Steve Mason - Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees

<head><hi rend="italic">Reactions to Source Criticism: B. Brüne, R. Laqueur, H.Rasp</hi></head>During the forty years from Bloch to Hölscher, source criticism was the common way, but not the only way, of explaining Josephus's writings. An important dissenter was B. Brüne (1913), who, while acknowledging Josephus's use of sources, continued to look on him as both a genuine historian and a full-fledged writer, whose purposes and interests coloured the whole of his work.<note id="p1_c2_n47" place="foot">B. Brüne,<hi rend="italic">Flavius Josephus und seine Schriften in ihrem Verhältnis zum Judentume, zur griechisch-römischen Welt und zum Christentum</hi>(Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1969 [1913]).</note>Of<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>, Brüne wrote:<q>Den Zweck seiner Archäologie hat Jos a [<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>] I, 14 klar ausgesprochen, und auf denselben sind alle eingestreuten Erzählungen, auch die nichtbiblischen, offensichtlich zugeschnitten.<note id="p1_c2_n48" place="foot">Ibid., 20.</note></q>This classic redaction-critical proposal is characteristic of Brüne's entire study, most of which is devoted to an examination of key themes and verbal expressions that recur throughout Josephus's four writings.Brüne found no warrant for the kind of assumptions made by Hölscher. For example, whereas Hölscher had supposed that a Pharisaic education would preclude Josephus's serious familiarity with Greek language and literature, Brüne thought it self-evident that Josephus belonged to circles in which the knowledge of Greek culture would have been compulsory, if only as a means of defending the tradition against<pb n="26" />that culture.<note id="p1_c2_n49" place="foot">Brüne (13-16) pointed to the rhetorical skill evident in Josephus's speeches as evidence of his facility in Greek style. Brüne'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,<hi rend="italic">Greek in Jewish Palestine</hi>(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1942); idem.,<hi rend="italic">Hellenism in Jewish Palestine</hi>(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1950); M. Smith, "Palestinian Judaism"; M. Hengel,<hi rend="italic">Judentum und Hellenismus</hi>(Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr-P. Siebeck, 1969), 108ff.; and T. Rajak,<hi rend="italic">Josephus: The Historian and his Society</hi>(London: Duckworth, 1983), 47-51.</note>Brüne finds many changes of expression throughout Josephus's works, but he attributes them to the author's desire for elegance and the avoidance of monotony, rather than to new sources. The crucial point for Brüne is that one can discover throughout Josephus's works clear and consistent themes; and it is those themes that evidence Josephus's overall control of his material.<note id="p1_c2_n50" place="foot">Brüne does not deal specifically with the Pharisee passages. His section, "Der Pharisäismus bei Josephus", 150-157, attempts to show (as Paret had done) that Pharisaic themes, such as reward and punishment, are common in Josephus. This argument will be considered in Part IV.</note>A more self-conscious reaction to the source critics came with R. Laqueur's<hi rend="italic">Der jüdische Historiker Flavius</hi>Josephus , which appeared in 1920, soon after Hölscher's article. Laqueur questioned the credibility of a source criticism that had turned Josephus into a "stumpfen Abschreiber".<note id="p1_c2_n51" place="foot">Laqueur,<hi rend="italic">Historiker</hi>, VIIf.; cf. 128-132 and 230-245 ("Eine methodische Grundfrage").</note>The mischievous claim that Josephus had mechanically copied his sources, Laqueur believed, was but one manifestation of a conceptual error that was leading astray the whole field of classical studies in his day.<note id="p1_c2_n52" place="foot">Ibid., 129.</note>That error was the refusal to recognize the one legitimate and indispensable presupposition of historical research, namely, "dass der Verfasser eines Textes ein vernunftbegabtes Wesen gleich uns selbst ist".<note id="p1_c2_n53" place="foot">Ibid., 231.</note>To illustrate the deficiencies of the prevailing source-critical approach, Laqueur examined<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>16:183ff., where Nicolaus's partisanship is attacked and the author cites his priestly credentials and Hasmonean heritage as guarantors of his own historical accuracy. Whereas Hölscher had attributed this critique of Nicolaus to a priestly, pro-Hasmonean polemicist, a hypothetical intermediate source, Laqueur asked whether it would not be more reasonable to identify the author with Josephus himself, who elsewhere claims both priestly and Hasmonean roots.<note id="p1_c2_n54" place="foot">Ibid., 130-131; cf.<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>2.</note>Laqueur, then, wanted to allow Josephus responsibility for his own writings.