You are on page 1of 442

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS

ON THE PHARISEES
STUDIA POST-BIBLICA
I N S T I T U T A A P.A.H. DE BOER

ADIUVANTIBUS

L.R.A. V A N R O M P A Y E T J. SMIT SIBINGA

EDIDIT

J.C.H LEBRAM

VOLUMEN TRICESIMUM NONUM


FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS
ON THE PHARISEES
A Composition-Critical Study

BY

STEVE MASON

E.J. 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.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mason, Steve.
Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: a composition-critical study / by
Steve Mason.
p. cm.—(Studia post-Biblica, ISSN 0169-9717; v. 39)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 90-04-09181-5
1. Josephus, Flavius—Views on Pharisees. 2. Pharisees—
Historiography. I. Title. II. Series.
DS115.9.J6M37 1990
296.8'12—dc20 90-19845
CIP

ISSN 0169-9717
ISBN 90 04 09181 5

© Copyright 1991 by E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or


translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permission from the publisher

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal


use is granted by E.J. Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to Copyright
Clearance Center, 27 Congress Street, SALEM MA
01970, USA. Fees are subject to change.

P R I N T E D IN T H E N E T H E R L A N D S
For my parents,
Terry and Grace Mason
CONTENTS

Preface a n d A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s xm
Abbreviations xvi

PART I

INTRODUCTION

C H A P T E R 1. M e t h o d in the S t u d y o f Pharisaic H i s t o r y 1
I. T h e G o a l o f R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees 4
II. T h e S o u r c e s for R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees 7
I I I . T h e P r o c e d u r e o f R e s e a r c h o n the Pharisees 10
S u m m a r y and Conclusion 16

CHAPTER 2. Scholarly Interpretations o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees .. 18


H. Paret a n d E . G e r l a c h : 19
G. Holscher 21
B. Briine, R . L a q u e u r , H . R a s p 25
A. Schlatter 30
M. Smith a n d J. N e u s n e r 32
E. Rivkin 36
D. Schwartz 37

C o n c l u s i o n to Part I
T h e N e e d for a N e w Study o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees 40
A i m s o f the S t u d y 41
P r o c e d u r e o f the Study 42

E x c u r s u s : A P r e l i m i n a r y A s s e s s m e n t o f J o s e p h u s as an A u t h o r 45
I. T h e Source Problem 45
II. J o s e p h u s ' s Literary Assistants 48
I I I . Christian Influence o n the T e x t 51

P A R T II

THE P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH WAR

C H A P T E R 3. P u r p o s e a n d O u t l o o k o f the Jewish War 57


I. Historical A p p r o a c h e s 57
II. Exegesis o f the P r o l o g u e to War 62
I I I . J o s e p h u s and the 'Axpt(ki<x o f H i s t o r y 75
VIII CONTENTS

C H A P T E R 4 . War 1:107-114: T h e Pharisees a n d A l e x a n d r a


Salome, I 82
I. Context 83
II. Key Terms 84
I I I . Interpretation HO
IV. Source Analysis H3

C H A P T E R 5. War 1:571: T h e Pharisees at H e r o d ' s C o u r t , I 116


I. Context 116
II. Key Terms 116
I I I . Interpretation 117
IV. S o u r c e Analysis 118
Summary 119

C H A P T E R 6. War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 : T h e Pharisees a m o n g the Jewish


Schools, I 120
I. Context 121
II. Five Statements A b o u t the Pharisees 124
A. R e p u t a t i o n for Exegetical P r o w e s s 124
B. " T h e First S c h o o l " 125
C. Fate a n d Free W i l l 132
1. K e y T e r m s 133
2. Interpretation 152
D. T h e Soul 156
1. T e r m s a n d C o n c e p t s 156
2. Interpretation 161
E. Promotion of H a r m o n y 170
1. K e y T e r m s 170
2. Interpretation 173
I I I . Interpretation o f War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 173
IV. S o u r c e Analysis 176

P A R T III

THE P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH ANTIQUITIES

C H A P T E R 7. T h e P u r p o s e a n d O u t l o o k o f Antiquities 181
I. Preface a n d D o m i n a n t T h e m e s 182
II. R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n War a n d Antiquities 186
I I I . T h e Pharisees in Antiquities 193
S u m m a r y and Conclusion 195
CONTENTS IX

C H A P T E R 8. Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 : T h e Pharisees a m o n g the J e w i s h


S c h o o l s , II 196
I. Context 197
II. Key Terms 202
I I I . Interpretation 202
IV. Source Analysis 207
Summary and Conclusion 211

C H A P T E R 9. Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 : T h e Pharisees a n d J o h n H y r c a n u s 213


I. Context 214
II. Literary P r o b l e m s a n d Solutions 216
I I I . Interpretation o f Ant. 13:288-296 227
IV. T h e Pharisaic Nofxifioc 230
A. Key Terms 231
B. Interpretation o f Ant. 13:297-298 240
S u m m a r y and Conclusion 245

CHAPTER 10. Ant. 13:400-432: T h e Pharisees and Alexandra


S a l o m e , II 246
I. Context 246
II. Interpretation 248
Summary and Conclusion 258

C H A P T E R 1 1 . Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 : T h e Pharisees at H e r o d ' s C o u r t , II 260


I. Context 260
II. Key Terms 263
I I I . T h e M e a n i n g o f P r o p h e c y for J o s e p h u s 267
IV. Interpretation 272
V. Source Analysis 274

CHAPTER 12. Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 : T h e Pharisees a m o n g the Jewish


S c h o o l s , III 281
I. Context 282
II. Five Statements A b o u t the Pharisees 287
A. Avoidance of Luxury 287
1. K e y T e r m s 287
2. Interpretation 288
B. T h e Pharisaic T r a d i t i o n 288
1. K e y T e r m s 289
2. Interpretation 292
X CONTENTS

C. Fate a n d Free W i l l 293


1. K e y T e r m s 294
2. Interpretation . 297
D. I m m o r t a l i t y o f Souls 297
1. K e y T e r m s 298
2. Interpretation 299
E. T h e Influence o f the Pharisees 300
1. K e y T e r m s 305
2. Interpretation 306
III. Source Analysis 306
Summary and Conclusion 307

P A R T IV

THE PHARISEES IN T H E LIFE

C H A P T E R 13. P u r p o s e a n d O u t l o o k o f the Life 311


I. Date 311
II. Occasion, Purpose, Outlook 316
Summary and Critique 321

C H A P T E R 14. T h e Pharisaic A l l e g i a n c e o f J o s e p h u s in M o d e r n
Scholarship 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

C H A P T E R 15. Life 10-12: J o s e p h u s ' s R e l i g i o u s Q u e s t 342


I. Context 342
II. Key Terms 347
I I I . Interpretation 353
Summary and Conclusion 355

C H A P T E R 16. Life 189-198: J o s e p h u s , S i m o n , a n d the D e l e g a t i o n 357


I. Context 357
II. Interpretation 360
Summary 370
CONTENTS XI

C o n c l u s i o n to the Study 372


A p p e n d i x A . T h e H i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f War a n d Antiquities: A D i a ­
l o g u e with H . W . A t t r i d g e 376
A p p e n d i x B . Scholarly Interpretations o f J o s e p h u s o n Fate a n d
Free W i l l 384
Bibliography 399

Index of M o d e r n Authors 415


Index of Greek W o r d s 420
I n d e x o f A n c i e n t G r o u p s a n d Personalities 423
PREFACE A N D ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

N o o n e c a n write a n d publish a scholarly m o n o g r a p h w i t h o u t m a s s i v e


assistance from various quarters. This is especially true w h e n the
m a n u s c r i p t in q u e s t i o n b e g i n s its life, as this o n e d i d , " i n fulfillment o f
the r e q u i r e m e n t s for the d e g r e e , D o c t o r o f P h i l o s o p h y " . A l l sorts o f
p e o p l e a n d institutions h e l p e d pilot this p r o j e c t t h r o u g h the perilous
waters o f the d o c t o r a l p r o g r a m m e ; m a n y others h a v e h e l p e d m e to
r e c o m m i s s i o n it as a b o o k . I a m delighted here to r e c o r d m y gratitude.
I n the first p l a c e , m y entire career as a d o c t o r a l student w o u l d h a v e
b e e n i m p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t the financial s u p p o r t that I r e c e i v e d f r o m the
Social S c i e n c e s a n d H u m a n i t i e s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f C a n a d a , w h i c h
granted m e a f o u r - y e a r d o c t o r a l fellowship. It w a s this f u n d i n g that
m a d e possible m y t w o years o f research a b r o a d , in J e r u s a l e m a n d T u b ­
i n g e n . T h e S S H R C C has m a d e C a n a d a a m o s t c o n g e n i a l e n v i r o n m e n t
for h u m a n i s t i c scholarship; m a y it always b e s o .
A n e q u a l l y indispensable c o n d i t i o n o f this project w a s the intellectual
stimulation a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t that I r e c e i v e d f r o m m y teachers at
M c M a s t e r U n i v e r s i t y : Professors B . F . M e y e r , A . I . B a u m g a r t e n , and
E . P . Sanders. T h e s e scholars s h o w e d m e , a m o n g other things, that first-
century Judaism w a s a rich a n d e x c i t i n g w o r l d , a n d n o t m e r e l y the
" b a c k g r o u n d " to nascent Christianity.
W h e n I w a s at the H e b r e w U n i v e r s i t y o f J e r u s a l e m , for the first phase
o f the p r o j e c t ( 1 9 8 3 - 8 4 ) , Prof. D a n i e l R . S c h w a r t z always lent a willing
ear to m y d e v e l o p i n g thesis a n d offered m u c h helpful a d v i c e , in spite o f
his v e r y b u s y s c h e d u l e . I also benefited f r o m c o n v e r s a t i o n s with P r o ­
fessors D . Flusser, I. G a f h i , a n d L . I . L e v i n e . A n d m y research w a s
greatly assisted b y the g e n e r o u s privileges offered to m e b y the E c o l e
B i b l i q u e et A r c h a e o l o g i q u e in J e r u s a l e m , w h i c h privileges i n c l u d e d a
personal w o r k area in their o u t s t a n d i n g library.
W h e n I w a s at E b e r h a r d - K a r l s Universitat in T u b i n g e n ( 1 9 8 4 - 8 5 ) ,
Prof. D r . O t t o Betz a n d Prof. D r . M a r t i n H e n g e l b o t h listened patiently
to m y s u n d r y h y p o t h e s e s a n d offered sage c o u n s e l f r o m their treasuries
o f k n o w l e d g e a n d insight. O n a practical n o t e , the Institut z u r Er-
f o r s c h u n g des U r c h r i s t e n t u m s ( o n W i l h e l m s t r a s s e ) , then d i r e c t e d b y
Drs. Burton and Bonnie Thurston, graciously m a d e m e a " f e l l o w " and
afforded m e a secure w o r k s p a c e .
B a c k in C a n a d a , Prof. R i c h a r d N . L o n g e n e c k e r willingly sacrificed
h i m s e l f to the thankless task, as m y a d v i s o r , o f r e a d i n g an u n w i e l d y
( 7 0 0 - p a g e ! ) m a n u s c r i p t a n d m a k i n g editorial suggestions. E v e r y o n e w h o
XIV PREFACE A N D A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

has w o r k e d with Prof. L o n g e n e c k e r will testify to his w a r m t h and


fatherly c a r e ; w e h a v e all benefited f r o m his r e m a r k a b l e foresight a n d his
ability to shepherd the a n x i o u s d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e o v e r ( s o m e t i m e s
a r o u n d ) the institutional hurdles that beset o u r paths.
A g l a n c e a h e a d at the text o f this w o r k will give the reader s o m e ap­
preciation o f the p a i n that m y wife G l e n n a w a s willing to e n d u r e o n m y
a c c o u n t , for she t y p e d o u t the entire m a n u s c r i p t , i n c l u d i n g the u b i ­
q u i t o u s G r e e k ( w h i c h she d o e s n o t r e a d ) , a n d that in the age o f the
typewriter. F o r the final (dissertation) draft, she w a s j o i n e d b y m y sister
K a t h y , w h o m a d e a special trip f r o m E n g l a n d for the p u r p o s e . A n d since
I h a d n o access to a c o m p u t e r in those d a y s , the entire m a n u s c r i p t h a d
to b e k e y e d in again ( o n disk) b e f o r e I c o u l d revise it for p u b l i c a t i o n .
T h i s final task w a s u n d e r t a k e n b y the G e n e r a l Services support staff at
the M e m o r i a l U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w f o u n d l a n d , w h e r e I taught f r o m 1987
to 1 9 8 9 .
It r e m a i n s to thank the staff o f E J . Brill for their professional handl­
i n g o f a difficult m a n u s c r i p t . D r . F . T h . D i j k e m a first a g r e e d to take o n
the p r o j e c t a n d has b e e n unfailingly helpful since. Prof. D r . Peter v a n
d e r H o r s t , o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f U t r e c h t , read the entire script for Brill
a n d saved m e f r o m s o m e e m b a r r a s s i n g errors. H a n s v a n d e r M e i j a n d
G e r a r d H u y i n g h a v e d o n e a s u p e r b j o b as editors o f this b o o k .
N o n e o f the a c a d e m i c s m e n t i o n e d a b o v e , as far as I k n o w , w o u l d w a n t
to h a v e his n a m e tied to the h y p o t h e s e s that I a d v o c a t e in the present
w o r k . N o r c a n a n y o f t h e m b e b l a m e d for defects o f either style o r
substance that m a y a p p e a r . But all o f t h e m , a l o n g with the non-
a c a d e m i c s m e n t i o n e d , h a v e c o n t r i b u t e d e n o r m o u s l y to the e m e r g e n c e o f
this b o o k . I f it has b e e n a w o r t h w h i l e p r o j e c t , they all deserve credit.
T h e substance o f chapter 10 first a p p e a r e d in an article entitled
"Josephus on the Pharisees Reconsidered: A Critique of Smith/
N e u s n e r " , in Studies in Religion!Sciences Religieuses 17:4 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 4 5 5 - 4 6 9 .
It is r e p r o d u c e d here b y p e r m i s s i o n o f the j o u r n a l editor, D r . T.
Sinclair-Faulkner.
The substance o f chapter 15 first a p p e a r e d as the article "Was
J o s e p h u s a Pharisee? A R e - e x a m i n a t i o n o f Life 1 0 - 1 2 " , in the Journal of
Jewish Studies 40:1 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , 3 2 - 4 5 , a n d is r e p r o d u c e d b y p e r m i s s i o n o f the
j o u r n a l editor, D r . G . V e r m e s .
I n the f o l l o w i n g e x p l o r a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages, I offer
t h o r o u g h analyses a n d n e w translations o f k e y phrases a n d sentences.
F o r b u l k narrative q u o t a t i o n s a n d incidental references, h o w e v e r , I
follow the L o e b Classical L i b r a r y translation unless m o d i f i c a t i o n s s e e m
necessary. W h e r e the L o e b text is cited, the translator's n a m e is in­
c l u d e d either in parentheses after the citation o r in a f o o t n o t e . T h e L o e b
PREFACE A N D A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S XV

text is reprinted b y p e r m i s s i o n o f the publishers a n d the L o e b Classical


L i b r a r y f r o m Josephus, in ten v o l u m e s , translated b y H . S t . J . T h a c k e r a y ,
R . M a r c u s , A . Wikgren, and L . H . Feldman, C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . : Har­
v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 8 1 .

Steve M a s o n
T o r o n t o , 1990
ABBREVIATIONS

Ag.Ap. Against Apion, by Flavius Josephus


Ant. The Jewish Antiquities, by Flavius Josephus
ARW Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft
ATR Anglican Theological Review
BJRL Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library in Manchester
CCARJ Central Conference of American Rabbis Journal
Cd Classical Quarterly
EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica
ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. J. Hastings. Edinburgh: T . & T .
Clark.
HR History of Religion
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
HZ Historische Zeitschrift
IDE The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible
IDBS IDB, Supplementary Volume (1976)
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JE Jewish Encyclopaedia
JES Journal of Ecumenical Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JQR Jewish Quarterly Review
JR Journal of Religion
JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
JTS Journal of Theological Studies
LCL "Loeb Classical Library"
LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, edd. H . G. Liddell, R . Scott, H . S. Jones
MGWJ Monatsschrift fur Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums
NovT Novum Testamentum
NTS New Testament Studies
PWRE Paulys Realencylopadie der classischen AItertumswissenschaft, revised by G .
Wissowa
RevQ Revue de Qumran
Stobaeus J. Stobaeus, Anthologium, 5 vols., edd. C . Wachsmuth and O . Hense
(1957)
SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, 4 vols., ed. A . von Arnim (1903).
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edd. G . Kittel and G.
Friedrich, trans. G . W . Bromiley.
TLZ Theologische Literarzeitung
TSK Theologische Studien und Kritiken
TWNT Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament
War The Jewish War, by Flavius Josephus
ZAW Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZNW Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZRGG Zeitschrift fur Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
ZTK Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche
PART ONE

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ONE

METHOD IN T H E STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY

U n t i l r e c e n t t i m e s , s c h o l a r s h i p o n the Pharisees has b e e n in complete


disarray. A m a j o r p r o b l e m has b e e n the lack o f c o m m o n l y accepted
criteria for d e c i d i n g q u e s t i o n s o f P h a r i s a i c h i s t o r y : scholars c o m i n g f r o m
different r e l i g i o u s b a c k g r o u n d s a n d with different p u r p o s e s , u s i n g dif­
ferent s o u r c e s in different w a y s , h a v e necessarily c o m e t o different, often
1
incompatible, results. How and when did the Pharisees appear in
2 3
history? F r o m w h a t sectors o f society d i d they o r i g i n a t e ? W h a t w a s the
4 5
significance o f their n a m e ? W h a t w e r e their central, c o n s t i t u t i v e t e n e t s ?

1
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 :

W h i l e every history of ancient Judaism and Christianity gives a detailed


picture of the Pharisees, none systematically and critically analyzes the
traits and tendencies of the sources combined to form such an account.
Consequently we have m a n y theories, but few facts, sophisticated
theologies but uncritical, naive histories of Pharisaism which yield heated
arguments unillumined by disciplined, reasoned understanding. Progress
in the study of the growth of Pharisaic Judaism before 70 A . D . will depend
upon accumulation of detailed knowledge and a determined effort to cease
theorizing about the age. W e must honestly attempt to understand not
only what was going on in the first century, but also—and most crucially—
1 3
how and whether we know anything at all about what was going o n .

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

R i v k i n likewise p r o p o s e s a t h o r o u g h r e - e x a m i n a t i o n o f the s o u r c e s for


14
Pharisaic h i s t o r y . A l t h o u g h these t w o critics arrive at v e r y different in­
terpretations o f the g r o u p , they a g r e e in calling for a return to first p r i n ­
ciples. E . P . S a n d e r s c o m m e n t s :

T h e question of who the Pharisees were and of how they saw themselves
vis-a-vis the rest of Judaism appears quite wide open. O n e must welcome
the attempts of Rivkin and Neusner to pursue the question de novo and to
15
try to establish rigorous academic standards for answering i t .

T h e present study is i n t e n d e d as a c o n t r i b u t i o n to this de novo q u e s t i o n ­


ing a b o u t the Pharisees. It will e x a m i n e in detail the e v i d e n c e o f a k e y
witness, Flavius J o s e p h u s , c o n c e r n i n g Pharisaic history. W h a t principles
o u g h t to g u i d e such an analysis? H o w will this study o f o n e s o u r c e serve
the larger effort to u n d e r s t a n d the Pharisees? R i v k i n a n d N e u s n e r p r o ­
v i d e s o m e initial g u i d a n c e , b o t h in their explicit reflections a n d , i m ­
plicitly, in their own procedures; nevertheless, they give detailed
16
methodological proposals only for the rabbinic literature. In this
c h a p t e r I shall attempt to fill o u t their p r e l i m i n a r y i n s i g h t s — i . e . , those
that are a p p l i c a b l e to all s o u r c e s — b y c o n s i d e r i n g also ( a ) the p r o b l e m s
that h a v e h a m p e r e d p r e v i o u s research o n the Pharisees a n d ( b ) s o m e
results o f c o n t e m p o r a r y h i s t o r i o g r a p h y .
Once the methodological requirements for a study o f Josephus's
Pharisees h a v e b e c o m e clear, I shall survey p r e v i o u s treatments o f the
t o p i c , in o r d e r to s h o w that those r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e n o t yet b e e n m e t
o r e v e n , in m o s t cases, i n t e n d e d . T h a t d e f i c i e n c y will p r o v i d e the ra­
tionale for the study that f o l l o w s .
W e turn, then, to e x a m i n e the g o a l , the s o u r c e s , a n d the p r o c e d u r e
for research o n the Pharisees, as a m e a n s o f d e t e r m i n i n g the desired
characteristics o f a study o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees.

I. The Goal of Research on the Pharisees

One r e a s o n for the " h e a t e d a r g u m e n t s " referred to b y N e u s n e r is that


scholars h a v e c o m e to study the Pharisees with different a i m s a n d in­
terests. N o w it w o u l d b e n a i v e to disallow a n y m o t i v e s o t h e r than the
" p u r e l y h i s t o r i c a l " as reasons for s t u d y i n g the Pharisees; to i n d u l g e

14
Revolution, 3If.
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

such p e r s o n a l interests, h o w e v e r , w o u l d b e to d e n y the wissenschaftlich


character o f history. O n e m u s t distinguish, then, b e t w e e n the private
factors that m o t i v a t e o n e to study Pharisaism a n d the shared, profes­
sional goal o f the enterprise.
O n e o f the o b v i o u s m o t i v e s b e h i n d the study o f the Pharisees is to shed
light o n the f o r m a t i v e years o f o n e ' s o w n tradition, J e w i s h o r Christian.
O n the o n e h a n d , J u d a i s m tends to see itself as the d e s c e n d a n t o f ancient
Pharisaism. K . K o h l e r writes, "Pharisaism shaped the character o f
1 7
J u d a i s m a n d the life a n d t h o u g h t o f the J e w for all the f u t u r e . " S o also
R . L . Rubenstein: " A l l contemporary branches o f J u d a i s m — R e f o r m ,
C o n s e r v a t i v e a n d O r t h o d o x — a r e the spiritual heirs o f the tradition o f
1 8
the P h a r i s e e s . " S o the J e w m i g h t u n d e r s t a n d a b l y h a v e a historical in­
terest in the Pharisees.
O n the o t h e r h a n d , the classical Christian texts a p p e a r to define the
19
aims o f J e s u s a n d Paul o v e r against those o f the P h a r i s e e s . This circum­
stance attracts the attention o f Christian t h e o l o g i a n s a n d b i b l i c a l scholars
to the p r o b l e m o f the Pharisees. In the past, as is well k n o w n , s u c h inves­
tigators w e r e p r e d i s p o s e d to r e g a r d Pharisaism as a foil for e m e r g i n g
Christianity. T h i s t e n d e n c y w a s n o t limited to those with a " h i g h christo-
2 0 2 1
logy" b u t s h o w e d u p e v e n in the classic liberalism o f A . H a r n a c k .
R e l i g i o u s tradition a n d other factors m u s t b e a c k n o w l e d g e d as the
s o u r c e o f m u c h interest in the Pharisees. N e v e r t h e l e s s , if historical
research m e a n s s o m e t h i n g m o r e than the r e i n f o r c e m e n t o f tradition a n d
private intuition, the critic's o w n m o t i v e s a n d interests m u s t submit
themselves to norms and c o n t r o l s that are r e c o g n i z e d across the
discipline o f history. W e m u s t posit a goal for research o n the Pharisees
that d e r i v e s f r o m general principles o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y a n d c a n therefore
b e p u r s u e d b y the c o m m u n i t y o f scholars. U l t i m a t e j u d g e m e n t s o f v a l u e
r e m a i n the p r e r o g a t i v e o f the i n d i v i d u a l historian as a m o r a l b e i n g ;
since, h o w e v e r , the criteria for these j u d g e m e n t s arise f r o m s o u r c e s other
than the discipline o f history itself a n d are n o t subject to its c o n t r o l s , they
can f o r m n o part o f the c o m m o n a g e n d a .

17
Kohler, "Pharisees", JE, 666. Cf. also Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, 3.
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 :

T h e historian is never concerned with either of these to the exclusion of the


other. H e is investigating not mere events. . . but actions, and an action
is the unity of the outside and inside of an event. . . . H e must always
remember that the event was an action, and that his main task is to think
23
himself into this action, to discern the thought of its a g e n t .

T h i s e m p h a s i s o n a p p r e h e n d i n g the intentions o f historical actors p r o ­


vides the goal for m o d e r n research o n the Pharisees. O u r p u r p o s e is to
g o b e y o n d the events in w h i c h the Pharisees w e r e i n v o l v e d to try to grasp
their m o t i v e s , their intentions, a n d their t h o u g h t s .
It m a y n o t always b e p o s s i b l e , g i v e n the state o f the s o u r c e s , to get
b e h i n d the events to the P h a r i s e e s ' intentions. A l t h o u g h , then, the a p ­
p r e h e n s i o n o f Pharisaic t h o u g h t m u s t b e the final goal o f research, w e
shall h a v e to c o n s i d e r m a n y e v e n t s f r o m the " o u t s i d e " o n the w a y to
that g o a l . B e c a u s e o f the s u b s e q u e n t i m p a c t o f Pharisaism o n W e s t e r n
24 25
Civilization, those events are already i m p o r t a n t in their o w n r i g h t
a n d the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e m c a n b e c o n s i d e r e d an e n d in itself. A s E .
M e y e r l o n g a g o p o i n t e d o u t , " D i e erste u n d f u n d a m e n t a l e A u f g a b e des
Historikers ist also die Ermittelung von Tatsachen, die e i n m a l real g e w e s e n
2 6
sind." But o f the s u m total o f r e c o n s t r u c t e d events, it is to b e h o p e d ,
s o m e insight will b e g a i n e d into the Pharisees' a i m s a n d intentions.

2 2
R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1948), 213.
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

I I . The Sources for Research on the Pharisees

W h e r e is the critic to b e g i n in his o r her quest to u n d e r s t a n d the


Pharisees b y r e c o n s t r u c t i n g their past? A basic task is the delimitation
o f admissible e v i d e n c e . Differences o n this score will necessarily p r o m o t e
diverse c o n c l u s i o n s .
A large g r o u p o f scholars, for e x a m p l e , has c o n s i d e r e d the a p o c a l y p t i c
literature indicative o f Pharisaic ideas; yet m a n y others d e n y the associa­
2 7
tion. S o m e interpreters use the D S S for ( i n d i r e c t ) i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
28
the P h a r i s e e s : it is in a Q u m r a n d o c u m e n t that H . B u r g m a n n g r o u n d s
29
his t h e o r y that S i m o n the H a s m o n e a n f o u n d e d the P h a r i s e e s and W .
G r u n d m a n n d r a w s his portrait o f the Pharisees largely o n the basis o f
30
the S c r o l l s . O t h e r s find the Pharisees alluded to already in the H e b r e w
3 1 3 2
Bible—in Ezra, N e h e m i a h , or Malachi. Finally, 1 a n d 2 M a c c a b e e s ,
with their references t o the hasidim, h a v e frequently b e e n pressed into
3 3
service o n the q u e s t i o n o f Pharisaic o r i g i n s .
N o n e o f these s o u r c e s , h o w e v e r , m e n t i o n s the Pharisees b y n a m e .
H o w , then, c a n their p u r p o r t e d allusions to the Pharisees b e identified?
C l e a r l y , the criteria for this j u d g e m e n t m u s t issue f r o m s o m e p r e v i o u s l y
a c q u i r e d k n o w l e d g e o f the Pharisees. It is precisely o n this p o i n t o f p r i o r
k n o w l e d g e that v a g u e n e s s e n v e l o p s the research: few scholars take the
t r o u b l e to d e m o n s t r a t e the h i g h quality o f p r i o r k n o w l e d g e that is an in­
d i s p e n s a b l e c o n d i t i o n o f s u c h attributions. A s N e u s n e r insists: " S e c u r e
attribution o f a w o r k c a n o n l y b e m a d e w h e n an absolutely p e c u l i a r
characteristic o f the p o s s i b l e a u t h o r [in o u r c a s e , a P h a r i s e e ] c a n b e
3 4
s h o w n to b e an essential e l e m e n t in the structure o f the w h o l e w o r k . "
W h e n the g r o u n d s for the attribution o f s o m e w o r k s to the Pharisees
are d i s c l o s e d , they are often d u b i o u s . F o r e x a m p l e , G . B . G r a y (in the
C h a r l e s v o l u m e s ) identifies Psalms of Solomon as Pharisaic o n the basis of:
(a) its o p p o n e n t s , w h o m he j u d g e s to b e the H a s m o n e a n s ; ( b ) the beliefs
reflected in it, such as a m e s s i a n i c h o p e , political q u i e t i s m , a n d the c o m -

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:

Fortunately there is no doubt about the Pharisaic authorship of the Psalms


of Solomon (ca. 6 0 B . C . ) , doctrinally one of the most important of the Pharisaic
and anti-Sadducean documents of this century, since it supplies our main
39
evidence for the Pharisaic messianic h o p e .

Unfortunately, there is d o u b t . K . S c h u b e r t , with a v e r y different pre-


40
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Pharisaism, c l a i m s that Pss. Sol. is a n t i - P h a r i s a i c .
T h i s sort o f dispute is l e g i o n with r e g a r d to literature that d o e s not m e n ­
tion the Pharisees b y n a m e . S o , S c h u r e r thinks Assumption of Moses to b e
41 42
Pharisaic; G r u n d m a n n calls it a n t i - P h a r i s a i c . S c h u r e r believes, ohne

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 .

B y the s e c o n d e d i t i o n o f his b o o k ( 1 9 5 5 ) , J e r e m i a s w a s able to cite H .


G r e s s m a n , L . G i n z b e r g , G . F. M o o r e , A . Schlatter, a n d G . Kittel in
4 7
s u p p o r t o f his c l a i m that C D w a s a Pharisaic p r o d u c t i o n . Since, how­
e v e r , fragments o f the w o r k w e r e f o u n d in C a v e 4 at Q u m r a n , a n d since
the d o c u m e n t seems to c o r r e s p o n d well to the M a n u a l o f D i s c i p l i n e
4 8
(1QS), the t h e o r y o f Pharisaic a u t h o r s h i p is n o l o n g e r t e n a b l e , unless
one is willing to b e l i e v e that the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y as a w h o l e w a s
49
P h a r i s a i c — a p r o p o s a l that has n o t r e c e i v e d w i d e s u p p o r t . T h e im­
pressive array o f scholars w h o w e r e p r o v e n i n c o r r e c t in their c l a i m o f
Pharisaic authorship for C D stands as a r e m i n d e r o f the multiplicity o f
religious g r o u p s in ancient Palestine a n d o f the c o n s e q u e n t d a n g e r o f
p r e m a t u r e l y assigning a g i v e n d o c u m e n t to a particular g r o u p .
I n the w o r k o f N e u s n e r a n d R i v k i n , o n l y those s o u r c e s that ( a ) u n ­
m i s t a k a b l y m e n t i o n the Pharisees b y n a m e a n d ( b ) s e e m to h a v e in­
d e p e n d e n t access to p r e - 7 0 realities are a d m i t t e d as e v i d e n c e . R i v k i n
insists:

Josephus, the N e w Testament, and the Tannaitic Literature are the only
sources that can be legitimately drawn upon for the construction of an ob­
jective definition of the Pharisees. T h e y are the only sources using the term
Pharisees that derive from a time when the Pharisees flourished. No other
50
sources qualify.

N e u s n e r is m o r e c a u t i o u s : " B u t for n o w , the o n l y reliable i n f o r m a t i o n


d e r i v e s f r o m J o s e p h u s , the G o s p e l s , a n d r a b b i n i c a l literature, b e g i n n i n g

4 3
Schurer, Geschichte, III, 375.
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 .

I l l . The Procedure of Research on the Pharisees

N a r r o w i n g the field o f a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e g o e s s o m e w a y t o w a r d p r o ­
v i d i n g a c o m m o n base for d i s c u s s i o n , but n o t all the w a y ; for the three
sources a g r e e d u p o n are still vastly different f r o m o n e a n o t h e r in m o t i v a ­
tion, religious outlook, genre, and even language of composition.
J o s e p h u s , the J e w i s h historian u n d e r R o m a n a u s p i c e s , w h o m a y h a v e
b e e n c o n n e c t e d with the Pharisees at s o m e p o i n t , stands o v e r against the
r a b b i n i c heirs o f the Pharisees o n the o n e h a n d a n d their C h r i s t i a n
adversaries o n the other. W h e r e a s J o s e p h u s ' s narrative speaks m a i n l y
a b o u t the Pharisees' p u b l i c activities a n d " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " beliefs, o n e
m i g h t infer f r o m the tannaitic writings that their sole c o n c e r n s w e r e
religious-halakhic. It is n o t e v e n clear that the r a b b i n i c D^tfTID c a n b e
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 :

Almost nothing in Josephus's picture of the Pharisees seems closely related


to m u c h , if anything, in the rabbis' portrait of the Pharisees, except the
rather general allegation that the Pharisees had ' traditions from the
53
fathers', a point made also by the Synoptic story-tellers.

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

The obvious and trenchant i n c o n g r u i t i e s b e t w e e n the sources h a v e


e v o k e d at least three r e s p o n s e s .
T h e traditional r e s p o n s e w a s to select o n e s o u r c e as preferable to the
others, w h e t h e r o n a criterion o f religious authority or o f supposed
historical o b j e c t i v i t y , a n d to give that s o u r c e p r i d e o f p l a c e as the " b a s e
t e x t " . A l l three o f o u r witnesses h a v e e n j o y e d the prestige o f such a posi­
t i o n . T h u s R . T . H e r f o r d called r a b b i n i c literature " t h e real a n d o n l y
5 4
true s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n as to the P h a r i s e e s " . And L. Finkelstein
o p t e d for " t h e o b j e c t i v e , a l m o s t scientific, a p p r o a c h o f the T a l m u d , a n d
55
its k i n d r e d w r i t i n g s " for his a n a l y s i s . W . Bousset c o n s i d e r e d the N T
to b e the best s o u r c e o n the Pharisees a n d d i s p a r a g e d the m e a g r e ( i n his
5 6
j u d g e m e n t ) e v i d e n c e o f the r a b b i s . J o s e p h u s has usually b e e n a d o p t e d
5 7 5 8
as a m o r e " n e u t r a l " s u p p l e m e n t to either the N T o r the r a b b i s , but
59
he also finds his o w n p a r t i s a n s .
A s e c o n d w a y o f h a n d l i n g the disparity b e t w e e n the s o u r c e s is m o r e
sophisticated i n a s m u c h as it r e c o g n i z e s that n o d o c u m e n t is free o f b i a s .
It sets o u t , therefore, to c o n s i d e r the three s o u r c e c o l l e c t i o n s s y n o p -
tically, in o r d e r to isolate their c o m m o n testimony c o n c e r n i n g the
Pharisees. A . I. B a u m g a r t e n , for e x a m p l e , finds the i d e a o f " p r e c i s i o n "
o r " s p e c i f i c a t i o n " b e h i n d b o t h the axpt(kioc-forms u s e d o f the Pharisees
6 0
in J o s e p h u s a n d the N T a n d in the r a b b i n i c E h D . A . Guttmann and
J. B o w k e r attempt to fit all the sources t o g e t h e r with their theories o f the
6 1
history o f the Pharisees' n a m e . T h e virtue o f this s y n o p t i c a p p r o a c h is
that it represents the o v e r t h r o w o f p a r o c h i a l i s m in d e a l i n g w i t h the
p r o b l e m o f the Pharisees.
It still falls short, h o w e v e r , in o n e crucial respect, n a m e l y : it c o n t i n u e s
to reflect an o l d b u t false a s s u m p t i o n that the statements o f the sources
are so m a n y r a w data that c a n b e selected a n d c o m b i n e d at will, w i t h o u t
full r e g a r d to their m e a n i n g s in their o r i g i n a l f r a m e w o r k s . T h u s a large

5 4
Herford, Pharisees, 14.
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

part o f B o w k e r ' s b o o k is an a n t h o l o g y o f Pharisee passages f r o m the v a ­


rious s o u r c e s ; the s u p p o s i t i o n appears to b e that these are the c o l o u r s ,
62
as it w e r e , with w h i c h o n e m a y paint o n e ' s portrait o f P h a r i s a i s m . This
a p p r o a c h w a s taken already b y S c h u r e r , w h o b e g a n his c h a p t e r o n the
Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s b y citing relevant p o r t i o n s o f J o s e p h u s a n d the
M i s h n a h . T h e w h o l e c o n c e p t i o n , n o w often labelled the " s c i s s o r s a n d
p a s t e " m e t h o d , s t e m m e d f r o m a positivistic c o n c e r n for o b j e c t i v e facts,
w h i c h w e r e c o n s i d e r e d to b e e m b o d i e d in d o c u m e n t a r y s o u r c e s .
T h e third r e s p o n s e to the disparities a m o n g the three s o u r c e s is that
taken b y N e u s n e r a n d R i v k i n . N e u s n e r prefaces his w o r k with the j u d g e ­
m e n t that " a l l p r e v i o u s studies o f the Pharisees are i n a d e q u a t e b e c a u s e ,
in general, the historical q u e s t i o n has b e e n asked t o o q u i c k l y a n d
6 3
answered u n c r i t i c a l l y " . What d o e s he m e a n b y s a y i n g that "the
historical q u e s t i o n has b e e n asked t o o q u i c k l y " ? W e c a n o n l y surmise
f r o m his o w n a p p r o a c h . B e f o r e p o s i n g a n y q u e s t i o n s a b o u t w h o the
Pharisees really w e r e (wie es eigentlich gewesen ist), N e u s n e r p r o c e e d s to
d e v o t e w h o l e chapters to the e x a m i n a t i o n o f h o w e a c h s o u r c e presents
the Pharisees. H i s b r i e f c h a p t e r , " T h e Pharisees in H i s t o r y " , c o m e s
o n l y at the e n d o f this s i n g l e - s o u r c e analysis. T h u s w e find in N e u s n e r
a two-stage historical i n q u i r y w h i c h i n v o l v e s , first, listening to e a c h
s o u r c e ' s presentation a n d o n l y afterward asking historical q u e s t i o n s .
Similarly, R i v k i n sets o u t his p r o c e d u r a l intentions:

Each of these sources will be cited, for the most part, in full and thoroughly
analyzed, source by source, in successive chapters. . . . O n l y after we have
constructed three definitions, independently drawn from Josephus, the
N e w Testament, and the Tannaitic Literature, will we then compare each
64
of the definitions with the o t h e r s .

W e are c o n f r o n t e d , then, w i t h a p u r e l y exegetical p h a s e o f historical


research. T h i s phase is called for b y the realization that e v e r y written
s o u r c e is l i m i t e d b y its a u t h o r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e ; it is n o t , therefore, a c o l l e c ­
tion o f b a r e facts b u t is already an interpretation and formulation o f
events that n e e d s to b e u n d e r s t o o d in its o w n right. A s A . M o m i g l i a n o
observes, "Between us (as historians) and the facts stands the
6 5
evidence". T h e s o u r c e c o n v e y s o n l y 86£<x, o p i n i o n . It is c o n d i t i o n e d

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 ?

Despite his clear perception o f the two-tiered nature of historical


research, therefore, R i v k i n ultimately falls b a c k into positivistic a s s u m p ­
tions a b o u t h o w the s e c o n d phase o f the p r o g r a m m e is to b e carried o u t ,
n a m e l y , b y a simple c o m p a r i s o n o f the different portraits. H e c a n o n l y
e x p e c t such a result b e c a u s e his p r o p o s e d " t h o r o u g h a n a l y s i s " o f e a c h
7 0
source turns o u t to b e less than thorough. He still regards the
statements o f the s o u r c e s as "raw material for a definition o f the
71
Pharisees". In p r i n c i p l e , h o w e v e r , it is futile to h o p e that the sources
will yield " c o n g r u e n t " presentations, since e a c h s o u r c e has its o w n a i m s
a n d interests, as different f r o m those o f the o t h e r sources as they are
72
f r o m those o f the h i s t o r i a n . A n y points o f intersection will, o f c o u r s e ,
be welcome. One must, however, anticipate divergences and be
p r e p a r e d s o m e h o w to e x p l o i t those also in o n e ' s search for the truth.
N o r is it e n o u g h to h o p e that, o n c e e a c h a u t h o r ' s a i m s a n d proclivities
h a v e b e e n identified, they m i g h t s i m p l y b e e v a p o r a t e d o f f to l e a v e a
residue o f b a r e fact. T o h o p e for such a result w o u l d b e , first, to
u n d e r e s t i m a t e the c o m p l e x i t y a n d pervasiveness o f an a u t h o r ' s Tendenz.
F o r that bias is n o t restricted to s o m e o b v i o u s t h e m e s o v e r l a i d o n the
material; it c o m p r i s e s rather the w h o l e n e t w o r k o f processes b y w h i c h the
a u t h o r has ( a ) imperfectly p e r c e i v e d events, ( b ) f o u n d the m o t i v a t i o n to
r e c o r d t h e m , ( c ) e x e r c i s e d his will in selecting, o m i t t i n g , a n d s h a p i n g the
material to serve his e n d s , a n d ( d ) i m p a r t e d his style, b o t h c o n s c i o u s a n d
u n c o n s c i o u s , to the w h o l e p r o d u c t i o n . T h e a u t h o r ' s v i e w p o i n t c a n n o t b e
e x c i s e d f r o m the facts b e c a u s e the facts are o n l y available t h r o u g h that
7 3
viewpoint.
S e c o n d , the attempt to strip o f f the a u t h o r ' s c o n c e r n s in o r d e r to e x ­
p o s e the facts a s s u m e s , gratuitously, that those c o n c e r n s necessarily c o n ­
tradict the reality o f the past a n d w e r e n o t themselves shaped b y the facts
as the a u t h o r p e r c e i v e d t h e m . T h i s fallacy is well k n o w n in historical-
74
Jesus research. I n the study o f J o s e p h u s , critics f r o m R . L a q u e u r to
S . J . D . C o h e n h a v e d i s p l a y e d a m a r k e d t e n d e n c y to dispute o n e o r an­
o t h e r o f J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m s o n the simple g r o u n d that J o s e p h u s wanted

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 .

Summary and Conclusion

A n e w blueprint for research o n the Pharisees, i n f o r m e d b y the mistakes


o f earlier scholarship, b y the e x p e r i m e n t s o f N e u s n e r a n d R i v k i n , a n d
by general insights from contemporary historiography, will seek to
r e c o v e r b o t h the external o r physical history o f this g r o u p a n d , so far as
possible, their intentions and their t h o u g h t . T h i s g o a l c a n best be
r e a c h e d b y an initial limitation o f the admissible e v i d e n c e to J o s e p h u s ,
the pertinent N T d o c u m e n t s , a n d the r a b b i n i c c o r p u s . T h e p r o c e d u r e
will fall into t w o b r o a d phases: first, the analysis o f e a c h s o u r c e ' s presen­
tation o f the Pharisees, by means o f exegesis, and, second, the
h y p o t h e t i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f events a n d intentions.
A l t h o u g h the p r o p o s e d p r o g r a m m e e m b o d i e s certain c o n t r o l s , it b y n o
m e a n s e x c l u d e s subjectivity. O n the c o n t r a r y , it a c k n o w l e d g e s b o t h the
private interests that m a y m o t i v a t e scholars to study Pharisaism a n d also
the i n d i v i d u a l ' s right o f ultimate ( a n d private) m o r a l j u d g e m e n t o n his

7 9
Cf. Collingwood, Idea, 218f.
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

subject. Further, it calls for the interpreter's complete involvement and


imagination, both in exegesis and in historical reconstruction. Thus our
two chief examples of the de novo quest, Neusner and Rivkin, have pro­
duced flatly contradictory results. Nevertheless, their work raises the
possibility of a new consensus on method, on the "standards" of which
Sanders speaks. That achievement is far more important than any par­
ticular set of conclusions. If scholarship on the Pharisees takes up this
new agenda, which offers some semblance of a language for common
discourse, then proposed hypotheses should encounter clearer discussion
and critique than had been possible before the new beginning of Rivkin
and Neusner. T o the degree that arbitrariness can be contained and
public accountability enhanced by commonly accepted criteria, the
discussion will become more "objective".
If the foregoing proposal for research on the Pharisees has any merit,
one can envision the role that a study of Josephus's testimony about the
Pharisees ought to play in the larger endeavour. O f our three primary
sources, Josephus is the most self-consciously historical: as we shall see,
he sets out to write history pure and simple. Moreover, unlike the
authors of the other sources, he unquestionably had direct, intimate con­
8 4
tact with Pharisaism before 7 0 . His portrayals of the Pharisees, there­
fore, are of paramount importance.
Josephus refers to the Pharisees in three of his four extant works, viz.,
The Jewish War, Jewish Antiquities, and the Life. Analysis of his accounts
falls within the first, exegetical, phase of the endeavour described above.
One must, therefore, determine his purposes in writing and then ask
how his discussions of the Pharisees serve those purposes. W h a t is the
role of the Pharisees in any given narrative? T o what extent do they il­
lustrate any of Josephus's overriding themes? W h y does he discuss them
at all? Does he describe them with significant, "charged" vocabulary?
In short: H o w do the Pharisees function within his vision of things?
It is necessary now to survey the previous interpretations of Josephus
on the Pharisees in order to test the adequacy of those interpretations,
by the criteria formulated above. I shall argue that we do not yet possess
the kind of comprehensive analysis that could serve as a suitable basis
for historical reconstruction. Nevertheless, the previous scholarship
raises many issues that will serve to clarify our own aims and pro­
cedures.

8 4
On these points, cf. Rivkin, Revolution, 32f.
CHAPTER T W O

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS
OF JOSEPHUS'S PHARISEES

A discussion o f p r e v i o u s interpretations o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees will


d e m o n s t r a t e the n e e d for a n e w attempt, for n o n e o f t h e m yet satisfies,
a n d m o s t d o n o t c l a i m to satisfy, the r e q u i r e m e n t s set forth in C h a p t e r
1. Nevertheless, the p r e v i o u s research is e x t r e m e l y v a l u a b l e . First, it
p o i n t s u p s o m e o f the factors that c o m p l i c a t e a n y literary study o f
J o s e p h u s . S e c o n d , it highlights the particular p r o b l e m s that m u s t b e ad­
dressed in a c o m p r e h e n s i v e study o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees. T h e resolu­
tion o f these particular p r o b l e m s will b e c o m e part o f the larger task o f
the f o l l o w i n g study.
S i n c e a l m o s t e v e r y writer o n the Pharisees i n c l u d e s s o m e discussion
o f J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y , a n d since m o s t authors o n J o s e p h u s h a v e cause
to m e n t i o n his c o n n e c t i o n s with a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the Pharisees,
the number o f scholarly references to J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal of the
1
Pharisees is v e r y large i n d e e d . It is neither practical n o r desirable to
r e v i e w e a c h instance h e r e . T h e f o l l o w i n g s u r v e y d e s c r i b e s rather the
m o s t c o m p l e t e a n d m o s t p r o g r a m m a t i c discussions o f J o s e p h u s o n the
Pharisees that h a v e a p p e a r e d since the m i d - n i n e t e e n t h century.
One w o r d o f e x p l a n a t i o n : the t w o matters o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions
o f the Pharisees a n d o f his o w n relationship to the g r o u p are often dis­
cussed together in the scholarly literature, a n d b o t h will b e i m p o r t a n t in
the present study. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s rela­
tionship to the Pharisees i n v o l v e s m a n y factors o t h e r than his actual
descriptions o f the g r o u p — s u c h as his v i e w s o f the L a w , o f fate a n d free
will, a n d o f i m m o r t a l i t y . T o raise those issues in this survey w o u l d re­
quire m a n y deviations from the m a i n p o i n t , w h i c h is to assess the
p r e v i o u s analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s portrayals o f the Pharisees. T h e q u e s t i o n
o f his o w n relationship to the Pharisees will suggest itself naturally in Part
I V , with reference to a particular passage in his a u t o b i o g r a p h y (Life 10-
12). I p r o p o s e , therefore, to l e a v e until then a d i s c u s s i o n o f the v a r i o u s
ancillary factors that b e a r o n the q u e s t i o n . F o r the present, o u r c o n c e r n
is with scholarly treatments o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions o f the Pharisees.

1
One can gain some impression of the number of potential references to Josephus's
Pharisees by perusing H . Schreckenberg, Bibliographie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1968), the Supplementband thereto (1979), and L. H . Feldman, Josephus and Modern
Scholarship (1937-1980), ed. W . Haase (Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1983).
SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS 19

Two Early Views: H. Paret and E. Gerlach

It was in an 1856 article that the twin issues o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions


of, a n d relationship t o , the Pharisees w e r e first b r o a c h e d seriously. H .
Paret w r o t e his " U b e r d e n Pharisaismus des J o s e p h u s " in o r d e r to s h o w
that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee; this identification, h e h o p e d , w o u l d
e n h a n c e the v a l u e o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s for the historical b a c k g r o u n d o f
2
Christianity. Paret a d v a n c e d m a n y a r g u m e n t s , b u t w e are c o n c e r n e d
here with his treatment o f J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions o f the Pharisees ( a n d
3
the other sects), w h i c h he takes u p first.
R e m a r k a b l y , Paret d i d n o t think that J o s e p h u s ' s explicit c o m m e n t s o n
the Pharisees, taken b y themselves, i m p l i e d the a u t h o r ' s Pharisaic
allegiance: " D i e s e , rein fur sich g e n o m m e n , lasst freilich nicht ver-
m u t h e n , dass ihr S c h r e i b e r ein Pharisaer, s o n d e r n weit eher, dass er ein
4
Essener g e w e s e n s e i . " H e c o n c e d e d that J o s e p h u s ' s m a i n passage o n
the sects (War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ) , to w h i c h J o s e p h u s later refers as his definitive
statement (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 ; 1 8 : 1 1 ) , portrays the Essenes with o b v i o u s
Vorliebe. Paret also a l l o w e d that J o s e p h u s ' s d e p i c t i o n o f the Pharisees, b y
contrast, was at times unfavourable and even censorious (Ant.
5
17:41-45).
In spite o f these difficulties, Paret m a i n t a i n e d that J o s e p h u s w a s a
Pharisee, b y a r g u i n g ( a ) that a Pharisee c o u l d h a v e expressed such ad­
m i r a t i o n for the Essenes b e c a u s e the t w o g r o u p s w e r e so similar a n d ( b )
that the negative portrayal o f the Pharisees in Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is
o u t w e i g h e d b y the g o o d things said a b o u t t h e m e l s e w h e r e — s u c h as their
c o n c e r n for the exact interpretation o f the L a w (cf. War 2 : 1 6 6 ) a n d their
6
close c o m m u n i o n with G o d (Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 2 ) . Paret further p r o p o s e d that
J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n c o m p e l l e d to sacrifice s o m e o f his fellow-Pharisees in
Ant. b e c a u s e o f criticisms that h a d arisen o v e r his attempt in War to pres­
ent his party as a harmlose Philosophenschule. But these c o n c e s s i o n s are n o t
to b e taken as indications o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n antipathy toward the
7
Pharisees.
J o s e p h u s m o s t clearly revealed his Pharisaic v i e w p o i n t , a c c o r d i n g to
8
Paret, in his consistently n e g a t i v e attitude t o w a r d the S a d d u c e e s . A

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

Pharisee c o u l d a d m i r e the Essenes, Paret suggested, b u t the S a d d u c e e s


must have appeared to h i m as infidels. S o J o s e p h u s presents them
( p r o b a b l y falsely) as d e n y i n g P r o v i d e n c e altogether (Ant. 13:173), as
always u n k i n d t o w a r d o n e a n o t h e r (War 2 : 1 6 6 ; Ant. 1 8 : 6 ) , a n d as in­
h u m a n e in p u n i s h m e n t (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 4 ) . J o s e p h u s ' s use o f the Bible a n d
his own theological emphases, Paret claimed, were calculated to
challenge S a d d u c e a n v i e w s .
S o o n after P a r e t ' s article c a m e E . G e r l a c h ' s a t t e m p t ( 1 8 6 3 ) to d e m ­
9
onstrate the inauthenticity o f the testimonium flavianum. B y G e r l a c h ' s
time, the literary a n d textual a r g u m e n t s c o n c e r n i n g the testimonium
1 0
w e r e already well k n o w n . G e r l a c h w a n t e d to press a n o t h e r line o f
a r g u m e n t , n a m e l y , that w i t h such v i e w s o f p r o p h e c y a n d the m e s s i a n i c
11
h o p e as h e h e l d , J o s e p h u s c o u l d n o t h a v e p e n n e d the testimonium. As
a preface t o this study, G e r l a c h c o n s i d e r e d J o s e p h u s ' s religious ties a n d
c o n c l u d e d that he w a s n o t a Pharisee but an E s s e n e — a judgement
12
b a s e d chiefly o n J o s e p h u s ' s portrayals o f the J e w i s h religious p a r t i e s .
G e r l a c h b e g a n b y calling into q u e s t i o n the usual interpretation o f
Life 1 2 , to the effect that J o s e p h u s e n d e d his religious quest b y o p t i n g
for m e m b e r s h i p with the Pharisees. G e r l a c h c o n t e n d e d that this inter­
pretation is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s c o n s p i c u o u s fondness for the
Essenes a n d ( b ) the fact that J o s e p h u s ' s o w n o u t l o o k c o r r e s p o n d s to
that o f the Essenes.
L i k e Paret, G e r l a c h n o t e d the p r o - E s s e n e slant o f War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ,
w h i c h i n c l u d e s the c o m m e n t that the Essenes "irresistibly attract all
1 3
w h o h a v e o n c e tasted their p h i l o s o p h y " . H e a l l o w e d that a Pharisee
m i g h t h a v e expressed s o m e a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f Essene piety, b u t he
d e n i e d (against Paret) that a Pharisee c o u l d h a v e presented such a d e ­
tailed a n d a d m i r i n g portrayal o f the Essenes while at the same time
g i v i n g the Pharisees short shrift. He doubted, for e x a m p l e , that a
Pharisee w o u l d h a v e implicitly s h a m e d his o w n party b e f o r e R o m a n
14
readers b y m e n t i o n i n g the Essene oath to o b e y all earthly r u l e r s . In­
d e e d , J o s e p h u s ' s o w n religious beliefs s e e m e d to G e r l a c h to c o r r e s p o n d

9
E. Gerlach, Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus
(Berlin: Hertz, 1863). The testimonium is the paragraph Ant. 18:63-64, which speaks of
Jesus as "the Messiah".
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

closely to those that h e attributes to the Essenes—for e x a m p l e , that the


1 5 1 6
soul is alien to the b o d y a n d that fate is s u p r e m e .
On the o t h e r side, G e r l a c h w a s at a loss to find a single passage in
Josephus in w h i c h the Pharisees were described favourably, without
17
reservation. A g a i n s t Paret, h e d e n i e d that J o s e p h u s ' s references to the
Pharisees' kindness to o n e a n o t h e r , l o v e for the L a w , a n d gifts o f p r o ­
p h e c y w e r e indications o f the h i s t o r i a n ' s f a v o u r , for in all o f these quali­
ties the Pharisees a p p e a r to b e m a t c h e d , if not surpassed, b y the Essenes.
T h e b r i e f n o t i c e a b o u t the Pharisees' c o n c e r n for o n e a n o t h e r (War
2:166), said Gerlach, is contradicted by the many unfavourable
references to the g r o u p . War 1:110-114, h e b e l i e v e d , presents their c o r ­
ruptibility, v i n d i c t i v e n e s s , a n d h u n g e r for p o w e r . I n Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 ,
3 9 8 - 4 0 7 , h e f o u n d their c o n t e m p t for rulers a n d their p r o v o c a t i o n o f the
p e o p l e to r e b e l l i o n . A b o v e all, G e r l a c h s u g g e s t e d , Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 o p e n l y
1 8
attacks the Pharisees' p r e t e n s i o n s to s u p e r i o r p i e t y .
W h a t , then, is to b e m a d e o f J o s e p h u s ' s self-described religious quest,
w h i c h e n d s with the n o t i c e : rjp^afxrjv 7coXtTeuea0at xfj Oaptaatcov aipeaei
xocTOtxoXouOcav? T h i s signifies n o t h i n g m o r e , G e r l a c h s u g g e s t e d , than that
J o s e p h u s f o l l o w e d the Pharisees in the political sphere; for such an ac­
c o m m o d a t i o n is set d o w n b y J o s e p h u s as a c o n d i t i o n o f success in p u b l i c
1 9
life (cf. Ant. 18:15, 1 7 ) . F o r G e r l a c h , therefore, J o s e p h u s w a s n o t a
Pharisee a n d n e v e r c l a i m e d to b e o n e . H e w a s an Essene.

Source Criticism of Josephus: G. Holscher

A m a j o r a s s u m p t i o n u n d e r l y i n g the w o r k o f b o t h Paret a n d G e r l a c h w a s
the literary u n i t y o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings: J o s e p h u s w a s a s s u m e d to h a v e
o n e m o r e o r less consistent v i e w o f the Pharisees. T h i s a s s u m p t i o n , h o w ­
e v e r , r e c e i v e d a devastating b l o w in the researches o f H . B l o c h ( 1 8 7 9 ) ,
J. v o n D e s t i n o n ( 1 8 8 1 ) , F. S c h e m a n n ( 1 8 8 7 ) , W . O t t o ( 1 9 1 3 ) , a n d G .
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

ses h a r b o u r e d serious i m p l i c a t i o n s for that material. O n l y H o l s c h e r ,


w h o s e article for the Realencyclopadie m a r k e d the p e a k o f the m o v e m e n t ,
spelled o u t those i m p l i c a t i o n s ; w e m a y thus f o c u s o u r attention o n his
study.
O f H o l s c h e r ' s sixty-three c o l u m n article o n J o s e p h u s , a b o u t fifty-four
21
c o l u m n s are g i v e n o v e r to a s o u r c e analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s .
T h i s p r o p o r t i o n reflects the d e g r e e to w h i c h , b y H o l s c h e r ' s t i m e , an
u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f J o s e p h u s h a d c o m e t o b e identified with an u n d e r ­
s t a n d i n g o f his s o u r c e s . D e s t i n o n h a d l o n g since c o n c l u d e d that Ant. 12-
17 w a s little m o r e than a c o m p i l a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s m a j o r , intermediate
sources—the Anonymous and Nicolaus of Damascus—and that
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n input here w a s m i n i m a l :

Seine Quelle also hat Jos. das Material gegeben, hat ihm die Disposition
desselben ubermittelt und schliesslich sogar ihn so zu bestricken gewusst,
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:

Sein pharisaischer (und damit antisadduzaischer) Standpunkt verrat sich


mehrfach in seinen Schriften, obwohl seine Urteile uber die drei judischen
Schulen, j e nach den von ihm ausgeschriebenen Quellen, vielfach
23
verschieden auffallen.

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

H o l s c h e r d i s c e r n e d t w o m a i n sources for War, the first reflected in


1:31-2:116, the s e c o n d in 2 : 1 1 7 - 2 8 3 . After that, in discussing the actual
events o f the w a r against R o m e , J o s e p h u s w a s p r e s u m a b l y relying o n his
own memory, his notes, Vespasian's official report, eyewitness
26
t e s t i m o n y , a n d other a i d s . H o l s c h e r ' s criteria for identifying the t w o
sources in b o o k s 1 a n d 2 i n c l u d e d the p r e s e n c e o f d o u b l e t s , differences
27
in style, a n d distinct preferences for certain t e r m s . He attributed
2 : 1 1 7 - 1 6 1 , with its detailed description o f the Essenes, t o a J e w i s h writ­
2 8
ten s o u r c e a n d the b r i e f remarks o n the Pharisees and Sadducees
( 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) to J o s e p h u s himself. T h a t 1:31-2:116 c o m e s f r o m N i c o l a u s
o f D a m a s c u s , H e r o d ' s c o u r t historian, H o l s c h e r a r g u e d chiefly o n the
basis o f a c o m p a r i s o n o f the style in that section with extant fragments
29
o f N i c o l a u s in F. J a c o b y ' s c o l l e c t i o n . Other considerations were: (a)
that the material is p r o - H e r o d i a n ; ( b ) that it seems to b e a c o n d e n s a t i o n
o f a m u c h m o r e detailed s o u r c e ; a n d ( c ) that it is the w o r k o f a n o n -
3 0
Jew. In support o f this last p r o p o s i t i o n , significantly, H o l s c h e r p o i n t e d
to the negative presentation o f the Pharisees in War 1:110-114.
For Ant. the picture is more complex. Whereas, according to
H o l s c h e r , J o s e p h u s h a d p r o v i d e d m u c h o f the c o n t e n t o f War ( b o o k s 3-7)
himself, in Ant. h e c o n f i n e d himself almost exclusively to passing o n
31
literary t r a d i t i o n s . I n Ant. 1 : 2 7 - 1 3 : 2 1 2 , for e x a m p l e , H o l s c h e r iden­
tified large b l o c k s o f material f r o m the teaching notes (Lehrvortrag) o f the
32
Alexandrian Jewish schools. It w a s in these schools that the H e b r e w Bi­
b l e , the L X X , p a g a n traditions, a n d J e w i s h a p o c r y p h a a n d l e g e n d s w e r e
synthesized; J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f p r o b a b l y n e v e r saw a n y o f this material
first h a n d . H i s c o n t r i b u t i o n at m o s t consisted o f c o p y i n g , e x c e r p t i n g ,
a n d c o m b i n i n g large b l o c k s o f material—all o f w h i c h i m p l i e s , ' 'dass m a n
sich die e i g e n e selbstandige A r b e i t des J. so g e r i n g w i e m o g l i c h v o r -
3 3
zustellen h a t " .
On the content o f Ant. 13:212-17:355, Holscher observed that,
although it parallels the a c c o u n t f r o m N i c o l a u s in War 1, it s o m e t i m e s
corrects N i c o l a u s , is often a n t i - H e r o d i a n , a n d distinctly favours the

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

H o w are w e to i m a g i n e the J e w i s h p o l e m i c i s t w h o w r o t e m o s t o f Ant.


13-20? H e w a s , a c c o r d i n g to H o l s c h e r , a c o m p i l e r a n d n o t a historian,
w h o a l l o w e d tensions a n d d o u b l e t s to stand u n r e s o l v e d in his presenta­
4 4
tion. H e w a s a c o n s e r v a t i v e , priestly, p r o - H a s m o n e a n aristocrat, w h o
h a d n o s y m p a t h y for the rebels a n d little respect for either the masses
45
o r the p o p u l a r Pharisees.
I m p o r t a n t for H o l s c h e r w a s the belief, b a s e d o n Life 10-12, that
Josephus w a s a d e v o t e d Pharisee. T h i s b e l i e f i m p l i e d that J o s e p h u s
c o u l d n o t h a v e written d e r o g a t o r y a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees, so s o m e o n e
else m u s t h a v e written t h e m — w h e t h e r a n o n - J e w o r an anti-Pharisaic
46
aristocrat. J o s e p h u s ' s o w n Pharisaic allegiance r e m a i n s , as w e shall
see, an i m p o r t a n t criterion for the source-critical analysis o f his Pharisee
passages.

Reactions to Source Criticism: B. Brune, R. Laqueur, H.Rasp

D u r i n g the forty years f r o m B l o c h to H o l s c h e r , s o u r c e criticism w a s the


c o m m o n w a y , b u t n o t the o n l y w a y , o f e x p l a i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s writings.
A n i m p o r t a n t dissenter w a s B . B r u n e ( 1 9 1 3 ) , w h o , w h i l e a c k n o w l e d g i n g
J o s e p h u s ' s use o f s o u r c e s , c o n t i n u e d to l o o k o n h i m as b o t h a g e n u i n e
historian a n d a full-fledged writer, w h o s e p u r p o s e s a n d interests c o l ­
4 7
o u r e d the w h o l e o f his w o r k . O f Ant., Brune wrote:

D e n Zweck seiner Archaologie hat Jos a [Ant. ] I, 14 klar ausgesprochen,


und auf denselben sind alle eingestreuten Erzahlungen, auch die
48
nichtbiblischen, offensichtlich zugeschnitten.

T h i s classic redaction-critical p r o p o s a l is characteristic o f B r u n e ' s entire


study, m o s t o f w h i c h is d e v o t e d to an e x a m i n a t i o n o f k e y t h e m e s a n d
v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n s that r e c u r t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s f o u r writings.
Brune found n o warrant for the kind o f assumptions made by
H o l s c h e r . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e r e a s H o l s c h e r h a d s u p p o s e d that a Pharisaic
education would preclude Josephus's serious familiarity with Greek
l a n g u a g e a n d literature, B r u n e thought it self-evident that J o s e p h u s b e ­
l o n g e d to circles in w h i c h the k n o w l e d g e o f G r e e k culture w o u l d h a v e
b e e n c o m p u l s o r y , if o n l y as a m e a n s o f d e f e n d i n g the tradition against

4 4
Ibid., 1981f.
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

I f that v i e w is c o r r e c t , h o w c a n o n e e x p l a i n the differences in


J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s , for e x a m p l e b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. in their attitudes
t o w a r d H e r o d ? H o l s c h e r h a d p o s i t e d t w o s o u r c e s , o n e friendly t o w a r d
H e r o d ( N i c o l a u s , in War) a n d the o t h e r o p p o s e d t o h i m (the J e w i s h
p o l e m i c i s t , in Ant.). L a q u e u r , h o w e v e r , e x t r a p o l a t e d an a n s w e r to this
q u e s t i o n f r o m his e x p l a n a t i o n o f the differences b e t w e e n War a n d Life in
their parallel material, c o n c e r n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s activities d u r i n g the revolt
5 5
against R o m e . O n that issue there w a s n o possibility o f i n v o k i n g s o u r c e
h y p o t h e s e s to e x p l a i n the d i v e r g e n c e s , since J o s e p h u s w a s recalling his
o w n c a r e e r . L a q u e u r p o s i t e d , therefore, an actual c h a n g e in J o s e p h u s ' s
thinking: w h e r e a s War h a d b e e n tailored to please A g r i p p a I I , the Life
5 6
has lost this interest c o m p l e t e l y , b e c a u s e the k i n g has d i e d . Similarly,
L a q u e u r a r g u e d , J o s e p h u s u n d e r w e n t s o m e d e v e l o p m e n t in his estima­
tion o f H e r o d b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. W h e r e a s War h a d b e e n a R o m a n
p r o p a g a n d a p i e c e , Ant. reflects J o s e p h u s ' s m o r e natural s y m p a t h i e s .
Although Laqueur m a d e n o attempt to deal specifically w i t h the
Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s , his w o r k is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e o f its m a j o r
m e t h o d o l o g i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n . S o u r c e criticism h a d b e e n c a r r i e d to the
p o i n t w h e r e its results i m p l i e d " d a s s J o s e p h u s u b e r h a u p t nicht existiert
57
hat, s o n d e r n n u r seine Q u e l l e " , as L a q u e u r sarcastically p u t i t . Over
against such a v i e w , L a q u e u r insisted that J o s e p h u s truly w a s an a u t h o r ,
5 8
" d a s s J o s e p h u s m i t seiner P e r s o n die R i c h t u n g seines W e r k e s d e c k t " .
O u t o f this f u n d a m e n t a l p r o p o s i t i o n g r e w L a q u e u r ' s distinctive c o n ­
t r i b u t i o n . H e a r g u e d that J o s e p h u s w a s subject to c h a n g e a n d d e v e l o p ­
m e n t in his o u t l o o k a n d that this c a p a c i t y for c h a n g e a c c o u n t s m o s t
59
a d e q u a t e l y for the i n c o n g r u i t i e s in his w r i t i n g s .
L a q u e u r ' s analysis o f J o s e p h u s w a s to h a v e c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p a c t o n
b o t h G e r m a n a n d E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g s c h o l a r s h i p , the latter t h r o u g h the
6 0
m e d i a t i o n o f H . St. J o h n T h a c k e r a y ( 1 9 2 9 ) . A f t e r L a q u e u r , the a m b i ­
tions of Josephan source criticism adjusted themselves radically
d o w n w a r d . M o s t significant for o u r t o p i c , L a q u e u r ' s e m p h a s i s o n the
vicissitudes o f J o s e p h u s ' s life as the k e y to u n d e r s t a n d i n g his writings
p a v e d the w a y for t w o i m p o r t a n t studies o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees.

5 5
This question occupied the first half of Laqueur's study, pp. 6-128.
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

T h e first o f these w a s H . R a s p ' s article, " F l a v i u s J o s e p h u s u n d die


6 1
judischen Religionsparteien" ( 1 9 2 4 ) . R a s p b e g a n with the p r o p o s i t i o n
that the different s e q u e n c e s in w h i c h J o s e p h u s o r d e r s the J e w i s h schools
in his v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e m indicate his c h a n g i n g relationships
6 2
toward each g r o u p . In particular, R a s p saw Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 as an in­
6 3
t e n d e d c o r r e c t i o n o f War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 a n d he tried to interpret that c o r ­
rection b y e x a m i n i n g the i n d i v i d u a l c h a n g e s .
T h e p r i n c i p a l c h a n g e s d i s c o v e r e d b y R a s p w e r e : ( a ) a drastic r e d u c ­
tion in the a m o u n t o f s p a c e a n d d e g r e e o f enthusiasm d e v o t e d to the
Essenes; ( b ) a n o t a b l e increase in p r e c i s i o n with respect t o Pharisaic
beliefs; a n d ( c ) n e w material o n the relations b e t w e e n S a d d u c e e s a n d
64
Pharisees. R a s p a p p r o a c h e d these c h a n g e s with an u n m i s t a k a b l y L a -
queurian j u d g e m e n t :

D e r Gegensatz zwischen den Schilderungen im Bell, und in der Arch, ist


und bleibt auffallend. W i l l m a n nicht die eine verschlimmbessern nach der
anderen oder gar als Falschung streichen, dann muss m a n eben annehmen,
65
dass der Schreiber Josephus in der Zwischenzeit sich gewandelt h a t .

W h a t w e r e the c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f J o s e p h u s ' s life that c a u s e d h i m to write


so differently? R a s p b e g a n w i t h the p r o p o s i t i o n that J o s e p h u s ' s priestly
lineage (Life 2 ) m u s t h a v e entailed S a d d u c e a n allegiance a n d , as a c o n s e ­
6 6
q u e n c e , hatred o f R o m e . T h u s w h e n J o s e p h u s e m b a r k e d o n his m i s ­
sion to R o m e to free s o m e priests i m p r i s o n e d there (Life 13ff.), he w e n t
full o f c o n t e m p t . O n c e in R o m e , h o w e v e r , he h a d a c h a n g e o f heart:
first, b e c a u s e h e saw the a w e s o m e p o w e r o f R o m e ; s e c o n d , b e c a u s e o f
the friendliness o f N e r o ' s c o n s o r t P o p p e a , w h o s e gifts " b r a c h e n w o h l
d e n letzten i n n e r e n W i d e r s t a n d " .
S o J o s e p h u s r e t u r n e d h o m e with a n e w political o u t l o o k , o f w h i c h the
k e y i n g r e d i e n t w a s s u b m i s s i o n to R o m e . H e d e c i d e d that the best w a y
to p r o m o t e his n e w faith w o u l d b e to a c q u i r e a p o s i t i o n o f influence,
67
w h i c h m e a n t j o i n i n g the P h a r i s e e s . F o r the Pharisees h a d b y n o w lost
t o u c h with the y e a r n i n g s o f the p e o p l e a n d w e r e c o u n s e l l i n g s u b m i s s i o n

61
ZNW 23 (1924), 27-47.
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

to R o m e . Installed as a R o m e - f r i e n d l y Pharisee, J o s e p h u s w a s entrusted


with the administration o f the G a l i l e e , with a m a n d a t e t o quell the
rebellious activities there. B u t h e w a s n o t u p to this Charakterprobe. O n c e
in Galilee h e capitulated to his pre-Pharisaic i m p u l s e s . T h e delighted
rebels m a d e h i m their general. A n d J o s e p h u s c o n t i n u e d to relish the role
o f rebel s t r o n g m a n until the R o m a n s t o o k h i m c a p t i v e . W h e n c a p t u r e d
b y the R o m a n s , h o w e v e r , h e revised his allegiances yet again a n d
68
became a R o m a n favourite.
It w a s u n d e r R o m a n p a t r o n a g e that J o s e p h u s u n d e r t o o k t o write War,
with its m a j o r passage o n the J e w i s h schools ( 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ) . S i n c e J o s e p h u s
c o u l d n o t present h i m s e l f to R o m a n readers as a rebel leader, h e c h o s e
to dissociate h i m s e l f f r o m a n y political stance. T o that e n d h e passed
himself o f f as an Essene. H e n c e his l o n g a n d a d m i r i n g portrait o f this
g r o u p , w h i c h includes the n o t i c e that they swear an oath to h o n o u r all
authority as f r o m G o d ( 2 : 1 3 9 f . ) . T h e Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s , h o w ­
e v e r , r e c e i v e little attention. I n J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k a b o u t the S a d d u c e e s '
6
rudeness ' e v e n to o n e a n o t h e r " R a s p f o u n d the veiled r e m i n i s c e n c e o f
a f o r m e r m e m b e r w h o h a d since felt the sting o f their wrath. T h e things
that G r e e k s despised in the J e w s , R a s p suggested, J o s e p h u s a s c r i b e d to
69
the S a d d u c e e s ; what the G r e e k s a d m i r e d , h e attributed t o the E s s e n e s .
R a s p p r o p o s e d that b y the time J o s e p h u s c a m e to write Ant. h e h a d
rethought his priorities a n d w a n t e d to repair his reputation with his
7 0
people. J o s e p h u s ' s literary p e a c e offering w a s his attempt to rewrite the
history o f the Pharisees. T h i s party h a d since w o n R o m a n s u p p o r t for
its religious authority in Palestine a n d so J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d ' ' d i e an d e r
7 1
Herrschaft mitbeteiligten Pharisaer r e i n z u w a s c h e n v o n j e d e r S c h u l d " .
This a c c o u n t s , a c c o r d i n g t o R a s p , for the revised portrait o f the
Pharisees in Ant. 18. J o s e p h u s n o w rated their political influence v e r y
h i g h ( 1 8 : 1 5 , 17) a n d accurately r e p o r t e d their beliefs, h o p i n g t h e r e b y to
m a k e a m e n d s for the d i s a p p o i n t i n g treatment that he h a d g i v e n t h e m in
War 2 . R a s p c o m m e n t s :

Ja, er scheint iiberzeugt zu sein, dass er mit diesem anerkennenden


Zeugnis alles wieder gutmachen werde, denn gleichzeitig hat er die
Dreistigkeit sich vor aller W e l t als allezeit treuer Pharisaer hinzustellen
7 2
(Vita 1 2 ) .

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 .

A. Schlatter: The Pharisees as Rabbis/Sages in Politics

In 1856 Paret h a d a r g u e d that the identification o f J o s e p h u s as a


Pharisee w o u l d e n h a n c e the usefulness o f his writings for Religions-
geschichte. S o m e seventy-five years later, A . Schlatter e x p l o i t e d that i d e n ­
tification. F o r h i m , J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee a n d , as s u c h :

zeigt uns in griechisches Denken und griechische Rede gefassten


Pharisaismus und fuhrt uns damit zu derjenigen Bewegung im Judentum,
74
die die Herrschaft uber ganze Judenschaft. . . erlangt h a t .

By a n d l a r g e , Schlatter's Theologie des Judentums ( 1 9 3 2 ) p r e s u p p o s e d


75
J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic a l l e g i a n c e ; that allegiance w a s w h a t bestowed
special i m p o r t a n c e o n J o s e p h u s for Schlatter. I n d i s c u s s i n g J o s e p h u s ' s
portrayal o f the Pharisees, Schlatter w a n t e d , first, t o s h o w h o w the
Pharisee J o s e p h u s c o u l d h a v e written the material as it stands and,
s e c o n d , to d i s c o v e r w h a t that material teaches a b o u t the Pharisees.
On the f o r m e r p o i n t , Schlatter p r o p o s e d that J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees
76
w e r e early representatives o f r a b b i n i c r e l i g i o n . T h a t w a s clear t o h i m
b e c a u s e v a r i o u s p e r s o n s identified as Pharisees b y J o s e p h u s — s u c h as
those w h o c a m e to p o w e r u n d e r Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a , the teachers P o l l i o n
77
and Samaias, and Simeon ben Gamaliel —are known from the
T a l m u d . Y e t , Schlatter n o t e d , J o s e p h u s displays a s t r o n g antipathy
( " e i n e kraftige A b n e i g u n g " ) t o w a r d m o s t o f these figures. H o w c a n this
b e e x p l a i n e d , g i v e n that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee?
Schlatter a n s w e r e d o n three levels. First, J o s e p h u s ' s c o o l n e s s t o w a r d
the Pharisees is d u e in part to his objectivity as a historian. T h i s ac­
c o u n t s , Schlatter b e l i e v e d , f o r his d e t a c h e d portrayal o f the Pharisees as

7 3
Rasp acknowledged it (34, 36).
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.

M. Smith and J. Neusner: Anglophone Heirs of Laqueur

After a hiatus o f s o m e three d e c a d e s , R a s p ' s a p p r o a c h to J o s e p h u s ' s


Pharisee passages, b a s e d o n L a q u e u r ' s insights, w a s i n t r o d u c e d to the
English-speaking world by M . Smith. Smith's essay, "Palestinian
J u d a i s m in the First C e n t u r y " , set o u t to d e m o n s t r a t e b o t h the p e r v a s i v e
H e l l e n i z a t i o n a n d the plurality o f p r e - 7 0 J u d a i s m . It d r e w together
e v i d e n c e f r o m the N T , J o s e p h u s , the T a l m u d , a n d elsewhere to s h o w
88
that m a n y different religious g r o u p s o p e r a t e d in p r e - w a r P a l e s t i n e . In
v i e w o f this well-attested variety o f religious o u t l o o k , S m i t h asked h o w
the n o t i o n c o u l d h a v e arisen that first-century J e w s e m b r a c e d a " n o r ­
m a t i v e " , essentially Pharisaic, J u d a i s m .
M u c h o f the b l a m e for this distortion he laid at the feet o f J o s e p h u s ,
b e c a u s e o f the latter's frequent statements in Ant. a b o u t the Pharisees'
8 9
great influence o v e r the p e o p l e (cf. 1 3 : 2 9 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 0 2 ; 1 8 : 1 5 ) . I f these

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

statements are n o t simple reflections o f fact, h o w are they to b e e x ­


p l a i n e d ? S m i t h f o u n d the k e y in Ant. 13:400ff., the story o f A l e x a n d e r
J a n n e u s ' s d e a t h b e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n to his wife A l e x a n d r a that, o n h e r
accession to the t h r o n e , she yield s o m e administrative p o w e r to the
Pharisees. F o r J a n n e u s p o i n t s o u t to his wife that the Pharisees h a v e
e n o u g h influence with the p e o p l e b o t h t o injure their e n e m i e s a n d to
assist their friends ( 1 3 : 4 0 1 ) ; he allows that his o w n rule has b e e n e m ­
battled b e c a u s e o f his harsh treatment o f the Pharisees ( 1 3 : 4 0 2 ) . S i n c e
these o b s e r v a t i o n s o n Pharisaic influence are absent f r o m the parallel ac­
count in War ( l : 1 0 6 f . ) , written s o m e twenty years earlier, Smith
d i s c o v e r e d a n e w t h e m e in Ant., to the effect that Palestine c a n n o t b e
ruled w i t h o u t Pharisaic s u p p o r t .
I n the L a q u e u r / R a s p tradition, S m i t h s o u g h t to e x p l a i n this n e w p r o ­
m o t i o n o f the Pharisees o n the basis o f J o s e p h u s ' s c i r c u m s t a n c e s in the
last d e c a d e o f the first c e n t u r y , w h e n Ant. w a s written. S m i t h ' s p r o p o s a l :

It is almost impossible not to see in such a rewriting of history a bid to the


Roman government. T h a t government must have been faced with the
problem: W h i c h group of Jews shall we support? . . . T o this question
Josephus is volunteering an answer: the Pharisees, he says again and again,
have by far the greatest influence with the people. A n y government which
secures their support is accepted; any government which alienates them has
90
trouble.

A c c o r d i n g to S m i t h , then, J o s e p h u s w a n t e d to t h r o w in his lot with the


rising fortunes o f the Pharisees after 70 b y c o m m e n d i n g t h e m to the
R o m a n s as the g r o u p w h i c h they s h o u l d s u p p o r t in Palestine. T o a c c o m ­
91
plish this g o a l — a service to b o t h R o m a n s a n d Pharisees —Josephus
r e w r o t e history in Ant. so as to give the Pharisees e n o r m o u s p o p u l a r in­
fluence.
I n S m i t h ' s v i e w , the truth a b o u t the Pharisees is m o r e accurately
reflected in the school passages o f War a n d Ant.: they w e r e o n l y o n e
a m o n g m a n y p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools that flourished in Palestine before
9 2
70. F o r h i m , the presentation o f the Pharisees in Ant. arose from
J o s e p h u s ' s political interests a n d is therefore unreliable as history.
I n m a n y respects, S m i t h ' s t h e o r y e c h o e s R a s p ' s earlier p r o p o s a l :
J o s e p h u s ' s p e r s p e c t i v e o n the Pharisees c h a n g e d b e t w e e n War a n d Ant.
a n d this c h a n g e d p e r s p e c t i v e a c c o u n t s for Ant. 's ( a l l e g e d ) p r o m o t i o n o f
the Pharisee. S m i t h ' s p o s i t i o n , h o w e v e r , differs f r o m R a s p ' s in t w o

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

significant respects. First, w h e r e a s R a s p h a d v i e w e d Ant. as a p e a c e -


offering to the Pharisees, S m i t h c l a i m e d that J o s e p h u s w r o t e to h e l p the
R o m a n s , w h o w e r e still in a q u a n d a r y a b o u t w h o m they should s u p p o r t
in Palestine. S e c o n d , w h e r e a s R a s p h a d v i e w e d Ant. as m o r e accurate
than War—in War J o s e p h u s deliberately o b s c u r e d the political facts,
Smith t o o k the o p p o s i t e v i e w .
S m i t h ' s t h e o r y w e n t virtually u n n o t i c e d for s o m e fifteen years—that
93
is, until his student J . N e u s n e r p u b l i c i z e d it in a 1972 e s s a y . Referring
to the five relevant p a g e s o f S m i t h ' s essay as a " l a n d m a r k study o f
J o s e p h u s ' s pictures o f the P h a r i s e e s " , N e u s n e r l a m e n t e d the lack o f in­
teraction it h a d thus far elicited. H i s o w n article, therefore, w a s i n t e n d e d
to p u b l i c i z e a n d further substantiate S m i t h ' s v i e w :

Here I wish to review the several references to Pharisees in Josephus's


writings and to spell out the sources in such a way that Smith's study will
both receive the attention it deserves and be shown to be wholly correct,
94
therefore, to necessitate the revision of our picture of pre-70 Pharisaism.

To a c h i e v e this g o a l , N e u s n e r b e g i n s with the references to the


Pharisees in Life, in w h i c h he finds J o s e p h u s e a g e r to c l a i m Pharisaic
credentials ( 1 0 - 1 2 ) but silent a b o u t the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f this affiliation. I n
Life 189-198 N e u s n e r finds the Pharisees presented as i m p o r t a n t politi­
95
cians d u r i n g the r e v o l t .
In War N e u s n e r finds t w o distinct e m p h a s e s with respect to the
Pharisees. First, in 1:107-114 they a p p e a r as a p o w e r f u l political g r o u p
u n d e r A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e . In 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 , h o w e v e r , they a p p e a r s i m p l y as
the o p p o n e n t s o f the Sadducees, both groups being portrayed as
philosophical schools w h o differed o n l y o n theoretical issues. N e u s n e r
96
notes that the Pharisees o f War are n o t p r o m i n e n t in the narrative.
F o l l o w i n g S m i t h , N e u s n e r argues that the k e y to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
Pharisees in Ant. is J o s e p h u s ' s n e w a d v o c a c y o f the g r o u p : J o s e p h u s has
n o w taken the side o f the Pharisees a n d is l o b b y i n g for R o m a n r e c o g n i ­
tion o f t h e m as the n e w leaders in Palestine. N e u s n e r s u m m a r i z e s :

T h e Essenes of War are cut down to size; the Pharisees of Antiquities


predominate. A n d what Josephus now says about them is that the country
cannot be governed without their cooperation, and he himself is one of
97
them.

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

L i k e S m i t h , N e u s n e r c o n s i d e r s the story o f A l e x a n d r a ' s a d m i s s i o n o f the


Pharisees to p o w e r (Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 f f . ) , in c o m p a r i s o n to the War parallel
9 8
( l : 1 0 6 f f . ) , to h a v e b e e n " s t r i k i n g l y revised in f a v o r o f the P h a r i s e e s " .
The n e w story o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s b r e a k with the Pharisees e n d s with
a c o m m e n t o n the p e o p l e ' s s u p p o r t for the Pharisees ( 1 3 : 2 9 7 f . ) . T h e s e
a n d o t h e r a d d i t i o n s lead N e u s n e r to fall in with S m i t h ' s c o n c l u s i o n ,
w h i c h h e cites at length, that War m o r e accurately reflects the true state
o f affairs; Ant., he c l a i m s , represents a tendentious r e w o r k i n g o f the
99
facts.
N e u s n e r d i d , h o w e v e r , a d d s o m e t h i n g to S m i t h ' s c o n c l u s i o n . That
was the o b s e r v a t i o n that in War, the Pharisees a p p e a r not o n l y as a
religious-philosophical g r o u p in the early part o f the first Christian c e n ­
tury ( s o War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) , b u t also as a p o w e r f u l political o r g a n i z a t i o n in
the first c e n t u r y B C , u n d e r A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e (War 1:110-114). This
qualification a l l o w e d N e u s n e r to a b s o r b S m i t h ' s t h e o r y into his o w n
r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f p r e - 7 0 J u d a i s m , w h i c h he o u t l i n e d in From Politics to
Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism ( 1 9 7 3 ) . N e u s n e r argues there that
the Pharisees m o v e d f r o m active political i n v o l v e m e n t , in H a s m o n e a n
t i m e s , to solely r e l i g i o u s c o n c e r n s , u n d e r H i l l e l ' s l e a d e r s h i p , then b a c k
1 0 0
to political i n v o l v e m e n t after 7 0 . H i s c h a p t e r o n J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees
is essentially his earlier essay in d e f e n c e o f S m i t h .
S m i t h ' s t h e o r y g a v e N e u s n e r justification for rejecting Ant. 's portrait
o f the Pharisees in f a v o u r o f the a c c o u n t in War, w h i c h a c c o u n t well
suited his politics-to-piety s c e n a r i o . In return, S m i t h ' s t h e o r y w o n a m a ­
jor s u p p o r t i n g role in a f a m o u s study o f Pharisaism. U n d e r N e u s n e r ' s
1 0 1
s p o n s o r s h i p , it is w i n n i n g b r o a d s u p p o r t .

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

E. Rivkin: Return to a Univocal Interpretation

A challenge to S m i t h / N e u s n e r c a m e with E . R i v k i n ' s . 4 Hidden Revolution


( 1 9 7 8 ) . R i v k i n ' s total isolation f r o m the L a q u e u r i a n stream o f inter­
pretation c a n b e seen in his initial p r o p o s i t i o n that "parallel passages in
War a n d in Antiquities will b e treated side b y s i d e " , in o r d e r to analyze
1 0 2
Pharisaic history " c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y ' ' . T h u s h e b e g i n s with Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 -
173, w h i c h i n t r o d u c e s the sects at the t i m e o f J o n a t h a n the H a s m o n e a n ,
a n d then passes q u i c k l y to Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , the story o f the rupture b e ­
103
tween J o h n H y r c a n u s a n d the P h a r i s e e s . T h e latter passage is i m p o r ­
tant for R i v k i n b e c a u s e it lays o u t the basic features o f his " d e f i n i t i o n "
o f the Pharisees: they w e r e a " s c h o l a r c l a s s " that h a d d e v e l o p e d an en­
tire legal system for the p e o p l e . T h i s system was b a s e d o n the U n w r i t t e n
1 0 4
L a w , R i v k i n h o l d s , w h i c h h a d its roots in the " f a t h e r s " . Rivkin
thinks that t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s writings the Pharisees a p p e a r as ag­
gressive ("goal-oriented"!) power-seekers and not as irenic con-
templatives:

T h e Pharisees in the time of John Hyrcanus, Alexander Janneus, and


Salome Alexandra were a law-making scholar class capable of stirring up
and abetting rebellion against king and H i g h Priest, sanctioning the use of
105
violence to attain power and a u t h o r i t y .

In contrast to S m i t h / N e u s n e r , then, R i v k i n insists o n the d o m i n a n c e o f


the Pharisees a n d Pharisaic law in pre-70 Palestine. E v e n H e r o d , he
argues, had to " b e n d b e f o r e " Pharisaic p o w e r : the Pharisees w e r e able
to refuse an oath o f allegiance to H e r o d a n d n o t b e p u n i s h e d (Ant.
1 0 6
15:3). T h e S a d d u c e e s w e r e c o m p e l l e d b y p o p u l a r o p i n i o n to follow
Pharisaic laws (Ant. 1 8 : 1 5 , 1 7 ) . In J o s e p h u s ' s o w n a c c o u n t o f his deci­
sion to g o v e r n his life (7UoXiTeuea9oci) in a c c o r d with the Pharisaic s c h o o l
(Life 1 2 ) , R i v k i n finds further e v i d e n c e that " i n f o l l o w i n g the Pharisees
o n e d o e s not j o i n s o m e t h i n g , but o n e g o v e r n s o n e s e l f b y a system o f
1 0 7
laws". T h u s the Pharisees w e r e not at all a " s e c t " b u t a class o f
1 0 8
scholars that, with their special laws, g a v e leadership to the p e o p l e .
R i v k i n offers the f o l l o w i n g definition o f the Pharisees as they appear in

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

J o s e p h u s : " T h e Pharisees w e r e the active protagonists o f the U n w r i t t e n


L a w w h o e n j o y e d , e x c e p t f o r a b r i e f interval, the w h o l e h e a r t e d c o n ­
1 0 9
fidence a n d s u p p o r t o f the m a s s e s . " A s R i v k i n h i m s e l f o b s e r v e s , his
interpretation o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees is utterly i n c o m p a t i b l e with the
1 1 0
Smith/Neusner t h e o r y .

D. R. Schwartz: A Return to Source Criticism

A recent challenge to S m i t h / N e u s n e r has c o m e in a n article b y D . R .


1 1 1
S c h w a r t z , entitled " J o s e p h u s a n d N i c o l a u s o n the P h a r i s e e s " ( 1 9 8 3 ) .
A s the title suggests, S c h w a r t z wants to contest the increasingly p o p u l a r
Smith/Neusner theory b y r e v i v i n g a source-critical e x p l a n a t i o n o f
J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee passages:

M o r e o v e r , the question [of sources] takes on special importance insofar as


it has been ignored by several recent studies which have sought to explain
some of Josephus's statements on the Pharisees, namely those which
ascribe to them great influence and popularity, solely on the basis of his
112
own needs and p o l i t i c s .

T h u s S c h w a r t z sets o u t to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h Pharisee passages c a n b e at­


tributed to J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f a n d w h i c h o n e s w e r e simply taken o v e r b y
Josephus from Nicolaus.
O f special interest are S c h w a r t z ' s criteria for d e c i d i n g the s o u r c e ques­
1 1 3
tion. F o r e a c h o f the four passages that h e attributes to N i c o l a u s , he
c a n cite v a r i o u s linguistic details, w h i c h w e shall c o n s i d e r b e l o w in o u r
analysis o f the respective p e r i c o p a e . W h e n S c h w a r t z c o m e s , h o w e v e r , to
s u m m a r i z e his reasons for attributing passages to N i c o l a u s , his m a i n
1 1 4
criterion is that they "express hostility toward the Pharisees".
Specifically, the Pharisees appear as " t h o s e w h o incite the masses
1 1 5
against r u l e r s " . T w o other passages, b y contrast, " p r e s e n t t h o r o u g h l y
positive a c c o u n t s o f the P h a r i s e e s " , a n d " t h e s e i m p r o v e m e n t s in the i m ­
1 1 6
age o f the Pharisees s h o w that it is J o s e p h u s w h o is s p e a k i n g " . For
S c h w a r t z , then, as for H o l s c h e r l o n g a g o , the a u t h o r ' s attitude t o w a r d
the Pharisees is the crucial f a c t o r — t h o u g h b y no means the o n l y
factor—in d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s o r s o m e o n e else w a s the author.

1 0 9
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

Josephus the Pharisee cannot be e x p e c t e d to h a v e portrayed the


Pharisees in a negative light.
H o w d o e s S c h w a r t z ' s analysis c o n f r o n t the S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y ? I n
the first p l a c e , o f all the passages a d d u c e d b y N e u s n e r to d e m o n s t r a t e
J o s e p h u s ' s p r o m o t i o n o f the Pharisees in Ant. ( 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 401f.; 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ;
1 8 : 1 5 - 1 7 ) , S c h w a r t z argues that o n l y the last c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s
himself; the others m e n t i o n Pharisaic p o w e r b u t " i n a w a y w h i c h w o u l d
hardly c o m m e n d t h e m to the R o m a n s , e m p h a s i z i n g their subversive
117
capabilities". T h i s s h o w s that J o s e p h u s d i d n o t invent his statements
a b o u t Pharisaic p o w e r in o r d e r t o appeal to the R o m a n s ; rather, m o s t
c o m e f r o m N i c o l a u s . S e c o n d , Schwartz denies a m a j o r p r e m i s e o f
S m i t h ' s , n a m e l y , that the Pharisees at Y a v n e h w e r e b i d d i n g for R o m a n
1 1 8
endorsement. In p l a c e o f the S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y , therefore, he of­
fers a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n m o r e a l o n g the lines o f R a s p ' s .
In S c h w a r t z ' s v i e w , War reflects the m o s t t h o r o u g h a n d sustained
p o l e m i c o f all J o s e p h u s ' s writings, for that w o r k m a n a g e s to o b s c u r e the
119
Pharisees' political a c t i v i t i e s . F o r e x a m p l e , although War m e n t i o n s Si­
m e o n b e n G a m a l i e l as a leader in the r e v o l u t i o n a r y g o v e r n m e n t ( 2 : 6 2 8 ;
4 : 1 5 9 ) , it d o e s n o t identify h i m as a Pharisee; o n l y Life 191 d o e s . In War
1:67, S c h w a r t z argues, J o s e p h u s suppressed the fact, w h i c h h e o n l y
divulges in Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , that the Pharisees h a d h e a d e d the revolt against
J o h n H y r c a n u s . A n d War d o e s n o t m e n t i o n that the o a t h o f allegiance
refused b y the Pharisees n a m e d A u g u s t u s himself ( b u t Ant. 17:42).
Finally, War 2 : 1 1 8 claims that the rebel sect o f J u d a s h a d n o t h i n g in
c o m m o n with the others; b u t Ant. 1 8 : 1 0 , 23 links it closely with the
Pharisees. O n all o f these p o i n t s , Schwartz c o n t e n d s , it is War that o m i t s
the " d a m a g i n g pieces o f i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h c o n n e c t the Pharisees with
1 2 0
rebels". In Ant. a n d Life, o n the other h a n d , although these w o r k s are
still c o n d i t i o n e d b y J o s e p h u s ' s biases, " J o s e p h u s was less cautious a n d
therefore m u c h s o u r c e material, w h i c h indicated Pharisaic i n v o l v e m e n t
1 2 1
in politics a n d e v e n in r e b e l l i o n , f o u n d its w a y into these b o o k s .
T h u s S c h w a r t z c o n c l u d e s against N e u s n e r that it w a s J o s e p h u s ' s in­
tention to c o n f i n e the Pharisees to a harmless, p u r e l y religious d o m a i n
1 2 2
a n d that War, b e c a u s e it reflects this t e n d e n c y m o s t c l o s e l y , is not a
reliable g u i d e as to what the Pharisees w e r e really a b o u t . In Ant. and

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

Life, o n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s was less c a u t i o u s b e c a u s e the issue h a d


lost s o m e o f its u r g e n c y . S o h e a l l o w e d his s o u r c e ( N i c o l a u s ) to assert its
c l a i m that the Pharisees w e r e inciters o f the masses against the rulers.
A n d these a d m i s s i o n s o f Pharisaic political p o w e r , b e c a u s e they c o n ­
tradict J o s e p h u s ' s o w n intentions, must b e seen to carry c o n s i d e r a b l e
historical w e i g h t .
W i t h S c h w a r t z ' s article w e b r i n g to a close this survey o f scholarly in­
terpretations o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees. N o t o n l y is his c o n t r i b u t i o n
recent, b u t it also d r a w s together m a n y threads o f the p r e v i o u s discus­
sions. L i k e the earlier s o u r c e critics, S c h w a r t z allows that J o s e p h u s c o u l d
m e c h a n i c a l l y c o p y passages o n the Pharisees that w e r e inimical to his
o w n interests as a Pharisee. Like Laqueur a n d R a s p , h e l o o k s to
Josephus's c i r c u m s t a n c e s to explain s o m e o f the Pharisee material
(especially in War). A n d all o f this is directed against a n o t h e r effort a l o n g
that line, n a m e l y , the S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y .
C O N C L U S I O N T O P A R T I: T A S K O F T H E STUDY

It remains in this i n t r o d u c t o r y section to specify the c o n t r i b u t i o n that a


n e w study o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees m i g h t h o p e to m a k e . O n the
basis o f the insights g a i n e d thus far, I shall p r o p o s e a justification, a set
o f goals, a n d a p r o c e d u r e for this n e w investigation.

I. The Need for a New Study of Josephus's Pharisees

It is not necessary here to g i v e an e x t e n d e d critique o f the p r e v i o u s


analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees that w e r e s u r v e y e d in chapter 2 . T h e
weaknesses o f a n y g i v e n a p p r o a c h h a v e often b e e n p o i n t e d o u t b y suc­
cessive critics. W e shall also interact with specific h y p o t h e s e s in the
c o u r s e o f the f o l l o w i n g analysis. T h e o n l y p o i n t that n e e d s to b e estab­
lished here is that n o n e o f the studies c o n s i d e r e d a b o v e represents a c o m ­
plete literary analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t the Pharisees. Y e t
such c o m p l e t e n e s s is a prerequisite to a n y historical investigation o f the
Pharisees.
M o s t o f the studies c o n s i d e r e d d o not c l a i m to b e c o m p r e h e n s i v e .
G e r l a c h was interested o n l y in the issue o f w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s was a
Pharisee. H o l s c h e r d i d n o t e v e n try to interpret the Pharisee passages as
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o m p o s i t i o n s . R a s p focused o n the differences b e t w e e n
War 2 a n d Ant. 18 a n d largely i g n o r e d the other p e r i c o p a e . N e u s n e r , b y
his o w n a d m i s s i o n , was c o n c e r n e d to substantiate S m i t h ' s theory, a
1
p r e o c c u p a t i o n w h i c h p r e c l u d e d a n y serious attempt at interpretation.
Finally, S c h w a r t z ' s p u r p o s e w a s o n l y to d e c i d e w h o a u t h o r e d the v a r i o u s
Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s . N o n e o f these scholars has a i m e d at a
c o m p l e t e analysis o f the Pharisee passages in the c o n t e x t o f o u r a u t h o r ' s
2
thought a n d literary p u r p o s e s .

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

In chapter 1 w e saw that historical investigation presupposes an


u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the t e s t i m o n y o f e a c h witness. O n e c a n n o t , therefore,
use J o s e p h u s ' s e v i d e n c e a b o u t the Pharisees until o n e k n o w s w h a t it
m e a n s . W h y d o e s J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n the Pharisees? W h a t p l a c e d o they
o c c u p y in his v i s i o n o f things? W h a t d o e s he w a n t to say a b o u t t h e m ?
T h e s e q u e s t i o n s all h i n g e o n u n d e r s t a n d i n g J o s e p h u s as a writer, a task
that has b e e n all but i g n o r e d in the scholarly literature.
Not many years ago, W . C . van Unnik g a v e a lecture entitled
"Josephus, the N e g l e c t e d O n e " . H e s u r v e y e d the state o f J o s e p h a n
studies a n d remarked:

Josephus ist und wird immer wieder benutzt und zitiert. . . . U n d doch
lasst sich fragen, o b der vielzitierte Historiker auch wirklich gekannt wird.
Ist er nicht viel mehr Lieferant von Daten als verantwortungsvoller Autor?
Hat man seine Schriften wirklich gelesen, exegesiert und in richtiger Weise
3
ausgeschopft?

T h e deficiencies n o t e d b y v a n U n n i k are n o w h e r e m o r e e v i d e n t than in


the scholarly use o f J o s e p h u s for the study o f the Pharisees. T h a t is the
justification for the present study.
A necessary tool for the exegesis o f a n y prolific a u t h o r is an accurate
and exhaustive concordance. The absence o f such a resource for
J o s e p h u s in the past m a y partially explain the lack o f scholarly interest
in his thought. What makes a new study o f Josephus's Pharisees
especially timely n o w is the recent c o m p l e t i o n ( 1 9 8 3 ) o f the Complete Con­
4
cordance to Flavius Josephus, e d i t e d b y K . H . R e n g s t o r f et al. That work
5
will d o u b t l e s s r e v o l u t i o n i z e J o s e p h a n studies.

I I . Aims of the Study

Our goal, then, will b e to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the


Pharisees. Interpretation is necessary because his statements (like
a n y o n e ' s ) are n o t a u t o n o m o u s , self-evident units o f truth, but rather
p r o d u c t i o n s o f his o w n t h o u g h t . J o s e p h u s c o u l d c o n c e i v a b l y h a v e o m i t ­
ted a n y reference to the Pharisees. T h e interpreter must ask w h y he
elected to m e n t i o n t h e m , what these a c c o u n t s c o n t r i b u t e to his nar­
ratives, a n d w h y he c h o s e certain w o r d s a n d not others to d e s c r i b e the
Pharisees. I f J o s e p h u s c l a i m s , for e x a m p l e , that the Pharisees Soxouvxe^

3
In W . C . van Unnik, Flavius Josephus als historischer Schrifisteller (Heidelberg: Lambert
Schneider, 1978), 18. The lectures printed here were delivered in 1972.
4
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

euaefJearepov xat axpiPeaTepov etvai TCOV dXXcov (War 1:110), o n e m u s t ask


w h e t h e r this particular c h o i c e o f v o c a b u l a r y a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n has a n y
significance. I f J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s the Pharisees' activities u n d e r J o h n
H y r c a n u s o r A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e , o n e m u s t ask w h y he i n t r o d u c e s t h e m
there, w h a t h e thinks o f the H a s m o n e a n s , a n d w h a t r o l e h e gives the
Pharisees in J e w i s h history. A l t h o u g h these basic kinds o f q u e s t i o n s h a v e
usually b e e n i g n o r e d , they are indispensable for historical research: o n e
c a n n o t get b e h i n d J o s e p h u s ' s intention as a witness unless o n e k n o w s
what that intention is.
I f this holistic a p p r o a c h is successful, it should also yield defensible
c o n c l u s i o n s o n three specific issues that r e c u r in the s e c o n d a r y literature.
These are: ( a ) the problem o f Josephus's o w n relationship to the
Pharisees; ( b ) the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r he deliberately c h a n g e d his presenta­
tion o f the g r o u p b e t w e e n War a n d Ant./Life; a n d ( c ) the p r o b l e m o f his
use o f sources for his d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees. T h e resolution o f
these particular issues will b e a function o f the overall interpretive
process.

I I I . Procedure of the Study

Finally, it is necessary to explain the subtitle o f this work, "a


c o m p o s i t i o n - c r i t i c a l s t u d y " , a n d to indicate its significance for o u r p r o ­
cedure.
T h e literary analysis o f ancient texts, the search for the a u t h o r ' s v i s i o n
of things, corresponds largely to the programme of "redaction
c r i t i c i s m " in biblical studies. That m o v e m e n t is c h a r a c t e r i z e d , over
against " f o r m " a n d " s o u r c e " criticism, b y its c o n c e r n to identify an
author's thought and literary tendencies. Nevertheless, redaction
criticism has c o m e to m e a n different things to different critics. S o m e
b e l i e v e that o n l y a c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n an a u t h o r ' s o w n p r o d u c t i o n a n d
his sources c a n p r o p e r l y b e called " r e d a c t i o n a l " ; others think it possible
to u n d e r s t a n d the r e d a c t o r e v e n w i t h o u t sure k n o w l e d g e o f his s o u r c e s ,
6
s i m p l y b y an interpretation o f the final w o r k as it s t a n d s .
N o w the f o l l o w i n g study will c o n t e n d that J o s e p h u s ' s descriptions o f
the Pharisees in the present tense (thus: " t h e Pharisees are a g r o u p
t h a t . . . " ) are his o w n a n d that w h e r e he describes their past a c t i o n s ,
u n d e r H a s m o n e a n o r H e r o d i a n rule, the exact shape o f his sources is
usually irrecoverable. This study could only be called "redaction-

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

c r i t i c a l " , therefore, if the t e r m w e r e u n d e r s t o o d to signify " v e r t i c a l "


r e d a c t i o n c r i t i c i s m , w h i c h is the latter t y p e m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . T o a v o i d
b o t h c o n f u s i o n a n d the a p p e a r a n c e o f m a k i n g false p r o m i s e s , I h a v e
chosen the adjective " c o m p o s i t i o n - c r i t i c a l " to d e s c r i b e the present
study. C o i n e d b y the N T scholar E . H a e n c h e n , it has c o m e to b e u s e d
o f the effort to interpret an a u t h o r ' s writings in a n d o f t h e m s e l v e s , as
7
self-contained c o m p o s i t i o n s . T h e narrative is a s s u m e d t o c o n t a i n w i t h i n
itself the keys to its o w n m e a n i n g .
I n k e e p i n g with this p r i n c i p l e , o u r p r o c e d u r e will always b e to l o o k
first within J o s e p h u s ' s writings for clues a b o u t the significance o f his
c h o s e n w o r d s a n d phrases. H i s general u s a g e a n d the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t
will, so far as p o s s i b l e , b e the arbiters o f m e a n i n g . O n l y w h e n these
r e s o u r c e s h a v e b e e n e x p l o i t e d shall w e l o o k to external parallels for fur­
ther e n l i g h t e n m e n t .
The c o m p o s i t i o n a l thrust o f the study also has i m p o r t a n t conse­
q u e n c e s for its e m p h a s i s . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s the Pharisees in fourteen
different passages. O f these, n i n e are deliberate, reflective discussions o f
8
the g r o u p . I n the o t h e r five cases, w e h a v e incidental references, w h i c h
s i m p l y n o t e that certain Pharisees w e r e present s o m e w h e r e o r that s o m e ­
9
one was a Pharisee. F o r a historical investigation, w h i c h seeks to cir­
c u m v e n t the witness's i n t e n t i o n , incidental notices are the m o s t v a l u a b l e
b e c a u s e they are m o r e likely to y i e l d unintentional e v i d e n c e . S i n c e o u r
p u r p o s e , h o w e v e r , is to grasp J o s e p h u s ' s intention, w e m u s t try to b e sen­
sitive to his o w n e m p h a s e s ; this will r e q u i r e that p r i m a r y attention b e
g i v e n to his deliberate discussions o f the Pharisees. It is in those discus­
sions, if a n y w h e r e , that h e spells o u t w h a t he wants the r e a d e r to k n o w
a b o u t the g r o u p .
Finally, o u r p r o c e d u r e will b e g o v e r n e d b y the n e e d to deal with the
familiar circles o f interpretation, especially that o f the w h o l e a n d the
parts. F o r o n e c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d the w h o l e w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
parts; yet o n e c a n n o t u n d e r s t a n d the parts w i t h o u t u n d e r s t a n d i n g the
w h o l e . J o s e p h u s discusses the Pharisees in three o f his f o u r extant w o r k s ,
in War, Ant., a n d the Life. T h e s e b o o k s will b e c o n s i d e r e d in Parts I I ,
I I I , a n d I V o f the study, respectively. T o b r e a k into the circle o f the
w h o l e a n d the parts, w e shall b e g i n e a c h part with an o v e r v i e w o f the
p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f the w o r k in q u e s t i o n . T o a n a l y z e an i n d i v i d u a l
p e r i c o p e , w e shall e x a m i n e first its i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t (the " w h o l e " ) a n d
then its k e y t e r m s (the " p a r t s " ) , b e f o r e w e attempt an interpretation

7
Cf. Juel, Messiah, 30.
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

(the " w h o l e " ) . E a c h chapter will i n c l u d e source-critical o b s e r v a t i o n s o n


the passage u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n .
T o s u m m a r i z e : the investigation o f J o s e p h u s ' s presentation o f the
Pharisees is n o t n e w . N o r is the study o f ancient authors in terms o f their
c o m p o s i t i o n a l a i m s a n d interests. W h a t is n e w in the f o l l o w i n g analysis
is the a p p l i c a t i o n o f this particular m e t h o d to this particular p r o b l e m . I f
successful, this i n q u i r y will clarify several p r e l i m i n a r y issues in the study
o f the Pharisees a n d will also yield s o m e insight into the t h o u g h t o f
Josephus.
EXCURSUS T O PART ONE

A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF JOSEPHUS AS


AN AUTHOR

In the Introduction I have advocated a ' 'composition-critical'' ap­


proach to Josephus's descriptions of the Pharisees. Those descriptions
are to be interpreted in the light of the author's motives and outlook.
Such an approach, however, presupposes to some extent that Josephus
can justly be regarded as the author of the passages under discussion.
Is that assumption justified, at least as a working hypothesis? Three
factors might seem to militate against it and must be considered here.

I. The Source Problem

That Josephus used sources for his presentations of the Pharisees is


undeniable. W e must ask, however, whether it would be legitimate, on
the basis of some assured results of scholarship, to begin this study by
designating certain passages as the work of Josephus's sources alone
and therefore as non-Josephan. T h e question arises with particular
poignancy in relation to Ant. 17:41-45, which we shall consider in Part
III. O u r concern here is with general principles that obtain for
Josephus's writings as a whole.
T h e source-critical movement, it will be recalled, proposed various
evidences that Josephus was a rather dull copyist who failed to impart
any independent judgement or outlook to his material. These evidences
can be grouped under three rubrics:

A. Material inconsistencies, such as unfulfilled cross-references,


doublets, dissonant chronological systems, and conflicting high-priest
lists.
B. Stylistic variations, such as Holscher observed between War 1:31-
2:116 and 2:117ff.
C . Circumstances that suggest Josephus's use of large, secondary or in­
termediate sources. Holscher, for example, doubted that Josephus used
either the L X X or the Hebrew Bible directly, in Ant. 1-11, since he
1
departs from both. Holscher also supposed that Josephus's Pharisaic

1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1952-1955.
46 EXCURSUS

education would have prevented h i m k n o w i n g first-hand the many


2
p a g a n authors that he c i t e s .

W i t h respect to the Pharisee passages in particular: a m a j o r criterion o f


the s o u r c e critics w a s that J o s e p h u s , b e i n g a Pharisee, c o u l d n o t h a v e
consistently d i s p a r a g e d his o w n p a r t y . W e h a v e seen the i m p o r t a n c e o f
this criterion for H o l s c h e r a n d S c h w a r t z . O n e o f the m o r e e n d u r i n g p r o ­
posals o f s o u r c e criticism, it turns u p in G . F. M o o r e , W . Bousset, M .
3
W a x m a n , and even M . Smith. A l t h o u g h the s o u r c e critics differed c o n ­
siderably o n the actual s o u r c e s b e h i n d the Pharisee passages, they a g r e e d
that m a n y o f t h e m c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n written b y J o s e p h u s ; he m u s t
have absent-mindedly copied them.
C o n t e m p o r a r y scholarship, h o w e v e r , has p r o g r e s s e d far b e y o n d the
h e y d a y o f s o u r c e criticism. W e m a y n o t e the f o l l o w i n g insights that
w o u l d s e e m to justify the a priori a s s u m p t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p o f
the Pharisee passages.

A . L a q u e u r d e m o n s t r a t e d that J o s e p h u s c o u l d present his o w n activities


in v a r i o u s , n o t entirely h a r m o n i o u s , w a y s . S i n c e there is n o q u e s t i o n o f
sources accounting for these differences, one has to reckon with
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n initiative a n d p u r p o s e s .
B . M a n y a s s u m p t i o n s o f the o l d e r s o u r c e criticism are n o l o n g e r c o n ­
sidered v a l i d . S u c h an a s s u m p t i o n w a s H o l s c h e r ' s b e l i e f that J o s e p h u s ' s
Palestinian e d u c a t i o n w o u l d h a v e p r e c l u d e d a serious k n o w l e d g e o f
4
G r e e k l a n g u a g e a n d literature o n his p a r t . Further, J o s e p h u s ' s sup­
posed allegiance to Pharisaism has been reduced by some scholars
( S m i t h , N e u s n e r , C o h e n ) to a spurious c l a i m .
C . H o l s c h e r ' s t h e o r y that J o s e p h u s used intermediate sources has n o t
5
worn well. But if intermediate sources are d o n e a w a y with, then
J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w a s the o n e w h o artfully c o m b i n e d , a n d sometimes
6
criticized, his s o u r c e s .

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

D . M a n y recent studies h a v e d i s c o v e r e d consistent m o t i f s a n d r e d a c -


tional c o n c e r n s in J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s . H . L i n d n e r ' s study o f War, for
7
e x a m p l e , reveals a clear v i e w o f history a n d o f Israel in that w o r k .
Analyses o f Josephus's b i b l i c a l p a r a p h r a s e (Ant. 1-11) h a v e d e m o n ­
8
strated m a r k e d editorial t h e m e s . T h u s H . W . Attridge discovers ' 'an
i m p o r t a n t t h e o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n in the w o r k o f J o s e p h u s . . . in its inter­
9
pretative presentation o f scriptural n a r r a t i v e s " . I n J o s e p h u s ' s use o f
10
Aristeas, A . Pelletier likewise p o i n t s o u t several discernable t e n d e n c i e s .
H . R . M o e h r i n g ' s c o n c l u s i o n , with respect to the " n o v e l i s t i c e l e m e n t s "
in J o s e p h u s ' s narrative, anticipated the results o f these recent studies:
" J o s e p h u s c a n justly b e called the a u t h o r , in the true sense o f this t e r m ,
o f the w o r k s attributed to h i m : e v e n w h e n he b o r r o w s . . . he impresses
1 1
his o w n personality u p o n his w o r k . "
E . H . S c h r e c k e n b e r g ' s analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s style, for text-critical p u r ­
p o s e s , has also shed light o n the fundamental integrity o f J o s e p h u s ' s
w o r k s . A s S c h r e c k e n b e r g n o t e s : " N i c h t das unwichtigste E r g e b n i s d e r
hier v o r g e l e g t e n textkritischen A r b e i t ist eine n e u e Einsicht in die
sprachlich-stilistische Einheit der Werke des Josephus, die
1 2
v e r s c h i e d e n t l i c h bezweifelt w u r d e . "

T h e r e a c t i o n , then, to a s o u r c e criticism that d e n i e d J o s e p h u s the true


function o f an a u t h o r has b e e n b r o a d l y b a s e d a n d forceful.
For Josephus's Pharisee passages, the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n suggests
itself: if J o s e p h u s w a s so o b v i o u s l y c a p a b l e o f shaping his w o r k to reflect
his o w n a g e n d a , interests, a n d style, is it r e a s o n a b l e to s u p p o s e that,
w h e n he c a m e to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees—a g r o u p o f w h i c h he h a d per­
sonal k n o w l e d g e (Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) , h e s i m p l y p a r r o t e d s o m e r e m a r k s from
his p a g a n sources, without regard for his o w n sentiments? L. H.
F e l d m a n m a k e s the p o i n t well. N o t i n g that J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e s for the
Pharisee passages are, in a n y c a s e , u n k n o w n , he c o n t i n u e s :

7
H . Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1972), 40-45, 141-14.
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

But when we definitely know Josephus' source, as in his restatement of the


'Letter of Aristeas', we see that he can rework his source with considerable
thoroughness. It is hard to believe that in an issue as important as the
Pharisees, where he had personal knowledge and experience, he chose
13
slavishly to reproduce his sources.

T o s u m m a r i z e : it is clear that J o s e p h u s u s e d s o u r c e s , especially for events


b e y o n d his o w n e x p e r i e n c e . T h a t he used t h e m as an anthologist a n d n o t
as an author, h o w e v e r , is a p r o p o s i t i o n m a d e u n t e n a b l e b y several m a j o r
studies. O n e c a n n o t d e n y that a few clear material inconsistencies r e m a i n
in J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s , but these tensions c a n n o t o v e r t u r n the o v e r w h e l m ­
1 4
i n g e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t r o l o v e r his literary p r o d u c t i o n s .

I I . Josephus's Literary Assistants

It w a s H . St. J o h n T h a c k e r a y , in a 1926 lecture, w h o p r o p o s e d that


J o s e p h u s h a d e m p l o y e d literary assistants for the w r i t i n g o f b o t h War
15
a n d Ant. 1 5 - 1 9 . T h a c k e r a y d r e w o n the f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e .

A . J o s e p h u s ' s Palestinian b a c k g r o u n d w o u l d h a v e p r e v e n t e d h i m f r o m
mastering G r e e k ; h e m u s t h a v e learned his G r e e k o n l y in R o m e . Y e t the
style o f War " i s an excellent s p e c i m e n o f the Atticistic G r e e k o f the first
c e n t u r y " , a n d therefore u n i m a g i n a b l e f r o m a writer w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y
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

I n Ant. 1 5 - 1 9 , therefore, T h a c k e r a y discerns the w o r k o f t w o literary


assistants, the one "Sophoclean" (books 15-16) and the other a
" T h u c y d i d e a n h a c k " (books 17-19).
How m u c h l e e w a y d i d J o s e p h u s grant these assistants? T h a c k e r a y is
n o t absolutely clear, b u t he d o e s indicate that after Ant. 14, " t h e w o r k
1 9
has b e e n entrusted to other h a n d s " , a n d that the T h u c y d i d e a n w a s
2 0
" r e s p o n s i b l e for w r i t i n g practically the w h o l e o f B o o k s x v i i - x i x . . . " ,
21
as well as v a r i o u s " p u r p l e p a t c h e s " in the earlier n a r r a t i v e . I n general,
the w o r k o f J o s e p h u s ' s assistants r a n g e d f r o m " p o l i s h i n g his p e r i o d s " to
2 2
" t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f large p o r t i o n s o f the n a r r a t i v e " .
F o r the Pharisee passages, T h a c k e r a y ' s analysis w o u l d s e e m to require
that Ant. 1 5 : 1 - 4 , 3 6 5 - 3 7 9 w e r e written b y the S o p h o c l e a n , Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5
a n d 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 b y the T h u c y d i d e a n . ( R e c a l l that the s o u r c e critics, b y
contrast, attribute Ant. 17:41-45 and 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 to different sources,
b e c a u s e o f their difference in t o n e t o w a r d the Pharisees.) H i s interpreta­
tion o f the auvepyot as full-fledged writers has n o t , h o w e v e r , p r o v e n
durable.
In a 1939 article G . C . R i c h a r d s s h o w e d , o n the o n e h a n d , that cer­
tain characteristics o f J o s e p h a n style a p p e a r in the b o o k s that T h a c k e r a y
h a d attributed w h o l l y to assistants a n d , o n the o t h e r h a n d , that the i m ­
itation o f T h u c y d i d e s in Ant. 17-19 is t o o a w k w a r d to b e the w o r k o f a
23
skilled a s s i s t a n t .
I n a 1961 study, R . J. H . Shutt subjected T h a c k e r a y ' s p r o p o s a l to
24 25
careful scrutiny a n d also rejected i t . Shutt a r g u e d as f o l l o w s .

A . T h e b r e a k b e t w e e n Ant. 14 a n d 15 is a natural b r e a k in the story o f


H e r o d : b o o k 14 closes with his entry into J e r u s a l e m , w h e r e a s in b o o k
15 he b e g i n s to c o n s o l i d a t e his p o s i t i o n in the city. Further, there are i m ­
2 6
p o r t a n t narrative links b e t w e e n b o o k s 14 a n d 1 5 .
B . Ant. 15-16 c o n t a i n s r e m i n i s c e n c e s o f S o p h o c l e s b u t , since J o s e p h u s
c l a i m e d to h a v e studied G r e e k in R o m e (Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 3 ) , that is n o t surpris­
27
ing. S u c h r e m i n i s c e n c e s also o c c u r in War.

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

C . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s ' s c o m p o s i t i o n a l (as distinct f r o m c o n v e r s a t i o n a l )


G r e e k m a y h a v e r e q u i r e d assistance w h e n he arrived in R o m e a n d w r o t e
War, an assistance that h e a c k n o w l e d g e s (Ag.Ap. 1:50), it seems unlikely
that w h e n h e c a m e to write Ant., h a v i n g lived in R o m e a n d studied
G r e e k for m a n y years, he n e e d e d the s a m e assistance; he d o e s n o t
2 8
acknowledge a n y .
D . In a detailed e x a m i n a t i o n o f the T h u c y d i d e a n e x p r e s s i o n s in Ant. 17-
19, Shutt d e m o n s t r a t e d that they are also present in Ant. 20 a n d Life,
2 9
w h i c h T h a c k e r a y h a d attributed to the ipsissima verba o f J o s e p h u s .
Shutt, therefore, f o u n d T h a c k e r a y ' s h y p o t h e s i s " b a s i c a l l y u n s o u n d "
a n d " u n n e c e s s a r y " . In its p l a c e h e p r o p o s e d that J o s e p h u s t o o k u p a
striking phrase, " w o r k e d u p o n it, e x t e n d e d it, in a c o m p a r a t i v e l y short
3 0
s p a c e , a n d then d i s c a r d e d i t " , after the m a n n e r o f L i v y .

T . R a j a k ' s recent study o f J o s e p h u s ( 1 9 8 3 ) has c o n f i r m e d a n d e x t e n d e d


3 1
Shutt's critique o f T h a c k e r a y . R a j a k identifies J o s e p h u s as a m e m b e r
o f the " u p p e r e c h e l o n s o f the Palestinian p r i e s t h o o d , an o u t w a r d l o o k ­
ing, flexible g r o u p " , a status i n d i c a t e d b y his selection as an emissary
32
to R o m e a n d as a c o m m a n d e r in the r e v o l t . In this c a p a c i t y , R a j a k
argues, J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e possessed a basic facility in G r e e k , w h i c h
c o u l d o n l y h a v e b e e n e n h a n c e d d u r i n g his eight years o r so o f R o m a n
33
captivity b e f o r e he w r o t e War. T h u s , the k i n d o f linguistic deficiencies
for w h i c h he r e q u i r e d h e l p in the w r i t i n g o f War w e r e n o t basic b u t in­
34
volved precision o f idiom and style. R a j a k thus inclines t o w a r d the
v i e w d i s c a r d e d b y T h a c k e r a y , that the auvepyot o f Ag.Ap. 1:50 w e r e
s i m p l y friends w h o w e r e w i l l i n g to edit War for style, as A g r i p p a II a p ­
parently h a d d o n e for c o n t e n t (Life 3 6 4 f f . ) . She r e m a r k s :

It would be rash, therefore, to suppose that he [Josephus] would not be fit,


when eventually he came to the Greek War, at the very least to collaborate
fruitfully with his assistants, and to take the ultimate responsibility for
35
substance and style a l i k e .

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

R a j a k is especially reluctant to allow the auvepyot a n y significant role


in Ant., since, as Shutt h a d n o t e d , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t a c k n o w l e d g e a n y
3 6
assistance for that w o r k . M o r e o v e r , she p o i n t s o u t , the S o p h o c l e a n a n d
T h u c y d i d e a n styles c a n n o t b e attributed to different writers b e c a u s e ( a )
T h u c y d i d e a n i s m s o c c u r t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s writings a n d ( b ) the t w o
styles are s o m e t i m e s i n t e r w o v e n in a single passage ( e . g . Ant. 4 : 8 9 - 9 5 ) .
Rajak's own explanation o f these classical reminiscences is that
J o s e p h u s , as h e h i m s e l f says (Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 3 ) , h a d studied the classics; she
notes that the masters w e r e studied precisely for the p u r p o s e o f imita­
3 7
tion. O t h e r inconsistencies in his writings she attributes to ( a ) the influ­
ences o f sources a n d ( b ) the o c c a s i o n a n d p u r p o s e o f the writing.
In s u m : R i c h a r d s , Shutt, a n d R a j a k all s u p p o r t T h a c k e r a y ' s o b s e r v a ­
tion that J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s exhibit an u n e v e n n e s s o f style: they d o n o t ,
h o w e v e r , e n d o r s e the other premises r e q u i r e d for his inference that
literary assistants actually c o m p o s e d large sections o f the narrative.
S i n c e n o d e f e n c e o f T h a c k e r a y ' s hypothesis has a p p e a r e d , it w o u l d s e e m
legitimate t o take the p o s i t i o n o f the later scholars as the verdict o f c o n ­
t e m p o r a r y scholarship o n the ouvepyoi:

It is quite safe to take Josephus's works, starting with the first, the War,
as his own, and to treat him exactly in the same way as we do other ancient
writers. It is as well to dispel all fantastic notions of ghost writers at this
38
early s t a g e .

In this matter, as with the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n , the interpreter o f J o s e p h u s ' s


Pharisee passages c a n n o t b e g i n b y separating s o m e o f t h e m as the w o r k
o f another a u t h o r .

I I I . Christian Influence on the Text

A third possible reason for suspecting that J o s e p h u s w a s not responsible


for all o f the Pharisee passages in his w o r k s is that those w o r k s w e r e pre­
served f r o m antiquity b y the Christian C h u r c h , w h o s e anti-Pharisaic
stance was already revealed in the G o s p e l s a n d c o n t i n u e d u n a b a t e d . It
is w i d e l y b e l i e v e d that the testimoniumflavianumo f J o s e p h u s has at least
3 9
b e e n glossed b y a C h r i s t i a n h a n d . Is it n o t c o n c e i v a b l e , then, that the
C h u r c h altered J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees, since this g r o u p
w a s the object o f its displeasure?

3 6
Ibid., 233-236.
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

A l t h o u g h a l o g i c a l possibility, the idea o f C h r i s t i a n t a m p e r i n g with


Josephus's Pharisee passages has h a r d l y ever b e e n put forward. I.
Elbogen was o n e o f its few a d v o c a t e s . A r g u i n g that the rabbinic
literature offers the o n l y suitable entree to Pharisaic t h o u g h t , E l b o g e n
suggested that the Christian copyists w h o handed down Josephus's
writings suppressed (unterdruckteri) e v e r y t h i n g in t h e m that w a s i n c o n v e ­
nient for C h r i s t i a n belief; the c e n s o r e d material allegedly c o n t a i n e d
40
favourable presentations of the Pharisees. Elbogen pointed to
Josephus's repeated c l a i m in Ant. ( 1 3 : 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 ; 1 8 : 1 1 ) that he had
already g i v e n a full d i s c u s s i o n o f the J e w i s h schools in War; b u t Ant. e x ­
p a n d s c o n s i d e r a b l y o n the material that w e n o w possess in War. E l b o g e n
p r o p o s e d that Christian c o p y i s t s deleted f r o m War those d e s c r i p t i o n s o f
the Pharisees that c o n t r a d i c t e d their i m p r e s s i o n s f r o m the G o s p e l s :

D a die Pharisaer als die eigentlichen prinzipiellen G e g n e r des Christen-


tums angesehen wurden, so glaubten m a n in der Charakteristik des
Pharisaertums durch Josephus nicht mehr die Wahrheit zu finden und
liesst nur stehen, was neben ihrem von den Evangelien entworfenen Bilde
41
sich sehen lassen k o n n t e .

