2010 - Steve Mason - The Writings of Josephus. Their Significance for New Testament Study

8/13/2019 2010 - Steve Mason - The Writings of Josephus. Their Significance for New Testament Study

1/58

Handbook or the Study o the

Historical Jesus

Volume 2

Te Study o Jesus

Edited by

om Holmn and Stanley E. Porter

LEIDEN BOSON2011

Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 16372 0


2/58

CONENS

V 1

H S H J

Introduction: Te Handbook or the Study o the HistoricalJesus in Perspective ....................................................................... xv H S E. P

PAR ONE

CONEMPORARY MEHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES

How to Marginalize the raditional Criteria o Authenticity ..... 3D C. A, J.

Fourth Quest? What Did Jesus Really Want? ................................ 31E B

Te Search or Jesus Special Prole ................................................ 57J B

Te Historical Jesus: How to Ask Questions andRemain Inquisitive ........................................................................ 91J H. C

Method in a Critical Study o Jesus ................................................. 129B D. C

Context and ext in Historical Jesus Methodology ...................... 159

J D CRemembering Jesus: How the Quest othe Historical Jesus Lost its Way ................................................. 183J D. G. D

Jesus-in-Context: A Relational Approach ...................................... 207R A. H

Sources, Methods and Discursive Locations in the Questo the Historical Jesus ................................................................... 241J S. K

Basic Methodology in the Quest or the Historical Jesus ............ 291J P. M



3/58

vi

Jesus Research as Feedback on His Wirkungsgeschichte ............... 333P P

Te Role o Greek Language Criteria in HistoricalJesus Research ............................................................................... 361S E. P

From the Messianic eacher to the Gospels o Jesus Christ ........ 405R R

Te Gospel o the Historical Jesus .................................................. 447J M. R

Scholarly Rigor and Intuition in Historical Researchinto Jesus ........................................................................................ 475

J SCritical Feminist Historical-Jesus Research ................................... 509

E S FHistorical Scepticism and the Criteria o Jesus Research:

My Attempt to Leap Over Lessings Ugly Wide Ditch ............. 549G SS

A Metalanguage or the Historical Jesus Methods:An Experiment .............................................................................. 589 H

PAR WO

VARIOUS ASPECS OF HISORICALJESUS MEHODOLOGY

With the Grain and against the Grain: A Strategy or Reading

the Synoptic Gospels .................................................................... 619C B

Form Criticism and Jesus Research ................................................ 649A J. H

radition Criticism and Jesus Research ......................................... 673G R. O

Te Criteria o Authenticity ............................................................. 695S E. P

Alternatives to Form and radition Criticism inJesus Research ............................................................................... 715 N

Social-Scientic Approaches and Jesus Research ......................... 743B J. M



4/58

vii

New Literary Criticism and Jesus Research ................................... 777E S M

Memory Teory and Jesus Research ............................................... 809A KTe Burden o Proo in Jesus Research .......................................... 843

D W

V 2

T S J

Introduction: Te Handbook or the Study o the HistoricalJesus in Perspective ....................................................................... xv H S E. P

PAR ONE

HE ONGOING QUES FOR HE HISORICAL JESUS

Te Quest o the Unhistorical Jesus and the Quest o theHistorical Jesus .............................................................................. 855C B

Futures or the Jesus Quests ............................................................. 887B H

Te Parable o the Goose and the Mirror: Te Historical Jesusin the Teological Discipline ....................................................... 919S MK

Historical Jesus Research in Global Cultural Context .................. 953

ODiverse Agendas at Work in the Jesus Quest ................................. 985C M

Jesus o Nazareth and the Christ o Faith: Approaches to theQuestion in Historical Jesus Research ....................................... 1021S-O B

Te Jesus Quest and Jewish-Christian Relations .......................... 1055D A. H

Historic Jesuses .................................................................................. 1079

C H



5/58

viii

PAR WO

CURREN QUESIONS OF JESUS RESEARCH

Jesus and Cynicism ........................................................................... 1105F. G D

Jesus and the Scriptures o Israel ..................................................... 1137S M

Implicit Christology and the Historical Jesus ................................ 1169E K. B

Jesus and the Partings o the Ways .............................................. 1183M F. B

Prophet, Sage, Healer, Messiah, and Martyr:ypes and Identities o Jesus ........................................................ 1217C A. E

Jesus im Licht der Qumrangemeinde ............................................. 1245H-W K

Jesus without Q .................................................................................. 1287M G

Dispensing with the Priority o Mark ............................................. 1313

D L. DTe Role o Aramaic in Reconstructing the eaching o Jesus ... 1343M C

Te Quest or the Historical Jesus in Postmodern Perspective:A Hypothetical Argument ........................................................... 1377M M P-B S

Why Study the Historical Jesus? ...................................................... 1411C B

PAR HREE

PERSISING ISSUES ADJACEN O HE JESUS QUES

Te Context o Jesus: Jewish and/or Hellenistic? .......................... 1441S E. P

Te ransmission o the Jesus radition ........................................ 1465S B

Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Herodians ..................................... 1495 NTe Son o Man in Ancient Judaism ............................................... 1545

J J. C



6/58

ix

Jewish Apocalyptic and Apocalypticism ........................................ 1569C F-L

Anti-Judaism and the New estament ........................................... 1609L JTe Writings o Josephus: Teir Signicance or

New estament Study ................................................................... 1639S M

Rabbinic Writings in New estament Research ............................ 1687D I-B

Synagogue and Sanhedrin in the First Century ............................ 1723L L. G

Echoes rom the Wilderness: Te Historical John the Baptist .... 1747K B

Historiographical Literature in the New estament Period(1st and 2nd centuries CE) .......................................................... 1787E-M B

V 3

T H J

Introduction: Te Handbook or the Study o the Historical Jesusin Perspective ................................................................................. xv H S E. P

PAR ONE

JESUS RADIION IN INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENS

Te Historical Jesus in the Gospel o Mark ................................... 1821J D

Jesus radition in non-Markan Material Common to Matthewand Luke ......................................................................................... 1853C

Te Special Material in Matthews Gospel .................................... 1875D S, C.P.

Luke and Acts .................................................................................... 1901

J NTe Non-Synoptic Jesus: An Introduction to John, Paul,

Tomas, and Other Outsiders o the Jesus Quest ..................... 1933M L



7/58

x

Jesus radition in the Gospel o John ............................................. 1997D. M S

Jesus radition in the Letters o the New estament .................... 2041D WTe Tomas-Jesus Connection ........................................................ 2059

E K. Braditions about Jesus in Apocryphal Gospels (with the

Exception o the Gospel o Tomas) .......................................... 2081 N

Jesus radition in Early Patristic Writings ..................................... 2119R R

Jesus radition in Classical and Jewish Writings .......................... 2149R E. V V

PAR WO

FUNDAMENALLY ABOU JESUS

Te Historicity o Jesus: How Do We Know Tat

Jesus Existed? ................................................................................. 2183S BBackground I: Jesus o History and the opography o the

Holy Land ...................................................................................... 2213J H. C

Background II: (Some) Literary Documents ................................. 2243M MN

Background III: Te Social and Political Climate in whichJesus o Nazareth Preached .......................................................... 2291

W STe Chronology o Jesus .................................................................. 2315H W. H

Te Birth o Jesus ............................................................................... 2361R . F

Te Death o Jesus ............................................................................. 2383J B. G

Te Resurrection o Jesus ................................................................. 2409P P

Family, Friends, and Foes ................................................................. 2433J B. G



8/58

xi

Te Language(s) Jesus Spoke ........................................................... 2455S E. P

Te Sel-Understanding o Jesus ..................................................... 2473M KTe Message o Jesus I: Miracles, Continuing Controversies ...... 2517

G H. Te Message o Jesus II: Parables .................................................... 2549

A J. H

PAR HREE

JESUS AND HE LEGACY OF ISRAEL

Jesus and God .................................................................................... 2575M M

Jesus and Te Sabbath ....................................................................... 2597S-O B

Jesus and the emple ......................................................................... 2635J

Jesus and the Shema .......................................................................... 2677K H Jesus and the Purity Paradigm ......................................................... 2709

HJesus and the Law .............................................................................. 2745

W LJesus and the Holy Land ..................................................................... 2773

K J. WJesus and Sinners and Outcasts ....................................................... 2801

B CJesus and Israels Eschatological Constitution ............................... 2835S M. B

Jesus, Satan, and Company .............................................................. 2855D B

Jesus and Apocalypticism ................................................................. 2877C F-L



9/58

xii

V 4

I S

Introduction: Te Handbook or Study o the Historical Jesusin Perspective ................................................................................. xv H S E. P

