You are on page 1of 442

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

MASON

E.J. LEIDEN

BRILL 1991

• NEW YORK • K0BENHAVN • KOLN

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 Abbreviations 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 I. II. T h e G o a l o f R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees T h e S o u r c e s for R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees 1 4 7 10 16 18 19 21 25 30 32 36 37 xm xvi

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 S u m m a r y and Conclusion CHAPTER 2. H. G. A. M. E. D. Scholarly Interpretations o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees .. :

Paret a n d E . G e r l a c h Holscher Schlatter Smith a n d J. N e u s n e r Rivkin Schwartz

B. Briine, R . L a q u e u r , H . R a s p

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 A i m s o f the S t u d y P r o c e d u r e o f the Study 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 I. II. T h e Source Problem J o s e p h u s ' s Literary Assistants

40 41 42 45 45 48 51

I I I . Christian Influence o n the T e x t P A R T II THE P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH WAR

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 I. II. Historical A p p r o a c h e s Exegesis o f the P r o l o g u e to War

57 57 62 75

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

VIII

CONTENTS

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 I. II. IV. Context Key Terms Source Analysis 82 83 84 HO H3 116 116 116 117 118 119 War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 : T h e Pharisees a m o n g the Jewish 120 121 124 124 125 132 133 152 156 156 161 170 170 173 173 176 P A R T III THE P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH ANTIQUITIES 181 182 186 193 195

I I I . Interpretation

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 I. II. IV. Context Key Terms S o u r c e Analysis

I I I . Interpretation Summary C H A P T E R 6. Schools, I I. II. Context Five Statements A b o u t the Pharisees A. B. C. R e p u t a t i o n for Exegetical P r o w e s s " T h e First S c h o o l " Fate a n d Free W i l l 1. K e y T e r m s 2. D. Interpretation T h e Soul 1. T e r m s a n d C o n c e p t s 2. Interpretation E. Promotion of H a r m o n y 1. K e y T e r m s 2. IV. Interpretation I I I . Interpretation o f War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 S o u r c e Analysis

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 I. II. Preface a n d D o m i n a n t T h e m e s R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n War a n d Antiquities

I I I . T h e Pharisees in Antiquities S u m m a r y and Conclusion

CONTENTS

IX

C H A P T E R 8. Ant. S c h o o l s , II I. II. IV. Context Key Terms

1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 : T h e Pharisees a m o n g the J e w i s h 196 197 202 202 207 211 213 214 216 227 230 13:297-298 231 240 245 Pharisees and Alexandra 246 246 248 258 260 260 263 267 272 274 a m o n g the Jewish 281 282 287 287 287 288 288 289 292 13:288-296

I I I . Interpretation Source Analysis Summary and Conclusion C H A P T E R 9. Ant. I. II. IV. A. B. Context Literary P r o b l e m s a n d Solutions T h e Pharisaic Nofxifioc Key Terms Interpretation o f Ant. 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 I I . Interpretation o f Ant.

S u m m a r y and Conclusion CHAPTER I. II. 10. Ant. 13:400-432: T h e

S a l o m e , II Context Interpretation

Summary and Conclusion C H A P T E R 1 1 . Ant. I. II. IV. V. Context Key Terms Interpretation Source Analysis 12. Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 : T h e Pharisees 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 : T h e Pharisees at H e r o d ' s C o u r t , II

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

CHAPTER I. II.

S c h o o l s , III Context Five Statements A b o u t the Pharisees A. Avoidance of Luxury 1. K e y T e r m s 2. B. Interpretation T h e Pharisaic T r a d i t i o n 1. K e y T e r m s 2. Interpretation

X

CONTENTS

C.

Fate a n d Free W i l l 1. K e y T e r m s 2. Interpretation .

293 294 297 297 298 299 300 305 306 306 307 P A R T IV

D.

I m m o r t a l i t y o f Souls 1. K e y T e r m s 2. Interpretation

E.

T h e Influence o f the Pharisees 1. K e y T e r m s 2. Interpretation

III. Source Analysis Summary and Conclusion

THE

PHARISEES IN T H E

LIFE 311 311 316 321

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 I. II. Date Occasion, Purpose, Outlook

Summary and Critique 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 I. II. The Importance o f Josephus's Pharisaic A l l e g i a n c e in M o d e r n Scholarship A r g u m e n t s O f f e r e d in S u p p o r t 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 I. II. Context Key Terms o f Josephus's Pharisaic

325 326 330 339 342 342 347 353 355 357 357 360 370

I I I . Interpretation Summary and Conclusion 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 I. II. Context Interpretation

Summary

CONTENTS

XI

C o n c l u s i o n to the Study 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 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 Index of M o d e r n Authors Index of Greek W o r d s I n d e x o f A n c i e n t G r o u p s a n d Personalities

372 376 384 399 415 420 423

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 at and 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 , century Judaism

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 firstw 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 Christianity. " b a c k g r o u n d " to nascent

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 nona 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 Pharisees 10 first a p p e a r e d in an article Reconsidered: A Critique of entitled Smith/ T.

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 . 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 disarray. A m a j o r p r o b l e m has b e e n the lack o f c o m m o n l y

complete accepted

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

often in the
5

results.

1

How

and

when

did

the

Pharisees
3

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

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 ?

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

1

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
8

in

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 ?

How
9

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 ?

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

3

d i d t h e y relate to the rest o f their s o c i e t y ?

1 0

A l l o f these issues,

which only

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.
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
1 2

the

formation o f rabbinic J u d a i s m .

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 emerged within E. the last

the two this

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.

Neusner and

Rivkin,

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 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

the

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

4

CHAPTER ONE

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 own procedures; nevertheless, they give
16

detailed In this

methodological

proposals only

for the

rabbinic literature.

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

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

14

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, 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
1 7

profes­

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 . "

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 . in the Pharisees.

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 N e v e r t h e l e s s , if historical submit the 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 r e c o g n i z e d across

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 . 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 17

6

CHAPTER ONE

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.

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

2 2

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
28

the P h a r i s e e s :

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
29

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 the S c r o l l s .
30

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 O t h e r s find the Pharisees alluded to already in the H e b r e w
3 1

Bible—in Ezra, N e h e m i a h ,

or Malachi.

3 2

Finally, 1 a n d 2 M a c c a b e e s ,
3 3

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 . 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
3 4

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 . "

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 -

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

2 7

8

CHAPTER ONE
3 5

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

p r e s u m a b l y o n the i n v o l v e d are clearly

Y e t the

assumptions

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 , belief that the o n l y significant Gegensatz in that between Pharisees and Sadducees; first-century hence,
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 B C Palestine was to the
38

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

Pharisaic.

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 prec l a i m s that Pss. Sol. is a n t i - P h a r i s a i c .
40

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Pharisaism,

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;
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

3 5

M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY

9

Zweifel,

that Jubilees is P h a r i s a i c ;
44

43

H.

D . M a n t e l c o n s i d e r s it n o n 45

Pharisaic

a n d A . Jellinek,

anti-Pharisaic.

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
49

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 T h e im­

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 .

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
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 4 3

10 with the M i s h n a h . " sectarian,
5 1

CHAPTER ONE

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 rarely

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 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 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 . 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 2

Neusner's

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

5 1

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 " . 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 . 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 . he also finds his o w n p a r t i s a n s .
59 5 6 55 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 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 o s e p h u s has usually b e e n a d o p t e d
5 7

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

o r the r a b b i s ,

5 8

but

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 . history o f the Pharisees' n a m e . that it represents 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 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 5 4 6 1 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 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 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

12

CHAPTER ONE

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
6 3

answered u n c r i t i c a l l y " .

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 first, listening to e a c h 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 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 observes, evidence".
6 2

and formulation o f facts stands the

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 "Between
6 5

us

(as

historians)

and

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

M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY

13
66

negatively

by

the

author's

imperfect

perception

of events

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 :

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

6 6

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
71

to

b e less than "raw

thorough.

He

still

regards

the

statements o f the Pharisees".

s o u r c e s as

material for a definition

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 are be

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

A n y points o f intersection will, o f c o u r s e , however, anticipate divergences and

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 wanted

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

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

6 9

M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY

15

his r e a d e r s t o b e l i e v e i t .

7 5

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".
7 6

somewhere other than

his

reasons,

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.
7 7

"potential d a t a "

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

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

7 5

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.
8 0

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 . " account for all o f the relevant presentations in the

The As

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 sources. 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 historical analysis
8 3

unintentional
82

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 . has often been examination. the

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 steps forward to pose his questions, in order to

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 ) , investigator 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, and their t h o u g h t . will seek to be 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 T h i s g o a l c a n best 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, intentions. and, second, the 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

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

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

7 9

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
1

to J o s e p h u s ' s

portrayal

of

the

Pharisees is v e r y large i n d e e d .

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. 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).
1

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

19

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 first.
3

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 the Pharisees, taken 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 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, 17:41-45). was
5

at

times

unfavourable

and

even

censorious

(Ant.

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 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.
7 6

as indications o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n antipathy

toward

the

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 them as ( 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 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 ­ onstrate the inauthenticity time, the literary a n d w e r e already well k n o w n .
1 0

13:173),

1 8 : 6 ) , a n d as in­ calculated to

1 3 : 2 9 4 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the Bible a n d Paret claimed, were

emphases,

o f the testimonium flavianum. B y G e r l a c h ' s 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
11

9

textual a r g u m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g the testimonium

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 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. 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 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 judgement
12

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 .

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 Essenes. attract all o w n o u t l o o k c o r r e s p o n d s to

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

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 He doubted, time a In­ shrift. for e x a m p l e , that
14

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 . 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

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

9

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

21

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 Josephus
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 in w h i c h the Pharisees
17

were described favourably,

without

reservation.

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-

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

15

22

CHAPTER T W O

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 p e r s p e c t i v e in J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee

Pharisaic

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.
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 2 1

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

23

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,
26

Vespasian's

official

report,

eyewitness

t e s t i m o n y , a n d other a i d s .

H o l s c h e r ' s criteria for identifying the t w o
27

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 . ten s o u r c e
2 8

He and

attributed Sadducees

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 a n d the b r i e f remarks o n the Pharisees ( 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 Ant. the picture is more complex. Whereas, according to

to the negative presentation o f the Pharisees in War 1:110-114. For 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.
32

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 It w a s in these schools that the H e b r e w Bi­

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. 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
3 3

so g e r i n g w i e m o g l i c h v o r that, the

content

o f Ant.

13:212-17:355, Holscher observed a n d distinctly favours

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 ,

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

2 6

24 Hasmoneans. Hasmonean
3 4

CHAPTER T W O

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 J e w i s h p o l e m i c i s t . T h i s polemicist was able to 15-17.
3 5

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. In addition to these t w o m a i n sources,
36

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 . that a p p e a r in Ant. 13-17.
37

T h e polemicist reflections

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

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

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 the Pharisee passages in Ant.
38

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 ,
4 1

4 0

and an­

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 .

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
4 2

the

Pharisee

P o l l i o n (Ant. 1 5 : 4 ) . schools in Ant.

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
43

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 .

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

3 4

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 Pharisees.
45

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 Josephus 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 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 a n o n - J e w o r an anti-Pharisaic as w e shall

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. passages.
46

J o s e p h u s ' s o w n Pharisaic allegiance r e m a i n s ,

see, an i m p o r t a n t criterion for the source-critical analysis o f his Pharisee

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 ­
4 7

o u r e d the w h o l e o f his w o r k .

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 education 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 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

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

4 4

26 that c u l t u r e .
49

CHAPTER T W O

Brune

finds

m a n y changes o f expression throughout desire for 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 The crucial p o i n t for B r u n e is that one can discover
50

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 . 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 . 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
5 1

that

had

turned

Josephus

into

a

"stumpfen

Abschreiber".

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 field o f classical research,

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

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 presupposition o f historical

indispensable
5 3

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 " . 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 writings.
5 4

La­ own

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

4 9

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

27 differences in

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

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
5 8

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 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 ­ themselves radically

adjusted

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.

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

5 5

28

CHAPTER T W O

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.
6 3

1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 as an in­

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

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

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

61

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

29

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 ' 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 6

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 alles
7 2

iiberzeugt wieder

zu sein,

dass er mit diesem werde, denn

anerkennenden hat er die

Zeugnis

gutmachen

gleichzeitig

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.,

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.

30

CHAPTER T W O
7 3

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 .

