Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ON THE PHARISEES
STUDIA POST-BIBLICA
I N S T I T U T A A P.A.H. DE BOER
ADIUVANTIBUS
EDIDIT
J.C.H LEBRAM
BY
STEVE MASON
E.J. BRILL
LEIDEN • NEW YORK • K0BENHAVN • KOLN
1991
The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Com
mittee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library
Resources.
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 0169-9717
ISBN 90 04 09181 5
P R I N T E D IN T H E N E T H E R L A N D S
For my parents,
Terry and Grace Mason
CONTENTS
Preface a n d A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s xm
Abbreviations xvi
PART I
INTRODUCTION
C H A P T E R 1. M e t h o d in the S t u d y o f Pharisaic H i s t o r y 1
I. T h e G o a l o f R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees 4
II. T h e S o u r c e s for R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees 7
I I I . T h e P r o c e d u r e o f R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees 10
S u m m a r y and Conclusion 16
C o n c l u s i o n to Part I
T h e N e e d for a N e w Study o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees 40
A i m s o f the S t u d y 41
P r o c e d u r e o f the Study 42
E x c u r s u s : A P r e l i m i n a r y A s s e s s m e n t o f J o s e p h u s as an A u t h o r 45
I. T h e Source Problem 45
II. J o s e p h u s ' s Literary Assistants 48
I I I . Christian Influence o n the T e x t 51
P A R T II
P A R T III
C H A P T E R 7. T h e P u r p o s e a n d O u t l o o k o f Antiquities 181
I. Preface a n d D o m i n a n t T h e m e s 182
II. R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n War a n d Antiquities 186
I I I . T h e Pharisees in Antiquities 193
S u m m a r y and Conclusion 195
CONTENTS IX
P A R T IV
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 325
I. 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 326
II. A r g u m e n t s O f f e r e d in S u p p o r t o f Josephus's Pharisaic
Allegiance 330
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 339
Steve M a s o n
T o r o n t o , 1990
ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE
1
Programmatic in many ways was the debate between Abraham Geiger (Das Juden-
thum 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.
2
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.
3
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], 77-
91); 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).
4
Cf., e.g., M . D . Hussey, "The Origin of the Name Pharisee", JBL 39 (1920), 66-
69; 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.
5
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 CHAPTER ONE
6
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 ? W e r e they involved in
7 8
political l i f e ? 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)?
6
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.
7
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).
8
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 Hero-
dian Periods in Jewish History" (dissertation, Brandeis, 1970), whose conclusions have
an indirect bearing on the problem.
9
O n the basis of such evidence as is cited by J. Jeremias (Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu [Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958], 134-138), most scholars have believed that the
Pharisees exercised the dominant religious influence in pre-70 Palestine, even if they
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY 3
1 0
d i d t h e y relate to the rest o f their s o c i e t y ? A l l o f these issues, which
w o u l d s e e m e l e m e n t a r y for u n d e r s t a n d i n g the P h a r i s e e s , are n o t only
1 1
u n r e s o l v e d ; they are still v i g o r o u s l y debated.
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 the
1 2
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 the
Pharisees, a new scholarly effort has emerged within the last two
decades. 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 E. Rivkin, this
e n d e a v o u r is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y the w i l l i n g n e s s to p o s e a n e w the b a s i c a n d
( i n that sense) radical q u e s t i o n : H o w c a n w e k n o w a n y t h i n g a b o u t the
Pharisees? N e u s n e r o p e n s his s t u d y as f o l l o w s :
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.
1 0
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 narrow-
minded legalists, an esteemed scholar class and an irrelevant sect.
1 1
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.
1 2
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 "Pharisaic-
Rabbinic Judaism: A Clarification", HR 12 (1973), 68.
13
Politics, xix.
4 CHAPTER ONE
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
15
try to establish rigorous academic standards for answering i t .
14
Revolution, 3If.
15
E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 62.
1 6
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.
METHOD IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY 5
17
Kohler, "Pharisees", JE, 666. Cf. also Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, 3.
1 8
R . L. Rubenstein, "Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites: A Study in Rabbinic
Psychology", Judaism 12 (1963), 456.
1 9
For Jesus, cf. M k 7:1-23; M t 23 and passim. For Paul, cf. Phil 3:5-9.
2 0
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.
21
Das Wesen des Christentums (Stuttgart: Ehrenfried Klotz, 1950 [1900]), 43, 62f.
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 -
2 2
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 . 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 :
2 2
R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948), 213.
2 3
Ibid.
2 4
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).
2 5
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.
2 6
Kleine Schriften, 42.
METHOD IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY 7
2 7
See n. 6 above.
2 8
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.
2 9
See n. 2 above.
3 0
J. Leipoldt and W . Grundmann, Umwelt des Urchristentums (2 vols.; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965-66), I, 269-278.
3 1
Geiger, Geschichte, 87ff.; Urschrift, 103.
3 2
Holtzmann, "Malachi".
3 3
Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 79ff.; Foerster, "Ursprung", 35ff.; and Beilner,
"Ursprung", 245f.
3 4
Neusner, Politics, 4.
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, p r e s u m a b l y o n the
3 6
basis o f such evidence. Y e t the assumptions i n v o l v e d are clearly
d e b a t a b l e : ( a ) p r e s u p p o s e s that the Pharisees ( i ) w e r e i n d e e d o p p o s e d to
the H a s m o n e a n s a n d (ii) w e r e the o n l y o n e s so o p p o s e d ; ( b ) assumes that
the messianic h o p e was p e c u l i a r to the Pharisees, that they w e r e political
quietists, a n d that J o s e p h u s w a s c o r r e c t in his c l a i m that the c o m b i n a t i o n
o f fate a n d free will was a Pharisaic distinctive. E v e r y o n e o f these tacit
37
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 , yet
such a s s u m p t i o n s h a v e b e e n c o m m o n . W e l l h a u s e n o p e n l y c o n f e s s e d his
belief that the o n l y significant Gegensatz in first-century B C Palestine was
that between Pharisees and Sadducees; hence, opposition to the
38
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:
3 5
Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 628ff.
3 6
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.
3 7
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)?
3 8
Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 111.
3 9
Black, "Pharisees", IDB, 111, emphasis added.
4 0
Schubert, "Parties and Sects", 89.
4 1
Schurer, Geschichte, III, 375.
4 2
Grundmann, Umwelt, I , 286.
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY 9
43
Zweifel, that Jubilees is P h a r i s a i c ; H. D . M a n t e l c o n s i d e r s it n o n -
44 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 -
46
meinschaft des ersten vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts kennen l e r n e n .
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
50
sources qualify.
4 3
Schurer, Geschichte, III, 375.
4 4
Mantel, "Sadducees and Pharisees", 99.
4 5
Cited in Schurer, Geschichte, III, 375.
4 6
Jeremias, Jerusalem, 131.
4 7
Ibid.
4 8
Cf. T . H . Gaster, The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect (London: Seeker & Warburg,
1957), 43.
4 9
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.
5 0
Rivkin, Revolution, 31.
10 CHAPTER ONE
5 1
with the M i s h n a h . " T h e qualification " f o r n o w " is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e
a p e r m a n e n t e x c l u s i o n o f all o t h e r sources w o u l d b e p r e m a t u r e . B e c a u s e
sectarian, p s e u d o n y m o u s , a n d especially a p o c a l y p t i c literature rarely
m e n t i o n s the actual n a m e s o f its characters, preferring c o d e s o r ciphers,
the a b s e n c e o f the P h a r i s e e s ' n a m e f r o m these texts m i g h t b e e x p e c t e d
e v e n if they w e r e b e i n g referred t o . Nevertheless, a d e c i s i o n o n this p o i n t
will p r e s u p p o s e a p r i o r b o d y o f " c o n t r o l " i n f o r m a t i o n o n the Pharisees,
w h i c h c a n o n l y b e safely a c q u i r e d b y historical analysis o f the three first-
o 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 .
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
5 2
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 . Neusner's
j u d g e m e n t m e e t s the p o i n t :
5 1
Neusner, Politics, 4.
5 2
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.
5 3
Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, III, 304.
METHOD IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY 11
5 4
Herford, Pharisees, 14.
5 5
Finkelstein, Pharisees, I, xxiii; cf. Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, pp. I V , 2-4, and
Kohler, "Pharisees", JE, 661.
3 6
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: Vallen-
tine - Mitchell, 1960), 134f.; and Sanders, Paul, 33f.
5 7
Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 33f.
5 8
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.
6 0
Baumgarten, "Name", 413-420.
6 1
Bowker, Jesus, 36; Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 162ff.
12 CHAPTER ONE
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
64
of the definitions with the o t h e r s .
6 2
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.
6 3
Neusner, Politics, 6.
6 4
Rivkin, Revolution, 3If.
6 5
A . Momigliano, "Historicism Revisited", in his Essays in Ancient and Modern
Historiography (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977), 368f.
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
6 7
the a u t h o r m e a n to c o n v e y ? 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
6 8
emaTrifxr), k n o w l e d g e ? H a v i n g listened to the c l a i m s o f e a c h s o u r c e ,
h o w c a n the critic d i s c e r n w h a t really h a p p e n e d ?
R i v k i n ' s o w n p r o c e d u r e b e c o m e s i n a d e q u a t e at this p o i n t . I n the e n d ,
he e x p e c t s s i m p l y to c o m p a r e the resulting presentations o f the Pharisees
in the h o p e o f f i n d i n g a g r e e m e n t a m o n g t h e m :
6 6
Cf. M . Bloch, Apologie der Geschichte oder der Berufdes Historikers (2d. edn.; E. Klett
- J . G . Cotta, 1974), 65, who points out the limitations of eyewitness evidence, even
under the most favourable circumstances. See now G. L. Wells and E. F. Loftus (edd.),
Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives (Cambridge: University Press, 1984).
6 7
Cf. B. F. Meyer, Aims of Jesus (London: S C M , 1979), 89f.
6 8
Cf. Collingwood (Idea, 20-30) on ancient attempts to grapple with both the
philosophical and historical aspects of this problem.
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
69
is truly viable and as objective as the nature of our sources will a l l o w ?
6 9
Rivkin, Revolution, 32.
7 0
Ibid., 31.
7 1
Rivkin, Revolution, 54.
7 2
Cf. B.F. Meyer, Aims, 89f.; M . Bloch, Apologie, 125f.
7 3
Cf. M . Bloch, Apologie, 65, 76f.
7 4
I refer to the logic of the "criterion of discontinuity", a trenchant critique of which
is offered by B. F. Meyer, Aims, 84ff.
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY 15
7 5
his r e a d e r s t o b e l i e v e i t . 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 somewhere other than his
7 6
o w n e x p e r i e n c e o f the "facts".
For these t w o 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 a c c e p t i n g the residue.
7 7
How, t h e n , to c o n v e r t the "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
7 8
ject. W h a t is r e q u i r e d is that the critic, h a v i n g n o w listened to e a c h o f
the s o u r c e s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f the P h a r i s e e s , step f o r w a r d to p o s e his o w n
7 5
R . Laqueur (Der judische Historiker Flavius Josephus [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1970 (1920)], 246) claims that Josephus's autobiographical statements
in Life 1-12, because they serve an apologetic purpose, are of dubious worth (allerun-
sicherste 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."
7 6
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 7
The phrase is from B. F. Meyer, Aims, 90.
7 8
Cf. M . Bloch, Apologie, 79f.
16 C H A P T E R ONE
7 9
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 . 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 . " The
critic seeks to formulate a h y p o t h e s i s as to what really h a p p e n e d that will
account for all o f the relevant presentations in the sources. As
M o m i g l i a n o puts it, the historian " h a s to assess the v a l u e o f his e v i d e n c e
n o t in terms o f simple reliability, b u t o f r e l e v a n c e to the p r o b l e m s he
8 1
wants to s o l v e " .
T h i s f o r m u l a t i o n a n d d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f h y p o t h e s e s r e q u i r e s o f the in
terpreter a fundamental shift in p e r s p e c t i v e f r o m the exegetical phase o f
the investigation. T h e n , h e w a s c o n c e r n e d with g r a s p i n g the a u t h o r ' s
m e a n i n g ; n o w , he will present his o w n a c c o u n t . T h e n , he w a s l o o k i n g
for the witness's intentional statements; n o w , he seeks the unintentional
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 . Thus,
historical analysis has often been c o m p a r e d to a c o u r t r o o m c r o s s -
8 3
examination. O n c e the witnesses h a v e all b e e n h e a r d o n their o w n
terms a n d h a v e g i v e n their o w n interpretations (the exegetical p h a s e ) ,
the investigator steps forward to pose his questions, in order to
r e d i s c o v e r the events that s t o o d b e h i n d all o f the a c c o u n t s .
7 9
Cf. Collingwood, Idea, 218f.
8 0
B. F. Meyer, Aims, 88.
8 1
Momigliano, Essays, 368f.
8 2
On the value of unintentional evidence, see M . Bloch, Apologie, 76-84.
8 3
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,
Essays, 162f.
M E T H O D IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY 17
8 4
On these points, cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 32f.
CHAPTER T W O
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
OF JOSEPHUS'S PHARISEES
1
One can gain some impression of the number of potential references to Josephus's
Pharisees by perusing H . Schreckenberg, Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1968), the Supplementband thereto (1979), and L. H . Feldman, Josephus and Modern
Scholarship (1937-1980), ed. W . Haase (Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1983).
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 19
2
H . Paret, "Uber den Pharisaismus des Josephus", TSK 29 (1856), 809-844, esp.
809-811.
3
Ibid., 816-823. The other arguments, as indicated above, will be considered in Part
IV of this study.
4
Ibid., 816.
5
Ibid., 816-818.
6
Ibid., 819-820.
7
Ibid., 818.
8
Ibid., 820-823.
20 CHAPTER T W O
9
E. Gerlach, Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus
(Berlin: Hertz, 1863). The testimonium is the paragraph Ant. 18:63-64, which speaks of
Jesus as "the Messiah".
1 0
Ibid., 5.
11
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.
12
Ibid., 6-19.
13
Ibid., 8.
1 4
Cf. War 2:140.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 21
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 .
2 0
Holscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) . A l t h o u g h m o s t o f these authors e x p r e s s e d n o par
ticular interest in the Pharisee passages o f J o s e p h u s , their s o u r c e analy-
15
Cf. War 2:154; 7:344; Ag.Ap. 2:203.
1 6
Gerlach, Weissagungen, 13-16.
17
Ibid., 11 and n.
1 8
Ibid., 10.
1 9
Ibid., 18f.
2 0
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
4
(Marburg, 1887); W . Otto, "Herodes", PWRESup, II, 1-15; G. Holscher, Josephus",
PWRE, X V I I I , 1934-2000.
22 CHAPTER T W O
Seine Quelle also hat Jos. das Material gegeben, hat ihm die Disposition
desselben ubermittelt und schliesslich sogar ihn so zu bestricken gewusst,
22
dass er sein selbstandiges Urteil d r a n g a b .
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:
24
On Holscher's view, although Josephus was a Pharisee, 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
2 5
18:1 If. is " a n e r k e n n e n d " . 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
not find any strong Pharisaic p e r s p e c t i v e in J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee
passages. H i s a r g u m e n t , h o w e v e r , w a s that these passages, like m o s t o f
Ant. a n d a g o o d p i e c e o f War, tell m o r e a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e s than
they d o a b o u t J o s e p h u s himself.
2 1
The article comprises cols. 1934-2000, the last four of which are devoted to
bibliography. The source analysis extends from cols. 1943 to 1996.
2 2
Destinon, Quellen, 101. Similarly, Bloch (Quellen, 157-159) found Josephus guilty of
sklavische Abhdngigkeit.
2 3
Holscher, 'Josephus", 1936.
2 4
Ibid., 1945.
2 5
Ibid., 1936 and n. + + . Holscher also suggests that Josephus's own Pharisaic stand
point comes through in Ant. 13:297f.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 23
2 6
Ibid., 1939, 1942, 1949.
2 7
Ibid., 1944.
2 8
Ibid., 1949 and n. + .
2 9
Ibid., 1946f.
3 0
Ibid., 1944-1948.
3 1
Ibid., 1951.
3 2
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.
3 3
Ibid., 1962.
24 CHAPTER T W O
3 4
Hasmoneans. These observations led Holscher to propose that
J o s e p h u s is here u s i n g a tendentious r e w o r k i n g o f N i c o l a u s b y a p r o -
Hasmonean J e w i s h p o l e m i c i s t . T h i s polemicist was able to critique
N i c o l a u s b y c o n s u l t i n g also a b i o g r a p h y o f H e r o d , w h i c h b e c a m e the
3 5
m a i n source for Ant. 15-17. In addition to these t w o m a i n sources,
N i c o l a u s ' s Verfdlscher used local J e w i s h l e g e n d s , a high priest list, collec
36
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 . T h e polemicist
was e v e n responsible, H o l s c h e r t h o u g h t , for the asides a n d reflections
that a p p e a r in Ant. 13-17.
37
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
38
the Pharisee passages in Ant. But since he c o n c e i v e d o f the polemicist
as o n l y an intermediate s o u r c e , H o l s c h e r c o u l d also trace the Pharisee
passages b a c k to earlier o r i g i n s : s o m e he r e g a r d e d as elements o f J e w i s h
3 9 4 0
tradition o r l e g e n d , 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 , and an
4 1
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 Pharisee-
S 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 the Pharisee
4 2
P o l l i o n (Ant. 1 5 : 4 ) . Finally, H o l s c h e r attributed the description o f the
schools in Ant. 18:11-25 m a i n l y to the p o l e m i c i s t , o n the g r o u n d that
J o s e p h u s the Pharisee c o u l d h a r d l y have n a m e d a Pharisee as a c o -
43
f o u n d e r o f the zealot f a c t i o n .
3 4
Ibid., 1970-1973.
3 5
Ibid., 1977f.
3 6
Ibid., 1973f.
3 7
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. 20:154-
157, which reminded Holscher of Ant. 16:187, which he had already attributed to the
polemicist.
3 8
Ant. 13:171-173 falls outside this block; nevertheless, Holscher (1973) attributed it
also to the polemicist.
3 9
Ibid., 1973f. He included Ant. 13:171-173; 15:3, 370-372 in this category.
4 0
Ibid., 1973, 1975 (and n.), on Ant. 13:400-432.
4 1
Ibid., 1979, on Ant. 17:41-45.
4 2
Ibid., 1973f.
4 3
Ibid., 1991; cf. Ant. 18:4.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 25
4 4
Ibid., 1981f.
4 5
Ibid., 1974f., 1982, 1983.
4 6
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).
4 7
B. Brune, Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhdltnis zum Judentume, zur
griechisch-rbmischen Welt und zum Christentum (Gutersloh: G. Mohn, 1969 [1913]).
4 8
Ibid., 20.
26 CHAPTER T W O
49
that c u l t u r e . Brune finds m a n y changes o f expression throughout
J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s , b u t h e attributes t h e m to the a u t h o r ' s desire for
e l e g a n c e a n d the a v o i d a n c e o f m o n o t o n y , rather than to n e w s o u r c e s .
The crucial p o i n t for B r u n e is that one can discover throughout
J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s clear a n d consistent t h e m e s ; a n d it is those t h e m e s that
50
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 that had turned Josephus into a "stumpfen
5 1
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
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 field o f classical
5 2
studies in his d a y . 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
legitimate and indispensable presupposition o f historical research,
n a m e l y , " d a s s d e r V e r f a s s e r eines T e x t e s ein v e r n u n f t b e g a b t e s W e s e n
5 3
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
5 4
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 . La
queur, then, wanted to allow Josephus responsibility for his own
writings.
4 9
Brune (13-16) pointed to the rhetorical skill evident in Josephus's speeches as
evidence of his facility in Greek style. B rune's assumption that educated Palestinian Jews
of the first century would have been familiar with Greek has been more than vindicated
since his time; cf., among others, S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942); idem., Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950); M . Smith, "Palestinian
Judaism"; M . Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus (Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr-P. Siebeck,
1969), 108ff.; and T . Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (London: Duckworth,
1983), 47-51.
5 0
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 .
5 1
Laqueur, Historiker, Vllf.; cf. 128-132 and 230-245 ("Eine methodische
Grundfrage").
5 2
Ibid., 129.
5 3
Ibid., 231.
5 4
Ibid., 130-131; cf. Life 2.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 27
5 5
This question occupied the first half of Laqueur's study, pp. 6-128.
5 6
Ibid., 132.
5 7
Ibid., 131.
5 8
Ibid., 132.
5 9
Ibid., 131ff., 246.
6 0
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).
28 CHAPTER T W O
61
ZNW 23 (1924), 27-47.
6 2
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.
6 3
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.
6 4
Ibid., 32f.
6 5
Ibid., 33f.
6 6
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.
6 7
Ibid., Rasp, 36f.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 29
6 8
Ibid., 36-43.
6 9
Ibid., 44-46. Cf. Ag.Ap. 1:182 / / War 2:120, 133, and Ag.Ap. 1:191 / / War 2:152.
7 0
Ibid., 46-47.
7 1
Ibid., 46.
7 2
Ibid., 47
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 .
7 3
Rasp acknowledged it (34, 36).
7 4
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.
7 5
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.
7 6
Ibid., 198-199.
7 7
Cf. War 1:110f.; Ant 15:3; Life 191.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 31
7 8
b u t o n e atpeat? a m o n g m a n y . S e c o n d , Schlatter held that m u c h o f
Josephus's Pharisee material came from the pagan Nicolaus o f
D a m a s c u s , w h o m J o s e p h u s allowed t o d e t e r m i n e n o t o n l y the c o n t e n t
79
(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 the
p e r i o d o f his administration there, a l t h o u g h they must h a v e p l a y e d an
i m p o r t a n t r o l e , a n d ( c ) u n d e r t a k i n g a full d e f e n c e o f J u d a i s m , in Ag.Ap.,
w i t h o u t o n c e m e n t i o n i n g the r a b b i n i c leaders w h o c o n t r o l l e d J u d a i s m at
80
the e n d o f the first c e n t u r y . J o s e p h u s ' s o w n anti-rabbinic attitude,
therefore, calls for an e x p l a n a t i o n .
Schlatter suggested that J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the n a m e " P h a r i s e e s " for
the r a b b i s , rather than "sages/ao^taTOtt", i n d i c a t e d that his dispute with
81
t h e m w a s political a n d n o t r e l i g i o u s . T h a t is, J o s e p h u s r e v e r e d the
r a b b i s as s u c h , in their religious a n d t e a c h i n g functions, a n d com
8 2
m e n d e d their exegesis o f the l a w s . 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
8 3
ab." 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
8 4
a c c o u n t o f an insider. H e d i s c o v e r e d : ( 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
85
sponsored a vigorous programme o f education; ( d ) that their teachers
o c c u r r e d in pairs, w h i c h reflects their self-understanding as tradents
7 8
Schlatter, Theologie, 196.
7 9
Ibid., 201f.
8 0
Ibid., 202.
8 1
Ibid., 203-204.
8 2
Cf. War 1:110, 649; Ant. 17:149, 216.
8 3
Ibid., 203.
8 4
Ibid., 205-208.
8 5
Cf. the references to "disciples" or "students" at War 1:649; Ant. 13:289; 15:3;
17:149.
32 CHAPTER T W O
86
rather than as individual i n n o v a t o r s ; ( 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 ; (f)
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 respon
sibility; a n d ( g ) that the p o p u l a r influence o f the Pharisees g r e w in the
early part o f the first c e n t u r y .
L i k e those w h o w e n t b e f o r e h i m , Schlatter b o t h r e c o g n i z e d the
negative t o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees a n d sought to e x
plain h o w J o s e p h u s , as a Pharisee himself, c o u l d h a v e written it. O n e
c a n discern in his treatment the c o m b i n e d influence o f s o u r c e criticism
and Laqueur's emphasis o n Josephus's circumstances as decisive.
Nevertheless, Schlatter's w o r k is a strange c o m b i n a t i o n o f literary a n d
historical analysis. H e w e n t far b e y o n d J o s e p h u s ' s intentional, explicit
remarks a b o u t the Pharisees, s u p p o s i n g that virtually a n y religious
teacher w h o h a d an interest in the L a w w a s a Pharisee/Sage a n d u s i n g
that identification to shed light o n the Pharisees. But this p r o c e d u r e
bypasses the q u e s t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s literary p u r p o s e . Further, Schlatter
i n v o k e d external criteria, such as his belief that the Pharisees/Sages w e r e
u n w i l l i n g to c o - o p e r a t e with R o m e , to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t .
T h e s e factors m a k e it difficult to c o m p a r e Schlatter's w o r k directly with
simple analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages.
8 6
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).
8 7
Cf. Josephus's own "conversion" to Pharisaism, Life 10-12.
8 8
Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 71-73. He cites, for example, various baptist
groups, the Essenes, and the many practitioners of magic.
8 9
Ibid., 74-79.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 33
9 0
Ibid., 72.
9 1
Smith believed (p. 77) that the Pharisees were negotiating for Roman support when
Josephus wrote Ant..
9 2
Ibid., 79f. Smith also adduces parallels between the Pharisees and the Greek
philosophical schools.
34 CHAPTER T W O
9 3
J. Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", Ex Orbe Religionum, 224-253.
9 4
Ibid., 225.
9 5
Ibid., 226-227.
9 6
Ibid., 227-230.
9 7
Ibid., 238.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 35
9 8
Ibid.
9 9
Ibid., 238-243.
1 0 0
Neusner, Politics, 146.
101
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).
36 CHAPTER T W O
1 0 2
Rivkin, Revolution, 33.
1 0 3
Ibid., 34-37.
1 0 4
Ibid., 38-41.
1 0 5
Ibid., 49; cf. 63.
1 0 6
Ibid., 53.
1 0 7
Ibid., 66f.
1 0 8
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.
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 37
1 0 9
Ibid., 70.
1 1 0
Ibid., 330.
1 1 1
JSJ 14 (1983), 157-171.
1 1 2
Ibid., 157.
1 1 3
These are Ant. 13:171-173, 288, 401f.; 17:41-45.
1 1 4
Ibid., 162.
1 1 5
Ibid.
1 1 6
Ibid., 163. The passages are War 2:162-163 and Ant. 18:12-15.
38 CHAPTER T W O
1 1 7
Ibid., 165f.
1 1 8
Ibid., 167f.
1 1 9
Ibid., 169.
1 2 0
Ibid.
1 2 1
Ibid.
1 2 2
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).
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 39
1
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..
2
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.
CONCLUSION T O PART ONE 41
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
3
ausgeschopft?
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
4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973-1983. Supplement I: Namenwdrterbuch zu Flavius
Josephus, ed. A. Schalit (1968).
5
As van Unnik himself pointed out, in anticipation of the work's completion (Schrift-
steller, 16, 21).
42 CONCLUSION T O PART ONE
6
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
7
Cf. Juel, Messiah, 30.
8
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.
9
War 1:571; 2:411; Ant. 15:3-4, 370; Life 21.
44 CONCLUSION T O PART ONE
1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1952-1955.
46 EXCURSUS
2
Ibid., 1957.
3
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).
4
Cf. n. 49 of chapter 2 above.
5
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.
6
E.g., Ant. 16:183-187.
EXCURSUS 47
7
H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1972), 40-45, 141-14.
8
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.
9
H . W . Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius
Josephus (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976), 17.
1 0
A . Pelletier, Flavius Josephe: adapteur de la lettre d'Aristee (Paris: Klincksieck, 1962),
252ff.
11
H . R . Moehring, "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus"
(dissertation, University of Chicago, 1957), 145.
1 2
H . Schreckenberg, Rezeptionsgeschichtliche und textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius
Josephus (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 173.
48 EXCURSUS
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
1 6
written o n l y in A r a m a i c .
B . In Ag.Ap. 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 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
17
literary s k i l l .
C . In Ant., T h a c k e r a y finds e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s weariness at the e n d
o f b o o k 14, for the a c c o u n t in War is repeated almost v e r b a t i m . W i t h
b o o k 15, h o w e v e r , a n e w style a n d r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f material vis-a-vis
War take o v e r . M o r e o v e r , Ant. 15-16 a n d 17-19, seen as t w o b l o c k s ,
possess distinctive stylistic features that b e a r affinities to particular
18
classes o f G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e .
1 3
Feldman, Modern Scholarship, 554.
1 4
Such problems are common to all writers, especially those of long works—even
when remarkable technological resources are available for assistance!
1 5
Thackeray, Josephus, 100-124.
1 6
Ibid., lOlf.
1 7
Ibid., 105.
1 8
Ibid., 107-115.
EXCURSUS 49
1 9
Ibid., 107.
2 0
Ibid., 113.
21
Ibid., 106.
2 2
Ibid., 100.
2 3
G. C . Richards, "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities", CQ33 (1939), 36-40.
2 4
R . J. H . Shutt, Studies in Josephus (London: SPCK, 1961), 59-75.
2 5
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.
2 6
Schutt, Studies, 63.
2 7
Ibid., 64-65.
50 EXCURSUS
2 8
Ibid., 66-68.
2 9
Ibid., 68-74.
3 0
Ibid., 74-75.
3 1
Rajak, Josephus, 47-63, 233-236.
3 2
Ibid., 8, 21, 42.
3 3
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.
3 4
Ibid., 50.
3 5
Ibid., 62-63.
EXCURSUS 51
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
38
early s t a g e .
3 6
Ibid., 233-236.
3 7
Ibid.
3 8
Ibid. 63.
3 9
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).
52 EXCURSUS
4 0
Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, 4.
4 1
Ibid.
EXCURSUS 53
Summary
1
The terminus a quo is the dedication of the Temple of Peace in A D 75 (Dio Cassius
66:15), which is mentioned by Josephus in War 7:158. The terminus ad quern is the death
of Vespasian in A D 79, for Josephus would later claim (Life 359, 361) that he had
presented a copy of War to Vespasian. It is possible, as S. J. D . Cohen (Josephus, 84-87)
suggests, that the version presented to Vespasian was incomplete and that the later books
were only completed after 79. For our purposes, a decision on this point is unnecessary;
the Pharisee material of War falls exclusively in the first two books.
2
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 Rechenschafts-
hericht (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.
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
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
5
Orient bestimmt w a r .
3
Cf., in particular, Ant. 1:1-4; Life 361-367; Ag.Ap. 1:47-56.
4
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.
5
Laqueur, Historiker, 126.
6
Laqueur, Historiker, 126-127; Thackeray, Josephus, 27-28.
58 CHAPTER THREE
10
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 . Most
o f its s p o n s o r s a p p e a r to b e l i e v e that in u n c o v e r i n g the p u r p o s e o f the
7
Cf. now Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 42ff., 89ff.
8
W . Weber, Josephus und Vespasian (Berlin-Stuttgart-Leipzig: W . Kohlhammer,
1921).
9
Thackeray, Josephus, 27.
10
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
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 59
19
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 . L i n d n e r d i s c o v e r s in the
speeches a religiously b a s e d a r g u m e n t , n o t superficially o v e r l a i d , that
2 0
fortune (TU^T)) has passed to the Romans. Rajak is able to trace
Josephus's political sentiments to his u p b r i n g i n g a n d social p o s i t i o n ;
2 1
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 . Y a v e t z p r o p o s e s that
e v e n J o s e p h u s ' s flattery o f T i t u s s t e m m e d f r o m g e n u i n e a d m i r a t i o n a n d
22
gratitude. In a n y case, the s a m e attitude o f s u b m i s s i o n to R o m e that
w e find in War a p p e a r s also in Life (cf. 17ff.), w h i c h J o s e p h u s wrote
m o r e than t w o d e c a d e s after the revolt.
S o the q u e s t i o n urges itself: I f J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the R o m a n s '
m i g h t a n d d i v i n e l y o r d a i n e d rule springs f r o m his o w n c o n v i c t i o n s , a n d
if this respectful portrayal explains the Flavian endorsement o f War
subsequent to its p u b l i c a t i o n ( o f w h i c h he speaks), w h e r e is the e v i d e n c e
that War w a s c o n c e i v e d as a p r o p a g a n d a p i e c e ?
D. M o s t p r o b l e m a t i c o f all, the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y t h e o r y d e p e n d s
for its viability o n a close similarity b e t w e e n the extant G r e e k War a n d
the lost A r a m a i c v e r s i o n . T h i s is clear in t w o c o n n e c t i o n s . First, the c o n
tents o f the A r a m a i c v e r s i o n are inferred f r o m the G r e e k : scholars cite
7 A S
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 )
e v i d e n c e for the p u r p o s e o f the original A r a m a i c e d i t i o n . T h e n they c o -
o p t the intention o f the A r a m a i c War, d i s c o v e r e d in this m a n n e r , for the
Greek version.
A l m o s t n o o n e , h o w e v e r — l e a s t o f all L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y , really
believes the G r e e k War to b e a translation o r e v e n a close paraphrase o f
the A r a m a i c . E v e n t h o u g h the [xsT<x(3aXXco o f War 1:3 is c u s t o m a r i l y
rendered "translate/ubersetzen", the modern editors w h o use such
equivalents are q u i c k to a d d that the G r e e k c a n b e a translation o n l y in
the very loosest sense. It shows no clear evidence of a Semitic
23
substratum. Indeed, "The 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 " , ac
2 4
c o r d i n g to T h a c k e r a y . T h i s suggests to h i m that the G r e e k War has
2 5
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 .
T h e indications that o u r G r e e k War is an original G r e e k p r o d u c t i o n
1 9
Cf. Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 2Iff. and 41 f. (in reaction to Thackeray's prop
aganda theory).
2 0
Ibid., 92.
2 1
Rajak, Josephus, 185.
2 2
Yavetz, "Reflections", 424-426.
2 3
Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, 403 n. 3.
2 4
Thackeray, Josephus, 34; cf. L C L edn., II, ix.
2 5
Ibid.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 61
2 6
are n u m e r o u s a n d o b v i o u s . In a d d i t i o n to the a b s e n c e o f translation-
G r e e k , n o t e d a b o v e , the reader o f War is c o n f r o n t e d b y several f o r m s
27
that are native to G r e e k l i t e r a t u r e . T h e y i n c l u d e the carefully for
2 8
mulated prologue, the rhetorically honed speeches with their
2 9
philosophical v o c a b u l a r y , the entertaining digressions, a n d the m a n y
3 0
dramatic-novelistic e p i s o d e s . T h e s e f o r m a l traits c o m b i n e to l o c a t e the
extant War squarely within the Hellenistic historical tradition.
Further, a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s the A r a m a i c v e r s i o n in his p r o
l o g u e to War, his later discussions o f War refer o n l y to the final G r e e k
31
version. A s G . H a t a points o u t , the w o r d s u s e d b y J o s e p h u s to d e s c r i b e
the w r i t i n g o f War ( y p ^ c o , atrpfpo^G), Ant. 1:5; 2 0 : 2 5 8 ) d o n o t suggest
32
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
3 3
sense " t o rewrite".
A l t h o u g h it c a n n o t b e d e n i e d , then, that J o s e p h u s ' s G r e e k War w a s
p r e c e d e d b y an A r a m a i c a c c o u n t o f the revolt, the relationship b e t w e e n
the t w o w o r k s is a m a t t e r o f c o n j e c t u r e . B . N i e s e l o n g a g o c o m m e n t e d :
2 6
Laqueur's reason for believing this was that the Greek War had made use of the
Greek Rechenschaftsbericht, whereas the Aramaic had not (Historiker, 126, 128). Since,
however, the very existence of the Rechenschaftsbericht is not at all secure (cf. Cohen,
Josephus, 18), this argument cannot now be used with force.
2 7
Cf. G. Hata, ' 'Greek Version", 106f.
2 8
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.
2 9
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.
3 0
Cf. H . R. Moehring, "Novelistic Elements". On all of the enumerated points see
Hata, "Greek Version", 96-106, and Rajak, Josephus, 176.
3 1
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.
3 2
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.
3 3
Hata, "Greek Version", 90-95.
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
34
plan.
3 4
B. Niese, 'Josephus", ERE, V I I , 571.
3 5
Cf. Lucian, How to Write History 51-53; Lieberich, Prodmien, 5, 12; Avenarius,
Lukians Schrift, 115f.
3 6
Earl, "Prologue-form", 856.
3 7
Lieberich, Proomien, 47.
3 8
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.
3 9
Cf. especially the prologues of Thucydides, Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius
of Halicarnassus, and Herodian; also Earl, "Prologue-form", 842-845. Lieberich, Prod-
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 63
War 1:1-8
mien, passim, discusses the development of the prologue-form through the Greco-Roman
period.
4 0
Cf. Dio Cassius 5.72.23.
4 1
Cf. Dionysius 1:3-6; Herodian 1.1.1.
4 2
Cf. Diodorus 1:4 and Dionysius, Rom.Ant. 1:8.
4 3
Cf. Thucydides 1:21; Lucian, History 38-39.
4 4
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.
4 5
Earl, "Prologue-form", 842.
4 6
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.
4 7
Lieberich, Prodmien, 13.
64 CHAPTER THREE
1. T h e J e w i s h - R o m a n w a r is a n i m p o r t a n t subject for G r e e k - s p e a k i n g
readers ( 1 : 1 , 4 - 6 , 8 ) . It is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e : ( a ) it p l a c e d the eastern
e m p i r e in j e o p a r d y ( 1 : 4 - 5 ) ; ( b ) it r e q u i r e d large n u m b e r s o f forces o n
b o t h sides, a l o n g w i t h e x t r e m e effort a n d c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e ( 1 : 8 ) ; a n d
(c) it is u n s e e m l y that the r e m o t e s t n o n - H e l l e n e s s h o u l d h a v e b e e n a c
curately (&xpi(}ca<;) i n f o r m e d a b o u t the w a r , thanks t o a n earlier w o r k b y
J o s e p h u s , w h i l e the G r e e k s r e m a i n in i g n o r a n c e ( 1 : 6 ) .
2. P r e v i o u s a c c o u n t s o f the w a r are totally l a c k i n g in historical a c
4 8
c u r a c y (TO dxpifie? xfjs ujxopias, 1 : 2 ) . ( a ) S o m e w e r e written b y authors
who l a c k e d first-hand k n o w l e d g e a n d h a d , therefore, to rely o n p o o r
sources a n d o n their o w n rhetorical skills ( 1 : 1 ) . ( b ) O t h e r authors w e r e
i n d e e d e y e w i t n e s s e s , b u t they falsified (xaT<xc|>eu8ovTai) their a c c o u n t s , o u t
o f either flattery o f the R o m a n s o r hatred o f the J e w s ( 1 : 2 ) , w h i c h m e a n s
that the J e w s a l w a y s a p p e a r e d in a b a d light ( 1 : 7 - 8 ) . J o s e p h u s reprises
this t h e m e at the e n d o f 1:6, w h e r e h e allows that the G r e e k s a n d
Romans s h o u l d n o t b e left with flattering (XOXOCXSIOCK;) o r fictitious
(7i:Xaau.aai) a c c o u n t s o f such an i m p o r t a n t e v e n t .
3. J o s e p h u s is in a u n i q u e p o s i t i o n t o m a k e g o o d the d e f i c i e n c y , that
is, to p r o v i d e a c o m p l e t e a n d accurate (fxex' dxpipetocs, 1:9) a c c o u n t o f the
w a r ( 1 : 6 , 9 ) . H i s credentials are: ( a ) that h e is a J e r u s a l e m i t e priest, a
living s p e c i m e n o f the e x o t i c n a t i o n in q u e s t i o n ; ( b ) that h e p e r s o n a l l y
fought against the R o m a n s ; a n d ( c ) that, b y force o f c i r c u m s t a n c e , h e
has b e e n in a p o s i t i o n t o o b s e r v e the R o m a n side as well ( 1 : 3 ) .
F r o m the first sentence o f War ( = 1:1-6), then, the r e a d e r learns that
the subject is important, that previous treatments in Greek are
m i s l e a d i n g , a n d that J o s e p h u s will e x p l o i t his u n i q u e l y i n f o r m e d posi
tion to p r o v i d e the requisite a c c u r a c y . I n d e e d , these a r g u m e n t s all a p
pear within the first d i v i s i o n o f the sentence ( 1 : 1 - 3 ) . § § 4-5 is a
parenthetical e l a b o r a t i o n o f the w a r ' s i m p o r t a n c e a n d § 6 s u m m a r i z e s
the w h o l e . § § 7-8 e l a b o r a t e o n the ineptitude o f the w a r ' s p r e v i o u s
chroniclers.
War 1:9-12
4 8
Even allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, Josephus's statements presuppose at
least two previous accounts of the war. Like his Aramaic account, they must have ap
peared shortly after the war's end. This circumstance takes the force out of Thackeray's
proposal that the speed with which the Aramaic version was dispatched reflected its
urgent official purpose.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 65
4 9
Cicero, On the Orator 1:62.
5 0
Cicero, Laws 1:5.
5 1
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.
5 2
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 41.
66 CHAPTER THREE
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.
5 4
Lieberich, Prodmien, 33f.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 67
5 5
Cf. War 5:19-20; 6:7, 96-111, 267, 271-274.
5 6
Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 133-140.
5 7
Ibid., 139f.
68 CHAPTER THREE
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)
5 8
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.
5 9
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".
6 0
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.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 69
War 1:13-16
6 1
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 25, 157-159.
6 2
Ibid., 22f.
6 3
Cf. Diodorus 15.1.1; Lucian, History 59.
6 4
Schlatter, Bericht, 44, 67; Holscher, 1948, Thackeray, Josephus, 195.
70 CHAPTER THREE
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
69
halten und der Rede folgen k a n n .
6 5
"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.
6 6
Ibid., 257T.
6 7
Lindner, "Frage", 257f.
6 8
Ibid.
6 9
Lieberich, Prodmien, 47f.
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
fulfill the goal o f the preface a n d to w i n a substantial readership.
N e a r e r t o the m a r k is the recent analysis o f H . W . A t t r i d g e . A t t r i d g e ' s
p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e is the w e l l - k n o w n c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s
7 0
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 the
" 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. 1:16),
a l t h o u g h l i v i n g in a time o f stirring events, d i s p a r a g e c u r r e n t affairs as
an o b j e c t o f historical research ( 1 : 1 3 ) a n d c h o o s e rather to write a b o u t
ancient times, especially the A s s y r i a n a n d M e d i a n e m p i r e s . J o s e p h u s ' s
critique o f such a practice c o m e s f r o m m a n y sides: ( i ) the ancient writers
already c o v e r e d this g r o u n d well ( § 1 3 ) ; ( i i ) their m o d e r n counterparts
are inferior to t h e m in b o t h literary c a p a c i t y (8uvapteo)(; ev T6> ypd^eiv) a n d
7 1
judgement (yvcofXTj^, § 14) and are thus reduced to futile rear
rangements o f the o l d e r a c c o u n t s ( § 1 5 ) ; (iii) w r i t i n g a b o u t c o n t e m
p o r a r y events has the d o u b l e a d v a n t a g e o f p r o v i d i n g the clarity that
c o m e s f r o m an e y e - w i t n e s s ' s p e r c e p t i o n a n d o f b e i n g subject to c h a l l e n g e
f r o m o t h e r l i v i n g witnesses ( § 1 4 ) ; ( i v ) w r i t i n g a b o u t o n e ' s o w n times is
in fact the e x a m p l e set b y the ancient masters; a n d ( v ) w r i t i n g o f c o n t e m
p o r a r y events is the m o r e v i r t u o u s enterprise b e c a u s e it requires a really
industrious writer (quXorcovos) w h o c a n p r o d u c e an original historical
contribution (§ 1 5 ) .
All o f these historical p r i n c i p l e s , J o s e p h u s c h a r g e s , h a v e e l u d e d the
natural heirs (yvrjatot) o f the H e l l e n i c tradition, w h o p u t o u t their best
efforts o n l y in the c o u r t r o o m s ( § 1 6 ) . It has fallen to h i m , therefore, a
f o r e i g n e r (aXXoqwXos), to m a i n t a i n the o l d virtues o f p a i n s t a k i n g effort in
ascertaining facts and of truthful speaking in historical writing.
H i s t o r i c a l truthfulness is b e i n g slighted b y the H e l l e n e s b u t a m o n g the
J e w s (TCOCP' TJUIV) it is still held in h o n o u r ( § 1 6 ) . J o s e p h u s , a p r i m e e x a m
ple o f Jewish historiographical p r o w e s s , has spared h i m s e l f neither
m o n e y (dvaXoafxaxa) n o r l a b o u r (novoq) in p r o d u c i n g the present w o r k .
