The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

confirmed by Caesar’s decree [quoted in] Ant. 14.193. Given such witnesses, there can indeed be
no doubt that this information is correct. But it probably was once again part of Nicolaus’
trend to remain silent about Hyrcanus’ participation in the campaign in order to elaborate
upon Antipater’s meritorious deeds [Verdienste] for Caesar and, with this, indirectly for the
Jews. Nicolaus had therefore undoubtedly shifted the story in favour of the Herodians and the
War followed him in this. After Josephus had become aware of Nicolaus’ one-sidedness,
however, and after he had set himself the goal of reinterpreting this presentation into its
opposite, had he been a researcher, from Strabo[‘s information] he could now have included
Hyrcanus’ participation from the outset, in his presentation of the Egyptian campaign and in
this way he would have had the very best means of pushing Antipater [into the background]
and elevating Hyrcanus. Josephus does not go so far here either, however. He quietly retains
the structure of the report of the Egyptian campaign from the War and only shifts his political
judgment in the manner described above; the material from Strabo, however, is exploited for
the presentation just as inadequately as is that from the documents; it is relegated to a
note. 59
[170] If we review more recent research with the help of our findings, then it generally
coincides with the thoughts of Wellhausen, who on page 319 refers to Hyrcanus “as merely the
business enterprise with which Antipater was working”. The leadership rested solely upon the
latter. Underlying this is obviously Nicolaus’ opinion that has been reproduced in the War.
Admittedly, it must be identified as methodically incorrect when the information gathered
from the Antiquities that “Antipater, in Hyrcanus’ name, was able to call upon the numerous
Jews in Egypt to join Caesar” is included in this overall picture. (Thus Bertholet page 45; H.
Holtzmann page 216; Schürer page 344; Renan page 196; Ewald page 528.) This is no tradition,
but rather, as we saw, deliberate reinterpretation by Josephus; it is precisely for this reason
59
Their rendition is admittedly quite peculiar. From section 138 one at first receives the
impression that Josephus is contrasting the contention of many [people] that “Hyrcanus had
taken part in the campaign to Egypt” with his [own] view, to which Strabo’s corresponds. But
this impression must be deceptive, because even the witnesses whom Strabo invokes do
contend that Hyrcanus indeed participated, and thereby contradict Nicolaus’ report, which
Josephus had adopted albeit in attenuated form. Thus the words: μαρτυρεῖ δέ μου τῷ λόγῳ
must mean: in his statement about Hyrcanus’ participation in the campaign, Strabo also agrees
with my opinion of Hyrcanus’ significance, which I have entered into Nicolaus’ tradition. Thus
Josephus characteristically dwells within the mental world [Gedankenwelt] of his emendations
149