The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

information about Herod’s execution of young Alexander there can be no doubt about
Josephus’ intention, which he pursued with the whole [presentation]. What is mentioning this
to [accomplish] other than to denounce Herod? But neither can the entire part then make any
sense other than that of censuring Herod, and this censure in Josephus’ mind consists
decidedly in [the fact] that Herod was illegitimate. We encounter this illegitimacy of Herod
distinctly in the first line of thought that was singled out in the [last foot]note: Herod does not
at all dare expect the kingship for himself, which remains open to members of the clan (οὐκ
ἐλπίζοντι, οὐ γὰρ ἐνόμιζεν, οὐδὲ προσδοκηθέντων) – he is unqualified to such an extent. And
[197] the second line of thought agrees fully in this point, however, it is expanded in that
Herod, who is convinced about the utter hopelessness of gaining the throne for himself,
pushes forward his young brother-in-law in order to gain the lost land for himself through
him. Therefore there is not even the remotest question of whitewashing Herod [here]; on the
contrary, he exploits the legitimacy of his brother-in-law, whom he himself later eliminates,
for his [own] purposes and the whole part is recorded with the sole purpose of attacking
precisely Herod’s legitimacy and conduct. 71
That this view of the passage has met the mark is proven by two additional passages,
which we [shall] address – in anticipation. While Herod besieges Jerusalem together with the
Romans in order to seize possession of the kingship that they had guaranteed to [give] him,
Antigonus attempts to defend the interests of the Hasmoneans. Whereas the War is content
with a simple ἀντιπαρηγοροῦντες (section 296), the Antiquities independently develops
Antigonus’ line of thought into lengthier remarks (403 - 405). Antigonus thereby accuses the
Romans of handing the kingship over to the “half Jew” Herod contrary to all justice, “whereas
intertwined the second thought into the [first] one: οὐ γὰρ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνέβη ταύτην (scl. τὴν
βασιλείαν) αἰτησόμενος, ἀλλὰ τῷ τῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφῷ λαβεῖν ἀξιώσων Ἀλεξάνδρῳ υἱωνῷ
τυγχάνοντι πρὸς μὲν πατρὸς Ἀριστοβούλου, πρὸς δὲ μητρὸς Ὑρκανοῦ. ́ ́ τοῦτον μὲν οὖν τὸν
νεανίσκον Ἡρώδης ἀπέκτεινεν ὡς κατὰ χαιρὸν δηλώσομεν. Thus arose the current text in its
grammatically poor form.
71
It is immediately seen that these remarks are incompatible with section 382, exactly where
Herod hoped to gain the throne for himself through bribery. Since 382 originated directly
along with the surrounding text, it thus follows that [sections] 386 - 388a, which can be easily
eliminated, were inserted later. Both passages are directed against Herod in the same way, but
the execution of this bias is different and self-contradictory. It is always the same picture:
Josephus amends the details, but does not bring himself to [realize] a coherent, large-scale new
conception.
173