In several p l a c e s , P o l y b i u s defends his o w n c h o i c e o f a m o d e r n start
i n g p o i n t a n d his mistrust o f ancient history (cf. especially 4 . 2 . 1 - 4 ) . He
p o i n t s o u t , for e x a m p l e , that another h i s t o r i a n ' s w o r k c o v e r s the p e r i o d
i m m e d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g the o n e he has c h o s e n ( 4 . 2 . 1 ) . Elsewhere he
7 0
Attridge, Interpretation, 44f.; cf. already Lieberich, Prodmien, 34, and Avenarius,
Lukians Schrift, 81.
7 1
Significantly, Lucian posits as the two supreme qualifications of the historian
"political understanding" (auveat? TIOXITIXTJ) and "power of expression" (8uva{xi? ep-
fXTjveuTtxri).
72 CHAPTER THREE
7 2
Cf. the preface to Luke, where the author claims that he can prove TT)V aacpocXetocv
of the events which he describes (1:4) because: (a) they were accomplished ev rjfxtv—
therefore, within living memory (1:1); (b) they were passed on by OCUTOTCTOCI (1:2); and
(c) they have been followed with accuracy (<xxptP<o<;) from the beginning by the author
himself (1:3).
PURPOSE AND O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 73
7 3
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 83f.
74 CHAPTER THREE
7 4
Momigliano, Essays, 164.
75
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
1
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.
PURPOSE A N D OUTLOOK OF T H E JEWISH WAR 75
7 7
Presumably, these are the writers already castigated in 1:1-2, 6-8.
7 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.
76 CHAPTER THREE
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)
7 9
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.
8 0
Cf. Polybius 12.4d.l-2, 10.4-5, 26d.3, 27.1; 29.5.1.
8 1
Cf. Halbfas, Theorie, 19ff.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 77
8 2
Cf. Halbfas, Theorie, 35f.
8 3
Lieberich, Prodmien, 35.
78 CHAPTER THREE
8 4
With this point, I anticipate the investigation of the following chapter; full
documentation will be given there.
8 5
Cf. especially Ag.Ap. 2:144; also 1:32, 36.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 79
Summary
8 6
Cf. Laqueur, Historiker and now Cohen, Josephus.
8 7
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.
80 CHAPTER THREE
8 8
Cf. Thackeray, Rasp, Weber, Laqueur, Smith/Neusner, and Cohen, who are dis
cussed in chapter 7, below.
8 9
Niese, HZ 201, sees Josephus's inclusion of the whole pre-history of the revolt,
y
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.
PURPOSE A N D OUTLOOK OF T H E JEWISH WAR 81
9 0
the J e w i s h k i n g ) . 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.
9 0
War 2:167-187, 220-276. This may be due (so Holscher, ' Josephus", 1944) to the
sparseness of Josephus's sources for the period; on the other hand, however, it would
also fit well with the overall Jewish theme of the work, established in the preface.
CHAPTER FOUR
WAR 1:107-114:
THE PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I
1
This passage is often treated as the product of one of Josephus's sources, which has
44
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.
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 83
/. Context
2
War 2:275, 281, 306, 455, 649; 4:283; 5:391; 7:263. Josephus sides with the
"moderate" position in the revolt.
84 CHAPTER FOUR
I I . Key Terms
3
Thackeray, n. b. to War 1:110, L C L edn.
4
Cf. the convenient table in J. LeMoyne, Les Sadduceens (Paris: Lecoffre, 1972), 32.
5
That is, excluding our passage and the Strabo citation.
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 85
T h e J e w i s h vofios, d e l i v e r e d b y G o d t h r o u g h M o s e s , p r o m o t e s a g e n u i n e
piety (Ant. 1:6; 1 0 : 5 0 ; 14:65; Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 4 6 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 ) . T h e c u s t o m s (eGrj)
o f the J e w s , J o s e p h u s says, are all c o n c e r n e d with piety (euae(kta) and
justice (Sixaioauvri, Ant. 16:42).
A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , this euaefkta finds its centre in the T e m p l e
cult. It requires the offering o f p r e s c r i b e d sacrifices a n d the celebration
o f feasts (Ant. 8 : 1 2 2 - 1 2 4 ) . M e n a s s e h b e g a n to s h o w piety (euaejkiv), ac
c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w h e n he sanctified the T e m p l e a n d purified the city
o f J e r u s a l e m (Ant. 1 0 : 4 5 ) . T h e tenacity o f J e w i s h euae(kia is indicated b y
the firm resolve o f the priests to c o n t i n u e with the p r e s c r i b e d 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. 14:65). Indeed,
J o s e p h u s v i e w s the high priest as the o n e w h o oversees the sacrifices and
6
Cornfeld, Jewish War, 32.
7
E.g., War 1:630, 633; Ant. 16:95, 112. These may be attributable to the influence
of Nicolaus of Damascus.
8
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.
86 CHAPTER FOUR
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$) not
to observe it. (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 )
9
War 2:128; Ant. 9:2, 222, 236, 276, 10:45, 51, 51, 68; 12:43, 290; 13:242; 14:257;
16:172; 18:117; Life 113; Ag.Ap. 1:162; 2:171.
1 0
A s G . Schrenk(''8tx<xto<;", TDNT, II, 182) shows, this coupling of Stxato? (re: obliga
tions to men) with oato<;, euaepeta or the like (re: obligations to God) was fairly common
among Greek writers, e.g., Plato, Gorgias 507b; Polybius 22.10.8; Xenophon, Memorabilia
4.8.7.
11
The word is analyzed by W . Foerster in both his TDNT article, "euaePeta", V I I , 168-
196, and in his article "EuaePeta in den Pastoralbriefen", NTS 5 (1959), 213-218.
1 2
Foerster, TDNT, V I I , 175ff.; "Pastoralbriefen", 214f.
1 3
Foerster, TDNT, V I I , 177f.
88 CHAPTER FOUR
Thus these terms [the euaep-group] belong chiefly to the vocabulary o f those
books o f the Bible which were composed as well as translated in the
Hellenistic period, and whose Greek translation is comparatively late. It is
clear that the words, and the idea they represent, are characteristically
Greek, and in Hellenistic Judaism replace Hebrew terms o f a different
17
colour.
1 4
Foerster, "Pastoralbriefen", 213.
1 5
Only Prov. 1:7; 13:11; Isa. 11:2; 33:6.
1 6
Judg. 8:31; Job 32:3; Prov. 12:12; 13:19; Eccl. 3:10; Isa. 24:16; 26:7; 32:8.
1 7
C . H . Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 174.
1 8
The term occurs some 200 times in Philo, 64 times in 4 Maccabees, and, as noted,
144 times in Josephus.
1 9
Eusebius Eccl. Hist., 3.10.6; cf. W . H . Brownlee, "Maccabees, Books o f , IDB,
III, 212; Niese, HZ, 236f.
T H E PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I 89
Sta 86£<xv ev<je(ie(oc<;. r\xpi$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 Jews certify the wisdom only of those who know the laws exactly (i6i<;
TOC VOFXTFXA AAQJ&s ETUTAXAUIVOTS) and who are competent to interpret the mean
ing of the holy scriptures (TTJV TOOV TEPCOV ypafXfxdcTcav Suvajxtv ep[A7)VEUAAT
ouvauivotc). (Ant. 20:264)
2 0
W e shall consider the exact sense of 8ox£o> below.
90 CHAPTER FOUR
2 1
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 826.
2 2
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.
THE PHARISEES A N D A L E X A N D R A SALOME, I 91
(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.
(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.
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.
2 3
W e shall examine the sense of 8oxec*> below.
THE PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 93
The Jews certify the wisdom only of those who know the laws exactly
(aoccpcos) and who are competent to interpret the meaning of the holy scrip
tures. Thus, although many have laboured at this training (TUOXXCOV
7iov7)advTG)v 7cept TTJV daxTjaiv TOCUTTJV), scarcely two or three have succeeded
(JJIOXK; ouo -cive? fj -cpets xocicopOcoaav). (Ant. 20:265)
Perhaps it will not arouse jealousy or strike ordinary folk as gauche if I also
review briefly m y own ancestry and the events of m y life (xat 7tept yevoo?
TOU(JLOG xat 7cept TCOV xaxd TOV (3tov 7upa?e<OV (3pax&a 8t£?eX0etv, 2 0 : 2 6 6 ) .
2 4
Life appears in all of the M S S as an appendix to Ant. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.10.8-9,
cites it as if it were part of Ant. Laqueur's theory, adopted by Thackeray with qualifica
tions, is that Ant. 20:259-266 was added to the second edition of Ant. (c. A D 100), to
introduce the newly written Life (Laqueur, Historiker, 1-6; Thackeray, introduction to
L C L edn., I, xiiif.).
94 C H A P T E R FOUR
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($7)s e7Ct{xeXeta, § 1 8 7 ) . Similarly
Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 9 4 : the h i g h priest, a l o n g with his c o l l e a g u e s , safeguards the
laws (<puXa£et TOU? VOJAOOS). I n the ideal J e w i s h t h e o c r a c y that J o s e p h u s
portrays to his G e n t i l e a u d i e n c e , it is the priests w h o h a v e s u p r e m e
responsibility for the c o m m u n a l goal o f axptfkta.
Small w o n d e r , then, that J o s e p h u s frequently p o i n t s to his o w n
priestly credentials as he reiterates his constant goal o f <xxpt(kta (Ag.Ap.
1:54; Ant. 20:264ff.; Life 1-9). N o r is this a late d e v e l o p m e n t in his think
ing, for w e find the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n his priestly credentials a n d his
k n o w l e d g e o f the Scriptures already in War 3 : 3 5 2 :
I have rendered the sacred writings, being a priest by birth and trained in
the philosophy of their writings (ex T&V Upcov ypa[X[x<XTcov (xe8rjp[xrjveuxa
yeyovcot; lepeve; ix y£VOV£ xal (JLETEOXRJXAX; TTJ$ <pi\o<JO<p(a<; TTJ<; IV ixeivou; TOT<;
ypapfjiaai).
25
E.g., Ag.Ap. 1:29, 32, 36, 54.
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 95
T h e position held by priest and laity alike, before that group of lay-
teachers, 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
28
out strictly and scrupulously.
2 6
As will become clear below, TOC 7cdxpta is a favourite Josephan term, and designates
the whole of Jewish law and custom.
2 7
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, "Grund-
zuge 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.
2 8
Lauterbach, HUCA, 94.
2 9
Ibid., 95.
3 0
Heller, "Grundziige", 241f.
96 CHAPTER FOUR
3 1
E.g., Ant. 3:317; 18:274; Ag.Ap. 1:42, 190, 2:219.
3 2
Ant. 4:211; Ag.Ap. 1:60; 2:204.
3 3
Ant. 20:265.
3 4
By my count, about 376 of the 507 occurrences of v6[io<; (or the plural) denote the
Jewish Law.
3 5
War 2:90: 3:103, 363; 5:332; 6:346; Ant. 1:315; 6:69; 9:58; 14:304; 15:157.
3 6
War 1:11; 5:20.
3 7
War 3:370; 4:382; 5:367; Ant. 4:322; 17:95.
3 8
Ant. 4:139; 10:257; ll:191ff.; 14:153; 16:277; 19:168ff.; Ag.Ap. 1:167; 2:143, 225,
257ff.
T H E PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 97
T h e N6[xoi o f the J e w s
3 9
Cf. C . H . Dodd, Greeks, 25-41; and H . Kleinknecht and W . Gutbrod, "N6(xo<;",
TDNT, I V , 1023ff., 1044ff.
4 0
Ant. 1:118, 95, 240; Ag.Ap. 2:165, 173, 279.
4 1
Josephus sometimes pairs vofxoi xal 7UoXixeia, e.g., Ant. 3:332; 4:198; 310.
42
Ant. 3:93, 213, 322; 5:107; 7:338; Ag.Ap. 2:184.
4 3
Ant. 1:18-26; 3:317ff.; Ag.Ap. 2:157-163.
44
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.
98 CHAPTER FOUR
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 . )
4 5
Cf. Ant. 1:12; Ptolemy II was not able to receive, for the L X X translation, rcaaocv
xrjv dcvafpoc9Tjv but only TOV V6[AOV; cf. Ag.Ap. 1:43; (ot vofxot) xat at fiexa TOUTCOV d v a y p a 9 a t .
4 6
Ant. 12:11, 20, 21, 39, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 87, 89, 90, 104, 106-111.
4 7
The summaries are given at Ant. 3:213, 224-286; 4:196-301; Ag.Ap. 2:150, 163,
190-219.
4 8
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.
4 9
Ant. 3:244. According to Lev. 23:42f., the practice of erecting tents was to com
memorate the Hebrews' wilderness wanderings.
5 0
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.
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)
5 1
Ant. 4:212.
5 2
Ant. 4:214.
5 3
Ant. 4:219.
5 4
Ant. 4:220.
5 5
Ant. 4:227.
5 6
Ant. 4:238; but Deut. 25:3.
57
Ant. 4:248.
5 8
Several other examples are given by Thackeray; cf. especially Ant. 4:212-214, on
the rules for war.
5 9
Ag.Ap. 2:199.
6 0
Ag.Ap. 2:202.
61
Ag.Ap. 2:205.
6 2
Ag.Ap. 2:207.
6 3
Ag.Ap. 2:218. For a discussion of Josephus's intriguing references to the afterlife
in Jewish belief, cf. chapter 6, below.
6 4
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.
100 CHAPTER FOUR
65
others d o n o t a p p e a r t h e r e 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
66
tices. 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 68
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 (Ag.Ap.
2:173):
O u r legislator, on the other hand, took great care to combine both systems
[sc. instruction by precept and by practical exercise]. . . . Starting from the
very beginning with the food of which we partake from infancy and the
private life of the h o m e , he left nothing, however insignificant, to the
discretion and caprice of the individual.
69
H e r e as e l s e w h e r e J o s e p h u s presents M o s e s as the a u t h o r o f a c o m p l e t e
a n d practical p r o g r a m m e for l i v i n g . T o b e sure, such passages are in
t e n d e d to serve his idealizing a p o l o g e t i c . N e v e r t h e l e s s , in light o f his
s u m m a r i e s o f the J e w i s h c o d e , discussed a b o v e , w e m u s t c o n c l u d e that
J o s e p h u s really b e l i e v e d that his o w n k n o w l e d g e o f legal p r a c t i c e w a s
already implicit in the M o s a i c c o d e .
T h a t J o s e p h u s c a n n o t distinguish b e t w e e n the o r i g i n a l statutes a n d
their current a p p l i c a t i o n in his e x p e r i e n c e is c o r r o b o r a t e d further b y the
variety o f terms that he c a n use i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y , h e n c e m o r e o r less
s y n o n y m o u s l y , with vou.o$. A s the f o l l o w i n g selective list s h o w s , h e seems
to use 6 v6[ios, ot vofxot, TOC e6rj, ot eOtqxot, TOC vojxtfxa, TOC 7tocTptoc, a n d vari
o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f these phrases as practical e q u i v a l e n t s .
6 5
Ant. 3:244 (purpose of tents at Sukkot), 262.
6 6
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."
6 7
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).
6 8
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.)
6 9
Cf. Ant. 3:213.
THE PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 101
7 0
Cf. also War 1:653 (6 7cdxpto? v6{zos), 654 (6 vofxo?), and 2:6 (oi Trdtptoi v6{xoi), which
all refer back to the same episode.
102 CHAPTER FOUR
71
Indeed, in Ant. 12:276, Sabbath observance is called a vofitfiov.
7 2
oi vofioi + xaTcdxpta, cf. War 1:34, 108; 2:393; Ant. 18:266// 276, 281; 20:24// 226.
oivonoi + xd Tcdtxpioc e0r), cf. Ant. 5:101// 108; 11:338//339; 14:263//264; 15:328; 16:1//
3; 1 9 : 2 9 0 ; ^ . ^ . 1:317. otvofxoi + xd v o ^ a , cf. Ant. 3:282; 4:181; 8:96, 195, 208, 256,
280, 290, 297; 9:157,168, 222; 12:14, 276; 3:243, 297; 18:38, etc. xd Tcdxpta + xd 107),
cf. Ant. 15:281; 16:35; xd rcdxpia vofxtfxa + ot !7cixcoptoi iOiqxoi + xd 7cdxpta, cf. Ant.
9:95/96/99.
7 3
Ant. 13:243.
7 4
Ant. 8:229; 12:364, 384; 19:283.
7 5
Ant. 10:72; 13:4, 121.
7 6
Ant. 3:213; 4:45, 193, 194, 198, 292, 310; 5:132; 10:275; 11:140; Ag.Ap. 2:287.
T H E PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 103
7 7
tween t h e m . 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
78
TCOCTpto?TCoXtxetaw i t h similar e l a s t i c i t y . 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
7 9
(403 BC). 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
Solon and Draco", the seventh-century Athenian lawgivers. Finley
observes:
By the 'laws of Solon and Draco' the decree meant the law of Athens as
it stood in 4 0 3 , some of it indeed going back to the ancient lawgivers but
much of it either revised or wholly new legislation promulgated in the two
centuries since Solon. . . . After the year 4 0 3 / 2 no earlier law was valid
unless it had been incorporated into the code; yet advocates went on cheer
fully citing in the courts what they called 'a law of Solon', even when it
80
was blatantly impossible for the enactment to have been very ancient.
7 7
E.g., at Ant. 14:258 (tBr\), War 2:417 (xd irdxpioc), and War 4:136 (rcdxpia eOrj), the
meanings seem more restricted.
7 8
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.
7 9
So Fuks, Constitution, 37. The decree is given by Andokides, l:83f.
8 0
Finley, Use and Abuse, 39.
104 CHAPTER FOUR
81
H . Kleinknecht and W . Gutbrod, "vofjux;", TDNT, I V , 1051. Cf. already H . Paret
("Pharisaismus", 825f.) for this claim.
8 2
Attridge, Interpretation, 179 n.l.
8 3
Cf. for example, B. Z . Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union
College Press, 1983), xii.
8 4
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.
85
Cf. Ant. 1:20; 3:213; 4:193f, 302; Ag.Ap. 1:39; 2:45.
8 6
Cf. Ant. 1:26; 2:34; 4:196ff.; 9:208, 214.
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 105
8 7
own day. T h e p o i n t is m a d e with special force in Ag.Ap. 2:155-156.
A r g u i n g the superiority o f the M o s a i c c o d e to the laws o f the G r e e k s ,
J o s e p h u s p o i n t s o u t there that the G r e e k laws w e r e , for a l o n g t i m e ,
m e r e l y u n w r i t t e n c u s t o m s (e'Orj a y p o ^ a ) , subject to c h a n g e . H e explicitly
contrasts the J e w i s h laws (6 8' Tjjxeiepos vo[xo6ex7i<;) o n the g r o u n d that
M o s e s d e l i v e r e d a single, c o m p r e h e n s i v e (OXTJV TOU (3iou) c o d e , w h i c h has
88
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 . 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
8 9
(Jpaxuxaxcov), to i n d i v i d u a l discretion (Ag.Ap. 2:173). Not only does
J o s e p h u s fail t o m e n t i o n a n y distinction b e t w e e n written l a w a n d c u s t o m
(or b e t w e e n written a n d oral l a w ) ; his positive portrayal of Moses'
rcoXixeia e x c l u d e s this distinction.
T h e r e is n o t h i n g , then, in J o s e p h u s ' s h u n d r e d s o f references to the
VOJAOI to indicate that he w a s a Pharisee.
S u m m a r y o f oi N6u.oi in J o s e p h u s
8 7
Cf. Ant. 4:308; Ag.Ap. 1:42; 2:153, 156, 169.
8 8
Cf. Ant. 3:282; 8:395; 20:264; Life 9, 74; Ag.Ap. 1:165; 2:272.
8 9
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 hen-
diadys (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.
9 0
Thus, TOC TCaxpta of Adiabene (Ant. 20:75, 81), of Commagene (Ant. 18:53), and of
the Greeks (Ant. 18:41); eGr] of the Greeks (Ag.Ap. 2:155); and v6(xt(xa of Egypt (Ant.
1:166) and of Parthia (Ant. 18:344)
9 1
Cf. Ant. 1:5-24; 14:186f.; 16:174; Ag.Ap. 1:1-2.
106 CHAPTER FOUR
92
vojxoi is s u p r e m e l y v i r t u o u s . 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
93 94
plicated in Ag.Ap., is u n m i s t a k a b l y present in Ant. a n d in War.
W h e n J o s e p h u s speaks o f the vofxoi o f the J e w s , therefore, the t e r m has
the s a m e c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e s s as w h e n it is u s e d o f o t h e r nations. T h e
TCoXiTeioc instituted b y M o s e s g o v e r n s e v e r y detail o f J e w i s h c o n d u c t a n d
requires n o t h i n g m o r e than simple ( a n d s c r u p u l o u s ) o b e d i e n c e . J o s e p h u s
presents as a seamless w h o l e w h a t w e s h o u l d distinguish as legislation
a n d c o n v e n t i o n , o r l a w a n d c u s t o m . H e a p p a r e n t l y k n o w s the M o s a i c
vofxoi o n l y t h r o u g h the filter o f tradition. M o s t significant: outside o f Ant.
13:297f., to b e c o n s i d e r e d later, J o s e p h u s n e v e r hints at a n y intramural
9 5
distinctions o n this p o i n t : 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 )
9 6
to c o n d u c t , l e a d , o r e x e c u t e a n d ( i i ) to narrate, r e p o r t , set forth, o r e x
97
plain. A l t h o u g h a m e a n i n g s o m e t h i n g like " a d m i n i s t e r the l a w s " is
c o n c e i v a b l e in this passage, parallel c o n s t r u c t i o n s ( w i t h respect to b o t h
98
the Pharisees a n d o t h e r s ) strongly suggest the e x p o s i t i o n a l sense: the
Pharisees are r e p u t e d to e x p o u n d the traditional laws m o r e accurately
than others d o .
G . Aoxeco is the v e r b o n w h i c h the w h o l e definition o f the Pharisees
in War 1:110 h i n g e s .
A s is well k n o w n , Soxeco bears t w o m a i n senses, d e p e n d i n g o n its sub
9 9
ject. W i t h a p e r s o n a l subject, the v e r b usually has the m e a n i n g : " t o
think, s u p p o s e , i m a g i n e , p u r p o s e , o r r e s o l v e " . W i t h an i m p e r s o n a l s u b -
9 2
Cf. especially Ag.Ap. 2:226, 257, where Josephus cites Plato to this effect.
9 3
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).
9 4
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.
9 5
The sole exception, so far as I can tell, is in the references to the special, extra-
biblical vofxifxa of the Pharisees (Ant. 13:297, 408), which will be discussed below.
9 6
War 1:50, 52, 367; 2:168, 219, 443, 578: 3:56; Life 288.
97
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.
9 8
O f the Pharisees, War 2:162 (efrjYeiaGat); of a Jewish scoundrel in Rome, Ant. 18:81
(6?T)*feTa0oct).
9 9
Cf. LSJ and the Thackeray/Marcus Lexicon to Josephus.
t h e pharisees and a l e x a n d r a salome, i 107
1 0 0
So the major translations: Whiston, "seem/appear"; Thackeray, "with the
reputation o f ; Cornfeld, "were considered"; Reinach, "passe pour etre"; Michel-
Bauernfeind (and Schlatter, Theologie, 205), "im Ruf stehen"; cf. Rivkin (Revolution,
54f.), "are deemed".
1 0 1
Moore, Judaism, I, 64, 66; Pfeiffer, New Testament Times, 54.
1 0 2
Cf. also War 1:497; 3:144, 319; 5:437; 6:320; Ant. 15:101, 16:123, 211, 244, 386.
1 0 3
Cf. also War 2:119; 4:207; Ant. 16:319; Ag.Ap. 1:232.
108 CHAPTER FOUR
(xopiov TI, 'IooScuxtov &v6pto7Utov £ V eijaxpiPooaei uiya 9povouv TOO 7uotTptou xal
a £t T
vofxtov ot£ x ^ P ° Oetov npoanoiovyLevov.
1 0 4
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
105
considered).
1 0 6
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.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 109
1 0 7
a u d i e n c e for his c h a r g e s p r o b a b l y suggests that his reputation is in
tended.
Ant. 2 0 : 4 3 tells o f o n e Eleazar f r o m G a l i l e e , rapt TOCracTpiocBoxeov
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 TOU<;
1 0 7
He assembled the people (7cXfj0o<; ei£ exxXTjatoev aXiaoes), we are told, in order to
make his assertions.
1 0 8
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.
1 0 9
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).
1 1 0
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.
110 CHAPTER FOUR
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$
1 1 1
Cf. E. O'Neil, Teles (the Cynic Teacher), "SBL Texts and Translations", 11;
"Graeco-Roman Religion Series", 3 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 2-5.
1 1 2
These sententiae have close parallels in neoplatonic, neopythagorean, and Christian
texts, which means that they were ethical commonplaces. Cf. H . Chadwick, The Sentences
112 CHAPTER FOUR
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
eT0
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?
of Sextus: a contribution to the history of early Christian ethics (Cambridge: University Press,
1959), 139f., 144-146.
1 1 3
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)
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 113
1 1 4
Cf. chapter 2, above.
1 1 5
Holscher, PWRE, 1945.
1 1 6
Ibid., 1936 and n. + + thereto.
1 1 7
Cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 62 n. 4 and 65 n. 3; Pfeiffer, New Testament Times, 22, 54;
Michel-Bauernfeind, I, X X V f .
1 1 8
Cf. chapter 2, above.
114 CHAPTER FOUR
Conclusion
1 1 9
Cf. chapter 1, above.
1 2 0
Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 127.
1 2 1
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.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 115
122
Contra A . I. Baumgarten, "Name", 413ff.
1 2 3
The hypothesis would face very serious objections if it could be argued that Luke-
Acts, 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).
C H A P T E R FIVE
I I . Key Terms
a n
T h e t w o key terms o f the b r i e f clause, xoprftio) d fxiaOos, are b o t h
elements o f J o s e p h u s ' s usual v o c a b u l a r y .
A . Xoprjyeco: ' ' t o supply, furnish, p r o c u r e , g r a n t " . J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s
1
This was a major factor in Holscher's attribution of War 1:31-2:116 to Nicolaus,
Herod's court historian, PWRE, 1947; cf. also Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I,
X X V f . , and Cohen, Josephus, 111.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, I 117
0 7
the v e r b a n d its c o g n a t e s (xopTrytoc, X ? ^^) s o m e 6 4 times t h r o u g h o u t
2
War a n d Ant. T h e v e r b has a stronger m e a n i n g than, say, StScoptt; it is
3
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 , s o m e t i m e s with
4
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 . This
5
may, b u t d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y , suggest that the w o m a n ' s s u p p o r t o f the
Pharisees w a s a m p l e .
4 4
B . MICJOOS: p a y m e n t , r e w a r d , m o n e y , c o m p e n s a t i o n " . T h i s n o u n is
6
e v e n l y distributed t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s four w o r k s , o c c u r r i n g a total
o f 42 t i m e s .
2
Xoprjyeo> appears 10 times in War, 30 times in Ant.; xoprjyia appears 5 times in War,
14 times in Ant.; XWYOS appears 4 times in War, once in Ant.
3
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.
4
Ant. 1:181; 4:116, 237; 12:58, 105; 13:224; cf. also 10:193; 12:84, 138 for xopT)yia
with &90ovta.
5 0
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.
6
It occurs 7 times in War, 28 times in Ant., 4 times in Life, and 3 times in Ag.Ap.
7
Alon, Jews, 35f.
8
Cornfeld, Jewish War, HOf.
9
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 .
4
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!).
118 CHAPTER FIVE
1 0 4
Cf., e.g., R. J. Karris, 'The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the
Pastoral Epistles", JBL 92 (1973), 549-564, esp. 552. He gives numerous references,
from Plato to Tatian, to document the widespread use of this charge.
1 1
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.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, I 119
Summary
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
1
The War passage is recalled in the following ways: ev TTJ SeuTepoc pifBXcp xfjs 'IouSocixfjs
rcpocY[xocTetoc<; (Ant. 13:173); dv TTJ SeuTepoc (xou TCOV 'IouSoctxcov (Ant. 13:298); and ev TCO ptPXcp
TOU 'IouBouxoG 7coXe(xou (Ant. 18:11).
2
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.
3
Cf. Holscher, 'Josephus", 1944-49; Safrai and Stern, Jewish People, 23f.; Michel-
Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico I, X X V f . ; Thackeray, L C L edn., II, xxiif.
4
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.
5
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).
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 121
I. Context
6
Josephus uses hzixpoTzo^ (procurator) to describe Coponius' office. A . N. Sherwin-
White, 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.
7
Idumea and Samaria were also included in the ethnarchy of Archelaus (2:96), as
were the cities of Caesarea, Sebaste, and Joppa (2:97).
8
The emphasis is on xpioc. Thackeray captures this by rendering: "Jewish philosophy,
in fact, takes three forms."
122 CHAPTER SIX
9
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.
1 0
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).
1 1
M y translation here draws heavily on Thackeray's.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 123
1 2
Josephus does not explain how some Essenes found themselves in conflict with
Rome (War 2:152f.) or why one of the regional commanders of the revolt was an Essene
(2:567; 3:11).
1 3
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.
124 CHAPTER SIX
etu.apu.evrjv.
d. C[>UXTJV Te 7caaav u.ev a90apTOv,
[xeTafJatvetv 8e et$ erepov atou.a
TTJV TCOV dyaOtov [XOVTJV,
1 4
E.g., Ant. 8:395, where 9uX<xa(jetv TOU$ vofjtou? = TTjpetv TOC vofitfia. Cf. also Ant.
7:384f.; 8:208, 256; 12:276; 14:173f.; 18:274. The interchangeability may also be in
dicated by the textual variants at Ant. 13:257 and 18:55.
1 5
Cf. Ant. 9:95-99; 15:328-30; 14:213-216.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 125
1 6
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.
1 7
Cf., e.g., all of these translations at War 2:162.
1 8
See chapter 1, n. 9.
1 9
Cf. LeMoyne, Les Sadduceens, 33.
2 0
Cf., e.g., The Houghton-Mifflin Canadian Dictionary, ad loc.
2 1
The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's suggest also more neutral connotations.
2 2
E.g., G. Alon, A . Guttmann, and E. Rivkin; cf. chapter 1, above.
2 3
Rivkin, Revolution, 317f.
24
Ant. 7:160; 10:79, 133, 247; 12:363; 13:122, 231, 233; cf. Herodotus 4:1.
25
War 1:99; 6:352; 7:326; Ant. 1:69; 6:71, 91; 7:321, 322.
126 CHAPTER SIX
26
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.
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
27
choice, namely, a philosophy, school, party, o r f a c t i o n . I n 13 o f these
15 cases the w o r d designates o n e o r m o r e o f the v a r i o u s g r o u p s within
Judaism—viz., Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , Essenes, o r that o f J u d a s the
Galilean.
W h a t precisely d o e s J o s e p h u s m e a n b y calling these g r o u p s octpeaets?
A t first g l a n c e h e s e e m s to use the w o r d to designate v e r y different sorts
o f g r o u p s . O n the o n e h a n d , J u d a s represents a octpeats that J o s e p h u s
ostracizes f r o m m a i n s t r e a m J u d a i s m (War 2 : 1 1 8 ) ; o n the o t h e r h a n d , the
m a i n s t r e a m g r o u p s themselves are also atpeaet? (loc. cit.; cf. 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 I f f . ; Life 1 0 ) , so the w o r d itself c a n n o t b e taken t o i m p l y a n y d e
2 8
viance or " s e c t a r i a n i s m " . 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
29
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.
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
Josephus also uses o f the atpeaei^, o c c u r h u n d r e d s o f times in other
passages. B u t alpeat? a p p e a r s o n l y twice in those c o n t e x t s . T h i s special
use o f octpeais spans J o s e p h u s ' s entire literary c a r e e r a n d a p p e a r s in three
w o r k s o f v e r y different character (War 2 : 1 1 8 , 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 ; 2 0 : 1 9 9 ;
Life 10, 1 9 1 , 1 9 7 ) , so it c a n n o t b e attributed to a s o u r c e . S i n c e ocipeats,
w h e n it d e n o t e s a g r o u p o f p e o p l e , almost always refers t o the Pharisees,
S a d d u c e e s , Essenes, a n d partisans o f J u d a s , o n e m u s t ask what these
groups have in common that might have attracted this particular
designation.
2 6
See the discussions in Thackeray, Lexicon, and LSJ, s.v.; and H . Schlier, "ocipeaic",
TDNT, I.
2 7
War 2:118, 122, 137, 142, 162; Ant. 13:171, 288, 293; 20:199; Ant. 7:347; 15:6;
Life 10, 12, 191, 197.
2 8
As LeMoyne, Les Sadduceens, 33, points out.
2 9 il
Thus far, Rivkin's judgment is correct: hairesis is neutral with respect to number,
deviation, and denomination" (Revolution, 318).
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 127
3 0
Ant. 18:20.
3 1
Ant. 17:42.
3 2
Rivkin, Revolution, 318, errs when he claims that qnXoaoqHOC is the only synonym.
3 3
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).
128 CHAPTER SIX
3 4
Cf. Polybius 5.93.8; Dionysius, Composition 2; Diogenes Laertius 1:19; 7:191;
Sextus Empiricus (c. A D 200), Pyrrhonic Elements 1:16, 185, 237.
3 5
Philo, On Noah's Work as a Planter, 151.
36
Contemplative Life, 129.
3 7
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. Haen-
chen, 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.
38
Eccl.Hist. 4.22.7.
3 9
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 phari-
sienne", Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Part II (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980),
256-269.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 129
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). . . .
4 0
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.
4 1
E.g., War 1:46, 297; Ant. 2:307, 311; 20:152.
4 2
Ant. 10:83, 98; 11:61.
4 3
War 3:452; 5:65; Ant. 5:167; 8:294; 9:191.
4 4
Ant. 7:290, 393; 8:365.
130 CHAPTER SIX
Tpta yap 7uap' 'Iou8atot£ et8rj 9tXoao9£tTat, xat TOU uiv a t p e T t a x a t Oaptaatot, TOU
8e £a88ouxatot, TptTOv hi . . . 'Eaarjvot.
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
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".
46
Thackeray, however, concedes that the verb otTzayco is puzzling. The
difficulty lies in the prefix <X7co, 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
47
eTCCCfco, without manuscript support; this allows for a greater range of
positive associations.
One must ask whether the scholars' difficulties with arca-fto do not
48
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
Lexicon, "a7C<rfetv".
4 7
Lexicon, s.v.. The emendation was suggested by Hudson.
4 8
L C L edn., I, viif.; cf. his Josephus, 7.
132 CHAPTER SIX
1. Key Terms
5 0
(a) J o s e p h u s uses eifxapjxevrj 20 t i m e s : 12 times in War, 7 times in Ant.,
a n d o n c e in Ag.Ap. S e v e n o f these o c c u r r e n c e s , h o w e v e r , fall within the
s c h o o l passages n o w u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n . S u b t r a c t i n g these, the w o r d o c
curs in other c o n t e x t s 9 times in War, 3 t i m e s in Ant., a n d o n c e in Ag.Ap.
One m a y distinguish at the outset t w o senses o f eifxapuivrj, the o n e sub
j e c t i v e ( i . e . , Fate as a p o w e r ) a n d the o t h e r o b j e c t i v e ( i . e . , w h a t is
5 1
"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).
5 0
The verb eifxotpxo occus at War 1:79 and 4:257.
5 1
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.
134 CHAPTER SIX
5 2
Cf. V . Cioffari, "Fortune, Fate, and Chance", in Dictionary of the History of Ideas,
ed. P. P. Wiener (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), II, 226: "The notion of
Fate may very well have arisen from the observation of the inexorability of death."
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 135
T h a t b u i l d i n g , h o w e v e r , G o d (6 8e6?), i n d e e d l o n g s i n c e , h a d sentenced to
the flames; b u t n o w . . . h a d a r r i v e d the fated d a y (TJ eifiapuivr) rjfxepa) . . .
the d a y o n w h i c h o f old it h a d b e e n b u r n t b y the k i n g o f B a b y l o n . ( § 2 5 0 ;
Thackeray).
5 3
For "explanation" or "solution" as a meaning of 7capa9u(xta, see LSJ (,9th. edn.).
5 4
How Wachter ("unterschiedliche Haltung", 101 f.) can interpret ei(xap(xevr) in these
passages to mean an autonomous power is not clear.
5 5
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.
5 6 7
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.
7
92), but that Greek and Roman views of TUX ! also survive in his work. Cf. also Kajanto,
God and Fate, 11-23.
136 CHAPTER SIX
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)
5 7
The charge is based on passages like Homer's Iliad, 16:433-461; 19:95-133 (where
Zeus is trapped by an oath); and 22:168-185. Notice that Lucian (Zeus Catechized, 4-11)
launches a similar attack on the notion that Zeus, if he is a god, should be limited by
Fate.
5 8
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.
5 9
Contra Wachter, "Die unterschiedliche Haltung", lOlf. and Martin, 'Josephus's
Use of Heimarmene", 133f. Cf. Notscher, Aufsatze, 7, for an accurate assessment.
6 0
So L. Wachter, "unterschiedliche Haltung", 107.
6 1
So G. Maier, freier Wille, llf., who thinks that Josephus's source was a description
of the Pharisees by Nicolaus of Damascus.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 137
6 2
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,
6 3
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.
6 4
Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2622f.; Stock, "Fate", 789.
6 5
Stobaeus, I, 178.
Cf. Ant. 18:13:rcpaaaeaGoctetfxapfxevTj toc xcavxa.
6 6
6 7
Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2626f.
6 8
Gorgias 512E: "It is believed by the women that no one can escape Fate". Cf.
Phaedo 115A and Stock, "Fate", 789.
6 9
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.
7 0
See the discussion below.
138 CHAPTER SIX
71
Cf. Stock, "Fate", 789; Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2628; W . Windelband, A
History of Philosophy, trans. J. H . Tufts (New York: Macmillan, 1910), 192f.; Amand,
Fatalisme et Liberte, 6f.; Greene, Moira, 338f.; Cioffari, "Fortune", 228; and Kajanto,
God and Fate, 13.
7 2
Cioffari, "Fortune", 226; Theiler, "Tacitus", 45f.; and Kajanto, God and Fate, 13.
7 3
Further examples may be found in SVF, II, 1024, 1076, and in Theiler, "Tacitus",
46 n. 2.
7 4
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.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 139
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
7 6
the hellenistic w o r l d b y the first century A D , 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
77
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 . 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
78
o f oujJwuaOetoc in the u n i v e r s e . U n d e r the dual s p o n s o r s h i p o f S t o i c i s m
a n d a s t r o l o g y , therefore, siu.ocpu.ev7) a c q u i r e d a central p l a c e in H e l l e n i s t i c
speculations, b o t h learned and popular.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , the S t o i c - p h i l o s o p h i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f fate w a s still
7 5
A . Posnanski (Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus
[Breslau: T . Schatzby, 1887], 11), notes that we have here only a terminological parallel.
Josephus does not advance any particular Stoic doctrines for the Pharisees, such as that
of the X6yo$ 07cep(xaTtx6^. It is worth noting, however, that Josephus himself comes close
to this Stoic teaching when, in his speech against suicide at Jotapata, he speaks of the
soul as a "portion of God" (Geou jxotpa, War 3:372).
7 6
Sandbach, The Stoics, 16; Long, Hellenistic Philosophy, 107.
7 7
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).
7 8
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.
140 CHAPTER SIX
7 9
v e r y m u c h alive a m o n g the e d u c a t e d class in the first c e n t u r y AD.
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
8 0
subject, m o s t o f w h i c h are n o w l o s t . 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
8 1
P h i l o uses the w o r d o n l y 8 t i m e s . But P o s n a n s k i w a s p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t
w h e n he said that J o s e p h u s :
unter eifxapfxevrj nichts anderes als den Ratschluss Gottes versteht, der als
H e r r der W e l t uber alles frei verfugt und ohne den nichts geschehen
82
kann.
7 9
Theiler, "Tacitus", 42f. (although he calls the "philosophical" definition of fate
"Platonistic", 67-81). Tacitus, Annals 6:22, presents the philosophical view of fate as a
common one in his day. Augustine still recognizes and respects it, albeit as a minority
view: "There are some, however, who define fate, not as the arrangement of stars at
conception, . . . but as the total series of causes which brings about all that happens"
(City of God 5:8, cf. 5:1). So Posidonius's influence on Stoicism was not decisive (Greene,
Moira, 354); he did not cause that school to reinterpret eifjuxpfxevrj in astrological terms.
8 0
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.
8 1
Cohn-Wendland cite eight occurrences.
8 2
Posnanski, Anschauungen, 12.
8 3
So Posnanski, Anschauungen, 11; contra L. H . Martin, "Josephus's Use of
11
Heimarmene , 127-137.
8 4
Cf. Posnanski, Anschauungen, 11 et passim.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 141
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).
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)
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 CHAPTER SIX
Where within this field Stxatoouvr) differs from p"re, it is not a matter o f dif
ference in the meaning o f the terms, but o f different conceptions o f the con
tent o f 'righteousness'. Thus the fact that p"re is always related to G o d and
His law, rather than to social customs and institutions as such, . . . gives
a different colour to its use. . . . Where the Hebrew conception o f
righteousness differs from the popular Greek conception, we may put it
thus, that whereas for the Greek Stxaioauvrj is always being pulled over from
8 6
It is difficult to see how Wachter ("unterschiedliche Haltung", 10If.) and Stahlin
("Schicksal", 337) can say that Josephus here makes fate all-powerful and autonomous
from God, since Herod catches most of the blame for what happened with his sons. M y
reading (that fate is here an aspect of God's nature) agrees with Posnanski's
(Anschauungen, 13 n. 17); he evidently had a similar difficulty understanding his
predecessor Langen.
8 7
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.
8 8
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.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 143
the broad sense o f ' righteousness' to the narrower sense o f 'justice', the pull
89
in Hebrew is in the opposite direction.
8 9
C . H . Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 44f. So
also J. A . Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: University Press,
1972), 47.
9 0
Aixocioauv7) appears 39 times, but Sixocioco only 9 times (all in Ant.). Atxr) appears 158
times.
9 1
See chapter 4, above.
9 2
On Josephus's use of this word-group, cf. "Stxatos" in the Thackeray/Marcus Lex
icon, and Ziesler, Righteousness, 110.
9 3
So Schlatter, Theologie, 159.
9 4
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.
144 CHAPTER SIX
9 5
It is worth noting that in the parallel account in War (2:145), the Essenes are said
to be "scrupulously careful and just in their trial of cases" (7uepi . . . xaq xpiaeu; axpt-,
PeaToexot xal Sixaioi). Here Stxaio? clearly refers to human affairs.
9 6
Marcus/Wikgren choose "righteousness", but the alternative seems just as ap
propriate.
97
Ant. 14:208, 211, 265 (Josephus's words); 16:29 (Josephus's words); 19:282, 285,
288.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 145
J o s e p h u s a c c u s e s J o h n o f G i s c h a l a o f h a v i n g d o n e a w a y w i t h all t h o s e
in J e r u s a l e m w h o p r o p o s e d " j u s t a n d salutary m e a s u r e s " ( T h a c k e r a y ,
for TOC Stxoctoc x a l a u u ^ p o v r a , War 7 : 2 6 3 ) . Ant. 3 : 7 2 s p e a k s o f TOC Sixaia i n
the trial o f cases; 5 : 2 3 2 r e p o r t s that G i d e o n t h e j u d g e a d m i n i s t e r e d TOC
Stxata; i n 8 : 2 3 S o l o m o n p r a y s that h e m i g h t j u d g e (xp(vot[xt) t h e p e o p l e
o n t h e b a s i s o f TOC Stxata; a n d 8 : 2 9 6 foresees a t i m e w h e n t h e r e will b e
n o priest t o a d m i n i s t e r (xpT)|xaTt£oav) TOC Stxata. I n t h e s a m e v e i n , Ant.
1 3 : 1 2 6 r e c o r d s D e m e t r i u s I P s p l e a s u r e that t h e J e w s h a v e fulfilled their
" j u s t o b l i g a t i o n s " (TOC Stxata) t o w a r d t h e S e l e u c i d s a n d 1 5 : 1 0 8 n o t e s that
t h e N a b a t e a n k i n g failed t o p e r f o r m t h e s a m e (TOC Stxata) t o w a r d H e r o d .
