1 Sources on the Politics of Judaea in the Fifties CE

17 Pages·2017·0.48 MB·English

Sources on the Politics of Judaea in the Fifties CE ‒ A Response to Martin Goodman
Ataconferenceon‘2CorinthiansandLateSecondTempleJudaism’heldin2009,Martin
Goodman criticized the description of Judaean politics in the decade from 50 to 60 CE ‒
when presumably 2 Corinthians was written ‒ in the standard historical works.1Basing
themselvesonJosephus,theydescribethe50sasatimeofincreasingtension.Goodman
citedEmilSchürer’sHistoryoftheJewishPeopleasoneexample,butotherimportantworks
couldbeaddedsuchasthoseofMartinHengel,MarySmallwood,orMenahemStern.2For
Goodman,Josephus’descriptioninJewishWarisnotsupportedbytheeventshecites;itis
infactbasedonhismodel,Thucydides.EventhemoredetailedaccountofAntiquitieslooks
likea‘preludetodestruction’onlyinretrospect.Goodmanfindsthisassessmentconfirmed
inTacituswhoinhisHistoriesalsohaslittletosayontheperiod,whilehisAnnalsmentiona
conflictbetweenGalileansandSamaritansastheonlyeventofpoliticalconsequence.
OtherwisewehavenosourcestocheckJosephus,although2Corinthiansmightcomeinasa
suitablesource.AsimilarassessmentisgiveninGoodman’sRomeandJerusalem.3
TheambitionofthefollowingstudyistoaddressGoodman’sargumentondifferent
levels.First,weshallmakeacomparisonbetweentheintroductorypartsofThucydides’
HistoryandthatofhisJewishfollower.WeshallthenstudyJosephus’presentationofthe
decadesprecedingtherevoltinJewishWarascomparedwithAntiquities.Next,weshall
addresssomeNewTestamentsourcesthatdoinfactilluminatethepre-warperiodinJudaea
andthathelpusassessJosephus’description.Afterthat,weputtheevidencefromthe
various sources together, offering elements for a sketch of 50‒60 CE Judaea including the
politicsofcircumcision.AconclusionwillroundupthisresponsetoMartinGoodman.4
1M.Goodman,‘ThePoliticsoftheFifties:JewishLeadershipandtheJewsofCorinthintheTimeof2
Corinthians’,inR.Bieringer,E.Nathan,D.Pollefeyt,andP.J.Tomson(eds.),SecondCorinthiansinthe
PerspectiveofLateSecondTempleJudaism(CompendiaRerumIudaicarumadNovumTestamentum[CRINT]
14; Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 25‒35.
2E.Schürer,TheHistoryof theJewishPeopleintheAgeofJesusChrist(AnewEnglishversionrevisedand
edited by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Black, and M. Goodman; Edinburgh: Clark, 1973‒87), vol. 1 pp. 455–70. E.M.
Smallwood,TheJewsunderRomanRule;fromPompeytoDiocletian;AStudyinPoliticalRelations(SJLA20;
repr. Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 257‒84. M. Hengel, DieZeloten:UntersuchungenzurjüdischenFreiheitsbewegung
inderZeitvonHerodesIbis70n.Chr.(1961,19762,re-ed.byR.DeinesandC.J.Thornton,Tübingen:Mohr
Siebeck, 2011), pp. 342‒57 = TheZealots:InvestigationsintotheJewishFreedomMovementinthePeriodfrom
HerodIuntil70A.D. (trans. of the 1976 ed. by D. Smith, Edinburgh: Clark, 1989 and repr.), pp. 343‒55. M.
Stern,‘ThePeriodoftheSecondTemple’,inH.H.Ben-Sasson(ed.),AHistoryoftheJewishPeople(London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1976), pp. 185‒303, esp. 258‒60. M. Sartre, TheMiddleEastunderRome(trans.C.
Porter and E. Rawlings; Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), pp. 113‒7.
3M.Goodman,RomeandJerusalem:TheClashofAncientCivilizations (2007; Penguin, 2008), pp. 412‒3. On 1
Cor.seeGoodman,‘PoliticsoftheFifties’,p.27.
4Iamindebtedtotheanonymousreviewersofthisjournalforsavingmefromvariouserrorsandgivingmethe
opportunitytoimprovemyargumentconsiderably.ThanksalsotoProfs.JonathanPriceandJoshuaSchwartz
fortheirhelpfuladvice.Anyremainingmisjudgmentsanderrorsaremine.[Thisisanacceptedmanuscriptof
anarticlepublishedbytheJournalofJewishStudies,vol.68/2,Autumn2017,pp.234–59,availablefromDOI
10.18647/3324/JJSJJSJJS-2017.]
1
ThucydidesandJosephus’JewishWar
ThepointforGoodmanisthatJosephus,writinginpost-warhindsight,‘refersquite
frequentlytomattersgoingfrombadtoworse’,5althoughtheincidentshecitesdonot
supportsuchaninterpretation.Inthis,Goodmanthinks,Josephusmerelyfollowsthe
historicalrhetoricofThucydides’introductiontotheHistoryofthePeloponnesianWar:
TheteleologicalthrustofJosephus’narrativeintheBellumofeventsinJudaeawas
castveryclearlyinthemouldofThucydides’history…Josephus’firstline…echoed
directlyThucydides’claimsforhisownsubject.Josephusfollowedthesamemaster
inseekingtodelineatethoseeventsintheyearsprecedingthewarwhichmighthelp
toexplainitsoutbreak–butinplaceofthefiftyyears(pentêkontaetia)of
Thucydides,JosephussubstitutedthesixtyyearssincethebeginningofdirectRoman
ruleovertheprovince.Aproblemforthehistorian,however,seemstohavebeena
severeshortageofsourcesforthathistory.6
Whatisimpliedhere?Inhisintroduction,Thucydidesinsertsadescriptionoftheperiod
betweenthedefeatofthePersiansbythealliedforcesofAthensandSpartain479BCEand
theoutbreakofwarbetweenthesamecitiesin431,summingitupas‘spanningaboutfifty
years (ἐν ἔτεσι πεντήκοντα μάλιστα) between the retreat of Xerxes and the beginning of the
presentwar’.7Duringthisepisode,calledbyscholarspentêkonta-etiaor50-yearperiod,the
powerofAthensgrewsteadilythroughaseriesofincidents,untilfinallySpartatookthisasa
reasonforwar.ImitatingThucydides,Goodmanmeans,Josephuspresentsthe60yearsafter
JudaeabecamepartoftheRomanEmpirein6CEasaperiodofincreasingsocialtensionthat
finallyledtowarin66CE,althoughhedoesnotcitethefactstowarrantthatpresentation.
