a Pharisee b y e d u c a t i o n . T h e priestly heritage g a v e h i m a c o s m o p o l i t a n o u t l o o k ; the Pharisaic training m a d e h i m fiercely defensive o f his J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n . Unlike most commentators,
3 3
32
R a j a k d o e s n o t think that J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisaic e d u c a t i o n b e g a n w i t h his a l i g n m e n t with the g r o u p at a g e n i n e teen
(Life
Pharisaic.
1 2 ) . She c o n t e n d s that his early e d u c a t i o n w a s 34
already
W e shall c o n s i d e r h e r a r g u m e n t s b e l o w . H e r e it is s i m p l y to
b e n o t e d that J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic e d u c a t i o n a n d allegiance is a k e y fac tor in R a j a k ' s interpretation
o f h i m . H e c l a i m e d to b e a
Pharisee
b e c a u s e he w a s a Pharisee (contra R a s p , S m i t h , N e u s n e r , a n d C o h e n ) and
this d e e p l y i n g r a i n e d tradition,
c o m b i n e d with his
aristocratic
heritage, created m a n y a m b i g u i t i e s in his p o s i t i o n , especially w h e n the w a r against R o m e b r o k e o u t .
2 8
3 5
Ibid., 431f. Ibid., 432f. Rajak, Josephus, 6. Ibid., 8. Ibid., 3. Holscher may have had a similar view. He describes Josephus as, "der Jerusalemer Priestersohn, der bis zum 33. Lebensjahr in der Luft pharisaischer Gesetzesfrommigkeit aufgewachsen ist" (1956f). Most commentators, however, interpret Life 12 to mean that Josephus became a Pharisee only at age 19 (see chapter 15, below). Rajak, Josephus, 29ff. Cf. also Rajak, Josephus, 102f., 116ff., and 185. 2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
3 5
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
330
Summary Practically
every
interpreter
o f Josephus
has
held
that
the
Jewish
historian w a n t e d to b e t h o u g h t o f as a Pharisee. F o r s o m e , it is true, a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f this c l a i m has little c o n s e q u e n c e .
3 6
The
above
synopsis reveals, h o w e v e r , that the m a j o r c o n v e n t i o n a l a p p r o a c h e s to J o s e p h u s n o t o n l y a c k n o w l e d g e J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to Pharisaic allegiance b u t d e p e n d u p o n it as an interpretive
key.
I I . Arguments Offered in Support of Josephus's Pharisaic Allegiance If it is true that J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to b e a Pharisee underlies m o s t m o d e r n scholarship o n o u r a u t h o r ,
then it is clear that Life
12b—the
only
sentence in J o s e p h u s ' s thirty extant b o o k s that e v e n hints at a n y c o n n e c tion b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d the Pharisees—is o f crucial i m p o r t a n c e to the w h o l e enterprise. I n c h a p t e r 15, b e l o w , w e shall seek to u n d e r s t a n d that sentence in its c o n t e x t . O t h e r
arguments,
however, have
sometimes
b e e n offered as p r o o f o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic affiliation. T h e f o l l o w i n g survey is i n t e n d e d to s h o w that n o n e o f these ancillary a r g u m e n t s is c o m pelling; this c o n c l u s i o n r e n d e r s all the m o r e i m p o r t a n t o n e ' s interpreta tion o f Life 1 2 b .
A . Josephus's View of the Law U n d e r this h e a d i n g several alleged p r o o f s o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic lean ings m a y b e gathered: ( 1 ) his exaltation o f the L a w ; o f extra-biblical material w i t h i n the c o n c e p t v o p o t ;
38
3 7
( 2 ) his i n c l u s i o n
( 3 ) his alleged agree
39
m e n t with the halakhah a n d haggadah; a n d ( 4 ) his alleged a c c e p t a n c e o f the u n w r i t t e n voptpa o f the P h a r i s e e s .
3 6
40
A l l o f these p o i n t s h a v e b e e n
Especially Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 75; Attridge, Interpretation, 178ff., 184; and M . Hengel, Judentum, 315; idem, Zeloten 6 nn. 2/3, 378 n. 3. Paret, "Pharisaismus", 823f.; Montgomery, "Religion", 295, Schlatter, Theologie, 210; Weiss; "Pharisaismus", 425. Gutbrod, TDNT, I V , 1051. M . Olitzki, Flavius Josephus und die Halacha (Berlin: H . Iskowski, 1885), 6-93; Ra jak, Josephus, 32f. and n. 63. Rajak comments: "When it comes to the Antiquities, few would deny that Josephus's conceptions.are on the whole Pharisaic. It is enough here simply to recall that in many small points of halakhah (law) and aggadah (extra-legal tradi tion) Josephus agrees with the Rabbis". D . Goldenberg ("The Halakha in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature," JQR 67 [1976], 30-43) analyses four halakhot that Josephus shares with the traditional law of the period. Paret, "Pharisaismus", 826f.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n . + + ; Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 425.; Schlatter, Theologie, 210; Rivkin, Revolution, 67. 3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
331
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
dealt with in the c o u r s e o f the study; it is necessary here o n l y t o s u m m a r i z e a n d s u p p l e m e n t o u r earlier c o n c l u s i o n s . ( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) are accurate o b s e r v a t i o n s b u t d o n o t link J o s e p h u s with P h a r i s a i s m . F o r J o s e p h u s praises the L a w as a priest. H e p o r t r a y s the w h o l e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y as o n e that is d e v o t e d t o a strict o b s e r v a n c e o f the l a w s , u n d e r the s u p e r v i s i o n o f the p r i e s t s . ' ' l a w s " w a s native t o G r e e k t h o u g h t after the e x i l e .
4 3
42
41
Further, exaltation o f the
and was fundamental to J u d a i s m
P h i l o a n d 4 M a c c a b e e s praise the L a w .
4 4
S o l o v e f o r the
L a w w a s n o t p e c u l i a r t o Pharisees. T h a t J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e s extra-biblical p r e c e p t s in the t e r m vopo$ is clear to m o d e r n - d a y critics b u t w a s n o t t o h i m ; h e c l a i m s t o g i v e o n l y w h a t M o s e s left in w r i t i n g .
45
It is a n t e c e d e n t l y p r o b a b l e that all o f the J e w i s h
g r o u p s traced their beliefs t o M o s e s ; i n d e e d the T e m p l e Scroll
from
Q u m r a n a n d the r a b b i n i c d o c t r i n e o f the O r a l L a w p r o v e this for t w o cases.
4 6
N o n e o f this m a k e s J o s e p h u s a P h a r i s e e .
W i t h respect t o ( 4 ) , it is far f r o m o b v i o u s that J o s e p h u s a c c e p t e d the special Pharisaic voptpa, w h i c h oux avayeypaTCTat ev xot? McoOaeo^ vopot<; (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 ) ; h e consistently uses voptpa as a n e q u i v a l e n t o f vopot a n d always attributes these laws t o the written M o s a i c c o d e .
4 7
J o s e p h u s ' s a g r e e m e n t w i t h halakhah a n d haggadah ( 3 ) is d o u b l y p r o b l e m atic as a p r o o f o f his Pharisaic m i n d s e t . First, the r a b b i n i c legal a n d h o r tatory
material
is n o t strictly
"Pharisaic";
n o n - P h a r i s a i c traditions f r o m b e f o r e 7 0
4 8
it m a y well reflect also
a n d certainly c o n t a i n s m u c h
p o s t - 7 0 d e v e l o p m e n t . O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t consistently 9
a g r e e w i t h the halakhah* S o m e t i m e s h e a g r e e s , against tradition, w i t h the 4 1
Cf. chapter 4, above. So, e.g., Herodotus 3:38, appropriating Pindar, "Nomos is king of all". Cf. Greene, Moira, 226. Cf. Neh. 8:Iff. and perhaps Ps. 119. O n 4 Maccabees, cf. Appendix A , below. In Philo, cf. Life of Moses 2:44; Special Laws 2:189; and Decalogue 41. I am grateful to Dr. A . Reinhartz, of McMaster University, for permission to consult her paper "The Meaning of Nomos in Philo's Exposition of the Law", read at the 1985 conference of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies. See chapter 4, above. See chapter 4. Josephus implies the same for the Sadducees: they "own no observance of any sort apart from the laws'' (Ant. 18:16; cf. 13:297). Yet it is impossible that they could have conducted the Temple ritual, for example, without some sort of tradition to take care of the omissions and contradictions of the biblical text. W e know from Megillat Ta' anit, furthermore, that the Sadducees possessed a "Book of Decrees", whatever that was. See chapter 4 and Ant. 3:286; 4:196; Ag.Ap. 1:39; 2:171ff. Cf. especially Ag.Ap. 2:155f., where he explicitly contrasts the e0T) a*Ypoc90c of the Greeks with the Mosaic code. Cf. Neusner, "Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism: A Clarification", History of Religions 12 (1973), 250-270. See chapter 4, above. Revel, e.g., begins ("Anti-Traditional Laws", 293): "In the exposition of biblical texts and laws, Josephus often deviates from their traditional inter pretation". Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 179 n. 1. 4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
332
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Essenes, s o m e t i m e s with P h i l o , a n d s o m e t i m e s with p o s i t i o n s later en d o r s e d b y the literalist K a r a i t e s .
50
G i v e n o u r lack o f k n o w l e d g e o f p r e - 7 0
traditions, it s e e m s b i z a r r e t o m a i n t a i n that these d e v i a t i o n s m u s t b e d u e to J o s e p h u s ' s i m p e r f e c t k n o w l e d g e , faulty m e m o r y , a n d r e w o r k i n g o f the t r a d i t i o n .
51
tendentious
D o they n o t rather suggest that J o s e p h u s
u n d e r s t o o d s o m e o f the laws differently f r o m the later tradition? Studies o f J o s e p h u s ' s n o n - l e g a l e l a b o r a t i o n o f the Bible (haggadah), m o r e o v e r , p o i n t t o a priestly, n o t P h a r i s a i c , i n c l i n a t i o n .
52
T w o recent studies o f J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t d e m o n s t r a t e ( w i t h i n their respective frames o f r e f e r e n c e ) that it is n o t o b v i o u s l y c o n d i t i o n e d b y Pharisaic c o n c e r n s . L i n d n e r ' s analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f history in War u n c o v e r s a strong priestly e m p h a s i s : the J e w s are b e i n g p u n i s h e d b y G o d for their p r o f a n a t i o n o f the T e m p l e , G o d ' s shrine, o f w h i c h they were
the
appointed
guardians.
53
In
addition,
Lindner
notes
that
J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s his r e v e l a t i o n f r o m G o d , o n the basis o f w h i c h h e w e n t o v e r to the R o m a n s , as the result o f a d r e a m ; b u t the r a b b i s re j e c t e d d r e a m s as s o u r c e s o f g u i d a n c e .
5 4
Finally, w h e n J o s e p h u s m a k e s a
c l a i m to exegetical p r o w e s s , h e bases it solely o n his priestly h e r i t a g e . A l l o f this, says L i n d n e r , is " g a n z u n p h a r i s a i s c h " .
56
55
T h u s he sum
marizes Josephus's debt to Pharisaism: Die Wtirzeln seines Denkens liegen nicht in Pharisaismus, und die Angabe (vita 12), dass er sich nach Anschluss seiner Ausbildungszeit den Pharisaern angeschlossen habe, muss in ihrer Tragweite begrenzt bleiben. 57
Similarly, A t t r i d g e ' s analysis o f the m a n n e r in w h i c h J o s e p h u s inter prets the Bible d o e s n o t u n c o v e r a n y clear Pharisaic p e r s p e c t i v e . I q u o t e at s o m e length f r o m his c o n c l u s i o n : O n the perennial problem o f the relationship of Josephus to Pharisaism, the biblical interpretation provides little light. In some detailed matters, such as the use o f the terms euae(ktoc and Stxatoouvrj, we have noted parallels from Greek sources which show that Pharisaic theology need not be invoked at 5 0
For examples of the last two, cf. Revel, "Anti-Traditional Laws", 293-301. In general see the discussion above, chapter 4. This explanation is offered by Olitzki, Halacha, 8f., and is picked up by Rajak, Josephus, 336 n. 63. Rappaport, Agada and Exegese, thinks that Josephus used a priestly source. B. Heller ("Grundzuge", 238f.) shows, however, that the priestly bias runs deep in Josephus's thought. Attridge (Interpretation, 176f. and n. 1) thinks that the priestly perspective in Josephus is somewhat exaggerated by these scholars. Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 142f., cf. 41. Ibid., 54, 75. Ibid. Ibid., 75. Ibid., 146 n. 2. 5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
333
all. O n the other hand, we have seen that m a n y of the interpretative elements in the Antiquities are not inconsistent with Rabbinic Judaism, and thus perhaps with Pharisaism. These agreements, however, are not so specific that we are compelled to call Josephus a Pharisee because of them. T h e precise nature of Pharisaism in the first century remains to be clarified. W h e r e particular criteria for distinguishing the sect are available, they do not show any close conformity to the significant interpretative themes of the biblical paraphrase of the Antiquities. 58
A l t h o u g h neither o f these interpreters d o u b t s that J o s e p h u s w a n t e d t o present h i m s e l f as a Pharisee in Life 12, b o t h d e n y that Pharisaic e m phases p l a y a n y significant role in his t h o u g h t . I f it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o l a y t o rest o n c e a n d for all the b e l i e f that J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the L a w m a k e s h i m a Pharisee, it c a n at least b e said that n o n e o f the e v i d e n c e currently available p o i n t s u n m i s t a k a b l y t o that conclusion.
B . Fate/Free Will and the Immortality of the Soul ( 1 ) It w a s s h o w n in c h a p t e r 6 that b o t h J o s e p h u s ' s interpretation o f eipocppevr) as a f u n c t i o n o f G o d a n d his j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f fate a n d h u m a n v o l i t i o n a g r e e with t e a c h i n g s that h e ascribes t o the Pharisees;
other
scholars h a v e a r g u e d that this s y n e r g i s m o f fate a n d free will also c o n c u r s with " P h a r i s a i c - R a b b i n i c " ideas k n o w n f r o m the r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e .
59
C r e u z e r a n d Schlatter, a m o n g others, saw in this c o r r e s p o n d e n c e 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 .
60
A n d n o w R a j a k writes:
It is particularly striking that Josephus rests, in his own narrative, on the same assumptions as he ascribes to the Pharisees 'they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests mainly with m e n , but that in each action, Fate cooperates.' W e have found here another, overlooked confirmation that Josephus was, from early on, a Pharisee. 61
I n r e s p o n s e to C r e u z e r , h o w e v e r , Paret ( 1 8 6 5 ) a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t that a b e l i e f in P r o v i d e n c e w a s b a s i c to the scriptures a n d t o J u d a i s m in general: it d o e s n o t m a k e J o s e p h u s a P h a r i s e e .
62
O t h e r s h a v e since
s h o w n that the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y c o m b i n e d a s t r o n g b e l i e f in P r o v i d e n c e a n d e l e c t i o n with an insistence o n h u m a n c h o i c e to follow G o d ' s
5 8
Attridge, Interpretation, 178f. See the previous chapter on Schlatter, Wachter, and Maier, Cf. Urbach, Sages, I, 268, 284; also E. P. Sanders' discussion of the rabbinic balance between election and "doing the Law", in Paul, 84-238, especially 139, 177 n. 155, and 217ff. Creuzer, "Riickblick", 907f.; Schlatter, Theologie, 210f. Rajak, Josephus, 100. Paret, ^Pharisaismus", 813. 5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
334 will.
CHAPTER FOURTEEN 6 3
W e h a v e seen, finally, that p o s s i b l e w a y s o f c o m b i n i n g fate a n d
free will w e r e m u c h discussed in the Hellenistic w o r l d , especially u n d e r the influence o f S t o i c i s m ; these discussions b e c a m e e n d u r i n g features o f later Christian a n d J e w i s h t h e o l o g y . T h a t J o s e p h u s gives r o o m to b o t h divine
and
human
action,
therefore,
carries
no
weight
at
all
in
establishing his Pharisaic c o n n e c t i o n s . ( 2 ) Similarly, it w a s s h o w n a b o v e that J o s e p h u s b e l i e v e s in the i m m o r tality o f the soul, as d o his Essenes a n d Pharisees. A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s directly e n d o r s e s o n l y the Essene p o s i t i o n (War
2:154-158),
a close
analysis o f his r e m a r k s r e v e a l e d also that h e agrees w i t h the Pharisaic belief in a " r e i n c a r n a t i o n " o f g o o d souls. C r e u z e r a n d
Montgomery
t h o u g h t that J o s e p h u s ' s b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y reflected his Pharisaic in clination;
64
W e i s s also suggests that J o s e p h u s ' s e s p o u s a l o f " e i n e r A r t
'Auferstehungshoffhung'"
betrays his Pharisaic s t a n d p o i n t .
65
N o w it is well attested, in the N T a n d the r a b b i n i c literature, that the Pharisees b e l i e v e d in r e s u r r e c t i o n a n d that the S a d d u c e e s d e n i e d i t .
6 6
J o s e p h u s c o n f i r m s this. N e v e r t h e l e s s , o n e c a n n o t r e g a r d resurrection as a p u r e l y Pharisaic distinctive. V a r i o u s h o p e s for a future life, i n c l u d i n g that o f b o d i l y a n d spiritual resurrection, w e r e e m b r a c e d b y the J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c writers o f the p e r i o d ; doctrine o f resurrection.
68
6 7
the infant C h u r c h also e s p o u s e d a
T h u s , a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s is clearly u n s y m
pathetic t o w a r d the S a d d u c e a n denial o f the afterlife, that d o e s n o t yet establish h i m as a Pharisee. T h e i r a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f fate a n d i m m o r tality, he says, a c c o r d s w i t h the general J e w i s h v i e w . In
o u r e v a l u a t i o n o f the
6 9
general theoretical a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n
J o s e p h u s a n d the Pharisees w e m u s t recall further that his critique o f the g r o u p always relates t o p r a c t i c e a n d n o t t h e o r y .
7 0
H e never impugns
their goal o f axptfkta with respect to the l a w s , b u t h e d o e s c h a l l e n g e their reputation o n this s c o r e , o n the basis o f their a c t i o n s . 6 3
71
Since Josephus's
E.g., Notscher, Aufsatze, 33-49; Wachter, "Haltung", 109f.; and Sanders, Paul, 257-270. Sanders explains the two emphases as two answers to the question why God chose the community. In their prayer and worship, the Qumraners would naturally em phasize God's election, in consequence of their own unworthiness. When comparing themselves to others, however, the emphasis is on their religious deeds. Creuzer, "Ruckblick", 907f.; Montgomery, "Religion", 304. Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 426. Acts 23:8; Avot de Rabbi Nathan 5. Cf. Pss. Sol. 3:3-10; 1 Enoch 45:4f.; 61:5; 108; 4 Ezra 7:37; 2 Baruch 30:2-5; 5051; Nicklesburg, Resurrection, 180. 1 Cor. 15:lff., 31ff.; 1 Thess. 4:16ff. Cf. War 2:158 (on the appeal of Essene views!); Ant. 10:277-280; 16:397-398; Ag.Ap. 2:180. Cf. War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:400-432; 17:41-45; Life 191-198. An obvious parallel is M t . 23:Iff., in which the Matthean Jesus commends Pharisaic teaching (vv. 1-2) but condemns the group's behaviour (vv. 3ff.). 6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
335
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
d i s p a r a g e m e n t o f the Pharisees always has t o d o with their b e h a v i o u r , the fact that h e h o l d s a p o s i t i o n similar to theirs o n c o n c e p t s o f i m m o r tality a n d fate/free will c a n n o t b e taken t o suggest that h e w a s a Pharisee. It is surely significant that J o s e p h u s n e v e r c o n n e c t s his o w n beliefs in resurrection a n d fate with those o f the Pharisees, a l t h o u g h h e e x p l i c i d y ( a n d often) e n d o r s e s the Essenes' v i e w s .
C . Opposition to the Sadducees J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n s o n resurrection a n d
fate/free
will as the " d o g m a t i c " alternatives to S a d d u c e a n skepticism {War 2 : 1 6 2 1 6 6 ) : the Pharisees affirm; the S a d d u c e e s d e n y . Since it is clear that his o w n sympathies are with the affirmative
side (Ant.
10:277Iff.),
b e c a u s e his portrayal o f the S a d d u c e e s is generally d e r o g a t o r y ,
72
and some
critics h a v e a s s u m e d that h e was a Pharisee. Paret d e v o t e s several p a g e s to a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s a n t i - S a d d u c e a n a n i m u s , all in o r d e r to p r o v e that J o s e p h u s w a s a P h a r i s e e .
73
A n d W e i s s avers:
So lasst sich also bereits aus dem durchaus negativen Urteil des Josephus uber die Partei der Sadduzaer indirekt auf seinen eigenen, namlich pharisaischen Standpunkt schliessen. 74
It is true that all o f the sources ( N T , rabbis, J o s e p h u s ) attest the rivalry that existed in the first c e n t u r y b e t w e e n Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s . If, therefore, J o s e p h u s w e r e k n o w n o n other g r o u n d s to h a v e b e e n a Pharisee, that m i g h t explain his antipathy t o w a r d the S a d d u c e e s . O n e c a n n o t a s s u m e , h o w e v e r , that Pharisaism a n d S a d d u c e e i s m w e r e the o n l y alternatives o f the d a y , so that a n y o n e w h o disliked the Sad d u c e e s m u s t h a v e b e e n a Pharisee. T h e religious l a n d s c a p e o f Palestine evidently offered m a n y sectarian affiliations, a n y o n e o f w h i c h ( s u c h as the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y ) m i g h t h a v e b e e n hostile to the S a d d u c e e s .
7 5
In
a d d i t i o n , o n e p r e s u m a b l y h a d the o p t i o n o f non-affiliation a n d private dislike o f the g r o u p . The
fundamental
weakness
in
the
equation
between
"anti-
S a d d u c e a n " a n d " p r o - P h a r i s a i c " is that J o s e p h u s is e v e n m o r e hostile t o w a r d the Pharisees than he is t o w a r d the S a d d u c e e s ! H e discusses the Pharisees m u c h m o r e often than the S a d d u c e e s , usually in o r d e r to s h o w their nefarious influence o n J e w i s h history. H e presents t h e m as reli7 2
Cf. War 2:166; Ant. 18:16; 20:199. Paret, "Pharisaismus", 820f.: "Wirklich erhalten wir . . . aus der Feder des Pharisaers Josephus eine hochst ungiinstige Schilderung jener [sc. the Sadducean] Relgionspartei". Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 424, Cf. also Holscher, "Josephus", 1936. Cf., e.g., M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism". 7 3
7 4
7 5
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
336
g i o u s frauds a n d t r o u b l e - m a k e r s , o p p o s e d to all g o v e r n m e n t s , w h e t h e r H a s m o n e a n o r H e r o d i a n . It w a s largely they w h o p r e c i p i t a t e d downfall
o f the
glorious H a s m o n e a n dynasty.
T h i s consistent
the anti-
Pharisaic bias in J o s e p h u s p r e c l u d e s the a s s u m p t i o n that his (relatively m i l d ) r e p u d i a t i o n o f S a d d u c e a n beliefs m a k e s h i m a Pharisee.
D . Josephus's Differences from Philo If the diversity o f the r e l i g i o u s scene in
first-century
Palestine disallows
the e q u a t i o n o f " a n t i - S a d d u c e a n " with " P h a r i s a i c " , it also d e n i e s the old
assumption
"Hellenistic",
that
whatever
was Pharisaic.
was
Palestinian-Jewish,
and
W e h a v e n o t e d that Schlatter
J o s e p h u s p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e the ancient J e w r e p r e s e n t e d
not
valued
Pharisaism,
unlike P h i l o , w h o offered a J e w i s h H e l l e n i s m . It w a s precisely in this contrast b e t w e e n P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s that Schlatter f o u n d e v i d e n c e o f the latter's Pharisaic m i n d s e t .
7 6
U n l i k e P h i l o , J o s e p h u s : u n d e r s t a n d s piety
as the d o i n g o f G o d ' s will a n d n o t as the s o u l ' s c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f G o d ; lacks a n y aesthetic s e n s e ;
78
gives n o p l a c e to a X o y o ^ - d o c t r i n e ;
tains a biblical/Palestinian-Jewish a n t h r o p o l o g y .
8 0
79
7 7
a n d re
A l l o f these
non-
A l e x a n d r i a n t h e m e s Schlatter assumes to b e Pharisaic. It is n o l o n g e r p o s s i b l e either to distinguish rigidly b e t w e e n " P a l e s t i n i a n " a n d " H e l l e n i s t i c " o r to e q u a t e " P a l e s t i n i a n " a n d " P h a r i s a i c " , w h i c h w e r e the t w o bases o f Schlatter's v i e w . A t t r i d g e c o m m e n t s : Pharisaism for Schlatter is a rather ill-defined foil to the type of Judaism represented by Philo. W h i l e it is fair to note the differences between Philo and Josephus, the designation of the latter's position as Pharisaic is not particularly illuminating. 81
E . Josephus's Pharisaic Teachers? Rajak
has
proposed
a new
and
J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic a l l e g i a n c e .
82
ingenious argument
in
favour o f
In Life 1 9 6 - 1 9 8 , J o s e p h u s tells a b o u t
a plot to r e m o v e h i m f r o m his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d . T h e h i g h priest w a s p e r s u a d e d to send a d e l e g a t i o n o f four m e n to the r e g i o n , w h o s e p o o l e d
76
Wie sprach Josephus von GottP, 7; Theologie, p. V . Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 9f, on Schlatter. Theologie, 7, 27 n. 1. For this and the following three references, I have been aided by Attridge's notes to p. 9 of his Interpretation. Ibid., 4. Ibid., If. Ibid., 21 n. 1. Attridge, Interpretation, 10. Rajak, Josephus, 30f. 77
7 8
7 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
337
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS
talents w o u l d at least e q u a l those o f J o s e p h u s ( ! ) , so that the G a l i l e a n s m i g h t b e c o n v i n c e d t o a c c e p t their administration instead o f J o s e p h u s ' s . T h e delegates, h e says, differed with respect t o their social class b u t h a d a similar level o f e d u c a t i o n ( § 1 9 6 ) . T w o represented the p o p u l a r classes a n d w e r e Pharisees;
o n e w a s b o t h a priest a n d a Pharisee;
a n d the
y o u n g e s t (vea>T<XT0<;) w a s o f h i g h - p r i e s d y d e s c e n t ( § 1 9 7 ) . R a j a k p o i n t s o u t that w h e n , s o m e w h a t later in the narrative ( § 2 7 4 ) , J o s e p h u s e n c o u n t e r s the d e l e g a t i o n , its m e m b e r s offer h i m d u p l i c i t o u s praise, t o the effect that: m y reputation was a tribute to themselves, since they had been my teachers and were m y fellow citizens (co$ av StSaaxocXcov T£ pou yevopevcov xat 7coXtT
In
identifying
w h i c h o f the delegates
might
have
been
Josephus's
teachers, R a j a k assumes that " h e c a n h a r d l y b e i n c l u d i n g the fourth a n d youngest m e m b e r " .
8 3
T h a t m e a n s that his teachers w e r e Pharisees. R a
j a k argues further that these m e n c o u l d n o t h a v e taught J o s e p h u s
after
his final a l i g n m e n t with the Pharisees ( b e c a u s e his e d u c a t i o n s e e m s t o h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e b y t h e n ) , o r d u r i n g his e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h the three schools ( n o r e a s o n g i v e n ) , so they m u s t h a v e b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e for his b a s i c e d u c a t i o n b e f o r e the a g e o f sixteen (Life 7 - 8 ) . S h e thinks, there fore, that J o s e p h u s w a s b r o u g h t u p a Pharisee, then e x p e r i m e n t e d with o t h e r g r o u p s , a n d ultimately fell b a c k o n the tradition i n c u l c a t e d d u r i n g his c h i l d h o o d .
8 4
It m u s t b e c o n c e d e d that R a j a k has identified an i n t r i g u i n g p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n : it appears that at least s o m e o f the delegates sent to replace J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n his 8t8aaxocXot. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the m o v e m e n t f r o m that p r e m i s e to the c o n c l u s i o n that J o s e p h u s w a s b r o u g h t u p a Pharisee in v o l v e s m a n y d u b i o u s inferences, w h i c h m a y b e d i v i d e d into t w o g r o u p s . First, that it w a s i n d e e d the Pharisees o f the d e l e g a t i o n w h o h a d taught Josephus,
a n d that
they
had done
so qua Pharisees,
is o n l y o n e
h y p o t h e s i s a m o n g m a n y o f e q u a l plausibility. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t say w h i c h o f the delegates h a d taught h i m , a n d in what c a p a c i t y a n d c o n text.
85
It is a m a t t e r o f s p e c u l a t i o n . T w o o f the delegates, for e x a m p l e ,
w e r e priests. S i n c e , as w e h a v e seen, J o s e p h u s consistently c o n n e c t s his expertise in the laws with his priestly heritage, a n d since h e d o e s so a g a i n in Ant. 20:259'-2661'Life 1-9, o n e m i g h t argue that it w a s the priests w h o
8 3
Ibid., 31. Ibid., 30f. Rajak's disqualification of the vecoxaxoc seems unwarranted, since his youthfulness is clearly relative to the ages of the others. 8 4
8 5
338
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
w e r e his teachers, qua p r i e s t s .
86
T h i s hypothesis s e e m s t o r e c e i v e s o m e
c o n f i r m a t i o n f r o m the instructions g i v e n t o the d e l e g a t i o n ( § 1 9 8 ) . T h e y are c o m m i s s i o n e d t o d i s c o v e r the cause (atrto^) o f the G a l i l e a n s ' f o n d n e s s for J o s e p h u s a n d then t o p o i n t o u t that they c a n m a t c h his three greatest qualifications, n a m e l y : ( a ) they are all Jerusalemites, as h e is; ( b ) their e x pertise in the rcdcTptoc eOr) equals his ( i n the vopot); a n d ( c ) i f the Galileans venerate his priestly office, then the delegates s h o u l d p o i n t o u t that t w o o f t h e m are also priests. W h a t w e h a v e h e r e is a reprise o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n estimation o f his assets, w h i c h h e likes t o reiterate; h e is a Jerusalemite priest w h o interprets the laws with <xxpt|kta ( e . g . , War 1:2f.; 3 : 3 5 2 ; Ant. 20:259ff.; Life Iff.; Ap. 1 : 5 4 . ) . Expertise in the laws is h e r e again j u x t a p o s e d with priestly heritage. C o n s p i c u o u s l y absent, h o w e v e r , is a n y m e n tion o f Pharisaic m e m b e r s h i p as o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s o r the d e l e g a t i o n ' s credentials—conspicuously
b e c a u s e , if J o s e p h u s
viewed
his alleged
Pharisaic training as an asset, h e w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y h a v e m e n t i o n e d it here as a p o i n t o n w h i c h the d e l e g a t i o n h o p e d t o better h i m : they h a v e three Pharisees. M y c l a i m is o n l y that it is n o t clear w h i c h m e m b e r s o f the d e l e g a t i o n h a d taught J o s e p h u s o r in w h a t c o n t e x t a n d c a p a c i t y they d i d s o . T h e hypothesis that it w a s the priests w h o h a d b e e n his teachers, I h a v e sug gested, seems at least as plausible as R a j a k ' s t h e o r y that h e w a s taught b y Pharisees. I n a n y case, R a j a k ' s further
a r g u m e n t that the Pharisees
taught
J o s e p h u s d u r i n g his c h i l d h o o d contradicts the sense o f his o w n narrative. H e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n a n y Pharisaic influence in his c h i l d h o o d ; e d u c a t e d in a priestly h o m e , h e w a s already r e n o w n e d for his dxptpeta b y a g e four teen (Life 1-9). I f h e h a d b e e n b r o u g h t u p as a Pharisee h e w o u l d hardly h a v e n e e d e d to g o o u t a n d gain p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e (Iprcetptocv X<x(3etv) o f that g r o u p , as o f the S a d d u c e e s a n d Essenes, at a g e sixteen (Life 1 0 ) . S o if J o s e p h u s w a s e v e r taught b y Pharisees, as Pharisees—and this is b y n o m e a n s clear, this instruction m u s t h a v e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g o r after his e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n with the J e w i s h schools at a g e 16.
