| <head>III.<hi rend="italic">Procedure of the Study</hi></head><p>Finally, it is necessary to explain the subtitle of this work, "a composition-critical study", and to indicate its significance for our procedure.</p><p>The literary analysis of ancient texts, the search for the author's vision of things, corresponds largely to the programme of "redaction criticism" in biblical studies. That movement is characterized, over against "form" and "source" criticism, by its concern to identify an author's thought and literary tendencies. Nevertheless, redaction criticism has come to mean different things to different critics. Some believe that only a comparison between an author's own production and his sources can properly be called "redactional"; others think it possible to understand the redactor even without sure knowledge of his sources, simply by an interpretation of the final work as it stands.<note id="p1_concl_n6" place="foot">Cf. W. G. Thompson, Review of J. Rohde,<hi rend="italic">Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode, Biblica</hi>50 (1969), 136-139; D. Juel,<hi rend="italic">Messiah and Temple</hi>(Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977), 1-39, esp. 30; and F. G. Downing, "Redaction Criticism: Josephus'<hi rend="italic">Antiquities</hi>and the Synoptic Gospels",<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="Journal for the Study of the New Testament">JSNT</span></hi>8 (1980), 46-65; 9 (1980), 29-48.</note></p><p>Now the following study will contend that Josephus's descriptions of the Pharisees in the present tense (thus: "the Pharisees are a group that. . .") are his own and that where he describes their past actions, under Hasmonean or Herodian rule, the exact shape of his sources is usually irrecoverable. This study could only be called "redaction<pb n="43" />critical", therefore, if the term were understood to signify "vertical" redaction criticism, which is the latter type mentioned above. To avoid both confusion and the appearance of making false promises, I have chosen the adjective "composition-critical" to describe the present study. Coined by the NT scholar E. Haenchen, it has come to be used of the effort to interpret an author's writings in and of themselves, as self-contained compositions.<note id="p1_concl_n7" place="foot">Cf. Juel,<hi rend="italic">Messiah</hi>, 30.</note>The narrative is assumed to contain within itself the keys to its own meaning.</p><p>In keeping with this principle, our procedure will always be to look first within Josephus's writings for clues about the significance of his chosen words and phrases. His general usage and the immediate context will, so far as possible, be the arbiters of meaning. Only when these resources have been exploited shall we look to external parallels for further enlightenment.</p><p>The compositional thrust of the study also has important consequences for its emphasis. Josephus mentions the Pharisees in fourteen different passages. Of these, nine are deliberate, reflective discussions of the group.<note id="p1_concl_n8" place="foot"><hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>1:110-114; 2:162-166;<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish Antiquities">Ant.</span></hi>13:171-173, 288-298, 400-431; 17:41-45; 18:12-15;<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>10-12, 191-198.</note>In the other five cases, we have incidental references, which simply note that certain Pharisees were present somewhere or that someone was a Pharisee.<note id="p1_concl_n9" place="foot"><hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>1:571; 2:411;<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish Antiquities">Ant.</span></hi>15:3-4, 370;<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>21.</note>For a historical investigation, which seeks to circumvent the witness's intention, incidental notices are the most valuable because they are more likely to yield unintentional evidence. Since our purpose, however, is to<hi rend="italic">grasp</hi>Josephus's intention, we must try to be sensitive to his own emphases; this will require that primary attention be given to his deliberate discussions of the Pharisees. It is in those discussions, if anywhere, that he spells out what he wants the reader to know about the group.</p><p>Finally, our procedure will be governed by the need to deal with the familiar circles of interpretation, especially that of the whole and the parts. For one cannot understand the whole without understanding the parts; yet one cannot understand the parts without understanding the whole. Josephus discusses the Pharisees in three of his four extant works, in<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish War">War</span></hi>,<hi rend="italic"><span class="abbr" title="The Jewish Antiquities">Ant.</span></hi>, and the<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>. These books will be considered in Parts II, III, and IV of the study, respectively. To break into the circle of the whole and the parts, we shall begin each part with an overview of the purpose and outlook of the work in question. To analyze an individual pericope, we shall examine first its immediate context (the "whole") and then its key terms (the "parts"), before we attempt an interpretation<pb n="44" />(the "whole"). Each chapter will include source-critical observations on the passage under discussion.</p><p>To summarize: the investigation of Josephus's presentation of the Pharisees is not new. Nor is the study of ancient authors in terms of their compositional aims and interests. What is new in the following analysis is the application of this particular method to this particular problem. If successful, this inquiry will clarify several preliminary issues in the study of the Pharisees and will also yield some insight into the thought of Josephus.</p> |