OnecanonlyagreethatacriticaltakeonJosephus’rhetoricisessential,themoreso
wherehefollowsexistingconventions.Thequestioniswhatthismustimplyforhis
credibility,andhowwecanassessthis.MartinHengel,whilesharplycriticizingJosephus’
Tendenz,didnotfindhisreadingofa‘risingtide’inadequate,andneitherdoesTessaRajak.8
Goodmandoes,asnoted.Inareviewofearlierscholarship,heattachesparticular
importancetoJamesMcLaren’sdemonstrationof‘theextenttowhichallhistoriesofJudea
inthefirstcenturyC.E.aretrappedintoadoptingJosephus’shistoricalperspective’.9In
McLaren’sanalysis,Josephus’narrative,ouronlysource,centresonthetwoaxioms‘that
Judaeawasaplaceofincreasingturmoilandthattherevoltwasboundtotakeplace’.10
5Goodman,‘PoliticsoftheFifties’,p.28;RomeandJerusalem,p.413and612n.17.Theexactphraseisnot
foundinJ.W.butinAnt.(20:160,214),whereevenlessofaThucydideanmouldisvisible.
6Goodman,‘PoliticsoftheFifties’,p.27.
7Thucydides,Hist.1.118.2;cf.Thucydides,trans.B.Jowett,HistoryofthePeloponnesianWar(ClarendonPress:
Oxford,1881),PerseusDigitalLibrary,www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper,accessed2July2017.
8Hengel,Zealots, pp. 6‒18; cf. his dictum below at n. 20. T. Rajak, Josephus:TheHistorianandHisSociety
(seconded.London:Duckworth,2004),pp.9and155onThucydidesasmodel,pp.65-103ontherevoltandits
causes.
9 M. Goodman, ‘Current Scholarship on the First Revolt’, in A.M. Berlin ‒ J.A. Overman (eds.), TheFirstJewish
Revolt:Archaeology,History,andIdeology (2002, repr. London / New York, 2011), pp. 15‒24, here 16.
ReferencestoMcLarenalsoinGoodman,RomeandJerusalem, pp. 7‒10, 412‒3 and 612 n. 18; idem, ‘The
PoliticsoftheFifties’,27n.18.NeverthelessforM.Goodman,TheRulingClassofJudaea:TheOriginsofthe
JewishrevoltagainstRomeA.D.66-70(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1987andrepr.),p.19,the
likelihoodthatthecastigationofstasisinJewishWaris‘areflectionof…Thucydides’isnoimpedimenttotreat
thisasaleadingthemeinidentifyingamaincauseofthewar:thepowerstruggleoftherulingclass.
10J.S.McLaren,TurbulentTimes?JosephusandScholarshiponJudaeaintheFirstCenturyC.E.(Journalforthe
StudyofthePseudepigraphaSupplementsSeries29;Sheffield,1998),quotep.18.Whilenotingthat‘notone
2
Recently,a‘higherscepticism’hasbeenvoicedbySteveMason.Hewelcomestherejection
oftherhetoricof‘asocietyheadinginexorablytoitsdoom’byhistorianslikeGoodmanand
McLaren,butfindswecannotblamethisrhetoriconJosephuseither.Ratherthandescribing
asteadydeteriorationofRoman-Jewishrelations,Books1and2ofJewishWaradduptoa
‘chaosofinteractions’underanoverlayof‘tragicirony’notunlikethatofA.J.P.Taylor.11If
that would be all to it ‒ if external sources other than Tacitus do not teach otherwise ‒ we
wouldhavetoacceptthisenlightenedresignation.
FirstletusinvestigateJosephus’relationtoThucydides.ThedependenceofJewishWar
onthe‘fatherofhistory’haslongbeenknown;Goodmanisamongmanytonotethatitis
obviousfromthefirstsentenceon.IndeedJosephus’prologueasawholeclaimsthe
Thucydidean method, announcing a history that is not based on hearsay (α͗κοή), and that
excels not in rhetoric and flattery of the mighty but in ‘historical accuracy’ (τὸ α͗κριβές), and
itendsbystating:‘Myworkiswrittenforloversoftruthandnottogratifymyreaders’,thus
recallingThucydides’famousambitiontohavecomposedhishistory‘notasanessaywhich
istowintheapplauseofthemoment,butasapossessionforalltime’.12
Inlightofthat,aninterestingexchangewithThucydidesoccurswhenJosephusstatesin
his prologue that narrating the ‘ancient history’ (α͗ρχαιολογεῖν) of the Jews would be both
outofplaceandunnecessary,sincemanyalreadyhaveundertakenthistask(J.W.1:17).One
hearsanallusiontoThucydides,whonotonlydescribesthe50yearperiodleadinguptothe
Peloponnesian war, but preceding that also gives a review of τὰ παλαιά, the ‘ancient history’
oftheGreeks,attheverybeginningofBook1.Itisasuccinctsurveywhichhesaysheculled
from Homer and other poets and chroniclers ‒ sources drifting into the legendary (τὸ
μυθῶδες) that the common people will uncritically believe, but from which he has derived
conclusionstheintelligentreaderwillfindtobesound.13Thislastclausehasoftenbeenread
asadepreciationofThucydides’predecessorHerodotus,whointegratedquantitiesof
‘ethnographic’material.Thatview,however,maybeseenasbasedonanidealizationof
Thucydides’method.14Moremoderately,intertextualanalysishasbeenfoundtoshowthat
‘Thucydidesofferedacreativecontinuation…ofhispredecessor’.15Inpointoffact,having
reconstruction…isbasedon…anyothersource’(p.179),McLarenintendstobuildhisown‘liferaft’(p.225
andfurther)ontheverysamesource.NewTestamentsourcesdonotcomeintoaccount(p.16).
