The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

assertion from which the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from its ultimate
deliberation [Durchdenkung] is that Josephus never existed at all, but only his source; because
who can guarantee to us that the Autobiography and all the other passages that report about
Josephus really have him in mind and not his source?
It is obvious, after all, that 16.187 reports about the very same man who forms the
subject of the Autobiography. The author of 16.187 affirms, with reference to his ancestry, that
he is closely related to the Hasmonean kings, but Josephus says of himself not only, as Otto
thinks, that his family belongs to the first of the 24 priestly courses, but he adds to this that on
his mother’s side he belongs within the family of the Hasmoneans from which she stems (Life
2). But in addition: the author of 16.187 accounts for his unconditional love of historical truth
by his priestly descent, and from Josephus himself we know that he derived his suitability as a
historian from his priestly descent and he wrote his self-portrayal to prove just this (cf. page
34). Under such circumstances it is absolutely definite that in 16.186/7 no one other than
Josephus is speaking about himself. But now, since Josephus explicitly contrasts himself here
to the presentation of Nicolaus of Damascus, which was positively inclined towards the
Herodians, and his [132] contrast to it does not derive from some contradictory sources, but
rather from his personal attitude towards the Herodians on the one hand and the Hasmoneans
on the other, so it follows that Josephus was induced by his own personal opinion to give his
Antiquities an anti-Herodian trend, be it that he chose for himself a source to this purpose,
which followed the same bias, be it that he himself imposed an anti-Herodian bias into a source
that was otherwise oriented. But the main point, which has has until now been
completely unrecognized, is this: Josephus covers the direction of his work
with his person; that by pushing the Tendenzen back exclusively onto the
sources one follows the wrong path entirely.
And this incredibly important discovery corresponds perfectly indeed with what we
have determined about the War and the Life: whereas the presentation of the War was tailored
completely to the personality of the Herodian Agrippa, the later additions and revisions
showed an attitude that was inimical to Agrippa. Here, however, in the relationship of
Josephus to Agrippa it is impossible from the outset that any intervening sources could have
been swept in; furthermore, we could reveal time and again that Josephus only reworked his
original material in order to bring his new bias into the work. And if, in the historical parts
116