Priesthood in Josephus and the "Pharisaic Revolution" S

JBL 107/4 (2988) 657-661

PRIESTHOOD IN JOSEPHUS AND THE "PHARISAIC REVOLUTION" S. N. MASON Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada A1C 5S7

A popular theory of Pharisaic origins, associated with the names of J. Z. Lauterbach, W. O. E. Oesterley, S. Zeitlin, and E. Rivkin, holds that the Pharisees emerged from a lay scribal movement that had grown up as a chal lenge to the priestly monopoly on the law.1 Rivkin suggests that the persecu tion under Antiochus IV saw the failure of "Aaronide supremacy" over the law: the high priesthood debased itself with its internal power struggles and its hellenizing proclivities. Most important, it failed to champion the cause of the law in the face of persecution. Into this breach, Rivkin alleges, moved the Pharisees, who quickly took charge of the teaching of the law, thereby "unseating the Aaronide priests from the chair of Moses and reducing them to temple functionaries."2 Thus was effected the Pharisaic "revolution." This article will consider the views of an important detractor from the Pharisaic revolution, namely, Flavius Josephus. It will become clear that Josephus's ongoing commitment to the priestly responsibility for the law has certain consequences for one's dating and interpretation of the Pharisaic revolution. Rivkirís argument may be summarized as follows. On the hand, the Hebrew Bible consistently designates the priests as the expositors of the law. Aaron and his descendants are charged with teaching the Israelites, in perpetuity, all the decrees (D^pTI) delivered through Moses.3 Rivkin argues that this biblical view of the priesthood was sustained until the beginning of the second century BC, for Ben Sira (ca. 200 BC) continues to assume that the priests expound the law. Thus, for example, Ben Sira 45:17 (NEB):

1 Lauterbach, "The Pharisees and their Teachings," HUCA 6 (1929) 69-139, esp. 77-78; Oesterley, The Jews and Judaism during the Greek Period (London: SPCK, 1941) 247; Zeitlin, The Rise and Fall ofthejudean State: A Political, Social and Religious History of the Second Common wealth (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1962) 1.176; Rivkin, "Pharisees," lDBSup, 662; idem, "Aaron, Aaronides," IDBSup, 3; idem, A Hidden Revolution (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978) 211-51. 2 Rivkin, "Pharisees," 622; cf. "Aaron," 3; and Revolution, 212-15. 3 Cf. Lev 10:8-11; Deut 31:9-13; 2 Chr 15:3; 19:8-11; Ezra 7:1-6, 21; Ezek 7:26; Hag 2:11.

657 658 Journal of Biblical Literature

He entrusted to him [Aaron] his commandments (έντολαί) with authority to pronounce legal decisions to teach Jacob his decrees (διδάξαι τα μαρτυρία) and enlighten Israel about his law (έν νόμω). On the other hand, Rivkin points to the evidence of Josephus that by the time of John Hyrcanus (135-104 BC) the Pharisees "had a large, powerful, and dedicated following among the people."4 Since Josephus describes these Pharisees as a group dedicated to the promulgation and exposition of laws (JW. 1.5.2. §110; Ant. 13.10.6 §297-98; Life 38 §189-90), Rivkin infers that the Pharisees of Hyrcanus's time had become "a scholar class who had the authority to establish laws for the people."5 By the late second century, then, the Pharisees had taken over the responsibility forfeited by the priests. What Rivkin does not seem to notice is that Josephus himself believes, at least as intensely as did Ben Sira, that the priests are the proper guardians of the law. This conviction is clear throughout Josephus's writings and is spelled out in the systematic portrayal of Judaism that he offers in Against Apion:

Could there be a finer or more equitable polity than one which sets God at the head of the universe, which assigns the administration of its highest affairs to the whole body of priests, and entrusts to the supreme high-priest the direction of the other priests? . .. But this charge [to the priests] further embraced a strict superintendence of the law and the pursuits of everyday life. (2.21 §185-87). Josephus is not speaking here either of a remote golden past or of an ideal future. He is defending the principles of Judaism as he perceives them. In the same work he has extolled the virtues of the Jewish scriptures by insisting that they were preserved with scrupulous precision (μετά πολλής ακριβείας) by the priests to whom they were entrusted (1.6-7 §29-36). Indeed, Josephus is eager to point out that he himself was born a priest and that his priestly education equipped him with superior ακρίβεια in the laws (Life 1-2 §1-9) .e As he says of his biblical paraphrase in the Jewish Antiquities, "I have translated the sacred scriptures (έκ των ιερών γραμμάτων) being a priest by birth (γεγονώς ιερεύς έκ γένους) and trained in the wisdom of these writings" (Ag.Ap. 1.10 §54). Josephus believes that the priests and the "sacred writings" are intimately connected. Nor is this connection a late development or Tendenz in his thinking. For we find exactly the same point in his earliest extant work, the Jewish War:

