The Jewish Historian Flavius Josephus: A Biographical Investigation

Here it is once again quite distinctly concrete how the Antiquities simply remodelled the old
bias and as a result entered into contradiction with itself. There is no question of another
tradition in this, and Josephus’ memory also falls quite short: how well it could have indeed
suited him here to introduce the corrections to the Egyptian campaign that we discussed
above on page 165 ff.; he missed [his chance], because he always amended the details only and
did not create a cohesive picture for himself.
The report about the hearing before the senate in War 284 is transferred smoothly to
Ant. 14.384 - 385, which is followed in direct continuation by War 285 = Ant. 388b (end of the
senate’s session); since the text of War 284/5 is repeated almost word for word in Ant. 385 and
388 (καὶ δόξαν τοῦτο πᾶσι ψηφίζονται. // λυθείσης δὲ τῆς βουλῆς). An insertion has been made
in between, however, about which it is externally remarkable that it can be smoothly removed
from its surrounding [text]. It can therefore have originated just as easily at the same time as
this or later. It is the quite interesting content itself, however, that can alone shed light on this
for us.
Josephus claims here that Herod had acquired [196] the crown contrary to his [own]
expectations. He actually did not believe it was at all possible that the Romans, who were of
course accustomed to bestow the kingship only upon members of the family or clan
[Stammesgenossen], would now grant it to him, and he therefore had sought the royal crown for
his brother-in-law Alexander. “Herod, however, killed this young man, as we shall recount at
some point”. The passage has been quite curiously misunderstood; starting with Ewald
(Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 4, page 538, note 4) [and continuing on] to Otto (col. 25), the
interpreters explain, “Josephus strove in vain to argue that Herod had wanted the kingdom
really only for a Hasmonean”; “Herod is acquitted here of the accusation of having
precipitated the deposition of the Hasmonean royal family etc.” Now, it cannot be denied that
Josephus himself bears part of the responsibility for this incorrect interpretation by having
introduced secondary insertions into the original line of thought. 70 But already in light of the
70
Josephus has operated of his own accord here and in so doing he interwove two lines of
thought. At first he formed the following clear thought: καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέγιστον ἦν τῆς
Ἀντωνίου περὶ τὸν Ἡρώδην σπουδῆς ὅτι μὴ μόνον αὐτῷ τὴν βασιλείαν οὐκ ἐλπίζοντι
περιεποιήσατο // — οὐ γὰρ ἐνόμιζεν αὐτῷ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους παρέξειν τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ γένους ἔθος
ἔχοντας αὐτὴν διδόναι — // ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ ἑπτὰ ταῖς πάσαις ἡμέραις παρέσχεν αὐτῷ τυχόντι τῶν
οὐδὲ προσδοκηθέντων ἀπελθεῖν ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας.// Picking up from the parenthesis, Josephus
172