F. Josephus's Desire for Reward and his Hypocrisy N o survey o f the a r g u m e n t s that h a v e b e e n offered as p r o o f o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic o u t l o o k w o u l d b e c o m p l e t e w i t h o u t at least a reference to the 8 6
Another alternative interpretation: the delegates were able to congratulate them selves on Josephus's administration of the Galilee precisely because that was the subject of their instruction; they had trained him (not long before, in Jerusalem) for his new duties as administrator. Perhaps they were among the 7upo>T0i (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$) a n d h a v i n g then spent s o m e t i m e w i t h an ascetic teacher, he returned to J e r u s a l e m a n d : lvveocxat8£xocTOv 8* exo$ ex
I. Context of Life 12 B e y o n d the general a i m o f p r e s e n t i n g J o s e p h u s in a g o o d light, as a m a n o f character (cf. Life 4 3 0 ) , it is n o t clear that the i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u sion o f the Life ( 1 - 2 7 , 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 ) h a v e a n y specific role in the a p o l o g e t i c against Justus o f T i b e r i a s , w h i c h g o v e r n s the b o d y o f the tract. T h e y ap p e a r to b e little m o r e than b r i e f s u m m a r i e s o f J o s e p h u s ' s y o u t h a n d post w a r life, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
1
J o s e p h u s has p r o m i s e d , in Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 6 , to elaborate u p o n his lineage and the events o f his life, p r e s u m a b l y in s u p p o r t o f his c l a i m to s u p e r i o r p r e c i s i o n (axpifktoc) in the laws ( 2 0 : 2 5 9 - 2 6 5 ) . I n fulfillment o f that p r o m i s e , h e o p e n s the Life with a recital o f his priestly p e d i g r e e ( § § 1-6). T h e n follows an a c c o u n t o f h o w h e c a m e to a c q u i r e p r e c i s i o n in the laws b y the a g e o f fourteen ( § § 7 - 9 ) . T h e n c o m e s the d e s c r i p t i o n o f his adoles cent religious quest ( § § 1 0 - 1 2 ) , w h i c h is the focus o f this chapter. The
usual interpretation o f Life 10-12 is as f o l l o w s .
2
A t age sixteen,
J o s e p h u s w a n t e d to gain p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e (epTietptoc) o f the three
1
So Schurer, Geschichte, I, 75; Niese, HZ, 227; Holscher, "Josephus", 1994; T . Ra jak, "Justus", 354. Contra R . Laqueur, Historiker, 246. Cf. chapter 13, above. Since we lack proper commentaries on Josephus, one is thrown back upon the paraphrases or summaries of Life 10-12 by the authors cited in the following discussion. 2
343
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST
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 . H e t h o u g h t that, if h e investigated all o f t h e m , h e w o u l d b e in a p o s i t i o n to c h o o s e the best (cb6pT)v atprjaea6at TTJV aptanrjv, § 10). S o h e e m b a r k e d o n an intensive p r o g r a m m e o f training in e a c h s c h o o l a n d , in a d d i t i o n , spent s o m e t i m e w i t h a baptist ascetic n a m e d B a n n u s ( § 11). H i s investigation o f his o p t i o n s n o w c o m p l e t e (TTJV l7Ct0upiav xeXetaxjas), J o s e p h u s
made
his
d e c i s i o n in
favour
of
the
Pharisaic s c h o o l (r|pl|aprjv 7uoXtTSusa0at xfj Oaptaatcov atpeaet xaxaxoXooOcov, § 12). T h u s , for e x a m p l e , J . A . M o n t g o m e r y w r o t e that J o s e p h u s : might flatter himself in later years that he had passed like a butterfly over the various pastures o f wisdom until in maturity he lighted upon that which pleased him best. At the age o f nineteen he made his choice and became a convinced Pharisee according to his own m i n d . 3
And
in the Compendia v o l u m e s H . W . A t t r i d g e c o m m e n t s ,
4 4
T h e account
[Life 10-12], w h i c h has its parallels in o t h e r stories o f p h i l o s o p h e r s ' quests, serves to indicate that J o s e p h u s m a d e an i n f o r m e d c h o i c e in o p ting for the P h a r i s e e s . " On
4
the usual interpretation,
b e c o m e s an
then, the w h o l e p a r a g r a p h {Life 10-12)
a c c o u n t o f the l e n g t h y p r e p a r a t i o n s
that J o s e p h u s
put
h i m s e l f t h r o u g h b e f o r e d e c i d i n g t o b e c o m e a Pharisee. H e h a d tried all o f the o p t i o n s , so his d e c i s i o n to b e c o m e a Pharisee w a s well c o n s i d e r e d a n d sure. The
c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w , h o w e v e r , faces serious o b s t a c l e s , n a m e l y : ( a )
it d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n the l o g i c o f the p a r a g r a p h ; ( b ) it m a k e s Life 10-12 w h o l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the larger c o n t e x t o f J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t ; a n d ( c ) the crucial clauses in § 12b c a n n o t b e a r the w e i g h t the w e i g h t that is p u t o n t h e m . T h e first t w o p o i n t s I shall take u p i m m e d i a t e l y , since they relate to the " c o n t e x t " o f § 12b; then I shall c o n sider p o i n t ( c ) in s o m e detail, as it is the focus o f this c h a p t e r . Few
critics s e e m to n o t i c e that the c u s t o m a r y r e a d i n g o f Life 10-12
r e n d e r s the l o g i c o f the p a r a g r a p h difficult to g r a s p . J o s e p h u s c l a i m s (§10)
that there are three s c h o o l s a m o n g the J e w s a n d that his o r i g i n a l
intention (cboprjv) w a s to study e a c h o n e (Iprcstptav Xa(ktv) so that h e
3
Montgomery, "Religion", 280f. In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sec tarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. M . E. Stone, "Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum", 2:3, 186. Likewise T . W . Franxman (Genesis, 3): "At sixteen he [Josephus] evidently attempted to broaden his horizons by a practical sampling of life and thought among Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, concluding these experiments with a three-year period spent as a hermit. By nineteen Jos. seems to have been prepared to make the choice which turned out to be in favour of casting his lot with the party of the Pharisees." 4
344
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
m i g h t c h o o s e the best. T h a t m u c h is clear. But h e g o e s o n to say that his original intention w a s n o t fulfilled. T h e e x p e r i e n c e h e g a i n e d was n o t sufficient to attract h i m to a n y o f the three s c h o o l s (prjSe TTJV eprcstptav ixavrjv epeauxcp voptaa$ etvat, § 1 1 ) . T h a t is precisely w h y he w e n t to follow B a n n u s in the w i l d e r n e s s . T h e lifestyle o f this baptist ascetic, in contrast to that o f the a c c r e d i t e d s c h o o l s , w a s so c o m p e l l i n g that J o s e p h u s b e c a m e his d e v o t e d disciple (CYIXCOTTJC eyevoprjv OCUTOU). R . M a y e r a n d C . M o l l e r c o r r e c t l y n o t e : Die Personlichkeit dieses Mannes [Bannus] sowie die Hauptelemente seiner Lebenshaltung scheinen den jungen Josephus stark angesprochen zu haben, denn er blieb drei Jahre bei i h m . 5
U n a c c o u n t a b l y , h o w e v e r , m o s t critics dismiss this three-year which
must
have
o c c u p i e d the
bulk
o f Josephus's
retreat—
experimentation
p e r i o d ! — a s a m e r e sidelight o r c o n c l u s i o n to the m a i n business o f study i n g the r e c o g n i z e d s c h o o l s . A g a i n s t the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w , I s u b m i t that the p h r a s e xr)v eTCtOuptav TeXettoaocs c a n n o t s i m p l y refer to the c o m p l e t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s originally intended p r o g r a m m e o f preparation, accomplished
my purpose".
as T h a c k e r a y r e n d e r s it:
"having
F o r this translation o v e r l o o k s the
cor
r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n the aorist participles o f SiaxpiPto a n d xeXeto. W e should rather translate § 12a: Having lived with him three years xat 8taTptc|>as reap' auxco evtamous xpets and having (thereby) satisfied my yearning xat TTJV emOuptav TeXettoaas I returned to the city. 6l£ T7)V 7u6XtV U7CeaTp£90V.
T h e fulfillment o f J o s e p h u s ' s e7ci6i>pta is clearly tied, in c h r o n o l o g i c a l se q u e n c e , to his t i m e with B a n n u s . It p r e c e d e s the return to J e r u s a l e m a n d the " f o l l o w i n g " o f the
Pharisees.
W h a t , then, is the m e a n i n g o f emOupta? It c a n n o t refer to J o s e p h u s ' s original " p u r p o s e " as h e d e s c r i b e s it in Life 10, b e c a u s e that p u r p o s e d i d n o t i n c l u d e a l e n g t h y wilderness retreat with B a n n u s . T h e w o r d m u s t refer, then, to the religious " l o n g i n g " o r " y e a r n i n g " that s p a w n e d his p r o g r a m m e o f study in the first p l a c e . It w a s that y e a r n i n g that was satisfied b y the religion o f B a n n u s . Finally, the v e r b xeXeto e m p h a s i z e s that J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r s his adoles cent religious quest to h a v e c l o s e d with his p e r i o d o f asceticism in the wilderness, after w h i c h he b e g a n his p u b l i c career in the city ( § § 1 2 b , 5
R. Mayer and C . Moller, "Josephus—Politiker und Prophet", in Josephus-Studien, edd. O.Betz, K . Haacker, and P. Schafer (1974), 272.
345
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST
13ff.). Josephus does not say that his time with Bannus made him eager to become a Pharisee. N o , his decision was made in favour of Bannus: "I became his devoted disciple (CTJXCOTTJS)". Where the regular schools had
come up empty, the desert monk offered something that met
Josephus's needs. If we had only § § 10-12a, therefore, the natural interpretation would be
that Josephus originally set out to examine the three mainstream
Jewish schools in order to choose the best, but that he did not find any of them to be adequate. T h e n he heard about Bannus and went off to investigate
his programme. It was this experience that resulted in
Josephus's "conversion", if that term is appropriate anywhere. H e liked what he saw and stayed with Bannus three years. Now,
if § 12b really means to say that Josephus "trat deflnitiv zu den
Pharisaern u b e r " ,
6
as the climax of his religious quest,
then the
paragraph § § 10-12 is quite confusing. H e has already said that his ex perience with the schools was not satisfying and that is why he became a disciple of the anchorite. Where, then, is the rationale for a final con version to Pharisaism? It makes no sense for him to conclude the matter by
saying, in effect:
" T h e n I returned to the city and became a
Pharisee". If that is what he means to say in § 12b, then he has written an incoherent narrative. The
problem of incoherence is made acute by the circumstance that
nothing Josephus has said about the Pharisees in War or Ant. would lead the reader to suppose that he was himself a member of the group. H e portrays them as power-hungry opportunists, whose actions undermine 7
their reputation for piety. Indeed, he will sustain this portrayal in the Life itself, in his hostile characterizations of the famous Pharisee Simon ben Gamaliel ( § § 189-198) and of the Pharisees who came to relieve him of his command in the Galilee ( § § 196-335). Thus, if the six crucial words in § 12b really mean to say that Josephus chose to become a Pharisee, they are as baffling in their immediate context as they are in the larger context of Josephus's thought. T . Rajak has noticed at least something of the incongruity of Life 1012 on the usual interpretation of § 12b. She aptly points out that the reader expects some explanation of the surprise move to Pharisaism. H e r solution of the problem is as follows: Josephus says that at the
age
of nineteen he began to adhere to
the
Pharisaic sect. H e gives no reason for having done so ( V 12), and describes
6
So Paret, "Pharisaismus", 811.
7
Cf. War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:288-298, 400-432; 17:41-45.
346
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
it as a matter-of-course decision. It would make good sense if we supposed that in the end he fell back upon the views with which he had been brought up. 8
T h i s t h e o r y r u n s a g r o u n d , h o w e v e r , o n J o s e p h u s ' s o w n a c c o u n t o f his early e d u c a t i o n (Life 7 - 1 0 ) , w h i c h m a k e s n o m e n t i o n w h a t s o e v e r o f Pharisaic influences. O n the c o n t r a r y , he extols the virtues o n l y o f his priestly heritage. H i s r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n t o familiarize h i m s e l f w i t h the three J e w i s h s c h o o l s , m o r e o v e r , p r e s u p p o s e s that h e h a d h a d n o serious a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h t h e m at a g e sixteen. H e c o u l d n o t , t h e n , h a v e b e e n raised as a P h a r i s e e . J . L e M o y n e also r e m a r k s o n the c o n s p i c u o u s a b s e n c e o f a n y e x p l a n a tion for J o s e p h u s ' s final c o n v e r s i o n to Pharisaism after his h a p p y years as a disciple o f B a n n u s . T h e F r e n c h scholar ventures the h y p o t h e s i s that, o n his return f r o m the w i l d e r n e s s , J o s e p h u s " c h o i s i t u n ideal d e v i e , celui des Pharisiens, q u i lui parait plus e n r a p p o r t a v e c s o n e x p e r i e n c e d e retraite au desert q u e l ' i d e a l s a d d u c e e n " .
9
T o b e sure, if J o s e p h u s
m e a n s to say that h e c o n v e r t e d t o Pharisaism after his t i m e with B a n n u s , then o n e m u s t a s s u m e w i t h L e M o y n e that B a n n u s a n d the Pharisees h a d a g o o d deal in c o m m o n . Y e t n o t h i n g that J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the Pharisees e l s e w h e r e suggests a n y sort o f a n c h o r i t i c l e a n i n g s o n their part. H e often d e s c r i b e s their a c tivities in the political a r e n a , their i n v o l v e m e n t with v a r i o u s rulers, a n d their influence with the m a s s e s .
1 0
R e c a l l that L . Finkelstein w a s able to
p o r t r a y the Pharisees as f u n d a m e n t a l l y urban ( " p l e b e i a n " ) in o u t l o o k .
1 1
T h e J e w i s h s c h o o l that m o s t closely a p p r o a c h e s a m o n a s t i c ideal, in J o s e p h u s ' s presentation, is rather that o f the Essenes (cf. War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ; Ant. 1 8 : 1 9 - 2 2 ) . L e M o y n e ' s p r o p o s a l s e e m s , therefore, to b e a desperate attempt to m a k e sense o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l interpretation o f Life 1 2 b in its c o n t e x t . S i n c e the usual u n d e r s t a n d i n g
o f Life 1 2 b runs c o u n t e r to its i m
m e d i a t e c o n t e x t a n d to J o s e p h u s ' s overall portrayal o f the Pharisees, it would
seem reasonable
to scrutinize
the
customary reading
before
m a k i n g it the basis for o n e ' s w h o l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s religious perspective.
8
9
1 0
1 1
Rajak, Josephus, 32. J. Le Moyne, Les Sadduceens (1972), 28. War 2:411; Ant. 13:289, 297-298, 401; 15:3-4, 370-371; 17:41; Life 21. L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees, I, 74-76.
347
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST
I I . Key Terms K e y w o r d s in the sentence are rcoXtTeueaOoii a n d xocxaxoXouGcov. A c c o r d i n g t o L i d d e l l a n d S c o t t , rcoXtTeuopoct usually o c c u r s in G r e e k literature with a sense that is closely related to the n o u n rcoXts, thus: " l i v e as a free citizen, take part in g o v e r n m e n t , m e d d l e w i t h politics, h o l d p u b l i c office, s h o w p u b l i c s p i r i t " . T h e y also g i v e , as a m e a n i n g r e p resented largely in J e w i s h a n d Christian texts, " d e a l w i t h ( i n private af fairs), o r b e h a v e " .
1 2
J o s e p h u s , a s a j e w w r i t i n g in G r e e k , w a s p r e s u m a b l y
eligible to use b o t h senses. T h i s creates t w o significantly different transla t i o n possibilities for TuoXixeueaOat in Life 1 2 b . G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , G e r m a n c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e o p t e d for the sense " t o take part in p u b l i c l i f e " , w h e r e a s E n g l i s h - l a n g u a g e scholarship has t e n d e d to i n v o k e the sense " t o behave". T h e T h o m p s o n - P r i c e edition o f Josephus (1777) rendered § 12b: " I b e g a n t o a p p l y m y s e l f to the study o f civil l a w , for w h i c h p u r p o s e I e n t e r e d the society o f the P h a r i s e e s . "
1 3
N o t i c e the clear distinction h e r e b e t w e e n
the m a i n clause ( " I b e g a n t o study civil l a w " ) a n d the s u b o r d i n a t e clause ( " f o r w h i c h p u r p o s e I e n t e r e d the society o f the P h a r i s e e s " ) . English translations,
Other
h o w e v e r , h a v e i g n o r e d this distinction a n d h a v e
o m i t t e d a n y association o f 7coXixeuea6at w i t h civil life. T h e m o s t influential has b e e n W . W h i s t o n ' s translation, w h i c h first a p p e a r e d in 1737 b u t has g o n e t h r o u g h n u m e r o u s editions a n d is still in print. A g a i n s t T h o m p s o n a n d P r i c e , he t o o k 7CoXiTeuea0ai to m e a n s o m e t h i n g like " b e h a v e " , thus: " I b e g a n t o c o n d u c t m y s e l f a c c o r d i n g t o the rules o f the sect o f the P h a r i s e e s " . T h i s r e n d e r i n g treats the sentence as if it w e r e a single clause. W h i s t o n ' s translation w a s a d o p t e d b y the W o r l d Library edition (1900) and m a y have influenced Thackeray's rendering for the L o e b series ( 1 9 2 6 ) .
1 4
T h e latter has: " I b e g a n t o g o v e r n m y life
b y the rules o f the P h a r i s e e s " . S i n c e the infinitiveTCoXtTeifeaOoctc o m b i n e s w i t h the aorist f}pi-ap7)v to f o r m the m a i n clause o f § 1 2 b , the W h i s t o n / T h a c k e r a y interpretation o frcoXtTeueaOoctreads the sentence as n o t h i n g o t h e r than a definitive statement o f J o s e p h u s ' s
conversion: what
he
" b e g a n to d o " w a s " t o c o n d u c t his l i f e " b y the rules o f the Pharisees. It is h a r d to g a u g e precisely the i m p a c t o f W h i s t o n a n d T h a c k e r a y o n a n g l o p h o n e scholarship, b u t that i m p a c t is u n d e n i a b l y f o r m i d a b l e . A l l o f the m a j o r English-speaking c o m m e n t a t o r s take the phrase 7)p£dpT)v TcoXixeueaOai as a c o n v e r s i o n statement, w i t h the sense that J o s e p h u s 1 2
1 3
1 4
xx).
E.g., 2 Mace. 11:25; Aristeas 31; Acts 23:1; Phil. 1:27. The Works of Flavius Josephus, 2 vols., edd. E. Thompson and W . C . Price (1777). Thackeray notes only that he has "occasionally consulted" Whiston ( L C L edn., I,
348
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
b e c a m e a Pharisee.
S i n c e it is d e m o n s t r a b l e
that these critics
are
generally influenced b y the L o e b t r a n s l a t i o n — m a n y cite it verbatim—, it is p r o b a b l e that their interpretations dependent.
o f Life 12b are n o t w h o l l y in
15
G e r m a n scholars, t h o u g h they also tend to see Life 12 as p r o o f o f J o s e p h u s ' s d e c i s i o n to b e c o m e a Pharisee, h a v e b y a n d large
taken
rjp£<xpT)vrcoXiTeueaOocias a distinct m a i n clause, referring to J o s e p h u s ' s en try into political o r p u b l i c life. C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g translations
and
paraphrases o f Life 1 2 b ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d w h e r e it a p p e a r s ) . ( a ) B . N i e s e ( 1 8 9 6 ) : " E r g i n g b e i d e n drei Sekten . . . u m d a n n m i t 19 J a h r e n in das djfentliche Leben einzutreten; er schloss sich d e n L e h r e n d e r Pharisaer
an."
1 6
(b) G . Holscher (1916):
" b i s er als N e u n z e h n j a h r i g e r
. . . nach
J e r u s a l e m zuriickgekehrt u n d als A n h a n g e r d e r pharisaischen atpeats in 17
den Staatsdienst getreten sei" ,
( c ) H . R a s p ( 1 9 2 4 ) : " I m n e u n z e h n t e n J a h r e h a b e er seine V o r b e r e i t u n g a b g e s c h l o s s e n . . . u n d die offentliche Laufbahn (rcoXtTeueaGat) als M i t glied d e r Pharisaersekte (TTJ Oocptaocuov atpeaet
XOCTOCXOXOUG&V)
18
begonnen."
( d ) L . Hafaeli ( 1 9 2 5 ) : " U n d d a n n mit 19 J a h r e n fing ich an, mich im offentlichen Leben zu betdtigen u n d z w a r n a c h d e m P r o g r a m m d e r Pharisaer sekte."
1 9
( e ) A . Schlatter ( 1 9 3 2 ) : " b i s er sich 19 j a h r i g entschloss, ' i m A n 20
schluss an die Partei d e r Pharisaer zu politisieren'" .
(f) E . L o h s e ( 1 9 7 1 ) : " k e h r t e m i t n e u n z e h n J a h r e n n a c h J e r u s a l e m zuriick, schloss sich d e n Pharisaern an u n d begann, sich im offentlichen 21
Leben zu betdtigen".
( g ) H . - F . W e i s s ( 1 9 7 9 ) : " d a s s er als N e u n z e h n j a h r i g e r . . . begonnen habe, ' i m A n s c h l u s s an die Partei d e r Pharisaer zu politisieren'"
2 2
It is r e m a r k a b l e that the G e r m a n c o m m e n t a t o r s s h o u l d so consistently ( a n d i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) take TCoXtxeueaGoct in the sense o f p u b l i c activity, while their a n g l o p h o n e counterparts
15
generally refer it to J o s e p h u s ' s
The two leading protagonists in the debate on Josephus's Pharisees, Neusner ("Josephus's Pharisees") and Rivkin (Revolution), both use the Loeb translation for most of their block quotations from Josephus; Attridge (Interpretation, 52, 58, 67, 69) follows it often. Cohen (Josephus, xi) acknowledges "inspiration" from the L C L edn. and Shutt (Studies, ix) notes his acquaintance with it. Niese, HZ, 194. Holscher, "Josephus", 1936. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 34. Cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 247. L. Hafaeli, Flavius Josephus' Lebensbeschreibung (1925), ad loc. Schlatter, Theologie, 208. E. Lohse, Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (1971), 102. Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 424. 16 17
18
19
2 0 21
2 2
349
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST
o r d e r i n g o f his o w n life o r b e h a v i o u r . T h e G e r m a n translations
of
rcoXixeueaOoci cited a b o v e ( a l o n g w i t h T h o m p s o n - P r i c e ) g i v e an entirely new
c o m p l e x i o n to Life 1 2 b : the m a i n clause n o w m e a n s that J o s e p h u s
b e g a n to i n v o l v e h i m s e l f in p u b l i c affairs. Pharisees
n o w appears
H i s c o n n e c t i o n with
o n l y in the f o u r - w o r d d e p e n d e n t
the
clause, xfj
Oocptaocuov atpeaet XOCTOCXOXOUGCDV. T h i s shift, as w e shall see presently, is o f m o n u m e n t a l significance. A d e c i s i o n a b o u t the m e a n i n g o frcoXtTeueaGociin Life 1 2 b m u s t b a s e itself o n ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e o f the w o r d elsewhere a n d ( b ) the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t in this c a s e . The
v e r b 7i;oXtT£U
half o f these o c c u r r e n c e s are in the m i d d l e v o i c e . J o s e p h u s uses rcoXiTeuoo in the active to m e a n " n e g o t i a t e " , mulate p o l i c y " ,
2 5
2 3
" a c t officially o r p u b l i c l y " ,
o r , in Ant. 17, " b e h a v e t o w a r d ( s o m e o n e ) " .
2 6
2 4
"for
I n the
passive, the v e r b generally m e a n s " b e g o v e r n e d " o r " l i v e u n d e r a (par ticular) r e g i m e " . In
its
fifteen
2 7
occurrences
outside
of
our
passage,
the
middle
TCoXiTeuopoci is invariably p r e d i c a t e d o f a p u b l i c figure. A s with the active v o i c e , the m i d d l e o c c u r s t w i c e in Ant.
17 w i t h the m e a n i n g " b e h a v e "
( 1 7 : 1 0 3 , 2 4 3 ) . But the subjects h e r e are the sons o f H e r o d the G r e a t a n d the issue is their b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d their father;
it is a fine line that
separates their family intrigues f r o m p u b l i c affairs. In a n y case, all o f these o c c u r r e n c e s o frcoXiT£u
28
T h e material o n H e r o d ' s
struggles m a y e v e n b e i n f l u e n c e d b y the style o f J o s e p h u s ' s 2 9
U s u a l l y , h o w e v e r , rcoXtxeuopat in J o s e p h u s has the sense " t o g o v e r n , h o l d office, enact p o l i c y , act as a l e a d e r " , o r the like. J o s e p h u s speaks, for
e x a m p l e , o f the " p u b l i c m e a s u r e s " taken b y M o s e s (oaa Moouafjs
ETCoXtTeuaocTO, Ant. 4 : 1 3 ) a n d b y Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e (Ant. He
13:432).
uses the w o r d to d e s c r i b e the activities o f the five r e g i o n a l g o v e r n i n g
c o u n c i l s established b y G a b i n i u s (ercoXtTeuovTO ot ev 'IepoaoXupot?, Ant.
2 3
Ant. 1:253. Ant. 18:256. Ant. 19:43. Ant. 17:16, 60, 281. Ant. 11:112, 279; 12:38, 142; 20:234. Cf. Thackeray, Josephus, 110-112; G. C . Richards, "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities", Classical Quarterly 33 (1939), 37f. If the variantrcoXtTeueaGoctwere accepted at Ant. 17:60 (so A M W ) , it would give one clear example of the meaning "behave" in Josephus (again in Ant. 17!). Both Niese and Marcus/Wikgren ( L C L edn.), however, reject this variant. 2 4
2 5
2 6
27
2 8
2 9
350
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
14:91). T h e 30
figures,
sons o f B a b a ,
w h o are d e s c r i b e d as p r o m i n e n t
public
are said to h a v e f o l l o w e d a p o l i c y (£7COXIT£UOVTO) o f e n d o r s i n g
Antigonus
o v e r against
the
young Herod
(Ant.
15:263).
Josephus
remarks that the P a r t h i a n a r i s t o c r a c y c o n s i d e r e d it i m p o s s i b l e to g o v e r n (7toXtT£uea6at) w i t h o u t a m o n a r c h y (Ant. 1 8 : 4 4 ) . Finally, J o s e p h u s c o n cludes his a c c o u n t o f the h i g h - p r i e s d y succession with the n o t i c e : " S o m e o f these h e l d office (e7coXtxeuaavTo) d u r i n g the reigns o f H e r o d a n d A r chelaus his s o n " (Ant.
20:251).
3 1
O u t s i d e o f o u r passage, 7uoXixeuopai o c c u r s twice in the Life, b o t h times in c o n n e c t i o n with J o s e p h u s ' s d e f e n c e o f his leadership in the G a l i l e e . In § 2 5 8 , h e is r e s p o n d i n g to the d e l e g a t i o n sent f r o m J e r u s a l e m
to
replace h i m . R e b u t t i n g the c h a r g e that h e has acted as a tyrant rather than as a general (cf. § 2 6 0 ) , J o s e p h u s appeals to the t e s t i m o n y o f the Galileans: " A s k t h e m h o w I h a v e l i v e d a n d w h e t h e r I h a v e g o v e r n e d (7t£7coXtT£upat) here with c o m p l e t e d i g n i t y a n d Josephus
then
virtue"
( m a g n a n i m o u s l y ! ) offers to p a r d o n
the
(Thackeray). delegation—
against the wishes o f the G a l i l e a n s , w h o h a v e b e c o m e i n d i g n a n t o n his b e h a l f ( § 2 6 2 ) — o n the c o n d i t i o n that the emissaries repent designs a n d
o f their
" g i v e a true r e p o r t a b o u t m y p u b l i c life (7cept TCOV i p o t
7C£7roXtT£up£Vcov) to those w h o h a d sent t h e m " ( T h a c k e r a y ) . S i n c e the w h o l e issue in the d e l e g a t i o n affair is J o s e p h u s ' s m a n n e r o f leadership in the G a l i l e e , T h a c k e r a y m u s t b e c o r r e c t in translating 7coXtT£uopoct here as referring to J o s e p h u s ' s p u b l i c activities a n d p o l i c i e s . Ordinarily,
then, J o s e p h u s
uses 7toXtT£uopoct in its p r i m a r y
sense,
w h i c h is linked to the noXiq, thus: to g o v e r n , enact p o l i c y , s h o w p u b l i c spirit, a n d so forth. T h a t he uses the v e r b w i t h this s a m e sense in Life 1 2 b — " t o e n g a g e in p u b l i c affairs"—is
made
sentence. J o s e p h u s has j u s t
clear b y the finished
immediate
c o n t e x t o f the
d e s c r i b i n g his three years in the
wilderness (iprjptoc) with B a n n u s ( § § l l - 1 2 a ) . H e c o n c l u d e s that e p i s o d e with the r e m a r k : " m y y e a r n i n g n o w satisfied, I r e t u r n e d to the city (£t<; T7|v 7c6Xiv u7t£<JTp£<pov, § 1 2 a ) . I m m e d i a t e l y after these w o r d s c o m e s o u r sentence: " A n d n o w , b e i n g n i n e t e e n years o f a g e , rjp5dtpr)v 7toXiT£u£a6at" (§ 1 2 b ) . T h e p r o x i m i t y o f nokiq a n drcoXtTeueaOoctsuggests the f o l l o w i n g interpretation:
" F o l l o w i n g m y p r o t r a c t e d wilderness retreat, I r e t u r n e d
to the city (noXiq) a n d b e g a n to e n g a g e in p u b l i c affairs (7ToXtT£U£a6ai)." Biblical-Jewish history c o m m o n l y saw the desert as the p l a c e for m e e t i n g
3 0
According to Ant. 15:263, they "had a high position and great influence with the masses'' (Marcus/Wikgren). Cf. also Ant. 14:260. 3 1
351
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST
G o d a n d for p r e p a r i n g o n e s e l f for a p u b l i c c a r e e r ;
32
obvious examples
are M o s e s ( E x . 3 - 4 ) a n d J e s u s ( M t . 4 : 1 - 1 4 ) . It w o u l d s e e m that J o s e p h u s is p r e s e n t i n g his o w n training in t e r m s o f this m o t i f . H i s desert retreat w i t h B a n n u s p r e p a r e d h i m for p u b l i c activity (7uoXtTeuea6<xt). T h e p r o p o s e d interpretation o f TCoXtxeoeaOat s e e m s to b e p l a c e d b e y o n d d o u b t b y the s e q u e l . F o r i m m e d i a t e l y after J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s that h e b e g a n t o 7coXtTeuea6oct ( § 1 2 b ) , h e p r o c e e d s to tell o f his d i p l o m a t i c a n d political activities ( § § 13ff.), w h i c h activities o c c u p y the rest o f the b o o k . First h e r e c o u n t s his e m b a s s y t o R o m e : h e w a s c h o s e n t o g o there in o r d e r t o try t o free s o m e fellow priests w h o h a d b e e n sent t o N e r o o n a m i n o r c h a r g e . O n his return f r o m R o m e , J o s e p h u s w a s already a p u b l i c figure, b y his o w n a c c o u n t ( § § 1 7 - 2 3 ) . H e tried t o avert the inci pient r e v o l t , p l e a d i n g w i t h r e b e l leaders a n d c o n s u l t i n g the c h i e f priests a n d l e a d i n g Pharisees ( § 2 2 ) ; i n d e e d , b y his use o f rjpets in § § 2 2 - 2 3 , h e places h i m s e l f clearly a m o n g the leaders o f the c i t y . T h e n , w i t h the failure o f C e s t i u s G a l l u s to quell the revolt, J o s e p h u s w a s d i s p a t c h e d t o the G a l i l e e as a military g o v e r n o r ( § § 28ff.) a n d the rest o f the story is well k n o w n . T h u s 7|p£<&pr)v 7coXtTeuecjOoct in Life 1 2 b m a r k s the b e g i n n i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s p u b l i c career. I s u b m i t , finally, that the syntax o f § 1 2 b supports the
interpretation
o f 7coXtT£ue<j0at as " e n g a g e in p u b l i c a f f a i r s " . I f the infinitive v e r b m e a n t "govern
oneself
XOCTOCXOXOUOCOV
would
or
"behave", seem
then
redundant.
the One
dependent would
participle
expect
either
33
rcoXiTeueaOoct w i t h a p r e p o s i t i o n s u c h as XOCTOC ( " I b e g a n t o b e h a v e / l i v e a c c o r d i n g t o the s c h o o l o f the P h a r i s e e s " ) o r the infinitive xocxocxoXouOetv b y itself ( " I b e g a n t o follow the s c h o o l o f the P h a r i s e e s " ) . B u t the c o n struction aorist v e r b
+ present infinitive
+ ( d e p e n d e n t ) participle is
c u m b e r s o m e if it m e a n s : " I b e g a n t o b e h a v e ( = m a i n c l a u s e ) , f o l l o w i n g the s c h o o l o f the Pharisees ( = d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e ) " . T h e p r o p o s e d transla t i o n , b y contrast, gives b o t h the infinitive a n d the participle their o w n w e i g h t , b e c a u s e they m e a n different things: " I b e g a n to e n g a g e in p u b l i c life ( = m a i n c l a u s e ) , f o l l o w i n g the s c h o o l o f the Pharisees ( = d e p e n d e n t clause). A l l o f this suggests that 7coXcue6ea6oct in Life 1 2 b m e a n s " t o participate in p u b l i c a f f a i r s " . I n f a v o u r o f such a r e a d i n g are: ( a ) n o r m a l G r e e k u s a g e o f the v e r b ; ( b ) n o r m a l J o s e p h a n u s a g e ; ( c ) the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t o f § 1 2 b ; ( d ) the syntax o f § 1 2 b ; a n d ( e ) the a g r e e m e n t o f m a n y c o m -
3 2
Cf. Mayer and Moller, "Politiker", 272 and n.10 thereto. In the two cases where TtoXtxeueoOat means "behave", such qualifiers are present (Ant. 17:103, dxpdxo) euvotqt and 7tpo$ TOV rcaxepa; 17:243, otxetco? and OCUTOIS). 3 3
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
352
meritators who have not been influenced by Whiston and Thackeray, namely, Thompson-Price and the German critics cited earlier. The
verb xocToexoXouOeo) is not as problematic. Liddell and Scott give
the meanings "follow after, comply with, obey, emulate, and imitate". It occurs in Josephus only 20 times. The
construction of the xonraxoXouOeco-clause in Life 12b—indirect
(dative) object straddling the possessive genitive
+ final participle/
verb—fits well with Josephan style elsewhere, for example: (a)
Life 12b:
zfj Oapiaoctoov ocipsaet xaxaxoXouO&v
(b) (0
iln*. 1:14: TOT$ ptev Oeou yvcbprj xaxaxoXouOouai Ant. 6:147: xatq iwoXaiG auxou xaxaxoXouGouvTe?