11S.Mason,‘WhydidJudaeansgotoWarwithRomein66-67CE?Realist-RegionalPerspectives’,inP.J.
TomsonandJ.Schwartz(eds.),JewsandChristiansintheFirstandSecondCenturies:HowtowriteTheirHistory
(CRINT 13; Leiden: Brill, 2014, pp. 126‒206) 129 and 163‒5.
12Josephus,J.W. 1:1‒2, 30; Thucydides, Hist.1.22.SeeJ.J.Price,‘Josephus’FirstSentenceandthePrefaceto
J.W.’,inM.Mor,J.Pastor,I.Ronen,andY.Ashkenazi(eds.),ForUriel:StudiesinthehistoryofIsraelinAntiquity
presentedtoProfessorUrielRappaport (Jerusalem, 2005), pp. 131*‒44*. Many thanks to Prof. Price for making
thisstudyavailable.G.Mader,JosephusandthePoliticsofHistoriography:ApologeticandImpression
ManagementintheBellumJudaicum(MnemosyneSup205;Leiden,2000)showshowJosephususes
Thucydideanrhetorictoblametheextremistsforthewar.
13Thucydides,Hist. 1.20‒1. In 1.2‒20 he explicitly treats τα ̀παλαια ́(1.3, τὰ ἔτι παλαίτερα), and in 1.89‒117,
developments immediately preceding the war ἐν ἔτεσι πεντήκοντα μάλιστα (118.2).
14SeeA.Momigliano,‘SomeObservationsonCausesofWarinAncientHistoriography’,(1958)repr.inidem,
Settimocontributoallastoriadeglistudiclassiciedelmondoantico,vol. 1 (Rome, 1984), pp. 13‒27 (also in
idem,StudiesinHistoriography, New York, 1966, pp. 112‒126); idem, ‘Persian Empire and Greek Freedom’,
(1979)repr.inSettimocontributo, pp. 61‒75. See also the critical analysis of the pentêkontaetiabyE.Badian,
‘ThucydidesandtheOutbreakofthePeloponnesianWar:AHistorian’sBrief’,inidem,FromPlataeato
Potidaea:StudiesintheHistoryandHistoriographyofthePentecontaetia(Baltimore/London:JohnsHopkins
University Press, 1993), pp. 125‒62, 223‒36.
15Z.Rogkotis,‘ThucydidesandHerodotus,AspectsofTheirIntertextualRelationship’,inA.RengakosandA.
Tsakmakis(eds.),Brill’sCompaniontoThucydides (Leiden / Boston: Brill, 2006), pp. 57‒86, here 86. Cf. A.
3
finishedhis‘ancienthistory’,Thucydidesstartsthepentêkontaetiaatthepointwhere
HerodotusendedhisPersianWar.
Similarlyyetdifferent,Josephus’JewishWarpicksupwhere‘ancient’historyends,asis
explicitintheprologue(J.W.1:18):‘Ishall…beginmyworkatthepointwherethehistorians
of these events and our prophets conclude’ ‒ in other words, at the end of biblical history.16
ThustheJewishWar will not contain an ‘ancient history’ paralleling Thucydides’ παλαιά. It
willcontainsomethingelse:‘FortheeventsprecedingmylifetimeIshallbecontentwitha
briefsummary,’surveyingtheimmediateprehistoryoftheJudaeanwar.Itsoutlineisgiven
inthecontinuationoftheprologue(J.W.1:19-20):startingwithAntiochusEpiphanesand
theMaccabaeanWar,167-164BCE,itwillrelatehowtheRomansweredrawninfrom65
BCEon,andfinallydescribetheoutbreakoftheJewishwarwiththedefeatofthesenatorial
legatetotheregion,CestiusGallus,in66CE.Intheextantwork,thiscoverstheremainderof
Book1andallofBook2.TheauthorhimselfentersintothenarrativeattheendofBook2,
whenheisappointedcommanderoftheGalilee.Thisperiodofactualpreparationforwar,
whereJosephusbeginstobepresentas‘Thucydidean’eyewitness,createsanoverlap
betweenthesummaryandthemainhistory(2:568-654).ThewareffectivelybeginsinBook
3withtheappointmentofVespasianastheRomancommander.
ThusitseemsmoreadequatetoseeaformalparalleltoThucydides’pentêkontaetiain
the233yearscoveredinJ.W.1:31-2:654.Tobesure,nowhereisaspecificnumberofyears
givenforthisperiod,nordoesitasawholedisplayabuild-uporsimilardynamic.Rather,it
seemstobeaformaldemarcationofepochs.Onanotherscore,itisinterestingthat
JosephussubsequentlydecidedtocomposehisAntiquities,averitable‘Archaeologyofthe
Jews’inamuchlooserandtalkativestylewhichhasbeencalled‘Herodotean’.17Thechange
ingenreexplainsatleastpartofthedifferencesbetweenJewishWarandAntiquities.Indeed
thedistinctionbetweenbothworkswillbeessentialintheanalysisthatfollows.
The years 6‒66 CE in JewishWarandAntiquities
IfnotbywayofaformalparalleltoThucydides’pentêkontaetia,howdoesJewishWar
describetheperiodfrom6to66CE?Doubtless,Goodmanandothersarecorrectinstating
thatitfeaturesarhetoricofgrowingtensionandimpendingcatastrophe.18Yetthereis
somethinginsubstantialandcontradictoryaboutit,andMasondoeshaveagoodpointin
speakingofa‘chaosofinteractions’.InanotherrespectGoodman,inadditiontoalackof
supportiveevidence,alsofindscontradictioninJosephus’description,asweshallyetsee.
