Steve Mason - Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees

<head>PART ONE INTRODUCTION</head><pb n="1" /><head>CHAPTER ONE METHOD IN THE STUDY OF PHARISAIC HISTORY</head>Until recent times, scholarship on the Pharisees has been in complete disarray. A major problem has been the lack of commonly accepted criteria for deciding questions of Pharisaic history: scholars coming from different religious backgrounds and with different purposes, using different sources in different ways, have necessarily come to different, often incompatible, results.<note id="p1_c1_n1" place="foot">Programmatic in many ways was the debate between Abraham Geiger (<hi rend="italic">Das Judenthum und seine Geschichte</hi>[2. edn.; Breslau: Schletter, 1865], 102-151) and Julius Wellhausen (<hi rend="italic">Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer</hi>[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.</note>How and when did the Pharisees appear in history?<note id="p1_c1_n2" place="foot">Cf., e.g., I. Lévy,<hi rend="italic">La Legende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine</hi>(Paris: Honore Champion, 1927), 235-250; O. Holtzmann, "Der Prophet Malachi und der Ursprung des Pharisäerbundes",<hi rend="italic">ARW</hi>19 (1931), 1-21; W. Foerster, "Der Ursprung des Pharisäismus",<hi rend="italic">ZNW</hi>24 (1935), 35-51; W. Beilner, "Der Ursprung des Pharisäismus",<hi rend="italic">BZ</hi>n.F. 3 (1959); S. Zeitlin,<hi rend="italic">The Rise and Fall of the Judean State</hi>(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1962-1978), I, 176; L. Finkelstein, "The Origin of the Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">Conservative Judaism</hi>23 (1969), 25-36; H. Burgmann, "'The Wicked Woman': der Makkabäer Simon?",<hi rend="italic">RevQ</hi>8 (1972), 323-259; idem., "Der Gründer der Pharisäergenossenschaft: der Makkabäer Simon",<hi rend="italic">JSJ</hi>9 (1978), 153-191.</note>From what sectors of society did they originate?<note id="p1_c1_n3" place="foot">The Pharisees' predecessors are variously described as: priests (R. Meyer, "Φαρισαῑος",<hi rend="italic">TDNT</hi>IX, 15f.); lay scribes (E. Rivkin, "Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">IDBS</hi>, 659f.); the prophets (J. Z. Lauterbach, "The Pharisees and their Teachings",<hi rend="italic">HUCA</hi>6 [1929], 7791); Jerusalem's "plebeians" (L. Finkelstein,<hi rend="italic">The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of their Faith</hi>[2 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1938], I, 74); and the<hi rend="italic">hasidim</hi>, whether these last are understood to have been religious quietists (Wellhausen) or zealous nationalists (Geiger).</note>What was the significance of their name?<note id="p1_c1_n4" place="foot">Cf., e.g., M. D. Hussey, "The Origin of the Name Pharisee",<hi rend="italic">JBL</hi>39 (1920), 6669; T. W. Manson, "Sadducee and Pharisee: the Origin and Significance of their Names",<hi rend="italic">BJRL</hi>21 (1938), 144-159; J. Bowker,<hi rend="italic">Jesus and the Pharisees</hi>(Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 4; and A. I. Baumgarten, "The Name of the Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">JBL</hi>102 (1983), 411-428.</note>What were their central, constitutive tenets?<note id="p1_c1_n5" place="foot">Was their core motivation: zeal for their oral tradition (so G. F. Moore,<hi rend="italic">Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of the Tannaim</hi>[3 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930], I, 66, and E. Rivkin,<hi rend="italic">A Hidden Revolution</hi>[Nashville: Abingdon, 1978], 71); the promulgation of liberal democracy (so Lauterbach, "Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">HUCA</hi>, 69, 119, 133); the practice of tithing and levitical purity (so R. T. Herford,<hi rend="italic">The Pharisees</hi>[New York: Macmillan, 1924], 29-35); an insistence on separation from the heathen (so I. Elbogen,<hi rend="italic">Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisäer</hi>[Berlin: H. Itzkowski, 1904); a messianic hope (so K. Kohler, "Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">JE</hi>IX, 664); belief in resurrection and angels (so Manson, "Sadducee and Pharisee", 154); or the repudiation of apocalyptic (so K. Schubert, "Jewish Religious Parties and Sects", in<hi rend="italic">The Crucible of Christianity</hi>, ed. A. Toynbee [London: Thames and Hudson, 1969], 89)?</note><pb n="2" />Were they inclined toward apocalyptic views?