(d)
iln*. 8:271: -zoXq TOO (3aaiXea>s 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 (axouat
3 5
Cf. Ant. 1:19; Ag.Ap. 2:281.
354
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
N o w if the S a d d u c e e s , w h o are the relentless o p p o n e n t s o f the Pharisees, nonetheless defer (7cpoaxcop£co) to " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " w h e n they take positions o f leadership, it s h o u l d o c c a s i o n n o surprise that the antiPharisaic J o s e p h u s , when he entered public life, also " f o l l o w e d the s c h o o l o f the P h a r i s e e s " . But this d o e s n o t m a k e h i m a Pharisee a n y m o r e than it m a k e s the S a d d u c e e s Pharisees. T h e v e r b Ttpocrxcopeco—"to g o o v e r t o , o r side w i t h " — w h i c h he uses o f the
S a d d u c e e s ' d e f e r e n c e to
the
Pharisees, w o u l d s e e m to b e at least as strong as the v a g u e xotTOixoXouOeco that he uses o f his o w n relationship to the d o m i n a n t s c h o o l . B y his o w n a c c o u n t , c o n c e s s i o n s to the Pharisaic s c h o o l w e r e a conditio sine qua non o f J e w i s h life. H i s a d h e r e n c e to Pharisaic w a y s , like that o f the Sad d u c e e s , w a s b o t h tied to a n d limited to ( s o far as w e k n o w ) his p u b l i c career. T h e interpretation o f Life 1 2 b offered here agrees ( i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) with the j u d g e m e n t o f o n e E . G e r l a c h ( 1 8 6 3 ) , w h i c h has generally b e e n ig n o r e d since h e m a d e it. G e r l a c h w r o t e : M a n nimmt sie [Life 12] falschlich fur eine ausdriickliche Erklarung des Josephus, dass er schliesslich ein Anhanger der Pharisaer geworden sei, wahrend sie in der That nichts weiter bezeichnet, als dass er sich im politischen Leben den Pharisaern angeschlossen h a b e . 36
It m a y e v e n b e that the final w o r d s o f Life 1 2 b , w h i c h c o m p a r e the Pharisees to the Stoics, are i n t e n d e d to r e m i n d the r e a d e r o f what Josephus
has
said
elsewhere a b o u t
Pharisees in J e w i s h s o c i e t y .
the
pervasive influence o f the
37
H o w e v e r o n e interprets the Pharisee/Stoic parallel, several points in the interpretation o f Life 1 2 b d o s e e m secure. J o s e p h u s ' s religious quest f o u n d its fulfillment in his three-year wilderness retreat with B a n n u s (Life 1 1 - 1 2 a ) . After this t i m e o f preparation returned
in the desert, J o s e p h u s
to the TZOXK; ( § 12a) a n d e m b a r k e d u p o n his p u b l i c career
(rjp£apr)v 7toXiTeuea6ai, § 1 2 b ) . Implicit in this p u b l i c activity w a s a certain 3 6
E. Gerlach, Weissagungen, 18. Commentators usually interpret this remark as a reference to particular agreements in doctrine or practice between the Pharisees and the Stoics (cf. G. F. Moore, "Fate", 374 and n. 20; Schlatter, Theologie, 198; Feldman, L C L edn., I X , 10 n. b). Without diminishing in the least the significance of those parallels, I should like to suggest a a further aspect of comparison. By the first century A D , as is well known, Stoicism had become the dominant philosophical school in the Hellenistic world: its influence on the other schools and on popular thought was considerable (cf. F. H . Sandbach, The Stoics, 16; A. A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy, 107). Since Pharisaism, according to Josephus, fulfilled a corre sponding role in Jewish society, it would seem plausible that this is precisely the point of the comparison. If he is saying that the two schools have comparable functions in their respective societies, that would explain the inclusion of this clause immediately after his statement that his entry into public life entailed some deference to the Pharisaic school. 3 7
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST
355
a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of, o r d e f e r e n c e t o , the Pharisaic s c h o o l (TTJ Oocpiaoctcov atp£aet xaxaxoXouOtov), a fact o f life that e v e n the S a d d u c e e s r e c o g n i z e d (Ant.
18:17).
Summary and Conclusion F o r a n g l o p h o n e scholars generally, the w h o l e i m p o r t o f the
sentence
rjpS-aprjvrcoXtTeueaOatxfj Oaptaattov atpeaet xaxaxoXouOtov in Life 1 2 b is that J o s e p h u s c h o s e to b e c o m e a Pharisee, that h e : " b e c a m e a c o n v i n c e d Pharisee
a c c o r d i n g to his
Pharisees";
39
own mind";
3 8
"attached
" c h o s e to f o l l o w the Pharisaic r u l e s " ;
4 0
h i m s e l f to
the
" w a s a Pharisee,
w h o h a d j o i n e d the g r o u p after s a m p l i n g what all the current sects h a d to o f f e r " ;
4 1
" b e g a n to follow the legal system o f the P h a r i s e e s " ;
Pharisaism";
4 3
" b e g a n to a d h e r e t o the Pharisaic s e c t " .
4 4
42
"chose
A l l o f these
paraphrases p r o b a b l y , a n d m o s t o f t h e m d e m o n s t r a b l y , are i n f l u e n c e d b y T h a c k e r a y ' s translation for the L o e b series. T h a t translation is, h o w e v e r , i m p l a u s i b l e . T h e l o g i c o f the p a r a g r a p h ( § § 10-12) militates against it. M o r e o v e r , to j u d g e b y n o r m a l
Greek
u s a g e , b y J o s e p h u s ' s usual p r a c t i c e , a n d b y the c o n t e x t o f § 1 2 b , the m a i n clause (r|pi-ap7)v 7CoXtxeuea0ai) refers t o J o s e p h u s ' s e n t r y into p u b l i c life. Interpreters w h o are n o t i n f l u e n c e d b y the L o e b translation s e e m to agree ( i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) that 7toXiTSuea0at here d o e s n o t m e a n
"behave"
b u t rather " e n g a g e in p u b l i c a f f a i r s " . In
spite
of
this
significant
difference
in
the
interpretation
of
7toXiTeuea6<xi, e v e r y o n e is a g r e e d that Life 12 expresses J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to h a v e b e c o m e a Pharisee. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n has often p r o v i d e d the p o i n t of departure
for m o d e r n
scholarship
on Josephus,
whether
source-
critical, t h e o l o g i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l , o r b i o g r a p h i c a l . T h e few interpreters o f Josephus
who
do
not
depend
much
on
his
"claim"
to
Pharisaic
allegiance still b e l i e v e that he m a d e the c l a i m ; their p r o b l e m is to r e c o n cile that c l a i m w i t h the results o f their o w n analyses, w h i c h d o n o t clear Pharisaic traits in J o s e p h u s .
find
4 5
W h a t is the basis o f this e n o r m o u s w e i g h t o f scholarship? E v e r y t h i n g d e p e n d s o n the f o u r - w o r d d e p e n d e n t clause in Life 1 2 b : TTJ Oapiaatcov 3 8
Montgomery, "Religion", 281. Shutt, Studies, 2. Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 226. Attridge, Interpretation, 6. Rivkin, Revolution, 66. Cohen, Josephus, 106. Rajak, Josephus, 32. Cf. M . Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, I, 315; idem, Zeloten, 6 nn. 2-3, 378 n. 3; H . Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 146 n. 2; Attridge, Interpretation, 6, 178-180. 3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
356
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
atp£aet xaxaxoXouOtov. But Josephus knows how to say in clear terms that he became someone's disciple, as he does with respect to Bannus: CnXtoxTjs iyevoprjv auxou ( § 1 1 ) . If he is now saying in § 1 2 b that he under went a second conversion, to Pharisaism, then he has chosen an ex cruciatingly circuitous way of saying it. I have argued that Josephus's "following of the Pharisaic school" was merely a necessary function of his entry into public life. It was not a deliberate choice of religious affiliation or a conversion. Life 12 cannot, therefore, support the weight that is customarily placed upon it. It can not justify the attribution of anti-Pharisaic passages in Josephus to some other source, on the ground that the Pharisee Josephus could not have 46
written them ( G . Holscher, G . F. M o o r e , D . R . Schwartz). A n d it cer tainly cannot serve as the cornerstone of an alleged pro-Pharisaic apologetic in Ant.-Life ( H . Rasp, M . Smith, J. Neusner, S . J . D . Cohen et a l . ) .
47
Such an apologetic does not exist in Ant. If it did, Life 12 would
not help it at all.
4 6
Contra Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 and n. + + thereto, 1957, 1991; G . F. Moore, Judaism, I, 64 n. 4, 65 n. 3, 66 n. 1; and now D . R . Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158. Cf. chapters 2 and 14, above. 4 7
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
LIFE
189-198: J O S E P H U S , S I M O N , A N D T H E D E L E G A T I O N
Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 is significant for this study b e c a u s e it is the o n l y p a s s a g e in w h i c h J o s e p h u s r e c o u n t s in a n y detail his p e r s o n a l dealings w i t h specific Pharisees.
1
Furthermore,
it
cannot
be
attributed
to
non-Josephan
s o u r c e s . H e r e m o r e than a n y w h e r e , then, o n e e x p e c t s o u r a u t h o r ' s real attitude t o w a r d the Pharisees to c o m e f o r w a r d . I n particular: if J o s e p h u s intended
Life
12b to
be
a
forthright
declaration
o f his
Pharisaic
allegiance, as is generally b e l i e v e d , w e s h o u l d e x p e c t Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 t o substantiate that d e c l a r a t i o n in s o m e w a y . T h e f o l l o w i n g analysis will re veal, h o w e v e r , that in this passage b o t h the r e n o w n e d Pharisee S i m o n ben
G a m a l i e l a n d the mostly-Pharisaic d e l e g a t i o n that is sent t o r e p l a c e
J o s e p h u s r e c e i v e distinctly hostile c o v e r a g e . S i n c e the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n is irrelevant here a n d since the passage b e f o r e us offers little n e w i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Pharisaic b e l i e f o r p r a c t i c e , the m a j o r q u e s t i o n for o u r analysis will b e that o f J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d , a n d relationship t o , the Pharisees. W e m u s t ask w h y h e m e n tions these Pharisees w h e n h e d o e s a n d w h a t function they serve in his narrative.
I. Context W h e n J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s w r o t e his d a m a g i n g a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h w a r , he e v i d e n t l y raised o n e matter that c a u s e d J o s e p h u s particular d i s c o m fort. T h a t w a s the fact that the J e r u s a l e m c o u n c i l , w h i c h i n c l u d e d such n o t a b l e s as the h i g h priest a n d the Pharisee S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l , h a d s o u g h t to relieve J o s e p h u s o f his c o m m a n d in the G a l i l e e . T h a t J u s t u s did
raise the subject is clear f r o m Life 3 3 6 : J o s e p h u s has j u s t g i v e n his
v e r s i o n o f these events ( § § 1 8 9 - 3 3 5 ) a n d n o w turns t o address J u s t u s , who,
h e says, " h a s p r o d u c e d his o w n a c c o u n t o f those a f f a i r s " (rfjv Tiept 2
TOUTCOV rcporfpocTeiocv). 1
Life 21 mentions Josephus's meeting (again,rcoiXiv)with "the chief priests and leading Pharisees" (TOU; dcpxiepeuaiv xat TO!$ 7Cpa>xoi? xwv Oapiaaiaiv). He implies that he was an associate of this group (cf. rj{X6t<;, § 22) and states that he and they opposed the revolt (§§ 22f.). He does not, however, mention any dealings with individual Pharisees. Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 125: "The delegation episode ( V 190-335) in particular is replete with these themes [i.e., the kinds of issues brought up in the digression] and ap parently is directed against Justus." Rajak, in proposing that only the digression itself responds directly to Justus (Josephus, 152-154), seems to overlook the force of Life 336. 2
358
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
T h e embarrassment
that J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t c a u s e d J o s e p h u s c a n b e
m e a s u r e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f Life with War. In War 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 , J o s e p h u s h a d g i v e n his o w n b r i e f story o f the attempt t o r e p l a c e h i m as c o m m a n d e r o f the G a l i l e e . T h e r e , h e g l i d e d o v e r the w h o l e affair as j u s t an 3
o t h e r o f J o h n o f G i s c h a l a ' s nasty p l o t s , a plot that J o s e p h u s o v e r c a m e b y virtue o f his p o p u l a r s u p p o r t . I n War, h e d i d n o t n a m e a n y o f the authorities that w e r e b e h i n d the m o v e t o oust h i m b u t referred v a g u e l y to " t h e p o w e r f u l a n d certain o f the l e a d e r s " (oi ouvaxot . . . xal TCOV apxovrcov Tiv£$), w h o h a d a c t e d o u t o f e n v y (xaxa 9O0VOV) ( 2 : 6 2 7 ) . It s e e m s clear that J u s t u s , in his a c c o u n t , c h a l l e n g e d J o s e p h u s ' s story b y r e v e a l i n g the identity o f these ouvaxot a n d apxovxe^, w h o m J o s e p h u s h a d so blithely d i s m i s s e d . T h e y w e r e n o n e o t h e r than the
eminent
scholar a n d p u b l i c figure S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l a n d the c h i e f priests A n a n u s a n d J e s u s . J u s t u s , it s e e m s , w o u l d n o t a l l o w J o s e p h u s s i m p l y t o write o f f all o f his o p p o n e n t s as " b r i g a n d s " a n d " r e b e l s " . W h a t e v e r J u s t u s w r o t e a b o u t the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e m u s t h a v e affected J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r a b l y , for h e n o w d e v o t e s m o r e than o n e third o f the m a i n b o d y o f Life ( § § 1 8 9 - 3 3 5 ) to his o w n v e r s i o n o f the story. T o his credit, p e r h a p s , he d o e s n o t d e p a r t substantially f r o m his earlier c l a i m s that the leaders acted f r o m e n v y w h e n they m o v e d t o r e p l a c e h i m a n d that p o p u l a r s u p p o r t w a s always o n his side; nevertheless, h e m u s t n o w a r g u e those p o i n t s w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e c o n c e d i n g the stature o f the leaders i n v o l v e d , w h i c h h a d b e e n b r o u g h t to light b y J u s t u s . T h u s a m a j o r c o n c e r n o f the Life is to e x p l a i n h o w it c a m e a b o u t that the r e s p e c t e d h e a d s o f the n a t i o n w e r e calling for J o s e p h u s ' s d i s m i s s a l .
4
5
D e s p i t e its w e l l - k n o w n literary s h o r t c o m i n g s , J o s e p h u s ' s Life reveals a
good
measure
o f forethought
and
structural
arrangement.
This
b e c o m e s o b v i o u s , for e x a m p l e , in the o p e n i n g w o r d s o f o u r passage ( § 1 8 9 ) : " N o w the hatred that J o h n , s o n o f L e v i , h a r b o u r e d against m e because
of my
success (su^pa-fta)
was
g r o w i n g steadily (rcpoarjuljeTO
papecos)." T h e s e w o r d s e v o k e a t h e m e that underlies the w h o l e o f Life, n a m e l y , the c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J o h n o f G i s c h a l a for the 3
The unfavourable description of John begins at War 2:585. Rajak, Josephus, 150-154, accurately perceives the centrality of the delegation episode in Life. She argues from that premise that Josephus wrote the work primarily for the benefit of diaspora Jewry, for they would have been the ones most concerned about his relationship to the Jerusalem authorities. But one can imagine that Josephus would have been equally uncomfortable if his Roman readers came to think of him as a tyrant, who had acted ultra vires when he seized command of the Galilee. In War, Josephus had portrayed himself as the ideal general, sent to command the northern theatre (cf. Cohen, Josephus, 91ff.), and his status as a captured general doubtless helped him sell the book (cf. War 1:3). If he should now be exposed as a thug who had no official endorsement, his image would be severely tarnished. Cf. Thackeray, Josephus, 18; Cohen, Josephus, HOf. 4
5
J O S E P H U S , SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION
359
allegiance o f the G a l i l e e . J o s e p h u s m a k e s the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e ( § § 1893 3 5 ) , w h i c h b e g i n s with o u r passage ( § § 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 ) , the c l i m a c t i c phase o f that struggle: the effort to h a v e J o s e p h u s r e p l a c e d w a s J o h n ' s b o l d e s t move. J o s e p h u s first i n t r o d u c e d J o h n in friendly terms: like J o s e p h u s , h e h a d tried to restrain his c o m p a t r i o t s f r o m revolt against R o m e ( § § 4 3 f . ) .
6
W h e n , h o w e v e r , his native t o w n w a s attacked b y n e i g h b o u r i n g G r e e k cities, J o h n a b a n d o n e d that p o l i c y , a r m e d his f o l l o w e r s , defeated
his
e n e m i e s , a n d fortified G i s c h a l a ( § 4 4 ) . W h e n J o s e p h u s next e n c o u n t e r s h i m , J o h n has b e c o m e " b e n t o n r e v o l u t i o n a n d e a g e r for the c o m m a n d o f the G a l i l e e " (veooxepcov 6pey6pevov 7upaypaTcav xat vf\q apxffc irctOuptav e'xovxa, § § 7 0 f . ) . T h u s b e g i n s the t h e m e o f J o h n ' s e n v y (906vo$), w h i c h is w o v e n into the narrative at strategic p o i n t s (cf. § § 70f., 84f., 1 2 2 f . ) so as to reach a c l i m a x w i t h the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e ( § § 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 ) . A s J o s e p h u s ' s rival, J o h n is e v e r y w h e r e c o n c e r n e d to p e r s u a d e G a l i l e a n cities to defect f r o m J o s e p h u s
the
to himself; h e e v e n tries to
7
assassinate the J e r u s a l e m i t e . T h a t he h a d s o m e success in his efforts is c o n c e d e d b y J o s e p h u s . T h e latter tells us that, o f the three m a j o r cities in G a l i l e e , G a b a r a w e n t o v e r to J o h n c o m p l e t e l y , T i b e r i a s b e f r i e n d e d h i m ( b u t d i d n o t w a n t to r e v o l t ) , a n d S e p p h o r i s rejected b o t h suitors; in o t h e r w o r d s , it w a s a s c o r e o f " t w o - n o t h i n g " for J o h n (Life 1 2 3 f . ) . M o s t significant is the n o t i c e that J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s , the a u t h o r o f the rival history that J o s e p h u s is here c o m b a t t i n g , w a s o n e o f J o h n ' s early sup porters ( § § 8 7 f . ) . T h i s d a t u m indicates that w h e n J u s t u s told his a c c o u n t o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e , h e w a s n o t g i v i n g an i d i o s y n c r a t i c critique o f J o s e p h u s so m u c h as h e w a s p r e s e n t i n g the p e r s p e c t i v e o f a c r e d i b l e o p position party, headed b y J o h n o f Gischala. T o s u m m a r i z e : early in J o s e p h u s ' s t e n u r e as G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d e r , the J e r u s a l e m authorities sent a f o u r - m a n d e l e g a t i o n to replace h i m . W h e n h e w r o t e War, J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e d a b r i e f a c c o u n t o f the e p i s o d e , in o r d e r to illustrate b o t h the strength o f his o w n p o p u l a r s u p p o r t
and
the t h o r o u g h l y evil nature o f his a d v e r s a r y , J o h n o f G i s c h a l a . J o s e p h u s easily t r i u m p h e d o v e r this knavish trick ( 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 ) . J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the w a r , h o w e v e r , m a d e a great deal m o r e o f this e p i s o d e . J u s t u s w a s a s u p p o r t e r o f J o h n a n d d o u b t l e s s p o i n t e d o u t the n o b l e r side o f the m a n ' s character. H e p r o b a b l y tried to s h o w that J o h n w a s basically a m o d e r a t e , that J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f h a d originally b e e n friendly
6
toward
Cf. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 25f.: Josephus's opposition "ging von Johannes von Gischala aus, mit dem Josephus anfangs in gutem Einvernehmen stand". Contrast War, in which John appears from the first as an "intriguer . . . the most unscrupulous and crafty of all who have ever gained notoriety". (2:585, Thackeray). Cf. Life 82, 85ff., 122ff. 7
360
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
him,
8
ben
G a m a l i e l in J e r u s a l e m
a n d that J o h n w a s e v e n s u p p o r t e d b y the e m i n e n t scholar S i m o n ( p e r h a p s also b y the c h i e f priests).
That
Justus a r g u e d these points is suggested b y the fact that J o s e p h u s c o n cedes t h e m all in Life; the e x a m p l e o f War s h o w s that h e w o u l d n o t voluntarily h a v e credited his o p p o n e n t s in this w a y . The
situation
facing J o s e p h u s w h e n h e writes Life, therefore, is a
serious o n e . H i s articulate literary o p p o n e n t o f the 9 0 ' s has d e m o n strated that his political o p p o n e n t o f the late 6 0 ' s w a s n o evil w r e t c h b u t a credible p u b l i c figure with m a j o r support in the Galilee a n d close ties to the J e r u s a l e m
authorities.
I n particular,
John's
move
to
have
J o s e p h u s r e p l a c e d c o u l d n o t b e dismissed as an act o f personal a n i m o s i t y b u t h a d t o b e seen as a d e t e r m i n e d effort b y a united a n d p o w e r f u l o p position. The
l e n g t h y a c c o u n t in Life 189-335 is J o s e p h u s ' s r e s p o n s e t o this
c h a r g e . O u r passage, § § 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 , i n t r o d u c e s the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e a n d discusses the Pharisees' i n v o l v e m e n t in it.
I I . Interpretation To
facilitate analysis o f this l e n g t h y passage, I shall c o n s i d e r it in four
b l o c k s , as follows: ( a ) i n t r o d u c t i o n to the e p i s o d e a n d to S i m o n ( § § 189192);
( b ) S i m o n ' s initial b i d to r e m o v e J o s e p h u s ( § § 1 9 3 - 1 9 5 a ) ; ( c ) his
resort to b r i b e r y ( § § 1 9 5 b - 1 9 6 a ) ; a n d ( d ) the delegation a n d its m i s s i o n (§§
196b-198).
A . Introduction of Simon ben Gamaliel (189)
N o w the hatred that J o h n ,
(189-192)
s o n o f L e v i , h a r b o u r e d against m e
b e c a u s e o f m y success w a s g r o w i n g steadily. D e t e r m i n e d b y all m e a n s to h a v e m e r e m o v e d , h e fortified his native G i s c h a l a ( 1 9 0 ) a n d then dispatched his b r o t h e r S i m o n , a l o n g with J o h n ,
s o n o f Sisenna, a n d
a b o u t a h u n d r e d a r m e d m e n , to J e r u s a l e m . He
sent t h e m to S i m o n , s o n o f G a m a l i e l , u r g i n g h i m to persuade the f
J e r u s a l e m a s s e m b l y (TO xotvdv TCOV IepoaoXuptTtov) to d e p r i v e m e o f the c o m m a n d o f the Galilee (TTJV apx^v d^eXopevo^ epe TCOV TaXiXatcov) a n d to v o t e the office to J o h n . (191)
T h i s S i m o n w a s b o r n in the city o f J e r u s a l e m ; h e c a m e f r o m a v e r y
prestigious family (yevous 8e a9o8pa Xaprcpou) a n d w a s f r o m the school o f 8
So also Luther, Josephus und Justus, 75f. Luther doubts, however, that the basis of this friendship had been a mutual opposition to the revolt. He thinks rather that Josephus and John were both rebels originally and that Josephus invented the story in Life in order to explain the friendship, which Justus had pointed out.
JOSEPHUS,
361
SIMON, A N D T H E DELEGATION
the Pharisees, w h o are r e p u t e d to ( o r profess t o ) excel the others in their p r e c i s i o n c o n c e r n i n g the national laws (ot rcepl TOCrcaTptav 6 p i p a Soxouatv TCOV aXXcov axpi[kta 8ta9epetv). (192)
Full
o f sagacity
and
reasoning
p o w e r (izkr\pr\<; ouveaeco?
xat
Xoytapou), this m a n h a d the ability, b y his o w n practical w i s d o m , to set in o r d e r matters that w e r e a w r y (7ipaypaTa xaxto£ xetpeva 9povr}<j£t TTJ eauxou StopOcoaaaOat). A n o l d a n d close friend o f J o h n ' s , he w a s at o d d s with m e at the time (9CX0S Te rcaXatos TCO 'Icoavvcp xat OUVT|0TIS, npbq £pe 8e TOTe 8ta9opco<; etxev). M o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s o n J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h they read Life 12b as an a v o w a l o f Pharisaic
allegiance, practically i g n o r e Life
189-198 a n d
w h a t e v e r i m p l i c a t i o n s it m i g h t h a v e for the interpretation o f the earlier passage. T h o s e w h o d o b o t h e r to treat this story tend to focus exclusively o n the a b o v e portrayal o f S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l . Neusner and Rivkin both consider our passage,
9
but both o f them
s e e m to o v e r l o o k the issues o f c o n t e x t , function, a n d m e a n i n g . Instead, they are c o n c e r n e d to find s u p p o r t for their respective theses a b o u t J o s e p h u s a n d the Pharisees. N e u s n e r , it will b e recalled, sets o u t to fortify S m i t h ' s hypothesis that Ant. -Life c o m m e n d s the Pharisees to the R o m a n s as the g r o u p m o s t eligi ble to g o v e r n Palestine. O n l y this m o t i v e c a n e x p l a i n N e u s n e r ' s inter pretive c o m m e n t s o n Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 5 , w h i c h m a y b e q u o t e d in full: The Pharisees invariably are represented as experts in the law. O f greater importance, some Pharisees come before us as important politicians, in charge of the conduct of the war, able to make or break commanders in the field. In Jerusalem they enjoyed the highest offices. Their leaders are men of great political experience and great power. So much for the Pharisees o f Josephus's Life. 10
T h e s e remarks are generalizations o f the d e s c r i p t i o n o f S i m o n in § § 191192. T h e y take n o a c c o u n t o f the rest o f the p a s s a g e — f o r e x a m p l e , o f J o s e p h u s ' s n o t i c e that he a n d S i m o n w e r e at v a r i a n c e ( § 1 9 2 ) . N o r d o e s N e u s n e r e x p l a i n the c o n t e x t in a n y w a y . But J o s e p h u s , w e h a v e seen, is w r i t i n g to d e f e n d his o w n c a u s e ; he is n o t w r i t i n g to praise
the
Pharisees, w h o o p p o s e d h i m , o r to present t h e m as m o d e l g o v e r n o r s . Similarly, R i v k i n i g n o r e s basic questions o f c o n t e x t a n d m e a n i n g in his assessment o f Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 . H e q u o t e s the passage en bloc in o r d e r to s u p p o r t his thesis that J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisees as m e n o f affairs,
9
1 0
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 225; Rivkin, Revolution, 3If., 67. Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 227.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
362
w h o b r i n g the " t w o f o l d L a w " i n t o e v e r y sphere o f life. F o l l o w i n g are representative e x c e r p t s f r o m his interpretation: Josephus thus pictures Simon as anything but an academic recluse. W e see no saintly figure here! Simon the son o f Gamaliel is no quietest in Josephus' book. H e had very definite ideas as to how the revolution should be conducted . . . . Simon does not cease being a Pharisee when he acts as a political leader; his vigorous actions are not out o f keeping with his expertness in the laws. T h e Pharisees as activists emerge also in Josephus' mention o f the c o m position o f the delegation o f which three Pharisees were m e m b e r s . 11
Although one may deduce
from
Life
189-198 a n d
from
Josephus's
writings in general that the Pharisees w e r e i n v o l v e d in p u b l i c life, that d e d u c t i o n has litde t o d o w i t h the specific literary intentions o f o u r passage. A g a i n : J o s e p h u s is w r i t i n g t o d e f e n d h i m s e l f a n d t o s h o w that the fault in the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e lay with his o p p o n e n t s , s o m e o f w h o m w e r e Pharisees. O n l y C o h e n , it s e e m s , has tried seriously to c o m e t o t e r m s w i t h the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e .
1 2
H e attempts t o
s h o w that Life 189-198 d o e s i n d e e d reflect J o s e p h u s ' s n e w p r o f e s s i o n o f Pharisaism (Life 1 2 ) .