Thelackofclaritysurroundsthemainplayers,JewishinsurgentsandRomanadministrators,
anditappearsconcentratedrightatthebeginningofthe60yearperiod.
Rengakos,‘Thucydides’Narrative:TheEpicandHerodoteanHeritage’,ibid.279-300.SeealsoS.Said,‘Reading
Thucydides’Archaeologyagainst the Background of Herodotus’ Preface’, in G. Rechenauer ‒ V. Pothou (eds.),
Thucydides ‒ A Violent Teacher? History and Its Representations(Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2011),
pp. 61‒77, here 61: ‘The model of Herodotus and Thucydides as polar opposites is a thing of the past.’
16TheinterestingimplicationisthatinthetraditionJosephusfollowed,1Maccabeeswasnotconsidered
‘biblicalhistory’.
17SeeG.E.Sterling,HistoriographyandSelf-Definition;Josephos,Luke,andApologeticHistoriography,(Suppl
NovTest 64; Leiden, 1992), pp. 284‒90, referring to Josephus’ own clarification in Ap.1:53andtothemediation
ofHerodotus’methodviaDionysiusofHalicarnassus.Cf.discussionbyMader,JosephusandthePoliticsof
Historiography, pp. 5‒10.
18Seethesummaryofthebuild-upinMcLaren,TurbulentTimes?, pp. 78‒107; and the different reading by
Mason, ‘Why did Judaeans go to War?’, pp. 174‒90.
4
JewishWar2:117statesbrieflythatin6CE,afterthedepositionoftheHerodianking
Archelaus,JudaeawasbroughtunderdirectimperialcontrolwhenAugustusappointed
Coponiusasthefirstprefectofequestrianrank.19Thisisfollowed(2:118)byanequally
succinctstatementaboutJudastheGalilean,‘asophistwhofoundedasectofhisown
havingnothingincommonwiththeothers’,andwhopropagatedrevolt,refusaloftaxtothe
Emperor,andworshipofGodalone.Thesearehighlyexplosivemotifsintheperspectiveof
theWar,butamazingly,Josephusswitchestoaleisurelyexplanationabout‘thethreesects’
ofJewish‘philosophy’,leavingitforhisreaderstoguesswhyallthatisnecessaryifJudas’
sect was such a maverick. After this extremely long digression (2:119‒66), he resumes the
narrativeofeventsafterArchelaus’deposition,butthistimeroundwithoutawordabout
CoponiusorJudas.Whymentionsuchdangerousmotifsinpassing,thenelaborately
expatiateonthethreesects,andthencontinueasthoughnothingparticularhasbeensaid?
MartinHengelhaswarnedustoreadJosephussuspiciously,weighingbothwhathesays
‘andwhatheomitsinthelightofhisowninterests’,andsimilarlyMartinGoodmanwilluse
Josephus’ownevidence‘todiscoverfactsthat…heknewwellbutatwhichhepreferred
onlytohint’.20Morespecifically,ErnstBadianhasidentifieditasoneofthetacticsof
Thucydideanrhetoricwhentheauthormentionsfactsthatcontradicthisinterpretationonly
whenhecaneithermakethemservehisaimsorcannotomitthembecausetheyaretoo
well-known.21Inpointoffact,‘JudastheGalilean’didfindmentionevenintheNew
Testament,asdidthecensusandthesicarii(Luke2:2;Acts5:37;21:38).22Thereforeitseems
certainthatJudasandhismovementfiguredinRomanmilitaryreports,23whichmusthave
necessitatedJosephustomentionitsomehow.24
InhiscommentaryonJewishWar,SteveMasonobservesthatthedigressiononthe
threesectsbreathesan‘exoticdemographicatmosphere’,asalsothatJ.W.2:117 ‒ as
distinctfromAntiquities ‒ strangely fails to mention Quirinius, the legate to Syria, which,
Masonsuggests,mayreflecttheintentiontohighlighttheincompetenceoftheprefects‘as
aprimarycauseofrisingtensions’.25PreciselythatsuspicionhasbeenpursuedbyWerner
Eck,exposingJosephus’Tendenztopicturetheequestrianprefectsasincompetent
administrators, setting them off from the nobler senatorial legates ‒ doubtless in the
interestsoftheauthor’spositioninRomevis-à-vistheelite.Especiallythesuggestionthat
Florusactedbehindthebackofthelegate,CestiusGallus,andintentionally‘fannedthe
19Onadministrativeorganizationandnomenclature(includingtheconfusionofpraefectusandprocurator)see
W.Eck,RomundJudaea:FünfVorträgezurrömischenHerrschaftinPalaestina(TriaCorda:JenaerVorlesungen
zu Judentum, Antike und Christentum 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007) pp. 24‒51; on political and military
implicationsintheearlyEmpire,F.Millar,The Roman Near East 31 BC ‒ AD 337(CambridgeMAandLondon:
Harvard University Press, 1993) pp. 43‒69.
20Hengel,Zealots,p.viii,prefacetothesecondedition.Goodman,RulingClass,p.20.
21Badian,‘ThucydidesandtheOutbreakofthePeloponnesianWar’,pp.128and159.
22Ontheseevents,theirbackground,andtheirdatingbyLukeseeSchürer,History, vol. 1, pp. 399‒427; Millar,
RomanNearEast, pp. 46‒7; J.A. Fitzmyer, TheGospelAccordingtoSt.Luke(AnchorBible28;GardenCity,
1981‒85), pp. 399‒417.
23Cf.thematter-of-factreportonthecrucifixionofJudas’sonsJamesandSimonbyTiberiusAlexander,Ant.
20:102;seebelow.JosephusrevealshehadaccesstocommentariioftheRomanmilitaryinLife342,358.
