The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

7. From the fall of Jerusalem to the death of Pompey
War 159 - 186 = Ant. 80 - 126
The dependence of the Antiquities on the War pervades this entire report to such an
extent that comments become necessary only for a few passages. The events portrayed here
have virtually no effect upon the turmoil among the Jews; so Josephus remains uninvolved
with respect to these matters and he had no reason to construct the Antiquities differently from
the War. Therefore it is only in occasional comments that we encounter the new ideas, which
are not lacking here either.
In the consecutive list of high priests and kings, Josephus recorded the duration of
Aristobulus’ reign in Ant. 97, and in doing so he described him of his own accord “as a noble
and [164] magnanimous man”. We already know how this view corresponds perfectly to the
anti-Herodian tone of the Antiquities; yet this enters even more sharply into sight when we
consider Josephus’ judgment of Herod’s occupancy of the priesthood. There he indicates that it
was Herod’s wish that indeed none “of the noble men” be assigned to the high priesthood; on
the contrary he appointed an unprepossessing priest (Ant. 15.23). Similarly, Simon is
designated as ἀδοξότερος (15.322) – in contrast to the source copied in 25.320. The respected
high priesthood of Aristobulus stands in contrast to this policy of Herod.
Likewise, there is an expansion of the War stemming from Josephus in Ant. 105b - 118.
[Sections] 105b - 109 derive from Jewish legendary tradition; they offer important material
only insofar as Josephus bluntly reproaches Crassus for breaking his oath, [in comparison] to
whom he holds up the “good and righteous” priest Eleazar as the Jewish counterpart. The
following sections 110 - 118 derive from the lines of thought of Jewish apologetics: evidence of
the wealth of the temple in Jerusalem is to be produced from pagan sources, and in so doing
Josephus again chooses Strabo, the author who consistently presents the complement to
Nicolaus; he is to demonstrate that it is not idle Jewish boasting [Ruhmredigkeit], which is
speaking about these riches, rather the plain and simple truth. Admittedly, Josephus could
have noted from Strabo only the fact that Mithridates had seized the money that Cleopatra
had deposited in Cos and the “800 talents of the Jews” (112). By now demonstrating that public
funds existed for the Jews only in the form of the temple treasure, he believes that one may
recognize in Strabo’s account the information about the temple treasure that was brought into
144