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 a r g u e d that the identification o f J o s e p h u s as a

1856 Paret h a d

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
75

J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic a l l e g i a n c e ;

that allegiance w a s w h a t first,

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 , t o s h o w h o w the and, Pharisee J o s e p h u s c o u l d h a v e written the material as it stands On

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. 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
76

w e r e early representatives o f r a b b i n i c r e l i g i o n .

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 Gamaliel —are
77

known

from

the

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 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?

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 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

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

7 3

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

31

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
79

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 . 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 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 the e n d o f the first c e n t u r y .
80

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 Ag.Ap., attitude, 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 J o s e p h u s ' s o w n anti-rabbinic 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 . m e n d e d their exegesis o f the l a w s .
8 2 81

T h a t is, J o s e p h u s r e v e r e d the com­

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

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

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

7 8

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
87

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 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

(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 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
88

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 . 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 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

8 6

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

33

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 s o m e twenty years earlier, Smith d i s c o v e r e d a n e w t h e m e in Ant., 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

to the effect that Palestine c a n n o t b e

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 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

Pharisees —Josephus

91

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

they w e r e o n l y o n e in Palestine arose before from

flourished

F o r h i m , the presentation

o f the Pharisees in Ant.

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. 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

9 0

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 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

To

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 narrative. as
96

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 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. The 1 3 : 4 0 0 f f . ) , in c o m p a r i s o n to the War parallel
9 8

( 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 " .

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. was
99

he c l a i m s , represents a tendentious r e w o r k i n g o f the That

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 .

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
1 0 1

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 .

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

9 8

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 " . gressive ("goal-oriented"!) power-seekers and not as
1 0 4

Rivkin con-

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 irenic 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
1 0 8

scholars that, with their special laws, g a v e leadership to the p e o p l e .

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

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

1 0 2

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS

37

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 Smith/Neusner t h e o r y .
1 1 0 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

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 ) . Smith/Neusner theory
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 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,
112

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 .

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
1 1 5

they

"express appear

hostility

toward

the

Pharisees".

1 1 4

Specifically,

the Pharisees

as " t h o s e w h o incite the masses

against r u l e r s " .

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
1 1 6

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 " . the Pharisees is the crucial f a c t o r — t h o u g h b y no means 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 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 Josephus the Pharisee

CHAPTER T W O

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 War reflects the m o s t t h o r o u g h a n d
119

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 , 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 . 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 and

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

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 material c i r c u m s t a n c e s to explain s o m e o f the Pharisee

(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
1

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.

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 .
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

1

CONCLUSION T O PART ONE

41 presupposes an

In

chapter

1 w e saw that historical

investigation

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, studies a n d 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 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 and in exhaustive his thought. study. absence study o f such a resource for A necessary tool for the exegesis o f a n y prolific a u t h o r is an accurate concordance. The What makes J o s e p h u s in the past m a y partially explain the lack o f scholarly interest a new o f Josephus's
4

Pharisees That work

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 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.
5

I I . Aims of the Study Our goal, 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

Pharisees.

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 process. o f the overall interpretive

I I I . Procedure of the Study Finally, 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 to the programme of "redaction over an c r i t i c i s m " in biblical studies. author's thought and That m o v e m e n t is c h a r a c t e r i z e d , Nevertheless, 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 ­

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 literary tendencies.

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 . the Pharisees in the present tense (thus: " t h e Pharisees
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 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.

CONCLUSION T O PART ONE

43

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 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 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 8 7

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 the 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 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 in War, Ant.,

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 , 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
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 7

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. 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

Material

inconsistencies,

such

as

unfulfilled

cross-references,

doublets, dissonant chronological systems, and conflicting high-priest

Holscher also supposed that Josephus's Pharisaic

1

Holscher, "Josephus", 1952-1955.

46

EXCURSUS h i m k n o w i n g first-hand the many

education would have prevented p a g a n authors that he c i t e s .
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 the Pharisee passages. 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

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

sup­

been reduced by some

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. criticized,
6 5

sources has n o t then sometimes

But

if intermediate

sources are

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 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

2

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.
8 7

1-11) h a v e d e m o n ­

strated m a r k e d editorial t h e m e s . pretative presentation

T h u s H . W . Attridge discovers ' 'an
9

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 o f scriptural n a r r a t i v e s " . I n J o s e p h u s ' s use o f
10

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 .

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 hier v o r g e l e g t e n textkritischen Einheit integrity o f J o s e p h u s ' s Einsicht Josephus, in die die 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 A r b e i t ist eine n e u e der
1 2

sprachlich-stilistische

Werke

des

v e r s c h i e d e n t l i c h bezweifelt w u r d e . "

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. suggests passages, the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n

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 :

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

7

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<ovr)v auvepyois). A l t h o u g h T h a c k e r a y h a d first t h o u g h t o f these auvepyoi as n o t h i n g m o r e than J o s e p h u s ' s literary s k i l l .
17

"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 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. classes o f G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e .
18

15-16 a n d 17-19, seen as t w o b l o c k s , that b e a r affinities to particular

possess distinctive stylistic features

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

1 3

EXCURSUS

49

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 the one "Sophoclean" (books 15-16) and the other a

assistants, How

" T h u c y d i d e a n h a c k " (books 17-19). 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 14, " t h e w o r k
2 0 1 9

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 " ,

a n d that the T h u c y d i d e a n w a s
21

" 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 . " 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

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 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
24

careful scrutiny a n d also rejected i t .

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. ing.
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 War.
27

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 S u c h r e m i n i s c e n c e s also o c c u r in

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

1 9

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., acknowledge a n y .
2 8

1:50), it seems unlikely studied

h a v i n g lived in R o m e a n d

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 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 . ing, flexible
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 ­ g r o u p " , a status i n d i c a t e d b y his selection as an emissary
32

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 .

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 captivity b e f o r e he w r o t e War.
33

T h u s , the k i n d o f linguistic deficiencies
34

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. R a j a k thus inclines t o w a r d the 1:50 w e r e 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. 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

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 ­

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

2 8

EXCURSUS

51

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
3 6

assistance for that w o r k .

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 . w a s the object o f its displeasure?
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

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

3 6

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 passages has h a r d l y ever b e e n put forward. the I. was o n e o f its few a d v o c a t e s . A r g u i n g that copyists w h o handed 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 nient for C h r i s t i a n favourable Josephus's Christian 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 ­ belief; the c e n s o r e d material of the Pharisees.
40

allegedly c o n t a i n e d pointed to had

presentations

Elbogen

repeated c l a i m in Ant.

( 1 3 : 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 ; 1 8 : 1 1 ) that he

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 most hostile toward the Pharisees under the come in pieces o f and historical narrative, c o n c e r n i n g events Hasmoneans

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. Ibid.

4 1

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

WAR

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

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 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

published descriptions o f

the

P h a r i s e e s are

War.

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 .

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

1

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 . tention o f m u c h twentieth-century
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 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 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 .
4

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
6

against

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 .

Thackeray

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

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

3

58

CHAPTER THREE rhetorically, (War

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, indeed,

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 ) ; 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 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 War.
1

in 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 . themes

fortune

o f R o m e are

recurring

throughout

I n his appeal to the rebels to quit their insurrection, procedures

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 ( 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, 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 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

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 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 7

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

59

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 . 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 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 ­

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; out o f mutual self-interest.
14 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 T h e single k n o w n r u p t u r e d u r i n g this
15

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. 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 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 o f tiny J u d e a .
1 7 16

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 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 passed to the Josephus's political sentiments Romans.

19

L i n d n e r d i s c o v e r s in the Rajak
2 1

n o t superficially o v e r l a i d , that
2 0

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 ; Y a v e t z p r o p o s e s that

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 . gratitude.
22

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 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 wrote 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 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 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 )
7 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 the very "translate/ubersetzen", loosest
23

the no

modern clear

editors evidence

w h o use of a

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 sense. It shows Semitic ac­ substratum. Indeed, "The
2 4

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 . 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 i s suggests to h i m that the G r e e k War has

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

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

1 9

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

WAR

61

are n u m e r o u s a n d o b v i o u s .

2 6

In a d d i t i o n to the a b s e n c e o f translation27

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

T h e y i n c l u d e the carefully honed speeches with

for­ their

the
2 9

rhetorically
3 0

philosophical v o c a b u l a r y ,

the entertaining digressions, a n d the m a n y 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

dramatic-novelistic e p i s o d e s .

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 1:5; 2 0 : 2 5 8 ) d o n o t suggest
32

the w r i t i n g o f War ( y p ^ c o , atrpfpo ^G), Ant. translation.

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 :

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

2 6

62

CHAPTER THREE

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 baffling in light o f the rationale for the p r o l o g u e in is particularly

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
3 6

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 . terpreted.
37

I f h e o p t e d to read it, the p r o ­ these

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 S i n c e the p r o e m to War seems i n t e n d e d to satisfy 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 —
39

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 : 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

3 4

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

63

(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
4 2

the causes o f the events in q u e s t i o n ( 1 : 1 0 ) ; the his utter impartiality
4 3

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

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
4 6

canonized

by

the

masters

and
4 7

elaborated

by

rhetorical

theory,

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 ­

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

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 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 sentence the 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 w a r against 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. who 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 ­
4 8

c u r a c y (TO dxpifie? xfjs ujxopias, 1 : 2 ) . l a c k e d first-hand

( 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 . chroniclers. § § 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

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
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.
4 8

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

65

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<rcopioc<; vojxov, 1:11). T h i s l a w o f history merits further attention. C i c e r o declares that the first t w o laws (leges) o f history are that o n e m u s t dare to speak o n l y the truth (ne quid falsi dicere audeat) a n d o n e m u s t dare to speak the w h o l e truth (ne quid veri non audent); there is to b e n o hint o f partiality (gratiae) o r o f m a l i c e (simulatis) . veritatem) . without
5 0 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 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 (eXe&v), This shame principle (ataxuv6(xevo^), of or special says
51

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 , pity pleading Lucian, Evidently, (8ua<on:ou[ASvo$). impassiveness,

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).

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 . "
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

4 9

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<O vofxto -afc au"pf pa9ffc) as this is not the occasion for personal lamentations (6X09UP&V otxeuov) but for a narrative of events.
53

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
54

Romans.

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

Josephus may be making a similar point in 7:274. Lieberich, Prodmien, 33f.

5 4

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

67

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 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 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

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, power
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 had presented the Babylonians as the

(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 (whereas Jeremiah
5 7

enemy).

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.

68

CHAPTER THREE and

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

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 with the writing, usual with Josephus meets He might the challenge o f to too share harsh 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 detached critic style. who comes be Josephus's 4. impatience any

(axXripo-cepos) for c o m p a s s i o n (OIXTOS, 1:12). 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 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 58

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 .
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

5 8

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

69

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 the

sisted ( 1 . 2 2 . 4 ) , the p u r p o s e o f studying history was to learn f r o m was at
62

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 first thought o f as primarily strategic and political, under 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. 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 past (e7tatvot xal c|>6yoi) w a s an (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 h o n o u r a b l e c o m p o n e n t o f historical
63

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 .

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 The who

1:13-16 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, 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 of
6 4

c h i e f s o u r c e for the literary assistants

War

(Holscher)—to Josephus's

(Thackeray).
6 1

6 2

6 3

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.

70

CHAPTER THREE

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, the

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 :

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 (1:16). Lindner proposes, then, that the a p p e a r a n c e his p r e f a c e .
6 6

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 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 in

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).
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 to J o s e p h u s ' s fundamentally 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 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

Hellenistic

historical preface w e r e to attract, stimulate, a n d instruct the r e a d e r . A s

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 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

6 5

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

71

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 readership. fulfill the goal o f the preface a n d to w i n a substantial

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 judgement rangements (yvcofXTj^, § 14)
7 1

counterparts futile rear­

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 and are thus reduced to 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 ­ o f p r o v i d i n g the clarity that

p o r a r y events has the d o u b l e a d v a n t a g e

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 ) . 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

He 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 Elsewhere

Attridge, Interpretation, 44f.; cf. already Lieberich, Prodmien, 34, and Avenarius,

Lukians Schrift, 81.
Significantly, Lucian posits as the two supreme qualifications of the historian "political understanding" (auveat? TIOXITIXTJ) and "power of expression" (8uva{xi? epfXTjveuTtxri).
7 1

72 claims that the w h o l e field

CHAPTER THREE

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<petv), w h i c h w o u l d p r e c l u d e certainty (aa<pocXeT<;) in j u d g e m e n t ( 4 . 2 . 3 ) .
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 (xivSuvos) that await the financial hardships in­ (xocxo7ud0etai) o r e v e n d a n g e r personal

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

(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 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

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 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 ,

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<o<;) from the beginning by the author himself (1:3).