Te Dark Side o PowerBeelzebul: Manipulated orManipulator? Reections on the History o a Conict inthe races Lef in the Memory o its Narrators ......................... 2911

M LDid Jesus Break the Fifh (Fourth) Commandment? ................... 2947P B

Did Jesus Stay at Bethsaida? Arguments rom Ancient extsand Archaeology or Bethsaida and et-ell ............................... 2973H-W K

Flawed Heroes and Stories Jesus old: Te One About a ManWanting to Kill .............................................................................. 3023C W. H

Jesus and Magic: Te Question o the Miracles ............................ 3057B KJesus and the Greeks: A Semiotic Reading o John 12:2028 ...... 3087

J PJesus and the Synagogue ................................................................... 3105

G H. Jesus and the en Words .................................................................. 3135

H LJesus as Moving Image: Te Public Responsibility o the

Historical Jesus Scholar in the Age o Film ............................... 3155C M

Jesus Magic rom a Teodicean Perspective .............................. 3179 H

Jesus Rhetoric: Te Rise and Fall o Te Kingdom o God ..... 3201J M. R

Jewish Galilee ..................................................................................... 3221E N

On Avoiding Bothersome Busyness: Q/Luke 12:2231 in itsGreco-Roman Context ................................................................. 3245G D



10/58

xiii

Poverty and Wealth in Jesus and the Jesus radition ................... 3269H G

Te Question o the Baptists Disciples on Fasting(Matt 9:1417; Mark 2:1822; Luke 5:3339) ........................... 3305R R

Riddles, Wit, and Wisdom ............................................................... 3349

Tree Questions about the Lie o Jesus ......................................... 3373C-B A

Why Was Jesus Not Born in Nazareth? .......................................... 3409A P

Words o Jesus in Paul: On the Teology and Praxis o theJesus radition ............................................................................... 3437P P

Index o Ancient Sources ................................................................. 3469Index o Modern Authors ................................................................ 3605



11/58


HE WRIINGS OF JOSEPHUS:HEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR NEW ESAMEN SUDY

S M

It can no longer be necessary to make the case that Josephus is rele-vant or the study o the New estament. Even lay readers o theChristian canon know that when specialists look outside it or illumi-

nationconcerning Herod the Great and his descendants, the Romangovernors o Judea, the temple in Jerusalem, the Pharisees and Sad-ducees, the geography o Judea-Galilee, and much elsethey relyheavily on JosephusJudean War, Antiquities-Lie, andAgainst Apion.Readers are accustomed to seeing Josephus reports that . . . beorestatements in New estament Introductions and reerence works. Tatscholars ofen turn to Josephus not so much rom choice as rom bit-ter necessity, as he might have put it (Lie27), in view o his presumedmoral deciencies,1does not weaken the dependence itsel.

o be sure, a substantial library o other Jewish writings romthe same period (say, 200 BCE to 200 CE) has survived, including theDead Sea Scrolls, Philo, apocalyptic and wisdom literature, and theearliest rabbinic texts. But that material was composed almost entirelyor Jews,2 who did not need to be educated about the conditions inwhich they lived. Because Josephus, by contrast, undertook to writesel-consciously historical narratives or non-Jews, his work is plainlyo the rst importance or historians as or New estament readers.Te archaeology o rst-century Judea and Galilee constitutes an

increasingly valuable resource or understanding the general environ-ment.3 But or specic human actions and intentions, which are the

1 E.g. G. A. Williamson, Te World o Josephus(Boston: Little, Brown, 1964), 307:Josephus the writer deserves our warmest thanks; Josephus the mannot lovable, notestimable, barely tolerableremains an enigma, but a ascinating one.

2 V. cherikover, Jewish Apologetic Literature Reconsidered, Eos48 (1956): 169193.3 Accessible archaeological surveys include E. Meyers, Galilee through the Centu-

ries: Conuence o Cultures(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), A. Berlin & A. Over-

man, Te First Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology(London: Routledge,2002), and M. Aviam,Jews, Pagans and Christians in the Galilee. 25 Years o Archaeo-logical Excavations and Surveys: Hellenistic to Byzantine Periods(Rochester: Univer-sity o Rochester Press, 2004). Galilean archaeology in particular has recently been


12/58

1640


stuff o history, Josephus remains indispensable to New estamentreaders. Chronology reinorces the bond, or he composed his thirty

volumes in the very period to which the canonical gospels and Actsare usually dated (70100 CE).

Since another appeal concerning Josephus importance would besuperuous, my purpose here lies elsewhere. Namely, given that theworks o Josephus are important, how should the New estament stu-dent regard and use them? Te shorter o his histories, the seven-vol-ume War, is nearly as long as the entire New estament, and wadingthrough his twenty-volume Antiquities (about the length o the Oldestament) is a ormidable task. Curious readers ofen purchase

Josephus collected worksor Anglophones, ofen the 1737 transla-tion by W. Whistononly to nd them impenetrable. Arcane detailsprove impossible to remember; Eleazars, Menachems, Aristobuluses,and Agrippas appear with disconcerting requency in unrelated places;long speeches and details o geography, even botany, can be as boringas the moralizing is tedious. How does one nd what one needs in thismass? And once one nds it, how should one understand it? Perhapsmost important: What may the New estament reader airly expectrom Josephus?

In what ollows I describe three approaches to exploiting Josephusworks or New estament study. Te rst is the route most commonlytaken: using Josephus as a historical reerence manual. In this model,to which I devote about hal o the essay, reading Josephus and doinghistory are assumed to be parts o a single operation. Even i one doesnot believe everything he reports, he is expected to transmit recover-able acts. Recently, however, some scholars have been working toseparate the interpretation o Josephus compositions rom reconstruc-

tion o the historical phenomena they describe. Tese critics drawattention to the artistry o the narratives and insist that historicaldeductions reckon ully with the nature o the evidence they seek toexplain, which is a richly woven tapestry. While generally supportingthat second approach against the rst, I propose here a urther step.

applied to the study o the historical Jesus by M. A. Chancey, Te Myth o a GentileGalilee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), S. Freyne, Jesus, a Jewish

Galilean: A New Reading o the Jesus Story(Edinburgh: & Clark, 2004), M. Sawicki,Crossing Galilee: Architectures o Contact in the Occupied Land o Jesus(Harrisburg:rinity Press International, 2000) and J. D. Crossan and J. Reed, Excavating Jesus:Beneath the Stones, Behind the exts(New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).


13/58

1641


Namely: the greatest benet or New estament readers in studyingJosephus may come not rom areas o overlap in what the two corpora

reer to, but rom the access Josephus affords to values and assump-tions that shaped the conceptual world o the New estament writers.

1. Josephus as Historical Manual or New estament Readers

Te use o Josephus as a reerence work on matters Judean has ancientroots, among his immediate audiences in Rome and later in the churchathers. In some respects this use ullls the authors dream that the

whole Greek-speaking world would learn about his culture rom him(Ant. 1.5; c. War1.6). Yet the Christian readers who preserved Jose-phus into modern times were not interested in his expositions oJudean culture as such: they were concerned only with the backgroundo the early Christian story.4(Jewish scholars o the ancient and medi-eval periods preerred to orego his portraits o Judaism or other rea-sons.) Because the use o Josephus or New estament interpretationis not a new issue, but has been with us or nearly two millennia, weought to ponder the changing methodological bases or such use. Tat

survey will tell us something about Josephus historiographical assump-tions and about those o his ancient and modern users.

1.1. Authority and ruth in Ancient Historiography

In the Roman world, knowledge o most things, including the past,was mediated by trusted authorities. Notwithstanding occasionalimpulses toward empirical investigation (e.g., with Tucydides andAristotle centuries earlier), the deeply ingrained Roman social system,

in which members o the elite dominated all discourse, affected everybranch o knowledge. Although Roman authors had potential sourceso reliable inormation about oreign peoples and lands, or example,their geographical and ethnographical traditions display a tenaciousresistance to change, precisely because they instinctively preerred

4

E.g. H. Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-Josephus-radition in Antike und Mittelalter(Leiden: Brill, 1972), and the essays on Christian use o Josephus in Josephus, Judaism,and Christianity, ed. G. Hata and L. H. Feldman (Detroit: Wayne State UniversityPress, 1987).


14/58

1642


established and trusted authorities.5Te physician Galen in the secondcentury was still deploring the deism o his peers, as he called or

empirically grounded reasoning. ellingly, he compared this wide-spread trust in authorities to the undemonstrated laws o the Jewsand Christiansi.e., the school o Moses and Christ (Puls. diff. 2.4).