<pb n="27" />If that view is correct, how can one explain the differences in Josephus's writings, for example between<hi rend="italic">War</hi>and<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>in their attitudes toward Herod? Hölscher had posited two sources, one friendly toward Herod (Nicolaus, in<hi rend="italic">War</hi>) and the other opposed to him (the Jewish polemicist, in<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>). Laqueur, however, extrapolated an answer to this question from his explanation of the differences between<hi rend="italic">War</hi>and<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>in their parallel material, concerning Josephus's activities during the revolt against Rome.<note id="p1_c2_n55" place="foot">This question occupied the first half of Laqueur's study, pp. 6-128.</note>On that issue there was no possibility of invoking source hypotheses to explain the divergences, since Josephus was recalling his own career. Laqueur posited, therefore, an actual change in Josephus's thinking: whereas<hi rend="italic">War</hi>had been tailored to please Agrippa II, the<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>has lost this interest completely, because the king has died.<note id="p1_c2_n56" place="foot">Ibid., 132.</note>Similarly, Laqueur argued, Josephus underwent some development in his estimation of Herod between<hi rend="italic">War</hi>and<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>Whereas<hi rend="italic">War</hi>had been a Roman propaganda piece,<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>reflects Josephus's more natural sympathies.Although Laqueur made no attempt to deal specifically with the Pharisee passages in Josephus, his work is important because of its major methodological contribution. Source criticism had been carried to the point where its results implied "dass Josephus überhaupt nicht existiert hat, sondern nur seine Quelle", as Laqueur sarcastically put it.<note id="p1_c2_n57" place="foot">Ibid., 131.</note>Over against such a view, Laqueur insisted that Josephus truly was an author, "dass Josephus mit seiner Person die Richtung seines Werkes deckt".<note id="p1_c2_n58" place="foot">Ibid., 132.</note>Out of this fundamental proposition grew Laqueur's distinctive contribution. He argued that Josephus was subject to change and development in his outlook and that this capacity for change accounts most adequately for the incongruities in his writings.<note id="p1_c2_n59" place="foot">Ibid., 131ff., 246.</note>Laqueur's analysis of Josephus was to have considerable impact on both German and English-speaking scholarship, the latter through the mediation of H. St. John Thackeray (1929).<note id="p1_c2_n60" place="foot">H. St. John Thackeray,<hi rend="italic">Josephus: the Man and the Historian</hi>(New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1929). Thackeray modified but accepted Laqueur's theory of the origin of the<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>(18f.) and built on Laqueur's theory of the purpose of<hi rend="italic">War</hi>(27, 30). He also agreed in general with Laqueur's discovery of a stronger religious apologetic in<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>(52).</note>After Laqueur, the ambitions of Josephan source criticism adjusted themselves radically downward. Most significant for our topic, Laqueur's emphasis on the vicissitudes of Josephus's life as the key to understanding his writings paved the way for two important studies of Josephus on the Pharisees.<pb n="28" />The first of these was H. Rasp's article, "Flavius Josephus und die jüdischen Religionsparteien" (1924).<note id="p1_c2_n61" place="foot"><hi rend="italic">ZNW</hi>23 (1924), 27-47.</note>Rasp began with the proposition that the different sequences in which Josephus orders the Jewish schools in his various descriptions of them indicate his changing relationships toward each group.<note id="p1_c2_n62" place="foot">Ibid., 29. In<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2:119-166, the Essenes are discussed first and at length; in<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>13:171-173 the order is Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes; in<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>18:11-25 the Pharisees are discussed first and the Essenes last.</note>In particular, Rasp saw<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>18:11-25 as an intended correction of<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2:119-166<note id="p1_c2_n63" place="foot">Ibid., 31. He reasoned that, since Josephus in<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>18:11 refers the reader back to the account in<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2, but nevertheless proceeds to give a new and somewhat different account, he must be intending to modify the earlier portrait.</note>and he tried to interpret that correction by examining the individual changes.The principal changes discovered by Rasp were: (a) a drastic reduction in the amount of space and degree of enthusiasm devoted to the Essenes; (b) a notable increase in precision with respect to Pharisaic beliefs; and (c) new material on the relations between Sadducees and Pharisees.<note id="p1_c2_n64" place="foot">Ibid., 32f.