7 2

PURPOSE AND O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

73

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.

74

CHAPTER THREE

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 n o stake w h a t s o e v e r in the hands. as s e e m s p r o b a b l e , he h a d 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
X O C T O C 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 G r e e k s neglect are in general b u t precisely the events o f the J u d e a n called " t h e d e e d s o f the rulers (T6C$ 7updc£ei<; TCOV
7 5

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 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 . 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 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. 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

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

7 4

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
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 7 7

76

CHAPTER THREE

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 dxpt(kta by difficulty b e f o r e was a us is that the v e h e m e n t c l a i m to historical It was commonplace kindred o f Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . o f scrupulous, to the detailed

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 i n v o k i n g the
79

concept

accuracy

(dxptfkioc). dXrjeeioc. that

For him,

dxpt(}£ioc gives n u a n c e

bald principle o f

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 dxpt(kioc is the
8 0

standard

b y w h i c h historical

writing

must

be

judged.

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<g rcpovoufxevos) as the b a s i c credentials o f all history (Rom. Ant. 1.1.2; 1.4.3; 1 . 6 . 5 ) . D i o n y s i u s sets o u t to p o r t r a y a c ­ curately (dxptPcos) the early history o f R o m e ( 1 . 6 . 3 ) b e c a u s e n o accurate (dxpiPfjs) 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 .
81

7 9

8 0

8 1

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

WAR

77

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 A. 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. 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, 1:3; Ag.Ap. 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. Jerusalemite privileged 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 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 , in Rome. These credentials, unlike Diodorus'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 position 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. Lieberich, Prodmien, 35.

8 3

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
8 4

its

cognates

form

part

of

Josephus's

characteristic v o c a b u l a r y .

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,
8 5

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 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 it historio-

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

8 4

following chapter; full

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

79

p o r a r y literary s o u r c e s a n d ( c ) non-literary, evidence.

especially a r c h a e o l o g i c a l ,

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
87

b u t that points ( b ) a n d ( c ) increasingly v i n d i c a t e his A l l w e c a n say o n the basis

a c c o u n t w i t h respect to places a n d e v e n t s .

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 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 8 6

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 the J e w s as better

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 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 ,

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

8 8

PURPOSE A N D OUTLOOK OF T H E JEWISH

WAR

81

the J e w i s h k i n g ) .

9 0

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<OV TOU8OCLX6V (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 8 ) . I n spite o f J o s e p h u s ' s o b v i o u s flattery o f V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s , there­ fore, a n d his a d m i r a t i o n o f R o m e in general, h e c a n hardly b e called a R o m a n functionary.

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.

9 0

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
1

c a n o n e i g n o r e the prima facie similarity

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 vojxcov 0 % x V Since these
a e i T 0

^ ^

e

o v

^POA7IOIOU(xevov. . . . constitute a large segment of what remarks

passages

together

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

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

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

1

T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

83

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

War 2:275, 281, 306, 455, 649; "moderate" position in the revolt.

2

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 laws? 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

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
3

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 " 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

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 u p in o r d e r " .
4

A s w e shall see, o n l y o f the

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, 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

a n d yevos;

auvTOcyfxoc h e uses

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<OV Xr]AT<ov (War 4:135, 509, 513,

558;

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

3

4

5

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.

T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

85

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 [ o f the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y ] " , is hardly C.
6

appropriate. Pharisees:

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 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
7

in

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 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.) 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)
8

that J e w i s h euae(kia is particularly

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. justice (Sixaioauvri, Ant. 16:42). this euaefkta finds its centre in the T e m p l e 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 A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s ,

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 14:65). daily 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. 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

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

6

86

CHAPTER FOUR

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 however, they b y n o m e a n s exhaust 7:267). has 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, its significance. J o s e p h u s 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. 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$) 2:171). a n d o c c u p a t i o n s (SiaxpiPai) and speech ( X o y o i ) " (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

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,

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

87

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). God" 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: (Stxai (lev etvat 7cp6$ TOU<; dpxofxevoix;, euaejkt 8e 7cp6$ xov . . . Oeov, 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 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 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 9

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,
11

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 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
12

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 . was a virtue in Hellenistic t h i n k i n g . In all o f its ramifications, euaepeta
13

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

9

88

CHAPTER FOUR

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
15

mJT n **"P, and p ^ .
1 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 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,
19 18

it w o u l d "Semitic

of a

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. 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 which

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.,

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

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

1 4

T H E PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I

89

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. When, 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.
Pearepov etvat TCOV aXXcov h e is u s i n g t e r m i n o l o g y that is

therefore, h e describes the Pharisees as a g r o u p o f J e w s Soxouv euaetheologically

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 ­ 2 : 1 4 6 , 1 5 9 ) . F o r the 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 : 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 of Queen 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 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 V O F X T F X A AAQJ&s ETUTAXAUIVOTS) and who are competent to interpret the mean­ ing of the holy scriptures (TTJV TOOV T E P C O V ypafXfxdcTcav ouvauivotc). (Ant. 20:264) Suvajxtv ep[A7)VEUAAT

2 0

W e shall consider the exact sense of 8ox£o> below.

90 Paret rightly
2 1

CHAPTER

FOUR

comments:

" D i e Frommigkeit

ist

ihm

wesentlich

Akribie".

'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. 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

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

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, 2:144): h o w e v e r , is f u n d a m e n t a l l y religious (Ag.Ap.

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$rceplT T J V 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.

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

2 1

THE

PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I

91

One

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. (6) Aristeas 3 0 2 : ot 8e erceTeXouv e x a o r a aufxcpcova 7toiouvTe<; 7tp6<; eauTOUs xaq

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, 2 : 2 5 7 ) . F o r it is the J e w s 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. rjfxcov, Ag.Ap. 2:149). w h o practice their laws punctiliously (rcpaTTOfxeva [xerd 7tdarj$ dxpt(fetas 6 9 ' 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

PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

93

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 Thus, although many have laboured at this training (TUOXXCOV

(aoccpcos) and who are competent to interpret the meaning of the holy scrip­ tures. 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 T C O V xaxd TOV (3tov 7upa?e<OV (3pax&a 8t£?eX0etv, 2 0 : 2 6 6 ) .

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 ? ) . c l a i m to <xxpt(kta. The priest.
My ancestry is not undistinguished; indeed it has its origin a m o n g the
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 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

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 )

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.).

2 4

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($7)s e7Ct{xeXeta, § 1 8 7 ) . Similarly Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 9 4 : the h i g h priest, a l o n g with his c o l l e a g u e s , safeguards the laws (<puXa£et TOU? VOJAOOS). I n the ideal J e w i s h t h e o c r a c y that J o s e p h u s portrays to his G e n t i l e a u d i e n c e , it is the priests w h o h a v e s u p r e m e responsibility for the c o m m u n a l goal o f axptfkta. Small w o n d e r , then, that J o s e p h u s frequently p o i n t s to his o w n priestly credentials as he reiterates his constant goal o f <xxpt(kta (Ag.Ap. 1:54; Ant. 20:264ff.; Life 1-9). N o r is this a late d e v e l o p m e n t in his think­ ing, for w e find the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n his priestly credentials a n d his k n o w l e d g e o f the Scriptures already in War 3 : 3 5 2 : He [Josephus] was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly descent, he was not ignorant o f the prophecies in the sacred books ( T&V y e [A7)v Upcov (3i(iXcov oux Tjyvoet T<X$ 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$ <pi\o<JO<p(a<; TTJ<; IV ixeivou; ypapfjiaai).

TOT<;

25

E.g., Ag.Ap. 1:29, 32, 36, 54.

T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

95

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
2 7 26

T h u s , one can with

the

priesthood

dxpifkioc in the interpretation o f the l a w s .

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
2 9

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
30

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 t o his

the B i b l e that m i g h t b e offensive

readers,

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

As will become clear below, T O C 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

2 6

96

CHAPTER FOUR

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 life;
31

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 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;
3 3 32

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 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. 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 and o f the v6[xoi, as well as c o n t e x t u a l indicators such as qualifiers 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 34

H e speaks, for e x a m p l e , o f
3 7

of history,
38

36

and o f Nature.

E a c h o f the G e n t i l e na­ fluidity

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

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 :

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

3 1

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 ­
4 2

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 he is m o r e often c o n c e r n e d to d e m ­

the d i v i n e inspiration o f the l a w s , Moses.
4 3

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 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
44

Moaoaeo? v6(xoi.

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

3 9

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 however, other 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 , c o n s i d e r a t i o n s indicate that J o s e p h u s its later is u n a b l e to distinguish the o r i g i n a l M o s a i c vou.o? f r o m 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. it.
48

,

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 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
49

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. the r e m a r k : 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
50

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 .

Y e t h e closes this section with

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

4 5

T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

99

Such was the code o f laws (TTJV Staxafiv TCOV V6[X<OV) which Moses, while keeping his army encamped beneath M o u n t Sinai, learnt from the mouth of G o d (I^M-dtGrj 7cocpa TOU Oeou) and transmitted in writing to the Hebrews. (Ant. 3:286) J o s e p h u s e v i d e n t l y believes that his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the l a w s , in w h i c h the m o d e r n reader c a n find influences o f post-biblical tradition, 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 , slaves in court,
54 5 3 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 the offering o f rewards for information
56

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 about
55

murderers,

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 ,
57

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 , Finally, in the s u m m a r y o f the v6(xot f o u n d in Ag.Ap.,

the p r a c t i c e o f
5 8

a n d so o n .

J o s e p h u s again
59

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
62 6 0

that

that all w h o pass a requires absolute

it;

61

that

friendship

frankness;

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
63

" 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)". 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 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

5 1

100 others d o n o t a p p e a r t h e r e tices.
66 65

CHAPTER FOUR

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 ­
68

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
67

teachings

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 .

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 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.

(Ag.Ap.

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,

69

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 .

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

6 5

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?.

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.

7 0

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) with 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 against did TOC rcdcTptoc eGrj with TOO? a n d his p r e d e c e s s o r s ' offences object: Judah Maccabee

(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 T O C 7tdcTptoc as away
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. v6[io? c a n b e c i t e d . not
72

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 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 terms for ot vojxot are f\ (rcdcTpto?) euaePeta / Oprjaxeta / auvrjGeta / a n d rcoXiTeia.
76 73 74 75

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 -

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 T c d t x p i o c 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

71

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 Solon BC).
7 9

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

and

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 13:297in his tacit 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 some commentators that J o s e p h u s ' s indicates a inclusion o f " c u s t o m " Pharisaic 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 of " L a w " viewpoint. T h e

presentation

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

7 7

104

CHAPTER FOUR

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 his [ J o s e p h u s ' s ] orientation to Such an inference Pharisaism."
8 1

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 is e x c l u d e d , h o w e v e r , b y the facts that have are H.

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 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.

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
8 3

c o m e from M o s e s .

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
84

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. 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
86

finds it ev z<xiq iepocT$ pifJXoi^ dvayeypa (X(x£va.

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

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

81

T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

105 2:155-156.

own

day.

8 7

T h e p o i n t is m a d e with special force in Ag.Ap.

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. (or b e t w e e n written 2:173).
8 9

Not only does of Moses'

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 a n d oral l a w ) ; his positive portrayal 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 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 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
91 90

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, T O C 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

8 7

106 vojxoi is s u p r e m e l y v i r t u o u s .

CHAPTER FOUR

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., is u n m i s t a k a b l y present in Ant.
93

a n d in

War.

94

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
98

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 ) 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

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

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 -

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

9 2

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
101

rest/others,

and

to e x p l a i n

the

laws

more

precisely/accurately".

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 ((xexaOetvat Soijac;) the g o v e r n m e n t into a k i n g d o m {Ant. 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
1 0 3

understanding"

((xvrjfXT) xe xat auveaet Soxtov Staq>epetv, Life 8 ) " .

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,

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

1 0 0

108

CHAPTER FOUR

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($<o<; e'8o£av TOU<; vofxouc; (Ag.Ap. 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

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 . . . " ; for Soxeto in this sense. But in Ant.
1 0 4

the eighth e d i t i o n o f describes the

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 17:41 J o s e p h u s Pharisees as: (xopiov TI , 'IooScuxtov &v6pto7Utov £ V eijaxpiPooaei uiya 9povouv TOO 7uotTptou xal vofxtov ot£ x ^ P ° Oetov npoanoiovyLevov.
a £t T

In Ant.