4 Rivkin, Revolution, 37. 5 Ibid., 38. e Life 1-2 §1-9 is the sequel to Ant. 20.12.1 §265-66, in which Josephus claims that scriptural erudition is the only virtue recognized by the Jews. Although many have labored to achieve this goal, he allows, few have succeeded (265). That he considers himself among the few is clear from what follows: "Perhaps it will not arouse jealousy or strike ordinary folk as gauche if I also review briefly my own ancestry..." (266), a promise fulfilled in Life 1-2 §1-9. Mason: Priesthood in Josephus 659 He [Josephus] was an interpreter of dreams and skilled in divining the meaning of ambiguous utterances of the Deity; a priest himself and of priesdy descent (αυτός τε ων ιερεύς και ιερέων εγγονός), he was not ignorant of the prophecies in the sacred books (των Ιερών βίβλων). (3.8.3 §352)

In the course of his narrative he has the leaders of the people, including the Pharisees, calling on the "priestly experts in the traditions" (τους έμπειρους των πατρίων ιερείς) for guidance on a particular matter (J.W. 2.17.4 §417)7 So we have come full circle: from his earliest writings to his latest, Josephus presents the priests not as mere "temple functionaries,, but as the authorized guardians of the law, whose ongoing activity is crucial to the well- being of Judaism.8 Since the law was the basis for every aspect of life—food, friends, work, leisure, and worship (Ag.Ap. 2.17 §173-74)—the role of the priests as protectors and expositors of the law was indispensable. What are we to make of Josephus's repeated claim that the teaching of the law is a priestly prerogative? Rivkin himself values Josephus very highly as a source for pre-70 conditions in Palestine, especially for Pharisaic history.9 He leaves entirely out of account, however, Josephus's obvious commitment to the priesthood. T. Rajak has recently ventured the hypothesis that Josephus's claims for the priesthood were merely a deceit intended for his pagan readers. She suggests: "It is in eastern pagan traditions that priests are characteristically interpreters of dreams and of sacred texts. Therefore it is doubtful whether this particular claim [sc. J.W. 3.8.3 §354] of Josephus would have been taken seriously by his fellow Jews."10 Rajak's proposal is curious for several reasons. First, Josephus's designation of scriptural exegesis as a priesdy preserve is hardly a "particular claim." It is, as we have seen, a consistent motif in all of his works. H. Lindner has demonstrated, further, that Josephus's view of history, as it emerges in War, betrays a priesdy perspective.11 Others have discerned a priestly bias in Josephus's use of the Bible.12 This evidence indicates that Josephus's priesthood was in fact, as he plainly declares, basic

7 On the semantic overlap between τα πάτρια, τα νόμιμα, and οι νόμοι, cf. J.W. 1.33.2 §648; 2.9.2 §169-71; Ant. 5.1.26 §101-8; 18.8.2 §266-67; Life 39 §198. 8 On the broader connection between Josephus's priesthood and his ακρίβεια, cf. also J.W. 1.1.1-2 §2-3, 6 and Ant. 16.7.1 §187. On Josephus's special interest in the priesthood, cf. J. Blenkinsopp, "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus," JJS 25 (1974) 239-62; and W. C. van Unnik, "Die Prophétie bei Josephus," in his Flavius Josephus ah historischer Schriftsteller (Heidelberg: Lambert Schneider, 1978) 41-45. 9 Rivkin, Revolution, 32-33. 10 Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (London: Duckworth, 1983) 18-19. 11 H. Lindner, Die Geschichtsauffassung des Flavius Josephus im Bellum Judaicum (AGJU 12; Leiden: Brill, 1972) esp. 41, 142-43. 12 S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese hei Fhvius Josephus (Vienna: A. Kohut Memorial Founda tion, 1930); B. Heller, "Grundzüge der Aggada des Flavius Josephus," MGWJ 80 (1936) 237-46, esp. 238-39. 660 Journal of Biblical Literature

to his self-understanding. If that is true then his claims for the priesthood can hardly be a superficial gesture to his pagan readers. In any case, his portrayal of the priesthood happens to correspond rather closely to the biblical view (and to that of Ben Sira!), so it cannot be dismissed as pagan.13 Before making a judgment on the significance of Josephus's testimony, one ought to note that he was not alone among post-Sirachian writers in attributing the superintendence of the law to the priests. The author of 4 Maccabees cites three examples of heroic adherence to the law during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes; one of these examples is Eleazar the priest.14 This character the author introduces with the words, "Eleazar, a priest trained in the law" (Έλεάζαρος, το γένος ιερεύς, την έπιστήμην νομικός): Eleazar's expertise in the laws is linked to his status as a priest (5:4). In defiance of Antiochus, this priest declares that he will not violate "the sacred oaths of my ancestors concerning the keeping of the law" (5:29). He continues in the same vein, "Nor will I deny you, worthy priesthood and knowledge of the law" (5:35). Notice,finally, th e author's eulogy on Eleazar: Ό priest worthy of the priesthood, you did not defile your holy teeth. ... O confessor of the law and philosopher of the divine life . .." (7:6). Once again we have a direct connec tion between the priesthood and advocacy of the law. The author of 4 Macca bees not only praises Eleazar for his faithfulness to the law; he finds in that faithfulness the fulfillment of Eleazar's priestly training and heritage. Josephus and 4 Maccabees, then, continue the biblical portrait of the priesthood at least to the end of the first century AD, three hundred years past the time of Ben Sira.15 What is the consequence of this evidence for Rivkin's analysis of Pharisaic history, according to which the Pharisees took over the teaching of the law from the priests in the early second century BC? The evidence of Josephus and 4 Maccabees does not overturn the basic insight that the Pharisees were widely regarded as the authoritative scriptural exegetes from the second century BC to the first century AD. Pharisaic predominance in the legal sphere, as Rivkin correctly points out, is well attested in all of our sources—the Gospels, Josephus, and the rabbinic literature.16