A s w i t h t h e s i n g u l a r , a f e w i n s t a n c e s o f TOC SCxaia i n J o s e p h u s s u g g e s t
m o r e directly the idea o f " r i g h t e o u s n e s s " o r pleasing G o d . O n e e x a m p l e
is Ant. 9:167-169, where K i n g Joash is said to have transgressed
(7cXr|(X(xeXetv) a g a i n s t w h a t w a s right (et$ TOC Stxata) a n d t h e p r o p h e t is sent
b y G o d ( § 1 6 9 ) t o a d m o n i s h h i m t o d o t h e right (TOC Stxata 7cpdcTTetv). I n
Ant. 1 1 : 5 6 Z e r u b b a b e l praises t r u t h (rj aXrjOeta) as that w h i c h p r o v i d e s
98
" w h a t is j u s t a n d l a w f u l " (TOC Stxata xat TOC v6(xt(xa) a n d thereby keeps
away what is u n j u s t (TOC a S t x a ) . A l t h o u g h these examples show that
u l t i m a t e l y it is G o d ' s L a w that sets t h e s t a n d a r d f o r j u s t i c e , t h e y d o n o t
c h a n g e t h e fact that TOC Stxata i n J o s e p h u s s u g g e s t s p r i m a r i l y " d o i n g t h e
right t h i n g b y o n e ' s f e l l o w s " r a t h e r t h a n " o b e y i n g t h e d i v i n e L a w " per
se." The meaning is generally closer to "justice" than to
1 0 0
'' righteousness " .
T h a t J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d TOC Stxata xat (xrj as a s i m p l e ethical c h o i c e —
" t o d o g o o d o r n o t " — i s m a d e a b s o l u t e l y c l e a r b y t h e latter h a l f o f t h e
(xev . . . Se c o n s t r u c t i o n i n o u r p a s s a g e . F o r w h e r e a s t h e P h a r i s e e s s a y
that TOTCpdcTTetvTOC Stxata xat u.rj rests x a T a TO 7rXeTarov ini TOT$ &v0pa>7uot$,
b u t that fate assists i n e a c h c a s e , t h e S a d d u c e e s ( § 1 6 4 ) d o a w a y w i t h fate
9
e n t i r e l y a n d m a i n t a i n ( § 1 6 5 ) that in av0pco7ccov ixXoyfj TO Te xaXov xat
TO xaxov; t h e latter p h r a s e m u s t b e m o r e o r less e q u i v a l e n t t o TO rcpdcTTeiv
TOC Stxata xat u.rj. J o s e p h u s ' s m e a n i n g , t h e n , s e e m s clear e n o u g h . When
h e s p e a k s o f TO 7cpdcTTetv TOC Stxata xat ptrj h e is e v o k i n g t h e ethical alter
1 0 1
n a t i v e s o f " d o i n g w h a t is right o r n o t " .
9 8
Cf. Ant. 7:151.
9 9
In Ant. 12:121 and 14:315, TOC SCxocioc is paired with TOC GeaePet? and TOC euaejkis, re
spectively. In these combinations it probably refers to the man-ward side of just
behaviour, just as Sixato? in the complementary pair euae(Br)s xoci Stxato^.
1 0 0
The Thackeray/Marcus Lexicon counts 59 instances in which the neuter adjective
(singular and plural) occurs substantively with the meaning "justice".
1 0 1
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.
146 CHAPTER SIX
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
103
8ixatoauv7)v wiedergegeben w i r d . (emphasis added)
1 0 2
For general treatments of the concept in both Greek and Hebrew thought, cf.
Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 42-59; W . Schrenk, "Sixocux;", TDNT, II, 181ff. For the
O T , cf. A . R . Gordon, "Righteousness ( O T ) " , ERE and the literature cited on p. 784;
Ziesler, Righteousness, 17-45; B. Johnson, "Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen sadaq
und sedaqa", Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1978-79), 31-39; B. Przybylski,
Righteousness in Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1980), 8-12. For the in-
tertestamental and rabbinic literature, cf. J. Abelson, "Righteousness (Jewish)", ERE;
Ziesler, Righteousness, 52-126; E. P. Sanders, Paul, 198-205; Przybylski, Righteousness, 13-
76. 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).
1 0 3
Maier, freier Wille, 12.
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 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
1 0 4
the O T a n d in later J u d a i s m . 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
standard w a g e s a n d p r i c e s " — 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
1 0 6
obligations toward G o d . 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
Josephus's use o f TOC Stxata. I n d e e d , as H . W . A t t r i d g e has s h o w n ,
J o s e p h u s has a m a r k e d t e n d e n c y t o o m i t the i d e a o f c o v e n a n t f r o m his
107
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
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 books.
T h e w o r d - g r o u p a p p e a r s o n l y 25 times in all o f the P e n t a t e u c h , b u t 9 4
times in P r o v e r b s a l o n e , w h e r e g n o m i c w i s d o m is discussed. It o c c u r s
142 times in J o b , P r o v e r b s , a n d Ecclesiastes together. A l l five cases o f
the n e u t e r substantive in P r o v e r b s h a v e the sense o f c o m m o n j u s t i c e
( 1 6 : 7 , 3 3 ; 1 8 : 5 ; 2 1 : 7 ; 2 9 : 6 ) . T h i s suggests that the L X X translators
perceived important differences between Hpl^ (as covenantal) and
108
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.
1 0 5
Quoting A. R . Gordon, ERE, 781, who is summarizing Amos's usage. Cf. Dodd,
Greeks, 44.
1 0 6
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.
1 0 7
Attridge, Interpretation, 79f.
1 0 8
Cf. also R . B. Y . Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, "Anchor Bible", vol. 18 (Garden
City: Doubleday, 1965), xvif.
148 CHAPTER SIX
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
1 1 8
community (TTJrcoXiTixfjxotvcovtoc). ( 5 . 1 . 1 3 . )
1 0 9
Hirzel, Themis, 18f., 138f.
1 1 0
Republic 432b. Schrenk (TDNT, II, 182 n. 2) finds righteousness among the virtues
already in Aeschylus.
1 1 1
So already Theognis 147: "In Justice (Sixatoouvrj) is all virtue found in sum"
(quoted by Aristotle, N.E. 5.1.15, trans. Rackham).
1 1 2
Havelock, Greek Concept, 308f.
1 1 3
The richness of the Aristotelian conception of Sixaioouvrj has inspired the
monographs of Salomon, Siegfried, and Trude (n. 102 above).
1 1 4
So Plutarch, On Common Conceptions, 1070D; cf. P. Shorey, "Righteousness", 804.
1 1 5
See n. 102 above.
1 1 6
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.
1 1 7
Dodd, Greeks, 43. Cf. also Schrenk, TDNT, II, 182, who cites many examples, and
Ziesler, Righteousness, 44f.
1 1 8
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. . .).
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 149
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.
1 1 9
Schrenk (TDNT, II, 183) comments on Josephus's frequent use of Stxatoi; in con
7 e t c t n a t
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.).
1 2 0
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 Sand-
bach, Stoics, llf. (on ancient philosophy in general).
1 2 1
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.
1 2 2
War 3:389, 396; 5:59; Ant. 1:178; 5:110; 13:355; 18:215; 19:167.
150 CHAPTER SIX
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.
1 2 3
In describing the Pharisaic position (13:172), the M S S L A M W E support £9' r|[xtv
OCUTOTs.
124
N.E. 3.1.1.
1 2 5
Cf. also N.E. 3.5.3, 6, 7, 16, 21, 22, passim.
1 2 6
Atxocios and a8ixo<; also appear in the discussion, N.E., 3.5.12, 14.
1 2 7
Notice the pairing of apexri and xaxta here and at 3.5.19. Compare Josephus on
the Pharisees, Ant. 18:13, 14.
1 2 8
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.
1 2 9
Epicurus, for example, uses TO 7cocp' rjjxas for the same conception, Letter to Menoeceus
133, cited in Furley, Two Studies, 184.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 151
1 3 0
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.
1 3 1
18 times in War, 46 in Ant., 3 in Life, 1 in Ag.Ap.
1 3 2
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.
1 3 4
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.
1 3 5
Cicero, On Fate, 42.
152 CHAPTER SIX
2. Interpretation
Pharisees Sadducees
( 1 6 3 ) eifxapfxevrj T £ xal Geco 7rpoaa7i- ( 1 6 4 ) xrjv . . . eifxapjxevrjv 7tavTa7caaiv
xouat Tiavxa avaipooatv xal TOV Geov e£a> . . .
TiGevxai
1 3 6
Ibid., 41.
1 3 7
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.
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
1 4 0
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 . 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
1 4 1
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 .
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
1 4 2
will naturally d o 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
1 4 3
ter. Plato c o n t i n u e d this e m p h a s i s o n e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors that t e n d
to c o m m i t o n e a priori to a particular life pattern ( s o m e t i m e s calling these
1 3 9
Maier (freier Wille, 13) acknowledges this as a possible reading of our passage, but
argues that the free-will clause may be intended to designate one exception to the other
wise complete rule of fate, namely, the area of ethics/Soteriologie, in which man remains
wholly free. This reading, however, fails to account for the final fate clause (Por)0e!v et<;
exaa-cov TTJV etjxapfxevrjv), which restates the original proposition, with no exceptions.
Maier also neglects the (xev. . . hi comparison with the Sadducees, which seems to require
that precisely on the issue of ethics the two parties disagree about the cause of human
action, with the Sadducees making human volition the cause.
1 4 0
Moore, "Fate", 375, 397f.; Maier, freier Wille, 3. Cf. Appendix B at the end of
this study.
1 4 1
Diogenes Laertius 2:16 ("Socrates introduced ethics"); Greene, Moira, 223;
Windelband, History of Philosophy, 191.
1 4 2
Windelband, History of Philosophy, 191.
1 4 3
Ibid.
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
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 to
1 4 5
overcome environmental prejudices. Particularly in his M y t h o f Er,
1 4 6
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 . Souls s t a n d i n g b e f o r e
the three Fates are p r e s e n t e d with life patterns to c h o o s e f r o m , a n d P l a t o
r e m a r k s t h r o u g h the p r o p h e t : " T h e responsibility b e l o n g s to h i m who
1 4 7
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). 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
1 4 8
o t h e r life-pattern (Rep. 618b-619a).
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
1 4 9
(apeTT) xal xaxia) squarely in ourselves ( £ 9 ' rjfxtv; NE. 3.5.2). Already
with these pillars o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y the e x p l o r a t i o n o f the relationship
b e t w e e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l factors ( o r fate) a n d v o l i t i o n in the matter o f
ethics h a d m a d e a solid b e g i n n i n g .
It was with the Stoics, h o w e v e r , that the p r o b l e m b e c a m e a c u t e , d u e
principally to their u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f fate as the w o r l d - s o u l itself, the
150
Aoyoq. 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.
1 4 5
Greene, Moira, 313f. In Laws 904, Plato insists that the gods leave the decision for
virtue or vice to men's own souls.
146
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.
1 4 7
Cf. Timaeus 41d, 42d, 91de, in which it is said that one determines the quality of
one's reinarnation by one's actions.
1 4 8
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."
1 4 9
Cf. the discussions of Aristotle on this point in Amand, Fatalisme et Liberie, 6;
Windelband, History of Philosophy, 192f.; Greene, Moira, 338, 348ff.
1 5 0
Cf. Greene, Moira, 338, 348ff.; Windelband, History of Philosphy, 192f.; Amand,
Fatalisme et Liberie, 6f.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 155
ground (apxTj) o f his actions and these appeared to be . . . but the predeter
151
mined and unavoidably necessary operations of the G o d - N a t u r e .
1 5 1
Windelband, History of Philosophy, 192f.
1 5 2
Cf. Diogenes Laertius 10:133 on the Epicureans; Windelband, History of Philosphy,
194f.; Greene, Moira, 334ff.
1 5 3
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.
1 5 4
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.
1 5 5
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.
1 5 6
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."
156 CHAPTER SIX
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 twenty-
six 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
o r
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.)
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)
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 Josephus
(0 cl)ux*|v OKpOapxov (War 2:163) cl>ux*l d9dvaxo<; deC (War 3:372)
dGdvaxov Jaxov xats <|)UxaK
18:14)
(") Souls of the dyfot [xexa(}aCveiv Those who observe and die for
exepov aa>[xa (War 2:163) the laws are granted yeveoOat icdXtv
Souls of the virtuous find paaxa>v7)v xal (5(ov djieCva) Xd(leiv ix Tceptxporcffc
TOO avaPiouv (Ant 18:14) 2:218)
Those who die naturally divots
rcdXtv dvxevotxCCovxai acojiaatv (War
3:374)
(iii) The souls of the 90CUX01 suffer &i8uo The souls of the xdxoi meet with
xi^pCa after death (War 2:163) dOdvaxov xificopCav after death (War
2:157)
Essenes Josephus
(0 98dpxoc elvat xa aa>[iaxa xal -rfjv uXrjv xd a<o[iaxa GvrjTa rcaatv xal ix
ou pt6vt{xov (War 2:154) 99apxffc SXric (War 3:372)
(«) xa$ 8i c[>uxa? dOavdxous det (War cj>ux*) 81 dGdvaxo* dei (War 3:372)
2:154)
(iii) Souls emanate from the ether (ix A soul is a portion of God
TOO Xercxoxdxou aJ8£po?) and become housed in a body (Oeou (xotpa xoT^
trapped in the prison of the body acopuxatv IvotxtCexat) (War 3:372)
( e t p X T a t s TOTS acofxaatv) (War 2:154)
(iv) For virtuous (ayaOot) souls, after Those who die naturally are allot
death there is a SCatxa beyond the ted the x^P 0 V
oupdvtov xdv
ocean, a x & P 0 V
optPpoi? ouxe dyuoxocxov (War 3:374)
VI9&TOI^ ouxe xaupaai (3apuv6(jt£vov
(War 2:155)
(v) The souls of the 9auXot after death The souls of the xdxoi meet with
go to a dungeon (jxux^c) filled with dOdvaxov xtfjicoptav (War 2:157)
xtjxcaptcov d8iaXei7uxcov (War 2:155)
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
1 5 8
I use the term, for now, in its broader sense—the entry of a soul into another body.
A more nuanced analysis follows below.
1 5 9
War 1:58; 2:151.
1 6 0
War 1:650 (re: Judas and Mattathias); War 6:46-48 (re: Titus).
161
Ant. 12:282.
1 6 2
War 7:341-357.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 161
1 6 3
view, 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
and 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 can
safely b e attributed to the Pharisees, the Essenes, o r J o s e p h u s himself,
they c a n serve o n l y to illustrate o t h e r possible v i e w s o f the afterlife. It
is the v i e w s that h e attributes to the Pharisees a n d the Essenes, t o g e t h e r
w i t h those he sets o u t as his o w n , that are m o s t pertinent to o u r study.
2 . Interpretation
1 6 3
Especially with the idea that the body is a prison, an inappropriate vehicle for the
soul, War 7:344, cf. 2:154f.
1 6 4
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.
1 6 5
Cf. F. Cumont, After Life in Roman Paganism (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1922); W . Stettner, Die Seelenwanderung bei Griechen und Romern (Stuttgart: W . Kohlham-
mer, 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.
162 CHAPTER SIX
1 6 6
soul's immortality g o e s b a c k to H o m e r a n d b e y o n d , the c o n v i c t i o n
that the soul b o t h leaves the b o d y at death a n d passes into a n o t h e r b o d y
1 6 7
can o n l y b e securely attributed to P y t h a g o r a s (6th c e n t u r y BC).
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
1 6 8
was held b y Pythagoras.
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
1 6 9
in a p r i s o n o r g r a v e , a n d its g o a l w a s to e s c a p e b a c k to its true h o m e .
1 7 0
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 BC),
w h o suggested that if a soul r e m a i n e d p u r e t h r o u g h o u t three lifetimes it
1 7 1
w o u l d find blissful rest f r o m b o d i l y l i f e . 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
1 7 2
a moral c o n t e x t . H i s v a r i o u s presentations d o n o t always harmonize
in detail. T h e picture in the m i d d l e w o r k s , however—Phaedo, Republic,
and Phaedrus—is fairly consistent: pre-existent souls fall from their
h e a v e n l y a b o d e b e c a u s e o f their failure to m a i n t a i n p u r e t h o u g h t . T h e y
b e c o m e i n c a r n a t e d as h u m a n s . A t death, the soul g o e s to the u n d e r w o r l d
1 6 6
C . H . Moore, Pagan Ideas, 8f. The eleventh book of the Odyssey contains the oldest
known "descent into Hades" story.
1 6 7
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.
1 6 8
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.
1 6 9
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.
170
Olympian Odes 2:64-80.
1 7 1
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.
1 7 2
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.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 163
1 7 3
Meno 81b-c.
1 7 4
Phaedo 80e ff.; 81e/114c; 107c/113d.
1 7 5
Stettner's observation (Seelenwanderung, 37).
1 7 6
For the distinction, cf. Cumont, After Life, 182, and Stettner, Seelenwanderung, 3ff.
w<Jl
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.)
1 7 7
Blumenthal ("Palingenesia", 140) attributes the first known usage of the term to
Pindar.
164 CHAPTER SIX
O u r souls are deathless, and ever, when they have left their former seat,
do they live in new abodes and dwell in the bodies that have received them.
. . . T h e spirit wanders, comes now here, now there, and occupies
1 7 8
Blumenthal, "Palingenesia", 139; Buchsel, 687. The equivalence holds even when
the terms are used in the Stoic context of cosmic rebirth. It was Stoic teaching that gave
currency to both terms.
1 7 9
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.
1 8 1
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).
1 8 2
Cumont, After Life, 6.
1 8 3
C . H . Moore, Ancient Ideas, 39: "The soul then for them was a mode or function
of matter."
1 8 4
Ibid., 41f. Cf. Hippolytus, Philosophoumena 1.21.3.
1 8 5
Cumont, After Life, 17f.; Stettner, Seelenwanderung, 42f.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 165
whatever form it pleases. From beasts it passes ito human bodies, and from
186
our bodies into beasts, but never perishes.
1 8 7
Seneca attributes a similar v i e w to P y t h a g o r a s . A l o n g s i d e this ap
parently a m o r a l v i e w , h o w e v e r , the P l a t o n i c n o t i o n o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n as
a m o r a l l y d e t e r m i n e d process also r e a p p e a r e d , b o t h in the form of
ai 188
uninterrupted movement f r o m b o d y to b o d y (pteTe[X(|>ux^ ?) and as
p e r i o d i c r e i n c a r n a t i o n , f o l l o w i n g interludes in the u n d e r w o r l d (7caXty-
189 1 9 0
ysvsata) T h e Stoic v i e w o f i m m o r t a l i t y is u n c l e a r .
To s u m m a r i z e : it was Plato w h o e x e r c i s e d the d e c i s i v e influence on
the idea o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n in G r e c o - R o m a n a n t i q u i t y . H e m a d e it a c o n
1 9 1
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 . Yet
e v e n Plato was not consistent in his p o r t r a y a l o f the issue. In the ancient
w o r l d there was n o c o n s e n s u s a b o u t such matters as: w h e t h e r reincarna
tion is a perpetual process o r a f o r m o f a t o n e m e n t ; w h e t h e r o r n o t the
soul spends intervals b e t w e e n v a r i o u s i n c a r n a t i o n s in the u n d e r w o r l d ;
h o w m a n y incarnations are to b e e x p e c t e d ; h o w l o n g the p e r i o d s o f
d i s e m b o d i m e n t , a n d so forth. N o single s c h e m a p r e v a i l e d .
C l e a r l y , J o s e p h u s ' s c h o s e n terms to d e s c r i b e the afterlife—terms like
[xeTafiaivetv exepov aco[xa, yevsaGat 7taXtv and <xv<x(3touv—would have
e v o k e d a m o n g his G r e c o - R o m a n readers s o m e sort o f p h i l o s o p h y o f rein
c a r n a t i o n . T h a c k e r a y says simply that in these passages w e find "the
1 9 2
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 " . Y e t g i v e n the variety o f
beliefs at the t i m e , it is necessary to define the J o s e p h a n a n d Pharisaic
v i e w s s o m e w h a t m o r e closely.
W e b e g i n with W . Stettner's distinction b e t w e e n a m o r a l o r inevitable
metempsychosis, o n the o n e h a n d , and r e i n c a r n a t i o n as a p r o c e s s deter-
186
Metamorphoses 15:158-168, trans. F. J. Miller ( L C L edn.); cf. Stettner, Seelen
wanderung, 44f.
187
Epistles 108:19.
1 8 8
Stettner (Seelenwanderung, 50) cites the treatise icept c|>t>xoc<; xoajxco, attributed to
Timaios Lokros, as evidence of this view, which recalls the Timaeus.
1 8 9
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.).
1 9 0
Cf. especially SVF, II, 804-22, on the views of various Stoics. Blumenthal ("Pal-
ingenesia", 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.
191
So C . H . Moore, Pagan Ideas, 14ff.; Blumenthal, "Palingenesia", 141; Stettner,
Seelenwanderung, 33, 49ff.
1 9 2
L C L edn., II, 386 n. a.
166 CHAPTER SIX
[xeTa(Jatvetv 8e et£ exepov acofxa TTJV ([JUXTJV T<OV dyaOcov [X6VTJV, TOCS Se 9<xuX<ov
atSCco Tt{xa)pta xoXdCeaOat. (War 2:163)
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).
1 9 4
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.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 167
195
P l a t o ' s present i n f i n i t i v e . 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
196
a n d his Pharisees is a l w a y s s i n g u l a r .
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
1 9 7
c u r s o n l y four times in J o s e p h u s . 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
1 9 8
that will b r i n g a better l i f e .
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
1 9 9
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 " — 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 "con
2 0 0
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 . But it c a n also refer
2 0 1
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 ; the v e r b 7teptTpercco often m e a n s " t o
1 9 5
Plato's extra y merely reflects the Attic reduplication (LSJ, s.v.).
1 9 6
Ag.Ap. 2:218.
1 9 7
Ant. 4:80; 12:38; 15:418; 18:85.
1 9 8
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).
1 9 9
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).
2 0 0 to
In Theaetetus 209e and Republic 546e, Plato uses TtepixpoTCTi describe the revolution
of the xuxXo$ of life; see also Philo, Embassy to Gaius 206.
2 0 1
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.
168 CHAPTER SIX
2 0 2
turn o v e r o r c a p s i z e " . 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
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 or
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. 14:487). These ex
a m p l e s , few t h o u g h they are, suffice to warrant the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r
Josephus d o e s n o t e n v i s i o n a single m o m e n t at w h i c h the soul will
receive a n e w , holy b o d y .
Outside o f Josephus, the phrases ex 7ceptTpo7cfjs a n d ev 7cepiTpo7cfj
generally s e e m to m e a n " i n s u c c e s s i o n ' o r " i n t u r n " . F o r e x a m p l e : the
responsibility for an a n n u a l e v e n t falls o n v a r i o u s g r o u p s o f p e o p l e " i n
turn", or each m e m b e r o f a harem spends time with her l o r d "in
2 0 4
turn". 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 "
2 0 5
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 " .
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
2 0 6
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 .
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.
2 0 3
Ant. 9:72 (a sudden change of emotion); 10:297 (the overturning of a chariot);
14:356 (the overturning of a wagon).
2 0 4
Cf. Herodotus 2:168; 3:69; Dio Cassius 53.1.5; 54.19.8; Dionysius of Halicar-
nassus, Rom. Ant. 5:2.
2 0 5
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.
2 0 6
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.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 169
2 0 7
Cf. J. Ross, Immortality, esp. 58-68. In the N T , cf. Acts 23:8. I thus agree with
Feldman ( L C L edn. of Josephus, I X , 13 n. c.) that Josephus attributes to the Pharisees
a doctrine of resurrection. I differ from Feldman, however, in two ways: (a) I have not
worked from the premise that Josephus, as a Pharisee, must have known that the group
believed in resurrection; and (b) I do not think that resurrection and "reincarnation"
(in its many Hellenistic modes) are mutually exclusive. Rather, Josephus apparently
considered the former to be one mode—the Jewish mode—of the latter.
2 0 8
Noted by Feldman ( L C L edn., I X , 13 n. c), though not in this context.
2 0 9
Cf. Buchsel, "rcaXrfyeveata", 688. The Lucan parallel to Mt.'s ev xfj icaXt-fYeveata
is ev TTJ paatXeia [xou.
170 CHAPTER SIX
1. Key Terms
2 1 0
So T . F. Glasson, Greek Influence, If., 5f., 30, who argues that Jewish eschatology
has been too quickly traced to Iran, when the political circumstances of Palestine from
the fourth century BC onward would suggest the likelihood of Greek influence.
2 1 1
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.
2 1 2
Noted already by Paret, "Pharisaismus", 820f.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 171
2 1 3
Although the Pharisees are commended, (a) they do not receive the enthusiastic
praise accorded the Essenes in 2:119-161 and (b) the commendation is governed by the
[iev . . . hi comparison with the boorish Sadducees.
2 1 4
The noun occurs 20 times in Josephus, in every work but Ag.Ap.; the verb Ofxoveo)
appears 17 times.
2 1 5
Cf. War l:567ff., 576f., 592ff., 641ff., passim.
2 1 6
The other six occurrences are at War 1:569, 570; 2:209, 345, 467, 609.
172 CHAPTER SIX
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)
2 1 7
Cf., e.g., War 1:10, 27; 2:345-347.
2 1 8
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).
T H E PHARISEES A M O N G T H E JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 173
2 . Interpretation
219 p \\r r, cf. n. 216 above. For Ant., the mundane occurrences are at 2:21; 7:213;
o r a
2 2 0
It is perhaps worth remembering that even the Matthean Jesus agreed with
Pharisaic teaching (Mt. 23:2); yet that does not make him a Pharisee (although such an
identification has been made from time to time).
176 CHAPTER SIX
2 2 9
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.
2 3 0
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
2 3 1
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.
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
1
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.
2
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).
3
Cf., e.g., Schurer, Geschichte, I, 79-85; Niese, HZ, 211-219; idem, ERE, V I I , 572-
575; 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.
4
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.
5
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).
182 CHAPTER SEVEN
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).
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)
6
Cf. my discussion of War in chapter 3, above.
7
E.g., Ant. 1:29; 2:247; 16:174.
8
Cf. Niese, HZ 213f.
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF ANTIQUITIES 183
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)
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)
9
E.g., H . Bloch, Quellen, 4f.; Niese, HZ, 212ff., 213 n. 1; idem, ERE, V I I , 572.
10
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).
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
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 Ant.
I n light o f the c o n t e m p o r a r y situation, the c o n s i s t e n c y o f Ant. 's p r o
g r a m m a t i c statements, a n d the character o f the w o r k as a w h o l e , scholars
h a v e c o m e to a c c e p t the p r e f a c e to Ant. as a forthright d e c l a r a t i o n o f p u r
1 3
pose. T o b e sure, they h a v e often dismissed as b e n i g n e x a g g e r a t i o n
J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to h a v e translated the scriptures w i t h o u t e m b e l l i s h m e n t
1 4
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
1 5
glorious h i s t o r y . "
11
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).
1 2
Suetonius, Domitian 12.
1 3
In addition to the scholars cited in n. 3 above, cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 136, 228ff.
1 4
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.
15
Thackeray, L C L edn, I V , vii; cf. his Josephus, 52.
1 6
Attridge, Interpretation, 67-70.
17
Ibid., 71-107.
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF ANTIQUITIES 185
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)
1 8
Ibid., 68f.
1 9
Ibid., 121-140.
2 0
Cf. esp. Ant. 2:7-8; 4:186, 195; 6:93; 7:380.
21
Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f.
22
NE 10.6.1ff.; cf. Greene, Moira, 324f.
2 3
Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f.; cf. Sextus Empiricus, adv. math.
12:69 (on Epicurus); Epictetus, Dissertations 1.4.32 (on the Stoics).
2 4
Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f.
2 5
Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 427f.; cf. Ant. l:154ff., 161, 167f. (on
Abraham); 8:42-44 (on Solomon).
186 CHAPTER SEVEN
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
28
Judentums.
2 6
E.g., at War 2:119, 166; cf. Ant. 13:289; 18:9, 11, 23, 25.
2 7
Cf. esp. 1:54, 165; 2:47.
2 8
Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 428.
2 9
E. Bickerman, "La chaine", 262f.; M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 79f.; and
Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 428.
3 0
Weiss, "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus", 428.
3 1
Cf. chapter 6, n. 120, above.
3 2
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.
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
33
apologist for J u d a i s m .
3 3
S. Safrai and M . Stern (edd.), The Jewish People, I, 24.
3 4
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.
3 5
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 .
3 6
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. 15:174-
182, 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.
3 7
Cf. War l:108f. with Ant. 13:430£f. See chapter 10, below.
3 8
Cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 261.
3 9
Cf. War 4:319-321 with Ant. 20:199; also Cohen, Josephus, 150f.
4 0
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
188 CHAPTER SEVEN
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
increased emphasis (also in Life) on the willingness of the Jews to fight the Romans (cf.
Ant. 20:257 and Cohen, Josephus, 155f).
4 1
E.g., Rasp, Smith/Neusner, and Cohen. See the discussion below and also chapter
2, above.
4 2
See chapter 2, above.
4 3
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.
4 4
Destinon, Quellen, 91-20.
4 5
Ibid., 96f.
4 6
Ibid., 120.
4 7
Holscher, "Josephus", 1971f., 1977f.
4 8
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.).
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF ANTIQUITIES 189
2. L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y
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.
5 0
HZ, 220-222; ERE, V I I I , 574f.
5 1
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.
5 2
ERE, V I I , 575.
5 3
See my discussion of Laqueur in chapter 2, above.
5 4
Laqueur notes (Historiker, 234), that his interpretation of Josephus corroborates his
earlier analysis of Polybius's method.
5 5
Laqueur, Historiker, 133f.
5 6
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 Josephus-
Forschung.
190 CHAPTER SEVEN
5 7
Ibid., 128-230.
5 8
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.
5 9
Laqueur, Historiker, 138ff., esp. 140. Cf. also 166f.
6 0
Ibid., 143., 146f., 158f.
6 1
Ibid., 171ff.
6 2
Ibid., 168.
6 3
Ibid., 255ff. Cf. chapter 3, above, on Laqueur's intepretation of War as an instru
ment of Roman policy.
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
64
f a m i l y ) in a g l o w i n g l i g h t .
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
65
l e a d e r h a d sold his soul to his n e w p a t r o n s . 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
66
Josephus's writings. 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
67
favour guaranteed Josephus's security.
W i t h the a c c e s s i o n o f D o m i t i a n , h o w e v e r , J e w i s h m e a s u r e s against
J o s e p h u s w e r e r e n e w e d , this t i m e with a d e g r e e o f success b e c a u s e o f
6 8
that e m p e r o r ' s distaste for the p o l i c i e s o f his father a n d brother.
J o s e p h u s lost his f a v o u r e d c o u r t p o s i t i o n a n d this p l a c e d h i m " z w i s c h e n
z w e i S t u h l e " : h e h a d b e e n stripped o f his right to speak for R o m e b u t
he h a d also forfeited the support o f his c o m p a t r i o t s . In these cir
c u m s t a n c e s , h e t u r n e d to o n e E p a p h r o d i t u s (the p a t r o n o f Ant. a n d Life)
6 9
a n d f o u n d in h i m a politically neutral s p o n s o r . 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
70
natural J e w i s h i n s t i n c t s . 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
71
family in Ant. War h a d b e l o n g e d to J o s e p h u s ' s " R o m a n p e r i o d " ; Ant.
w a s the c r e a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s as J e w i s h a p o l o g i s t , n o w free to express his
nationalistic sentiments.
A l t h o u g h L a q u e u r w a s c o n t e n t t o interpret the J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c o f
Ant. as m e r e self-expression o n J o s e p h u s ' s part, he also raised the q u e s
tion w h e t h e r this a p o l o g e t i c w a s calculated to effect a certain Rehabilita
72
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 . 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
7 3
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 " .
But this p r o p o s a l w a s m e r e l y an afterthought o n L a q u e u r ' s part a n d n o t
crucial to his t h e o r y . T h a t T h a c k e r a y in fact t o o k o v e r the substance o f
L a q u e u r ' s v i e w o f Ant. is clear f r o m his r e m a r k that J o s e p h u s :
6 4
Laqueur, Historiker, 258.
6 5
Ibid., 258.
6 6
Ibid. Laqueur points to War 7:442, 447f., which indicate that Josephus was (falsely)
accused of inspiring the revolt in Cyrene ( A D 73).
6 7
Ibid.
6 8
Ibid., 258f.
6 9
Ibid., 259f.
7 0
Ibid., 260f.
7 1
Laqueur, Historiker, 260f.
7 2
Ibid.
7 3
Thackeray, Josephus, 52.
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
74
Jewish historian and apologist.
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
7 4
Ibid.
7 5
Niese, ERE, V I I , 542; cf. HZ, 212f.; and Franxman, Genesis, 5.
7 6
So Thackeray, Josephus, 52f.; but this is denied by Niese, HZ, 212f., and Attridge,
Interpretation, 44ff., 46.
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF ANTIQUITIES 193
7 7
On War, cf. chapter 3, above.
7 8
See the discussion in chapter 3, above.
7 9
See chapter 2, above.
194 CHAPTER SEVEN
8 0
See chapter 2, n. 101.
8 1
Cohen, Josephus, 144ff.
8 2
Ibid., 237f.
8 3
It is not clear, however, that Smith and Neusner have any direct knowledge of La
queur or Rasp.
THE PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF ANTIQUITIES 195
8 4
He wrote in 1972 (''Josephus's Pharisees", 225): "Apart from Feldman [who pub
lished an annotated bibliography, Scholarship on Philo and Josephus, in 1963]. . . I know
of no significant attempt to confront, let alone make use of, Smith's discoveries."
CHAPTER EIGHT
ANT. 13:171-173:
THE PHARISEES A M O N G T H E JEWISH SCHOOLS, II
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*
1
According to Josephus, Judas had become the first Hasmonean high priest after
the death of the apostate Alcimus (Ant. 12:413; cf. 12:419). The accuracy of these
notices is widely disputed, for they contradict Ant. 20:237, and Life 4, according to
which there was no high priest between Alcimus (=Jacimus) and Jonathan. Cf.
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162 n.16, and the literature cited there. Jonathan
was appointed axpaxTiyoi; when he took up the mission of his slain brother (Ant. 13:6),
and high priest somewhat later (13:42, 124), as the result of an internal Seleucid power
struggle.
2
Jonathan became high priest in 152 BC; Alexandra succeeded her husband to the
throne in 75 B C .
3
I have given the L C L translation (by Marcus) except for minor changes in 171.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II 197
I. Context
4
O n the Hasmonean alliances with Rome, see E. M . Smallwood, The Jews Under
Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 4-11.
5
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161. Cf. Moore, "Fate", 371f. and Rivkin,
Revolution, 34f.
6
Holscher, "Josephus", 1973.
7
See the Excursus to Part I above.
8
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 31.
9
Marcus's translation (LCL).
198 CHAPTER EIGHT
1 0
Moore, "Fate", 372.
1 1
See the section on "source analysis" of this passage below.
1 2
So, e.g., Moore and Maier; cf. Appendix B.
1 3
See above, chapters 4 and 6.
1 4
Moore, "Fate", 372.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II 199
A l t h o u g h it is a d u b i o u s a s s u m p t i o n that J o s e p h u s t o o k his d e s c r i p t i o n
o f the J e w i s h schools f r o m a s o u r c e , the v i e w that h e is trying here to
date the o r i g i n s o f the schools d o e s s e e m to b e a natural interpretation
o f the i n t r o d u c t o r y phrase.
S c h w a r t z , h o w e v e r , has recently c o n t e n d e d that J o s e p h u s uses phrases
like XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV yjpovov in an irresponsible way:
1 5
Rivkin, Revolution, 34.
1 6
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161.
1 7
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.
1 8
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 246-254.
1 9
Ibid., 249 and n. 27 thereto.
2 0
Under "Source Analysis".
200 CHAPTER EIGHT
2 1
Cf., e.g., Ant. 1:71; 5:352; 6:30, 213, 271, 292, 325; 7:21, 117, 298, 383; 8:328,
363; 9:7, 97, 178; 10:15, 96.
2 2
Cf. Ant. 1:194; 8:176; 9:28, 258; 13:18; 16:36.
2 3
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.
2 4
Life 112, 216, 271, 373, 398.
2 5
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.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II 201
2 6
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161f.
2 7
Cf. n. 1 above.
2 8
L. H . Martin, "Josephus' use of Heimarene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 171-3",
Numen 28 (1981), 127-135.
2 9
Ibid., 134.
3 0
See Appendix B, below.
202 CHAPTER EIGHT
I I . Key Terms
I I I . Interpretation
3 1
The M S S L A M W E support the inclusion of rjfxtv. Marcus, in omitting the pro
noun, presumably follows the PFV reading. It matters little, since the sequel (§ 173)—
owcocvroc 8e I9' i\\iTv OCUTOU; xetdtai—gives the force of the phrase.
3 2
See Chapter 6, above.
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
33
bitrate b y finding a middle way. (On Fate 3 9 )
3 3
M y translation draws heavily on the German rendering by K . Bayer, Uber das
Fatum, by M . Tullius Cicero (2d. edn.; Munich: Heimeran, 1976 [1959]), ad loc.
3 4
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.
3 5
Tacitus is apparently the first (extant) witness to have distinguished between the
astrological and philosophical interpretations of fate; so Theiler, "Tacitus", 43.
3 6
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 31; H.-F. Weiss, "Pharisaisumus und Hellenismus",
421-433, esp. 427f.
204 CHAPTER EIGHT
3 8
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".
3 9
Maier, freier Wille, 13.
4 0
Ibid., 14f.
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 further
42
discussion. I n War 2 : 1 6 3 h e gives n o t the slightest i n d i c a t i o n o f the w a y
in w h i c h fate "assists (POT]6STV) in e a c h c a s e " . Ant. 18:13 l o o k s like an at
t e m p t to say s o m e t h i n g m o r e substantive o n the issue, b u t the result is
43
a n o t o r i o u s crux interpretum. It fits with his general t e n d e n c y that in o u r
passage J o s e p h u s should c o n t e n t h i m s e l f with the m a r v e l o u s simplicity
of the d o u b l e TIVOC.
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
4 1
See Appendix B, below, and chapter 6.
4 2
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.
4 3
Cf. chapter 12, below.
206 CHAPTER EIGHT
4 4
City of God 5:9 (trans. M . Dods). Augustine speaks of God's foreknowledge rather
than fate, because of the common astrological sense of the latter; he does accept the fatum
terminology, however, in its philosophical sense (5:8). Cf. also the comment of Stock
("Fate", 787) on the Odyssey 1:32-36, where Homer effects a compromise between fate
and free will: "Some evils, we are led to suppose, come from the gods, whereas there
are others which men bring upon themselves by their own infatuation . . . . This is a
sound judgment to which common sense responds". Cf. also Theiler, "Tacitus", 56f.
and, on Homer in general, Greene, Moira, 20f.
4 5
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.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II 207
4 6
b.Niddah 16b; b.Ber. 33a.
4 7
Maier, freier Wille, 13f., 15.
4 8
Republic 619c.; cf. chapter 6, above, and Greene, Moira, 313f.
4 9
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.
50
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.
208 CHAPTER EIGHT
5 1
copied. 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
tributing o u r passage t o s o m e o n e other than J o s e p h u s .
T h e case for N i c o l a u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p of Ant. 13:171-173 was m a d e b y
G . F. M o o r e , w h o offered f o u r lines o f e v i d e n c e . H i s c h i e f p o i n t , w h i c h
he a d d u c e d f o r all o f the s c h o o l passages, w a s that the a u t h o r o f Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 uses etuxxpuivr) in a w a y that is " u n - J e w i s h " and sounds
5 3
rather S t o i c . W e m a y r e s p o n d to this p o i n t : ( a ) that the b r o a d q u e s t i o n
o f the influence o f H e l l e n i s t i c t h o u g h t o n Palestinian J u d a i s m is still sub
54
judice; ( b ) that the use o f eiu.apu.evr) in the s c h o o l passages m a t c h e s
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n u s a g e ( J o s e p h u s the J e w d o e s n o t hesitate to e m p l o y the
5 5
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
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 , regardless
o f its historical justification, fits squarely with his a p o l o g e t i c - d i d a c t i c
p u r p o s e ; h e consistently uses terms in w a y s that will b e intelligible to his
readers, as we have seen with v6u.o$, eua£(ktoc, axpt(kta, al'peat$,
56
Stxatoauvn, a n d TO I 9 ' rjulv, a m o n g o t h e r s . H i s use o f et[Jtapuiv7] fits this
pattern perfectly.
M o o r e ' s o t h e r three reasons for assigning Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 to N i c o l a u s
m a y b e q u o t e d en bloc, as h e s u m m a r i z e s t h e m :
I have pointed out that it is irrelevant in its present context; that it men
tions no other peculiarities o f the sects than their different doctrines about
Fate; and that it makes the Essenes thoroughgoing fatalists, o f which there
is in Josephus elsewhere no suggestion. All these things would be explicable
enough in a general historian in Herod's time [ ? ] , who was trying to give
his readers a brief account o f Jewish sects in terms o f current Greek
57
philosophical controversies.
5 1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1973. He gives no reason for the specific attribution of this
passage to Jewish tradition.
5 2
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.
5 3
Moore, "Fate", 375ff.; cf. my fuller discussion of Moore on the schools in Appen
dix B, below.
5 4
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.
5 5
Cf. Ant 16:397f. and chapter 6, above; also Life 12c and Ag.Ap. 2:168 on his inclina
tion toward Stoicism.
5 6
See chapter 6, above; also Attridge, Interpretation, 145-176.
5 7
Moore, "Fate", 384.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II 209
5 8
That is, discounting Holscher's theory of an intermediate source; cf. the excursus
to Part I.
5 9
Chapter 6, n. 234.
6 0
Moore, "Fate", 384 n. 56.
6 1
Cf., e.g., Ant. 8:419f.; 16:395ff. and chapter 6, above.
6 2
Feldman's translation, L C L edn.
6 3
Cf. chapter 6, above.
210 CHAPTER EIGHT
6 4
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.
6 5
Cf. Niese, HZ, 223f; Cohen, Josephus, 50f.
6 6
Cf. also the evidence of Maier, freier Wille, 7-10.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, II 211
1
Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 90ff.
2
Rabin, "Alexander Janneus and the Pharisees", JJS 7 (1956), 5ff.
3
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. Kad-
dushin 66a.
4
E.g., Herford, Pharisees, 29ff.; Dubnow, Weltgeschichte, II, 148.
214 CHAPTER NINE
I. Context
5
At Ant. 13:214 ( = 1 M a c e . 1 3 : 4 2 ) , Josephus gives up his use of 1 M a c
cabees as a source for the history of the Hasmonean period. From then
5
on, he reverts to War itself and/or to the sources that he had used for
7
War 1-2 (especially Nicolaus); this material he supplements with various
8
kinds of new information. For the tenure of John Hyrcanus, Josephus
reproduces War 1:56-66 but stretches it into a narrative that is about six
times as long (Ant. 13:230-287), as the table below demonstrates. W h e r e
Ant. parallels War, the reproduction is more or less exact with respect to
9
content but the formulation is n e w .
5
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.
6
So the later Niese, "Historiker", 223f.; cf. S. J. D . Cohen, Josephus, 50f.
7
So Destinon, Quellen, llf.
8
Cf., e.g. H . Bloch, Quellen, 90ff.; Destinon, Quellen, 19f.; Niese, HZ, 220f.;
Holscher, "Josephus", 1973ff.
9
W e observed the same phenomenon in the case of Ant. 13:173 (on the Sadducees),
vis-a-vis War 2:162.
1 0
As also at Ant. 7:393.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 215
1 1
That is, in Ant. 13:237b ff., on Antiochus Sidetes; cf. War 1:61.
216 CHAPTER NINE
A. Topic Paragraph
1 2
Cf. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158f.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 217
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.)
13
Cf. G. F. Moore, "Fate", 372.
14
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158f.
15
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.*).
16
Cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 40, and Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158.
17
Cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 40.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 219
1 8
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158.
1 9
Rivkin, Revolution, 40.
2 0
H . Bloch, Quellen, 90-92.
2 1
Destinon, Quellen, 41-44.
2 2
Holscher, "Josephus", 1974f. Cf. also Niese, "Historiker", 221.
2 3
E.g., H . Bloch, Quellen, 90, and Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158.
2 4
The rabbinic story is in b. Kaddushin 66a.
2 5
Chapter 6, above.
220 CHAPTER NINE
And you shall teach them the statutes (D^pjnrmN) and the decisions and
t
make them know the way in which they must walk (S"D 1D?"» "p"rnN) and
2 9
what they must d o .
30
who walk in the law of the L o r d !
m m r m r a n^bnn
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
31
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 . 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
32
several t i m e 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
Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 79ff.
2 7
Lev. 21:14f.; the assumption was that a captive woman had been raped; cf. Ag.Ap.
1:35.
2 8
Cf. Michaelis, "686<;", TDNT, V , esp. 48ff.
2 9
R S V trans. Cf. also Ex. 32:8; Deut. 5:23; 1 Sam. 12:23; 22:22; Prov. 16:7; Jer.