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 T O C 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" are c o m m o n terms. This similarity, together with Ag.Ap. 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 . include not only
106 1 0 5

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

F o u r o f the six to the

Soxeto a n d

axptjkta

but

also

a

reference

v6[xot/v6(Atfxa/7i:dTpia. T h e y are as follows: War 1 : 6 4 8 for dxpfiovv 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 consequently enjoyed the highest esteem their s u p e r i o r p r e c i s i o n with the national laws ((xaXtaxa Soxouvrec; T O C TCOCTpta) w h o

(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 T O C 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 , 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<ov v6[xo)v, indicating his agreement with their reputation.
105 1 0 6

1 0 4

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

109

a u d i e n c e for his c h a r g e s tended. Ant.

1 0 7

p r o b a b l y suggests that his reputation is in­

2 0 : 4 3 tells o f o n e Eleazar f r o m G a l i l e e , rapt T O CracTpiocBoxeov
108

axpt(3r)s etvat.

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 the sequel to b e religious leaders in J e r u s a l e m ,
109

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 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

TTJV

x a x ' auTOv

tcrcoptav auyypa^etv, has b e e n a c c u s e d o f e r r o r (Ag.Ap.

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. mula, however, in those passages that include reference 2:227, to the 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 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

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

1 0 7

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 -

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

111

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 superstition (8etcn8atfxovta) r e n d e r e d her a helpless p a w n ; her

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 " 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

112

CHAPTER FOUR 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 strife that b e g a n after J o h n
1 1 3

Hyrcanus,

with rule,

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 between Alexandra's sons. Alexandra's own t h o u g h a potential 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

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I

113 scrupulous band of the

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 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

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 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 Hyrcanus.

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 struggle

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 War

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 for v a r i o u s r e a s o n s ,
1 1 4

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 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 unjudische apparently
1 1 5

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

where "hochst unjiidisch"

a n d ( c ) that, therefore, this passage also support.
1 1 7

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, 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 ( c ) War 1:110 bears a close

the

f o l l o w i n g a posteriori j u d g e m e n t s ,

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 1:110—<xxpt(kta, euaePeta, v6(iot-— are elements constructions, (e) War of Josephus's Finally, all o f the k e y terms in the definition o f the Pharisees in

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.

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 4

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 ; passages is d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f their meaning.
1 1 9

in ad­ refers

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 " C o n t e x t " here 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 .

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

1 1 9

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.

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

122

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 , has introduced the Pharisees in War

I the

After J o s e p h u s

1:110-114,

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

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; (17:42f.),

in

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. 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 . ) . the largely i n n o c e n t v i c t i m o f plots a n d intrigues. who 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 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 ,

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) 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
a n

d

fxiaOos, are b o t h

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.

1

THE PHARISEES AT HEROD 's COURT, I

117

the v e r b a n d its c o g n a t e s (xopTrytoc, X ? ^^) War a n d Ant.
2

0

7

s o m e 6 4 times t h r o u g h o u t
3

T h e v e r b has a stronger m e a n i n g than, say, StScoptt; it is s o m e t i m e s with
4

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 , may,
5

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 . Pharisees w a s a m p l e . B . MICJOOS: o f 42 t i m e s .
4 4

This

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 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

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
7 8

group or finan­

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

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.
9

1 7 : 4 1 , if it is a true

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 .
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 2

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
1 1

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 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 .
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 1 0 4

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 toward them—continue themes already i n t r o d u c e d in War 1:110-114.

CHAPTER SIX

WAR

2:162-166: T H E P H A R I S E E S A M O N G THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I intention, War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 is his

From

the standpoint

o f Josephus's

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 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 1

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,
3

has p r o b a b l y e x p i r e d with the

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); d v 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

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

121

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 then m o v e s i m m e d i a t e l y to the death o f

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 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 ) .

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

6

122 We

CHAPTER SIX

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 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 ­ in fear" ((xe-uoc 9o(3ou b e i n g trained
10

7cat8ay<oYou|jievoi<g rcaiatv, § 1 2 6 ) . A n d that is the t e n o r o f the w h o l e Essene passage: these m e n are ascetics, w h o s e e v e r y w a k i n g m o m e n t is o r d e r e d a c c o r d i n g to a strict discipline ( § § 1 2 8 - 1 3 4 , 1 3 7 - 1 4 9 ) . T h u s : " H o l d i n g justified a n g e r in c h e c k , they are masters o f their t e m p e r , c h a m p i o n s o f faithfulness, ministers o f p e a c e " ( § 1 3 5 , T h a c k e r a y ) .
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

9

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

123

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
TOT<;

with all m e n , especially with those who are ruling ({xdcXtora 8e

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: the
12

Essenes,

for

one,

believe

in

faithfulness to the ruling

authorities.

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.
1 3

rcpoaeoixox;)

c o m p a r a b l e to the

g r o u p represented

by

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 .

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

1 2

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 statements: Auo 8e (2:161) (2:163)
TCOV

five

rcpoTeptov ( s c . Tayu-ocTtov, § 161) Oaptaatot u i v ot

a. b. c.

jxex' dxptPeta$ 8oxouvTe$ e^rjyetaOat TOC vojxtfxa xat
TTJV

7cpcoTT)v dcTCOcyovTes atpeatv

etu.apu.evrj TE xat Oeto TCpoadwcTOuat 7tdvTa xat TO uiv
7cpaTT£tv TOC Stxata

xat u.rj x a r a
(3oTj8etv 8e

TO

rcXetarov em exaarov xat

TOT$ TTJV

av9pa>7cot<;
etu.apu.evrjv. d.

xetaOat,

tlq

C[>UXTJV Te 7caaav u.ev a90apTOv, [xeTafJatvetv 8e et$ erepov atou.a
TTJV TCOV T<X$

dyaOtov

[XOVTJV,

8e

TCOV

9auXcov dtSttp Tt(xtopta xoXd£ea0at
TTJV

(2:166a)

e.

xat Oaptaatot [xev qHXdXXrjXot Te xat

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 . 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 (Ant. 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 1 3 : 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 ) , b u t h e will clearly designate those as n o n TTJVrcaTptoav7tapd8oatv, . . TOUS

vofxou? dxpt(3e<JTepov d^yetaOat. T h e

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 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 other
14

o r w i t h TOC eGrj. than the

15

T h u s , since TOC v6(xt[xa in o u r passage stands with­ 13:297) and that it is

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 vou-tjia TOC yeypau.fxeva (Ant. 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 .

E.g., Ant. 8:395, where 9uX<xa(jetv TOU$ vofjtou? = TTjpetv T O C 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

1 4

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

125

( 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
16

interpret,

relate,

expound"

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 . 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 7rpcoT7jv drcdyovTes atpeatv

H e r e , as in 1:110, the i d e a

TTJV

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"), B a u e r n f e i n d ("Sekte").
17

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 18

T h e English w o r d sect, smallness,
2 0 2 1

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 and such Although

rigid

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 " ) .

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 , 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 . al'peats, preferring rather " s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t " ,
2 2

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 Rivkin, R. The 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 as i n t r o d u c e d b y
2 3

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 ) .

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 .
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

1 6

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<o. choice, namely, a philosophy, school, party, o r f a c t i o n . Judaism—viz., Galilean. Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , Essenes,
27

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 I n 13 o f these the 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 o r that o f J u d a s

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 " such as T<xyu.<x, fiotpoc, and yevo^, which other Josephus also uses o f the atpeaei^, o c c u r h u n d r e d s o f times in

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 designation. these particular

2 6

See the discussions in Thackeray, Lexicon, and LSJ, s.v.; and H . Schlier, "ocipeaic",
War 2:118, 122, 137, 142, 162; Ant. 13:171, 288, 293; 20:199; Ant. 7:347; 15:6;

TDNT, I.
2 7

Life 10, 12, 191, 197.
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

2 8

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

127

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 <pi\oao<po6\n<0v" ( § 1 6 6 ) . T h e s e statements identify the atpeaei? as p h i l o s o p h i z i n g g r o u p s . I n Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 2 5 , w h i c h is parallel 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—
32

suggest d e f i n e d constituencies. Further, h e e m p l o y s m a n y substitutes such as: fioptov, TOtyfxa, yevos, auvxayfia, a n d fiotpoc.
33

for ocipeats that s e e m to highlight the physical constitution o f the g r o u p s , 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 nowhere implies that a ocipeats is that the aipeaet? o r deviant ( s o R i v k i n ) , he d o e s suggest

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.

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

3 0

128

CHAPTER SIX u s a g e in the

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 ple,

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 ­ 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 ,
34

S t o a , a n d later s c h o o l s ) as atp£aei£. Greek them schools
35

P h i l o u s e d the w o r d o f b o t h the
36

and

the

Jewish

Therapeutics.

When,

therefore, formal the the

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 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 follow Pythagorean teachings (Ant. 15:371) and 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 Essenes The that Pharisees are like the S t o i c s (Life 1 2 ) . 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 Palestinian

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 as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the octpeaei^.
38

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 " , 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 their p l a c e in the earlier listing o f the schools ( 2 : 1 1 9 ) . "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

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

3 4

THE

PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

129

'ArcdcyovTes

is

likewise

deceptively
4 0

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 . withdrawal
&7r<r)fovTes
41

to " l e a d a w a y , divert, carry off, a b ­
42

It often a p p e a r s in descriptions o f b a t d e s , or o f cattle,
43

w h e r e it refers to the capturing o f p r i s o n e r s , o f troops from a siege.
44

o r to the

T h e p r o b l e m is what it c o u l d they are those w h o

possibly mean

with reference to the Pharisees:

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<OV 7cpox£pa)v OocptaocTot [xev ot), considered c o m m e les interpretes exacts des lois et c o m m e les createurs de la premiere ecole (TTJV icpcoxrjv owcdyovTes octpeatv). . . .

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 the 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

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 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

4 0

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

8e £a88ouxatot, TptTOv

yap 7uap' 'Iou8atot£ et8rj 9tXoao9 £tTat, xat TOU uiv a t p e T t a x a t Oaptaatot, TOU hi . . . 'Eaarjvot.

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] 119 an".
4 5

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 § M i c h e l a n d B a u e r n f e i n d thus take 7cpoTep<ov, 7tpcoTT), a n d 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 [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 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<ov ( s c . TayixdcTCOv, cf. § 1 6 1 ) . T h e n follows in a p p o s i t i o n this t w o - p r o n g e d description o f the Pharisees: ot
(a) fxeT'

dxpifkias 8OXOUVT£$ e£rpfetaOoct TOC vofxtjxa xat (b) TTJV TCpcoTTjv a7WCYOvT£s atpeatv

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.

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

131

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; positive associations. One must ask whether the scholars' difficulties with arca-fto do not
48 47

this allows for a greater range of

arise merely from the common presupposition, shared by Thackeray,

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<rfetv". Lexicon, s.v.. The emendation was suggested by Hudson. L C L edn., I, viif.; cf. his Josephus, 7.

132

CHAPTER SIX

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 than d o the other groups ( § § 120, fifty-two and sec­ most 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 1 2 5 ) , w h o are j u s t 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) (2)
(3)

eifxapfxevr) xe xal Geco 7cpoadc7CTOuat rcdvTa xat TO [xev 7cpdcTTetv TOC Stxata xat \ir\ xaTa TO 7cXeTaT0v em TOT<; av6pco7cots xetaOat,
(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 dv0pto7Ctvtov 7cpay[xocTcov", that is, as to w h a t 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

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

PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

133

The viz.:

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 , ( 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 sources. T h e format o f the present study, however, of Josephus's

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
5 1

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

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

134

CHAPTER SIX

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. family w a n t s his d e a t h ( 1 : 6 2 8 ) ; later, h e tries to anticipate
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
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 Hasmonean. 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 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 . 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 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: the
. . 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 ­

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."

5 2

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 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
56

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 ,

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

5 3

136

CHAPTER SIX

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 o f the true n a t u r e o f G o d (Ag.Ap. 2:250).
5 8

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 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. The used frequent juxtaposition
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 and 0e6$ in Josephus's tandem

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. o f eifxapuivrj 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 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 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
61

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

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
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 5 7

THE

PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

137

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
6 2

to

their

" 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 " .

