The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

following the narratives discussed above. In the Antiquities as well, however, this idea is
transferred from the War even though the premises to this view were lacking here, and
Josephus takes his attitude into account only in occasional details. Although Antipater restores
the walls “of his hometown” in War 201, the words “of his hometown” are deleted in Ant. 156
since Antipater is supposed to be a stranger in Jerusalem. But all the stories about the activity
of Antipater as such, which were basically laudatory, could not be eliminated since the
cohesion [of the narrative] would have otherwise fallen apart. The reworking is applied again
to a greater extent only at the point when the antagonism between Hyrcanus and Herod came
to a head; because with this Josephus has led once again to the main issue. As is well known,
during his tenure Herod, who had been appointed as [172] governor of Galilee, captured and
executed the chief of the robbers Hezekiah and his gang. This aggressive action, on the one
hand earned Josephus [sic: should be Herod] the thanks of the population who had been freed
from the danger of the robbers, on the other hand this resulted in serious complications for
Herod, who was called to account for his action. Once again we [shall] compare the two reports
in a systematic overview.
1. According to War 208, Hyrcanus was consumed by envy of the fame of Antipater’s
sons; above all he was tormented by Herod’s successes, and he was incited in the same way by
the trouble-makers in the palace in whose way stood “the wisdom” of Antipater and his sons:
Above all, how could Hyrcanus suffer Herod to have conducted executions without his
command? Hyrcanus becomes more and more bitter against Herod and finally summons him
to a trial before him. While the view in the War subsequent to this is that Hyrcanus’ measures
against Herod are motivated by personal-dynastic reasons, the Antiquities makes it out to be a
state affair [Staatsaktion]. Hyrcanus’ “envy” is omitted, the “trouble-makers in the palace”, in
whose way stood the “wisdom” of Antipater, are deleted. Instead of this, the principal men
of the Jews become the actual agents of the movement (163, 165), they also attempt to sway
Hyrcanus but do not achieve any real success in their efforts since Hyrcanus was distrustful in
the face of such disseminations (165). Now, if Hyrcanus felt no enmity towards Herod, how
could it then have come to be that Herod was summoned? – We are provided with the answer
in section 168: the mothers of those who had been killed by Herod demanded daily of the king
and the people that Herod be summoned before the Sanhedrin for his outrageous deeds.
Herod’s behaviour against the “robbers”, which was presented in War 209 only in such a way
151