The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

Josephus after all, had died when Josephus recorded his spiteful attacks in the Antiquities.
(Thus, most recently Luther, page 55 ff., where the individual proofs [can be found] as well.) In
truth, Agrippa was still alive in the year 93/94, but Josephus had likely disassociated himself
[262] entirely from his Roman past, and as a result he also had to undertake a thorough
alteration in his attitude to the Herodians. In this respect the shift in the evaluation of
someone like Agrippa is simply a link in a long chain, and once again it is shown how
pernicious it is for scholarship [when] one wishes to explain an individual fact where really
only a [thorough] grasp of the entire personality can afford us information.
Josephus probably understood that the Antiquities as a whole – in no way just the
evaluation of Agrippa, for example – would inevitably incur the displeasure of this circle; he
had once written [in a way that was favourable] to them, but his break with his Roman past 88
also had to loosen the tie that connected him to the Herodians. In this spirit he wrote the letter
of denial [Absagebrief] to his old patron in the Antiquities: “I, as a Hasmonean and a priest, may
proclaim only the absolute truth; Nicolaus of Damascus might be forgiven if he has falsified
history for love of the Herodians; I, however, may not do this; the closest relations connected
me to numerous descendants of Herod, but the truth is more important to me, even [though] I
may provoke the wrath of these gentlemen as a result” (Ant. 16.186 - 187). Here everything that
we need to know is stated: Josephus once had the closest bonds with Agrippa and – we may add
– for that reason he wrote in the spirit [of these close bonds] just like Nicolaus [did], so that he
too may be allowed the same forgiveness for his past as was [Nicolaus], but as priest and
Hasmonean, which he now feels himself [to be], the truth must come before all [else] for him;
the wrath of someone like Agrippa no longer affects him. Therefore he was alive, of course,
when Josephus wrote such words. One should, however, beware of wishing to view Josephus’
words as greatness with respect to Agrippa, when he [takes the] liberty of openly parading
before the king’s throne here as well; in truth Josephus, here under Epaphroditus’ protection,
is paving the way for himself, which should lead him back to his compatriots [Volksgenossen];
Agrippa had nothing more to offer him ever since [Josephus] had concluded the break with
Rome, and his power was too insignificant for him to have been able to take revenge upon the
[263] writer who now had betrayed him in the same was as [he had] once [betrayed] his
88 How significant it is indeed that the references to Roman discipline are now eliminated (page
159).
229