The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

That Hyrcanus, however, was not the dunce that the Antiquities and modern historians make
him out to be, should be proven by the course of history (cf. page 154).
Until now the Antiquities has therefore presented only reinterpretations in order to
wrest away the sympathy that belonged to the Hyrcanus-Antipater party in the War. This
[same] purpose is served also by the only segment that introduces new material: section 18.
Hyrcanus promises, in the event of his reinstatement, to restore to Aretas the Arabian
Dodecapolis, which his father Alexander had taken from the Arabians. It was recognized long
ago that this list belongs to the overview of the expansion of the Jewish empire at the time of
Alexander, which had been provided in Antiquities 13.395 ff. and which likewise forms an
insertion into the surrounding context [that had been] taken from the War. [141] The author
has therefore drawn these data from an additional source [Nebenquelle] but inserted the piece
referring to the Arabians here where he was dealing with the story about Hyrcanus, who
promised to give back the towns. As a matter of fact, at the end of section 17 Aretas has already
been convinced to lead back Hyrcanus, so section 18 proves to be an insertion from this [fact]
as well.
For the historian it therefore follows that the report of the War comes into exclusive
consideration as a source; in contrast, the Antiquities with all its reinterpretations is utterly
worthless and acquires significance for us only through those segments that were taken from
other sources, i.e. section 10 can be utilized for the history of old Antipas while section 18
provides material for Alexander and Hyrcanus. This last passage itself is quite suitable for
validating the view of the War factually as well: if Hyrcanus committed himself to such
concessions towards Aretas then he wanted more than the simple preservation of his skin, he
wanted the kingship for himself. If we examine the modern literature in comparison to our
conclusions then it fails completely for the section at hand. Those like Schürer (293) and Felten
(90) appear not to have noticed any discrepancy at all between the two reports when these
[scholars] reproduce the contents of the Antiquities as “history” and quote the War and
Antiquities side by side as evidence. But also Ewald (518/9), Réville (92), Hausrath (188),
Lehmann-Haupt (208) and even Wellhausen (291 f.) take the Antiquities as the exclusive basis
for their narrative and therefore present the events as if Hyrcanus, as far as he was concerned,
was perfectly content with his lot “as a commoner” and as if Antipater had persuaded him to
flee only half against his will by means of the false pretence of the impending assassination.
124