JBL Um 991) 75-91

THE ISRAELITES DEBATE THEIR OPTIONS AT THE

SEA OF REEDS: LAB 10:3, ITS PARALLELS, AND
PSEUDO-PHILO'S IDEOLOGY AND BACKGROUND
SAUL M. OLYAN
Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2160
I
Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB), well known for its
wealth of haggadah, relates an engaging tradition concerning Israel at the
Reed Sea. Threatened by the oncoming Egyptians, the Israelites divide into
three factions and debate their options:
Then in considering the fearful situation of the moment, the sons of Israel
were split in their opinions according to three strategies. For the tribe of .
Reuben and the tribe of Issachar and the tribe of Zebulun and the tribe
of Simeon said, "Come, let us cast ourselves into the sea. For it is better
for us to die in the water than to be killed by our enemies." But the tribe
of Gad and the tribe of Asher and the tribe of Dan and that of Naphtali
said, "No, but let us go back with them; and if they are willing to spare our
lives, we will serve them." But the tribe of Levi and the tribe of Judah and
that of Joseph and the tribe of Benjamin said, "Not so, but let us take up
our weapons and fight with them, and God will be with us."
1
(10:3)
Pseudo-Philo is the earliest witness preserving the tradition of division and
debate at the Reed Sea. I shall attempt to show that this discussion of options
is an outgrowth of early exegesis of Exod 14:11-14. Moreover, it is likely that
the story, in a simpler form, is older than Pseudo-Philo; incorporated into his
history, it appears to have been shaped to serve distinct polemical purposes.
This conclusion is suggested by comparison of Pseudo-Philo's story with its
1
The translation is from D. J. Harrington, "Pseudo-Philcf in OTP 2. 317. A critical edition
of the Latin text prepared by Harrington with a French translation lw J. Cazeaux may l>e found
in P.-M. Bogaert, J. Cazeaux, D. Harrington, and C. Perrot, Les antiquits bibliques (SC 229-30;
Paris: Cerf, 1976) 1.114-17; the following is the text of 10:3 from this edition: Tunc considerantes
metum temporis, flii Israel in tres divisiones consiliorum divisemnt sententias suas. Nam tribus
Rulrcn et tribus Isachar et tribus Zbulon et tribus Simeon dixerunt: Venite mittamus nos in
mare. Melius est enim nos in aqua mori, quam ab inimicis occidi. Tribus autem Cad et tribus
Aser et tribus Dan et Neptalim dixerunt: Non, sed revertamur cum eis, et si voluerint nobis
donare vitam, serviemus eis. Nam tribus Levi et tribus luda et Ioseph et tribus Beniamin
dixerunt: Non sic, seti accipientes arma nostra pugnemus cum eis, et erit Deus nobiscum. The
variants for this verse are minor and few in number.
75
76 Journal of Biblical Literature
rabbinic and Samaritan parallels and with other stories in the Liber itself; the
rabbinic and Samaritan parallels are strikingly different in a number of ways,
whereas other narratives in the Liber share important features with Pseudo-
Philo's version of the debate. Comparison with the rabbinic version
2
and the
Samaritan version also allows for the isolation of the unique elements in
Pseudo-Philo's treatment, features that may help to identify more precisely
the date and provenance of the work as a whole. Most or all of these distinct
features can be identified in other parts of the Liber, suggesting that they are
the work of the Libers author(s) rather than a received tradition.
3
The rabbinic version is extant in such sources as the Fragmentary Targum,
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Targum Neofiti, and in the Mekilta of Rabbi
Ishmael, Besallah 3, with few variants; these present a four-part division of
the tribes, while the Samaritan tradition, like Pseudo-Philo, presents a three-
part division.
4
There are some significant differences between Pseudo-Philo's
2
For the sake of clarity and economy, I shall refer to the rabbinic "version" of the story rather
than to "versions." The differences between the rabbinic witnesses are few and mostly restricted
to the response of Moses to each position. For further discussion, see W. Sibley Towner, "Form
Criticism of Rabbinic Literature," JJS 24 (1973) 113. Towner's article, which I shall cite frequently
and challenge on a number of significant interpretive points, is the most detailed treatment of
the Reed Sea haggadah in Pseudo-Philo and the rabbinic and Samaritan parallels. Towner's focus
is the rabbinic witness, and Pseudo-Philo and the Samaritan version are used comparatively. His
general purpose is to show "the tendency of rabbinic materials cast in a simple, non-narrative
pattern to move according to a 'law of rectification* toward a more stereotyped and rationalised
form during the process of transmission" (pp. 112-13).
A second story, sharing a number of similarities with the haggadah under consideration here,
is extant in three versions in the Mekilta, BeSallah 6 (version of R. Meir, version of R. Judah,
version of R. Tarfon). A detailed and generally convincing treatment of this material and its tradi-
tion history is presented by J. Heinemann, Aggadot wetoledotehen (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974)
78-84. Heinemann shows how exegesis of cruxes in Ps 68:28 appears to be the origin of this
story in its various versions. Such exegesis is also reflected in the targum to Ps 68:28. The three
versions of this story share the element of tribal debate at the edge of the sea, and each has a
hero who jumps right in while the others (who remain anonymous) argue (the earliest version
has Benjamin jumping in; the later versions have Nahson, or NahSon followed by the rest of
Judah; the tribes argue over who will or will not jump in first). Exactly how this story developed
in relation to our own is not entirely clear to me at this juncture, and I may examine the problem
in a future piece. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Gary Anderson for pointing out
Heinemann's treatment to me. Since this material only came to my attention after the com-
pletion of this article, I cannot integrate it as thoroughly as I might like.
3
Here I anticipate the very reasonable objection that Pseudo-Philo may have inherited his
Reed Sea narrative as is or nearly as is and that another circle gave it its martial shape and the
author of the Liber simply incorporated the tradition into his narrative. In the light of the many
affinities shared by Pseudo-Philo's Reed Sea narrative and other stories in the work, this thesis
is ultimately less compelling than the view that Pseudo-Philo gave the narrative its distinct
shape, as he did his other narratives.
4
On the targums and their background, see the useful introduction of J. Bowker, The
Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969)
3-28; on the Mek. of R. Ishmael, see J. Goldin, The Song at the Sea (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1971) 9-12 with nn. Towner discusses other rabbinic witnesses briefly ("Form Criticism,"
113), as does C. Perrot, Les antiquits bibliques 2. 108-9. These include the Mek. of R. Simeon,
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 77
version and the rabbinic and Samaritan versions, and also between the
rabbinic and Samaritan versions themselves. These have not generally been
discussed by scholars examining LAB 10:3. (1) Aside from the widely recog-
nized division of the tribes into four parts,
5
the rabbinic version, in contrast
to Pseudo-Philo, does not identify the tribes in each division; they remain
anonymous ('ahat *omeret..., hada* * amer.. . ).

Similarly, the Samaritan

version does not identify the members of each division (prqnh qdmh
y
mr
prqnh tnynh
y
mr..., prqnh tlyth
y
mr... ), though, as in Pseudo-Philo, Israel
is divided into three factions.