In history, above all, it mattered a great deal who was telling thestory, and who the historians riends and patrons were. Historianswere not proessionals. Tey were rhetorically trained members o theelite or their retainers. Tese men, who had typically held military,political, civic, and religious posts, elt able to write and speak in anygenre they pleased: political treatise, philosophical dialogue, tragedy,

poetry, oratory, literary correspondence, ethnography, geography,biography, or history.6 Te same riends would gather to hear eachother recite in any o these modes. And when they chose one genre,they typically laced their compositions with elements o the others: sotheir histories contain philosophical, geographical, oratorical, andmoralizing asides. In such an elite literary environment, acceptanceand trustworthiness owed in large measure rom the writers evidentstature, inuence, and circle o riendshis auctoritas.7

Ancient techniques or getting books into the public sphere (pub-lication) reinorced the importance o the authors status. New com-positions normally ound their intended audiences locally, in theauthors immediate environs.8For modern writers, our audiences must

5 J. S. Romm, Te Edges o the Earth in Ancient Tought: Geography, Exploration,and Fiction(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 4144, 93109; S. P. Mattern,Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate(Berkeley: University o Cal-iornia Press, 1999), 2480.

6

C. J. Marincola,Authority and radition in Ancient Historiography(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1997), 19. Aelius Teon, in the rst century, points outthat graduates o his rhetorical programme will be expected to write in a variety ogenres (Prog. 60, 70). acitus Dialogue on Oratory, set in the reign o Vespasian,shows the result: groups o riends who reely compose across different elds. Tedeliberations by Pliny the Younger, amous senator, orator, and letter-writer, as towhether he should embark on writing history, are revealing (Ep. 3.5): the issue oqualication does not arise. So too Cicero, Leg. 1.9.

7 E.g., C. Salles, Lire Rome (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1992), 4389; E. Fantham,Roman Literary Culture: From Cicero to Apuleius(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-sity Press, 1996), 183185.

8 P. White, Te Friends o Martial, Statius, and Pliny, and the Dispersal o Patron-

age, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology79 (1975): 265300; idem, Amicitia andthe Proession o Poetry in Early Imperial Rome,Journal o Roman Studies68 (1978):7492; . P. Wiseman, Roman Studies: Literary and Historical(Liverpool: F. Cairns,1987), 25256; R. J. Starr, Te Circulation o exts in the Ancient World,Mnemosyne


15/58

1643


be abstractly envisaged in our minds. Whether a ew associates read orhear preliminary drafs is an entirely discretionary matter, and in any

case not part o our main effort to reach the audience. Our booksbegin to reach their audiences and elicit responses (e.g., throughreviews) only when they are printed, bound, and marketed by the pub-lisher. In the rst century, conditions were more or less reversed, sinceneither printing nor publishing houses existed. Composition was amuch more social affair, conducted among elite groups who knewwhat their peers were writing.9Authors met their audiencesauditorsin the proper senseat dinner parties or readings. Tey recited theirwork in progress or shared drafs with riends, who would have their

slaves read them aloud.10Catherine Salles observes: Te success o aliterary work depended equally on the activity o the coteries, the pub-lic readings, and the representations o the author to his associates; butin all this, dissemination remained in a closed circuit.11Tis processo presentation and review, in ever widening circles, was the crucialpart o publication, a process so different rom ours that we shouldperhaps avoid the word when speaking o ancient conditions.12

Because each new copy required a human hand, the concept onishing a work could not be as denitive then as it is or us. Everynew copy was in principle a new version, even i the changes were onlyscribal accidents.13When an author stopped making deliberate changesand presented copies o his work to a ew riends, this handing over() marked the beginning o the end o his ability to interactwith a clearly envisaged audience.14 Even i they aspired to create aliterary monument or posterity, ancient authors thus wrote necessar-ily or real local groups, whose knowledge, values, and prejudices theyknew and could manipulate. Tey also wrote with a view to oral

4.40 (1987): 213223; W. V. Harris, Ancient Literacy(Cambridge MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 1989); C. Salles, Lire Rome(Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1992); Marincola,Authority, 1933; D. S. Potter, Literary exts and the Roman Historian(London: Rout-ledge, 1999), 2344.

9 cherikover, Jewish Apologetic, 173.10 C. W. Fornara, Te Nature o History in Ancient Greece and Rome(Berkeley: Uni-

versity o Caliornia Press, 1983), 31; E. Fantham, Roman Literary Culture: rom Ciceroto Apuleius (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), 202203, 214216;Potter, Literary exts, 106110.

11

Salles, Lire Rome, 156, my translation.12 Starr, Circulation o exts, 215 n. 18.13 Potter, Literary exts, 2937.14 Ibid., 32.


16/58

1644


perormance, whether in their own recital o the work or in the sub-sequent reading aloud by someones slave, and thereore with atten-

tion to the sound o phrases. Like every other genre, historiographywas governed by the general rules o rhetoric (see section 3 below).

In the status-conscious city o Rome, thereore, actual accuracy(which could not usually be checked) was not among the main criteriaor literary acceptance, unless such accuracy happened to coincidewith the interests o the audience. In the absence o universities orresearch unded or its own sake, this was not an atmosphere in whichanonymous researchers could survive. Tere was no culture o dis-seminating new discoveries; the scope or true novelty, especially in

history, was severely constrained.15 New acts came to light inciden-tally, as they were assembled and interpreted in conventional ways bytrusted authorities.

Early Christians may not have recognized the same status criteria asthe larger society, or spiritual authority was not a strict correlative osocial standing,16 but they shared the general assumption that truthwas validated by its source rather than by a ree enquiry scienticallytested: good trees produce good ruit. Only outsiders, such as Celsusand Porphyry, marginal pedants, Jews, or those deemed hereticsundertook something approaching historical investigations intoChristian origins. Te bulk o surviving Christian literature revealsinstead a preoccupation with identiying trustworthy authorities andtheir texts, and a parallel urgency to exclude those perceived as threat-ening. Tis long march toward an approved canon was well on theway by Clement o Rome and Ignatius o Antioch, i not already byPauls time (1 Cor 4:1521; 2 Cor 1013; Gal 4:1119).

It is true that ancient historians use the language o truth (),

accuracy (), and reliability () in ways that soundas though they imply rigorous research and testing. Yet the contextso such language indicate a different meaning. What historians arereally speaking about in these cases is not objectivity or neutrality operception, recording, and analysis, but impartialityo reporting. Teopposite o truth here is not alsitybare acts have no determinative

15 Marincola,Authority and radition,14: the goal o composition was to be incre-

mentally innovative within a tradition.16 Note, however, that the wealthier members among Pauls ollowers, those whoowned houses (or meeting) and slaves (as emissaries) tended to assume prominentroles: Philemon, Chloe, Stephanas, Phoebe.


17/58

1645


value in the rhetoricized mentality o antiquitybut bias.17Tis claimto impartiality, ubiquitous in Roman historiography, made perect

sense in a world in which scholarship came to light through the exer-cise o personal patronage and social networks. It was assumed thathistorians would seek to atter their powerul riends and urtherbelittle the riends enemies, especially i they had been conquered.18Since contemporary values put a premium on the virtue o earlessreedom in speech (), however, historians constantly reas-sured their audiences that they were writing without ear o, or avourtoward, those who might help or hurt them. o do thisto avoid mereencomium or invectivewas to speak the truth.

Tere was a potential overlap here with actual truth, on the under-lying logic that the historian was motivated not by audience gratica-tion but by compelling events that cried out or a reporter (c. Josephus,Ant. 1.14). Yet ancient historians did not put their acts to a publictest by disclosing the basis o their knowledge (i.e., who observed, atwhat proximity, and with what interests?). Te standard proo oimpartiality was simply that any praise and blame, which remained theheart and soul o history-writing, was justiedby reported behaviourand not gratuitously inserted. Tus balance, non-partisanship, andeven-handednesswere deemed necessary qualities by the better histo-rians, but a positivist concept o acts that impose their meaning onneutral observers or classiers, that speak or themselves, was entirelydifferentand a long way off.

As he composed his histories in Rome, Josephus was very much parto this world o social status, rhetoric, and moral lessons (see also thelanguage o Luke 1:14). When he speaks about writing the truth() with precision or accuracy () (War1.6, 9, 17, 30;

7.454; Ant. 1.4; Lie 360361, 364367; Apion 1.6, 50), his meaningbecomes clear rom the context. Whereas other writers have taken thepredictable course o attering those now in power (the Flavians) intheir awning accounts o the Judean war (War 1.2, 68), he will setthe record straightthat is: he will not overcompensate by exorbitantly

17 See A.J. Woodman, Rhetoric in Classical Historiography: Four Studies(London:Croom Helm, 1988), ch. 2 on Cicero, and Marincola, Authority and radition,

158174.18 Lucians mid-second-century essay on writing history is largely occupied withridiculing such partiality (in recent accounts o the recent Parthian war), both theattery and the invective.