E l b o g e n d i d n o t actually suggest, then, that c o p y i s t s altered the Pharisee


passages that n o w stand, o n l y that they deleted a m o r e p o s i t i v e portrayal
f r o m War. ( T h i s t h e o r y , significantly, reveals E l b o g e n ' s j u d g e m e n t that
the r e m a i n i n g Pharisee passages are u n f a v o u r a b l e t o w a r d the g r o u p . )
Unfortunately, E l b o g e n ' s idea r e m a i n e d unsubstantiated by more
precise i n d i c a t i o n s o f w h a t the deleted material h a d c o n t a i n e d , w h e r e it
had s t o o d , a n d w h e n it w a s e x c i s e d . W i t h o u t these crucial supports, the
hypothesis c o u l d n o t s u r v i v e .
T h e o t h e r theoretical possibility, o f Christian responsibility for the
Pharisee passages that r e m a i n , runs a g r o u n d o n the c i r c u m s t a n c e that
the passages most hostile toward the Pharisees come in pieces o f
historical narrative, c o n c e r n i n g events under the Hasmoneans and
H e r o d , w h i c h the C h u r c h c a n h a r d l y h a v e s u p p l i e d . Christian influence
w o u l d thus b e limited to s o m e sort o f " c o l o u r i n g " ; the p r o b l e m w o u l d
then b e to separate this c o l o u r i n g f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s o w n c o n t r i b u t i o n .
No hypothesis o f Christian tampering with J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee
passages is b e i n g p r o p o s e d in this study a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y n o o b l i g a t i o n
is a s s u m e d to d i s c o v e r the h a n d o f the c o p y i s t . F o r o u r p u r p o s e , it is suf­
ficient to n o t e that the C h u r c h ' s transmission o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings has
n e v e r b e e n s h o w n to h a v e i n c l u d e d a n y t a m p e r i n g with his descriptions
o f the Pharisees.

4 0
Elbogen, Religionsanschauungen, 4.
4 1
Ibid.
EXCURSUS 53

Summary

T h r e e factors m i g h t s e e m to c o m p l i c a t e a n y attempt to read J o s e p h u s ' s


writings as his o w n c o m p o s i t i o n s . T h e y are: ( a ) his use o f s o u r c e s ; ( b )
his use o f literary assistants; a n d ( c ) the C h u r c h ' s transmission o f his
w o r k s . It is i m p o s s i b l e to rule o u t a n y o f these factors a priori as possible
influences o n the a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees that a p p e a r in J o s e p h u s .
Nevertheless, the results o f recent scholarship establish a strong prima
facie case for the p r e s u m p t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s authorial responsibility. W e
h a v e n o basis in the results o f c o n t e m p o r a r y research to c l a i m that a n y
single passage o n the Pharisees must b e separated at the outset, as the
w o r k o f s o m e o n e other than J o s e p h u s himself.
If striking inconsistencies should a p p e a r a m o n g J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisee
passages, they will call for an e x p l a n a t i o n . In that case, o n e possibility
w o u l d b e difference o f authorship, a t h e m e that has three variations.
O u r first task, h o w e v e r , is to try to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s statements a b o u t
the Pharisees within the c o n t e x t o f his o w n thought a n d writing, as his
o w n testimony.
PART T W O

THE P H A R I S E E S I N T H E JEWISH WAR

B e t w e e n A D 75 a n d 79 J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e d his history o f the "Jewish


1
war" in G r e e k . B y that t i m e he h a d b e e n g r a n t e d R o m a n c i t i z e n s h i p
a n d w a s l o d g e d securely in the e m p e r o r ' s f o r m e r r e s i d e n c e .
So far as is k n o w n , J o s e p h u s ' s first published descriptions o f the
2
P h a r i s e e s are t h o s e c o n t a i n e d in War. T o understand what Josephus
w i s h e d t o c o n v e y a b o u t the Pharisees to the r e a d e r s o f his first w o r k is
the p u r p o s e o f Part I I . W e shall l o o k first at the p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f
War a n d t h e n at the relevant p a s s a g e s .

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

F o r t u n a t e l y for the interpreter o f War, J o s e p h u s takes s o m e t r o u b l e to


e n u n c i a t e his goals a n d p o i n t o f v i e w , b o t h in the p r o e m to War itself
3
a n d in later reflective c o m m e n t s o n that w o r k . A m o n g all o f these
e l a b o r a t e statements o f intention, h o w e v e r , o n e item has riveted the at­
tention o f m u c h twentieth-century scholarship. It is J o s e p h u s ' s n o t i c e
that in the G r e e k War he w a s p r o v i d i n g for a G r e e k - s p e a k i n g a u d i e n c e
w h a t he h a d already c o m p o s e d in his native l a n g u a g e (TTJ 7c<XTpi ) for the
Parthians, B a b y l o n i a n s , a n d others (War 1:3, 6 ) . T h i s reference to an
4
earlier, p r e s u m a b l y A r a m a i c , e d i t i o n o f War has for m a n y scholars p r o ­
v i d e d the k e y to the p u r p o s e o f the extant G r e e k v e r s i o n .

I. Historical Approaches

R . L a q u e u r p o s e d the inevitable q u e s t i o n :

was es besagen soil, wenn in der ersten Halfte der siebzigen Jahre der v o m
Kaiser bezahlte und mit einer Villa beschenkte jiidische Schriftsteller in
R o m in aramaischer Sprache ein W e r k verfasste, welches fur den fernen
5
Orient bestimmt w a r .

H i s n o w classic a n s w e r w a s that J o s e p h u s w r o t e War o n b e h a l f o f the


e m p e r o r V e s p a s i a n , to b e a v e h i c l e o f i m p e r i a l p o l i c y in the O r i e n t . It
w a s an official p r o p a g a n d a p i e c e , calculated to deflate a n y a m b i t i o n s the
"oberen Barbaren" m a y h a v e b e e n n u r s i n g for a c a m p a i g n against
R o m e . L a q u e u r ' s e v i d e n c e w a s e l a b o r a t e d b y H . St. J o h n Thackeray
6
a n d the results m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s .
A . T h a t the Parthians a n d their n e i g h b o u r s constituted a threat to
R o m e L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y infer f r o m v a r i o u s s o u r c e s . In the m i d -
4 0 ' s , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s (Ant. 2 0 : 6 9 - 7 4 ) , the Parthian k i n g V a r d a n e s
c o n t e m p l a t e d a w a r with R o m e . In the preface to War ( 1 : 4 ) J o s e p h u s
notes that the J e w i s h rebels h o p e d for assistance from their fellows
b e y o n d the E u p h r a t e s a n d that, with the revolt, the Eastern E m p i r e w a s

3
Cf., in particular, Ant. 1:1-4; Life 361-367; Ag.Ap. 1:47-56.
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

p l a c e d in j e o p a r d y . A g r i p p a is m a d e to ask the rebels, rhetorically,


w h e t h e r they are e x p e c t i n g h e l p f r o m the J e w s o f A d i a b e n e ( War 2 : 3 8 8 ) ;
indeed, s o m e proselytes f r o m that c o u n t r y d i d j o i n the revolt (War
5 : 4 7 4 ) . P l i n y (Panegyric on Trajan 14) reports that the Parthians c a m e
v e r y close to w a r with R o m e in A D 7 5 . A n d finally, w e k n o w that the
J e w i s h D i a s p o r a in M e s o p o t a m i a d i d revolt u n d e r T r a j a n in 1 1 5 - 1 1 7 .
B. The invincibility a n d fortune o f R o m e are recurring themes
1
throughout War. I n his appeal to the rebels to quit their insurrection,
A g r i p p a repeatedly cites R o m e ' s ouvocuas a n d i\>yr\ ( 2 : 3 6 0 , 3 7 3 , 3 8 7 ) .
J o s e p h u s d r a w s a c o m p e l l i n g portrait o f R o m a n military procedures
( 3 : 7 0 - 1 0 7 ) , b y w h i c h he intends to offer " c o n s o l a t i o n to those w h o h a v e
b e e n c o n q u e r e d a n d dissuasion to those contemplating revolt" ( 3 : 1 0 8 ) .
C. T h a t War possessed s o m e sort o f official status is suggested b y the
c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h it w a s written. T h e A r a m a i c v e r s i o n , w h i c h
seems to h a v e b e e n J o s e p h u s ' s first literary p r o j e c t in R o m e u n d e r Fla­
vian s p o n s o r s h i p , was d i s p a t c h e d with n o t a b l e s p e e d . U p o n c o m p l e t i n g
the G r e e k e d i t i o n , J o s e p h u s presented c o p i e s i m m e d i a t e l y to V e s p a s i a n
a n d T i t u s (Ag.Ap. 1:51; Life 3 6 1 ) ; the latter, w e are t o l d , i n t e n d e d that
Josephus's War should b e c o m e the standard a c c o u n t o f the conflict in
Palestine a n d to that e n d o r d e r e d its p u b l i c a t i o n (Life 3 6 3 ) . Finally,
J o s e p h u s ' s glorification o f the future e m p e r o r s , especially T i t u s , is so
p r o n o u n c e d that W . W e b e r c o u l d posit as the p r i n c i p a l s o u r c e for War
8
a Flavian w o r k that r e c o u n t e d the rise o f this dynasty to p o w e r .
T a k e n together, these three g r o u p s o f e v i d e n c e s e e m to l e n d c o n ­
siderable s u p p o r t to the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y interpretation o f the m o t i v e
b e h i n d War:

Josephus was commissioned by the conquerors to write the official history


of the war for propagandistic purposes. It was a manifesto, intended as a
warning to the East of the futility of further opposition and to allay the
after-war thirst for revenge which ultimately found vent in the fierce out­
9
breaks under Trajan and H a d r i a n .

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

lost A r a m a i c w o r k they h a v e also d i s c o v e r e d the intention o f the extant


1 1
War; the latter is seen as b u t a G r e e k v e r s i o n o f the f o r m e r .
A n u m b e r o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , w o u l d s e e m to call for a r e a p ­
praisal o f J o s e p h u s ' s intention in the Jewish War.
A. I n the first p l a c e , it is n o t clear that Parthia p o s e d a serious threat
12
to R o m e in the early 7 0 ' s , w h e n J o s e p h u s w r o t e War. I n A D 6 3 , the
13
two powers had concluded a major peace treaty; after that, the prevail­
i n g a t m o s p h e r e seems to h a v e b e e n o n e o f p e a c e a n d c o o p e r a t i o n , if o n l y
14
out o f mutual self-interest. T h e single k n o w n r u p t u r e d u r i n g this
p e r i o d , n o t e d b y L a q u e u r , w a s an e x c e p t i o n to the rule a n d , in a n y case,
15
was resolved diplomatically. J o s e p h u s alludes to the c a l m relations
w h e n h e has A g r i p p a say that the rebels o u g h t n o t to e x p e c t h e l p f r o m
the J e w s o f A d i a b e n e , for e v e n if the latter w a n t e d to i n t e r v e n e , their
P a r t h i a n o v e r l o r d w o u l d p r e v e n t it b e c a u s e o f his truce w i t h R o m e ( War
2:389).
B . E v e n if the Parthians h a d b e e n o f a m i n d to c h a l l e n g e R o m e , as
R a j a k p o i n t s o u t , it is d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r they ( a ) c o u l d h a v e distilled a
16
clear p r o p a g a n d i s t i c m e s s a g e f r o m the l e n g t h y narrative o f War or (b)
w o u l d h a v e b e e n m o v e d to r e c o n s i d e r their designs b e c a u s e o f the fate
1 7
o f tiny J u d e a .
C . A l t h o u g h it is clear f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s o w n statements that War re­
c e i v e d s o m e sort o f official r e c o g n i t i o n s u b s e q u e n t to its p u b l i c a t i o n (Life
3 6 1 f f . ) , this d o e s n o t i m p l y that the w o r k h a d its genesis in a " c o m m i s ­
s i o n " f r o m the e m p e r o r to write a p r o p a g a n d i s t i c a c c o u n t o f the r e v o l t .
E v e n T h a c k e r a y , w h o s p o n s o r e d the p r o p a g a n d a t h e o r y , c o n c e d e d that
J o s e p h u s " w a s n o m e r e hireling; his o w n deepest c o n v i c t i o n s told h i m
that the o n l y r o a d t o a m e l i o r a t i o n o f his n a t i o n ' s u n h a p p y lot lay in s u b ­
1 8
m i s s i o n to the e m p i r e " . A perusal o f the speeches in War ( w h i c h are

Krieg (4 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959), I, X X I f . ; and the


discussion in G. Hata, "Is the Greek Version of Josephus' Jewish War a Translation or
a Rewriting of the First Version?" JQR 66 (1975), 106f.
1 1
Of the scholars mentioned in the previous note, only the last two, so far as I can
discern, make a clear conceptual distinction between the purpose of the Greek War and
that of its Semitic predecessor.
1 2
Cf. Rajak, Josephus, 182f.
1 3
Cf. J. G. C . Anderson, "The Eastern Frontier from Tiberius to Nero", Cambridge
Ancient History, X , 77Of.
1 4
Cf. the examples of Parthian cooperation with Rome given by R . Syme, "Flavian
Wars and Frontiers", Cambridge Ancient History, X I , 139-144.
1 5
Ibid., 143.
1 6
Yavetz ("Reflections", 431), points out the limited value of historical narrative as
"a major means of propaganda" in the Roman world.
1 7
Rajak, Josephus, 180.
1 8
Thackeray, Josephus, 29. Cf. B. Niese, "Josephus", ERE, V I I , 571.
60 C H A P T E R THREE

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.

O u r present War is an i n d e p e n d e n t , self-contained G r e e k p r o d u c t i o n .


Fascinating as it m a y b e to speculate a b o u t the lost A r a m a i c treatise, it
w o u l d b e v a i n either to infer the contents o f that d o c u m e n t o u t o f the
G r e e k v e r s i o n o r , c o n v e r s e l y , to transfer its alleged p u r p o s e to the G r e e k
v e r s i o n . I f o n e ' s g o a l is to interpret the extant w o r k , then o n e o u g h t to
b e g i n with that w o r k itself a n d with its o w n statements o f p u r p o s e .
The w i d e s p r e a d scholarly n e g l e c t o f J o s e p h u s ' s d e c l a r e d literary a i m s
is particularly baffling in light o f the rationale for the p r o l o g u e in
Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . F o r the p r o l o g u e w a s i n t e n d e d , first, to in­
f o r m the potential reader o f the c o n t e n t a n d p e r s p e c t i v e o f the w o r k a n d ,
s e c o n d , to stimulate the r e a d e r ' s interest b y i n d i c a t i n g the significance
35
o r usefulness o f the s u b j e c t . T h e potential r e a d e r s h o u l d h a v e b e e n
able, m e r e l y b y u n r o l l i n g the first few lines o f the p a p y r u s scroll in h a n d ,
3 6
to d e t e r m i n e its subject, s c o p e , a n d t o n e . I f h e o p t e d to read it, the p r o ­
l o g u e w o u l d serve as a g u i d e , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the w h o l e c o u l d b e in­
37
terpreted. S i n c e the p r o e m to War seems i n t e n d e d to satisfy these
ancient r e q u i r e m e n t s , it w o u l d s e e m a p p r o p r i a t e for the m o d e r n inter­
preter o f War to b e g i n with that o p e n i n g statement, w h e r e J o s e p h u s in­
t e n d e d his readers to b e g i n .

I I . Exegesis of the Prologue to War

The preface to War is at o n c e t h o r o u g h l y c o n v e n t i o n a l a n d strikingly


o r i g i n a l . It is c o n v e n t i o n a l i n a s m u c h as it furnishes e x a m p l e s o f m o s t o f
the TOTCOI that h a d c o m e to b e associated with historical prefaces since the
3 8
time o f T h u c y d i d e s . In k e e p i n g with the dual p u r p o s e o f the p r e f a c e —
to i n f o r m a n d to a r o u s e i n t e r e s t — c o m m o n p l a c e r e m a r k s o n such t h e m e s
39
as the f o l l o w i n g h a d b e c o m e s t a n d a r d : the subject a n d its i m p o r t a n c e

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

(cf. War 1:1, 4 - 5 ) ; the a u t h o r ' s credentials ( 1 : 3 ) ; reasons for a n d cir­


4 0
cumstances o f writing ( 1 : 2 , 6 ) ; the i n a d e q u a c y o f p r e v i o u s treatments
4 1
o f the subject ( 1 : 2 , 7 - 8 ) ; the causes o f the events in q u e s t i o n ( 1 : 1 0 ) ; the
4 2
a u t h o r ' s strenuous efforts at a c c u r a c y ( 1 : 1 5 - 1 6 ) : his utter impartiality
4 3
a n d c o n c e r n for truth ( 1 : 2 , 6, 9, 16, 3 0 ) ; his historiographical o u t l o o k
4 4
(1:13-16?); a n d an outline o f the w o r k ' s c o n t e n t s ( 1 : 1 7 - 3 0 ) . T h e s e c o n ­
v e n t i o n a l n o t i c e s a c c o u n t for practically the w h o l e o f the preface to War.
A d h e r e n c e to c o n v e n t i o n , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t automatically p r e c l u d e
significance. D . Earl aptly c o m m e n t s :

Beginnings are a problem. T h e first paragraph is difficult; the first sentence


frequently impossible. Tradition and style m a y help. T o the Greeks, who
45
tended to stylize everything, this appeared the solution.

J u s t as the T07ioi o f the m o d e r n scholarly preface ( e . g . , c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f


w r i t i n g , a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s ) d o n o t suggest a p e r f u n c t o r y attitude o n the
a u t h o r ' s part, the standardization o f the G r e e k historical p r o l o g u e served
n o t to stifle creativity b u t to facilitate the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the subject. T h e
c h a l l e n g e facing the historian w a s to p r e s e r v e the c o n v e n t i o n s , w h i c h
had been canonized by the masters and elaborated by rhetorical
4 6
theory, while at the s a m e t i m e fashioning a u n i q u e a n d c o m p e l l i n g p r o ­
4 7
l o g u e , d e t e r m i n e d b y the subject at h a n d .

War 1:1-8

J u d g e d b y this standard, the p r o l o g u e to War is a success: J o s e p h u s has


crafted an e n g a g i n g invitation to his subject. W i t h i n the first sentence
he delivers the c o r e o f his a r g u m e n t , the c o n c l u s i o n o f w h i c h is that he
o u g h t to write an a c c o u n t in G r e e k o f the J e w i s h w a r against the
R o m a n s ( 1 : 3 ) . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n is s u p p o r t e d b y three p r e m i s e s a n d e a c h
o f these is, in turn, the c o n c l u s i o n o f a s u b o r d i n a t e a r g u m e n t . T h e three
p r e m i s e s are as follows.

mien, passim, discusses the development of the prologue-form through the Greco-Roman
period.
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

W i t h § 9 J o s e p h u s n a r r o w s the focus f r o m a general c o n s p e c t u s o f his


subject a n d its i m p o r t a n c e t o the specific p u r p o s e s a n d t h e m e s o f his
w o r k . T h u s the p a r a g r a p h § § 9-12 constitutes s o m e t h i n g like a " t h e s i s

4 8
Even allowing for rhetorical exaggeration, Josephus's statements presuppose at
least two previous accounts of the war. Like his Aramaic account, they must have ap­
peared shortly after the war's end. This circumstance takes the force out of Thackeray's
proposal that the speed with which the Aramaic version was dispatched reflected its
urgent official purpose.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 65

s t a t e m e n t " for War. I n a s m o o t h transition f r o m § § 7-8, h e b e g i n s b y


d i s a v o w i n g a n y intention to imitate the R o m a n chauvinist historians b y
e x a g g e r a t i n g the feats o f his c o u n t r y m e n . R a t h e r , his sole a i m will b e to
p o r t r a y b o t h sides with a c c u r a c y (jxe-u' dxpi(kia$, 1:9).
A t this p o i n t , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s runs into s o m e difficulty. H e has set
for h i m s e l f a high standard o f dXr}0eia a n d dxpifieta, o v e r against the
treatments o f his R o m a n c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . Y e t h e declares that h e plans
to a d d his o w n c o m m e n t a r y to the events (em idiq 7tpdyfjiaai TOU? Xoyous
dvaTiOT)u.i) a n d to allow his o w n feelings rein to l a m e n t his c o u n t r y ' s
misfortune (loiq ifxeauxou 7td8eai 8i8ou$ e7toXo9upea0ai iccTq vr\q 7WtTpi8o$ aujx-
<popaT$). H i s basis for l a m e n t — a n d this is the Leitmotif of War—is that it
w a s d o m e s t i c t r o u b l e m a k e r s (oi 'IouSoctcov Tupocvvoi) a n d n o foreign a r m y
that b r o u g h t the downfall o f J e r u s a l e m ( 1 : 1 0 - 1 2 ) . J o s e p h u s is aware that
the e l a b o r a t i o n o f strong personal feelings m a y b e c o n s i d e r e d inap­
p r o p r i a t e to the dxpi(kioc o f history: he predicts that s o m e o n e (iiq) m i g h t
take h i m to task (aoxo9<xvTo£7|) a n d he e v e n admits that such self-
e x p r e s s i o n c o n t r a v e n e s the " l a w o f h i s t o r y " (xov vty; t<rcopioc<; vojxov,
1:11).
T h i s l a w o f history merits further attention. C i c e r o declares that the
first t w o laws (leges) o f history are that o n e m u s t dare to speak o n l y the
truth (ne quid falsi dicere audeat) a n d o n e m u s t dare to speak the w h o l e
truth (ne quid veri non audent); there is to b e n o hint o f partiality (gratiae)
4 9
o r o f m a l i c e (simulatis) . H e allows that the leges o f p o e t r y a n d history
are different, since the latter is j u d g e d o n l y b y the standard o f truth (ad
5 0
veritatem) . S o m e d e c a d e s after J o s e p h u s , L u c i a n e c h o e d these h i g h stan­
d a r d s : the historian m u s t write as if he w e r e a stranger to all c o u n t r i e s ,
without pity (eXe&v), shame (ataxuv6(xevo^), or special pleading
(8ua<on:ou[ASvo$). This principle of impassiveness, says Lucian,
51
T h u c y d i d e s l o n g a g o enshrined as a l a w (evou-oOeTTjaev). Evidently,
then, the law o f history w a s often c o n s i d e r e d to e x c l u d e a n y personal
feelings. A s A v e n a r i u s r e m a r k s , " Z u einer objektiven W a h r h e i t s f i n d u n g
5 2
gehort . . . die A u s s c h a l t u n g p e r s o n l i c h e r G e f u h l e . "

4 9
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

Josephus reveals his familiarity with this ideal of objectivity both in


the prologue passage under discussion and again in 5:19-20. Having des­
cribed there the desperate plight of Jerusalem under various rebel fac­
tions, and having addressed an impassioned lament to the city in the
second person (5:19), he immediately recants:

By the law of history, however, one has to restrain even one's emotions
(xocOexxeov yap xat xa 7WC8T) T<O vofxto -afc au"pf pa9ffc) as this is not the occasion
for personal lamentations (6X09UP&V otxeuov) but for a narrative of events. 53

This apology is hardly convincing, since he has already declared (in the
preface) his intention to give his TiaOrj free rein; he will later indulge in
lament without regret. T h e confession does, however, confirm that he
was aware of a principle of objectivity that excluded personal feeling.
Josephus's difficulty, then, appears to be as follows. O n the one hand,
he has justified his own work by asserting that all previous histories have
missed the standard of dXrjOetoc; they are strong on denunciation and en­
comium but nowhere exhibit TO axpifiiq TTJ$ uruopiocs (1:2). W h e n , how­
ever, he comes to state that his own goal will be &xpi(kioc pure and simple
(1:9), he must concede that he will not on that account exclude his own
opinions, especially his lament for his country's misfortunes (1:10). H e
also makes clear at this early stage that he harbours no ill will toward
Titus and the Romans for the fall of his city; for them he has only esteem
(1:10). For these intrusions ofrcdcOos,which violate the law of history, he
asks pardon (auyyvcofxrj, 1:11).
W h a t are we to make of this pleading tone? C a n it be that Josephus
is here, in his opening lines, confessing his failure to live up to the ideals
of history and breathing a hopeful prayer that, in spite of his failings,
someone might be willing to read further? Hardly. A s we have seen, the
purpose of the preface was to excite interest and to stimulate the reader
to read further. From that perspective, one may note at least four ways
in which Josephus's professed violation of historical convention actually
serves his ends well and lends power to his preface.
1. First, as Lieberich points out, Josephus's intended Greco-Roman
readership ( 1 : 6 , 16) might have been reluctant to pick up a book written
by a Jew, purporting to tell how his country was destroyed by the
54
Romans. T h e potential reader might have balked at the prospect of a
new history that promised not to flatter the Romans ( 1 : 2 , 7-8) but to tell
the truth about how they quelled the revolt (1:9). If Josephus desires a
wide readership, therefore, he must make it plain in his prologue that

5 3
Josephus may be making a similar point in 7:274.
5 4
Lieberich, Prodmien, 33f.
PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF T H E JEWISH WAR 67

h e d o e s n o t i n t e n d t o h e a p guilt o n the R o m a n s . T h i s goal h e a c h i e v e s


b y l o c a t i n g all responsibility for the revolt in the d o m e s t i c strife (ardtats
otxeia) e n g i n e e r e d b y a handful o f J e w i s h p o w e r - m o n g e r s (01 TouBoctoav
Tupavvoi, 1:10). T h e r e a d e r is put at ease w h e n J o s e p h u s c o n f i r m s that
the c a u s e o f the catastrophe w a s n o t a n y foreign nation (1:12). If
J o s e p h u s is n o t o u t to e n c o u r a g e a n t i - S e m i t i s m ( 1 : 2 ) , h e nevertheless
m a k e s n o a priori d e m a n d that the r e a d e r d i s a v o w e n t r e n c h e d p r e j u d i c e s
4 4
a n d a d o p t a critical stance t o w a r d R o m e . T h i s b o o k will b e safe"
r e a d i n g . T h u s r e l i e v e d , the r e a d e r c a n easily forgive J o s e p h u s ' s trans­
gression o f strict historical c o n v e n t i o n .
2 . T h i s attempt t o set the r e a d e r at ease is n o t a m e r e i n v e n t i o n for
the p r o l o g u e , h o w e v e r , b u t arises o u t o f J o s e p h u s ' s deepest sentiments
as these c o m e into v i e w t h r o u g h o u t the b o o k . In the p r o l o g u e , h e e x ­
presses his l a m e n t o v e r J e r u s a l e m with the w o r d s 67toXo9upou.ai ( 1 : 9 ) ,
6Xo9upai$, a n d 68up[i.6$ ( 1 : 1 2 ) . T h i s t h e m e o f l a m e n t h e will p i c k u p q u i t e
early in the narrative ( 2 : 4 5 5 ; 4 : 1 2 8 ) a n d h e will r e - e m p h a s i z e it as the
55
catastrophe d r a w s n e a r e r .
L i n d n e r has p o i n t e d o u t striking parallels b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s ' s l a m e n t
5 6
o v e r the city a n d the l a m e n t a t i o n s o f J e r e m i a h . J o s e p h u s differs f r o m
Jeremiah, h o w e v e r , in his assigning o f b l a m e to a few tyrants o n l y
(rather than to all o f Z i o n ) a n d in his friendly portrayal o f the o c c u p y i n g
power (whereas Jeremiah had presented the Babylonians as the
5 7
enemy). A n d these t w o p e c u l i a r p o i n t s c o i n c i d e with the 7T<x6rj that
J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s in § § 9 - 1 2 , n a m e l y , his disgust for the rebels a n d
his e s t e e m for T i t u s a n d the R o m a n s . E a c h o f these t h e m e s will b e
recalled frequently, justified b y further information, and otherwise
d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h o u t the b o d y o f War. T h e reader is offered a taste o f
things to c o m e in J o s e p h u s ' s o u t l i n e o f the b o o k ' s contents ( 1 : 1 9 - 2 9 ) ,
w h e r e h e p r o m i s e s to d e s c r i b e the i r o n i c savagery o f the J e w i s h rebels
toward their o w n (6fA09uXou<;) and the consideration shown b y the
R o m a n s t o w a r d <xXXo9uXou$ ( 1 : 2 7 ) .
T h u s the p a r a g r a p h § § 9-12 is the vehicle b y w h i c h J o s e p h u s in­
t r o d u c e s the l e a d i n g t h e m e s o f his w o r k . S i n c e those t h e m e s c o n t r a v e n e
historical c o n v e n t i o n , b e c a u s e they express the historian's p e r s o n a l e m o ­
tions, it is o n l y b y t a m p e r i n g with the c o n v e n t i o n that J o s e p h u s c a n find
a p l a c e for t h e m .
3. A third benefit that a c c r u e s t o J o s e p h u s b y his a p p e a r i n g to b r e a k
with c o n v e n t i o n is the resulting sense o f i m m e d i a c y . J o s e p h u s shatters

5 5
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

a n y s u s p i c i o n that he m i g h t b e a p e r f u n c t o r y historian, dutifully and


dispassionately r e c o u n t i n g the events o f a far-off w a r . O n the c o n t r a r y ,
he c l a i m s that the sheer w e i g h t o f the catastrophe in his h o m e l a n d c o m ­
pels h i m to transgress the pettiness o f c o n v e n t i o n :

For of all the cities under R o m a n rule it was the lot of ours to attain the
highest felicity and to fall to the lowest depths of calamity. Indeed, in m y
opinion, the misfortunes of all nations since the world began fall short of
those of the Jews. (1:11-12; Thackeray)

B y a p p e a l i n g to the e n o r m o u s n e s s o f the events as justification for break­


ing a rule o f historical writing, Josephus meets the challenge o f
creativity. T h e reader is d r a w n b y events so tragic that the a u t h o r c a n n o t
recount them with the usual detached style. He comes to share
Josephus's impatience with any critic who might be too harsh
(axXripo-cepos) for c o m p a s s i o n (OIXTOS, 1:12).
4. Finally, J o s e p h u s ' s a p p a r e n t disregard for h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l n o r m s
actually e n h a n c e s his credibility as a historian. H e has o n l y b e e n d r i v e n
to inject his e m o t i o n s , he repeatedly says, b e c a u s e the c o u n t r y w h o s e
misfortunes are the subject o f his w o r k is his h o m e l a n d (rj n;aTpi<;, 1:9, 10;
xrjv Y)u.STepocv, 1:11). J o s e p h u s will not a l l o w the reader to forget that this
is the J e r u s a l e m i t e priest w r i t i n g , o n e w h o personally fought against the
R o m a n s a n d w h o possesses first-hand k n o w l e d g e o f the entire w a r f r o m
b o t h sides (cf. 1:3). T h i s OCUTOC|U<X—the m o s t p r i z e d possession o f a
58
h i s t o r i a n — i s J o s e p h u s ' s single greatest asset a n d he c a n n o t let it slip
b y the reader. H e admits to strong e m o t i o n s a b o u t his subject b u t he e m ­
phasizes that they arise precisely f r o m his close i n v o l v e m e n t with the
59
events, w h i c h is itself a v i r t u e . I n d e e d , it is p r o b a b l y to d r i v e h o m e this
a d v a n t a g e that J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g l e n g t h y attack o n certain
G r e e k savants ( 1 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) , to w h i c h w e shall turn presently.
Before p r o c e e d i n g to that passage, h o w e v e r , w e m i g h t ask h o w serious
a violation of convention Josephus's introduction of evaluative
j u d g e m e n t s really w a s . It is true that the attack o n e n c o m i u m a n d i n v e c ­
tive in historical writing, w h i c h J o s e p h u s also w a g e s ( 1 : 2 ) , w a s w i d e ­
6 0
spread in his t i m e . C u r i o u s l y , h o w e v e r , the m o s t v o c i f e r o u s s p o k e s m a n

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

o f the p e r i o d for the e x c l u s i o n o f e m o t i o n s f r o m the " l a w o f h i s t o r y ' ' is


J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f ( 1 : 1 1 ; 5 : 1 9 ; 7 : 2 7 4 ) , w h o also turns o u t to b e the m o s t
self-conscious offender! This raises the question whether he really
b e l i e v e d that his e x p r e s s i o n o f feeling w o u l d b e a h i n d r a n c e to the r e c e p ­
tion o f his b o o k o r , c o n v e r s e l y , w h e t h e r he raised an e x t r e m e standard
in o r d e r deliberately to transgress it a n d thereby to a c h i e v e the results
that w e h a v e n o t e d .
It s e e m s that the latter w a s the case. F o r Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y
w a s o p e n to c e n s u r e a n d praise o f historical actors, as l o n g as these w e r e
61
judiciously applied. T h a t is b e c a u s e , as T h u c y d i d e s h a d already in­
sisted ( 1 . 2 2 . 4 ) , the p u r p o s e o f studying history was to learn f r o m the
mistakes a n d t r i u m p h s o f the past. A l t h o u g h this g u i d a n c e f r o m the past
was at first thought o f as primarily strategic and political, under
rhetorical influence it s o o n w i d e n e d to i n c l u d e a general moralizing
62
sense. E v e n P o l y b i u s , the great e x e m p l a r o f critical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y ,
stressed the m o r a l function o f history. H e b e l i e v e d that the distinctive
feature o f history w a s its praise (ETCOCIVOS) for v i r t u o u s c o n d u c t a n d its
d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f the bases for n e g a t i v e m o r a l j u d g e m e n t s (2.61.5-6;
1 2 . 1 5 . 9 ) . F r o m P o l y b i u s o n w a r d , m o r a l j u d g e m e n t o n characters o f the
past (e7tatvot xal c|>6yoi) w a s an h o n o u r a b l e c o m p o n e n t o f historical
63
w r i t i n g , p r o v i d e d that it w a s cautious a n d d e m o n s t r a b l e .
But J o s e p h u s attempts f r o m the start to justify, with m u c h e v i d e n c e ,
b o t h his l a m e n t o v e r J e r u s a l e m a n d his strictures o n the rebels. It s e e m s ,
therefore, that his u n s o l i c i t e d confessions o f guilt are actually rhetorical
d e v i c e s , c o n t r i v e d to s h o w that the events o f his narrative are o f such i m ­
p o r t , a n d that he has b e e n so closely i n v o l v e d in t h e m , that he is p u s h i n g
the limits o f historical c u s t o m s i m p l y to r e c o u n t t h e m .

War 1:13-16

The p a r a g r a p h o n the H e l l e n i c savants ( 1 : 1 3 - 1 6 ) has v e x e d interpreters,


who generally b e l i e v e that the r e c o v e r y o f its m e a n i n g d e p e n d s o n an
identification o f the Xoyioi ( 1 : 1 3 ) ; these are usually c o n s i d e r e d to b e a
party o f J o s e p h u s ' s o p p o n e n t s . S u g g e s t i o n s for the identification h a v e
r a n g e d f r o m the R o m a n a u t h o r o f a c o m p e t i n g history o f the w a r ( s o
Schlatter) to N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s — J o s e p h u s ' s c h i e f s o u r c e for the
early part of War (Holscher)—to Josephus's literary assistants
6 4
(Thackeray).

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

T h e p u r e l y speculative c h a r a c t e r o f these p r o p o s a l s has b e e n s h o w n b y


6 5
H. Lindner. H i s o w n s u g g e s t i o n , m o r e closely g r o u n d e d in the text,
d r a w s attention to the legal t e r m i n o l o g y e m p l o y e d b y J o s e p h u s : the
l e a r n e d G r e e k s " s i t in j u d g e m e n t " (X<X07)VTOCI xptxoct) o n c u r r e n t events
( 1 : 1 3 ) a n d w h e r e fees (Xrju.u.<XTa) o r lawsuits (otxoci) are c o n c e r n e d , their
oratorial p r o w e s s is q u i c k l y d e m o n s t r a t e d (1:16). Lindner proposes,
then, that the a p p e a r a n c e o f War c a u s e d certain G r e e k historians in
R o m e to b r i n g lawsuits against J o s e p h u s , w h o then raised the m a t t e r in
6 6
his p r e f a c e . A c c o r d i n g to L i n d n e r , J o s e p h u s p o l e m i c i z e s against his
o p p o n e n t s a n d their p a i d l a w y e r s as follows: if they are c o n c e r n e d a b o u t
historical truthfulness, then they o u g h t to present their o w n narratives
o f events; the c o u r t r o o m , in w h i c h they c a n display their oratorial train­
ing, is an i m p r o p e r f o r u m for such matters a n d relieves t h e m o f the
6 7
l a b o u r s that J o s e p h u s has h a d to e n d u r e . J o s e p h u s ' s legal difficulties
irritate h i m so m u c h , L i n d n e r suggests, that he e m b a r k s o n a c a m p a i g n
against G r e e k historians generally ( 1 : 1 6 ) , w h i c h he will c o n t i n u e in
6 8
Ag.Ap. (1:6-29).
B y focussing o n the legal activity o f the G r e e k Xoyiot, h o w e v e r , L i n d ­
ner fails to e x p l a i n the b u l k o f the p a r a g r a p h ( 1 3 - 1 5 ) , w h i c h criticizes
their p r e o c c u p a t i o n with a n c i e n t history to the e x c l u s i o n o f c u r r e n t af­
fairs. O n his r e a d i n g , further, the p a r a g r a p h b e c o m e s fundamentally
enigmatic, laced with veiled references to J o s e p h u s ' s present cir­
c u m s t a n c e s a n d i n c l u d i n g a gratuitous attack o n G r e e k historians in
general. W e h a v e seen, h o w e v e r , that the p u r p o s e s o f the Hellenistic
historical preface w e r e to attract, stimulate, a n d instruct the r e a d e r . A s
Lieberich points out:

Das Proomium ist in erster Linie dem Bedurfnis entsprungen, dem Leser
im voraus eine kurze Aufklarung uber das W e r k zu bieten, ihm, wie
Aristoteles treffend sagt, 'eine H a n d h a b e zu geben', dass er sich daran
69
halten und der Rede folgen k a n n .

Until n o w ( 1 : 1 - 1 2 ) , J o s e p h u s has d i s p l a y e d an acute sensitivity to these


tasks a n d has h a n d l e d t h e m deftly. In 1:17-30 he c o n t i n u e s to d e m o n ­
strate his m a s t e r y o f the p r o l o g u e f o r m . Is it r e a s o n a b l e , then, to s u p p o s e
that J o s e p h u s has c h o s e n the m i d - p o i n t o f an o t h e r w i s e c o m p e l l i n g pref­
ace to v e n t his e m o t i o n s a b o u t s o m e u n d i s c l o s e d p e r s o n a l difficulties,

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

claims that the w h o l e field o f ancient history has b e e n so often and


v a r i o u s l y w o r k e d o v e r that a n y m o d e r n a u t h o r o n the subject faces the
e q u a l l y r e p u g n a n t alternatives o f plagiarism a n d futile rearrangement
( 9 . 2 . 1 - 2 ) . S e c o n d , he e x p l a i n s that his c h o s e n focal p o i n t c o i n c i d e s w i t h
his o w n a n d the p r e c e d i n g g e n e r a t i o n s , w h i c h m e a n s that h e c a n always
consult l i v i n g witnesses o n his subject ( 4 . 2 . 2 ) a n d t h e r e b y c o n t r o l his m a ­
terial. T o reach a n y further into the past, he says, w o u l d force h i m to
write o n the basis o f hearsay (cb<; dxorjv e£ dxofjs ypd<petv), w h i c h w o u l d
7 2
p r e c l u d e certainty (aa<pocXeT<;) in j u d g e m e n t ( 4 . 2 . 3 ) . Finally, it is o n l y
with the events he has c h o s e n to narrate that o n e c a n see the h a n d o f
Tux*) r e b u i l d i n g the w o r l d ( 4 . 2 . 4 ) . T h i s t h e m e w a s already s o u n d e d in
his preface ( 1 . 4 ) . A l t h o u g h , h o w e v e r , P o l y b i u s claims that it is F o r t u n e ' s
activity that m a k e s c o n t e m p o r a r y history m o s t c o m p e l l i n g ( 4 . 2 . 4 ) , in his
p o l e m i c against the rhetorical historian T i m a e u s he d r a w s m a i n l y o n the
m o r e c o n c r e t e p r i n c i p l e s : ( i ) that w h a t has b e e n c o v e r e d a d e q u a t e l y b y
others n e e d s n o reiteration a n d (ii) that o n l y w h a t c a n b e c h e c k e d
t h r o u g h l i v i n g witnesses is s e c u r e . T o these factors he a d d s the contrast
b e t w e e n the c o m f o r t a b l e c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h o n e m a y write ancient
history ( b y s i m p l y finding a g o o d library!) a n d the severe hardships
(xocxo7ud0etai) o r e v e n d a n g e r (xivSuvos) that await the personal in­
vestigator o f e v e n t s — h a r d s h i p s b o t h physical a n d financial (12.27.4-6).
On these p o i n t s ( e x c l u d i n g the a r g u m e n t c o n c e r n i n g F o r t u n e ) , it is
easy to see shades o f P o l y b i u s in J o s e p h u s ' s a r g u m e n t in War 1:13-16.
The difficulty is to k n o w w h a t to m a k e o f the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n
the principles o f P o l y b i u s a n d War 1:13-16. A t t r i d g e takes this passage
to b e J o s e p h u s ' s statement o f historiographical p r i n c i p l e for War, a state­
m e n t that r e c o g n i z e s o n l y recent events as the p r o p e r o b j e c t o f history.
W h e n Josephus c o m e s to write Ant., Attridge argues, he will h a v e
c h a n g e d his p r i n c i p l e s ; o n l y his n e w d e v o t i o n to the " r h e t o r i c a l " s c h o o l
o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y allows h i m there to write a b o u t ancient J e w i s h history.
A full discussion o f the h i s t o r i o g r a p h y o f War a n d Ant. w o u l d b e o u t
o f p l a c e h e r e . In " A p p e n d i x A " , at the e n d o f the study, I shall offer
s o m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l o n g those lines, in r e s p o n s e to A t t r i d g e ' s p r o ­
posal. T h e s e m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d , t o g e t h e r with o u r o b s e r v a t i o n s thus
far, as follows, ( a ) War 1:13-16 c o n t a i n s a critique o f those w h o deal e x ­
clusively with ancient history, ( b ) T h e a r g u m e n t s a s s e m b l e d to m a k e this
p o i n t are T07i:ot o f P o l y b i a n ilk. ( c ) B y the time o f J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r ,

7 2
Cf. the preface to Luke, where the author claims that he can prove TT)V aacpocXetocv
of the events which he describes (1:4) because: (a) they were accomplished ev rjfxtv—
therefore, within living memory (1:1); (b) they were passed on by OCUTOTCTOCI (1:2); and
(c) they have been followed with accuracy (<xxptP<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

these principles h a d lost m u c h o f their c o m p e l l i n g justification; m a n y , if


not m o s t historians, w e r e electing to write a b o u t antiquity, (d) The
p o l e m i c against ancient history is w h o l l y unrelated to J o s e p h u s ' s actual
v i e w s a b o u t writing ancient Jewish history. T h e p a r a g r a p h d o e s n o t ,
therefore, represent his statement o f historiographical p r i n c i p l e . It is
unlikely that J o s e p h u s had a n y d e e p c o n v i c t i o n s a b o u t w h e t h e r the
H e l l e n e s should h a v e b e e n w r i t i n g ancient o r m o d e r n history. H i s o w n
task w a s J e w i s h history, w h i c h he evidently c o n s i d e r e d sui generis (Ag.Ap.
1:29-43).
Why, then, the h a r a n g u e a b o u t the shoddiness a n d laziness o f those
G r e e k s w h o write ancient history? W e h a v e seen that the mea culpa in 9-
12 achieves m a n y things for J o s e p h u s ; in particular it serves to r e m i n d
the reader yet again o f the a u t h o r ' s p r i v i l e g e d status as an eyewitness.
T h i s t h e m e he introduces early a n d e m p h a s i z e s repeatedly in the preface
( 1 : 1 , 2 , 3, 6, 9 - 1 2 ) . H e has b e e n d r i v e n to c o n t r a v e n e the n o r m o f o b j e c ­
tivity in historical r e p o r t i n g , he n o w c l a i m s , b e c a u s e the catastrophe
h a p p e n e d in his land a n d he witnessed the patience o f the R o m a n s a n d
the o b s t i n a c y o f the tyrants. A l t h o u g h his confession serves h i m well,
h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s must p a y a p r i c e for i n c l u d i n g it. T h a t p r i c e is
reflected in his final a d m i s s i o n ( 1 : 1 2 ) that s o m e critics ( t h o u g h pettifog­
gers, to b e sure!) m i g h t still find fault with h i m . A l t h o u g h he has attemp­
ted to w i n the r e a d e r ' s s u p p o r t for his u n o r t h o d o x a p p r o a c h , he c a n n o t
yet rest his case. H e requires a m o r e persuasive n o t e o n w h i c h to e n d .
In order, then, to extricate himself fully f r o m any suspicion o f
m a l p r a c t i c e , J o s e p h u s d e c i d e s to shift attention a w a y f r o m his o w n possi­
ble deficiencies to the c o m p a r a t i v e l y h e i n o u s sin o f others. H e n c e the
o p e n i n g w o r d s o f the p a r a g r a p h ( 1 : 1 3 ) : xoctxoi ye e7UTifxr|aocifA' a v aikds
Sixauos TOTS 'EXXrjvcov Xoyioi^, r e n d e r e d well b y T h a c k e r a y : " Y e t I, o n
m y side, m i g h t justly censure those erudite G r e e k s " . If J o s e p h u s m i g h t
b e c e n s u r e d ( § 1 1 ) for expressing 7cd0T] that result f r o m his p r o x i m i t y to
the events, he will hasten to p o i n t out a m u c h m o r e serious failure o n
the part o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s : m a n y o f t h e m d o n o t e v e n possess that
treasured quality o f first-hand k n o w l e d g e . U n d e r the Pax Romana it was
rare that e d u c a t e d writers f o u n d themselves in the midst o f m o m e n t o u s
73
u p h e a v a l s , o f the sort that T h u c y d i d e s h a d w i t n e s s e d . F o r this a n d
other reasons historians h a d c o m e , b y the first c e n t u r y , to deal primarily
with events o f b y g o n e ages (see A p p e n d i x A ) . But the great historians
who h a d b e e n able to write o f current events retained their g l o r y , as
M o m i g l i a n o remarks:

7 3
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 83f.
74 CHAPTER THREE

In Late Antiquity antiquarians were in a m o o d of self-congratulation. Y e t


they never get the upper hand. T h e prestige of the interpreter of recent
74
events—of Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius . . . remained u n s h a k e n .

It is this prestige that J o s e p h u s wants to share. H e fully realizes his in­


c r e d i b l e g o o d l u c k , f r o m a h i s t o r i a n ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , in h a v i n g witnessed
first-hand the events o f a m a j o r w a r f r o m b o t h sides. H i s eyewitness
status is therefore the t h e m e o f the w h o l e preface to War ( 1 : 1 - 3 ) . T o rein­
force his p o i n t n o w , J o s e p h u s reaches into the r e s e r v o i r o f Hellenistic
h i s t o r i o g r a p h y a n d d r a w s o u t an a p p r o p r i a t e a n d v e n e r a b l e w e a p o n , the
P o l y b i a n attack o n ancient history.
The P o l y b i a n b r o a d s i d e , h o w e v e r , is o n l y a tool in J o s e p h u s ' s hands.
If, as s e e m s p r o b a b l e , he h a d n o stake w h a t s o e v e r in the question
w h e t h e r G r e e k s s h o u l d c h o o s e a n c i e n t o r m o d e r n t h e m e s for their study,
then the tirade m a y b e r e a d less as a heartfelt d e n u n c i a t i o n o f his c o n ­
temporaries than as an indirect means o f praising his own work.
J o s e p h u s ( § 13) accuses the Xoyioi o f d i s p a r a g i n g " g r e a t events o f their
o w n l i f e t i m e " (TTJXIXOOTCOV XOCT' OCUTOU<; TCpayu-aToov yeyevnuivoov) a l t h o u g h
these " b y c o m p a r i s o n r e d u c e to insignificance the w a r s o f a n t i q u i t y " ( a
XOCTOC auyxpiaiv eXaxtcrxou^ aTioSeixvuat TOU$ 7uaXat 7coXs[iou$).
T h i s c h a r g e recalls J o s e p h u s ' s o p e n i n g w o r d s ( 1 : 1 ) in w h i c h he o p i n e s
that the J e w i s h w a r against the R o m a n s w a s the greatest (uiytcnrov) o f
practically all the w a r s o f r e c o r d e d history (cf. also 1:4). T h e cor­
r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n that early c l a i m a n d the c h a r g e in § 13 suggests
that the great events w h i c h the H e l l e n i c savants i g n o r e to their peril are
n o t c u r r e n t affairs in general b u t precisely the events o f the J u d e a n
revolt. T h e s u g g e s t i o n is c o n f i r m e d b y the recapitulation ( 1 6 ) : w h a t the
G r e e k s neglect are called " t h e d e e d s o f the rulers (T6C$ 7updc£ei<; TCOV
7 5
Tjye[x6vcov)": p r e s u m a b l y , the d e e d s o f V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s . But the
theatre in w h i c h these t w o c o o p e r a t e d so f a m o u s l y w a s the J u d e a n revolt.
J o s e p h u s is n o t , therefore, s i m p l y a d m o n i s h i n g his G r e e k counterparts
to a b a n d o n their v a i n e n q u i r i e s a n d j o i n the v i r t u o u s l e a g u e o f those w h o
report c u r r e n t e v e n t s . H e is c r i t i c i z i n g t h e m b e c a u s e , in their dual p r e o c ­
7 6
c u p a t i o n with ancient history a n d w i t h the c o u r t r o o m , they h a v e let the

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

truth a b o u t the J u d e a n revolt suffer at the h a n d s o f inferior a n d u n i n ­


77
formed writers.
D o e s J o s e p h u s really b e l i e v e that these H e l l e n i c savants o u g h t to h a v e
written a b o u t the J u d e a n c a m p a i g n , o r i n d e e d that they c o u l d h a v e d o n e
so r e s p o n s i b l y ? P r o b a b l y n o t . T h a t is the p o i n t . H i s ostensible attack o n
G r e e k historians for writing ancient history is really n o t h i n g o t h e r than
an o b l i q u e recitation o f his o w n credentials. T h e s e l f - c o m m e n d a t i o n
loses its o b l i q u e n e s s finally as J o s e p h u s spells o u t w h a t he wants the
reader to u n d e r s t a n d f r o m all o f this, n a m e l y he h i m s e l f is the 9IX6TCOVO<;
m e n t i o n e d earlier, w h o s e w o r k deserves praise a n d a c c l a i m ( § 1 5 ) ,
b e c a u s e h e has spent t r e m e n d o u s sums a n d personal effort (dvocXcojAocai
xatTCOVOLSfieyiaTOis) to b r i n g an accurate a c c o u n t o f this great a n d recent
w a r . It is J o s e p h u s , the foreigner, the J e w , w h o has fulfilled the require­
m e n t s o f writing history—truthful speaking a n d painstaking collection o f
7 8
the facts—while the H e l l e n e s h a v e m i s s e d the m a r k .
T h u s the p a r a g r a p h 1:13-16, like the o n e b e f o r e it, a c c o m p l i s h e s
several things for J o s e p h u s . First, it shifts attention far a w a y f r o m his
confessed v i o l a t i o n o f the " l a w o f h i s t o r y " . S e c o n d , the p u r p o s e o f the
attack o n those w h o write ancient history, d r a w i n g as it d o e s o n P o l y b i a n
c o m m o n p l a c e s , is to e m p h a s i z e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n virtues as the historian
o f the J e w i s h w a r . H e has first-hand i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h h e a c q u i r e d
t h r o u g h great effort a n d e x p e n s e . Finally, J o s e p h u s anticipates his final
w o r k , Ag.Ap. ( 1 : 6 - 2 7 ) , b y casting the w h o l e p o l e m i c in D a v i d / G o l i a t h ,
J e w / H e l l e n e , o r aXXoqwXos/yvrjaios terms: J o s e p h u s the J e w is o u t t o p r o ­
tect TTJS laToptas aX*r|0e<;, for w h i c h the H e l l e n e s h a v e lost all c o n c e r n .
F o l l o w i n g this p o l e m i c , J o s e p h u s offers his justification for b e g i n n i n g
w h e r e h e d o e s ( 1 7 - 1 8 ) , discussed a b o v e , then an outline o f the seven
b o o k s o f War ( 1 9 - 2 9 ) , a n d a c o n c l u d i n g w o r d ( 3 0 ) .

I I I . Josephus and the 'Axpifieia of History

P r o b a b l y the clearest single i m p r e s s i o n left o n the reader b y the preface


to War is J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m that h e , as an eyewitness o f a great w a r , will
present an accurate a c c o u n t . W e h a v e n o t e d that references to his
privileged status as an eyewitness o n b o t h sides o f the conflict r e c u r
t h r o u g h o u t the preface ( 1 : 1 , 2 , 3 , 6, 9 - 1 2 , 13-16, 18, 2 2 ) . T h e o n l y
t h e m e m o r e c o m m o n is his resulting claims to &xpt(kioc a n d aXrj0eia
(axpiPeia: 1:2, 6, 9, 17, 2 2 , 2 6 ; dXrj9eia: 1:6, 16, 17, 3 0 ) . L i k e w i s e , all

7 7
Presumably, these are the writers already castigated in 1:1-2, 6-8.
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

o f J o s e p h u s ' s later reflections o n War d e m o n s t r a t e that the goal o f a c ­


c u r a c y w a s for h i m the m o s t p r o m i n e n t feature o f the w o r k ' s p u r p o s e .
F o r e x a m p l e , the e p i l o g u e o f War is essentially a reprise o f this t h e m e :

Here we close the history, which we promised to relate with perfect ac­
curacy ((xexd 7rdaT)s dxptjktocs) . . . . O f its style m y readers must be left to
judge; but, as concerning truth (rcspi xffc dXrjGsiocs), I would not hesitate
boldly to assert that, throughout the entire narrative, this has been my
single aim. (7:454-5)

In Ant. a n d Life also the r e a d e r is referred b a c k to War for a m o r e accurate


(dxpi(3£aT£pov) a c c o u n t o f v a r i o u s t o p i c s (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 3 , 2 9 8 ; 2 0 : 2 5 8 ; Life
4 1 2 ) . Finally, Ag.Ap. 1:47-56 dwells o n the dXrjGetoc a n d dxpt[kta o f War ( i n
r e s p o n s e to the charges o f J o s e p h u s ' s later o p p o n e n t s ) a n d again bases the
c l a i m squarely o n J o s e p h u s ' s p r i v i l e g e d eyewitness status.
The difficulty b e f o r e us is that the v e h e m e n t c l a i m to historical
dxpt(kta was a commonplace o f Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y . It was
T h u c y d i d e s w h o defined the p r i n c i p l e o f truthfulness (dXrjOeioc) in history
by i n v o k i n g the kindred concept o f scrupulous, detailed accuracy
(dxptfkioc). For him, dxpt(}£ioc gives n u a n c e to the bald principle o f
79
dXrjeeioc.
P o l y b i u s ' s attack o n T i m a e u s reveals his a g r e e m e n t w i t h T h u c y d i d e s
that dxpt(kioc is the standard b y w h i c h historical writing must be
8 0
judged. In T i m a e u s he finds the c l a i m to dxpt(3£ta b u t n o e v i d e n c e to
s u p p o r t the c l a i m .
P o l y b i u s m i g h t h a v e h a d similar c o m m e n t s o n D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r -
nassus, w h o also speaks frequently o f the standards o f truth (dXrjGeta) a n d
j u s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n (8txocio<g rcpovoufxevos) as the b a s i c credentials o f all
history (Rom. Ant. 1.1.2; 1.4.3; 1 . 6 . 5 ) . D i o n y s i u s sets o u t to p o r t r a y a c ­
curately (dxptPcos) the early history o f R o m e ( 1 . 6 . 3 ) b e c a u s e n o accurate
(dxpiPfjs) portrayal has yet appeared in G r e e k ( 1 . 5 . 4 ) . The reader
b e c o m e s s u s p i c i o u s , h o w e v e r , w h e n D i o n y s i u s p r o p o s e s that, in k e e p i n g
with his goals o f truth a n d j u s t i c e , he intends to express his g o o d w i l l
t o w a r d R o m e a n d to r e p a y h e r in s o m e m e a s u r e for the benefits that he
has r e c e i v e d at h e r h a n d ( 1 . 6 . 5 ) . B y the t i m e o f D i o n y s i u s (mid-first-
c e n t u r y B C ) , the standard o f dXrjOeioc in history h a d o b v i o u s l y b e c o m e a
standard rhetorical t h e m e . H e calls history " t h e priestess o f t r u t h " (On
Thuc. 8 ) . In p r a c t i c e , h o w e v e r , he is n o t o r i o u s l y uncritical a n d , as his
theoretical essays s h o w , he is c o n c e r n e d solely with the f o r m a l a n d m o r a l
81
aspects o f historical w r i t i n g .

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

B y the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , then, claims to dXrjOeta a n d axpifktoc w e r e


c o m m o n p l a c e s o f the historical p r e f a c e . F. H a l b f a s o b s e r v e s :

Seit Thukydides gab es wohl keinen Geschichtsschreiber, der diese


Eigenschaft nicht als die erste Bedingung fur ein erspriessliches W i r k e n in
seiner Wissenschaft bezeichnet hatte, ohne dass diese Ansicht in alien
Fallen auf die praktische Gestaltung der Darstellung ernstlich eingewirkt
82
hatte.

G i v e n the w i d e s p r e a d indifference to the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f <xxpt[kta a m o n g


Hellenistic authors, w e m u s t ask to what d e g r e e J o s e p h u s w a s c o n s c i o u s
o f those i m p l i c a t i o n s . L i e b e r i c h c h a r g e s :

uberall fiihrt er die Wahrheit im M u n d ; leider entsprechen aber seine


W e r k e nicht i m m e r seinen W o r t e n und das Hervorkehren der Wahrheit
83
erscheint somit mehr als ein Mittel der R h e t o r i k .

We must ask then: T o w h a t extent is the c o n c e p t i o n o f historical


axpifktoc, w h i c h J o s e p h u s has m a d e into a m a j o r m o t i f o f War, a m e a n ­
ingful c o n c e p t for h i m ?
At least three factors indicate that Josephus cultivates the
aXrjOeta/axpifkta t h e m e c o n s c i o u s l y a n d deliberately.
A. First, unlike D i o n y s i u s a n d D i o d o r u s , a m o n g others, Josephus
bases his c l a i m to axptfkta o n his indisputable first-hand k n o w l e d g e o f
the revolt (War 1:3, 16; Ant. 1:3; Ag.Ap. l:47f., 55f.). Although many
o f J o s e p h u s ' s claims are d e b a t e d , n o o n e seriously d o u b t s that he w a s a
Jerusalemite priest w h o f o u g h t in s o m e c a p a c i t y against the R o m a n s ,
w h o b e c a m e k n o w n to V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s , a n d w h o e n d e d u p in a
privileged position in Rome. These credentials, unlike Diodorus's
w o r l d w i d e travels, are n o t i n v e n t e d . W h e n , therefore, J o s e p h u s bases his
c l a i m to accurate i n f o r m a t i o n u p o n t h e m , he is m a k i n g a r e a s o n a b l e
argument. H e is aware that the r e m a r k a b l e historical accidents o f his
c a r e e r h a v e p l a c e d h i m in a u n i q u e p o s i t i o n to write accurately a b o u t the
J e w i s h w a r ; that is w h y h e p a r a d e s this asset t h r o u g h o u t the preface a n d
e l s e w h e r e . W h e t h e r he did write accurately is a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n . The
p o i n t here is that his c l a i m to a c c u r a c y is n o t an e m p t y repetition o f
cliche b u t a c o n s c i o u s p r o p o s i t i o n , m a d e in o r d e r to e x p l o i t fully his uni­
q u e situation. H e is aware o f the c o n d i t i o n s o f accurate r e p o r t i n g a n d
c l a i m s to h a v e fulfilled t h e m .
B . Further e v i d e n c e o f this is the c o n s i s t e n c y o f the aXrjGeia/axptjkia
m o t i f for War. It is n o t m e n t i o n e d in a n y p e r f u n c t o r y w a y b u t appears
t h r o u g h o u t the preface in strategic places ( 1 : 2 , 3, 6, 9, 1 2 , 18, 3 0 ) . T h e

8 2
Cf. Halbfas, Theorie, 35f.
8 3
Lieberich, Prodmien, 35.
78 CHAPTER THREE

t h e m e is recalled in the e p i l o g u e to War ( 7 : 4 5 4 - 5 ) a n d again several times


in the later w o r k s , as w e h a v e seen a b o v e .
C . Finally, dxpt(kia and its cognates form part of Josephus's
8 4
characteristic v o c a b u l a r y . H e e m p l o y s this w o r d g r o u p 134 times. In
his paraphrase o f Aristeas, he inserts the w o r d six times a n d takes it o v e r
o n c e f r o m the s o u r c e . In the c o n t e x t o f historical r e p o r t i n g , he e m p l o y s
the w o r d g r o u p f r e q u e n t l y — a b o u t 52 times. E q u a l l y as significant for
o u r p u r p o s e s , he uses it a b o u t 28 times in the c o n t e x t o f religion. I n d e e d ,
the c o n c e p t o f dxpifkioc lies at the heart o f his religious understanding,
as w e shall d i s c o v e r in the next chapter. S i n c e , further, the b o u n d a r i e s
8 5
b e t w e e n " r e l i g i o n " a n d " h i s t o r y " are e x t r e m e l y fluid for J o s e p h u s , it
is difficult to b e l i e v e that h e e m p l o y e d the dxpifkioc t h e m e historio-
graphically with little t h o u g h t o f its i m p l i c a t i o n s .
It m u s t b e e m p h a s i z e d that the question b e i n g p u r s u e d has to d o o n l y
with J o s e p h u s ' s intention: D i d h e u n d e r s t a n d the c o n c e p t o f dxpifkia a n d
e m p l o y it seriously, o r d i d h e , like m a n y o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , take it
o v e r frivolously f r o m the current w o r l d o f ideas? T h e e v i d e n c e cited in­
dicates that J o s e p h u s c o n s c i o u s l y c h o s e to assert the factuality o f War o n
the basis o f his eyewitness status, fully aware o f the o b l i g a t i o n to ac­
c u r a c y that the c l a i m entailed.
T h i s c o n c l u s i o n presents an entree to the historical question: Did
J o s e p h u s write accurately a b o u t the J e w i s h revolt? It is o f great i m p o r ­
tance for that question that w e h a v e in J o s e p h u s a bona fide witness, with
privileged access to b o t h sides o f the conflict, s o m e o n e w h o seems able
to c o n t r o l his material a n d w h o intends factuality. Nevertheless, the
historical q u e s t i o n c a n n o t b e a n s w e r e d b y such a priori c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .
J o s e p h u s c o u l d n o t h a v e o b s e r v e d all the simultaneous events o f the c o n ­
flict; he d e p e n d e d heavily o n the reports o f others. T h o s e events that he
d i d o b s e r v e he c a n o n l y h a v e p e r c e i v e d a n d r e m e m b e r e d imperfectly, as
is true o f a n y witness. Finally, that w h o l e b o d y o f resulting i n f o r m a t i o n
is o n l y m e d i a t e d to us via his o w n interests a n d via his intellectual a n d
stylistic t e n d e n c i e s .
W e h a v e , then, a potential for reasonable a c c u r a c y in War b u t o n l y
if J o s e p h u s d i d as he c l a i m e d a n d e x p l o i t e d his u n i q u e l y k n o w l e d g e a b l e
situation to c h e c k his e v i d e n c e r i g o r o u s l y a n d present what he g e n u i n e l y
b e l i e v e d to h a v e b e e n the c o u r s e o f events. W h e t h e r h e lived u p to his
claims c a n o n l y b e d e t e r m i n e d b y extensive historical reconstruction
based o n a c o m p a r i s o n o f ( a ) his other writings, ( b ) other, c o n t e m -

8 4
With this point, I anticipate the investigation of the 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

p o r a r y literary s o u r c e s a n d ( c ) non-literary, especially a r c h a e o l o g i c a l ,


evidence.
T h a t historical q u e s t i o n is still sub judice. O n e m i g h t s u m m a r i z e its
present state b y saying that p o i n t ( a ) a b o v e — e s p e c i a l l y the c o m p a r i s o n
o f War a n d Life—continues t o challenge those parts o f War that deal w i t h
86
Josephus himself b u t that points ( b ) a n d ( c ) increasingly v i n d i c a t e his
87
a c c o u n t w i t h respect to places a n d e v e n t s . A l l w e c a n say o n the basis
o f a literary analysis is that J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d a c c u r a c y , that h e s e e m s to
h a v e b e e n c o n s c i o u s o f the o b l i g a t i o n s t h e r e b y a s s u m e d , a n d that h e w a s
e v i d e n t l y in a p o s i t i o n to satisfy t h e m .

Summary

Before p r o c e e d i n g to c o n s i d e r the Pharisee passages in War it is


necessary t o s u m m a r i z e the a r g u m e n t a n d l e a d i n g t h e m e s o f the p r e f a c e ,
since the preface is e v i d e n t l y i n t e n d e d as a k e y to the w o r k as a w h o l e .
I n 1:1-8, w e find the simple a r g u m e n t : ( a ) the J e w i s h w a r is o f great
i m p o r t a n c e ; ( b ) p r e v i o u s a c c o u n t s o f it are hopelessly i n a d e q u a t e ; a n d
( c ) J o s e p h u s is in an excellent p o s i t i o n t o r e n d e r an accurate a c c o u n t .
I n § § 9 - 1 2 , J o s e p h u s allays a n y potential r e a d e r ' s fears that h e is g o i n g
to offer an expose o f R o m a n w r o n g d o i n g . H e a c c o m p l i s h e s this b y in­
t r o d u c i n g the l e a d i n g t h e m e s o f the w o r k , n a m e l y : l a m e n t f o r the
" t y r a n t s " w h o b r o u g h t a b o u t the T e m p l e ' s destruction, a n d praise for
the R o m a n s , especially T i t u s , w h o tried to save it. S i n c e the i n t r o d u c t i o n
o f these t h e m e s m a y b e t h o u g h t t o c o n t r a v e n e the " l a w o f h i s t o r y " ,
J o s e p h u s appeals o n c e m o r e to the e n o r m o u s n e s s o f the events a n d his
p r o x i m i t y to t h e m as his justification for such strong e m o t i o n s . H e d o e s
n o t b e l i e v e that the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f his o w n v a l u e j u d g e m e n t s vitiates his
c l a i m to a c c u r a c y . I f a n y t h i n g his strong e m o t i o n s testify to the closeness
o f his p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t with events o f great i m p o r t .
I n o r d e r to r e m o v e the slightest hint o f m a l p r a c t i c e o n his part,
J o s e p h u s turns in § § 13-16 t o a c c u s e those w h o i g n o r e current events ( h e
is thinking o f the J e w i s h w a r ) as objects o f historical study. T h e i r s is the
greater failure, he c l a i m s . F r a m i n g the c h a r g e in general t e r m s , h e is

8 6
Cf. Laqueur, Historiker and now Cohen, Josephus.
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

able to i n v o k e the v e n e r a b l e aid o f P o l y b i u s . W e s o o n see, h o w e v e r , that


his real p u r p o s e is n o t an abstract critique o f ancient history b u t a
reiteration o f his o w n historical p r o w e s s as c h r o n i c l e r o f the J e w i s h W a r .
H e has l a b o u r e d v e r y hard t o p r o v i d e this a c c o u n t o f the history o f his
o w n times ( § 1 6 ) . T h i s c l a i m recalls o n c e again the eyewitness t h e m e
w h i c h has already b e e n well cultivated.
A m o n g the v a r i o u s t h e m e s i n t r o d u c e d b y J o s e p h u s in the preface t o
War w e m a y distinguish b e t w e e n those that h e explicitly cites as his
peculiar literary c o n c e r n s , arising f r o m the subject itself ( l a m e n t for
J e r u s a l e m , disgust for the tyrants, praise for the R o m a n s ) , a n d the m o r e
general historiographical t h e m e s o r topoi that find a p l a c e also in his
w o r k . B o t h will n e e d t o b e taken into a c c o u n t w h e r e relevant, in the in­
terpretation o f the Pharisee passages in War.
It is a c o m m o n p l a c e in J o s e p h a n scholarship that War w a s the
historian's apostate w o r k a n d Ant. his a p o l o g e t i c effort. I n the f o r m e r ,
J o s e p h u s speaks as a Romling o f the " J e w i s h c a m p a i g n " — a title that
signifies his distance f r o m his o w n p e o p l e a n d his R o m a n v i e w p o i n t . H e
speaks as the m o u t h p i e c e o f R o m e t o his coreligionists. Ant. is h e l d , t o
a greater o r lesser d e g r e e , to b e a w o r k o f r e p e n t a n c e . J o s e p h u s has n o w
m a t u r e d a n d r e d i s c o v e r e d the value o f his r o o t s ; with Ant. a n d Ag.Ap.
88
he c h o o s e s to p u b l i c i z e these i n s i g h t s .
O u r e x a m i n a t i o n o f War, h o w e v e r , points in a different d i r e c t i o n .
J o s e p h u s writes in o r d e r to capitalize o n his o w n k n o w l e d g e o f the c o n ­
8 9
flict. H e writes, h o w e v e r , as a n u n a b a s h e d J e w . F r o m the v e r y first
sentence h e declares his J e w i s h heritage, his priestly identity, his l o v e for
the T e m p l e a n d his c o u n t r y ( 1 : 3 ) . H e presents the J e w s as better
historians than the G r e e k s ( 1 : 1 6 ) . A n d whereas all p r e v i o u s a c c o u n t s o f
the revolt h a d vilified the J e w s , h e intends to set the r e c o r d straight,
t h o u g h w i t h o u t c o m p e n s a t o r y e x a g g e r a t i o n ( 1 : 7 - 9 ) . W h a t h e wants to
present to his readers is a J e w i s h story ( 1 : 1 7 , 18) a n d i n d e e d , in the nar­
rative itself h e glides o v e r the years o f R o m a n prefecture in J u d e a until
the revolt ( t h o u g h h e d o e s p a u s e to elaborate o n b r i e f reign o f A g r i p p a ,

8 8
Cf. Thackeray, Rasp, Weber, Laqueur, Smith/Neusner, and Cohen, who are dis­
cussed in chapter 7, below.
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

J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees to his G r e c o - R o m a n readership in


War 1:110, in the c o u r s e o f his n a r r a t i o n o f events u n d e r the H a s m o ­
n e a n s . C o m i n g t o speak o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e ' s r e i g n , h e offers a b r i e f
a c c o u n t o f the distinctive characteristics o f the Pharisees, as follows:
TC<xpa9uovT<xt 8e atkfjs dq TTJV lijouaiav
Oapiaatot auvrayfxa xt 'IouSatcav
Soxouv
(a) euaePeorepov etvai TCOV aXXcov x a l
( b ) TOU$ v6[xou<; axpi(JeaTepov a ^ y e t a O a i
T h i s is the first p i e c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the Pharisees that J o s e p h u s
saw fit to g i v e his readers. It m u s t , therefore, b e significant for o u r p u r ­
p o s e s . M o r e o v e r , a m o n g all o f the d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees in the
J o s e p h a n c o r p u s , s o m e t h i n g v e r y close to the a b o v e o c c u r s in t w o o t h e r
places:
War 2 : 1 6 2 : 01 fxex' &xpi(kta$ 8OXOUVT£<; e^yeTaOai TOC vofxifxa x a l TTJV rcpcoTTjv
dTCayovTes ocipeaiv
Life 191: o'i rcepl TOC iraxpia vojxtfxa Soxouaiv TCOV aXXoav &xpi(kia 8taq>epeiv
1
Nor c a n o n e i g n o r e the prima facie similarity b e t w e e n these statements
a n d Ant 1 7 : 4 1 :
fxopiov TI 'IouSaix&v avOpcorcoav in' eijaxpiPcoaei u i y a 9povouv TOORCOCTPIOUx a l
a e i T 0 e o v
vojxcov 0 % x V ^ ^ ^POA7IOIOU(xevov. . . .
Since these passages together constitute a large segment of what
J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the Pharisees, f r o m his first to his last remarks
a b o u t the g r o u p , a n d since the k e y terms that they share (superlative
axpi(kta, vojAOi/vofiifxa/rcaTpia, Soxeoo/TCpoarcoioufxat) g o b a c k to War 1:110,
it is all the m o r e i m p o r t a n t to strive for a t h o r o u g h u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f this
first attempt at definition.
The "first i m p r e s s i o n " o f the Pharisees that J o s e p h u s offers his r e a d e r
will b e interpreted here a c c o r d i n g t o the f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e : ( 1 ) c o n ­
sideration o f the c o n t e x t ; ( 2 ) analysis o f the k e y t e r m s ; ( 3 ) n a r r o w i n g the

1
This passage is often treated as the product of one of Josephus's sources, which has
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

r a n g e o f plausible m e a n i n g s to the single m o s t p r o b a b l e interpretation.


W e shall also n e e d to c o n s i d e r ( 4 ) the i m p l i c a t i o n o f such an analysis for
the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n .

/. Context

J o s e p h u s ' s first r e c o r d e d reference to the Pharisees falls within his narra­


tion o f H a s m o n e a n history. H i s v i e w o f the H a s m o n e a n s is basically
positive: Mattathias a n d his sons rose u p against the i m p i o u s a n d brutal
A n t i o c h u s I V a n d fought with c o u r a g e ( 1 : 3 4 - 4 0 ) . S i m o n ' s administra­
tion w a s excellent (yevvaico^—1:50) as was that o f J o h n H y r c a n u s , w h o
ruled thirty-one years ( 1 : 6 8 ) . After H y r c a n u s , h o w e v e r , things t u r n e d
sour. T h a t ruler was permitted b y the D e i t y to foresee that with his t w o
o l d e r sons the g o v e r n m e n t w o u l d falter ( 1 : 6 9 ) . J o s e p h u s p r o c e e d s to des­
c r i b e the y e a r - l o n g x a x a a x p o ^ ( 1 : 6 9 ) o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s reign, which
e n d e d with the deaths o f b o t h A r i s t o b u l u s a n d A n t i g o n u s . W i t h the ac­
cession o f H y r c a n u s ' s third s o n , A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s ( 1 : 8 5 ) , the r e a d e r ' s
q u e s t i o n is: W i l l the d o w n w a r d trend c o n t i n u e o r will J a n n e u s b e able
to reverse it a n d recapture the lost g o o d fortune o f his father ( 1 : 6 9 , xrjs
TCOCTpcpocs eu8ocifxovta<;)?
A l a s , J o s e p h u s portrays A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s as a w a r m o n g e r w h o w a s
consistently hated b y the J e w i s h p e o p l e . J o s e p h u s is always partial to
2
m o d e r a t e s (fiixpioi) but he characterizes A l e x a n d e r as o n e w h o o n l y
s e e m e d at first to b e m o d e r a t e (fxexpiOTTjTi rcpouxetv SOXOUVTOC—§ 8 5 ) . O n
c o m i n g to p o w e r , h o w e v e r , this ruler killed his b r o t h e r ( § 8 5 ) a n d
p l u n g e d the nation into continual wars ( § § 86f., 8 9 , 9 0 , 93ff., 99f.,
103f), often unsuccessfully (§§ 90, 95, 100, 1 0 3 ) . H i s o w n p e o p l e
w e a r i e d o f h i m q u i c k l y a n d o p e n l y expressed their hostility ( § § 8 8 , 91f.,
94, 9 6 , 9 8 ) . O n l y with the help o f his mercenaries w a s A l e x a n d e r able
to quell the revolts ( § § 8 8 , 9 3 ) , d u r i n g the c o u r s e o f w h i c h he killed tens
o f thousands o f J e w s ( § § 8 9 , 9 1 , 9 6 , 9 7 ) .
Josephus describes the accession o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e , J a n n e u s ' s
w i d o w , as a p r o m i s i n g m o m e n t for the nation. A l e x a n d r a not o n l y
lacked her h u s b a n d ' s brutality (xfjs cifxoTrjTOs OCUTOU fxocxpocv a7co8eouaa);
she o p p o s e d (avOiaTTjfxai) his c r i m e s and w a s therefore loved by the
people (§ 107). O n a c c o u n t o f her reputation for piety (8toc 86£ocv
suaejkioci;) she was able to take firm c o n t r o l o f the g o v e r n m e n t . U n l i k e
her h u s b a n d ' s case, h o w e v e r — t h e p u b l i c 86£a a b o u t his m o d e r a t i o n had
quickly p r o v e d false ( § § 8 5 f f . ) — A l e x a n d r a ' s reputation for piety was

2
War 2:275, 281, 306, 455, 649; 4:283; 5:391; 7:263. Josephus sides with the
"moderate" position in the revolt.
84 CHAPTER FOUR

w e l l - f o u n d e d : she really w a s s c r u p u l o u s a b o u t the national traditions


(rjxptPou y a p 8rj fxaXtcrca TOO e'Ovoos TOC 7cdcTptoc) a n d she u s e d to dismiss of­
fenders f r o m positions o f a u t h o r i t y ( § 1 0 8 ) . A p p r o p r i a t e l y , she g a v e the
h i g h - p r i e s t h o o d to h e r o l d e r s o n H y r c a n u s , w h o w a s indifferent to p u b l i c
affairs, a n d thereby restricted the y o u n g e r A r i s t o b u l u s , a " h o t - h e a d " ,
to private life.
I n t o this p r o m i s i n g situation J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees, w h o
are yet a third party with a r e p u t a t i o n ( 1 1 0 ) : " a b o d y o f J e w s with the
r e p u t a t i o n o f e x c e l l i n g the rest o f their nation in the o b s e r v a n c e s o f
religion, a n d as exact e x p o n e n t s o f the l a w s " ( T h a c k e r a y ) . A l e x a n d e r ' s
reputation (Soxouv) f o r m i l d n e s s h a d b e e n q u i c k l y d e b u n k e d ; his w i f e ' s
r e n o w n (86£oc) for piety, o n the o t h e r h a n d , w a s well f o u n d e d . T h e
reader is n o w r e a d y t o ask: D i d the actions o f the Pharisees support o r
undermine their r e p u t a t i o n (Soxouv) f o r piety a n d o b s e r v a n c e o f the
laws?

I I . Key Terms

A. IIocpacpuofAOCi, t o " g r o w b e s i d e " , o c c u r s o n l y here in J o s e p h u s . It m a y


3
suggest the m e t a p h o r o f " s u c k e r s a r o u n d a t r e e " a n d is in a n y case cer­
tainly p e j o r a t i v e : the Pharisees g r e w increasingly to a s s u m e the eifouatoc
that rightfully b e l o n g e d t o A l e x a n d r a .
B. Euvrorffxa, "something drawn u p in o r d e r " . A s w e shall see,
J o s e p h u s uses v a r i o u s labels f o r the J e w i s h religious g r o u p s , such as:
4
atpeais, cptXoaocpta, Tayfxa, a n d yevos; auvTOcyfxoc h e uses o n l y o f the
Pharisees a n d o n l y here.
A l t o g e t h e r , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the w o r d s o m e 16 times, 12 o f these in
War. H e o n c e r e p r o d u c e s S t r a b o ' s use o f the w o r d as m e a n i n g s i m p l y
5
a g r o u p o r " t r o o p " (Ant. 1 4 : 1 1 6 ) . I n 13 o u t o f 14 c a s e s , however,
J o s e p h u s uses auvxayfxa in a distinctly pejorative sense: in the r e a l m o f
ideas, it refers to s o m e t h i n g deceitfully a r r a n g e d , a plot o r fabrication
(War 1:495; 2 : 1 0 7 , 1 7 2 , 2 9 0 ) . W h e n used o f a g r o u p o f p e o p l e , the t o n e
is always o n e o f dislike o r disgust. F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s speaks o f a
yovoctxcov <JUVTOCYU.OC that c o l l a b o r a t e d with the w i c k e d A n t i p a t e r to cause
t r o u b l e f o r H e r o d the G r e a t (War 1:568). M o s t frequent is J o s e p h u s ' s
use o f the w o r d to d e s c r i b e g r o u p s o f rebels o r " b r i g a n d s " , u n d e r o n e
of the dpxiXTjarai, thus: TO auvTayjxa T<OV Xr]AT<ov (War 4:135, 509, 513,
558; Ant. 2 0 : 1 6 1 ; Life 1 0 6 ) . O u t s i d e o f o u r passage, then, w h e n e v e r

3
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

J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f uses the w o r d ouvxayfia to d e s c r i b e a g r o u p o f p e o p l e ,


it always m e a n s "band" or " g a n g " ; it is n e v e r h o n o r i f i c o r e v e n
neutral. In o u r passage, as w e shall see, the sequel a p p e a r s to suggest
the s a m e negative sense. G . C o r n f e l d ' s r e n d e r i n g , " a n i m p o r t a n t sector
6
[ o f the J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y ] " , is hardly appropriate.
C. EuaePeaxepov, " m o r e p i o u s " . W i t h the t w o c o m p a r a t i v e adjectives
w e reach the heart o f J o s e p h u s ' s first definition o f the Pharisees:
auvxayfxdc TI 'IouSauov Soxouv:
(a) euaePeaTepov etvat xcav aXXoov xal
( b ) TOUS v6[ioos axpiPeaxepov d^rpfsiaGai
B o t h o f these terms reflect J o s e p h u s ' s characteristic v o c a b u l a r y in the
field o f r e l i g i o n .
Euaejkta and its cognate verb and adjective occur 144 times in
7
J o s e p h u s . A l t h o u g h he o c c a s i o n a l l y speaks o f " f i l i a l " p i e t y , he uses the
euaePeta w o r d - g r o u p almost always to d e n o t e piety t o w a r d G o d . E v e r y
8
n a t i o n has its o w n traditional f o r m o f euae(kia , but J o s e p h u s wants to
s h o w (especially in Ant. a n d Ag.Ap.) that J e w i s h euae(kia is particularly
worthy:

C o u l d G o d be more worthily honoured than by such a scheme, under


which religion is the end and aim of the training of the entire community
(fxev TOU 7rXr|0ou<; xocraaxeuaafAevoo rcpos TTJV euaefkiav), the priests are en­
trusted with the special charge of it, and the whole administration of the
state resembles some sacred ceremony? (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 8 , Thackeray)

T h e J e w i s h vofios, d e l i v e r e d b y G o d t h r o u g h M o s e s , p r o m o t e s a g e n u i n e
piety (Ant. 1:6; 1 0 : 5 0 ; 14:65; Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 4 6 , 2 9 1 , 2 9 3 ) . T h e c u s t o m s (eGrj)
o f the J e w s , J o s e p h u s says, are all c o n c e r n e d with piety (euae(kta) and
justice (Sixaioauvri, Ant. 16:42).
A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , this euaefkta finds its centre in the T e m p l e
cult. It requires the offering o f p r e s c r i b e d sacrifices a n d the celebration
o f feasts (Ant. 8 : 1 2 2 - 1 2 4 ) . M e n a s s e h b e g a n to s h o w piety (euaejkiv), ac­
c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w h e n he sanctified the T e m p l e a n d purified the city
o f J e r u s a l e m (Ant. 1 0 : 4 5 ) . T h e tenacity o f J e w i s h euae(kia is indicated b y
the firm resolve o f the priests to c o n t i n u e with the p r e s c r i b e d 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

thus presides (7cpoeoravai) o v e r the euaefkta o f the nation (Ant. 4 : 3 1 ) ; for


this r e a s o n , he c a n c l a i m that w h e n the I d u m e a n s slaughtered the c h i e f
priests they effectively e n d e d the possibility o f euaePeia (War 7:267).
If the T e m p l e a n d p r i e s t h o o d constitute the focal p o i n t o f euaePeia,
however, they b y n o m e a n s exhaust its significance. J o s e p h u s has
S a m u e l declare that o b e d i e n c e t o w a r d G o d (u7COT<xaaea0ai) is the c o n d i ­
tion o f a c c e p t a b l e sacrifice a n d the sign o f true piety (Ant. 6 : 1 4 8 ) . T h i s
o b e d i e n c e e x t e n d s to the laws in their entire s c o p e , w h i c h is the w h o l e
o f h u m a n life:

A b o v e all we pride ourselves on the education of our children and regard


as the most essential task in life the observance of our laws and of the pious
practices, based thereupon, which we have inherited (TO 9uXatTeiv TOU$
vofxous x a l xrjv xaxa TOUTOU$ 7capa8e8o(xevr|v eoaePetav). (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 )

A n d again:

For us, with our conviction that the original institution of the L a w was in
accordance with the will of G o d , it would be rank impiety ( o u 8 ' euaePe$) not
to observe it. (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 )

T h u s euaePeia requires careful o b s e r v a n c e o f f o o d a n d purity laws (Life


14, 7 5 ) . J o h n o f G i s c h a l a is castigated for lacking euaePeia in b o t h areas
(War 7 : 2 6 4 ) . A s the story o f K i n g Izates tells us, euaePeia a m o u n t s to d o ­
i n g what is c o m m a n d e d in the L a w , in this case c i r c u m c i s i o n , without
c o n c e r n for the c o n s e q u e n c e s (Ant. 2 0 : 4 4 - 4 8 ) . Further e x a m p l e s o f the
same principle are S a b b a t h o b s e r v a n c e (Ag.Ap. 1:212) a n d the c o n t i n u a ­
tion o f sacrifice (Ant. 1 4 : 6 5 ) in the midst o f w a r , b o t h o f w h i c h J o s e p h u s
considers impressive e x a m p l e s o f euaePeia.
F o r J o s e p h u s , then, euaePeia is a o n e - w o r d s u m m a r y o f the w h o l e
J e w i s h system o f religion, instigated b y G o d , articulated b y M o s e s , ad­
ministered b y the priests, a n d shared b y the w h o l e n a t i o n . M o s e s ' suc­
cess, he allows, lay in his m a k i n g all o f the virtues elements o f euaepeta
rather than m a k i n g euaePeia c o u n t for o n l y o n e virtue a m o n g m a n y
(Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 7 0 ) . "EuaePeia", he says, " g o v e r n s all o u r actions (7cpa£ei$)
a n d o c c u p a t i o n s (SiaxpiPai) and speech ( X o y o i ) " (Ag.Ap. 2:171).
It is n o surprise, then, that J o s e p h u s sets u p euaePeta as the crucial test
for the c o m p e t e n c e o f J e w i s h ( a n d other) p u b l i c figures. H e s u m m a r i z e s
the activities o f A b r a h a m , A m r a m , J o s h u a , B o a z , D a v i d , a n d S o l o m o n ,
for e x a m p l e , b y c o m m e n t i n g o n their euaePeia (Ant. 2 : 1 9 6 , 2 1 2 , 3 : 4 9 ;
5:327; 8:13, 196).
W h e n speaking o f p u b l i c figures J o s e p h u s often j u x t a p o s e s the t w o
characteristics o f euaePeia a n d Stxaioouvr). Especially telling in this regard
is his paraphrase o f the Letter of Aristeas § 4 6 , w h e r e he inserts this
favourite pair o f qualifications for a ruler. Aristeas has: xaXco? ouv rcoirjaeis,
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 87

PaatXeu Stxate . . . . J o s e p h u s r e n d e r s (Ant. 1 2 : 5 6 ) : eaxat 8e xfjs afj$ euaepeta?


xat Stxaioauvrjs.
The significance o f this d o u b l e d e s i g n a t i o n c o m e s to light first in
D a v i d ' s instructions to S o l o m o n . F o u r times D a v i d a d m o n i s h e s S o l o m o n
to rule in a p i o u s (euaepfj) a n d j u s t (Stxaiov) m a n n e r (Ant. 7 : 3 3 8 , 3 4 2 , 3 5 6 ,
374). O n the fifth o c c a s i o n , as D a v i d is d y i n g , he finally elaborates:
S o l o m o n ' s task is, " t o b e j u s t t o w a r d y o u r subjects a n d p i o u s t o w a r d
God" (Stxai (lev etvat 7cp6$ TOU<; dpxofxevoix;, euaejkt 8e 7cp6$ xov . . . Oeov,
7 : 3 8 4 ) . T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n o f euaePeia as d e s c r i b i n g the relationship t o w a r d
G o d a n d Stxaioauvrj, the " h o r i z o n t a l " relationship to m e n , is c o n f i r m e d
several t i m e s . T h e righteous K i n g J o t h a m , "euaePfjs (xev TOC 7cpd<; TOV Oeov,
8ixaio<; 8e TOC npbq av0pa>7uou<; U7cfjpxev" (Ant. 9 : 2 3 6 ) . J o h n the Baptist, says
J o s e p h u s , e x h o r t e d the J e w s to act 7cp6$ aXXrjXou$ Stxaioauvrj xat 7cp6<; TOV
Geov euaePeia (Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 7 ) . Finally, a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s the first t w o o f
the d o z e n oaths taken b y the Essenes (War 2 : 1 3 9 ) w e r e : 7cp&T0V [xev
euaePrjaeiv TO OeTov, e7ceixa TO npbq avOpamous Stxata 9uXa?eiv. E v e n w h e n the
m a n - w a r d qualification o f Stxaioauvrj is l a c k i n g , w e frequently find the
9
qualifier 7cp6$ xov Oeov a p p e n d e d to euaepeta. T h e r e c a n r e m a i n little d o u b t
that the almost f o r m u l a i c euaePeia xat Stxaioauvrj that J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s in
c h a r a c t e r i z i n g p u b l i c figures is to b e u n d e r s t o o d in terms o f this ver­
10
tical/horizontal d i s t i n c t i o n .
I n its earliest G r e e k u s a g e , euaepeta w a s usually qualified with respect
to its o b j e c t ; o n e c o u l d speak o f " r e v e r e n c e " t o w a r d o n e ' s parents,
t o w a r d the d e a d , t o w a r d ' s o n e ' s h o m e l a n d , a n d so forth, u s i n g the f o r m s
11
euaePeia et$/ npoq/iztpi. B y the Hellenistic p e r i o d , a l t h o u g h all o f these for­
m u l a t i o n s r e m a i n e d c u r r e n t , euaePeia h a d also c o m e to b e u s e d w i t h o u t
qualification for " r e v e r e n c e t o w a r d a n d w o r s h i p o f the D i v i n e " . W .
Foerster suggests that the d e v e l o p m e n t w a s a natural p r o g r e s s i o n f r o m
h o n o u r i n g the v a r i o u s constituent e l e m e n t s within the world order
( p a r e n t s , h o m e l a n d , e t c . ) to h o n o u r i n g that o r d e r itself a n d the d i v i n e
12
p o w e r s that g u a r d e d a n d p r o t e c t e d i t . In all o f its ramifications, euaepeta
13
was a virtue in Hellenistic t h i n k i n g .

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

EuaePeta, then, is f u n d a m e n t a l l y a G r e e k c o n c e p t . S o Foerster:

Euaepeta ist eine griechische Wortbildung, zu der das Hebraische kein


sprachliches Aquivalent hat und die eine religios-sittliche Tugend, deren
U b u n g offentliches L o b , deren Unterlassung moralische Abwertung
14
erfahrt.

The w o r d d o e s o c c u r a handful o f times in the S e p t u a g i n t , to r e n d e r


15
mJT n**"P, a n d the adjective euaePfjs o c c a s i o n a l l y renders T D n , D*H3,
1 6
and p ^ . But the w o r d - g r o u p d o e s n o t r e n d e r a n y particular H e b r e w
c o n c e p t i o n v e r y well. C . H . D o d d s u m m a r i z e s :

Thus these terms [the euaep-group] belong chiefly to the vocabulary o f those
books o f the Bible which were composed as well as translated in the
Hellenistic period, and whose Greek translation is comparatively late. It is
clear that the words, and the idea they represent, are characteristically
Greek, and in Hellenistic Judaism replace Hebrew terms o f a different
17
colour.

Since it w a s o n l y G r e e k - s p e a k i n g J u d a i s m that i n c o r p o r a t e d the c o n c e p t


18
o f euaePeta as a constituent feature o f its s e l f - u n d e r s t a n d i n g , it w o u l d
be futile in this case to press further the question of a "Semitic
b a c k g r o u n d " for J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t .
J o s e p h u s ' s c o n c e p t o f euaePeta as a c o m m u n a l J e w i s h e n d e a v o u r , as
consisting in o b e d i e n c e to the d i v i n e L a w , a n d as the special task a n d
virtue o f the priests, is m o s t closely paralleled in 4 M a c c a b e e s . W i t h i n
the short c o m p a s s o f the w o r k , euaePeta f o r m s a p p e a r 6 4 times a n d h a v e
precisely the J o s e p h a n sense o f " p l e a s i n g G o d b y a d h e r i n g faithfully to
his L a w " . W h a t m a k e s this m o s t interesting is that 4 M a c c a b e e s w a s
traditionally thought, o n the basis o f t e s t i m o n y f r o m Eusebius and
J e r o m e , to h a v e b e e n written b y J o s e p h u s u n d e r the title Ilept AUTO-
19
xpdcxopos Aoytafxou.
T o s u m m a r i z e : the t e r m euaepeta is part o f J o s e p h u s ' s characteristic
v o c a b u l a r y ; it o c c u r s m o s t frequently t h r o u g h o u t Ant. a n d Ag.Ap., which
b o t h seek to e x p l a i n a n d d e f e n d J u d a i s m . It is less c o m m o n , b u t still ap­
pears in characteristic f o r m , in War a n d Life, w h i c h d e s c r i b e events c o n ­
n e c t e d with the revolt. J o s e p h u s often uses the w o r d to s u m m a r i z e the
w h o l e e n d a n d m e a n s o f J e w i s h life, c e n t r e d in the T e m p l e cult a n d

1 4
Foerster, "Pastoralbriefen", 213.
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

supervised b y the p r i e s t h o o d . H e c a n also restrict euaePeta t o action that


is directed t o w a r d G o d , in w h i c h sense it is c o m p l e m e n t e d b y Stxatoouvrj,
w h i c h refers t o h u m a n relationships.
M o s t significant for o u r p u r p o s e is the simple o b s e r v a t i o n that the
c o n c e p t euaePeta d o e s play a large role in J o s e p h u s ' s thinking. When,
therefore, h e describes the Pharisees as a g r o u p o f J e w s Soxouv euae-
Pearepov etvat TCOV aXXcov h e is u s i n g t e r m i n o l o g y that is theologically
c h a r g e d for h i m : they h a v e the reputation o f b e i n g ( o r s u p p o s e t h e m ­
2 0
selves t o b e ) the m o s t J e w i s h o f the J e w s , those w h o m o s t perfectly
fulfill the c o m m u n a l ideal.
D . 'AxptPeaxepov: " m o r e precise, e x a c t " . F o r J o s e p h u s , the r o a d to
attaining euaePeta is a d h e r e n c e to the laws, c u s t o m s , o r traditions o f
J u d a i s m . It w a s the great l a w g i v e r (vofJLoOeTTjs) w h o instructed the p e o p l e
in euaePeta (Ant. 1:6). S i n c e G o d has g i v e n the L a w to m a n k i n d , piety
consists in a d h e r e n c e t o it (Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 ) . EuaePeta, in the J e w i s h c o n ­
text, is closely b o u n d to o b s e r v a n c e o f the divine c o m m a n d m e n t s (cf.
Ant. 7 : 3 3 8 , 3 7 4 , 9 : 2 , 2 2 2 ; 1 4 : 6 5 ; 1 5 : 2 6 7 ; Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 4 6 , 1 5 9 ) . F o r the
laws teach euaePetav xat aX7)0eaTaT7)v (Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 9 1 ) . K i n g J o s i a h suc­
c e e d e d so well in euaePeta precisely b y f o l l o w i n g the laws (Ant. 1 0 : 5 0 ) .
If the r o a d to piety is o b s e r v a n c e o f the laws g i v e n b y G o d , then it
follows that the m o s t p i o u s J e w s will b e those w h o follow the laws m o s t
scrupulously a n d accurately. T h e connection between euaePeta a n d
axptPeta is especially clear in the context o f o u r passage, w h e r e it is said
of Queen Alexandra that she w a s e n a b l e d to take c o n t r o l o f the
government:

Sta 86£<xv ev<je(ie(oc<;. r\xpi$o\j yap 8rj fxaXta-ca TOU eOvou^ TOC rcaxpta xal TOU<;
7uXrj[X[xeXoGvTa<; efc -code; lepouc; V6(JLOU<; eij dcpxfjs TcpoeP&XXeTO (War 1:108.)

T h e substance o f A l e x a n d r a ' s euaePeta w a s h e r s c r u p u l o u s a d h e r e n c e to


the laws. W h e n , therefore, J o s e p h u s describes the Pharisees as the g r o u p
Soxouv euaePeaxepov etvat. . . x a l TOUS vofxouc; axptPeaxepov acprjyetaGat, h e is
n o t really saying t w o different things a b o u t the Pharisees b u t is rather
defining their reputation b y m e a n s o f s y n o n y m o u s parallelism: to b e
euaePeaxepov for h i m is to b e axptPeaxepov w i t h r e s p e c t to the vojxot. A s h e
r e m a r k s in another c o n t e x t :

T h e Jews certify the wisdom only of those who know the laws exactly (i6i<;
TOC VOFXTFXA AAQJ&s ETUTAXAUIVOTS) and who are competent to interpret the mean­
ing of the holy scriptures (TTJV TOOV TEPCOV ypafXfxdcTcav Suvajxtv ep[A7)VEUAAT
ouvauivotc). (Ant. 20:264)

2 0
W e shall consider the exact sense of 8ox£o> below.
90 CHAPTER FOUR

Paret rightly comments: " D i e Frommigkeit ist ihm wesentlich


2 1
Akribie".
'Axpi(kioc a n d its c o g n a t e v e r b a n d adjective o c c u r 134 times in
J o s e p h u s . W e h a v e a l r e a d y n o t e d the i m p o r t a n c e o f the c o n c e p t f o r his
h i s t o r i o g r a p h y : <xxpi(kioc is the goal o f all his w r i t i n g a n d h e alludes t o it
frequently i n his p r o g r a m m a t i c statements. I n War, as w e h a v e seen,
J o s e p h u s bases his c l a i m t o a c c u r a c y o n his close i n v o l v e m e n t with
events.
W i t h J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , as w i t h ancient J u d a i s m generally, o n e c a n ­
22
not force a d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n history a n d r e l i g i o n . F o r the p u r p o s e o f
s t u d y i n g the past is t o learn G o d ' s will. S o J o s e p h u s writes o f his Ant.:

But, speaking generally, the m a i n lesson to be learnt from this history


(TOCUTTIS xfjs loroptocs). . . is that m e n who conform to the will of G o d , and
do not venture to transgress laws that have been excellently laid down,
prosper in all things beyond belief. . . ; whereas, in proportion as they
depart from the strict observance of these laws (xa9' oaov 8' av arcoaTcaai xfjs
TOUTCOV axpijious E7U[AeXetas), . . . whatever imaginary good thing they strive
to do ends in irretrievable disaster. (Ant. 1:14, Thackeray)

A passage in the first b o o k o f Ag.Ap. likewise blurs the distinction b e ­


t w e e n history a n d r e l i g i o n , b y p o s i t i n g that the r e c o r d s o f J e w i s h history
h a v e b e e n kept with dxpt(kioc b y the priests a n d p r o p h e t s ( 1 : 2 9 - 3 6 ) . I n ­
d e e d , the r e c o r d s o f the past are " s a c r e d " r e c o r d s ( 1 : 5 4 ) . A n d J o s e p h u s
appeals t o his o w n priestly l i n e a g e as s u p p o r t f o r his c l a i m s to h a v e a c ­
curate i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t J e w i s h history (Ag.Ap. 1:54). M o s t significant
is his j u d g e m e n t o n the anti-Semite A p i o n . T h r o u g h o u t his p o l e m i c a l
w o r k against this a u t h o r , h e r e p e a t e d l y charges h i m with p r o p a g a t i n g ig­
n o r a n c e a n d lies a b o u t J e w i s h history a n d c u s t o m s . H i s final j u d g e m e n t
on the p r o p a g a n d i s t i c historian, h o w e v e r , is f u n d a m e n t a l l y religious
(Ag.Ap. 2:144):

T h e duty of wise m e n is to adhere scrupulously to their native laws con­


cerning piety (xou<; u i v otxeioti; vou,oi$rceplTTJV euaejktocv axpi(Ja)<; efXfxeveiv) and
not to abuse those of others. A p i o n was delinquent with respect to his coun­
try's laws and told lies about ours.

A p i o n ' s historical i n a c c u r a c y is p o r t r a y e d b y J o s e p h u s as a religious


d e f i c i e n c y . J o s e p h u s c a n n o t separate the spheres o f history a n d r e l i g i o n .
For h i m , the c o n c e p t o f dxptpstoc m o v e s freely b e t w e e n the t w o areas.

2 1
Paret, "Pharisaismus", 826.
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

One w a y to o b s e r v e J o s e p h u s ' s taste for the axpifktoc w o r d g r o u p is to


e x a m i n e his paraphrase o f the p s e u d e p i g r a p h o u s Letter of Aristeas. T h a t
d o c u m e n t , in the parts o f it that J o s e p h u s uses, has the adjective dxpififjs
o n c e ( § 3 2 ) . J o s e p h u s takes it o v e r {Ant. 1 2 : 3 9 ) a l o n g with the phrase in
w h i c h it o c c u r s . In six other p l a c e s , h o w e v e r , h e paraphrases Aristeas in
such a w a y as to i n c l u d e an dxpt[feta-cognate w h e r e it w a s absent f r o m
his s o u r c e . S i n c e all o f this h a p p e n s within the space o f Ant. 1 2 : 3 5 - 1 0 4 ,
the i n c i d e n c e is n o t e w o r t h y . T h e passages are as follows:

(1) Aristeas 2 8 b : Storcep xal TO xfjs etaSoaeco? xal TO TCOV ITUOTOXCOV


dvTiypa9a xaraxexcoptxa xal TO TCOV drcearaXuivcov rcXfjGos xal TTJV exaarou
xaraaxeurjv, 8id TO [xeyaXafxotpta xal Te/vrj 8ia9epeiv exaarov aurcov.

Ant. 1 2 : 3 5 : 8to xal TO VC\$ etaSoaeco? dvrtypa90v xal TO TCOV emaroXcov


xaTarerdxrat xal TOTCXTJGOSTCOV d7cearaXuivcov dvaGrjfAarcov xal TO £ 9 '
exaarov xaraaxeuaaGev, co$ dxptPeaTdr7)v etvat TTJV TOU rexvirou rot? opcoat
[xeyaXoupytav xal 8td TTJV TCOV xaraaxeuaau-drcov e^oxrjv TOV exaarou
Srju-ioupyov euGeco? 7toiTJaai yvcopiu.cov.

(2) Aristeas 3 9 : xaXcot; ouv 7tot7Ja7)s xal TTJ<J rju-erepds cncouSfj? afjico?
e7uXef|d[xevo<; avSpa? xaXco? (kPtcoxora? rcpeaPurepous, eujcetpiav e'xovras TOU
VO(AOU, xal Suvarou? ep[Z7)veuaai, dq)' exdarr)*; 96X7)$ eij, orccos ex TCOV rcXetovcov
TO auu^covov evepyr}, 8id TO rcepl u.ei£6vcov etvai TTJV axecjnv.

Ant. 1 2 : 4 9 : xaXco? ouv 7coir)aei<; e7tiXeijdu.evos av8pa$ dyaGou? e£ a 9 ' exdarrj?


9uXfj? f]8rj rcpeaPurepous, oi xal 8td TOV xpovov eu-rceipcos e'xouai TCOV VOJXCOV xal
Suvrjaovrai TTJV epjxrjvetav aurcov dxpipfj TroirjaaaGat.

(3) Aristeas 5 6 : oaa 8' av rj a y p a 9 a , 7tpo<; xaXXovyjv exeXeuae rcotetv oaa 8e


8id yparcrcov, u.erpd aurois xaraxoXouGfjaai.

Ant. 1 2 : 6 3 : xal oaa rjv a y p a 9 a exeXeuae raura xaraaxeud£eaGai xat rd


dvayeypau.uiva npbq TTJV dxpi($etav aurcov a7ro($Xe7rovTa$ 6|xotco$ eTrireXeiv.

(4) Aristeas 183: T i p o a e x e a r a r o s yap cov avGpcorcos 6 AcopoGeo? etxe TTJV TCOV
TOIOUTCOV 7cpoaTaatav. auvearpcoae 8e rcdvra Ta 8i' aurou x&tpi£6u.eva, npbq T a ?
TotauTa? UTioSoxd? 8iau.eu.epiau.eva. 8tu.epfj Te eTroirjae Ta TCOV xXiaicov.

Ant. 1 2 : 9 5 : o 8e xal rcepl TOUTOU? eyevero, AcopoOeou 8td TTJV rcepl TOV (Jtov
dxptPeiav inl rourots xaGearcoTO?. auvearpcoae 8e rcdvra 8i' aurou rd npbq rd$
roiaura? urco8oxd$, xal St^epfj TTJV xXiaiav ercotTiaev.

(5) Ant. 1 2 : 9 9 is a s u m m a r y statement o f the tedious a c c o u n t in Aristeas


2 0 0 - 2 9 4 , w h i c h tells o f a s e v e n - d a y b a n q u e t in w h i c h K i n g P t o l e m y asks
92 CHAPTER FOUR

each o f the s e v e n t y - t w o J e w i s h elders a q u e s t i o n a n d receives a wise reply.


J o s e p h u s ' s s u m m a r y r e m a r k is that the elders, ''after c o n s i d e r i n g the
questions, g a v e precise (dxpt(Jco<;) explanations, a c o m m e n t l a c k i n g in his
source.

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


dvTi[}oX<xT$ . . . xal [xexpt [xev aSpa? evaTTjs auve8peia<; eyiveTO fxerd 8e rauxa Tiepl
TTJV TOU acofxaTOS 0epa7reiav a7teXuovTO ytveaOat.

Ant. 1 2 : 1 0 4 : oi 8' co? evt [xaXiara 9tXoTifxco£ xal 9iXo7r6va><; dxpififj TTJV
epfxrjvetav 7rotou[xevot [xexpi [xev aSpa? evaTTjs 7tpds TOUTCO 8I£T£XOUV OVTSS, McetT'
inl TTJV TOU acofxaTO? d7t7jXXdTT0VT0 0epa7tetav.

Particularly striking here are the parallels Aristeas 28b/Ant. 12:35;


Aristeas 39/Ant. 12:49; and Aristeas 183/Ant. 12:95f., b e c a u s e o f the exact
verbal replication in the i m m e d i a t e vicinity o f the dxptpeia f o r m s . T h e in­
escapable c o n c l u s i o n is that dxpifkia represented a significant c a t e g o r y in
Josephus's thought.
J o s e p h u s presents the entire J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y as a g r o u p striving t o
o b s e r v e the laws with dxptjkia. M o s e s , h e c l a i m s , called together the w h o l e
nation a n d extracted f r o m t h e m a n oath, ' ' t o o b s e r v e the laws, b e c o m i n g
strict stewards o f the m i n d o f G o d " (TTJ$ TOU Geou Stavota? dxpt(kts XoyiaTa?
yivojxevous, Ant. 4 : 3 0 9 ) . I n d e e d , M o s e s w e n t so far as to require that e v e r y
w e e k the m e n should leave their o c c u p a t i o n s to hear the L a w , in o r d e r " t o
o b t a i n a t h o r o u g h a n d accurate k n o w l e d g e o f i t " (TOU vofxou auXXeyeaOai
xal TOUTOV dxpt(3cos exfxavOdveiv, Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 7 5 ) . J o s e p h u s c a n , therefore,
p r o p o s e that Plato follows M o s e s w h e n h e prescribes that all citizens h a v e
a basic duty to learn their laws dxptfico? (Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 5 7 ) . F o r it is the J e w s
w h o practice their laws punctiliously (rcpaTTOfxeva [xerd 7tdarj$ dxpt(fetas 6 9 '
rjfxcov, Ag.Ap. 2:149).
A l t h o u g h dxptfkia with respect t o the laws is a c o m m u n a l g o a l , certain
g r o u p s a n d individuals are c o m m o n l y thought to excel in this regard, a c ­
c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s . T h a t is the case with the scholars J u d a s a n d M a t -
tathias, w h o advised their students pull d o w n the g o l d e n eagle f r o m
H e r o d ' s t e m p l e (War 1:648), with a certain Eleazar, w h o insisted that
K i n g Izates o f A d i a b e n e u n d e r g o c i r c u m c i s i o n in his c o n v e r s i o n t o
J u d a i s m (Ant. 2 0 : 4 3 ) , a n d with certain inhabitants o f J e r u s a l e m w h o o b ­
j e c t e d t o the stoning o f J a m e s , the b r o t h e r o f J e s u s (Ant. 2 0 : 2 0 1 ) . I n three
places, i n c l u d i n g War 1:110, J o s e p h u s claims that the Pharisees h a v e such
a reputation (also War 2 : 1 6 2 ; Life 1 9 1 ) . A l l o f these parties s e e m to b e , o r
23
are reputed to b e (Soxouaiv), accurate in their interpretation o f the L a w .

2 3
W e shall examine the sense of 8oxec*> below.
THE PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 93

J o s e p h u s himself, h o w e v e r , is s o m e w h a t m o r e sparing in his j u d g e ­


m e n t . After asserting his o w n axpt[kta, in rather s t r o n g t e r m s , for the
material that h e presents in Ant. ( 2 0 : 2 6 0 , 2 6 2 ) , h e allows:

The Jews certify the wisdom only of those who know the laws exactly
(aoccpcos) and who are competent to interpret the meaning of the holy scrip­
tures. Thus, although many have laboured at this training (TUOXXCOV
7iov7)advTG)v 7cept TTJV daxTjaiv TOCUTTJV), scarcely two or three have succeeded
(JJIOXK; ouo -cive? fj -cpets xocicopOcoaav). (Ant. 20:265)

T h a t J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f to b e a m o n g the few w h o h a v e suc­


ceeded is c o n f i r m e d b y the c o n t r i v e d m o d e s t y o f the sentence i m ­
mediately following:

Perhaps it will not arouse jealousy or strike ordinary folk as gauche if I also
review briefly m y own ancestry and the events of m y life (xat 7tept yevoo?
TOU(JLOG xat 7cept TCOV xaxd TOV (3tov 7upa?e<OV (3pax&a 8t£?eX0etv, 2 0 : 2 6 6 ) .

T h i s p r o p o s a l is n o t fulfilled in Ant. itself b u t is p r o b a b l y i n t e n d e d to in­


2 4
t r o d u c e J o s e p h u s ' s a u t o b i o g r a p h y , the Life ( 'Icoar)7rou B t o ? ) . It is in that
w o r k that w e s h o u l d e x p e c t to find m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s
c l a i m to <xxpt(kta.
The o p e n i n g w o r d s o f the Life fit neatly with the e p i l o g u e to Ant.
q u o t e d a b o v e a n d m a k e clear the r e a s o n for J o s e p h u s ' s p r i d e : h e is a
priest.

My ancestry is not undistinguished; indeed it has its origin a m o n g the


priests. If each of the races has some sort of criterion for nobility, with us
it is participation in the priesthood that is a sure sign of illustrious descent.
(Life 1)

J o s e p h u s g o e s o n to p o i n t o u t that he is n o t o n l y a priest b u t a " p r i e s t ' s


p r i e s t " , for his ancestors b e l o n g e d to the first o f the t w e n t y - f o u r c o u r s e s
0:2).
It is, then, to his priestly l i n e a g e that J o s e p h u s p r o u d l y p o i n t s as the
basis for his c l a i m to dxpt(kta. H e relates that as a child he m a d e great
p r o g r e s s in his e d u c a t i o n , b e c o m i n g k n o w n for his excellent m e m o r y a n d
u n d e r s t a n d i n g ( § 8 ) . B y the t i m e he w a s fourteen years o l d :
. . . the chief priests and leaders of the city were always coming by because
with m y help they could grasp more accurately some aspect of the laws
(Tuap' efxou mpl TOV vofxifxcov AXPTPEATEPOV TI yvcovai). (Life 9 )

2 4
Life appears in all of the M S S as an appendix to Ant. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3.10.8-9,
cites it as if it were part of Ant. Laqueur's theory, adopted by Thackeray with qualifica­
tions, is that Ant. 20:259-266 was added to the second edition of Ant. (c. A D 100), to
introduce the newly written Life (Laqueur, Historiker, 1-6; Thackeray, introduction to
L C L edn., I, xiiif.).
94 C H A P T E R FOUR

It is i m p o r t a n t to u n d e r s t a n d J o s e p h u s ' c l a i m here w i t h o u t regard to its


historical plausibility: it is solely o n the basis o f a priestly lineage a n d u p ­
b r i n g i n g that he claims to h a v e a c h i e v e d axptfJeta with respect to the
laws.
W e h a v e n o t e d several o t h e r passages in w h i c h the p r i e s t h o o d is c o n ­
25
n e c t e d with axptfkta; the clearest o f these is Ag.Ap. 1:54, where
J o s e p h u s bases the aXrjOeia a n d dxpt(ktoc o f Ant. o n his priestly descent
a n d training. W e m a y n o w a d d u c e further Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 8 4 - 1 8 7 . H e is there
praising the theocratic constitution (7CoXiTeuu.a) o f the J e w s , w h i c h :

sets G o d at the head of the universe, assigns the administration of its


highest affairs (TOC {xeyia-ca) to the whole body of priests (TOI? tepeuai. . .
xoivfj), and entrusts to the supreme high-priest the direction o f the other
priests. (§ 185, Thackeray)

H e claims that M o s e s entrusted to the priests TTJV 7repl TOV Geov Oeparcetav
(§ 1 8 6 ) . But this c h a r g e to direct the n a t i o n ' s w o r s h i p i m p l i e d also strict
attention to the L a w a n d to the other pursuits o f life (TOUTO 8' fjv xal TOU
vofxou xal TG>V aXXcav e7itT7)8eu[jiaTcov axpt($7)s e7Ct{xeXeta, § 1 8 7 ) . Similarly
Ag.Ap. 2 : 1 9 4 : the h i g h priest, a l o n g with his c o l l e a g u e s , safeguards the
laws (<puXa£et TOU? VOJAOOS). I n the ideal J e w i s h t h e o c r a c y that J o s e p h u s
portrays to his G e n t i l e a u d i e n c e , it is the priests w h o h a v e s u p r e m e
responsibility for the c o m m u n a l goal o f axptfkta.
Small w o n d e r , then, that J o s e p h u s frequently p o i n t s to his o w n
priestly credentials as he reiterates his constant goal o f <xxpt(kta (Ag.Ap.
1:54; Ant. 20:264ff.; Life 1-9). N o r is this a late d e v e l o p m e n t in his think­
ing, for w e find the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n his priestly credentials a n d his
k n o w l e d g e o f the Scriptures already in War 3 : 3 5 2 :

He [Josephus] was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the


meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priestly
descent, he was not ignorant o f the prophecies in the sacred books (T&V y e
[A7)v Upcov (3i(iXcov oux Tjyvoet T<X$ 7cpo<pr)Teia<; ax; av auTO£ T& COV Upevt; xal Upicov
syyovo<;). (Thackeray)

I n d e e d , the possibility o f a d r a m a t i c d e v e l o p m e n t in J o s e p h u s ' s thinking


o n the priestly p r e r o g a t i v e in scriptural exegesis is e x c l u d e d b y a c o m ­
p a r i s o n o f this, his first w r i t i n g , with his last w o r k (Ag.Ap. 1:54):

I have rendered the sacred writings, being a priest by birth and trained in
the philosophy of their writings (ex T&V Upcov ypa[X[x<XTcov (xe8rjp[xrjveuxa
yeyovcot; lepeve; ix y£VOV£ xal (JLETEOXRJXAX; TTJ$ <pi\o<JO<p(a<; TTJ<; IV ixeivou; TOT<;
ypapfjiaai).

25
E.g., Ag.Ap. 1:29, 32, 36, 54.
T H E PHARISEES A N D ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 95

I n b o t h passages, the p o i n t b e i n g m a d e a n d the tepeu^/tepo^ w o r d - p l a y are


a l m o s t identical. W e m a y also recall that J o s e p h u s o p e n s War b y c l a i m ­
i n g historical dxpiPeia a n d c i t i n g his priestly credentials side b y side ( 1 : 2 -
3, 6 ) . Finally, in War 2:41 l f - 4 1 7 , h e c l a i m s that the leaders o f the
p e o p l e , the c h i e f priests, a n d the l e a d i n g Pharisees called o n " p r i e s t l y e x ­
perts o n the t r a d i t i o n s " (TOUS eu.7ceipous TCOV rcocTpicov tepet^) t o p r o v e that
26
the J e w s h a d a l w a y s a c c e p t e d sacrifices f r o m f o r e i g n e r s . T h u s , one can
hardly doubt that J o s e p h u s always associated the priesthood with
2 7
dxpifkioc in the interpretation o f the l a w s .
J o s e p h u s ' s p o s i t i o n a c c o r d s c o n s p i c u o u s l y well with w h a t L a u t e r b a c h
sees as the pre-Pharisaic, priestly v i e w o f the L a w . T h a t scholar r e m a r k s :

T h e position held by priest and laity alike, before that group of 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.

The m o t i v a t i o n b e h i n d this strict o b s e r v a n c e , L a u t e r b a c h a r g u e s , w a s


the " p r i m i t i v e " m e c h a n i s m o f the o a t h , as d e s c r i b e d in D e u t . 2 9 : 9 -
2 9
30:20 and Neh. 10:1, 2 9 - 3 0 . W e m a y n o t e that J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h h e
freely o m i t s material f r o m the B i b l e that m i g h t b e offensive t o his
30
readers, d o e s n o t hesitate to d e s c r i b e the oath that M o s e s m a d e the
p e o p l e swear, c o m p l e t e with the c o n s e q u e n c e s o f blessings a n d cursings
(Ant. 4 : 3 0 5 - 3 1 0 ) . J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s , therefore, to e m b r a c e a classic " p r e -
P h a r i s a i c " (therefore n o n - P h a r i s a i c ) v i e w o f the f u n c t i o n o f the L a w .
T o s u m m a r i z e : s c r u p u l o u s a d h e r e n c e t o o n e ' s traditional laws is, for
J o s e p h u s , a universal responsibility, b i n d i n g o n all n a t i o n s . T h e J e w s ,
h e m a i n t a i n s , take this task especially seriously. S i n c e the o r i g i n a l p r o ­
m u l g a t i o n o f their L a w b y M o s e s , they h a v e s w o r n to study it a n d t o
o b e y its p r e c e p t s w i t h d i l i g e n c e . A l t h o u g h dxptfktoc w i t h respect t o the
laws is the c o m m o n g o a l o f J e w i s h life, certain i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g r o u p s
are r e p u t e d to excel in this area ( e . g . , the Pharisees, Eleazar, a n d certain

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

J e r u s a l e m i t e s ) . I n J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w , h o w e v e r , it is the priests w h o


are the real adepts in a c c u r a t e scriptural exegesis. H e forthrightly a n d
repeatedly m a k e s his o w n c l a i m to axpi(kia o n the basis o f his priestly
descent and training.
E. N6[xoi, " c u s t o m s , c o n v e n t i o n s , l a w s " . It has b e e n e n o u g h so far
to speak o f " t h e L a w " o r " l a w s " as the o b j e c t o f Pharisaic e x a c t i t u d e
in J o s e p h u s ' s d e f i n i t i o n : ouvxayixd TI 'IooSauov Soxoov . . . TOU? v6[xou?
axpifiecruepov o ^ y e T a O a i . T h e m e a n i n g o f v6[xoi for J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , re­
quires s o m e w h a t closer attention.
Now it is clear that J o s e p h u s v i e w s the v6[xoi as the c e n t r e o f J e w i s h
life. H e c l a i m s that J e w s h o l d o b s e r v a n c e o f the v6[xoi t o b e d e a r e r than
31 32
life; that the e d u c a t i o n o f J e w i s h c h i l d r e n b e g i n s with the vofxoi; and
that a m o n g J e w s , accurate k n o w l e d g e o f the vopioi is the sole criterion o f
3 3
wisdom or piety. H e reports that the Pharisees a n d o t h e r g r o u p s w e r e
especially r e n o w n e d for ( o r p r e t e n d e d t o ) such e x p e r t k n o w l e d g e . S i n c e
the vofioi p l a y a central role in J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t , it is crucial for us t o
specify as closely as p o s s i b l e w h a t h e m e a n s b y this t e r m .
We c a n d o this b y e x a m i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s definitions a n d s u m m a r i e s
o f the v6[xoi, as well as c o n t e x t u a l indicators such as qualifiers and
s y n o n y m s for v6|io$.

The Nofioi o f the G e n t i l e s

M o r e than o n e fifth o f the 507 o c c u r r e n c e s o f v6|io$ in J o s e p h u s h a v e t o


34
d o with s o m e t h i n g o t h e r than J e w i s h v o f i o i . H e speaks, for e x a m p l e , o f
3 5 36 3 7
the VOJAOI o f w a r , of history, and o f Nature. E a c h o f the G e n t i l e na­
38
tions has its o w n V6(JIOI. T h e s e passages e v i n c e a c o n s i d e r a b l e fluidity
in J o s e p h u s ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f vou.o$. T h e y s h o w , first, that he d o e s n o t
reserve v6u.o$, as a technical t e r m , for s o m e t h i n g p e c u l i a r to J u d a i s m ; the
vofioi o f the J e w s are (at least f o r m a l l y ) c o m p a r a b l e to the vofxot o f the
n a t i o n s . C o n s i d e r J o s e p h u s ' s caustic j u d g e m e n t o f the anti-Semitic p r o ­
pagandist A p i o n :

3 1
E.g., Ant. 3:317; 18:274; Ag.Ap. 1:42, 190, 2:219.
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

It is the duty of wise m e n scrupulously to adhere to their native laws con­


cerning piety (TOIS oixetot? vofxot? 7cept xfy eua£(Jetav &xpi($a>s ifif/iveiv) and not
to abuse those of others. Apion was delinquent in respect of his own coun­
try's laws and told lies about ours. (Ag.Ap. 2:144)

I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s ' s entire a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e is to d e m o n s t r a t e that, o f


all o f the systems o f vofioi in the w o r l d , that o f the J e w s is the m o s t
perfect.
N o t i c e , s e c o n d , that the vofioi o f the G e n t i l e s are n o t m e r e l y legislated
d e c r e e s . T h e y c a n also b e c u s t o m s o r c o n v e n t i o n s . A l t h o u g h , for e x a m ­
p l e , the vopioi o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y o r o f w a r m a y h a v e b e e n taught in the
Hellenistic w o r l d as b i n d i n g , they w e r e a p p r o v e d practices rather than
statutory l a w s . J o s e p h u s speaks o f the inattention to C a l i g u l a ' s c o r p s e
immediately after his assassination as something inconsistent with
R o m a n v6[xoi, b y w h i c h h e e v i d e n t l y m e a n s " c u s t o m " (Ant. 1 9 : 1 9 5 ) . O n
the o t h e r h a n d , h o w e v e r , h e c a n use the w o r d v6[xoi to indicate statutory
laws e n a c t e d b y g o v e r n i n g authorities such as the B a b y l o n i a n Darius
(Ant. 1 0 : 2 5 8 ) , the Spartan L y c u r g u s (Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 2 5 ) , H e r o d the Great
(Ant. 1 6 : 1 ) , a n d G a i u s C a l i g u l a (War 2 : 1 9 5 ) . O u t s i d e o f the J e w i s h c o n ­
text, then, J o s e p h u s e v o k e s the full r a n g e o f G r e e k c o n c e p t i o n s b e h i n d
the w o r d vojxos, f r o m c u s t o m o r c o n v e n t i o n to " l a w " in the m o s t p r o p e r
39
sense.
W e turn n o w to J o s e p h u s ' s use o f v6{A0£ in the c o n t e x t o f J u d a i s m .

T h e N6[xoi o f the J e w s

J o s e p h u s leaves n o d o u b t , in the first p l a c e , that he regards the VOJAOI o f


the J e w s as the laws r e c e i v e d a n d d e l i v e r e d b y M o s e s at Sinai. M o s e s
40
w a s the l a w g i v e r (vojxoOeTT)?); his laws p r o v i d e d the J e w s w i t h a c o n ­
41
stitution (7uoXiT£i<x). A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s is always willing to r e c o g n i z e
4 2
the d i v i n e inspiration o f the l a w s , he is m o r e often c o n c e r n e d to d e m ­
onstrate to his p a g a n readers the w i s d o m a n d f o r e t h o u g h t o f the l a w g i v e r
4 3
Moses. O n c e J o s e p h u s has i n t r o d u c e d the l a w s , he often calls t h e m oi
44
Moaoaeo? v6(xoi.

