| <head>I.<hi rend="italic">The Need for a New Study of Josephus's Pharisees</hi></head><p>It is not necessary here to give an extended critique of the previous analyses of Josephus's Pharisees that were surveyed in chapter 2. The weaknesses of any given approach have often been pointed out by successive critics. We shall also interact with specific hypotheses in the course of the following analysis. The only point that needs to be established here is that none of the studies considered above represents a complete literary analysis of Josephus's testimony about the Pharisees. Yet such completeness is a prerequisite to any historical investigation of the Pharisees.</p><p>Most of the studies considered do not claim to be comprehensive. Gerlach was interested only in the issue of whether Josephus was a Pharisee. Hölscher did not even try to interpret the Pharisee passages as Josephus's own compositions. Rasp focused on the differences between<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>2 and<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish Antiquities">Ant.</span></hi>18 and largely ignored the other pericopae. Neusner, by his own admission, was concerned to substantiate Smith's theory, a preoccupation which precluded any serious attempt at interpretation.<note id="p1_concl_n1" place="foot">For example, Neusner's half-dozen sentences of comment on<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>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,<hi rend="italic">vis-à -vis Ant</hi>.</note>Finally, Schwartz's purpose was only to decide who authored the various Pharisee passages in Josephus. None of these scholars has aimed at a complete analysis of the Pharisee passages in the context of our author's thought and literary purposes.<note id="p1_concl_n2" place="foot">Rivkin, it is true, does claim that "each of the sources will be thoroughly analyzed" (<hi rend="italic">Revolution</hi>, 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 principle of interpretation: he fails to recognize that what Josephus says about the Pharisees is not "raw material" but a formulation.</note></p><pb n="41" /><p>In chapter 1 we saw that historical investigation presupposes an understanding of the testimony of each witness. One cannot, therefore, use Josephus's evidence about the Pharisees until one knows what it means. Why does Josephus mention the Pharisees? What place do they occupy in his vision of things? What does he want to say about them? These questions all hinge on understanding Josephus as a writer, a task that has been all but ignored in the scholarly literature.</p><p>Not many years ago, W. C. van Unnik gave a lecture entitled "Josephus, the Neglected One". He surveyed the state of Josephan studies and remarked:</p><p><q>Josephus ist und wird immer wieder benutzt und zitiert. . . . Und doch lässt sich fragen, ob der vielzitierte Historiker auch wirklich gekannt wird. 1st er nicht viel mehr Lieferant von Daten als verantwortungsvoller Autor? Hat man seine Schriften wirklich gelesen, exegesiert und in richtiger Weise ausgeschöpft?<note id="p1_concl_n3" place="foot">In W.C. van Unnik,<hi rend="italic">Flavius Josephus als historischer Schriftsteller</hi>(Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1978), 18. The lectures printed here were delivered in 1972.</note></q></p><p>The deficiencies noted by van Unnik are nowhere more evident than in the scholarly use of Josephus for the study of the Pharisees. That is the justification for the present study.</p><p>A necessary tool for the exegesis of any prolific author is an accurate and exhaustive concordance. The absence of such a resource for Josephus in the past may partially explain the lack of scholarly interest in his thought. What makes a new study of Josephus's Pharisees especially timely now is the recent completion (1983) of the<hi rend="italic">Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus</hi>, edited by K. H. Rengstorf<hi rend="italic">et al</hi>.<note id="p1_concl_n4" place="foot">4 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973-1983.<hi rend="italic">Supplement I: Namenwörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus</hi>, ed. A. Schalit (1968).</note>That work will doubtless revolutionize Josephan studies.<note id="p1_concl_n5" place="foot">As van Unnik himself pointed out, in anticipation of the work's completion (<hi rend="italic">Schriftsteller</hi>, 16, 21).</note></p> |
