The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, vol. 129 byReinhard PummerReview by: Doug FinkbeinerJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 131, No. 1 (January-March 2011), pp. 183-184Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23044757 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.105 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:31:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Brief Reviews of Books 183

from Greco-Roman philosophy, while ostensibly based

upon the Jewish Torah, and it was this method and this

theology that Alexandrian Christianity inherited from

Philo and imposed upon the primitive Christian tradi

tion. Thus Origen, an Alexandrian, who was trained in

the literalist, scholarly method of textual criticism, but

who was also a Platonist and adopted Philo's method of

allegorical interpretation, applied both methods to his

work on the Old Testament, the one in his learned com

mentaries, the other in his homilies. Just as in Homeric

studies, so among subsequent Christian scholars there

were two schools of interpretation, the literalists and the

allegorists, and from the time of Augustine onward the

allegorists won out.

From the perspective of modern critical scholar

ship, interpretation has to do with exegesis of the literal

sense of the text, and anything else is inappropriate. While some of the Church Fathers and scholars tried

to maintain some balance between the two modes of

interpretation, they are ultimately incompatible, and

for this reason, it seems to me, they should be treated

quite separately from each other. In the histories of

Homeric scholarship, a minimal amount of attention is

given to the philosophical and esoteric treatment of the

text, while most attention is given to the text-critical,

linguistic, and historical context of author and setting. Likewise, the literal/historical treatment of the biblical

text should be the primary focus of a history of biblical

interpretation. This would have resulted in a far greater focus on Jewish biblical scholarship in late antiquity and the Middle Ages and far less on the theologians from Augustine to John Wycliffe.

Apart from identifying the citations of the many his

torical sources, the books are sparse in documentation.

To make up for this there is an appendix of "Selected

Resources and Readings," but the bibliography does not

necessarily reflect the discussion in the text. There also seem to be a large number of "scribal" errors that should

be cleaned up in a second printing.

John Van Seters

University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus. By Reinhard

Pummer. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, vol. 129. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Pp. xv

+ 356. €109.

Reinhard Pummer, who teaches in the Department of Classics and Religious Studies at the University of

Ottawa, has written books and articles about the Samar

itans over several decades. Therefore, his latest work, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, comes from an

author well versed in the scholarly debates and issues

surrounding the Samaritans. Pummer argues that this

particular volume "is an attempt to understand Jose

phus' texts about the Samaritans in the light of the new

insights into the Jewish historian's methods and aims

and the results of renewed research into ancient texts

and archaeological remains" (pp. 1-2; cf. 65). His pri

mary purpose is to reconstruct Josephus' literary portrait of the Samaritans through an analysis of the passages in

Josephus which reference the Samaritans and "to under

stand them in the light of his objectives in writing War

and Antiquities" (p. 281). Although historical recon

struction and source criticism are not the primary focus

of his work, both approaches are threaded throughout Pummer's volume.

Before embarking on an analysis of the pertinent

passages in Josephus (chapters one through eight), Pum

mer discusses a potpourri of interrelated topics in his

lengthy introductory chapter. These topics include issues

directly connected to Josephan studies (e.g., Josephus'

terminology for the Samaritans, Josephus as an author

writing to a particular audience, previous Josephan studies on the Samaritans), as well as an overview of

early non-Josephan sources about the Samaritans (e.g., 2 Maccabees, the New Testament) and archaeological evidence concerning the Samaritans. Concerning termi

nological designations, Pummer argues that Josephus can use the Greek words "XanapsTc;" and "SanapgiTai"

interchangeably to refer either to the Samaritans, who

are "members of the Gerizim community," or the

Samarians, who are "pagan inhabitants of Samaria" (p.

256). I found his introductory chapter to be both infor

mative in subject matter and balanced in analysis. In chapters one through eight Pummer orga

nizes his analysis of the pertinent Josephan passages within a historically chronological framework. Thus, he begins with material from Antiquities rather than

War. Since the majority of Josephan references to the

Samaritans occur solely in Antiquities, synoptic com

parisons between War and Antiquities are limited to

chapters seven and eight. In the first six chapters Pum

mer explores references to the Samaritans at the time

of the exile (chapter one: Ant. 9.288-91; 10.183-85), the return from exile (chapter two: Ant. 11.19-20;

11.84-88; 11.97; 11.114-19; 11.174-75), Alexan

der (chapter three: Ant. 11.297-347), Tobiah (chapter four: Ant. 12.156, 168, 175), Antiochus IV Epiphanes

(chapter five: Ant. 12.257-64), and disputes in Egypt

(chapter six: Ant. 12.7-10; 13.74-79). While in chap ter seven Pummer examines the synoptic account of the

destruction of the Gerizim Temple (War 1.62-63; Ant.

13.254-56), he reserves the last chapter for an extended

discussion of both synoptic and solitary accounts from

the Roman period. These accounts include events con

nected with the Herod dynasty (War 1.562 // Ant. 17.20; War 1.592 II Ant. 17.69-70; War 2.111 II Ant. 17.342

44), the scattering of human bones in the temple area

(Ant. 18.29-30), Pontius Pilate (Ant. 18.85-89), ten

sions between the Samaritans and the Galileans (War 2.232-46 // Ant. 20.118-36), and the massacre of the

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.105 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:31:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

184 Journal of the American Oriental Society 131.1 (2011)

Samaritans on Mt. Gerizim (War 3.307-15). Pummer

ends his book with a summary of his findings. Pummer's volume is commendable on several

fronts. I found his organization of the individual chap ters to be clear and his handling of scholarly opinions to be thorough in the areas of archaeology (e.g., pp.