7
(2) The rabbinic version presents only the basic
suggestion of each group, without any explanation or justification for action;
in contrast, each position in Pseudo-Philo is followed by a reasoned justifica-
tion.
8
The Samaritan version presents only a justification for its first position,
paraphrasing Exod 14:12b: hry tb In . . . mn mwtn bmdbrh, "For it is better
for us (to serve the Egyptians) than to die in the wilderness."
9
In contrast to
Pseudo-Philo, the other two positions are not followed by a justification.
(3) In the rabbinic version, each suggestion is followed immediately by a
response from Moses; he exhorts the people not to fear and to have con-
fidence in God, who will act on their behalf. Likewise in the Samaritan
version, Moses answers each suggestion. Here the rabbinic and Samaritan
versions are nearly alike; the text of Exod 14:13a, 13b, and 14 are cited in
response to each suggestion.
10
There is nothing like this in Pseudo-Philo;
Moses does not respond to the remarks of any party, and the final word goes
to Judah, Benjamin, Levi, and Joseph, who advocate armed resistance. The
rabbinic and Samaritan versions oppose active resistance on the part of
y. Ta
K
an. 2.5 (65d), and Midr. hag, Exod., BeSaUah 14; the versions of these witnesses hardly vary
from those under discussion here. For the Samaritan version, see J. Macdonald, ed. and trans.,
Memar Marqah: The Teaching ofMarqah (2 vols.; BZAW 84; Berlin: Topelmann, 1963) 2. 167.
On date and provenance, see n. 22.
5
See, eg., L. Cohn, "An Apocryphal Work Ascribed to Philo of Alexandria," JQR 10 (1898)
319; M. Delcor, "Philon (Pseudo-)," DBSup 7. 1371; Towner believes that the fourth position is
not original to the tradition ("Form Criticism," 115, esp. n. 32, and 116-17); Perrot argues that
the three-way division "est plus simple et primitive" (Les antiquits bibliques, 2. 109).

Towner noted this in passing ("Form Criticism," 115).

7
The Samaritan three-way division shared with Pseudo-Philo is widely noted in the litera-
ture; see Towner, "Form Criticism," 116; Perrot, Les antiquits bibliques, 2. 109.
8
Towner observes this contrast and refers to the justification as "a motive clause" but says
litde else about it ("Form Criticism," 115); Perrot and others do not comment. This is curious,
in the light of the fact that the contrast will, I believe, prove to be rather significant and revealing
with regard to the process of transmission and accretion experienced by the haggadah.
9
The previous commentators seem not to consider it significant that the Samaritan version
has only one justification (in the form of an exegetical paraphrase of Exod 14:12b). Towner notes
its source (Exod 14:12), emphasizing the extent to which the Memar Marq version and the
rabbinic version share common elements (particularly the responses of Moses, which are quota-
tions from Exod 14:12-14), but he does not comment on the presence of this justification in the
Samaritan version (a characteristic shared with Pseudo-Philo's version) ("Form Criticism," 116).
10
As Towner has discussed in some detail ("Form Criticism," 113-117).
78 Journal of Biblical Literature
Israel, and this position is presented in Moses' responses. The third and
fourth groups in the rabbinic version and the third group in the Samaritan
version, those who advocate fighting, are told by Moses to do nothing on their
own. In the rabbinic version, Exod 14:14 is quoted in a beautifully sym-
metrical response in two parts to the suggestions of the third and fourth
parties: The one who had said, 'Let us make war against them,' was told,
THWH will fight for you,' and the one who had said, *Let us cry out against
them,' was told, 'But you only have to be silent."*
11
Pseudo-Philo's version of the Reed Sea debate tradition differs from the
rabbinic version in the following ways: a threefold division of Israel versus a
fourfold division, the naming of the tribes in each division, justifications for
each of the three positions, and no response from Moses to any suggestion.
It differs from the Samaritan tradition in its naming of the tribes, its fully
developed justification for each position (not just one), and its lack of a
response from Moses to each suggestion. There are differences in the content
and order of each position. In Pseudo-Philo and the rabbinic version, the sug-
gestions are as follows: (1) to cast selves into the sea; (2) to go back to Egypt;
(3) to fight. The fourth suggestion, only in the rabbinic version, is to cry out
against/to disturb and confound the enemy.
12
In the Samaritan version, to go
back to Egypt is the first position (instead of the second); to flee into the
desert is the second position (instead of to cast selves into the sea); and to
fight is the third position.
Several commentators have asserted that the story of tribal debate at the
Reed Sea is older than Pseudo-Philo.
13
The extant parallels preserve versions
of the story lacking many of the elements of Pseudo-Philo's telling; yet these
parallels also have a number of characteristics in common which are absent
from Pseudo-Philo's version. In addition, the Samaritan version and the rab-
binic version individually share certain affinities with Pseudo-Philo. The
most cogent explanation for this is simply that Pseudo-Philo's version and its
rabbinic parallels must have developed independently from a common origi-
nal. An alternative would be to argue that this haggadah was generated by
Pseudo-Philo (the earliest witness), came into proto-rabbinic circles, and was
radically transformed over time. Not only was it augmented (the addition of
11
The fourth position, which a number of commentators believe to be a secondary develop-
ment, was likely added for the sake of symmetry, so that Exod 14:14 could be broken down into
two parts.
12
See Towner, "Form Criticism," 113 n. 29, 115 n. 32; and Perrot, Les antiquits bibliques,
2.109. As pointed out by others, the intent is hostile
13
See Perrot (Les antiquits bibliques, 2.109), who cites R. Le Daut, La nuit pascale (AnBib
22; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963) 343. For earlier references, see Le Daut. A
number of scholars have commented on the general antiquity of the traditions in Pseudo-Philo.
These include G. Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism (SPB 4; 2d rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill,
1973) 6, and H. Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; New York and Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1982) 1. 263.
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 79
the fourth position, "Let us cry out.. ; Moses' response to each group), but
important elements of Pseudo-Philo's telling were intentionally eliminated
(the naming of the tribes in each grouping; the expanded speeches of each
group functioning to justify each position). Advocates of this approach would
then have to explain the Samaritan version, which has affinities both with
Pseudo-Philo (three-part division; justification for one position) and with the
rabbinic version (anonymous groups; Moses' answers to each group). To
argue for a Pseudo-Philonic creation is rather less economical than to assume
the independent development of an older piece of lore in different com-
munities. One would be rather hard-pressed to explain convincingly why so
much material from Pseudo-Philo's version was excised over time (e.g., the
explanations for the three positions in the rabbinic version) or how the
Samaritan version came to have its distinct shape. The existence of this story
in a Samaritan work like Memar Marq, if it was produced in Jewish circles
(Pseudo-Philo) in the first century CE, also requires explanation.
14
Augmenting
the tradition would be no surprise, but excising much material from it some-
how seems unlikely.
