Steve Mason - Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees

<head>I.<hi rend="italic">Historical Approaches</hi></head>R. Laqueur posed the inevitable question:<q>was es besagen soll, wenn in der ersten Hälfte der siebzigen Jahre der vom Kaiser bezahlte und mit einer Villa beschenkte jüdische Schriftsteller in Rom in aramäischer Sprache ein Werk verfasste, welches für den fernen Orient bestimmt war.<note id="p2_c3_n5" place="foot">Laqueur,<hi rend="italic">Historiker</hi>, 126.</note></q>His now classic answer was that Josephus wrote<hi rend="italic">War</hi>on behalf of the emperor Vespasian, to be a vehicle of imperial policy in the Orient. It was an official propaganda piece, calculated to deflate any ambitions the "oberen Barbaren" may have been nursing for a campaign against Rome. Laqueur's evidence was elaborated by H. St. John Thackeray and the results may be summarized as follows.<note id="p2_c3_n6" place="foot">Laqueur,<hi rend="italic">Historiker</hi>, 126-127; Thackeray, Josephus , 27-28.</note>A. That the Parthians and their neighbours constituted a threat to Rome Laqueur and Thackeray infer from various sources. In the mid40's, according to Josephus (<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>20:69-74), the Parthian king Vardanes contemplated a war with Rome. In the preface to<hi rend="italic">War</hi>(1:4) Josephus notes that the Jewish rebels hoped for assistance from their fellows beyond the Euphrates and that, with the revolt, the Eastern Empire was<pb n="58" />placed in jeopardy. Agrippa is made to ask the rebels, rhetorically, whether they are expecting help from the Jews of Adiabene (<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2:388); indeed, some proselytes from that country did join the revolt (<hi rend="italic">War</hi>5:474). Pliny (<hi rend="italic">Panegyric on Trajan</hi>14) reports that the Parthians came very close to war with Rome in AD 75. And finally, we know that the Jewish Diaspora in Mesopotamia did revolt under Trajan in 115-117.B. The invincibility and fortune of Rome are recurring themes throughout<hi rend="italic">War</hi>.<note id="p2_c3_n7" place="foot">Cf. now Lindner,<hi rend="italic">Geschichtsauffassung</hi>, 42ff., 89ff.</note>In his appeal to the rebels to quit their insurrection, Agrippa repeatedly cites Rome'sδύναμιςandτύχη(2:360, 373, 387). Josephus draws a compelling portrait of Roman military procedures (3:70-107), by which he intends to offer "consolation to those who have been conquered and<hi rend="italic">dissuasion to those contemplating revolt</hi>" (3:108).C. That<hi rend="italic">War</hi>possessed some sort of official status is suggested by the circumstances in which it was written. The Aramaic version, which seems to have been Josephus's first literary project in Rome under Flavian sponsorship, was dispatched with notable speed. Upon completing the Greek edition, Josephus presented copies immediately to Vespasian and Titus (<hi rend="italic">Ag. Ap</hi>. 1:51;<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>361); the latter, we are told, intended that Josephus's<hi rend="italic">War</hi>should become the standard account of the conflict in Palestine and to that end ordered its publication (<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>363). Finally, Josephus's glorification of the future emperors, especially Titus, is so pronounced that W. Weber could posit as the principal source for<hi rend="italic">War</hi>a Flavian work that recounted the rise of this dynasty to power.<note id="p2_c3_n8" place="foot">W. Weber, Josephus<hi rend="italic">und Vespasian</hi>(Berlin-Stuttgart-Leipzig: W. Kohlhammer, 1921).</note>Taken together, these three groups of evidence seem to lend considerable support to the Laqueur/Thackeray interpretation of the motive behind<hi rend="italic">War</hi>:<q>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 outbreaks under Trajan and Hadrian.<note id="p2_c3_n9" place="foot">Thackeray, Josephus , 27.</note></q>This view of the Aramaic<hi rend="italic">War</hi>'s purpose has become standard.<note id="p2_c3_n10" place="foot">Cf., e.g., Shutt,<hi rend="italic">Studies</hi>, 26; M. Hengel, Die Zeloten (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), 7, 10f., 11 n. 1; J. Goldin, "Josephus",<hi rend="italic">IDB</hi>, II, 987; A. Momigliano, "Josephus as a Source", 884; S. Safrai and M. Stern, edd.,<hi rend="italic">The Jewish People in the First Century</hi>("Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum", 1; Assen:Van Gorcum & Co., 1974), 24; Z. Yavetz, "Reflections on Titus and Josephus",<hi rend="italic">Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies</hi>16 (1975), 421; O. Michel and O. Bauernfeind, edd.,<hi rend="italic">De Bello Judaico: Der jüdische</hi>Krieg (4 vols.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959), I, XXIf.; and the discussion in G. Hata, "Is the Greek Version of Josephus'<hi rend="italic">Jewish War</hi>a Translation or a Rewriting of the First Version?"<hi rend="italic">JQR</hi>66 (1975), 106f.</note>Most of its sponsors appear to believe that in uncovering the purpose of the<pb n="59" />lost Aramaic work they have also discovered the intention of the extant<hi rend="italic">War</hi>; the latter is seen as but a Greek version of the former.<note id="p2_c3_n11" place="foot">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<hi rend="italic">War</hi>and that of its Semitic predecessor.</note>A number of considerations, however, would seem to call for a reappraisal of Josephus's intention in the<hi rend="italic">Jewish War</hi>.A. In the first place, it is not clear that Parthia posed a serious threat to Rome in the early 70's, when Josephus wrote<hi rend="italic">War</hi>.<note id="p2_c3_n12" place="foot">Cf. Rajak, Josephus , 182f.</note>In AD 63, the two powers had concluded a major peace treaty;<note id="p2_c3_n13" place="foot">Cf. J. G. C. Anderson, "The Eastern Frontier from Tiberius to Nero",<hi rend="italic">Cambridge Ancient History</hi>, X, 770f.</note>after that, the prevailing atmosphere seems to have been one of peace and cooperation, if only out of mutual self-interest.<note id="p2_c3_n14" place="foot">Cf. the examples of Parthian cooperation with Rome given by R. Syme, "Flavian Wars and Frontiers",<hi rend="italic">Cambridge Ancient History</hi>, XI, 139-144.</note>The single known rupture during this period, noted by Laqueur, was an exception to the rule and, in any case, was resolved diplomatically.<note id="p2_c3_n15" place="foot">Ibid., 143.</note>Josephus alludes to the calm relations when he has Agrippa say that the rebels ought not to expect help from the Jews of Adiabene, for even if the latter wanted to intervene, their Parthian overlord would prevent it because of his truce with Rome (<hi rend="italic">War</hi>2:389).B. Even if the Parthians had been of a mind to challenge Rome, as Rajak points out, it is doubtful whether they (a) could have distilled a clear propagandistic message from the lengthy narrative of<hi rend="italic">War</hi><note id="p2_c3_n16" place="foot">Yavetz ("Reflections", 431), points out the limited value of historical narrative as "a major means of propaganda" in the Roman world.</note>or (b) would have been moved to reconsider their designs because of the fate of tiny Judea.<note id="p2_c3_n17" place="foot">Rajak, Josephus , 180.</note>C. Although it is clear from Josephus's own statements that<hi rend="italic">War</hi>received some sort of official recognition subsequent to its publication (<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>361ff.), this does not imply that the work had its genesis in a "commission" from the emperor to write a propagandistic account of the revolt. Even Thackeray, who sponsored the propaganda theory, conceded that Josephus "was no mere hireling; his own deepest convictions told him that the only road to amelioration of his nation's unhappy lot lay in submission to the empire".<note id="p2_c3_n18" place="foot">Thackeray, Josephus , 29. Cf. B. Niese, "Josephus",<hi rend="italic">ERE</hi>, VII, 571.</note>A perusal of the speeches in<hi rend="italic">War</hi>(which are<pb n="60" />Josephan creations) confirms this assessment.<note id="p2_c3_n19" place="foot">Cf. Lindner,<hi rend="italic">Geschichtsauffassung</hi>, 21ff. and 41f. (in reaction to Thackeray's propaganda theory).</note>Lindner discovers in the speeches a religiously based argument, not superficially overlaid, that fortune (τύχη) has passed to the Romans.<note id="p2_c3_n20" place="foot">Ibid., 92.</note>Rajak is able to trace Josephus's political sentiments to his upbringing and social position; they are not the contrived slogans of propaganda.<note id="p2_c3_n21" place="foot">Rajak, Josephus , 185.</note>Yavetz proposes that even Josephus's flattery of Titus stemmed from genuine admiration and gratitude.<note id="p2_c3_n22" place="foot">Yavetz, "Reflections", 424-426.</note>In any case, the same attitude of submission to Rome that we find in<hi rend="italic">War</hi>appears also in<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>(cf. 17ff.), which Josephus wrote more than two decades after the revolt.So the question urges itself: If Josephus's portrayal of the Romans' might and divinely ordained rule springs from his own convictions, and if this respectful portrayal explains the Flavian endorsement of<hi rend="italic">War</hi>subsequent to its publication (of which he speaks), where is the evidence that<hi rend="italic">War</hi>was conceived as a propaganda piece?D. Most problematic of all, the Laqueur/Thackeray theory depends for its viability on a close similarity between the extant Greek<hi rend="italic">War</hi>and the lost Aramaic version. This is clear in two connections. First, the contents of the Aramaic version are inferred from the Greek: scholars cite the prologue, the speeches, and even the references to Romanτύχηas evidence for the purpose of the original Aramaic edition. Then they coopt the intention of the Aramaic<hi rend="italic">War</hi>, discovered in this manner, for the Greek version.Almost no one, however—least of all Laqueur and Thackeray, really believes the Greek<hi rend="italic">War</hi>to be a translation or even a close paraphrase of the Aramaic. Even though theμεταβάλλωof<hi rend="italic">War</hi>1:3 is customarily rendered "translate/übersetzen", the modern editors who use such equivalents are quick to add that the Greek can be a translation only in the very loosest sense. It shows no clear evidence of a Semitic substratum.<note id="p2_c3_n23" place="foot">Michel-Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico , I, 403 n. 3.</note>Indeed, "The style of the whole work is an excellent specimen of the Atticistic Greek fashionable in the first century", according to Thackeray.<note id="p2_c3_n24" place="foot">Thackeray, Josephus , 34; cf.LCLedn., II, ix.</note>This suggests to him that the Greek<hi rend="italic">War</hi>has been "practically rewritten"<hi rend="italic">vis-à-vis</hi>the Aramaic.<note id="p2_c3_n25" place="foot">Ibid.</note>The indications that our Greek<hi rend="italic">War</hi>is an original Greek production<pb n="61" />are numerous and obvious.<note id="p2_c3_n26" place="foot">Laqueur's reason for believing this was that the Greek<hi rend="italic">War</hi>had made use of the Greek<hi rend="italic">Rechenschaftsbericht</hi>, whereas the Aramaic had not (<hi rend="italic">Historiker</hi>, 126, 128). Since, however, the very existence of the<hi rend="italic">Rechenschaftsbericht</hi>is not at all secure (cf. Cohen, Josephus , 18), this argument cannot now be used with force.</note>In addition to the absence of translation Greek, noted above, the reader of<hi rend="italic">War</hi>is confronted by several forms that are native to Greek literature.<note id="p2_c3_n27" place="foot">Cf. G. Hata, "Greek Version", 106f.</note>They include the carefully formulated prologue,<note id="p2_c3_n28" place="foot">Cf. H. Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Studien zu Proömien in der griechischen und byzantischen Geschichtschreibung</hi>, I:<hi rend="italic">Die griechischen Geschichtschreiber</hi>(Munich: J. G. Weiss, 1899), 34; D. Earl, "Prologue-form in Ancient Historiography",<hi rend="italic">Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt</hi>(Berlin-New York: W. de Gruyter, 1972), I. 2, 842-856. Clearly, whatever prologue the Aramaic version had must have differed somewhat from the Greek, since the latter reflects on the earlier version.</note>the rhetorically honed speeches with their philosophical vocabulary,<note id="p2_c3_n29" place="foot">Cf. E. Norden,<hi rend="italic">Die antike Kunstprosa</hi>(5th. edn.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1958 [1898]), I, 89; H. J. Cadbury et al., "The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History", in<hi rend="italic">The Beginnings of Christianity</hi>, edd. F. J. Foakes Jackson, K. Lake, and H. J. Cadbury (London: Macmillan, 1922), II, esp. 12f.; G. Avenarius,<hi rend="italic">Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung</hi>(Meisenheim-Glan: A. Hain, 1956), 149-157; Lindner,<hi rend="italic">Geschichtsauffassung</hi>, 21ff., 85ff.</note>the entertaining digressions, and the many dramatic-novelistic episodes.<note id="p2_c3_n30" place="foot">Cf. H. R. Moehring, "Novelistic Elements". On all of the enumerated points see Hata, "Greek Version", 96-106, and Rajak, Josephus , 176.</note>These formal traits combine to locate the extant<hi rend="italic">War</hi>squarely within the Hellenistic historical tradition.Further, although Josephus mentions the Aramaic version in his prologue to<hi rend="italic">War</hi>, his later discussions of<hi rend="italic">War</hi>refer only to the final Greek version.<note id="p2_c3_n31" place="foot">Cf.<hi rend="italic">Ant.</hi>1:1-4;<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>361-367;<hi rend="italic">Ag.Ap.</hi>1:47-52. The passage in the<hi rend="italic">Life</hi>appears to leave little room for an Aramaic<hi rend="italic">Vorlage</hi>.</note>As G. Hata points out, the words used by Josephus to describe the writing of<hi rend="italic">War</hi>(γράφω,σνγγράφω<hi rend="italic">Ant</hi>. 1:5; 20:258) do not suggest translation.<note id="p2_c3_n32" place="foot">Hata, 94f., seems to have overlooked the appearance ofἐρμηνεύωin the epilogue to<hi rend="italic">War</hi>(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<hi rend="italic">War</hi>(cf.<hi rend="italic">War</hi>1:16, 30), as Thackeray's translation indicates.</note>Finally, Hata also argues that the verbμεταβάλλω, which Josephus uses to describe the relationship between the Greek<hi rend="italic">War</hi>and its Aramaic predecessor (<hi rend="italic">War</hi>1:3), rarely means "translate" outside of Josephus and, elsewhere in<hi rend="italic">War</hi>, always means "to change something fundamentally". Therefore, he argues, it ought to be understood in<hi rend="italic">War</hi>1:3 in the sense "to rewrite".<note id="p2_c3_n33" place="foot">Hata, "Greek Version", 90-95.</note>Although it cannot be denied, then, that Josephus's Greek<hi rend="italic">War</hi>was preceded by an Aramaic account of the revolt, the relationship between the two works is a matter of conjecture. B. Niese long ago commented:<pb n="62" /><q>No part of this Aramaic record has come down to us, and we are, therefore, not in a position to fix its relation to the extant Greek narrative. The latter was probably a complete recast, constructed on a more comprehensive plan.<note id="p2_c3_n34" place="foot">B. Niese, "Josephus",<hi rend="italic">ERE</hi>, VII, 571.</note></q>Our present<hi rend="italic">War</hi>is an independent, self-contained Greek production. Fascinating as it may be to speculate about the lost Aramaic treatise, it would be vain either to infer the contents of that document out of the Greek version or, conversely, to transfer its alleged purpose to the Greek version. If one's goal is to interpret the extant work, then one ought to begin with that work itself and with its own statements of purpose.The widespread scholarly neglect of Josephus's declared literary aims is particularly baffling in light of the rationale for the prologue in Hellenistic historiography. For the prologue was intended, first, to inform the potential reader of the content and perspective of the work and, second, to stimulate the reader's interest by indicating the significance or usefulness of the subject.<note id="p2_c3_n35" place="foot">Cf. Lucian,<hi rend="italic">How to Write History</hi>51-53; Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 5, 12; Avenarius,<hi rend="italic">Lukians Schrift</hi>, 115f.</note>The potential reader should have been able, merely by unrolling the first few lines of the papyrus scroll in hand, to determine its subject, scope, and tone.<note id="p2_c3_n36" place="foot">Earl, "Prologue-form", 856.</note>If he opted to read it, the prologue would serve as a guide, according to which the whole could be interpreted.<note id="p2_c3_n37" place="foot">Lieberich,<hi rend="italic">Proömien</hi>, 47.</note>Since the proem to<hi rend="italic">War</hi>seems intended to satisfy these ancient requirements, it would seem appropriate for the modern interpreter of<hi rend="italic">War</hi>to begin with that opening statement, where Josephus intended his readers to begin.

Steve Mason - Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees

Commentary