Josephus' Use of Heimarmene in the Jewish Antiquities Xiii, 171-3

JOSEPHUS' USE OF HEIMARMENE IN THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES XIII, 171-3

LUTHER H. MARTIN

Josephus uses the word heimarmene (fate, or, destiny) in but four passages in his Jewish Antiquities: XIII, 171-3: XVI, 397; XVIII, 12-22; and XIX, 347.1 In two of these passages, XIII, 171-3 and XVIII, 12-22, as well as in a parallel passage in The Jewish War II, 162-6, he uses the issue of determinism to distinguish between the three Jewish "philosophies": the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes.2 2 The Pharisees, according to Josephus in Ant. XVIII:

postulate that everything is brought about by fate still they do not deprive the human will of the pursuit of what is in man's power, since it was God's good pleasure that there should be a fusion and that the will of man with his virtue and vice should be admitted to the council-chamber of fate. (Ant. XVIII, 13)

Later, in this same passage, he characterizes the position of the Sadducees and the Essenes by contrasting them with this Pharisaic position on heimarmene. The Sadducees, he writes, "own no observance of any sort apart from the laws," while the Essenes "leave everything in the hands of God" (Ant. XVIII, 16). Josephus also refers here (Ant. XVIII, 11) to a parallel account in the second book of his earlier The Jewish War, in which he described both the Pharisees and the Sadducees, in part, in terms of their contrasting attitudes towards heimarmene:

the Pharisees... attribute everything to Fate (alyapyivq) and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part with men, but that in each action Fate (alyapyivq) cooperates.... The Sadducees...do away with Fate (alyapyavq) altogether. (Bell. II, 162-4)

This passage from The Jewish War seems to clarify the description of the Sadducees which Josephus gives in the Antiquities XVIII, 16: In owning "no observance of any sort apart from the laws," "the Sadducees...do away with Fate." 128

In the brief passage on the three philosophies in Ant. XIII, 171-3, Josephus presents the attitude towards heimarmene as the single issue which distinguishes the three philosophies: Now at this time there were three schools of thought among the Jews, which held different opinions concerning human affairs; the first being that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes. As for the Pharisees, they say that certain events are the work of Fate but not all; as to other events, it depends upon ourselves whether they shall take place or not. The sect of Essenes, however, declares that Fate (F-'L4otp4ivTi)is mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree. But the Sadducees do away with Fate holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our own power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our well-being, while we suffer misfor- tune through our own thoughtlessness.

This is the only passage in which Josephus presents the opinion of all three philosophies explicitly towards heimarmene. Given the singularity and centrality of his use of this term in Ant. XIII, 171-3, an examination of Josephus' use of this term in the Antiquities best might be focused upon his use of heimarmene in this passage. The problems which can be focused upon this passage are essen- tially twofold. First, what does Josephus mean by heimarmene? and, why does he use so centrally a concept for which, as George Foot Moore has observed, "there was no equivalent word in Hebrew-and no corresponding conception?"3 Second, as heimarmene means "fate" or "destiny" in some sense, its meaning must be discussed in relation to the determinism/free will issue rais- ed by Josephus in this passage and implied in any discussion of fate. What then is the relationship of any kind of determinism to a God in whose hands, according to Josephus, is the universe, and who is "perfect and blessed, self-sufficing and sufficing for all" and who "is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all things" (Apion II, 190)? Josephus' use of heimarmene in the historical and theological con- text of his description of the three Jewish "philosophies" is a prob- lematic question not only in studies of Josephus and Hellenistic Judaism, but in the study of Hellenistic religion as a whole. The satirical writings of Lucian of Samosata, for instance, in the follow- ing century point to these issues: