The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

demand, which he considered to be beneath his dignity, he departed from Diospolis. Pompey is
angered by this and decides upon military action against Aristobulus. It is impossible that this
report be taken over by the Antiquities. First of all, the real premises are already missing, since
according to Antiquities 30 Hyrcanus also had attempted to bribe Scaurus, so that the
comparison given in the War between δίχα δωρεῶν (131) and πεποιθὼς τῇ Σκαύρου δωροδοκίᾳ
(132) became impossible here. In addition, however, the view became different; indeed the
sympathies of the War lie on the side of Hyrcanus, since he wins Pompey over to himself
“without gifts, only using the justice of his cause” as opposed to Aristobulus’ “violence”, and as
a result he manages to have the Roman commander reinstate the regnancy to the one “who
was in truth entitled because of his [greater] age”. Conversely, this violence of Aristobulus was
to correspond to his regal robes and his reluctance to appear in an unroyal manner. But if
according to the Antiquities justice was on now Aristobulus’ side, as we saw, then this line of
thought had to be abandoned.
After the view that “bribery has triumphed over justice” had been eliminated in the
Antiquities as opposed to War 128, the idea that Hyrcanus had based himself on “justice” could
also not be adopted from War 131 for the Antiquities. And after Hyrcanus had affirmed that he
agreed to live as a commoner and had reinforced this by oath (6 - 7) in the Antiquities as
opposed to War 121, [147] Hyrcanus could no longer allege that he was entitled to the
regnancy because of his [greater] age. All these moments logically had to be abandoned in
their old form, but Josephus retains each individual theme, as we have already observed so
often, and just resurrects it in a new form. The idea of Scaurus’ being bribed (War 132) becomes
the motive for the report about the complaint that Gabinius and Scaurus had allowed
themselves to be bribed (Ant. 37). Aristobulus’ violence mentioned in War 131 became a motive
in the Antiquities for clarifying the circumstances for Aristobulus’ purposes; for he responds to
the grievances of his opponents [by explaining] that he has deposed Hyrcanus of necessity
because of his lack of energy, since he feared that the rulership would otherwise pass over into
other hands (44) – meaning Antipater. Therefore Aristobulus is the true proponent of the
Jewish high priesthood, and no usurper of the crown. But then Aristobulus’ haughty act
reported in the War naturally must no longer apply either; Josephus transfers – quite foolishly
– this theme of Aristobulus over to his attendants (45). Finally, when Pompey decides upon
possibility.
129