18/58

1646


praising his own compatriots, but will give due credit and blame toboth sides (1.9). He is in a unique position to write this way because

he, a Jerusalem priest who knew the Judean side intimately, was aferhis capture compelled to observe rom the Roman side (War1.3).

Admittedly, eyewitness knowledge is a crucial component oJosephus proffered credentials in the War. But his claim is vaguelyconceived and undocumented in that work; it relies more upon theaudiences willingness to trust this captured oreign nobleman (1.23;c. Suetonius, Vesp. 5.6) than upon rigorous demonstration. He doesnot certiy his detailed knowledge o X because he has meticulouslyinvestigated sources A through J according to method Z. He must in

act have used many sources, or he could not personally have knownevents beore he reached maturity or those that occurred where he wasnot present (thus, at least hal o the War). Yet he does not name evenone source, much less describe his method in using them. Instead, hedeclares his aim to provide a comprehensive theory o the war sup-ported by appropriate moral evaluations (1.810). A uniquely culti-

vated Judean, he asserts his prerogative to render an authoritativeinterpretation o the catastrophe that beell his great city, with unas-sailable verdicts (1.3, 9). His language precludes any modern notion odetachment. He will not (cannot?), or example, sympatheticallyexplore the minds o the tyrants or bandit-chies who broughtcatastrophe on Jerusalem. Accuracy means or him reraining romunjustied praise or blame, and especially rom joining the chorus oRomes atterers.

1.2. Josephus Prestige as Basis o his Later Authority

Josephus assumptions about the relationship between authority and

status were shared by readers o the ollowing generations. For a vari-ety o reasons, his work became part o the Christian canon in itsbroader sense: the approved guide to rst-century Judea. Since he wasnot a Christian, this acceptance could not issue rom spiritual author-ity; it had other bases.

Initially, Josephus work ound its audiences through the agency ohis powerul riends in Rome. Various descendants o Herod the Greatwho were residing in the capital, especially King Agrippa II (d. 9293CE?), acilitated dissemination o the work; Josephus adduces a urryo correspondence with the king concerning his War (Lie364367).We see vividly here the assumption that the status o ones riends is


19/58

1647


a guarantee o truth. Once Josephus had completed his work, sponsor-ship by the imperial amily o Vespasian, itus, and Domitian (Lie

361363;Apion1.50) ensured its availability or generations in Romeslibraries and perhaps a ew private collections or the occasionalbookseller.

Afer that initial boost, a curious thing happened, though it is alsounderstandable in light o the values described above. On the onehand, Josephus own Jewish-Judean community declined utterly toshow an interest in their amous son. Tis neglect apparently resultedrom his lack o standing in that community afer the war. No matterhow good his inormation might have been, he was perceived as a

coward, traitor, quisling, or worse, and thereore as an untrustworthyguide (see already War3.438442; Lie416, 425). Christian authors, bycontrast, took up his work with enthusiasm. Tey ound him as mor-ally congenial as his compatriots ound him objectionable: here was aJerusalemite o impeccable qualications who had severely castigatedthe Judean rebels, describing in lurid detail the horriying conse-quences o their actionsthereby demonstrating the ulllment oJesus predictions (e.g., Origen, C. Cels. 2.13.6885).

Josephus, o course, made no connection between the all oJerusalem and Christian claims, but it seemed easy enough orChristians to nd in him a kindred spirit, to insinuate that he sharedtheir view o 70 CE as divine punishment or the Jews rejection oJesus and their execution o James. His stomach-churning account oa mothers cannibalism during the siege o Jerusalem (War6.201213)received great play in Christian literature and theatre, and he won highpraise or his truthul witness.19

Josephus ongoing deence and celebration o Judean culture pre-

sented a paradox or his Christian users. On the one hand, it wasplainly benecial that an outsider, a notable Judean ree o Christianbias, should (allegedly) testiy to Christian truth.20On the other hand,it was a potential problem that this clarity o vision did not actually

19 Schreckenberg, Flavius-Josephus-radition,186203.20 E.g., Ps-Hegesippus, De excidio2.12: I the Jews do not believe us, let them at

least believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, said this

[the testimony to Jesus, Ant. 18.6364] . . . However, it was no detriment to the truththat he was not a believer; but this adds more weight to his testimony, that whilehe was an unbeliever, and unwilling that this should be true, he has not denied it tobe so.


20/58

1648


extend to recognizing the truth o Christianity.21Origen lamented thelatter; still, he credited Josephus with recognizing the righteousness o

James and with being not ar rom the truth (C. Cels. 1.47; Comm.Matt. 10.17). In the late ourth century, an unknown Christian eltstrongly enough about the authority o Josephus witness (an out-standing historian) yet also about his being too Jewish (i only hehad been as attentive to religion and truthas to tracking down events;he shared in the treachery o the Jews), that he recast the War in aproper Christian version.22 It would take another 1,350 years or theCambridge mathematician and heterodox theologian William Whistonto make room or Josephus within the Christian oldas an Ebionite

bishop.23

It was no doubt important to Christian commentators that Josephuswas a Judaean with putative inside knowledge. But just as he had madeno effort to justiy his claims, they were not concerned to criticallyassess or veriy them. At least a dozen Christian authors o the secondand third centuries, rom Teophilus o Antioch to ertullian andOrigen, cite Josephus as a sel-evident authority,24 but they do notexplain whythey credit his works above others. Eusebius (early ourthcentury CE) is important because he not only makes extensive use oJosephus,25but also deals explicitly with the question o his credentials.

Eusebius rst mentions Josephus as the most distinguished o his-torians ( ) among the Hebrews26 (Hist. Eccl.

21 In the same passage rom Ps-Hegesippus as in the previous note: he was nobeliever because o the hardness o his heart and his perdious intention.

22 Passages cited here are rom the opening paragraph o the work. A concise intro-duction to Pseudo-Hegesippus is A. J. Bell, Josephus and Pseudo-Hegesippus, in

Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. G. Hata and L. H. Feldman (Detroit: WayneState University Press, 1987), 34961.23 So Dissertation 1 attached to Whistons translation o Josephus.24 M. E. Hardwick, Josephus as an Historical Source in Patristic Literature through

Eusebius(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 10, 31, 34, 49, 60.25 H. W. Attridge and G. Hata, eds., Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism (Leiden:

Brill, 1992); S. Inowlocki, Te Citations o Jewish Greek Authors in Eusebius o Cae-sareas Praeparatio Evangelica and Demonstratio Evangelica (Faculty o OrientalStudies, University o Oxord, 2001); G. Hata, Eusebius and Josephus: Te Way Euse-bius Misused and Abused Josephus, Patristica: Proceedings o the Colloquia o the

Japanese Society or Patristic Studies, supp. 1 (2001), 4966. Eusebius extensive use oJosephus does not appear to be only the result o the small number o extant texts. Te

tenth-century Suda Lexicon(entry, Jesus [ ], Christ and our God, item 229,line 164) identies Josephus as the historian to whom Eusebius ofen reerred.26 For the positive valuation o Hebrew in Eusebius, see Inowlocki, Citations o

Jewish Greek Authors, 5264, 112121.


21/58

1649


1.5.3; c. 1.6.9). Later, afer uncritically endorsing Josephus claims tocomprehensive eyewitness knowledge (War1.3), he explains that the

historian was:the most renowned () man o the Judeans at that time, notonly with his compatriots but also among the Romans, such that he him-sel was honoured by the erection o a statue in the city o the Romans,and the works composed by him were thought worthy o [deposit in] thelibrary. (Hist. Eccl. 3.9.12)

Eusebius reinorces Josephus credibility () by endorsingJosephus claims against his rival Justus o iberias (Hist. Eccl. 3.9.3),accepting his sources assurance that King Agrippa and his amily aswell as the imperatoritus all vouched or the Wars accuracy (3.9.1011; c. Lie361363). Tis is obviously not a disinterested investigationo Josephus accuracy, but a wholly circular process o certication byame resulting rom prior endorsement. Josephus authority sprangultimately rom the high esteem in which powerul Romans had rstheld him.27

Justus o iberias presents a telling contrast. Although Justus wrotean account o the war that challenged Josephus in various ways (Lie

336), making it extremely valuable or historical investigation, andeven Josephus credits him with literary talent (Lie4041, 340), Justusound no real uptake among Christian authors. Why? He had lost thecompetition or status. Josephus commanded an initial prestige thatcarried over until the Christian apologists could establish his worth ontheological grounds, and once he was established as the source orJudea, Justus had no uture. Eusebiuss adoption o Josephus moralcritique o Justus without quibble (Hist. Eccl. 3.10.8) shows that thecontest had long since been settled. Te ninth-century Patriarch

Photius claims to have read Justus work, but he similarly repeats withenthusiasm Josephus dismissal o the contender:

But Josephus, even though he had taken this enemy in hand many times,impassivelyand with words onlyreproached him, [insisting that he]leave off his crimes. And they say that the history which that man [Jus-tus] wrote happens to be mostly abricated, especially in what concernedthe Roman war against the Jews and the capture o Jerusalem. (Bibl. 33;italics added)

27 Hardwick,Josephus as an Historical Source, 74.


22/58

1650


Te they who say are Josephus, and this highly partisan verdict romPhotius may have sealed the ate o Justuss legacy (i his work had

survived intact until then).28

By the time o the Suda Lexicon in theollowing century, the compilers entry on Justus appears to dependentirely on Josephus: [Justus] took it upon himsel to compile [NB:this is Josephus language: Lie40, 338] a Judean history and write upcertain commentaries, but Josephus exposes this ellow as a raudhewas writing history in the same period as Josephus. In winning theathers condence, Josephus works rendered superuous all otherevidence.

1.3. Te Modern Preerence or Anonymous, Objective Facts

Modern manuals o the New estament world continue to use Jose-phus as their Companion to the New estament, but their rationale ismarkedly different rom that o the church athers. As the basis oresteem, Josephus personal prestige has given way to a conception orawactspresumed to be embedded in his accounts. Here is an indexo the shif rom ancient and medieval assumptions, or i Justus workhad survived to the modern period we may be sure that it too would

have been welcomed or its acts, employed as a critical counterweightto Josephus. Because Justus work did not survive, however, Josephusposition as sole source created a methodological short-circuit.

Anticipated by intellectual currents in the Renaissance, Reormation,and the Age o Reason, the eighteenth-century Enlightenment repre-sented in principle the repudiation o knowledge derived rom author-ities. Common reasoning applied to repeatable observation becamethe only acceptable way o knowing in this newly grown-up world.29Philosophical and scientic inquiry burgeoned as recent discoveries in

astronomy, world exploration, biology, physics, and engineering wereassimilated into brave new conceptions o the cosmos and o human

28 For Photius as gatekeeper o book preservation in Byzantium, see N. G. Wilson,Photius, Te Bibliotheca: a selection(London: Duckworth, 1994), 67. Although Wil-sons point is the positive one that Photiuss recognition o a book may have ensuredits preservation, the negative corollary seems to ollow: his disapproval (in relation to

a more trustworthy account) would encourage disdain and neglect.29 Immanuel Kants Was ist Auflrung? (1784) is a classic statement. Te openingparagraph declares: Have the courage to use your own understanding is thereorethe motto o the Enlightenment.


23/58

1651


lie. History was also being rethought, as another discipline that neededto be rescued rom accrued, sacred tradition.

Josephus historic role as companion to the New estament meantthat his ate in this rethinking o history was married with the urgentreinvestigation o Christian origins. Te charter story that had beenhanded down by church authorities (both Catholic and Protestant) orat least a millennium and a hal was being uprooted. Voltaires reec-tions on ancient history30and Tomas Paines Age o Reasonare rep-resentative products o eighteenth-century Deism. Tey both rejectedall historical propositions about Jesus and his rst ollowers that werebased on tradition but contrary to common reasoning derived rom

experience o the world. Enlightenment scholarship and its heirs wouldbe no respecters o persons or authorities. Once the clear-sightedcritic had burned away the og o tradition and clerical orthodoxy, itwas hoped, the plain acts o astronomy, biology, physics, geography,and historyor Deists, acts were the word o Godwould imposethemselves on honest thinkers and demand a new view o the world.

Ancient history did not, however, immediately take up the positivescientic logic o the Enlightenment agenda. Te philosopheso theeighteenth century (e.g., Hume, Voltaire, Robertson), in a curiousparallel to their ancient elite counterparts, saw history as but one otheir many encyclopaedic pursuits, and they shunned pedantic special-ization in the eld. (Te difference was that Pliny and acitus werepart o an aristocratic elite who wrote under the general method orhetoric, whereas thephilosopheswere an anti-aristocratic, intellectualelite writing under the banner o philosophy.) Tough ofen diligentin examining sources, they tended to write sweeping interpretativehistories that, assuming the commonality o all human experience,

lent themselves to clear moral assessment. In their animus againstChristianity and tradition they were hardly objective, though theybelieved their harsh assessments justiable in the service o obvioustruth.31 Some were also duly cautious about the application o scien-tic models to ancient history, as Voltaire:

But to attempt to paint the ancients; to elaborate in this way the devel-opment o their minds; to regard events as characters in which we may

30 E.g., in the entry on History in his Philosophical Dictionary.31 An excellent analysis, with vastly more nuance, is in P. Gay, Te Enlightenment:

An Interpretation. Te Science o Freedom(New York: Norton, 1969), 368396.


24/58

1652


accurately read the most sacred eelings and intents o their heartsthisis an undertaking o no ordinary difficulty and discrimination, althoughas requently conducted, both childish and triing. (Philos. Dict., His-tory pt. III)

Te ull accommodation o history to science came chiey in the nine-teenth century. Historians such as B. G. Niebuhr and Leopold vonRanke insisted, against the generalist synthesizers and moralizers, onstudying the details o particular places and times without assumingcommon standards or universal moral criteriaand on withholdingmoral assessment. Te prime directive was to get the particular actscorrect and only with great care, where possible, to move up rom the

particular to the general. Ranke drove a particularly a sharp wedgebetween historical acts and their evaluation. He made extensive use onon-literary documents rom newly accessed archives, which seemedto offer acts without the sort o interpretative overlay ound in his-torical narratives. Te momentum in historical study was movingdecisively towards the atoms thought to constitute the surviving evi-dence, whether these were ound in material remains and non-literarydocuments or in sources distilled rom the literary texts (a specialty oNiebuhr).

Te scientic turn in history was greatly enhanced in the later nine-teenth century as thousands o material remains rom antiquity wereound, catalogued, and interpreted: coins, papyrus documents o ordi-nary lie, unerary and civic inscriptions, and remains o monuments.Tis gathering o new evidence under rigorously scientic principleso stratication and classication was highly productive: it generateddictionaries, encyclopaedias, and other reerence works o hithertounimaginable quality, considerably rening our understanding o

social, cultural, legal, and linguistic variation.A problem, however, was that the new enthusiasm or raw dataimplied that all such data could be treated alike no matter where theyoriginated, and this conditioned the interpretation o ancient literarytexts, including Josephus. Te scholars aim was to get past the subjec-tive, moralizing interpretation to the acts beneath or, i not the acts,to the earliest sources behind the extant writings. Although the pres-ence o two or more overlapping literary sources or a given periodappeared to make the task o extracting acts eminently reasonable, or

one text could be weighed against the other, the problem o what to dowhen only one narrative survivedmost ofen the case with Josephuswould take decades to be recognized as a problem. In the meantime,


25/58

1653


Josephus or his sources tended to be accepted by deault, i there wasno specic reason to reject them, as i they also inscribedor mirrored

the realities o lie in some sort o neutral, value-ree language. Scholarswere condent that Josephus could be compelled by a sufficiently sci-entic method to yield up his acts.

Tis distinctively modern adoption o Josephus as preserver o actsis embodied in the greatest background manual or New estamentreaders ever produced: Emil Schrers Te History o the Jewish Peoplein the Age o Jesus Christ (188690), which had rst appeared in theprevious decade as aManual o New estament Backgrounds. SchrersHistory remains a standard reerence work, ollowing extensive revi-

sion in the 1970s by an Oxord-based team. As the title andIntroduction make clear, his purpose was to assist the New estamentscholar in relating Jesus and the Gospel to the Jewish world o histime.32 Strikingly absent rom the Introduction, however, was anymention o Josephus, his credentials or ameor statue. Rather, theGerman historian implied that he was dealing with actsin themselves,not with the messy problems o human perspective.

So, or example, his second paragraph begins with a condent his-torical pronouncement: Te chie characteristic o this period was thegrowing importance o Pharisaism. But how does he know that?Tough Schrer does not disclose it, this ostensible act comes mainlyrom the stories o Josephus.33Because it was not a rigorously arguedhistorical conclusion, but only a borrowing rom literary portraits, itcould easily be doubted in later scholarship.34Josephus had become orSchrer an anonymous quarry or und, a source he would say, oneutral data.

Beore beginning his historical account, Schrer surveys all the

sources on which it will be basedarchaeology, coins, inscriptions,and writers other than Josephusand nally comes to describeJosephus. Afer allowing that our author is the main source or the

32 E. Schrer, Te History o the Jewish People in the Age o Jesus Christ (175 BC:AD 135)(Edinburgh: & Clark, 19731987), 1:1.