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

S o far, then, it s e e m s clear e n o u g h that the phrase ot vopun refers to


the M o s a i c legislation e m b o d i e d in S c r i p t u r e . A n a l y z i n g the t w e n t y - t w o
" a p p r o v e d b o o k s " a m o n g the J e w s , J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s that:

O f these, five are the books of M o s e s , which comprise the laws ( a TOU? vofxou?
7cepiexet) and the tradition [for the period] from the original m a n until his
[ M o s e s ' ] death. {Ag.Ap. l : 3 8 f . )

I n d e e d , J o s e p h u s frequently uses v6u.o?/v6[xot to m e a n the first a n d c e n ­


45
tral b o o k s o f the S c r i p t u r e s . It is in this sense that h e tells o f a R o m a n
s o l d i e r ' s taking TOV lepov vojxov a n d tearing it in p i e c e s (War 2 : 2 2 9 ) a n d
o f the C a e s a r e a n J e w s w h o , h a v i n g " s n a t c h e d u p " TOU? VOJXOU?, r e m o v e d
t h e m f r o m that city (War 2 : 2 9 1 ) . L i k e w i s e in J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t o f the
Septuagint translation effort, 6 vofio? appears consistently as a d o c u m e n t
46
that c a n b e h a n d l e d a n d translated.
If s o m e o f the c o n t e x t u a l i n d i c a t o r s p o i n t to such a specific m e a n i n g ,
however, other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s indicate that J o s e p h u s is u n a b l e to
distinguish the o r i g i n a l M o s a i c vou.o? f r o m its later e l a b o r a t i o n s in
J u d a i s m . I n several p l a c e s , for e x a m p l e , h e s u m m a r i z e s the c o n t e n t o f
the J e w i s h vofxot for his p a g a n readers. T h e s e s u m m a r i e s , f o u n d in the
47
third a n d fourth b o o k s o f the Ant. a n d in the s e c o n d b o o k o f Ag.Ap. ,
c o n t a i n m a n y departures f r o m the letter o f the M o s a i c L a w as w e k n o w
48
it.
In Ant. 3 : 2 2 4 - 3 8 6 , w h i c h details the sacrificial s y s t e m , J o s e p h u s fre­
q u e n t l y qualifies o r elaborates the biblical p r e s c r i p t i o n s in s o m e w a y .
For the season c o i n c i d i n g w i t h the Sukkot festival, h e c l a i m s , M o s e s in­
structed the p e o p l e to set u p tents, indefinitely, as p r o t e c t i o n against in­
49
clement weather. H i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the y e a r o f j u b i l e e also differs
50
n o t a b l y f r o m the scriptural p r e s e n t a t i o n . Y e t h e closes this section with
the r e m a r k :

4 5
Cf. Ant. 1:12; Ptolemy II was not able to receive, for the L X X translation, rcaaocv
xrjv dcvafpoc9Tjv but only TOV V6[AOV; cf. Ag.Ap. 1:43; (ot vofxot) xat at fiexa TOUTCOV d v a y p a 9 a t .
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)

J o s e p h u s e v i d e n t l y believes that his u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the l a w s , in w h i c h


the m o d e r n reader c a n find influences o f post-biblical tradition, cor­
r e s p o n d s exactly to the c o n t e n t o r intention o f the M o s a i c legislation.
L i k e w i s e , in Ant. 4 : 1 9 6 - 3 0 1 , J o s e p h u s insists: " A l l is here written as
he left it: n o t h i n g h a v e w e a d d e d for the sake o f e m b e l l i s h m e n t , n o t h i n g
w h i c h has n o t b e e n b e q u e a t h e d b y M o s e s " (Ant. 4 : 1 9 6 ) . Y e t h e has
51
M o s e s calling for a t w i c e - d a i l y p r a y e r a n d for a j u d i c i a l b o d y o f seven
5 2
m e n in e a c h c i t y , neither o f w h i c h is e n j o i n e d in S c r i p t u r e . F u r t h e r
e m b e l l i s h m e n t s are: the disqualification o f e v i d e n c e f r o m w o m e n a n d
5 3
slaves in court, the offering o f rewards for information about
54 55
murderers, the c u s t o m o f taking fourth-year p r o d u c e to J e r u s a l e m ,
56
the p u n i s h m e n t o f thirty-nine (rather than forty) l a s h e s , the p r a c t i c e o f
57 5 8
b u r n i n g alive an i m p u r e d a u g h t e r o f a p r i e s t , a n d so o n .
Finally, in the s u m m a r y o f the v6(xot f o u n d in Ag.Ap., J o s e p h u s again
elaborates the M o s a i c L a w in significant w a y s . A few e x a m p l e s are the
59
c l a i m s : that sexual intercourse is e n v i s a g e d for o n l y p r o c r e a t i o n ; that
6 0
a b o r t i o n is f o r b i d d e n , as the destruction o f a s o u l ; that all w h o pass a
61
funeral procession must j o i n it; that friendship requires absolute
62
frankness; a n d that those w h o faithfully o b s e r v e the laws will r e c e i v e
" a r e n e w e d existence (yeveaOoct rcaXiv) a n d in the r e v o l u t i o n ( o f the ages)
63
the gift o f a better life ((Jiov ajxetvco)".
In all o f these e l a b o r a t i o n s o f M o s a i c L a w , it is difficult to find a single
64
e x p l a n a t o r y l o g i c . Several items are attested in t a l m u d i c tradition;

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

(a) W e h a v e n o t e d J o s e p h u s ' s report that the Pharisees w e r e f a m o u s


for their e r u d i t i o n a n d accurate exegesis. But the o b j e c t o f the Pharisees'
exegesis is d e s c r i b e d variously as ot vouxn (War 1:110), TOC vou.tu.oc (War
2 : 1 6 2 ) , TOC 7rdcTpta vou.tu.oc (Life 1 9 1 ) , and TO rcdcTptov xat (ot) vofiot (Ant.
1 7 : 4 1 ) . P r e s u m a b l y , J o s e p h u s holds these terms to b e e q u i v a l e n t .
( b ) I n War l : 6 4 8 f f . , w e h a v e the f a m o u s story o f the t w o scholars w h o
incited their students to pull d o w n the g o l d e n eagle f r o m H e r o d s ' t e m ­
ple. T h e scholars are d e s c r i b e d as BOXOUVTS? dcxpt(iouv roc naxpicx a n d c o n s e ­
q u e n t l y as e n j o y i n g a great reputation a m o n g the p e o p l e . In the next
sentence, h o w e v e r , w e learn that these scholars attracted large c r o w d s to
their e^rpfouuivot? TOIX; vdfiove; ( 6 4 9 ) . Further, the scholars advise their
students to r e m o v e the eagle b e c a u s e it violates TOU? rcocTptou? vou.ou?
( 6 4 9 ) — a c o m b i n a t i o n o f the t w o phrases; they e n c o u r a g e their hearers
7 0
e v e n to die for TOU 7rocTptou vojxou ( 6 5 0 ) .
F r o m this e p i s o d e , w e see that J o s e p h u s c a n use 6 vofxo? ( 1 : 6 5 4 ) , ot
vou.ot ( 6 4 9 ) , 6 7rocTpto? v6[io? ( 6 5 0 , 6 5 3 ) , ot rcdcTptot vojxot ( 6 4 9 , 2 : 6 ) , a n d
s i m p l y TOC 7rocTptoc, substantively ( 1 : 6 4 8 ) , as equivalents.
(c) In War 2 : 1 6 9 f . , it is reported that Pilate's i n t r o d u c t i o n o f standards
with effigies o f C a e s a r into J e r u s a l e m offended the J e w s , w h o felt that
ot vojxot h a d b e e n v i o l a t e d ; in 1 7 1 , they b e s e e c h Pilate to r e m o v e the
standards a n d t h e r e b y to maintain TOC 7rocTptoc.
( d ) I n War 4 : 9 9 , J o h n o f G i s c h a l a requests that T i t u s give h i m the
S a b b a t h to rest, in d e f e r e n c e to TCO TouSoctcov vouxo. In d o i n g s o , says
J o h n ( 1 0 2 ) , T i t u s w o u l d spare the J e w s transgressing TCOV 7tocTptcov £6cov
and w o u l d b e therefore p r e s e r v i n g TOU? v6[iou?.
(e) In Life 198, J o s e p h u s describes the c h a r g e that w a s g i v e n to the
delegation sent to relieve h i m o f c o m m a n d in the Galilee: if the Galileans
r e m a i n e d loyal to h i m b e c a u s e o f his expertise in the laws (8toc TTJV^
efircetptocv TCOV vojxcov), then the J e r u s a l e m d e l e g a t i o n should r e s p o n d that
they themselves w e r e b y n o m e a n s i g n o r a n t o f the ancestral c u s t o m s
([17)8' OCUTOU? ayvoetv £07) TOC 7rdcTptoc).
(f) D a v i d c o u n s e l s his son S o l o m o n to k e e p G o d ' s TOC? IVTOXOC? xat TOU?
vofxou?, ou? OCUTO? 8ta Mcouaeo? xocTe7r£[i(|>ev r|[xTv (Ant. 7 : 3 8 4 ) b e c a u s e (yocp),
if he should transgress Tt TCOV vofitu.cov, he will lose d i v i n e f a v o u r . L i k e ­
wise in 9 : 2 , w e are told that J o s a p h a t (Jehoshaphat) StSocaxetv TOC vou.tu.oc
TOC Stoc Mcouaeo? . . . BoOevTOc. But in 8 : 3 9 5 , what J o s a p h a t teaches are TOU?
Mcouaeo? vofiou?.

7 0
Cf. also War 1:653 (6 7cdxpto? v6{zos), 654 (6 vofxo?), and 2:6 (oi Trdtptoi v6{xoi), which
all refer back to the same episode.
102 CHAPTER FOUR

( g ) S o l o m o n , a c c o r d i n g t o Ant. 8 : 1 9 0 , e n d e d his life a b a n d o n i n g TTJV


TCOV rcaxptcov £6ta[zcov 9uXaxrjv, o n a c c o u n t o f his n u m e r o u s marriages to
foreigners; b u t this failure is d e s c r i b e d in the next sentence as the trans­
gressing o f TOO? Mcouaeo? vofxou? ( 1 9 1 ) .
(h) N o t i c e in Ant. 9 : 9 5 that the v e r b u s e d t o d e s c r i b e J o r a m ' s
(=Jehoram's) a n d his p r e d e c e s s o r s ' offences against TOC rcdcTptoc eGrj
(ancestral c u s t o m s ) is Tcocpocvouico. I n 1 2 : 2 8 6 , w e h a v e the s a m e v e r b u s e d
with TOC 7tdcTptoc as object: Judah Maccabee did away with TOO?
7i;apavo|zrjaavToc? et? TOC 7caxpta.
(i) Mattathias the H a s m o n e a n a d m o n i s h e s his sons that it is better to
die U7tep TCOV rcaxptcov v6|xcov than to live i n g l o r i o u s l y (Ant. 1 2 : 2 6 7 ) . H e
then actualizes this p r i n c i p l e ( 2 7 1 ) with the c h a r g e : ' ' W h o e v e r is z e a l o u s
for the ancestral c u s t o m s (et xt? CnXcoTT}? l a w TCOVrcocTptcoviOcov [ M a r c u s
translates ' ' l a w s " ! ] ) , . . . let h i m c o m e with m e ! " T h e practical
e q u i v a l e n c e o f " l a w s " a n d " c u s t o m s " here is u n m i s t a k a b l e .
(j) Finally, s o m e things c o m m a n d e d in the L a w are said b y J o s e p h u s
to b e " t r a d i t i o n a l " , such as the p r o h i b i t i o n o f w o r k o n the S a b b a t h (Ant.
7 1
1 8 : 3 1 2 ; cf. E x . 3 0 : 1 3 ) a n d the half-shekel tax (Ant. 1 8 : 3 1 2 ; cf. E x .
3 0 : 1 3 ) . O n the o t h e r h a n d , the traditional practices o f r e p e n t a n c e in
sackcloth a n d o f prostrating o n e s e l f for p r a y e r he calls practices TCO
irocTpt'cp vou-cp (Ant. 1 1 : 2 3 1 ; Ant. 19:349).
D o z e n s o f o t h e r instances o f J o s e p h u s ' s substituting s y n o n y m s for 6
72
v6[io? c a n b e c i t e d . T h e s e , h o w e v e r , will suffice to s h o w that he d o e s
not regard vofxo? as an irreplaceable technical t e r m . H e c a n a n d d o e s
alternate freely b e t w e e n 6 v6[io?, ot vofiot, TOC e'Or), ot e6tau.oi, TOC vofxtfxa,
TOCrcocTptoc,a n d v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s o f these (usually rcdcTpto? u s e d at­
tributively with o n e o f the o t h e r substantives). O t h e r interchangeable
73 74 75
terms for ot vojxot are f\ (rcdcTpto?) euaePeta / Oprjaxeta / auvrjGeta / a n d
76
rcoXiTeia.
It w o u l d b e overstating the case to say that the a b o v e terms are iden­
tical for J o s e p h u s , that he is insensitive to a n y differences o f n u a n c e b e -

71
Indeed, in Ant. 12:276, Sabbath observance is called a vofitfiov.
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.

The u n r e f i n e d historical c o n s c i o u s n e s s that has b e e n d i s c o v e r e d a m o n g


the A t h e n i a n s is exactly w h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s : he m a k e s n o clear
distinction b e t w e e n statute a n d p r e c e d e n t .
One o f the questions to b e b r o a c h e d b y this study is whether
J o s e p h u s ' s vojxo?-conception i m p l i e s a n y t h i n g a b o u t his party allegiance.
A l t h o u g h a p r o p e r a n s w e r m u s t await the e x a m i n a t i o n o f Ant. 13:297-
298 b e l o w , a p r e l i m i n a r y statement is d e m a n d e d b y the assertion o f
some commentators that J o s e p h u s ' s inclusion o f " c u s t o m " in his
presentation of " L a w " indicates a Pharisaic viewpoint. T h e tacit

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

p r e m i s e here is J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 ) that the Pharisees w e r e


distinguished b y their r e c o g n i t i o n o f a b o d y o f n o r m a t i v e tradition, in
a d d i t i o n to the pentateuchal l a w . W . G u t b r o d ' s TDNT article o n vojxo^,
for e x a m p l e , o b s e r v e s : " C u s t o m s are part o f the L a w . . . . T h i s s h o w s
8 1
his [ J o s e p h u s ' s ] orientation to Pharisaism."
Such an inference is e x c l u d e d , h o w e v e r , b y the facts that have
e m e r g e d so far. First, several o f J o s e p h u s ' s e m b e l l i s h m e n t s either are
unattested in r a b b i n i c halakhah o r actually c o n t r a d i c t the tradition. H.
W . A t t r i d g e , after r e v i e w i n g scholarly analyses o f J o s e p h u s ' s vopioi, c o n ­
c l u d e s , " T h e s e studies s h o w n o consistent relation b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s
8 2
a n d later h a l a c h i c t r a d i t i o n . " W i t h o u t p r o n o u n c i n g o n the larger
p r o b l e m o f the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n Pharisaic tradition a n d r a b b i n i c
halakhah, w e c a n say that there is n o p o s i t i v e basis in the c o n t e n t o f
J o s e p h u s ' s vopioi for c o n s i d e r i n g h i m a Pharisee.
S e c o n d , it is a well-attested p h e n o m e n o n that g r o u p s w h o r e c o g n i z e
authoritative texts tend to b e l i e v e that their o w n d e v e l o p e d ideas are
already implicit ( o r e x p l i c i t ) in those texts. W h a t w a s true in A t h e n s w a s
true in J u d a i s m : w e n o w h a v e the T e m p l e Scroll as p r o o f that at least
one n o n - P h a r i s a i c g r o u p earnestly b e l i e v e d its o w n teachings to h a v e
8 3
c o m e from M o s e s . It s h o u l d o c c a s i o n n o surprise if e v e r y J e w , n o mat­
ter what his p a r t y allegiance, identified his a c c u s t o m e d interpretation o f
84
the M o s a i c c o d e with the c o d e itself.
M o s t i m p o r t a n t , finally, J o s e p h u s disallows a n y f o r m a l distinction b e ­
t w e e n the written c o d e o f M o s e s a n d the c u s t o m s o r traditions o f the
J e w s . It n e e d s to b e e m p h a s i z e d that the M o s a i c 7toXiTeia in w h i c h
J o s e p h u s exults is a written c o d e . M o s e s w r o t e (ypd^co) his constitution
8 5
in b o o k s a n d J o s e p h u s n o w e n d e a v o u r s to translate the a c c o u n t as he
86
finds it ev z<xiq iepocT$ pifJXoi^ dvayeypa(X(x£va. It is the written c o d e o f
M o s e s that " t h e H e b r e w n a t i o n " c o n t i n u e s to o b s e r v e in J o s e p h u s ' s

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

To s u m m a r i z e thus far: for J o s e p h u s , vojxos is a g e n e r i c o r universal


c a t e g o r y ; e v e r y nation has its o w n v6(xoi. M o r e o v e r , in discussing b o t h
J e w i s h a n d G e n t i l e l a w s , J o s e p h u s c a n use s y n o n y m s for oi vojxoi, such
90
as oi rcdcxpioi vojxoi, xoc rcaxpioc, a n d e'Grj. T h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e w a r n s against
a n y attempt to read vopux; I n J o s e p h u s as a technical t e r m for s o m e e x ­
clusively J e w i s h c o n c e p t .
O u r findings reflect J o s e p h u s ' s starting p o i n t . A l l o f his w o r k s are ad­
dressed to p a g a n a u d i e n c e s . W h e n he speaks o f vojxoi, therefore, the t e r m
d o e s n o t in the first instance reflect a n y specifically J e w i s h c o n t e n t . A s
91
an a p o l o g i s t , J o s e p h u s argues f r o m general c o n c e p t i o n s that his readers
will u n d e r s t a n d to specific c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t J u d a i s m . T h a t explains the
g e n e r i c use o f V6(JLOI. J o s e p h u s wants his readers to a c c e p t the p r e m i s e
that, n o m a t t e r w h i c h n a t i o n is c o n c e r n e d , a d h e r e n c e to o n e ' s TCaxpioi

8 7
Cf. Ant. 4:308; Ag.Ap. 1:42; 2:153, 156, 169.
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

j e c t it m e a n s : " t o s e e m , a p p e a r , o r s e e m g o o d " . In the o n e case the v e r b


indicates an a c t i o n of the m i n d , in the o t h e r an a c t i o n ' s i m p i n g i n g upon
the mind. Sometimes, however, the two senses become blurred,
especially w h e n a p e r s o n a l subject takes Soxeco as an auxiliary v e r b , fol­
l o w e d b y a m a i n v e r b (often etvat) attributing s o m e quality to the sub­
j e c t . I n that c a s e , Soxeto m a y h a v e the sense " t o b e r e g a r d e d (as) o r
r e p u t e d ( t o ) " . F o r simplicity, I h a v e so far r e n d e r e d Soxeto in War 1:110
in k e e p i n g with this last sense b e c a u s e that is h o w the passage is all b u t
universally r e n d e r e d b y c o m m e n t a t o r s : the Pharisees have the reputation of
being m o r e p i o u s than the others a n d o f e x p o u n d i n g the laws m o r e ac­
100
curately (Soxouv euaefieaxepov etvat. . . xat axptPeaxepov a^yetaGat).
A m o n g the few dissenters f r o m this r e a d i n g are G . F. M o o r e a n d R .
H . Pfeiffer, w h o r e n d e r the definition: " a b o d y o f J e w s who profess to b e
more religious than the rest/others, and to e x p l a i n the laws more
101
precisely/accurately". T h e s e translations take u p the first o p t i o n m e n ­
t i o n e d a b o v e : the Pharisees s u p p o s e o r i m a g i n e that they h a v e s u p e r i o r
axptfkta. N e i t h e r M o o r e n o r Pfeiffer is c o n c e r n e d to a r g u e the case for
such a translation, h o w e v e r , a n d so the e v i d e n c e pro a n d contra m u s t n o w
b e c o n s i d e r e d . G r a n t e d that b o t h interpretations are p o s s i b l e in G r e e k
a n d that b o t h fit the syntax o f this passage, the d e c i d i n g factors m u s t b e
J o s e p h a n usage a n d the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t .
A n initial difficulty is that J o s e p h u s uses Soxeto o f a p e r s o n a l subject
a n d with an infinitive m a i n v e r b in b o t h senses. O n the o n e h a n d , w e
are told that A r i s t o b u l u s saw fit to transform ((xexaOetvat Soijac;) the
g o v e r n m e n t into a k i n g d o m {Ant. 1 3 : 3 0 1 ) , that H e r o d t h o u g h t he h a d
(e'Soije e^etv) sufficient g r o u n d to a c c u s e his sons (Ant. 1 6 : 2 5 1 ) , a n d that
the b r i g a n d s d i d n o t think it i m p i o u s (ouSe Soxouvxes aaePetv) to slaughter
1 0 2
their e n e m i e s in the T e m p l e (Ant. 2 0 : 1 6 5 ) . O n the o t h e r h a n d , h o w ­
e v e r , J o s e p h u s speaks o f o n e w h o " i s r e g a r d e d as evil a n d u n t r u s t w o r ­
t h y " (7rovT)p6c; etvat Soxet xat amaxoc;, War 3 : 3 2 7 ) a n d o f h i m s e l f as a c h i l d ,
"gaining a r e p u t a t i o n for an excellent m e m o r y a n d understanding"
1 0 3
((xvrjfXT) xe xat auveaet Soxtov Staq>epetv, Life 8 ) " . T h e construction alone,
therefore, d o e s n o t d e m a n d either interpretation o f Soxeto.
E v e n if o n e n a r r o w s the field to the ten o c c u r r e n c e s o f Soxeco with a
p e r s o n a l subject a n d an dxptfJeta f o r m , in search o f a f o r m u l a i c pattern,

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

the a m b i g u i t y r e m a i n s . O n o n e side, J o s e p h u s r e m a r k s that the Spartans


"saw fit strictly to observe their laws (dcxpi($<o<; e'8o£av TOU<; vofxouc;
B i a ^ X d r c e t v ) " o n l y so l o n g as they retained their i n d e p e n d e n c e (Ag.Ap.
2 : 2 2 7 ) . A n d this use o f Soxeco as an a c t i o n o f the m i n d has i n t r i g u i n g
parallels in the use o f 7rpoa7roio5[xat in Ant. 17 :41 a n d 1 8 : 8 1 . L i d d e l l a n d
Scott cite several cases in w h i c h the subjective sense o f Boxeco a p p r o x ­
1 0 4
imates the m e a n i n g " t o p r e t e n d o r s e e m . . . " ; the eighth e d i t i o n o f
that w o r k e v e n suggests 7rpoo7i:oiou(xai a n d the L a t i n simulo as s y n o n y m s
for Soxeto in this sense. But in Ant. 17:41 J o s e p h u s describes the
Pharisees as:

(xopiov TI, 'IooScuxtov &v6pto7Utov £ V eijaxpiPooaei uiya 9povouv TOO 7uotTptou xal
a £t T
vofxtov ot£ x ^ P ° Oetov npoanoiovyLevov.

In Ant. 18:81f., in m u c h the s a m e v e i n , he describes a certain J e w in


R o m e , w h o w a s evil in e v e r y w a y (7tovr)pd<; tiq TOC rcavTa), with these
w o r d s : 7rpoae7rotetTO u.ev e^riyetaOat aoq>iav vojxtov Ttov Mtouaeo£. B o t h o f
these passages h a v e o b v i o u s similarities to War 1:110; the Pharisees, the
vofxot, and "exegesis" are c o m m o n terms. This similarity, taken
together with Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 2 7 , supports the subjective, volitional r e a d i n g o f
Soxeto in War 1:110: the Pharisees profess ( o r , p r e t e n d ) to interpret the
laws with a c c u r a c y .
O n the o t h e r side o f the l e d g e r , h o w e v e r , are the o t h e r six o c c u r r e n c e s
1 0 5
o f Soxeto with a personal subject a n d an axptfkta f o r m . F o u r o f the six
include not only Soxeto a n d axptjkta but also a reference to the
v6[xot/v6(Atfxa/7i:dTpia. T h e y are as follows:
106
War 1 : 6 4 8 speaks o f t w o coyiGTOLi in J e r u s a l e m " w i t h a r e p u t a t i o n
for their s u p e r i o r p r e c i s i o n with the national laws ((xaXtaxa Soxouvrec;
dxpfiovv TOC TCOCTpta) w h o consequently enjoyed the highest esteem
(fxeyiaTTjs S6^rj<;) o f the w h o l e n a t i o n . T h e m e a n i n g o f Soxeto here is fixed
b y the o c c u r r e n c e o f 86£a in the f o l l o w i n g clause: their reputation is the
point under discussion.
Ant. 1 9 : 3 3 2 : W h i l e discussing the virtues o f K i n g A g r i p p a , J o s e p h u s
m e n t i o n s a certain S i m o n f r o m J e r u s a l e m w h o , e£axptPd£etv Soxtov TOC
vofxtfia, c l a i m e d that the K i n g was u n c l e a n . A l t h o u g h b o t h senses o f
Soxeto w o u l d fit h e r e , the fact that this m a n gained a considerable

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<;

vofxouc axpfietc; w e r e o f f e n d e d . S i n c e the p e o p l e i n v o l v e d are s h o w n b y


109
the sequel to b e religious leaders in J e r u s a l e m , Boxeco evidently in­
dicates their reputation m o r e than their intention.
T h e t w o passages that c o m b i n e Boxeoo a n d axptfieta b u t d o n o t refer to
the vojxot are nonetheless helpful for c o m p a r i s o n . In o n e , J o s e p h u s is
p o i n t i n g o u t the frequent c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a m o n g G r e e k historians a n d he
remarks that e v e n T h u c y d i d e s , xatTOt Soxcov axpifiicnaTa TTJV x a x ' auTOv
tcrcoptav auyypa^etv, has b e e n a c c u s e d o f e r r o r (Ag.Ap. 1:18). I n the other
passage, c o n t i n u i n g the s a m e t h e m e , he charges that e v e n those r e p u t e d
to b e the m o s t exact historians (ot Boxouvxes axptPeoraTOt auyypa^et?) h a v e
m a d e e g r e g i o u s g e o g r a p h i c a l errors (Ag.Ap. 1:67). Since the w h o l e p o i n t
o f J o s e p h u s ' s discussion is to challenge the w i d e l y held belief that G r e e k
historians are the m o s t accurate, Boxeco in these passages m u s t refer to
110
their reputation.
If there is a n y t h i n g like a f o r m u l a i c m e a n i n g o f Boxeoo with axpt(3eta,
it w o u l d a p p e a r to b e " r e p u t e d to . . . with a c c u r a c y " ; Ag.Ap. 2:227,
h o w e v e r , destroys this c o n s i s t e n c y . T h e r e m a y b e s o m e t h i n g like a for­
mula, however, in those passages that include reference to the
v6fxot/v6fxt(Aa/racTpta. T h e m e a n i n g o f Boxeco in those cases u n i f o r m l y has
to d o with "reputation".
D e c i s i v e for the sense o f Soxeto in War 1:110 must b e its i m m e d i a t e
c o n t e x t . W i t h i n the p r e c e d i n g narrative w e h a v e already n o t e d t w o
significant o c c u r r e n c e s o f Boxeco o r 86£a. A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s c a m e to the
t h r o n e with a ( m i s t a k e n ) reputation for m o d e r a t i o n ((xeTptOTTjTt rcpouxetv
Boxouvxa, War 1:85). H i s wife A l e x a n d r a c o m e to p o w e r easily b e c a u s e

1 0 7
He assembled the people (7cXfj0o<; ei£ exxXTjatoev aXiaoes), we are told, in order to
make his assertions.
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

o f a ( w e l l - f o u n d e d ) reputation for piety (Stoc 86£av eoaejktas, 1:108).


T h e s e clear references in the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t to the reputations o f
leaders create a strong p r e d i s p o s i t i o n to interpret the Soxeto o f War 1:110
in the s a m e w a y . It w a s the Pharisees' reputation for piety that w o n
t h e m the s u p p o r t o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e . M o r e o v e r , to anticipate c o m i n g
analyses, J o s e p h u s repeatedly alludes to the p r o m i n e n t role o f the
Pharisees in p u b l i c life (War 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 2 9 8 , 4 0 1 ; 1 8 : 1 5 ) a n d
this p o p u l a r i t y w o u l d a c c o r d well with a reputation for s u p e r i o r a c c u r a c y
in the interpretation o f the l a w s .
It appears, then, that the usual r e a d i n g o f Soxeto in War 1:110 as a
reference to the Pharisees' reputation is justified. T h e r e a d i n g o f M o o r e
a n d Pfeiffer, tantalizing as it is with the s u p p o r t o f 7upo<jrcoiouu.ai in Ant.
1 7 : 4 1 , has s o m e w h a t less plausibility in the c o n t e x t . It m a y b e that
J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d a d o u b l e m e a n i n g : the Pharisees professed to b e , a n d
w e r e i n d e e d b e l i e v e d to b e , precise interpreters o f the l a w s .

I I I . Interpretation of War 1:110-114

W i t h the analysis o f the k e y terms n o w c o m p l e t e , w e are in a p o s i t i o n


to offer an interpretation o f J o s e p h u s ' s first definition o f the Pharisees.
I n r e c o u n t i n g the history o f the H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y , J o s e p h u s has
c l a i m e d that its d a y s o f g l o r y e n d e d with J o h n H y r c a n u s , w h o s e eldest
son A r i s t o b u l u s p r e s i d e d o v e r a y e a r - l o n g x a T a o r p o ^ ( 1 : 6 9 ) . A l e x a n d e r
J a n n e u s c a m e to p o w e r with a reputation for m o d e r a t i o n ( 1 : 8 5 ) b u t he
turned o u t to b e an i m p i o u s tyrant. H i s wife A l e x a n d r a , o n the c o n t r a r y ,
t o o k the t h r o n e with a w e l l - d e s e r v e d (Srj, § 1 0 8 ) reputation for piety. B y
the e n d o f War 1:109, the situation o n c e again l o o k s p r o m i s i n g for the
Hasmonean house.
Enter the Pharisees. I f A l e x a n d r a ' s reputation for euaepeta w a s b a s e d
o n the fact that she rjxpt(3ou (xaXtora TOCrcocTpta,the Pharisees w e r e a cer­
tain g r o u p o f J e w s Soxouv euaePetruepov elvoci Ttov aXXtov xal TOU$ VOJAOUS

axptPearepov a ^ y e i a O a t ( § 1 1 0 ) . T h i s w a s a g r o u p , therefore, that a p ­


p e a r e d to share the religious o u t l o o k a n d goals o f the Q u e e n . T h e q u e s ­
tion n o w is: D i d the Pharisees' reputation turn o u t to b e well f o u n d e d ,
like that o f A l e x a n d r a , o r baseless, like that o f h e r late h u s b a n d ?
Elsewhere, when Josephus speaks o f s o m e o n e ' s reputation for
axptfieia, he always g o e s o n , in the i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t , either to substan­
tiate it (as with the t w o a o f i o r a i , Eleazar o f G a l i l e e , a n d the religious
leaders o f J e r u s a l e m ) o r to d e b u n k it (as with the G r e e k historians a n d
S i m o n o f J e r u s a l e m ) . T h e c o n c e p t o f axpifkia, b o t h in historical writing
a n d in r e l i g i o n , is central to J o s e p h u s ' s v i s i o n o f things. W i t h his belief
that the priests h o l d s o m e t h i n g o f a m o n o p o l y o n these virtues, h e c o n -
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, I 111

siders h i m s e l f a u t h o r i z e d to p o i n t o u t w h i c h o t h e r g r o u p s a m o n g his c o ­
religionists c o m e close to the J e w i s h ideals a n d w h i c h are m e r e p r e t e n d e r s .
I n the case o f the Pharisees, the r e a d e r is n o t left in d o u b t for v e r y l o n g .
J o s e p h u s ' s j u d g e m e n t is that the alliance b e t w e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d the
Pharisees w a s singularly u n f o r t u n a t e . S h e w a s a sincere w o m a n b u t they
w e r e w o l v e s in s h e e p ' s c l o t h i n g : b e i n g herself g e n u i n e l y p i o u s (aeaoPrjuivrj
rcept TO Oetov), A l e x a n d r a p a i d far t o o m u c h h e e d to the Pharisees (TOUTOI$

rceptaadv orj TI rcpoaetxev, § 1 1 1 ) . O n their part, the Pharisees i n c r e a s i n g l y


e x p l o i t e d (umevat) this i n g e n u o u s w o m a n (aTtXoTTjs); they e n c r o a c h e d
u p o n her authority (cf. iwcpa9uou.at, § 110) to the p o i n t that they b e c a m e
the de facto m a n a g e r s o f p u b l i c life (SIOIXTJTOCI TCOV oXcov eytvovro) e v e n e x ­
p l o i t i n g the j u d i c i a l system t o p u n i s h their e n e m i e s ! A l t h o u g h A l e x a n d r a
h e l d h e r o w n in f o r e i g n p o l i c y ( § § 1 1 2 , 1 1 5 f . ) , o n d o m e s t i c issues she d e ­
ferred entirely to the Pharisees, to the p o i n t that they c o n t r o l l e d (expaTet)
h e r ( § 1 1 2 ) . I n their c a p r i c e , they killed o n e o f the distinguished citizens
(TCOV emayjuxov) a n d then others ( § 1 1 3 ) , o n the c h a r g e that these h a d en­
c o u r a g e d J a n n e u s in his atrocities. I n all o f this, claims J o s e p h u s , A l e x a n ­
dra's superstition (8etcn8atfxovta) r e n d e r e d her a helpless p a w n ; her
" p i o u s " c o - r e g e n t s p r o c e e d e d to kill w h o m e v e r they w i s h e d o n false
charges.
I f w e h a v e c o r r e c d y u n d e r s t o o d J o s e p h u s as contrasting the real (8rj)
scrupulosity o f Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a w i t h the Pharisees' g r o u n d l e s s reputa­
t i o n (Soxouatv) for axpt(3eta, then h e is h e r e e v o k i n g a standard t h e m e o f
Hellenistic m o r a l p h i l o s o p h y , n a m e l y , the contrast b e t w e e n " s e e m i n g "
(8oxetv) a n d " b e i n g " (elvat). A m o n g the diatribes o f the C y n i c T e l e s ( c .
242 B C ) , for e x a m p l e , is a p i e c e entitled " O n S e e m i n g a n d B e i n g " (Ilept
111
TOU Soxetv xat TOU e t v a t ) . B y n o t i n g the unpleasant c o n s e q u e n c e s that
m i g h t result f r o m m e r e l y s e e m i n g t o h a v e s o m e ability ( w h e t h e r m u s i c a l ,
a c t i n g , o r m i l i t a r y ) , T e l e s tries to p e r s u a d e his i n t e r l o c u t o r that o n e m u s t
seek really to b e j u s t (Sixatos), n o t m e r e l y to s e e m s o , as the politicians
(prJTopes) d o ! H a v i n g a reputation for Stxatoouvri, argues T e l e s , is w o r t h
n o t h i n g unless that reputation is d e s e r v e d . J o s e p h u s s e e m s to b e m a k i n g
the s a m e p o i n t a b o u t the Pharisees, o n l y n o w the issue is euae(Jeta a n d
axptfkta.
Several o t h e r writers o f the p e r i o d i n v o k e the contrast b e t w e e n " s e e m ­
i n g " a n d " b e i n g " in such a w a y as to suggest that it w a s a c o m m o n p l a c e
o f p o p u l a r m o r a l i t y . Sextus ( 2 d . c e n t . A D ) , w h o c o m p i l e d a list o f ethical
1 1 2
Torcot in his d a y , offered the m a x i m :

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

daxet (XT) TO Soxetv dXXd TO etvat Stxato?


TO Soxetv yap exaarov TOU etvat d^patpetrat (§ 64).

In his Dialogues of the Dead, L u c i a n o f S a m o s a t a ( 2 d . c e n t . A D ) t u r n e d


the Soxetv/etvat contrast against the pretentiousness o f A l e x a n d e r the
Great. L u c i a n has Philip o f M a c e d o n chastising his s o n for h a v i n g
passed h i m s e l f o f f as d i v i n e . Philip m u s e s :

For you were supposed to be a god (Oeos ydp etvat Soxtov) and any time you
were wounded and seen being carried out o f the fighting on a litter, stream­
ing with blood and groaning from a wound, the onlookers were amused to
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?

N o t i c e here the c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n Soxeto a n d 7rpoa7cot7i<Jt£, w h i c h w e


h a v e already n o t e d in the case o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees, a n d w h i c h c o n ­
firms o u r s u s p i c i o n that Soxeto c a n m e a n both " s u p p o s e / p r e t e n d " ( s u b ­
j e c t i v e ) and " s e e m " ( o b j e c t i v e ) in the s a m e c o n t e x t .
T h e Christian Paul w a s d o u b t l e s s d r a w i n g u p o n the s a m e stock t h e m e
w h e n he called the J e r u s a l e m apostles ot SoxoCVres a n d w r o t e :

From those who were reputed to be something—whatever they were makes


no difference to me; G o d does not consider a person's image—the famous
men contributed nothing to me . . . . ('Arco 8e zcov Soxovvrcov eivaizi,—07roTot
7C0Te rjaav ouSev fxot Stacpepet 7up6<jco7rov Geo? dv0pto7cou ou XajxPavei—ejxot yap
ot SoxoGVces ouSev 7cpoaave0evTO.)

T h e s e e x a m p l e s illustrate the w i d e c u r r e n c y o f the Soxetv/ etvat contrast


in Hellenistic t h o u g h t . It is this contrast that J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s against
the historical dxptjieta o f the G r e e k s a n d the religious dxpt(3eta o f the
Pharisees.
A l t h o u g h , , then, the Pharisees d o n o t p l a y a m a j o r role in War as a
w h o l e , their function in the history o f the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e is signifi­
cant. The d o w n w a r d spiral that b e g a n after J o h n Hyrcanus, with
A r i s t o b u l u s a n d A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s , w a s to reach its n a d i r in the in­
1 1 3
ternecine strife between Alexandra's sons. Alexandra's own rule,
t h o u g h a potential t u r n i n g p o i n t b e c a u s e o f her g e n u i n e piety, w a s
fatally d a m a g e d b y her association with the Pharisees. T h i s g r o u p , says

of Sextus: a contribution to the history of early Christian ethics (Cambridge: University Press,
1959), 139f., 144-146.
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

J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h they e n j o y e d a r e p u t a t i o n for piety a n d scrupulous


faithfulness to the l a w s , t u r n e d o u t to b e a m a n i p u l a t i v e band of
counterfeits. T h e i r outrages d r o v e m a n y l e a d i n g citizens to enlist the
p r o t e c t i o n o f A r i s t o b u l u s ( § 1 1 4 ) , w h o w a s thus e n a b l e d to seize p o w e r
b e f o r e his m o t h e r ' s death ( § 1 1 7 ) , t h e r e b y initiating the fateful struggle
w i t h his o l d e r b r o t h e r Hyrcanus.
J o s e p h u s ' s first definition o f the Pharisees is n o t a friendly o n e . I n a
society that exalted precise k n o w l e d g e o f the laws, they h a d a c q u i r e d a
r e p u t a t i o n for piety. T h e i r actions in the time o f A l e x a n d r a , h o w e v e r ,
g a v e the lie to their r e p u t a t i o n .

I V . The Source of War 1:110

G . H o l s c h e r , the greatest o f the J o s e p h a n s o u r c e critics, assigned War


1:1 lOf. to the p e n o f N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . H i s a r g u m e n t w a s : ( a ) that
1 1 4
for v a r i o u s r e a s o n s , the w h o l e o f War 1 : 3 1 - 2 : 1 1 6 a p p e a r s to c o m e f r o m
N i c o l a u s ; ( b ) that War 1:11 Of. in particular gives " h o c h s t unjudische
1 1 5
Urteile . . . uber die P h a r i s a e r " , where "hochst unjiidisch" apparently
1 1 6
means "recht unfreundlich"; a n d ( c ) that, therefore, this passage also
c o m e s directly f r o m N i c o l a u s . T h e v i e w that War 1:110 is a q u o t a t i o n
1 1 7
f r o m N i c o l a u s has w o n significant, if b y n o m e a n s universal, support.
A g a i n s t that v i e w , w e h a v e already n o t e d certain a priori c o n s i d e r a ­
tions, especially: ( a ) that J o s e p h u s k n e w the Pharisees first-hand a n d ( b )
that h e w a s perfectly c a p a b l e , in o t h e r respects, o f s t a m p i n g his o w n
1 1 8
ideas u p o n his w o r k . T o these o b s e r v a t i o n s w e m a y n o w a d d the
f o l l o w i n g a posteriori j u d g e m e n t s , ( c ) War 1:110 bears a close verbal
r e s e m b l a n c e to descriptions o f the Pharisees in War 2 : 1 6 2 a n d Life 1 9 1 ,
neither o f w h i c h is usually attributed to N i c o l a u s ( a n d the latter c a n n o t
b e ) , ( d ) War 1:110 is o n e o f ten passages in J o s e p h u s ' s writings that c o m ­
b i n e Soxeoo a n d a f o r m o f axptjieta to d e s c r i b e a g r o u p o r i n d i v i d u a l . O f
these ten, seven also i n c l u d e s o m e reference to the v6[xot o r v6[xt[xa. T h e
c o m b i n a t i o n s o f these w o r d s s e e m to b e J o s e p h a n constructions, (e)
Finally, all o f the k e y terms in the definition o f the Pharisees in War
1:110—<xxpt(kta, euaePeta, v6(iot-— are elements of Josephus's
characteristic v o c a b u l a r y ; clearly, they are t h e o l o g i c a l l y c h a r g e d a n d he
uses t h e m with c o n s c i o u s intent.

1 1 4
Cf. chapter 2, above.
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

A l t h o u g h , then, J o s e p h u s m a y well h a v e taken the b a s i c c o n t e n t o f the


H a s m o n e a n history f r o m N i c o l a u s , p e r h a p s i n c l u d i n g s o m e reference t o
the P h a r i s e e s ' actions u n d e r A l e x a n d r a , it is J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w h o has
f o r m u l a t e d the portrayal o f the Pharisees in War 1:110. N o r is that the
extent o f his activity, for w e h a v e seen that the d e s c r i p t i o n at 1:110 is
an integral part o f the story line a n d that it d e p e n d s for its m e a n i n g o n
the p r i o r d e s c r i p t i o n s o f J a n n e u s ( § 8 5 ) a n d especially o f A l e x a n d r a ( §
1 0 8 ) . T h a t J o s e p h u s has s h a p e d this w h o l e section o f narrative s e e m s a
necessary c o n c l u s i o n .

Conclusion

T h e f o r e g o i n g analysis o f War 1:110 illustrates the severe limitations o f


the usual a p p r o a c h t o J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees. T h a t a p p r o a c h , e n ­
dorsed by Schurer and maintained to the present day, regards
J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees as m o r e o r less " r a w m a t e r i a l " ,
as R i v k i n puts it, that c a n b e substantially u n d e r s t o o d in their o w n right.
1 1 9
T h a t such a v i e w is theoretically flawed has b e e n a r g u e d a b o v e ; in ad­
d i t i o n , w e n o w h a v e t a n g i b l e e v i d e n c e that the c o n t e x t o f the Pharisee
passages is d e t e r m i n a t i v e o f their meaning. " C o n t e x t " here refers
equally to ( a ) the i m m e d i a t e l y s u r r o u n d i n g narrative, ( b ) the c o n c e r n s
a n d t h e m e s o f the w o r k as a w h o l e , a n d ( c ) the a u t h o r ' s t h o u g h t in
general.
T o illustrate: A . G u t t m a n n m a k e s the assertion, " W h e n J o s e p h u s
states that the Pharisees ' are c o n s i d e r e d the m o s t a c c u r a t e interpreters
1 2 0
o f the l a w s ' h e speaks as a Pharisaic J e w . " A . Schlatter a n d H . - F .
1 2 1
Weiss likewise b e l i e v e that such a d e s c r i p t i o n is h o n o r i f i c .
O n e c a n o n l y h o l d that c o n c l u s i o n , h o w e v e r , if o n e takes the state­
m e n t o u t o f its c o n t e x t a n d therefore o u t o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n m o u t h . F o r
the foregoing analysis has shown that J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e n t i o n w a s to
d e b u n k the P h a r i s e e s ' r e p u t a t i o n for e m b o d y i n g s u p e r i o r piety a n d for
e x p o u n d i n g the laws with particular a c c u r a c y . T e r m s like axpi(5eta a n d
euae(ktoc represent w o r l d s o f religious m e a n i n g for h i m . H e v i e w s these
areas as priestly responsibilities o r c o n c e r n s . A l t h o u g h h e allows that cer­
tain others have w e l l - d e s e r v e d reputations for excellence in these
respects, the Pharisees are n o t a m o n g t h e m .

1 1 9
Cf. chapter 1, above.
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

N o r d o e s it s e e m plausible, to g i v e a further e x a m p l e , that J o s e p h u s


c h o s e the w o r d &xpi(Seioc to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees b e c a u s e o f its c u r r e n c y
1 2 2
as an interpretation o f the n a m e D ' W I D . Sufficient explanation o f
J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e o f the w o r d is his characteristic v o c a b u l a r y , in w h i c h
axptjkta o c c u p i e s a c o n s p i c u o u s p l a c e . T h a t axpt(ktoc d i d circulate as an
interpretation o f D^tPTlD is o f c o u r s e possible b u t m u s t b e s h o w n b y o t h e r
1 2 3
evidence.
I n short: J o s e p h u s ' s statements o n the Pharisees o n l y h a v e full m e a n ­
i n g w h e n they are read as his statements a n d as p r o d u c t s o f his analysis
and thought.

122
Contra A . I. Baumgarten, "Name", 413ff.
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

WAR 1:571: T H E P H A R I S E E S A T H E R O D ' S C O U R T , I

After J o s e p h u s has introduced the Pharisees in War 1:110-114, the


reader next m e e t s t h e m in a p a s s i n g reference at 1:571. H e r e , J o s e p h u s
is r e c o u n t i n g the intrigues o f H e r o d ' s family against the k i n g . H e r o d ,
he says, a c c u s e d his sister-in-law o f plotting against h i m in several w a y s ,
o n e o f w h i c h w a s her r e w a r d i n g o f Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to h i m ( c m TS
a e i e v
Oocpiaociois uiv x o p ^ T H HiaOous *ax' OCUTOU). T h i s b a r e n o t i c e , w h i c h is
nowhere elaborated in War, has little i m p o r t a n c e in the narrative;
J o s e p h u s clearly d o e s n o t i n t e n d here to say m u c h a b o u t the Pharisees.
Nevertheless, since the i n c i d e n t will also b e r e c o u n t e d in Ant. (17:42f.),
s o m e b r i e f a c c o u n t o f its treatment in War is necessary.

I. The Context of War 1:571

F u n d a m e n t a l is the o b s e r v a t i o n that War in general presents H e r o d the


1
Great very favourably. He a p p e a r s as g e n e r o u s and large-spirited
( 1 : 3 9 7 ) , p i o u s ( 1 : 4 0 0 ) , h u m a n e ( l : 4 2 f f . ) , a loyal friend ( 1 : 3 9 1 ) , b r a v e
( 1 : 4 2 9 ) , a n d affectionate t o w a r d his family ( 1 : 4 1 7 f f . ) . A l l o f his d o m e s t i c
p r o b l e m s w e r e b r o u g h t o n b y the w o m e n in his c o u r t , w e are told, b e g i n ­
n i n g with his s e c o n d wife M a r i a m n e a n d her sons ( 1 : 4 3 I f f . ) . Indeed,
H e r o d ' s h o m e life d e v e l o p s a l o n g the lines o f a t r a g e d y , in w h i c h he is
the largely i n n o c e n t v i c t i m o f plots a n d intrigues.
O n e such d i s t u r b a n c e w a s instigated b y the wife o f P h e r o r a s , who
capitalized o n the rising fortunes o f H e r o d ' s son A n t i p a t e r to establish
her o w n p o w e r a n d d o m i n a t e the H e r o d i a n c o u r t . H e r o d is i n f o r m e d o f
her surreptitious activities ( l : 5 6 9 f . ) a n d it is in his s u b s e q u e n t d e n u n c i a ­
tion o f this w o m a n ( § 5 7 1 ) that w e h e a r o f her p a y m e n t s to the Pharisees.

I I . Key Terms

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 .

I I I . Interpretation of War 1:571

The salient features o f this b r i e f n o t i c e m a y b e s u m m a r i z e d in three


observations.
First, the r e m a r k o b v i o u s l y puts the Pharisees in a n e g a t i v e light. It
is n o t clear f r o m the w o r d i n g w h e t h e r P h e r o r a s ' s wife actually initiated
Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to H e r o d b y offering m o n e y to the group or
w h e t h e r she s i m p l y e n c o u r a g e d a n already present o p p o s i t i o n b y finan­
7 8
cial r e w a r d . A l o n a n d C o r n f e l d , w o r k i n g at the historical level, a d d u c e
r a b b i n i c e v i d e n c e o f p r i n c i p l e d Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to H e r o d , w h i c h
w o u l d suggest the latter o p t i o n . L i k e w i s e Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 , if it is a true
9
p a r a l l e l , c l a i m s that P h e r o r a s ' s wife m e r e l y p a i d the fine i m p o s e d o n the
Pharisees b y H e r o d for their refusal to swear an oath o f allegiance to
himself and Caesar. In War 1:571 itself, h o w e v e r , it is the w o m a n ' s
m e r c e n a r y tactics a n d n o t so m u c h the Pharisees' actions that are in
q u e s t i o n . In either c a s e , the Pharisees turn u p o n the w r o n g ( = anti-
H e r o d i a n ) side o f the d i s p u t e . I f H e r o d appears in War as a v i c t i m , then
the Pharisees m u s t b e c o u n t e d a m o n g his v i c t i m i z e r s .

2
Xoprjyeo> appears 10 times in War, 30 times in Ant.; xoprjyia appears 5 times in War,
14 times in Ant.; XWYOS appears 4 times in War, once in Ant.
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

S e c o n d , association o f the Pharisees with m o n e t a r y gain also d a m a g e s


their i m a g e b e f o r e the reader. Suggestions o f such i m p r o p r i e t y o c c u r
t h r o u g h o u t J o s e p h u s ' s w r i t i n g s . A l r e a d y in War 1:111 w e h a v e r e a d
that, while the Pharisees w e r e e n j o y i n g all the benefits a n d prerogatives
(dbcoXauaeis) o f royalty, the e x p e n s e s (dtvaXcafxaxa) w e r e falling to Q u e e n
A l e x a n d r a . Further, to anticipate future analyses: in Ant. 17:42f. the
Pharisees are said to h a v e m a n u f a c t u r e d false p r e d i c t i o n s in return for
m o n e y ; in Life 195f. a p r o m i n e n t Pharisee b r i b e s the h i g h priest to act
unfairly. Thus, the association o f the Pharisees with financial im­
p r o p r i e t y is fairly c o m m o n in J o s e p h u s .
L i n k i n g o n e ' s o p p o n e n t s with the l o v e o f m o n e y was a common
10
slander in a n t i q u i t y . N o t i c e , h o w e v e r , that J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t resort to
stock, generalizing phrases like 9iXapyupot, w h i c h is u s e d o f the Pharisees
1 1
b y the author o f L u k e - A c t s ( L k . 1 6 : 1 4 ) . Josephus only makes the
charge o f financial impropriety against the Pharisees in specific,
historically plausible cases. W i t h o u t actually calling t h e m " l o v e r s o f
m o n e y " he m a n a g e s to insinuate the s a m e p o i n t in a narrative c o n t e x t .
T h i r d , J o s e p h u s c o n t i n u e s to represent the Pharisees as an influential
group. T h i s is clear f r o m the fact that the w o m a n ' s financing of
Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n is r a n k e d in its e n o r m i t y with h e r alienation o f
H e r o d ' s o w n b r o t h e r a n d her insulting o f H e r o d ' s o w n (cf. eocuxou)
daughters. T h a t J o s e p h u s c h o o s e s to m e n t i o n these three offences as o n l y
the m o s t h e i n o u s e x a m p l e s a m o n g many m i s d e e d s seems to indicate that
H e r o d felt the a n t a g o n i s m o f the Pharisees v e r y k e e n l y . T h e i m p a c t o f
this a n t a g o n i s m o n H e r o d , J o s e p h u s implies, w a s r o u g h l y o n a par with
that generated b y the abuse o f his daughters o r b y the o p p o s i t i o n o f his
brother. T o b e sure, the Pharisees n o l o n g e r h a v e the m e c h a n i s m o f
g o v e r n m e n t in their h a n d s , as they d i d u n d e r A l e x a n d r a , b u t J o s e p h u s ' s
r e m a r k at War 1:571 p r e s u p p o s e s their c o n t i n u e d influence: their o p ­
position to H e r o d appears as a matter o f great c o n c e r n to h i m .

I V . The Source of War 1:571

W e h a v e seen that the t w o k e y terms are elements o f J o s e p h u s ' s natural


v o c a b u l a r y . In Ant. 1 3 : 1 2 9 , furthermore, they also a p p e a r together as
v e r b a n d direct o b j e c t . A n y d o u b t that the f o r m u l a t i o n is J o s e p h u s ' s
o w n , therefore, seems u n w a r r a n t e d .

1 0 4
Cf., e.g., R. J. Karris, 'The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the
Pastoral Epistles", JBL 92 (1973), 549-564, esp. 552. He gives numerous references,
from Plato to Tatian, to document the widespread use of this charge.
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

W i t h respect to c o n t e n t , o n the other h a n d , it is entirely likely that


J o s e p h u s r e c e i v e d his i n f o r m a t i o n — a b o u t P h e r o r a s ' s w i f e ' s s p o n s o r s h i p
o f Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n to H e r o d — f r o m N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , w h o
w o u l d h a v e b e e n in a p o s i t i o n to k n o w the i n n e r w o r k i n g s o f H e r o d ' s
court.

Summary

A l t h o u g h War 1:571 is an incidental reference to the Pharisees—and o n e


o u g h t n o t , therefore, to e x p e c t f r o m it a wealth o f i n s i g h t — t w o points
e m e r g e clearly. First, the a u t h o r presents the Pharisees as an influential
g r o u p . S e c o n d , h o w e v e r , h e reveals his lack o f s y m p a t h y for t h e m . T h e y
h a v e a part in the u n d o i n g o f the tragic v i c t i m H e r o d a n d they are
v u l n e r a b l e to the lure o f m o n e y . B o t h o f these points—the Pharisees' in­
fluence and Josephus's antipathy toward them—continue themes
already i n t r o d u c e d in War 1:110-114.
CHAPTER SIX

WAR 2:162-166: T H E P H A R I S E E S A M O N G
THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I

From the standpoint o f Josephus's intention, War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 is his


crucial d e s c r i p t i o n o f the J e w i s h g r o u p s , i n c l u d i n g the Pharisees. F o r
w h e n h e writes in Ant. o f the distinctive g r o u p s within J u d a i s m , h e refers
the reader b a c k t o his " a c c u r a t e l y d e t a i l e d " (axptfkos SeSrjXoaToci) presen­
1
tation in War 2 . C l e a r l y , J o s e p h u s v i e w s this l e n g t h y passage as his
2
standard t r e a t m e n t , t o w h i c h the later discussions are s u p p l e m e n t a r y .
F u r t h e r m o r e , War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 is u n i q u e in that J o s e p h u s is free h e r e t o
say w h a t e v e r h e wishes a b o u t the Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , a n d Essenes,
w i t h o u t b e i n g subject t o narrative pressures. H i s m a i n s o u r c e f o r War
1:31-2:116, Nicolaus o f Damascus, has p r o b a b l y e x p i r e d with the
3
d e p o s i t i o n o f H e r o d ' s s o n A r c h e l a u s . After that, J o s e p h u s gives o n l y a
c u r s o r y o u t l i n e o f events t o the t i m e o f A g r i p p a ( 2 : 1 6 7 - 1 8 7 ) , a p e r i o d as
l o n g as H e r o d ' s reign! A g a i n the narrative m o v e s q u i c k l y t h r o u g h the
f o l l o w i n g t w e n t y years ( 2 : 2 2 0 - 2 7 6 ) t o the events p r e c e d i n g the revolt.
W h e r e a s all o f J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r references to the Pharisees, therefore,
c o m e in the m i d s t o f a flowing narrative, w h e r e J o s e p h u s c a n o n l y say
4
e n o u g h a b o u t the g r o u p s t o m a k e his narrative i n t e l l i g i b l e , in War
2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 h e has n o story-line t o p u r s u e . O n the c o n t r a r y , his discussion
o f the three J e w i s h g r o u p s p r o v i d e s h i m an o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o m p e n s a t e
5
for the sparseness o f his history o f J u d e a u n d e r the p r e f e c t s . This
f r e e d o m f r o m narrative constraints m a y well h a v e a c c o u n t e d for his d e c i ­
sion to g i v e his definitive d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the J e w i s h ocipeaets h e r e .

1
The War passage is recalled in the following ways: ev TTJ SeuTepoc pifBXcp xfjs 'IouSocixfjs
rcpocY[xocTetoc<; (Ant. 13:173); dv TTJ SeuTepoc (xou TCOV 'IouSoctxcov (Ant. 13:298); and ev TCO ptPXcp
TOU 'IouBouxoG 7coXe(xou (Ant. 18:11).
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

J o s e p h u s s e e m s uninterested in d i s c u s s i n g — o r , p e r h a p s , lacks material


to discuss—the early years o f the history o f J u d e a as a R o m a n p r o v i n c e .
H e b a r e l y m e n t i o n s that the e t h n a r c h y o f A r c h e l a u s , o n the d e p o s i t i o n
o f that tyrant in A D 6, passed u n d e r direct R o m a n rule, with C o p o n i u s
6
as g o v e r n o r (War 2:117). L i k e w i s e , after his t r e a t m e n t o f the three
g r o u p s h e refers o n l y briefly to the status o f the o t h e r p o r t i o n s o f H e r o d ' s
old k i n g d o m (2:167) and then m o v e s i m m e d i a t e l y to the death o f
A u g u s t u s in A D 14.
T h i s d e p a r t u r e f r o m his usual e m p h a s i s o n the details o f political
history allows J o s e p h u s to d e v e l o p a m a j o r t h e m e o f his w o r k . I n the
p r e f a c e , it will b e recalled, he a n n o u n c e d his thesis that his h o m e l a n d
o w e d its d e s t r u c t i o n to a faction o f tyrants a m o n g the p e o p l e a n d n o t to
the Srjfxos itself ( 1 : 1 0 ) . S o , it s e e m s , he i n t r o d u c e s the material o f 2 : 1 1 9 -
166 as an early attempt to establish that t h e m e , well b e f o r e the narrative
7
o f the revolt itself b e g i n s . T h u s w e learn that the passing o f J u d e a into
R o m a n h a n d s c a u s e d a certain J u d a s to c o m e f o r w a r d , w h o "urged
revolt (dbtoaTaatv) o n his c o u n t r y m e n , calling t h e m c o w a r d s if they c o n ­
sented to p a y tribute to the R o m a n s a n d e n d u r e d m o r t a l masters after
h a v i n g served G o d " .
H a v i n g so d e s c r i b e d the r e b e l ' s p o s i t i o n — a p o s i t i o n that w o u l d find
n o sympathy a m o n g R o m a n readers—Josephus g o e s o n i m m e d i a t e l y to
d i s a v o w it, n o t o n l y for h i m s e l f b u t also for J e w s in general:

This man represented a peculiar school o f thought (t8ta^ octpeaecos), which


was not even remotely similar to the others (ouSev TOT? aXXot? rcpoaeoixtos,
8
§ 118). For among the Jews, philosophy takes three [customary] forms
(xpioc yap rcapa TouSatot? etSrj 9tXoao9etxai, § 119).

Q u i t e early in his narrative, therefore, J o s e p h u s takes the opportunity


to s h o w his readers that the w h o l e mentality o f a7r6aT<xai$ is f o r e i g n to
" m a i n s t r e a m " J e w i s h w a y s o f thinking. T h e p o i n t is significant b e c a u s e
J u d a s will turn o u t to b e s o m e t h i n g o f a patriarch to the rebel family that
i n c l u d e d M e n a h e m (War 2 : 4 3 3 ) a n d Eleazar b e n Y a i r , o f M a s a d a f a m e
(War 2 : 4 4 7 ; 7 : 2 5 3 ) .

6
Josephus uses hzixpoTzo^ (procurator) to describe Coponius' office. A . N. 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

We c a n see, then, a clear rationale for J o s e p h u s ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n o f


2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , w h i c h deals extensively with the three eiBy) o f J e w i s h thinking:
he w a n t s t o dissociate m a i n s t r e a m J u d a i s m f r o m the rebel p s y c h o l o g y .
T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n d o e s n o t i m p l y that e v e r y i t e m in the narrative m u s t
s o m e h o w d e m o n s t r a t e the d o c i l i t y o r peacefulness o f the J e w s . O n the
subject o f the Essenes, for e x a m p l e , m u c h o f the material w o u l d h a v e
9
h a d an intrinsic interest for his H e l l e n i s t i c - R o m a n r e a d e r s . Never­
theless, w e s h o u l d e x p e c t to find clear i n d i c a t i o n s in 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 that r e c ­
o g n i z e d J u d a i s m , in its three f o r m s , d o e s n o t e q u a t e the service o f G o d
with dt7c6cTTaat^ f r o m all earthly masters.
A l t h o u g h the Pharisees are i n t r o d u c e d at the outset ( § 119) as o n e o f
the three f o r m s o f J e w i s h t h o u g h t , they d o n o t r e c e i v e full attention until
the e n d o f the passage ( 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) . It is the f a m o u s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
E s s e n e s — w h i c h has b e c o m e an i m p o r t a n t aid for interpreting the D e a d
10
Sea S c r o l l s — that d o m i n a t e s o u r p a s s a g e . S o m e b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f the
Essene narrative is n e c e s s a r y , b o t h to p r o v i d e insight into the function
of 2:119-166 and as a basis for interpreting the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
Pharisees ( § 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) .
T h e first thing that J o s e p h u s says a b o u t the Essenes sets the t o n e for
his entire d e s c r i p t i o n : they are r e n o w n e d for their cultivation o f s o l e m ­
nity (Soxet aefxvoTTjxa aaxetv, § 1 1 9 ) ; they h o l d self-control (TTJV eyxpdtxeiav),
o r the refusal to s u r r e n d e r to the passions (TO U.7) xotc; 7cdc0eatv UTC07ct7ruetv),
to b e a virtue ( § 1 2 0 ) . A l t h o u g h the 7ia9r) are d e s c r i b e d p r i m a r i l y in sex­
ual t e r m s , a b r o a d e r r a n g e o f m e a n i n g is e v o k e d : in contrast to the octpsai£
o f J u d a s , w h i c h d r a w s its e n e r g y f r o m self-assertion, the Essenes are self-
c o n t r o l l e d a n d d i s c i p l i n e d . W e r e a d further: " I n their dress a n d c o m ­
posure they are like children b e i n g trained in fear" ((xe-uoc 9o(3ou
7cat8ay<oYou|jievoi<g rcaiatv, § 1 2 6 ) . A n d that is the t e n o r o f the w h o l e Essene
passage: these m e n are ascetics, w h o s e e v e r y w a k i n g m o m e n t is o r d e r e d
a c c o r d i n g to a strict discipline ( § § 1 2 8 - 1 3 4 , 1 3 7 - 1 4 9 ) . T h u s : " H o l d i n g
justified a n g e r in c h e c k , they are masters o f their t e m p e r , c h a m p i o n s o f
1 1
faithfulness, ministers o f p e a c e " ( § 1 3 5 , T h a c k e r a y ) . This image o f ex-

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

t r e m e discipline contrasts starkly with the i n d e p e n d e n c e a n d rebellious­


ness o f J u d a s .
M o s t striking is J o s e p h u s ' s description o f the m a n y oaths that the c a n ­
didates must take b e f o r e a d m i s s i o n to full m e m b e r s h i p ( § § 1 3 9 - 1 4 2 ) .
A m o n g t h e m is the p r o m i s e " t o k e e p faith (TO TCIOTOV 7rocpsijetv) always
with all m e n , especially with those who are ruling ({xdcXtora 8e TOT<; xpaTOuaiv)
since no one acquires the position of ruler without God" (ou yap St^a Oeou
7ieptyevea8ai Ttvl TO apx&tv, § 1 4 0 ) . H e r e J o s e p h u s p r o v i d e s clear e v i d e n c e
for his assertion that the m a i n s t r e a m J e w i s h g r o u p s differ radically f r o m
Judas's philosophy o f freedom: the Essenes, for one, believe in
12
faithfulness to the ruling authorities.
B e y o n d that, the Essenes a p p e a r as an esoteric g r o u p , p r e o c c u p i e d
with their o w n rites a n d teachings. T h e y are c o n c e r n e d with prayers ( §
1 2 8 ) , strenuous l a b o u r ( § 1 2 9 ) , ancient writings, m e d i c i n a l substances
a n d stones ( § 1 3 6 ) , a n d their o w n sectarian b o o k s , secrets, a n d n a m e s
o f the angels ( § 1 4 2 ) . T h e s e esoteric pursuits c o n t r i b u t e to the i m a g e o f
the Essenes as a harmless e l e m e n t in J e w i s h society. J o s e p h u s presents
t h e m in such a w a y as to foster a d m i r a t i o n for their discipline, self-
c o n t r o l , a n d quiet m a n n e r o r life. S o the Essenes are n o t in the slightest
d e g r e e (ouSev rcpoaeoixox;) c o m p a r a b l e to the g r o u p represented by
1 3
Judas.
T h u s in c o m i n g to the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in § § 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 , w e
already possess t w o m a j o r interpretive clues, b o t h furnished b y the c o n ­
text. First, b y i n c l u d i n g this g r o u p a m o n g the three eiSrj o f J e w i s h
t h o u g h t , in contrast to that o f J u d a s , J o s e p h u s a c k n o w l e d g e s the historic
l e g i t i m a c y o f the Pharisees: they, a l o n g with the Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s ,
are true representatives o f J u d a i s m , at least to the extent that they d o
n o t d e m a n d c o m p l e t e political i n d e p e n d e n c e .
S e c o n d , h o w e v e r , b y p r o p o r t i o n i n g his narrative as h e d o e s , J o s e p h u s
m a k e s it plain that he is m u c h m o r e interested in d e s c r i b i n g the Essenes
than the other t w o g r o u p s . I n contrast to his e x p a n s i v e portrayal o f the
Essenes, he dispenses with the Pharisees and S a d d u c e e s in three
sentences, w h i c h c o m p r i s e t w o uiv . . . hi c o n s t r u c t i o n s , c o m p a r i n g these
t w o schools o f t h o u g h t o n l y o n matters o f belief a n d p r a c t i c e .

1 2
Josephus does not explain how some Essenes found themselves in conflict with
Rome (War 2:152f.) or why one of the regional commanders of the revolt was an Essene
(2:567; 3:11).
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

I I . Five Statements About the Pharisees

W i t h i n J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees, w e m a y distinguish five


statements:
Auo 8e TCOV rcpoTeptov ( s c . Tayu-ocTtov, § 161) Oaptaatot u i v ot

(2:161) a. jxex' dxptPeta$ 8oxouvTe$ e^rjyetaOat TOC vojxtfxa


b. xat TTJV 7cpcoTT)v dcTCOcyovTes atpeatv
(2:163) c. etu.apu.evrj TE xat Oeto TCpoadwcTOuat 7tdvTa xat TO uiv
7cpaTT£tv TOC Stxata xat u.rj x a r a TO rcXetarov em TOT$

av9pa>7cot<; xetaOat, (3oTj8etv 8e tlq exaarov xat TTJV

etu.apu.evrjv.
d. C[>UXTJV Te 7caaav u.ev a90apTOv,
[xeTafJatvetv 8e et$ erepov atou.a
TTJV TCOV dyaOtov [XOVTJV,

T<X$ 8e TCOV 9auXcov dtSttp Tt(xtopta xoXd£ea0at


(2:166a) e. xat Oaptaatot [xev qHXdXXrjXot Te xat TTJV

tiq TO xotvdv 6(x6votav daxouvTe$.

W e shall take e a c h statement in turn a n d a n a l y z e its k e y t e r m s .


A . ot (xer' dxptfktac 8oxouvTe$ efjrjyetaOat TOC v6(xt(xa
T h i s o p e n i n g statement c o r r e s p o n d s closely to the s e c o n d half o f the
definition in 1:110: Soxouv . . . TOUS vofxou? dxpt(3e<JTepov d^yetaOat. T h e
c h a n g e s are as f o l l o w s .
( 1 ) TOC v6(xt{xa for ot v6(xot. I n discussing War 1:110, w e o b s e r v e d that
ot vofiot has n o technical m e a n i n g for J o s e p h u s ; he uses it inter­
c h a n g e a b l y w i t h TOC v6(xt{xa. L a t e r he will speak o f special Pharisaic v6(xt(xa
(Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 6 , 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 ) , b u t h e will clearly designate those as n o n -
M o s a i c o r d i n a n c e s , o r i g i n a t i n g with the fathers (ex 7caTepcov . . . oux
dvayeypa^Tat ev Tots Mcouaeo? vou.ot£, 1 3 : 2 9 7 ; xard TTJVrcaTptoav7tapd8oatv,

1 3 : 4 0 8 ) . I n all o f the o t h e r 53 cases in w h i c h J o s e p h u s uses TOC vou.tu.a ( o r


the singular) substantively, the t e r m is practically s y n o n y m o u s with ot
14 15
vofiot o r w i t h TOC eGrj. T h u s , since TOC v6(xt[xa in o u r passage stands with­
o u t qualification, w e h a v e n o r e a s o n to s u p p o s e that it m e a n s a n y t h i n g
other than the vou-tjia TOC yeypau.fxeva (Ant. 13:297) and that it is
e q u i v a l e n t to the vojxot o f War 1:110. W h a t e v e r distinctive vojxtjxa the
Pharisees m a y h a v e , then, in War J o s e p h u s c l a i m s o n l y that they are e x ­
perts in the vojxtjia c o m m o n to all J e w s .

1 4
E.g., Ant. 8:395, where 9uX<xa(jetv TOU$ vofjtou? = TTjpetv TOC vofitfia. Cf. also Ant.
7:384f.; 8:208, 256; 12:276; 14:173f.; 18:274. The interchangeability may also be in­
dicated by the textual variants at Ant. 13:257 and 18:55.
1 5
Cf. Ant. 9:95-99; 15:328-30; 14:213-216.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 125

( 2 ) eijrjyetaGat for dqjrjyetaGat. T h e t w o v e r b s are virtually s y n o n y m o u s ,


as the similarity b e t w e e n the prefixes ex a n d dbco suggests. T w o b a s i c
m e a n i n g s a p p l y to b o t h : the p r i m a r y sense, " t o lead ( o u t ) , direct, ad­
minister", and the more abstract, "to interpret, relate, expound"
16
J o s e p h u s uses b o t h v e r b s in b o t h s e n s e s . H e r e , as in 1:110, the i d e a
o f e x p o s i t i o n o r " e x e g e s i s " is i n t e n d e d .

B . (ot) xat TTJV 7rpcoT7jv drcdyovTes atpeatv


T h e s e c o n d statement in War 2:161 is a crux interpretum, created b y
u n c e r t a i n t y a b o u t the significance o f 7tpcoTrj, andyta, a n d atpeat$. W e shall
l o o k first at atpeats.
( 1 ) T h e r e n d e r i n g o f atpeat$ b y " s e c t " w a s enshrined b y W . W h i s t o n
a n d has s u r v i v e d into the twentieth c e n t u r y in all o f the m a j o r transla­
tions, those o f R e i n a c h ("secte"), Thackeray ( " s e c t " ) , and Michel-
17
B a u e r n f e i n d ("Sekte"). I n the influential L o e b e d i t i o n , T h a c k e r a y e v e n
supplies the m a r g i n a l h e a d i n g for o u r passage: " t h e three J e w i s h s e c t s " .
T h i s translation is c o n g e n i a l to t h o s e , like S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r , w h o p o r ­
18
tray the Pharisees as a small, c l o s e d s o c i e t y . T h e English w o r d sect,
1 9
like its F r e n c h a n d G e r m a n equivalents, m a y h a v e c o n n o t a t i o n s o f e x ­
clusivity, rigid organization, novelty, comparative smallness, and
2 0
p e r h a p s e v e n d e v i a n c e f r o m a larger b o d y (cf. " h e r e s y " ) . Although
2 1
n o t necessarily i m p l i e d b y all m o d e r n translators o f J o s e p h u s , such
c o n n o t a t i o n s h a v e naturally d r a w n criticism f r o m those scholars w h o
2 2
u n d e r s t a n d Pharisaism as a m a s s m o v e m e n t within J u d a i s m . Rivkin,
for e x a m p l e , p r o p o s e s the a b a n d o n m e n t o f " s e c t " as a translation o f
al'peats, preferring rather " s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t " , as i n t r o d u c e d b y R.
2 3
M a r c u s in his p o r t i o n o f the L o e b translation (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 , 2 8 8 ) . The
p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s call for special care in the translation o f atpeat?.
J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d 31 times, in three distinct senses. Eight times
2 4
it m e a n s the taking o r c a p t u r e o f s o m e t h i n g , often a t o w n . Eight times
2 5
it signifies an o p t i o n o r c h o i c e . T h e s e m e a n i n g s d e r i v e , respectively,

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

T w o points stand o u t . First, the g r o u p s are consistently presented as


e n g a g e d in " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " pursuits. A t the b e g i n n i n g o f o u r passage,
J o s e p h u s explains that xptoc 7capoc TouBatot^ eiSrj ftXoao^etroct ( 2 : 1 1 9 ) . In
the p r e v i o u s sentence, J u d a s has b e e n called a aoyiavf\$. A n d J o s e p h u s
closes his entire discussion o f the three atpeaets with the w o r d s : " S u c h
is w h a t I h a v e to say 7cepl TCOV ev TouSoctots <pi\oao<po6\n<0v" ( § 1 6 6 ) . T h e s e
statements identify the atpeaei? as p h i l o s o p h i z i n g g r o u p s . I n Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 -
2 5 , w h i c h is parallel to o u r passage, J o s e p h u s will e v e n substitute
9tXoao9toc for al'peats ( 1 8 : 1 1 , 2 3 , 2 5 ) . N o r d o e s this surprise the reader,
since J o s e p h u s regularly presents the focal p o i n t o f d e b a t e b e t w e e n the
octpeaets as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l issue, n a m e l y : the relationship b e t w e e n fate
(ei(iapuiv7)) a n d free will (War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ; ^ . 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ; 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 ) . S o
J o s e p h u s ' s ocipeaets are m o t i v a t e d b y p h i l o s o p h i c a l c o n c e r n s .
S e c o n d , the ocipeaets are g r o u p s with m o r e o r less f o r m a l m e m b e r s h i p s .
F o r e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s ' s a p p r o x i m a t e figures for the size o f b o t h the
30 3 1
Essene a n d Pharisaic followings—4,000 and 6 , 0 0 0 respectively—
32
suggest d e f i n e d constituencies. Further, h e e m p l o y s m a n y substitutes
for ocipeats that s e e m to highlight the physical constitution o f the g r o u p s ,
33
such as: fioptov, TOtyfxa, yevos, auvxayfia, a n d fiotpoc. In o u r passage, the
Essenes are d e s c r i b e d b o t h as a oclpeats ( 2 : 1 2 2 , 137, 142) a n d as a T<xy(Jia
o r " o r d e r " ( 2 : 1 2 2 , 1 2 5 , 1 4 3 , 160, 1 6 1 ) , with the t w o terms b e i n g fully
i n t e r c h a n g e a b l e (cf. 1 2 2 , 1 4 2 f . ) . A t the e n d o f o u r passage, the Pharisees
are designated rj rcparurj atpeat? ( § 162) a n d the S a d d u c e e s TO Seuxepov
xdyfjia ( § 1 6 4 ) . T h e fact that J o s e p h u s c a n e m p l o y these terms as
substitutes for <x!'peat$ indicates that h e e n v i s i o n e d identifiable g r o u p s
with r e c o g n i z a b l e m e m b e r s h i p s .
T o s u m m a r i z e : J o s e p h u s ' s reservation o f ocipeais for the Pharisees,
S a d d u c e e s , Essenes, a n d J u d a s ' s faction implies that the w o r d d e n o t e s
n o t m e r e l y a " g r o u p " b u t a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l with an identifiable
membership. Although Josephus nowhere implies that a ocipeats is
peculiar o r deviant ( s o R i v k i n ) , he d o e s suggest that the aipeaet?
o r g a n i z e d themselves to s o m e extent a n d possessed a visible c o n s t i t u e n c y
(contra R i v k i n ) . E a c h h a d its raison d'etre in a certain " p h i l o s o p h i c a l "
position.

3 0
Ant. 18:20.
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

J o s e p h u s ' s use o f <xl'peai$ a c c o r d s well with c o m m o n u s a g e in the


Hellenistic w o r l d . P o l y b i u s a n d D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , for e x a m ­
ple, refer to the G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools (the A c a d e m y , P e r i p a t o s ,
34
S t o a , a n d later s c h o o l s ) as atp£aei£. P h i l o u s e d the w o r d o f b o t h the
35 36
Greek schools and the Jewish Therapeutics. When, therefore,
J o s e p h u s calls the Palestinian r e l i g i o u s g r o u p s octpeaeis, h e n o t o n l y m a r k s
them o u t as p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s b u t h e i m p l i e s at least a formal
similarity to the G r e e k s c h o o l s . I n d e e d , h e will later c l a i m that the
Essenes follow Pythagorean teachings (Ant. 15:371) and that the
Pharisees are like the S t o i c s (Life 1 2 ) .
The a u t h o r o f A c t s also reflects J o s e p h u s ' s v o c a b u l a r y closely at this
p o i n t . H e calls b o t h the Pharisees a n d the S a d d u c e e s <xipeaet£ ( 1 5 : 5 ; 5 : 1 7 )
a n d e v e n has Paul say that h e l i v e d as a Pharisee XOCTOC TTJV <xxpt(kaTaTT|v
3 7
aipeaiv TTJ$ rifxexepa^ Oprjaxeias ( 2 6 : 5 ) . Likewise, Eusebius introduces a
citation f r o m H e g e s i p p u s , in w h i c h the latter refers t o the Palestinian
g r o u p s as " v a r i o u s o p i n i o n s (yvo>[xat 8ta9opoi) a m o n g the c i r c u m c i s i o n " ,
38
as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the octpeaei^.
T h e historical q u e s t i o n , as t o w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s w a s justified in calling
3 9
the Pharisees a " p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l " , is still d e b a t e d . W e shall c o n ­
sider s o m e t h i n g o f that d e b a t e w h e n w e e x a m i n e the fate/free will q u e s ­
t i o n . Suffice it here to n o t e that J o s e p h u s , an e y e w i t n e s s w h o intends
factuality, d o e s d e s c r i b e t h e m b y such a t e r m .
( 2 ) a n d ( 3 ) . T h e o r d i n a l rcpooTr) o b v i o u s l y m e a n s " f i r s t " . It is u n c l e a r ,
h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s m e a n s that the Pharisees w e r e the "first
ocl'peai^" with respect to their a g e , their p r o m i n e n c e in s o c i e t y , o r s i m p l y
their p l a c e in the earlier listing o f the schools ( 2 : 1 1 9 ) .

3 4
Cf. Polybius 5.93.8; Dionysius, Composition 2; Diogenes Laertius 1:19; 7:191;
Sextus Empiricus (c. A D 200), Pyrrhonic Elements 1:16, 185, 237.
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

'ArcdcyovTes is likewise deceptively simple: ocyco + dcrco = " l e a d


a w a y / o f f \ J o s e p h u s uses the v e r b s o m e 45 times, a n d elsewhere it
4 0
always bears a simple m e a n i n g : to " l e a d a w a y , divert, carry off, a b ­
41
d u c t , w i t h d r a w " , o r the l i k e . It often a p p e a r s in descriptions o f b a t d e s ,
42 43
w h e r e it refers to the capturing o f p r i s o n e r s , or o f cattle, o r to the
44
withdrawal o f troops from a siege. T h e p r o b l e m is what it c o u l d
possibly mean with reference to the Pharisees: they are those w h o
&7r<r)fovTes TTJVTCPCOTTJVoctpeatv.

O n e m a y visualize the p r o b l e m s created b y 7cpo>T7) a n d dwcayctf b y c o m ­


paring three standard critical translations o f War 2 : 1 6 2 : those o f
R e i n a c h , Thackeray, and Michel-Bauernfeind.
R e i n a c h gives:

Des deux sectes plus anciennes les Pharisiens (Auo 8e T<OV 7cpox£pa)v
OocptaocTot [xev ot), considered c o m m e les interpretes exacts des lois et c o m m e
les createurs de la premiere ecole (TTJV icpcoxrjv owcdyovTes octpeatv). . . .

H e takes thercpoxepcov,7rpa)TT|, a n d Seuxepov ( § 164) to refer to the age o f


the s c h o o l s . B o t h Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s are o l d e r than the Essenes
(plus anciennes) a n d o f these t w o , the Pharisees are o l d e r : they created the
first school.
R e i n a c h ' s translation has the virtue o f p r o v i d i n g plausible m e a n i n g s
for b o t h o f the t r o u b l e s o m e w o r d s . I f c h r o n o l o g y is the issue, then sparer]
explains itself s i m p l y . O n e c a n also u n d e r s t a n d arcdyco b y e n v i s i o n i n g ,
at s o m e p o i n t in the past, an undifferentiated body o f Jews, some o f
w h o m the Pharisees " d r a w a w a y " in o r d e r to create o r constitute the
first s c h o o l . T h i s interpretation seems to b e s u p p o r t e d b y the o l d Latin:
et p r i m a e apud Iudaios sectae auctoris erant. I f R e i n a c h ' s translation is
valid, then J o s e p h u s in War 2 : 1 6 2 p r o v i d e s a u n i q u e a n d historically
valuable c l a i m a b o u t the origins o f the J e w i s h g r o u p s in Palestine.
That uniqueness, however, also poses difficulties for Reinach's
translation. F o r elsewhere, w h e n J o s e p h u s refers to the antiquity o f the
s c h o o l s , h e implies a r o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s p o i n t o f o r i g i n for all
three. In Ant. 13:171 he dates t h e m all to the m i d - s e c o n d c e n t u r y B C ,
the t i m e o f J o n a t h a n the H a s m o n e a n . In Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 , h e c l a i m s : " T h e
J e w s , f r o m the m o s t ancient times (ex TOU 7cdvu dpxoctou), h a d three

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

philosophies pertaining to their t r a d i t i o n s . " T h e s e statements suggest


that J o s e p h u s r e g a r d e d all three g r o u p s as o f similar antiquity.
Further, the present participle a7iccf0VTes o u g h t to d e n o t e a c o n t i n u i n g
action o f the present rather than an action o f the past. I n d e e d , the w h o l e
discussion o f Essenes, Pharisees, a n d S a d d u c e e s should b e c o n s i d e r e d in
the present tense. S o it w o u l d s e e m m o r e reasonable to g i v e rcpcoTT) a
m e a n i n g c o n s o n a n t with the o v e r w h e l m i n g present sense o f the c o n t e x t
rather than to force e v e r y t h i n g else (especially the parallel Soxouvxe?) into
a " h i s t o r i c a l p r e s e n t " o n the basis o f a p r e s u m e d c h r o n o l o g i c a l sense for
sparer). W h a t e v e r <x7rdyco m e a n s , it seems to b e an a c t i o n in w h i c h the
Pharisees are presently e n g a g e d .
Finally, with respect to c o n t e x t , R e i n a c h seems to i g n o r e the fact that
War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 , t h o u g h lacking s o m e w h a t in s y m m e t r y , is a single
literary unit. I n r e a d i n g 7cpoxepcov, 7i:pa>T7), a n d Seuxepov as c h r o n o l o g i c a l
references, he fails to establish a n y c o n n e c t i o n with the t o p i c sentence o f
the entire p e r i c o p e , w h i c h b e g i n s :

Tpta yap 7uap' 'Iou8atot£ et8rj 9tXoao9£tTat, xat TOU uiv a t p e T t a x a t Oaptaatot, TOU
8e £a88ouxatot, TptTOv hi . . . 'Eaarjvot.

M i c h e l a n d B a u e r n f e i n d , o n the other h a n d , seize u p o n these c o n t e x ­


tual indicators a n d so r e n d e r the passage, " V o n d e n b e i d e n fruher g e n -
nanten Sekten . . . stellen [die Pharisaer] die erste Sekte d a r . " An
e n d - n o t e m a k e s the interpretation clear: " J o s e p h u s schliesst hier an §
119 an". 4 5
M i c h e l a n d B a u e r n f e i n d thus take 7cpoTep<ov, 7tpcoTT), a n d
SeuTepov ( § 164) as simple references b a c k to the original list o f § 1 1 9 — a
r e m i n d e r that w o u l d b e helpful to the reader after the l o n g description
o f the Essenes ( § § 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ) .
On this r e a d i n g , h o w e v e r , CLK&yovztq lacks a clear sense. M i c h e l -
B a u e r n f e i n d suggest darstellen: " t h e Pharisees represent the first s c h o o l
[on the a b o v e l i s t ] " . Y e t h o w this renders drcdyovTes is not clear. I f
J o s e p h u s wants m e r e l y to recall his initial list o f schools in § 119, he has
c h o s e n an a w k w a r d w a y to d o s o . T h e o p e n i n g w o r d s o f § 162 suffice
to e v o k e the earlier t o p i c sentence: Auo 8e TG>V 7upoTep<ov ( s c . TayixdcTCOv,
cf. § 1 6 1 ) . T h e n follows in a p p o s i t i o n this t w o - p r o n g e d description o f the
Pharisees:

ot (a) fxeT' dxpifkias 8OXOUVT£$ e£rpfetaOoct TOC vofxtjxa xat


(b) TTJV TCpcoTTjv a7WCYOvT£s atpeatv

If the G e r m a n critics are right, the s e c o n d strand in this pair refers yet
again to the list at § 119. It seems clear, h o w e v e r , that dcTcdyovTec; stands

4 5
Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, 439 n. 86.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 131

in some sort of parallel relationship to Soxouvxe?. Both have the same


form and share a common article. This implies a correspondence of
meaning. Therefore the way in which the Pharisees "constitute the first
school" ought to be related somehow to their reputation for (or profes­
sion of) axpifkia.
Thackeray's translation takes into account both the contextual
necessity thatrcpoxepcovrefer back to § 119 and the fact that the first two
statements of § 162 are related in sense. H e proposes:

Of the two first-named schools, the Pharisees, who are considered the most
accurate interpreters of the laws, and hold the position of the leading sect

That the Pharisees' reputation for axpt(5eta enabled them to become the
leading (rcpcoTT)) school accords well with Josephus's vision of Judaism,
as we have seen. For he declares elsewhere that among the Jews, ac­
curate interpretation of the laws is the communal goal and, conse­
quently, the sole criterion by which one acquires fame (Ag.Ap. 2:149,
175; Ant. 20:264; Life 8f.). A s the reader of War has already been told,
Queen Alexandra was able to take firm control of the government
because of her reputation for axptpeta (1:108). Likewise, two teachers of
the 7i:aTpia acquired a reputation for axptfkia and "consequently (Slot
TOUTO) enjoyed the highest esteem of the whole nation" (1:649). So it fits
perfectly with Josephan usage that he should claim that the Pharisees,
"who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws, . . . hold
the position of the leading school".
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

slightest hint o f a n y Pharisaic allegiance o n his part. O n the c o n t r a r y ,


in War 1:110 h e d e m o l i s h e d the Pharisees' reputation for superior
axpt(kta a n d euaePeta, p r e s e n t i n g t h e m rather as frauds a n d d e c e i v e r s .
S e c o n d , a l t h o u g h the Pharisees in the present passage are listed first ( §
119) a n d are called " t h e f o r e m o s t s c h o o l " ( § 1 6 2 ) , they r e c e i v e o n l y p e r ­
functory a t t e n t i o n — t w o N i e s e sections, in contrast to the fifty-two sec­
tions allotted t o the Essenes. It is the Essenes w h o l o v e o n e a n o t h e r m o r e
than d o the other groups ( § § 120, 1 2 5 ) , w h o are j u s t and most
s c r u p u l o u s (axptfJearaTOt) in their j u d g e m e n t s ( § 1 4 5 ) , w h o shun wealth
a n d p r i v i l e g e ( § § 122ff., 1 4 0 ) , w h o l o v e the truth ( § 1 4 1 ) , a n d w h o " i r ­
resistibly attract all w h o h a v e o n c e tasted their p h i l o s o p h y " ( § 1 5 8 ) . B u t
if J o s e p h u s r e g a r d s the Essenes as the fullest s p e c i m e n s o f J u d a i s m ,
w h o s e virtues excel those o f o t h e r J e w s , w h a t m u s t h e think o f the fact
that the Pharisees are the d o m i n a n t s c h o o l ? T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t o g e t h e r
with his earlier d e n u n c i a t i o n o f the Pharisees, s e e m s to w a r r a n t the
retention o f an&yco in its o r d i n a r y sense, thus: the Pharisees are " l e a d i n g
a w a y / a s t r a y " the f o r e m o s t s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t a m o n g the J e w s . S u c h an
interpretation shares all the a d v a n t a g e s o f T h a c k e r a y ' s p r o p o s a l , w i t h o u t
the d i s a d v a n t a g e o f r e l y i n g o n a conjectural e m e n d a t i o n o f d7udcyco.

C . J o s e p h u s ' s third statement a b o u t the Pharisees c o n c e r n s fate a n d free


will:

(1) eifxapfxevr) xe xal Geco 7cpoadc7CTOuat rcdvTa


(2) xat TO [xev 7cpdcTTetv TOC Stxata xat \ir\ xaTa TO 7cXeTaT0v em TOT<; av6pco7cots
xetaOat,
(3) (io7)0etv 8e et$ exacrcov xat TTJV etfxapuivTjv.

H e r e w e finally e n c o u n t e r the m a i n v e r b o f the p a s s a g e . F o r the parti­


ciples 8oxouvTe<; a n d drcdyovTes h a v e m e r e l y s u m m a r i z e d w h a t was already
said a b o u t the Pharisees at 1:110, 5 7 1 . T h e y are strictly p r e l i m i n a r y t o the
m a i n issue in 2:162ff., w h i c h n o w c o m e s clearly into v i e w , n a m e l y : the
Pharisees' p o s i t i o n o n etfxapuivr) a n d v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n . B y isolating the
m a i n v e r b (7cpoaarcTOuat), w e h a v e also f o u n d the central issue in the c o m ­
p a r i s o n (uiv . . . 8e) b e t w e e n Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s in § § 1 6 2 - 1 6 5 . T h e
t w o schools differ a b o u t w h e t h e r " f a t e " is a factor in h u m a n life.
T h a t the central issue o f the passage is that o f fate a n d free will is c o n ­
firmed by Josephus's first s u m m a r y d e s c r i p t i o n o f the three J e w i s h
atpeaetc; in Ant. ( 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ) . T h e r e h e reports that these g r o u p s " h e l d
different o p i n i o n s rcept TCOV dv0pto7Ctvtov 7cpay[xocTcov", that is, as to w h a t
resides in the p o w e r o f fate a n d w h a t resides in h u m a n p o w e r . I n Ant.
1 8 : 1 3 , 18, a g a i n , J o s e p h u s will raise the issue in c o n n e c t i o n with the
Pharisees a n d Essenes.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 133

The o b v i o u s p r o m i n e n c e o f the fate/free will issue in J o s e p h u s ' s des­


49
c r i p t i o n o f the cupeaetc; p r o m p t s b o t h literary a n d historical q u e s t i o n s ,
viz.: ( a ) W h a t d i d J o s e p h u s m e a n to say a b o u t fate a n d free will in
J e w i s h t h o u g h t ? a n d ( b ) w h a t historical reality w a s h e d e s c r i b i n g ? W e
c a n n o t e x a m i n e here the extensive b o d y o f s e c o n d a r y literature that has
g r o w n u p a r o u n d these questions b e c a u s e the literature tends to c o n s i d e r
t o g e t h e r : ( i ) all o f the passages o n fate a n d free will a m o n g the schools
(usually f o c u s i n g o n Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ) ; ( i i ) the q u e s t i o n o f parallels ( i . e . ,
"Was J o s e p h u s m o r e J e w i s h o r m o r e G r e e k ? " ) ; a n d (iii) the q u e s t i o n
of Josephus's sources. T h e format o f the present study, however,
d e m a n d s that passages b e treated i n d i v i d u a l l y . Further, o u r interest is
c o n f i n e d to the q u e s t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s intention: " W h a t d i d h e m e a n to
s a y ? " F o r a r e v i e w o f the scholarly d i s c u s s i o n in situ the r e a d e r is re­
ferred to A p p e n d i x B ; v i e w s presented there will o n l y b e m e n t i o n e d here
in the n o t e s .

1. Key Terms
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

I n its o b j e c t i v e sense, eifxocpuivr) almost always refers to the idea o f an


5 2
appointed and unavoidable time, place, o r m a n n e r o f death. Thus
H e r o d c o m p l a i n s o f his aBixov eiu.apuivr)v, w h e n h e p e r c e i v e s that his
family w a n t s his d e a t h ( 1 : 6 2 8 ) ; later, h e tries to anticipate TTJV ei(iocpuiv7)v
b y suicide ( 1 : 6 6 2 ) . W h e n M a t t h i a s ( = M a t t a t h i a s ) the H a s m o n e a n dies,
he allows that he is g o i n g " t h e destined w a y " (XTJV etu.ocpuivT)v 7copetocv—
adjectival u s a g e , Ant. 1 2 : 2 7 9 ) . N o t i c e also War 1:79, w h e r e J u d a s the
Essene speaks o f the p l a c e a p p o i n t e d o r " p r e d e s t i n e d " (x<*>ptov . . . el'fi-
apxo) for the d e a t h o f A n t i g o n u s the Hasmonean.
In the m a j o r i t y o f cases, h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s etu.ocpu.ev7) as a
subject, as h e d o e s in the s c h o o l passages. A n d it is these instances that
c a n b e e x p e c t e d to shed the m o s t light o n o u r p r o b l e m .
( i ) In War 6 : 8 4 , eiu.ocpuiv7) as subject c o m e s v e r y close to the usual o b ­
j e c t i v e m e a n i n g o f " o n e ' s allotted time a n d place o f d e a t h " . T h e R o m a n
h e r o J u l i a n u s , w e are t o l d , a l t h o u g h he h a d fought valiantly, w a s p u r ­
sued b y Fate (eBtcoxexo . . . UTCO xfj? eiu.ocp[AevT)?), " w h i c h e v e r y m o r t a l is
p o w e r l e s s to e s c a p e " (rjv au/rjxocvov SiacpuyeTv Gvr)x6v ovxa), a n d m e t an u n ­
fortunate d e a t h .
(ii) G e n e r a l l y , h o w e v e r , eiu.ocpu.evT) as a subject in J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s in
close p r o x i m i t y to Geo?. T h i s is true, for e x a m p l e , o f the six o c c u r r e n c e s
o f the w o r d in War in the c o n t e x t o f the destruction o f the T e m p l e .
R e p o r t i n g o n the v a r i o u s factions in J e r u s a l e m , J o s e p h u s notes that b o t h
the bellicose I d u m e a n s a n d the m o d e r a t e s u n d e r A n a n u s t h o u g h t that
G o d (6 Geo?) w a s o n their o w n side (War 4 : 2 8 8 ) . O n e reads o n , h o w e v e r ,
to find that they h a d mistakenly read the future ( § 2 8 9 ) a n d that the
" d e c r e e o f F a t e " (cjTpotTTjyoucjT)? xrj? ei[xocpuiv7)?) b r o u g h t a b o u t the deaths
o f A n a n u s a n d his sentries ( 2 9 7 ) . Et[xap(xevr) here e x e c u t e s the will o f
God.
(iii) In a speech o u t s i d e the T e m p l e p r e c i n c t s , J o s e p h u s calls o n the
intransigent J o h n o f G i s c h a l a to quit the revolt b e f o r e the T e m p l e is
d e s t r o y e d (War 6 : 9 6 f f . ) . A t the e n d o f his s p e e c h , J o s e p h u s confesses his
own foolishness "for offering a d v i c e in fate's despite" (o? avxtxpu?
et[xap(xevT)? xiTCocpocivoa)a n d " f o r struggling to save those w h o m God has
c o n d e m n e d " (xou? urcd xou Geou xocxocxpixou?, § 108; T h a c k e r a y ) . T h e syn­
o n y m o u s parallelism b e t w e e n fate a n d G o d is clear. It is c o n f i r m e d b y
the sequel: " G o d it is then, G o d h i m s e l f (Geo? ocuxd?), w h o with the
R o m a n s is b r i n g i n g the f i r e " ( § 1 1 0 ; T h a c k e r a y ) .
( i v ) C o n c e r n i n g the d a y o f the T e m p l e ' s d e s t r u c t i o n , J o s e p h u s writes:

5 2
Cf. V . Cioffari, "Fortune, Fate, and Chance", in Dictionary of the History of Ideas,
ed. P. P. Wiener (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), II, 226: "The notion of
Fate may very well have arisen from the observation of the inexorability of death."
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 135

T h a t b u i l d i n g , h o w e v e r , G o d (6 8e6?), i n d e e d l o n g s i n c e , h a d sentenced to
the flames; b u t n o w . . . h a d a r r i v e d the fated d a y (TJ eifiapuivr) rjfxepa) . . .
the d a y o n w h i c h o f old it h a d b e e n b u r n t b y the k i n g o f B a b y l o n . ( § 2 5 0 ;
Thackeray).

To b e " f a t e d " , t h e r e f o r e , is t o b e d e c r e e d b y G o d . A f e w s e n t e n c e s later


Josephus comments:

D e e p l y as one m u s t m o u r n for the most m a r v e l o u s edifice w h i c h we h a v e


ever seen o r h e a r d of, . . . yet we m a y d r a w v e r y great c o n s o l a t i o n f r o m
the thought that there i s n o escape f r o m F a t e (TTJV etfxocpuivTjv, occpoxxov ouaocv,
§ 267; Thackeray).

J o s e p h u s m a r v e l s at the axptfktoc o f Fate, b y w h i c h she c h o s e the v e r y


d a t e o f the T e m p l e ' s f o r m e r d e s t r u c t i o n for its present catastrophe (§
268). T h e w h o l e n a r r a t i v e is o f o n e p i e c e , so the et[xocpfiev7) f r o m w h i c h
5 3
J o s e p h u s d r a w s c o n s o l a t i o n ( o r e x p l a n a t i o n ) is n o t h i n g o t h e r t h a n the
5 4
will o f G o d b e i n g a c t e d o u t .
( v ) L i k e w i s e , w h e n J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that et(xap[xevirj h a d shut u p a l a r g e r
t h a n usual n u m b e r o f p e o p l e in J e r u s a l e m at the o u t b r e a k o f the r e v o l t ,
d u r i n g P a s s o v e r ( 6 : 4 2 8 ) , the r e a d e r has n o t h a d t i m e t o forget Titus's
w o r d s : " G o d i n d e e d has b e e n w i t h us in the w a r " ( 6 : 4 1 1 ; T h a c k e r a y ) .
And the r e a d e r will s o o n b e assured that God m e t e d o u t r e t r i b u t i o n to
the tyrants w h o c a u s e d all o f the suffering a n d d e s t r u c t i o n ( § 4 3 3 ) .
5 5
(vi) T h e thesis o f War is that G o d is o n the R o m a n s i d e , which ex­
plains J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k a b o u t V e s p a s i a n :
56
Now that fortune (TJ TUXTJ) was e v e r y w h e r e f u r t h e r i n g his wishes a n d that
c i r c u m s t a n c e s h a d for the most part c o n s p i r e d i n his f a v o u r , V e s p a s i a n was
led to t h i n k that d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e (8at[xovtoc 7Up6vota) h a d assisted h i m to
grasp the e m p i r e a n d that some j u s t d e s t i n y (Stxatoc xt? et{JLap(x£vTj) h a d
p l a c e d the sovereignty o f the w o r l d i n h i s h a n d s ( 4 : 6 2 2 ; T h a c k e r a y ) .

The indefinite p r o n o u n Tt?, b e i n g indefinite, reflects V e s p a s i a n ' s d a w n ­


i n g a w a r e n e s s that h e is r e c e i v i n g d i v i n e aid ( a l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f
k n o w s v e r y well who is b r i n g i n g the R o m a n v i c t o r y ) a n d , b e i n g p e r s o n a l ,

5 3
For "explanation" or "solution" as a meaning of 7capa9u(xta, see LSJ (,9th. edn.).
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

solidifies the parallel with Soctfxovia rcpovota a n d the o t h e r references to


G o d ' s assistance to the R o m a n s ( e . g . , 2 : 3 9 0 ; 5 : 3 6 7 ; 6 : 4 1 1 ) .
(vii) T h e w o r d s p u t into the m o u t h o f K i n g A g r i p p a , w h o is a b o u t to
die in retribution for his a c c e p t a n c e o f w o r s h i p as a g o d , are also n o t e ­
worthy:

Fate (eifxapuivr)) brings immediate refutation of the lying words lately ad­
dressed to m e . . . . But I must accept m y lot (TTJV 7ce7ipco(xevTjv) as G o d (Oeos)
wills it. (Ant. 19:347; Feldman)

H e r e rjrcsTCpoouivT]is what G o d has d e c r e e d ; eifxocpuivr), a g a i n , is the e x ­


e c u t i o n o f that d e c r e e .
(viii) T h e o n l y o t h e r passage in w h i c h J o s e p h u s discusses eifxapuivrj in
c o n n e c t i o n with 9eo$ is Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 4 5 . T h e r e he ridicules the w a y in w h i c h
the G r e e k Oeoi are p r e s e n t e d b y H o m e r , for Z e u s is " s o c o m p l e t e l y at
the m e r c y o f D e s t i n y (xpaxoufxevos urco TTJS eifxapuivrj) that he c a n n o t
5 7
either rescue his o w n offspring o r restrain his tears at their death"
( T h a c k e r a y ) . S u c h an idea, J o s e p h u s c l a i m s , reflects a m i s a p p r e h e n s i o n
5 8
o f the true n a t u r e o f G o d (Ag.Ap. 2:250).
In all o f these passages J o s e p h u s presents a clear a n d consistent v i e w
o f the relationship b e t w e e n eifxapuivrj a n d 6e6$. Eifxapuivrj is n e v e r a
59
supreme or even autonomous entity. O f t e n u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y with
9e6<;, it is s i m p l y the e x e c u t i v e aspect o f the d i v i n e will.
The frequent juxtaposition o f eifxapuivrj and 0e6$ in Josephus's
writings has o b v i o u s i m p l i c a t i o n s for the q u e s t i o n o f h o w a n d w h e r e he
used s o u r c e s . Several c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e t h o u g h t that the tandem
etfxapfxevrj xal 0ea> in War 2 : 1 6 3 requires e x p l a n a t i o n , either as J o s e p h u s ' s
attempt to e x p l a i n the J e w i s h sense o f 0e6$ to Hellenistic readers ( b y ad­
60
d i n g eifxapfxevrj) or as J o s e p h u s ' s superficial attempt to j u d a i z e a
61
Hellenistic d e s c r i p t i o n o f the s c h o o l s , w h i c h c o n t a i n e d o n l y eifxapfxevrj.
But o n c e it is o b s e r v e d that J o s e p h u s regularly c o m b i n e s 9eo$ a n d
eifxapfxevrj in his o w n w r i t i n g ( a n d t h o u g h t ! ) , such stratagems b e c o m e

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

superfluous. It is w h o l l y in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h a n u s a g e , further, that


in 2 : 1 6 4 , the S a d d u c e e s ' a b o l i t i o n o f eifxapfxevrj is parallel to their
" r e m o v a l o f G o d (8e6^) f r o m the sphere o f h u m a n a c t i o n " . 6 2
T h e fact
that h e h i m s e l f c a n substitute 6e6$ for eifxapfxevrj in v a r i o u s d e s c r i p t i o n s
o f the Essenes (Ant. 1 8 : 1 8 ; cf. 1 3 : 1 7 2 ) o u g h t to h a v e b e e n sufficient to
p r e c l u d e extravagant s o u r c e h y p o t h e s e s .
Does Josephus's use of eifxapuivrj accord with any particular
p h i l o s o p h i c a l currents in the Hellenistic w o r l d ? A l t h o u g h the i d e a o f a
6 3
predetermined order was present in Greece from earliest times,
64
eifxapfxevrj itself o n l y c a m e into its o w n with the G r e e k p h i l o s o p h e r s . A c ­
c o r d i n g to D i o g e n e s Laertius ( 9 : 7 ) , it w a s H e r a c l i t u s ( 5 0 3 B C ) w h o in­
troduced the term into Greek philosophical discussion, with the
65
aphorism rcavTa xe yiveaOai xaO' eifxapjxevrjv. Notice the striking
similarities to this d i c t u m in w h a t J o s e p h u s ascribes to the Pharisees
6 6
(eifxapuivrj 7Cpoaa7iTouai 7cdvxa, War 2 : 1 6 3 ) , to the Essenes (jxrjSev o fxrj
xax' exeivrjs [sc. eifxapfxevrj?] c|>fj90v avGpa>7ioi<; arcavxa, Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 ) , a n d to
h i m s e l f (xaXoufxev auxrjv eifxapfxevrjv, 6>q ou8ev6$ 6Vro<; o fxrj 5V auxrjv yivexai,
Ant. 1 6 : 3 9 7 ; cf. War 6 : 8 4 ) . Y e t s o m e 6 0 0 years separate J o s e p h u s f r o m
H e r a c l i t u s , a n d the i d e a o f eifxapfxevrj w a s to b e c o m e m o r e p o p u l a r a n d
n u a n c e d d u r i n g that t i m e .
In Plato's thought, W . G u n d e l sees a radical shift in the use o f
67
eifxapfxevrj. I n his earlier w o r k s Plato ridicules as effeminate the i d e a
6 8
that eifxapuivrj c a n n o t b e a v o i d e d ; his later w o r k s , h o w e v e r , reveal an
69
i n c r e a s i n g a c c e p t a n c e o f — e v e n an e m p h a s i s o n — t h e i d e a o f f a t e . Thus
in the tenth b o o k o f his Republic Plato tries to effect a s y m b i o s i s b e t w e e n
7 0
fate a n d free will, w h i c h he d o e s b y resorting to the M y t h o f E r .

6 2
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

It w a s S t o i c i s m , h o w e v e r , that r e c l a i m e d the heritage o f H e r a c l i t u s


7 1
a n d elevated etu.apu.ev71 to a central r o l e . Being a monistic philosophy,
S t o i c i s m c o u l d n o t h y p o s t a t i z e etu.apu.evri o r distinguish it o n t o l o g i c a l l y
7 2
from the o n e W o r l d - S o u l , the Logos. Thus the Stoics identified
Etu.apu.evri w i t h 0 e 6 $ , Ouats, Aoyoq, Ilpovota, a n d all o f the other terms
that they u s e d for the W o r l d - S o u l , as the f o l l o w i n g e x a m p l e s s h o w :
4 4
(i) D i o g e n e s Laertius 7 : 1 3 5 , o n the Stoics: G o d is o n e a n d the s a m e
with R e a s o n , Fate, a n d Z e u s ; h e is also called b y m a n y other n a m e s "
("Ev T ' etvat Geov xat vouv xat etfiapuivTjv xat Ata; TioXXas T ' exepa<; ovojxaata?
7rpoaovo[Aaf|ea6ai).
(ii) Z e n o is r e p o r t e d to h a v e w h o l l y identified et(xap(xevrj with rcp6vota
a n d (fiaiq: (TTJV et(xap[xevrjv) 8uvau.tv xtvrjTtxriv vf\q O'Xrj^ . . . [xrj Sta^epetv
7cp6votav xat <puatv xaXetv ( S t o b a e u s , Eel., I, 178 = SVF I, 1 7 6 ) .
(iii) C h r y s i p p u s , the third h e a d o f the S t o i c s c h o o l , a p p a r e n t l y w r o t e
in several places ( i n c l u d i n g his lost w o r k Ilept vf\$ Etfxapuivrjs): etu/xpuivrj
eaxtv 6 TOU x6au.ou Xoyoq ( S t o b a e u s , Eel., I, 1 8 0 ) .
(iv) T h e S t o i c S e n e c a likewise identifies J u p i t e r w i t h fatum, providentia,
a n d natura {Benefits 4 . 7 . 2 ; Natural Questions 2 . 4 5 . 2 ) .
( v ) Plutarch, the first-century adversary o f the S t o i c s , writes: " t h a t the
universal n a t u r e (rj xotvrj qjuaic) a n d the universal r e a s o n o f nature (6
xotvo$ Tfjs qjuaecos Xoyoq) are destiny (et(xap(xevrj) a n d p r o v i d e n c e (7tpovota)
a n d Z e u s , o f this n o t e v e n the A n t i p o d e s are u n a w a r e , for the Stoics k e e p
h a r p i n g o n this e v e r y w h e r e . " (Stoic Self-Contradictions 1050 B ; C h e r n i s s ,
LCL edn.)
(vi) Finally, A u g u s t i n e (City of God 5 : 8 ) notes that the Stoics call J o v e
73
Fate.
A s the Stoics u s e d etu.apuivri to d e s c r i b e the u n a v o i d a b l e c h a i n o f cause
a n d effect e m p o w e r e d b y the L o g o s / G o d , so J o s e p h u s uses the t e r m as
a s y n o n y m f o r , o r c o m p l e m e n t t o , Geo^ w h e n s p e a k i n g o f G o d ' s activity
in the world. B y presenting the Pharisees as those who attribute
74
e v e r y t h i n g to et[xap(xevr) xat Geco, J o s e p h u s m a y b e anticipating o n e o f

71
Cf. Stock, "Fate", 789; Gundel, "Heimarmene", 2628; W . Windelband, A
History of Philosophy, trans. J. H . Tufts (New York: Macmillan, 1910), 192f.; Amand,
Fatalisme et Liberte, 6f.; Greene, Moira, 338f.; Cioffari, "Fortune", 228; and Kajanto,
God and Fate, 13.
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

the bases o n w h i c h h e will later c o m p a r e the Pharisees to the Stoics (Life


7 5
12).
N o t o n l y the p a i r i n g o f ei[xap(x£vrj a n d Oeo^ b u t also the a s c r i p t i o n o f
e v e r y t h i n g (rcdcvTa) t o SLfxapuivr) recalls a S t o i c p o s i t i o n . C i c e r o d e s c r i b e s
as S t o i c the v i e w that omnia fato fiunt (On Fate, 4 0 f . ) . D i o g e n e s Laertius
likewise d e s c r i b e s the v i e w s o f l e a d i n g Stoics:

That all things happen by fate or destiny (xocO' etjxapfxevTjv hi 9<xat xa 7cdcvca
yiyvea9at) is maintained by Chrysippus in his treatise De fato, by Posidonius
in his Defato, book ii, by Z e n o and by Boethus in his Defato, book i (7:149).

S u c h a v i e w w a s u n a v o i d a b l e b e c a u s e o f the S t o i c e q u a t i o n o f stu.ocpuiv7)
with X6yo$. Here, then, is a further parallel between Josephus's
Pharisees a n d the Stoics.
Y e t a l t h o u g h S t o i c i s m b e c a m e the d o m i n a n t p h i l o s o p h i c a l system o f
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.

S o w e c o n c l u d e that J o s e p h u s ' s use o f stfxapuivr) m o s t closely parallels


83
that o f S t o i c i s m , n o t astral f a t a l i s m , a n d that it c o u l d well b e u n d e r ­
s t o o d b y a Hellenistic r e a d e r s h i p . J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , attribute
to a n y o f the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , o r to himself, a belief in a n y o f the o t h e r
84
particular S t o i c d o c t r i n e s .
M o s t interesting for the interpretation o f War 2 : 1 6 3 are f o u r passages
in w h i c h J o s e p h u s seems to b e d i v u l g i n g his o w n v i e w s a b o u t the rela­
tionship b e t w e e n fate (eifxapfxevrj) and human a c t i o n (TOC <xv6p<o7uivoc
Trpocyfxaxa).
(i) Ant. 3 : 3 1 4 : " F r o m these events [ G o d ' s d e s t r u c t i o n o f the i m p i o u s
kings o f Israel] o n e m a y learn h o w close a w a t c h the D e i t y keeps o v e r
h u m a n affairs (oarjv TO Oetov e m a T p o ^ v tyii TCOV avOp<07Ctvcov TrpayfxdTcov)
a n d h o w H e l o v e s g o o d m e n b u t hates the w i c k e d , w h o m H e destroys
root and b r a n c h . " ( T h a c k e r a y / M a r c u s )

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

(ii) Ant. 10:277-280. Having discussed the remarkable fulfillment of


Daniel's prophecies, Josephus asserts that anyone reading them must:

learn from these facts how mistaken are the Epicureans, who exclude Pro­
vidence from life and refuse to believe that God governs its affairs (ot TTJV
xercpovotocv£x(3aXXouat TOU (3IOU xat 8e6v oux aijiouaiv £7ctTpo7ceuetv TCOV
7cpaYfxocT<ov).

H e goes on to castigate "those who judge there to be no foreknowledge


(rcpovotoc) of human affairs (rapt TCOV avSpcomvcov) with G o d " (§ 2 8 0 ) .
(hi) Ag.Ap. 2:180, where Josephus criticizes those who do away with
the foreknowledge (rcpovoia) of G o d . T h e L a w , says Josephus, teaches
that all things are under the eye of G o d (TCOCVTOC . . . exetvov e9opav, § 181).
Contrast these tenets of Josephus with the views that he attributes to the
Sadducees in War 2:164, who "do away with fate entirely" (TTJV uiv
si[X<xpuiv7)v 7TavT<X7i;aaiv avaipouaiv) "and place G o d beyond the threshold
of doing or even observing anything" (xat TOV Oeov e^co TOU Spav TL rj
e<popav Ti9evT0ct). L . Wachter is doubtless correct in finding here a harsh
85
assessment of the Sadducees.
(iv) Ant. 16:395-404, where Josephus discusses in some detail the rela­
tion between fate/providence and human responsibility. Prior to this
passage he has recounted the long period of mistrust and intrigue be­
tween Herod and two of his sons, which ended in the deaths of the sons.
Now Josephus reflects upon the causes of this tragedy and considers
three possibilities: (a) the intransigence of the sons (§ 3 9 5 ) ; (b) the vanity
of Herod (§ 2 9 6 ) ; and (c) Fortune (rj TUXTJ). O f the last he writes:

who has a power greater than all prudent reflection. For which reason we
are persuaded that human actions (T<X<; avSpcorcivai; repasts) are dedicated by
her beforehand to the necessity of taking place inevitably, and we call her
Fate (etfxapfxevTjv) on the ground that there is nothing that is not brought
about by her (ou8evd<; OVTO<; 0 fxrj 8t' ocuTrjv ytveTOct). (§ 397; Marcus/Wikgren)

Yet he does not leave the matter there—thereby making TuxVei[xapfJiev7)


the culprit—but continues:

It will be enough, so I think, to weigh this tenet against that which at­
tributes something also to us ourselves and renders us not unaccountable
for the differences in our behaviour, and which has been philosophically ex­
pounded before our time in the Law. (§ 398)

TOUTOV fxev ouv TOV Xoyov, cb$ vo(At£co, 7up6<; exetvov apxeaei xptvetv rjfxtv Te OCUTOU;
&7uo8t86vT<x<; TI xat TOC? 8ta9opa<; TCOV e7UT7)8eufxaTcov oux dva7ceu8uvou<; rcotouvTas,
a rcpo rj(xcov TJSTJ 7ce(ptXo<j697]Tat xat TCO vofxco.

8 5
L. Wachter, "Unterschiedliche Haltung", 99f.
142 CHAPTER SIX

The m e a n i n g o f this statement is n o t i m m e d i a t e l y clear, b u t appears to


h i n g e o n the sense o f xptvetv. It c a n n o t m e a n " d e c i d e in f a v o u r o f [the
fatalist p o s i t i o n ] ' ' b e c a u s e J o s e p h u s will presently return to the h u m a n
causes ( § § 3 9 9 - 4 0 4 ) o f H e r o d ' s p r o b l e m s a n d will ultimately lay m o s t o f
8 6
the b l a m e o n H e r o d . N o r c a n it m e a n " d e c i d e against, c o n d e m n [the
fatalist position]" because: (a) this would make nonsense of the
p r e c e d i n g w o r d s , w h i c h e x t o l the o m n i p o t e n c e o f fate; ( b ) e l s e w h e r e , as
w e h a v e seen, there is a m p l e e v i d e n c e o f J o s e p h u s ' s b e l i e f in the i n e x ­
orability o f fate; a n d ( c ) neither the v e r b apxeaet ( " i t will b e e n o u g h " )
n o r the present tense o f xptvetv implies a n y finality; b o t h rather suggest
an o n g o i n g tension b e t w e e n the t w o Xoyot o f fate a n d h u m a n respon­
8 7
sibility. H e n c e m y translation " w e i g h a g a i n s t " . J o s e p h u s wants s i m p l y
to b a l a n c e his b e l i e f in " f a t e " with a statement o f h u m a n responsibility.
To summarize: Josephus b e l i e v e s that G o d o b s e r v e s (e90pav) and
88
directs h u m a n affairs; h e calls G o d ' s d i r e c t i o n etu.apu.evri o r rcpovota.
God's superintendence, however, does not exclude human respon­
sibility. J o s e p h u s declines the o p p o r t u n i t y to r e c o n c i l e h u m a n respon­
sibility a n d d i v i n e p r o v i d e n c e , deferring instead to the " p h i l o s o p h i c a l "
treatment in the L a w .
( b ) TO TCpaTTeiv TOC Stxata xal u.rj. W e m a y set s o m e p a r a m e t e r s for o u r
discussion o f Stxatos in J o s e p h u s b y citing D o d d ' s s u m m a r y o f the rela­
tionship b e t w e e n the H e b r e w a n d G r e e k c o n c e p t i o n s associated with this
word:

Where within this field Stxatoouvr) differs from p"re, it is not a matter o f dif­
ference in the meaning o f the terms, but o f different conceptions o f the con­
tent o f 'righteousness'. Thus the fact that p"re is always related to G o d and
His law, rather than to social customs and institutions as such, . . . gives
a different colour to its use. . . . Where the Hebrew conception o f
righteousness differs from the popular Greek conception, we may put it
thus, that whereas for the Greek Stxaioauvrj is always being pulled over from

8 6
It is difficult to see how Wachter ("unterschiedliche Haltung", 10If.) and Stahlin
("Schicksal", 337) can say that Josephus here makes fate all-powerful and autonomous
from God, since Herod catches most of the blame for what happened with his sons. M y
reading (that fate is here an aspect of God's nature) agrees with Posnanski's
(Anschauungen, 13 n. 17); he evidently had a similar difficulty understanding his
predecessor Langen.
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.

I n assessing J o s e p h u s ' s use o f Stxoctos, w e shall n e e d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r


it is m o r e " G r e e k " o r m o r e " J e w i s h " , a c c o r d i n g t o D o d d ' s criteria.
J o s e p h u s is partial t o the Six-word g r o u p a n d uses Sixocios as an adjec­
tive, substantive, o r a d v e r b (Sixaico^) a total o f 3 5 4 t i m e s : 4 8 times in
90
War, 2 8 4 in Ant., 7 in Life, a n d 15 in Ag.Ap. W e have already observed
that in the frequent p a i r euaePifc xai Sixaio^, the f o r m e r t e r m is o r i e n t e d
91
npd$ TOV 8e6v a n d the latter rcpos <xv0pco7cou^. T h a t o b s e r v a t i o n m a y n o w
b e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y o t h e r data that indicate the h u m a n a n d social o r i e n ­
tation o f Sixoti0£ in J o s e p h u s .
S i n c e the phrase u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n is built a r o u n d TOC Stxoctoc, o u r m a i n
c o n c e r n is w i t h the articular substantives TO SIXOCIOV and TOC Stxoctoc.
G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , the singular TO SIXOCIOV d e n o t e s the abstraction
9 2
"justice". F o r e x a m p l e , in Ant. 4 : 2 1 4 - 2 1 8 J o s e p h u s s u m m a r i z e s the
p r o v i s i o n s o f the M o s a i c L a w c o n c e r n i n g magistrates. F o u r times w i t h i n
this p a r a g r a p h TO SIXOCIOV a p p e a r s as the goal o f the magistrates in their
trial o f cases; it is m o s t clearly related t o their a v o i d a n c e o f partiality ( §
2 1 7 ) . H e r o d , w e are t o l d , m a n i p u l a t e d his o w n trial so as to o u t r a g e TO
SIXOCIOV (Ant. 1 4 : 1 7 3 ) . A n d J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that w h e n h e f u n c t i o n e d as
a magistrate in G a l i l e e , h e tried to a v o i d rash d e c i s i o n s a n d all f o r m s o f
b r i b e r y so as t o p r e s e r v e TO SIXOCIOV (Life 7 9 ) . T h e w o r d d o e s n o t always
r e q u i r e such a f o r m a l legal sense, to b e sure, a n d often m e a n s s i m p l y
"justice, fairness, or propriety" in mundane affairs (Ant. 15:218;
16:264; 17:118, 191, 298; 20:181).
W h e n the standard o f fairness o r p r o p r i e t y is articulated b y l a w , a n d
w h e n the l a w in q u e s t i o n is c o n c e i v e d o f as the gift o f G o d t o m a n k i n d ,
as in J u d a i s m , then j u s t b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d o n e ' s fellows will ipso facto
9 3
please G o d a l s o . J o s e p h u s says as m u c h in t w o p l a c e s . First:
9 4
jxe8' cov yap TO Stxatov e a T i
fxeT' exetWv 6 6eo?. (Ant. 15:138)

8 9
C . H . Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1935), 44f. So
also J. A . Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul (Cambridge: University Press,
1972), 47.
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

For with whom justice is,


W i t h them G o d is.

T h e n in Ant. 16:177 he e m p h a s i z e s that j u s t i c e t o w a r d m a n k i n d is the


r e q u i r e m e n t o f the J e w i s h l a w :

A n d it is most profitable for all m e n , Greeks and Barbarians alike, to prac­


tise justice (TO SIXOCIOV), about which our laws are most concerned and, if
we sincerely abide by them, they make us well disposed and friendly (euvoos
xat 9tXou<;; M a r c u s / W i k g r e n )

Since the d i v i n e l y a p p o i n t e d l a w enjoins j u s t i c e , the exercise o f j u s t i c e


brings d i v i n e f a v o u r . N e v e r t h e l e s s , in b o t h o f these cases TO Stxatov is
primarily right b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d s others.
In two other cases, J o s e p h u s comes very close to the sense o f
" r i g h t e o u s n e s s " for TO SIXOCIOV. First, he uses the phrase to d e s c r i b e the
goal o f the Essenes, in Ant. 1 8 : 1 8 , w h e r e the c o n t e x t deals o n l y with mat­
9 5
ters o f the c u l t . A n d w h e n he says that b e c a u s e the J e w s a d m i r e TO
Sixaiov rather than g l o r y (S6£a), they refused to flatter Herod (Ant.
1 6 : 1 5 8 ) , he m a y b e suggesting the n u a n c e " r i g h t e o u s n e s s " , b u t this is
9 6
not clear. T h e c o n t e x t w o u l d s e e m to a l l o w also " p r o p r i e t y / j u s t i c e " .
Y e t aside f r o m these t w o a m b i g u o u s cases, TO Stxatov in J o s e p h u s bears
the simple m e a n i n g o f " j u s t i c e " o r " p r o p r i e t y " in h u m a n affairs.
D e c i s i v e for the interpretation o f o u r phrase m u s t b e the plural TOC
Sixaia, w h i c h o c c u r s substantively 25 times outside o f War 2 : 1 6 3 . In
practically all o f these instances, the t e r m bears n o particular t h e o l o g i c a l
significance b u t rather d e n o t e s h u m a n fairness or justice. W e may
distinguish three specific n u a n c e s :
(1) T w i c e , TOC Sixaia are ties o f family o r race (War 1:508; 2 : 2 1 1 ) .
(2) In n i n e instances TOC Sixaia m a y b e literally translated " r i g h t s " , as,
for e x a m p l e , in the " m e r i t s o r r i g h t s . o f a (legal) c a s e " (War 1:136) o r
" t h e rights o f c i t i z e n s h i p " (TOC Sixaia TOC TTJ<;rcoXiTSias,Ant. 1 2 : 1 2 1 ) . M o s t
o f the o c c u r r e n c e s with this sense are in passages w h e r e J o s e p h u s cites
pro-Jewish d e c r e e s a n d edicts f r o m v a r i o u s G r e c o - R o m a n rulers c o n ­
9 7
c e r n i n g the legal rights (TOC Sixaia) o f J e w s in v a r i o u s parts o f the w o r l d .
(3) In the r e m a i n i n g cases ( a b o u t f o u r t e e n ) , TOC Sixaia m a y s i m p l y b e
r e n d e r e d " w h a t is right, j u s t , fair, o r p r o p e r (in h u m a n a f f a i r s ) " . T h u s
the Essenes swear an oath TOC npbq av0pa>7toi>s Sixaia cpuXa^etv (War 2 : 1 3 9 ) .

9 5
It is worth noting that in the parallel account in War (2:145), the Essenes are said
to be "scrupulously careful and just in their trial of cases" (7uepi . . . xaq xpiaeu; axpt-,
PeaToexot xal Sixaioi). Here Stxaio? clearly refers to human affairs.
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

The c o n c e p t o f j u s t i c e / r i g h t e o u s n e s s (Stxatoauvn, np"I2, a n d related


terms) has a rich history in J e w i s h , G r e e k , a n d early C h r i s t i a n w o r l d s
1 0 2
of thought. T h e n u m b e r o f potential parallels that m i g h t illuminate TOC
Stxata in War 2 : 1 6 3 is e n o r m o u s . It is i m p o s s i b l e t o a t t e m p t h e r e e v e n
the barest s u m m a r y o f the relevant p r i m a r y ( n o t t o m e n t i o n s e c o n d a r y )
literature. Y e t s o m e a c c o u n t m u s t b e taken o f h o w J o s e p h u s ' s u s e o f TOC
Stxata relates t o J e w i s h a n d Hellenistic c o n c e p t i o n s in his o w n d a y .
A useful starting p o i n t is the recent p r o p o s a l o f G . M a i e r that the
phrase TO rcpdtTTetv T a Stxata xat \ir\ (War 2 : 1 6 3 ) is part o f J o s e p h u s ' s at­
tempt t o j u d a i z e a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees g i v e n t o h i m b y his s o u r c e
( N i c o l a u s ) . A s s e r t i n g the ultimately J e w i s h character o f War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ,
M a i e r remarks:

Das gilt vor allem fur die v o n vornherein religios und ethisch gefiihrte
Fragestellung nach dem ' T u n des Rechten', welche die 'Gerechtigkeit'
nicht als eine der vier kardinaltugenden, sondern als Inbegriff des
Geforderten, als das dem Menschen gesetzte Leitbild voraussetzt; hinter dem
griechischen npazxtiv ra Sixaia entdeckt man ohne weiteres das hebrdische HplS nt£W
des A T und der Qumranschriften, das in den Ps Sol und im N T mit 7toteTv
103
8ixatoauv7)v wiedergegeben w i r d . (emphasis added)

For M a i e r , t h e n , J o s e p h u s ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f TO rcpaTTetv TOC Stxata xat (xrj


p r e s u p p o s e s a biblical-Jewish v i e w o f TOC Stxata as the fulfillment o f the
divine c o m m a n d m e n t s . C u r i o u s l y , M a i e r d o e s n o t investigate the m e a n ­
ing o f Stxato^/Toc Stxata elsewhere in J o s e p h u s ; h e is e x c l u s i v e l y c o n ­
c e r n e d with external parallels f r o m the O l d a n d N e w T e s t a m e n t s a n d the
C o m m u n i t y R u l e ( 1 Q S ) o f Q u m r a n , w h i l e apparently d i s c o u n t i n g a n y
G r e e k parallels a priori.
In r e s p o n s e t o M a i e r , it is necessary t o say the f o l l o w i n g .
(i) T h e interpretation o f a n y t e r m in J o s e p h u s m u s t b e g i n w i t h , o r at
least i n c l u d e , an analysis o f his o w n u s a g e . W e h a v e seen that J o s e p h u s

1 0 2
For general treatments of the concept in both Greek and Hebrew thought, cf.
Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 42-59; W . Schrenk, "Sixocux;", TDNT, II, 181ff. For the
O T , cf. A . R . Gordon, "Righteousness ( O T ) " , ERE and the literature cited on p. 784;
Ziesler, Righteousness, 17-45; B. Johnson, "Der Bedeutungsunterschied zwischen sadaq
und sedaqa", Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 11 (1978-79), 31-39; B. Przybylski,
Righteousness in Matthew (Cambridge: University Press, 1980), 8-12. For the 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

Further, the L X X phrases that c o m e closest to J o s e p h u s ' s TO rcpocTTetv


TOC Sixaia are TO rcotetv TOC Stxata ( P r o v . 1 6 : 7 ) , w h i c h has n o H e b r e w
original, a n d rcpdcaaetv TOC Sixata ( P r o v . 2 1 : 7 ) , w h i c h stands for the
H e b r e wfcDDttfDnfety a n d has n o t h i n g to d o with p"TC. T h i s w o u l d s e e m t o
cast c o n s i d e r a b l e d o u b t o n M a i e r ' s a s s u m p t i o n that TO rcpdcTTetv TOC Sixaia
" o h n e w e i t e r e s " reflects a H e b r e w - J e w i s h c o n c e p t i o n .
( i v ) O n the o t h e r h a n d , o n e c a n h a r d l y dismiss the G r e e k parallels to
J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e . T h a t the G r e e k s p e r s o n i f i e d Atxrj a n d ©efit? as deities
in the t i m e o f H o m e r ( a n d b e f o r e ) indicates their early r e v e r e n c e for
1 0 9
norms of behaviour. B y the t i m e o f P l a t o , Sixatoouvrj is n o t o n l y o n e
110 1 1 1
o f the f o u r v i r t u e s ; it is the c h i e f virtue that s u b s u m e s all the o t h e r s .
T h e entire Republic o f Plato has b e e n d e s c r i b e d as " a literary m o n u m e n t
1 1 2
to the c e l e b r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e " . A r i s t o t l e , similarly, d e v o t e s the fifth
113
b o o k o f his Nicomachean Ethics to an analysis o f Stxaioauvrj. Further­
m o r e , the S t o i c C h r y s i p p u s is said to h a v e written a w i d e l y read treatise
1 1 4
"On Justice". T h u s the c o n c e p t o f j u s t i c e / r i g h t e o u s n e s s p l a y e d a
large r o l e in G r e e k t h o u g h t .
It is n o t p o s s i b l e h e r e to g i v e a n y sort o f e x p o s i t i o n o f the n u a n c e s o f
115
Stxaioauvrj for i n d i v i d u a l G r e e k w r i t e r s . W e m a y n o t e , h o w e v e r , that
the G r e e k c o n c e p t w a s f u n d a m e n t a l l y social a n d n o t religious in c o n ­
1 1 6
tent. S o D o d d : " W e m a y take it that the G r e e k - s p e a k i n g p u b l i c , o n
the w h o l e , m e a n t b y Stxaioauvrj d o i n g the right thing b y y o u r n e i g h b o u r ,
1 1 7
h o w e v e r the right thing m i g h t b e c o n c e i v e d . " Aristotle offers as a
common definition (rcdcvTas . . . Xeyetv) o f TO Siaxatov: " T h e j u s t (TO
Stxatov), then, m e a n s the lawful (TO v6(Xt(Jtov) a n d the equitable (TO i'aov)"
(N.E. 5 . 1 . 8 . ) . O r again:

T h e term 'just' is applied to anything that produces and preserves the hap­
piness (euSatfxovta), or the component parts of the happiness, of the political
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

O b s e r v e h o w R a c k h a m s u m m a r i z e s TOC Stxata in Aristotle:

T a Stxata means sometimes 'just acts' in the English sense, sometimes any
acts in conformity with the law, sometimes 'rights' or 'claims', i.e., any
consideration which by law, equity, or custom, certain persons have a right
to expect from others.