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 order use was of eifxapuivrj in accord with any earliest particular times,
64 6 3

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 present Greece from 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 aphorism the term into Greek xaO' philosophical eifxapjxevrjv.
6 6 65

discussion, Notice the

with

the

rcavTa

xe yiveaOai

striking Pharisees

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 xax'

(eifxapuivrj 7Cpoaa7iTouai 7cdvxa, War 2 : 1 6 3 ) , to the Essenes (jxrjSev o fxrj 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
6 8

I n his earlier w o r k s Plato ridicules as effeminate the i d e a his later w o r k s , h o w e v e r , reveal an
69

that eifxapuivrj c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d ;

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 .

Thus
7 0

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 .

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

6 2

138

CHAPTER SIX

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 . from the o n e W o r l d - S o u l , the
7 1

Being a monistic philosophy, Thus the Stoics identified

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 Logos.
7 2

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 I, 178 = SVF I, 1 7 6 ) .

7cp6votav xat <puatv xaXetv ( S t o b a e u s , Eel.,

(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 Fate. edn.)
73

(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 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
74

Pharisees

as

those

who

attribute

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

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

71

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

139

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 12).
7 5

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

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

7 5

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 subject, m o s t o f w h i c h are n o w l o s t .
8 0

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 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 . 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

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

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<o7uivoc 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 )

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

7 9

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<ov). H e goes on to castigate "those who judge there to be no foreknowledge (rcpovotoc) of human affairs (rapt (hi) Ag.Ap.
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)
TOUTOV

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.

8 5

L. Wachter, "Unterschiedliche Haltung", 99f.

142 The

CHAPTER SIX

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 (a) this would make nonsense of the

because:

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 " . To God's summarize: Josephus superintendence,
8 7

respon­

J o s e p h u s wants s i m p l y and
88

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. b e l i e v e s that G o d o b s e r v e s (e90pav) exclude human 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 however, does not 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 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 rcpovota.

respon­ 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 "

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<o about 89 times. Although 7cp6voia is much more common than eiptapptevT) in his vocabulary, he never uses it to describe the beliefs of the schools. This is doubtless an accommodation to the terms of the contemporary debate. O n 7Cp6voia and its significance, cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 71-78.
8 7 8 8

8 6

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 War, 2 8 4 in Ant., 7 in Life, a n d 15 in Ag.Ap.
90

W e have already observed
91

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 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

and

TOC

Stxoctoc. abstraction

TO SIXOCIOV

d e n o t e s the

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 a p p e a r s as the goal o f the magistrates in their

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

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 (Life 7 9 ) . T h e w o r d d o e s n o t always in mundane affairs (Ant. 15:218;

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 "justice, fairness,
TO SIXOCIOV

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 or propriety" 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)

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

8 9

144
For with whom justice is, W i t h them G o d is.

CHAPTER SIX

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
TO SIXOCIOV.

comes

very

close

to

the

sense o f

" r i g h t e o u s n e s s " for ters o f the c u l t .
9 5

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 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 to flatter Herod (Ant.
9 6

Sixaiov rather than g l o r y (S6£a), they refused

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 " . 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. In 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 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 T O C Sixaia, w h i c h o c c u r s substantively 25 times outside o f War 2 : 1 6 3 . significance b u t rather d e n o t e s h u m a n fairness or justice. W e 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 may distinguish three specific n u a n c e s : (1) T w i c e , T O C 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 ) .
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 9 5

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 T O C 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 T O C 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 T O C 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 the basis o f T O C 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) T O C 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 with the singular, a few instances o f T O C 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$ T O C 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
98

" w h a t is j u s t a n d l a w f u l " (TOC Stxata xat T O C 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

a n d thereby keeps show that

examples

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 T O C 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
1 0 0

is

generally

closer

to

"justice"

than

to

'' righteousness " .

T h a t Josephus intended T O C 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 TOTCpdcTTetvT O C 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 e n t i r e l y a n d m a i n t a i n ( § 1 6 5 ) that in
9

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 T O C 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 T O C 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 " .
1 0 1

Cf. Ant. 7:151. In Ant. 12:121 and 14:315, T O CS C x o c i o c is paired with T O C GeaePet? and T O C 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

9 8

146 The

CHAPTER SIX 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
1 0 2

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. 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 T O C 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 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 1 0 2

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

147

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 the O T a n d in later J u d a i s m . standard w a g e s a n d p r i c e s "
1 0 4

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 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 ,
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 ,
107

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 . (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 much more frequently in the books with universal books. themes—the w i s d o m literature—than in the m o r e c o v e n a n t a l

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 perceived important 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 differences
108

( 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 between Hpl^ (as covenantal) and Stxaioauvrj ( s o c i a l / r e l a t i o n a l ) .
1 0 4

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

148

CHAPTER SIX

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
1 1 1

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 2

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 " . A r i s t o t l e , similarly, d e v o t e s the
113

fifth

b o o k o f his Nicomachean Ethics to an analysis o f Stxaioauvrj. "On Justice".
1 1 4

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 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 . 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 tent.
1 1 6 115

W e m a y n o t e , h o w e v e r , that

social a n d n o t religious in c o n ­

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
1 1 7

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 (N.E. 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)" 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

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

1 0 9

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

149

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 noted b y D o d d at the outset, above. it seems u n w i s e t o c l a i m that when 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 , 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 Greek thought ethical p r o b l e m — " t o d o right before Josephus's time; 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 a n d ( d ) that his Hellenistic
1 1 9

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

Maier's
1 2 0

thought.

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 use of v6[xot/v6fxt(xa/7rocTpia, of Hellenism. ( c ) inl T0t<; av0p<o7i;ot<; xetaOat. T h i s phrase seems straightforward. T h e v e r b xetfxat with ev o r ini a n d a dative o c c u r s at least 8 o t h e r times in J o s e p h u s with the m e a n i n g " t o b e in the p o w e r o f s o m e o n e o r s o m e ­ thing".
1 2 2 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 other terms as euaepeta, a a n d et(xap(xevr). N o n e reflects

axptjkia,

al'peatg,

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

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 .

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 e t c t n a t 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 2

1 1 9

150

CHAPTER SIX

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 ( § 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' 13:171-173, however, the p h r a s e is £9' rjfxtv:
1 2 3

in

1

avOpcorccov exXoyfj TO xaXov xal TO xaxov TipoxetaOat. In the parallel at Ant. the Sadducees believe a7cavT<x 8e £9' rjulv aikots xetaOat ( § 1 7 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 . is in o n e s e l f (o*>v 8' ev (in
9 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
OCUTG> TJ

apx*)), it is in o n e ' s p o w e r to d o it o r n o t " F u r t h e r a l o n g in his

aura) xat TO rcpaTTetv xat fxrj, 3 . 1 . 6 ; R a c k h a m ) .

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<p' fjiuv 8TJ xat TJ apeTTj. ojxotwi; 8 e xat TJ xaxta. £v olq yap £ 9 ' 7|pTv TO rcpdtTTetv, xat TO JXT] TipaTTetv. . . . ware' et TO np&weiv xaXov 6v i(p' Yiyuv eaTt, xat TO firj Ttpdrretv i<p' TJ[JUV earai ataxpov 6v. Therefore virtue depends on ourselves. A n d so also does vice. For where we are free to act we are also free to refrain from acting . . . ; if therefore we are responsible for doing a thing when to do it is right, we are also responsible for not doing it when not to do it is wrong. ( R a c k h a m )
125

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 power".
1 2 7 126

as a t e r m for ethical a c t i o n ; human the phrase £9' rjulv, it

use o f £71' auTco /£9' rjfxtv to designate " w h a t lies in O n c e Aristotle h a d c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d
1 2 8

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, caprice.
1 2 9

that J o s e p h u s uses inl

(TOIS)

dv0pa>7cots in

War

2:163-166 simply to

rather than £9' rjulv (as in Ant.

13:171-173) may

be due

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

1 2 3

In describing the Pharisaic position (13:172), the M S S L A M W E support £9' r|[xtv

OCUTOTs.

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

124

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I used b y Josephus m e a n s " w e Jews".
130

151 usually

h i m s e l f in editorial o r reflective c o n t e x t s ,

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 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 .
1 3 1

1 in Life, a n d 2 in Ag.Ap. distributed thoughout

The his

is likewise e v e n l y

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 . 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 5 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 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

1 3 0

152

CHAPTER SIX

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
137

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 while at the same time offering a
1 3 8

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 . tween the Chrysippean

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 ­ doctrine and Josephus's d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n : in b o t h , eifxapuivrj is a cause auxiliary (adiuvo = as

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 o f principal a n d auxiliary causes. 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

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 £

Sadducees ( 1 6 4 ) xrjv . . . eifxapjxevrjv 7tavTa7caaiv avaipooatv xal TOV Geov e£a> . . . TiGevxai

xal Geco 7rpoaa7i-

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, 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

1 3 6

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

153
1 3 9

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 .

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 . will naturally d o w h a t is g o o d . ter.
1 4 3 1 4 2 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 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 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

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

1 3 9

154

CHAPTER SIX
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 ­ to
1 4 5

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. 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

Particularly in his M y t h o f Er, Souls s t a n d i n g b e f o r e who

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

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 3.5.2).
1 4 9

(apeTT) xal xaxia) squarely in ourselves ( £ 9 ' rjfxtv; NE. 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 ethics h a d m a d e a solid b e g i n n i n g .

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 v o l i t i o n in the matter o f

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 Aoyoq.
150

itself,

the

Windelband

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. 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 1 4 5

THE

PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

155

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 . tained.
1 5 3 152

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 ­ 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 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
155

m o r e a b o u t the Pharisees, modern scholarship; be

( b ) that he c o n s i d e r e d the Pharisees a n d Stoics to
1 5 6

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 ;

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

1 5 1

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 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

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

PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

159

Compare now Josephus's own views about the afterlife, given here, with those that he sets out for both the Pharisees and the Essenes: 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) Josephus cl>ux*l d9dvaxo<; deC (War 3:372)

(0

(")

(iii)

The souls of the 90CUX01 suffer &i8uo xi ^pCa after death (War 2:163)

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<o[iaxa GvrjTa rcaatv xal ix 99apxffc SXric (War 3:372) cj>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

(0

(«)
(iii)

(iv)

(v)

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

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) esp. T h e similarities between Josephus's own statements and his des­ War 2:154//3:372) than are his agreements with Pharisaic positions. cription of Essene teachings are more extensive and verbally closer (cf. 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 (ii)

C H A P T E R SIX

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 is an attractive one,

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 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
1 5 8

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 " , 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 ­
159

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). T w o others allow
1 6 0

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 .

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]
1 6 1

TOC£IV

dOocvocat'ocs Xa(xPdvo[xev)—a

com­

paratively w e a k c o n c e p t i o n !

Finally, in E l e a z a r ' s s p e e c h at M a s a d a ,
162

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 . 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

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

1 5 8

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

161

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
1 6 4

Josephus.

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 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.

can It

himself,

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 be adequately "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 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 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

1 6 3

162 soul's immortality can

CHAPTER SIX

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 BC).
1 6 7

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 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 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 . 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 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 1 6 9

BC),

1 7 0

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 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 . and
1 7 2

H i s v a r i o u s presentations d o n o t always consistent: pre-existent souls fall

harmonize Republic, their from

in detail. T h e picture in the m i d d l e w o r k s , however— Phaedo, Phaedrus—is fairly

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

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

1 6 6

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

163

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 . ) 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 other In d e s c r i b e d in spends these w o r k s is actually p e r i o d s in a the
1 7 5

The not it

iraXtyyeveata a n d underworld before picture.

fxex£[xc|>ux<oat<; b e c a u s e the soul d o e s n o t m e r e l y pass f r o m o n e b o d y to an­ but the intervening
1 7 6

"becomes again".

Timaeus, Plato

paints

s o m e w h a t different

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 | > U X T J V . . . 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?

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

1 7 3

164

CHAPTER SIX

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
178

equivalent e x p r e s s i o n s . by commentators

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 the

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

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. seems to h a v e s u b s i d e d after
179 1 8 0

S p e c u l a t i o n a b o u t the afterlife

Plato.

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 out
182

c o r r e s p o n d e d to the schools became

E p i c u r e a n i s m rejected the older

of hand,

1 8 1

while

the

generally s k e p t i c a l .

