The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

War – Antiquities. A difference exists only insofar as Josephus himself was involved in the
actions [in the former case] and so the first recording of the events is also traced back to him,
whereas [in the latter case] he was standing before a tradition formed by others about the
more distant past.
Now, whereas the relationship of the War and the Life, which we have examined in
detail, had never been seriously investigated before, there does exist extensive scholarly
research about the connections between the War and the Antiquities. 45 The basic assumption
from which this research very generally proceeded is that, in both these works, Josephus has
quite mechanically copied his sources that lay right before him; so Juster 46 could enter as a
finding of his investigations: Les antiquités, dans la partie qui nous intéresse — the
last books are meant — valent en général ce que valent ses sources. In doing so, one is
caught up in the same error in which our entire assessment of sources in the field of ancient
history is currently ensnared, to its detriment. In my Polybius I have contended in vain against
this mode of examination [Betrachtungsart] and in one case I have identified in detail the
significance that is inherent in the authorial personality as such. Certainly the stratification
[Zergliederung] of sources will be able to be continued in the previous mode as well, but this
investigation can only be successfully applied if the nature of the extant historical work and of
the author who stands behind it has been identified. For histories of literature, compendia, and
investigations, what purpose is there in actually dealing with “the life” of the historians before
examining their works, if one does not really view these [historians] as anything [130] other
than copying machines? With decided consistency, Walter Otto and Gustav Hölscher, in their
far-reaching investigations of Josephus, have drawn [these] last conclusions from this view,
and along with that [they have] unwittingly proven their impossibility.
In his well-known polemic against Nicolaus of Damascus, who has coloured his
historical work with a strong partisan [bias] out of obsequiousness towards Herod (Ant. 15.183
45 Destinon, die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd. Arch. XII—XVII = Jüd. Krieg I, Kiel 1882.
Fr. Schemann, die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd. Arch. XVIII—XX = Polemos II, 7-14,
Marburg 1887; Niese, Historische Zeitschrift, New Series, vol. 40, 1896, page 218 ff.; Drüner,
Untersuchungen über Josephus, Marburg, 1896, page 91 ff.; G. Hoelscher, Die Quellen des Josephus für
die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege, 1904; G. Hoelscher, Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie, s. v.
Josephus, col. 1982 ff.; Walter Otto, ibid., s. v. Herod, col. 10 ff.
46 Jean Juster, Les juifs dans l'Empire romain : leur condition juridique, économique et sociale. vol. I,
Paris, 1914, page 12 f.
114