1 3
T o a c h i e v e this result, C o h e n focuses o n the p o r
trayal o f S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l in § § 191-192 a n d a r g u e s that the n o t e d Pharisee is treated far better h e r e than in the parallel in War ( 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 ) . Specifically, C o h e n c o n t e n d s : ( a ) that the portrayal o f S i m o n in § 192 a m o u n t s to an e n c o m i u m ; ( b ) that the parallel in War h a d d e n i g r a t e d o r belittled S i m o n b y n o t m e n t i o n i n g h i m ; a n d ( c ) that J o s e p h u s n o w wants to present h i m s e l f to the ( J e w i s h ) r e a d e r as h a v i n g " o n l y t e m p o r a r i l y (TOTS, § 1 9 2 ) " b e e n at o d d s w i t h S i m o n . I n all o f this C o h e n finds sup p o r t for the R a s p / S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y : Between BJ [War] and V [Life] Simon's stock rose spectacularly, as did the fortunes o f the Pharisees. Their heirs were now established at Yavneh and Josephus wanted their friendship . . . , T h e results o f the new attitudes 1 4
1 1
Rivkin, Revolution, 63f. Holscher, 1936 n. + + , avers that Josephus's Pharisaic standpoint reveals itself in Life 191 but he does not explain this judgement. Rajak, Josephus, 150ff., gives what is perhaps the best assessment of the sense of the delegation episode and of its importance in Life. She does not, however, deal directly with our question, which is the significance of the Pharisaic involvement in the delegation. Cohen, Josephus, 144f. In his claim that Life's pro-Pharisaic apologetic is directed toward Jews (the Yavnean rabbis), Josephus, 147, Cohen is closer to Rasp than to Smith/Neusner. But at pp. 237f., he also gives the Smith/Neusner line, that Ant. presents the Pharisees as deserving of Roman support; then he reiterates that Life is directed toward Jews. Evidently, Cohen wants to combine the theories that Josephus wrote Ant.-Life (a) to ingratiate himself with 1 2
1 3
1 4
363
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION
are clear: glorious Simon was only temporarily (xote, 192) ill-disposed towards Josephus. Therefore, Josephus' dispute with Simon and some Pharisees in 67 should not disqualify the historian in the eyes o f the Pharisees o f a later generation. 15
T h e p r o b l e m w i t h C o h e n ' s v i e w is that, in this passage, J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e the slightest c o n c e r n a b o u t m a i n t a i n i n g a g o o d rela t i o n s h i p w i t h the
Pharisees.
First, the d e s c r i p t i o n o f S i m o n in Life 192 c a n n o t b e read as a n u n qualified e n c o m i u m . It d o e s a c k n o w l e d g e , a n d e v e n praise,
Simon's
b r i l l i a n c e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , in the sequel J o s e p h u s i m m e d i a t e l y b e g i n s t o a c c u s e S i m o n o f m e a n b e h a v i o u r (9<xuXtov epyov, § 1 9 4 ) , d u p l i c i t y ( § 195),
bribery
(§
196),
and
scheming
(§§
196-198).
This
hostile
characterization is to b e e x p e c t e d , since S i m o n w a s the m a j o r l o b b y i s t in J e r u s a l e m for J o s e p h u s ' s c h i e f o p p o n e n t . T h e presentation o f S i m o n ' s credentials in § § 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 , I h a v e already a r g u e d , fits well with the p e r s p e c t i v e that J u s t u s w o u l d h a v e g i v e n in his a c c o u n t o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e ; he w a s c o n c e r n e d t o p o i n t o u t the e m i n e n t stature o f J o s e p h u s ' s o p p o n e n t s . S i n c e , then, § § 191 f. stands in ten sion w i t h the r e m a i n d e r o f the passage, it a p p e a r s to b e c o n c e s s i v e in n u a n c e ; J o s e p h u s c o n c e d e s , in r e s p o n s e to J u s t u s , that his o p p o n e n t w a s gifted a n d well-respected ( h o w c o u l d h e d e n y i t ? )
1 6
but goes o n never
theless to insist that the t w o w e r e at o d d s (rcpos epe. . . 8ta9op
W e m a y a d d that the a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t w a s p r o b a b l y f o r c e d o n J o s e p h u s b y J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t . I n a n y c a s e , it d o e s n o t set the t o n e for the sequel: J o s e p h u s is c o n c e r n e d to e x o n e r a t e himself, n o t S i m o n a n d the d e l e g a t i o n . S i n c e the w h o l e passage is a b o u t his conflict w i t h S i m o n , w h i c h resulted f r o m S i m o n ' s u n d e r h a n d e d n e s s ,
§ 192 c a n h a r d l y b e r e a d as an
e n c o m i u m in its present c o n t e x t . A m a j o r c l u e to the function o f § 192 is its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the d e s c r i p tion o f the Pharisees in § 1 9 1 : S i m o n w a s a Pharisee a n d this s c h o o l is the newly powerful Pharisees (Rasp) and (b) to help the Romans decide who should be in power (Smith/ Neusner). Cohen, Josephus, 145. Simon was the son of the famous rabbi Gamaliel (cf. Acts 5:34) and father of the Yavnean Patriarch Gamaliel II. Rajak, Josephus, 150. 1 5
1 6
1 7
364
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
reputed to (Soxouaiv) interpret the laws with <xxpt(3eioc. W e h a v e seen else w h e r e (War ledgement
1:110-114; 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant. of
the
Pharisees'
c o m m i t m e n t o n his p a r t .
18
1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) that J o s e p h u s ' s a c k n o w
reputation
for
dbcpifktoc
implies
no
O n the c o n t r a r y , it consistently serves to in
t r o d u c e a negative portrayal o f the g r o u p . T h a t seems also to b e the role p l a y e d b y Life 1 9 1 . C e r t a i n Pharisees are a b o u t to b e p o r t r a y e d in quite negative terms, in spite o f their reputation for axpifktoc. S i n c e the praise o f S i m o n ' s intelligence in § 192 is tied to his other credentials, i n c l u d i n g Pharisaic m e m b e r s h i p ( § 1 9 1 ) , the w h o l e p a c k a g e seems to b e a c o n c e s sion, rather than J o s e p h u s ' s heartfelt e x p r e s s i o n o f praise for S i m o n . The
p o i n t o f the passage is that, in spite of S i m o n ' s family b a c k g r o u n d ,
social status, Pharisaic m e m b e r s h i p , a n d capability as a m a n o f affairs, h e w a s guilty o f serious m i s d e m e a n o u r s in his conflict with J o s e p h u s . Especially p r o b l e m a t i c is C o h e n ' s p r o p o s a l that w e c o m p a r e the ac c o u n t o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e in War with that in Life, in o r d e r to observe works.
1 9
h o w dramatically
"Simon's
stock r o s e "
between
the
two
H e thinks it significant that the a c c o u n t in War d o e s n o t m e n
tion S i m o n ' s n a m e : " T h e parallel passage in BJ 2 : 6 2 6 did not consider 20
Simon worthy of mention".
T h a t Life n o t o n l y m e n t i o n s h i m b u t speaks
well o f his intelligence a n d w i s d o m , C o h e n takes to b e e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s n e w l y a c q u i r e d Pharisaic d i s p o s i t i o n . The
p r o b l e m here is that the a c c o u n t o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e in Life
( 1 8 9 - 3 3 5 ) is r o u g h l y twenty times as l o n g as the War parallel ( 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 ) a n d therefore contains a great deal o f n e w i n f o r m a t i o n . War o m i t s al m o s t e v e r y t h i n g that Life has, preferring to pass o v e r the affair as o n e o f J o h n o f G i s c h a l a ' s m a n y evil plots. J o s e p h u s h a d g o o d reason, as w e h a v e seen, to o m i t specific details a b o u t the identity a n d social status o f his J e r u s a l e m o p p o n e n t s . O n e c a n n o t infer f r o m the o m i s s i o n o f S i m o n ' s n a m e a n d personalia in War ( N . B . , the n a m e s o f the h i g h priests are also o m i t t e d ) a n y t h i n g in particular a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d h i m . And
the d e s c r i p t i o n o f S i m o n in Life 189-198 d o e s n o t , if read as a
w h o l e , constitute a rise in S i m o n ' s stock. Finally, it is necessary to c o m m e n t o n C o h e n ' s m a x i m a l i s t r e a d i n g o f TOTE, in Life 1 9 2 . H e takes the p o i n t o f the passage to b e that " g l o r i o u s Simon
was
Josephus".
2 1
only
temporarily
(TOTS,
192)
ill-disposed
towards
T h i s interpretation, in effect, m a k e s TOTS the k e y w o r d o f
the passage, b y s u p p o s i n g it to m e a n that, although J o s e p h u s had o n c e
1 8
1 9
2 0
21
As also with the hoxti . . . dwcptPfjs constructions of Ag.Ap. 1:18, 67. Cohen, Josephus, 145. Ibid., emphasis added. Ibid., 145.
365
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION
b e e n in conflict with S i m o n , h e w a s later ( b y the time o f w r i t i n g ) r e c o n ciled with the Pharisees. The
precise n u a n c e o f the particle TOTE is, h o w e v e r , n o t so o b v i o u s .
I n m y v i e w , a m o r e plausible sense w o u l d b e that, as J o s e p h u s h a d o n c e b e e n sympathetic to the m o d e r a t e a i m s o f J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (Life 43f., 8 6 ) , so also he h a d o n c e b e e n friendly w i t h S i m o n . H e tells h o w h e c o n ferred
with the
chief priests
and
l e a d i n g Pharisees
(ot TCparcot TCOV
Oaptaatcov) a b o u t h o w to c h e c k the revolt (Life 2 1 ) . T h i s g r o u p doubtless i n c l u d e d S i m o n , for w e k n o w that this l e a d i n g Pharisee, a l o n g with the h i g h priests, w a s v e h e m e n t l y o p p o s e d to the rebels (War 4 : 1 5 9 ) . I n their fundamental
attitudes t o w a r d the
S i m o n w e r e k i n d r e d spirits.
revolt, apparently, J o s e p h u s
N o w in Life
and
1 9 2 , the e n m i t y b e t w e e n
J o s e p h u s a n d S i m o n is clearly c o n n e c t e d with the latter's close friendship with J o h n :
m i g h t s u p p o s e , therefore, that J o s e p h u s , J o h n , a n d S i m o n h a d
all originally b e e n associates, sharing a m o d e r a t e , aristocratic o u t l o o k o n the r e v o l t .
22
A t s o m e p o i n t , h o w e v e r , J o h n b e g a n to challenge J o s e p h u s
for the c o m m a n d o f the G a l i l e e . S i n c e J o h n a n d S i m o n w e r e o l d a n d close friends they p o o l e d their efforts against J o s e p h u s . It w a s , therefore, o n l y the struggle b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J o h n that m a d e S i m o n into J o s e p h u s ' s e n e m y ; that d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d s e e m to e x p l a i n the TOTS quite well. H o w e v e r o n e interprets TOTS, this particle c a n hardly serve as the basis o f an entire interpretive s c h e m e for Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 . If J o s e p h u s h a d w a n t e d to m a k e it clear that he really w a s a d e v o t e d Pharisee, w h o h a d " o n l y t e m p o r a r i l y " b e e n in conflict with S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l , it w a s n o t b e y o n d his linguistic c o m p e t e n c e to d o s o . H e w o u l d hardly h a v e c o n cealed this treasure in the particle TOTS, h o p i n g that his readers w o u l d in terpret it as C o h e n d o e s . A n d he w o u l d hardly h a v e g o n e o n to p o r t r a y Simon and
the Pharisees,
w i t h o u t a p o l o g y o r qualification, in
the
blackest possible terms.
2 2
Cf. Rajak, Josephus, 22ff., 83ff., 106, 128ff., and 148L, on Josephus's social posi tion and its implications for his view of the revolt.
366
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
B . Simon's Initial Bid to Remove Josephus W e c o m e n o w to J o s e p h u s ' s
(193-195a)
description o f the actions o f the
great
Pharisee S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l . T h a t d e s c r i p t i o n , t h o u g h it constitutes the heart a n d raison d'etre o f o u r p e r i c o p e , is almost c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d b y all c o m m e n t a t o r s w h o read the passage as pro-Pharisaic. ( 1 9 3 ) O n r e c e i v i n g J o h n ' s s u b m i s s i o n , S i m o n set o u t t o p e r s u a d e
the
h i g h priests A n a n u s a n d J e s u s , s o n o f G a m a l a s , a n d s o m e o f their g r o u p , to put an e n d (exx6rcT£tv) t o m y progress a n d n o t to a l l o w m e to reach the height o f f a m e ; h e c l a i m e d that it w o u l d serve their interests if I w e r e r e m o v e d f r o m the G a l i l e e . H e e n c o u r a g e d A n a n u s ' s party n o t to delay, in case I should find o u t [ a b o u t the p l a n ] p r e m a t u r e l y a n d m a r c h o n the city with a large f o r c e . ( 1 9 4 ) T h i s w a s S i m o n ' s c o u n s e l , b u t the h i g h priest A n a n u s p o i n t e d o u t that the task w o u l d n o t b e so easy (6 pev Stpcov TOcuTa auveJSouXeOev, 6 8e apxtepeus "Avavos ou paStov. . . ) . M a n y o f the chief priests a n d leaders o f the p e o p l e (rcoXXou$ TCOV apxtepecov xal TOU rcXrjOous rcpoecrucoTas) c o u l d testify that I was exercising m y c o m m a n d well; a n d to a c c u s e a m a n against w h o m n o j u s t c h a r g e c o u l d b e b r o u g h t (xaO' ou prjSev Xeyetv SuvavTat Stxatov) w a s a d e e d for u n c o u t h
men
(9auXcov epyov). W h e n S i m o n h e a r d these things f r o m A n a n u s , he re quested t h e m [the e m b a s s y f r o m J o h n ] to k e e p quiet (atcoTcav) a n d n o t to m a k e p u b l i c w h a t h a d b e e n said (pT)8' tlq rcoXXous Ix9epetv TOUS Xoyous auTcov); he
p r o m i s e d to a r r a n g e it h i m s e l f (rcpovorjaeaOat yap auTO$
e'9aaxev) that I should b e q u i c k l y r e p l a c e d in the G a l i l e e . T h e passage w o u l d s e e m to require little interpretation. In the damental
fun
conflict b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , the great
Pharisee S i m o n sided with the latter a n d tried to use his influence to have Josephus r e m o v e d . J o s e p h u s ' s assessment o f S i m o n ' s i n f l u e n c e - p e d d l i n g is clear, t h o u g h he
wisely leaves
it
to
the
high
priest
to
cast
doubt
on
Simon's
uprightness. First, A n a n u s alleges, a n y m o v e against J o s e p h u s w o u l d fly in the face o f his b r o a d p o p u l a r support: m a n y o f those w h o are in a posi tion to k n o w w o u l d declare that h e g o v e r n s well. M o r e seriously, the a c tion that S i m o n a d v o c a t e s w o u l d a m o u n t process". Josephus
would be
removed
to a s u b v e r s i o n o f
merely
out
of
"due
self-interest
(ouvotaetv auTOts, § 193) a n d n o t b e c a u s e o f a n y j u s t c h a r g e . S u c h actions, the h i g h priest p o i n t e d l y c o n c l u d e s , are a b o m i n a b l e (9auXcov epyov). D o e s S i m o n yield to this h i g h - m i n d e d declaration o f p r i n c i p l e , o r in a n y w a y r e d e e m h i m s e l f f r o m the serious charges levelled b y A n a n u s ? O n the c o n t r a r y , his response betrays an utter disregard for j u s t i c e a n d
367
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION
civility. H e is d e t e r m i n e d to m o v e a h e a d w i t h his " d i s h o n o u r a b l e p r o c e e d i n g " ( T h a c k e r a y ' s r e n d e r i n g ) at a n y c o s t . H a v i n g failed t o i m p o s e his will t h r o u g h the p r o p e r c h a n n e l s , he d o e s n o t hesitate t o transfer the w h o l e affair i n t o the r e a l m o f intrigue a n d s k u l d u g g e r y . H e n c e his ad m o n i t i o n t o J o h n ' s e m b a s s y n o t to disclose w h a t h a d taken p l a c e . H e n c e also his dark p l e d g e t o ensure that J o s e p h u s w o u l d b e r e m o v e d . I n this passage, then, J o s e p h u s e v o k e s a clear d i v i s i o n a m o n g the J e r u s a l e m authorities o n the matter o f his leadership in the G a l i l e e . O n the side o f J o s e p h u s stands the h i g h priest, a l o n g with m a n y o f the c h i e f priests a n d rulers o f the p e o p l e . T h e s e leaders s u p p o r t J o s e p h u s b e c a u s e h e g o v e r n s well (as h e says); they are c o m m i t t e d t o ethical principle a n d civil b e h a v i o u r . I n the other c a m p stands the r e n o w n e d Pharisee S i m o n , w h o has a b a n d o n e d all c o n c e r n for p r i n c i p l e in this matter. E v e n w h e n c o n f r o n t e d b y the h i g h priest with the baseness o f his actions, S i m o n s h o w s neither r e m o r s e n o r hesitation b u t rather p l u n g e s t o n e w depths o f treachery!
C . Simon's Resort to Bribery
(195-196a)
R e b u f f e d b y the h i g h priest, b u t d e t e r m i n e d t o carry his plans t h r o u g h , S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l d e c i d e s o n the f o l l o w i n g strategy: ( 1 9 5 b ) T h e n h e s u m m o n e d J o h n ' s b r o t h e r a n d instructed h i m t o send gifts t o A n a n u s a n d his circle (rcpoaeTOcijev 7cep7cetv Scopea^ Tots 7cept TOV "Avavov), for, h e said, this w o u l d likely p e r s u a d e t h e m to c h a n g e their m i n d s . ( 1 9 6 ) I n the e n d , S i m o n a c c o m p l i s h e d what h e h a d p l a n n e d , for A n a n u s a n d those with h i m , b e i n g c o r r u p t e d b y material gain (xpTJpaaiv 8t<X90apevTe$), a g r e e d t o e x p e l m e f r o m the G a l i l e e . ( T h i s w a s u n k n o w n to a n y o n e else in the c i t y . ) J o s e p h u s a d v a n c e s here f r o m m e r e insinuation o f S i m o n ' s m o r a l short c o m i n g s t o an outright attack o n his character. T h e Pharisee, h e alleges, had
no
bribery!
qualms 23
about
manipulating
the
high
priest
by
means
of
T h a t A n a n u s s h o u l d let h i m s e l f b e c o r r u p t e d d o e s n o t speak
well o f h i m either. A t least, h o w e v e r , the h i g h priest h a d a predisposition t o w a r d j u s t i c e . S i m o n , w h o has c o n s i s t e n d y p u r s u e d a d i s h o n o u r a b l e c o u r s e , is the villain o f the p i e c e .
2 3
W e have noted two other passages in which Josephus accuses the Pharisees of im propriety with respect to money. In Ant. 17:42-45 (cf. War 1:571) they are willing to in voke their prophetic gifts in gratitude for Pheroras's wife's payment of their fine. In War 1:111-114, they flaunt their power while living off the generosity of the ingenuous Alexandra.
368
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
T o t a l l y absent is a n y attempt o n J o s e p h u s ' s
part t o mitigate the
seriousness o f S i m o n ' s a c t i o n s , t o p o r t r a y h i m as d e c e i v e d o r u n w i t t i n g . All w e h a v e is the stark allegation that a l e a d i n g Pharisee, w i t h o u t j u s t cause, u n d e r t o o k t o r e m o v e J o s e p h u s f r o m c o m m a n d o f the Galilee a n d that h e w a s willing t o a b a n d o n all p r o p r i e t y in pursuit o f this g o a l . A t this p o i n t it m a y b e w o r t h e m p h a s i z i n g that the a b o v e r e a d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s intention d o e s n o t d e p e n d at all o n the q u e s t i o n o f w h a t a c tually h a p p e n e d . O n e m i g h t c o n j e c t u r e , for e x a m p l e , that the J e r u s a l e m authorities w e r e in fact unified in their o p p o s i t i o n t o J o s e p h u s a n d that J o s e p h u s i n v e n t e d the stories o f A n a n u s ' s initial f a v o u r t o w a r d h i m a n d o f the b r i b e r y scandal in o r d e r t o explain a w a y that o p p o s i t i o n . present study, h o w e v e r , seeks p r i m a r i l y t o u n c o v e r J o s e p h u s ' s
2 4
The
tenden
cies in p o r t r a y i n g the Pharisees. O n that literary level, it is clear that S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l is p a i n t e d in dark c o l o u r s . H e is an u n p r i n c i p l e d , t h o u g h influential, l o b b y i s t for J o s e p h u s ' s m a j o r o p p o n e n t .
D.
The Delegation and Its Mission
(196b-198)
S i m o n is n o t the o n l y Pharisee w h o appears in o u r passage. A s a result o f his c o n n i v i n g , a f o u r - m e m b e r d e l e g a t i o n is a s s e m b l e d a n d sent to replace J o s e p h u s . T h r e e o f its f o u r m e m b e r s are also Pharisees: ( 1 9 6 b ) It s e e m e d best t o t h e m [the authorities] to send [into G a l i l e e , as J o s e p h u s ' s r e p l a c e m e n t s ] m e n w h o differed with respect t o social status but w e r e alike in e d u c a t i o n (xaxa yevo$ pev S ^ e p o v x a ? , TTJ rcatSeta 8' opoious). (197)
T w o o f those c h o s e n , J o n a t h a n a n d A n a n i a s , w e r e f r o m the
p o p u l a r ranks a n d w e r e Pharisees b y affiliation (rfaav 8' atkcov oi pev SrjpoTtxol 8uo, . . . OaptaaTot TTJV octpeatv); the third, J o z a r , w a s o f the priestly class a n d w a s also a Pharisee (tepaxtxou yevous, <X>aptaato$ 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
rude"
style o f the
o l d e r a c c o u n t s ( l . p r e f . 2 ) . S o the
dXrjGetoc/dxptfktoc in history, w h i c h was
1
c o n c e r n for
'made a law" by Thucydides,
h a d l o n g since b e c o m e part o f the rhetorical b a g g a g e o f all historywriting, w h e t h e r the history c o n c e r n e d ancient o r recent events. B y the m i d d l e o f the first c e n t u r y B C , at a n y rate, ancient events a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y events w e r e s i m p l y t w o o p t i o n s within the m e l t i n g - p o t o f 1 5
One attempt to rehabilitate him, however, is I. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy (1957).
APPENDIX A
380
rhetorical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y ; a n d to write o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events m a y h a v e called for the greater rhetorical skill. F o r C i c e r o ' s " f r i e n d s " it is m e r e l y a m a t t e r o f p e r s o n a l c h o i c e w h e t h e r he s h o u l d write a b o u t things ancient o r c o n t e m p o r a r y ; the d e c i s i v e p o i n t in f a v o u r o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events is that it will e n a b l e h i m " t o glorify the d e e d s o f his friend G n a e u s "
and
his c o n s u l s h i p (Laws 1 . 3 . 8 ) ! T h i s c l a i m shatters a n y a u t o m a t i c e q u a t i o n o f c o n t e m p o r a r y history w i t h critical history. A b o u t the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , P l i n y the Y o u n g e r is likewise in a q u a n d a r y a b o u t w h e t h e r to c h o o s e an ancient o r m o d e r n subject for historical treatment. H i s statement o f the d i l e m m a also disallows a n y e q u a t i o n o f " c o n t e m p o r a r y " w i t h " c r i t i c a l " . T h e a d v a n t a g e o f an ancient subject, P l i n y reflects, is that h e c a n u s e o t h e r s c h o l a r s ' w o r k as a basis for his o w n ; b u t the c o l l a t i o n o f this material w o u l d b e e x t r e m e l y difficult (sed onerosa collatio)\ A n d the p r o b l e m w i t h w r i t i n g o n a m o d e r n t o p i c is that he w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d to h a n d o u t lavish praise to e v e r y o n e c o n c e r n e d a n d c e n s u r e to n o o n e ; so the c h a n c e s o f pleasing his readership w o u l d b e slim. I n b o t h o f these e x a m p l e s , the c h o i c e o f an ancient o r m o d e r n subject is p u r e l y a m a t t e r o f taste. N e i t h e r is c o n s i d e r e d m o r e inherently truthful. T h e ancient t o p i c s r e q u i r e m o r e w o r k , as D i o d o r u s a n d L i v y also
claim
(Diodorus
1.4.1;
Livy
l.pref.4).
The
9IX6TTOVO^,
contra
J o s e p h u s (War 1:15), is the writer o f ancient history. M o d e r n t o p i c s l e n d themselves m o r e easily to
flattery
Interesting also is A r r i a n ' s
and e n c o m i u m .
principle (mid-second century
A D ) of
s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n for his history o f A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t ( 1 . 1 - 3 ) . H e gives greatest w e i g h t to t w o a c c o u n t s written b y eyewitnesses b u t after A l e x a n d e r ' s d e a t h , since the later c o m p o s i t i o n date w o u l d d i m i n i s h
the
t e n d e n c y to lie. O n c e a g a i n , it is c o n t e m p o r a r y history that a p p e a r s as a b r e e d i n g g r o u n d for i n a c c u r a c y . T h e tables h a v e b e e n t u r n e d o n Polybius! It is difficult, therefore, to i m a g i n e a c h a n g e in J o s e p h u s ' s
thinking
f r o m s o m e sort o f " c r i t i c a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y in War, little t o u c h e d b y rhetoric a n d f o c u s i n g o n c o n t e m p o r a r y events, to a " r h e t o r i c a l " histo r i o g r a p h y in Ant. tragic e l e m e n t s .
16
Indeed,
War itself is filled with rhetorical a n d e v e n
W e s h o u l d rather c o n c e i v e o f a n c i e n t
historiography
as a rich w o r l d o f i d e a s — g r o u n d e d in T h u c y d i d e s a n d P o l y b i u s , b u t 1 6
The tragic element is unmistakable in the narratives concerning both Herod the Great and the city of Jerusalem. Rhetorical influence reveals itself in any number of ways, from the presence of novelistic elements (cf. Moehring, "Novelistic Elements") to the style of the work, with its thorough conformity to the atticizing propensities of the day; these include the strict avoidance of hiatus, in keeping with a law of style established by the rhetorician Isocrates; cf. W . Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Hallicarnassus bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer, 1887-1897, I, pp. V - V I , and III, 291f; also Niese, HZ, 208.
381
APPENDIX A
developed under disposal
rhetorical
of anyone
with
influence—that
rhetorical
w o u l d h a v e b e e n at
training.
17
Lucian's
treatise
the on
history, a c c o r d i n g to the analysis o f A v e n a r i u s , s u m m a r i z e s this w o r l d o f ideas: In Wahrheit vereinigen sich hier Richtlinien mannigfachen Ursprungs zu einem nicht immer harmonischen Ganzen. Lukians Anleitung fur den Historiker ist somit einem Sammelbecken vergleichbar, in dem verschiedene Prinzipien zusammenstromen, die aus einzelnen schon vorhandenen Ansatzen bei Herodot und der alteren Sophistik heraus im wesentlichen von Thukydides bis in die hellenistische Zeit hinein entwickelt und formuliert worden sind. 18
It a p p e a r s , t h e n , that the H e l l e n i s t i c historian h a d a wealth o f t h e m e s , p r i n c i p l e s , a n d TOTTOI u p o n w h i c h h e c o u l d d r a w , to serve his p u r p o s e s for
any
g i v e n situation.
This
circumstance
seems
to
rule
out
the
possibility o f a c o n v e r s i o n o n J o s e p h u s ' s part f r o m a s c h o o l o f critical, c o n t e m p o r a r y history to a rhetorical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y g e a r e d to ancient topics. 2. W h a t e v e r m a y h a v e b e e n J o s e p h u s ' s feelings a b o u t G r e e k history, the crucial p o i n t is that h e n e v e r associates the study o f a n c i e n t Jewish history with a loss o f dxptfktoc. A t t r i d g e ' s t h e o r y r e q u i r e s that w h e n J o s e p h u s w r o t e War he c o n s c i o u s l y e x c l u d e d the a n c i e n t history o f his p e o p l e o n the g r o u n d 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 . A l l o f the p r o g r a m m a t i c statements c o n c e r n i n g War, h o w e v e r , b o t h in the w o r k itself a n d in later reflections, militate against such a v i e w . (a) W h e n J o s e p h u s explains his c h o i c e o f a starting p o i n t for the nar rative
in
War ( 1 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , h e gives t w o reasons for d e c l i n i n g to d p / -
octoXoyeTv, o r r e c o u n t the o r i g i n s a n d ancient history o f his p e o p l e ( w h i c h he nevertheless briefly s u m m a r i z e s ) . First, the i n c l u s i o n o f such material w o u l d b e u n t i m e l y (ocxoctpov) o r " o u t o f p l a c e " ( T h a c k e r a y ) in the pres ent p r o j e c t . S e c o n d , other J e w s b e f o r e h i m h a v e r e c o r d e d the
earlier
events with dxptfktoc a n d this i n f o r m a t i o n , he says, is e v e n accessible in tolerably accurate (ouTCOXUTTJC; dXrj0eta<; BtrjpocpTOv) G r e e k v e r s i o n s . T h u s a n e w attempt w o u l d b e superfluous (rceptruov). T h i s a p p e a l to the ade q u a c y o f f o r m e r a c c o u n t s , t h o u g h it r e s e m b l e s o n e o f P o l y b i u s ' s argu m e n t s , is s o m e w h a t less than a w h o l e h e a r t e d e n d o r s e m e n t o f the current G r e e k a c c o u n t s o f ancient J u d a i s m . N e i t h e r o f these statements i m p l i e s
Whether Josephus had already begun his strenuous programme of xfjs ypafXfxaxixfj^, TCOV 'EXXrjvixtov Ypafxjxdxcov x a l 7COIT)TIXCOV {Ant. 20:263) before he wrote War is a moot point (see excursus to Part I). I have argued, however, in keeping with Rajak's position, that Josephus probably knew enough Greek to control the content of the work published under his name. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 169f. 1 7
1 8
382
APPENDIX A
an outright exclusion of Jewish antiquity as a subject for accurate history; both leave
open
(and the axoctpov may even
suggest)
the
possibility of a future treatment of the theme. Indeed, in the context, Josephus is not attacking ancient history but is rather excusing himself from including a study of Jewish origins here. He
is, however, willing to include events that occurred long before his
own time. These events, which occupy almost a third of his book, begin more
than
2 0 0 years before
his
birth,
in the
time
of Antiochus
Epiphanes. So he does not discount ancient history on grounds of principle. (b)
In his preface to Ant., Josephus plainly declares that he had
thought of including the ancient history of the Jews in War but had decided against it (Ant. 1 : 6 ) .
19
T h e material was so copious (pet&ov), he
explains, that its inclusion would have ruined the balance and symmetry of
War ( 1 : 7 ) .
1:17.
2 0
This claim fits squarely with the axoctpov notice of War
It also excludes the possibility that Josephus only conceived of 21
writing ancient Jewish history after he had completed War.
His failure
in Ant. to mention the adequacy of previous Greek accounts as he did in War 1:17 is easily explained: he is now presenting the
definitive
history of ancient Judaism in Greek with all the dxpifkioc that the tradi tion deserves. T h e other accounts, whose adequacy was sufficient to ex cuse him from ancient history when he wrote War, cannot compare to his own present effort. (c)
Finally,
the
Polybian
concern
for
first-hand
knowledge
that
Josephus echoes in War 1:13-16 is not confined to that work but turns up again in his last extant treatise, Ag.Ap.