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
1 8 3

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 ^ . 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 It w a s , significantly,
184

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 immortality. 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 , 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
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 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

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

1 7 8

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 form
188

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 ysvsata) To
189

also r e a p p e a r e d , b o t h in the
ai

of as

f r o m b o d y to b o d y (pteTe [X(|>ux^ ?)
1 9 0

and

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 (7caXtyT 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 . 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
1 9 1

on Yet

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 . 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 h o w m a n y incarnations are to b e e x p e c t e d ; 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 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 find have "the 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 " . 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, 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 deter1 9 2

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

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

186

166 mined by moral factors,

CHAPTER SIX

on

the

other.

Clearly, Josephus
1 9 3

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 . bodies. Rather, Nowhere does for he suggest that souls o f m e n o r animals pass naturally at death into o t h e r 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 " "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<OV

dyaOcov

[X6VTJV, TOCS

Se 9<xuX<ov

1 8 : 1 4 ) h e also e m p h a s i z e s that to " l i v e
194

a g a i n " (dvocPtouv) is a r e w a r d (Tifirj).

In the Pharisaic s c e n a r i o , as o n l y the g o o d are r e w a r d e d in (3:374). A n d there,

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 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 new

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 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<ov dyaOcov (Pharisaic position); Ant. 18:14: ot dpexfj? (Pharisees); War 3:374: those who die naturally (Josephus's position); Ag.Ap. 2:218: TOI$ TOUS v6fxou$ Sio^uXdfocai (Josephus). This is clear whether one takes the final two clauses as elaborations of UTCO X^OVO^ Sixocicoaeig xoci Tiptd^ or as additions. Feldman (LCL edn.) interprets the eternal imprison­ ment and passage to new life as epexegetical: they are the punishments and rewards meted out wed x^6vo?. It is possible, however, that the additional xoci's signify a two-stage recompense, viz.: (a) reward and punishment under the earth and then (b) eternal im­ prisonment or a new life.
1 9 4

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

167

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 <KOU.OC into w h i c h the soul will g o . H e d o e s n o t say explicitly h o w it c o r r e s p o n d s t o the past life o f the soul. W h a t h e d o e s say is that the n e w b o d y will b e dyvo<; a n d will b r i n g a better life. N o w o u t s i d e o f War 3 : 3 7 4 ( J o s e p h u s ' s portrait o f the afterlife), dyvo? o c ­ c u r s o n l y four times in J o s e p h u s .
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 ;
1 9 5

"con­

2 0 0

But it c a n also refer

2 0 1

the v e r b 7teptTpercco often m e a n s " t o

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 t o 2 0 1

168 turn o v e r o r c a p s i z e " .
2 0 2

CHAPTER SIX

A l l three instances o f the v e r b in J o s e p h u s
2 0 3

m e a n " t o invert o r o v e r t u r n " .

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 or 14:487). These ex­

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. Josephus Outside

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 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 o f Josephus, the phrases ex 7ceptTpo7cfjs a n d ev 7cepiTpo7cfj receive a n e w , holy b o d y . 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

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

169

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 -

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

2 0 7

170

CHAPTER SIX authoritative

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,

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 ; and immortality.
211 210

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

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 '

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

2 1 0

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

171

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
2 1 6

to d o with the thesis o f the w o r k : the factiousness o f the r e b e l s .

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 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 ing party 7cdXoct, 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
(TG>V 6U.OVOOUVTG>V

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 ­ 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).

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

2 1 3

172

CHAPTER SIX

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 t h e m e o f War.
217

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, Finally, J o s e p h u s notes that when P o m p e y marched on 13:283).

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

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

2 1 7

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

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

175

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 to b e a P h a r i s e e .
220

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 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 is very far from 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 unrestrained enthusiasm for the group. He 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 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 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).

2 2 0

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 ] " . to the Pharisee passages
222 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 also e n d s u p —though 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 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

o n fate a n d
2 2 5

free will is n o n -

un-Jewish,

224

a n d rather S t o i c .

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
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 2 2 1

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

177

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 in typically J o s e p h a n with style. Examples and 6e6$; are:

<xxpt(ktoc; T O C vofitptoc; octpeats; xetaGoct; etptapfxevT);
229

axptfkta

Boxeco, ef-rryetaOoct, etfiocpuivT] and

T O C v6p.tu.oc; T O C Btxoctoc; cj>ux^l rcotaoc

juxtaposition

of

the

attribution o f decisions to

human

volition;

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

as the

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 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

2 2 9

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 his Jewish Antiquities.
1

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 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.
2

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 the

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

It is p o s s i b l e h e r e o n l y t o s u m ­ p u r p o s e o f Ant. and to

b e e n a s c e r t a i n e d a b o u t the

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 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 War and Ant. in general terms. Finally, we shall s u r v e y the
5

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

1

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 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<ov owiocat 9<xveta9oct Tot? "EXXrjatv aijtav arcouSfjs). T h a t J o s e p h u s expects a G r e e k - p a g a n readership for Ant. several points in the n a r r a t i v e
7 6

is clear at

a n d is spelled o u t again in the c o n c l u s i o n
e/

( 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 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.

ANTIQUITIES then, b y

183 an

is m o t i v a t e d ,

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. Ant. presupposes.
10 9

C o n t e m p o r a r y literary e v i d e n c e reason to b e l i e v e that ordinary

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 W e have good 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

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

9

184

CHAPTER SEVEN
1 1

c o m p o u n d e d b y the revolt in J u d e a

a n d then a g a i n b y the

severe Ant.
12

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

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
1 4

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 ) . 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 ­ 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.
16

T h e first t h e m e 1:14, 2 0 ,

is that o f G o d ' s watchful care (rcpovotoc) for the w o r l d . In

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 .
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

11

THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF

ANTIQUITIES

185

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. should source
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 to participate to highlight (u.£T0cXau.(3avetv) in the virtues this m o r a l Stxaioauvrj, attribute. avopeta, ruinous
19

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 strive so as 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 (euaepeta, (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 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 . 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 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. 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

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 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
2 3

Epicurean philosophy. enters J u d a i s m discussion.
24

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 Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h i c a l

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 as a serious o p t i o n in the

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 sions o f the J e w i s h
26 27

CHAPTER SEVEN

octpeaet^, h e says

explicitly that

the J e w s

do

philosophize. sequel t o Ant.

T h e p o i n t b e c o m e s especially clear in Ag.Ap.,

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 . prehensive " w a y o f l i f e " ;
3 0 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 ­ 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
3 1

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 . To summarize: a longstanding

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. scholarly c o n s e n s u s has a c c e p t e d H e is a n Josephus's presentation o f his m o t i v e s for w r i t i n g Ant.

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 f r o m those o f Ant.
32

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:

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

2 6

THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF

ANTIQUITIES

187

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 9 3 7 3 6 3 5

Ant. often

at­

O t h e r p u b l i c figures
3 8

King Agrippa and Agrippa I I ,
4 0

the h i g h

a n d the R o m a n p r o c u r a t o r s

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<fcxpioc, which was the cause of later judgement on the Jews; (e) Ant. 15:328f., in which Herod's lavish gift-giving are said to evince his departure from Jewish eGrj and v6(xi(ia; (f) Ant. 16:150-159, on Herod's extreme vanity, which violated Jewish law; (g) Ant. 16:183-187, which takes issue with Nicolaus's flattery of Herod; (h) and Ant. 16:400-404, which attributes to Herod a "murderous mind that cannot be turned from evil" (Marcus/Wikgren); cf. also 17:151, 207; 19:329; 20:247ff., and Laqueur, Historiker, 171-221. Cf. War l:108f. with Ant. 13:430£f. See chapter 10, below. Cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 261. Cf. War 4:319-321 with Ant. 20:199; also Cohen, Josephus, 150f. O n Felix, cf. War 2:253-260 with Ant. 20:160-161; also Foakes Jackson, Josephus, 166f. It is the portrayal in Ant. that corresponds more closely to Tacitus's accounts (Histories 5:9; Annals 12:54). O n Festus, cf. War 2:271 with Ant. 20:188. The portrait of Albinus in Ant. 20:197, 204, 215 is not as hostile as War 2:273-276; cf. Cohen, Josephus, 60ff. O n Gessius Florus, the last procurator, both War (2:277-279) and Ant. (20:252-257) are unforgiving. Along with the generally intensified hostility toward the procurators in Ant. goes an
3 4 3 5 3 6 3 7 3 8 3 9 4 0

3 3

188 evaluated.

CHAPTER SEVEN S o m e critics h a v e a r g u e d , finally,
41

that Ant.

has reversed

War's n e g a t i v e portrayal o f the P h a r i s e e s .

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, ' dem
i

Herodes

ungunstige",
4 4

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 . 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 ,
45

w a s c a p a b l e o f such a critical a t t i t u d e . H e r o d (Ant. 16:183ff.),

This theory limited Josephus's
4 6

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 a charge o f which Nicolaus was i n n o c e n t . 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 . 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 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

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

ANTIQUITIES

189

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 . intact.
51 50

It w a s h e , also, w h o w o r k e d have

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 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 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 . changes.
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

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 .
5 3

Laqueur

in his w a t e r s h e d

study o f

Josephus ( 1 9 2 0 ) .

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 . sachen".
5 5 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 r e v i s i o n o f War, especially o n
5 6

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 L a q u e u r thinks that Ant.'s 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

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., question o f n e w material. valiant Antipater t r o u b l e m a k e r in Ant.
59 58

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. (Herod's father) of

It is n o t , therefore, a becomes a malicious War.
60

R o l e s are reversed so that, for e x a m p l e , the War

Conversely, Antipater's H a s m o n e a n opponent

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

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 . Darstellung der
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 "Die der S o the (sc. Ant.) ist also nur erklarlich aus
6 2

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.: Arch. 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 . " 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 rest o f the w o r l d to s u b m i t to the Pax Romana.
63

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

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

5 7

THE

PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF

ANTIQUITIES

191

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 . Josephus's writings.
66 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 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 security.
67

favour guaranteed Josephus's

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 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

against
6 8

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 brother. 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 .
6 9

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 . natural J e w i s h i n s t i n c t s . family in Ant. nationalistic
71 70

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 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 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 :

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

6 4

192

CHAPTER SEVEN

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., 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 . some brief

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

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

7 4

THE

PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF

ANTIQUITIES

193

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.
78 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 1:53-56 J o s e p h u s reflects o n War a n d Ant. a n d b o t h w o r k s (rcepl du^oxepas . . .

4. Finally, in Ag.Ap. have fully

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 a c c o m p l i s h e d this in 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 Pharisees' 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

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.
80

o f Ant. 's portrayal o f the Pharisees has w o n significant O n the o n e

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 .

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 ,
8 2

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 " . to J o s e p h u s .
8 3

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 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

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

8 0

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

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.

Ant.,

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.

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."

8 4

CHAPTER EIGHT

ANT. THE

13:171-173: T H E JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

PHARISEES A M O N G

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
1

under Jonathan,

the

second

Hasmonean

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<p' eauTOts urcapxetv au(xpatvetv xe xat (xrj ytveaOat). The sect (yevos) of the Essenes, however, declares fate the mistress of all things (TCOCVTOOV TTJV etfxapjxevrjv xuptav) and says that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree. 173. But the Sadducees do away with fate, believing that it is nothing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power (arcavTa 8e £9' Tj(xtv auxots xetaOat), so that we ourselves are responsible for our well-being, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness. Of these matters, however, I have given a more detailed account in the second book of the Jewish History*

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

1

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

197

I. Context A t Ant. nean 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 Book 13 o f Ant. recounts the military and diplomatic

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 ­ rule. 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 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 . 13:174ff., of 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 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 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 cabees.
6 5 1 4

political history

' A s it stands, the of Ant.

A t least five p r o p o s a l s irrelevance

perceived

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 s o u r c e s , h o w e v e r , has l o n g

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 ­ H o l s c h e r ' s t h e o r y o f intermediate
7

been out o f favour.

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 . ) . the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , as w e h a v e related
9 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 a b o v e (a>$ xat ev xot£ e7rav<o 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 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 4

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 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 10

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 " . This demonstrable
1 2

W e k n o w that b o t h kinds o f descriptions are
1 3

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 . flexibility in J o s e p h u s ' s presentation prevents

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. o u r passage is the o n e in q u e s t i o n . Moore proposes that
1 4

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 our passage is intended as "a purely

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.

