The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

according to their conventions they were accustomed to yield the kingship to people from the
populace itself.” There is therefore an almost literal correspondence between 386: παρέξειν
τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἔθος ἔχοντας αὐτὴν διδόναι and 403: δέον τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ γένους οὖσι παρέχειν
ὡς ἔθος ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς, and it is the same outlook that pervades both passages. Since it is anti-
Herodian in 403, so it follows once again that in 386 it is also the opponent of the Herodians
who is speaking; because both passages originated under mutual reference and therefore
section 404 also picks up then from the broader arguments of 381 ff.: even if one wished to
eliminate Antigonus because of his friendly disposition towards the Parthians [198], there
were still numerous other legitimate candidates whom the Romans could have appointed as
king instead of someone like Herod. This is the answer to Antony’s lines of thought. Now, since
the expansion 403 to 405 lies securely within its context, it then follows that Josephus
produced the insertion 386 - 388 under its influence; therefore directly subsequent to the first
recording (cf. the similar case on page 177).
Finally, the same fundamental considerations appear in section 489. While the
corresponding passage of the War simply reports that Antony had Antigonus, who was
delivered to him by Sossius, executed for his meanness (section 357), the Antiquities again turns
this idea upside down. It is Herod who conducts the immediate execution of Antigonus by
bribing Antony, and, in fact, because he fears that otherwise Antigonus might wish to be
brought to Rome by Antony and in this way be given the opportunity to present before the
Senate [the fact] that “he himself was from the royal family while Herod was a commoner, and
that it of course would be proper that his children should become kings on account of their
ancestry if he himself had indeed committed an offence against the Romans”. Therefore once
again this same idea of Josephus is inserted into the Antiquities; Herod is illegitimate; the
legitimate claimants to the throne have been removed.
There can be no doubt about the extremely close relationship of the three passages 386
- 388a, 403 - 405 and 489; they were all first inserted into the Antiquities and borne by the same
outlook; therefore hopefully nobody will continue seeing a defence of the Herodians in
[sections] 386 to 388a, where the author has intended the exact opposite. But now that there
can be no doubt about the bias of the three insertions either, the issue of their origin still
requires discussion. Undoubtedly their trend corresponds to what Josephus had in mind in the
Antiquities, and therefore the thought suggests itself to view the three segments as nothing
174