The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

that the execution of Jews without orders appeared as one of the many arrogations of absolute
royal power [committed] by Herod, now acquires an entirely different significance: it is the
actual motivation for Herod’s being summoned, of course not before Hyrcanus now, who
indeed had been eliminated as a character, but before the Sanhedrin.
[173] 2. If in fact Herod’s offence, which was crucial for the accusation, did not consist in the
arrogation of kingly rights, then it was also not directed against Hyrcanus, and the latter
would then not have summoned Herod before himself; rather the summons would have to take
place before the council that had been aggrieved. Indeed, it goes without saying that the
“principal men of the Jews”, who had appeared in the place of the palace gossips, would
emphasize precisely those grievances that concerned not Hyrcanus but the law. In War 209 the
people of the palace stress that an execution is possible only upon Hyrcanus’ command
but in Ant. 167 these thoughts are replaced by the assertion that the pre-condition for an
execution is a proper conviction by the Sanhedrin. Accordingly, Herod is no longer to
be tried before Hyrcanus, but before the council (168); it is there that the trial takes place
(170). The Sanhedrin is decided upon conviction (177) and [Herod] is ultimately released from
their power – by Hyrcanus who, after all, bears no animosity towards Herod (177).
3. Consequently, when the dynastic opposition: Hyrcanus - Herod became the political
opposition: council - Herod, a serious problem arose for Josephus. The individual [inter]actions
between Hyrcanus and Herod, which Josephus had reported, were explained precisely by their
mutual antagonism. For example, when Herod brought protective forces
[Deckungsmannschaften] along to his summons – but not so many that it would seem that “he
intended to overthrow Hyrcanus” – , then Herod is considered to be on the march with these
people to Hyrcanus to whose “envy” he had been exposed. The narrative therefore is perfectly
suitable to the context of War 210. But in Ant. 169, where the idea was adopted from the War, it
stands without rhyme or reason. How then was Herod with his people to become a subject of
terror for Hyrcanus who was well-disposed towards him, particularly since he had been
summoned not before him but rather before the Sanhedrin? In the insertion, which had been
newly formed by Josephus, the protective force [Deckungsmannschaft] is logically considered to
be directed against the Sanhedrin (173), but as a result a discrepancy must arise between the
outlook of section 169, which had been adopted from the War, and the new view of [section]
173.
152