24ThislikelihoodisnotconsideredinGoodman’ssuggestion,RulingClass, pp. 95‒6 that Josephus could have
simplyomittedthe‘philosophy’,hadhesowished.Seebelow.
25S.Mason,JudeanWar(vol.1bofidem,ed.,FlaviusJosephus,TranslationandCommentary, Leiden ‒ Boston:
Brill,2008),p.96:theopeningsentencerecallsCaesar’sGallicWar;ibid.135,‘theconcludingstatement…
consolidatesthesymmetryofthedigression’;ibid.79,Quirinius omitted.Theseobservationsseemtofindlittle
resonanceinMason’shistoricalsyntheses.
5
flamesofwar’(J.W.2:283,293),violatesthepoliticalrealitiesoftheEmpire.26Similarly,
DanielSchwartzdiscernscontradictorymotivesinJewishWar’saccountofAlbinus:hewas
notrepresentativeofRome’sactualpolitics,butneitherdidtheEmperorappointbetter
prefects.Likewise,therebelswhostartedthewarandbroughtdisasteronallJewswerenot
representativeofJudaismbutanoutlawmovementbeyondthepaleofthethreelegitimate
schools.27Insum,JewishWar‘explains’thegrowthoftheconflictbyblamingisolatedgroups
andfunctionariesandobfuscatingtheinvolvementoftheprimeactors.
ThelessrestrainedaccountofAntiquitiesrevealsmuchofwhatJewishWaromits.
Curiously,hereaswell,adigressiononthesectsissandwichedbetweentworeportsabout
thechangeintoaprovince(Ant.18:1‒3, 26‒9), but it is a much shorter digression (Ant. 4‒
25).ItseemsasthoughJosephusisintentionallycorrectingJewishWaratthispoint.Both
reportsnowcontaininformationonCoponiusandonJudas,rathermoreamplythaninWar
atthat.AndbothnowpresentQuirinius,thesenatoriallegatetoSyriaalsoappointedin6CE
andCoponius’superior,asthechiefactorwhosefirstmaintaskwastoliquidateArchelaus’
estateandorganizethecensusinpreparationoftheimperialtaxlevy.Revealingly,wenow
hearthatJudas’movementgrewoutoftheresentmentagainstthecensusthatwaswidely
sharedinspiteofappeasementeffortsbythehighpriest.TogetherwithaPhariseecalled
Saddok,JudasfoundedwhatJosephusnowcallsan‘innovativefourthphilosophy’,28one
that,verydifferentfromwhatwehearinWar,‘agreesinallotherrespectswiththeopinions
ofthePharisees’,exceptforitspassionforlibertyandforservingGodalone.Andthe‘seeds’
thatJudasandSaddoksowedkeptgrowingandonlywouldneedthedisastrouspolicyof
Florus(64-66CE)tobearthefruitofopenrebellion(cf.Ant.18:9,25).IndeedAnt.20:102
registersthecrucifixionunderTiberiusAlexander (46-48CE)ofJamesandSimon,twosons
ofJudaswhomJosephuslinkswiththeirfather’srevoltagainstthecensusofQuirinius.
Thusmuchmoreseemstohavebeengoingoninthewakeofthe6CEcensusthan
JosephuswantedtoletoninhisJewishWar.Thedirectconnectionbetweenimperialpolicy
andpopularrebellionmusthavebeenthelastthinghewantedtosurprisehisFlavian
patronswith.Onlytowardstheend,whenthelastpocketofresistanceatMasadaremains
tobemoppedup,doesherevealthattheoccupantsofthefortressbelongedtoJudas’
movementthatoriginatedwithQuirinius’censusandbelongedtothecoreoftherevolt
(J.W.7:252-255).Suchisthecontradictory,misleadingwayinwhichJosephushandlesthe
rebels,presentingthemontheonehandastherealinstigatorsofthewar,29whileonthe
other,sideliningthemasinsignificantimpostors.30
26W.Eck,‘DierömischenRepräsentanteninJudäa:ProvokateureoderVertreterderrömischenMacht?’,inM.
Popović (ed.), TheJewishRevoltagainstRome:InterdisciplinaryPerspectives(SupplementstotheJournalfor
the Study of Judaism 154; Leiden: Brill, 2011) pp. 45‒68, esp. 62‒3.
27 D.R. Schwartz, ‘Josephus on Albinus: the Eve of Catastrophe in Changing Retrospect’, in Popović, TheJewish
Revolt, pp. 291‒309, here 298-300.
28OnthephraseʔɿʄʉʍʉʔɿໄɲɸເʋɸɿໄʍɲʃʏʉʎandthepoliticalimplicationsofJudas’movementseeP.W.vander
Horst,‘Philosophiaepeisaktos:SomeNotesonJosephus,A.J.18.9’, in Popović, TheJewishRevolt, pp. 311‒22.
29SeeespeciallyH.W.Attridge,‘JosephusandHisWorks’,inM.E.Stone(ed.),JewishWritingsoftheSecond
templePeriod (CRINT 2.2; Assen ‒ Phildelphia: Van Gorcum ‒ Fortress, 1984, 185‒232), pp. 196‒200.
30ThusalsoMader,Josephus,esp.p.12n.40.Cf.F.Parente,‘FlaviusJosephus’AccountoftheAnti-Roman
RiotsPrecedingthe66-70War,anditsRelevancefortheReconstructionofJewishEschatologyduringtheFirst
CenturyA.D.’,JournaloftheAncientNearEasternSociety 16‒17 (1984‒85) pp. 183‒205, here 191-196. Mason,
JudeanWar,p.81notesthatJosephuselsewherelinksJudas’descendantstogetherbutdoesnotinJ.W.2:118,
butconcludesthattheyactuallywereinsignificant.SimilarlyM.A.Brighton,TheSicariiinJosephus'sJudean
War:RhetoricalAnalysisandHistoricalObservations,(EarlyJudaismandItsLiterature27;Atlanta:SBL,2009)
maintainsonthesolebasisofJewishWarthatthephrase‘sicarii’isamererhetoricalployofJosephus.