T h e senses identified here f o r TOC Stxata in Aristotle c o r r e s p o n d exactly


to those d i s c o v e r e d in J o s e p h u s above.
G i v e n the h i g h d e g r e e o f s e m a n t i c o v e r l a p b e t w e e n Stxato^ a n d p m ,
noted b y D o d d at the outset, it seems u n w i s e t o c l a i m that when
J o s e p h u s u s e d the phrase TO 7rpocTTSiv TOC Stxata xat (ITJ h e w a s thinking o f
an e x c l u s i v e l y H e b r e w c o n c e p t i o n o r an e x c l u s i v e l y G r e e k o n e . W h a t is
clear is: ( a ) that J o s e p h u s ' s Stxatoauvr) generally lacks a n y c o n n e c t i o n
with the idea o f c o v e n a n t ; ( b ) that the phrase in War 2 : 1 6 3 refers to a
straightforward ethical p r o b l e m — " t o d o right o r n o t " ; ( c ) that the
ethical discussion o f TOC Stxata h a d h a d a l o n g a n d v e n e r a b l e history in
Greek thought before Josephus's time; a n d ( d ) that his Hellenistic
1 1 9
readers c o u l d h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d t o u n d e r s t a n d his m e a n i n g . Maier's
1 2 0
p r o p o s a l o v e r l o o k s entirely the p r i m a c y o f ethics in G r e e k thought.
J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisees as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l c o n c e r n e d
a b o u t relations b e t w e e n God/etfxapfxevr) a n d TO inl TOU; av0pa>7iot<; in the
1 2 1
" d o i n g o f w h a t is right o r n o t " . T h i s m e a n s that J o s e p h u s ' s use o f
Stxatov parallels his use of such other terms as euaepeta,
v6[xot/v6fxt(xa/7rocTpia, axptjkia, al'peatg, a n d et(xap(xevr). N o n e reflects a
u n i q u e l y J e w i s h c a t e g o r y ; all are d r a w n f r o m the o r d i n a r y v o c a b u l a r y
of Hellenism.
( c ) inl T0t<; av0p<o7i;ot<; xetaOat. T h i s phrase seems straightforward. T h e
v e r b xetfxat with ev o r ini a n d a dative o c c u r s at least 8 o t h e r times in
J o s e p h u s with the m e a n i n g " t o b e in the p o w e r o f s o m e o n e o r s o m e ­
1 2 2
thing". T h u s J o s e p h u s c l a i m s here that the Pharisees h o l d that " t h e
d o i n g o f right o r n o t " lies m a i n l y with m e n .

1 1 9
Schrenk (TDNT, II, 183) comments on Josephus's frequent use of Stxatoi; in con­
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

J o s e p h u s uses em T0t£ avOpoorcots h e r e to speak o f b o t h the Pharisaic ( §


1
163) a n d the S a d d u c e a n ( § 165) positions; the S a d d u c e e s 9<xatv 8' in
avOpcorccov exXoyfj TO xaXov xal TO xaxov TipoxetaOat. In the parallel at Ant.
13:171-173, however, the p h r a s e is £9' rjfxtv: the Sadducees believe
1 2 3
a7cavT<x 8e £9' rjulv aikots xetaOat ( § 1 7 3 ) .
T w o o b s e r v a t i o n s are p e r t i n e n t h e r e . First, the phrase TO £9' rjulv h a d
taken o n , l o n g b e f o r e J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e , a quasi-technical sense in G r e e k
ethical discussions h a v i n g to d o w i t h the causes o f h u m a n a c t i o n . In the
third b o o k o f his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle is c o n c e r n e d to distinguish
1 2 4
v o l u n t a r y (exouato^) f r o m i n v o l u n t a r y (axouatos) a c t i o n s . N e a r the b e ­
g i n n i n g o f this discussion h e o b s e r v e s that, " w h e n the o r i g i n o f an a c t i o n
is in o n e s e l f (o*>v 8' ev OCUTG> TJ apx*)), it is in o n e ' s p o w e r to d o it o r n o t "
9
(in aura) xat TO rcpaTTetv xat fxrj, 3 . 1 . 6 ; R a c k h a m ) . F u r t h e r a l o n g in his
discussion, Aristotle b e g i n s r e g u l a r l y to use the phrase £9' rjulv for " w h a t
is in o u r p o w e r ' . Especially suggestive o f parallels for J o s e p h u s is 3 . 5 . 2 :

i<p' fjiuv 8TJ xat TJ apeTTj. ojxotwi; 8 e xat TJ xaxta. £v olq yap £ 9 ' 7|pTv TO rcpdtTTetv,
xat TO JXT] TipaTTetv. . . . ware' et TO np&weiv xaXov 6v i(p' Yiyuv eaTt, xat TO firj
Ttpdrretv i<p' TJ[JUV earai ataxpov 6v.

Therefore virtue depends on ourselves. A n d so also does vice. For where


we are free to act we are also free to refrain from acting . . . ; if therefore
we are responsible for doing a thing when to do it is right, we are also
125
responsible for not doing it when not to do it is wrong. ( R a c k h a m )

H e r e w e h a v e , as in J o s e p h u s : a discussion o f the cause o f h u m a n ac­


126
tions; the use o f TO rcpocTTeiv . . . xat firj as a t e r m for ethical a c t i o n ;
and the use o f £71' auTco/£9' rjfxtv to designate " w h a t lies in human
1 2 7
power". O n c e Aristotle h a d c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d the phrase £9' rjulv, it
t o o k a p e r m a n e n t place in ethical discussion c o n c e r n i n g v o l u n t a r i n e s s in
1 2 8
human action.
Second, that J o s e p h u s uses inl (TOIS) dv0pa>7cots in War 2:163-166
rather than £9' rjulv (as in Ant. 13:171-173) may be due simply to
1 2 9
caprice. It is w o r t h n o t i n g , h o w e v e r , that the p r o n o u n rjfxets, w h e n

1 2 3
In describing the Pharisaic position (13:172), the M S S L A M W E support £9' r|[xtv
OCUTOTs.
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

used b y Josephus h i m s e l f in editorial o r reflective c o n t e x t s , usually


130
m e a n s " w e Jews". S i n c e in War 2 : 1 6 3 - 1 6 6 h e is d e s c r i b i n g J e w i s h
p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s (Trap' 'IouSatots, § 1 1 9 ) it m i g h t h a v e c a u s e d s o m e
v a g u e n e s s if he h a d u s e d the usual £ 9 ' rjulv h e r e . I n Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 ff., h o w ­
e v e r , the situation is different, b e c a u s e he b e g i n s b y d e f i n i n g the d e b a t e
as 7cept TG>V avOpcomvcov Trpa^fxaTcov ( § 171). There, £9' rjfxtv w o u l d
naturally b e u n d e r s t o o d as " i n human p o w e r " . I n a n y c a s e , the phrase
c h o s e n b y J o s e p h u s in War 2 : 1 6 3 w o u l d , it s e e m s , h a v e b e e n u n d e r s t o o d
b y Hellenistic readers as referring to the discussion o f h u m a n volun­
tariness a n d culpability that h a d b e c o m e p r o m i n e n t w i t h Aristotle.
( d ) T h e m e a n i n g o f (JorjGetv also seems clear in its c o n t e x t : a l t h o u g h
the d o i n g o f right a n d w r o n g rests m a i n l y w i t h m e n , eifxapuivrj assists in
e a c h case. T h e v e r b (JorjOeco is at h o m e in J o s e p h a n v o c a b u l a r y . It o c c u r s
a total o f 6 0 times: 19 in War, 38 in Ant., 1 in Life, a n d 2 in Ag.Ap. The
abstract noun (JorjGeta is likewise e v e n l y distributed thoughout his
1 3 1
w r i t i n g s , for a total o f 67 o c c u r r e n c e s .
W h a t is striking a b o u t (JorjOeco in this c o n t e x t is that it recalls o n e par­
ticular p o s i t i o n in the p h i l o s o p h i c a l d e b a t e o n h u m a n voluntariness and
1 3 2
culpability, n a m e l y , that o f C h r y s i p p u s the S t o i c . C h r y s i p p u s tried to
identify the area left for h u m a n will b y S t o i c d o c t r i n e , w h i c h s e e m e d ( t o
its o p p o n e n t s ) to e x c l u d e true v o l i t i o n w i t h its c l a i m that e v e r y t h i n g (TOC
1 3 3
TiavTa) h a p p e n s b y fate ( = p r o v i d e n c e ) . Part o f his s o l u t i o n , a c c o r d i n g
to C i c e r o , w a s to distinguish t w o sorts o f causes in a n y a c t i o n : an antece­
d e n t o r m a i n cause {causaeperfectae et principales) a n d a " h e l p i n g " o r p r o x ­
imate cause (causae adiuvantes et proximae). H i s a r g u m e n t w a s that o n l y the
latter sort o f cause is attributable to eifxapuivrj, w h e r e a s the m a i n cause
1 3 4
o f an a c t i o n lies within the nature o f the p e r s o n o r t h i n g that a c t s .
T h u s w h e n s o m e o n e sets a d r u m rolling d o w n a hill, the p r i n c i p a l cause
1 3 5
o f its rolling is its o w n n a t u r e , its " r o l l a b i l i t y " . T h e initial i m p e t u s

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

f r o m outside that m a k e s possible the rolling m o v e m e n t is o n l y an a u x ­


iliary o r " a d j u v a n t " c a u s e — w h i c h is the role p l a y e d b y fate in h u m a n
136
affairs. S o C h r y s i p p u s ' distinction o f causes a l l o w e d h i m to m a i n t a i n
137
the Stoic d o c t r i n e omnia fato fiunt while at the same time offering a
1 3 8
basis for h u m a n v o l i t i o n .
O u r p u r p o s e is o n l y to o b s e r v e the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e at this p o i n t b e ­
tween the Chrysippean doctrine and Josephus's d e s c r i p t i o n o f the
Pharisaic p o s i t i o n : in b o t h , eifxapuivrj is a cause auxiliary (adiuvo =
PorjOeco) to h u m a n v o l i t i o n . T h a t the c o r r e s p o n d e n c e is exact as far as it
goes d o e s not m e a n , h o w e v e r , that it is c o m p r e h e n s i v e . F o r just as
J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t m a k e G o d a w o r l d - s o u l , so he d o e s n o t elaborate ideas
o f principal a n d auxiliary causes.

2. Interpretation

H a v i n g e x a m i n e d the key terms in the passage, w e m u s t n o w interpret


J o s e p h u s ' s remarks o n the Pharisees, fate, a n d free will. T o d o s o , it is
necessary to b r i n g into v i e w the larger fxev . . . 8e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f § § 162-
165, in w h i c h the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s are c o m p a r e d .
After his l o n g a n d l o v i n g description o f the Essenes, Josephus
dispenses with the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s b y c o m p a r i n g their v i e w s o n
several points. T h e first c o n c e r n s their respective v i e w s o f eifxapfxevrj.
H e r e J o s e p h u s presents the t w o positions as p o l a r o p p o s i t e s , character­
ized b y c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r o p o s i t i o n s , n a m e l y :

Pharisees Sadducees
( 1 6 3 ) eifxapfxevrj T £ xal Geco 7rpoaa7i- ( 1 6 4 ) xrjv . . . eifxapjxevrjv 7tavTa7caaiv
xouat Tiavxa avaipooatv xal TOV Geov e£a> . . .
TiGevxai

T h i s contrast m a k e s clear theat the e m p h a s i s in 1 6 2 b - 1 6 3 a is o n the


Pharisaic belief in eifxapuivrj a n d n o t o n the r e c o g n i t i o n o f h u m a n voli­
tion. T h e latter is clearly c o n c e s s i v e : " A l t h o u g h (in their v i e w ) d o i n g
what is right o r not rests m a i n l y with m e n , in e a c h case (ei$ exaaxov) fate
assists."
T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n that fate always assists reasserts the original p r o p o s i ­
tion that e v e r y t h i n g goes b a c k to fate, although J o s e p h u s has n o w

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 .

We h a v e seen o n e o f the w a y s in w h i c h the S t o i c C h r y s i p p u s tried to


mitigate this p r o b l e m . F o r the E p i c u r e a n s , A c a d e m i c s , a n d Peripatetics
the p r o b l e m w a s n o t as severe b e c a u s e they d i d n o t a c c e p t the m o n i s t i c
152
p r e m i s e o f universal c a u s a l i t y . Still, the p r o b l e m o f fate a n d free will
has persisted w h e r e v e r b e l i e f in an all-powerful G o d has b e e n m a i n ­
1 5 3
tained.
W h a t all o f this s h o w s is that J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees
w o u l d h a v e b e e n readily intelligible to an e d u c a t e d Hellenistic reader.
The Pharisees, he says, are the l e a d i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l a m o n g the
J e w s , a n d , like the l e a d i n g Hellenistic s c h o o l (the S t o i c s ) , they attribute
e v e r y t h i n g to fate o r G o d . A l s o like the S t o i c s , the Pharisees b o t h c o n ­
c e d e that v i r t u o u s a c t i o n lies in m a n ' s p o w e r a n d insist that etfxocp(xevr)
c o o p e r a t e s ($or\H<x>/adiuvo) in e a c h a c t i o n .
It is b e y o n d the s c o p e o f this study to d e c i d e w h e t h e r o r n o t J o s e p h u s
154
was right. Suffice it here to n o t e : ( a ) that J o s e p h u s k n e w a g o o d deal
m o r e a b o u t the Pharisees, a n d p r o b a b l y a b o u t the S t o i c s , than d o e s
155
modern scholarship; ( b ) that he c o n s i d e r e d the Pharisees a n d Stoics to
be alike in s o m e respects (cf. 7capa7cXrjato<;, Life 1 2 ) ; ( c ) that o u t s i d e
1 5 6
o b s e r v e r s o f ancient J u d a i s m s o m e t i m e s d e s c r i b e d it in S t o i c t e r m s ;

1 5 1
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

a n d ( d ) that m o n i s m a n d m o n o t h e i s m , insofar as they b o t h posit a single


ultimate b e i n g , m u s t share certain c o m m o n features.

D . J o s e p h u s ' s fourth statement a b o u t the Pharisees c o n c e r n s their v i e w s


o n the soul:
(i) c^ux^v TS 7taaocv uiv o^Oapxov,
(ii) [xexaPatveiv 8e etc exepov acojxa TTJV TCOV dyaOtov (AOVTJV,

(iii) xa<; 8s TCOV 9<xuXtov dtSttp Ttuxopta xoXdCea9at.


W i t h the q u e s t i o n o f the s o u l ' s i m m o r t a l i t y w e r e a c h the s e c o n d part o f
the [xev. . . 8e c o n s t r u c t i o n that g o v e r n s o u r p a s s a g e . A s w i t h the fate/free
will issue, J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n first w i t h a s u m m a r y
1
p r o p o s i t i o n a n d then follows with t w o e l a b o r a t i v e clauses: ' e v e r y soul
is i m m o r t a l ; o n l y that o f the g o o d , h o w e v e r , passes into a n o t h e r b o d y ,
w h e r e a s the w i c k e d suffer endless p u n i s h m e n t " . T h e S a d d u c e e s , h o w ­
e v e r , dispense w i t h (dvoctpouatv) all three o f these p o i n t s . J o s e p h u s ' s use
o f dvoctpeco to d e s c r i b e their p o s i t i o n s o n b o t h fate ( § 1 6 4 ) a n d i m m o r ­
tality ( § 1 6 5 ) m a k e s clear that h e is trying to s c h e m a t i z e the v i e w s o f the
t w o g r o u p s as p o l a r o p p o s i t e s : the Pharisees affirm; the S a d d u c e e s d e n y .

1. Analysis of Terms and Concepts

T o d e t e r m i n e h o w this d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees fits into the c o n t e x t


o f J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t , it w o u l d b e o f limited usefulness to e x a m i n e the
discrete o c c u r r e n c e s o f such c o m m o n w o r d s as fxeTOcpocivco, atofxa, i}uyi\,
1 5 7
dyaOos, o r Tijxcopta elsewhere in his w r i t i n g s . O u r interest h e r e is o n l y
in h o w these terms illuminate J o s e p h u s ' s m e a n i n g w i t h respect to the
Pharisaic b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y . T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n limits the f o l l o w i n g
analysis to those passages in J o s e p h u s that deal with the i m m o r t a l i t y o f
the soul. T h e y fall into three g r o u p s : ( a ) those that c o n c e r n the teachings
of the Pharisees and the Essenes; ( b ) those that c l a i m to reflect

J. Bergmann ("Die stoische Philosophic und die jiidische Frommigkeit", in Judaica: Fest­
schrift zu H. Cohens siebzigstem Geburtstage, edd. I. Elbogen, B. Kellerman, E. Mittwoch
[New York: Arno, 1980 (Berlin: B. Cassirer, 1912)], 145-166) is able to list some 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

words are characteristically Josephan.


THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 157

J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w s ; a n d ( c ) those that attribute beliefs to o t h e r in­


dividuals o r g r o u p s .

a) T h e T e a c h i n g s o f the Pharisees a n d the Essenes

Shortly b e f o r e o u r passage (War 2 : 1 6 3 f . ) J o s e p h u s writes o f the Essenes


(2:154-158):

For a m o n g them the view is vigorously maintained that bodies are corrup­
tible and their constituent matter impermanent (98apxoc (xev etvat TOC ato[xocT<x
xat TTJV uXrjv ou fxovtfxov aiktov) but that souls are immortal and imperishable
(TOC<; 8e c|>uxds &9<XV<XTOU<; del Stocjiivetv). Emanating from the finest ether, these
souls become entangled, as it were, in the prison-house of the body (etpXTats
T O t £ acofxaatv) to which they are dragged down b y a sort of natural spell; but
when once they are released from the bonds of the flesh (adpxoc Seajxcov),
then, as though liberated from a long servitude, they rejoice and are borne
aloft. Sharing the belief of the sons of Greece, they maintain that for vir­
tuous (dya8at<;) souls there is reserved an abode beyond the ocean, a place
which is not oppressed b y rain or snow or heat, but is refreshed by the ever
gentle breath of the west wind coming in from the ocean; while they
relegate base (9<xuXoct<;) souls to a murky and tempestuous dungeon big with
never-ending punishments (Ttfxcoptcov dStaXetTCTcov). . . . Such are the
theological views of the Essenes concerning the soul, whereby they ir­
resistibly attract all who have once tasted their philosophy. (Thackeray, ex­
cept first sentence.)

O f the three p o i n t s in the Pharisaic c r e d o ( 2 : 1 6 3 ) , then, the Essenes a c ­


c e p t ( i ) the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul a n d (iii) the everlasting p u n i s h m e n t
(Tifxcopta) o f the w i c k e d (9<xuXoi). O n the destiny o f the dyaGot, h o w e v e r ,
t w o different pictures e m e r g e : the Pharisees h a v e the g o o d passing into
o t h e r b o d i e s ; the Essenes, v i e w i n g the b o d y as a p r i s o n , b e l i e v e in a
special h o m e " b e y o n d the o c e a n " for freed souls.
I n the o n l y direct parallel to these d e s c r i p t i o n s (Ant. 18) J o s e p h u s says
o f the Essenes s i m p l y , " T h e y r e g a r d souls as i m m o r t a l " (dOocvocTtCouatv
Ta<; (Jjuxds, 1 8 : 1 8 ) . F o r the Pharisees, he recalls his three-point s c h e m e in
War 2 : ( i ) souls are i m m o r t a l (dOdvocTOV for ckpOocpTOv); ( i i ) eternal i m ­
p r i s o n m e n t awaits those w h o h a v e lived lives o f v i c e (etpyfxov dtStov for
di8to$ Ttfjtcopta); a n d (iii) v i r t u o u s souls find ease to live a g a i n (potaTcovrjv
TOU dvocptouv instead o f (xeTa(5atvetv et$ eTepov acojxa). It w o u l d appear,
then, that J o s e p h u s u n d e r s t a n d s the Pharisaic a n d Essene v i e w s o f i m ­
mortality to b e quite similar. T h e o n l y n o t i c e a b l e difference is o n the
q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r the soul after death g o e s to an idyllic h e a v e n l y l o c a t i o n
o r enters a n e w b o d y ; a n d w e shall see that e v e n these t w o v i e w s d o n o t
necessarily e x c l u d e e a c h o t h e r .
158 CHAPTER SIX

b ) J o s e p h u s ' s O w n V i e w o f the Afterlife

F o u r passages p u r p o r t to g i v e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w s a b o u t i m m o r t a l i t y .
First, in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Essene belief (discussed a b o v e ) , h e reflects:

For the good (dyocOot) are made better in their lifetime by the hope o f a
reward (Tt(Z7Js) after death, and the passions o f the wicked (xocxcov) are
restrained by the fear that, even though they escape detection while alive,
they will undergo never-ending punishment (dOdvocrov Ttfxcoptocv) after their
decease. (War 2:157; Thackeray)

T h i s r e c o g n i t i o n o f the social utility o f a b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y c o m b i n e s


with J o s e p h u s ' s statement o n the irresistible a p p e a l o f Essene teachings
( 2 : 1 5 8 ) to suggest that h e h i m s e l f e n d o r s e d their p o s i t i o n .
T h e s e c o n d passage c o m e s d u r i n g J o s e p h u s ' s s p e e c h against suicide at
J o t a p a t a , w h e r e his z e a l o u s c o m r a d e s - i n - a r m s , a b o u t to b e o v e r r u n b y
the R o m a n s , w a n t to take their o w n ( a n d his) lives (War 3 : 3 3 5 f . ) . H i s
a r g u m e n t , in effect, is that a l t h o u g h it is p r o p e r to d i e in c o m b a t , it is
i m p r o p e r to take o n e ' s o w n life; o n e m u s t leave to G o d , the g i v e r o f life,
the d e c i s i o n to take it a w a y ( 3 : 3 6 2 - 3 7 1 ) . H e c o n t i n u e s :

All of us, it is true, have mortal bodies (aa>{JUXT<x OvTjxd), composed o f


perishable matter (99<xpTfjs u'Xrjs), but the soul lives forever, immortal (c|>uxn
8e dOdvocTOS det): it is a portion o f the Deity (Oeou [xotpoc) housed in our bodies
. . . . K n o w you not that they who depart this life in accordance with the
law o f nature . . . win eternal renown . . . that their souls, remaining
v
spotless and obedient, are allotted the most holy place in heaven (x<*>P<>
oupdvtov), whence, in the revolution of the ages (Ix 7ceptTpo7if]s atcovcov), they
return to find in chaste bodies a new habitation (dyvotsrcdXtvdvTevotxtCovTOct
acofxaatv)? But as for those who have laid mad hands upon themselves, the
darker regions o f the nether world receive their souls (aSrjs Bexexat xd? c|>uxd$
axoxeivoxepos) . . . . (3:372-375; Thackeray)

T h i r d , J o s e p h u s justifies his i n c l u s i o n o f a story a b o u t a p o s t - m o r t e m


a p p e a r a n c e b y c l a i m i n g that it p r o v i d e s an instance (7capd8ety{Jia) in sup­
p o r t o f the truth o f the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul (Ant. 17:349-354).
I n the final passage, Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 1 7 f . , J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that the ideas o f
an afterlife a n d final j u d g e m e n t are clearly taught in the M o s a i c L a w :

For those who live in accordance with our laws (TOI? vofxtficos (JtoOat) the
prize is not silver or gold. . . . N o , each individual, relying on the witness
of his own conscience and the lawgiver's prophecy, confirmed by the sure
testimony o f G o d , is firmly persuaded that to those who observe the laws
(TOT<; -COOS vofxoix; 8toc9oXdl-ai) and, if they must needs die for them, willingly
meet death (rcpoOufxcos drcoOocvouat), G o d has granted a renewed existence
(SeScoxev 6 8e6$ yeveaOoct 7cdXtv) and in the revolution [of the ages] (ex
7ceptTp07cfj^) the gift o f a better life ((iiov dfxetvco X<x(3etv). (Thackeray)
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 159

Compare now Josephus's own views about the afterlife, given here,
with those that he sets out for both the Pharisees and the Essenes:

Pharisees 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)

As to whether Josephus's own views on immortality are closer to those


of the Pharisees or those of the Essenes, the following observations are
pertinent:
(i) T h e similarities between Josephus's own statements and his des­
cription of Essene teachings are more extensive and verbally closer (cf.
esp. War 2:154//3:372) than are his agreements with Pharisaic positions.
Further, the fact that he introduces his own reflections on the subject at
War 2:157, in the course of his warm description of Essene views, reveals
his sympathy with that group. H e makes his feelings clear by concluding
the passage: "Such are the theological views of the Essenes concerning
the soul, whereby they irresistibly attract (&9UXTOV. . . xaOtevTe^) all who
have once tasted their philosophy" (War 2:158; Thackeray).
160 C H A P T E R SIX

(ii) S i n c e h e will also attribute Pharisaic p o p u l a r i t y in s o m e m e a s u r e


to their b e l i e f in the afterlife (Ant. 1 8 : 1 5 ) , h e s e e m s to b e l i e v e that the
idea o f p o s t - m o r t e m r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s is an attractive one,
w h e t h e r h e l d b y Pharisees o r Essenes.
(iii) O n the p o i n t that distinguishes Pharisees f r o m E s s e n e s — v i z . , the
nature o f the r e w a r d for the g o o d — J o s e p h u s a p p e a r s to agree with the
1 5 8
Pharisaic b e l i e f in " r e i n c a r n a t i o n " , which does not appear a m o n g
Essene beliefs. O n e m u s t e x e r c i s e c a u t i o n , h o w e v e r , for b o d i l y i m m o r ­
tality a n d (at least t e m p o r a r y ) d i s e m b o d i e d bliss are n o t m u t u a l l y e x ­
clusive ideas. J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f c o m b i n e s t h e m w h e n he asserts that
" [ g o o d ] souls . . . are allotted the m o s t h o l y p l a c e in h e a v e n , w h e n c e
(ev0ev), in the r e v o l u t i o n o f the a g e s , they return to find in chaste b o d i e s
a n e w h a b i t a t i o n " (War 3 : 3 7 4 ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s , i n a s m u c h as the Essenes
e n v i s i o n a p e r m a n e n t d i s e m b o d i e d state, J o s e p h u s ' s o w n belief is closer
to that o f the Pharisees.
It a p p e a r s , then, that J o s e p h u s agrees with b o t h the Pharisees a n d the
Essenes o n the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul. L i k e the Pharisees, he e n v i s i o n s
a n e w b o d y for the future state, but he also i n c l u d e s an i n t e r i m state o f
d i s e m b o d i m e n t . In War 2 , h o w e v e r , it is the Essene v i e w that r e c e i v e s
his enthusiastic s u p p o r t ( 2 : 1 5 4 - 1 5 9 ) , w h e r e a s the Pharisaic v i e w ( 2 : 1 6 3 )
is s o m e w h a t a n t i - c l i m a c t i c .

c) O t h e r R e f e r e n c e s in J o s e p h u s to I m m o r t a l i t y

For the sake o f c o m p l e t e n e s s , w e m a y n o t e briefly o t h e r references to i m ­


mortality in J o s e p h u s . T w o o f his characters assert that an h o n o u r a b l e
159
death (OOCVOCTOS) is better than i m m o r t a l i t y (dBocvocatoc). T w o others allow
1 6 0
that h e r o i c death merits a s u p e r i o r f o r m o f i m m o r t a l i t y . Mattathias
the H a s m o n e a n , h o w e v e r , calls for a willingness to die h e r o i c a l l y o n the
g r o u n d that o n e c a n a c h i e v e i m m o r t a l r a n k in the m e m o r y o f o n e ' s
deeds (TTJ 8e TCOV epycov fivrju-T] TOC£IV dOocvocat'ocs Xa(xPdvo[xev)—a com­
1 6 1
paratively w e a k c o n c e p t i o n ! Finally, in E l e a z a r ' s s p e e c h at M a s a d a ,
the rebel l e a d e r tries to c o n v i n c e his c o m r a d e s that life in the b o d y is in­
162
a p p r o p r i a t e to the soul a n d s h o u l d b e e n d e d f o r t h w i t h . T h e principle
of conflict b e t w e e n b o d y a n d soul bears s o m e affinities to the Essene

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

A l l three e l e m e n t s in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees at War


2 : 1 6 3 s e e m clear e n o u g h . A l l o f t h e m a c c o r d with his o w n t h o u g h t s o n
the soul, n a m e l y : e v e r y soul is i m m o r t a l ; eternal p u n i s h m e n t awaits the H
w i c k e d ; a n d a n e w b o d y awaits the g o o d . Interpretation is frustrated
somewhat, however, by Josephus's failure to e l a b o r a t e o n the final
clause. H i s l a n g u a g e is e v e r y w h e r e v a g u e : souls pass i n t o exepov acou.oc,
o r will s i m p l y dvajJtouv, say the Pharisees; in his o w n w o r d s , souls will
yeveaOat rcaXtv, (3tov djxeivco Xa(ktv, o r they ayvots rcaXtv avxevotxtCovTat
acojxaatv. R e m a i n i n g u n a n s w e r e d are the q u e s t i o n s : W h e r e d o e s the n e w
b o d y c o m e f r o m ? W h a t is it like? H o w l o n g will it last? W h e r e d o e s it
live? H o w l o n g is the interval b e t w e e n death a n d "reincarnation"?
J o s e p h u s d o e s offer s o m e clues a b o u t these matters, b u t they c a n o n l y
be adequately interpreted against the b a c k g r o u n d o f c o m m o n l y h e l d
beliefs in the Hellenistic w o r l d .
T h e i d e a o f the s o u l ' s passing at death into a n o t h e r b o d y w a s n o t at
1 6 5
all strange to ancient t h o u g h t . A l t h o u g h s o m e sort o f b e l i e f in the

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

to face j u d g e m e n t for its past life. R e c o m p e n s e is m e t e d o u t either solely


1 7 3 174
in the u n d e r w o r l d o r also b y a n e w i n c a r n a t i o n . Y e t e v e n within
these w o r k s there is s o m e tension ( o r d e v e l o p m e n t ) ; f o r w h e r e a s Phaedo
108c has the n e w b o d y d e t e r m i n e d solely b y the quality o f the p r e v i o u s
life (as p u n i s h m e n t o r r e w a r d ) , the M y t h o f E r (Republic 1 0 : 6 1 3 e f f . )
1 7 5
leaves the c h o i c e o f a n e w b o d y a n d life pattern u p to the s o u l . The
process d e s c r i b e d in these w o r k s is actually iraXtyyeveata a n d not
fxex£[xc|>ux<oat<; b e c a u s e the soul d o e s n o t m e r e l y pass f r o m o n e b o d y to an­
other but spends intervening p e r i o d s in the underworld before it
1 7 6
"becomes again".
In the Timaeus, Plato paints a s o m e w h a t different picture. The
c r e a t o r - G o d fashions o n e soul for e v e r y star a n d assigns e a c h to its star.
E n t r a n c e into a h u m a n b o d y is a test that is r e q u i r e d o f e a c h soul. T h e
soul that s u c c e e d s in m a s t e r i n g the b o d y will return at death to its blissful
life; the o n e that fails will b e g i n a c y c l e o f further i n c a r n a t i o n s in d e s c e n ­
d i n g classes o f b e i n g s — w o m e n , a n i m a l s , b i r d s , etc. In b o t h o f these
s c h e m e s , h o w e v e r , life in the b o d y is inimical to the soul a n d s o m e t h i n g
f r o m w h i c h it desires to b e released.
It is instructive to n o t e P l a t o ' s v o c a b u l a r y o n the t o p i c o f i m m o r t a l i t y .
177
He d o e s n o t h i m s e l f use the n o u n ^ a X i y y e v e a t a , b u t he d o e s e m p l o y
the c o m b i n a t i o nrcdcXtvytyveaOoct to speak o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n . I n Meno 8 1 b
he has S o c r a t e s report a v i e w held b y priests a n d poets that:

The h u m a n s o u l is i m m o r t a l (TTIV C|>UXTJV . . . dcGdvorcov) a n d a l t h o u g h it


c o m e s t o a n e n d , w h i c h is c a l l e d d e a t h , it t h e n l i v e s a g a i n (TOTS hi rcdXtv
ytyveaGat) a n d is n e v e r d e s t r o y e d .

Similarly in Phaedo 7 0 c , Socrates e x p o u n d s the " o l d v i e w " that:

S o u l s g o f r o m h e r e to there [sc. aSrjs] a n d returning here are b o r n again


(rcdXtv . . . y t y v o v x a t ) f r o m t h e d e a d . N o w if t h i s is s o , t h a t t h e l i v i n g ^ a r e
b o r n a g a i n o u t o f t h e d e a d (TCaXtv ytyveaOat ex TG>V (XTCOGOCVOVTCOV xou<; £6avTa$),
are not our souls, then, there?

1 7 3
Meno 81b-c.
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

A little further o n P l a t o i n t r o d u c e s a n o t h e r t e r m into the discussion,


n a m e l y , TO dva(Jto)aea9ai, " l i v i n g a g a i n " . H e uses this t e r m three times
in the a r g u m e n t o f Phaedo 71e a n d then in 72a substitutes a g a i n 7tdcXtv
ytyveaOoct.
Now it is generally r e c o g n i z e d that TCaXtyyeveata a n d dvoc($ta>at$ are
178
equivalent e x p r e s s i o n s . Y e t this e q u i v a l e n c e is n o t always r e c o g n i z e d
by commentators o n J o s e p h u s w h e n he uses dvaPtouv to d e s c r i b e the
Pharisaic v i e w o f the afterlife (Ant. 1 8 : 1 4 ) a n d yeveaOat rcaXtv to d e s c r i b e
his o w n v i e w (Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 1 8 ) , a p o i n t to w h i c h w e shall return presently.
S p e c u l a t i o n a b o u t the afterlife seems to h a v e s u b s i d e d after Plato.
179
A r i s t o t l e ' s skepticism a b o u t personal i m m o r t a l i t y c o r r e s p o n d e d to the
1 8 0
e m e r g i n g rationalism o f the Hellenistic a g e . E p i c u r e a n i s m rejected the
1 8 1
soul's immortality out of hand, while the older schools became
182
generally s k e p t i c a l . E v e n for the Stoics i m m o r t a l i t y w a s p r o b l e m a t i c
b e c a u s e o f their t h o r o u g h - g o i n g m a t e r i a l i s m : " s o u l " for t h e m c o u l d
1 8 3
o n l y b e the active p r i n c i p l e in m a t t e r , the A o y o ^ . It w a s , significantly,
P o s i d o n i u s , the S t o i c t e a c h e r w h o w a s m o s t o p e n to P l a t o n i s m ( a n d so
184
s o m e w h a t a t y p i c a l ) , w h o m o s t clearly e s p o u s e d immortality.
1 8 5
W h e n interest in r e i n c a r n a t i o n r e v i v e d in the late first c e n t u r y B C ,
all o f the earlier ideas f r o m H e r o d o t u s , P i n d a r , E m p e d o c l e s , a n d P l a t o
r e a p p e a r e d . O v i d ' s Metamorphoses ( A D 7 ) , for e x a m p l e , p o r t r a y s the
anima as perpetually passing f r o m o n e b o d y to a n o t h e r as a sort o f
natural p h e n o m e n o n , with n o hint o f m o r a l j u d g e m e n t as the c a u s e :

O u r souls are deathless, and ever, when they have left their former seat,
do they live in new abodes and dwell in the bodies that have received them.
. . . T h e spirit wanders, comes now here, now there, and occupies

1 7 8
Blumenthal, "Palingenesia", 139; Buchsel, 687. The equivalence holds even when
the terms are used in the Stoic context of cosmic rebirth. It was Stoic teaching that gave
currency to both terms.
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

mined by moral factors, on the other. Clearly, Josephus and his


Pharisees e s p o u s e the latter v i e w . H e consistently c l a i m s that it is o n l y
1 9 3
the soul o f the g o o d p e r s o n that r e c e i v e s a better l i f e . Nowhere does
he suggest that souls o f m e n o r animals pass naturally at death into o t h e r
bodies. Rather, he speaks always o f " r e w a r d s a n d p u n i s h m e n t s " for
"virtue and v i c e " .
Y e t J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the afterlife is distinctive. F o r fundamental
to e v e r y o t h e r m o r a l t h e o r y o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n are the beliefs that: ( 1 ) the
b o d y is antithetical to the s o u l ; ( 2 ) life in the b o d y results f r o m a fall;
(3) g o o d souls effect an early release f r o m the xoxXo£ xfj^ yeveaeo)^ a n d
return to their h e a v e n l y h o m e ; a n d ( 4 ) o n l y the impure and con­
taminated souls m u s t s p e n d l o n g e r p e r i o d s in the b o d y . J o s e p h u s ' s o w n
v i e w s a n d those h e attributes to the Pharisees, h o w e v e r , reflect n o n e o f
these features.
J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n is perfectly clear:

[xeTa(Jatvetv 8e et£ exepov acofxa TTJV ([JUXTJV T<OV dyaOcov [X6VTJV, TOCS Se 9<xuX<ov
atSCco Tt{xa)pta xoXdCeaOat. (War 2:163)

I n the parallel passage (Ant. 1 8 : 1 4 ) h e also e m p h a s i z e s that to " l i v e


194
a g a i n " (dvocPtouv) is a r e w a r d (Tifirj). In the Pharisaic s c e n a r i o , as
J o s e p h u s presents it, the w i c k e d n e v e r enter a b o d y again b u t u n d e r g o
eternal (dtStov) p u n i s h m e n t / i m p r i s o n m e n t ; o n l y the g o o d are r e w a r d e d
with a n e w b o d y . O n e reads a b o u t h e a v e n l y realms o n l y o n c e , in
Josephus's o w n d e s c r i p t i o n o f the afterlife (War (3:374). A n d there,
h e a v e n is n o t a final g o a l b u t an intermediate stage for g o o d souls,
" w h e n c e , ev0ev, they return to find in chaste b o d i e s (<xyvot£ aa>(xaatv) a
new h a b i t a t i o n " . A l l o f this r u n s c o u n t e r to the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e o f G r e e k
r e i n c a r n a t i o n t h e o r y that life in the b o d y is a necessary evil, to b e o v e r ­
c o m e as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e .
Three further peculiarities in J o s e p h u s ' s o w n d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the
afterlife s h o u l d b e n o t e d . First, w e h a v e o b s e r v e d that his yeveaGat rcdXtv
a n d dvocPtouv recall the P l a t o n i c rcdXtv ytyveaOat a n d TO dvoc($uoaea9oct. I n
the f o r m e r case, h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s uses an aorist infinitive instead o f

193 war 2:163: rjtyvxht<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

a n e w b o d y for the v i r t u o u s ) a c c o r d with his o w n v i e w s . A l t h o u g h


J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the c o m m o n l a n g u a g e o f reincarnation to d e s c r i b e
b o t h his a n d the Pharisees' v i e w s , those v i e w s still s e e m p e c u l i a r in the
G r e c o - R o m a n c o n t e x t , insofar as they h o l d the n e w b o d y to b e a reward,
o n l y for the souls o f the g o o d . S e e k i n g to u n d e r s t a n d this a n o m a l y better
b y n o t i n g subtleties in J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n , w e h a v e seen: ( a ) that the
n e w b o d y is a special, h o l y b o d y a n d will b r i n g a b o u t a better life; ( b )
that o n l y o n e such b o d y seems to b e e n v i s i o n e d , n o t a " c y c l e o f b e c o m ­
i n g " ; ( c ) that the soul will wait in h e a v e n until its reincarnation; a n d ( d )
that this reincarnation will take place " a t a succession o f the a e o n s /
ages".
T h e f o r m o f reincarnation attributed to the Pharisees b y J o s e p h u s ,
then, bears m a n y similarities to what w e should call r e s u r r e c t i o n — a
Pharisaic d o c t r i n e well attested in the r a b b i n i c literature a n d in the N e w
2 0 7
Testament. A slight difficulty arises, p e r h a p s , with J o s e p h u s ' s use o f
the adjective exepov for aa>[xoc, w h i c h seems to conflict with the c u s t o m a r y
J e w i s h idea that in resurrection the b o d i e s of the dead rise again. O n e
s h o u l d n o t , h o w e v e r , read t o o m u c h into this, since J o s e p h u s m a k e s
plain that the n e w b o d y will b e different f r o m the o l d w i t h respect to its
" h o l i n e s s " (cf. ayvoq)—a v i e w shared to s o m e extent b y the ex-Pharisee
Paul (1 C o r . 1 5 : 3 5 f f . ) . I n a n y case, there is n o q u e s t i o n in J o s e p h u s o f
a repeated e x c h a n g e o f o n e h u m a n ( o r a n i m a l ) b o d y for a n o t h e r .
It w o u l d a p p e a r , then, that at a t i m e w h e n m a n y different v i e w s o f the
afterlife w e r e circulating in the G r e c o - R o m a n w o r l d , J o s e p h u s a d d e d to
the list a J e w i s h t h e o r y o f resurrection b y a p p r o p r i a t i n g for it the
l a n g u a g e o f reincarnation. H e w a s n o t a l o n e in this. T h e a u t h o r o f 2
2 0 8
M a c c a b e e s also applies dvaPtcoai^ to resurrection ( 7 : 9 ) . Similarly, the
a u t h o r o f M a t t h e w a d o p t s the t e r m TraXiyyeveata—which c o m m o n l y re­
ferred to either the rebirth o f souls o r (for the Stoics) the rebirth o f the
2 0 9
c o s m o s — t o indicate the a p p r o a c h i n g k i n g d o m o f G o d ( 1 9 : 2 8 ) .
It is a historical q u e s t i o n , b e y o n d the s c o p e o f this study, w h e t h e r
J o s e p h u s m i s r e p r e s e n t e d the J e w i s h d o c t r i n e o f resurrection b y ap­
p r o p r i a t i n g G r e e k t e r m i n o l o g y for it. A s an entree to that q u e s t i o n , h o w -

2 0 7
Cf. J. Ross, Immortality, esp. 58-68. In the N T , cf. Acts 23:8. I thus agree with
Feldman ( L C L edn. of Josephus, I X , 13 n. c.) that Josephus attributes to the Pharisees
a doctrine of resurrection. I differ from Feldman, however, in two ways: (a) I have not
worked from the premise that Josephus, as a Pharisee, must have known that the group
believed in resurrection; and (b) I do not think that resurrection and "reincarnation"
(in its many Hellenistic modes) are mutually exclusive. Rather, Josephus apparently
considered the former to be one mode—the Jewish mode—of the latter.
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

e v e r , w e m a y e m p h a s i z e : ( a ) that there w a s n o single, authoritative


G r e e k v i e w o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n at the t i m e , v a r i o u s scenarios b e i n g p r o ­
p o s e d ; ( b ) that a n y d o c t r i n e o f resurrection that has the soul l e a v i n g the
b o d y at death a n d then e n t e r i n g either that s a m e b o d y o r a n o t h e r at
s o m e later date is ipso facto a f o r m o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n o r TcaXtyyeveata in the
b r o a d sense; ( c ) that G r e e k ideas o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n m a y h a v e p l a y e d a role
210
in the e m e r g e n c e o f the J e w i s h d o c t r i n e o f r e s u r r e c t i o n ; a n d ( d ) that
a m o n g the J e w s there w e r e also different interpretations o f resurrection
211
and immortality.

E. T h e final statement o f J o s e p h u s o n the Pharisees in War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6


is as f o l l o w s :

<J><xpiaaToi fiev 9tXdXXrjXot Te xat TTJV tit; TO xotvdv opiovotav aaxouvres.

H a v i n g c o m p l e t e d his fxev . . . 8£ c o m p a r i s o n o f the Pharisees a n d Sad­


d u c e e s o n the t w o m a j o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues, J o s e p h u s n o w turns to
their b e h a v i o u r : " W h e r e a s the Pharisees are f o n d o f o n e a n o t h e r and
cultivate h a r m o n y within the g r o u p , the S a d d u c e e s are b o o r i s h e v e n
t o w a r d e a c h o t h e r ; their d e a l i n g s with their fellows are as i n c o n s i d e r a t e
as those with f o r e i g n e r s . "

1. Key Terms

a. T h e w o r d qjtXdXXrjXoc o c c u r s o n l y twice in J o s e p h u s , b o t h times in War


2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 . In 2:165f. he contrasts the Pharisees f a v o u r a b l y with the Sad­
d u c e e s ; at 2 : 1 1 9 , h o w e v e r , a n d this will b e crucial for interpreting o u r
passage, he presents the Essenes as s u p e r i o r to all others in their c o n c e r n
for o n e a n o t h e r : 9tXdXXr)Xot 8e xat TG>V aXXcov rcXeov. T h e m u t u a l affection
o f the Pharisees, then, is r e m a r k a b l e o n l y in c o m p a r i s o n to the rudeness
o f the S a d d u c e e s . It is well k n o w n that J o s e p h u s has little s y m p a t h y for
2 1 2
the S a d d u c e e s . In Ant. 1 8 : 1 6 he m e n t i o n s again their disputatiousness
a n d in 2 0 : 1 9 9 he calls t h e m " s a v a g e " (o>[xot). It is, then, the S a d d u c e e s '

2 1 0
So T . F. Glasson, Greek Influence, If., 5f., 30, who argues that Jewish eschatology
has been too quickly traced to Iran, when the political circumstances of Palestine from
the fourth century BC onward would suggest the likelihood of Greek influence.
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

r u d e n e s s , as m u c h as the P h a r i s e e s ' affection, w h i c h s e e m s to b e the


2 1 3
p o i n t o f the p a s s a g e .
214
b . T h e w o r d Ofxovota taps the r o o t o f a t h e m e that r u n s t h r o u g h o u t
all o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s , b u t is especially p o i g n a n t in War. T h e thesis o f
War, as set o u t in the preface ( 1 : 1 0 ) , is that the destruction o f J e r u s a l e m
was d u e to d o m e s t i c strife (ardat<; otxeta). B u t a r d a t ^ is the o p p o s i t e o f
6(jLOvota. I n failing to ojxovoetv, the rebels failed to live u p t o their prin­
ciples as J e w s .
T h a t a lack o f ofiovotoc leads to destruction is first illustrated in the case
o f H e r o d ' s f a m i l y . H e r o d is p o r t r a y e d as t h a n k i n g C a e s a r for g i v i n g his
sons ofiovota, " s o m e t h i n g greater than a k i n g d o m " ( 1 : 4 5 7 ) , a n d h e a p ­
p o i n t s a d v i s o r s for e a c h s o n to e n s u r e that ojiovotoc is m a i n t a i n e d ( 1 : 4 6 0 ) .
He p r a y s that G o d will ratify the instalment o f his sons as r o y a l t y — a s
l o n g as they 6{xovoetv ( 1 : 4 6 4 ) . A n d he tells his p e o p l e that it is in
e v e r y o n e ' s interest that h e rule in h a r m o n y (xpocretv . . . ojxovoetv, 1:465).
A l a s , h o w e v e r , the t r a g e d y o f H e r o d ' s r e i g n w a s p r e c i s e l y its d o m e s t i c
215
strife a n d intrigue.
Ten o f the r e m a i n i n g sixteen instances o f 6u.6votoc/6fiovoetv in War h a v e
2 1 6
to d o with the thesis o f the w o r k : the factiousness o f the r e b e l s . Titus
c o m e s t o T a r i c h a e a e a n d , finding the J e w s s q u a b b l i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r ,
calls for an i m m e d i a t e attack, b e f o r e they c a n restore Ofxovota ( 3 : 4 9 6 ) .
Conversely, w h e n V e s p a s i a n o b s e r v e s the internal b i c k e r i n g within
J e r u s a l e m , he rejects the a d v i c e to attack b e f o r e they ou-ovofjaetv ( 4 : 3 6 7 ) ,
a r g u i n g rather that such an attack w o u l d d r i v e t h e m to Ofxovota; h e w o u l d
rather wait a n d let t h e m w e a r themselves d o w n ( 4 : 3 6 9 ) . O n t w o o c c a ­
sions J o s e p h u s reports that the rebels c a m e to their senses a n d saw that
their lack o f 6p.6votoc w a s actually a i d i n g the e n e m y ( 5 : 7 2 , 2 7 8 ) . T w i c e
he r e m a r k s sardonically that the rebels e x p r e s s e d ofxovota o n l y in their
h e i n o u s c r i m e s t o w a r d fellow J e w s ( 5 : 3 0 , 4 4 1 ) . H e l a m e n t s the party
strife (TO 9tX6vetxov) that existed in J e r u s a l e m , w h i c h b e g a n in h o m e s a n d
affected those w h o h a d l o n g w o r k e d t o g e t h e r (TG>V 6U.OVOOUVTG>V 7cdXoct,
4 : 1 3 2 ) . T h e final w o r d is g i v e n to T i t u s , w h o , u p o n h e a r i n g o f the s h o c k ­
ing c r i m e s w i t h i n the city, declares that he has g i v e n the J e w s o p p o r ­
tunity for f r e e d o m a n d p e a c e b u t that " t h e y prefer ordain to Ofxovota"
(6:216).

2 1 3
Although the Pharisees are commended, (a) they do not receive the enthusiastic
praise accorded the Essenes in 2:119-161 and (b) the commendation is governed by the
[iev . . . hi comparison with the boorish Sadducees.
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 h a t this c o n t e m p t for 6(x6votoc w a s untrue to J u d a i s m is an i m p o r t a n t


217
t h e m e o f War. T h e p o i n t is m a d e in a passage that explains w h y
J e w i s h attempts to destroy the R o m a n earthworks failed:

For, to begin with, there seemed to be no unanimity in their design (ou8'


ofxovoetv r\ axityu; auTtov etoxet): they darted out in small parties, at intervals,
hesitatingly and in alarm, in short not like Jews (xa66Xou . . . oux 'Iou8atxtos):
the characteristics (tStoc) of the nation . . . were all lacking. (6:17;
Thackeray)

In War, then, the rebels are presented as traitors to the principles o f


J u d a i s m . I n d e e d , they c o u l d n o t act as authentic J e w s b e c a u s e o f the il­
l e g i t i m a c y o f their c a u s e , w h i c h alienated t h e m f r o m G o d .
'Ofxovota as a J e w i s h ideal also turns u p at strategic points in Ant.
S t a n d i n g at the b o r d e r o f C a n a a n , M o s e s exhorts the p e o p l e b e f o r e they
enter: " A b o v e all, let us b e o n e o f m i n d " (npo hi rcavToov ojxovocojxev,
3 : 3 0 2 ) . I n the c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r the p r i e s t h o o d , M o s e s p r a y s that the u n ­
just m a y b e p u n i s h e d so that 6(x6votoc a n d etprjvT) m i g h t return to the
p e o p l e ( 4 : 5 0 ) . Later in the narrative, O n i a s asks P t o l e m y for a t e m p l e
at L e o n t o p o l i s , w h e r e the J e w s m i g h t w o r s h i p in ofxovota ( 1 3 : 6 7 ) . A n d
Mattathias the H a s m o n e a n , as h e lies d y i n g , charges his sons: " A b o v e
all, I u r g e y o u to b e o f o n e m i n d " ((xaXtaxa 8' ujxtv 6(xovoetv rcapatvco,
13:283). Finally, J o s e p h u s notes that when P o m p e y marched on
J e r u s a l e m , the p e o p l e in the city h a d differences o f o p i n i o n a n d w e r e oux
ofxovoouvToav ( 1 4 : 5 8 ) . O n c e a g a i n , therefore, w e see ojxovota as a J e w i s h
218
ideal, the a b s e n c e o f w h i c h leads to c o l l a p s e .
T h i s idea c o m e s t h r o u g h m o s t clearly in Ag.Ap., w h e r e J o s e p h u s has
n o reserve a b o u t c l a i m i n g ojxovota as a J e w i s h virtue. C o n t r a s t i n g the o r ­
d i n a r y J e w ' s t h o r o u g h k n o w l e d g e o f the L a w with the general i g n o r a n c e
o f laws a m o n g other nations, he writes:

T o this cause above all we owe our admirable harmony (TTJV Gaufxaaxrjv
6(x6votav rjfxtv). Unity and identity of religious belief, perfect uniformity in
habits and customs (TCO pup 8e xat TOT$ eGeat), produce a very beautiful con­
cord (au[X9covtav) in human character. A m o n g us alone (7cap' rjfxtv jxovots)
will be heard no contradictory statements about G o d , as are c o m m o n
among other nations. (2:179f.; Thackeray)

J o s e p h u s then lists a n u m b e r o f areas in w h i c h the J e w i s h vojxot h a v e


b e e n imitated b y the rest o f the w o r l d ; a m o n g o t h e r things, he says,
" t h e y try to imitate o u r c o o p e r a t i v e s p i r i t " (TTJV npoq aXXrjXous rjjx&v

2 1 7
Cf., e.g., War 1:10, 27; 2:345-347.
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

6(x6votav, 2 : 2 8 3 ) . Finally, in his c l o s i n g remarks J o s e p h u s offers a list o f


ideals that h e believes the J e w s h a v e i n t r o d u c e d (etadyco) into the w o r l d .
T h i r d o n the list c o m e s npoq aXXrjXous 6(xovoetv, " t o b e a p r e y neither to
d i s u n i o n in adversity, n o r t o a r r o g a n c e a n d faction in p r o s p e r i t y "
(2:294; Thackeray).
I n J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s ofxovota s e l d o m appears in the pedestrian sense o f
2 1 9
"agreement or unanimity". It is m u c h m o r e a t h e o l o g i c a l t e r m for
h i m , indicating the unity o f t h o u g h t a n d b e h a v i o u r that characterizes
g e n u i n e J e w s . T h e c o n s i s t e n c y o f this t h e m e highlights the l o w o p i n i o n
that J o s e p h u s has o f the rebels, w h o a b a n d o n e d c o n c e r n for Ofxovota.

2 . Interpretation

R e t u r n i n g n o w to War 2 : 1 6 6 , o n e c a n see the significance o f J o s e p h u s ' s


attribution o f Ofxovota to the Pharisees. O n the o n e h a n d , the Essenes are
p r e - e m i n e n t in the exercise o f this basic J e w i s h virtue; as in other
respects, the m o n k s are in a class b y themselves. O n the o t h e r h a n d , the
S a d d u c e e s are totally l a c k i n g in the h a r m o n y characteristic o f J e w s , e v e n
as they d e b u n k the h i g h e r d o c t r i n e s o f i m m o r t a l i t y a n d p r o v i d e n c e . I n
contrast to the S a d d u c e e s , the Pharisees cultivate 6[x6voia, at least a m -
n o n g themselves (euj TO xotvov).

I I I . Interpretation of War 2:162-166 on the Pharisees

War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 is J o s e p h u s ' s fundamental d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees.


I n it he sets d o w n e v e r y t h i n g that he wants his readers to k n o w a b o u t
the Pharisees, a n d he refers b a c k to it several times as his standard
presentation. It is n o w possible to s u m m a r i z e o u r findings o n J o s e p h u s ' s
five statements a b o u t the Pharisees a n d to interpret t h e m together as a
w h o l e . O u r a i m , o n c e a g a i n , is b o t h c o g n i t i v e a n d c o n a t i v e : to deter­
m i n e b o t h the c o n t e n t o f the d e s c r i p t i o n a n d J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d
the g r o u p .
J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisees as a p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l (octpeauj),
w h i c h o p p o s e s the S a d d u c e a n s c h o o l o n t w o issues: the Pharisees r e c o g ­
nize the h a n d o f f a t e / G o d a n d they a c c e p t the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul,
w h e r e a s the S a d d u c e e s d e n y b o t h . T h e Pharisees' c o m b i n a t i o n o f fate
a n d free will recalls particularly the v i e w o f the Stoic C h r y s i p p u s (as
related b y C i c e r o ) ; b u t it is generally c o m p a t i b l e with the s y n e r g i s m

219 p \\r r, cf. n. 216 above. For Ant., the mundane occurrences are at 2:21; 7:213;
o r a

18:376; and 19:341.


174 CHAPTER SIX

b e t w e e n these t w o causes that w a s w i d e l y h e l d in ancient thought g o i n g


b a c k t o Plato a n d b e y o n d . O n the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the s o u l , the Pharisaic
v i e w ( v i a J o s e p h u s ) recalls P l a t o ' s l a n g u a g e o f r e i n c a r n a t i o n . O n closer
e x a m i n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , it reveals several peculiarities vis-a-vis G r e e k
thought a n d suggests s o m e t h i n g like the resurrection i d e a k n o w n f r o m
J e w i s h a n d Christian s o u r c e s . O n b o t h issues, the S a d d u c e e s h o l d a
skeptical p o s t i o n akin t o that o f the E p i c u r e a n s .
O n all three p o i n t s o f contrast b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d Saddu­
cees—the t w o p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues a n d the q u e s t i o n o f b e h a v i o u r — t h e
Pharisees n o t o n l y stand n e a r e r to J o s e p h u s ' s o w n t h o u g h t , they s e e m
to replicate it m o r e o r less e x a c d y . L i k e t h e m , J o s e p h u s attributes
e v e r y t h i n g to fate, j u x t a p o s e s G o d a n d fate, a n d e m p h a s i z e s free will.
L i k e t h e m , h e believes in the i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul, p u n i s h m e n t s for
the w i c k e d , a n d a n e w b o d y for the g o o d . L i k e t h e m , h e h o l d s to an ideal
o f ofxovota. Y e t it m u s t b e asked what this p h i l o s o p h i c a l a g r e e m e n t
m e a n s . W h a t d o e s it say a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d , o r relation
t o , the Pharisees?
O n e s h o u l d n o t e , first o f all, that J o s e p h u s n e v e r e s p o u s e s a p o s i t i o n
o n the g r o u n d that it is Pharisaic. O n the c o n t r a r y , h e exalts the L a w
a n d its accurate interpretation b e c a u s e h e is a priest. T h e Pharisees h a p ­
p e n to m a k e the s a m e c l a i m s . L i k e w i s e , o n e a c h o f the three p o i n t s o f
c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s , J o s e p h u s accepts the
"dogmatic" or affirmative p o s i t i o n rather than the skeptical one
b e c a u s e , h e c l a i m s , it is taught in the L a w , w h i c h m e a n s for h i m the
M o s a i c c o d e . T h u s h e c l a i m s that the role o f fate a n d free will is spelled
o u t in the L a w (Ant. 1 6 : 3 8 9 f . ) ; that i m m o r t a l i t y o f the soul a n d resurrec­
t i o n / r e i n c a r n a t i o n is to b e f o u n d in " w h a t the l a w g i v e r has p r o p h e s i e d "
(Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 1 8 ) ; a n d that ofxovota is s o m e t h i n g e n j o i n e d b y the L a w (Ap.
2 : 2 8 0 f f . ) . O n all o f these issues, J o s e p h u s finds the skeptical p o s i t i o n o f
the S a d d u c e e s to b e un-Jewish a n d so h e accepts the affirmative posi­
tions. But he n e v e r e n d o r s e s the Pharisaic p o s t i o n per se; w e c a n o n l y
d i s c o v e r his a g r e e m e n t with t h e m b y patient analysis.
S e c o n d , it is n o t o n l y the Pharisees w h o h o l d the p o s t i o n s e s p o u s e d b y
J o s e p h u s , so that his belief in fate o r i m m o r t a l i t y w o u l d i m p l y Pharisaic
allegiance. W e k n o w , for e x a m p l e , that h e t h o u g h t the Essenes to excel
e v e r y o n e else in Ofxovota, that h e heartily e n d o r s e d their v i e w o f the
afterlife, a n d that they t o o b e l i e v e d in etfxapuivr). I n d e e d , the Pharisees'
views are those o f the m a i n s t r e a m . J o s e p h u s says as m u c h w h e n h e
claims that their v i e w s e n d e a r t h e m to the p e o p l e (Ant. 1 8 : 1 4 ) . N o t i c e
the o r d e r : it is n o t that the masses b e l i e v e in fate a n d immortality
b e c a u s e the Pharisees teach such things; rather, the Pharisees h a v e the
p u b l i c trust b e c a u s e , unlike the S a d d u c e a n elite, they teach ideas that
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 175

are a l r e a d y p o p u l a r . S o the fact that J o s e p h u s also shares such m a i n ­


stream beliefs d o e s n o t m a k e h i m a Pharisee.
T h i r d , J o s e p h u s b e g i n s War 2 : 1 6 2 b y recalling his earlier, negative
p o r t r a y a l in 1:110-114: the Pharisees are the o n e s w h o seem t o interpret
the laws accurately, w h o d e c e i v e d the p i o u s Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a , a n d w h o
h a v e " s h a n g h a i e d " ( d r c d y c o ) the p o s i t i o n o f the l e a d i n g s c h o o l . I n the
earlier passage J o s e p h u s d i d n o t assail a n y Pharisaic beliefs, b u t rather
p o i n t e d o u t the tension b e t w e e n their reputation for euaefJeioc, o n the o n e
h a n d , a n d their u n s c r u p u l o u s b e h a v i o u r o n the other. B u t if J o s e p h u s ' s
critique o f the Pharisees is a i m e d at their b e h a v i o u r in particular in­
stances, then n o a m o u n t o f general i d e o l o g i c a l a g r e e m e n t c a n p r o v e h i m
220
to b e a P h a r i s e e .
F o u r t h , o n e c a n n o t e s c a p e the o v e r w h e l m i n g c o n t e x t u a l i n d i c a t o r s . It
is true that, o v e r against the S a d d u c e e s , the Pharisees turn o u t p o s i t i v e l y
o n e v e r y p o i n t . But J o s e p h u s dislikes the S a d d u c e e s . T h e k e y p o i n t is
that b o t h o f these g r o u p s are d i s p e n s e d w i t h in short o r d e r after the l o n g
a n d a d m i r i n g portrayal o f the Essenes. T h e Pharisees are c r e d i t e d w i t h
at least seeking h a r m o n y , for e x a m p l e , w h e r e a s the S a d d u c e e s d o n o t
e v e n treat their friends well. But J o s e p h u s ' s heart is w i t h the Essenes.
T h e y are m o r e d e v o t e d 9tXdXXr)Xoi than a n y o t h e r g r o u p ( 2 : 1 1 9 ) . T h e i r
a d m i r e r gives t w o p a r a g r a p h s ( 2 : 1 2 2 - 1 2 7 ) to a d i s c u s s i o n o f their re­
m a r k a b l e ojxovota. W e h a v e also n o t e d his w a r m a n d s y m p a t h e t i c discus­
sion o f the E s s e n e s ' b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y ( 2 : 1 5 3 - 1 5 8 ) . A n d it is e q u a l l y
o b v i o u s that J o s e p h u s agrees with their politics o f s u b m i s s i o n ( 2 : 1 3 9 f . ) .
Furthermore, if the Pharisees are reputed to h a v e special dxpt(ktoc, the
Essenes are <xxpt(3ecruaTot in their j u d g m e n t s ( 2 : 1 4 5 ) a n d m o r e careful than
all o t h e r J e w s in o b s e r v i n g the S a b b a t h ( 2 : 1 4 7 ) . In short, if the Pharisees
are s u p e r i o r to the almost irreligious S a d d u c e e s , the Essenes are in a
class b y t h e m s e l v e s .
A l l o f the e v i d e n c e c o n s i d e r e d a b o v e p o i n t s to the c o n c l u s i o n that,
although Josephus a g r e e d with the Pharisees o n m a j o r p h i l o s o p h i c a l
issues, b e c a u s e they represented " a f f i r m a t i v e " m a i n s t r e a m p o s i t i o n s , h e
is very far from unrestrained enthusiasm for the group. He
a c k n o w l e d g e s their role as the f o r e m o s t J e w i s h sect, b u t he h a r d l y exults
o v e r it.
O u r investigation, h o w e v e r , has n o t t u r n e d u p a n y further e v i d e n c e
to s u p p o r t J o s e p h u s ' s initial assertion ( 2 : 1 1 8 f . ) that the three legitimate
octpeaeis h a v e n o t h i n g in c o m m o n with that o f the J u d a s . T h a t assertion

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

is s u p p o r t e d o n l y for the Essenes, w h o are featured players; o n e has o n l y


J o s e p h u s ' s w o r d that it h o l d s also for the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s .

I V . Source Criticism of War 2:162-166

It remains to a p p l y the results o f the f o r e g o i n g analysis to the q u e s t i o n :


C a n the passage b e traced to an a u t h o r other than J o s e p h u s ?
O f the o l d e r s o u r c e s critics, m o s t d i d n o t c o m m e n t o n War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 .
H o l s c h e r d i d , b u t assigned it t o J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f b e c a u s e it presents the
2 2 1
Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s " i n d e r u b l i c h e n W e i s e des J . [ o s e p h u s ] " .
T h e recent attempt b y S c h w a r t z t o r e v i v e s o u r c e criticism with respect
to the Pharisee passages also e n d s u p attributing o u r passage to
J o s e p h u s , this t i m e o n the g r o u n d s that it gives a " t h o r o u g h l y p o s i t i v e "
222
a c c o u n t o f the P h a r i s e e s —though that rationale is d u b i o u s , b o t h
because the a c c o u n t is n o t t h o r o u g h l y positive a n d b e c a u s e the a s s u m p ­
tion that J o s e p h u s w o u l d o n l y write postitively a b o u t the g r o u p is u n w a r ­
ranted.
O n the o t h e r side, practically a l o n e , stands G . F. M o o r e , w h o argues
that the discussion o f the Pharisees o n fate a n d free will is n o n -
2 2 3 224 2 2 5
Josephan, un-Jewish, a n d rather S t o i c . M o o r e infers f r o m all o f
this that J o s e p h u s is d e p e n d e n t for this s e g m e n t o n an a c c o u n t o f the
2 2 6
Pharisees b y N i c o l a u s . Y e t e v e n M o o r e credits the rest o f the passage
( i . e . , e v e r y t h i n g b u t the fate/free will n o t i c e ) to J o s e p h u s . G . M a i e r
modifies M o o r e ' s p o s i t i o n b y isolating the specific w o r d s that h e believes
were c o n t r i b u t e d b y J o s e p h u s ( e . g . , xat Oea>, TOrcpaTTetvTOC Stxata xat u.rj),
in support o f his thesis that J o s e p h u s has j u d a i z e d N i c o l a u s ' s hellenizing
227
description o f the P h a r i s e e s .
W e m a y r e s p o n d : while it is true that the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees
in War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 uses l a n g u a g e that e v o k e s the Stoic C h r y s i p p u s (as re­
c o u n t e d b y C i c e r o ) , J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f elsewhere likens the Pharisees to
228
Stoics in s o m e points (cf. Life 1 2 ) . O u t s i d e r s s o m e t i m e s d i d l i k e w i s e .
M o s t i m p o r t a n t : J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f e m p l o y s b o t h the v i e w p o i n t a n d the
l a n g u a g e that h e attributes to the Pharisees several times in his o w n nar-
rative. O u r study has r e v e a l e d that the passage as w e h a v e it is J o s e p h a n
2 2 1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1949 n.*. He takes War 2:119-161, however (on the
Essenes), to be the work of a Greek-educated Jew, other than Josephus. That view is
criticized and rightfully rejected by Maier, freier Wille, 6f.
2 2 2
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f.
2 2 3
Moore, "Fate", 375f.
2 2 4
Ibid., 379-382.
2 2 5
Ibid., 376-379.
2 2 6
Ibid., 383f. See Appendix B, below.
2 2 7
Maier, freier Wille, 11-13.
2 2 8
Cf. n. 156, above.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, I 177

in all o f its details. It e x h i b i t s J o s e p h u s ' s v o c a b u l a r y f r o m first t o last a n d


it uses this vocabulary in typically J o s e p h a n style. Examples are:
<xxpt(ktoc; TOC vofitptoc; axptfkta with Boxeco, ef-rryetaOoct, and TOC v6p.tu.oc;
octpeats; etptapfxevT); juxtaposition of etfiocpuivT] and 6e6$; TOC Btxoctoc;
229
xetaGoct; the attribution o f decisions to human volition; cj>ux^l rcotaoc
aq>OocpTOv; r e i n c a r n a t i o n as a r e w a r d for the g o o d a l o n e ; dctStoc Ttficoptoc for
the w i c k e d ; a n d ofiovotoc. T h e r e c a n , t h e r e f o r e , b e n o r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t
2 3 0
that J o s e p h u s a u t h o r e d this p a s s a g e f r o m b e g i n n i n g t o end.
A l t h o u g h o n e m i g h t w i s h to attribute the n e g a t i v e j u d g e m e n t s o n the
P h a r i s e e s t o N i c o l a u s rather than to J o s e p h u s ( a m i s t a k e , I h a v e a r g u e d ) ,
o n e c a n n o t easily use this o p t i o n , as M o o r e d o e s , to e x p l a i n a p p a r e n t er­
r o r s o f fact. F o r N i c o l a u s l i v e d in the H e r o d i a n c o u r t , w h i c h w a s b a s e d
in J e r u s a l e m , for at least ten y e a r s — p e r h a p s t w e n t y y e a r s o r m o r e — o f
2 3 1
his adult l i f e . H e m u s t h a v e k n o w n the P h a r i s e e s at least as well as
J o s e p h u s d i d , since o u r a u t h o r w a s c a p t u r e d at a g e thirty a n d l i v e d the
rest o f his life in Rome.

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

THE PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF ANTIQUITIES

Fifteen to t w e n t y y e a r s after the p u b l i c a t i o n o f War, J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e d


1
his Jewish Antiquities. C o m p r i s i n g twenty b o o k s , this w o r k was his
magnum opus; a c c o r d i n g l y , it has p r o v i d e d the basis for m a n y analyses o f
2
his t h o u g h t a n d literary t e c h n i q u e . A general i n t r o d u c t i o n t o Ant. would
b e o u t o f p l a c e in this study b e c a u s e ( a ) s u c h i n t r o d u c t i o n s are a l r e a d y
3
plentiful a n d easily a c c e s s i b l e a n d ( b ) m u c h o f the m a t e r i a l w o u l d h a v e
m a r g i n a l r e l e v a n c e t o o u r t o p i c , since the Pharisees a p p e a r o n l y in the
4
last third ( b o o k s 1 3 - 1 8 ) o f the w o r k . It is p o s s i b l e h e r e o n l y t o s u m ­
m a r i z e w h a t has b e e n a s c e r t a i n e d a b o u t the p u r p o s e o f Ant. and to
specify t h o s e t h e m e s that m i g h t b e a r o n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the Pharisee
passages.
W e shall b e g i n w i t h the p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f Ant. as a self-contained
w o r k . S i n c e , h o w e v e r , the final third o f Ant. substantially parallels the
first t w o b o o k s o f War, a n d since the P h a r i s e e passages o f b o t h w o r k s fall
5
w i t h i n this parallel m a t e r i a l , w e m u s t also ask a b o u t the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e ­
tween War and Ant. in general terms. Finally, we shall s u r v e y the

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

attempts that h a v e b e e n m a d e to interpret the Pharisee passages o f Ant.


in terms o f that w o r k ' s goals a n d m a j o r themes.

I. Preface and Dominant Themes

A . Josephus an Apologist for Judaism

Scholarship has generally taken the p r o e m to Ant. m u c h m o r e seriously


than its c o u n t e r p a r t in War. S i n c e War is usually v i e w e d as a w o r k o f
R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a , its p r o g r a m m a t i c statements a b o u t truthfulness
a n d a b o u t the a u t h o r ' s s o r r o w o v e r the fate o f J e r u s a l e m are often ig­
n o r e d o r d e p r e c i a t e d in f a v o u r o f a hypothetical r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f the
6
w o r k ' s real ( = ulterior) m o t i v e . W i t h Ant. the situation is different.
J o s e p h u s declares at the outset, a n d repeatedly thereafter, that h e has an
a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e : h e wants to c o n v i n c e his G r e c o - R o m a n readers o f
the n o b l e n e s s o f J e w i s h o r i g i n s , beliefs, and practices. Scholars h a v e
usually b e l i e v e d h i m .
After s o m e o p e n i n g reflections o n his m o t i v e s for h a v i n g written War
(Ant. 1:1-4), J o s e p h u s turns to the w o r k at h a n d ( 1 : 5 ) :

So also I have now taken up the present work, believing that it will impress
the Greek world as worthy o f serious consideration (vo(xtC<ov owiocat 9<xveta9oct
Tot? "EXXrjatv aijtav arcouSfjs).

T h a t J o s e p h u s expects a G r e e k - p a g a n readership for Ant. is clear at


7
several points in the n a r r a t i v e a n d is spelled o u t again in the c o n c l u s i o n
( 2 0 : 2 6 2 ) : " n o o n e else w o u l d h a v e b e e n able to p r o d u c e such an accurate
e/ 8
w o r k as this for the G r e e k s (tlq EXXr)va^)".
W h a t d o e s J o s e p h u s w a n t to tell the G r e e k s a b o u t the J e w s ? H e goes
o n to sketch the c o n t e n t o f the w o r k ( 1 : 5 ) :

It will embrace our entire ancient history (nap' rj(xtv dpxottoXoytav) and
political constitution (StotTocijtv TOU 7uoXtTeu(xaxo^), translated from the
Hebrew records (ex TCOV efjpatxcov |Ae67jp[A7jveufiev7)v). (Thackeray)

But this material is not m e r e l y o f a c a d e m i c interest. J o s e p h u s presents


as the hypothesis o f Ant. the virtue (apexr)) o f the M o s a i c c o d e a n d its
superiority to p a g a n m y t h o l o g y . H e invites the reader critically to assess
(BoxtptdCetv) the worthiness (et <x£ta>s) o f M o s e s ' teachings a b o u t G o d
( 1 : 1 5 ) , w h i c h teachings lie at the heart o f J e w i s h life a n d history.
J o s e p h u s is c o n v i n c e d that what the J e w s h a v e is g o o d a n d o u g h t n o t to

6
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

be hidden from the G r e e k s ( 1 : 1 1 ) . Ant. is m o t i v a t e d , then, b y an


apologetic purpose.
I n the preface a n d t h r o u g h o u t the entire w o r k , o u r a u t h o r declares his
intention t o c o m b a t b o t h i g n o r a n c e a n d e r r o r a b o u t J e w i s h history. I n
14:186ff., for e x a m p l e , h e reveals s o m e t h i n g o f the hostility w i t h w h i c h
o t h e r historians h a d d e p i c t e d the J e w s :

And here it seems to me necessary to make public all the honours given
our nation. . . . Since many persons, however, out o f enmity to us refuse
to believe what has been written about us by Persians and Macedonians,
. . . while against the decrees o f the R o m a n s nothing can be said, . . . from
these same documents I will furnish proof o f m y statements. (Marcus)

He c o m m e n t s later, again in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the p r o - J e w i s h d e c r e e s


(16:174f.):

Now it was necessary for me to cite these decrees since this account o f our
history is chiefly meant to reach the Greeks in order to show them that in
former times we were treated with all respect. . . . A n d if I frequently men­
tion these decrees, it is to reconcile the other nations to us and to remove the causes
for hatred ([Liaouq atxta?) which have taken root in thoughtless persons among
us as well as among them. (Marcus/Wikgren; emphasis added)

T h a t J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d the Ant. as an obroXoyioc for J u d a i s m is clear,


finally, f r o m his last extant w o r k , Against Apion. I n that treatise he u n d e r ­
takes a systematic refutation o f p a g a n errors a b o u t the J e w s a n d their
history. T h i s is necessary, he insists, b e c a u s e :

a considerable number o f persons influenced by the malicious calumnies o f


certain individuals, discredit the statements in my history concerning our
antiquity. (Ag.Ap. 1:1-2; Thackeray)

B e c a u s e Ant. was not entirely successful in eradicating false ideas


J o s e p h u s w r o t e Ag.Ap. T h u s his p r o g r a m m a t i c statements a b o u t Ant. are
consistent f r o m first to last in p r e s e n t i n g the w o r k as a d e f e n c e o f J e w i s h
history, beliefs, a n d v a l u e s .
T h a t s u c h a p o l o g i e s w e r e n e e d e d in the late first c e n t u r y A D has l o n g
9
been recognized by commentators. C o n t e m p o r a r y literary e v i d e n c e
a b u n d a n t l y attests the w i d e s p r e a d m i s i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the J e w s that
10
Ant. presupposes. W e have good reason to b e l i e v e that ordinary
hostility t o w a r d the J e w s , c a u s e d b y i g n o r a n c e a n d x e n o p h o b i a , w a s

9
E.g., H . Bloch, Quellen, 4f.; Niese, HZ, 212ff., 213 n. 1; idem, ERE, V I I , 572.
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 . "

B . Specific Themes; Judaism as a Philosophy

W e m u s t n o w specify, as nearly as p o s s i b l e , the particular t h e m e s that


J o s e p h u s w a n t e d to impress o n his readers in the effort to c o n v i n c e t h e m
o f the w o r t h i n e s s o f J u d a i s m .
H . W . A t t r i d g e has d e m o n s t r a t e d that t w o t h e m e s i n t r o d u c e d in the
preface serve J o s e p h u s as interpretive keys in his p a r a p h r a s e o f the B i ­
16
ble, w h i c h o c c u p i e s a b o u t the first ten b o o k s o f Ant. T h e first t h e m e
is that o f G o d ' s watchful care (rcpovotoc) for the w o r l d . In 1:14, 2 0 ,
J o s e p h u s declares that the m a i n lesson (TO auvoXov, TO 7i:at8suu.a) o f Ant.
is that G o d r e w a r d s o b e d i e n c e to his L a w with happiness (euBaifxovia) b u t
punishes d i s o b e d i e n c e . A t t r i d g e s h o w s that G o d ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n in h u m a n
affairs to r e w a r d a n d p u n i s h individuals is i n d e e d a consistent e m p h a s i s
17
o f J o s e p h u s ' s biblical p a r a p h r a s e .

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

T h e s e c o n d interpretive k e y d i s c o v e r e d b y A t t r i d g e is a " m o r a l i z i n g "


1 8
tendency. J o s e p h u s c l a i m s in the preface ( 1 : 2 3 ) that M o s e s p r e s e n t e d
G o d as the perfect e x p r e s s i o n o f virtue (aperrj) a n d taught that m e n
should strive to participate (u.£T0cXau.(3avetv) in this m o r a l attribute.
J o s e p h u s d e v e l o p s this m o t i f in his biblical p a r a p h r a s e b y r e w o r k i n g his
source so as to highlight the virtues (euaepeta, Stxaioauvrj, avopeta,
(H09poauvTi, e t c . ) o f those figures in J e w i s h history w h o p l e a s e d G o d a n d
the v i c e s o f those w h o d i d n o t . H e illustrates e v e r y w h e r e the ruinous
c o n s e q u e n c e s o f u n c h e c k e d e m o t i o n (especially g r e e d a n d lust) a n d of­
19
fers, b y contrast, the e x a m p l e o f M o s e s as a m o d e l o f v i r t u e .
A t t r i d g e ' s study is a w e l c o m e e x p l o r a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t in
Ant. O n e aspect o f his analysis, h o w e v e r , requires further e l a b o r a t i o n ,
n a m e l y , the identification o f h a p p i n e s s (euSatpovtoc) as a significant t e r m .
In both 1:14 a n d 1:20, J o s e p h u s declares his thesis to b e that G o d
r e w a r d s o b e d i e n c e to the L a w w i t h su8at[Aovta ( o r euSatfxova (Stov). O n e
i n d i c a t i o n o f the i m p o r t a n c e o f this t h e m e is that, a l t h o u g h the w o r d
su8at(AOvtoc is entirely absent f r o m the L X X , J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s it n o
20
less than 47 times into his b i b l i c a l p a r a p h r a s e (Ant. 1-11).
N o w H . - F . W e i s s has p o i n t e d o u t that su8aiu.ovtoc w a s precisely the
2 1
goal o f Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y . Aristotle d e c l a r e d that it w a s the c h i e f
2 2
e n d (xeXos) o f m a n . T h e quest for eu8octu.ovta m o t i v a t e d b o t h S t o i c a n d
2 3
Epicurean philosophy. T h e r e f o r e , b y setting o u t to p r o v e that G o d
grants h a p p i n e s s to those w h o o b s e r v e his L a w , J o s e p h u s effectively
enters J u d a i s m as a serious o p t i o n in the Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h i c a l
24
discussion.
I n d e e d , t h r o u g h o u t Ant. J o s e p h u s presents J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y .
In the preface he challenges the r e a d e r ( 1 : 2 5 ) :

Should any further desire to consider the reasons (toes aitta^) for every arti­
cle in our creed, he would find the inquiry highly philosophical (Xtocv
9tX6ao<po<;). (Thackeray)

E v e r y t h i n g that he is g o i n g to relate, J o s e p h u s e x p l a i n s , d e p e n d s o n the


aocptoc o f M o s e s ( 1 : 1 8 ) . N o t o n l y M o s e s b u t also A b r a h a m a n d S o l o m o n
25
a p p e a r as great p h i l o s o p h e r s . W e h a v e already seen that in his discus-

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

sions o f the J e w i s h octpeaet^, h e says explicitly that the J e w s do


26
philosophize. T h e p o i n t b e c o m e s especially clear in Ag.Ap., w h i c h is a
27
sequel t o Ant. W e are b o u n d , therefore, t o c o n c l u d e with W e i s s :

Das Judentum ist nach Josephus also insgesamt und seinem Wesen nach
Thilopsphie', und zwar die auf dem Gesetz beruhende, durch das Gesetz
gelehrte Philosophic Das Gesetz ist die Grundlage der Philosophic des
28
Judentums.

It is n o t p o s s i b l e in the f r a m e w o r k o f this i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter to e x ­


a m i n e all that J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e m e a n t b y d e s c r i b i n g J u d a i s m as a
p h i l o s o p h y . Several scholars h a v e r e m i n d e d u s , h o w e v e r , that the c o n ­
notations o f " p h i l o s o p h y " in the ancient w o r l d w e r e at o n c e b r o a d e r a n d
29
m o r e c o n c r e t e than the m o d e r n use o f the w o r d s u g g e s t s . Philosophy
after Socrates w a s n o t a technical a c a d e m i c discipline b u t rather a c o m ­
3 0
prehensive " w a y o f l i f e " ; a m e t a p h y s i c a l basis w a s i m p o r t a n t , t o b e
3 1
sure, b u t the e m p h a s i s w a s o n ethics a n d b e h a v i o u r . I n this c o n t e x t ,
J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y is n o t surprising.
To summarize: a longstanding scholarly c o n s e n s u s has a c c e p t e d
Josephus's presentation o f his m o t i v e s for w r i t i n g Ant. H e is a n
apologist, writing t o c o m b a t w i d e s p r e a d i g n o r a n c e a n d misunderstan­
d i n g a b o u t J e w i s h o r i g i n s , history, beliefs, a n d p r a c t i c e s . J o s e p h u s
presents J u d a i s m as a p h i l o s o p h y that offers a definite r e s p o n s e t o the
h u m a n quest for euSoctfiovtoc. H a p p i n e s s is granted b y G o d to those w h o
o b s e r v e his laws.

I I . The Relationship Between War and Antiquities

B e c a u s e the Pharisee passages o f Ant. fall within the p o r t i o n o f that w o r k


that is paralleled in War, it is necessary here to ask h o w J o s e p h u s u n d e r ­
stood the relationship b e t w e e n the t w o narratives. S i n c e R . L a q u e u r ' s
study o f J o s e p h u s ( 1 9 2 0 ) it has b e e n a c o m m o n v i e w that War, as a vehi­
cle o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a , h a d a p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k v e r y different
32
f r o m those o f Ant. A recent m a n u a l o f J e w i s h history in the N e w T e s t a ­
m e n t p e r i o d e c h o e s the general o p i n i o n that:

2 6
E.g., at War 2:119, 166; cf. Ant. 13:289; 18:9, 11, 23, 25.
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 .

In w h a t f o l l o w s I shall a r g u e that L a q u e u r ' s t h e o r y , a l t h o u g h it a c ­


c u r a t e l y identifies s o m e m a j o r differences o f o u d o o k b e t w e e n War a n d
Ant., t e n d s t o o b s c u r e J o s e p h u s ' s o w n literary i n t e n t i o n , w h i c h is t o l i n k
t o g e t h e r the goals o f the t w o w o r k s .

A. Differences of Outlook Between War and Antiquities

C r i t i c s h a v e l o n g r e a l i z e d that c o m p a r i s o n o f Ant. 13-20 w i t h t h e parallel


3 4
m a t e r i a l i n War 1-2 reveals m a n y differences o f p e r s p e c t i v e . Most con­
s p i c u o u s is t h e r e v i s i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d H e r o d t h e G r e a t :
3 5
w h e r e a s War h a d g i v e n a v e r y s y m p a t h e t i c p o r t r a y a l , Ant. often at­
3 6
tacks his c h a r a c t e r a n d a c c u s e s h i m o f i m p i e t y . O t h e r p u b l i c figures
3 7 3 8
s u c h as S a l o m e A l e x a n d r a , King Agrippa and Agrippa I I , the h i g h
3 9 4 0
priest A n a n u s , a n d the R o m a n p r o c u r a t o r s h a v e likewise b e e n r e -

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

evaluated. S o m e critics h a v e a r g u e d , finally, that Ant. has reversed


41
War's n e g a t i v e portrayal o f the P h a r i s e e s . It is the last q u e s t i o n that in­
terests us m o s t directly b u t w e c a n n o t treat that issue in isolation f r o m
the larger p r o b l e m o f e x p l a i n i n g J o s e p h u s ' s n e w o u t l o o k .

1. T h e S o u r c e C r i t i c s a n d N i e s e

T h e o l d source-critical m o v e m e n t s o u g h t to e x p l a i n all o f J o s e p h u s ' s at­


4 2
titudes as the attitudes o f his s o u r c e s . T h u s S c h u r e r , for e x a m p l e , in
n o t i n g that the J o s e p h u s o f Ant. s o m e t i m e s disagrees w i t h N i c o l a u s a n d
j u d g e s H e r o d an evil m a n , t h e o r i z e d that J o s e p h u s m u s t h a v e u s e d a
i 4 3
new, ' dem Herodes ungunstige", source for the later work.
D e s t i n o n ' s s o l u t i o n w a s t o attribute the a n t i - H e r o d i a n r e m a r k s in Ant.
4 4
to N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s . H e a r g u e d that N i c o l a u s , b u t n o t J o s e p h u s ,
45
w a s c a p a b l e o f such a critical a t t i t u d e . This theory limited Josephus's
role to the a b s u r d castigation o f N i c o l a u s for his excessive flattery o f
4 6
H e r o d (Ant. 16:183ff.), a charge o f which Nicolaus was i n n o c e n t .
H o l s c h e r e x p l a i n e d b o t h Ant. 's j u d g e m e n t o f H e r o d a n d its conflict with
N i c o l a u s b y p o s i t i n g an i n t e r m e d i a t e s o u r c e for 1 3 : 2 1 2 - 1 7 : 3 5 5 , a J e w i s h
4 7
p r o - H a s m o n e a n reworking o f Nicolaus, which Josephus simply c o p i e d .
T h e s o u r c e critics, then, t e n d e d to attribute J o s e p h u s ' s c h a n g e d attitude
to his s o u r c e s .
W e m a y n o t e , incidentally, that n o n e o f these critics p e r c e i v e d a n y
m a j o r shift in the p o r t r a y a l o f the Pharisees b e t w e e n War as a w h o l e a n d
4 8
Ant. as a w h o l e . Rather, they attributed the individual Pharisee-
p e r i c o p a e w i t h i n e a c h o f the b o o k s t o discrete s o u r c e s .

increased emphasis (also in Life) on the willingness of the Jews to fight the Romans (cf.
Ant. 20:257 and Cohen, Josephus, 155f).
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

M o r e than m a n y o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , B . N i e s e w a s sensitive t o


J o s e p h u s ' s o w n literary interests as a significant c a u s e o f the differences
b e t w e e n War a n d Ant.. T h i s sensitivity is reflected in N i e s e ' s willingness
to b e l i e v e that J o s e p h u s m a d e direct use o f War in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f
4 9
Ant. 1 3 - 2 0 . S u c h a t h e o r y , w h i c h w a s rejected b y m o s t s o u r c e critics,
requires that J o s e p h u s w a s i n t e l l i g e n d y i n v o l v e d in the c o m p o s i t i o n o f
the later w o r k . It w a s h e w h o s u p p l e m e n t e d War with an array o f n e w
materials, i n c l u d i n g citations o f p a g a n authors, J e w i s h traditions, a n d
50
the p r o - J e w i s h d e c r e e s o f v a r i o u s r u l e r s . It w a s h e , also, w h o w o r k e d
d i l i g e n d y t o v a r y the style o f War, w h i l e generally p r e s e r v i n g its c o n t e n t
51
intact. Finally, if Ant. used War then J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f m u s t have
d e v e l o p e d n e w attitudes t o w a r d certain parties in the i n t e r i m b e t w e e n
the w o r k s . N i e s e cites the case o f A n a n u s , n o t e d a b o v e , b u t not that o f
52
the P h a r i s e e s . N o r d o e s h e e l a b o r a t e o n the p o s s i b l e reasons for such
changes.

2. L a q u e u r a n d T h a c k e r a y

It w a s this shift in J o s e p h u s ' s attitudes, w h i c h N i e s e h a d m e n t i o n e d o n l y


in passing, that c o n s u m e d R . Laqueur in his w a t e r s h e d study o f
5 3
Josephus ( 1 9 2 0 ) . R e p u d i a t i n g a s o u r c e criticism that h a d practically
annihilated J o s e p h u s ' s character, L a q u e u r set o u t t o e x p l a i n m a n y o f the
differences b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g a d e v e l o p m e n t in
5 4
the h i s t o r i a n ' s o u t l o o k . L a q u e u r b e l i e v e d that Ant., " n i c h t s a n d e r e s ist
als e i n e t e n d e n z i o s e Z u r e c h t m a c h u n g d e r i m b e l l u m uberlieferten T a t -
5 5
sachen". L a q u e u r thinks that Ant.'s r e v i s i o n o f War, especially o n
H e r o d a n d his f a m i l y , represents J o s e p h u s ' s attempt t o r e d e e m his
5 6
J e w i s h heritage after his years in the service o f R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a .

4 9
HZ, 218f.; ERE, V I I , 574. The common view was based on the belief that War,
with its thematic treatment of Herod's life, for example, was secondary to the more de­
tailed chronological, account in Ant. Cf. Laqueur Historiker, 133. Niese, however, held
that War was 'too much of a unity, too coherent to be a mere epitome or reworking of
a source'. He thought it impossible to get behind War to posit an earlier source.
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

T h a t Ant. contains several a n t i - H e r o d i a n passages n o t f o u n d in War


w a s already w e l l - k n o w n b y L a q u e u r ' s t i m e , as w e h a v e seen. H i s par­
ticular c o n t r i b u t i o n s w e r e t w o . First, h e e x a m i n e d the nature o f the
d i v e r g e n c e b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. o n H e r o d , in o r d e r to s h o w that it
c o u l d n o t b e e x p l a i n e d b y s o u r c e h y p o t h e s e s a l o n e . C o m p a r i n g War 1
a n d Ant. 14, h e d e m o n s t r a t e d that the re-evaluation o f H e r o d ' s family
is subtly w o v e n into the narrative o f Ant., e v e n in passages w h e r e the
57
later w o r k r e p r o d u c e s the v o c a b u l a r y o f War. It is n o t , therefore, a
58
question o f n e w material. R o l e s are reversed so that, for e x a m p l e , the
valiant Antipater (Herod's father) of War becomes a malicious
59
t r o u b l e m a k e r in Ant. Conversely, Antipater's H a s m o n e a n opponent
60
A r i s t o b u l u s receives m u c h better treatment in Ant. than h e h a d in War.
A g a i n , a l t h o u g h the conflict b e t w e e n H y r c a n u s a n d H e r o d appears in
b o t h War a n d Ant., a n d a l t h o u g h a similar c o u r s e o f events is d e s c r i b e d ,
the roles o f the protagonists are reversed to a c c o r d with J o s e p h u s ' s n e w
6 1
denigration o f H e r o d . L a q u e u r p o i n t s out that in these cases it is n o t
the c o n t e n t b u t the c o l o u r i n g ( F a r b u n g ) that is n e w in Ant.: "Die
Darstellung der Arch. (sc. Ant.) ist also nur erklarlich aus der
6 2
systematischen politischen U m a r b e i t u n g des b e l l u m h e r a u s . " S o the
a n t i - H e r o d i a n p o l e m i c c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s himself.
W h y should J o s e p h u s h a v e reversed h i m s e l f so dramatically b e t w e e n
War a n d Ant. ? W h a t inspired his revision o f the H e r o d i a n history? L a ­
q u e u r ' s s e c o n d c o n t r i b u t i o n to o u r p r o b l e m w a s his p r o p o s a l that b e ­
tween War a n d Ant. J o s e p h u s ' s attitude c h a n g e d as a result o f his altered
circumstances. Namely: Josephus h a d written War as a vehicle o f
R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a . C a l l e d u p o n b y his Falvian p r o t e c t o r s , this Romling
w r o t e an a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h revolt that w a s calculated to p e r s u a d e the
63
rest o f the w o r l d to s u b m i t to the Pax Romana. B e c a u s e this history u s e d
R o m a n s o u r c e material a n d p r o p o u n d e d a R o m a n o u t l o o k , it presented

5 7
Ibid., 128-230.
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.

T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n distinctly e c h o e s L a q u e u r ' s v i e w o f J o s e p h u s ' s d e v e l o p ­


m e n t b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. T h a c k e r a y o n c e again b e c a m e a m e d i u m o f
L a q u e u r ' s insights. T h e c o m b i n e d influence o f these t w o scholars o n
s u b s e q u e n t J o s e p h a n scholarship is i m p r e s s i v e .
B e f o r e w e c o n s i d e r the w a y s in w h i c h the L a q u e u r / T h a c k e r a y t h e o r y
has b e e n a d a p t e d to interpret the Pharisee passages o f Ant., some brief
critical o b s e r v a t i o n s o n that t h e o r y are in o r d e r .

B . T h e A p o l o g e t i c P u r p o s e C o m m o n to W a r a n d A n t i q u i t i e s

Scholars h a v e n o t a l w a y s b e l i e v e d that War a n d Ant. s p r a n g f r o m t w o o p ­


posite m o t i v e s , R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a a n d J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c . F o r e x a m p l e ,
B e n e d i c t u s N i e s e , the great H a l l e classicist, f o r m e d his j u d g e m e n t b e f o r e
and independently o f L a q u e u r . Niese remarks:

A s in the BJ [War], so in the AJ [Ant.], the object of Josephus is to furnish


the Hellenes with an accurate dilineation of Israelitic and Jewish history in
75
place of the misrepresentation of unfriendly or malevolent chroniclers.

In o u r d i s c u s s i o n o f War ( c h a p t e r 3, a b o v e ) , w e saw that J o s e p h u s c l a i m s


there to b e p r e s e n t i n g an a c c u r a t e eyewitness a c c o u n t o f the revolt in
o r d e r to refute the current anti-Jewish reports o f the conflict. W e m a y
n o w o b s e r v e that w h e n e v e r he speaks o f Ant. a n d War t o g e t h e r , he takes
s o m e t r o u b l e to spell o u t that the t w o w o r k s h a v e a similar m o t i v a t i o n .
1. J o s e p h u s b e g i n s Ant. ( 1 : 1 - 3 ) b y d e s c r i b i n g f o u r m o t i v e s that c a u s e
historians to w r i t e , n a m e l y : ( a ) e g o t i s m ; ( b ) flattery o f i m p o r t a n t per­
sons; ( c ) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in great events; a n d ( d ) the desire to replace ig­
n o r a n c e with accurate k n o w l e d g e . O f these f o u r , he c l a i m s , o n l y the last
two i n f l u e n c e d his w r i t i n g o f War ( 1 : 4 ) . But he is n o t s p e a k i n g o n l y o f
War. b y m e a n s o f a [xev . . . 8e c o n s t r u c t i o n in 1:4-5, he states explicitly
that the s a m e m o t i v e s that l e d h i m to write War—the r e c o u n t i n g o f great
events a n d the refutation o f those w h o " d i s f i g u r e the t r u t h " — n o w m o v e
him to write Ant.
2. H e g o e s o n to c l a i m that h e h a d c o n t e m p l a t e d i n c l u d i n g the ancient
76
history w h e n he w r o t e War b u t h a d d e c i d e d against it b e c a u s e there

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

was t o o m u c h material. H e c h o s e rather to d e v o t e a separate w o r k to the


J e w i s h apxatoXoytoc. A c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , then, the o n l y difference b e ­
t w e e n War a n d Ant. is in their subject matter. B o t h are d e s i g n e d to refute
anti-Jewish presentations o f history: War deals with the revolt, Ant. with
the m o r e distant past.
3. B o t h w o r k s e m p l o y the aXrjOetoc/axptfkta t h e m e often a n d in the
s a m e w a y : J o s e p h u s is w r i t i n g the truth o v e r against the misrepresenta­
77
tions o f o t h e r s . B o t h w o r k s link this t h e m e with J o s e p h u s ' s priestly
78
status.
4. Finally, in Ag.Ap. 1:53-56 J o s e p h u s reflects o n War a n d Ant. a n d
again attributes to b o t h o f t h e m the goal o f dcXrjOetoc: " I b e l i e v e that I
have fully a c c o m p l i s h e d this in b o t h w o r k s (rcepl du^oxepas . . .
TCpayfxaTetas)."
T o s u m m a r i z e : J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t see, o r he d o e s n o t wish the reader
to see, a n y significant difference o f p u r p o s e b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. B o t h
w o r k s , he c l a i m s , h a v e a p o l o g e t i c goals. T h e y set o u t t o c o m b a t error,
i g n o r a n c e , a n d slander a m o n g G r e c o - R o m a n readers, w h e t h e r in rela­
tion to the J e w i s h revolt (War) o r to earlier J e w i s h history (Ant.).
A l t h o u g h , then, o n e c a n n o t d e n y L a q u e u r ' s c o n c l u s i o n that J o s e p h u s
c h a n g e s s o m e o f his attitudes b e t w e e n War a n d Ant., o n e m u s t d o u b t his
e x p l a n a t i o n o f those c h a n g e s as the result o f a radical shift in the purpose
o f the t w o w o r k s , f r o m R o m a n p r o p a g a n d a to J e w i s h a p o l o g e t i c .

I I I . The Pharisees in Antiquities

I n his characterization o f the c h a n g e in J o s e p h u s ' s o u t l o o k b e t w e e n War


a n d Ant., L a q u e u r o m i t t e d a n y m e n t i o n o f the Pharisee passages in
either w o r k . T h i s m a y b e b e c a u s e his analysis focused o n Ant. 14, w h i c h
lacks a n y reference to the Pharisees, o r it m a y b e b e c a u s e he d i d n o t see
a n y clear d e v e l o p m e n t b e t w e e n the t w o w o r k s o n this subject. O t h e r
critics, h o w e v e r , w o u l d s o o n a r g u e that Ant. revises War's portrayal o f
the Pharisees to a c c o r d with the later w o r k ' s a p o l o g e t i c thrust. W e h a v e
already e x a m i n e d the p r o p o s a l s o f these scholars in s o m e detail ( c h a p t e r
7 9
2, a b o v e ) a n d m a y n o w simply recall their v i e w s with b r i e f s u m m a r i e s .
If T h a c k e r a y d i s c o u n t e d L a q u e u r ' s suggestion that J o s e p h u s ' s n e w
n a t i o n a l i s m in Ant. was a self-serving attempt to re-establish his c r e d e n ­
tials with his c o u n t r y m e n , H . R a s p ( 1 9 2 4 ) seized o n the idea as a m e a n s

7 7
On War, cf. chapter 3, above.
7 8
See the discussion in chapter 3, above.
7 9
See chapter 2, above.
194 CHAPTER SEVEN

o f intepreting the Pharisee passages in that w o r k . R a s p w a s particularly


i m p r e s s e d b y what h e c o n s i d e r e d to b e a d e v e l o p m e n t b e t w e e n War
2:119ff. a n d Ant. 18:1 Iff. H e thought that the latter passage, with its
d i m i n i s h e d praise o f the Essenes and its e m p h a s i s o n the Pharisees'
political c l o u t , represented J o s e p h u s ' s attempt to m a k e a m e n d s with the
Pharisees, w h o h a d n o w a c h i e v e d p o w e r in p o s t - w a r Palestine. T h e ever-
adaptable historian e v e n tried n o w to present h i m s e l f as a m e m b e r o f this
g r o u p (Life 1 2 ) .
S m i t h ( 1 9 5 6 ) a n d N e u s n e r ( 1 9 7 2 ) h a v e f o u n d in Ant. a similar revision
o f Pharisaic history b u t interpret it s o m e w h a t differently. T h e y locate the
heart o f the d e v e l o p m e n t in Ant. 13:401 ff., in A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s ' s
d e a t h b e d plea to his wife that, if h e r adminstration is to b e a success, she
m u s t yield p o w e r to the Pharisees. Smith a n d N e u s n e r a r g u e that the
w o r d s put in J a n n e u s ' s m o u t h , a l o n g with Ant. 's o t h e r references to
Pharisaic p o p u l a r i t y ( 1 3 : 2 9 8 , 1 8 : 1 5 ) , w e r e i n t e n d e d b y J o s e p h u s as a
signal to the R o m a n g o v e r n m e n t that it should e n d o r s e the Pharisees as
the n e w aristocracy in p o s t - w a r Palestine. T h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w o u l d
naturally facilitate J o s e p h u s ' s reconciliation with the Pharisees, in k e e p ­
ing with R a s p ' s v i e w , but S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r u n d e r s t a n d Ant. 's respect
for Pharisaic p o w e r to b e directed first o f all t o w a r d the R o m a n s . L i k e
Rasp, these A m e r i c a n scholars c o n s i d e r J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to b e a
Pharisee (Life 12) as clear p r o o f o f Ant. 's pro-Pharisaic a p o l o g e t i c . T h e i r
interpretation o f Ant. 's portrayal o f the Pharisees has w o n significant
80
support.
C o h e n ( 1 9 8 7 ) follows b o t h R a s p a n d S m i t h / N e u s n e r . O n the o n e
h a n d , h e thinks that the ( a l l e g e d l y ) pro-Pharisaic t o n e o f Ant. ILife is part
o f an overall religious a p o l o g e t i c in these w o r k s , w h i c h w a s i n t e n d e d to
81
rehabilitate J o s e p h u s in the e y e s o f J e w i s h r e a d e r s . O n the other h a n d ,
C o h e n finds in Ant. an appeal to the R o m a n s , " t h a t the Pharisees h a d
8 2
always b e e n p r o m i n e n t a n d therefore deserve R o m a n s u p p o r t " .
In all o f these scholars o n e c a n easily detect the L a q u e u r i a n a p p r o a c h
8 3
to J o s e p h u s . Whereas, however, Laqueur had o b s e r v e d the new
nationalistic-religious spirit p r i m a r i l y in Ant. 's revision o f H e r o d i a n
history, these scholars think that the Pharisee passages o f Ant. are also
i m p o r t a n t instances o f the n e w o u t l o o k . T h e y c l a i m that, for o n e reason
o r a n o t h e r — w h e t h e r to m a k e a m e n d s with the Y a v n e a n leaders o r to

8 0
See chapter 2, n. 101.
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

assist the R o m a n administration—Josephus has i m p r o v e d the i m a g e o f


the Pharisees vis-a-vis War.

Summary and Conclusion: the Task of Part Three

J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d to present Ant. a n d War as t w o parts o f a w h o l e . B o t h


w e r e written, he says, t o c o u n t e r i g n o r a n c e and m i s i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
the J e w s ; the axpifktoc m o t i f is constant t h r o u g h o u t b o t h w o r k s . A s
J o s e p h u s presents it, the m a j o r difference b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. is their
subject matter. T h e latter is an dpxotioXoyia whereas the f o r m e r deals
p r i m a r i l y with the revolt against R o m e . J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t suggest that
his o u t l o o k has c h a n g e d b e t w e e n the t w o w o r k s .
Nevertheless, it is n o w w i d e l y a c c e p t e d that J o s e p h u s d i d alter his
p o i n t o f v i e w b e t w e e n War a n d Ant., especially o n the subject o f H e r o d
a n d his family. T h e p r o b l e m that r e m a i n s to b e solved is the relationship
b e t w e e n the Pharisee passages o f Ant. a n d those o f War. A few influential
scholars h a v e a r g u e d that the Pharisee material o f Ant. is a clear a n d i m ­
portant e x a m p l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s n e w o u t l o o k in that w o r k . U n l i k e the
r e v o l u t i o n in his attitude t o w a r d the H e r o d i a n s , h o w e v e r , w h i c h w a s
already n o t e d a n d e x p l a i n e d b y the s o u r c e critics, his volte-face o n the
Pharisees has b e e n p e r c e i v e d b y few c o m m e n t a t o r s . It d i d n o t o c c u r to
the s o u r c e critics ( B l o c h , D e s t i n o n , H o l s c h e r , o r S c h w a r t z ) to posit a
shift between War a n d Ant. o n the Pharisees. Even Laqueur and
T h a c k e r a y , w h o r e c o g n i z e d a shift o n other issues, d i d n o t c o n n e c t the
Pharisee p e r i c o p a e with it. A s N e u s n e r remarks ( i n praise o f S m i t h ' s
originality), the idea w a s practically u n h e a r d o f b e f o r e his o w n 1972 arti­
8 4
cle. It is, therefore, an o p e n question w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d , in
Ant., to reverse o r significantly alter War's portrait o f the Pharisees.
In a d d i t i o n to the usual interpretive c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , w e shall n e e d to
classify e a c h o f the Pharisee passages o f Ant. in o n e o f the following
categories: ( a ) the s a m e basic c o n t e n t as War, with the s a m e attitude e x ­
pressed; ( b ) the s a m e c o n t e n t , but reformulated so as to express a n e w
attitude; ( c ) n e w material a d d e d , b u t in a w a y that c o n f i r m s War's v i e w ­
p o i n t ; o r ( d ) n e w material that b r i n g s with it a n e w attitude t o w a r d the
Pharisees.

8 4
He wrote in 1972 (''Josephus's Pharisees", 225): "Apart from Feldman [who pub­
lished an annotated bibliography, Scholarship on Philo and Josephus, in 1963]. . . I know
of no significant attempt to confront, let alone make use of, Smith's discoveries."
CHAPTER EIGHT

ANT. 13:171-173:
THE PHARISEES A M O N G T H E JEWISH SCHOOLS, II

J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees t o the r e a d e r o f Ant. in the c o u r s e o f


his description o f events under Jonathan, the second Hasmonean
1
axpaTTjYos a n d h i g h p r i e s t . T h i s early reference to the Pharisees has n o
parallel in War, w h i c h first m e n t i o n s the g r o u p ' s activities u n d e r A l e x ­
2
andra Salome, some seventy-five years l a t e r . I n o u r passage, the
Pharisees a p p e a r as o n e o f the three J e w i s h octpeaets:

171. Now at this time (XOCTOC hi TOV XP^VOV TOUTOV) were three schools
among the Jews, which thought differently about human actions (at rcept
xcav dv6pco7ttVG>v 7cpa-f[iaTcav 8ta90p<0£ u7teXa[i(3avov); the first of these were
called Pharisees, the second Sadducees, and the third Essenes.

172. The Pharisees, for their part, say that certain events, but not all, are
the work of fate; with others it depends on ourselves whether they shall
take place or not (ot (xev ouv Oaptaatot xtva xat ourcavxaxfjs eifxapfxevrj^ epyov
etvat Xeyouat, xtva 8' e<p' eauTOts urcapxetv au(xpatvetv xe xat (xrj ytveaOat). The
sect (yevos) of the Essenes, however, declares fate the mistress of all things
(TCOCVTOOV TTJV etfxapjxevrjv xuptav) and says that nothing befalls men unless it
be in accordance with her decree.

173. But the Sadducees do away with fate, believing that it is nothing and
that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but
that all things lie within our own power (arcavTa 8e £9' Tj(xtv auxots xetaOat),
so that we ourselves are responsible for our well-being, while we suffer
misfortune through our own thoughtlessness. Of these matters, however,
I have given a more detailed account in the second book of the Jewish
History*

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

A t Ant. 1 2 : 2 4 0 , J o s e p h u s b e g i n s to m a k e extensive use o f 1 M a c c a b e e s


as a s o u r c e o f the H a s m o n e a n revolt a n d for the early years o f H a s m o ­
nean rule. Book 13 o f Ant. recounts the military and diplomatic
a c h i e v e m e n t s o f J o n a t h a n . T a k i n g a d v a n t a g e o f the u n c e r t a i n leadership
o f the S e l e u c i d r e g i m e , w e are t o l d , J o n a t h a n w a s able to w i n a m e a s u r e
o f a u t o n o m y for the n a t i o n . T o e n h a n c e this a u t o n o m y , h e sent e n v o y s
to R o m e , to r e n e w the alliance that his b r o t h e r J u d a s h a d m a d e w i t h the
4
great p o w e r o f the W e s t ; h e also s o u g h t to strengthen ties with Sparta.
T h i s narrative takes us to Ant. 13:170, which corresponds to 1 M a c e .
1 2 : 2 3 . B e t w e e n his p a r a p h r a s e o f 1 M a c e 12:23 a n d 2 4 , J o s e p h u s splices
into his narrative o u r passage o n the J e w i s h s c h o o l s . Ant. 13:174ff.,
following 1 Mace. 1 2 : 2 4 , carries on with the political history of
Jonathan's time.
C o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e l o n g p u z z l e d o v e r J o s e p h u s ' s d e c i s i o n to i n c l u d e
o u r p a s s a g e , o n the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , in the c o u r s e o f a narrative to
1
w h i c h it s e e m s u n r e l a t e d . S c h w a r t z bluntly states, ' A s it stands, the
5
f u n c t i o n o f this passage is i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e " . A t least five p r o p o s a l s
have emerged to account for the perceived irrelevance of Ant.
13:171-173.
W h e t h e r H o l s c h e r w a s a w a r e o f the p r o b l e m is difficult to k n o w . In
a n y c a s e , his sourse analysis a b s o l v e d J o s e p h u s o f all responsibility: it
w a s the intermediate s o u r c e , the p r o - H a s m o n e a n p o l e m i c i s t , w h o h a d
already c o m b i n e d the s c h o o l passage with the narrative f r o m 1 M a c ­
6
cabees. H o l s c h e r ' s t h e o r y o f intermediate s o u r c e s , h o w e v e r , has l o n g
7
been out o f favour.
R a s p suggested that the p e r i c o p e has a p r e p a r a t o r y function for the
8
n e x t d i s c u s s i o n o f the Pharisees (Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 f . ) . In s u p p o r t o f this^sug-
gestion w e m a y n o t e that 1 3 : 2 8 8 will refer to the Pharisees as, " o n e o f
the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , as w e h a v e related a b o v e (a>$ xat ev xot£ e7rav<o
9
8e8r|Xa>xa{xev)". T h i s seems like a direct reference b a c k to o u r p a s s a g e .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , M o o r e has p o i n t e d o u t that in the later a c c o u n t , w h i c h
c o n c e r n s J o h n H y r a c a n u s a n d the Pharisees, J o s e p h u s takes t i m e a g a i n
to discuss the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s . A n d he says there that the p o i n t

4
O n the Hasmonean alliances with Rome, see E. M . Smallwood, The Jews Under
Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 4-11.
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

o f c o n t e n t i o n b e t w e e n these g r o u p s is n o t fate a n d free will b u t rather


10
the p r o b l e m o f authoritative vouapwc. T h i s difference o f portrayal leads
M o o r e to e x c l u d e a p r e p a r a t o r y function for Ant. 13:171-173; h e tries to
solve the p r o b l e m o f the tension b e t w e e n § § 171-173 a n d § § 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 b y
11
assigning the f o r m e r to a n o t h e r author.
S i n c e , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s will explicitly refer b a c k to an "above"
passage at 1 3 : 2 8 8 , o n e o u g h t to hesitate b e f o r e d e n y i n g a p r e p a r a t o r y
function to 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 . A l t h o u g h the tension that M o o r e points o u t b e ­
t w e e n the t w o passages c a n n o t b e i g n o r e d , t w o c o n s i d e r a t i o n s h e l p to put
it in p e r s p e c t i v e . First, w e h a v e already seen in War that J o s e p h u s
himself c a n d e s c r i b e the Pharisees in v e r y different w a y s . I n 1:110, h e
m e n t i o n s o n l y their reputation for dxptPetoc w i t h respect to the v6(xot,
w h i c h m i g h t s o u n d like a v e r y J e w i s h portrayal; b u t at 2:162f., h e b o t h
recapitulates this earlier definition a n d c o n t i n u e s o n in the s a m e sentence
to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees' v i e w o f fate, a d e s c r i p t i o n that has b e e n c o n ­
1 2
sidered v e r y " G r e e k " . W e k n o w that b o t h kinds o f descriptions are
1 3
J o s e p h u s ' s o w n , b e c a u s e o f their J o s e p h a n t h e m e s a n d v o c a b u l a r y .
This demonstrable flexibility in J o s e p h u s ' s presentation prevents us
f r o m a s s u m i n g that h e c o u l d n o t h a v e intentionally inserted Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 -
173 as a p r e p a r a t i o n for 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 . S e c o n d , w e shall see that the des­
cription o f the P h a r i s e e - S a d d u c e e dispute in 13:297f. has s o m e t h i n g like
footnote status; it is an afterthought that arises o u t o f the narrative ( § §
2 8 8 - 2 9 6 ) a n d d o e s n o t , therefore, c o m p e t e with 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 as an inten­
tional statement b y J o s e p h u s a b o u t the schools. T h u s w e are c o m p e l l e d
to a c c e p t J o s e p h u s ' s o w n statement that Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 assumes the
r e a d e r ' s a c q u a i n t a n c e with an earlier passage in Ant. a n d to infer that
o u r passage is the o n e in q u e s t i o n .
Moore proposes that our passage is intended as "a purely
1 4
c h r o n o l o g i c a l n o t i c e " . J o s e p h u s inserted this material (taken f r o m an­
other s o u r c e ) m e r e l y in o r d e r to date the schools to a b o u t 150 B C .
R i v k i n , likewise, d r a w s attention to the c o n n e c t i v e XOCTOC 8e TOV xpovov
TOUTOV ( § 171) and remarks:

By introducing the three haireseis here as fully functioning in the times of


Jonathan, Josephus is alerting us to the fact that he must have had [sic]
some other source than I or II Maccabees recording the existence of the

1 0
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

Pharisees. Since he had found this chronological connection in some other


15
source, Josephus felt constrained to insert this datum into his history.

A l t h o u g h it is a d u b i o u s a s s u m p t i o n that J o s e p h u s t o o k his d e s c r i p t i o n
o f the J e w i s h schools f r o m a s o u r c e , the v i e w that h e is trying here to
date the o r i g i n s o f the schools d o e s s e e m to b e a natural interpretation
o f the i n t r o d u c t o r y phrase.
S c h w a r t z , h o w e v e r , has recently c o n t e n d e d that J o s e p h u s uses phrases
like XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV yjpovov in an irresponsible way:

True, he justifies the insertion [of Ant. 13:171-173] by introducing it by ' A t


this time', but this need be no more than a convenient way o f linking other­
16
wise irrelevant sources.

S c h w a r t z g o e s o n to elaborate a highly speculative hypothesis as to


J o s e p h u s ' s real m o t i v a t i o n for i n c l u d i n g o u r passage in its present c o n ­
0 V 0 V n a s a n
text, d e n y i n g that the c o n n e c t i v e phrase XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P y
real significance for assessing J o s e p h u s ' s intention. T h a t d e n i a l , if it is
b e i n g m a d e , is r e m a r k a b l e a n d d e m a n d s further investigation.
S c h w a r t z refers the r e a d e r b a c k to an earlier article o f his, in w h i c h
he h a d tried to s h o w that the a n t i - A g r i p p a passages o f Ant. 20 w e r e
1 7
c o p i e d b y J o s e p h u s f r o m an auxiliary s o u r c e o n A g r i p p a I I . T h e first
step in his a r g u m e n t there h a d b e e n to s h o w that J o s e p h u s regularly uses
V 0 V
chronological c o n n e c t i v e phrases, especially XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P °
( w h i c h often i n t r o d u c e s the a n t i - A g r i p p a passages), to splice material
f r o m an auxiliary s o u r c e into a narrative that is b a s e d o n a m a i n s o u r c e .
S c h w a r t z establishes this p o i n t b y listing eighteen p e r i c o p a e in J o s e p h u s
that ( a ) b e g i n with such a c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e phrase a n d ( b ) are
18
b e l i e v e d o n o t h e r g r o u n d s t o c o m e f r o m a Nebenquelle. Ant. 13:17ff. is
one o f those eighteen passages; the " o t h e r g r o u n d s " that S c h w a r t z ap­
19
peals to in this case are M o o r e ' s a r g u m e n t s for N i c o l a u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p ,
2 0
w h i c h w e shall c o n s i d e r b e l o w .
It is, h o w e v e r , difficult to see h o w S c h w a r t z ' s observations o n
J o s e p h u s ' s use o f c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e s to insert material f r o m aux­
iliary sources (in the earlier article) justify his dismissal of a
c h r o n o l o g i c a l intention o n J o s e p h u s ' s part (in the later article). Surely
the c h o i c e o f a c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e , rather than s o m e other sort,

1 5
Rivkin, Revolution, 34.
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

indicates p r e c i s e l y J o s e p h u s ' s intention to link events c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y .


One m u s t then ask, in e a c h c a s e , w h a t right J o s e p h u s h a d to m a k e the
c o n n e c t i o n . O n e c a n n o t dismiss the validity o f all the c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n ­
nectives for the simple r e a s o n that J o s e p h u s uses t h e m frequently.
More important still: S c h w a r t z ' s assessment o f Josephus's use o f
chronological c o n n e c t i v e s is far t o o n a r r o w . F o r J o s e p h u s uses phrases
like XOCTOC TOUTOV (exetvov/ocuTOv) TOV xocipov (xpovov) a l m o s t 100 times in his
writings, a n d in m a n y different situations. F o r e x a m p l e : ( a ) w h i l e f o l l o w ­
ing a single s o u r c e , the S e p t u a g i n t , J o s e p h u s regularly substitutes his
chronological c o n n e c t i v e s for the biblical phrases xal eyeveTO, eyevrjOrj ev
21
TOCTS rjuipocts, eyeveTO hi, o r the s i m p l e xoci. ( b ) H e finds these phrases
especially useful w h e n he has slightly r e a r r a n g e d events vis-a-vis the
biblical narrative a n d m u s t therefore return to an e v e n t that o c c u r r e d
2 2
' ' a b o u t that t i m e " . ( c ) M o s t interesting for o u r p u r p o s e , J o s e p h u s fre­
q u e n t l y uses the phrases in q u e s t i o n to c o n n e c t events that h e recalls
2 3
f r o m his o w n e x p e r i e n c e , w h i c h d o n o t c o m e f r o m a n y written s o u r c e .
We n o t i c e this particularly in the Life, w h e r e he links t o g e t h e r events
f r o m his c a r e e r as G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d e r with the phrase XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV
24
xocipov.
0 V 0 V t o
Thus Josephus's use of XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P introduce Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 s h o u l d n o t p r e d i s p o s e us to think that he is splicing material
f r o m a n auxiliary written s o u r c e into his narrative, for his usage o f
c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e s is n o t so restricted. W h e n e v e r he k n o w s o f t w o
events that are c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y related ( n o matter h o w he k n o w s o f
0 V 0 V t o
t h e m ) , he is apt to use a b r i d g e like XOCTOC TOUTOV TOV X P connect
t h e m . T h r o u g h o u t , his goal is o b v i o u s l y c h r o n o l o g i c a l — h e wants to date
s o m e events in relation to o t h e r s .
S c h w a r t z ' s o w n t h e o r y as to w h y J o s e p h u s l o c a t e d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3
w h e r e he d i d starts with the ( d e b a t a b l e ) p r e m i s e that the Essenes a n d
25
S a d d u c e e s w e r e o p p o s e d to the early H a s m o n e a n h i g h - p r i e s t h o o d .
F r o m this p e r s p e c t i v e , S c h w a r t z asks w h y a b r i e f passage a b o u t Essenes
a n d S a d d u c e e s ( a n d Pharisees) s h o u l d h a v e b e e n p l a c e d , for n o o b v i o u s
r e a s o n , in the m i d d l e o f a narrative a b o u t the first H a s m o n e a n h i g h

2 1
Cf., e.g., Ant. 1:71; 5:352; 6:30, 213, 271, 292, 325; 7:21, 117, 298, 383; 8:328,
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

priest. H e c o n j e c t u r e s that the passage o r i g i n a l l y s t o o d in a larger nar­


rative, c o m p o s e d b y N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s , w h i c h m a d e reference to the
anti-Hasmonean stance o f the Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s . T h a t original
c o n t e n t o f the passage l e d J o s e p h u s to i n c l u d e it in his narrative a b o u t
J o n a t h a n ; rather ineptly, h o w e v e r , he deleted the material a b o u t the
conflict b e c a u s e o f his o w n p r o - H a s m o n e a n b i a s , t h e r e b y r e n d e r i n g the
1 1 2 6
passage utterly i n c o m p r e h e n s i b l e " in its present c o n t e x t .
P r o b l e m s w i t h this h y p o t h e s i s i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g , ( a ) R e g a r d l e s s o f
" w h a t actually h a p p e n e d " , J o s e p h u s ' s o w n narrative has m a d e it clear
( t o this p o i n t ) that J u d a s , n o t J o n a t h a n , w a s the first H a s m o n e a n h i g h
27
priest. I f S c h w a r t z ' s assessment o f his m o t i v e s w e r e c o r r e c t , therefore,
J o s e p h u s s h o u l d h a v e inserted the passage earlier, in the c o n t e x t o f
J u d a s ' s a c h i e v e m e n t s , ( b ) T h e f o r m a n d c o n t e n t oi Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , as
w e presently h a v e it, d o n o t suggest that it w a s e x c e r p t e d f r o m a larger
narrative o n the political inclinations o f the Essenes a n d S a d d u c e e s .
W h a t w e h a v e is a c o n c i s e , b a l a n c e d p e r i c o p e that d e s c r i b e s the v i e w s
o f the (three!) s c h o o l s o n a single p h i l o s o p h i c a l issue. T h e passage gives
the a p p e a r a n c e o f c o m p l e t e n e s s within itself. S c h w a r t z ' s t h e o r y , then, is
both untenable and unnecessary.
O n l y L . H . M a r t i n , it s e e m s , has f o u n d a w a y to c o n n e c t Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 -
2 8
173 thematically with its c o n t e x t . H e c o n t e n d s that J o s e p h u s wants to
develop an "apologetic contrast" between the Hellenistic world's
e n s l a v e m e n t to eifxapfxevrj (astrologically interpreted, 13:171-173!) and
J e w i s h s u b m i s s i o n to the rcpovota o f G o d ( 1 3 : 1 6 3 f . ) , w h i c h s u b m i s s i o n
liberates m a n k i n d f r o m fate. A s M a r t i n n o t e s , this v i e w m a k e s J o s e p h u s
2 9
a J e w i s h c o u n t e r p a r t to the apostle P a u l . I h a v e tried to s h o w else­
w h e r e , h o w e v e r , that M a r t i n ' s t h e o r y h i n g e s o n misinterpretations—
30
b o t h o f eifxapfxevrj in J o s e p h u s a n d o f o u r passage in particular.
A l t h o u g h is it n o t yet p o s s i b l e to spell o u t the function o f Ant. 13:171-
173 in its c o n t e x t , w e h a v e m a d e s o m e h e a d w a y already. W e h a v e seen,
n a m e l y , that J o s e p h u s u s e d the c o n n e c t i v e phrase " a t a b o u t this t i m e "
to i n t r o d u c e o u r passage b e c a u s e h e b e l i e v e d , o r w i s h e d his readers to
b e l i e v e , that the J e w i s h s c h o o l s w e r e in existence at the t i m e o f the
H a s m o n e a n J o n a t h a n . W h e n c e h e a c q u i r e d this k n o w l e d g e w e d o n o t
k n o w . P e r h a p s it c a m e f r o m N i c o l a u s , p e r h a p s f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s early
e d u c a t i o n ; p e r h a p s it w a s m e r e l y a c o m m o n b e l i e f in his d a y s .

2 6
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 161f.
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

P l a c i n g the p e r i c o p e w h e r e h e d o e s , J o s e p h u s prepares the w a y for his


next reference to the Pharisees, w h i c h c o m e s at 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 . Further
w a y s in w h i c h the passage assists his larger narrative will b e c o m e a p ­
parent in the c o u r s e o f the f o l l o w i n g interpretation.

I I . Key Terms

All o f the k e y terms in the definition o f the Pharisees at Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 a


h a v e already b e e n a n a l y z e d in c h a p t e r 6 a b o v e . Alpeat? in J o s e p h u s
m e a n s " p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l " ; et[xap[xevT] refers to G o d ' s providential o r
31
e x e c u t i v e aspect; a n d TO £9' TJUIV (eocuTOts) w a s the usual t e r m in ethical
discussion o f the p e r i o d for that w h i c h originates in, o r d e p e n d s o n , the
individual.