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

199

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 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 X O C T O C TOUTOV TOV yjpovov in an irresponsible way:

interpretation

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 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
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 investigation. 20 w e r e T h e first
V 0 V

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. 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 . chronological c o n n e c t i v e phrases,
1 7

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 especially XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P ° ( 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 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
18

Ant. 13:17ff. is
19

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
2 0

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 iliary is, h o w e v e r , difficult to sources (in the earlier see h o w S c h w a r t z ' s article) justify his

observations o n dismissal of a

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 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,

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

1 5

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
21

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. ( b ) H e finds these phrases events vis-a-vis the especially useful w h e n he has slightly r e a r r a n g e d ' ' a b o u t that t i m e " .
2 2

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 ( 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
2 3

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 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
24

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 xocipov.
Thus Josephus's use of X O C T O C 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 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 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

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

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

2 1

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

201

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, in the c o n t e x t o f

J o s e p h u s s h o u l d h a v e inserted the passage earlier,

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

H e c o n t e n d s that J o s e p h u s wants to between the Hellenistic world's 13:171-173!) and

"apologetic contrast"

e n s l a v e m e n t to eifxapfxevrj (astrologically interpreted,

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 misinterpretations— particular.
30

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

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

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.

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 .

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 6

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) individual.
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

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:

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)— o w c o c v r o c 8e I9' i\\iTv OCUTOU; xetdtai—gives the force of the phrase. See Chapter 6, above.
3 2

3 1

THE

PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

203

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 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

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 a n d ( c ) those (the m a j o r i t y ) w h o
35

attribute e v e r y t h i n g to fate, in its astrological s e n s e .

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.,
3 6

as R a s p

and Weiss have s h o w n .

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 ­ the 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 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
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 3 3

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<p' Yjfxiv eauTOts). T h e p h r a s e xal ou rcavTa, w h i c h is m a d 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. d e p e n d o n h u m a n will. How to explain the development? Most commentators
3 8

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 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 . 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

reavTa.

39

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

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

205
4 1

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 ;

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 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 d o u b l e TIVOC.
43

Nor

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
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<o, 7cpd; sxeivov dpxeaei xptveiv (or xiveTv) TJ[ATV Te auTOi?; cf. chapter 6, above. Cf. chapter 12, below.
4 2 4 3 4 1

206

CHAPTER EIGHT

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".
4 4

responsibility. A s A u g u s t i n e insists, confesses b o t h , and maintains

"the

religious m i n d by the faith of

both,

both

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 require J o s e p h u s to present b o t h Essenes a n d Pharisees as Josephus b e l i e v e d that the Essenes were more pan-heimarmenists, Evidently, the pansuited to

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 .

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
4 5

areas (TIVOC)

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 .

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

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

4 4

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 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 .
50

IV.

Source Analysis 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 comes from someone

It has often b e e n c l a i m e d that Ant.

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

208 copied.
5 1

CHAPTER EIGHT 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
5 2

Damascus.

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 13:171-173 was m a d e b y

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. 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 . judice;
54 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 ( 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
5 5

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 ) ; a n d ( c ) that regardless 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 ,

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$,
56

eua£(ktoc, axpt(kta,

al'peat$,

Stxatoauvn, a n d TO I 9 ' rjulv, a m o n g o t h e r s . pattern perfectly.

H i s use o f et[Jtapuiv7] fits this

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 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 5 1

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

209

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)
5 8

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 . against J o s e p h u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p .

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 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
61

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 . H o w , then, d o e s the fact 13:171that 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. 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, 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 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 62

on

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

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

5 8

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 £<p' r)pZv OCVTOTG xeiaOai TO Te xaXdv xat TO XOCXOV KpoxeteOai xat cos xat dyaOcov atTtous rjjxa? auTOu^ e xaTa yvcojxrjv ixdarou TOUTCOV exdaTepov ytvofxevoix; xat rA x tp°> 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. 1314 o f r e f o r m u l a t i n g the narrative o f War. S c h w a r t z , w h o assign
65

T h e unity o f the s c h o o l Ant.

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 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
66

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 we may proceed statement 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 school
6 4

for dxpt(kta with respect to the laws the other hand, it closely parallels

( 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 passage and since, o n

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

THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

211

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. 13:171173 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<rf[xaTeia$; ( b ) his close r e p r o d u c t i o n here o f the S a d d u c e a n p o s i t i o n as g i v e n in War 2:164f.; a n d ( c ) the fact that in Ant. 18:13 h e will return to the " c o o p e r a t i o n " m o d e l o f fate a n d free will that he h a d g i v e n in War 2 . J o s e p h u s is evidently c o m m i t t e d o n l y to the p r o p o s i t i o n that 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 a 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 from 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. 1 0 : 2 7 7 f f . ) , then the 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

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
2

that

the

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 ­ 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 . narrative a i m s in Ant.
4 3

and

But that is the

historical q u e s t i o n . Josephus's 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 . ) .

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

1

214

CHAPTER NINE

I. Context 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, he reverts to War itself and/or to the sources that he had used for
7 8 5 5

War 1-2 (especially Nicolaus); this material he supplements with various 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

War 1:56-66 (a) 1:56-6 la Hyrcanus' s attempt to free his mother and brothers at Dagon; attack by Antiochus Sidetes. Dealings with Antiochus Sidetes (This expan­ sion drastically alters the sense of War 1:6If.) (b) 1:61b Hyrcanus opens David's tomb, to bribe An­ tiochus (War) or to raise a mercenary army (Ant).
10

Ant. 13:230-287 13:230-237a

13:237b-248, 250-253 13:249

(c) 1:62-63

Hyrcanus's Samaria.

campaigns

in

Idumea

and

13:254-257a

Hyrcanus judaizes Idumea. He renews friendship with Rome. Summary of relations between Hyrcanus and various Seleucid rulers.

13:257b-258 13:267-274 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

5

THE

PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

215 13:275-277 13:275-277 13:281 13:282-283 13:284-287

(d) l:64-65a

Hyrcanus besieges the city of Samaria. Expansion of the Samaritan episode.

(e) 1:65b

Hyrcanus captures and razes Samaria. Legend about Hyrcanus. Note on the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyprus (from Strabo).

(d) l:64-65a

Hyrcanus besieges the city of Samaria. Expansion of the Samaritan episode.

13:275-277 13:275-277 13:281 13:282-283 13:284-287

(e) 1:65b

Hyrcanus captures and razes Samaria. Legend about Hyrcanus. Note on the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and Cyprus (from Strabo).

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<opt<ov M^XP ^pos svnpayta.
1x a t

1 1

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 7udvT<ov Oaptaatcov yvcofxr)). A n d this w o u l d b e c o m e clear to h i m , J o n a t h a n said, if h e asked t h e m w h a t p u n i s h m e n t w a s a p p r o p r i a t e for w h a t h a d b e e n said. W h e n H y r c a n u s asked the Phari­ sees w h a t they c o n s i d e r e d a w o r t h y p u n i s h m e n t ( f o r he w o u l d b e per­ s u a d e d that the slanders h a d n o t b e e n m a d e with their a p p r o v a l , he said, if they a d v o c a t e d p u n i s h i n g E l e a z a r with a c o m m e n s u r a t e p e n a l t y ) , they p r o p o s e d lashes a n d c h a i n s ; for it d i d n o t s e e m right to p u n i s h s o m e o n e with death o n a c c o u n t o f v e r b a l a b u s e a n d , in a n y case, the Pharisees are naturally merciful in the m a t t e r o f punish­ m e n t s (q>uaet 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.<p xaxaXuaat), a n d to p u n i s h those w h o o b s e r v e d these o r d i n a n c e s . T h i s is the r e a s o n , then (ouv evxeuOev), that hatred d e v e l o p e d a m o n g the p o p u l a c e t o w a r d h i m a n d his s o n s . But w e shall speak o f these matters b e l o w .

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. 13:171173 ( § 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 ) . the g u e s t s " .
1 5 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 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
16

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 .

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 is il­ 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 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 .
17

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

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

13

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

219

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 , canus; o n l y the
19 18

whereas are

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 ­ malicious Eleazar and the Sadducee Jonathan villains.

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
2 0

body

o f the

story

(§§

189-296)
21

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 . a n d the P h a r i s e e s the P h a r i s e e s .
24 23 2 2

an extensive written n a r r a t i v e ,

o r an is

T h e J e w i s h character o f the tradition

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 ( 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 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.

220

CHAPTER NINE

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 1 D ? " » "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 . several t i m e s .
32 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 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. 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.

1:35.
2 8 2 9

7:28. 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 3 0

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

221

" 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
35

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 .
36

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. 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 " . in the lit[eral] s e n s e . " foreign to J o s e p h u s ' s
3 8 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 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. 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.
39

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

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
42

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
43

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 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 ,

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

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

3 3

222 Josephus.
4 4

CHAPTER NINE 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 o f War, above,
47

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 ­
4 8

cerpt (Abzug) rather than an original a c c o u n t . Ant. 13:288a closely resembles took Schwartz theorizes that J o s e p h u s

N o w , as w e h a v e seen 1:67a 13:288 in vocabulary. from directly

War Ant.
49

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 . 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.

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

4 4

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

223

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 s o u r c e s for Ant.,
50

m o n o l i t h i c intermediate

the d e g r e e o f J o s e p h u s ' s One cannot argue from

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. 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 own

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

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
5 2

e v o k i n g the

familiar

triad o f

p r o p h e t , priest, a n d k i n g .

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

5 0

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
5 4

longest t i m e as b o t h h i g h priests a n d k i n g s " .

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
55

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 . 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 tone 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 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
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 5 3

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 remarks o n H y r c a n u s .

225 summary

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. fluence 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 o f the Pharisees. 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 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. 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

13:171-173,

5 7

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
6 0

o f the H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y .

59

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

W a s it c o i n c i d e n ­ Ant.,

I n b o t h War a n d
6 2

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 . 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. 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 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.
63

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

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,
66

Josephus

claims

frequently

that

his

brilliance

and of

popularity Gischala.

aroused

the e n v y

o f his o p p o n e n t s ,

especially J o h n

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 ; that Saul
7 0 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
6 9

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 ; fame.

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
71

nobility:

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 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 To 9O0VOV exivrjae at
74 7 3

1:67) t o J o s e p h u s himself. a n d ( b ) the e x a c t elsewhere in his

§ 2 8 8 is also paralleled

writings.

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, fits
7 5

with

Josephus's

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

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 Hyr­

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

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 naturally
7 7

merciful (imtixclx; e'xouatv) in the m a t t e r o f

punishments."

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 A attribute t h e m to his r e d a c t i o n a l efforts. 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 .

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

7 6

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

229

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 calumny. Then, Eleazar is
d e s c r i b e d n o t as ziq TCOV Oocptaoctcov but 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

7 8

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 . 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

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

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 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

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

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.
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 8 1

THE

PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

231

A.

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 and 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; half of those instances have the mundane sense of "fathers" or "fatherhood" in a familial context. Only in 21 cases does Josephus use
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 8 4

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 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. "our Since Josephus's apologetic and p o l e m i c in these b o o k s
8 7

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

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 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 8

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 . 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 " " 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 o f Ant.
noL^iptq

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
(rjpcov)

contrasts

m a r k e d l y with his descriptions o f the Pharisaic vopt(xa. In the short space 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 fathers". 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. Ag.Ap. 1:62; 2:117.

8 8

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

233

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 .
8 9

A g a i n s t ( a ) is the fact that

J o s e p h u s ' s o w n usage o f ot Tzaiiptq

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 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 9 0

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. T J 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 . o c c u r r e n c e s in the Life a n d Ag.Ap. tions.
9 3 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 refer to J o s e p h u s ' s historical p r o d u c ­ report" 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

( 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
94

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 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 ,
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

8 9

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

any by

case, several

the

biblical

king

predates is n o

the

Pharisaic o f his

elders/fathers

centuries,

so there

question

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. 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) (b) 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)." 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) (f) 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 priests." Ag.Ap. 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 (7capa8i8a>at) to the 1 3 : 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 , in

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.
Cf. also Ag.Ap. 1:60, where 7capa8i8c>)(xi is used of the euaePeia implicit in the Mosaic

9 7

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

235

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 to a Pharisaic rcocpocSoaic;
98

and

in the parallels

b e t w e e n TCOcpoc8t8cou.t/
9 9

7capaXau.p<xv(o a n d the " t r a n s m i s s i o n "

terminology o f A v o t .

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 H. 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 .

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
1 0 2

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 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

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 Lists o f StdSoxot b e c a m e the
1 0 4

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 .

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

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 4 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4

9 8

236

CHAPTER NINE
1 0 5

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 .