(1:53-56). There, however,
he explicitly rejects any conflict between the principle of
first-hand
evidence and his investigation of ancient Jewish history. H e writes: It is the duty of one who promises to present his readers with actual facts first to obtain an exact (axptptoc;) knowledge of them himself, either through having been close to the events (TrapyjxoXooOTixoTa TOU; yeyovoatv), or by in quiry from those who knew them (7uapd T
1 9
Thackeray, Josephus. O n the importance of TO ouppeTpov in hellenistic historiography, cf. Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 105ff. Cf. also Ant. 20:259: 7uocua£T<xi 8' evrauGd pot TOC TTJS dpxaioXoyia? peO' TJV xal TOV rcoXepiov Tjp!*d[X7iv ypd^peiv. W . Weber, Josephus und Vespasian, 2, takes this to mean that Josephus actually began writing Ant. before he wrote War. More commonly, the sentence is taken to mean either that Josephus intended a re-edition of War in A D 93-94 (La queur, Historiker, Iff., 79, 263) or simply as a garbled way of saying that War covers events subsequent to those treated in Ant. (so Feldman, L C L edn., X , 137 n. d.). Weber's interpretation is, however, the most faithful to Josephus's actual words, "after which [sc. Ant.] I began to write the War". 2 0
2 1
APPENDIX A
383
Notice especially the following line: " T h a t duty I consider myself to have amply fulfilled (pdcXioxa. . .rce7C0t7)x£vai)in both m y works (wepi 4pyotipau;. . .TCpaypocTeCas)."H e has fulfilled the obligation of first-hand knowledge for War by being an eyewitness (<xMim\q) of the events, for Ant. by his privileged access, as a priest, to the ancient traditions that have been preserved with dcxp((Jeta (Ag.Ap.
1:54; cf. 1:29, 3 2 , 3 6 ) .
Whatever, then, Josephus may have said about the ineptitude of Hellenes in writing accurate history (his remarks in War on this point are forcefully elaborated in Ag.Ap.
1:6-27), he never suggests for a moment
that the treatment of ancient Jewish history, at least by a priest such as himself, is susceptible of the same error. For the most ancient records of the Jews have been preserved, by the chief priests and prophets, with scrupulous accuracy (pexoc 7CoXXfj$ 4xpt(Seia$, Ag.Ap.
1:29). Josephus
esteems his priestly heritage precisely as a guarantor of accurate insight into the traditions; that claim is not new with Ant. but is already found in War ( 1 : 3 ; 3:352). In response to Attridge, we have observed that, in spite of all the dif ferences in subject matter, genre, style, and even opinion,
between
Josephus's different works, his theoretical approach to history remains quite constant. His stated goals are always dcXrjOeia and axpCjktoc and he believes that all of his subject matter, whether ancient or contemporary, lends itself to these goals. This constancy of historical
conception
throughout works of different character was made possible by the historiographical environment of the day, which was a melting pot of ideas and aspirations that had originated with Thucydides but had also been processed by rhetorical theory.
APPENDIX B
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS OF JOSEPHUS O N FATE A N D FREE W I L L A t several points in the foregoing study (chapters 6, 8, and 12) we have encountered Josephus's claim that fate and free will were major topics of discussion among the Jewish schools. Because our goal has been to in terpret Josephus's Pharisee passages discretely and in context, we have only been able to consider the substantial scholarly discussion of this issue in piecemeal fashion, as it relates to a given pericope. Since most of the studies treat all of the relevant passages together, our procedure has resulted in a fragmented presentation of each scholar's argument. The following pages attempt to give some perspective to those fragmen tary notices by surveying the development of the scholarly debate on fate and free will in Josephus. G.
F. Moore's 1929 article, "Fate and Free W i l l in the Jewish
Philosophies according to Josephus", has been seminal for all further discussions of the issue.
1
M o o r e argues that, since the three "school"
passages present the Pharisees' view of fate and free will in Stoic (and not biblical or Jewish) terms, these passages must have originated with someone other than Josephus. T h e cornerstone of this thesis is Ant. 13:171-173, which ranges the schools on a spectrum: the Essenes make etpappevr) the xupta of all things; the Sadducees do away with (avatpouatv) etpappsvrjv; and the Pharisees take a middle position, attributing some things, but not all (TIVOC xal ou rcdcvTa), to fate. M o o r e offers several reasons for his suspicion that Josephus did not write this passage: (1) it seems to be irrelevant to its immediate context;
2
(2) its attribution of "fatalism" to the Essenes is 3
elsewhere unsupported; and (3) it does not prepare the reader well for 13:288-298, because there the issue on which Pharisees and Sadducees differ is not fate and free will but the authoritative v o p t p a .
4
M o o r e also detects an inconsistency between Josephus's normal use of 5
etpappevr) and that revealed in the school passages. Whereas the other occurrences of this term bear the tolerably Jewish sense of "divine fore1
2
3
4
5
HTR Ibid., Ibid., Ibid. Ibid.,
22 (1929), 371-372. 37If., 384. 372. 375f.
385
APPENDIX B
6
knowledge", M o o r e finds in the school passages an intended "philo 7
sophical definition". That etpappevr) appears as a philosophical term in the school passages, he argues, is clear from the context: the groups are called atpeaets or ^tXoao^tat and are concerned with an issue that had 8
become important in Hellenistic philosophy by the first century. In deed, M o o r e can even point out three close verbal parallels between the Pharisaic doctrine as presented by Josephus and the teaching of Chrysip pus the Stoic as reported by Cicero.
9
Having identified this stoicizing tendency in Josephus's presentation of the Pharisees, M o o r e attempts to show that it was at complete variance with biblical-Jewish teaching, which always emphasized the sovereignty of G o d , the efficacy of repentance, and man's religious/ moral responsibility.
10
Assuming that Josephus the Jew could not have
erred so fundamentally, M o o r e offers two "guesses" as to the origin of the descriptions.
11
O n e possibility is that Josephus's literary assistants
composed the accounts on the basis of their interpretations of what Jose phus had explained to them "in his w a y " about Pharisaic and Saddu cean distinctives.
12
M o o r e prefers, however, another "guess", namely,
that a "foreign source" is responsible for the misleading information. H e believes that Nicolaus of Damascus wrote Ant. 13:171-173, except for the reference back to War 2 , and that Josephus carried over this material from Nicolaus into War 2:162 and Ant. 18:13, supplementing it with other information about the Pharisees.
13
Just three years after the appearance of Moore's article, A . Schlatter's Die
Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus appeared.
Although Schlatter devotes little more than a page to our p r o b l e m ,
15
14
his
presentation is useful as a contrast to Moore's. Noting that Josephus portrays distinctive Pharisaic teaching as a combination of belief in divine providence and the human power of volition, Schlatter marvels at the strength of the Greek influence in Jerusalem, which was such that Josephus could describe providence as Schicksal. But Schlatter does not doubt Josephus's word; he takes it to be obvious that the Pharisees in-
6
Ibid. He cites War 4:622 and 6:250 as examples. Ibid., 376. Ibid., 376-379. Ibid., 384; viz., pO7]0etv {War 2:162)//adiuvo (Cicero, On Fate 41); opprj {Ant. 18:13)// adpetitus {On Fate 40f.); and Tcpoox^peTv {Ant. 18:13)//assensio {On Fate 40). Ibid., 379-382. He defines a "guess" here as something less than a hypothesis, "Fate", 383. Ibid., 383. Ibid., 383f. Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1932. Cf. pp. 209f. Ibid. 7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
APPENDIX B
386
herited both ideas—the foreknowledge of G o d and human responsibility —from the Bible and that Josephus merely expresses the Synergismus with which all Pharisees lived. T h e simple acceptance of Josephus's descriptions as informed discus sions of first-century Judaism, albeit in Greek "dress", is quite com mon. Elbogen long ago (1904) interpreted these passages in a political sense: the Sadducees are self-reliant state-builders; the Pharisees prefer to rely on G o d .
1 6
A . E . Suffrin ( 1 9 1 2 ) , I. Broyde ( 1 9 2 5 ) , J. Z . Lauter
bach (1929), E . E . Urbach ( E T , 1975), and H . - F . Weiss all accept Jose phus's statements about the Pharisees on fate and free will,
17
presenting
copious evidence that the two convictions were held together throughout the tannaitic and amoraic periods.
18
Urbach thinks also that the Dead
Sea Scrolls support Josephus's depiction of the Essenes.
19
In order to ac
cept Josephus's statements as actually referring to Palestinian Judaism, however, all of these scholars interpret etpappevr) as simply a hellenized reference to G o d or providence.
20
Suffrin, for example, remarks:
W h e n , therefore, Josephus makes his countrymen state their theological differences in philosophical language and ascribes to the Pharisees a belief in a etpappevr) . . . he does not m e a n by it an inflexible power to which gods and m e n must b o w , but has in his m i n d the late H e b r e w word niT3 . . . a decree of a j u d g e or king, or Divine decision. 21
We
are faced,
then,
with two very different
alternatives:
either
Josephus has incorporated into his narratives some very misleading statements about the religious groups, falsely portraying the Pharisees as near-Stoics, or he is describing the groups accurately, but in language that his Greek readers will understand. In 1969, two German studies ap peared that added some sophistication to the discussion. L . Wachter proposes that Josephus's depiction of the Sadducees as those who do away with fate (War 2:164, Ant. serious attack upon t h e m .
1 6
22
13:173) is actually a
For, according to Josephus, they not only
Elbogen, Anschauungen, 14f. A . E. Suffrin, ERE, V , 796; I. Broyde, Jewish Encyclopedia, V , 351; Lauterbach, "Pharisees", HUCA, 129f.; Urbach, Sages, I, 255; and Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 427-429. Most commonly adduced are b. Ber. 33b. m. Avot 3:15 and b. Hullin 7b. Urbach, Sages, I, 268. Urbach, Sages, I, 268; Lauterbach, HUCA, 129f.; Broyde, "Fatalism", 351; cf. R . Marcus in L C L edition of Ant. 13:171 f., V I I , p. 311 n. g.: "Fate is here, of course, the Greek equivalent of what we should call Providence". Suffrin, "FateQewish)", 793. "Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus", ZRGG 21 (1969), 97-114, esp. 98-106. 1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
APPENDIX B
387
reject etpappevr], but remove G o d beyond even the observation (TO ecpopav,
War 2:164)
of m a n k i n d .
23
This
characterization,
Wachter
observes, brings the Sadducees very close to the position that Josephus elsewhere attributes to the Epicureans (Ant. 10:278): who exclude Providence from h u m a n life and refuse to believe that G o d governs its affairs or that the universe is directed by a blessed and immortal Being to the end that the whole of it m a y endure, but say that the world runs by its own m o v e m e n t ( a u T o p d x c o s ) without knowing a guide or an other's care.
Wachter concludes that Josephus implies to his readers a comparison be tween Sadducees and Epicureans, just as he makes explicit comparisons between
Pharisees
and
Stoics
(Life
12) and between
Essenes
Pythagoreans (Ant. 15:371): the Sadducees appear as unbelievers.
and 24
On
the historical level, however, Wachter finds such a portrayal impossible, since the Sadducees must have believed in the active G o d of the B i b l e .
25
Wachter's treatment of the Pharisees and etpappevr; is brief because he finds it quite straightforward.
26
T h e synergism of fate and free will he
considers, with Schlatter and the others mentioned above, to be wellgrounded in Pharisaic and later rabbinic belief.
27
H e explains Josephus's
use of etpappevr; as an attempt to convey to Hellenistic readers something of the import that attached to the Jewish conception of G o d — Y a h w e h . Because 6e6$ failed to convey this conception adequately, Josephus sup plemented it with etpappevr), which probably evoked among his readers something far closer to the Jewish view of " Y a h w e h " . On
the
Essenes,
Wachter
documents from Q u m r a n
2 9
tries to
show by
an
2 8
examination
of
that Josephus is correct "im Prinzip" in at
tributing to this group a strong belief in predestination. H e qualifies Josephus's account, however, by proposing that (i) this predestination only applied to the Essenes themselves, as the chosen, and (ii) it was not
2 3
With Niese, Wachter rejects the variant xocxov, so that God is "beyond either the doing of anything or even the supervision [of the world; cf. the Hebrew I p D ] " . Thackeray and Michel-Bauernfeind both retain xocxov with the result that God is beyond "not merely the commission, but the very sight of evil". Wachter's reading, however, has the Sadducees removing God entirely from the world. Ibid., 104, 106. This conclusion was already reached by G. Holscher, Der Sadduzdismus (Leipzig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1906), 2. Note that for the rabbis,DVlTp^DW was a term of abuse. Wachter, "Haltung", 105f. Ibid., 107-108. Ibid., 108. He notes m. Avot 3:15: "Everything is foreseen ( ^ D S ) but freedom is given." Ibid., 107. Ibid., 108-113. He focuses especially on IQS 3:13-4:26 and C D C 2:7-14. 2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
APPENDIX B
388
a general, or primarily ethical predestination, but was tied to God's plan of salvation for the c o m m u n i t y .
30
In his conclusion, Wachter seriously doubts that the issue of fate and free will was a matter of debate among the Jewish groups, since both ideas are well grounded in the Pentateuch; rather, the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over the question of authoritative tradition.
31
The
fate/free will issue was, however, a matter of controversy among the Hellenistic philosophies, especially with the Stoics.
32
Knowing that the
issue was also discussed among the Pharisees, and wanting to present the Jewish groups as 9tXoao9tat, Josephus presented the Pharisees as ex ponents of the mediating position. In the Essenes he saw a group that could legitimately represent the fatalistic/predestinarian end of the spec trum. Since no Jewish group could in reality deny providence or divine activity in life, Josephus had no one to represent the left extreme of the spectrum. For the purpose of his schematization, therefore, he chose his enemies the Sadducees to play the role of infidels. Whatever natural em phasis they may have had on human responsibility, Wachter concludes, Josephus exaggerated into an outright rejection of divine activity.
33
Wachter's analysis bolsters the scholarly tradition that accepts as ac curate Josephus's characterization of the Pharisees with respect to fate and
free will.
H e provides a clear rationale for Josephus's use of
etpappevr) instead of 0e6$ as well as for the manner in which the Sad ducees and Essenes are presented. In 1969 G . Maier completed his Tubingen dissertation on Mensch und freier Wille in early Jewish literature.
34
H e confronts the two-fold problem
already tackled by M o o r e and Wachter, namely: H o w did Josephus come to use the Greek term etpappevr)—a term lacking any obvious Hebrew equivalent—as the central theme in his descriptions of the Jewish schools? A n d : W a s he justified in doing so? M o o r e had argued that the presentation was unjustifiable and therefore not attributable to Josephus. Wachter claimed that the portrait is partly accurate (re: the Pharisees and Essenes) and partly not (re: the Sadducees); nevertheless he attributed the whole to Josephus. Maier, however, attempts to show that Josephus's presentation of all three schools, if understood correctly, is quite accurate and therefore is intelligible as the work of Josephus. 3 0
For an analysis of the Qumran scrolls that emphasizes the community's freedom of choice, cf. F. Notscher, "Schicksalsglaube in Qumran und Umwelt", in his Vom Alien bis Neuen Testament (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1962), 33-49. Wachter, "Haltung", 113. Ibid., 114. Ibid., 106, 114. This is now published as Mensch und freier Wille: nach den judischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr—P. Siebeck, 1981). 3 1
3 2
3 3
3 4
389
APPENDIX B
M o r e clearly than the other scholars considered, Maier distinguishes the literary question—what Josephus
meant,
from the
historical—
whether he was accurate. Since our concern is solely with the former, we may focus on Maier's first chapter, which contains his literary analysis. Maier is the first to offer a direct response to Moore's theory that Nicolaus of Damascus penned Ant. 13:171-173 and all such traces of that passage as appear elsewhere.
H e notes first of all that
Holscher's
thoroughgoing source criticism would not even allow such a conclusion, but rather attributed Ant. 13:171-173 and 18:11-25 to the Jewish priestly "falsifier" of Nicolausjand War 2:119-166 to a Greek-educated J e w .
35
Yet neither of these source-critical solutions is convincing, according to Maier: Moore's because its automatic attribution of Greek philosophical language to a non-Jewish author is simplistic; Holscher's, because any evidence that would support a Greek-educated Jewish author for War 2:119-166 would ipso facto support Josephus's own authorship.
36
T h e one exception is Holscher's claim that what is said about the Essenes in War 2 differs markedly from what Josephus says about them elsewhere. Ant.
37
Against this claim, however, Maier points out: (1) that in
13:173 and 18:11 Josephus refers back to War 2:119-166 as his
decisive treatment of the schools, which only makes sense if he views the earlier passage as a unity for which he is responsible; (ii) that the depic tion of the Sadducees in Ant. 13:173 and the parallel in War 2:163-165 exhibit clear verbal similarities;
38
and (iii) that the description of the
cptXoaocptoct in Ant. 18:11-25 as a whole bears many striking similarities to War 2:119-166 as a whole, so that the later passage often seems to be an extract of the earlier.
39
W i t h other critics, Maier takes the presentation
of the Essenes in Ant. 18:18-22 to be a summary of certain points from War 2, now supplemented by information gleaned from P h i l o .
40
W h a t Maier has shown is that the school passages cannot be treated as aberrations from Josephus's own views. T h e y all come from the same
3 5
Maier, freier Wille, 4f. In fact, however, Holscher attributes War 2:162-166 to Josephus himself; cf. his "Josephus", 1949 n. He argues for non-Josephan Jewish authorship of the Essene passage (§§ 119-161), on the ground that it reflects familiarity with Jewish conceptions (e.g., otyyeXot, 2:142; vofioOexT)?, 155f.) and is unfriendly toward the Romans, §§ 152f. Maier, freier Wille, 7. Holscher, "Josephus", 1949 n. Maier, freier Wille, 7. Ibid., 8. He lists numerous parallels of content, as well as several close verbal agreements. Ibid., 9. Philo's discussion is in Every Good Man is Free, 75-91. Cf. Feldman, L C L edition of Josephus, I X , 14f. n. d. and M . Smith, "The Description of the Essenes". 3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
390
APPENDIX B
author and that author is evidently Josephus himself.
41
That is not to
deny Josephus's use of sources or even literary assistants: Es bedeutet aber, dass die Verantwortung fur die Redaktion der betreffenden Abschnitte bei Josephus liegt, der nicht nur die Rolle eines unbedarften Kompilators spielt. 42
Having demonstrated Josephus's final authorship of the school passages, Maier proceeds to examine them individually. (i)
War 2:119-166.
Although he accepts the parallel between the
Pharisaic position here and the teaching of Chrysippus, Maier argues that Josephus gives the discussion a Jewish character by setting the fate/ free will question in religious-ethical t e r m s .
43
Thus, the issue is pre
sented as TOTCpdcrceivTOC Sixata, behind which Maier sees the np"!2 nfcW of the O T and Q u m r a n .
4 4
This "righteousness" is not that of the Greek
virtues but is rather a response to divine law. Moreover, he proposes that the phrase etpappevr) xat Oeco reflects Josephus's attempt to qualify the conception of fate in terms of Jewish monotheism. Third, Maier points to the Sadducean emphasis on hx\oyr\ (§ 165) as typically Jewish and not Stoic.
45
Finally, M a i e r sees in the Sadducees' utter rejection of
fate (§ 164) but continued discussion of G o d (loc. cit.) a distinction be tween the two entities, such that fate is subordinate to G o d .
4 6
T h e whole
presentation of the schools, he judges, though it may have originated with Nicolaus, is Jewish in outlook. Maier suggests that Josephus may deliberately have described the Pharisaic position—they attribute everything (rcavTa) to fate, but TO TrpaTTetv Ta Stxata xat pifj rests mainly with mankind—such that it could be interpreted in two ways. O n the one hand, it m a y represent the Pharisaic/rabbinic view that "Everything is in the hands of G o d except the fear of G o d " (b. Ber. 33a); on the other hand, the Hellenistic reader ship may interpret it in Chrysippean terms, according to which every ac tion has two causes.
47
(ii) Ant. 13:171-173. Maier considers this passage less judaized than War 2:162-166, but nevertheless finds two places where Josephus has 4 1
Cf. also Stahlin's protest against attributing Josephus's "fate" language either to sources or to literary assistants, "Schicksal", 338f. He argues that Josephus must at least have assented to the material that stands in his work. Maier, freier Wille, 10. Ibid., llf. E.g., IQS 1:5; 5:3g.; 8:2. I have responded to Maier's proposals in chapter 6, above. Maier's point here (12) is not clear, since it is not usually claimed that Josephus parallels the Sadducees to the Stoics. Ibid., 12f. Ibid., 13f. 4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
APPENDIX B
391
significantly qualified his source. First, the phrase xat ou rcavra in § 172 (ot Oaptaatot xtva xoci 06 Tvdwa xffc etpappevrjs epyov etvat Xeyouat) Maier takes to be a judaizing qualification of what might otherwise sound quite Stoic.
48
Second, Maier proposes that the whole clause in § 173 concern
ing human responsibility and <x(JouXia as a cause of misfortune
49
has been
introduced by Josephus, since it reflects biblical-Jewish ideas. (iii) Ant.
50
18:11-25. In the opening statement about the Essenes—
'Eaorjvots hi ird pev Geto xaTaXetrcetv cptXet TOC rcavxa 6 Xoyo?—Maier also finds two clear Jewish emphases. First, perhaps under Philo's influence, Josephus speaks only of G o d , not of fate. Second, he has the Essenes at tribute all things to G o d ; this may be seen as a correction of Philo, who has the Essenes wanting to protect G o d from any connection with evil.
51
Maier concedes that the description of the Pharisees' view of etpappevr) (18:13) is difficult textually and grammatically and that it seems to be more Stoic than Jewish; nevertheless he finds in the reference to God's pleasure (Soxrjaav TCO Geto) and in the ethical emphasis a Jewish and there fore Josephan influence.
52
T h e result of these analyses for Maier is as follows. Etpappevr) does not appear in the school passages as the Stoic conception but is always subor dinate to the G o d of the Jews. It amounts to predestination. Always present in these passages, furthermore, is the religious question of righteous or sinful action.
53
T h e three passages agree in portraying the
Essenes as champions of predestination, the Sadducees as advocates of free will, and the Pharisees as giving priority to predestination but in sisting also that the decision to do good or evil lies with m a n .
5 4
So
Josephus modified the material that he found in his Greek sources, to give a truly Jewish character to the disputes between the schools. Having so interpreted the school passages, Maier devotes the bulk of his study to the question whether or not Josephus was correct in his assertions.
55
H e attempts to resolve the matter by examining three
sources: the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Essenes, the Psalms of Solomon for the Pharisees, and Ben Sira for the Sadducees. Maier concludes: (i) that
4 8
Maier, freier Wille, 14f. That is, by reserving one area of human conduct, presumably the religious-ethical sphere, to human choice alone, it would accord with the rabbinic maxim quoted above (b. Ber. 33a). From d>£ xat to Xap-Pavovxa?. Ibid., 15. Ibid., 17. Philo op. cit., 4. Ibid. Ibid., 17. Ibid., 19f. Ibid., 20. 4 9
5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
APPENDIX B
392
the question of free will became an issue when Hellenistic philosophy in fluenced some Jews to blame predestination for sin; (ii) that Ben Sira for mulated a doctrine of free will in response to this crisis; (iii) that the Sadducees maintained Ben Sira's position most closely; (iv) that the Essenes tended toward the extreme predestinationism confronted by Ben Sira 33: 7ff.; and (v) that the Pharisees held to both predestination and freedom of the will, the latter especially in the area of righteous or sinful action.
56
In short, Josephus concisely and accurately represents the posi
tions of the three Jewish schools with respect to predestination and 57
thereby gives stunning proof of his claim to <xxpt(3eta.
Maier concedes that the issue of fate and free will was not as central to Jewish debates as Josephus seems to imply, but argues that the real issues
were
unreportable,
either
because
they
were
dangerous
(apocalyptic-political themes) or because the would not be understood (themes related to cult and T o r a h ) .
58
T h e fate/free will debate, on the
contrary, was both alive and eminently reportable. By positing that Josephus took over the school passages from Nicolaus (and Philo) and reworked them where necessary to better accord with reality, Maier has managed to absorb many of Moore's observations about the Stoic
flavour
of the descriptions,
especially that of the
Pharisees. A t the same time, however, he has overturned Moore's con clusions (i) that etpappevrj in the school passages finally has a Stoic nuance and (ii) that the historical reality of first-century Judaism was at variance with Josephus's descriptions. H e falls in with Schlatter, Lauter bach, Wachter, and the others in his conclusion that the Pharisees ac tually did maintain a synergism between ''fate" and free will; he demonstrates this, however, by examination of the Psalms of Solomon rather than by the customary reference to rabbinic literature.
59
Maier
has two significant differences with Wachter: first, he accepts the por trayal of the Sadducees as an accurate statement of their position (as found in Ben Sira)—"als habe er den Inhalt von Sir 15, 11-20 zu 60
beschreiben" —rather than as a misrepresentation inspired by dislike. Second, Maier sees the occurrences of 6eo$ as Josephus's own qualifica tions of his source's etpappevr); Wachter, conversely, views etpappevr) as Josephus's attempt to fill 6e6$ with content.
5 6
Ibid., 344-46. Ibid., 347f. Ibid., 348f. He takes this route deliberately, in order to avoid the problems of dating the rab binic traditions, cf. freier Wille, 23. Ibid., 347. 5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0
393
APPENDIX B
The two most recent discussions of the subject head in completely new directions. A 1977 article by S. Pines
61
discovers parallels between War
2:162 and a passage in Apuleius's (mid-2d. cent. A D ) work On Plato and his Doctrine. Summarizing Plato's view of providence, fate, and chance,
62
Apuleius writes (1:12): Yet everything that happens naturally and therefore correctly is governed by providence; and the cause of any evil cannot be attributed to God. Thus Plato holds that not everything can be ascribed to fate. Sed omnia quae naturaliter et propterea recte feruntur providentiiae custodia gubernantur nec ullius mali causa deo poterit adscribi. Quare nec omnia ad fati sortem arbitratur esse referenda. A n d a little further on: To be sure, he does not think that everything can be ascribed to the power of fate; rather something rests with us and something also with chance. Nec sane omnia referenda esse ad uim fati put ant, sed esse aliquid in nobis et in fortuna esse non nihil. 63
Pines is impressed by the fact that both the Platonist and Josephus's Pharisees attribute one sphere of events to providence and another to human volition.
64
( H e thus takes xat TOrcpaTTetvTa Stxata xat pyj xaTa TO
TiXetarOv inl TOI$ av8pa>7uot£ in War 2:162 to be a qualification or limitation 65
of the preceding Oaptaatot. . . etpappevr; xat Oeco 7upoaarcTouat rcavTa.)
In
particular he is struck by what he considers a close formal similarity: both passages begin with a general ascription of everything (IZOLVZOL/omnia) to fate, but then immediately qualify that statement in a way that seems contradictory at first.
66
Although Josephus's Pharisees do not have an
equivalent for Apuleius's "the cause of any evil (mali causa) cannot be attributed to G o d " , Pines suggests that Josephus has carried this item over to his description of the Sadducees, xat TOV Oeov e£cD TOU Spav Tt xaxov fj ecpopav TtOevTat, because it did not fit with Pharisaic thought.
67
The parallel is so compelling to Pines that he is willing to theorize as
6 1
" A Platonistic Model for Two of Josephus's Accounts of the Doctrine of the Pharisees Concerning Providence and Man's Freedom of Action", Immanuel 7 (1979), 38-43, trans. L. Lown. Cf. Symposium 202e f. Note H . E. Butler's comment on this Platonistic work {Oxford Classical Dictionary, p. 74): an exposition of the philosophy of Plato, showing neither knowledge nor understanding". For this English translation, I have compared the German by P. Siniscalo, and Pines's excerpts as rendered by Lown. Pines, "Platonistic Model", 39. But see chapter 6 above' Pines, "Platonistic Model", 40. Ibid.; on xaxov, however, see n. 23 above. 6 2
44
6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
394
APPENDIX B
follows. Apuleius (2d. cent. A D ) , who wrote in Latin, relied heavily on earlier Platonistic writings in G r e e k .
68
Then:
There is strong internal evidence that the report in The Jewish War and in Antiquities on the views of the Pharisees concerning the freedom of action of man is an adaptation of a philosophical text which apparently resembled the Greek original of the section by Apuleius quoted above. 69
All that remains for Pines is to find a likely candidate for the authorship of the Greek Platonistic text used by Josephus to describe the Pharisees. H e suggests the name of Antiochus of Ashkelon (early 1st. cent. B C ) because of the (presumably) large role played by this philosopher in for mulating late and neo-Platonic positions.
70
Pines concedes, however,
that "we are dealing exclusively with probabilities".
71
For Pines to be driven to broaden the meaning of "probabilities" as he does, one would expect the parallels between War 2:162 and Apuleius 1:12 to be both exact and unique. T h e y are neither. W i t h respect to ex actness, we may note: (i) that Apuleius on Plato does not attribute everything to fate; (ii) that Pines contradicts himself by paralleling the second proposition of Apuleius ( G o d cannot cause evil) with that of Josephus (to do right or not rests with m a n )
7 2
and then admitting that
Josephus actually uses proto-Apuleius here for his description of the Sad ducees, not the Pharisees;
73
(iii) that whereas Apuleius attributes events
to three causes—fate, ourselves, and chance—Josephus mentions only the first two; and (iv) that Josephus's second proposition (to do right or not rests with man) does not limit the sphere of fate to non-moral events, because he emphasizes finally that fate helps in each case. W e do not, then, have much of a parallel. Apuleius's Plato attributes some things to fate, some to ourselves, and some to chance. Josephus's Pharisees at War 2:162 attribute everything to fate, including our own moral choices, in which fate still assists. With
respect
to
uniqueness:
already present in Plato
74
Apuleius's three-fold
and Aristotle.
75
attribution
is
T h e position of the Pharisees
in War 2:162, on the other hand, is much more closely paralleled, as M o o r e has shown, by Cicero's description of Chrysippus's theory (On
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
74
75
Ibid., 42. Pines, "Platonistic Model", 41. Ibid., 42. Ibid. Ibid., 40. Ibid., 40. Symposium 202e. Nicomachean Ethics 3.3-10; 5.1-3.
395
APPENDIX B Fate 39-41).
O n e hardly needs to posit Josephus's use of a proto-
Apuleian Greek philosophical text to explain his description of the Pharisees. Yet
another
interpretation
of Josephus's
etpappevrj-usage in
his
descriptions of the Jewish schools has been proposed by L . H . Martin (1981);
76
H e suggests that Josephus wants to present the Jews as a nation
free from the oppression of etpappevr) in its astrological sense. Martin begins with a sketch of Wachter's article,
77
mainly, it seems,
in order to introduce the common view (since M o o r e ,
shared by
Wachter) that Josephus's use of etpappevr) parallels Stoic u s a g e .
78
That
is the issue that concerns Martin. H e wants to challenge this conven tional identification on the ground that, since Josephus never elaborates on related Stoic themes—such as pantheism, the regularity of nature, or the harmony of the universe—he "technical" Stoic sense.
cannot be using
etpappevr) in a
79
If Josephus is not using etpappevr) in a technical Stoic sense, Martin proposes, one ought to consider that the term was most popular in the first century as an astrological concept.
80
Since Josephus
shows himself familiar with astrological notions,
81
elsewhere
it would be most
natural for him to use etpappevr) in the astrological sense, of the op pressive, inexorable, planetary direction of human affairs.
82
Indeed,
Martin thinks he finds such a sense in Ant. 16:397, where xuxr) is equated with etpappevr) "because there is nothing that is not brought about by her (ou8ev6$ OVTOS o pr) 8t' auxrjv ytvexat)".
83
H e understands Ant.
16:398,
where Josephus asserts that the L a w calls for human responsibility, to be the historian's rejection of an astrological view of f a t e .