I I I . Interpretation

A s with all o f the Pharisee passages o f Ant., o u r interpretation o f 1 3 : 1 7 2 a


m u s t c o n s i d e r b o t h the passage in itself a n d its relation to the Pharisee
passages o f War.
Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 is a self-contained unit that, taken b y itself, presents
a clear statement. T h e t o p i c , a n n o u n c e d in § 1 7 1 , is the v a r i o u s v i e w s
o f the J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools o n " h u m a n a c t i o n s " (dcvOpcomva
7upay(xaTa). T h e issue, w e d i s c o v e r , is that o f the causes o f g o o d a n d evil
actions, o r the relative roles o f fate a n d h u m a n v o l i t i o n . It w a s a discus­
32
sion that lay at the heart o f Greek-Hellenistic ethical thought.
J o s e p h u s ' s treatment is a n y t h i n g b u t p r o f o u n d . H e d r a w s a l u c i d spec­
t r u m a n d locates the three s c h o o l s , respectively, at the m i d d l e a n d either
e n d . T h e Essenes attribute e v e r y t h i n g (TCOCVTCOV) to fate; the S a d d u c e e s at­
tribute e v e r y t h i n g to h u m a n v o l i t i o n (STWCVTOC. . . !q>' rj(xtv OCUTOT$); the
Pharisees attribute s o m e things (TIVOC) to the o n e factor a n d s o m e (TIVOC)
to the other. T h e v a g u e n e s s o f the l a n g u a g e defies serious c o n c e p t u a l i z a ­
tion; w e c a n o n l y c o n c l u d e that J o s e p h u s ' s p u r p o s e is l i m i t e d to that o f
sharp, s i m p l e s c h e m a t i z a t i o n .
T h i s k i n d o f schematization has a fairly close parallel in C i c e r o ' s
presentation, to his R o m a n readership, o f the Greek philosophical
schools o n the v e r y s a m e issue o f fate and free will:

3 1
The M S S L A M W E support the inclusion of rjfxtv. Marcus, in omitting the pro­
noun, presumably follows the PFV reading. It matters little, since the sequel (§ 173)—
owcocvroc 8e I9' i\\iTv OCUTOU; xetdtai—gives the force of the phrase.
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 )

I n a similar w a y T a c i t u s (Annals 6 : 2 2 ) reflects o n the p r o b l e m o f fate a n d


free will b y s u m m a r i z i n g the v i e w s of: ( a ) those w h o dismiss fate
altogether f r o m the sphere o f h u m a n activity; ( b ) those w h o a c c e p t fate
3 4
b u t also g i v e m a n f r e e d o m to c h o o s e ; a n d ( c ) those (the m a j o r i t y ) w h o
35
attribute e v e r y t h i n g to fate, in its astrological s e n s e . T o instruct the
R o m a n w o r l d a b o u t J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h y , J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the s a m e sim­
ple o u t l i n e that C i c e r o a n d T a c i t u s h a d c h o s e n : o n l y the representatives
o f the three p o s i t i o n s are different.
Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 serves well the a p o l o g e t i c p u r p o s e o f Ant., as R a s p
3 6
and Weiss have s h o w n . W e h a v e seen that in this w o r k J o s e p h u s tries
to establish J u d a i s m as a serious participant in the Hellenistic d i s c u s s i o n
a b o u t h o w o n e a c h i e v e s eu8at(iovtoc ( c h a p t e r 7, a b o v e ) . It c a n o n l y h e l p
this general a r g u m e n t that J o s e p h u s is able to s h o w in 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 that
the J e w s possess p h i l o s o p h i c a l octpeaet$ o f l o n g standing (cf. XOCTOC TOUTOV
TOV xpovov) a n d that these s c h o o l s c o n c e r n themselves w i t h the s a m e fun­
d a m e n t a l issues as the Hellenistic s c h o o l s .
A l t h o u g h the function a n d the sense o f o u r passage s e e m clear e n o u g h ,
the r e a d e r is struck b y t w o differences b e t w e e n its p o r t r a y a l o f the
s c h o o l s a n d that g i v e n in War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 . T h e first difference is struc­
tural. O f p a r a m o u n t interest in the War passage are the Essenes ( 2 : 1 1 9 -
161). J o s e p h u s dispenses w i t h the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s b y c o n ­
trasting their v i e w s o n fate a n d i m m o r t a l i t y ( § § 1 6 2 - 1 6 5 ) . S i n c e the
Essenes d o n o t figure in that final c o m p a r i s o n , he c a n present the
Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s as p o l a r o p p o s i t e s : the Pharisees affirm fate a n d
i m m o r t a l i t y ; the S a d d u c e e s d e n y b o t h . I n o u r p a s s a g e , the situation is
different. J o s e p h u s has c h o s e n the single issue o f fate a n d free will to il­
lustrate the beliefs o f the s c h o o l s . H e has also d e c i d e d to i n c l u d e the

3 3
M y translation draws heavily on the German rendering by K . Bayer, Uber das
Fatum, by M . Tullius Cicero (2d. edn.; Munich: Heimeran, 1976 [1959]), ad loc.
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

Essenes in the c o m p a r i s o n . T o a c c o m p l i s h this, h e r e m o v e s the Pharisees


f r o m their p o l a r p o s i t i o n a n d replaces t h e m with the Essenes, w h o n o w
b e c o m e the " p a n - h e i m a r m e n i s t s ' ' . T h e S a d d u c e e s retain their p o s i t i o n
37
o n the e x t r e m e l e f t a n d the Pharisees are n o w g i v e n a p l a c e in the m i d ­
dle o f the s p e c t r u m .
Intertwined with the structural c h a n g e is a substantive o n e . J o s e p h u s
n o l o n g e r has the Pharisees ascribing e v e r y t h i n g to fate, as in War 2 , for
that is n o w the Essene p o s i t i o n (TCOCVTCOV TTJV £tu.apuivr)v xuptav dbi^atv-
eTOtt). T h e Pharisees n o w say that s o m e things b u t n o t all (xtva xal ou
rcavTa) fall within the sphere o f fate a n d that s o m e d e p e n d o n h u m a n
v o l i t i o n (TIVOC 8' e<p' Yjfxiv eauTOts). T h e p h r a s e xal ou rcavTa, w h i c h is m a d e
r e d u n d a n t b y the s e c o n d clause, seems almost like a p o i n t e d c o r r e c t i o n
o f War 2 : 2 6 3 . In the earlier passage, J o s e p h u s h a d the Pharisees e s p o u s ­
i n g a C h r y s i p p e a n m o d e l : a l t h o u g h they a c k n o w l e d g e d the k e y role o f
h u m a n v o l i t i o n in m o r a l a c t i o n s , they nevertheless attributed every action
(rcdcvTa, exaaxov) to fate. In o u r p e r i c o p e , the Pharisees are said to
distinguish t w o spheres o f actions: o n l y s o m e are c a u s e d b y fate; others
d e p e n d o n h u m a n will.
How to explain the development? Most commentators on the
Pharisees o r o n fate a n d free will in J o s e p h u s s e e m to h a v e o v e r l o o k e d
3 8
the difference b e t w e e n War 2 : 1 6 3 a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 . G . M a i e r notes the
p r o b l e m b u t explains it as follows. H e thinks that War 2 : 1 6 3 c a n b e in­
terpreted either in the C h r y s i p p e a n sense or in such a w a y that the clause
TO 7cp<XTT£tv TOC Stxata xal [XT] xocra TO nXeTarov im Toiq avOpcbnou; xeTaOoci i m ­
39
poses a restriction o n the p r e c e d i n g etfxapuivr) 7rpoadc7CTOuai reavTa. He
suggests that J o s e p h u s deliberately left the description a m b i g u o u s so that
it c o u l d b e interpreted b o t h in the C h r y s i p p e a n sense, for the benefit o f
G r e c o - R o m a n readers, a n d in a p r o p e r l y J e w i s h sense, to the effect that
s o m e things are in fate's p o w e r , b u t others d e p e n d o n h u m a n c h o i c e . In
Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 , a c c o r d i n g to M a i e r , J o s e p h u s has taken o v e r another
C h r y s i p p e a n portrayal o f the Pharisees f r o m his s o u r c e ( N i c o l a u s o f
D a m a s c u s ) a n d has attempted to j u d a i z e it b y inserting the phrase xal
OU TCOCVTa. 40

I h a v e already a r g u e d against M a i e r ' s p r o p o s a l that War 2:163 c a n


plausibly b e interpreted in the " J e w i s h " s e n s e — i . e . , as distinguishing

37 Q "right", depending on one's perspective.


r

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

relation b e t w e e n fate a n d free will has e x e r c i s e d the greatest m i n d s o f


G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y a n d o f C h r i s t i a n , J e w i s h , a n d M u s l i m t h e o l o g y ; the
issue survives in o u r o w n t i m e in b o t h p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l
f o r m u l a t i o n s . C o m m o n t h r o u g h o u t the history o f W e s t e r n t h o u g h t has
b e e n the a t t e m p t to w o r k o u t a m o d e l that allows for b o t h d e t e r m i n i s m
and h u m a n responsibility. A s A u g u s t i n e insists, "the religious m i n d
chooses both, confesses b o t h , and maintains both by the faith of
4 4
piety". J o s e p h u s carves o u t a n i c h e for the J e w i s h s c h o o l s o n this issue
a n d asserts that it is the Pharisees w h o take u p the m e d i a t i n g p o s i t i o n ;
h e is a p p r o p r i a t e l y m o d e s t a b o u t e x p l a i n i n g the details o f the p o s i t i o n .
I f J o s e p h u s wants o n l y to m a k e the l i m i t e d p o i n t that the Pharisees,
unlike the S a d d u c e e s a n d Essenes, d o effect a c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n fate
a n d free will, then it is p r o b a b l y the difference o f structure b e t w e e n War
2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 and^4n* 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 that causes h i m to r e p o r t that c o m p r o m i s e
differently. I n War 2 , w h e r e h e has o n l y the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s to
deal w i t h , it l e n d s simplicity a n d m n e m o n i c v a l u e t o his presentation
that h e c a n p o r t r a y the o n e as d o g m a t i c a n d the o t h e r as skeptical o n the
issues o f fate a n d i m m o r t a l i t y . T h e C h r y s i p p e a n l a n g u a g e allows h i m to
present the Pharisees there as p a n - h e i m a r m e n i c — i n contrast to the Sad­
d u c e e s , w h o reject fate o u t o f h a n d (avoctpouatv)—while at the s a m e t i m e
n o t i n g their p r o v i s i o n for h u m a n will. In Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 , h o w e v e r , the
Chrysippean language is n o l o n g e r useful b e c a u s e it w o u l d require
J o s e p h u s to present b o t h Essenes a n d Pharisees as pan-heimarmenists,
w h i c h w o u l d detract f r o m the terse clarity o f the p a s s a g e . Evidently,
Josephus b e l i e v e d that the Essenes were more suited to the pan-
h e i m a r m e n i c p o s i t i o n than w e r e the Pharisees; so in o r d e r to p r e s e r v e
the c o m p r o m i s e p o s i t i o n o f the Pharisees, he n o w shunts t h e m into the
m i d d l e o f the p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p e c t r u m . T h i s requires the r e m o v a l o f all
rcdcvTOC-language f r o m the d e s c r i p t i o n o f their v i e w , so J o s e p h u s replaces
the Chrysippean m o d e l with another, in w h i c h certain areas (TIVOC)
4 5
b e l o n g to fate a n d others b e l o n g to h u m a n v o l i t i o n . H e c a n d o this, a p ­
parently, b e c a u s e the fact that the Pharisees effect a c o m p r o m i s e b e t w e e n

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

fate a n d free will is m o r e i m p o r t a n t for his s c h e m a t i c p u r p o s e s than the


n a t u r e o f that c o m p r o m i s e .
It is often n o t e d that the alleged Pharisaic distinction b e t w e e n t w o
spheres, o n e for fate a n d o t h e r for h u m a n will, c o r r e s p o n d s to certain
later r a b b i n i c dicta, especially the f a m o u s m a x i m : " E v e r y t h i n g is in the
4 6
h a n d s o f G o d e x c e p t the fear o f G o d " . M a i e r g o e s so far as t o c l a i m
that this is the truly J e w i s h v i e w o f fate a n d free will; a n d h e uses that
identification to d e t e r m i n e the extent o f J o s e p h u s ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n to Ant.
4 7
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ( w h i c h , h e thinks, c o m e s essentially f r o m N i c o l a u s ) .
A l t h o u g h the late r a b b i n i c parallels are in o r d e r , h o w e v e r , o n e o u g h t
t o n o t e that J o s e p h u s ' s l a n g u a g e is v a g u e e n o u g h to m a t c h a host o f
G r e e k - H e l l e n i s t i c parallels as w e l l . W e n e e d o n l y m e n t i o n P l a t o ' s M y t h
o f E r , in w h i c h o n e role is assigned to h u m a n c h o i c e (the selection o f a
life-pattern) a n d a n o t h e r to fate (the c o n f i r m a t i o n a n d e x e c u t i o n o f the
48
life-pattern). M a n y o t h e r writers, f r o m H o m e r to A r i s t o d e t o v a r i o u s
49
Platonists, c o u l d b e said t o ascribe " s o m e things to fate a n d others to
h u m a n w i l l " . P e r h a p s the closest parallel t o the Pharisaic v i e w d e s c r i b e d
b y J o s e p h u s is E p i p h a n i u s ' s interpretation o f the p o s i t i o n h e l d b y Z e n o ,
the f o u n d e r o f S t o i c i s m . T h e latter, w e are t o l d , c o n s i d e r e d T&S 8e ahiaiq
50
TCOV TcpayfidcTcov rcfj uiv £9' TJUIV, 7cfj hi oux £9' TJUIV. T h e v e r b a l parallels
w i t h o u r passage—7updcyfxaTa ( § 1 7 1 ) , £9' TJUIV, atTta ( § 1 7 3 ) — a n d the
general similarity o f sense are o b v i o u s . O n c e again w e see, then, that
J o s e p h u s is n o t d e s c r i b i n g the Pharisees in special, i n t r a m u r a l J e w i s h
l a n g u a g e . H e p o r t r a y s t h e m in terms that his Hellenistic readers will
easily u n d e r s t a n d .

IV. Source Analysis

It has often b e e n c l a i m e d that Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 comes from someone


o t h e r than J o s e p h u s . H o l s c h e r t h o u g h t that it o r i g i n a t e d in J e w i s h tradi­
t i o n a n d that it w a s taken o v e r b y the p r o - H a s m o n e a n p o l e m i c i s t w h o
a u t h o r e d a l m o s t the entire s e c o n d half o f Ant., w h o m Josephus merely

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.

M o o r e ' s first c o m m e n t i g n o r e s his o w n a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t , n o t e d a b o v e ,


that the passage is r e s c u e d f r o m irrevelance to " i t s present c o n t e x t " b y

5 1
Holscher, "Josephus", 1973. He gives no reason for the specific attribution of this
passage to Jewish tradition.
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

the c h r o n o l o g i c a l c o n n e c t i v e phrase: the a u t h o r includes it in o r d e r t o


date the e m e r g e n c e o f the schools. A n d in a n y case, Ant. 13:171 o c c u r s
in the m i d d l e o f J o s e p h u s ' s paraphrase o f 1 M a c c a b e e s 1 2 . H o w e v e r ir-
revalent it m a y a p p e a r , therefore, w e c a n o n l y b l a m e ( o r credit)
5 8
J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f for its present l o c a t i o n . O n e c a n h a r d l y e x p l o i t that
apparent irrelevance, w h i c h w a s c a u s e d b y J o s e p h u s , as an a r g u m e n t
against J o s e p h u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p .
T h e significance o f M o o r e ' s s e c o n d o b s e r v a t i o n , that the schools are
c o m p a r e d here o n o n l y o n e issue, is hard t o see. I n 1 3 : 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 J o s e p h u s
will c o m p a r e the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s o n the single issue o f the
vojjttfia. D o e s this d a t u m also speak for N i c o l a u s ' s authorship? N i c o l a u s ,
5 9
as w e h a v e s e e n , lived at least t w e n t y years o f his adult life in J e r u s a l e m
a n d p r o b a b l y k n e w a g o o d deal a b o u t the Pharisees. A s M o o r e h i m s e l f
remarks in a f o o t n o t e , " N i c o l a u s w a s n o t u n a c q u a i n t e d with o t h e r char­
6 0
acteristics o f the Pharisees as a p a r t y " . A n d w e k n o w that the par­
ticular issue in q u e s t i o n here—the role o f fate in h u m a n affairs—was o n e
61
to w h i c h J o s e p h u s h a d d e v o t e d s o m e t h o u g h t . H o w , then, d o e s the fact
that the schools are c o m p a r e d o n the single issue o f fate a n d free will sug­
gest that N i c o l a u s rather than J o s e p h u s w a s the a u t h o r o f Ant. 13:171-
173? If J o s e p h u s w a s the author, the c h o i c e o f a single issue is easily e x ­
p l a i n e d b y narrative constraints. H e w a n t e d to date the J e w i s h s c h o o l s ,
in p r e p a r a t i o n for 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , b u t h e h a d to k e e p this interruption o f his
political history as b r i e f as p o s s i b l e . H e therefore c h o s e o n l y o n e t o p i c ,
w h o s e p h i l o s o p h i c a l significance w o u l d b e evident to the reader, on
w h i c h to c o m p a r e the s c h o o l s .
M o o r e ' s final c l a i m , that o n l y Ant. 13:172 describes the Essenes as
p a n - h e i m a r m e n i c , is o n c e a g a i n i n a c c u r a t e . Ant. 18:18 will tell us that
" T h e d o c t r i n e o f the Essenes is w o n t to leave e v e r y t h i n g in the h a n d s
62
o f G o d (Geo) xaTOcXeucetv. . . TOC 7tavT0c). G i v e n that it is characteristic o f
63
J o s e p h u s to use Oeo? a n d et[iapuivT| i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y , this passage p r o ­
vides a close parallel to o u r o w n . E v e n if Ant. 13:172 w e r e u n i q u e , it
w o u l d n o t follow that this i n f o r m a t i o n o u g h t to b e a s c r i b e d to s o m e o n e
o t h e r than J o s e p h u s .
I n short: it is u n c l e a r h o w a n y o f the p o i n t s e n u m e r a t e d b y M o o r e
speaks either against J o s e p h a n authorship o f Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 o r for that

5 8
That is, discounting Holscher's theory of an intermediate source; cf. the excursus
to Part I.
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

o f a " g e n e r a l historian in H e r o d ' s t i m e " . M o o r e is d o u b d e s s c o r r e c t in


his j u d g e m e n t that the a u t h o r o f this p e r i c o p e " w a s trying to give his
readers a brief account o f Jewish sects in terms o f current Greek
philosophical c o n t r o v e r s i e s " . But that author w a s J o s e p h u s .
I n v i e w o f their shared t h e m e s a n d v o c a b u l a r y , it w o u l d s e e m m o s t
reasonable t o assign all three " s c h o o l p a s s a g e s " in J o s e p h u s (War 2 : 1 6 2 -
166; Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ; 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 ) to the same author. A l l three present the
Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , a n d Essenes as p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools c o n c e r n e d
with p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues o f the d a y , especially with the causes o f g o o d
and evil in h u m a n a c t i o n s . T h e s e general similarities are e n h a n c e d b y
m a n y parallels o f v o c a b u l a r y . C o m m o n to all three are the essential
terms o f the d e b a t e : etfiocpuivr), TOC 7udvTa, a n d s o m e f o r m o f TO I 9 ' ^[xtv.
C o m p a r e , especially, War 2 a n d Ant. 13 o n the S a d d u c e e s :

War 2:164f. Ant 13:173


EaSSovxaToi 8£, . . .TT)V ptev elpiappiivTjv EaSSovxatot Si TTJV //ev tl\i(xp[i£\fr\v
9
7wcvT<X7Wcatv dvaipoOaiv . . . . 9<xatv S in dvatpovatv, ouSev etvat TauTTjv aijtouvres,
9

dvOpconcov ixXoyfj oOSe xaT' auTTjv TOC dcv6pco7utva t£\o$


Xa[x(idvetv, owcavTa Si £<p' r)pZv OCVTOTG
xeiaOai
TO Te xaXdv xat TO XOCXOV KpoxeteOai xat cos xat dyaOcov atTtous rjjxa? auTOu^
e
xaTa yvcojxrjv ixdarou TOUTCOV exdaTepov ytvofxevoix; xat rA x tp°> noLpa T?JV
ftpoaievat T)(jL£x£pav d(3ouXtav Xa(ji|3dvovTa^

It is i n c r e d i b l e that s o u r c e critics c o u l d assign these t w o descriptions to


64
different a u t h o r s . T h e t h o u g h t - w o r l d is the s a m e in b o t h , a l t h o u g h e x ­
act verbal a g r e e m e n t is l i m i t e d . T h e fact that w e h a v e t w o presentations
o f the s a m e c o n t e n t , in similar l a n g u a g e b u t differently c o n s t r u c t e d ,
speaks for J o s e p h a n authorship; it fits with his usual practice in Ant. 13-
65
14 o f r e f o r m u l a t i n g the narrative o f War. T h e unity o f the s c h o o l
passages w o u l d s e e m to e x c l u d e the theories o f b o t h H o l s c h e r a n d
S c h w a r t z , w h o assign War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 to J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f a n d Ant.
13:171-173 to s o m e o n e else.
66
H a v i n g established the unity o f the school p a s s a g e s , we may proceed
to o n e further p o i n t . O n e o f those passages (War 2:162-166) incor­
porates, a l o n g with its discussion o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues, a statement
a b o u t the Pharisees' reputation for dxpt(kta with respect to the laws
( 2 : 1 6 2 ) . S i n c e this statement, o n the o n e h a n d , is part a n d parcel o f the
school passage and since, o n the other hand, it closely parallels

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

J o s e p h u s ' s o w n statements in War 1:110 a n d Life 191 ( a n d , i n d e e d ,


J o s e p h u s ' s dxpt(3eta-theme in g e n e r a l ) , o n e is b o u n d to c o n c l u d e that
J o s e p h u s also w r o t e the s c h o o l passages.

Summary and Conclusion

J o s e p h u s w r o t e a n d situated Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 in s u c h a w a y that it w o u l d


serve the a p o l o g e t i c - d i d a c t i c interests o f Ant. H e w a n t e d his readers to
k n o w that the J e w s h a d p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools, that these s c h o o l s h a d e x ­
isted for a l o n g t i m e , a n d that they o c c u p i e d themselves largely with that
area in w h i c h m e t a p h y s i c s interfaces with ethics, v i z . : the respective
roles o f fate a n d h u m a n v o l i t i o n as causes o f h u m a n a c t i o n s . O f the three
s c h o o l s , h e says, the Pharisees represent the m i d d l e p o s i t i o n o n the spec­
t r u m : they attribute certain actions to fate a n d others t o h u m a n will. I n
Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y , the m i d d l e p o s i t i o n w a s taken b y Platonists a n d
Stoics.
T h a t the Pharisees g i v e p l a c e to b o t h fate a n d h u m a n v o l i t i o n , unlike
the S a d d u c e e s , is a p o i n t m a d e in b o t h War 2:163 a n d o u r passage. T h e
nature o f the c o m p r o m i s e is e x p l a i n e d differently in the t w o p l a c e s , b u t
that disparity seems to b e a function o f different structures: Ant. 13:171-
173 m u s t m a k e r o o m for the Essenes. T h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t intend o u r
passage as a c o r r e c t i o n o f War 2 is m a d e clear b y : ( a ) his referral o f the
reader b a c k t o the dxpi(k(rcipav SrjXcoatv ev TTJ Seuxepa PtpXco TTJ$ 'IouSatxfjc;
7tp<rf[xaTeia$; ( b ) his close r e p r o d u c t i o n here o f the S a d d u c e a n p o s i t i o n as
g i v e n in War 2:164f.; a n d ( c ) the fact that in Ant. 18:13 h e will return
to the " c o o p e r a t i o n " m o d e l o f fate a n d free will that he h a d g i v e n in War
2 . J o s e p h u s is evidently c o m m i t t e d o n l y to the p r o p o s i t i o n that the
Pharisees d o c o m b i n e fate a n d free will; the w a y in w h i c h they c o m b i n e
these factors h e c a n e x p l a i n differently, d e p e n d i n g o n the c o n t e x t .
If w e ask, finally, what Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 a reveals a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s attitude
t o w a r d the Pharisees, w e shall h a v e to answer: v e r y little. W r i t i n g for
a Gentile audience, he wants only to show that the Jews have
p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools. T h e t o n e o f his portrayal o f all three s c h o o l s ,
therefore, is positive. I f J o s e p h u s ' s favour c a n b e inferred from a
s c h o o l ' s r e c o g n i t i o n o f fate's i m p o r t a n c e (cf. Ant. 1 0 : 2 7 7 f f . ) , then the
Essenes are his favourites, for they m a k e fate the xuptoc o f all things. I f
J o s e p h u s d e v o t e s the m o s t space to his favourite s c h o o l , o r has t h e m d u l y
emphasize the Law's teaching on human responsibility (cf. Ant.
1 6 : 3 9 8 f f . ) , then the S a d d u c e e s are his favourites. If, finally, he gives his
favourite s c h o o l first place in the d i s c u s s i o n , o r attributes to t h e m the vir­
tue o f m o d e r a t i o n , then the Pharisees h a v e his s u p p o r t . A n d w e h a v e
seen ( c h a p t e r 6 ) that the Pharisaic j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f fate a n d free will in
212 C H A P T E R EIGHT

fact c o m e s closest to J o s e p h u s ' s o w n v i e w o f the m a t t e r . But the p e r i c o p e


u n d e r discussion, in k e e p i n g with its c o n t e x t a n d f u n c t i o n , presents all
three schools ( e v e n the S a d d u c e e s ! ) in a f a v o u r a b l e o r at least neutral
light.
CHAPTER NINE

ANT 13:288-298: T H E P H A R I S E E S A N D J O H N HYRCANUS

O f all o f J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisees, his story o f the r u p t u r e


b e t w e e n t h e m a n d J o h n H y r c a n u s is p e r h a p s the m o s t c o n t r o v e r s i a l .
P r e d i c t a b l y , m o s t o f the l e a r n e d c o n t r o v e r s y relates to the historical
q u e s t i o n : D i d it really h a p p e n ? J o s e p h u s ' s detractors r a n g e all the w a y
f r o m W e l l h a u s e n , w h o c l a i m e d that the Pharisees w e r e o p p o s e d to the
1
Hasmoneans from the outset, to C . Rabin, w h o argues that the
2
Pharisees a n d H a s m o n e a n s n e v e r h a d serious d i f f e r e n c e s . Several c o m ­
m e n t a t o r s , f o l l o w i n g a r a b b i n i c a c c o u n t , c o n n e c t the e p i s o d e with A l e x ­
3
a n d e r J a n n e u s rather than J o h n H y r c a n u s . A n d e v e n those w h o a c c e p t
J o s e p h u s ' s allegation that there w a s a rift b e t w e e n the Pharisees and
4
John H y r c a n u s often dismiss his e x p l a n a t i o n o f i t . But that is the
historical q u e s t i o n .
Josephus's narrative a i m s in Ant. 13:288-298 have received c o m ­
paratively scant attention. Critics h a v e usually c o n f i n e d their interest to
t w o aspects o f the literary q u e s t i o n , n a m e l y , ( a ) the p r o b l e m o f s o u r c e s
and ( b ) the interpretation o f 1 3 : 2 9 7 f . , o n the distinctive Pharisaic
vofAifxa. B o t h issues will b e i m p o r t a n t for this study, b u t w e shall also
n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d the story within the c o n t e x t o f Ant. a n d o f J o s e p h u s ' s
larger v i s i o n o f things.
I n v i e w o f the u n u s u a l significance o f s o u r c e criticism for the inter­
pretation o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , it will b e necessary in this c h a p t e r to
r e w o r k o u r usual f o r m a t . T h e distinction o f s o u r c e s m u s t here b e c o m e
an integral part o f the interpretive effort. After a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the
c o n t e x t , w e shall p r o c e e d to discuss the literary p r o b l e m s o f o u r passage
a n d their usual solutions. I intend to s h o w that a r e a s o n a b l y secure v e r ­
dict o n the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n is w i t h i n o u r r e a c h a n d that this v e r d i c t has
clear i m p l i c a t i o n s for J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees. A final section
will deal w i t h the f a m o u s " f o o t n o t e " o n the Pharisaic v6fj.i|ia ( § § 2 9 7 f . ) .

1
Wellhausen, Pharisaer, 90ff.
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 .

WAR AND ANTIQUITIES ON THE REIGN OF JOHN HYRCANUS

War 1:56-66 Ant. 13:230-287

(a) 1:56-6 la Hyrcanus' s attempt to free his mother and 13:230-237a


brothers at Dagon; attack by Antiochus
Sidetes.

Dealings with Antiochus Sidetes (This expan­ 13:237b-248,


sion drastically alters the sense of War 1:6If.) 250-253

(b) 1:61b Hyrcanus opens David's tomb, to bribe An­ 13:249


10
tiochus (War) or to raise a mercenary army
(Ant).

(c) 1:62-63 Hyrcanus's campaigns in Idumea and 13:254-257a


Samaria.

Hyrcanus judaizes Idumea. 13:257b-258

He renews friendship with Rome. 13:267-274

Summary of relations between Hyrcanus and 13:267-274


various Seleucid rulers.

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

(d) l:64-65a Hyrcanus besieges the city of Samaria. 13:275-277

Expansion of the Samaritan episode. 13:275-277

(e) 1:65b Hyrcanus captures and razes Samaria. 13:281

Legend about Hyrcanus. 13:282-283

Note on the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and 13:284-287


Cyprus (from Strabo).

(d) l:64-65a Hyrcanus besieges the city of Samaria. 13:275-277

Expansion of the Samaritan episode. 13:275-277

(e) 1:65b Hyrcanus captures and razes Samaria. 13:281

Legend about Hyrcanus. 13:282-283


Note on the Jews of Alexandria, Egypt and 13:284-287
Cyprus (from Strabo).
Although the new material in Ant. 13:230-277 contradicts the sense of
11
War in one notable case, Josephus manages on the whole to maintain
the sense of the earlier account. Just as War 1:56-66 serves to document
the "prosperous fortunes'' (T<X$ euTcpaytas) of Hyrcanus (1:67-69), whose
rule preceded the decline of the Hasmonean dynasty (1:69), so also Ant.
13:230ff. climaxes with a discussion of this high priest's e u 7 i p a y i a , which
his sons will never recapture (13:288, 299f.). But this brings us to our
passage, Ant. 13:288-298.
The story of the rift between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees has no
parallel in War. It is one of the new elements that Josephus introduces
in Ant. to fill out War's account of Hyrcanus's tenure. In keeping with
his usual practice in Ant. 13 (see table above) Josephus splices the whole
story of the rift into what is, at War 1:67-69, his concluding paragraph
on Hyrcanus. T h e following comparison between that paragraph and
the material surrounding our pericope illuminates Josephus's procedure:
War 1:67-69 Ant. 13:288-300
67. 7up6<; Si tote; eonpayiac; av-cou zt 288. T p x o c v c p Si cpQovov e x t v r j a e Ttocpoc
'Icodvvov xal tcov naiScov yOovoc; e y e t p e t tcov 'IovSatcov r) r e avTOV xal tcov ulcov
1x a t
araaiv T&V i7utx<opt<ov M^XP ^pos svnpayta.

1 1
That is, in Ant. 13:237b ff., on Antiochus Sidetes; cf. War 1:61.
216 CHAPTER NINE

So J o s e p h u s has inserted the story o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s b r e a k with the


Pharisees into a narrative that is indistinguishable f r o m War 1:67-69.
T h i s is c o n f i r m e d b y Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 9 , w h i c h has H y r c a n u s q u e l l i n g a (redan;
1 2
that is n o t m e n t i o n e d in Ant. b u t o n l y in the War parallel ( 1 : 6 7 ) .
O u r passage falls, then, in a c o n t e x t in w h i c h J o s e p h u s wants to il­
lustrate the successes o f J o h n H y r c a n u s . T h e euxcpayta m o t i f is taken o v e r
f r o m War a n d all o f the o t h e r s u p p l e m e n t a r y material in this part o f Ant.
13 seems to c o n t r i b u t e to it. W e n o w p r o c e e d to e x a m i n e the story o f
H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees, to d e t e r m i n e its m e a n i n g a n d its function
in the narrative.

I I . Literary Problems and Solutions

A. Topic Paragraph

288. A s for H y r c a n u s , his o w n success (euTCpayia) a n d that o f his sons


a r o u s e d j e a l o u s y (cpGovov extvrjae) a m o n g the J e w s ; the Pharisees,
w h o are o n e o f the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , as w e h a v e e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , w e r e
especially hostile t o w a r d h i m ((xdcXtcrca Se ot OaptaaToi xax&s 7up6<;
auxov etxov). T h e i r p o w e r w i t h the p o p u l a c e is such that, e v e n w h e n
they speak against a k i n g a n d against a h i g h priest, they are i m ­
m e d i a t e l y credited! (ToaauTTjv Se e'xouat TTJV tax^v ^capct TCO TiXrjOet chq
xat xaia (JaatXeco? xt Xeyovxes xal xax' dpxiepeco? euOus 7ciaTeuea0ai.)

B. Body of the Passage

(i) 2 8 9 - 2 9 0 a . N o w H y r c a n u s w a s also o n e o f their disciples (fxaOrjTrjs) a n d


he w a s greatly l o v e d (<J9oSpa rjya7uaTo) b y t h e m . A c c o r d i n g l y , he in­
vited t h e m to a feast a n d entertained t h e m h o s p i t a b l y . W h e n he saw
how delighted (acpoSpa 7)So(xevou<;) they w e r e , he b e g a n to speak with
t h e m a l o n g the f o l l o w i n g lines. T h e y k n e w , he said, o f his desire to
be righteous (etvat Stxatov) a n d to d o all things so as to please G o d a n d
t h e m ( f o r the Pharisees a d v o c a t e a certain w a y o f life [ot yap Oaptaatot
cptXoaoqjouatv]); nevertheless, he requested that, if they should n o t i c e
h i m d o i n g a n y t h i n g w r o n g a n d v e e r i n g f r o m the path o f righteousness
(TTJS 6Sou Ti}s Stxata? exxpe7c6fxevov), they w e r e to lead h i m b a c k
(eTuavdyetv) a n d restore h i m (e7uavop0ouv) to it.
(ii) 2 9 0 - 2 9 2 . N o w the Pharisees attested to his c o n s u m m a t e virtue a n d he
was pleased b y their c o m p l i m e n t s , but o n e o f the guests (iiq TCOV xaxa-
xet(xevcav), b y the n a m e o f Eleazar, w h o w a s m a l i c i o u s b y nature a n d
revelled in d i s c o r d , said, " S i n c e y o u asked to k n o w the truth, if y o u

1 2
Cf. Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 158f.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 217

w a n t ' t o b e r i g h t e o u s ' (etvat Stxatov), then relinquish the h i g h priest­


h o o d a n d b e satisfied with ruling the p e o p l e " (TO apxeiv TOU Xaou).
W h e n H y r c a n u s asked h i m the reason w h y he s h o u l d relinquish the
h i g h p r i e s t h o o d he replied, " b e c a u s e w e hear f r o m the elders that
y o u r m o t h e r w a s a c a p t i v e in the reign o f A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s ' ' . But
the story w a s false. H y r c a n u s b e c a m e furious w i t h the m a n a n d the
Pharisees w e r e all v e r y a n g r y (xat 7udvTe? S' ot OaptaaTot a^oSp&s
riyavaxxTiaav).
(iii) 2 9 3 - 2 9 6 . T h e n s o m e o n e f r o m the s c h o o l (atpeai?) o f the S a d d u c e e s ,
w h o e s p o u s e a v i e w o p p o s e d to that o f the Pharisees (ot TTJV evavxtav
Tots Oaptaatots rcpoatpeatv e'xouatv), a certain J o n a t h a n , w h o w a s
a m o n g the close friends o f H y r c a n u s , b e g a n to say that Eleazar h a d
uttered his slanders in a g r e e m e n t with the collective o p i n i o n o f all the
Pharisees (TTJ xoivfj 7udvT<ov Oaptaatcov yvcofxr)). A n d this w o u l d b e c o m e
clear to h i m , J o n a t h a n said, if h e asked t h e m w h a t p u n i s h m e n t w a s
a p p r o p r i a t e for w h a t h a d b e e n said. W h e n H y r c a n u s asked the Phari­
sees w h a t they c o n s i d e r e d a w o r t h y p u n i s h m e n t ( f o r he w o u l d b e per­
s u a d e d that the slanders h a d n o t b e e n m a d e with their a p p r o v a l , he
said, if they a d v o c a t e d p u n i s h i n g E l e a z a r with a c o m m e n s u r a t e
p e n a l t y ) , they p r o p o s e d lashes a n d c h a i n s ; for it d i d n o t s e e m right
to p u n i s h s o m e o n e with death o n a c c o u n t o f v e r b a l a b u s e a n d , in a n y
case, the Pharisees are naturally merciful in the m a t t e r o f punish­
m e n t s (q>uaet npb<; TOC? xoXaaet? e7ttetx&<; e'xouatv ot OaptaaToi). A t this
r e s p o n s e , H y r c a n u s b e c a m e v e r y a n g r y a n d a s s u m e d (ev6[xtaev) that
the m a n h a d slandered h i m w i t h their a p p r o v a l . J o n a t h a n e x a c e r ­
b a t e d his a n g e r greatly a n d a c h i e v e d the f o l l o w i n g result: he i n d u c e d
Hyrcanus to j o i n the party o f the S a d d u c e e s , to a b a n d o n the
Pharisees, to repeal the o r d i n a n c e s that they h a d established a m o n g
the p e o p l e (TOC xe UTC' auTG>v xaxaaxaOevTa vou.tu.a TTJ 8r)u.<p xaxaXuaat),
a n d to p u n i s h those w h o o b s e r v e d these o r d i n a n c e s . T h i s is the
r e a s o n , then (ouv evxeuOev), that hatred d e v e l o p e d a m o n g the p o p u l a c e
t o w a r d h i m a n d his s o n s . But w e shall speak o f these matters b e l o w .

C . Footnote: the Pharisaic NoyuyLOi

2 9 7 - 2 9 8 . I w a n t to e x p l a i n here that the Pharisees passed o n to the


p e o p l e certain o r d i n a n c e s f r o m a s u c c e s s i o n o f fathers, w h i c h are n o t
written d o w n in the laws o f M o s e s . F o r this r e a s o n the party o f the
S a d d u c e e s dismisses these o r d i n a n c e s , a v e r r i n g that o n e n e e d o n l y
r e c o g n i z e the written o r d i n a n c e s , w h e r e a s those f r o m the tradition o f
the fathers n e e d n o t b e o b s e r v e d . C o n f l i c t s a n d m a j o r differences
d e v e l o p e d b e t w e e n the t w o g r o u p s o v e r these matters. T h e S a d d u c e e s
218 CHAPTER NINE

p e r s u a d e o n l y the w e a l t h y , h o w e v e r , a n d h a v e n o p o p u l a r f o l l o w i n g ,
w h e r e a s the Pharisees h a v e the s u p p o r t o f the p o p u l a c e . But these
t w o g r o u p s a n d also the Essenes h a v e b e e n d e s c r i b e d with detailed
a c c u r a c y in the s e c o n d b o o k o f m y Judaica.
(vuv Se 87)Xcoaat (3ouXou.at o-u v6u.iu.oc TIVOC 7uap£8oaav TCO Srjfico ot
Oaptaatot exrcocTepcovStaSoxfjS, arcep oux avayeypaTCTat iv TOT? Mcouaeos
vopots, xat Stoc TOUTO Tauxa TO TCOV EaSSouxatcov yevo$ ex(3dXXet, Xeyov
exetvoc Setv fjyetaOat vou.tu.a TOC yeypajiuiva, TOC 8' Ix rcapaSoaecos TCOV
7taTepcov u.7) TTjpeTv. xat 7uepl TOUTCOV £7)TTJaet$ auTots xat 8ta9opoc<; ytveaOat
auvejiatve (jteyaXa*;, TCOV Se SaSSouxatcov TOU<; eu7c6pou<; u.6vov rcetOovTcov
TO Se SrjptoTtxov oux e7uou.evov auToT$ exovrcov, TCOV 8e Oaptaatcov TO
nkrfioq au(X[xaxov ex^vrcov.)

A s it stands in its present c o n t e x t this story creates several w e l l - k n o w n


p r o b l e m s for the interpreter.
A . A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s casually refers the r e a d e r to b o t h Ant. 13:171-
173 ( § 2 8 8 ) a n d the " p r e c i s e " a c c o u n t in War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 ( § 2 9 8 ) , h e
discusses h e r e a m a j o r difference b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s
13
that the earlier passages d i d n o t m e n t i o n at a l l .
B . T h e t o p i c p a r a g r a p h ( § 2 8 8 ) d e s c r i b e s an initial hostility b e t w e e n
H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees that the sequel ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) fails to d e m o n ­
strate. O n the c o n t r a r y , the Pharisees a p p e a r t h r o u g h o u t as friends o f
the h i g h priest. O n the basis o f § 2 8 8 , the r e a d e r e x p e c t s to see e v i d e n c e
o f Pharisaic e n v y a n d h a t r e d b u t instead it turns o u t that they l o v e H y r ­
c a n u s greatly ( § 2 8 9 ) , t h e y praise his virtue ( § 2 9 0 ) , a n d they all b e c o m e
1 4
i n d i g n a n t w h e n s o m e o n e speaks against h i m ( § 2 9 2 ) . T h e Eleazar w h o
utters the slanders is n o t identified as a Pharisee b u t m e r e l y as " o n e o f
1 5
the g u e s t s " . A n d H y r c a n u s o n l y a b a n d o n s the Pharisees in the e n d as
16
a result o f the m a c h i n a t i o n s o f his S a d d u c e a n f r i e n d .
C . T h e story p r o v i d e s n o e v i d e n c e , as the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h leads us t o
e x p e c t , o f the P h a r i s e e s ' s p e a k i n g against a p u b l i c figure a n d f i n d i n g
automatic support a m o n g the people. T h e i r public following is il­
lustrated b y the p o p u l a r o u t c r y that follows the a n n u l m e n t o f their
vofjttpta ( § 2 9 6 ) b u t w e see n o t h i n g o f their alleged i m p e r t i n e n c e . It is
17
H y r c a n u s w h o takes the initiative against the P h a r i s e e s .

13
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

D. Finally, § 2 8 8 agrees w i t h War 1:67 in attributing the p o p u l a r


hatred o f H y r c a n u s to the J e w s ' envy (9G6vo<;) o f his s u c c e s s . T h e story
c o n c l u d e s , h o w e v e r ( § 2 9 6 ) , b y flatly c o n t r a d i c t i n g that n o t i c e . T h e
p o p u l a c e c o m e s to hate H y r c a n u s b e c a u s e h e a b o l i s h e d the m u c h - l o v e d
Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s . S i n c e the story m a k e s it clear that this o c c u r r e d
o n l y b e c a u s e o f a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the p r o - P h a r i s a i c masses a p p e a r as
the v i c t i m s o f an injustice a n d n o t as " e n v i o u s " o f their l e a d e r ' s suc­
cesses.
T o s u m m a r i z e : in a d d i t i o n to the o b v i o u s difference in c o n t e n t b e ­
t w e e n Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 a n d the o t h e r P h a r i s e e - S a d d u c e e c o m p a r i s o n s in
J o s e p h u s , the r e a d e r is struck b y several tensions w i t h i n o u r passage
itself. T h e s e all h i n g e o n the d i s s o n a n c e b e t w e e n the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h ( §
2 8 8 ) a n d the story that it i n t r o d u c e s ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) . T h e t o p i c p a r a g r a p h
18
is f a v o u r a b l e t o w a r d H y r c a n u s b u t is m a r k e d l y a n t i - P h a r i s a i c , whereas
the actual story is f a v o u r a b l e t o w a r d the Pharisees, the p e o p l e , a n d H y r ­
canus; o n l y the malicious Eleazar and the Sadducee Jonathan are
19
villains.
It has b e e n rightly u n d e r s t o o d b y scholars w h o h a v e b r o a c h e d these
p r o b l e m s that their s o l u t i o n is to b e s o u g h t in J o s e p h u s ' s ( o r an in­
t e r m e d i a t e a u t h o r ' s ) i m p e r f e c t r e d a c t i o n s o f disparate s o u r c e s . A virtual
consensus obtains that the main body o f the story (§§ 189-296)
o r i g i n a t e d in J e w i s h tradition, w h e t h e r that tradition b e u n d e r s t o o d as
2 0 21
a chronicle o f Hyrcanus's r e i g n , an extensive written n a r r a t i v e , o r an
2 2
orally transmitted l e g e n d . T h e J e w i s h character o f the tradition is
usually s u r m i s e d f r o m ( a ) its f a v o u r a b l e presentation o f b o t h H y r c a n u s
23
a n d the P h a r i s e e s a n d ( b ) a parallel story in the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d ,
w h i c h tells in similar terms o f a b r e a k b e t w e e n A l e x a n d e r J a n n a e u s a n d
24
the P h a r i s e e s .
W e are n o w able to c o n f i r m the traditional J e w i s h p r o v e n a n c e oi Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 with t w o further o b s e r v a t i o n s .
( c ) First, w i t h i n the short space o f 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 1 , the adjective 8txoct0£ o c ­
2 5
curs three t i m e s . W e h a v e o b s e r v e d a b o v e that J o s e p h u s uses f o r m s o f
this w o r d h u n d r e d s o f times but that it generally lacks a n y o f the
specially J e w i s h , c o v e n a n t a l n u a n c e s o f p"l!J. O n the c o n t r a r y , J o s e p h u s
uses the w o r d g r o u p in its o r d i n a r y Hellenistic sense, to m e a n " j u s t i c e " ;

1 8
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

a n d this usage is reinforced b y his o m i s s i o n o f c o v e n a n t t h e m e s f r o m his


26
biblical p a r a p h r a s e . In the passage b e f o r e us, h o w e v e r , Stxato? has
precisely the c o v e n a n t a l sense o f pleasing G o d b y fulfilling his L a w .
T h u s H y r c a n u s claims that h e wants etvat Stxatov xat navxa notovvra ££
cov dpeaetev &v TCO Oeco ( § 2 8 9 ) . Eleazar throws his c l a i m b a c k at h i m ( §
291) with the r e m a r k that in o r d e r " t o b e r i g h t e o u s ' ' H y r c a n u s w o u l d
n e e d to give u p the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d ; for his m o t h e r ' s alleged captivity
2 7
disqualifies h i m ( a c c o r d i n g to the L a w ) f r o m serving as h i g h priest.
T h e sense o f Stxato? here is n o t that o f s i m p l y " d o i n g the right thing b y
o n e ' s n e i g h b o u r " , as with J o s e p h u s elsewhere; it has rather the biblical-
J e w i s h force o f " p l e a s i n g G o d b y k e e p i n g his c o m m a n d m e n t s " .
( d ) T h e o c c u r r e n c e o f Stxato? in o u r passage is especially n o t e w o r t h y
b e c a u s e the adjective qualifies 686?. H y r c a n u s expresses his wish n o t to
stray f r o m " t h e righteous p a t h " (TTJ? 68ou XT}? Stxata?). But it is well
k n o w n that the use o f " w a y " ( T H ) as a m e t a p h o r for the c o u r s e o f o n e ' s
28
life is b i b l i c a l .
F o r e x a m p l e , M o s e s is instructed b y J e t h r o ( E x . 1 8 : 2 0 ) :

And you shall teach them the statutes (D^pjnrmN) and the decisions and
t
make them know the way in which they must walk (S"D 1D?"» "p"rnN) and
2 9
what they must d o .

In P s a l m 119, a p a n e g y r i c o n the L a w , the psalmist often prays that his


"way" will please G o d , i n a s m u c h as he fulfills the L a w . T h e t h e m e is
a n n o u n c e d in 1 1 9 : 1 :

Blessed are those whose way is blameless,

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

" r i g h t e o u s w a y " to w h i c h H y r c a n u s aspires is a biblical-Jewish c o n ­


ception.
N o t i c e in particular the shepherd i m a g e r y that H y r c a n u s e v o k e s w h e n
he requests that the Pharisees restore h i m if h e should stray (exxpe7co(xat)
f r o m the righteous path. O n e thinks easily o f the sheep m e t a p h o r in
( d e u t e r o - ) Isaiah, " A l l w e like sheep h a v e gone astray; w e h a v e t u r n e d
3 3
e v e r y o n e to his o w n way" ( 5 3 : 6 ) , o r p e r h a p s again o f Psalms 23 a n d
3 4 35
119. T h e i m a g e r y is biblical a n d P a l e s t i n i a n . O u t s i d e o f o u r passage,
J o s e p h u s uses 686? s o m e 182 times, b u t practically always in a literal,
36
mundane sense. It will suffice to q u o t e M i c h a e l i s ' s contrast b e t w e e n
biblical u s a g e , o n the o n e h a n d , a n d J o s e p h a n usage o n the other. O f
the f o r m e r he remarks, " T h e fig[urative] use o f 686? is v e r y c o m m o n in
3 7
all parts o f the L X X , i n c l u d i n g the a p o c r y p h a " . O f the latter h e n o t e s ,
" I n J o s e p h [ u s ] , as is to b e e x p e c t e d in a historian, 686? is always u s e d
3 8
in the lit[eral] s e n s e . "
S i n c e the c o n n o t a t i o n s o f Stxocto? a n d 686? in Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 are
foreign to J o s e p h u s ' s usual style, but thoroughly compatible with
biblical-Jewish t h e m e s , w e m a y safely c o n f i r m the usual attribution o f
the story to an einheimischer judischen Quelle. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n d o e s n o t ,
h o w e v e r , p r e v e n t us f r o m l o o k i n g for traces o f J o s e p h u s ' s redactional in­
fluence, as w e shall see presently.
S o m e critics d o n o t distinguish the discussion o f the Pharisaic vou.tu.oc
39
in Ant. 13:297f. f r o m the b o d y o f the s t o r y . T h o s e w h o d o tend to see
40
it as J o s e p h u s ' s o w n e l a b o r a t i o n . E v e n H o l s c h e r credits J o s e p h u s with
4 1
this n o t i c e . H i s r e a s o n i n g seems to b e that, unlike m o s t o f J o s e p h u s ' s
42
other Pharisee passages, w h i c h either p o r t r a y the g r o u p u n f a v o u r a b l y
43
o r s e e m to misrepresent all the J e w i s h parties as p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s ,
this n o t i c e a b o u t the vofxifxa reflects the insights a n d positive evaluation
o f the Pharisees that o n e w o u l d e x p e c t f r o m a Pharisaic J e w such as

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

We m a y r e s p o n d that, since the o v e r t h r o w o f H o l s c h e r ' s t h e o r y o f


50
m o n o l i t h i c intermediate s o u r c e s for Ant., the d e g r e e o f J o s e p h u s ' s
authorial f r e e d o m in that w o r k has b e c o m e a n o p e n q u e s t i o n that c a n
o n l y b e r e s o l v e d o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e basis. One cannot argue from
general theories o f h o w J o s e p h u s u s e d his s o u r c e s t o c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t
specific passages. W e shall see that § 2 8 8 betrays J o s e p h u s ' s o w n h a n d .
( b ) A s e c o n d a r g u m e n t for N i c o l a u s ' s a u t h o r s h i p o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 deals
w i t h the s e c o n d sentence o f the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h : the P h a r i s e e s ' influ­
e n c e is so great that " e v e n w h e n they say s o m e t h i n g against a k i n g a n d
against a h i g h priest (a>? xat XOCTOC (JaatXeco? . . . xat x a x ' apxtepew?) they
are i m m e d i a t e l y c r e d i t e d " . A c c o r d i n g to R e i n a c h , w h o is f o l l o w e d b y
51
M a r c u s and Schwartz, the " d i s t i n c t i o n " m a d e here b e t w e e n the of­
fices o f k i n g a n d h i g h priest w a s n o t o n e that suited J o s e p h u s ' s own
t i m e o f w r i t i n g (after 7 0 ) , n o r d i d it m a t c h the H a s m o n e a n p e r i o d ; it
c a n o n l y reflect, they c l a i m , the t i m e o f H e r o d ( a n d N i c o l a u s ) , in
w h i c h the k i n g a n d the h i g h priest w e r e t w o different individuals.
It is n o t at all clear, h o w e v e r , w h y the phrase m u s t b e taken t o refer
to t w o distinct individuals rather than t w o offices h e l d b y the s a m e per­
son. H y r c a n u s is n o t yet called (JaatXeus, t o b e sure, b u t the w h o l e story
h i n g e s o n the fact that h e has b o t h the dpxtepoxjuvTjv a n d the cxpxetv TOO
Xocov. T h a t is the p o i n t o f E l e a z a r ' s c h a r g e ( § 2 9 1 ) , t o the effect that
H y r c a n u s s h o u l d g i v e u p the f o r m e r a n d b e c o n t e n t w i t h the latter.
A f t e r the story, further, J o s e p h u s reflects that H y r c a n u s w a s c o u n t e d
u n i q u e l y w o r t h y b y G o d t o e n j o y TTJV a p x f j v TOU e6vou$, TTJV a p x t e p a T t x r j v
Ttu/rjv, a n d rcpoqnrjTeta (§ 2 9 9 ) , thereby e v o k i n g the familiar triad o f
5 2
p r o p h e t , priest, a n d k i n g . I f H y r c a n u s h i m s e l f d i d n o t take the official

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

lies at the heart o f the story a n d appears again in J o s e p h u s ' s summary


remarks o n H y r c a n u s .
W e m a y n o w a d d that the rueful r e c o g n i t i o n o f Pharisaic p o p u l a r i t y
that appears in § 2 8 8 is a t r a d e m a r k o f J o s e p h u s ' s o w n portrayal o f the
g r o u p . W e saw it in War 1:110-114, w h e r e it w a s i m p l i e d that Q u e e n
A l e x a n d r a a n d the masses w e r e d e c e i v e d b y the Pharisees' reputation for
axptfktoc, a n d in War 2 : 1 6 2 , w h e r e the Pharisees are said to lead astray
(<X7caya)) the f o r e m o s t s c h o o l . W e shall e n c o u n t e r the s a m e attitude again
inAnt. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ; 1 8 : 1 7 ; a n d Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 . J o s e p h u s , like the
a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , a c k n o w l e d g e s b u t regrets the great f a m e a n d in­
fluence o f the Pharisees.
T h r e e o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s e e m to c o n f i r m that the a u t h o r o f § 2 8 8
is J o s e p h u s himself. First is the o b v i o u s p o i n t that h e refers the r e a d e r
b a c k to his earlier presentation o n the J e w i s h octpeaet^ (a>$ xal ev TOT^ ITWCVO)
5 7
BeS-nXcixapLev). T h e " a b o v e " d e s c r i p t i o n is e v i d e n t l y Ant. 13:171-173,
w h i c h c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s himself.
S e c o n d , the a u t h o r o f the p a r a g r a p h reveals b y his praise o f H y r c a n u s
5 8
that he is p r o - H a s m o n e a n . Y e t w e k n o w J o s e p h u s to b e a p r o u d s c i o n
59
o f the H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y . Indeed, J o h n Hyrcanus was something o f
a h e r o to J o s e p h u s , a n d o u r a u t h o r likes t o p o i n t o u t his o w n p r o p h e t i c
6 0
a n d priestly qualifications as well as his r o y a l l i n e a g e . W a s it c o i n c i d e n ­
6 1
tal that J o s e p h u s n a m e d his first s o n H y r c a n u s ? I n b o t h War a n d Ant.,
as w e h a v e seen, this ruler m a r k s the a p o g e e o f H a s m o n e a n g l o r y ; the
6 2
d e c l i n e o f the d y n a s t y b e g i n s with the sons o f H y r c a n u s . Josephus,
t h e n , e m i n e n t l y satisfies the r e q u i r e m e n t that the a u t h o r o f § 2 8 8 b e p r o -
H a s m o n e a n a n d an a d m i r e r o f J o h n Hyrcanus.
D e c i s i v e for o u r q u e s t i o n , h o w e v e r , is the v o c a b u l a r y u s e d in § 2 8 8 ,
especially the p a i r i n g o f " s u c c e s s " (&U7upayta) a n d " e n v y " (906vo$). W i t h
these t e r m s , w h i c h o c c u r also in the War parallel ( 1 : 6 7 ) , w e hit u p o n a
characteristic J o s e p h a n theme.
I n k e e p i n g with the w e l l - k n o w n t e n d e n c y o f Hellenistic h i s t o r i o g r a p h y
63
to a n a l y z e the p s y c h o l o g i c a l m o t i v a t i o n s o f historical f i g u r e s , Josephus

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

often m a k e s the o b s e r v a t i o n that the success o f s o m e p u b l i c p e r s o n


" c a u s e d e n v y " in s o m e o n e else. T h e first t i m e w e m e e t this c l a i m is in
War 1:67, w i t h respect t o J o h n H y r c a n u s , b u t after that it b e c o m e s a
6 4
significant t h e m e in all o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s .
One m i g h t initially s u p p o s e that the editorial r e m a r k s o n the t h e m e
o f e n v y in War 1 a n d 2 w e r e c o p i e d f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s s o u r c e , N i c o l a u s
o f D a m a s c u s . S u c h r e m a r k s o c c u r at 1:77 (cf. Ant. 1 3 : 3 1 0 ) : " o f o u r bet­
ter feelings (TtdOrj), n o n e is s t r o n g e n o u g h t o h o l d o u t interminably
65
against e n v y ( 9 O 0 V O S ) " . Especially close to o u r passage is 1:208, " B u t
it is i m p o s s i b l e in p r o s p e r i t y (eu7cpayta) t o e s c a p e e n v y (9O0VOC)". T h e s e
editorial reflections are, h o w e v e r , perfectly consistent with J o s e p h u s ' s
o w n narrative t e n d e n c i e s . W i t h respect to his o w n c a r e e r in the G a l i l e e ,
for example, Josephus claims frequently that his brilliance and
popularity aroused the e n v y o f his o p p o n e n t s , especially J o h n of
66
Gischala. H e reflects (Life 8 0 ) :

I was n o w about thirty years old, at a time of life when, even if one
restrains his lawless passions, it is hard, especially in a position of high
authority, to escape the calumnies of envy (960VOS).

C o m p a r e also Life 1 2 2 . J o s e p h u s tells us that J o h n o f G i s c h a l a heard


a b o u t his euvota a m o n g his supporters a n d , " b e l i e v i n g that m y success
(TTJV ejxrjv Eurcpaytav) i n v o l v e d his o w n r u i n , g a v e w a y t o i m m o d e r a t e
e n v y (et$ 9G0VOV ouxt (xexptov)". A s in o u r passage, eu7upayia calls forth
906vo<;. B y w h a t criteria c o u l d o n e distinguish these r e m a r k s o f J o s e p h u s
f r o m those in the early part o f War o r in Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 ?
I n his biblical p a r a p h r a s e , m o r e o v e r , J o s e p h u s consistently i n t r o d u c e s
the t h e m e o f e n v y w h e r e it is absent f r o m his L X X s o u r c e . T h u s w e
learn that J o s e p h w a s e n v i e d b y his brothers b e c a u s e o f J a c o b ' s special
6 7 6 8
affection for h i m ; that K o r a h " e n v i e d " M o s e s ; that Saul d e l a y e d tell­
6 9
i n g his family a b o u t his selection as k i n g in o r d e r to p r e v e n t e n v y ; and
that Saul himself b e c a m e envious o f D a v i d ' s accomplishments and
7 0
fame. In all o f these cases J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the t h e m e o f y%vo<; to

Writings of Flavius Josephus", (Dissertation, Chicago, 1957), e.g. 99, 143ff.; E.


Milokenski, Der Neid in der griechischen Philosophic (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1964).
6 4
E.g., War 1:72, 84, 463, 633f.; 2:82, 181; 4:393; 5:97; 7:027; Ant. 2:27; 4:14; 6:59,
193; 10:212, 250, 256; 13:402; 15:130, 349; 16:248; 18:240f.; 20:21; Life 85, 122, 204,
423; Ag.Ap. 1:213.
6 5
The following quotations, illustrative of the 906vo$ theme, are taken from the L C L
translation.
6 6
War 2:614, 620, 627; Life 80, 85, 122, 204, cf. 423. Cf. Pt. I V , below.
67
Ant. 2:10//Gen. 37:3; 2:13//37:9; 2:27//37:22.
6 8
Ant. 4:14//Num. 16:lff.
6 9
Ant. 6:59//l Sam. 10:13.
7 0
Ant. 6:193//1 Sam. 18:8.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 227

his L X X s o u r c e . N o t i c e , finally, J o s e p h u s ' s reflection o n D a n i e l , w h o


(he says) w a s e n v i e d b o t h b y N e b u c h a d n e z z a r a n d b y the B a b y l o n i a n
71
nobility:

A n d so Daniel, being held in such great honour and dazzling favour b y


Darius, . . . became a prey to envy (7capaXa[xPav6[xevo^ ^OOVTJOTJ), for m e n
are jealous (jJaoxatvouat) when they see others held b y kings in greater
72
honour than themselves. (Marcus/Wikgren)

S i n c e J o s e p h u s has r e f o r m u l a t e d the biblical narrative so as t o thematize


e n v y a n d since h e reflects o n that t h e m e frequently in all o f his writings,
we are c o m p e l l e d to attribute the s a m e t h e m e in Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 ( = War
1:67) t o J o s e p h u s himself.
N o t i c e , finally, that ( a ) the c o m b i n a t i o n o f 960VOS a n d ulaos, as in o u r
7 3
passage ( § 2 8 8 / § 2 9 6 ) , is fairly c o m m o n in J o s e p h u s a n d ( b ) the e x a c t
phrase 9O0VOV exivrjae at § 2 8 8 is also paralleled elsewhere in his
74
writings.
To s u m m a r i z e : since the a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 is p r o - H a s m o n e a n ,
praises J o h n H y r c a n u s , regrets the f a m e a n d influence o f the Pharisees,
refers the r e a d e r b a c k t o Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ( a J o s e p h a n p e r i c o p e ) , a n d uses
l a n g u a g e that is characteristic o f J o s e p h u s , that a u t h o r c a n o n l y b e i d e n ­
tified as J o s e p h u s . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n incidentally c o n f i r m s o u r earlier
j u d g e m e n t that War 1:110-114 a n d the narrative p r e c e d i n g it w e r e
decisively s h a p e d b y J o s e p h u s so as to express his o w n v i e w o f H a s m o ­
n e a n history a n d his o w n t h e m e s ( e . g . , Soxeco/ axpt(ktoc). W i t h o u t d e n y ­
i n g that N i c o l a u s p r o v i d e d a historical substructure, therefore, o n e m u s t
c o n c e d e that the final f o r m u l a t i o n c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s , in the cases that
we have tested. This conclusion, in turn, fits with Josephus's
7 5
d e m o n s t r a b l e p r o c e d u r e in the case o f the L X X .

I I I . Interpretation of Ant. 13:288-296

The a b o v e s o u r c e analysis has revealed that J o s e p h u s t o o k o v e r a tradi­


tional J e w i s h story a b o u t a rift b e t w e e n the Pharisees a n d J o h n Hyr­
c a n u s {Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) a n d i n c l u d e d it in his narrative o f events u n d e r
that h i g h priest. I n o r d e r to p r o v i d e a f r a m e w o r k for it, h e t o o k o v e r War
1:67a (his earlier f o r m u l a t i o n ) a n d e x p a n d e d it. S i n c e the o u t c o m e o f the
story w a s the a b o l i t i o n o f certain v6[xt[xa that h a d b e e n established b y the

71
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

T h a t e n d e a v o u r w a s n o t entirely successful, h o w e v e r , as o u r original


o b s e r v a t i o n s o n the tensions within Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 indicate. T h e ten­
sions that r e m a i n suggest the f o l l o w i n g redactional s c e n a r i o . J o s e p h u s
w a s a p r o u d d e s c e n d a n t o f the H a s m o n e a n s a n d a particular a d m i r e r o f
J o h n H y r c a n u s . I n his efforts to fill o u t the b r i e f a c c o u n t o f H y r c a n u s ' s
tenure that h e h a d g i v e n in War, h e c a m e across a traditional story a b o u t
a rift b e t w e e n the high priest a n d the Pharisees. T h e story itself w a s s y m ­
pathetic to b o t h H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees; it attributed the rupture
to Eleazar's i m p e r t i n e n c e a n d to the m a c h i n a t i o n s o f a certain S a d -
7 8
ducee. Nevertheless, Eleazar a p p e a r e d in the c o m p a n y o f the Pharisees
a n d the story e n d e d in a b r e a k b e t w e e n H y r c a n u s a n d his erstwhile
religious advisors. F o r J o s e p h u s , with his anti-Pharisaic a n i m u s , there
was n o q u e s t i o n a b o u t w h i c h party w a s to b l a m e . H e c o u l d n o t , h o w ­
e v e r , clearly d e m o n s t r a t e the Pharisees' guilt f r o m the story itself, so he
fell b a c k o n the familiar topos that h e h a d used in War 1:67: the Pharisees
a n d their p o p u l a r supporters w e r e m o v e d to e n v y (906vocj), h e declares,
7 9
b y the success (eu7cpayia) o f H y r c a n u s a n d his s o n s . T o this favourite
( b u t here i n a p p r o p r i a t e ! ) t h e m e h e adds a reference t o the Pharisees'
hostility (ot Oocptaoctot xaxco$ npoq OCOTOV efxov) a n d he laments their m a l i g n
influence, with w h i c h they are able to arouse the masses e v e n against o n e
w h o is b o t h h i g h priest a n d " k i n g " . T h u s , J o s e p h u s ' s p r o - H a s m o n e a n
and anti-Pharisaic instincts h a v e led h i m to misrepresent, in his t o p i c
p a r a g r a p h ( § 2 8 8 ) , the traditional story that follows ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) .
J o s e p h u s ' s redactional failure is perhaps m o s t o b v i o u s in the case o f
Eleazar; the reader is left in d o u b t as to w h e t h e r this provocateur is o r is
not a Pharisee. H o l s c h e r confidently states, " I n d e r Gesellschaft d e r
8 0
Pharisaer ist d e r Z a n k e r E l e a z a r " . But the o n l y hint o f a n y link b e ­
tween Eleazar a n d the Pharisees c o m e s in the S a d d u c e e J o n a t h a n ' s
allegation that the m a n h a d spoken in a g r e e m e n t with the c o m m o n c o n ­
sent o f all the Pharisees (xfj xoivfjTCOCVTCOVOocptaoctcov yvcojxr), § 2 9 3 ) . A l l
o f the other e v i d e n c e dissociates Eleazar f r o m the Pharisees. F o r e x a m ­
ple, the genitive absolute in § § 290f. distinguishes the Pharisees' c o m ­
mendation o f Hyrcanus from Eleazar's calumny. Then, Eleazar is
d e s c r i b e d n o t as ziq TCOV Oocptaoctcov but s i m p l y as Tt$ TCOV xocTOCxetuivcov;

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 :

T h e story . . . puts the blame for the slander on a single individual,


Eleazar, who is described as having an evil nature. T h e Pharisees as such
81
are not held responsible for the c h a r g e .

I n d e e d , r e a d w i t h o u t the t o p i c p a r a g r a p h , the story s e e m s to say that


J o n a t h a n ' s a c c u s a t i o n o f the Pharisees w a s a s h r e w d p i e c e o f " d i s i n f o r ­
m a t i o n " , n o t an accurate statement o f the facts.
J o s e p h u s ' s i n t r o d u c t o r y r e m a r k s ( § 2 8 8 ) o n l y m a k e sense, h o w e v e r ,
o n the identification o f E l e a z a r as a Pharisee, for w e are told that " t h e
P h a r i s e e s " speak against a h i g h priest. T h u s w e see that J o s e p h u s ' s anti-
Pharisaic i n t r o d u c t i o n ( § 2 8 8 ) c o n t r a d i c t s the sense o f the traditional
story ( § § 2 8 9 - 2 9 6 ) . H i s zeal to p r o m o t e H y r c a n u s a n d to denigrate the
8 2
Pharisees has led to a r e d a c t i o n that is s o m e w h a t c l u m s y .

I V . The Pharisaic N6[xtfia

T h e o u t c o m e o f E l e a z a r ' s affront a n d J o n a t h a n ' s craftiness, the story


tells us, w a s that J o h n H y r c a n u s b e c a m e a S a d d u c e e ; h e a b a n d o n e d the
Pharisees a n d repealed " t h e o r d i n a n c e s that they h a d established a m o n g
the p e o p l e (TOC Te U7c' OCUTCOV xocTOcarocOevTOc vou.tu.oc TCO orjfAcp)". A t the c o n ­
clusion o f the story ( § § 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 ) , J o s e p h u s pauses to e x p l a i n to his
G r e c o - R o m a n readership w h a t these Pharisaic vou.tu.oc w e r e . T h i s b r i e f
discussion has taken o n c o n s i d e r a b l e significance in the secondary
literature b e c a u s e ( a ) it is a l m o s t universally a c c e p t e d as J o s e p h u s ' s o w n
c o n t r i b u t i o n , unlike m o s t o f the o t h e r Pharisee passages, a n d ( b ) it is
s o m e t i m e s t h o u g h t to p r o v i d e early a n d i n d e p e n d e n t attestation o f the
8 3
later r a b b i n i c t e a c h i n g o f the " O r a l L a w " . T h e i m p o r t a n c e o f the
passage d e m a n d s a careful attempt to capture J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e n d e d sense.
T h e first half o f the statement c o n t a i n s the d e c i s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d
the k e y t e r m s : TOC vou.tu.oc, avocypo^co, ot rcocTepec;, rcapa8t8cou.t/7iapa8oatc;,
a n d 8ta8oxTJ. A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f these terms will h e l p p r o v i d e s o m e fixed
points for o u r interpretation o f the passage.

8 1
Rivkin, Revolution, 40.
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

1. TOC vou.iu.oc. Josephus's use o f TOC VOU.LU.OC we have discussed above, in


chapter 4 . Outside of the present passage and its sequel (13:408),
Josephus uses TOC TcdcTpta v6u.iu.oc as a simple substitute for ot Mtouaeoc;/
rcdcTptot vofiot. Written in longhand, that is to say, "the ordinances" are
TOC vou.tu.oc TOC Stoc Mtouaeoc; urco TOU Oeou SoGevTa (Ant. 9 : 2 ) . Although the
modern critic can discern many traditional elements in the v6p,ot/v6[xt[xa,
Josephus insists that they all go back to the all-embracing legal system
devised by M o s e s , which prescribes clear rules of conduct from the
cradle to the grave. It is precisely because Josephus has never before
mentioned any vou.tu.oc . . .fircepoux ocvayeypaTtTat ev TOTC; Mcoua£o<; vofiotc;
that he must now explain this special case to the reader.
2. dcvaypd^co. Josephus uses the verb avaypdccpto in its usual restricted
sense, "to record or write down officially". H e can use the word, there­
fore, with respect to decrees, public records and historical writings, in­
8 4
cluding his o w n . About a dozen times, we find the perfect passive verb
or participle (as in our passage), denoting what "stands written" in the
scriptures. Often this meaning is spelled out by the phrase, iv Tate; tepatc;
85
(JtPXotc; avayeypa7CTat; in our passage we have the qualifier ev TOTC;
Mcouaeoc; v6u.ot£. Nevertheless, Josephus can also use the perfect passive
without qualification, to mean what is "written (in the scriptures)",
86
where the context is sufficiently clear. In his paraphrase of Aristeas 5 6
(Ant. 1 2 : 6 3 ) , for example, he designates the biblical prescriptions with
the simple phrase TOC avayeypau.uiva, in place of his source's oaa 8ta
YparcTCov. This usage may shed some light on the phrase (exetva) voptfia
TOC yeypa(X{xeva in our passage ( 2 9 7 ) .
3. otrcaTepec;.Josephus explains in Ant. 13:297 that the Pharisees
handed on (rcapeSoaav) to the people certain vou.tu.a ixrcaTepcovStaSoxfjs;
he then characterizes these v6[xt|xa as TOC ex 7uapaooaeco<; TCOVrcaTepcov.In
1 3 : 4 0 8 , he will also refer back to the vou.tu.a that the Pharisees introduced
(etorjveyxav) as xaT<x TYJVrcaTpcoavrcapdeooatv.W e must n o w ask whether
the terms ot TWtTepe*; and 7iapoc8oatc;/7capa8t8copt have any fixed or special
meaning fo r Josephus.
The short answer is that they do not. Although Josephus uses 6 rcaTrjp
hundreds of times in his writings, the plural occurs only about 4 2 times;
and half of those instances have the mundane sense of "fathers" or
"fatherhood" in a familial context. Only in 21 cases does Josephus use

8 4
War 1:1, 30; Ant. 1:93, 203; 8:324; 11:99; 13:12; 14:144; Life 6, 40, 339, 413;
Ag.Ap. 1:49, 92, 106, 109, 128, 143.
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

the phrases ot nan:£ptq ( w i t h o u t qualification) a n d ot izanipiq rjfxcov. He


refers to " t h e f a t h e r s " o r " o u r fathers" in three particular c o n t e x t s ; the
c a t e g o r y d o e s n o t h a v e a n y clear o r significant function in his t h o u g h t .
First, in War 5, J o s e p h u s makes a speech b e f o r e the walls o f
J e r u s a l e m , in w h i c h he attempts to p r o v e that the J e w s h a v e always re­
c e i v e d d i v i n e s u p p o r t , w i t h o u t resort to a r m s , w h e n their cause has b e e n
j u s t . T o p r o v e this thesis, he cites several e x a m p l e s o f ot ncniiptq (rjpcov).
The identity o f these forefathers ranges all the w a y f r o m Abraham
( 5 : 3 7 7 f f . ) to the J e w s o f the first c e n t u r y B C (at least), w h o willingly p a i d
tribute to R o m e ( 5 : 4 0 5 ) . In b e t w e e n are m e n t i o n e d the " f a t h e r s " w h o
entered E g y p t ( 5 : 3 8 2 ) , those w h o left E g y p t ( 3 8 8 ) , those w h o r e c o v e r e d
the ark f r o m the Philistines ( 3 8 6 ) , a n d those w h o returned from the
B a b y l o n i a n exile ( 3 9 0 ) . I n this s p e e c h , the " f a t h e r s " are all the J e w s a n d
Israelites o f past generations.
A s e c o n d b l o c k o f references to the naiiptq c o m e s in the t w o b r i e f
b o o k s Against Apion. A l l six o c c u r r e n c e s there take the f o r m ot Ttaxepe?
rjfxcov. Since Josephus's apologetic and p o l e m i c in these b o o k s are
d e v o t e d largely to the q u e s t i o n o f J e w i s h o r i g i n s , he usually refers to
8 7
"our f o r e f a t h e r s " as those w h o left E g y p t in the E x o d u s . Otherwise,
the t e r m refers simply to the H e b r e w s o f the earliest times, w h o w e r e ig­
8 8
nored b y Herodotus and T h u c y d i d e s .
Finally, w e h a v e six references to the " f a t h e r s " scattered t h r o u g h the
later b o o k s o f Ant. O n c e the t e r m d e n o t e s pre-exilic Israel in general
( 1 1 : 1 4 3 ) , o n c e it refers to the patriarchs ( 1 1 : 1 6 9 ) , a n d o n c e to the par­
ticipants in the E x o d u s ( 2 0 : 2 3 0 ) . In b o o k 15, the t e r m o c c u r s twice in
a speech b y H e r o d , w h e r e it refers to those w h o rebuilt the T e m p l e after
the exile ( 1 5 : 3 8 5 , 3 8 6 ) , a n d o n c e in J o s e p h u s ' s retelling o f a l e g e n d
h a n d e d d o w n from Herod's time b y ot rcocTepes rj|icov ( 1 5 : 4 2 5 ) .
For J o s e p h u s , then, ot noLxipzq rjfxcov d o e s not d e n o t e a n y specific g r o u p
o f m e n but rather all the Israelites a n d J e w s o f the past, f r o m the v e r y
earliest times until recent generations. H i s " f a t h e r s " are all in the
J e w i s h m a i n s t r e a m a n d m o s t o f t h e m are biblical figures. T h e c a t e g o r y
" f a t h e r s " is n o t p r o m i n e n t in his thought.
J o s e p h u s ' s infrequent a n d flexible use o f ot noL^iptq (rjpcov) contrasts
m a r k e d l y with his descriptions o f the Pharisaic vopt(xa. In the short space
o f Ant. 13:297 a n d its sequel 1 3 : 4 0 8 , these v6(xt(xa are d e s c r i b e d three
times. T h e y are always qualified with (TCOV) rcocTepcov o r with TtocTpcooi;. H e
n e v e r describes the Pharisaic v6u.tu.oc without reference to " t h e fathers".

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

significance f r o m the youthfulness o f J o s i a h : he c o m b i n e d his innate


wisdom and understanding w i t h the c o u n s e l (aup.(3ouXtoc) a n d advice
(rcapciSoatc;) o f his elders. T h e parallel with <juu.(3ouXtoc m a k e s it clear that
thercocpdcSocnc;o f the elders is h e r e a present influence a n d n o t a " t r a d i ­
9 6
tion". In any case, the biblical king predates the Pharisaic
elders/fathers by several centuries, so there is n o question o f his
a d h e r e n c e to a Pharisaic voptpoc.
T h u s J o s e p h u s n e v e r uses 7capa8oatc;, o u t s i d e o f Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 , in
the religious-legal sense that these passages i m p l y .
T h e v e r b 7tocpoc8t8cou.i presents a slightly different c a s e . It o c c u r s s o m e
2 3 8 times in J o s e p h u s . A l t h o u g h the v e r b a l m o s t always has a sense
c o g n a t e to that o f rcocpaSoats in J o s e p h u s , such as " t o s u r r e n d e r , g i v e u p ,
yield, b e t r a y " , o r " r e c o r d as h i s t o r y " , w e h a v e p e r h a p s 15 o c c u r r e n c e s
with the m e a n i n g " t o pass o n as a t r a d i t i o n " . But o n l y 8 o r 9 o f these
h a v e t o d o w i t h the J e w i s h vopoi. W h a t w e find in these cases, in­
terestingly e n o u g h , is that J o s e p h u s uses 7wcpoc8t8top.t o f M o s e s ' g i v i n g the
written L a w to the H e b r e w s . F o r e x a m p l e :
(a) Ant. 3:280: " T h e s e [laws], then, w h i c h w e r e already in p l a c e
d u r i n g his lifetime, M o s e s passed o n (rcocpeScoxe)."
(b) Ant. 3 : 2 8 6 : " T h i s c o d e o f laws M o s e s . . . . l e a r n e d f r o m the m o u t h
o f G o d (e£epa6e) a n d passed o n in w r i t i n g (yeypappevriv 7capa8t8coaiv) to
the H e b r e w s .
(c) Ant. 4 : 2 9 5 ( M o s e s speaks): " M a y y o u p e r s e v e r e in y o u r o b s e r v a n c e
o f the laws that G o d has d e e m e d g o o d a n d n o w delivers (rcapocStScoat) to
you."
(d) Ant. 4 : 3 0 2 : " S u c h , t h e n , is the constitution that M o s e s left; he
passed o n (7cap<x8t8a>at) still o t h e r laws that h e h a d written forty years
before."
(e) Ant. 4 : 3 0 4 : " T h e s e b o o k s [ = the l a w s ] he [ M o s e s ] then g a v e o v e r
(7capa8i8a>at) to the priests."
(f) Ag.Ap. 2 : 2 7 9 : " S i n c e the passage o f t i m e is in all matters r e c o g n i z e d
as the surest criterion, I s h o u l d a p p o i n t t i m e as a witness to the virtue
o f o u r l a w g i v e r a n d o f the revelation c o n c e r n i n g G o d h a n d e d d o w n
(TCapaSoGetorjs) b y h i m . "
97
These passages make it clear that when Josephus employs
TCOcpocSiScopt in the c o n t e x t o f J e w i s h l a w s , w h i c h is h a r d l y e v e r , he m e a n s
b y it M o s e s ' act o f passing o n the L a w , w h i c h M o s e s , in turn, h a d re­
ceived from G o d .

9 6
Marcus's rendering "translations" is misleading, for the reason given.
9 7
Cf. also Ag.Ap. 1:60, where 7capa8i8c>)(xi is used of the euaePeia implicit in the Mosaic
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 235

J o s e p h u s ' s n o r m a l u s a g e o frcocpdcooatca n d 7wcpoc8t8cop.i is w i d e - r a n g i n g


a n d , for the m o s t part, m u n d a n e . O u t s i d e o f o u r p a s s a g e , h e neither a p ­
peals to n o r e v e n m e n t i o n s a n y extra-biblical legal tradition handed
d o w n f r o m " t h e f a t h e r s " . T h i s c o n f i r m s o u r s u s p i c i o n that his consistent
d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisaic vopipoc in Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 , 4 0 8 are n o t his o w n
f o r m u l a t i o n s b u t d e r i v e f r o m fixed e x p r e s s i o n s o f his d a y . F u r t h e r sup­
p o r t for this j u d g e m e n t c o m e s in the several references o u t s i d e J o s e p h u s
98
to a Pharisaic rcocpocSoaic; and in the parallels b e t w e e n TCOcpoc8t8cou.t/
9 9
7capaXau.p<xv(o a n d the " t r a n s m i s s i o n " terminology o f A v o t .
5. T) StocSoxrj. I n the first o f his three definitions o f the Pharisaic voptpoc,
J o s e p h u s allows that the Pharisees d e r i v e d their o r d i n a n c e s " f r o m ( o r
100
o u t o f ) a ' s u c c e s s i o n o f fathers' (ex rcocTepcov StocSoxffc)"* T h i s is the
o n l y p l a c e w h e r e J o s e p h u s c o m b i n e s the i d e a o f " s u c c e s s i o n " w i t h the
c a t e g o r y " f a t h e r s " , w h i c h m a y suggest a g a i n that the c o m b i n a t i o n is n o t
his o w n c r e a t i o n . N e v e r t h e l e s s , his o w n u s a g e o f StaSoxTj is w o r t h n o t i n g ,
as it illuminates certain aspects o f his t h o u g h t .
J o s e p h u s i n t e n d s , especially in Ant. a n d Ag.Ap. to present J u d a i s m as
a " p h i l o s o p h y " a n d M o s e s as its f o u n d i n g p h i l o s o p h e r . N o w , C . H.
T u r n e r a n d E . J . B i c k e r m a n h a v e d r a w n attention to the i m p o r t a n t role
that " s u c c e s s i o n " (SIOCSOXT)) c a m e to p l a y in all o f the Hellenistic s c h o o l s
1 0 1
of philosophy. P l a t o , A r i s t o t l e , E p i c u r u s , a n d Z e n o all passed the
d i r e c t i o n o f their s c h o o l s o n to " s u c c e s s o r s " , w h o v i e w e d their task as
1 0 2
the p r e s e r v a t i o n a n d e x p o s i t i o n o f the m a s t e r ' s o r i g i n a l p h i l o s o p h y .
The test o f a n y single t e a c h e r ' s c o m p e t e n c e w a s his d e g r e e o f faithfulness
103
to the s c h o o l ' s f o u n d a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s . Lists o f StdSoxot b e c a m e the
1 0 4
bases for histories o f G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y in the Hellenistic w o r l d .
A g a i n s t this b a c k g r o u n d , J o s e p h u s ' s use o f StaSoxTj, 8tdc8oxo£, a n d 8toc-
Sexopat takes o n special interest. H e often e m p l o y s these w o r d s to speak

9 8
E.g., Gal. 1:14; M k . 7:3, 5; Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., I V . 22.8.
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

day. T h e latter task h e a c c o m p l i s h e s , in part, b y t r a c i n g an u n b r o k e n


line o f h i g h priestly StaSoxoi.
It s e e m s likely that J o s e p h u s ' s remarks o n the StaSox^ o f the H e b r e w
kings are also i n t e n d e d to establish c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n the o r i g i n s o f
J u d a i s m ( w i t h M o s e s ) a n d his o w n d a y . T h e w o r d 8IOC8OXT) is entirely a b ­
sent f r o m the Septuagint; StaSoxo? appears o n l y three times a n d then
1 1 3
with the sense o f " d e p u t y " rather than " s u c c e s s o r " . Josephus, how­
e v e r , often paraphrases the Septuagint so as to d e s c r i b e a n e w k i n g as
114
a 8ta8oxo£, w h e r e his s o u r c e has the phrase e(3aaiXeuae . . . dvx' OCUTOU.
He i n t r o d u c e s the unscriptural detail o f H e z e k i a h ' s a n x i e t y a b o u t the
possible failure o f a legitimate s u c c e s s i o n (yvrjata? 8ta8ox*te) to the t h r o n e
1 1 5
of J u d a h . Finally, in the s a m e b r i e f s u m m a r y o f Ant. that w e n o t e d
a b o v e ( 2 0 : 2 5 9 - 2 6 1 ) , J o s e p h u s takes the t r o u b l e to spell o u t that h e has
r e c o r d e d accurately TTJV 7uepl TOUS j3aaiXel? 8toc8oxr)v, a l o n g with the p e r i o d
o f rule b y the J u d g e s .
It is striking that J o s e p h u s s h o u l d tie these t w o s u c c e s s i o n l i s t s — o f
k i n g s a n d h i g h priests—together in his c l o s i n g remarks in Ant. T h e o p e n ­
ing p a r a g r a p h s o f Life s h o w that this c o n c e r n with s u c c e s s i o n has a per­
sonal application: he claims that his own StocSoxr) (Thackeray:
" p e d i g r e e " ) m a k e s h i m an heir to b o t h kings a n d h i g h priests; he is a
d e s c e n d a n t o f the H a s m o n e a n rulers, w h o " w e r e for the l o n g e s t t i m e
1 1 6
(lizi prjxiaxov xpovov) h i g h priests a n d kings o f o u r n a t i o n " .
J o s e p h u s c o m p l e t e s the familiar triad in Ag.Ap. 1:41, w h e n h e refers
1 1 7
also to a s u c c e s s i o n o f p r o p h e t s . H e argues there that o n l y p r o p h e t s
w e r e eligible to write the J e w i s h sacred b o o k s ( 1 : 3 7 ) . Accordingly,
M o s e s w r o t e the first five ( 1 : 3 9 ) a n d the p r o p h e t s after h i m w r o t e the
1 1 8
later b o o k s ( 1 : 4 0 ) . T h e w o r k s that h a v e b e e n written since, w e are
told, d e a l i n g with p o s t - e x i l i c history, d o n o t h a v e the same status
" b e c a u s e the exact s u c c e s s i o n o f the p r o p h e t s failed (Stcx TO pr) yeveaOat

1 1 3
I Chron. 18:17; 2 Ghron. 26:11, 28:7.
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

TTJV TCOV 7upo97)Tcov <xxpt($7) &ta8oxr|v)". T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is that the p r o ­


p h e t i c StocSoxn g u a r a n t e e d the a c c u r a c y o f J e w i s h l a w a n d history as it
1 1 9
a p p e a r s in the S c r i p t u r e .
It w o u l d s e e m t o o m u c h t o infer that J o s e p h u s , even though he
u n r e s e r v e d l y c l a i m s axptffetoc f o r his o w n treatment o f J e w i s h history, is
1 2 0
h e r e p l a c i n g his o w n w o r k s o n the s a m e level as S c r i p t u r e . Never­
theless, it is clear f r o m War 3:352ff., 399ff.; 4 : 6 2 9 , that h e d i d c o n s i d e r
121
h i m s e l f a p r o p h e t , at least in certain r e s p e c t s . I n these passages, m o r e ­
o v e r , J o s e p h u s explicitly links his p r o p h e t i c abilities w i t h his priestly
122
status.
I n s u m m a r y : J o s e p h u s ' s c o n c e r n with the s u c c e s s i o n o f h i g h priests,
k i n g s , a n d p r o p h e t s a p p e a r s t o serve b o t h his a p o l o g e t i c f o r J u d a i s m a n d
his self-representation. T h a t all three biblical offices w e r e h a n d e d d o w n
f r o m g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n , especially that o f the h i g h priest, supports
J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m that the o r i g i n a l M o s a i c t e a c h i n g has b e e n p r e s e r v e d
1 2 3
with a c c u r a c y . A l t h o u g h h e presents his favourite, J o h n H y r c a n u s , as
the o n l y o n e w h o e v e r c o m b i n e d TTJV apxTjv, TTJV dpxtepeoaauvriv, a n d TTJV
7upo97)T£tocv i n o n e p e r s o n , J o s e p h u s is e a g e r t o p o i n t o u t his o w n c o m ­
b i n a t i o n o f r o y a l a n d h i g h priestly l i n e a g e a n d , in War, h e also c l a i m s
to b e a n a c c o m p l i s h e d p r o p h e t .
R e t u r n i n g n o w t o o u r p a s s a g e : it is clear that the " s u c c e s s i o n o f
fathers" f r o m w h i c h the Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s d e r i v e has n o p l a c e i n
Josephus's v i s i o n o f things. Since Josephus never explains such a
StocSoxn, o n e m u s t ask, a g a i n , w h e t h e r the phrase is his o w n .
W e h a v e seen that the t e r m s ot 7uaTspe$ a n d 7uapd8oat^, w h i c h J o s e p h u s
uses o f the Pharisaic t e a c h i n g s , h a v e solid parallels in P a u l , the G o s p e l s ,
a n d the M i s h n a h tractate A v o t . It m a y n o w b e significant that A v o t
b e g i n s b y recalling a list o f successive Pharisaic teachers ( = " f a t h e r s " ) ,
w h o l i v e d b e t w e e n the t i m e o f the G r e a t A s s e m b l y a n d that o f R a b b i
1 2 4
Judah. T h e c o m m o n v i e w a m o n g r a b b i n i c scholars s e e m s t o b e that
A v o t ' s list o f fathers is b a s e d o n a v e r y early ( p r e - 7 0 ) list that i n c l u d e d
at least the five " p a i r s " (HOT), f r o m the t w o Y o s e ' s t o Hillel a n d S h a m -

1 1 9
Cf. W . C . Van Unnik, Schriftsteller, 98.
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

of M o s e s " reflects his strenuous effort to distinguish these voptpa from


those that he ordinarily talks about.

B. Interpretation of Ant. 13:297-298

W i t h the above discussion of the key terms in Ant. 13:297f., we have


gone some way toward an interpretation. Turning now to the passage
itself, we see that the main point is delivered in 297a. It is elaborated
in 297b and then two subsidiary points are made in 298.

297a. vuv 8e SrjXcoaat (JouXopat cm voptpa Ttva rcapeSoaav TCO Brjpcp ot Oaptaatot ix
TCOcxepcov StaSoxfjs, arcep oux avayeypaTCTat ev TOT$ Mcouaeo? vopot^, xat 8ta
TOUTO TOCUTOC TO TCOV 2a88ouxatcov yevos ixjiaXXei.

This statement is already complete in itself. T h e story of John Hyr­


canus reported that, in becoming a Sadducee, he repealed the voptpa
that had been established among the people by the Pharisees. W e now
learn the reason. T h e Pharisaic voptpa are special (hence: xtva); they
derive from a "succession of fathers" and are not among the written
laws of Moses. For this reason (8ta TOUTO) the Sadducees dismiss them
out of hand. So far as it goes, this explanation poses no difficulty. T h e
only voptpa that Josephus has ever talked about (or that he will ever talk
about again) are those <xvayeypa7CTat ev TOT<; Mcouaeo^ vopot$, those that
comprise the all-sufficient Mosaic code. W h e n he explains that the
Pharisaic voptpa were not of this sort and were therefore rejected by the
Sadducees, the reader ought to understand. Unless Josephus has entirely
misrepresented his own view, he too would have rejected these non-
Mosaic voptpa.
In order to illuminate the Sadducean position, Josephus adds 297b.
The Sadducean group rejects the Pharisaic voptpa:

297b. Xeyov exetva 8etv rjyetaOat voptpa TOC yeypappeva,


TOC 8' ex 7capa86aecos TCOV rcaTepcov prj TTjpetv.

These two clauses have generated some debate among scholars. Some
rabbinists, like E . Rivkin and J. M . Baumgarten, find here an early at­
testation, among the Pharisees, of the rabbinic doctrine of the Oral or
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

T h e O r a l L a w , h o w e v e r , w a s the u n i q u e possession o f Israel, inaccessi­


1 3 0
ble to the G e n t i l e s . C e r t a i n beraitot in the B a b y l o n i a n T a l m u d already
131
p r o c l a i m an interdict o n the w r i t i n g o f halakhot. T h e q u e s t i o n is h o w
early this interdict w a s in f o r c e , that is, w h e t h e r the Pharisees b e f o r e 70
1 3 2
already transmitted their t e a c h i n g s in oral f o r m .
T h e scholars m e n t i o n e d a b o v e interpret exetva voptpa TOC yeypappeva in
an absolute sense, so that the S a d d u c e e s rejected the Pharisaic voptpa
b e c a u s e they w e r e n o t written d o w n ; in r e c o g n i z i n g o n l y " l a w s that h a d
b e e n written d o w n " , they rejected the principle o f an O r a l L a w . T h u s
Rivkin:

Josephus is as explicit as he can be: the Pharisees and Sadducees were


hostile to each other because they violently disagreed as to the authority of
the so-called Unwritten Law. The Unwritten Law was championed by the
Pharisees. The Laws were not to be found in the laws of Moses. They were
133
laws that had been transmitted in unwritten form.

B a u m g a r t e n also thinks that this sense is quite o b v i o u s . H e a r g u e s :

If he [Josephus] had known of the existence of authoritative halakhic texts,


his stress on the contrast inform between them (oux avayeypaitTat) and the writ­
ten ordinances (TOC yeypappeva) would be pointless. The issue would rather
be whether the Torah was the only source of law or whether these texts,
134
too, were to be acknowledged as authoritative.

T h e s e scholars b e l i e v e , then, that J o s e p h u s intends to d r a w a contrast


b e t w e e n the written laws o f M o s e s a n d the oral/unwritten laws o f the
Pharisees.
A g a i n s t this v i e w , J. N . Epstein interprets J o s e p h u s ' s statement to
m e a n o n l y that the Pharisaic voptpa " w e r e n o t written in the L a w s o f
M o s e s ; it d o e s n o t say a n y t h i n g a b o u t their external f o r m . . . a n d it is
1 3 5
possible that they w e r e w r i t t e n . " M a r c u s indicates his a g r e e m e n t with
this v i e w b y s u p p l y i n g the parenthetical phrase " i n S c r i p t u r e " after
" w r i t t e n d o w n " ( § 2 9 7 b ) in the L o e b translation. M o s t recently, J.
N e u s n e r has a d d e d his v o i c e , asserting, " I f w e h a d n o p r e c o n c e p t i o n
a b o u t oral tradition, this passage w o u l d n o t have led us to such an

1 3 0
Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, II, 68; S. Sandmel, Judaism and Christian Beginnings
(New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978), 55f., 180f., 183f.; J. M . Baumgarten, ''Unwrit­
ten Law", 7ff.
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

Clearly, the second contrast ( C - D ) is Josephus's attempt to elaborate


on the Sadducean position given in the first ( A - B ) ; the participle Xeyov
makes the connection obvious. H e is not introducing some new area of
conflict but is only restating what he has said in § 297a.
Given that C - D elaborates upon A - B , the problem is to ascertain the
meaning of the new term " C " . T h e Rivkin/Baumgarten view requires
that C mean "written laws in general", for only this meaning would
justify the Sadducees' exclusion of a Pharisaic tradition because it was
oral. Such a meaning for C is, however, implausible. First, the definite
article and demonstrative pronoun indicate that Josephus is talking
about specific written laws; it is not that the Sadducees recognize any
and all written laws (as a simple voptpa yeypappeva might have sug­
gested). Second, the context requires that A = B = D and that C be un­
derstood as the opposite of A , B, and D . This means that TOC yeypappeva
in C refers to what is written down in Scripture, since A , B, and D all

1 3 6
Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, II, 163; cf. 177.
THE PHARISEES AND JOHN HYRCANUS 243

137
stress the 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.:

It takes the form of a descriptive aside, for the narrative is temporarily


halted so as to clarify for the reader the significance of John Hyrcanus'
143
break with the Pharisees and his adherence to the Sadducees.

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

religious g r o u p s ; that i n f o r m a t i o n w a s c o n v e y e d in the <xxpi(3co$ SeorjXcoxat


a c c o u n t in War 2 , to w h i c h h e ultimately refers the reader (Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 8 ) .

Summary and Conclusion

T h e p e r i c o p e Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 h a d its genesis in a traditional story c o n ­


c e r n i n g a r u p t u r e b e t w e e n J o h n H y r c a n u s a n d the Pharisees ( § § 2 8 9 -
2 9 6 ) . In the story, w h i c h w a s originally f a v o u r a b l e to b o t h H y r c a n u s a n d
the Pharisees, the rift w a s b l a m e d o n a t r o u b l e m a k e r n a m e d Eleazar a n d
a S a d d u c e e n a m e d J o n a t h a n . W h e n J o s e p h u s t o o k o v e r the story, h o w ­
e v e r , his anti-Pharisaic p r e d i s p o s i t i o n apparently c a u s e d h i m to o v e r l o o k
the pro-Pharisaic t o n e o f the story. T h i s a d m i r e r o f H y r c a n u s apparently
n o t i c e d o n l y that the Pharisees w e r e with Eleazar at the b a n q u e t w h e r e
the o u t r a g e t o o k place a n d that the o u t c o m e w a s a rift b e t w e e n the
Pharisees a n d H y r c a n u s . F o r w h e n he p l a c e d the story in his narrative,
he furnished it with a bitter i n t r o d u c t i o n ( § 2 8 8 ) that a c c u s e d the
Pharisees a n d their p o p u l a r supporters o f e n v y a n d m a l i c e t o w a r d H y r ­
c a n u s . A l t h o u g h w e h a v e several indications o f his efforts to edit the
story for a G r e c o - R o m a n a u d i e n c e , w e see that he n e v e r m a n a g e d to
c o r r e c t this fundamental oversight.
J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t o b v i o u s effort at editing the passage for n o n - J e w i s h
readers is the digression o n the Pharisaic voptpa ( § § 2 9 7 - 2 9 8 ) . H i s chief
p o i n t there is that these o r d i n a n c e s w e r e peculiar; they w e r e n o t the
s a m e as the voptpa ev tots Mcauaeo^ vopots, w h i c h are the o n l y o n e s that
h e has told the reader a b o u t elsewhere. T h e Pharisaic voptpa d e r i v e
rather f r o m a " s u c c e s s i o n o f f a t h e r s " , a phrase that J o s e p h u s p r o b a b l y
t o o k o v e r f r o m c o n t e m p o r a r y descriptions o f the Pharisees ( o r f r o m their
o w n self-descriptions). T h e S a d d u c e e s , he explains, d o n o t r e c o g n i z e a n y
such n o n - M o s a i c o r d i n a n c e s .
T h e d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r the voptpa was v e r y serious, J o s e p h u s tells the
reader, a n d the Pharisees w e r e able to w i n massive p o p u l a r s u p p o r t for
their o r d i n a n c e s . T h a t is w h y H y r c a n u s ' s m o v e b r o u g h t o n h i m the
hatred (ptao$) o f the p e o p l e ( § 1 9 6 ) .
CHAPTER TEN

ANT 13:400-432: T H E P H A R I S E E S A N D A L E X A N D R A
S A L O M E , II

In both War a n d Ant. Josephus describes the i n v o l v e m e n t o f the


Pharisees in the reign o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e . T h a t story has e n o r m o u s
significance for o u r study b e c a u s e it offers the o n l y e x a m p l e o f a Pharisee
passage in Ant. ( 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) that has an e x t e n d e d parallel in War ( 1 : 1 0 7 -
1 1 9 ) . O n e o f the questions b e h i n d the present investigation is that o f a
possible shift b e t w e e n War a n d Ant. in J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d the
Pharisees; his dual a c c o u n t o f A l e x a n d r a ' s rule o u g h t to p r o v i d e a g o o d
test case for this q u e s t i o n . T h e significance o f Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 is n o t lost
o n S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r , w h o b o t h b e l i e v e that it e v i n c e s J o s e p h u s ' s
1
d r a m a t i c re-evaluation o f the Pharisees vis-a-vis War. T h e purpose o f
this chapter will b e to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees in
Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 , b o t h in itself a n d in c o m p a r i s o n with War 1:107-119.
I n a c c o r d with this p u r p o s e , w e shall d e t e r m i n e first the d e g r e e to
w h i c h the c o n t e n t a n d function o f o u r passage c o r r e s p o n d to those o f
War 1:107-119. W e shall then undertake a p o i n t - b y - p o i n t c o m p a r i s o n in
o r d e r to j u d g e w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s has c h a n g e d his portrait in particular
areas, b y w a y o f o m i s s i o n , b y the r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f the earlier material
in a n e w sense, o r b y the a d d i t i o n o f n e w material. Source-critical q u e s ­
tions will b e dealt with as they arise.

I. Context

In chapter 4 , a b o v e , w e s u m m a r i z e d War's presentation o f the H a s m o ­


2
n e a n dynasty s o m e w h a t as f o l l o w s . T h e Suvacrueta o f the H a s m o n e a n s
h a d a n o b l e a n d h e r o i c o r i g i n as the l e a d i n g resistance m o v e m e n t d u r i n g
the p e r s e c u t i o n b y A n t i o c h u s E p i p h a n e s (War 1:34-37). T h e g l o r y o f the
h o u s e passed f r o m J u d a s to J o n a t h a n to S i m o n a n d r e a c h e d its a p o g e e
with J o h n H y r c a n u s , w h o ruled excellently (xaXXtoroc) for " t h i r t y - o n e
w h o l e y e a r s " ( 1 : 6 8 ) . B y a gift o f p r o p h e c y , h o w e v e r , this great h i g h
priest w a s a l l o w e d to see that his successors w o u l d forfeit the g o v e r n ­
m e n t . J o s e p h u s p r o c e e d s to outline the w a y s in w h i c h this h a p p e n e d ,

1
Smith, "Palestinian Judaism", 75f.; Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 238ff.
2
Chapter 4, above.
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 . )

W e h a v e here an e q u i v o c a t i o n . A s in the case o f A r i s t o b u l u s , the a u t h o r


14
has i n t r o d u c e d a n e w t o n e o f pathos vis-a-vis War, e v e n t h o u g h he d o e s
not r e m o v e a n y o f the earlier w o r k ' s grisly details. It is still clear that
A l e x a n d e r fell f r o m the euxuxioc o f his father, b u t n o w he is n o t ex­
clusively to b l a m e . W h a t he d i d was w r o n g b u t , to s o m e d e g r e e , u n d e r ­
standable in the circumstances.

I I . Interpretation

W h e n w e c o m e n o w to the reign o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e w e shall n e e d to


ask in what w a y s , if at all, J o s e p h u s has altered her i m a g e . She was
already p o r t r a y e d positively in War, as a p i o u s w o m a n ; it was o n l y her
gullibility, w h i c h a l l o w e d the Pharisees to exploit her, that b r o u g h t her
reign to a sad c o n c l u s i o n . H a s J o s e p h u s m o d i f i e d this portrayal in Ant.?
W e shall p r o c e e d with o u r interpretation b y d i v i d i n g the lengthy nar­
rative into six parts a n d c o n s i d e r i n g each in turn.

A . Alexandra and Alexander (Ant. 13:399-406)

A m a j o r difference f r o m War is the w a y in w h i c h A l e x a n d r a is intro­


duced. In War, the reader knew o n l y the discrete facts (a) that
A r i s t o b u l u s ' s (unidentified) wife h a d released A l e x a n d e r J a n n e u s f r o m
prison ( 1 : 8 5 ) a n d ( b ) that A l e x a n d e r ' s wife, A l e x a n d r a , h a d s u c c e e d e d
her h u s b a n d as ruler. B e i n g p i o u s a n d gentle, a n d o p p o s e d to her hus­
band's brutality ( 1 : 1 0 7 ) , the w o m a n h a d opened a promising new
chapter in the H a s m o n e a n succession. In Ant., h o w e v e r , all o f this
changes.
First, J o s e p h u s tells us that A r i s t o b u l u s ' s w i d o w , w h o released J a n ­
neus f r o m p r i s o n a n d g a v e h i m the t h r o n e , was n a m e d Salina ( o r Salo-

1 3
Throughout this chapter I am following the L C L translation of Ant. 13, by R.
Marcus, except where noted. The parenthetical "the Cossack" is Marcus's attempt to
give the sense of Thrakidas ( L C L edn., p. 418 n. d).
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:

And then, he said, on her return to Jerusalem as from a splendid victory,


she should yield a certain amount o f power to the Pharisees (TOIS OocptaocTois
eijouatav TIVOC 7tapaax£tv), for if they praised her in return for this sign of
regard, they would dispose the nation favourably toward her. These men,
he assured her, had so much influence with their fellow-Jews that they
could injure those whom they hated (TOUTOUS ptaoOvca?) and help those to

1 5
The M S S L A M W E Lat, a weighty combination, read ' 'Salome". Marcus follows
the PFN group, reading "Salina".
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:

N o longer do the Pharisees take advantage of the w o m a n ' s ingenuousness.


N o w they are essential to her exercise of power. . . . In place of a credulous
queen, we have a supine one. In place of conniving Pharisees, we have
18
powerful leaders of the whole n a t i o n .

J o s e p h u s offers the n e w a c c o u n t b e c a u s e he n o w wants the R o m a n s to


install the Pharisees as the n e w aristocracy in Palestine.
A l t h o u g h N e u s n e r has c o r r e c t l y d i s c e r n e d a c h a n g e in the relationship
b e t w e e n A l e x a n d r a a n d the Pharisees, h o w e v e r , he misses entirely the
anti-Pharisaic thrust o f the passage in Ant. A s w e shall see, all o f War's
details a b o u t their d e s p o t i c actions are taken o v e r a n d e x p a n d e d in Ant.
T h e i r relationship to A l e x a n d r a has c h a n g e d b e c a u s e she has c h a n g e d ;
they are n o better. R a t h e r than c o m m e n d i n g the Pharisees, Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 -
432 m a k e s it v e r y clear that their participation in p o w e r was a disaster
and sealed the d o o m o f the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e . A l e x a n d r a should h a v e
p r e v e n t e d it.

1 7
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 159.
1 8
"Josephus's Pharisees", 238.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 251

W e return to the passage. S i n c e the s o u r c e o f A l e x a n d e r ' s troubles has


b e e n his mistreatment o f the Pharisees, h e advises his wife to share
p o w e r with this g r o u p . T h e n she will h a v e the support o f the p e o p l e . T h e
r e a d e r ' s q u e s t i o n is: D o e s the plan w o r k ? T h e rest o f the narrative
answers this q u e s t i o n with a r e s o u n d i n g " N o ! "
N o t i c e the c y n i c i s m in A l e x a n d e r ' s assessment o f the Pharisees. Until
n o w h e has b e e n their d e t e r m i n e d o p p o n e n t . W h a t they really w a n t , he
c l a i m s , is p o w e r . I f A l e x a n d r a will o n l y g i v e the Pharisees s o m e ££ou<Jtoc
they will b e h a p p y . N o principles are at stake h e r e . T h u s the K i n g ad­
vises his wife to present his c o r p s e to the Pharisees, for t h e m to abuse
as they wish ( § 4 0 3 ) . H e calculates that this p r e - e m p t i v e s h o w o f
generosity will placate their a n g e r a n d e v e n inspire t h e m to g i v e h i m a
m a g n i f i c e n t funeral. Further, she is to p r o m i s e t h e m that she will m a k e
n o decisions without their a p p r o v a l (prjSev 8tx« xffc exetvcov yvcoprjs
8ioc7upa!|ea6ai).
S o these o p e n i n g sentences explain the l o g i c a n d basis o f Q u e e n A l e x ­
a n d r a ' s reign in Ant. O n her h u s b a n d ' s a d v i c e , she will attempt to rescue
the d y n a s t y b y t h r o w i n g in her lot with the Pharisees. It will b e an e x ­
p e r i m e n t in p r a g m a t i c politics.
In the e v e n t , A l e x a n d e r ' s cynical v i e w o f the Pharisees is p r o v e n c o r ­
rect. After his death A l e x a n d r a places e v e r y t h i n g (TWCVTOC) in their h a n d s .
T h e delighted Pharisees act as p r e d i c t e d . T h e y instantly b e c o m e " w e l l -
wishers a n d f r i e n d s " o f A l e x a n d r a . T h e y g o a r o u n d the c o u n t r y declar­
i n g what a just (Sixocioc;) k i n g they h a d lost a n d m o v e the p e o p l e to d e e p
m o u r n i n g ! A s h o p e d , they p r o v i d e a funeral for A l e x a n d e r that is un­
p r e c e d e n t e d in s p l e n d o u r ( § § 4 0 5 f . ) . T h e author o f the passage agrees,
then, with A l e x a n d e r ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees: they are u n p r i n c i p l e d
power-mongers.
T h e Pharisees' e u p h o r i a at c o m i n g into s u d d e n p o w e r a n d their
m a n i p u l a t i o n o f p o p u l a r feeling in support o f A l e x a n d r a are, h o w e v e r ,
o n l y the b e g i n n i n g o f the story.

B . Alexandra's Sons (13:407-408, 417)

B e c a u s e the Q u e e n has g i v e n absolute p o w e r to the Pharisees, she has


little left for the t w o sons that w e n o w hear a b o u t , Hyrcanus and
A r i s t o b u l u s . T h e r e is still, h o w e v e r , the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d a n d this she
b e s t o w s o n H y r c a n u s , the o l d e r s o n .
N o t i c e h o w differently this action is presented in War a n d Ant. I n War,
A l e x a n d r a w a s c o m m e n d e d for her j u d i c i o u s treatment o f her sons. She
g a v e the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d to H y r c a n u s b e c a u s e he was o l d e r a n d m o r e
s u b d u e d (vcoOeaxepov). A r i s t o b u l u s , b y contrast, w a s a " h o t - h e a d " (Oep-
252 CHAPTER TEN

[XOTTjTOc, 1:109, 117) a n d w o u l d h a v e b e e n unsuitable for office. I n Ant.,


the Q u e e n ' s d e c i s i o n is differently evaluated:

Now although Alexander had left two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, he
had bequeathed the royal power to Alexandra. O f these sons the one, Hyr­
canus, was incompetent (Tpxocvds pev ocaOevTjs rjv 7cporfpocTOc Stotxetv) to
govern and in addition much preferred a quiet life, while the younger,
Aristobulus, was a man o f action (Spocarriptos) and high spirit (OocpaocXeos).
Alexandra then appointed Hyrcanus as high priest because of his greater
age but more especially because o f his lack of energy (Stoc TO owcpocypov).
(§§ 407-408a)

T w o m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f War are: ( a ) the n o t e o f surprise that although he


left sons, A l e x a n d e r g a v e the rule to his wife, a n d ( b ) the n e w c l a i m that
19
it w a s H y r c a n u s , n o t A r i s t o b u l u s , w h o was unfit for o f f i c e . Hyrcanus
was " w e a k " . A r i s t o b u l u s is n o l o n g e r seen as a h o t - h e a d ; he was a
" d o e r " , a c o u r a g e o u s m a n . T h e i m p l i c a t i o n is that A r i s t o b u l u s o u g h t
to h a v e b e e n g i v e n the e x e c u t i v e p o w e r .
J o s e p h u s will later m a k e this p o i n t in plain terms. D e s c r i b i n g the in­
justices suffered b y v i c t i m s o f the Pharisees, h e will reflect:

But still they themselves were to blame for their misfortunes, in allowing
a woman to reign who madly desired it in her unreasonable love of power
(xocxd cptXocpxtocv exXeXuaorjxmoc yuvatxt 7uocpoc TO etxos (JocatXeoetv), and when her
sons were in the prime of life (ev dcxpfj ouarj^). (13:417)

T h i s reflection s u m s u p J o s e p h u s ' s n e w attitude t o w a r d b o t h A l e x a n d r a


and her sons. I n the interest o f m a i n t a i n i n g her o w n p o w e r , the o l d
2 0
woman sacrificed p r o p r i e t y a n d left her sons (especially A r i s t o b u l u s )
out o f her r e i g n . J o s e p h u s will reiterate this j u d g e m e n t in his c l o s i n g
remarks o n A l e x a n d r a ( 1 3 : 4 3 0 - 4 3 2 ) .
S o far, then, w e h a v e seen that J o s e p h u s reversed his attitudes t o w a r d
b o t h A l e x a n d r a and h e r sons b e t w e e n War and Ant. In War, she g a v e the
Pharisees p o w e r b e c a u s e h e r religious d e v o t i o n b l i n d e d her to their real
nature; in Ant., she invites t h e m to s p o n s o r her r e g i m e as part o f a clever
s c h e m e for m a i n t a i n i n g her o w n p o w e r . In War, her d e c i s i o n to c o n f i n e
the upstart A r i s t o b u l u s to private life was a wise o n e ; in Ant., she is
castigated for h a v i n g silenced such a v i g o r o u s a n d c o u r a g e o u s y o u n g
man. T h e question n o w is w h e t h e r J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d the
Pharisees has also c h a n g e d b e t w e e n War a n d Ant..

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)

In War, w e w e r e told that the effects o f the Pharisees' c o m i n g into p o w e r


w e r e felt m a i n l y in the j u d i c i a l sphere. T h e y t o o k o v e r the penal system:
they b a n i s h e d a n d recalled f r o m exile w h o m e v e r they w i s h e d (ou<;
eOeXotev); they w e r e free to incarcerate o r release f r o m p r i s o n ; a n d they
e v e n h a d a de facto p o w e r o f capital p u n i s h m e n t . B y influencing A l e x a n ­
dra, they w e r e able to d o a w a y w i t h w h o m e v e r they w i s h e d ( a g a i n , ou<;
eOeXotev, 1:111-113).
N e u s n e r , in his attempt t o s h o w that Ant. c o m m e n d s the Pharisees to
the R o m a n s , claims that o u r passage tones d o w n the Pharisaic reign o f
terror u n d e r A l e x a n d r a : " T h e mass slaughter o f War, in w h i c h the
Pharisees killed a n y o n e they w a n t e d , is shaded into a m i l d p e r s e c u t i o n
2 1
o f the P h a r i s e e s ' o p p o s i t i o n . " It is, h o w e v e r , i m p o s s i b l e to a c c e p t
N e u s n e r ' s interpretation at this p o i n t .
War's a c c o u n t o f the P h a r i s e e s ' actions a n d the reaction that they
e v o k e d t o o k u p four N i e s e sections ( 1 : 1 1 1 - 1 1 4 ) . Ant. e x p a n d s the s a m e
t o p i c to ten sections ( 1 3 : 4 0 8 - 4 1 7 ) ; a n d n o n e o f the n e w material i m ­
p r o v e s the i m a g e o f the Pharisees. T h e y personally e n g a g e , w e are n o w
told, in a systematic slaughter o f their e n e m i e s ; what is m o r e , the a u t h o r
takes c o n s i d e r a b l e space to dilate o n the justice o f their v i c t i m s ' c a u s e .
C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g excerpts:

Alexandra permitted the Pharisees to do as they liked in all matters (TCOCVTOC


-cots Oaptaatots wciTpe7cei 7cotetv), and also commanded the people to obey
them. . . . And so, while she had the title of sovereign (TO ovopoc TTJS
PocatXetocs), the Pharisees had the power (TTJV Suvocptv). For example, they
recalled exiles and freed prisoners, and, in a word, in no way differed from
absolute rulers (ouSev SearcoTcov Ste^pepov). [Then follows a notice on the
Queen's competence in foreign affairs.] And throughout the country there
was quiet except for the Pharisees; for they worked upon the feelings of the
queen and tried to persuade her to kill those who had urged Alexander to
22
put the eight hundred to death. Later they themselves slaughtered one of
them (etT<x ocuTOt TOUTOOV evoc a9<XTT0uat), named Diogenes, and his death was
9
followed by that of one after another (xat p e T ' OCUTOV aXXous in aXXats), until
the leading citizens (ot SUVOCTOC) came to the palace. . . and they reminded
her of all that they achieved in the face of danger, whereby they had shown
their unwavering loyalty to their master [sc. Alexander Janneus]. . . . And
they begged her not to crush their hopes completely, for, they said, after
escaping the dangers of war, they were now being slaughtered at home like
cattle (StXTjv (JoaxrjpaToov xo7CT£a0at) by their foes [sc. the Pharisees], and
there was no one to avenge them. (408b-412)

2 1
"Josephus's Pharisees", 240.
2 2
Marcus, ad loc, has "cut down"; but cf. his n. d.
254 CHAPTER TEN

N o t h i n g in this passage suggests a " s h a d i n g " o f the P h a r i s e e s ' p o g r o m


into a " m i l d p e r s e c u t i o n " . I f a n y t h i n g , the i m a g e r y u s e d to d e s c r i b e
their actions (<J9<XTT0uat, (3oax7)p<XT<ov) is m o r e v i v i d in Ant. T h e Pharisees
are n o l o n g e r c o n t e n t , as in War, t o get rid o f their e n e m i e s m e r e l y b y
i n f l u e n c i n g A l e x a n d r a to act; J o s e p h u s n o w c l a i m s e m p h a t i c a l l y that
they themselves (OCUTOI TOUTCOV) b e h a v e d v i c i o u s l y , at least in the case o f
D i o g e n e s . Finally, w h e r e a s War h a d o n l y briefly n o t e d the plight o f the
e m i n e n t citizens (oi ooxouvxes) a n d their appeal to the Q u e e n ( 1 : 1 1 4 ) ,
Ant. tells us the details o f w h a t they said to A l e x a n d r a ( § § 4 1 1 - 4 1 6 ) a n d
t h e r e b y pleads their c a u s e b e f o r e the reader.
The thrust o f the s p e e c h m a d e b y the Suva-rot is that A l e x a n d r a has
b e t r a y e d t h e m . T h e y h a d a l w a y s b e e n l o y a l to h e r h u s b a n d ' s policies
a n d so they at least d e s e r v e d h e r p r o t e c t i o n . T h e i r o n l y goal has b e e n
faithfulness to the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e a n d they are also l o y a l to her; b u t
now they are b e i n g slaughtered b y h e r h u s b a n d ' s e n e m i e s , e v i d e n t l y
with h e r s u p p o r t ( § § 4 1 1 - 4 1 3 ) ! T h e SuvocTOt close their s p e e c h b y calling
o n the 8atpovoc$ o f A l e x a n d e r to take pity o n their plight, at w h i c h the
bystanders burst into tears. T h e c o u r a g e o u s y o u n g A r i s t o b u l u s , w h o
2 3
d e p l o r e s his m o t h e r ' s betrayal o f these m e n , " d e n o u n c e s her bitterly"
(rcoXXa xaxt&ov).
It is perfectly clear that J o s e p h u s sides with A r i s t o b u l u s a n d the
l e a d i n g citizens against Alexandra and her Pharisaic sponsors. A s
H o l s c h e r l o n g a g o o b s e r v e d , the passage " s t e n t m i t ihrer Sympathie
sichtlich a u f d e r Seite d e r V o r n e h m e n u n d betrachtet das Pharisaerregi-
2 4
m e n t u n t e r A l e x a n d r a o f f e n b a r nicht als i d e a l " . Before Smith and
N e u s n e r , o n e n e v e r i m a g i n e d that the a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 w a s try­
ing to r e c o m m e n d that the R o m a n s entrust a n y sort o f p o w e r to the
Pharisees.

D . Alexandra's Foreign Policy (13:418-421)

We c o m e n o w to a brief account o f Alexandra's foreign policy, which


elaborates a little o n War 1 : 1 1 5 - 1 1 6 . T h e thrust is that, a l t h o u g h she
m a d e n o significant gains, the Q u e e n m a n a g e d at least to m a i n t a i n the

2 3
Cf. also 13:411.
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

status quo. T h i s w a s itself an a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , h o w e v e r , in the face o f e x ­


ternal threats such as that p o s e d b y T i g r a n e s , K i n g o f A r m e n i a .
M o s t significant for us, A l e x a n d r a ' s foreign p o l i c y is the o n l y aspect
o f her reign that J o s e p h u s finds praiseworthy; a n d it is the o n l y area in
w h i c h the Pharisees apparently h a d n o influence. After detailing the a b ­
solute d o m e s t i c p o w e r s g i v e n to the Pharisees, J o s e p h u s m a k e s the p o i n t :

Nevertheless the queen took precautions (iTCOtetro. . . Tffc (JocatXeiocs


25
7tp6votav) for the kingdom and recruited a large force o f mercenaries and
also made her own force twice as large, with the result that she struck terror
into the local rulers around her and received hostages from them. A n d
throughout the entire country there was quiet except for the Pharisees; for
a
they worked upon the feelings o f the queen (rjpepet 8e rj X ^ P K&<*<* rcapsi-
TCOV Oaptaaicov. OUTOI yap £7tSTapocTTOv TTJV (JocatXtaaav). ( 1 3 : 4 0 9 )

N o t i c e the contrast. W h e r e she w a s left to herself, A l e x a n d r a at least


m a i n t a i n e d quiet; w h e r e the Pharisees held s w a y , there w a s t r o u b l e . T h e
b u l k o f o u r passage is d e v o t e d to the u n h a p p y results o f their m a l i g n in­
fluence.

E . Aristobulus's Revolt (13:422-429)

Ant. 's d e s c r i p t i o n o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s reaction to his m o t h e r ' s policies again


reflects J o s e p h u s ' s shift in perspective since War. In the earlier w o r k the
w h o l e m a t t e r h a d b e e n s u m m e d u p as follows: w h e n A l e x a n d r a b e c a m e
sick, h e r i m p e t u o u s y o u n g e r son seized the fortresses a n d p r o c l a i m e d
himself k i n g . H i s followers w e r e attracted to h i m solely b e c a u s e o f his
c o l o u r f u l p e r s o n a l i t y (TCOCVTOCS euvou? 8ta TTJV Oeppo-ajTa, 1 : 1 1 7 ) . W e were
told that A l e x a n d r a m o v e d to prevent this coup b y taking A r i s t o b u l u s ' s
family hostage b u t that she d i e d b e f o r e the o u t c o m e was k n o w n ( 1 : 1 1 8 ) .
Ant. e x p a n d s the a c c o u n t c o n s i d e r a b l y . In the p r o c e s s it o m i t s ( a g a i n )
a n y reference to A l e x a n d e r ' s recklessness. Instead, it highlights his d e v o ­
tion to his family. W h e n his m o t h e r b e c a m e sick, w e are n o w told, he
visited the fortresses to w h i c h she h a d sent his father's persecuted friends
(to protect t h e m f r o m the Pharisees). A n d these m e n n o w support
A r i s t o b u l u s not 8ioc TTJV OeppoTTjTOt, as War w o u l d h a v e it, but b e c a u s e he
has consistently championed their cause. Aristobulus's reason for
m a k i n g his m o v e is n o w g i v e n as follows:

2 5
Marcus renders "took thought for the welfare of the kingdom". Since, however,
the overriding point is that Alexandra's reckless policies caused the kingdom to be lost
(§§ 430-432), we should probably read Tcpovotoc in a minimalist sense, as referring to the
single area in which the author concedes that the Queen did act properly, viz., in her
defence policy.
256 CHAPTER TEN

For while he had long resented the things his mother was doing, he was
just then especially fearful that on her death their whole family might come
under the rule o f the Pharisees (eSetae pf) arcoGavoucrns inl Tots Oaptaatot? TO
7tav f£vo£ auTOts U7tdcpijeiev), for he saw the incapacity (TO <X8UVOCTOV) o f his
brother [sc. Hyrcanus], who was destined to succeed the throne. (13:423)

T h e disclosure o f this m o t i v e entirely c h a n g e s War's p i c t u r e . A r i s t o b u l u s


is n o t o u t for personal gain; h e wants to preserve the royal family a n d
to protect it f r o m b e i n g s w a l l o w e d u p b y the Pharisees.
T h a t the a u t h o r sides with A r i s t o b u l u s is clear f r o m the a b o v e n o t i c e
a n d f r o m w h a t follows. W h e n the Q u e e n learns o f A r i s t o b u l u s ' s revolt,
b o t h she a n d the " p e o p l e " (TO e'Ovocj) b e c o m e e x t r e m e l y a n x i o u s (ev
peytorat^ Tocpaxats urcfjpxev):

For they knew that Aristobulus was not far from being able to seize the
throne for himself, and they were very much afraid that he might exact
satisfaction for the excesses which they had practised on his house (cov
7capcpvrjaav OCUTCO TOV otxov). (13:426)

The author has the p e o p l e confessing that they h a v e " p l a y e d d r u n k e n


g a m e s " (7uocpotveco > ol'vocj) with the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e ! H i s sympathies
are patent.
N o t i c e the c u r i o u s identification here o f the p e o p l e with the Pharisees.
W e h a v e b e e n told all a l o n g that it w a s the Pharisees w h o persecuted the
friends o f A l e x a n d e r a n d A r i s t o b u l u s ; n o w it is " t h e p e o p l e " w h o are
afraid o f retribution. But this e q u a t i o n is n o t n e w . It is m e r e l y the
reverse case o f what h a p p e n e d in the narrative o f A l e x a n d e r ' s reign. T h e
a c c o u n t o f his atrocities against " t h e p e o p l e " n e v e r o n c e m e n t i o n e d the
Pharisees. W h e n he is d y i n g , h o w e v e r , h e confesses that he has b a d l y
2 6
mistreated this g r o u p a n d w e are told that the Pharisees demanded
2 7
satisfaction for Alexander's crucifixion of the eight hundred.
E v i d e n t l y , J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r s the Pharisees a n d the p e o p l e to b e so
closely related that he expects the reader to u n d e r s t a n d that " P h a r i s a i c "
actions h a v e the support o f the p e o p l e . O n l y thus c a n h e implicate TO
eOvos in the Pharisees' w r o n g d o i n g u n d e r A l e x a n d r a .
A s in War, Ant. 's a c c o u n t o f A l e x a n d r a ' s reign e n d s w i t h o u t m e n t i o n ­
i n g a n y decisive response to A r i s t o b u l u s ' s m o v e . T h e " e l d e r s o f the
J e w s " , representing the p o p u l a r / P h a r i s a i c v i e w p o i n t , j o i n H y r c a n u s in
protesting A r i s t o b u l u s ' s m o v e to the Q u e e n . But she is t o o w e a k to res­
p o n d a n d , h a v i n g g i v e n t h e m p e r m i s s i o n to d o as they see fit, she dies
(§§ 420f.).

2 6
Ant. 13:402.
2 7
Ant. 13:410.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 257

F. Josephus's Final Remarks on Alexandra (13:430-432)

J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t leave the reader in a n y final d o u b t a b o u t his assess­


m e n t o f A l e x a n d r a ' s reign b u t c o n c l u d e s with a reflective p a r a g r a p h in
w h i c h h e spells o u t his v i e w s . It is significant that this p a r a g r a p h closes
b o o k 13 o f Ant., w h i c h has r e c o u n t e d the fortunes o f the H a s m o n e a n s
f r o m the death o f J u d a s o n w a r d . J o s e p h u s will tell u s n o w that it w a s
A l e x a n d r a ' s m i s g u i d e d p o l i c y o f k e e p i n g p o w e r f r o m her sons (especially
A r i s t o b u l u s ) a n d g i v i n g it instead t o the Pharisees that c a u s e d the
downfall o f the H a s m o n e a n Suvaaxeta. Since these c l o s i n g remarks a r e
crucial f o r the interpretation o f o u r passage, I q u o t e t h e m in full:

She was a woman who showed none o f the weakness of her sex; for being
one o f those inordinately desirous of the power to rule (Setvrj yap et£ TO 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.

W i t h these w o r d s , J o s e p h u s gives his final verdict o n the e x p e r i m e n t


that A l e x a n d e r h a d c o n c e i v e d in o r d e r to deflect his w i f e ' s a n g e r at b e i n g
left with a hostile k i n g d o m . She was obsessed with p o w e r , J o s e p h u s tells
us, a n d this w a s inappropriate t o a w o m a n . H e r o b s e s s i o n p r e v e n t e d her
f r o m h a n d i n g o v e r the dynasty t o A r i s t o b u l u s , w h o was in his p r i m e a n d
h a d the interests o f the family at heart (cf. § 4 1 7 ) . Instead, she o p t e d t o
preserve h e r o w n place o f h o n o u r b y sharing p o w e r with the e n e m i e s o f
her h u s b a n d , the Pharisees. A l t h o u g h this strategy e n a b l e d her t o retain
the title o f s o v e r e i g n while she lived, its implications for the H a s m o n e a n
h o u s e w e r e catastrophic. T h e o l d w o m a n ' s folly caused the Suvocaxetoc t o
be removed from the o n c e g l o r i o u s family. I n short, Alexandra's
domestic policy, w h i c h w a s based o n wholesale s u b m i s s i o n t o the
Pharisees, was a n unqualified disaster.
It is w o r t h e m p h a s i z i n g , perhaps, that w e are n o w d e a l i n g o n l y with
258 CHAPTER TEN

J o s e p h u s ' s interpretation o f events. J u d g e m e n t s o f success a n d failure


d e p e n d entirely o n the criteria o f the o n e w h o j u d g e s . It is o b v i o u s f r o m
J o s e p h u s ' s a c c o u n t that A l e x a n d r a ' s rule h a d the strong s u p p o r t o f the
eOvoc; a n d w e k n o w that Q u e e n " S h a l o m - Z i o n " is h o n o u r e d in J e w i s h
tradition. J o s e p h u s , h o w e v e r , is an aristocrat a n d n o t a d e m o c r a t . H e
m o u r n s the loss o f the H a s m o n e a n d y n a s t y , in w h i c h h e finds his o w n
roots (Life 1-2; Ant. 1 6 : 1 8 7 ) . A n d h e attributes the loss, in large m e a s u r e ,
to A l e x a n d r a ' s c o l l u s i o n w i t h the Pharisees.