15
The three responses of Moses in the rabbinic and
14
The presence of a Jewish haggadah in the Samaritan tradition requires some discussion
at this juncture. Simply put: How did it get there, and when? Recent scholarship on Samaritan-
Jewish history and the development of the biblical text suggests a much later date for the final
separation between Samaritans and Jews than had been previously assumed. Instead of the time
after the building of the temple on Gerizim, it now seems evident that the split occurred
sometime after Hyrcanus's destruction of the temple in 128 BCE. The emergence of a distinct
Samaritan Pentateuch in the second century or later supports this thesis and may in fact have
been motivated by Hyrcanus's actions. See further F. M. Gross, "Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish
History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times," HTR 59 (1966) 201-11; R. J. Coggins, Samaritans
and Jews: The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered (Atlanta: Knox, 1975); and the helpful
review essay of J. Purvis, "The Samaritans and Judaism," in Early Judaism and Its Modern Inter-
preters (ed. R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 2;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986) 81-98, from which I have derived much of this discussion. Coggins
has argued for separation at an even later date, with contacts between Jews and Samaritans con-
tinuing into the first centuries CE (pp. 138-48, 164). A separation in the first century BCE
dovetails well with evidence that the Reed Sea tradition and other Pseudo-Philonic materials
are older than the first century CE, as many scholars agree, If the Reed Sea debate in its most
primitive form goes back to the first or even second century BCE, then its presence in the
Samaritan tradition would not occasion undue surprise. An equally likely alternative hypothesis
would be to suggest a later borrowing (say, first century CE) and to admit that we know little
about the contacts Samaritans and Jews might have had in this period. The crux of the problem
simply stated is this: the Samaritan version has the responses of Moses, just like the rabbinic
version; yet it also has characteristics shared with Pseudo-Philo. If Towner is correct and the
responses of Moses are primitive, then an early borrowing is not unlikely ("Form Criticism," 113);
if, as I argue, they are secondary, then a borrowing from the rabbinic tradition at a later time
(first century CE?) must be considered. In either case a connection with the rabbinic tradition
seems evident.
15
Towner's view of the development of some aspects of the debate tradition is rather differ-
ent. He argues (1) that Pseudo-Philo and the Samaritan version likely drew upon an early, less-
developed version of this haggadah, which he believes originated in rabbinic circles ("Form
Criticism," 115-16). I am not so confident that we can say so much about the origin of the
80 Journal of Biblical Literature
Samaritan versions are virtually identical, suggesting that the two share a
common ancestor which had already developed the responses secondarily;
this ancestor itself may have been proto-rabbinic.
16
What can now be said about the original shape, the date, and the prov-
enance of this tradition? Assuming the one-time existence of a common
original version, I believe it was likely characterized by a three-part division
of Israel, anonymous parties in the debate, short suggestions for each position
without justification, and no response from Moses to each suggestion. The
three positions were likely (1) to commit suicide in the sea (variant desert);
(2) to go back to Egypt; (3) to fight the Egyptians. This hypothetical original
has been reconstructed based on a consideration of the common and unique
elements in each telling in tandem with the assumption of growth through
accretion from a simpler to a more complex narrative. This is perhaps the
closest one can come in such a reconstruction, though it is by no means
methodologically faultless. It presumes no intentional excising of material,
and this may well be an invalid assumption. One can only speculate about
the date and provenance of the original version of the story, as a number of
critics have done. Most scholars date Pseudo-Philo between 30 and 100 CE;
if Pseudo-Philo is not the author of this story, a date before 30 CE is certainly
possible. A time of resistance to foreign oppressors seems to be the most
likely background, perhaps the Maccabean revolt.
17
There certainly were
haggadah; it seems equally possible, if not more probable, that Pseudo-Philo and the rabbis drew
upon a common wealth of haggadic tradition and that each group shaped particular stories
according to its own needs and ideology. The Samaritan version, as Towner has pointed out, was
likely borrowed from a proto-rabbinic version. (2) Towner believes that the "divine responses"
( - Moses' responses to each party) preceded the suggestions of each group in the history of this
tradition: "The darshan has seized upon the idea that there was murmuring and rebellion in the
ranks; however, he has used ingenuity in tailoring the words of complaint to correspond precisely
to Moses* response. The result is a kind of haggadic 'mini-drama' in which the assertions of the
scriptural text are supplied with motivating sentences" (p. 113; my emphasis). In considering
Pseudo-Philo's version, he remarks: The divine responses . . . are omitted in Pseudo-Philo....
In place of the divine responses, the writer . . . offers a motive clause for the statement of each
of the three groups" (pp. 114-15; my emphasis). This thesis seems to assume (1) intentional
changes to a received text by Pseudo-Philo; (2) the presence of Moses' responses in the tradition
from the very beginning; (3) the creation of the "motive clause"(s) ( justifications) by Pseudo-
Philo. Certainly the third point is correct, as I hope to demonstrate in the next pages in some
detail, and applies equally to the one justification in the Samaritan version, which is probably
the work of Samaritan traditionists. The first and second points, however, seem unlikely to me.
The excising of materials is simply a less economical (and less likely) thesis than to assume
accretion in a tradition.
16
See Towner's valid criticisms of Macdonald (Memar Marqah, xxix), who does not believe
that there is any evidence of Samaritan borrowing of Jewish materials in the Memar Marq
("Form Criticism," 116 n. 34).
17
Another possible locus is the lesser-known rebellion of 6 CE, led by Zadok the Pharisee
and Judah the Galilean (Ant. 18.1.1 4-10; 20.5.2 102;/.W 2.8.1 118; Acts 5:37). According to
Josephus, the payment of the Roman tax was considered the equivalent of slavery by the rebels;
God would only help the people if they fought their oppressors themselves (Ant. 18.1.1 5).
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 81
different positions within the Jewish community during the Maccabean war
according to the extant sources. Yet there are problems with this hypothesis.
The options adumbrated in the narrative (suicide, surrender, or fight) are not
all relevant to the Maccabean struggle as it is reported in the sources.
Certainly surrender and fight are. Martyrdoms too are widely reported,
18
but
these are not the same as suicides. Josephus frequently reports suicides
during the Jewish War! In addition, the story is extant among the Samaritans,
who stayed out of the Maccabean struggle according to Josephus (Ant 12.5.5
257-64).
19
The limitations of the sources restrict what one may conclude
on the question of date and provenance of the Reed Sea debate tradition.
Though it is evident that the story is older than Pseudo-Philo and that it likely
comes from a time of resistance to foreign oppression, unfortunately little
more can be said with confidence.
Comparison of Pseudo-Philo's narrative of the Reed Sea debate with the
versions of rabbinic and Samaritan sources allows for the identification of
material in the story unique to Pseudo-Philo. This material includes the
justification for each tribal position. It is not surprising that expansion on the
text of Exodus 14 serves as the foundation for each defense. For the second
position, Pseudo-Philo's source probably had nothing more than "Let us
return to Egypt," as in the Mekilta and targums.