7:28.
3 0
R S V trans. Cf. also Ps. 119:5, 9, 10, 15, 29, 32, 35, 59, 101, 105, 128, 133.
3 1
Cf. Ps. 37:5; Prov. 12:28.
3 2
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;.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 221
3 3
R S V trans.
3 4
Cf. Ps. 119:10, 176.
3 5
Cf. Jesus' parable of the "lost sheep", Lk. 15:4-10.
3 6
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.
3 7
Michaelis, "686?", 49.
3 8
Ibid., 64. As Michaelis later concedes (p. 65), the "always" is slightly hyperbolic.
3 9
E.g., Bloch, Quellen, 90ff.; Destinon, Quellen, 41, 44; Niese, HZ, 221f.
4 0
Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n . + + ; G. F. Moore, "Fate", 372; Rivkin, Revolu
tion, 41.
4 1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n . + + .
4 2
E.g., War 1:110; Ant. 17:41-45.
4 3
E.g., War 2:162-166; Ant. 13:171-173.
222 CHAPTER NINE
4 4
Josephus. 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
4 5
p a r a g r a p h o f o u r passage ( § 2 8 8 ) . 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
4 6
also c o n t r i b u t e d m u c h o f Ant. 13-17. M o r e o v e r , w h e r e War a n d Ant.
give parallel a c c o u n t s , Ant. is usually t h o u g h t to reflect N i c o l a u s m o r e
closely. T w o o f the reasons for this j u d g e m e n t are: ( i ) that a l t h o u g h Ant.
frequently gives the fuller d e s c r i p t i o n , it d o e s n o t l o o k like an e x p a n s i o n
47
o f War, a n d (ii) War 1:30-2:116 gives m a n y i n d i c a t i o n s o f b e i n g an e x
4 8
cerpt (Abzug) rather than an original a c c o u n t . N o w , as w e h a v e seen
above, Ant. 13:288a closely resembles War 1:67a in vocabulary.
Schwartz theorizes that J o s e p h u s took Ant. 13:288 directly from
N i c o l a u s ' s a c c o u n t , w h e r e a s in War 1 h e h a d c r o p p e d N i c o l a u s ' s a c c o u n t
49
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.
4 4
Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n. + + : "Sein [Josephus's] eigener pharisaischer
Standpunkt kommt etwa ant. X I I I 297f.; vita 191 zur Geltung".
4 5
E.g., Reinach, Oeuvres, III, 177 n. 3; Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , 373 n. d.; Schwartz,
"Josephus and Nicolaus", 158f.
4 6
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.
4 7
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.).
4 8
Holscher, "Josephus", 1944f.
4 9
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 159.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 223
5 0
See the excursus to Part I, above.
5 1
See n. 45, above.
5 2
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 (Har-
mondsworth: 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.
224 C H A P T E R NINE
5 3
title o f (3aaiXeuc, his oldest s o n A r i s t o b u l u s d i d , 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
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 .
55
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
56
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 . T h i s dis
qualifies J o s e p h u s , a c c o r d i n g to S c h w a r t z , b e c a u s e in Life 12 J o s e p h u s
declares h i m s e l f to b e a Pharisee. I shall try to d e m o n s t r a t e in Part I V ,
h o w e v e r , h o w unlikely it is that J o s e p h u s e v e r w i s h e d to b e t h o u g h t o f
as a Pharisee.
In response to the a r g u m e n t s a d d u c e d in f a v o u r o f N i c o l a u s ' s author
ship o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , I h a v e a r g u e d that the s e c o n d sentence o f the
p a r a g r a p h w a s i n t r o d u c e d in o r d e r to create a f r a m e w o r k for the tradi
tional story that follows ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) . A l t h o u g h its anti-Pharisaic tone
contradicts the story, it d o e s i n t r o d u c e the h i g h priest/ruler s c h e m e that
5 3
According to Josephus, at least. Once again, the fact that Josephus may have erred
historically (cf. Marcus, L C L edn., 379 n. c.) does not affect our understanding of his
narrative as narrative.
5 4
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)!
5 5
Holscher, "Josephus", 197f.; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158.
5 6
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 225
5 7
So Marcus, L C L edn., V I I , 373 n. c.
5 8
Cf. Holscher, "Josephus", 1974f.
59
Ant. 16:187; 20:266; Life Iff.
6 0
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.
61
Life 5.
62
War l:68VAnt. 13:300.
6 3
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
226 CHAPTER NINE
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).
71
Ant. 10:212, 256.
72
Ant. 10:250, absent from Dan. 6:Iff.
73
E.g., War 2:82; 4:566; Ant. 2:10; 6:193; 20:29; cf. 13:401-402.
74
Ant. 2:10; 15:50.
75
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 (§ 289). This statement is perfectly in character for
7 6
Josephus 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 merciful (imtixclx; e'xouatv) in the m a t t e r o f
7 7
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 attribute t h e m to his r e d a c t i o n a l efforts.
A m o r e t h o r o u g h analysis w o u l d doubtless u n c o v e r other m i n o r
J o s e p h a n traits in § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 . T h e a b o v e suffice to establish that o u r
a u t h o r has g o n e s o m e w a y t o w a r d m a k i n g the traditional story his o w n .
7 6
W e have seen that Josephus characteristically describes the Jewish religious groups
as (philosophical) aipeaei^. O n 9iXoao9eco/9iXoao9ia, used of the Jewish schools (including
the Pharisees), cf. War 2:119, 166; Ant. 18:11, 23, 25 (cf. Ant. 18:9).
7 7
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).
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 229
7 8
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).
7 9
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.
8 0
Holscher, "Josephus", 1975 n.*.
230 CHAPTER NINE
a n d w e k n o w that at least o n e n o n - P h a r i s e e ( J o n a t h a n ) w a s i n c l u d e d
a m o n g the guests. Further, w h e n Eleazar d o e s utter his c h a r g e , all o f the
Pharisees (rcavxec; ot Oaptaatot) are said t o h a v e b e c o m e i n d i g n a n t . No
o n e , therefore, suspects that Eleazar s p o k e w i t h Pharisaic a p p r o v a l until
J o n a t h a n m a k e s the allegation. R i v k i n c o r r e c d y o b s e r v e s :
8 1
Rivkin, Revolution, 40.
8 2
The imperfect redaction of Ant. has long been recognized; cf. Bloch, Quellen, 112f.;
28ff.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1971 n.*.
8 3
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).
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 231
A. Key Terms
8 4
War 1:1, 30; Ant. 1:93, 203; 8:324; 11:99; 13:12; 14:144; Life 6, 40, 339, 413;
Ag.Ap. 1:49, 92, 106, 109, 128, 143.
8 5
Ant. 1:26, 82; 3:81, 105; 9:28, 208.
8 6
Cf. Ant. 8:129; 9:214.
232 C H A P T E R NINE
87
Ag.Ap. 1:232, 280; 2:8, 122.
8 8
Ag.Ap. 1:62; 2:117.
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
8 9
d i n a n c e s that w a s current in his d a y . 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
90
poo TwepocBoaecov a n d ( i i ) the M i s h n a h tractate A v o t , w h i c h c o n t a i n s the
91
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 . If J o s e p h u s
did take o v e r the qualifier TCOV 7WCTepcov f r o m a standard c o n t e m p o r a r y
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisaic voptpa, then the " f a t h e r s " in q u e s t i o n w o u l d
b e w h o m e v e r the Pharisees d e s i g n a t e d as s u c h .
4. TJ 7capa8oati;/7rapa8t8co(xt. O u r s u s p i c i o n that J o s e p h u s t o o k o v e r his
d e s i g n a t i o n o f the Pharisaic voptpa f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y u s a g e is c o n
f i r m e d b y an analysis o f the w o r d 7rapdc8oat$. E a c h o f the three d e s c r i p
tions o f the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s ( 1 3 : 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 ) c o n t a i n s either 7iocpa8oats
o r TtapaStScopt. H e will use the v e r b again in Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 to d e s c r i b e
Pharisaic beliefs: cov Te 6 X6yo<; xptva^ jwcpeBcoxev ayaOcov ercovTat.
I n o r d i n a r y J o s e p h a n u s a g e , h o w e v e r , 7 r a p a 8 o a t $ is n o t a t h e o l o g i c a l l y
c h a r g e d t e r m . O f its 27 o c c u r r e n c e s , 13 are in War; in 12 o f these the
92
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 . In the o t h e r case (War
2 : 5 7 9 ) , it m e a n s the " t r a n s m i s s i o n " o f field signals in the a r m y . T h e 8
o c c u r r e n c e s in the Life a n d Ag.Ap. refer to J o s e p h u s ' s historical p r o d u c
9 3
tions. T h e n o u n o c c u r s o n l y 4 times in Ant. ( o u t s i d e o f o u r passages):
once meaning " s u r r e n d e r " (10:10), once meaning "historical report"
( 2 0 : 2 5 9 ) , a n d o n c e m e a n i n g the " g i v i n g " o f a p a s s w o r d ( 1 9 : 1 8 7 ) .
In the r e m a i n i n g case, Ant. 1 0 : 5 1 , w e are told that the t w e l v e - y e a r - o l d
k i n g J o s i a h w a s g u i d e d b y TTJ TCOV 7upea(3uTepcov aupPouXta xat rcapaSoaet.
T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n m i g h t s e e m at first to c o r r e s p o n d to the G o s p e l s ' des
94
c r i p t i o n o f Pharisaic t e a c h i n g as rj rcapaSoats TCOV rcpeaPuTepcov. T h e c o n
text in J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , disallows the i d e a o f Pharisaic tradition. I f
95
the phrase TCOV TtpeaPuTepcov o u g h t to b e there at a l l , it d e r i v e s its
8 9
Cf. J. M . Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law", 13ff.
9 0
Gal. 1:14.
9 1
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.
9 2
War 1:174, 414; 4:86, 146, 414, 519; 5:336; 6:378; 7:195, 201, 205, 414.
9 3
Life 361, 364; Ag.Ap. 1:8, 28, 39, 50, 53; 2:287.
9 4
M k . 7:3, 5//Mt. 15:2.
9 5
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.
234 C H A P T E R NINE
9 6
Marcus's rendering "translations" is misleading, for the reason given.
9 7
Cf. also Ag.Ap. 1:60, where 7capa8i8c>)(xi is used of the euaePeia implicit in the Mosaic
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 235
9 8
E.g., Gal. 1:14; M k . 7:3, 5; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., I V . 22.8.
9 9
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.
100
Ant. 13:297.
101 4
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.
1 0 2
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."
1 0 3
Bickerman cites, e.g., Diogenes Laertius 4:4; 9:115f.; Cicero, Acad. 1:34.
1 0 4
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).
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 .
In the f r a m e w o r k o f J e w i s h history a n d r e l i g i o n , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s
e m p l o y s the i d e a o f " s u c c e s s i o n " in three n o t a b l e c o n t e x t s .
T h e first is that o f the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d . J o s e p h u s ' s material o n the
8ta8oxT) TCOV apxtepecov has l o n g interested scholars. M o s t o f the scholarly
interest, h o w e v e r , has been with the historical and source-critical
1 0 7
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
h a n d , is with the q u e s t i o n w h y the high-priestly s u c c e s s i o n w a s so i m p o r
108
tant to J o s e p h u s . H e takes p a i n s , b o t h in the b o d y o f Ant. a n d again
1 0 9
in a final s u m m a r y , 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
1 1 0
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 . 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.
1 1 1
4:304). 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
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. 2:187).
T h e o n e w h o supervises the priests in their task is the h i g h priest (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 , established
( u n d e r G o d ) b y M o s e s a n d e n s h r i n e d in his l a w s , then the h i g h priests
w h o carefully p r e s e r v e a n d e x p o u n d those laws f r o m generation to
g e n e r a t i o n are the 8tdc8oxoi o f the M o s a i c p h i l o s o p h y . In o r d e r to p r o v e
his thesis that J u d a i s m is a s u p e r i o r p h i l o s o p h y , J o s e p h u s m u s t d e m o n
strate n o t o n l y that M o s e s taught an excellent w a y o f life, b u t also that
the original t e a c h i n g has b e e n p r e s e r v e d accurately u p to the present
1 0 5
8ta8oxo£, Bta&ox'n occur some 121 times in total. O f these, approximately 35 refer
to Herod's throne, occurring especially in War 1-2 and Ant. 16-17. The verb occurs 70
times; only 3 of these refer to the struggle for Herod's throne.
1 0 6
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.
1 0 7
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.
1 0 8
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.
1 0 9
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.
1 1 0
Cf. Ag.Ap. 1:29, 32, 36, 54; 2:184-187, 194.
1 1 1
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.
1 1 2
Cf. Ag.Ap. 1:29, 42.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 237
1 1 3
I Chron. 18:17; 2 Ghron. 26:11, 28:7.
1 1 4
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.
1 1 5
Ant. 10:25; cf. Marcus's n. e., p. 171 ( L C L edn., V I ) .
1 1 6
Life 2f., 6; cf. Ant. 16:187.
1 1 7
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).
1 1 8
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).
238 CHAPTER NINE
1 1 9
Cf. W . C . Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 98.
1 2 0
Cf. J. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus", JJS 25 (1974), 246f.
1 2 1
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.
1 2 2
Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 250ff.; cf. also War 3:352; Ant. 7:72 and n . / . to
LCL edn., V , 397; 8:296, 10:79f.
1 2 3
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.
1 2 4
Avot 1:2-2:1.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 239
1 2 5
m a i ( A v o t 1:4-12, 1 5 ) . B i c k e r m a n a r g u e s that the P h a r i s e e s ' p u r p o s e
in f o r m u l a t i n g a list o f their " f a t h e r s " w a s t o establish t h e m s e l v e s as a
philosophical school by setting forth their StaSoxot in Hellenistic
1 2 6
fashion. E a c h o f the pairs is said, in the M i s h n a h , t o h a v e r e c e i v e d
(ta^p) the L a w f r o m its p r e d e c e s s o r s a n d t o h a v e passed it o n ( ^ D D ) t o
1 2 7
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
128
damental justification.
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 (rcocpiB-
o>xe) to the Jews in writing the all-encompassing b o d y o f laws
(vopot/voptpa) that G o d h a d r e v e a l e d t o h i m . T h e s e l a w s , i n v i o l a b l e f o r
all t i m e , M o s e s entrusted t o the stewardship o f the priests, ( b ) S i n c e the
t e r m s ot rcorcepes a n drcocpdcBoatsh a v e n o special significance f o r J o s e p h u s ;
since h e uses t h e m , h o w e v e r , in all three o f his d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the
Pharisaic voptpa; a n d since, finally, the c o m b i n a t i o n o f these t e r m s o c
curs in o t h e r ( n o n - J o s e p h a n ) discussions o f Pharisaic t e a c h i n g , w e m a y
r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o s e that h e t o o k o v e r these e l e m e n t s o f his p o r t r a y a l
from contemporary usage, ( c ) A l t h o u g h the concept "succession"
(StocSoxrj) d o e s p l a y a significant role in J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t , it is the suc
cession o f h i g h priests, k i n g s , a n d p r o p h e t s that interests h i m , in a c c o r d
w i t h the w o r l d - v i e w d e s c r i b e d in ( a ) a n d w i t h his a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e s .
T h e phrase " s u c c e s s i o n o f f a t h e r s " , w h i c h o c c u r s o n l y in Ant. 13:297,
p r o b a b l y c o m e s f r o m current u s a g e a m o n g the Pharisees t h e m s e l v e s , ( d )
H i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisaic v6u.tu.oc as " n o t written d o w n in the laws
1 2 5
Bickerman, "La chaine", 260f., 264. The diverse arguments that have been used
to support an early dating of the pairs list may be summarized under two broad rubrics,
viz., (a) multiple attestation (cf. m. Hagigah 2:2; m. Peah 2:6; tos. Hagigah 2:8; Avot
de Rabbi Nathan, I and II) and its tradition-historical implications and (b) literary- or
form-critical considerations within Avot 1-2 itself. O n the latter, cf. J. Neusner, The Rab
binic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), I, 11-23, esp. 15-21.
O n the former, cf. Neusner, Ibid.; L. Finkelstein, "Introductory Study to Pirke Abot",
JBL 57 (1938), 13-50, esp. 14, 17-20; and the literature cited by Finkelstein, 14 n. 2.
1 2 6
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^.
1 2 7
See n. 99 above.
1 2 8
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 self-
understanding.
240 CHAPTER NINE
297a. vuv 8e SrjXcoaat (JouXopat cm voptpa Ttva rcapeSoaav TCO Brjpcp ot Oaptaatot ix
TCOcxepcov StaSoxfjs, arcep oux avayeypaTCTat ev TOT$ Mcouaeo? vopot^, xat 8ta
TOUTO TOCUTOC TO TCOV 2a88ouxatcov yevos ixjiaXXei.
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
1 2 9
Unwritten L a w . A s is well known, the corpus of rabbinic halakhah
came to be called the Oral Law (HD m T l ) , for it was believed by
the rabbis to have been delivered at Sinai, along with the Written Law
praDtf m m ) .
1 2 9
Rivkin, Revolution, 41f.; J. M . Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law", 12-14.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 241
1 3 0
Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, II, 68; S. Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings
(New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978), 55f., 180f., 183f.; J. M . Baumgarten, ''Unwrit
ten Law", 7ff.
1 3 1
E.g., b. Gittin 60b and b. Terumah 14b; cf. j . Megillot 4:74b.
1 3 2
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.
1 3 3
Revolution, 41; emphasis added.
1 3 4
J. M . Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law", 13; emphasis added.
1 3 5
Epstein, Mavo le-Nusah ha Mishnah, 697; cited in Baumgarten, "Unwritten Law",
13.
242 C H A P T E R NINE
136
idea." I do not know of any attempt, however, specifically to
challenge the Rivkin/Baumgarten interpretation of Ant. 13:297. To
make good the deficiency, I offer the following considerations.
Josephus does not make, much less stress, the direct contrast "in
form" between oux d c v a y e y p a T C T a t and TOC y e y p a p p e v a that Baumgarten in
fers. T h e former phrase occurs in 297a, where the contrast is between
ex 7WCTep<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" "B"
Pharisees Accept: Sadducees Reject:
297a. v6(xtjxa T i v d Sweep oux dvayeTpaTcxai
ix Tcaxepwv SiaSoxffc ev T o t ? Mcouaeos VOJJLOK
"C" "D"
Sadducees Accept: Sadducees Reject:
297b. exetva vojxtjjta -rd (vofxtfxa) ex
7capa86ae6><; TG>V 7ua*repcov
1 3 6
Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, II, 163; cf. 177.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 243
137
stress the n o n - M o s a i c p r o v e n a n c e o f Pharisaic tradition. We are
bound, therefore, to c o n c l u d e in favour o f Epstein, Marcus, and
Neusner.
It s h o u l d b e n o t e d that this interpretation o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 says n o t h i n g
w h a t s o e v e r a b o u t the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r the Pharisees actually transmit
ted their teachings orally o r in w r i t i n g . O u r c o n c l u s i o n is o n l y that
J o s e p h u s has n o t h i n g to say a b o u t the matter. H i s p o i n t is that the
Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s w e r e n o t part o f the written L a w o f M o s e s a n d that
for this reason they w e r e rejected b y the S a d d u c e e s . I s u b m i t that this
e x p l a n a t i o n w o u l d h a v e b e e n easily u n d e r s t o o d b y the G e n t i l e r e a d e r o f
Ant. J o s e p h u s has repeatedly e m p h a s i z e d in that w o r k the authoritative
status a n d inviolability o f the all-sufficient M o s a i c c o d e . H e n e e d s o n l y
to e x p l a i n that the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s w e r e s o m e t h i n g different and
n o t part o f the r e c o r d e d M o s a i c laws for the reader to u n d e r s t a n d w h y
the S a d d u c e e s d i d n o t o b s e r v e t h e m .
Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 8 g o e s o n to p o i n t o u t the significance o f this dispute b e
t w e e n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s . It m a k e s the t w o p o i n t s : ( a ) that
their d i s a g r e e m e n t led to " c o n f l i c t s a n d m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s " a n d ( b ) that
the S a d d u c e e s appeal o n l y t o the w e a l t h y , w h e r e a s the Pharisees h a v e a
1 3 8
massive public following. 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. N e v e r t h e l e s s , w e are d e a l i n g here with a m e m b e r
o f the priestly aristocracy, w h o s e sympathies are n o t necessarily always
with TO nkfficx;. In the a b s e n c e o f a t h o r o u g h study o f J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w
o f " t h e p e o p l e " o r " t h e m a s s e s " , w e m a y at least n o t e : ( a ) that, as w e
h a v e seen a n d shall see a g a i n , he consistently laments the f a m e and
140
p o p u l a r i t y o f the P h a r i s e e s 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
passage ( § 2 8 8 ) distinctly pits h i m against b o t h the Pharisees a n d the
people, w h o are both m o v e d b y e n v y (966vo$). Holscher correctly
1 3 7
Note again the parallel phrase toc avafefpafXfxeva in Ant. 12:63, which is used of
scriptural prescriptions.
1 3 8
Cf. War 1:110; 2:162; Ant. 13:400ff.; 18:12ff.; Life 191.
1 3 9
So War 1:10.
1 4 0
War l:110ff.; 2:162; Ant. 13:400ff.; 18:17; Life 191ff.
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
1 4 1
G u n s t stehenden Pharisaern identifiziert er sich o f f e n b a r n i c h t . " It is
far f r o m clear, therefore, that J o s e p h u s ' s a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f Pharisaic
p o p u l a r i t y in § 2 9 8 is a c o m m e n d a t i o n . W e d o k n o w that, o n the q u e s
tion o f w h i c h voptpa are authoritative, his sympathies w o u l d lie entirely
with the S a d d u c e e s .
It r e m a i n s , finally, to c o m m e n t o n o n e o f the p r o b l e m s that w e n o t e d
at the outset o f this chapter. J o s e p h u s claims in Ant. 13:297f. that the
dispute o v e r the voptpa c a u s e d m a j o r differences b e t w e e n the Pharisees
a n d S a d d u c e e s . I n War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , h o w e v e r , h e has
i m p l i e d that their differences o n " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " issues, especially o n
fate a n d free will, w e r e d e c i s i v e . H o w to e x p l a i n the disparity? W e h a v e
seen that it is often r e s o l v e d b y source-critical m e a n s , with the s c h o o l
1 4 2
passages b e i n g assigned to s o m e o t h e r a u t h o r . W e h a v e also seen that
this solution is u n a c c e p t a b l e ; the s c h o o l passages are J o s e p h u s ' s o w n .
A m o r e plausible solution is suggested b y c o n t e x t u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
T h e s c h o o l passages, especially War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , are free J o s e p h a n for
m u l a t i o n s . A s h e h i m s e l f c o n c l u d e s o n e o f t h e m , " T h i s is w h a t I h a d to
say (TOtauxa. . . efyov etrcetv) a b o u t those a m o n g the J e w s w h o discuss phi
l o s o p h y " (War 2 : 1 6 6 ) . Similarly in Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 w e h a v e d i s c o v e r e d
a definite a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e . W h e n J o s e p h u s has the f r e e d o m to d o s o ,
then, he represents the religious g r o u p s as the J e w i s h counterparts to
Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h i c s c h o o l s .
Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 , h o w e v e r , is n o t a free J o s e p h a n f o r m u l a t i o n . The
traditional story o f the rift b e t w e e n H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees ( § § 2 8 9 -
2 9 6 ) , w h i c h he has d e c i d e d to r e c o u n t in o r d e r to fill o u t his r e c o r d o f
H y r c a n u s ' s t e n u r e , c l i m a x e d with the h i g h priest's a b r o g a t i o n o f the
Pharisaic voptpa. Since Josephus has never before mentioned any
Pharisaic voptpa, he is n o w c o m p e l l e d to e x p l a i n to the r e a d e r what these
w e r e a n d w h y their a n n u l m e n t s h o u l d h a v e c a u s e d such an u p h e a v a l . A s
R i v k i n says o f 13:297f.:
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
Holscher, ' 'Josephus", 1947f.
4 2
Cf. chapters 6 and 8 above, and Appendix B, below.
4 3
Revolution, 41.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 245
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
I. Context
1
Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 75f.; Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 238ff.
2
Chapter 4, above.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 247
3 4
namely: the tragedy o f A r i s t o b u l u s I ; the brutality o f A l e x a n d e r J a n
5
neus; 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
6
her d e f e r e n c e to the P h a r i s e e s ; a n d the " m a d s q u a b b l i n g " o f H y r c a n u s
7
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 con
siderably his a c c o u n t o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s t e n u r e , J o s e p h u s m a n a g e s to
retain the fundamental s c h e m e o f War. J o h n H y r c a n u s still m a r k s the
a p e x o f the H a s m o n e a n dynasty; his sons, w e are again told, w o u l d lose
his g o o d fortune ( 1 3 : 3 0 0 ) .
T h e tragic story o f A r i s t o b u l u s (Ant. 1 3 : 3 0 1 - 3 1 8 a ) is a p a r a p h r a s e o f
the War a c c o u n t , although J o s e p h u s a p p e n d s a s e e m i n g l y inappropriate
e u l o g y o n this k i n g ' s beneficent rule (euepyeTrjaa^), w h i c h he supports b y
8
a quotation from Strabo. T h i s n e w discussion o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s ac
c o m p l i s h m e n t s o n b e h a l f o f the J e w s , w h i c h i n c l u d e d the c o n q u e s t a n d
9
c i r c u m c i s i o n o f the I t u r e a n s , has the effect o f revising War's a c c o u n t b y
p o i n t i n g o u t the k i n g ' s g o o d side. T h i s , in turn, serves t o heighten the
sense o f tragedy: a. good king w a s the v i c t i m o f forces b e y o n d his c o n t r o l .
A r i s t o b u l u s ' s l o v e for his b r o t h e r w a s s a b o t a g e d b y c o n s p i r a t o r s , a m o n g
1 0
w h o m w a s his w i f e . 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
1 1
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 .
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
12
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 ; only
the c o u r a g e o f his e n e m i e s a n d v i c t i m s is praised. N o t i c e , h o w e v e r , that
Ant. adds the f o l l o w i n g reflection t o its a c c o u n t o f the c r u c i f i x i o n in
cident:
T h i s was the revenge he [Alexander] took for the injuries he had suffered;
but the penalty he exacted was inhuman for all that, even though he had,
3
War 1:69.
4
War l:70ff.
5
War l:85ff.
6
War l:107ff.
7
War l:120ff., cf. 5:396.
8
Ant. 13:318f. (but cf. 13:302).
9
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.
1 0
Ant. 13:305, 308; cf. War 1:74.
11
Ant. 13:373, 376, 380.
1 2
Ant. 13:334, 360ff.
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.
13
(Ant. 1 3 : 3 8 1 f . )
I I . Interpretation
1 3
Throughout this chapter I am following the L C L translation of Ant. 13, by R.
Marcus, except where noted. The parenthetical "the Cossack" is Marcus's attempt to
give the sense of Thrakidas ( L C L edn., p. 418 n. d).
1 4
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.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 249
1 5
me) Alexandra ( 1 3 : 3 2 0 ) . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t explicitly say s o ,
m o s t interpreters infer f r o m his a c c o u n t that this A l e x a n d r a w a s the o n e
1 6
who b e c a m e A l e x a n d e r ' s wife—the o n e with w h o m w e are c o n c e r n e d .
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:
1 5
The M S S L A M W E Lat, a weighty combination, read ' 'Salome". Marcus follows
the PFN group, reading "Salina".
1 6
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.
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)
17
Schwartz has p o i n t e d o u t s o m e o f the strong verbal parallels b e t w e e n
this speech, put into J a n n e u s ' s m o u t h , a n d the editorial remarks in Ant.
13:288 ( c o n s i d e r e d in the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r ) . T h e parallels include:
a e 7 t o v
90ovouvTes/996vos, 7capoc TCO 7tXrj0et, rciareueaOai, TL x ^ Xeycoatv/xi
Xeyovxes xaxdc, paXtara. B o t h passages m u s t c o m e f r o m the same a u t h o r .
F o r reasons o u t l i n e d in chapter 9, S c h w a r t z believes that author to h a v e
b e e n N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . W e should rather suggest that, since the
anti-Pharisaic a n d p r o - H a s m o n e a n t o n e (cf. War 1:110-114; Ant.17'Al-
4 5 ; Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 ; a n d Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 ; 1 6 : 1 8 7 ; Life 1-2, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) , a l o n g
with the pTaosApOovos t h e m e (cf. War 2 : 8 2 ; 4 : 5 6 6 ; Ant. 2:10; 6:193;
1 3 : 2 8 8 / 2 9 6 ; 2 0 : 2 9 ) , are characteristically J o s e p h a n , J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e
formulated ( o r freely i n v e n t e d ) A l e x a n d e r ' s d e a t h b e d s p e e c h .
It is in this p a r a g r a p h that S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r find the m o s t c o m p e l
ling e v i d e n c e for their t h e o r y that Ant. attempts to c o m m e n d the
Pharisees to the R o m a n s . N e u s n e r o b s e r v e s that the relationship b e
t w e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d the Pharisees is p o r t r a y e d v e r y differently f r o m the
War parallel, a n d he attributes the c h a n g e to a n e w , positive presentation
o f the Pharisees:
1 7
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 159.
1 8
"Josephus's Pharisees", 238.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 251
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)
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)
1 9
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.
2 0
According to Ant. 13:430, Alexandra was about 64 years of age at her accession.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 253
3
C. The Pharisees Actions and the Reaction (13:408-417)
2 1
"Josephus's Pharisees", 240.
2 2
Marcus, ad loc, has "cut down"; but cf. his n. d.
254 CHAPTER TEN
2 3
Cf. also 13:411.
2 4
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).
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 255
2 5
Marcus renders "took thought for the welfare of the kingdom". Since, however,
the overriding point is that Alexandra's reckless policies caused the kingdom to be lost
(§§ 430-432), we should probably read Tcpovotoc in a minimalist sense, as referring to the
single area in which the author concedes that the Queen did act properly, viz., in her
defence policy.
256 CHAPTER TEN
For while he had long resented the things his mother was doing, he was
just then especially fearful that on her death their whole family might come
under the rule o f the Pharisees (eSetae pf) arcoGavoucrns inl Tots Oaptaatot? TO
7tav f£vo£ auTOts U7tdcpijeiev), for he saw the incapacity (TO <X8UVOCTOV) o f his
brother [sc. Hyrcanus], who was destined to succeed the throne. (13:423)
For they knew that Aristobulus was not far from being able to seize the
throne for himself, and they were very much afraid that he might exact
satisfaction for the excesses which they had practised on his house (cov
7capcpvrjaav OCUTCO TOV otxov). (13:426)
2 6
Ant. 13:402.
2 7
Ant. 13:410.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 257
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 9tX-
apxov), she showed by her deeds the ability to carry out her plans, and at
the same time she exposed the folly of those men who continually fail to
maintain sovereign power. For she valued the present more than the
future, and making everything else secondary to absolute rule (TCOCVTOC
SeuTepoc TtGepevrj TOU eyxpaTtos apxetv), she had, on account o f this, no con
sideration for either decency or justice (ouTe xocXou ouTe Stxoctou). At least
matters turned out so unfortunately for her house that the sovereign power
(Suvacrceta) which it had acquired in the face of the greatest dangers and dif
ficulties was not long afterwards taken from it (d^octpeGfjvat) because o f her
desire for things unbecoming a woman, and because she expressed the
same opinions as did those [sc. the Pharisees] who were hostile to her family
(TOIS pev Suapevcos e'xouatv izpb$ TO yevo$ OCUTCOV TTJV OCUTTJV yvcoprjv 7tpo9etaa),
and also because she left the kingdom without anyone who had their in
terests at heart. A n d even after her death she caused the palace to be filled
with misfortunes and disturbances (oupcpopcov xat Tapaxfjs) which arose from
the public measures taken during her lifetime. Nevertheless, in spite o f
reigning in this manner, she had kept the nation at peace.
2 8
Indeed, the rueful recognition of Pharisaic power is a consistent feature of all of
Josephus's writings. Cf. also War 1:571; 2:162f., 411-418; Ant. 13:288-298; 17:41ff.; Life
189ff. But if Josephus raises the issue of Pharisaic predominance only in order to express
his regrets about it, he can hardly have invented the idea that they were in fact
predominant.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 259
I. Context
1
Cf. Ant. 14:490f.
2
Ant. 15:232-236, 16:320ff., 392ff.
3
Ant. 17:32-40.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II 261
4
Cf. Laqueur, Josephus, 17Iff.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1947; Thackeray, Josephus
65ff.; Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, X X V f.; Cohen, Josephus, iii; and chapter
7, above.
5
E.g., Ant. 14:173; 15:182, 267, 280ff., 291, 299, 328f.; 16:lf., 159.
6
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).
7
Cf. chapter 7, above.
8
Ant. 16:150-159.
9
Ant. 14:430, 439-444, 462-464.
1 0
Ant. 14:377; 15:305-316, 380-425.
11
Ant. 14:348ff., 451ff.
12
Ant. 14:482f.; 15:380-425, esp. 381-387, 421-423.
1 3
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).
1 4
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.
262 CHAPTER ELEVEN
1 5
law. 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
1 6
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 ) 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).
15
Ant. 14:163-167.
1 6
On Hyrcanus IPs title at this point, cf. Ant. 14:151 and L C L edn., V I I , 523 n. f.
1 7
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.
1 8
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).
1 9
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.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II 263
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)
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.
2 0
Cf. Thucydides 1.85.1, 45.7, 2.39, 65.12; 6.86.5, 92.5; 7.58.2; 8.46.2.
2 1
Thucydides 1.85.1, 45.7; 6.92.5; 8.46.2.
2 2
Thackeray, Josephus, HOff. Cf. the discussion in chapter 12, below.
2 3
Cf. chapter 4, above.
2 4
Cf. War 1:110, 2:162; Life 191; also A . I. Baumgarten, " N a m e " , 414ff.
2 5
The Epitome has eljocxpiPouv.
2 6
War 7:383; Ant. 3:83; 4:100; 6:298; 7:301; 15:10, 372, (pei'Cov 6vcov); Life 43, 52; 9P
3 1
Cf. chapter 4, above. At Ant. 17:41, a variant reading is TOU 7uocTptou vopou ( W E
Lat.), which is followed by Reinach. This would conform even more closely to Josephan
usage.
3 2
See LSJ and B A G , s.v. on "established practice" and A . I. Baumgarten, "Name",
414f., on Josephan usage.
3 3
Cf., e.g., Ant. 13:102; Life 319; Ag.Ap. 1:5.
3 4
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".
3 5
Cf. chapter 4.
3 6
So War 1:110; 2:162; Life 191.
266 CHAPTER ELEVEN
3 7
Josephus does not intend to say that the Pharisees were distinguished by "their in
fluence with women" (contra Rivkin, Revolution, 323).
3 8
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.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II 267
3 9
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,
4
and J. Blenkinsopp, 'Prophecy", 239 n. 2, on the history of scholarship.
4 0
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.
4 1
Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 240, 246.
4 2
War 1:68-69; Ant. 13:299.
4 3
War 2:261; 6:286; Ant. 20:97, 169.
4 4
That is, not counting War 7:353; Ant. 12:342; 19:31, which all lack the sense of
"prediction".
4 5
Ant. 8:232, 319, 9:189; 10:53, 178; 11:96.
4 6
Cf. esp. Ant. 8:420; 9:169, 265, 281; 10:13, 60, 89, 268.
268 CHAPTER ELEVEN
4 7
Cf. Ant. 15:371-379.
4 8
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 836f.
4 9
Cf. Ant. 10:33-35; 13:65 (on Isaiah); 4:303 (on Moses); also Blenkinsopp, "Pro
phecy", 242f.
5 0
Paret, "Pharisaismus" 837f., believed that this "misunderstanding" of the pro
phets indicated Josephus's (narrow) Pharisaic perspective!
5 1
Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 51, 52f.
5 2
Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 52ff.; Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 244f.
5 3
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.
5 4
Ant. 10:266f.
55
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.
56
Ant. 10:35, trans. Marcus ( L C L edn.) emphasis added; cf. Ant. 4:303, 313; 8:418-
420; 10:142, 280.
THE PHARISEES A T HEROD's COURT, II 269
5 7
Cf. Ant. 10:79., 142 (on Jeremiah); 10:276 (on Daniel); also Blenkinsopp, "Pro
phecy', 244f.
5 8
Ag.Ap. 1:41.
5 9
Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 240. This view also corresponds to several rabbinic
statements, loc. cit. n. 4.
6 0
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 834f; van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 48.
61
War 3:352-354.
62
Ant. 13:31 If. (cf. War 1:78); 15:371-379; 17:346 (cf. War 2:113).
63
Ant. 14:174; 15:4.
6 4
Rajak, Josephus, 18f.
6 5
Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 42; cf. Suetonius, Vespasian 4, and Tacitus, Histories 5:13;
also Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 7Iff.
6 6
Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 42ff.
270 CHAPTER ELEVEN
67
War 3:405-408. Notice also the imperfect fjv at War 3:352: Josephus presents his
predictive activities as ongoing.
6 8
Cf. van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 49f.
6 9
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.
7 0
Cf. Ant. 8:418-420; 10:142.
71
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).
7 2
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.
73
War 1:18, cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 241.
7 4
Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 42.
7 5
Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 246f. and van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 43.
7 6
War 3:352.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II 271
Es sollte nun klar sein, dass wir, wenn wir uber Prophetie bei Josephus
sprechen, uber eine Sache reden, die Josephus nicht nur objektiv, historich,
86
sondern auch subjektiv und ganz personlich aufs starkste interessiert h a t .
77
War 2:159.
7 8
Ant. 13:311. So Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 258.
7 9
The parallel is drawn by Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 247.
8 0
Cf. e.g., Ant. 2:11-16, 64-73, 84-86 (Joseph); 10:250 (Daniel); Blenkinsopp, "Pro
phecy", 245.
81
War 3:352 (Josephus); Ant. 17:345-348 (Simon the Essene).
8 2
Ant. 17:43.
8 3
War 1:69; cf. Ant. 13:300 (and 282).
8 4
Ant. 15:373.
8 5
Ant. 15:379.
8 6
Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 47.
272 CHAPTER ELEVEN
I V . Interpretation
A s a reward for her kindness they predicted—for [the Pharisees] had been
credited with knowing the future through divine manifestations (xcpoyvcoatv
8 7
On the suggestion that the mention of this fine contradicts Ant. 15:370, see the
source-critical discussion below.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II 273
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 £ a
exetvto TOCrcavT'etvat), and he would grant Bagoas potency for marriage and
for the production of his own children. (Ant. 17:45)
8 8
E.g., Ant. 15:173-178, 247-252, 262-266, 280-289, 365-369; 16:235ff.
8 9
Ant. 16:320, 392ff.
9 0
Cf. Ant. 16:241, 244.
9 1
This Karos appears to have been an object of the King's pederasty (cf. 7coct8ixoc 6Vca
auxoO, 17:44).
9 2
See the source-critical discussion below.
9 3
L C L edn. VIII, 393 n.b.
274 CHAPTER ELEVEN
Nor should we think the things which are said to flatter us (TOC 7cp6s rjSovrjv)
or please us more worthy of belief than the truth, but should realize that
nothing is more beneficial than prophecy and the foreknowledge which it
gives (OTI rcpo9rjTeia? xat TTJ? Stoc TCOV TOIOUTCOV rcpoyvcoaeco? ouSev iart aup-
^opcoTepov), for in this way God enables us to know what to guard against.
(Ant. 8:418; Thackeray/Marcus)
V . Source Analysis
9 4
Rivkin explains this omission in an end-note, Revolution, 321-324; we shall consider
his reasons presently.
9 5
A . I . Baumgarten, "Name", 415f.
9 6
H . Bloch, Quellen, 169; Destinon, Quelllen, 120; Schwartz, "Josephus and
Nicolaus", 160; A . I. Baumgarten, "Name", 414f.
9 7
Holscher, "Josephus", 1977, 1979, 1981.
9 8
Revolution, 324.
9 9
Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 187; Holscher, "Josephus", 1974 n.** (the author
is "sicher ein Nichtjude").
1 0 0
Holscher, "Josephus", 1974 n.**; Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 160;
Rivkin, Revolution, 323.
276 CHAPTER ELEVEN
1 0 1
The first oath took place in about 20 BC (Herod's seventeenth year), according
to 15:354 and 365 (xoxe). The later oath took place after the execution of Herod's two
sons (7 BC). The whole story of the Pharisees' fine and its payment by Pheroras's wife
is firmly connected to the emergence of the female cabal (rj yuvocixcoviTis, 17:41) under
Antipater, which only occurred in the final years of Herod's life (17:32ff) when he had
lost control of affairs. The parallel in War (l:567ff.) makes this absolutely clear.
Schwartz's claim that Ant. 17:42 is "simply recalling the earlier event" ("Josephus and
Nicolaus", 160 n. 12) seems to me to ignore all of the narrative indications. M y position
evidently agrees with those of A . Schalit and I. L. Levine (published in Hebrew); cf.
Schwartz, loc cit.
1 0 2
Holscher, "Josephus", 1974 n.**; Bousset, Religion des Judentums, 182, I. Levy,
Pythagore, 236f., 244f.
1 0 3
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 159.
1 0 4
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.
1 0 5
Cf. Schalit, Supplementband, s.v. \ e.g., Ant. 13:243, 397; 16:158, 18:55, 81; 20:34,
41.
1 0 6
E.g., War 2:568, 569, 575, 585, 590, et passim.
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. 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 ,
1 0 7
h e d o e s the s a m e with Ant. 17:41-45. O u r analysis o f the earlier
passages c o n c l u d e d , h o w e v e r , that they c a m e f r o m J o s e p h u s himself:
therefore the verbal parallels speak in f a v o u r of, rather than against,
1 0 8
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 9
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 .
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
110
a 9iXoao9ioc. 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.
among the characteristics of these pharisaoi [sic] are their influence with
women and their foreknowledge o f things to come. The Pharisees elsewhere
112
in Josephus do not share these characteristics.
1 0 7
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 160.
1 0 8
See chapters 9 and 10.
1 0 9
Revolution, 323.
1 1 0
auvTorfpa, War 1:110; Taypoc, War 2:164; ^tXoao^ta, Ant. 18:11.
1 1 1
Thus: oi icepi tot Tcaxpta voptpa Soxouatv x<ov aXXcov axptPeta Sta^ipetv.
1 1 2
Rivkin, loc. cit.
278 CHAPTER ELEVEN
1 1 3
The most obvious tension, it seems to me, between the earlier descriptions of the
Pharisees under Herod and Ant. 17:41 ff. has apparently not impressed many others.
Namely, 14:172 describes Samaias as an upright man (8txoctO£ dvrjp) and superior to fear,
whereas our passage presents the Pharisees as scoundrels. Notice, however, that when
Josephus is talking about Samaias's virtues, he does not mention that the man was a
Pharisee; that datum does not appear until somewhat later (15:3f.), by which time the
reader might have forgotten the earlier praise. In 14:172, Josephus wants to contrast the
lawless Herod and the cowardly Sanhedrin with an upright man who was not afraid to
voice the truth. If his source told him that the man was Samaias, he could not very well
suppress that fact; what he could do and did do was to omit the datum that Samaias was
a Pharisee.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II 279
1 1 4
Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 247; War 3:352; 2:159.
1 1 5
Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 254f., 258; van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 43; War 3:352;
Ant. 17:345ff.
1 1 6
"Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f.
1 1 7
Holscher, "Josephus", 1991.
1 1 8
Cf. War 1:110 ff.; 2:162 (aTudyovxes); Ant. 13:288, 401; cf. Life 191ff.
1 1 9
Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 244ff.; van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 52f.
280 CHAPTER ELEVEN
w i t h o u t i m p a r t i n g his o w n p e r s p e c t i v e . T h i s m u s t b e p r o v e n in a n y
g i v e n case a n d , in the light o f recent studies, it is an increasingly difficult
p o s i t i o n to sustain. W e h a v e seen, for e x a m p l e , that J o s e p h u s con
sistently r e w o r k s his L X X s o u r c e so as to c o n v e y his o w n t h e m e s a n d
interests. H e likewise m a k e s the H a s m o n e a n history his o w n , a l t h o u g h
s o m e e l e m e n t s are less perfectly r e d a c t e d than others. T h e f o r e g o i n g
analysis has s o u g h t to s h o w that the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in Ant.
1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is w h o l l y intelligible as J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o n s i d e r e d f o r m u l a t i o n .
W i t h all o f its o b v i o u s hostility t o w a r d the Pharisees, the passage c o m e s
f r o m J o s e p h u s himself.
CHAPTER TWELVE
ANT 18:12-15: T H E P H A R I S E E S A M O N G
T H E J E W I S H S C H O O L S , III
This journalistic hack is verbose and prefers two or more words to one. . . .
