The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

not come into view in the presentation of the siege of Jerusalem; consequently the War here
constitutes the source of the Antiquities in such a way that only a simple paraphrase is given.
On the other hand, Josephus’ new attitude towards Agrippa and Titus appears in one small
feature. In War 153 it was indeed stated that Pompey did not touch any of the holy implements
when he entered the temple, but in Ant. 72 Josephus underscores this fact by adding: Pompey
behaved thus not “out of pious awe” but rather here also “he showed himself worthy of his
virtue”. If one bears in mind how the spectacle of the holy implements in Titus’ triumphal
procession wounded the Jewish spirit, one will readily sense that this was a compliment
accorded to Pompey so that Titus’ godlessness would be all the more distinctly emphasized
against this background. In this respect this trivial addition is of vital significance to Josephus’
disposition.
The date of the fall of Jerusalem was of particular importance. The War, following
Nicolaus, had only recounted that the city was conquered in the third month of the siege;
there is no information that this occurred on the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement; indeed, the
War stresses on the contrary that the priests had not refrained “from their daily worship”
when the Romans invaded the city (148). Josephus gained the exact date from Strabo for Ant.
66 (179 th Olympiad, in the consulship of Antonius and Cicero), however, in the same source he
also found that the conquest took place τῇ τῆς νηστείας ἡμέρᾳ. [162] Although we do not
require any confirmation, it is still delightful to see that even Strabo 16.2.40 announces that
Pompey waited τὴν τῆς νηστείας ἡμέραν. This note in the Geography was taken over from the
historical works; in Josephus it stems from the same source. Nevertheless, this corroboration
based on the sources is not sufficient; because in the passage cited Strabo indicates this
tradition with a qualifying ὥς φασί, and Nicolaus basically rules out the Day of Atonement
since he certainly would have emphasized this exact day, of course.
The paraphrase of the War is interrupted in another two passages. When Josephus
indicates in section 68 that all historians are agreed in their praise of the Jews for their
conduct during the conquest, then a strengthening of the Jewish standpoint in comparison to
the War is manifest here as well; Josephus feels himself to be an apologist for Judaism and this
is why he appeals to pagan testimonies. It goes without saying that Strabo and Nicolaus appear
at the forefront of these; Josephus had copied the War from the latter and the former was the
source for the additions to the Antiquities. It is not evident from Strabo’s Geography 16.2.40, that
142