20
In the Liber, however, the
tribes Gad, Asher, Dan, and Naphtali say: "No, but let us go back with them;
and if they are willing to spare our lives, we will serve them!* Here the exact
nature of surrender ( = slavery) is spelled out by Pseudo-Philo. In Exod
14:11-12, the people of Israel, pursued by the Egyptians, complain to Moses.
They ask if he has brought them into the desert to die, and they make
reference to a previous conversation:
Is it because there are no graves in Egypt that you have taken us to die in
the wilderness? What have you done to us in bringing us out from Egypt?
Is this not what we said to you in Egypt: "Leave us alone and let us serve
the Egyptians?" For it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die
in the wilderness.
18
Martyrdom is reported in such texts as 1 Mace 1:62-64; 2:32-38; 4 Maccabees passim.
Some martyrs died rather than accept Gentile religion; others died rather than profane the
sabbath. Resistance is reported in such texts as 1 Mace 2:39-41; 2:50; 3:59; 9:10. The resistance
ideologies included such beliefs as to die in battle, retaining honor; never to surrender; to fight
even on the sabbath.
19
In Ant. 13.10.2 275, Josephus says that Hyrcanus destroyed Samaria partly because of
Samaritan cooperation with the kings of Syria in the past. See further the treatment of M.
Hengel, from which the previous material is derived (Judaism and Hellenism [trans. J. Bowden;
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974] 293-94). Samaritan nonparticipation in the Maccabean struggle is
likely of no significance for determining the origins of the Reed Sea debate tradition, since
Samaritan traditionists probably borrowed a proto-rabbinic version of the story.
20
The rabbinic and Samaritan witnesses are virtually alike, with "Let us return to Egypt." The
Samaritan version adds "and let us serve them" (wnSmS ytwn); this statement is similar to
Pseudo-Philo's "we will serve them" (serviemus eis). It is likely a secondary addition, like the
justification for this position developed in the Samaritan telling.
82 Journal of Biblical Literature
In v. 13, Moses answers the people: "Fear not, stand firm, and see the salva-
tion of YHWH which he will do for you today."
21
The complaint of the whole
people in Exod 14:11-12 is nowhere exactly reproduced by Pseudo-Philo. The
sentiment expressed in v. 12 in Egypt (l et us serve the Egyptians'*) and then
at the Reed Sea ("it is better for us to serve the Egyptians") is, however, the
basis for Pseudo-Philo's justification of the second position ("No, but let us
go back with them; and if they are willing to spare our lives, we will serve
them"). In the Samaritan version, Pseudo-Philo's second position is the first
position, and it also has a justificationin this case simply a paraphrasing
quotation of Exod 14:12b. The presence of this single justification in the
Samaritan telling (the other two positions lack the justification), which differs
from the justification in Pseudo-Philo's version, suggests strongly the thesis
previously developed: A story lacking the element of justification for each
position was augmentedlikely in stagesin different communities, using
the text of Exodus 14 as a source upon which to build. The Samaritan version
of the story is actually more primitive in form, at least with regard to the
justifications for each position, though it is preserved in Memar Marq, a
work much later in date than Pseudo-Philo's Liber?
2
The first position, suicide, has been supplemented with a nuanced justifi-
cation by Pseudo-Philo. His source probably had something like "Let us
throw ourselves (or "fall") into the sea," as in the rabbinic version.
23
In the
Liber, the tribes Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, and Simeon say: "Come, let us
cast ourselves into the sea. For it is better for us to die in the water than to
be killed by our enemies7 The justification for this position has been influ-
enced by the structure of the statement in Exod 14:12b; the comparative of
v. 12b (Tor it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the
wilderness") is borrowed for the suicide position in Pseudo-Philo's rendering.
Surprisingly, the contrast in the Liber is not between suicide and servitude,
but between suicide and death at the hand of the enemy. This is rather
puzzling at first glance, and I will have more to say about it.
21
(U) hamibbl 'n-qbarbn bmisrayim lqahtn ltnt bammidbr mah-zC)t 'stt lan
lhs'n mimmisryim (12) hal
y
-zeh haddbr Wer dibbam
9
tk bmisrayim lC)mr
hdal mimmenn wna'abd *et~misrayim kt tb lan 'dbd *et-misrayim mimmtn bam-
midbr. (13)
y
al-tr
y
hityassb r* 'et-yS'at yhwh 'Mer-ya'eh lkem hayym.
22
The text is likely from the second through the fourth centuries CE, according to
Macdonald, Memar Marqah, 1. xx.
23
The rabbinic variants are fairly insignificant. The verb npl is used in Mek. R. Ish. and in
the Frg. Tg., and Tg. Neof Tg Ps.~J. has the minor variant nht "descend." The Samaritan "let us
flee from the Egyptians into the desert" (n

rq mn msr*y Igw mdbrh) is an interesting major

variant with an equivalent meaning (flee into desert * into sea); it occupies the second position
in the Samaritan version (the first position is parallel to the second position in Pseudo-Philo and
the rabbinic version). These differences can best be explained as the results of oral transmission
in different contexts. The Samaritan variant is likely secondary, since all other witnesses are
more or less in agreement. A reflexive sense is given in Pseudo-Philo (mittamus nos, "Let us cast
ourselves").
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 83
The third position, to fight the enemy, was probably stated succinctly in
Pseudo-Philo's source, as in the rabbinic witnesses: "Let us make war (or
"fight") against them."
24
In the Liber, Levi, Judah, Joseph, and Benjamin say:
"Not so, but let us take up our weapons and fight with them, and God will
be with us7 The third position, in Pseudo-Philo's source as in Pseudo-Philo,
is unlike anything in Exodus 14. In contrast to the martial action advocated
by the third grouping in the various accounts under consideration, the
people of Israel in Exod 14:13-14 are told not to fear but to stand firm and
watch in silence as YHWH destroys the Egyptians: THWH will fight for you;
you only have to be silent" (Yhwh yOlhem lkem w'attem tahrsn).
Pseudo-Philo's expansion of the position of the third party is simple and
succinct: God will be with the Israelites who actively resist the enemy. The
rabbinic version, in contrast, presents both the third position (to fight) and
a fourth position (to cry out against/disturb and confound the enemy). The
fourth position seems to be nothing more than an expansion on the story,
likely for the sake of symmetry. The rabbis oppose martial action by the
Israelites as much as they oppose suicide and surrender to the Egyptians; the
third and fourth positions are answered elegantly with the statement in Exod
14:14,25 Th
e
Samaritan telling also has Moses answering the people, quoting
Exod 14:14, so it closely resembles the third and fourth positions in the
rabbinic version. The people need not do anything; YHWH will take care of
the enemy! In contrast, Pseudo-Philo favors resistance.
24
Pseudo-Philo's statement contains two notions: to take up arms and to fight the enemy (Non
sic, sed accipientes arma nostra pugnemus cum eis). The Samaritan version is very close to
Pseudo-Philo's: nqwm wngyh *m msr*y ("Let us arise and fight with the Egyptians"). The rab-
binic witnesseswith minor variantspresent a single notion rather than two:
Mek. R. Ish.: n

h mlhmh kng/dn ("Let us make war against them").