T h e commonplace word is studiously shunned and replaced by the unusual
and bizarre *
1
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 29f., 32ff.
2
Thackeray Josephus, 11 Of.
3
Ibid., 11 If.
4
Cf. Richards, "Composition", 39; Peterson, "Literary Projects", 261 n. 5; Shutt,
Studies, Rajak, Josephus, 233ff; Moehring, "Novelistic Elements", 145f.; and the ex
cursus to Part I, above.
5
Cf. Richards, "Composition", 37f.
6
Cf. Rivkin's discussion, Revolution, 318f. W e are grateful to him for soliciting in
dependent translations of Ant. 18:11-15 by S. Topping and by A . Damico and M . Yaffe,
320f.
7
Cf. Schlatter, Theologie, 209f. n. 1 and Thackeray, " O n Josephus' Statement of the
Pharisees' Doctrine of Fate (Antiq. xviii, 1, 3 ) " , HTR 25 (1932), 93.
282 CHAPTER TWELVE
I. Context
This school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees,
except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable,
since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master. (Ant.
18:23; Feldman)
8
Cf. Ant. 13:318f. (on Aristobulus), 381f. (on Alexander Janneus), 423f. (on
Aristobulus); 16:150ff. (on Herod). All of these passages are absent from War.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 283
TOC pev Xowca rcavTa yvcopyj TCOV Oapiaaicov opoXoyouat SUOVIXYJTOJ; 8e TOU
x a
IXeuOepou epcos eartv auTOt? povov jfrepdva * 8ea7u6TT)v TOV 9e6v u7cetX7)9oatv.
9
So, e.g., Paret, "Pharisaismus", 818; Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 39, 44, 47;
Farmer, Maccabees, 33f. n. 23; Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 425; Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy",
260; Black, "Judas", 50; Hengel, Zeloten, 83f., 89f.
1 0
So Paret, "Pharisaismus", 818; Black, "Judas of Galilee and Josephus's 'Fourth
Philosophy'", Josephus-Studien, edd. O . Betz, K . Haacker, P. Schafer, 50; Hengel,
Zeloten, 89f.; Alon, Jews, 44ff.; R . Meyer, Tradition and Neuschopfung, 52 n. 4, 54ff.
11
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 39, 44, 47.
12
Ibid., 47.
1 3
But see the studies by Farmer, Hengel, and Black.
1 4
See chapter 6, above.
1 5
O f all of the commentators, Hengel is the most sensitive to the importance of the
context; he concludes that the contradiction is only apparent (scheinbar), Zeloten, 91.
284 CHAPTER TWELVE
these men sowed the seed of every kind of misery, which so afflicted the
nation that words are inadequate . . . . Here is a lesson that an innovation
and reform in ancestral traditions (rj TCOV 7uaTptcov xatviats xat peTapoXrj)
weighs heavily in the scale in leading to the destruction of the congregation
of the people. In this case certainly, Judas and Saddok started among us
an intrusive fourth school o f philosophy (TeTapTTjv 9tXoao9tav ercetaaxTOV TjpTv
eyeipavTes). . . . They filled the body politic immediately with tumult, also
planting the seeds of those troubles which subsequently overtook it, all
because of the novelty o f this hitherto unknown philosophy (TCO aauvrjOet
TcpOTepov 9tXoao9tas). . . . (Feldman)
1 6
Cf. Hengel, Zeloten, 90f.
1 7
Cf. War 2:162; Ant. 13:296-298; and now 18:15.
1 8
As Holscher, "Josephus", 1991, seems also to think.
1 9
As in 13:388, 400-432; 17:41-45.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 285
A m o n g the Jews from earliest times (ex TOU rcavu apxatou) there were three
philosophies o f the ancestral traditions (TCOV 7cocTptcov): that o f the Essenes,
that o f the Sadducees, and third, those who are called Pharisees also
engaged in philosophy. (18:11)
2 0
Inconsequential, because he has to admit that the philosophy of unconditional
freedom is entirely alien to all of the major schools, including the Pharisees.
2 1
If we have correctly assessed the allusions to Pharisaic links with the fourth philoso
phy as rather wild insinuations, their absence from War may result from that work's
greater discipline of style and content, on which see Niese, HZ, 207f., and Thackeray,
L C L edn., II, xiiif.
2 2
The noun xatvtat?, ' 'innovation", occurs only here in Josephus but several
cognates, such as xatvo7uoteto, xatvo?, xatvoTopito, xatvoupyeco, and xatvoupyta do appear
throughout his writings, often with pejorative connotations. He is able to exploit the dou
ble meaning of the root xoctv—as ''revolution" (cf. War 6:343; 7:410; Ant. 7:362) and
as "innovation" in the laws (War 5:402; 7:259; Ant. 8:245; 9:96, 250; 20:216-218; Ap.
2:250-252)—to emphasize that, for the Jews, revolution is an innovation. In War 2:414,
he makes the converse point that innovation (the cessation of sacrifice for the Romans)
is tantamount to revolution. Josephus's exploitation of the shift between "innovation"
and "revolution" is even more striking in his use of vetoTeptCto/vetoTepta^ and cognates;
cf. Rengstorf, Concordance, s.v., esp. Ant. 18:10. For Josephus, with his conviction that
Jewish law and custom were prescribed by Moses and fixed for all time, "new" is a term
of abuse.
286 CHAPTER TWELVE
2 3
c h a n g i n g attitudes t o w a r d the g r o u p . S i n c e J o s e p h u s refers the r e a d e r
( 1 8 : 1 1 ) b a c k t o War 2 , R a s p infers that h e intends a subtle c o r r e c t i o n o f
24
his earlier p o r t r a y a l . Similarly, b o t h R a s p a n d N e u s n e r b e l i e v e that the
Pharisees o f Ant. 18 r e c e i v e m u c h better e x p o s u r e than they h a d in War
2 5
2, at the e x p e n s e o f the Essenes; the latter are " c u t d o w n t o s i z e " .
N e u s n e r attributes this r e - e v a l u a t i o n t o J o s e p h u s ' s ( a l l e g e d ) n e w , p r o -
Pharisaic o u t l o o k i n Ant. -Life.
T h e r e is g o o d r e a s o n t o d o u b t , h o w e v e r , that the o r d e r in w h i c h the
schools are d i s c u s s e d , the a m o u n t o f space d e v o t e d t o e a c h , o r the t o n e
of Josephus's remarks indicate a n y re-evaluation i n f a v o u r o f the
Pharisees. First, a l t h o u g h the Essenes d o r e c e i v e m u c h less space than
they h a d in the r e m a r k a b l e p a n e g y r i c o f War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 , they still m e r i t
2 6
fuller c o v e r a g e than either the Pharisees o r the S a d d u c e e s . More im
portant is the t o n e o f the d e s c r i p t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e s such r e m a r k s as the
following:
2 3
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 29ff.
2 4
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 31: "Die Verschiedenartigkeit der neuen Schilderung
in Verbindung mit dem Hinweis [to War 2] lasst sich nur erklaren aus dem Wunsch des
Autors, die altere Darstellung zu korrigieren."
2 5
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 232; cf. Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 33f.
2 6
The Essenes receive 5 Niese sections ( = 25 lines of Greek); the Pharisees get 4 sec
tions ( = 22 lines of Greek); and the Sadducees get 2 sections ( = 1 1 lines of Greek).
2 7
Similar phrases occur at Ant. 3:58 and 18:278. They echo Thucydides 2.51.5.
2 8
Notice that Josephus distinctly includes the Jews among the "Barbarians" (War
1:3, 16; Ag.Ap. 1:6-14, esp. 8); cf. Collomp, "Platz", 292f.
2 9
Ant. 18:15.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 287
1. K e y T e r m s
3 0
Niese, HZ, 223f.
3 1
J4^r 2:137, 138, 151, 155, 160; Ant. 15:371.
3 2
E.g., Ant. 13:245, 258; Ag.Ap. 1:185.
288 CHAPTER TWELVE
(c) MocXocxos occurs 18 times throughout War and Ant., though never
as the neuter substantive TO pocXocxcoTepov, "softness", "luxury", or "the
more luxurious", as in our passage. G . C . Richards observes, " T h e
neuter article with adj. or participle is an overdone idiom in (Ant.) X V I I -
3 3
XIX." H e argues that this could not be the work of a native speaker
of Greek (or of Thackeray's Greek assistant) and that it doubtless comes
from Josephus.
(d) 'EvSiScopi occurs about 62 times in Josephus, most frequently in
the final books of War, with the meaning "surrender". In our passage,
the sense is either that the Pharisees are not "inclined toward" luxury
or that they do not "yield" to its lure.
2. Interpretation
The next two statements, which seem to be linked in sense, have the
same form as 12a: they comprise a main clause with a main verb (pres.
ind. 3p. pi.), followed by a subordinate clause with a plural present par
ticiple. In each case, the subordinate clause reiterates the point of the
main clause.
3 3
Richards, "Composition", 37.
3 4
Avot de Rabbi Natan 5.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 289
1. K e y T e r m s
3 5
So Feldman, L C L edn. I X , lOf. n. c, following Thackeray.
3 6
Lauterbach, HUCA, 99f.; cf. G. F. Moore, "Fate", 374.
290 CHAPTER TWELVE
3 7
The word occurs in Thucydides (7.84.5) with this literal sense.
3 8
As is well known, speeches were commonly used by hellenistic historians to carry
their own themes. The view expressed by Petronius, which is absent from War, accords
well with Josephus's consistent emphasis on adherence to the 7cocxpiov.
3 9
Cf. Ant. 1:14, 20 and chapter 7, above.
*° E.g., Ant. 4:306, 309; 8:21, 191, 195, 290; 9:157; 11:152; 14:165; 17:152; 18:59,
84, 267; cf. Ag.Ap. 1:212.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 291
4 1
War 1:277, 544; Ant. 8:325.
4 2
Ant. 3:84; 4:121, 183, 193.
4 3
Ant. 13:297 (twice), 401.
4 4
Ant. 3:266; 14:152, 256, 259, 262.
4 5
Cf. also Ant. 18:332, "to produce" or "bring forth".
4 6
Ant. 4:186; Ag.Ap. 1:261.
292 CHAPTER TWELVE
2. Interpretation
4 7
The noun [A£T<X7COi7)ai£ occurs only twice outside our passage. In Ant. 3:58 it means
"aspiration" and in 18:242 it means "claim". The verb peTowioioufAai at 18:20 and 278,
as in Thucydides 1.140.1; 2.51.5, also means "to claim".
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 293
1. K e y T e r m s
4 8
Richards, "Composition", 87.
4 9
Ant. 17:60, 118, 150, 180, 309, 354, 18:13, 30, 128, 281, 19:41, 171.
50
Ant. 4:229, 293, 16:99, plus several variants.
51
Ant. 13:171, 173; 16:397.
5 2
Richards, "Composition", 37. The phrase TO PouXopevov occurs with the meaning
"will" or "purpose" in Thucydides 1.90.2.
5 3
Cf. Schlatter, Theologie, 209f. n. 1.
5 4
Thackeray, HTR, 93.
5 5
I follow here Schlatter's explanation of the textual tradition, Theologie, 209f. n. 1.
5 6
Ibid.
5 7
Schlatter, loc. cit., suggests that the phrase should be £9' auTOi$ on this reading.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 295
5 8
G . F. Moore, "Fate", 378, 384.
5 9
Schlatter, Theologie, 210 n. 1.
6 0
See chapter 6, above.
6 1
For the translations suggested by S. Topping, M . Yaffe, and A . Damico, cf.
Rivkin, Revolution, 320f.
6 2
Schlatter, Theologie, 219 n. 1.
296 CHAPTER TWELVE
G o d , as the universal father and Lord who beholds all things, grants to
such as follow him a life of bliss (TOT? IIZO\L£VOI$ OCUTCO SiStoatv euSatpova (3tov),
but involves in dire calamities those who step outside the path of virtue
(TOUS ei-to 8e (JoctvovTOcs apeTfjs). (Thackeray)
6 3
Schlatter, Theologie, 210 n. 1.
6 4
Esther 4:17; Prov. 1:7; Hab. 3:3; Zech. 6:13; Isa. 42:8, 12; 43:21; 63:7.
6 5
Ant. 4:320, 321, 326; 5:73; 18:280; 19:57, 202; cf. Ag.Ap. 2:226, 278, 279.
6 6
War 2:156; 4:387; Ant. 6:93; 8:252; 17:101; 19:16; Ag.Ap. 2:145. It is not clear in
our passage whether the phrase qualifies div0pa)7w*>v, TO IGeXrjaocv, or 7cpoax&>pe!v.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 297
2. Interpretation
6 7
Cf. Schlatter, Theologie, 209f. n. 1.
6 8
One is tempted to conjecture that the phrase entered the text by a dittography of
a v 0 U ( J l v
dpeTfjs f\ xaxta?. Schlatter (Theologie, 209f. n. 1) explains the double T U Y X by a
similar means.
298 CHAPTER TWELVE
o v o
14b. xat UTCO x ^ ? otxata>aet£ Te xat Ttpas
olq apeT% rj xaxta^ e7UTrj8euats
ev T63 (3ta> yeyovev,
14c. xat Tat£ pev etpypdv dtStov rcpoTtOeaOat,
14d. TaT^ Se paara>vrjv TOU dva(3touv.
T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the P h a r i s e e s ' c o n c e p t i o n o f i m m o r t a l i t y is v e r y
similar t o o t h e r passages in J o s e p h u s that d e s c r i b e his o w n v i e w , the
Essene v i e w , a n d also the Pharisaic v i e w . B e c a u s e o f these obvious
similarities, it w a s necessary to c o n s i d e r the salient features of our
passage a b o v e , in o u r analysis o f War 2 : 1 6 3 . W e d i s c o v e r e d there that
J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n ( a n d also his o w n ) as a b e l i e f in
a p e c u l i a r f o r m o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n , in w h i c h a n e w b o d y is p r o m i s e d o n l y
to the g o o d as a r e w a r d for v i r t u o u s c o n d u c t ; the n e w a n d better life will
be granted at the " s u c c e s s i o n o f a g e s " .
It r e m a i n s t o s u p p l e m e n t o u r earlier d i s c u s s i o n with a few remarks o n
the distinctive v o c a b u l a r y o f Ant. 18:14.
1. K e y T e r m s
V s u r a c e t n e
(a) T r c o X^OVOS. T h e w o r d X ^ > " ( f °f ) earth", occurs only
6 9
here in J o s e p h u s . I n d e e d , as a p o e t i c t e r m , it is v e r y rare in ancient
70
G r e e k p r o s e in g e n e r a l . T h e phrase UTCO X^OVO^ d o e s , h o w e v e r , o c c u r in
7 1
Homer, Aeschylus, and Sophocles as a p o e t i c d e s i g n a t i o n o f the
72
n e t h e r - w o r l d , w h i c h is m o r e p r o s a i c a l l y called "AtBrj^.
I n War 2 : 1 6 3 J o s e p h u s referred t o the Pharisaic b e l i e f in the eternal
p u n i s h m e n t o f the w i c k e d b u t h e d i d n o t m e n t i o n the v e n u e for this
p u n i s h m e n t . H e d i d , h o w e v e r , tell us that the S a d d u c e e s d o a w a y with
7 3
TOCS xaO' a8ou Ttpcoptas xat Ttpds ( 2 : 1 6 5 ) , a phrase that m u s t reflect their
o p p o s i t i o n to the Pharisaic v i e w . I n o u r p a s s a g e , J o s e p h u s ' s e x p e r i m e n t
with h i g h style leads h i m to seize o n the m o r e p o e t i c e x p r e s s i o n b u t the
m e a n i n g is the same. Rewards and punishments, according to the
Pharisees, are m e t e d o u t in the n e t h e r - w o r l d .
6 9
But cf. XMVLOS at War 1:377.
7 0
Cf. LSJ, s.v.
7 1
Homer, Iliad 8:14; Aeschylus, Choephor 833; Sophocles, Antigone 65.
7 2
E.g., Plato, Meno 81bc; Phaedo 107c.
7 3
So the Loeb text, after C (11th- cent.). The rest of the M S S have "universal
(xa06Xou) punishments and rewards". Even if the Loeb reading were incorrect, we
should still know from War 2:155 and 3:375 that the Essenes and Josephus, respectively,
assign the wicked to subterranean punishments. W e have seen that the views of Josephus
and those of the Pharisees on the afterlife are also very close (chapter 6, above).
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 299
2. Interpretation
14a. T h a t souls h a v e an i m m o r t a l p o w e r is a
conviction a m o n g them
14b. a n d subterranean punishments and rewards
c o m e to those w h o s e c o n d u c t in life
has b e e n either o f virtue o r v i c e ;
14c. for s o m e , eternal i m p r i s o n m e n t is p r e p a r e d
14d. b u t for others, f r e e d o m to live a g a i n .
7 4
Cf. Thucydides 7.86.5 and also Ant. 19:49.
7 5
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 32.
7 6
Cf. chapter 6, above, and Moore, "Fate", 385 n. 57.
300 CHAPTER TWELVE
As in War 2:165, the Sadducees are now said to reject the Pharisaic
belief. A new detail is that their teaching "dissipates (auvaqjavi^ei) the
soul along with the b o d y " .
1. K e y Terms
77
Ant. 18:41, 69, 85f.
7 8
Thucydides 3.36.3 and 4.21.3 speak of the same person, a certain Cleon, son of
Cleaenetus.
7 9
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 163. W e await a comprehensive study of
8fj(io<; and 7tXfj0o<; in Josephus.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 301
d e s c r i b e s as i m m o d e r a t e a n d m o s t v i o l e n t ((3tat6TaT0$). T h u c y d i d e s '
a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f this m a n ' s influence w i t h the p u b l i c is b y n o m e a n s
a commendation.
s
(b) T h e v e r b Tuyx^vco * typically J o s e p h a n : it o c c u r s 4 3 9 times
t h r o u g h o u t his writings a n d its 4 0 o c c u r r e n c e s in b o o k s 17-19 are p r o
p o r t i o n a t e to the others. T h a t it appears t w i c e w i t h i n o u r statement
a b o u t the Pharisees' p o p u l a r i t y is striking; Schlatter excises the latter o c
80
c u r r e n c e as a d i t t o g r a p h y .
Because TUYX<*V6> is often little more than a "spice w o r d " for
J o s e p h u s , it is difficult to k n o w h o w , o r w h e t h e r , to translate it. F e l d m a n
takes it e m p h a t i c a l l y , to m e a n , " t h e y are, as a m a t t e r o f fact, e x t r e m e l y
i n f l u e n t i a l " . T o p p i n g o m i t s it altogether o r , p e r h a p s , gives it the force
o f etpt: " t h e y are plausible to the p e o p l e " . Yaffe a n d D a m i c o take the
v e r b in its m o s t literal sense ( f r o m TUX*)), " t h e y happen to be m o s t per
suasive to the vulgar", w h i c h is rather different in nuance from
81
Feldman's rendering. T h e w o r d is c o m m o n e n o u g h that o n e c a n easily
82
find s u p p o r t elsewhere in J o s e p h u s for all three s e n s e s .
I f o n e takes the o t h e r Pharisee passages into c o n s i d e r a t i o n , h o w e v e r ,
the Y a f f e / D a m i c o translation c o m m e n d s itself. J o s e p h u s is n o t pleased
with the Pharisees' influence a n d therefore a c k n o w l e d g e s o n l y that they
" h a p p e n to h a v e " the s u p p o r t o f the p e o p l e , n o t that they d e s e r v e it.
T h i s interpretation is also s u p p o r t e d b y the c o n t e x t o f o u r p a s s a g e .
J o s e p h u s o p e n l y praises the Essenes as s u p e r i o r to all others w h o m a k e
a n y c l a i m to virtue ( 1 8 : 2 0 ) ; he also gives his o p i n i o n that the S a d d u c e e s
i n c l u d e m e n o f the highest standing (TOU? 7tpo>T0US zoiq aijuopocat, 1 8 : 1 7 )
b u t that they are c o m p e l l e d b y p o p u l a r sentiment to a c c e p t " w h a t the
Pharisee s a y s " . In v i e w o f these r e m a r k s a n d in the a b s e n c e o f a n y un
qualified c o m m e n d a t i o n o f the Pharisees, it m a k e s sense that J o s e p h u s
should say that "they happen to b e " the o n e s with the popular
following.
V(0 l s
E v e n if this interpretation o f Tuyx^ correct, however, w e have
d e t e c t e d o n l y a n u a n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k s a n d n o t an outright attack
8 3
o n Pharisaic influence such as w e h a v e m e t b e f o r e . H i s p u r p o s e here
is n o t to attack the Pharisees b u t to s h o w that they, a l o n g w i t h the Sad
d u c e e s a n d Essenes, represent normal Judaism, unlike the s c h o o l o f
Judas.
( c ) In the relative adjective orcoaoc w e e n c o u n t e r o n e o f the clearest
hallmarks o f the style a d o p t e d in Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 . O f 112 o c c u r r e n c e s o f this
8 0
Schlatter, Theologie, 211 n. 1.
8 1
For the translations of Topping and Yaffe/Damico, see Rivkin, Revolution, 320f.
8 2
Cf. Rengstorf, Concordance, s.v.
8 3
I.e., in War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:288, 401, 432; 17:41-45.
302 CHAPTER TWELVE
word in Josephus, a remarkable 101 are found in Ant. 17-19. This high
frequency results, as in our passage, from an unliterary substitution of
the relative adjective for the relative pronoun. This is hardly the work
of a Greek litteratus.
(d) T h e adjective GeTo?, "divine", is characteristic of all of Josephus's
writings; it occurs some 206 times. M o r e than three-quarters of these in
stances are in the neuter substantive, TO Getov, meaning "the deity",
which is Josephus's preferred circumlocution for G o d . Nevertheless, the
adjective occurs attributively, as in our passage, more than 4 0 times.
(e) Y e t another favoured term in Ant. 17-19 that turns up in our
passage is rj TroiTjat?. O f its 15 occurrences in Josephus, 8 are in these
three books. Significantly, in his description of the Sadducean view
Josephus also includes the word peTa7U0t7)<Jt$, which occurs again at
18:242 and only once elsewhere (3:58); this accords with the general
repetitiveness of the vocabulary in our passage.
(f) T h e noun e^yrjai? occurs only 8 times in Josephus. Four times it
84
refers to the "interpretation" of d r e a m s . Once it refers to Josephus's
85
own "narrative" in War, once to the "translation" of the Sep
86 87
tuagint, and once to the Persians' "exposition" of their l a w s . Only
in our passage does i^r\yf]<Ji<; refer to a particular exposition or interpreta
tion of the Jewish laws.
Nevertheless, the cognate verb efJTjyeopoct does occur in this connection
several times. M o s t interesting for us: in War 2:162 the Pharisees are
said to be reputed peT' dxpt(kia$. . . . e^TiyetaGai TOC v o p t p a .
(g) T h e meaning of aperr} in the final sentence is problematic because
it is connected with et$ ToaovSe, which seems to be retrospective. But
Josephus has not yet spoken of any moral "virtue" on the Pharisees'
part. Indeed, all of his earlier accounts of the Pharisees' activities alleged
that these men were singularly lacking in moral principle (War 1:110-
114, 571; Ant. 13:288-298, 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; 17:41-45). If, then, etc Toaovoe dpeTrj
is retrospective, the dpeTTj in question must be the "power" or "influ
ence" of the Pharisees (rather than their moral virtue), for that is what
88
Josephus has just spoken a b o u t .
'ApeTrj was an extremely malleable term in classical and Hellenistic
89
usage. Like the English "virtue" ( > Lat. virtus), its original sense was
8 4
Ant. 2:69, 75, 77, 93.
85
War 1:30.
8 6
Ant. 1:12.
8 7
Ant. 11:192.
8 8
Thus Yaffe/Damico (in Rivkin, Revolution, 320f.).
8 9
Cf. LSJ, s.v., the specialized lexica to the classics, and O . Bauernfeind, "apexrj",
TDNT, I, 457-461.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 303
a m a n inferior to none of the Athenians of his day in aperr} and one who
had proved himself most able both to formulate a plan and to set forth his
conclusions in speech. ( 8 . 6 8 . 1 )
9 0
Cf. //wrf 3:411; 8:535; 13:257; 15:642; 20:242; 23:276; Odyssey 4:725; 8:239; 13:45;
14:212, 402; 18:133, 251.
9 1
Odyssey 13:45; 14:402; 18:133.
9 2
Pindar, Odes 7:163; Xenophon, Memorabilia 2:1, 21; Sophocles, Ph. 1420;
Thucydides 1:33; Lysias 193:12; cf. LSJ, s.v. and Bauernfeind, "apexr)", 458.
9 3
Isa. 42:8, 12; Hab. 3:3; Zech. 6:13.
9 4
Although Plato is the one who established the ethical sense of dpetrj (Republic 500d;
Laws 963c), he also continues to use it in non-moral contexts (Republic 335b, 601d, 618d;
Symposium 208d; Protagoras 322d).
9 5
Cf. War 3:380; Ant. 17:130. Bauernfeind, "apexr)", 458 n.6, finds the non-moral
sense "commonly" in Josephus, but I think that is an overstatement.
9 6
Cf. J. T . Hooker, "Xdpu; and apexrj in Thucydides", 165-169, esp. 168; J. L.
Creed, "Moral Values in the Age of Thucydides", CQ, 23 (1973), 213-231; A . W .
Gomme, A . Andrewes, and K . J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on Thucydides (5 vols;
Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), V , 171 f.; W . R . Connor, Thucydides (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1984), 224f. n. 30
9 7
Andrewes, Thucydides, 171.
304 CHAPTER T W E L V E
9 8
Andrewes, Thucydides, V , 172.
9 9
Connor, Thucydides, 224 n. 30.
1 0 0
Plutarch, How to Study Poetry 24d.
1 0 1
One could wish that Josephus had not used apexr) in two different senses within
the same passage, but one should note that Thucydides, the literary model in this case,
stands accused of the same fault; cf. Hooker, "Xapi? and apexrj", 169.
1 0 2
The amoral, non-evaluative sense of the word is well attested in Josephus, e.g.,
War 1:88, 91, 654; 4:640; 5:176; 7:88, 158, 330, 360; Ant. 1:244; 4:195; 5:139, 64, 66;
6:231, 328; 7:20, 127 et passim-, Life 45.
103 Notice the tendency in Ant. 17-19 to spell xpetaacov (as also Tcpaaaoi) with a double
sigma, in imitation of Thucydides, rather than with the atticizing double tau, which
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 305
2. Interpretation
I I I . Source Analysis
1 0 5
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f.
1 0 6
Holscher, "Josephus", 1991.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 307
1 0 7
Palmer, Greek Language, 159, describes the distinctive features of the old Attic style:
"poetical colouring, forced and strange expressions, bold new coinages and substan
tivized neuters of participles and adjectives".
1 0 8
See the excursus to Part I above.
1 0 9
Cf. Richards, "Composition", 39. Nor does Holscher's own theory of in
termediate sources explain the linguistic data, since he posits the same intermediate
source for books 18-20 as for books 13-17, thus overriding the distinctive features of
17-19.
1 1 0
So Niese, HZ, 225; Peterson, "Literary Projects", 260f. n. 5; Shutt, Studies, 62ff.;
Rajak, Josephus, 233f.
1 1 1
So Richards, "Composition", 40.
308 CHAPTER TWELVE
T H E PHARISEES IN T H E LIFE
I. Date
3
A n d Life closes with a w o r d to the p a t r o n o f Ant.:
1
For fuller discussions of the issue cf. Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87; Niese, HZ, 226; T .
Frankfort, "La date de Vautobiographic de Flavius Josephe et des oeuvres de Justus de
Tiberiade, Revue Beige de Philologie 39 (1961), 52-58; Rajak, "Justus", 354 n. 1; and S.
J. D . Cohen, Josephus, 175.
2
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87, denies that Ant. 20 introduces Life; but he seems to have
overlooked this passage (cf. n. 10 below).
3
Cf. Ant. 1:8.
4
Cf. Schreckenberg, Tradition, 11.
5
Eccl. Hist. 3.10.8f.
6
Josephus, Life 5, states that he was born in the year of Gaius Caligula's accession
( = A D 37/38).
312 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
7
That is, the third year of Trajan; in his Bibliotheca, 33, given by Jacoby, Fragmente,
734 T . 2. Cf. the E T by Cohen, Josephus, 142.
8
I do not have access to the first edition of Schurer, Geschichte (1867), but only the
"third-fourth" (190Iff.); he claims there, however (I, p. Ill), that, though he has enlarged
his earlier work, he has not otherwise altered it much.
9
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 77, 87f.
10
Ant. 20:267: u7copv7ja<o naXtv TOU ix 7coXepou.
11
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87f. The renowned German scholar seems, unaccountably, to
have overlooked Ant. 20:266, which promises an account of Josephus's life.
1 2
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87f.
13
Ibid., I, 88 n. 20; 597-599. A n inscription unknown in Schurer's time refers to the
"37th year of Agrippa". This would put the king's death later than A D 97; cf. Cohen,
Josephus, 173.
1 4
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 88 n. 20, acknowledges this as a common opinion (in 1901).
H. Luther, writing in 1910, designates it the prevailing view of his time, in Josephus and
Justus von Tiberias (Halle: Wischan and Burkhardt, 1910), 54.
15
B. Niese, HZ, 226f.; Luther, Josephus und Justus, 54ff.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1941
n.H.
1 6
Rajak, "Justus", 361, who draws on Frankfort (see n. 1. above) and Cohen,
Josephus, 170-180.
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE 313
1 7
Niese, HZ, 226f. (On the other hand, Cohen, Josephus, 176, is properly cautious,
noting that even though Life was written as an appendix to Ant., it may not have ap
peared immediately.)
1 8
Niese, HZ, 226 n. 1. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 59f., distinguishes between the
autobiography, which Ant. 20:266 introduces as work that will follow immediately, and
the three works mentioned in 20:267, which are only planned.
1 9
Ibid., 227.
2 0
Luther, Josephus und Justus, 63, adds that such praise would have been out of step
with popular feeling, which regarded Domitian's demise as a godsend because his reign
had ended in terror ( A D 93-96). Cf. also Frankfort, "La date", 57, on the references
to emperors in Life.
2 1
Luther, Josephus und Justus, 54-59. Cf., e.g., Ant. 18:145f., 153f., on Agrippa I, and
Ant. 20:145 on Agrippa II. Cf. now also Cohen, Josephus, 177f., for a list of such
passages.
2 2
Ibid., 64f. He points out, for example, that among the various coins from "the 14th
year of Agrippa", three different emperors are mentioned as incumbents.
2 3
Luther, Josephus und Justus, 61-63.
2 4
Ibid.
314 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
25
ditus is suited better (or only) to Nero's secretary. But if Nero's
secretary was the patron of Ant.-Life, then both volumes were written
before A D 9 5 .
Holscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) , in making his case for the rejection of the Photius
26
datum, took over the Niese/Luther arguments.
A considerable hiatus in the popularity of this view was caused, how
2 7
ever, by R . Laqueur's watershed study ( 1 9 2 0 ) . For Laqueur found a
28
way to retain both the Photius datum (with Schurer) and the close con
nection between Life and Ant. (with Niese/Luther); he proposed that Ant.
was published in two editions and that only the second of these, written
after 100, included Life as an appendix. This re-edition would account,
he argued, for the apparent double ending of Ant., at 20:259ff. and
29
20:267ff. Laqueur's now famous theory was that the latter ending
served for a first edition of Ant. in A D 9 3 / 9 4 , which was indeed the thir
teenth year of Domitian, but several years before Agrippa's death (100).
After Agrippa's death, Josephus wrote Life (in response to the work of
Justus) and at the same time reissued Ant. with a new ending (20:259ff.)
to introduce the appendix; the textual tradition, however, combined the
30
two endings. Laqueur's theory gained considerable prestige in the
31
English-speaking world through its endorsement by Thackeray ( 1 9 2 6 ) .
Still another way of salvaging the Photius datum, already suggested
3 2
as improbable by Holscher ( 1 9 1 6 ) , was sponsored by B. Motzo
33
(1924). This was the theory that Josephus wrote two editions of the
Life: the first one, purely autobiographical, accompanied Ant. (93/94);
the second appeared on its own and incorporated the defence against
Justus (soon after 100).
Obviously, the proposal of a second edition of either Ant. or Life is
only justified if the Photius datum is indeed worth saving. In recent
2 5
Ibid.
2 6
Holscher, "Josephus", 1941., n.*.
2 7
Laqueur, Historiker, 1-6.
2 8
Laqueur, Historiker, If., thought it unacceptable to reject the Photius datum solely
on the ground of its inconvenience for dating Life.
2 9
Ant. 20:259: 7uauaetat 8' ivxauGa pot TOC TTJS dtpxatoXoftocs.
Ant. 20:267 has: 'Erci TOUTOIS hi xocTOCTCauao) xr\v apxatoXoYiav.
3 0
Laqueur, Historiker, 5f. In his composition of Life against Justus, Laqueur proposes,
Josephus used an account of his own activities that he had written many years earlier,
in 66/67.
3 1
L C L edn. of Josephus, I, xiiif.; M . Gelzer, "Die Vita des Josephus", Hermes 80
(1952), 67f. also follows Laqueur. Cf. D . Barish, "The Autobiography of Josephus and
the Hypothesis of a Second Edition", HTR 71 (1978), 62 n. 11, for other adherents to
Laqueur's theory.
3 2
Holscher, "Josephus", 1941 n.*.
3 3
B. Motzo, Saggi di Storia e Letteratura Guideo-Ellenistica (Florence, 1924), 217-219. I
am dependent on Rajak, "Justus", 361 n. 4, for a summary of Motzo.
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE 315
t i m e s , h o w e v e r , T . Frankfort ( 1 9 6 1 ) , T . R a j a k ( 1 9 7 3 ) , D . A . Barish
( 1 9 7 8 ) , a n d S. J. D . C o h e n ( 1 9 7 9 ) h a v e m o u n t e d a n o t h e r f o r m i d a b l e at
tack o n the a c c u r a c y o f that n o t i c e . T h e s e scholars r e v i v e m o s t o f the
34
Niese/Luther arguments, a l t h o u g h the identity o f E p a p h r o d i t u s is n o
35
l o n g e r t h o u g h t to b e r e c o v e r a b l e with a n y p r o b a b i l i t y . Barish argues,
further, for the literary u n i t y o f the c o n c l u s i o n t o Ant., in w h i c h L a q u e u r
3 6
had distinguished two endings. The major contribution of these
scholars, h o w e v e r , has b e e n to turn the n u m i s m a t i c a n d epigraphical
3 7
e v i d e n c e for A g r i p p a ' s d e a t h decisively against the P h o t i u s datum.
T h i s they a c c o m p l i s h b y r e d a t i n g the era o f A g r i p p a , against w h i c h his
c o i n s a n d inscriptions are d a t e d , f r o m A D 61 ( w h i c h S c h u r e r a c c e p t e d )
38 3 9
to 5 0 ( F r a n k f o r t ) o r 56 (Barish a n d C o h e n ) . T h e result is that n o c o i n
4 0
o r inscription dates A g r i p p a a n y later than 9 2 / 9 3 ; thus the Photius
d a t u m is c o m p l e t e l y isolated.
After s u m m a r i z i n g the e v i d e n c e f o r a b a n d o n i n g P h o t i u s ' s d a t i n g o f
A g r i p p a ' s d e a t h , C o h e n expresses the present scholarly m o o d :
3 4
Cf. Frankfort, "La date", 54f., on the remarks unkind to the Agrippas in Ant., and
57, on Life's praise of the Flavian emperors (Life 428f.). Cf. also Cohen, Josephus, 174ff.
3 5
Frankfort, "La date", 56f.
3 6
Barish, "Autobiography", 66-71.
3 7
Frankfort, "La date", 55f.; Rajak, "Justus", 361 and notes 4 and 5 thereto;
Barish, "Autobiography", 71-74; Cohen, Josephus, 173f.
3 8
Frankfort, "La date", 55f.
3 9
Barish, "Autobiography", 73 and Cohen, Josephus, 173, follow H . Seyrig, " M o n -
naies Hellenistiques", Revue Numismatique, 6th ser. 6 (1964), 55-65, and appeal to the
widespread acceptance of this scheme in numismatic scholarship.
4 0
Frankfort, "La date", 58; Rajak, "Justus", 361; Barish, "Autobiography", 73f.;
Cohen, Josephus, 173. The latest inscription is of "the 37th year of Agrippa".
4 1
Cohen, Josephus, 180.
4 2
Frankfort, "La date", 58; Cohen, Josephus, 180.
4 3
O f the modern discussions, those of Frankfort and Cohen are especially helpful.
316 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
4 4
The Life has stimulated a great deal of secondary literature. Most of it, however,
is occupied with the parallel questions of (a) the literary relationship between Life and
War and (b) the historical truth about Josephus's activities in the Galilee. Cf. Luther,
Josephus und Justus, 5-9; Laqueur, Historiker, 96-107; Gelzer, "Vita", 68ff.; and Cohen,
Josephus, 1-18. Although of great intrinsic interest, these questions do not directly con
cern us. In any case, it would be hard to improve on Cohen's survey of the literature,
Josephus, 8-23. He traces the shifts in scholarly opinion from early attempts to harmonize
Life and War, to a preference for War, then back (under Laqueur's influence) to a
preference for Life.
4 5
Ant. 20:266: rcept T<OV xaxoc TOV piov 7tpa?eoiv; Life 430: 8ta rcavTOS TOU (SIOU.
4 6
The detailed period extends from a point after the defeat of Cestius Gallus (end of
November, A D 66) to a time before Vespasian's arrival (May, 67). Cf. Gelzer, "Vita",
68.
4 7
E.g., Life 1, 6 ("would-be detractors of my family"), 20, 40f. (ruin was due mainly
to Justus), 67 (looting was contrary to Josephus's intention), 80ff. (insistence on
Josephus's moderation and self-control), 36Iff. (his commendations from emperors and
kings).
4 8
Josephus claims at first to be addressing other historians as well (§ 336) but he
singles out Justus and confronts him in the second person. Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 114.
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE 317
4 9
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 59, 97; Niese, HZ, 227; Holscher, 1994; A . Schalit,
"Josephus and Justus", Klio 26 (1933), 67-95. As Luther, Josephus und Justus, 7, puts
it: "Als Antwort auf diese Angriffe des Justus schrieb Josephus seine Selbstbio-
graphie". I include Laqueur among this group because we are only concerned with the
final extant version of Life, which he thinks was written in response to Justus
(Historiker, 78ff., 83). As is well-known, he considers the final Life to be an adaption
of an earlier account of Josephus's activities. Cf. also Thackeray L C L edn. I, xivf.
5 0
Rajak, "Justus", 354.
5 1
Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87; Niese, HZ, 227; Holscher, "Josephus", 1994; Rajak,
"Justus", 354: "Only a brief introduction and conclusion about the rest of Josephus'
life were added."
5 2
Laqueur, Historiker, 246. How this analysis explains Life 10-12, with its emphasis
on Josephus's three years in the desert in the company of an ascetic and its comparison
of Stoics and Pharisees, is not at all clear. Cf. my analysis of the passage below.
318 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
H o w then, Justus . . . can I and the Galileans be held responsible for the
insurrection o f your native city against the R o m a n s and against the king
[Agrippa II] . . . ?
A n d again:
But, you maintain (<o<; <JU qjfjs), it was I who was responsible (atTio<; eyo>) for
your revolt at that time. (350; Thackeray)
5 3
So Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87; Luther, Josephus und Justus, 7, 67; Holscher, 1994; Ra
jak "Justus", Cohen, Josephus, 118.
5 4
Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 114.
5 5
E.g., on Josephus: Life 17-23, 28f., 78, 126-131. On Justus: 36, 42, 87f., 391.
5 6
Laqueur, Historiker, 7-9.
5 7
Ibid.
5 8
Ibid., 122.
5 9
Ibid., 16ff. Laqueur compares Ag.Ap. l:46ff. and argues that this is also directed
against Justus.
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE 319
6 0
a n d others, a n d this w a s r u i n i n g the market for J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t .
J o s e p h u s r e s p o n d e d with Life, w h i c h d e f e n d e d n o t o n l y his a c c u r a c y b u t
also his character a n d credibility as a writer: h e n c e his alleged affiliation
with Pharisaism (Life 1 2 ) .
C o h e n successfully refutes this t h e o r y o f the nature o f J u s t u s ' s accusa
61
tions b y several a r g u m e n t s , the m o s t telling o f w h i c h are: ( a ) that L a
q u e u r o v e r l o o k s the b u l k o f the e x c u r s u s , w h i c h explicitly attributes to
62
J u s t u s the c h a r g e that J o s e p h u s incited r e v o l t , a n d ( b ) that J o s e p h u s
would hardly have c h o s e n to m a k e his earlier detailed report to
Jerusalem a b o u t his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d the basis o f his response to
63
Justus if J u s t u s ' s accusations h a d c o n c e r n e d s o m e t h i n g else e n t i r e l y .
A n d if L a q u e u r ' s r e a d i n g o f J u s t u s ' s accusations is i n c o r r e c t , then so is
his interpretation o f Life 10-12 as part o f J o s e p h u s ' s a p o l o g e t i c .
6 0
Ibid., 2Iff.
6 1
Cohen, Josephus, 129-132.
6 2
Ibid., 129.
6 3
Laqueur, Historiker, 130.
6 4
Ibid., 118.
6 5
Cohen's difference with the conventional view of the nature of Justus's accusations
is as follows. Because the excursus only refers to affairs in Tiberias, he concludes that
Justus did not accuse Josephus of being a rebel per se, but only of specific rebellious ac
tivities in Tiberias.
6 6
Ibid., 121-137.
6 7
Ibid., 153f. Note that, since Cohen does not think that Justus accused Josephus in
general of being anti-Roman, he cannot view the theme of pro-Romanism as a response
to Justus.
320 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
68
of J a c i m u s " . Pointing out that Josephus admits to having many ac
cusers (Life 424ff., 428ff.), Cohen maintains that "we cannot assume
that V ' s [sc. Life's] every apologetic element is a response to the
69
Tiberian". H e finds no unifying logic in the five specified items and
70
thinks that they might well have no connection with Justus. Although,
then, Cohen supports the conventional view of Justus's accusations, he
finds much in the Life, including the Pharisee passages, that is unrelated
to the conflict with Josephus.
Rajak (1983) has recently revised her position along similar, perhaps
71
more extreme, lines. She now thinks that only the excursus responds
72
directly to Justus and that the rest of Life addresses the concerns of,
"the surviving or regenerated Jewish aristocracy in the years after 70,
73
and especially that part of it which was to be found in the D i a s p o r a " .
Those diaspora concerns Rajak identifies as: (a) whether the revolt could
not have been prevented and (b) whether, if it had to happen, the
74
moderates could not have maintained orderly control. These are the
questions that Life answers, Rajak argues, with its detailed explanations
of Josephus's failure to master the Galilee and of his rejection by the
75
Jerusalem authorities. Thus the later Rajak also finds much in Life that
is extraneous to Josephus's response to Justus.
Space does not permit a detailed analysis of all of the extraneous
themes proposed by Cohen and Rajak. O f special interest for this study,
however, is Cohen's designation of "Josephus and the Pharisees" as an
76
apologetic theme independent of those inspired by Justus. H e links
together Life 10-12 (on Josephus's alignment with the Pharisees) with § §
191-198 (on Simon the Pharisee) and with all of the religious nuances in
Life that are absent from the parallels in War, to document what he
77
thinks is a "religious apologetic" in Life. H e connects this apologetic
78
with the heightened "nationalism" of Ant., vis-a-vis War, and with an
alleged tendency in the later work to improve the image of the Phari-
6 8
Cohen takes up the five themes on pp. 144-170 of his Josephus.
6 9
Cohen, Josephus, 144.
7 0
Ibid., 169f.
7 1
On p. 14, however, she has suggested that Life's introductory remarks about
Josephus's upbringing are also intended to deflect Justus's charge of irresponsibility.
7 2
Ibid., 154.
7 3
Ibid.
7 4
Ibid.
7 5
Ibid.
7 6
Cohen, Josephus, 144-151.
7 7
Ibid., 144-147.
7 8
An oft-noted feature of Ant.; cf. the discussion of Laqueur and Rasp in chapter 7,
above.