128-52), source criticism, and historical reconstruction.

Although he often argues for a particular interpreta

tion, he is careful to remain non-committal when the

evidence is unclear to him. For instance, sometimes he

contends that Josephus is clearly referencing the Samar

itans ("Samaritans must be intended . . . p. 256), and

other times he is uncertain whether Josephus is referring to the Samarians or the Samaritans ("it is more prudent to suspend judgment as to who the av8p£<; Eauapevrai were . . . p. 230). While he engages with a variety of

source-critical hypotheses throughout his volume (e.g.,

pp. 116-18, 129-31, 139-50, 205-6), he is suspicious of unsubstantiated theories (e.g., p. 165). Specifically, Pummer argues that Josephus' skill as an author often

obscures any hope of retrieving non-extant underly

ing sources (p. 285). In addition, throughout his work

Pummer weighs the value of particular passages for his

torical reconstruction (e.g., pp. 158, 166-78, 183-86,

188-96, 202-5, 209-10). In the end, he sees limited

value in reconstructing Samaritan history from Josephus

(p. 284). I found his negative stance toward historical

reconstruction to be viable but not highly persuasive.

My greatest disappointment with Pummer's work,

though, is his paucity of discussion in the area of lit

erary analysis. I don't mean to suggest that the work

is devoid of literary analysis. For instance, in chapter

eight his synoptic analysis of Josephus' works is com

mendable. Although I see a stronger anti-Samaritan bent

in Antiquities than Pummer does, I found his discus

sion on Josephus' portrait of the Samaritans as neutral

in War and more negative in Antiquities (pp. 282, 285) to be engaging and viable. He helpfully argues that

the Samaritan portrait stands as a foil for Josephus' more positive portrait of the Jews (p. 285). All of this

is beneficial. The problem is that he spends too little

time connecting this portrait to Josephus' larger literary

agenda. He claims that the purpose of his study is "to

analyze Josephus' passages about the Samaritans within

his oeuvre as a whole and to understand them in the

light of his objectives in writing War and Antiquities"

(p. 281). According to Pummer, this includes "paying close attention to the audience of his works" (p. 55).

However, he fails to meaningfully engage in a sus

tained discussion of the Samaritan portrait and larger

literary themes in Josephus' works. Although Pummer

highlights the importance of Josephus' audience in his

introduction (pp. 59-64), he fails to discuss them in the

remainder of his work. As I came to the end of chapters two, three, four, six, and eight, I found myself disap

pointed with the treatment of the literary dimension in

contrast to other concerns, such as historical reconstruc

tion and source criticism. While I agree that the Samari

tans occupy only a minor role in Josephus' oeuvre, Pummer should have spent more time making connec

tions to larger Josephan literary agendas in light of his

stated purpose at the beginning and end of his volume.

Nonetheless, I heartily recommend this well-researched

work on the Samaritans for both scholars and students.

Doug Finkbeiner

University of Pennsylvania

Les intellectuels bengalis et I'imperialisme britannique.

Bengali Intellectuals and British Imperialism. By France Bhattacharya. College de France Pub

lications de l'lnstitut de Civilisation Indienne, ser.

in-8°, vol. 78. Paris: De Boccard, 2010. Pp. 399.

In this descriptive and analytical, more than theo

retically inflected, volume, France Bhattacharya retraces

the lives and works of three Bengali intellectuals who

wrestled in distinct ways, not only with the political and

economic, but also and preeminently, the cultural weight of the colonial regime from the late eighteenth century to the end of the nineteenth. However much has already been written about Rammohan Roy, he remained an

indispensable part of this study, as the standard bearer for

social and religious reform. Bankim Chandra Chatterji is renowned as a man of letters whose words inspired the nationalist movement. Wedged between those two

Bengali intellectual stalwarts in Bhattacharya's book is

the more conservative Bhudev Mukherji, who remained

little known outside Bengal. From the juxtaposition of

these three personalities emerges an interesting map of

paths in which Bengali intellectuals chose to confront

the colonial mode.

After a brief introduction that sets the social stage of Calcutta and Bengal at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the volume reviews in three

parts of slightly increasing length the three protagonists in chronological order. The ambient world Rammohan

(1772-1833) knew was considerably different from that

of the other two. It was that of the Company Raj, when

what had been a mercantile enterprise was transformed

into a territorial power. It was a time when a wealthy

Bengali intellectual could take the lead in achieving

religious and social reforms, and arouse intense interest

when he traveled abroad. The imperial yoke was heavier

on Bhudev (1827-1894) and Bankim (1838-1894). By then the British in India had succumbed to the illusion of

permanence. Both Bengali thinkers, who were employ ees of the colonial government as a teacher and as a

civil servant respectively avoided voicing direct opposi tion to the political power of their masters. They could

even consider that, in the short term, British domination

might have some beneficial effect. But they refused to

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.105 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 19:31:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions