Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §9.3
Josephus also makes good sense since Josephus is as close to the events as we
could hope for (he wrote between the early 70s and the early 100s); 46 and he is
more informative than we might have expected (he was attempting to describe
and defend his native religion to his influential Roman patrons). That such an
apologetic treatment will be biased and selective need hardly be said. But the fact
remains that the spectator perspective of Josephus is likely to give a fuller and
sounder basis for a description of first-century Judaism than any other, and there
are sufficient other sources for us to be able to recognize much if not most of
Josephus' bias. 47 In each case, however, there are major questions unresolved
and continuing debate of great vigour.
(1) Pharisees naturally come first: Josephus always gives them first place
in his lists, and they were almost certainly the principal forerunners of subsequently
prevailing rabbinic Judaism. 48 Older treatments of them are generally
unreliable, partly because of a Christian bias which saw them as chief representatives
of a legalism which served, by way of contrast, to highlight the gracious
character of the Christian message, 49 and partly because of uncritical use (by
both Jewish and Christian scholars) of the later rabbinic traditions as evidence of
what the first-century Pharisees already believed and practised. 50 The first of
three philosophies or sects we might simply note that he describes the movement which he
claims began with Judas of Galilee both as a 'sect' (War 2.118) and as a 'philosophy' (Ant. 18.9,
23).
46. On Josephus see Schürer, History 1.43-63; H. W. Attridge, 'Josephus and His
Works', in Stone, Jewish Writings 185-232; L. H. Feldman, 'Josephus', ABD 3.981-98.
47. Cf. particularly E. P. Sanders, Judaism 5-7; on using Josephus as a historical source
see also S. Mason, 'Revisiting Josephus's Pharisees', in J. Neusner and A. J. Avery-Peck, eds.,
Judaism in Late Antiquity. 3.2: Where We Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism
(Leiden: Brill, 1999) 23-56.
48. As most deduce (or assume) (e.g., Gafni, 'Historical Background' 7-8), despite the
problems and misgivings articulated, e.g., by Saldarini, Pharisees 7-9 and ch. 10; G. Stemberger,
Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (1991; ET Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1995) particularly 140-47; further bibliography in Meier, Marginal Jew 3.357-
58.
49. See Heschel's string of examples (Abraham Geiger 75-76, 79, 86, 127, 192, 199,
210-11, 215, 222, 232); H.-G. Waubke, Die Pharisäer in der protestantischen Bibelwissenschaft
des 19. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); also Klein's review in
Anti-Judaism ch. 4; Sandmel's critique of M. Black, 'Pharisees', IDB 3.774-81 (First Christian
Century 101-102); and M. Weinfeld's critique particularly of Wellhausen ('Hillel and the Misunderstanding
of Judaism in Modern Scholarship', in Charlesworth and Johns, eds., Hillel and
Jesus 56-70).
50. See above n. 4. For a review of scholarly literature on the Pharisees, since 1874 see
R. Deines, Die Pharisäer: Ihr Verständnis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung
seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997). For recent bibliography
see Meier, Marginal Jew 3.342-45.
266