The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

in principle be inherent in it.
Niese’s opinion, however, is disproved no less by a second observation. The lengthy
speech, which Josephus has Nicolaus of Damascus deliver before Agrippa in the interests of the
Jews (16.31 - 57), as is well known, comes in its basic form from the historical work of Nicolaus,
who felt the human need in this [work] to place his own character in a suitable light by
emphasizing his achievements. In particular, however, there can be no doubt that the passage
that concerns us from this speech (section 52 ff.) originates from Nicolaus’ historical work.
Here he points Antipater’s meritorious deeds [Verdienste] out to Agrippa, [indicating that]
when Caesar invaded Egypt [Antipater] had supported him by land and by sea. “Is it necessary
to examine only now ... how many, and what kinds of gifts each single man has received, is it
necessary to mention only now the letters that Caesar wrote to the Senate and to
emphasize that Antipater received public honours and citizenship?” With these words
reference is made to the outlook, as we encounter it in War 1.200, and it is established that this
part as well comes from Nicolaus. Both findings thus happily complement each other and
prove irrefutably that Nicolaus, as lies well within his nature, has emphasized the meritorious
deeds [Verdienste] of Antipater and the honours that he received for them.
On the other hand, in the passage of Ant. 14.143, which corresponds to War 1.200,
Josephus completely rejected this outlook, eliminated the mention of the documents in
Antipater’s honour, and in his place he moved Hyrcanus into the foreground (cf. page 168).
Both documents 14.145 ff., however, which likewise belong to the series of documents of
Josephus, are very closely connected factually to this emphasis on Hyrcanus. They therefore
stand in pronounced contrast to Nicolaus’ presentation and justify Josephus’ particular view
instead of that of Nicolaus. Therefore Niese’s combination is based on a false premise and as a
result it has been stripped of its seemingly inherent probative force according to this aspect.
And yet – [224] who could deny that the reference “to the decrees of the senate and to the
documents in the Capitol”, as it is made in Ant. 16.48 within Nicolaus’ speech, is pronounced in
regard to those documents, which Josephus mentions in his work as “such Senate decrees and
Capitol documents”? Indeed, Niese was perfectly correct in this, only it follows from what we
have now established that this reference to the documents within Nicolaus’ speech cannot be
from the latter, rather they must be due to an expansion of Nicolaus’ material. Consequently, if
we cast a glance at Nicolaus’ speech then it certainly can be determined immediately where
196