6
ThecontradictorinessofJosephus’descriptionsisdulynotedbyMartinGoodmaninhis
studyontheroleoftheJudaeanrulingclassintherevolt,withthesuspicionthatJosephusis
withholdingimportantinformationaboutthemovement:‘Attimeshewantstostatethat
thisphilosophyhadamassiveinfluence…,whileatothertimeshestrivestopushittothe
marginsofJewishbeliefs.’Goodmanseestwowaystoexplainthis.Either‘Josephusinvented
theFourthPhilosophyasadevicetopushtothe marginswhatwasinfactamuchmore
widespreadtendencyamongfirst-centuryJews…’Or,Goodman’spreferredoption,Josephus
didnotinventthe‘philosophy’butgreatlyexaggerateditssignificance,whileactuallyitwas
‘ofmarginaleffectintheincreasinglyviolentconfrontationsinJudaea’.31Thelatter
interpretationtiesinwithGoodman’soverallviewthattherevoltwasnotcausedbyan
increasingdeteriorationofJewish-Romanrelations,butbyaphenomenonJosephustriedto
dissimulateatanyprice:thepowerstrugglewithinhisownclass,therulingeliteinJudaea.
WehavenotedthatwhilethisdissimulationstrategyisevidentinJewishWar,itisnotin
Antiquities.There,Josephusopenlystatesthefourthphilosophy’sproximitytothe
Pharisees,bynowhisprofessedaffiliation,andhealsorevealsthephilosophy’srisein
connectionwiththecensus.Thissuggestsathirdpossibleexplanation,namelythatindeed
Josephusdidnotinventthefourthphilosophy,northatitwasmarginal,butthatonthe
contraryithadsuchresonancethattheapologeticaimsofJewishWarrequiredhimto
marginalizeitasmuchasitsnotorietyamongtheRomanswouldallow,32dissimulatingthe
implicationofhisownclassatthecostofthe‘extremists’.Theevidenceofsourcesexternal
toJosephuswillhelpusassesstheadequacyofthatinterpretation.
TheEvidenceofGalatians,Romans,andActs
WerecallGoodman’sremarkthatlackofexternalsourcesmakesitimpossibletoverify
Josephus’rhetoric,although2Corinthianscouldbesuchapossiblesource.Thatletter,asit
happens,doesnotcontaininformationonthesituationinJudaea.TwootherlettersofPaul’s
do,GalatiansandRomans.Inaddition,thenarrativeofActs,althoughcertainlypost-70and
rathercontemporaneouswithJosephus’Antiquities,isausefulauxiliarysource.33Analysisof
thesedocumentsinvolvesmuchdiscussionofcircumcision,atopicwhosepolitical
implicationswillbeaddressedtowardstheendof thispaper.
Galatians is exceptional among Paul’s letters in that the exordium (Gal. 1:6‒12), which
follows the salutation (1:1‒5), skips the usual flattering phrases of thanksgiving and bursts
forwardwithbitterreproach.Thusatthebeginningandendofhisletter,theapostle
denouncesthosewhopreach‘adifferentgospel’insistingoncircumcisionofnon-Jewish
believers(1:6;6:12).Hisowngospelassumesnon-JewstobelieveinJesuswithoutkeeping
theJewishlawandgettingcircumcised.Circumcisionisapossibleoption,butitinvolvesthe
obligation ‘to keep the whole law’ and does not bring one closer to Christ (5:2‒3), for ‘in
ChristJesusneithercircumcisionnoruncircumcisioncountsforanything’(5:6;cf.3:28;6:15).
Paulaffirmsthatthis‘gospelfortheuncircumcised’propagatedbyhimselfandBarnabas
wasrecognizedatameetinginJerusalem,alongwiththe‘gospelforthecircumcised’
entrustedtoPeter(2:7).Accordingtotheagreementoftheapostles,both‘gospels’or
31Goodman,RulingClass, pp. 93‒7. Basically the same interpretation is given in Goodman, Romeand
Jerusalem, 414‒5.
32 See above nn. 22‒4 on the probability that the Romans were aware of the risk of the ‘philosophy’.
33Hengel,Zealots,p.22considerstheNewTestamentamodest‘secondarysource’.Similarly,withoutsayingso
much,Millar,RomanNearEast,repeatedlydrawsonActsandLuke.
7
‘apostolates’(cf.2:8)presupposedmutualrespectandrefrainingfrommeddlingineach
other’sbusiness.IfwewanttounderstandPaul,itisextremelyimportanttonotethathe
distinguishedthisapostolicallyacknowledged‘gospelforthecircumcised’fromthe‘different
gospel’thatstressedcircumcisionofmalenon-Jewishbelievers.
Butapparentlytherewasconfusion,andclarificationofPaul’spositionvis-à-visthe
apostleswascalledfor.Thisiswhatthefirsttwochaptersofthelettersetouttodo.In
result, Gal. 1:13‒2:21 contains rare first-hand information on Paul’s career as apostle
travellingbetweenJerusalemandthediaspora.Tobesure,theaccountspillsoverintothe
main argument of the letter (cf. 2:15‒21),34anditmustbereadcriticallyfromthatpointof
view.Justso,Paul’saccountfeaturesanumberofsuccessiveepisodesthatrelatetoevents
inJudaea.JudgingfromitsplaceintheensembleofPaul’sletters,Galatianswasprobably
writteninthemid-50sCE.35LetusstudyitsdifferentpartstakingourdeparturefromHans-
DieterBetz’srhetoricalanalysisofthecontents,addingtentativedatings.36
Gal. 1:1‒5 Epistolaryprescript:salutation.
