The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

attack of the Dabarittans differently in the Life and the War despite a mutual dependency; these
differences, however, are not accidental, rather they are based upon a thoroughly deliberate
reworking. The question of which story corresponds to the truth is absolutely impossible to
answer from external historical evidence; I would not with the best will in the world know by
which method a researcher would prove whether Ptolemy or his wife had been the attacked
party, and it would be just as impossible to advance a clear assessment of the various other
points that are connected to this. The path to insight is indicated rather in the second finding
from our stratification [Zergliederung] of the text. We observe that the presentation of the War
had a subsequent effect upon that of the Life, such that the additions made on the basis of the
War actually led to a rupture [62] in the view of the Life. Originally there was an inherently
self-contained presentation in the Life that betrayed no acquaintance with the view of the War;
the additions that had their origin in the expositions of the War were made only later. But [the
fact] that the necessity for these additions did not emerge until later will prove that this
version of the Life, which did not contain the additions generated on the basis
of the War, is older than the War.
And now we remember that Josephus remitted the War to Agrippa, who expressed to
Josephus his complete approval of the presentation (Life 363 - 367). If Josephus was primarily
targeting Agrippa when composing the War and had him in mind as the reader, then it is
obvious that the bending of the old report, such as that provided by the nucleus of the Life, to
the view of the War occurred in order to show Agrippa how willing Josephus was to sacrifice
himself on his behalf. For this reason, an attack upon Ptolemy’s wife that did not affect Agrippa
was turned into an armed robbery against Agrippa’s vice-regent himself, by which the king
was affected. The Dabarittans who had once conducted themselves audaciously (Life 126) are
now promptly the object of the sharpest censure from Josephus (War 596). Once it was
legitimate plunder (λάφυρα Life 129), now it is called stolen goods (ἁρπαγή War 2.596 and
subsequently in the added segment, Life 130). Accordingly, it can no longer be Josephus’
intention to erect the walls of Jerusalem with the plunder as was maintained in the old context
of Life 128, rather he feels obliged to restore the stolen goods to the aggrieved Agrippa (War 596
- 597 and subsequently in the added segment Life 130 - 131). But it was precisely for this reason
that he almost had to suffer death. Thus everything is intensified with the thought of gaining
Agrippa’s recognition and of placing Josephus’ meritorious efforts on his behalf clearly in the
57