<note id="p1_c1_n6" place="foot">For a negative answer, see: Geiger,<hi rend="italic">Geschichte</hi>, 93f.; B. Jacob,<hi rend="italic">Im Namen Gottes</hi>(Berlin: S. Calvary, 1903), 65f.; Elbogen,<hi rend="italic">Religionsanschauungen</hi>, 8; Moore,<hi rend="italic">Judaism</hi>, I, 127f.; Herford,<hi rend="italic">Pharisees</hi>, 185; Lauterbach, "Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">HUCA</hi>, 136; J. Klausner,<hi rend="italic">The Messianic Idea in Israel</hi>(London: George Allen and Unwin, 1956), 393; and Schubert, "Parties and Sects", 89. For an affirmative answer, see: Wellhausen,<hi rend="italic">Pharisäer</hi>, 22-24; W. Bousset,<hi rend="italic">Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter</hi>HNT 21 (4. edn., ed. H. Gressmann; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1966 [1926]), 204f.; R. H. Charles,<hi rend="italic">Religious Development Between the Old and New Testaments</hi>(London: Oxford, 1914), 33f.; idem.,<hi rend="italic">Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity</hi>(New York: Schocken, 1963 [1899]), 171-195; C. C. Torrey, "Apocalypse",<hi rend="italic">JE</hi>, I, 673b; W. D. Davies, "Apocalyptic and Pharisaism", in his<hi rend="italic">Christian Origins and Judaism</hi>(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1962), 19-30; and P. D. Hanson, "Apocalypticism",<hi rend="italic">IDBS</hi>, 33.</note>Were they involved in political life?<note id="p1_c1_n7" place="foot">Affirmatively: Geiger,<hi rend="italic">Urschrift</hi>, 150; Elbogen, "Einige neuere Theorien über den Ursprung der Pharisäer und Sadduzäer", in<hi rend="italic">Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams</hi>(NewYork: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927), 145-147; G. Alon,<hi rend="italic">Jews, Judaism and the Classical World</hi>(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), esp. 1-47; and W. Farmer,<hi rend="italic">Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus</hi>(New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 189f. Negatively: Wellhausen,<hi rend="italic">Pharisäer</hi>, 22, 100-102; E. Schürer,<hi rend="italic">Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi</hi>(3./4. edn., 3 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1901), II, 463; Herford,<hi rend="italic">Pharisees</hi>, 45-52; E. Meyer,<hi rend="italic">Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums</hi>(3 vols.; Stuttgart-Berlin: J. G. Cotta, 1921-1923), II, 286; Moore,<hi rend="italic">Judaism</hi>, II, 113; C. Steuernagel, "Pharisäer",<hi rend="italic">PWRE</hi>XXXVIII, 1828; Lauterbach, "Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">HUCA</hi>, 70; and D. Polish, "Pharisaism and Political Sovereignty",<hi rend="italic">Judaism</hi>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,<hi rend="italic">Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews</hi>(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1959), 253f.; M. Black, "Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">IDB</hi>, III, 777-780; and J. Neusner,<hi rend="italic">From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism</hi>(Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973).</note>If so, what political principles did they espouse?<note id="p1_c1_n8" place="foot">Wellhausen (<hi rend="italic">Pharisäer</hi>, 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",<hi rend="italic">HUCA</hi>, 77-80; Herford,<hi rend="italic">Pharisees</hi>, 29-31). Others, rejecting the historicity of a split with Hyrcanus, find the Pharisees supporting the Hasmoneans until their struggle with Alexander Janneus (I. Friedlander, "The Rupture Between Alexander Jannai and the Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">JQR</hi>n.s. 4 [1913-1914], 443-448; Alon,<hi rend="italic">Jews</hi>, 7-17; M.J. Geller, "Alexander Janneus and the Pharisees' Rift",<hi rend="italic">JJS</hi>30 [1979], 203-210). Still others deny that the Pharisees ever opposed Janneus (C. Rabin, "Alexander Janneus and the Pharisees",<hi rend="italic">JJS</hi>7 [1956], 5-10). On the vexed question of the Pharisees' relations with the Hasmoneans, see also P. Kieval, "The Talmudic View of the Hasmonean and Herodian Periods in Jewish History" (dissertation, Brandeis, 1970), whose conclusions have an indirect bearing on the problem.</note>How great was their influence in Palestinian Judaism before AD 70?<note id="p1_c1_n9" place="foot">On the basis of such evidence as is cited by J. Jeremias (<hi rend="italic">Jerusalem zur Zeit Jesu</hi>[Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958], 134-138), most scholars have believed that the Pharisees exercised the dominant religious influence in pre-70 Palestine, even if they 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, "Φαρισαῑοι",<hi rend="italic">TDNT</hi>IX, 31; M. Smith, "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century", in<hi rend="italic">Israel: Its Role in Civilization</hi>, ed. M. Davis (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), 67-81; and J. Neusner,<hi rend="italic">Politics</hi>, 8-11.</note>How<pb n="3" />did they relate to the rest of their society?<note id="p1_c1_n10" place="foot">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 narrowminded legalists, an esteemed scholar class and an irrelevant sect.