Summary and Conclusion

In b o t h War a n d Ant., the story o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e ' s reign is an ac­


c o u n t o f the interaction b e t w e e n three parties: the Q u e e n , h e r sons, a n d
the Pharisees. T h e S m i t h / N e u s n e r hypothesis deals o n l y with the last o f
these; it h o l d s that Ant. revises War so as to c o m m e n d the Pharisees to
the R o m a n s , b y d r a w i n g attention to their massive p o p u l a r s u p p o r t . A n
analysis o f the roles p l a y e d b y all three parties, h o w e v e r , e x c l u d e s such
a reading.
I n Ant., A l e x a n d r a is n o l o n g e r a frail, religiously d e v o u t w o m a n . She
has b e c o m e an aggressive s c h e m e r , willing to sacrifice posterity to her
i m m e d i a t e a m b i t i o n s . It is o n l y this n e w portrayal o f A l e x a n d r a that
c h a n g e s her relationship to the Pharisees. She c a n n o l o n g e r a p p e a r as
their hapless v i c t i m b e c a u s e she has c o n s p i r e d with h e r h u s b a n d to
manipulate t h e m b y taking a d v a n t a g e o f their lust for p o w e r . It is
b e c a u s e Ant. says n o t h i n g a b o u t A l e x a n d r a ' s piety, m o r e o v e r , that it
o m i t s War's n o t i c e a b o u t the Pharisees' reputation for euaePeta and
axpt($eta ( 1 : 1 1 0 ) ; this i n f o r m a t i o n has n o p o i n t in the n e w c o n t e x t , since
A l e x a n d r a is n o l o n g e r d e c e i v e d b y the Pharisees' reputation.
T h e Pharisees themselves h a v e n o t i m p r o v e d o n e bit. I f a n y t h i n g , the
n e w material in Ant. heightens the e n o r m i t y o f their a c t i o n s . It also leads
the r e a d e r to s y m p a t h i z e with their aristocratic v i c t i m s , w h o w e r e loyal
to the Q u e e n ' s h u s b a n d . J o s e p h u s certainly a c k n o w l e d g e s the Pharisees'
fame a n d p u b l i c s u p p o r t , as he h a d in War 1:110, b u t he (still) a b h o r s
28
this state o f affairs.
J o s e p h u s has revised his o p i n i o n o f A l e x a n d r a ' s s o n s . W h e r e a s War
had presented A r i s t o b u l u s as an upstart a n d h a d a p p l a u d e d the Q u e e n ' s
a p p o i n t m e n t o f the lethargic H y r c a n u s to the h i g h p r i e s t h o o d , Ant.

2 8
Indeed, the rueful recognition of Pharisaic power is a consistent feature of all of
Josephus's writings. Cf. also War 1:571; 2:162f., 411-418; Ant. 13:288-298; 17:41ff.; Life
189ff. But if Josephus raises the issue of Pharisaic predominance only in order to express
his regrets about it, he can hardly have invented the idea that they were in fact
predominant.
THE PHARISEES AND ALEXANDRA SALOME, II 259

stands squarely b e h i n d A r i s t o b u l u s : h e is the o n l y o n e w h o is c o n c e r n e d


a b o u t the integrity o f his family. H y r c a n u s has m o v e d f r o m d o c i l i t y t o
utter i m p o t e n c e .
O u r c o n c l u s i o n is that J o s e p h u s , in Ant., has radically r e d r a w n his
portrait o f A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e ' s r e i g n , as S m i t h a n d N e u s n e r rightly
p e r c e i v e . T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t , h o w e v e r , affects e v e r y t h i n g b u t the i m a g e
o f the Pharisees. O n e c a n o n l y m a r v e l at J o s e p h u s ' s ability t o take o v e r
the substance o f the War a c c o u n t a n d yet g i v e it a c o m p l e t e l y n e w sense.
O n e is i m p r e s s e d b y his d e t e r m i n a t i o n , e v e n while c h a n g i n g the roles o f
all o f the o t h e r players, t o k e e p the role o f the Pharisees as villains c o n s ­
tant. It is i m p o s s i b l e t o see in Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 a c o m m e n d a t i o n o f the
Pharisees.
I f w e n o w step b a c k t o c o m p a r e the m a i n lines o f H a s m o n e a n history
in War a n d Ant., w e d i s c o v e r the f o l l o w i n g similarities a n d differences.
B o t h narratives locate the h i g h p o i n t o f the d y n a s t y in the l o n g reign o f
John Hyrcanus. B o t h a c c o u n t s declare that his successors lost his
euSatpovtoc o r euTUXtoc. T h e sequel, h o w e v e r , is differently r e p o r t e d . I n
War, w e h a v e a steady d e g e n e r a t i o n f r o m A r i s t o b u l u s I t o A l e x a n d e r
J a n n e u s . A l e x a n d r a o p e n s a n e w chapter a n d , b e c a u s e o f h e r piety, of­
fers a r a y o f h o p e ; b u t the e n t r a n c e o f the Pharisees sets the d o w n w a r d
spiral in m o t i o n a g a i n . Ant., b y contrast, is s o m e w h a t k i n d e r t o b o t h
A r i s t o b u l u s a n d A l e x a n d e r . T h e y still represent a d e g e n e r a t i o n b u t the
fault is n o t e x c l u s i v e l y their o w n . W e n o w h e a r a b o u t A r i s t o b u l u s ' s b a s i c
g o o d n e s s a n d a b o u t the hardships faced b y A l e x a n d e r . Q u e e n A l e x a n ­
dra, o n the o t h e r h a n d , is n o w c o m p l e t e l y o u t o f o r d e r a n d it is she w h o
p l u n g e s the d y n a s t y into irreversible straits. T h e r e a s o n is that she
b e t r a y e d h e r h o u s e to its Pharisaic o p p o n e n t s .
I n b o t h s c e n a r i o s , then, the Pharisees play a m a j o r a n d destructive
role in the collapse o f the H a s m o n e a n rule. F o r that r e a s o n , if f o r n o
o t h e r , they h a v e e a r n e d the c o n t e m p t o f the p r o - H a s m o n e a n J o s e p h u s .
CHAPTER ELEVEN

ANT 17:41-45: T H E P H A R I S E E S A T H E R O D ' S C O U R T , II

In the last chapter w e saw that, a l t h o u g h Ant. r e w o r k s War's e x p l a n a t i o n


o f the downfall o f the H a s m o n e a n s , the role o f the Pharisees in b o t h ac­
c o u n t s is similar. Ant. reappraises b o t h A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e a n d h e r t w o
sons b u t it c o n t i n u e s to present the Pharisees as a destructive f o r c e . I n
the present chapter, w e shall d i s c o v e r that J o s e p h u s ' s reevaluation o f
H e r o d in Ant. likewise d o e s n o t lead to a n y i m p r o v e m e n t in the i m a g e
o f the Pharisees. J o s e p h u s will again attack their c l a i m s to superior
axpt(kia a n d h e will a d d the n e w c h a r g e that they h a v e issued fraudulent
predictions.
T h a t Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is hostile t o w a r d the Pharisees is universally r e c o g ­
n i z e d , b e c a u s e it is o b v i o u s . M o s t scholars, h o w e v e r , insist that the
passage is a direct r e p r o d u c t i o n o f s o m e source (often thought to b e
N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s ) a n d that it d o e s n o t reflect J o s e p h u s ' s o w n sen­
timents. T h e f o l l o w i n g analysis will challenge this w i d e s p r e a d a s s u m p ­
tion. Before e n g a g i n g in s o u r c e criticism, h o w e v e r , w e shall n e e d to
ensure that o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the passage in its present c o n t e x t is
adequate.

I. Context

B y the o p e n i n g o f Ant. 17, the H a s m o n e a n s h a v e l o n g since lost their


1
Buvaaxeta. A R o m a n a p p o i n t e e , H e r o d the I d u m e a n , has n o w ruled the
J e w s for o v e r three d e c a d e s . H e has e n j o y e d o u t s t a n d i n g political success
but has fallen progressively d e e p e r into d o m e s t i c strife. A c o m p l e x net­
w o r k o f a m b i t i o n s , j e a l o u s i e s , a n d m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g s , b o t h his o w n a n d
2
o t h e r s ' , h a v e led h i m to e x e c u t e o n e o f his w i v e s a n d t w o o f his s o n s .
But that d i d n o t e n d his troubles. A p o w e r f u l c l i q u e , h e a d e d b y H e r o d ' s
sister-in-law ( P h e r o r a s ' s w i f e ) , a n d his oldest son ( A n t i p a t e r ) , is n o w
3
plotting against the k i n g . It is in the c o u r s e o f his discussion o f these
conspirators that J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the Pharisees (Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) . T h e
passage has a b r i e f parallel in War 1:571, w h i c h w e c o n s i d e r e d a b o v e
(chapter 5 ) .

1
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

A few r e m a r k s o n the general portrayal o f H e r o d in Ant. will h e l p to


p r o v i d e a c o n t e x t for o u r interpretation. It is n o w well k n o w n that, o n
4
the w h o l e , H e r o d receives k i n d e r treatment in War than h e d o e s in Ant.
A t several p o i n t s the later w o r k i n t r o d u c e s direct criticism o f the I d u -
5
m e a n k i n g for his v a n i t y a n d for his v i o l a t i o n o f the J e w i s h rcaTpioc,
6
criticism w h i c h w a s largely absent f r o m War. E q u a l l y effective in their
c u m u l a t i v e force are the m a n y small c h a n g e s that Ant. m a k e s in War's
narrative that vitiate War's flattering portraits o f the k i n g , his father
7
( A n t i p a t e r ) , a n d his d e s c e n d a n t s .
It n e e d s to b e e m p h a s i z e d here that the shift in attitude is n o t s i m p l y
f r o m a " p r o - H e r o d i a n " stance in War to an " a n t i - H e r o d i a n " stance in
Ant. T h e later presentation, rather, is h i g h l y n u a n c e d . J o s e p h u s n o w of­
fers a p s y c h o l o g i c a l profile o f H e r o d , in o r d e r to e x p l a i n the r o o t s o f b o t h
8
his v i c i o u s n e s s a n d his a m a z i n g g e n e r o s i t y . O u r a u t h o r still frankly
9 1 0 11
acknowledges H e r o d ' s valour, beneficence, d e v o t i o n to his f a m i l y ,
12
a n d e v e n his p i e t y , in certain c o n t e x t s . M o s t i m p o r t a n t , Ant. is still full
o f c o n d e m n a t i o n for the m e a n n e s s a n d i m p i e t y o f those within H e r o d ' s
1 3
family a n d c o u r t w h o c o n s p i r e d against h i m . It d o e s n o t f o l l o w , then,
b e c a u s e War h a d praised H e r o d a n d d e n o u n c e d his o p p o n e n t s , that Ant.,
w h i c h is m o r e critical o f the k i n g , m u s t a u t o m a t i c a l l y treat his e n e m i e s
m o r e k i n d l y . J o s e p h u s n o w s e e m s p r e p a r e d to p o i n t o u t the injustices
b o t h o f H e r o d a n d o f his o p p o n e n t s .
Ant. consistently presents the Pharisees as H e r o d ' s o p p o n e n t s . W h i l e
1 4
he w a s still g o v e r n o r o f the G a l i l e e , w e are t o l d , H e r o d i n c u r r e d the
w r a t h o f the J e w i s h leaders b y , a m o n g o t h e r things, e x e c u t i n g m a n y o f
the l o c a l b a n d i t s w i t h o u t the d u e p r o c e s s that w a s e n s h r i n e d in J e w i s h

4
Cf. Laqueur, Josephus, 17Iff.; Holscher, "Josephus", 1947; Thackeray, Josephus
65ff.; Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico, I, X X V f.; Cohen, Josephus, iii; and chapter
7, above.
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).

S a m a i a s , t h e n , is a p p a l l e d b y H e r o d ' s lawlessness a n d v i e w s his r o y a l


1 7
a p p o i n t m e n t as a d i v i n e p u n i s h m e n t o f the J e w s . H e r o d , for his part,
respects his adversary's integrity and is grateful for his support,
w h a t e v e r its m o t i v a t i o n .
T h e next t i m e w e hear o f S a m a i a s , w e d i s c o v e r that h e w a s a Pharisee.
In Ant. 1 5 : 3 - 4 , J o s e p h u s is e x p l a i n i n g that H e r o d , o n c e h e b e c a m e k i n g
o f J u d e a , r e w a r d e d those w h o h a d taken his side w h i l e h e w a s still a c o m ­
m o n e r . A m o n g those so r e w a r d e d w e r e " t h e Pharisee P o l l i o n a n d his
1 8
disciple S a m a i a s , for d u r i n g the siege o f J e r u s a l e m these m e n [ h a d ]
c o u n s e l e d the citizens to a d m i t H e r o d " . T h u s , P o l l i o n is n o w i n c l u d e d
as o n e w h o also r e c o m m e n d e d s u b m i s s i o n w h e n H e r o d arrived to take
Jerusalem. T o P o l l i o n also is attributed the p r e d i c t i o n ( o f Samaias!
14:176) that Herod would one day persecute his erstwhile j u d g e s
1 9
(15:4). W e n o w learn, therefore, that at least t w o Pharisees w e r e o p ­
p o s e d to H e r o d f r o m the start; i r o n i c a l l y , H e r o d h o n o u r e d t h e m b e c a u s e
their call for s u b m i s s i o n , t h o u g h m o t i v a t e d b y the v i e w that H e r o d ' s
reign w a s an i n e s c a p a b l e p u n i s h m e n t , served his e n d s well.

15
Ant. 14:163-167.
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

In 15:370, we hear yet again of Herod's favour toward Pollion and


Samaias in spite of their opposition to him. Concerned about the
faithfulness of his subjects, Josephus narrates, Herod took steps to en­
sure their loyalty: he banned public meetings, sent out spies, and
demanded from everyone an oath of fidelity (15:366-368). Those who
resisted the oath were done away with by every means possible (rcavxt
Tporcco ex7tooa>v Ircotetro). Although Herod was pushing for the Pharisees
Pollion and Samaias and their colleagues to take the oath:

they did not consent to do so; yet they were not punished in the same ways
as those [others] who refused (ou8' 6{JLOUO$ zoiq dpvTjaauivots IxoXdaOirjaav) for
they were given respect on account of Pollion. (Ant. 15:370)

W h a t this means, evidently, is that Herod's regard for Pollion prevented


him from punishing the Pharisees with death " b y every possible
means", which is what the other protestors received; it would not seem
to exclude lesser punishments. W e see here again that the Pharisees op­
pose Herod but that he favours them.
T o summarize: incidental references to the Pharisees in Ant. 14 and
15 establish several themes and topics that will occur again in 17:41-45.
First, individual Pharisees have been engaged in prediction or prophecy.
Second, they have acquired a position of influence with Herod. Third,
they are opposed to Herod because of his violation of Jewish law.
Fourth, they have refused to take an oath of allegiance to the king. All
of these points will be reprised in Ant. 17:41-45.

II. Key Terms

In keeping with his common procedure, Josephus constructs our passage


from a topic paragraph (17:41), which contains a summary characteriza­
tion of the Pharisees, followed by a brief narrative of events in which
they were involved (17:42-45), which narrative elaborates on his sum­
mary remarks. T h e opening statement of our passage reads:

There was also a certain segment of Jews that prided itself greatly on its
extremely precise observance of the ancestral heritage and pretended [to
observe] laws with which the Deity is pleased; by them the female faction
was directed. Called Pharisees, these men were entirely capable of issuing
predictions for the king's benefit, and yet, evidently, they rose up to com­
bat and injure [him].
xal rjv yap fxoptov xt 'IouSaix&v dvGpcoiwov e V e5axpt(Jcoaet (Jteya 9povouv TOO
Twcxpiou xal vofxcov o% xatps^ *b Oetov 7Cpo<jrcoioufxevov, ot$ U7tfjxTO TJ Yovatxa>vC«us,
Oaptaalot xaXouvxat, (JaatXeT Suvafi&vot {xdXtara rcpaaaeiv TcpofXTjSet^, xal TOO
7cpoo7crou et$ TO 7ioXeu,eTv xe xal pXowcxetv ercrjpuivoi.

Several terms call for comment.


264 CHAPTER ELEVEN

A . poptov. T h e w o r d o c c u r s in J o s e p h u s o n l y here a n d at Ant. 3 : 1 8 2 ,


w h e r e h e c o u n t s seventy e l e m e n t s o r sections (poptoc) in the c a n d e l a b r u m
o f the T a b e r n a c l e . Significantly, h o w e v e r , T h u c y d i d e s has poptov 8 times
in his narrative. H e uses it to m e a n " s e g m e n t , p o r t i o n , part, o r divi­
2 0 2 1
sion"; four times h e has the phrase (Jpocxet popup, " a small p o r t i o n " .
T h i s parallel is significant b e c a u s e it is w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d that b o o k s 17-
22
19 o f Ant. imitate T h u c y d i d e a n v o c a b u l a r y a n d s t y l e . I f 17:41 also
recalls T h u c y d i d e s , then w e h a v e s o m e reason to c o n n e c t this passage
with the b o o k s in w h i c h it a p p e a r s , a n d this c o n n e c t i o n m u s t h a v e s o m e
b e a r i n g o n the q u e s t i o n o f a u t h o r s h i p .
B . in' efjocxpiPcoaet peya 9p6vouv. T h e n o u n e£axpt(3a>ais o c c u r s o n l y here
in J o s e p h u s . Nevertheless, it is built o n the stem dxptfJ—which is u b i ­
2 3
q u i t o u s in o u r a u t h o r . A s n o t e d a b o v e , this stem o c c u r s in several o f
24
J o s e p h u s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the P h a r i s e e s : they are a m o n g those w h o are
r e p u t e d to ( o r profess t o ) e x e r c i s e s u p e r i o r dxptfktoc w i t h respect to the
vopot. Further, in Ant. 19:332, w e read o f a certain Simon from
25
J e r u s a l e m w h o e£axpt($dCetv Soxcov xd voptpa, w h i c h gives us the v e r b a l
c o g n a t e o f o u r n o u n in c o n j u n c t i o n with " t h e l a w s " . N o t i c e again the
c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n o u r passage a n d this entire section o f Ant.
A l t h o u g h the n o u n is u n i q u e , the phrase peya 9povouv, " p r i d i n g o n e ­
self g r e a t l y " , o c c u r s a d o z e n times in J o s e p h u s ; in a l m o s t e v e r y c a s e , w e
26
are certainly d e a l i n g with his o w n s t y l e . I n 8 o f these instances, m o r e ­
27
o v e r , J o s e p h u s has the w h o l e c o n s t r u c t i o n , inl xtvt peya 9povouv. I n War
7 : 3 8 3 , for e x a m p l e , Eleazar b . Y a i r , faced with the u n w i l l i n g n e s s o f his
followers to kill t h e m s e l v e s , e x h o r t s , " B u t w e , p r i d i n g ourselves greatly
o n o u r c o u r a g e (src' dvSpeta peya 9povouvTe$), r e v o l t e d f r o m Rome".
J o s e p h u s uses the s a m e p h r a s e w h e n he speaks o f the Philistines w h o ,
t h o u g h they p r i d e d themselves greatly o n their c o u r a g e ( p e y a in' dvSpeta
9povouvxcov), w e r e killed b y D a v i d ' s a r m y (Ant. 7 : 3 0 1 ) . O t h e r s are said
28 2 9
" t o p r i d e themselves g r e a t l y " o n their s u c c e s s e s , o n the l a w s , or
3 0
simply o n " t h e m s e l v e s " .

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

Ag.Ap. 1:99; 2:136, 286.


27
War 7:383, Ant. 4:100; 6:298; 7:301; 15:372 Ag.Ap. 1:99; 2:136. 286.
2 8
Ag.Ap. 1:99. This comes in a citation of Manetho, but Josephus may have
retouched his source.
2 9
Ag.Ap. 1:286.
3 0
Ag.Ap. 4:100.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II 265

It is, therefore, entirely in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h a n u s a g e that the


Pharisees s h o u l d b e said to h a v e " p r i d e d themselves greatly o n their e x ­
t r e m e p r e c i s i o n " . W e n o t e that T h u c y d i d e s has the phrase e<p' eauTtp
peya 9povouvxa for o n e w h o " h a s a h i g h o p i n i o n o f h i m s e l f (6.16.4).
C . TOU rcaxptou xat voptov. A l s o in k e e p i n g w i t h J o s e p h a n u s a g e else­
w h e r e , the o b j e c t o f the Pharisees' alleged axptfktoc is TOrcotTptova n d ot
vopot. I n War 1:110, it w a s ot vopot, in War 2 : 1 6 2 , TOC voptpa, a n d in Life
1 9 1 , TOC 7uaTpta voptpa. A s w e h a v e seen, the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o frcotTptaa n d
31
vopot in reference to the J e w i s h laws is characteristic o f o u r a u t h o r .
D. rcpooTcotoupat. In keeping with established practice, Josephus
regularly uses the m i d d l e v o i c e o f Trpoorcoteto in the sense, " t o p r e t e n d ,
3 2
feign, o r a c t " . O r d i n a r i l y , he supplies an infinitive to indicate the
33
n a t u r e o f the p r e t e n c e . O n e o f the syntactical ( a n d p e r h a p s textual) dif­
34
ficulties with o u r passage is the a b s e n c e o f such an i n f i n i t i v e . Marcus
a n d W i k g r e n m u s t b e c o r r e c t in s u p p l y i n g a v e r b like " o b s e r v e " , w h i c h
I h a v e also a d o p t e d for the a b o v e translation.
N e v e r t h e l e s s , the idea o f p r e t e n d i n g to <xxpt(3eta in the laws, w h i c h is
w h a t the Pharisees are here said to d o , is quite at h o m e in J o s e p h u s . A
certain J e w in R o m e , h e tells us, w a s c o m p l e t e l y evil (rcovrjpos tiq TOC
rcavTa) b u t "pretended to interpret the w i s d o m o f the laws o f M o s e s "
(rcpoaercotetTO pev e^rjyetaOat ao^tav vopcov TCOV Mtouaeo?; Ant. 18:81).
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s m o r e c o m m o n l y correlates Soxeto with axptjieta, there
is a significant s e m a n t i c o v e r l a p b e t w e e n Soxeto ( w i t h a p e r s o n a l subject)
35
a n d 7upoa7uotoupat. W h e n h e c l a i m s , therefore, that the Pharisees p r e ­
tend (7upoa7uotoupevot) to o b s e r v e the laws w i t h axpt(3eta, h e is n o t s a y i n g
s o m e t h i n g n e w b u t is rather e m p h a s i z i n g the subjective o r v o l i t i o n a l
aspect that w a s already latent in Soxeto, w h e n h e said that the Pharisees
36
Soxouatv e^riyetaOat Ta voptpa peT' axptPeta^.
E . rj yuvatxtoviTt?. T h e " f e m a l e f a c t i o n " that is c o n t r o l l e d (UTTTJXTO) b y
the Pharisees w a s i n t r o d u c e d at 17:33ff. I n his efforts to b u i l d his p o w e r
b a s e , w e are t o l d , H e r o d ' s s o n A n t i p a t e r w a n t e d to b r i n g his u n c l e

3 1
Cf. chapter 4, above. At Ant. 17:41, a variant reading is TOU 7uocTptou vopou ( W E
Lat.), which is followed by Reinach. This would conform even more closely to Josephan
usage.
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

Pheroras o n side. I n o r d e r t o a c c o m p l i s h this, h e cultivated the loyalty


o f P h e r o r a s ' s wife, m o t h e r - i n - l a w , a n d sister-in-law. T h e s e three, a l o n g
with A n t i p a t e r ' s o w n mother, acted in concert and constituted a
YUvatxcovTris, w h i c h A n t i p a t e r had entirely under his c o n t r o l (coaxe
rcavTOttos 6 'AvrtTCaxpos U7tfjxT0 auras, 1 7 : 3 5 ) . A g a i n s t the c o - o r d i n a t e d ac­
tions o f the w o m e n , J o s e p h u s allows, Pheroras w a s p o w e r l e s s to act in­
dependently (17:34).
It w a s these female o p p o n e n t s o f H e r o d w h o m the Pharisees w e r e able
3 7
to m a n i p u l a t e , as the sequel also s h o w s . P h e r o r a s ' s wife ( o n e o f the
b a n d ) p a y s their fine for refusing to swear allegiance to H e r o d a n d they,
in turn, m a n u f a c t u r e p r e d i c t i o n s that please her.
E .TCpop7)6et$.B o t h the m e a n i n g a n d the syntactical function o f rcpo-
p7]Get$ are p r o b l e m a t i c . M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n ( L C L ) take the w o r d t o
m e a n " f o r e s i g h t " b u t offer as an alternative " p r e d i c t i o n " . I n f a v o u r o f
their a d o p t e d r e a d i n g is the fact that 8 o f the o t h e r 9 o c c u r r e n c e s o f rcpo-
pTjGrjs in J o s e p h u s h a v e the sense o f " c a u t i o n , p r e c a u t i o n , p r u d e n c e , o r
38
foresight". O n l y o n c e d o e s the w o r d m e a n " d i v i n a t i o n " o f the future.
T i b e r i u s regrets that h e has resorted to a u g u r y (TOU 7cpoprj6ou<;) b e c a u s e
n o w h e m u s t d i e k n o w i n g w h a t will befall his g r a n d s o n (Ant. 18:218).
Y e t the c o n t e x t in 17:41 w o u l d s e e m to require that 7Cpopr)0etc m e a n
" p r e d i c t i o n s " — t h e alternate sense g i v e n b y M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n . O n e
o f the few things said a b o u t the Pharisees u n d e r H e r o d to this p o i n t has
b e e n that their leaders ( S a m a i a s a n d / o r P o l l i o n ) p r e d i c t e d what the I d u -
m e a n w o u l d d o with the S a n h e d r i n w h e n he c a m e to p o w e r ( 1 4 : 1 7 6 ;
1 5 : 4 ) . E v e n m o r e i m p o r t a n t , Ant. 17:41 i n t r o d u c e s a passage in w h i c h
the major theme is the Pharisees' reputation for f o r e k n o w l e d g e
(7cp6yv<oat^, 1 7 : 4 3 ) a n d their issuing o f fraudulent p r e d i c t i o n s . T h e y p r o ­
m i s e (7CpoXey<o) P h e r o r a s a n d his wife that they a n d their children will
assume the t h r o n e in p l a c e o f H e r o d ' s line. T h e y also p r e d i c t that a cer­
tain e u n u c h n a m e d B a g o a s will sire a k i n g w h o will restore his r e p r o d u c ­
tive c a p a c i t y ( 1 7 : 4 3 - 9 5 ) . T h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s suggest that 7cpop7jGeT^ in
17:41 refers to the Pharisees' predictions: although they c o u l d h a v e u s e d
their talents o f d i v i n a t i o n for the k i n g ' s benefit, they c h o s e instead to use
t h e m against h i m .
O n the syntactical p r o b l e m : M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n s e e m to take rcpoca-
aetv as intransitive a n d rcpop7)Gets attributively, so that the Pharisees,
b e i n g p r u d e n t , o r " h a v i n g f o r e s i g h t " , w e r e able to h e l p the k i n g g r e a d y .
I n the translation offered a b o v e , o n the other h a n d , I h a v e s u p p o s e d that

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

rcpaaaetv is transitive a n d that rcpoprjOets, as an accusative, is its direct o b ­


j e c t . T h u s , " t h e Pharisees w e r e entirely c a p a b l e o f issuing p r e d i c t i o n s
for the k i n g ' s benefit ((JaatXet Suvapevot paXtara rcpaaaetv 7i;popr|0eTs)" b u t
c h o s e instead t o c o m b a t a n d injure h i m b y these m e a n s . I n this r e a d i n g ,
(JaatXet is a dative o f " a d v a n t a g e a n d d i s a d v a n t a g e " . I n v i e w o f the
uncertain state o f the text t h r o u g h o u t 1 7 : 4 1 , h o w e v e r , it w o u l d b e u n ­
wise to p l a c e t o o m u c h w e i g h t o n a n y particular syntactical c o n s t r u c t i o n .
W i t h the terms rcpopTjOris, TCpoXeyco, a n d rcpoyvaxju;, w e e n c o u n t e r an
i m p o r t a n t t h e m e in J o s e p h u s . S i n c e he has a c o n s i d e r a b l e interest in the
idea o f p r o p h e c y o r p r e d i c t i o n , w e o u g h t briefly to c o n s i d e r his v i e w o f
this matter b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g with o u r interpretation o f Ant. 17:41-45.

I I I . The Meaning of Prophecy for Josephus

O n l y in recent years h a v e scholars b e g u n seriously t o deal with the


3 9
t h e m e o f p r o p h e c y in J o s e p h u s . Particularly significant are t w o articles
4 0
b y J. B l e n k i n s o p p a n d W . C . v a n U n n i k . I n the f o l l o w i n g sketch o f
the m e a n i n g a n d significance o f p r o p h e c y for J o s e p h u s , I c a n d o little
m o r e than s u m m a r i z e the pertinent aspects o f these studies.
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s uses the w o r d s npoyr\vr\(;,TCpoqnrjTeta,a n d 7cpo97)T£uoo
m o r e than 3 0 0 times in total, he reserves t h e m almost e x c l u s i v e l y for the
41
biblical p r o p h e t s . T h e t w o e x c e p t i o n s are: ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s favorite, J o h n
H y r c a n u s , w h o is said t o h a v e b e e n c a p a b l e o f Tzpo^r\xtioL and, indeed,
to have p r o p h e s i e d (7cpo97)xeuaev) the downfall o f the Hasmonean
4 2
house, a n d ( b ) the v a r i o u s false p r o p h e t s w h o arose b e f o r e a n d d u r i n g
43
the r e v o l t . T h e s e m e n c l a i m e d to b e p r o p h e t s (izpo<pr\T;r\<; eXeyev etvat,
Ant. 2 0 : 9 7 ) b u t w e r e n o t .
We m a y a d d that the v e r b 7tpoXeyco, w h i c h is used o f the Pharisees in
our passage, has a similar restriction. It o c c u r s 37 times in J o s e p h u s . I n
4 4
34 o f those instances the sense is " t o p r e d i c t " , a n d 31 o f these o c c u r ­
r e n c e s , in Ant. 1-11, refer t o the activity o f the biblical p r o p h e t s . It is
45 4 6
God himself or a prophet w h o predicts (7ipoXeyet). T h e three e x c e p -

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

tions are ( a ) J o h n H y r c a n u s ( a g a i n ! Ant. 1 3 : 3 0 0 ) ; ( b ) the Essenes (Ant.


47
1 3 : 3 1 1 ) , w h o m J o s e p h u s clearly a d m i r e s a n d ( c ) the Pharisees, in o u r
passage (Ant. 1 7 : 4 3 ) .
J o s e p h u s ' s treatment o f the biblical p r o p h e t s is n o t e w o r t h y in several
4 8
respects. First, as Paret l a m e n t e d , h e r e d u c e s their p r o p h e t i c activity
49
m o r e o r less t o that o f p r e d i c t i o n a n d m i n i m i z e s their d i d a c t i c a n d h o r ­
5 0
tatory r o l e s . I n k e e p i n g w i t h this t e n d e n c y , h e expresses the greatest
interest in those p r o p h e t s w h o h a v e left written r e c o r d s o f events t o
5 1
come; o f these, J e r e m i a h a n d D a n i e l (as well as the " p r o p h e t " M o s e s )
5 2
figure p r o m i n e n t l y . R e m a r k a b l y , J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s D a n i e l as " o n e o f
53
the greatest p r o p h e t s (etc ^ peytcrccov 7cp097)T6>v)" a n d as o n e w h o
5 4
" c o n v e r s e d with G o d " . T h e m a i n r e a s o n for D a n i e l ' s greatness, w e
are t o l d , is that h e left b e h i n d a written timetable o f future events, w h i c h
allows us t o test the a c c u r a c y o f his p r o p h e c i e s (oOev rjptv TO TTJS 7cpo97)Teioc<;
55
OCUTOG axpt(3es . . . e7coi7)ae SfjXov). T h i s a p p r e c i a t i o n o f D a n i e l illustrates
J o s e p h u s ' s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f " p r o p h e c y " as essentially p r e d i c t i v e .
J o s e p h u s r e p e a t e d l y c l a i m s that all o f the events o f his o w n d a y w e r e
foretold b y the p r o p h e t s . Isaiah, for e x a m p l e :

wrote down in books all that he had prophesied


and left them to be recognized as true from the
event by m e n of future ages. A n d not only this
prophet, but also others, twelve in number, did
the same, and whatever happens to us whether for
good or ill comes about in accordance with their
56
prophecies (xorcoc TTJV exetvcov 7up097)T£tocv).

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

S i n c e the p r o p h e c i e s o f J e r e m i a h a n d D a n i e l w e r e particularly relevant


to the events o f J o s e p h u s ' s t i m e , his special interest in t h e m is u n d e r ­
57
standable.
In a f a m o u s passage, d i s c u s s e d briefly in the previous chapter,
J o s e p h u s speaks a b o u t " t h e failure o f the e x a c t s u c c e s s i o n o f p r o p h e t s "
5 8
(pyj yeveaOoct TTJV T&Vrcpo97)TG>vaxptfSfj StaSoxrjv) s o o n after the E x i l e .
B l e n k i n s o p p interprets the p a s s a g e , in k e e p i n g with J o s e p h u s ' s restricted
use o f the rcpo97)T-word g r o u p , t o m e a n that p r o p h e c y c e a s e d altogether
5 9
at that t i m e . Paret a n d v a n U n n i k , o n the o t h e r h a n d , e m p h a s i z e the
adjective; they a r g u e that it w a s o n l y the e x a c t s u c c e s s i o n that failed a n d
6 0
that p r o p h e t s c o n t i n u e d t o a p p e a r s p o r a d i c a l l y in J o s e p h u s ' s time.
S i n c e , h o w e v e r , e v e r y o n e agrees that the activity o f p r e d i c t i n g the future
w a s , a c c o r d i n g to J o s e p h u s , w i d e s p r e a d in his d a y , the d e b a t e is i n c o n s e ­
61
quential for o u r p u r p o s e s . J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that h e h i m s e l f , many
62 63
Essenes, and some Pharisees a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t the future.
J o s e p h u s asserts his ability t o tell the future in the c o n t e x t o f his i m ­
p e n d i n g c a p t u r e at J o t a p a t a (War 3:350ff). U n s u r e w h e t h e r to d i e v o l u n ­
tarily with his c o m r a d e s o r t o s u r r e n d e r t o the R o m a n s ( s o h e says), h e
s u d d e n l y recalled " t h o s e nightly d r e a m s " in w h i c h G o d h a d f o r e t o l d to
h i m the fate o f the J e w s a n d the destinies o f V e s p a s i a n a n d T i t u s . F o r ,
h e a l l o w s , h e c o u l d interpret d r e a m s a n d w a s able to d e t e r m i n e the
m e a n i n g o f a m b i g u o u s d i v i n e utterances, b e i n g a priest. N o w b o u n d b y
a sense o f s o l e m n o b l i g a t i o n , as G o d ' s servant (Staxovo^), t o c o n v e y his
p r e d i c t i o n s to V e s p a s i a n , J o s e p h u s is c o m p e l l e d to d e c l i n e the offer o f
death a n d h e surrenders t o the R o m a n s .
Rajak, understandably, d o u b t s that this a c c o u n t is a n y t h i n g m o r e
than a desperate stratagem t o e x p l a i n J o s e p h u s ' s e m b a r r a s s i n g flight t o
6 4
the e n e m y . V a n U n n i k , h o w e v e r , rejects this possibility b e c a u s e : ( 1 )
J o s e p h u s ' s p r o p h e c y b e f o r e V e s p a s i a n is i n d e p e n d e n t l y attested in o t h e r
65
comtemporary sources a n d ( 2 ) J o s e p h u s ' s writings c o n t a i n m a n y in­
6 6
d i c a t i o n s that he t h o u g h t o f h i m s e l f as a p r o p h e t . I n the sequel to the

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

J o t a p a t a story, for e x a m p l e , J o s e p h u s claims that h e h a d accurately


p r e d i c t e d o t h e r events (as well as V e s p a s i a n ' s rise), i n c l u d i n g the fall o f
67
J o t a p a t a a n d his o w n c a p t i v i t y . Further indications o f J o s e p h u s ' s p r o ­
phetic self-understanding are: ( 3 ) his o c c a s i o n a l r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f the
68
biblical narrative so as to e n h a n c e the role o f p r o p h e t s ; ( 4 ) the parallels
6 9
that h e insinuates b e t w e e n his o w n c a r e e r a n d that o f J e r e m i a h ; ( 5 ) his
7 0
reflections o n the present v a l u e o f p r o p h e c y ; ( 6 ) his consistent correla­
71
tion o f prophecy with the priesthood; ( 7 ) his omission, in his
p a r a p h r a s e o f 1 M a c c a b e e s , o f that w o r k ' s l a m e n t o v e r the a b s e n c e o f
72
authorized p r o p h e t s ; a n d ( 8 ) his stated intention to b e g i n w r i t i n g War
7 3
at the p o i n t w h e r e " t h e p r o p h e t s " e n d e d their a c c o u n t s . There can be
little d o u b t , in v i e w o f v a n Unnik's and B l e n k i n s o p p ' s w o r k , that
7 4
Josephus "wiinschte sich, als P r o p h e t angesehen zu w i s s e n " . He
c o u n t s h i m s e l f ( d o u b t l e s s n o t the least) a m o n g the m o d e r n - d a y seers.
A final pertinent o b s e r v a t i o n arising f r o m the w o r k o f v a n U n n i k a n d
B l e n k i n s o p p is that J o s e p h u s a n d his fellow-seers c l a i m a dual basis for
their p r e d i c t i o n s , n a m e l y , scriptural exegesis a n d i m m e d i a t e d i v i n e in­
75
spiration. B e c a u s e the a u t h o r i z e d p r o p h e t s h a d r e c o r d e d all the events
o f the future, the seer o f J o s e p h u s ' s d a y h a d to b e g i n with a t h o r o u g h
knowledge o f the ancient prophetic texts. This principle explains
Josephus's r e m a r k that he is an interpreter o f d r e a m s a n d skilled in
d i v i n a t i o n , b e i n g a priest (tov tepeu?) a n d thus b e i n g familiar with the
76
p r o p h e c i e s in the s a c r e d scriptures (TOC? 7upo97)Tetoc<; TCOV teptov (3t(3Xcov). It
is his k n o w l e d g e o f biblical p r o p h e c y that enables h i m to interpret

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

d r e a m s a n d o t h e r signs. Similarly, h e tells us that s o m e o f the Essenes


u n d e r t a k e t o tell the future, ' ' b e i n g lifelong students o f sacred scripture
. . . . a n d o f the sayings o f p r o p h e t s " ((Jt(JXot? tepat?. . . xat 7cpo97)TCOv
77
<XTCO90eYpaatv £p7cat8oTpt(Joupevot). T h i s k i n d o f scriptural study m a y also
b e a l l u d e d to in the c u r i o u s n o t i c e that o n e d a y J u d a s the Essene w a s offer­
i n g " i n s t r u c t i o n o n p r e d i c t i n g the f u t u r e " (8t8<x<jxocXia$. . . TOU rcpoXeyetv
78
TOC peXXovTOt). Finally, in Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 the Pharisees' ability to p r e d i c t
the future s e e m s to b e tied to their c l a i m to s u p e r i o r dcxpi(kia w i t h respect
79
to s c r i p t u r e .
In addition to scriptural exegesis, the post-biblical seer is often
80
e n g a g e d , like his biblical p r e d e c e s s o r s , in the interpretation o f i m ­
mediate d i v i n e manifestations, especially d r e a m s . J o s e p h u s and the
8 1
Essenes both interpret the future b y interpreting d r e a m s . In our
p a s s a g e , likewise, the Pharisees " h a d b e e n credited with k n o w i n g the
future through manifestations of God (rcpoyvcoatv hi e7re7rtareuvT0 imyoivfyszi TOU
82
Geou)".
J o s e p h u s m a k e s it clear, h o w e v e r , that d i v i n e a p p e a r a n c e s c o m e o n l y
to those w h o are w o r t h y . H e says, as p r o o f o f J o h n H y r c a n u s ' s u n i q u e vir­
tue, " F o r the D e i t y c o n v e r s e d with h i m so closely that he w a s n e v e r
8 3
u n a w a r e o f the f u t u r e " . J o s e p h u s c l a i m s that the Essene M e n a h e m ' s
rcpoyvtoats TCOV peXXovTcov w a s p r o o f o f his virtue (xaXoxayaOtoc pap-
84
Tupoupevo?) a n d that the Essenes in general w e r e granted k n o w l e d g e o f
85
" d i v i n e t h i n g s " b e c a u s e o f their virtue (urco xocXoxorfocOtoc^).
T h i s b r i e f o v e r v i e w o f p r o p h e c y in J o s e p h u s is e n o u g h to s h o w that o u r
a u t h o r has a sustained interest in the t o p i c . T h a t interest arises in part
f r o m his self-understanding as a m o d e r n heir o f the p r o p h e t s . A s his
d e n u n c i a t i o n s o f c o n t e m p o r a r y false p r o p h e t s s h o w , he c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f
a qualified critic in the field. L e t v a n U n n i k s u m m a r i z e the i m p o r t a n c e
o f these o b s e r v a t i o n s for the interpretation o f Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 :

Es sollte nun klar sein, dass wir, wenn wir uber Prophetie bei Josephus
sprechen, uber eine Sache reden, die Josephus nicht nur objektiv, historich,
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

Josephus's discussion o f the Pharisees' p r o p h e t i c activities under


H e r o d the G r e a t , like his earlier discussions o f their reputation for scrip­
tural expertise, c o m e s f r o m a qualified a n d interested critic.

I V . Interpretation

It is n o w possible to b r i n g together all o f the a b o v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , with


respect to c o n t e x t , k e y terms, a n d the p r o p h e c y motif, in an effort to in­
terpret Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 .
W e h a v e n o t e d that the passage is built f r o m a t o p i c sentence ( § 4 1 )
a n d an elaborative story ( § § 4 2 - 4 5 ) . T h e thrust o f the t o p i c sentence is
that the Pharisees, w h o p r i d e d themselves greatly o n their exegetical p r o ­
wess, w e r e perfectly able to issue p r e d i c t i o n s (rcpdcaaetv 7rpoprj6eT$) that
w o u l d benefit the k i n g b u t they c h o s e , rather, to e m p l o y their talents to
the k i n g ' s detriment.
N o t i c e that the phrase " i s s u i n g predictions for the k i n g ' s b e n e f i t "
n e e d n o t i m p l y the m a n u f a c t u r i n g o f false o r flattering p r o p h e c i e s . O n
the c o n t r a r y , J o s e p h u s has earlier d e s c r i b e d the benefit o f p r o p h e c y a n d
f o r e k n o w l e d g e as the awareness o f " w h a t to g u a r d a g a i n s t " (Ant. 8 : 4 1 8 ) .
H e has also presented H e r o d as o n e w h o w a s e a g e r to k n o w the future;
the Essene M e n a h e m h e l p e d h i m in this quest (Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 7 f f . ) . A c c o r d ­
ing to o u r passage, the Pharisees also h a d the ability to assist H e r o d in
this w a y b u t they o p t e d instead to use their abilities against h i m , b y en­
c o u r a g i n g his o p p o n e n t s with false p r e d i c t i o n s . T h e y w e r e , it n o w ap­
pears, a major force b e h i n d the " g a n g o f w o m e n " assembled by
A n t i p a t e r to o p p o s e his father.
T h e postpositive youv in 17:42 suggests that the story to follow will
substantiate the c l a i m that the Pharisees used 7tpop7]0eTc against the king,
w h i c h is i n d e e d what w e find: the following narrative ( § § 4 2 - 4 5 ) r e c o u n t s
t w o instances o f the Pharisees' u n s c r u p u l o u s use o f p r o p h e c y . T h e first
sentence o f the story p r o v i d e s the b a c k g r o u n d : w h e n the " w h o l e J e w i s h
people" s w o r e an oath o f loyalty to Caesar and to the policies
(TCpaypocatv) o f H e r o d , the Pharisees refused. T h e i r intransigence e a r n e d
t h e m a fine b u t this w a s p a i d for t h e m b y P h e r o r a s ' s wife, w h o w a s o n e
87
m e m b e r o f the yuvatxcoviTi? that they c o n t r o l l e d .
T h i s event p r o v i d e s the c o n t e x t for the first e x a m p l e o f the Pharisees'
using 7Cpoprj0ets against the k i n g ( 1 7 : 4 3 ) :

A s a reward for her kindness they predicted—for [the Pharisees] had been
credited with knowing the future through divine manifestations (xcpoyvcoatv

8 7
On the suggestion that the mention of this fine contradicts Ant. 15:370, see the
source-critical discussion below.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD's COURT, II 273

8e !7ce7u<jreuvTO l7i:i9otT7J<jei TOU Oeou)—that a cessation o f H e r o d ' s rule, his


and his family's after him, had been decreed by G o d and that the kingdom
would devolve on her and Pheroras and on any children they might have.

N o w d e c l i n i n g an o a t h o f allegiance to H e r o d ' s p o l i c i e s w a s o n e thing.


If the r e a d e r k n o w s a n y t h i n g a b o u t H e r o d f r o m War 1 a n d f r o m Ant. 15-
17, h o w e v e r , it is that h e w a s o b s e s s e d w i t h his o w n p o w e r a n d w o u l d
8 8
n o t tolerate a n y o p p o s i t i o n , w h e t h e r real o r i m a g i n e d . H e was even
p r e p a r e d to e x e c u t e his o w n sons o n the s u s p i c i o n that they w e r e c o n s p i r ­
8 9
i n g against h i m . Particularly in the last years o f his life, in w h i c h o u r
90
passage falls, the k i n g w a s beset b y all sorts o f m o r b i d f e a r s . His
r e s p o n s e to the P h a r i s e e s ' p r e d i c t i o n , therefore, is perfectly in character.
W h e n h e learns o f their actions f r o m his sister S a l o m e , w h o also tells h i m
that the Pharisees h a v e c o r r u p t e d o r p e r v e r t e d (Btoc^Oetpto) s o m e p e o p l e
in his c o u r t , " t h e k i n g p u t to death (avoctpet) the c h i e f culprits a m o n g the
P h a r i s e e s " (TCOV Oocptaocttov TOU? atTitoTOCTOUc Ttvoc?) ( 1 7 : 4 4 ) . A m o n g those
" c o r r u p t e d " m e m b e r s o f the c o u r t w h o w e r e killed a l o n g with the guilty
9 1
Pharisees were: a eunuch named Bagoas, a certain Karos, and
e v e r y o n e in the k i n g ' s h o u s e h o l d (TOU otxetou) w h o s u p p o r t e d " w h a t the
Pharisee s a i d " ( o t ? 6 Oocptaato? eXeyev)—a c u r i o u s p h r a s e to w h i c h w e
92
shall r e t u r n .
Josephus n o w explains w h a t happened in the case o f B a g o a s the
e u n u c h a n d this p r o v i d e s his s e c o n d e x a m p l e o f a Pharisaic 7tpoprj07J<; that
injured the k i n g :

N o w Bagoas had been taken in by them (rjpTO 8e 6 Paycoa? UTC' OCUTCOV), being
led to believe that he would be n a m e d father and benefactor of the one who
should be on high with the title of king (TOU £7cixaT<X(JTa07)aopevou 7cpopprjaet
paatXeco?); for everything would be in the hands of that one (XOCTOC x t p Y<*P £ a

exetvto TOCrcavT'etvat), and he would grant Bagoas potency for marriage and
for the production of his own children. (Ant. 17:45)

The future passive participle (emxocTaaTa07]<j6pevos), i n d i c a t i n g that an


o m n i p o t e n t k i n g w o u l d " b e a p p o i n t e d a b o v e " ( b y G o d ? ) , suggests a
m e s s i a n i c figure. M a r c u s a n d W i k g r e n p o i n t o u t that Isaiah 5 6 : 3 - 5
9 3
s e e m s to offer an e s c h a t o l o g i c a l h o p e for e u n u c h s . Regardless o f h o w
o n e interprets the r o y a l figure, h o w e v e r , the p o i n t o f the passage is that

8 8
E.g., Ant. 15:173-178, 247-252, 262-266, 280-289, 365-369; 16:235ff.
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

this Pharisaic p r e d i c t i o n i m p l i e d a d i s r u p t i o n o f H e r o d ' s rule within the


lifetime o f B a g o a s . T h e infuriated k i n g d i d a w a y with B a g o a s , w h o h a d
set his h o p e s o n such a n o u t c o m e .
J o s e p h u s m a k e s it clear that the Pharisees' p r e d i c t i o n s i n this case
were mere flattery a n d n o n s e n s e . B a g o a s dies i m m e d i a t e l y , childless,
a n d P h e r o r a s follows s o o n after ( 1 7 : 5 8 f . , 6 1 ) . C o n t r a r y t o the Pharisees'
p r o p h e c i e s , H e r o d rules until his death, at w h i c h p o i n t the k i n g d o m
passes t o his sons ( 1 7 : 1 8 9 - 1 9 2 ) . J o s e p h u s , w h o c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f adept
in the art o f p r e d i c t i o n , h a s r e m a r k e d earlier i n Ant.:

Nor should we think the things which are said to flatter us (TOC 7cp6s rjSovrjv)
or please us more worthy of belief than the truth, but should realize that
nothing is more beneficial than prophecy and the foreknowledge which it
gives (OTI rcpo9rjTeia? xat TTJ? Stoc TCOV TOIOUTCOV rcpoyvcoaeco? ouSev iart aup-
^opcoTepov), for in this way God enables us to know what to guard against.
(Ant. 8:418; Thackeray/Marcus)

In Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 , h e is p r e s e n t i n g the Pharisees as false p r o p h e t s , as


those w h o sent o u t t o m a k e flattering p r e d i c t i o n s in p l a c e o f the truth.
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s c a n b e critical o f H e r o d i n Ant., h e is also q u i c k t o
p o i n t o u t the m a n y injustices that the k i n g faced. I n o u r passage h e p o r ­
trays the Pharisaic seers as m a j o r players i n the perpetration o f those in­
justices. A l l i e d with the k i n g ' s e n e m i e s , they a b u s e d p r o p h e c y in a
scandalous w a y , t o flatter their friends ( i n r e w a r d for financial s u p p o r t )
a n d t o injure the k i n g .
I n War 1:110-114 w e saw that J o s e p h u s takes issue with the Pharisees'
reputation for ( o r profession o f ) dxptfJeta a n d euaefkia. A s a priest, a n of­
ficial g u a r d i a n o f the n a t i o n ' s euaepeta a n d axptfieta, h e has a personal in­
terest i n these c o n c e p t s . H i s p r o c e d u r e in that passage w a s t o state the
Pharisees' reputation a n d then t o attack it with e x a m p l e s o f their i m ­
p i o u s b e h a v i o u r . Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 has a similar effect, t h o u g h n o w i n the
c o n t e x t o f p r o p h e c y . J o s e p h u s v i e w s h i m s e l f n o t o n l y as a priest b u t also
as a n heir o f the p r o p h e t s . H e reflects m u c h o n the t h e m e o f p r o p h e c y
a n d considers h i m s e l f b o t h a n able seer a n d a qualified critic o f other
seers. I n c o n n e c t i o n with their p r e t e n c e t o e£ocxpt(3coatc;, h e n o w tells u s ,
the Pharisees w e r e also b e l i e v e d t o h a v e f o r e k n o w l e d g e . I n o u r passage,
h o w e v e r , h e gives e x a m p l e s o f the Pharisees' p r e d i c t i o n s in o r d e r t o
s h o w that their reputation f o r 7cpoyvcoatc;, like their reputation f o r
axptfkia, is i l l - f o u n d e d .

V . Source Analysis

N o other Pharisee passage in J o s e p h u s ' s writings has b e e n as confidently


a n d universally attributed t o s o m e other author as Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 . R i v k i n
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II 275

is so sure o f its n o n - J o s e p h a n o r i g i n that h e o m i t s it altogether f r o m his


94
otherwise complete survey o f Josephus's Pharisee passages. The
scholarly c o n s e n s u s is so s t r o n g that A . I. B a u m g a r t e n c a n cite Ant.
17:41 as independent e v i d e n c e (that is, in a d d i t i o n t o J o s e p h u s ' s own
testimony!) that the Pharisees considered themselves the party of
95
<xxpt(kt<x. O u r final task in this chapter is to e x a m i n e the basis o n w h i c h
the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w rests.
B e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g , w e m a y n o t e that the identity o f the " r e a l " a u t h o r
o f Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 is n o t a g r e e d u p o n b y those w h o d e n y J o s e p h a n a u t h o r ­
ship. N i c o l a u s o f D a m a s c u s is the f a v o u r e d c a n d i d a t e chiefly b e c a u s e h e
w a s H e r o d ' s c o u r t historian a n d the r e p o r t e d incidents t o o k p l a c e in
9 6
Herod's court. H o l s c h e r , h o w e v e r , p r o p o s e d that the passage c a m e
from a biography of Herod, perhaps written by Ptolemaeus of
9 7
Ashkelon. R i v k i n s e e m s to b e l i e v e that a H e b r e w a c c o u n t w a s the basis
o f Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 a n d that a misrepresentation o f D^tfTID as Oocptaoctot
98
resulted in o u r ( a l l e g e d ) present d i f f i c u l t i e s . O n the q u e s t i o n o f the real
a u t h o r , w e are o b v i o u s l y in the r e a l m o f s p e c u l a t i o n . W h a t all o f these
scholars agree o n is that, w h o e v e r w r o t e Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 , it w a s not
J o s e p h u s . It is the criteria for this j u d g e m e n t that m u s t c o n c e r n u s .

A . Arguments Against Josephan Authorship of Ant. 17:41-45

A t least ten reasons for d e n y i n g J o s e p h a n authorship have been pro­


p o s e d in the scholarly literature.
1. T h e a u t h o r w a s o b v i o u s l y hostile t o w a r d the Pharisees a n d c o u l d
9 9
n o t , therefore, have been Josephus. This objection presupposes, o f
c o u r s e , that J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f w a s partial t o w a r d the Pharisees. But
J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees is the q u e s t i o n in o u r study; so far, w e
h a v e seen n o reason to b e l i e v e that h e f a v o u r e d the g r o u p .
2 . S o m e critics p e r c e i v e a tension b e t w e e n Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 0 , in w h i c h the
Pharisees are ( a l l e g e d l y ) e x c u s e d f r o m an o a t h o f allegiance, a n d 1 7 : 4 2
1 0 0
in w h i c h they are fined for their d i s o b e d i e n c e . W e r e s p o n d : ( a ) that

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

the narrative i m p l i e s that these w e r e t w o different o a t h s , separated b y


1 0 1
fifteen years o r s o a n d ( b ) that e v e n if the s a m e o a t h w e r e b e i n g des­
c r i b e d , Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 0 says o n l y that the Pharisees w e r e n o t p u n i s h e d in the
s a m e w a y as the others w h o refused (opottoc; TOI$ apvrjaocpevott;), that is,
with death. T h i s d o e s n o t e x c l u d e the possibility o f a fine.
3. T h a t the a u t h o r o f o u r passage d e s c r i b e s the Pharisees as if for the
first t i m e — x a l fjv yap poptov Tt 'Iou&aixtov dv0pa>7ccov . . .—has led s o m e
to a r g u e that the passage is lifted directly f r o m a s o u r c e that first m e n ­
1 0 2
tions the Pharisees h e r e . B u t it is n o t u n c o m m o n for J o s e p h u s t o intro­
d u c e p r e v i o u s l y discussed t o p i c s , s u c h as the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , as if h e h a d
n e v e r m e n t i o n e d t h e m . War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 offered a c o m p l e t e l y n e w p o r ­
trayal o f the Pharisees, with n o i n d i c a t i o n that they h a d b e e n m e n t i o n e d
b e f o r e ( b u t cf. War 1 : 1 1 0 - 1 1 4 ) ; so d o e s Life 1 9 1 , a l t h o u g h it c o m e s in an
a p p e n d i x to Ant., w h i c h often discusses the Pharisees. E v e n Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 -
173, 297f. a n d 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 , a l t h o u g h they a c k n o w l e d g e earlier treatments,
p r o c e e d as if these d i d n o t exist.
4. The use o f the third p e r s o n — p o p t o v xt 'IouSatxcov avOptorctov
1 0 3
( 1 7 : 4 1 ) — a c c o r d i n g t o S c h w a r t z , " s o u n d s strange for J o s e p h u s " . He
thinks the e x p r e s s i o n m o r e suited t o a G e n t i l e a u t h o r (Nicolaus).
A l t h o u g h J o s e p h u s c a n use the first p e r s o n (rjpets) w h e n s p e a k i n g o f the
1 0 4
J e w s , h o w e v e r , h e often uses the third p e r s o n , as in " t h e J e w s " or
1 0 5
" t h e J e w i s h l a w s " , in w h a t is u n q u e s t i o n a b l y his o w n w r i t i n g . He
1 0 6
e v e n speaks o f h i m s e l f in the third p e r s o n ! S o the force o f this o b j e c ­
tion is n o t at all clear.

1 0 1
The first oath took place in about 20 BC (Herod's seventeenth year), according
to 15:354 and 365 (xoxe). The later oath took place after the execution of Herod's two
sons (7 BC). The whole story of the Pharisees' fine and its payment by Pheroras's wife
is firmly connected to the emergence of the female cabal (rj yuvocixcoviTis, 17:41) under
Antipater, which only occurred in the final years of Herod's life (17:32ff) when he had
lost control of affairs. The parallel in War (l:567ff.) makes this absolutely clear.
Schwartz's claim that Ant. 17:42 is "simply recalling the earlier event" ("Josephus and
Nicolaus", 160 n. 12) seems to me to ignore all of the narrative indications. M y position
evidently agrees with those of A . Schalit and I. L. Levine (published in Hebrew); cf.
Schwartz, loc cit.
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.

R i v k i n seems to b e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the a b s e n c e o f a v e r b like l ^ y e o p a t


o r &9rrYeopai (cf. War 1:110; 2 : 1 6 2 ) . W e n o t e , h o w e v e r , that the descrip­
tion o f the Pharisees in Life 1 9 1 , w h i c h is clearly J o s e p h u s ' s o w n , also
1 1 1
lacks such a verb. Further, J o s e p h u s nowhere claims that "the
Pharisees were the most accurate expounders", but o n l y that they
s e e m e d , professed, o r w e r e r e p u t e d to b e (Boxouatv) such. T h e difference
is m o n u m e n t a l . O u r passage fits squarely with his o r d i n a r y u s a g e .
8. R i v k i n avers that:

among the characteristics of these pharisaoi [sic] are their influence with
women and their foreknowledge o f things to come. The Pharisees elsewhere
112
in Josephus do not share these characteristics.

W e r e s p o n d , first, that the passage says n o t h i n g a b o u t the Pharisees'


" i n f l u e n c e with w o m e n " as a general trait; it claims o n l y that they c o n ­
trolled the f o u r - w o m a n cabal (r\ yuvocixcovtris) that was plotting against
H e r o d . M o r e o v e r , in Ant. 14:174f. a n d 15:3f., J o s e p h u s does c l a i m that
certain Pharisees p r e d i c t e d the future.

1 0 7
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

9. A c c o r d i n g to R i v k i n , the Pharisaic o p p o s i t i o n t o H e r o d in Ant.


17:41-45 " c o n t r a s t s sharply with P o l l i o n [sic.] a n d S a m a i a s ' positive
relationship with H e r o d " . W e r e s p o n d : if these t w o Pharisees h a d a
" p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p " with H e r o d , it w a s entirely the k i n g ' s d o i n g , as
J o s e p h u s presents the matter. F o r P o l l i o n a n d S a m a i a s o p p o s e d H e r o d
f r o m the start; they r e g a r d e d h i m as a serious offender against J e w i s h
law (Ant. 1 4 : 1 7 2 - 1 7 4 ) . S a m a i a s accepts H e r o d ' s rule o n l y as a.punishment
f r o m G o d ( 1 4 : 1 7 6 ) . It w a s H e r o d , w e are told, w h o respected P o l l i o n
a n d S a m a i a s , n o t they w h o respected H e r o d ( 1 5 : 3 ) .
10. Finally, R i v k i n thinks it significant that the Pharisees o f Ant.
17:41-45 " a r e n o t j u x t a p o s e d to the S a d d u c e e s o r E s s e n e s " . W e s i m p l y
n o t e that the s a m e is true o f the discussions o f the Pharisees at War
1 1 3
1:110-114; Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; a n d Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 .

B . Considerations that Favour Josephan Authorship

T h e f o r e g o i n g study has a t t e m p t e d to interpret Ant. 17:41 in the c o n t e x t


o f b o t h the s u r r o u n d i n g narrative a n d J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t in general.
T h a t it was possible to d o this ( i f the effort w a s successful) indicates that
J o s e p h u s has m a d e the passage his o w n . It will b e helpful here t o spell
out those results o f the study that h a v e direct significance for the source-
critical q u e s t i o n .
1. T h e o p e n i n g characterization o f the Pharisees as a g r o u p p r i d i n g
itself o n ei|ocxptPa>ais is t h o r o u g h l y J o s e p h a n (cf. War 1:110; Life 1 9 1 ) , as
are also: the c o n s t r u c t i o n lizl Ttvt peyoc 9povouv, the reference to TO rcaTpiov
xat ot vopot ( o r 6 rcaTpto^ vopo$), a n d the v e r b 7ipoa7cotoupai in this c o n t e x t
(cf. Ant. 18:81 a n d Soxeco).
2 . T h e format o f the p e r i c o p e — a n o p e n i n g c l a i m refuted b y the story
that f o l l o w s — m a t c h e s o t h e r Pharisee passages in J o s e p h u s v e r y well (cf.
War 1:110-114; Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) .
3. A s S c h w a r t z has n o t e d , the use o f 7toXepetv a n d pXaTCTetv in o u r

1 1 3
The most obvious tension, it seems to me, between the earlier descriptions of the
Pharisees under Herod and Ant. 17:41 ff. has apparently not impressed many others.
Namely, 14:172 describes Samaias as an upright man (8txoctO£ dvrjp) and superior to fear,
whereas our passage presents the Pharisees as scoundrels. Notice, however, that when
Josephus is talking about Samaias's virtues, he does not mention that the man was a
Pharisee; that datum does not appear until somewhat later (15:3f.), by which time the
reader might have forgotten the earlier praise. In 14:172, Josephus wants to contrast the
lawless Herod and the cowardly Sanhedrin with an upright man who was not afraid to
voice the truth. If his source told him that the man was Samaias, he could not very well
suppress that fact; what he could do and did do was to omit the datum that Samaias was
a Pharisee.
THE PHARISEES AT HEROD'S COURT, II 279

passage to d e s c r i b e the Pharisees' actions t o w a r d rulers fits w i t h o t h e r


passages in J o s e p h u s (War 1:67; Ant. 13: 4 0 1 ) .
4 . T h e entire t h e m e o f o u r p a s s a g e , that o f foretelling the future, is
i m p o r t a n t to J o s e p h u s . H i s c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n the P h a r i s e e s ' p r o p h e t i c
1 1 4
abilities a n d their c l a i m to &xpi(kux a c c o r d s with his u s a g e e l s e w h e r e .
T h a t the Pharisees s h o u l d a c q u i r e their f o r e k n o w l e d g e t h r o u g h d i v i n e
115
manifestations ( 1 7 : 4 3 ) also fits w i t h his overall p r e s e n t a t i o n . Finally,
the j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f rcpoyvcoats a n d 7cpoXeya> ( 1 7 : 4 3 ) is paralleled else­
w h e r e in J o s e p h u s .
5. W e n o t e d a b o v e the p e c u l i a r phrase ot£ 6 OocpiaocTos eXeyev ( 1 7 : 4 4 ) .
W h a t is p e c u l i a r is that the Pharisees s h o u l d b e referred to b y a collective
singular. O n e w o n d e r s w h e t h e r this figure o f s p e e c h , as the English t e r m
" t h e T a x m a n " , c o n v e y s a certain resentment at the i n e x o r a b i l i t y a n d
p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f the institution in q u e s t i o n . H o w e v e r that m a y b e ,
precisely the s a m e phrase appears in Ant. 1 8 : 1 7 . J o s e p h u s will r e p o r t
there that a m o n g the S a d d u c e e s are " m e n o f the highest s t a n d i n g " b u t
that they are c o m p e l l e d b y p o p u l a r sentiment to f o l l o w "what the
Pharisee says (ot£ 6 Oaptaocto^ X e y e i ) " . But n o t i c e that S c h w a r t z h i m s e l f
1 1 6
attributes Ant. 18:17 to J o s e p h u s a n d that H o l s c h e r allows a d e g r e e o f
1 1 7
J o s e p h a n influence t h e r e . Further, the c o n t e x t in 18:17 s e e m s to c o n ­
firm the interpretation o f the phrase suggested a b o v e : the a u t h o r l a m e n t s
the p o w e r o f the Pharisees. A n d that is precisely the attitude w e h a v e
1 1 8
d i s c o v e r e d in J o s e p h u s . It is difficult to e s c a p e the c o n c l u s i o n that the
rueful phrase ot£ 6 OocptaocToc sX&Y&v in Ant. 1 7 : 4 4 c o m e s f r o m J o s e p h u s
himself.
6. A final i n d i c a t i o n o f J o s e p h a n authorship is the a u t h o r ' s e v i d e n t
familiarity with eschatological themes, which the Bagoas incident
reveals. W e k n o w , h o w e v e r , that J o s e p h u s w a s intensely interested in
the p r o p h e t s a n d especially in those, like J e r e m i a h and Daniel, w h o
1 1 9
p r e d i c t e d the u p h e a v a l s a n d events o f his o w n d a y .
T o c o n c l u d e : e x c e p t w h e r e h e w a s p r e p a r e d to i n v e n t stories ex nihilo,
J o s e p h u s h a d to rely o n s o u r c e s o f s o m e k i n d for all o f the events that
o c c u r r e d b e f o r e his o w n t i m e . N o o n e will d e n y that he relied h e a v i l y
o n s o u r c e s for his narrative. N e v e r t h e l e s s , w e h a v e n o basis o n w h i c h to
a s s u m e that, w h e r e h e follows a s o u r c e , h e d o e s so m e c h a n i c a l l y a n d

1 1 4
Cf. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy", 247; War 3:352; 2:159.
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

J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t a m b i t i o u s portrait o f the Pharisees c o m e s in his final


d e s c r i p t i o n o f the three J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s , Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 . It is
in this passage that R a s p finds the m o s t c o m p e l l i n g e v i d e n c e o f Ant. 's
1
p o s i t i v e re-evaluation o f the P h a r i s e e s . T h e p u r p o s e o f the present
c h a p t e r is to interpret the d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in Ant. 18:12-15
a n d t h e r e b y to d e t e r m i n e its relationship to the o t h e r Pharisee passages
in J o s e p h u s .
A n initial difficulty is that o u r passage falls within the section o f Ant.
( b o o k s 17-19) that c o n t a i n s s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' s m o s t difficult G r e e k .
T h a c k e r a y attributed those b o o k s t o an inept literary assistant, w h o m he
2
d e s i g n a t e d the " T h u c y d i d e a n h a c k " . O f him Thackeray remarked:

This journalistic hack is verbose and prefers two or more words to one. . . .
T h e commonplace word is studiously shunned and replaced by the unusual
and bizarre *

Although Thackeray's particular e x p l a n a t i o n o f the shortcomings o f


4
these b o o k s as the w o r k o f a literary assistant has n o t p r o v e n d u r a b l e ,
5
his p e r c e p t i o n o f the difficulties stands as a c a u t i o n to the i n t e r p r e t e r .
T h e passage o n the s c h o o l s in Ant. 18 shares the p r o b l e m a t i c l a n g u a g e
6
a n d syntax o f b o o k s 1 7 - 1 9 ; the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the Pharisees' v i e w o f fate
7
a n d free will, for e x a m p l e , p o s e s f a m o u s p r o b l e m s .
I n v i e w o f these difficulties, o n e ' s interpretive a i m s c a n o n l y h a v e a
respectable c h a n c e o f fulfillment if they are m o d e s t . It will suffice if w e
are able to ascertain: ( a ) the function o f the Pharisee passage in its c o n ­
text; ( b ) the m a i n p o i n t s that J o s e p h u s is m a k i n g in his d e s c r i p t i o n o f

1
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 29f., 32ff.
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

the g r o u p ; ( c ) w h e t h e r e a c h o f these points is n e w o r repetitive o f earlier


discussions, with respect to b o t h c o n t e n t a n d attitude; a n d ( d ) w h e t h e r
J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f is the a u t h o r .

I. Context

\nAnt. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 , J o s e p h u s offers a d e s c r i p t i o n o f three J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i ­


cal schools (9iXoao9toci): Pharisees, S a d d u c e e s , a n d Essenes. T h i s passage
has almost exactly the s a m e p o s i t i o n a n d function in the narrative as War
2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 6 h a d in the earlier w o r k . J u d e a has just b e c o m e a R o m a n p r o ­
v i n c e , u n d e r the prefecture o f C o p o n i u s (War 2:117/Ant. 18:If.). This
d e v e l o p m e n t p r o v o k e s a certain J u d a s a n d his followers to d7c6araat? ( War
2:118/Ant. 1 8 : 4 ) , for they refuse t o b e c o m e subservient to R o m e .
N e w details in Ant. are: ( a ) that the particular a g g r a v a t i o n w a s an a p ­
praisal o f J e w i s h p r o p e r t y c o n d u c t e d b y the n e w g o v e r n o r o f Syria
( Q u i r i n i u s ) ; ( b ) that the J e w s in general w e r e offended b y this m o v e
( 1 8 : 3 ) ; ( c ) that m o s t o f the p e o p l e , h o w e v e r , w e r e pacified b y the c o u n s e l
o f the h i g h priest J o a z a r ( 1 8 : 3 ) ; a n d ( d ) that J u d a s , a d e t e r m i n e d h o l d - o u t ,
w o n the s u p p o r t o f S a d d o k , a Pharisee. T o g e t h e r , these a d d i t i o n s h a v e the
effect o f m a k i n g the s c h o o l o f J u d a s m o r e intelligible t o the reader; w e
h a v e already o b s e r v e d in Ant. SL t e n d e n c y to explain the m o t i v e s o f all par­
8
ties i n v o l v e d in a g i v e n e v e n t . Nevertheless, in b o t h War 2 a n d Ant. 18
J o s e p h u s i n t r o d u c e s the three " r e c o g n i z e d " J e w i s h schools as a m e a n s o f
e x p o s i n g the n o v e l t y a n d strangeness o f J u d a s ' s p h i l o s o p h y o f u n c o n d i ­
tional f r e e d o m .

A . The Pharisees and the Philosophy ofJudas

T h e parallel a c c o u n t s in War a n d Ant. o f the relationship ( o r lack thereof)


b e t w e e n J u d a s ' s followers a n d the a c c r e d i t e d p h i l o s o p h i e s o f J u d a i s m
h a v e g i v e n rise to a p r o b l e m that bears significantly o n o u r t o p i c . I n War
2 : 1 1 8 , n a m e l y , J o s e p h u s c l a i m e d that the aipeat? o f J u d a s h a d n o t h i n g at
all in c o m m o n with the others (ouSev xoiq aXXots rcpoaeotxcos). I n Ant. 18,
after discussing the other three schools, he returns to J u d a s ' s f o l l o w i n g
a n d remarks:

This school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees,
except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable,
since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master. (Ant.
18:23; Feldman)

8
Cf. Ant. 13:318f. (on Aristobulus), 381f. (on Alexander Janneus), 423f. (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.

It is a scholarly c o m m o n p l a c e that these t w o passages are plainly c o n ­


9
tradictory. T h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w is that War 2 : 1 1 8 w a s m o t i v a t e d b y
J o s e p h u s ' s desire to c o v e r u p the i n v o l v e m e n t o f his o w n p a r t y ( i . e . , the
Pharisees) in the revolt; b y the t i m e he writes Ant., h o w e v e r , he c a n af­
ford to d i v u l g e the truth o f the m a t t e r , w h i c h is that the followers o f
10
J u d a s w e r e s i m p l y a " r a d i c a l w i n g " o f the P h a r i s e e s . R a s p gives this
v i e w a p e c u l i a r twist. H e a r g u e s that in War J o s e p h u s d e n i g r a t e d the
p a r t y o f J u d a s in o r d e r to disguise his o w n past as a r e b e l ; b u t in Ant.,
his w o r k o f r e p e n t a n c e , J o s e p h u s raises the stature o f the rebels b y link­
11
i n g t h e m with the Pharisees, w h o m he n o w p r a i s e s :

W o r t e der Anerkennung und Verehrung widmet er aber den Anhangern


des Judas. Sie stimmen auch, wie er nun hervorhebt, mit den Pharisaern
12
in den meisten Stucken u b e r e i n .

S o in R a s p ' s v i e w , Ant. 18 h o n o u r s the Pharisees, a n d the followers o f


J u d a s benefit b y their association, n e w l y c o n c e d e d , w i t h the favoured
group.
In the present study w e cannot attempt to resolve the historical
13
p r o b l e m s o f the o r i g i n a n d identity o f J u d a s ' s f o l l o w e r s . W e are c o n ­
cerned, however, w i t h the c o r r e c t interpretation o f J o s e p h u s o n the
Pharisees. T o that e n d , I s u b m i t the f o l l o w i n g o b s e r v a t i o n s .
1. In War 2 : 1 1 8 , the oti'peaig o f J u d a s w a s p r e s e n t e d as a single-issue
p a r t y a n d it w a s in the c o n t e x t o f that o n e i s s u e — u n c o n d i t i o n a l f r e e d o m
f r o m earthly rulers—that, J o s e p h u s c l a i m e d , they h a d n o t h i n g in c o m ­
1 4
m o n w i t h the o t h e r s c h o o l s . In Ant. 18, J o s e p h u s says n o t h i n g to m o d i f y
his earlier c l a i m .
2 . T h e parallel to War 2 : 1 1 8 in Ant. 18 is n o t § 23 b u t rather § § 4 - 1 0 .
But in those sentences J o s e p h u s e x p a n d s a n d e v e n intensifies his earlier
c l a i m that the p h i l o s o p h y o f J u d a s w a s entirely foreign to the m a i n s t r e a m
1 5
of Jewish thought. C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g representative e x c e r p t s :

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)

It is difficult to i m a g i n e h o w J o s e p h u s c o u l d assert a n y m o r e clearly the


n o v e l t y a n d strangeness o f J u d a s ' s p h i l o s o p h y ! S i n c e this passage is c o n ­
siderably l o n g e r a n d m o r e forceful than the War parallel, it c a n hardly
b e interpreted as " w o r d s o f r e c o g n i t i o n a n d e s t e e m " for the party o f
Judas.
3. W h e n J o s e p h u s d o e s c o m e to say that, " f o r the r e s t " (TOC Xot7udc),
the fourth p h i l o s o p h y agrees with the Pharisees, h e is patently talking
1 6
a b o u t their non-distinctive teachings ( 1 8 : 2 3 ) . But this statement m e a n s
little, since the q u e s t i o n o f h o w o n e r e s p o n d s to R o m a n rule w a s the
crucial q u e s t i o n o f the d a y a n d the raison d'etre o f J u d a s ' s party. M o r e ­
over, Josephus consistently presents the Pharisees as e x p o n e n t s o f
17
popular beliefs. That the fourth p h i l o s o p h y , in its non-distinctive
teachings, s h o u l d agree with these c o m m o n beliefs ( e . g . , the i m m o r t a l i t y
o f souls) a n d n o t with those o f either the h i g h - b o r n S a d d u c e e s o r the sec­
tarian Essenes is neither surprising n o r v e r y illuminating.
I n d e e d , o n e is t e m p t e d to stand R a s p ' s t h e o r y o n its h e a d . G i v e n
J o s e p h u s ' s a b i d i n g distaste for the rebel party, o n e m u s t ask w h e t h e r his
n e w insinuation o f links b e t w e e n t h e m and the Pharisees, o n m i n o r
points o f p h i l o s o p h y , d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a gratuitous vilification o f the
18
Pharisees. T h e same q u e s t i o n arises with respect to J o s e p h u s ' s n e w
c l a i m that a Pharisee n a m e d S a d d o k was a c o - f o u n d e r o f the w r e t c h e d
f r e e d o m - l o v i n g school ( 1 8 : 4 ) . S i n c e he m a k e s clear his distaste for the
rebels, what else d o e s he a c h i e v e b y c o n n e c t i n g t h e m with the Pharisees?
If these notices d o i m p l y a d e n i g r a t i o n o f the Pharisees, they a c c o r d with
the sentiments that J o s e p h u s has expressed a b o u t the g r o u p thus far in
19
Ant
T o s u m m a r i z e : the c o n t e x t o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 , o n the three J e w i s h
schools, is v e r y similar to that o f the parallel in War 2 . J o s e p h u s repeats
and intensifies his portrayal o f J u d a s ' s p r o g r a m m e as the result o f an

1 6
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

aberrant philosophy. That h e is willing to exploit i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l


20
details to insinuate links b e t w e e n the rebels a n d the Pharisees p r o b a b l y
indicates his antipathy t o w a r d the latter. W h y J o s e p h u s d i d n o t i n c l u d e
these anti-Pharisaic notices (18:4,23) in War is a matter for
21
speculation.

B . The Pharisees Among the Three Schools

J o s e p h u s o p e n s his discussion o f the three r e c o g n i z e d schools w i t h the


o b s e r v a t i o n that:

A m o n g the Jews from earliest times (ex TOU rcavu apxatou) there were three
philosophies o f the ancestral traditions (TCOV 7cocTptcov): that o f the Essenes,
that o f the Sadducees, and third, those who are called Pharisees also
engaged in philosophy. (18:11)

I n its c o n t e x t the phrase ex TOUTCOCVUapxatou is less an attempt to date


the o r i g i n o f the s c h o o l s than it is a contrast to r\ TCOV rcaTpuov xatviat?
2 2
( 1 8 : 9 ) , w h i c h phrase describes the s c h o o l o f J u d a s . T h i s contrast
focuses the w h o l e p o i n t o f the discussion. T h e three r e c o g n i z e d s c h o o l s ,
unlike that o f Judas, are ancient a n d therefore a u t h o r i z e d " s u b -
p h i l o s o p h i e s " o f the national p h i l o s o p h y .
N o t i c e that the o r d e r o f the schools in the o p e n i n g list ( 1 8 : 1 1 ) is
reversed vis-a-vis War 2 : 1 1 9 and Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 , so that the Essenes n o w a p ­
p e a r first a n d the Pharisees last. O n the o t h e r h a n d , in the o r d e r o f
discussion the Pharisees a p p e a r first a n d the Essenes last. I n War 2 , the
Essenes w e r e discussed first a n d in Ant. 13:17Iff. they w e r e discussed
s e c o n d . R a s p finds particular significance in the gradual slippage o f the
Essenes in the o r d e r o f discussion; he thinks that it reflects J o s e p h u s ' s

2 0
Inconsequential, because he has to admit that the philosophy of unconditional
freedom is entirely alien to all of the major schools, including the Pharisees.
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:

T h e y [the Essenes] deserve admiration in contrast to all others w h o claim


their share of virtue (aiftov 8' OCUTCOV Oaupaaat rcapa rcavTas TOU$ apeTfjs
27
peTOCTCOtoupevous) because such qualities as theirs were never found before
28
a m o n g any Greek or b a r b a r i a n people, nay, not even briefly, but have
been a m o n g them in constant practice and never interrupted since they
adopted them from of old.

W e h a v e h e r e u n q u a l i f i e d , unrestrained praise o n the part o f J o s e p h u s .


It is w h o l l y consistent with the t e n o r o f his portrayal o f the Essenes in
War 2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 a n d Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 3 , 3 7 9 . E q u a l l y consistent with his earlier
presentations are his r e m a r k s o n the Pharisees ( 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 ) . N o w h e r e d o e s
J o s e p h u s express direct a p p r o v a l o r c o m m e n d a t i o n o f this g r o u p ; h e
always says that they s e e m t o b e , are r e p u t e d to b e , o r p r e t e n d t o b e
(ooxeco, rcpooTtotoupoct) the m o s t faithful adherents t o the l a w s . A c c o r d ­
i n g l y , in o u r passage h e a c k n o w l e d g e s o n l y their m a s s i v e p o p u l a r i t y with
29
the p e o p l e (ot Srjpot) a n d the cities (at 7c6Xei$). It is e x t r e m e l y d o u b t f u l ,
h o w e v e r , that this aristocrat shares the p o p u l a r e n t h u s i a s m (see b e l o w ) .

2 3
Rasp, "Religionsparteien", 29ff.
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

T h e fact that J o s e p h u s discusses the Essenes last a n d the Pharisees first


p r o b a b l y indicates n o t h i n g m o r e than his t e n d e n c y t o v a r y his style a n d
presentation in Ant. o v e r against War; this t e n d e n c y is w e l l - d o c u m e n t e d
3 0
b y N i e s e , w h o cites o u r passage as an e x a m p l e . I n a n y case, the o r d e r
o f discussion in Ant. 18 c o r r e s p o n d s exactly to the o r d e r o f the schools
in the lists at War 2 : 1 1 9 a n d Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 1 . O n e is hard pressed to find
any development here.
A l l o f these contextual issues will b e significant for the interpretation
o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 o n the Pharisees. W e m a y n o w p r o c e e d directly to the
passage itself.

I I . Five Statements About the Pharisees

A s in War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 , the description o f the Pharisees in o u r passage


c o m p r i s e s several statements o n discrete t o p i c s . It will facilitate o u r in­
terpretation if w e c o n s i d e r e a c h o f the five items in turn. F o u r o f the five
statements repeat points m a d e earlier. It w o u l d b e superfluous to
rehearse the b a c k g r o u n d a n d parallel material in these cases b u t w e shall
n e e d to b e sensitive to a n y c h a n g e s o f v o c a b u l a r y o r c o n s t r u c t i o n .

A . Avoidance of Luxury (18:12a)

12a. ot TS yap <X>aptaatot TTJV StatTOtv eijeoTeXtCouatv ouSev iq TO paXaxcoTepov


ev8t8ovTe<g. . . .

1. K e y T e r m s

( a ) T h e m a i n v e r b , eijeuTeXt&o, o c c u r s o n l y here a n d at Ant. 6 : 8 , in a


reflective c o m m e n t b y J o s e p h u s . A l t h o u g h the w o r d is n o t characteristic
of his v o c a b u l a r y , therefore, he is able to use it. The Pharisees
"restrict", " r e s t r a i n " , o r " s i m p l i f y " ( F e l d m a n ) their style o f living.
( b ) AtoctTOc appears s o m e 72 times in o u r a u t h o r ' s writings, with a
range o f meanings from " p l a c e o f a b o d e " , "necessaries o f l i f e " , or
" d a i l y r o u t i n e " , to s i m p l y " m a n n e r o f l i f e " . H e has u s e d the w o r d
31
several times p r e v i o u s l y o f the Essene lifestyle. W h e n u s e d o f these
3 2
g r o u p s a n d o f the J e w s as a n a t i o n , vis-a-vis the p a g a n w o r l d , 8ioctT<x has
the sense o f a special, peculiar, o r perhaps " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " w a y o f life.

3 0
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 meaning of Josephus's opening statement on the Pharisees is more


or less clear: "their lifestyle is one of restraint (or "they disparage the
accoutrements of life"); they do not yield at all to the softer side." T h e
second clause merely restates and emphasizes the first. This is the only
element of Ant. 18:12-15, as we shall see, that is entirely new; Josephus
has never before mentioned the austerity of the Pharisees. His assertion
is paralleled, however, in a rabbinic tradition that contrasts the Sad­
ducees' enjoyment of silver and gold vessels with the Pharisees' rejection
34
of such in anticipation of the world to c o m e .

B. The Pharisaic Tradition

12b. tov T e 6 Xoyos xptva?rcapeStoxevayaOtov


tnovrai TTJ rjyepovta
7cepipaxnTov ^youfievot TTJV qwXaxrjv tov
urcayopeuetv TjOeXrjaev.
12c. Ttpffc ye T0t$ TjXtxta rcporjxooaiv
7uapaxoopou(jtv
ou8' e 7 r ' avTiXeijei TCOV etarpprjOevTcov
0paaet i7taip6[xevot.

The next two statements, which seem to be linked in sense, have the
same form as 12a: they comprise a main clause with a main verb (pres.
ind. 3p. pi.), followed by a subordinate clause with a plural present par­
ticiple. In each case, the subordinate clause reiterates the point of the
main clause.

3 3
Richards, "Composition", 37.
3 4
Avot de Rabbi Natan 5.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 289

1. K e y T e r m s

(a) A6yo$ o c c u r s a b o u t 5 8 8 times in J o s e p h u s ' s writings, usually in the


o r d i n a r y sense o f " w o r d " o r " u t t e r a n c e " . Its m e a n i n g h e r e , h o w e v e r ,
is fixed b y its o c c u r r e n c e also in the following descriptions o f the S a d ­
3 5
d u c e e s ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) a n d Essenes ( 1 8 : 1 8 ) . E a c h o f the three schools has its
own Xoyoq. T h i s is a b a s i c structural c o m p o n e n t o f the passage a n d m u s t
refer to the " t e a c h i n g " o r " d o c t r i n e " o f e a c h g r o u p . W h i s t o n ' s transla­
tion " r e a s o n " , w h i c h w a s c o n g e n i a l to those like L a u t e r b a c h , w h o saw
3 6
the Pharisees as an e m i n e n t l y " r e a s o n a b l e " o r p r o g r e s s i v e g r o u p , is
e x c l u d e d b y this contextual fact. ( L a u t e r b a c h ' s v i e w o f the Pharisees is,
o f c o u r s e , still possible if otherwise d e m o n s t r a b l e . )
( b ) W i t h the v e r b 7capa8t8copt w e m e e t the first clear r e m i n i s c e n c e o f
an earlier portrait o f the Pharisees. In Ant. 13:297f., n a m e l y , J o s e p h u s
has told us a b o u t special Pharisaic o r d i n a n c e s " h a n d e d d o w n f r o m a
succession o f f a t h e r s " . A l t h o u g h there is n o m e n t i o n here o f either
voptpa o r the StaSoxrj, the use o f rcapaStScopt with respect to the Pharisaic
teachings c a n hardly b e c o i n c i d e n t a l .
If rcapaStScopt h a d n o special m e a n i n g h e r e , if it d i d n o t designate a
b o d y o f extra-biblical tradition as in 1 3 : 2 9 7 , then all the v e r b i a g e o f §
12b w o u l d tell us n o t h i n g m o r e than the self-evident fact that "the
Pharisees follow their ( o w n ) t e a c h i n g s " . T h a t J o s e p h u s d o e s use the
w o r d deliberately, h o w e v e r , is s h o w n first o f all b y § 1 2 c , w h i c h will
c l a i m that the Pharisees d o not c o n t r a d i c t " w h a t was i n t r o d u c e d (TCOV
etarjyrjOevTcov)" a n d that they defer to those " p r e c e d i n g t h e m in age (TOT<;
rjXtxta rcporjxouatv)". T h e s e phrases, t h o u g h admittedly periphrastic,
s e e m to p o i n t to a special Pharisaic tradition, introduced in a d d i t i o n to the
laws. T h i s r e a d i n g is c o n f i r m e d b y the f o l l o w i n g description o f the Sad­
d u c e e s ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) , w h o are " o n g u a r d that there b e n o 'additional c l a i m '
w h a t s o e v e r , outside the laws (9oXaxfj 8e ouSapcos TIVCOV peTa7coiT)at$ auToT^
rj TCOV v o p c o v ) " . T h e c o n t e x t thus c o n f i r m s that J o s e p h u s uses rcapaStScopt
deliberately, as s o m e t h i n g o f a technical term, to e v o k e the special
Pharisaic tradition h a n d e d d o w n f r o m the fathers (cf. Ant. 13:297f.).
( c ) T h e m a i n v e r b , e7copat, is c o m m o n in J o s e p h u s ; m o s t o f its 125 o c ­
c u r r e n c e s h a v e the literal sense " t o f o l l o w " . Nevertheless, J o s e p h u s c a n
use it figuratively, to speak o f following G o d , o r the laws, o r virtue; in
an earlier passage he s p o k e o f the S a d d u c e e s ' (lack o f ) f o l l o w i n g (Ant.
1 3 : 2 9 8 ) . T h e peculiar c o n s t r u c t i o n here, " t h e y follow the authority

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

(eicovTOtt xfj rryepovioc)" o f w h a t has b e e n transmitted, is u n i q u e in


Josephus.
(d) T h e s u b o r d i n a t e clause is built o n the o d d phrase rceptpdtxfjTOv
yjyoupevot, w h i c h s e e m s to m e a n s o m e t h i n g like " t h e y c o n s i d e r w o r t h
3 7
fighting f o r " o r , m o r e m i l d l y , " t h e y take v e r y s e r i o u s l y " . T h i s phrase
fits with the a w k w a r d style o f Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 . I n 1 8 : 2 8 0 , P e t r o n i u s is declar­
ing his s u p p o r t for the J e w s ' refusal to a c c e p t a statue o f G a i u s C a l i g u l a
in the T e m p l e . H e agrees that they are o n l y a c t i n g in a c c o r d w i t h the
standards o f their l a w , " w h i c h , b e i n g y o u r heritage, y o u r e g a r d as w o r t h
d e f e n d i n g (iceptpaxTTtov ^ryetaOe)". T h e s p e e c h is d o u b t l e s s a J o s e p h a n
38
creation. T h e s a m e phrase is u s e d o f the Essenes, w h o 7ceptp<xxT)T0v
yjyoupevoi TOO Stxoctou TOV icpoaoSov ( 1 8 : 1 8 ) . In these cases, as w i t h the
Pharisees, the phrase is u s e d o f the central, n o n - n e g o t i a b l e tenet o f the
group.
(e) W h a t the Pharisees r e g a r d so h i g h l y is " t h e o b s e r v a n c e [ o r " p r o ­
t e c t i o n " ] o f those things that it [their Xoyoc;] w i s h e d to p r o p a g a t e (TTJV
<puX<xxr)v cov urcocyopeueiv rjOeXrjaev)". I f tov urcayopeuetv rjOeXrjaev is here
e q u i v a l e n t to cov 6 Xoyo? xptvocs rcocpeScoxev dyaOcov in the m a i n clause, as
seems likely f r o m the structure, then the t w o clauses stand in s y n o n y ­
m o u s parallelism.
The n o u n q>oXocxrj is interesting b e c a u s e it t o u c h e s o n a m a j o r t h e m e
of Ant., that those w h o observe the d i v i n e laws are rewarded with
39
euSocipovtoc. T h r o u g h o u t Ant., J o s e p h u s frequently speaks o f 7} qwXocxr)
40
TCOV (7C<XTpicov) vopcov as a J e w i s h virtue. N o t i c e , h o w e v e r that in o u r
passage the Pharisaic Schwerpunkt is n o t the o b s e r v a n c e o f TCOV vopcov in
general b u t rather " o f things that their X6yo<; d e e m e d g o o d a n d transmit­
ted (icocpeScoxev)", o r " w h a t their Xoyo? saw fit (rjOeXrjaev) to d i c t a t e " . In
this r e g a r d , the Pharisees are explicitly contrasted to the S a d d u c e e s , w h o
maintain a guard (^uXocxfj) against such c l a i m s ( o r p e r h a p s "after-
c r e a t i o n s " , peT<xrcot7)ai<;) apart f r o m the laws (rj TCOV vopcov). A s in Ant.
13:297f., therefore, it is the S a d d u c e e s ' p o s i t i o n that a c c o r d s w i t h
J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the l a w s . T h e Pharisees p r o c l a i m a n d d e f e n d an a d d i ­
tional, extra-biblical b o d y o f t e a c h i n g s .
(f) T h e v e r b U7cayopeuco o c c u r s 13 times in J o s e p h u s a n d has the sense,
" d i c t a t e " , " a d v i s e " , o r " p r e s c r i b e " . T h r e e times h e uses the phrase

3 7
The word occurs in Thucydides (7.84.5) with this literal sense.
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

u7rayopeue TO 7ca0O£ to indicate that s o m e o n e acted as " e m o t i o n d i c ­


4 1
tated". F o u r times h e speaks o f w h a t G o d o r " t h e D e i t y " has dictated,
4 2
n a m e l y the l a w s . I n o u r p a s s a g e , the Pharisees are said to p l a c e the
greatest e m p h a s i s u p o n w h a t their \6yo$ c h o s e t o p r e s c r i b e for t h e m .
( g ) W h o are ot TjXtxtoc icporjxovres, to w h o m the Pharisees defer o u t o f
h o n o u r o r e s t e e m (Ttpffc)? T h e phrase d o e s n o t o c c u r elsewhere in
J o s e p h u s ; the v e r b a p p e a r s o n l y at War 3 : 1 8 4 , w h e r e it m e a n s t o " r e a c h
b e f o r e - h a n d " , a n d at Ant. 3 : 2 2 6 , w h e r e it m e a n s t o " b e o l d e r " . B u t w e
h a v e three m a j o r clues a b o u t the m e a n i n g o f the p h r a s e in o u r c o n t e x t .
First, it a p p e a r s that these elders are s o m e h o w c o n n e c t e d w i t h TCOV
etarpprjOevTcov. T h i s is suggested b y the e q u i v a l e n t v e r b a l c o n s t r u c t i o n s
Tipfjs rcocpocxcopouatv ( o f the elders) a n d ou8' in* avrtX£i|et Opdaet ircatpopevot
( o f the things i n t r o d u c e d ) . M o r e o v e r , the c o n j u n c t i o n ou8£ i m p l i e s a close
c o n n e c t i o n . I infer, w i t h F e l d m a n ( L C L e d n . ) , that ot ^Xtxfoc rcporjxovres
are the o n e s r e s p o n s i b l e for TCOV e{o7jyr|9evTcov.
S e c o n d , all three o f the earlier references to the Pharisaic tradition in
43
Ant. i n c l u d e s o m e reference to the " f a t h e r s " (TCOV 7tocT£pcov o r rcaTpcoo$).
T h e s e are the o n e s w h o h a v e g e n e r a t e d a n d transmitted the voptpa that
the Pharisees p r i z e so h i g h l y . It w o u l d b e easy to a s s u m e that ot rjXixtot
rcpoTJxovTes in o u r passage is a c r a b b e d reference to these Pharisaic fathers.
It m a y b e w o r t h n o t i n g also that the d e s i g n a t i o n s e e m s t o i n c l u d e the
Pharisees' present elders. T h i s is suggested b y ( a ) the present participle
a n d ( b ) the contrast with the S a d d u c e e s , w h o " r e c k o n it a virtue to c o n ­
tradict the teachers o f w i s d o m " ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) . W e n o t e that the " f a t h e r s " o f
M i s h n a h A v o t i n c l u d e c o n t e m p o r a r y teachers; e v e n the s o n o f R a b b i
J u d a h is m e n t i o n e d ( A v o t 2 : 2 ) .
(h) T h e Pharisees are n o t e m b o l d e n e d to c o n t r a d i c t TOC et<n)"pr)0£vT<x. T h e
v e r b etoriy£opat o c c u r s a d o z e n times in J o s e p h u s . It usually has the sense,
" t o i n t r o d u c e " o r " t o b r i n g i n " ( s o m e t h i n g n e w ) , often in the c o n t e x t o f
44
new legislation. A t Ant. 3 : 2 6 6 , it is e q u i v a l e n t to vopo6eT£co. T h e w o r d
is also u s e d o f A h a b ' s " i n t r o d u c t i o n " o f n e w g o d s (Ant. 9 : 1 3 5 ) a n d o f a
4 5
new p r o p o s a l for a special d a y o f p u b l i c fasting (Life 2 9 0 ) . Twice, how­
4 6
e v e r , the v e r b a p p e a r s to m e a n o n l y " i n s t r u c t " o r " c o u n s e l " . D o the
Pharisees, t h e n , o b s e r v e " t h e things c o u n s e l e d " b y the elders o r "the
things i n t r o d u c e d " b y t h e m ? T h e n u a n c e is i m p o r t a n t .

4 1
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

The c o n t e x t places s o m e emphasis on the novelty o f Pharisaic


t e a c h i n g . T h e y b e l i e v e w h a t their \6yo<; has d e e m e d g o o d a n d h a n d e d
d o w n , o r w h a t it c h o s e to dictate. B y contrast, the S a d d u c e e s ( 1 8 : 1 6 )
o b s e r v e o n l y the laws a n d g u a r d against a n y p£T<X7C0i7jats—"pretence" o r
4 7
perhaps "additional c l a i m " . T h e c o n t e x t w o u l d a p p e a r to justify the
translation o f TOC et<JT)YT)OevT<x as " t h e things that w e r e i n t r o d u c e d " .
I n further s u p p o r t o f this translation, w e m a y n o t e that in all o f the
earlier d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the Pharisaic tradition, it w a s said to b e e m b o d i e d
in certain special voptpa. I f o n e l o o k s for an e q u i v a l e n t in o u r p a s s a g e ,
one m u s t w o n d e r w h e t h e r TOC etarjyrjGevTa a n d peTa7cotrjot? are n o t m e r e l y
periphrastic for TOC voptpa arcep oux avayeypaTCTat ev TO!? Mtouaeo? vopot?.
S u c h e x t r e m e periphrasis is characteristic o f Ant. 17-19.
(i) Finally, avTtXe£t£ o c c u r s o n l y 3 times in J o s e p h u s a n d o n l y in Ant.
17-19. B o t h o f the o t h e r passages ( 1 7 : 1 2 6 ; 1 8 : 2 8 6 ) speak o f the strength
(taxu$) r e q u i r e d to c o n t r a d i c t s o m e o n e ; they a p p e a r t o c o m e f r o m the
s a m e a u t h o r . M o r e o v e r , 1 7 : 1 2 6 shares w i t h o u r passage the c o n s t r u c t i o n
in avTtXeJjet, w h i c h a g a i n p o i n t s to a c o m m o n a u t h o r . O n c e again w e see
that Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 is stylistically at h o m e in Ant. 17-19.

2. Interpretation

For the sentences § 1 2 b a n d § 12c J o s e p h u s c o n t i n u e s the structure that


he e m p l o y e d for 12a; the m a i n clause ( w i t h a finite v e r b ) expresses the
central p o i n t , w h i c h is then restated in a s u b o r d i n a t e c l a u s e . T h e follow­
ing " a m p l i f i e d " translation results:

12b. [ T h e Pharisees] follow [ o r s u b m i t t o ] the


authority o f those things that their
teaching d e e m e d g o o d and handed d o w n ;
T h e y r e g a r d as i n d i s p e n s a b l e the o b s e r v a n c e
[or p r o t e c t i o n ] o f those things that it
saw fit to dictate.
12c. O u t o f h o n o u r they yield to those w h o g o
b e f o r e t h e m in a g e ,
Nor are they i n c l i n e d b o l d l y to c o n t r a d i c t
the things that w e r e i n t r o d u c e d .

All o f this seems to b e little m o r e than a v e r b o s e repetition o f the crisp


n o t i c e in Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 : " t h e Pharisees passed o n (rcapeSoaav) to the p e o p l e

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

certain o r d i n a n c e s (voptpa) f r o m a succession o f fathers (£x rcaxepcov)


w h i c h d o n o t stand written in the laws o f M o s e s " . I n o u r passage,
evidently, § 12b describes the rcapaSoat?; § 12c refers t o the fathers as
" t h o s e w h o p r e c e d e in a g e " a n d t o the n o n - M o s a i c voptpa, w h i c h " w e r e
i n t r o d u c e d " . J u s t as the S a d d u c e e s w e r e earlier said to reject (Ix^dcXXet)
these n o n - M o s a i c o r d i n a n c e s , w e n o w learn that this s c h o o l w a s o n its
g u a r d against a n y such pexaTcotrjat? in a d d i t i o n to the laws ( 1 8 : 1 6 ) .
W h a t is n e w in o u r passage is J o s e p h u s ' s emphasis o n the centrality
o f the special tradition a m o n g the Pharisaic beliefs. In 1 3 : 2 9 8 , it is true,
w e w e r e told that the Pharisaic voptpa w e r e the o b j e c t o f c o n t r o v e r s i e s
(Cnxrjaets) a n d serious differences (Staqjopa? peyaXa?) b e t w e e n t h e m a n d
the S a d d u c e e s . In 1 8 : 1 2 , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s restates the Pharisees' d e v o ­
tion to their tradition in f o u r equivalent w a y s : they follow it as an
authority (rryepovta); they c o n s i d e r it indispensable ( o r " w o r t h fighting
f o r " ) ; they yield in h o n o u r to the bearers o f the tradition; a n d they d o
n o t contradict it. J o s e p h u s seems to b e e m p h a s i z i n g that this special
extra-biblical tradition is the c o r n e r s t o n e o f Pharisaic understanding.
T h i s n e w emphasis m a r k s a certain d e v e l o p m e n t in J o s e p h u s ' s presen­
tation o f the Pharisees. In the earlier descriptions (War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ; Ant.
1 3 : 1 7 1 - 1 7 3 ) h e c h o s e o n l y t o contrast their " p h i l o s o p h i c a l " v i e w s with
those o f the other s c h o o l s . P e r h a p s he c o n s i d e r e d the dispute o v e r the
voptpa u n r e p o r t a b l e t o a G r e c o - R o m a n readership. In 13:297f., h o w ­
e v e r , h e w a s c o m p e l l e d to e x p l a i n the p r e c e d i n g narrative b y p o i n t i n g
o u t that the Pharisees h a d a special tradition a n d that this w a s the r o o t
o f m u c h conflict b e t w e e n t h e m a n d the S a d d u c e e s . N o w , in 1 8 : 1 2 , h e
stresses the i m p o r t a n c e o f that tradition to the Pharisees a n d gives it first
place a m o n g their tenets.

C . Fate and Free Will

13a. rcpaaaeaGat T£ etpappevr) TOC rcavTa ai-touvTe?


13b. ou8e TOU avGpcorcetou TO (iouXopevov
TTJS ini auTOts oppfj? d ^ a t p o u v T a t
13c. Soxfjaav TCO Geco x p a a t v yev£aGat
xat TCO £xetv7)s PouXeunrjptco
xat TCOV avGpcoTtcov TO (TCO) IGeXfjaav(Tt)
7cpoaxcopetv P S T ' dpeTfj? r\ xaxta?.

I n 18:13 J o s e p h u s a b a n d o n s the repetitive format o f § 12. T h e first


two p r o p o s i t i o n s in this sentence are fairly clear statements o n fate a n d
free will, b u t § 13c p o s e s f a m o u s difficulties.
294 CHAPTER TWELVE

1. K e y T e r m s

( a ) Etpocppevr) w a s discussed a b o v e , in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h War 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 .


( b ) T h e c o m m o n v e r b aijtoco w a s u s e d in Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 3 in c o n n e c t i o n
with the S a d d u c e a n v i e w o f fate a n d free will. It i n t r o d u c e s the v i e w s o r
postulates o f a n y particular s c h o o l .
( c ) T o av0ptO7re£ov, a n e u t e r substantive, is o n e o f the "overdone"
i d i o m s that R i c h a r d s finds in this section o f Ant. a n d attributes to
4 8 4 9
Josephus. It o c c u r s 12 times in Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 a n d p e r h a p s 3 times earlier
50
in Ant. Its o c c u r r e n c e h e r e , in the c o n t e x t o f fate a n d free will, recalls
earlier references to TOC dcv6pa>7ttvoc (7cporfp<XT<x) in discussions o f fate a n d
5 1
free w i l l .
( d ) A c o n s p i c u o u s b a r b a r i s m in Ant. 17-19 is the use o f a n e u t e r par­
ticiple to g o v e r n a genitive substantive, w h i c h is w h a t w e h a v e in TOO
dcvOpcorcetou TO (JouXopevov, "the w i l l i n g o f the human sphere" ( =
" h u m a n w i l l " ? ) . R i c h a r d s r e m a r k s , " H e r e J o s e p h u s s e e m s to g o astray
5 2
in his desperate effort to i m p r o v e his s t y l e . "
( e ) T h e r e a d i n g in' auTOt? is g i v e n b y the E p i t o m e a n d is f o l l o w e d b y
N i e s e a n d F e l d m a n ( L C L e d n . ) as the lectio difficilior. O u r p r o b l e m is to
5 3
find the a n t e c e d e n t o f the p r o n o u n . T h a c k e r a y c o n n e c t s it w i t h TOC
5 4
7WCVTOC, so that the h u m a n will is i n v o l v e d in e v e r y a c t i o n . Some manu­
scripts have apparently attempted to r e m o v e the awkwardness by
r e a d i n g owe' OCUTTJ?, w h e r e b y the h u m a n will itself b e c o m e s a f u n c t i o n o f
55
etpoeppevrj. Schlatter c o n j e c t u r e s dbc' OCUTOU, w h i c h w o u l d s i m p l y clarify
5 6
that the opprj springs f r o m h u m a n w i l l .
W e m a y n o t e that J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r t w o discussions o f the s c h o o l s o n
fate a n d free will b o t h c o n t a i n phrases like inl TOI? dv0pco7cot? (War 2 : 1 6 3 )
a n d £9' TjpTv eocuTOt? (Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 f . ) for that w h i c h resides " i n human
power". T h i s raises the q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r iiC OCUTOTS in o u r passage d o e s
n o t refer b a c k to TO dvOpomeiov, taken as a collective n o u n , as F e l d m a n ' s
5 7
translation ( L C L e d n . ) s u p p o s e s . T h e syntax is a w k w a r d but the
r e a d i n g has m a n u s c r i p t s u p p o r t ; m o r e o v e r , its a w k w a r d n e s s explains the

4 8
Richards, "Composition", 87.
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

d e v e l o p m e n t arc' auTffc a n d it a c c o r d s with J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e in the o t h e r


s c h o o l passages. T h u s : the Pharisees d o n o t d e p r i v e the h u m a n will o f
the initiative (opprj) that rests in their ( i . e . h u m a n ) p o w e r .
(f) T h e n o u n opprj, w h i c h o c c u r s s o m e 118 times in J o s e p h u s , is a b o u t
s e v e n times m o r e frequent in War than in Ant., since it often refers t o
an " a t t a c k " o r " a s s a u l t " , o r t o the " e m o t i o n s " o f w a r . H e r e , h o w e v e r ,
the word must mean "initiative" or "impulse". It is significant
b e c a u s e , as G . F. M o o r e p o i n t s o u t , it is e q u i v a l e n t to the L a t i n adpetitus,
w h i c h a p p e a r s in C i c e r o ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f C h r y s i p p u s ' s v i e w o f fate a n d
5 8
free w i l l . W e shall see that in this passage J o s e p h u s returns t o a
Chrysippean model to d e s c r i b e the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n , as in War
2:162-166.
( g ) T h e L o e b e d i t i o n follows the m a n u s c r i p t s M W E in rendering
xpaats in 1 8 : 1 2 : it pleased G o d that there s h o u l d b e a " f u s i o n " b e t w e e n
fate a n d free will. T h i s w o r d a p p e a r s elsewhere in J o s e p h u s o n l y at War
5 : 2 1 2 a n d 7 : 2 9 8 ; in b o t h cases it has the m u n d a n e sense o f " m i x t u r e "
o r " a l l o y " . N i e s e a n d Schlatter follow the m a n u s c r i p t A in o u r passage
a n d r e a d xptat$. Schlatter thinks that the reference is t o the N e w Y e a r ' s
d a y ( 1 . Tishri) judgement m e n t i o n e d in r a b b i n i c h a g g a d a h , at w h i c h t i m e
5 9
G o d d e t e r m i n e s a p e r s o n ' s fate for the c o m i n g y e a r . W e m a y note,
h o w e v e r , that at 1 6 : 3 9 8 J o s e p h u s uses the v e r b xptvetv o f the relationship
b e t w e e n fate a n d free will. T h e m e a n i n g there w a s n o t " t o j u d g e " b u t
6 0
" t o w e i g h " ; fate a n d free will are s i m p l y b a l a n c e d against e a c h o t h e r .
I f xptat£ w e r e the r e a d i n g in 1 8 : 1 3 , this sense w o u l d fit the c o n t e x t well,
since the Pharisees, like J o s e p h u s , are said to a c c e p t b o t h fate a n d free
will as c a u s e s .
O n this interpretation o f xptat$ it m a k e s little difference w h e t h e r the
L o e b r e a d i n g xpaats is substituted. Either w a y , the c o n t e x t d e m a n d s
s o m e sort o f b l e n d i n g o r b a l a n c i n g b e t w e e n fate a n d free will.
( h ) T h e n o u n TO (JouXeuTTjptov o c c u r s 7 times in J o s e p h u s , w i t h the
sense either o f " c o u n c i l h a l l " o r " c o u n c i l m e e t i n g " . T h e difficulty is t o
d e t e r m i n e whose c o u n c i l m e e t i n g / c h a m b e r is i n t e n d e d b y the d e m o n s t r a ­
tive exetvr)$. T h a c k e r a y , F e l d m a n , Y a f f e / D a m i c o , a n d T o p p i n g all take
61
the a n t e c e d e n t t o b e etpotppevr). Schlatter thinks that this is t o o distant
a n d h e therefore c o n j e c t u r e s the e m e n d a t i o n exetvou, as a r e f e r e n c e b a c k
62
to 0eo>. Since Josephus normally uses 0eo$ a n d etpoeppevrj inter-

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

changeably, however, as also in this passage, the difference is not signifi­


cant for our purpose. H e is speaking figuratively of the council chamber
of G o d or of fate.
(i) T h e E p i t o m e gives the neuter aorist participle TO eOeXfjaocv in the
nominative, which is followed by F e l d m a n ( L C L edn.). T h e manu­
scripts A M W give the dative, Tcp eOeXrjaocvTt, which better parallels TCO
63
PouXeunrjpicp. It is not clear, on either reading, why Josephus chooses
the neuter "that which has willed (of m a n ) " or what the precise meaning
is, in combination with 7EpoaxtopeTv. S i n c e the thrust of § 1 3 a b is clear
enough, however, a complete resolution of this crux is unnecessary: we
know that Josephus wants to balance fate with human will.
(j) T h e pair aperr; rj xocxioc touches the root of a major theme in Ant.
O f the 291 occurrences of ocpeTrj in Josephus, a disproportionate 2 3 8 are
in Ant. W e have already seen that the preface to this work establishes
"virtue" as a major theme of the biblical paraphrase ( 1 : 2 0 ) .

G o d , as the universal father and Lord who beholds all things, grants to
such as follow him a life of bliss (TOT? IIZO\L£VOI$ OCUTCO SiStoatv euSatpova (3tov),
but involves in dire calamities those who step outside the path of virtue
(TOUS ei-to 8e (JoctvovTOcs apeTfjs). (Thackeray)

I n this construction, ocpeTrj means concretely obedience to G o d and his


laws. M o s e s teaches that G o d is the perfection of ocpeTrj and that men are
to participate in this attribute ( 1 : 2 3 ) . In accord with this theme,
Josephus employs the word ocpeTrj some 116 times in the course of his
biblical paraphrase; by contrast, the entire canonical Septuagint has it
a bare 8 times, and mainly in the prophetic books, which Josephus does
64
not u s e . H e speaks of the virtue of M o s e s , of the laws, and of those who
65
obey the l a w s . A s in our passage, apeTrj is sometimes contrasted with
66
xocxioc.
It is significant that, of the 2 3 8 occurrences of ocpeTrj in the twenty
books of Ant., 9 6 instances (or about two fifths) are in books 1 7 - 1 9 . T h i s
disproportion indicates that the word is also part of the peculiar
vocabulary that Josephus adopts in these books. I n the passage on the
schools ( 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 3 ) ocpeTrj is one of several terms, such as Xoyoq, 9uXocxrj,
vc m a t
7ceptpdcxriT0v rryoupevot, eOeXco, and Tuyx^ °j appear two or more
times. T h e phrase dcpeTrj rj xocxioc, therefore, helps to bond the description

6 3
Schlatter, Theologie, 210 n. 1.
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

o f the Pharisees to the entire passage o n the s c h o o l s , to b o o k s 1 7 - 1 9 , a n d


to Ant. as a w h o l e .

2. Interpretation

The first t w o strands o f o u r statement, § § 1 3 a b , are r e a s o n a b l y clear:


" t h e Pharisees r e c k o n that e v e r y t h i n g is effected b y fate b u t they d o n o t
t h e r e b y d e p r i v e the h u m a n will o f the initiative that resides in their [sc.
h u m a n ] p o w e r . " T h i s p a r a d o x i c a l statement is v e r y similar to the d e s ­
c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees' v i e w in War 2 : 1 6 3 , w h i c h said that etpappevr)
xat Oeto 7upoadt7UTOuai rcdvTa, xal TO pev rcpaTTetv . . . ln\ TOT$ av6pa>7toi€
xstaOat. J o s e p h u s has g i v e n u p the Tivoc/Ttvoc m o d e l o f Ant. 1 3 : 1 7 2 in
f a v o u r o f his original " c o o p e r a t i o n " m o d e l , w h i c h , as w e h a v e seen,
b e a r s a m a r k e d similarity to the v i e w o f C h r y s i p p u s r e p o r t e d b y C i c e r o .
Fate o r G o d is the universal c a u s e b u t h u m a n v o l i t i o n is still active
throughout.
The real difficulties b e g i n in § 1 3 c . J o s e p h u s is n o l o n g e r c o n t e n t w i t h
the statement that fate " a s s i s t s " ((JorjGeco) in e a c h case as he h a d said in
War 2 : 1 6 2 . He n o w attempts a fuller explanation b y resorting to
metaphor.
Fate, h e says, has a c o u n c i l c h a m b e r o r h o l d s a c o u n c i l m e e t i n g
(PouXeuTTjptov). S o m e h o w , at this m e e t i n g o r c h a m b e r , a settlement is ef­
fected b e t w e e n fate a n d h u m a n will ( § 1 3 a b ) , such that J o s e p h u s c a n
speak o f a " w e i g h i n g " (xptat?) o r " b l e n d i n g " (xpaat$) o f the t w o c a u s e s .
S e e m i n g l y intractable p r o b l e m s , h o w e v e r , are: ( a ) the textual certainty
67
o f TO eOeXfjaav, ( b ) the syntax o f TCOV av0pco7ucov TO eOeXfjaav 7upoax<opeTv,
68
a n d ( c ) the relationship o f peT' dpeTfjs rj xaxta? to the r e s t .
T h u s J o s e p h u s ' s i n t e n d e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f the Pharisaic v i e w has suc­
c e e d e d in baffling b o t h m e d i e v a l c o p y i s t s a n d m o d e r n scholars. F o r ­
tunately, for o u r p u r p o s e it is e n o u g h to establish that h e presents a
c o o p e r a t i o n o r " f u s i o n " m o d e l o f the roles o f fate a n d free will. O n e
m u s t r e c k o n seriously w i t h the possibility that h e d i d n o t k n o w exactly
w h a t to say a b o u t this perennial p u z z l e .

D. The Immortality of Souls

14a. dOdvaTov TE ta/uv zcdq c|>uxat$


7utaTt£ auTOi? etvat

6 7
Cf. Schlatter, Theologie, 209f. n. 1.
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

( b ) 'EmTTjSeuats is a n o t h e r u n u s u a l w o r d for J o s e p h u s . O f its 7 o c c u r ­


r e n c e s in his w r i t i n g s , 4 fall w i t h i n Ant. 17-19 a n d 2 w i t h i n his d e s c r i p ­
t i o n o f the Pharisees h e r e . T h e w o r d is T h u c y d i d e a n , as is the phrase
74
emT7|8eoat£ aperrjs. T h e w o r d d e n o t e s o n e ' s " s t r i v i n g " o r " c o n d u c t " in
life; h e r e , it refers to the striving after virtue o r v i c e .
( c ) T h e n o u n paara>v7| is, a g a i n , characteristic o f Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 . O f its 11
o c c u r r e n c e s in J o s e p h u s 6 are in these b o o k s . I n o u r passage the w o r d
is u s e d in contrast to the eternal i m p r i s o n m e n t (etpypov) that awaits the
wicked; w e m a y render " f r e e d o m (from restriction)".
( d ) Finally, dvoc(3i6a> o c c u r s o n l y here in J o s e p h u s . R a s p v e n t u r e s the
h y p o t h e s i s that b y u s i n g this w o r d , J o s e p h u s intends to correct his earlier
presentation o f the Pharisaic b e l i e f in i m m o r t a l i t y : it is n o t m e t e m p ­
sychosis that the Pharisees e s p o u s e , as he h a d e r r o n e o u s l y r e p o r t e d in
75
War, b u t r e s u r r e c t i o n . W e h a v e seen, h o w e v e r , that phrases like 7udcXtv
ytyveaOat a n d TO ava(3ta>aaa0oct are e q u i v a l e n t in Plato: they b o t h m e a n
" t o live a g a i n " . It is d o u b t f u l that J o s e p h u s i n t e n d e d his readers to
p e r c e i v e a n y difference b e t w e e n these t e r m s , or between them and
7 6
peT<x(3octveiv et$ eTepov a&poc (War 2:163).
I n all o f these cases, it a p p e a r s that J o s e p h u s has m e r e l y altered the
v o c a b u l a r y a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f his earlier statement, as is his usual p r a c ­
tice in Ant. o v e r against War; the sense, h o w e v e r , r e m a i n s the s a m e . I n
a d d i t i o n , this passage is affected b y the e x p e r i m e n t with grandiose
v o c a b u l a r y a n d syntax that J o s e p h u s c o n d u c t s t h r o u g h Ant. 17-19.

2. Interpretation

T h e general thrust o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 4 is clear e n o u g h , e v e n t h o u g h the syntax


is difficult in the a b s e n c e o f a m a i n finite v e r b :

14a. T h a t souls h a v e an i m m o r t a l p o w e r is a
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 " .

E. The Influence of the Pharisees

15a. xal 5V atka TOT$ Se Srjpots 7ti0ava>TaTOi


Tuyx^vouatv
15b. xal 07t6aa OeTa eux<ov xe e'xexat xal
tep&vrcotrjaeoose^rjyrjaei TTJ
exetvoov Tuyx^vouatv rcpaaaopeva.
15c. eis xoaovSe apeTfjs auToT^ at rcoXets
epapxupriaav e7ttT7)Seuaei TOU inl
rcaat xpetaaovos ev Te StatTT)
TOU (Jiou xal Xoyots.

1. K e y Terms

(a) T h e adjective 7u9av6s is a favourite word in Ant. 17-19. Although it


occurs 47 times throughout Josephus's writings, fully one third of those
occurrences (i.e., 16) are concentrated in Ant. 18-19. T h e Pharisees hap­
pen to be "most convincing" to the people (Yaffe/Damico: "to the
vulgar"). W e note that this statement does not imply Josephus's ap­
proval of the Pharisees' popularity; he also tells us of certain deceivers
77
that were rciGavoi. W e have seen throughout our study that he con­
sistently acknowledges the Pharisees' influence but, just as consistently,
deplores it.
The phrase TOT$ Srjpots 7ci9avoVcaTOi is reminiscent of Thucydides, who
uses this superlative three times and always with the indirect objects T<O
Srjpcp ( 3 . 3 6 . 6 ) , TOJ 7cXrj9ei ( 4 . 2 1 . 3 ) , or TOT$ rcoXXots ( 6 . 3 5 . 2 ) . Notice, first,
that for Thucydides, who provides the literary model for Ant. 17-19,
78
these indirect objects are interchangeable. This fact militates against
Schwartz's proposal that Josephus, by making the Pharisees now
popular with TOt$ Srjpots instead of with TCO rcXrjOet (as at Ant. 13:288,
79
402), is attempting to improve their i m a g e . Notice further that in two
of its three occurrences, Thucydides predicates T<O Srjpo) (7iXrj0et)
mOavcoTaTO^ of one Cleon, son of Cleaenetus, whom the historian

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

n o t m o r a l b u t referred to " m a n l y strength, martial v a l o u r , p r o w e s s ,


potency, skill, capacity", and thence "accomplishment, eminence,
90
f a m e , s u c c e s s " . T h e s e are the o n l y senses in w h i c h H o m e r u s e d dcpexrj;
interestingly e n o u g h , h e s o m e t i m e s u s e d the w o r d as a s y n o n y m for
9 1
86^a, t o m e a n " s u c c e s s " o r " p r o s p e r i t y " . I n d e e d , the n o n - m o r a l c o n ­
92
n o t a t i o n s o f ipenf} w e r e p a r a m o u n t in A t t i c usage g e n e r a l l y . E v e n the
LXX consistently uses aperr}, in H o m e r i c fashion, as a s y n o n y m for
9 3
o o ? a , to r e n d e r the H e b r e w Tin ( " g l o r y " ) a n d rfain ( " p r a i s e " ) . Thus,
l o n g after the p h i l o s o p h e r s h a d t r a n s f o r m e d apexrj into an ethical Leit­
motif, writers c o n t i n u e d to use it n o n - m o r a l senses as w e l l — n o t least the
94
philosophers themselves. T h i s is w h a t w e find in J o s e p h u s : o n the o n e
h a n d , as w e h a v e seen, h e m a k e s apexr} xal xaxta into a m a j o r m o r a l i z i n g
t h e m e o f Ant.; yet o n the o t h e r h a n d , he c a n still use aperr} in the o l d n o n -
9 5
m o r a l sense o f " p r o w e s s " o r " p o w e r " . S o it is an o p e n q u e s t i o n w h a t
h e m e a n s b y apexrj w h e n h e uses it o f the Pharisees.
S i n c e Ant. 17-19 slavishly imitates T h u c y d i d e a n style, it is w o r t h ask­
i n g h o w T h u c y d i d e s uses apexrj, a n d the a n s w e r to that q u e s t i o n is m o s t
i l l u m i n a t i n g . A l t h o u g h the e x a c t m e a n i n g o f apexrj in particular passages
o f T h u c y d i d e s is a m a t t e r o f d e b a t e , recent c o m m e n t a t o r s a g r e e that he
uses the w o r d in a w i d e r a n g e o f senses, e v o k i n g b o t h m o r a l a n d n o n -
9 6
moral nuances. Especially pertinent, h o w e v e r , is his d e s c r i p t i o n o f A n -
t i p h o n , w h o a p p e a r s in his narrative as " b o t h a subverter o f the constitu­
9 7
tion a n d a t r a i t o r " . F o r T h u c y d i d e s d e s c r i b e s this m o r a l l y d u b i o u s
figure as:

a m a n inferior to none of the Athenians of his day in aperr} and one who
had proved himself most able both to formulate a plan and to set forth his
conclusions in speech. ( 8 . 6 8 . 1 )

9 0
Cf. //wrf 3:411; 8:535; 13:257; 15:642; 20:242; 23:276; Odyssey 4:725; 8:239; 13:45;
14:212, 402; 18:133, 251.
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

C . F. S m i t h translates apexr} h e r e ( L C L e d n . ) as " f o r c e o f c h a r a c t e r " ;


a n d n o w A . A n d r e w e s agrees that it m e a n s practically 9uaeo>? i<r/P$ o r
98
ouvapi£. W . R . C o n n o r r e m a r k s , " I t is a m i s t a k e , I b e l i e v e , t o infer
9 9
that the w o r d indicates T h u c y d i d e s ' o w n m o r a l a p p r o v a l . " S o for
T h u c y d i d e s , J o s e p h u s ' s literary m o d e l , it w a s perfectly p o s s i b l e t o use
apexr} in senses d e v o i d o f m o r a l affirmation, t o speak o b j e c t i v e l y o f s o m e ­
o n e ' s " p r o w e s s , skill, o r p o w e r " .
We give the last word to Josephus's contemporary, Plutarch.
A l t h o u g h the style o f Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 c a n h a r d l y b e d e s c r i b e d as p o e t i c , it is
clearly a b u n g l e d attempt at elegant p r o s e . B u t Plutarch c l a i m s that the
" p o e t s " like t o g i v e n e w m e a n i n g s t o apexrj, a n d that they " m a k e g o o d
1 0 0
repute (euBoijia) a n d i n f l u e n c e (rj Buvapt?) t o b e a p e x r } " .
G i v e n the variety o f p o s s i b l e m e a n i n g s for apexrj in J o s e p h u s ' s d a y ,
a n d g i v e n the c o n t e x t in Ant. 1 8 : 1 5 , w h e r e it is the influence o f the
Pharisees that is u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n a n d n o t a n y m o r a l virtue, it w o u l d
s e e m r e a s o n a b l e t o take apexr} h e r e as a s y n o n y m for (after P l u t a r c h )
euBoijta and 8uvapt£. This interpretation would fit squarely with
J o s e p h u s ' s m a n y n o t i c e s a b o u t the P h a r i s e e s ' p u b l i c i n f l u e n c e , o n a c ­
1 0 1
c o u n t o f their r e p u t a t i o n for p i e t y .
(h) Similarly, the interpreter m u s t d e c i d e w h e t h e r the c o m p a r a t i v e
xpetacrcov is i n t e n d e d t o h a v e a n y m o r a l significance in this c o n t e x t , as in
" m o r e e x c e l l e n t " o r " s u p e r i o r " , o r w h e t h e r it s i m p l y a c k n o w l e d g e s that
Pharisaic teaching is "more influential", "predominant", or
" p r e v a l e n t " . J o s e p h u s e m p l o y s the w o r d s o m e 121 times a n d in b o t h
102
senses. In o u r passage, the c o n t e x t w o u l d s e e m t o r e q u i r e that xou im
7uaat xpetaaovo? refer to the P h a r i s e e s ' " p r e d o m i n a n c e o v e r a l l " a n d n o t
their " e x c e l l e n c e " a b o v e all (contra F e l d m a n ) , since: ( i ) J o s e p h u s clearly
m a k e s the Essenes s u p e r i o r to all w h o c l a i m (pexaTtotoupat) s o m e share
o f virtue ( § 1 8 ) ; (ii) h e d e s c r i b e s the P h a r i s e e s ' i n f l u e n c e as m e r e l y a
m a t t e r o f c h a n c e (cf. XOYX^VG)); a n
d (iii) n e
speaks in a r e s i g n e d w a y
a b o u t h o w e m i n e n t S a d d u c e e s m u s t yield to " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s "
1 0 3
(§ 1 7 ) . It is difficult to interpret this phrase as J o s e p h u s ' s a d v o c a c y o f

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

Pharisaic m o r a l superiority. Further, the n e u t e r substantive o f xpetaacov


1 0 4
is T h u c y d i d e a n ; in T h u c y d i d e s it also lacks a m o r a l - e v a l u a t i v e s e n s e .
The rest o f the v o c a b u l a r y , if n o t the syntax, o f 1 8 : 1 5 is fairly
V0U<Jl
straightforward. M u c h o f it is repetitive, s u c h as TU-fx^ > irctTrjSeuats,
($to<;, a n d X6yo<;.

2. Interpretation

O u r passage b e g i n s with a clear o p e n i n g statement a b o u t the P h a r i s e e s '


p o p u l a r i t y ( § 1 5 a ) , w h i c h is f o l l o w e d b y an e l a b o r a t i o n o n the particular
areas o f their influence ( § 1 5 b ) . T h e final sentence ( § 1 5 c ) is difficult b u t
s e e m s to b e a s u m m a r y statement e m p h a s i z i n g the p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f
Pharisaic v i e w s . T h u s :

15a. O n a c c o u n t o f these ( v i e w s ) they h a p p e n


to b e m o s t persuasive to the p e o p l e ;
15b. o f p r a y e r s a n d sacred rites, w h a t e v e r is
c o n s i d e r e d d i v i n e h a p p e n s to b e c o n d u c t e d
a c c o r d i n g to their interpretation.
15c. T h i s m u c h o f their influence the cities
h a v e d e m o n s t r a t e d , in b o t h m a n n e r o f
life a n d d i s c o u r s e , b y their pursuit
o f [ o r " a d h e r e n c e t o " ] the w a y that
prevails o v e r all.