Tg, Ps.-J.: nsdrh Iqwblyhwn sdry qrb* ("Let us arrange against them the battle order")
Tg Neof: nsdr Iqblyhwn sdry qrbh.
Frg. Tg: nsdr Iqblyhwn qrb\
The most primitive version likely consisted of a single notion "Let us make war against
them" as in the Mek. and the second part of the Pseudo-Philo and Samaritan versions. The
arranging of a battle line looks like a secondary development in the targum versions.
25
See nn. 11 and 12. The negative rabbinic position on war and resistance is revealed also
in their version of the Amram story, to be discussed below (see n. 34), as well as in other texts.
The story of Yohanan ben Zakkai advising nonresistance to the people of besieged Jerusalem,
leaving the city in a coffin and appearing before Vespasian to request permission to set up a
center at Yabneh illustrates this perspective well ( *Abot R. Nat. 4; b. Git. 56b). Many thanks to
my colleague Steven Fraade for pointing me in the direction of this material. J. Neusner has
treated the story of Yohanan ben Zakkai in some detail (Development of a Legend: Studies on
the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai [SPB 16; Leiden: Brill: 1970] 116-19) as did A.
Saldarmi fJohanan ben Zakkai's Escape from Jerusalem," JSJ 6 [1975] 189-204). Another, briefer
treatment is to be found in S. Safrai: "Jewish Self-Government," in The Jewish People in the First
Century (ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern; 2 vols.; CRINT; Assen: Van Corcum; Philadelphia: Fortress,
1974) 404-5.
84 Journal of Biblical Literature
The naming of the tribes in each division is unique to Pseudo-Philo's
version of the story. I believe it functions, like the justifications, to reveal his
own position. While Reuben, Issachar, Zebulun, and Simeon present the
suicide position and Gad, Asher, Dan, and Naphtali argue for surrender and
voluntary enslavement, Levi, Judah, Benjamin, and Joseph, traditionally the
most favored tribes, have the last word and insist on fighting the enemy. This
is much in contrast to Exod 14:13-14, where the people are told to be quiet
and watch YHWH fight for them. As noted, it is also in contrast to the rabbinic
and Samaritan versions, which oppose active resistance to the enemy with
the words of Exod 14:14 by way of Moses* response. In Pseudo-Philo's version,
a tension with the biblical narrative results, a tension completely absent from
the other versions. Pseudo-Philo highlights and favors the martial position
even though it does not integrate well with the Exodus 14 narrative. Before
the people of Israel even have to fight in Pseudo-Philo's telling, God delivers
them from the Egyptians, as in Exodus 14. The reader is left somewhat
puzzled, since much has been made of the martial position. The narrative,
as a result, is rather less effective than it might have been, though it does
function to bring Pseudo-Philo's position into greater relief. The rabbinic and
Samaritan versions are more effective because the responses of Moses inte-
grate well with the narrative of Exodus 14; in fact, each answer is derived
directly from Exodus 14, as previously noted.
There is some evidence from the literature of this period that the favored
tribes of the Bible are used to identify the position of the text's writer and
the writer's community. The Qumran sectarians, for example, referred to
themselves as "the sons of Levi, the sons of Judah and the sons of Benjamin
the exile of the desert" (bn lw bn yhd bn binymn glat
hammidbr |1QM 1:2]). In addition to being favored tribes, Joseph, Judah,
and Benjamin are by tradition fighters, as in the archaic poetic lore of Genesis
49.
26
Martial traditions are associated also with Levi in early Israel, though
these do not always portray Levi in a positive light (Genesis 34; 49; Exod
32:26-29).
27
During the Second Temple period, there is evidence for priests
and Lvites playing an important role in resistance to foreign oppressors. The
Maccabees were rural priests, and there is also evidence of priestly leadership
26
For a detailed treatment of the Blessing of Jacob, see F. M. Cross and D. N. Freedman,
Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (1950; reprint, SBLDS 21; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,
1975) 69-93.
27
Note the use of the military title ngjtd, "commander," for Jehoiada the Aaronid in a muster
list in 1 Chr 12:28. For a discussion of the development of 1 Chr 12:24-39 (Eng. 23-38), see
my article "Zadok's Origins and the Tribal Politics of David," JBL 101 (1982) 185-89. On the tide
ngjui and its military associations, see F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973) 220 n. 5; B. Halpern, "The ngd in Monarchic
Israel," in The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (HSM 25; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981)
1-11.
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 85
of factions during the Jewish War.
28
Josephus himself was a general and of a
priestly family. I suggest that a combination of traditional favor for these
tribes and, secondarily, their martial associations rendered them an appro-
priate voice for the position of resistance advocated by Pseudo-Philo.
The theme of resistance to oppressors is characteristic of the whole of
Pseudo-Philo's work.
29
Elsewhere in the Liber, there are a number of impor-
tant parallels to the third position; these illustrate Pseudo-Philo's advocacy of
various types of resistance to enemy oppression and his belief that God helps
those who act and resist. One of these parallels is Pseudo-Philo's telling of
the David and Goliath story, in LAB 61. Here, Goliath threatens Saul and the
Israelites with captivity and forced idolatry: "Are you not the Israel that fled
before me when I took the ark from you and killed your priests? And now
that you are king, come down like a man and a king, and fight us. If not, I
will come to you and take you captive and make your people serve our gods"
(61:2).
30
There is nothing like this in the biblical narrative. In addition, the
Ruth/Orpah story is adapted here in a most remarkable way, emphasizing the
element of choice in idolatry (61:6).
31
In this narrative, David's active
resistance and challenge to Goliath will cause God to remove hatred and
reproach from Israel. As Goliath dies, he confesses that God killed him, not
David alone. The perspective of this text is essentially the same as that oLAB
10:3, except with an emphasis on the issue of idolatry
32
The defiant indi-
vidual or group within Israel resisting the oppressor and having faith in God
will find success; God will act with the resisters on Israel's behalf against
the enemy.
The story of Amram and the elders in LAB 9 is also an interesting case,
involving action of a different sort. The narrative was recently treated in some
detail by F. J. Murphy
33
Amram and the elders debate how best to respond
to Pharaoh's order that all Israelite male infants be killed. The elders state:
28
For example, see the case of Joshua b. Gamala and Ananus b. Ananus, who led their
supporters in battle against the Zealots in Jerusalem (J.W. 4.3.7-14 151-223).
29
G. W. E. Nickelsburg discusses this theme in some detail ("Good and Bad Leaders in
Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum" in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and
Paradigms [ed. J. J. Collins and G. W. E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980) 49-65).
30
Nonne tu es Israel qui fugisti ante conspectum meum, quando abstuli a vobis arcam et
interfeci sacerdotes vestros? Et nunc regnans descende tamquam vir et rex, et expugnabis nos.
Sin minus, ego veniam ad te, et captivare te faciam et populum tuum servire dus nostris.