</note>Rasp approached these changes with an unmistakably Laqueurian judgement:<q>Der Gegensatz zwischen den Schilderungen im<hi rend="italic">Bell</hi>. und in der<hi rend="italic">Arch</hi>. ist und bleibt auffallend. Will man nicht die eine verschlimmbessern nach der anderen oder gar als Fälschung streichen, dann muss man eben annehmen, dass der Schreiber Josephus in der Zwischenzeit sich gewandelt hat.<note id="p1_c2_n65" place="foot">Ibid., 33f.</note></q>What were the circumstances of Josephus's life that caused him to write so differently? Rasp began with the proposition that Josephus's priestly lineage (<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>2) must have entailed Sadducean allegiance and, as a consequence, hatred of Rome.<note id="p1_c2_n66" place="foot">Ibid., 32-35. Rasp rejects as "nur Spiegelfechterei" Josephus's claim (<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>10-12) that he sampled all three Jewish schools and ended up following the Pharisees.</note>Thus when Josephus embarked on his mission to Rome to free some priests imprisoned there (<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>13ff.), he went full of contempt. Once in Rome, however, he had a change of heart: first, because he saw the awesome power of Rome; second, because of the friendliness of Nero's consort Poppea, whose gifts "brachen wohl den letzten inneren Widerstand".So Josephus returned home with a new political outlook, of which the key ingredient was submission to Rome. He decided that the best way to promote his new faith would be to acquire a position of influence, which meant joining the Pharisees.<note id="p1_c2_n67" place="foot">Ibid., Rasp, 36f.</note>For the Pharisees had by now lost touch with the yearnings of the people and were counselling submission<pb n="29" />to Rome. Installed as a Rome-friendly Pharisee, Josephus was entrusted with the administration of the Galilee, with a mandate to quell the rebellious activities there. But he was not up to this<hi rend="italic">Charakterprobe</hi>. Once in Galilee he capitulated to his pre-Pharisaic impulses. The delighted rebels made him their general. And Josephus continued to relish the role of rebel strongman until the Romans took him captive. When captured by the Romans, however, he revised his allegiances yet again and became a Roman favourite.<note id="p1_c2_n68" place="foot">Ibid., 36-43.</note>It was under Roman patronage that Josephus undertook to write<hi rend="italic">War</hi>, with its major passage on the Jewish schools (2:119-166). Since Josephus could not present himself to Roman readers as a rebel leader, he chose to dissociate himself from any political stance. To that end he passed himself off as an Essene. Hence his long and admiring portrait of this group, which includes the notice that they swear an oath to honour all authority as from God (2:139f.). The Pharisees and Sadducees, however, receive little attention. In Josephus's remark about the Sadducees' rudeness "even to one another" Rasp found the veiled reminiscence of a former member who had since felt the sting of their wrath. The things that Greeks despised in the Jews, Rasp suggested, Josephus ascribed to the Sadducees; what the Greeks admired, he attributed to the Essenes.<note id="p1_c2_n69" place="foot">Ibid., 44-46. Cf.<hi rend="italic">Ag.Ap.</hi>1:182 //<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2:120, 133, and<hi rend="italic">Ag.Ap.</hi>1:191 //<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2:152.</note>Rasp proposed that by the time Josephus came to write<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>he had rethought his priorities and wanted to repair his reputation with his people.<note id="p1_c2_n70" place="foot">Ibid., 46-47.</note>Josephus's literary peace offering was his attempt to rewrite the history of the Pharisees. This party had since won Roman support for its religious authority in Palestine and so Josephus intended "die an der Herrschaft mitbeteiligten Pharisäer reinzuwaschen von jeder Schuld".<note id="p1_c2_n71" place="foot">Ibid., 46.</note>This accounts, according to Rasp, for the revised portrait of the Pharisees in<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>18. Josephus now rated their political influence very high (18:15, 17) and accurately reported their beliefs, hoping thereby to make amends for the disappointing treatment that he had given them in<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2. Rasp comments:<q>Ja, er scheint überzeugt zu sein, dass er mit diesem anerkennenden Zeugnis alles wieder gutmachen werde, denn gleichzeitig hat er die Dreistigkeit sich vor aller Welt als allezeit treuer Pharisäer hinzustellen (Vita 12).<note id="p1_c2_n72" place="foot">Ibid., 47.</note></q><pb n="30" />The influence of Laqueur on Rasp's analysis is clear.<note id="p1_c2_n73" place="foot">Rasp acknowledged it (34, 36).</note>That the alleged differences in Josephus's portrayals of the Pharisees can be explained largely on the basis of changes in his circumstances and attitudes is an idea that continues to attract scholars. Before discussing its more recent representatives, however, we must give some attention to the work of A. Schlatter on Josephus.

Steve Mason - Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees

Commentary