The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

and how it was amplified by Josephus.
In section 50 Nicolaus switches over to proving that the Jews rightfully (δικαίως)
enjoyed the marks of favour, in which they shared from the part of the Romans, and as
evidence for this he mentions the character of those like Herod (-51) and Antipater (-53) with
the conviction that this material will suffice to prove that the Jews were honoured “by virtue
of their meritorious deeds [Verdienste]” and therefore should be able to count on a
continuation of these tokens of favour (54). This proof, in which the supposed loyalty of the
Jews towards the Romans naturally played a particular role, is definitely separated at the
beginning of section 50 from the preceding segment in that the author plans as a new clause
“however, so that we prove that we have received all this rightfully as well, etc.” In complete
contradiction to this clear structure, however, section 48 already specifies exactly what is dealt
with only [later] in section 50 ff.: the contention that the loyalty of the Jews towards the
Romans was the reason that they were accorded preferences by these [Romans]; and with
factually quite parallel form section 48 even reads: δῆλον ὡς μετὰ πεῖραν τῆς ἡμετέρας εἰς
ὑμᾶς πίστεως ἐδόθη, which is not reported in the correct place until section 51 with the words:
ποία δὲ πίστις ἐνδεής ἐστιν. In just this same section 48, however, the reference to the senate
resolutions and the documents in the Capitol is to be found; therefore the same must hold for
this as for the untimely comment about the loyalty of the Jews: it is based on an insertion.
In reality, the line of thought of the text that was originally taken from Nicolaus can be
easily [225] regained if we approach the text from another angle. At the beginning of [section]
47 the Jews express the urgent plea to Agrippa that they did not want to be prevented from
keeping their laws, they did not want to be deprived of “what is theirs” and they request that
they not be oppressed by the Greeks in those points in which they for their part do not oppress
the Greeks: καὶ γὰρ – thus continues the author – οὐ δίκαια μόνον ἐστίν ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑφ’ ὑμῶν
δεδόμενα πρότερον. What is the subject here? Factually, something that the Romans have
granted, and so the resolutions of the Romans are then also referred to in connection with this.
But formally this is impossible; because everything from the preceding [text] that [can] be
considered as subject is something that is peculiar to humans, completely independently of the
Roman conquest: it is custom, religion, conventions; it is τὰ ὄντα, everything innate to us.
Josephus himself leaves no room for doubt about this; because in section 49 he contrasts
exactly those τὰ μὲν ὄντα, which the Romans came across everywhere and which they
197