31
There are parallels in rabbinic lore to some elements of the story in Pseudo-Philo; see
b. Sank. 95a; b. Sota 42b; and Ruth Rob. 2:20. Goliath is a descendant of Orpah, who is seen
in the somewhat obscure hrp' of 2 Sam 21:18-22 (hrp in 1 Chr 20:6, 8). On hrp in
its biblical context, see P. K. McCarter, // Samuel (AB 9; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984)
449-50 nn. Perrot led me to the rabbinic parallels (Les antiquits bibliques 2. 237).
32
The problem of idolatry is treated in detail by F. J. Murphy, "Retelling the Bible: Idolatry
in Pseudo-Philo," TBL 107 (1988) 275-87.
33
Murphy, "Divine Plan, Human Plan: A Structuring Theme in Pseudo-Philo," JQR 77 (1986)
5-14.
86 Journal of Biblical Literature
"Are not these our words that we spoke It is better for us to die without
having sons than that the fruit of our womb be cast into the water^^^ (9:14).
The sentiments are expressed in a slightly different form in 9:2: "For it is
better to die without sons until we see what God may da" The structure of
Exod 14:12b, a rhetorical query followed by the comparative, used to shape
the justification of the suicide position in 10:3, has been utilized in this story
as well to present the position of the elders. This statement is not attested
in the rabbinic and Josephan parallels to this tradition about Amram.
34
In
Pseudo-Philo's account, Amram acts against the wishes of the elders and in
defiance of the Egyptians, begetting Moses and having him placed in the
river in a basket. Without Amram's crucial action, there would have been no
Moses to deliver the people.
35
This story, like the narrative of the debate at
the Reed Sea, has parallels; in this case they are extant in rabbinic texts and
in Josephus. But as Murphy has pointed out, only in Pseudo-Philo's version
is there opposition by Amram. In the rabbinic parallels, Amram and the
elders agree to cease having children. In Josephus, Amram entreats God,
who answers him in a vision; the elders play no role in Josephus's version.
36
Once again, the active and defiant position is the right position according to
Pseudo-Philo; as in LAB 10, there is debate and conflict within Israel over
how best to respond to an external threat.
37
A number of stories in the Liber in addition to the narratives of Amram
and Goliath/David feature leaders who risk their lives defying oppressors or
battling enemies and for whom God responds with saving acts.
38
The char-
acter and ideology of the other stories suggest strongly that Pseudo-Philo was
responsible for the distinct shape of the Heed Sea narrative in LAB 10. The
narratives of Amram, David, and Abraham not only reflect the same
resistance-oriented or even martial ideology as the Reed Sea narrative, but
even show evidence of the same biblical exegesis used to build the narrative.
The position of the elders in the Amram story in LAB 9:14 (see also 9:2) was
clearly shaped by the use of the structure of Exod 14:12b (rhetorical query
followed by the comparative), as was the justification for the suicide position
34
Ant. 2.9.2-4 205-23; b. Sota 12a; Exod. Rob. 1.13; Num. Rob. 13.20; Qoh. Rob. 9.17;
Pesiq. R. 43all brought to my attention by Murphy ("Divine Plan," 11 n. 14).
35
As noted previously by Nickelsburg ("Leaders," 53).
38
Murphy's full treatment is found in "Divine Plan," 10-12. Murphy discusses Amram's role
as "dissenter," comparing him to Abraham earlier in Pseudo-Philo's narrative.
37
Murphy neither notes the use made of the structure of Exod 14:12 in Pseudo-Philo's version
of the Amram story, nor does he observe that the theme of conflict within Israel, worked into
the story by Pseudo-Philo, is common to chap. 10 as well. Nickelsburg has examined the themes
of internal Israelite conflict and trust in Cod in some detail: "Characteristic of most of these
stories is an explicit contrast between the protagonist's bold action and the inaction, fidgeting,
or avoidance of responsibility on the part of others. . . . For Pseudo-Philo, trust in Cod is always
trust put into action, and often that action places the actor in mortal danger" ("Leaders," 61,62).
38
For example, the stories of Kenaz in LAB 27:7-14 and Abraham in LAB 6. See the excellent
discussion of this aspect of Pseudo-Philo's ideology in Nickelsburg, "Leaders," passim.
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 87
in LAB 10:3. In Pseudo-Philo's Abraham narrative, the speech of Joktan, chief
of the Jewish leaders, sounds much like that of the second group of tribes
in LAB 10.
39
In the light of these considerations, the view that Pseudo-Philo
inherited the Reed Sea story already in its martial shape seems less than
cogent.
II
The problem of dating Pseudo-Philo's Liber has received considerable
attention in recent decades. Though virtually all modern commentators now
agree that the work hails from the first century CE, disagreement tends to
focus on whether or not it is to be dated to the period of the Jewish War and
its aftermath or to a time before the war, in the earlier part of the century?
0
It has even been suggested that some of the work may come from the prewar
period, having undergone redaction after 70 CE.
41
Recent discussion has
tended to focus on several passages of interest (19:7; 22:8-9; 32:3);
42
on
3 9
Joktan: "No, but let them be given a period of seven days, and if they repent of their evil
plans and are willing to cast in bricks with you, they may live" (6:6; Non sic, sed dabitur eis
spacium dierum Septem, et erit si penituerint super consiliis suis pessimis, et voluerint
vobiscum mittere lapides, vivant). The second group at the Reed Sea: "No, but let us go back
with them; and if they are willing to spare our lives, we will serve them" (10:3; Non, sed
revertamur cum eis, et si voluerint nobis donare vitam, serviemus eis).
4 0
Murphy notes the widespread acceptance of a first-century date for the Liber ("Retelling
the Bible," 275), as does Nickelsburg (The Bible Rewritten and Expanded," in Jewish Writings
of the Second Temple Period [ed. . E. Stone; Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984]
109-10) and Vermes (Scripture and Tradition, 6). At the end of the last century, Cohn argued
that the work should be dated after the destruction of the temple, mainly of the basis of his
understanding of 19:7 ("Apocryphal Work," 325-27); he was followed by, among others, M. R.
James in 1917 (The Biblical Antiquities ofPho [reissued, New York: Ktav, 1971] 29-33) and by
Delcor in 1961 ("Philon [Pseudo-]," DBSup 7.1370-71). More recendy, G. Delling has argued that
the work be dated to ca. 100 ("Von Morija zum Sinai [Pseudo-Philo Liber Antiquitatum
Biblicarum 32,1-10]," JSJ 2 [1971] 18), and Nickelsburg to the period just after 70 ("Leaders,"
62-64, and "The Bible Rewritten," 109). M. Wadsworth also favors a date after 70 ("A New
Pseudo-Philo," JJS 29 [1978] 188-91). Bogaert (Les antiquits bibliques 2. 66-74), L. Feldman
("Prolegomenon" to the reissue of James, Biblical Antiquities, xxviii-xxxi), and Harrington
("Pseudo-Philo," 299-300; "Palestinian Adaptations of Biblical Narratives and Prophecies," in
Early Judaism, 245) have all argued for a date before 70; Harrington has proposed to date the
work to the time of Jesus, whereas Bogaert would date it close to 70. J. Strugnell ("Philo [Pseudo]
or Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum," Encjud 13. 408) has also proposed a date close to 70.
