The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

Hyrcanus proposed to him; because the latter requested the conquest of Jerusalem, a fortified
city, whereas for Aristobulus it was simply a matter of once more driving away the Jewish
renegades and the Nabateans. 51 Therefore, whereas Josephus claimed in the War that
Aristobulus triumphed over justice by bribing Scaurus, now he relates that Aristobulus and
Hyrcanus had made similar attempts at bribery – this serves to exculpate Aristobulus – and
that Scaurus objectively gave preference to Aristobulus – this represents a new commitment to
Aristobulus. According to this, there are no new sources that underlie the extensive expansion
in 30b - 32a, rather the entire report arises from Josephus’ own thought creation
[Gedankenbildung], which grafted his new anti-Herodian bias onto the old text.
By Scaurus’ intervention the siege of Jerusalem is lifted as Aretas withdraws.
Aristobulus follows him and beats him and Hyrcanus at Papyron. Antiquities 32b - 33 takes this
presentation over from the War (128b - 130), by quite characteristically just striking out the
sentence from the War “it was not enough for Aristobulus to have escaped capture, however”
since it expressed a certain insatiability in Aristobulus. It is also seen here that the new bias
stems from Josephus; [and it is] not as if Josephus were now doing it in order to protect
Aristobulus; he is totally indifferent [to Aristobulus], but he sees it as his mission to discredit
Antipater on all accounts, and he achieves this primarily by elevating his opponent.
According to this, the War alone comes once again into consideration as the actual
source; besides this, one can at most still ask whether there is a historical nucleus inherent in
the insertion about Onias that stems from the rabbinic tradition; but should this even be the
case we gain nothing at all for our era from its completely legendary character; because it is
well-known that all these legends have been drawn from the most varied [145] figures. 52 But if
we also leave aside this legend, which one may address from various [points of view] and, for
the rest, examine the modern literature against our [own] results, then here too we notice the
same fundamental error that underlies the Antiquities. In the two crucial points in which the
distortion [Verballhornung] of the Antiquities’ tradition is concretely available to us, – the
51
The thought process that Josephus attributes to Scaurus naturally does not suit the situation;
in truth, Aristobulus was facing disaster (War 127), it was therefore easy to overcome him. But
now Josephus must somehow give practical reasons for Scaurus’ taking Aristobulus’ side, and
so he happens upon this roundabout path.
52 The legend does not fit into the situation portrayed in the War, as is proven by the
adjustments that were required for the Antiquities.
127