</note>All of these issues, which would seem elementary for understanding the Pharisees, are not only unresolved; they are still vigorously debated.<note id="p1_c1_n11" place="foot">Useful synopses of some aspects of the scholarly debate are given by R. Marcus, "The Pharisees in the Light of Modern Scholarship",<hi rend="italic">JR</hi>32 (1952), 153-163, and H.D. Mantel, "The Sadducees and the Pharisees", in<hi rend="italic">The World History of the Jewish People</hi>, first series, VIII:<hi rend="italic">Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period</hi>, edd. M. Avi-Yonah and Z. Baros (Jerusalem: Massada, 1977), 99-123.</note>The diversity of competent opinion on these matters is so profound that it seems hazardous to say anything significant about the Pharisees, except for the vague propositions that (a) they especially valued a body of extrabiblical tradition and (b) they contributed significantly to the formation of rabbinic Judaism.<note id="p1_c1_n12" place="foot">Even Neusner, who may be considered one of the more cautious historians of Pharisaism, allows these two points. On (a), see his<hi rend="italic">The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70</hi>(3 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1971), III, 304. On (b), see his "PharisaicRabbinic Judaism: A Clarification",<hi rend="italic">HR</hi>12 (1973), 68.</note>In response to the perceived bankruptcy of previous research on the Pharisees, a new scholarly effort has emerged within the last two decades. Represented principally by J. Neusner and E. Rivkin, this endeavour is characterized by the willingness to pose anew the basic and (in that sense) radical question: How can we know anything about the Pharisees? Neusner opens his study as follows:<q>While 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 many 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. We must honestly attempt to understand not only what was going on in the first century, but also—and most crucially—<hi rend="italic">how</hi>and<hi rend="italic">whether</hi>we know anything at all about what was going on.<note id="p1_c1_n13" place="foot"><hi rend="italic">Politics</hi>, xix.</note></q><pb n="4" />Rivkin likewise proposes a thorough re-examination of the sources for Pharisaic history.<note id="p1_c1_n14" place="foot"><hi rend="italic">Revolution</hi>, 31f.</note>Although these two critics arrive at very different interpretations of the group, they agree in calling for a return to first principles. E. P. Sanders comments:<q>The question of who the Pharisees were and of how they saw themselves<hi rend="italic">vis-à-vis</hi>the rest of Judaism appears quite wide open. One must welcome the attempts of Rivkin and Neusner to pursue the question<hi rend="italic">de novo</hi>and to try to establish rigorous academic standards for answering it.<note id="p1_c1_n15" place="foot">E. P. Sanders,<hi rend="italic">Paul and Palestinian Judaism</hi>(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 62.</note></q>The present study is intended as a contribution to this<hi rend="italic">de novo</hi>questioning about the Pharisees. It will examine in detail the evidence of a key witness, Flavius Josephus, concerning Pharisaic history. What principles ought to guide such an analysis? How will this study of one source serve the larger effort to understand the Pharisees? Rivkin and Neusner provide some initial guidance, both in their explicit reflections and, implicitly, in their own procedures; nevertheless, they give detailed methodological proposals only for the rabbinic literature.<note id="p1_c1_n16" place="foot">Cf. E. Rivkin, "Defining the Pharisees: the Tannaitic Sources",<hi rend="italic">HUCA</hi>40 (1969), 205-249; J. Neusner,<hi rend="italic">Form-Analysis and Exegesis</hi>: A Fresh Approach to the Redaction of the<hi rend="italic">Mishnah</hi>(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1980); idem.,<hi rend="italic">Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism</hi>(Chico CA: Scholars Press, 1981), 36-50; idem.,<hi rend="italic">Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishnah</hi>(Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 48-72.</note>In this chapter I shall attempt to fill out their preliminary insights—i.e., those that are applicable to all sources—by considering also (a) the problems that have hampered previous research on the Pharisees and (b) some results of contemporary historiography.Once the methodological requirements for a study of Josephus's Pharisees have become clear, I shall survey previous treatments of the topic, in order to show that those requirements have not yet been met or even, in most cases, intended. That deficiency will provide the rationale for the study that follows.We turn, then, to examine the goal, the sources, and the procedure for research on the Pharisees, as a means of determining the desired characteristics of a study of Josephus's Pharisees.

Steve Mason - Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees

Commentary