41
Koester, Introduction 1. 263.
4t
For a synopsis of the various positions on 19:7, see Murphy, "Retelling the Bible," 285. Cohn
believed that 19:7 alludes to the events of 70 CE, though ostensibly it refers to the destruction
of the first temple He insisted that the date given, the 17th of Tammuz, can only refer to the
Second Temple, citing m. Ta
1
an. 4:6, which states a breach was made in Jerusalem's walls on
that day ("Apocryphal Work," 325-27). M. Wadsworth has recently argued in fevor of such an
interpretation of 19:7, emphasizing 19:10 as well. He believes that locus in 19:7 refers to
Jerusalem and that the unmentioned incident on the 17th of Tammuz is the cessation of the
daily offering, mentioned in m. Ta 'an. 4:6 for the 17th of Tammuz ("A New Pseudo-Philo,"
88 Journal of Biblical Literature
parallels between Pseudo-Philo and 4 Ezra/2 Baruch;
43
on the biblical text
of Pseudo-Philo ("Palestinian" text type);
44
on his emphasis on capable
leadership;
45
and on his apparent silence about the destruction of the
temple.
46
Scholarly discussion of the date of Pseudo-Philo has more or less
reached an impasse. Pseudo-Philo's presentation of the event at the Reed Sea
is a valuable source for understanding his ideology; let us now consider
whether or not this analysis of LAB 10:3 can contribute something to the
discussion of Pseudo-Philo's date and provenance.
Given the assumption of the antiquity of the debate tradition on which
Pseudo-Philo builds, and given the general consensus among scholars that
the Liber is be dated between roughly 30 CE and 100 CE, when in this
seventy-year period would the constellation of sentiments expressed in 10:3
be most relevant? The Jewish War is the most likely context that might have
189-91). Against this position, see Bogaert, Les antiquits bibliques 2. 67-70; idem, Apocalypse
de Baruch I (SC 144; Paris: Cerf, 1969) 252-58; Feldman, "Epiiegomenon to Pseudo-Philo's
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB)? JJS 25 (1974) 305-6; and Harrington, "Pseudo-Philo," 299.
All argue that 19:7 cannot be used to establish the date of Pseudo-Philo's work, and I concur
with this view. As Feldman has pointed out, 19:7 speaks of the utter destruction of the city
(demolientur eum) on the 17th of Tammuz. According to Josephus, the city was taken gradually
by the Romans. He gives dates for each event in Jerusalem's gradual fall, but nowhere mentions
the 17th of Tammuz, though he does tell us that the continual offering ended on this date (J.W.
6.2.1 94), in agreement with the later witness m. Ta'an. 4:6. The number 740 cannot be made
to refer to 70 CE even remotely (Cohn was forced to emend the text to 850, following S. 'CAam
Rab.); when Feldman subtracts 740 from 950, the approximate date of Solomon's completion of
the temple, he comes up with 210, a date not too far off from Antiochus's defiling of the temple.
Rabbinic sources provide no solution to the problem of 19:7. In any case, neither temple was
said to have been destroyed on the 17th of Tammuz in any source. LAB 22:8-9 mentions
sacrifices ordained by Joshua "to this dayT This passage suggests that the temple still stands; 22:8
must be seriously considered in any discussion of 19:7, 10. LAB 32:3, mentioned by Bogaert as
relevant for discussion of date, does not seem to be very revealing one way or another.
43
Though the numerous parallels between LAB and the post-70 works 2 Baruch/4 Ezra have
long been noted, they provide no clear indication of the date of Pseudo-Philo. James listed the
parallels in some detail (Biblical Antiquities, 46-58). Strugnell ("Philo [Pseudo]," 408) and others
have argued that Pseudo-Philo was used by the authors of 2 Baruch/4 Ezra as a source. Both
Bogaert (Les antiquits bibliques 2. 72) and Harrington ("Pseudo-Philo," 299) point out that,
stylistic similarities aside, the issues of Pseudo-Philo diiFer from those of the other two works.
Pseudo-Philo's silence regarding the destruction of the temple is much in contrast to the treat-
ment of this subject in 2 Baruch/4 Ezra. See further these discussions.
44
Harrington, 'The Biblical Text of Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum? CBQ 33
(1971) 1-17. Harrington argues that Pseudo-Philo used a Palestinian rather than a Babylonian or
an Egyptian text type. He notes that the evidence is stronger for materials from Joshua, Judges,
and 1 Samuel than for materials from the Pentateuch. The text used is related to the text on
which the Lucianic or proto-Lucianic revisions to LXX were based. The biblical evidence from
Murabba'at and Nahal Hever strongly suggest that an authoritative biblical text for all commu-
nities had come into use by the early second century; variant texts would likely have been
suppressed by the beginning of the second century. See further F. M. Cross, "The History of
the Biblical Text in the Light of Discoveries in the Judaean Desert," H TR 57 (1964) 281-99.
45
Discussed in detail by Nickelsburg ("Leaders," 49-65).
46
See n. 42 for the literature on this problem.
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 89
given rise to Pseudo-Philo's version of the debate. In the following analysis,
this hypothesis will be tested.
The extant evidence suggests that the first position, suicide, with the
explanation that it is better to die by one's own hand than to be killed by the
enemy, fits best as an option for action during the Jewish War. A number of
individual and mass suicides during the struggle are reported by Josephus.
These include the five thousand who jumped to their deaths during the siege
of Gamala in Galilee (67 CE) ( J.W 4.1.10 79-80), the suicides of the thirty-
nine "persons of distinction" at Jotapata (J.W 3.8.7 387-91), of Meir
b. Belgas and Joseph b. Dalaeus in the flames of the Jerusalem temple ( J.W
6.5.1 280), and the well-known and much-touted suicide of the Sicarii on
Masada in 74 CE ( J.W 7.9.1-2 389-406).
47
It is now widely recognized that
there are always potential problems with using Josephan reporting as source
material for historical reconstruction. In this instance, however, he is virtually
the only source available and must be used with care and caution.
48
As noted
earlier, the first position is expressed by an interesting contrast: the choice
given is suicide or dying at the hand of the enemy. According to Josephus's
reports on the mass suicides of the war, the choice, where it is made explicit,
is usually between slavery ( = surrender, acceptance of Roman hegemony)
and dying free; only in the case of Gamala is it between suicide and certain
death at the enemy's hand.