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE 321
79
sees. A l l o f this leads h i m to the c o n c l u s i o n that, in w r i t i n g Ant.-Life,
J o s e p h u s w a s t h r o w i n g in his lot w i t h the rising fortunes o f the Pharisees
8 0
a n d w a s a s s u m i n g the role o f a Pharisaic a d v o c a t e in R o m e . According
to C o h e n , J o s e p h u s c o n t e n d s in Ant. " t h a t the Pharisees h a d always
8 1
b e e n p r o m i n e n t a n d therefore d e s e r v e R o m a n s u p p o r t " . Life, further
more, " m a k e s the ultimate c o m m i t m e n t to this Pharisaic bias a n d
declares the J o s e p h u s h a d always b e e n , since his y o u t h , a loyal follower
82 83
o f the P h a r i s e e s . " J o s e p h u s p r o b a b l y was n o t a Pharisee at a l l , Cohen
argues, b u t b o l d l y c l a i m e d to b e o n e in the service o f his " r e l i g i o u s -
P h a r i s a i c " ( a n d finally political) a p o l o g e t i c .
W e h a v e seen that C o h e n ' s interpretation o f Ant. o n the Pharisees,
84
w h i c h h e inherits f r o m R a s p a n d (especially) S m i t h / N e u s n e r , is en
tirely w i t h o u t s u p p o r t . I n the following chapters w e shall ask w h e t h e r his
interpretation o f Life 12 as an a u d a c i o u s c l a i m to Pharisaic allegiance
(also shared w i t h R a s p , S m i t h , a n d N e u s n e r ) is really defensible.
7 9
Ibid., 148-151. He follows here the Smith/Neusner proposal.
8 0
Ibid., 237f.
8 1
Ibid.
8 2
Ibid., 238.
8 3
Ibid., 107.
8 4
Cohen, Josephus, 144 n. 150.
322 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
i n d e p e n d e n t o f J u s t u s ; a n d R a j a k , b y p o s i t i n g a d i a s p o r a - J e w i s h reader
ship for the w o r k . L a q u e u r ' s a t t e m p t , as w e h a v e seen, w a s unsuccessful.
I n d e f e n c e o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w against the m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f C o h e n
a n d R a j a k , I w o u l d u r g e the f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
85
( 1 ) D e s p i t e its literary d e f e c t s , Life a p p e a r s to h a v e a single o v e r
r i d i n g p u r p o s e , n a m e l y , to d e f e n d J o s e p h u s ' s actions d u r i n g the first five
o r so m o n t h s o f his leadership in the G a l i l e e . T h e b o d y o f the w o r k ( § §
2 8 - 4 1 3 ) is o b v i o u s l y d e d i c a t e d t o this g o a l .
( 2 ) T h e b o d y o f the w o r k o p e n s w i t h a sharply d r a w n contrast b e t w e e n
J o s e p h u s a n d J u s t u s o f T i b e r i u s ( § § 2 8 - 4 2 ) . J o s e p h u s , c o m m i t t e d to a
p o l i c y o f s u b m i s s i o n to R o m e ( § § 1 7 - 2 3 ) , g o e s to G a l i l e e in o r d e r to en
sure p e a c e in the r e g i o n b y d i s a r m i n g the rebels ( § § 2 8 f . ) . A major
o b s t a c l e to his p r o g r a m m e , h o w e v e r , is the city o f T i b e r i a s , w h i c h h e
finds already in a state o f revolt ( § § 3 2 f f . ) . J o s e p h u s attributes this situa
tion w h o l l y to the influence o f J u s t u s , w h o m h e characterizes at s o m e
length as a c r a z e d a n d reckless tyrant ( § § 3 6 - 4 2 ) . T h i s T i b e r i a n , w e
learn, has written his o w n a c c o u n t o f " t h e s e e v e n t s " (TCOV repay pdtTcov
TOUTCOV); b u t the reader is w a r n e d that it obfuscates the truth ( § 4 0 ) .
J o s e p h u s p r o m i s e s to p r o v e his allegations a b o u t J u s t u s " a s the narrative
u n f o l d s " (rcpotovros TOU Xoyou, § 4 0 ) a n d d o e s i n d e e d r e t u r n to his o p p o
n e n t several times ( § § 87f., 2 7 9 , 3 3 6 - 3 6 7 , 390f., 4 1 0 ) . A t the outset o f
the narrative, then, J o s e p h u s characterizes J u s t u s b o t h as a physical o p
p o n e n t w h o w o r k e d against his pacific m i s s i o n a n d as a literary o p p o n e n t
w h o in later times has distorted the facts a b o u t his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d .
( 3 ) J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t , to w h i c h J o s e p h u s o b j e c t s , manifestly i n c l u d e d
m o r e than T i b e r i a n affairs. T h e phrase TCOV rcporfpdcTCOv in Life 4 0 w o u l d
s e e m to i n c l u d e the w h o l e G a l i l e a n situation b e f o r e the revolt ( § § 3 7 - 4 0 ) .
T h e similar phrase in § 3 3 6 a p p e a r s to i n c l u d e all o f the events c o v e r e d
86
to that p o i n t b y J o s e p h u s ' s n a r r a t i v e . Finally, § 3 3 8 c l a i m s that J u s t u s
has written a b o u t TOC^ rcept TOUTOV rcpai-eis TOV reoXepov, " t h e events related
to this w a r " . S o the rival a c c o u n t w a s n o t l i m i t e d to T i b e r i a n affairs.
A l l o f these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w o u l d s e e m to w a r r a n t the c o n v e n t i o n a l
assumption that Justus o f Tiberias was the main antagonist that
J o s e p h u s h a d in m i n d w h e n h e c o m p o s e d his self-vindicating Life. That
is n o t t o d e n y that J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e d d r a m a t i c e l e m e n t s o r items o f
8 5
These are well known. Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 110-113, for a brief overview.
8 6
Josephus begins (Life 336): "Having reached this point in my narrative, I propose
to address a few words to Justus, who has produced his own account of these affairs (TTJV
7cept TOUTCJV Tcpa-ffxaTetav ye-fpo^OTa)." Since he has just concluded a lengthy account of
his dealings with the delegation sent to replace him (§§ 189-335), Justus's work must at
least have discussed these events.
PURPOSE AND OUTLOOK OF THE LIFE 323
87
intrinsic interest to fill o u t the n a r r a t i v e : o n e n e e d n o t see e v e r y p o i n t
as a direct r e s p o n s e t o J u s t u s . Nevertheless it d o e s s e e m clear that the
whole five-month p e r i o d c a m e into serious q u e s t i o n p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e o f
J u s t u s ' s rival a c c o u n t , w h i c h p o r t r a y e d J o s e p h u s as an instigator o f
revolt.
If it is the b o d y o f Life ( 2 8 - 4 1 3 ) that c o n t a i n s the c o n t r o v e r s i a l m a t e
rial, then the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w is also c o r r e c t in d e s i g n a t i n g the rest o f
the w o r k ( § § 1-27, 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 ) " n u r w i e E i n l e i t u n g u n d S c h l u s s " . T o b e
sure, J o s e p h u s c h o s e to i n c l u d e those aspects o f his y o u t h a n d p o s t - w a r
e x p e r i e n c e that w o u l d p o r t r a y h i m in the best light; h e h o p e s that the
details o f his " w h o l e l i f e " will lead the r e a d e r to a f a v o u r a b l e j u d g e m e n t
o f his character ( § 4 3 0 ) . B u t that is a v e r y general a i m . I n g i v i n g the
details o f his " l i f e " , h e h a d n o c h o i c e b u t to m e n t i o n s o m e t h i n g o f his
88
family b a c k g r o u n d , y o u t h , a n d p o s t - w a r s i t u a t i o n ; it is n o t clear that
a n y o f these e l e m e n t s — w h e t h e r his m a r r i a g e s a n d c h i l d r e n o r his e x
perimentation with the Jewish philosophies—represents a specific
8 9
apologetic.
B o t h C o h e n a n d R a j a k a r g u e that significant aspects o f the Life w e r e
written for a J e w i s h r e a d e r s h i p . A c c o r d i n g to C o h e n , the t h e m e o f
J o s e p h u s ' s staunch " r e l i g i o u s - P h a r i s a i c " o b s e r v a n c e w a s m e a n t to c a t c h
the e y e s o f the Y a v n e a n r a b b i s ; a c c o r d i n g to R a j a k , J o s e p h u s w r o t e Life
m a i n l y for the benefit o f d i a s p o r a J e w r y . T h e idea that J o s e p h u s w r o t e
Life for J e w i s h readers is, h o w e v e r , p r o b l e m a t i c b e c a u s e the w o r k s e e m s
9 0
to e x p e c t a G e n t i l e a u d i e n c e . F r o m its o p e n i n g w o r d s , J o s e p h u s has to
91 9 2
explain Jewish values a n d Palestinian g e o g r a p h y . H e uses 7}pet$, in
9 3
his characteristic w a y , to m e a n " w e Jews" ( i n contrast to G e n t i l e s ) .
8 7
One might think of, e.g., Josephus's dramatic escapes (94ff., 136ff., 145ff., 299ff.),
his dream (208ff.), and his ingenious strategies (e.g. 163ff.).
8 8
Recall that the pedigree and education passage (Life Iff.) was introduced in Ant.
20:266 in support of Josephus's claim to axpCPeioc.
8 9
Cohen justifies his assumption of a multiple apologetic on the ground that the
themes unrelated to Justus lack a unifying principle; such are: (a) Josephus's pedigree,
(b) his alignment with the Pharisees, (c) his pro-Romanism, and (d) his participation
against the Romans. If, however, one denies that (a) and (b) have any apologetic role
in Life, since they stand in the introduction (though they are related to the argument of
Ant. 20:265f.), then they do not create a problem. If, further, one is prepared to accept
a certain ambiguity in Josephus's position vis-a-vis Rome, then the difficulty disappears.
9 0
Remarkably, both Cohen, Josephus, 147, and Rajak, Josephus, 14, concede this.
9 1
Life 1 (importance of the priesthood to Jews), 65 (images of animals forbidden), 162
(Sabbath explained), 12 (Pharisees likened to Stoics), 191 (Pharisees explained, again).
9 2
Life 31 (Dora, a city of Phoenicia), 42 (location of Gadara and Hippos), 123
(Tiberias, Sepphoris, and Gabara: chief cities of Galilee), 157 (location of Tarichaeae),
232 (Sepphoris: largest city in Galilee), 269 (Jerusalem, three days' journey from
Galilee), 348 (Jerusalem, the largest city).
9 3
Life 1, 26, 128, 275, 279.
324 CHAPTER THIRTEEN
1
E.g., on Josephus's historical reliability, his degree of nationalistic and religious
commitment, the extent of his dependence on sources, and his linguistic and literary
competence, to name a few important issues.
2
The notable exception is E. Gerlach, Die Weissagungen des alien Testaments in den
Schriften des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Hertz, 1863), 1-18, who thought that Josephus was
an Essene.
3
E.g., H . Paret, "Pharisaismus"; J. A . Montgomery, "The Religion of Flavius
J o s e p h u s " , / ^ n.s. 11 (1921), 280ff., E. Schurer (1867), B. Niese (1896), B. Brune
(1913), G . Holscher (1916), H . St. J. Thackeray (1926, 1929), A . Schlatter (1923,
1932), R . J. H . Shutt (1961), E. Rivkin (1969, 1976, 1978), H.-F. Weiss (1979), and
T . Rajak (1983). Specific references are given in the notes to the following discussion.
4
R . Laqueur (1920), H . Rasp (1924), M . Smith (1956), J. Neusner (1972f.), and S.
J. D . Cohen (1979).
5
Cf. the usual translations of Life 12, discussed in chapter 16, below.
326 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
6
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 81 Of.
7
Ibid.
8
He does, however, adduce particular points in the course of his analysis; see below.
9
Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1910), 7; Theologie, p. V .
1 0
Ibid. Cf. chapter 2, above.
11
Theologie, p. V I .
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 327
B . Source-Critical Interpretations
C . Biographical Interpretations
1 2
Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 124f.
1 3
Rivkin, Revolution, 32, 66f.
1 4
Holscher, "Josephus", 1936, cf. also n . + + .
1 5
Ibid., 1991.
1 6
Ibid., 1957.
1 7
Moore, Judaism, I, 64 n. 4, 65 n. 3, 66 n. 1.
1 8
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158.
1 9
Ibid., 163.
328 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Cohen adds his voice to the chorus by proposing that Life 12 "makes the
24
ultimate commitment to this Pharisaic bias [in Ant.]".
T h e importance of Life 12 for this group, then, is not (as with Schlatter
or Holscher) that it says something true about Josephus. O n the con
trary, it is interpreted as a crucial indicator of his Tendenz in Ant. -Life:
he wants to be seen as a Pharisee for practical reasons.
D . Cultural!Sociological Interpretations
2 0
Cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 128ff.
2 1
Cohen, Josephus, 144-151, esp. 148. See my discussion of Cohen in chapter 13.
2 2
See chapter 2, above.
2 3
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees," 231.
2 4
Cohen, Josephus, 238, cited in full in the previous chapter.
2 5
H.-F. Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 421-433.
2 6
Ibid., 423-426.
2 7
Ibid., 427-431.
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 329
T h r o u g h his early life, we can learn from the inside about the upper
echelons of the Palestinian priesthood, an outward-looking, flexible group,
yet strict in its religious practices and prescriptions; a group which
3 1
vanished with the fall of the T e m p l e in A . D . 7 0 .
2 8
Ibid., 431f.
2 9
Ibid., 432f.
3 0
Rajak, Josephus, 6.
3 1
Ibid., 8.
3 2
Ibid., 3.
3 3
Holscher may have had a similar view. He describes Josephus as, "der Jerusalemer
Priestersohn, der bis zum 33. Lebensjahr in der Luft pharisaischer Gesetzesfrommigkeit
aufgewachsen ist" (1956f). Most commentators, however, interpret Life 12 to mean that
Josephus became a Pharisee only at age 19 (see chapter 15, below).
3 4
Rajak, Josephus, 29ff.
3 5
Cf. also Rajak, Josephus, 102f., 116ff., and 185.
330 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Summary
3 6
Especially Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 75; Attridge, Interpretation, 178ff., 184; and
M . Hengel, Judentum, 315; idem, Zeloten 6 nn. 2/3, 378 n. 3.
3 7
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 823f.; Montgomery, "Religion", 295, Schlatter, Theologie,
210; Weiss; "Pharisaismus", 425.
3 8
Gutbrod, TDNT, I V , 1051.
3 9
M . Olitzki, Flavius Josephus und die Halacha (Berlin: H . Iskowski, 1885), 6-93; Ra
jak, Josephus, 32f. and n. 63. Rajak comments: "When it comes to the Antiquities, few
would deny that Josephus's conceptions.are on the whole Pharisaic. It is enough here
simply to recall that in many small points of halakhah (law) and aggadah (extra-legal tradi
tion) Josephus agrees with the Rabbis". D . Goldenberg ("The Halakha in Josephus and
in Tannaitic Literature," JQR 67 [1976], 30-43) analyses four halakhot that Josephus
shares with the traditional law of the period.
4 0
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 826f.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 n . + + ; Weiss,
"Pharisaismus", 425.; Schlatter, Theologie, 210; Rivkin, Revolution, 67.
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 331
4 1
Cf. chapter 4, above.
4 2
So, e.g., Herodotus 3:38, appropriating Pindar, "Nomos is king of all". Cf. Greene,
Moira, 226.
4 3
Cf. Neh. 8:Iff. and perhaps Ps. 119.
4 4
O n 4 Maccabees, cf. Appendix A , below. In Philo, cf. Life of Moses 2:44; Special Laws
2:189; and Decalogue 41. I am grateful to Dr. A . Reinhartz, of McMaster University, for
permission to consult her paper "The Meaning of Nomos in Philo's Exposition of the
Law", read at the 1985 conference of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies.
4 5
See chapter 4, above.
4 6
See chapter 4. Josephus implies the same for the Sadducees: they "own no observance
of any sort apart from the laws'' (Ant. 18:16; cf. 13:297). Yet it is impossible that they could
have conducted the Temple ritual, for example, without some sort of tradition to take care
of the omissions and contradictions of the biblical text. W e know from Megillat Ta' anit,
furthermore, that the Sadducees possessed a "Book of Decrees", whatever that was.
4 7
See chapter 4 and Ant. 3:286; 4:196; Ag.Ap. 1:39; 2:171ff. Cf. especially Ag.Ap.
2:155f., where he explicitly contrasts the e0T) a*Ypoc90c of the Greeks with the Mosaic code.
4 8
Cf. Neusner, "Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism: A Clarification", History of Religions 12
(1973), 250-270.
4 9
See chapter 4, above. Revel, e.g., begins ("Anti-Traditional Laws", 293): "In the
exposition of biblical texts and laws, Josephus often deviates from their traditional inter
pretation". Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 179 n. 1.
332 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Die Wtirzeln seines Denkens liegen nicht in Pharisaismus, und die Angabe
(vita 12), dass er sich nach Anschluss seiner Ausbildungszeit den
Pharisaern angeschlossen habe, muss in ihrer Tragweite begrenzt
57
bleiben.
5 0
For examples of the last two, cf. Revel, "Anti-Traditional Laws", 293-301. In
general see the discussion above, chapter 4.
5 1
This explanation is offered by Olitzki, Halacha, 8f., and is picked up by Rajak,
Josephus, 336 n. 63.
5 2
Rappaport, Agada and Exegese, thinks that Josephus used a priestly source. B. Heller
("Grundzuge", 238f.) shows, however, that the priestly bias runs deep in Josephus's
thought. Attridge (Interpretation, 176f. and n. 1) thinks that the priestly perspective in
Josephus is somewhat exaggerated by these scholars.
5 3
Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 142f., cf. 41.
5 4
Ibid., 54, 75.
5 5
Ibid.
5 6
Ibid., 75.
5 7
Ibid., 146 n. 2.
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 333
I n r e s p o n s e to C r e u z e r , h o w e v e r , Paret ( 1 8 6 5 ) a l r e a d y p o i n t e d o u t
that a b e l i e f in P r o v i d e n c e w a s b a s i c to the scriptures a n d t o J u d a i s m in
62
general: it d o e s n o t m a k e J o s e p h u s a P h a r i s e e . O t h e r s h a v e since
s h o w n that the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y c o m b i n e d a s t r o n g b e l i e f in P r o
v i d e n c e a n d e l e c t i o n with an insistence o n h u m a n c h o i c e to follow G o d ' s
5 8
Attridge, Interpretation, 178f.
5 9
See the previous chapter on Schlatter, Wachter, and Maier, Cf. Urbach, Sages, I,
268, 284; also E. P. Sanders' discussion of the rabbinic balance between election and
"doing the Law", in Paul, 84-238, especially 139, 177 n. 155, and 217ff.
6 0
Creuzer, "Riickblick", 907f.; Schlatter, Theologie, 210f.
6 1
Rajak, Josephus, 100.
6 2
Paret, ^Pharisaismus", 813.
334 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
6 3
will. W e h a v e seen, finally, that p o s s i b l e w a y s o f c o m b i n i n g fate a n d
free will w e r e m u c h discussed in the Hellenistic w o r l d , especially u n d e r
the influence o f S t o i c i s m ; these discussions b e c a m e e n d u r i n g features o f
later Christian a n d J e w i s h t h e o l o g y . T h a t J o s e p h u s gives r o o m to b o t h
divine and human action, therefore, carries no weight at all in
establishing his Pharisaic c o n n e c t i o n s .
( 2 ) Similarly, it w a s s h o w n a b o v e that J o s e p h u s b e l i e v e s in the i m m o r
tality o f the soul, as d o his Essenes a n d Pharisees. A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s
directly e n d o r s e s o n l y the Essene p o s i t i o n (War 2:154-158), a close
analysis o f his r e m a r k s r e v e a l e d also that h e agrees w i t h the Pharisaic
belief in a " r e i n c a r n a t i o n " o f g o o d souls. C r e u z e r a n d Montgomery
t h o u g h t that J o s e p h u s ' s b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y reflected his Pharisaic in
64
clination; W e i s s also suggests that J o s e p h u s ' s e s p o u s a l o f " e i n e r A r t
65
'Auferstehungshoffhung'" betrays his Pharisaic s t a n d p o i n t .
N o w it is well attested, in the N T a n d the r a b b i n i c literature, that the
6 6
Pharisees b e l i e v e d in r e s u r r e c t i o n a n d that the S a d d u c e e s d e n i e d i t .
J o s e p h u s c o n f i r m s this. N e v e r t h e l e s s , o n e c a n n o t r e g a r d resurrection as
a p u r e l y Pharisaic distinctive. V a r i o u s h o p e s for a future life, i n c l u d i n g
that o f b o d i l y a n d spiritual resurrection, w e r e e m b r a c e d b y the J e w i s h
6 7
a p o c a l y p t i c writers o f the p e r i o d ; the infant C h u r c h also e s p o u s e d a
68
doctrine o f resurrection. T h u s , a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s is clearly u n s y m
pathetic t o w a r d the S a d d u c e a n denial o f the afterlife, that d o e s n o t yet
establish h i m as a Pharisee. T h e i r a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f fate a n d i m m o r
6 9
tality, he says, a c c o r d s w i t h the general J e w i s h v i e w .
In o u r e v a l u a t i o n o f the general theoretical a g r e e m e n t s b e t w e e n
J o s e p h u s a n d the Pharisees w e m u s t recall further that his critique o f the
7 0
g r o u p always relates t o p r a c t i c e a n d n o t t h e o r y . H e never impugns
their goal o f axptfkta with respect to the l a w s , b u t h e d o e s c h a l l e n g e their
71
reputation o n this s c o r e , o n the basis o f their a c t i o n s . Since Josephus's
6 3
E.g., Notscher, Aufsatze, 33-49; Wachter, "Haltung", 109f.; and Sanders, Paul,
257-270. Sanders explains the two emphases as two answers to the question why God
chose the community. In their prayer and worship, the Qumraners would naturally em
phasize God's election, in consequence of their own unworthiness. When comparing
themselves to others, however, the emphasis is on their religious deeds.
6 4
Creuzer, "Ruckblick", 907f.; Montgomery, "Religion", 304.
6 5
Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 426.
6 6
Acts 23:8; Avot de Rabbi Nathan 5.
6 7
Cf. Pss. Sol. 3:3-10; 1 Enoch 45:4f.; 61:5; 108; 4 Ezra 7:37; 2 Baruch 30:2-5; 50-
51; Nicklesburg, Resurrection, 180.
6 8
1 Cor. 15:lff., 31ff.; 1 Thess. 4:16ff.
6 9
Cf. War 2:158 (on the appeal of Essene views!); Ant. 10:277-280; 16:397-398;
Ag.Ap. 2:180.
7 0
Cf. War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:400-432; 17:41-45; Life 191-198.
7 1
An obvious parallel is M t . 23:Iff., in which the Matthean Jesus commends
Pharisaic teaching (vv. 1-2) but condemns the group's behaviour (vv. 3ff.).
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 335
So lasst sich also bereits aus dem durchaus negativen Urteil des Josephus
uber die Partei der Sadduzaer indirekt auf seinen eigenen, namlich
74
pharisaischen Standpunkt schliessen.
7 2
Cf. War 2:166; Ant. 18:16; 20:199.
7 3
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 820f.: "Wirklich erhalten wir . . . aus der Feder des
Pharisaers Josephus eine hochst ungiinstige Schilderung jener [sc. the Sadducean]
Relgionspartei".
7 4
Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 424, Cf. also Holscher, "Josephus", 1936.
7 5
Cf., e.g., M . Smith, "Palestinian Judaism".
336 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
g i o u s frauds a n d t r o u b l e - m a k e r s , o p p o s e d to all g o v e r n m e n t s , w h e t h e r
H a s m o n e a n o r H e r o d i a n . It w a s largely they w h o p r e c i p i t a t e d the
downfall o f the glorious H a s m o n e a n dynasty. T h i s consistent anti-
Pharisaic bias in J o s e p h u s p r e c l u d e s the a s s u m p t i o n that his (relatively
m i l d ) r e p u d i a t i o n o f S a d d u c e a n beliefs m a k e s h i m a Pharisee.
76
Wie sprach Josephus von GottP, 7; Theologie, p. V . Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 9f, on
Schlatter.
77
Theologie, 7, 27 n. 1. For this and the following three references, I have been aided
by Attridge's notes to p. 9 of his Interpretation.
7 8
Ibid., 4.
7 9
Ibid., If.
8 0
Ibid., 21 n. 1.
8 1
Attridge, Interpretation, 10.
8 2
Rajak, Josephus, 30f.
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 337
m y reputation was a tribute to themselves, since they had been my teachers and
were m y fellow citizens (co$ av StSaaxocXcov T£ pou yevopevcov xat 7coXtT<ov
OVTCOV).
8 3
Ibid., 31.
8 4
Ibid., 30f.
8 5
Rajak's disqualification of the vecoxaxoc seems unwarranted, since his youthfulness
is clearly relative to the ages of the others.
338 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
86
w e r e his teachers, qua p r i e s t s . T h i s hypothesis s e e m s t o r e c e i v e s o m e
c o n f i r m a t i o n f r o m the instructions g i v e n t o the d e l e g a t i o n ( § 1 9 8 ) . T h e y
are c o m m i s s i o n e d t o d i s c o v e r the cause (atrto^) o f the G a l i l e a n s ' f o n d n e s s
for J o s e p h u s a n d then t o p o i n t o u t that they c a n m a t c h his three greatest
qualifications, n a m e l y : ( a ) they are all Jerusalemites, as h e is; ( b ) their e x
pertise in the rcdcTptoc eOr) equals his ( i n the vopot); a n d ( c ) i f the Galileans
venerate his priestly office, then the delegates s h o u l d p o i n t o u t that t w o
o f t h e m are also priests. W h a t w e h a v e h e r e is a reprise o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n
estimation o f his assets, w h i c h h e likes t o reiterate; h e is a Jerusalemite
priest w h o interprets the laws with <xxpt|kta ( e . g . , War 1:2f.; 3 : 3 5 2 ; Ant.
20:259ff.; Life Iff.; Ap. 1 : 5 4 . ) . Expertise in the laws is h e r e again j u x t a
p o s e d with priestly heritage. C o n s p i c u o u s l y absent, h o w e v e r , is a n y m e n
tion o f Pharisaic m e m b e r s h i p as o n e o f J o s e p h u s ' s o r the d e l e g a t i o n ' s
credentials—conspicuously b e c a u s e , if J o s e p h u s viewed his alleged
Pharisaic training as an asset, h e w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y h a v e m e n t i o n e d it
here as a p o i n t o n w h i c h the d e l e g a t i o n h o p e d t o better h i m : they h a v e three
Pharisees.
M y c l a i m is o n l y that it is n o t clear w h i c h m e m b e r s o f the d e l e g a t i o n
h a d taught J o s e p h u s o r in w h a t c o n t e x t a n d c a p a c i t y they d i d s o . T h e
hypothesis that it w a s the priests w h o h a d b e e n his teachers, I h a v e sug
gested, seems at least as plausible as R a j a k ' s t h e o r y that h e w a s taught b y
Pharisees.
I n a n y case, R a j a k ' s further a r g u m e n t that the Pharisees taught
J o s e p h u s d u r i n g his c h i l d h o o d contradicts the sense o f his o w n narrative.
H e d o e s n o t m e n t i o n a n y Pharisaic influence in his c h i l d h o o d ; e d u c a t e d
in a priestly h o m e , h e w a s already r e n o w n e d for his dxptpeta b y a g e four
teen (Life 1-9). I f h e h a d b e e n b r o u g h t u p as a Pharisee h e w o u l d hardly
h a v e n e e d e d to g o o u t a n d gain p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e (Iprcetptocv X<x(3etv) o f
that g r o u p , as o f the S a d d u c e e s a n d Essenes, at a g e sixteen (Life 1 0 ) . S o
if J o s e p h u s w a s e v e r taught b y Pharisees, as Pharisees—and this is b y n o
m e a n s clear, this instruction m u s t h a v e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g o r after his e x
p e r i m e n t a t i o n with the J e w i s h schools at a g e 16.
8 6
Another alternative interpretation: the delegates were able to congratulate them
selves on Josephus's administration of the Galilee precisely because that was the subject
of their instruction; they had trained him (not long before, in Jerusalem) for his new duties
as administrator. Perhaps they were among the 7upo>T0i (Life 28) who had commissioned
Josephus.
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 339
8 7
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 823-838.
8 8
Ibid., 83If.
8 9
Ibid., 834f.
9 0
Ibid., 842-844.
9 1
Brune, Flavius Josephus, 150-157.
9 2
Ibid., 154f.
9 3
Schlatter, Theologie, 211.
340 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
9 4
The two most common explanations of the anti-Pharisaic thrust are: (a) the source-
critical approach, which attributes the material to someone other than Josephus and (b)
the proposal of Schlatter {Theologie, 203f.), that Josephus did praise the Pharisees, by
mentioning their expertise in the laws, but that he chastised his party for its involvement
in politics. This view is shared by A . Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 124f. W e may note,
however: (a) Josephus consistently says that the Pharisees are reputed to be/profess to be
(8oxeco/7tpo<J7uoiou(i<xt), not that they are, experts in the Law. The distinction is significant
because: (i) Josephus is capable of saying that someone is a precise interpreter of the Law
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 341
(War 1:108—Alexandra; Ant. 17:149—the two doctors; Ag.Ap. l:53f.—himself; cf. War
2:145 on the Essenes); and (ii) often, his SoxeT. . . AxpiPffc construction is followed im
mediately by a negation of the party's reputation (e.g. Ag.Ap. 1:18—Thucydides; Ag.Ap.
1:67—Ephorus; War l:110ff.; Life 191ff. [cf. Ant. 17:41-45]—the Pharisees). It is far
from clear, therefore, that Josephus did praise the Pharisees at all. (b) The rigid distinc
tion between religion and politics, though prominent in modern American society, is of
dubious validity for ancient Judaism. In any case, Josephus was himself fully involved
in "politics". At age 26, he began to 7coXiTeuecr6at (see chapter 15): he took a diplomatic
mission to Rome and then became military commander of the Galilee.
C H A P T E R FIFTEEN
I. Context of Life 12
1
So Schurer, Geschichte, I, 75; Niese, HZ, 227; Holscher, "Josephus", 1994; T . Ra
jak, "Justus", 354. Contra R . Laqueur, Historiker, 246. Cf. chapter 13, above.
2
Since we lack proper commentaries on Josephus, one is thrown back upon the
paraphrases or summaries of Life 10-12 by the authors cited in the following discussion.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 343
might flatter himself in later years that he had passed like a butterfly over
the various pastures o f wisdom until in maturity he lighted upon that which
pleased him best. At the age o f nineteen he made his choice and became
3
a convinced Pharisee according to his own m i n d .
4 4
And in the Compendia v o l u m e s H . W . A t t r i d g e c o m m e n t s , T h e account
[Life 10-12], w h i c h has its parallels in o t h e r stories o f p h i l o s o p h e r s '
quests, serves to indicate that J o s e p h u s m a d e an i n f o r m e d c h o i c e in o p
4
ting for the P h a r i s e e s . "
On the usual interpretation, then, the w h o l e p a r a g r a p h {Life 10-12)
b e c o m e s an a c c o u n t o f the l e n g t h y p r e p a r a t i o n s that J o s e p h u s put
h i m s e l f t h r o u g h b e f o r e d e c i d i n g t o b e c o m e a Pharisee. H e h a d tried all
o f the o p t i o n s , so his d e c i s i o n to b e c o m e a Pharisee w a s well c o n s i d e r e d
a n d sure.
The c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w , h o w e v e r , faces serious o b s t a c l e s , n a m e l y : ( a )
it d o e s n o t a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n the l o g i c o f the p a r a g r a p h ; ( b ) it m a k e s
Life 10-12 w h o l l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h the larger c o n t e x t o f J o s e p h u s ' s
t h o u g h t ; a n d ( c ) the crucial clauses in § 12b c a n n o t b e a r the w e i g h t the
w e i g h t that is p u t o n t h e m . T h e first t w o p o i n t s I shall take u p i m
m e d i a t e l y , since they relate to the " c o n t e x t " o f § 12b; then I shall c o n
sider p o i n t ( c ) in s o m e detail, as it is the focus o f this c h a p t e r .
Few critics s e e m to n o t i c e that the c u s t o m a r y r e a d i n g o f Life 10-12
r e n d e r s the l o g i c o f the p a r a g r a p h difficult to g r a s p . J o s e p h u s c l a i m s
(§10) that there are three s c h o o l s a m o n g the J e w s a n d that his o r i g i n a l
intention (cboprjv) w a s to study e a c h o n e (Iprcstptav Xa(ktv) so that h e
3
Montgomery, "Religion", 280f.
4
In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sec
tarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. M . E. Stone, "Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad
Novum Testamentum", 2:3, 186. Likewise T . W . Franxman (Genesis, 3): "At sixteen
he [Josephus] evidently attempted to broaden his horizons by a practical sampling of life
and thought among Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, concluding these experiments
with a three-year period spent as a hermit. By nineteen Jos. seems to have been prepared
to make the choice which turned out to be in favour of casting his lot with the party of
the Pharisees."
344 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
5
R. Mayer and C . Moller, "Josephus—Politiker und Prophet", in Josephus-Studien,
edd. O.Betz, K . Haacker, and P. Schafer (1974), 272.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 345
13ff.). Josephus does not say that his time with Bannus made him eager
to become a Pharisee. N o , his decision was made in favour of Bannus:
"I became his devoted disciple (CTJXCOTTJS)". Where the regular schools
had come up empty, the desert monk offered something that met
Josephus's needs.
If we had only § § 10-12a, therefore, the natural interpretation would
be that Josephus originally set out to examine the three mainstream
Jewish schools in order to choose the best, but that he did not find any
of them to be adequate. T h e n he heard about Bannus and went off to
investigate his programme. It was this experience that resulted in
Josephus's "conversion", if that term is appropriate anywhere. H e liked
what he saw and stayed with Bannus three years.
Now, if § 12b really means to say that Josephus "trat deflnitiv zu den
6
Pharisaern u b e r " , as the climax of his religious quest, then the
paragraph § § 10-12 is quite confusing. H e has already said that his ex
perience with the schools was not satisfying and that is why he became
a disciple of the anchorite. Where, then, is the rationale for a final con
version to Pharisaism? It makes no sense for him to conclude the matter
by saying, in effect: " T h e n I returned to the city and became a
Pharisee". If that is what he means to say in § 12b, then he has written
an incoherent narrative.
The problem of incoherence is made acute by the circumstance that
nothing Josephus has said about the Pharisees in War or Ant. would lead
the reader to suppose that he was himself a member of the group. H e
portrays them as power-hungry opportunists, whose actions undermine
7
their reputation for piety. Indeed, he will sustain this portrayal in the
Life itself, in his hostile characterizations of the famous Pharisee Simon
ben Gamaliel ( § § 189-198) and of the Pharisees who came to relieve him
of his command in the Galilee ( § § 196-335). Thus, if the six crucial
words in § 12b really mean to say that Josephus chose to become a
Pharisee, they are as baffling in their immediate context as they are in
the larger context of Josephus's thought.
T . Rajak has noticed at least something of the incongruity of Life 10-
12 on the usual interpretation of § 12b. She aptly points out that the
reader expects some explanation of the surprise move to Pharisaism. H e r
solution of the problem is as follows:
6
So Paret, "Pharisaismus", 811.
7
Cf. War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:288-298, 400-432; 17:41-45.
346 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
T h i s t h e o r y r u n s a g r o u n d , h o w e v e r , o n J o s e p h u s ' s o w n a c c o u n t o f his
early e d u c a t i o n (Life 7 - 1 0 ) , w h i c h m a k e s n o m e n t i o n w h a t s o e v e r o f
Pharisaic influences. O n the c o n t r a r y , he extols the virtues o n l y o f his
priestly heritage. H i s r e p o r t e d d e c i s i o n t o familiarize h i m s e l f w i t h the
three J e w i s h s c h o o l s , m o r e o v e r , p r e s u p p o s e s that h e h a d h a d n o serious
a c q u a i n t a n c e w i t h t h e m at a g e sixteen. H e c o u l d n o t , t h e n , h a v e b e e n
raised as a P h a r i s e e .
J . L e M o y n e also r e m a r k s o n the c o n s p i c u o u s a b s e n c e o f a n y e x p l a n a
tion for J o s e p h u s ' s final c o n v e r s i o n to Pharisaism after his h a p p y years
as a disciple o f B a n n u s . T h e F r e n c h scholar ventures the h y p o t h e s i s that,
o n his return f r o m the w i l d e r n e s s , J o s e p h u s " c h o i s i t u n ideal d e v i e ,
celui des Pharisiens, q u i lui parait plus e n r a p p o r t a v e c s o n e x p e r i e n c e
9
d e retraite au desert q u e l ' i d e a l s a d d u c e e n " . T o b e sure, if J o s e p h u s
m e a n s to say that h e c o n v e r t e d t o Pharisaism after his t i m e with B a n n u s ,
then o n e m u s t a s s u m e w i t h L e M o y n e that B a n n u s a n d the Pharisees
h a d a g o o d deal in c o m m o n .
Y e t n o t h i n g that J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the Pharisees e l s e w h e r e suggests
a n y sort o f a n c h o r i t i c l e a n i n g s o n their part. H e often d e s c r i b e s their a c
tivities in the political a r e n a , their i n v o l v e m e n t with v a r i o u s rulers, a n d
1 0
their influence with the m a s s e s . R e c a l l that L . Finkelstein w a s able to
1 1
p o r t r a y the Pharisees as f u n d a m e n t a l l y urban ( " p l e b e i a n " ) in o u t l o o k .
T h e J e w i s h s c h o o l that m o s t closely a p p r o a c h e s a m o n a s t i c ideal, in
J o s e p h u s ' s presentation, is rather that o f the Essenes (cf. War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ;
Ant. 1 8 : 1 9 - 2 2 ) . L e M o y n e ' s p r o p o s a l s e e m s , therefore, to b e a desperate
attempt to m a k e sense o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l interpretation o f Life 1 2 b in
its c o n t e x t .
S i n c e the usual u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Life 1 2 b runs c o u n t e r to its i m
m e d i a t e c o n t e x t a n d to J o s e p h u s ' s overall portrayal o f the Pharisees, it
would seem reasonable to scrutinize the customary reading before
m a k i n g it the basis for o n e ' s w h o l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J o s e p h u s ' s religious
perspective.
8
Rajak, Josephus, 32.
9
J. Le Moyne, Les Sadduceens (1972), 28.
1 0
War 2:411; Ant. 13:289, 297-298, 401; 15:3-4, 370-371; 17:41; Life 21.
1 1
L. Finkelstein, The Pharisees, I, 74-76.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 347
I I . Key Terms
1 2
E.g., 2 Mace. 11:25; Aristeas 31; Acts 23:1; Phil. 1:27.
1 3
The Works of Flavius Josephus, 2 vols., edd. E. Thompson and W . C . Price (1777).
1 4
Thackeray notes only that he has "occasionally consulted" Whiston ( L C L edn., I,
xx).
348 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
15
The two leading protagonists in the debate on Josephus's Pharisees, Neusner
("Josephus's Pharisees") and Rivkin (Revolution), both use the Loeb translation for most
of their block quotations from Josephus; Attridge (Interpretation, 52, 58, 67, 69) follows
it often. Cohen (Josephus, xi) acknowledges "inspiration" from the L C L edn. and Shutt
(Studies, ix) notes his acquaintance with it.
16
Niese, HZ, 194.
17
Holscher, "Josephus", 1936.
18
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 34. Cf. Laqueur, Historiker, 247.
19
L. Hafaeli, Flavius Josephus' Lebensbeschreibung (1925), ad loc.
2 0
Schlatter, Theologie, 208.
21
E. Lohse, Umwelt des Neuen Testaments (1971), 102.
2 2
Weiss, "Pharisaismus", 424.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 349
2 3
Ant. 1:253.
2 4
Ant. 18:256.
2 5
Ant. 19:43.
2 6
Ant. 17:16, 60, 281.
27
Ant. 11:112, 279; 12:38, 142; 20:234.
2 8
Cf. Thackeray, Josephus, 110-112; G. C . Richards, "The Composition of Josephus'
Antiquities", Classical Quarterly 33 (1939), 37f.
2 9
If the variantrcoXtTeueaGoctwere accepted at Ant. 17:60 (so A M W ) , it would give one
clear example of the meaning "behave" in Josephus (again in Ant. 17!). Both Niese and
Marcus/Wikgren ( L C L edn.), however, reject this variant.
350 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
3 0
According to Ant. 15:263, they "had a high position and great influence with the
masses'' (Marcus/Wikgren).
3 1
Cf. also Ant. 14:260.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 351
32
G o d a n d for p r e p a r i n g o n e s e l f for a p u b l i c c a r e e r ; obvious examples
are M o s e s ( E x . 3 - 4 ) a n d J e s u s ( M t . 4 : 1 - 1 4 ) . It w o u l d s e e m that J o s e p h u s
is p r e s e n t i n g his o w n training in t e r m s o f this m o t i f . H i s desert retreat
w i t h B a n n u s p r e p a r e d h i m for p u b l i c activity (7uoXtTeuea6<xt).
T h e p r o p o s e d interpretation o f TCoXtxeoeaOat s e e m s to b e p l a c e d b e y o n d
d o u b t b y the s e q u e l . F o r i m m e d i a t e l y after J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s that h e
b e g a n t o 7coXtTeuea6oct ( § 1 2 b ) , h e p r o c e e d s to tell o f his d i p l o m a t i c a n d
political activities ( § § 13ff.), w h i c h activities o c c u p y the rest o f the b o o k .
First h e r e c o u n t s his e m b a s s y t o R o m e : h e w a s c h o s e n t o g o there in
o r d e r t o try t o free s o m e fellow priests w h o h a d b e e n sent t o N e r o o n
a m i n o r c h a r g e . O n his return f r o m R o m e , J o s e p h u s w a s already a
p u b l i c figure, b y his o w n a c c o u n t ( § § 1 7 - 2 3 ) . H e tried t o avert the inci
pient r e v o l t , p l e a d i n g w i t h r e b e l leaders a n d c o n s u l t i n g the c h i e f priests
a n d l e a d i n g Pharisees ( § 2 2 ) ; i n d e e d , b y his use o f rjpets in § § 2 2 - 2 3 , h e
places h i m s e l f clearly a m o n g the leaders o f the c i t y . T h e n , w i t h the
failure o f C e s t i u s G a l l u s to quell the revolt, J o s e p h u s w a s d i s p a t c h e d t o
the G a l i l e e as a military g o v e r n o r ( § § 28ff.) a n d the rest o f the story is
well k n o w n . T h u s 7|p£<&pr)v 7coXtTeuecjOoct in Life 1 2 b m a r k s the b e g i n n i n g
o f J o s e p h u s ' s p u b l i c career.
I s u b m i t , finally, that the syntax o f § 1 2 b supports the interpretation
o f 7coXtT£ue<j0at as " e n g a g e in p u b l i c a f f a i r s " . I f the infinitive v e r b m e a n t
"govern oneself or "behave", then the dependent participle
XOCTOCXOXOUOCOV would seem redundant. One would expect either
33
rcoXiTeueaOoct w i t h a p r e p o s i t i o n s u c h as XOCTOC ( " I b e g a n t o b e h a v e / l i v e
a c c o r d i n g t o the s c h o o l o f the P h a r i s e e s " ) o r the infinitive xocxocxoXouOetv
b y itself ( " I b e g a n t o follow the s c h o o l o f the P h a r i s e e s " ) . B u t the c o n
struction aorist v e r b + present infinitive + ( d e p e n d e n t ) participle is
c u m b e r s o m e if it m e a n s : " I b e g a n t o b e h a v e ( = m a i n c l a u s e ) , f o l l o w i n g
the s c h o o l o f the Pharisees ( = d e p e n d e n t c l a u s e ) " . T h e p r o p o s e d transla
t i o n , b y contrast, gives b o t h the infinitive a n d the participle their o w n
w e i g h t , b e c a u s e they m e a n different things: " I b e g a n to e n g a g e in p u b l i c
life ( = m a i n c l a u s e ) , f o l l o w i n g the s c h o o l o f the Pharisees ( = d e p e n d e n t
clause).
A l l o f this suggests that 7coXcue6ea6oct in Life 1 2 b m e a n s " t o participate
in p u b l i c a f f a i r s " . I n f a v o u r o f such a r e a d i n g are: ( a ) n o r m a l G r e e k
u s a g e o f the v e r b ; ( b ) n o r m a l J o s e p h a n u s a g e ; ( c ) the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t
o f § 1 2 b ; ( d ) the syntax o f § 1 2 b ; a n d ( e ) the a g r e e m e n t o f m a n y c o m -
3 2
Cf. Mayer and Moller, "Politiker", 272 and n.10 thereto.