I n several earlier passages J o s e p h u s has indicated that the Pharisees


h a v e the s u p p o r t o f the p e o p l e (War 1:110, 5 7 1 ; 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 2 9 6 -
2 9 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) , that they are instantly c r e d i t e d , e v e n w h e n they speak
against authorities (Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 4 0 1 ) , a n d that the a n n u l m e n t o f their
special ordinances created an uproar (Ant. 13:296-298, 402). The
passage b e f o r e us recapitulates this t h e m e a n d explains it in part b y the
appeal o f the Pharisees' p h i l o s o p h i c a l v i e w s , especially that o f i m m o r ­
tality (cf. 8V auxa).
T h e e x p l a n a t i o n is significant b e c a u s e w e k n o w that J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f
h o l d s a v i e w o f i m m o r t a l i t y that is v e r y close to that o f the Pharisees.
H e also agrees with their a c c o m m o d a t i o n o f fate a n d free will. H e seems

prevails elsewhere in Josephus. Cf. L. R . Palmer, The Greek Language (London-Boston:


Faber and Faber, 1980), 167.
1 0 4
Thucydides 1.77.4; 3.45.4.
306 CHAPTER TWELVE

to say here that these w e r e p o p u l a r v i e w s a n d that, b e c a u s e the Pharisees


e s p o u s e d t h e m (unlike the S a d d u c e e s ) , that g r o u p attracted the g o o d will
o f the p e o p l e .
In the earlier Pharisee passages, w e h a v e n o t e d , J o s e p h u s regularly
c o n v e y s his regret o v e r the extent o f Pharisaic p o w e r . I f such regret is
present in o u r passage, it is n o t o b v i o u s b u t m u s t b e l o o k e d for in
v a >
subtleties, for e x a m p l e : ( a ) in J o s e p h u s ' s emphasis o n the v e r b T u y x ^
in his discussion o f the Pharisees' influence; ( b ) in his o p e n c o m m e n d a ­
tion o f the S a d d u c e e s a n d , especially, the Essenes; a n d ( c ) in his n o t i c e
that the S a d d u c e e s , t h o u g h c a p a b l e a n d c o m p e t e n t , m u s t a b i d e b y 0% 6
Oaptaato^ Xeyet, w h i c h phrase c o n n o t e s a feeling o f resignation rather
than enthusiasm.

I I I . Source Analysis

Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 is o n e o f o n l y t w o Pharisee passages that S c h w a r t z at­


tributes to J o s e p h u s himself; the other is the War parallel ( 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ) .
S c h w a r t z ' s r e a s o n i n g is that, " b o t h passages present t h o r o u g h l y positive
1 0 5
a c c o u n t s o f the P h a r i s e e s " . H o l s c h e r is n o t so sure. H e a c k n o w l e d g e s
that J o s e p h u s has already p o i n t e d ahead to this passage in Ant. 15:371,
w h i c h implies s o m e d e g r e e o f f o r e t h o u g h t a n d i n v o l v e m e n t as an author.
Ultimately, h o w e v e r , H o l s c h e r c a n n o t a c c e p t that the a u t h o r o f o u r
106
passage was a P h a r i s e e . First, h e d r a w s attention to the phrase xot<;
V O U ( J l v
orjpot$ mOava>TOCTOi x u y x ^ > w h i c h , he o b s e r v e s , h a r d l y depicts the
Pharisees' influence as p r a i s e w o r t h y . S e c o n d , H o l s c h e r d o u b t s that a
Pharisee c o u l d h a v e n a m e d a Pharisee as c o - f o u n d e r o f the s c h o o l o f
J u d a s , in v i e w o f what is said a b o u t the rebel s c h o o l in o u r passage.
B o t h o f H o l s c h e r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n s o n the anti-Pharisaic n u a n c e s are a c ­
curate a n d i m p o r t a n t . T h e o n l y w e a k link in his a r g u m e n t is the p r e m i s e
that J o s e p h u s w a s a Pharisee a n d c o u l d n o t , therefore, h a v e written the
passage. W e shall discuss this w i d e l y e n d o r s e d a s s u m p t i o n in Part I V ,
below.
O n the other h a n d , the f o r e g o i n g study has m a d e three d i s c o v e r i e s
that s e e m to require J o s e p h a n authorship. First, Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 is
basically a restatement o f four points that J o s e p h u s himself has
repeatedly m a d e a b o u t the Pharisees in earlier discussions. S o the c o n ­
tent is J o s e p h a n . S e c o n d , s o m e o f J o s e p h u s ' s usual v o c a b u l a r y — s u c h as
vco
Tuyx^ > cpuXaxrj, 6e6$ as an e q u i v a l e n t o f etpappevrj, a n d the pair aperr)
?j xaxta—turns u p in o u r passage. M o s t significant, h o w e v e r , is o u r

1 0 5
Schwartz, "Josephus and Nicolaus", 162f.
1 0 6
Holscher, "Josephus", 1991.
THE PHARISEES AMONG THE JEWISH SCHOOLS, III 307

d i s c o v e r y that the a u t h o r o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 is the s a m e p e r s o n w h o w r o t e


Ant. 17-19 as a w h o l e . O u r passage is l a c e d w i t h the t e r m i n o l o g y a n d
stylistic features that characterize these b o o k s , s u c h as: oroSaa, 7u0av6$,
TCOtTjats, e7ciTTJ8euats, 7ceptpax*)™v ^y£opat, pacrwovrj, dtpexTJ, &vrtX£lfo, and
the n e u t e r participle g o v e r n i n g a g e n i t i v e . O u r p a s s a g e , like the rest o f
Ant. 1 7 - 1 9 , is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y the a t t e m p t to imitate the a r c h a i c A t t i c
1 0 7
prose o f T h u c y d i d e s .
It is p o s s i b l e to d e n y J o s e p h a n a u t h o r s h i p of Ant. 1 8 : 1 2 - 1 5 , therefore,
o n l y if o n e also d e n i e s his authorship o f Ant. 17-19 in its entirety. The
closest that any scholar has come to such an unlikely view was
T h a c k e r a y ' s p r o p o s a l that J o s e p h u s c o m m i s s i o n e d a literary assistant to
write these b o o k s . B u t that p r o p o s a l has b e e n t h o r o u g h l y repudiated,
1 0 8
with m a n y cogent a r g u m e n t s . O n e o f these a r g u m e n t s , as w e h a v e
seen, is that the s o l e c i s m s f o u n d in Ant. 17-19 are m o r e easily attributed
to the Palestinian J o s e p h u s than to s o m e o n e w h o w a s h i r e d for his
literary abilities in Greek! Further, J o s e p h u s ' s own characteristic
1 0 9
v o c a b u l a r y is i n t e r m i n g l e d w i t h the m o r e pretentious s t y l e .
W h y J o s e p h u s c h o s e to alter his style so dramatically in Ant. 17-19 is
n o t , I c o n c e d e , clear. It m a y b e that h e w a s s t u d y i n g T h u c y d i d e s at the
110
t i m e a n d t h r e w h i m s e l f into a p r o g r a m m e o f d e v o t e d i m i t a t i o n . It m a y
b e that these b o o k s a l o n e benefited ( o r suffered) f r o m a r e v i s i o n o f Ant.
1 1 1
that J o s e p h u s w a s n o t able to c a r r y t h r o u g h the w h o l e w o r k . Whatever
his reasons for the literary e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , h o w e v e r , w e m a y b e sure
that h e e x e r c i s e d final c o n t r o l o v e r the c o n t e n t o f Ant. 18:12-15.

Summary and Conclusion

I n his final statement o n the Pharisees in Ant. J o s e p h u s sets o u t to c o n ­


trast t h e m , a l o n g w i t h the S a d d u c e e s a n d Essenes, to the s c h o o l o f J u d a s .
H e w a n t s , therefore, to p u t all three s c h o o l s in the best p o s s i b l e light a n d
to d o w n p l a y a n y n e g a t i v e feelings that h e m i g h t h a v e t o w a r d a n y o f
them.

1 0 7
Palmer, Greek Language, 159, describes the distinctive features of the old Attic style:
"poetical colouring, forced and strange expressions, bold new coinages and substan­
tivized neuters of participles and adjectives".
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

H i s description o f the Pharisees b e g i n s , a c c o r d i n g l y , w i t h an a p p r o v ­


i n g n o t i c e a b o u t their distaste for l u x u r y . H e follows this with a three-
p o i n t s u m m a r y o f tenets that h e has m e n t i o n e d p r e v i o u s l y . A t the h e a d
o f these h e n o w puts their allegiance to a special extra-biblical tradition
(cf. Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 6 - 2 9 8 ) . T h e n c o m e the p h i l o s o p h i c a l issues o f fate/free will
a n d i m m o r t a l i t y (cf. War 2 : 1 6 2 f . ) . Finally, h e talks a b o u t the Pharisees'
m a j o r role in p u b l i c a n d religious life.
The theory of Rasp, Smith, Neusner, and others that Ant. 18
dramatically i m p r o v e s the Pharisees' i m a g e o v e r against War, o r that
J o s e p h u s deliberately c o r r e c t s War ( R a s p ) , seems to lack a n y basis what­
soever. It is true that m u c h o f the v o c a b u l a r y is n e w , b u t this a c c o r d s
perfectly with ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s consistent t e n d e n c y in Ant. to v a r y War's
presentation a n d ( b ) the w e l l - k n o w n peculiarities o f Ant. 17-19.
M o s t i m p o r t a n t , o n e c a n still detect a t o n e o f resentment o n the part
of Josephus toward the Pharisees, as H o l s c h e r already p e r c e i v e d .
J o s e p h u s c o n n e c t s the Pharisees t w i c e with the school o f J u d a s , w h i c h h e
dislikes intensely; h e allows o n l y that the Pharisees " h a p p e n to b e " o r
" c h a n c e to b e " m o s t p o p u l a r with the p e o p l e ; a n d h e seems to regret
that the finest S a d d u c e e s , w h e n they assume leadership p o s i t i o n s , are
c o m p e l l e d to follow " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " .
PART FOUR

T H E PHARISEES IN T H E LIFE

A m o n g all o f his discussions o f the Pharisees, it is o n l y in the Life that


J o s e p h u s implies a n y personal affiliation with the g r o u p ( § 1 2 ) . T h e at­
t e m p t will b e m a d e in Part F o u r to ascertain the nature o f that affiliation
a n d to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s other r e m a r k s o n the Pharisees in this short
" a u t o b i o g r a p h y " . After c o n s i d e r i n g the p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k o f Life, w e
shall focus o u r attention o n Life 1 0 - 1 2 , w h i c h describes J o s e p h u s ' s e x ­
p e r i e n c e with all three schools a n d his final a l i g n m e n t ( o f s o m e sort) with
the Pharisees, a n d o n Life 19Iff., w h e r e he describes the i n v o l v e m e n t o f
certain Pharisees in an e p i s o d e o f his career as G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d e r .
CHAPTER THIRTEEN

PURPOSE A N D O U T L O O K OF THE LIFE

S o m e b r i e f r e m a r k s o n the f a m o u s p r o b l e m o f d a t i n g the Life will serve


to i n t r o d u c e the analysis o f its p u r p o s e a n d o u t l o o k .

I. Date

T h e p r o b l e m o f d a t i n g the Life, in brief, is as follows. O n the o n e h a n d ,


1
Life w a s clearly written as an a p p e n d i x to Ant. It e v e n lacks a n y intro­
d u c t i o n o f its o w n , b e g i n n i n g rather with the c o n j u n c t i o n hi. It w a s in­
troduced, however, at the end o f Ant., where Josephus remarked
(20:266):

Perhaps it will not arouse jealousy or strike ordinary folk as gauche if I


review briefly m y own ancestry and the events of m y life while there are
2
still those living who can refute or support [ m e ] .

3
A n d Life closes with a w o r d to the p a t r o n o f Ant.:

H a v i n g now, most excellent Epaphroditus, rendered a complete account of


our antiquities (TTJV 7u<xaocv xfjs apxatoXoytas), I shall here . . . conclude m y
narrative. (Thackeray)

S o the Life is a p p a r e n t l y i n t e n d e d as the final section o f Ant. A l l o f the


4
m a n u s c r i p t s b u t o n e unite the t w o w o r k s a n d E u s e b i u s q u o t e s f r o m Life
5
as if it w e r e part o f Ant. T h a t Life w a s written as an a p p e n d i x t o Ant.
seems undeniable.
O n the other h a n d , the t w o w o r k s a p p e a r to date themselves dif­
ferently. A c c o r d i n g to Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 7 , that treatise w a s c o m p l e t e d " i n the
thirteenth y e a r o f the reign o f D o m i t i a n C a e s a r a n d the fifty-sixth year
6
o f m y l i f e " ( F e l d m a n ) , b o t h o f w h i c h data p o i n t to the y e a r A D 9 3 / 9 4 .

1
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

Life, h o w e v e r , p r e s u p p o s e s the death o f A g r i p p a II ( § § 3 5 9 f . ) , w h i c h the


7
tenth-century patriarch P h o t i u s puts at A D 1 0 0 . T h e c h a l l e n g e in d a t i n g
the Life, therefore, is t o e x p l a i n h o w it c a n b e a part o f Ant. a n d yet h a v e
b e e n written after the death o f A g r i p p a I I .
F o u r m a i n solutions h a v e b e e n a d v a n c e d in the literature. P e r h a p s the
8
simplest w a s that o f S c h u r e r ( 1 8 6 7 ) , w h o p r o p o s e d that Life, in spite o f
9
its association w i t h i n / . , w a s n o t written until several years l a t e r . S c h u r e r
1 0
a r g u e d , o n the basis of Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 7 , that J o s e p h u s w a s i n t e n d i n g t o write
a s u p p l e m e n t a r y a c c o u n t o f the w a r , b u t n o t an a u t o b i o g r a p h y , w h e n h e
11
finished Ant. H i s d e c i s i o n t o write the Life instead w a s c a u s e d b y the a p ­
p e a r a n c e o f a rival a c c o u n t o f the w a r b y J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s . T h i s rival a c ­
c o u n t e m b a r r a s s e d J o s e p h u s in R o m e b y m a k i n g h i m o u t t o h a v e b e e n
the c h a m p i o n o f the revolt in G a l i l e e , rather than the v o i c e o f m o d e r a t i o n
that h e h a d c l a i m e d to b e . J o s e p h u s h a d t o r e s p o n d with the Life, w h i c h
1 2
deals m a i n l y w i t h a s i x - m o n t h p e r i o d in his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d .
I n s u p p o r t o f the date for A g r i p p a ' s death g i v e n b y P h o t i u s , S c h u r e r
p o i n t s to n u m i s m a t i c e v i d e n c e that the k i n g l i v e d at least until 95 ( a n d
13
therefore s o m e w h a t later than the c o m p l e t i o n date o f Ant.); h e dates
c o i n s referring t o the ' *35th y e a r o f A g r i p p a " f r o m an era b e g i n n i n g in
A D 61.
B y the t i m e o f S c h u r e r ' s so-called " t h i r d - f o u r t h e d i t i o n " ( 1 9 0 1 ) , h o w ­
e v e r , m o s t scholars h a d c o m e t o think that the best s o l u t i o n to the p r o b l e m
1 4
was to g i v e u p P h o t i u s ' s d a t i n g a n d to p u t b o t h Ant. a n d Life at 9 3 / 9 4 .
1 5
T h i s v i e w w o n the s u p p o r t o f B . N i e s e , H . L u t h e r , a n d G . H o l s c h e r ,
a n d has r e - e m e r g e d in r e c e n t times as o n e o f the few p o i n t s o f a g r e e m e n t
1 6
b e t w e e n T . R a j a k a n d S. J . D . C o h e n .

7
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

A g a i n s t S c h u r e r , N i e s e ( 1 8 9 6 ) m a i n t a i n e d that J o s e p h u s ' s obvious


l i n k a g e o f Ant. a n d Life has greater p r o b a t i v e v a l u e than the late n o t i c e
1 7
of Photius. H e insisted, o n the basis o f Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 6 ( w h i c h S c h u r e r d o e s
n o t e x p l a i n ) that J o s e p h u s h a d p l a n n e d f r o m the start t o a p p e n d an a c ­
1&
c o u n t o f his life t o Ant. F u r t h e r m o r e , N i e s e p o i n t e d t o Life 4 2 8 f . , in
which Josephus expresses his gratitude to Vespasian, Titus, and
19
especially D o m i t i a n ( a n d his wife) for their m a n y k i n d n e s s e s . Niese
t o o k this t o b e a clear i n d i c a t i o n that J o s e p h u s w a s w r i t i n g in D o m i t i a n ' s
reign, not Trajan's; for it w a s i n c r e d i b l e , h e t h o u g h t , that J o s e p h u s
w o u l d praise a p r e v i o u s d y n a s t y w i t h o u t e v e n m e n t i o n i n g the i n c u m b e n t
20
ruler.
T o these c o n s i d e r a t i o n s N i e s e ' s student L u t h e r ( 1 9 1 0 ) a d d e d three
o t h e r s . First, h e a r g u e d that several unflattering remarks about b o t h
A g r i p p a II a n d his father in Ant. are o n l y e x p l i c a b l e if the k i n g w a s
a l r e a d y d e a d w h e n Ant. w a s written; b u t if Ant. a n d Life b o t h p r e s u p p o s e
2 1
A g r i p p a ' s d e a t h , there is n o n e e d t o separate t h e m . S e c o n d , h e dis­
c o u n t e d S c h u r e r ' s n u m i s m a t i c e v i d e n c e o n the basis o f its m a n y ir­
22
regularities.
T h e d e c i s i v e a r g u m e n t , a c c o r d i n g to L u t h e r , c o n c e r n e d the identity
23
o f the p a t r o n o f Ant. a n d Life, E p a p h r o d i t u s . T h e two prime can­
didates, h e t h o u g h t , w e r e the secretary o f N e r o , w h o w a s e x e c u t e d b y
D o m i t i a n in 9 5 , a n d a g r a m m a r i a n o f the s a m e n a m e f r o m C h a i r o n e a .
W h e r e a s S c h u r e r h a d f a v o u r e d the latter b e c a u s e N e r o ' s secretary d i e d
t o o early for S c h u r e r ' s d a t i n g o f Life, L u t h e r p o i n t e d o u t that e v e n the
latter E p a p h r o d i t u s s e e m s t o h a v e d i e d in the r e i g n o f N e r v a ( 9 6 - 9 8 ) ,
2
w h i c h w o u l d still b e t o o early for S c h u r e r ' s d a t i n g o f the Life. * And
L u t h e r a r g u e d that m u c h o f the l a n g u a g e that J o s e p h u s uses o f E p a p h r o -

1 7
Niese, HZ, 226f. (On the other hand, Cohen, Josephus, 176, is properly cautious,
noting that even though Life was written as an appendix to Ant., it may not have ap­
peared immediately.)
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 :

It is unjustified to reject all of this in favour of elaborate theories of second


editions . . . e t c . , whose only purpose is to defend the honor of a tenth cen­
41
tury patriarch.

E v e r y a t t e m p t to m a i n t a i n a date o f A D 100 for the d e a t h o f A g r i p p a


I I , t h e n , s e e m s to r u n a g r o u n d o n b o t h the internal e v i d e n c e o f Ant. a n d
Life a n d the external e v i d e n c e f r o m c o i n s a n d inscriptions. T h i s e v i d e n c e
indicates that A g r i p p a d i e d n o t m u c h later than 9 2 / 9 3 a n d that Life w a s
written b e t w e e n the c o m p l e t i o n o f Ant. ( 9 3 / 9 4 ) a n d the d e a t h o f D o m i ­
4 2
tian ( 9 6 ) .
W e h a v e m a d e o n l y a c u r s o r y e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p r o b l e m o f d a t i n g
43
Life b e c a u s e ( a ) the m a t t e r has b e e n treated in detail e l s e w h e r e and ( b )
a l t h o u g h o n e m u s t h a v e s o m e i d e a o f the p l a c e o f this w o r k in J o s e p h u s ' s
literary career, o u r t o p i c d o e s n o t r e q u i r e an exact date for it. W h a t is

3 4
Cf. Frankfort, "La date", 54f., on the remarks unkind to the Agrippas in Ant., and
57, on Life's praise of the Flavian emperors (Life 428f.). Cf. also Cohen, Josephus, 174ff.
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

i m p o r t a n t for us is that, w h e n e v e r it a p p e a r e d , Life w a s i n t e n d e d as an


a p p e n d i x to Ant. T h i s c o n n e c t i o n is i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e s o m e scholars
find in it the k e y t o interpreting the Pharisee passages o f b o t h Ant. a n d
Life.

II. Occasion, Purpose and Outlook**

The m o s t striking feature o f the Life is its lack o f p r o p o r t i o n . J o s e p h u s


introduces and concludes the work as if it were a complete
4 5
autobiography a n d , it is true, h e d o e s i n c l u d e s o m e c o m m e n t s o n his
ancestry ( § § 1-6), c h i l d h o o d ( § § 7 - 1 2 ) , a n d p o s t - w a r activities ( § § 4 1 4 -
430). T h e b u l k o f the w o r k , h o w e v e r ( § § 2 8 - 4 0 6 ) , p o r t r a y s in detail a
five-month p e r i o d in J o s e p h u s ' s life, the t i m e o f his l e a d e r s h i p in G a l i l e e
46
before Vespasian's arrival. T h i s m a s s i v e d i s p r o p o r t i o n , a l o n g with a
4 7
c o m b a t i v e narrative t o n e , m a k e s the w o r k a p p e a r as a d e f e n c e o f
J o s e p h u s ' s c o n d u c t d u r i n g the p e r i o d in q u e s t i o n . T h e a u t h o r c o n f i r m s
this i m p r e s s i o n b y d e v o t i n g an e x c u r s u s (7capex(iaat<;) to the refutation o f
o n e J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s ( § § 3 3 6 - 3 6 7 ) , w h o has c o m p o s e d a rival a c c o u n t
4 8
o f the events in G a l i l e e .
In o r d e r to ascertain m o r e exactly the p u r p o s e o f the Life, it is
necessary to e x a m i n e : ( a ) the extent to w h i c h the conflict with J u s t u s
d e t e r m i n e s the c o n t e n t o f this w o r k ; ( b ) the n a t u r e o f that conflict; a n d
( c ) o t h e r m o t i v e s that J o s e p h u s m i g h t h a v e h a d for w r i t i n g Life.

4 4
The Life has stimulated a great deal of secondary literature. Most of it, however,
is occupied with the parallel questions of (a) the literary relationship between Life and
War and (b) the historical truth about Josephus's activities in the Galilee. Cf. Luther,
Josephus und Justus, 5-9; Laqueur, Historiker, 96-107; Gelzer, "Vita", 68ff.; and Cohen,
Josephus, 1-18. Although of great intrinsic interest, these questions do not directly con­
cern us. In any case, it would be hard to improve on Cohen's survey of the literature,
Josephus, 8-23. He traces the shifts in scholarly opinion from early attempts to harmonize
Life and War, to a preference for War, then back (under Laqueur's influence) to a
preference for Life.
4 5
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

A. The Conventional View and R. Laqueur

J o s e p h u s ' s r e m a r k s a b o u t J u s t u s are n o t c o n f i n e d to the e x c u r s u s . H e


i n t r o d u c e s this c h a r a c t e r q u i t e early ( § 3 4 ) as a factional l e a d e r in
44
T i b e r i a s w h o h a d a strain o f m a d n e s s in his n a t u r e " ( T h a c k e r a y ) a n d
to w h o s e d e p r a v i t y a n d d u p l i c i t y the J e w i s h loss w a s largely d u e ( § §
4 0 f ) . J o s e p h u s m e n t i o n s J u s t u s r e p e a t e d l y t h r o u g h o u t the narrative (see
b e l o w ) a n d always in an a c c u s i n g t o n e . F r o m this o n g o i n g c u r r e n t o f
antipathy it has c o m m o n l y b e e n inferred that J o s e p h u s w r o t e Life
s i m p l y as a r e s p o n s e to the a c c o u n t b y J u s t u s . T h i s w a s the v i e w o f
S c h u r e r , N i e s e , L u t h e r , H o l s c h e r , L a q u e u r , T h a c k e r a y , Schalit, a n d
4 9
the " e a r l i e r R a j a k " . R a j a k , for e x a m p l e , c l a i m s that Life " w a s cast
5 0
in the f o r m o f a reply to J u s t u s " .
It is n o t always clear w h e t h e r the critics w h o s u p p o r t this v i e w see
o n l y the m a i n b o d y o f Life ( § § 2 8 - 4 1 3 ) as a r e s p o n s e to J u s t u s o r
w h e t h e r they w o u l d also i n c l u d e the r e m a r k s a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s y o u t h
( a n d thus an i m p o r t a n t Pharisee p a s s a g e , § § 10-12) a n d p o s t - w a r a c ­
tivities. M o s t s e e m willing to free the peripheral sections f r o m any
a p o l o g e t i c intent, for they designate § § 1-27 a n d § § 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 s i m p l y
5 1
" i n t r o d u c t i o n and c o n c l u s i o n " or " n u r wie Einleitung u n d S c h l u s s " .
L a q u e u r , h o w e v e r , also takes Life 1 0 - 1 2 , w h i c h tells o f J o s e p h u s ' s e x ­
p e r i e n c e with the three s c h o o l s a n d o f his a l i g n m e n t with the Pharisees,
to b e distinctly p o l e m i c a l : J o s e p h u s wants to present h i m s e l f as a true
representative o f J e w i s h tradition o v e r against the h e l l e n i z i n g J u s t u s , in
o r d e r t o save his r e p u t a t i o n as an a u t h o r in the face o f J u s t u s ' s attacks:

so ist dieses ganze Material nur gegeben, u m das eigene W e r k gegen


Justus retten zu konnen dadurch, dass Josephus gegenuber d e m helleni-
sierenden Justus als Bewahrer der judischen Uberlieferung erwiesen
52
wird.

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

L a q u e u r c a n o n l y interpret Life 10-12 as part o f the p o l e m i c against


J u s t u s b e c a u s e he has a p e c u l i a r v i e w o f the issues i n v o l v e d in J u s t u s ' s
attack o n J o s e p h u s .
M o s t interpreters h a v e taken their c u e f r o m J o s e p h u s ' s r e s p o n s e to
Justus in the e x c u r s u s :

H o w then, Justus . . . can I and the Galileans be held responsible for the
insurrection o f your native city against the R o m a n s and against the king
[Agrippa II] . . . ?

A n d again:

But, you maintain (<o<; <JU qjfjs), it was I who was responsible (atTio<; eyo>) for
your revolt at that time. (350; Thackeray)

T h e straightforward inference is that J u s t u s has a c c u s e d J o s e p h u s o f


f o m e n t i n g revolt in T i b e r i a s a n d , b y i m p l i c a t i o n , in the rest o f the
53 5 4
Galilee. M o s t o f the e x c u r s u s r e s p o n d s directly to this c h a r g e and
m u c h o f the rest o f Life s e e m s calculated to present J o s e p h u s as a p r o -
5 5
R o m a n m o d e r a t e a n d J u s t u s as the instigator o f revolt in T i b e r i a s . The
c o m m o n v i e w , then, is that J u s t u s w r o t e an a c c o u n t o f the w a r in w h i c h
he p o r t r a y e d J o s e p h u s as the o n e w h o h a d incited revolt in the G a l i l e e ;
J o s e p h u s , l i v i n g in R o m e , w a s acutely e m b a r r a s s e d b y these charges a n d
r e s p o n d e d w i t h the Life.
L a q u e u r , b y contrast, u n d e r s t a n d s the conflict b e t w e e n Justus a n d
J o s e p h u s to h a v e b e e n essentially h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l . J o s e p h u s ' s actions in
the Galilee, he argues, could n o longer have been an issue when
J o s e p h u s w a s in R o m e , for he h a d l o n g since m a d e his p e a c e with the
5 6
Romans. N o r c o u l d he h a v e r e c o u n t e d events in s u c h detail thirty
57
years after the f a c t . T h e d e f e n c e o f his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d that w e see
in Life m u s t h a v e c o m e f r o m a m u c h earlier a c c o u n t that J o s e p h u s h a d
written in self-vindication, p r o b a b l y to the J e r u s a l e m authorities, b e f o r e
5 8
the w a r h a d b r o k e n o u t in earnest (early 6 7 ) . L a q u e u r locates the
p o l e m i c against J u s t u s , o n the o t h e r h a n d , in the last section o f the e x ­
cursus against that a u t h o r ( § § 3 5 7 - 3 6 7 ) , w h e r e J o s e p h u s claims s u p e r i o r
59
a c c u r a c y for his o w n War. J u s t u s h a d e v i d e n t l y c l a i m e d to h a v e written
the definitive w o r k o n the w a r ( § 3 5 7 ) , d i s p a r a g i n g the w o r k s o f J o s e p h u s

5 3
So Schurer, Geschichte, I, 87; Luther, Josephus und Justus, 7, 67; Holscher, 1994; Ra­
jak "Justus", Cohen, Josephus, 118.
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 .

B . S. J. D. Cohen and T. Rajak

C o h e n , for his part, tries to refine the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w b y delineating


m o r e closely the extent to w h i c h J u s t u s ' s w o r k w a s responsible for Life.
H e b e g i n s with the e x c u r s u s , b e c a u s e that is clearly addressed t o J u s t u s ,
a n d finds J o s e p h u s there r e s p o n d i n g to accusations a b o u t his character
a n d his actions in T i b e r i a s : Justus has b l a m e d J o s e p h u s for the anti-
R o m a n activities o f T i b e r i a s a n d has c h a r g e d h i m with brutality t o w a r d
6 4
the p o p u l a c e . C o h e n , therefore, agrees in the m a i n with the c o m m o n
65
view o f Justus's accusations. H a v i n g isolated these issues, C o h e n at­
tributes their e m e r g e n c e elsewhere in Life also to the p r o v o c a t i o n o f
6 6
J u s t u s ' s rival a c c o u n t .
But this p r o c e d u r e still leaves several passages a n d t h e m e s outside the
excursus u n e x p l a i n e d . C o h e n identifies five such e x t r a n e o u s themes:
"Josephus's Pedigree", "Josephus and the Pharisees", "Josephus
6 7
fought the R o m a n s " , " J o s e p h u s was P r o - R o m a n " , and "Philip son

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.

Summary and Critique of Scholarly Views

E v e r y o n e agrees that the Life is a w o r k o f a p o l o g e t i c a n d p o l e m i c a n d


that it is d i r e c t e d , at least in part, against Justus o f T i b e r i a s , w h o w r o t e
a rival a c c o u n t o f the w a r . M a t t e r s still d e b a t e d are: ( a ) the issues at
stake in the conflict with J u s t u s ; ( b ) the extent to w h i c h Life is a response
to h i m ; a n d ( c ) other factors that entered into the c o m p o s i t i o n o f Life.
Q u e s t i o n s ( a ) a n d ( b ) are m u t u a l l y d e p e n d e n t ; q u e s t i o n ( c ) d e p e n d s o n
o n e ' s solution to ( a ) a n d ( b ) .
T h e c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w ( S c h u r e r , N i e s e , L u t h e r , H o l s c h e r , Schalit,
the earlier R a j a k ) is: ( a ) that Justus a c c u s e d J o s e p h u s o f inciting revolt
in the G a l i l e e , especially in T i b e r i a s ; ( b ) that the w h o l e b o d y o f Life (§§
2 8 - 4 1 3 ) r e s p o n d s to this c h a r g e b y r e c o u n t i n g in detail J o s e p h u s ' s ac­
tions d u r i n g his first five m o n t h s in the r e g i o n ; a n d ( c ) that Life 1-27 a n d
4 1 4 - 4 3 0 function s i m p l y as an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n to this p i e c e
of polemic.
L a q u e u r , C o h e n , a n d R a j a k h a v e all attempted to m o d i f y the c o n v e n ­
tional v i e w : L a q u e u r , b y c h a n g i n g altogether the terms o f the conflict
b e t w e e n Justus a n d J o s e p h u s ; C o h e n , b y restricting that conflict to
T i b e r i a n affairs a n d then d i s c o v e r i n g other a p o l o g e t i c t h e m e s in Life

7 9
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

M o s t i m p o r t a n t , Life is part o f Ant., w h i c h w a s written for Gentiles (Ant.


1:9); b o t h are d e d i c a t e d to the G e n t i l e E p a p h r o d i t u s (Ant. l : 8 f . ; Life
4 3 0 ) . A l t h o u g h it is n o t unlikely that J e w s w o u l d also h a v e read his
w o r k s , J o s e p h u s w r o t e in o r d e r to p e r s u a d e G e n t i l e s . It w o u l d s e e m
h a z a r d o u s , therefore, to s u p p o s e that a n y particular p o r t i o n s o f Life, let
a l o n e the b u l k o f the w o r k , w e r e written specifically for J e w i s h readers.
I n short, the attempts b y L a q u e u r , C o h e n , a n d R a j a k to m o d i f y the
c o n v e n t i o n a l interpretation o f Life—that it is a r e s p o n s e to Justus o f
T i b e r i a s , with an i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u s i o n a d d e d — s e e m to lack solid
s u p p o r t . O u r o n l y qualification o f the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w is that the intro­
d u c t i o n to Life, with its d e s c r i p t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s priestly p e d i g r e e ,
e d u c a t i o n , a n d e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n with the J e w i s h s c h o o l s , g r e w o u t o f his
c l a i m to <xxpi(feioc in Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 6 . It s e e m s , h o w e v e r , to b e i n d e p e n d e n t
o f the dispute with J u s t u s , to w h i c h the b o d y o f the Life is d e v o t e d .
CHAPTER FOURTEEN

THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS


IN M O D E R N SCHOLARSHIP

A l t h o u g h interpreters o f J o s e p h u s differ a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s o n practically


1
e v e r y m a j o r i s s u e , they are a l m o s t u n a n i m o u s in their b e l i e f that h e in­
2
t e n d e d to present h i m s e l f as a d e v o t e d P h a r i s e e . E v e n h e r e , it is true,
3
o n e c a n distinguish t w o s c h o o l s o f t h o u g h t . T h e m a j o r i t y o f s c h o l a r s a c ­
c e p t J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic allegiance as a f u n d a m e n t a l d a t u m for their in­
4
terpretation; a skeptical m i n o r i t y ( f o r w a n t o f a better adjective) v i e w
the c l a i m to Pharisaic allegiance as a political p l o y , b y w h i c h J o s e p h u s
h o p e d t o identify h i m s e l f w i t h the n e w p o w e r - b r o k e r s in Palestine. B o t h
s c h o o l s , h o w e v e r , m a i n t a i n that J o s e p h u s wanted to b e u n d e r s t o o d as a
P h a r i s e e . I n d e e d , all o f the f o u n d a t i o n a l scholarship o n J o s e p h u s a n d all
5
o f the m a j o r m o d e r n translations o f his w o r k s h a v e b e e n d o n e b y critics
w h o b e l i e v e d h i m to h a v e b e e n a Pharisee.
T h i s c h a p t e r will b e g i n b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g the i m p o r t a n t role that
J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic allegiance plays in m o d e r n analyses o f his w o r k s .
A s u r v e y o f the a r g u m e n t s c o m m o n l y offered in s u p p o r t o f J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisaic affiliation will reveal, h o w e v e r , that an e n o r m o u s b u r d e n rests
o n a particular interpretation o f a single sentence in Life ( 1 2 b ) . T h i s c o n ­
c l u s i o n will p r e p a r e for the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r , in w h i c h w e shall e x a m i n e
Life 1 2 b in s o m e detail.

1
E.g., on Josephus's historical reliability, his degree of nationalistic and religious
commitment, the extent of his dependence on sources, and his linguistic and literary
competence, to name a few important issues.
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

I. The Importance of Josephus's Pharisaic Allegiance


in Modern Scholarship

Interpreters h a v e always c o m e to J o s e p h u s f r o m disparate perspectives


a n d with w i d e l y differing a i m s a n d interests. A t least f o u r types o f inter­
pretation c a n b e identified, h o w e v e r , that all rely h e a v i l y o n J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisaic c o n n e c t i o n . T h e first three o f these h a v e b e e n discussed
already in the c o u r s e o f the study a n d n e e d o n l y t o b e recalled.

A . Theological Interpretations of Josephus

M u c h o f the early w o r k o n J o s e p h u s w a s d o n e b y scholars w h o w e r e


p r i m a r i l y l o o k i n g for insight into the b a c k g r o u n d a n d o r i g i n s o f C h r i s ­
tianity; it will suffice to m e n t i o n Paret, S c h u r e r , B r u n e , a n d Schlatter.
A l t h o u g h all o f these scholars a c k n o w l e d g e d the Pharisaic allegiance o f
J o s e p h u s , Paret a n d Schlatter p l a c e d particular v a l u e o n it as the k e y to
his significance.
Paret ( 1 8 5 6 ) suggested that, since the infant C h u r c h w a s still v e r y
close to Pharisaic teachings in the first c e n t u r y , a n y i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t
6
the latter w o u l d b e w e l c o m e . H e d e v o t e d an article to p r o v i n g that
J o s e p h u s was a Pharisee, o n the p r e m i s e that such p r o o f w o u l d greatly
e n h a n c e the v a l u e o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings:

aber wenn nun, wie in Josephus, ein palastinensischer Jude des


apostolischen Zeitalters selbst vor uns steht, der uns nicht bloss die
wichtigste Nachrichten uber die jiidischen Religionsparteien gibt, sondern
sich selbst ausdrucklich als Pharisaer bekennt, so ist es gewiss nicht ohne
7
Interesse, ihn gerade als solchen ins A u g e zu fassen.

Schlatter, writing several d e c a d e s later (1910, 1932), no longer


thought it necessary to p r o v e b y sustained a r g u m e n t that J o s e p h u s w a s
8
a Pharisee. Nevertheless, like Paret, he believed that the chief
significance o f J o s e p h u s ' s writings for the N e w T e s t a m e n t e x e g e t e lay in
9
their a u t h o r ' s Pharisaic affiliation. U n l i k e the mystical Hellenist P h i l o ,
Schlatter c o n t e n d s , J o s e p h u s s h o w s us Pharisaismus, w h i c h w a s the d o m i ­
1 0
nant m o v e m e n t in J u d a i s m . A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaism,
he suggests, will help the N e w T e s t a m e n t scholar to u n d e r s t a n d w h y this
11
religious o u t l o o k w a s o p p o s e d b y Jesus a n d P a u l .

6
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

J e w i s h scholars h a v e generally t e n d e d to l o o k outside J o s e p h u s ( t o the


r a b b i n i c c o r p u s ) for their u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f Pharisaic t h o u g h t . N e v e r ­
theless, A . G u t t m a n n ranks J o s e p h u s a l o n g s i d e the T a l m u d as a first-
12
rate s o u r c e for P h a r i s a i s m . A n d R i v k i n cites J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic
allegiance as p r o o f that the ancient a u t h o r ' s portrayal o f the Pharisees
13
is c r e d i b l e .

B . Source-Critical Interpretations

F o r s o u r c e critics o f J o s e p h u s , his Pharisaic allegiance has always b e e n


the m a j o r criterion for d e t e r m i n i n g what h e c o u l d o r c o u l d n o t h a v e said
a b o u t the g r o u p .
It w a s o n e o f H o l s c h e r ' s w o r k i n g assumptions that J o s e p h u s w a s a
Pharisee a n d that, therefore, m o s t o f his a c c o u n t s o f the g r o u p , w h i c h
are often n e g a t i v e , m u s t n o t b e his o w n b u t " j e n a c h d e n v o n i h m
1 4
ausgeschriebenen Quellen." We see the principle at work in
H o l s c h e r ' s analysis o f Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 2 5 . T h e a u t h o r o f this passage c a n n o t
b e a Pharisee, w e learn, b e c a u s e his treatment o f the g r o u p is n o t
especially ruhmenswert a n d because he links Pharisees and Zealots
15
together. H o l s c h e r e v e n cites J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic e d u c a t i o n as p r o o f
16
that h e c o u l d n o t h a v e k n o w n the G r e e k authors cited in Ant.
G . F. M o o r e f o l l o w e d the s a m e p r o c e d u r e o f attributing passages
1 7
hostile to the Pharisees to s o m e o n e other than J o s e p h u s . More
recently, D . R . S c h w a r t z has m a d e a t h o r o u g h application o f this ap­
p r o a c h to the Pharisee passages. O n e o f his m a j o r criteria for assigning
passages to N i c o l a u s rather than J o s e p h u s is their hostility t o w a r d the
18
Pharisees. W h e n h e d o e s assign t w o passages to J o s e p h u s it is b e c a u s e
44
they present t h o r o u g h l y positive a c c o u n t s o f the Pharisees . . . . A l l o f
these i m p r o v e m e n t s in the i m a g e o f the Pharisees s h o w that it is
1 9
J o s e p h u s w h o is s p e a k i n g . "

C . Biographical Interpretations

I n chapter 2 , I h a v e s u m m a r i z e d the interpretations o f the Pharisee


passages offered b y H . R a s p , M . S m i t h , a n d J. N e u s n e r , w h o d e v e l o p

1 2
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

(whether consciously or not) Laqueur's thesis that Josephus altered his


20
nationalistic and religious sensitivities between War and Ant. Common
21
to these scholars and also to S. J. D . C o h e n is the belief that Ant.
represents an improvement over War in its descriptions of the Pharisees:
this improvement they interpret as Josephus's attempt to make amends
with the group that was coming to power in Palestine. Notwithstanding
the evidence that these scholars imagine they find in Ant. itself, they all
depend very heavily on Life 12; they view this sentence as Josephus's
audacious attempt to pass himself off as a devoted Pharisee.
22
Rasp's comment to this effect I have quoted a b o v e : Josephus has the
nerve to portray himself before the whole world as a true Pharisee of long
standing! Similarly Neusner points to the importance of Life 12:

T o understand the additions [in Ant. vis-a-vis Josephus's portrait of the


Pharisees in War], we must recall that at the same time he wrote Ant.,
23
Josephus was claiming he himself was a Pharisee.

Cohen adds his voice to the chorus by proposing that Life 12 "makes the
24
ultimate commitment to this Pharisaic bias [in Ant.]".
T h e importance of Life 12 for this group, then, is not (as with Schlatter
or Holscher) that it says something true about Josephus. O n the con­
trary, it is interpreted as a crucial indicator of his Tendenz in Ant. -Life:
he wants to be seen as a Pharisee for practical reasons.

D . Cultural!Sociological Interpretations

T w o recent attempts to identify different cultural and social elements


within Josephus's thought likewise rely heavily on the premise that
Josephus was a Pharisee.
A 1979 article by H . F. Weiss sets out to clarify the nature of the mar­
25
riage between "Pharisaismus and Hellenismus." Granted that the two
categories may no longer be considered mutually exclusive, he argues,
it is necessary to define the way in which they unite in Josephus. Weiss
first demonstrates by several arguments that Josephus was indeed a
26
Pharisee and then that he was genuinely and deeply influenced by
27
Hellenistic concerns and concepts, especially by Stoicism. Never-

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

theless, J o s e p h u s retains a critical stance t o w a r d Hellenistic p h i l o ­


sophies; h e d o e s n o t e n d o r s e S t o i c i s m as a w h o l e b u t presents J u d a i s m ,
2 8
b a s e d o n the L a w o f M o s e s , as the true p h i l o s o p h y . Weiss concludes
that J o s e p h u s w a s trying to w o r k o u t his Pharisaic c o m m i t m e n t in
Hellenistic t e r m s , b y offering the Hellenistic w o r l d a true picture o f
2 9
Judaism.
R a j a k ' s recent study, Josephus: The Historian and his Society ( 1 9 8 3 ) , is an
attempt to use J o s e p h u s as a entree into " t h e cultural a n d social history
3 0
o f the R o m a n e m p i r e " . Specifically, this scholar wants to e x p l o r e the
tension b e t w e e n J e w i s h tradition a n d G r e e k culture that she finds in
Josephus:

T h r o u g h his early life, we can learn from the inside about the upper
echelons of the Palestinian priesthood, an outward-looking, flexible group,
yet strict in its religious practices and prescriptions; a group which
3 1
vanished with the fall of the T e m p l e in A . D . 7 0 .

R a j a k attributes this tension to the t w o m a j o r influences o n J o s e p h u s ' s


life: h e w a s an aristocratic priest b y birth b u t a Pharisee b y e d u c a t i o n .
T h e priestly heritage g a v e h i m a c o s m o p o l i t a n o u t l o o k ; the Pharisaic
32
training m a d e h i m fiercely defensive o f his J e w i s h t r a d i t i o n .
3 3
Unlike most commentators, R a j a k d o e s n o t think that J o s e p h u s ' s
Pharisaic e d u c a t i o n b e g a n w i t h his a l i g n m e n t with the g r o u p at a g e n i n e ­
teen (Life 1 2 ) . She c o n t e n d s that his early e d u c a t i o n w a s already
34
Pharisaic. W e shall c o n s i d e r h e r a r g u m e n t s b e l o w . H e r e it is s i m p l y to
b e n o t e d that J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic e d u c a t i o n a n d allegiance is a k e y fac­
tor in R a j a k ' s interpretation o f h i m . H e c l a i m e d to b e a Pharisee
b e c a u s e he w a s a Pharisee (contra R a s p , S m i t h , N e u s n e r , a n d C o h e n )
and this d e e p l y i n g r a i n e d tradition, c o m b i n e d with his aristocratic
heritage, created m a n y a m b i g u i t i e s in his p o s i t i o n , especially w h e n the
3 5
w a r against R o m e b r o k e o u t .

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

Practically every interpreter o f Josephus has held that the Jewish


historian w a n t e d to b e t h o u g h t o f as a Pharisee. F o r s o m e , it is true,
3 6
a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f this c l a i m has little c o n s e q u e n c e . The above
synopsis reveals, h o w e v e r , that the m a j o r c o n v e n t i o n a l a p p r o a c h e s to
J o s e p h u s n o t o n l y a c k n o w l e d g e J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to Pharisaic allegiance
b u t d e p e n d u p o n it as an interpretive key.

I I . Arguments Offered in Support of Josephus's


Pharisaic Allegiance

If it is true that J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to b e a Pharisee underlies m o s t m o d e r n


scholarship o n o u r a u t h o r , then it is clear that Life 12b—the only
sentence in J o s e p h u s ' s thirty extant b o o k s that e v e n hints at a n y c o n n e c ­
tion b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d the Pharisees—is o f crucial i m p o r t a n c e to the
w h o l e enterprise. I n c h a p t e r 15, b e l o w , w e shall seek to u n d e r s t a n d that
sentence in its c o n t e x t . O t h e r arguments, however, have sometimes
b e e n offered as p r o o f o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic affiliation. T h e f o l l o w i n g
survey is i n t e n d e d to s h o w that n o n e o f these ancillary a r g u m e n t s is c o m ­
pelling; this c o n c l u s i o n r e n d e r s all the m o r e i m p o r t a n t o n e ' s interpreta­
tion o f Life 1 2 b .

A . Josephus's View of the Law

U n d e r this h e a d i n g several alleged p r o o f s o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic lean­


3 7
ings m a y b e gathered: ( 1 ) his exaltation o f the L a w ; ( 2 ) his i n c l u s i o n
38
o f extra-biblical material w i t h i n the c o n c e p t v o p o t ; ( 3 ) his alleged agree­
39
m e n t with the halakhah a n d haggadah; a n d ( 4 ) his alleged a c c e p t a n c e o f
40
the u n w r i t t e n voptpa o f the P h a r i s e e s . A l l o f these p o i n t s h a v e b e e n

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

dealt with in the c o u r s e o f the study; it is necessary here o n l y t o s u m m a r i z e


a n d s u p p l e m e n t o u r earlier c o n c l u s i o n s .
( 1 ) a n d ( 2 ) are accurate o b s e r v a t i o n s b u t d o n o t link J o s e p h u s with
P h a r i s a i s m . F o r J o s e p h u s praises the L a w as a priest. H e p o r t r a y s the
w h o l e J e w i s h c o m m u n i t y as o n e that is d e v o t e d t o a strict o b s e r v a n c e o f
41
the l a w s , u n d e r the s u p e r v i s i o n o f the p r i e s t s . Further, exaltation o f the
42
' ' l a w s " w a s native t o G r e e k t h o u g h t and was fundamental to J u d a i s m
4 3 4 4
after the e x i l e . P h i l o a n d 4 M a c c a b e e s praise the L a w . S o l o v e f o r the
L a w w a s n o t p e c u l i a r t o Pharisees.
T h a t J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e s extra-biblical p r e c e p t s in the t e r m vopo$ is clear
to m o d e r n - d a y critics b u t w a s n o t t o h i m ; h e c l a i m s t o g i v e o n l y w h a t
45
M o s e s left in w r i t i n g . It is a n t e c e d e n t l y p r o b a b l e that all o f the J e w i s h
g r o u p s traced their beliefs t o M o s e s ; i n d e e d the T e m p l e Scroll from
Q u m r a n a n d the r a b b i n i c d o c t r i n e o f the O r a l L a w p r o v e this for t w o
4 6
cases. N o n e o f this m a k e s J o s e p h u s a P h a r i s e e .
W i t h respect t o ( 4 ) , it is far f r o m o b v i o u s that J o s e p h u s a c c e p t e d the
special Pharisaic voptpa, w h i c h oux avayeypaTCTat ev xot? McoOaeo^ vopot<;
(Ant. 1 3 : 2 9 7 ) ; h e consistently uses voptpa as a n e q u i v a l e n t o f vopot a n d
4 7
always attributes these laws t o the written M o s a i c c o d e .
J o s e p h u s ' s a g r e e m e n t w i t h halakhah a n d haggadah ( 3 ) is d o u b l y p r o b l e m ­
atic as a p r o o f o f his Pharisaic m i n d s e t . First, the r a b b i n i c legal a n d h o r ­
tatory material is n o t strictly "Pharisaic"; it m a y well reflect also
4 8
n o n - P h a r i s a i c traditions f r o m b e f o r e 7 0 a n d certainly c o n t a i n s m u c h
p o s t - 7 0 d e v e l o p m e n t . O n the o t h e r h a n d , J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t consistently
9
a g r e e w i t h the halakhah* S o m e t i m e s h e a g r e e s , against tradition, w i t h the

4 1
Cf. chapter 4, above.
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

Essenes, s o m e t i m e s with P h i l o , a n d s o m e t i m e s with p o s i t i o n s later en­


50
d o r s e d b y the literalist K a r a i t e s . G i v e n o u r lack o f k n o w l e d g e o f p r e - 7 0
traditions, it s e e m s b i z a r r e t o m a i n t a i n that these d e v i a t i o n s m u s t b e d u e
to J o s e p h u s ' s i m p e r f e c t k n o w l e d g e , faulty m e m o r y , a n d tendentious
51
r e w o r k i n g o f the t r a d i t i o n . D o they n o t rather suggest that J o s e p h u s
u n d e r s t o o d s o m e o f the laws differently f r o m the later tradition? Studies
o f J o s e p h u s ' s n o n - l e g a l e l a b o r a t i o n o f the Bible (haggadah), m o r e o v e r ,
52
p o i n t t o a priestly, n o t P h a r i s a i c , i n c l i n a t i o n .
T w o recent studies o f J o s e p h u s ' s t h o u g h t d e m o n s t r a t e ( w i t h i n their
respective frames o f r e f e r e n c e ) that it is n o t o b v i o u s l y c o n d i t i o n e d b y
Pharisaic c o n c e r n s . L i n d n e r ' s analysis o f J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f history in
War u n c o v e r s a strong priestly e m p h a s i s : the J e w s are b e i n g p u n i s h e d
b y G o d for their p r o f a n a t i o n o f the T e m p l e , G o d ' s shrine, o f w h i c h they
53
were the appointed guardians. In addition, Lindner notes that
J o s e p h u s d e s c r i b e s his r e v e l a t i o n f r o m G o d , o n the basis o f w h i c h h e
w e n t o v e r to the R o m a n s , as the result o f a d r e a m ; b u t the r a b b i s re­
5 4
j e c t e d d r e a m s as s o u r c e s o f g u i d a n c e . Finally, w h e n J o s e p h u s m a k e s a
55
c l a i m to exegetical p r o w e s s , h e bases it solely o n his priestly h e r i t a g e .
56
A l l o f this, says L i n d n e r , is " g a n z u n p h a r i s a i s c h " . T h u s he sum­
marizes Josephus's debt to Pharisaism:

Die Wtirzeln seines Denkens liegen nicht in Pharisaismus, und die Angabe
(vita 12), dass er sich nach Anschluss seiner Ausbildungszeit den
Pharisaern angeschlossen habe, muss in ihrer Tragweite begrenzt
57
bleiben.

Similarly, A t t r i d g e ' s analysis o f the m a n n e r in w h i c h J o s e p h u s inter­


prets the Bible d o e s n o t u n c o v e r a n y clear Pharisaic p e r s p e c t i v e . I q u o t e
at s o m e length f r o m his c o n c l u s i o n :

O n the perennial problem o f the relationship of Josephus to Pharisaism, the


biblical interpretation provides little light. In some detailed matters, such
as the use o f the terms euae(ktoc and Stxatoouvrj, we have noted parallels from
Greek sources which show that Pharisaic theology need not be invoked at

5 0
For examples of the last two, cf. Revel, "Anti-Traditional Laws", 293-301. In
general see the discussion above, chapter 4.
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

all. O n the other hand, we have seen that m a n y of the interpretative


elements in the Antiquities are not inconsistent with Rabbinic Judaism, and
thus perhaps with Pharisaism. These agreements, however, are not so
specific that we are compelled to call Josephus a Pharisee because of them.
T h e precise nature of Pharisaism in the first century remains to be
clarified. W h e r e particular criteria for distinguishing the sect are available,
they do not show any close conformity to the significant interpretative
58
themes of the biblical paraphrase of the Antiquities.

A l t h o u g h neither o f these interpreters d o u b t s that J o s e p h u s w a n t e d t o


present h i m s e l f as a Pharisee in Life 12, b o t h d e n y that Pharisaic e m ­
phases p l a y a n y significant role in his t h o u g h t .
I f it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o l a y t o rest o n c e a n d for all the b e l i e f that
J o s e p h u s ' s v i e w o f the L a w m a k e s h i m a Pharisee, it c a n at least b e said
that n o n e o f the e v i d e n c e currently available p o i n t s u n m i s t a k a b l y t o that
conclusion.

B . Fate/Free Will and the Immortality of the Soul

( 1 ) It w a s s h o w n in c h a p t e r 6 that b o t h J o s e p h u s ' s interpretation o f


eipocppevr) as a f u n c t i o n o f G o d a n d his j u x t a p o s i t i o n o f fate a n d h u m a n
v o l i t i o n a g r e e with t e a c h i n g s that h e ascribes t o the Pharisees; other
scholars h a v e a r g u e d that this s y n e r g i s m o f fate a n d free will also c o n c u r s
59
with " P h a r i s a i c - R a b b i n i c " ideas k n o w n f r o m the r a b b i n i c l i t e r a t u r e .
C r e u z e r a n d Schlatter, a m o n g others, saw in this c o r r e s p o n d e n c e p r o o f
60
that J o s e p h u s w a s a P h a r i s e e . A n d n o w R a j a k writes:

It is particularly striking that Josephus rests, in his own narrative, on the


same assumptions as he ascribes to the Pharisees 'they hold that to act
rightly or otherwise rests mainly with m e n , but that in each action, Fate
cooperates.' W e have found here another, overlooked confirmation that
61
Josephus was, from early on, a Pharisee.

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

d i s p a r a g e m e n t o f the Pharisees always has t o d o with their b e h a v i o u r ,


the fact that h e h o l d s a p o s i t i o n similar to theirs o n c o n c e p t s o f i m m o r ­
tality a n d fate/free will c a n n o t b e taken t o suggest that h e w a s a Pharisee.
It is surely significant that J o s e p h u s n e v e r c o n n e c t s his o w n beliefs in
resurrection a n d fate with those o f the Pharisees, a l t h o u g h h e e x p l i c i d y
( a n d often) e n d o r s e s the Essenes' v i e w s .

C . Opposition to the Sadducees

J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisaic p o s i t i o n s o n resurrection a n d fate/free


will as the " d o g m a t i c " alternatives to S a d d u c e a n skepticism {War 2 : 1 6 2 -
1 6 6 ) : the Pharisees affirm; the S a d d u c e e s d e n y . Since it is clear that his
o w n sympathies are with the affirmative side (Ant. 10:277Iff.), and
72
b e c a u s e his portrayal o f the S a d d u c e e s is generally d e r o g a t o r y , some
critics h a v e a s s u m e d that h e was a Pharisee. Paret d e v o t e s several p a g e s
to a d e m o n s t r a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s a n t i - S a d d u c e a n a n i m u s , all in o r d e r to
73
p r o v e that J o s e p h u s w a s a P h a r i s e e . A n d W e i s s avers:

So lasst sich also bereits aus dem durchaus negativen Urteil des Josephus
uber die Partei der Sadduzaer indirekt auf seinen eigenen, namlich
74
pharisaischen Standpunkt schliessen.

It is true that all o f the sources ( N T , rabbis, J o s e p h u s ) attest the


rivalry that existed in the first c e n t u r y b e t w e e n Pharisees a n d S a d d u c e e s .
If, therefore, J o s e p h u s w e r e k n o w n o n other g r o u n d s to h a v e b e e n a
Pharisee, that m i g h t explain his antipathy t o w a r d the S a d d u c e e s .
O n e c a n n o t a s s u m e , h o w e v e r , that Pharisaism a n d S a d d u c e e i s m w e r e
the o n l y alternatives o f the d a y , so that a n y o n e w h o disliked the Sad­
d u c e e s m u s t h a v e b e e n a Pharisee. T h e religious l a n d s c a p e o f Palestine
evidently offered m a n y sectarian affiliations, a n y o n e o f w h i c h ( s u c h as
7 5
the Q u m r a n c o m m u n i t y ) m i g h t h a v e b e e n hostile to the S a d d u c e e s . In
a d d i t i o n , o n e p r e s u m a b l y h a d the o p t i o n o f non-affiliation a n d private
dislike o f the g r o u p .
The fundamental weakness in the equation between "anti-
S a d d u c e a n " a n d " p r o - P h a r i s a i c " is that J o s e p h u s is e v e n m o r e hostile
t o w a r d the Pharisees than he is t o w a r d the S a d d u c e e s ! H e discusses the
Pharisees m u c h m o r e often than the S a d d u c e e s , usually in o r d e r to s h o w
their nefarious influence o n J e w i s h history. H e presents t h e m as reli-

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.

D . Josephus's Differences from Philo

If the diversity o f the r e l i g i o u s scene in first-century Palestine disallows


the e q u a t i o n o f " a n t i - S a d d u c e a n " with " P h a r i s a i c " , it also d e n i e s the
old assumption that whatever was Palestinian-Jewish, and not
"Hellenistic", was Pharisaic. W e h a v e n o t e d that Schlatter valued
J o s e p h u s p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e the ancient J e w r e p r e s e n t e d Pharisaism,
unlike P h i l o , w h o offered a J e w i s h H e l l e n i s m . It w a s precisely in this
contrast b e t w e e n P h i l o a n d J o s e p h u s that Schlatter f o u n d e v i d e n c e o f the
7 6
latter's Pharisaic m i n d s e t . U n l i k e P h i l o , J o s e p h u s : u n d e r s t a n d s piety
7 7
as the d o i n g o f G o d ' s will a n d n o t as the s o u l ' s c o n t e m p l a t i o n o f G o d ;
78 79
lacks a n y aesthetic s e n s e ; gives n o p l a c e to a X o y o ^ - d o c t r i n e ; a n d re­
8 0
tains a biblical/Palestinian-Jewish a n t h r o p o l o g y . A l l o f these non-
A l e x a n d r i a n t h e m e s Schlatter assumes to b e Pharisaic.
It is n o l o n g e r p o s s i b l e either to distinguish rigidly b e t w e e n " P a l e s t i ­
n i a n " a n d " H e l l e n i s t i c " o r to e q u a t e " P a l e s t i n i a n " a n d " P h a r i s a i c " ,
w h i c h w e r e the t w o bases o f Schlatter's v i e w . A t t r i d g e c o m m e n t s :

Pharisaism for Schlatter is a rather ill-defined foil to the type of Judaism


represented by Philo. W h i l e it is fair to note the differences between Philo
and Josephus, the designation of the latter's position as Pharisaic is not
81
particularly illuminating.

E . Josephus's Pharisaic Teachers?

Rajak has proposed a new and ingenious argument in favour o f


82
J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaic a l l e g i a n c e . In Life 1 9 6 - 1 9 8 , J o s e p h u s tells a b o u t
a plot to r e m o v e h i m f r o m his G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d . T h e h i g h priest w a s
p e r s u a d e d to send a d e l e g a t i o n o f four m e n to the r e g i o n , w h o s e p o o l e d

76
Wie sprach Josephus von GottP, 7; Theologie, p. V . Cf. Attridge, Interpretation, 9f, on
Schlatter.
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

talents w o u l d at least e q u a l those o f J o s e p h u s ( ! ) , so that the G a l i l e a n s


m i g h t b e c o n v i n c e d t o a c c e p t their administration instead o f J o s e p h u s ' s .
T h e delegates, h e says, differed with respect t o their social class b u t h a d
a similar level o f e d u c a t i o n ( § 1 9 6 ) . T w o represented the p o p u l a r classes
a n d w e r e Pharisees; o n e w a s b o t h a priest a n d a Pharisee; a n d the
y o u n g e s t (vea>T<XT0<;) w a s o f h i g h - p r i e s d y d e s c e n t ( § 1 9 7 ) .
R a j a k p o i n t s o u t that w h e n , s o m e w h a t later in the narrative ( § 2 7 4 ) ,
J o s e p h u s e n c o u n t e r s the d e l e g a t i o n , its m e m b e r s offer h i m d u p l i c i t o u s
praise, t o the effect that:

m y reputation was a tribute to themselves, since they had been my teachers and
were m y fellow citizens (co$ av StSaaxocXcov T£ pou yevopevcov xat 7coXtT<ov
OVTCOV).

In identifying w h i c h o f the delegates might have been Josephus's


teachers, R a j a k assumes that " h e c a n h a r d l y b e i n c l u d i n g the fourth a n d
8 3
youngest m e m b e r " . T h a t m e a n s that his teachers w e r e Pharisees. R a ­
j a k argues further that these m e n c o u l d n o t h a v e taught J o s e p h u s after
his final a l i g n m e n t with the Pharisees ( b e c a u s e his e d u c a t i o n s e e m s t o
h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e b y t h e n ) , o r d u r i n g his e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h the
three schools ( n o r e a s o n g i v e n ) , so they m u s t h a v e b e e n r e s p o n s i b l e for
his b a s i c e d u c a t i o n b e f o r e the a g e o f sixteen (Life 7 - 8 ) . S h e thinks, there­
fore, that J o s e p h u s w a s b r o u g h t u p a Pharisee, then e x p e r i m e n t e d with
o t h e r g r o u p s , a n d ultimately fell b a c k o n the tradition i n c u l c a t e d d u r i n g
8 4
his c h i l d h o o d .
It m u s t b e c o n c e d e d that R a j a k has identified an i n t r i g u i n g p i e c e o f
i n f o r m a t i o n : it appears that at least s o m e o f the delegates sent to replace
J o s e p h u s h a d b e e n his 8t8aaxocXot. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the m o v e m e n t f r o m that
p r e m i s e to the c o n c l u s i o n that J o s e p h u s w a s b r o u g h t u p a Pharisee in­
v o l v e s m a n y d u b i o u s inferences, w h i c h m a y b e d i v i d e d into t w o g r o u p s .
First, that it w a s i n d e e d the Pharisees o f the d e l e g a t i o n w h o h a d taught
Josephus, a n d that they had done so qua Pharisees, is o n l y o n e
h y p o t h e s i s a m o n g m a n y o f e q u a l plausibility. J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t say
w h i c h o f the delegates h a d taught h i m , a n d in what c a p a c i t y a n d c o n ­
85
text. It is a m a t t e r o f s p e c u l a t i o n . T w o o f the delegates, for e x a m p l e ,
w e r e priests. S i n c e , as w e h a v e seen, J o s e p h u s consistently c o n n e c t s his
expertise in the laws with his priestly heritage, a n d since h e d o e s so a g a i n
in Ant. 20:259'-2661'Life 1-9, o n e m i g h t argue that it w a s the priests w h o

8 3
Ibid., 31.
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.

F. Josephus's Desire for Reward and his Hypocrisy

N o survey o f the a r g u m e n t s that h a v e b e e n offered as p r o o f o f J o s e p h u s ' s


Pharisaic o u t l o o k w o u l d b e c o m p l e t e w i t h o u t at least a reference to the

8 6
Another alternative interpretation: the delegates were able to congratulate them­
selves on Josephus's administration of the Galilee precisely because that was the subject
of their instruction; they had trained him (not long before, in Jerusalem) for his new duties
as administrator. Perhaps they were among the 7upo>T0i (Life 28) who had commissioned
Josephus.
THE PHARISAIC ALLEGIANCE OF JOSEPHUS 339

c l a i m that his " r e l i g i o n o f r e w a r d " a n d his weakness o f character w e r e


o b v i o u s p r o d u c t s o f P h a r i s a i s m . Paret m a d e a great deal o f the c l a i m
that J o s e p h u s presents J u d a i s m as a r e l i g i o n o f fearful (dngstlich), exter­
nal l e g a l i s m , in w h i c h the i n d i v i d u a l m u s t struggle to o b s e r v e a m a s s o f
8 7
required l a w s . T h e historian, it is said further, characteristically fails
88
to distinguish the i m p o r t a n t laws f r o m the p e t t y and misunderstands
89
the p r o p h e t s . A l m o s t h a l f o f P a r e t ' s study is g i v e n to this sort o f
90
"proof that J o s e p h u s w a s a true P h a r i s e e . B r u n e d e v o t e s his entire
discussion o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaism to the deficiencies o f J o s e p h u s ' s
91
religion a n d c h a r a c t e r . T h i s religion h y p o c r i t i c a l l y rejoices in G o d ' s
punishment o f evildoers but nurtures self-righteousness a m o n g the
observant; that explains, says B r u n e , J o s e p h u s ' s own remarkable
92
vanity. Finally, Schlatter cites J o s e p h u s ' s inability t o a c c e p t guilt, his
e v a l u a t i o n o f w e l l - b e i n g as the goal o f r e l i g i o n , a n d his substitution o f
93
legalism for religious c o n v i c t i o n as p r o o f that J o s e p h u s w a s a P h a r i s e e .
A t least until the m i d d l e o f this c e n t u r y , then, it w a s possible t o i n v o k e
the traditional Christian v i e w o f Pharisaism, as an institution d e d i c a t e d
to the p r o m o t i o n o f h y p o c r i s y , in o r d e r to p r o v e J o s e p h u s ' s religious af­
filiation.
T h e n u m e r o u s absurdities o n w h i c h this a r g u m e n t is b a s e d — l o g i c a l ,
psychological, s o c i o l o g i c a l , a n d historical—are b y n o w well k n o w n ;
there is n o t h i n g t o b e g a i n e d b y further e l a b o r a t i o n h e r e .

Summary and Conclusion: The Importance of Life 12b

T h i s c h a p t e r has s o u g h t to d o c u m e n t t w o p r o p o s i t i o n s . First: almost


e v e r y interpreter o f J o s e p h u s since 1850 has b e l i e v e d that the historian
either w a s o r w a n t e d to b e seen as a Pharisee. M o s t h a v e b e l i e v e d that
h e w a s a Pharisee, so that his c l a i m to b e o n e w a s a natural c o n s e q u e n c e
o f his actual affiliation. S o m e h a v e a r g u e d , h o w e v e r , that the c l a i m
reflects a m a j o r a p o l o g e t i c t h e m e in his later w o r k s b u t n o t historical
reality. I n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r , J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m to b e a Pharisee has
c o m e to serve as a crucial d a t u m in m o s t analyses o f his writings a n d
thought.

8 7
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

Second: the widespread scholarly belief that Josephus intended to


present himself as a Pharisee depends entirely on one sentence of his
"autobiography", Life 12b. Other arguments offered by scholars to
demonstrate that Josephus was a Pharisee are not really proofs; they
derive from evidence that could be explained at least as well if he was
not a Pharisee.
Thus, the burden of proof that rests on Life 12b is enormous. Not only
do the arguments above fail to establish Josephus's Pharisaic allegiance,
but two other considerations militate strongly against it. First, he con­
sistently portrays the Pharisees, throughout War and Ant., in an un­
favourable light. W h e r e he reveals any feeling at all toward the group,
it is one of disdain. Second, in his major works he is utterly silent about
any association with the Pharisees. W h a t makes this silence conspicuous
is that Josephus repeatedly describes the Pharisees as those with a
reputation for axptpetoc. If he believed this reputation to be well founded,
then he would view his own (putative) Pharisaic allegiance as an asset
to be exploited. In all of his many discussions of his own credentials,
however, including those that deal with his dxptPetoc, he never once gives
the slightest hint of any Pharisaic background or allegiance. A n d this
silence is particularly obvious in his later works, in which the
Rasp/Smith/Neusner/Cohen view finds a bold attempt on Josephus's
part to pass himself off as a Pharisee. His notable silence about any
Pharisaic affiliation and his consistent disparagement of that group lead
the reader of War, Ant., and Ag.Ap. to conclude that he disliked the
Pharisees; apart from § 12b, the Life itself implies the same.
So if the near universal assumption that Josephus wanted to present
himself as a Pharisee is to be accepted, we shall require from Life 12b
a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect. Those who believe that
Josephus was a devoted Pharisee must reckon with the two difficulties
just noted. Those who think that he merely wished to look like a Pharisee
are not affected in the same degree, but must still explain why the
Pharisees appear so poorly in Ant. 13 and 17 and in Life 191-198 (see
chapter 16). These difficulties cannot be addressed, however (because
they do not exist), until it is first shown that in Life 12b Josephus intends
94
to present himself as a Pharisee.

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

LIFE 10-12: J O S E P H U S ' S R E L I G I O U S Q U E S T

C l e a r l y , the w h o l e basis for the scholarly c o n s e n s u s that J o s e p h u s


w a n t e d to b e u n d e r s t o o d as a Pharisee is a single sentence in his
a u t o b i o g r a p h y , Life 1 2 b . J o s e p h u s relates there that, h a v i n g trained in
the three J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l schools (<xtpeaet$) a n d h a v i n g then spent
s o m e t i m e w i t h an ascetic teacher, he returned to J e r u s a l e m a n d :

lvveocxat8£xocTOv 8* exo$ ex<ov


rjpj-dprjv xe 7ioXtTeuea0at
xfj Oaptaatcov octpeaet XOCTOCXOXOUOCOV,
rj 7iapa7iXrjat6s iart xfj reap' "EXXrjat
E-cotxfj Xeyopevrj

T h e p u r p o s e o f this chapter is to interpret Life 1 2 b a n d t h e r e b y to deter­


m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t J o s e p h u s is here m a k i n g a definitive c l a i m to
Pharisaic allegiance.

I. Context of Life 12

B e y o n d the general a i m o f p r e s e n t i n g J o s e p h u s in a g o o d light, as a m a n


o f character (cf. Life 4 3 0 ) , it is n o t clear that the i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d c o n c l u ­
sion o f the Life ( 1 - 2 7 , 4 1 4 - 4 3 0 ) h a v e a n y specific role in the a p o l o g e t i c
against Justus o f T i b e r i a s , w h i c h g o v e r n s the b o d y o f the tract. T h e y ap­
p e a r to b e little m o r e than b r i e f s u m m a r i e s o f J o s e p h u s ' s y o u t h a n d post­
1
w a r life, r e s p e c t i v e l y .
J o s e p h u s has p r o m i s e d , in Ant. 2 0 : 2 6 6 , to elaborate u p o n his lineage
and the events o f his life, p r e s u m a b l y in s u p p o r t o f his c l a i m to s u p e r i o r
p r e c i s i o n (axpifktoc) in the laws ( 2 0 : 2 5 9 - 2 6 5 ) . I n fulfillment o f that p r o ­
m i s e , h e o p e n s the Life with a recital o f his priestly p e d i g r e e ( § § 1-6).
T h e n follows an a c c o u n t o f h o w h e c a m e to a c q u i r e p r e c i s i o n in the laws
b y the a g e o f fourteen ( § § 7 - 9 ) . T h e n c o m e s the d e s c r i p t i o n o f his adoles­
cent religious quest ( § § 1 0 - 1 2 ) , w h i c h is the focus o f this chapter.
2
The usual interpretation o f Life 10-12 is as f o l l o w s . A t age sixteen,
J o s e p h u s w a n t e d to gain p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e (epTietptoc) o f the three

1
So Schurer, Geschichte, I, 75; Niese, HZ, 227; Holscher, "Josephus", 1994; T . Ra­
jak, "Justus", 354. Contra R . Laqueur, Historiker, 246. Cf. chapter 13, above.
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

J e w i s h p h i l o s o p h i c a l s c h o o l s . H e t h o u g h t that, if h e investigated all o f


t h e m , h e w o u l d b e in a p o s i t i o n to c h o o s e the best (cb6pT)v atprjaea6at TTJV
aptanrjv, § 10). S o h e e m b a r k e d o n an intensive p r o g r a m m e o f training
in e a c h s c h o o l a n d , in a d d i t i o n , spent s o m e t i m e w i t h a baptist ascetic
n a m e d B a n n u s ( § 11). H i s investigation o f his o p t i o n s n o w c o m p l e t e (TTJV
l7Ct0upiav xeXetaxjas), J o s e p h u s made his d e c i s i o n in favour of the
Pharisaic s c h o o l (r|pl|aprjv 7uoXtTSusa0at xfj Oaptaatcov atpeaet xaxaxoXooOcov,
§ 12).
T h u s , for e x a m p l e , J . A . M o n t g o m e r y w r o t e that J o s e p h u s :

might flatter himself in later years that he had passed like a butterfly over
the various pastures o f wisdom until in maturity he lighted upon that which
pleased him best. At the age o f nineteen he made his choice and became
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

m i g h t c h o o s e the best. T h a t m u c h is clear. But h e g o e s o n to say that


his original intention w a s n o t fulfilled. T h e e x p e r i e n c e h e g a i n e d was n o t
sufficient to attract h i m to a n y o f the three s c h o o l s (prjSe TTJV eprcstptav
ixavrjv epeauxcp voptaa$ etvat, § 1 1 ) . T h a t is precisely w h y he w e n t to
follow B a n n u s in the w i l d e r n e s s .
T h e lifestyle o f this baptist ascetic, in contrast to that o f the a c c r e d i t e d
s c h o o l s , w a s so c o m p e l l i n g that J o s e p h u s b e c a m e his d e v o t e d disciple
(CYIXCOTTJC eyevoprjv OCUTOU). R . M a y e r a n d C . M o l l e r c o r r e c t l y n o t e :

Die Personlichkeit dieses Mannes [Bannus] sowie die Hauptelemente


seiner Lebenshaltung scheinen den jungen Josephus stark angesprochen zu
5
haben, denn er blieb drei Jahre bei i h m .

U n a c c o u n t a b l y , h o w e v e r , m o s t critics dismiss this three-year retreat—


which must have o c c u p i e d the bulk o f Josephus's experimentation
p e r i o d ! — a s a m e r e sidelight o r c o n c l u s i o n to the m a i n business o f study­
i n g the r e c o g n i z e d s c h o o l s .
A g a i n s t the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w , I s u b m i t that the p h r a s e xr)v eTCtOuptav
TeXettoaocs c a n n o t s i m p l y refer to the c o m p l e t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s originally
intended p r o g r a m m e o f preparation, as T h a c k e r a y r e n d e r s it: "having
accomplished my purpose". F o r this translation o v e r l o o k s the cor­
r e s p o n d e n c e b e t w e e n the aorist participles o f SiaxpiPto a n d xeXeto. W e
should rather translate § 12a:

Having lived with him three years


xat 8taTptc|>as reap' auxco evtamous xpets
and having (thereby) satisfied my yearning
xat TTJV emOuptav TeXettoaas
I returned to the city.
6l£ T7)V 7u6XtV U7CeaTp£90V.

T h e fulfillment o f J o s e p h u s ' s e7ci6i>pta is clearly tied, in c h r o n o l o g i c a l se­


q u e n c e , to his t i m e with B a n n u s . It p r e c e d e s the return to J e r u s a l e m a n d
the " f o l l o w i n g " o f the Pharisees.
W h a t , then, is the m e a n i n g o f emOupta? It c a n n o t refer to J o s e p h u s ' s
original " p u r p o s e " as h e d e s c r i b e s it in Life 10, b e c a u s e that p u r p o s e d i d
n o t i n c l u d e a l e n g t h y wilderness retreat with B a n n u s . T h e w o r d m u s t
refer, then, to the religious " l o n g i n g " o r " y e a r n i n g " that s p a w n e d his
p r o g r a m m e o f study in the first p l a c e . It w a s that y e a r n i n g that was
satisfied b y the religion o f B a n n u s .
Finally, the v e r b xeXeto e m p h a s i z e s that J o s e p h u s c o n s i d e r s his adoles­
cent religious quest to h a v e c l o s e d with his p e r i o d o f asceticism in the
wilderness, after w h i c h he b e g a n his p u b l i c career in the city ( § § 1 2 b ,

5
R. Mayer and C . Moller, "Josephus—Politiker und Prophet", in Josephus-Studien,
edd. O.Betz, K . Haacker, and P. Schafer (1974), 272.
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:

Josephus says that at the age of nineteen he began to adhere to the


Pharisaic sect. H e gives no reason for having done so ( V 12), and describes

6
So Paret, "Pharisaismus", 811.
7
Cf. War 1:110-114; Ant. 13:288-298, 400-432; 17:41-45.
346 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

it as a matter-of-course decision. It would make good sense if we supposed


that in the end he fell back upon the views with which he had been brought
8
up.

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

K e y w o r d s in the sentence are rcoXtTeueaOoii a n d xocxaxoXouGcov.


A c c o r d i n g t o L i d d e l l a n d S c o t t , rcoXtTeuopoct usually o c c u r s in G r e e k
literature with a sense that is closely related to the n o u n rcoXts, thus: " l i v e
as a free citizen, take part in g o v e r n m e n t , m e d d l e w i t h politics, h o l d
p u b l i c office, s h o w p u b l i c s p i r i t " . T h e y also g i v e , as a m e a n i n g r e p ­
resented largely in J e w i s h a n d Christian texts, " d e a l w i t h ( i n private af­
1 2
fairs), o r b e h a v e " . J o s e p h u s , a s a j e w w r i t i n g in G r e e k , w a s p r e s u m a b l y
eligible to use b o t h senses. T h i s creates t w o significantly different transla­
t i o n possibilities for TuoXixeueaOat in Life 1 2 b . G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , G e r m a n
c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e o p t e d for the sense " t o take part in p u b l i c l i f e " ,
w h e r e a s E n g l i s h - l a n g u a g e scholarship has t e n d e d to i n v o k e the sense " t o
behave".
T h e T h o m p s o n - P r i c e edition o f Josephus (1777) rendered § 12b: " I
b e g a n t o a p p l y m y s e l f to the study o f civil l a w , for w h i c h p u r p o s e I e n t e r e d
1 3
the society o f the P h a r i s e e s . " N o t i c e the clear distinction h e r e b e t w e e n
the m a i n clause ( " I b e g a n t o study civil l a w " ) a n d the s u b o r d i n a t e clause
( " f o r w h i c h p u r p o s e I e n t e r e d the society o f the P h a r i s e e s " ) . Other
English translations, h o w e v e r , h a v e i g n o r e d this distinction a n d h a v e
o m i t t e d a n y association o f 7coXixeuea6at w i t h civil life.
T h e m o s t influential has b e e n W . W h i s t o n ' s translation, w h i c h first a p ­
p e a r e d in 1737 b u t has g o n e t h r o u g h n u m e r o u s editions a n d is still in
print. A g a i n s t T h o m p s o n a n d P r i c e , he t o o k 7CoXiTeuea0ai to m e a n s o m e ­
t h i n g like " b e h a v e " , thus: " I b e g a n t o c o n d u c t m y s e l f a c c o r d i n g t o the
rules o f the sect o f the P h a r i s e e s " . T h i s r e n d e r i n g treats the sentence as
if it w e r e a single clause. W h i s t o n ' s translation w a s a d o p t e d b y the W o r l d
Library edition (1900) and m a y have influenced Thackeray's rendering
1 4
for the L o e b series ( 1 9 2 6 ) . T h e latter has: " I b e g a n t o g o v e r n m y life
b y the rules o f the P h a r i s e e s " . S i n c e the infinitiveTCoXtTeifeaOoctc o m b i n e s
w i t h the aorist f}pi-ap7)v to f o r m the m a i n clause o f § 1 2 b , the W h i s t o n /
T h a c k e r a y interpretation o frcoXtTeueaOoctreads the sentence as n o t h i n g
o t h e r than a definitive statement o f J o s e p h u s ' s conversion: what he
" b e g a n to d o " w a s " t o c o n d u c t his l i f e " b y the rules o f the Pharisees.
It is h a r d to g a u g e precisely the i m p a c t o f W h i s t o n a n d T h a c k e r a y o n
a n g l o p h o n e scholarship, b u t that i m p a c t is u n d e n i a b l y f o r m i d a b l e . A l l
o f the m a j o r English-speaking c o m m e n t a t o r s take the phrase 7)p£dpT)v
TcoXixeueaOai as a c o n v e r s i o n statement, w i t h the sense that J o s e p h u s

1 2
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

b e c a m e a Pharisee. S i n c e it is d e m o n s t r a b l e that these critics are


generally influenced b y the L o e b t r a n s l a t i o n — m a n y cite it verbatim—, it
is p r o b a b l e that their interpretations o f Life 12b are n o t w h o l l y in­
15
dependent.
G e r m a n scholars, t h o u g h they also tend to see Life 12 as p r o o f o f
J o s e p h u s ' s d e c i s i o n to b e c o m e a Pharisee, h a v e b y a n d large taken
rjp£<xpT)vrcoXiTeueaOocias a distinct m a i n clause, referring to J o s e p h u s ' s en­
try into political o r p u b l i c life. C o n s i d e r the f o l l o w i n g translations and
paraphrases o f Life 1 2 b ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d w h e r e it a p p e a r s ) .
( a ) B . N i e s e ( 1 8 9 6 ) : " E r g i n g b e i d e n drei Sekten . . . u m d a n n m i t
19 J a h r e n in das djfentliche Leben einzutreten; er schloss sich d e n L e h r e n d e r
1 6
Pharisaer an."
(b) G . Holscher (1916): " b i s er als N e u n z e h n j a h r i g e r . . . nach
J e r u s a l e m zuriickgekehrt u n d als A n h a n g e r d e r pharisaischen atpeats in
17
den Staatsdienst getreten sei" ,
( c ) H . R a s p ( 1 9 2 4 ) : " I m n e u n z e h n t e n J a h r e h a b e er seine V o r b e r e i -
t u n g a b g e s c h l o s s e n . . . u n d die offentliche Laufbahn (rcoXtTeueaGat) als M i t -
18
glied d e r Pharisaersekte (TTJ Oocptaocuov atpeaet XOCTOCXOXOUG&V) begonnen."
( d ) L . Hafaeli ( 1 9 2 5 ) : " U n d d a n n mit 19 J a h r e n fing ich an, mich im
offentlichen Leben zu betdtigen u n d z w a r n a c h d e m P r o g r a m m d e r Pharisaer­
1 9
sekte."
( e ) A . Schlatter ( 1 9 3 2 ) : " b i s er sich 19 j a h r i g entschloss, ' i m A n ­
20
schluss an die Partei d e r Pharisaer zu politisieren'" .
(f) E . L o h s e ( 1 9 7 1 ) : " k e h r t e m i t n e u n z e h n J a h r e n n a c h J e r u s a l e m
zuriick, schloss sich d e n Pharisaern an u n d begann, sich im offentlichen
21
Leben zu betdtigen".
( g ) H . - F . W e i s s ( 1 9 7 9 ) : " d a s s er als N e u n z e h n j a h r i g e r . . . begonnen
2 2
habe, ' i m A n s c h l u s s an die Partei d e r Pharisaer zu politisieren'"
It is r e m a r k a b l e that the G e r m a n c o m m e n t a t o r s s h o u l d so consistently
( a n d i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) take TCoXtxeueaGoct in the sense o f p u b l i c activity,
while their a n g l o p h o n e counterparts generally refer it to J o s e p h u s ' s

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

o r d e r i n g o f his o w n life o r b e h a v i o u r . T h e G e r m a n translations of


rcoXixeueaOoci cited a b o v e ( a l o n g w i t h T h o m p s o n - P r i c e ) g i v e an entirely
new c o m p l e x i o n to Life 1 2 b : the m a i n clause n o w m e a n s that J o s e p h u s
b e g a n to i n v o l v e h i m s e l f in p u b l i c affairs. H i s c o n n e c t i o n with the
Pharisees n o w appears o n l y in the f o u r - w o r d d e p e n d e n t clause, xfj
Oocptaocuov atpeaet XOCTOCXOXOUGCDV. T h i s shift, as w e shall see presently, is
o f m o n u m e n t a l significance.
A d e c i s i o n a b o u t the m e a n i n g o frcoXtTeueaGociin Life 1 2 b m u s t b a s e
itself o n ( a ) J o s e p h u s ' s u s a g e o f the w o r d elsewhere a n d ( b ) the i m ­
m e d i a t e c o n t e x t in this c a s e .
The v e r b 7i;oXtT£U<o o c c u r s thirty times in J o s e p h u s , in all three v o i c e s ;
half o f these o c c u r r e n c e s are in the m i d d l e v o i c e . J o s e p h u s uses rcoXiTeuoo
2 3 2 4
in the active to m e a n " n e g o t i a t e " , " a c t officially o r p u b l i c l y " , "for­
2 5 2 6
mulate p o l i c y " , o r , in Ant. 17, " b e h a v e t o w a r d ( s o m e o n e ) " . I n the
passive, the v e r b generally m e a n s " b e g o v e r n e d " o r " l i v e u n d e r a (par­
2 7
ticular) r e g i m e " .
In its fifteen occurrences outside of our passage, the middle
TCoXiTeuopoci is invariably p r e d i c a t e d o f a p u b l i c figure. A s with the active
v o i c e , the m i d d l e o c c u r s t w i c e in Ant. 17 w i t h the m e a n i n g " b e h a v e "
( 1 7 : 1 0 3 , 2 4 3 ) . But the subjects h e r e are the sons o f H e r o d the G r e a t a n d
the issue is their b e h a v i o u r t o w a r d their father; it is a fine line that
separates their family intrigues f r o m p u b l i c affairs. In a n y case, all o f
these o c c u r r e n c e s o frcoXiT£u<owith the sense " t o b e h a v e o r a c t " w h e t h e r
in the active o r m i d d l e v o i c e , are c o n s p i c u o u s l y c o n c e n t r a t e d in Ant. 17,
28
w h i c h is f a m o u s for its stylistic p e c u l i a r i t i e s . T h e material o n H e r o d ' s
family struggles m a y e v e n b e i n f l u e n c e d b y the style o f J o s e p h u s ' s
2 9
source.
U s u a l l y , h o w e v e r , rcoXtxeuopat in J o s e p h u s has the sense " t o g o v e r n ,
h o l d office, enact p o l i c y , act as a l e a d e r " , o r the like. J o s e p h u s speaks,
for e x a m p l e , o f the " p u b l i c m e a s u r e s " taken b y M o s e s (oaa Moouafjs
ETCoXtTeuaocTO, Ant. 4 : 1 3 ) a n d b y Q u e e n A l e x a n d r a S a l o m e (Ant. 13:432).
He uses the w o r d to d e s c r i b e the activities o f the five r e g i o n a l g o v e r n i n g
c o u n c i l s established b y G a b i n i u s (ercoXtTeuovTO ot ev 'IepoaoXupot?, Ant.

2 3
Ant. 1:253.
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

14:91). T h e sons o f B a b a , w h o are d e s c r i b e d as p r o m i n e n t public


30
figures, are said to h a v e f o l l o w e d a p o l i c y (£7COXIT£UOVTO) o f e n d o r s i n g
Antigonus o v e r against the young Herod (Ant. 15:263). Josephus
remarks that the P a r t h i a n a r i s t o c r a c y c o n s i d e r e d it i m p o s s i b l e to g o v e r n
(7toXtT£uea6at) w i t h o u t a m o n a r c h y (Ant. 1 8 : 4 4 ) . Finally, J o s e p h u s c o n ­
cludes his a c c o u n t o f the h i g h - p r i e s d y succession with the n o t i c e : " S o m e
o f these h e l d office (e7coXtxeuaavTo) d u r i n g the reigns o f H e r o d a n d A r ­
3 1
chelaus his s o n " (Ant. 20:251).
O u t s i d e o f o u r passage, 7uoXixeuopai o c c u r s twice in the Life, b o t h times
in c o n n e c t i o n with J o s e p h u s ' s d e f e n c e o f his leadership in the G a l i l e e .
In § 2 5 8 , h e is r e s p o n d i n g to the d e l e g a t i o n sent f r o m J e r u s a l e m to
replace h i m . R e b u t t i n g the c h a r g e that h e has acted as a tyrant rather
than as a general (cf. § 2 6 0 ) , J o s e p h u s appeals to the t e s t i m o n y o f the
Galileans: " A s k t h e m h o w I h a v e l i v e d a n d w h e t h e r I h a v e g o v e r n e d
(7t£7coXtT£upat) here with c o m p l e t e d i g n i t y a n d virtue" (Thackeray).
Josephus then ( m a g n a n i m o u s l y ! ) offers to p a r d o n the delegation—
against the wishes o f the G a l i l e a n s , w h o h a v e b e c o m e i n d i g n a n t o n his
b e h a l f ( § 2 6 2 ) — o n the c o n d i t i o n that the emissaries repent o f their
designs a n d " g i v e a true r e p o r t a b o u t m y p u b l i c life (7cept TCOV i p o t
7C£7roXtT£up£Vcov) to those w h o h a d sent t h e m " ( T h a c k e r a y ) . S i n c e the
w h o l e issue in the d e l e g a t i o n affair is J o s e p h u s ' s m a n n e r o f leadership
in the G a l i l e e , T h a c k e r a y m u s t b e c o r r e c t in translating 7coXtT£uopoct here
as referring to J o s e p h u s ' s p u b l i c activities a n d p o l i c i e s .
Ordinarily, then, J o s e p h u s uses 7toXtT£uopoct in its p r i m a r y sense,
w h i c h is linked to the noXiq, thus: to g o v e r n , enact p o l i c y , s h o w p u b l i c
spirit, a n d so forth.
T h a t he uses the v e r b w i t h this s a m e sense in Life 1 2 b — " t o e n g a g e
in p u b l i c affairs"—is made clear b y the immediate c o n t e x t o f the
sentence. J o s e p h u s has j u s t finished d e s c r i b i n g his three years in the
wilderness (iprjptoc) with B a n n u s ( § § l l - 1 2 a ) . H e c o n c l u d e s that e p i s o d e
with the r e m a r k : " m y y e a r n i n g n o w satisfied, I r e t u r n e d to the city (£t<;
T7|v 7c6Xiv u7t£<JTp£<pov, § 1 2 a ) . I m m e d i a t e l y after these w o r d s c o m e s o u r
sentence: " A n d n o w , b e i n g n i n e t e e n years o f a g e , rjp5dtpr)v 7toXiT£u£a6at"
(§ 1 2 b ) . T h e p r o x i m i t y o f nokiq a n drcoXtTeueaOoctsuggests the f o l l o w i n g
interpretation: " F o l l o w i n g m y p r o t r a c t e d wilderness retreat, I r e t u r n e d
to the city (noXiq) a n d b e g a n to e n g a g e in p u b l i c affairs (7ToXtT£U£a6ai)."
Biblical-Jewish history c o m m o n l y saw the desert as the p l a c e for m e e t i n g

3 0
According to Ant. 15:263, they "had a high position and great influence with the
masses'' (Marcus/Wikgren).
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

meritators who have not been influenced by Whiston and Thackeray,


namely, Thompson-Price and the German critics cited earlier.
The verb xocToexoXouOeo) is not as problematic. Liddell and Scott give
the meanings "follow after, comply with, obey, emulate, and imitate".
It occurs in Josephus only 20 times.
The construction of the xonraxoXouOeco-clause in Life 12b—indirect
(dative) object straddling the possessive genitive + final participle/
verb—fits well with Josephan style elsewhere, for example:

(a) Life 12b: zfj Oapiaoctoov ocipsaet xaxaxoXouO&v


(b) iln*. 1:14: TOT$ ptev Oeou yvcbprj xaxaxoXouOouai
(0 Ant. 6:147: xatq iwoXaiG auxou xaxaxoXouGouvTe?
(d) iln*. 8:271: -zoXq TOO (3aaiXea>s o\at^r\[ioLQi xaTaxoXouOrjae

A variation has the verb as the penultimate element:

(e) i4n*. 6:133: Moouaeo$ xocTaxoXouOrjaavT' ivxokcuq


(0 Ant. 9:99: xotq TG)V 'IaparjXtTcov (SaatXecov xaTr)xoXouOr)aev aat$r\-
(juxcn
(g) iln*. 9:233: tfj TOO Tcaxpo? xocTaxoXouOrjaas (bfJLorrjTi

One can detect at least four nuances of the verb xocxocxoXouOeoo in


Josephus. Only once does it have the sense of physical "following"; that
is when Samuel pursues the Philistines (Ant. 6 : 2 8 ) . Once also it means
"to agree with". Josephus complains that Greek historians have never
agreed with one another (ouSe aXXrjXot$ xaTTjxoXouOrjxaat, Ag.Ap. 1:17).
M o r e commonly, the verb suggests obedience or conformity to the
laws, the commandments, or to God's will. Josephus has written his
Ant., he says, to show that those who conform to God's will (Oeou yvojprj
xocToexoXouOouat) prosper in everything ( 1 : 1 4 ) . Samuel tells Saul that all
the Amalekites must be massacred, in obedience to the commands of
M o s e s (TOCT$ Moauaeos xaTaxoXouGrjaavT' CVTOXOCTS, Ant. 6 : 1 3 3 ) . T h e Deity,
Samuel exhorts, is only pleased with those who obey his will and his
commands (6:147). It was by following the laws (TOT$ vopoi$
xocToexoXouOcav) that Josiah succeeded so well in his administration. In
these cases, xocToexoXouOeo) takes an impersonal object: one obeys, or com­
34
plies with, some sort of instructions or l a w s .
The other way in which Josephus uses xotTaxoXouOeo) lacks this strong
sense of obligation or duty: the idea is rather "to follow an example or
model, to emulate or imitate". In this case the object is not a law but

3 4
Cf. Ant. 5:73; 8:339; 12:255.
JOSEPHUS'S RELIGIOUS QUEST 353

a paradigm, a person, or a person's actions. Thus Josephus relates that


the people began to imitate the impious ways of K i n g Jeroboam (Ant.
8:271) and that the Judean king Jehoram emulated the impious ways of
his Israelite counterparts (9:99). In Ant. 12:269, the officers o f Antiochus
I V tell the Hasmonean Mattathias that if he sacrifices on their pagan
altar, the other Jews will follow his example (xocTaxoXouftrjaeiv a t k a ) ) . In
this sense, then, xa?axoXoo6£a> means to follow a personal example,
35
precedent, or m o d e l .
It is impossible to say a priori, therefore, precisely what xaxocxoXouOdco
means in Life 12b. T h e way in which Josephus "followed" the school of
the Pharisees must be determined from the context. Crucial is the func­
tion of the verb in the sentence:
^p^aprjv 7roXiTeuea0at
T7j Oaptaatcov atp£aet xaxaxoXouOcov
The main clause tells us that Josephus began to involve himself in public
affairs. W e are obliged to assume that the dependent clause, in which
xoruocxoXooOeco stands, is dependent on the main clause for its meaning.
Thus, Josephus's following of the Pharisaic school is somehow related to
his career as a public figure.

III. Interpretation of Life 12b

In what way did Josephus's entry into public life involve him in "follow­
ing' ' the Pharisaic school? W e are not totally without clues. H e has con­
sistently asserted, in War and Ant., that the Pharisees constitute the
dominant school among the Jews (War 2:162; Ant. 13:288-298, 4 0 1 ;
18:15). Their influence affects not only what we should distinguish as the
"religious" sphere (cf. Ant. 18:15—prayers and rites) but also the whole
operation of the state. Thus when John Hyrcanus abrogated the
Pharisaic ordinances, according to Josephus, the masses reacted with in­
tense hostility (Ant. 13:297-298).
Pharisaic influence among the people is so profound, Josephus insists,
that even the Sadducees are compelled to follow Pharisaic dictates. H e
says of the Sadducees that:
9
whenever they come into a position of leadership (in apx&S 7cocp£X8otev),
they defer, albeit unwillingly and by necessity (axouat<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

N o w if the S a d d u c e e s , w h o are the relentless o p p o n e n t s o f the Pharisees,


nonetheless defer (7cpoaxcop£co) to " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " w h e n they
take positions o f leadership, it s h o u l d o c c a s i o n n o surprise that the anti-
Pharisaic J o s e p h u s , when he entered public life, also " f o l l o w e d the s c h o o l o f
the P h a r i s e e s " . But this d o e s n o t m a k e h i m a Pharisee a n y m o r e than
it m a k e s the S a d d u c e e s Pharisees. T h e v e r b Ttpocrxcopeco—"to g o o v e r t o ,
o r side w i t h " — w h i c h he uses o f the S a d d u c e e s ' d e f e r e n c e to the
Pharisees, w o u l d s e e m to b e at least as strong as the v a g u e xotTOixoXouOeco
that he uses o f his o w n relationship to the d o m i n a n t s c h o o l . B y his o w n
a c c o u n t , c o n c e s s i o n s to the Pharisaic s c h o o l w e r e a conditio sine qua non
o f J e w i s h life. H i s a d h e r e n c e to Pharisaic w a y s , like that o f the Sad­
d u c e e s , w a s b o t h tied to a n d limited to ( s o far as w e k n o w ) his p u b l i c
career.
T h e interpretation o f Life 1 2 b offered here agrees ( i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) with
the j u d g e m e n t o f o n e E . G e r l a c h ( 1 8 6 3 ) , w h i c h has generally b e e n ig­
n o r e d since h e m a d e it. G e r l a c h w r o t e :

M a n nimmt sie [Life 12] falschlich fur eine ausdriickliche Erklarung des
Josephus, dass er schliesslich ein Anhanger der Pharisaer geworden sei,
wahrend sie in der That nichts weiter bezeichnet, als dass er sich im
36
politischen Leben den Pharisaern angeschlossen h a b e .

It m a y e v e n b e that the final w o r d s o f Life 1 2 b , w h i c h c o m p a r e the


Pharisees to the Stoics, are i n t e n d e d to r e m i n d the r e a d e r o f what
Josephus has said elsewhere a b o u t the pervasive influence o f the
37
Pharisees in J e w i s h s o c i e t y .
H o w e v e r o n e interprets the Pharisee/Stoic parallel, several points in
the interpretation o f Life 1 2 b d o s e e m secure. J o s e p h u s ' s religious quest
f o u n d its fulfillment in his three-year wilderness retreat with B a n n u s
(Life 1 1 - 1 2 a ) . After this t i m e o f preparation in the desert, J o s e p h u s
returned to the TZOXK; ( § 12a) a n d e m b a r k e d u p o n his p u b l i c career
(rjp£apr)v 7toXiTeuea6ai, § 1 2 b ) . Implicit in this p u b l i c activity w a s a certain

3 6
E. Gerlach, Weissagungen, 18.
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

a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of, o r d e f e r e n c e t o , the Pharisaic s c h o o l (TTJ Oocpiaoctcov


atp£aet xaxaxoXouOtov), a fact o f life that e v e n the S a d d u c e e s r e c o g n i z e d
(Ant. 18:17).

Summary and Conclusion

F o r a n g l o p h o n e scholars generally, the w h o l e i m p o r t o f the sentence


rjpS-aprjvrcoXtTeueaOatxfj Oaptaattov atpeaet xaxaxoXouOtov in Life 1 2 b is that
J o s e p h u s c h o s e to b e c o m e a Pharisee, that h e : " b e c a m e a c o n v i n c e d
3 8
Pharisee a c c o r d i n g to his own mind"; "attached h i m s e l f to the
39 4 0
Pharisees"; " c h o s e to f o l l o w the Pharisaic r u l e s " ; " w a s a Pharisee,
w h o h a d j o i n e d the g r o u p after s a m p l i n g what all the current sects h a d
4 1 42
to o f f e r " ; " b e g a n to follow the legal system o f the P h a r i s e e s " ; "chose
4 3 4 4
Pharisaism"; " b e g a n to a d h e r e t o the Pharisaic s e c t " . A l l o f these
paraphrases p r o b a b l y , a n d m o s t o f t h e m d e m o n s t r a b l y , are i n f l u e n c e d
b y T h a c k e r a y ' s translation for the L o e b series.
T h a t translation is, h o w e v e r , i m p l a u s i b l e . T h e l o g i c o f the p a r a g r a p h
( § § 10-12) militates against it. M o r e o v e r , to j u d g e b y n o r m a l Greek
u s a g e , b y J o s e p h u s ' s usual p r a c t i c e , a n d b y the c o n t e x t o f § 1 2 b , the
m a i n clause (r|pi-ap7)v 7CoXtxeuea0ai) refers t o J o s e p h u s ' s e n t r y into p u b l i c
life. Interpreters w h o are n o t i n f l u e n c e d b y the L o e b translation s e e m to
agree ( i n d e p e n d e n t l y ) that 7toXiTSuea0at here d o e s n o t m e a n "behave"
b u t rather " e n g a g e in p u b l i c a f f a i r s " .
In spite of this significant difference in the interpretation of
7toXiTeuea6<xi, e v e r y o n e is a g r e e d that Life 12 expresses J o s e p h u s ' s c l a i m
to h a v e b e c o m e a Pharisee. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n has often p r o v i d e d the p o i n t
of departure for m o d e r n scholarship on Josephus, whether source-
critical, t h e o l o g i c a l , s o c i o l o g i c a l , o r b i o g r a p h i c a l . T h e few interpreters o f
Josephus who do not depend much on his "claim" to Pharisaic
allegiance still b e l i e v e that he m a d e the c l a i m ; their p r o b l e m is to r e c o n ­
cile that c l a i m w i t h the results o f their o w n analyses, w h i c h d o n o t find
4 5
clear Pharisaic traits in J o s e p h u s .
W h a t is the basis o f this e n o r m o u s w e i g h t o f scholarship? E v e r y t h i n g
d e p e n d s o n the f o u r - w o r d d e p e n d e n t clause in Life 1 2 b : TTJ Oapiaatcov

3 8
Montgomery, "Religion", 281.
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

Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 is significant for this study b e c a u s e it is the o n l y p a s s a g e in


w h i c h J o s e p h u s r e c o u n t s in a n y detail his p e r s o n a l dealings w i t h specific
1
Pharisees. Furthermore, it cannot be attributed to non-Josephan
s o u r c e s . H e r e m o r e than a n y w h e r e , then, o n e e x p e c t s o u r a u t h o r ' s real
attitude t o w a r d the Pharisees to c o m e f o r w a r d . I n particular: if J o s e p h u s
intended Life 12b to be a forthright declaration o f his Pharisaic
allegiance, as is generally b e l i e v e d , w e s h o u l d e x p e c t Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 t o
substantiate that d e c l a r a t i o n in s o m e w a y . T h e f o l l o w i n g analysis will re­
veal, h o w e v e r , that in this passage b o t h the r e n o w n e d Pharisee S i m o n
ben G a m a l i e l a n d the mostly-Pharisaic d e l e g a t i o n that is sent t o r e p l a c e
J o s e p h u s r e c e i v e distinctly hostile c o v e r a g e .
S i n c e the s o u r c e q u e s t i o n is irrelevant here a n d since the passage
b e f o r e us offers little n e w i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t Pharisaic b e l i e f o r p r a c t i c e ,
the m a j o r q u e s t i o n for o u r analysis will b e that o f J o s e p h u s ' s attitude
t o w a r d , a n d relationship t o , the Pharisees. W e m u s t ask w h y h e m e n ­
tions these Pharisees w h e n h e d o e s a n d w h a t function they serve in his
narrative.

I. Context

W h e n J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s w r o t e his d a m a g i n g a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h w a r ,
he e v i d e n t l y raised o n e matter that c a u s e d J o s e p h u s particular d i s c o m ­
fort. T h a t w a s the fact that the J e r u s a l e m c o u n c i l , w h i c h i n c l u d e d such
n o t a b l e s as the h i g h priest a n d the Pharisee S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l , h a d
s o u g h t to relieve J o s e p h u s o f his c o m m a n d in the G a l i l e e . T h a t J u s t u s
did raise the subject is clear f r o m Life 3 3 6 : J o s e p h u s has j u s t g i v e n his
v e r s i o n o f these events ( § § 1 8 9 - 3 3 5 ) a n d n o w turns t o address J u s t u s ,
who, h e says, " h a s p r o d u c e d his o w n a c c o u n t o f those a f f a i r s " (rfjv Tiept
2
TOUTCOV rcporfpocTeiocv).

1
Life 21 mentions Josephus's meeting (again,rcoiXiv)with "the chief priests and
leading Pharisees" (TOU; dcpxiepeuaiv xat TO!$ 7Cpa>xoi? xwv Oapiaaiaiv). He implies that he
was an associate of this group (cf. rj{X6t<;, § 22) and states that he and they opposed the
revolt (§§ 22f.). He does not, however, mention any dealings with individual Pharisees.
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

T h e embarrassment that J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t c a u s e d J o s e p h u s c a n b e


m e a s u r e d b y a c o m p a r i s o n o f Life with War. In War 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 , J o s e p h u s
h a d g i v e n his o w n b r i e f story o f the attempt t o r e p l a c e h i m as c o m ­
m a n d e r o f the G a l i l e e . T h e r e , h e g l i d e d o v e r the w h o l e affair as j u s t an­
3
o t h e r o f J o h n o f G i s c h a l a ' s nasty p l o t s , a plot that J o s e p h u s o v e r c a m e
b y virtue o f his p o p u l a r s u p p o r t . I n War, h e d i d n o t n a m e a n y o f the
authorities that w e r e b e h i n d the m o v e t o oust h i m b u t referred v a g u e l y
to " t h e p o w e r f u l a n d certain o f the l e a d e r s " (oi ouvaxot . . . xal TCOV
apxovrcov Tiv£$), w h o h a d a c t e d o u t o f e n v y (xaxa 9O0VOV) ( 2 : 6 2 7 ) .
It s e e m s clear that J u s t u s , in his a c c o u n t , c h a l l e n g e d J o s e p h u s ' s story
b y r e v e a l i n g the identity o f these ouvaxot a n d apxovxe^, w h o m J o s e p h u s
h a d so blithely d i s m i s s e d . T h e y w e r e n o n e o t h e r than the eminent
scholar a n d p u b l i c figure S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l a n d the c h i e f priests
A n a n u s a n d J e s u s . J u s t u s , it s e e m s , w o u l d n o t a l l o w J o s e p h u s s i m p l y t o
write o f f all o f his o p p o n e n t s as " b r i g a n d s " a n d " r e b e l s " . W h a t e v e r
J u s t u s w r o t e a b o u t the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e m u s t h a v e affected J o s e p h u s
c o n s i d e r a b l y , for h e n o w d e v o t e s m o r e than o n e third o f the m a i n b o d y
o f Life ( § § 1 8 9 - 3 3 5 ) to his o w n v e r s i o n o f the story. T o his credit,
p e r h a p s , he d o e s n o t d e p a r t substantially f r o m his earlier c l a i m s that the
leaders acted f r o m e n v y w h e n they m o v e d t o r e p l a c e h i m a n d that
p o p u l a r s u p p o r t w a s always o n his side; nevertheless, h e m u s t n o w a r g u e
those p o i n t s w h i l e at the s a m e t i m e c o n c e d i n g the stature o f the leaders
i n v o l v e d , w h i c h h a d b e e n b r o u g h t to light b y J u s t u s . T h u s a m a j o r c o n ­
c e r n o f the Life is to e x p l a i n h o w it c a m e a b o u t that the r e s p e c t e d h e a d s
4
o f the n a t i o n w e r e calling for J o s e p h u s ' s d i s m i s s a l .
5
D e s p i t e its w e l l - k n o w n literary s h o r t c o m i n g s , J o s e p h u s ' s Life reveals
a good measure o f forethought and structural arrangement. This
b e c o m e s o b v i o u s , for e x a m p l e , in the o p e n i n g w o r d s o f o u r passage ( §
1 8 9 ) : " N o w the hatred that J o h n , s o n o f L e v i , h a r b o u r e d against m e
because of my success (su^pa-fta) was g r o w i n g steadily (rcpoarjuljeTO
papecos)." T h e s e w o r d s e v o k e a t h e m e that underlies the w h o l e o f Life,
n a m e l y , the c o m p e t i t i o n b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J o h n o f G i s c h a l a for the

3
The unfavourable description of John begins at War 2:585.
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

allegiance o f the G a l i l e e . J o s e p h u s m a k e s the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e ( § § 189-


3 3 5 ) , w h i c h b e g i n s with o u r passage ( § § 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 ) , the c l i m a c t i c phase
o f that struggle: the effort to h a v e J o s e p h u s r e p l a c e d w a s J o h n ' s b o l d e s t
move.
J o s e p h u s first i n t r o d u c e d J o h n in friendly terms: like J o s e p h u s , h e h a d
6
tried to restrain his c o m p a t r i o t s f r o m revolt against R o m e ( § § 4 3 f . ) .
W h e n , h o w e v e r , his native t o w n w a s attacked b y n e i g h b o u r i n g G r e e k
cities, J o h n a b a n d o n e d that p o l i c y , a r m e d his f o l l o w e r s , defeated his
e n e m i e s , a n d fortified G i s c h a l a ( § 4 4 ) . W h e n J o s e p h u s next e n c o u n t e r s
h i m , J o h n has b e c o m e " b e n t o n r e v o l u t i o n a n d e a g e r for the c o m m a n d
o f the G a l i l e e " (veooxepcov 6pey6pevov 7upaypaTcav xat vf\q apxffc irctOuptav
e'xovxa, § § 7 0 f . ) . T h u s b e g i n s the t h e m e o f J o h n ' s e n v y (906vo$), w h i c h
is w o v e n into the narrative at strategic p o i n t s (cf. § § 70f., 84f., 1 2 2 f . )
so as to reach a c l i m a x w i t h the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e ( § § 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 ) .
A s J o s e p h u s ' s rival, J o h n is e v e r y w h e r e c o n c e r n e d to p e r s u a d e the
G a l i l e a n cities to defect f r o m J o s e p h u s to himself; h e e v e n tries to
7
assassinate the J e r u s a l e m i t e . T h a t he h a d s o m e success in his efforts is
c o n c e d e d b y J o s e p h u s . T h e latter tells us that, o f the three m a j o r cities
in G a l i l e e , G a b a r a w e n t o v e r to J o h n c o m p l e t e l y , T i b e r i a s b e f r i e n d e d
h i m ( b u t d i d n o t w a n t to r e v o l t ) , a n d S e p p h o r i s rejected b o t h suitors; in
o t h e r w o r d s , it w a s a s c o r e o f " t w o - n o t h i n g " for J o h n (Life 1 2 3 f . ) . M o s t
significant is the n o t i c e that J u s t u s o f T i b e r i a s , the a u t h o r o f the rival
history that J o s e p h u s is here c o m b a t t i n g , w a s o n e o f J o h n ' s early sup­
porters ( § § 8 7 f . ) . T h i s d a t u m indicates that w h e n J u s t u s told his a c c o u n t
o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e , h e w a s n o t g i v i n g an i d i o s y n c r a t i c critique o f
J o s e p h u s so m u c h as h e w a s p r e s e n t i n g the p e r s p e c t i v e o f a c r e d i b l e o p ­
position party, headed b y J o h n o f Gischala.
T o s u m m a r i z e : early in J o s e p h u s ' s t e n u r e as G a l i l e a n c o m m a n d e r ,
the J e r u s a l e m authorities sent a f o u r - m a n d e l e g a t i o n to replace h i m .
W h e n h e w r o t e War, J o s e p h u s i n c l u d e d a b r i e f a c c o u n t o f the e p i s o d e ,
in o r d e r to illustrate b o t h the strength o f his o w n p o p u l a r s u p p o r t and
the t h o r o u g h l y evil nature o f his a d v e r s a r y , J o h n o f G i s c h a l a . J o s e p h u s
easily t r i u m p h e d o v e r this knavish trick ( 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 ) . J u s t u s ' s a c c o u n t o f
the w a r , h o w e v e r , m a d e a great deal m o r e o f this e p i s o d e . J u s t u s w a s
a s u p p o r t e r o f J o h n a n d d o u b t l e s s p o i n t e d o u t the n o b l e r side o f the
m a n ' s character. H e p r o b a b l y tried to s h o w that J o h n w a s basically a
m o d e r a t e , that J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f h a d originally b e e n friendly toward

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

To facilitate analysis o f this l e n g t h y passage, I shall c o n s i d e r it in four


b l o c k s , as follows: ( a ) i n t r o d u c t i o n to the e p i s o d e a n d to S i m o n ( § § 189-
192); ( b ) S i m o n ' s initial b i d to r e m o v e J o s e p h u s ( § § 1 9 3 - 1 9 5 a ) ; ( c ) his
resort to b r i b e r y ( § § 1 9 5 b - 1 9 6 a ) ; a n d ( d ) the delegation a n d its m i s s i o n
(§§ 196b-198).

A . Introduction of Simon ben Gamaliel (189-192)

(189) N o w the hatred that J o h n , s o n o f L e v i , h a r b o u r e d against m e


b e c a u s e o f m y success w a s g r o w i n g steadily. D e t e r m i n e d b y all m e a n s
to h a v e m e r e m o v e d , h e fortified his native G i s c h a l a ( 1 9 0 ) a n d then
dispatched his b r o t h e r S i m o n , a l o n g with J o h n , s o n o f Sisenna, a n d
a b o u t a h u n d r e d a r m e d m e n , to J e r u s a l e m .
He sent t h e m to S i m o n , s o n o f G a m a l i e l , u r g i n g h i m to persuade the
f
J e r u s a l e m a s s e m b l y (TO xotvdv TCOV IepoaoXuptTtov) to d e p r i v e m e o f the
c o m m a n d o f the Galilee (TTJV apx^v d^eXopevo^ epe TCOV TaXiXatcov) a n d to
v o t e the office to J o h n .
(191) T h i s S i m o n w a s b o r n in the city o f J e r u s a l e m ; h e c a m e f r o m a v e r y
prestigious family (yevous 8e a9o8pa Xaprcpou) a n d w a s f r o m the school o f

8
So also Luther, Josephus und Justus, 75f. Luther doubts, however, that the basis of
this friendship had been a mutual opposition to the revolt. He thinks rather that
Josephus and John were both rebels originally and that Josephus invented the story in Life
in order to explain the friendship, which Justus had pointed out.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, A N D T H E DELEGATION 361

the Pharisees, w h o are r e p u t e d to ( o r profess t o ) excel the others in their


p r e c i s i o n c o n c e r n i n g the national laws (ot rcepl TOCrcaTptav 6 p i p a Soxouatv
TCOV aXXcov axpi[kta 8ta9epetv).
(192) Full o f sagacity and reasoning p o w e r (izkr\pr\<; ouveaeco? xat
Xoytapou), this m a n h a d the ability, b y his o w n practical w i s d o m , to set
in o r d e r matters that w e r e a w r y (7ipaypaTa xaxto£ xetpeva 9povr}<j£t TTJ
eauxou StopOcoaaaOat). A n o l d a n d close friend o f J o h n ' s , he w a s at o d d s
with m e at the time (9CX0S Te rcaXatos TCO 'Icoavvcp xat OUVT|0TIS, npbq £pe 8e
TOTe 8ta9opco<; etxev).

M o s t c o m m e n t a t o r s o n J o s e p h u s , a l t h o u g h they read Life 12b as an


a v o w a l o f Pharisaic allegiance, practically i g n o r e Life 189-198 a n d
w h a t e v e r i m p l i c a t i o n s it m i g h t h a v e for the interpretation o f the earlier
passage. T h o s e w h o d o b o t h e r to treat this story tend to focus exclusively
o n the a b o v e portrayal o f S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l .
9
Neusner and Rivkin both consider our passage, but both o f them
s e e m to o v e r l o o k the issues o f c o n t e x t , function, a n d m e a n i n g . Instead,
they are c o n c e r n e d to find s u p p o r t for their respective theses a b o u t
J o s e p h u s a n d the Pharisees.
N e u s n e r , it will b e recalled, sets o u t to fortify S m i t h ' s hypothesis that
Ant. -Life c o m m e n d s the Pharisees to the R o m a n s as the g r o u p m o s t eligi­
ble to g o v e r n Palestine. O n l y this m o t i v e c a n e x p l a i n N e u s n e r ' s inter­
pretive c o m m e n t s o n Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 5 , w h i c h m a y b e q u o t e d in full:

The Pharisees invariably are represented as experts in the law. O f greater


importance, some Pharisees come before us as important politicians, in
charge of the conduct of the war, able to make or break commanders in
the field. In Jerusalem they enjoyed the highest offices. Their leaders are
men of great political experience and great power. So much for the
10
Pharisees o f Josephus's Life.

T h e s e remarks are generalizations o f the d e s c r i p t i o n o f S i m o n in § § 191-


192. T h e y take n o a c c o u n t o f the rest o f the p a s s a g e — f o r e x a m p l e , o f
J o s e p h u s ' s n o t i c e that he a n d S i m o n w e r e at v a r i a n c e ( § 1 9 2 ) . N o r d o e s
N e u s n e r e x p l a i n the c o n t e x t in a n y w a y . But J o s e p h u s , w e h a v e seen,
is w r i t i n g to d e f e n d his o w n c a u s e ; he is n o t w r i t i n g to praise the
Pharisees, w h o o p p o s e d h i m , o r to present t h e m as m o d e l g o v e r n o r s .
Similarly, R i v k i n i g n o r e s basic questions o f c o n t e x t a n d m e a n i n g in
his assessment o f Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 . H e q u o t e s the passage en bloc in o r d e r to
s u p p o r t his thesis that J o s e p h u s presents the Pharisees as m e n o f affairs,

9
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 225; Rivkin, Revolution, 3If., 67.
1 0
Neusner, "Josephus's Pharisees", 227.
362 CHAPTER SIXTEEN

w h o b r i n g the " t w o f o l d L a w " i n t o e v e r y sphere o f life. F o l l o w i n g are


representative e x c e r p t s f r o m his interpretation:

Josephus thus pictures Simon as anything but an academic recluse. W e see


no saintly figure here! Simon the son o f Gamaliel is no quietest in
Josephus' book. H e had very definite ideas as to how the revolution should
be conducted . . . . Simon does not cease being a Pharisee when he acts
as a political leader; his vigorous actions are not out o f keeping with his
expertness in the laws.
T h e Pharisees as activists emerge also in Josephus' mention o f the c o m ­
11
position o f the delegation o f which three Pharisees were m e m b e r s .

Although one may deduce from Life 189-198 a n d from Josephus's


writings in general that the Pharisees w e r e i n v o l v e d in p u b l i c life, that
d e d u c t i o n has litde t o d o w i t h the specific literary intentions o f o u r
passage. A g a i n : J o s e p h u s is w r i t i n g t o d e f e n d h i m s e l f a n d t o s h o w that
the fault in the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e lay with his o p p o n e n t s , s o m e o f w h o m
w e r e Pharisees.
O n l y C o h e n , it s e e m s , has tried seriously to c o m e t o t e r m s w i t h the
1 2
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the Pharisees in the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e . H e attempts t o
s h o w that Life 189-198 d o e s i n d e e d reflect J o s e p h u s ' s n e w p r o f e s s i o n o f
1 3
Pharisaism (Life 1 2 ) . T o a c h i e v e this result, C o h e n focuses o n the p o r ­
trayal o f S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l in § § 191-192 a n d a r g u e s that the n o t e d
Pharisee is treated far better h e r e than in the parallel in War ( 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 ) .
Specifically, C o h e n c o n t e n d s : ( a ) that the portrayal o f S i m o n in § 192
a m o u n t s to an e n c o m i u m ; ( b ) that the parallel in War h a d d e n i g r a t e d o r
belittled S i m o n b y n o t m e n t i o n i n g h i m ; a n d ( c ) that J o s e p h u s n o w wants
to present h i m s e l f to the ( J e w i s h ) r e a d e r as h a v i n g " o n l y t e m p o r a r i l y
(TOTS, § 1 9 2 ) " b e e n at o d d s w i t h S i m o n . I n all o f this C o h e n finds sup­
p o r t for the R a s p / S m i t h / N e u s n e r t h e o r y :

Between BJ [War] and V [Life] Simon's stock rose spectacularly, as did the
fortunes o f the Pharisees. Their heirs were now established at Yavneh and
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.

T h e p r o b l e m w i t h C o h e n ' s v i e w is that, in this passage, J o s e p h u s d o e s


n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e the slightest c o n c e r n a b o u t m a i n t a i n i n g a g o o d rela­
t i o n s h i p w i t h the Pharisees.
First, the d e s c r i p t i o n o f S i m o n in Life 192 c a n n o t b e read as a n u n ­
qualified e n c o m i u m . It d o e s a c k n o w l e d g e , a n d e v e n praise, Simon's
b r i l l i a n c e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , in the sequel J o s e p h u s i m m e d i a t e l y b e g i n s t o
a c c u s e S i m o n o f m e a n b e h a v i o u r (9<xuXtov epyov, § 1 9 4 ) , d u p l i c i t y ( §
195), bribery (§ 196), and scheming (§§ 196-198). This hostile
characterization is to b e e x p e c t e d , since S i m o n w a s the m a j o r l o b b y i s t
in J e r u s a l e m for J o s e p h u s ' s c h i e f o p p o n e n t .
T h e presentation o f S i m o n ' s credentials in § § 1 9 1 - 1 9 2 , I h a v e already
a r g u e d , fits well with the p e r s p e c t i v e that J u s t u s w o u l d h a v e g i v e n in his
a c c o u n t o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e ; he w a s c o n c e r n e d t o p o i n t o u t the e m i ­
n e n t stature o f J o s e p h u s ' s o p p o n e n t s . S i n c e , then, § § 191 f. stands in ten­
sion w i t h the r e m a i n d e r o f the passage, it a p p e a r s to b e c o n c e s s i v e in
n u a n c e ; J o s e p h u s c o n c e d e s , in r e s p o n s e to J u s t u s , that his o p p o n e n t w a s
1 6
gifted a n d well-respected ( h o w c o u l d h e d e n y i t ? ) but goes o n never­
theless to insist that the t w o w e r e at o d d s (rcpos epe. . . 8ta9op<os etxev)
a n d that S i m o n w a s to b l a m e for this. R a j a k seems c l o s e r to a p p r e h e n ­
d i n g the sense o f Life 192 w h e n she o b s e r v e s :

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

reputed to (Soxouaiv) interpret the laws with <xxpt(3eioc. W e h a v e seen else­


w h e r e (War 1:110-114; 2 : 1 6 2 ; Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) that J o s e p h u s ' s a c k n o w ­
ledgement of the Pharisees' reputation for dbcpifktoc implies no
18
c o m m i t m e n t o n his p a r t . O n the c o n t r a r y , it consistently serves to in­
t r o d u c e a negative portrayal o f the g r o u p . T h a t seems also to b e the role
p l a y e d b y Life 1 9 1 . C e r t a i n Pharisees are a b o u t to b e p o r t r a y e d in quite
negative terms, in spite o f their reputation for axpifktoc. S i n c e the praise
o f S i m o n ' s intelligence in § 192 is tied to his other credentials, i n c l u d i n g
Pharisaic m e m b e r s h i p ( § 1 9 1 ) , the w h o l e p a c k a g e seems to b e a c o n c e s ­
sion, rather than J o s e p h u s ' s heartfelt e x p r e s s i o n o f praise for S i m o n .
The p o i n t o f the passage is that, in spite of S i m o n ' s family b a c k g r o u n d ,
social status, Pharisaic m e m b e r s h i p , a n d capability as a m a n o f affairs,
h e w a s guilty o f serious m i s d e m e a n o u r s in his conflict with J o s e p h u s .
Especially p r o b l e m a t i c is C o h e n ' s p r o p o s a l that w e c o m p a r e the ac­
c o u n t o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e in War with that in Life, in o r d e r to
observe h o w dramatically "Simon's stock r o s e " between the two
1 9
works. H e thinks it significant that the a c c o u n t in War d o e s n o t m e n ­
tion S i m o n ' s n a m e : " T h e parallel passage in BJ 2 : 6 2 6 did not consider
20
Simon worthy of mention". T h a t Life n o t o n l y m e n t i o n s h i m b u t speaks
well o f his intelligence a n d w i s d o m , C o h e n takes to b e e v i d e n c e o f
J o s e p h u s ' s n e w l y a c q u i r e d Pharisaic d i s p o s i t i o n .
The p r o b l e m here is that the a c c o u n t o f the d e l e g a t i o n e p i s o d e in Life
( 1 8 9 - 3 3 5 ) is r o u g h l y twenty times as l o n g as the War parallel ( 2 : 6 2 6 - 6 3 1 )
a n d therefore contains a great deal o f n e w i n f o r m a t i o n . War o m i t s al­
m o s t e v e r y t h i n g that Life has, preferring to pass o v e r the affair as o n e
o f J o h n o f G i s c h a l a ' s m a n y evil plots. J o s e p h u s h a d g o o d reason, as w e
h a v e seen, to o m i t specific details a b o u t the identity a n d social status o f
his J e r u s a l e m o p p o n e n t s . O n e c a n n o t infer f r o m the o m i s s i o n o f S i m o n ' s
n a m e a n d personalia in War ( N . B . , the n a m e s o f the h i g h priests are also
o m i t t e d ) a n y t h i n g in particular a b o u t J o s e p h u s ' s attitude t o w a r d h i m .
And the d e s c r i p t i o n o f S i m o n in Life 189-198 d o e s n o t , if read as a
w h o l e , constitute a rise in S i m o n ' s stock.
Finally, it is necessary to c o m m e n t o n C o h e n ' s m a x i m a l i s t r e a d i n g o f
TOTE, in Life 1 9 2 . H e takes the p o i n t o f the passage to b e that " g l o r i o u s
Simon was only temporarily (TOTS, 192) ill-disposed towards
2 1
Josephus". T h i s interpretation, in effect, m a k e s TOTS the k e y w o r d o f
the passage, b y s u p p o s i n g it to m e a n that, although J o s e p h u s had o n c e

1 8
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

b e e n in conflict with S i m o n , h e w a s later ( b y the time o f w r i t i n g ) r e c o n ­


ciled with the Pharisees.
The precise n u a n c e o f the particle TOTE is, h o w e v e r , n o t so o b v i o u s .
I n m y v i e w , a m o r e plausible sense w o u l d b e that, as J o s e p h u s h a d o n c e
b e e n sympathetic to the m o d e r a t e a i m s o f J o h n o f G i s c h a l a (Life 43f.,
8 6 ) , so also he h a d o n c e b e e n friendly w i t h S i m o n . H e tells h o w h e c o n ­
ferred with the chief priests and l e a d i n g Pharisees (ot TCparcot TCOV
Oaptaatcov) a b o u t h o w to c h e c k the revolt (Life 2 1 ) . T h i s g r o u p doubtless
i n c l u d e d S i m o n , for w e k n o w that this l e a d i n g Pharisee, a l o n g with the
h i g h priests, w a s v e h e m e n t l y o p p o s e d to the rebels (War 4 : 1 5 9 ) . I n their
fundamental attitudes t o w a r d the revolt, apparently, J o s e p h u s and
S i m o n w e r e k i n d r e d spirits. N o w in Life 1 9 2 , the e n m i t y b e t w e e n
J o s e p h u s a n d S i m o n is clearly c o n n e c t e d with the latter's close friendship
with J o h n :

<ptXo<; T£ 7cocXoci6<; TCO 'Icodvvcp xat OUVTJOTK,


7cpo$ epe 8e tore 8ta9opco<; efyev.

B e i n g an o l d a n d intimate friend o f J o h n ' s , S i m o n w a s at that t i m e (ipso


facto) o p p o s e d to J o s e p h u s . T h i s c o n s t r u c t i o n implies that S i m o n ' s o p ­
p o s i t i o n to J o s e p h u s w a s tied to his friendship with J o s e p h u s ' s o p p o n e n t .
One m i g h t s u p p o s e , therefore, that J o s e p h u s , J o h n , a n d S i m o n h a d
all originally b e e n associates, sharing a m o d e r a t e , aristocratic o u t l o o k o n
22
the r e v o l t . A t s o m e p o i n t , h o w e v e r , J o h n b e g a n to challenge J o s e p h u s
for the c o m m a n d o f the G a l i l e e . S i n c e J o h n a n d S i m o n w e r e o l d a n d
close friends they p o o l e d their efforts against J o s e p h u s . It w a s , therefore,
o n l y the struggle b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J o h n that m a d e S i m o n into
J o s e p h u s ' s e n e m y ; that d e v e l o p m e n t w o u l d s e e m to e x p l a i n the TOTS
quite well.
H o w e v e r o n e interprets TOTS, this particle c a n hardly serve as the basis
o f an entire interpretive s c h e m e for Life 1 8 9 - 1 9 8 . If J o s e p h u s h a d w a n t e d
to m a k e it clear that he really w a s a d e v o t e d Pharisee, w h o h a d " o n l y
t e m p o r a r i l y " b e e n in conflict with S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l , it w a s n o t
b e y o n d his linguistic c o m p e t e n c e to d o s o . H e w o u l d hardly h a v e c o n ­
cealed this treasure in the particle TOTS, h o p i n g that his readers w o u l d in­
terpret it as C o h e n d o e s . A n d he w o u l d hardly h a v e g o n e o n to p o r t r a y
Simon and the Pharisees, w i t h o u t a p o l o g y o r qualification, in the
blackest possible terms.