49
The structure of the narrative suggests that
Pseudo-Philo opposes the suicide position; it is presented first and not by
47
Josephus gives no exact date for the fall of Masada. On the evidence for the date 74 CE,
see W. Eck, "Die Eroberung von Masada und eine neue Inschrift des L. Flavius Silva Nonius
Bassus," ZNW60 (1969) 282-89, followed by Feldman ("Masada: A Critique of Recent Scholar-
ship," in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty
[ed. J. Neusner; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975] 3. 247) and D. M. Rhoads (Israel in Revolution:
6-74 CE. [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976] 119 n. 40). Attempts to dismiss Josephus's reporting of
events at Masada as a complete fabrication have not won much favor among scholars. At the
same time, few doubt that Josephus built his elaborate and dramatic narrative around minimal
reports. See further the fine discussion and critique by Feldman, "Masada," 235-47, and the
excellent treatment of S. J. D. Cohen, "Masada: Literary Tradition, Archaeological Remains, and
the Credibility of Josephus," JJS 33 (1982) 385-405.
48
Cohen deals with these issues in depth ("Masada"). As he points out, "collective suicides"
are a motif in ancient reporting ("collective suicide did not characterize any particular people
or any particular part of the ancient world" [p. 390]). But Cohen concludes that the Masada
story, though shaped thoroughly by Josephus, "has a basis in fact. . . many Jews committed
suicide during the crucial moments of the war of 66-70" (p. 399). Josephus's biases are discussed
by Rhoads (Israel in Revolution, 13-14).
49
The contrast between dying free and surrender to the Romans ("slavery") is explicit for
Jotapata ( J.W. 3.8.4 357), Meir and Joseph ( J.W. 6.5.1 280), and Masada ( J.W. 7.8.6 323-36).
At Camala we are told that the Romans were taking no prisoners, so that five thousand Jews
killed themselves rather than be killed ( J.W. 4.1.10 71-80). Interestingly, Josephus's report on
Camala states that some families fled the citadel and died after jumping a cliff; some died
fighting; some tried to surrender. These are the three options outlined by Pseudo-Philo in his
tribal debate.
90
Journal of Biblical Literature
favored tribes. But does he parody this viewpoint when he contrasts suicide
with dying at the hand of the enemy? This is possible, particularly if he is
using the first position to allude to a mass suicide by a group who believed
they were choosing to die free rather than accept Roman rule (the Jotapata
group? the Sicarii? others about whom we have no record?).
50
But it is equally
possible that in his justification, he may be alluding to the events at Camala
in 67 CE, where the choice, at least according to Josephus, really was suicide
or certain death at the hand of the enemy. Ultimately, the question cannot
be answered with any confidence. Even assuming a Jewish War locus for
Pseudo-Philo's treatment, it is not possible to know whether he is intending
an allusion to a particular historical event or simply evoking the mood of the
Jewish War by relating the debate tradition with its suicide position as one
option for the whole community. As a number of scholars have pointed out,
though suicide is opposed in later rabbinic halakah,
51
it appears to have been
a viable option in some communities in the period of the Jewish War.
52
It is
debated in Josephus
53
and Pseudo-Philo, and both writers oppose it.
The second position, surrender and voluntary enslavement, may represent
a subtle critique of those who chose peace rather than to pursue the war with
Rome. Josephus's narrative frequently mentions communities and individuals
prepared to submit to Roman rule; he tells us that this was considered
tantamount to voluntary enslavement by the Zealots and the Sicarii and that
advocates of this position were treated ruthlessly ( J.W 4.7.1 389-97; 7.8.1
254-55).
54
In his description of Jotapata, Josephus presents himself
defending surrender as the most appropriate response after a defeat, in con-
trast to suicide, which is a sin against nature and an impious act in his view.
In fact Josephus's JeuHsh War advocates the peace position over against the
views of the war factions. The justification provided by Pseudo-Philo for the
second position emphasizes the relationship of surrender and voluntary
reenslavement: "if they are willing to spare our lives, we will serve them." This
sounds very much like it may be a parody of the arguments of those favoring
50
It is crucial to emphasize once again that one can only speculate at this juncture It is
difficult to assume with any certainty that many mass suicides occurred during the war, let alone
be confident that one can understand their ideological underpinnings.
51
See b. Sanh. 74a on the later, rabbinic discussion, as well as the rabbinic version of the Beed
Sea tradition under discussion.
52
See the discussion of Feldman, "Masada," 239-43; and T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian
and his Society (London: Duckworth, 1983) 169. As Feldman points out, suicide may well have
been a noble choice to sectarians like the Sicarii. That Pseudo-Philo develops the suicide
position as one possible option in a debate between the tribes is of interest in light of this
observation.
53
Jotapata ( J.W 3.8.4-5 355-82).
54
On the Zealots, Sicarii, and other war factions, see the detailed treatment of Rhoads (Israel
in Revolution, 94-149) and the earlier, groundbreaking study of Morton Smith ("Zealots and
Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations," HTR 64 [1971] 1-19).
Olyan: The Israelites Debate Their Options 91
peace during the Jewish War, people who may have advocated awaiting the
messiah instead of armed resistance to Home
58
Was Pseudo-Philo writing during the war but before the destruction of the
temple? Factionalism and debate within Israel are highlighted in 10:3 as they
are elsewhere in the Liber (Abraham, Amram, Kenaz), and this may suggest
that all options (cooperate, resist, commit suicide in the face of adversity) are
still open to the Jewish community. After 70, this would not have been the
case Josephus's reports consistently feature widespread conflict and faction-
alism among Jews. If we can believe Josephus, the Jewish War was on one
level a civil war (J.W 4.3.2 131-34).
5e
Even families were divided on the
issue of resistance ( J.W 4.3.2 132). Though scholars may doubt the value
of some aspects of Josephus's war narrative (the extended speeches; the
polemical descriptions and moral evaluations of Jewish factions and their
leaders), there appears to be little reason to question his observations that
divisions and conflict were rife within the community. The ultimate value of
the suicide reports remains, however, questionable.
Since the value of our major source for reconstructing the Jewish War is
open to question on a number of accounts, it is rather difficult to take a firm
position on the value of LAB 10:3 for establishing the date and provenance
of Pseudo-Philo's work. But if we accept Josephus's broad picture, it appears
that Pseudo-Philo may well have given the Reed Sea tradition a distinctly
polemical shape evoking the issues and conflicts of the Jewish War. Pseudo-
Philo looks very much like a revolt sympathizer, perhaps connected to one
of the war factions. The evidence suggests that he expanded and reshaped
the older tradition of debate at the Reed Sea, drawing on the narrative of
Exodus 14 to do so; his version of the debate may have addressed directly the
beleaguered and divided community during the Jewish War?
7
55
The antiresistance position lives on in rabbinic circles; see the discussion in n. 25.
M
See further Rhoads (Israel in Revolution, 175-78), who discusses the role of class differ-
ences in inner-community conflict.
57
This article grew out of a lecture delivered in my Yale College introduction to the Hebrew
Bible and its interpretation in the fall of 1987. I would like to express my gratitude to my
students, whose sharp critical minds are always a source of stimulation, and whose enthusiasm
for biblical studies tends to rub off on me from time to time. I would like to thank Steven Fraade
and John Strugnell for taking the time to read a very early draft of this paper, each made helpful
suggestions, some of which were incorporated here. As always, responsibility for errors (of fact
or judgment) remains my own.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
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.