Johanan Ben Zakkai and how he Obtained Yavneh:Experiment in Method

Johanan Ben Zakkai and how he obtained Yavneh
The two approaches of Rubenstein and Alon are different but complementary to one another. Rubentein selects one text relating the story and seeks to understand it firstly in its internal literary meaning and context. Only having done this does he move outside the text to get a wider view of it didactic purpose in the hands of the redactors of the Talmud. The version he took was that of the BT Gittin 56. Having analysed the story into 8 distinct section labeled A-H he looks into the various links between the sections, interesting themes which run through the texts such as food and famines and locusts; He looks for plays on words, coherence of the narrative and for signs which might point to various sources underlying the text. In a sense his intention is to understand what the story teller was trying to teach with what he related and what the redactors wanted to teach by their additions to the story or their placing of the story in a particular groups of stories, for example “destruction” stories. He explores themes such as meekness and halakic judgments and and the authrority of Rabbinic law vis a vis Torah. His last act was to compare directly a completely different version of the story.
Alon’s approach was different. He absorbed all the versions of the story and made sure he understood them well. He brought alongside a historical narrative, in this case Josephus (although he mentions others) and sought to understand the historical causation of the events. He is interested in the events of the movement of Johanan Ben Zakkai to Yavneh and why he went to Yavneh. For him the version of the story selected by Rubenstein is just one of a number of stories for his interest is to know what happened back then in the first century which caused Zakkai to set up in Yavneh. Even as Rubenstein through his discussion of the literary context and the cultural context addressed issues not touched by Alon, because of the nature of his study, such as Rabbinic authority to abrogate Torah, or the issue of Rabbis acting and not sitting around passive or of Rabbis when acting wisely not foolishly as Zakkai was accused of doing; So Alon brought in issues not addressed by Rubenstein. For example he mentioned that some think Titus was the person Zakkai spoke to and not Vespasian,
The fact that there are so many versions and each with its own slant but with contradictions which are in a sense historically irreconcilable did not stop Alon from assuming the event did happen in one way or another. Nor did it stop Rubenstein bringing out some interesting insights into the text which a cursory reading would not bring out, perhaps doing a little bit of “eisogesis” and seeing things in the story which the redactors did not intend. Perhaps other issues should have been considered such as the method of Zakkai (or Abba Siqra) lying to get out or of him deceiving and perhaps deserting his flock, his Jewish brethren, but at least the second charge probably wouldn’t hold water. And then there is the question of who made the prophecy, the priest Johanan ot the priest Josephus? I can not help but wonder if these two relatives (I assume they are both from the line of Aaron, please inform if I am wrong) are one and the same person, but who knows maybe they both prophesied Vespasians ascension. One went on to found Halakic Judaism and the other to preserve the History of Judaism. Of the two approaches I would first attend to Rubenstiesn, if I had the language, for it is more concrete. I felt that Alon had too many assumptions and was very cynical towards Josephus. Indeed it would appear that he was very nationalist and anti Roman and these biases were running right throughout his treatment. It is perhaps this subjectivity and the number of assumptions which make up the historical reading which makes it necessary to first really read the texts and only then to do the comparisons