13 Rajak's skepticism on this point is especially baffling in view of her repeated contention (Josephus, 16, 127) that, as long as what he says is possible, Josephus ought to be believed because of his superb credentials. 14 Interestingly enough, 4 Maccabees was traditionally thought to have been written by Josephus under the title "On the Self-Determination of Reason." Cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.10.6 and W. H. Brownlee, "Maccabees, Book o£' IDBSup, 212. 15 One might also consider: (a) the QL, which insists on the priestly responsibility for the law (cf. 1QS 5,8, 9) and (b) the NT letter to the Hebrews, which assumes an ongoing connection between the priesthood and the law in its argument that Jesus is a new and perfect high priest: "For a change of priesthood necessarily entails a change also of law" (7:12). 16 Cf. Josephus, J.W. 1.5.2 §110; 2.8.14 §162; Ant. 13.10.6 §298, 15.5 §400-2; 18.1.3-4 §15-17; Mason: Priesthood in Josephus 661 Two qualifications of Rivkirís portrayal do, however, suggest themselves. First, it is now clear that not everyone accepted the Pharisaic assumption of priesdy responsibilities and that Josephus was one of the Pharisees' detrac tors. A full defense of the latter assertion would require considerable space. Enough has been said, however, to demonstrate that Josephus always assumes the legitimacy and comprehensiveness of the priestly mandate over scrip tural exegesis. By contrast, whenever he speaks of the Pharisees' predomi nance in the laws, he concedes only that they "are reputed to be (or profess to be)" the most precise exegetes; thus: ot περί τα πάτρια νόμιμα δοχοΰσιν των αλλών ακρίβεια διαφέρειν (Life 38 §191).17 In almost every case, these conces sions of the Pharisees' renown are followed by scathing indictments of their behavior, apparently calculated to give the reader serious doubts about the group's reputation.18 Josephus, then, acknowledges the popularity of the Pharisees but he also laments it. He believes that the priests are the real adepts at scriptural exegesis. This conclusion, in turn, would seem to exclude Rivkin's use of the passage in Ben Sira as a terminus a quo for the Pharisaic revolution. For if Josephus (and 4 Maccabees) could still write confidendy of the priestly mandate over the law in the first century AD, long after the "Pharisaic revolu tion" was complete, then the similar statements in Ben Sira cannot be given absolute significance, as if the priests were still, even then, the undisputed guardians of the law in 200 BC. They may have been; we do not know. It is conceivable that the Pharisaic revolution predated Ben Sira. The paucity of contemporary literature should make us wary of generalizations.

Life 38 §191; Matt 23:2 (and assumed throughout the Gospels). Space does not permit a thorough refutation here of the theory proposed by M. Smith ("Palestinian Judaism in the First Century? in Israel: Its Role in Civilization [ed. M. Davis; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary/ Harper & Bros., 1956] 74-80) and J. Neusner ("Josephus's Pharisees," in Ex Orbe Religionum: Studia Geo Widengren [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972] 1. 224-53) that the Pharisees were merely a small sect with limited influence. The crucial point is that Josephus had no reason to invent the popularity of the Pharisees, for he only mentions their predominance in order to lament it. 17 So also J.W. 1.5.2 §110; 2.8.14 §162; Ant. 17.2.4 §41. 18 So J.W. 1.5.2-3 §111-14; Ant. 17.2.4 §42-45; Life 38-39 §192-98. The only exception is J.W 2.8.14 §162. Notice there, however, that the brief description of the Pharisees follows a long and admiring portrait of the Essenes, who are described as the most exemplary Jews in all respects (2.8.2-13 §119-61); both Pharisees and Sadducees are implicitly belittled by the short space given to them. The phrase δοκέω + (form of) ακρίβεια is used by Josephus in other contexts also to debunk someone's reputation for accuracy. Cf. Ant. 19.7.4 §332 (of a deceiver named Simon); Ag. Ap. 1.3 §18, 12 §67 (of the pagan historians). This usage is paralleled in Polybius, who employs it to challenge the reputation of Timaeus (12.6d.3). Nevertheless, Josephus can also affirm a reputation for ακρίβεια; cf. J.W. 1.33.2 §648; Ant. 20.2.4 §43, 9.1 §201. ^s

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.