84
In this
passage, Martin thinks he has uncovered the key to Josephus's etpap-
7 6
"Josephus's Use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 171-3", Numen 28 (1981), 127-135. Ibid., 129f. The sketch is defecctive. For example, Martin has Wachter arguing "the essential correctness" of Josephus on all three schools. In fact, Wachter thinks that Josephus is accurate only in the case of Pharisees, that his presentation of the Essenes needs to be qualified, and that his portrait of the Sadducees is inaccurate. See my sum mary of Wachter above. Martin, "Heimarmene", 130. Ibid., 132. Ibid. Ibid. Martin a d d u c e s ^ / . 1:56, 167f.; 3:179-187. Ibid. Ibid. Cf. my analysis of this passage, in chapter 6, above. It is not clear to me why this statement should be interpreted as astrological, since the Stoics also saw Fate ( = Lo gos) as the universal cause. Martin, "Heimarmene", 1 3 4 . 1 have argued above, however (chapter 6), that such an interpretation fails to account for Josephus's affirmation of the omnipotence of fate. 7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
8 3
8 4
396
APPENDIX B
pevrj-usage: the Jewish historian, like the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:8-9), is proclaiming freedom from an oppressive, astrological "Fate". Applying this discovery to Ant. 13:171-173, in which the three schools are compared with respect to their views on etpappevrj, Martin finds that: Josephus makes a universal statement which reflects the general Hellenistic 'heimarmenic' view of human existence, and then gives, by contrast, the Jewish alternative of life in obedience to Torah in its various interpreta tions. In other words, a life of obedience to Torah offers man an alternative to the otherwise universal determinism of heimarmene, together with the subsequent freedom for directing, within the requirements of Torah, one's own life. 85
Unlike practically every other critic, Martin is able to connect Ant. 13:171-173 to its context. Whereas in this passage etpappevr) rules over human affairs,
86
a few sentences earlier (13:163), Josephus has noted
that the 7cpovota Oeou was guiding the affairs of Jonathan the Hasmo nean.
87
Martin finds here an intended contrast between the liberating
7cpovota Oeou and the oppressive Hellenistic etpappevr]. Thus Josephus is writing as an apologist: He presents the Jews as the people who are freed from heimarmene by the providence of God, and who consequently exercise free will and human responsibility in and through their obedience to Torah. 88
Martin's analysis of "Josephus' use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Anti quities X I I I , 1 7 1 - 3 " , as the title would have it, is an extreme example of
the
tendency
to
interpret Josephus's
stratagem except Josephan usage. distinguishing
the
literary
and
words by
every
possible
Martin begins well enough, by
historical
questions,
"What
does
9
Josephus mean by heimarmene?"* and " T o what extent is Josephus cor rect in his use of heimarmene to characterize and distinguish the Jewish philosophies?"
90
H e immediately falls into the trap, however, of trying
to settle the question of Josephus's meaning by external parallels: he cannot accept the Stoic parallel, so he assumes an astrological parallel. H e concedes that, "Josephus never uses heimarmene in any astrological context", but thinks that "it was not necessary" for him to do so
8 5
Ibid. I cannot paraphrase Martin's conclusion because several readings have left me unable to comprehend its sense as an interpretation oi Ant. 13:171-173. I am unable to find any suggestion in Josephus that the rule of etpappevr) is a. pagan view. On the con trary, it is the (beloved) Essenes who make fate the xupioc of all. This inference is unclear. Josephus gives three views of fate. Martin, "Heimarmene", 135. Ibid. Ibid., 128. Ibid., 129. 8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
397
APPENDIX B
because of the pervasiveness of the astrological sense of etpappevr) at that time.
91
That this utter disregard for Josephus's intention leads to impossible conclusions is in Martin's case obvious. If, in Ant. 13:171-173, Josephus is preaching Jewish freedom from etpappevr) then the Sadducees must be his heroes, because they do away with it altogether, and the Essenes must be some kind of heretics, for they see fate as "the mistress (xup(a) of all things". It is well known, however, that the opposite is the case. Josephus despises the Sadducees, whom he presents as r u d e savage, Ant.
93
and he always has high praise for the Essenes.
94
92
and
Moreover, in
13:171-173 Josephus is not trying to present the Jewish groups as
unique—but rather as philosophical schools in Hellenistic fashion, with differing views rcept TCOV &v9p<07itv
95
Finally, granted that etpappevr)
had acquired both a philosophical (Stoic) and a popular (astrological) sense
in the first century,
deliberate
characterization
96
one must wonder whether Josephus's
of
the
Jewish
groups
as
atpeaet$
and
Conclusion All of the studies considered offer some useful information and insight into our problem: W h a t does Josephus mean to say in War 2:162, Ant. 13:171f., and Ant. 18:13 about the Pharisees' view of fate? All of them, however, ask the historical question too quickly. This is true even of Maier's work, which ostensibly devotes its first chapter to ascertaining Josephus's meaning before preceding to ask whether he was correct. U p o n examination, one finds that the three pages given there to inter preting War 2:162, for example, are consumed by the quest to find the Jewish (and therefore Josephan) elements in the passage. Remarkably, no attempt is made to examine Josephus's usage of etpappevr).
97
Moore,
Wachter, and Martin all offer some sort of comment on other instances 9 1
Ibid., 133. Martin has correctly apprehended the dominance of the astrological in terpretation of fate in the early centuries of our era; cf. Amand, Fatalisme, 12ff.; Nock, Conversion, 99f.; Bergman, " I Overcome Fate", 42; Gundel, ''Heimarmene'', 2641. War 2:166. Ant. 20:199. Cf. esp. War 2:119-161. Cf.Ant. 10:247f.; Ag.Ap. 2:180; esp. War 4:622; Ant. 19:347; and chapter 6, above. Tacitus, Annals 6:22. Maier, freier Wille, 11-14. 92
93
9 4
95
9 6
9 7
APPENDIX B
398
of etpappevr} in Josephus but their remarks on this point are of dubious validity.
98
These studies are symptomatic of the persistent positivism that has nurtured itself in Josephan studies. T h e historian's words are plucked out of their setting and interpreted by means of some more or less strik ing parallels in some more or less contemporary literature.
But this
endeavour begs the question of Josephus's meaning. Before one can ask whether, where, and to what extent, Josephus's thought and vocabulary fit with those of his contemporaries, one must ascertain his meaning. A n d , by a fundamental axiom of interpretation, that task must first be accomplished by careful
scrutiny
of the author's own
characteristic
usage. O n l y when Josephus's own clues about his meaning have been exhausted and some sort of result obtained, only then can it possibly be worthwhile to ask where he fits into the many currents of Hellenistic and Jewish t h o u g h t .
9 8
99
Moore, "Fate", 375f., distinguishes Josephus's usage of etpappevr) in the school passages from his usage elsewhere. O f the former he says: "It is fair to assume that . ... Heimarmene is used in what was at least meant to be its philosophical [sc. "unJewish"] definition." The other occurrences, Moore claims, pose "no difficulty" (i.e., accord with "Jewish" views). Wachter likewise posits major inconsistencies in Josephus's usage of etpappevr), "Haltung", 101-103. Neither of these critics offers more than bare assertions. Cf. my analysis above, (chapter 6), in which I argue that Josephus's use of etpappevr) in the school passages is consistent with his usage elsewhere. Given the high degree of cross-fertilization between Hellenism and Judaism; given the eclecticism of both Stoicism (Greene, Moira, 342) and Middle Platonism (Armstrong, "Greek Philosophy", 211) in the first century A D ; and given the major deficiencies in our knowledge of both Pharisaism and Stoicism, we should be wary of tying Josephus narrowly to any particular "parallel" or current of thought. Momigliano's comment on another writer of the period well illustrates the point: "Even the trained student of today finds it difficult to disentangle the Platonic from the Stoic, the Epicurean from the Cynic element in Seneca's philosophy." Cf. "Seneca Between Political and Contemplative Life", in Momigliano, Quarto Contributo all Storial degli Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome: Edizione di Storia et Letteratura, 1969), 240. 9 9
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1
I. Texts and Reference Works Apuleius. Platon and seine Lehre, ed. P. Siniscalo, trans. K . Albert. "Texte zur Philosophic", 4. Sankt Augustin: Hans Richarz, 1980. Betant, E. A . , ed. Lexicon Thucydideum, 2 vols. Hildesheim: G . Olms, 1961 [1843]. Chadwick, H . The Sentences ofSextus: a contribution to the study of early Christian ethics. Cam bridge: University Press, 1959. Charles, R . H . , ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol. 2: Pseudepigrapha._ Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913. Cicero, M . Tullius. Uber das Fatum, 2d. edn., ed. K . Bayer. Munich: Heimeran, 1976 [1959]. Complete Works of Josephus in Ten Volumes: a new and revised edition based on Havercamp s translation. Cleveland-New York: World Syndicate Publishing Company, n. d. Cornfeld, G . , B. Mazar, and P. L. Maier, edd. Josephus: the Jewish War. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Dalman, G. H . Aramdisch-Neuhebraisches Handwdrterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch, 2d. edn. Frankfurt a. M . : J. Kaufmann, 1922. . Grammatik des judisch-paldstinischen Aramdisch: aramaische Dialektproben, 2d. edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960 [1927]. Eigler, G . , ed. Platon: Werke in acht Bdnden: Griechisch und Deutsch. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977. Essen, M . H . N . von, ed. Index Thucydideus. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887. Feldman, L. H . Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), ed. W . Haase. Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1983. . Studies in Judaica: Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937-1962). New York: Yeshiva University, n. d. Gesenius, W . Hebrdische Grammatik, ed. E. Kautzsch. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962 [1909]. Gomme, A . W . , A . Andrewes, and K . J. Dover. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides, 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Hafaeli, L. Flavius Josephus' Lebensbeschreibung. "Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen", II.4. Minister: Aschendorf, 1925. Hartom, A . S., ed. Ha-Sifrim ha-Hisonim, 4 vols. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1958. Jastrow, M . A Dictionary of the Targumim the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols. New York: Pardes Publishing House, 1950. Kautzsch, E . , ed. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des AI ten Testaments, 2 vols. Tiibingen-Greibung-Leipzig: J. C . B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1900. Michel, O . and O . Bauernfeind, edd. De Bello Judaico: Der judische Krieg. Griechisch und Deutsch, 4 vols. Munich: Kosel, 1959-1969. Niese, B., ed. Flavii Josephi Opera, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887-1904. O'Neil, E. Teles (The Cynic Teacher). "SBL Texts and Translations", 11; "GraecoRoman Religion", 3. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977. Palmer, L. R . The Greek Language. "The Great Languages". London, Boston: Faber and Faber, 1980. Rappaport, U . "Bibliography of Works on Jewish History in the Hellenistic and Roman y
1
With the exceptions and additions noted below, I have used the L C L editions of classical texts.
400
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Periods, 1946-1970", in Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel, edd. B. Obed et al. Haifa: University of Haifa, 1972, II, 272-321. Reinach, T . , ed. Oeuvres Completes de Flavius Josephe, 7 vols. Paris: E. Leroux, 1900ff. Rengstorf, K . H . et al. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, 4 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973-1983. Supplement I: Namenworterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, ed. A . Schalit, 1968. Schreckenberg, H . Bibliographic zu Flavius Josephus. "Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums", 1. Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1968. Vol. 14: Supplementband mit Gesamtregister, 1979. Segal, M . H . A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958. Stobaeus, J. Anthologium, 5 vols., edd. C . Wachsmuth and O . Hense. Berlin: Weid mann, 1957. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols., ed. A . von Arnim. Leipzig: B. G . Teubner, 1903. Thackeray, H . St. J. and R . Marcus. A Lexicon to Josephus, 4 vols. "Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation". Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Guenther, 1930-1955. Thackeray, H . St. J., R . Marcus, A . Wikgren, and L. Feldman, edd. Josephus, 10 vols. "Loeb Classical Library". Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; London: William Heinemann, 1976-1981. Thompson, E. and W . C . Price, edd. The Works of Flavius Josephus, 2 vols. London: Fielding and Walker, 1777. Vermes, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962. Whiston, W . ed. The Life and works of Flavius Josephus. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, n. d. [1737].
II. Essays, Articles, and Books
Abrahams, I. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: First and Second Series. "Library of Biblical Studies". New York: Ktav, 1968 [1917 and 1924]. Alon, G. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, trans. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. Altheim, F. A History of Roman Religion, trans. H . Mattingly. London: Methuen & C o . , 1938. Amand, D . Fatalisme et Liberte dans VAntiquite Grecque: recherches sur la survivance de Vargumentation morale anti-fataliste de Carneade chez les philosphes grecs et les theologiens chretiens de quatre premiers siecles. "Universite de Louvain, Recueil de Travoux d' Histoire et de Philologie", 3.19. Louvain: Bibliotheque de TUniversite, 1945. Armstrong, A . H . "Greek Philosophy from the Age of Cicero to Plotinus", in The Cruci ble of Christianity: Judaism, Hellenism and the Historical Background to the Christian Faith, ed. A . Toynbee. London: Thames and Hudson, 1969. Attridge, H . W . The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus. "Harvard Dissertations in Religion", 7. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976. Aune, D . E. "Critical Notes: the use of IIPOOHTHS in Josephus", JBL 101 (1982), 419-421. Avenarius, G. Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. Meisenheim-Glan: Anton Hain, 1956. Bacher, W . Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palastinas und Babyloniens: Studien und Materialen zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Talmuds. Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1914. Baeck, L. Paulus, die Pharisaer und das Neue Testament. Frankfurt: Ner-Tamid, 1961. . The Pharisees and Other Essays. New York: Schocken, 1947. Bamberger, B. J. "The Sadducees and the Belief in Angels", JBL 82 (1963), 433-435. Barish, D . A . "The Autobiography of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a Second Edition of his Antiquities", HTR 71 (1978), 61-75.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
401
Baron, S. W . A Social and Religious History of the Jews, I and II: Ancient Times, 2d. edn. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952. Bauernfeind, O . and O . Michel. "Die beiden Elezarreden in Jos. Bell. 7. 323-336 und 7.341-388", ZNW 58 (1967), 267-272. Baumbach, G. "Das Sadduzaerverstandnis bei Josephus Flavius und im Neuen Testa ment", Kairos 13 (1971), 17-37. . "Jesus und die Pharisaer: ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus", Bibel undLiturgie 41 (1968), 112-131. Baumgarten, A . I. "The Name of the Pharisees", JBL 102 (1983), 411-428. Baumgarten, J. M . "The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts", JJS 31 (1980), 157-170. . "The unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period", JSJ 3 (1972), 7-29. Beasley-Murray, G . R . "The Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs", JTS 48 (1947), 1-12. Beilner, W . Christus und die Pharisaer: exegetische Untersuchung uber Grund und Verlauf der Auseinandersetzung. Vienna: Herder, 1959. . "Der Ursprung des Pharisaismus", Biblische Zeitschrift, n.F. 3 (1959), 235-251. Benario, H . W . An Introduction to Tacitus. Athens G A : University of Georgia Press, 1975. Bentwich, N . Josephus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1919. Bergman, J. "I Overcome Fate, Fate Hearkens to M e " , in Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion, Folklore, and Literature, ed. H . Ringgren, Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1967, 35-51. Bergmann, J. "Die stoische Philosophic und die jiidische Frommigkeit", in Judaica: Festschrift zu Hermann Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage, edd. I. .Elbogen, B. Kellermann and E. Mittwoch. New York: Arno, 1980 [Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1912], 145-166. Betz, O . , K . Haacker, and P. Schafer, edd. Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus, dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Bickerman, E. J. "La Chaine de la tradition pharisienne", Studies in Jewish and Christian History, "Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristenthums", 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980, II, 256-269. Bilde, P. "The Causes of the Jewish W a r According to Josephus", JSJ 10 (1979), 179-202. Black, M . "The Account of the Essenes in Hippolytus and Josephus", in The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, edd. W . D . Davies and D . Daube. Cam bridge: University Press, 1956, 172-175. . "Pharisees", IDB III (1962), 774-781. Blenkinsopp, J. "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus", JJS 25 (1974), 239-262. Bloch, H . Die Quellen des Flavius in seiner Archdologie. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1879. Bloch, M . Apologie der Geschichte oder der Beruf des Historikers, trans. S. Furtenbach, 2d. ed., rev. F. J. Lucas. Stuttgart: E. Klett-J.G. Cotta, 1974. Blumenthal, H . von. "Palingenesia", PWRE 18:3, 139-148. Bousset, W . Die Religion des Judentums im spdthellenistischen Zeitalter, 4th edn., ed. H . Gressmann. "Handbuch zum Neuen Testament", 21. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr (Siebeck), 1966 [1926]. Bowker, J. Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Brandon, S. G . F. The Judgment of the Dead: An Historical and Comparative Study of the Idea of a Post-Mortem Judgment in the Major Religions. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967. Braun, M . Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. "Franfurter Studien zur Religion und Kultur der Antike", 6. Frankfurt a. M . : V . Klostermann, 1934. Brown, S. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. "The Oxford Bible Series". Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. Broyde, L , "Fatalism", The Jewish Encyclopedia, V , 351. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1925.
402
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brune, B. Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhaltnis zum Judentume, zur griechischromischen Welt und zum Christentum; mit griechischer Wortkonkordanz zum Neuen Testament und I. Clemensbriefe nebst sach- und Namen-Verzeichnis. Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969 [1913]. Buchsel, F. "iwXirr*veak", TDNT, I, 686-689. Buehler, W . W . The Pre-Herodian Civil War and Social Debate: Jewish Society in the Period 7640 B. C. and the Social Factors Contributing to the Rise of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. "Theologische Dissertationen' , 11. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt; 1974 [dissertation, Basel, 1964]. Burgmann, H . "Der Griinder der Pharisaergenossenschaft: der Makkabaer Simon", JJS 9 (1978), 153-191. . "The Wicked Woman: Der Makkabaer Simon?", Revue de Qumran 8 (1972), 323-359. Burkitt, F. C . The Gospel History and Its Transmission, 2d. edn. Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1907. Burrows, M . "Messiahs of Aaron and Israel", ATR 34 (1952), 202-206. . More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking Press, 1958. Byatt, A . "Josephus and Population Numbers in 1st Century Palestine", Palestine Ex ploration Quarterly 105 (1973), 51-60. Cavallin, H . C . C . Life After Death: Paul's Argument. . . . Part I. An Enquiry into the Jewish Background. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. Charles, R . H . Eschatology: the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity: a Critical History. New York: Schocken Books, 1963 [1899]. . Religious Development Between The Old and The New Testaments. "Home University Library of Modern Knowledge", 94. London-New York-Toronto: Oxford Univer sity Press, 1914. Cioffari, V . "Fortune, Fate and Chance", Dictionary of the History of Ideas, II, 225-236. ed. P. P. Wiener. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973. Cohen, J. Les Pharisiens, 2 vols. Paris: C . Levy, 1877. Cohen, N . G. "Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Nar rative Similar Throughout the Antiquities I - X I ? " , JQR 54 (1963-64), 311-332. Cohen, S. J. D . Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979. Collingwood, R . G. The Idea of History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948. Collump, P. "Der Platz des Josephus in der Technik der hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung", Wege der Forschung 84 (1974), 278-293. Connor, W . R . Thucydides. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Cook, M . J. "Jesus and the Pharisees— the Problem as it Stands Today", JES 15 (1978), 441-460. . Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders. "Supplements to Novum Testamentum", 51. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978. Creed, J. L. "Moral Values in the Age.of Thucydides", CQ 23 (1973), 213-231. Creuzer, F. "Ruckblick auf Josephus: judische, christliche Monumente und Personalien", TSK 26 (1853), 906-928. Cross, F. M . Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran. "The Haskell Lectures, 1956-1957". London: Gerald Duckworth, 1958. Cumont, F. After Life in Roman Paganism: Lectures delivered at Yale University on the Silliman Foundation. New Haven: Yale University Press; London: Oxford University Press, 1922. Cumont, F. Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. New York: Dover, 1956 [1911]. Davies, W . D . Christian Origins and Judaism. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1962. Delling, G. "Josephus und die heidnischen Religionen", Klio, 43 (1965), 263-269; repr. in the author's Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum: Gesammelte Aufsatze 1950-68. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970, 34-42. Derenbourg, J. Essai sur I'Histoire et al Geographic de la Palestine: d'apres les Thalmuds et les ,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
403
autres sources rabbiniques, pt. I: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu' a Adrien. Hildesheim: H . A . Gerstenberg, 1975 [1867]. Destinon, J. von. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus I: Die Quellen der Archdologie Buch XII-XVII + Jiid. Krieg Buch I. Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer, 1882. Dexinger, F. "Die Geschichte der Pharisaer", Bibel und Kirche 35 (1980), 113-117. Dietrich, B. C . Death, Fate and the Gods: the development of a religious idea in Greek popular belief and in Homer. "University of London Classical Studies", 3. London: Athlone, 1965. Dietrich, E. L. "Pharisaer", in RGG, 3. Auflage, V , 326f. Dodd, C . H . The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935. Downing, F. G. "Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and in Josephus", NTS 28 (1982), 546-559. . "Redaction Criticism; Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels", JSNT 8 (1980), 46-65; 9 (1980), 29-48. Drexler, H . "Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des judischen Aufstandes", Klio 19 (1925), 277-312. Dubnow, S. Weltgeschichte des judischen Volkes: von seinen Uranfdngen bis zur Gegenwart, 70 vols. Berlin: Judischer Verlag, 1925-29. Dudley, D . R . The World of Tacitus. London: Seeker & Warburg, 1968. Earl, D . "Prologue-form in ancient Historiography", in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt. . ., ed. H . Temporini. I: Von den Anfangen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik, vol. 2. Berlin-New York: W . de Gruyter, 1972, 842-856. Ehrhardt, A . "The Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles", Studia Theologica 12 (1958), 45ff. Ehrlich, E. L. "Zur Geschichte der Pharisaer", Freiburger Rundbrief 29 (1977), 46-52. Eisler, R . The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: according to Flavius Josephus' recently discovered 'Capture ofJerusalem' and other Jewish and Christian Sources, trans, and ed. A . H . Krappe. London: Methuen & C o . , 1931. Elbogen, I. "Einige neuere Theorien uber den Ursprung der Pharisaer und Sadduzaer", in Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927, 135-148. . Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisaer: mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Begrijfe Gott und Mensch. "Lehranstalt fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums", 22. Berlin: H . Itzkowski, 1904. Farmer, W . R . Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Feldman, L. H . "The Identity of Pollio, the Pharisee, in Josephus", JQR 49 (1958-59), 53-62. . "Josephus as an Apologist to the Roman World: his Portrait of Solomon", in Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. S. Fiorenza. "Studies in Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity", 2. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976, 68-98. Finley, M . I. The Use and Abuse of History. London: Chatto & Windus, 1975. Finkel, A . The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth: A Study of their Background, their Halakhic and Midrashic Teachings, the Similarities and Differences, "Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Spatjudentums und Urchristentums", Bd. 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. Finkelstein, L. "The Origin of the Pharisees", Conservative Judaism 23 (1969), 25-36. . Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays. New York: Ktav, 1972. . The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Synagogue. "Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America", 15. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950. . The Pharisees: The Sociological Background oftheir Faith, 2 vols. "Morris Loeb Series". Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938. . "The Pharisees: Their Origin and their Philosophy", HTR 22 (1929) 185-261. Fischel, H . A . "Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Historiography and Pharisaism", in American Oriental Society—Middle West Branch: Semi-Centennial Volume,
404
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ed. D . Sinor. "Asian Studies Research Institute Oriental Series", 3. BloomingtonLondon: Indiana University Press, 1969, 59-83. Flusser, D . "Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener im Pescher Nahum", in Qumran, edd. K . E. Krozinger et al. "Wege der Forschung", 410. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981. Foakes Jackson, F. J. Josephus and the Jews: the Religion and History of the Jews as Explained by Flavius Josephus. London: S . P . C . K . , 1930. , K . Lake, and H . J. Cadbury. The Beginnings of Christianity. Part I: The Acts of the Apostles, 5 vols. London: Macmillan, 1920-1933. Foerster, W . "EuaePeta in den Pastoralbriefen", NTS 5 (1959), 213-218. . "Der Ursprung des Pharisaismus", ZNWM (1935), 35-51. Ford, J. M . "The Christian Debt to Pharisaism", Bridge 5 (1970), 218-230. Franxman, T . W . Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus. Rome: Biblical In stitute Press, 1979. Friedlander, J. "The Rupture Between Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees", JQR n. s. 4 (1913-14), 443-448. Fuks, A . The Ancestral Constitution: Four Studies in Athenian Party Politics at the End of the Fifth Century B.C. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953. Furley, D . J. Two Studies in Greek Atomism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. Garrod, H . W . "Note on the Messianic Character of the Fourth Eclogue", Classical Review 19 (1905), 37-38. Gaster, T . H . The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect. London: Seeker & Warburg, 1957. Geiger, A . Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, I: bis zur Zerstorung des zweiten Tempels, 2. Auflage. Breslau: Schletter, 1865. . Urschrift and Ubersetzungen der Bibel: in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums, 2. Auflage. Frankfurt a. M . : Madda, 1928 [1857]. Geller, M . J. "Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees Rift", JJS 30 (1979), 202-211. Gelzer, M . "Die Vita des Josephos", Hermes 80 (1952), 67-90. Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, trans. E. J. Sharpe. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells, 1961. Gerlach, E. Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus. Berlin: Hertz, 1863. Giovannini, G. "The Connection Between Tragedy and History in Ancient Criticism", Philosophical Quarterly 22 (1943), 308-314. Glasson, T . F. "Anti-Pharisaism in St. Matthew", 51 (1960-61), 316-320. . Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology: with special reference to the Apocalypses and Pseudepigraphs. London: S.P.C.K. 1961. Goldenberg, D . "Flavius Josephus or Joseph ben M a t t a t h i a h ? " , / ^ (1979), 178-182. . "The Halakha in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative Study", JQR 67 (1976), 30-43. Goodblatt, D . "The Origins of Roman Recognition of the Palestinian Patriarchate", Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel 4 (1978), 89-102 [Hebrew]. Graetz, H . Geschichte derJuden von den dltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 11 vols., 5th edn. Leipzig: Oskar Leiner, 1905 [1863]. Grant, M . The Ancient Historians. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970. Greene, W . C . Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1944. Gruber-Magitot, C . Jesus et les Pharisiens. Paris: Robert Laffont, 1964. Guignebert, Ch. The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, trans. S. H . Hooke. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; New York: E. P. Dutton, 1939. Gundel, W . "Heimarmene", PWRE 13 (1910), 2622-2645. Guttmann, A . Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: A Chapter in the History of the Halakhah from Ezra to Judah I. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970. Guttmann, H . Die Darstellung der judischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus. Breslau: Marcus, 1928. 7
0
BIBLIOGRAPHY
405
Hadas, M . Hellenistic Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Haenchen, E. The Acts of the Apostles, trans. R . M . Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982. Halbfas, F. Theorie und Praxis in der Geschichtschreibung bei Dionys von Halikarnass. Minister: Westfalische Vereinsdruckerei, 1910. Halson, B. R . " A Note on the Pharisees", Theology 47 (1964), 245-251. Hanson, P. D . "Apocalypticism", IDBS, 28-34. Hare, D . R . A . The Themes of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. " S N T S Monograph Series", 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Harnack, A . von. Das Wesen des Christentums, Neuauflage. Stuttgart: Ehrenfried Klotz, 1950 [1900]. Hata, G. "Is the Greek Version of Josephus' 'Jewish War' a Translation or a Rewriting of the First V e r s i o n ? " , / ^ 66 (1975), 89-108. Havelock, E. A . The Greek Concept of Justice: From its Shadow in Homer to its Substance in Plato. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, 1978. Head, J. and S. L. Cranston, edd. Reincarnation in World Thought. New York: Julian Press, 1967. Heller, B. "Grundziige der Aggada des Flavius Josephus", MGWJ 80 (1936), 237-246. Hengel, M . Judentum und Hellenismus. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1969. . Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur judischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I, bis 70 n. Chr. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961. Herford, R . T . "The Law and Pharisaism", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in One, edd. W . O . E. Oesterley, H . Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937-38], III, 91-121. . Pharisaism: Its Aim and Method, "Crown Theological Library", 35. London: Williams & Northgate, 1912. . The Pharisees. New York: Macmillan, 1924. Hicks, R . D . Stoic and Epicurean. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962 [1910]. Hignett, C . A History of the Athenian Constitution: to the End of the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1952. Hirzel, R . Themis, Dike und Verwandtes: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Rechtsidee bei den Griechen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1907. Hoenig, S. B. The Great Sanhedrin: A study of the origin, development, composition and functions of the Bet Din ha-Gadol during the Second Jewish Commonwealth. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1953. Holscher, G. "Josephus", PWRE 18 (1916), 1934-2000. . Der Sadduzaismus: eine kritische Untersuchung zur spateren judischen Religions geschichte. Leipzig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1906. Holtzmann, O. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. "Grundriss der theologischen Wissenschaften", 2d. series, Bd. 2. Freiburg-Leipzig: J. C . B. Mohr, 1895. . "Der Prophet Malachi und der Ursprung der Pharisaismus", Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft 29 (1931), 1-21. Hooker, J. T . "Xapi? and 'Apexr) in Thucydides", Hermes 102 (1974), 164-169. Howard, G. "Kaige Reading in Josephus", Textus 8 (1973), 45-54. Hultgren, A . J. Jesus and his Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1979. Hummel, R . Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthausevangelium. "Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie", 33. Munich: Kaiser, 1966. Hussey, M . D . "Origin of the Name Pharisee", JBL 39 (1920), 66-69. Isser, S. "The Conservative Essenes: A New Emendation of Antiquities X V I I I . 12", JSJ 7 (1976), 177-180. Jacob, B. Im Namen Gottes: eine sprachliche und religions-geschichtliche Untersuchung zum Alten und Neuen Testament. Berlin: S. Calvary & C o . , 1903. Jaeger, W . Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development. Oxford: University Press 1948.