1:6‒11 Exordium:rhetoricalstatementofthecauseoftheletter,‘thepresentstateof
theGalatianchurches’,andanattackontheirchangeofpositionor‘desertion’:
the Galatians have given in to ‘a different gospel’ (ἕʏɸʌʉʆɸʐເɲɶɶɸλໄιον).
1:12‒2:14 Narratio:‘statementoffacts’:theoriginofPaul’sgospel,hiscareerasanapostle,
andhisrelationshipwiththeJerusalemchurch.Itsummarizesfiveepisodes
precedingtheletter:
1:12‒4. Paul’s ‘earlier life in Judaism’: ‘I was violently persecuting the church of
Godandwastryingtodestroyit;IadvancedinJudaismbeyondmany
contemporaries, being exceedingly zealous (περισσοτέρως ζηλωτης́ ʐໂπάρχων) for
thetraditionsofmyancestors.’
1:15‒20. After his conversion (± 32 CE) by the ‘revelation of God’s Son’ and his
calling‘toproclaimHimamongthegentiles’,hestaysforthreeyearsinArabia
andDamascus.Afterthat(±35CE),hestaystwoweeksinJerusalem,‘meeting
withCephas’andonlyonceseeing‘James,thebrotheroftheLord’.
1:21‒4. Then for ‘fourteen years’, Paul preaches and teaches in the churches
aroundAntioch,duringwhichtimethechurchesinJudaea‘didnotseehisface’.
ThisworkisbasedonthemessagethatissubsequentlyapprovedofinJerusalem.
2:1‒10. After that (± 49 CE), Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas to discuss ‘the
gospelthatIproclaimamongthegentiles’.Tituswhocamealongis‘not
compelledtobecircumcised’,inspiteoftheactionsof‘falsebrothers’
(ʗ ɸʐɷɲɷɸλໄφοι). The apostles including James and Cephas (= Peter) see that Paul
‘hadbeenentrustedwiththegospelfortheuncircumcised,justasPeterhad
beenentrustedwiththegospelforthecircumcised’;theyagreeandshakehands.
They also ask that Paul and Barnabas ‘remember the poor’ ‒ probably a
reference to Paul’s later fund-raising campaign (1 Cor. 16:1‒4).
34SeesummaryofdiscussioninH.-D.Betz,Galatians:ACommentaryonPaul’sLettertotheChurchesofGalatia
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1979), p. 113‒4.
35Anearlierdatingisalsoproposed,seesummariesofdiscussionbyBetz,Galatians, pp. 9‒12 (opting for 50‒55
CE)andRaymondE.Brown,AnIntroductiontotheNewTestament,(AnchorBibleRef.Libr.;NewYork,1997),
pp. 474‒7 (mid-50s CE).
36Betz,Galatians.Cf.asimilaroverviewinZe’evSafraiandPeterJ.Tomson,‘Paul’s“CollectionfortheSaints”
(2 Cor 8‒9) and Financial Support of Leaders in Early Christianity and Judaism’, in Bieringer et al., Second
Corinthians, pp. 132‒220, here 141‒3.
8
2:11‒4. Some time later (say 51 CE), Cephas visits Antioch, where Paul and
Barnabasarestaying.Jewsandgentilesareeatingtogetherinchurch,butwhen
‘certainpeoplefromJames’comealong,CephasandtheotherJewsandeven
Barnabaswithdraw‘forfearofthoseofthecircumcision’.Paulpublicly
reproachesCephas,askingsarcastically,‘Ifyou,thoughaJew,livelikeaGentile
andnotlikeaJew,howcanyoucompelthegentilestoliveasJews(ɿοເυδαϊζειν)?’
Theaddressthatensuesisatoncethepropositiooftheletter.
2:15-21 Propositio,summingupfactsstatedintheprecedingandargumentstobe
discussedinwhatfollows.37Materially,itisastatementofthegospelPauland
Peter,‘Jewsbybirth’,oughttobelievein:‘Weknowthatapersonisjustifiednot
bytheworksofthelawbutthroughfaithinJesusChrist.’38
3:1-4:31 Probatio,proofs.‘ArgumentsfromScripture’againstimposingthelawongentile
Christians.
5:1-6:10 Exhortatio.ParaenesisstructuringtheChristianlifeoffreedom.
6:11-18 Epistolarypostscript,‘SeewithwhatlargelettersIamwritingyounowmyself.’
This is the authorial present rendered by the epistolary aorist ἔγραψα, Paul
summinguptheletterhehasdictatedinhispostscript,±55CE:‘Thosewhowant
tocompelyoutobecircumcised(aretryingtoescape)persecutionforthecross
ofChrist.’Betz:‘Seenasarhetoricalfigure,theperoratio…shouldbeemployed
asthehermeneuticalkeytotheintentionsoftheApostle.’39
NowifwereadthesuccessiveepisodesofPaul’slifementionedinthenarratioplusthe
authorialpresentoftheletterinrelationtoeventsinJudaea,wecandistinguishfour
consecutivestages.(1)Intheearly30sCE,Paul’scareerbeganasayoungJewbeingmore
‘zealous’fortheancestraltraditionsthanmanyothersandpersecutingthefollowersof
Jesus.Wearenotinformedaboutaparticular‘school’hebelongedto,butitisimpliedthat
atthattimemanylessradicalJewswerealsoaroundinJudaea.Afterhisconversiontothe
Jesusmovement,PaulworkedforthreeyearsinSyriaand,afterashortvisitinJerusalem,
anotherfourteenyearsinAsiaMinor.Nothingparticularisreportedaboutthemessagehe
preached.(2)Inthelate40sCEPaulmakesanothervisittoJerusalemtodiscusshisgospel
withtheotherapostles.Now,anissueaboutcircumcisionofgentilebelieversisstirredupby
‘falsebrothers’,butthisisnotforcedonPaul’snon-JewishcompanionTitus.Theapostles
agreethatthe‘gospelforthecircumcised’ranbyCephas/Petershouldco-existsidebyside
withtheone‘fortheuncircumcised’supervisedbyPaulandBarnabas.(3)Someyearslater
however,sayintheearly50s,PeterisonvisitintheAntiochchurchwherePauland
Barnabasarestaying;Jewsandgentilesareeatingtogether.Thensomepeoplecome‘from
James’,i.e.fromJerusalem,andallJewsincludingCephasandBarnabasstartavoidingtable-
fellowshipwithnon-Jewishbelievers,evidentlygivingintosomemoreradicalmessage.Paul
publiclyupbraidsCephas,theconsequencesofwhicharenotregistered.(4)Finally,inthe
authorialpresentoftheletterinthemid-fiftiesCE,PaulisshockedthattheGalatianshave
giveninto‘adifferentgospel’insistingoncircumcisionofmalegentilebelievers.Thosewho
preachthismessagearethemselvesexposedtopressureandevento‘persecution’.Itisnot
37Betz,Galatians,p.114.