3 3
In the two cases where TtoXtxeueoOat means "behave", such qualifiers are present
(Ant. 17:103, dxpdxo) euvotqt and 7tpo$ TOV rcaxepa; 17:243, otxetco? and OCUTOIS).
352 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
3 4
Cf. Ant. 5:73; 8:339; 12:255.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 353
In what way did Josephus's entry into public life involve him in "follow
ing' ' the Pharisaic school? W e are not totally without clues. H e has con
sistently asserted, in War and Ant., that the Pharisees constitute the
dominant school among the Jews (War 2:162; Ant. 13:288-298, 4 0 1 ;
18:15). Their influence affects not only what we should distinguish as the
"religious" sphere (cf. Ant. 18:15—prayers and rites) but also the whole
operation of the state. Thus when John Hyrcanus abrogated the
Pharisaic ordinances, according to Josephus, the masses reacted with in
tense hostility (Ant. 13:297-298).
Pharisaic influence among the people is so profound, Josephus insists,
that even the Sadducees are compelled to follow Pharisaic dictates. H e
says of the Sadducees that:
9
whenever they come into a position of leadership (in apx&S 7cocp£X8otev),
they defer, albeit unwillingly and by necessity (axouat<os p&v xat x a x '
a v d y x a s ) , to what the Pharisee says, because otherwise they would become
intolerable to the masses. (Ant. 18:17)
3 5
Cf. Ant. 1:19; Ag.Ap. 2:281.
354 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
M a n nimmt sie [Life 12] falschlich fur eine ausdriickliche Erklarung des
Josephus, dass er schliesslich ein Anhanger der Pharisaer geworden sei,
wahrend sie in der That nichts weiter bezeichnet, als dass er sich im
36
politischen Leben den Pharisaern angeschlossen h a b e .
3 6
E. Gerlach, Weissagungen, 18.
3 7
Commentators usually interpret this remark as a reference to particular agreements
in doctrine or practice between the Pharisees and the Stoics (cf. G. F. Moore, "Fate",
374 and n. 20; Schlatter, Theologie, 198; Feldman, L C L edn., I X , 10 n. b). Without
diminishing in the least the significance of those parallels, I should like to suggest a a
further aspect of comparison.
By the first century A D , as is well known, Stoicism had become the dominant
philosophical school in the Hellenistic world: its influence on the other schools and on
popular thought was considerable (cf. F. H . Sandbach, The Stoics, 16; A. A. Long,
Hellenistic Philosophy, 107). Since Pharisaism, according to Josephus, fulfilled a corre
sponding role in Jewish society, it would seem plausible that this is precisely the point
of the comparison. If he is saying that the two schools have comparable functions in their
respective societies, that would explain the inclusion of this clause immediately after his
statement that his entry into public life entailed some deference to the Pharisaic school.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 355
3 8
Montgomery, "Religion", 281.
3 9
Shutt, Studies, 2.
4 0
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 226.
4 1
Attridge, Interpretation, 6.
4 2
Rivkin, Revolution, 66.
4 3
Cohen, Josephus, 106.
4 4
Rajak, Josephus, 32.
4 5
Cf. M . Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus, I, 315; idem, Zeloten, 6 nn. 2-3, 378 n.
3; H . Lindner, Geschichtsauffassung, 146 n. 2; Attridge, Interpretation, 6, 178-180.
356 CHAPTER FIFTEEN
atp£aet xaxaxoXouOtov. But Josephus knows how to say in clear terms that
he became someone's disciple, as he does with respect to Bannus:
CnXtoxTjs iyevoprjv auxou ( § 1 1 ) . If he is now saying in § 1 2 b that he under
went a second conversion, to Pharisaism, then he has chosen an ex
cruciatingly circuitous way of saying it.
I have argued that Josephus's "following of the Pharisaic school" was
merely a necessary function of his entry into public life. It was not a
deliberate choice of religious affiliation or a conversion. Life 12 cannot,
therefore, support the weight that is customarily placed upon it. It can
not justify the attribution of anti-Pharisaic passages in Josephus to some
other source, on the ground that the Pharisee Josephus could not have
46
written them ( G . Holscher, G . F. M o o r e , D . R . Schwartz). A n d it cer
tainly cannot serve as the cornerstone of an alleged pro-Pharisaic
apologetic in Ant.-Life ( H . Rasp, M . Smith, J. Neusner, S . J . D . Cohen
47
et a l . ) . Such an apologetic does not exist in Ant. If it did, Life 12 would
not help it at all.
4 6
Contra Holscher, "Josephus", 1936 and n. + + thereto, 1957, 1991; G . F. Moore,
Judaism, I, 64 n. 4, 65 n. 3, 66 n. 1; and now D . R . Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus",
158.
4 7
Cf. chapters 2 and 14, above.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
LIFE 189-198: J O S E P H U S , S I M O N , A N D T H E D E L E G A T I O N
I. Context
W h e n J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s w r o t e his d a m a g i n g a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h w a r ,
he e v i d e n t l y raised o n e matter that c a u s e d J o s e p h u s particular d i s c o m
fort. T h a t w a s the fact that the J e r u s a l e m c o u n c i l , w h i c h i n c l u d e d such
n o t a b l e s as the h i g h priest a n d the Pharisee S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l , h a d
s o u g h t to relieve J o s e p h u s o f his c o m m a n d in the G a l i l e e . T h a t J u s t u s
did raise the subject is clear f r o m Life 3 3 6 : J o s e p h u s has j u s t g i v e n his
v e r s i o n o f these events ( § § 1 8 9 - 3 3 5 ) a n d n o w turns t o address J u s t u s ,
who, h e says, " h a s p r o d u c e d his o w n a c c o u n t o f those a f f a i r s " (rfjv Tiept
2
TOUTCOV rcporfpocTeiocv).
1
Life 21 mentions Josephus's meeting (again,rcoiXiv)with "the chief priests and
leading Pharisees" (TOU; dcpxiepeuaiv xat TO!$ 7Cpa>xoi? xwv Oapiaaiaiv). He implies that he
was an associate of this group (cf. rj{X6t<;, § 22) and states that he and they opposed the
revolt (§§ 22f.). He does not, however, mention any dealings with individual Pharisees.
2
Cf. Cohen, Josephus, 125: "The delegation episode ( V 190-335) in particular is
replete with these themes [i.e., the kinds of issues brought up in the digression] and ap
parently is directed against Justus." Rajak, in proposing that only the digression itself
responds directly to Justus (Josephus, 152-154), seems to overlook the force of Life 336.
358 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
3
The unfavourable description of John begins at War 2:585.
4
Rajak, Josephus, 150-154, accurately perceives the centrality of the delegation
episode in Life. She argues from that premise that Josephus wrote the work primarily
for the benefit of diaspora Jewry, for they would have been the ones most concerned
about his relationship to the Jerusalem authorities. But one can imagine that Josephus
would have been equally uncomfortable if his Roman readers came to think of him as
a tyrant, who had acted ultra vires when he seized command of the Galilee. In War,
Josephus had portrayed himself as the ideal general, sent to command the northern
theatre (cf. Cohen, Josephus, 91ff.), and his status as a captured general doubtless helped
him sell the book (cf. War 1:3). If he should now be exposed as a thug who had no official
endorsement, his image would be severely tarnished.
5
Cf. Thackeray, Josephus, 18; Cohen, Josephus, HOf.
J O S E P H U S , SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 359
6
Cf. Luther, Josephus und Justus, 25f.: Josephus's opposition "ging von Johannes von
Gischala aus, mit dem Josephus anfangs in gutem Einvernehmen stand". Contrast War,
in which John appears from the first as an "intriguer . . . the most unscrupulous and
crafty of all who have ever gained notoriety". (2:585, Thackeray).
7
Cf. Life 82, 85ff., 122ff.
360 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
8
him, a n d that J o h n w a s e v e n s u p p o r t e d b y the e m i n e n t scholar S i m o n
ben G a m a l i e l in J e r u s a l e m ( p e r h a p s also b y the c h i e f priests). That
Justus a r g u e d these points is suggested b y the fact that J o s e p h u s c o n
cedes t h e m all in Life; the e x a m p l e o f War s h o w s that h e w o u l d n o t
voluntarily h a v e credited his o p p o n e n t s in this w a y .
The situation facing J o s e p h u s w h e n h e writes Life, therefore, is a
serious o n e . H i s articulate literary o p p o n e n t o f the 9 0 ' s has d e m o n
strated that his political o p p o n e n t o f the late 6 0 ' s w a s n o evil w r e t c h b u t
a credible p u b l i c figure with m a j o r support in the Galilee a n d close ties
to the J e r u s a l e m authorities. I n particular, John's move to have
J o s e p h u s r e p l a c e d c o u l d n o t b e dismissed as an act o f personal a n i m o s i t y
b u t h a d t o b e seen as a d e t e r m i n e d effort b y a united a n d p o w e r f u l o p
position.
The l e n g t h y a c c o u n t in Life 189-335 is J o s e p h u s ' s r e s p o n s e t o this
c h a r g e . O u r passage, § § 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 , i n t r o d u c e s the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e a n d
discusses the Pharisees' i n v o l v e m e n t in it.
I I . Interpretation
8
So also Luther, Josephus und Justus, 75f. Luther doubts, however, that the basis of
this friendship had been a mutual opposition to the revolt. He thinks rather that
Josephus and John were both rebels originally and that Josephus invented the story in Life
in order to explain the friendship, which Justus had pointed out.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, A N D T H E DELEGATION 361
9
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 225; Rivkin, Revolution, 3If., 67.
1 0
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 227.
362 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
Between BJ [War] and V [Life] Simon's stock rose spectacularly, as did the
fortunes o f the Pharisees. Their heirs were now established at Yavneh and
1 4
Josephus wanted their friendship . . . , T h e results o f the new attitudes
1 1
Rivkin, Revolution, 63f.
1 2
Holscher, 1936 n. + + , avers that Josephus's Pharisaic standpoint reveals itself in
Life 191 but he does not explain this judgement. Rajak, Josephus, 150ff., gives what is
perhaps the best assessment of the sense of the delegation episode and of its importance
in Life. She does not, however, deal directly with our question, which is the significance
of the Pharisaic involvement in the delegation.
1 3
Cohen, Josephus, 144f.
1 4
In his claim that Life's pro-Pharisaic apologetic is directed toward Jews (the Yav-
nean rabbis), Josephus, 147, Cohen is closer to Rasp than to Smith/Neusner. But at pp.
237f., he also gives the Smith/Neusner line, that Ant. presents the Pharisees as deserving
of Roman support; then he reiterates that Life is directed toward Jews. Evidently, Cohen
wants to combine the theories that Josephus wrote Ant.-Life (a) to ingratiate himself with
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 363
are clear: glorious Simon was only temporarily (xote, 192) ill-disposed
towards Josephus. Therefore, Josephus' dispute with Simon and some
Pharisees in 67 should not disqualify the historian in the eyes o f the
15
Pharisees o f a later generation.
Simon ben Gamaliel, a man o f great repute, was the main advocate o f
Josephus' dismissal: so well-known was Simon, that Josephus felt he had
nothing to lose in acknowledging his opponent's distinguished descent and
17
scholarly pre-eminence.
W e m a y a d d that the a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t w a s p r o b a b l y f o r c e d o n J o s e p h u s
b y J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t . I n a n y c a s e , it d o e s n o t set the t o n e for the sequel:
J o s e p h u s is c o n c e r n e d to e x o n e r a t e himself, n o t S i m o n a n d the d e l e g a
t i o n . S i n c e the w h o l e passage is a b o u t his conflict w i t h S i m o n , w h i c h
resulted f r o m S i m o n ' s u n d e r h a n d e d n e s s , § 192 c a n h a r d l y b e r e a d as an
e n c o m i u m in its present c o n t e x t .
A m a j o r c l u e to the function o f § 192 is its c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the d e s c r i p
tion o f the Pharisees in § 1 9 1 : S i m o n w a s a Pharisee a n d this s c h o o l is
the newly powerful Pharisees (Rasp) and (b) to help the Romans decide who should be
in power (Smith/ Neusner).
1 5
Cohen, Josephus, 145.
1 6
Simon was the son of the famous rabbi Gamaliel (cf. Acts 5:34) and father of the
Yavnean Patriarch Gamaliel II.
1 7
Rajak, Josephus, 150.
364 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
1 8
As also with the hoxti . . . dwcptPfjs constructions of Ag.Ap. 1:18, 67.
1 9
Cohen, Josephus, 145.
2 0
Ibid., emphasis added.
21
Ibid., 145.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 365
2 2
Cf. Rajak, Josephus, 22ff., 83ff., 106, 128ff., and 148L, on Josephus's social posi
tion and its implications for his view of the revolt.
366 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
2 3
W e have noted two other passages in which Josephus accuses the Pharisees of im
propriety with respect to money. In Ant. 17:42-45 (cf. War 1:571) they are willing to in
voke their prophetic gifts in gratitude for Pheroras's wife's payment of their fine. In War
1:111-114, they flaunt their power while living off the generosity of the ingenuous
Alexandra.
368 CHAPTER SIXTEEN
2 4
In support of this hypothetical reconstruction one might adduce (a) the vagueness
of the bribery charge (the Scopea and their reception are not described) and (b) Josephus's
conspicuous insistence that the public remained totally unaware of Ananus's initial sup
port for Josephus (§ 195a) and of the bribery episode (§ 196c: prjSevds ocXXou TCOV XOCTOC
TTJVrcoXtvTOUTO ftvoxjxovTOs). Claiming public ignorance, of course, frees him from the
fear of contradiction.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 369
Summary
2 5
Cohen, Josephus, 238.
2 6
Ibid., emphasis added.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 371
1
Schreckenberg, Untersuchungen, 174.
CONCLUSION TO THE STUDY 373
6. J o s e p h u s w a s n o t , a n d n e v e r c l a i m e d to b e , a Pharisee. H e w a s an
aristocratic priest, d e s c e n d e d f r o m the H a s m o n e a n s , a n d h e w a s also
fascinated b y h e m e r o b a p t i s t religion (cf. B a n n u s a n d the Essenes). H e
always resented the Pharisees' h o l d o n the masses b u t , like the Sad
d u c e e s , he a c c e p t e d this influence as a fact o f life. T h u s h e a c k n o w l e d g e s
that w h e n he e n d e d his blissful years o f wilderness retreat with B a n n u s
a n d returned to the city, he b e g a n to i n v o l v e himself in p u b l i c life, w h i c h
m e a n t " f o l l o w i n g the school o f the Pharisees".
7. J o s e p h u s is mildest in his d e p r e c a t i o n o f the Pharisees in the
" s c h o o l p a s s a g e s " (War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ; Ant. 13:171-173; 18:11-23), where
he i n t r o d u c e s all three o f the J e w i s h atpeaet? to his Hellenistic readership.
E v e n here o n e c a n detect anti-Pharisaic u n d e r t o n e s in J o s e p h u s ' s c h o i c e
o f w o r d s (cf. Soxeto, TUYX^VCO) a n
d m
his insistence o n the outstanding
virtues o f the Essenes; but in Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , at least, h e achieves c o m
plete neutrality. W e m a y , h o w e v e r , n o t e several features o f the school
passages.
( a ) T h e y are c o n c e r n e d o n l y with the p h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs o f schools,
n o t with their actions. But J o s e p h u s agrees with the Pharisaic (and
Essene) beliefs in fate a n d i m m o r t a l i t y . I n d e e d , he seems closer to the
Pharisaic v i e w o n b o t h issues. But the Pharisees o n l y represented the
p o p u l a r m i d d l e g r o u n d o n these q u e s t i o n s , w h i c h J o s e p h u s evidently
shared.
( b ) In the s c h o o l passages all three schools are p o r t r a y e d positively.
J o s e p h u s ' s p u r p o s e is to m a p o u t the r a n g e o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l speculation
a m o n g the accredited schools o f J u d a i s m ; in t w o o f the s c h o o l passages,
he also wants to contrast the legitimate representatives o f J e w i s h p h i l o s o
p h y with the n o v e l ( a n d false) idea o f u n c o n d i t i o n a l f r e e d o m e s p o u s e d
b y J u d a s o f G a l i l e e . T h i s is clearly n o t the place for h i m to vent his per
sonal animosities t o w a r d a n y o f the g r o u p s , a n d o n e m u s t l o o k for
subtleties in this r e g a r d . W h e n e v e r o n e o f the three s c h o o l s c o m e s out
m o r e f a v o u r a b l y than the others, h o w e v e r , it is always that o f the
Essenes (War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ; Ant. 18:18-23).
( c ) M o s t i m p o r t a n t , the s c h o o l passages are part o f J o s e p h u s ' s " i d e a l "
portrait o f J u d a i s m . H i s a p o l o g e t i c includes the c l a i m that the J e w s re
c e i v e d a c o m p r e h e n s i v e c o d e o f n o b l e laws f r o m M o s e s a n d that they
h a v e p r e s e r v e d and o b s e r v e d this c o d e exactly e v e r since. H e presents
Judaism as a superior p h i l o s o p h y . A l o n g s i d e this r e c u r r i n g t h e m e in
Ant., h o w e v e r , h e m u s t also e x p l a i n to Gentile readers h o w J u d a i s m fell
f r o m its t r e m e n d o u s origins t o b e c o m e the defeated n a t i o n that it was at
the e n d o f the first c e n t u r y . In this story, he c l a i m s , the Pharisees h a v e
p l a y e d a m a j o r role.
T h e difference o f e m p h a s i s b e t w e e n the Pharisee passages, in w h i c h
CONCLUSION TO THE STUDY 375
In o u r e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p r e f a c e to War, w e e n c o u n t e r e d H . W . A t
t r i d g e ' s t h e o r y o f a shift in h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e b e t w e e n that w o r k
a n d Ant. A t t r i d g e b u i l d s o n the w e l l - k n o w n parallels b e t w e e n War's pref
ace a n d the p r i n c i p l e s o f P o l y b i u s , o n the o n e h a n d , a n d b e t w e e n Ant.
a n d D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , o n the other, to p r o p o s e : ( a ) that War
1:13-16 a n d Ant. 1:5-6 constitute different " p r o g r a m m a t i c statements"
o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e for the w o r k s in w h i c h they a p p e a r ; ( b )
that, therefore, J o s e p h u s c h a n g e d his historiographical p r i n c i p l e s b e
t w e e n w r i t i n g War a n d w r i t i n g Ant.; a n d ( c ) that this shift in theoretical
p e r s p e c t i v e , f r o m " c r i t i c a l " to " r h e t o r i c a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , m a y well
a c c o u n t for the c h o i c e o f subject m a t t e r in Ant. O n c e e x p o s e d to rheto
rical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , the a r g u m e n t g o e s , J o s e p h u s saw its potential for
an a p o l o g e t i c history o f J u d a i s m a n d this led h i m to a b a n d o n his earlier
principles, e n u n c i a t e d in War, w h i c h h a d e x c l u d e d a n c i e n t history as an
1
object o f study.
It is a q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s really i n t e n d e d War 1:13-
16 as a statement o f the " c r i t i c a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e s to w h i c h
he w a s c o m m i t t e d , w h i c h p r i n c i p l e s e x c l u d e d ancient J e w i s h history as
a p r o p e r field for investigation. T w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m a k e that possibility
unlikely.
1. First, b y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , virtually all h i s t o r i o g r a p h y w a s
2
"rhetorical" historiography. F o r the conflict that w e see b e t w e e n
P o l y b i u s a n d the rhetorical historians in the m i d - s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C w a s
w o n b y the r h e t o r i c i a n s — p r o b a b l y e v e n b e f o r e P o l y b i u s w r o t e , since his
3
o w n w o r k is n o t i n n o c e n t o f rhetorical i n f l u e n c e . It s o o n d e v e l o p e d that
e v e r y rhetorician felt free to e n g a g e in historical w r i t i n g a n d e v e r y o n e
1
Attridge, Interpretation, 43f., 5Iff., 56.
2
Cf. Norden, Kunstprosa, I, 8Iff.; Lieberich, Prodmien, 5, 17, 20; Halbfas, Theorie, 7-
10 et passim; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 81-84, 167; G. Giovannini, "Connection", 308-
314; M . I. Finley, Use and Abuse, 12.
3
Cf. Lieberich, Prodmien, 20; Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 20-25; and Siegfried,
Polybius, 28f. Finley, Use and Abuse, 33, remarks, "It is significant. . . how quickly
historians abandoned the austerity of Thucydides for the emotional appeals of the poets,
how history became 'tragic history', even in Polybius who denied it so vehemently". Cf.
F.W. Walbank, Polybius (Berkeley CA: University of California, 1972), 34-40.
APPENDIX A 377
4
who aspired to write history studied rhetoric. But this victory meant less
a conscious abandonment of the critical principles enunciated by
Thucydides and Polybius than a development of them along rhetorical
lines. T h e result of this evolution was a historiographical "melting-pot"
in which one could draw freely on both the Thucydidean emphases of ac
curacy and eyewitness evidence and the rhetorical concerns for style and
5
vividness. That some historians were more critical than others is
undeniable, but the distinction was one of degree within the pervasive
sphere of rhetorical historiography and not between different
historiographical ''schools''.
O n e can see the melting-pot effect in many sources. Polybius, the ex
emplary critical historian, does not shrink from using a rhetorical ques
6
tion ( 1 . 1 . 5 ) or a detailed comparison in rhetorical style ( 1 . 4 . 7 - 9 ) . Even
more striking are his emphasis on the moral-pedagogical value of history
( 1 . 3 5 . 1 - 3 , 7-10; 2 . 6 1 . 2 - 6 , 11-12; 1 0 . 2 1 . 3 - 4 ) and his admission of T e p c ^
(delight) as a secondary goal of history, alongside truthfulness ( 1 5 . 3 6 . 3 ;
38.1.2); both of these emphases reflect the rhetorical influence of
7
Isocrates. O n the other side, Dionysius, though entirely devoted to
rhetorical interests, frequently speaks of the (Thucydidean-Polybian)
8
aXrjOeioc standard for history. A n d Lucian's essay on writing history,
which represents the common rhetorical historiography of the second
9
century A D , advocates both the principles of the master historians and
10
those of the rhetoricians, innocently juxtaposed with no hint of tension.
N o r is it possible, for the first century, to attribute the writing of con
temporary political history to the critical historians and that of ancient
history to the rhetoricians, as if the two fields were understood to be the
provinces of different kinds of historians. It is true that Thucydides and
Polybius had insisted on eyewitness evidence and had thus limited their
fields of inquiry to recent events. It is also true that rhetorical theory
could justify writing ancient history because it could recognize
originality in structure and presentation as well as in content. But the
4
Norden, Kunstprosa, I, 81ff. and Halbfas, Theorie, 7f.
5
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 167.
6
Pointed out by Lieberich, Prodmien, 20.
7
Cf. Siegfried, Polybius, 29, and Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 20ff.
8
Cf., e.g., Rom. Ant. 1.1.2, 5.1-4, 6.2, 3, 5; also Halbfas, Theorie, 32f.
9
Cf. P. Collomp, "Technik", 278-293, and Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 165ff.
1 0
Especially striking is the tension between his invocation of Thucydides as a model
historian (19, 39, 42), along with his call for first-hand knowledge and painstaking in
vestigation (47), and his overriding emphasis on literary virtues, which implies that the
historian's chief responsibility is to shape and stylize his received material (16, 50: ou Tt
vhz(tX3\ ^y\vr\i£ov auxot? aXX' 07ca)^ eXnctxnv). This tension is pointed out already by
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 168ff.
378 APPENDIX A
11
Cf. Finley, Use and Abuse, 31 (on Thucydides), and Momigliano, Essays, 168f. (on
Thucydides and Polybius). The idea that history teaches practical lessons was fundamen
tal to ancient historiography was and not limited to a "rhetorical" school, as Attridge,
Interpretation, 51-53, seems to suggest.
1 2
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 83f.
1 3
Cf. Momigliano, Essays, 164.
1 4
Momigliano, Essays, 93ff.
APPENDIX A 379
1 5
One attempt to rehabilitate him, however, is I. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy (1957).
380 APPENDIX A
1 6
The tragic element is unmistakable in the narratives concerning both Herod the
Great and the city of Jerusalem. Rhetorical influence reveals itself in any number of
ways, from the presence of novelistic elements (cf. Moehring, "Novelistic Elements")
to the style of the work, with its thorough conformity to the atticizing propensities of the
day; these include the strict avoidance of hiatus, in keeping with a law of style established
by the rhetorician Isocrates; cf. W . Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von
Dionysius von Hallicarnassus bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer,
1887-1897, I, pp. V - V I , and III, 291f; also Niese, HZ, 208.
APPENDIX A 381
1 7
Whether Josephus had already begun his strenuous programme of xfjs ypafXfxaxixfj^,
TCOV 'EXXrjvixtov Ypafxjxdxcov x a l 7COIT)TIXCOV {Ant. 20:263) before he wrote War is a moot
point (see excursus to Part I). I have argued, however, in keeping with Rajak's position,
that Josephus probably knew enough Greek to control the content of the work published
under his name.
1 8
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 169f.
382 APPENDIX A
It is the duty of one who promises to present his readers with actual facts
first to obtain an exact (axptptoc;) knowledge of them himself, either through
having been close to the events (TrapyjxoXooOTixoTa TOU; yeyovoatv), or by in
quiry from those who knew them (7uapd T<OV et86xcov 7cuv0av6pevov).
1 9
Thackeray, Josephus.
2 0
O n the importance of TO ouppeTpov in hellenistic historiography, cf. Avenarius,
Lukians Schrift, 105ff.
2 1
Cf. also Ant. 20:259: 7uocua£T<xi 8' evrauGd pot TOC TTJS dpxaioXoyia? peO' TJV xal TOV
rcoXepiov Tjp!*d[X7iv ypd^peiv. W . Weber, Josephus und Vespasian, 2, takes this to mean that
Josephus actually began writing Ant. before he wrote War. More commonly, the sentence
is taken to mean either that Josephus intended a re-edition of War in A D 93-94 (La
queur, Historiker, Iff., 79, 263) or simply as a garbled way of saying that War covers
events subsequent to those treated in Ant. (so Feldman, L C L edn., X , 137 n. d.).
Weber's interpretation is, however, the most faithful to Josephus's actual words, "after
which [sc. Ant.] I began to write the War".
APPENDIX A 383
1
HTR 22 (1929), 371-372.
2
Ibid., 37If., 384.
3
Ibid., 372.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid., 375f.
APPENDIX B 385
6
knowledge", M o o r e finds in the school passages an intended "philo
7
sophical definition". That etpappevr) appears as a philosophical term in
the school passages, he argues, is clear from the context: the groups are
called atpeaets or ^tXoao^tat and are concerned with an issue that had
8
become important in Hellenistic philosophy by the first century. In
deed, M o o r e can even point out three close verbal parallels between the
Pharisaic doctrine as presented by Josephus and the teaching of Chrysip
9
pus the Stoic as reported by Cicero.
Having identified this stoicizing tendency in Josephus's presentation
of the Pharisees, M o o r e attempts to show that it was at complete
variance with biblical-Jewish teaching, which always emphasized the
sovereignty of G o d , the efficacy of repentance, and man's religious/
10
moral responsibility. Assuming that Josephus the Jew could not have
erred so fundamentally, M o o r e offers two "guesses" as to the origin of
11
the descriptions. O n e possibility is that Josephus's literary assistants
composed the accounts on the basis of their interpretations of what Jose
phus had explained to them "in his w a y " about Pharisaic and Saddu
12
cean distinctives. M o o r e prefers, however, another "guess", namely,
that a "foreign source" is responsible for the misleading information.
H e believes that Nicolaus of Damascus wrote Ant. 13:171-173, except for
the reference back to War 2 , and that Josephus carried over this material
from Nicolaus into War 2:162 and Ant. 18:13, supplementing it with
13
other information about the Pharisees.
Just three years after the appearance of Moore's article, A . Schlatter's
14
Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus appeared.
15
Although Schlatter devotes little more than a page to our p r o b l e m , his
presentation is useful as a contrast to Moore's. Noting that Josephus
portrays distinctive Pharisaic teaching as a combination of belief in
divine providence and the human power of volition, Schlatter marvels
at the strength of the Greek influence in Jerusalem, which was such that
Josephus could describe providence as Schicksal. But Schlatter does not
doubt Josephus's word; he takes it to be obvious that the Pharisees in-
6
Ibid. He cites War 4:622 and 6:250 as examples.
7
Ibid., 376.
8
Ibid., 376-379.
9
Ibid., 384; viz., pO7]0etv {War 2:162)//adiuvo (Cicero, On Fate 41); opprj {Ant. 18:13)//
adpetitus {On Fate 40f.); and Tcpoox^peTv {Ant. 18:13)//assensio {On Fate 40).
1 0
Ibid., 379-382.
1 1
He defines a "guess" here as something less than a hypothesis, "Fate", 383.
1 2
Ibid., 383.
1 3
Ibid., 383f.
1 4
Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1932. Cf. pp. 209f.
1 5
Ibid.
386 APPENDIX B
1 6
Elbogen, Anschauungen, 14f.
1 7
A . E. Suffrin, ERE, V , 796; I. Broyde, Jewish Encyclopedia, V , 351; Lauterbach,
"Pharisees", HUCA, 129f.; Urbach, Sages, I, 255; and Weiss, "Pharisaismus",
427-429.
1 8
Most commonly adduced are b. Ber. 33b. m. Avot 3:15 and b. Hullin 7b.
1 9
Urbach, Sages, I, 268.
2 0
Urbach, Sages, I, 268; Lauterbach, HUCA, 129f.; Broyde, "Fatalism", 351; cf. R .
Marcus in L C L edition of Ant. 13:171 f., V I I , p. 311 n. g.: "Fate is here, of course, the
Greek equivalent of what we should call Providence".
2 1
Suffrin, "FateQewish)", 793.
2 2
"Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener zur
Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus", ZRGG 21 (1969), 97-114, esp. 98-106.
APPENDIX B 387
2 3
With Niese, Wachter rejects the variant xocxov, so that God is "beyond either the
doing of anything or even the supervision [of the world; cf. the Hebrew I p D ] " .
Thackeray and Michel-Bauernfeind both retain xocxov with the result that God is beyond
"not merely the commission, but the very sight of evil". Wachter's reading, however,
has the Sadducees removing God entirely from the world.
2 4
Ibid., 104, 106. This conclusion was already reached by G. Holscher, Der Sad-
duzdismus (Leipzig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1906), 2. Note that for the rabbis,DVlTp^DW was a
term of abuse.
2 5
Wachter, "Haltung", 105f.
2 6
Ibid., 107-108.
2 7
Ibid., 108. He notes m. Avot 3:15: "Everything is foreseen ( ^ D S ) but freedom is
given."
2 8
Ibid., 107.
2 9
Ibid., 108-113. He focuses especially on IQS 3:13-4:26 and C D C 2:7-14.
388 APPENDIX B
3 0
For an analysis of the Qumran scrolls that emphasizes the community's freedom
of choice, cf. F. Notscher, "Schicksalsglaube in Qumran und Umwelt", in his Vom Alien
bis Neuen Testament (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1962), 33-49.
3 1
Wachter, "Haltung", 113.
3 2
Ibid., 114.
3 3
Ibid., 106, 114.
3 4
This is now published as Mensch und freier Wille: nach den judischen Religionsparteien
zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr—P. Siebeck, 1981).
APPENDIX B 389
3 5
Maier, freier Wille, 4f. In fact, however, Holscher attributes War 2:162-166 to
Josephus himself; cf. his "Josephus", 1949 n. He argues for non-Josephan Jewish
authorship of the Essene passage (§§ 119-161), on the ground that it reflects familiarity
with Jewish conceptions (e.g., otyyeXot, 2:142; vofioOexT)?, 155f.) and is unfriendly toward
the Romans, §§ 152f.
3 6
Maier, freier Wille, 7.
3 7
Holscher, "Josephus", 1949 n.
3 8
Maier, freier Wille, 7.
3 9
Ibid., 8. He lists numerous parallels of content, as well as several close verbal
agreements.
4 0
Ibid., 9. Philo's discussion is in Every Good Man is Free, 75-91. Cf. Feldman, L C L
edition of Josephus, I X , 14f. n. d. and M . Smith, "The Description of the Essenes".
390 APPENDIX B
41
author and that author is evidently Josephus himself. That is not to
deny Josephus's use of sources or even literary assistants:
Es bedeutet aber, dass die Verantwortung fur die Redaktion der betref-
fenden Abschnitte bei Josephus liegt, der nicht nur die Rolle eines
42
unbedarften Kompilators spielt.
4 1
Cf. also Stahlin's protest against attributing Josephus's "fate" language either to
sources or to literary assistants, "Schicksal", 338f. He argues that Josephus must at least
have assented to the material that stands in his work.
4 2
Maier, freier Wille, 10.
4 3
Ibid., llf.
4 4
E.g., IQS 1:5; 5:3g.; 8:2. I have responded to Maier's proposals in chapter 6,
above.
4 5
Maier's point here (12) is not clear, since it is not usually claimed that Josephus
parallels the Sadducees to the Stoics.
4 6
Ibid., 12f.
4 7
Ibid., 13f.
APPENDIX B 391
significantly qualified his source. First, the phrase xat ou rcavra in § 172
(ot Oaptaatot xtva xoci 06 Tvdwa xffc etpappevrjs epyov etvat Xeyouat) Maier
takes to be a judaizing qualification of what might otherwise sound quite
48
Stoic. Second, Maier proposes that the whole clause in § 173 concern
49
ing human responsibility and <x(JouXia as a cause of misfortune has been
50
introduced by Josephus, since it reflects biblical-Jewish ideas.
(iii) Ant. 18:11-25. In the opening statement about the Essenes—
'Eaorjvots hi ird pev Geto xaTaXetrcetv cptXet TOC rcavxa 6 Xoyo?—Maier also
finds two clear Jewish emphases. First, perhaps under Philo's influence,
Josephus speaks only of G o d , not of fate. Second, he has the Essenes at
tribute all things to G o d ; this may be seen as a correction of Philo, who
51
has the Essenes wanting to protect G o d from any connection with evil.
Maier concedes that the description of the Pharisees' view of etpappevr)
(18:13) is difficult textually and grammatically and that it seems to be
more Stoic than Jewish; nevertheless he finds in the reference to God's
pleasure (Soxrjaav TCO Geto) and in the ethical emphasis a Jewish and there
52
fore Josephan influence.
T h e result of these analyses for Maier is as follows. Etpappevr) does not
appear in the school passages as the Stoic conception but is always subor
dinate to the G o d of the Jews. It amounts to predestination. Always
present in these passages, furthermore, is the religious question of
53
righteous or sinful action. T h e three passages agree in portraying the
Essenes as champions of predestination, the Sadducees as advocates of
free will, and the Pharisees as giving priority to predestination but in
5 4
sisting also that the decision to do good or evil lies with m a n . So
Josephus modified the material that he found in his Greek sources, to
give a truly Jewish character to the disputes between the schools.
Having so interpreted the school passages, Maier devotes the bulk of
his study to the question whether or not Josephus was correct in his
55
assertions. H e attempts to resolve the matter by examining three
sources: the Dead Sea Scrolls for the Essenes, the Psalms of Solomon for
the Pharisees, and Ben Sira for the Sadducees. Maier concludes: (i) that
4 8
Maier, freier Wille, 14f. That is, by reserving one area of human conduct,
presumably the religious-ethical sphere, to human choice alone, it would accord with the
rabbinic maxim quoted above (b. Ber. 33a).
4 9
From d>£ xat to Xap-Pavovxa?.
5 0
Ibid., 15.
5 1
Ibid., 17. Philo op. cit., 4.
5 2
Ibid.
5 3
Ibid., 17.
5 4
Ibid., 19f.
5 5
Ibid., 20.
392 APPENDIX B
the question of free will became an issue when Hellenistic philosophy in
fluenced some Jews to blame predestination for sin; (ii) that Ben Sira for
mulated a doctrine of free will in response to this crisis; (iii) that the
Sadducees maintained Ben Sira's position most closely; (iv) that the
Essenes tended toward the extreme predestinationism confronted by Ben
Sira 33: 7ff.; and (v) that the Pharisees held to both predestination and
freedom of the will, the latter especially in the area of righteous or sinful
56
action. In short, Josephus concisely and accurately represents the posi
tions of the three Jewish schools with respect to predestination and
57
thereby gives stunning proof of his claim to <xxpt(3eta.
Maier concedes that the issue of fate and free will was not as central
to Jewish debates as Josephus seems to imply, but argues that the real
issues were unreportable, either because they were dangerous
(apocalyptic-political themes) or because the would not be understood
58
(themes related to cult and T o r a h ) . T h e fate/free will debate, on the
contrary, was both alive and eminently reportable.
By positing that Josephus took over the school passages from Nicolaus
(and Philo) and reworked them where necessary to better accord with
reality, Maier has managed to absorb many of Moore's observations
about the Stoic flavour of the descriptions, especially that of the
Pharisees. A t the same time, however, he has overturned Moore's con
clusions (i) that etpappevrj in the school passages finally has a Stoic
nuance and (ii) that the historical reality of first-century Judaism was at
variance with Josephus's descriptions. H e falls in with Schlatter, Lauter
bach, Wachter, and the others in his conclusion that the Pharisees ac
tually did maintain a synergism between ''fate" and free will; he
demonstrates this, however, by examination of the Psalms of Solomon
59
rather than by the customary reference to rabbinic literature. Maier
has two significant differences with Wachter: first, he accepts the por
trayal of the Sadducees as an accurate statement of their position (as
found in Ben Sira)—"als habe er den Inhalt von Sir 15, 11-20 zu
60
beschreiben" —rather than as a misrepresentation inspired by dislike.
Second, Maier sees the occurrences of 6eo$ as Josephus's own qualifica
tions of his source's etpappevr); Wachter, conversely, views etpappevr) as
Josephus's attempt to fill 6e6$ with content.
5 6
Ibid., 344-46.
5 7
Ibid., 347f.
5 8
Ibid., 348f.
5 9
He takes this route deliberately, in order to avoid the problems of dating the rab
binic traditions, cf. freier Wille, 23.
6 0
Ibid., 347.
APPENDIX B 393
The two most recent discussions of the subject head in completely new
61
directions. A 1977 article by S. Pines discovers parallels between War
2:162 and a passage in Apuleius's (mid-2d. cent. A D ) work On Plato and
62
his Doctrine. Summarizing Plato's view of providence, fate, and chance,
Apuleius writes (1:12):
To be sure, he does not think that everything can be ascribed to the power
63
of fate; rather something rests with us and something also with chance.
Nec sane omnia referenda esse ad uim fati put ant, sed esse aliquid in nobis
et in fortuna esse non nihil.
Pines is impressed by the fact that both the Platonist and Josephus's
Pharisees attribute one sphere of events to providence and another to
64
human volition. ( H e thus takes xat TOrcpaTTetvTa Stxata xat pyj xaTa TO
TiXetarOv inl TOI$ av8pa>7uot£ in War 2:162 to be a qualification or limitation
65
of the preceding Oaptaatot. . . etpappevr; xat Oeco 7upoaarcTouat rcavTa.) In
particular he is struck by what he considers a close formal similarity:
both passages begin with a general ascription of everything (IZOLVZOL/omnia)
to fate, but then immediately qualify that statement in a way that seems
66
contradictory at first. Although Josephus's Pharisees do not have an
equivalent for Apuleius's "the cause of any evil (mali causa) cannot be
attributed to G o d " , Pines suggests that Josephus has carried this item
over to his description of the Sadducees, xat TOV Oeov e£cD TOU Spav Tt xaxov
67
fj ecpopav TtOevTat, because it did not fit with Pharisaic thought.
The parallel is so compelling to Pines that he is willing to theorize as
6 1
" A Platonistic Model for Two of Josephus's Accounts of the Doctrine of the
Pharisees Concerning Providence and Man's Freedom of Action", Immanuel 7 (1979),
38-43, trans. L. Lown.
6 2
Cf. Symposium 202e f. Note H . E. Butler's comment on this Platonistic work {Oxford
44
Classical Dictionary, p. 74): an exposition of the philosophy of Plato, showing neither
knowledge nor understanding".
6 3
For this English translation, I have compared the German by P. Siniscalo, and
Pines's excerpts as rendered by Lown.
6 4
Pines, "Platonistic Model", 39.
6 5
But see chapter 6 above'
6 6
Pines, "Platonistic Model", 40.
6 7
Ibid.; on xaxov, however, see n. 23 above.
394 APPENDIX B
There is strong internal evidence that the report in The Jewish War and in
Antiquities on the views of the Pharisees concerning the freedom of action
of man is an adaptation of a philosophical text which apparently resembled
69
the Greek original of the section by Apuleius quoted above.
All that remains for Pines is to find a likely candidate for the authorship
of the Greek Platonistic text used by Josephus to describe the Pharisees.
H e suggests the name of Antiochus of Ashkelon (early 1st. cent. B C )
because of the (presumably) large role played by this philosopher in for
70
mulating late and neo-Platonic positions. Pines concedes, however,
71
that "we are dealing exclusively with probabilities".
For Pines to be driven to broaden the meaning of "probabilities" as
he does, one would expect the parallels between War 2:162 and Apuleius
1:12 to be both exact and unique. T h e y are neither. W i t h respect to ex
actness, we may note: (i) that Apuleius on Plato does not attribute
everything to fate; (ii) that Pines contradicts himself by paralleling the
second proposition of Apuleius ( G o d cannot cause evil) with that of
7 2
Josephus (to do right or not rests with m a n ) and then admitting that
Josephus actually uses proto-Apuleius here for his description of the Sad
73
ducees, not the Pharisees; (iii) that whereas Apuleius attributes events
to three causes—fate, ourselves, and chance—Josephus mentions only
the first two; and (iv) that Josephus's second proposition (to do right or
not rests with man) does not limit the sphere of fate to non-moral events,
because he emphasizes finally that fate helps in each case. W e do not,
then, have much of a parallel. Apuleius's Plato attributes some things
to fate, some to ourselves, and some to chance. Josephus's Pharisees at
War 2:162 attribute everything to fate, including our own moral choices,
in which fate still assists.
With respect to uniqueness: Apuleius's three-fold attribution is
74 75
already present in Plato and Aristotle. T h e position of the Pharisees
in War 2:162, on the other hand, is much more closely paralleled, as
M o o r e has shown, by Cicero's description of Chrysippus's theory (On
6 8
Ibid., 42.
6 9
Pines, "Platonistic Model", 41.
7 0
Ibid., 42.
7 1
Ibid.
7 2
Ibid., 40.
7 3
Ibid., 40.
74
Symposium 202e.
75
Nicomachean Ethics 3.3-10; 5.1-3.
APPENDIX B 395
7 6
"Josephus's Use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 171-3", Numen 28
(1981), 127-135.
7 7
Ibid., 129f. The sketch is defecctive. For example, Martin has Wachter arguing
"the essential correctness" of Josephus on all three schools. In fact, Wachter thinks that
Josephus is accurate only in the case of Pharisees, that his presentation of the Essenes
needs to be qualified, and that his portrait of the Sadducees is inaccurate. See my sum
mary of Wachter above.
7 8
Martin, "Heimarmene", 130.
7 9
Ibid., 132.
8 0
Ibid.
8 1
Ibid. Martin a d d u c e s ^ / . 1:56, 167f.; 3:179-187.
8 2
Ibid.
8 3
Ibid. Cf. my analysis of this passage, in chapter 6, above. It is not clear to me why
this statement should be interpreted as astrological, since the Stoics also saw Fate ( = Lo
gos) as the universal cause.
8 4
Martin, "Heimarmene", 1 3 4 . 1 have argued above, however (chapter 6), that such
an interpretation fails to account for Josephus's affirmation of the omnipotence of fate.
396 APPENDIX B
pevrj-usage: the Jewish historian, like the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:8-9), is
proclaiming freedom from an oppressive, astrological "Fate".
Applying this discovery to Ant. 13:171-173, in which the three schools
are compared with respect to their views on etpappevrj, Martin finds that:
He presents the Jews as the people who are freed from heimarmene by the
providence of God, and who consequently exercise free will and human
88
responsibility in and through their obedience to Torah.
8 5
Ibid. I cannot paraphrase Martin's conclusion because several readings have left
me unable to comprehend its sense as an interpretation oi Ant. 13:171-173. I am unable
to find any suggestion in Josephus that the rule of etpappevr) is a. pagan view. On the con
trary, it is the (beloved) Essenes who make fate the xupioc of all.
8 6
This inference is unclear. Josephus gives three views of fate.
8 7
Martin, "Heimarmene", 135.
8 8
Ibid.
8 9
Ibid., 128.
9 0
Ibid., 129.
APPENDIX B 397
Conclusion
All of the studies considered offer some useful information and insight
into our problem: W h a t does Josephus mean to say in War 2:162, Ant.
