The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

geographic enumerations betray their derivation from official hypomnemata. Finally, the
reference to the war against the pirates in the context of Ant. 43 can be easily included only in
an author who has described the deeds of Pompey as a whole. So it appears to me that
everything, in fact, points to no one other than Theophanes as the historian who was writing
between 63 and 40, to whom Strabo and Diodorus can be traced back. 55
In any case, there can be no doubt that here we have before us a source that is lacking
any personal involvement in Jewish issues and which is of inestimable value to us precisely for
this reason; it is indeed suitable for according a beneficial correction with respect to the onesided
presentation of Nicolaus. As a matter of fact, it must appear questionable to the highest
degree that Nicolaus reported nothing at all about the action of the 200 most prominent Jews;
his presentation was based exclusively on the opposition [between] Aristobulus and Hyrcanus;
we now see here that completely different issues have in truth pushed themselves to the fore
in comparison to this. Shall we therefore be able to follow the basic view of Nicolaus in those
passages where a correction has not been granted to us by chance? The answer to this serious
question can be given only by a detailed examination of the material acquired in Diodorus and
in the additions to the Antiquities. 56
55
It is from this very source that Diodorus then also has knowledge of the triumphal tablet
erected by Pompey (40.4). Arnold has emphasized the factual agreement between this [tablet]
and Theophanes (Jahrbuch für classische Philologie, supplementary volume 13, page 86); it is most
easily explained if the tablet was reproduced by Theophanes. Incidentally, it follows from this
that Theophanes extended his work up to Pompey’s triumph, which is also natural, in
principle. Cicero had even anticipated the publication of the work (cf. page 151).
56
It is admittedly not difficult to distinguish in general between the material from Theophanes
- Strabo compared to that which Josephus had gained by reinterpreting the War, yet certain
details require closer examination since the reinterpretation of the War occurred at the same
time as the insertion from Strabo and both were therefore assimilated to each other.
Undoubtedly, the narrative of Pompey’s march up to the reference to the piracies (38 - 43a) is
based on the new source. Likewise the basis of 46 - 47 belongs to the new source, as is proven
by the proximity to Diodorus and by the contrast to the War. In Aristobulus’ speech of defence,
the reference to the royal title of Alexander appears to be influenced by the lines of thought in
Strabo (frg. 124, Otto). But the reinterpretations of the War have been worked into these
segments: 43b - 45 must be understood on this basis. That the delegates of the Jewish people
had been incited by Antipater to testify against Aristobulus is a distortion motivated by
Josephus’ new attitude against Antipater. From precisely this same sentiment it arises that
Josephus has only Aristobulus defend himself whereas the grievances of the Jews had been
raised against both Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. So the picture portrayed in 43 - 45 becomes
quite distorted. Section 45 is nothing but the necessary distortion of a theme from the War
134