33 War1.110; Ant. 13.297298; 17.4145; 18.15, 17. C. S. Mason, Flavius Josephuson the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study(Leiden: Brill, 1991).

34 E.g., M. Smith, Palestinian Judaism in the First Century, in Israel: Its Role

in Civilization, ed. M. Davis (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), 6781; E. P.Sanders,Judaism, Practice and Belie, 63 BCE66 CE(London: rinity Press Interna-tional, 1992), 7, 386; L. L. Grabbe,Judaism rom Cyrus to Hadrian(Minneapolis: Augs-burg Fortress, 1992), 470471, 616.


26/58

1654


history studied here,35he describes the acts o Josephus lie, brieyreviews the chronological and material coverage o each work by

Josephus, and nally considers Josephus own sources. Te strikingomission here, rom more recent perspectives, is any concern aboutwhyJosephus wrote, what his interests were, the artistic arrangementor structure o each account, the sort o language he employed, howreely he retold storiesin short, what his evidence or the past mightmean in its narrative context. Tis is the short-circuit mentionedabove: an attempt to link story to act directly, a procedure that suc-ceeds only in putting out the light.

Schrers method was to tackle each new historical period or prob-

lem by rst identiying the sources as i they were a palette ocoloured paints (i.e. acts), which he could then harmoniously com-bine in a single picture. Problems o contradiction, error, and omis-sion among the sources were relegated to the notes (much enhancedby the Oxord team), as incidental to the main project o certiying theactual history. For most o the post-Hasmonean history, his sourcesturned out to be chiey or exclusively the relevant passages in Josephus,which Schrer simply took over as neutral act.

A ew sentences (emphasis added) will illustrate the point. Antipaterwas now all-powerul at court and enjoyed his athers absolute con-dence. But he was not satised. He wanted total power and could hardlywaitor his ather to die.36But Sabinus, whose conscience was uneasybecause o the emple robberies and other misdeeds, made off asquickly as possible.37His [Philips] reign was mild, just,and peaceul.38How can we know about such motives and moral qualities, which wewould hesitate to attribute even to our contemporaries, about whomwe have considerable independent inormation? Schrers amous

model made it acceptable to treat Josephus gripping stories as acts.He did not explain how he made this transition, or whether he recog-nized that a transition was involved.

Such handling o Josephus, now regarded as an inormation portal(ofen called the ancient sources), drove the New estament-backgrounds industry o the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.Tus, the scholarly biographies o King Herod beore Peter Richardsons

35 Schrer, History o the Jewish People, 1:43; italics added.36 Ibid., 1:324.37 Ibid., 1:332.38 Ibid., 1:339.


27/58

1655


1996 study were to a large degree paraphrases o Josephus: thoughtsattributed to the king by Josephus or the sake o a compelling story

were assumed to reect the monarchs actual motives and views. wotextbooks deserve special attention in this essay because they ramethemselves as guides to Josephusor the New estament reader.

Te scholar who translated Josephus War and Eusebius ChurchHistory as Penguin paperbacks addressed his Te World o Josephus(1964) itsel to the typical British school graduate who knew the Newestament stories rom religion class, but assumed that the sacred his-tory told therein was quite distinct rom any secular context.39Josephuswas worth this readers attention, G. A. Williamson proposed, because

his remarkable lie had bonded the Judean world o the New estamentto its larger Roman canvas.40

Although the conception o this book asJosephus world, rather thanas the historyo New estament times, might seem to promise a depar-ture rom Schrer, Williamson betrays the same positivistic methodwhen in the Introduction, beore mentioning Josephus, he describesthe Judean-Roman war in ostensibly actual terms: On the other[Judean] side was a motley host, torn by dissension and bloody strie,and led by rival sel-appointed chiefains lusting or power . . .41 Yetthis merely translates Josephus distinctive, thematic lexicon o ,, and . Williamson is not about to accept everythingJosephus says, but his opening critical questions reect the limits o hisscepticism. Are Josephus narratives as objectively true as we wouldwish them to be? . . . Is it within our power to separate the true romthe alse, to distinguish the sober statement rom the grossexaggeration?42Tis already implies that a sober statement may betaken as actual; at least, that acts are present among whatever else is

there.As his account unolds, Williamson occasionally introduces doubtabout Josephus veracity: in those rare cases where competing versionso the same events survive rom other authors43 and where Josephushimsel provides contradictory stories.44Where there is no such reasonto doubt, however, Williamson accepts Josephus in whole and part

39 Williamson, World o Josephus, 15.40 Ibid., 19.41 Ibid., 17.42 Ibid., 21.43 Ibid., 280.44 Ibid., 166176.


28/58

1656


events, motives, and moral assessments: the priests devoted observanceo the Sabbath in Pompeys time (72); Herods putative relationship to

Augustus and M. V. Agrippa (80); the character o the various gover-nors o Judea (130)Gessius Florus was heartless, dishonest, disgust-ing; he lled Judaea with misery, accepting bribes rom bandits (145);the minutes o a secret meeting among the Zealots reported by Josephus(207); the speeches o various actors (2046); and in general theirmotives, deeds, and ends. Yet these are all ingredients o Josephusstory, not simply what happened. In some cases, Williamson acceptsJosephus on the curious ground that his is the only story we have. 45

A nicely illustrated and well researched study entitled Te opical

Josephus: Historical Accounts that Shed Light on the Bible (1992)employs a similar method. Under the headings People, Institutions,and Events, Cleon Rogers quotes and paraphrases Josephus account,supplementing it now and again with notes on archaeology or contem-porary literature, to create an ostensibly historical record. For example,he cites Josephus assessment o Herods military virtue (War1.230)and proceeds to demonstrate the validity o this assessment by citingexamples o Herods valourrom Josephus!46 Yet this demonstratesonly that Josephus narrative holds together, not that it reects reality.Te paraphrase o Josephus as act continues: When Nero heard thenews o Roman losses in Judea, he was inwardly very much upset, eventhough he outwardly tried to conceal these concerns (War3.13).47Again, When itus entered the city, he was amazed at the strength othe ortications . . . God indeed, he exclaimed, has been with us inthe war. God it was who brought down the Jews rom thesestrongholds.48But how could Josephus have had access to Neros orituss inner thoughts? As or speeches, ancient historians normally

composed them or their characters.49

45 But as we have no other sources o inormation, we must take his account as itstands (Williamson, World o Josephus, 121; this, in reerence to Josephus earlylie).

46 C. L. Rogers, Te opical Josephus: Historical Accounts Tat Shed Light on theBible(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 1820.

47 Ibid., 121.48 Ibid., 201.49

Already Voltaire (History part III, Dictionary): Many o the ancients adoptedthe method in question [composing speeches or their characters], which merelyproves that many o the ancients were ond o parading their eloquence at the expenseo truth.


29/58

1657


While narrating, Rogers inserts explanatory Greek words inparentheses,50as i this historical record is drawn rom a master text.

It is, and the text is Josephus! Such statements have no standing asindependently veried history; they are excerpts rom Josephus, silentlytransmogried into what objectively happened.

Although most scholars nowadays are more cautious thanWilliamson and Rogers, this is a quantitative rather than qualitativedifference: they doubt more.51Few hesitate to reproduce as acts thosepassages they consider unproblematic reections o reality, overlook-ing problems o structure and language (below). Te CompendiaRerum Iudaicarum ad Novum estamentum series is a partial excep-

tion, or it includes expert essays by H. W. Attridge52 and Louis H.Feldman53on the artistry o Josephus works. But those essays have nodiscernible effect on the use o Josephus or acts in the rest o thecollection.

I have said that the new actual mindset did not accept everythingin Josephus. In act, its mandate o painstaking comparative researchled some attentive German critics to identiy or the rst time manyperceived contradictions and other shortcomings in our author. Butthey assumed that these too could be neutralized, by proper scientic(wissenschalich) means, which could recover sources and acts.Indeed, the greater Josephus incompetence and the more ineffectualhe was imagined to be as a compiler, the more useul he became orhistorians. How so?

It is beyond dispute that Josephus depended heavily on writtensources and oral traditions, as we have seen. Even or the War, he wasnot present in the besieged Galilean/Gaulanite towns afer Jotapataell, or in Jerusalem or Masada; much less did he have direct knowl-

edge o Judean politics beore about 50 CE, when he turned 14. Germanscholars o the late nineteenth century became acutely sensitive to his

50 E.g., Rogers, opical Josephus, 91, 129.51 An example is the inuential Sanders, Judaism, where apparent conusions

between Josephus story and history are requent: pp. 92, 14041, 38085.52 H. W. Attridge, Josephus and his Works, inJewish Writings o the Second emple

Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed.M. E. Stone (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984), 185232.