13:171f., and Ant. 18:13 about the Pharisees' view of fate? All of them,
however, ask the historical question too quickly. This is true even of
Maier's work, which ostensibly devotes its first chapter to ascertaining
Josephus's meaning before preceding to ask whether he was correct.
U p o n examination, one finds that the three pages given there to inter
preting War 2:162, for example, are consumed by the quest to find the
Jewish (and therefore Josephan) elements in the passage. Remarkably,
97
no attempt is made to examine Josephus's usage of etpappevr). Moore,
Wachter, and Martin all offer some sort of comment on other instances
9 1
Ibid., 133. Martin has correctly apprehended the dominance of the astrological in
terpretation of fate in the early centuries of our era; cf. Amand, Fatalisme, 12ff.; Nock,
Conversion, 99f.; Bergman, " I Overcome Fate", 42; Gundel, ''Heimarmene'', 2641.
92
War 2:166.
93
Ant. 20:199.
9 4
Cf. esp. War 2:119-161.
95
Cf.Ant. 10:247f.; Ag.Ap. 2:180; esp. War 4:622; Ant. 19:347; and chapter 6, above.
9 6
Tacitus, Annals 6:22.
9 7
Maier, freier Wille, 11-14.
398 APPENDIX B
9 8
Moore, "Fate", 375f., distinguishes Josephus's usage of etpappevr) in the school
passages from his usage elsewhere. O f the former he says: "It is fair to assume that .
... Heimarmene is used in what was at least meant to be its philosophical [sc. "un-
Jewish"] definition." The other occurrences, Moore claims, pose "no difficulty" (i.e.,
accord with "Jewish" views). Wachter likewise posits major inconsistencies in
Josephus's usage of etpappevr), "Haltung", 101-103. Neither of these critics offers more
than bare assertions. Cf. my analysis above, (chapter 6), in which I argue that
Josephus's use of etpappevr) in the school passages is consistent with his usage elsewhere.
9 9
Given the high degree of cross-fertilization between Hellenism and Judaism; given
the eclecticism of both Stoicism (Greene, Moira, 342) and Middle Platonism (Armstrong,
"Greek Philosophy", 211) in the first century A D ; and given the major deficiencies in
our knowledge of both Pharisaism and Stoicism, we should be wary of tying Josephus
narrowly to any particular "parallel" or current of thought. Momigliano's comment on
another writer of the period well illustrates the point: "Even the trained student of today
finds it difficult to disentangle the Platonic from the Stoic, the Epicurean from the Cynic
element in Seneca's philosophy." Cf. "Seneca Between Political and Contemplative
Life", in Momigliano, Quarto Contributo all Storial degli Classici e del Mondo Antico (Rome:
Edizione di Storia et Letteratura, 1969), 240.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1
I. Texts and Reference Works
Apuleius. Platon and seine Lehre, ed. P. Siniscalo, trans. K . Albert. "Texte zur
Philosophic", 4. Sankt Augustin: Hans Richarz, 1980.
Betant, E. A . , ed. Lexicon Thucydideum, 2 vols. Hildesheim: G . Olms, 1961 [1843].
Chadwick, H . The Sentences ofSextus: a contribution to the study of early Christian ethics. Cam
bridge: University Press, 1959.
Charles, R . H . , ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, vol.
2: Pseudepigrapha._ Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.
Cicero, M . Tullius. Uber das Fatum, 2d. edn., ed. K . Bayer. Munich: Heimeran, 1976
[1959].
y
Complete Works of Josephus in Ten Volumes: a new and revised edition based on Havercamp s
translation. Cleveland-New York: World Syndicate Publishing Company, n. d.
Cornfeld, G . , B. Mazar, and P. L. Maier, edd. Josephus: the Jewish War. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1982.
Dalman, G. H . Aramdisch-Neuhebraisches Handwdrterbuch zu Targum, Talmud und Midrasch,
2d. edn. Frankfurt a. M . : J. Kaufmann, 1922.
. Grammatik des judisch-paldstinischen Aramdisch: aramaische Dialektproben, 2d. edn.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960 [1927].
Eigler, G . , ed. Platon: Werke in acht Bdnden: Griechisch und Deutsch. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977.
Essen, M . H . N . von, ed. Index Thucydideus. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887.
Feldman, L. H . Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-1980), ed. W . Haase. Berlin: W .
de Gruyter, 1983.
. Studies in Judaica: Scholarship on Philo and Josephus (1937-1962). New York: Yeshiva
University, n. d.
Gesenius, W . Hebrdische Grammatik, ed. E. Kautzsch. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962
[1909].
Gomme, A . W . , A . Andrewes, and K . J. Dover. A Historical Commentary on Thucydides,
5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981.
Hafaeli, L. Flavius Josephus' Lebensbeschreibung. "Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen",
II.4. Minister: Aschendorf, 1925.
Hartom, A . S., ed. Ha-Sifrim ha-Hisonim, 4 vols. Tel Aviv: Yavneh, 1958.
Jastrow, M . A Dictionary of the Targumim the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic
Literature, 2 vols. New York: Pardes Publishing House, 1950.
Kautzsch, E . , ed. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des AI ten Testaments, 2 vols.
Tiibingen-Greibung-Leipzig: J. C . B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1900.
Michel, O . and O . Bauernfeind, edd. De Bello Judaico: Der judische Krieg. Griechisch und
Deutsch, 4 vols. Munich: Kosel, 1959-1969.
Niese, B., ed. Flavii Josephi Opera, 3 vols. Berlin: Weidmann, 1887-1904.
O'Neil, E. Teles (The Cynic Teacher). "SBL Texts and Translations", 11; "Graeco-
Roman Religion", 3. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977.
Palmer, L. R . The Greek Language. "The Great Languages". London, Boston: Faber and
Faber, 1980.
Rappaport, U . "Bibliography of Works on Jewish History in the Hellenistic and Roman
1
With the exceptions and additions noted below, I have used the L C L editions of
classical texts.
400 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Periods, 1946-1970", in Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel,
edd. B. Obed et al. Haifa: University of Haifa, 1972, II, 272-321.
Reinach, T . , ed. Oeuvres Completes de Flavius Josephe, 7 vols. Paris: E. Leroux, 1900ff.
Rengstorf, K . H . et al. A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus, 4 vols. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1973-1983. Supplement I: Namenworterbuch zu Flavius Josephus, ed. A . Schalit,
1968.
Schreckenberg, H . Bibliographic zu Flavius Josephus. "Arbeiten zur Literatur und
Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums", 1. Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1968. Vol. 14:
Supplementband mit Gesamtregister, 1979.
Segal, M . H . A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew. Oxford: Clarendon, 1958.
Stobaeus, J. Anthologium, 5 vols., edd. C . Wachsmuth and O . Hense. Berlin: Weid
mann, 1957.
Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols., ed. A . von Arnim. Leipzig: B. G . Teubner, 1903.
Thackeray, H . St. J. and R . Marcus. A Lexicon to Josephus, 4 vols. "Publications of the
Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation". Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Guen-
ther, 1930-1955.
Thackeray, H . St. J., R . Marcus, A . Wikgren, and L. Feldman, edd. Josephus, 10 vols.
"Loeb Classical Library". Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; London:
William Heinemann, 1976-1981.
Thompson, E. and W . C . Price, edd. The Works of Flavius Josephus, 2 vols. London:
Fielding and Walker, 1777.
Vermes, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962.
Whiston, W . ed. The Life and works of Flavius Josephus. New York: Holt, Reinhart and
Winston, n. d. [1737].
Abrahams, I. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: First and Second Series. "Library of
Biblical Studies". New York: Ktav, 1968 [1917 and 1924].
Alon, G. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the
Second Temple and Talmud, trans. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977.
Altheim, F. A History of Roman Religion, trans. H . Mattingly. London: Methuen & C o . ,
1938.
Amand, D . Fatalisme et Liberte dans VAntiquite Grecque: recherches sur la survivance de Vargumen-
tation morale anti-fataliste de Carneade chez les philosphes grecs et les theologiens chretiens de
quatre premiers siecles. "Universite de Louvain, Recueil de Travoux d' Histoire et de
Philologie", 3.19. Louvain: Bibliotheque de TUniversite, 1945.
Armstrong, A . H . "Greek Philosophy from the Age of Cicero to Plotinus", in The Cruci
ble of Christianity: Judaism, Hellenism and the Historical Background to the Christian Faith,
ed. A . Toynbee. London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
Attridge, H . W . The Interpretation of Biblical History in the Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius
Josephus. "Harvard Dissertations in Religion", 7. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976.
Aune, D . E. "Critical Notes: the use of IIPOOHTHS in Josephus", JBL 101 (1982),
419-421.
Avenarius, G. Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. Meisenheim-Glan: Anton Hain,
1956.
Bacher, W . Tradition und Tradenten in den Schulen Palastinas und Babyloniens: Studien und
Materialen zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Talmuds. Leipzig: Gustav Fock, 1914.
Baeck, L. Paulus, die Pharisaer und das Neue Testament. Frankfurt: Ner-Tamid, 1961.
. The Pharisees and Other Essays. New York: Schocken, 1947.
Bamberger, B. J. "The Sadducees and the Belief in Angels", JBL 82 (1963), 433-435.
Barish, D . A . "The Autobiography of Josephus and the Hypothesis of a Second Edition
of his Antiquities", HTR 71 (1978), 61-75.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 401
Baron, S. W . A Social and Religious History of the Jews, I and II: Ancient Times, 2d. edn.
New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.
Bauernfeind, O . and O . Michel. "Die beiden Elezarreden in Jos. Bell. 7. 323-336 und
7.341-388", ZNW 58 (1967), 267-272.
Baumbach, G. "Das Sadduzaerverstandnis bei Josephus Flavius und im Neuen Testa
ment", Kairos 13 (1971), 17-37.
. "Jesus und die Pharisaer: ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem historischen Jesus",
Bibel undLiturgie 41 (1968), 112-131.
Baumgarten, A . I. "The Name of the Pharisees", JBL 102 (1983), 411-428.
Baumgarten, J. M . "The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the
Qumran Texts", JJS 31 (1980), 157-170.
. "The unwritten Law in the Pre-Rabbinic Period", JSJ 3 (1972), 7-29.
Beasley-Murray, G . R . "The Two Messiahs in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs", JTS 48 (1947), 1-12.
Beilner, W . Christus und die Pharisaer: exegetische Untersuchung uber Grund und Verlauf der Au-
seinandersetzung. Vienna: Herder, 1959.
. "Der Ursprung des Pharisaismus", Biblische Zeitschrift, n.F. 3 (1959), 235-251.
Benario, H . W . An Introduction to Tacitus. Athens G A : University of Georgia Press, 1975.
Bentwich, N . Josephus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1919.
Bergman, J. "I Overcome Fate, Fate Hearkens to M e " , in Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion,
Folklore, and Literature, ed. H . Ringgren, Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1967,
35-51.
Bergmann, J. "Die stoische Philosophic und die jiidische Frommigkeit", in Judaica:
Festschrift zu Hermann Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage, edd. I. .Elbogen, B. Kellermann
and E. Mittwoch. New York: Arno, 1980 [Berlin: Bruno Cassirer, 1912], 145-166.
Betz, O . , K . Haacker, and P. Schafer, edd. Josephus-Studien: Untersuchungen zu Josephus,
dem antiken Judentum und dem Neuen Testament. Otto Michel zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet.
Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974.
Bickerman, E. J. "La Chaine de la tradition pharisienne", Studies in Jewish and Christian
History, "Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristen-
thums", 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980, II, 256-269.
Bilde, P. "The Causes of the Jewish W a r According to Josephus", JSJ 10 (1979),
179-202.
Black, M . "The Account of the Essenes in Hippolytus and Josephus", in The Background
of the New Testament and its Eschatology, edd. W . D . Davies and D . Daube. Cam
bridge: University Press, 1956, 172-175.
. "Pharisees", IDB III (1962), 774-781.
Blenkinsopp, J. "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus", JJS 25 (1974), 239-262.
Bloch, H . Die Quellen des Flavius in seiner Archdologie. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1879.
Bloch, M . Apologie der Geschichte oder der Beruf des Historikers, trans. S. Furtenbach, 2d. ed.,
rev. F. J. Lucas. Stuttgart: E. Klett-J.G. Cotta, 1974.
Blumenthal, H . von. "Palingenesia", PWRE 18:3, 139-148.
Bousset, W . Die Religion des Judentums im spdthellenistischen Zeitalter, 4th edn., ed. H .
Gressmann. "Handbuch zum Neuen Testament", 21. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr
(Siebeck), 1966 [1926].
Bowker, J. Jesus and the Pharisees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Brandon, S. G . F. The Judgment of the Dead: An Historical and Comparative Study of the Idea
of a Post-Mortem Judgment in the Major Religions. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1967.
Braun, M . Griechischer Roman und hellenistische Geschichtsschreibung. "Franfurter Studien
zur Religion und Kultur der Antike", 6. Frankfurt a. M . : V . Klostermann, 1934.
Brown, S. The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament. "The
Oxford Bible Series". Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Broyde, L , "Fatalism", The Jewish Encyclopedia, V , 351. New York: Funk and Wagnalls,
1925.
402 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brune, B. Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhaltnis zum Judentume, zur griechisch-
romischen Welt und zum Christentum; mit griechischer Wortkonkordanz zum Neuen Testament
und I. Clemensbriefe nebst sach- und Namen-Verzeichnis. Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1969
[1913].
Buchsel, F. "iwXirr*veak", TDNT, I, 686-689.
Buehler, W . W . The Pre-Herodian Civil War and Social Debate: Jewish Society in the Period 76-
40 B. C. and the Social Factors Contributing to the Rise of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
,
"Theologische Dissertationen' , 11. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt; 1974 [dissertation,
Basel, 1964].
Burgmann, H . "Der Griinder der Pharisaergenossenschaft: der Makkabaer Simon",
JJS 9 (1978), 153-191.
. "The Wicked Woman: Der Makkabaer Simon?", Revue de Qumran 8 (1972),
323-359.
Burkitt, F. C . The Gospel History and Its Transmission, 2d. edn. Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark,
1907.
Burrows, M . "Messiahs of Aaron and Israel", ATR 34 (1952), 202-206.
. More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Viking Press, 1958.
Byatt, A . "Josephus and Population Numbers in 1st Century Palestine", Palestine Ex
ploration Quarterly 105 (1973), 51-60.
Cavallin, H . C . C . Life After Death: Paul's Argument. . . . Part I. An Enquiry into the Jewish
Background. Lund: Gleerup, 1974.
Charles, R . H . Eschatology: the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity:
a Critical History. New York: Schocken Books, 1963 [1899].
. Religious Development Between The Old and The New Testaments. "Home University
Library of Modern Knowledge", 94. London-New York-Toronto: Oxford Univer
sity Press, 1914.
Cioffari, V . "Fortune, Fate and Chance", Dictionary of the History of Ideas, II, 225-236.
ed. P. P. Wiener. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973.
Cohen, J. Les Pharisiens, 2 vols. Paris: C . Levy, 1877.
Cohen, N . G. "Josephus and Scripture: Is Josephus' Treatment of the Scriptural Nar
rative Similar Throughout the Antiquities I - X I ? " , JQR 54 (1963-64), 311-332.
Cohen, S. J. D . Josephus in Galilee and Rome: his Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1979.
Collingwood, R . G. The Idea of History. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948.
Collump, P. "Der Platz des Josephus in der Technik der hellenistischen
Geschichtsschreibung", Wege der Forschung 84 (1974), 278-293.
Connor, W . R . Thucydides. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Cook, M . J. "Jesus and the Pharisees— the Problem as it Stands Today", JES 15
(1978), 441-460.
. Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders. "Supplements to Novum Testamentum",
51. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978.
Creed, J. L. "Moral Values in the Age.of Thucydides", CQ 23 (1973), 213-231.
Creuzer, F. "Ruckblick auf Josephus: judische, christliche Monumente und Per-
sonalien", TSK 26 (1853), 906-928.
Cross, F. M . Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran. "The Haskell Lectures, 1956-1957".
London: Gerald Duckworth, 1958.
Cumont, F. After Life in Roman Paganism: Lectures delivered at Yale University on the Silliman
Foundation. New Haven: Yale University Press; London: Oxford University Press,
1922.
Cumont, F. Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. New York: Dover, 1956 [1911].
Davies, W . D . Christian Origins and Judaism. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1962.
Delling, G. "Josephus und die heidnischen Religionen", Klio, 43 (1965), 263-269; repr.
in the author's Studien zum Neuen Testament und zum hellenistischen Judentum: Gesammelte
Aufsatze 1950-68. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970, 34-42.
Derenbourg, J. Essai sur I'Histoire et al Geographic de la Palestine: d'apres les Thalmuds et les
BIBLIOGRAPHY 403
autres sources rabbiniques, pt. I: Histoire de la Palestine depuis Cyrus jusqu' a Adrien.
Hildesheim: H . A . Gerstenberg, 1975 [1867].
Destinon, J. von. Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus I: Die Quellen der Archdologie Buch XII-XVII
+ Jiid. Krieg Buch I. Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer, 1882.
Dexinger, F. "Die Geschichte der Pharisaer", Bibel und Kirche 35 (1980), 113-117.
Dietrich, B. C . Death, Fate and the Gods: the development of a religious idea in Greek popular
belief and in Homer. "University of London Classical Studies", 3. London: Athlone,
1965.
Dietrich, E. L. "Pharisaer", in RGG, 3. Auflage, V , 326f.
Dodd, C . H . The Bible and the Greeks. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935.
Downing, F. G. "Common Ground with Paganism in Luke and in Josephus", NTS 28
(1982), 546-559.
. "Redaction Criticism; Josephus' Antiquities and the Synoptic Gospels", JSNT 8
(1980), 46-65; 9 (1980), 29-48.
Drexler, H . "Untersuchungen zu Josephus und zur Geschichte des judischen
Aufstandes", Klio 19 (1925), 277-312.
Dubnow, S. Weltgeschichte des judischen Volkes: von seinen Uranfdngen bis zur Gegenwart, 70
vols. Berlin: Judischer Verlag, 1925-29.
Dudley, D . R . The World of Tacitus. London: Seeker & Warburg, 1968.
Earl, D . "Prologue-form in ancient Historiography", in Aufstieg und Niedergang der
romischen Welt. . ., ed. H . Temporini. I: Von den Anfangen Roms bis zum Ausgang der
Republik, vol. 2. Berlin-New York: W . de Gruyter, 1972, 842-856.
Ehrhardt, A . "The Construction and Purpose of the Acts of the Apostles", Studia
Theologica 12 (1958), 45ff.
Ehrlich, E. L. "Zur Geschichte der Pharisaer", Freiburger Rundbrief 29 (1977), 46-52.
Eisler, R . The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist: according to Flavius Josephus' recently
discovered 'Capture ofJerusalem' and other Jewish and Christian Sources, trans, and ed. A .
H . Krappe. London: Methuen & C o . , 1931.
Elbogen, I. "Einige neuere Theorien uber den Ursprung der Pharisaer und Sad-
duzaer", in Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams. New York: Jewish Institute of
Religion, 1927, 135-148.
. Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisaer: mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Begrijfe Gott
und Mensch. "Lehranstalt fur die Wissenschaft des Judenthums", 22. Berlin: H . It-
zkowski, 1904.
Farmer, W . R . Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the
Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956.
Feldman, L. H . "The Identity of Pollio, the Pharisee, in Josephus", JQR 49 (1958-59),
53-62.
. "Josephus as an Apologist to the Roman World: his Portrait of Solomon", in
Aspects of Religious Propaganda in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. E. S. Fiorenza.
"Studies in Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity", 2. Notre Dame-London:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1976, 68-98.
Finley, M . I. The Use and Abuse of History. London: Chatto & Windus, 1975.
Finkel, A . The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth: A Study of their Background, their Halakhic
and Midrashic Teachings, the Similarities and Differences, "Arbeiten zur Geschichte des
Spatjudentums und Urchristentums", Bd. 4. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964.
Finkelstein, L. "The Origin of the Pharisees", Conservative Judaism 23 (1969), 25-36.
. Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays. New York: Ktav, 1972.
. The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Synagogue. "Texts and Studies of the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America", 15. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary,
1950.
. The Pharisees: The Sociological Background oftheir Faith, 2 vols. "Morris Loeb Series".
Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938.
. "The Pharisees: Their Origin and their Philosophy", HTR 22 (1929) 185-261.
Fischel, H . A . "Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Historiography and
Pharisaism", in American Oriental Society—Middle West Branch: Semi-Centennial Volume,
404 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Janson, T . Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions. "Acta Universitatis Stockhol-
,
miensis: Studia Latina Stockholmiensia ', 13. Stockholm-Gotborg-Uppsala: Alm-
qvist & Wiksell, 1964.
Jeremias, J. Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu: kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur neutestamentlichen
Zeitgeschichte, 2. Auflage. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958.
Johnson, B. "Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen sadaq und sedaqa", Annual of the
Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1977/78), 31-39.
Kajanto, I. God and Fate in Livy. "Annales Universitatis Turkuensis", B. 64. Turku:
Turun Yliopiston Kustantama, 1957.
Kallai, Z . "The Biblical Geography of Flavius Josephus", Fourth World Congress ofJewish
Studies (1965), I V (1967), 203-207.
Kieval, P. "The Talmudic View of the Hasmonean and early Herodian Periods in
Jewish History". Dissertation, Brandeis, 1970.
Klausner, J. The Messianic Idea in Israel: From its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah,
trans. W . F. Stinespring. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956.
Klein, R . W . "Aspects of Intertestamental Messianism", Concordia Theological Monthly
43 (1972), 507-517.
Kleinknecht, H . and W . Gutbrod, "v6{io<;", TDNT, I V , 1023-1051.
Knight Jackson, W . F. Elysion: on ancient Greek and Roman beliefs concerning a life after death.
London: Rider & Co. 1970.
Knox, W . L. "Pharisaism and Hellenism", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in
One, edd. W . O . E. Oesterley, H . Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York: Ktav,
1969 [1937-38], 61-111.
Kohler, K . "Pharisees", The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav, 1904, I X , 661-666.
Krenkel, M . Josephus und Lukas: der schriftstellerische Einfluss des judischen Geschichtschreibers
auf den christlichen nachgewiesen. Liepzig: H . Haessel, 1894.
Kummel, W . G. "Die Weherufe uber die Schriftgelehrten und Pharisaer (Matthaus 23,
13-36)", in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? exegetische und systematische Beitrage.
Munich: Kaiser, 1967.
Lachs, S. T . "The Pharisees and Sadducees on Angels: A Reexamination of Acts
X X I I I . 8 " , Gratz College Annual of Jewish Studies 6 (1977), 35-42.
Laqueur, R . Der judische Historiker Flavius Josephus: ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer
quellenkritischer Grundlage. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970
[1920].
Laurin, R . B. "The Problem of Two Messiahs in the Qumran Scrolls", Revue de Qumran
4 (1963), 39-52.
Lauterbach, J. Z . "The Pharisees and their Teachings", HUCA 6 (1929)), 69-139.
. "The Sadducees and Pharisees: a Study of their Respective Attitudes toward the
Law", in Studies in Jewish Literature: issued in honor of Professor Kaufmann Kohler . . .
on the occasion of his seventieth Birthday. . . . Berlin: Reimer, 1913, 176-198.
Leach, A . "Fate and Free Will in Greek Literature", in The Greek Genius and its Influence:
Select Essays and Extracts, ed. L. Cooper. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1917,
132-155.
Leipoldt, J. and W . Grundmann. Umwelt des Urchristentums, 3 vols. Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1965-66.
Le Moyne, J. Les Sadduceens. "Etudes bibliques". Paris: Lecoffre, 1972.
Leszynsky, R . "Pharisaer", in Judisches Lexicon: ein enzyklopddisches Handbuch des judischen
Wissens in vier Bdnden, edd. G. Herlitz, B. Kirschner et al. Berlin: Judischer Verlag,
1930, 4:1, 894-896.
. Pharisaer und Sadduzder. "Volkschriften uber die judische Religion", 1:2. Frankfurt
a. M . : J. Kaufmann, 1912.
Levi, I. "Les sources talmudiques de l'histoire juive. I: Alexandre Jannee, et Simon Ben
Schetah", Revue d'Etudes Juives 35 (1897), 213-283.
Levine, I. L. " O n the Political Involvement of the Pharisees under Herod and the Pro
curators", Cathedra 8 (1978), 12-28 [Hebrew].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 407
. Pagan Ideas of Immortality During the Roman Empire. "The Ingersoll Lecture, 1918",
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918.
Moore, G. F. "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to Josephus",
HTR 22 (1929), 371-389.
. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols. Cam
bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930.
. "The Rise of Normative Judaism, I " , HTR 17 (1924), 307-373.
Morel, W . "Eine Rede bei Josephus (Bell. Jud. V I I 341 sqq.)", Rheinisches Museum for
Philologie 75 (1926), 106-115.
Mosley, A . W . "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World", NTS 12 (1965-66), 10-26.
Neusner, J. "Josephus's Pharisees", in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren, I.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972, 224-253.
. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1973.
. A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (ca. 1-80 C.E.). "Studia Post-Biblica", 6.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.
. "Pharisaic Law in New Testament Times", Union Seminary Quarterly Review 26
(1971), 331-340.
. "Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism: A Clarification", History of Religions 12 (1973),
250-270.
. "Pre-70 C . E . Pharisaism: the Record of the Rabbis", CCARJ 19 (1972), 53-70.
— . The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.
. "The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees in Modern Historiography",
CCARJ 19 (1972), 78-108.
Nicklesburg, G. W . Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism
(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Nicolaus, M . Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les Deux Siecles anterieurs a VEre Chre-
tienne, 2d. edn. Paris: Michel Levy, 1867.
Niese, B. "Josephus", ERE, V I I , 569-579.
. "Der judische Historiker Josephus", HZ, n.F. 40 (1896), 193-237.
Nikolainen, A . T . Der Auferstehungsglauben in der Bibel und ihrer Umwelt. I: Religions-
geschichtlicher Teil. "Annales Acadamiae Scientiarum Fennicae", 59. Helsinki: A .
G. der Finnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1944.
Norden, E. Die antike Kunstprosa, 5th edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1958 [1898].
Notscher, F., ed. Vom Alten zum Neuen Testament: Gesammelte Aufsdtze. "Bonner Biblische
Beitrage", 17. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1962.
Oesterley, W . O . E. The Jews and Judaism during the Greek Period: The Background of Chris
tianity. London: S. P. C . K . , 1941.
and G. H . Box. The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue: An Introduction to the Study
of Judaism from the New Testament Period. London: Pitman, 1907.
Olitzki, M . Flavius Josephus und die Halacha. Berlin: H . Iskowski, 1885.
Palm, J. Uber Sprache und Stil des Diodoros von Sizilien: ein Beitrag zur Beleuchtung der hellenisti
schen Prosa. Lund: C . W . K . Gleerup, 1955.
Paret, H . "Uber den Pharisaismus des Josephus", TSK 29 (1856), 809-844.
Parkes, J. F. The Foundations of Judaism and Christianity. London: Vallentine-Mitchell,
1960.
Patterson, R . L. Plato on Immortality. University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1965.
Pelletier, A. Flavius Josephe, adapteur de la lettre d'Aristee. "Etudes et commentaires", 45.
Paris: Klincksieck, 1962.
Peter, H . Wahrheit und Kunst: Geschichtsschreibung und Plagiat im Klassischen Altertum.
Leipzig-Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1911.
Petersen, H . "Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus", American Journal of
Philology 79 (1958), 259-274.
410 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Pfeiffer, R . H . History of New Testament Times: with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. Lon
don: Adam and Charles Black, 1949.
Pick, B. " A Study on Josephus with Special Reference to the Old Testament", Lutheran
Quarterly 91 (1889), 325-346; 599-616.
Pines, S. " A Platonistic Model for Two of Josephus's Accounts of the Doctrine of the
Pharisees Concerning Providence and Man's Freedom of Action", Immanuel 7
(1977), 38-43.
Polish, D . "Pharisaism and Political Sovereignty", Judaism 19 (1970), 415-422.
Posnanski, A . Uber die religionsphilosophischen Anschauungen des Flavius Josephus. Breslau: T .
Schatzky, 1887.
Preisker, H . Neutestamentliche Theologie. "Hilfsbucher zum theologischen Studium", 2d.
series, 2 Bde. Berlin: A . Topelmann, 1937.
Przybylski, B. Righteousness in Matthew. " S N T S Monograph Series", 41. Cambridge:
University Press, 1980.
Rabin, C . "Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees", JJS 1 (1956), 3-11.
Rajak, T . Josephus: the Historian and his Society. "Classical Life and Letters", London:
Duckworth, 1983.
. "Justus of Tiberias", CQ 23 e(1973), 345-368.
Rappaport, S. Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus. "Veroffentlichungen der Oberrab-
biner Dr. H.P. Chajes: Preisstiftung an der israelitisch-theologischen Lehranstalt
in W i e n " , 3. Vienna: A . Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930.
Rasp, H . "Flavius Josephus und die judischen Religionsparteien", ZNW 23 (1924),
27-47.
Reinach T . Textes d'Autres Grecs et Romains relatifs au Judaisme. Hildesheim: G . Olms, 1963
[1895].
Reesor, M . E. "Fate and Possibility in Early Stoic Philosophy", Phoenix 19 (1965),
285-297.
Reicke, B. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte: die biblische Welt 500 v. - 100 n. Chr. Berlin: A .
Topelmann, 1965.
Reiling, J. "The Use of c|)eu8o7cpo9rjTrj(; in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus", NovT
13 (1971), 147-156.
Revel, B. "Some Anti-Traditional Laws of Josephus ",JQR n.s. 14 (1923-24), 293-301.
Richards, G . C . "The Composition of Josephus' Antiquities", CQ33 (1939), 36-40.
and R . J . H . Shutt. "Critical Notes on Josephus's Antiquities", CQ31 (1937), 170-
177, and 33 (1939), 180-183.
Ringgren, H . "The Problem of Fatalism", in Fatalistic Beliefs in Religion, Folklore, and
Literature, ed. H . Ringgren. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1967, 7-18.
Rist, J. M . Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge: University Press 1969.
Rist, M . "Apocalypticism", IDB I (1962), 157-161.
Rivkin, E. "Defining the Pharisees: the Tannaitic sources", HUCA 40 (1969) 205-249.
A Hidden Revolution: Nashville: Abingdon, 1978.
"Pharisaism and the Crisis of the Individual in the Greco-Roman World", JQR
61 (1970), 27-53.
"Pharisees", IDBS, 657-663.
"Prolegomenon", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in One, edd. W . O . E.
Oesterley, H . Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York: Ktav, 1969 [1937-38],
I, vii-lxx.
. "Scribes, Pharisees, Lawyers, Hypocrites: A Study in Synonymity", HUCA 49
(1978), 135-142.
. The Shaping of Jewish History: A Radical New Interpretation. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1971.
, H . Fischel et al. " A Symposium on the Pharisees", CCARJ 14 (1967), 32-47.
Ross, J. The Jewish Conception of Immortality and the Life Hereafter: An Anthology. Belfast:
Belfast News-Letter, Ltd. 1948.
Roth, C . "The Constitution of the Jewish Republic of 66-70", JJS 9 (1964), 295-319.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 411
Usher, S. The Historians of Greece and Rome. New York: Toplinger, 1970.
van Tilborg, S. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.
van Unnik, W . C . Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg: Lambert
Schneider, 1978.
. "Flavius Josephus and the Mysteries", in Studies in Hellenistic Religions, ed. M . J.
Vermaseren. "Etudes Preliminaries aux Religions Orientales dans TEmpire Ro-
main", 78. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979, 244-279.
Vermes, G . The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective. London: Collins, 1977.
, F. Millar, and M . Black, edd. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ, by E. Schurer, 3 vols. Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1979ff.
Wacholder, B. Z . The Dawn of Qumran: the Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness.
Cincinatti: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983.
. Nicolaus of Damascus. "University of California Publications in History", 75.
Berkeley-Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962.
Wachter, L. "Die unterschiedliche Haltung der Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener zur
Heimarmene nach dem Bericht des Josephus", ZRGG 21 (1969), 97-114.
Weber, F. Judische Theologie auf Grund des Talmud und verwandter Schriften, 2. Auflage. Leip
zig: Dorffling & Franke, 1897 [1880].
Weber, M . "Die Pharisaer", in Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Religionssoziologie, III: Das antike
Judentum, 2. Auflage. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1923, 401-442.
Weber, W.Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem judischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus.
Berlin-Stuttgart-Leipzig: W . Kohlhammer, 1921.
Weiss, H.-F. "Pharisaismus und Hellenismus: zur Darstellung des Judentums im
Geschichtswerk des judischen Historikers Flavius Josephus", Orientalistische
Literarzeitung 74 (1979), 421-433.
Wellhausen, J. Die Pharisaer und die Sadducder: eine Untersuchung zur inneren judischen
Geschichte. Greifswald: L. Bamberg, 1874.
Wells, G. L. and E. F. Loftus, ed. Eyewitness Testimony: Psychological Perspectives. Cam
bridge: University Press, 1984.
Wendland, P. Die hellenistisch-romische Kultur. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr, 1912.
Wenley, R . M . Stoicism and its Influence. "Our Debt to Greece and Rome", 7. Boston:
Marshall Jones C o . , 1924.
Westerholm, S. "Jesus, the Pharisees, and the Application of Divine Law", Eglise et
Theologie 13 (1982), 191-210.
Whittaker, M . Jews and Christians: Graeco-Roman Views. "Cambridge Commentaries on
Writings of the Jewish and Christian World, 200 BC to A D 2 0 0 " , 6. Cambridge:
University Press, 1984.
Wild, R . A . "The Encounter Between Pharisaic and Christian Judaism: Some Early
Gospel Evidence", NovT 27 (1985), 105-124.
Windelband, W . A History of Philosophy: with especial reference to the formation and development
of its problems and conceptions, 2d. edn., trans. J. H . Tufts. New York: MacMillan,
1910.
Wittmann, M . "Aristoteles und die Willensfreiheit", Philologische Wochenschrift 34
(1921), 5-30.
Yavetz, Z . "Reflections on Titus and Josephus", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 16
(1975), 411-432.
Zeitlin, S. "The Origin of the Pharisees Reaffirmed", JQR 59 (1969), 255-267.
. The Rise and Fall of the Judaean State: A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second
Commonwealth, 3 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America,
1962-1978.
. "The Sicarii and Masada", JQR 57 (1967), 251-270.
. "Spurious Interpretations of Rabbinic Sources in the Studies of the Pharisees and
Pharisaism", JQR 65 (1974), 122-135.
. " A Survey of Jewish Historiography; from the biblical books to the Sefer Ha-
Kabbalah with special emphasis on Josephus", JQR 59 (1969), 37-68, 171-214.
414 BIBLIOGRAPHY
. " W h o Were the Galileans? New light on Josephus' activities in Galilee", JQR 64
(1974), 189-203.
Ziesler, J. A . "Luke and the Pharisees", NTS 25 (1979), 146-157.
. The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul. " S N T S Monograph Series", 20. Cambridge:
University Press, 1972.
INDEX OF M O D E R N A U T H O R S
Destinon, J. von 21-22, 188, 195, 214 Greene, W . D . 133 n. 51, 136 n. 58,
nn. 7-8, 219 n. 21, 221 n. 39, 222 n. 140 n. 79, 149 n. 120, 150 n. 128,
47, 236 n. 107, 275 n. 96 151 n. 134, 152 n. 138, 153 n. 141,
Dietrich, B. C . 133 n. 51 154 nn. 145-146, n. 148, n. 150, 155
Dodd, C . H . 88, 97 n. 39, 142-143, nn. 152-153, 185 n. 22, 206 n. 44,
146 n. 102, 148, 149 207 nn. 48-50, 331 n. 42, 398 n. 99
Downing, F. G . 42 n. 6 Grintz, J. M . 57 n. 4
Dubnow, S. 213 n. 4 Grundmann, W . 7-8, 8 n. 36
Gundel, W . 133 n. 51, 137, 137 n. 69,
Earl, D . 61 n. 28, 63 138 n. 71, 139 nn. 77-78, 140 n. 80,
Ehrhardt, A . 129 n. 37 152 n. 138, 207 n. 49, 397 n. 91
Elbogen, I. 1 n. 5, 2 nn. 6-7, 11 n. Gutbrod, W . 97 n. 39, 104, 330 n. 38
55, 52, 386 Guttmann, A . 11 n. 58, 11 n. 61, 327,
Epstein, J. N. 241-243 340 n. 94
325 n. 4, 327-328, 331 n. 48, 340, 348 Rengstorf/K. H . 4 1 , 125 n. 16, 301 n.
n. 15, 355 n. 40, 361-362, 362 n. 14 82
Nickelsburg, G . W . E. 170 n. 211, 334 Revel, B. 100 n. 66, 331 n. 49, 332 n.
n. 67 50
Niese, B. 61-62, 80 n. 89, 181 n. 3, Richards, G . C . 49, 129 n. 40, 281 nn.
182 n. 8, 183 n. 9, 189, 192 n. 76, 210 4-5, 288, 294, 307 n. 109, n. 11, 349
n. 65, 214 n. 6, n. 8, 219 n. 221, 221 n. 28
n. 39, 285 n. 21, 287, 307 n. 110, 311 Richards, G . C . and R . J. H .
n. 1, 312-319, 321, 325 n. 3, 342 n. 1, Shutt 233 n. 95
348, 349 n. 29, 387 n. 23 Rist, J. M . 151 n. 134
Nock, A . D . 139 n. 77, 397 n. 91 Rivkin, E. 1 n. 3, n. 5, 3, 4 n. 16, 9,
Norden, E. 61 n. 29, 63 n. 46, 376 n. 12, 14, 17 n. 84, 36-37, 40 n. 2, 82 n.
2, 377 n. 4 1, 107 n. 100, 125, 125 nn. 22-23, 126
Notscher, F. 136 n. 59, 334 n. 63, 388 n. 29, 127 n. 32, 197 n. 5, 198-199,
n. 30 204 n. 38, 218 nn. 15-17, 221 n. 40,
228 n. 77, 230 n. 8 1 , n. 83, 240-242,
Olitzki, M . 330 n. 39, 332 n. 51 244, 266 n. 37, 274-275, 277-278, 281
O'Neil, E. I l l n. I l l n. 6, 295 n. 6 1 , 301 n. 8 1 , 302 n. 88,
Otto, W . 21 325 n. 3, 327, 330 n. 40, 348 n. 15,
355 n. 42, 361-362
Palmer, L. R . 305 n. 103, 307 n. 107 Ross, J. 104 n. 84, 169 n. 207
Paret, H . 19-20, 90, 104 n. 81, 170 n. Rubenstein, R . L. 5 n. 18
212, 267 n. 39, 268 n. 48, n. 50, n. Russell, D . S. 8 n. 36
55, 269 n. 60, 283 nn. 9-10, 325 n. 3,
326, 330 n. 37, n. 40, 333, 335, 339, Safrai, S. and M . Stern 58 n. 10, 120
345 n. 6 n. 3, 187 n. 33, 222 n. 46
Parkes, J. F. 11 n. 56 Salomon, M . 146 n. 102
Patterson, R . L. 162 n. 172 Sandbach, F. H . 139 n. 76, 149 n.
Pelletier, A . 47 120, 151 n. 134, 155 n. 155, 354 n. 37
Pfeiffer, R . H . 107, 110, 113 n. 117 Sanders, E. P. 4, 11 n. 56, 146 n. 102,
Peterson, H . 49 n. 25, 281 n. 4, 307 n. 147 n. 104, n. 106, 333 n. 59, 334 n.
110 63
Pines, S. 204 n. 38, 393-395 Sandmel, S. 241 n. 120
Polish, D . 2 n. 7 Schalit, A . 276 n. 104, n. 105, 317-
Posnanski, A . 139 n. 75, 140, 140 nn. 319, 321
83-84, 142 n. 86 Schemann, F. 21
Przybylski, B. 146 n. 102, 147 n. 104, Schlatter, A . 30-31, 69, 114, 133 n. 49,
n. 106 143 n. 93, 281 n. 7, 294 n. 53, nn. 55-
57, 295, 296 n. 63, 297 nn. 67-68,
Rabin, C . 2 n. 8, 213 301, 325 n. 3, 326, 330 n. 37, n. 40,
Rajak, T . 26 n. 49, 50-51, 59, 60, 79 333, 336, 339, 340 n. 94, 348, 354 n.
n. 87, 95 n. 27, 269 n. 64, 281 n. 4, 37, 385-386
311 n. 1, 312, 317-321, 323, 325 n. 3, Schlier, H . 126 n. 26
329, 332 n. 51, 333, 336-338, 342 n. Schmid, W . 380 n. 16
1, 345-346, 355 n. 44, 357 n. 2, 358 n. Schreckenberg, H . 18 n. 1, 47, 50 n.
4, 362 n. 12, 363, 365 n. 22, 381 n. 17 33, 311 n. 4, 372 n. 1
Rappaport, S. 95 n. 27, 332 n. 52 Schreiner, J. 103
Rasp, H . 28-30, 40, 80 n. 88, 128 n. Schrenk, G . 87 n. 10, 146 n. 102, 148
39, 193-194, 197, 203, 204 n. 38, 281 n. 110
n. 1, 283-284, 283 n. 9, 285-287, 286 Schubert, K . 2 nn. 5-6, 8
n. 24, 299, 325 n. 4, 327-328, 340, Schurer, E. 2 n. 7, 8-9, 12, 35 n. 101,
348, 362 n. 14 114, 181 n. 3, 188, 311 nn. 1-2, 312-
Reinach, T . 98 n. 48, 107 n. 100, 117 319, 321, 325 n. 3, 326, 342 n. 1
n. 9, 125, 129-132, 155 n. 156, 183 n. Schwartz, D . R . 37-39, 40, 117 n. 9,
10, 222 n. 45, 223, 224, 265 n. 31 176, 188 n. 48, 195, 196 n. 1, 197,
Reinhartz, A . 331 n. 44 199-201, 200 n. 25, 204 n. 38, 208 n.
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS 419
Justus of Tiberias 312, 314, 316-324, Sadducees 8, 19-22, 28, 29, 126-127,
357-358, 357 n. 2 132, 145, 152, 156, 168, 170-171, 171
n. 213, 173-176, 200, 202-212, 218-
Livy 379 219, 227, 240-245, 282, 298, 300,
Lucian of Samosata 62 n. 35, 65, 68 n. 304, 306, 308, 335-336, 353-355, 384,
58, n. 60, 69 n. 63, 71 n. 71, 112, 386-398
136 n. 57, 377-378, 381 Samaias 261-263, 278
Luke (gospel of) 72 n. 72 Seneca 138, 165
Sextus 111-112
Minucius Felix 184 n. 11 Simon ben Gamaliel 358, 360-368
Nicolaus of Damascus 69, 116 n. 1, Socrates 149 n. 120, 153, 163, 186
117 n. 9, 119, 120, 176-177, 177 n. Solon and Draco 103
231, 188, 207-209, 214, 222-224, 226, Sophocles 49-51, 298
275-280, 385, 389 Stoics 138-140, 154-156, 155-156
Ovid 164-165 n.156, 164, 169, 173, 185, 387, 398 n.
99
Paul (the aposde) 112, 201 Strabo 84
Philo of Alexandria 100 n. 68, 128, Suetonius 184 n. 11, 269 n. 65
163 n. 176, 167 n. 201, 168 n. 202,
331 n. 44.336 Tacitus 68 n. 59, 139 n. 77, 140 n. 79,
Philostratus 184 n. 11 202, 269 n. 65
Pindar 162, 163 n. 177, 164, 331 n. 42 Teles 111
Plato 87 n. 10, 137, 148, 153-154, 162- Theognis 148 n. I l l
170, 207, 235, 298 n. 72 Thucydides 49-51, 62, 68 n. 58, 69,
Pliny the Younger 58, 380 73, 76, 90 n. 22, 109, 232, 264-265,
Plutarch 138, 148 n. 114, 165 n. 189, 281, 290 n. 37, 299, 300, 303-304,
304 307, 376 n. 3, 377-380, 383
Pollion 261-263, 278 Titus (emperor) 58, 60, 67, 74, 81,
Polybius 62 n. 39, 68 n. 58, n. 60, 69, 135, 171, 191, 269-270, 313
71-72, 74-76, 80, 87 n. 10, 90 n. 22,
109 n. 110, 128, 376-383 Vergil 165 n. 189
Pompey 85 Vespasian 57-58, 60, 74, 81, 135, 171,
Pontius Pilate 101 191, 269-270, 313, 316
Posidonius 139 n. 78, 140 n. 79
Pythagoras 85 n. 8, 165, 387 Xenophon 87 n. 10