2 2
Cf. Rajak, Josephus, 22ff., 83ff., 106, 128ff., and 148L, on Josephus's social posi­
tion and its implications for his view of the revolt.
366 CHAPTER SIXTEEN

B . Simon's Initial Bid to Remove Josephus (193-195a)

W e c o m e n o w to J o s e p h u s ' s description o f the actions o f the great


Pharisee S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l . T h a t d e s c r i p t i o n , t h o u g h it constitutes
the heart a n d raison d'etre o f o u r p e r i c o p e , is almost c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e d
b y all c o m m e n t a t o r s w h o read the passage as pro-Pharisaic.

( 1 9 3 ) O n r e c e i v i n g J o h n ' s s u b m i s s i o n , S i m o n set o u t t o p e r s u a d e the


h i g h priests A n a n u s a n d J e s u s , s o n o f G a m a l a s , a n d s o m e o f their g r o u p ,
to put an e n d (exx6rcT£tv) t o m y progress a n d n o t to a l l o w m e to reach
the height o f f a m e ; h e c l a i m e d that it w o u l d serve their interests if I w e r e
r e m o v e d f r o m the G a l i l e e . H e e n c o u r a g e d A n a n u s ' s party n o t to delay,
in case I should find o u t [ a b o u t the p l a n ] p r e m a t u r e l y a n d m a r c h o n the
city with a large f o r c e . ( 1 9 4 ) T h i s w a s S i m o n ' s c o u n s e l , b u t the h i g h
priest A n a n u s p o i n t e d o u t that the task w o u l d n o t b e so easy (6 pev Stpcov
TOcuTa auveJSouXeOev, 6 8e apxtepeus "Avavos ou paStov. . . ) . M a n y o f the
chief priests a n d leaders o f the p e o p l e (rcoXXou$ TCOV apxtepecov xal TOU
rcXrjOous rcpoecrucoTas) c o u l d testify that I was exercising m y c o m m a n d
well; a n d to a c c u s e a m a n against w h o m n o j u s t c h a r g e c o u l d b e b r o u g h t
(xaO' ou prjSev Xeyetv SuvavTat Stxatov) w a s a d e e d for u n c o u t h men
(9auXcov epyov). W h e n S i m o n h e a r d these things f r o m A n a n u s , he re­
quested t h e m [the e m b a s s y f r o m J o h n ] to k e e p quiet (atcoTcav) a n d n o t
to m a k e p u b l i c w h a t h a d b e e n said (pT)8' tlq rcoXXous Ix9epetv TOUS Xoyous
auTcov); he p r o m i s e d to a r r a n g e it h i m s e l f (rcpovorjaeaOat yap auTO$
e'9aaxev) that I should b e q u i c k l y r e p l a c e d in the G a l i l e e .

T h e passage w o u l d s e e m to require little interpretation. In the fun­


damental conflict b e t w e e n J o s e p h u s a n d J o h n o f G i s c h a l a , the great
Pharisee S i m o n sided with the latter a n d tried to use his influence to
have Josephus r e m o v e d .
J o s e p h u s ' s assessment o f S i m o n ' s i n f l u e n c e - p e d d l i n g is clear, t h o u g h
he wisely leaves it to the high priest to cast doubt on Simon's
uprightness. First, A n a n u s alleges, a n y m o v e against J o s e p h u s w o u l d fly
in the face o f his b r o a d p o p u l a r support: m a n y o f those w h o are in a posi­
tion to k n o w w o u l d declare that h e g o v e r n s well. M o r e seriously, the a c ­
tion that S i m o n a d v o c a t e s w o u l d a m o u n t to a s u b v e r s i o n o f "due
process". Josephus would be removed merely out of self-interest
(ouvotaetv auTOts, § 193) a n d n o t b e c a u s e o f a n y j u s t c h a r g e . S u c h actions,
the h i g h priest p o i n t e d l y c o n c l u d e s , are a b o m i n a b l e (9auXcov epyov).
D o e s S i m o n yield to this h i g h - m i n d e d declaration o f p r i n c i p l e , o r in
a n y w a y r e d e e m h i m s e l f f r o m the serious charges levelled b y A n a n u s ?
O n the c o n t r a r y , his response betrays an utter disregard for j u s t i c e a n d
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 367

civility. H e is d e t e r m i n e d to m o v e a h e a d w i t h his " d i s h o n o u r a b l e p r o ­


c e e d i n g " ( T h a c k e r a y ' s r e n d e r i n g ) at a n y c o s t . H a v i n g failed t o i m p o s e
his will t h r o u g h the p r o p e r c h a n n e l s , he d o e s n o t hesitate t o transfer the
w h o l e affair i n t o the r e a l m o f intrigue a n d s k u l d u g g e r y . H e n c e his ad­
m o n i t i o n t o J o h n ' s e m b a s s y n o t to disclose w h a t h a d taken p l a c e . H e n c e
also his dark p l e d g e t o ensure that J o s e p h u s w o u l d b e r e m o v e d .
I n this passage, then, J o s e p h u s e v o k e s a clear d i v i s i o n a m o n g the
J e r u s a l e m authorities o n the matter o f his leadership in the G a l i l e e . O n
the side o f J o s e p h u s stands the h i g h priest, a l o n g with m a n y o f the c h i e f
priests a n d rulers o f the p e o p l e . T h e s e leaders s u p p o r t J o s e p h u s b e c a u s e
h e g o v e r n s well (as h e says); they are c o m m i t t e d t o ethical principle a n d
civil b e h a v i o u r . I n the other c a m p stands the r e n o w n e d Pharisee S i m o n ,
w h o has a b a n d o n e d all c o n c e r n for p r i n c i p l e in this matter. E v e n w h e n
c o n f r o n t e d b y the h i g h priest with the baseness o f his actions, S i m o n
s h o w s neither r e m o r s e n o r hesitation b u t rather p l u n g e s t o n e w depths
o f treachery!

C . Simon's Resort to Bribery (195-196a)


R e b u f f e d b y the h i g h priest, b u t d e t e r m i n e d t o carry his plans t h r o u g h ,
S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l d e c i d e s o n the f o l l o w i n g strategy:

( 1 9 5 b ) T h e n h e s u m m o n e d J o h n ' s b r o t h e r a n d instructed h i m t o send


gifts t o A n a n u s a n d his circle (rcpoaeTOcijev 7cep7cetv Scopea^ Tots 7cept TOV
"Avavov), for, h e said, this w o u l d likely p e r s u a d e t h e m to c h a n g e their
m i n d s . ( 1 9 6 ) I n the e n d , S i m o n a c c o m p l i s h e d what h e h a d p l a n n e d , for
A n a n u s a n d those with h i m , b e i n g c o r r u p t e d b y material gain (xpTJpaaiv
8t<X90apevTe$), a g r e e d t o e x p e l m e f r o m the G a l i l e e . ( T h i s w a s u n k n o w n
to a n y o n e else in the c i t y . )

J o s e p h u s a d v a n c e s here f r o m m e r e insinuation o f S i m o n ' s m o r a l short­


c o m i n g s t o an outright attack o n his character. T h e Pharisee, h e alleges,
had no qualms about manipulating the high priest by means of
23
bribery! T h a t A n a n u s s h o u l d let h i m s e l f b e c o r r u p t e d d o e s n o t speak
well o f h i m either. A t least, h o w e v e r , the h i g h priest h a d a predisposition
t o w a r d j u s t i c e . S i m o n , w h o has c o n s i s t e n d y p u r s u e d a d i s h o n o u r a b l e
c o u r s e , is the villain o f the p i e c e .

2 3
W e have noted two other passages in which Josephus accuses the Pharisees of im­
propriety with respect to money. In Ant. 17:42-45 (cf. War 1:571) they are willing to in­
voke their prophetic gifts in gratitude for Pheroras's wife's payment of their fine. In War
1:111-114, they flaunt their power while living off the generosity of the ingenuous
Alexandra.
368 CHAPTER SIXTEEN

T o t a l l y absent is a n y attempt o n J o s e p h u s ' s part t o mitigate the


seriousness o f S i m o n ' s a c t i o n s , t o p o r t r a y h i m as d e c e i v e d o r u n w i t t i n g .
All w e h a v e is the stark allegation that a l e a d i n g Pharisee, w i t h o u t j u s t
cause, u n d e r t o o k t o r e m o v e J o s e p h u s f r o m c o m m a n d o f the Galilee a n d
that h e w a s willing t o a b a n d o n all p r o p r i e t y in pursuit o f this g o a l .
A t this p o i n t it m a y b e w o r t h e m p h a s i z i n g that the a b o v e r e a d i n g o f
J o s e p h u s ' s intention d o e s n o t d e p e n d at all o n the q u e s t i o n o f w h a t a c ­
tually h a p p e n e d . O n e m i g h t c o n j e c t u r e , for e x a m p l e , that the J e r u s a l e m
authorities w e r e in fact unified in their o p p o s i t i o n t o J o s e p h u s a n d that
J o s e p h u s i n v e n t e d the stories o f A n a n u s ' s initial f a v o u r t o w a r d h i m a n d
2 4
o f the b r i b e r y scandal in o r d e r t o explain a w a y that o p p o s i t i o n . The
present study, h o w e v e r , seeks p r i m a r i l y t o u n c o v e r J o s e p h u s ' s tenden­
cies in p o r t r a y i n g the Pharisees. O n that literary level, it is clear that
S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l is p a i n t e d in dark c o l o u r s . H e is an u n p r i n c i p l e d ,
t h o u g h influential, l o b b y i s t for J o s e p h u s ' s m a j o r o p p o n e n t .

D. The Delegation and Its Mission (196b-198)

S i m o n is n o t the o n l y Pharisee w h o appears in o u r passage. A s a result


o f his c o n n i v i n g , a f o u r - m e m b e r d e l e g a t i o n is a s s e m b l e d a n d sent to
replace J o s e p h u s . T h r e e o f its f o u r m e m b e r s are also Pharisees:

( 1 9 6 b ) It s e e m e d best t o t h e m [the authorities] to send [into G a l i l e e , as


J o s e p h u s ' s r e p l a c e m e n t s ] m e n w h o differed with respect t o social status
but w e r e alike in e d u c a t i o n (xaxa yevo$ pev S ^ e p o v x a ? , TTJ rcatSeta 8'
opoious).
(197) T w o o f those c h o s e n , J o n a t h a n a n d A n a n i a s , w e r e f r o m the
p o p u l a r ranks a n d w e r e Pharisees b y affiliation (rfaav 8' atkcov oi pev
SrjpoTtxol 8uo, . . . OaptaaTot TTJV octpeatv); the third, J o z a r , w a s o f the
priestly class a n d w a s also a Pharisee (tepaxtxou yevous, <X>aptaato$ xal
atkos); S i m o n , the y o u n g e s t o f t h e m , w a s d e s c e n d e d f r o m the h i g h
priests (e£ apxtepecov).
(198) T h e s e w e r e instructed to g o to the Galilean p o p u l a c e a n d t o find
out f r o m t h e m the cause o f their d e v o t i o n to m e . I f the p e o p l e attributed
it to m y b e i n g f r o m J e r u s a l e m , the delegates should a r g u e that so w e r e
all four o f t h e m ; if it w a s b e c a u s e o f m y training in the laws (TTJV ep7retptav

2 4
In support of this hypothetical reconstruction one might adduce (a) the vagueness
of the bribery charge (the Scopea and their reception are not described) and (b) Josephus's
conspicuous insistence that the public remained totally unaware of Ananus's initial sup­
port for Josephus (§ 195a) and of the bribery episode (§ 196c: prjSevds ocXXou TCOV XOCTOC
TTJVrcoXtvTOUTO ftvoxjxovTOs). Claiming public ignorance, of course, frees him from the
fear of contradiction.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 369

TCOV vopcov), they should affirm that they themselves w e r e n o t i g n o r a n t


of the national customs (prjS' OCUTOUS ayvoetv e9rj TOCrcocTpta^dcaxeiv); if,
finally, they c l a i m e d to l o v e m e o n a c c o u n t o f the p r i e s t h o o d , the
delegates s h o u l d r e s p o n d that t w o o f t h e m w e r e also priests.

The r e a s o n , it n o w appears, that the conspirators c h o s e f o u r m e n


XOCTOC yevos p&v Sioc^povrocs, TTJ 7uai8ei(jc 8' 6potoo{ w a s so that the d e l e g a ­
t i o n ' s c o m b i n e d assets c o u l d easily m a t c h w h a t e v e r qualities J o s e p h u s
h a d e x p l o i t e d in o r d e r to w i n the d e v o t i o n o f the Galileans, w h e t h e r o f
7wci8e£oc o r o f yevo$ ( § 1 9 8 ) . Specifically: ( a ) the delegates w e r e all
Jerusalemites, as he w a s ; ( b ) his training in the laws w a s m a t c h e d b y
their k n o w l e d g e ; a n d ( c ) t w o o f t h e m e v e n shared his priestly yivoq.
The strategy will h a v e its desired effect in at least o n e case. Later in
the narrative, J e s u s , the c h i e f magistrate o f T i b e r i a s , will appeal to his
p e o p l e (Life 2 7 8 ) :

It is better (ocpetvov), O citizens, for us to submit to four men rather than


one, men who are also of illustrious birth (xat xara y£vo£ XaprcpoTs) and
intellectual distinction (xat xara auveatv oux a86ijoi$).

Significantly absent, h o w e v e r , f r o m the list o f assets c o m m o n to b o t h


J o s e p h u s a n d the delegates is that o f Pharisaic allegiance. W e k n o w
that three o f the four delegates w e r e Pharisees a n d that Pharisees w e r e
k n o w n for their expertise in the l a w s . If, then, J o s e p h u s w a s also a
Pharisee, the reader w o u l d h a v e e x p e c t e d h i m to m a k e this a p o i n t o f
c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n h i m s e l f a n d the delegates. If, that is, it t u r n e d o u t
that the Galileans l o v e d J o s e p h u s b e c a u s e o f his Pharisaic learning,
then the delegates c o u l d r e s p o n d that three o f t h e m w e r e also Pharisees.
But J o s e p h u s n e v e r raises this as a possible p o i n t o f c o m p a r i s o n , e v e n
t h o u g h h e plainly states that three o f the delegates w e r e Pharisees a n d
that their o b j e c t i v e w a s to w i n o v e r Galilean support b y o u t - m a t c h i n g
his assets. T h e simplest e x p l a n a t i o n o f J o s e p h u s ' s failure to m e n t i o n his
Pharisaic allegiance w h e n h e h a d an o b v i o u s o p p o r t u n i t y to d o so is
that h e w a s n o t a Pharisee a n d c o u l d n o t , therefore, h a v e c o m p a r e d
h i m s e l f with the Pharisaic delegates o n this p o i n t .
Finally, it m u s t b e asked h o w J o s e p h u s v i e w e d the m e m b e r s o f the
d e l e g a t i o n , m o s t o f w h o m w e r e Pharisees. T h a t v i e w is n o t h a r d to
d i s c e r n , for the e n v o y s w e r e his e n e m i e s , sent to retrieve h i m d e a d o r
alive f r o m the Galilee ( § 2 0 2 ) . H e portrays t h e m as c u n n i n g a n d deceit­
ful ( § § 216ff., 237f., 274f., 281f., 2 9 0 f f . ) , slanderous ( § § 2 4 5 , 2 6 1 ) , a n d
violent ( § § 2 3 3 , 3 0 1 f f . ) . O n e o f the Pharisaic e n v o y s , A n a n i a s , is called
"depraved and mischievous" (Thackeray, for TCOVTjpds dvrjp xal
xaxoupyos, § 2 9 0 ) . T h e m o s t l y Pharisaic d e l e g a t i o n appears throughout
370 C H A P T E R SIXTEEN

in a negative light. C o h e n aptly s u m m a r i z e s , " t h e y s w o r e false oaths,


used sacred o c c a s i o n s for nefarious p u r p o s e s , a n d v i o l a t e d the sanctity
2 5
o f the s y n a g o g u e . "
A l o n e a m o n g c o m m e n t a t o r s , C o h e n attempts to e x p l a i n h o w this
hostile d e s c r i p t i o n o f the delegates m i g h t b e r e c o n c i l e d with J o s e p h u s ' s
alleged profession o f Pharisaism (in Life 1 2 b ) . H i s effort: " T h e Pharisees
w h o w e r e sent to G a l i l e e w e r e n o t Pharisees o f the best sort, says
26
Josephus." But that is precisely what J o s e p h u s d o e s n o t say. C o h e n is
to b e c o m m e n d e d for p e r c e i v i n g the tension b e t w e e n the unfriendly p o r ­
trayal o f the delegates in Life 198-307 and the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w that Life
12b presents J o s e p h u s as a Pharisee. H i s e x p l a n a t i o n , h o w e v e r — t h a t
J o s e p h u s regards these particular Pharisees as aberrant s p e c i m e n s — i s
totally w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n . J o s e p h u s n o w h e r e says a n y t h i n g o f the k i n d :
he m a k e s n o attempt to mitigate the scandal o f the d e l e g a t e s ' b e h a v i o u r .
H e says o n l y ( a n d e m p h a t i c a l l y ) that three o f t h e m were Pharisees.
I n d e e d , the actions o f these Pharisees a c c o r d perfectly well with
J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r descriptions o f Pharisaic b e h a v i o u r : o n e n e e d o n l y
recall the Pharisees w h o u s u r p e d A l e x a n d r a ' s p o w e r {War 1:110-114,
Ant. 1 3 : 4 0 1 - 4 3 2 ) , those w h o o p p o s e d the great J o h n H y r c a n u s (Ant.
1 3 : 2 8 8 ) , those w h o m a n i p u l a t e d H e r o d ' s c o u r t (Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) , a n d , still
fresh in the r e a d e r ' s m i n d , the u n s c r u p u l o u s S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l (Life
1 9 1 - 1 9 6 ) . C o h e n d o e s n o t disclose the basis o f his v i e w that J o s e p h u s
wished to p o r t r a y the delegates as p o o r e x a m p l e s o f Pharisaism. Our
study points to the o p p o s i t e c o n c l u s i o n : i n a s m u c h as they seek to e x t e n d
their o w n influence a n d a c h i e v e their partisan goals w i t h o u t regard for
a n y sort o f p r i n c i p l e , the Pharisaic delegates in Life 198-307 are typical
o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisees.

Summary

O u r exegesis o f Life 10-12 f o u n d n o support for the c o n v e n t i o n a l v i e w


that J o s e p h u s desired to present h i m s e l f as a Pharisee. O n e m e a n s o f
c h e c k i n g this c o n c l u s i o n , I p r o p o s e d , w a s to e x a m i n e J o s e p h u s ' s o t h e r
references to Pharisees in Life, to see w h e t h e r they reflected a n e w , p r o -
Pharisaic attitude o n J o s e p h u s ' s part. T h e a n s w e r is that they d o n o t .
The eminent Pharisaic scholar S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l c o m e s in for
scathing treatment, e v e n t h o u g h J o s e p h u s first c o n c e d e s the m a n ' s f a m e ,
intelligence, a n d g o o d standing as a Pharisee. O u r a u t h o r likewise m a k e s
clear the u n s c r u p u l o u s character o f the delegates sent to replace h i m ,

2 5
Cohen, Josephus, 238.
2 6
Ibid., emphasis added.
JOSEPHUS, SIMON, AND THE DELEGATION 371

m o s t o f w h o m w e r e Pharisees. A n d w h e n h e e n u m e r a t e s the qualities


that w e r e c o m m o n t o h i m s e l f a n d the delegates ( § 1 9 8 ) , he m e n t i o n s
p r i e s t h o o d a n d e d u c a t i o n b u t n o t Pharisaic allegiance. I n short, if o n e
h a d o n l y Life 189-335 t o g o o n , o n e w o u l d h a v e n o g r o u n d s to suspect
that J o s e p h u s w a s t r y i n g to pass h i m s e l f o f f as a Pharisee. T h i s cir­
c u m s t a n c e offers still further s u p p o r t for the interpretation o f Life 10-12
a d v a n c e d a b o v e , to the effect that J o s e p h u s n e v e r c l a i m e d t o b e a
Pharisee. It p o s e s grave p r o b l e m s , h o w e v e r , for a n y v i e w o f Life 10-12
as a definitive statement o f J o s e p h u s ' s Pharisaism.
CONCLUSION T O THE STUDY

T h e p u r p o s e o f the f o r e g o i n g study has b e e n to d e v e l o p a f r a m e w o r k


against w h i c h to interpret J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t the Pharisees.
T h i s w a s necessary b e c a u s e o f the i n a d e q u a c y o f p r e v i o u s l y p r o p o s e d
f r a m e w o r k s , w h i c h d i d n o t attempt to g r o u n d themselves in the b e d r o c k
o f o u r a u t h o r ' s thought. T h e present attempt, b y contrast, has e m p l o y e d
"composition criticism", which has meant here the analysis of
J o s e p h u s ' s remarks o n the Pharisees in terms o f his narrative aims a n d
o f his o u t l o o k in general. F o l l o w i n g is a statement o f o u r larger c o n ­
clusions.
1. J o s e p h u s h i m s e l f is r e s p o n s i b l e for all o f the deliberate descriptions
o f the Pharisees that a p p e a r in his w o r k s , ( a ) E v e n in those passages that
describe Pharisaic activities b e f o r e his o w n lifetime J o s e p h u s usually in­
cludes general o b s e r v a t i o n s , in the present tense, o n such matters as
their c o n c e r n for dxpipeta, their p h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs, o r their p o p u l a r i t y .
It is antecedently p r o b a b l e that such a c c o u n t s w e r e at least shaped b y
J o s e p h u s , since he k n e w the Pharisees first-hand, ( b ) T h e v o c a b u l a r y in
these d e s c r i p t i o n s , such as dxpCPeia, vopoi/voptpoc, euaePeia, etpocppevrj,
opovoia, 906vo£, aperr}, a n d xcpoyvcoai?, is characteristic o f J o s e p h u s and is
used in characteristic w a y s , ( c ) T h e parallels with his o r d i n a r y v o c a b u ­
lary e x t e n d to phrases a n d w o r d associations like Soxeto/axpipfjs/vopoi/
vopipa, eipappevr) xal Geo?, 9G6vo?/piao?/euTcpayia/xiveco, a n d excl TIVI peya
9povouv. ( d ) T h e Pharisee passages thus support S c h r e c k e n b e r g ' s general
c o n c l u s i o n a b o u t the grundsatzliche Einheit o f J o s e p h u s ' s w o r k s :

dass Sprach- und Denkmuster, Formeln und Strukturelemente aller Art,


die zur unverwechselbaren Identitat des Josephus gehoren, verhaltnismas-
1
sig gleichmassig uber das Gesamtwerk dieses Autors verteilt sind.

Since the Pharisee passages share these marks o f J o s e p h u s ' s identity,


they c a n n o t b e d e t a c h e d f r o m the rest o f his narrative.
2 . J o s e p h u s consistently represents the Pharisees as the dominant
religious g r o u p a m o n g the J e w s , w h o h a d the s u p p o r t o f the masses.
T h e i r key role is evident at e v e r y p o i n t o f J e w i s h history that J o s e p h u s
deals with: u n d e r the H a s m o n e a n s (Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 ; War 1:110-1 WAnt.
1 3 : 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) ; u n d e r H e r o d (War l:571/Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ) ; at the i n c o r p o r a -

1
Schreckenberg, Untersuchungen, 174.
CONCLUSION TO THE STUDY 373

tion o f J u d e a as a R o m a n p r o v i n c e (War 2:162/Ant. 1 8 : 1 1 - 1 7 ) ; a n d at


the o u t b r e a k o f the revolt ( War 2:41 \ILife2\, 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) . It is unlikely that
J o s e p h u s ' s a s s u m p t i o n o f Pharisaic p r e d o m i n a n c e is his ( p o s t - 7 0 ) i n v e n ­
tion b e c a u s e : ( a ) it is an assumption, w h i c h appears e v e n in his incidental
references to the Pharisees (War 1:571, 2 : 4 1 1 ; Life 2 1 ) ; ( b ) it is p r e s u p ­
p o s e d b y stories a b o u t the Pharisees that m u s t h a v e h a d a traditional
( n o n - J o s e p h a n ) o r i g i n ( e . g . , Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) ; ( c ) J o s e p h u s w a s
o n l y directly a c q u a i n t e d with the p r e - 7 0 state o f affairs in Palestine; a n d
( d ) m o s t i m p o r t a n t , J o s e p h u s ' s t e n d e n c y is to lament the p o p u l a r i t y a n d
influence o f the Pharisees. But this o n g o i n g l a m e n t over Pharisaic
p r e d o m i n a n c e w o u l d b e u n n e c e s s a r y — i n d e e d it w o u l d m a k e n o sense—
if the Pharisees d i d not h o l d a d o m i n a n t p o s i t i o n in p r e - 7 0 Palestine.
J o s e p h u s h a d n o discernible reason to i n v e n t their p o p u l a r i t y , since he
r e g a r d e d it as an unpleasant fact o f life.
3. A s the s o u r c e critics well realized, J o s e p h u s displays a m a r k e d a n d
consistent antipathy t o w a r d the Pharisees. T h i s appears in his first
reference to the g r o u p (War 1:110-114) a n d c o n t i n u e s t h r o u g h Ant.
(13:288-298, 400-432; 17:41-45; 18:15, 17) a n d the Life (191-307).
A l t h o u g h h e c h a n g e s his attitude t o w a r d m a n y parties in the c o u r s e o f
his literary career (e.g. Herod, Alexandra Salome, Hyrcanus and
A r i s t o b u l u s ) , h e consistently denigrates the Pharisees.
4 . T h e focal p o i n t o f J o s e p h u s ' s dislike o f the Pharisees is their reputa­
tion for a n d profession o f dxpt(kioc in the l a w s . H e thinks that this reputa­
tion is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y the Pharisees' actions (War 1:110-114; 2 : 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ;
Ant. 1 7 : 4 1 - 4 5 ; Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) , so he laments their c o n s e q u e n t p o p u l a r i t y
(War 2:162f.; Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 , 4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ; 1 8 : 1 5 , 1 7 ) . J o s e p h u s consistently
presents the Essenes as the m o s t p i o u s a n d virtuous o f the schools (War
2 : 1 1 9 - 1 6 1 ; Ant. 1 5 : 3 7 1 - 3 7 9 ; 1 8 : 2 0 ) a n d therefore as d e s e r v i n g o f praise.
H e e v e n regrets that the S a d d u c e e s , w h o m he otherwise dislikes, m u s t
yield to " w h a t the Pharisee s a y s " (Ant. 1 8 : 1 7 ) . A s a priest, an a c c r e d i t e d
g u a r d i a n o f axpipeia a n d euaepeta, he c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f a u t h o r i z e d to
assess the claims o f others. T h e Pharisees' actions, he i m p l i e s , refute a n y
c l a i m t o , o r reputation for, piety.
5. T w o o f the reasons for J o s e p h u s ' s antipathy s e e m to b e ( a ) that
several Pharisees, i n c l u d i n g S i m o n b e n G a m a l i e l , w e r e i n v o l v e d in the
attempt to r e m o v e h i m f r o m his post in the Galilee (Life 1 9 1 - 1 9 8 ) a n d
( b ) that, in his v i e w , the Pharisees p l a y e d a m a j o r a n d destructive role
in the history o f the H a s m o n e a n h o u s e (War 1:110-114; Ant. 1 3 : 2 8 8 - 2 9 8 ,
4 0 0 - 4 3 2 ) , to w h i c h he traces his o w n priestly, r o y a l , a n d p r o p h e t i c
heritage (Life 1-6). T h e s e u n p r i n c i p l e d p o w e r - m o n g e r s tried to d e s t r o y
his o w n career e v e n as they h a d l o n g b e f o r e used their influence to attack
his h e r o , J o h n H y r c a n u s .
374 CONCLUSION TO THE STUDY

6. J o s e p h u s w a s n o t , a n d n e v e r c l a i m e d to b e , a Pharisee. H e w a s an
aristocratic priest, d e s c e n d e d f r o m the H a s m o n e a n s , a n d h e w a s also
fascinated b y h e m e r o b a p t i s t religion (cf. B a n n u s a n d the Essenes). H e
always resented the Pharisees' h o l d o n the masses b u t , like the Sad­
d u c e e s , he a c c e p t e d this influence as a fact o f life. T h u s h e a c k n o w l e d g e s
that w h e n he e n d e d his blissful years o f wilderness retreat with B a n n u s
a n d returned to the city, he b e g a n to i n v o l v e himself in p u b l i c life, w h i c h
m e a n t " f o l l o w i n g the school o f the 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

the g r o u p is o p e n l y vilified, a n d the school passages, in w h i c h J o s e p h u s


discusses all three schools w i t h o u t o b v i o u s d e n i g r a t i o n , is traceable to
this f u n d a m e n t a l difference o f p u r p o s e . O n the o n e h a n d , the Pharisees
c a n b e cited as o n e o f the J e w i s h g r o u p s w h o " p h i l o s o p h i z e " a b o u t such
issues as i m m o r t a l i t y a n d fate. O n the o t h e r h a n d , h o w e v e r , J o s e p h u s
casts t h e m as a constantly destructive force in the saga o f J e w i s h history.
O u t o f e n v y , they consistently o p p o s e d their rulers; they c o n t r i b u t e d
m u c h to the d o w n f a l l o f the H a s m o n e a n s ; they plotted against H e r o d ;
a n d , n o t least, they sought to oust J o s e p h u s f r o m his c o m m a n d .
B o t h sorts o f passages reflect J o s e p h u s ' s characteristic v o c a b u l a r y a n d
t h e m e s a n d they o v e r l a p in c o n t e n t ; so there is n o q u e s t i o n o f different
sources a c c o u n t i n g for the difference o f e m p h a s i s . It is s i m p l y a matter
of context.
8. It s h o u l d p e r h a p s b e stressed, in v i e w o f the history o f scholarship
o n early J u d a i s m , that J o s e p h u s ' s antipathy t o w a r d the Pharisees h a d
o n l y p e r s o n a l causes, as far as w e k n o w . H e n e v e r attacks Pharisaic piety
per se, as a system, a n d i n d e e d he shares the Pharisees' goal o f axpifktoc
in the h a n d l i n g o f the M o s a i c L a w . It w o u l d b e quite illegitimate, there­
fore, to use the results o f this study as s u p p l e m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e ( a l o n g
w i t h , say, the G o s p e l s a n d P a u l ) for the " d e f e c t s " o f Pharisaic r e l i g i o n .
T h e crucial p o i n t here is that J o s e p h u s ' s perspective w a s that o f a tiny
m i n o r i t y in first-century Palestine: h e was an a v o w e d elitist. But w e h a v e
seen a m p l e e v i d e n c e in his writings that the Pharisees e n j o y e d the steady
a n d e a g e r s u p p o r t o f the o r d i n a r y p e o p l e . O u r a u t h o r d i s d a i n e d b o t h the
Pharisees a n d the masses.
If these c o n c l u s i o n s are v a l i d , the present study has p r o v i d e d a basis
for interpreting J o s e p h u s ' s t e s t i m o n y a b o u t the Pharisees. A n d since
J o s e p h u s is p r o b a b l y o u r m o s t valuable witness to the history o f the
Pharisees, an interpretation o f his e v i d e n c e a n d his biases is already a
m a j o r p r e l i m i n a r y step t o w a r d the r e c o v e r y o f that history.
APPENDIX A

THE H I S T O R I O G R A P H Y O F WAR A N D ANTIQUITIES:


A DIALOGUE W I T H H. W. ATTRIDGE

In o u r e x a m i n a t i o n o f the p r e f a c e to War, w e e n c o u n t e r e d H . W . A t ­
t r i d g e ' s t h e o r y o f a shift in h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e b e t w e e n that w o r k
a n d Ant. A t t r i d g e b u i l d s o n the w e l l - k n o w n parallels b e t w e e n War's pref­
ace a n d the p r i n c i p l e s o f P o l y b i u s , o n the o n e h a n d , a n d b e t w e e n Ant.
a n d D i o n y s i u s o f H a l i c a r n a s s u s , o n the other, to p r o p o s e : ( a ) that War
1:13-16 a n d Ant. 1:5-6 constitute different " p r o g r a m m a t i c statements"
o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e for the w o r k s in w h i c h they a p p e a r ; ( b )
that, therefore, J o s e p h u s c h a n g e d his historiographical p r i n c i p l e s b e ­
t w e e n w r i t i n g War a n d w r i t i n g Ant.; a n d ( c ) that this shift in theoretical
p e r s p e c t i v e , f r o m " c r i t i c a l " to " r h e t o r i c a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , m a y well
a c c o u n t for the c h o i c e o f subject m a t t e r in Ant. O n c e e x p o s e d to rheto­
rical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y , the a r g u m e n t g o e s , J o s e p h u s saw its potential for
an a p o l o g e t i c history o f J u d a i s m a n d this led h i m to a b a n d o n his earlier
principles, e n u n c i a t e d in War, w h i c h h a d e x c l u d e d a n c i e n t history as an
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

study o f ancient times w a s an inevitable d e v e l o p m e n t e v e n a m o n g the


m o s t s o b e r historians.
First, if T h u c y d i d e s a n d P o l y b i u s h a d e m p h a s i z e d the usefulness o f
history as " t h e s o v e r e i g n c o r r e c t i v e o f h u m a n n a t u r e " ( P o l y b i u s 1 . 1 . 1 ) ,
as a g u i d e for present life, t h e n it w a s n o t difficult for D i o d o r u s to a r g u e
that the b r o a d e r the s c o p e o f the history a n d the greater the variety o f
situations i n c l u d e d , the more useful the narrative ( D i o d o r u s 1 . 3 . 1 - 2 ) .
S i n c e history w a s always written in the Hellenistic w o r l d in o r d e r to
11
benefit its r e a d e r s , this a r g u m e n t w o u l d h a v e h a d a c o m p e l l i n g l o g i c .
S e c o n d , as A v e n a r i u s o b s e r v e s , the T h u c y d i d e a n / P o l y b i a n standard
1 2
o f eyewitness e v i d e n c e c o u l d n o t b e sustained in the R o m a n e m p i r e .
W h e r e a s the earlier historians h a d l i v e d in times o f great u p h e a v a l a n d
h a d r e a d y subjects for c o n t e m p o r a r y history, u n d e r the Pax Romana the
c h a n c e s o f a rhetorically-trained R o m a n finding h i m s e l f in the m i d d l e o f
a significant w a r w e r e rather slight. H e n c e the natural f o c u s o n ancient
times. T h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e e x p l a i n s the zeal with w h i c h J o s e p h u s attacks
those w h o write ancient history: h e is k e e n l y aware o f his o w n p r i v i l e g e d
13
status as eyewitness to a m a j o r c o n f l i c t .
N o r c a n it b e said that the shift to ancient history represented an utter
disregard for the t r u t h / a c c u r a c y standard. T h u c y d i d e s already recog­
n i z e d the impossibility o f b e i n g personally present at e v e r y significant
e v e n t , e v e n within a single w a r , a n d so confessed his reliance o n o t h e r
eyewitnesses ( 1 . 2 2 . 2 - 3 ) . L i k e w i s e , P o l y b i u s a l l o w e d that the challenge
w a s to find trustworthy witnesses o n w h o m to d e p e n d (12.4c.4-5).
A l t h o u g h T h u c y d i d e s a n d P o l y b i u s i n t e n d e d that the historian cross-
e x a m i n e l i v i n g witnesses, it w a s n o t m u c h o f a leap f r o m their principles
to the p r o p o s i t i o n that the written r e c o r d s o f others m i g h t also b e u s e d
b y a discerning historian.
S u c h a shift w a s i n d e e d m a d e . L u c i a n ( § 16) p r o p o s e s that a certain
U7c6pvT)pa c o n c e r n i n g the recent Parthian war, written b y a witness
named Callimorphus, c o u l d b e u s e d to g o o d effect b y a c o m p e t e n t
14
historian. J o s e p h u s tells us that b o t h his a c c o u n t o f the J e w i s h w a r a n d
those o f his R o m a n c o m p e t i t o r s utilized the u7topvrjpocTa o f V e s p a s i a n
a n d T i t u s (Life 3 4 2 ; Ag.Ap. 1:56). T h u s , b y the m i d d l e o f the first c e n ­
tury, e v e n historians o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events w e r e w i l l i n g to d r a w o n the

11
Cf. Finley, Use and Abuse, 31 (on Thucydides), and Momigliano, Essays, 168f. (on
Thucydides and Polybius). The idea that history teaches practical lessons was fundamen­
tal to ancient historiography was and not limited to a "rhetorical" school, as Attridge,
Interpretation, 51-53, seems to suggest.
1 2
Avenarius, Lukians Schrift, 83f.
1 3
Cf. Momigliano, Essays, 164.
1 4
Momigliano, Essays, 93ff.
APPENDIX A 379

d o c u m e n t s o f eyewitnesses t o e n h a n c e their o w n a c c o u n t s , a l t h o u g h they


w e r e themselves eyewitnesses to the situation as a w h o l e . T h i s p r a c t i c e ,
i n a s m u c h as it h e l p e d to s u p p l e m e n t the historian's o w n limited p e r c e p ­
tions, aid his m e m o r y , a n d c h e c k his biases, d i d n o t conflict with the
c l a i m to dxptjktoc b u t s u p p o r t e d it.
But if historians o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events c o u l d use trustworthy ac­
c o u n t s written b y others to e n r i c h their o w n narratives, then the writers
o f ancient history c o u l d n o t legitimately b e faulted for u s i n g the a c c o u n t s
o f others, as l o n g as those sources t o o w e r e trustworthy. Historians o f
antiquity w e r e n o t insensitive to this p r o v i s o . D i o n y s i u s , for e x a m p l e ,
outlines his sources in the preface to his Roman Antiquities: he has re­
c e i v e d oral instruction, h e says, f r o m the m o s t learned m e n (XoyiOTaxcov
dvSpcov) a n d has e m p l o y e d the a c c o u n t s o f the m o s t respected authors (ot
ercatvoupevot, 1.7.3, cf. 7 . 7 1 . 1 ) . L i v y ( w h o s e critical faculty is likewise
15
suspect) m a k e s at least t o k e n attempts to w e i g h sources a c c o r d i n g to
their merits o n v a r i o u s questions o f antiquity. H e declares that he is
f o l l o w i n g a particular s o u r c e b e c a u s e o f its a u t h o r ' s closeness to the
events o r l i k e l i h o o d o f k n o w i n g the truth ( 6 . 1 2 . 2 ; 8 . 4 0 . 3 - 5 ; 2 1 . 3 8 . 2 - 5 ;
2 2 . 7 . 3 - 4 ) . L i k e w i s e D i o d o r u s claims that in writing his universal history
h e has a c q u i r e d an accurate (dxptfktoc) k n o w l e d g e o f events b y m e a n s o f
the urcopvrjpocTOc that h a v e b e e n carefully p r e s e r v e d in R o m e ( 1 . 4 . 4 ) . H e
has e v e n travelled a r o u n d m u c h o f the w o r l d , h e c l a i m s , i n c u r r i n g m u c h
h a r d s h i p a n d d a n g e r (xaxo7ta9eta^ xat xtv8uv<ov—cf. P o l y b i u s ! ) , in o r d e r
to visit the places with w h i c h his narrative is c o n c e r n e d ( 1 . 3 . 4 ) . T h o u g h
D i o d o r u s ' s c l a i m is u n d o u b t e d l y e x a g g e r a t e d , the p o i n t r e m a i n s that the
principle o f dXr}0etoc a n d dxptfktoc in historical r e p o r t i n g w a s n o t c o n ­
sciously d i s c a r d e d b y those w h o t u r n e d to ancient history.
W e h a v e n o r e a s o n , then, to d o u b t J o s e p h u s ' s suggestion that m a n y
o f his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s w e r e f o c u s i n g their study o n ancient history. W h a t
is doubtful is his c l a i m (War 1:13-15) that in d o i n g so they w e r e aban­
d o n i n g a basic c o n c e r n for historical a c c u r a c y . L i v y , b y contrast, offers
a n o b l e m o t i v e for the c o n c e r n with ancient R o m a n history that h a d
b e c o m e w i d e s p r e a d b y his t i m e (the turn o f the e r a ) . N a m e l y : n e w e r
historians b e l i e v e d that they c o u l d i m p r o v e o n either the a c c u r a c y o r the
4 4
rude" style o f the o l d e r a c c o u n t s ( l . p r e f . 2 ) . S o the c o n c e r n for
1
dXrjGetoc/dxptfktoc in history, w h i c h was 'made a law" by Thucydides,
h a d l o n g since b e c o m e part o f the rhetorical b a g g a g e o f all history-
writing, w h e t h e r the history c o n c e r n e d ancient o r recent events.
B y the m i d d l e o f the first c e n t u r y B C , at a n y rate, ancient events a n d
c o n t e m p o r a r y events w e r e s i m p l y t w o o p t i o n s within the m e l t i n g - p o t o f

1 5
One attempt to rehabilitate him, however, is I. Kajanto, God and Fate in Livy (1957).
380 APPENDIX A

rhetorical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y ; a n d to write o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events m a y h a v e


called for the greater rhetorical skill. F o r C i c e r o ' s " f r i e n d s " it is m e r e l y
a m a t t e r o f p e r s o n a l c h o i c e w h e t h e r he s h o u l d write a b o u t things ancient
o r c o n t e m p o r a r y ; the d e c i s i v e p o i n t in f a v o u r o f c o n t e m p o r a r y events is
that it will e n a b l e h i m " t o glorify the d e e d s o f his friend G n a e u s " and
his c o n s u l s h i p (Laws 1 . 3 . 8 ) ! T h i s c l a i m shatters a n y a u t o m a t i c e q u a t i o n
o f c o n t e m p o r a r y history w i t h critical history.
A b o u t the t i m e o f J o s e p h u s , P l i n y the Y o u n g e r is likewise in a q u a n ­
d a r y a b o u t w h e t h e r to c h o o s e an ancient o r m o d e r n subject for historical
treatment. H i s statement o f the d i l e m m a also disallows a n y e q u a t i o n o f
" c o n t e m p o r a r y " w i t h " c r i t i c a l " . T h e a d v a n t a g e o f an ancient subject,
P l i n y reflects, is that h e c a n u s e o t h e r s c h o l a r s ' w o r k as a basis for his
o w n ; b u t the c o l l a t i o n o f this material w o u l d b e e x t r e m e l y difficult (sed
onerosa collatio)\ A n d the p r o b l e m w i t h w r i t i n g o n a m o d e r n t o p i c is that
he w o u l d b e e x p e c t e d to h a n d o u t lavish praise to e v e r y o n e c o n c e r n e d
a n d c e n s u r e to n o o n e ; so the c h a n c e s o f pleasing his readership w o u l d
b e slim. I n b o t h o f these e x a m p l e s , the c h o i c e o f an ancient o r m o d e r n
subject is p u r e l y a m a t t e r o f taste. N e i t h e r is c o n s i d e r e d m o r e inherently
truthful. T h e ancient t o p i c s r e q u i r e m o r e w o r k , as D i o d o r u s a n d L i v y
also claim (Diodorus 1.4.1; Livy l.pref.4). The 9IX6TTOVO^, contra
J o s e p h u s (War 1:15), is the writer o f ancient history. M o d e r n t o p i c s l e n d
themselves m o r e easily to flattery and e n c o m i u m .
Interesting also is A r r i a n ' s principle (mid-second century A D ) of
s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n for his history o f A l e x a n d e r the G r e a t ( 1 . 1 - 3 ) . H e gives
greatest w e i g h t to t w o a c c o u n t s written b y eyewitnesses b u t after A l e x ­
a n d e r ' s d e a t h , since the later c o m p o s i t i o n date w o u l d d i m i n i s h the
t e n d e n c y to lie. O n c e a g a i n , it is c o n t e m p o r a r y history that a p p e a r s as
a b r e e d i n g g r o u n d for i n a c c u r a c y . T h e tables h a v e b e e n t u r n e d o n
Polybius!
It is difficult, therefore, to i m a g i n e a c h a n g e in J o s e p h u s ' s thinking
f r o m s o m e sort o f " c r i t i c a l " h i s t o r i o g r a p h y in War, little t o u c h e d b y
rhetoric a n d f o c u s i n g o n c o n t e m p o r a r y events, to a " r h e t o r i c a l " histo­
r i o g r a p h y in Ant. Indeed, War itself is filled with rhetorical a n d e v e n
16
tragic e l e m e n t s . W e s h o u l d rather c o n c e i v e o f a n c i e n t historiography
as a rich w o r l d o f i d e a s — g r o u n d e d in T h u c y d i d e s a n d P o l y b i u s , b u t

1 6
The tragic element is unmistakable in the narratives concerning both Herod the
Great and the city of Jerusalem. Rhetorical influence reveals itself in any number of
ways, from the presence of novelistic elements (cf. Moehring, "Novelistic Elements")
to the style of the work, with its thorough conformity to the atticizing propensities of the
day; these include the strict avoidance of hiatus, in keeping with a law of style established
by the rhetorician Isocrates; cf. W . Schmid, Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von
Dionysius von Hallicarnassus bis auf den zweiten Philostratus (Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer,
1887-1897, I, pp. V - V I , and III, 291f; also Niese, HZ, 208.
APPENDIX A 381

developed under rhetorical influence—that w o u l d h a v e b e e n at the


17
disposal of anyone with rhetorical training. Lucian's treatise on
history, a c c o r d i n g to the analysis o f A v e n a r i u s , s u m m a r i z e s this w o r l d
o f ideas:

In Wahrheit vereinigen sich hier Richtlinien mannigfachen Ursprungs zu


einem nicht immer harmonischen Ganzen. Lukians Anleitung fur den
Historiker ist somit einem Sammelbecken vergleichbar, in dem verschie-
dene Prinzipien zusammenstromen, die aus einzelnen schon vorhandenen
Ansatzen bei Herodot und der alteren Sophistik heraus im wesentlichen
von Thukydides bis in die hellenistische Zeit hinein entwickelt und for-
18
muliert worden sind.

It a p p e a r s , t h e n , that the H e l l e n i s t i c historian h a d a wealth o f t h e m e s ,


p r i n c i p l e s , a n d TOTTOI u p o n w h i c h h e c o u l d d r a w , to serve his p u r p o s e s
for any g i v e n situation. This circumstance seems to rule out the
possibility o f a c o n v e r s i o n o n J o s e p h u s ' s part f r o m a s c h o o l o f critical,
c o n t e m p o r a r y history to a rhetorical h i s t o r i o g r a p h y g e a r e d to ancient
topics.
2. W h a t e v e r m a y h a v e b e e n J o s e p h u s ' s feelings a b o u t G r e e k history,
the crucial p o i n t is that h e n e v e r associates the study o f a n c i e n t Jewish
history with a loss o f dxptfktoc. A t t r i d g e ' s t h e o r y r e q u i r e s that w h e n
J o s e p h u s w r o t e War he c o n s c i o u s l y e x c l u d e d the a n c i e n t history o f his
p e o p l e o n the g r o u n d o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l p r i n c i p l e . A l l o f the p r o g r a m ­
m a t i c statements c o n c e r n i n g War, h o w e v e r , b o t h in the w o r k itself a n d
in later reflections, militate against such a v i e w .
(a) W h e n J o s e p h u s explains his c h o i c e o f a starting p o i n t for the nar­
rative in War ( 1 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , h e gives t w o reasons for d e c l i n i n g to d p / -
octoXoyeTv, o r r e c o u n t the o r i g i n s a n d ancient history o f his p e o p l e ( w h i c h
he nevertheless briefly s u m m a r i z e s ) . First, the i n c l u s i o n o f such material
w o u l d b e u n t i m e l y (ocxoctpov) o r " o u t o f p l a c e " ( T h a c k e r a y ) in the pres­
ent p r o j e c t . S e c o n d , other J e w s b e f o r e h i m h a v e r e c o r d e d the earlier
events with dxptfktoc a n d this i n f o r m a t i o n , he says, is e v e n accessible in
tolerably accurate (ouTCOXUTTJC; dXrj0eta<; BtrjpocpTOv) G r e e k v e r s i o n s . T h u s
a n e w attempt w o u l d b e superfluous (rceptruov). T h i s a p p e a l to the ade­
q u a c y o f f o r m e r a c c o u n t s , t h o u g h it r e s e m b l e s o n e o f P o l y b i u s ' s argu­
m e n t s , is s o m e w h a t less than a w h o l e h e a r t e d e n d o r s e m e n t o f the current
G r e e k a c c o u n t s o f ancient J u d a i s m . N e i t h e r o f these statements i m p l i e s

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

an outright exclusion of Jewish antiquity as a subject for accurate


history; both leave open (and the axoctpov may even suggest) the
possibility of a future treatment of the theme.
Indeed, in the context, Josephus is not attacking ancient history but
is rather excusing himself from including a study of Jewish origins here.
He is, however, willing to include events that occurred long before his
own time. These events, which occupy almost a third of his book, begin
more than 2 0 0 years before his birth, in the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes. So he does not discount ancient history on grounds of
principle.
(b) In his preface to Ant., Josephus plainly declares that he had
thought of including the ancient history of the Jews in War but had
19
decided against it (Ant. 1 : 6 ) . T h e material was so copious (pet&ov), he
explains, that its inclusion would have ruined the balance and symmetry
2 0
of War ( 1 : 7 ) . This claim fits squarely with the axoctpov notice of War
1:17. It also excludes the possibility that Josephus only conceived of
21
writing ancient Jewish history after he had completed War. His failure
in Ant. to mention the adequacy of previous Greek accounts as he did
in War 1:17 is easily explained: he is now presenting the definitive
history of ancient Judaism in Greek with all the dxpifkioc that the tradi­
tion deserves. T h e other accounts, whose adequacy was sufficient to ex­
cuse him from ancient history when he wrote War, cannot compare to
his own present effort.
(c) Finally, the Polybian concern for first-hand knowledge that
Josephus echoes in War 1:13-16 is not confined to that work but turns
up again in his last extant treatise, Ag.Ap. (1:53-56). There, however,
he explicitly rejects any conflict between the principle of first-hand
evidence and his investigation of ancient Jewish history. H e writes:

It is the duty of one who promises to present his readers with actual facts
first to obtain an exact (axptptoc;) knowledge of them himself, either through
having been close to the events (TrapyjxoXooOTixoTa TOU; yeyovoatv), or by in­
quiry from those who knew them (7uapd T<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

Notice especially the following line: " T h a t duty I consider myself to


have amply fulfilled (pdcXioxa. . .rce7C0t7)x£vai)in both m y works (wepi 4p-
yotipau;. . .TCpaypocTeCas)."H e has fulfilled the obligation of first-hand
knowledge for War by being an eyewitness (<xMim\q) of the events, for
Ant. by his privileged access, as a priest, to the ancient traditions that
have been preserved with dcxp((Jeta (Ag.Ap. 1:54; cf. 1:29, 3 2 , 3 6 ) .
Whatever, then, Josephus may have said about the ineptitude of
Hellenes in writing accurate history (his remarks in War on this point are
forcefully elaborated in Ag.Ap. 1:6-27), he never suggests for a moment
that the treatment of ancient Jewish history, at least by a priest such as
himself, is susceptible of the same error. For the most ancient records
of the Jews have been preserved, by the chief priests and prophets, with
scrupulous accuracy (pexoc 7CoXXfj$ 4xpt(Seia$, Ag.Ap. 1:29). Josephus
esteems his priestly heritage precisely as a guarantor of accurate insight
into the traditions; that claim is not new with Ant. but is already found
in War ( 1 : 3 ; 3:352).
In response to Attridge, we have observed that, in spite of all the dif­
ferences in subject matter, genre, style, and even opinion, between
Josephus's different works, his theoretical approach to history remains
quite constant. His stated goals are always dcXrjOeia and axpCjktoc and he
believes that all of his subject matter, whether ancient or contemporary,
lends itself to these goals. This constancy of historical conception
throughout works of different character was made possible by the
historiographical environment of the day, which was a melting pot of
ideas and aspirations that had originated with Thucydides but had also
been processed by rhetorical theory.
APPENDIX B

SCHOLARLY INTERPRETATIONS OF JOSEPHUS O N


FATE A N D FREE W I L L

A t several points in the foregoing study (chapters 6, 8, and 12) we have


encountered Josephus's claim that fate and free will were major topics
of discussion among the Jewish schools. Because our goal has been to in­
terpret Josephus's Pharisee passages discretely and in context, we have
only been able to consider the substantial scholarly discussion of this
issue in piecemeal fashion, as it relates to a given pericope. Since most
of the studies treat all of the relevant passages together, our procedure
has resulted in a fragmented presentation of each scholar's argument.
The following pages attempt to give some perspective to those fragmen­
tary notices by surveying the development of the scholarly debate on fate
and free will in Josephus.
G. F. Moore's 1929 article, "Fate and Free W i l l in the Jewish
Philosophies according to Josephus", has been seminal for all further
1
discussions of the issue. M o o r e argues that, since the three "school"
passages present the Pharisees' view of fate and free will in Stoic (and
not biblical or Jewish) terms, these passages must have originated with
someone other than Josephus.
T h e cornerstone of this thesis is Ant. 13:171-173, which ranges the
schools on a spectrum: the Essenes make etpappevr) the xupta of all things;
the Sadducees do away with (avatpouatv) etpappsvrjv; and the Pharisees
take a middle position, attributing some things, but not all (TIVOC xal ou
rcdcvTa), to fate. M o o r e offers several reasons for his suspicion that
Josephus did not write this passage: (1) it seems to be irrelevant to its
2
immediate context; (2) its attribution of "fatalism" to the Essenes is
3
elsewhere unsupported; and (3) it does not prepare the reader well for
13:288-298, because there the issue on which Pharisees and Sadducees
4
differ is not fate and free will but the authoritative v o p t p a .
M o o r e also detects an inconsistency between Josephus's normal use of
5
etpappevr) and that revealed in the school passages. Whereas the other
occurrences of this term bear the tolerably Jewish sense of "divine fore-

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

herited both ideas—the foreknowledge of G o d and human responsibility


—from the Bible and that Josephus merely expresses the Synergismus with
which all Pharisees lived.
T h e simple acceptance of Josephus's descriptions as informed discus­
sions of first-century Judaism, albeit in Greek "dress", is quite com­
mon. Elbogen long ago (1904) interpreted these passages in a political
sense: the Sadducees are self-reliant state-builders; the Pharisees prefer
1 6
to rely on G o d . A . E . Suffrin ( 1 9 1 2 ) , I. Broyde ( 1 9 2 5 ) , J. Z . Lauter­
bach (1929), E . E . Urbach ( E T , 1975), and H . - F . Weiss all accept Jose­
17
phus's statements about the Pharisees on fate and free will, presenting
copious evidence that the two convictions were held together throughout
18
the tannaitic and amoraic periods. Urbach thinks also that the Dead
19
Sea Scrolls support Josephus's depiction of the Essenes. In order to ac­
cept Josephus's statements as actually referring to Palestinian Judaism,
however, all of these scholars interpret etpappevr) as simply a hellenized
20
reference to G o d or providence. Suffrin, for example, remarks:

W h e n , therefore, Josephus makes his countrymen state their theological


differences in philosophical language and ascribes to the Pharisees a belief
in a etpappevr) . . . he does not m e a n by it an inflexible power to which gods
and m e n must b o w , but has in his m i n d the late H e b r e w word niT3 . . .
21
a decree of a j u d g e or king, or Divine decision.

We are faced, then, with two very different alternatives: either


Josephus has incorporated into his narratives some very misleading
statements about the religious groups, falsely portraying the Pharisees as
near-Stoics, or he is describing the groups accurately, but in language
that his Greek readers will understand. In 1969, two German studies ap­
peared that added some sophistication to the discussion.
L . Wachter proposes that Josephus's depiction of the Sadducees as
those who do away with fate (War 2:164, Ant. 13:173) is actually a
22
serious attack upon t h e m . For, according to Josephus, they not only

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

reject etpappevr], but remove G o d beyond even the observation (TO


23
ecpopav, War 2:164) of m a n k i n d . This characterization, Wachter
observes, brings the Sadducees very close to the position that Josephus
elsewhere attributes to the Epicureans (Ant. 10:278):

who exclude Providence from h u m a n life and refuse to believe that G o d


governs its affairs or that the universe is directed by a blessed and immortal
Being to the end that the whole of it m a y endure, but say that the world
runs by its own m o v e m e n t ( a u T o p d x c o s ) without knowing a guide or an­
other's care.

Wachter concludes that Josephus implies to his readers a comparison be­


tween Sadducees and Epicureans, just as he makes explicit comparisons
between Pharisees and Stoics (Life 12) and between Essenes and
24
Pythagoreans (Ant. 15:371): the Sadducees appear as unbelievers. On
the historical level, however, Wachter finds such a portrayal impossible,
25
since the Sadducees must have believed in the active G o d of the B i b l e .
Wachter's treatment of the Pharisees and etpappevr; is brief because he
26
finds it quite straightforward. T h e synergism of fate and free will he
considers, with Schlatter and the others mentioned above, to be well-
27
grounded in Pharisaic and later rabbinic belief. H e explains Josephus's
use of etpappevr; as an attempt to convey to Hellenistic readers something
of the import that attached to the Jewish conception of G o d — Y a h w e h .
Because 6e6$ failed to convey this conception adequately, Josephus sup­
plemented it with etpappevr), which probably evoked among his readers
2 8
something far closer to the Jewish view of " Y a h w e h " .
On the Essenes, Wachter tries to show by an examination of
2 9
documents from Q u m r a n that Josephus is correct "im Prinzip" in at­
tributing to this group a strong belief in predestination. H e qualifies
Josephus's account, however, by proposing that (i) this predestination
only applied to the Essenes themselves, as the chosen, and (ii) it was not

2 3
With Niese, Wachter rejects the variant xocxov, so that God is "beyond either the
doing of anything or even the supervision [of the world; cf. the Hebrew I p D ] " .
Thackeray and Michel-Bauernfeind both retain xocxov with the result that God is beyond
"not merely the commission, but the very sight of evil". Wachter's reading, however,
has the Sadducees removing God entirely from the world.
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

a general, or primarily ethical predestination, but was tied to God's plan


30
of salvation for the c o m m u n i t y .
In his conclusion, Wachter seriously doubts that the issue of fate and
free will was a matter of debate among the Jewish groups, since both
ideas are well grounded in the Pentateuch; rather, the Pharisees and
31
Sadducees disagreed over the question of authoritative tradition. The
fate/free will issue was, however, a matter of controversy among the
32
Hellenistic philosophies, especially with the Stoics. Knowing that the
issue was also discussed among the Pharisees, and wanting to present the
Jewish groups as 9tXoao9tat, Josephus presented the Pharisees as ex­
ponents of the mediating position. In the Essenes he saw a group that
could legitimately represent the fatalistic/predestinarian end of the spec­
trum. Since no Jewish group could in reality deny providence or divine
activity in life, Josephus had no one to represent the left extreme of the
spectrum. For the purpose of his schematization, therefore, he chose his
enemies the Sadducees to play the role of infidels. Whatever natural em­
phasis they may have had on human responsibility, Wachter concludes,
33
Josephus exaggerated into an outright rejection of divine activity.
Wachter's analysis bolsters the scholarly tradition that accepts as ac­
curate Josephus's characterization of the Pharisees with respect to fate
and free will. H e provides a clear rationale for Josephus's use of
etpappevr) instead of 0e6$ as well as for the manner in which the Sad­
ducees and Essenes are presented.
In 1969 G . Maier completed his Tubingen dissertation on Mensch und
34
freier Wille in early Jewish literature. H e confronts the two-fold problem
already tackled by M o o r e and Wachter, namely: H o w did Josephus
come to use the Greek term etpappevr)—a term lacking any obvious
Hebrew equivalent—as the central theme in his descriptions of the
Jewish schools? A n d : W a s he justified in doing so? M o o r e had argued
that the presentation was unjustifiable and therefore not attributable to
Josephus. Wachter claimed that the portrait is partly accurate (re: the
Pharisees and Essenes) and partly not (re: the Sadducees); nevertheless
he attributed the whole to Josephus. Maier, however, attempts to show
that Josephus's presentation of all three schools, if understood correctly,
is quite accurate and therefore is intelligible as the work of Josephus.

3 0
For an analysis of the Qumran scrolls that emphasizes the community's freedom
of choice, cf. F. Notscher, "Schicksalsglaube in Qumran und Umwelt", in his Vom Alien
bis Neuen Testament (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1962), 33-49.
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

M o r e clearly than the other scholars considered, Maier distinguishes


the literary question—what Josephus meant, from the historical—
whether he was accurate. Since our concern is solely with the former, we
may focus on Maier's first chapter, which contains his literary analysis.
Maier is the first to offer a direct response to Moore's theory that
Nicolaus of Damascus penned Ant. 13:171-173 and all such traces of that
passage as appear elsewhere. H e notes first of all that Holscher's
thoroughgoing source criticism would not even allow such a conclusion,
but rather attributed Ant. 13:171-173 and 18:11-25 to the Jewish priestly
35
"falsifier" of Nicolausjand War 2:119-166 to a Greek-educated J e w .
Yet neither of these source-critical solutions is convincing, according to
Maier: Moore's because its automatic attribution of Greek philosophical
language to a non-Jewish author is simplistic; Holscher's, because any
evidence that would support a Greek-educated Jewish author for War
36
2:119-166 would ipso facto support Josephus's own authorship.
T h e one exception is Holscher's claim that what is said about the
Essenes in War 2 differs markedly from what Josephus says about them
37
elsewhere. Against this claim, however, Maier points out: (1) that in
Ant. 13:173 and 18:11 Josephus refers back to War 2:119-166 as his
decisive treatment of the schools, which only makes sense if he views the
earlier passage as a unity for which he is responsible; (ii) that the depic­
tion of the Sadducees in Ant. 13:173 and the parallel in War 2:163-165
38
exhibit clear verbal similarities; and (iii) that the description of the
cptXoaocptoct in Ant. 18:11-25 as a whole bears many striking similarities to
War 2:119-166 as a whole, so that the later passage often seems to be an
39
extract of the earlier. W i t h other critics, Maier takes the presentation
of the Essenes in Ant. 18:18-22 to be a summary of certain points from
40
War 2, now supplemented by information gleaned from P h i l o .
W h a t Maier has shown is that the school passages cannot be treated
as aberrations from Josephus's own views. T h e y all come from the same

3 5
Maier, freier Wille, 4f. In fact, however, Holscher attributes War 2:162-166 to
Josephus himself; cf. his "Josephus", 1949 n. He argues for non-Josephan Jewish
authorship of the Essene passage (§§ 119-161), on the ground that it reflects familiarity
with Jewish conceptions (e.g., otyyeXot, 2:142; vofioOexT)?, 155f.) and is unfriendly toward
the Romans, §§ 152f.
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.

Having demonstrated Josephus's final authorship of the school passages,


Maier proceeds to examine them individually.
(i) War 2:119-166. Although he accepts the parallel between the
Pharisaic position here and the teaching of Chrysippus, Maier argues
that Josephus gives the discussion a Jewish character by setting the fate/
43
free will question in religious-ethical t e r m s . Thus, the issue is pre­
sented as TOTCpdcrceivTOC Sixata, behind which Maier sees the np"!2 nfcW
4 4
of the O T and Q u m r a n . This "righteousness" is not that of the Greek
virtues but is rather a response to divine law. Moreover, he proposes
that the phrase etpappevr) xat Oeco reflects Josephus's attempt to qualify
the conception of fate in terms of Jewish monotheism. Third, Maier
points to the Sadducean emphasis on hx\oyr\ (§ 165) as typically Jewish
45
and not Stoic. Finally, M a i e r sees in the Sadducees' utter rejection of
fate (§ 164) but continued discussion of G o d (loc. cit.) a distinction be­
4 6
tween the two entities, such that fate is subordinate to G o d . T h e whole
presentation of the schools, he judges, though it may have originated
with Nicolaus, is Jewish in outlook.
Maier suggests that Josephus may deliberately have described the
Pharisaic position—they attribute everything (rcavTa) to fate, but TO
TrpaTTetv Ta Stxata xat pifj rests mainly with mankind—such that it could
be interpreted in two ways. O n the one hand, it m a y represent the
Pharisaic/rabbinic view that "Everything is in the hands of G o d except
the fear of G o d " (b. Ber. 33a); on the other hand, the Hellenistic reader­
ship may interpret it in Chrysippean terms, according to which every ac­
47
tion has two causes.
(ii) Ant. 13:171-173. Maier considers this passage less judaized than
War 2:162-166, but nevertheless finds two places where Josephus has

4 1
Cf. also Stahlin's protest against attributing Josephus's "fate" language either to
sources or to literary assistants, "Schicksal", 338f. He argues that Josephus must at least
have assented to the material that stands in his work.
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):

Yet everything that happens naturally and therefore correctly is governed


by providence; and the cause of any evil cannot be attributed to God. Thus
Plato holds that not everything can be ascribed to fate.
Sed omnia quae naturaliter et propterea recte feruntur providentiiae
custodia gubernantur nec ullius mali causa deo poterit adscribi. Quare nec
omnia ad fati sortem arbitratur esse referenda.

A n d a little further on:

To be sure, he does not think that everything can be ascribed to the power
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

follows. Apuleius (2d. cent. A D ) , who wrote in Latin, relied heavily on


68
earlier Platonistic writings in G r e e k . Then:

There is strong internal evidence that the report in The Jewish War and in
Antiquities on the views of the Pharisees concerning the freedom of action
of man is an adaptation of a philosophical text which apparently resembled
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

Fate 39-41). O n e hardly needs to posit Josephus's use of a proto-


Apuleian Greek philosophical text to explain his description of the
Pharisees.
Yet another interpretation of Josephus's etpappevrj-usage in his
descriptions of the Jewish schools has been proposed by L . H . Martin
76
(1981); H e suggests that Josephus wants to present the Jews as a nation
free from the oppression of etpappevr) in its astrological sense.
77
Martin begins with a sketch of Wachter's article, mainly, it seems,
in order to introduce the common view (since M o o r e , shared by
78
Wachter) that Josephus's use of etpappevr) parallels Stoic u s a g e . That
is the issue that concerns Martin. H e wants to challenge this conven­
tional identification on the ground that, since Josephus never elaborates
on related Stoic themes—such as pantheism, the regularity of nature, or
the harmony of the universe—he cannot be using etpappevr) in a
79
"technical" Stoic sense.
If Josephus is not using etpappevr) in a technical Stoic sense, Martin
proposes, one ought to consider that the term was most popular in the
80
first century as an astrological concept. Since Josephus elsewhere
81
shows himself familiar with astrological notions, it would be most
natural for him to use etpappevr) in the astrological sense, of the op­
82
pressive, inexorable, planetary direction of human affairs. Indeed,
Martin thinks he finds such a sense in Ant. 16:397, where xuxr) is equated
with etpappevr) "because there is nothing that is not brought about by her
83
(ou8ev6$ OVTOS o pr) 8t' auxrjv ytvexat)". H e understands Ant. 16:398,
where Josephus asserts that the L a w calls for human responsibility, to
84
be the historian's rejection of an astrological view of f a t e . In this
passage, Martin thinks he has uncovered the key to Josephus's etpap-

7 6
"Josephus's Use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 171-3", Numen 28
(1981), 127-135.
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:

Josephus makes a universal statement which reflects the general Hellenistic


'heimarmenic' view of human existence, and then gives, by contrast, the
Jewish alternative of life in obedience to Torah in its various interpreta­
tions. In other words, a life of obedience to Torah offers man an alternative
to the otherwise universal determinism of heimarmene, together with the
subsequent freedom for directing, within the requirements of Torah, one's
85
own life.

Unlike practically every other critic, Martin is able to connect Ant.


13:171-173 to its context. Whereas in this passage etpappevr) rules over
86
human affairs, a few sentences earlier (13:163), Josephus has noted
that the 7cpovota Oeou was guiding the affairs of Jonathan the Hasmo­
87
nean. Martin finds here an intended contrast between the liberating
7cpovota Oeou and the oppressive Hellenistic etpappevr]. Thus Josephus is
writing as an apologist:

He presents the Jews as the people who are freed from heimarmene by the
providence of God, and who consequently exercise free will and human
88
responsibility in and through their obedience to Torah.

Martin's analysis of "Josephus' use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Anti­


quities X I I I , 1 7 1 - 3 " , as the title would have it, is an extreme example
of the tendency to interpret Josephus's words by every possible
stratagem except Josephan usage. Martin begins well enough, by
distinguishing the literary and historical questions, "What does
9
Josephus mean by heimarmene?"* and " T o what extent is Josephus cor­
rect in his use of heimarmene to characterize and distinguish the Jewish
90
philosophies?" H e immediately falls into the trap, however, of trying
to settle the question of Josephus's meaning by external parallels: he
cannot accept the Stoic parallel, so he assumes an astrological parallel.
H e concedes that, "Josephus never uses heimarmene in any astrological
context", but thinks that "it was not necessary" for him to do so

8 5
Ibid. I cannot paraphrase Martin's conclusion because several readings have left
me unable to comprehend its sense as an interpretation oi Ant. 13:171-173. I am unable
to find any suggestion in Josephus that the rule of etpappevr) is a. pagan view. On the con­
trary, it is the (beloved) Essenes who make fate the xupioc of all.
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

because of the pervasiveness of the astrological sense of etpappevr) at that


91
time.
That this utter disregard for Josephus's intention leads to impossible
conclusions is in Martin's case obvious. If, in Ant. 13:171-173, Josephus
is preaching Jewish freedom from etpappevr) then the Sadducees must be
his heroes, because they do away with it altogether, and the Essenes
must be some kind of heretics, for they see fate as "the mistress (xup(a)
of all things". It is well known, however, that the opposite is the case.
92
Josephus despises the Sadducees, whom he presents as r u d e and
93 94
savage, and he always has high praise for the Essenes. Moreover, in
Ant. 13:171-173 Josephus is not trying to present the Jewish groups as
unique—but rather as philosophical schools in Hellenistic fashion, with
differing views rcept TCOV &v9p<07itv<ov TCpaypaxcov. Third, Martin's sugges­
tion requires a sharp distinction between etpappevr) and rcpovota; but
95
Josephus closely relates the two t e r m s . Finally, granted that etpappevr)
had acquired both a philosophical (Stoic) and a popular (astrological)
96
sense in the first century, one must wonder whether Josephus's
deliberate characterization of the Jewish groups as atpeaet$ and
<ptXoao9tat, concerned with issues such as ethics and immortality, does
not suggest a priori a philosophical sense for the term.

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

of etpappevr} in Josephus but their remarks on this point are of dubious


98
validity.
These studies are symptomatic of the persistent positivism that has
nurtured itself in Josephan studies. T h e historian's words are plucked
out of their setting and interpreted by means of some more or less strik­
ing parallels in some more or less contemporary literature. But this
endeavour begs the question of Josephus's meaning. Before one can ask
whether, where, and to what extent, Josephus's thought and vocabulary
fit with those of his contemporaries, one must ascertain his meaning.
A n d , by a fundamental axiom of interpretation, that task must first be
accomplished by careful scrutiny of the author's own characteristic
usage. O n l y when Josephus's own clues about his meaning have been
exhausted and some sort of result obtained, only then can it possibly be
worthwhile to ask where he fits into the many currents of Hellenistic and
99
Jewish t h o u g h t .

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].

II. Essays, Articles, and Books

Abrahams, I. Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels: First and Second Series. "Library of
Biblical Studies". New York: Ktav, 1968 [1917 and 1924].
Alon, G. Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the
Second Temple and Talmud, trans. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977.
Altheim, F. A History of Roman Religion, trans. H . Mattingly. London: Methuen & C o . ,
1938.
Amand, D . Fatalisme et Liberte dans VAntiquite Grecque: recherches sur la survivance de 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

ed. D . Sinor. "Asian Studies Research Institute Oriental Series", 3. Bloomington-


London: Indiana University Press, 1969, 59-83.
Flusser, D . "Pharisaer, Sadduzaer und Essener im Pescher Nahum", in Qumran, edd.
K . E. Krozinger et al. "Wege der Forschung", 410. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1981.
Foakes Jackson, F. J. Josephus and the Jews: the Religion and History of the Jews as Explained
by Flavius Josephus. London: S . P . C . K . , 1930.
, K . Lake, and H . J. Cadbury. The Beginnings of Christianity. Part I: The Acts of the
Apostles, 5 vols. London: Macmillan, 1920-1933.
Foerster, W . "EuaePeta in den Pastoralbriefen", NTS 5 (1959), 213-218.
. "Der Ursprung des Pharisaismus", ZNWM (1935), 35-51.
Ford, J. M . "The Christian Debt to Pharisaism", Bridge 5 (1970), 218-230.
Franxman, T . W . Genesis and the Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus. Rome: Biblical In­
stitute Press, 1979.
Friedlander, J. "The Rupture Between Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees", JQR n.
s. 4 (1913-14), 443-448.
Fuks, A . The Ancestral Constitution: Four Studies in Athenian Party Politics at the End of the Fifth
Century B.C. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953.
Furley, D . J. Two Studies in Greek Atomism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967.
Garrod, H . W . "Note on the Messianic Character of the Fourth Eclogue", Classical
Review 19 (1905), 37-38.
Gaster, T . H . The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect. London: Seeker & Warburg, 1957.
Geiger, A . Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte, I: bis zur Zerstorung des zweiten Tempels, 2.
Auflage. Breslau: Schletter, 1865.
. Urschrift and Ubersetzungen der Bibel: in ihrer Abhdngigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des
Judentums, 2. Auflage. Frankfurt a. M . : Madda, 1928 [1857].
Geller, M . J. "Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees Rift", JJS 30 (1979), 202-211.
Gelzer, M . "Die Vita des Josephos", Hermes 80 (1952), 67-90.
Gerhardsson, B. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic
Judaism and Early Christianity, trans. E. J. Sharpe. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksells,
1961.
Gerlach, E. Die Weissagungen des Alten Testaments in den Schriften des Flavius Josephus. Berlin:
Hertz, 1863.
Giovannini, G. "The Connection Between Tragedy and History in Ancient Criticism",
Philosophical Quarterly 22 (1943), 308-314.
Glasson, T . F. "Anti-Pharisaism in St. Matthew", 51 (1960-61), 316-320.
. Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology: with special reference to the Apocalypses and
Pseudepigraphs. London: S.P.C.K. 1961.
7 0
Goldenberg, D . "Flavius Josephus or Joseph ben M a t t a t h i a h ? " , / ^ (1979), 178-182.
. "The Halakha in Josephus and in Tannaitic Literature: A Comparative Study",
JQR 67 (1976), 30-43.
Goodblatt, D . "The Origins of Roman Recognition of the Palestinian Patriarchate",
Studies in the History of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel 4 (1978), 89-102 [Hebrew].
Graetz, H . Geschichte derJuden von den dltesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart, 11 vols., 5th edn.
Leipzig: Oskar Leiner, 1905 [1863].
Grant, M . The Ancient Historians. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970.
Greene, W . C . Moira: Fate, Good, and Evil in Greek Thought. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1944.
Gruber-Magitot, C . Jesus et les Pharisiens. Paris: Robert Laffont, 1964.
Guignebert, Ch. The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, trans. S. H . Hooke. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul; New York: E. P. Dutton, 1939.
Gundel, W . "Heimarmene", PWRE 13 (1910), 2622-2645.
Guttmann, A . Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: A Chapter in the History of the Halakhah from
Ezra to Judah I. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970.
Guttmann, H . Die Darstellung der judischen Religion bei Flavius Josephus. Breslau: Marcus,
1928.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 405

Hadas, M . Hellenistic Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959.


Haenchen, E. The Acts of the Apostles, trans. R . M . Wilson. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,
1982.
Halbfas, F. Theorie und Praxis in der Geschichtschreibung bei Dionys von Halikarnass. Minister:
Westfalische Vereinsdruckerei, 1910.
Halson, B. R . " A Note on the Pharisees", Theology 47 (1964), 245-251.
Hanson, P. D . "Apocalypticism", IDBS, 28-34.
Hare, D . R . A . The Themes of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St.
Matthew. " S N T S Monograph Series", 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1967.
Harnack, A . von. Das Wesen des Christentums, Neuauflage. Stuttgart: Ehrenfried Klotz,
1950 [1900].
Hata, G. "Is the Greek Version of Josephus' 'Jewish War' a Translation or a Rewriting
of the First V e r s i o n ? " , / ^ 66 (1975), 89-108.
Havelock, E. A . The Greek Concept of Justice: From its Shadow in Homer to its Substance in
Plato. Cambridge, Mass; London: Harvard University Press, 1978.
Head, J. and S. L. Cranston, edd. Reincarnation in World Thought. New York: Julian
Press, 1967.
Heller, B. "Grundziige der Aggada des Flavius Josephus", MGWJ 80 (1936), 237-246.
Hengel, M . Judentum und Hellenismus. Tubingen: J. C . B. Mohr (P. Siebeck), 1969.
. Die Zeloten. Untersuchungen zur judischen Freiheitsbewegung in der Zeit von Herodes I, bis
70 n. Chr. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.
Herford, R . T . "The Law and Pharisaism", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes
in One, edd. W . O . E. Oesterley, H . Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York:
Ktav, 1969 [1937-38], III, 91-121.
. Pharisaism: Its Aim and Method, "Crown Theological Library", 35. London:
Williams & Northgate, 1912.
. The Pharisees. New York: Macmillan, 1924.
Hicks, R . D . Stoic and Epicurean. New York: Russell & Russell, 1962 [1910].
Hignett, C . A History of the Athenian Constitution: to the End of the Fifth Century B. C. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1952.
Hirzel, R . Themis, Dike und Verwandtes: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Rechtsidee bei den
Griechen. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1907.
Hoenig, S. B. The Great Sanhedrin: A study of the origin, development, composition and functions
of the Bet Din ha-Gadol during the Second Jewish Commonwealth. Philadelphia: Dropsie
College, 1953.
Holscher, G. "Josephus", PWRE 18 (1916), 1934-2000.
. Der Sadduzaismus: eine kritische Untersuchung zur spateren judischen Religions geschichte.
Leipzig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1906.
Holtzmann, O. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. "Grundriss der theologischen
Wissenschaften", 2d. series, Bd. 2. Freiburg-Leipzig: J. C . B. Mohr, 1895.
. "Der Prophet Malachi und der Ursprung der Pharisaismus", Archiv fur
Religionswissenschaft 29 (1931), 1-21.
Hooker, J. T . "Xapi? and 'Apexr) in Thucydides", Hermes 102 (1974), 164-169.
Howard, G. "Kaige Reading in Josephus", Textus 8 (1973), 45-54.
Hultgren, A . J. Jesus and his Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories in the
Synoptic Tradition. Minneapolis: Ausburg, 1979.
Hummel, R . Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthausevangelium.
"Beitrage zur evangelischen Theologie", 33. Munich: Kaiser, 1966.
Hussey, M . D . "Origin of the Name Pharisee", JBL 39 (1920), 66-69.
Isser, S. "The Conservative Essenes: A New Emendation of Antiquities X V I I I . 12", JSJ
7 (1976), 177-180.
Jacob, B. Im Namen Gottes: eine sprachliche und religions-geschichtliche Untersuchung zum Alten
und Neuen Testament. Berlin: S. Calvary & C o . , 1903.
Jaeger, W . Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development. Oxford: University Press
1948.
406 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Janson, T . Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in Literary Conventions. "Acta Universitatis 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

Levy, I. La Legende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine. "Bibliotheque de TEcole des Hautes


Etudes", 250. Paris: Libraire Ancienne Honore Champion, 1927.
Lieberich, H. Studien zu den Prodmien in der griechischen und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung
I: Die griechischen Geschichtschreiber. Munich: J. G. Weiss (J. Olbrich), 1899.
Lieberman, S. Greek in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Life and Manners ofJewish Palestine in
the II-IV Centuries C.E. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942.
. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of
Palestine in the I Century B.C.E.- IV Century C.E. "Texts and Studies of the Jewish
Theological Seminary of America", 18. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary
of America, 1950.
Lighdey, J. W. Jewish Sects and Parties in the Time of Christ. London: Sharp, 1925.
Lindars, B. "Jesus and the Pharisees", in Donum Gentilicum: New Testament Studies in
Honour of David Daube, ed. E. Bammel, C. K. Barrett, W. D. Davies. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1978, 51-63.
Lindner, H. Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum. "Arbeiten zur
Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums", 12. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1972.
Liver, J. "The Doctrine of Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the
Second Commonwealth", HTR 52 (1959), 149-185.
Loewe, H. "The Ideas of Pharisaism", in Judaism and Christianity: Three Volumes in One,
edd. W. O. E. Oesterley, H. Loewe, and E. I. J. Rosenthal. New York: Ktav,
1969 [1937-38], II, 3-58.
Loftus, F. "The Anti-Roman Revolts of the Jews and the G a l i l e a n s " , 6 8 (1977),
78-98.
. "A Note on ouvrarpa TWV TocXiXafcov: B.J. iv 558", JQR 65 (1975), 182-183.
Lohse, E. Unwelt des Neuen Testaments. "Grundrisse zum Neuen Testament", 1. Got­
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971.
Long, A. A. Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. London: Duckworth, 1974.
Long, H. S. "Plato's Doctrine of Metempsychosis and Its Source", Classical Weekly 41
(1948), 149-155.
Longenecker, R. N. "The Melchizedek Argument of Hebrews", in Unity and Diversity
in New Testament Theology: Essays in Honour of George E. Ladd, ed. R. Guelich. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans 1978, 161-185.
Ludemann, G. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles: Studies in Chronology, trans. S. F. Jones.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.
Luther, H. Josephus und Justus von Tiberias: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des judischen Aufstandes.
Halle: Wischan & Burkhardt, 1910.
Luz, U. "Jesus und die Pharisaer", Judaica 38 (1982), 229-246.
Maier, G. Mensch und freier Wille: nach den judischen Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und
Paulus. "Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament", 12. Tub­
ingen: J. C. B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1981.
Mansfeld, J. "Providence and the Destruction of the Universe in Early Stoic Thought:
with some remarks on the 'Mysteries of Philosophy'", in Studies in Hellenistic
Religions, ed. M. J. Vermaseren. "Etudes Preliminaires aux Religions Orientales
dans l'Empire Romain", 78. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979, 129-188.
Manson, T. W. "Sadducee and Pharisee: the Origin and Significance of their Names",
BJRL 22 (1938), 144-159.
Mansoor, M. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A College Textbook and a Study Guide. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1964.
Mantel, H. D. "The Sadducees and the Pharisees", in The World History of the Jewish
People. First series: Ancient Times, vol. 8: Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period,
edd. M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baros. Jerusalem: Massada, 1977, 99-123.
—-—. Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press,
1965.
Marcus, R. "Pharisaism in the Light of Modern Scholarship", The Journal of Religion
32 (1952), 154-164.
408 BIBLIOGRAPHY

. "Pharisees, Essenes, and Gnostics", JBL 73 (1954), 157-161.


Martin, Luther H . "Josephus' Use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities X I I I , 171-
3 " , Numen 28 (1981), 127-137.
Mandell, C . W . Tacitus: the Man and his Work. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957.
Merkel, H . "Jesus und die Pharisaer", NTS 14 (1968), 194-208.
Meyer, B. F. The Aims of Jesus. London: S . C . M . , 1979.
Meyer, E. Ursprung und Anfange des Christentums, 3 vols. Stuttgart-Berlin: J. G . Cotta,
1921-23.
. "Zur Theorie und Methodik der Geschichte", in his Kleine Schriften: zur
Geschichtstheorie und zur wirtschaftlichen und politischen Geschichte des Altertums. Halle:
Max Niemeyer, 1910.
Meyer, R . "Die Bedeutung des Pharisaismus fur die Geschichte und Theologie des
Judentums", TLZ 11 (1952), 677-684.
. "Geschichtserfahrung und Schriftauslegung, zur Hermeneutik des friihen Juden­
tums", in Die hermeneutische Frage in der Theologie, edd. O . Loretz and W . Strolz.
Freiburg: Herder, 1968.
. "EaS&ouxoctos", TDNT, V I I , 35-54.
. Tradition und Neuschopfung im antiken Judentum: dargestellt an der Geschichte des
Pharisaismus: mit einem Beitrag von H.-Fr. Weiss: der Pharisaismus im Lichte der
Uberlieferung des Neuen Testaments. "Sitzungsberichte der sachsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philologisch-historische Klasse", Bd. 110, Heft 2.
Berlin: Akademie, 1965.
Meyer, R . and H.-F. Weiss. "Oaptaato?", TDNT, I X , 11-48.
Michel, O . "Ich Komme [Jos. Bell. III. 4 0 0 ] " , TLZ 24 (1968).
. "Studien zu Josephus: Simon bar Giora", NTS 14 (1968), 402-408.
. "Zur Arbeit an den Textzeugen des Josephus", ZAW 83 (1971), 101-102.
Milik, J. T . Ten Years of Discovery in The Wilderness ofJudaea, trans J. Strugnell. "Studies
in Biblical Theology", 26. London: S . C . M . 1959.
Misch, G. A History of Autobiography in Antiquity, 2 vols, trans. E. W . Dickes. "Interna­
tional Library of Sociology and Social Reconstruction". London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1950.
il
Moehring, H . R . T\\e Acta pro Judaeis in the Antiquities of Flavius Josephus", in Chris­
tianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, 4 vols.,
ed. J. Neusner. "Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity", 12. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1975, III, 124-158.
. "Josephus on the Marriage Customs of the Essenes, Jewish W a r II: 119-166 and
Antiquities X V I I I : 11-25", in Early Christian Origins: Studies in honor of H.R.
Willoughby, ed. A . Wikgren. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, 120-127.
-. "Novelistic Elements in the Writings of Flavius Josephus". Dissertation, Univer­
sity of Chicago, August, 1957.
. "Rationalization of Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus", Studia
Evangelica 6 (1973), 376-383.
Momigliano, A . "Ancient History and the Antiquarian", Journal of the Warburg and Cour-
tauld Institutes 13 (1950), 285-315.
. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1977.
. "Josephus as a Source for the History of Judaea", Cambridge Ancient History, X :
The Augustan Empire 44 B.C.-AD. 70, edd. S. A . Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M . P.
Charlesworth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.
. "Problems of Ancient Biography", in his Quarto Contributo alia Storia degli Studi
Classici e del Mondo Antico. "Storia e Letteratura", 115. Rome: Edizioni di Storia
e Letteratura, 1969, 77-94.
Montet, E. "Le premier conflit entre Pharisiens et Sadducees d'apres trois documents
orientaux", Journal Asiatique 9 (1887), 415-423.
Montgomery, J. A . "The Religion of Flavius Josephus", JQR 11 (1920-21), 277-305.
Moore, C . H . Ancient Beliefs in the Immortality of the Soul: with some account of their influence
on later views. "Our Debt to Greece and Rome". New York: Cooper Square, 1963.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 409

. Pagan Ideas of Immortality During the Roman Empire. "The Ingersoll Lecture, 1918",
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918.
Moore, G. F. "Fate and Free Will in the Jewish Philosophies According to Josephus",
HTR 22 (1929), 371-389.
. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim, 3 vols. Cam­
bridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930.
. "The Rise of Normative Judaism, I " , HTR 17 (1924), 307-373.
Morel, W . "Eine Rede bei Josephus (Bell. Jud. V I I 341 sqq.)", Rheinisches Museum for
Philologie 75 (1926), 106-115.
Mosley, A . W . "Historical Reporting in the Ancient World", NTS 12 (1965-66), 10-26.
Neusner, J. "Josephus's Pharisees", in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren, I.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972, 224-253.
. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1973.
. A Life of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai (ca. 1-80 C.E.). "Studia Post-Biblica", 6.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962.
. "Pharisaic Law in New Testament Times", Union Seminary Quarterly Review 26
(1971), 331-340.
. "Pharisaic-Rabbinic Judaism: A Clarification", History of Religions 12 (1973),
250-270.
. "Pre-70 C . E . Pharisaism: the Record of the Rabbis", CCARJ 19 (1972), 53-70.
— . The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, 3 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971.
. "The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees in Modern Historiography",
CCARJ 19 (1972), 78-108.
Nicklesburg, G. W . Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism
(Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1972.
Nicolaus, M . Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les Deux Siecles anterieurs a VEre 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

. "The Pharisees in the Jewish Revolution of 66-73", Journal of Semitic Studies 1


(1962), 63-80.
Rubenstein, R . L. "Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites: A Study in Rabbinic
Psychology", Judaism 12 (1963), 456-468.
Russell, D . S. The Jews from Alexander to Herod. "New Clarendon Bible". Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1967.
. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 BC-AD 100. Philadelphia:
Westminister, 1964.
Safrai, S., M . Stern et al., edd. The Jewish People in the First Century, I. "Compendia
Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum". Assen: van Gorcum & C o . , 1974.
Salomon, M . Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit bei Aristotles: nebst einem Anhang uber den Begriff des
Tauschgeschaftes. Leiden: A . W . Sijthoff, 1937.
Sandbach, F. H . The Stoics. "Ancient Culture and Society". London: Chatto & Windus,
1975.
Sanders, E. P. Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977.
Schalit, A . "Josephus und Justus", Klio 26 (1933), 67-95.
, ed. Zur Josephus-Forschung. "Wege der Forschung", 84. Darmstadt: Wissenschaft­
liche Buchgesellschaft, 1973.
Schiffman, L. H . The Halakhah at Qumran. "Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity", 16.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975.
Schlatter, A . Der Bericht uber das Ende Jerusalems: ein Dialog mit Wilhelm Weber. "Beitrage
zur Forderung chrisdicher Theologie", 28. Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann 1923.
. Kleinere Schriften zu Flavius Josephus, ed. K . H . Rengstorf. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1970.
. Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus. "Beitrage zur Forderung
schriftlicher Theologie", 2:26. Gutersloh: C . Bertelsmann, 1932.
. Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? Gutersloh: L. Bertelsmann, 1910.
Schmid, W . Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halicarnassus bis auf den
zweiten Philostratus, 5 vols. Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer, 1887-1897.
Schreckenberg, H . Rezeptionsgeschkhtliche und Textkritische Untersuchungen zu Flavius
Josephus. "Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des hellenistischen Judentums",
10. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977.
Schubert, K . "Jewish Religious Parties and Sects", in The Crucible of Christianity:
Judaism, Hellenism and the Historical Background to The Christian Faith, ed. A . Toynbee.
London: Thames and Hudson, 1969.
. Die Religion des nachbiblischen Judentums. Vienna-Freiburg: Herder, 1955.
Schuhl, P. M . Le Dominateur et les Possibles. "Bibliotheque de Philosophic Contem-
poraine, Histoire de la Philosophic et Philosophic Generate " . Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1960.
Schurer, E. Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 3 7 4 . Aufl., 3 vols, Leip­
zig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1801fT; E T , The Jewish People in the Time ofJesus Christ, 3 vols.
Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1890 (cf. also G. Vermes).
Schwark, J. "Matthaus der Schriftgelehrte und Josephus der Priester: ein Vergleich",
Theokratia 2 (1970-72), 137-154.
Schwartz, D . R . "Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees", JSJ 14 (1983), 157-171.
. " K A T A T O Y T O N T O N KAIPON: Josephus* Source on Agrippa I I " , JQR 72
(1982), 241-268.
Segal, M . H . "Pharisees and Sadducees", The Expositor 8 (1917), 81-108.
Sherwin-White, A . N . Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1963.
Seyrig, H . "Monnaies Hellenistiques", Revue Numismatique, 6th series, 6 (1964), 55-65.
Shutt, R . J. H . "The Concept of God in the Works of Flavius Josephus", JJS 31 (1980),
171-189.
. Studies in Josephus. London: S . P . C . K . , 1961.
Sieffert, F. "Pharisaer und Sadduzaer, in Realenzyklopddie fur protestantische Theologie and
412 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kirche, 3. Auflage, ed. J. J. Herzog, rev. A . Hauck. Leipzig: J. C . Hinrichs, 1896-


1913, X V , 264-292.
Siegfried, W . Der Rechtsgedanke bei Aristoteles. Zurich: Schulthess & C o . , 1947.
. Studien zur geschichtlichen Anschauung des Polybios. Leipzig: B. G . Teubner, 1928.
Simon, M . and A . Benoit. Le Judaisme et le Christianisme antique d'Antiochus Epiphane a Con­
stant™. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1968.
Small wood, E. M . "Domitian's Attitude toward the Jews and Judaism", Classical
Philology 51 (1956), 1-13.
. "High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine", JTS 13 (1962), 14-34.
. The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. "Studies in Judaism in Late
Antiquity", 20. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976.
Smith, M . "The Description of the Essenes in Josephus and the Philosophumena",
HUCA 29 (1958), 273-313.
.Jesus the Magician. London: Victor Gollancz, 1978.
. "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century", in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed.
M . Davis. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America/Harper & Brothers,
1956.
. "What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?" JBL 88 (1959), 66-72.
Stern, M . Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities, 1980.
Stettner, W . Die Seelenwanderung bei Griechen und Romern. Stuttgart: W . Kohlhammer,
1933.
Steuernagel, C . "Pharisaer", PWRE 38 (1938), 1825-1935.
Stock, St. G. "Fate (Greek and Roman)", ERE, V , 786-790.
Suffrin, A . E. "Fate (Jewish)", ERE, V , 793-794.
Tcherikover, V . Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. S. Appelbaum. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society of America; Jerusalem" Magnes Press, 1959.
Thackeray, H . St. J. Josephus: the Man and the Historian. New York: Jewish Institute of
Religion Press, 1929.
. " O n Josephus's Statement of the Pharisees' Doctrine of Fate (Antiq. xviii, 1, 3 ) " ,
HTR 25 (1932), 93.
Theiler, W . "Tacitus und die antike Schlicksalslehre", in Phyllobolia: fur Peter von der
Muhll, edd. O . Grigon et al. Basel: Benno Schwabe & C o . , 1946, 35-90.
Thoma, C . "Die Frommigkeit im pharisaisch-rabbinischen Judentum", Emuna 7
(1972), 324-330.
. "Der Pharisaismus", in Literatur und Religion des Fruhjudentums: Eine Einfuhrung,
edd. J. Maier and J. Schreiner. Wurzburg: Echter Verlag; Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn,
1973.
. "Die Weltanschauung des Josephus Flavius: dargestellt anhand seiner
Schilderung des judischen Aufstandes gegen Rom (66-73 n. Chr.)", Kairos 11
(1969), 39-52.
Thompson, W . G. Review of J. Rohde, Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode, in Biblica 50
(1969), 136-139.
Toynbee, A . J. Greek Historical Thought: from Homer to the Age of Heraclitus. " A Mentor
Book". New York: New American Library, 1952.
Torrey, C . C . "Apocalypse", in The Jewish Encylopedia. New York: Ktav, 1901, I,
669-675.
Trude, P. Der Begriff der Gerechtigkeit in der aristotelischen Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie. "Neue
Kolner Rechtswissenschaftliche Abhandlungen", 3. Berlin: W . de Gruyter, 1955.
Turner, C . H . "Note on 'Succession' Language in non-Christian Sources", in H . B.
Swete (ed.), Essays on the Early History of the Church and the Ministry. London: Mac-
millan & C o . , 1918, 197-199.
Tyson, J. B. "The Opposition to Jesus in the Gospel of Luke", Perspectives in Religious
Studies 5 (1978), 144-150.
Urbach, E. E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. I. Abrahams, 2 vols., 2d. edn.
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 413

Usher, S. The Historians of Greece and Rome. New York: Toplinger, 1970.
van Tilborg, S. The Jewish Leaders in Matthew. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972.
van Unnik, W . C . Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller. Heidelberg: Lambert
Schneider, 1978.
. "Flavius Josephus and the Mysteries", in Studies in Hellenistic Religions, ed. M . J.
Vermaseren. "Etudes Preliminaries aux Religions Orientales dans TEmpire 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

Abelson, J. 146 n. 102 Bloch, H . 21, 22 n. 22, 183 n. 9, 184


n. 14, 188 n. 43, 195, 214 n. 8, 219
Alon, G. 2 nn. 7-8, 117, 125 n. 22, n. 20, n. 23, 221 n. 39, 230 n. 82,
213 n. 3, 283 n. 10 236 n. 107, 275 n. 96
Amand, D . 133 n. 51, 137 n. 69, 138 Bloch, M . 13 n. 66, 14 nn. 72-73, 15
n. 71, 139 nn. 77-78, 152 n. 138, 154 n. 78, 16 n. 82
n. 144, n. 146, nn. 149-150, 397 n. Blumenthal, H . von 161 n. 165, 163 n
91 177, 164 n. 178, 165 nn. 190-191
Anderson, J. G. C . 59 n. 13 Bousset, W . 2 n. 6, 11, 46 n. 3, 128
Armstrong, A . H . 149 n. 120, 398 n. n. 39, 275 n. 99, 276 n. 102
99 Bowker, J. 1 n. 4, 11-12
Attridge, H . W . 35 n. 101, 47, 71-73, Braun, M . 47 n. 8, 225 n. 63
98 n. 48, 104, 147, 181 n. 3, 184 n. Brownlee, W . H . 88 n. 19
14, nn. 16-17, 185 nn. 18-19, 192 n. Broyde, I. 386
76, 208 n. 56, 220 n. 26, 227 n. 75, Brune, B. 25-26, 325 n. 3, 326, 339
330 n. 36, 331 n. 49, 332-333, 332 n. Buchsel, F. 161 n. 165, 164 n. 178,
52, 336, 336 nn. 76-77, 343, 348 n. 169 n. 209
15, 355 n. 41, n. 45, 376-383, 378 n. Buehler, W . W . 11 n. 59
11 Burgmann, H . 1 n. 2, 7
Aune, D . E. 267 n. 40 Burrows, M . 223 n. 52
Avenarius, G. 61 n. 29, 63 n. 46, 65,
65 n. 51, 68 n. 60, 69 n. 61, 71 n. Cadbury, H . J. 61 n. 29
70, 73 n. 73, 90 n. 22, 376 nn. 2-3, Cavallin, H . C . C . 170 n. 211
377 n. 5, n. 7, nn. 9-10, 378, 381, Chadwick, H . 11 If. n. 112
382 n. 20 Charles, R . H . 2 n. 6, 170 n. 211
Ciofarri, V . 134 n. 52, 138 nn. 71-72
Bacher, W . 235 n. 99 Cohen, N. G. 98 n. 48
Barish, D . 314 n. 31, 315, 315 n. 40 Cohen, S. J. D . 14-15, 15 nn. 75-76,
Bauernfeind, O . 302 n. 89, 303 n. 92, 56 n. 1, 61 n. 26, 79 n. 86, 80 n. 88,
n. 95 116 n. 1, 184 n. 14, 187 nn. 34-35,
Baumgarten, A. I. 1 n. 4, 7 n. 28, 11, nn. 39-40, 188 n. 40, 194, 210 n. 65,
82 n. 1, 115 nn. 122-123, 235 n. 99, 214 n. 6, 261 n. 4, 311 n. 1, 312-316,
264 n. 24, 265 n. 32, 275, 275 n. 96 312 n. 7, n. 13, 313 n. 17, n. 21, 316
Baumgarten, J. M . 230 n. 83, 233 n. n. 44, n. 48, 318 nn. 53-54, 319-321,
89, 240-242, 241 n. 130 322 n. 85, 323, 325 n. 4, 328, 340,
Beasley-Murray, G. R . 223 n. 52 348 n. 15, 355 n. 43, 357 n. 2, 358
Beilner, W . 1 n. 2, 7 n. 33 nn. 4-5, 362-365, 370
Benario, H . W . 68 n. 59 Collingwood, R. G. 6, 13 n. 68, 16 n.
Bergman, J. 139 n. 78, 397 n. 91 79, 16 n. 83, 225 n. 63
Bergmann, J. 156 n. 156 Collomp, P. 75 n. 78, 377 n. 9
Bickerman, E. 128 n. 39, 186 n. 29, Connor, W . R. 303 n. 96, 304 n. 99
223 n. 91, 235, 235 nn. 101-104, 237 Cornfeld, G. 79 n. 87, 85, 107 n. 100,
n. 117, 239, 239 n. 126, n. 128 117, 167 n. 199
Black, M . 2 n. 7, 8, 8 n. 36, 283 n. Creed, J. L. 303 n. 96
10, n. 13 Creuzer, F. 333-334
Blenkinsopp, J. 35 n. 101, 225 n. 60, Cumont, F. 161 n. 165, 163 n. 176,
238 nn. 120-122, 262 n. 18, 267-272, 164 n. 180, n. 182, n. 185, 165 n.
267 n. 39, n. 41, 270 n. 69, 271 nn. 190
78-80, 279 nn. 114-115, n. 119, 283
n. 9 Davies, W . D . 2 n. 6
416 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

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

Farmer, W . R . 2 n. 7, 184 n. 11, 283 Hadas, M . 225 n. 63


n. 9, n. 13 Haenchen, E. 43, 128 n. 37
Feldman, L. H . 18 n. 1, 46 n. 3, 48, Hafaeli, L. 348
50 n. 33, 117 n. 9, 166 n. 194, 169 Halbfas, F. 63 n. 46, 76 n. 81, 77, 376
nn. 207-208, 195, 228 n. 77, 289 n. n. 2, 377 n. 4, n. 8
35, 296, 354 n. 37, 382 n. 21, 389 n. Hanson, P. D . 2 n. 6
40 Harnack, A . von 5
Finkel, A . 8 n. 36 Hata, G. 59 n. 10, 61, 61 n. 32
Finkelstein, L. 1 nn. 2-3, 6 n. 24, 11, Havelock, E. A . 146 n. 102, 148 n.
239 n. 125, 346 n. 11 112
Finley, M . I. 103, 104 n. 84, 376 nn. Head, J. and S. L. Cranston 161 n.
2-3, 378 n. 11 165, 162 n. 167, 164 n. 179
Fischel, H . A . 208 n. 54 Heller, B. 47 n. 8, 95 n. 27, 332 n. 52
Flusser, D . 7 n. 28 Hengel, M . 26 n. 49, 50 n. 33, 58 n.
Foakes Jackson, F. J. 128 n. 37, 181 10, 208 n. 54, 283 nn. 9-10, n. 13, n.
n. 3, 187 n. 40 15, 284 n. 16, 330 n. 36, 355 n. 45
Foerster, W . 1 n. 2, 7, 87, 87 n. 10, Herford, R . T . 1 n. 5, 2 nn. 6-7, 11
88 nn. 54-56, 213 n. 4
Frankfort, T . 311 n. 1, 312-316, 313 Hicks, R . D . 151 n. 134
n. 20 Hignett, C . 103
Franxman, T . W . 47 n. 8, 181 n. 3, Hirzel, R . 146 n. 102
192 n. 75, 343 n. 4 Hoenig, S. B. 10 n. 52
Friedlander, J. 2 n. 8, 213 n. 3 Holscher, G. 21-25, 40, 45-46, 69, 81
Fuks, A . 103 n. 90, 113-114, 116 n. 1, 120 n. 3,
Furley, D . J. 133 n. 51, 150 n. 129 176, 187 n. 35, 188, 188 n. 48, 195,
197, 207-208, 209 n. 58, 210, 210 n.
Gaster, T . H . 9 n. 48 64, 214 n. 5, n. 8, 218 n. 15, 219 n.
Geiger, A . 1 n. 1, 2 nn. 6-7, 7 n. 31 22, 221 nn. 40-41, 222 n. 44, n. 46,
Geller, M . J. 2 n. 8, 213 n. 3 n. 48, 224 n. 55, n. 56, 225 n. 58,
Gelzer, M . 314 n. 31, 316 n. 44, n. 46 228 n. 77, 229 n. 80, 230 n. 82, 236
Gerlach, E. 20-21, 325 n. 2, 354 n. 236 n. 107, 243-244, 249 n. 16,
Ginzberg, L. 268 n. 53 254 n. 24, 261 n. 4, 275, 275 n. 99,
Giovannini, G. 376 n. 2 276 n. 102, 279, 279 n. 117, 284 n.
Glasson, T . F. 161 n. 165, 170 n. 210 18, 306-307, 307 n. 109, 312, 317-
Goldenberg, D . 330 n. 39 319, 321, 325 n. 3, 327, 329 n. 3, 330
Goldin, J. 58 n. 10 n. 40, 335 n. 74, 342 n. 1, 348, 356
Gomme, A . W . , A . Andrewes, and K.J. n. 46, 362 n. 12, 387 n. 24, 389 n.
Dover 303 n. 96, n. 97, 304 n. 98 35, n. 37
Goodblatt, D . 35 n. 101 Holtzmann, O . 1 n. 2, 7, 11 n. 59
Gordon, A . R . 146 n. 102, 147 n. 105 Hooker, J. T . 303 n. 96, 304 n. 101
Gray, G. B. 7-8, 8 n. 37 Hussey, M . D . 1 n. 4
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS 417

Jacob, B. 2 n. 6 Maier, G. 136 n. 61, 138 n. 74, 133


Jackson Knight, W . F . 161 n. 165, 164 n. 49, 146-149, 153 nn. 139-140, 155
n. 179, 165 n. 190 n. 154, 176 n. 221, 177 n. 230, 204-
Jacoby, F. 312 n. 7 205, 207, 208 n. 52, 210 n. 66, 388-
Jaeger, W . 164 n. 179 392, 397
Jellinek, A . 9 Manson, T . W . 1 n. 4, 2 n. 5
Jeremias, J. 2 n. 9, 9 Mansoor, M . 9 n. 49
Johnson, B. 146 n. 102 Mantel, H . D . 3 n. 10, 9, 10 n. 52
Juel, D . 42 n. 6, 43 n. 7 Marcus, R . 3 n. 10, 11 n. 58, 125,
202 n. 31, 208 n. 52, 214 n. 5, 222 n.
Kajanto, I. 133 n. 51, 135 n. 56, 136 45, 223, 224 n. 53, 225 n. 57, 234 n.
n. 58, 138 n. 71, 379 n. 15 96, 237 n. 115, 248 n. 13, 249 nn.
Karris, R . J. 118 n. 10 15-16, 253 n. 22, 255 n. 25, 265 n.
Kautzsch, E. 8 n. 36 34, 349 n. 29, 386 n. 20
Kieval, P. 2 n. 8 Martin, L. H . 136 n. 59, 140 n. 83,
Klausner, J. 2 n. 6 201, 204 n. 38, 395-397
Klein, R . W . 223 n. 52 Mayer, R. and C . Moller 270 n. 69,
Kleinknecht, H . 97 n. 39 344, 351 n. 32
Kohler, K . 1 n. 5, 5, 11 n. 55 Mendell, C . W . 203 n. 34
Krenkel, M . 115 n. 123, 128 n. 37 Meyer, B.F. 13 n. 67, 14 n. 72, 14 n.
74, 15 n. 77, 16
Laqueur, R . 14-15, 75, 26-27, 50 n. Meyer, E. 2 n. 7, 6
33, 56 n. 2, 57, 58, 60, 61 n. 26, 79 Meyer, R . 1 n. 3, 3 n. 9, 10 n. 52,
n. 86, 93 n. 24, 95 n. 27, 177 n. 231, 283 n. 10
184 n. 13, 186, 187, 187 n. 36, 189 n. Michaelis, W . 220 n. 28, 221, 221 n.
49, 189-193, 195, 261 n. 4, 314-315, 38
316 n. 44, 317-319, 325 n. 4, 328, Michel, O . and O . Bauernfeind 58 n.
342 n. 1, 382 n. 21 10, 79 n. 87, 107 n. 100, 113 n. 117,
Laurin, R . B. 223 n. 52 116 n. 1, 117 n. 9, 120 n. 3, 122 n.
Lauterbach, J . Z . I n . 3, I n . 5, 2 nn. 10, 123 n. 13, 125, 129-132, 187 n.
6-8, 95, 289, 386 35, 222 n. 46, 261 n. 4
Leach, A . 136 n. 58 Milokenski, E. 226 n. 63
LeMoyne, J. 84 n. 4, 125 n. 19, 126 Moehring, H . R . 47, 61 n. 30, 225 n.
n. 28, 127 n. 33, 208 n. 52, 346 63, 281 n. 4, 380 n. 16
Levine, I. L. 35 n. 101 Momigliano, A . 12, 16, 16 n. 83, 46
Levy, I. 1 n. 2 n. 5, 68 n. 58, 73-74, 378 n. 11, nn.
Lieberich, H . 61 n. 28, 63 nn. 46-47, 13-14, 398 n. 99
66, 70, 71 n. 70, 74 n. 76, 77, 376 Montgomery, J.A. 325 n. 3, 330 n.
nn. 2-3, 377 n. 6 37, 334, 343, 355 n. 38
Lieberman, S. 26 n. 49, 208 n. 54 Moore, C . H . 161 n. 165, 162 nn. 166-
Lindner, H . 47, 60, 67, 70, 74 n. 76, 167, 164 n. 183, 165 n. 190, 191
95 n. 27, 135 nn. 55-56, 161 n. 164, Moore, G.F. 1 n. 5, 2 nn. 6-7, 8 n.
187 n. 34, 238 n. 121, 262 n. 17, 269 36, 11 n. 56, 46, 107, 110, 113 n.
n. 65, 270 n. 69, 330 n. 36, 332, 355 117, 128 n. 139, 151 n. 132, n. 134,
n. 45 153 n. 140, 176, 197 n. 5, 197-199,
Liver, J. 223 n. 52 204 n. 38, 208-210, 218 n. 13, 221 n.
Loewe, H . 5 n. 20 40, 241 n. 130, 289 n. 36, 295, 299 n.
Lohse, E. 348 76, 327, 354 n. 37, 356 n. 46, 384-
Long, A . A . 139 n. 76, 151 n. 134, 385, 397, 398 n. 98
354 n. 37 Mosley, A . W . 16 n. 83
Long, H . S. 161 n. 165, 162 n. 167, Motzo, B. 314, 314 n. 33
n. 172
Ludemann, G. 128 n. 37 Neusner, J. 2 n. 7, 3 nn. 12-13, 4, 7,
Luther, H . 79 n. 87, 312-316, 312 n. 10, 12, 34-35, 40 n. 1, 80 n. 88, 125,
14, 313 n. 18, 316 n. 44, 317-319, 194-195, 204 n. 38, 239 n. 125, 241-
321, 359 n. 6, 360 n. 8 243, 246, 250, 253, 262 n. 18, 286,
418 INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

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

52, 210 n. 64, 216 n. 12, 218 n. 14, Torrey, C . C . 2 n. 6


n. 16, 219 n. 18, n. 23, 222 n. 45, n. Toynbee, A . 62 n. 38
49, 223, 224, 224 n. 55, 250, 275 n. Trude, P. 146 n. 102
96, n. 100, 276 n. 101, n. 103, 277 n. Turner, C . H . 235, 235 n. 101
107, 278-279, 279 n. 116, 300, 306-
307, 327, 356 n. 46 Urbach, E. E. 333 n. 59, 386
Seyrig, H . 315 n. 39
Shorey, P. 146 n. 102, 148 n. 114 van Unnik, W . C . 41, 184 n. 14, 238
Shutt, R . J. H . 49-50, 58 n. 10, 129 n. 119, n. 121, 267-272, 267 n. 39,
n. 40, 281 n. 4, 307 n. 110, 325 n. 3, 268 n. 55, 270 n. 72, 279 n. 119
355 n. 39 Vermes, G. 35 n. 101, 223 n. 52
Siegfried, W . 146 n. 102, 376 n. 3,
377 n. 7 Wacholder, B. Z . 104 n. 83, 177 n.
Smallwood, E. M . 197 n. 4 231
Smith, M . 3 n. 9, 15 n. 75, 26 n. 49, Wachter, L. 135 n. 54, 136 nn. 59-60,
32-35, 46, 80 n. 88, 125, 128 n. 39, 141, 142 n. 86, 155 n. 154, 204 n. 38,
186 n. 29, 194-195, 208 n. 54, 223 n. 334 n. 63, 386-388, 387 n. 23, 397,
52, 246, 250, 325 n. 4, 327, 335 n. 398 n. 98
75, 340, 362 n. 14, 389 n. 40 Walbank, F. W . 376 n. 3
Stahlin, G. 142 n. 86, 389 n. 41 Waxman, M . 46
Stern, M . 183 n. 10 Weber, W . 58, 80 n. 88, 382 n. 21
Stettner, W . 161 n. 165, 162 nn. 167- Weill, M . 98 n. 48
169, n. 172, 163 nn. 175-176, 164 n. Weiss, H.-F. 114, 185 n. 21, nn. 23-
180, 165 n. 186, nn. 188-191 25, 186, 186 nn. 29-30, 203, 203 n.
Steuernagel, C . 2 n. 7 36, 208 n. 54, 283 n. 9, 325 n. 3,
Stock, St. G. 133 n. 51, 138 n. 71, 328-329, 330 n. 37, n. 40, 334, 335,
206 n. 44 348, 386
Suffrin, A . E. 155 n. 156, 386 Wellhausen, J. 1 n. 1, 2 nn. 6-8, 7 n.
Syme, R . 59 n. 14 33, 8 n. 36, n. 38, 11 nn. 56-57, 200
n. 25, 213
Tcherikover, V . 2 n. 7 Wells, G. L. and E. F. Loftus 13 n. 66
Thackeray, H . St. J. 27, 46 n. 5, 48- Wendland, P. 164 n. 180
49, 57, 58, 60, 69, 73, 80 n. 88, 93 n. Whiston, W . 107 n. 100, 347
24, 99 n. 58, 107 n. 100, 117 n. 9, Whittaker, M . 183 n. 10, 184 n. 11
120 n. 3, 125, 126 n. 26, 129-132, Wild, R . A . 35 n. 101
167, 167 n. 99, 181 n. 1, n. 3, 184 n. Windelband, W . 138 n. 71, 153 nn.
15, 187 n. 35, 189-192, 195, 214 n. 5, 141-142, 154 n. 144, nn. 149-152, 207
233 n. 95, 249 n. 16, 261 n. 4, 281 n. 49
nn. 2-3, 281 nn. 2-3, n. 7, 285 n. 21,
294, 317-319, 325 n. 3, 344, 347, 349 Yavetz, Z . 58 n. 10, 60
n. 28, 358 n. 5, 382 n. 19
Theiler, W . 133 n. 51, 138 n. 72, 139 Zeitlin, S. 1 n. 2
n. 77, 140 n. 79, 203 nn. 34-35, 206 Ziesler, J. A . 143 n. 89, n. 92, 146 n.
n. 44, 207 n. 49 102, 147 n. 104, n. 106, 148 nn.
Thompson, E. and W . C . Price 347 116-117
Thompson, W . G. 42 n. 6
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS

d-rocGos, -r), -ov 156-170 8rj 8 4 , 111


dyvoi;, -rj, -ov 166-167 Sfjixos, 6 243-245, 2 8 6 , 300-301
O&TK, 6 158-170, 298 8ta8oxri, r\/hi<xhoxo<;, 6 235-239, 269
dGdvaTO?, -ov 156-158 StaiTa, 287
dGavaata, rj 160 StSdaxaXo^, 6 336-338
atpeats, rj 2 1 , 36, 120-122, 125-128, 8txato$, - a t a , - o v ; Btxatoauvrj 76, 86-87,
173, 1 7 5 , 177, 196, 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 , 2 0 8 , 89, 111, 142-149, 176, 185, 208, 219-
277, 282-283, 374, 385, 397 221, 262, 332, 390, 393
atcov, 6 168 Soxeto 4 1 , 83-84, 8 9 , 106-113, 130-131,
dxptjkta, 7) 11, 4 2 , 64-66, 75-79, 8 3 , 8 9 - 177, 277, 2 8 6 , 3 7 2 , 3 7 4
96, 108-115, 120, 131-132, 135, 175, 865a, TJ 12-13, 83-84
177, 193, 1 9 5 , 198, 2 0 8 ,210-211, 2 5 8 , 8uvafit<;, TJ 58, 71, 304
274-275, 279, 324,334, 3 3 8 , 340, 363- Suvaareta, rj 2 4 6 ,2 5 7 , 261
364, 372-373, 3 7 9 , 381-383, 392
dxptP6a> 84, 89, 101, 249 eGeXco 296-297
dXrjGeta, r\ 65-66, 77-79, 193, 3 7 7 , eOtafxos, 6 1 0 0 , 1 0 2
379-383 eGvos, TO 8 4
dXX6<poXo<; 6 7 , 7 1 , 75 eGos, TO 8 5 , 100-102, 105
dva|3tW<;, rj 157-170, 169, 299 eI8os, TO 122-123
dv<rfpd<p<o 104,2 3 1 , 240-242 eifxapfxevrj, rj 132-142, 151-156, 174,
dvatpeo 156,206, 384 177, 2 0 1 , 2 0 2 , 208-210, 293-297, 3 0 6 ,
dvdXcofxa, TO 7 1 , 7 5 , 118 333-334, 3 7 2 , 384-398
(TOU) dv9p<o7uetou TO pooXojxevov 294 etpYfJtov, TO 298-299
dvGpcoTttva TTpdyixaTa 202 etariYeofxat 291-292
dvTtXefo, rj 292, 307 ixkoyr\, rj 153, 390
d?to<o 294 efxrcetpta, rj 343-344
DTCDRO 125, 129-132, 175 ev8t'86ifxt 288
drcoXoYta, rj 183 evToXrj, rj 105
DTUOARAAT?, rj 121-122, 282 e?axptPdC<o 108
dpeTT), yj 185,296-297, 302-304, 307, efaxpipcoats, r\ 264-265, 278
372 e^euTeXt&o 287
dpeTT) fj xaxta 296-297, 306 e?riY7iat?, TJ; efrrfeofiat 106, 177, 277,
daqjaXets 72 302
auTOc|>ta, rj 68, 383 ERCATVOS, 6 69
aL<pr\yr\ai<; rj; dcpTpfeopat
f 277 erciOufxia, rj 344
e7utaTTi(xri, rj 13
(katXeus, 6 223-224 e7UT7)8euai<;, rj 299, 307
Pio<; dfxetvo 9 9 , 156-170 e7uoXo9upo{XAT 6 5 , 67
pXdTTTco 277-279 ETUOFJTAT 289-290
por^co 151-152, 205, 297 epfxrjveuco 61
PouXeuTTjptov, TO 295-297 eu8at{jLovta, rj 8 3 , 184-186, 203, 259
eu8o?ta, rj 304
y e v o s , TO 3 6 9 euTupayta, rj 215-216, 225-227, 229, 358,
yt'vofxat TcdXtv 99, 158, 299 372
Yvrjato?, - a , - o v 7 1 ,75 euaepeta, rj 42, 8 3 , 85-90, 102, 111,
Yva>fJLTj, r\ 71 113-114, 175, 185, 2 5 8 ,2 7 4 , 3 3 2 ,
Ypa9<o, auYYpa9<o 6 1 , 71-72, 104 372-373
yuvatxcovtTt?, TJ 265-266, 277 euTUxwt, rj 247-248, 259
£9' rifxtv/eVt Tot<; dvGpcorcots 150-151, 2 0 2 ,
BetatBaifAovta, rj 111 207, 208, 210
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS 421

CTJXCOTTK, 6 344-345, 356 6^690X0^, -ov 67


07C6<JO$, -rj, -ov 301-302, 307
rjXtxta 7uporjxovre<;, ot 291
rjfxets 323, 351 TuaXt-ffeveata 161-170, 299
TudGos, TO 65-67, 73
Getov, TO 111, 302 7uai8eta, rj 369
Geos, 6 132, 136-138, 177, 209, 306, 7uapd8oat<;, ^/juapaStScofjit 233-235, 289,
372, 388, 390, 392 292-293
Gprjaxeta, rj 102 7uapa9uo{iat 84, 111
7uapotveco 256
tepeus, 6 270-271 TuaTrjp, 6 (ot TcaTepe?) 231-233, 291
tepos, -a, 6v 89, 98, 104, 270-271 rcdTptos, -ta, -ov 84, 100-103, 105, 261,
taropta, rj 64-66, 75, 90 265, 278
rcaTpts, rj 57, 65, 68
xatviais, "h 285 rcaTpaxx;, -a, -ov 231-232, 291
xaxorcdGeta, rj 72 TreptfxdxTjTov r\yio\iaLi 290, 307
xaxos, -rj, -ov 153, 156-170 TueptTpoTcrj, rj 158-159, 167-168
xaXos, -ri, -ov 153, 156-170 TuGavos, -rj, 6v 300-301, 307
xaxd TOV xpovov TOUTOV 198-200 TuXfjGos, TO 243-245, 300-301
xaTaxoXouGeco 21, 352-356 Tuotrjat?, rj 302, 307
xaTaarpo9rj, rj 83 nokt^oq, 6/7coXejx£co 74, 277
xetfiat 149-151, 177 TUOXK;, TJ 286, 350-351, 354
xtv8uvos, 6 72, 379 rcoXtTeta, rj 97, 104
xpaau;, rj 205, 295, 297 TuoXtTeuofjtat 21, 36, 347-352, 354-355
xpetaacov 304-305 Ttovo?, 6 71
xpt'vco 141-142 TupoyvcoaK;, TJ 267-274, 279, 372
xptat;, rj 295, 297 TupoXeyco 267-274, 279
7rpoiA7)Grj<; 266-267, 272-274
Xrjareta, rj 123 Tupovota, rj 141-142, 184, 201, 396-397
Xoytos, -ta, -ov 69-70, 73-74 7cpoa7cotea> (-oujjtat) 83, 265, 278, 286
Xoyos, 6 289-290, 292, 336 7Up09TJTT|q, 6/7cpo9TjTeta,
r\/Tzpoyr\tt{>to 267-274
{xaXaxo? 288 TCpCOTOS, -rj, -ov 128-132
(xe-fa <ppovouv 264-265, 278, 372
(xev . . . 8e 123, 153, 156, 192 paara>v7), TJ 299, 307
fjieTapatvca 156
fjteTaPdXXco 60-61 ao9tarrj<;, 6 108, 110
(jteTaTuotrjat?, TJ 292-293, 302 aTdat?, TJ 67
[jiTptos, -ta, -ov 83 aufX7idGeta, rj 139
fjtiaGo?, 6 116-117 auvepyos, 6 48, 50-51
(itaos, TO 227, 243, 372 auvTjGeta, rj 102
(xotpa, rj 158-159 auvTayfjta, TO 84-85, 277
fxoptov, TO 264, 277 acofia, TO 156-170, 299

vecoTeptCca/vecoTeptafjioi; 285 TeXeco 344-345


vojxtfjto?, -TJ, -ov 83, 100-102, 105-106, TepcK, TJ 377
124, 149, 198, 214, 227-228, 231 Ttfjicopta, rj 156-170, 177, 298
(230-245), 289-293, 330-333, 372, 385 TOTUOS, 6 62-63, 72, 80, 111
vofjtoOeTeco 65, 291 TOTE 364-365
vo[xo9eTT)<;, 6 89, 97 Tuyxavo) 301-302, 306, 374
VOJAOS, 6 65, 83, 90, 96-106, 113, 124, Tupavvo^, 6 65, 67
198, 208, 265, 330-333, 372 TUXTJ, rj 58, 60, 135, 141, 395

686$, ri 220-221 uTua-fopeuo) 290-291


6Xo9upai$ 66-67 U7u6{xvrjjjta, T6 378-379
6fi6vota 171-174, 177, 372
422 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS

OocptaocTos, 6 3, 10, 21, 279, 306 91X600905, 6 185


<pauXoc, -TJ, -ov 157-170, 363, 366 9uXocxr), rj 290, 306
<p0api:6s, T), -ov 157, 159
966voc, 6 219, 225-227, 229, 243-245, X0a>v, TJ 298
250, 358-359, 372 XopTj-feca 116-117
<ptXdXXr)Xo<;, 6 170-171, 175
9iXo7covos, 6 71, 75 <|)uxrj, rj 156-170, 177, 297-300
9tX6ao9£co 121, 127, 228
9iXoao9ta, r\ 282-285, 127, 184-186,
385, 389, 397
INDEX OF ANCIENT GROUPS A N D PERSONALITIES

Aeschylus 298 Gaius Caligula 97, 181 n. 1


Alexander the Great 112
Antiochus of Ashkelon 394 Hasmonean Dynasty 26, 42, 82-84, 110,
Apuleius 393-394 112, 200, 225, 258-259, 260
Aristotle 108 n. 104, 148-149, 148 n. Mattathias 83, 102, 134, 160, 172
113, n. 118, 150, 154, 185, 207, 235 Judas (Judah) 102, 196 n. 1, 197,
Arrian 63 n. 44, 380 246
Augustine 138, 206 Jonathan 129, 196, 196 n. 1, 197,
246
Bannus 343-346 Simon 83, 246
John Hyrcanus 83, 110, 112, 197,
Chrysippus 138, 140, 148, 150 n. 128, 213-230, 246, 353
151-152, 155, 173, 176, 205-206, 295, Aristobulus 83, 107, 110, 112, 172
297, 385 n. 218, 247
Cicero 65, 74 n. 76, 151 n. 132, 152 Antigonus 83, 172 n. 218
n. 138, 165 n. 190, 202, 235 n. 103, Alexander Janneus 33, 83, 109, 110,
295, 297, 380, 385 112, 247-251, 256-259
Claudius 85 n. 8 Alexandra Salome 33, 82-115, 187,
246-259, 260
Darius 97 Hyrcanus II 84, 113, 251-259
Dio Cassius 56 n. 1, 63 n. 40, 168 n. Aristobulus II 84, 113, 251-259
204, 184 n. 11
Diodorus of Sicily 62 n. 39, 63 n. 42, Herodian Family 42, 95
n. 44, 68 n. 60, 69 n. 63, 77, 378, Antipater (father of Herod) 85 n. 8,
380 190
Diogenes Laertius 128 n. 34, 137-138, Herod the Great 84, 92, 97, 107,
149 n. 120, 235 n. 103 116-119, 171, 187, 187 n. 36, 188-
Dionysius of Halicarnassus 62 n. 39, 192, 223-224, 232, 260-280
63 nn. 41-42, n. 44, 76-77, 128, 168 Sons of Herod the Great 84, 120,
n. 204, 181 n. 1, 376-377, 379 260, 265-266
Domitian 184, 191, 311, 313, 313 n. Wives of Herod the Great 260
20 Pheroras and wife 116-119, 260,
265-266, 272-273
Eleazar ben Yair 160, 161 n. 164 Agrippa I 108, 120, 136, 187
Epicureans 150 n. 129, 155 n. 152, Agrippa II 187, 199, 312-316
164, 174, 185
Epicurus 150 n. 129, 235 Heraclitus 137
Epiphanius 150 n. 128 Herodotus 108 n. 104, 164, 168 n.
Essenes 19-21, 29, 122-123, 126-127, 204, 232
132, 137, 144, 152, 157-160, 168, Homer 136, 206 n. 44, 207, 298, 303
173-176, 200, 202-212, 282, 285-287,
304, 306, 334-335, 384, 386-398 Izates of Adiabene 86, 92, 109
Euripides 108 n. 104
Eusebius 88 n. 19, 93 n. 24, 128, 150 James (brother of Jesus) 92, 109
n. 128 Jesus of Nazareth 51, 92
John the Baptist 87
Felix 187 n. 40 John of Gischala 86, 101, 134, 145,
Festus 187 n. 40 358-368
Fronto 184 n. 11 Judas (Judah) the Galilean 121,
282-285
424 INDEX OF ANCIENT GROUPS AND PERSONALITIES

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

Zeno 138, 150 n. 128, 207, 235

You might also like