53

L. H. Feldman, Use, Authority and Exegesis o Mikra in the Writings o Jose-phus, inMikra: ext, ranslation, Reading and Interpretation o the Hebrew Bible inAncient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling (Assen: VanGorcum, 1988), 455518.


30/58

1658


changes in diction, seeming redundancies or doublets, awkward edito-rial remarks, or apparent contradictions, and cited these as proo o

editorial seams: places where Josephus had tried to bond his disparatesources together.54Tey contended that he took over his sources withsuch a lack o comprehension, skill, and editorial intervention that wecan still recover them, to a large degree, by peeling off his meageradditions. Identiying the clumsy joins would allow specialists to undothem, recreating Josephus own desktop,55 as it were. Tereore, irre-spective o Josephus own competencies, not to mention his morals,one could use him with great prot as transmitter o acts.

Tis approach was widely paralleled at the time in the criticism o

classical authors such as Polybius, Diodorus, and Livy, and in thesource and orm criticism o Old estament and New estament texts.It seemed particularly promising in the case o Josephus, a parochialJudean priest and Pharisee (as it was thought), whose native languagewas Aramaic, and who was surely incapable o writing most o whathas been transmitted under his name. By the time o Gustav Hlschers1916 essay or the Pauly-Wissowa Realenzyclopdie,56 it seemed rea-sonable to explain almost all o Josephus writings on the basis o hissources, which he had retouched only lightly with editorial bridges.Tat most o these putative sources were anonymous only abettedthe illusion o dealing in impersonal acts.

An expression o this approach commonly still ound is the propo-sition that Josephus editorial summary statements (e.g., about theinuence o the Pharisees, which had so impressed Schrer) should bediscounted or historical purposes because it was easy or him to skewthose editorial remarks, whereas his more reliable source materialcomes through in the narrative itsel, which he ofen took over bodily.57

54 So H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in seiner Archologie(Leipzig: B. G.eubner, 1968 [1879]); J. von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jd.

Arch. Buch XIIXVIIJd. Kreig. Buch I (Kiel: Lipsius, 1882), G. Hlscher, Jose-phus, PWRE18 (1916): 19342000. More recent examples o the method are D. R.Schwartz, Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees, Journal or the Study o Judaism14 (1983): 157171; idem,Agrippa 1: Te Last King o Judea(bingen: Mohr, 1990),and R. Bergmeier, Die Essener-Berichte des Flavius Josephus: Quellenstudien zu denEssenertexten im Werk des jdischen Historiographen(Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993).

55

Te image is used by D. R. Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background oChristianity(bingen: Mohr, 1992), 2.56 Hlscher, Josephus.57 Sanders,Judaism, 7; Grabbe,Judaism, 470471.


31/58

1659


A related principle or distinguishing gold rom dross in Josephusholds that wherever he talks about his own lie (especially in War23

and Lie) he should not be trusted, whereas in the narrative devoted toother matters he was usually a conscientious historiani.e., preservingsources intact.58 Tis is in effect another way o accepting Josephussources while setting aside his own contributions.

1.4. Composition, Language, and Fact

Any simple programme or isolating acts in Josephus or disambiguat-ing sources rom the existing narrative aces problems related to the

nature o the texts and also the problem o language. On the texts: itis an antecedent theoretical possibility that he used his sources as ananthologist would, binding them together with editorial seams andsummaries but not otherwise touching them much. Anthologiesexisted in the Roman world, rom Alexander Polyhistors On theJudeansin the rst century BCE to Eusebius various compendia. In aew places Josephus has cross-reerences to an earlier writing that wedo not possess, and some scholars took these as proo that he hadcarelessly taken over even such reerences rom his sources.59Yet Jose-

phus does not claim (as did Polyhistor and Eusebius) to be anthologiz-ing, and several developments make it impossible to view him as ananything other than a writer-composer in the ullest sense.

First, in 1920 Richard Laqueur showed that the main disparities inJosephus narratives are not well explained by recourse to differentsources because those disparities are most evident in the two accountso his own lie story (in War23 and the Lie). In autobiography as indescribing the Hasmoneans, Herods, and governors, Josephus plainlyelt ree to retell the same stories in dramatically different ways.

Although Laqueurs explanation, that Josephus rewrote stories becauseo systematic changes in his loyalties later in lie, is also impossible tomaintain rom the evidence, his essential point endures: Josephus (andnot new sources) was chiey responsible or these changes.

Second, since Laqueurs time many new resources have appeared toacilitate the study o Josephus language. Among these are the CompleteConcordance to Flavius Josephus (1983) edited by K. H. Rengstor,

58 Williamson, World o Josephus, 3023.59 Tese did not bother Eusebius, who matter-o-actly assumed that Josephus had

written other books that did not survive: Hist. Eccl. 3.9.8.


32/58

1660


studies o the manuscript tradition by Heinz Schreckenberg,60and theelectronic databanks o the Perseus Project and Tesaurus Linguae

Graecae. Analysis o Josephus language with the aid o these toolsdisallows at least the more extreme source-critical images o Josephusas mere copyist. For it emerges that across the range o his works, inspite o his experimentation with different styles, he writes with careand even artistry, consistent in his main preoccupations, key terminol-ogy, preerred phrases, literary devices, and historiography. In hismagnicent paraphrase o the Bible (Ant. 111), where we know hisultimate source, Josephus has reashioned his material at macro- andmicro-levels to reect themes that pervade the whole work.61 It is

thereore not possible to recover his sources rom his narratives, eveni we know thathe used sources, any more than it is possible to recon-stitute the eggs rom a cake.

I the nature o Josephus narratives precludes the old suppositionthat we could recover sections o other writers in Josephus, a moregeneral reection on human language and historical method shouldcaution us against hoping that we might nd simple historical actsanywhere in literary texts. When we speak or write, we spin out anelaborate web o language, a world o discourse that is uniquely ourown. In what I have written above, though I aspire to tell the truth, Ihave inevitably used my own conscious and unconscious orms oexpression: a structure, diction, and syntax that have meaning or me.I may even have chosen a ew expressions playully, because o theirsignicance or me, without expecting my envisaged readers to knowthat personal signicance. At any rate, my language is no one elses; itis not objective, and it cannot merely reect historical reality. Te pasturnishes no neutral language o its own, and every writer must inter-

pret it in his or her own words.62

Josephus is no different. Te researchtools mentioned above invite us to marvel at the depth and subtlety o

60 Schreckenberg, Flavius-Josephus-radition,173.61 See C.. Begg,Josephus Account o the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8,212420):

Rewriting the Bible(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993); idem, Josephus Story othe Later Monarchy(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000); L. H. Feldman,JosephussInterpretation o the Bible(Berkeley: University o Caliornia Press, 1998); idem, Stud-

ies in Josephus Rewritten Bible(Leiden: Brill, 1998).62 On the impossibility o neutral, unbiased language in contemporary newspaperreporting, see D. Okrent, Te War o the Words: A Dispatch rom the Front Lines,New York imes(Week in Review), Sunday March 6, 2005.


33/58

1661


his discourse. But this helps us not at all with the problem o recover-ing acts.63

An example will help to make these abstract considerations con-crete. Pontius Pilate is an important gure or New estament readers,who understandably wish to know what Josephus says about him.From a variety o independent sources (gospels and pastorals, Philo,Josephus, archaeology) we may be condent that Pilate had been thegovernor o Judea or a signicant periodat least ten and perhapseighteen years64preceding Josephus birth in 37 CE. (I he came in19 CE, he was governor o Judea through Jesus entire adult lie.) Sucha long tenure would have decisively shaped the atmosphere o Judean-

Roman relations in which Josephus grew up. Yet in the WarJosephusrelates only two episodes rom Pilates long Judean career: one con-cerning the governors introduction into Jerusalem o military stan-dards bearing images o Caesar, the other involving his appropriationo temple unds to build an aqueduct or the city (2.169177). Sincethese events occurred beore Josephus birth, he must have knownthem through traditions or sources rom his parents generation.

Careul examination o the Wars two episodes on Pilate, however,should give the historian pause. First, Josephus has thoroughly assim-ilated this gure to his larger narrative tendencies, which include thecelebration o such Judean virtues as courage and endurance65and theportrayal o all Roman governors as low-level and unworthyprocurators66 (though they were preects, reporting to the legateso Syria). Second, Josephus diction throughout the two episodes isneither neutral nor sel-evident, imposed by the events on a neutralobserver, but is typical o his distinctive writing style: huge distur-bance (), set [a disturbance] in motion (), an

event as spectacle or sight (), trampling on the laws (. . .