Several
1 0 6

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 . 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 .

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 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 historical
1 0 7

and

source-critical

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 .

O u r c o n c e r n , o n the o t h e r
108

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 ­ 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 . 4:304).
1 1 1 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. 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 2:187).
1 1 2

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. 2:185). 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 ,

T h e o n e w h o supervises the priests in their task is the h i g h priest

(Ag.Ap.

established to

( 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 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

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

1 0 5

THE

PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

237

day.

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
114

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 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
1 1 5

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 . 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 1 1 6

1:41, w h e n h e refers Accordingly,

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 ) .

w e r e eligible to write the J e w i s h later b o o k s ( 1 : 4 0 ) . told,
1 1 8

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 T h e w o r k s that h a v e b e e n written since, w e are d o n o t h a v e the same status d e a l i n g with p o s t - e x i l i c history,

" 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
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 1 1 3

238

CHAPTER NINE

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
1 2 0

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 . 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 . status.
122 121

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 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 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 v i s i o n o f things. Since Josephus never explains such a Josephus's

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 -

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

1 1 9

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

239

m a i ( A v o t 1:4-12, 1 5 ) . philosophical fashion.
1 2 6

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 setting forth their StaSoxot in Hellenistic

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 school by 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
1 2 7

(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 . 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

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

1 2 5

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 m T l ) , for it was believed by

came to be called the Oral Law (HD praDtf m m ) .

the rabbis to have been delivered at Sinai, along with the Written Law

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
1 3 2

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 . 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

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

1 3 0

242 idea."
136

C H A P T E R NINE

I do not know of any attempt, however,

specifically 13:297.

to To

challenge the Rivkin/Baumgarten interpretation of Ant.

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<ov otaSoxfjs and
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.

THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS

243
137

stress the bound, Neusner.

n o n - M o s a i c p r o v e n a n c e o f Pharisaic to c o n c l u d e in favour

tradition.

We

are and

therefore,

o f Epstein,

Marcus,

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 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

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

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
139

outrageous Tupavvot. with TO
nkfficx;.

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 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 and the 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 people,
1 3 7

140

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 Holscher correctly

passage ( § 2 8 8 ) distinctly pits h i m against b o t h the Pharisees a n d w h o are both m o v e d b y e n v y (966vo$).

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 Pharisees 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

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 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

to

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 d r a m a t i c re-evaluation o f the Pharisees vis-a-vis War.
1

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. Chapter 4, above.

2

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
namely: neus;
5 3

247

the tragedy o f A r i s t o b u l u s I ;
6

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 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 con­
7

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 .

I n the p r e c e d i n g chapter w e saw that, although h e fills o u t retain the fundamental

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 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
9

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 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 . 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 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 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,

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

3

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 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,
14

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 chapter 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 Salobrutality ( 1 : 1 0 7 ) , the w o m a n h a d opened a promising new in the H a s m o n e a n succession. In Ant., h o w e v e r , all o f this

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

1 3

THE

PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II
1 5

249

me) Alexandra ( 1 3 : 3 2 0 ) . who

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 ,
1 6

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 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 . 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

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

1 5

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. (13:400-402)

Schwartz

17

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 include: Xeycoatv/xi

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, TL x ^
a e 7 t o v

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; with the pTaosApOovos t h e m e (cf. War 2 : 8 2 ; 4 : 5 6 6 ; Ant. Ant.17'Al4 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 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
18

powerful leaders of the whole n a t i o n .

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. "Josephus's Pharisees", 238.

1 8

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 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: 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. they are u n p r i n c i p l e d their a p p r o v a l (prjSev 8tx« xffc exetvcov yvcoprjs

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 , 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 " (OepHyrcanus 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

252

CHAPTER TEN

[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 evaluated:

Ant.,

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., 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 she is the 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 attitude t o w a r d Pharisees has also c h a n g e d b e t w e e n War a n d 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

1 9

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II

253

C.

The Pharisees Actions and the Reaction

3

(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. Marcus, ad loc, has "cut down"; but cf. his n. d.

2 2

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<ov) is m o r e v i v i d in Ant. T h e Pharisees are n o l o n g e r c o n t e n t , as in War, t o get rid o f their e n e m i e s m e r e l y b y i n f l u e n c i n g A l e x a n d r a to act; J o s e p h u s n o w c l a i m s e m p h a t i c a l l y that they themselves (OCUTOI TOUTCOV) b e h a v e d v i c i o u s l y , at least in the case o f D i o g e n e s . Finally, w h e r e a s War h a d o n l y briefly n o t e d the plight o f the e m i n e n t citizens (oi ooxouvxes) a n d their appeal to the Q u e e n ( 1 : 1 1 4 ) , Ant. tells us the details o f w h a t they said to A l e x a n d r a ( § § 4 1 1 - 4 1 6 ) a n d t h e r e b y pleads their c a u s e b e f o r e the reader. The 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 , (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 her Pharisaic the Alexandra and sponsors. A s Sympathie and
2 3

" d e n o u n c e s her bitterly"

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 m 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 " . ing
2 4

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 PharisaerregiBefore Smith 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 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

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

2 3

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II

255

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 T T J V (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 has consistently f r o m the Pharisees). championed their A n d these m e n n o w Aristobulus's support for 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 cause. reason m a k i n g his m o v e is n o w g i v e n as follows:

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.

2 5

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 O C U T C O 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 crucifixion of the eight

demanded hundred.
2 7

Alexander's

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. Ant.

13:402. 13:410.

2 7

THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II

257

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 ( T C O C V T O C 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$ O C U T C O VT T J V O C U T T J V 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 the o n c e g l o r i o u s family. disaster. I n short, Alexandra's domestic policy, w h i c h w a s based o n wholesale s u b m i s s i o n t o the

Pharisees, was a n unqualified

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 reputation for euaePeta and

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' 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.
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.
2 8

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 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 1

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 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. 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 criticism w h i c h w a s largely absent f r o m War. narrative that vitiate War's flattering
7 6 4

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 rcaTpioc,
5

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 portraits o f the k i n g , his father ( A n t i p a t e r ) , a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s .

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 8

O u r a u t h o r still

frankly
11

beneficence,
12

1 0

d e v o t i o n to his f a m i l y ,

a n d e v e n his p i e t y , in certain c o n t e x t s .

M o s t i m p o r t a n t , Ant. is still full
1 3

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 . 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 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

injustices

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

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

4

262 law.
1 5

CHAPTER ELEVEN

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 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 1 7

H e r o d , for his part, for his support,

grateful

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! Herod would one day persecute his erstwhile j u d g e s

that

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.

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

15

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 " . 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

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. 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
24

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 : vopot. Further, in Ant. 19:332,
25

they are a m o n g those w h o are o f a certain Simon from

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 w e read 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 ­
27

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.

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 " .
2 0

28

o n the l a w s ,

2 9

or

3 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

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

265 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<p' eauTtp peya 9povouvxa for o n e w h o " h a s a h i g h o p i n i o n o f h i m s e l f (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.
3 2 31

In

keeping

with

established

practice,

Josephus the

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 " . ficulties O r d i n a r i l y , he supplies an infinitive to indicate
33 34

n a t u r e o f the p r e t e n c e .

O n e o f the syntactical ( a n d p e r h a p s textual) dif­ Marcus

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 .

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

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

3 1

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, acted had in concert and under constituted a YUvatxcovTris, w h i c h A n t i p a t e r entirely 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. 18:218).

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. 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<oat^, 1 7 : 4 3 ) a n d their issuing o f fraudulent p r e d i c t i o n s . T h e y p r o ­ m i s e (7CpoXey<o) P h e r o r a s a n d his wife that they a n d their children will assume the t h r o n e in p l a c e o f H e r o d ' s line. T h e y also p r e d i c t that a cer­ tain e u n u c h n a m e d B a g o a s will sire a k i n g w h o will restore his r e p r o d u c ­ tive c a p a c i t y ( 1 7 : 4 3 - 9 5 ) . T h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s suggest that 7cpop7jGeT^ in 17:41 refers to the Pharisees' predictions: although they c o u l d h a v e u s e d their talents o f d i v i n a t i o n for the k i n g ' s benefit, they c h o s e instead to use t h e m against h i m . O n the syntactical p r o b l e m : M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n s e e m to take rcpocaaetv as intransitive a n d rcpop7)Gets attributively, 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
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 3 7

THE

PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II

267

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
4 0

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 .

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 . to have
4 2 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 and, indeed, Hasmonean downfall o f the

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 p r o p h e s i e d (7cpo97)xeuaev) the
43

house,

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 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,

the r e v o l t . We our

Ant. 2 0 : 9 7 ) b u t w e r e n o t . 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
4 4

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 a n d 31 o f these o c c u r ­

34 o f those instances the sense is " t o p r e d i c t " , God
3 9

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 himself
45

or a prophet

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 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 . come;
5 1 5 0 49 4 8 47

a n d ( c ) the Pharisees, in o u r

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 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 )
5 2

figure p r o m i n e n t l y .

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 peytcrccov 7cp097 )T6 >v)"
53

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

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).
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

4 7

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,
5 8

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 . 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 time.
6 0

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 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 61

many

and some Pharisees

63

a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t the

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,
6 4

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 . 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 )
65

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 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
6 6

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

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 claims that h e h a d accurately

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 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

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 Further indications o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r o ­ o f the ( 5 ) his in his
68

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
6 9

biblical narrative so as to e n h a n c e the role o f p r o p h e t s ; 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
72 7 0

( 4 ) the parallels

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 ; the priesthood;
71

( 6 ) his consistent correla­ omission,

( 7 ) 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 ; little d o u b t , Josephus a n d ( 8 ) his stated intention to b e g i n w r i t i n g War
7 3

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 . in v i e w o f v a n Unnik's and "wiinschte sich, als P r o p h e t angesehen

There can be
7 4

B l e n k i n s o p p ' s w o r k , that zu w i s s e n " . 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 ancient prophetic texts. This principle explains

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 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
76

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). 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

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

67

THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II

271

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 <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 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 78 77

addition

to

scriptural exegesis, the
80

post-biblical seer

is and

often the our

e n g a g e d , like his biblical p r e d e c e s s o r s , mediate Essenes d i v i n e manifestations, both interpret the future

in the interpretation o f i m ­
8 1

especially d r e a m s . J o s e p h u s b y interpreting d r e a m s .

In

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 " . Tupoupevo?)
84 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 (xaXoxayaOtoc pap85

rcpoyvtoats TCOV peXXovTcov w a s p r o o f o f his virtue

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^).

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

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

77

272 Josephus's

CHAPTER ELEVEN 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 . 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
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'

On the suggestion that the mention of this fine contradicts Ant. 15:370, see the source-critical discussion below.

8 7

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 . i n g against h i m .
8 9 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 ­ Particularly in the last years o f his life, in w h i c h o u r
90

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 .

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)
£ a

The

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

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

8 8

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? S t o c 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

THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II

275

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.
94

The own of

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 testimony!)
95

c a n cite Ant. the party

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 that the Pharisees considered themselves

<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 o f Ant. a Ashkelon.
9 7 9 6

a n d the r e p o r t e d incidents t o o k p l a c e in perhaps written by Ptolemaeus of

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 of Herod,

biography

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 o f D^tfTID as Oocptaoctot
98

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 .

O n the q u e s t i o n o f the real 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 , it w a s not

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. 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 p o s e d in the scholarly literature.

17:41-45

authorship have been pro­

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.
9 9

This objection presupposes, o f But

c o u r s e , that J o s e p h u s

h i m s e l f w a s partial t o w a r d the Pharisees.

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 .
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

9 4

276

CHAPTER ELEVEN

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. thinks The the use o f the third p e r s o n — p o p t o v xt 'IouSatxcov avOptorctov
1 0 3

( 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 " . 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

He

(Nicolaus).
1 0 4

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 ! tion is n o t at all clear.
1 0 6

or He

1 0 5

S o the force o f this o b j e c ­

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

1 0 1

THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II

277

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. h e d o e s the s a m e with Ant. 17:41-45.
1 0 7

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 , O u r analysis o f the earlier himself: 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 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

therefore the verbal parallels speak in f a v o u r of, rather than against, 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.
1 1 1

Further, J o s e p h u s accurate

nowhere

claims that o n l y that

"the they

Pharisees were the

most

expounders",

but

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<ov aXXcov axptPeta Sta^ipetv. Rivkin, loc. cit.

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; t