38Betz,Galatians,p.115:Paul‘setsfortha“self-definition”ofJewishChristians,beginningbyconsidering
them,includingPaulhimself,asJews.’PaulcontinuestoconsiderhimselfaJew,seeRom3:1f.
39Betz,Galatians,p.313f.Fortheancientconventionofhandwrittenpostscriptsseeibid.312.Ontheaorist
seealsoSafraiandTomson,‘Paul’sCollection’,p.143f.
9
clearwheretheycomefrom,butthefrequentmentionofJerusalemalongwithPeterand
Jamesmakesthatalikelyprovenance.
Inshort,therhetoricalstructureofGalatiansseemstoreflectaprogressivedevelopment
inJudaeaandtheJerusalemchurch:fromamixedsituationofgreaterandlesser‘zealfor
thelaw’intheearly30s,viaanexacerbationofthedebateaboutcircumcisioninthelate
40s,ontoanurgeforseparationfromnon-Jewsbytheearly50s,untilwefinallyreachthe
situationPaulisfacinginGalatiaduringthemid-fifties,namely,thatofChristianemissaries
whoarepressurizedtoforcecircumcisiononnon-Jewishbelievers.Thepressuremost
probablyalsooriginatedfromJerusalem.
Theimpressionofincreasing‘zealforthelaw’inJerusalemisreinforcedbytheendof
Romans.Here,Paulwritesthatheisunderwaycarryingtheproceedsofhiscollectionfor
‘thepooramongthesaintsinJerusalem’,thatis,afundraisingcampaignforthetreasuryof
theJerusalemchurch.PaulbeseechestheChristiansinRometopray‘thatImayberescued
from the obstinate (α͗πειθούντων) in Judaea, and that my ministry to Jerusalem may be
acceptable to the saints’ (Rom. 15:30‒1). Thus this letter, written probably around 58 CE, in
onebreathuttersPaul’sacuteapprehensionthatnon-Christianradicalsendangerhislifeand
thathiscollection,a‘ministryofthegentiles’,notbeacceptedbytheleadersofthe
Jerusalemchurch.ItappearsthatinJerusalem,threeyearson,thetrendingzealforthelaw
andseparationfromgentilesthatwehavereadfromGalatianshasaggravatedstillmore.
AsimilardevelopmentcanbereadfromActs.TherelationshipbetweenActsandPaulis
classicallydisputed.OneofthenaggingquestionsiswhytheauthorofActsneverbetrays
knowledgeofthePaulineletters;anotherconcernsthecontradictionsbetweenthe
descriptionsoftheapostles’meetinginActs15andGal.2.However,weneednotenterin
thosediscussions.Onthecontrary,theyencourageustotreatActsasasourceindependent
fromPaul’sletters,evenifitsPaulinecolouringisobvious.
ThenarrativeofActshasfelicitouslybeendescribedasdramatischeEpisodenstil:instead
ofacontinuoushistory,itofferssuccessivevignettes.40(a)Paul’sactivitiesasanapostleare
describedfromtheendofchapter11on.HestaysinAntioch,teachingforayearalongwith
Barnabas.TheonlydetailaddedconcernsprophetsfromJerusalemwhoannounceafamine
andfinancialhelpraisedbytheAntiochenechurch,whichissaidtohavehappened‘under
Claudius’(Acts11:28,cf.Ant.20:51-53).ThereisnoimpressionofproblemsbetweenJews
andnon-Jews.(b)Thischangesinchapter15,inthepreciseformulationoftheauthor:
‘SomepeoplecomingfromJudaeawantedtoteachthebrethren,“Ifyoudonotget
circumcisedaccordingtotheriteofMoses,youcannotbesaved”’(Acts15:1).Pauland
BarnabasstronglydisagreeandgotoJerusalemtodiscussthematterwiththeapostles.
Again,theauthorcarefullynotesthatduringthatdiscussion,‘somefromthesectof
Phariseeswhohadcometobelievestoodupandsaidthat(thegentiles)mustbe
circumcisedandtaughttokeepthelawofMoses’(15:5).TheapostlesledbyPeterand
Jamesdonotagree,andacompromiseisformulatedthatappearstoformalizethestatus
quo:gentilebelieversmustonlyabstainfromfoodsconsecratedtoidols,unchastity,and
blood(15:29).Clearly,thisreportoftheapostles’meetingdiffersfromPaul’sversion,but
40E.Plümacher,LukasalshellenistischerSchriftsteller,StudienzurApostelgeschichte(SUNT9;Göttingen,
Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,1972).Thetechniquerelatestothatof‘epitomizing’asdefinedbyC.K.Rothschild,
Luke-ActsandtheRhetoricofHistory (WUNT 2.175; Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2004), pp. 231‒40, cf. p. 280 (Acts
11:26 certainly qualifies for her definition), 285‒6.ThenarrativeanalysisbyJ.D.Garroway,‘ThePharisee
Heresy:CircumcisionforGentilesintheActsoftheApostles’,NewTestamentStudies60 (2014), pp. 20‒36
breathesameasureofhistoricalscepticism.
10