), representation [o an image] (), [the massesmove] in close order (), all down prone (),hold out (), bare their swords ( ),incline [their necks] (), transgress the law (

63 Helpul observations in a similar vein are made by J. S. McLaren, urbulentimes? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century (Sheffield: SheffieldAcademic Press, 1998), 18, 67, 767, 179218, though I nd his solution difficult to

pursue (264288).64 See Schwartz, Studies in the Jewish Background,182217.65 War2.171; c. 1.138.66 War2.169; c. 2.118.


34/58

1662


), and calamity (). Most o these terms are unat-tested or rarely ound beore Josephus, and yet he uses them to shape

his narrative in the desired directions: they are part o his meaning-charged lexicon.

Tird, and most problematic, although the underlying substance othe two Pilate episodes appears quite different in kindthe rstdescribing a provocative measure that occurred during a single night,the second a response to a public beneaction that must have requiredmonths at leastin the retelling Josephus has assimilated each storyto the other. He achieves this partly by parallel structures: they bothinvolve lie-threatening protests by aggravated masses beore Pilate

and his soldiers, secret plans and signals, encirclements involvingweapons, a hearing beore the governors tribunal-platorm (),and atal consequences. Josephus drives home this assimilation byrepetitive diction in the two accounts: disturbance, aggravation,rabble, prone, tribunal-platorm, surrounding, concealed,sword, agreed signal, trampled. Tis repetition is partly or thesake o dramatic irony: the concealed standards anticipate concealedweapons; the trampling o the laws leads to the physical tramplingo Judeans; and whereas the Roman orces must train hard to remainin close order, the indignant Judean masses move in close orderspontaneously; they also instinctively act as i by an agreed signal,whereas the soldiers need secret signals to be careully planned. Ournarrator has plainly ashioned the two episodes to convey a certainatmosphere.

Now, are these accounts reliable or unreliable? How may we extractrom them a historical kernel? Where do the plain acts reside? I weask what constitutes these accounts, what they are made o, there can

be only one answer: Josephus creative language. It is not possible toremove his languageeven and and but are careully chosen andmanipulatedto expose any neutral, historical core. When Josephusis removed rom his narrative, no residue remains.

It seems obvious, i these examples may stand or the whole, that wecan have little condence in any supposition about the historical real-ities underlying Josephus artul accounts. In the Pilate stories o Warhe bends whatever material was at his disposal (it is no longer at ours!)to make his points. We may well have our suspicions: that the masses

could lie motionless or ve days and nights (2.171); that the longproject o aqueduct-buildingAnt. 18.60 blithely halves Wars 80 km.lengthreally sparked a single massive demonstration (on comple-


35/58


36/58

1664


its own integrity and criteria and different rom the underlying reality,so in Josephus narratives we meet an artul production that is opaque

in relation to underlying historical realia.Where other evidence o theback-story exists, we might have a chance to get behind Josephus,though the example o Pilate does not encourage great optimism eventhere.

Te undamental problem o Josephus compositional art has usu-ally been ignored by scholars eager to use his works or inormationabout rst-century Judea and New estament backgrounds. In spite ooccasional cautionary remarks about his biases, they still leave theimpression that those biases might somehow be bypassed or evapo-

rated off to leave a residue o act. Josephus narrative is assumed topresent acts with the same neutrality o language as might be con-

veyed by the colour bluesomething that all observers could agreeon having seen i they had been present. I Josephus had been inter-ested in describing the physical eatures o his characters, which couldbe indicated by relatively neutral terms, then we might indeed debatehis accuracy. Did he accurately give the height o itus or John oGischala? Was he correct about their hair or eye colour? Did theycarry the scars that he claimed? Like most other authors o his time,however, Josephus says not a word about such things. His history ismainly about interpreting the actions o his characters in terms otheir motives, describing the outcomes, and offering explicit or implicitevaluation. Objective language or such portraiture does not exist.Tereore, there is no possibility o rening his narratives to produceneutral acts. Historians must proceed differently.

1.5. Historical Accuracy, Reliability

o clariy the problem, it may be useul to unpack the category oJosephus historical reliability into several discrete components. Oth-ers could be adduced, but these will suffice.

a. Scenic elements that can be measured and described in the neutrallanguage o size, shape, colour, and technical nomenclature. Didthe places that Josephus mentions actually exist? Te landscape ea-tures, buildings, and landmarks? Were the groups and institutionshe mentions operative at the time to which he dates them? Can weconrm the existence o the persons he names along with the rolesand titles he gives them?


37/58

1665


b. Events in general. Did a roughly parallel event happen where andwhen he claims? E.g., Did Pilate authorize an aqueduct or Jerusa-

lem, or introduce offensive images into the city on military stan-dards? Did Eleazar son o Ananias halt the temple sacrice ororeigners (War2.409410)?

c. Event details. Exactly who did what, when, and in relation to whatother actions? (I Eleazar did halt the sacrice or oreigners, howdid he do it exactlyin consultation with whom, and by what pro-cess? What happened to the animals? Were there specic stimulinot mentioned by Josephus? What role did Eleazars opinion playin the decision: was it his initiative or a compromise with others?

Was it planned as a permanent measure or a temporary protest?)Did Josephus know and/or divulge all or most o the relevant inor-mation that we would have known i we had been there? How canwe know whether he did? Trough Josephus or not, can we haveany condence that we have enough contextual inormation toassess what was done in relation to what else?

d. Motives, values, and interests. I we could travel back in time andinterview the actors whose names appear in the narrative, wouldthey explain their intentions and values much as Josephus does? (IEleazar halted the sacrice, what was his aim in doing so? Whatwere the aims o his associates and advisers? Were these all thesame?) No matter what they said, should we believe either them orJosephus? (Do we believe our own politicians and business leaderswhen they explain their motives?) How can we know their actualmotives, or extract these rom Josephus?

I we separate out even these elements o the stories, we see immedi-

ately a problem with incommensurate categories. Whereas (d) consti-tutes the heart o Josephus history, and (c) provides a narrative basisor his moral evaluations, modern historians tend to speak almostexclusively about (a), with a dash o (b), when they declare him cred-ible or reliable.69Tat is because only material in (a) and to some

69 E.g., M. Broshi, Te Credibility o Josephus,Journal o Jewish Studies33 (1982):379384; M. Aviam, Yodeat/Jotapata: Te Archaeology o the rst Battle, in TeFirst Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, and Ideology, ed. A. M. Berlin and J. A. Over-

man (New York: Routledge, 2002), 121133; D. Dyon, Gamla: City o Reuge, inFirst Jewish Revolt, ed. Berlin and Overman, 134153.


38/58

1666


extent (b) can easily be veried by archaeology, which has becomesince the 1960s the primary basis or conrming Josephus trustwor-

thiness.But i Josephus can be proven largely correct about the physical

realities o his homelanddistances between amiliar places, landscapeeatures, major Herodian structuresthat only puts him on the levelo a good historical novelist. Even the airly spectacular nds at Gamalaand Jotapata, which conrm that the inhabitants tried to reinorce thewalls beore being overrun by the Romans,70cannot prove his accountso who did what, when, and whythe stuff o his history. We maynot say: he was right about the scenic elements and thereorehe was

probably right about the history itsel. Given that his narratives arewoven rom his own linguistic and conceptual threads, what could itmean to declare them either reliable or inaccurate? We are notable to assume Josephus world-view, perspective, prejudices, and lan-guage, even i we wished to do so. It is thereore meaningless to saythat we either affirm or reject these accounts. We can only try tounderstand them.

Since critics do not ofen explain how they nd reliable material inJosephus, it seems that most ofen they trust their instincts, acceptinga story against the criterion: Why would he make up something likethis? But instinct is o little use in historical scholarship, whichrequires us to describe our reasoning so that our steps may be tracedby others examining the same evidence. Instinct cannot be reproduced,and it is also contra-indicated by the evidence o Josephus. Almost anygiven story in War, about the Hasmoneans or Herods or Josephus inGalilee, may seem plausible enough within that narrative. Josephuswrote in order to be plausible. Yet o the hundreds o episodes in

Antiquities-Lie that represent retellings o stories rom the War,almost all have been signicantly changedwith respect to date,immediate context, numbers and amounts, dramatis personae, andmotives.71When read on their own, the later stories too seem plausi-ble. But two contradictory narratives cannot accurately reect the

70 See the essays by Aviam and Syon in previous note.71 A quick impression o the problems may be gained rom Appendix C in S. Mason,

Lie o Josephus: ranslation and Commentary.Vol. 9 o Flavius Josephus: ranslationand Commentary, ed. S. Mason (Leiden: Brill, 2001).S. J. D. Cohen,Josephus in Gali-lee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian(Leiden: Brill, 1979), exploresthe problems in great detail. See urther section 3 below.


39/58

1667


same events. Josephus reedom in retelling suggests a comparablereedom in the rst telling, which should make us doubt any and all

accounts.In some important recent studies, intuition has been brought to