406
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Janson, T . Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions. "Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis: Studia Latina Stockholmiensia ', 13. Stockholm-Gotborg-Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964. Jeremias, J. Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen Zeitgeschichte, 2. Auflage. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958. Johnson, B. "Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen sadaq und sedaqa", Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1977/78), 31-39. Kajanto, I. God and Fate in Livy. "Annales Universitatis Turkuensis", B. 64. Turku: Turun Yliopiston Kustantama, 1957. Kallai, Z . "The Biblical Geography of Flavius Josephus", Fourth World Congress ofJewish Studies (1965), I V (1967), 203-207. Kieval, P. "The Talmudic View of the Hasmonean and early Herodian Periods in Jewish History". Dissertation, Brandeis, 1970. Klausner, J. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah, trans. W . F. Stinespring. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956. Klein, R . W . "Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism", Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972), 507-517. Kleinknecht, H . and W . Gutbrod, "v6{io<;", TDNT, I V , 1023-1051. Knight Jackson, W . F. Elysion: on ancient Greek and Roman beliefs concerning a life after death. London: Rider & Co. 1970. Knox, W . L. "Pharisaism and Hellenism", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in One, edd. W . O . E. Oesterley, H . Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937-38], 61-111. Kohler, K . "Pharisees", The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav, 1904, I X , 661-666. Krenkel, M . Josephus und Lukas: der schriftstellerische Einfluss des judischen Geschichtschreibers auf den christlichen nachgewiesen. Liepzig: H . Haessel, 1894. Kummel, W . G. "Die Weherufe uber die Schriftgelehrten und Pharisaer (Matthaus 23, 13-36)", in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? exegetische und systematische Beitrage. Munich: Kaiser, 1967. Lachs, S. T . "The Pharisees and Sadducees on Angels: A Reexamination of Acts X X I I I . 8 " , Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies 6 (1977), 35-42. Laqueur, R . Der judische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970 [1920]. Laurin, R . B. "The Problem of Two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls", Revue de Qumran 4 (1963), 39-52. Lauterbach, J. Z . "The Pharisees and their Teachings", HUCA 6 (1929)), 69-139. . "The Sadducees and Pharisees: a Study of their Respective Attitudes toward the Law", in Studies in Jewish Literature: issued in honor of Professor Kaufmann Kohler . . . on the occasion of his seventieth Birthday. . . . Berlin: Reimer, 1913, 176-198. Leach, A . "Fate and Free Will in Greek Literature", in The Greek Genius and its Influence: Select Essays and Extracts, ed. L. Cooper. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917, 132-155. Leipoldt, J. and W . Grundmann. Umwelt des Urchristentums, 3 vols. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965-66. Le Moyne, J. Les Sadduceens. "Etudes bibliques". Paris: Lecoffre, 1972. Leszynsky, R . "Pharisaer", in Judisches Lexicon: ein enzyklopddisches Handbuch des judischen Wissens in vier Bdnden, edd. G. Herlitz, B. Kirschner et al. Berlin: Judischer Verlag, 1930, 4:1, 894-896. . Pharisaer und Sadduzder. "Volkschriften uber die judische Religion", 1:2. Frankfurt a. M . : J. Kaufmann, 1912. Levi, I. "Les sources talmudiques de l'histoire juive. I: Alexandre Jannee, et Simon Ben Schetah", Revue d'Etudes Juives 35 (1897), 213-283. Levine, I. L. " O n the Political Involvement of the Pharisees under Herod and the Pro curators", Cathedra 8 (1978), 12-28 [Hebrew]. ,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
407
Levy, I. La Legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine. "Bibliotheque de TEcole des Hautes Etudes", 250. Paris: Libraire Ancienne Honore Champion, 1927. Lieberich, H. Studien zu den Prodmien in der griechischen und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung I: Die griechischen Geschichtschreiber. Munich: J. G. Weiss (J. Olbrich), 1899. Lieberman, S. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners ofJewish Palestine in the II-IV Centuries C.E. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942. . Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.- IV Century C.E. "Texts and Studies of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America", 18. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950. Lighdey, J. W. Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Christ. London: Sharp, 1925. Lindars, B. "Jesus and the Pharisees", in Donum Gentilicum: New Testament Studies in Honour of David Daube, ed. E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett, W. D. Davies. Oxford: Clarendon, 1978, 51-63. Lindner, H. Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum. "Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums", 12. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972. Liver, J. "The Doctrine of Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth", HTR 52 (1959), 149-185. Loewe, H. "The Ideas of Pharisaism", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in One, edd. W. O. E. Oesterley, H. Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937-38], II, 3-58. Loftus, F. "The Anti-Roman Revolts of the Jews and the G a l i l e a n s " , 6 8 (1977), 78-98. . "A Note on ouvrarpa TWV TocXiXafcov: B.J. iv 558", JQR 65 (1975), 182-183. Lohse, E. Unwelt des Neuen Testaments. "Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament", 1. Got tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. London: Duckworth, 1974. Long, H. S. "Plato's Doctrine of Metempsychosis and Its Source", Classical Weekly 41 (1948), 149-155. Longenecker, R. N. "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews", in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honour of George E. Ladd, ed. R. Guelich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1978, 161-185. Ludemann, G. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. S. F. Jones. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Luther, H. Josephus und Justus von Tiberias: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des judischen Aufstandes. Halle: Wischan & Burkhardt, 1910. Luz, U. "Jesus und die Pharisaer", Judaica 38 (1982), 229-246. Maier, G. Mensch und freier Wille: nach den judischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus. "Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament", 12. Tub ingen: J. C. B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1981. Mansfeld, J. "Providence and the Destruction of the Universe in Early Stoic Thought: with some remarks on the 'Mysteries of Philosophy'", in Studies in Hellenistic Religions, ed. M. J. Vermaseren. "Etudes Preliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain", 78. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979, 129-188. Manson, T. W. "Sadducee and Pharisee: the Origin and Significance of their Names", BJRL 22 (1938), 144-159. Mansoor, M. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A College Textbook and a Study Guide. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. Mantel, H. D. "The Sadducees and the Pharisees", in The World History of the Jewish People. First series: Ancient Times, vol. 8: Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period, edd. M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baros. Jerusalem: Massada, 1977, 99-123. —-—. Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1965. Marcus, R. "Pharisaism in the Light of Modern Scholarship", The Journal of Religion 32 (1952), 154-164.
408
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. "Pharisees, Essenes, and Gnostics", JBL 73 (1954), 157-161. Martin, Luther H . "Josephus' Use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 1713 " , Numen 28 (1981), 127-137. Mandell, C . W . Tacitus: the Man and his Work. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957. Merkel, H . "Jesus und die Pharisaer", NTS 14 (1968), 194-208. Meyer, B. F. The Aims of Jesus. London: S . C . M . , 1979. Meyer, E. Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, 3 vols. Stuttgart-Berlin: J. G . Cotta, 1921-23. . "Zur Theorie und Methodik der Geschichte", in his Kleine Schriften: zur Geschichtstheorie und zur wirtschaftlichen und politischen Geschichte des Altertums. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1910. Meyer, R . "Die Bedeutung des Pharisaismus fur die Geschichte und Theologie des Judentums", TLZ 11 (1952), 677-684. . "Geschichtserfahrung und Schriftauslegung, zur Hermeneutik des friihen Juden tums", in Die hermeneutische Frage in der Theologie, edd. O . Loretz and W . Strolz. Freiburg: Herder, 1968. . "EaS&ouxoctos", TDNT, V I I , 35-54. . Tradition und Neuschopfung im antiken Judentum: dargestellt an der Geschichte des Pharisaismus: mit einem Beitrag von H.-Fr. Weiss: der Pharisaismus im Lichte der Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments. "Sitzungsberichte der sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philologisch-historische Klasse", Bd. 110, Heft 2. Berlin: Akademie, 1965. Meyer, R . and H.-F. Weiss. "Oaptaato?", TDNT, I X , 11-48. Michel, O . "Ich Komme [Jos. Bell. III. 4 0 0 ] " , TLZ 24 (1968). . "Studien zu Josephus: Simon bar Giora", NTS 14 (1968), 402-408. . "Zur Arbeit an den Textzeugen des Josephus", ZAW 83 (1971), 101-102. Milik, J. T . Ten Years of Discovery in The Wilderness ofJudaea, trans J. Strugnell. "Studies in Biblical Theology", 26. London: S . C . M . 1959. Misch, G. A History of Autobiography in Antiquity, 2 vols, trans. E. W . Dickes. "Interna tional Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction". London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1950. Moehring, H . R . T\\e Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus", in Chris tianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, 4 vols., ed. J. Neusner. "Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity", 12. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975, III, 124-158. . "Josephus on the Marriage Customs of the Essenes, Jewish W a r II: 119-166 and Antiquities X V I I I : 11-25", in Early Christian Origins: Studies in honor of H.R. Willoughby, ed. A . Wikgren. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, 120-127. -. "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus". Dissertation, Univer sity of Chicago, August, 1957. . "Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus", Studia Evangelica 6 (1973), 376-383. Momigliano, A . "Ancient History and the Antiquarian", Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 13 (1950), 285-315. . Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977. . "Josephus as a Source for the History of Judaea", Cambridge Ancient History, X : The Augustan Empire 44 B.C.-AD. 70, edd. S. A . Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M . P. Charlesworth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966. . "Problems of Ancient Biography", in his Quarto Contributo alia Storia degli Studi Classici e del Mondo Antico. "Storia e Letteratura", 115. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1969, 77-94. Montet, E. "Le premier conflit entre Pharisiens et Sadducees d'apres trois documents orientaux", Journal Asiatique 9 (1887), 415-423. Montgomery, J. A . "The Religion of Flavius Josephus", JQR 11 (1920-21), 277-305. Moore, C . H . Ancient Beliefs in the Immortality of the Soul: with some account of their influence on later views. "Our Debt to Greece and Rome". New York: Cooper Square, 1963. il
BIBLIOGRAPHY
409
. Pagan Ideas of Immortality During the Roman Empire. "The Ingersoll Lecture, 1918", Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918. Moore, G. F. "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to Josephus", HTR 22 (1929), 371-389. . Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols. Cam bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930. . "The Rise of Normative Judaism, I " , HTR 17 (1924), 307-373. Morel, W . "Eine Rede bei Josephus (Bell. Jud. V I I 341 sqq.)", Rheinisches Museum for Philologie 75 (1926), 106-115. Mosley, A . W . "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World", NTS 12 (1965-66), 10-26. Neusner, J. "Josephus's Pharisees", in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren, I. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972, 224-253. . From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973. . A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (ca. 1-80 C.E.). "Studia Post-Biblica", 6. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962. . "Pharisaic Law in New Testament Times", Union Seminary Quarterly Review 26 (1971), 331-340. . "Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism: A Clarification", History of Religions 12 (1973), 250-270. . "Pre-70 C . E . Pharisaism: the Record of the Rabbis", CCARJ 19 (1972), 53-70. — . The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971. . "The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees in Modern Historiography", CCARJ 19 (1972), 78-108. Nicklesburg, G. W . Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1972. Nicolaus, M . Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les Deux Siecles anterieurs a VEre Chretienne, 2d. edn. Paris: Michel Levy, 1867. Niese, B. "Josephus", ERE, V I I , 569-579. . "Der judische Historiker Josephus", HZ, n.F. 40 (1896), 193-237. Nikolainen, A . T . Der Auferstehungsglauben in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt. I: Religionsgeschichtlicher Teil. "Annales Acadamiae Scientiarum Fennicae", 59. Helsinki: A . G. der Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1944. Norden, E. Die antike Kunstprosa, 5th edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1958 [1898]. Notscher, F., ed. Vom Alten zum Neuen Testament: Gesammelte Aufsdtze. "Bonner Biblische Beitrage", 17. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1962. Oesterley, W . O . E. The Jews and Judaism during the Greek Period: The Background of Chris tianity. London: S. P. C . K . , 1941. and G. H . Box. The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue: An Introduction to the Study of Judaism from the New Testament Period. London: Pitman, 1907. Olitzki, M . Flavius Josephus und die Halacha. Berlin: H . Iskowski, 1885. Palm, J. Uber Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien: ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der hellenisti schen Prosa. Lund: C . W . K . Gleerup, 1955. Paret, H . "Uber den Pharisaismus des Josephus", TSK 29 (1856), 809-844. Parkes, J. F. The Foundations of Judaism and Christianity. London: Vallentine-Mitchell, 1960. Patterson, R . L. Plato on Immortality. University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1965. Pelletier, A. Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la lettre d'Aristee. "Etudes et commentaires", 45. Paris: Klincksieck, 1962. Peter, H . Wahrheit und Kunst: Geschichtsschreibung und Plagiat im Klassischen Altertum. Leipzig-Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1911. Petersen, H . "Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus", American Journal of Philology 79 (1958), 259-274.
410
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pfeiffer, R . H . History of New Testament Times: with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. Lon don: Adam and Charles Black, 1949. Pick, B. " A Study on Josephus with Special Reference to the Old Testament", Lutheran Quarterly 91 (1889), 325-346; 599-616. Pines, S. " A Platonistic Model for Two of Josephus's Accounts of the Doctrine of the Pharisees Concerning Providence and Man's Freedom of Action", Immanuel 7 (1977), 38-43. Polish, D . "Pharisaism and Political Sovereignty", Judaism 19 (1970), 415-422. Posnanski, A . Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus. Breslau: T . Schatzky, 1887. Preisker, H . Neutestamentliche Theologie. "Hilfsbucher zum theologischen Studium", 2d. series, 2 Bde. Berlin: A . Topelmann, 1937. Przybylski, B. Righteousness in Matthew. " S N T S Monograph Series", 41. Cambridge: University Press, 1980. Rabin, C . "Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees", JJS 1 (1956), 3-11. Rajak, T . Josephus: the Historian and his Society. "Classical Life and Letters", London: Duckworth, 1983. . "Justus of Tiberias", CQ 23 e(1973), 345-368. Rappaport, S. Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus. "Veroffentlichungen der Oberrabbiner Dr. H.P. Chajes: Preisstiftung an der israelitisch-theologischen Lehranstalt in W i e n " , 3. Vienna: A . Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930. Rasp, H . "Flavius Josephus und die judischen Religionsparteien", ZNW 23 (1924), 27-47. Reinach T . Textes d'Autres Grecs et Romains relatifs au Judaisme. Hildesheim: G . Olms, 1963 [1895]. Reesor, M . E. "Fate and Possibility in Early Stoic Philosophy", Phoenix 19 (1965), 285-297. Reicke, B. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte: die biblische Welt 500 v. - 100 n. Chr. Berlin: A . Topelmann, 1965. Reiling, J. "The Use of c|)eu8o7cpo9rjTrj(; in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus", NovT 13 (1971), 147-156. Revel, B. "Some Anti-Traditional Laws of Josephus ",JQR n.s. 14 (1923-24), 293-301. Richards, G . C . "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities", CQ33 (1939), 36-40. and R . J . H . Shutt. "Critical Notes on Josephus's Antiquities", CQ31 (1937), 170177, and 33 (1939), 180-183. Ringgren, H . "The Problem of Fatalism", in Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion, Folklore, and Literature, ed. H . Ringgren. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1967, 7-18. Rist, J. M . Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press 1969. Rist, M . "Apocalypticism", IDB I (1962), 157-161. Rivkin, E. "Defining the Pharisees: the Tannaitic sources", HUCA 40 (1969) 205-249. A Hidden Revolution: Nashville: Abingdon, 1978. "Pharisaism and the Crisis of the Individual in the Greco-Roman World", JQR 61 (1970), 27-53. "Pharisees", IDBS, 657-663. "Prolegomenon", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in One, edd. W . O . E. Oesterley, H . Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937-38], I, vii-lxx. . "Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites: A Study in Synonymity", HUCA 49 (1978), 135-142. . The Shaping of Jewish History: A Radical New Interpretation. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971. , H . Fischel et al. " A Symposium on the Pharisees", CCARJ 14 (1967), 32-47. Ross, J. The Jewish Conception of Immortality and the Life Hereafter: An Anthology. Belfast: Belfast News-Letter, Ltd. 1948. Roth, C . "The Constitution of the Jewish Republic of 66-70", JJS 9 (1964), 295-319.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
411
. "The Pharisees in the Jewish Revolution of 66-73", Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1962), 63-80. Rubenstein, R . L. "Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites: A Study in Rabbinic Psychology", Judaism 12 (1963), 456-468. Russell, D . S. The Jews from Alexander to Herod. "New Clarendon Bible". Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. . The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC-AD 100. Philadelphia: Westminister, 1964. Safrai, S., M . Stern et al., edd. The Jewish People in the First Century, I. "Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum". Assen: van Gorcum & C o . , 1974. Salomon, M . Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit bei Aristotles: nebst einem Anhang uber den Begriff des Tauschgeschaftes. Leiden: A . W . Sijthoff, 1937. Sandbach, F. H . The Stoics. "Ancient Culture and Society". London: Chatto & Windus, 1975. Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Schalit, A . "Josephus und Justus", Klio 26 (1933), 67-95. , ed. Zur Josephus-Forschung. "Wege der Forschung", 84. Darmstadt: Wissenschaft liche Buchgesellschaft, 1973. Schiffman, L. H . The Halakhah at Qumran. "Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity", 16. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975. Schlatter, A . Der Bericht uber das Ende Jerusalems: ein Dialog mit Wilhelm Weber. "Beitrage zur Forderung chrisdicher Theologie", 28. Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann 1923. . Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. K . H . Rengstorf. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970. . Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus. "Beitrage zur Forderung schriftlicher Theologie", 2:26. Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1932. . Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? Gutersloh: L. Bertelsmann, 1910. Schmid, W . Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halicarnassus bis auf den zweiten Philostratus, 5 vols. Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer, 1887-1897. Schreckenberg, H . Rezeptionsgeschkhtliche und Textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius Josephus. "Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums", 10. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977. Schubert, K . "Jewish Religious Parties and Sects", in The Crucible of Christianity: Judaism, Hellenism and the Historical Background to The Christian Faith, ed. A . Toynbee. London: Thames and Hudson, 1969. . Die Religion des nachbiblischen Judentums. Vienna-Freiburg: Herder, 1955. Schuhl, P. M . Le Dominateur et les Possibles. "Bibliotheque de Philosophic Contemporaine, Histoire de la Philosophic et Philosophic Generate " . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960. Schurer, E. Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 7 4 . Aufl., 3 vols, Leip zig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1801fT; E T , The Jewish People in the Time ofJesus Christ, 3 vols. Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1890 (cf. also G. Vermes). Schwark, J. "Matthaus der Schriftgelehrte und Josephus der Priester: ein Vergleich", Theokratia 2 (1970-72), 137-154. Schwartz, D . R . "Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees", JSJ 14 (1983), 157-171. . " K A T A T O Y T O N T O N KAIPON: Josephus* Source on Agrippa I I " , JQR 72 (1982), 241-268. Segal, M . H . "Pharisees and Sadducees", The Expositor 8 (1917), 81-108. Sherwin-White, A . N . Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963. Seyrig, H . "Monnaies Hellenistiques", Revue Numismatique, 6th series, 6 (1964), 55-65. Shutt, R . J. H . "The Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Josephus", JJS 31 (1980), 171-189. . Studies in Josephus. London: S . P . C . K . , 1961. Sieffert, F. "Pharisaer und Sadduzaer, in Realenzyklopddie fur protestantische Theologie and
412
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kirche, 3. Auflage, ed. J. J. Herzog, rev. A . Hauck. Leipzig: J. C . Hinrichs, 18961913, X V , 264-292. Siegfried, W . Der Rechtsgedanke bei Aristoteles. Zurich: Schulthess & C o . , 1947. . Studien zur geschichtlichen Anschauung des Polybios. Leipzig: B. G . Teubner, 1928. Simon, M . and A . Benoit. Le Judaisme et le Christianisme antique d'Antiochus Epiphane a Con stant™. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1968. Small wood, E. M . "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism", Classical Philology 51 (1956), 1-13. . "High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine", JTS 13 (1962), 14-34. . The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. "Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity", 20. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. Smith, M . "The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena", HUCA 29 (1958), 273-313. .Jesus the Magician. London: Victor Gollancz, 1978. . "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century", in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. M . Davis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America/Harper & Brothers, 1956. . "What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?" JBL 88 (1959), 66-72. Stern, M . Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1980. Stettner, W . Die Seelenwanderung bei Griechen und Romern. Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer, 1933. Steuernagel, C . "Pharisaer", PWRE 38 (1938), 1825-1935. Stock, St. G. "Fate (Greek and Roman)", ERE, V , 786-790. Suffrin, A . E. "Fate (Jewish)", ERE, V , 793-794. Tcherikover, V . Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Appelbaum. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America; Jerusalem" Magnes Press, 1959. Thackeray, H . St. J. Josephus: the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929. . " O n Josephus's Statement of the Pharisees' Doctrine of Fate (Antiq. xviii, 1, 3 ) " , HTR 25 (1932), 93. Theiler, W . "Tacitus und die antike Schlicksalslehre", in Phyllobolia: fur Peter von der Muhll, edd. O . Grigon et al. Basel: Benno Schwabe & C o . , 1946, 35-90. Thoma, C . "Die Frommigkeit im pharisaisch-rabbinischen Judentum", Emuna 7 (1972), 324-330. . "Der Pharisaismus", in Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums: Eine Einfuhrung, edd. J. Maier and J. Schreiner. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1973. . "Die Weltanschauung des Josephus Flavius: dargestellt anhand seiner Schilderung des judischen Aufstandes gegen Rom (66-73 n. Chr.)", Kairos 11 (1969), 39-52. Thompson, W . G. Review of J. Rohde, Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode, in Biblica 50 (1969), 136-139. Toynbee, A . J. Greek Historical Thought: from Homer to the Age of Heraclitus. " A Mentor Book". New York: New American Library, 1952. Torrey, C . C . "Apocalypse", in The Jewish Encylopedia. New York: Ktav, 1901, I, 669-675. Trude, P. Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit in der aristotelischen Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie. "Neue Kolner Rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen", 3. Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1955. Turner, C . H . "Note on 'Succession' Language in non-Christian Sources", in H . B. Swete (ed.), Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry. London: Macmillan & C o . , 1918, 197-199. Tyson, J. B. "The Opposition to Jesus in the Gospel of Luke", Perspectives in Religious Studies 5 (1978), 144-150. Urbach, E. E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. I. Abrahams, 2 vols., 2d. edn. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
413
Usher, S. The Historians of Greece and Rome. New York: Toplinger, 1970. van Tilborg, S. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972. van Unnik, W . C . Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1978. . "Flavius Josephus and the Mysteries", in Studies in Hellenistic Religions, ed. M . J. Vermaseren. "Etudes Preliminaries aux Religions Orientales dans TEmpire Romain", 78. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979, 244-279. Vermes, G . The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London: Collins, 1977. , F. Millar, and M . Black, edd. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, by E. Schurer, 3 vols. Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1979ff. Wacholder, B. Z . The Dawn of Qumran: the Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness. Cincinatti: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. . Nicolaus of Damascus. "University of California Publications in History", 75. Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962. Wachter, L. "Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener zur Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus", ZRGG 21 (1969), 97-114. Weber, F. Judische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften, 2. Auflage. Leip zig: Dorffling & Franke, 1897 [1880]. Weber, M . "Die Pharisaer", in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Religionssoziologie, III: Das antike Judentum, 2. Auflage. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1923, 401-442. Weber, W.Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem judischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus. Berlin-Stuttgart-Leipzig: W . Kohlhammer, 1921. Weiss, H.-F. "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus: zur Darstellung des Judentums im Geschichtswerk des judischen Historikers Flavius Josephus", Orientalistische Literarzeitung 74 (1979), 421-433. Wellhausen, J. Die Pharisaer und die Sadducder: eine Untersuchung zur inneren judischen Geschichte. Greifswald: L. Bamberg, 1874. Wells, G. L. and E. F. Loftus, ed. Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives. Cam bridge: University Press, 1984. Wendland, P. Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr, 1912. Wenley, R . M . Stoicism and its Influence. "Our Debt to Greece and Rome", 7. Boston: Marshall Jones C o . , 1924. Westerholm, S. "Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Application of Divine Law", Eglise et Theologie 13 (1982), 191-210. Whittaker, M . Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views. "Cambridge Commentaries on Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to A D 2 0 0 " , 6. Cambridge: University Press, 1984. Wild, R . A . "The Encounter Between Pharisaic and Christian Judaism: Some Early Gospel Evidence", NovT 27 (1985), 105-124. Windelband, W . A History of Philosophy: with especial reference to the formation and development of its problems and conceptions, 2d. edn., trans. J. H . Tufts. New York: MacMillan, 1910. Wittmann, M . "Aristoteles und die Willensfreiheit", Philologische Wochenschrift 34 (1921), 5-30. Yavetz, Z . "Reflections on Titus and Josephus", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16 (1975), 411-432. Zeitlin, S. "The Origin of the Pharisees Reaffirmed", JQR 59 (1969), 255-267. . The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State: A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Commonwealth, 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962-1978. . "The Sicarii and Masada", JQR 57 (1967), 251-270. . "Spurious Interpretations of Rabbinic Sources in the Studies of the Pharisees and Pharisaism", JQR 65 (1974), 122-135. . " A Survey of Jewish Historiography; from the biblical books to the Sefer HaKabbalah with special emphasis on Josephus", JQR 59 (1969), 37-68, 171-214.
414
BIBLIOGRAPHY
. " W h o Were the Galileans? New light on Josephus' activities in Galilee", JQR 64 (1974), 189-203. Ziesler, J. A . "Luke and the Pharisees", NTS 25 (1979), 146-157. . The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul. " S N T S Monograph Series", 20. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.
INDEX OF M O D E R N A U T H O R S Abelson, J.
146 n. 102
Alon, G. 2 nn. 7-8, 117, 125 n. 22, 213 n. 3, 283 n. 10 Amand, D . 133 n. 51, 137 n. 69, 138 n. 71, 139 nn. 77-78, 152 n. 138, 154 n. 144, n. 146, nn. 149-150, 397 n. 91 Anderson, J. G. C . 59 n. 13 Armstrong, A . H . 149 n. 120, 398 n. 99 Attridge, H . W . 35 n. 101, 47, 71-73, 98 n. 48, 104, 147, 181 n. 3, 184 n. 14, nn. 16-17, 185 nn. 18-19, 192 n. 76, 208 n. 56, 220 n. 26, 227 n. 75, 330 n. 36, 331 n. 49, 332-333, 332 n. 52, 336, 336 nn. 76-77, 343, 348 n. 15, 355 n. 41, n. 45, 376-383, 378 n. 11 Aune, D . E. 267 n. 40 Avenarius, G. 61 n. 29, 63 n. 46, 65, 65 n. 51, 68 n. 60, 69 n. 61, 71 n. 70, 73 n. 73, 90 n. 22, 376 nn. 2-3, 377 n. 5, n. 7, nn. 9-10, 378, 381, 382 n. 20 Bacher, W . 235 n. 99 Barish, D . 314 n. 31, 315, 315 n. 40 Bauernfeind, O . 302 n. 89, 303 n. 92, n. 95 Baumgarten, A. I. 1 n. 4, 7 n. 28, 11, 82 n. 1, 115 nn. 122-123, 235 n. 99, 264 n. 24, 265 n. 32, 275, 275 n. 96 Baumgarten, J. M . 230 n. 83, 233 n. 89, 240-242, 241 n. 130 Beasley-Murray, G. R . 223 n. 52 Beilner, W . 1 n. 2, 7 n. 33 Benario, H . W . 68 n. 59 Bergman, J. 139 n. 78, 397 n. 91 Bergmann, J. 156 n. 156 Bickerman, E. 128 n. 39, 186 n. 29, 223 n. 91, 235, 235 nn. 101-104, 237 n. 117, 239, 239 n. 126, n. 128 Black, M . 2 n. 7, 8, 8 n. 36, 283 n. 10, n. 13 Blenkinsopp, J. 35 n. 101, 225 n. 60, 238 nn. 120-122, 262 n. 18, 267-272, 267 n. 39, n. 41, 270 n. 69, 271 nn. 78-80, 279 nn. 114-115, n. 119, 283 n. 9
Bloch, H . 21, 22 n. 22, 183 n. 9, 184 n. 14, 188 n. 43, 195, 214 n. 8, 219 n. 20, n. 23, 221 n. 39, 230 n. 82, 236 n. 107, 275 n. 96 Bloch, M . 13 n. 66, 14 nn. 72-73, 15 n. 78, 16 n. 82 Blumenthal, H . von 161 n. 165, 163 n 177, 164 n. 178, 165 nn. 190-191 Bousset, W . 2 n. 6, 11, 46 n. 3, 128 n. 39, 275 n. 99, 276 n. 102 Bowker, J. 1 n. 4, 11-12 Braun, M . 47 n. 8, 225 n. 63 Brownlee, W . H . 88 n. 19 Broyde, I. 386 Brune, B. 25-26, 325 n. 3, 326, 339 Buchsel, F. 161 n. 165, 164 n. 178, 169 n. 209 Buehler, W . W . 11 n. 59 Burgmann, H . 1 n. 2, 7 Burrows, M . 223 n. 52 Cadbury, H . J. 61 n. 29 Cavallin, H . C . C . 170 n. 211 Chadwick, H . 11 If. n. 112 Charles, R . H . 2 n. 6, 170 n. 211 Ciofarri, V . 134 n. 52, 138 nn. 71-72 Cohen, N. G. 98 n. 48 Cohen, S. J. D . 14-15, 15 nn. 75-76, 56 n. 1, 61 n. 26, 79 n. 86, 80 n. 88, 116 n. 1, 184 n. 14, 187 nn. 34-35, nn. 39-40, 188 n. 40, 194, 210 n. 65, 214 n. 6, 261 n. 4, 311 n. 1, 312-316, 312 n. 7, n. 13, 313 n. 17, n. 21, 316 n. 44, n. 48, 318 nn. 53-54, 319-321, 322 n. 85, 323, 325 n. 4, 328, 340, 348 n. 15, 355 n. 43, 357 n. 2, 358 nn. 4-5, 362-365, 370 Collingwood, R. G. 6, 13 n. 68, 16 n. 79, 16 n. 83, 225 n. 63 Collomp, P. 75 n. 78, 377 n. 9 Connor, W . R. 303 n. 96, 304 n. 99 Cornfeld, G. 79 n. 87, 85, 107 n. 100, 117, 167 n. 199 Creed, J. L. 303 n. 96 Creuzer, F. 333-334 Cumont, F. 161 n. 165, 163 n. 176, 164 n. 180, n. 182, n. 185, 165 n. 190 Davies, W . D .
2 n. 6
416
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
Destinon, J. von 21-22, 188, 195, 214 nn. 7-8, 219 n. 21, 221 n. 39, 222 n. 47, 236 n. 107, 275 n. 96 Dietrich, B. C . 133 n. 51 Dodd, C . H . 88, 97 n. 39, 142-143, 146 n. 102, 148, 149 Downing, F. G . 42 n. 6 Dubnow, S. 213 n. 4 Earl, D . 61 n. 28, 63 Ehrhardt, A . 129 n. 37 Elbogen, I. 1 n. 5, 2 nn. 6-7, 11 n. 55, 52, 386 Epstein, J. N. 241-243 Farmer, W . R . 2 n. 7, 184 n. 11, 283 n. 9, n. 13 Feldman, L. H . 18 n. 1, 46 n. 3, 48, 50 n. 33, 117 n. 9, 166 n. 194, 169 nn. 207-208, 195, 228 n. 77, 289 n. 35, 296, 354 n. 37, 382 n. 21, 389 n. 40 Finkel, A . 8 n. 36 Finkelstein, L. 1 nn. 2-3, 6 n. 24, 11, 239 n. 125, 346 n. 11 Finley, M . I. 103, 104 n. 84, 376 nn. 2-3, 378 n. 11 Fischel, H . A . 208 n. 54 Flusser, D . 7 n. 28 Foakes Jackson, F. J. 128 n. 37, 181 n. 3, 187 n. 40 Foerster, W . 1 n. 2, 7, 87, 87 n. 10, 88 Frankfort, T . 311 n. 1, 312-316, 313 n. 20 Franxman, T . W . 47 n. 8, 181 n. 3, 192 n. 75, 343 n. 4 Friedlander, J. 2 n. 8, 213 n. 3 Fuks, A . 103 Furley, D . J. 133 n. 51, 150 n. 129 Gaster, T . H . 9 n. 48 Geiger, A . 1 n. 1, 2 nn. 6-7, 7 n. 31 Geller, M . J. 2 n. 8, 213 n. 3 Gelzer, M . 314 n. 31, 316 n. 44, n. 46 Gerlach, E. 20-21, 325 n. 2, 354 Ginzberg, L. 268 n. 53 Giovannini, G. 376 n. 2 Glasson, T . F. 161 n. 165, 170 n. 210 Goldenberg, D . 330 n. 39 Goldin, J. 58 n. 10 Gomme, A . W . , A . Andrewes, and K.J. Dover 303 n. 96, n. 97, 304 n. 98 Goodblatt, D . 35 n. 101 Gordon, A . R . 146 n. 102, 147 n. 105 Gray, G. B. 7-8, 8 n. 37
Greene, W . D . 133 n. 51, 136 n. 58, 140 n. 79, 149 n. 120, 150 n. 128, 151 n. 134, 152 n. 138, 153 n. 141, 154 nn. 145-146, n. 148, n. 150, 155 nn. 152-153, 185 n. 22, 206 n. 44, 207 nn. 48-50, 331 n. 42, 398 n. 99 Grintz, J. M . 57 n. 4 Grundmann, W . 7-8, 8 n. 36 Gundel, W . 133 n. 51, 137, 137 n. 69, 138 n. 71, 139 nn. 77-78, 140 n. 80, 152 n. 138, 207 n. 49, 397 n. 91 Gutbrod, W . 97 n. 39, 104, 330 n. 38 Guttmann, A . 11 n. 58, 11 n. 61, 327, 340 n. 94 Hadas, M . 225 n. 63 Haenchen, E. 43, 128 n. 37 Hafaeli, L. 348 Halbfas, F. 63 n. 46, 76 n. 81, 77, 376 n. 2, 377 n. 4, n. 8 Hanson, P. D . 2 n. 6 Harnack, A . von 5 Hata, G. 59 n. 10, 61, 61 n. 32 Havelock, E. A . 146 n. 102, 148 n. 112 Head, J. and S. L. Cranston 161 n. 165, 162 n. 167, 164 n. 179 Heller, B. 47 n. 8, 95 n. 27, 332 n. 52 Hengel, M . 26 n. 49, 50 n. 33, 58 n. 10, 208 n. 54, 283 nn. 9-10, n. 13, n. 15, 284 n. 16, 330 n. 36, 355 n. 45 Herford, R . T . 1 n. 5, 2 nn. 6-7, 11 nn. 54-56, 213 n. 4 Hicks, R . D . 151 n. 134 Hignett, C . 103 Hirzel, R . 146 n. 102 Hoenig, S. B. 10 n. 52 Holscher, G. 21-25, 40, 45-46, 69, 81 n. 90, 113-114, 116 n. 1, 120 n. 3, 176, 187 n. 35, 188, 188 n. 48, 195, 197, 207-208, 209 n. 58, 210, 210 n. 64, 214 n. 5, n. 8, 218 n. 15, 219 n. 22, 221 nn. 40-41, 222 n. 44, n. 46, n. 48, 224 n. 55, n. 56, 225 n. 58, 228 n. 77, 229 n. 80, 230 n. 82, 236 n. 236 n. 107, 243-244, 249 n. 16, 254 n. 24, 261 n. 4, 275, 275 n. 99, 276 n. 102, 279, 279 n. 117, 284 n. 18, 306-307, 307 n. 109, 312, 317319, 321, 325 n. 3, 327, 329 n. 3, 330 n. 40, 335 n. 74, 342 n. 1, 348, 356 n. 46, 362 n. 12, 387 n. 24, 389 n. 35, n. 37 Holtzmann, O . 1 n. 2, 7, 11 n. 59 Hooker, J. T . 303 n. 96, 304 n. 101 Hussey, M . D . 1 n. 4
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS Jacob, B. 2 n. 6 Jackson Knight, W . F . 161 n. 165, 164 n. 179, 165 n. 190 Jacoby, F. 312 n. 7 Jaeger, W . 164 n. 179 Jellinek, A . 9 Jeremias, J. 2 n. 9, 9 Johnson, B. 146 n. 102 Juel, D . 42 n. 6, 43 n. 7 Kajanto, I. 133 n. 51, 135 n. 56, 136 n. 58, 138 n. 71, 379 n. 15 Karris, R . J. 118 n. 10 Kautzsch, E. 8 n. 36 Kieval, P. 2 n. 8 Klausner, J. 2 n. 6 Klein, R . W . 223 n. 52 Kleinknecht, H . 97 n. 39 Kohler, K . 1 n. 5, 5, 11 n. 55 Krenkel, M . 115 n. 123, 128 n. 37 Laqueur, R . 14-15, 75, 26-27, 50 n. 33, 56 n. 2, 57, 58, 60, 61 n. 26, 79 n. 86, 93 n. 24, 95 n. 27, 177 n. 231, 184 n. 13, 186, 187, 187 n. 36, 189 n. 49, 189-193, 195, 261 n. 4, 314-315, 316 n. 44, 317-319, 325 n. 4, 328, 342 n. 1, 382 n. 21 Laurin, R . B. 223 n. 52 Lauterbach, J . Z . I n . 3, I n . 5, 2 nn. 6-8, 95, 289, 386 Leach, A . 136 n. 58 LeMoyne, J. 84 n. 4, 125 n. 19, 126 n. 28, 127 n. 33, 208 n. 52, 346 Levine, I. L. 35 n. 101 Levy, I. 1 n. 2 Lieberich, H . 61 n. 28, 63 nn. 46-47, 66, 70, 71 n. 70, 74 n. 76, 77, 376 nn. 2-3, 377 n. 6 Lieberman, S. 26 n. 49, 208 n. 54 Lindner, H . 47, 60, 67, 70, 74 n. 76, 95 n. 27, 135 nn. 55-56, 161 n. 164, 187 n. 34, 238 n. 121, 262 n. 17, 269 n. 65, 270 n. 69, 330 n. 36, 332, 355 n. 45 Liver, J. 223 n. 52 Loewe, H . 5 n. 20 Lohse, E. 348 Long, A . A . 139 n. 76, 151 n. 134, 354 n. 37 Long, H . S. 161 n. 165, 162 n. 167, n. 172 Ludemann, G. 128 n. 37 Luther, H . 79 n. 87, 312-316, 312 n. 14, 313 n. 18, 316 n. 44, 317-319, 321, 359 n. 6, 360 n. 8
417
Maier, G. 136 n. 61, 138 n. 74, 133 n. 49, 146-149, 153 nn. 139-140, 155 n. 154, 176 n. 221, 177 n. 230, 204205, 207, 208 n. 52, 210 n. 66, 388392, 397 Manson, T . W . 1 n. 4, 2 n. 5 Mansoor, M . 9 n. 49 Mantel, H . D . 3 n. 10, 9, 10 n. 52 Marcus, R . 3 n. 10, 11 n. 58, 125, 202 n. 31, 208 n. 52, 214 n. 5, 222 n. 45, 223, 224 n. 53, 225 n. 57, 234 n. 96, 237 n. 115, 248 n. 13, 249 nn. 15-16, 253 n. 22, 255 n. 25, 265 n. 34, 349 n. 29, 386 n. 20 Martin, L. H . 136 n. 59, 140 n. 83, 201, 204 n. 38, 395-397 Mayer, R. and C . Moller 270 n. 69, 344, 351 n. 32 Mendell, C . W . 203 n. 34 Meyer, B.F. 13 n. 67, 14 n. 72, 14 n. 74, 15 n. 77, 16 Meyer, E. 2 n. 7, 6 Meyer, R . 1 n. 3, 3 n. 9, 10 n. 52, 283 n. 10 Michaelis, W . 220 n. 28, 221, 221 n. 38 Michel, O . and O . Bauernfeind 58 n. 10, 79 n. 87, 107 n. 100, 113 n. 117, 116 n. 1, 117 n. 9, 120 n. 3, 122 n. 10, 123 n. 13, 125, 129-132, 187 n. 35, 222 n. 46, 261 n. 4 Milokenski, E. 226 n. 63 Moehring, H . R . 47, 61 n. 30, 225 n. 63, 281 n. 4, 380 n. 16 Momigliano, A . 12, 16, 16 n. 83, 46 n. 5, 68 n. 58, 73-74, 378 n. 11, nn. 13-14, 398 n. 99 Montgomery, J.A. 325 n. 3, 330 n. 37, 334, 343, 355 n. 38 Moore, C . H . 161 n. 165, 162 nn. 166167, 164 n. 183, 165 n. 190, 191 Moore, G.F. 1 n. 5, 2 nn. 6-7, 8 n. 36, 11 n. 56, 46, 107, 110, 113 n. 117, 128 n. 139, 151 n. 132, n. 134, 153 n. 140, 176, 197 n. 5, 197-199, 204 n. 38, 208-210, 218 n. 13, 221 n. 40, 241 n. 130, 289 n. 36, 295, 299 n. 76, 327, 354 n. 37, 356 n. 46, 384385, 397, 398 n. 98 Mosley, A . W . 16 n. 83 Motzo, B. 314, 314 n. 33 Neusner, J. 2 n. 7, 3 nn. 12-13, 4, 7, 10, 12, 34-35, 40 n. 1, 80 n. 88, 125, 194-195, 204 n. 38, 239 n. 125, 241243, 246, 250, 253, 262 n. 18, 286,
418
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS
325 n. 4, 327-328, 331 n. 48, 340, 348 n. 15, 355 n. 40, 361-362, 362 n. 14 Nickelsburg, G . W . E. 170 n. 211, 334 n. 67 Niese, B. 61-62, 80 n. 89, 181 n. 3, 182 n. 8, 183 n. 9, 189, 192 n. 76, 210 n. 65, 214 n. 6, n. 8, 219 n. 221, 221 n. 39, 285 n. 21, 287, 307 n. 110, 311 n. 1, 312-319, 321, 325 n. 3, 342 n. 1, 348, 349 n. 29, 387 n. 23 Nock, A . D . 139 n. 77, 397 n. 91 Norden, E. 61 n. 29, 63 n. 46, 376 n. 2, 377 n. 4 Notscher, F. 136 n. 59, 334 n. 63, 388 n. 30 Olitzki, M . 330 n. 39, 332 n. 51 O'Neil, E. I l l n. I l l Otto, W . 21 Palmer, L. R . 305 n. 103, 307 n. 107 Paret, H . 19-20, 90, 104 n. 81, 170 n. 212, 267 n. 39, 268 n. 48, n. 50, n. 55, 269 n. 60, 283 nn. 9-10, 325 n. 3, 326, 330 n. 37, n. 40, 333, 335, 339, 345 n. 6 Parkes, J. F. 11 n. 56 Patterson, R . L. 162 n. 172 Pelletier, A . 47 Pfeiffer, R . H . 107, 110, 113 n. 117 Peterson, H . 49 n. 25, 281 n. 4, 307 n. 110 Pines, S. 204 n. 38, 393-395 Polish, D . 2 n. 7 Posnanski, A . 139 n. 75, 140, 140 nn. 83-84, 142 n. 86 Przybylski, B. 146 n. 102, 147 n. 104, n. 106 Rabin, C . 2 n. 8, 213 Rajak, T . 26 n. 49, 50-51, 59, 60, 79 n. 87, 95 n. 27, 269 n. 64, 281 n. 4, 311 n. 1, 312, 317-321, 323, 325 n. 3, 329, 332 n. 51, 333, 336-338, 342 n. 1, 345-346, 355 n. 44, 357 n. 2, 358 n. 4, 362 n. 12, 363, 365 n. 22, 381 n. 17 Rappaport, S. 95 n. 27, 332 n. 52 Rasp, H . 28-30, 40, 80 n. 88, 128 n. 39, 193-194, 197, 203, 204 n. 38, 281 n. 1, 283-284, 283 n. 9, 285-287, 286 n. 24, 299, 325 n. 4, 327-328, 340, 348, 362 n. 14 Reinach, T . 98 n. 48, 107 n. 100, 117 n. 9, 125, 129-132, 155 n. 156, 183 n. 10, 222 n. 45, 223, 224, 265 n. 31 Reinhartz, A . 331 n. 44
Rengstorf/K. H . 4 1 , 125 n. 16, 301 n. 82 Revel, B. 100 n. 66, 331 n. 49, 332 n. 50 Richards, G . C . 49, 129 n. 40, 281 nn. 4-5, 288, 294, 307 n. 109, n. 11, 349 n. 28 Richards, G . C . and R . J. H . Shutt 233 n. 95 Rist, J. M . 151 n. 134 Rivkin, E. 1 n. 3, n. 5, 3, 4 n. 16, 9, 12, 14, 17 n. 84, 36-37, 40 n. 2, 82 n. 1, 107 n. 100, 125, 125 nn. 22-23, 126 n. 29, 127 n. 32, 197 n. 5, 198-199, 204 n. 38, 218 nn. 15-17, 221 n. 40, 228 n. 77, 230 n. 8 1 , n. 83, 240-242, 244, 266 n. 37, 274-275, 277-278, 281 n. 6, 295 n. 6 1 , 301 n. 8 1 , 302 n. 88, 325 n. 3, 327, 330 n. 40, 348 n. 15, 355 n. 42, 361-362 Ross, J. 104 n. 84, 169 n. 207 Rubenstein, R . L. 5 n. 18 Russell, D . S. 8 n. 36 Safrai, S. and M . Stern 58 n. 10, 120 n. 3, 187 n. 33, 222 n. 46 Salomon, M . 146 n. 102 Sandbach, F. H . 139 n. 76, 149 n. 120, 151 n. 134, 155 n. 155, 354 n. 37 Sanders, E. P. 4, 11 n. 56, 146 n. 102, 147 n. 104, n. 106, 333 n. 59, 334 n. 63 Sandmel, S. 241 n. 120 Schalit, A . 276 n. 104, n. 105, 317319, 321 Schemann, F. 21 Schlatter, A . 30-31, 69, 114, 133 n. 49, 143 n. 93, 281 n. 7, 294 n. 53, nn. 5557, 295, 296 n. 63, 297 nn. 67-68, 301, 325 n. 3, 326, 330 n. 37, n. 40, 333, 336, 339, 340 n. 94, 348, 354 n. 37, 385-386 Schlier, H . 126 n. 26 Schmid, W . 380 n. 16 Schreckenberg, H . 18 n. 1, 47, 50 n. 33, 311 n. 4, 372 n. 1 Schreiner, J. 103 Schrenk, G . 87 n. 10, 146 n. 102, 148 n. 110 Schubert, K . 2 nn. 5-6, 8 Schurer, E. 2 n. 7, 8-9, 12, 35 n. 101, 114, 181 n. 3, 188, 311 nn. 1-2, 312319, 321, 325 n. 3, 326, 342 n. 1 Schwartz, D . R . 37-39, 40, 117 n. 9, 176, 188 n. 48, 195, 196 n. 1, 197, 199-201, 200 n. 25, 204 n. 38, 208 n.
419
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS 52, 210 n. 64, 216 n. 12, 218 n. 14, n. 16, 219 n. 18, n. 23, 222 n. 45, n. 49, 223, 224, 224 n. 55, 250, 275 n. 96, n. 100, 276 n. 101, n. 103, 277 n. 107, 278-279, 279 n. 116, 300, 306307, 327, 356 n. 46 Seyrig, H . 315 n. 39 Shorey, P. 146 n. 102, 148 n. 114 Shutt, R . J. H . 49-50, 58 n. 10, 129 n. 40, 281 n. 4, 307 n. 110, 325 n. 3, 355 n. 39 Siegfried, W . 146 n. 102, 376 n. 3, 377 n. 7 Smallwood, E. M . 197 n. 4 Smith, M . 3 n. 9, 15 n. 75, 26 n. 49, 32-35, 46, 80 n. 88, 125, 128 n. 39, 186 n. 29, 194-195, 208 n. 54, 223 n. 52, 246, 250, 325 n. 4, 327, 335 n. 75, 340, 362 n. 14, 389 n. 40 Stahlin, G. 142 n. 86, 389 n. 41 Stern, M . 183 n. 10 Stettner, W . 161 n. 165, 162 nn. 167169, n. 172, 163 nn. 175-176, 164 n. 180, 165 n. 186, nn. 188-191 Steuernagel, C . 2 n. 7 Stock, St. G. 133 n. 51, 138 n. 71, 206 n. 44 Suffrin, A . E. 155 n. 156, 386 Syme, R . 59 n. 14 Tcherikover, V . 2 n. 7 Thackeray, H . St. J. 27, 46 n. 5, 4849, 57, 58, 60, 69, 73, 80 n. 88, 93 n. 24, 99 n. 58, 107 n. 100, 117 n. 9, 120 n. 3, 125, 126 n. 26, 129-132, 167, 167 n. 99, 181 n. 1, n. 3, 184 n. 15, 187 n. 35, 189-192, 195, 214 n. 5, 233 n. 95, 249 n. 16, 261 n. 4, 281 nn. 2-3, 281 nn. 2-3, n. 7, 285 n. 21, 294, 317-319, 325 n. 3, 344, 347, 349 n. 28, 358 n. 5, 382 n. 19 Theiler, W . 133 n. 51, 138 n. 72, 139 n. 77, 140 n. 79, 203 nn. 34-35, 206 n. 44, 207 n. 49 Thompson, E. and W . C . Price 347 Thompson, W . G. 42 n. 6
Torrey, C . C . 2 n. 6 Toynbee, A . 62 n. 38 Trude, P. 146 n. 102 Turner, C . H . 235, 235 n. 101 Urbach, E. E.
333 n. 59, 386
van Unnik, W . C . 41, 184 n. n. 119, n. 121, 267-272, 267 268 n. 55, 270 n. 72, 279 n. Vermes, G. 35 n. 101, 223 n.
14, 238 n. 39, 119 52
Wacholder, B. Z . 104 n. 83, 177 n. 231 Wachter, L. 135 n. 54, 136 nn. 59-60, 141, 142 n. 86, 155 n. 154, 204 n. 38, 334 n. 63, 386-388, 387 n. 23, 397, 398 n. 98 Walbank, F. W . 376 n. 3 Waxman, M . 46 Weber, W . 58, 80 n. 88, 382 n. 21 Weill, M . 98 n. 48 Weiss, H.-F. 114, 185 n. 21, nn. 2325, 186, 186 nn. 29-30, 203, 203 n. 36, 208 n. 54, 283 n. 9, 325 n. 3, 328-329, 330 n. 37, n. 40, 334, 335, 348, 386 Wellhausen, J. 1 n. 1, 2 nn. 6-8, 7 n. 33, 8 n. 36, n. 38, 11 nn. 56-57, 200 n. 25, 213 Wells, G. L. and E. F. Loftus 13 n. 66 Wendland, P. 164 n. 180 Whiston, W . 107 n. 100, 347 Whittaker, M . 183 n. 10, 184 n. 11 Wild, R . A . 35 n. 101 Windelband, W . 138 n. 71, 153 nn. 141-142, 154 n. 144, nn. 149-152, 207 n. 49 Yavetz, Z .
58 n. 10, 60
Zeitlin, S.
1 n. 2
Ziesler, J. A . 143 n. 89, n. 92, 146 n. 102, 147 n. 104, n. 106, 148 nn. 116-117
INDEX OF GREEK d-rocGos, -r), -ov
156-170
dyvoi;, -rj, -ov O&TK, 6
8rj
166-167
dGavaata, rj atpeats, rj
156-158
StaiTa,
160 125-128,
277, 282-283, 374, 385, 397
235-239, 269
287
StSdaxaXo^, 6
2 1 , 36, 120-122,
336-338
8txato$, - a t a , - o v ; Btxatoauvrj
76, 86-87,
89, 111, 142-149, 176, 185, 208, 219221, 262, 332, 390, 393
168
Soxeto
dxptjkta, 7)
243-245, 2 8 6 , 300-301
8ta8oxri, r\/hi<xhoxo<;, 6
173, 1 7 5 , 177, 196, 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 8 , atcov, 6
8 4 , 111
Sfjixos, 6
158-170, 298
dGdvaTO?, -ov
WORDS
11, 4 2 , 64-66, 75-79, 8 3 , 8 9 -
4 1 , 83-84, 8 9 , 106-113, 130-131,
177, 277, 2 8 6 , 3 7 2 , 3 7 4
96, 108-115, 120, 131-132, 135, 175,
865a, TJ
177, 193, 1 9 5 , 198, 2 0 8 ,210-211, 2 5 8 ,
8uvafit<;, TJ
274-275, 279, 324,334, 3 3 8 , 340, 363-
Suvaareta, rj
12-13, 83-84 58, 71, 304 2 4 6 ,2 5 7 , 261
364, 372-373, 3 7 9 , 381-383, 392 dxptP6a>
84, 89, 101, 249
dXrjGeta, r\
65-66, 77-79, 193, 3 7 7 ,
379-383 dXX6<poXo<;
6 7 , 7 1 , 75
dva|3tW<;, rj dv
eGos, TO
157-170, 169, 299 104,2 3 1 , 240-242
dvatpeo
dvTtXefo, rj d?to
7 1 , 7 5 , 118 202
292, 307
etpYfJtov, TO
drcoXoYta, rj
183
DTUOARAAT?, rj
291-292
ixkoyr\, rj
153, 390
ev8t'86ifxt
343-344
288
evToXrj, rj
121-122, 282
185,296-297, 302-304, 307,
372
105
e?axptPdC
108
efaxpipcoats, r\ e^euTeXt&o
dpeTT) fj xaxta daqjaXets
296-297, 306
72
auTOc|>ta, rj
298-299
etariYeofxat efxrcetpta, rj
125, 129-132, 175
dpeTT), yj
132-142, 151-156, 174,
333-334, 3 7 2 , 384-398 294
294
DTCDRO
122-123
177, 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 , 208-210, 293-297, 3 0 6 ,
(TOU) dv9p
8 5 , 100-102, 105
eI8os, TO
eifxapfxevrj, rj
156,206, 384
dvdXcofxa, TO
eGeXco 296-297 eOtafxos, 6 1 0 0 , 1 0 2 eGvos, TO 8 4
264-265, 278
287
e?riY7iat?, TJ; efrrfeofiat
106, 177, 277,
302
68, 383
aL<pr\yr\ai<; rj; dcpTpfeopat f
ERCATVOS, 6 277
69
erciOufxia, rj
344
e7utaTTi(xri, rj
13
(katXeus, 6
223-224
e7UT7)8euai<;, rj
299, 307
Pio<; dfxetvo
9 9 , 156-170
e7uoXo9upo{XAT
6 5 , 67
pXdTTTco por^co
277-279
ETUOFJTAT
151-152, 205, 297
PouXeuTTjptov, TO
295-297
289-290
epfxrjveuco
61
eu8at{jLovta, rj eu8o?ta, rj
y e v o s , TO 3 6 9 yt'vofxat TcdXtv
euTupayta, rj 99, 158, 299
Yvrjato?, - a , - o v Yva>fJLTj, r\
7 1 ,75
71
215-216, 225-227, 229, 358,
372 euaepeta, rj
42, 8 3 , 85-90, 102, 111,
113-114, 175, 185, 2 5 8 ,2 7 4 , 3 3 2 ,
Ypa9
8 3 , 184-186, 203, 259
304
6 1 , 71-72, 104
265-266, 277
372-373 euTUxwt, rj
247-248, 259
£9' rifxtv/eVt Tot<; dvGpcorcots BetatBaifAovta, rj
111
207, 208, 210
150-151, 2 0 2 ,
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS CTJXCOTTK, 6
344-345, 356
rjXtxta 7uporjxovre<;, ot rjfxets 323, 351
6^690X0^, -ov 67 07C6<JO$, -rj, -ov 301-302, 307
291
Getov, TO 111, 302 Geos, 6 132, 136-138, 177, 209, 306, 372, 388, 390, 392 Gprjaxeta, rj 102 tepeus, 6 270-271 tepos, -a, 6v 89, 98, 104, 270-271 taropta, rj 64-66, 75, 90 xatviais, "h 285 xaxorcdGeta, rj 72 xaxos, -rj, -ov 153, 156-170 xaXos, -ri, -ov 153, 156-170 xaxd TOV xpovov TOUTOV 198-200 xaTaxoXouGeco 21, 352-356 xaTaarpo9rj, rj 83 xetfiat 149-151, 177 xtv8uvos, 6 72, 379 xpaau;, rj 205, 295, 297 xpetaacov 304-305 xpt'vco 141-142 xptat;, rj 295, 297 Xrjareta, rj 123 Xoytos, -ta, -ov 69-70, 73-74 Xoyos, 6 289-290, 292, 336 {xaXaxo?
421
288
TuaXt-ffeveata 161-170, 299 TudGos, TO 65-67, 73 7uai8eta, rj 369 7uapd8oat<;, ^/juapaStScofjit 233-235, 289, 292-293 7uapa9uo{iat 84, 111 7uapotveco 256 TuaTrjp, 6 (ot TcaTepe?) 231-233, 291 rcdTptos, -ta, -ov 84, 100-103, 105, 261, 265, 278 rcaTpts, rj 57, 65, 68 rcaTpaxx;, -a, -ov 231-232, 291 TreptfxdxTjTov r\yio\iaLi 290, 307 TueptTpoTcrj, rj 158-159, 167-168 TuGavos, -rj, 6v 300-301, 307 TuXfjGos, TO 243-245, 300-301 Tuotrjat?, rj 302, 307 nokt^oq, 6/7coXejx£co 74, 277 TUOXK;, TJ 286, 350-351, 354 rcoXtTeta, rj 97, 104 TuoXtTeuofjtat 21, 36, 347-352, 354-355 Ttovo?, 6 71 TupoyvcoaK;, TJ 267-274, 279, 372 TupoXeyco 267-274, 279 7rpoiA7)Grj<; 266-267, 272-274 Tupovota, rj 141-142, 184, 201, 396-397 7cpoa7cotea> (-oujjtat) 83, 265, 278, 286 7Up09TJTT|q, 6/7cpo9TjTeta, r\/Tzpoyr\tt{>to 267-274 TCpCOTOS, -rj, -ov 128-132
(xe-fa
ao9tarrj<;, 6 108, 110 aTdat?, TJ 67 aufX7idGeta, rj 139 auvepyos, 6 48, 50-51 auvTjGeta, rj 102 auvTayfjta, TO 84-85, 277 acofia, TO 156-170, 299
vecoTeptCca/vecoTeptafjioi; 285 vojxtfjto?, -TJ, -ov 83, 100-102, 105-106, 124, 149, 198, 214, 227-228, 231 (230-245), 289-293, 330-333, 372, 385 vofjtoOeTeco 65, 291 vo[xo9eTT)<;, 6 89, 97 VOJAOS, 6 65, 83, 90, 96-106, 113, 124, 198, 208, 265, 330-333, 372
TeXeco 344-345 TepcK, TJ 377 Ttfjicopta, rj 156-170, 177, 298 TOTUOS, 6 62-63, 72, 80, 111 TOTE 364-365 Tuyxavo) 301-302, 306, 374 Tupavvo^, 6 65, 67 TUXTJ, rj 58, 60, 135, 141, 395
686$, ri 220-221 6Xo9upai$ 66-67 6fi6vota 171-174, 177, 372
uTua-fopeuo) 290-291 U7u6{xvrjjjta, T6 378-379
paara>v7), TJ
299, 307
422
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS
OocptaocTos, 6 3, 10, 21, 279, 306 <pauXoc, -TJ, -ov 157-170, 363, 366
91X600905, 6 185 9uXocxr), rj 290, 306 X0a>v, TJ XopTj-feca
298 116-117
<|)uxrj, rj
156-170, 177, 297-300
INDEX OF ANCIENT GROUPS A N D Aeschylus 298 Alexander the Great 112 Antiochus of Ashkelon 394 Apuleius 393-394 Aristotle 108 n. 104, 148-149, 148 n. 113, n. 118, 150, 154, 185, 207, 235 Arrian 63 n. 44, 380 Augustine 138, 206 Bannus
343-346
Chrysippus 138, 140, 148, 150 n. 128, 151-152, 155, 173, 176, 205-206, 295, 297, 385 Cicero 65, 74 n. 76, 151 n. 132, 152 n. 138, 165 n. 190, 202, 235 n. 103, 295, 297, 380, 385 Claudius 85 n. 8 Darius 97 Dio Cassius 56 n. 1, 63 n. 40, 168 n. 204, 184 n. 11 Diodorus of Sicily 62 n. 39, 63 n. 42, n. 44, 68 n. 60, 69 n. 63, 77, 378, 380 Diogenes Laertius 128 n. 34, 137-138, 149 n. 120, 235 n. 103 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 62 n. 39, 63 nn. 41-42, n. 44, 76-77, 128, 168 n. 204, 181 n. 1, 376-377, 379 Domitian 184, 191, 311, 313, 313 n. 20 Eleazar ben Yair 160, 161 n. 164 Epicureans 150 n. 129, 155 n. 152, 164, 174, 185 Epicurus 150 n. 129, 235 Epiphanius 150 n. 128 Essenes 19-21, 29, 122-123, 126-127, 132, 137, 144, 152, 157-160, 168, 173-176, 200, 202-212, 282, 285-287, 304, 306, 334-335, 384, 386-398 Euripides 108 n. 104 Eusebius 88 n. 19, 93 n. 24, 128, 150 n. 128 Felix 187 n. 40 Festus 187 n. 40 Fronto 184 n. 11
PERSONALITIES
Gaius Caligula
97, 181 n. 1
Hasmonean Dynasty 26, 42, 82-84, 110, 112, 200, 225, 258-259, 260 Mattathias 83, 102, 134, 160, 172 Judas (Judah) 102, 196 n. 1, 197, 246 Jonathan 129, 196, 196 n. 1, 197, 246 Simon 83, 246 John Hyrcanus 83, 110, 112, 197, 213-230, 246, 353 Aristobulus 83, 107, 110, 112, 172 n. 218, 247 Antigonus 83, 172 n. 218 Alexander Janneus 33, 83, 109, 110, 112, 247-251, 256-259 Alexandra Salome 33, 82-115, 187, 246-259, 260 Hyrcanus II 84, 113, 251-259 Aristobulus II 84, 113, 251-259 Herodian Family 42, 95 Antipater (father of Herod) 85 n. 8, 190 Herod the Great 84, 92, 97, 107, 116-119, 171, 187, 187 n. 36, 188192, 223-224, 232, 260-280 Sons of Herod the Great 84, 120, 260, 265-266 Wives of Herod the Great 260 Pheroras and wife 116-119, 260, 265-266, 272-273 Agrippa I 108, 120, 136, 187 Agrippa II 187, 199, 312-316 Heraclitus 137 Herodotus 108 n. 104, 164, 168 n. 204, 232 Homer 136, 206 n. 44, 207, 298, 303 Izates of Adiabene
86, 92, 109
James (brother of Jesus) 92, 109 Jesus of Nazareth 51, 92 John the Baptist 87 John of Gischala 86, 101, 134, 145, 358-368 Judas (Judah) the Galilean 121, 282-285
424
INDEX OF ANCIENT GROUPS AND PERSONALITIES
Justus of Tiberias 312, 314, 316-324, 357-358, 357 n. 2 Livy 379 Lucian of Samosata 62 n. 35, 65, 68 n. 58, n. 60, 69 n. 63, 71 n. 71, 112, 136 n. 57, 377-378, 381 Luke (gospel of) 72 n. 72 Minucius Felix 184 n. 11 Nicolaus of Damascus 69, 116 n. 1, 117 n. 9, 119, 120, 176-177, 177 n. 231, 188, 207-209, 214, 222-224, 226, 275-280, 385, 389 Ovid 164-165 Paul (the aposde) 112, 201 Philo of Alexandria 100 n. 68, 128, 163 n. 176, 167 n. 201, 168 n. 202, 331 n. 44.336 Philostratus 184 n. 11 Pindar 162, 163 n. 177, 164, 331 n. 42 Plato 87 n. 10, 137, 148, 153-154, 162170, 207, 235, 298 n. 72 Pliny the Younger 58, 380 Plutarch 138, 148 n. 114, 165 n. 189, 304 Pollion 261-263, 278 Polybius 62 n. 39, 68 n. 58, n. 60, 69, 71-72, 74-76, 80, 87 n. 10, 90 n. 22, 109 n. 110, 128, 376-383 Pompey 85 Pontius Pilate 101 Posidonius 139 n. 78, 140 n. 79 Pythagoras 85 n. 8, 165, 387
Sadducees 8, 19-22, 28, 29, 126-127, 132, 145, 152, 156, 168, 170-171, 171 n. 213, 173-176, 200, 202-212, 218219, 227, 240-245, 282, 298, 300, 304, 306, 308, 335-336, 353-355, 384, 386-398 Samaias 261-263, 278 Seneca 138, 165 Sextus 111-112 Simon ben Gamaliel 358, 360-368 Socrates 149 n. 120, 153, 163, 186 Solon and Draco 103 Sophocles 49-51, 298 Stoics 138-140, 154-156, 155-156 n.156, 164, 169, 173, 185, 387, 398 n. 99 Strabo 84 Suetonius 184 n. 11, 269 n. 65 Tacitus 68 n. 59, 139 n. 77, 140 n. 79, 202, 269 n. 65 Teles 111 Theognis 148 n. I l l Thucydides 49-51, 62, 68 n. 58, 69, 73, 76, 90 n. 22, 109, 232, 264-265, 281, 290 n. 37, 299, 300, 303-304, 307, 376 n. 3, 377-380, 383 Titus (emperor) 58, 60, 67, 74, 81, 135, 171, 191, 269-270, 313 Vergil 165 n. 189 Vespasian 57-58, 60, 74, 81, 135, 171, 191, 269-270, 313, 316 Xenophon Zeno
87 n. 10
138, 150 n. 128, 207, 235
